diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 02:24:51 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 02:24:51 -0800 |
| commit | f323a6a197fbf08739e4f204dbe01ee1b0a20168 (patch) | |
| tree | b07ee393e95dbef4a3e7b3068c930e070eb36be7 | |
| parent | a30660dda804d4fe0a5e9f2ac6c1a98bd158509c (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-0.txt | 12847 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-0.zip | bin | 241436 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-h.zip | bin | 443146 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-h/68933-h.htm | 18731 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 104082 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-h/images/i_107.jpg | bin | 69732 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-h/images/i_369.jpg | bin | 965 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 31578 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d514de --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68933 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68933) diff --git a/old/68933-0.txt b/old/68933-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index fffbd41..0000000 --- a/old/68933-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12847 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Commune of London, 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 -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Commune of London - and other studies - -Author: John Horace Round - -Release Date: September 8, 2022 [eBook #68933] - -Language: English - -Produced by: MWS, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet - Archive/American Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNE OF LONDON *** - - - - - - THE COMMUNE OF LONDON - - - - - THE - COMMUNE OF LONDON - AND OTHER STUDIES - - BY J. H. ROUND M.A. - - AUTHOR OF ‘GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE’, - ‘FEUDAL ENGLAND,’ ETC. - - With a Prefatory Letter by Sir Walter Besant - - WESTMINSTER - ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND CO. - 2 WHITEHALL GARDENS - 1899 - - - - - BUTLER & TANNER, - THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS, - FROME, AND LONDON. - - - - - Prefatory Letter - - -Dear Mr. Round, - -I have to thank you for kindly letting me see the advance proofs -of your new book. It is difficult for me to explain the very great -advantage which the study of your books has been to me in my endeavour -to get at the facts, especially those of the 12th century, connected -with the history of London. For instance, I have found in your pages -for the first time a working theory of the very difficult questions -connected with the creation of the municipality. I have adopted your -conclusions to the best of my ability with, I hope, an adequate -expression of thanks to the source from which they are derived. - -I would also point out the great service which you have rendered to -the history of the City by giving, for the first time, the exact truth -regarding the conveyance of the Portsoken to the Priory of the Holy -Trinity, an event which has been hitherto totally misunderstood. - -Thirdly, I must acknowledge that it is only from your pages, especially -a certain appendix to ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ that one can understand -the ordinary position of the clergy of the City of London in the 12th -century. - -It is unnecessary for me to enumerate many other obligations which I -owe to your pages. - - I remain, dear Mr. Round, - Very faithfully yours, - WALTER BESANT. - -OFFICE OF THE SURVEY OF LONDON, - _July 6th, 1899_. - - - - - Contents - - - I - - THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SOUTH-SAXONS AND EAST-SAXONS 1 - - II - - INGELRIC THE PRIEST AND ALBERT OF LOTHARINGIA 28 - - III - - ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE 39 - - IV - - THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER 62 - - V - - LONDON UNDER STEPHEN 97 - - VI - - THE INQUEST OF SHERIFFS (1170) 125 - - VII - - THE CONQUEST OF IRELAND 137 - - VIII - - THE POPE AND THE CONQUEST OF IRELAND 171 - - IX - - THE CORONATION OF RICHARD I 201 - - X - - THE STRUGGLE OF JOHN AND LONGCHAMP (1191) 207 - - XI - - THE COMMUNE OF LONDON 219 - - XII - - THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE (1212) 261 - - XIII - - CASTLE-WARD AND CORNAGE 278 - - XIV - - BANNOCKBURN 289 - - XV - - THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND 302 - - - - - Preface - - -The paper which gives its title to this volume of unpublished studies -deals with a subject of great interest, the origin of the City -Corporation. In my previous work, ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (1892), and -especially in the Appendix it contains on ‘The early administration -of London,’ I endeavoured to advance our knowledge of the government -and the liberties of the City in the 12th century. In the present -volume the paper entitled “London under Stephen” pursues the enquiry -further. I have there argued that the “English Cnihtengild” was not the -governing body, and have shown that it did not, as is alleged, embrace -a religious life by entering Holy Trinity Priory _en masse_. The -great office of “Justiciar of London,” created, as I previously held, -by the charter of Henry I., is now proved, in this paper, to have been -held by successive citizens in the days of Stephen. - -The communal movement, which, even under Stephen, seems to have -influenced the City, attained its triumph under Richard I.; and -the most important discovery, perhaps, in these pages is that of -the oath sworn to the Commune of London. From it we learn that the -governing body consisted at the time of a Mayor and “Échevins,” as in -a continental city, and that the older officers, the Aldermen of the -Wards, had not been amalgamated, as has been supposed, with the new and -foreign system. The latter, I have urged, is now represented by the -Mayor and Common Council. That this communal organization was almost -certainly derived from Normandy, and probably from Rouen, will, I -think, be generally admitted in the light of the evidence here adduced. -This conclusion has led me to discuss the date of the “Établissements -de Rouen,” a problem that has received much attention from that eminent -scholar, M. Giry. I have also dwelt on the financial side of London’s -communal revolution, and shown that it involved the sharp reduction of -the ‘firma’ paid by the City to the Crown, the amount of which was a -grievance with the citizens and a standing subject of dispute. - -The strand connecting the other studies contained in this volume is -the critical treatment of historical evidence, especially of records -and kindred documents. It is possible that some of the discoveries -resulting from this treatment may not only illustrate the importance -of absolute exactitude in statement, but may also encourage that -searching and independent study of ‘sources’ which affords so valuable -an historical training, and is at times the means of obtaining light on -hitherto perplexing problems. - -The opening paper (originally read before the Society of Antiquaries) -is a plea for the more scientific study of the great field for -exploration presented by our English place-names. Certain current -beliefs on the settlement of the English invaders are based, it is -here urged, on nothing but the rash conclusions of Kemble, writing, -as he did, under the influence of a now abandoned theory. In the -paper which follows, the value of charters, for the Norman period, is -illustrated, some points of ‘diplomatic’ investigated, and the danger -of inexactitude revealed. - -Finance, the key to much of our early institutional history, is dealt -with in a paper on “The origin of the Exchequer,” a problem of long -standing. On the one hand, allowance is here made for the personal -equation of the author of the famous ‘Dialogus de Scaccario,’ and some -of his statements critically examined, with the result of showing that -he exaggerates the changes introduced under Henry I., by the founder -of his own house, and that certain alleged innovations were, in truth, -older than the Conquest. On the other, it is shown that his treatise -does, when carefully studied, reveal the existence of a Treasury audit, -which has hitherto escaped notice. Further, the office of Chamberlain -of the Exchequer is traced back as a feudal serjeanty to the days of -the Conqueror himself, and its connection with the tenure of Porchester -Castle established, probably, for the first time. The geographical -position of Porchester should, in this connection, be observed. - -In two papers I deal with Ireland and its Anglo-Norman conquest. The -principal object in the first of these is to show the true character of -that alleged golden age which the coming of the invaders destroyed. It -is possible, however, of course, that a “vast human shambles” may be, -in the eyes of some, an ideal condition for a country. Mr. Dillon, at -least, has consistently described the Soudan, before our conquest, as -“a comparatively peaceful country.”[1] In the second of these papers I -advance a new solution of the problem raised by the alleged grant of -Ireland, by the Pope, to Henry II. As to this fiercely contested point, -I suggest that, on the English side, there was a conspiracy to base the -title of our kings to Ireland on a Papal donation of the sovereignty -of the island, itself avowedly based on the (forged) “donation of -Constantine.” No such act of the Popes can, in my opinion, be proved. -Even the “Bull Laudabiliter,” which, in the form we have it, is of -no authority, does not go so far as this, while its confirmation by -Alexander III. is nothing but a clumsy forgery. The only document sent -to Ireland, to support his rights, by Henry II. was, I here contend, -the letter of Alexander III. (20th September, 1172), approving of what -had been done. That he sent there the alleged bull of Adrian, and that -he did so in 1175, are both, I urge, although accepted, facts without -foundation.[2] - -The method adopted in this paper of testing the date hitherto adopted, -and disproving it by the sequence of events, is one which I have also -employed in “The Struggle of John and Longchamp (1191).” The interest -of this latter paper consists in its bearing on the whole question -of historic probability, and on the problem of harmonising narratives -by four different witnesses, as discussed by Dr. Abbott in his work -on St. Thomas of Canterbury. This is, perhaps, the only instance in -which I have found the historic judgment and the marvellous insight -of the Bishop of Oxford, if I may venture to say so, at fault; and it -illustrates the importance of minute attention to the actual dates of -events. - -Another point that I have tried to illustrate is the tendency to erect -a theory on a single initial error. In “The Marshalship of England” I -have shown that the belief in the existence of two distinct Marshalseas -converging on a single house rests only on a careless slip in a -coronation claim (1377). A marginal note scribbled by Carew, under a -misapprehension, in the days of Elizabeth, is shown (p. 149) to be the -source of Professor Brewer’s theory on certain Irish MSS. Again, the -accepted story of the Cnihtengild rests only on a misunderstanding of -a mediæval phrase (p. 104). Stranger still, the careless reading of a -marginal note found in the works of Matthew Paris has led astray the -learned editors of several volumes in the Rolls Series, and has even -been made, as I have shown in “the Coronation of Richard I.,” the basis -of a theory that a record of that event formerly existed, though now -wanting, in the Red Book of the Exchequer. - - * * * * * - -The increasing interest in our public records--due in part to the -greater use of record evidence in historical research, and in part, -also, to the energy with which, under the present Deputy-Keeper of the -Records, their contents are being made available--leads me to speak of -the contributions, in these pages, to their study. - -A suggestion will be found (p. 88) as to the origin of the valuable -“Cartæ Antiquæ,” of which the text too often is corrupt, but which, it -may be hoped, will soon be published, as they are at present difficult -to consult. In the paper on “The Inquest of Sheriffs” I have proved -beyond question the identity of the lost returns discovered at the -Public Record Office, and so lamentably misunderstood by their official -editor. But the most important, and indeed revolutionary, theory I have -here ventured to advance deals with what are known as the Red Book -Inquisitions of 12 and 13 John. It is my contention that this Inquest, -the existence of which has not been doubted,[3] though it rests only on -the heading in the Red Book of the Exchequer, never took place at all, -and that these ‘Inquisitions’ are merely abstracts, made for a special -purpose, from the original returns to that great Inquest of service -(as I here term it) which took place in June, 1212 (14 John). It is -singular that this conclusion is precisely parallel with that which -experts have now adopted on another great Inquest. “Kirkby’s Quest,” -it is now admitted, having been similarly misdated in an official -transcript, and again, in our own time, by an officer of the Public -Record Office, was similarly shown by a private individual to consist, -as a rule, “of abridgments only of original inquisitions” ... “extracts -from the original inquisitions made for a special purpose.”[4] -Thus, under John, as under Edward I., “the enquiry itself was a much -wider one” than would be inferred from the Red Book Inquisitions -and “Kirkby’s Quest” respectively. And, in both cases, its date was -different from that which has been hitherto assigned. - -I cannot doubt that the theory I advance will be accepted, in course of -time, by the authorities of the Public Record Office. In the meanwhile, -I have endeavoured to identify all the material in the ‘Testa de -Nevill’ derived from the returns to this Inquest, and thus to make it -available for students of local and family history. - -It is needful that I should say something on the Red Book of the -Exchequer. One of the most famous volumes among our public records, it -has lately been edited for the Rolls Series by Mr. Hubert Hall, F.S.A., -of the Public Record Office.[5] The inclusion of a work in the Rolls -Series thrusts it, of necessity, upon every student of English mediæval -history. It also involves an official _cachet_, which gives it -an authority, as a work of reference, that the public, naturally, -does not assign to the book of a private individual. That a certain -percentage of mistakes must occur in works of this kind is, perhaps, to -be expected; but when they are made the vehicle of confused and wild -guesswork, and become the means of imparting wanton heresy and error, -it is the duty of a scholar who can prove the fact to warn the student -against their contents.[6] It is only, the reader must remember, a -stern sense of duty that is likely to compel one to turn aside from -one’s own historical researches and devote one’s time and toil to -exposing the misleading theories set forth in an official publication -issued at the national expense. A weary and a thankless task it is; but -in Mr. Eyton’s admirable words: “the dispersion of error is the first -step in the discovery of truth.” - -In my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ issued last year -for private circulation only, and in two special articles,[7] I have -partially criticised Mr. Hall’s work and the misleading theories it -contains. Of these criticisms it need only be said that the ‘English -Historical Review,’ in a weighty editorial notice, observes that “The -charges are very sweeping, but in my opinion they are made out.... I am -bound to say that, in my opinion, Mr. Round has proved his case.”[8] -The further exposures of this official work, contained in these -pages[9]--especially in the paper on “the Inquest of Sheriffs,” which -illustrates its wanton heresies--justify my demand that the authorities -should withdraw it, till revised, from circulation. - -The paper on “Castle-ward and Cornage” not only proves that the two -were distinct, and gives the real explanation of their juxtaposition in -the ‘Red Book,’ but contains novel information, to which I would invite -attention, on the constableship of Dover Castle. The early history of -this important office has been altogether erroneous. - -Lastly, I must speak, very briefly, of the criticism to which my -work has been exposed, although I do so with much reluctance. Honest -criticism one welcomes: difference of opinion one respects. But for -that uncandid criticism which endeavours to escape from facts, and -which is animated only by the wish to obscure the light, no excuse -is possible. The paper on “Anglo-Norman Warfare” will illustrate the -tactics to which I refer; and the weight to be attached to Mr. Oman’s -views may be gathered from that on “Bannockburn.” But, apart from the -necessity of these exposures in the cause of historical truth, the -papers which contain them will, I trust, be found of some service in -their bearing on the tactics and poliorcetics of mediæval England, -and on the introduction, in this country, of tenure by knight service. -It is the object also of the “Bannockburn” paper to illustrate the -grossly-exaggerated figures of mediæval chroniclers, a point which, -even now, is insufficiently realized. Here, and elsewhere, it has been -my aim to insist upon the value of records as testing and checking our -chronicles, placing, as they do, the facts of history on a relatively -sure foundation. - - - - - I - - The Settlement of the South-and East-Saxons - - -I would venture, at the outset, to describe this as a “pioneer” paper. -It neither professes to determine questions nor attempts to exhaust a -subject of singular complexity and obscurity. It is only an attempt to -approach the problem on independent lines, and to indicate the path -by which it may be possible to extend our knowledge in a department -of research of which the importance and the interest are universally -recognised. - -It is the fine saying of a brilliant scholar, I mean Professor -Maitland, that “the most wonderful of all palimpsests is the map of -England, could we but decipher it.”[10] But the study of place-names -has this in common with the study of Domesday Book. The local worker, -the man who writes the history of his own parish, is as ready -to explain the name it bears as he is to interpret the Domesday -_formulæ_ relating to it in the Great Survey, without possessing -in either case that knowledge of the subject as a whole which is -required for its treatment in detail. On the other hand, the general -student, from the very wideness of his field, is deprived of the -advantage conferred by the knowledge of a district in its details. In -the hope of steering a middle course between these two dangers, I have -specially selected two counties, both of them settled by the Saxon -folk--Sussex, with which I am connected by birth; and Essex, with which -are my chief associations. And further, within these two counties I -restrict myself to certain classes of names, in order to confine the -field of enquiry to well-defined limits. - -The names with which I propose to deal are those which imply human -habitation. And here at once I part company with those, like Kemble -and other writers, who appear to think it a matter of indifference, -so long as a name is formed from what they term a patronymic, whether -it ends in-ham or-ton, or in such suffixes as-hurst,-field,-den, -or-ford. To them all such names connote village communities; to me -they certainly do not. If we glance at the map of Domesday Sussex,[11] -we see the northern half of the county practically still “backwoods” -eight centuries ago.[12] If we then turn to the Domesday map prefixed -to Manning and Bray’s Surrey, we find the southern half of that county -similarly devoid of place-names. In short, the famous Andredswald was -still, at the time of the Conquest, a belt, some twenty miles in -width, of forest, not yet opened up, except in a few scattered spots, -for human settlement. The place-names of this district have, even at -the present day, a quite distinctive character. The _hams_ and _tons_ -of the districts lying to the north and the south of it are here -replaced by such suffixes as _-hurst_, _-wood_, _-ley_, and _-field_, -and on the Kentish border by _-den_. We may then, judging from this -example, treat such suffixes as evidence that the districts where -they occur were settled at a much later time than those of the _hams_ -and _tons_, and under very different conditions. The suffix _-sted_, -so common in Essex, is comparatively rare in Sussex, and we cannot, -therefore, classify it with the same degree of certainty. - -Taking, therefore, for our special sphere, the _hams_, the _tons_, and -the famous _ings_, let us see if they occur in such a way as to suggest -some definite conclusions. The three principles I would keep in view -are: (1) the study, within the limits of a county, of that distribution -of names which, hitherto, has been studied for the country as a whole; -(2) a point to which I attach the very greatest importance, namely, -the collection, so far as possible, of _all_ the names belonging to -this class, instead of considering only those which happen to be -now represented by villages or parishes; (3) the critical treatment -of the evidence, by sifting and correcting it in its present form. -The adoption of these two latter principles will gravely modify the -conclusions at which some have arrived. - -There is, as Mr. Seebohm’s work has shown, nothing so effective as -a special map for impressing on the mind the distribution of names. -Such a map is an argument in itself. But although I have constructed -for my own use special maps of Sussex and Essex, they cannot here be -reproduced. - -I now proceed to apply the first principle of which I spoke, that of -examining a single county in the same way as others have examined -the maps of England as a whole. I doubt if any county would prove -more instructive for the purpose than that of Sussex, of which the -settlement was developed in isolation and determined by well-defined -geographical conditions. Whatever may be said of other suffixes, -Mr. Seebohm has shown us that, even allowing for a large margin -of unavoidable error, the terminations _-ing_ and _-ham_ are not -distributed at random, but are specially distinctive of that portion -of England which was settled by the earliest immigrants and settled -the most completely. As a broad, general conclusion, this is virtually -established. Now, if we turn to the map of Sussex and ask if this -general principle can also be traced in detail, the first point to -strike us, I think, is the close connection existing between the _hams_ -and the rivers. The people, one might say, who settled the _hams_ were -a people who came in boats. Although at first sight the _hams_ may seem -to penetrate far inland, we shall find that where they are not actually -on the coast, they almost invariably follow the rivers, and follow them -as far up as possible; and this is specially the case with the Arun and -its tributary the Western Rother. Careful examination reveals the fact -that, while to the south, round Chichester Harbour and Selsea Bill, we -find several _hams_, and find them again to the north in the valley of -the western Rother, there are none to be found in the space between, -which shows that the men who settled them found their way round by the -Arun and not overland. I need hardly observe that the rivers of those -days were far larger than the modern streams, and their water level -higher. - -It is anticipating somewhat to point out that the same examination -shows us a large group of _tons_ covering this district away from the -river, where we find no _hams_. Evidently these suffixes do not occur -at random. - -And now let us pass from the extreme west to the extreme east of the -county. Here, instead of a group of _tons_ with a notable absence of -_hams_, we find a most remarkable group of _hams_, absolutely excluding -_tons_. To understand the occurrence of this group on the Rother--the -eastern Rother--and its tributaries, it is essential to remember the -great change that has here taken place in the coast line. Unfortunately -Dr. Guest, who first discussed the settlement of Sussex, entirely -ignored this important change, and his followers have done the same. -The late Mr. Green, for instance, in his map, follows the coast line -given by Dr. Guest. Thus they wholly overlooked that great inlet of -the sea, which formed in later ages the harbours of Winchelsea and -Rye, and which offered a most suitable and tempting haven for the -first Saxon settlers. The result of so doing was that they made the -earliest invaders pass by the whole coast of Sussex before finding, at -Selsea Bill, one of those marshy inlets of the sea, where they could -make themselves at home. Therefore, argued Mr. Grant Allen,[13] “the -original colony occupied the western half of the modern county; but the -eastern portion still remained in the hands of the Welsh.” The orthodox -hypothesis seems to be that the settlers then fought their way step by -step eastwards, that is, towards Kent, reaching and capturing Pevensey -in 491, fourteen years after their first landing.[14] As against this -view, I would suggest that the distribution of Sussex place-names is -in favour of vertical not lateral progress, of separate settlements up -the rivers. And, in any case, I claim for the group of _hams_ at the -extreme east of the county the position of an independent settlement, -to the character of which I shall return. - -I must not wander too far from what is immediately my point, namely, -the grouping of the _hams_ and _tons_ not haphazard but with cause. -Even those students who discriminate suffixes, instead of lumping them -together, like Kemble and his followers, make no distinction, I gather, -between _hams_ and _tons_. Mr. Seebohm, for instance, classes together -“the Saxon ‘hams’ and ‘tuns,’”[15] and so does Professor York Powell, -even though his views on the settlement are exceptionally original -and advanced.[16] There are, however, various reasons which lead me -to advance a different view. In the first place, the wide-spread -existence, on the Continent, of _ham_ in its foreign forms proves this -suffix to be older than the settlement. ‘Ton,’ on the other hand, as -is well known, is virtually absent on the Continent, which implies -that it did not come into use till after the settlement in England. -And as _ham_ was thus used earlier than _ton_, so _ton_, one need -hardly add, was used later than _ham_. The cases in Scotland, and in -what is known as “little England beyond Wales,” will at once occur -to the reader. Canon Taylor states of the latter that the Flemish -names, such as Walterston, “belong to a class of names which we find -nowhere else in the kingdom,” formed from “Walter and others common in -the 12th century.”[17] But in Herefordshire, for instance, we have a -Walterston; and in Dorset a Bardolfston, a Philipston, a Michaelston, -and a Walterston, proving that the same practice prevailed within the -borders of England. Nor need we travel outside the two counties I am -specially concerned with to learn from the ‘Ælfelmston’ of Essex or -the Brihtelmston of Sussex that we find _ton_ compounded with names of -the later Anglo-Saxon period. A third clue is afforded by the later -version, found in the _Liber de Hyda_, of Alfred’s will. For there we -find the _ham_ of the original document rendered by _ton_. It is clear, -therefore, I contend, that _ton_ was a later form than _ham_. Now the -map of England as a whole points to the same conclusion; for _ton_ is -by no means distinctive, like _ham_, of the districts earliest settled. -And if we confine ourselves to a particular county, say this of Sussex, -we discover, I maintain, an appreciable difference between the -distribution of the _hams_ and the _tons_. While the _hams_ follow the -course of the rivers, the scene of the first settlements, the _tons_ -are largely found grouped away on the uplands, as if representing a -later stage in the settlement of the country. In connection with this I -would adduce the “remarkable passage,” as Mr. Seebohm rightly terms it, -in one of King Alfred’s treatises, where he contrasts the “permanent -freehold _ham_” with the new and at first temporary _ton_, formed by -‘timbering’ a forest clearing in a part not previously settled.[18] It -is true that Mr. Seebohm, as I have said, recognises no distinction, -and even speaks of this example as “the growth of a new _ham_”; but -it seems to me to confirm the view I am here advancing. It is obvious -that if such a canon of research as that _ham_ (not _ton_) was a mark -of early settlement could be even provisionally accepted, it would -greatly, and at once, advance our knowledge of the settlement of -England. Although this is nothing more than a ‘pioneer’ paper, I may -say that, after at least glancing at the maps of other counties, I can -see nothing to oppose, but everything to confirm, the view that the -settlers in the _hams_ ascended the rivers (much as they seem, on a -larger scale, to have done in Germany); and a study of the coast of -England from the Tweed to the British Channel leads me to believe that, -as a maritime people, their settlements began upon the coast. - -I now pass to my second point--the insufficient attention which has -hitherto been paid to our minor place-names. Kemble, for instance, -working, as he did, on a large scale, was dependent, so far as names -still existing are concerned, on the nomenclature of present parishes. -And such a test, we shall find, is most fallacious. Canon Taylor, it -is true, has endeavoured to supplement this deficiency,[19] but the -classification of existing names, whether those of modern parishes or -not, has not yet, so far as I can find, been even attempted. Hitherto -I have mainly spoken of Sussex, because it is in that county that -place-names can be best studied; the Essex evidence is chiefly of -value for the contrast it presents. The principal contrast, and one -to which I invite particular attention, is this: confining ourselves -to the names I am concerned with--the _ings_, _hams_, and _tons_--we -find that in Essex several parishes have only a single place-name -between them, while in Sussex, on the contrary, a single parish may -contain several of these place-names, each of them, surely, at one time -representing a distinct local unit. This contrast comes out strongly in -the maps I have prepared of the two counties, in which the parishes are -disregarded, and each place-name separately entered. I do not pretend -that the survey is exhaustive, especially in the case of Sussex, as I -only attempt to show those which are found on an ordinary county map, -together with those, now obsolete, which can safely be supplied from -Domesday. But, so far as the contrast I am dealing with is concerned, -it is at least not exaggerated. - -As the actual names are not shown, I will now adduce a few examples. -In Sussex, Burpham is composed of three tythings--Burpham, Wepham, -Pippering; Climping comprises Atherington and Ilesham; Offham is -included in South Stoke; Rackham in Amberley; Cootham in Storrington; -Ashton, Wellingham, and Norlington in Ringmer; Buddington in Steyning; -and Bidlington in Bramber. - -In Essex, on the other hand, ‘Roothing’ does duty for eight parishes, -Colne for four, Hanningfield, Laver, Bardfield, Tolleshunt, and -Belchamp for three each, and several more for two. There are, of -course, in Sussex also, double parishes to be found, such as North and -South Mundham, but they are much scarcer. - -We may learn, I think, a good deal from the contrast thus presented. -In the first place, it teaches us that parochial divisions are -artificial and comparatively modern. The formula that the parish is -the township in its ecclesiastical capacity is (if unconsciously -adopted) not historically true. Antiquaries familiar with the Norman -period, or with the study of local history, must be acquainted with -the ruins or the record of churches or chapels (the same building, -I may observe in passing, is sometimes called both _ecclesia_ -and _capella_[20]), which formerly gave townships now merged in -parishes a separate or quasi-separate ecclesiastical existence. In -Sussex the present Angmering comprises what were once three parishes, -each with a church of its own. The parish of Cudlow has long been -absorbed in that of Climping. Balsham-in-Yapton was formerly a -distinct hamlet and chapelry. Conversely, the chapelries of Petworth -have for centuries been distinct parishes. - -In Essex we have examples of another kind, examples which remind us -that the combination or the subdivision of parishes are processes as -familiar in comparatively modern as in far distant times. The roofless -and deserted church to be seen at Little Birch testifies to the fact -that, though now one, Great and Little Birch, till recently, were -ecclesiastically distinct. In the adjoining parish of Stanway, the -church, similarly roofless and deserted, was still in use in the last -century. - -Again, the civil unit as well as the ecclesiastical, the village, like -the parish, may often prove misleading. It is, indeed, very doubtful -whether we have ever sufficiently distinguished the manor and the -village. If we construct for ourselves a county map from Domesday, we -shall miss the names of several villages, although often of antiquity; -but, on the other hand, shall meet with the names of important manors, -often extending into several parishes, often suggesting by their forms -a name as old as the migration, yet now represented at most by some -obscure manor, and perhaps only by a solitary farm, or even, it may be, -a field. In Sussex, for instance, the ‘Basingham’ of Domesday cannot -now be identified; its ‘Belingeham’ is doubtful; its ‘Clotinga’ is now -but a farm, as is ‘Estockingeham.’ ‘Sessingham’ and ‘Wiltingham’ are -manors. In Essex ‘Hoosenga’ and ‘Hasingha’ occur together in Domesday, -and are unidentified. Nor have I yet succeeded in identifying -‘Plesingho,’ a manor not only mentioned in Domesday, but duly found -under Henry III. Morant, followed by Chisenhale-Marsh, identified it -wrongly with Pleshy. Such names as these, eclipsed by those of modern -villages, require to be disinterred by archæological research. - -Another point on which light is thrown by the contrast of Essex and -Sussex is the theory tentatively advanced by Mr. Maitland in the -‘Archæological Review,’ that the Hundred and the township may, in -the beginning, have been represented by the same unit.[21] Broadly -speaking, he adduced in support of this hypothesis the originally -large township of Essex, proved by the existence of a group of -villages bearing the same name, comparing it with the small Hundreds -characteristic of Sussex. But in Sussex, I think, the small Hundreds -were coincident with those many small townships; while in Essex the -scattered townships are coincident with larger Hundreds. And this leads -me to suggest that the Saxon settlements in Sussex lay far thicker -on the ground than those found in Essex, and that we possibly find -here some explanation of the admitted silence as to the East-Saxon -settlement contrasting with the well-known mention of that in Sussex. -It seems to me highly probable that Essex, in those remote times, -was not only bordered and penetrated by marshes, but largely covered -with forest. It is, perhaps, significant that in the district between -Westham and Boreham, some twenty-five miles across as the crow flies, -there is not a _ham_ to be found. - -From this I turn to the opposite extreme, that group of _hams_ on the -‘Rother’ and its tributaries, thirty-seven in number. Isolated alike -from _ings_ and _tons_, and hemmed in by the spurs of the Andredswald, -it is, perhaps, unique in character. Nowhere have I lighted on a group -of _hams_ so illustrative of the character of these settlements, or -affording a test so admirable of the alleged connection between this -suffix and the _villa_ of the Roman Empire. - -One of the sections of Mr. Seebohm’s work is devoted to what he terms -“the connection between the Saxon ‘ham,’ the German ‘heim,’ and the -Frankish ‘villa.’” This, indeed, it may fairly be said, is one of the -important points in his case, and one to which he has devoted special -research and attention. Now, I am not here dealing with the equation -of ‘ham’ and ‘villa.’ If I were, I should urge, perhaps, that, as with -the ‘Witan’ of the English and the ‘Great Council’ of the Normans, -it does not follow that an equation of words involves their absolute -identity of meaning. I confine myself to the suffix ‘-ham.’ “Its early -geographical distribution,” Mr. Seebohm has suggested, “may have an -important significance.” With this, it will be seen, I entirely agree. -But, if the distribution is important, let us make sure of our facts; -let us} as I urge throughout this volume, test and try our evidence -before we advance to our conclusion. When Mr. Seebohm informs us -that “the ‘hams’ of England were most numerous in the south-eastern -counties, finding their densest centre in Essex,” the statement must -startle any one who has the least acquaintance with Essex, where the -termination ‘-ham’ is comparatively rare in place-names. On turning -to Mr. Seebohm’s map, one is still further surprised to learn that -its “local names ending in ‘ham’” attain in Domesday the enormous -proportion of 39 per cent. The clue to the mystery is found in a note -that “in Essex the _h_ is often dropped, and the suffix becomes _am_.” -For the whole calculation is based on a freak of my old friend, the -Domesday scribe. The one to whom we are indebted for the text of the -Essex survey displayed his misplaced scholarship in Latinizing the -English names so thoroughly, that not only did Oakley, the first on -the list, become ‘Accleia,’ but even in the accusative, “Acclei_am_ -tenet Robertus.” Thus we need travel no further than the first name -on the index to learn how Mr. Seebohm’s error was caused. Elmstead, -Bonhunt, Bentley, Coggeshall, Danbury, Dunmow, Alresford, and many -other such names, have all by this simple process been converted into -‘hams.’ I hasten to add that my object in correcting this error is -not to criticise so brilliant an investigator and so able a scholar -as Mr. Seebohm, but to illustrate the practical impossibility of -accomplishing any scientific work in this department of research until -the place-names of England have been classified and traced to their -origin. I am eager to see this urgent work undertaken county by county, -on much the same lines as those adopted by the Government in France. -It seems to me to be eminently a subject for discussion at the Annual -Congress of Archæological Societies. - -If it were the case that the English _ham_ represents the Roman -_villa_, this remarkable group on the borders of Kent and Sussex should -indicate a dense Roman settlement; but of such settlement there is, I -believe, no trace existing. Conversely, we do not find that the sites -of Roman villas are denoted by the suffix _ham_.[22] - -From considering this group as a whole, I advance to two settlements -on what is known as the Tillingham River, namely, Billingham and -Tillingham. One would not easily find names more distinctive of what -Kemble insisted on terming the mark system, or what later historians -describe as clan settlement. Parenthetically, I may observe that while -_ham_ is common in Sussex, the compound _ingham_ is not. This is well -seen in the group under consideration. The same may, I think, be -said of Essex, while in North Suffolk _ingham_ begins to assert its -predominance. The frequent occurrence in Norfolk and Lincolnshire -renders it a note of Anglian rather than Saxon settlement.[23] And -now for Billingham and Tillingham. Billing is one of the most common -of the so-called patronymics; and there is a Tillingham in Essex. -Whether we turn to the specialist works of such writers as Stubbs and -Green, or to the latest _compendia_ of English history as a whole, we -shall virtually always read that such names as these denote original -settlement by a clan.[24] - -In venturing to question this proposition, I am striking at the root -of Kemble’s theory, that overspreading theory of the Mark, which, -as it were, has shrunk from its once stately splendour, but in the -shadow of which all our historians since his time have written. Even -Professor York Powell, although he rejects the mark theory,[25] writes -of “the first stage” of settlement: “We know that the land was settled -when clans were powerful, for the new villages bear _clan names_, -not _personal names_.”[26] The whole theory rests on the patronymic -_ing_, which Kemble crudely treated as proving the existence of a mark -community, wherever it occurs in place-names.[27] - -Now the theory that _ing_ implies a clan, that is, a community united -by blood or by the belief in a common descent,[28] may be tested in -two distinct ways. We may either trace its actual use as applied to -individuals or communities; or we may examine the localities in the -names of which it occurs. I propose to do both. The passage usually -adduced to prove the ‘clan’ meaning is the well-known genealogy in -the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “Cerdic was Elesing, Elesa was Esling, -Esla was Gewising,”[29] etc. Even Mr. Seebohm reluctantly admits, on -this “evidence of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” that _ing_ was used as -alleged. But it always seemed obvious to me that this passage, so far -from proving the ‘clan’ meaning, actually proved the opposite, namely, -that the patronymic changed with every generation. Again, if we turn -from the Chronicle to the Anglo-Saxon charters, we find _inga_ normally -used to denote the dwellers at a certain place, not the descendants of -a certain man. It is singular that Kemble, although he was the first to -make an exhaustive study of these charters, classed such names with the -other _ings_, from which they were quite distinct.[30] His enthusiasm -for the ‘mark’ carried him away. In Sussex, we have, as it seems to -me, a very excellent illustration; the name of Angmering, the present -form, occupies, as it were, a medial position between the “Angemare” of -Domesday and the “Angmeringatun” of Alfred’s will. Here, surely, the -Angmeringas were those who dwelt at Angmer, not a ‘clan’ descended from -a man bearing that name. - -I will not, however, dwell on this side of the argument, more -especially as I would rather lay stress on the other line of attack. -For this is my distinctive point: I contend that, in studying -the place-names into which _ing_ enters, attention has hitherto -exclusively, or almost exclusively, been devoted to those now -represented by towns or villages. With these it is easy to associate -the idea of a clan settlement. But what are we to make of such cases -as our Sussex Billingham and Tillingham? We shall search for them in -vain in Lewis’ Topographical Dictionary; and yet they are names of -the same status as fully developed villages. As a Sussex antiquary -has observed (though I cannot accept his explanation): “In the names -of many farms we shall likewise find names which also mark whole -parishes in the county.” Canon Taylor has unconsciously recorded, in -the adjoining county of Kent, evidence to the same effect, observing -that “the lone farmhouses in Kent, called Shottington, Wingleton, -Godington, and Appleton, may be regarded as venerable monuments, -showing us the nature of the Saxon colonization of England.”[31] I say -that this evidence is unconscious, for the Canon applies it only to the -evolution of the _ton_, and seems not to have observed its bearing on -that compound _ing_, which he, like Kemble, fully accepts as proof of -a clan community. From Shottington and Godington, as from Billingham -and Tillingham, Kemble would have confidently deduced the settlement -of a ‘mark’ or clan community; and yet, when we learn what the places -are, we see that they represent a settlement by households, not by -communities. - -Here, then, is the value of these cases of what we may term arrested -development: they warn us against the rashness of assuming that a -modern or even a mediæval village has been a village from the first. -The village community may be so far from representing the original -settlement as to have been, on the contrary, developed from what was at -first but a farmstead. The whole argument of such scholars as Professor -Earle here and Dr. Andrews in America is based on the assumption that -the land was settled by communities, each of them sufficiently large to -have a head, whether civil or military. To that supposition such names -as I have mentioned are, I think, fatal. - -Yet another point must be touched on as to this alleged patronymic. To -Kemble, as I have said, it was of small moment what suffix his ‘marks’ -bore. Indeed, those that denoted forest were to him specially welcome, -because he associated the idea of a ‘mark’ with that of a forest -clearing. But we who have seen that such suffixes as _-field_, _-hurst_ -and _-den_ are distinctive of those districts untouched by the early -settlers cannot recognise such names, for instance, as the Itchingfield -or Billingshurst of Sussex as denoting village communities. Again, in -the Anglo-Saxon charters the characteristic _den_ of Kent is frequently -preceded by _ing_; and if these _dens_ were clearly from the context -only forest pastures for swine, we must here also reject the _ing_ as -proof of a clan community. One may also glance in passing at such names -as the “Willingehala” of Essex, now “Willingale,” and ask whether a -clan community is supposed to have settled in a hall?[32] - -I trust that I have now sufficiently shown that even where _ing_ -genuinely enters into the composition of a place-name it is no proof -of settlement by a clan. Kemble looked on the typical ‘mark’ as “a -hundred heads of houses,” which he deemed “not at all an extravagant -supposition.”[33] I think that even at the present day a visit to the -_hams_ and _tons_ of Sussex, and, in some cases, to the _ings_, would -lead us in practice to the opposite conclusion, and would throw the -gravest doubt on the theory of the village community. I was trained, -like others of my generation, to accept that theory as an axiomatic -truth; but difficult as it is to abandon what one has been so taught, -the solitary manor house, the lonely farm, is a living protest against -it. The village community of the class-room can never have existed -there. On paper it holds its own: _solvitur ambulando_. - -But the fact that a place bearing a typical clan name may prove to have -been but a single homestead takes us farther than this. _Ing_, which -Canon Taylor has described as “the most important element which enters -into Anglo-Saxon names,” has been held to denote settlement not merely -by a clan, but by a portion of a tribe bearing, both in England and -abroad, one common name. Kemble insisted strongly upon this,[34] and is -duly followed by Canon Taylor[35] and others. On the same foundation -Mr. Andrew Lang has erected yet another edifice, tracing the occurrence -in scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy -among our forefathers. And this ingenious suggestion has been adopted -by Mr. Grant Allen.[36] But the very first instance he gives, that of -the Hemings, will not stand examination.[37] - -As yet I have been dealing with those ‘clan names’ in which the -presence of the _ing_ is genuine; and I have been urging that it -is not _proof_, as alleged, of settlement by a clan. I now pass -to those place-names in which the _ing_ is not genuine, but is -merely a corruption. That such names exist has always, of course, -been admitted,[38] but their prevalence has not been sufficiently -recognised. And not only are there large deductions, in consequence, -to be made from the so-called clan names, but even in cases where the -_ing_ is genuine the prefix is often so corrupt that the name of the -clan deduced from it is altogether wrong. - -Let us take some instances in point. Kemble deduced the existence -of the Brightlings (‘Brightlingas’) from Brightling in Sussex and -Brightlingsea in Essex. Nothing, at first sight, could seem clearer. -And yet, on turning to Domesday, we find that the Sussex Brightling -is there entered as Brislinga--suggesting that Somerset Brislington -from which Kemble deduced the Brislings--while Brightlingsea appears -in the Essex Domesday as ‘Brictriceseia,’ and in that of Suffolk -as ‘Brictesceseia,’ from which forms is clearly derived the local -pronunciation ‘Bricklesea.’ So much for the Brightlings. Yet more -striking is the case of an Essex village, Wormingford. Kemble, of -course, detects in it the name ‘Wyrmingas.’ Yet its Domesday name is -Widemondefort,’ obviously derived from ‘Widemond,’ the name of an -individual.[39] Here the corruption is so startling that it is well -to record the transition form ‘Wiremundeford,’ which I find in the -13th century.[40] Now, as I have often to point out in the course of -my historical researches, however unpopular it may be to correct the -errors of others, those errors, if uncorrected, lead too often to -fresh ones. Thus, in this case, the ‘Wyrmingas,’ wrongly deduced from -Wormingford, have been claimed by scholars as sons of the ‘worm,’ -and, therefore, as evidence that ‘Totemism’ prevailed among the -Anglo-Saxons. It would take me, I fear, too far afield to discuss the -alleged traces of Totemism; but when we find Mr. Grant Allen asserting -that “the oak has left traces of his descendants at Oakington in -Cambridge” (shire), one has to point out that this place figures in -Domesday as ‘Hochinton(e)’[41] in no fewer than five entries, although -Kemble derives from it _more suo_ the ‘Æcingas.’ But a few more -instances of erroneous derivation must be given in order to establish -clearly the worthlessness of Kemble’s lists. How simple it seems to -derive, with him, the ‘Storringas’ and ‘Teorringas’ from Storrington, -Sussex, and Tarrington, Herefordshire, respectively. Yet the former, -in Domesday, is ‘Storgetune’ or ‘Storchestune,’ while the latter is -‘Tatintune’ in both its entries. It might be suggested that the error -is that of the Domesday scribe, but in this case I have found the -place entered in several documents of the next century as Tadinton -or Tatinton, thus establishing the accuracy of Domesday. Indeed, in -my experience, the charters of the 12th century prove that Domesday -nomenclature is thoroughly deserving of trust. The climax of Kemble’s -derivations is reached perhaps in Shillingstone, from which Dorset -village he duly deduces the ‘Scyllingas.’ For, as Eyton has shown, -its name was ‘Acford,’ but, from its Domesday tenant, Schelin, it -became known as Ockford Eskelling, Shilling Ockford, and finally, by -a yet bolder corruption, Shillingstone.[42] As if to make matters -worse, Kemble treats ‘Shilling-Okeford’ and ‘Shillingstone’ as two -distinct places. Could anything, one asks, be more unfortunate than -this? Alas, one must answer Yes. The great clan of the ‘Cypingas’ is -found in eight counties: at least so Kemble says. I have tested his -list and discovered that the names which prove the existence of his -clan are Chipping Ongar, Chipping Barnet, Chipping Sodbury, Chipping -Campden, Chipping Wycombe, Chipping Warden, and Chipping Norton. Even -the historical tyro would avoid this wild blunder; he would know that -Chipping was about as much of a clan name as is Cheapside. After this -final example, it can hardly be disputed that Kemble’s lists are merely -a pitfall for the unwary. - -Yet we still follow in his footsteps. Take such a case as that -of Faringdon, which Mr. Grant Allen, we have seen, selected as a -typical instance of the _ing_ patronymic in place-names.[43] If we -turn to Domesday, we find in Berks a ‘Ferendone,’ in Northants a -‘Ferendone’ or ‘Faredone,’ in Notts a ‘Ferendone’ or ‘Farendune,’ in -Hants a ‘Ferendone.’ These names were all the same; and yet they have -become ‘Farndon’ in Notts and Northants, ‘Faringdon’ in Berks, and -‘Farringdon’ in Hants. Farringdon, therefore, is no more a clan name -than is the Essex Parndon, the ‘Perenduna’ of Domesday. But, indeed, in -Essex itself, there is an even better illustration. We learn from Canon -Taylor that “the Thurings, a Visigothic clan, mentioned by Marcellinus -... are found ... at Thorrington in Essex.” Kemble had previously -described them as “likely to be offshoots of the great Hermunduric -race, the Thyringi or Thoringi, now Thuringians, always neighbours -of the Saxons,[44] and claims the Essex Thorrington” as their -settlement.[45] Now Thorington in the first place was not a _ton_, and -in the second place had not an _ing_. Both these forms are corruptions. -In Domesday it occurs twice, and both times as ‘Tor_induna_.’ With -this we may compare ‘Horn_induna_,’ which is the Domesday form of -Horndon, and occurs frequently. Therefore Thorington and Thorndon, -like Farringdon and Farndon, were both originally the same name and -destitute alike of _ing_. - -As to the names ending in _ing_, with no other suffix, I prefer, for -the present, to reserve my opinion. Kemble’s hypothesis, however, that -they were the parent settlements, and the _hams_ and _tons_ their -filial developments, seems to me to have little support in the facts of -their actual distribution. If in that distribution there is a feature -to be detected, it is, perhaps, that the _ings_ are found along the -foot of the downs. This, at least, is often observable. Another point -deserving of attention is that, in its French form, _igny_, this suffix -seems as distinctive of the ‘Saxon’ settlement about Bayeux as it is -absent in that which is found in the Boulogne district. But these are -only, as it were, sidelights upon the problem; and this, as I said, is -nothing more than a ‘pioneer’ paper. - -I close with a point that appears to me of no small importance. To -the east of Sussex and the south of Sussex there lay that so-called -Jutish land, the county of Kent. As I pointed out years ago, in my -‘Domesday Studies,’ the land system of Kent is found in the Great -Survey to be essentially distinct from that which prevailed in other -counties. It was not assessed in ‘hides,’ but in ‘solins,’ that is, -the _sulungs_ of the natives, the land of a _suhl_ or plough. The -yokes, or subdivisions, of this unit are also directly connected -with the plough. But the hide and virgate of other counties are, as -I pointed out, not connected in name with the plough.[46] Now if we -work through the land charters printed by Professor Earle, we find -that this Domesday distinction can be traced back, clear and sharp, -to the earliest times within their ken. We read in an Anglo-Saxon -charter of “xx swuluncga,” while in Latin charters the normal phrase -is the land of so many ploughs (‘terra trium aratrorum,’ ‘terra decem -aratrorum,’ etc.); we even meet with the phrase, “decem aratrorum juxta -æstimationem provinciæ ejusdem.”[47] In another charter “v aratra” -equates “fifsulung landes.” But in other counties the normal terms, in -these charters, for the land units are “manentes” and “cassati,”[48] -which occur with similar regularity. A cleavage so ancient and so clear -as this, in the vital sphere of land division, points to more than a -separate rule and confirms the tradition of a distinct origin. - - - - - II - - Ingelric the Priest and Albert of Lotharingia - - -In my paper on “Regenbald, Priest and Chancellor,”[49] I was able -to trace, by combining the evidence of Domesday and of charters, -the history of a “priest” of Edward the Confessor, who became the -“priest” of his successor also, and held of him rich possessions in -churches and lands. Another churchman who flourished both before and -after the Conquest, and must have enjoyed the favour both of the -Confessor and of the Conqueror, was Ingelric, first dean of the house -of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, whose lands had passed before Domesday to -Count Eustace of Boulogne. Mr. Freeman was interested in Ingelric -as a “commissioner for redemption of lands,” but only knew him as a -layman. Nor indeed is there anything in Domesday to suggest that he -was other. To Mr. W. H. Stevenson belongs the credit of proving that -he was a priest by printing “an old English charter of the Conqueror,” -confirming the foundation of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, in which the -“cujusdam fidelis mei Ingelrici scilicet peticioni adquiescens” is -equated by “æfter Ingelrices bene mines preostes.”[50] It was similarly -as “minan preoste” that William had described Regenbald. - -The charter I shall now deal with was not known to Mr. Stevenson, and -has not, I believe, been printed. It is of real historical interest, -apart from the fact that among its witnesses we find Ingelric “the -priest.” - -Mr. Freeman held that the reconciliation between the Conqueror and -the Abbot of Peterborough--Brand, the Englishman, whose election had -been confirmed, even after the Battle of Hastings, by the ætheling -Eadgar--was one of the earliest events after William’s coronation.[51] -To that episode I do not hesitate to assign a charter entered in the -Peterborough ‘Liber Niger’ belonging to the Society of Antiquaries. It -is a general confirmation of the abbey’s possessions, “petente abbate -Brand,”[52] and is witnessed thus: - - Huic testes affuere: Aldredus Eboracensis archiepiscopus; - Wlwinus Lincoliensis episcopus; Merlesuen vicecomes; Ulf filius - Topi; Willelmus comes; Willelmus Malet; Ingelri[cus] presbyter. - -Here we have first Ealdred, by whom William had been crowned; then -Wulfwig, bishop of Dorchester, here described as bishop “of Lincoln.” -The mention of Mærleswegen is of special importance, for this great -English noble had been left in charge of the North by Harold on the -eve of the Battle of Hastings, and rose in revolt against William -in the summer of 1068. Here we have evidence of his presence at -William’s court, when his movements were unknown to Mr. Freeman. We -see, moreover, that he was still sheriff (of Lincolnshire). “Ulf -filius Topi,” who appears in other Peterborough charters, had given -“Mannetorp,” Lincolnshire, and other lands to the abbey. - -It is very remarkable that the Norman witnesses are only entered after -these Englishmen, although the first is “earl William,” in whom we must -see the Conqueror’s friend, William Fitz Osbern, already, apparently, -earl of Hereford. Sufficient attention has hardly been given to -this early creation or to the selection of so distant a county as -Herefordshire for William’s earldom. - -In addition to this charter, there is known to me another, little later -probably, the last witness to which is entered as “Ego Ingelricus ad -hoc impetrandum obnixe studui.” This brings me to the third charter -that I shall deal with in connection with Ingelric. This is the one I -mentioned at the outset as granted by the Conqueror at his request, and -edited with so much care and learning by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. This, in -its stilted, antique form, has much in common with the one preceding, -while its style combines those of the two others. I place the three -together for comparison: - - (1) Ego Willelmus dei beneficio rex Anglorum. - - (2) jure hereditario Anglorum patrie effectus sum Basileus. - - (3) Ego Willelmus Dei dispositione et consanguinitatis - hereditate Anglorum basileus. - -Mr. Freeman looked with suspicion on this third charter, which he -termed “an alleged charter of William.”[53] His criticism that, though -dated 1068, its list of witnesses closes with the two papal legates -who visited England in 1070, is a perfectly sound one. Mr. Stevenson -ignored this difficulty in his paper; and, on my pointing it out, -still failed to explain the positive “huic constitutioni interfui” -of Cardinal John. Awkward, however, as the difficulty is, the other -attestations are so satisfactory that we must treat these as subsequent -additions rather than reject the charter. - -The remarks which immediately follow are intended only for students -of what is uncouthly known as ‘diplomatic,’ a study hitherto much -neglected in England. In this charter, as printed in Mr. Stevenson’s -paper, there is appended the clause: - - Scripta est hec _cartula_ anno ab incarnatione Domini - MLXVIII^o scilicet secundo anno regni mei. - -A corresponding clause is found in the old English version of the text -which follows it. But in the Latin text the clause is followed by these -words: - - Peracta vero est hec _donacio_[54] die Natali Domini; et - postmodum in die Pentecostes confirmata, quando Mathildis conjux - mea ... in reginam ... est consecrata. - -Mr. Freeman somewhat carelessly confused the two clauses: - - The charter (_sic_) is said to have been granted at the - Christmas feast of 1068 (evidently meaning 1067), and to have - been confirmed at the coronation of the queen at the following - Pentecost (iv. 726). - -Mr. Stevenson follows him in this confusion, but carries it much -further. Speaking of “supplementary confirmations,” as used in -William’s chancery, he writes: - - We have one in this very charter, which was executed - (_peracta_) on Christmas Day, 1068 (_i.e._ 1067), but was - afterwards confirmed on the occasion of Matilda’s coronation at - Whitsuntide, 1068. If we had the original charter, we should - probably find that the clause relating to the Whitsuntide - confirmation had been added, as in similar continental - instances, on a blank space in the charter. Ingelric was, as we - know from this grant, one of William’s clerks, and he must have - been a man of considerable influence to have obtained a diploma - from a king who was so chary in the granting of diplomata, and - to have, moreover, obtained the execution of it at so important - a ceremony as the king’s coronation, and a confirmation of it at - the queen’s coronation.[55] - -In the elaborate footnotes appended to this passage there are three -points to be dealt with. - -The first is “the king’s coronation” as the time when the charter was -executed. Mr. Stevenson writes: - - Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 724, says that the date of the - charter, Christmas 1068, evidently means 1067, the date of - William’s coronation; etc.... There are good grounds, therefore, - for holding that the witnesses were spectators of William’s - coronation, which gives the charter its greatest historical - importance.[56] - -But, as we have seen, it is not the fact that Mr. Freeman spoke of -Christmas 1067 as “the date of William’s coronation.” That event took -place, as all the world knows, at Christmas, 1066, and so was long -previous to this gift and charter. Mr. Stevenson’s error is a strange -one. - -The second point is that of the “supplementary confirmation.” Mr. -Stevenson, referring us to the best parallel, writes: - - In the case of the council (or rather _placitum_) of 1072 - concerning the subjection of York to Canterbury, which, like - the charter under consideration, received a supplementary - ratification, a second text was drawn up for the later action. - -I here break off to print, for convenience, the parallel clauses in -these documents side by side. - - 1068. 1072. - - Peracta vero est hec donacio Ventilata est autem hec causa - die Natalis Domini; et postmodum prius apud Wentanam civitatem, - in die Pentecostes confirmata in Paschali solemnitate, in - quando Mathildis conjux capella regia que sita est in - mea in basilica Sancti Petri castello; Windisor, ubi et - Westmonasterii postea in villa finem accepit, in presentia - regia que vocatur in reginam Regis, episcoporum abbatum, - divino nutu est consecrata. diversorum ordinum qui - congregati erant apud curiam in - festivitate Pentecostes.[57] - -Resuming now Mr. Stevenson’s note on the documents of 1072, at the -point where I broke it off, we read: - - The originals of both still exist. The first, _dated at - Winchester at Whitsuntide_,[58] is validated only by the crosses - of William and his queen, the papal legate, both archbishops and - four bishops (Palæographical Society, i. fol. 170). The second - ... is dated at Windsor, also at Whitsuntide, and is attested by - additional bishops, and by numerous abbots. - -As the former document (A.2 of the Canterbury charters, apparently -overlooked till some twenty years ago) could not possibly be “dated -at Winchester at Whitsuntide,” one turns to the text as given by the -Palæographical Society, only to find that these words are sheer -imagination on Mr. Stevenson’s part. There is nothing of the kind to be -found there. Owing to this incomprehensible error, he has altogether -misunderstood these “supplementary confirmations.” The clauses I have -printed side by side must not be broken up. The earlier, like the -later, is a consistent whole, added at one time.[59] - -When, then, was the “Ingelric” charter actually drawn up? Mr. -Stevenson, following, we have seen, Mr. Freeman’s loose expressions, -tells us that “as the present charter (_sic_) was _peracta_ at -Christmas, 1067, and _confirmata_ at Whitsuntide, it was most probably -written at the former date.” But it was the “donacio,” _not_ the -“charter,” which was “peracta” at Christmas. The text only tells us -of the _charter_ that it was _written_ “anno ab incarnacione Domini -MLXVIII^o.” My own view is that the charter was written not at -Christmas, 1067 (which was the date of the act of gift), but at (or -after) Whitsuntide, 1068. I base this conclusion on the first three -witnesses: - - Ego Willelmus rex Anglorum, etc. - Ego Mathildis regina consensum præbui. - Ego Ricardus regis filius annui. - -Matilda was not “queen” till Whitsuntide, 1068, and was not even in -England at Christmas, 1067. If it be urged that, even though found -in this position, her name was interpolated afterwards, I reply -that the name of William’s eldest son, Robert, would then have been -similarly added. The fact that we find, instead, his second son, -Richard (afterwards killed while hunting in the New Forest) is to me -the strongest possible evidence that Robert had remained behind, as -regent, in Normandy when his mother came over to England to be crowned. -The most probable date, therefore, for the execution of this charter -is that of her coronation at Westminster, 1068. It preserves for us, -in that case, the names of the magnates present on that occasion, -including Hugh bishop of Lisieux, who may well have escorted her from -Normandy, and thus have attended the ceremony.[60]. - -My third point follows as a corollary from this conclusion. For if the -charter was drawn up at Whitsuntide, 1068, not at Christmas, 1067, -there is an end of Mr. Stevenson’s argument and conclusion: - - The 25th December in the second year of William’s reign was in - 1067 according to our reckoning. But the old system of reckoning - the year “ab Incarnatione” began the year on 25th December. - This was the old English system, and this charter proves that - William’s chancery also commenced the year at the Nativity.[61] - -The time spent on this important charter has not been wasted. We have -found that one who stands in the front rank of English philologists, -and for whom the same would, doubtless, be claimed in “diplomatic,” may -arrive, in spite of great learning, at quite erroneous conclusions, -simply from inexact treatment of the evidence before him. - -A word more on Ingelric. According to Mr. Freeman, “that Ingelric -was an Englishman seems plain.”[62] Mr. Stevenson, however, who has -specially studied the subject of personal names, holds that this was -Frankish. The St. Martin’s charter specially speaks of his having -acquired his lands under Edward the Confessor. Mr. Stevenson, however, -goes further, and states, as we have seen, that it proves him to have -been “one of William’s clerks” (_sic_); and he argues that “if he was -a chancery clerk, he may have continued the traditions of Edward’s -chancery.” It is remarkable, however, that in an Exeter charter (1069) -to which Mr. Stevenson refers us, he again attests, as in two of the -charters dealt with above, as “Ingelricus _presbyter_.” I have chosen, -therefore, for this paper the style “Ingelric the priest.” - - * * * * * - -No question of origin can arise in the case of a third personage, who -also enjoyed the favour both of Edward and of his successor, namely, -Albert of Lotharingia. Known hitherto as having, it is supposed, given -its name to Lothbury--for the “Terra Alberti Loteringi” is mentioned -in the list of London wards _temp._ Henry I.[63]--he occurs in many -places on the pages of Domesday. As “Albertus Lothariensis” we find -him a tenant-in-chief in the counties of Herefordshire and Beds (186, -216_b_2), one of his manors in the latter county having been held by -him, we read, under Edward the Confessor; and he also occurs by the -same style as holding under the latter king at Hatton, Middlesex -(129). But, so far, there is nothing to show that Albert was a cleric. - -It is a Westminster Abbey charter that supplies the missing clue: - - Willelmus rex Anglorum Francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis - me dedisse Sancto Petro Westmonasterii et abbati Gilleberto - ecclesias de Roteland et terras pertinentes ad easdem ecclesias - sicut Albertus Lotharingius de me tenebat ipsas ecclesias cum - omnibus pertinentibus ad ipsas. Teste Hugone de Portu.[64] - -Turning to “Roteland” in Domesday, we find that the last name in the -list of its tenants-in-chief is that of “Albertus clericus,” who -holds the churches of Oakham, Hambleton, and St. Peter’s, Stamford, -“cum adjacentibus terris eisdem ecclesiis ... de rege,” the whole -forming a valuable estate. Again, we read under Stamford: “Albertus -unam æcclesiam Sancti Petri cum duabus mansionibus et dimidia carucata -terre quæ jacet in Rotelande in Hemeldune; valet x sol.” (336 _b_). -Following up this clue, we recognise our man in the “Albertus clericus” -who holds at “Eddintone,” in Surrey (30, 36 _b_), and doubtless also -in “Albertus clericus” who held land as an under-tenant at Windsor (56 -_b_). Nay, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that he is also the -“Albertus capellanus” who, at the end of the Kent Domesday (14 _b_), -has a page all to himself as tenant-in-chief of Newington. Thus in the -official index to Domesday we find Albert entered under “clericus,” -“Lothariensis,” “Albertus,” and (probably) “capellanus,” and yet, in -each case, it is the same man. Regenbald, exactly in the same way, -is entered under ‘Cirecestre,’ ‘presbyter’ and ‘Reinbaldus.’ In my -‘Feudal England’ I have similarly identified (p. 167) “Eustachius,” -one tenant-in-chief, with “Eustachius vicecomes,” another (and with -“Eustachius,” an under-tenant),[65] and “Oger,” a Northamptonshire -tenant-in-chief, with Oger “Brito,” a Lincolnshire one (p. 220). In the -Eastern counties the Breton founder of the house of Helion is similarly -indexed under ‘Britto’ for Essex, ‘Herion’ for Suffolk, and ‘Tehelus’ -for Norfolk. Small as these points may seem, their ultimate consequence -is great, for they still further reduce the number of tenants-in-chief. -When the history of these magnates is more fully known, it will -probably be found that those who held _in capite per servitium -militare_, thus excluding, of course, mere serjeants, etc., were a mere -handful compared with the vast total given by Ellis and others. - -Albert’s Lotharingian origin becomes of special interest now that we -know he was a cleric, for Mr. Freeman devoted a special appendix to -“Lotharingian churchmen under Edward.”[66] Unfortunately he was not -acquainted with the case of Albert. Dr. Stubbs also has dwelt on the -importance, for the church, of “the increased intercourse with the -empire, and especially with Lorraine,” under Edward the Confessor.[67] -He alludes, without committing himself to it, to Mr. Freeman’s somewhat -fanciful theory on the subject. - - - - - III - - Anglo-Norman Warfare - - -Having devoted special study to the art of war in the Norman period, -including therein the subject of castles, I may have, perhaps, some -claim to deal with the latest work on a topic which requires for -its treatment special knowledge. When a treatise assumes a definite -character, and is likely to be permanently consulted, it calls for -closer criticism than a mere ephemeral production, and on this ground -I would here discuss some points in Mr. Oman’s ‘History of the Art of -War’ (1898). - -Mr. Oman issued, so far back as 1885, ‘The Art of War in the Middle -Ages,’ so that he enjoys, on this subject, the advantage of prolonged -study. In 1894 he contributed to ‘Social England’[68] an article on -“Norman Warfare,” to which I shall also refer. I should add that in his -first (1885), as in his later work (1898), Mr. Oman received the help -of Mr. F. York Powell, now Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford. - -The first point I propose to consider is that of the famous English -“formation” before the Norman Conquest. Mr. Oman originally wrote as -follows: - - The tactics of the English axemen were those of the column; - arranged in a compact mass, they could beat off almost any - attack, and hew their way through every obstacle (‘Art of War,’ - p. 24). - -This was also the view of the late Professor Freeman, who wrote of the -battle of Maldon that-- - - The English stood, as at Senlac, in the array common to them - and their enemies--a strong line, or rather wedge of infantry, - forming a wall with their shields. - -At the battle of Hastings (“Senlac”) itself he tells us-- - - The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on - foot in the close array of the shield wall. - -They were ranged, he held, “closely together in the thick array of -the shield wall.” He had well observed that “the Norman writers -were specially struck with the close array of the English,” and had -elsewhere spoken of “the close array of the battle-axe men,” and of -“the English house-carls with their ... huge battle axes,” accustomed -to fight in “the close array of the shield wall.”[69] - -To this formation, it is necessary to observe, the term _testudo_ -was applied. At the battle of Ashdown, Freeman wrote: - - Asser calls it a _testudo_ or tortoise. This is the shield - wall, the famous tactic of the English and Danes. We shall hear - of it in all the great battles down to the end. - -Florence adopts the same word in describing the formation of the rival -hosts on that occasion: - - Pagani in duas se turmas dividentes, æquali _testudine_ - bellum parant (i. 83). - - Ælfred ... Christianas copias contra hostiles exercitus ... - dirigens ... _testudine_ ordinabiliter condensata (i. 84). - -So, too, at the battle of Ethandun: - - Ubi contra Paganorum exercitum universum cum densa - _testudine_ atrociter belligerans (i. 96). - -Again, in 1052: - - Pedestris exercitus ... spissam terribilemque fecit - _testudinem_. - -This is an exact description of the host that faced the Normans, -fourteen years later, on the hill of Battle. As William of Malmesbury -describes it: - - Pedites omnes cum bipennibus, conserta ante se _scutorum - testudine_, impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt.[70] - -“It is a pleasure,” as I wrote, “to find myself here in complete -agreement with Mr. Freeman.”[71] Mr. Freeman saw in this passage “the -array of the shield wall,”[72] and aptly compared Abbot Æthelred’s -description of the English array at the Battle of the Standard: -“Scutis scuta junguntur, lateribus latera conseruntur.”[73] With Mr. -Oman also I was no less pleased to find myself in perfect agreement. -I myself should speak, as he does, of the “tactics of the phalanx of -axemen.”[74] It is particularly interesting to read in his latest work -(p. 57), that at Zülpich (A.D. 612), according to Fredegarius: - - So great was the press when the hostile masses [_phalanges_] - met and strove against each other, that the bodies of the slain - could not fall to the ground, but the dead stood upright wedged - among the living. - -For precisely the same phenomenon is described at the Battle of -Hastings. William of Poitiers says of the English: - - Ob nimiam densitatem eorum labi vix potuerunt interfecti. - -And Bishop Guy: - - Spiritibus nequeunt frustrata cadavera sterni, - Nec cedunt vivis corpora militibus. - Omne cadaver enim, vita licet evacuatum, - Stat velut illæsum, possidet atque locum.[75] - -There is nothing strange in this parallel between Zülpich and Hastings, -for Mr. Oman observes that: - - In their weapons and their manner of fighting, the bands of - Angles, Jutes, and Saxons who overran Britain were more nearly - similar to the Franks than to the German tribes who wandered - south.[76] - -At Poictiers “the Franks fought, as they had done two hundred years -before at Casilinum, in one solid mass,”[77] for their tactics were “to -advance in a deep column or wedge.”[78] We have seen that the “column” -of English axemen similarly fought, according to Mr. Oman, “arranged in -a compact mass.” - -Where the agreement is so complete, I need not labour the point -further. In my ‘Feudal England’ (pp. 354–8), I showed that Mr. -Archer’s views on the subject could not stand for a moment against -those of Mr. Freeman and Mr. Oman, to which they were directly opposed. - -In ‘Social England’--just as Mr. Freeman had written that both the -English and the Danes stood as a “wedge of infantry forming a wall with -their shields”[79]--Mr. Oman writes of their “wedge or column.” It is -only in his later work that he suddenly shifts his ground, and flatly -contradicts his own words: - - 1894. 1898. - - When Dane had fought Englishman, The Danes ... formed their - the battle had always shield wall.... The shield - been between _serried bodies_ wall (testudo, as Asser - [80] of foot soldiery, meeting pedantically calls it) is _of - fairly face to face _in the course not a wedged mass_,[80] - wedge_ or column, with its but only a line of shielded - shield wall of warriors warriors[81] (History of the - standing elbow to elbow, etc. Art of War,’ p. 99). - (‘Social England,’ p. 299). - -The writer’s “of course” is delightful. - - * * * * * - -This contradiction of himself, however, is as nothing compared with -that to which we are now coming. - -In his first work Mr. Oman wrote under Mr. Freeman’s influence. The -Normans, he held, at the Battle of Hastings, were confronted by -“impregnable palisades.” Nine years later, in his second description -of the battle, he substituted for these “impregnable palisades” an -“impenetrable shield wall.” - - 1885. 1894. - - The Norman knights, if unsupported His archers, if unsupported by - by their light infantry, cavalry, might have been driven - _might have surged for ever around off the field by a single - the_ IMPREGNABLE PALISADES. charge; his cavalry, if - The archers, if unsupported by unsupported by archers, _might - the knights, could easily have have surged for ever around - been DRIVEN OFF THE FIELD BY A the_ IMPENETRABLE SHIELD WALL - GENERAL charge. United, however, of the English. But by - by the skilled tactics of William, combining the two armies - the two divisions of the invading (_sic_) with perfect skill, he - army won the day (‘Art of War,’ won his crowning victory - p. 25). (‘Social England,’p. 299). - -The faithful _réchauffé_ of his former narrative only renders the -more significant Mr. Oman’s change of “impregnable palisades” to -“impenetrable shield wall.” For what had happened in the meanwhile to -account for this change being made? In July, 1892, there had appeared -in the ‘Quarterly Review’ my well-known article on “Professor Freeman,” -in which I had maintained that the English defence consisted, _not_ of -impregnable “palisades,” but only of an impenetrable “shield wall.” On -the furious and famous controversy upon this topic which followed, it -is quite unnecessary to dwell. Mr. Oman, we have seen himself adopted -the view I had advanced, and not, I hasten to add, on this point alone, -for with his whole description of the battle, as given in ‘Social -England,’ I am in complete agreement. The “shield wall” he mentions -twice.[82] Of “palisades,” intrenchments, or breastworks there is not a -word. - -And yet Mr. Oman, now, is not ashamed to write: - - I fear that I must plead that I was never converted. This being - so, Mr. Round cannot prove that I was.[83] - -What is the explanation of Mr. Oman’s statement? Simply that he has -again changed his view; and having first adopted that of Mr. Freeman, -and then abandoned it to adopt my own, he now, in turn, abandons -both, and advances a third (or fourth) at variance with both alike! -His Norman knights are still “surging”; but they “surge” against an -obstacle which has once more changed its character: - - The knights, if unsupported by the bowmen, might have surged for - ever against the _impregnable breastworks_. The archers, - unsupported by the knights, could easily have been driven off - the field by a general charge. United by the skilful hand of - William, they were invincible (‘History of the Art of War,’ p. - 164). - -What then were these “impregnable breastworks” which now make their -appearance in our old familiar passage? They are described on page 154, -where we read that “we must not think ... of massive palisading:[84] -they were merely - - wattled hurdles ... intended, perhaps, more as a cover against - missiles than as a solid protection against the horsemen, for - they can have been but hastily constructed things, put together - in a few hours by wearied men.” - -Let us place, side by side, Mr. Oman’s own words in this his latest -work: - - The knights, if unsupported by [The English defences] - the bowmen, might have constituted no impregnable - surged for ever against the fortress, but a slight - impregnable breastworks (p. 164). earthwork, not wholly impassable - to horsemen (p. 154). - -That they were, to say the least, “not wholly impassable” is evident -from the writer’s own description (p. 159) of the Norman knights’ first -charge “against the long front of the breastworks, which, in many -places, they must have swept down by their mere impetus.” Nay, “before -the two armies met hand to hand,” as Mr. Freeman observes,[85] a single -horseman--“a minstrel named Taillefer,” as Mr. Oman terms him--“burst -right through the breastwork and into the English line” (p. 158).[86] -Such, on Mr. Oman’s own showing, were his so-called “impregnable -breastworks” (p. 164). A single horseman could ride through them! - -We see then that, in this his latest work, he not only adopts yet -another view, but cannot adopt it consistently even when he does. - -To me there is nothing strange in all this shift and shuffle. It has -distinguished each of my opponents on this subject from the first. -Not only are they all at variance with one another: they are also -at variance with themselves. Alone my own theory remains unchanged -throughout. The English faced their foes that day in “the close array -of the shield wall.” Other defences they had none. - -Mr. Oman has actually advanced four theories in succession: - -(1) “The impregnable palisades.”[87] - -(2) “The impenetrable shield wall.”[88] - -(3) “An _abattis_ of some sort.”[89] - -(4) “Wattled hurdles.”[90] - -The third of these made its appearance after his description in ‘Social -England.’ “I still hold,” Mr. Oman wrote, “to the belief that there was -an _abattis_ of some sort in front of Harold’s line.” - -But how can he “still” hold to a belief which he has never expressed -before or since? For neither the first, second, or fourth of the -defences he gives above can by any possibility describe an _abattis_. -The New English Dictionary describes an _abattis_ as - - a defence constructed by placing felled trees lengthwise, one - over the other, with their branches towards the enemy’s line. - -The ‘Encyclopædia Britannica’ gives us a similar description, speaking -of this defence as constructed of “felled trees lengthwise ... the -stems inwards.”[91] One is driven to suppose that Mr. Oman is quite -unable to understand what an _abattis_ really is. - -We have now seen that the writer has actually given in succession four -entirely different descriptions of the defences of the English front, -while he has not the candour to confess that he has ever changed his -mind. - -At this I am not in the least surprised. As I have observed in ‘Feudal -England,’ p. 342: - - As for the defenders of the ‘palisade,’ they cannot even agree - among themselves as to what it really was. Mr. Archer produces - a new explanation only to throw it over almost as soon as it is - produced. One seeks to know for certain what one is expected to - deal with; but, so far as it is possible to learn, nobody can - tell one. There is only a succession of dissolving views, and - one is left to deal with a nebulous hypothesis. - -Even since these words were published, Mr. Oman has produced his fourth -explanation, and has produced it in conjunction with Mr. Archer, who -had previously enriched this series of explanations by two further -ones of his own. In one of them the “fenestres,” which Wace makes -the principal ingredient of the palisade, are rendered by Mr. Archer -“windows.”[92] In another he describes the English defence as “a -structure of interwoven shields and stakes,” “shields set in the ground -and supported by a palisade of stakes,” a defence into which “actual -shields have been built.”[93] It is only necessary to add that Mr. -Oman, who acknowledges here his “indebtedness to Mr. T. A. Archer,”[94] -tacitly, but absolutely, rejects both these phantasies, together with -Mr. Archer’s great theory that the English axemen were “shieldless” at -the battle,[95] and “could not or did not form the shield wall.”[96] -All this Mr. Oman rejects, though, of course, he is careful not to say -so; just as Mr. Archer, before him, had rejected views of Mr. Freeman, -while professing to defend his account of the battle against me.[97] - - * * * * * - -I have now shown that my opponents are still as unable as ever to agree -among themselves on the subject of the alleged English defence, and -that as to Mr. Oman, he contradicts himself, not only in successive -works, but even in a single chapter. A little _clique_ of Oxford -historians, mortified at my crushing _exposé_ of Mr. Freeman’s -vaunted accuracy, have endeavoured, without scruple, and with almost -unconcealed anger, to silence me at any cost. And they cannot even wait -until they have agreed among themselves. - -How entirely impotent they are to stay the progress of the truth -is shown by the fact that a German writer, Dr. Spatz, who has -independently examined the authorities and the ground, goes even -farther than myself in rejecting Mr. Freeman’s narrative, and -especially the palisade.[98] Sir James Ramsay also, on similarly -independent investigation, has been driven to the same conclusion, -which his recently published work embodies. Does Mr. Oman refer to Dr. -Spatz, whose work is a well-known one? No, he coolly states that “the -whole balance of learned opinion” is against me on this matter,[99] -although, as we have seen, neither he nor Mr. Archer accepts Mr. -Freeman’s narrative,[100] while their own recorded views hopelessly -differ (see pp. 43, 49). - -Again, Mr. Oman writes: - - I do not see what should have induced him [Wace] to bring the - wattled barrier into his narrative, unless it existed in the - tale of the fight as it had been told him, etc. (p. 153). - -And yet he made use of my ‘Feudal England,’ in which I set forth -prominently (pp. 409–416), as I had previously done in the ‘English -Historical Review’ (viii. 677 _et seq._; ix. 237), my theory that the -passage in Wace “is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat -confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury,” and that -he was clearly misled by the words “conserta ... testudine,” which -he did not understand. Mr. Archer discussed this theory, but did not -venture to reject it (Ibid.). Mr. Oman finds it safer to ignore it, and -to profess that he cannot imagine where Wace got the idea from, except -from oral tradition. - -It is the same with the arrangement of the English host. In his latest -work, Mr. Oman states, as a matter of fact, that the “house carles” -formed the centre, and that - - the fyrd, divided no doubt according to its shires, was ranged - on either flank (p. 155). - -There is no authority whatever for this view in any account of the -battle, and it is wholly at variance with Mr. Oman’s own view, as -stated in his earlier works. - - Backed (_sic_) by the disorderly There the house carles of King - masses of the fyrd, and by the Harold, backed (_sic_) by the - thegns of the home counties, thegnhood of all southern - the house carles of King Harold England and the disorderly - stood (‘Art of War,’ p. 24). masses of the fyrd of the home - counties, drew themselves out - (‘Social England,’ p. 229). - -In perfect agreement with these passages, I hold that “the well-armed -house carles,” as Mr. Oman terms them, formed the English front, and -were “backed” by the rest of the host.[101] Mr. Oman’s later view -involves a tactical absurdity, as I have maintained throughout.[102] -But here again Mr. Oman finds it the safest plan to ignore an argument -he cannot face. - -Let me, however, part from his narrative of the great struggle with -an expression of honest satisfaction that, even in his latest work, -he treats “the English host” as ranged “in one great solid mass” -(p. 154). This is the essential point on which I have insisted -throughout.[103] “No feature of the great battle is more absolutely -beyond dispute”;[104] and it absolutely cuts the ground from under Mr. -Archer’s feet.[105] - -I may add that the denseness of the English host is similarly grasped -by Sir James Ramsay, who has made an independent examination of the -battle, and has set forth his interesting and original conclusions in -his recently-published ‘Foundations of England.’ The ground plan of -the battle in his work should be carefully compared with that which is -found in Mr. Freeman’s History. For the two differ so hopelessly that -the wholly conjectural character of Mr. Freeman’s views on the matter -will at once be vividly shown. The bold conclusion of Sir James Ramsay -that the English host held only the little plateau at the summit of the -Battle hill, is at least in harmony with their dense array, and is very -possibly correct.[106] - - * * * * * - -I now turn from battles to castles--those castles which played so -prominent a part in Anglo-Norman warfare. - -Let us first glance at the moated mound, and then at the rectangular -keep. I do not desire, on the moated mound, to commit myself to all -Mr. Clark’s views; but practical archæologists, I need scarcely say, -are aware that the outer works of these most interesting strongholds -were normally of horseshoe or crescent form, the mound being “placed -on one side of an appended area.”[107] Mr. Oman, while acknowledging -in his book, and in the columns of the ‘Athenæum,’ his indebtedness -to Mr. Clark’s “admirable account of the topographical details of -English castles,” describes the old English burhs as “stake and foss -in concentric rings enclosing water-girt mounds” (p. 111). I pointed -out in the ‘Athenæum’[108] that “Mr. Clark, who did more than any one -for our knowledge of these burhs, was careful to explain,” in his -plans,[109] that their outer defences were not concentric, as Mr. Oman -asserts. - -Determined never to admit a mistake, Mr. Oman retorted: - - Of course, I am quite aware that in many burhs the outer works - are not purely concentric; but the concentric form is the more - typical. An admirable example of such a stronghold may be - seen on p. 21 of Mr. Clark’s book, where he gives the plan of - Edward’s burh of Towcester built in 921.[110] - -Yet, in dealing with the Norman shell keeps on these “old palisaded -mounds,” Mr. Oman actually, in his own book, admits, of their “outer -defences,” that - - as a general rule, the keep lies _not in the middle of the - space_, but at one end of it, or set in the walls ... as a - general rule the keep stands at one end of the enclosed space, - _not in its midst_.[111] - -This is the feature of these striking works for which I myself -contended, and which, on that account, Mr. Oman at once denied. - -As to the Towcester burh, I will place side by side my criticism and -Mr. Oman’s reply: - - MR. ROUND. MR. OMAN. - - A comparison of the plan on p. 21 He states that Towcester - with those on pp. 24, 25 will show burh, as drawn on p. 21 of Mr. - at once that the former is that of Clark’s Mediæval Military - the “water-girt mound” (as Mr. Architecture, is ‘a water-girt - Oman terms it) alone, and contains mound alone, with no outer - no “outer works,” concentric or works, concentric or other.’... - other.[112] Apparently Mr. Round cannot - read the simplest military - sketch; in this map there are - clear indications of outer - lines other than the mere - water.... In short, Mr. Round - is writing nonsense, and I - strongly suspect that he - knows it.[113] - -Any archæologist comparing the plans will see at once that my statement -is correct, and that the plan (compare the section) shows absolutely -nothing beyond the actual ditch of the mound. I offered to submit the -question to Mr. St. John Hope’s decision,[114] but Mr. Oman would -submit it to no one but his friend and coadjutor, Mr. York Powell, who -is not known as an authority on these works, and who is hostile to -myself because I exposed Mr. Freeman![115] - -Having now shown that, in his own words, Mr. Oman “cannot read the -simplest military sketch,” I pass to the siege of Rochester Castle, -famous for its rectangular keep, in 1264. This was an event that -deserves attention in a ‘History of the Art of War,’ for John had -breached the keep by mining half a century before, and the stately -structure had now to stand an energetic siege at the hands of Simon de -Montfort. A striking passage in Rishanger’s Chronicle tells us that, -advancing from London, - - comes autem de Leycestria, vir in omnibus circumspectus, - machinas et alia ad expugnationem castri necessaria secum a - civitate Londoniarum per aquam et per terram transvehi præcepit, - quibus inclusos vehementer impugnavit, nec eos indulgere quieti - permisit; exemplum relinquens Anglicis qualiter circa castrorum - assultationes agendum sit qui penitus hujusmodi diebus illis - fuerant ignari.[116] - -The barons promptly stormed the ‘outer bailey’ of the castle (April -19),[117] and strove desperately to gain the keep, till, a week later, -they fled suddenly at the news of the king’s advance on London.[118] -But so vigorous were the siege operations by attack, battery, and -mining, that they were on the point of succeeding when they had to -raise the siege.[119] - -Surely a ‘History of the Art of War’ should mention the above -remarkable allusion to Simon’s mastery of siege operations, and to his -teaching the English, who were then ignorant of the subject. But all -that Mr. Oman tells us is that-- - - the massive strength of Gundulf’s Norman keep was too much for - such siege appliances as the earl could employ. The garrison - under John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, held their own - without difficulty (p. 416). - -We have seen that, on the contrary, the keep was on the point of -being taken. But what are we to say to the words, “_Gundulf’s_ Norman -keep”? “It was long the custom,” as Mr. Clark wrote, “to attribute this -keep to Gundulf, making it contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the -Tower of London”; but, more than thirty years ago, it was shown by Mr. -Hartshorne (in the ‘Archæological Journal’) that it was built in later -days under William of Corbeuil (1126–1136).[120] No one, in the present -state of our knowledge, could suppose that Gundulf was its builder; and -it is obvious that a writer who does must have yet everything to learn -on Norman military architecture. - - * * * * * - -I must lastly deal as briefly as possible with the subject of knight -service. The view of modern historians has been that this was gradually -evolved during the Norman period out of a pre-conquestual obligation -to provide one armed man for every five hides held. As against this I -have advanced the theory[121] that the whole arrangement was introduced -_de novo_ at the Conquest, when the Conqueror assessed the fiefs he -granted in terms of _the five-knight unit irrespective of hidation_. -Put in a less technical form my theory is that the Conqueror called -on the holder of every considerable fief to furnish a contingent of -five knights, or some multiple of five, to the feudal host.[122] And -this he did arbitrarily, without reckoning the ‘hides’ that might be -contained in the fief. Further, by the _argumentum ad absurdum_, I -showed that if every five hides had to provide a knight, there would be -nothing, or less than nothing, left for the tenant-in-chief.[123] It -was of this new theory that Professors Pollock and Maitland observe, in -their history of English Law (i. 238–9), that they regard it “as having -been proved by Mr. Round’s convincing papers.” - -Mr. Oman, however, leans to the now exploded theory, and holds that -under Norman rule “the old notion that the five hides must provide -a fully armed man was remembered;”[124] and that though “some lay -tenants-in-chief” got off easily, “the majority were obliged to supply -their proper contingent.”[125] He then proceeds: - - It has been clearly shown of late, by an eminent inquirer into - early English antiquities, that the hidage of the townships was - very roughly assessed, and that the compilers of Domesday Book - incline towards round numbers. - -Now apart from the fact that this “eminent inquirer,” my friend -Professor Maitland to wit, gives me full credit for having been first -in the field[126]--a fact which Mr. Oman, with my book before him, of -course carefully ignores--his words show that he cannot understand the -simplest historical theory. Professor Maitland and I have dwelt on the -antiquity of this assessment, with which “the compilers of Domesday -Book” had no more to do than Mr. Oman himself, and which indeed the -compilation of that book has almost utterly obscured. - -From the fact of the five-hide unit Mr. Oman argues “that there was -little difficulty in apportioning the military service due from the -tenants-in-chief who owned them,”[127] though such apportionment, as I -have shown, would result in an actual absurdity.[128] Indeed, Mr. Oman -himself observes that the tenant-in-chief, to discharge his obligation, -“might distribute the bulk of his estate in lots roughly averaging five -hides to subtenants, who would discharge the service for him,”[129] -although a moment’s consideration will show that this process would -absorb not “the bulk,” but the whole of his estate. - -But all this is insignificant by the side of Mr. Oman’s double error -on the _vetus feoffamentum_. This begins on p. 359, which is headed -“The old enfeoffment,’” and which describes the distribution of fiefs -by William among the tenants-in-chief. On the next page he writes of -“the knights of ‘the old enfeoffment,’ as William’s arrangement was -entitled,” and proceeds to vouch my ‘Feudal England’ as his authority -for this statement! On the same page we read of the landholder’s -“_servitium debitum_ according to the assessment of the _vetus -feoffamentum_ of the Conqueror”; and further learn that Henry II. - - demanded a statement as to the number of knights whom each - tenant-in-chief owed as subtenants, how many were under the - ‘old enfeoffment’ of William I., and how many of more recent - establishment. - -We also read that-- - - the importance of King Henry’s inquest of 1166 was twofold. It - not only gave him the information that he required as to the - proper maintenance of the _debitum servitium_ due under the - ‘old enfeoffment’ of the Conqueror, but showed him how many more - knights had been planted out (_sic_) since that assessment - (p. 363). - -Again, on page 364 we read of “the ‘old enfeoffment’ of the eleventh -century,” and the phrase (which Mr. Oman quite properly places within -quotation marks) occurs in at least three other passages. - -It is quite evident that Mr. Oman imagines the _vetus feoffamentum_ -to be (1) the original distribution by the Conqueror (2) among the -tenants-in-chief. Both ideas are absolutely wrong. For (1) it had -nothing to do with “William’s arrangement”--which determined the -_servitium debitum_, a very different matter; and (2) it referred to -the _sub_-enfeoffment of knights by tenants-in-chief. The dividing -line between the “old” and the “new” feoffments, was the death of -Henry I. in 1135. All fees existing at that date were of the _antiquum -feoffamentum_; all fees created subsequently were of the _novum -feoffamentum_. This essential date is nowhere given by Mr. Oman, -who evidently imagined that the latter were those “of more recent -establishment” than “the old enfeoffment of William I.” - -The frightful confusion into which Mr. Oman has been led by his double -blunder is shown by his own selected instance, the _carta_ of Roger de -Berkeley in 1166. According to him, “Roger de Berkeley owed (_sic_) two -knights and a half on the old enfeoffment.”[130] Two distinct things -are here hopelessly confused. - -(1) Roger “owed” a _servitium debitum_ (not of 2½, but) of 7½ -knights to the Crown; and his fief paid scutage[131] accordingly in -1168, 1172, and 1190. - -(2) Roger “has” two and a half knights enfeoffed under the old -feoffment[132] (that is, whose fiefs existed in 1135), the balance -of his _servitium debitum_ being, therefore, chargeable on his -demesne,[133] as no knights had been enfeoffed since 1135. - -It is difficult to understand how the writer can have erred so -grievously, for it was fully recognised by Dr. Stubbs and by myself -(‘Feudal England,’ pp. 237–239) that 1135 was the dividing point.[134] -It may be as well to impress on antiquaries that fees “de antiquo -feoffamento” were fees which had been in existence in 1135, at the -death of Henry I., just as tenures, in Domesday Book, ‘T.R.E.,’ were -those which had existed in 1066, at the death of Edward; for with these -two formulas they will frequently meet. It is the “servitium debitum,” -not the “antiquum feoffamentum,” which “runs back,” as Mr. Oman -expresses it, to the Conquest. - -The result of his confusion is that his account of the origins (in -England) of knight service is not only gravely erroneous, but curiously -topsy-turvy. This is scarcely wonderful when we find on page 365 that -he is hopelessly confused about knights and serjeants, not having -grasped the elementary distinction between tenure by serjeanty and -tenure by knight service. From what I have seen of the author’s -account of the battle of Bannockburn, his errors, I imagine, are by -no means restricted to the subjects I have here discussed. A curious -combination of confidence and unwillingness to admit his mistakes, with -a haste or confusion of thought that leads him into grievous error, -is responsible, it would seem, for those misconceptions which render -untrustworthy, as it stands, his ‘History of the Art of War.’ - - - - - IV - - The Origin of the Exchequer - - -Historians have rivalled one another in their witness to the -extraordinary interest and importance of the twelfth-century Exchequer. -“The whole framework of society,” writes the Bishop of Oxford, “may be -said to have passed annually under its review.... The regular action -of the central power of the kingdom becomes known to us first in -the proceedings of the Exchequer.” Gneist insists on “its paramount -importance” while “finance is the centre of all government”; and in -her brilliant monograph on Henry the Second, Mrs. Green asserts “that -the study of the Exchequer is in effect the key to English history at -this time.... It was the fount of English law and English freedom.” -One can, therefore, understand Mr. Hall’s enthusiasm for “the most -characteristic of all our national institutions ... the stock from -which the several branches of the administration originally sprang.” -Nor does this study appeal to us only on account of its importance. -A glamour, picturesque, sentimental it may be, and yet dazzling in -its splendour, surrounds an institution possessing so immemorial an -antiquity that “Barons of the Exchequer” meet us alike in the days -of our Norman kings and in those of Queen Victoria. Its “tellers,” -at least coeval with the Conquest, were only finally abolished some -sixty years ago, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is believed to -represent that “clericus cancellarii” whose seat at the Exchequer of -the second Henry was close to that of the official ancestor of the -present secretary to the Treasury. Yet, older than these, older even -than the very name of the Exchequer, was its wondrous system of wooden -tallies, that hieroglyphic method of account which carries us back to a -distant past, but which, Sir John Lubbock has observed, was “actually -in use at the Exchequer until the year 1824.” Of all survivals of an -archaic age this was, probably, the most marvellous; it is not easy -to realize that even in the present century English officials were -keeping their accounts with pieces of wood which “had attained the -dimensions, and presented somewhat the appearance, of one of the wooden -swords of the South Sea Islanders.” It was an almost tragic feature -in the passing of “the old order” that when these antique relics were -finally committed to the flames, there perished, in the conflagration -said to have been thus caused, that Palace of Parliament which, like -themselves, had lingered on to witness the birth of the era of Reform. - -But what, it may be asked, was the Exchequer, and why was it so named? -The earliest answer, it would seem, is that of William Fitz Stephen, -who, in his biography of Becket, tells us that, in 1164, John the -Marshal was in London, officially engaged “at the quadrangular table, -which, from its counters (_calculis_) of two colours, is commonly -called the Exchequer (_scaccarium_), but which is rather the king’s -table for white money (_nummis albicoloribus_), where also are held -the king’s pleas of the Crown.”[135] The passage is not particularly -clear, but I quote it because it is not, I believe, mentioned by Mr. -Hall,[136] and because William Fitz Stephen knew his London well. The -questions I have asked above are those which avowedly are answered in -the first chapter of the famous ‘Dialogus de Scaccario’ (_circ._ 1178). -I need not, however, repeat in detail the explanations there given, -for they should be familiar from the works of Dr. Stubbs and of every -writer on the subject. Suffice it to say that while, in shape, the -‘Exchequer’, with its ledge, as Mr. Hall observes, was not unlike a -billiard table, “it derived its name from the chequered cloth” which, -says Dr. Stubbs, covered it, and which gave it a resemblance to a -chess board (_scaccarium_). Antiquaries have questioned this, as they -will question everything; but the fact remains that the symbol of the -Exchequer, of which types have been depicted by Mr. Hall, is that which -swings and creaks before the wayside ‘chequers,’ which once, in azure -and gold, blazed upon the hill of Lewes, and which still is proudly -quartered by the Earl Marshal of England. - -In the present paper I propose to consider the origin and development -of the institution, and to examine critically some of the statements in -the famous ‘Dialogus de Scaccario,’ of which the authority has hitherto -been accepted almost without question. - -It is alleged that a cruel hoax was perpetrated on the Royal Society by -that ‘merry monarch’ Charles II., who called on its members to account -for a phenomenon which existed only in his own imagination. Antiquaries -and historians have, with similar success, been hoaxed by Richard the -son of Nigel, who stated as a fact in his ‘Dialogue on the Exchequer,’ -that there is no mention of a ‘blanch’ ferm to be found in Domesday -Book. Richard proceeded to infer from this that those who spoke of -‘blanch’ ferm existing before the Conquest must be mistaken.[137] - -Dr. Stubbs actually accepts the statement that “the blanch-ferm is not -mentioned in Domesday,” but declares that Stapleton, in his well-known -argument,[138] has clearly shown it to have had “its origin in a -state of things that did not exist in Normandy, and was ‘consequent -upon the monetary system of the Anglo-Saxons.’ The argument,” he -writes, “is very technical, but quite conclusive.” Sir James Ramsay -also, though writing as a specialist on finance, contents himself -with citing Stapleton, through Stubbs, and with adding a reference to -“white silver” in the Laws of Ælfred,[139] and ignores the evidence in -Domesday Book. - -Now the index to the Government edition of Domesday is a very -imperfect production, but we need travel no farther than its pages to -discover that there is no difficulty to solve; for the “alba firma” is -duly entered under an Isle of Wight manor (i. 39 _b_). Moreover, -we read on the same folio of “lx solidos albos” and “xii libras -blancas” in a way that suggests the identity of the two descriptions. -But, further, we find, scattered over Domesday, ‘Libræ albæ,’ ‘blancæ,’ -and ‘candidæ,’ together with ‘libræ de albis denariis’ or ‘de candidis -denariis,’ and ‘libræ alborum nummorum’ or ‘candidorum nummorum.’ The -‘blanch’ system, therefore, was already quite familiar. This, however, -is not all. On the folio mentioned above (i. 39 _b_) we read of -another manor: “T. R. E. xxv lib. ad pensum et arsuram.” This can only -refer to that payment in weighed and assayed money, the method of which -is described in the ‘Dialogue’ under ‘Quid ad militem argentarium’ and -‘Quid ad fusorem’ (I. vi.). All this elaborate system, therefore, must -have been already in operation before the Conquest. - -But the ‘Dialogue’ asserts in its next and very remarkable chapter--“A -quibus vel ad quid instituta fuerit argenti examinatio”--that this -system was first introduced by the famous Roger, bishop of Salisbury, -the writer’s great-uncle, after he had sat at the Exchequer for some -years, and had discovered the need of introducing it.[140] Between -this statement and the evidence of Domesday the contradiction is so -absolute that a grave question at once arises as to the value of the -writer’s assertions on the early Norman period. Like the men of his -time, he revelled in texts, and loved to drag them in on every possible -occasion. One is, therefore, only following his example in suggesting -that his guiding principle was, “I magnify my office.” The greatness -and the privileges of a seat at the Exchequer were ever present in his -mind. But to this he added another principle, for which insufficient -allowance, perhaps, has hitherto been made. And this was, ‘I magnify -my house.’ Nor can one blame the worthy treasurer for dwelling on his -family’s achievements and exalting his father and his great-uncle as -the true pillars of the Exchequer. He was perfectly justified in doing -this; but historians should have been on their guard when he claims for -Bishop Roger the introduction of a system which Domesday Book shows us -as already in general operation.[141] - -Enlightened by this discovery, we can more hardily approach a statement -by the writer in the same chapter, which has been very widely repeated. -One need only mention its acceptance by such specialists as Stapleton, -in his work on the Norman Exchequer, and Mr. Hubert Hall, who, in his -work on the ‘Antiquities and Curiosities of the Exchequer,’ refers to -it four times.[142] He first tells us that - - for half a century after the Conquest there could have been very - little need of a central treasury at all, since the greater part - of these provisions formed an intrinsic portion of the revenue - itself ... which was still payable in kind. This point is both - important and interesting, and has been hitherto somewhat - overlooked by economic writers. The fact (which is probable - enough in itself) rests on high authority--that of the famous - treasurer of the first two Plantagenet kings (p. 4). - -Again, he writes on p. 161: - - We have seen that in the earliest times--previously, that is, to - the reorganization of the Exchequer under Henry I.--the revenue - of the sovereign was answered in two forms, namely, in specie - and in kind, the former drawn from judicial fines and farms of - towns, and the latter rendered, at an arbitrary assessment, by - the cultivators of the royal demensne.[143] - -The passage itself in the ‘Dialogus,’ which Mr. Hall translates _in -extenso_ (pp. 180–182), requires careful examination. The “high -authority” of which he speaks proves to be, in fact, only tradition, -for the opening words of the passage run: “Sicut traditum est a -patribus.” Now one would not strain unduly the words of the Dialogue’s -author, but his meaning may be fairly understood to be that the rents -of the royal demesne were not only paid in kind (for that he clearly -asserts), but were also valued in kind alone. For he thus describes the -change introduced under Henry I.: - - Destinavit [rex] per regnum quos ad id prudentiores et - discretiores cognoverat, qui circueuntes et oculata fide fundos - singulos perlustrantes, habita æstimatione victualium, quæ de - hiis solvebantur, redegerunt in summam denariorum. - -This can only imply the substitution of a money valuation for a rent -payable in kind. And yet we have to go no further than this very -chapter to learn that these rents had previously been reckoned in -money (not in kind). For if, as stated in the note below, they had, -when they were paid in kind, to be reduced by the king’s officers to a -money standard, it could only be because their amounts were due, not -in kind, but in money.[144] Fortunately, however, we are not dependent -on this obvious contradiction, for the evidence of Domesday makes it -certain that, just as the assay was employed under the Conqueror, and -indeed under the Confessor, instead of being first introduced under -Henry I., so the valuation in money of the rents from the royal demesne -was not a reform effected, as alleged, by the latter king, but was the -rule under William I.; and, indeed, almost as much the rule before the -Conquest.[145] We gather from Domesday that the Conqueror advanced the -commutation of the old “firma unius diei,” etc., for a sum of money; -but even under his predecessor there were only a few localities in -which the archaic system had lingered on. - -I have said something in ‘Feudal England’[146] of the “Firma unius -noctis,” and I would now add to the evidence that I there adduced on -this curious and interesting subject. - -In Devonshire we meet with a singular feature, which, I think, has -escaped attention. Exeter, we read, “reddit xviii. lib. per annum.” -I have elsewhere[147] discussed this payment, and shown that it was -strangely small; but I now proceed to a new point, namely, that the -figure 18 may prove highly significant. Lidford, Barnstaple, and -Totnes, we read,[148] “rendered” between them the same amount of -(military) service as Exeter “rendered”; and this service was equally -divided between them.[149] Now, if we turn from the service to the -payments made by this group of boroughs, we find that the “render” of -each was £3 a year, so that the whole group paid £9, exactly half the -“render” of Exeter.[150] - -If we follow the clue thus given us, and turn to the manors which Queen -Edith and Harold’s mother and Harold himself had held, but which, in -1086, had passed to the king,[151] we find these remarkable figures: -£15, £30, £45, £18, £48, £1½, £48 (formerly £23), £2, £6, £23 (formerly -£18), £24, £3, £18, £3, £18, £12, £18, £24, £4 (?), £24, £1 (?), £7, -£6, £6, £12, £8, £2, £3, £18, £20 (formerly £24). It is evident enough -that these “renders” are based on some common unit, like the ‘renders’ -of the comital manors in Somerset.[152] Moreover, we can trace, in -Cornwall, something of the same kind. The manor of royal demesne which -heads its survey “reddit xii lib. ad pondus et arsuram,”[153] and this -is followed by renders of £8, £5, £6, £3 (‘olim’), £18, £6, £3, £7, £6, -£6, £4, £5. Even a ‘render’ of £8 was duodecimal in a way; for on fo. -121 _b_ it occurs four times as £8 and thrice as “xii markæ.” - -Not only is the rent of these manors distinguished from that of those -in private hands by the form ‘reddit,’ instead of ‘valet,’ but the -render is stereotyped, being normally unchanged, while the ‘valet’ ever -fluctuates. The explanation I suggest for these archaic “renders” is -that they represent the commutation of some formerly existing payment -in kind similar to the “firma unius noctis.” If the unit of that -payment was commuted at a fixed rate, it would obviously produce that -artificial uniformity of which we have seen the traces in Devon and -Cornwall. We may thus penetrate behind these “renders” to an earlier -system then extinct. - -This conclusion is confirmed, I think, by some striking instances in -Hampshire.[154] Of ‘Neteham’ we read, “T.R.E. et post valuit lxxvi -lib. et xvi sol. et viii den.” (i. 38); and of ‘Brestone,’ similarly, -“T.R.E. et post valuit lxxvi lib. et xvi sol. et viii den.” (i. 38 -_b_). The explanation is found in these two entries on the latter fo.: - - Bertune. De firma regis E. Edlinges. Hoc manerium reddidit - fuit, et dimidiam diem firmæ dimidiam diem firmæ - reddidit in omnibus rebus ... T.R.E ... T.R.E. valebat - T.R.E. valebat xxxviii lib. et xxxviii lib. et viii sol. et iiii - viii sol. et iiii den. den. - -That is, I take it that the half-day’s ferm “rendered” T.R.E. was -worth £38 8_s._ 4_d._, so that the two other manors, for each of which -the sum was £76 16_s._ 8_d._, must originally have rendered a whole -‘firma.’ This gives us the value of the ‘firma’ for the other Hampshire -manors which “rendered.”[155] - -We will now return to the ‘Dialogus’ and its statements on the “firma -comitatus.” - -It is distinctly asserted, in the above passage, that the ‘firma -comitatus’ only dated from this reform under Henry I.[156] This is -at variance with the strong evidence set forth in my ‘Geoffrey de -Mandeville,’ that Geoffrey’s grandfather, who was dead before this -alleged reform, held Middlesex, Essex, and Herts at farm, the very -amount of the farm due from him being mentioned. But, indeed, in -Domesday itself there are hints, if not actual evidence, that the -‘firma’ was more or less in existence. In Warwickshire, for instance, -“T.R.E. vicecomitatus de Warwic cum burgo et cum regalibus Maneriis -reddebat lxv libras,” etc., etc. In Worcestershire, also, “vicecomes -... de Dominicis Maneriis regis reddit cxxiii lib. et iiii sol. ad -pensum.” Here we have exactly that “summa summarum” of which the -‘Dialogus’ speaks as a novelty introduced under Henry I.[157] Again, in -at least one passage (i. 85), we recognise a distinct allusion to the -“terræ datæ” system: - - De hoc Manerio tenet Giso episcopus unum membrum - WETMORE quod ipse tenuit de rege E. Pro eo computat - Willelmus vicecomes in firma regis xii lib. unoquoque anno. - -Now we know the history of this manor, which had been detached from the -royal demesne about a quarter of a century before, when Edward gave -it to bishop Giso on his return from his visit to Rome. It follows, -therefore, that £12 must have been, ever since, annually credited -to the sheriff, in consideration of the Crown having alienated this -manor.[158] We thus carry back to a period before the Conquest that -Exchequer practice of the 12th century, which is thus alluded to in -Stephen’s charter to Geoffrey earl of Essex (1141): - - Ita tamen quod dominica quæ de prædictis comitatibus data - sunt ... a firma prædicta subtrahantur et ... ad scaccarium - computabuntur.[159] - -I hasten to add that the Charter of Constance, the Conqueror’s -daughter, quoted by Stapleton from the Cartulary of Holy Trinity, -Caen, affords an exact parallel in the words: “et ei computabitur in -suo redditu cum dica.” But the fact remains that we can prove the -existence, under Edward the Confessor, of characteristic features -of the later Exchequer system, of which one, at least, as Stapleton -explained, must have been of English origin. - -What then was the change that took place on the introduction of the -Exchequer? How did it modify the system previously in existence? Our -only clue is found in the well-known words of the ‘Dialogus’: “Quod -autem hodie dicitur ad scaccarium, olim dicebatur ad taleas.” Writing -as a specialist on Exchequer history, Mr. Hall contends that “this -expression in itself denotes the actual place of receipt and issue -of the revenue rather than a court or council chamber.”[160] But one -cannot see that ‘scaccarium’ in itself denotes a court or council -chamber more than does ‘talea.’ The one was a chequered table, the -other a wooden tally. My own view is that the change really consisted -of the introduction of the chequered table[161] to assist the balancing -of the accounts. Previously, tallies alone would be used, and it -is noteworthy that even after the ‘Exchequer’ system was in full -operation, the deduction for the loss involved by ‘combustion’ was -still effected by tally.[162] I have little doubt that the ‘combustion’ -tally was in use in the 11th century for payments “ad arsuram et -pensum.” - -Instead, then, of the sheriffs’ accounts being balanced by the cumbrous -system of tallies, the introduction of the Exchequer table, very -possibly under Henry I., enabled them to be depicted to the eye by -an ingenious system of counters. To the modern mind it is strange, -of course, that, while the reformers were about it, they did not -substitute parchment, and work out the accounts on it. But, doubtless -for the benefit of unlearned sheriffs, the old system of ocular -demonstration was still adhered to, and the Treasurer’s Roll merely -recorded the results of the ‘game’ by which the accounts had been -worked out upon the table. - -Mr. Hall’s belief is best set forth in an article he contributed to the -‘Athenæum’ (November 27, 1886), and of which he reprinted this passage, -subsequently, in ‘Domesday Studies’ (1891): - - There is every reason for believing that the audit machinery - of the ancient Treasury at Winchester was sufficient for the - purpose.... It is true, indeed, that the earliest germ of the - Exchequer is perceptible in these accounts, which were, however, - audited not ‘ad scaccarium,’ but ‘ad taleas,’ _i.e._ in the - Treasury or Receipt at Winchester.... We find in the Pipe Rolls - the old Treasury at Winchester used as a permanent storehouse - for the reserve of treasure, regalia, and records, and we even - find Exchequer business transacted there by way of audit of - accounts, which formed a special office or ‘ministerium’ as late - as 1130 (Pipe Roll 31 Hen. I).[163] - -The purchase of the ‘ministerium thesauri Wintoniæ,’ recorded in -the Pipe Roll of 1130,[164] does not affect the question of audit. -There can be no question that the national Treasury, in 1130, was -at Winchester, or that the Treasurer’s official residence was there -also.[165] The really important passages on the roll, passages which I -venture to think have been generally misunderstood, are these: - - Et in præterito anno quando comes Gloecestriæ et Brientius - filius Comitis audierunt compotum de thesauro apud Wintoniam. - - De istis habuit Willelmus de Pontearc’ xxx li., de quibus - reddidit compotum quando comes Gloecestriæ et Brientius - audierunt compotum de thesauro apud Wintoniam. - -It has been assumed that these entries refer to the Exchequer business -of balancing the sheriffs’ accounts, and Madox even went so far as to -draw the conclusion, from their wording, that, at the time of the Roll, -Brian Fitz Count was Treasurer. The true meaning was exactly contrary, -and an interesting allusion is thus obscured. - -For the Pipe Rolls do not, as is sometimes imagined, display the -national accounts. They probably do not exhaust the receipts (for some, -it is believed, were paid ‘in camera’), and they certainly only record -a portion of the royal expenditure. What became of the money which -is so continually entered as paid ‘in Thesauro’? It found its way -into the national treasury, whence it was paid out as was required by -writ of ‘Liberate’ addressed to the Treasurer and chamberlains.[166] -Of these outgoings, in the 12th century, there is, it would seem, no -record; but they were certainly audited from time to time, the king -calling on the Treasurer to account for the money in his charge, as, -at the Exchequer, the Treasurer himself had called on the sheriffs to -account for the sums for which they were liable. To this ‘generalis -compotus,’ associated with the Winchester Treasury, there are, in the -‘Dialogus,’ several allusions which may have been somewhat overlooked. - - Quod thesaurarius a vicecomite compotum suscipiat, hinc - manifestum est, quod _idem ab eo cum regi placuerit - requiritur_.... Sunt tamen qui dicunt thesaurarium et - camerarios obnoxios tantum hiis quæ scribuntur in rotulis ‘in - thesauro,’ ut _de hiis compotus ab eis exigatur_ (i. 1). - - Raro inquam, hoc est, _cum a rege, vel mandato regis, a magnis - regni[167] compotus a thesaurario et camerariis regni totius - recepta suscipitur_ (i. 5). - - Thesaurarius et camerarii, nisi regis expresso mandato vel - præsidentis justiciarii, susceptam pecuniam non expendunt: - oportet enim ut habeant auctoritatem rescripti regis de - distributa pecunia, _cum ab eis compotus generalis - exigitur_ (i. 6). - - [De combustione] ... ut de summa ejus _thesaurarius et - camerarii respondeant_ (ib.). - -These are sufficient allusions to the Treasury, as distinct from the -Exchequer, account. I invite particular attention to this Treasury -audit, because, so far as I can find, it has hitherto escaped notice. -The second extract refers to the use of the £10,000 space on the -chequered table, and therefore proves the use of such a table for the -Treasury account as well. - -Now my point is that the earl of Gloucester and Brian ‘Fitz Count,’ -in 1130, were magnates (_magni regni_) delegated by the king, as -described in the second passage,[168] to audit the Treasurer’s account. -And this view is confirmed by the fact that William de Pont de l’Arche, -who here accounts to them, is styled by Dr. Stubbs “the Treasurer,” -and is, in any case, subsequently described as “custos thesaurorum -regalium.” Their mission had nothing, I hold, to do with that audit of -the sheriffs’ accounts, which was the annual function of the Exchequer. - -There is a remarkable entry on the roll of 1187 which alludes to an -overhauling of the national treasure at Winchester, at the beginning of -that year, the date proving that it was wholly unconnected with either -session of the Exchequer: - - Et in custamento numerandi et ponderandi thesaurum apud - Wintoniam post Natale, et pro forulis novis ad reponendum eundem - thesaurum et pro aliis minutis negociis ad predictum opus, - etc.... Et pro carriando thesauro a Wintoniâ ad Saresburiam et - ad Oxinford’ et ad Geldeford’ et ad plura loca per Angliam £4 - 8_s._ 3_d._ - -One might compare with these phrases the ‘Dialogus’ language as to the -knights, ‘qui et camerarii dicuntur, quod pro camerariis ministrant.’ - - Item officium horum est numeratam pecuniam, et in vasis ligneis - per centenos solidos compositam, ponderare, ne sit error in - numero, tunc demum in forulos mittere, etc. (i. 3). - -Also the description of the usher’s office: - - Hic ministrat forulos ad pecuniam reponendam, etc. (ib.). - -But the latter part of the entry (which is duly quoted by Eyton[169]) -is also of much importance. For in Mr. Hall’s work, under 1187, we only -read, ‘Treasure conveyed abroad from Winchester.’[170] - -It is an essential part of Mr. Hall’s theory, which makes the -“Westminster Treasury ... the principal Treasury of the kingdom,”[171] -that the Winchester Treasury was merely “an emporium in connection with -the transport of bullion (and especially of the regalia and plate), -as well as other supplies, _viâ_ Southampton, or other seaports, to -the Continent.”[172] But the above passage shows us, on the contrary, -treasure sent thence to Salisbury, Oxford, and Guildford. It is -manifest that treasure, despatched from Westminster to Oxford or -Guildford would not be sent _viâ_ Winchester. From this it follows that -Winchester was still a central Treasury, and not a mere ‘emporium’ -_en route_ to the south. It is certain that under Henry I., some -sixty years before, the session at Westminster of the Barons of the -Exchequer did not, as Stapleton observed, affect the position of the -national Treasury at Winchester. It is, then, equally certain that the -money received at that session must have been duly transmitted to the -Winchester Treasury. For that was where the treasure (in coined money) -was kept when Stephen succeeded at the close of 1135. - -The whole difficulty has arisen from Mr. Hall’s inability to -distinguish between the ‘Receipt’ at Westminster, where the money -was paid in, and the national Treasury at Winchester in which it was -permanently stored. This is, roughly speaking, like confusing a man’s -investments with his balance at his bankers. The steadily growing -importance of Westminster and the concurrent decadence of Winchester -led, of course, eventually, to the shifting of the central Treasury, -but at the time of the ‘Dialogus,’ in the days of Henry II., it is -clear that the Exchequer was not looked on as the seat of a permanent -Treasury. For the storage of treasure is always implied by the payment -for the light of the night watchman; and as to the watchman and his -light, the evidence of the ‘Dialogue’ is clear: - - Vigilis officium idem est ibi quod alibi; diligentissima - scilicet de nocte custodia, thesauri principaliter, et omnium - eorum quæ in domo thesauri reponuntur.... Sunt et hiis - liberationes constitutæ _dum scaccarium est, hoc est a die qua - convocantur usque ad diem qua generalis secessio_.... Vigil - unum denarium. Ad lumen cujusque noctis circa thesaurum, obolum - (i. 3). - -There is absolutely no escaping from these words: a watchman is only -provided for the treasure “while the Exchequer is in session”; its -treasury is temporary, not permanent. The whole passage, as it seems -to me, is absolutely destructive of Mr. Hall’s hypothesis of “the -existence of a permanent financial staff under the Treasurer and -chamberlains of the Exchequer at Westminster.”[173] - -The change from the “Treasury” to the “Exchequer” was, I hold, a -gradual process. Careful study of the annual revenues bestowed by our -sovereigns on the foreign houses of Tiron, Fontevrault, and Cluny[174] -proves clearly how insensibly the “Treasury at Winchester” was -superseded by the “Exchequer at London” as the place of payment. This -is especially the case with Tiron, where Henry I.’s original grant, -made about the middle of his reign, provides for payment “de thesauro -meo, in festo Sancti Michaelis, _Wintonie_.”[175] Under Richard I. -this becomes payable “at Michaelmas from his exchequer at London.”[176] -Documents between the two show us intermediate stages. - -Precisely the same gradual process is seen in the parallel development -of the chamberlainship of the “Exchequer” from that of the “Treasury.” -Just as Henry II., shortly before his accession, confirmed the grant -to Tiron as “de thesauro Wintonie,”[177] so he restored to William -Mauduit, at about the same time, “camerariam meam _thesauri_,” which -office was held by his descendants as a chamberlainship of the -_Exchequer_. - -The ‘Dialogus’ shows us the Treasurer and the two chamberlains of the -Exchequer as the three inseparable Treasury officers. Domesday connects -the first with Winchester by showing us Henry “thesaurarius” as a -tenant-in-chief in Hampshire. I propose to show that it also connects -one of the chamberlains with that county. In that same invaluable but -unprinted charter of which I have spoken above, which was granted at -Leicester (1153) to William Mauduit, Duke Henry says: - - Insuper etiam reddidi eidem camerariam meam thesauri cum - liberatione[178] et cum omnibus pertinentibus, castellum - scilicet de Porcestra ut supradiximus, et omnes terras ad - predictum camerariam et ad predictum castellum pertinentes, sive - sint in Anglia sive Normannia, sicut pater suus illam camerariam - cum pertinentibus melius habuit et sicut Robertus Maledoctus - frater suus eam habebat die quo vivus fuit et mortuus. - -This carries back the ‘cameraria thesauri’ (‘_illam_ camerariam’) -to the Domesday tenant, whose son Robert occurs in the earlier -Winchester Survey, and, though dead in 1130, is mentioned on the Roll -of that year (p. 37), in connection with the Treasury in Normandy. - -The history of Porchester, in the Norman period, has yet to be worked -out. Mr. Clark, for instance, tells us that the castle was “always in -the hands of the Crown,”[179] yet we find it here appurtenant to the -chamberlainship, and in Domesday (47 _b_) it was a ‘manor’ held by -William Malduith. The above charter, in my opinion, was one of those -which Duke Henry granted without intending to fulfil.[180] Porchester -had clearly been secured by the Crown, and Henry was not the man to -part with such a fortress. Of William Mauduith’s Domesday fief, Hartley -Mauditt (‘Herlege’) also was held by the later Mauduits; but they -held it still “per serjanteriam camar[ariæ] Domini Regis”[181] or “per -camerariam ad scaccarium.”[182] - -It should be added that the other chamberlainship of the Exchequer was -similarly a serjeanty associated with land. It cannot, however, be -carried back beyond 1156, when Henry II. bestowed on Warin Fitz Gerold, -chamberlain, lands in Wiltshire worth £34 a year, and in Berkshire -to nearly the same amount.[183] The former was the chamberlainship -estate, and reappears as Sevenhampton (near Highworth) in his brother’s -_carta_ (1166), where it is expressly stated to have been given to -Warin by the king.[184] It was similarly held by his heir and namesake -(with whom he is often confused), under John,[185] and by the latter’s -heir, Margaret ‘de Ripariis,’ under Henry III.[186] - -This estate must not be confused with that of Stratton, Wilts, which -was bestowed by John (to whom it had escheated) on the later Warin Fitz -Gerold, to hold at a fee-farm rent of £13 a year.[187] It is necessary -to make this distinction, because Mr. Hall, in dealing with the -subject, speaks of it as “held apparently by the Countess of Albemarle -as pertaining to the (_sic_) chamberlainship of England” (_sic_).[188] -On the same page he speaks of a deed, on page 1024 of the same volume, -whereby she “secures to Adam de Strattone, clerk, an annuity of £13, -charged on the farm of Stratton.” Reference to page 1024 shows that, -on the contrary, what she did was to make herself and her heirs -responsible to the Exchequer for the annual £13, which _was_ “the farm” -of Stratton (so that Adam might hold Stratton quit therefrom). This is -a further instance of Mr. Hall’s unhappy inability to understand or -describe accurately the documents with which he deals.[189] - -I have now traced for the first time, so far as I can find, the origin -of the two chamberlainships of the Exchequer. That of Mauduit can -be traced, we see, to a chamberlainship of the ‘Treasury,’ existing -certainly under Henry I., and possibly under the Conqueror. Of the -other the existence is not proved before 1156. Both, I have shown, were -associated with the tenure of certain estates. - -It is very strange that, in his _magnum opus_,[190] Madox not only -ignores, it would seem, this descent of the office with certain lands, -but gives a most unsatisfactory account of those who held the office, -confusing it, clearly, with the chamberlainship of England, and not -distinguishing or tracing its holders. - - * * * * * - -For the different standards of payment in use at the Exchequer, our -authority, of course, is the ‘Dialogus,’ but the subject, I venture to -think, is still exceedingly obscure. Even Mr. Hall, who has studied -so closely the ‘Dialogus,’ seems to leave it rather doubtful whether -payment in ‘blank’ money meant a deduction of 6_d._ or of 12_d._ on the -pound.[191] It will be best to leave the ‘Dialogus’ for the moment, and -take an actual case where the charters and the rolls can be compared, -and a definite result obtained. - -In Lans. MS. 114, at fo. 55, there is a series of extracts transcribed -from a Register of Holy Trinity (or Christchurch) Priory, London, in -which are comprised the royal charters relating to Queen Maud’s gift of -two-thirds of the revenues (ferm) of Exeter. First, Henry I. confirms -it, late in his reign,[192] as “xxv libras ad scalam,” the charter -being addressed to William bishop of Exeter, and Baldwin the sheriff -(_sic_). Then we have another charter from him addressed “Rogero -episcopo Sar[esbiriensi] et Baronibus Scaccarii,” and witnessed, -at Winchester, by Geoffrey de Clinton, in which it is “xxv libras -blancas.” Stephen’s charter follows, addressed to William bishop of -Exeter, and Richard son of Baldwin, the sheriff, in which again we have -“xxv lib. ad scalam.” Lastly, we come to an important entry that seems -to have remained unknown: - - In 1180, on St. Martin’s Day, king Henry issued (_fecit - currere_) his new money, in the 26th year of his reign, and - as the sheriff of Exeter (_Exon’_) would not pay the prior of - Christchurch, for Michaelmas term, £12 16_s._ 3_d._ “_secundum - pondus blancum_,” Prior Stephen obtained from the king the - following writ. - -Then follows a writ which clearly belongs not to 1180, but to an -earlier period. It is addressed “prepositis et civibus Exonie,” -and directs that the canons are to enjoy their rents as in -his grandfather’s time (‘Teste Manessero Biset dapifero, apud -Wirecestriam’). Next comes a passage so important that it must -be quoted in the original words, although, like the whole of the -transcript, it seems slightly corrupt. - - Comperuit igitur Paganus attornatus vicecomitis predicti in - Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta - predict[i] r[egis] Quod ecclesiam Christi London debere habere - predictos denarios blancos et ad scalam id est ad pondus qui - fuerint meliores in pondere quam illa nova moneta per vi _s._ - iii _d._ pro termino sancti Mich. arch. predicto. Et sic - predictus prior et conventus haberent quolibet anno xii _s._ vi - _d._ de incremento, XXV li. blanc. prout patet in carta sequenti. - -The writ of the earl of Cornwall, in 1256, which follows, is obviously -out of place for our period. Lastly, the canons record the triumph of -their case thus: - - Perlecta ista carta, constitutus est dies priori Stephano ad - peticionem Pagani clerici gerentis vices vicecomitis Exonie a - Justicia idem cancellario et baronibus scaccarii ut innotesceret - causam istam vicecomiti predicto. Et sic predicti prior et - conventus reciperent predictos xii li. xvi _s._ iii _d._ infra - xii dies natalis domini de tali moneta qualis tunc curreret. - Et ibidem (_i.e._ inde) fuerunt plegii Radulphus de Glanvilla - tunc Justicia Regis et Rogerus filius Reinfridi et Alanus de - Furnellis, coram hiis testibus Gaufrido episcopo Eliensi; - Ricardo thesaurario Regis, postea episcopo Londoniensi; Roberto - Mantello; Michaele Belet; Edwardo clerico; Elia hostiario, et - multis aliis. Ad terminum vero predictun* Willelmus, vicecomes - Exonie, de (_sic_) Br[iwerre], etc. - -So at length the prior received the full amount “numeratos, blancos, ad -scalam, tales (eis) quorum xx solidi numerati fecerunt libram Regis.” - -Corrupt though the text in places is, the outline of the story is clear -enough, and is supported by such record evidence as survives. The local -authorities, clearly, were directed to pay the canons £25 “ad scalam” -annually, “hoc est,” says the ‘Dialogus,’ “propter quamlibet numeratam -libram vi _d._” This is fully borne out by the Pipe Rolls which both -in 1130 and under Henry II. record the annual payment as £25 12_s._ -6_d._ “numero.” When the new coinage became current in 1180, the local -authorities evidently claimed that as they had to pay in standard -coin, they ought no longer to be liable for the 12_s._ 6_d._ excess -which they paid under the old system. The case, however, was given -against them, apparently on the ground that they were liable for 6_d._ -additional on every “numbered” pound, irrespective of the quality of -the coin. - -The difficulty is created by the use of the term “blancos” throughout -as equivalent to “ad scalam,” an equation which is certainly found in -the text of the charters. It will, however, be better to discuss this -point when dealing with the blanch system as a whole. - -Before leaving the above case, we should notice, first, that the -crown had a ‘roll,’ on which were recorded such charters as this of -Henry I. I do not remember mention of such a roll elsewhere. The -question irresistibly suggests itself whether we have not here the -origin of those “Cartæ Antiquæ,” of which the existence, I am given to -understand, has ever yet been accounted for. On turning to these most -interesting records we find that Roll N commences with twenty-three -charters to Holy Trinity Priory, all of them previous to the middle of -Henry II.’s reign. They are transcribed in a hand of the period, those -which follow being later additions. It seems to me, therefore, that in -this “Roll N” we may have the actual “Rotulus Regis,” produced in court -before Glanville, which contained, as does “Roll N,” the charter of -Henry I. - -It would seem probable that such charters were already kept in the -Treasury, for reference, under Henry I., though not as yet enrolled. -For a writ of the latter king, addressed to Richard son of Baldwin -(sheriff of Devon) and G. ‘de Furnellis’ directs them to discharge -the land of the canons of Plympton “de geldis et assisis et omnibus -aliis rebus, quia episcopus Sarum _recognovit per cartam de thesauro -meo_ quod ipsa ex toto ita quieta est.”[193] - -Secondly, we should note that, although the narrative assigns the issue -of the new coinage to November 11 (1180), yet the sheriff’s deputy -raised his claim at Michaelmas (for that half year’s term). That he -did so is in harmony with the current Pipe Roll, which, as Eyton has -shown, had numerous references to the change of coinage having been in -progress. Lastly, we have here an Exchequer case, hitherto, I believe, -unknown, and learn the names of the officials present, which harmonize -with what we know _aliunde_ of the judicial and financial _personnel_ -at the time. - -Apart from the “rotulus Regis” discussed above, the Exchequer, it -would seem, enrolled its decisions even under Henry II. We read in -the chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelonde that Abbot Sampson, called -upon to contribute, on behalf of St. Edmund’s Abbey, to a “communis -misericordia” imposed on the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, went -to the king at Clarendon [? February, 1187] and obtained from him -a writ directing “ut sex milites de comitatu de Norfolchia et sex -de Suffolchia summonerentur ad recognoscendum coram baronibus -scaccarii utrum dominia Sancti Ædmundi deberent esse quieta de -communi misericordia.”[194] When the knights had found their verdict, -“justiciarii assidentes veredictum illorum inrollaverunt.” - - * * * * * - -We may now return to the reckonings in use at the early Exchequer. - -It may fairly be said that in 1130 the _normal_ method of accounting -for the ferm was the payment by the sheriff of silver “ad pensum,” the -allowance to him of his outgoings “numero,” and the reckoning of the -balance in “blanch” money. The counties of which the sheriffs paid in -their silver “ad pensum” were Notts and Derby, Hampshire, Surrey with -Cambridgeshire and Hunts, Essex and Herts, Gloucestershire, Northants -and Leicestershire, Norfolk and Suffolk, Warwick, Lincolnshire, Berks -and Devon, seventeen in all. Dorset and Wilts, Kent, and Bucks and -Beds, that is five counties, had their silver paid partly “ad pensum” -and partly “numero.” Northumberland, Carlisle, and Sussex, were -accounted for “numero,” in accordance with the ‘Dialogus.’[195] For -Yorkshire the silver was paid in “numero,” but the balance accounted -for “blanch”; Cornwall seems to be accounted for “numero.” London and -Staffordshire alone have sheriffs who pay in their silver “blanch.” - -In this labyrinth of account one point at least is clear. The outgoings -credited to the sheriff “numero” were “blanched,” exactly as described -in the ‘Dialogus,’ by a uniform deduction of a shilling in the -pound.[196] This is proved by the account for the outstanding ferm -of Berkshire, rendered by Anselm _vicomte_ of Rouen.[197] He has to -account for £522 18_s._ “blanch.” For this he pays in £251 6_s._ 8_d._ -“blanch,” claims £63 4_s._ 5_d._ “numero” for money disbursed by the -king’s writ, and is left owing £211 10_s._ “blanch.” Now, if we deduct -a shilling in the pound from £63 4_s._ 5_d._, we obtain £60 1_s._ -2½_d._ “blanch.” Adding up the three “blanch” amounts, we have £522 -17_s._ 10½_d._, which is within a penny halfpenny of the sum he has to -account for. - -We may further say that this Pipe Roll reveals a tendency to reduce -all the ferms to a “blanch” denomination; that is to say that the -balance left outstanding is normally given in “blanch” money, and -accounted for accordingly in a subsequent year. Moreover, when it -is so accounted for, the sheriff pays in his money, not “ad pensum” -but “blanch.” Examples of this are found in the cases of Wilts and -Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey with Cambridge and Hunts, Essex and Herts, -Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Northants, etc. It seems to be -only when a sheriff is rendering his account “de Nova Firma” that he -pays in money “ad pensum.” The provoking practice of not recording the -amount of the ferm to be accounted for makes it impossible to check -these different methods of reckoning. In the case, however, of Bosham, -we have the “veredictum” in the ‘Testa’ that its annual ferm was “xlii -libras arsas et ponderatas”; and though this of itself might be slight -evidence,[198] it is in harmony with the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. Now in -that of 1130 the ferm is thus accounted for: - - £ _s._ _d._ - - 27 3 8 ‘ad pensum.’ - 0 5 0 ‘numero.’ - 0 8 0 ‘ad pensum.’ - 16 0 10 ‘blanch.’ - -This is equivalent to £16 5_s._ 7_d._ ‘blanch’ plus £27 11_s._ 8_d._ -‘ad pensum.’ If then the total ferm was £42 ‘blanch,’ we have an excess -of £1 17_s._ 3_d._ ‘ad pensum.’ If this calculation is to be depended -on, it would give us a deduction of about sixteenpence in the pound -from the weighed money when subjected to assay. - -In 1157, the ferm was accounted for as follows: - -£31 13_s._ 8_d._ “blanch,” paid in by sheriff. - -13_s._ 4_d._ “numero,” already to his credit. - -£12 7_s._ 4_d._ “numero,” paid out. - -Deducting, as before, a shilling in the pound from the sums reckoned -“numero,” we find them amount to £12 7_s._ 8_d._ “blanch.” Adding -this amount to the £31 13_s._ 8_d._ “blanch,” we have £44 1_s._ 4_d._ -to the accountant’s credit. But the ferm was only £42 “blanch.” He -had, therefore, a “superplus” of £2 1_s._ 4_d._ “blanch,” and that is -precisely what the roll records that he had. We may then, from this -comparison, conclude positively that the money paid in “ad pensum” was -liable to a further deduction when the assay made it “blanch.” - -The case of Bosham certainly suggests that in the time of Henry I. the -ferm on the “Rotulus exactorius” might be reckoned in ‘blanch’ money, -even where the accountant paid in his cash by weight. But what is -obscure is why the cash so paid should be merely entered ‘ad pensum,’ -instead of its assayed value being recorded as under Henry II. For this -value must have been ascertained in order to balance the account. - -It is noteworthy that, although the ‘Dialogus’ speaks of payment “ad -scalam,” as entered on the rolls of Henry I., the phrase is not found -on the roll of 1130. In the case of Exeter, as we have seen, the £25 -“ad scalam” were entered on the roll as £25 12_s._ 6_d._ “numero.” -Broadly speaking, the impression created by the Roll of 1130 is that -the administration was endeavouring to systematize the ‘ferm’ payments, -which, we may gather from the evidence of Domesday, had been almost -chaotic in diversity. From the earliest rolls of Henry II. we find a -uniform “blanch” system (with the trifling exceptions the ‘Dialogus’ -mentions), which testifies probably to further reforms between 1130 -and 1139 (when bishop Roger fell). There remained, however, the sad -confusion caused by the several meanings of “blanch”; the true assay -involving a deduction of variable amount; the fixed deduction of a -shilling in the pound, to “blanch” the money paid out “numero”; and -the fixed addition of sixpence in the pound (“numero”) to sums granted -“blanch,” as in the Exeter case. - - * * * * * - -If, in conclusion, it be asked what was the origin of the Exchequer, -the answer is not one that can be briefly given. In the first place, it -must not be assumed that “the Exchequer” was bodily imported, as a new -and complete institution, from Normandy to England or _vice versâ_. - -In the second place, the ‘Dialogus’ we have seen, is by no means an -infallible authority for the events of the Norman period. In the third -place, its author was biassed by his eagerness to exalt bishop Roger, -his relative and the founder of his family. - -Leaving that treatise aside for the moment, the evidence adduced -in this paper points to the gradual development of the ‘Exchequer’ -out of the ‘Treasury’ under Henry I. And this view is curiously -confirmed by the remarkable, perhaps unique, narrative in the Abingdon -Cartulary[199] of a plea held in the _curia regis_ “apud Wintoniam -in thesauro.” This plea cannot be later than 1114, and it is difficult -to resist the impression that “in thesauro” is purposely introduced, -and represents the “ad scaccarium” of later days. That is to say, -that the hearing of pleas was already connected with the financial -administration,[200] probably because its records were, in certain -cases, needed. - -I have suggested that the gradual change of name may have been -a consequence of the introduction of the ‘chequered cloth’ -(_scaccarium_). But this innovation, probably, was only one of those -which marked the gradual transition to the final Exchequer system. -Even under Henry II., for instance, Master Thomas Brown and his third -roll were, says the ‘Dialogus,’ an utter innovation, and the place -assigned to Richard of Ilchester seems to have been the same. Thus the -system was by no means complete at bishop Roger’s death, nor, on the -other hand, were its details, even then, his own work alone. He did but -develop what he found. - -It is quite possible that further exploration of that most fertile -field for discovery, the cartularies of monastic houses, may cast a -clearer light on this institutional development. For it was a belated -document transcribed in the cartulary of Merton that has enabled -me[201] to prove the existence of the Exchequer _eo nomine_ in -Normandy under Henry I. But it is not likely that such discovery will -materially affect the views which I have enunciated above on the origin -of the English Exchequer. For, after all, they are, in the main, the -same as those which Dr. Stubbs, with his sound instinct, shadowed forth -when the evidence was even less. - -If I have gone further than himself, it has been in criticising more -searchingly the authority of the ‘Dialogus de Scaccario’ for the reign -of Henry I., in demonstrating the actual evolution of the “scaccarium” -from the “thesaurus,” and in tracing the origin of the chamberlain’s -office and its feudal, tenurial character. The alternative use of -‘blancæ’ and ‘ad scalam’ in the reign of Henry I. is, I believe, a -new discovery, and so, it would seem, is that Treasury audit on which -I have laid special stress. Petty details, it may be said, and of -slight historical importance. So thought Richard the son of Nigel, -pleading: “nec est vel esse potest in eis subtilium rerum descriptio, -vel jocunda novitatis inventio.”[202] And yet he heard the student’s -cry: “cur scientiam de scaccario quæ penes te plurima esse dicitur -alios non doces, et, ne tibi commoriatur, scripto commendas?” For as -we have been reminded by the publication of the ‘Red Book of the -Exchequer, it may be true now as then, even of those who are steeped in -its records, that “sicut qui in tenebris ambulant et manibus palpant, -frequenter offendunt, sic illic multi resident qui videntes non vident, -et audientes non intelligunt.”[203] - - - - - V - - London Under Stephen - - -The famous claim of the citizens of London at the death of Henry I., -that the election of a king rested with themselves;[204] and the -prominent part they actually took in placing Stephen on the throne, -after making special terms with him,[205] impart peculiar interest to -such glimpses as records afford us of the government, institutions, and -leading citizens of London in Stephen’s days. Of these I have treated -at some length in my work on Geoffrey de Mandeville,[206] but the -information there given can now be supplemented by documents relating -to the two ancient religious foundations of Holy Trinity Priory, -Aldgate, and the collegiate church of St. Martin’s-le-Grand. - -The earliest of these with which I shall deal is assigned to the second -year of Stephen, and is taken from the cartulary of Holy Trinity, now -preserved at Glasgow, of which there is a modern collated transcript -in the Guildhall Library. It has never yet, I believe, been printed. -As Stephen was absent in Normandy from Midlent to the end of November, -1137, the episode must belong either to the early months of the year or -to its close.[207] The text seems slightly corrupt in places, but is -trustworthy enough for all purposes. The first points of interest to -be noted are that Arnulf archdeacon of Séez, afterwards the well-known -bishop of Lisieux, who here appears at Stephen’s court, had been, as -I have shown, the year before, his spokesman before the Pope when his -right was challenged by the Empress;[208] and that Andrew Buchuinte, -a leading citizen, was clearly “Justiciar of London” at the time, in -accordance with my theory that such an office was actually created by -the well-known charter of Henry I.[209] - -It should also be observed that the question of title is carried back -straight to the days of Edward the Confessor, and is decided by the -oath of twenty-one men, familiar, evidently, with the locality, in the -style of the 11th century. The list of jurors is headed by Or(d)gar ‘le -prude,’ who seems to have become a monk (_monachus_) since he had -taken so prominent a part in transferring the ‘soke’ of the Cnihtengild -to Holy Trinity Priory in 1125.[210] - -The land in dispute was in “East Smithfield,” within the soke of the -Cnihtengild, which lay outside the wall from Aldgate to the Thames, and -therefore adjoined immediately the Tower precinct. The Priory having -now acquired the soke, complained that successive constables of the -Tower had encroached upon this land to make a vineyard. The document -which follows records the result.[211] - - Secundo autem anno regni Stephani Regis quodam vice cum - esset Rex Westm[onasterio] adiit prefatus prior [Normannus] - assistentibus et auxiliantibus sibi Regina Matilde ipsius Regis - conjuge, Algaro episcopo Constanciensi, Rogero tunc cancellario, - Arnulfo archidiacono Sagiensi, Willelmo Martel dapifero, Roberto - de Courcy, Albrico de Ver, Gaufrido de Magnavilla, Hugone le - Bigot, Adam de Balnai, Andrea Buchuinte, pluribusque aliis - burgensibus Londoniæ, adiit eum et diligenter ostendit qua vi - vel injuria pars illa a reliqua fuerit separata; advocat’ et - Aschuillo coram Rege quesitum est ab quo jure partem illam - tenuisset et quid super eam clamasset. Ipse vero r[espo]ndit se - nil super ea clamare, sed _sic inquit: tenui_[212] Tunc - Rex viva voce Andr[eæ] Justiciario suo ceterisque Burgensibus - qui ibi aderant precepit (?) ipsis et ceterisque per breve suum - mandavit quatinus certum diem priori constituerent in quo super - eandem terram convenientes rem rationabiliter examinarent, - examinata autem sic permaneret quemadmodum fuerat in tempore - Regis sancti Eadwardi.[213] Quod si prior potuisset ostendere - partem illam esse de predicto jure ecclesie sine dilacione - seisiatur. Quod ita factum est. Statuto die super eandem terram - convenerunt ex una parte prior cum coadiutoribus suis, ex alia - parte Andreas Buchuinte et plures alii maiores et meliores - Lond[onie]. Ratione igitur deducta a tempore sancti Eadwardi - Regis usque ad illum diem quo hoc fiebat, inventum est et - ostensum illam partem ad reliquam pertinere et totam similiter - de predicto jure. Quod et ibidem probatum est multis testibus - et sacrament’ xxj^o hominum quorum hec sunt nomina: Orgarus - Monachus cognomento le prude, Ailwinus filius Radumf’ Estmund’ - Alfricus Cherch’ Briccred Cucherd Wlfred’ Semar Batum Alsi - Berman Wlpsi faber Alfwin Hallen Leuesune faber Wlwin’ Abbot, - Ailwin’ clericus, Algarus frater Gerald’, Wlfric carnifex, - Elfret Cugel Wlfric’ Edric’ Modheuesune Godwinus Balle; et multi - alii parati fuerunt jurare, sed isti judicati sunt sufficere. - Hoc itaque modo hæcque ratione et justicia tota illa terra et - soca adjudicatum est predicte ecclesie. Quam Stephanus Rex - confirmat prefate ecclesie (vel priori?) per cartam sequentem. - - Stephanus Rex Angl[orum] Episcopo London[iensi] Justic[iariis], - vicecomitibus, baronibus, Ministris, et omnibus fidelibus suis - Francis et Anglis lond[oniæ] salutem. Sciatis quia reddidi - et concessi deo et ecclesiæ sanctæ Trinitatis Lond[oniæ] et - canonicis regularibus ibidem deo[214] servientibus pro anima - Regis Henrici et pro salute mea et Matild[is] Regine uxoris - meē et Eustac[ii] filii mei et aliorum puerorum meorum in - perpetuum terram suam de Smethefelda quam comes Gaufridus - preoccupaverat ad vineam suam faciendam. Quare volo et firmiter - precipio quod bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice - teneant et habeant terram predictam sicut melius et liberius et - quietius tenent alias terras suas et sicut Rex Henricus illam - eis concessit et carta sua confirmavit. - - Testibus: Matilde regina, et Thoma capellano, et Willelmo de - Ipra, et Ricardo de Luci. Apud Lond[oniam.][215] - -The charter which follows, being granted by Geoffrey de Mandeville as -earl, may safely be assigned to 1140–1144. It is difficult to resist -the impression, from the appearance among the witnesses of a Templar -and two doctors, that this was an act of restitution by the earl when -he was lying on his deathbed in 1144.[216] - - Item Gaufridus comes Essex ac constabularius principalis Turris - renunciavit totum clamorem suum de predicta terra ut p[atet] per - cartam sequentem. - - Gaufridus comes Essex Episcopo Londoniensi et omnibus fidelibus - sancte ecclesie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse ecclesie - Christi Lond[onie] et fratribus in ea degentibus molendina - sua juxta Turrim et totum terram extra quæ pertinebat ad - Engliscnithtengildam[217] cum Smethefelda et hominibus et - omnibus aliis rebus eidem pertinentibus. Reddo et eis dim. hidam - de Brembelega in terra et pratis et pascuis et omnibus aliis - rebus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus sicut Willelmus filius - Widonis eam eis dedit cum canonicalem habitum reciperet. Et volo - et precipio ut prefatas terras teneant de me et heredibus meis - liberas et quietas et solutas ab omni calumpnia et seculari - servicio ita ut nec heredes mei nec meis imposterum aliquam canc - super hiis liceat inuriam vel contumeliam irrogare. - - Hiis testibus: Roh[ais]a comitissa uxore mea; Gregorio - dapifero; Pagano de Templo; Warino filio Geroldi; Radulfo de - Crichtote;[218] Gaufrido de Querendun; Ernulfo medico; Iwodo - medico. Et similiter concedo eis imperpetuum i marcam argenti de - servicio Edwardi de Seligeford testimonio prescriptorum testium - et Willelmi archidiaconi London’. - - Hec omnia acta fuerunt anno ij^o Regis Stephani istis - astantibus, audientibus, et videntibus: Radulfo filio Algodi, - Radulfo cancellario Sancti Pauli, Hacone decano, Willelmo - Travers, Gilberto presbitero, Lungo presbitero, Wimundo - presbitero, Josepho presbitero, Godefrido presbitero, Johanne - presbitero, Huberto presbitero, Leofwino presbitero, Godardo - presbitero, Alurico presbitero, Ricardo presbitero, Jacobo - clerico, Gervasio clerico, Willelmo clerico, Andrea Buchuinte, - Stephano Bukerel, Willelmo camerario, Radulfo filio Andree, - Laurentio Buchuinte, Theodorico filio Dermanni, Johanne - Buchuinte, Stephano Bukerel, Gileberto Beket, Gervasio filio - Agn[etis], Hugone filio Ulgari, Eustachio nepote Fulcredi, - Walkelino, Roberto filio Radulfi fratribusque ejus Ricardo et - David, Ailwardo fabr’, Edmundo Warde Aldermanno, Edwardo filio - Simonis (?) Edgaro Fulōe, Edward Roberto fil. But’ Alfego - Ailwino Godwino Radulfo Godesune et Algaro filio eis et Edmundo - fratre eius Huneman Suethin Edwardo Her’ Godwino Bredhers - Herewardo Geraldo Rufo Sexi Forfot, Godwino Oxefot Johanne filio - Edwini Sawardo Siredo ceterisque multis non solum. - -With this latter portion of the document we return to 1137, and meet -with names of considerable interest. Foremost among these is that of -Gilbert Beket, the first mention, I believe, of him in a document that -has ever come to light. Ralf son of Algod, who heads the list, had -also headed the list of the fifteen citizens by whom the Cnihtengild’s -soke had been given to the Priory in 1125. He also appears in charge -of one of the city wards in the list of _circ._ 1130.[219] Was he -identical with Ralf son of Algod, who occurs as a canon of St. Paul’s -in 1104 and 1132?[220] For my part, I think that he was. Improbable -though the combination may seem, there can be little doubt that the -canons of St. Paul’s were as closely connected at the time with secular -life in London as they were with farming in Essex. Hugh, son of -Wulfgar, to take another of these names, had been, like Ralf, among the -fifteen of the Cnihtengild list, twelve years before, and, like him, -had charge of a ward in the list of _circ._ 1130. He was a London -magnate of whom we shall hear more. - -The names of these two men raise an important question. That ancient -and remarkable institution, the English Cnihtengild of London, remains -shrouded in mystery. It is known to us only through the gift of its -soke to Holy Trinity Priory, and the consequent preservation, among -that Priory’s monuments, of charters confirming that soke, from Edward -the Confessor downwards. Stow made use of the Priory’s cartulary, -and states the facts accurately enough. Mr. Coote, in 1881, rendered -valuable service by printing, from the Guildhall Letter Books, -the documents relating to “the English Gilds of Knights and their -socn’,”[221] but fell into the error of supposing that “after thus -parting with their land all these gentlemen entered religion in the -same convent which they had thus benefited.”[222] Writing some years -later (1887), with the St. Paul’s documents before him, Mr. Loftie, in -his well-known book, went further still. “There can be no doubt,” he -writes,[223] “if any doubt existed before, that the governing body of -London was the Knightenguild, as Stow calls it.” This assumption seems -to be based on the view that among its fifteen named representatives -(1125) “there was a very large proportion of aldermen,[224] and that -those who do not seem themselves to have held office were the sons or -the brothers of aldermen.”[225] Admitting that a few out of the fifteen -can, like Ralf and Hugh above, be identified with those who had charge -of wards _temp._ Henry I., this no more proves that the gild -itself was “the governing body of London” than would the presence of -some Aldermen among the members of a city company to-day prove that -it occupied that position. It is not improbable, by the way, that -the gild had become, like a modern city company, a mere propertied -survival. But, apart from the question of its status, what we have to -consider is whether the fifteen magnates of 1125 did, as alleged, enter -the Priory themselves as canons when they made their gift.[226] Mr. -Loftie positively asserts that they did: - - The lords of the adjacent manor, the portsoken, then fifteen in - number, members of the Knightenguild, and all, or nearly all, - aldermen,[227] took the resolution, so characteristic of the - religious life of the twelfth century, to enter Norman’s priory - ... dedicating their own lives, etc.[228] - -This view is absolutely erroneous, and rests on a misunderstanding of -the words-- - - Suscipientes fraternitatem et participium beneficiorum loci - illius per manum Normanni prioris, qui eos et predecessores suos - in societatem super textum evangelii recepit.[229] - -This, of course, is merely the usual admission of benefactors to a -share in the spiritual benefits appertaining to the brotherhood. The -fact that the benefactors’ “predecessors” were admitted also should -have clearly shown that there was no question of personally becoming -canons in the Priory.[230] - -As a matter of fact several of the fifteen citizens can, from records, -be identified and traced, if only we reject, at the outset, the whole -of the wild confusion into which Mr. Loftie has plunged them.[231] -We may take, for instance, “Ailwinus et Robertus frater eius filii -Leostani,”[232] whose father I make to be Leofstan the son of Orgar. -These brothers witness one St. Paul’s document in the time of Dean -Ralf,[233] and are mentioned in another,[234] and they are addressed in -a letter of archbishop Theobald (1139–43).[235] Robert accounts for the -Weavers’ Gild of London in 1130,[236] while Æthelwine, who witnesses a -deed under Dean William, and two under Dean Ralf, will also be found -witnessing a charter of the earl of Essex in 1142–3.[237] It is this -Æthelwine (‘Ailwinus’) who is wrongly identified by Mr. Loftie with -the father of the first Mayor, and with ‘Aylwin child,’ and with a -son-in-law of Orgar le Prude, who, by the way, was Orgar ‘the deacon,’ -and not Orgar ‘le Prude.’[238] - -Two other interesting members of “the fifteen” are “Leostanus aurifaber -et Wyzo filius eius”; for the latter is clearly identical with that -“Witso filius Leostani” who, so far from being an Austin canon, owes in -1130 half a marc of gold “pro terra et ministerio patris sui,”[239] and -with that “Wizo aurifaber” who, with Edward his brother and John his -son, makes an agreement with the canons of St. Paul’s.[240] - -Returning to the second list of 1137,[241] we recognise in Hacon the -dean, not a dean of St. Paul’s, but a witness of the Cnihtengild’s gift -in 1125.[242] Tierri son of Deorman was the heir, perhaps the son, of -that “Derman of London” who is entered in Domesday as holding half a -hide at Islington, and the father of Bertram, “filius Theodorici filii -Derman,” otherwise Bertram “de Barwe,” who held Newington Barrow in -Islington,[243] who was a benefactor to the nuns of Clerkenwell, and -whose son Thomas bestowed a serf upon St. Paul’s about the beginning -of the 13th century.[244] The mention of this family leads me here -to introduce a most singular genealogy, evidently adduced to prove, -_temp._ John, that Peter son of Alan was heir to Thierri, a grandson -and namesake of Thierri son of Derman. - - Hubert vint de Cham et engendra Alain et Gervase et Will[elme] - Blemunt le viel et altres. Alain le eisne engendra Pieres, et - P[ieres] Alain, et A[lain] P[ieres]. Gerveise engendra Henri, et - Henri Johane ki fu dunée a Hug[ues] de Nevile. Will[] Blemunt - prist la suer Bertra[m] de Barue et engendra Will’ et T[er]ri - et altres. Will’ devint chanoine a sainte ternite [_sic_] de - Lundres et T[er]ri prist la fille Ernaud le rus et engendra une - fille si cum lem dist. Iceste fille fu dunée a un petit fiz - Johan Viel[245] dunt si ele mært sanz heir de soi. Les heirs al - devant dit Alain sunt heirs, kar il sunt les eisnez.[246] - -This genealogy, which, we shall find, is certainly incorrect, gives us -a pedigree as follows: - - HUBERT of Caen - | - +-------------+---------------+ - | | | - ALAN GERVASE WILLIAM - | (of Cornhill) BLEMUND - | | ‘le viel’ - | | | - PETER HENRY WILLIAM TIERRI - | (of Cornhill) Canon of | - | | Holy Trinity | - | | | - ALAN JOAN = HUGH A DAUGHTER - | DE NEVILE ob. s. p. - PETER - -We know (from the names of his son and granddaughter) that the Gervase -of the text must be Gervase of Cornhill, who, as a matter of fact, -had a brother Alan.[247] But we also know that their father was Roger -‘nepos Huberti,’[248] not Hubert. As there seem to be traces of -another Hubert with sons Gervase and Alan,[249] this may account for -the confusion. The mention of William Blemund is of special interest, -because it is from this name that Bloomsbury [‘Blemundsbury’] is -derived. His wife, being a sister of Bertram de Barue,[250] was a -daughter of Tierri the son of Derman, which accounts for one of their -sons bearing the name of ‘Terri.’ The belief that this great civic -family sprang originally from Caen is a fact to be noted. - -We know that Ralf ‘filius Andree’ (p. 101) must have been a son of -Andrew Bucuinte, for “Andreas Bucuinte et Radulfus filius ejus” witness -a Ramsey charter under Henry I.[251] William “camerarius” is, no doubt, -the William “qui fuit camerarius Lond[onie],” who accounts for London -debts on the roll of 1130.[252] - -We have seen above that Andrew Buchuinte (_Bucca Uncta_) was, -in 1137, Justiciar of London. This clue is of great importance, for, -according to another portion of the Holy Trinity narrative, Andrew -Buchuinte was the leading witness at the investiture of the Priory with -the Cnihtengild’s soke by the two sheriffs of London in 1125.[253] He -was also a leading witness to that agreement between Ramsey Abbey and -Holy Trinity Priory, which I place between 1125 and 1130.[254] - -The charter to which we are now coming shows him addressed by Stephen -as the leading man in London in the latter part, we gather, of 1139. -Since the appearance of “Justiciars” under Henry I., among those to -whom writs and charters were addressed, they always took precedence of -the sheriff, and my contention is that when a magnate is named in that -position, it is because he was Justiciar. The charters dealt with in -this paper afford several instances in point. This one, for example, -may be given here, although of somewhat later date. - - Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Ricardo de Luci et vicecomiti Essex - [ie] salutem. Precipio quod Episcopus Wyntoniensis frater meus - ita bene et in pace teneat....[255] et capella(m) sua(m) que - canonici diracionaverunt sicut Rogerus episcopus Salisburiensis - melius tenuit tempore comitis Eustachii de Bolonia et deinceps - usque ad diem qua rex Henricus avunculus meus fuit vivus et - mortuus. Et super hoc non ponantur canonici sui de Sancto - Martino in placitum versus prepositum de Wyrtela de vel de - pecunia sua. Et Moric[ius] vicecomes quietus sit de plegio - illius et pecunia canonicorum quam replegiant. - - Teste Roberto de Ver apud Wyndsor[es].[256] - -The address of this charter would seem to support the view I suggested -in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (p. 109), that Richard de Luci may have -held the post of local justiciar of Essex.[257] For the sheriff, -clearly, was Maurice (de Tiretei, _i.e._ Tiltey).[258] Imperfect -though it be, we can, I think, connect the subject in dispute with -an aggression consequent on the Conquest by the ‘pious founder’ at -Writtle.[259] - -Let us now return to the document of which I speak above (p. 109, l. 1): - - Stephanus dei gratia rex Anglie Andr[ee] Buch[uinte] et - vic[ecomiti] et civibus suis London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod - R[ogerus] episcopus Saresberiensis teneat ecclesiam Sancti - Martini London[ie] et omnes terras eidem pertinentes in civitate - et extra ita bene et honorifice sicut melius tenuit tempore - regis Henrici et modo postea. Et de quocunque disseisitus est - ipse vel ecclesia sua et canonici sui ejusdem ecclesie postquam - discordia incepta inter nos, reseisiantur, et nominatim de terra - Alderesgate disseisiti sunt ipse et canonici sui pro filiis - Huberti juvenis, et bene et in pace teneant, sicut tenuerunt - melius die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et modo - postea.[260] - -In 1139, therefore, as in 1137, Andrew was the leading man in London; -and if, as Dr. Stubbs believes, he was of Italian origin,[261] we have -a somewhat unlooked-for foreign influence in the midst of the citizens -of London at this most critical epoch. One is indeed reminded of the -‘Buccanigra’ family, and the great part they played at Genoa in the -13th century. It is also suggested by Dr. Stubbs that the “Andrew of -London” who led the citizens’ contingent at the taking of Lisbon (1147) -“is not improbably the Andrew Bucquinte whose son Richard was the -leader of the riotous young nobles of the city who in 1177 furnished a -precedent for the Mohawks of the eighteenth century.”[262] The episode -in question, although entered under 1177, seems to belong to 1174; -but, apart from chronology, we cannot believe that “quidam latronum -illorum, Andreas Bucquinte qui cæteros præibat cum face ardenti”[263] -was himself the crusading leader of 1147, still less the London magnate -of half a century before. The Richard who is styled his “son” by Dr. -Stubbs proves to be merely another reading, in one of the texts, -for Andrew himself.[264] The great Andrew (of 1125–1139) had a son -Ralf,[265] and also a son John, who made Gervase of Cornhill and his -son Henry his heirs.[266] It is very tempting to identify this Andrew -Buccuinte with ‘Andrew of London,’ but ‘Andreas de Londonia’ is found -as a witness to a Ramsey charter under Henry I.,[267] while Andrew -Buccuinte used to attest under his own name. There is also a group of -three charters of this John son of Andrew Buccuinte in the Colchester -cartulary (fo. 133) which have points of interest. The first is -witnessed _inter alios_ by Tierri (_Teodricus_), son of Derman and his -brother,[268] by Eadwine the alderman, and by Gervase of Cornhill; the -second grants land (“in custodia Blacstani”) to Baldwin “clerico patris -mei et magistro meo”; the third grants to him the land in which stood -the ‘fornax’ of John’s father, Andrew, in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook.[269] - -I would here insert an observation on the riots of “1177.” The ‘Gesta -Henrici’ describes the episode under 1177, but dates it in “tertio -præcedenti anno.” Miss Norgate accordingly places it “about June or -July 1174,” and points out that Hoveden omits the above words, thus -confusing the chronology.[270] Now the ‘Gesta’ asserts that Andrew -Buchuinte denounced among his companions - - quidam nobilissimus et ditissimus civium Londoniarum qui - nominatus est Johannes Senex. Qui cum per judicium aquæ se - mundari non posset, obtulit quingentas marcas domino regi pro - vita habenda. Sed quia ipse per judicium aque perierat, noluit - denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium de eo fieret, - et suspensus est.[271] - -I suggest that ‘Senex’ is merely an elegant Latinization of ‘Viel,’ -the name of a leading London family,[272] which was usually Latinized -“Vetulus.” And we have but to turn to the Pipe Roll of 1175 (21 Hen. -II.) to find this entry: - - Vicecomes reddit compotum de xlii s. et ix d. de catallis - Johannis Vetuli suspensi et Johannis Lafaite[273] fugitivi (p. - 20). - -Here we have the proper formula under the assize of Clarendon,[274] -with which we may compare clause V. in the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170): - - De catallis fugitivorum pro assisa de Clarendune, et de catallis - eorum qui per assisam illam perierunt, inquiratur quid actum sit - ... et an aliquis retatus relaxatus fuerit, vel reus, pro præmio - vel promissione vel amore, et quis inde præmium acceperit. - -Here we have Henry denouncing in 1170 that escape of criminals through -bribery, which we have seen him, above, refusing to connive at four or -five years later, when he was offered “quingentas marcas”--Miss Norgate -says “five thousand”; but one must not be severe on a lady’s Latin. - -But if the accuracy of the ‘Gesta’ tale is thus remarkably confirmed, -we can hardly accept its description of the man whose chattels produced -so little for the Crown as one of the richest of Londoners. I have not -observed him elsewhere on the rolls, so that probably he was only a -youthful member of his family. - - * * * * * - -To return. Andrew “of the oily mouth” must have ceased to occupy his -high office shortly after Stephen’s writ of 1139, for we soon find it -held by no less interesting a man than Osbert “Octodenarii,” otherwise -“Huitdeniers.” This was no other than Becket’s kinsman and employer, -whom Garnier terms - - Un riche hume Lundreis - Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d’Engleis. - -Other biographers of Thomas describe him as “vir insignis in civitate -et multarum possessionum, ... qui non solum inter concives, verum etiam -apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris.”[275] It has been -concluded that the future primate was in Osbert’s employment somewhere -about 1139–1142,[276] and, according to William Fitz Stephen, “receptus -est in partem sollicitudinis reipublicæ Londoniensis.” From the -evidence now about to be adduced we learn that Osbert was actually in -power at the very time when his young kinsman is believed to have been -in his employment. The agreement, therefore, is curiously complete. - - Stephanus rex Anglie etc. Osberto octoden[arii] et omnibus - Baronibus et vic[ecomiti] et ministris suis London[ie] - salutem. Precipio quod faciatis resaisiri ecclesiam Sancti - Martini London[ie] et canonicos de terra et de domibus suis - de Aldersgate unde filii Huberti juvenis eos injuste et sine - judicio dissaisierunt sicut inde saisiti fuerunt antequam - episcopus Sar[esberiensis] captus fuisset apud Oxon[iam], - et sicut precepi per aliud breve meum. Et quod ipsi postea - ceperunt reddi facite juste. Et postea si ipsi quicquid in - terras clamaverint Episcopus Wintoniensis cuius ecclesia est et - canonici teneant eis inde rectum. Et videte ne audiam amplius - inde clamorem.[277] - -This writ, which, it would seem, has never yet been printed, is -subsequent, not only to the one which is given above (p. 110), but to -the death of the bishop of Salisbury in December, 1139.[278] From it we -learn that the deanery of St. Martins, which had been held by Roger, -was given by Stephen, at Roger’s death, to his own brother, the bishop -of Winchester. It is probable that this deanery was a very lucrative -appointment, and that its estates were separate from those of the -canons of the church. Count Eustace, in his charter addressed to Hugh -d’Orival bishop of London, speaks of retaining for himself the lands -“quæ propriæ fuerunt Ingelrici et ad decanatum pertinere debeant,” and -a charter of the Empress similarly speaks of the houses and lands in -London “quæ pertinent ad decanatum.” - -The subject of these deaneries of houses of secular canons seems to -deserve working out. As the great bishops of Salisbury and Winchester -held successively the deanery of St. Martin’s, so the _protégé_ of -the latter prelate, Hilary bishop of Chichester, seems to have held -that of Twynham both before and after his elevation to the South-Saxon -see, while the bishops of Exeter, from Osbern the Norman, seem to have -combined the deanery of Bosham with their episcopal office. Maurice -bishop of London (1085) held the deanery of Wimborne. In Normandy, -similarly, Philip of Harcourt, who had been Stephen’s chancellor, was, -as a bishop, dean of the house of Holy Trinity of Beaumont before its -annexation to Bec. - -We next come to a writ of the Empress, which must belong to the year -1141, and which similarly recognises Osbert Huitdeniers as the leading -man in London at the time, and, as I maintain, its Justiciar.[279] - - Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angliæ domina Osberto - Octodenar[ii] et vic[ecomiti] et civibus London[ie] salutem. - Precipio quod saisiatis Henricum episcopum Winton[iensem] et - apostolicæ sedis legatum de domibus illis London[ie] et terris - ubi Petrus ... mansit (quæ pertinent ad decanatum Sancti Martini - London[ie] et ecclesiam suam, et ipsi disseisati sunt), sicut - Rogerus episcopus Saresberiensis decanus ejusdem ecclesiæ et - Fulcherus saisiti fuerunt vivi et mortui, et domos suas, et - omnia quæ inde post mortem Rogeri ablata sunt, facite illi - reddi, et terram ipsam et cetera omnia pertinentia ecclesiæ - Sancti Martini in pace illi tenere facite. - -The connection of this great prince-bishop with St. Martin’s leads -me to speak of his striking mandate on the subject of the schools of -London: - - H. Dei gratia Wintoniensis ecclesie minister capitulo Sancti - Pauli et Willelmo archidiacono et ministris suis salutem. - Precipio vobis pro obedientia ut trina vocatione sententiam - anatematis in eos proferatis qui sine licentia Henrici Magistri - Scolarum in tota civitate Lundon legere presumpserint preter eos - qui scolas Sancte Marie de Archa et Sancti Martini Magni regunt. - Teste Magistro Ilario apud Wintoniam.[280] - -No date is assigned to this charter, for Henry’s long rule at -Winchester lasted till 1171. But my paper on “Hilary bishop of -Chichester”[281] enables us to identify him with “Magister Ilarius” -the witness, and to date the charter as previous not only to 1147, -but also, in all probability, to 1141, by which time he was dean of -Christchurch. This then carries back our charter to the vacancy in the -See of London (1134–1141), which explains the bishop of Winchester -interfering thus forcibly in its affairs. - - * * * * * - -I have now proved the existence under Stephen, in accordance with -Henry’s charter,[282] of three Justiciars of London, all leading -citizens, namely, Andrew Buchuinte, Osbert Huitdeniers, and Gervase -of Cornhill.[283] But we must not forget the grant of the office to -Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, a grant made by Stephen[284] -and confirmed by the Empress. Here again the charters of St. Martin’s -enable us to complete our evidence. For in one of them, issued from -his stronghold the Tower, we find Geoffrey taking, as if he were proud -of it, the style of “Justiciar of London.” We may safely date it 1142–3. - - Galfridus dei gratia comes Essex[ie] et Justiciarius London[iæ] - Roberto eadem gratia Londoniensi episcopo et Arch[idiacon]o et - omnibus baronibus et hominibus suis, et omnibus tenentibus et - amicis suis London[iæ] et Essex[iæ] tam clericis quam laicis, - salutem. Quam[285] super modum peccavi, et male vivendo et - bona ecclesiastica præter rationem diripiendo Deum offendi, - ex penitencia mea immerita dampna ecclesiæ Sancti Martini - London[iæ] quodam modo restituere, et voluntati canonicorum - satisfacere proposui, etc.... - -This curious charter of the dreaded and unscrupulous earl restores to -the canons their Essex manors-- - - quæ injuste illis ablatæ sunt quietas de operationibus et - auxiliis vic[ecomitis] et plac[itis] sicut melius et liberius et - quietius tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici et postea melius. - - Testibus: Rohaisa comitissa uxore mea, et Willelmo archidiacono - London[iensi], et Waltero fratre ipsius, Gregorio clerico, et - Osberto clerico, Willelmo archidiacono,[286] et Willelmo de - Moching,[287] et Ricardo filio Osberti constabulario,[288] - et Gist[289] vic[ecomite], et Ailwino filio Lopstan,[290] - et Roberto de Ponte, et Hugone filio Ulgeri, et Moricio de - Tirtet.[291] Apud London[iam] in Turri, coram monach[is] - Westm[onasterii]. - -That this charter was wrung from the earl in a passing fit of -repentance, consequent on grave illness, is rendered probable by a -singular document, of which the text was communicated to me by the -bishop of Oxford. It is, unfortunately, imperfect. - - Domino ac patri Roberto Dei gratia Londoniensi episcopo et toto - capitulo sancti Pauli et omnibus fidelibus sanctæ Ecclesiæ, - Gaufridus comes de Essexa salutem et debitam obedientiam. - Gratias ago Deo meo qui me oberrantem et jamdudum in Babilonem - lapsum misericorditer revocavit: Quia enim miles ad ecclesiæ - defensionem constitutus fueram, ejus impugnator et crudelissimus - persecutor hactenus ... mei molestia et infirmitate gravatus, - me in matrem meam sanctam eccl ... unde et pœnitens veniam - peto, pollicens et vovens debita satisfactione ... vobis illata - integraliter restituere et pro sensu et facultate ... debitam - reverentiam atque manutenementum et protectionem ... quoque - quæ inter me et reginam fuerat de castello de Sto[rteford] - ... [sancto] Paulo clamo quietum in perpetuum. Hujus autem - satisfactionis ... meam et comitissa uxor mea et comes Gast - (_i.e._ Gisl[ebertus]) suam ... confirmationem vero hujus - restitutionis usque ad festum omnium sanctorum ... capituli - catalla nostra in animalibus et ceteris vero pecoribus et ... - rebus quæ in mea bailia sunt vel ad præsens invenientur sine - dilatione vobis reddi faciam.[292] - -We will now revert from the crisis of Stephens reign to the years -preceding his accession, when we shall meet with several of those -citizens of whom I have spoken above. - -A group of three charters, formerly at Barrington Hall, but now in the -British Museum (Add. Cart. 28, 344–6), brings before us several of the -leading citizens of London at the close of the reign of Henry I. Badly -drawn, as deeds, their meaning, in places, is obscure; but the gist -of them seems to be that certain land in Hertfordshire, which was -held of the Count of Boulogne by ‘Rumoldus’ in Domesday, was given by -‘Rumoldus’ (the same or his namesake), and his sons Payn and Bernard, -to Hugh son of Wulfgar, who was one of the fifteen magnates of the -“English Cnihtengild” of London in 1125.[293] Further, it would seem -that these lands were the dower of Hugh’s sister, who had married one -of Rumold’s sons. The first of these charters[294] records the consent -of Rumold’s lord, William of Boulogne, to this transaction.[295] I -assign it to about the year 1129. First in order among its witnesses -come tenants of the Honour of Boulogne; then local Surrey men;[296] and -lastly, a group recognisable as Londoners: - - Gervasio filio Rogeri; Fulcone filio Radulfi; Johanne filio - Radulfi filio Everardi; Hugone Cordello; Guillelmo Gernun; - Gileberto de Sancto Victore; Radulfo de Oxenfordia; Ricardo - Bucherello; Stephano Bucherello; Rogero filio Anschetilli. - -Gervase, who had just succeeded his father, a former sheriff of -London, was afterwards eminent as Gervase “of Cornhill” (as son-in-law -of Edward of Cornhill, of the Cnihtengild), Justiciar of London and -sheriff.[297] Fulk pays for his release from imprisonment on the London -pipe roll of 1130;[298] John occurs on the same roll,[299] and was -closely associated with Gervase.[300] Hugh Cordel, in 1130, accounts -for his release from imprisonment;[301] Ralf of Oxford is one of his -pledges.[302] The Bucherells were a great City family, whose name is -said to be preserved in Bucklersbury, and who were doubtless of Italian -origin.[303] - -The second of these charters, from its many points of interest, fairly -deserves to be given _in extenso_: - - Fulquius vicecomes nepos Gisleberti de Surreia concedit - Hugoni filio Ulgeri et heredibus suis conventiones de terra - de Alfladewicha et de Hischentuna sicut convencio est inter - Bernardum filium Rumoldi et Hugonem filium Ulgeri et sicut - cirographum quod factum est inter eos testatur per iiij marcas - argenti quas dedit mihi Hugo. Et hoc est requisitione Milonis - de Gloecestria et Fulcredi camerarii Lund[onie] et Osberti - VIII denarii et Andree Buccuinte et Anschetilli. Et istud - concessum fuit factum ante Willelmum abbatem de Certesia, et - Ricardum Basset, et Albericum de Ver, et Meinfeninum Britonem, - et Robertum de Talewurda, et Rodbertum dapiferum abbatis de - Certesia, et Walterum clericum, et Radulfum Bloie.[304] - -We may safely recognise in the grantor that “Fulcoius qui fuit -vicecomes” of the 1130 Pipe Roll[305] (p. 44), who had, in 1129, -preceded Richard Basset and Aubrey de Ver as sheriff of Surrey, -Cambridgeshire, and Hunts. A church was quitclaimed to the abbot of -Colchester before him as “Fulcquio vicecomite de Surreia,” not later, -it would seem, than 1126.[306] It is probable that the “de Surreia” -of the above clumsily-drawn charter refers to his sheriffwick rather -than to Gilbert, of whom, we here learn, he was the ‘nepos.’ This -statement enables us to connect him directly with Gilbert, a previous -sheriff of Hunts, and, it seems, of Surrey. For a charter witnessed -by this Gilbert, as sheriff, is also witnessed by “Fulcuinus nepos -vicecomitis.”[307] Fulkoin must have been sheriff of Hunts in 1127, for -a charter of May 22, in that year, is witnessed by him.[308] He further -witnessed, as ‘Fulcoinus vicecomes,’ a transaction of which the date -seems not quite certain.[309] Gilbert, his uncle, was sheriff as early -as 1110,[310] and in 1114 (or 1116),[311] and occurs as “Gilbertus -vicecomes de Suthereia” in a charter of 1114–1119.[312] - -From this it would seem that he was sheriff, like his nephew, of Surrey -as well as Hunts (including, doubtless, Cambridgeshire). He was also no -other than the founder of Merton Priory, whose Austin canons were the -teachers of Becket. - -Having reached this conclusion, I turned to the curious narrative of -the foundation of Merton Priory, which exists in MS. at the College of -Arms.[313] Here we find the striking passage: - - Erat autem [Gilbertus] vicecomes trium comitatuum, Suthereie, - scilicet, Cantebrigie, et Huntendonie. In qua videlicet - Huntendona per aliquot jam annos in ecclesia gloriosissime - genetricis Dei Marie canonicorum regularium ordo floruerit - et exemplis bonorum operum odorem sue noticie circumquoque - diffuderit (fo. 1 _d_). - -Incidentally, we have here evidence that the Austin Priory of St. -Mary’s, Huntingdon, had been in existence some years before the date of -which the writer was speaking, namely, 1114. But the really important -point is that Gilbert is here asserted to have held the shrievalty -of precisely those three counties, which, from other evidence, I had -concluded to have been subject to his rule. We may, therefore, safely -assert that these three counties, under Henry I., had, for some twenty -years, a single sheriff; first the above Gilbert, and then his nephew -Fulcoin. This is a welcome gleam of light on the administrative system -of Henry I. - -But further, the independent confirmation, in this particular, of the -above narrative raises its authority and value. I have seen enough of -it to say that it certainly deserves printing. Apart from its history -of the actual foundation and the early abandonment of the original -site (a point hitherto unknown), it has a long and curious story in -connection with a great council at Winchester in 1121, and, above all, -a precious glimpse of the sheriffs before the Exchequer about the -middle, we may fairly say, of the reign of Henry I. - - Ad scacarium autem cum de tota Anglia vicecomites generaliter - coadunarentur universi pro pavore maximo concuterantur, iste - solus interepidis (_sic_) et hillaris adveniebat atque confestim - a receptoribus advocatus pecuniarum inter illos sese mittebat - sic que cum illis q[ui] unus ex illis securus et alacer simul - sedebat (fo. 10 _d_). - -Of the persons named in the above charter, “Meinfeninus Brito” was -clearly the “Maenfininus” who, in 1129, had preceded similarly the same -two officers as sheriffs of Bucks and Beds.[314] Miles of Gloucester -was another active royal officer, sheriff in 1129 and 1130 of -Staffordshire and Gloucestershire;[315] so that we have here sheriffs -presiding over seven English counties in 1129. Andrew Buccuinte and -Osbert ‘Huitdeniers’ were successively, as shown in this paper, -Justiciars of London; and Fulcred is of interest as a chamberlain of -London, not mentioned, at least as such, in the Roll of 1130, and only -incidentally named in the MSS. of St. Paul’s.[316] He occurs, however, -under the same style in a Ramsey charter of February 2, 1131 (if it is -not 1130),[317] and was doubtless the Fulcred whose ‘nepos’ Eustace -appears, in 1137, next to Hugh the son of Wulfgar.[318] - - - - - VI - - The Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) - - -Several years ago there were discovered at the Public Record Office a -number of parchment scraps relating to East Anglia, evidently belonging -to some group, and of singularly early date. My friend, the late Mr. -Walford Selby, showed them to me at the time, and asked me what I -thought they were. As was announced at the time in the columns of the -‘Athenæum,’[319] I pronounced them to be nothing less than fragments -of original returns to the great ‘Inquest of Sheriffs’ in 1170. Dr. -Stubbs, when editing the text of that document for his well-known -‘Select Charters,’ declared that “the report, if ever it was made, must -have been a record of the most interesting kind conceivable.” It was -believed, however, that no trace of the returns could be found. Mr. -Selby intended to publish these fragments as an interesting appendix -to the ‘Liber Rubeus’; and when Mr. Hall succeeded him as editor, he -printed them as Appendix A.[320] Having studied for himself these -fragments, he rejects their connection with the ‘Inquest of Sheriffs,’ -although, as he frankly observes, he has only ventured to do so “with -considerable hesitation.” An entire section of the preface (pp. -cc.-ccxi.) is devoted to his reasons for rejecting the above view and -for advancing a wholly different explanation. - -Approaching the question with an open mind, we find the facts to be -as follows: These records relate to an Inquest held, so far as we -can date them, in 1170, and covering the doings of the four years -1166–1170. Moreover, they describe that period as “postquam dominus -Rex transfretavit” (with slight variations in the phrase), which is -precisely the starting-point prescribed for the ‘Inquest of Sheriffs.’ -In all this they answer to the Inquest; and all this Mr. Hall admits. -But he raises curiously vague difficulties, which resolve themselves -at last into the assertion--upon which, we read, he must insist--“that -there is nothing more than a superficial resemblance, and certainly -nothing to correspond to the articles of inquiry as they are alone -known to us.” Here at least we have a definite issue. Let us then adopt -the simple plan of printing side by side the second article of enquiry, -from Dr. Stubbs’ text, and the very first of the returns on Mr. Hall’s -list. - - ARTICLE. RETURN. - - Similiter inquiratur de Hæc est inquisitio de manerio - archiepiscopis, episcopis, Comitis Arundeliæ in Snetesham, - abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, scilicet quod homines sui - et eorum senescallis et dederunt postquam dominus noster - ministris, quid vel quantum Rex Anglorum extremo - acceperint per terras suas post transfretavit in Normanniam. - terminum praedictum [postquam Quando Comes perexit ad servandas - dominus Rex transfretavit] de les Marches de Wales pluribus - singulis hundredis et de vicibus, scilicet, homines de - singulis villatis suis, et domenio suo dederunt c solidos; - singulis hominibus suis, per et Ricardus filius Atrac et sui - judicium vel sine judicio; et pares de uno socagio dederunt - omnes prisas illas scribant iii marcas gratis.... - separatim et causas et Quando comes rediit de Francia, - occasiones earum. iterum dederunt,’ &c., &c. - -I have slightly altered Mr. Hall’s punctuation, which seems to me -erroneous; but this in no way affects the argument. It is to the -enquiry I have printed above that these interesting documents are -undoubtedly the returns. Their common feature is that they record -payments made by vills, or by individuals to their lords, that they -record them “separatim,” and that they specially record their “causas -et occasiones.” We may go further. The very phrase in the above -article--“per judicium”[321]--occurs no less than eleven times in the -return for the Valoines barony, being duly appended, as prescribed, to -the several payments and their “causes.” - -The correspondence of Inquest and returns being thus close and indeed -obvious, one is led to wonder how their editor can have committed -himself to so unfortunate an assertion. He would seem, instead of -studying the articles, to have started with a preconceived and -erroneous view of their character, and then rejected my own view -because the returns “are not specially connected with the alleged -maladministration of the fiscal officers which was the subject of the -above inquiry, but ... with the private feudal relations of the same -(_i.e._ individual barons) with their subtenants.” He cannot have -read the second article, which is specially concerned with the latter -relations, and which stands in every way on a level with the first -(concerning the fiscal officers). Moreover, by a lucky chance, there -is preserved among these documents at least one fragment of the return -to the enquiry as to the king’s officers. For we read that the men on -one manor “nil dederunt Vicecomiti neque prepositis Regis præter xvi d. -quos dederunt ad castellum firmandum de Oreford,” etc., etc. Nay more, -we can identify at least two of these returns as having been made in -reply to the _third_ article of the Inquest: - - Et similiter inquirant de hominibus illis qui post terminum - illum habuerunt alias ballivas de domino rege in custodia, sive - de episcopatu, sive de abbatia, sive de baronia, sive de honore - aliquo vel eschaeta. - -The returns numbered 55, 56 (p. cclxxx.) are classed by Mr. Hall among -“Baroniæ incertæ.” They relate, however, to the barony or “honour” -of William Fitz Alan, which had been for many years in the king’s -hands. It was ‘farmed’ in 1170, as it had been for ten years, by Guy -l’Estrange (“Wido Extraneus.”) Guy had a brother John,[322] who appears -in these returns as in charge of the Norfolk portion of the honour. -Since Michaelmas, 1165, a part of William Fitz Alan’s land had been -granted out to Geoffrey de Vere, and we accordingly find, at the end of -the second return, one of William Fitz Alan’s knights,[323] William de -Pagrave, making him a payment. Now all this might have been explained -by an intelligent editor. Mr. Hall has elaborated, instead, a series of -fantastic errors. - -I have dwelt on the point at some length, because, apart from the -intrinsic interest of these curious returns--which have thus come -to light after more than seven centuries--they establish the fact -that this great enquiry extended to private landowners, a fact which -even Dr. Stubbs, I fear, seems to have overlooked in the analysis he -gives of the ‘Inquest.’ And further, they corroborate the articles of -enquiry, where we can apply the test, and thus confirm the authenticity -of the document in which those articles are found. - - * * * * * - -We must not, however, ignore Mr. Hall’s own hypothesis, for the Rolls -edition in which it is enshrined gives it an official _cachet_; -and there may be those who think that arguments of this character -require an answer. - -So far as it is possible to understand it, this hypothesis would -connect these Inquests with the scutage of Ireland (p. ccx.), which was -duly accounted for (_annotatum_) in 1172, the expedition falling within -the financial year Mich., 1171–Mich., 1172.[324] In that case these -inquests, on Mr. Hall’s own showing, could not have been held earlier -than 1172, at “the conclusion of the campaign” (p. clxxxvi.). But they -must have been held in 1170, for, as he observes (pp. ccxi.), one of -the fragments speaks of “istos iiij annos” (p. cclxviii.) reckoned from -March, 1166. - -But we have much stronger evidence than this. We read, at the outset, -of these documents, that “it will be evident that they are connected -with some Inquest of military service during the reign of Henry II.” -This is an extraordinary assertion from one who is himself their -editor. For we have only to turn to the second on the list to find in -it nothing but a detailed record of the sums given individually by some -forty burgesses of (Castle) Rising towards paying off the mortgages of -their lord the earl of Arundel, who was clearly in the hands of the -Jews. And the long and most curious return from the barony of Robert -de Valoines deals with a humble reeve who neglected his master’s hay; -a shepherd who had charge of his lord’s fold; Brian, who looked after -the wood; Gilbert, who kept the bees; and other dependents fined for -negligence. We may even say, most confidently, that the idea of an -Inquest of military service could never occur to any one who perused -the whole of these documents with an unbiassed mind. They are simply -the result of an enquiry into the payment of moneys, and the reasons -for such payment. But Mr. Hall has a theory to advance, and can only -see these records in its light. Briefly stated, that theory is that -these documents “answer very nearly to the description of such an -Inquest” on knight service as is referred to in the return for the -Honour of Arundel assigned to 1166. That these documents are later in -date; that they do not suggest an Inquest on knight service; that, -even if they did, they have no concern with an Inquest restricted to -a Sussex Honour--all these objections are as nothing to Mr. Hall. He -is as ready to “hazard the supposition” that conflicts with all the -evidence as he was loth to accept a solution that fits in every way -the facts of the case. May one not raise a strong protest against the -sacrifice of a dozen pages, within a strictly limited space, to the -enunciation of wildly conjectural and absolutely erroneous theories, -not in the book of a private author, but in a Government publication, -intended to form for all time the standard edition of a famous work? - -Let us now turn to the Pipe Roll of 1172 (18 Hen. II.), which plays an -important part in Mr. Hall’s arguments. He tells us that - - an entry occurs in several different counties which has proved - a source of difficulty to several generations of historical - students. The entry in question is headed “De hiis qui cartas - non miserunt,” certain assessments being appended in each case - for the Scutage of Ireland (p. ccii.). - -We refer, as invited, to the roll itself, only to find that, on -the contrary, it first records the “assessments for the scutage of -Ireland,” and then heads the lists which follow: “De his qui cartas -non miserunt.”[325] It is this very sequence that is responsible for -the error of Madox, who held, as Mr. Hall observes, “that the charters -in question must have been returned for the purpose of the Scutage of -Ireland in 1171.”[326] Swereford, on the other hand, wrote of the 1172 -roll: - - Quo quidem rotulo supplentur nomina illorum qui cartas non - miserunt anno xiij^o, prout superius tactum est (p. 8). - -He is wrong, of course, in stating that the charters were returned -in the “13th year” (an error which his editor carefully ignores), -but perfectly right in his explanation, if we substitute “12th” for -his “13th” year. Yet, having thus rightly shown that Swereford’s -explanation is the true one, his editor closes the paragraph thus: - - The simple solution of the difficulty is that the tenants who - were in debt for the aid of 1168 were so entered on the occasion - of the next assessment (1171) in a conspicuous form (p. cciii.). - -Really, this wanton confusion is enough to make Swereford turn in his -grave. The entry which has caused the difficulty refers, not to “the -tenants who were in debt for the aid” of 1168, but to those who had -made no returns (“cartas non miserunt”) in 1166. - -Mr. Hall assigns Madox’s error to his finding no “corresponding -entries,” under Sussex, in 1168 (14 Hen. II.) for those in 1172 (18 -Hen. II.). And yet all three entries, in the latter year, of the -earl of Arundel’s tenants[327] have their corresponding entries in -1168.[328] The real cause of Madox’s error has been explained above. - -It is, we read, “significant” that in 1168 the earl’s “assessment -actually does not correspond with that recorded in the existing charter -of 1166” (p. cciv.); for it only “gives 84½ fees for the Earl’s Sussex -barony,” while the Inquest referred to in his charter had the result -that “13 more were acknowledged by the Earl as chargeable upon his -demesne, raising the total to 97½.” Therefore, “we are almost tempted -to suspect that the Earl’s charter was not returned in 1166 at all, but -only after an interval of several years.” On which, of course, a theory -is built. - -Ingenious enough, is it not? Yet, as usual, a house of cards. For we -find the “barony” charged only with 84½ fees in 1194,[329] in 1196, and -in 1211 (13 John),[330] precisely as in 1168. The total had not been -raised at all; and the house of cards topples over. - -The same unhappy paragraph closes with these words: - - It is quite clear ... that the dispute was practically settled, - in the 18th year, only two refractory tenants remaining to be - dealt with, and that the Earl paid the whole of his assessment - in the 21st year. - -We turn to the rolls, and find, as usual, that not two, but three, -tenants (_ut supra_) were recalcitrant in the 18th year, and that the -Earl, in the 21st (1175), did not pay a penny of his assessment (84½ -fees), but was forgiven the whole of it.[331] - -Not content with his own confusion, Mr. Hall proceeds to assign to -others errors which they neither have made, nor would dream of making. -He even asserts that Mr. Eyton and I “maintain that the honour of -Arundel was granted to William de Albini by Henry I.” (p. ccvii.), an -assertion for which there is not the faintest shadow of foundation. -Such a view would imply an absolute ignorance of all the facts of the -case; and it was as foreign to Mr. Eyton[332] as it is to myself.[333] - -One cannot be expected to waste time over his theory that the baronies -mentioned in these fragments were specially involved in debt, which is -a mere phantasy; but we may note, as the date is of importance, that -“Avelina de Ria” was “compelled to atone” for her offence, in making -her son a knight, by a heavy fine, not “in the 15th year,” but in the -14th.[334] In the same paragraph (p. ccx.) we are told that “this -barony, like the honour of Arundel, was still unable to contribute -towards the next Scutage, of 1171.”[335] As a matter of fact, it paid -at once £30, out of £35, the total for which it was liable,[336] a very -creditable proportion; while the honour of Arundel was not even charged -with any payment for this Scutage, which was only assessed on those -“qui nec abierunt in Hybernia,” etc. - -But enough of this error and confusion. If the reader is tempted to -grow weary, what must be the feelings of the writer, who has thus to -remove, brick by brick, this vast edifice of error, so perversely -and wantonly erected, before the simple facts can be brought to the -light of day. It is weary, it is thankless work; and yet it has to be -accomplished. I am tempted to quote these apposite remarks from the -critical articles by Mr. Thomas Bond on a no less misleading work: - - Numberless difficulties are suggested where none really exist, - and possibilities and probabilities unaccompanied by proofs - are offered for their solution.... The narrative is so diluted - and confused that it is difficult to follow it shortly and - comprehensively. I can, therefore, only select some of the most - remarkable errors and notice them _seriatim_, quoting the - author’s own words in order to avoid the risk of unintentional - misrepresentation.... It may be asked, Where is the difficulty - which requires these strange, far-fetched ‘probabilities’ for - its solution?... All this is fanciful and mere imagination.... - In reply to all these supposed ‘possibilities,’ let us turn to - certainties.... I have thus laid before the reader some of the - numerous inaccuracies into which the author of this work has - fallen, and have stated some of the singular theories he has - advanced.[337] - -We have, in the Red Book Preface, the very same features. It is, -perhaps, in his treatment of these interesting fragments (1170) that -we detect most vividly Mr. Hall’s strange capacity of inventing -difficulties that do not exist, and of dismissing those that do. In -the teeth of the clearest possible facts, we are given such vague -probabilities, or possibilities, as these: - - This will perhaps be ... it is probable that ... it can only be - surmised that ... we are almost tempted to suspect that ... we - may perhaps hazard the supposition that ... would probably have - been ... it might be held that ... we might perhaps identify, - etc., etc. (pp. ccii.-ccvi.). - -The fact is that, as I have said, this preface is really the fruit -of a habit of mind, a mental twist, which distorts the writer’s -vision, and seems to impel him, irresistibly, to arrive at the wrong -conclusion.[338] We trace this singular tendency throughout, but its -effect has nowhere proved more disastrous than in his treatment of -these returns to the great “Inquest of Sheriffs.” That these records -should have been so treated in the first work that gives them to the -world is a really lamentable matter. - - - - - VII - - The Conquest of Ireland[339] - - -A brilliant but paradoxical writer--I refer to Mr. Standish -O’Grady--has, with unerring hand, sketched for us the state of -Ireland when as yet the Norman adventurer had not set foot upon her -shores.[340] To those who dream of a golden age, of a land in the -enjoyment of peace and happiness till invaded by the ruthless stranger, -the scene his pen reveals should prove a rude awakening. That Mr. -O’Grady writes with unrivalled knowledge of his subject, is neither -his only nor his chief claim to the confidence of those we speak of: -they are more likely to be influenced by the fact that his sympathies -are all with the Irish, that he cannot conceal his admiration for -government by ‘battle-axe,’ and that he strives to justify what to -English eyes could be nothing but a glorified Donnybrook Fair. He is -wrathful with Mr. Freeman for picturing Ireland as only “the scene of -waste tribal confusions, aimless flockings and fightings, a wilderness -tenanted by wolves and wolfish men,” and claims that her history, in -each generation, was at this time “that of some half-dozen strong men -striving for the mastery ... a most salutary warfare, inevitable, -indispensable, enjoined by nature herself.” - - No! Freedom, whose smile we shall never resign, - Go, tell our invaders, the Danes, - That ’tis sweeter to bleed for an age at thy shrine - Than to sleep but a moment in chains. - -If we cannot agree with this able champion in viewing the warfare he -describes as a healthy process of evolution, we may at least gladly -admit that some knowledge of this dark period, lighted only by the -lurid torch of rapine and internecine strife, is as essential to a -right understanding of the Anglo-Norman settlement as is the study -of English history, for some generations before the Conquest, the -necessary prelude to a comprehension of the Norman Conquest itself. - -It is not, however, for the Conquest only that this knowledge of the -true state of Ireland ought to be acquired. The light it throws on -the Irish people, their inherited and unchangeable tendencies, is of -value from the parallel it presents to the latest modern developments. -“Tribes and nations,” writes Mr. O’Grady, “had ceased to count”; the -struggle was one in which, “released from all control,” some half a -dozen rival kings “fiercely battled like bulls for the mastery of the -herd.” No lively imagination, surely, is required to see the spirit -of this strife renewed in the leaders of the present Irish party, -or prophesy a revival, under Home Rule, of the days when “Turlough -O’Conor and Tiernan O’Rourke were terribly at war--Ireland (the -chronicler adds) a shaking sod between them.” Although, in the true -Hibernian spirit, Mr. Standish O’Grady can speak of this as a “vast and -bloody, but not ignoble strife,” I hold that its animating spirit was -an ambition as ruthlessly personal as that which leads the Presidents -of South American Republics to wade through blood to power, and to -reduce their country to ‘a shaking sod’ for the gratification of their -rivalry. It is the absolutely personal character of this strife which -is fatal to Mr. O’Grady’s argument that a strong ‘Ardriship,’ or -central rule, was in actual process of evolution before the invaders -arrived. Where that rule was based only on personal prowess or strength -of character, it was liable, at any moment, to be broken up by death, -and once more replaced, if not by anarchy, at least by such internecine -strife as has been the fate of Mr. Parnell’s party since the removal of -his strong hand. There was, as Mr. O’Grady is never tired of reminding -us, but one way, in those halcyon days, of securing the hegemony -of Ireland: “a normal Irish king had to clear his way through the -provinces, battle-axe in hand, gathering hostages by the strength of -his arm”; he had to “move forward step by step, battle-axing territory -after territory into submission.” The only vote known was given by -“the mouth of the battle-axe”; and for the dissentient Irishmen of the -time there were “always ready battle-axes and trained troops of swift -raiders and plunderers.” Nor was it necessary for the Irish king to set -his “trained plunderers and cattle drivers” at work on every occasion. -The convenient and recognised institution of hostages provided him -with some one he could hang or blind without the least trouble, and -thus anticipate the fate which might very probably be his own. - - Remember the glories of Brian the brave, - Though the days of the hero are o’er. - -Even the danger of interference from without could not permanently -unite the Irish among themselves. The Scandinavian settlers had turned -this weakness to account by siding now with one and now with another of -the factions, and had finally made good their possession of the seaport -towns, where they stood towards the rest of the island much like the -Ulstermen of to-day, a hardy race of alien origin and long of hostile -faith, merchants and seamen to whom the natives left all the traffic -with other lands. One cannot but think from the small part they seem to -have played in the struggle between the Irish and the Norman invaders -that their heart was rather in trading than in war, and that the old -wiking spirit had flickered down among them, or at least found a new -vent. Not so with the Norman adventurers. That marvellous people had as -yet preserved their restless activity, their boundless ambition, and -their love of martial enterprise. Conquerors, courtiers, or crusaders, -they were always lords in the end; the glamour of lordship was ever -present above the Norman horizon. Ireland alone knew them not, and -thither they had now begun to cast eager eyes. The wave that had spread -itself over England and Wales had now gathered up its strength anew, -and the time had come for it at last to break on the Irish shore. - -It is at this point that the curious poem Mr. Orpen has so ably edited -comes to our aid as an historical authority of singular value and -importance. Although long known to scholars from Michel’s publication -of its text (1837), it was described by Mr. Dimock, who knew its value, -in the preface to his edition of Giraldus, as then “in great measure -useless” from the want of competent annotation. He observed with truth -that “no more valuable contribution, perhaps, to the history of the -first few years of the English invasion of Ireland could be made” than -a worthy edition of this poem. Such an edition Mr. Orpen may justly -claim to have produced. The corrupt and obscure condition of the text -demanded elucidation no less urgently than the Irish names with which -it teems required special knowledge for their correct identification. -It is not too much to say that Mr. Orpen has shown us how much can be -done by skilful editing to increase the value of an authority. Avoiding -the over-elaboration that one associates with German scholarship, he -has provided his readers with an apparatus at once sufficient and -concise. Text, translation, notes, map, chronology, and glossary, all -are admirable in their way; and the patience with which the barbarous -names, both of places and of persons, have been examined and explained -is deserving of warm praise. As to the way in which a text should be -treated scholars will generally differ in certain points of detail, but -Mr. Orpen’s method shows us, at least, the exact state of the text from -which he worked. There is still room, perhaps, for further conjectural -emendation. For instance, in the lines-- - - Crandone pus a un barun, - Ricard le flemmeng out anun-- - -where the editor is fairly baffled by ‘Crandone,’ perfect sense might -at once be made by reading-- - - Slan donat pus a un barun, - -which would satisfy at once the conditions of metre, of locality, and -of the context. So too, in the interesting Lacy charter printed on page -310, the editor might have detected in Adam de ‘Totipon,’ the Adam de -‘Futepoi’ of Giraldus, and the Adam de ‘Feipo’ of the poem: in records -the name appears in both forms. The case of this man, one may add, -is peculiarly interesting, because I have detected him as a knightly -tenant of Hugh de Laci in England in the returns of 1166, in which he -seems to be disguised as “Putipo.” He thus came, we see, to share in -his lord’s greatness, becoming one of the leading ‘barons’ in his new -dominion of Meath. - -It is necessary to explain that although this poem, in the form here -preserved to us, dates only from about 1220 to 1230, it enshrines -materials contemporary with the actual invasion and conquest. For it -is based upon a narrative which seems to have closed not later than -1176, and for which the _trouvère_ or compiler of the poem was indebted -to Maurice Regan, the interpreter, and, one might almost say, the -diplomatic agent of king Dermot, whose matrimonial adventures were the -_causa causans_ of the whole story. In giving to the poem the name of -“the Song of Dermot and the Earl,” the editor has brought out the fact -that its narrative is chiefly concerned with the doings of Dermot and -his son-in-law, ‘Strongbow,’ as the earl of Pembroke has been commonly -named.[341] It is not improbable that the original work was only -carried down to the earl’s death in 1176. Mr. Orpen lays special stress -on the fact that there are but “two allusions pointing to a much later -date,” and claims it as “a remarkable fact that, with the exception of -these two allusions ... there is nothing, so far as I have observed, -pointing to a later date than 1177.” He would seem, however, to have -overlooked an allusion to John de Curci’s subsequent troubles in Ulster -in the lines: - - De curti out anun iohan, - Ki pus isuffri meint [a]han. - -This, however, like the other two, would be only an addition by the -later versifier, and does not affect the main fact that we are dealing -with a metrical version of a story contemporaneous with the conquest, -and enshrining in ll. 3064–3177 “the only connected account of the -subinfeudation of Leinster and Meath ... that has come down to us, a -sort of original Domesday Book of the first Anglo-Norman settlement.” -As such, it has the advantage of date over the ‘Expugnatio’ of -Giraldus; it is also instinct with evidence of native local knowledge; -and, above all, it stands apart from any other authority in its -independent point of view. Giraldus wrote, as is well known, largely -with the object of glorifying his relatives, who made the invasion of -Ireland almost a family undertaking; in Regan, on the other hand, we -have the panegyrist of Dermot and the earl of Pembroke, who carried to -such a height the spirit of party faction as to denounce as “traitors” -all his countrymen who were opposed to Dermot and his foreign allies. - -The opening lines are, unfortunately, imperfect and so obscure that -the nature of the materials from which the _trouvère_ worked -and the exact share in their authorship due to Regan have been, and -must remain, to some extent matters of conjecture. Mr. Orpen himself -inclines to the belief that Regan supplied the unknown _trouvère_ -with a tale already “put into metre”; but Dr. Liebermann has rightly -urged the improbability of our poem being merely an adaptation of -one previously composed. Indeed, that eminent scholar has advanced a -theory of his own, namely, that the real original source was a “lost -chronicle” about the conquest of Ireland which Giraldus Cambrensis -had used in 1188 for his Expugnatio.’ And this theory he bases on -some striking parallel passages.[342] To the few typical parallels -adduced by Dr. Liebermann I would myself add some taken from the -stirring tale of the saving of Dublin when, mad for revenge, the ousted -Northmen assembled from all the isles of the north to regain their -lost dominion. This sudden upleaping, for a moment, of the old wiking -flame was but a splendid anachronism: like the Highland rising of the -‘forty-five,’ it was curiously out of date. Yet the old Scandinavian -spirit, if dulled among the traders of Dublin, still burnt in the hardy -rovers they had now summoned to their aid; and the Irish chieftain who -stood aloof watching with his men the surging fray as the little band -of Anglo-Normans strove to repel the onslaught, saw not merely rival -conquerors, quarrelling, like vultures, for the spoil, but deadly foes -whose own lives hung on the issue of that fight. But while in a fit of -‘berserker’ fury, ‘John the Mad’ led the attack against the eastern -gate, Richard de Cogan, the governor’s brother, had privily sallied -from another one:-- - - Este vus Johan le deue Duce Johanne agnomine - Vers dyuelyn tut serre, the Wode ... viri - Vers la cite od sa gent bellicosi ... ordinatis - En dreite la porte del orient, turmis ad portam orientalem - * * * * muros invadunt. - La cite unt dunc asaillie. - -Then, marching round till he reached the rear of the assailants, he -fell on them suddenly with a mighty shout, and the Northmen, caught -between his brother and himself, wavered at last in their attack. The -Danish axe still whirled in the hands of ‘John the Mad,’ cleaving its -way, as of old, through helm and coat of mail: - - De une hache ben tempre Militis quoque coxa ferro - Cosuit le ior un chevaler utrinque vestita uno securis - Que la quisse lui fist voler; ictu cum panno loricæ præcisa. - Od tut la hache de fer blanc - Lui fist voler la quisse al - champe. - -But John himself fell at last; and the sons of the wikings fled to -their ships. Hasculf, their king, captured alive, hurled at his captors -words of scorn, and was by them promptly beheaded, “pur son orgoil e -ses fous dis,” or, as Giraldus tersely puts it, “insolenti verbo.” - -If Dr. Liebermann’s theory be accepted, it would involve, as he -reminds us, the important consequence that we have in our poem and the -‘Expugnatio’ not two independent authorities, but narratives drawn from -a common source. The discrepancies, however, between the two are so -numerous and so significant that we cannot accept this new view as at -all satisfactorily proved. - -But turning to a third source of information, known as “the Book of -Howth,” I have no hesitation in saying that its nature has been quite -misunderstood. It is difficult to render clear, within a short compass, -the hopeless confusion that surrounds the subject, and that is, -virtually, all to be traced to an error of that ardent collector, but -most untrustworthy antiquary, Sir George Carew, whose voluminous MSS. -at Lambeth include both the ‘Regan’ poem and the Book of Howth, and to -whom we should have felt more grateful if he would only have left them -alone. But the worst offender was Professor Brewer, whose work it is -the fashion to rate very highly indeed, though I have found it by no -means unimpeachable even in his calendars of the state papers of Henry -VIII.[343] Now the Professor ought to have been quite at home on this -Irish subject, for it fell to his lot to edit the first four volumes -of Giraldus as well as the Book of Howth; yet he not only stereotyped -and carried further Carew’s original error, but found fault, somewhat -unjustly, with Mr. Dimock’s remarks in his preface to the ‘Expugnatio.’ - -The real facts of the case are these. So popular were the works of -‘Master Gerald,’ as Mr. Dimock observed, that they survive, not only -in many MSS., but in several early translations. The pedigree of these -translations has not been properly worked out. At Trinity College, -Dublin, we have two in E. 3, 31, and F. 4, 4, while at Lambeth we have -the so-called ‘Conquest of Ireland’ by Bray--published by Messrs. -Brewer and Bullen, with the Book of Howth--and in the latter (pp. -36–117) there is included another and more modernized version. Of these -the one assigned to Bray was held by Professor Brewer to have been -written about the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century, -and to be “so interesting and curious a specimen of English as spoken -in the Pale” that he decided to print it in full and to retain the -original orthography. But E. 3, 31 was, he admitted, “a still earlier -version.” Yet this latter MS., when submitted by Mr. Dimock to so -competent an authority as Mr. Earle, was pronounced by him to be “a -truly interesting specimen of fifteenth (_sic_) century Hibernian -English.” He added that it well deserved publication, in which remark I -certainly concur, its language being most curious. Professor Brewer (p. -xxiii.) declared it “an error” of Mr. Dimock and others to term this -MS. a translation of Giraldus, but the real error, we shall find, was -his own. The other Dublin MS. (F. 4, 4), to which he does not allude, -is assigned by Mr. Dimock to “the sixteenth century” (p. lxxvii.), and -declared to be “a transcript from the earlier E. 3, 31,” a description -which, unfortunately, misses the point. The solution, I believe, of -the whole mystery is that there was a very early and exceedingly free -translation of Gerald’s ‘Expugnatio,’ which, after the mediæval -fashion, spoke of him at times in the third person, and thus assumed, -in places, a quasi-original form. This original translation, which -seems to be now lost, was copied both by the writer of E. 3, 31 and by -Bray in his ‘Conquest of Ireland,’ the latter only modernizing somewhat -the language. Then come the two other MSS., both of the latter part of -the 16th century. Of these the distinctive feature is that while still -copying, though further modernizing, the original translation--for -internal evidence seems to prove that the Book of Howth at least -was derived from neither of the above copies--they interlard it -with certain passages taken from another and distinct source. This -discovery, which corrects Mr. Dimock and overthrows the conclusions of -Professor Brewer, is based on collation of the essential passage in the -Book of Howth with its parallel passage in the Dublin MS. F. 4, 4 as -given in Hardy’s ‘Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of -Great Britain,’ on the authority of Mr. W. M. Hennessy: - - BOOK OF HOWTH. TRIN. COLL. MS. F. 4, 4. - - This much Cameransse left out This much Camerans left out of - in his book aforesaid with other his book ... with other things - things, more for displeasure more for displeasure than any - than any truth to tell, the truth to tell, the cause before - cause afore doth testifie. God do testifie, God forgive them all. - forgive them all. This much that This much that is in this book - is in this book more than more than Camerans did writ of - Camerans did write of was was translated by the Primet - translated by the Primate Dowdall in the yere of o^r Lord - Doudall in the year of our God 1551 out of a Latin book - Lord 1551 out of a Latin book into English, which was found - into English, which was found with O’Neil in Armaghe. - with O’Nell in Armaghe. - -Nothing can be more clear than this reference to the interlarded -portions, which can all, I may add, be identified and separated from -the ‘Giraldus’ portion. But Carew carelessly wrote, in the margin -on fo. 6, that the _whole_ narrative “was translated out of an old -book of O’Neale’s written in Latin, and put into English by Dowdall, -Primate of Ardmaghe, beginning in anno 1167.” Though Professor Brewer -had the words of the original before him, and though he could not but -admit that Bray “follows closely the footsteps of Giraldus,” yet he -was so misled by Carew’s unlucky slip as to assert that the MS. E. 3, -31 was “nothing more than a translation of the Latin chronicle once -in O’Neil’s possession, which Carew calls ‘the Conquest of Ireland, -written by Thomas Bray’” (p. xxiii.). These, on the contrary, are -precisely the versions which have no interpolations from that source. -The Armagh book was devoted to the deeds of John de Courcy, Conqueror -of Ulster, though, by a crowning error, Professor Brewer was careful -to distinguish it from “A Chronicle of the Gests or Doings of John de -Courcey, Earl of Ulster.” Apart from the interest of its contents, -the “book” has a special importance from a significant allusion by -Giraldus, when closing his chapter on John, who was never, by the way, -“Earl of Ulster”: - - Sed hæc de Johanne summatim, et quasi sub epilogo commemorantes, - grandiaque ejusdem gesta suis explicanda scriptoribus - relinquentes, etc., etc. - -Having now cleared up all this confusion, I need not dwell on Professor -Brewer’s further failure to detect the share taken by Christopher lord -of Howth in the compilation of the book that bears the name of his -house, but will resume our discussion of the Anglo-Norman poem. - -Although, as I have said, the nature of the materials supplied to -this 13th century _trouvère_ must remain as yet conjectural, the -question is of some literary interest in its bearing on the relation -of the ‘Carmen Ambrosii’ to the ‘Itinerarium Peregrinorum,’ if not to -the chronicle of Richard of Devizes, in which cases, by a converse -process, we find a French poem utilized by a Latin chronicler. It is -the plausible suggestion of M. Paul Meyer that the _trouvère_ -to whom we owe this poem composed it by desire of the countess of -Pembroke, daughter of the earl, and granddaughter of Dermot, just as -the great ‘Marshal’ poem, now in course of publication, was written for -the glorification of her husband’s family.[344] That the writer was -a Pembrokeshire man is rendered extremely probable by his evidently -close acquaintance with that district, and his recognition of the -Flemish element in ‘little England beyond Wales.’ A curious test of his -accuracy is afforded by his mention of the king’s departure for Ireland: - - Li rei henri, quant eskipa, - A la croiz en mer entra. - -It is a warning to the critical school of historians that Miss Norgate -very naturally supposed the poet to have here mistaken Crook, in -Waterford harbour, where Henry disembarked, for the place where he -took ship. Mr. Orpen has shown conclusively, from records, that the -‘croix’ was the usual place of embarkation for those leaving Pembroke -for Ireland. We have thus a peculiar feature of the poem in its -combination of the Irish knowledge possessed by the original informant -with the acquaintance of its later versifier with men and places in -that district from which the adventurers had so largely come. - -Among the points on which this poem gives us special information we -may note its mention of a man who played no small part in the royal -administration of Ireland.[345] We read that, on the coming of king -Henry,-- - - Willame le fiz audeline - Od lui vint a cel termine (ll. 2603–4). - -Belonging to the same type as the men whom the first Henry had steadily -raised to office and to power as a check upon the turbulent feudal -nobility, William was called upon to play a similar part in Ireland -as the representative of the royal power among the eager adventurers -who had flocked to the land of promise. Hence their bitter complaints -against his rule to the king, and the violent criticism of his personal -character to which Giraldus gave utterance from the point of view of -his kinsmen. Now Professor Tout rejects the statement, in the two lines -we have quoted, that William came with the king, and infers from the -‘Gesta’ that Henry had despatched him some time before from Normandy to -govern till he came. But there is evidence--though unknown, it would -seem, to historians--that throws fresh light upon the question. Mr. -Eyton, in his ‘Court and Itinerary’ of the king, could not discover -any document belonging to his stay at Pembroke (29th September to 16th -October), while waiting to cross to Ireland. It was there, however, -on the 7th of October (as the date is, in this case, given) that he -granted a charter to the men of Maldon,[346] from which we learn that -with him at the time were the earls of Cornwall and Clare (Hertford), -Roger Bigod, three of his ‘dapiferi,’ or household officers, William -Ruffus, Alvred de St. Martin, and William Fitz Audelin, with two men, -Hugh de Gundeville and Robert Fitz Bernard, whom he took with him to -Ireland and left there. It is clear then that if William Fitz Audelin -and Robert Fitz Bernard met him on landing at Waterford, they can only -have preceded him, at most, by a few days. This discovery vindicates -the virtual accuracy of the poem. - -Mr. Eyton’s work, to which I have referred, records (p. 165) another -charter of interest for its date. It belongs to Henry’s stay at -Wexford, in March, 1172, on his way back to England. As only the first -two witnesses were known to Mr. Eyton, a full list may here be appended -as illustrating the king’s _entourage_ on this expedition. - - Testibus; Comite Ricardo filio Gilberti; Willelmo de Braosa; - Willelmo de Albin[eio];[347] Reginaldo de Cortenay; Hugone de - Gundevilla; Willelmo filio Aldelini dapifero; Hugone de Cresy; - Willelmo de Stotevilla; Radulfo de Aya (_sic_); Reginaldo - de Pavily; Radulfo de Verdun; Willelmo de Gerpunvilla; Roberto - de Ruilli; Apud Wesefordam.[348] - -Turning now to other subjects, one of the most curious allusions in -this poem is that which refers to the practice of tendering a folded -glove as a gage for waging one’s law. Maurice de Prendergast is accused -of treason in protecting the king of Ossory from the perfidy of his -foes: - - E Morice a sun guant plee, - A son seignur lad baille, - Quen sa curt ad dressereit - De quant quil mespris aueit. - Asez lunt replegeez - De vassals engleis alosez. - -So, too, when Robert Fitz Stephen was brought as a traitor before king -Henry: - - Le fiz estephene pleia sun guant - Al rei le tendi meintenant: - De quantque lui sauerat retter - Lui vodrat robert adrescer - En sa curt mult uolenters - Par la garde de tuz sez pers. - Asez le plegerent errant - Franceis, flamengs e normand. - -Mr. Orpen aptly quotes the case of the dying Roland, when ‘por ses -pechiez Dieu porofrit lo guant,’ and refers us to ‘vadium in duello,’ -and ‘plicare vadia’ in Du Cange. But the most instructive remarks on -this custom will be found in Professor Maitland’s introduction to -precedents for the Court Baron.[349] The formula he finds for this -antique wager runs thus: “He shall wage his law with his folded glove -(_de sun guant plyee_) and shall deliver it into the hand of the -other, and then take his glove back and find pledge for his law.” -The learned, writer explains that the folded glove typified that -chattel of value which “in very old times” was the _vadium_, _wed_, -or gage constituting the contract, and that this was now supplanted -by a contract with sureties, who had become the real security for -the party’s appearance in court. This procedure, it will be seen, is -brought out in our poem, which was written about a century earlier -than the treatise Mr. Maitland quotes. The mention here, I may add, of -“his peers,” and the phrase, as Mr. Orpen points out, ‘Li reis receut -le cors’ (l. 2635) suggest surely that the writer of the poem had a -special knowledge of legal formulas. - -The careful reader will detect also a constitutional hint in the -summons to the tenants by knight service to come to the assistance of -king Henry in the rebellion of 1173: - - Chevalers, baruns e meyne, - _A chescun barun par sei_, - Par le commandement le rei, - Que tuz passassent la mer - En normandie li reis aider. - -For we see here an allusion to that special summons, to which, -whether for council or for war, each ‘baron’ was entitled. One of the -grievances of Becket, it may be remembered, at Northampton was that -he had not been summoned ‘par sei,’ but only through the sheriff. -Perhaps, however, the most important contribution made by this poem -to institutional history is found in that most important passage, ll. -3064–3177, which the editor describes as “a sort of original Domesday -Book of the first Anglo-Norman settlement,” and as presenting all -the appearance of being, in substance, a contemporary account. For, -apart from its obvious value as “the only connected account of the -subinfeudation of Leinster and Meath by earl Richard Fitz Gilbert and -Hugh de Laci, respectively,” it affords a very striking confirmation -of the new theory on knight service advanced by me in the pages of -the ‘English Historical Review,’ in which, as against the accepted -view maintained by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman, I contended that the -_quota_ of knight service was determined not by the area of the fief, -but by “the unit of the feudal host,” and is therefore reckoned in -round numbers, and is almost invariably a multiple of 5, if not of -10.[350] I proved this to be the case for England, and appealed to -the Irish evidence as confirming the discovery. But I did not quote -this remarkable passage, from which we learn that in Meath--which -Henry had granted to Hugh de Lacy for the service of fifty knights (l. -2730)--Richard Fleming was enfeoffed to serve with twenty knights, and -Gilbert de Nugent (as we learn from charter evidence) with five; while -in Leinster, which the Earl, as we learn from charters, held by the -service of a hundred knights, Maurice de Prendergast received his fief -“pur dis [10] chevalers servise,” Walter de Riddlesford was bound to -furnish twenty knights, and a certain Reginald was assigned fifteen as -his quota. Our confidence in the poem is increased by the fact that -it names fifty knights as the service due from Meath, which we know -to be correct, while so good an authority as the ‘Gesta’ makes it a -hundred. The whole of this curious passage is ably annotated by Mr. -Orpen, and the puzzling place-names identified. But, familiar though he -clearly is with almost every source of information, he would seem to -be unacquainted with the valuable Gormanston Register, which contains, -I believe, a transcript (fo. 190 _a_) of the actual charter by which -earl Richard granted to Maurice Fitz Gerald Naas and Wicklow (ll. -3085–92)--the former for the service of five knights.[351] The same -Register has copies of three charters (fos. 5_b_, 188_b_), showing how -the lands spoken of in the poem as granted to Gilbert de Nangle came, -under Richard I., to Walter de Lacy, who granted them in turn to his -brother Hugh. - -The comparative ease and rapidity with which a handful of adventurers -had parcelled out among themselves the most fertile portions of the -island is perhaps the most surprising feature of the whole story. It -is certain that the native Irish were by no means wanting in courage; -indeed, they were then, as they always have been, only too ready -to fight. Their weapons were good and were skilfully wielded; but -like the wild Celts of Galloway, who had hurled themselves in vain, -at the Battle of the Standard, against a line of mailed warriors, -they scorned the use of defensive armour. Their mode of warfare was -essentially suited to woods and bogs and passes, while their assailants -were accustomed, from continental warfare, to cavalry actions in the -open. Combining the evidence of our poem with that of Master Gerald, -we can see clearly that, as in so many decisive encounters, from -Hastings itself to Culloden, the issue turned on the conflict of -wholly differing tactics. Precisely as at Hastings, the Normans--now -the Anglo-Normans--enjoyed the enormous advantage derived from the use -of the bow. Giraldus, whatever his defects, was a shrewd and sound -observer; and he tells us of the demoralizing effect on the natives, in -the early days of the conquest, of the arrows against which they had -no means of defence. Careful investigation shows that each band of the -invaders landed with a force of knights and archers, the latter being -usually found in the proportion of ten to one. In the combined action -of these two arms, as at the great battle which had decided the fate -of England, the Normans excelled. “In Hibernis conflictibus,” wrote -Gerald, “hoc summopere curandum, ut semper arcarii militibus turmis -mixtim adjiciantur.” As Harold had discovered, before the Conquest, -how unsuitable was a force composed of heavily-armed English infantry -for pursuit of the nimble Welsh, as Richard was shortly to find his -host of mailed knights and men-at-arms harassed to death by the swift -movements of the light Saracen cavalry, so, writes Gerald, the Irish -could only be successfully attacked by troops able to pursue them among -their mountain fastnesses. Nor are his criticisms less true for being -animated, as they evidently are, by the scorn of his gallant relatives, -as the pioneers of the conquest, for those later comers who despised -their experience, and on whom they looked in their fierce warfare, as a -rough colonist of the present day would look on a pipeclayed guardsman. - -The very first battle in which the invaders took part proved that the -Irish could not hope to stand against them in the open. Forcing their -way with Dermot into Ossory, through the woods and bogs, they found -themselves deserted at a critical moment by almost all their native -allies, who lost heart suddenly and fled. Maurice de Prendergast, -one of their leaders, saw that the little English band was likely to -be “rushed” by the natives, with whom the woods were swarming (“Que -els lur curusent sure”). In accordance with the old Norman tactics, -he detached his archers to form an ambush, and then spurred for the -open field: the natives followed in hot pursuit, and their wily foes, -reaching ground on which cavalry could act, turned and rode them -down. The archers in their rear completed their discomfiture, like -the English sharpshooters at Poitiers, and the native “friendlies,” -with their beloved axes, were soon spread over the field, pleasantly -engaged in decapitating the corpses of their fellow-countrymen. I see -no reason to doubt the tale of king Dermot gloating over the heads that -his followers brought and piled before him, and leaping for joy as -with a loud voice he rendered thanks to his Creator on detecting among -them the face of a specially hated foe. It may have been the thought -of his own son, blinded by his kingly rival, that made him, we read, -clutch the head and gnaw the features with his teeth. Such a ‘deviation -from humanity’ (to quote a famous phrase) will not seem incredible to -those who have seen his countrymen, centuries later in the history of -civilization, burn alive a woman as a witch,[352] deliberately mutilate -defenceless men, or dance in the very blood of the murdered Lord -Mountmorres. - -In all this internecine conflict the only motive that can clearly -be traced is the passionate desire for vengeance. To glut that -desire Dermot was ready, not only to call in the alien against his -fellow-countrymen, but even to promise ‘Strongbow’ the succession to -Leinster and his followers landed possessions, which he could only do -at the cost of enraging his own kinsmen and subjects. Giraldus, indeed, -is at pains to justify the position of the English in Ireland, and to -claim that it was virtually brought about by consent rather than by -conquest. Here again we may best picture to ourselves the situation by -comparing the treaties or concessions wrung from barbarous potentates -by the adventurous Englishmen of to-day. Dermot had notoriously -promised what was not his to give, without the least consideration for -the rights or interest of his people. But just as, at the conquest -of England itself, Norman casuistry had enabled William to claim the -succession by gift of his kinsman, and to forfeit as traitors all those -who opposed that claim, and just as his followers, by Norman law, -though standing in the shoes of English thegns, assumed the position of -feudal lords, so, in Ireland, the new settlers looked at things from a -feudal standpoint, and so originated that conflict of irreconcilable -polities which has practically continued without intermission ever -since. In the end indeed, especially outside of Meath and Leinster, -they adapted themselves, as is well known, to the native system of -government, and became, in the eyes of the English, more or less Irish -chieftains. But at first the necessities of the case accentuated their -alien status. For on the one hand the weakness of the royal power, and -on the other the danger of their position, conspired to give their -settlement an intensely feudal character. Our poem, as we have said, -shows us the lords of Meath and Leinster, respectively, enfeoffing -their followers to hold of them by knight service, and these became, it -should be noticed, the “barons” of Meath or of Leinster, a term which -in England was only found in the border palatinates of Chester and of -Durham. These barons were encouraged to construct castles at once as -the best defence against those sudden raids in which the Irish were -wont to indulge. In accordance with the policy of the Romans in their -day, and with our own at the present time, when extending the borders -of the Empire, the shrewd Gerald strongly urged that the country -should be opened up by constructing roads through its wilds, and then -held by fortified posts, or, as he expressed it, by castles. Writing -within twenty years of earl Richard’s landing, he had already to lament -that the Irish had learnt from their foes the use of the bow, and -had so greatly improved their tactics that the easy victories of the -early invaders were no longer possible: by castles alone could their -successors hope to hold the land. - -In the conquest of Ulster we have, perhaps, the most striking exploit -of the whole invasion. Accomplished by individual, and indeed -unauthorized, enterprise, it was not complicated, as in the south, by -native co-operation or royal interference, but was carried through by -the reckless daring of a single adventurer and his band. With two -and twenty knights and some three hundred followers, John de Courci -set forth from Dublin, about the close of January, 1177, to conquer -the kingdom of Ulster. Eager for plunder and the joys of the foray, -there had flocked to his standard those adventurous spirits who chafed -beneath the strict rule of the governor, William Fitz Audelin. In the -depth of winter they hurried forth, and reaching Down by forced marches -on the fourth day from leaving Dublin, were enabled to seize it by a -_coup de main_. Masters thus of the capital of the land, they had also -secured a maritime base invaluable for their further operations. The -Irish, stunned by the suddenness of the blow, had fled, carrying their -king with them, and the adventurers were soon revelling in the plunder -they had sought. In vain the natives, rallying from their flight, -endeavoured to recapture their lost stronghold. Like the garrison -of Dublin when beset by Roderick O’Conor and his host, John and his -handful of followers sallied forth upon their foes. Giraldus shows us -their leader as he lived, towering in height above his fellows, a man -of war from his youth up, whose only fault was the martial ardour that -led him, when the battle raged, to forget the general in the soldier, -as he charged headlong on his foes. Mounted on his famous white war -horse, he now performed, as usual, Homeric deeds of valour, lopping -off the heads and limbs of his enemies with a sweep of his tremendous -sword. The Irish, though beaten at length, attacked him again in the -summer, only to experience again defeat at his hand. But so desperate -was the struggle for the land that in one of his battles he was left -with only eleven knights. With their horses slain, and without food, -the little band fought their way, for thirty miles, through their foes, -and made good their escape. By sheer hard fighting ‘Ulvestere’--now -Down and Antrim--was at length virtually subdued and then ‘castled’ -by John. In time there rose on every side those strongholds of which -the crumbling ruins long bore witness to the harassed lives of the -alien lords of the land. Dreading the perils of the cloud-swept glens, -and creeping from rock to rock within sound of that troubled sea, the -“Barons of Ulster,” in their eyries, perched on the basalt crags, -wrought about the land a belt of conquest of which we have the noblest -relic in the wild glory of Dunluce. Their heirs still lingered on, four -centuries later, clinging “in great poverty and peril” to the lands -their ancestors had won. The Savages, the Jordans, the Russells could -still be recognised by their names, but we read of the “Fitzurses, now -degenerate, and called in Irish McMaghon, the Bear’s son.”[353] - -Like the proud lords of Leinster and of Meath, John de Courci had -his feudal officers, his “constable” and “marshal,” his “seneschal” -and his “chamberlain.” Ulster, in fact, had duly become a typical -feudal principality. Essentially obnoxious as such a development must -have been in the eyes of the English Crown, its weakness in Ireland -compelled it to temporize, nor could it find any better way of checking -this growth of feudal power than by playing off, in Ulster, the Lacys -against De Courci, just as it played them off against the Fitzgeralds -in the south. Thus was initiated that policy of see-saw which, in -practice, has always been, and is still, pursued. A striking passage -on the subject in the quaint Book of Howth is not inapplicable at the -present time, when the prospect of that steady government which Ireland -so badly needs seems as distant as ever.[354] - - By reason that the Irish heard this alteration and change of - governors, they did wholly swear never after to obey to the - English men, and said, ‘Seeing that themselves cannot agree, why - should we condescend to them ever after? For seeing that they - cannot love each one and other of themselves, they would never - love us that is strangers, and their mortal enemies. Therefore - let us take part together, and do that which please God we - shall; and first, here is in Connaught some of their knights, - and if we get the upper hand upon them we shall the easier win - the rest.’ - -‘Divide et impera’ was the policy adopted, and the spirit of faction -which the nobles seem to have imbibed from their Irish neighbours -was thus encouraged by the Crown. This system may be said to have -lasted down to the days of Elizabeth, to be succeeded, in the 17th -century, by the new rivalry of Catholic and Protestant, Cavalier -and Roundhead. But still the island was allowed to become the battle -ground of parties, favoured now, in turn,, by England, according to -the government in power at the time. But never, perhaps, has this -unfortunate system been more recklessly or disastrously pursued than -since Mr. Gladstone’s bid for the votes of the ‘Nationalist’ party. - -Although Giraldus has been bitterly assailed for criticising with no -sparing hand the undoubted failings of the Irish, he showed, we think, -on the contrary, far more fairness than might reasonably be expected -from a writer in his position. But he did far more than this. It might -indeed be truly said of him ‘Rem acu tetigit’: he boldly gave the -reasons why the conquest of Ireland was a failure, and added frank -and shrewd advice as to its government in the future. Even as we have -been often told that Cromwell would have settled the Irish question, -had only his ‘thorough’ policy been relentlessly pursued, so Giraldus -justly reminds us that the first flood of conquest was checked by Henry -II., when the work was only half done, and that Henry himself, in like -manner, only put his hand to the plough to turn back at once and leave -the work to others. Those others, again, were commissioned only to be -recalled: the strong centralized administration that was shaping the -English realm was never organized in Ireland; the Crown harassed, but -it did not govern. The four prophets of Ireland, he wrote, had duly -foretold that the island would not be mastered by the English till the -eve of the day of judgment. If he accused the Irish of shiftiness and -treachery, as the failings that accompanied their natural quickness, -he sternly rebuked his own countrymen for despoiling their native -allies of their lands, and wantonly insulting the native chieftains -when they came to pay their respects to John as lord of Ireland. He -even charges them with being corrupted by their intercourse with the -natives into sometimes imitating their treachery. That this charge was -not without foundation we learn from the French poem, which gives a -spirited description of the action of Maurice de Prendergast--one of -its heroes--when he brought his ally the king of Ossory to the English -camp, having pledged his word for his safety. The king of Munster -urged that his rival should be treacherously seized, “E li baruns, san -mentir, le voleient tuz consentir.” But Maurice, indignantly denouncing -their contemplated breach of faith, swore by his sword that he would -cleave the head of the first man who should dare to lay a hand upon the -king. - -It is chiefly, I think, because his evidence is fatal to the idle dream -of an Irish golden age that the evidence of Giraldus on the state of -the country has been so bitterly assailed. For my part, I believe his -statement as to the corruption in church matters to be entirely honest, -and deem them in accordance with what we know from other sources. In -his curious sketch of the lay ‘ecclesiastics,’ with their long flowing -hair, and with nothing clerical about them but the absence of weapons, -he touches one of the worst abuses from which the church suffered in -Ireland. The very see of Armagh itself had been held for at least two -centuries in hereditary succession by lay chieftains, and the practice -had spread widely to the degradation of the church. For half a century, -indeed, before the coming of the invaders, efforts had been made at -church reform; but the initiative had come from England and from Rome, -and little encouragement was given by the native rulers themselves. Nor -will those who are acquainted with Irish society in the past reject as -improbable the statement of Giraldus that the clergy, though greatly -distinguished by their chastity and fervent devotion to divine service, -were apt to spend their evenings in drinking somewhat deeply. But even -to this he is careful to add, there were found honourable exceptions. -The important fact to be remembered is that, if Ireland had once been a -centre of Christianity, a bright star in a heathen age, its church had -deteriorated, not advanced, amidst the ceaseless and murderous strife -of native rule. - -To say that the Anglo-Norman settlement, with its conquest, or rather -half conquest, of the country, proved a blessing to Ireland, is a -proposition that no one, probably, would care to maintain. Why this -should have been so is one of those fascinating problems that must ever -arouse the speculation and stir the interest of the student. The far -earlier Scandinavian settlements in Normandy and in Eastern England -have little in common with the exploits of Strongbow’s daring band. -Sicily in every way affords a closer parallel. Nearer in time to the -events we have discussed, its conquest, also, was no less essentially -a private enterprise. What the sons of Tancred had accomplished in the -south, the children of Nesta well might hope to bring to pass in the -west. Indeed the adventurers of the 11th century had faced a task, -to all seeming, harder than that which confronted the adventurers of -the 12th. Some might hold that the Norman race was no longer in its -prime, that its great conquering and governing powers were already -impaired. That its enterprise was less ardent, that in England it was -settling down, is, no doubt, the case: from the turbulent regions of -Wales adventurers were still forthcoming, but the pioneers of Irish -conquest were not supported by that inflow from England which was -needed for so great an undertaking, and which, in earlier days, would -probably have hastened to their support. But this was only one among -the causes of the great Irish failure. Sicily, like England, fortunate -in its kings, was fortunate also in that position of isolation which -enabled its Norman conquerors to work out their own destiny. If only -Ireland had enjoyed the same geographical advantage, if it had been far -enough distant from England, its invaders might, in the same fashion, -have established a dynasty of their own, and have quickly accommodated -themselves, with the marvellous adaptability of their race, to those -native ways to which indeed many of them did, ultimately, so strangely -conform. It is now recognised that the kings of England did not, and -could not, become true English kings till the loss of their Norman -possessions drove them to find in England their true home and country. -Giraldus was right when he urged that his friends should have been let -alone, or the royal power, if brought into play, exercised in full -force. One can, indeed, imagine what might have been the fate of -England, if, half conquered by adventurous bands of Normans, she had -then been half governed, from abroad, by a Norman duke. - -Deeper still, however, lay the root of the trouble. The Normans had -found England a kingdom ready made, its people accustomed to governance -and recognising the reign of law. Coming of a kindred stock, and -possessing kindred institutions, the English had only to receive the -addition of a feudal system for which their own development had already -made them ripe. In Ireland, on the contrary, the new comers found no -kindred system. Its tribal polity had placed between its people and -themselves a gulf impassable because dividing two wholly different -stages of civilization. With no common foundation on which to build, -they could only hope to become Irish by cutting themselves off from -their own people. If, on the other hand, they wished to substitute law -and order for native anarchy, there was no indigenous machinery for -the purpose such as the Norman kings had found and used in England: -they had no alternative but to introduce the system they had brought -with them, a system absolutely irreconcilable with all native ideas -of land tenure. Whether Ireland, if left to herself, would even yet -have emerged from the tribal stage of society becomes doubtful when we -contemplate the persistence of the _mores Hibernici_. A comparison -of the changes in our own people between the 12th century and the days -of Queen Victoria--or even of Queen Elizabeth--and those discernible -in the Irish people suggests relative stagnation. It clings to its -ways as the peasant clings to that patch of soil which he will not -leave, and on which he can exist only in squalor and in want.[355] -Of one thing at least we may be sure. No fonder dream has enthralled -a people’s imagination than that of an Irish golden age destroyed by -ruthless invaders. The first invaders who entered Ireland did so by the -invitation of one of her own sons; and they found it, as an Irishman -has said, “a vast human shambles.” - - Let Erin remember the days of old, - Ere her faithless sons betrayed her. - -We went to Ireland because her people were engaged in cutting one -another’s throats; we are there now because, if we left, they would all -be breaking one another’s heads. When an eminent patriot is good enough -to inform us of his desire, but for the presence of a British judge, to -wring a brother patriot’s neck, we are reminded that the sacred fire -still burns in Celtic breasts. _Ævum non animum mutant._[356] -The leaders of the Irish people have not so greatly changed since the -days when ‘King’ MacDonnchadh blinded ‘King’ Dermot’s son, and when -Dermot, in turn, relieved his feelings by gnawing off the nose of his -butchered foe. Claiming to govern a people when they cannot even govern -themselves, they clamour like the baboo of Bengal against that _pax -Britannica_, by the presence of which alone they are preserved from -mutual destruction. No doubt, as one of them frankly confessed, they -would rather be governed badly by themselves than well by any one else. -But England also has a voice in the matter; and she cannot allow the -creation of a Pandemonium at her doors. - - - - - VIII - - The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland - - -One of the hottest historical controversies that this generation -has known has been waged around a certain document popularly but -erroneously styled “the Bull Laudabiliter.” Duly found in the Roman -Bullarium (1739) and in the Annals of Baronius, its authenticity had -remained unshaken by sundry spasmodic attacks, and, some thirty years -ago, it was virtually accepted as genuine by Roman Catholic and by -Protestant historians alike. But since its learned examination and -rejection by Dr. (since Cardinal) Moran in November, 1872,[357] the -tide of battle has surged around it, the racial and religious passions -it aroused imparting bitterness to the strife. - -“It is a question with me,” Mr. Gladstone wrote, of Adrian’s alleged -donation, “whether as an abnormal and arbitrary proceeding, it did -not vitiate, at the fountain head, the relation between English and -Irish, and whether it has not been possibly the source of all the -perversions by which that relation has been marked.... In Ireland the -English fought with an unfair advantage in their hands; they had a kind -of pseudo-religious mission, a mission with religious sanctions but -temporal motives. I do not see how this could work well.”[358] - -It may be as well to explain at the outset that, as befits an Irish -controversy, the famous “Bull” in dispute is not really a Bull at all, -and that of the two assertions for which it is so furiously assailed, -the one is not to be found in it, but comes from another source, while -the other rests upon documents which even an assailant of the Bull -admits to be “certainly authentic.” But amidst the smoke and dust of -battle, these elementary points seem to have been hopelessly obscured. - -For the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with “the Bull -Laudabiliter,”[359] I may explain that the document in question is -inserted in the ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’ of Giraldus Cambrensis,[360] -published in or about 1188, and is asserted by him to be the document -brought from Rome by John of Salisbury in 1155. He also gives with it a -confirmation of it by Alexander III., obtained, he states, by Henry II. -after his visit to Ireland. - -Apart altogether from these two documents are three letters from -Alexander III., which are, similarly, only known to us at second -hand, being transcribed in what is known as the Black Book of the -Exchequer.[361] Broadly speaking, for the moment only, the main -difference between these letters and “the Bull Laudabiliter” is that -while, in the latter, Pope Adrian commends the intention of king Henry -to go to Ireland and reform the gross scandals prevailing there, Pope -Alexander, in the three letters, commends the action of the king in -having gone there for that purpose. - -Having thus given a general idea of the five documents to be -considered, I must now glance at the motives that have animated -the attack on the “Bull.” The first of these is the reluctance of -the Irish, as Roman Catholics, to believe that it was the Pope who -authorized an English king to reign over Ireland; the second is their -refusal to admit that the state of things in Ireland is truly described -in the “Bull.” - -Taking these reasons for attack separately, the first, as I hinted at -the outset, is a curious misconception. I need only, to prove that it -is so, print side by side the words of two bitter assailants of the -Bull--Father Gasquet and Father Morris. - - FATHER GASQUET. FATHER MORRIS. - - By this instrument ... The document by which Pope - Adrian IV. gave the sovereignty Adrian is supposed to have made - of the island to our English over Ireland to Henry - king Henry II.... From time Plantagenet.... - to time the ‘fact’ that an - English Pope made a donation of In this letter there is not one - Ireland to his own countrymen word which suggests the idea of - is used ... for the purpose temporal domination.[363] - of trying to undermine the - inborn and undying love and - devotion of the Irish people for - the sovereign Pontiffs.... - (But) Dr. Moran, the learned - Bishop of Ossory, adduced many - powerful, if not conclusive, - reasons for rejecting the ‘Bull’ - as spurious.[362] - -The fact is that the unfortunate document, denounced for its sanction -of Henry’s enterprise, does little, if anything, more than the three -Black Book letters, which emphatically approve that enterprise, when -undertaken, and sanction its results. Yet these letters are accepted, -we shall see, while the Bull is denounced as “spurious.” - -So, also, the general charges against the character and morals of the -Irish people at the time, implied by the words of the ‘Bull,’ are -actually eclipsed by those formulated in the Black Book letters. And -yet the authenticity of the ‘Bull’ is assailed on the ground of these -charges while that of the letters is either accepted or discreetly let -alone. - -It may have been observed that, in my opinion, these letters have by no -means played that important part in the controversy to which they are -entitled. The reason, perhaps, may be found in the fact that while the -defenders of the documents in the ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’ are conscious -that these letters by no means help their case, the assailants would -rather ignore evidence which confirms those statements in the “Bull” -that have specially aroused their hostility and forced them to denounce -it as ‘spurious.’ - -Father Gasquet, for instance, only refers to these letters as affording -“some very powerful arguments against the genuineness of Pope Adrian’s -Bull,”[364] and is careful not to commit himself, personally, to their -authenticity. - -The vigorous attack by Father Morris, in his “Adrian IV. and Henry -Plantagenet,”[365] on “the document by which Pope Adrian IV. is -supposed to have made over Ireland to Henry Plantagenet” is painfully -disappointing. For he tells us, at the outset, in his Introduction that - - were it not for the argument which it is supposed to carry with - it against the character of the Irish Church in the twelfth - century, the document itself would not have much importance (p. - xxxii.). - -It is, therefore, his avowed aim to redeem the character of that -church, and his attack on Adrian’s “Bull” is only undertaken to that -end. He wishes to destroy the “impression that the Church in Ireland -in the twelfth century was corrupt and disorganized”; he repels “the -accusation that Ireland, in the 12th century had lapsed into barbarism, -and had so far lost her place in the Christian commonwealth that the -Pope was in a way compelled to come to the rescue.”[366] To prove his -case he is bound, of course, to deal with and reject the three letters -of Alexander III. (1172), which contained so detailed and fearful an -indictment of the state of morals and religion in Ireland at the time. -What, then, is our astonishment when he abruptly observes: - - Our inquiry comes down no farther than Pope Adrian. Subsequent - letters of Roman pontiffs on the subject of Ireland stand by - themselves (p. 141). - -Is it possible that he felt himself estopped by the verdict of his -predecessor, Cardinal Moran, whose “judicial spirit” he commends,[367] -and who, while rejecting “Laudabiliter,” accepts as “certainly -authentic” these awkward letters. It seems to me equally uncandid in -Miss Norgate to avoid discussing the “Privilegium” of Alexander III., -and in Father Morris to ignore his letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ which -affect so gravely his case, and indeed impugn his arguments. - -In their blind animosity to the “Bull,” its Roman Catholic opponents -have been led into most astounding, and indeed contradictory, -assertions. Father Gasquet, for instance, prints side by side with -“Laudabiliter” the letter of Adrian to Louis VII., in order to prove -that their opening passages are “almost word for word the same.”[368] -Yet Father Morris, who appeals to this letter, and assures us that -“there is no question as to the authenticity of this document,”[369] -insists that the style of “Laudabiliter” is “in glaring contradiction -to all the authentic ‘Bulls’ of Adrian IV.”[370] It may be retorted -that the letter to Louis was not a “Bull.” But, then, no more was -‘Laudabiliter’: the two documents belong to precisely the same class. -Stranger still, in assailing what he terms “the spurious letter,” he -points out, as a flaw, that - - in the supposed commission to Henry the judge comes, as it - were, with lance in rest, as if he were charging the Moslem, - without any reference to those “undiminished rights (_jura - illibata_) of each and every church,” in the defence of - which, as we have seen, Pope Adrian was ever inexorable.[371] - -It will scarcely be believed that the “spurious letter” contains the -very words for the omission of which it is condemned (“jure nimirum -ecclesiarum illibato et integro permanente”), and that the test of -Father Morris thus recoils against himself. It is difficult to treat -seriously so careless, or so reckless, a controversialist. - - * * * * * - -Having now briefly explained on what documents the controversy turns, -I may mention that my own reason for joining in so fierce a dispute is -that I hope to be able to contribute towards its decision two facts -which, so far as I know, have as yet escaped notice. - -Wishful to approach the subject from an independent standpoint, I -have not studied the German papers dealing with the subject, but have -contented myself with those of Cardinal Moran (1872), the Analecta -Juris Pontificii (1882), Father Gasquet (1883), Father Malone and -Father Morris (1892), with Miss Norgate’s _résumé_ of the case and -unhesitating defence of ‘Laudabiliter’ in the ‘English Historical -Review’ (1893).[372] - -Miss Norgate, in her lengthy article,[373] defended the “Bull” with -some warmth, recapitulating and answering the arguments of its various -assailants. There are, however, involved two distinct questions, which, -to quote a phrase of her own, “have been somewhat mixed up”[374] by -her. For clearness’ sake, I give them thus: - - (1) Did John of Salisbury obtain from Pope Adrian in 1155 a - document which “gave Ireland,” as he expressed it, “to - king Henry”? - - (2) If so, was it the document set forth _verbatim_ by - Giraldus in his ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’? - -I have read through, not once or twice, but time after time, with the -greatest care, Miss Norgate’s article defending the authenticity of the -“Bull,” and I cannot find that this distinction has even dawned upon -her mind. Yet, to adapt her closing words, “one who fully accepts the -first” of these propositions “may yet dare to say” of the other, _non -sequitur_. - -To the first of the above questions I give no negative answer: I merely -quote the two passages on which the assertion rests: - - Ad preces meas illustri regi (privilegium) quod idem rex - Anglorum Henrico secundo ab Adriano papa Alexandri - (Adrianus) concessit et dedit decessore antea perquisierat, per - Hiberniam jure hereditario Johannem Salesberiensem, - possidendam; sicut literæ ipsius postmodum episcopum Karnotensem, - testantur in hodiernum diem. Romam ad hoc destinatum. Per - Nam omnes insuæ, de jure quem etiam idem papa Anglorum - antiquo, ex donatione regi annulum aureum in - Constantini ... dicuntur ad investituræ signum præsentavit; - Romanam ecclesiam pertinere. qui statim, simul cum privilegio, - Annulum quoque per me transmisit in archivis Wintoniæ repositus - aureum, smaragdo optimo fuerat.[375]--GIRALDUS - decoratum, quo fieret CAMBRENSIS. - investitura juris in gerenda - Hibernia; idemque adhuc annulus - in curiali archivo publico - custodiri jussus est.--JOHN OF - SALISBURY. - -As I only described, at the outset, the documents, I have not hitherto -touched on the passage in the ‘Metalogicus.’ But it should be observed -that just as Miss Norgate confuses two distinct questions, so Father -Gasquet attacks “Laudabiliter” for a statement found, not in that -document, but in this passage from the pen of John of Salisbury.[376] - -It is with the second of the above two questions that I am immediately -concerned. Assuming for the present that a document was actually -granted by Adrian, what ground have we for believing that the text in -the ‘Expugnatio’ is authentic? Between the appearance of her ‘England -under the Angevin Kings’ and that of her article in the ‘Review,’ Miss -Norgate seems to have discovered from Pflugk-Harttung, that there was -no copy of it, as she had imagined, “in the Vatican archives.”[377] She -admitted, therefore, that “the letter actually rests upon the testimony -of Gerald of Wales and the writer of the last chapter of Metalogicus.” -But here we see that confusion of thought of which I have spoken above. -The authenticity of the letter given in the ‘Expugnatio’ rests on the -authority of Gerald, and on his alone. - -Let us then enquire what credence we should give to those documents -he professes to quote _verbatim_. The two which naturally occur -to one for comparison with “Laudabiliter,” are the letter of Dermot -to “Strongbow” summoning him to Ireland,[378] and the “privilegium” -of Alexander III. confirming that of Adrian.[379] The former begins -with a normal address, and then--breaks at once into a quotation from -Ovid![380] This gives us a clear issue. Does Miss Norgate believe, or -does she not, that a warrior (and a savage) summoning a warrior, in the -days of Henry II., would parade his classical erudition by dragging in -tags from Ovid? And if she does not, how can she ask us to accept as -genuine a document because it is given by Giraldus. As to the other -test document, the “privilegium” of Alexander III., Miss Norgate is -curiously shy of touching it; I can only find an incidental allusion -to “the letter whereby Alexander III. is said to have confirmed the -favour granted by his predecessor to Henry,” and even this mention of -it is merely introduced to protest against arguments “which are only -appropriate to” that letter being used as fatal to the authenticity -of “Laudabiliter” also.[381] Indeed, by writing as she does of “the -silence of Alexander III.” as to Adrian’s letter,[382] she implies -that the document given by Giraldus as his is an absolute imposture; -and she uses, we shall find, in another place, an argument directly -fatal to the authenticity of its contents.[383] And yet Giraldus sets -forth these two “privilegia” together as jointly constituting the title -to Ireland derived by Henry from Rome. The two must stand or fall -together; if Gerald was capable of composing the one, he was certainly -capable of composing the other. - - * * * * * - -Having now shown that the fact of a document being found in the pages -of Giraldus Cambrensis is no proof of its authenticity, I turn to the -first of the two points that I hope to establish. - -The publication, in Ireland, of “the Bull Laudabiliter” is thus dealt -with by Miss Norgate: - - It is acknowledged on all hands that there is no sign of any - attempt on Henry’s part to publish the letter in Ireland ... - before 1175. In that year Gerald states that the letter was - read before a synod of bishops at Waterford (Opp. v. 315–6). - This statement, however, rests upon Gerald’s authority alone; - beyond this there is no direct evidence that the letter was ever - formally published in Ireland at all.[384] - -In another passage she admits, I understand, that it does not appear -to have been published by Henry until 1175 at the earliest.[385] -Now it is true that this date is so generally accepted that Father -Gasquet in assailing, and Father Malone in defending, the authenticity -of the Bull, are both agreed upon this point. The former, indeed, -boldly writes: “It is a matter beyond dispute that no mention whatever -was made by Henry of this ‘grant’ of Ireland by the Pope till at -earliest A.D. 1175.”[386] Father Morris similarly adopts “1175” as -the date when “Henry is said to have exhibited it at a synod held -at Waterford.”[387] Yet, when we turn to the passage referred to by -Miss Norgate, we find that no year is named by Giraldus himself. Mr. -Dimock appended the marginal date “1174 or 1175,” and this was also the -date he adopted in his Introduction. It was doubtless from him that -Professor Tout adopted this date in his life of William Fitz Audelin: - - Fitzaldhelm[388] was also sent in 1174 or 1175 ... to produce - the bull of Pope Adrian.... He soon left Ireland, for (_sic_) - he appears as a witness to the treaty of Falaise in October, - 1174.[389] - -If William was sent to Ireland, as alleged, in 1175, it is obvious -that he cannot have returned thence by October, 1174. It is clear, in -any case, that, on examination, the date accepted “on all hands,” as a -fixed point, is a guess. Let us then see if, from other sources, light -can be thrown on William’s mission. There is an entry on the Pipe Roll -of 1173, which reads thus: - - In Passagio Willelmi filii Aldelini et sociorum suorum et - Hernesiorum suorum in Hyberniam xxvii sol. et vi den. per breve - Ricardi de Luci (p. 145). - -Professor Tout oddly assigns it to an alleged despatch of William to -Ireland in 1171; for in that case it would duly have been entered on -the Pipe Roll of that year.[390] It must, in the absence of evidence -to the contrary, be held to refer to a mission of William between -Michaelmas, 1172, and Michaelmas, 1173. Is it then possible that this -was the date of the mission of which we are in search, and not 1175, -or even 1174? The answer, we shall find, involves more than a mere -question of chronology. - -“Gerald,” Miss Norgate writes, “is certainly no chronologist.”[391] Mr. -Dimock was even more emphatic: “There can be no worse authority than -Giraldus wherever a date is concerned.”[392] In this case, however, as -I have said, Giraldus does not even commit himself to a date: he merely -uses the vague “interea.” We must therefore deduce the date from the -sequence as he gives it himself. And that sequence is perfectly clear. -He takes us straight back to the Council of Cashel,[393] and tells us -that the document despatched by William and his colleague to Ireland -had been sent by the Pope in reply to the report of the proceedings at -that Council. Here are his own words: - - (COUNCIL OF CASHEL.) - - Ubi, requisitis et auditis publice terræ illius et gentis tam - enormitatibus quam spurcitiis, et in scriptum etiam sub sigillo - legati Lismoriensis, qui ceteris ibidem dignitate tunc præerat, - ex industria redactis, etc. (v. 280). - - (ALEXANDER’S ‘PRIVILEGIUM.’) - - Cum, _prænotatis_ spurcitiarum literis in synodo - Cassiliensi per industriam quæsitis, directis ad curiam Romanam - nunciis, ab Alexandro tertio tunc præsidente privilegium - impetravit, etc. (v. 315). - -Miss Norgate, both in her History and in her article, seems to have -overlooked this latter important passage, doubtless from its occurring -in another part of Gerald’s work. She has thus not only missed his -sequence, but has failed to adduce his direct testimony to the despatch -of documents to Rome after the Council of Cashel. Roger Hoveden is -the only chronicler she quotes as an authority for the statement that -“the bishops joined with Henry in sending to Rome a report of his -proceedings and their own.[394] Now the ‘Gesta Henrici’ is a better -authority to quote from here than Hoveden; and from it, therefore, I -take the following statements”: - - (1) The Irish kings “seipsos ei et ejus dominio dederunt - et homines ejus devenerunt de omnibus tenementis suis, et - fidelitates ei juraverunt” (i. 25). - - (2) The prelates “eum in regem et dominum susceperunt et - fidelitates eo juraverunt contra omnes homines. Et inde recepit - ab unoquoque Archiepiscopo et episcopo litteras suas in modum - cartæ, extra sigillum pendentes, et confirmantes ei et heredibus - suis regnum Hyberniæ, et testimonium perhibentes ipsos eum et - heredes suos sibi in reges et dominos constituisse imperpetuum” - (i. 26). - - (3) “Cum autem hoc factum fuisset predictus rex Angliæ misit - nuncios suos ad Alexandrum summum pontificem cum litteris - archiepiscoporum et episcoporum Hyberniæ ad confirmandum sibi et - heredibus suis regnum Hyberniæ, sicque factum est. Nam summus - pontifex, auctoritate apostolica, confirmavit ei et heredibus - suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit” (i. 28). - -We have then the independent evidence of Gerald and of the ‘Gesta’-- - - (_A_) That Henry sent “nuncii” to Rome after going to - Ireland. - - (_B_) That these “nuncii” took with them documentary - evidence, in the form, according to Gerald, of “letters” from - the Legate and prelates at Cashel, but according to the ‘Gesta’ - of sealed recognitions, by the several Irish prelates of Henry - and his heirs as kings (of Ireland). - - (_C_) That the Pope in reply, according to Gerald, sent a - “privilegium” empowering Henry to rule the Irish, and reform - their ecclesiastical condition,[395] but, according to the - ‘Gesta,’ confirmed Henry in possession of the kingdom of - Ireland, and appointed him and his heirs kings thereof for ever. - -Here we have sufficient discrepancy to mark the independence of the -writers, combined with a distinct agreement to the effect that Henry -sent “nuncii” to Rome, that they took something with them to support -the king’s petition, and that the Pope, in reply to it, sent something -back. - -What was it? - -Here we must turn to a third quarter, where the evidence is wholly -independent. This is the Black Book of the Exchequer in which are -entered the three letters from Pope Alexander, all of them dated -from Tusculum, 20th September, 1172. Miss Norgate, in her History, -referred to them as documents of undoubted authenticity;[396] but in -her article, though stoutly maintaining that their evidence was not -hostile to the genuineness of the “Bull,” she seems to have felt uneasy -on the subject, for she changes her tone, and writes that they “purport -to have been written by Pope Alexander III.,”[397] nay, even speaks of -them as Alexander’s letters, “if they indeed are his.”[398] - -To these letters, which Cardinal Moran pronounced “certainly -authentic,” I now invite attention. The first, which is addressed -to Christian bishop of Lismore (the legate), the four archbishops -(by name), and their suffragans the bishops, speaks of the “vitiorum -enormitates” made known to the writer by their letters (“ex vestrarum -serie literarum,” “ex vestris literis”) and the “abominationis -spurcitiam.”[399] No more exact agreement could be found than this -document presents with the statement of Giraldus that the Legate’s -letters, on behalf of the assembled prelates, recited “tam enormitates -quam spurcitias” of the Irish. Again, the third letter, “to the kings -and princes of Ireland,” similarly charges the Irish with “enormitatem -et spurcitiam vitiorum”; and it confirms not only Giraldus but the -‘Gesta’ by its words: “in vestrum Regem et dominum suscepistis et -ei fidelitatem jurastis ... vos voluntate libera subdidistis ... -fidelitatem quam tanto Regi sub juramenti religione fecistis.” Their -“juramenti debitum et fidelitatem predicto Regi exhibitam” is spoken -of also in the letter to the prelates. Passing now to the second -letter, which is to Henry himself, it introduces a new element; for -while that to the prelates had referred to their letters and “aliorum -etiam veridica relatione,” a vague phrase which, in the letter to the -princes, reappears as “communi fama et certa relatione,” the Pope, in -writing to the king, gives as his sources of information, first, the -letters from the Legate and Prelates, and then the _viva voce_ -statements of Ralf archdeacon of Llandaff.[400] Now we know from the -‘Gesta’ that this Ralf was sent by Henry to hold the Council of the -Irish Prelates at Cashel;[401] and we further know that the king had -sent him to Rome as an envoy in the Becket business some two years -before.[402] We have then, in this letter, confirmation of the fact -that Henry sent a mission, with the prelates’ letter, to Rome, while -the envoy it names is the very one whom he was specially likely to send. - -So far, then, we find a most convincing agreement. Pope Alexander -relied mainly for information as to the state of Ireland and as to -the action of Henry on the written report of his Legate and the other -prelates of Ireland, and on the personal statements of the king’s envoy -who came with it. As to these points, there can really be no question. - -But the best proof, to my mind, of the authenticity of these letters -is that neither Giraldus nor any of the chroniclers used them, and -that, so far at least as the ‘Gesta’ and Hoveden are concerned, they -must have been purposely kept back. For the points of discrepancy -are even more instructive than the points of agreement. It may have -been observed that the ‘Gesta’ speaks of the documentary evidence as -consisting of the prelates’ sealed letters appointing Henry and his -heirs kings of Ireland. Giraldus, on the contrary, makes it consist -of a report from the Council of Cashel on the State of Ireland. The -letters explicitly confirm the latter statement, and wholly ignore -the evidence described in the former. Moreover, the assertion in the -‘Gesta’ that the Pope made Henry and his heirs, in reply, kings of -Ireland for ever is at direct variance with the letters, which do -nothing of the kind. We must, then, it seems to me, conclude that the -‘Gesta’ and Roger Hoveden deliberately strove to represent the Pope as -doing what he did not do, and dared not, therefore, quote the letters, -knowing them to be not at all what was wanted.[403] - -It seems to me a strong argument in favour of the letters to Henry -himself, and one which may have been overlooked, that Pope Alexander -pointedly speaks of Henry’s fresh expedition as undertaken, like a -crusade, by way of penance for his sins: - - Rogamus itaque Regiam excellentiam, monemus et exhortamus - in Domino, atque in remissionem tibi peccatorum injungimus - quatinus, etc ... ut sicut pro tuorum venia peccatorum adversus - eam tantum laborem (ut credimus) assumpsisti, etc. - -Even if the words do not imply that Henry himself had so represented -it, they afford an answer to those who urge that the Pope could not -have approved of such an enterprise by one who was himself at the time -under a grave cloud. - -Broadly speaking, they express the Pope’s warm approval of Henry’s -expedition--as a missionary enterprise. It is as the champion of the -church, and especially of St. Peter and his rights, that they praise -him for what he has done. Specially significant is the fact that the -rights claimed by Rome, under the Donation of Constantine, over all -islands are not asserted (as by John of Salisbury) as justifying the -grant of Ireland to Henry, but as entitling the Papal see to claim -there rights for itself.[404] - -Accepting, then, these letters as genuine, let me briefly recapitulate -how the case stands. Their contents agree, we have seen, independently, -in the most indisputable way, with the narrative of Giraldus. Moreover, -that narrative, when carefully examined, leads us to infer that the -Pope’s answer was despatched in reply to Henry’s mission; and with that -inference the date of these letters (20th Sept., 1172) agrees fairly -enough. Such a date as 1174 or 1175 would not agree with it at all. -Lastly, Giraldus tells us that the Pope’s confirmation was despatched -to Ireland with William Fitz Audelin; and, indeed, we should naturally -expect that Henry, when he had succeeded in getting it, would lose no -time in publishing the fact. Both the statement of Giraldus and that -expectation are confirmed by the Pipe Roll entry, which proves that -William Fitz Audelin did visit Ireland between Michaelmas, 1172, and -Michaelmas, 1173, which is just the time that he must have done so, if -he went there in charge of the Pope’s letter (or letters). - -But now comes the hitch. If Giraldus had given us the text of the -letter which the Pope really sent, and which is entered in the Black -Book, it would have agreed with and confirmed his narrative in every -respect. Instead, however, of doing this, he gave a letter, which even -his champions do not venture to defend as authentic, a letter which -does not agree with his narrative--for it ignores the legate’s report -and the other information supplied--a letter which, for all we can find -in it, was written in complete ignorance, not only of Henry’s visit to -Ireland, but of every other fact in the case. In short, it is a mere -general confirmation of Adrian’s famous “Bull,” and might as well have -been issued before as after the king’s expedition. And so clumsily -is it introduced that Giraldus does not even make the king ask for -anything of the kind. - -I have said that even his champions do not defend its authenticity. -Miss Norgate, who defends with equal fervour Giraldus and -“Laudabiliter,” admits that its critics are right in stating that the -Pope’s letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ - - make no mention of any papal grant, nor of the tribute of - Peter-pence, which “Laudabiliter” expressly states that Henry - had undertaken to establish in Ireland.[405] - -But, she urges, it was most improbable that the Pope would refer to -Peter-pence in 1172: - - It would have been much more surprising, because highly - derogatory to his tact, wisdom, and justice, if he had mentioned - it at that moment.... To expect that he should assail them with - an instant demand for money before they had time to settle - down in their new relations, would be to charge him with equal - recklessness and rapacity.[406] - -I do not say that I agree with the argument: it could, I think, -scarcely be weaker. But the point is that Pope Alexander, in the letter -given by Giraldus, and asserted by him to have been sent in reply to -the letters from the Council of Cashel (1171–2), is represented as -confirming the “Bull of Adrian” “salva beato Petro ... de singulis -domibus annua unius denarii pensione.” That is to say that, if the -letter is genuine, he did exactly what Miss Norgate assures us he would -not have done. It follows then, from her own argument, that the letter -cannot be genuine.[407] - -I must here again remind the reader of the cardinal point in my case, -namely, that Giraldus has been misunderstood as assigning to “1175” the -despatch of the Pope’s “privilegium,” whereas his narrative clearly -shows that he treats that “privilegium” as obtained by Henry in reply -to the report of the Council of Cashel (1171–2) and as the Papal -sanction of what he had done in Ireland. That the king was anxious to -obtain this sanction, and to publish it, when obtained, as soon as -possible, we may readily believe. But that he obtained it as soon as -possible, and, having done so, made no use of it till he suddenly, -in “1175,” despatched it to Ireland _à propos de bottes_, is an -unintelligible hypothesis. In any case, we are confronted with the fact -that both the “privilegium”[408] and the Black Book letter purport to -have been despatched from Rome in reply to Henry’s mission. But they -could not both be the Pope’s reply: one or the other must be false. -This being so, we need not hesitate to decide in favour of the Black -Book letter; for the “privilegium” given by Giraldus is virtually -abandoned, we have seen, even by Miss Norgate. - -The conclusion, then, at which we arrive is that Giraldus substituted -for the true reply of the Pope a false one merely confirming the “Bull” -Laudabiliter. From this conclusion we advance to the question whether, -if he was capable of concocting (or giving it currency when concocted) -a spurious letter of Alexander, he was not also capable of concocting -(or giving it currency when concocted) that letter of Adrian, which he -published with it, in the ‘Expugnatio,’ and which, in fairness, must be -treated as inseparable from it.[409] - -We saw clearly at the outset that he can have had no scruple as to -inserting in his narrative--I will not say a forged document, but -one of which the text was the work of his own pen. On this point, -therefore, we need not hesitate. We may proceed then to enquire whether -Henry II. was likely to keep silence as to Adrian’s “Bull” when he -entered Ireland--the very time when he might be expected to make use of -it--and then produce it at a subsequent time with no particular reason. -Two propositions are here involved. As to the first Father Gasquet has -observed: - - It was of vital importance when he went over to receive the - homage of the Irish, and could never have been withheld or - concealed at the Council of Cashel in 1172, at which the Papal - legate presided.[410] - -Father Burke, whom he quotes, has bluntly insisted on the fact; and -Father Morris has similarly dwelt on the king’s suspicious silence. -So great, indeed, is the difficulty of supposing that Henry made no -mention of the “Bull” at the very time when, if ever, he was likely to -make use of it, that Miss Norgate wrote as follows, in her ‘England -under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 115): - - We hear not a word of Pope Adrian’s bull, but we can hardly - doubt that its existence and its contents were in some way or - other certified to the Irish prelates before ... they met in - council at Cashel in the first weeks of 1172. - -Going even further, in another passage (ii. 81), she boldly spoke of -Henry’s “conquest won with Adrian’s bull in his hand.” And yet, when -afterwards, in her article, she wished to deny the difficulty, she -could turn round and confidently urge that “Henry said nothing about -the Pope’s letter, because it was a matter of no practical consequence -whatever.”[411] Such a _volte-face_ as this does not tend to inspire -confidence in her arguments. But even if we accept this, her later -conclusion, it only increases the difficulty of explaining why Henry -II. formally made the “Bull” public a year or two later (and still -more, why he should have done so, as she holds he did, in “1175”). And -this difficulty, so far as I can find, she does not attempt to meet. - -Everything then, it seems to me, points to the clear conclusion that -Giraldus substituted for the genuine letters from the Pope, in the -‘Liber Niger,’ a concocted confirmation of an equally concocted “Bull” -from his predecessor Adrian. - -Having arrived at this conclusion, I propose to ask three questions: - - (1) Why did Giraldus do this? - (2) How were his documents concocted? - (3) Was there a conspiracy, in which Giraldus - joined? - -As to the Welshman’s motive, it has been urged by his critics that he -wished to gratify the king. Miss Norgate retorts: - - At no period of his life is it likely that Gerald would have - had any personal interest in putting in circulation, for King - Henry’s benefit, a document which he knew or suspected to be - forged; least of all would he have cared to do it for the sake - of bolstering up Henry’s claims upon Ireland.[412] - -But whatever may have been his personal feelings towards Henry II. his -eagerness to prove the right of the English Crown to Ireland is one of -the leading features of his ‘Expugnatio Hiberniæ.’ He sets forth more -than once the arguments on which he bases it, and he treats the Papal -action as the crowning argument of all: - - Et quod solum sufficere posset ad perfectionis cumulum et - absolutæ consummationis augmentum, summorum pontificum, qui - insulas omnes sibi speciali quadam jure respiciunt, totiusque - christianitatis principum et primatum confirmans accessit - auctoritas (v. 320). - -The reference, in this passage, to the Donation of Constantine, and -therefore to “Laudabiliter,” is clear. - -I pass to my second question: ‘How were the documents concocted?’ -The unfortunate theory was advanced by the ‘Analecta’ writer that -“Laudabiliter” was adapted from a genuine letter of Adrian written, in -1158, to Henry of England and Louis of France, forbidding them to enter -Ireland, as they proposed to do, in conjunction. It was urged that this -genuine letter had been altered into the ‘Bull’ Laudabiliter, and thus -made to bear the very reverse of its meaning. It was necessary, for -this solution, to hold that the genuine letter did not refer, as had -been supposed, to Spain (_H[ispania]_) but to Ireland (_H[ibernia]_). -Although this bold theory was adopted by Father Gasquet,[413] he seems -to have been conscious of its weakness; for he leaves it with the -words: “Whether this theory as to the origin of the Bull be correct -or not,” etc., etc. The words “pagani” in the genuine letter are of -themselves fatal to the theory, and Father Malone had no difficulty in -showing that it was preposterous.[414] It is true that, as Miss Norgate -admits,[415] “between the introductory sentences of the two letters -there is certainly a close verbal similarity,” but even if this letter, -relating to the Spanish crusade was placed under contribution by the -concocter of our document, I should none the less advance as my own -theory the view that Gerald employed, largely at any rate, the genuine -letters of Alexander III., entered in the ‘Liber Niger.’ In support of -this theory I might adduce certain suggestive parallels: - - THE LETTER. THE “BULL.” - - sicut ... comperimus, ... ad Significasti ... nobis ... te - subjugandum tuo Dominio gentem Hiberniæ insulam ad subdendum - illam et ad extirpandum tantæ illum populum legibus et vitiorum - abominationis spurcitiam ... plantaria exstirpanda velle, - tuum animum erexisti. intrare. - - Christianæ religionis suscipiat crescat fidei Christianæ religio, - disciplinam ... ita etiam et quæ ad honorem Dei et salutem - de suæ salutis perfectu coronam pertinent animarum taliter - merearis suscipere sempiternam. ordinentur, ut a Deo sempiternum - mercedis cumulum consequi - merearis. - - quia, sicut tuæ magnitudinis sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas - excellentia [? cognoscit], ... ad jus beati Petri et - Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, - in Insula quam in terra magna quod tua etiam nobilitas - et continua, etc. recognoscit, non est dubium - pertinere. - -The very fact that these coincidences are rather suggestive than -verbal, favours, I think, the theory of concoction. But I am chiefly -influenced by the fact that “Laudabiliter” does little more than -paraphrase and adapt the contents of Alexander’s letter. Even its -clause as to Peter’s pence might be based on Alexander’s insistence -that Henry was not only to guard “jura beati Petri,” but “si etiam ibi -non habet (jura)”--as was the case with Peter’s pence--to establish -them himself. - -And now as to my third question: ‘Was there a conspiracy?’ I doubt -if sufficient attention has been paid to the remarkable words of the -‘Gesta Henrici,’ followed as they were by Hoveden.[416] That they were -introduced of set purpose is evident from their repetition.[417] It -should be observed that the story told in the ‘Metalogicus’ of Adrian -and in the ‘Gesta’ of Alexander is to the same effect: - - METALOGICUS. GESTA HENRICI. - - regi Anglorum Henrico secundo summus pontifex ... confirmavit - (Papa) concessit et dedit ei et heredibus suis regnum - Hiberniam jure hæreditario illud, et eos imperpetuum - possidendam. reges constituit. - -Neither the letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ nor even the documents given -by Giraldus can justify these expressions. Yet this must have been what -we may term the view officially adopted. As the Black Book letters of -Alexander III. could not be made to support this view, its upholders -preferred to fall back on the alleged grant by Adrian, as the source of -Henry’s title, and to pretend that his successor Alexander had merely -confirmed it. “Laudabiliter” did not, it is true, go so far as was -required, but it carried back the title to Adrian’s action, and, so -far, supported the story. - - * * * * * - -The subsequent attitude of Rome towards the English story is a matter -of obvious interest, but, as yet, of much obscurity. Cardinal Moran -relied on the personal information of Theiner for the statement that - - nowhere in the private archives, or among the private papers of - the Vatican, or in the ‘Regesta’ which Jaffé’s researches have - made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical - letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of - Adrian and Alexander.[418] - -In the strict sense of the words, no doubt the above statement may -be absolutely true. But in the document below, from Theiner’s own -work,[419] we have, surely, in the words “de voluntatis sedis ipsius,” -a most distinct reference, at least, to Adrian’s alleged action. In the -preamble to a Papal dispensation of the 13th century, we find these -words: - - Exposita siquidem nobis dilecti filii nobilis viri Galfridi de - Ianvilla patris tui, fili Symon, petitio continebat quod cum - terra Ybernie ac eius incole, ut tenentur, nec sedi eidem, nec - Regi Anglie obedirent, sed velut effrenes per campum licentie - ducerentur, clare memorie Henricus olim Rex Anglorum de - voluntate sedis ipsius armata manu terram predictam intravit, et - eam ac habitatores ipsius ad ejusdem sedis obedientiam suaque - (_sic_) pro posse reduxit, et tam idem Rex quam ejus successores - in regno prefato probos viros nationis alterius studuerunt - successu temporis in terra memorata Ybernie ad continuandam - inibi sedis ejusdem obedientiam collocare. - -The words of this preamble should be most carefully studied; for -though, as I have said, it clearly refers to the action of Pope Adrian, -in its statement that Henry invaded Ireland “at the wish of the Papal -see,” yet the words “velut effrenes per campum licentie ducerentur” -must, surely, be derived from the “tanquam effrenis passim per abrupta -deviat viciorum” of Alexander’s letter to Henry entered in the ‘Liber -Niger.’ If so, they are evidence, even though they stand alone, that -the existence and contents of this letter were known in Ireland at the -time. - -There is another and far later reference to ‘Laudabiliter’ in a Papal -document, which I have not seen mentioned, although the document is one -of great consequence for Irish history. When Innocent X. despatched -Rinuccini as Papal Nuncio to Ireland (1645) he gave him formal -instructions, in which was comprised a brief outline of past events. In -it we find this definite and most striking passage: - - For a long period the true faith maintained itself, till the - country, invaded by the Danes, an idolatrous people, fell for - the most part into impious superstition. This state of darkness - lasted till the reigns of Adrian IV. and of Henry II., king of - England. Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire, and to secure - the provinces which he possessed beyond sea in France, wished to - subdue the island of Ireland; and, to compass this design, had - recourse to Adrian, who, himself an Englishman, with a liberal - hand granted all he coveted. - - The zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith - moved the soul of Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of - that island. Three important conditions were annexed to the - gift. 1st. That the king should do all in his power to propagate - the Christian religion throughout Ireland. 2nd. That each of his - subjects should pay an annual tribute of one penny to the Holy - See, commonly called Peter’s pence. And 3rd. That civil liberty - should be guaranteed, and the privileges and immunities of the - Church be held inviolate.[420] - -This clear testimony to the Pope’s belief, in 1645, that Adrian had, by -‘Laudabiliter,’ invested Henry II. with the sovereignty of Ireland can -hardly be agreeable reading to Father Gasquet and his friends. - - - - - IX - - The Coronation of Richard I - - -The first coronation of an English king of which we possess a detailed -account is that of Richard I. (3rd Sept., 1189). It was carried out, -says Dr. Stubbs, “in such splendour and minute formality as to form a -precedent for all subsequent ceremonies of the sort.”[421] As a more -recent writer has observed: - - The order of the procession and the details of the ceremonial - were arranged with unusual care and minuteness; it was the - most splendid and elaborate coronation-ceremony that had ever - been seen in England, and it served as a precedent for all - after-time.[422] - -It is consequently of some interest to learn on what authority the -narrative of this coronation rests. - -The original authority is that of the writer formerly described as -“Benedictus abbas,” but now virtually known to have been Richard ‘Fitz -Nigel,’[423] who was not only a contemporary writer, but, as the king’s -Treasurer, would probably have been an actual spectator of the ceremony -he describes. His account is repeated by Hoveden,[424] who was also a -contemporary, and possibly present, but “adds only matter of extremely -small importance.”[425] We then come to Matthew Paris, writing some two -generations later, who gives, says Dr. Stubbs-- - - a similar account of the coronation, more closely resembling - that of Benedict ... in the few and unimportant places where - the two differ. He indicates the common source of information, - the Rolls (ed. Wats, p. 154) or Consuetudines (Abbreviatio, Ed. - Madden, iii. 209) of the Exchequer.[426] - -This view was accepted by Dr. Luard (1874), who says of the narrative -given by Matthew in his Chronica Majora (ii. 348–350): - - This account is taken from Benedict. The original source (the - Consuetudines Scaccarii) is referred to in the Hist. Angl., ii. - p. 8, and the Abbreviatio Chronicorum, iii. 209. See Madden’s - note, iii. 209.[427] - -We are thus referred to Sir Frederic Madden, who, as keeper of the MSS. -at the British Museum, possessed special knowledge, and who wrote thus -(1869): - - The details of Richard’s coronation do not appear either in - the Red or Black Books of the Exchequer, but they are given by - Benedict Abbas, pp. 557–560, and copied by Hoveden, from whom - Wendover somewhat abridges them, and thence repeated in the - greater Chronicle of Matt. Paris, ed. Wats, p. 153, and Hist. - Ang., ii. 6.[428] - -This, it will be seen, hardly commits the writer to the view that some -Exchequer record was, as alleged above, the original authority. But -such, no doubt, might be the inference from this comment on the text. -As important inferences have now been drawn from this error, as I -venture to deem it, we must glance at the actual passage on which the -theory is based. - -Unconnected with the narrative of the coronation, which is complete -without it, there is found, in the ‘Historia Anglorum’ (ii. 9) this -marginal note: - - Officia prelatorum et magnatum quæ ab antiquo jure et - consuetudine in regum coronationibus sibi vindicant et facere - debent, in rotulis Scaccarii poterunt reperiri. - -This obviously refers, not to the narrative in the text, which is that -of the coronation ceremony alone, but to the services performed “by -ancient right and custom” in the king’s house on that occasion. Of -these there is no description in the text. In another work ascribed, -but doubtfully, to Matthew Paris, the so-called “Abbreviatio,” the -coronation is mentioned, but not described; and there is added a -similar note; - - Et quia exigit plenitudo historiæ officia quorundam magnatum - qui in coronationibus habent implere, de antiqua consuetudine, - lectorem hujus libelli abbreviati ad historiam transmitto - prolixiorem quæ in consuetudinibus Scaccarii poterit - reperiri.[429] - -In both cases, it will be observed, an exchequer record is referred -to solely for the customary offices or services rendered by -certain magnates; and in both cases the present tense and the word -“coronation_ibus_” imply that the reference is general, and is not -merely a description of what happened at Richard’s coronation. Now my -contention is that the record referred to is that of Queen Eleanor’s -coronation in 1236, which is preserved, at the present day, in the -Red Book of the Exchequer, and which was known to Matthew Paris, -who appends to his narrative of the services at that coronation the -marginal note: “Hæc omnia in consuetudinario Scaccarii melius et -plenius reperiuntur.”[430] We actually find in that record the words: -“de prædictis autem officiis nullus sibi jus vendicavit,” etc.,[431] -which at once remind us of the marginal note found in the ‘Historia -Anglorum.’ - - * * * * * - -The solution, therefore, which I propound is that the narrative of the -coronation, which is admittedly derived from the ‘Gesta,’ was written -by its author from his own knowledge, and certainly not derived by him -from an Exchequer record. In the first place, it is nowhere said that -he did so; in the second, it is little less than absurd to assume that -Richard would refer to a record in his own Exchequer for a ceremony -which must have taken place while he was writing his chronicle, and at -which he was probably present. The idea arose, as I have shown, from -a simple misunderstanding, and has led those who adopt it to direct -self-contradiction, for if Matthew derived, as admitted, his narrative -from the ‘Gesta,’ he could not also have derived it, as Dr. Luard -writes, from some Exchequer record. - -As Richard had not described the coronation _services_, Matthew, -for these, refers us to that precedent preserved at the Exchequer -(Eleanor’s coronation), which was, we shall find, the recognised -precedent for coronation services so late as 1377.[432] - -We may now pass to Mr. Hall’s theory that the non-appearance in the -Red Book of “the order of Richard I.’s Coronation, referred to (as he -holds) by Matthew Paris, is a third instance of palpable omission”[433] -of transcripts it formerly contained. His only reason for denying that -the above marginal notes refer (as I hold) to Eleanor’s coronation -(1236) is that “Hoveden, Bromton, and other authorities give an -abbreviated narrative” which implies the existence of such a record as -is supposed to have been lost. But Hoveden, as we have seen, copies -his narrative from the ‘Gesta,’ which he does not abbreviate, but -expands--and does not describe the “services,” which is what we want. - -Mr. Hall’s meaning, however, is, as usual, obscure; for, having cited -the supposed narrative as at one time existing in our Red Book (p. -xviii.), he next tells us: “It can scarcely be doubted that Matthew -Paris’ reference was to some Exchequer Precedent Book which no longer -exists” (p. xix.), although, we read, it was certainly from our -existing Red Book that he took his “description of the pageant of 1236” -(pp. xix., xxxii.). He calls it the “custumal” (_consuetudinarium_) of -the Exchequer. And yet on page xxix. we read of Matthew referring to the - - ‘custumal’ of the Exchequer wherein a certain document of the - reign of Richard I. is said to have been entered, which no - longer exists in the Red Book or in any other Exchequer MS. - -So also we learn, on page lxii., that Swereford compiled a lost work -“which was the custumal known to Matthew Paris, and the probable -exemplar of the Red Book of the Exchequer.” So Matthew’s ‘custumal’ -(_consuetudinarium_) was not the Red Book itself, but its now lost -“exemplar.” Yet on page xix. we are told that this, the only ‘custumal’ -mentioned by Matthew, was, beyond doubt, the Red Book of the Exchequer. - -It is here, with Mr. Hall, the same as elsewhere. His work is marred, -throughout, by that confusion of thought which makes it almost -impossible to learn what he really means. - -In any case my own position is clear. I assert that the note by Matthew -Paris refers, not to the narrative of the coronation, which he derived -from the ‘Gesta,’ but to a description of the “services”; and I hold -that he found this description, not in a lost Exchequer record, but in -the Red Book’s account of Queen Eleanor’s coronation. - - - - - X - - The Struggle of John and Longchamp - - (1191) - - -It is needless to insist on the critical character of the year 1191 in -England. From the moment when the watchers on the coast of Sicily had -seen the passing of Richard, this country found itself, for the first -time, cut off, for all purposes, from communication with its king. The -sovereign had gone, and his seal with him; and ministerial government, -a government by officials, was thrown on its own resources. If Henry -and his grandfather had taught their subjects faithfully to obey the -ministers of the Crown, with the king ever at their back, the case -was altered when the king had left them for a distant land. And men’s -thoughts turned to John, not only as the visible representative, in his -brother’s absence, of his house, but as not improbably their future -king, and that, it might be, before long. John, traitor at heart, saw -the strength of his position, and Longchamp was far too clever to -ignore the danger of his own. - -To the tale of their inevitable strife for power, the acknowledged -master of that age’s history has devoted special care. In his edition -of the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ (1867), and again in that of Hoveden -(1870), he has given the conclusions at which he arrived concerning -the order of events in 1191. We have, in the former, the footnote to -vol. ii., pp. 208–9, and in the latter, pp. lvi.-lxiv. of the preface -to vol. iii., and the “long note” on pp. 134–5 of the text. The last of -these is perhaps the one which sets forth most fully and clearly the -final conclusions of the bishop. These conclusions, I may add at once, -have been accepted without question by Mr. Howlett, in his ‘William of -Newburgh’ (1884)[434] and his ‘Richard of Devizes’ (1886),[435] by Miss -Norgate in her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 298–301) and her -Life of Longchamp,[436] and by Mr. Hunt in his Life of John.[437] - -Summing up the narratives found in the ‘Gesta,’ Hoveden, Richard -of Devizes, and William of Newburgh, Dr. Stubbs holds that their -“divergency arises from the fact of the struggle falling into two -campaigns, in which certain details are repeated. There were three -conferences at Winchester, two attempts on the chancellor’s part to -seize the castle of Lincoln, and two settlements.” He then gives “the -harmonized dates, on this hypothesis, in detail.” - -As to the first of these dates, the conference at Winchester on -Mid-Lent Sunday (March 24), recorded by Richard of Devizes, no question -arises. And I am in a position to adduce documentary evidence in its -confirmation; for Longchamp occurs as present at Winchester on March -28 in two separate documents.[438] It is when we come to the “two -campaigns,” one in the spring and the other in the summer, that the -difficulties begin. I propose, therefore, to append a sketch of the -sequence of events as recorded by William of Newburgh, the ‘Gesta,’ and -Richard of Devizes. Hoveden practically repeats the Gesta narrative, -and may therefore, for convenience, be omitted. - - WILLIAM RICHARD GESTA. - OF NEWBURGH. OF DEVIZES. - - The archbishop of The archbishop of - Rouen arrives (April Rouen arrives (April - 27).[439] 27). - - Longchamp refuses to Richard having left - recognise his Sicily for the East - authority. John plots (April 10), John - against Longchamp. hearing this begins - to plot against - Longchamp. - - Matters are brought At length matters are - to a crisis by Gerard brought to a crisis by - de Camville being Gerard de Camville - summoned by Longchamp doing homage to John - to give up Lincoln for Lincoln Castle, - castle to him, and by which is declared to be - his refusing and treason. - joining John. - - Longchamp sends Longchamps hastily Longchamp collects - abroad for collects troops, forces _after - mercenaries, but compels Roger Mortimer Midsummer_, and - hastens to besiege to surrender Wigmore, besieges Lincoln - Lincoln castle. and then besieges castle depriving - Lincoln castle. Gerard of his - shrievalty. - - John surprises and John is enabbled to Nottingham and - seizes Nottingham and seize Nottingham and Tickhill are - Tickhill. Tickhill. surrendered to John. - - Thereupon he orders He orders Longchamp He orders Longchamp - Longchamp to raise to raise the siege of to raise the siege - the siege of Lincoln. Lincoln. of Lincoln. - - Longchamp knowing Longchamp is quite Longchamp, - many of those with taken aback, but terrified, withdraws - him were for John, recovering himself, with his army. - withdraws “confusus.” sends the archbishop of - Rouen to summon John to - A few days later he restore the castles he - “learns that his has taken. - office of legate had - expired by the Pope’s - death.” - - Friends mediate. The archbishop arranges (Many bishops and - with John a conference other of the king’s - for July 28. lieges mediate.) - Longchamp consents, [440] - and withdraws. - - Longchamp makes Description of agreement Brief summary - peace as best he between John and of agreement (which - could. Longchamp (wrongly Hovenden recites in - dated April 25). full). - - Soon after, Longchamp - hears that his - mercenaries have - landed, and repudiates - the agreement. At - length, however, they - come to terms on a - fresh footing. - -It is the contention of Dr. Stubbs that William of Newburgh, in the -first of these columns, describes the first, or spring “campaign,” -and that Richard and the ‘Gesta’ describe, in the other two, the -second “campaign” later in the year. The difficulty I always felt, in -accepting this conclusion, is the almost incredible coincidence of the -sequence of events here described occurring twice over, in exactly -the same order. But one would not be justified in questioning a view -confidently enunciated by Dr. Stubbs, and accepted, it would seem, by -every one else, on the ground merely of improbability, however extreme. -Let us see, therefore, on what evidence the accepted view is based. - -In the first place, we are told that the above sequence was repeated -twice over. The authorities, however, are all agreed in mentioning one -such sequence, and one only.[441] Why, then, are we to convert it into -two, in the face of all probability? The only definite reason I can -find for so doing is that, according to William of Newburgh-- - - Longchamp’s proceedings against Lincoln took place early in the - spring, before the death of pope Clement III. was known, _or - the archbishop of Rouen landed_ [April 27];--[442] - -while the ‘Gesta’ distinctly state that Longchamp only set out against -Lincoln “after Midsummer.” If this were so, the discrepancy would be -obvious. But leaving aside, for the moment, the question of the Pope’s -death, we find, on reference, that William of Newburgh, so far from -placing the campaign, etc., _before_ the archbishop’s arrival, actually -places it _after_ that event.[443] The one real discrepancy, therefore, -is found to have no existence.[444] - -As to the date of Longchamp receiving the news of the Pope’s death, -it must first be observed that William of Newburgh does not assert -categorically that it reached him shortly after the fall of Lincoln. -What he says is that the chancellor “learned that his office of legate -had expired through the death of the pope.”[445] If this merely meant -that he heard of the Pope’s death, it would be irreconcilable with -William’s own statement that all this happened after, and some time -after, the archbishop’s arrival (April 27). Those, therefore, who would -take the words in this sense, must admit that William has blundered, -for he contradicts himself. This would be sufficient for my argument; -but I think we may hold, in fairness to William, that what Longchamp -heard, after withdrawing from Lincoln, was that Pope Cœlestine had not -renewed his legation, and, therefore, that it had expired with the -death of the late Pope.[446] Great mystery surrounds, it is admitted, -the date of the eventual renewal; and one point, it seems to me, may -have escaped notice. According to the envoys’ report in Hoveden, Pope -Cœlestine himself had been earnestly entreated by Richard to make -Longchamp legate. But Cœlestine was not elected Pope till four days -after Richard had left Sicily for the East. If, therefore, the renewal -was granted at Richard’s instance, there must have been considerable -delay before the grant was obtained. - -Moreover, those who uphold the view at present accepted have to explain -a difficulty they hardly seem to have realized. The ‘Gesta’ assigns the -Pope’s death to April 10 (1191), but so uncertain is the date that we -find Dr. Stubbs writing: - - Clement III. died about the Pope Clement dies April 10: - end of March, and the news of the news would reach England - his death would reach England in a fortnight or perhaps less. - about three weeks later The chancellor, trembling for his - (‘Gesta,’ p. 208 note). legation, makes a hasty peace - (Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note). - -If Clement died April 10--the date adopted by Mr. Howlett and Miss -Norgate[447]--the difficulty is that the news must have reached not -merely England, but Lincoln (_ex hypothesi_) in time to allow of -preliminary negotiations between John and Longchamp, of a conference -at Winchester being agreed to, and of their both reaching Winchester -in time for that conference on April 25. For this the news must have -reached Lincoln hardly later than April 20. Could it possibly have done -so? - -Those who have thus far followed my argument will have seen that I hold -there to have been only one “campaign,” followed by a conference at -Winchester, which “campaign” did not begin till after midsummer. The -spring campaign, with the alleged conference of April 25 at Winchester, -I hold to be wholly imaginary. - -In case any one should still be in doubt, I now bring up my reserves. -The undisputed statement that Longchamp was at Winchester on March 24 -was supported, we saw, by record evidence that he was there on March -28. Of more importance is the record evidence that he was at Lincoln -on July 8,[448] for it strongly confirms the statement in the Gesta -that he set out “after midsummer,” and, having rapidly reduced Wigmore, -laid siege to Lincoln Castle. Although I have been trying for years to -collect evidence of Longchamp’s movements in this eventful year, I have -not been able to secure many fixed points. It is certain, however, that -he was at Cambridge on April 21.[449] This affords welcome support to -the crowning discovery I made, in a document preserved in France, that -he was there on April 24.[450] It will, I presume, not be disputed that -if the chancellor was at Cambridge on April 24, he cannot have devoted -the following day to a conference with John at Winchester. - - * * * * * - -I have purposely refrained as yet from discussing a distinct question, -namely, the terms of the agreement, or agreements, between Longchamp -and John. For they do not affect the question of the sequence of -historical events. We have (_a_) in Hoveden what purports to be an -actual recital of the agreement made after the chancellor’s enforced -withdrawal from Lincoln; (_b_) in Richard of Devizes a _résumé_ of such -an agreement effected, according to him, at a conference on July 28, -also, it would seem, consequent on the chancellor’s retreat.[451] Dr. -Stubbs has argued as against Palgrave, and apparently with complete -success, that two distinct agreements are in question. But this does -not establish their date (or respective dates), nor even their right -sequence. I have already disposed of the alleged conference on April -25, and both agreements, therefore, must be later than the Lincoln -business in July. Now, it is singular that William of Newburgh -distinctly speaks of two agreements, and implies that the second was -the less unfavourable to the chancellor’s claims. This is, at first -sight, in striking harmony with Dr. Stubbs’ conclusion that the -agreement recited by Hoveden is the later of the two, and that in it -“the chancellor gave way somewhat more than was wise, but less than he -had done in April”[452] (_i.e._ in the agreement described by Richard -of Devizes). But a more minute examination than Dr. Stubbs could give -reveals a serious difficulty. According to him, the earlier agreement -“engages the chancellor to support John’s claim to the crown in -case of Richard’s death”;[453] while the later one contains no such -provision. On this distinction he lays stress because “the succession -of Arthur,” he holds, was a “main point” of Longchamp’s policy;[454] -while the archbishop of Rouen also, he urges, would have “sacrificed -other considerations to ... obtaining the omission of any terms which -would have openly asserted John’s claim to the succession.”[455] - -But on turning to the ‘Gesta’ and to William of Newburgh, we find that -the former, in what is admittedly, and the latter in what he explicitly -makes, the later of the two agreements, declare the recognition of -John as heir, in case of Richard’s death, to have been the feature -of that later agreement, in which, according to Dr. Stubbs, it was -conspicuously omitted.[456] This grave discrepancy would seem to have -escaped notice. - -I do not profess to determine absolutely the sequence of the two -agreements, but I think it not impossible that the one recited by -Hoveden may prove, after all, to have been the earlier of the two. They -have hardly, perhaps, been examined with sufficient care. Dr. Stubbs, -for instance, writes that in the agreement described by Richard “each -party chooses eleven commissioners,” while in Hoveden, “each chooses -seven.”[457] But the latter were merely sureties for the oaths of the -parties to observe the agreement,[458] not arbitrators for arranging -its terms; while, in the other agreement, the eleven were actual -arbitrators, chosen (as for the Provisions of Oxford) for drawing up -the agreement independently of the parties. Again, closer investigation -shows that the agreement described by Richard of Devizes is, in some -ways, more, not less, favourable to the chancellor than the other. -Hoveden, for instance, makes John surrender Tickhill and Nottingham, -not to the chancellor, but to the archbishop as representing the king. -Richard, on the other hand, makes the chancellor not only receive the -castles, but personally take hostages from their keepers for their -safe custody. In Hoveden, indeed, the possession of these two castles -is made, on the contrary, a kind of security for the chancellor’s good -behaviour. Richard, to speak more generally, brings the chancellor -to the front, and leaves the archbishop in the background, which is -precisely what might be expected when Longchamp felt himself strong -enough to pose once more as the king’s representative. - -Moreover, we have a hint as to the order of these agreements in their -provisions as to Gerard de Camville. In Hoveden’s document we read that -he is to be provisionally restored, then to have a fair trial, and, if -convicted, is to lose his castle and his shrievalty.[459] Richard, on -the contrary, describes him as restored to the chancellor’s favour, -and, therefore, to the permanent custody of the castle.[460] The -latter, surely, is a later stage. - -On all these grounds I lean strongly to the view that Richard of -Devizes describes the later and final compromise, which, unlike its -predecessor, was arranged by formal arbitration. On this hypothesis the -archbishop of Rouen had refused to give way about the succession,[461] -while the chancellor purchased concessions from John by throwing over -Arthur. But as I do not claim to have demonstrated this, I hope my view -will be discussed by some duly qualified critic. - -On the other hand, the earlier part of this paper does, I hope, -demonstrate that the accepted view of the order of events in the year -1191 must be altogether abandoned. This, of course, involves the -correction of no fewer than four works in the Master of the Rolls’ -series, and of every modern history of England which deals with the -period in any detail. Yet the chief interest of the enquiry will be -found in its bearing on historical probability and in its demonstration -of the value of minute critical study.[462] - - - - - XI - - The Commune of London - - -When in 1893, the seventh centenary of the year in which a Mayor of -London first appears, I read before the Royal Archæological Institute -a paper on “The origin of the Mayoralty of London,”[463] I expressed -the hope that some document might yet be discovered which would throw -further light upon the Mayor and on his connection with the “Commune” -of 1191. Such a document I have since found. Its confirmation of the -fact that a “Commune” was actually established in London is as welcome -as it is important; but the essential fact which it enables us to -determine is that this foreign organization was transplanted bodily to -London. It has hitherto been supposed that the only change involved -by the erection of the “Commune” was the appearance of its typical -officer, the “Mayor,” as an addition to the pre-existent sheriffs and -the aldermen of the city wards. It can, however, now be shown that the -aldermen of the wards had no part in the “communal” organization, which -was modelled exclusively on foreign lines, and was wholly unconnected -with the old and English system. - -The historian’s time can be profitably spent on minute and thorough -examination of London institutions in the 12th century. For the origin -and development in England of municipal liberties is still, in spite of -their paramount interest, involved in much obscurity. As Dr. Stubbs has -truly observed: - - London claims the first place in any such investigation, as the - greatest municipality, as the model on which by their charters - of liberties the other large towns of the country were allowed - or charged to adjust their usages, and as the most active, - the most political, and the most ambitious. London has also a - pre-eminence in municipal history, owing to the strength of the - conflicting elements which so much affected her constitutional - progress.[464] - -And yet, as he reminded his hearers in one of his Oxford lectures, -“Mediæval London still waits for its constitutional historian.” - -Occupying as it did, among English towns, a position apart, in wealth -as in importance, London had a municipal development of her own, a -development of which our best historians can only tell us that it -is “obscure.” That obscurity, however, has been sadly increased by -the careless study and the misapprehension of her great charters of -liberties. Broadly speaking, and disregarding for the moment the -statements of our accepted authorities, the great want of London, in -her early days, was an efficient, homogeneous government of her own. -The City--for the City was then London--found itself in fact, during -the Norman period, in the same plight as greater London found itself -in our own days. “The ordinary system of the parish and the township,” -as an accomplished writer has observed, “the special franchises and -jurisdictions of the great individual landowners, of the churches, of -the gilds--all these were loosely bundled together.” For the cause -of this state of things we should have to go back to the origins of -our history, to show that the genius of the Anglo-Saxon system was -ill-adapted, or rather, wholly unsuitable, to urban life; that, while -of unconquerable persistence and strength in small, manageable rural -communities, it was bound to, and did, break down when applied to -large and growing towns, whose life lay not in agriculture, but in -trade. In a parish, a “Hundred,” the Englishman was at home; but in a -town, and still more in such a town as London, he found himself, for -administrative purposes, at his wits’ end. - -Putting aside the “English Knightengild,”--the position of which as a -governing body has been far too rashly assumed,[465] and rests upon -no foundation,--the only institutions of which we can be sure are the -“folkesmote” and the weekly “husteng” of Henry I.’s charter, and the -Shrievalty. The “folkesmote” was the immemorial open-air gathering, -corresponding with the “shire-moot” or “hundred-moot” of the country, -the “borough-moot” or “portman-moot” of the town. The small “husteng,” -as is obvious from its name, was a Danish development, akin to the -“lawmen” of the Danish boroughs. If these represented, in London, a -kind of legal unity, the shrievalty, on the other hand, involved a kind -of financial unity. If, however, as I have urged in my study on the -early shrievalty,[466] the administrative development of London had -proceeded upon these lines, it would no more have brought about a true -municipal unity than the sheriff and the county court could evolve it -in the shire; a “Corporation” was wholly alien to administration on -county principles. - -But in the meanwhile, the great movement in favour of municipal -liberties, which was so prominent a feature of the stirring 12th -century, was spreading like wildfire through France and Flanders, and -London, which, since the coming of the Normans, had become far more -cosmopolitan, was steadily imbibing from foreign traders the spirit -and enthusiasm of the age. But this by no means suited the views, at -the time, of the Crown, which, here as in Germany, looked askance on -this alarming and, too often, revolutionary movement. When the history -of London at this period comes to be properly studied, it will be -found that the growing power of the Londoners, who had practically -seated Stephen on the throne, and had chevied the Empress Matilda from -their midst, were sharply checked by her son Henry, whose policy, in -this respect at least, was faithfully followed by his successor, -Richard the First. The assumption, therefore, that the Mayoralty of -London dates from Richard’s accession (1189) is an absolute perversion -of history. There is record evidence which completely confirms the -memorable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms -whatever would king Richard or his father have ever assented to the -establishment of the “Commune” in London.[467] - -Writing mainly for experts, I need scarcely explain that the “sworn -Commune,” to give it its right name--for the oath sworn by its members -was its essential feature--was the association or ‘conspiracy’ as -we choose to regard it, formed by the inhabitants of a town that -desired to obtain its independence. And the head of this Association -or “Commune” was given, abroad, the title of “Maire.” It was at about -the same time that the “Commune” and its “Maire” were triumphantly -reaching Dijon in one direction and Bordeaux in another, that they -took a northern flight and descended upon London. Not for the first -time in her history the Crown’s difficulty was London’s opportunity. -Even so early as 1141, when the fortunes of the Crown hung in the -balance between rival claimants, we find the citizens forming an -effective “conjuratio,”[468] the very term applied to their “Commune,” -half a century later, by Richard of Devizes.[469] Moreover, earlier -in the same year (April), William of Malmesbury applies to their -government the term “communio,” in which the keen eye of the bishop -of Oxford detected “a description of municipal unity which suggests -that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic -organization.”[470] But he failed, it would seem, to observe the -passage which follows and which speaks of “omnes barones, qui in eorum -communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant.” For in this allusion we discover -a distinctive practice of the “sworn commune,” from that of Le Mans -(1073),[471] to that of London, now to be dealt with. - -When, in the crisis of October, 1191, the administration found itself -paralysed by the conflict between John, as the king’s brother, and -Longchamp, as the king’s representative, London, finding that she held -the scales, promptly named the “Commune” as the price of her support. -The chroniclers of the day enable us to picture to ourselves the scene, -as the excited citizens who had poured forth overnight, with lanterns -and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the -morning of the eventful 8th October, at the well-known sound of the -great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul’s churchyard. -There they heard John take the oath to the “Commune,” like a French -king or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of -her own. - -This much at least we may deem certain; but what the chroniclers tell -us has proved to be only enough to whet the appetite for more. Of the -character of the “Commune” so granted, of its ultimate fate, and of -the part it played in the municipal development of London, nothing -has been really known. The only fact of importance ascertained from -other sources has been the appearance of a Mayor of London at or -about the same time as the grant of a “Commune.” It cannot, indeed, -be proved that, as has sometimes been supposed, the two phenomena -were synchronistic; for no mention of the Mayor of London, after long -research, is known to me earlier than the spring of the year 1193.[472] -But there is, of course, the strongest presumption that the grant of -a “Commune” involved a Mayor, and already in 1194 we find a citizen -accused of boasting that “come what may, the Londoners shall have no -king but their Mayor.” It was precisely in the same spirit that the -‘Comuneros’ of Salamanca exclaimed of their leader in 1521: “Juras à -Dios no haber mas Rey ni Papa que Valloria.” - -Before I explain my discoveries on the “Commune” granted to London, -it may be desirable to show how great a discrepancy of opinion has -hitherto prevailed on this important but admittedly obscure subject. - -The first historian, so far as I know, to treat the subject in the -modern spirit was the present bishop of Oxford; and it is a striking -testimony to his almost infallible judgment that what he wrote on the -subject a quarter of a century ago is the explanation that, to this -day, has held the field. In his ‘Select Charters’ (1870), he expressed -the view that - - the establishment of the ‘Communa’ of the citizens of London, - which is recorded by the historians to have been specially - confirmed by the Barons and Justiciar on the occasion of - Longchamp’s deposition from the Justiciarship is a matter of - some difficulty, as the word ‘Communa’ is not found in English - town charters, and no formal record of the act of confirmation - is now preserved. Interpreted, however, by foreign usage, and - by the later meaning of the word ‘communitas,’ it must be - understood to signify a corporate identity of the municipality, - which it may have claimed before, and which may even have been - occasionally recognised, but was now firmly established; a sort - of consolidation into a single organized body of the variety of - franchises, guilds, and other departments of local jurisdiction. - It was probably connected with and perhaps implied by the - nomination of a _Mayor_, who now appears for the first - time. It cannot, however, be defined with certainty (p. 257). - -And in his ‘Constitutional History’ he holds that it practically “gave -completeness to a municipal constitution which had long been struggling -for recognition.” These comments, on the whole, suggest rather a -development of existing conditions than the introduction of a foreign -institution. - -Mr. Coote, the next to approach the subject, contended that Dr. Stubbs’ -“view falls very far short of the reality.” In his able paper “A -Lost Charter,”[473] he insisted that a charter was actually granted -in 1191 to the Londoners empowering them to elect a Mayor, and that -this is what the chroniclers meant when they spoke of the grant of -“Commune,” for the citizens, he urged, had possessed all the rights of -a “Commune” from the days of the Conqueror. With Mr. Loftie’s work came -the inevitable reaction. Wholly ignoring the definite and contemporary -statement as to the grant of a “Commune,” he deemed it “far safer -to adopt the received and old-fashioned opinion,” and to date the -Mayoralty from 1189, while, as for the “Commune,” he deemed it to have -been of gradual growth, and to have been practically recognised by the -charter of Henry I. - -Now, whatever the grant of “Commune” implied, it certainly implied -something, and something of importance. “Upon this point there is,” -as Mr. Coote justly observed, “a cloud of contemporary evidence, -clear, exact and positive.” He put together the versions of the -chroniclers,[474] contemporary and well-informed, and their harmony is -complete. The fact, moreover, that the Commune was extorted at a great -crisis, proved that only when the government was weak could so great a -concession be wrung from it. Lastly, the phrase of Richard of Devizes: -“Concessa est ipsa die et instituta Communia Londinensium,” and that -of Giraldus: “Communa seu Communia eis concessa,” correspond exactly -with the formal phrases in the French charters of “Commune.” In the -case of Senlis (1173) it was “Communiam fieri concessimus”; in that of -Compiègne (1153): “Burgensibus villæ concessimus Communiam”; in that -of Abbeville (1185) “concessi eis Communiam habendam”; in that which -Queen Eleanor granted to Poitiers (1199): “Sciatis nos concessisse ... -universis hominibus de Pictavi et eorum heredibus communiam juratam -apud Pictavim.” But if any doubt were yet possible, it would be finally -removed by the words of Richard of Devizes: - - Nunc primum, indulta sibi conjuratione, regno regem deesse - cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus nec prædecessor - et pater ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcis argenti fieri - permississet. - -There is no escaping from these words, and Mr. Loftie’s theory is, -consequently, out of court.[475] - -But what of Mr. Coote’s? With great confidence he wrote that the -“Commune,” in the case of London, which had acquired all other things, -expressed for its citizens the mayoralty only; “nothing else was asked -or desired by them, for it was the sole privilege which was wanting -to their burghal independence” (p. 287). We find, however, that on -the Continent the word ‘Commune’ did not of necessity imply a Mayor, -for Beauvais and Compiègne, though constituted ‘Communes,’ appear to -have had no Mayor during most of the 12th century. The chroniclers, -therefore, had they only meant to speak of the privilege of electing -a Mayor, would not have all employed a word which did not connote it, -but would have said what they meant. Moreover, his theory rests on the -assumption, common till now to all historians, that the citizens had -continuously possessed, from the beginning of the 12th century, the -privileges granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown, in my -‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ that these privileges were not renewed by -Henry II. or Richard I., and that this fact strikingly confirms the -explicit words of Richard of Devizes, when he states that neither the -one nor the other would have allowed the Londoners to form a ‘Commune’ -even for a million of marcs. - -In ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (pp. 357–9) I insisted on the necessity -of keeping steadily in view the annual _firma_ of London and -Middlesex, and showed that it was due in respect of the two jointly, -and not, as has been alleged of Middlesex, apart from London. The -further publication of the Pipe Rolls has enabled me to develop this -position. While the citizens, as I showed, strenuously claimed to hold -the city and county at ferm for £300, as in the charter of Henry I., -the Crown no less persistently strove to exact a _firma_ of more -than £500. The exact amount of the high _firma_ is first recorded -at the change of shrievalty in 1169. The four outgoing sheriffs at -Easter of that year account for £250 “blank” and £11 “numero,” as the -half-year’s _firma_. This represents a total for the year of £500 -“blank” and £22 “numero,” which is also precisely the sum accounted -for in 1173–4.[476] The whole sum would thus amount to £547 “numero,” -by the Exchequer system. But at Midsummer, 1174, there was a great -and a sudden change. Brichtmer de Haverhelle and Peter Fitz Walter -came into office not as sheriffs, but “ut custodes,” in the Exchequer -phrase,[477] and at Michaelmas they accounted not “de firma,” but “de -exitu firme.”[478] - -The sheriff farmed his county and answered for a fixed _firma_, -as a tenant is responsible for his rent; the ‘custos,’ acting for the -Crown, like a bailiff for a landowner, was responsible only for the -actual proceeds (_exitus_). This distinction meets us even on the -earliest Pipe Roll (1130).[479] It is obvious that, on the _firma_ -system, the sheriff might make a profit or a loss, according as the -sources of the ferm provided more or less than the rent for which he -had to account. But the point on which I am anxious to insist is that -the sources of his ferm were by no means so elastic as is alleged.[480] -As Professor Maitland observes: - - The king’s rights are pecuniary rights; he is entitled to - collect numerous small sums. Instead of these he may be willing - to take a fixed sum every year, or, in other words, to let his - rights to farm. - -He further describes these rights, in the case of a borough, as -“the profits of the market and of the borough court,” together with -“the king’s burgage rents.” Each of these sources, again, could be -sub-farmed.[481] This being so, I cannot agree with Dr. Stubbs in -holding that - - the sheriff was answerable to the Crown for a certain sum, and - ... nothing was easier than to exact the whole of the legal sum - from the rich burghers, and take for himself the profits of the - shire; or to demand such sums as he pleased of either, without - rendering any account.[482] - -For the sources of the ferm were well defined: they were limited to -certain “rights.” The burgage rents were fixed; so, we believe, were -the tolls; and the fines arising from the courts cannot have varied -much. Outside these sources the sheriff had no right to “exact” -anything from the burghers. - -Here we have the explanation of an otherwise singular phenomenon. The -Crown, which was receiving, as has been shown, £547 “numero” a year -from the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, obtained less than half -that amount when its own _custodes_ were in charge! The proceeds for -the first whole year were £238 5_s._ 7_d._ “numero,” and out of this, -moreover, it had to pay Peter Fitz Walter £20 for his services, and the -clerks and serjeants (_servientes_) employed under him £8 10_s._; thus -the net receipts were only some £200 “de exitu firme de Londonia et de -Middilsexa.”[483] I infer from this that the _ferm_ extorted for London -and Middlesex had been shamefully high,[484] and that this was the -cause of the sheriffs being often laden with debt when they went out of -office,[485] as they had to make good, out of their own pockets, the -difference between the proceeds of the dues and the ferm exacted by the -Crown. It is possible that this was indeed the reason of four sheriffs, -as in 1130, being so often appointed; the loss would thus be spread -over a wider area, and the chance of recovering the debt greater. The -system, on this hypothesis, was strangely analogous to that by which, -at the present day, appointment as sheriff of a county is equivalent -to exaction of a fine by the Crown. Combining, as I have elsewhere -suggested, the fact that in 1130 each of the four sheriffs gave £12 -to the Crown to be quit of his office with the clause in the earliest -charter to Rouen that no citizen should be compelled to serve as -sheriff against his will, we may certainly conclude that such sheriffs -were the victims of Crown extortion. But obscurity must still surround -the manner of their appointment. - -There remains the salient fact that the Crown undoubtedly suffered a -heavy annual loss by the substitution of _custodes_ for sheriffs -in 1174. As this is a fact new to historians, one is tempted to seek -an explanation. The Crown’s loss being the city’s gain, it is at least -worth consideration that the change virtually synchronized with the -king’s arrival in London at the crisis of the feudal revolt. He was -welcomed, Fantosme tells us, by the citizens, and reminded - - Ke nul peiist le Lundreis traïtres apeler. - Ne fereient traïsun pur les membres colper. - -In the previous year he had been assured that they were - - La plus leale gent de tut vostre regné. - Ni ad nul en la vile ki seit de tel eë - Ki puisse porter armes, ne seit très bien armé. - -This testimony is in harmony with the fact they gave the Crown that -year (1173) a _novum donum_ of 1,000 marcs, supplemented by 100 -marcs apiece from three leading citizens. It is, therefore, perfectly -possible that, as Rouen obtained from Henry II. a charter increasing -its privileges, as a reward for its attitude in the rebellion, London -may have been similarly rewarded by what was in practice financial -relief. - -But the change did not last. After two years of the _custodes_, -they went out of office at Midsummer, 1176, their returns, “de exitu -ejusdem civitatis,” even lower than before.[486] Their place was -taken by William Fitz Isabel, whose account for the three months’ -_firma_ at Michaelmas shows that it, at once, leapt up to the huge -sum formerly exacted.[487] - -Having traced in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ the fortunes of the long -struggle between the citizens and the Crown over the amount of their -_firma_--fixed at £300 by Henry the First’s charter, but raised by -Henry II. to over £500--I was led to test the chroniclers’ statements -as to 1191 by turning to the Pipe Rolls to see if the citizens’ -triumph enabled them to secure that reduction on which they insisted -throughout. In the Roll of 1 Richard I. we find the _firma_, as -under Henry II., to be between £520 and £530,[488] but in the Roll of -two years later (1191) we suddenly meet with this bold entry: “Cives -Londoniæ--Willelmus de Haverhull et Johannes Bucuinte pro eis--reddunt -compotum de ccc libris blancis pro hoc anno.” This sudden return to -the old figure was effected at the very time of the change which the -chroniclers describe. The fact is as striking as it is welcome where -all is so obscure. In the following year (4 Ric. I.) we find the -_firma_ again amounting to about £300; but the difficulty of -ascertaining its sum where this is not given is, unfortunately, so -great that until the Pipe Rolls of the reign are in print we cannot -speak positively as to the endurance of this amount. In the Pipe -Roll, however, of the ninth year (1197) we find the account headed -(as in 1191): “Cives Lund[oniæ]--Nicholas Duket et Robertus Blund -pro eis--reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis de firma Lond[onie] -et Middelsexe,” and in that of the tenth year the sum is similarly -stated to be £300 “blanch.” It is clear, therefore, that at the close -of Richard’s reign the citizens had made good their claim to farm the -city and county for £300 a year, as they had recommenced to do in 1191. -The explanation of their gaining from Richard the confirmation of -that success is probably to be found in their payment of £1,000, thus -recorded on the roll of 1195 (7 Ric. I.): - - Cives Lond[onie] M et D marcas de dono suo pro benevolentia - domini Regis, _et pro libertatibus suis conservandis_, et - de auxilio suo ad redemptionem domini Regis. - -In that case the king would have dealt with the _firma_, as he is known -to have dealt with the sheriffwicks of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, etc., -and simply sold it to the citizens for a lump sum down. In this year -(7 Ric. I.), accordingly, it is again the “Cives Lond[onie],” who, -through their two representatives, account for the ferm. - -It follows from this that when the citizens paid John £2,000 “pro -habendo confirmationem Regis de libertatibus suis,” they did not -obtain, as I had gathered from his charter, for the first time a -reduction of the _firma_ to £300, but a confirmation of the -reduction they had won at the crisis of 1191. - -This, then, up to now has been the sum total of our knowledge: a -_commune_ was granted to London in October, 1191; the ferm of the city -was, simultaneously, reduced from over £500 to the old £300, as granted -by Henry I.; and the Mayor of London first meets us in the spring of -1193. Of the nature of the _commune_ we know nothing; of its very -existence after the autumn of 1191, we are in equal ignorance. - -It is at this point that the document which follows comes to our help -with a flood of light, proving, as it does, that London, in 1193, -possessed a fully developed _commune_ of the continental pattern. - - * * * * * - - “_Sacramentum commune tempore regis Ricardi quando - detentus erat Alemaniam_ (_sic_).[489] - - Quod fidem portabunt domino regi Ricardo de vita sua et - de membris et de terreno honore suo contra omnes homines - et feminas qui vivere possunt aut mori et quod pacem suam - servabunt et adjuvabunt servare, et quod communam tenebunt et - obedientes erunt maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivin[is][490] - ejusdem commune in fide regis et quod sequentur et tenebunt - considerationem maioris et skivinorum et aliorum proborum - hominum qui cum illis erunt salvo honore dei et sancte ecclesie - et fide domini regis Ricardi et salvis per omnia libertatibus - civitatis Lond[onie]. Et quod pro mercede nec pro parentela nec - pro aliqua re omittent quin jus in omnibus rebus [pro]sequentur - et teneant pro posse suo et scientia et quod ipsi communiter - in fide domini regis Ricardi sustinebunt bonum et malum et - ad vitam et ad mortem. Et si quis presumeret pacem domini - regis et regni perturbare ipsi consilio domine[491] et domini - Rothomagensis[492] et aliorum justiciarum domini regis juvabunt - fideles domini regis et illos qui pacem servare volunt pro posse - suo et pro scientia sua salvis semper in omnibus libertatibus - Lond[onie].” - -Before discussing this document one may well compare it with the -Freeman’s oath at the present day, as taken by the latest honorary -freeman, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum (4th November, 1898): - - “I solemnly declare that I will be good and true to our - Sovereign lady Queen Victoria, that I will be obedient to the - Mayor of this City, that I will maintain the franchises and - customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless in that which - in me is; that I will also keep the Queen’s peace in my own - person, that I will know no gatherings nor conspiracies made - against the Queen’s peace, but I will warn the Mayor thereof or - hinder it to my power; and that all these points and articles I - will well and truly keep according to the laws and customs of - this City to my power.” - -The obligations of allegiance to the Sovereign, of obedience to the -Mayor, and of keeping the King’s peace against all attempts to disturb -it, remain, it will be seen, in force. - - * * * * * - -On the importance, in many aspects, of this unique document it is -hardly necessary to dwell. Its _formulæ_ deserve to be carefully -compared with the oaths of allegiance and of the peace; but here -one must restrict attention to its bearing on the _commune_ of -London. For the first time we learn that the government of the city -was then in the hands of a Mayor and _échevins_ (_skivini_). -Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the -existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English municipal -institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental -institution.[493] But in this document the Mayor and _échevins_ do -not exhaust the governing body. Of Aldermen, indeed, we hear nothing; -but we read of “alii probi homines” as associated with the Mayor and -_échevins_. For these we may turn to another document, fortunately -preserved in this volume, which shows us a body of “twenty-four” -connected with the government of London some twelve years later -(1205–6). - - * * * * * - - “_Sacramentum xxiiij^{or} factum anno regni regis - Johannis vij^{o}._ - - Quod legaliter intendent ad consulendum secundum suam - consuetudinem juri domini regis quod ad illos spectat in - civitate Lond[onie] salva libertate civitatis et quod de nullo - homine qui in placito sit ad civitatem spectante aliquod premium - ad suam conscientiam reciperent. Et si aliquis illorum donum - aut promissum dum in placitum fatiat illud nunquam recipient, - neque aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis. Et quod illi nullum - modum premii accipient, nec aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis, - pro injuria allevanda vel pro jure sternendo. Et concessum est - inter ipsos quod si aliquis inde attinctus vel convictus fuerit, - libertatem civitatis et eorum societatem amittet.”[494] - - * * * * * - -Of a body of twenty-_four_ councillors, nothing has hitherto been -known. To a body of twenty-_five_ there is this one reference: - - Hoc anno fuerunt xxv electi de discretioribus civitatis, et - jurati pro consulendo civitatem una cum Maiore.[495] - -The year is Mich. 1200–Mich. 1201; but the authority is not first-rate. -Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much discussed. The -latest exposition is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk to the City -Corporation: - - Soon after John’s accession we find what appears to be the - first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. - In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), “were - chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city and - sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the - mayor.” Just as, in the constitution of the realm, the House of - Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, - so in the City--described by Lord Coke as _epitome totius - regni_--the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded - that of a common council.[496] - -Mr. Loftie, however, had pointed out several years before that this -view was erroneous: - - It has sometimes been assumed that this was the beginning of the - court of aldermen. As we have seen, however, the aldermen were - in existence long before, and the question is how far they were, - under ordinary circumstances, the councillors and assistants of - the mayor.[497] - -To any one, indeed, who realizes what the Aldermen were it should be -obvious that the passage in question could not possibly apply to them. -In his larger work, Mr. Loftie held that these councillors eventually -became “identified with the aldermen,” but he brought out the very -important point that their number could not be that of the wards. - - The twenty-five councillors who advised the Mayor in the reign - of King John had gradually become identified with the aldermen; - and this title, which at first was applied to the heads of trade - guilds and other functionaries, was henceforth confined to the - rulers of the wards. - - [NOTE]. It has been suggested that the twenty-five - councillors came from the twenty-five wards, but a chronological - arrangement of the facts disposes of this idea. There were - not twenty-five wards then in existence--moreover, it would - be necessary to account for twenty-six, if the mayor is - reckoned.[498] - -As, then, they were not representatives of the wards their character is -left obscure. But when we turn to the foreign evidence, the nature of -the twenty-four becomes manifest at once; and we find in it conclusive -proof that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. -M. Giry’s able treatise on the “Établissements de Rouen” shows us the -“Vingt Quatre” forming the administrative body, annually elected, which -acted as the Mayor’s Council. And the oath they had to take on their -election, as described in the ‘Établissements,’ bears, it will be seen, -a marked resemblance to that of the “xxiiij^{or}” in London. - - (II). De centum vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor, assensu - centum parium, qui singulis annis removebuntur; quorum duodecim - eschevini vocabuntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti - quatuor, in principio sui anni, jurabunt se servaturos jura - sancte ecclesie et fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam quod - et ipse recte judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam, etc. - - LIV. Iterum, major et eschevini et pares, in principio sui - eschevinatus, jurabunt eque judicare, nec pro inimicitia nec pro - amicitia injuste judicabunt. Iterum, jurabunt se nullos denarios - nec premia capturos, quod et eque judicabunt secundum suam - conscienciam. - - LV. Si aliquis juratorum possit comperi accepisse premium pro - aliqua questione de qua aliquis trahatur in eschevinagio, - domus ejus ... prosternatur, nec amplius ille qui super hoc - deliraverit, nec ipse, nec heres ejus dominatum in communia - habebit. - -The three salient features in common are (1) the oath to administer -justice fairly, (2) the special provisions against bribery, (3) the -expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe. - -If we had only “the oath of the Commune,” we might have remained in -doubt as to the nature of the administrative body; but we can now -assert, on continental analogy, that its twenty-four members comprised -twelve “skevini” and an equal number of councillors. We can also assert -that it administered justice, even though this has been unsuspected, -and may, indeed, at first arouse question. - -It will, naturally, now be asked: What became of these “twenty-four,” -who formed the Mayor’s council in the days of John? Mr. Loftie, we -have seen, held that they became “identified with the Aldermen”; my -own view is that, on the contrary, they were the germ of the Common -Council. The vital distinction to be kept in mind is that the Alderman -was essentially the officer in charge of a ward, while the Common -Council, as one body, represented the City as a whole. In questions -of this kind little reliance can be placed on late commentators; but -the _formulæ_ of oaths are usually ancient, and often enshrine -information on the duties of an office in the past. Now the oath of a -member of the Common Council contains significant clauses: - - Sacramentum ... hominum ad Commune Consilium electorum est tale: - ... bonum et fidele consilium dabis, secundum sensum et scire - tuum; et pro nullius favore manutenebis proficium singulare - contra proficium publicum vel commune dictæ civitatis; et - postquam veneris ad Commune Consilium, sine causa rationabili - vel Majoris licentia non recedes priusquam Major et socii sui - recesserint; et quod dictum fuerit in Communi Consilio celabis, - etc.[499] - -It is not only that this is essentially the oath of one whose -function it is to be a councillor: the striking point is that it -contains three provisions in common with those which bound, at Rouen, -the “Vingtquatre.” The councillor was (1) not to be influenced by -private favour; (2) not to leave the Council without the Mayor’s -permission;[500] (3) to keep secret its proceedings.[501] I do not -say, of course, that there is verbal concordance; but when we turn to -the oath of the Alderman, we see at once how much less resemblance his -duties have to those of the “Twenty-four.”[502] It presents him as -primarily the head of a Ward, responsible for certain matters within -the compass of that Ward. He has to take part with the Mayor in assize, -pleas, and hustings;[503] but his functions as councillor obtain only a -brief mention in his oath (“et que boun et loial conseil durrez a ley -choses touchantz le comune profit en mesme la citee”). - -If any doubt is felt on the subject, it should be removed by turning to -the case of Winchester. There, as in London, according to the ancient -custumal of the city, we find the Mayor closely associated with a -council of “Twenty-four,” which, in that case, continued to exist down -to 1835: - - Il iert en la vile mere eleu par commun assentement des vint et - quatre jures et de la commune ... le quel mere soit remuable de - an en an ... Derechef en la cite deivent estre vint et quatre - jurez esluz des plus prudeshommes e des plus sages de la vile e - leaument eider e conseiller le avandit mere a franchise sauver - et sustener.[504] - -It is clear, to me, that “the Twenty-Four” were no more elected by -the Wards (as is persistently believed) in London than at Winchester, -but by the city as a whole, though we must not define the Franchise. -The Winchester Aldermen, on the contrary, were distinctly district -officers, as in London, “whose functions related chiefly, but -not wholly, to the police and preservation of order, health, and -cleanliness within their several limits.”[505] Moreover, they retained -at Winchester, down to a late period, their distinct character and -existence. According to Dean Kitchin: - - The aldermen, in later days the civic aristocracy, were - originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city, - and entrusted with the administration of it.... It was not till - early in the sixteenth century that they were interposed between - the mayor and the twenty-four men.[506] - -The general powers for the whole town possessed by the Mayor and his -council were quite distinct from the local powers of each Alderman in -his district. For my part, I cannot resist the impression that, while -the sheriff, bailiff, or reeve represented the power of the Crown, -and the Alderman the old local officer, the council of twenty-four, -so closely associated with the Mayor, and not the representatives of -districts, were a later introduction, of different character, and -representing the commercial as against the territorial element. Whether -the Aldermen joined the council in later days or not, they were never, -I believe, originally or essentially, a part of that body. - -The chief objection, probably, to connecting the “commune” of London -with the “Établissements de Rouen” will be found in the fact that the -latter refer to a system based on a body of a hundred _pares_, of which -body there does not seem to be any trace in England. At Winchester -the _pares_ were “the twenty-four.” It is obvious that, in this -respect, there is a marked discrepancy; but if the electoral body was -different, the executive, at any rate, was the same. And if, as must be -admitted, there was a foreign element introduced, it would be naturally -from Normandy that it came.[507] - -Writing in 1893, before I had discovered the documents on which I -have dwelt above, I insisted on the _foreign_ origin of the London -“commune,” and pointed out that the close association between London -and Rouen at the time suggested that the office of Mayor was derived by -the former from the latter.[508] It may be permissible to repeat this -argument from presumption, although its form was adapted to a wider -circle than that of scholars. - -The _beffroi_ of France, to which the _jurat_ looked as the symbol -and pledge of independence, is found here also in the bell-tower -of St. Paul’s, which is styled in documents either by that name -(_berefridum_), or by that of _campanile_, which brings before us at -once the storm-tost commonwealths of Italy. It was indeed from Italy -that the fire of freedom spread. With the rise of mediæval commerce it -was carried from the Alps to the Rhine, and quickly burst into flame -among the traders and craftsmen of Flanders. Passing into Picardy, it -crossed the Channel, according to a theory I have myself advanced, -to reappear in the liberties of the Cinque Ports, with their French -name, their French “serements” and their French _jurats_.[509] Foreign -merchants had brought it with them to the port of Exeter also, almost -as early as the Conquest, and we cannot doubt that London as well was -already infected with the movement, and eager to find in the foreign -“commune” the means of attaining that administrative autonomy and -political independence which that term virtually expressed. - -Hostile though our kings might be to the communal movement here, they -favoured it for purposes of their own in their Norman dominions. -This is a factor in the problem that we cannot afford to overlook, -considering the peculiar relation in which Normandy stood to England. -As M. Langlois has observed: - - Jamais en effet la France et l’Angleterre n’ont été, même de nos - jours, aussi intiment en contact ... Jusqu’à la fin du xii^{me} - siècle, les deux pays eurent à peu près les mêmes institutions - politiques, ils pratiquaient la même religion, on y parlait la - même langue. Des Français allaient fréquemment dans l’île comme - touristes, comme colons, comme marchands. - -Was it not then from Normandy that London would derive her commune? And -if from Normandy, surely from Rouen. We are apt to forget the close -connections between the two capitals of our Anglo-Norman kings, London -on the Thames, and Rouen on the Seine. A student of the period has -written of these: - - Citizens of Norman origin, to whom London, in no small measure, - owed the marked importance which it obtained under Henry I.... - Merchants, traders, craftsmen of all sorts, came flocking - to seek their fortunes in their sovereign’s newly-acquired - dominions, not by forcible spoliation of the native people, but - by fair traffic and honest labour in their midst.... Norman - refinement, Norman taste, Norman fashions, especially in dress, - made their way rapidly among the English burghers.... The great - commercial centre to which the Norman merchants had long been - attracted as visitors, attracted them as settlers now that it - had become the capital of their own sovereign.[510] - - * * * * * - -It is known from the ‘Instituta Londoniæ’ that, so far back as the -days of Æthelred, the men of Rouen had traded to London, bringing in -their ships the wines of France, as well as that mysterious “craspice,” -which it is the fashion to render “sturgeon,” although there is -reason to believe that the term denoted the porpoise and even the -whale. The charter of Henry, duke of the Normans, to the citizens of -Rouen (1150–1), brings out a fact unknown to English historians, by -confirming to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the -days of Edward the Confessor. And the same charter, by securing them -their right to visit all the markets in England, carries back that -privilege, I believe, to the days at least of Henry I.; for, although -the fact had escaped notice both in France and England, it could -neither have originated with Count Geoffrey nor with Duke Henry his son. - -Nor does the interest of this Rouen charter stop here. Among the -sureties for the young Duke’s fidelity to his word we find Richer -de Laigle, the youthful friend of Becket, “a constant visitor,” as -Miss Norgate, writes, “and intimate friend of the little household in -Cheapside.” And does not the name of Becket remind us how “Thomas of -London, the burgher’s son,” afterwards “Archbishop, saint and martyr,” -had for his father a magnate of London, but one who was by birth a -citizen of Rouen? Therefore, the same writer is probably justified in -maintaining that “the influence of these Norman burghers was dominant -in the city.” They seem, she adds, “to have won their predominance by -fair means, fairly. They brought a great deal more than mere wealth; -they brought enterprise, vigour, refinement, culture, as well as -political progress.”[511] - -Now it is my contention that political progress was represented with -them by the communal idea. Their interests, moreover, would be wholly -commercial, and, therefore, opposed to those of the native territorial -element. If we turn to Rouen, we find its Mayor occurring fifteen years -at least before the Mayor of London, and styled Mayor of the “Commune” -of Rouen--“Major de Communia.” For Rouen was a stronghold of the -“Commune.” It is of importance, therefore, for our purpose to ascertain -at what period the communal organization originated at Rouen. In spite -of the close attention, from the days of Chéruel downwards, that the -subject has attracted in France, the conclusions attained cannot be -deemed altogether satisfactory. - -The monograph devoted by M. Giry to the “Établissements de Rouen,”[512] -represents the _fine fleur_ of French historical scholarship, and -its conclusions, therefore, deserve no ordinary consideration. But on -one point of the utmost importance, namely, the date at which these -“Établissements” were compiled, I venture to hold an independent view. -The initial difficulty is thus stated by the brilliant French scholar: - - L’original n’existe plus, et l’on ne sait à quelle époque - précise il faut faire remonter leur adoption dans les villes de - Rouen et de la Rochelle qui les ont eus avant tous les autres - (p. 2). - -The first allusion to the jurisdiction exercised by the Commune of -Rouen is found, says M. Giry, in the charter granted it by Henry II. -shortly after its gallant defence against the French king. He then -proceeds: - - C’est du reste à la fin du règne de Henri II. que nous voyons - pour la première fois la ville de Rouen décorée du titre de - Commune (_communia_) dans un grand nombre de chartes dont les - listes de témoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 et 1189. - Dans ces chartes les mentions d’un maire, de pairs, d’un - bailli, nous font voir qu’alors déjà la ville jouissait de - l’organisation municipale que les Établissements exposent avec - plus de détails; elles nous permettent de croire que cette - constitution, à peu près telle qu’elle nous est parvenue y était - alors en vigueur (p. 28). - -A footnote is appended, giving “l’indication de quelques-unes des -chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles s’appuie cette -démonstration”: - - [1] “Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173–1181) ... - Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis” ... [2] “in - presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie - Rothomagensis (1177–1189) et parium ipsius civitatis,” etc. - -The expert will perceive that these two charters “demonstrate,” not -a date “entre 1173 et 1189,” but between 1177 and 1181. For if -Bartholomew’s rule as mayor began in 1177, the first cannot be of -earlier date; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in 1181,[513] its -mention of a “commune” cannot be of later date than that year. As a -matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters (from -which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bartholomew was -mayor earlier than 1177; but I am, for the moment, only concerned with -M. Giry’s dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing the -claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes: - - Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient décider - même la question d’antériorité, puisqu’ils ne donnent que des - époques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen - entre 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle entre 1169 et 1199 (pp. - 67–8.) - -No reference is given for the date “1183,” but it must be derived from -the “demonstration” on p. 29 (footnote), where a charter is mentioned -which speaks of the “Communio Rothomagi” in the time of archbishop -Hugh, “1129–1183.” But now comes the startling fact. It was not Hugh -who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had died so -early as 1164. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it proves -that the “communio” was in existence, and (as M. Giry holds), the -“Établissements” with it, at least as early as 1164. But the fact is -that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, of -duke Henry’s charter, “la _communio Rothomagi_ (art. 7) ne désigne que -la communauté des citoyens” (p. 26); it does not prove the existence -of a _commune_, and, of course, still less of the “Établissements.” - -But I would urge that not even the mention of a true _commune_ -(“communia”) in a charter proves the adoption of the “Établissements” -at the time. For Henry’s grant of a “communia” to La Rochelle was -made, according to M. Giry, between 1169 and 1178;[514] and yet, as we -have seen, he does not deem the adoption of the “Établissements” at -La Rochelle proved before 1199. In that year Queen Eleanor granted to -Saintes “ut communiam suam teneant secundum formam et modum communie -de Rochella.” Even this, I venture to think, is not actual proof that -the “Établissements de Rouen” had already been adopted at La Rochelle, -though it certainly affords some presumption in favour of that view. - -It is only when we turn from this external evidence to the text of -the “Établissements” themselves, that we discover, in two passages, a -direct clue. In these an exception is made in the words: “nisi dominus -rex vel filius ejus adsint Rothomagi vel assisia” (ii. 24, 28). On -these M. Giry writes: - - Les articles qui prévoient la présence à Rouen du roi ou de son - fils ne peuvent guère s’appliquer qu’à Henri II. et à Richard - Cœur-de-Lion. C’est donc des dernières années du règne de Henri - II., après l’année 1169, qu’il faut dater la rédaction des - Établissements (i. 11). - -Here, then, we have yet another limit--the last (twenty) years of Henry -II. No reference, however, is given for the date “1169” (unless it -applies to La Rochelle--and even then it is wrong).[515] But my point -is that between the years “1169” (or “1177”) and “1183” the king’s son -here mentioned was, obviously, not Richard, but Henry, styled king of -the English and duke of the Normans, from his coronation in 1170 to his -death in 1183. And, even after Henry’s death, Richard was never duke -of the Normans in his father’s lifetime. My own conclusion, therefore, -is that these parts, at least of the “Établissements,” and probably -the whole of them, were composed before the death of the young king in -1183, and probably after his coronation, and admission to a share of -his father’s power, in 1170. Thus they may well have been connected -with Henry’s charter to Rouen granted in 1174–1175. - -These considerations may have led us somewhat far afield; but if I am -right in deriving from the Norman capital of our kings the 12th century -“Commune of London,” the origins of the Rouen “Commune” deserve our -careful study. The same MS. which yielded the leading document in this -paper contains two others, of which something must be said. But before -doing so we will glance at one of different origin, which, in more ways -than one, we may associate with the ‘Commune.’ - -The charter which follows is chiefly introduced for the interesting -phrase found in it: “the greater barons of the city.” So far as I know, -this phrase is unique; and apart from its importance for London itself, -it has a direct bearing on that famous constitutional problem: who were -the “barones majores”? In the present case, the phrase, surely, has no -specialized meaning. It is probably a coincidence, and nothing more, -that “majores” and “minores,” at St. Quentin, had a defined meaning. In -M. Giry’s treatise on its _commune_ we read as follows: - - Notons ici que les citoyens ayant exercé les fonctions de - jurés et d’échevins formaient dans la ville une véritable - aristocratie: on les appelait les grands bourgeois, _majores - burgenses_, par opposition aux petits bourgeois, _minores - burgenses_, qui comprenaient tous les autres membres de la - commune (p. cxi.). - -And again: - - À Saint-Quentin, comme dans toutes les communes, le pouvoir - était aux mains des habitants riches qu’on appelait, ainsi qu’il - a été dit plus haut, les grands bourgeois (_majores burgenses_), - parce qu’ils avaient exercé les charges municipales, et pour - les distinguer des petits bourgeois (_minores burgenses_), - dénomination appliquée à tous ceux qui n’avaient point rempli - les fonctions de juré ou d’échevin. En 1318, pendent la - suspension de la commune, ces petits bourgeois se plaignirent de - la mauvaise répartition des tailles et traduisirent devant le - Parlement les grands bourgeois, auteurs des rôles d’imposition - incriminés (p. cxv.). - -The original of this charter is preserved at the Public Record -Office.[516] It is assigned in the official calendar to 1189–1196, -but this date can be greatly narrowed. For while it is subsequent to -William’s consecration (31st Dec., 1189), it must be previous to his -obtaining the legation in June, 1190, for Bishop Hugh was his open foe -before he lost it, and could not act with him after that. - - Willelmus dei gratia Elyensis episcopus Domini Regis - cancellarius universis Christi fidelibus ad quos presens - scriptum pervenerit salutem in vero salutari. Universitati - vestre notum fieri volumus nos dedisse et concessisse et - presenti carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et familiari nostro - Gaufrido Blundo civi Lond’ et heredibus suis totam terram - et mesuagium cum pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis - consuetudinibus et rebus cunctis que ad predictam terram - pertinent, quam terram et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis emimus - de Waltero Lorengo qui fuit nepos Petri filii Walteri[517] et - Roberti filii Walteri et eorum heres per veredictum tocius - civitatis Londoniarum (_sic_), et hoc testificatum fuit - coram nobis _a maioribus baronibus civitatis_ apud Turrim - Lond’. Que terra et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis fuerunt - predicti Petri filii Walteri et predicti Roberti filii Walteri - qui fuerunt avunculi predicti Walteri Loreng’ et jacent in - parochia Sancti Laurentii de Judaismo et in parochia Sancte - Marie de Aldermanebery, habendum et tenendum predicto Gaufrido - et heredibus suis jure hereditario imperpetuum cum omnibus - pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et cum - omnibus rebus, scilicet quicquid ibidem habuimus in terris, - in lignis, in lapidibus, in redditibus, et in rebus cunctis, - sine aliquo retenimento faciendo inde servicium quod inde - capitali domino debet, scilicet vj d. per annum ad Pasch’ pro - omni servitio. Hanc vero terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis, - ut predictum est, ego Willelmus predictus et heredes nostri - predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis contra omnes gentes - imperpetuum warrantizabimus. Pro hac donatione et concessione et - carte nostre confirmatione predictus Gaufridus Blund dedit nobis - quatuor viginti et decem libras argenti in gersumam. Et ut hec - nostra donatio et concessio rata et inconcussa predicto Gaufrido - et heredibus suis imperpetuum permaneat, eam presenti scripto et - sigilli nostri munimine corroboravimus. - - Hiis testibus: Hugoni Cestrensi episcopo; Henrico de Longo - Campo fratre nostro; Willelmo de Brause; Henrico de Cornhell’; - Willelmo Puintel; Ricardo filio Reineri; Henrico filio Ailwin’; - Waltero de Hely senescallo nostro; Matheo de Alenzun camerario - nostro; magistro Michaele; Willelmo de Sancto Michaele; Gaufrido - Bucuinte; Simone de Aldermannebury; Baldewino capellano nostro; - Stephano Blundo; Philippo elemosinario nostro; magistro Willelmo - de Nanntes; Daniele de Longo Campo clerico nostro; Reimundo - clerico nostro, et multis aliis. - -We have here a remarkable group of men--Longchamp himself, whose fall, -in 1191, was so closely connected with the birth of the _commune_, but -who is here seen, in the hour of his pride, speaking of “our brother,” -“our seneschal,” “our chamberlain,” “our chaplain,” “our almoner,” -and “our clerks”; Bishop Hugh, who was next year to take the lead in -expelling him from the Tower, as yet his stronghold; Henry of Cornhill -and Richard Fitz Reiner, who had ceased but a few months before to be -sheriffs of London, and who were to play so prominent a part at the -crisis of 1191; lastly, Henry Fitz Ailwin himself, who, as the ultimate -result of that crisis, was destined to become the first Mayor of the -_Commune_ of London. - -The grantee himself also was a well-known citizen of London. In -conjunction with Henry Fitz Ailwin (as Mayor) and other City -magnates, he witnessed a gift of property in the City to St. Mary’s, -Clerkenwell;[518] and he seems to have been the Geoffrey Blund who had, -by his wife Ida de Humfraville, a son Thomas, who founded a chantry -in St. Paul’s for his uncle Richard de Humfraville, and his father -Geoffrey. - -For the London topographer also this charter has an interest, as land -in St. Lawrence Jewry, and St. Mary Aldermanbury, must have closely -adjoined the site of the Guildhall itself. The sum named is a large one -for the time. - -I now pass to the two documents of which mention has been made above. -The first of these[519] is of interest for its bearing on the “ward” -system. At Rouen the “excubia” was in charge of the mayor;[520] in -London, according to this document, he had not supplanted the sheriffs, -by whom it must have been controlled before his appearance. This I -attribute to its close connexion with the pre-existing system of -“wards,” each, I take it, a unit for purposes of defence and ward, -under its own alderman, with the sheriffs at the head of the whole -system. - - DE EXCUBIIS IN NATALI ET PASCHA ET PENTECOST.[521] - - Magna custodia debet invenire xii homines sed per libitum - vicecomitis abbreviata est usque ad viii homines. - - Mediocris custodia debet viii vigiles, sed ita abbreviata usque - sex. - - Minor custodia debet sex, sed ita abbreviata usque ad iiij^{or}. - - Debent autem escavingores[522] eligi qui singulis diebus a - vigilia Nat[alis] domini usque ad diem epyphanie videant illos - qui debent de nocte vigilare quod sint homines defensibiles et - decenter ad hoc armati. Debent autem ad vesperam in die videri - et ad horam completorii exire et per totam noctem pacifice - vigilare et vicum salve custodire usque pulsetur ad matutinas - per capellas, quod vocatur _daibelle_. Et si aliqua defalta in - custodia contigerit, escavingores debent illos inbreviare et ad - primum hustingum vicecomitibus tradere. Potest eciam vicecomes, - si vult, cogere eos jurare de defalta quod nulli inde deferebunt - nec aliquem celabunt. - - DE CARTIS CIVITATIS. - - In thesauro due regis Willelmi primi et due de libertatibus - regis Ricardi et de eodem rege due carte de kidellis et de rege - Johanne due carte de vicecom[itatu], una de libertate et una - de kidellis cum sigillo de communi cons[523] (_sic_) habet i - cartam regis Johannis de libertate civitatis W. fil’ Ren’ habet - i regis Henrici de libertate et H[enricus] de Cornh[illa] aliam, - Rog[erus] maior habet cartam Regin[aldi?] de Cornh[illa] de - debito civitatis de ccc marcis. - -The latter portion, it will be observed, describes the custody of the -city charters, and is of special value as fixing the date to that of -the mayoralty of Roger, who held the office in 1213. - -The regulations for the watch are decisive, surely, of the functions -originally discharged by the “scavengers” of London. They were -inspectors of the watch. In his introduction to the ‘Liber Albus’(1859) -Mr. Riley held that-- - - The City Scavagers, it appears, were originally public officers, - whose duty it was to attend at the Hythes and Quays for the - purpose of taking custom upon the _Scavage_ (_i.e._ Showage) - or opening out of imported goods. At a later period, however, - it was also their duty, as already mentioned, to see that due - precautions were taken in the construction of houses against - fire; in addition to which it was their business to see that the - pavements were kept in repair.... These officers, no doubt, gave - name to the ‘_Scavengers_’ of the present day (p. xli.; cf. iii. - 352, 357). - -Professor Skeat adopts this view in his etymological Dictionary, -and develops it at some length, holding that “the _n_ before _g_ is -intrusive” as in some other cases, “and scavenger stands for scavager.” -He consequently connects the word with our “shew,” through “scavage.” -But no evidence whatever is adduced by Mr. Riley for his assertion that -the “Scavagers” originally performed the above duty or had anything to -do with it. - -The last of these London records with which I have here to deal is the -so-called “Hidagium” of Middlesex.[524] The explanation of its thus -appearing among documents relating to the administration of London is -that when London and Middlesex were jointly “farmed” by the citizens, -the sheriffs answered jointly for the ‘Danegeld’ of Middlesex and -the corresponding _donum_ or _auxilium_ of London. Here therefore we -find these two levies side by side as on the Pipe Rolls. But though -the latter was levied from the city when Danegeld was levied from -the shire, it was in no way connected with hidation, but consisted -of arbitrary sums payable by the principal towns. Prof. Maitland, -therefore, is mistaken when, in his great work, ‘Domesday Book and -Beyond,’ he makes a solitary reference to our MS., as implying that -London “seems to have gelded for 1,200 hides” (p. 409). He has here -confused the assessed hidage of boroughs with the arbitrary _donum_ or -_auxilium_. This is shown by comparing the latter, as given by himself -(p. 175), with the ascertained hidage of towns and the payments its sum -would involve. - - hides. [geld.] donum. - Worcester 15 £1 10 0 £15 - Northampton 25 2 10 0 10 - Dorset Boroughs 45 4 10 10 15 - Huntingdon 50 5 0 0 8 - Hertford 10 1 0 0 5 - -But the special interest of the entry, “c et xx libr.” (£120) lies in -the fact that this amount, which was the sum paid in 1130 and 1156, was -obsolete after that time, much larger sums being thenceforth exacted -from London. It is, of course, just possible that the obsolete figure -was retained, as a protest, on this list; but it is far more probable -that what we have here is a copy _temp._ John of an earlier -document, perhaps not later than the middle of the 12th century.[525] - - HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE. - - IN HUNDREDO DE OSULVESTUNE. - - Villa de Stebehee l^{ta} hid. - Terra de Fafintune iiij hid.[526] - H[er]gotestune ij hid. Abb’is - Brambelee v hid. - Fulcham l^a hid. - Villa sancti Petri xvj hid. 2 dimid. - Hamstede v hid. iiij abb’s[527] - Lya x hid. abb’is - Tolendune ij hid. - Terra Gub’ti dim. hid. - Abbas Colcestr’ dim. hid. - Chelchede ij. hid abb’is - Kensintune x hid. - Lilletune v hid. - Tiburne v hid. Vs. - Willesdune xv hid. - Herlestune v hid. - Tuferd iiij xij d. hid. - Sum[ma] c et quater xx hid. et xi - hid. et dim. - - IN HUNDRED’ DE YSTELWRKE c et v hid. - - IN HUNDREDO DE SPELETHORN. - - Stanes xxxv hid. Abb’ - Stanwelle xv hid. - Bedefunte x hid. - alia Bedefunte x hid. - Feltham xv hid. - Kenetune v hid. - Suneb[er]ia vij hid. Abb. - Sep[er]tune viij hid. Abb. - Hanewrtha v hid. iij Abb’ - Summa c et x hid. - - IN HUNDREDO DE LA GARE. - - Herghes c hid. - Kingesb[er]ia x hid. - Stanmere ix hid. - Terra com’ vj hid. - Alia Stanmere ix. hid. et dim. - Heneclune[528] xx hid. Abb. - Summa c et xl et ix hid. - - IN DIMIDIO HUNDREDO DE MIMES lxx hid. - - Toteham [5][529] hid. - Edelmetune [35][529] hid. - Mimes [35][529] hid. - Enefeld xxx hid. - Summa lx et ix hid. - - Summa summarum octies c et liij hid. et dimid. - - Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm’. c et xviij hid. - - DANEGELD. - - Middelsexe quater xx libr’ et c sol. et vj d. - Londr’ c et xx libr. - - SUMMA HUNDREDORUM. - - Osuluestane cc et xj hid. - Spelthorn c et x hid. - Elethorn c et xxiiij hid. - Garehundr’ c et xlix hid. et dim. - Thistelwrkhundr’ c et v hid. - - Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe. - -This list obviously requires to be edited by a local worker, who should -collate it with Domesday. In its present form it is clearly corrupt. -The amount of Danegeld due from the county implies an assessment of -850¼ hides (at two shillings on the hide), but the actual total is here -given as 853½. This again does not tally with the “summa hundredorum,” -which only records 809½,[530] while the detailed list of hundreds, -it seems, gives no more than 725½. It should be observed that the -hundred of “Mimms” is the Domesday hundred of Edmonton, while that of -‘Isleworth,’ similarly, is the Domesday hundred of Hounslow, which -contained Isleworth and Hampton. - - - - - XII - - The Great Inquest of Service, 1212 - - -It will be my object in this paper to recover and identify the -fragments of a great national inquest, which seems to have escaped -the notice of constitutional historians, and which, if its full -returns had been preserved, might not unworthily be compared with the -Domesday Inquest itself. In the course of doing so, I shall hope to -prove that abstracts of these returns have been wrongly assigned by -all antiquaries to an earlier and imaginary inquest, and that their -belief has recently received an official confirmation. The solution I -shall now propound will remove the admitted difficulties, to which the -existing belief on the MSS. has, we shall find, given rise. - -The bewildering _congeries_ of returns known as the ‘Testa de -Nevill’--an Edwardian manuscript shovelled together, and printed by the -old Record Commission in 1807--has long been at once the hunting-ground -and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy. Now -that the returns contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer are also -at length in type,[531] it is possible to collate the two collections, -and thus to remove, in part at least, the obscurity that has hitherto -surrounded them. - -Mr. Hall, in his preface to the ‘Red Book,’ writes thus: - - The Sergeanties and Inquisitions which form a considerable part - of the Feodary in the Red Book of the Exchequer, have hitherto - been little known, and their true value has been by no means - sufficiently appreciated. This neglect has perhaps arisen from - the greater convenience of reference to the printed collection - known as the _Testa de Nevill_; but as it is now very - generally recognised that the text of this work is far from - satisfactory in its present form, the evidence of the kindred - returns contained in earlier Exchequer Registers deserves our - most careful attention (p. ccxxi.). - -In the ‘Red Book’ itself the returns are headed: - - Inquisitiones factæ tempore regis Johannis per totam Angliam - anno scilicet regni sui xii^o et xiii^o in quolibet comitatu de - servitiis militum et aliorum qui de eo tenent in capite secundum - rotulos liberatos thesaurario per manus vicecomitum Angliæ - tempore prædicto (p. 469). - -They are accordingly given, by the editor, the marginal date -“1210–1212” throughout (pp. 469–574). On the other hand, the ‘Testa de -Nevill’ returns were, as he shows, delivered at the Exchequer on the -morrow of St. John the Baptist (25th June), 1212 (p. ccxxi.). Thus then -we have, according to him, two successive and “independent returns”: - - (1) The ‘Liber Rubeus’ returns made between May, 1210, and May, - 1212. - - (2) The ‘Testa de Nevill’ returns made in June, 1212.[532] - -It is necessary to keep these dates very clearly in mind, because, -although the editor accepts the ‘Red Book’ statement, and adopts -accordingly the marginal date “1210–1212,” he yet, by an -incomprehensible confusion, speaks of the same as the Inquisition -of “1210–1211” on p. ccxxviii. (_bis_), and even as “the earlier -Inquisition of 1210 entered in the Red Book” (p. ccxxvi.), and of “the -two independent returns of 1210 and 1212” with “two stormy years” -between them (p. ccxxiv.); while in another place he actually dates -the said “returns of 1210” as belonging to “1212” (p. clxv.). He thus -dates the Red Book Inquisitions in one place ‘1210–1212,’ in another -‘1210–1211,’ in a third ‘1210,’ and in a fourth ‘1212.’ - -Now I may explain at the outset that what I propose to do is to show -that instead of two Inquests (one recorded in the ‘Red Book’ and the -other in the ‘Testa’), there was only a single Inquest, with one series -of returns, and that this was the Inquest of June, 1212. - -As this view is in direct conflict with the heading in the ‘Red Book’ -itself, we must first glance at Mr. Hall’s statement that “the date of -the Inquisitions entered in the Red Book can be proved from internal -evidence” (p. ccxxiii.). What he there claims to prove is that their -date is between 1209 and “the early part of 1213.” Such a conclusion, -it will be perceived, in no way proves that they do not belong, as I -shall contend they do belong, to June, 1212. Putting aside the obvious -and inherent improbability of an Inquest being made in 1212 on the very -matter which had formed the subject of an Inquest only just concluded, -we need only compare the returns to prove their common origin. Mr. Hall -observes that at times - - we come upon a passage of a few lines or a whole page or more - in the MSS., headed in the later Register ‘De Testa de Nevill,’ - dated in the original rolls in the 14th year of John, and - corresponding entry for entry with the Red Book Inquest of the - 12th and 13th years of that reign (p. ccxxv.). - -But the obvious inference that the two Inquests were really one and -the same seems not to have occurred to him. We will glance, therefore, -at the parallel returns he has himself selected. Foremost among these -is “the Middlesex Inquisition” for 1212, of which he has printed -“the original return” as an appendix to his Preface (pp. ccxxvi., -cclxxxii.-iv.), for comparison with the texts in the ‘Red Book’ and in -the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ But he warns us - - that the numerous variants and the independent wording of the - entries, as well as the thirteenth century note “in Libro” - on the bottom of the Roll, forbid the supposition that this - is really an original of the earlier Inquisition of 1210 - (_sic_) entered in the Red Book. - -The “original” return and the two texts all begin with the “Honour” -of William de Windsor, who inherited from his Domesday ancestor, -Walter fitz Other, a compact block of four manors, East and West -Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, in the south-west of the county. The -first entry is for East Bedfont, and the second ran, in the “original” -return: “_Walterius_ Bedestfont, Andreas Bucherel, feudum unius -militis.” But _Walterius_, Mr. Hall tells us, was altered in a -contemporary hand to “in alterius.” The ‘Testa’ renders this as “in -villa alterius,” while the ‘Red Book’ gives us “Walterius de Bedefonte, -Andreas Bukerellus j feodum.” There can be no question that the ‘Testa -de Nevill’ is right, and that Andrew Bucherel was the sole tenant of -the fee, for the scutage is accounted for accordingly on the same page -(p. 361). It follows, therefore, that the ‘Red Book’ and the “original” -return have both evolved, in error, a Walter de Bedfont from “in -alteri” Bedfont. Hence I conclude that the strip of parchment termed -by Mr. Hall “the original return,” was not the original return, and -that the error common to the ‘Red Book’ and itself demonstrates a close -connection between the two. - -But if this document was not the original return, what was? To answer -this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties -cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How -significantly close is the parallel these entries will show: - - Comes Albemarlie j militem et Comes Albemarlie tenet - dimidium in Severnestoke, pro Savernestokede dono regis Ricardi - qua et Kenemertone et Botintone per servicium j militis et - in Gloucestresyra Rex acquietat dimidii pro qua et pro Kenemerton - abbatem Westmonasterii de iij et Botinton in Glouc[estresyra] - militibus (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. dominus Rex acquietat abbatem - 567). Westmonasterii de iij militibus - (‘Testa de Nevill,’ p. 43). - -It will be obvious, from the verbal concordances, that instead of -representing, as Mr. Hall holds, two “independent” returns made in -different years these texts are derived from one and the same return. -But instead of being, as in the case of Middlesex, arranged in the -same order, they are here found, in the respective texts, arranged -in very different order. The explanation of this is that the ‘Testa’ -records the Inquest by Hundreds, while the ‘Red Book’ groups the fees -under the barons’ names and the sergeanties apart at the end. This is -particularly interesting from the parallel of Domesday Book, where -the Inquest, of which the original returns were drawn up hundred by -hundred, was rearranged in Domesday Book in similar fashion. I was led -to suspect that this great Inquest was, generally at least, drawn up by -Hundreds, from Mr. Hall’s remark that - - There is a marginal note in the Red Book returns for Wilts, - now partially illegible, but (_sic_) which clearly records the - loss of the Inquisition of several of the Hundreds of that - county, while a precisely similar note is entered on the dorse - of one of the original returns for Norfolk in the _Testa_ (p. - ccxxiv.).[533] - -The view I advance at once explains and is confirmed by the remarkable -allusion to this Inquest in the ‘Annals of Waverley’: - - (1212) Idem (rex) scripsit vicecomitibus ut _per singulos - hundredos_ facerent homines jurare quæ terræ essent de - dominico prædecessorum suorum regum antiquitus, et qualiter a - manibus regum exierint, et qui eas modo tenent et pro quibus - servitiis. - -There can, in my opinion, be no question whatever that this refers to -the writ ordering the great Inquest of service in 1212. This is printed -in the ‘Testa’ (p. 54), and as an appendix to the ‘Red Book’ (p. -cclxxxv.). It is too lengthy to be quoted entire, but in it are found -these words: - - De tenementis omnibus quæ antiquitus de nobis aut de - progenitoribus nostris regibus Angliæ teneri solent, quæ sint - data vel alienata ... et nomina illorum qui ea teneant et per - quod servitium. - -The only difference is that the writ leaves the method of inquest to -the sheriff’s discretion (“sicut melius inquiri poterit”) while the -chronicler says it was to be made Hundred by Hundred, which, as we have -seen, was probably the method adopted. - -In the ‘Testa’ the writ is not dated, but the copy printed by Mr. Hall -is dated June 1 (1212) at Westminster. This seems but short notice -for a return due on June 25, but it is remarkable that the ‘Annals of -Waverley’ mention it in conjunction with a writ dated June 7, which -certainly favours the statement. This latter writ directs an enquiry as -to the ecclesiastical benefices held under gift of the prelates lately -exiled from the realm.[534] It is remarkable that the Worcester returns -to the great Inquest of service in 1212 are followed by a return made -to such an enquiry: - - Inquisicio ecclesiarum. Maugerius episcopus dedit ecclesiam - de Rippel’ Willelmo de Bosco clerico suo et vicariam ejusdem - ecclesie dedit Ricardo de Sancto Paterno clerico suo. Qui - Ricardus reddit predicto Willelmo x marcas de pensione. Ecclesia - autem integra valet per annum L marcas. - - Idem episcopus dedit ecclesiam de Hambur’ juxta Wych magistro - Ricardo de Cirencestra, que valet per annum x marcas (‘Testa,’ - p. 44). - -Bishop Mauger died in the very month of the Inquest (June, 1212). -The Notts and Derbyshire returns (p. 18) include two similar entries -relating to the archbishop of York, and those for Somerset and Dorset -contain two at least relating to the bishop of Bath (pp. 161 _b_, 162 -_a_). The Sussex and Surrey returns similarly contain two entries -(p. 226 _a_) relating to Surrey churches to which the archbishop -of Canterbury had presented. In this last case the annual value of -the livings is deposed to, it should be noted, by six men of each -parish.[535] - -Having now dealt with Middlesex and Worcestershire, I pass to -Lancashire, another county cited by Mr. Hall for comparison. The -magnificent return for this county in 1212[536] is noteworthy for -several reasons. In the first place, it is headed: - - Hec est inquisicio facta per sacramentum fidelium militum - de tenementis datis et alienatis infra Limam in comitatu - Lancastrie, scilicet per Rogerum Gerneth, etc., etc. - -This is a good illustration of the principle of “sworn inquest.” In -the second, it leads off with the entry: “Gilbertus filius Reinfri -tenet feodum unius militis.” Although this was a well-known man, _jure -uxoris_ a local magnate, the ‘Red Book’ text leads off with the gross -corruption: “Gilfridus filius Rumfrai i militem” (568). Mr. Hall, -in his index (p. 1183), identifies him with the “Galfridus filius -Reinfrei” of another ‘Red Book’ return (p. 599)--where the ‘Testa’ has, -rightly, “Gilbertus”--and fails to recognise in him the above Gilbert. -This is a striking comment on his views expressed at the outset as to -the inferiority of the ‘Testa’ text. So also is the fact that the ‘Red -Book’ reads “Thomas de Elgburgo” at the foot of the same page, where -the ‘Testa’ has “Thomas de Goldebur[go]” (p. 406), the correctness of -the latter reading being proved by the “Thomas de Goldeburgo” of the -‘Red Book’ itself (p. 69) in its extract from the Pipe Roll of 1187. -Yet the editor ignores the ‘Testa’ form, and gives ‘Elgburgo’ in the -Index.[537] - -A third point is that the ‘Red Book’ compresses here into a skeleton -nearly thirteen columns of the closely printed ‘Testa de Nevill.’ The -text of the latter is of value not only for its wealth of information -and its witness to the detailed and far-reaching character of this -Inquest, but for such expressions as “pro herede Theobaldi Walteri qui -est in custodia sua” (_i.e._ regis). Theobald had died more than five -years before the Inquest was made; and yet in the ‘Red Book’ text he -appears as the living tenant. - -This instance is of some importance in its bearing on apparent -contrasts in the ‘Testa’ and ‘Red Book’ versions. For Mr. Hall, -believing them to represent two successive returns, observes that - - In the Inquisitions ... of the years 1210–11 entered in the Red - Book of the Exchequer, Walter Tosard is returned as holding his - land in Banningham.... In the original return, dated 1212, from - which the earliest list of Feudal services in _Testa de Nevill_ - was compiled, we find that Walter Tosard _held_ this serjeanty, - and that Avicia Tosard still holds it (p. ccxxviii.). - -The apparent discrepancy of the two returns is explained, exactly as in -the case of Theobald Walter, by the fact that the full return mentioned -Walter Tosard as dead, while the brief and inaccurate abstract of it, -in the Red Book of the Exchequer, gives his name as if he were alive. - -Passing over the elaborate entry for Bradwell, Essex,[538] the two -versions of which, it will be found, are clearly derived from the same -original, I pass, in conclusion, to the return for Northumberland -(‘Testa,’ 392–3). Although not among the counties cited above by Mr. -Hall, its return to the “Inquisicio facta de tenementis, etc., que -sunt data vel alienata,” etc.,[539] is specially full and valuable -for comparison. Its text appears to reproduce the original _in -extenso_. Now any one comparing this return with the meagre list -in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (pp. 562–4) will perceive at once that the -latter is derived from the same original. The names occur in identical -order. The only discrepancy is that the ‘Red Book’ shows us “Sewale -filius Henrici” in possession of land (Matfen and Nafferton)--held by -the interesting serjeanty of being coroner--while the ‘Testa’ reads -“Philippus de Ulkotes tenet terram que fuit Sewall’ filii Henrici.” It -might be urged, as is done by Mr. Hall in the case of the serjeanties -and the Boulogne Inquest (pp. ccxxviii., 575), that this proves the -‘Testa’ return to be the later of the two. But here, again, the real -explanation is that--as in the case of Lancashire, where Theobald -Walter’s name, we saw, is given in the ‘Red Book’ when he was dead--the -appearance of Sewal is merely due to the carelessness, in the ‘Red -Book,’ of the scribe. This, indeed, is evident from his similar -appearance in a list which is, according to Mr. Hall, later than -either.[540] How essential it is to collate these parallel lists is -shown by the very first entry, relating to the interesting tenure of -earl Patrick (of Dunbar). According to the ‘Testa’ (the right reading) -he held “iij villas in theynagio.” The ‘Red Book’ makes him hold “iii -milites (!) in theynagio,” a reading which its editor accepts without -question. Another no less striking correction is afforded by the -‘Testa,’ in its entry relating to the porter of Bamborough Castle and -his tenure: “Robertus Janitor de Bamburg’ tenet.” In Mr. Hall’s text we -find him as “Robertus, junior” (!), and, as such, the unfortunate man -is indexed, although he appears elsewhere, both in the ‘Red Book’ and -the ‘Testa,’ as “Robertus Portarius.”[541] From these instances it will -be evident that though (in the printed text at least) the ‘Testa’ is -not perfect, the ‘Red Book’ list, for Northumberland, is, when compared -with it, worthless. - -Indeed, the marvellously elaborate returns for Somerset and Dorset, -Lincolnshire, Lancashire, etc., printed in the ‘Testa de Nevill,’ with -which the meagre lists in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ cannot be compared for an -instant, make one read with absolute amazement Mr. Hall’s statement, -when comparing the two, that - - one or the other is in its present form lamentably incomplete. - This deficiency chiefly exists on the side of the _Testa_, - for it will be evident at once that the isolated and - fragmentary membranes which formed the sole surviving contents - of Nevill’s _Testa_ in the reign of Edward I. cannot be - satisfactorily compared with the relatively complete returns - preserved in the Red Book (p. ccxxiv.). - -It is evident that the editor has no conception how many and how long -are the returns in the ‘Testa’ relating to this great Inquest.[542] -This may be due to his conception that they are there headed “De -Testa de Nevill” (p. ccxxv.), an idea which he repeated in a lengthy -communication to the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898) on the “Testa de -Nevill.” Mr. Hall wrote: - - The really important point about the whole matter is one which - seems to have been entirely overlooked, namely that not only - does the title ‘Testa de Nevill’ refer to certain antique lists - alone, which, indeed, form but a small percentage of the whole - register, but that the greater part of the lists thus headed - appear to have been made at a certain date in the fourteenth - year of John.... ‘_De_ Testa de Nevill’ is the invariable - heading of these lists (p. 354). - -The very point of the matter is that, on the contrary, the greater -portion of these lists have no such heading, but are hidden away among -later returns, from which they can only be disentangled by careful and -patient labour.[543] The result of my researches is that I believe the -printed ‘Testa’ to contain no fewer than a hundred columns (amounting -to nearly an eighth of its contents) representing returns to this -Inquest. At the close of this paper I append a list of these columns, -of which only thirty-eight are headed (or included in the portion -headed) “De testa de Nevill.” - -To resume. For the great Inquest of 1212 (14 John) we have (1) mention -in a chronicle, (2) the writ directing it to be made, (3) the record -of a sworn verdict of jurors who made it. For the alleged Inquests of -1210–12 (12 and 13 John) we have nothing at all.[544] We have, further, -the fact that, when collated, the returns said to belong to these -“independent” Inquests are found to be clearly derived from a single -original. In spite, therefore, of the ‘Red Book’ and its editor, it may -safely be asserted that there was but one Inquest, that of the 14th -year, the returns to which were handed in on 25th June (1212). - -Thus “the remarkable circumstance,” as Mr. Hall terms it (p. ccxxiii.), -that the ‘Testa’ compilers know nothing of “the original returns of -the 12th and 13th years,” while, “on the other hand, the scribe of the -‘Red Book’ had not access to the returns of the 14th year,” is at once -accounted for: they both used the same returns, those of 1212.[545] - -As my criticism has, at times, been deemed merely destructive, I may -point out that, here at least, it has established the facts about an -Inquest worthy to be named, in future, by historians in conjunction -with those of 1086 and 1166, while the rough list I shall append of -its returns, as printed in the ‘Testa,’ will, one may hope, enable -its evidence to be more generally used than it has been hitherto. The -unfortunate description of the ‘Testa,’ on its title-page, as “_temp._ -Henry III. and Edward I.,” has greatly obscured its character and -misled the ordinary searcher. - -Historically speaking, this Inquest may be viewed from two standpoints. -Politically, it illustrates John’s exactions by its effort to revive -rights of the Crown alleged to have lapsed.[546] Institutionally, it -is of great interest, not only as an instance of “the sworn inquest” -employed on a vast scale, but also for its contrast to the inquest -of knights in 1166, and its points of resemblance to the Domesday -inquest of 1086. Of far wider compass than the former--for it dealt in -detail with the towns[547]--it was carried out on a totally different -principle. Instead of each tenant-in-chief making his own return of his -fees and sending it in separately, the sheriff conducted the enquiry, -Hundred by Hundred, for the county; and out of these returns the feudal -lists had to be subsequently constructed by the officials. Lincolnshire -is not among the counties named by Mr. Hall for comparison, but it -shows us well how the inquest was made Wapentake by Wapentake, and -then the list of fees within the county extracted from the returns and -grouped under Honours. This, I believe, is what was done in Middlesex -also.[548] It is noteworthy that in the case of Middlesex the returns -of 1212 were made the basis for collecting the aid “for the marriage of -the king’s sister,”[549] in 1235, the same personal names occurring in -both lists. If, as this implies, they formed a definitive assessment, -we obtain a striking explanation of the fact that 1212, as Mr. Hall -observes, seems to mark a terminal break in Swereford’s work (pp. -lxii.-iii.). Personally, however, I am not sure that “the Scutages,” -as Mr. Hall asserts, “concluded abruptly” in 1212. My reckoning being -different from his, I make the last scutage dealt with by Swereford to -be that which is recorded on John’s 13th year roll, that is, the roll -of Michaelmas, 1211. - -The following list represents an attempt to identify the returns to -this great Inquest in the ‘Testa,’ and to give the relative abstracts -in the ‘Liber Rubeus.’ Out of 39 English counties (then recognised), -the ‘Testa’ seems to have returns or fragments for 25, and the ‘Liber -Rubeus’ abstracts for 31. - - NOTTS AND DERBYSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 17_b_-19_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 565. - - NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. - - Testa, p. 36. Liber Rubeus, p. 532. - - WORCESTERSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 43–4. Liber Rubeus, p. 566. - - SALOP AND STAFFORDSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 54–6. Liber Rubeus,[550] p. 509. - - HEREFORDSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 69_b_-70_b_. Liber Rubeus, p. 495. - - GLOUCESTERSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 77_a_. - - OXFORDSHIRE AND BERKSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 115,[551] 128_a_-129_a_,[552] 129_a_-131_b_,[553] - 133_b_-134_b_.[554] - - SOMERSET AND DORSET. - - Testa, pp. 160_b_-166_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 544. - - DEVON. - - Testa, pp. 194–195. - - SURREY. - - Testa, pp. 224_b_-226_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 560. - - SUSSEX. - - Testa, pp. 226_b_[555]-227_b_. Liber Rubeus, p. 553. - - HANTS. - - Testa, pp. 236_a_,[556] 239_b_.[557] - - ESSEX AND HERTS. - - Testa, pp. 269_b_[558]-271_a_.[559] Liber Rubeus, p. 498. - - NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK. - - Testa, pp. 293_a_-296_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 475. - - LINCOLNSHIRE. - - Testa, pp. 334_b_[560]-348_a_.[561] Liber Rubeus, p. 514. - - MIDDLESEX. - - Testa, p. 361. Liber Rubeus, p. 541. - - CUMBERLAND. - - Testa, pp. 379_a_[562]-380_a_. Liber Rubeus, p. 493. - - NORTHUMBERLAND. - - Testa, pp. 392_a_-393_b_.[563] Liber Rubeus, pp. 562–4. - - LANCASHIRE. - - Testa, p. 401_b_-408_a_. Cf. Liber Rubeus, p. 568. - -The above list can only be tentative, and does not profess to be -exhaustive. It is believed, however, that genealogists and topographers -will find it of considerable assistance. - - - - - XIII - - Castle-ward and Cornage - - -I propose to deal in this chapter with two subjects which are wholly -distinct, but which it has now been proposed, by a singular confusion, -to connect. Speaking of certain miscellaneous returns in the ‘Red Book -of the Exchequer,’ Mr. Hall writes: - - The first group in importance comprises the so-called - Castle-guard Rents,’ lists of military services in connection - with the Constableship of Dover Castle ... the Constableship of - Windsor Castle, the Wardship of Bamburgh Castle, and the Cornage - Rents of Northumberland (p. ccxxxvi.). - -The corrupt but curious list of the Dover “wards” and their fees is -printed virtually in duplicate on pages 613, 717, though dated by the -editor in the former instance ‘1211–12’ throughout, and in the latter, -‘1261–2,’ and even ‘_Temp._ Edw. I.’ (pp. 721–2). The first of these, -from internal evidence, is probably the right date; the remaining list -(pp. 706 _et seq._), though headed in the MS. 46 Hen. III., is merely -this old list rearranged, with a money payment substituted for the -military service. I mention this because, as printed, these lists are -most misleading to any one unacquainted with their real date. - -The ‘Constable’s Honour,’ for which, alone, we have six or seven -slightly varying returns, is one of the most interesting in the whole -Book, and leads me to say something on this important subject, on which -a wholly erroneous belief has hitherto prevailed. - -The first point to which I desire to direct attention is that the -nine wards (_custodiæ_), named in the ‘Red Book’ lists--The -Constable’s, ‘Abrincis,’ Foubert de Dover,[564] Arsic, Peverel, -Maminot, Port, Crevequer, and Adam Fitz William[565]--are all -reproduced in the names still attached to towers, including even -Fulbert’s Christian name. This coincidence of testimony leads one to -believe that these names must have become fixed at a very early period, -and to enquire what that period was. Looking at the history of the -families named, it seems probable that this period was not later, at -least, than the reign of Henry II. - -But it is in the Constable’s “Ward” that the interest centres. For the -time-honoured belief, preserved by Lyon, and reproduced by Mr. Clark, -is that “three barons of the house of Fiennes held the office under the -Conqueror, Rufus, and Henry I.” After stating that these barons “held -the office of constable” under Henry II., Mr. Clark informs us that “of -these lords, the last, James Fiennes, was constable at the accession -of Richard I., and in 1191 received, as a prisoner in the castle, -Geoffrey, Henry II.’s natural son.”[566] Professor Burrows repeats, -though guardedly, the old story: - - William (I.) is now said to have conferred the guardianship of - the coast, as an hereditary fief on a certain John de Fiennes, - whose name, however, does not appear in any contemporary record. - John was to do service for his lands as Constable of the Castle - and Warden of the Ports.... The office of Constable and Warden - ceased to be hereditary in the reign of Richard I.[567] - -Mr. Hall has now revived the old legend in full: - - In the valuable register formerly belonging to the Priory - of Merton ... a similar but shorter list is found, with an - interesting description of these services, which will be - presently referred to (p. ccxxxvii.). - - The constitutional significance of the tenure itself has not - been perfectly realised. The Merton Register mentioned above - informs us, under the heading “De Wardis Castri Dovorræ,” - that the Conqueror granted the constableship of the castle - there to the Lord of Fienes, with the service of fifty-six - knights, who kept guard each month in turn, some four or - five at once. Besides these, other knights were assigned - to that constableship, for so many weeks in the year, by - the neighbouring Lords of Chilham and Folkestone, and other - barons mentioned in the later returns. Thus the Castle-ward - was performed down to the reign of John, when it was thought - advisable that such an important fortress should be committed to - the keeping of a royal constable and a permanent garrison.... - - Hubert de Burgh was appointed constable during pleasure, and the - office has continued to the present day in the patronage of the - Crown (p. ccxxxviii.). - - [NOTE.] William de Fesnes, the last baronial Constable, - appears to have received the honour of Wendover by way of - compensation (‘Testa,’ ii. 158). - -Now, how much truth is there in this story? Fifty-six knights, we see, -are assigned to John de Fiennes, as first Constable, and fifty-six -knights’ fees (plus or minus 1/10 fee) are assigned in the ‘Liber -Rubeus’ to the “Warda Constabularii.” But the history of these fees, -the “Honor Constabularii,” can be traced with absolute certainty. They -are those which had last been held by Henry de Essex, “the Constable,” -whose tragic fate is familiar, which had been previously held by Robert -de Ver “the Constable,” in right of his wife, a Montfort, and the -possession of which can be traced back by Domesday to no other than -Hugh de Montfort.[568] We learn then that “the Honour of the Constable” -(which we should not otherwise have known) was connected with the -custody of Dover Castle, the “clavis et repagulum Angliæ”; and we learn -more. For when we turn to the story of the attack on Dover Castle -in 1067, we find Hugh de Montfort “the immediate commander of the -castle”;[569] and are thus able to trace the “Warda Constabularii” back -to the Conquest itself. - -Thus the legend of John de Fiennes and his heirs, constables of the -castle, together with its “constitutional significance,” is blown, as -it were, into space, and should never, henceforth, be heard. - -The “Honour of the Constable” passed to the Crown on the forfeiture -of Henry of Essex (1163); and as for the alleged action of “James -Fienes” as constable in 1191, it is well known that the constable at -the time was a brother-in-law of Longchamp, the king’s representative. -I have suggested in a paper on “Faramus of Boulogne”[570] a possible -origin for the Fiennes story in the castle being held by Faramus -at the close of Stephen’s reign, a fact which may account for the -late tradition about “quodam comite Boloniæ qui erat ejusdem Castri -Constabularius.”[571] For the Fienes family were his heirs, through his -daughter; and it was through him, and not on the ground suggested by -Mr. Hall, that they obtained Wendover. To Faramus himself, however, it -may have been given in compensation. - - * * * * * - -Thus far I have been dealing with a question of castle-ward. I now pass -to the ‘cornage rents’ and to the new theory of their origin. This -theory is one of the features of Mr. Hall’s Introduction, in which he -devotes to it ten pages; and it follows immediately on his remarks upon -“the constableship of Dover.” - -As difficult a subject as ‘Scutage,’ and one on which less has been -written, the origin and character of “cornage” are problems as yet -unsolved. The brilliant pen of Professor Maitland has attacked them in -a paper on “Northumbrian tenures”;[572] but he cannot tell us more, -virtually, than we know already, namely, that the term points to -cattle, and is not derived, as Littleton in his ‘Tenures’ and the older -antiquaries held, from the service of blowing a horn. - -Mr. Hall, however, “hazards” the new and startling theory that the -payment known by this name represents a commutation of castle-ward -previously due from the drengs and thegns of the Northern marches. For -this, it would seem, his only ground is the entry in the ‘Red Book’ of -a list of Northumbrian cornage payments in close proximity to lists of -castle-ward services. On this slender foundation is built an edifice -of guesses, such as distinguishes this strange work from any other in -the Rolls Series. They are prefaced, in their order, as usual, thus: - - if we might venture to disregard ... we may suspect that ... the - impression remains that ... May we not then conjecture that ... - it will now be possible to hazard some theory ... It is at least - conceivable that ... will perhaps suggest the theory, etc., - etc.... (pp. ccxlii.-ccxlviii.). - -Rejecting “the accepted definition of cornage as a mere seignorial -due in respect of the pasturage of cattle,” Mr. Hall explains that -it rests on “a radical misconception,” namely, on “the argument that -the references to military service performed by” the Cumberland -cornage “tenants are later interpolations in the reign of Edward I.,” -whereas, as he observes, they are mentioned in a list of about the end -of John’s reign. The criticism is curiously characteristic. For, on -turning to Professor Maitland’s paper (p. 629), we find not a hint of -“interpolation”; he has merely--misled, no doubt, by the title page of -the printed ‘Testa’--mistaken a list of John’s reign for one of “Edward -I.’s time.” And, so far from assigning to that period the first mention -of this service, he refers us, in the same passage, to its mention in -1238, when, as he actually observes, it “looks like an ancient trait.” -The misconception, therefore, is not his, but Mr. Hall’s. - -In the manuscript itself we find the ward service of Newcastle and the -details of the Northumberland cornage occupying a single page (fo. -195 _d_). But this circumstance, for which I shall account fully -below, in no way connects the two. On the contrary, we find eleven -territorial units here entered as paying “cornage” in addition to -their payments for castle-ward. The two payments, it will be observed, -could not both be commutations of the same thing.[573] It is quite -clear that, in Cumberland, all who held “per cornagium” were bound, -apart from the payment of that due, to march respectively in the van -and in the rear when the king was invading or retreating from Scotland, -a duty for which they were, obviously, qualified by their local -knowledge; but this had absolutely nothing to do with castle-ward, nor -is even this special service mentioned in the case of Northumberland. -Cornage, from the time we first meet with it, appears in our records as -a money payment, not as a military service, and even Mr. Hall admits -that the name is derived from horned beasts, unlike the ‘ward penny’ of -the south, in which he would seek its parallel, and of which the name -leaves us in no doubt as to its nature. The institution of cornage, -therefore, is, we shall find, as obscure as ever, although there is -some evidence, unknown, it seems, to Professor Maitland as it is to Mr. -Hall. Its historical importance is beyond question. - -Of the cornage of Northumberland, as recorded in the ‘Red Book,’ the -editor writes that “it is of the highest importance to trace its -earlier history in the records of the Exchequer.” It can, as he says, -be traced back to 1164; but I cannot accept his suggestion as to why it -then made its appearance. One must turn, for comparison, to that of -Cumberland, concerning which we read as follows: - - In each succeeding year-roll, from the beginning of the reign of - Henry II., the sheriff of Cumberland had rendered his account - for the Neatgild of the county. The amount of this tribute was - fixed at £80.... But we have no means of showing how the £80 was - made up, because the sheriff answered for it in a lump sum, and - no particulars of his account have survived as in the case of - the Northumberland list happily preserved in the Red Book. - -But this Neatgild (or cornage) can be traced back much further, namely, -to the year-roll of 1130, and even earlier. It was £85 8_s._ 8_d._ -under Henry I., and over £80 under Henry II.; and details of sums -paid in respect of it are duly found, not only in the ‘Red Book’ (pp. -493–4),[574] but also in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ Moreover, the cornage -of Northumberland as well was answered for “in a lump sum,” and this -leads me to explain the entry of the Northumbrian lists. Mr. Hall has -failed to observe that his manuscript adds up the cornage wrongly, and -is even guilty of a further error in asserting that this erroneous -total is “xxii den. plus quam alii solebant respondere,” its real -excess being £1 1_s._ 10_d._[575] Apart from its obvious bearing on the -character and value of the manuscript, this error has misled the editor -into stating that the sums entered, “less the pardons of the Prior -of Tynemouth and the King of Scots, make up the charge of £20 for the -county.” On the contrary, the grand total is £21 3_s._ 10_d._, although -the sheriffs were only liable for the “lump sum” of £20. Why is this? -It is because Robert “de Insula,” to whom we owe the list, held the -shire “ut custos.” This most important Exchequer phrase, which the -editor must have overlooked on the roll, can be traced back, at least, -as far as 1130. It means that the Crown had put its own man in office, -and was thus able to get at the details of the payment, for which -the normal sheriff was only liable in a “lump sum.” This is why the -opportunity was taken to set these details on record. This explanation -applies also to the details of Newcastle ward service immediately -preceding the cornage payments. The editor might have learnt from the -Pipe Rolls that the sheriff was normally charged, in respect of this -payment, with £32 4_s._ 5_d._ gross, and £28 14_s._ 5_d._ net, which -latter sum he was entitled to retain for his wardenship of the castle. -But Robert, as “custos,” recorded the receipts as amounting to £33, and -was consequently called upon in 1267 to account for £4 5_s._ 7_d._(the -difference between £33 and £28 14_s._ 5_d._) “de cremento wardarum -Novi Castri de anno xlix° sicut recepit.” The entry, therefore, of -both lists can be traced to Robert’s position “ut custos” in 49 Hen. -III. Lastly, the statement that “the cornage of Westmoreland can also -be traced on the rolls, but it was of very trifling value,” seems -unfortunate in view of the fact that it was, when it first appears, -nearly thrice as large as the whole cornage of Northumberland. - -That I may not close with a negative result, I append two remarkable -charters from the MS. cartulary of St. Bees, which show us the Cumbrian -Noutegeld being actually paid in cows to William earl of Albemarle, -as lord of Coupland, which barony was exempt from its payment to the -Crown.[576] - - Willelmus comes Albemarlie archiepiscopo Ebor[acensi] et - capitulo et omnibus matricis ecclesie filiis salutem. Noverit - paternitas vestra me dedisse et concessisse deo et sancte Marie - et sancte Bege in Copelandia et omnibus (_sic_) vi vaccas - in perpetuam elemosinam reddendas anno omni quo meum Noutegeld - debuerit fieri. Hanc autem donacionem feci pro animabus omnium - antecessorum meorum et antecessorum uxoris mee Cecilie. - Testibus, etc.... - - * * * * * - - Willelmus comes Albemarlie omnibus hominibus suis tam futuris - quam presentibus salutem. Sciatis quod dedi et presenti carta - confirmavi Deo et sancte Marie et sancte Bege et monachis de - sancta Bega vi vaccas de meo Nautegeld (_sic_) unoquoque anno, - quando accipio Nautegeld in Copuland, etc.[577] ... - -Now it is a most interesting fact that in Durham also we find, as in -Coupland, a payment in cows (“vaccas de metride”) made by townships -in connection with their payment of “cornage.”[578] From the above -important charters, it would seem that the two dues went together. -In Durham there is a classical passage for the “cornage” proper, -quoted by those who have dealt with “cornage,” but not by Mr. Hall. -In a charter of Henry I., which I assign to 1128–9, he speaks of -“cornagium de Bortona ... _scilicet de unoquoque animali_ ij _d._”[579] -This is precisely the source of “cornage” which Mr. Hall desires to -“disregard.” And if further proof were needed of the non-identity -of “cornage” with castle-ward, it is found in the fact that, as in -Northumberland, both dues existed simultaneously in Durham, vills -which paid cornage being also liable to provide men for castle-ward -(“castlemanni”).[580] - - - - - XIV - - Bannockburn - - -As Sir Henry Howorth has so truly observed, in a presidential address -to the members of the Archæological Institute, the transition from the -chronicle to the record as a source of mediæval history is one of the -most striking and hopeful features in recent historical research. And -in no respect, perhaps, has the study of original records modified -more profoundly the statements of mediæval chroniclers than in the -matter of the figures they contain. Dealing with the introduction -of knight-service into England, I was led to give some instances -in point,[581] and specially to urge that “sixty thousand” occurs -repeatedly as a conventional number ludicrously remote from the truth. -It is now, I believe, generally accepted that my estimate of about five -thousand for the number of knights’ fees in England[582] is nearer -the truth than the “sixty thousand” which, in his History, Mr. Green -accepted. But we still read in ‘Social England’ (i. 373) that William -I. “is believed to have landed ... with at least 60,000 men”; nor -did Mr. Freeman himself reject the statement of Orderic that “sixty -thousand” men were gathered on Salisbury Plain for the “Mickle Gemót” -of August 1, 1086. We who saw, only last summer, the difficulty of -there assembling a force scarcely so large, even with all the modern -facilities of transport and organization, can realize, more forcibly -than ever, the incredibility of the fact. - -“Stephen Segrave,” Dr. Stubbs reminds us, “the minister of Henry III., -reckoned 32,000 as the number” of knights’ fees; and even so late as -1371, ministers allowed a parliamentary grant to be calculated on the -belief that there were 40,000 parishes in England, when there were, as -a fact, less than 9,000.[583] So too, as is well known, Fitz Ralph, -archbishop of Armagh, declared at Avignon, that at Oxford, in his -early days, there were 30,000 students, although it is probable that -they cannot have exceeded 3,000 in number.[584] It is even said that -Wycliffe doubled Fitz Ralph’s estimate. - -There is nothing, therefore, strange in the fact that two centuries and -a half after the Norman Conquest, we still find absurd numbers assigned -to armies in the field and accepted with thoughtless readiness, even by -modern historians. This, we shall see, has been the case, among many -other battles, with that of Bannockburn (1314). - -The ultimate “authority” for the numbers engaged at this ever memorable -fight is Barbour’s Brus. Of Edward that romancer wrote: - - He had of fechtaris with hym tha - Ane hundreth thousand men and ma - And fourty thousand war of tha - Armyt on hors, bath hede and hand - And zeit of thai war thre thousand - With helit hors in-till playn male - Till mak the front of the battale - And fifty thousand of archerys - He had, forouten the hoblerys; - With men on fut and small rangale. - -In accordance with this statement we read further of the king, that - - His folk he delt in battalis ten - In ilkane war weill ten thousand. - -Of the Scots we are told that: - - Of fectand men I trow thai ware - Thretty thousand, and sum deill mare - - * * * * * - - Weill thretty thousand men and ma - Mak we four battalis of all thai. - - * * * * * - - The quethir thai war thretty thousand. - -On the English side we have a statement in the ‘Vita Edwardi Secundi.’ -It is there asserted, of the host marching on Stirling, that - - Erant autem armatorum amplius quam duo milia, excepta peditum - turba copiosa.[585] - -The same authority states that Bruce - - Circiter quadraginta milia hominum secum produxit.... Ibant - etiam quasi sepes densa conserti, nec leviter potuit talis turba - penetrari.[586] - -Let us now see how modern writers have dealt with the numbers present, -remembering that the character and issue of the battle turn largely on -the vast numbers assigned to the English host. - -In the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (1886) Dr. Æneas Mackay -adopts the traditional view of the English numbers, following Barbour, -indeed, blindly: - - On 11 June the whole available forces of England, with a - contingent from Ireland, numbering in all about 100,000 men, of - whom 50,000 were archers, and 40,000 cavalry, were mustered at - Berwick.[587] - -A far abler and more cautious writer, Mr. Joseph Bain, F.S.A. Scot., in -his ‘Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland’ (1887), reckoned that -“the whole English army probably did not exceed 50,000.”[588] Against -Hailes on the Scottish side, he supports Hume, who, he writes: - - founded on the writs enrolled in the _Foedera_, addressed to the - sheriffs of twelve English counties, two earls, and five barons - for the foot, who numbered in all 21,540. This is undoubtedly - good authority, for ... the Patent Rolls of the time are not - defective. Contingents from all the English shires were not - invariably summoned. In the writs in question the men of the - northern and midland counties, which incurred most danger from - the Scots, were summoned (p. xx.). - -From Mr. Bain I turn to our latest authority, Mr. Oman’s ‘History of -the Art of War.’ - -To the memorable Scottish victory Mr. Oman, as we might expect, devotes -special attention (pp. 570–579). He attributes “the most lamentable -defeat which an English army ever suffered” to two fatal errors, of -which one “was the crowding such a vast army on to a front of no more -than two thousand yards” (p. 579). His argument, in detail, is this: - - Two thousand yards of frontage only affords comfortable space - for 1,500 horsemen or 3,000 foot-soldiers abreast. This was well - enough for the main line of the Scottish host, formed in three - battles of perhaps 25,000 men in all, _i.e._ eight or nine deep - in continuous line. But, allowing for the greater space required - for the cavalry, the English were far too many for such a front, - with the ten thousand horse and 50,000 or 60,000 foot which they - may have mustered. - - The result of this fact was that from the very beginning of the - battle the English were crowded and crushed together and wholly - unable to manœuvre (p. 575). - -In his first work (1885) Mr. Oman had adopted “100,000 men” as the -number of Edward’s host; in 1895 it had become “an army that is rated -at nearly 100,000 men by the chronicler.”[589] In 1898 we learn that -“the estimate of a hundred thousand men, which the Scottish chroniclers -give, is no doubt exaggerated, but that the force was very large is -shown by the genuine details which have come down to us” (p. 573). -These “genuine details” prove to be the figures in the ‘Foedera,’ on -which Mr. Bain relied. Mr. Oman arrives at his figures thus: - - Edward II. had brought a vast host with him.... There have been - preserved of the orders which Edward sent out for the raising of - this army only those addressed to the sheriffs of twelve English - counties, seven Marcher barons, and the Justices of North and - South Wales. Yet these account for twenty-one thousand five - hundred men, though they do not include the figures of any of - the more populous shires, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent, or - Middlesex. The whole must have amounted to more than 50,000 men - (p. 573). - -To the numbers of Edward’s host he attaches so great an importance that -he gives the details, from Rymer, in a note. I make the total, myself, -to be 21,540.[590] It is Mr. Oman’s extraordinary delusion that the -other English counties were similarly called on for troops, but that -the orders have not been “preserved.” On the strength of this illusion -alone he adds some 30,000 men to the English host! A glance at Rymer’s -list, as given in his own pages, is sufficient to dispel that illusion. -As Mr. Bain correctly implies, the counties called on for troops form -a compact group, of which Warwick was the southernmost. Moreover, even -within that group, the southern counties were evidently called on for -much less than the northernmost, Warwick and Leicester only sending 500 -men, while Northumberland and Durham were called on to supply 4,000, as -was also Yorkshire. We have only to turn to the ‘Rotuli Scotiæ’[591] -for 1314 to learn that the writs originally issued (_i.e._ in March) -for the Bannockburn campaign summoned no more than 6,500 men, and these -from the counties “beyond Trent” alone.[592] As the peril increased -subsequent writs called for a further 6,000 men from these counties, -and extended the net so as to obtain 3,000 from Lincolnshire, 500 from -Warwickshire and Leicestershire, and 500 from Lancashire (previously -omitted); this, with 4,940 men from Wales and its marches, made up the -total. - -When Edward III. arrayed his host, twenty-five years later, for -the French war, he only asked for 500 foot from Northumberland (as -against 2,500), and 1,000 from Yorkshire, but from Warwickshire with -Leicestershire he exacted 480. These figures speak for themselves. -Any one of ordinary intelligence can see that the forces on these two -occasions were raised on entirely different principles, Northumberland -being called on for five times as many men in 1314 as in 1339, while -Warwickshire and Leicester supplied almost as many in the latter as -in the former year. And yet Mr. Oman actually makes the comparison -himself (p. 593), and prints the numbers in detail for both occasions -without any comprehension that this was so. Indeed, he bases on his -misapprehension a theory that as, at the later date (1339), the quotas -were never more than a third of those demanded for Bannockburn (1314), -a comparatively picked force was secured. - - We note that the Commissions of Array in the latter year were - directed to levy only from about one-third to one-fifth of - the numbers which the sheriffs had been told to provide in - the former year. They were, of course, individually better in - proportion to the greater care which could be taken in selecting - them.[593] - -We have seen that, on the contrary, in Warwickshire and Leicestershire, -the number summoned was almost the same, and that the above theory is, -therefore, another delusion. In 1339 the proportion varied from 20 -per cent. to 96 per cent. of the numbers summoned in 1314, and did so, -as we have seen, on a geographical system. Mr. Oman bases his above -assertion on a note in which four lines contain four direct mistakes. -It asserts that Yorkshire sent “six thousand,” Lincolnshire “four -thousand,” Warwick “five hundred,” and Leicester “five hundred,” in -1314, when the right numbers, as given by himself on page 573 of the -same volume, were: Yorkshire _four_ thousand, Lincolnshire _three_ -thousand, and Warwick and Leicester _together_ five hundred. The result -of this astounding inaccuracy is that he fails to understand the system -of these levies in the least. - -It is, no doubt, surprising that, after years of study, a writer should -produce a work intended to constitute a standard authority on mediæval -warfare, in which he has not even grasped so elementary a fact as -the raising of English armies, in the 14th century, on geographical -principles, and should consequently invent an imaginary host of nearly -30,000 men. Precisely as in 1314, the bulk of the foot for the Scottish -expedition were raised from the Northern counties, so in 1345, for the -contemplated French expedition, it was from the counties south of the -Trent that the infantry (archers) was raised.[594] But it is even more -surprising that he should substitute for this system a theory, based on -the misquotation of his own figures alone, that, in 1339, we meet with -a new system of summoning a comparatively small quota of picked men. -It is but a further instance of his grievous lack of accuracy that on -page 599 he renders the “homines armati”[595] summoned from the towns -as “seventeen hundred archers,” although he prints from Rymer, a few -pages earlier, the numbers of the foot summoned in 1339, of whom half -are distinguished as archers and half as “armati.” - -One would have imagined that the fact of the host being drawn from -the northern half of England alone would have been obvious from the -dates. The orders from which Mr. Oman takes the numbers demanded were -only issued from Newminster on May 27,[596] and ordered a rendezvous -of the force at Wark (Northumberland) on June 10. The troops were to -be there on that day “armis competentibus bene muniti, ac prompti et -parati ad proficiscendum” to the immediate relief of Stirling. The time -was desperately short, and haste was enjoined (“exasperes, festines”). -Moreover, the English leaders were clearly not such fools as Mr. Oman -imagines. The “orders” state that foot are wanted because the Scots - - nituntur, quantum possint, ... in locis fortibus et morosis (ubi - equitibus difficilis patebit accessus) adinvicem congregare. - -Common sense tells one that 60,000 foot could not be manœuvred in such -country, and would only prove an encumbrance. Edward, therefore, only -summoned less than 22,000. As to his horse, Mr. Oman writes: if the -English “had, as is said, three thousand _equites coperti_, men-at-arms -on barded horses, the whole cavalry was probably ten thousand” (p. -575). But why? At Falkirk, sixteen years before, Edward I., he writes -(p. 565), had - - the whole feudal levy of England at his back. He brought three - thousand knights on barded horses, and four thousand other - men-at-arms. - -If 3,000 “barded horses” implied 4,000 other horsemen in 1298, why -should they imply 7,000 in 1314? More especially, why should they do so -when, as we have seen, the king, in summoning his foot forces, himself -described the scene of the campaign as “ubi equitibus difficilis -patebit accessus,” so that he was most unlikely to take a large force -of cavalry?[597] Estimating the horse on the Falkirk basis, the English -host cannot have amounted to more than 30,000 men instead of the 60,000 -or 70,000, horse and foot, at which Mr. Oman reckons it.[598] - -And what of the Scotch? Let us compare these passages: - - The front between the wood There was only something - and the marsh was not much slightly more than a mile of - more than a mile broad, a space slope between the wood and the - not too great to be defended by marshes.... This was well - the _forty_[599] thousand men enough for the main line of the - whom Bruce had brought Scottish host, formed in three - together p. 571). lines of perhaps _twenty-five_ - [600] thousand men in all - (p. 575). - -It is true that the Scottish king had a fourth battle in reserve, but, -according to Mr. Oman’s plan, it was no larger than the others, if -so large. It would only, therefore, add some 8,000 men to the above -25,000. Where then are the 40,000? - -From the numbers of the forces I now pass to their disposition on -the field. With each of his successive narratives of the battle Mr. -Oman has given us a special--and different--ground plan. In all three -of these the English ‘battles’ are shown as composed of horse and -foot,--the horse in the front of each, the foot behind. But in the -earliest of these (1885) _three_ such ‘battles’ are shown, in the -second (1895) _five_, and in the third (1898) _ten_.[601] Will the -number increase indefinitely? Again, as to the famous “pottes,” dug -as traps for the English horse. In the earliest narrative these are -described as covering the Scottish flank “to the left,” and in the -second, as dug by the Scots “on their flanks,” though in both the -ground plans they are shown in a cluster on the left flank alone. When -we turn, however, to the latest account (1898), we find them shown, no -longer on the flanks, but as a single line along the Scottish front, -and described as dug by Bruce “in front of his line,” so that they -“practically covered the whole assailable front of the Scottish host” -(p. 572). - -Lastly, on that all-important point, the disposition of the English -archers, we are shown in the first ground plan the “English archers -considerably in advance of the main body,” and, indeed, almost all on -the Scottish side of the burn. In his second they are still in front -of the host, but no longer across the burn. In his third there are no -“archers” shown, and the English ‘battles’ themselves are depicted -as close up to the burn. But to realize the completeness of the -contradiction, one must place side by side these two passages: - - His [Edward II.’s] most fatal The worst point of all was - mistake, however, was to place that in each corps the archers - all his archers _in the front had been placed _behind_[603] the - line_,[602] without any horsemen ... condemned from the - protecting body of horsemen first to almost entire - (‘Art of War in the Middle uselessness (‘History of the Art - Ages,’ p. 101). of War,’ p. 575). - -Poor Edward! He is first made to place his archers in front of his -horsemen, and blamed for his folly in doing so; and then he is made to -place them behind, and again blamed for his folly. - -It is the same with the battle of Creçy (1346). Let any one compare the -four narratives given in succession by Mr. Oman,[604] together with the -three ground plans, and he will be fairly bewildered. The only thing of -which we can be sure is that when Mr. Oman has adopted a view, he will -himself afterwards abandon it. It is the same, again, with the numbers -also. Mr. Oman, in his second narrative (as apparently in his first), -reckons the English host at some 9,300 men (6,000 archers, 2,300 -men-at-arms, 1,000 Welsh). In his fourth they exceed 20,000 (11,000 -archers, 3,900 men-at-arms, 5,000 or 5,500 Welsh). - -Need I pursue further this endless contradiction? It has been my object -to warn the reader of Mr. Oman’s works on the Art of War to compare -his successive views before adopting a single one of them. Whether on -the field of Bannockburn or of Hastings we need a guide who knows, at -least, his own mind, and whose “cocksureness” is not proportionate to -the mutability of his views. - - - - - XV - - The Marshalship of England - - -In his valuable essay on a document of which the origin has long been -discussed, the ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum,’[605] M. Bémont has drawn -attention to the close association of this treatise, in the MSS. which -contain it, with the coronation of Richard II. and with a treatise on -the Marshal’s office. So close, indeed, is this association that - - Coke affirme avoir vu de ce traité [the _Modus_] un exemplaire - “écrit au temps de Henri II. qui contient la manière, la forme - et l’usage de Gilbert de Scrogel, maréchal d’Angleterre, et qui - indique comment il s’acquittait alors de son office.” - -M. Bémont explains that Coke confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise on -the Marshal’s office, but this is not, we shall find, quite the right -explanation; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in question “vivait au -temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” As Coke’s error as to Gilbert -has been very widely followed, it may be well to dispose of it once for -all by tracing it to the source of his error. - -We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the -MS. lat. 6,049 in the Bibliothèque Nationale (from which is taken -Hardy’s, and consequently Dr. Stubbs’, text of the ‘Modus.’) Although -M. Bémont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have -observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same -documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian -MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do -service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting -as High Steward.[606] Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and -heiress of Thomas “of Brotherton,” marshal of England, who claimed to -discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important -words: - - Item quoad officium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall - Comitissa Norff’ porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato - Domino Senescallo in hec verba “A tres honure seignur le Roy - de Castille et de Leon, Duc de Lancastre, et Seneschall’ - Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton’ - nadgaires Conte de Norff’ et mareschall dengleterre destre - accepte a loffice de mareschalcie ore al coronement nostre s^r - le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son - piere fesante loffice par son depute _come Gilbert Mareschall - Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second_, - cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son - coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les - hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte - faitz Chivaler au cel iour un palfrey ove une sele.” Supra quo - audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem - quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit - ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et - supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa - pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod - curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis - brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus - de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad - officium predictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65_d_). - -We have clearly here the origin of Coke’s error, when he writes: - - Many very ancient copies you may find of this Modus, one whereof - we have seen in the reign of H. 2, which contains the manner, - forme, and usage of Gilbert de Scrogel, marshall of England, in - what manner he occupied and used the said roome and office in - all his time, and how he was admitted etc. at the coronation of - H. 2 (‘Institutes,’ 4, xxi.). - -For the error is only found in the above petition. - -Now, it ought to be obvious that no such person as Gilbert Marshal, -earl of ‘Strogoil,’ could have existed in 1154, for the Marshals did -not inherit till a later time that Earldom, which was held in 1154 by -the house of Clare. It has indeed been suggested that for “Gilbert” -we should read “Richard,”[607] but this will not help us. For, to -secure consistency, we should have to read “Richard _de Clare_.” -Nevertheless, it has been loosely assumed, on no other evidence, that -Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke (“Striguil”) acted as Marshal of -England at the coronation of Henry II. in 1154.[608] And on this -foundation antiquaries have raised theories to which we must return. - -The real explanation is perfectly simple. On turning to fo. 86_d._ -of the MS. we find an entry “de officio marescalcie,” which we can -positively identify as taken from fo. 232 of the ‘Red Book of the -Exchequer’ (p. 759) where it is found among the “services” at Queen -Eleanor’s coronation in 1236. Then turning back to Countess Margaret’s -claim (fo. 65_d_), we find that it enshrines, in Norman French, this -entry word for word. Therefore the whole error has been caused by -the words “as coronement le Roy Henri second” (1154) applied to an -entry which really related to the coronation of Queen Eleanor (1236)! -“Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strigoil” had no existence at the former -date, but he actually held the marshal’s rod in 1236.[609] - -Camden, it seems, is responsible, in the first instance, for the theory -that the office of “Marshal of England” was distinct in origin and -character from that of Marshal of the Household. Strangely enough, -in his earlier essay,[610] he made no such distinction, but, on the -contrary, stated that Roger Bigod “was he which first stiled himselfe -_marescallus Angliæ_, whereas all his predecessors used noe other -stiles than the simple addition of _marescallus_.” In his second essay -(3rd Nov., 1603)[611] he gave a list of the “Marshals of England,” -deducing the office from a grant of Stephen, who “made Gilbert Clare -earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England, with the state of inheritance, -who ... was commonly called earl of Stryghall.” Thus arose the whole -theory which Thoms, following Camden, adopts in his ‘Book of the Court’ -(pp. 241, 244), namely, that the two offices were accidentally united -by the marriage of William (the) Marshal (of the Household) with -Isabel, heiress of the earls of Pembroke, “Marshals of England.” - -From Thoms this theory has found its way into the ‘Complete Peerage.’ -I need not here say more than that I have carefully examined the -evidence, and that, after the alleged union of the offices, there is -no trace of their being granted as more than one. When John confirmed -(20th April, 1200) the marshalship to William Marshall, it was as - - magistratum maresc’ curie nostre quam magistratum Gillebertus - Marescallus Henrici Regis avi patris nostri et Johannes filius - ipsius Gilleberti disrationaverat coram predicto Rege Henrico in - curia sua.[612] - -And when William’s younger son Gilbert obtained it from Henry III., -after his brother’s death, we read of the king (11th June, 1234)-- - - Tradens ei virgam marescalcie curie sue sicut moris est et sicut - eam antecessores ejus melius et liberius habuerunt.[613] - -It would not be in place here to discuss the growth of the office with -the growth of the administration, just as the constableship developed -in its descent from Miles of Gloucester through the Bohuns. The one -point to keep in mind is that the office of marshal descended from -Gilbert _temp._ Hen. I., to Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, at whose -death in December (1306), the marshalship, by his own arrangement, -reverted to the king. - -It was the king’s intention to bestow it on his young son Thomas -“of Brotherton”; but as he was at the time only six years old, it -was given, ‘during pleasure,’ 3rd September, 1307, to Robert de -Clifford,[614] and, a few months later, to Nicholas de Segrave (12th -March, 1308), also ‘during pleasure.’[615] These appointments are -important for their bearing on a note by Dr. Stubbs that - - William le Mareschal had served as marshall at the coronation, - but was superseded in 1308 by Nicholas Segrave, with whom he - went to war in 1311. It was probably his dismissal that offended - Lancaster in 1308; see ‘M. Malmesb.,’ p. 103; and he may be - considered as a strong adherent of the earl (of Lancaster).[616] - -It is the case that William Marshall had carried the great gilt spurs -at the coronation of Edward II. (Feb., 1308), but we do not find his -name on the Patent Rolls among the appointments to the “Marshalsea -of England.” He can, therefore, only have been chosen to act at the -coronation, and was doubtless selected, in preference to the temporary -Marshal, as being hereditary Marshal of Ireland. Summoned to Parliament -as a baron in 1309, he became one of the ‘Ordainers’ in 1310. - -Robert de Clifford, whom Segrave replaced, was afterwards concerned in -Gaveston’s death (or, at least, pardoned as being so),[617] but was -clearly a strong supporter of the king at the beginning of 1308. And as -appointments and favours were bestowed upon him for two or three years -afterwards, one cannot think that he was out of favour, or that he -can be alluded to in the passage cited by Dr. Stubbs from the Monk of -Malmesbury: - - (1309) unde magnates terræ cœperunt hæc pro malo habere et - præcipue comes Lancastriæ, quia unus ex familiaribus suis, - procurante Petro, ejectus erat ab officio suo.[618] - -It could not in any case apply, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, to William le -Mareschal. Professor Tout not only dates Segrave’s appointment a year -too late, but goes so far as to say that, against him,-- - - William Marshal, a peer of Parliament and a collateral - representative of the great Marshal family, claimed the office - as devolving on him by hereditary right.[619] - -It is obvious that the only person who could make such a claim was the -disinherited brother of the late earl of Norfolk. - -On February 10, 1316, the Marshalship of England became once more an -hereditary office, being bestowed on Thomas ‘de Brotherton,’ then earl -of Norfolk, and the heirs male of his body.[620] - -Let me here again insist that the fundamental error has been the -anachronism interpolated in Countess Margaret’s coronation claim -(1377). This is really the sole foundation for the statement that the -Clares earls of Pembroke held the office of Marshal of England; and it -can be conclusively shown to arise from mistaking the coronation of -1236 for that of 1154.[621] - -Having thus traced to its origin the confusion which made Richard -Strongbow and his father Gilbert marshals of England, I may now deal -with the further confusion which assigns to Richard ‘Strongbow’ a -legitimate son Walter. In Ormerod’s ‘Strigulensia’ (p. 63), in Mr. -Archer’s biography of Richard,[622] and now in the ‘Complete Peerage,’ -the fact is accepted as certain. The authority for this statement is a -Tintern Abbey charter, in which William Marshal the younger confirms -certain grants (22nd March, 1223)-- - - pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi filii Gilberti - Strongbow avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei, et - Ysabelle matris mee (‘Mon. Ang.,’ v. 267). - -A very able genealogist, Mr. G. W. Watson, holds that this charter -makes the existence of a son Walter “certain.”[623] But as the text -appeared to me obviously corrupt, I referred to the Arundel MS.,[624] -from which it is printed in the ‘Monasticon.’ I there made the -startling discovery that, as I thought possible, the true text is this -(in a 15th century transcript of a 14th century _inspeximus_ of the -13th century charter): - - pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii _Ricardi_, _Gilberti - Strongbowe_, Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbowe avi mei, et - Willelmi Marescalli patris mei et Ysabelle matris mee[625] (fo. - 1). - -This makes perfect sense, giving as it does the descent of the Honour -from Walter Fitz Richard (de Clare), founder of Tintern. But a much -later hand (? 17th century) has coolly run a pen through the three -words I have italicised, thus making nonsense of the passage, which was -then, in this mutilated form, printed by Dugdale! It is but a further -instance of the havoc which he and others have wrought in the genealogy -of the famous house of Clare. - -As this charter is of independent value for its early (apparently -earliest)[626] mention of the name ‘Strongbow,’ its date is of -importance; Mr. Archer states that it is “dated Strigul, 22nd March, -1206,”[627] an obviously impossible date. Its real date was 22nd March, -1223[628] (7 Hen. III.). - -We may now return to the office of Marshal in the 14th century. On June -3, 1317, the king called on the barons of the Exchequer to inform him -from their records, “quæ et cujusmodi feoda marescalli Angliæ qui pro -tempore fuerunt et eorum ministri temporibus progenitorum nostrorum -videlicet de pane, vino, cereolis, et candelis percipere et habere -consueverunt.” For reply they sent him the relative extract from the -“Constitutio domus regis.”[629] In 4 Edward III., “Thomas counte -Norfolk et marshall d’Engleterre” petitioned the king for his fees “qui -appendent a son office de la marechausie dedeinz l’ostell et dehors -auxi, come ses predecesseurs countes mareschauls ount estre servy”; -and he annexed a list of them based on the above return.[630] Again, -on April 13, 1344, the king called on the Exchequer for a return from -its records “de feodis quam de aliis quibuscunque quæ pertinent ad -officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciæ Angliæ,” etc., etc. Again -they sent him the relative extract “in quadam constitutione de domo -regis antiquitus facta”; but they added the passage “in Rubro Libro -Scaccarii” on Queen Eleanor’s coronation (1236), and a ‘Dialogus’ -passage on the fees due to the Marshal from those he imprisoned for -default at the Exchequer.[631] - -Lastly, we have in the treatise on the Marshal’s office, as given in -Nero D. vi., the following passage at its close (fol. 86_d_): - -In rubro libro de scaccario Regis folio xxx^o sic continetur de -marescallo. - - Et preter hoc debet magister marescalcie habere dicas de donis - et liberacionibus que fuerint de Thesauro Regis et de sua - camera et debet habere dicas contra omnes officiales Regis ut - testis per omnia. Quatuor marescalli qui serviunt familie Regis - tam clericis quam militibus quam ministris die qua faciunt - herbergeriam vel extra curiam in negocio Regis morantibus, viij - d. in die et galonem vini expens’ et xij frustra candelarum si - extra tres de die in diem homini suo et cand’ plenar’ quod si - aliquis marescallorum missus fuerit in negocio Regis viij d. - ta[ntu]m servientes Marescallorum si fuerint missi in negocio - Regis unusquisque in die iij d. sin autem in domo Regis comedent. - - * * * * * - - De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de Stroghull - cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones - officiorum[632] facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit - autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege et quolibet comite - palefridum cum sella. - -It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in -Norman-French in Countess Margaret’s petition, with the interpolation -of the words which have caused all the confusion. - -And here it is necessary to observe that the interesting reference -it contains to the knighting of a ‘Baron’ by the king is reduced to -what Mr. Freeman would have termed “hideous nonsense” in the official -edition of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer.’ We there read: - - Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de] - quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p. 759). - -In the ‘Red Book’ itself, indeed, the text is now illegible, but Mr. -Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for “restoring certain -defaced or missing passages” (p. li.). Now in the Hargrave MS. (fo. -132[633]) the reading is “as clear as a pikestaff”; it could not be -clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading as we find in -the above extracts: - - Recipit autem de quol[ibet] _Barone_ facto milite a rege et - quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc. - -Yet Mr. Hall reads: “de quolibet _arma_, facto.” Really, when one -knows that he has undertaken to teach how mediæval MSS. should be -edited,[634] one is driven again reluctantly to ask whether such -editing as this should be styled a farce or a burlesque.[635] - -Before returning to the ‘Modus,’ the point from which we started, we -must clear up the confusion that surrounds the title of Earl Marshal. - -Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign -the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.[636] -Coke went further, and, as M. Bémont says, confused the ‘Modus’ with -the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up -to my theory.[637] - -There is a transcript in Nero D. vi., with a beautifully illuminated -initial, of the patent by which Richard II. created Thomas Mowbray earl -of Nottingham Marshal of England and Earl Marshal (12th Jan., 1386), -in tail male. Here again the confusion has been terrible. The Record -Commission’s Catalogue of the Cottonian MSS. describes it as “Literæ R. -Ricardi II. constituentes Tho. _de Brotherton_, com. Nottingham,[638] -Marescallum Angliæ A^o. 1386,” and it is this doubtless, which has -led several writers into grave error, down to M. Bémont, who enters -the document as “les lettres patentes de Richard II. instituant Thomas -de Brotherton maréchal d’Angleterre” (p. 472). But, for my purpose, -the important point is that this is the first grant of the office of -“_Earl_ Marshal.” On the one hand, a high authority asserts in the -‘Dictionary of National Biography’ that Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, -received “the office of Earl Marshal” in 1246; on the other, we read -in the ‘Complete Peerage’ that an “_Earl_ Marshal” was first created -in 1397.[639] Neither statement is correct. On June 30, 1385, Richard -bestowed on the earl of Nottingham “the office of Marshal of England,” -which we have traced above.[640] Dugdale, citing the record below, -wrongly states that Thomas was “constituted _Earl_ Marshal of England” -for life on this occasion, and is followed in this by Professor -Tout.[641] Thomas certainly styled himself “Earl Marshal and of -Nottingham” in the month following, but this was one of the assumptions -of the time. He was only so created by the patent which follows. It is -desirable, therefore, to give here the exact wording of the grant: - - Sciatis quod cum nos nuper de gracia nostra speciali - concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome comiti - Notyngh’ officium marescalli Anglie ad totam vitam suam, Nos - jam de uberiori gratia nostra concessimus prefato consanguineo - nostro officium predictum una cum nomine et honore comitis - Marescalli habend’ sibi et heredibus suis masculis de corpore - suo exeuntibus cum omnimodis feodis proficuis et pertinenciis - quibuscunque dicto officio qualitercunque spectantibus. - -This grant, which is dated at Westminster, 12th January, 1386 (9 Ric. -II.), is, oddly enough, unknown even to experts. Dugdale had missed it, -and it is consequently ignored in Wallon’s ‘Richard II.,’ in Professor -Tout’s biography of Nottingham,[642] and in the ‘Complete Peerage.’ -It illustrates not only the high favour in which Nottingham still -stood, but the _entourage_ of the king at the time, which included -several of those about to lead the opposition.[643] - -The above grant is duly referred to in the so-called creation of -February 10, 1397. This is headed in the Rolls of Parliament: - - Une chartre du Roy faite a le Conte Mareschall touchant son - Office de Mareschall d’Engleterre.... - - Sciatis quod cum nuper per literas nostras patentes de gratia - nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome - Comiti Notyngh’ Officium Marescalli Anglie, una cum nomine et - honore Comitis Marescalli, habendum sibi et heredibus suis - masculis, etc.... Nos.... volentes proinde pro statu et honore - ipsius Comitis uberius providere, de gratia nostra speciali, in - presenti Parliamento nostro concessimus pro Nobis et heredibus - nostris eidem Comiti dictum officium ac nomen, titulum, et - honorem Comitis Marescalli Anglie habendum sibi et heredibus - suis masculis, etc. (Then follow additional concessions.) - -The transition, in the marshal’s style, is interesting enough. First we -have “the Marshal,” or rather “the Master Marshal”; then “the Marshal -of England,” as a more high-sounding style; next a confusion due to the -fact that the Marshals also held an earldom through the 13th century, -and so became, in common parlance (though not in strictness), “Earls -Marshall”; lastly, even so early, we have seen,[644] as 1344, there -occurs the cumbrous and unmeaning phrase “officium comitis marescalli -et mariscalciæ Angliæ.” Proving, though it does, the rapid accretion -of error and confusion in the Middle Ages, the double style obtained -recognition in the Patent of 1386.[645] It is singular that, even -at the present day, the “Peerages” style the duke of Norfolk “Earl -Marshal and hereditary marshal of England,” although he is simply “Earl -Marshal” under the creation of 1672.[646] - -An apology is hardly needed for introducing here a characteristic -challenge, addressed by the young Earl Marshal in the chivalrous spirit -of the time, “a noble et honnore S^r le conte de Soissons sire de -Coucy.” This quaint epistle begins thus: - - Honure S^r Pour ce que vous estez homme donneur approue de - vaillance et de chevalerie et de grant renomee comme bien est - cogneu es plusieurs lieux honnorables, et je suis joesne, - etc.... Je envoie devers vous Notynghant mon heraut, etc. - -Then follow the terms of the challenge: - - et apres les trois cops de lance, trois pointes despee, trois - pointes de dague, et trois cops de hache a pie. - -Every precaution would seem to be taken against the survival of either -combatant. The letter closes with due formality: - - Escript a Londres le x^o jour de Janvier lan de grace mille ccc - iiii^{x(x)} et neuf selon le compte de leglise d’Angleterre. - - * * * * * - - Par le conte Mareschall’ et de Notyngham S^r de Moubray et de - Segrave mareschall’ d’Angleterre. - -This document, I believe, has not hitherto been known. - - * * * * * - -And now, when we turn to the ‘Modus,’ we find in the chapter treating -“De Casibus et Judiciis difficilibus” a startling statement that, if -difficulties arose,-- - - tunc comes senescallus, comes constabularius, _comes - marescallus_, vel duo eorum, eligent viginti quinque personas de - omnibus paribus regni, etc., etc. - -It need scarcely be said that no such right belonged _ex officio_ to -these three magnates, or was even claimed by them. Yet no one has -suggested, so far as I know, that there must have been a reason for -inserting this clause, and that in such reason we may find a note -of time. Ordainers were elected, under Edward II., in 1310, and a -Commission under Richard II. in 1386. No one, it is certain, could have -introduced the reference to an “Earl Marshal” in 1310, for Thomas, -future marshal of England; was then only a boy of ten. But in 1386 -there was, in Nottingham, an Earl Marshal, and one who was, at the -time, taking a leading part. Indeed the three chiefs of the opposition -at the time were Gloucester, Derby, and Nottingham, who respectively -represented the Constable, the Steward,[647] and the Marshal. Add to -this that it was in the Parliament of 1386 that we find the precedent -of Edward II. prominent in the minds of men,[648] and that it was also -in this Parliament that appeal was made to a supposed statute, and that -the ‘Modus’ contains a chapter “De Absentia regis in Parliamento” (a -grievance in 1386), and we have at least a fair presumption that the -‘Modus’--at any rate in the form that has reached us--dates from the -constitutional crisis of 1386.[649] - -I shall now close this article, which has already exceeded its original -limits, with a document hitherto unknown, I believe, to English -historians. The Rolls of Parliament preserve, in the proceedings of -1397 against Gloucester, the appeal of treason presented to the king by -the nobles of his party at Nottingham (5th Aug., 1395). But that appeal -is not known to us at first hand. I believe that I have found the terms -of the document, which correspond, it will be seen, with the printed -version. But instead of closing with the words “soit enterment quasse -et adnulle,” as in the Rolls of Parliament (iii. 341), it proceeds: - - laquelle bille nous le prouuerons pour vray avec laide de Dieu - et de sa benoiste mere tant comme la vie nous dure. - -Then follows, in parallel columns, the interesting portion of the -document, namely, the five articles of accusation, which are, it -will be found, largely different and much shorter than on the Rolls. -Opposite them is a notable confession which, from evidence it contains, -I assign to the duke of Gloucester. - - P[re]mierement comment ilz Beauz seignors je vous prie a - voloient auoir depose mons^{r}. tous mercy et vous prie que - vous veulliez dire a Monsr le - Item. Ilz le constraindirent Roy que il pregne garde de mon - a leur donner pouoir par letres filz, quar sil nest chastie - a lencontre de sa regalie et tant quil est jeune, il me - les libertes de sa couronne. resembleira, et je fiz faussete - et traison a mons^r mon pere, - Item. Ils le voloient auoir et ai pense et eusse mis a - prins par force hors de son execution contre mons^r le Roy - chastel et lauoir amene tout contre mon neveu de Rottheland - partout ou ilz voloient et et mon cousin le mareschal et - prins son grant seel deuers plus^s autres(;) dedens xv jours - eulz. ilz eussent este mors et madame - la este mors et madame la Royne - Item. Le vouloient auoir envoiee arriere en France, et - assailli dedens sa tour de fait du royaulme ce que nous - Londres lui estant dedens a eussions voulu. Et avions - sa festedu Noel. ordonne de rendre tous les - hommages a ceulx qui eussent - Item. Depuis ont ilz persevere este de nostre part. Si preng - en leur traison et tant quilz en grace ce que Mons^r me fera - ont ymagine et ordene dauoir quar jai bien desire la mort. - destruit et mis a mort ceulx qui - furent entour la personne de - Mons^{r}. - -From internal evidence this confession must (if genuine) proceed from -an uncle of the king, who can only be the duke of Gloucester. I believe -him to have sent it from his prison at Calais, after his arrest and -deportation thither by the “Earl Marshal of England.” - -Such documents as this still lurk here and there in MS. Their discovery -rewards, at rare intervals, the toil of original research, as in -those I have printed above bearing on the Commune of London. To this -research, as Dr. Stubbs has urged, historians have now to look;[650] -but for it, in England, at the present time, there is neither -inducement nor reward.[651] - - - - - NOTE - - -On page 21 I speak of Mr. Andrew Lang “tracing the occurrence in -scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy -among our forefathers.” This view, which (as I there state) was adopted -by Mr. Grant Allen, is set forth in his notes to Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ -(Ed. Bolland, 1877), pp. 96, 99, 101. To show that I have in no way -misrepresented that view, I append these extracts: - - the _sibsceaft_, or kinship, which, when settled within its - own mark of land, is known in early Teutonic history as the - _Markgenossenschaft_. Whether in Greece, Rome, or England, - not to mention other countries, the members of each of these - kinships all bore the same patronymic name, etc., etc. - - Take the case of early England, one finds the traces of the - clan of Billingas in Northampton, Lancashire, Durham, Lincoln, - Yorkshire, Sussex, Salop, and other widely-separated districts - (Kemble). - - The members of these clans bear each the clan patronymic, - perform the same superstitious rites, and are bound to mutual - defence ... in England a man of the Billinga clan, or of the - Arlinga clan, might be a Somersæta, or a Huicca, or a Lindisfara - by local tribe. This curious scattering of the _family_ names - through the _local_ settlements in England has puzzled Mr. - Kemble, who accounts for it by the confusion of the English - invasion, and by later wandering and colonisations. But if the - Arlingas, Billingas, and so forth, were once scattered over - North Germany, as the men of the Sun or Tortoise clans are - scattered all over America and Australia, it would necessarily - happen that when a Jutland tribe invaded the south of England, - it would leave families settled there of the same name as a - Schleswig tribe would leave in the north or west of England. - -Mr. Lang then goes on to urge the probability that, as in Australia, -this phenomenon had its origin in exogamy. But I question, in my paper -on the subject, the ‘clan’ phenomenon itself. Mr. Lang, like others, -wrote under the influence of Kemble; and it is the very object of -my paper to show the danger of building theories on Kemble’s rash -conclusions. - - - - - Index - - - A - - _Abattis_, meaning of, 47. - - Adrian IV., his alleged donation of Ireland, 171–175, 177–179, - 199, 200. - - ----, his “bull Laudabiliter,” 171 _et seq._ - - Ailwin (Æthelwine) son of Leofstan, 105, 118. - - Albemarle, William earl of, 287. - - ----, ----, Cecily wife of, 287. - - Albert of Lotharingia, “clerk,” 36–38. - - Albineio, William de, 152. - - Aldermannebury, Simon de, 254. - - Aldermen, _see_ London. - - Alenzun, Matthew de, 254. - - Alexander III., his alleged confirmation of “Laudabiliter,” 172, - 176, 180, 182, 184, 185, 189, 193, 198. - - ----, his ‘Black Book’ letters to Henry II., 172, 173, 174, 175, - 185–190, 191–194, 196–199. - - Allen, Mr. Grant, 5, 16, 22, 23, 25, 321. - - Amiens, _échevins_ of, 235. - - Andrew of London, 110, 111. - - Andrews, Dr., 19. - - Anschetil, 121. - - Archer, Mr. T. A., opposed to Mr. Oman, 43, 48, 50, 51. - - ----, ----, on Strongbow, 309–310. - - Archers, English, in 14th century, 296, 297, 299, 300. - - Archers in Ireland, use of, 157, 160. - - Armies, English, in 14th century, 262 _et seq._ - - Array, Commissions of, 295, 296. - - Arthur, succession of, 216, 218. - - Arundel, William (1st) earl of, 126–127, 132–134. - - ----, Honour of, 130–131, 132–134. - - Ashdown, battle of, 40. - - Assize in Normandy, 250. - - Assize of Northampton, 233. - - - B - - Bain, Mr. Joseph, 292, 293, 294. - - Balnai, Adam de, 99. - - Bannockburn, battle of, 289 _et seq._ - - Barbour’s Brus, 290–291. - - Barons, feudal, in Ireland, 160, 162. - - Barons, greater, _see_ London. - - Basset, Richard, 121. - - Beaumont (Normandy), Holy Trinity of, 116. - - Becket, _see_ Beket. - - Beket, Gilbert, 101, 102, 247. - - ----, Thomas, 114, 122, 154, 248. - - Belet, Michael, 87. - - Bémont, M., 302, 303, 305, 313, 314, 318. - - Benefices, Inquest (1212) on ecclesiastical, 267. - - Berkeley, _carta_ of Roger de, 59–60. - - Bigot, Hugh le, 99. - - Bigod, Roger, 152. - - Bigod, Roger, 305, 306, 314. - - Bishops Stortford castle, 120. - - ‘Blanch ferm’ in Domesday, 65, 66. - - ‘Blanch’ money, _see_ Exchequer. - - Blemund, Blemunt, William, 107, 108. - - Bloomsbury, origin of its name, 108. - - Blund, Geoffrey, 253. - - ----, Robert, 234. - - ----, Stephen, 254. - - Bond, Mr. Thomas, 135. - - Bosham, deanery of, 116. - - Bosham, _firma_ of, 91. - - Boulogne, Count Eustace of, 28, 109, 110, 115, 120. - - ----, Faramus of, 120, 281. - - ----, William of, 120. - - ----, Inquest on Honour of, 270. - - Bradwell, Essex, 270. - - Braose, William de, 152, 253. - - Bray, Thomas, 147–149. - - Brewer, Prof., errors of, 146–149. - - Brito, Meinfininus, 121, 123. - - Bruce, _see_ Bannockburn. - - Bucherel, Andrew, 264; _see also_ Bukerel. - - Buchuinte, Bucquinte, Bucca Uncta, Andrew, 98, 110–113, 121, 124. - - ----, ----, justiciar of London, 99, 108. - - ----, ----, Ralf son of, 101, 108. - - ----, John, 101, 111, 112, 234. - - ----, Laurence, 101. - - Bucuinte, Geoffrey, 254. - - Bukerel, Richard, 120. - - ----, Stephen, 101, 120. - - Bukerel family, 110, 121; _see also_ Bucherel. - - _Burh_, the Old English, _see_ Clark. - - Burke, Father, 194. - - Burrows, Prof. Montagu, 279. - - - C - - Caen, a London family derived from, 106–107. - - Calais, Gloucester imprisoned at, 320. - - Cambridge, Longchamp at, 214. - - Cambridgeshire, sheriff of, 122. - - Camden on the marshalship, 305, 313. - - Camville, Gerard de, 217. - - Canterbury, Stephen archbishop of, 267. - - Carew, Sir George, error of, 146, 149. - - _Cartæ Antiquæ_, origin of, 88. - - Cashel, council of, 183, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194. - - “Castlemanni” of Durham, the, 288. - - Castle-mounds, 52–54. - - Castle Rising, 130. - - Challenge, a chivalrous, 317. - - Chamberlains, _see_ Exchequer. - - Chapel and the township, the, 10–11. - - Charters of William I., 28–37; _see also_ Henry II., John. - - Chertsey, William abbot of, 121. - - Chester, Hugh bishop of, 253, 254. - - Chichester, Hilary bishop of, 115, 117. - - Chivalry, _see_ Challenge. - - Christchurch, _see_ Twynham _and_ London (Holy Trinity). - - Churches, _see_ Benefices. - - Cinque Ports, institutions of, 244, 245. - - Clan-names in England, alleged, 16 _et seq._, 321, 322. - - Clare, Walter son of Richard de, 310; _see also_ Pembroke. - - Clark, Mr. G. T., on castles, 52–53, 56, 82, 279. - - Clement III., death of, 210–213. - - Clifford, Robert de, marshal, 306, 307. - - Cnihtengild, the English, _see_ London. - - Cœlestine II., 212–213. - - Cogan, Richard de, 145. - - Coinage, new (1180), 86, 88–89. - - Coke’s Institutes, 302, 304, 313. - - Commune, the sworn, 223, 224. - - ----, ----, in London, 224 _et seq._ - - ----, ----, in Normandy, 244 _et seq._ - - _Constabularii, Honor_, 280–281. - - Cornage, 282–288. - - Constantine, donation of, 178, 189, 195, 197. - - _Constitutio domus regis_, the, 82, 310, 311. - - Coote, Mr., 103, 105, 226, 227, 228. - - Cordel, Hugh, 120. - - Cornhill, Gervase of, 107, 111, 112, 117, 120. - - ----, Henry of, 107, 111, 253, 254, 256. - - ----, Reginald of, 256. - - Cornwall, Crown rents in, 71. - - Coronation, of Matilda wife of William I., 35. - - ---- of Henry II., 303, 304. - - ---- of Richard I., 201–206. - - ---- of Eleanor wife of Henry III., 203–206, 303, 304, 311. - - ----, of Richard II., 302. - - Coronation services (“officia”), 203–206, 303. - - Coroner, serjeanty of being, 270. - - Coucy, the (count of Soissons) sire de, 316. - - Coupland, Noutegeld of, 287. - - Courci, John de, 143. - - ----, ----, book of his ‘Gestes,’ 149. - - ----, ----, conquers Ulster, 161–163. - - ----, ----, origin of, 162. - - Courci, Jordan de, 162. - - Courcy, Robert de, 99. - - Courtenay, Reginald de, 152. - - Coutances, Algar bishop of, 99. - - Cows paid for cornage, 287. - - Crecy, battle of, 45, 299–301. - - Cressy, Hugh de, 152. - - Cricklade, Wilts, 83. - - Cumberland, cornage tenants of, 283–285. - - ----, Noutegeld in, 287. - - _Curia regis_ in Treasury, the, 94. - - ----, at Westminster, 111. - - - D - - Danegeld, _see_ Middlesex; Towns. - - Dean, miners from forest of, 294. - - Deaneries of houses of secular canons, 115–116. - - _Den_, the forest, 20. - - Derman of London, 106; _see also_ Thierri. - - Dermot, king, 142–144, 158–159, 169, 179–180. - - Devon, early _firma_ from, 73. - - ----, stereotyped rents in, 70. - - _Dialogus de Scaccario_, authority of, 64 _et seq._ - - ----, cited, 311. - - Dimock, Mr. J. F., 141, 146–148, 182, 183, 192. - - Diplomatic, a point of, 30–36. - - Disseisin, formula of Novel, 114, 127. - - Domesday, appeal to, 94. - - ---- compared with the Inquest of 1212, 265–266, 274. - - ----, finance in, 65–67, 68–73. - - ----, place-names in, 24. - - ----, record of assessment in, 57. - - ----, tenants variously described, 37–38. - - Dorchester, Wulfwig bishop of, 29. - - Dover castle, constableship of, 278–282. - - ----, wards and towers of, 279. - - Dover, Foubert de, 279. - - Duket, Nicholas, 234. - - Durham, cornage in palatinate of, 287, 288. - - ----, troops from, 294. - - - E - - Eadwine, alderman of London, 112. - - Earle, Prof., 15, 19, 23, 27. - - Edward the Confessor, 28, 36, 38, 98, 99. - - Edward II.; _see_ Bannockburn. - - Edward II., deposition of, 318. - - Eleanor, queen, wife of Henry II., 236, 250. - - Ely, Geoffrey, bishop of, 87. - - Ely, Walter de, 254. - - Enfeoffment, _see_ _Vetus_. - - Essex, Henry de, Constable, 281. - - Essex, Maurice (of Tiltey), sheriff of, 109, 118. - - Essex, place-names of, 2 _et seq._ - - Eustace, nephew of Fulchred, 101, 124. - - Eustace, the sheriff, 38. - - Exchequer, chamberlains of the, 77, 81–85, 95. - - ----, at Westminster, 79–81. - - ----, watchman of the, 80. - - ----, a development of the Treasury, 80–84, 93–95. - - ----, enrolment at, 89. - - ----, records of the, 202–204; _see also_ Sheriffs. - - ----, tallies of, 63, 74–75. - - ----, pleas held at the, 64, 86, 89. - - ----, its chequered table, 64, 74, 94. - - ----, standards of account at, 65–66, 70, 85–87, 89–93. - - Exchequer, changes in system of, 66–69, 72–75, 94. - - ----, antiquity of assay at, 66, 69. - - ----, its ‘combustion’ tally, 75. - - ----, barons of, 62, 85, 86, 89. - - Exeter, endowment from ferm of, 85–87. - - ----, foreign merchants at, 245. - - Exogamy, alleged traces of, 21, 321–322. - - Eyton, Mr., 24, 60, 79, 133, 134, 151, 152. - - - F - - Fafiton, Robert, 258. - - Falkirk, battle of, 298. - - Fantosme, Jordan, 232. - - Feipo, Futepoi, Totipon, Adam de, 142. - - Fergant, Bartholomew, 248–9. - - Ferm, _see_ _Firma_. - - Fiennes family alleged constables of Dover, 279–281. - - _Firma comitatus_, the, origin of, 72–73, 230. - - _Firma unius noctis_, the, 70–72. - - Fitz Alan, William, barony of, 128. - - Fitz Audelin, William, 151, 152, 161, 182–183, 190. - - Fitz Count, Brian, 76, 78. - - Fitz Gerald, Maurice, 156. - - Fitz Gerold, Warin, (I.) chamberlain, 83, 101. - - ----, ----, (II.) chamberlain, 84. - - Fitz Osbern, earl William, 29, 30. - - Fitz Reinfred, Roger, 87. - - Fitz Stephen, Robert, 153. - - Fitz Urse becomes MacMahon, 162. - - Fitz Walter, Peter, 229, 231, 253. - - Fitz Walter, Robert, 253. - - Five-knight unit, the, 56, 155. - - Fleming, Richard le, 142, 155. - - Freeman, Prof., 29–32, 34, 36, 38, 40–46, 49, 52, 137, 155, 289, - 292, 312. - - Fulcher, 116. - - Fulcoin, Fulkoin, Fulquin, Fulcoi, the sheriff, 121–123. - - Fulk son of Ralf, 120. - - _Furnellis_, Alan de, 87. - - ----, G. de, 88. - - Futepoi, _see_ Feipo. - - - G - - Gasquet, Father, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 181, 193, 196, 200. - - George, Mr. Hereford, 45. - - Gerpunvilla, William de, 152. - - Gervase son of Agnes, 101. - - Gilbert the Sheriff (founder of Merton Priory), 121–123. - - Gilbert son of Reinfred, 268. - - Gilds, endowments by, 104–105. - - Giraldus Cambrensis, 143, 144, 145, 157, 159, 160, 164–167, 172, - 178–188, 190–198. - - ----, early translations of, 147–149. - - Giry, M., 237, 239, 244, 247–252. - - Glanville, Ranulf de, 87. - - Gloucester, Milo de, 121, 123, 306. - - Gloucester, Robert earl of, 76, 78. - - Gloucester, Thomas duke of, 315, 318; - his arrest and confession, 319–320. - - Glove as gage, the, 153. - - Green, Mr. J. R., 5, 16, 289. - - Gross, Dr., 228, 237. - - Guest, Dr., 5, 6. - - Gundeville, Hugh de, 152. - - - H - - Hacon the dean, 101, 106. - - _Haga_ not _villa_, 15. - - Hall, Mr. Hubert, on the Treasury and Exchequer, 62, 67–68, 74–75, - 79–80, 84, 85. - - ----, on the Inquest of Sheriffs, 125 _et seq._ - - ----, on the coronation of Richard I., 205–6. - - ----, on the Red Book Inquisitions, 262–273, 275. - - ----, on castle-ward, 278, 282, 286. - - ----, on Dover Castle, 279–280. - - ----, on cornage, 282–286. - - ----, misreads his MSS., 312–313. - - _Ham_, the suffix, 2 _et seq._ - - Hampshire, _Firma unius noctis_ in, 71–72. - - Hartshorne, Mr., 56. - - Hastings, battle of, 40–52, 301. - - Haverhell, Brichtmer de, 229. - - ----, William de, 233. - - Haya, Ralf de, 152. - - Heir, making an, 111. - - Helion, Tehel de, 38. - - Henry II. and London, 222, 223, 228, 232–233, 256. - - ----, and Ireland, _see_ Ireland. - - Henry II., his charters before his accession, 82. - - Henry son of Henry II., 251. - - Henry son of Ailwin (Æthelwine), first mayor of London, 105, 225, - 253. - - Hereford, earldom of, 30. - - Highworth, Wilts, 83. - - Hinde, Mr. Hodgson, 284, 285. - - Holand, Thomas de, earl of Kent, marshal, 314. - - Household, the king’s, _see_ _Constitutio_. - - Hoveden, Roger, 184, 188, 197, 201, 205, 208–209, 213, 215, 216, - 217. - - Howlett, Mr., 208. - - Howorth, Sir Henry, 289. - - Howth, the Book of, 146–149, 162, 163. - - ----, interpolations in, 148–149. - - ----, share of Christopher lord of Howth in, 149. - - Hubert ‘juvenis,’ 110, 114. - - Hugh, son of Wulfgar, 101, 102, 118, 120–121. - - Huitdeniers or Octodenarii, Osbert, justiciar of London, 113–114, - 116, 121. - - Humfraville, Ida de, 254. - - ----, Richard de, 254. - - Hundred and the township, the, 12. - - Hundreds, Inquest of 1212 taken by, 265–266, 275. - - Hunt, Rev. W., 208. - - Huntingdon, Austin priory at, 122. - - Hunts, sheriffs of, 121–123. - - - I - - _Ing_, the suffix, 3 _et seq._ - - Ingelric the priest, 28–30, 36, 115. - - _Ingham_, the suffix, 15–16. - - Innocent X., 199–200. - - Inquest of 1212, the great, 261 _et seq._ - - Inquest of Sheriffs, _see_ Sheriffs. - - Inquest, sworn, in London, 98–100. - - ----, of 1212, 268, 273, 274. - - Insula, Robert de, 286. - - Interdict under John, 267. - - Ipra (Ypres), William de, 100. - - Ireland, the Conquest of, 137 _et seq._ - - Ireland, its golden age, 137–140, 165, 166, 169. - - ----, Scandinavian settlers in, 140, 144. - - ----, Norman invaders of, 140, 156 _et seq._ - - ----, feudal settlement of, 143, 155, 159, 160. - - ----, poem on conquest of, 141 _et seq._ - - ----, Henry II. in, 150–152, 189, 192–194, 199–200. - - ----, internecine conflict in, 159. - - ----, policy of see-saw in, 163–164. - - ----, failure of its conquest, 164, 167. - - ----, corruption of church in, 165–166, 175. - - ----, publication of ‘Laudabiliter’ in, 181, 192, 194. - - ----, Henry II. recognised as king in, 184–185, 187; _see also_ - Howth; ‘Laudabiliter.’ - - Ireland, scutage of, 129, 131, 134. - - Irish, tendencies of, 138–139, 164–165, 168–170. - - ----, mode of warfare of, 156–158. - - ----, their character impugned, 174, 175, 183–187, 197, 199, 200. - - Islington, Newington Barrow in, 106. - - Italian citizens of London, 110. - - - J - - Jews, debts to, 130. - - John, exactions of, 274. - - ----, the great Inquest (1212) under, 262. - - ----, in Ireland, 165. - - ----, his struggle with Longchamp, 207–218. - - John, takes the oath to the Commune, 224. - - ----, claims to succeed Richard, 215–218. - - ----, confirms ‘liberties’ to London, 235. - - ----, his charters to London, 256. - - John ‘the Mad’ (‘the Wode’), 145. - - John son of Ralf son of Everard, 120. - - - K - - Kemble, Mr., 2, 6, 9, 16–26. - - Kent, ‘sulungs’ of, 26–27. - - Kingsford, Mr., 316. - - Kitchin, Dean, 221, 243. - - Knight service, tenure by, 56–61; _see also_ Five-knight. - - Knights’ fees, numbers of, 289–290. - - - L - - Laci, Hugh de, 142, 155; - Walter de, 150. - - Lafaite, John, 113. - - Laigle, Richer de, 246, 249. - - Lancashire, Inquest of 1212 in, 268–269. - - ----, troops from, 295. - - Lang, Mr. Andrew, 21, 321–322. - - ‘Laudabiliter,’ the ‘Bull,’ 171 _et seq._ - - Law, _see_ Assize, _Curia Regis_, Disseisin, Enfeoffment, - Exchequer, Glove, Heir, Inquest, Peace, Pleas, Possession, - Seisin. - - Leicestershire, troops from, 294–296. - - Leinster, feudal settlement of, 155, 160. - - Leofstan the goldsmith, 106. - - Leofstan son of Orgar, 105. - - l’Estrange, Guy, 128. - - ----, John, 128. - - _Liber Rubeus_, _see_ Red Book. - - Liebermann, Prof., 144–145. - - Lincoln Castle, 208–209, 211, 214, 217, 218. - - Lincolnshire, Inquest of 1212 in, 275. - - ----, troops from, 294, 296. - - Lisieux, Arnulf bishop of, _see_ Sées. - - ----, Hugh bishop of, 35. - - Lismore, Christian (papal legate) bishop of, 183, 186. - - Llandaff, Ralf, archdeacon of, 187. - - Loftie, Mr., 99, 103–105, 221, 226, 228, 239, 240. - - London, aldermen of, 219, 237–9. - - ----, aldermen of, officers of the wards, 241–243, 255. - - ----, Aldersgate, 110, 114. - - ----, greater barons of, 252–253. - - ----, Blacstan’s ward in, 112. - - ----, Bloomsbury, 108. - - ----, Bucklersbury, 121. - - ----, charter of Henry I. to, 229, 233, 235. - - ----, charters of, their custody, 256. - - ----, citizens of, 119, 233–235. - - ----, Commune of, 219 _et seq._ - - ----, ‘daibelle’ in, 256. - - ----, _donum_ or _auxilium_ of, 257. - - ----, Dowgate, 246. - - ----, Eadwine an alderman of, 112. - - ----, Edmund an alderman (1137) of, 101. - - ----, its election of Stephen, 97. - - ----, the English Cnihtengild of, 102–106, 221. - - ----, exchequer at, _see_ Westminster. - - ----, folkmoot of, 221. - - ----, foreign influence in, 222, 245–247. - - ----, Fulcred chamberlain of, 121, 124. - - ----, hanging of a citizen in, 113. - - ----, Husting of, 111, 221, 222, 242, 256. - - ----, sworn inquest in, 99–100. - - ----, justiciars of, 98, 99, 108, 109, 113, 116–118. - - ----, ‘liberties’ of, 234–236. - - ----, its loyalty to Henry II., 232. - - ----, mayor of, 238–243. - - ----, mayor and échevins of, 235–237. - - ----, mediæval history, importance of it, 220. - - ----, origin of its mayoralty, 219, 223, 225, 226, 235, 244. - - ----, St. Lawrence Jewry, 253, 254. - - ----, St. Mary, Aldermanbury, 253, 255. - - ----, St. Paul’s churchyard, 224. - - ----, scavage of, 256–257. - - ----, scavengers (‘escavingores’) of, 255. - - ----, shrievalty of, 221–222, 229–235, 255. - - ----, soke of the Cnihtengild, 99, 101. - - ----, schools of, 117. - - ----, ----, Henry, master of, 117. - - ----, tower of, 99, 101, 118, 253, 254, 319. - - ----, Holy Trinity priory, its endowment at Exeter, 85–87. - - ----, ----, Norman prior of, 99, 104. - - ----, ----, Stephen prior of, 86. - - ----, ----, charters of, 88, 97, 103. - - ----, ----, endowed by the Cnihtengild, 98, 102, 104, 108. - - ----, ----, a citizen canon of, 107. - - ----, “twenty-four” (councillors) of the, 237–243. - - ----, a verdict of the city of, 253. - - ----, vineyard in Smithfield, 99, 100. - - ----, ward system of, 255. - - ----, list of wards in, 36, 102. - - ----, weavers’ gild of, 105. - - ----, watch and ward in, 254. - - ----, William archdeacon of, 101, 117, 118. - - ----, William chamberlain of, 101, 108. _See also_ St. Paul’s; - St. Martin’s; Derman; Islington; Andrew; Henry; Oath. - - London, Maurice, bishop of, 116. - - ----, Robert bishop of, 118, 119; _see also_ Richard. - - London and Middlesex, ‘firma’ of, 229–234, 257. - - Longchamp, William, a London charter of, 253. - - ----, his struggle with John, 207–218, 224. - - ----, legation of, 210, 212–213. - - ----, Henry brother of William, 253. - - ----, Daniel clerk of William, 254. - - Lorengus, Walter, 253. - - Lotharingia, _see_ Albert. - - Luard, Dr., 202, 204. - - Lubbock, Sir J., 63. - - Luci, Richard de, 100, 109, 115, 182. - - - M - - Mackay, Dr. Æneas, 292. - - Macmahon, originally Fitz Urse, 162. - - Madden, Sir Frederic, 202. - - Mærleswegen the sheriff, 29. - - Maitland, Prof., 1, 12, 57, 69, 153, 154, 230, 257, 282, 283, 284. - - Maldon, charter of Henry II. to, 152. - - ----, writ relating to, 115. - - Malet, William, 29. - - Malone, Father, 177, 181, 196. - - Mandeville, Geoffrey (I.) de, 72. - - ----, Geoffrey (II.) de, 73, 99. - - ----, ----, earl of Essex, 100. - - ----, ----, charters of, 101, 118–119. - - ----, ----, Roheis wife of, 102, 118, 119. - - ----, ----, justiciar of London, 117–118. - - Mantel, Robert, 87. - - ‘Mark’ theory, the, 17, 18, 19, 20. - - Marshal, Gilbert the, 306. - - ----, John the, 306. - - ----, William le, 307, 308. - - Marshal, earl, use of phrase, 311, 313, 316, 317. - - ----, ----, creation of an, 313–315. - - Marshal, fees and duties of the, 310–312, 314–315. - - ----, development of his office, 316. - - Marshal’s office, treatise on, 302. - - Marshalship, descent of the, 305–306 _et seq._ - - Martel, William, 99. - - Matilda, Empress, writ of, 116. - - ----, ----, expelled from London, 222. - - Matilda wife of William I., 31, 32, 34, 35. - - Mauduit, Robert, 82. - - ----, William, chamberlain, 81–82. - - ----, William, Domesday tenant, 82. - - Mayor, a, associated with the Commune, 223, 225; - but not essential to it, 228. - - Meath, feudal settlement of, 155, 160. - - Merton priory, foundation of, 122–123. - - Meyer, M. Paul, 150. - - Middlesex, ‘Hidagium’ of, 257–260. - - ----, Danegeld of, 257, 260. - - ----, Inquest of 1212 in, 264–265, 275. - - _Modus tenendi Parliamentum_, 302, 313. - - ----, date of, 317–318. - - Montfort, Hugh de, constable of Dover, 281. - - Montfort, Simon de, besieges Rochester castle, 54–55. - - Moran, Cardinal, 171, 175, 177, 179, 181, 186, 198. - - Morris, Father, 173–177, 181, 194. - - Mowbray and Segrave, _see_ Nottingham, Thomas earl of. - - - N - - Naas, barons of the, 156. - - Nangle, Gilbert de, 156. - - Nantes, Master William de, 254. - - Neatgild, _see_ Cornage. - - Newcastle, ward service of, 283–284, 286. - - Norfolk, Margaret ‘Marshal,’ countess of, 303, 304, 308, 312. - - Norgate, Miss, 41, 112, 113, 150, 176, 177–184, 191–196, 201, 208, - 211, 213, 246–247. - - Normandy, no ‘blanch ferm’ in, 65. - - ----, exchequer of, under Henry I., 95. - - Northumberland, cornage payments in, 282–286, 288. - - ----, drengs and thegns of, 282. - - ----, Inquest of 1212 in, 270–271. - - ----, troops from, 294–295. - - Nottingham herald, 317. - - Nottingham, Thomas Mowbray, earl of, created Earl Marshal, 313–315, - 318, 319–320. - - ----, his challenge, 317. - - Nugent, Gilbert de, 155. - - Numbers, Mediæval, exaggeration of, 289–290. - - - O - - Oath of the Commune of London, 235; - of freemen of London, 236; - of ‘twenty-four’ Councillors, 237; - of Common Council of London, 241; - of Aldermen of London, 242. - - Octodenarii, _see_ Huitdeniers. - - Oger a Domesday tenant, 38. - - O’Grady, Mr. Standish, 137–139. - - Old feoffment, _see_ _Vetus_. - - Oman, Mr. C., and his works, 39–61, 155, 289, 293–301; - _see also_ Archer. - - Ordgar the deacon, 106. - - Ordgar “le prude,” 98, 100, 106. - - Orford, castle at, 128. - - Orpen, Mr. G. A., 141, 143, 144, 150, 153, 154, 156. - - Oxford, number of students at, 290. - - ----, seizure of the bishops at, 114. - - Oxford, Ralf de, 121. - - - P - - Palisade, dissolving views of the, 43–49. - - _Pares_ in municipalities, 240, 243. - - Paris, Matthew, 202–206. - - Parish and the township, the, 10–12. - - Parliament, creation in, 315. - - Pavily, Reginald de, 152. - - Peace, the king’s, 236, 237. - - Peers, early mention of a man’s, 154. - - Pembroke, Gilbert de Clare (1st) earl of (? ‘Strongbow’), 305, 309, - 310. - - ----, Gilbert Marshal, earl of, 305, 312. - - ----, ----, confused with Gilbert de Clare, earl of, 302–305, 308. - - ----, Richard de Clare, (2nd) earl of (‘Strongbow’), 143, 152, 155, - 156, 159, 180, 304, 308, 310. - - ----, ----, daughter of, 150. - - ----, ----, alleged son of, 309. - - ----, Walter Marshal, earl of, 308, 316. - - ----, William Marshal, earl of, 305, 306. - - ----, William (II.), Marshal, earl of, 309. - - Pembroke, Henry II. at, 151, 152. - - Percy, Henry de, marshal, 303. - - Peter son of Alan, 106, 107. - - Peterborough, Brand, abbot of, 29. - - Physicians, 101. - - Place-names, plea for classification of, 14. - - Pleas in London, 238, 242. - - Pont de l’arche, William de, 76, 78. - - Porchester castle and the chamberlainship, 82. - - Port, Hugh de, 37. - - Porter, serjeanty of being castle, 271. - - Possession, appeal to, 99. - - Powell, Prof. York, 6, 17, 39, 54. - - Prendergast, Maurice de, 153, 155, 158, 165. - - Puintel, William, 253. - - - R - - Ralf son of Algod, 101, 102. - - Ramsay, Sir James, 49, 51, 52, 65, 67, 289. - - Ramsey Abbey, endowments of, 104. - - Records, value of, 289. - - _Red Book of the Exchequer_, correction of errors in, 83, 84, 96, - 125 _et seq._, 205, 206, 262 _et seq._, 278–286. - - ----, alleged loss of transcripts in, 205. - - Regan, Maurice, 142, 143–144. - - Regenbald, priest and chancellor, 28, 29, 37. - - Rents, crown, payable in kind, 68, 69. - - Ria, Avelina de, 134. - - Richard I., in his father’s lifetime, 250, 251. - - ----, his coronation, 201–206. - - ----, objects to a Commune, 223, 228. - - ----, leaves for the east, 207, 213. - - ----, his imprisonment in Germany, 235. - - ----, his ‘redemption,’ 234. - - Richard II., troubles under, 315, 317–320. - - Richard of Devizes, 208–212, 215, 216, 217, 218, 223, 227–228. - - Richard, son of Bishop Nigel, 65 _et seq._ - - ----, treasurer, 87, 201, 204. - - Richard son of Osbert, constable, 118. - - Richard son of Reiner, 253, 254. - - Richard son of William I., 34, 35. - - Riddlesford, Walter de, 155. - - Riley, Mr., 256, 257. - - Rinuccini, his mission to Ireland, 200. - - Ripariis, Margaret de, 83. - - Robert son of Bernard, 152. - - Robert son of Leofstan, 105. - - Rochelle, La, Commune of, 248–251. - - Rochester castle, 54–56. - - Roger, chancellor to Stephen, 99. - - Roger mayor of London, 256. - - Roger ‘nepos Huberti,’ 107. - - Roll, a king’s, 86, 88. - - Rouen, Hugh archbishop of, 249. - - ----, Rotrou archbishop of, 249. - - ----, Walter (de Coutances) archbishop of, 216, 218, 236. - - ----, charter of Duke Henry to, 246. - - ----, charter of Henry II. to, 233, 248, 251. - - ----, Commune of, 244–251. - - ----, Établissements de, 239–241, 243, 247–251. - - ----, Mayor of, 247–249. - - ----, vicomte of, 232. - - ----, watch at, 255. - - Ruffus, William, 152. - - Ruilli, Robert de, 152. - - Rumold, 120. - - ----, Bernard son of, 120, 121. - - - S - - St. Bees, gift to, 287. - - St. Martin, Alvred de St., 152. - - St. Martin’s-le-Grand, deans of, 28, 109, 110, 114–117. - - ----, canons of, 109, 110, 114–115, 118. - - ----, schools of, 117. - - St. Paul’s, the canons of, 102. - - ----, Ralf chancellor of, 101. - - ----, chantry in, 254. - - ----, chapter of, 119. - - ----, restoration to, 119. - - St. Quentin, Commune of, 244, 252. - - Saintes, Commune of, 250. - - Salisbury, Roger bishop of, 66–67, 109, 110, 114–116. - - Salisbury, John of, and the alleged grant of Ireland, 172, 177, - 179, 189, 198. - - _Scalam, ad_, payment, 85–87, 92–93, 95. - - Schools, _see_ London. - - Scots, _see_ Bannockburn. - - Scots, the King of, 286. - - Seebohm, Mr., 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, 27. - - Sées, Arnulf archdeacon of, 98, 99. - - Segrave, Nicholas de, marshal, 307. - - Seisin, restoration of, 217. - - Selby, Mr. Walford, 125. - - Serjeanty, tenure by, 61, 83. - - _Servitium debitum_, the, 58–60. - - Sevenhampton, Wilts, 83. - - Sharpe, Dr., 238. - - Sheriff, an attorney of a, 86. - - Sheriffs’ aid, 118. - - Sheriffs and ‘custodes,’ 229–233, 286. - - ----, at the Exchequer, 75, 123. - - ----, and the _firma_, 230–231. - - ----, under Henry I., 123, 124. - - Sheriffs, the inquest of, 125–136. - - Shield wall, the English, 39–44, 47, 49, 50, 291, 292. - - Skeat, Prof., 256. - - Slane, barons of, 142. - - Somerset, stereotyped rents in, 71. - - ----, Ulster families from, 162. - - Spatz, Dr., 49, 50. - - Standard, battle of the, 41. - - Stapleton, Mr., 65, 67, 74, 79. - - Stephen, king, 97–100, 109, 110, 114–116. - - Stevenson, Mr. W. H., 28–35. - - Stotevilla, William de, 154. - - Stratton, Adam de, 84. - - Stratton, Wilts, 84. - - Strogoil, _see_ Pembroke. - - Strongbow, _see_ Pembroke. - - Stubbs, Dr., 16, 38, 60, 62, 64, 65, 95, 104, 110, 111, 113, 119, - 125, 126, 129, 155, 201, 202, 207–211, 213, 215, 220, 224, - 225–226, 230, 290, 302, 307, 308, 318, 320. - - Surrey, place-names of, 2–3. - - ----, sheriffs of, 121–123. - - Sussex, place-names of, 2 _et seq._ - - _Swereford_, erroneous ‘dictum’ of, 129. - - ----, error of, 132. - - - T - - Taylor, Canon Isaac, 7, 9, 17, 19, 21, 25. - - _Terræ datæ_ accounted for, 73. - - ‘Testa de Nevill,’ nature of, 261, 262. - - ----, returns of great Inquest (1212) in, 262, 277. - - ----, misdescribed on the title page, 274, 283. - - _Testudo_, _see_ Shield wall. - - Thegnage, Tenure in, 271. - - Thierri, son of Derman, 101, 106, 112. - - ----, Bertram son of, 106, 107. - - Thomas ‘of Brotherton,’ marshal, 303, 308, 311, 313, 314, 317, 318. - - Thoms, Mr., 305. - - _Ton_, the suffix, 2 _et seq._ - - Tosard, Avicia, 269. - - ----, Walter, 269. - - Totemism, alleged traces of, 23. - - Tout, Prof., 151, 182, 308, 314, 315. - - Towcester, the moated mound at, 53, 54. - - Towns, assessment of, for Danegeld, 257–258. - - Township and the parish, the, 10–12. - - Treasurer, Henry the, 76, 81. - - ----, Richard the, 87. - - Treasury, charters kept in the, 88. - - ----, plea held in the, 94. - - Treasury, records in, searched, 318. - - Treasury, the, at Winchester, 75–81, 94, 178. - - ----, audit of, 76–78. - - ----, the Exchequer a development of, 80–84. - - ----, in Normandy, 82. - - ----, chamberlainship of, 82, 84. - - Twynham, deanery of, 116. - - Tynemouth, prior of, 286, 287. - - - U - - Ulf son of Topi, 29, 30. - - Ulkotes, Philip de, 270, 271. - - Ulster, conquest of, 161–162. - - ----, feudal settlement of, 162–163. - - - V - - Valoines, Barony of, 127, 130. - - Ver, Aubrey de, 99, 121. - - Ver, Robert de, 109, 281. - - Verdun, Ralf de, 152. - - _Vetus feoffamentum_, meaning of, 58–60. - - Vetulus, _see_ Viel. - - Viel, or Vetulus John, 107, 112, 113. - - Village, community, the, 19. - - - W - - Wace misunderstands William of Malmesbury, 50. - - Wales, troops from, 293–295, 300–301. - - Walter, Theobald, 269, 270. - - Warwickshire, early _firma_ from, 72. - - ----, troops from, 294–296. - - Wassail, 272. - - Waterford, Henry II. at, 150, 152. - - ----, synod at, 180–181. - - Watson, Mr. G. W., 304, 309, 310. - - Wendover, 280, 282. - - Westminster Abbey, its lands in Middlesex, 259–260. - - ----, its lands in Worcestershire and Glo’stershire, 265. - - Westminister, Exchequer at, 79–81. - - Westmoreland, cornage of, 286. - - Wexford, Henry II. at, 152. - - William I., charters of, 28–37. - - William the chamberlain, _see_ London. - - William of Malmesbury, 50, 224. - - William of Newburgh, 208–212, 215, 216. - - William, son of Isabel, 233. - - Winchester, Henry bishop of, 109, 114–117. - - Winchester, conference at, 208, 213, 214. - - ----, a council at, 123. - - ----, Inquest of 1212 on, 272. - - ----, municipality of, 242–243. - - ----, origin of its corporation, 221. - - ----, the Treasury at, 75–81. - - Windsor, William de, 264. - - Worcester, Mauger bishop of, 267. - - Worcestershire, early _firma_ from, 73. - - ----, Inquest of 1212 in, 265, 267. - - Wyzo, the goldsmith son of Leofstan, 106. - - - Y - - Yarmouth, Inquest of 1212 on, 274. - - York, Ealdred, archbishop of, 29. - - Yorkshire, troops from, 294–296. - - - Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London. - - - - - BY THE SAME AUTHOR - - [Illustration] - - Geoffrey de Mandeville - - A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY - - pp. xii., 461 - -“For many reasons this is the most remarkable historical work which -has recently appeared ... at once received fitting recognition as the -most accurate and penetrating work that had till then appeared on the -subject.”--_Spectator._ - -“It is not easy, within the limits of a review, to do justice to -the learning and ability which characterize Mr. Round’s study.... -Indeed few books so learned and suggestive have recently been -published.”--_Literary World._ - -“The work is most skilfully and ably done, and a whole series of -important discoveries is derived from Mr. Round’s efforts.... The -result is a very large addition to our knowledge.... Mr. Round has -carried through an undertaking which raises him to a foremost position -among historical scholars.”--_Athenæum._ - -“All the vivacity, keenness, freshness, and accuracy that have marked -Mr. Round’s previous writings.”--_Manchester Guardian._ - -“Fresh life from dry records is what Mr. Round aims at.... He -has permanently associated his name with the scientific study of -Anglo-Norman history.”--Prof. LIEBERMANN in _English Historical Review_. - -“M. J. H. Round vient de nous donner une étude des plus pénétrantes et -fécondes ... c’est un véritable modèle, et l’on doit souhaiter pour nos -voisins qu’il fasse école.”--_Revue Historique._ - -“Almost, if not quite, the most original effort in history during the -last twenty years was a twelfth century biographical study in which the -value, picturesque and human, of charter evidence was illustrated with -unmatched force.”--_Athenæum._ - - - - - Feudal England - - HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE XIth AND XIIth CENTURIES - - pp. xiv., 587 - -“Every one who has any care for the true, the intimate history of -mediæval England will at once get this book.... It contains some of the -most important contributions that have been made of late years to the -earlier chapters of English history.... The day for the charters has -come, and with the day the man.... His right to speak is established, -and we are listening.”--_Athenæum._ - -“The whole book leaves the stamp of deep research and of a singularly -unbiassed mind.... Mr. Round has set all intending researchers an -admirable example ... if we ever get a work which is to do for -the early institutions of England what the great Coulanges did -for those of France, we expect it will be from the pen of Mr. -Round.”--_Spectator._ - -“Not the least of Mr. Round’s merits is that the next generation will -never want to know how much rubbish he has swept or helped to sweep -away. He has done more than any one scholar to put us in the way of -reading Domesday Book aright. He has illustrated by abundant examples -the wisdom and the necessity of ... patient study of our documents, ... -his acute and ever watchful criticism.”--SIR F. POLLOCK in -_English Historical Review_. - -“In _Feudal England_ as in _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ he displays -consummate skill in the critical study of records, and uses the -evidence thus obtained to check and supplement the chroniclers.”--DR. -GROSS in _American Historical Review_. - -“Plein de faits, d’observations pénétrantes, de conclusions neuves et -de grande portée, ... il a réussi à rétablir la logique où, avant lui, -on ne trouvait que confusion.”--_Revue Historique._ - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Speech in the House of Commons (_Times_, 6th June, 1899). - -[2] It is important to observe that the Pope’s letter of 20th -September, 1172, contains an unmistakable reference to the (forged) -Donation of Constantine in the words “Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet -in Insula quam in terra magna te continua” (see p. 197 below). Dr. -Zinkeisen, in his paper on “the Donation of Constantine as applied -by the Roman Church,” speaks of this letter as “a genuine bull of -Alexander III.” (‘English Historical Review,’ ix. 629), but strangely -overlooks the allusion, and asserts that he could find no use made by -the Popes of the forged Donation at this period. - -[3] See Mr. Scargill-Bird’s ‘Guide to the Public Records.’ - -[4] ‘Feudal Aids’ (Calendars of State Papers, etc.), vol. i., pp. -ix.-xi. - -[5] Director of the Royal Historical Society; Lecturer on Palæography -and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics, etc., etc. - -[6] See pp. 131, 135, 283, etc., and Index. - -[7] “The surrender of the Isle of Wight” (in ‘Genealogical Magazine,’ -vol. i., p. 1) and “The Red Book of the Exchequer” (in ‘Genealogist,’ -July, 1897). - -[8] January, 1899 (xiv. 150–151). The first paper in my treatise deals -with “the antiquity of scutage,” and contains further evidence for my -contention that, contrary to the accepted view, this important tax -was levied before the days of Henry II. Mr. Hall replied that it was -“curious to find” me seriously citing “forgeries,” the evidence of -which he ridiculed, without deigning to discuss them. - -The “most conclusive document” (as I termed it) which I cited in my -favour is a charter of the time of Stephen, which I printed in full -in my treatise (pp. 8–9). Of this I need scarcely say more than that -the authorities of the British Museum have now selected it for special -exhibition among the most interesting of their charters, and have drawn -particular attention to its important mention of scutage (see the -official guide to the MSS., p. 40). - -The value of Mr. Hall’s assertions, and the futility of his attempted -reply, could hardly be more effectively exposed. I may add that I -have still a few copies of my treatise available for presentation to -libraries used by scholars. - -[9] See Index. - -[10] Archæological Review, iv. 235. - -[11] Prefixed to the Domesday volume published by the Sussex -Archæological Society. - -[12] A generation later than Domesday we find lands at Broadhurst (in -Horsted Keynes) given to Lewes Priory, which “usque ad modernum tempus -silve fuerunt” (Cott. MS. Nero c. iii. fo. 217). - -[13] Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 30. - -[14] Ibid. Dr. Guest suggested of Ælle, at the battle of Mercred’s Burn -(485), that “on this occasion he may have met Ambrosius and a national -army; for Huntingdon tells us that the ‘reges et tyranni Brittanum’ -were his opponents.” But if the Saxon advance was eastwards, it could -not well have brought them face to face with the main force of the -Britons. - -[15] English Village Community, pp. 126, 127, etc. - -[16] Social England, i. 122 _et seq._ - -[17] 2nd ed. p. 178. - -[18] English Village Community, pp. 169, 170. - -[19] He writes, of _ing_, that “Mr. Kemble had overlooked no less than -47 names in Kent, 38 in Sussex, and 34 in Essex” (ed. 1888, p. 82). - -[20] The Lewes Priory Charters afford instances in point. - -[21] Archæological Review, iv. 233 _et seq._ - -[22] One would like to know on what ground the suffix “-well,” familiar -in Essex (Broadwell, Chadwell, Hawkwell, Netteswell, Prittlewell, -Ridgwell, Roxwell, Runwell), but curiously absent in Sussex, is derived -from the Roman ‘villa.’ It is found in Domesday precisely the same -as at the present day. Yet Professor Earle writes of “Wilburgewella” -that it is “an interesting name as showing the naturalized form of the -Latin _villa_, of which the ordinary Saxon equivalent was _haga_” (Land -Charters, p. 130). This latter equation seems to be most surprising. It -is traceable apparently to a charter of 855, in which we read of “unam -villam quod nos Saxonice ‘an hagan’ dicimus” (Ib. p. 336), an obviously -suspicious phrase. There is no ground for terming the ‘Ceolmundinge -haga’ of a starred document (Ib. p. 315) a villa, while the ‘haga’ of -another (Ib. p. 364) is clearly a _haw_, as in ‘Bassishaw.’ Yet another -charter (Ib. p. 447) is not in point. - -[23] But the more closely one investigates the subject the more -difficult one finds it to speak with absolute confidence as to the -original existence, in any given instance, of an _ing_ in the modern -suffixes _-ingham_ and _-ington_. - -[24] “It is probable that all the primitive villages in whose name the -patronymic _ing_ occurs were originally colonized by communities -united either really by blood or by the belief in a common descent -(see Kemble)”--Stubbs (Const. Hist). “Harling abode by Harling and -Billing by Billing, and each ‘wick’ and ‘ham’ and ‘stead’ and ‘tun’ -took its name from the kinsmen who dwelt together in it. In this way -the house or ham of the Billings was Billingham, and the township of -the Harlings was Harlington”--Green (‘Making of England,’ p. 188). -“Many family names appear in different parts of England.... Thus we -find the Bassingas at Bassingbourn.... The Billings have left their -stamp at Billing, in Northampton; Billingford, in Norfolk; Billingham, -in Durham; Billingley, in Yorkshire; Billinghurst, in Sussex; and -five other places in various other counties. Birmingham, Nottingham, -Wellington, Faringdon, Warrington, and Wallingford are well-known names -formed on the same analogy.... Speaking generally these clan names -are thickest along the original English coast, etc.”--Grant Allen -(Anglo-Saxon Britain,’ p. 43). - -[25] “The German theory, formerly generally accepted, that free village -communities were the rule among the English, seems to have little -direct evidence to support it” (Social England, i. 125). - -[26] Ibid. i. 130; cf. Canon Taylor: “The Saxon immigration was -doubtless an immigration of clans.... In the Saxon districts of the -island we find the names not of individuals, but of clans.” - -[27] The exceptions that he admits are too slight to affect this -general statement. - -[28] Stubbs, _ut supra_. - -[29] Canon Taylor relies on the passage, “Ida was Eopping, Eoppa was -Esing,” etc. - -[30] Saxons in England, i. 449–456, where he treats such names as -“Brytfordingas” as “patronymical.” - -[31] Ed. 1888, p. 79. - -[32] I do not overlook the possibility of ‘hall’ (_hala_) being -a subsequent addition (as in post-Domesday times), but in these cases -it was part of the name at least as early as the Conquest, and the -presumption must be all in favour of the name being derived from an -individual not from a clan. - -[33] Saxons in England, i. 56. - -[34] Ibid. i. 58 _et seq._ - -[35] “Hence we perceive the value of this word [_ing_] as an -instrument of historical research. For a great number of cases it -enables us to assign to each of the great Germanic clans its precise -share in the colonization of the several portions of our island.” - -[36] Anglo-Saxon Britain, pp. 81–2. - -[37] Heming or Haming was a personal name which occurs in Domesday, and -which has originated a modern surname. - -[38] Even by Kemble, as in ‘Saxons in England,’ i. 60–79; but he terms -it a “slight” cause of inaccuracy. - -[39] ‘Wihtmund minister’ is found in 938 (Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ p. -326), and ‘Widmundesfelt’ in the earliest extant Essex charter (Ib. -p. 13). It is, therefore, amazing that Professor Earle, dealing with -the phrase “æt Hwætmundes stane” (Ib. p. 317), should have gone out of -his way to adopt a theory started by Mr. Kerslake in the ‘Antiquary,’ -connecting it with the “sculptured stone in Panier Alley,” writing: -“If now the _mund_ of ‘Wheatmund’ might be this _mand_ [basket], then -_hwætmundes stane_ would be the stone of the wheatmaund, and the -‘antiquum petrosum ædificium’ may have been the block of masonry that -was once the platform or basis of a market cross which had become -the usual pitching-place of cereal produce” (Ib. p. 318). This is an -admirable instance of that perverse Folk-etymology which has worked -such havoc with our place-names. Morant’s derivation in the last -century of ‘Widemondefort,’ from ‘a wide mound,’ is comparatively -harmless in its simplicity. - -[40] Calendar of Bodleian Charters, p. 80. - -[41] ‘Ac’ was the Domesday equivalent of ‘oak.’ - -[42] Dorset Domesday, p. 57. - -[43] So Kemble derived it from the “Færingas.” - -[44] Saxons in England, i. 63. - -[45] Saxons in England, i. 475. - -[46] I have shown (‘Feudal England,’ 103–106) that the _solanda_ of -other counties is not (as Seebohm thought, following Hale) in any way -the same as the _sulung_. - -[47] See Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ pp. 18, 24, 33, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, -75, 78, 80, 82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 105, 124, 126, 133, 142, 152, 209. - -[48] Ibid. pp. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–24, 26, 29, 31, 40, 45, -etc. - -[49] Feudal England, pp. 421 _et seq._ - -[50] English Historical Review, xi. 740, 741. - -[51] Norm. Conq., iv. 56–7. - -[52] According to the Peterborough Chronicle, he gave 40 marcs for this -reconciliation. - -[53] Norman Conquest, vol. iv., App. C. - -[54] The italics are mine. - -[55] English Historical Review, xii. 109, 110. - -[56] Ibid. - -[57] 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452. - -[58] The italics are mine. - -[59] Compare Dr. Sheppard’s remarks in 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452 -_a_. It would take us too far afield to undertake the distinct task of -reconciling the clause in A.I (Ibid.) with Lanfranc’s letter to the -pope, which implies, as Mr. Freeman observes, that there was but one -hearing, namely, that at Winchester (Norm. Conq., iv. 358). The clause -in A.I asserts an adjournment of the hearing at Easter (Winchester), -and a decision of the case at Whitsuntide (Windsor). - -[60] I need not print the list, as it will be found in the -‘Monasticon,’ and in Kempe’s ‘Historical Notices of St. Martin’s le -Grand,’ as well as in Mr. Stevenson’s paper. - -[61] E. H. R., xii. 109 note. - -[62] Norm. Conq., vol. iv., App. C. - -[63] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 435. I do not guarantee the -derivation. - -[64] Mon. Ang., ii. 302. - -[65] He is also clearly the “Eustachius de Huntedune” mentioned under -Stamford (D. B. 336 _b_). - -[66] Norman Conquest, vol. ii. - -[67] Const. Hist., i. 243. - -[68] pp. viii., 299. - -[69] See for the above quotations my ‘Feudal England,’ pp. 346, 354–6. - -[70] William was familiar with this formation, for he makes, Mr. -Freeman wrote, Henry I. bid his English stand firm “in the array of the -ancient shield wall.” - -[71] Feudal England, p. 354. - -[72] Norman Conquest (2nd ed., iii. 764). - -[73] Miss Norgate recognises this as “the English shield wall” -(‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 292). - -[74] Art of War, p. 26; History of the Art of War, p. 163. - -[75] See, for these quotations, Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ iii. (2nd -ed.), 491 (where he quotes parallels from Dion Cassius and Ammianus), -and compare my ‘Feudal England,’ p. 358. - -[76] History of the Art of War, p. 61. - -[77] Ibid. p. 58. - -[78] Ibid. p. 36. - -[79] See above, p. 40. - -[80] The italics are mine. - -[81] The _spissa testudo_ of Florence is “of course” conveniently -ignored. - -[82] “When the compact shield wall was broken, William thrust his -horsemen into the gaps” (p. 300). Just so. - -[83] ‘Athenæum,’ 6th Aug., 1898. Mr. Oman had previously tried to -escape from his own words by pleading that “silence does not mean -a change of opinion” (‘Academy,’ 9th June, 1894). But I had been -careful to explain that I did not rely on his ‘silence,’ but on his -actually _substituting_ ‘shield wall’ for ‘palisades’ in the above -reproduced sentence (‘Academy,’ 19th May, 1894). Similarly, Mr. Oman, -as Col. Lloyd has observed (‘English Historical Review,’ x. 538), -“takes a different view” of the English formation at Crecy in the -latter of these two works from that which he had taken in the earlier, -substituting a wholly different arrangement of the archers. - -[84] Mr. Freeman wrote of a “fortress of timber” with “wooden walls,” -composed of “firm barricades of ash and other timber” (see ‘Feudal -England,’ p. 340). Mr. George emphatically rejected this conception -(‘Battles of English History’). - -[85] ‘Norman Conquest,’ iii. (2nd ed.), 476, faithfully reproducing -Henry of Huntingdon’s “dudum antequam coirent bellatores.” - -[86] Guy of Amiens describes him as “Agmina præcedens innumerosa ducis.” - -[87] Art of War, p. 25. - -[88] Social England, p. 299. - -[89] Academy, 9th June, 1894. - -[90] History of the Art of War, p. 154. - -[91] Mr. Oman, in his latest work, makes “brushwood” the material. -I had pointed out “the difficulty of hauling timber” under the -circumstances (‘Feudal England,’ p. 342). - -[92] English Historical Review, ix. 18; cf. ix. 10. - -[93] Ibid. ix. 232, 237–8. - -[94] History of the Art of War, p. vi. - -[95] English Historical Review, ix. 239. - -[96] Ibid. p. 14. - -[97] See Feudal England, pp. 354–8, 392. - -[98] Die Schlacht von Hastings (Berlin), 1896. - -[99] Athenæum, July 30, 1898. - -[100] Mr. Oman, for instance, writes of the English “ditch and the -mound made of the earth cast up from it and crowned by the breastworks” -(p. 154), although Mr. Freeman treated “the English fosse” as quite -distinct from “the palisades, and at a distance from them” (‘English -Historical Review,’ ix. 213). Mr. Archer has had to admit this. - -[101] This is also the conclusion of Sir J. Ramsay. - -[102] Feudal England, p. 361. - -[103] Feudal England, pp. 354–358, 363, 367–8. - -[104] Ibid. p. 358. - -[105] Ibid. pp. 356–358. - -[106] For further details on this subject, and a bibliography of the -whole controversy, see ‘Sussex Archæological Collections,’ vol. xlii. - -[107] “Lincoln Castle, as regards its earthworks, belongs to that -type of English fortress in which the mound has its proper ditch, -and is placed on one side of an appended area, also with its bank -and ditch.... In general, these fortresses are much alike, and all -belong to that class of burhs known to have been thrown up by the -English in the ninth and tenth centuries” (Clark’s ‘Mediæval Military -Architecture,’ ii. 192). - -[108] 9th July, 1898. - -[109] Mediæval Military Architecture, i. 24, 25. - -[110] Athenæum, July, 1898. - -[111] History of the Art of War, p. 525. The italics are mine. - -[112] Athenæum, 30th July, 1898. - -[113] Ibid., 6th August, 1898. - -[114] Ibid., 13th August, 1898. - -[115] The acting editor of the ‘Athenæum’ refused to insert my final -reply explaining this. - -[116] Appendix to ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518. - -[117] Flores Historiarum (Rolls), ii. 490. - -[118] Ibid. p. 491. - -[119] “Ipsi, obsidione turris fortissimæ, quam bellicis insultibus -et machinarum ictibus viisque subterraneis expugnatam, fuissent in -proximo adepturi, protinus dimissa, Londonias repetierunt” (‘Flores -Historiarum,’ ii. 491). Compare ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518. - -[120] Archæological Journal, xx. 205–223 (1863). - -[121] First in the ‘English Historical Review’ and then in my ‘Feudal -England.’ - -[122] This was clearly the rule, though there may have been a few -exceptions. Compare p. 155 below. - -[123] Feudal England, p. 234. - -[124] History of the Art of War, p. 359. - -[125] Ibid. - -[126] Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 450, 451. - -[127] History of the Art of War. - -[128] Feudal England, p. 234. - -[129] History of the Art of War, p. 360. - -[130] History of the Art of War, p. 362. - -[131] I use the term, for convenience, in 1168. - -[132] “_Habeo_ ij milites et dimidium feffatos de veteri -feffamento” (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 292). - -[133] I may add that Mr. Oman misquotes this _carta_ in his -endeavour to extract from it support for his error about the ‘five -hides’ (p. 57 above). I place his rendering by the side of the text. - - “unusquisque de i ... “only for one virgate - virgata. Et ita habetis ij each. _From them you can make - milites et dimidium feodatos.” up a knight_, and so you have - two and a half knights - enfeoffed” (p. 362). - -The words I have italicised are, it will be seen, interpolated. - -[134] See also Eyton’s ‘History of Shropshire,’ i. 232, and the ‘Cartæ -baronum’ (1166) _passim_. - -[135] This allusion has perhaps been somewhat overlooked by legal -historians. - -[136] Curiosities and Antiquities of the Exchequer. - -[137] “Videtur autem eis obviare qui dicunt album firmæ a temporibus -Anglicorum cœpisse, quod in libro judiciario in quo totius regni -descriptio diligens continetur, et tam de tempore regis Edwardi quam de -tempore regis Willelmi sub quo factus est, singulorum fundorum valentia -exprimitur, nulla prorsus de albo firmæ fit mentio” (‘Dialogus,’ I. -vi.). - -[138] Rot. magni Scacc. Norm., I. xv. - -[139] The Foundations of England, i. 524; ii. 324. - -[140] “Ubi cum per aliquos annos persedisset, comperit hoc solutionis -genere non plene fisco satisfieri: licet enim in numero et pondere -videretur satisfactum, non tamen in materia ... Ut igitur regiæ -simul et publicæ provideretur utilitati, habito super hoc ipso regis -consilio, constitutum est ut fieret ordine prædicto firmæ combustio vel -examinatio” (‘Dialogus,’ I. vii.). - -[141] “Libræ arsæ et pensatæ,” “Libræ ad arsuram et pensum,” “Libræ ad -pensum et arsuram,” “Libræ ad pondus et arsuram,” “Libræ ad ignem et ad -pensum,” etc. - -[142] Even Sir James Ramsay, though rightly sceptical as to the -attribution of certain innovations, by the writer of the ‘Dialogus,’ to -Bishop Roger, holds that “the revenues of the Anglo-Saxon kings were to -a considerable extent paid in kind; and so they were down to the time -of Henry I., who abolished the practice, establishing money payments in -all cases” (i. 525). - -[143] Cf. p. 205. - -[144] “Hiis vero solutis secundum constitutum modum cujusque rei, -regii officiales computabant vicecomiti _redigentes in summam -denariorum_: pro mensura scilicet tritici ad panem c hominum, -solidum unum,” etc., etc. - -[145] Compare my remarks on the quick growth, in those days of -erroneous tradition, in ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. -77. - -[146] pp. 109–115. Professor Maitland has subsequently spoken of it in -two or three passages of ‘Domesday Book and Beyond.’ - -[147] “The Conqueror at Exeter” (‘Feudal England’). - -[148] D. B., i. 108. - -[149] D. B., i. 108. - -[150] Barnstaple rendered forty shillings ‘ad pensum’ to the king, -and twenty ‘ad numerum’ to the bishop of Coutances; Lidford sixty ‘ad -pensum’; Totnes “olim reddebat iii lib. ad pensum et arsuram,” but, -after passing into private hands, its render was raised to “viii lib. -ad numerum.” Exeter itself ‘rendered’ £6 “ad pensum et arsuram” to the -king, and £12 ‘ad numerum’ for Queen Edith. - -[151] D. B., i. 100 _b_-101. - -[152] Feudal England, p. 115. - -[153] D. B., i. 120. - -[154] Cf. Feudal England, pp. 109–110. - -[155] Feudal England, pp. 109–110. - -[156] After the above passage, the author proceeds: “De summa vero -summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebant in uno comitatu, constituerunt -vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 7). - -[157] A Devonshire manor (i. 100 _b_) is entered as rendering “in -firma regis x solidos ad pensum.” This “firma” can only be a collective -ferm from the royal manors. - -[158] I do not wish to press the point further than the entry proves, -and consequently I leave undetermined the question whether the ‘firma -regis’ was that of the whole shire, or merely that of the head manor to -which Wedmore belonged. - -[159] Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 142. - -[160] History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 63. - -[161] It was vehemently asserted by Mr. Hubert Hall, in his earlier -papers on the Exchequer, that the table was only divided into columns, -and that the chequered table was a delusion. He has subsequently -himself accepted the “chequered table” (see my ‘Studies on the Red -Book,’ p. 76), but Sir James Ramsay (ii. 324) has been misled by his -original assertion. - -[162] “Sciendum vero quod per hanc taleam combustionis dealbatur firma -vicecomitis; unde in testimonium hujus rei semper majori taleæ appensa -cohæret” (‘Dialogus’). - -[163] pp. 523–4. - -[164] p. 105. - -[165] “Henricus thesaurarius,” the Domesday tenant (49), is entered in -the earlier Winchester survey _temp._ Hen. I. - -[166] One such writ, still preserved, is printed in my ‘Ancient -Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society). It belongs to 1191. - -[167] See below. - -[168] I punctuate it differently from Dr. Stubbs. - -[169] Itinerary, p. 275. - -[170] Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 15. - -[171] Ibid. p. 16. - -[172] Ibid. - -[173] Ibid. p. 66. - -[174] See my ‘Calendar of Documents Preserved in France.’ - -[175] Ibid. p. 354. - -[176] Ibid. p. 355. - -[177] Ibid. p. 354. - -[178] See the ‘Constitutio domus Regis’:--“Willelmus Maudut xiiii -_d._ in die, et assidue in Domo Commedet,” etc. etc. He comes next -to the Treasurer. - -[179] Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 400. - -[180] See my “King Stephen and the Earl of Chester” (‘English -Historical Review,’ x. 91). - -[181] Testa de Nevill., 231. - -[182] Ibid. 235; and ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 460. - -[183] Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. See ‘Red Rook of the Exchequer,’ p. -664:--“Garino filio Geroldi xxxiiij lib. bl. in Worde.” Although the -subject is one of special interest for the editor, he does not index -Garin’s name here at all, while he identifies “Worde” in the Index (p. -1358), as “Worthy” (Hants), though it was Highworth, Wilts. - -[184] Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 355, 356. - -[185] “Garinus filius Geroldi Suvenhantone, per serjanteriam cameræ -(_sic_) Regis” (Ibid. p. 486). (Should ‘cameræ’ be ‘camerariæ’?). -Also “ut sit Camerarius Regis” (‘Testa,’ p. 148). - -[186] “Margeria de Ripariis tenet villam de Creklade de camar[aria] -domini regis ad scaccarium: Eadem Margeria tenet villam de -Sevenha[m]pton cum pertinentiis de domino rege per predictum servitium” -(‘Testa de Nevill.,’ p. 153). - -[187] See ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ and ‘Testa de Nevill.’ - -[188] Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxv. - -[189] For a similar misdescription of the document preceding it see my -‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 61. - -[190] History of the Exchequer. - -[191] Antiquities of the Exchequer, pp. 144–6, 165, 167. - -[192] At Portsmouth, the witnesses being Geoffrey the chancellor, Nigel -de Albini, and Geoffrey de Clinton. - -[193] Oliver’s ‘Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis,’ p. 134. - -[194] Ed. Arnold, i. 269. - -[195] “Numero satisfaciunt; quales sunt Salop, Sudsex, Northumberland -et Cumberland” (i. 7). Shropshire is wanting on the Roll. - -[196] “Hæc per subtractionem xii denariorum e singulis libris -dealbantur” (ii. 27). - -[197] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. p. 122. - -[198] Indeed, the statement that this ferm was fixed by the Conqueror -is at variance with the evidence of Domesday, which says, “reddit -L libras ad arsuram et pensum” (i. 16). - -[199] Vol. ii. p. 115. - -[200] It should be observed that the plea was decided by reference to -the “liber de thesauro” (Domesday Book, 156 _b_) and that “liber -ille ... sigilli regii comes est in thesauro” (‘Dialogus,’ i. 15). -Therefore, “cum orta fuerit in regno contentio de his rebus quæ illic -annotantur” (Ibid. i. 16), the plea would conveniently be held “in -thesauro.” - -[201] See my paper on “Bernard the Scribe” in the ‘English Historical -Review,’ 1899. - -[202] Introduction to Dialogus. - -[203] Ibid. - -[204] “Id quoque sui esse juris suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex -ipsorum quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e -vestigio succederet” (‘Gesta Stephani’; see ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ -p. 2). - -[205] Ibid. - -[206] Longmans, 1892. - -[207] Assuming the regnal years of Stephen to be reckoned in the usual -manner, of which I have felt some doubts. - -[208] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 252. - -[209] Ibid. p. 373. - -[210] He was the third named of the fifteen benefactors, who, to obtain -the king’s confirmation, “miserunt ... quendam ex seipsis, Ordgarum -scilicet le Prude,” to Henry. He occurs in one of the St. Paul’s -documents (Hist. MSS. Report, p. 68 _a_), but what Mr. Loftie has -written about him (‘London,’ pp. 35–6) is merely based on confusion -with other Ordgars. - -[211] Vol. iv. fo. 737, of the Guildhall Transcript. - -[212] He appears to take his stand on possession alone. - -[213] The king decides to examine the title by a proprietary action. - -[214] ‘Christo’ in Ancient Deeds, A. 6683. - -[215] As is not unfrequently the case in similar narratives, this -charter is wrongly introduced; for it clearly cannot be so early -as 1137. It was edited by me in ‘Ancient Charters’ (p. 48) from -Ancient Deeds, A. 6683, and assigned to 1143–1148, as being obviously -subsequent to the fall of the earl of Essex. - -[216] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 222–4. - -[217] Trans: ‘Englis_t_c_u_it’ (the ‘t’ and ‘u’ being obvious -misreadings). The text is, it will be seen, corrupt. - -[218] Trans: ‘Crichcote.’ - -[219] Report _ut supra_, p. 66 _b_; ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ -pp. 435–6. - -[220] Report _ut supra_, pp. 61 _b_, 67 _b_; cf. ‘Domesday of St. -Paul’s,’ p. 124. - -[221] London and Middlesex Archæological Transactions, vol. v., pp. -477–493. These documents are the same as those entered in the Priory’s -cartulary. - -[222] Ibid. p. 480; cf. pp. 490, 491. - -[223] London, p. 30. - -[224] “Seven or eight” on p. 30. - -[225] Ibid. p. 31. - -[226] Even Dr. Stubbs seems to imply this when he alludes to “the -conversion of the cnihtengild into a religious house” (‘Const. Hist.’ -[1874], i. 406). - -[227] Compare “the retirement at one time of _seven_ or _eight_ -aldermen” only three pages before (p. 30). - -[228] p. 33. So also pp. 34, 42, 90. - -[229] Coote, _ut supra_, p. 478. - -[230] Good instances in point are found in the Ramsey cartulary, where, -in 1081, a benefactor to the abbey “suscepit e contra a domno abbate -et ab omnibus fratribus plenam fraternitatem pro rege Willelmo, et -pro regina Matilda, et pro comite Roberto, et pro semetipso, et uxore -sua, et filio qui ejus erit heres, et pro patre et matre ejus, ut sunt -participes orationum, elemosinarum, et omnium beneficiorum ipsorum, sed -et omnium fratrum sive monasteriorum a quibus societatem susceperunt -in omnibus sicut ex ipsis” (i. 127–8). Better still is this parallel: -“Reynaldus abbas, et totus fratrum conventus de Rameseya cunctis -fratribus qui sunt apud Ferefeld in gilda, salutem in Christo. Volumus -ut sciatis quod vobis nostrum fraternitatem concessimus et communionem -beneficii quam pro nobismet ipsis quotidie agimus, per Serlonem, qui -vester fuit legatus ad nos, ut sitis participes in hoc et in futuro -sæculo” (i. 131). The date of this transaction was about the same as -that of the admission of the cnihtengild to a share in the “benefits” -of Holy Trinity; and the grant was similarly made in return for an -endowment. - -[231] See “The First Mayor of London” (‘Antiquary,’ April, 1887). - -[232] Coote, _ut supra_, p. 478. - -[233] Report, _ut supra_, p. 68 _a_. - -[234] Ibid. p. 62 _a_. - -[235] 5th Report Hist. MSS., App. I., p. 446 _b_. - -[236] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. - -[237] _Infra_, p. 118. - -[238] Antiquary, as above. - -[239] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. - -[240] Report, i. 83 _b_. It is several years later than 1125. - -[241] See p. 101, above. - -[242] Coote, _ut supra_, p. 473. - -[243] Tomlin’s ‘Perambulation of Islington,’ pp. 60–64. - -[244] Report, _ut supra_, p. 42 _a_. - -[245] See, for him, below. - -[246] Add MS. 14,252, fo. 127 _d_. - -[247] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 310, 311. - -[248] Ibid. It is remarkable that this man, who (as I have there shown) -was joint sheriff of London in 1125, is found as the last witness to a -charter of Henry I., granted (apparently in 1120) at Caen (Colchester -Cartulary, fo. 10). - -[249] Ibid. p. 311. - -[250] See above, p. 106. - -[251] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139. - -[252] Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I., p. 145. See also Ramsey Cartulary, i. 142. - -[253] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 309. - -[254] See my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), p. 26. - -[255] The transcriber seems to have been unable to read these words. - -[256] Lansdown MS. 170, fo. 73. - -[257] See also the charter on p. 115 (note 3) below. - -[258] Sheriff again from 1157 to 1160. - -[259] “Writelam ... Ingelricus præoccupavit ii hidas de terra prepositi -Haroldi ... postquam rex venit in Angliam et modo tenet comes -E[ustachius] ideo quod antecessor ejus inde fuit saisitus” (Domesday, -ii. 5 _b_). - -[260] Lansd. MS. 170, fo. 62. - -[261] “The influential family of Bucquinte, Bucca-Uncta, which took -the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than Italian” -(‘Const. Hist.,’ i. 631). The Bucherels also, clearly were of Italian -origin (“Bucherelli”). - -[262] Ibid. - -[263] “Benedictus I., 155–6” (Dr. Stubbs’ authority). - -[264] Ibid. - -[265] See p. 108, above. - -[266] Duchy of Lancaster Charters, L. 107. “Notum sit tam -presentibus quam futuris quod ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte -heredavi in hustingo Londonie (_sic_) Gervasium de Cornhell[a] et -Henricum filium eius et heredes suos de omnibus rectis meis in terris -in catallis Et etiam in omnibus aliis rebus et quieta clamavi eis et -heredibus eorum hereditario jure tenendis et abendis (_sic_). Et -pro hac conventione dederunt mihi Gervasius de Cornhell[a] et Henricus -filius unam dimidiam marcam argenti. Et hoc idem feci in curia Regis -apud Westmonasterium. Et ibi dedit mihi Gervasius de Cornhella i marcam -argenti. Et ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte saisiavi Gervasium -de Cornhell[e] et Henricum filium eius de omnibus tailiis meis et de -cartis meis in curia Regis et in hustingo Lond[onie].” - -[267] Cartulary, i. 130. - -[268] See p. 106, above. - -[269] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester, pp. 293–4. - -[270] England under the Angevin Kings, pp. 156–7. - -[271] i. 157. Hoveden ends: “Præcepit eum suspendi inpatibulo”. - -[272] See above, p. 107. - -[273] This also was the name of a leading London family. - -[274] Dr. Stubbs quotes from the roll of 1169: “de catallis fugitivorum -et suspensorum per assisam de Clarendon.” - -[275] See my note on Osbert in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ App. Q (pp. -374–5). - -[276] Ibid. - -[277] Lansd. MS., 170, fo. 62 _d_. The terms of this writ are -of some legal importance in connection with the principle of “novel -disseisin” under Henry II. The recovery of seisin is here a preliminary -to a proprietary action, and the formula “injuste et sine judicio” (cf. -‘History of English Law,’ ii. 47, 57) recurs in this charter which is -of similar illustrative value: “Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Waltero filio -Gisleberti et preposito suo de Mealdona salutem. Si Canonici Sancti -Martini London’ poterint monstrare quod Oswardus de Meldon’ injuste et -sine judicio illos dissaisierit de terra sua de Meldon’ de Burgag’ tunc -precipio quod illos faciat[is] resaisiri sicut saisiti fuerunt die quo -Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et quicquid inde cepit postea reddi -juste faciatis et in pace teneant sicut tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici -et eadem consuetudine, et nisi feceritis Ricardus de Lucy et vicecomes -de Essex faciant fieri ne audiam inde clamorem pro penuria recti. Teste -Warnerio de Lusoriis apud London’” (Ib., fo. 170). - -[278] It was almost certainly previous to Stephen’s captivity, though -this cannot be actually proved. - -[279] Another writ of Stephen (date uncertain) similarly recognises -his position:--“Stephanus dei gratia Rex Anglie Osberto Octod[enarii] -et Adel (_sic_) et civibus et vic[ecomiti] Lond[onie] salutem. -Precipio quod canonici Sancti Martini London[ie] bene et in pace et -honorifice teneant terras suas et estalla sua que eis reddidi et -confirmavi” (fo. 57 _d_). - -[280] Endorsed “de Cancellario” (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. 45 _b_). - -[281] Athenæum, 23rd January, 1897. - -[282] “Justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis.” - -[283] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 305. - -[284] Ibid. p. 150. - -[285] Quum. - -[286] We probably should read “Osberto clerico Willelmi archidiaconi.” - -[287] Attests a charter of the earl’s son and namesake in 1157–8 as -“Willelmo de Moch’ capellano meo” (‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 229). - -[288] Attests same charter (Ibid.). - -[289]? Gisleberto. - -[290] Ailwin son of Leofstan and Robert de Ponte occur in the London -charters of St. Paul’s about this time. - -[291] Subsequently sheriff of Essex (see p. 109 above). - -[292] This charter, I understand, is taken from the roll at St. Paul’s, -which was purposely left uncalendared in Sir H. Maxwell Lyte’s report -on the St. Paul’s MSS. - -[293] See p. 102. - -[294] Add. Cart. 28, 346. - -[295] See my paper on “Faramus of Boulogne” (Genealogist [N. S.] xii. -151). - -[296] Simone de Suttuna, Wulfwardo de Autona (Carshalton), etc. - -[297] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’ - -[298] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146. - -[299] Ibid. p. 147. - -[300] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’ - -[301] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146. - -[302] Ibid. - -[303] See above, p. 110. - -[304] Add. Cart. 28, 344. - -[305] Not to be confused with an (under) sheriff of Salop a generation -earlier. - -[306] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester (Roxburghe Club), p. 78. - -[307] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139, where it is assigned to 1114–1123. - -[308] Ibid. i. 144. - -[309] Ibid. i. 152. - -[310] Ibid. i. 148, 240. - -[311] Ibid. i. 245. - -[312] Ibid. i. 131. - -[313] MS. Arundel, 28. - -[314] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 100. - -[315] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 72. - -[316] Report, p. 25 _b_. - -[317] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 256. - -[318] See p. 101 above. - -[319] 28th Sept., 1889. - -[320] The Red Book of the Exchequer, Ed. Hubert Hall, F.S.A., -of the Public Record Office (Master of the Rolls Series), pp. -cclxvii.-cclxxxiv. - -[321] This phrase and the “sine judicio,” which the Articles employ as -its opposite, should be compared with the formula for the Assize of -Novel Disseisin. - -[322] Rot. Pip. 14 Hen. II. p. 124 (“Honor Willelmi filii Alani”). - -[323] See ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 272. - -[324] Swereford’s ‘dictum’ is wrong, of course, here as elsewhere (see -my ‘Studies on the Red Book’). - -[325] See, for example, pp. 75–7, 77–8. - -[326] Or rather 1172 (Rot. Pip., 18 Hen. II.), “1171” being Mr. Hall’s -date. - -[327] Roland de Dinan, Ralf de Toeni, Goscelin the queen’s brother -(Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 132). - -[328] Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 194. - -[329] Rot. 6 Ric. I. (according to Dugdale). - -[330] Liber Rubeus, pp. 113, 147. - -[331] Rot. 21 Hen. II., p. 82. - -[332] History of Shropshire, ii. 201. - -[333] Feudal England, p. 245; Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 322. - -[334] Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 29. - -[335] _i.e._ 1172. - -[336] Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 30. - -[337] Genealogist (N. S.), vol. i. - -[338] See my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer’ (1898), printed -for private circulation, _passim_. - -[339] This paper, written a few years ago, is a sketch based on (1) The -Song of Dermot and the Earl. Edited by G. A. Orpen. Oxford, 1892. (2) -Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vol. v. Edited by J. F. Dimock. London, 1867. -(3) The Book of Howth. Edited by J. S. Brewer, 1871. - -[340] English Historical Review, vol. iv. - -[341] See the paper below on ‘The Marshalship of England.’ - -[342] English Historical Review, viii. 132. - -[343] See my ‘Early Life of Anne Boleyn.’ - -[344] Romania, xxi. 444–451. - -[345] See ‘Feudal England,’ pp. 516–518. - -[346] Morant’s Essex, i. 331 note. Morant gives no reference for this -early and interesting charter, but I have lately been fortunate enough -to find it in Lansd. MS. fo. 170, where it is transcribed among some -local records from “Placita corone, 13 Edw. I.” It must, therefore, -have been produced in 1284–5. - -[347] Son of the earl of Arundel. - -[348] MS. Hargrave 313, fo. 44 _d_ (pencil). - -[349] Selden Society publications, iv. 17. - -[350] See also ‘Feudal England.’ Mr. Oman, of course, questions my -theory; but scholars, I understand, accept it (see pp. 56–7 above). - -[351] See also my paper on “The Barons of the Naas” in ‘Genealogist.’ - -[352] 14th March, 1895. - -[353] Book of Howth (Carew Papers), p. 23. It would be of great -interest to the genealogical student to connect these Fitz Urses of -Ulster with the English family of the name, one of whom, Reginald, was -among the murderers of Becket (cf. ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 53). -Proof may be found, I think, among the charters of Stoke Curcy Priory, -Somerset, now at Eton (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. p. 353). The Fitz -Urses and De Curcis are found together among the Priory’s benefactors, -and William de Curci is the first witness to a charter of Reginald Fitz -Urse. We further find (Ibid.) a charter of William de Curci, to which -“John de Curci, Jordan de Curci” are witnessed. As the conqueror of -Ulster had a brother Jordan who was slain by the Irish, it is probable -that he may be found in this John de Curci, and his _provenance_ -thus established. It is probable, therefore, that he was followed by -Fitz Urse to Ulster from Somerset, and possibly even by Russell (Ibid. -pp. 354 _a_, _b_). - -[354] This was written some years ago. - -[355] By the 22nd article of the Irish peace of January, 1648, the -natives were promised the repeal of two statutes, one against “the -ploughing with horses by the tail,” and the other prohibiting “the -burning of oats in the straw.” - -[356] As this paper goes to press, the news arrives (3rd April, 1899) -of Mr. Davitt being stoned by his fellow-patriots at Swinford. - -[357] Irish Ecclesiastical Record. - -[358] See ‘Times,’ 8th Feb., 1886, p. 8. - -[359] It has been so long spoken of as a “Bull” that one hardly knows -how to describe it. So long, however, as it is realized that it was -only a letter commendatory, no mistake can arise. - -[360] Rolls Series, Edition v., 318. - -[361] Ed. Hearne (1774), i. 42–48. - -[362] Dublin Review, 3rd Ser., vol. 10, pp. 83–4. - -[363] Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 66, 68. - -[364] Dublin Review, _ut supra_, pp. 93, 95. - -[365] Ireland and St. Patrick (2nd Ed., 1892), pp. 65–147. - -[366] Ibid. pp. 65, 85. - -[367] Ibid. p. 143. - -[368] Dublin Review, _ut supra_, p. 101. - -[369] Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 128. - -[370] Ibid. p. 121. - -[371] Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 128–9. - -[372] The latest German papers appear to be those of Scheffer-Boichort -in ‘Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreich-Geschichtsforschung,’ -Erganzungsband iv. (1892); and of Pflugk-Harttung in ‘Deutsche -Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft,’ x. (1894). - -[373] E. H. R., viii. pp. 18–52. - -[374] Ibid. p. 42. - -[375] “The majority of historians,” Miss Norgate writes (E. H. R., -viii. 18), “have assumed that these two statements are two genuine and -independent accounts of one real transaction.” On this I pronounce, -for the present, no opinion; but I have printed the parallel passages -above, that readers may form their own opinion as to the points of -resemblance. - -[376] It has, of course, been asserted to be an interpolation. But, -provisionally, I speak of it as his. - -[377] Compare ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 96 note, with E. -H. R., viii. 20. Miss Norgate might have learnt the fact from Cardinal -Moran’s paper, which was published 15 years before her work appeared. - -[378] Vol. v. pp. 246–7. - -[379] Ibid. pp. 318–9. - -[380] Another quotation from Ovid occurs in the middle of this short -document. - -[381] E. H. R., viii. 42. - -[382] Ibid. p. 48. - -[383] Ibid. p. 50. - -[384] E. H. R., viii. 44. - -[385] Ibid. p. 31. - -[386] Dublin Review, _ut supra_, p. 90. So too on p. 96: “Giraldus -Cambrensis asserted that both these Bulls were produced in a synod of -Irish clergy at Waterford in A.D. 1175.” Cardinal Moran also -argued from this date. - -[387] Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 131. He speaks, however, doubtless -by oversight, of “the confirmatory letter of Alexander III. himself in -1177” (p. 141), though it belongs to the same date. - -[388] This is the erroneous form adopted by Professor Tout. - -[389] Dictionary of National Biography, xix. 104. - -[390] The words “per breve Ricardi de Luci” imply the king’s absence -from England, so that if William was despatched to Ireland in 1171, it -must have been before the king’s return on August 3. The charge would, -therefore, have appeared on the (Michaelmas) Pipe Roll. - -[391] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 115. - -[392] Vol. v., p. lxxxiii. - -[393] Close of 1171, or beginning of 1172. - -[394] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 116. - -[395] “Hibernico populo tam dominandi quam ipsum in fidei rudimentis -incultissimum ecclesiasticis normis et disciplinis juxta Anglicanæ -ecclesiæ mores informandi” (v. 315). - -[396] “It is quite certain that the Pope did, some time before -September 20, 1172, receive reports of Henry’s proceedings in Ireland, -both from Henry himself and from the Irish bishops, for he says so -in three letters--one addressed to Henry, another to the kings and -bishops of Ireland, and the third to the legate Christian bishop of -Lismore--all dated Tusculum, September 20.” - -[397] E. H. R., viii. 44. - -[398] Ibid. p. 50. - -[399] The letter to Henry similarly speaks of “enormitates et vicia” -described in the prelates’ letters, and of “abominationis spurcitiam.” - -[400] “Suis nobis literis intimarunt, et dilectus filius noster -R. Landavensis archidiaconus, vir prudens et discretus, et Regiæ -magnitudini vinculo præcipue devotionis astrictus, qui hoc oculata -fide perspexit viva nobis voce tam solicite quam prudenter exposuit” -... “eisdem Archiepiscopis et Episcopis significantibus, et præfato -Archidiacono plenius et expressius nobis referente, comperimus.” - -[401] Gesta, i. 28; and Hoveden, ii. 31. - -[402] Becket materials (Rolls, vii. 227, 233). - -[403] The language must have been deliberately chosen, for the bishop’s -letters and the Pope’s action are described in the same words: - - “confirmantes ei et heredibus “summus pontifex auctoritate - suis regnum Hiberniæ, et apostolica confirmavit ei et - testimonium perhibentes ipsos heredibus suis regnum illud, - eum et heredes suos sibi in et eos imperpetuum reges - reges et dominos constituisse constituit” (p. 28). - imperpetuum” (p. 26). - -[404] “Et quia Romana ecclesia ... aliud jus habet in Insula quam -in terra magna et continua, nos ... magnificentiam tuam rogamus et -solicite commonemus ut in præscripta terra jura beati Petri nobis -studeas sollicite conservare,” etc., etc. - -[405] E. H. R., viii. 45. - -[406] Ibid. p. 50. - -[407] In the text of ‘De principis instructione,’ as is pretty -generally known, the words “sicut a quibusdam asseritur aut -confingitur, ab aliis autem unquam impetratum fuisse negatur,” precede -this letter. They look, Mr. Dimock thought, like a marginal note which -has found its way into the text. I confess that to me also that is what -they suggest. - -[408] According to Giraldus, the sole authority for its existence. - -[409] The two letters hang together absolutely, it will be seen, in -every way. - -[410] Dublin Review, _ut supra_, p. 90. - -[411] E. H. R., viii. 48. - -[412] E. H. R., viii. 23. - -[413] Dublin Review, _ut supra_, pp. 97–103. - -[414] Ibid., 3rd Series, vol. xi., pp. 328–339. - -[415] E. H. R., viii. 34. - -[416] _Vide supra_, p. 184. - -[417] Gesta, i. 28. - -[418] Irish Ecclesiastical Record, p. 61. - -[419] Monumenta, p. 151. - -[420] Rinuccini’s Embassy in Ireland (Hutton), pp. xxviii.-xxix. For -the essential passage the Italian runs: “stimando molto a proposito -il soggettare a se l’Isola d’Irlanda, ricorse ad Adriano, e da quel -pontefice, che Inglese era, ottene con mano liberale quanto bramava. Le -zelo che Arrigo dimostrò di voler convertire alla Fede tutta l’Irlanda, -piegò l’animo di Adriano a concedergli il dominio di essa” (Aiazzi’s -Nunziatura, p. xxxvi.). - -[421] Const. Hist., i. 496. - -[422] Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 276. - -[423] Gesta [Ed. Stubbs], ii. 80–83. - -[424] Ed. Stubbs, iii. 9–12. - -[425] Hoveden, iii. xiv. (1870). - -[426] Ibid. iii. 9 note. - -[427] Chron. Maj., ii. 348 note. - -[428] Hist. Ang., iii. 209 note. - -[429] Historia Anglorum, iii. 209. - -[430] Chronica Majora, iii. 338 marginal note. - -[431] Liber Rubeus, p. 759. - -[432] See my paper, below, on “the Marshalship of England.” - -[433] Red Book of the Exchequer, p. xviii. Compare my ‘Studies on the -Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 49. - -[434] Rolls Series, ii. 339 note. - -[435] Ibid. ‘Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen,’ etc., iii. 408 note. - -[436] Dictionary of National Biography. - -[437] Ibid. - -[438] Register of St. Osmund, i. 262; and Epistolæ Cantuarienses, p. -327. - -[439] The date given by Dr. Stubbs. - -[440] This from Hoveden. - -[441] So great, indeed, is the difficulty of forcing them into -accordance with Dr. Stubbs’ view, that he himself makes them all four -refer to a single surrender of Nottingham and Tickhill (Preface to -Rog. Hov. III. lvii., lviii.; cf. p. lxiii.), and assigns the Mortimer -incident to the earlier campaign, though it is described by Richard of -Devizes, who _ex hypothesi_ is narrating the later one. - -[442] Gesta Regis Ricardi, ii. 208 note. - -[443] Ed. Howlett, p. 337. - -[444] It is a further illustration of the difficulty which even those -who accept Dr. Stubbs’ view find in adhering to it, that Miss Norgate -pronounces it “chronologically impossible” that the archbishop of -Rouen can have been sent to John by Longchamp, as stated by Richard of -Devizes (‘Angevin Kings,’ ii. 299 note). She must have forgotten that -Richard of Devizes _ex hypothesi_ is describing “events in the -summer or autumn” (Rog. Hov., iii. 134); and that she accepts April 27 -as the date of the archbishop’s arrival (ii. 298). - -[445] “Legationis suæ officium per mortem Romani pontificis exspirasse.” - -[446] This suggestion is strongly supported by the fact, which has been -overlooked, that the bishop of Worcester was consecrated by Longchamp -“adhuc legato” on May 5 (Ric. Devizes, p. 403); that the chancellor -still styled himself legate on May 13 (‘Ancient Charters,’ p. 96); and -that he even used this style on July 8 at Lincoln (_vide infra_). -This implies, as I pointed out so far back as 1888 in my ‘Ancient -Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), that he continued to use the style -after Clement’s death and before he could have known whether Cœlestine -would renew it to him or not. Indeed, if we may trust the version of -Giraldus, he was using it even so late as July 30 (iv. 389). It is -notable that in a communication dated “Teste meipso apud Releiam xxv -die Augusti,” he no longer employs it. - -[447] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 299. - -[448] 9th Report Historical MSS., i. 35 _b_ (where the document is -dated “1190–1196”). - -[449] 35th Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2. - -[450] This cannot be made public till my Calendar of Charters preserved -in France is issued. In it this evidence will be found in Document 61 -(p. 17). - -[451] The dating clause at its end is a blunder admitted on all sides. - -[452] Preface to Rog. Hov., III. p. lxiv. This is, according to me, the -imaginary conference. - -[453] Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note. So also ‘Gesta,’ ii. p. 208: “in which -John was recognised as the heir of England.” - -[454] Pref. to Rog. Hov., III. lix. - -[455] Ibid. p. lxiv. - -[456] Gesta, ii. 207–8; Will. Newb., ii. 339. - -[457] Roger Hov., iii. 135 note. - -[458] Compare my ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 176, 183, with Hoveden’s -text. - -[459] “Resaisina vicecomitatus Lincolnie _fiet_ Girardo de -Camvilla: et eadem die dies ei conveniens _præfigetur_ standi in -curia domini regis ad judicium. Quod si contra eum monstrari poterit -quod judicio curiæ domini regis vicecomitatum vel castellum Lincolnie -perdere debuerit, perdat; sin minus retineat; nisi interim alio modo -pax inde fieri poterit.” - -[460] “Girardo de Camvilla in gratiam cancellarii recepto, remansit -illi in bono et pace custodia castri de Lincolnia.” - -[461] Compare Rog. Hov., III. lxiv., _ut supra_, and the ‘Histoire -de Guillaume le Maréchal,’ ll. 11,888–11,882: - - “Je entent e vei - Que par dreit, si’n sui aseiir, - Le [rei] devom nos faire de Artur.” - -[462] Compare my article on “Historical Research” in ‘Nineteenth -Century,’ December, 1898. - -[463] Archæological Journal, L. 247–263. - -[464] Const. Hist., iii. 568. - -[465] Mr. Loftie writes, in his ‘London,’ that “in the reign of Henry -I. we find the guild in full possession of the governing rights which -are elsewhere attributed to a guild merchant” (p. 30). See also p. 103 -above. - -In the same series, Dean Kitchin applies this assumption to Winchester, -and observes of the “Knights,” who possessed a ‘hall’ there under -Henry I., that “if we may argue from the parallel of the London -Knights’ Guild, the body had the charge of the city, and was in fact -the original civic corporation of Winchester,” (‘Historic Towns: -Winchester,’ p. 74). - -[466] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’ - -[467] “Nunc primum in sibi indulta conjuratione regno regem deesse -cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus, nec prædecessor et -p. ter ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcarum argenti fieri -permisisset” (Richard of Devizes, p. 416). - -[468] “Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt cum -dedecore apprehendere statuerunt” (See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. -115). - -[469] See note above. - -[470] Const. Hist., i. 407. - -[471] “Facta conspiratione quam communionem vocabant sese omnes pariter -sacramentis adstringunt et ... ejusdem regionis proceres, quamvis -invitos, sacramentis suae conspirationis obligari compellunt.” - -[472] See my paper in ‘Academy’ of 12th November, 1887. - -[473] Transactions of the London and Middlesex Arch. Soc., v. 286. - -[474] Ibid. p. 286–7. - -[475] Mr. Loftie’s argument (‘London,’ p. 53) that Glanville’s words -prove that London, if not other towns as well, had already a ‘Commune’ -under Henry II. is disposed of by Dr. Gross (‘The Gild Merchant,’ i. -102). - -[476] £125 and £5 10_s._ respectively for a quarter in 19 Hen. II. -p. 183, and £375 and £16 10_s._ respectively for three-quarters in -20 Hen. II. (p 7). - -[477] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 297. - -[478] 20 Hen. II., p. 9. The official list (Deputy Keeper’s 31st -Report) omits to mention that they answered “ut custodes” for this -quarter. - -[479] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 297–8. - -[480] On the _firma burgi_ see Stubbs, ‘Const. Hist.’ (1874), p. -410; and Maitland, ‘Domesday Book and Beyond,’ pp. 204–5. - -[481] Compare the ‘Dialogus’: “De summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus -fundis surgebat in uno comitatu constituerunt vicecomitem illius -comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 4). - -[482] Op. cit. _ut supra_. - -[483] 21 Henry II., pp. 15–17. For the last quarter of the 20th year -they were £59 8_s._ 2_d._ - -[484] From the county the proceeds must always have been small owing to -the absence of royal manors. - -[485] Pipe Rolls, _passim_. - -[486] They had paid out £156 7_s._ 4_d._ in the three quarters, and -owed £9 9_s._ 9_d._, making a total of £165 17_s._ 1_d._, or at the -rate of about £221 a year, as against some £238. - -[487] His outgoings were £151 4_s._ 6_d._, and he was credited with a -“superplus” of £13 8_s._ 10_d._ ‘blank.’ This works out at rather over -£548 “numero” for the year, the old figure being £547 “numero” (these -figures are taken from the unpublished Pipe Roll of 1176). It would -be rash to connect the change with the severe Assise of Northampton -without further evidence. - -[488] An entry on the Roll of 15 Hen. II. records it as £500 “blanch,” -plus a varying sum of about £20 “numero.” - -[489] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 112 _d_. - -[490] MS.: ‘skiuin.’ The ‘Liber Albus’ (pp. 423–4) uses “eskevyn” for -the _échevins_ of Amiens. - -[491] _i.e._ Queen Eleanor. - -[492] Walter archbishop of Rouen. - -[493] “For their administration and judicial functions in continental -towns, see Giry, ‘St. Quentin,’ 28–67; von Maurer, ‘Stadtverf.,’ i. -241, 568” (‘Gild Merchant,’ i. 26 note). - -[494] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 110. - -[495] Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc.), p. 2. - -[496] London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 72. - -[497] London (1887), p. 45. - -[498] History of London, i. 190. - -[499] Liber Albus, i. 41. - -[500] “Quicumque predictorum, sine licentia majoris abierit de -congregacione aliorum, tantundem paccabit,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § -4). - -[501] “Si quid major celari preceperit, celabunt. Hoc quicunque -detexerit, a suo officio deponetur,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § 2). - -[502] See Liber Albus, i. 307–8. - -[503] Compare the case quoted in Palgrave’s ‘Commonwealth,’ II. p. -clxxxiii. - -[504] Arch. Journ., ix. 70. - -[505] Ibid. p. 81. - -[506] Historic Towns: Winchester, p. 166. - -[507] In his valuable ‘Étude sur les origines de la commune de St. -Quentin,’ M. Giry has shown that this early example, with those derived -from it, was distinguished by the separate existence and status of the -_échevins_. Nor have the _Établissements_ as much in common -with the London _commune_ as those of Rouen. - -[508] Archæological Journal, L. 256–260. - -[509] Feudal England, 552 _et seq._ - -[510] Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 48–9. - -[511] These passages are quoted to show that the influence of Rouen on -London is admitted by an independent writer. - -[512] ‘Les Établissements de Rouen’ (Bibliothèque de l’école des -hautes études, publiée sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction -publique, 1883). - -[513] He became, in that year, bishop of Lisieux. - -[514] I am in a position to date this charter precisely as at or about -Feb., 1175. - -[515] Recurring, in his “Conclusions” at the end of the volume, to -this question of date, M. Giry seems to combine two of his different -limits: “L’étude du texte nous a permis de fixer la rédaction des -Établissements aux dernières années du règne de Henri II., après 1169. -Nous savons, de plus que La Rochelle les avait adoptés avant 1199, que -Rouen les avait également possédés vers la même époque, entre 1177 et -1183” (p. 427). Of these dates, I can only repeat that “1183” has its -origin in an error; “1177” is, I think, a mistake, and “1169” difficult -to understand. My forthcoming calendar of charters in France will throw -fresh light upon the date. - -[516] Ancient Deeds, A. 1477. - -[517] Sheriff of London 1174–6. Also Alderman (Palgrave, II. clxxxiii.). - -[518] Cot. MS. Faust, B. ii., fo. 66 _d_. - -[519] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106. - -[520] “Major debet custodire claves civitatis et cum assensu parium -talibus hominibus tradere in quibus salve sint. - -“Si aliquis se absentaverit de excubia ipse erit in misericordia -majoris secundum quod tunc fuerit magna necessitas excubandi” -(‘Établissements de Rouen,’ ii. 44). - -[521] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106. - -[522] MS. ‘escauingores.’ - -[523]? consilio. - -[524] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 126. - -[525] The ‘th’ in the first ‘Spelethorn’ is an Anglo-Saxon character. - -[526] This is the “Terra Roberti Fafiton” (at Stepney) of Domesday, i. -130. - -[527] Cf. Domesday, i. 128. - -[528] Rectius “Hendune.” - -[529] From Domesday Book. - -[530] This may be chiefly due to omitting “Mimms” (70 hides) and -reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much. - -[531] The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. 469–574. - -[532] Mr. Hall has since, in the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898), -repeated the view that the ‘Red Book’ returns were “made in the two -preceding years.” - -[533] It will be found on p. 296 of the printed text. - -[534] “Idem rex præcepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut confiscarentur -redditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a Stephano -archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Angliæ moram facientibus in transmarinis -post interdictum Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, in hæc verba: - - “‘Præcipimus vobis quod capiatis ... et scire faciatis distincte - in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistæ anno regni nostri xiv - baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et - quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui eos receperunt. - Datum vii id. Junii’” (p. 267). - -It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to be due on the -same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture in the ‘Testa.’ -The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could be made to a -royal writ should be carefully observed. - -[535] “Per veredictum” (printed in ‘Testa’ “per unum dictum”). - -[536] Testa de Nevill, pp. 401–408. - -[537] This corrupt list in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ is evidently akin to -a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the ‘Testa’ (p. 408), as is -proved by this name. - -[538] Testa, 268 _b_; Liber Rubeus, 499. - -[539] Compare the wording of the writ of 1212: “Inquiri facias ... de -tenementis ... que sint data vel alienata,” etc. (see p. 266, above). - -[540] ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 466. I have specially examined the Pipe Rolls -for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received the rents up -to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date. - -[541] Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an editor -who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a -university on the treatment of mediæval MSS.? - -[542] The ‘Red Book’ lists, though so inferior, are more in number than -those in the ‘Testa.’ - -[543] For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 _a_) -would elude all but close investigation. It records _inter alia_ -the interesting gift, by Henry II., of land there “Wassall’ cantatori.” -This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word “Wassail” (in -a slightly corrupt form). - -[544] Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ‘Red Book’ “can -be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, nor ... on -the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of which is -known to have been preserved” (pp. ccxxii.). - -[545] It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the returns -on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as the ‘Red -Book’ date implies) over two or three years. - -[546] This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one selected for -mention in the Waverley Annals. - -[547] “Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra,” ran the writ. -The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ‘Testa’ -illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to -the interesting return for Yarmouth (‘Testa,’ p. 296): - - “Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth’ quod antiquitus no’ - (_sic_) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus - domini Regis, regibus Angl[iæ] quod sit datum vel alienatum - aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi - quibus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium domino - Regi de tenementis illis,” etc. - -The close concordance of this return with the king’s writ ordering it -(see p. 226) is remarkable. - -[548] See p. 265 above. - -[549] Testa de Nevill, p. 361. - -[550] Salop only. - -[551] Honour of Wallingford. - -[552] Begins with twelfth entry on page 128_a_, though there is no -break there in printed text; the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (p. 513) has entries -for Berkshire. - -[553] Borough of Wallingford. - -[554] Including town of Oxford. - -[555] The Chichester Inquest at least. - -[556] 15 entries. - -[557] Hyde Abbey. - -[558] Beginning at “Abbas de Sancto Walerico.” - -[559] Ending with entry for ‘Uggel.’ A special Inquest for Writtle is -comprised. - -[560] Beginning with “Candeleshou Wap’n’.” - -[561] Including a special Inquest for Stamford. - -[562] Beginning at “Carissimis.” - -[563] Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne. - -[564] Rightly given as “Fouberd” on p. 708; wrongly as “Roberti” on pp. -616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert is an error, and -one which throws some light on the MS. - -[565] The order is not quite the same in the first of these three lists. - -[566] Mediæval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10. - -[567] Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66. - -[568] Compare ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 326–7. - -[569] Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ following William of Poitiers. - -[570] Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147. - -[571] Lib. Rub., p. ccxl. - -[572] English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626–7). - -[573] Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson -Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these -entries in the ‘Red Book,’ devoted sections of his work (Hodgson’s -‘Northumberland,’ part i., pp. 258–261, 261–263) to “cornage” and to -“castle-ward,” but was careful not to confuse them. - -[574] From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his preface to -the Cumberland Pipe Rolls. - -[575] The ‘Red Book’ (p. 714) reads: “Summa xviij _l._ iiij _s._ vj -_d._, videlicet, xxij _d._ plus quam alii solebant respondere.” But I -make the real total of its items, not £18 4_s._ 6_d._, but £18 6_s._ -6_d._ The two pardons, amounting to £2 17_s._ 4_d._, brought up the -total to £21 3_s._ 10_d._, but, owing to the above wrong ‘summa,’ the -scribe made it only £21 1_s._ 10_d._ He then further omitted the odd -pound, and so obtained his “xxij _d._” - -[576] These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (‘The Pipe Rolls -... for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,’ 1857), p. xxvii. In -addition to the section on “the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent” in this work -(pp. xxvii.-xxix.), cornage is dealt with _ut supra_ in Hodgson’s -‘Northumberland,’ part i. pp. 258 _et seq._, and in ‘The Boldon -Buke’ (1852), pp. lv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand’s ‘Newcastle’ -a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to the Prior of -Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his “pardoned” quota. - -[577] Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18. - -[578] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), _passim_. - -[579] ‘Durham Feodarium’ (Surtees Soc.), p. 145. - -[580] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), pp. 36–7. - -[581] Feudal England, pp. 289–293. - -[582] Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any conclusion of -mine, appears, in his ‘History of the Art of War’ (1898), to admit that -I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my conclusion in his -‘Foundations of England’ (1898), ii. 132. - -[583] Stubbs’ ‘Const. Hist.,’ ii. 422, 433. - -[584] Maxwell Lyte’s ‘History of the University of Oxford’ (1886), pp. -93–96. - -[585] Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. 201. - -[586] Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description of -the Scots--“quasi sepes densa”--is an admirable parallel to the -metaphor--“quasi castellum”--which Henry of Huntingdon applies to the -English “acies” at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Freeman so -deplorably misunderstood (‘Feudal England,’ p. 343–4). So, too, Adam de -Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as -“quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum” (p. 106). Such metaphors, -I have shown, were common. - -[587] Vol. vii. p. 122. - -[588] Vol. iii. p. xxi. - -[589] History of England, p. 174. - -[590] Mr. Oman reckons the men of the “Marcher Lords” at 1,850. I make -them 2,040. - -[591] Ed. Record Commission. - -[592] Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean whence -the necessary miners were always obtained. - -[593] History of the Art of War, pp. 593–4. - -[594] “Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent” -(Wrottesley’s ‘Creçy and Calais,’ p. 8; cf. Ibid. pp. 58–61). - -[595] Ibid. pp. 67–8. - -[596] Rotuli Scotiæ, i. p. 127. - -[597] Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently observed that -40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible (‘Eng. Hist. Rev.,’ xiv. -133). - -[598] I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents from -elsewhere. - -[599] The italics are mine. - -[600] The italics are mine. - -[601] “The host was told off into ten battles, probably (like the -French at Creçy) in three lines of three battles each, with the tenth -as a reserve under the king” (p. 574). But in the earlier plans the -English battles are shown in _single_ line, and in the earliest, -at least, with a widely extended front. - -[602] The italics are mine. - -[603] The italics are mine. - -[604] Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. 174–176; -History of England, pp. 187–8; History of the Art of War, pp. 604–615. - -[605] Mélanges Julien Havet: La date de la composition du ‘Modus -tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia’ (1895). - -[606] M. Bémont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as “exerçant la -charge de grand connétable (_sic_) d’Angleterre au couronnement de -Richard II.” - -[607] See Mr. Watson’s Note in ‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. p. 197. - -[608] Ibid. v. p. 260; also Doyle’s ‘Official Baronage.’ - -[609] M. Bémont writes that he “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de -Henri II.” But this is a misconception. - -[610] Hearne’s ‘Curious Discourses,’ ii. 90–97. - -[611] Ibid. pp. 327–330. - -[612] Rot. Chart., i. 46. - -[613] M. Paris, ‘Chronica Majora.’ - -[614] Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 6. - -[615] Ibid. p. 51. - -[616] Const. Hist., ii. 328. - -[617] He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, May, -1312. - -[618] Ed. Hearne, p. 103. - -[619] Dictionary of National Biography, li. 204. - -[620] The matter has been further complicated by the index to the -official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a “Walter de -Ferrariis, marshal of England.” The document indexed proves (p. 189) -to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pembroke), “late -marshal of England.” - -[621] Trivet, it is true, even earlier (_circ._ 1300), wrote -of Strongbow as ‘Marshal of England’:--“Ricardus Comes de Strogoil, -marescallus Angliæ, terris suis omnibus propter quondam offensam in -manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc Ricardum Anglici -ob præcipuum fortitudinem ‘Strangebowe’ cognominabant” (p. 66). But -although the writer may sometimes preserve a forgotten story, he cannot -be accepted as an authority for earl Richard’s tenure of an office, of -which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary chronicle or -record. - -[622] Dictionary of National Biography. - -[623] Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198. - -[624] Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit. Mus.). - -[625] The italics and commas are mine, and show how the alleged son of -earl Richard was fabricated. - -[626] Mr. Watson (‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. 197) states that Giraldus -Cambrensis speaks of “Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul,” but this is -a misapprehension. - -[627] Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393. - -[628] It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, 1307. Its -mention (‘Mon. Ang.’ v. 268) of “Gilberti et Ricardi Strongbowe” -clearly proves that it applied the name to both. - -[629] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 132–4; ‘Calendar of Close Rolls,’ -p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they identified the -marshalship of England with that in the “Constitutio.” - -[630] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 135–7. This petition, in -Norman-French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose -use of “countes mareschauls” as the title of his predecessors from the -first. - -[631] Ibid. pp. 143–5. - -[632] Altered in MS. - -[633] 133 in the pencil numbering. - -[634] In special classes on Palæography and Diplomatic at the London -School of Economics. - -[635] See ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 34, where the -reference is to Mr. Hall’s citing the “pr_æ_missa scutagia” of his -MS. as “pr_o_missa scutagia” (pp. clxxii., clxxvii., etc.), and -arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29. - -[636] “There is a treatise carryed about the office of the earle -marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the tyme -of Thomas of Brotherton” (Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ II. 95). - -[637] The Society of Antiquaries possesses an early English version -of the ‘Modus’ to which is prefixed a table of chapters both for the -‘Modus’ and for the treatise on the Marshal’s office. - -[638] He was earl of Norfolk. - -[639] Vol v. pp. 260, 261. - -[640] “Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomam de Holand, -comitem Kancie de _officio marescalli Angl[ie]_, quod nuper -habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa dilectum -consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh’ ad _dictum -officium_ ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus aliis ad -officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius,” etc. (Pat. 9 Ric. -II., part 1, m. 38). - -[641] Dictionary of National Biography. - -[642] Dictionary of National Biography. - -[643] The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of -London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York and Gloucester, -the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de Segrave the -treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household. - -[644] p. 311 above. - -[645] It seems to have become in the Parliamentary confirmation of 1397 -“Earl Marshal of England.” - -[646] Mr. Kingsford, in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (xxxvi. -232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl of -Pembroke: “The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter to -the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and -eventually to the Howards,” etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it -under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods. - -[647] Derby was the Steward’s son and heir. - -[648] Dr. Stubbs observes that “from the king’s later action, it -is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for the -deposition of Edward II.” But there is more direct evidence. On the -Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against the -Lords Appellant that they “firent chercher Recordes deins votre -Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel coment vostre dit -besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous,” etc., -etc. - -[649] M. Bémont, who approached the question from the standpoint of -the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them could possibly -be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this must be proved -“par des raisons paléographiques.” The officials of the MS. department, -Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced it to be clearly -of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his conclusion. M. Bémont, -however, held that the MSS. “ont été composés et écrits dans les -premières années de Richard II., ou dérivent de manuscrits rédigés à -cette époque,” on account of the prominent place assigned in them to -Richard’s coronation. I should place the date a few years later. - -[650] “The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study” (‘Lectures -in Mediæval and Modern History,’ pp. 41–2). - -[651] See my article on “Historical Research,” in ‘Nineteenth Century,’ -December, 1898. - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been -corrected silently. - -2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have -been retained as in the original. - -3. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or -X^{xx}. - -4. Italics are shown as _xxx_. - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNE OF LONDON *** - -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 an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks 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 other than 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 will 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 website -(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 the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager 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 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 website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread 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 website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website 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. diff --git a/old/68933-0.zip b/old/68933-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 469dbae..0000000 --- a/old/68933-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68933-h.zip b/old/68933-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 890c6fa..0000000 --- a/old/68933-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68933-h/68933-h.htm b/old/68933-h/68933-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 9875c43..0000000 --- a/old/68933-h/68933-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18731 +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" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Commune of London, by J. H. Round—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - font-weight: normal; -} - -h2 {font-size: 120%; } - -.subhed { display: block; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; } - -.p-left {text-indent: 0em; } - -.p-min {margin-top: -.5em;} - -.p-index {text-indent: 6em; } - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1.2em;} - -.p0 {margin-top: 0em;} -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} - -ul { list-style-type: none; } -li.i1 {text-indent: 1em;} - -table { -margin: auto; -width:auto; -border: 0; -border-spacing: 0; -border-collapse: collapse; } - -td { -padding: .05em .2em .2em 2.5em; -border: .1em none white; -text-align: left; -text-indent: -2em; } - -td.cht { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 1em; -text-indent: -1em; -font-variant: small-caps;} - -td.cht1 { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 0em; -text-indent: 1em;} - -td.cht2 { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 0em; -text-indent: 0em;} - -td.cht3 { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 1em; -padding-top: 1em; -text-indent: 0em; -} - -td.pag { -text-align: right; -vertical-align: bottom; -padding-left: 2em;} - -td.header { -padding: 1.5em .2em .2em .2em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em; -font-size: 125%; } - -td.header1 { -padding: 1em .2em .2em .2em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em;} - -td.header2 { -padding: 0em .2em .2em .2em; -padding-left: 10em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em;} - -td.header3 { -padding: 0em .2em .2em .2em; -padding-left: 9em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em;} - - td.ctr { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em; - padding-left: 0em; - vertical-align: top; } - -td.right { -text-align: right; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 1em; -text-indent: -1em;} - - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 90%; -} - -.hangingindent { - padding-left: 2em ; - text-indent: -2em ;} - -.hangingindent1 { - padding-left: 3em ; - text-indent: -2em ;} - -.center {text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.r2 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 2em;} - -.r4 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 4em;} - -.r5 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 5em;} - -.left1 { text-align: left; - text-indent: 5em;} - -.xs { font-size: x-small;} - -.sm { font-size: small;} - -.lg { font-size: large;} - -.xxl { font-size: xx-large;} - -.smaller { font-size: 90%;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.gesperrt -{ - letter-spacing: 0.2em; - margin-right: -0.2em; -} - -em.gesperrt -{ - font-style: normal; -} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -#half-title { text-align: center; - font-size: 150%; } - -p.drop-cap { -text-indent: 0em; } - -p.drop-cap:first-letter -{ -float: left; -margin: 0.1em 0em 0em 0em; -font-size: 250%; -line-height:0.85em; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -/* Poetry */ - -.poetry-container -{ -text-align: center; -font-size: 90%; -} - -.poetry -{ -display: inline-block; -text-align: left; -margin-left: 2.5em; -line-height: 100%; -} - -.poetry .stanza -{ -margin: 1em 0em 1em 1em; -} - -.poetry .ileft {margin-left: -.4em;} -.poetry .i5h {margin-left: 5.5em;} -.poetry .i1 {margin-left: 1em;} - -@media print { .poetry {display: block;} } -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} - -.spacing { - letter-spacing: 3em; - margin-left: 1em;} - - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Commune of London, by John Horace Round</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The Commune of London</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>and other studies</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: John Horace Round</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: September 8, 2022 [eBook #68933]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: MWS, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNE OF LONDON ***</div> - - - - -<p id="half-title" class="p6">THE COMMUNE OF LONDON</p> - -<div class="chapter"> - - -<h1>THE<br /> -COMMUNE OF LONDON</h1></div> - -<p class="center lg gesperrt">AND OTHER STUDIES</p> - -<p class="center lg">BY J. H. ROUND M.A.</p> - -<p class="center xs">AUTHOR OF ‘GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE’,<br /> -‘FEUDAL ENGLAND,’ ETC.</p> - -<p class="center p2">With a Prefatory Letter by Sir Walter Besant</p> - -<p class="center p6 sm">WESTMINSTER</p> - -<p class="center">ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND CO.</p> - -<p class="center sm">2 WHITEHALL GARDENS</p> - -<p class="center sm">1899</p> - -<p class="center xs p6"><span class="smcap">Butler & Tanner,<br /> -The Selwood Printing Works,<br /> -Frome, and London.</span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">[v]</span></p> - -<h2>Prefatory Letter</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">DEAR MR. ROUND,</p> - -<p>I have to thank you for kindly letting me see the advance proofs -of your new book. It is difficult for me to explain the very great -advantage which the study of your books has been to me in my endeavour -to get at the facts, especially those of the 12th century, connected -with the history of London. For instance, I have found in your pages -for the first time a working theory of the very difficult questions -connected with the creation of the municipality. I have adopted your -conclusions to the best of my ability with, I hope, an adequate -expression of thanks to the source from which they are derived.</p> - -<p>I would also point out the great service which you have rendered to -the history of the City by giving, for the first time, the exact truth -regarding the conveyance of the Portsoken to the Priory of the Holy -Trinity, an event which has been hitherto totally misunderstood.</p> - -<p>Thirdly, I must acknowledge that it is only from your pages, especially -a certain appendix to ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ that one can understand -the ordinary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">[vi]</span> position of the clergy of the City of London in the 12th -century.</p> - -<p>It is unnecessary for me to enumerate many other obligations which I -owe to your pages.</p> - -<p class="r5 p-min">I remain, dear Mr. Round,</p> - -<p class="r4 p-min">Very faithfully yours,</p> - -<p class="r2 p-min">WALTER BESANT.</p> - -<p class="smcap">Office of the Survey of London,</p> - -<p class="left1 p-min"><i>July 6th, 1899</i>.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[vii]</span></p> - -<h2>Contents</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="contents" class="smaller"> - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">I</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Settlement of the South-Saxons and East-Saxons</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">II</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ingelric the Priest and Albert of Lotharingia</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_28">28</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">III</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Anglo-Norman Warfare</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_39">39</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">IV</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Origin of the Exchequer</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_62">62</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">V</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">London under Stephen</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_97">97</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">VI</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Inquest of Sheriffs (1170)</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_125">125</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">VII<span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">[viii]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Conquest of Ireland</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_137">137</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">VIII</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_171">171</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">IX</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Coronation of Richard I</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">X</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Struggle of John and Longchamp (1191)</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_207">207</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">XI</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Commune of London</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_219">219</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">XII</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Great Inquest of Service (1212)</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_261">261</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">XIII</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Castle-ward and Cornage</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_278">278</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">XIV</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Bannockburn</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_289">289</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">XV</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Marshalship of England</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_302">302</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[ix]</span></p> - -<h2>Preface</h2> -</div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The paper which gives its title to this volume of unpublished studies -deals with a subject of great interest, the origin of the City -Corporation. In my previous work, ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (1892), and -especially in the Appendix it contains on ‘The early administration -of London,’ I endeavoured to advance our knowledge of the government -and the liberties of the City in the 12th century. In the present -volume the paper entitled “London under Stephen” pursues the enquiry -further. I have there argued that the “English Cnihtengild” was not the -governing body, and have shown that it did not, as is alleged, embrace -a religious life by entering Holy Trinity Priory <i>en masse</i>. The -great office of “Justiciar of London,” created, as I previously held, -by the charter of Henry I., is now proved, in this paper, to have been -held by successive citizens in the days of Stephen.</p> - -<p>The communal movement, which, even under Stephen, seems to have -influenced the City, attained its triumph under Richard I.; and -the most important discovery, perhaps, in these pages is that of -the oath sworn to the Commune of London. From it we learn that the -governing body consisted at the time of a Mayor and “Échevins,” as in -a continental city, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[x]</span> that the older officers, the Aldermen of the -Wards, had not been amalgamated, as has been supposed, with the new and -foreign system. The latter, I have urged, is now represented by the -Mayor and Common Council. That this communal organization was almost -certainly derived from Normandy, and probably from Rouen, will, I -think, be generally admitted in the light of the evidence here adduced. -This conclusion has led me to discuss the date of the “Établissements -de Rouen,” a problem that has received much attention from that eminent -scholar, M. Giry. I have also dwelt on the financial side of London’s -communal revolution, and shown that it involved the sharp reduction of -the ‘firma’ paid by the City to the Crown, the amount of which was a -grievance with the citizens and a standing subject of dispute.</p> - -<p>The strand connecting the other studies contained in this volume is -the critical treatment of historical evidence, especially of records -and kindred documents. It is possible that some of the discoveries -resulting from this treatment may not only illustrate the importance -of absolute exactitude in statement, but may also encourage that -searching and independent study of ‘sources’ which affords so valuable -an historical training, and is at times the means of obtaining light on -hitherto perplexing problems.</p> - -<p>The opening paper (originally read before the Society of Antiquaries) -is a plea for the more scientific study of the great field for -exploration presented by our English place-names. Certain current -beliefs on the settlement of the English invaders are based, it is -here urged, on nothing but the rash conclusions<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[xi]</span> of Kemble, writing, -as he did, under the influence of a now abandoned theory. In the -paper which follows, the value of charters, for the Norman period, is -illustrated, some points of ‘diplomatic’ investigated, and the danger -of inexactitude revealed.</p> - -<p>Finance, the key to much of our early institutional history, is dealt -with in a paper on “The origin of the Exchequer,” a problem of long -standing. On the one hand, allowance is here made for the personal -equation of the author of the famous ‘Dialogus de Scaccario,’ and some -of his statements critically examined, with the result of showing that -he exaggerates the changes introduced under Henry I., by the founder -of his own house, and that certain alleged innovations were, in truth, -older than the Conquest. On the other, it is shown that his treatise -does, when carefully studied, reveal the existence of a Treasury audit, -which has hitherto escaped notice. Further, the office of Chamberlain -of the Exchequer is traced back as a feudal serjeanty to the days of -the Conqueror himself, and its connection with the tenure of Porchester -Castle established, probably, for the first time. The geographical -position of Porchester should, in this connection, be observed.</p> - -<p>In two papers I deal with Ireland and its Anglo-Norman conquest. The -principal object in the first of these is to show the true character of -that alleged golden age which the coming of the invaders destroyed. It -is possible, however, of course, that a “vast human shambles” may be, -in the eyes of some, an ideal condition for a country. Mr. Dillon, at -least, has consistently described the Soudan, before our conquest,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xii">[xii]</span> as -“a comparatively peaceful country.”<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> In the second of these papers I -advance a new solution of the problem raised by the alleged grant of -Ireland, by the Pope, to Henry II. As to this fiercely contested point, -I suggest that, on the English side, there was a conspiracy to base the -title of our kings to Ireland on a Papal donation of the sovereignty -of the island, itself avowedly based on the (forged) “donation of -Constantine.” No such act of the Popes can, in my opinion, be proved. -Even the “Bull Laudabiliter,” which, in the form we have it, is of -no authority, does not go so far as this, while its confirmation by -Alexander III. is nothing but a clumsy forgery. The only document sent -to Ireland, to support his rights, by Henry II. was, I here contend, -the letter of Alexander III. (20th September, 1172), approving of what -had been done. That he sent there the alleged bull of Adrian, and that -he did so in 1175, are both, I urge, although accepted, facts without -foundation.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p>The method adopted in this paper of testing the date hitherto adopted, -and disproving it by the sequence of events, is one which I have also -employed in “The Struggle of John and Longchamp (1191).” The interest -of this latter paper consists in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</span> its bearing on the whole question -of historic probability, and on the problem of harmonising narratives -by four different witnesses, as discussed by Dr. Abbott in his work -on St. Thomas of Canterbury. This is, perhaps, the only instance in -which I have found the historic judgment and the marvellous insight -of the Bishop of Oxford, if I may venture to say so, at fault; and it -illustrates the importance of minute attention to the actual dates of -events.</p> - -<p>Another point that I have tried to illustrate is the tendency to erect -a theory on a single initial error. In “The Marshalship of England” I -have shown that the belief in the existence of two distinct Marshalseas -converging on a single house rests only on a careless slip in a -coronation claim (1377). A marginal note scribbled by Carew, under a -misapprehension, in the days of Elizabeth, is shown (p. 149) to be the -source of Professor Brewer’s theory on certain Irish MSS. Again, the -accepted story of the Cnihtengild rests only on a misunderstanding of -a mediæval phrase (p. 104). Stranger still, the careless reading of a -marginal note found in the works of Matthew Paris has led astray the -learned editors of several volumes in the Rolls Series, and has even -been made, as I have shown in “the Coronation of Richard I.,” the basis -of a theory that a record of that event formerly existed, though now -wanting, in the Red Book of the Exchequer.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The increasing interest in our public records—due in part to the -greater use of record evidence in historical research, and in part, -also, to the energy with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</span> which, under the present Deputy-Keeper of the -Records, their contents are being made available—leads me to speak of -the contributions, in these pages, to their study.</p> - -<p>A suggestion will be found (p. 88) as to the origin of the valuable -“Cartæ Antiquæ,” of which the text too often is corrupt, but which, it -may be hoped, will soon be published, as they are at present difficult -to consult. In the paper on “The Inquest of Sheriffs” I have proved -beyond question the identity of the lost returns discovered at the -Public Record Office, and so lamentably misunderstood by their official -editor. But the most important, and indeed revolutionary, theory I have -here ventured to advance deals with what are known as the Red Book -Inquisitions of 12 and 13 John. It is my contention that this Inquest, -the existence of which has not been doubted,<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> though it rests only on -the heading in the Red Book of the Exchequer, never took place at all, -and that these ‘Inquisitions’ are merely abstracts, made for a special -purpose, from the original returns to that great Inquest of service -(as I here term it) which took place in June, 1212 (14 John). It is -singular that this conclusion is precisely parallel with that which -experts have now adopted on another great Inquest. “Kirkby’s Quest,” -it is now admitted, having been similarly misdated in an official -transcript, and again, in our own time, by an officer of the Public -Record Office, was similarly shown by a private individual to consist, -as a rule, “of abridgments only of original inquisitions” ... “extracts -from the original inquisitions made for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xv">[xv]</span> a special purpose.”<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> -Thus, under John, as under Edward I., “the enquiry itself was a much -wider one” than would be inferred from the Red Book Inquisitions -and “Kirkby’s Quest” respectively. And, in both cases, its date was -different from that which has been hitherto assigned.</p> - -<p>I cannot doubt that the theory I advance will be accepted, in course of -time, by the authorities of the Public Record Office. In the meanwhile, -I have endeavoured to identify all the material in the ‘Testa de -Nevill’ derived from the returns to this Inquest, and thus to make it -available for students of local and family history.</p> - -<p>It is needful that I should say something on the Red Book of the -Exchequer. One of the most famous volumes among our public records, it -has lately been edited for the Rolls Series by Mr. Hubert Hall, F.S.A., -of the Public Record Office.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> The inclusion of a work in the Rolls -Series thrusts it, of necessity, upon every student of English mediæval -history. It also involves an official <i>cachet</i>, which gives it -an authority, as a work of reference, that the public, naturally, -does not assign to the book of a private individual. That a certain -percentage of mistakes must occur in works of this kind is, perhaps, to -be expected; but when they are made the vehicle of confused and wild -guesswork, and become the means of imparting wanton heresy and error, -it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvi">[xvi]</span> the duty of a scholar who can prove the fact to warn the student -against their contents.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> It is only, the reader must remember, a -stern sense of duty that is likely to compel one to turn aside from -one’s own historical researches and devote one’s time and toil to -exposing the misleading theories set forth in an official publication -issued at the national expense. A weary and a thankless task it is; but -in Mr. Eyton’s admirable words: “the dispersion of error is the first -step in the discovery of truth.”</p> - -<p>In my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ issued last year -for private circulation only, and in two special articles,<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> I have -partially criticised Mr. Hall’s work and the misleading theories it -contains. Of these criticisms it need only be said that the ‘English -Historical Review,’ in a weighty editorial notice, observes that “The -charges are very sweeping, but in my opinion they are made out.... I am -bound to say that, in my opinion, Mr. Round has proved his case.”<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> -The further exposures of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvii">[xvii]</span> this official work, contained in these -pages<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>—especially in the paper on “the Inquest of Sheriffs,” which -illustrates its wanton heresies—justify my demand that the authorities -should withdraw it, till revised, from circulation.</p> - -<p>The paper on “Castle-ward and Cornage” not only proves that the two -were distinct, and gives the real explanation of their juxtaposition in -the ‘Red Book,’ but contains novel information, to which I would invite -attention, on the constableship of Dover Castle. The early history of -this important office has been altogether erroneous.</p> - -<p>Lastly, I must speak, very briefly, of the criticism to which my -work has been exposed, although I do so with much reluctance. Honest -criticism one welcomes: difference of opinion one respects. But for -that uncandid criticism which endeavours to escape from facts, and -which is animated only by the wish to obscure the light, no excuse -is possible. The paper on “Anglo-Norman Warfare” will illustrate the -tactics to which I refer; and the weight to be attached to Mr. Oman’s -views may be gathered from that on “Bannockburn.” But, apart from the -necessity of these exposures in the cause of historical truth, the -papers which contain them will, I trust, be found of some service in -their bearing on the tactics and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xviii">[xviii]</span> poliorcetics of mediæval England, -and on the introduction, in this country, of tenure by knight service. -It is the object also of the “Bannockburn” paper to illustrate the -grossly-exaggerated figures of mediæval chroniclers, a point which, -even now, is insufficiently realized. Here, and elsewhere, it has been -my aim to insist upon the value of records as testing and checking our -chronicles, placing, as they do, the facts of history on a relatively -sure foundation.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[1]</span></p> - -<h2>I<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Settlement of the South-and East-Saxons</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">I would venture, at the outset, to describe this as a “pioneer” paper. -It neither professes to determine questions nor attempts to exhaust a -subject of singular complexity and obscurity. It is only an attempt to -approach the problem on independent lines, and to indicate the path -by which it may be possible to extend our knowledge in a department -of research of which the importance and the interest are universally -recognised.</p> - -<p>It is the fine saying of a brilliant scholar, I mean Professor -Maitland, that “the most wonderful of all palimpsests is the map of -England, could we but decipher it.”[10] But the study of place-names -has this in common with the study of Domesday Book. The local worker, -the man who writes the history of his own parish, is as ready -to explain the name it bears as he is to interpret the Domesday -<i>formulæ</i> relating to it in the Great Survey, without possessing -in either case that knowledge of the subject as a whole which is -required for its treatment in detail. On the other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[2]</span> hand, the general -student, from the very wideness of his field, is deprived of the -advantage conferred by the knowledge of a district in its details. In -the hope of steering a middle course between these two dangers, I have -specially selected two counties, both of them settled by the Saxon -folk—Sussex, with which I am connected by birth; and Essex, with which -are my chief associations. And further, within these two counties I -restrict myself to certain classes of names, in order to confine the -field of enquiry to well-defined limits.</p> - -<p>The names with which I propose to deal are those which imply human -habitation. And here at once I part company with those, like Kemble -and other writers, who appear to think it a matter of indifference, -so long as a name is formed from what they term a patronymic, whether -it ends in-ham or-ton, or in such suffixes as-hurst,-field,-den, -or-ford. To them all such names connote village communities; to me -they certainly do not. If we glance at the map of Domesday Sussex,<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> -we see the northern half of the county practically still “backwoods” -eight centuries ago.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> If we then turn to the Domesday map prefixed -to Manning and Bray’s Surrey, we find the southern half of that county -similarly devoid of place-names. In short, the famous Andredswald -was still, at the time of the Conquest, a belt, some twenty miles -in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[3]</span> width, of forest, not yet opened up, except in a few scattered -spots, for human settlement. The place-names of this district -have, even at the present day, a quite distinctive character. The -<i>hams</i> and <i>tons</i> of the districts lying to the north and -the south of it are here replaced by such suffixes as <i>-hurst</i>, -<i>-wood</i>, <i>-ley</i>, and <i>-field</i>, and on the Kentish border -by <i>-den</i>. We may then, judging from this example, treat such -suffixes as evidence that the districts where they occur were settled -at a much later time than those of the <i>hams</i> and <i>tons</i>, and -under very different conditions. The suffix <i>-sted</i>, so common -in Essex, is comparatively rare in Sussex, and we cannot, therefore, -classify it with the same degree of certainty.</p> - -<p>Taking, therefore, for our special sphere, the <i>hams</i>, the -<i>tons</i>, and the famous <i>ings</i>, let us see if they occur -in such a way as to suggest some definite conclusions. The three -principles I would keep in view are: (1) the study, within the limits -of a county, of that distribution of names which, hitherto, has been -studied for the country as a whole; (2) a point to which I attach the -very greatest importance, namely, the collection, so far as possible, -of <i>all</i> the names belonging to this class, instead of considering -only those which happen to be now represented by villages or parishes; -(3) the critical treatment of the evidence, by sifting and correcting -it in its present form. The adoption of these two latter principles -will gravely modify the conclusions at which some have arrived.</p> - -<p>There is, as Mr. Seebohm’s work has shown, nothing so effective as -a special map for impressing on the mind the distribution of names. -Such a map is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span> an argument in itself. But although I have constructed -for my own use special maps of Sussex and Essex, they cannot here be -reproduced.</p> - -<p>I now proceed to apply the first principle of which I spoke, that of -examining a single county in the same way as others have examined -the maps of England as a whole. I doubt if any county would prove -more instructive for the purpose than that of Sussex, of which the -settlement was developed in isolation and determined by well-defined -geographical conditions. Whatever may be said of other suffixes, -Mr. Seebohm has shown us that, even allowing for a large margin of -unavoidable error, the terminations <i>-ing</i> and <i>-ham</i> are -not distributed at random, but are specially distinctive of that -portion of England which was settled by the earliest immigrants and -settled the most completely. As a broad, general conclusion, this is -virtually established. Now, if we turn to the map of Sussex and ask if -this general principle can also be traced in detail, the first point -to strike us, I think, is the close connection existing between the -<i>hams</i> and the rivers. The people, one might say, who settled -the <i>hams</i> were a people who came in boats. Although at first -sight the <i>hams</i> may seem to penetrate far inland, we shall find -that where they are not actually on the coast, they almost invariably -follow the rivers, and follow them as far up as possible; and this is -specially the case with the Arun and its tributary the Western Rother. -Careful examination reveals the fact that, while to the south, round -Chichester Harbour and Selsea Bill, we find several <i>hams</i>, and -find them again to the north in the valley of the western Rother,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span> -there are none to be found in the space between, which shows that -the men who settled them found their way round by the Arun and not -overland. I need hardly observe that the rivers of those days were far -larger than the modern streams, and their water level higher.</p> - -<p>It is anticipating somewhat to point out that the same examination -shows us a large group of <i>tons</i> covering this district away from -the river, where we find no <i>hams</i>. Evidently these suffixes do -not occur at random.</p> - -<p>And now let us pass from the extreme west to the extreme east of the -county. Here, instead of a group of <i>tons</i> with a notable absence -of <i>hams</i>, we find a most remarkable group of <i>hams</i>, -absolutely excluding <i>tons</i>. To understand the occurrence of -this group on the Rother—the eastern Rother—and its tributaries, it -is essential to remember the great change that has here taken place -in the coast line. Unfortunately Dr. Guest, who first discussed the -settlement of Sussex, entirely ignored this important change, and his -followers have done the same. The late Mr. Green, for instance, in -his map, follows the coast line given by Dr. Guest. Thus they wholly -overlooked that great inlet of the sea, which formed in later ages the -harbours of Winchelsea and Rye, and which offered a most suitable and -tempting haven for the first Saxon settlers. The result of so doing -was that they made the earliest invaders pass by the whole coast of -Sussex before finding, at Selsea Bill, one of those marshy inlets of -the sea, where they could make themselves at home. Therefore, argued -Mr. Grant Allen,<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> “the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span> original colony occupied the western half of -the modern county; but the eastern portion still remained in the hands -of the Welsh.” The orthodox hypothesis seems to be that the settlers -then fought their way step by step eastwards, that is, towards Kent, -reaching and capturing Pevensey in 491, fourteen years after their -first landing.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> As against this view, I would suggest that the -distribution of Sussex place-names is in favour of vertical not lateral -progress, of separate settlements up the rivers. And, in any case, I -claim for the group of <i>hams</i> at the extreme east of the county -the position of an independent settlement, to the character of which I -shall return.</p> - -<p>I must not wander too far from what is immediately my point, namely, -the grouping of the <i>hams</i> and <i>tons</i> not haphazard but -with cause. Even those students who discriminate suffixes, instead -of lumping them together, like Kemble and his followers, make no -distinction, I gather, between <i>hams</i> and <i>tons</i>. Mr. -Seebohm, for instance, classes together “the Saxon ‘hams’ and -‘tuns,’”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> and so does Professor York Powell, even though his views -on the settlement are exceptionally original and advanced.<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> There -are, however, various reasons which lead me to advance a different -view. In the first place, the wide-spread<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span> existence, on the Continent, -of <i>ham</i> in its foreign forms proves this suffix to be older -than the settlement. ‘Ton,’ on the other hand, as is well known, is -virtually absent on the Continent, which implies that it did not come -into use till after the settlement in England. And as <i>ham</i> was -thus used earlier than <i>ton</i>, so <i>ton</i>, one need hardly -add, was used later than <i>ham</i>. The cases in Scotland, and in -what is known as “little England beyond Wales,” will at once occur -to the reader. Canon Taylor states of the latter that the Flemish -names, such as Walterston, “belong to a class of names which we find -nowhere else in the kingdom,” formed from “Walter and others common in -the 12th century.”<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> But in Herefordshire, for instance, we have a -Walterston; and in Dorset a Bardolfston, a Philipston, a Michaelston, -and a Walterston, proving that the same practice prevailed within the -borders of England. Nor need we travel outside the two counties I am -specially concerned with to learn from the ‘Ælfelmston’ of Essex or the -Brihtelmston of Sussex that we find <i>ton</i> compounded with names -of the later Anglo-Saxon period. A third clue is afforded by the later -version, found in the <i>Liber de Hyda</i>, of Alfred’s will. For there -we find the <i>ham</i> of the original document rendered by <i>ton</i>. -It is clear, therefore, I contend, that <i>ton</i> was a later form -than <i>ham</i>. Now the map of England as a whole points to the same -conclusion; for <i>ton</i> is by no means distinctive, like <i>ham</i>, -of the districts earliest settled. And if we confine ourselves to a -particular county, say this of Sussex, we discover,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span> I maintain, an -appreciable difference between the distribution of the <i>hams</i> -and the <i>tons</i>. While the <i>hams</i> follow the course of the -rivers, the scene of the first settlements, the <i>tons</i> are largely -found grouped away on the uplands, as if representing a later stage in -the settlement of the country. In connection with this I would adduce -the “remarkable passage,” as Mr. Seebohm rightly terms it, in one of -King Alfred’s treatises, where he contrasts the “permanent freehold -<i>ham</i>” with the new and at first temporary <i>ton</i>, formed by -‘timbering’ a forest clearing in a part not previously settled.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> It -is true that Mr. Seebohm, as I have said, recognises no distinction, -and even speaks of this example as “the growth of a new <i>ham</i>”; -but it seems to me to confirm the view I am here advancing. It is -obvious that if such a canon of research as that <i>ham</i> (not -<i>ton</i>) was a mark of early settlement could be even provisionally -accepted, it would greatly, and at once, advance our knowledge of the -settlement of England. Although this is nothing more than a ‘pioneer’ -paper, I may say that, after at least glancing at the maps of other -counties, I can see nothing to oppose, but everything to confirm, the -view that the settlers in the <i>hams</i> ascended the rivers (much as -they seem, on a larger scale, to have done in Germany); and a study of -the coast of England from the Tweed to the British Channel leads me to -believe that, as a maritime people, their settlements began upon the -coast.</p> - -<p>I now pass to my second point—the insufficient attention which has -hitherto been paid to our minor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span> place-names. Kemble, for instance, -working, as he did, on a large scale, was dependent, so far as names -still existing are concerned, on the nomenclature of present parishes. -And such a test, we shall find, is most fallacious. Canon Taylor, it -is true, has endeavoured to supplement this deficiency,<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> but the -classification of existing names, whether those of modern parishes or -not, has not yet, so far as I can find, been even attempted. Hitherto -I have mainly spoken of Sussex, because it is in that county that -place-names can be best studied; the Essex evidence is chiefly of -value for the contrast it presents. The principal contrast, and one -to which I invite particular attention, is this: confining ourselves -to the names I am concerned with—the <i>ings</i>, <i>hams</i>, and -<i>tons</i>—we find that in Essex several parishes have only a single -place-name between them, while in Sussex, on the contrary, a single -parish may contain several of these place-names, each of them, surely, -at one time representing a distinct local unit. This contrast comes out -strongly in the maps I have prepared of the two counties, in which the -parishes are disregarded, and each place-name separately entered. I do -not pretend that the survey is exhaustive, especially in the case of -Sussex, as I only attempt to show those which are found on an ordinary -county map, together with those, now obsolete, which can safely be -supplied from Domesday. But, so far as the contrast I am dealing with -is concerned, it is at least not exaggerated.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span></p> - -<p>As the actual names are not shown, I will now adduce a few examples. -In Sussex, Burpham is composed of three tythings—Burpham, Wepham, -Pippering; Climping comprises Atherington and Ilesham; Offham is -included in South Stoke; Rackham in Amberley; Cootham in Storrington; -Ashton, Wellingham, and Norlington in Ringmer; Buddington in Steyning; -and Bidlington in Bramber.</p> - -<p>In Essex, on the other hand, ‘Roothing’ does duty for eight parishes, -Colne for four, Hanningfield, Laver, Bardfield, Tolleshunt, and -Belchamp for three each, and several more for two. There are, of -course, in Sussex also, double parishes to be found, such as North and -South Mundham, but they are much scarcer.</p> - -<p>We may learn, I think, a good deal from the contrast thus presented. -In the first place, it teaches us that parochial divisions are -artificial and comparatively modern. The formula that the parish is -the township in its ecclesiastical capacity is (if unconsciously -adopted) not historically true. Antiquaries familiar with the Norman -period, or with the study of local history, must be acquainted with -the ruins or the record of churches or chapels (the same building, -I may observe in passing, is sometimes called both <i>ecclesia</i> -and <i>capella</i><a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>), which formerly gave townships now merged in -parishes a separate or quasi-separate ecclesiastical existence. In -Sussex the present Angmering comprises what were once three parishes, -each with a church of its own. The parish of Cudlow has long been -absorbed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span> in that of Climping. Balsham-in-Yapton was formerly a -distinct hamlet and chapelry. Conversely, the chapelries of Petworth -have for centuries been distinct parishes.</p> - -<p>In Essex we have examples of another kind, examples which remind us -that the combination or the subdivision of parishes are processes as -familiar in comparatively modern as in far distant times. The roofless -and deserted church to be seen at Little Birch testifies to the fact -that, though now one, Great and Little Birch, till recently, were -ecclesiastically distinct. In the adjoining parish of Stanway, the -church, similarly roofless and deserted, was still in use in the last -century.</p> - -<p>Again, the civil unit as well as the ecclesiastical, the village, like -the parish, may often prove misleading. It is, indeed, very doubtful -whether we have ever sufficiently distinguished the manor and the -village. If we construct for ourselves a county map from Domesday, we -shall miss the names of several villages, although often of antiquity; -but, on the other hand, shall meet with the names of important manors, -often extending into several parishes, often suggesting by their forms -a name as old as the migration, yet now represented at most by some -obscure manor, and perhaps only by a solitary farm, or even, it may be, -a field. In Sussex, for instance, the ‘Basingham’ of Domesday cannot -now be identified; its ‘Belingeham’ is doubtful; its ‘Clotinga’ is now -but a farm, as is ‘Estockingeham.’ ‘Sessingham’ and ‘Wiltingham’ are -manors. In Essex ‘Hoosenga’ and ‘Hasingha’ occur together in Domesday, -and are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span> unidentified. Nor have I yet succeeded in identifying -‘Plesingho,’ a manor not only mentioned in Domesday, but duly found -under Henry III. Morant, followed by Chisenhale-Marsh, identified it -wrongly with Pleshy. Such names as these, eclipsed by those of modern -villages, require to be disinterred by archæological research.</p> - -<p>Another point on which light is thrown by the contrast of Essex and -Sussex is the theory tentatively advanced by Mr. Maitland in the -‘Archæological Review,’ that the Hundred and the township may, in -the beginning, have been represented by the same unit.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Broadly -speaking, he adduced in support of this hypothesis the originally -large township of Essex, proved by the existence of a group of -villages bearing the same name, comparing it with the small Hundreds -characteristic of Sussex. But in Sussex, I think, the small Hundreds -were coincident with those many small townships; while in Essex the -scattered townships are coincident with larger Hundreds. And this leads -me to suggest that the Saxon settlements in Sussex lay far thicker -on the ground than those found in Essex, and that we possibly find -here some explanation of the admitted silence as to the East-Saxon -settlement contrasting with the well-known mention of that in Sussex. -It seems to me highly probable that Essex, in those remote times, -was not only bordered and penetrated by marshes, but largely covered -with forest. It is, perhaps, significant that in the district between -Westham<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span> and Boreham, some twenty-five miles across as the crow flies, -there is not a <i>ham</i> to be found.</p> - -<p>From this I turn to the opposite extreme, that group of <i>hams</i> -on the ‘Rother’ and its tributaries, thirty-seven in number. Isolated -alike from <i>ings</i> and <i>tons</i>, and hemmed in by the spurs of -the Andredswald, it is, perhaps, unique in character. Nowhere have I -lighted on a group of <i>hams</i> so illustrative of the character of -these settlements, or affording a test so admirable of the alleged -connection between this suffix and the <i>villa</i> of the Roman Empire.</p> - -<p>One of the sections of Mr. Seebohm’s work is devoted to what he terms -“the connection between the Saxon ‘ham,’ the German ‘heim,’ and the -Frankish ‘villa.’” This, indeed, it may fairly be said, is one of the -important points in his case, and one to which he has devoted special -research and attention. Now, I am not here dealing with the equation -of ‘ham’ and ‘villa.’ If I were, I should urge, perhaps, that, as with -the ‘Witan’ of the English and the ‘Great Council’ of the Normans, -it does not follow that an equation of words involves their absolute -identity of meaning. I confine myself to the suffix ‘-ham.’ “Its early -geographical distribution,” Mr. Seebohm has suggested, “may have an -important significance.” With this, it will be seen, I entirely agree. -But, if the distribution is important, let us make sure of our facts; -let us} as I urge throughout this volume, test and try our evidence -before we advance to our conclusion. When Mr. Seebohm informs us -that “the ‘hams’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span> of England were most numerous in the south-eastern -counties, finding their densest centre in Essex,” the statement must -startle any one who has the least acquaintance with Essex, where the -termination ‘-ham’ is comparatively rare in place-names. On turning -to Mr. Seebohm’s map, one is still further surprised to learn that -its “local names ending in ‘ham’” attain in Domesday the enormous -proportion of 39 per cent. The clue to the mystery is found in a -note that “in Essex the <i>h</i> is often dropped, and the suffix -becomes <i>am</i>.” For the whole calculation is based on a freak of -my old friend, the Domesday scribe. The one to whom we are indebted -for the text of the Essex survey displayed his misplaced scholarship -in Latinizing the English names so thoroughly, that not only did -Oakley, the first on the list, become ‘Accleia,’ but even in the -accusative, “Acclei<i>am</i> tenet Robertus.” Thus we need travel no -further than the first name on the index to learn how Mr. Seebohm’s -error was caused. Elmstead, Bonhunt, Bentley, Coggeshall, Danbury, -Dunmow, Alresford, and many other such names, have all by this simple -process been converted into ‘hams.’ I hasten to add that my object in -correcting this error is not to criticise so brilliant an investigator -and so able a scholar as Mr. Seebohm, but to illustrate the practical -impossibility of accomplishing any scientific work in this department -of research until the place-names of England have been classified and -traced to their origin. I am eager to see this urgent work undertaken -county by county, on much the same lines as those adopted by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span> -Government in France. It seems to me to be eminently a subject for -discussion at the Annual Congress of Archæological Societies.</p> - -<p>If it were the case that the English <i>ham</i> represents the Roman -<i>villa</i>, this remarkable group on the borders of Kent and Sussex -should indicate a dense Roman settlement; but of such settlement there -is, I believe, no trace existing. Conversely, we do not find that the -sites of Roman villas are denoted by the suffix <i>ham</i>.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p> - -<p>From considering this group as a whole, I advance to two settlements -on what is known as the Tillingham River, namely, Billingham and -Tillingham. One would not easily find names more distinctive of what -Kemble insisted on terming the mark system, or what later historians -describe as clan settlement. Parenthetically, I may observe that while -<i>ham</i> is common in Sussex, the compound <i>ingham</i> is not. This -is well seen in the group under consideration.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span> The same may, I think, -be said of Essex, while in North Suffolk <i>ingham</i> begins to assert -its predominance. The frequent occurrence in Norfolk and Lincolnshire -renders it a note of Anglian rather than Saxon settlement.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> And now -for Billingham and Tillingham. Billing is one of the most common of -the so-called patronymics; and there is a Tillingham in Essex. Whether -we turn to the specialist works of such writers as Stubbs and Green, -or to the latest <i>compendia</i> of English history as a whole, we -shall virtually always read that such names as these denote original -settlement by a clan.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p> - -<p>In venturing to question this proposition, I am striking at the root of -Kemble’s theory, that overspreading<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span> theory of the Mark, which, as it -were, has shrunk from its once stately splendour, but in the shadow of -which all our historians since his time have written. Even Professor -York Powell, although he rejects the mark theory,<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> writes of “the -first stage” of settlement: “We know that the land was settled when -clans were powerful, for the new villages bear <i>clan names</i>, not -<i>personal names</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> The whole theory rests on the patronymic -<i>ing</i>, which Kemble crudely treated as proving the existence of a -mark community, wherever it occurs in place-names.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> - -<p>Now the theory that <i>ing</i> implies a clan, that is, a community -united by blood or by the belief in a common descent,<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> may be tested -in two distinct ways. We may either trace its actual use as applied to -individuals or communities; or we may examine the localities in the -names of which it occurs. I propose to do both. The passage usually -adduced to prove the ‘clan’ meaning is the well-known genealogy in the -Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “Cerdic was Elesing, Elesa was Esling, Esla -was Gewising,”<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> etc. Even Mr. Seebohm reluctantly admits, on this -“evidence of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” that <i>ing</i> was used<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span> as -alleged. But it always seemed obvious to me that this passage, so far -from proving the ‘clan’ meaning, actually proved the opposite, namely, -that the patronymic changed with every generation. Again, if we turn -from the Chronicle to the Anglo-Saxon charters, we find <i>inga</i> -normally used to denote the dwellers at a certain place, not the -descendants of a certain man. It is singular that Kemble, although he -was the first to make an exhaustive study of these charters, classed -such names with the other <i>ings</i>, from which they were quite -distinct.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> His enthusiasm for the ‘mark’ carried him away. In -Sussex, we have, as it seems to me, a very excellent illustration; the -name of Angmering, the present form, occupies, as it were, a medial -position between the “Angemare” of Domesday and the “Angmeringatun” of -Alfred’s will. Here, surely, the Angmeringas were those who dwelt at -Angmer, not a ‘clan’ descended from a man bearing that name.</p> - -<p>I will not, however, dwell on this side of the argument, more -especially as I would rather lay stress on the other line of attack. -For this is my distinctive point: I contend that, in studying the -place-names into which <i>ing</i> enters, attention has hitherto -exclusively, or almost exclusively, been devoted to those now -represented by towns or villages. With these it is easy to associate -the idea of a clan settlement. But what are we to make of such cases -as our Sussex Billingham and Tillingham? We shall search for them in -vain in Lewis’ Topographical Dictionary; and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span> yet they are names of -the same status as fully developed villages. As a Sussex antiquary has -observed (though I cannot accept his explanation): “In the names of -many farms we shall likewise find names which also mark whole parishes -in the county.” Canon Taylor has unconsciously recorded, in the -adjoining county of Kent, evidence to the same effect, observing that -“the lone farmhouses in Kent, called Shottington, Wingleton, Godington, -and Appleton, may be regarded as venerable monuments, showing us the -nature of the Saxon colonization of England.”<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> I say that this -evidence is unconscious, for the Canon applies it only to the evolution -of the <i>ton</i>, and seems not to have observed its bearing on that -compound <i>ing</i>, which he, like Kemble, fully accepts as proof of -a clan community. From Shottington and Godington, as from Billingham -and Tillingham, Kemble would have confidently deduced the settlement -of a ‘mark’ or clan community; and yet, when we learn what the places -are, we see that they represent a settlement by households, not by -communities.</p> - -<p>Here, then, is the value of these cases of what we may term arrested -development: they warn us against the rashness of assuming that a -modern or even a mediæval village has been a village from the first. -The village community may be so far from representing the original -settlement as to have been, on the contrary, developed from what was at -first but a farmstead. The whole argument of such scholars as Professor -Earle here and Dr. Andrews in America<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span> is based on the assumption that -the land was settled by communities, each of them sufficiently large to -have a head, whether civil or military. To that supposition such names -as I have mentioned are, I think, fatal.</p> - -<p>Yet another point must be touched on as to this alleged patronymic. -To Kemble, as I have said, it was of small moment what suffix -his ‘marks’ bore. Indeed, those that denoted forest were to him -specially welcome, because he associated the idea of a ‘mark’ with -that of a forest clearing. But we who have seen that such suffixes -as <i>-field</i>, <i>-hurst</i> and <i>-den</i> are distinctive of -those districts untouched by the early settlers cannot recognise such -names, for instance, as the Itchingfield or Billingshurst of Sussex as -denoting village communities. Again, in the Anglo-Saxon charters the -characteristic <i>den</i> of Kent is frequently preceded by <i>ing</i>; -and if these <i>dens</i> were clearly from the context only forest -pastures for swine, we must here also reject the <i>ing</i> as proof -of a clan community. One may also glance in passing at such names as -the “Willingehala” of Essex, now “Willingale,” and ask whether a clan -community is supposed to have settled in a hall?<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> - -<p>I trust that I have now sufficiently shown that even where <i>ing</i> -genuinely enters into the composition of a place-name it is no proof -of settlement by a clan. Kemble looked on the typical ‘mark’ as “a -hundred heads of houses,” which he deemed “not at all an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span> extravagant -supposition.”<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> I think that even at the present day a visit to the -<i>hams</i> and <i>tons</i> of Sussex, and, in some cases, to the -<i>ings</i>, would lead us in practice to the opposite conclusion, and -would throw the gravest doubt on the theory of the village community. I -was trained, like others of my generation, to accept that theory as an -axiomatic truth; but difficult as it is to abandon what one has been so -taught, the solitary manor house, the lonely farm, is a living protest -against it. The village community of the class-room can never have -existed there. On paper it holds its own: <i>solvitur ambulando</i>.</p> - -<p>But the fact that a place bearing a typical clan name may prove to have -been but a single homestead takes us farther than this. <i>Ing</i>, -which Canon Taylor has described as “the most important element which -enters into Anglo-Saxon names,” has been held to denote settlement not -merely by a clan, but by a portion of a tribe bearing, both in England -and abroad, one common name. Kemble insisted strongly upon this,<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> -and is duly followed by Canon Taylor<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> and others. On the same -foundation Mr. Andrew Lang has erected yet another edifice, tracing the -occurrence in scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence -of exogamy among our forefathers. And this ingenious suggestion has -been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span> adopted by Mr. Grant Allen.<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> But the very first instance he -gives, that of the Hemings, will not stand examination.<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p> - -<p>As yet I have been dealing with those ‘clan names’ in which the -presence of the <i>ing</i> is genuine; and I have been urging that -it is not <i>proof</i>, as alleged, of settlement by a clan. I now -pass to those place-names in which the <i>ing</i> is not genuine, but -is merely a corruption. That such names exist has always, of course, -been admitted,<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> but their prevalence has not been sufficiently -recognised. And not only are there large deductions, in consequence, -to be made from the so-called clan names, but even in cases where the -<i>ing</i> is genuine the prefix is often so corrupt that the name of -the clan deduced from it is altogether wrong.</p> - -<p>Let us take some instances in point. Kemble deduced the existence -of the Brightlings (‘Brightlingas’) from Brightling in Sussex and -Brightlingsea in Essex. Nothing, at first sight, could seem clearer. -And yet, on turning to Domesday, we find that the Sussex Brightling -is there entered as Brislinga—suggesting that Somerset Brislington -from which Kemble deduced the Brislings—while Brightlingsea appears -in the Essex Domesday as ‘Brictriceseia,’ and in that of Suffolk -as ‘Brictesceseia,’ from which forms is clearly derived the local -pronunciation ‘Bricklesea.’ So much for the Brightlings. Yet more -striking is the case of an Essex village, Wormingford.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span> Kemble, of -course, detects in it the name ‘Wyrmingas.’ Yet its Domesday name is -Widemondefort,’ obviously derived from ‘Widemond,’ the name of an -individual.<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> Here the corruption is so startling that it is well -to record the transition form ‘Wiremundeford,’ which I find in the -13th century.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> Now, as I have often to point out in the course of -my historical researches, however unpopular it may be to correct the -errors of others, those errors, if uncorrected, lead too often to -fresh ones. Thus, in this case, the ‘Wyrmingas,’ wrongly deduced from -Wormingford, have been claimed by scholars as sons of the ‘worm,’ -and, therefore, as evidence that ‘Totemism’ prevailed among the -Anglo-Saxons. It would take me, I fear, too far afield to discuss the -alleged traces of Totemism; but when we find Mr. Grant Allen asserting -that “the oak has left traces of his descendants at Oakington in -Cambridge” (shire),<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span> one has to point out that this place figures in -Domesday as ‘Hochinton(e)’<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> in no fewer than five entries, although -Kemble derives from it <i>more suo</i> the ‘Æcingas.’ But a few more -instances of erroneous derivation must be given in order to establish -clearly the worthlessness of Kemble’s lists. How simple it seems to -derive, with him, the ‘Storringas’ and ‘Teorringas’ from Storrington, -Sussex, and Tarrington, Herefordshire, respectively. Yet the former, -in Domesday, is ‘Storgetune’ or ‘Storchestune,’ while the latter is -‘Tatintune’ in both its entries. It might be suggested that the error -is that of the Domesday scribe, but in this case I have found the -place entered in several documents of the next century as Tadinton -or Tatinton, thus establishing the accuracy of Domesday. Indeed, in -my experience, the charters of the 12th century prove that Domesday -nomenclature is thoroughly deserving of trust. The climax of Kemble’s -derivations is reached perhaps in Shillingstone, from which Dorset -village he duly deduces the ‘Scyllingas.’ For, as Eyton has shown, -its name was ‘Acford,’ but, from its Domesday tenant, Schelin, it -became known as Ockford Eskelling, Shilling Ockford, and finally, by -a yet bolder corruption, Shillingstone.<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> As if to make matters -worse, Kemble treats ‘Shilling-Okeford’ and ‘Shillingstone’ as two -distinct places. Could anything, one asks, be more unfortunate than -this? Alas, one must answer Yes. The great clan of the ‘Cypingas’ is -found in eight counties: at least so Kemble says.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span> I have tested his -list and discovered that the names which prove the existence of his -clan are Chipping Ongar, Chipping Barnet, Chipping Sodbury, Chipping -Campden, Chipping Wycombe, Chipping Warden, and Chipping Norton. Even -the historical tyro would avoid this wild blunder; he would know that -Chipping was about as much of a clan name as is Cheapside. After this -final example, it can hardly be disputed that Kemble’s lists are merely -a pitfall for the unwary.</p> - -<p>Yet we still follow in his footsteps. Take such a case as that of -Faringdon, which Mr. Grant Allen, we have seen, selected as a typical -instance of the <i>ing</i> patronymic in place-names.<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> If we -turn to Domesday, we find in Berks a ‘Ferendone,’ in Northants a -‘Ferendone’ or ‘Faredone,’ in Notts a ‘Ferendone’ or ‘Farendune,’ in -Hants a ‘Ferendone.’ These names were all the same; and yet they have -become ‘Farndon’ in Notts and Northants, ‘Faringdon’ in Berks, and -‘Farringdon’ in Hants. Farringdon, therefore, is no more a clan name -than is the Essex Parndon, the ‘Perenduna’ of Domesday. But, indeed, -in Essex itself, there is an even better illustration. We learn from -Canon Taylor that “the Thurings, a Visigothic clan, mentioned by -Marcellinus ... are found ... at Thorrington in Essex.” Kemble had -previously described them as “likely to be offshoots of the great -Hermunduric race, the Thyringi or Thoringi, now Thuringians, always -neighbours of the Saxons,<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> and claims the Essex Thorrington”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span> as -their settlement.<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> Now Thorington in the first place was not a -<i>ton</i>, and in the second place had not an <i>ing</i>. Both these -forms are corruptions. In Domesday it occurs twice, and both times -as ‘Tor<i>induna</i>.’ With this we may compare ‘Horn<i>induna</i>,’ -which is the Domesday form of Horndon, and occurs frequently. Therefore -Thorington and Thorndon, like Farringdon and Farndon, were both -originally the same name and destitute alike of <i>ing</i>.</p> - -<p>As to the names ending in <i>ing</i>, with no other suffix, I -prefer, for the present, to reserve my opinion. Kemble’s hypothesis, -however, that they were the parent settlements, and the <i>hams</i> -and <i>tons</i> their filial developments, seems to me to have -little support in the facts of their actual distribution. If in that -distribution there is a feature to be detected, it is, perhaps, that -the <i>ings</i> are found along the foot of the downs. This, at least, -is often observable. Another point deserving of attention is that, in -its French form, <i>igny</i>, this suffix seems as distinctive of the -‘Saxon’ settlement about Bayeux as it is absent in that which is found -in the Boulogne district. But these are only, as it were, sidelights -upon the problem; and this, as I said, is nothing more than a ‘pioneer’ -paper.</p> - -<p>I close with a point that appears to me of no small importance. To -the east of Sussex and the south of Sussex there lay that so-called -Jutish land, the county of Kent. As I pointed out years ago, in my -‘Domesday Studies,’ the land system of Kent is found in the Great -Survey to be essentially distinct from that which prevailed in other -counties. It was not assessed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span> in ‘hides,’ but in ‘solins,’ that is, -the <i>sulungs</i> of the natives, the land of a <i>suhl</i> or plough. -The yokes, or subdivisions, of this unit are also directly connected -with the plough. But the hide and virgate of other counties are, as -I pointed out, not connected in name with the plough.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> Now if we -work through the land charters printed by Professor Earle, we find -that this Domesday distinction can be traced back, clear and sharp, -to the earliest times within their ken. We read in an Anglo-Saxon -charter of “xx swuluncga,” while in Latin charters the normal phrase -is the land of so many ploughs (‘terra trium aratrorum,’ ‘terra decem -aratrorum,’ etc.); we even meet with the phrase, “decem aratrorum juxta -æstimationem provinciæ ejusdem.”<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> In another charter “v aratra” -equates “fifsulung landes.” But in other counties the normal terms, in -these charters, for the land units are “manentes” and “cassati,”<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> -which occur with similar regularity. A cleavage so ancient and so clear -as this, in the vital sphere of land division, points to more than a -separate rule and confirms the tradition of a distinct origin.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span></p> - -<h2>II<br /> -<span class="subhed">Ingelric the Priest and Albert of Lotharingia</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">In my paper on “Regenbald, Priest and Chancellor,”<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> I was able -to trace, by combining the evidence of Domesday and of charters, -the history of a “priest” of Edward the Confessor, who became the -“priest” of his successor also, and held of him rich possessions in -churches and lands. Another churchman who flourished both before and -after the Conquest, and must have enjoyed the favour both of the -Confessor and of the Conqueror, was Ingelric, first dean of the house -of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, whose lands had passed before Domesday to -Count Eustace of Boulogne. Mr. Freeman was interested in Ingelric -as a “commissioner for redemption of lands,” but only knew him as a -layman. Nor indeed is there anything in Domesday to suggest that he -was other. To Mr. W. H. Stevenson belongs the credit of proving that -he was a priest by printing “an old English charter of the Conqueror,” -confirming the foundation of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, in which the -“cujusdam fidelis mei Ingelrici scilicet peticioni adquiescens” is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span> -equated by “æfter Ingelrices bene mines preostes.”<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> It was similarly -as “minan preoste” that William had described Regenbald.</p> - -<p>The charter I shall now deal with was not known to Mr. Stevenson, and -has not, I believe, been printed. It is of real historical interest, -apart from the fact that among its witnesses we find Ingelric “the -priest.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman held that the reconciliation between the Conqueror and -the Abbot of Peterborough—Brand, the Englishman, whose election had -been confirmed, even after the Battle of Hastings, by the ætheling -Eadgar—was one of the earliest events after William’s coronation.<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> -To that episode I do not hesitate to assign a charter entered in the -Peterborough ‘Liber Niger’ belonging to the Society of Antiquaries. It -is a general confirmation of the abbey’s possessions, “petente abbate -Brand,”<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> and is witnessed thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Huic testes affuere: Aldredus Eboracensis archiepiscopus; -Wlwinus Lincoliensis episcopus; Merlesuen vicecomes; Ulf filius -Topi; Willelmus comes; Willelmus Malet; Ingelri[cus] presbyter.</p> -</div> - -<p>Here we have first Ealdred, by whom William had been crowned; then -Wulfwig, bishop of Dorchester, here described as bishop “of Lincoln.” -The mention of Mærleswegen is of special importance, for this great -English noble had been left in charge of the North by Harold on the -eve of the Battle of Hastings, and rose in revolt against William<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span> -in the summer of 1068. Here we have evidence of his presence at -William’s court, when his movements were unknown to Mr. Freeman. We -see, moreover, that he was still sheriff (of Lincolnshire). “Ulf -filius Topi,” who appears in other Peterborough charters, had given -“Mannetorp,” Lincolnshire, and other lands to the abbey.</p> - -<p>It is very remarkable that the Norman witnesses are only entered after -these Englishmen, although the first is “earl William,” in whom we must -see the Conqueror’s friend, William Fitz Osbern, already, apparently, -earl of Hereford. Sufficient attention has hardly been given to -this early creation or to the selection of so distant a county as -Herefordshire for William’s earldom.</p> - -<p>In addition to this charter, there is known to me another, little later -probably, the last witness to which is entered as “Ego Ingelricus ad -hoc impetrandum obnixe studui.” This brings me to the third charter -that I shall deal with in connection with Ingelric. This is the one I -mentioned at the outset as granted by the Conqueror at his request, and -edited with so much care and learning by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. This, in -its stilted, antique form, has much in common with the one preceding, -while its style combines those of the two others. I place the three -together for comparison:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hangingindent">(1) Ego Willelmus dei beneficio rex Anglorum.</p> - -<p class="hangingindent">(2) jure hereditario Anglorum patrie effectus sum Basileus.</p> - -<p class="hangingindent">(3) Ego Willelmus Dei dispositione et consanguinitatis -hereditate Anglorum basileus.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Mr. Freeman looked with suspicion on this third<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span> charter, -which he termed “an alleged charter of William.”<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> His criticism -that, though dated 1068, its list of witnesses closes with the two -papal legates who visited England in 1070, is a perfectly sound one. -Mr. Stevenson ignored this difficulty in his paper; and, on my pointing -it out, still failed to explain the positive “huic constitutioni -interfui” of Cardinal John. Awkward, however, as the difficulty is, -the other attestations are so satisfactory that we must treat these as -subsequent additions rather than reject the charter.</p> - -<p>The remarks which immediately follow are intended only for students -of what is uncouthly known as ‘diplomatic,’ a study hitherto much -neglected in England. In this charter, as printed in Mr. Stevenson’s -paper, there is appended the clause:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Scripta est hec <i>cartula</i> anno ab incarnatione Domini -<span class="allsmcap">MLXVIII</span><sup>o</sup> scilicet secundo anno regni mei.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">A corresponding clause is found in the old English version -of the text which follows it. But in the Latin text the clause is -followed by these words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Peracta vero est hec <i>donacio</i><a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> die Natali Domini; et -postmodum in die Pentecostes confirmata, quando Mathildis conjux -mea ... in reginam ... est consecrata.</p> -</div> - -<p>Mr. Freeman somewhat carelessly confused the two clauses:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The charter (<i>sic</i>) is said to have been granted at the -Christmas feast of 1068 (evidently meaning 1067), and to have -been confirmed at the coronation of the queen at the following -Pentecost (iv. 726).</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">Mr. Stevenson follows him in this confusion, but carries -it much further. Speaking of “supplementary confirmations,” as used in -William’s chancery, he writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>We have one in this very charter, which was executed -(<i>peracta</i>) on Christmas Day, 1068 (<i>i.e.</i> 1067), but -was afterwards confirmed on the occasion of Matilda’s coronation -at Whitsuntide, 1068. If we had the original charter, we should -probably find that the clause relating to the Whitsuntide -confirmation had been added, as in similar continental -instances, on a blank space in the charter. Ingelric was, as we -know from this grant, one of William’s clerks, and he must have -been a man of considerable influence to have obtained a diploma -from a king who was so chary in the granting of diplomata, and -to have, moreover, obtained the execution of it at so important -a ceremony as the king’s coronation, and a confirmation of it at -the queen’s coronation.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In the elaborate footnotes appended to this passage there -are three points to be dealt with.</p> - -<p>The first is “the king’s coronation” as the time when the charter was -executed. Mr. Stevenson writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 724, says that the date of the -charter, Christmas 1068, evidently means 1067, the date of -William’s coronation; etc.... There are good grounds, therefore, -for holding that the witnesses were spectators of William’s -coronation, which gives the charter its greatest historical -importance.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But, as we have seen, it is not the fact that Mr. Freeman -spoke of Christmas 1067 as “the date of William’s coronation.” That -event took place, as all the world knows, at Christmas, 1066, and so -was long previous to this gift and charter. Mr. Stevenson’s error is a -strange one.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span></p> - -<p>The second point is that of the “supplementary confirmation.” Mr. -Stevenson, referring us to the best parallel, writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In the case of the council (or rather <i>placitum</i>) of 1072 -concerning the subjection of York to Canterbury, which, like -the charter under consideration, received a supplementary -ratification, a second text was drawn up for the later action.</p> -</div> - -<p>I here break off to print, for convenience, the parallel clauses in -these documents side by side.</p> - -<table summary="clauses" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">1068.</td> - <td class="ctr">1072.</td> - </tr> - - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Peracta vero est hec donacio die Natalis Domini; et postmodum - in die Pentecostes confirmata quando Mathildis conjux - mea in basilica Sancti Petri Westmonasterii in reginam divino - nutu est consecrata.</td> - <td class="cht1">Ventilata est autem hec causa prius apud Wentanam civitatem, - in Paschali solemnitate, in capella regia que sita est in castello; - postea in villa regia que vocatur Windisor, ubi et finem accepit, - in presentia Regis, episcoporum, abbatum, diversorum ordinum, - qui congregati erant apud curiam in festivitate Pentecostes.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Resuming now Mr. Stevenson’s note on the documents of -1072, at the point where I broke it off, we read:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The originals of both still exist. The first, <i>dated at -Winchester at Whitsuntide</i>,<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> is validated only by the -crosses of William and his queen, the papal legate, both -archbishops and four bishops (Palæographical Society, i. fol. -170). The second ... is dated at Windsor, also at Whitsuntide, -and is attested by additional bishops, and by numerous abbots.</p> -</div> - -<p>As the former document (A.2 of the Canterbury charters, apparently -overlooked till some twenty years ago) could not possibly be “dated -at Winchester at Whitsuntide,” one turns to the text as given by the -Palæographical Society, only to find that these words<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span> are sheer -imagination on Mr. Stevenson’s part. There is nothing of the kind to be -found there. Owing to this incomprehensible error, he has altogether -misunderstood these “supplementary confirmations.” The clauses I have -printed side by side must not be broken up. The earlier, like the -later, is a consistent whole, added at one time.<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a></p> - -<p>When, then, was the “Ingelric” charter actually drawn up? Mr. -Stevenson, following, we have seen, Mr. Freeman’s loose expressions, -tells us that “as the present charter (<i>sic</i>) was <i>peracta</i> -at Christmas, 1067, and <i>confirmata</i> at Whitsuntide, it was -most probably written at the former date.” But it was the “donacio,” -<i>not</i> the “charter,” which was “peracta” at Christmas. The text -only tells us of the <i>charter</i> that it was <i>written</i> “anno -ab incarnacione Domini <span class="allsmcap">MLXVIII</span><sup>o</sup>.” My own view is that the -charter was written not at Christmas, 1067 (which was the date of -the act of gift), but at (or after) Whitsuntide, 1068. I base this -conclusion on the first three witnesses:</p> - -<ul class="smaller"> - <li>Ego Willelmus rex Anglorum, etc.</li> - <li>Ego Mathildis regina consensum præbui.</li> - <li>Ego Ricardus regis filius annui.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-left">Matilda was not “queen” till Whitsuntide, 1068, and was -not even in England at Christmas, 1067. If it be urged that, even -though found in this position,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span> her name was interpolated afterwards, -I reply that the name of William’s eldest son, Robert, would then have -been similarly added. The fact that we find, instead, his second son, -Richard (afterwards killed while hunting in the New Forest) is to me -the strongest possible evidence that Robert had remained behind, as -regent, in Normandy when his mother came over to England to be crowned. -The most probable date, therefore, for the execution of this charter -is that of her coronation at Westminster, 1068. It preserves for us, -in that case, the names of the magnates present on that occasion, -including Hugh bishop of Lisieux, who may well have escorted her from -Normandy, and thus have attended the ceremony.<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>.</p> - -<p>My third point follows as a corollary from this conclusion. For if the -charter was drawn up at Whitsuntide, 1068, not at Christmas, 1067, -there is an end of Mr. Stevenson’s argument and conclusion:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The 25th December in the second year of William’s reign was in -1067 according to our reckoning. But the old system of reckoning -the year “ab Incarnatione” began the year on 25th December. -This was the old English system, and this charter proves that -William’s chancery also commenced the year at the Nativity.<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>The time spent on this important charter has not been wasted. We have -found that one who stands in the front rank of English philologists, -and for whom the same would, doubtless, be claimed in “diplomatic,” may -arrive, in spite of great learning, at quite erroneous conclusions, -simply from inexact treatment of the evidence before him.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span></p> - -<p>A word more on Ingelric. According to Mr. Freeman, “that Ingelric -was an Englishman seems plain.”<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> Mr. Stevenson, however, who has -specially studied the subject of personal names, holds that this was -Frankish. The St. Martin’s charter specially speaks of his having -acquired his lands under Edward the Confessor. Mr. Stevenson, however, -goes further, and states, as we have seen, that it proves him to have -been “one of William’s clerks” (<i>sic</i>); and he argues that “if he -was a chancery clerk, he may have continued the traditions of Edward’s -chancery.” It is remarkable, however, that in an Exeter charter (1069) -to which Mr. Stevenson refers us, he again attests, as in two of the -charters dealt with above, as “Ingelricus <i>presbyter</i>.” I have -chosen, therefore, for this paper the style “Ingelric the priest.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>No question of origin can arise in the case of a third personage, who -also enjoyed the favour both of Edward and of his successor, namely, -Albert of Lotharingia. Known hitherto as having, it is supposed, given -its name to Lothbury—for the “Terra Alberti Loteringi” is mentioned in -the list of London wards <i>temp.</i> Henry I.<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a>—he occurs in many -places on the pages of Domesday. As “Albertus Lothariensis” we find -him a tenant-in-chief in the counties of Herefordshire and Beds (186, -216<i>b</i>2), one of his manors in the latter county having been held -by him, we read, under Edward the Confessor; and he also occurs by -the same style as holding under the latter king at Hatton, Middlesex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span> -(129). But, so far, there is nothing to show that Albert was a cleric.</p> - -<p>It is a Westminster Abbey charter that supplies the missing clue:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Willelmus rex Anglorum Francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis -me dedisse Sancto Petro Westmonasterii et abbati Gilleberto -ecclesias de Roteland et terras pertinentes ad easdem ecclesias -sicut Albertus Lotharingius de me tenebat ipsas ecclesias cum -omnibus pertinentibus ad ipsas. Teste Hugone de Portu.<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Turning to “Roteland” in Domesday, we find that the -last name in the list of its tenants-in-chief is that of “Albertus -clericus,” who holds the churches of Oakham, Hambleton, and St. -Peter’s, Stamford, “cum adjacentibus terris eisdem ecclesiis ... de -rege,” the whole forming a valuable estate. Again, we read under -Stamford: “Albertus unam æcclesiam Sancti Petri cum duabus mansionibus -et dimidia carucata terre quæ jacet in Rotelande in Hemeldune; valet -x sol.” (336 <i>b</i>). Following up this clue, we recognise our man -in the “Albertus clericus” who holds at “Eddintone,” in Surrey (30, -36 <i>b</i>), and doubtless also in “Albertus clericus” who held land -as an under-tenant at Windsor (56 <i>b</i>). Nay, it is difficult to -resist the conclusion that he is also the “Albertus capellanus” who, at -the end of the Kent Domesday (14 <i>b</i>), has a page all to himself -as tenant-in-chief of Newington. Thus in the official index to Domesday -we find Albert entered under “clericus,” “Lothariensis,” “Albertus,” -and (probably) “capellanus,” and yet, in each case, it is the same man. -Regenbald, exactly in the same way, is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span> entered under ‘Cirecestre,’ -‘presbyter’ and ‘Reinbaldus.’ In my ‘Feudal England’ I have similarly -identified (p. 167) “Eustachius,” one tenant-in-chief, with “Eustachius -vicecomes,” another (and with “Eustachius,” an under-tenant),<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> -and “Oger,” a Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief, with Oger “Brito,” a -Lincolnshire one (p. 220). In the Eastern counties the Breton founder -of the house of Helion is similarly indexed under ‘Britto’ for Essex, -‘Herion’ for Suffolk, and ‘Tehelus’ for Norfolk. Small as these points -may seem, their ultimate consequence is great, for they still further -reduce the number of tenants-in-chief. When the history of these -magnates is more fully known, it will probably be found that those -who held <i>in capite per servitium militare</i>, thus excluding, of -course, mere serjeants, etc., were a mere handful compared with the -vast total given by Ellis and others.</p> - -<p>Albert’s Lotharingian origin becomes of special interest now that we -know he was a cleric, for Mr. Freeman devoted a special appendix to -“Lotharingian churchmen under Edward.”<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> Unfortunately he was not -acquainted with the case of Albert. Dr. Stubbs also has dwelt on the -importance, for the church, of “the increased intercourse with the -empire, and especially with Lorraine,” under Edward the Confessor.<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> -He alludes, without committing himself to it, to Mr. Freeman’s somewhat -fanciful theory on the subject.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span></p> - -<h2>III<br /> -<span class="subhed">Anglo-Norman Warfare</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Having devoted special study to the art of war in the Norman period, -including therein the subject of castles, I may have, perhaps, some -claim to deal with the latest work on a topic which requires for -its treatment special knowledge. When a treatise assumes a definite -character, and is likely to be permanently consulted, it calls for -closer criticism than a mere ephemeral production, and on this ground -I would here discuss some points in Mr. Oman’s ‘History of the Art of -War’ (1898).</p> - -<p>Mr. Oman issued, so far back as 1885, ‘The Art of War in the Middle -Ages,’ so that he enjoys, on this subject, the advantage of prolonged -study. In 1894 he contributed to ‘Social England’<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> an article on -“Norman Warfare,” to which I shall also refer. I should add that in his -first (1885), as in his later work (1898), Mr. Oman received the help -of Mr. F. York Powell, now Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford.</p> - -<p>The first point I propose to consider is that of the famous English -“formation” before the Norman Conquest. Mr. Oman originally wrote as -follows:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The tactics of the English axemen were those of the column; -arranged in a compact mass, they could beat off almost any -attack, and hew their way through every obstacle (‘Art of War,’ -p. 24).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This was also the view of the late Professor Freeman, who -wrote of the battle of Maldon that—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The English stood, as at Senlac, in the array common to them -and their enemies—a strong line, or rather wedge of infantry, -forming a wall with their shields.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">At the battle of Hastings (“Senlac”) itself he tells us—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on -foot in the close array of the shield wall.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">They were ranged, he held, “closely together in the -thick array of the shield wall.” He had well observed that “the Norman -writers were specially struck with the close array of the English,” and -had elsewhere spoken of “the close array of the battle-axe men,” and of -“the English house-carls with their ... huge battle axes,” accustomed -to fight in “the close array of the shield wall.”<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> - -<p>To this formation, it is necessary to observe, the term <i>testudo</i> -was applied. At the battle of Ashdown, Freeman wrote:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Asser calls it a <i>testudo</i> or tortoise. This is the shield -wall, the famous tactic of the English and Danes. We shall hear -of it in all the great battles down to the end.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Florence adopts the same word in describing the formation -of the rival hosts on that occasion:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Pagani in duas se turmas dividentes, æquali <i>testudine</i> -bellum parant (i. 83).</p> - -<p>Ælfred ... Christianas copias contra hostiles exercitus ... -dirigens ... <i>testudine</i> ordinabiliter condensata (i. 84).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">So, too, at the battle of Ethandun:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Ubi contra Paganorum exercitum universum cum densa -<i>testudine</i> atrociter belligerans (i. 96).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Again, in 1052:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Pedestris exercitus ... spissam terribilemque fecit -<i>testudinem</i>.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This is an exact description of the host that faced the -Normans, fourteen years later, on the hill of Battle. As William of -Malmesbury describes it:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Pedites omnes cum bipennibus, conserta ante se <i>scutorum -testudine</i>, impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt.<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>“It is a pleasure,” as I wrote, “to find myself here in complete -agreement with Mr. Freeman.”<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> Mr. Freeman saw in this passage “the -array of the shield wall,”<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> and aptly compared Abbot Æthelred’s -description of the English array at the Battle of the Standard: -“Scutis scuta junguntur, lateribus latera conseruntur.”<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> With Mr. -Oman also I was no less pleased to find myself in perfect agreement. -I myself should speak, as he does, of the “tactics of the phalanx of -axemen.”<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> It is particularly interesting to read in his latest work -(p. 57), that at Zülpich (<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 612), according to Fredegarius:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>So great was the press when the hostile masses -[<i>phalanges</i>] met and strove against each other, that the -bodies of the slain could not fall to the ground, but the dead -stood upright wedged among the living.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">For precisely the same phenomenon is described at the -Battle of Hastings. William of Poitiers says of the English:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Ob nimiam densitatem eorum labi vix potuerunt interfecti.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">And Bishop Guy:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Spiritibus nequeunt frustrata cadavera sterni,</div> - <div>Nec cedunt vivis corpora militibus.</div> - <div>Omne cadaver enim, vita licet evacuatum,</div> - <div>Stat velut illæsum, possidet atque locum.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">There is nothing strange in this parallel between Zülpich -and Hastings, for Mr. Oman observes that:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In their weapons and their manner of fighting, the bands of -Angles, Jutes, and Saxons who overran Britain were more nearly -similar to the Franks than to the German tribes who wandered -south.<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>At Poictiers “the Franks fought, as they had done two hundred years -before at Casilinum, in one solid mass,”<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> for their tactics were “to -advance in a deep column or wedge.”<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> We have seen that the “column” -of English axemen similarly fought, according to Mr. Oman, “arranged in -a compact mass.”</p> - -<p>Where the agreement is so complete, I need not labour the point -further. In my ‘Feudal England’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span> (pp. 354–8), I showed that Mr. -Archer’s views on the subject could not stand for a moment against -those of Mr. Freeman and Mr. Oman, to which they were directly opposed.</p> - -<p>In ‘Social England’—just as Mr. Freeman had written that both the -English and the Danes stood as a “wedge of infantry forming a wall with -their shields”<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a>—Mr. Oman writes of their “wedge or column.” It is -only in his later work that he suddenly shifts his ground, and flatly -contradicts his own words:</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">1894.</td> - <td class="ctr">1898.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">When Dane had fought Englishman, the battle had always - been between <i>serried bodies</i><a href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> of - foot soldiery, meeting fairly face to face <i>in the wedge</i> or column, - with its shield wall of warriors standing elbow to elbow, etc. - (‘Social England,’ p. 299).</td> - <td class="cht1">The Danes ... formed their shield wall.... The - shield wall (testudo, as Asser pedantically calls it) is <i>of course - not a wedged mass</i>,<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> but only a - line of shielded warriors<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> (History - of the Art of War,’ p. 99).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>The writer’s “of course” is delightful.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>This contradiction of himself, however, is as nothing compared with -that to which we are now coming.</p> - -<p>In his first work Mr. Oman wrote under Mr. Freeman’s influence. The -Normans, he held, at the Battle of Hastings, were confronted by -“impregnable palisades.” Nine years later, in his second description -of the battle, he substituted for these “impregnable palisades” an -“impenetrable shield wall.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span></p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">1885.</td> - <td class="ctr">1894.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">The Norman knights, if unsupported by their light infantry, - <i>might have surged for ever around the</i> <span class="allsmcap">IMPREGNABLE PALISADES</span>. - The archers, if unsupported by the knights, could easily have been - driven off the field by a general charge. United, however, by - the skilled tactics of William, the two divisions of the invading - army won the day (‘Art of War,’ p. 25).</td> - <td class="cht1">His archers, if unsupported by cavalry, might have been driven - off the field by a single charge; his cavalry, if unsupported by - archers, <i>might have surged for ever around the</i> <span class="allsmcap">IMPENETRABLE - SHIELD WALL</span> of the English. But by combining the two armies (<i>sic</i>) - with perfect skill, he won his crowning victory (‘Social England,’ p. 299).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>The faithful <i>réchauffé</i> of his former narrative only renders -the more significant Mr. Oman’s change of “impregnable palisades” to -“impenetrable shield wall.” For what had happened in the meanwhile -to account for this change being made? In July, 1892, there had -appeared in the ‘Quarterly Review’ my well-known article on “Professor -Freeman,” in which I had maintained that the English defence consisted, -<i>not</i> of impregnable “palisades,” but only of an impenetrable -“shield wall.” On the furious and famous controversy upon this topic -which followed, it is quite unnecessary to dwell. Mr. Oman, we have -seen himself adopted the view I had advanced, and not, I hasten to -add, on this point alone, for with his whole description of the -battle, as given in ‘Social England,’ I am in complete agreement. The -“shield wall” he mentions twice.<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> Of “palisades,” intrenchments, or -breastworks there is not a word.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span></p> - -<p>And yet Mr. Oman, now, is not ashamed to write:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>I fear that I must plead that I was never converted. This being -so, Mr. Round cannot prove that I was.<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>What is the explanation of Mr. Oman’s statement? Simply that he has -again changed his view; and having first adopted that of Mr. Freeman, -and then abandoned it to adopt my own, he now, in turn, abandons -both, and advances a third (or fourth) at variance with both alike! -His Norman knights are still “surging”; but they “surge” against an -obstacle which has once more changed its character:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The knights, if unsupported by the bowmen, might have surged for -ever against the <i>impregnable breastworks</i>. The archers, -unsupported by the knights, could easily have been driven off -the field by a general charge. United by the skilful hand of -William, they were invincible (‘History of the Art of War,’ p. -164).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">What then were these “impregnable breastworks” which now -make their appearance in our old familiar passage? They are described -on page 154, where we read that “we must not think ... of massive -palisading:<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> they were merely</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">wattled hurdles ... intended, perhaps, more as a cover against -missiles than as a solid protection against the horsemen, for -they can have been but hastily constructed things, put together -in a few hours by wearied men.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Let us place, side by side, Mr. Oman’s own words in this -his latest work:</p> - -<table summary="words" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">The knights, if unsupported by the bowmen, might have - surged for ever against the impregnable breastworks (p. 164).</td> - <td class="cht1">[The English defences] constituted no impregnable fortress, - but a slight earthwork, not wholly impassable to horsemen (p. 154).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">That they were, to say the least, “not wholly impassable” -is evident from the writer’s own description (p. 159) of the Norman -knights’ first charge “against the long front of the breastworks, -which, in many places, they must have swept down by their mere -impetus.” Nay, “before the two armies met hand to hand,” as Mr. Freeman -observes,<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> a single horseman—“a minstrel named Taillefer,” as -Mr. Oman terms him—“burst right through the breastwork and into the -English line” (p. 158).<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> Such, on Mr. Oman’s own showing, were his -so-called “impregnable breastworks” (p. 164). A single horseman could -ride through them!</p> - -<p>We see then that, in this his latest work, he not only adopts yet -another view, but cannot adopt it consistently even when he does.</p> - -<p>To me there is nothing strange in all this shift and shuffle. It has -distinguished each of my opponents<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span> on this subject from the first. -Not only are they all at variance with one another: they are also -at variance with themselves. Alone my own theory remains unchanged -throughout. The English faced their foes that day in “the close array -of the shield wall.” Other defences they had none.</p> - -<p>Mr. Oman has actually advanced four theories in succession:</p> - -<p>(1) “The impregnable palisades.”<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></p> - -<p>(2) “The impenetrable shield wall.”<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p> - -<p>(3) “An <i>abattis</i> of some sort.”<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p> - -<p>(4) “Wattled hurdles.”<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -<p class="p-left">The third of these made its appearance after his -description in ‘Social England.’ “I still hold,” Mr. Oman wrote, “to -the belief that there was an <i>abattis</i> of some sort in front of -Harold’s line.”</p> - -<p>But how can he “still” hold to a belief which he has never expressed -before or since? For neither the first, second, or fourth of -the defences he gives above can by any possibility describe an -<i>abattis</i>. The New English Dictionary describes an <i>abattis</i> -as</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">a defence constructed by placing felled trees lengthwise, one -over the other, with their branches towards the enemy’s line.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The ‘Encyclopædia Britannica’ gives us a similar -description, speaking of this defence as constructed of “felled trees -lengthwise ... the stems inwards.”<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> One is driven to suppose that -Mr. Oman<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span> is quite unable to understand what an <i>abattis</i> really -is.</p> - -<p>We have now seen that the writer has actually given in succession four -entirely different descriptions of the defences of the English front, -while he has not the candour to confess that he has ever changed his -mind.</p> - -<p>At this I am not in the least surprised. As I have observed in ‘Feudal -England,’ p. 342:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>As for the defenders of the ‘palisade,’ they cannot even agree -among themselves as to what it really was. Mr. Archer produces -a new explanation only to throw it over almost as soon as it is -produced. One seeks to know for certain what one is expected to -deal with; but, so far as it is possible to learn, nobody can -tell one. There is only a succession of dissolving views, and -one is left to deal with a nebulous hypothesis.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Even since these words were published, Mr. Oman has -produced his fourth explanation, and has produced it in conjunction -with Mr. Archer, who had previously enriched this series of -explanations by two further ones of his own. In one of them the -“fenestres,” which Wace makes the principal ingredient of the palisade, -are rendered by Mr. Archer “windows.”<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> In another he describes the -English defence as “a structure of interwoven shields and stakes,” -“shields set in the ground and supported by a palisade of stakes,” a -defence into which “actual shields have been built.”<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> It is only -necessary to add that Mr. Oman, who acknowledges here his “indebtedness -to Mr. T. A. Archer,”<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> tacitly, but absolutely,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span> rejects both these -phantasies, together with Mr. Archer’s great theory that the English -axemen were “shieldless” at the battle,<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> and “could not or did -not form the shield wall.”<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> All this Mr. Oman rejects, though, of -course, he is careful not to say so; just as Mr. Archer, before him, -had rejected views of Mr. Freeman, while professing to defend his -account of the battle against me.<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have now shown that my opponents are still as unable as ever to agree -among themselves on the subject of the alleged English defence, and -that as to Mr. Oman, he contradicts himself, not only in successive -works, but even in a single chapter. A little <i>clique</i> of Oxford -historians, mortified at my crushing <i>exposé</i> of Mr. Freeman’s -vaunted accuracy, have endeavoured, without scruple, and with almost -unconcealed anger, to silence me at any cost. And they cannot even wait -until they have agreed among themselves.</p> - -<p>How entirely impotent they are to stay the progress of the truth -is shown by the fact that a German writer, Dr. Spatz, who has -independently examined the authorities and the ground, goes even -farther than myself in rejecting Mr. Freeman’s narrative, and -especially the palisade.<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Sir James Ramsay also, on similarly -independent investigation, has been driven to the same conclusion, -which his recently published<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span> work embodies. Does Mr. Oman refer to Dr. -Spatz, whose work is a well-known one? No, he coolly states that “the -whole balance of learned opinion” is against me on this matter,<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> -although, as we have seen, neither he nor Mr. Archer accepts Mr. -Freeman’s narrative,<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> while their own recorded views hopelessly -differ (see pp. 43, 49).</p> - -<p>Again, Mr. Oman writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>I do not see what should have induced him [Wace] to bring the -wattled barrier into his narrative, unless it existed in the -tale of the fight as it had been told him, etc. (p. 153).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">And yet he made use of my ‘Feudal England,’ in which -I set forth prominently (pp. 409–416), as I had previously done -in the ‘English Historical Review’ (viii. 677 <i>et seq.</i>; ix. -237), my theory that the passage in Wace “is nothing but a metrical, -elaborate, and somewhat confused paraphrase of the words of William -of Malmesbury,” and that he was clearly misled by the words “conserta -... testudine,” which he did not understand. Mr. Archer discussed this -theory, but did not venture to reject it (Ibid.). Mr. Oman finds it -safer to ignore it, and to profess that he cannot imagine where Wace -got the idea from, except from oral tradition.</p> - -<p>It is the same with the arrangement of the English host. In his latest -work, Mr. Oman states, as a matter<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span> of fact, that the “house carles” -formed the centre, and that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>the fyrd, divided no doubt according to its shires, was ranged -on either flank (p. 155).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">There is no authority whatever for this view in any -account of the battle, and it is wholly at variance with Mr. Oman’s own -view, as stated in his earlier works.</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Backed (<i>sic</i>) by the disorderly masses of the fyrd, and by the thegns - of the home counties, the house carles of King Harold - stood (‘Art of War,’ p. 24).</td> - <td class="cht1">There the house carles of King Harold, backed (<i>sic</i>) by the thegnhood - of all southern England and the disorderly masses of the - fyrd of the home counties, drew themselves out (‘Social England,’ p. 229).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">In perfect agreement with these passages, I hold that -“the well-armed house carles,” as Mr. Oman terms them, formed the -English front, and were “backed” by the rest of the host.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> Mr. -Oman’s later view involves a tactical absurdity, as I have maintained -throughout.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> But here again Mr. Oman finds it the safest plan to -ignore an argument he cannot face.</p> - -<p>Let me, however, part from his narrative of the great struggle with -an expression of honest satisfaction that, even in his latest work, -he treats “the English host” as ranged “in one great solid mass” -(p. 154). This is the essential point on which I have insisted -throughout.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> “No feature of the great battle is more absolutely -beyond dispute”;<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> and it absolutely cuts the ground from under Mr. -Archer’s feet.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span></p> - -<p>I may add that the denseness of the English host is similarly grasped -by Sir James Ramsay, who has made an independent examination of the -battle, and has set forth his interesting and original conclusions in -his recently-published ‘Foundations of England.’ The ground plan of -the battle in his work should be carefully compared with that which is -found in Mr. Freeman’s History. For the two differ so hopelessly that -the wholly conjectural character of Mr. Freeman’s views on the matter -will at once be vividly shown. The bold conclusion of Sir James Ramsay -that the English host held only the little plateau at the summit of the -Battle hill, is at least in harmony with their dense array, and is very -possibly correct.<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I now turn from battles to castles—those castles which played so -prominent a part in Anglo-Norman warfare.</p> - -<p>Let us first glance at the moated mound, and then at the rectangular -keep. I do not desire, on the moated mound, to commit myself to all -Mr. Clark’s views; but practical archæologists, I need scarcely say, -are aware that the outer works of these most interesting strongholds -were normally of horseshoe or crescent form, the mound being “placed -on one side of an appended area.”<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> Mr. Oman, while acknowledging<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span> -in his book, and in the columns of the ‘Athenæum,’ his indebtedness -to Mr. Clark’s “admirable account of the topographical details of -English castles,” describes the old English burhs as “stake and foss -in concentric rings enclosing water-girt mounds” (p. 111). I pointed -out in the ‘Athenæum’<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> that “Mr. Clark, who did more than any one -for our knowledge of these burhs, was careful to explain,” in his -plans,<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> that their outer defences were not concentric, as Mr. Oman -asserts.</p> - -<p>Determined never to admit a mistake, Mr. Oman retorted:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Of course, I am quite aware that in many burhs the outer works -are not purely concentric; but the concentric form is the more -typical. An admirable example of such a stronghold may be -seen on p. 21 of Mr. Clark’s book, where he gives the plan of -Edward’s burh of Towcester built in 921.<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Yet, in dealing with the Norman shell keeps on these “old -palisaded mounds,” Mr. Oman actually, in his own book, admits, of their -“outer defences,” that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">as a general rule, the keep lies <i>not in the middle of the -space</i>, but at one end of it, or set in the walls ... as a -general rule the keep stands at one end of the enclosed space, -<i>not in its midst</i>.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This is the feature of these striking works for which I -myself contended, and which, on that account, Mr. Oman at once denied.</p> - -<p>As to the Towcester burh, I will place side by side my criticism and -Mr. Oman’s reply:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span></p> - -<table summary="criticisms" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Mr. Round.</span></td> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Mr. Oman.</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">A comparison of the plan on p. 21 with those on pp. 24, 25 - will show at once that the former is that of the “water-girt mound” - (as Mr. Oman terms it) alone, and contains no “outer works,” - concentric or other.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">He states that Towcester burh, as drawn on p. 21 of Mr. - Clark’s Mediæval Military Architecture, is ‘a water-girt mound - alone, with no outer works, concentric or other.’... Apparently - Mr. Round cannot read the simplest military sketch; in - this map there are clear indications of outer lines other than - the mere water.... In short, Mr. Round is writing nonsense, - and I strongly suspect that he knows it.<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Any archæologist comparing the plans will see at once -that my statement is correct, and that the plan (compare the section) -shows absolutely nothing beyond the actual ditch of the mound. I -offered to submit the question to Mr. St. John Hope’s decision,<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> -but Mr. Oman would submit it to no one but his friend and coadjutor, -Mr. York Powell, who is not known as an authority on these works, and -who is hostile to myself because I exposed Mr. Freeman!<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></p> - -<p>Having now shown that, in his own words, Mr. Oman “cannot read the -simplest military sketch,” I pass to the siege of Rochester Castle, -famous for its rectangular keep, in 1264. This was an event that -deserves attention in a ‘History of the Art of War,’ for John had -breached the keep by mining half a century before, and the stately -structure had now to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span> stand an energetic siege at the hands of Simon de -Montfort. A striking passage in Rishanger’s Chronicle tells us that, -advancing from London,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">comes autem de Leycestria, vir in omnibus circumspectus, -machinas et alia ad expugnationem castri necessaria secum a -civitate Londoniarum per aquam et per terram transvehi præcepit, -quibus inclusos vehementer impugnavit, nec eos indulgere quieti -permisit; exemplum relinquens Anglicis qualiter circa castrorum -assultationes agendum sit qui penitus hujusmodi diebus illis -fuerant ignari.<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The barons promptly stormed the ‘outer bailey’ of the -castle (April 19),<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> and strove desperately to gain the keep, till, -a week later, they fled suddenly at the news of the king’s advance -on London.<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> But so vigorous were the siege operations by attack, -battery, and mining, that they were on the point of succeeding when -they had to raise the siege.<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p> - -<p>Surely a ‘History of the Art of War’ should mention the above -remarkable allusion to Simon’s mastery of siege operations, and to his -teaching the English, who were then ignorant of the subject. But all -that Mr. Oman tells us is that—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">the massive strength of Gundulf’s Norman keep was too much for -such siege appliances as the earl could employ. The garrison -under John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, held their own -without difficulty (p. 416).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">We have seen that, on the contrary, the keep was on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span> -the point of being taken. But what are we to say to the words, -“<i>Gundulf’s</i> Norman keep”? “It was long the custom,” as Mr. Clark -wrote, “to attribute this keep to Gundulf, making it contemporaneous, -or nearly so, with the Tower of London”; but, more than thirty -years ago, it was shown by Mr. Hartshorne (in the ‘Archæological -Journal’) that it was built in later days under William of Corbeuil -(1126–1136).<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> No one, in the present state of our knowledge, -could suppose that Gundulf was its builder; and it is obvious that a -writer who does must have yet everything to learn on Norman military -architecture.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I must lastly deal as briefly as possible with the subject of knight -service. The view of modern historians has been that this was gradually -evolved during the Norman period out of a pre-conquestual obligation -to provide one armed man for every five hides held. As against this -I have advanced the theory<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> that the whole arrangement was -introduced <i>de novo</i> at the Conquest, when the Conqueror assessed -the fiefs he granted in terms of <i>the five-knight unit irrespective -of hidation</i>. Put in a less technical form my theory is that the -Conqueror called on the holder of every considerable fief to furnish -a contingent of five knights, or some multiple of five, to the feudal -host.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span> And this he did arbitrarily, without reckoning the ‘hides’ -that might be contained in the fief. Further, by the <i>argumentum -ad absurdum</i>, I showed that if every five hides had to provide a -knight, there would be nothing, or less than nothing, left for the -tenant-in-chief.<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> It was of this new theory that Professors Pollock -and Maitland observe, in their history of English Law (i. 238–9), that -they regard it “as having been proved by Mr. Round’s convincing papers.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Oman, however, leans to the now exploded theory, and holds that -under Norman rule “the old notion that the five hides must provide -a fully armed man was remembered;”<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> and that though “some lay -tenants-in-chief” got off easily, “the majority were obliged to supply -their proper contingent.”<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> He then proceeds:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It has been clearly shown of late, by an eminent inquirer into -early English antiquities, that the hidage of the townships was -very roughly assessed, and that the compilers of Domesday Book -incline towards round numbers.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Now apart from the fact that this “eminent inquirer,” -my friend Professor Maitland to wit, gives me full credit for having -been first in the field<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a>—a fact which Mr. Oman, with my book -before him, of course carefully ignores—his words show that he cannot -understand the simplest historical theory. Professor Maitland and -I have dwelt on the antiquity of this assessment, with which “the -compilers of Domesday Book” had no more to do than Mr. Oman himself, -and which indeed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span> the compilation of that book has almost utterly -obscured.</p> - -<p>From the fact of the five-hide unit Mr. Oman argues “that there was -little difficulty in apportioning the military service due from the -tenants-in-chief who owned them,”<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> though such apportionment, as I -have shown, would result in an actual absurdity.<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> Indeed, Mr. Oman -himself observes that the tenant-in-chief, to discharge his obligation, -“might distribute the bulk of his estate in lots roughly averaging five -hides to subtenants, who would discharge the service for him,”<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> -although a moment’s consideration will show that this process would -absorb not “the bulk,” but the whole of his estate.</p> - -<p>But all this is insignificant by the side of Mr. Oman’s double error on -the <i>vetus feoffamentum</i>. This begins on p. 359, which is headed -“The old enfeoffment,’” and which describes the distribution of fiefs -by William among the tenants-in-chief. On the next page he writes of -“the knights of ‘the old enfeoffment,’ as William’s arrangement was -entitled,” and proceeds to vouch my ‘Feudal England’ as his authority -for this statement! On the same page we read of the landholder’s -“<i>servitium debitum</i> according to the assessment of the <i>vetus -feoffamentum</i> of the Conqueror”; and further learn that Henry II.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">demanded a statement as to the number of knights whom each -tenant-in-chief owed as subtenants, how many were under the -‘old enfeoffment’ of William I., and how many of more recent -establishment.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">We also read that—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">the importance of King Henry’s inquest of 1166 was twofold. It -not only gave him the information that he required as to the -proper maintenance of the <i>debitum servitium</i> due under the -‘old enfeoffment’ of the Conqueror, but showed him how many more -knights had been planted out (<i>sic</i>) since that assessment -(p. 363).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Again, on page 364 we read of “the ‘old enfeoffment’ of -the eleventh century,” and the phrase (which Mr. Oman quite properly -places within quotation marks) occurs in at least three other passages.</p> - -<p>It is quite evident that Mr. Oman imagines the <i>vetus -feoffamentum</i> to be (1) the original distribution by the Conqueror -(2) among the tenants-in-chief. Both ideas are absolutely wrong. For -(1) it had nothing to do with “William’s arrangement”—which determined -the <i>servitium debitum</i>, a very different matter; and (2) it -referred to the <i>sub</i>-enfeoffment of knights by tenants-in-chief. -The dividing line between the “old” and the “new” feoffments, was the -death of Henry I. in 1135. All fees existing at that date were of the -<i>antiquum feoffamentum</i>; all fees created subsequently were of the -<i>novum feoffamentum</i>. This essential date is nowhere given by Mr. -Oman, who evidently imagined that the latter were those “of more recent -establishment” than “the old enfeoffment of William I.”</p> - -<p>The frightful confusion into which Mr. Oman has been led by his double -blunder is shown by his own selected instance, the <i>carta</i> of -Roger de Berkeley in 1166. According to him, “Roger de Berkeley owed -(<i>sic</i>) two knights and a half on the old enfeoffment.”<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> Two -distinct things are here hopelessly confused.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span></p> - -<p>(1) Roger “owed” a <i>servitium debitum</i> (not of 2½, but) of 7½ -knights to the Crown; and his fief paid scutage<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> accordingly in -1168, 1172, and 1190.</p> - -<p>(2) Roger “has” two and a half knights enfeoffed under the old -feoffment<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> (that is, whose fiefs existed in 1135), the balance -of his <i>servitium debitum</i> being, therefore, chargeable on his -demesne,<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> as no knights had been enfeoffed since 1135.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to understand how the writer can have erred so -grievously, for it was fully recognised by Dr. Stubbs and by myself -(‘Feudal England,’ pp. 237–239) that 1135 was the dividing point.<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> -It may be as well to impress on antiquaries that fees “de antiquo -feoffamento” were fees which had been in existence in 1135, at the -death of Henry I., just as tenures, in Domesday Book, ‘T.R.E.,’ were -those which had existed in 1066, at the death of Edward; for with these -two formulas they will frequently meet. It is the “servitium debitum,” -not the “antiquum feoffamentum,” which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span> “runs back,” as Mr. Oman -expresses it, to the Conquest.</p> - -<p>The result of his confusion is that his account of the origins (in -England) of knight service is not only gravely erroneous, but curiously -topsy-turvy. This is scarcely wonderful when we find on page 365 that -he is hopelessly confused about knights and serjeants, not having -grasped the elementary distinction between tenure by serjeanty and -tenure by knight service. From what I have seen of the author’s -account of the battle of Bannockburn, his errors, I imagine, are by -no means restricted to the subjects I have here discussed. A curious -combination of confidence and unwillingness to admit his mistakes, with -a haste or confusion of thought that leads him into grievous error, -is responsible, it would seem, for those misconceptions which render -untrustworthy, as it stands, his ‘History of the Art of War.’</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span></p> - -<h2>IV<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Origin of the Exchequer</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Historians have rivalled one another in their witness to the -extraordinary interest and importance of the twelfth-century Exchequer. -“The whole framework of society,” writes the Bishop of Oxford, “may be -said to have passed annually under its review.... The regular action -of the central power of the kingdom becomes known to us first in -the proceedings of the Exchequer.” Gneist insists on “its paramount -importance” while “finance is the centre of all government”; and in -her brilliant monograph on Henry the Second, Mrs. Green asserts “that -the study of the Exchequer is in effect the key to English history at -this time.... It was the fount of English law and English freedom.” -One can, therefore, understand Mr. Hall’s enthusiasm for “the most -characteristic of all our national institutions ... the stock from -which the several branches of the administration originally sprang.” -Nor does this study appeal to us only on account of its importance. -A glamour, picturesque, sentimental it may be, and yet dazzling in -its splendour, surrounds an institution possessing so immemorial an -antiquity that “Barons of the Exchequer” meet us alike in the days -of our Norman kings and in those of Queen Victoria. Its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span> “tellers,” -at least coeval with the Conquest, were only finally abolished some -sixty years ago, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is believed to -represent that “clericus cancellarii” whose seat at the Exchequer of -the second Henry was close to that of the official ancestor of the -present secretary to the Treasury. Yet, older than these, older even -than the very name of the Exchequer, was its wondrous system of wooden -tallies, that hieroglyphic method of account which carries us back to a -distant past, but which, Sir John Lubbock has observed, was “actually -in use at the Exchequer until the year 1824.” Of all survivals of an -archaic age this was, probably, the most marvellous; it is not easy -to realize that even in the present century English officials were -keeping their accounts with pieces of wood which “had attained the -dimensions, and presented somewhat the appearance, of one of the wooden -swords of the South Sea Islanders.” It was an almost tragic feature -in the passing of “the old order” that when these antique relics were -finally committed to the flames, there perished, in the conflagration -said to have been thus caused, that Palace of Parliament which, like -themselves, had lingered on to witness the birth of the era of Reform.</p> - -<p>But what, it may be asked, was the Exchequer, and why was it so named? -The earliest answer, it would seem, is that of William Fitz Stephen, -who, in his biography of Becket, tells us that, in 1164, John the -Marshal was in London, officially engaged “at the quadrangular table, -which, from its counters (<i>calculis</i>) of two colours, is commonly -called the Exchequer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span> (<i>scaccarium</i>), but which is rather the -king’s table for white money (<i>nummis albicoloribus</i>), where -also are held the king’s pleas of the Crown.”<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> The passage is -not particularly clear, but I quote it because it is not, I believe, -mentioned by Mr. Hall,<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> and because William Fitz Stephen knew -his London well. The questions I have asked above are those which -avowedly are answered in the first chapter of the famous ‘Dialogus -de Scaccario’ (<i>circ.</i> 1178). I need not, however, repeat in -detail the explanations there given, for they should be familiar from -the works of Dr. Stubbs and of every writer on the subject. Suffice -it to say that while, in shape, the ‘Exchequer’, with its ledge, as -Mr. Hall observes, was not unlike a billiard table, “it derived its -name from the chequered cloth” which, says Dr. Stubbs, covered it, -and which gave it a resemblance to a chess board (<i>scaccarium</i>). -Antiquaries have questioned this, as they will question everything; but -the fact remains that the symbol of the Exchequer, of which types have -been depicted by Mr. Hall, is that which swings and creaks before the -wayside ‘chequers,’ which once, in azure and gold, blazed upon the hill -of Lewes, and which still is proudly quartered by the Earl Marshal of -England.</p> - -<p>In the present paper I propose to consider the origin and development -of the institution, and to examine critically some of the statements in -the famous ‘Dialogus de Scaccario,’ of which the authority has hitherto -been accepted almost without question.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span></p> - -<p>It is alleged that a cruel hoax was perpetrated on the Royal Society by -that ‘merry monarch’ Charles II., who called on its members to account -for a phenomenon which existed only in his own imagination. Antiquaries -and historians have, with similar success, been hoaxed by Richard the -son of Nigel, who stated as a fact in his ‘Dialogue on the Exchequer,’ -that there is no mention of a ‘blanch’ ferm to be found in Domesday -Book. Richard proceeded to infer from this that those who spoke of -‘blanch’ ferm existing before the Conquest must be mistaken.<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p> - -<p>Dr. Stubbs actually accepts the statement that “the blanch-ferm is not -mentioned in Domesday,” but declares that Stapleton, in his well-known -argument,<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> has clearly shown it to have had “its origin in a -state of things that did not exist in Normandy, and was ‘consequent -upon the monetary system of the Anglo-Saxons.’ The argument,” he -writes, “is very technical, but quite conclusive.” Sir James Ramsay -also, though writing as a specialist on finance, contents himself -with citing Stapleton, through Stubbs, and with adding a reference to -“white silver” in the Laws of Ælfred,<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> and ignores the evidence in -Domesday Book.</p> - -<p>Now the index to the Government edition of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span> Domesday is a very -imperfect production, but we need travel no farther than its pages to -discover that there is no difficulty to solve; for the “alba firma” is -duly entered under an Isle of Wight manor (i. 39 <i>b</i>). Moreover, -we read on the same folio of “lx solidos albos” and “xii libras -blancas” in a way that suggests the identity of the two descriptions. -But, further, we find, scattered over Domesday, ‘Libræ albæ,’ ‘blancæ,’ -and ‘candidæ,’ together with ‘libræ de albis denariis’ or ‘de candidis -denariis,’ and ‘libræ alborum nummorum’ or ‘candidorum nummorum.’ The -‘blanch’ system, therefore, was already quite familiar. This, however, -is not all. On the folio mentioned above (i. 39 <i>b</i>) we read of -another manor: “T. R. E. xxv lib. ad pensum et arsuram.” This can only -refer to that payment in weighed and assayed money, the method of which -is described in the ‘Dialogue’ under ‘Quid ad militem argentarium’ and -‘Quid ad fusorem’ (I. vi.). All this elaborate system, therefore, must -have been already in operation before the Conquest.</p> - -<p>But the ‘Dialogue’ asserts in its next and very remarkable chapter—“A -quibus vel ad quid instituta fuerit argenti examinatio”—that this -system was first introduced by the famous Roger, bishop of Salisbury, -the writer’s great-uncle, after he had sat at the Exchequer for some -years, and had discovered the need of introducing it.<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> Between -this statement and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span> evidence of Domesday the contradiction is so -absolute that a grave question at once arises as to the value of the -writer’s assertions on the early Norman period. Like the men of his -time, he revelled in texts, and loved to drag them in on every possible -occasion. One is, therefore, only following his example in suggesting -that his guiding principle was, “I magnify my office.” The greatness -and the privileges of a seat at the Exchequer were ever present in his -mind. But to this he added another principle, for which insufficient -allowance, perhaps, has hitherto been made. And this was, ‘I magnify -my house.’ Nor can one blame the worthy treasurer for dwelling on his -family’s achievements and exalting his father and his great-uncle as -the true pillars of the Exchequer. He was perfectly justified in doing -this; but historians should have been on their guard when he claims for -Bishop Roger the introduction of a system which Domesday Book shows us -as already in general operation.<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> - -<p>Enlightened by this discovery, we can more hardily approach a statement -by the writer in the same chapter, which has been very widely repeated. -One need only mention its acceptance by such specialists as Stapleton, -in his work on the Norman Exchequer, and Mr. Hubert Hall, who, in his -work on the ‘Antiquities and Curiosities of the Exchequer,’ refers to -it four times.<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> He first tells us that</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">for half a century after the Conquest there could have been very -little need of a central treasury at all, since the greater part -of these provisions formed an intrinsic portion of the revenue -itself ... which was still payable in kind. This point is both -important and interesting, and has been hitherto somewhat -overlooked by economic writers. The fact (which is probable -enough in itself) rests on high authority—that of the famous -treasurer of the first two Plantagenet kings (p. 4).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Again, he writes on p. 161:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>We have seen that in the earliest times—previously, that is, to -the reorganization of the Exchequer under Henry I.—the revenue -of the sovereign was answered in two forms, namely, in specie -and in kind, the former drawn from judicial fines and farms of -towns, and the latter rendered, at an arbitrary assessment, by -the cultivators of the royal demensne.<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The passage itself in the ‘Dialogus,’ which Mr. -Hall translates <i>in extenso</i> (pp. 180–182), requires careful -examination. The “high authority” of which he speaks proves to be, in -fact, only tradition, for the opening words of the passage run: “Sicut -traditum est a patribus.” Now one would not strain unduly the words of -the Dialogue’s author, but his meaning may be fairly understood to be -that the rents of the royal demesne were not only paid in kind (for -that he clearly asserts), but were also valued in kind alone. For he -thus describes the change introduced under Henry I.:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Destinavit [rex] per regnum quos ad id prudentiores et -discretiores cognoverat, qui circueuntes et oculata fide fundos -singulos perlustrantes, habita æstimatione victualium, quæ de -hiis solvebantur, redegerunt in summam denariorum.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">This can only imply the substitution of a money valuation -for a rent payable in kind. And yet we have to go no further than this -very chapter to learn that these rents had previously been reckoned in -money (not in kind). For if, as stated in the note below, they had, -when they were paid in kind, to be reduced by the king’s officers to a -money standard, it could only be because their amounts were due, not -in kind, but in money.<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> Fortunately, however, we are not dependent -on this obvious contradiction, for the evidence of Domesday makes it -certain that, just as the assay was employed under the Conqueror, and -indeed under the Confessor, instead of being first introduced under -Henry I., so the valuation in money of the rents from the royal demesne -was not a reform effected, as alleged, by the latter king, but was the -rule under William I.; and, indeed, almost as much the rule before the -Conquest.<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> We gather from Domesday that the Conqueror advanced the -commutation of the old “firma unius diei,” etc., for a sum of money; -but even under his predecessor there were only a few localities in -which the archaic system had lingered on.</p> - -<p>I have said something in ‘Feudal England’<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span> “Firma unius -noctis,” and I would now add to the evidence that I there adduced on -this curious and interesting subject.</p> - -<p>In Devonshire we meet with a singular feature, which, I think, has -escaped attention. Exeter, we read, “reddit xviii. lib. per annum.” -I have elsewhere<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> discussed this payment, and shown that it was -strangely small; but I now proceed to a new point, namely, that the -figure 18 may prove highly significant. Lidford, Barnstaple, and -Totnes, we read,<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> “rendered” between them the same amount of -(military) service as Exeter “rendered”; and this service was equally -divided between them.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> Now, if we turn from the service to the -payments made by this group of boroughs, we find that the “render” of -each was £3 a year, so that the whole group paid £9, exactly half the -“render” of Exeter.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p> - -<p>If we follow the clue thus given us, and turn to the manors which Queen -Edith and Harold’s mother and Harold himself had held, but which, in -1086, had passed to the king,<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> we find these remarkable figures: -£15, £30, £45, £18, £48, £1½, £48 (formerly £23), £2, £6, £23 (formerly -£18), £24, £3, £18,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span> £3, £18, £12, £18, £24, £4 (?), £24, £1 (?), £7, -£6, £6, £12, £8, £2, £3, £18, £20 (formerly £24). It is evident enough -that these “renders” are based on some common unit, like the ‘renders’ -of the comital manors in Somerset.<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> Moreover, we can trace, in -Cornwall, something of the same kind. The manor of royal demesne which -heads its survey “reddit xii lib. ad pondus et arsuram,”<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> and this -is followed by renders of £8, £5, £6, £3 (‘olim’), £18, £6, £3, £7, £6, -£6, £4, £5. Even a ‘render’ of £8 was duodecimal in a way; for on fo. -121 <i>b</i> it occurs four times as £8 and thrice as “xii markæ.”</p> - -<p>Not only is the rent of these manors distinguished from that of those -in private hands by the form ‘reddit,’ instead of ‘valet,’ but the -render is stereotyped, being normally unchanged, while the ‘valet’ ever -fluctuates. The explanation I suggest for these archaic “renders” is -that they represent the commutation of some formerly existing payment -in kind similar to the “firma unius noctis.” If the unit of that -payment was commuted at a fixed rate, it would obviously produce that -artificial uniformity of which we have seen the traces in Devon and -Cornwall. We may thus penetrate behind these “renders” to an earlier -system then extinct.</p> - -<p>This conclusion is confirmed, I think, by some striking instances in -Hampshire.<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> Of ‘Neteham’ we read, “T.R.E. et post valuit lxxvi -lib. et xvi sol. et viii den.” (i. 38); and of ‘Brestone,’ similarly, -“T.R.E. et<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span> post valuit lxxvi lib. et xvi sol. et viii den.” (i. 38 -<i>b</i>). The explanation is found in these two entries on the latter -fo.:</p> - -<table summary="entries" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Bertune. De firma regis E. fuit, et dimidiam diem firmæ - reddidit in omnibus rebus ... T.R.E. valebat xxxviii lib. et - viii sol. et iiii den.</td> - <td class="cht1">Edlinges. Hoc manerium reddidit dimidiam diem firmæ - T.R.E ... T.R.E. valebat xxxviii lib. et viii sol. et iiii den.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>That is, I take it that the half-day’s ferm “rendered” T.R.E. was worth -£38 8<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i>, so that the two other manors, for each of -which the sum was £76 16<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i>, must originally have -rendered a whole ‘firma.’ This gives us the value of the ‘firma’ for -the other Hampshire manors which “rendered.”<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<p>We will now return to the ‘Dialogus’ and its statements on the “firma -comitatus.”</p> - -<p>It is distinctly asserted, in the above passage, that the ‘firma -comitatus’ only dated from this reform under Henry I.<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> This is -at variance with the strong evidence set forth in my ‘Geoffrey de -Mandeville,’ that Geoffrey’s grandfather, who was dead before this -alleged reform, held Middlesex, Essex, and Herts at farm, the very -amount of the farm due from him being mentioned. But, indeed, in -Domesday itself there are hints, if not actual evidence, that the -‘firma’ was more or less in existence. In Warwickshire, for instance, -“T.R.E. vicecomitatus de Warwic cum burgo et cum regalibus Maneriis -reddebat<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span> lxv libras,” etc., etc. In Worcestershire, also, “vicecomes -... de Dominicis Maneriis regis reddit cxxiii lib. et iiii sol. ad -pensum.” Here we have exactly that “summa summarum” of which the -‘Dialogus’ speaks as a novelty introduced under Henry I.<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> Again, in -at least one passage (i. 85), we recognise a distinct allusion to the -“terræ datæ” system:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>De hoc Manerio tenet Giso episcopus unum membrum -<span class="smcap">Wetmore</span> quod ipse tenuit de rege E. Pro eo computat -Willelmus vicecomes in firma regis xii lib. unoquoque anno.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Now we know the history of this manor, which had been -detached from the royal demesne about a quarter of a century before, -when Edward gave it to bishop Giso on his return from his visit to -Rome. It follows, therefore, that £12 must have been, ever since, -annually credited to the sheriff, in consideration of the Crown having -alienated this manor.<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> We thus carry back to a period before the -Conquest that Exchequer practice of the 12th century, which is thus -alluded to in Stephen’s charter to Geoffrey earl of Essex (1141):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Ita tamen quod dominica quæ de prædictis comitatibus data -sunt ... a firma prædicta subtrahantur et ... ad scaccarium -computabuntur.<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span></p> - -<p>I hasten to add that the Charter of Constance, the Conqueror’s -daughter, quoted by Stapleton from the Cartulary of Holy Trinity, -Caen, affords an exact parallel in the words: “et ei computabitur in -suo redditu cum dica.” But the fact remains that we can prove the -existence, under Edward the Confessor, of characteristic features -of the later Exchequer system, of which one, at least, as Stapleton -explained, must have been of English origin.</p> - -<p>What then was the change that took place on the introduction of the -Exchequer? How did it modify the system previously in existence? Our -only clue is found in the well-known words of the ‘Dialogus’: “Quod -autem hodie dicitur ad scaccarium, olim dicebatur ad taleas.” Writing -as a specialist on Exchequer history, Mr. Hall contends that “this -expression in itself denotes the actual place of receipt and issue -of the revenue rather than a court or council chamber.”<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> But one -cannot see that ‘scaccarium’ in itself denotes a court or council -chamber more than does ‘talea.’ The one was a chequered table, the -other a wooden tally. My own view is that the change really consisted -of the introduction of the chequered table<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> to assist the balancing -of the accounts. Previously, tallies alone would be used, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span> it -is noteworthy that even after the ‘Exchequer’ system was in full -operation, the deduction for the loss involved by ‘combustion’ was -still effected by tally.<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> I have little doubt that the ‘combustion’ -tally was in use in the 11th century for payments “ad arsuram et -pensum.”</p> - -<p>Instead, then, of the sheriffs’ accounts being balanced by the cumbrous -system of tallies, the introduction of the Exchequer table, very -possibly under Henry I., enabled them to be depicted to the eye by -an ingenious system of counters. To the modern mind it is strange, -of course, that, while the reformers were about it, they did not -substitute parchment, and work out the accounts on it. But, doubtless -for the benefit of unlearned sheriffs, the old system of ocular -demonstration was still adhered to, and the Treasurer’s Roll merely -recorded the results of the ‘game’ by which the accounts had been -worked out upon the table.</p> - -<p>Mr. Hall’s belief is best set forth in an article he contributed to the -‘Athenæum’ (November 27, 1886), and of which he reprinted this passage, -subsequently, in ‘Domesday Studies’ (1891):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>There is every reason for believing that the audit machinery -of the ancient Treasury at Winchester was sufficient for the -purpose.... It is true, indeed, that the earliest germ of the -Exchequer is perceptible in these accounts, which were, however, -audited not ‘ad scaccarium,’ but ‘ad taleas,’ <i>i.e.</i> in the -Treasury or Receipt at Winchester.... We find in the Pipe Rolls -the old Treasury at Winchester used as a permanent storehouse -for the reserve of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span> treasure, regalia, and records, and we even -find Exchequer business transacted there by way of audit of -accounts, which formed a special office or ‘ministerium’ as late -as 1130 (Pipe Roll 31 Hen. I).<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The purchase of the ‘ministerium thesauri Wintoniæ,’ -recorded in the Pipe Roll of 1130,<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> does not affect the question of -audit. There can be no question that the national Treasury, in 1130, -was at Winchester, or that the Treasurer’s official residence was there -also.<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> The really important passages on the roll, passages which I -venture to think have been generally misunderstood, are these:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et in præterito anno quando comes Gloecestriæ et Brientius -filius Comitis audierunt compotum de thesauro apud Wintoniam.</p> - -<p>De istis habuit Willelmus de Pontearc’ xxx li., de quibus -reddidit compotum quando comes Gloecestriæ et Brientius -audierunt compotum de thesauro apud Wintoniam.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It has been assumed that these entries refer to the -Exchequer business of balancing the sheriffs’ accounts, and Madox even -went so far as to draw the conclusion, from their wording, that, at the -time of the Roll, Brian Fitz Count was Treasurer. The true meaning was -exactly contrary, and an interesting allusion is thus obscured.</p> - -<p>For the Pipe Rolls do not, as is sometimes imagined, display the -national accounts. They probably do not exhaust the receipts (for some, -it is believed, were paid ‘in camera’), and they certainly only record -a portion of the royal expenditure. What became of the money which -is so continually entered as paid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span> ‘in Thesauro’? It found its way -into the national treasury, whence it was paid out as was required by -writ of ‘Liberate’ addressed to the Treasurer and chamberlains.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> -Of these outgoings, in the 12th century, there is, it would seem, no -record; but they were certainly audited from time to time, the king -calling on the Treasurer to account for the money in his charge, as, -at the Exchequer, the Treasurer himself had called on the sheriffs to -account for the sums for which they were liable. To this ‘generalis -compotus,’ associated with the Winchester Treasury, there are, in the -‘Dialogus,’ several allusions which may have been somewhat overlooked.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Quod thesaurarius a vicecomite compotum suscipiat, hinc -manifestum est, quod <i>idem ab eo cum regi placuerit -requiritur</i>.... Sunt tamen qui dicunt thesaurarium et -camerarios obnoxios tantum hiis quæ scribuntur in rotulis ‘in -thesauro,’ ut <i>de hiis compotus ab eis exigatur</i> (i. 1).</p> - -<p>Raro inquam, hoc est, <i>cum a rege, vel mandato regis, a magnis -regni<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> compotus a thesaurario et camerariis regni totius -recepta suscipitur</i> (i. 5).</p> - -<p>Thesaurarius et camerarii, nisi regis expresso mandato vel -præsidentis justiciarii, susceptam pecuniam non expendunt: -oportet enim ut habeant auctoritatem rescripti regis de -distributa pecunia, <i>cum ab eis compotus generalis -exigitur</i> (i. 6).</p> - -<p>[De combustione] ... ut de summa ejus <i>thesaurarius et -camerarii respondeant</i> (ib.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">These are sufficient allusions to the Treasury, as -distinct from the Exchequer, account. I invite particular attention to -this Treasury audit, because, so far as I can find, it has hitherto -escaped notice. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span> second extract refers to the use of the £10,000 -space on the chequered table, and therefore proves the use of such a -table for the Treasury account as well.</p> - -<p>Now my point is that the earl of Gloucester and Brian ‘Fitz Count,’ -in 1130, were magnates (<i>magni regni</i>) delegated by the king, as -described in the second passage,<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> to audit the Treasurer’s account. -And this view is confirmed by the fact that William de Pont de l’Arche, -who here accounts to them, is styled by Dr. Stubbs “the Treasurer,” -and is, in any case, subsequently described as “custos thesaurorum -regalium.” Their mission had nothing, I hold, to do with that audit of -the sheriffs’ accounts, which was the annual function of the Exchequer.</p> - -<p>There is a remarkable entry on the roll of 1187 which alludes to an -overhauling of the national treasure at Winchester, at the beginning of -that year, the date proving that it was wholly unconnected with either -session of the Exchequer:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et in custamento numerandi et ponderandi thesaurum apud -Wintoniam post Natale, et pro forulis novis ad reponendum eundem -thesaurum et pro aliis minutis negociis ad predictum opus, -etc.... Et pro carriando thesauro a Wintoniâ ad Saresburiam et -ad Oxinford’ et ad Geldeford’ et ad plura loca per Angliam £4 -8<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">One might compare with these phrases the ‘Dialogus’ -language as to the knights, ‘qui et camerarii dicuntur, quod pro -camerariis ministrant.’</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Item officium horum est numeratam pecuniam, et in vasis ligneis -per centenos solidos compositam, ponderare, ne sit error in -numero, tunc demum in forulos mittere, etc. (i. 3).</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">Also the description of the usher’s office:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Hic ministrat forulos ad pecuniam reponendam, etc. (ib.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But the latter part of the entry (which is duly quoted by -Eyton<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a>) is also of much importance. For in Mr. Hall’s work, under -1187, we only read, ‘Treasure conveyed abroad from Winchester.’<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a></p> - -<p>It is an essential part of Mr. Hall’s theory, which makes the -“Westminster Treasury ... the principal Treasury of the kingdom,”<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> -that the Winchester Treasury was merely “an emporium in connection -with the transport of bullion (and especially of the regalia and -plate), as well as other supplies, <i>viâ</i> Southampton, or other -seaports, to the Continent.”<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> But the above passage shows us, on -the contrary, treasure sent thence to Salisbury, Oxford, and Guildford. -It is manifest that treasure, despatched from Westminster to Oxford or -Guildford would not be sent <i>viâ</i> Winchester. From this it follows -that Winchester was still a central Treasury, and not a mere ‘emporium’ -<i>en route</i> to the south. It is certain that under Henry I., some -sixty years before, the session at Westminster of the Barons of the -Exchequer did not, as Stapleton observed, affect the position of the -national Treasury at Winchester. It is, then, equally certain that the -money received at that session must have been duly transmitted to the -Winchester Treasury. For that was where the treasure (in coined money) -was kept when Stephen succeeded at the close of 1135.</p> - -<p>The whole difficulty has arisen from Mr. Hall’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span> inability to -distinguish between the ‘Receipt’ at Westminster, where the money -was paid in, and the national Treasury at Winchester in which it was -permanently stored. This is, roughly speaking, like confusing a man’s -investments with his balance at his bankers. The steadily growing -importance of Westminster and the concurrent decadence of Winchester -led, of course, eventually, to the shifting of the central Treasury, -but at the time of the ‘Dialogus,’ in the days of Henry II., it is -clear that the Exchequer was not looked on as the seat of a permanent -Treasury. For the storage of treasure is always implied by the payment -for the light of the night watchman; and as to the watchman and his -light, the evidence of the ‘Dialogue’ is clear:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Vigilis officium idem est ibi quod alibi; diligentissima -scilicet de nocte custodia, thesauri principaliter, et omnium -eorum quæ in domo thesauri reponuntur.... Sunt et hiis -liberationes constitutæ <i>dum scaccarium est, hoc est a die qua -convocantur usque ad diem qua generalis secessio</i>.... Vigil -unum denarium. Ad lumen cujusque noctis circa thesaurum, obolum -(i. 3).</p> -</div> - -<p>There is absolutely no escaping from these words: a watchman is only -provided for the treasure “while the Exchequer is in session”; its -treasury is temporary, not permanent. The whole passage, as it seems -to me, is absolutely destructive of Mr. Hall’s hypothesis of “the -existence of a permanent financial staff under the Treasurer and -chamberlains of the Exchequer at Westminster.”<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a></p> - -<p>The change from the “Treasury” to the “Exchequer” was, I hold, a -gradual process. Careful<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span> study of the annual revenues bestowed by our -sovereigns on the foreign houses of Tiron, Fontevrault, and Cluny<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> -proves clearly how insensibly the “Treasury at Winchester” was -superseded by the “Exchequer at London” as the place of payment. This -is especially the case with Tiron, where Henry I.’s original grant, -made about the middle of his reign, provides for payment “de thesauro -meo, in festo Sancti Michaelis, <i>Wintonie</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> Under Richard I. -this becomes payable “at Michaelmas from his exchequer at London.”<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> -Documents between the two show us intermediate stages.</p> - -<p>Precisely the same gradual process is seen in the parallel development -of the chamberlainship of the “Exchequer” from that of the “Treasury.” -Just as Henry II., shortly before his accession, confirmed the grant -to Tiron as “de thesauro Wintonie,”<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> so he restored to William -Mauduit, at about the same time, “camerariam meam <i>thesauri</i>,” -which office was held by his descendants as a chamberlainship of the -<i>Exchequer</i>.</p> - -<p>The ‘Dialogus’ shows us the Treasurer and the two chamberlains of the -Exchequer as the three inseparable Treasury officers. Domesday connects -the first with Winchester by showing us Henry “thesaurarius” as a -tenant-in-chief in Hampshire. I propose to show that it also connects -one of the chamberlains with that county. In that same invaluable but -unprinted charter of which I have spoken<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span> above, which was granted at -Leicester (1153) to William Mauduit, Duke Henry says:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Insuper etiam reddidi eidem camerariam meam thesauri cum -liberatione<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> et cum omnibus pertinentibus, castellum -scilicet de Porcestra ut supradiximus, et omnes terras ad -predictum camerariam et ad predictum castellum pertinentes, sive -sint in Anglia sive Normannia, sicut pater suus illam camerariam -cum pertinentibus melius habuit et sicut Robertus Maledoctus -frater suus eam habebat die quo vivus fuit et mortuus.</p> -</div> - -<p>This carries back the ‘cameraria thesauri’ (‘<i>illam</i> camerariam’) -to the Domesday tenant, whose son Robert occurs in the earlier -Winchester Survey, and, though dead in 1130, is mentioned on the Roll -of that year (p. 37), in connection with the Treasury in Normandy.</p> - -<p>The history of Porchester, in the Norman period, has yet to be worked -out. Mr. Clark, for instance, tells us that the castle was “always in -the hands of the Crown,”<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> yet we find it here appurtenant to the -chamberlainship, and in Domesday (47 <i>b</i>) it was a ‘manor’ held by -William Malduith. The above charter, in my opinion, was one of those -which Duke Henry granted without intending to fulfil.<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> Porchester -had clearly been secured by the Crown, and Henry was not the man to -part with such a fortress. Of William Mauduith’s Domesday fief, Hartley -Mauditt (‘Herlege’) also was held by the later Mauduits;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span> but they -held it still “per serjanteriam camar[ariæ] Domini Regis”<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> or “per -camerariam ad scaccarium.”<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p> - -<p>It should be added that the other chamberlainship of the Exchequer was -similarly a serjeanty associated with land. It cannot, however, be -carried back beyond 1156, when Henry II. bestowed on Warin Fitz Gerold, -chamberlain, lands in Wiltshire worth £34 a year, and in Berkshire -to nearly the same amount.<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> The former was the chamberlainship -estate, and reappears as Sevenhampton (near Highworth) in his brother’s -<i>carta</i> (1166), where it is expressly stated to have been given to -Warin by the king.<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> It was similarly held by his heir and namesake -(with whom he is often confused), under John,<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> and by the latter’s -heir, Margaret ‘de Ripariis,’ under Henry III.<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<p>This estate must not be confused with that of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span> Stratton, Wilts, which -was bestowed by John (to whom it had escheated) on the later Warin -Fitz Gerold, to hold at a fee-farm rent of £13 a year.<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> It is -necessary to make this distinction, because Mr. Hall, in dealing with -the subject, speaks of it as “held apparently by the Countess of -Albemarle as pertaining to the (<i>sic</i>) chamberlainship of England” -(<i>sic</i>).<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> On the same page he speaks of a deed, on page 1024 -of the same volume, whereby she “secures to Adam de Strattone, clerk, -an annuity of £13, charged on the farm of Stratton.” Reference to page -1024 shows that, on the contrary, what she did was to make herself -and her heirs responsible to the Exchequer for the annual £13, which -<i>was</i> “the farm” of Stratton (so that Adam might hold Stratton -quit therefrom). This is a further instance of Mr. Hall’s unhappy -inability to understand or describe accurately the documents with which -he deals.<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p> - -<p>I have now traced for the first time, so far as I can find, the origin -of the two chamberlainships of the Exchequer. That of Mauduit can -be traced, we see, to a chamberlainship of the ‘Treasury,’ existing -certainly under Henry I., and possibly under the Conqueror. Of the -other the existence is not proved before 1156. Both, I have shown, were -associated with the tenure of certain estates.</p> - -<p>It is very strange that, in his <i>magnum opus</i>,<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> Madox<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span> not -only ignores, it would seem, this descent of the office with certain -lands, but gives a most unsatisfactory account of those who held the -office, confusing it, clearly, with the chamberlainship of England, and -not distinguishing or tracing its holders.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>For the different standards of payment in use at the Exchequer, our -authority, of course, is the ‘Dialogus,’ but the subject, I venture to -think, is still exceedingly obscure. Even Mr. Hall, who has studied -so closely the ‘Dialogus,’ seems to leave it rather doubtful whether -payment in ‘blank’ money meant a deduction of 6<i>d.</i> or of -12<i>d.</i> on the pound.<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> It will be best to leave the ‘Dialogus’ -for the moment, and take an actual case where the charters and the -rolls can be compared, and a definite result obtained.</p> - -<p>In Lans. MS. 114, at fo. 55, there is a series of extracts transcribed -from a Register of Holy Trinity (or Christchurch) Priory, London, in -which are comprised the royal charters relating to Queen Maud’s gift of -two-thirds of the revenues (ferm) of Exeter. First, Henry I. confirms -it, late in his reign,<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> as “xxv libras ad scalam,” the charter -being addressed to William bishop of Exeter, and Baldwin the sheriff -(<i>sic</i>). Then we have another charter from him addressed “Rogero -episcopo Sar[esbiriensi] et Baronibus Scaccarii,” and witnessed, -at Winchester, by Geoffrey de Clinton, in which it is “xxv libras -blancas.” Stephen’s charter follows, addressed to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span> William bishop of -Exeter, and Richard son of Baldwin, the sheriff, in which again we have -“xxv lib. ad scalam.” Lastly, we come to an important entry that seems -to have remained unknown:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In 1180, on St. Martin’s Day, king Henry issued (<i>fecit -currere</i>) his new money, in the 26th year of his reign, and -as the sheriff of Exeter (<i>Exon’</i>) would not pay the prior -of Christchurch, for Michaelmas term, £12 16<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> -“<i>secundum pondus blancum</i>,” Prior Stephen obtained from -the king the following writ.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Then follows a writ which clearly belongs not to 1180, -but to an earlier period. It is addressed “prepositis et civibus -Exonie,” and directs that the canons are to enjoy their rents as -in his grandfather’s time (‘Teste Manessero Biset dapifero, apud -Wirecestriam’). Next comes a passage so important that it must -be quoted in the original words, although, like the whole of the -transcript, it seems slightly corrupt.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Comperuit igitur Paganus attornatus vicecomitis predicti in -Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta -predict[i] r[egis] Quod ecclesiam Christi London debere habere -predictos denarios blancos et ad scalam id est ad pondus qui -fuerint meliores in pondere quam illa nova moneta per vi -<i>s.</i> iii <i>d.</i> pro termino sancti Mich. arch. predicto. -Et sic predictus prior et conventus haberent quolibet anno xii -<i>s.</i> vi <i>d.</i> de incremento, <span class="allsmcap">XXV</span> li. blanc. -prout patet in carta sequenti.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The writ of the earl of Cornwall, in 1256, which follows, -is obviously out of place for our period. Lastly, the canons record the -triumph of their case thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Perlecta ista carta, constitutus est dies priori Stephano ad -peticionem Pagani clerici gerentis vices vicecomitis Exonie a -Justicia idem cancellario et baronibus scaccarii ut innotesceret -causam istam vicecomiti predicto. Et sic predicti prior et -conventus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span> reciperent predictos xii li. xvi <i>s.</i> iii -<i>d.</i> infra xii dies natalis domini de tali moneta qualis -tunc curreret. Et ibidem (<i>i.e.</i> inde) fuerunt plegii -Radulphus de Glanvilla tunc Justicia Regis et Rogerus filius -Reinfridi et Alanus de Furnellis, coram hiis testibus Gaufrido -episcopo Eliensi; Ricardo thesaurario Regis, postea episcopo -Londoniensi; Roberto Mantello; Michaele Belet; Edwardo clerico; -Elia hostiario, et multis aliis. Ad terminum vero predictun* -Willelmus, vicecomes Exonie, de (<i>sic</i>) Br[iwerre], etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">So at length the prior received the full amount -“numeratos, blancos, ad scalam, tales (eis) quorum xx solidi numerati -fecerunt libram Regis.”</p> - -<p>Corrupt though the text in places is, the outline of the story is clear -enough, and is supported by such record evidence as survives. The -local authorities, clearly, were directed to pay the canons £25 “ad -scalam” annually, “hoc est,” says the ‘Dialogus,’ “propter quamlibet -numeratam libram vi <i>d.</i>” This is fully borne out by the Pipe -Rolls which both in 1130 and under Henry II. record the annual payment -as £25 12<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> “numero.” When the new coinage became -current in 1180, the local authorities evidently claimed that as they -had to pay in standard coin, they ought no longer to be liable for the -12<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> excess which they paid under the old system. The -case, however, was given against them, apparently on the ground that -they were liable for 6<i>d.</i> additional on every “numbered” pound, -irrespective of the quality of the coin.</p> - -<p>The difficulty is created by the use of the term “blancos” throughout -as equivalent to “ad scalam,” an equation which is certainly found in -the text of the charters. It will, however, be better to discuss this -point when dealing with the blanch system as a whole.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span></p> - -<p>Before leaving the above case, we should notice, first, that the -crown had a ‘roll,’ on which were recorded such charters as this of -Henry I. I do not remember mention of such a roll elsewhere. The -question irresistibly suggests itself whether we have not here the -origin of those “Cartæ Antiquæ,” of which the existence, I am given to -understand, has ever yet been accounted for. On turning to these most -interesting records we find that Roll N commences with twenty-three -charters to Holy Trinity Priory, all of them previous to the middle of -Henry II.’s reign. They are transcribed in a hand of the period, those -which follow being later additions. It seems to me, therefore, that in -this “Roll N” we may have the actual “Rotulus Regis,” produced in court -before Glanville, which contained, as does “Roll N,” the charter of -Henry I.</p> - -<p>It would seem probable that such charters were already kept in the -Treasury, for reference, under Henry I., though not as yet enrolled. -For a writ of the latter king, addressed to Richard son of Baldwin -(sheriff of Devon) and G. ‘de Furnellis’ directs them to discharge -the land of the canons of Plympton “de geldis et assisis et omnibus -aliis rebus, quia episcopus Sarum <i>recognovit per cartam de thesauro -meo</i> quod ipsa ex toto ita quieta est.”<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p> - -<p>Secondly, we should note that, although the narrative assigns the issue -of the new coinage to November 11 (1180), yet the sheriff’s deputy -raised his claim at Michaelmas (for that half year’s term). That he -did so is in harmony with the current Pipe Roll, which, as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span> Eyton has -shown, had numerous references to the change of coinage having been in -progress. Lastly, we have here an Exchequer case, hitherto, I believe, -unknown, and learn the names of the officials present, which harmonize -with what we know <i>aliunde</i> of the judicial and financial -<i>personnel</i> at the time.</p> - -<p>Apart from the “rotulus Regis” discussed above, the Exchequer, it -would seem, enrolled its decisions even under Henry II. We read in -the chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelonde that Abbot Sampson, called -upon to contribute, on behalf of St. Edmund’s Abbey, to a “communis -misericordia” imposed on the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, went -to the king at Clarendon [? February, 1187] and obtained from him -a writ directing “ut sex milites de comitatu de Norfolchia et sex -de Suffolchia summonerentur ad recognoscendum coram baronibus -scaccarii utrum dominia Sancti Ædmundi deberent esse quieta de -communi misericordia.”<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> When the knights had found their verdict, -“justiciarii assidentes veredictum illorum inrollaverunt.”</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>We may now return to the reckonings in use at the early Exchequer.</p> - -<p>It may fairly be said that in 1130 the <i>normal</i> method of -accounting for the ferm was the payment by the sheriff of silver “ad -pensum,” the allowance to him of his outgoings “numero,” and the -reckoning of the balance in “blanch” money. The counties of which -the sheriffs paid in their silver “ad pensum” were Notts and Derby, -Hampshire, Surrey with Cambridgeshire<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span> and Hunts, Essex and Herts, -Gloucestershire, Northants and Leicestershire, Norfolk and Suffolk, -Warwick, Lincolnshire, Berks and Devon, seventeen in all. Dorset and -Wilts, Kent, and Bucks and Beds, that is five counties, had their -silver paid partly “ad pensum” and partly “numero.” Northumberland, -Carlisle, and Sussex, were accounted for “numero,” in accordance with -the ‘Dialogus.’<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> For Yorkshire the silver was paid in “numero,” but -the balance accounted for “blanch”; Cornwall seems to be accounted for -“numero.” London and Staffordshire alone have sheriffs who pay in their -silver “blanch.”</p> - -<p>In this labyrinth of account one point at least is clear. The -outgoings credited to the sheriff “numero” were “blanched,” exactly -as described in the ‘Dialogus,’ by a uniform deduction of a shilling -in the pound.<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> This is proved by the account for the outstanding -ferm of Berkshire, rendered by Anselm <i>vicomte</i> of Rouen.<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> -He has to account for £522 18<i>s.</i> “blanch.” For this he pays in -£251 6<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> “blanch,” claims £63 4<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i> -“numero” for money disbursed by the king’s writ, and is left owing -£211 10<i>s.</i> “blanch.” Now, if we deduct a shilling in the pound -from £63 4<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i>, we obtain £60 1<i>s.</i> 2½<i>d.</i> -“blanch.” Adding up the three “blanch” amounts, we have £522 -17<i>s.</i> 10½<i>d.</i>, which is within a penny halfpenny of the sum -he has to account for.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span></p> - -<p>We may further say that this Pipe Roll reveals a tendency to reduce -all the ferms to a “blanch” denomination; that is to say that the -balance left outstanding is normally given in “blanch” money, and -accounted for accordingly in a subsequent year. Moreover, when it -is so accounted for, the sheriff pays in his money, not “ad pensum” -but “blanch.” Examples of this are found in the cases of Wilts and -Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey with Cambridge and Hunts, Essex and Herts, -Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Northants, etc. It seems to be -only when a sheriff is rendering his account “de Nova Firma” that he -pays in money “ad pensum.” The provoking practice of not recording the -amount of the ferm to be accounted for makes it impossible to check -these different methods of reckoning. In the case, however, of Bosham, -we have the “veredictum” in the ‘Testa’ that its annual ferm was “xlii -libras arsas et ponderatas”; and though this of itself might be slight -evidence,<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> it is in harmony with the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. Now in -that of 1130 the ferm is thus accounted for:</p> - -<table summary="costs" class="smaller"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">£</td> - <td class="ctr"><i>s.</i></td> - <td class="ctr"><i>d.</i></td> - <td></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="right">27</td> - <td class="right">3</td> - <td class="right">8</td> - <td>‘ad pensum.’</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">5</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td>‘numero.’</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">8</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td>‘ad pensum.’</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="right">16</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - <td>‘blanch.’</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>This is equivalent to £16 5<i>s.</i> 7<i>d.</i> ‘blanch’ plus £27 -11<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> ‘ad pensum.’ If then the total ferm was £42 -‘blanch,’ we have an excess of £1 17<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span> ‘ad pensum.’ -If this calculation is to be depended on, it would give us a deduction -of about sixteenpence in the pound from the weighed money when -subjected to assay.</p> - -<p>In 1157, the ferm was accounted for as follows:</p> - -<p>£31 13<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> “blanch,” paid in by sheriff.</p> - -<p>13<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> “numero,” already to his credit.</p> - -<p>£12 7<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> “numero,” paid out.</p> - -<p class="p-left">Deducting, as before, a shilling in the pound from -the sums reckoned “numero,” we find them amount to £12 7<i>s.</i> -8<i>d.</i> “blanch.” Adding this amount to the £31 13<i>s.</i> -8<i>d.</i> “blanch,” we have £44 1<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> to the -accountant’s credit. But the ferm was only £42 “blanch.” He had, -therefore, a “superplus” of £2 1<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> “blanch,” and that -is precisely what the roll records that he had. We may then, from this -comparison, conclude positively that the money paid in “ad pensum” was -liable to a further deduction when the assay made it “blanch.”</p> - -<p>The case of Bosham certainly suggests that in the time of Henry I. the -ferm on the “Rotulus exactorius” might be reckoned in ‘blanch’ money, -even where the accountant paid in his cash by weight. But what is -obscure is why the cash so paid should be merely entered ‘ad pensum,’ -instead of its assayed value being recorded as under Henry II. For this -value must have been ascertained in order to balance the account.</p> - -<p>It is noteworthy that, although the ‘Dialogus’ speaks of payment “ad -scalam,” as entered on the rolls of Henry I., the phrase is not found -on the roll of 1130. In the case of Exeter, as we have seen, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span> £25 -“ad scalam” were entered on the roll as £25 12<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> -“numero.” Broadly speaking, the impression created by the Roll of -1130 is that the administration was endeavouring to systematize the -‘ferm’ payments, which, we may gather from the evidence of Domesday, -had been almost chaotic in diversity. From the earliest rolls of Henry -II. we find a uniform “blanch” system (with the trifling exceptions -the ‘Dialogus’ mentions), which testifies probably to further reforms -between 1130 and 1139 (when bishop Roger fell). There remained, -however, the sad confusion caused by the several meanings of “blanch”; -the true assay involving a deduction of variable amount; the fixed -deduction of a shilling in the pound, to “blanch” the money paid out -“numero”; and the fixed addition of sixpence in the pound (“numero”) to -sums granted “blanch,” as in the Exeter case.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>If, in conclusion, it be asked what was the origin of the Exchequer, -the answer is not one that can be briefly given. In the first place, it -must not be assumed that “the Exchequer” was bodily imported, as a new -and complete institution, from Normandy to England or <i>vice versâ</i>.</p> - -<p>In the second place, the ‘Dialogus’ we have seen, is by no means an -infallible authority for the events of the Norman period. In the third -place, its author was biassed by his eagerness to exalt bishop Roger, -his relative and the founder of his family.</p> - -<p>Leaving that treatise aside for the moment, the evidence adduced -in this paper points to the gradual development of the ‘Exchequer’ -out of the ‘Treasury’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span> under Henry I. And this view is curiously -confirmed by the remarkable, perhaps unique, narrative in the Abingdon -Cartulary<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> of a plea held in the <i>curia regis</i> “apud Wintoniam -in thesauro.” This plea cannot be later than 1114, and it is difficult -to resist the impression that “in thesauro” is purposely introduced, -and represents the “ad scaccarium” of later days. That is to say, -that the hearing of pleas was already connected with the financial -administration,<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> probably because its records were, in certain -cases, needed.</p> - -<p>I have suggested that the gradual change of name may have been -a consequence of the introduction of the ‘chequered cloth’ -(<i>scaccarium</i>). But this innovation, probably, was only one of -those which marked the gradual transition to the final Exchequer -system. Even under Henry II., for instance, Master Thomas Brown and -his third roll were, says the ‘Dialogus,’ an utter innovation, and the -place assigned to Richard of Ilchester seems to have been the same. -Thus the system was by no means complete at bishop Roger’s death, nor, -on the other hand, were its details, even then, his own work alone. He -did but develop what he found.</p> - -<p>It is quite possible that further exploration of that most fertile -field for discovery, the cartularies of monastic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span> houses, may cast a -clearer light on this institutional development. For it was a belated -document transcribed in the cartulary of Merton that has enabled -me<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> to prove the existence of the Exchequer <i>eo nomine</i> in -Normandy under Henry I. But it is not likely that such discovery will -materially affect the views which I have enunciated above on the origin -of the English Exchequer. For, after all, they are, in the main, the -same as those which Dr. Stubbs, with his sound instinct, shadowed forth -when the evidence was even less.</p> - -<p>If I have gone further than himself, it has been in criticising more -searchingly the authority of the ‘Dialogus de Scaccario’ for the reign -of Henry I., in demonstrating the actual evolution of the “scaccarium” -from the “thesaurus,” and in tracing the origin of the chamberlain’s -office and its feudal, tenurial character. The alternative use of -‘blancæ’ and ‘ad scalam’ in the reign of Henry I. is, I believe, a -new discovery, and so, it would seem, is that Treasury audit on which -I have laid special stress. Petty details, it may be said, and of -slight historical importance. So thought Richard the son of Nigel, -pleading: “nec est vel esse potest in eis subtilium rerum descriptio, -vel jocunda novitatis inventio.”<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> And yet he heard the student’s -cry: “cur scientiam de scaccario quæ penes te plurima esse dicitur -alios non doces, et, ne tibi commoriatur, scripto commendas?” For as -we have been reminded by the publication of the ‘Red Book<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span> of the -Exchequer, it may be true now as then, even of those who are steeped in -its records, that “sicut qui in tenebris ambulant et manibus palpant, -frequenter offendunt, sic illic multi resident qui videntes non vident, -et audientes non intelligunt.”<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span></p> - -<h2>V<br /> -<span class="subhed">London Under Stephen</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The famous claim of the citizens of London at the death of Henry I., -that the election of a king rested with themselves;<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> and the -prominent part they actually took in placing Stephen on the throne, -after making special terms with him,<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> impart peculiar interest to -such glimpses as records afford us of the government, institutions, and -leading citizens of London in Stephen’s days. Of these I have treated -at some length in my work on Geoffrey de Mandeville,<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> but the -information there given can now be supplemented by documents relating -to the two ancient religious foundations of Holy Trinity Priory, -Aldgate, and the collegiate church of St. Martin’s-le-Grand.</p> - -<p>The earliest of these with which I shall deal is assigned to the second -year of Stephen, and is taken from the cartulary of Holy Trinity, now -preserved at Glasgow, of which there is a modern collated transcript<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span> -in the Guildhall Library. It has never yet, I believe, been printed. -As Stephen was absent in Normandy from Midlent to the end of November, -1137, the episode must belong either to the early months of the year or -to its close.<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> The text seems slightly corrupt in places, but is -trustworthy enough for all purposes. The first points of interest to -be noted are that Arnulf archdeacon of Séez, afterwards the well-known -bishop of Lisieux, who here appears at Stephen’s court, had been, as -I have shown, the year before, his spokesman before the Pope when his -right was challenged by the Empress;<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> and that Andrew Buchuinte, -a leading citizen, was clearly “Justiciar of London” at the time, in -accordance with my theory that such an office was actually created by -the well-known charter of Henry I.<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a></p> - -<p>It should also be observed that the question of title is carried back -straight to the days of Edward the Confessor, and is decided by the -oath of twenty-one men, familiar, evidently, with the locality, in the -style of the 11th century. The list of jurors is headed by Or(d)gar ‘le -prude,’ who seems to have become a monk (<i>monachus</i>) since he had -taken so prominent a part in transferring the ‘soke’ of the Cnihtengild -to Holy Trinity Priory in 1125.<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span></p> - -<p>The land in dispute was in “East Smithfield,” within the soke of the -Cnihtengild, which lay outside the wall from Aldgate to the Thames, and -therefore adjoined immediately the Tower precinct. The Priory having -now acquired the soke, complained that successive constables of the -Tower had encroached upon this land to make a vineyard. The document -which follows records the result.<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Secundo autem anno regni Stephani Regis quodam vice cum -esset Rex Westm[onasterio] adiit prefatus prior [Normannus] -assistentibus et auxiliantibus sibi Regina Matilde ipsius Regis -conjuge, Algaro episcopo Constanciensi, Rogero tunc cancellario, -Arnulfo archidiacono Sagiensi, Willelmo Martel dapifero, Roberto -de Courcy, Albrico de Ver, Gaufrido de Magnavilla, Hugone le -Bigot, Adam de Balnai, Andrea Buchuinte, pluribusque aliis -burgensibus Londoniæ, adiit eum et diligenter ostendit qua vi -vel injuria pars illa a reliqua fuerit separata; advocat’ et -Aschuillo coram Rege quesitum est ab quo jure partem illam -tenuisset et quid super eam clamasset. Ipse vero r[espo]ndit se -nil super ea clamare, sed <i>sic inquit: tenui</i><a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> Tunc -Rex viva voce Andr[eæ] Justiciario suo ceterisque Burgensibus -qui ibi aderant precepit (?) ipsis et ceterisque per breve suum -mandavit quatinus certum diem priori constituerent in quo super -eandem terram convenientes rem rationabiliter examinarent, -examinata autem sic permaneret quemadmodum fuerat in tempore -Regis sancti Eadwardi.<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> Quod si prior potuisset ostendere -partem illam esse de predicto jure ecclesie sine dilacione -seisiatur. Quod ita factum est. Statuto die super eandem terram -convenerunt ex una parte prior cum coadiutoribus suis, ex alia -parte Andreas Buchuinte et plures alii maiores et meliores -Lond[onie]. Ratione igitur deducta a tempore sancti Eadwardi -Regis usque ad illum diem quo hoc fiebat, inventum est et -ostensum illam partem ad reliquam pertinere et totam similiter -de predicto jure. Quod et ibidem probatum<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span> est multis testibus -et sacrament’ xxj<sup>o</sup> hominum quorum hec sunt nomina: Orgarus -Monachus cognomento le prude, Ailwinus filius Radumf’ Estmund’ -Alfricus Cherch’ Briccred Cucherd Wlfred’ Semar Batum Alsi -Berman Wlpsi faber Alfwin Hallen Leuesune faber Wlwin’ Abbot, -Ailwin’ clericus, Algarus frater Gerald’, Wlfric carnifex, -Elfret Cugel Wlfric’ Edric’ Modheuesune Godwinus Balle; et multi -alii parati fuerunt jurare, sed isti judicati sunt sufficere. -Hoc itaque modo hæcque ratione et justicia tota illa terra et -soca adjudicatum est predicte ecclesie. Quam Stephanus Rex -confirmat prefate ecclesie (vel priori?) per cartam sequentem.</p> - -<p>Stephanus Rex Angl[orum] Episcopo London[iensi] Justic[iariis], -vicecomitibus, baronibus, Ministris, et omnibus fidelibus suis -Francis et Anglis lond[oniæ] salutem. Sciatis quia reddidi -et concessi deo et ecclesiæ sanctæ Trinitatis Lond[oniæ] et -canonicis regularibus ibidem deo<a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> servientibus pro anima -Regis Henrici et pro salute mea et Matild[is] Regine uxoris -meē et Eustac[ii] filii mei et aliorum puerorum meorum in -perpetuum terram suam de Smethefelda quam comes Gaufridus -preoccupaverat ad vineam suam faciendam. Quare volo et firmiter -precipio quod bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice -teneant et habeant terram predictam sicut melius et liberius et -quietius tenent alias terras suas et sicut Rex Henricus illam -eis concessit et carta sua confirmavit.</p> - -<p>Testibus: Matilde regina, et Thoma capellano, et Willelmo de -Ipra, et Ricardo de Luci. Apud Lond[oniam.]<a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>The charter which follows, being granted by Geoffrey de Mandeville as -earl, may safely be assigned to 1140–1144. It is difficult to resist -the impression, from the appearance among the witnesses of a Templar -and two doctors, that this was an act of restitution by the earl when -he was lying on his deathbed in 1144.<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Item Gaufridus comes Essex ac constabularius principalis Turris -renunciavit totum clamorem suum de predicta terra ut p[atet] per -cartam sequentem.</p> - -<p>Gaufridus comes Essex Episcopo Londoniensi et omnibus fidelibus -sancte ecclesie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse ecclesie -Christi Lond[onie] et fratribus in ea degentibus molendina -sua juxta Turrim et totum terram extra quæ pertinebat ad -Engliscnithtengildam<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> cum Smethefelda et hominibus et -omnibus aliis rebus eidem pertinentibus. Reddo et eis dim. hidam -de Brembelega in terra et pratis et pascuis et omnibus aliis -rebus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus sicut Willelmus filius -Widonis eam eis dedit cum canonicalem habitum reciperet. Et volo -et precipio ut prefatas terras teneant de me et heredibus meis -liberas et quietas et solutas ab omni calumpnia et seculari -servicio ita ut nec heredes mei nec meis imposterum aliquam canc -super hiis liceat inuriam vel contumeliam irrogare.</p> - -<p>Hiis testibus: Roh[ais]a comitissa uxore mea; Gregorio -dapifero; Pagano de Templo; Warino filio Geroldi; Radulfo de -Crichtote;<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> Gaufrido de Querendun; Ernulfo medico; Iwodo -medico. Et similiter concedo eis imperpetuum i marcam argenti de -servicio Edwardi de Seligeford testimonio prescriptorum testium -et Willelmi archidiaconi London’.</p> - -<p>Hec omnia acta fuerunt anno ij<sup>o</sup> Regis Stephani istis -astantibus, audientibus, et videntibus: Radulfo filio Algodi, -Radulfo cancellario Sancti Pauli, Hacone decano, Willelmo -Travers, Gilberto presbitero, Lungo presbitero, Wimundo -presbitero, Josepho presbitero, Godefrido presbitero, Johanne -presbitero, Huberto presbitero, Leofwino presbitero, Godardo -presbitero, Alurico presbitero, Ricardo presbitero, Jacobo -clerico, Gervasio clerico, Willelmo clerico, Andrea Buchuinte, -Stephano Bukerel, Willelmo camerario, Radulfo filio Andree, -Laurentio Buchuinte, Theodorico filio Dermanni, Johanne -Buchuinte, Stephano Bukerel, Gileberto Beket, Gervasio filio -Agn[etis], Hugone filio Ulgari, Eustachio nepote Fulcredi, -Walkelino, Roberto filio Radulfi fratribusque ejus Ricardo et -David, Ailwardo fabr’, Edmundo Warde Aldermanno, Edwardo filio -Simonis (?) Edgaro Fulōe, Edward Roberto fil. But’ Alfego -Ailwino Godwino Radulfo Godesune et Algaro filio eis et Edmundo -fratre eius Huneman Suethin Edwardo<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span> Her’ Godwino Bredhers -Herewardo Geraldo Rufo Sexi Forfot, Godwino Oxefot Johanne filio -Edwini Sawardo Siredo ceterisque multis non solum.</p> -</div> - -<p>With this latter portion of the document we return to 1137, and meet -with names of considerable interest. Foremost among these is that of -Gilbert Beket, the first mention, I believe, of him in a document that -has ever come to light. Ralf son of Algod, who heads the list, had -also headed the list of the fifteen citizens by whom the Cnihtengild’s -soke had been given to the Priory in 1125. He also appears in charge -of one of the city wards in the list of <i>circ.</i> 1130.<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> Was he -identical with Ralf son of Algod, who occurs as a canon of St. Paul’s -in 1104 and 1132?<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> For my part, I think that he was. Improbable -though the combination may seem, there can be little doubt that the -canons of St. Paul’s were as closely connected at the time with secular -life in London as they were with farming in Essex. Hugh, son of -Wulfgar, to take another of these names, had been, like Ralf, among the -fifteen of the Cnihtengild list, twelve years before, and, like him, -had charge of a ward in the list of <i>circ.</i> 1130. He was a London -magnate of whom we shall hear more.</p> - -<p>The names of these two men raise an important question. That ancient -and remarkable institution, the English Cnihtengild of London, remains -shrouded in mystery. It is known to us only through the gift of its -soke to Holy Trinity Priory, and the consequent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span> preservation, among -that Priory’s monuments, of charters confirming that soke, from Edward -the Confessor downwards. Stow made use of the Priory’s cartulary, -and states the facts accurately enough. Mr. Coote, in 1881, rendered -valuable service by printing, from the Guildhall Letter Books, -the documents relating to “the English Gilds of Knights and their -socn’,”<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> but fell into the error of supposing that “after thus -parting with their land all these gentlemen entered religion in the -same convent which they had thus benefited.”<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> Writing some years -later (1887), with the St. Paul’s documents before him, Mr. Loftie, in -his well-known book, went further still. “There can be no doubt,” he -writes,<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> “if any doubt existed before, that the governing body of -London was the Knightenguild, as Stow calls it.” This assumption seems -to be based on the view that among its fifteen named representatives -(1125) “there was a very large proportion of aldermen,<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> and that -those who do not seem themselves to have held office were the sons or -the brothers of aldermen.”<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> Admitting that a few out of the fifteen -can, like Ralf and Hugh above, be identified with those who had charge -of wards <i>temp.</i> Henry I., this no more proves that the gild -itself was “the governing body of London” than would the presence of -some Aldermen among the members of a city company to-day prove that -it occupied that position. It<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span> is not improbable, by the way, that -the gild had become, like a modern city company, a mere propertied -survival. But, apart from the question of its status, what we have to -consider is whether the fifteen magnates of 1125 did, as alleged, enter -the Priory themselves as canons when they made their gift.<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> Mr. -Loftie positively asserts that they did:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The lords of the adjacent manor, the portsoken, then fifteen in -number, members of the Knightenguild, and all, or nearly all, -aldermen,<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> took the resolution, so characteristic of the -religious life of the twelfth century, to enter Norman’s priory -... dedicating their own lives, etc.<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This view is absolutely erroneous, and rests on a -misunderstanding of the words—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Suscipientes fraternitatem et participium beneficiorum loci -illius per manum Normanni prioris, qui eos et predecessores suos -in societatem super textum evangelii recepit.<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This, of course, is merely the usual admission of -benefactors to a share in the spiritual benefits appertaining to -the brotherhood. The fact that the benefactors’ “predecessors” were -admitted also should have clearly shown that there was no question of -personally becoming canons in the Priory.<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span></p> - -<p>As a matter of fact several of the fifteen citizens can, from records, -be identified and traced, if only we reject, at the outset, the whole -of the wild confusion into which Mr. Loftie has plunged them.<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> -We may take, for instance, “Ailwinus et Robertus frater eius filii -Leostani,”<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> whose father I make to be Leofstan the son of Orgar. -These brothers witness one St. Paul’s document in the time of Dean -Ralf,<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> and are mentioned in another,<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> and they are addressed in -a letter of archbishop Theobald (1139–43).<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> Robert accounts for the -Weavers’ Gild of London in 1130,<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> while Æthelwine, who witnesses a -deed under Dean William, and two under Dean Ralf, will also be found -witnessing a charter of the earl of Essex in 1142–3.<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> It is this -Æthelwine (‘Ailwinus’) who is wrongly identified by Mr. Loftie with -the father of the first<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span> Mayor, and with ‘Aylwin child,’ and with a -son-in-law of Orgar le Prude, who, by the way, was Orgar ‘the deacon,’ -and not Orgar ‘le Prude.’<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> - -<p>Two other interesting members of “the fifteen” are “Leostanus aurifaber -et Wyzo filius eius”; for the latter is clearly identical with that -“Witso filius Leostani” who, so far from being an Austin canon, owes in -1130 half a marc of gold “pro terra et ministerio patris sui,”<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> and -with that “Wizo aurifaber” who, with Edward his brother and John his -son, makes an agreement with the canons of St. Paul’s.<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a></p> - -<p>Returning to the second list of 1137,<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> we recognise in Hacon the -dean, not a dean of St. Paul’s, but a witness of the Cnihtengild’s gift -in 1125.<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> Tierri son of Deorman was the heir, perhaps the son, of -that “Derman of London” who is entered in Domesday as holding half a -hide at Islington, and the father of Bertram, “filius Theodorici filii -Derman,” otherwise Bertram “de Barwe,” who held Newington Barrow in -Islington,<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> who was a benefactor to the nuns of Clerkenwell, and -whose son Thomas bestowed a serf upon St. Paul’s about the beginning -of the 13th century.<a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> The mention of this family leads me here -to introduce a most singular genealogy, evidently adduced to prove, -<i>temp.</i> John, that Peter son of Alan was heir to Thierri, a -grandson and namesake of Thierri son of Derman.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Hubert vint de Cham et engendra Alain et Gervase et Will[elme] -Blemunt le viel et altres. Alain le eisne engendra Pieres, et -P[ieres] Alain, et A[lain] P[ieres]. Gerveise engendra Henri, et -Henri Johane ki fu dunée a Hug[ues] de Nevile. Will[] Blemunt -prist la suer Bertra[m] de Barue et engendra Will’ et T[er]ri -et altres. Will’ devint chanoine a sainte ternite [<i>sic</i>] -de Lundres et T[er]ri prist la fille Ernaud le rus et engendra -une fille si cum lem dist. Iceste fille fu dunée a un petit fiz -Johan Viel<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> dunt si ele mært sanz heir de soi. Les heirs al -devant dit Alain sunt heirs, kar il sunt les eisnez.<a id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>This genealogy, which, we shall find, is certainly incorrect, gives us -a pedigree as follows:</p> - - <div class="figcenter" id="i_107"> - <img - class="p0" - src="images/i_107.jpg" - alt="" /> - </div> - -<p>We know (from the names of his son and granddaughter) that the Gervase -of the text must be Gervase of Cornhill, who, as a matter of fact, -had a brother Alan.<a id="FNanchor_247" href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> But we also know that their father was Roger -‘nepos Huberti,’<a id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> not Hubert. As there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span> seem to be traces of -another Hubert with sons Gervase and Alan,<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> this may account for -the confusion. The mention of William Blemund is of special interest, -because it is from this name that Bloomsbury [‘Blemundsbury’] is -derived. His wife, being a sister of Bertram de Barue,<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> was a -daughter of Tierri the son of Derman, which accounts for one of their -sons bearing the name of ‘Terri.’ The belief that this great civic -family sprang originally from Caen is a fact to be noted.</p> - -<p>We know that Ralf ‘filius Andree’ (p. 101) must have been a son of -Andrew Bucuinte, for “Andreas Bucuinte et Radulfus filius ejus” witness -a Ramsey charter under Henry I.<a id="FNanchor_251" href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> William “camerarius” is, no doubt, -the William “qui fuit camerarius Lond[onie],” who accounts for London -debts on the roll of 1130.<a id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a></p> - -<p>We have seen above that Andrew Buchuinte (<i>Bucca Uncta</i>) was, -in 1137, Justiciar of London. This clue is of great importance, for, -according to another portion of the Holy Trinity narrative, Andrew -Buchuinte was the leading witness at the investiture of the Priory with -the Cnihtengild’s soke by the two sheriffs of London in 1125.<a id="FNanchor_253" href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> He -was also a leading witness to that agreement between Ramsey Abbey and -Holy Trinity Priory, which I place between 1125 and 1130.<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">The charter to which we are now coming shows him -addressed by Stephen as the leading man in London in the latter part, -we gather, of 1139. Since the appearance of “Justiciars” under Henry -I., among those to whom writs and charters were addressed, they always -took precedence of the sheriff, and my contention is that when a -magnate is named in that position, it is because he was Justiciar. The -charters dealt with in this paper afford several instances in point. -This one, for example, may be given here, although of somewhat later -date.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Ricardo de Luci et vicecomiti Essex -[ie] salutem. Precipio quod Episcopus Wyntoniensis frater meus -ita bene et in pace teneat....<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> et capella(m) sua(m) que -canonici diracionaverunt sicut Rogerus episcopus Salisburiensis -melius tenuit tempore comitis Eustachii de Bolonia et deinceps -usque ad diem qua rex Henricus avunculus meus fuit vivus et -mortuus. Et super hoc non ponantur canonici sui de Sancto -Martino in placitum versus prepositum de Wyrtela de vel de -pecunia sua. Et Moric[ius] vicecomes quietus sit de plegio -illius et pecunia canonicorum quam replegiant.</p> - -<p>Teste Roberto de Ver apud Wyndsor[es].<a id="FNanchor_256" href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The address of this charter would seem to support the -view I suggested in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (p. 109), that Richard de -Luci may have held the post of local justiciar of Essex.<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> For the -sheriff, clearly, was Maurice (de Tiretei, <i>i.e.</i> Tiltey).<a id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> -Imperfect though it be, we can, I think, connect the subject<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span> in -dispute with an aggression consequent on the Conquest by the ‘pious -founder’ at Writtle.<a id="FNanchor_259" href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a></p> - -<p>Let us now return to the document of which I speak above (p. 109, l. 1):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Stephanus dei gratia rex Anglie Andr[ee] Buch[uinte] et -vic[ecomiti] et civibus suis London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod -R[ogerus] episcopus Saresberiensis teneat ecclesiam Sancti -Martini London[ie] et omnes terras eidem pertinentes in civitate -et extra ita bene et honorifice sicut melius tenuit tempore -regis Henrici et modo postea. Et de quocunque disseisitus est -ipse vel ecclesia sua et canonici sui ejusdem ecclesie postquam -discordia incepta inter nos, reseisiantur, et nominatim de terra -Alderesgate disseisiti sunt ipse et canonici sui pro filiis -Huberti juvenis, et bene et in pace teneant, sicut tenuerunt -melius die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et modo -postea.<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In 1139, therefore, as in 1137, Andrew was the leading -man in London; and if, as Dr. Stubbs believes, he was of Italian -origin,<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> we have a somewhat unlooked-for foreign influence in the -midst of the citizens of London at this most critical epoch. One is -indeed reminded of the ‘Buccanigra’ family, and the great part they -played at Genoa in the 13th century. It is also suggested by Dr. Stubbs -that the “Andrew of London” who led the citizens’ contingent at the -taking of Lisbon (1147) “is not improbably the Andrew Bucquinte whose -son Richard was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span> the leader of the riotous young nobles of the city -who in 1177 furnished a precedent for the Mohawks of the eighteenth -century.”<a id="FNanchor_262" href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> The episode in question, although entered under 1177, -seems to belong to 1174; but, apart from chronology, we cannot believe -that “quidam latronum illorum, Andreas Bucquinte qui cæteros præibat -cum face ardenti”<a id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> was himself the crusading leader of 1147, still -less the London magnate of half a century before. The Richard who is -styled his “son” by Dr. Stubbs proves to be merely another reading, -in one of the texts, for Andrew himself.<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> The great Andrew (of -1125–1139) had a son Ralf,<a id="FNanchor_265" href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> and also a son John, who made Gervase -of Cornhill and his son Henry his heirs.<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> It is very tempting to -identify this Andrew Buccuinte with ‘Andrew of London,’ but ‘Andreas -de Londonia’ is found as a witness to a Ramsey charter under Henry -I.,<a id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span> while Andrew Buccuinte used to attest under his own name. -There is also a group of three charters of this John son of Andrew -Buccuinte in the Colchester cartulary (fo. 133) which have points -of interest. The first is witnessed <i>inter alios</i> by Tierri -(<i>Teodricus</i>), son of Derman and his brother,<a id="FNanchor_268" href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> by Eadwine -the alderman, and by Gervase of Cornhill; the second grants land (“in -custodia Blacstani”) to Baldwin “clerico patris mei et magistro meo”; -the third grants to him the land in which stood the ‘fornax’ of John’s -father, Andrew, in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook.<a id="FNanchor_269" href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a></p> - -<p>I would here insert an observation on the riots of “1177.” The ‘Gesta -Henrici’ describes the episode under 1177, but dates it in “tertio -præcedenti anno.” Miss Norgate accordingly places it “about June or -July 1174,” and points out that Hoveden omits the above words, thus -confusing the chronology.<a id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> Now the ‘Gesta’ asserts that Andrew -Buchuinte denounced among his companions</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">quidam nobilissimus et ditissimus civium Londoniarum qui -nominatus est Johannes Senex. Qui cum per judicium aquæ se -mundari non posset, obtulit quingentas marcas domino regi pro -vita habenda. Sed quia ipse per judicium aque perierat, noluit -denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium de eo fieret, -et suspensus est.<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>I suggest that ‘Senex’ is merely an elegant Latinization of ‘Viel,’ -the name of a leading London family,<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> which was usually Latinized -“Vetulus.” And<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span> we have but to turn to the Pipe Roll of 1175 (21 Hen. -II.) to find this entry:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Vicecomes reddit compotum de xlii s. et ix d. de catallis -Johannis Vetuli suspensi et Johannis Lafaite<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> fugitivi (p. -20).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Here we have the proper formula under the assize of -Clarendon,<a id="FNanchor_274" href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> with which we may compare clause V. in the Inquest of -Sheriffs (1170):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>De catallis fugitivorum pro assisa de Clarendune, et de catallis -eorum qui per assisam illam perierunt, inquiratur quid actum sit -... et an aliquis retatus relaxatus fuerit, vel reus, pro præmio -vel promissione vel amore, et quis inde præmium acceperit.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Here we have Henry denouncing in 1170 that escape of -criminals through bribery, which we have seen him, above, refusing to -connive at four or five years later, when he was offered “quingentas -marcas”—Miss Norgate says “five thousand”; but one must not be severe -on a lady’s Latin.</p> - -<p>But if the accuracy of the ‘Gesta’ tale is thus remarkably confirmed, -we can hardly accept its description of the man whose chattels produced -so little for the Crown as one of the richest of Londoners. I have not -observed him elsewhere on the rolls, so that probably he was only a -youthful member of his family.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>To return. Andrew “of the oily mouth” must have ceased to occupy his -high office shortly after Stephen’s writ of 1139, for we soon find it -held by no less interesting a man than Osbert “Octodenarii,” otherwise<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span> -“Huitdeniers.” This was no other than Becket’s kinsman and employer, -whom Garnier terms</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="i5h">Un riche hume Lundreis</div> - <div>Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d’Engleis.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>Other biographers of Thomas describe him as “vir insignis in civitate -et multarum possessionum, ... qui non solum inter concives, verum etiam -apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris.”<a id="FNanchor_275" href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> It has been -concluded that the future primate was in Osbert’s employment somewhere -about 1139–1142,<a id="FNanchor_276" href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> and, according to William Fitz Stephen, “receptus -est in partem sollicitudinis reipublicæ Londoniensis.” From the -evidence now about to be adduced we learn that Osbert was actually in -power at the very time when his young kinsman is believed to have been -in his employment. The agreement, therefore, is curiously complete.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Stephanus rex Anglie etc. Osberto octoden[arii] et omnibus -Baronibus et vic[ecomiti] et ministris suis London[ie] -salutem. Precipio quod faciatis resaisiri ecclesiam Sancti -Martini London[ie] et canonicos de terra et de domibus suis -de Aldersgate unde filii Huberti juvenis eos injuste et sine -judicio dissaisierunt sicut inde saisiti fuerunt antequam -episcopus Sar[esberiensis] captus fuisset apud Oxon[iam], -et sicut precepi per aliud breve meum. Et quod ipsi postea -ceperunt reddi facite juste. Et postea si ipsi quicquid in -terras clamaverint Episcopus Wintoniensis cuius ecclesia est et -canonici teneant eis inde rectum. Et videte ne audiam amplius -inde clamorem.<a id="FNanchor_277" href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">This writ, which, it would seem, has never yet been -printed, is subsequent, not only to the one which is given above -(p. 110), but to the death of the bishop of Salisbury in December, -1139.<a id="FNanchor_278" href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> From it we learn that the deanery of St. Martins, which had -been held by Roger, was given by Stephen, at Roger’s death, to his own -brother, the bishop of Winchester. It is probable that this deanery -was a very lucrative appointment, and that its estates were separate -from those of the canons of the church. Count Eustace, in his charter -addressed to Hugh d’Orival bishop of London, speaks of retaining for -himself the lands “quæ propriæ fuerunt Ingelrici et ad decanatum -pertinere debeant,” and a charter of the Empress similarly speaks of -the houses and lands in London “quæ pertinent ad decanatum.”</p> - -<p>The subject of these deaneries of houses of secular canons seems to -deserve working out. As the great bishops of Salisbury and Winchester -held successively the deanery of St. Martin’s, so the <i>protégé</i> of -the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span> latter prelate, Hilary bishop of Chichester, seems to have held -that of Twynham both before and after his elevation to the South-Saxon -see, while the bishops of Exeter, from Osbern the Norman, seem to have -combined the deanery of Bosham with their episcopal office. Maurice -bishop of London (1085) held the deanery of Wimborne. In Normandy, -similarly, Philip of Harcourt, who had been Stephen’s chancellor, was, -as a bishop, dean of the house of Holy Trinity of Beaumont before its -annexation to Bec.</p> - -<p>We next come to a writ of the Empress, which must belong to the year -1141, and which similarly recognises Osbert Huitdeniers as the leading -man in London at the time, and, as I maintain, its Justiciar.<a id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angliæ domina Osberto -Octodenar[ii] et vic[ecomiti] et civibus London[ie] salutem. -Precipio quod saisiatis Henricum episcopum Winton[iensem] et -apostolicæ sedis legatum de domibus illis London[ie] et terris -ubi Petrus ... mansit (quæ pertinent ad decanatum Sancti Martini -London[ie] et ecclesiam suam, et ipsi disseisati sunt), sicut -Rogerus episcopus Saresberiensis decanus ejusdem ecclesiæ et -Fulcherus saisiti fuerunt vivi et mortui, et domos suas, et -omnia quæ inde post mortem Rogeri ablata sunt, facite illi -reddi, et terram ipsam et cetera omnia pertinentia ecclesiæ -Sancti Martini in pace illi tenere facite.</p> -</div> - -<p>The connection of this great prince-bishop with St.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span> Martin’s leads -me to speak of his striking mandate on the subject of the schools of -London:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>H. Dei gratia Wintoniensis ecclesie minister capitulo Sancti -Pauli et Willelmo archidiacono et ministris suis salutem. -Precipio vobis pro obedientia ut trina vocatione sententiam -anatematis in eos proferatis qui sine licentia Henrici Magistri -Scolarum in tota civitate Lundon legere presumpserint preter eos -qui scolas Sancte Marie de Archa et Sancti Martini Magni regunt. -Teste Magistro Ilario apud Wintoniam.<a id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">No date is assigned to this charter, for Henry’s long -rule at Winchester lasted till 1171. But my paper on “Hilary bishop of -Chichester”<a id="FNanchor_281" href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> enables us to identify him with “Magister Ilarius” -the witness, and to date the charter as previous not only to 1147, -but also, in all probability, to 1141, by which time he was dean of -Christchurch. This then carries back our charter to the vacancy in the -See of London (1134–1141), which explains the bishop of Winchester -interfering thus forcibly in its affairs.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have now proved the existence under Stephen, in accordance with -Henry’s charter,<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> of three Justiciars of London, all leading -citizens, namely, Andrew Buchuinte, Osbert Huitdeniers, and Gervase -of Cornhill.<a id="FNanchor_283" href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> But we must not forget the grant of the office to -Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, a grant made by Stephen<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> -and confirmed by the Empress. Here again the charters of St. Martin’s -enable us to complete<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span> our evidence. For in one of them, issued from -his stronghold the Tower, we find Geoffrey taking, as if he were proud -of it, the style of “Justiciar of London.” We may safely date it 1142–3.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Galfridus dei gratia comes Essex[ie] et Justiciarius London[iæ] -Roberto eadem gratia Londoniensi episcopo et Arch[idiacon]o et -omnibus baronibus et hominibus suis, et omnibus tenentibus et -amicis suis London[iæ] et Essex[iæ] tam clericis quam laicis, -salutem. Quam<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> super modum peccavi, et male vivendo et -bona ecclesiastica præter rationem diripiendo Deum offendi, -ex penitencia mea immerita dampna ecclesiæ Sancti Martini -London[iæ] quodam modo restituere, et voluntati canonicorum -satisfacere proposui, etc....</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This curious charter of the dreaded and unscrupulous earl -restores to the canons their Essex manors—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>quæ injuste illis ablatæ sunt quietas de operationibus et -auxiliis vic[ecomitis] et plac[itis] sicut melius et liberius et -quietius tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici et postea melius.</p> - -<p>Testibus: Rohaisa comitissa uxore mea, et Willelmo archidiacono -London[iensi], et Waltero fratre ipsius, Gregorio clerico, et -Osberto clerico, Willelmo archidiacono,<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> et Willelmo de -Moching,<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> et Ricardo filio Osberti constabulario,<a id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> -et Gist<a id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> vic[ecomite], et Ailwino filio Lopstan,<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> -et Roberto de Ponte, et Hugone filio Ulgeri, et Moricio de -Tirtet.<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> Apud London[iam] in Turri, coram monach[is] -Westm[onasterii].</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">That this charter was wrung from the earl in a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span> passing -fit of repentance, consequent on grave illness, is rendered probable by -a singular document, of which the text was communicated to me by the -bishop of Oxford. It is, unfortunately, imperfect.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Domino ac patri Roberto Dei gratia Londoniensi episcopo et toto -capitulo sancti Pauli et omnibus fidelibus sanctæ Ecclesiæ, -Gaufridus comes de Essexa salutem et debitam obedientiam. -Gratias ago Deo meo qui me oberrantem et jamdudum in Babilonem -lapsum misericorditer revocavit: Quia enim miles ad ecclesiæ -defensionem constitutus fueram, ejus impugnator et crudelissimus -persecutor hactenus ... mei molestia et infirmitate gravatus, -me in matrem meam sanctam eccl ... unde et pœnitens veniam -peto, pollicens et vovens debita satisfactione ... vobis illata -integraliter restituere et pro sensu et facultate ... debitam -reverentiam atque manutenementum et protectionem ... quoque -quæ inter me et reginam fuerat de castello de Sto[rteford] -... [sancto] Paulo clamo quietum in perpetuum. Hujus autem -satisfactionis ... meam et comitissa uxor mea et comes Gast -(<i>i.e.</i> Gisl[ebertus]) suam ... confirmationem vero hujus -restitutionis usque ad festum omnium sanctorum ... capituli -catalla nostra in animalibus et ceteris vero pecoribus et ... -rebus quæ in mea bailia sunt vel ad præsens invenientur sine -dilatione vobis reddi faciam.<a id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>We will now revert from the crisis of Stephens reign to the years -preceding his accession, when we shall meet with several of those -citizens of whom I have spoken above.</p> - -<p>A group of three charters, formerly at Barrington Hall, but now in the -British Museum (Add. Cart. 28, 344–6), brings before us several of the -leading citizens of London at the close of the reign of Henry I. Badly -drawn, as deeds, their meaning, in places, is obscure; but the gist -of them seems to be that certain land in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span> Hertfordshire, which was -held of the Count of Boulogne by ‘Rumoldus’ in Domesday, was given by -‘Rumoldus’ (the same or his namesake), and his sons Payn and Bernard, -to Hugh son of Wulfgar, who was one of the fifteen magnates of the -“English Cnihtengild” of London in 1125.<a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> Further, it would seem -that these lands were the dower of Hugh’s sister, who had married one -of Rumold’s sons. The first of these charters<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> records the consent -of Rumold’s lord, William of Boulogne, to this transaction.<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> I -assign it to about the year 1129. First in order among its witnesses -come tenants of the Honour of Boulogne; then local Surrey men;<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> and -lastly, a group recognisable as Londoners:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Gervasio filio Rogeri; Fulcone filio Radulfi; Johanne filio -Radulfi filio Everardi; Hugone Cordello; Guillelmo Gernun; -Gileberto de Sancto Victore; Radulfo de Oxenfordia; Ricardo -Bucherello; Stephano Bucherello; Rogero filio Anschetilli.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Gervase, who had just succeeded his father, a former -sheriff of London, was afterwards eminent as Gervase “of Cornhill” (as -son-in-law of Edward of Cornhill, of the Cnihtengild), Justiciar of -London and sheriff.<a id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a> Fulk pays for his release from imprisonment on -the London pipe roll of 1130;<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> John occurs on the same roll,<a id="FNanchor_299" href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> -and was closely associated with Gervase.<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> Hugh Cordel, in 1130, -accounts for his release from imprisonment;<a id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span> Ralf of Oxford is one -of his pledges.<a id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> The Bucherells were a great City family, whose -name is said to be preserved in Bucklersbury, and who were doubtless of -Italian origin.<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a></p> - -<p>The second of these charters, from its many points of interest, fairly -deserves to be given <i>in extenso</i>:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Fulquius vicecomes nepos Gisleberti de Surreia concedit -Hugoni filio Ulgeri et heredibus suis conventiones de terra -de Alfladewicha et de Hischentuna sicut convencio est inter -Bernardum filium Rumoldi et Hugonem filium Ulgeri et sicut -cirographum quod factum est inter eos testatur per iiij marcas -argenti quas dedit mihi Hugo. Et hoc est requisitione Milonis -de Gloecestria et Fulcredi camerarii Lund[onie] et Osberti -VIII denarii et Andree Buccuinte et Anschetilli. Et istud -concessum fuit factum ante Willelmum abbatem de Certesia, et -Ricardum Basset, et Albericum de Ver, et Meinfeninum Britonem, -et Robertum de Talewurda, et Rodbertum dapiferum abbatis de -Certesia, et Walterum clericum, et Radulfum Bloie.<a id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>We may safely recognise in the grantor that “Fulcoius qui fuit -vicecomes” of the 1130 Pipe Roll<a id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> (p. 44), who had, in 1129, -preceded Richard Basset and Aubrey de Ver as sheriff of Surrey, -Cambridgeshire, and Hunts. A church was quitclaimed to the abbot of -Colchester before him as “Fulcquio vicecomite de Surreia,” not later, -it would seem, than 1126.<a id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> It is probable that the “de Surreia” -of the above clumsily-drawn charter refers to his sheriffwick rather -than to Gilbert, of whom, we here learn, he was the ‘nepos.’ This -statement enables us to connect him directly with Gilbert, a previous -sheriff of Hunts, and,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span> it seems, of Surrey. For a charter witnessed -by this Gilbert, as sheriff, is also witnessed by “Fulcuinus nepos -vicecomitis.”<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> Fulkoin must have been sheriff of Hunts in 1127, for -a charter of May 22, in that year, is witnessed by him.<a id="FNanchor_308" href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> He further -witnessed, as ‘Fulcoinus vicecomes,’ a transaction of which the date -seems not quite certain.<a id="FNanchor_309" href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> Gilbert, his uncle, was sheriff as early -as 1110,<a id="FNanchor_310" href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> and in 1114 (or 1116),<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> and occurs as “Gilbertus -vicecomes de Suthereia” in a charter of 1114–1119.<a id="FNanchor_312" href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a></p> - -<p>From this it would seem that he was sheriff, like his nephew, of Surrey -as well as Hunts (including, doubtless, Cambridgeshire). He was also no -other than the founder of Merton Priory, whose Austin canons were the -teachers of Becket.</p> - -<p>Having reached this conclusion, I turned to the curious narrative of -the foundation of Merton Priory, which exists in MS. at the College of -Arms.<a id="FNanchor_313" href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> Here we find the striking passage:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Erat autem [Gilbertus] vicecomes trium comitatuum, Suthereie, -scilicet, Cantebrigie, et Huntendonie. In qua videlicet -Huntendona per aliquot jam annos in ecclesia gloriosissime -genetricis Dei Marie canonicorum regularium ordo floruerit -et exemplis bonorum operum odorem sue noticie circumquoque -diffuderit (fo. 1 <i>d</i>).</p> -</div> - -<p>Incidentally, we have here evidence that the Austin Priory of St. -Mary’s, Huntingdon, had been in existence some years before the date of -which the writer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span> was speaking, namely, 1114. But the really important -point is that Gilbert is here asserted to have held the shrievalty -of precisely those three counties, which, from other evidence, I had -concluded to have been subject to his rule. We may, therefore, safely -assert that these three counties, under Henry I., had, for some twenty -years, a single sheriff; first the above Gilbert, and then his nephew -Fulcoin. This is a welcome gleam of light on the administrative system -of Henry I.</p> - -<p>But further, the independent confirmation, in this particular, of the -above narrative raises its authority and value. I have seen enough of -it to say that it certainly deserves printing. Apart from its history -of the actual foundation and the early abandonment of the original -site (a point hitherto unknown), it has a long and curious story in -connection with a great council at Winchester in 1121, and, above all, -a precious glimpse of the sheriffs before the Exchequer about the -middle, we may fairly say, of the reign of Henry I.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Ad scacarium autem cum de tota Anglia vicecomites generaliter -coadunarentur universi pro pavore maximo concuterantur, iste -solus interepidis (<i>sic</i>) et hillaris adveniebat atque -confestim a receptoribus advocatus pecuniarum inter illos sese -mittebat sic que cum illis q[ui] unus ex illis securus et alacer -simul sedebat (fo. 10 <i>d</i>).</p> -</div> - -<p>Of the persons named in the above charter, “Meinfeninus Brito” was -clearly the “Maenfininus” who, in 1129, had preceded similarly the same -two officers as sheriffs of Bucks and Beds.<a id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> Miles of Gloucester<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span> -was another active royal officer, sheriff in 1129 and 1130 of -Staffordshire and Gloucestershire;<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a> so that we have here sheriffs -presiding over seven English counties in 1129. Andrew Buccuinte and -Osbert ‘Huitdeniers’ were successively, as shown in this paper, -Justiciars of London; and Fulcred is of interest as a chamberlain of -London, not mentioned, at least as such, in the Roll of 1130, and only -incidentally named in the MSS. of St. Paul’s.<a id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> He occurs, however, -under the same style in a Ramsey charter of February 2, 1131 (if it is -not 1130),<a id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> and was doubtless the Fulcred whose ‘nepos’ Eustace -appears, in 1137, next to Hugh the son of Wulfgar.<a id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span></p> - -<h2>VI<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Inquest of Sheriffs (1170)</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Several years ago there were discovered at the Public Record Office a -number of parchment scraps relating to East Anglia, evidently belonging -to some group, and of singularly early date. My friend, the late Mr. -Walford Selby, showed them to me at the time, and asked me what I -thought they were. As was announced at the time in the columns of the -‘Athenæum,’<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> I pronounced them to be nothing less than fragments -of original returns to the great ‘Inquest of Sheriffs’ in 1170. Dr. -Stubbs, when editing the text of that document for his well-known -‘Select Charters,’ declared that “the report, if ever it was made, must -have been a record of the most interesting kind conceivable.” It was -believed, however, that no trace of the returns could be found. Mr. -Selby intended to publish these fragments as an interesting appendix -to the ‘Liber Rubeus’; and when Mr. Hall succeeded him as editor, he -printed them as Appendix A.<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> Having studied for himself these -fragments, he rejects their connection with the ‘Inquest of Sheriffs,’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span> -although, as he frankly observes, he has only ventured to do so “with -considerable hesitation.” An entire section of the preface (pp. -cc.-ccxi.) is devoted to his reasons for rejecting the above view and -for advancing a wholly different explanation.</p> - -<p>Approaching the question with an open mind, we find the facts to be -as follows: These records relate to an Inquest held, so far as we -can date them, in 1170, and covering the doings of the four years -1166–1170. Moreover, they describe that period as “postquam dominus -Rex transfretavit” (with slight variations in the phrase), which is -precisely the starting-point prescribed for the ‘Inquest of Sheriffs.’ -In all this they answer to the Inquest; and all this Mr. Hall admits. -But he raises curiously vague difficulties, which resolve themselves -at last into the assertion—upon which, we read, he must insist—“that -there is nothing more than a superficial resemblance, and certainly -nothing to correspond to the articles of inquiry as they are alone -known to us.” Here at least we have a definite issue. Let us then adopt -the simple plan of printing side by side the second article of enquiry, -from Dr. Stubbs’ text, and the very first of the returns on Mr. Hall’s -list.</p> - -<table summary="returns" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Article.</span></td> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Return.</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Similiter inquiratur de archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, - comitibus, baronibus, et eorum senescallis et ministris, quid vel - quantum acceperint per terras suas post terminum praedictum - [postquam dominus Rex transfretavit] de singulis hundredis et - de singulis villatis suis, et singulis hominibus suis, per judicium vel - sine judicio; et omnes prisas illas scribant separatim et causas - et occasiones earum.</td> - <td class="cht1">Hæc est inquisitio de manerio Comitis Arundeliæ in Snetesham, - scilicet quod homines sui dederunt postquam dominus - noster Rex Anglorum extremo transfretavit in Normanniam. - Quando Comes perexit ad servandas les Marches de Wales - pluribus vicibus, scilicet, homines de domenio suo dederunt c - solidos; et Ricardus filius Atrac et sui pares de uno socagio dederunt - iii marcas gratis.... Quando comes rediit de Francia, - iterum dederunt,’ &c., &c.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">I have slightly altered Mr. Hall’s punctuation, <span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span>which -seems to me erroneous; but this in no way affects the argument. It is -to the enquiry I have printed above that these interesting documents -are undoubtedly the returns. Their common feature is that they record -payments made by vills, or by individuals to their lords, that they -record them “separatim,” and that they specially record their “causas -et occasiones.” We may go further. The very phrase in the above -article—“per judicium”<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a>—occurs no less than eleven times in the -return for the Valoines barony, being duly appended, as prescribed, to -the several payments and their “causes.”</p> - -<p>The correspondence of Inquest and returns being thus close and indeed -obvious, one is led to wonder how their editor can have committed -himself to so unfortunate an assertion. He would seem, instead of -studying the articles, to have started with a preconceived and -erroneous view of their character, and then rejected my own view -because the returns “are not specially connected with the alleged -maladministration of the fiscal officers which was the subject of the -above inquiry, but ... with the private feudal relations<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span> of the same -(<i>i.e.</i> individual barons) with their subtenants.” He cannot have -read the second article, which is specially concerned with the latter -relations, and which stands in every way on a level with the first -(concerning the fiscal officers). Moreover, by a lucky chance, there -is preserved among these documents at least one fragment of the return -to the enquiry as to the king’s officers. For we read that the men on -one manor “nil dederunt Vicecomiti neque prepositis Regis præter xvi d. -quos dederunt ad castellum firmandum de Oreford,” etc., etc. Nay more, -we can identify at least two of these returns as having been made in -reply to the <i>third</i> article of the Inquest:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et similiter inquirant de hominibus illis qui post terminum -illum habuerunt alias ballivas de domino rege in custodia, sive -de episcopatu, sive de abbatia, sive de baronia, sive de honore -aliquo vel eschaeta.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The returns numbered 55, 56 (p. cclxxx.) are classed by -Mr. Hall among “Baroniæ incertæ.” They relate, however, to the barony -or “honour” of William Fitz Alan, which had been for many years in the -king’s hands. It was ‘farmed’ in 1170, as it had been for ten years, -by Guy l’Estrange (“Wido Extraneus.”) Guy had a brother John,<a id="FNanchor_322" href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> who -appears in these returns as in charge of the Norfolk portion of the -honour. Since Michaelmas, 1165, a part of William Fitz Alan’s land had -been granted out to Geoffrey de Vere, and we accordingly find, at the -end of the second return, one of William Fitz Alan’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span> knights,<a id="FNanchor_323" href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> -William de Pagrave, making him a payment. Now all this might have been -explained by an intelligent editor. Mr. Hall has elaborated, instead, a -series of fantastic errors.</p> - -<p>I have dwelt on the point at some length, because, apart from the -intrinsic interest of these curious returns—which have thus come -to light after more than seven centuries—they establish the fact -that this great enquiry extended to private landowners, a fact which -even Dr. Stubbs, I fear, seems to have overlooked in the analysis he -gives of the ‘Inquest.’ And further, they corroborate the articles of -enquiry, where we can apply the test, and thus confirm the authenticity -of the document in which those articles are found.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>We must not, however, ignore Mr. Hall’s own hypothesis, for the Rolls -edition in which it is enshrined gives it an official <i>cachet</i>; -and there may be those who think that arguments of this character -require an answer.</p> - -<p>So far as it is possible to understand it, this hypothesis would -connect these Inquests with the scutage of Ireland (p. ccx.), which was -duly accounted for (<i>annotatum</i>) in 1172, the expedition falling -within the financial year Mich., 1171–Mich., 1172.<a id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> In that case -these inquests, on Mr. Hall’s own showing, could not have been held -earlier than 1172, at “the conclusion of the campaign” (p. clxxxvi.). -But they must have been held in 1170, for, as he observes<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span> (pp. ccxi.), -one of the fragments speaks of “istos iiij annos” (p. cclxviii.) -reckoned from March, 1166.</p> - -<p>But we have much stronger evidence than this. We read, at the outset, -of these documents, that “it will be evident that they are connected -with some Inquest of military service during the reign of Henry II.” -This is an extraordinary assertion from one who is himself their -editor. For we have only to turn to the second on the list to find in -it nothing but a detailed record of the sums given individually by some -forty burgesses of (Castle) Rising towards paying off the mortgages of -their lord the earl of Arundel, who was clearly in the hands of the -Jews. And the long and most curious return from the barony of Robert -de Valoines deals with a humble reeve who neglected his master’s hay; -a shepherd who had charge of his lord’s fold; Brian, who looked after -the wood; Gilbert, who kept the bees; and other dependents fined for -negligence. We may even say, most confidently, that the idea of an -Inquest of military service could never occur to any one who perused -the whole of these documents with an unbiassed mind. They are simply -the result of an enquiry into the payment of moneys, and the reasons -for such payment. But Mr. Hall has a theory to advance, and can only -see these records in its light. Briefly stated, that theory is that -these documents “answer very nearly to the description of such an -Inquest” on knight service as is referred to in the return for the -Honour of Arundel assigned to 1166. That these documents are later in -date; that they do not suggest an Inquest on knight service; that,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span> -even if they did, they have no concern with an Inquest restricted to -a Sussex Honour—all these objections are as nothing to Mr. Hall. He -is as ready to “hazard the supposition” that conflicts with all the -evidence as he was loth to accept a solution that fits in every way -the facts of the case. May one not raise a strong protest against the -sacrifice of a dozen pages, within a strictly limited space, to the -enunciation of wildly conjectural and absolutely erroneous theories, -not in the book of a private author, but in a Government publication, -intended to form for all time the standard edition of a famous work?</p> - -<p>Let us now turn to the Pipe Roll of 1172 (18 Hen. II.), which plays an -important part in Mr. Hall’s arguments. He tells us that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">an entry occurs in several different counties which has proved -a source of difficulty to several generations of historical -students. The entry in question is headed “De hiis qui cartas -non miserunt,” certain assessments being appended in each case -for the Scutage of Ireland (p. ccii.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">We refer, as invited, to the roll itself, only to find -that, on the contrary, it first records the “assessments for the -scutage of Ireland,” and then heads the lists which follow: “De his qui -cartas non miserunt.”<a id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> It is this very sequence that is responsible -for the error of Madox, who held, as Mr. Hall observes, “that the -charters in question must have been returned for the purpose of the -Scutage of Ireland in 1171.”<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> Swereford, on the other hand, wrote -of the 1172 roll:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Quo quidem rotulo supplentur nomina illorum qui cartas non -miserunt anno xiij<sup>o</sup>, prout superius tactum est (p. 8).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">He is wrong, of course, in stating that the charters -were returned in the “13th year” (an error which his editor carefully -ignores), but perfectly right in his explanation, if we substitute -“12th” for his “13th” year. Yet, having thus rightly shown that -Swereford’s explanation is the true one, his editor closes the -paragraph thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The simple solution of the difficulty is that the tenants who -were in debt for the aid of 1168 were so entered on the occasion -of the next assessment (1171) in a conspicuous form (p. cciii.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Really, this wanton confusion is enough to make Swereford -turn in his grave. The entry which has caused the difficulty refers, -not to “the tenants who were in debt for the aid” of 1168, but to those -who had made no returns (“cartas non miserunt”) in 1166.</p> - -<p>Mr. Hall assigns Madox’s error to his finding no “corresponding -entries,” under Sussex, in 1168 (14 Hen. II.) for those in 1172 (18 -Hen. II.). And yet all three entries, in the latter year, of the -earl of Arundel’s tenants<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> have their corresponding entries in -1168.<a id="FNanchor_328" href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> The real cause of Madox’s error has been explained above.</p> - -<p>It is, we read, “significant” that in 1168 the earl’s “assessment -actually does not correspond with that recorded in the existing charter -of 1166” (p. cciv.); for it only “gives 84½ fees for the Earl’s Sussex<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span> -barony,” while the Inquest referred to in his charter had the result -that “13 more were acknowledged by the Earl as chargeable upon his -demesne, raising the total to 97½.” Therefore, “we are almost tempted -to suspect that the Earl’s charter was not returned in 1166 at all, but -only after an interval of several years.” On which, of course, a theory -is built.</p> - -<p>Ingenious enough, is it not? Yet, as usual, a house of cards. For we -find the “barony” charged only with 84½ fees in 1194,<a id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> in 1196, and -in 1211 (13 John),<a id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> precisely as in 1168. The total had not been -raised at all; and the house of cards topples over.</p> - -<p>The same unhappy paragraph closes with these words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It is quite clear ... that the dispute was practically settled, -in the 18th year, only two refractory tenants remaining to be -dealt with, and that the Earl paid the whole of his assessment -in the 21st year.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">We turn to the rolls, and find, as usual, that not two, -but three, tenants (<i>ut supra</i>) were recalcitrant in the 18th -year, and that the Earl, in the 21st (1175), did not pay a penny of his -assessment (84½ fees), but was forgiven the whole of it.<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a></p> - -<p>Not content with his own confusion, Mr. Hall proceeds to assign to -others errors which they neither have made, nor would dream of making. -He even asserts that Mr. Eyton and I “maintain that the honour of -Arundel was granted to William de<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span> Albini by Henry I.” (p. ccvii.), an -assertion for which there is not the faintest shadow of foundation. -Such a view would imply an absolute ignorance of all the facts of the -case; and it was as foreign to Mr. Eyton<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> as it is to myself.<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a></p> - -<p>One cannot be expected to waste time over his theory that the baronies -mentioned in these fragments were specially involved in debt, which is -a mere phantasy; but we may note, as the date is of importance, that -“Avelina de Ria” was “compelled to atone” for her offence, in making -her son a knight, by a heavy fine, not “in the 15th year,” but in the -14th.<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> In the same paragraph (p. ccx.) we are told that “this -barony, like the honour of Arundel, was still unable to contribute -towards the next Scutage, of 1171.”<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> As a matter of fact, it paid -at once £30, out of £35, the total for which it was liable,<a id="FNanchor_336" href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> a very -creditable proportion; while the honour of Arundel was not even charged -with any payment for this Scutage, which was only assessed on those -“qui nec abierunt in Hybernia,” etc.</p> - -<p>But enough of this error and confusion. If the reader is tempted to -grow weary, what must be the feelings of the writer, who has thus to -remove, brick by brick, this vast edifice of error, so perversely -and wantonly erected, before the simple facts can be brought to the -light of day. It is weary, it is thankless work; and yet it has to be -accomplished.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span> I am tempted to quote these apposite remarks from the -critical articles by Mr. Thomas Bond on a no less misleading work:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Numberless difficulties are suggested where none really exist, -and possibilities and probabilities unaccompanied by proofs -are offered for their solution.... The narrative is so diluted -and confused that it is difficult to follow it shortly and -comprehensively. I can, therefore, only select some of the most -remarkable errors and notice them <i>seriatim</i>, quoting the -author’s own words in order to avoid the risk of unintentional -misrepresentation.... It may be asked, Where is the difficulty -which requires these strange, far-fetched ‘probabilities’ for -its solution?... All this is fanciful and mere imagination.... -In reply to all these supposed ‘possibilities,’ let us turn to -certainties.... I have thus laid before the reader some of the -numerous inaccuracies into which the author of this work has -fallen, and have stated some of the singular theories he has -advanced.<a id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>We have, in the Red Book Preface, the very same features. It is, -perhaps, in his treatment of these interesting fragments (1170) that -we detect most vividly Mr. Hall’s strange capacity of inventing -difficulties that do not exist, and of dismissing those that do. In -the teeth of the clearest possible facts, we are given such vague -probabilities, or possibilities, as these:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>This will perhaps be ... it is probable that ... it can only be -surmised that ... we are almost tempted to suspect that ... we -may perhaps hazard the supposition that ... would probably have -been ... it might be held that ... we might perhaps identify, -etc., etc. (pp. ccii.-ccvi.).</p> -</div> - -<p>The fact is that, as I have said, this preface is really the fruit -of a habit of mind, a mental twist, which distorts the writer’s -vision, and seems to impel him,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span> irresistibly, to arrive at the wrong -conclusion.<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a> We trace this singular tendency throughout, but its -effect has nowhere proved more disastrous than in his treatment of -these returns to the great “Inquest of Sheriffs.” That these records -should have been so treated in the first work that gives them to the -world is a really lamentable matter.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span></p> - -<h2>VII<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Conquest of Ireland<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a></span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">A brilliant but paradoxical writer—I refer to Mr. Standish -O’Grady—has, with unerring hand, sketched for us the state of -Ireland when as yet the Norman adventurer had not set foot upon her -shores.<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> To those who dream of a golden age, of a land in the -enjoyment of peace and happiness till invaded by the ruthless stranger, -the scene his pen reveals should prove a rude awakening. That Mr. -O’Grady writes with unrivalled knowledge of his subject, is neither -his only nor his chief claim to the confidence of those we speak of: -they are more likely to be influenced by the fact that his sympathies -are all with the Irish, that he cannot conceal his admiration for -government by ‘battle-axe,’ and that he strives to justify what to -English eyes could be nothing but a glorified Donnybrook Fair. He is -wrathful with Mr. Freeman for picturing Ireland as only “the scene of -waste tribal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span> confusions, aimless flockings and fightings, a wilderness -tenanted by wolves and wolfish men,” and claims that her history, in -each generation, was at this time “that of some half-dozen strong men -striving for the mastery ... a most salutary warfare, inevitable, -indispensable, enjoined by nature herself.”</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>No! Freedom, whose smile we shall never resign,</div> - <div class="i1">Go, tell our invaders, the Danes,</div> - <div>That ’tis sweeter to bleed for an age at thy shrine</div> - <div class="i1">Than to sleep but a moment in chains.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>If we cannot agree with this able champion in viewing the warfare he -describes as a healthy process of evolution, we may at least gladly -admit that some knowledge of this dark period, lighted only by the -lurid torch of rapine and internecine strife, is as essential to a -right understanding of the Anglo-Norman settlement as is the study -of English history, for some generations before the Conquest, the -necessary prelude to a comprehension of the Norman Conquest itself.</p> - -<p>It is not, however, for the Conquest only that this knowledge of the -true state of Ireland ought to be acquired. The light it throws on -the Irish people, their inherited and unchangeable tendencies, is of -value from the parallel it presents to the latest modern developments. -“Tribes and nations,” writes Mr. O’Grady, “had ceased to count”; the -struggle was one in which, “released from all control,” some half a -dozen rival kings “fiercely battled like bulls for the mastery of the -herd.” No lively imagination, surely, is required to see the spirit -of this strife renewed in the leaders of the present Irish party, -or prophesy a revival, under Home Rule, of the days when “Turlough<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[139]</span> -O’Conor and Tiernan O’Rourke were terribly at war—Ireland (the -chronicler adds) a shaking sod between them.” Although, in the true -Hibernian spirit, Mr. Standish O’Grady can speak of this as a “vast and -bloody, but not ignoble strife,” I hold that its animating spirit was -an ambition as ruthlessly personal as that which leads the Presidents -of South American Republics to wade through blood to power, and to -reduce their country to ‘a shaking sod’ for the gratification of their -rivalry. It is the absolutely personal character of this strife which -is fatal to Mr. O’Grady’s argument that a strong ‘Ardriship,’ or -central rule, was in actual process of evolution before the invaders -arrived. Where that rule was based only on personal prowess or strength -of character, it was liable, at any moment, to be broken up by death, -and once more replaced, if not by anarchy, at least by such internecine -strife as has been the fate of Mr. Parnell’s party since the removal of -his strong hand. There was, as Mr. O’Grady is never tired of reminding -us, but one way, in those halcyon days, of securing the hegemony -of Ireland: “a normal Irish king had to clear his way through the -provinces, battle-axe in hand, gathering hostages by the strength of -his arm”; he had to “move forward step by step, battle-axing territory -after territory into submission.” The only vote known was given by -“the mouth of the battle-axe”; and for the dissentient Irishmen of the -time there were “always ready battle-axes and trained troops of swift -raiders and plunderers.” Nor was it necessary for the Irish king to set -his “trained plunderers and cattle drivers” at work on every occasion. -The convenient<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[140]</span> and recognised institution of hostages provided him -with some one he could hang or blind without the least trouble, and -thus anticipate the fate which might very probably be his own.</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Remember the glories of Brian the brave,</div> - <div>Though the days of the hero are o’er.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>Even the danger of interference from without could not permanently -unite the Irish among themselves. The Scandinavian settlers had turned -this weakness to account by siding now with one and now with another of -the factions, and had finally made good their possession of the seaport -towns, where they stood towards the rest of the island much like the -Ulstermen of to-day, a hardy race of alien origin and long of hostile -faith, merchants and seamen to whom the natives left all the traffic -with other lands. One cannot but think from the small part they seem to -have played in the struggle between the Irish and the Norman invaders -that their heart was rather in trading than in war, and that the old -wiking spirit had flickered down among them, or at least found a new -vent. Not so with the Norman adventurers. That marvellous people had as -yet preserved their restless activity, their boundless ambition, and -their love of martial enterprise. Conquerors, courtiers, or crusaders, -they were always lords in the end; the glamour of lordship was ever -present above the Norman horizon. Ireland alone knew them not, and -thither they had now begun to cast eager eyes. The wave that had spread -itself over England and Wales had now gathered up its strength anew, -and the time had come for it at last to break on the Irish shore.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span></p> - -<p>It is at this point that the curious poem Mr. Orpen has so ably edited -comes to our aid as an historical authority of singular value and -importance. Although long known to scholars from Michel’s publication -of its text (1837), it was described by Mr. Dimock, who knew its value, -in the preface to his edition of Giraldus, as then “in great measure -useless” from the want of competent annotation. He observed with truth -that “no more valuable contribution, perhaps, to the history of the -first few years of the English invasion of Ireland could be made” than -a worthy edition of this poem. Such an edition Mr. Orpen may justly -claim to have produced. The corrupt and obscure condition of the text -demanded elucidation no less urgently than the Irish names with which -it teems required special knowledge for their correct identification. -It is not too much to say that Mr. Orpen has shown us how much can be -done by skilful editing to increase the value of an authority. Avoiding -the over-elaboration that one associates with German scholarship, he -has provided his readers with an apparatus at once sufficient and -concise. Text, translation, notes, map, chronology, and glossary, all -are admirable in their way; and the patience with which the barbarous -names, both of places and of persons, have been examined and explained -is deserving of warm praise. As to the way in which a text should be -treated scholars will generally differ in certain points of detail, but -Mr. Orpen’s method shows us, at least, the exact state of the text from -which he worked. There is still room, perhaps, for further conjectural -emendation. For instance, in the lines—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span></p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Crandone pus a un barun,</div> - <div>Ricard le flemmeng out anun—</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">where the editor is fairly baffled by ‘Crandone,’ perfect sense might -at once be made by reading—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Slan donat pus a un barun,</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">which would satisfy at once the conditions of metre, of locality, and -of the context. So too, in the interesting Lacy charter printed on page -310, the editor might have detected in Adam de ‘Totipon,’ the Adam de -‘Futepoi’ of Giraldus, and the Adam de ‘Feipo’ of the poem: in records -the name appears in both forms. The case of this man, one may add, -is peculiarly interesting, because I have detected him as a knightly -tenant of Hugh de Laci in England in the returns of 1166, in which he -seems to be disguised as “Putipo.” He thus came, we see, to share in -his lord’s greatness, becoming one of the leading ‘barons’ in his new -dominion of Meath.</p> - -<p>It is necessary to explain that although this poem, in the form here -preserved to us, dates only from about 1220 to 1230, it enshrines -materials contemporary with the actual invasion and conquest. For it is -based upon a narrative which seems to have closed not later than 1176, -and for which the <i>trouvère</i> or compiler of the poem was indebted -to Maurice Regan, the interpreter, and, one might almost say, the -diplomatic agent of king Dermot, whose matrimonial adventures were the -<i>causa causans</i> of the whole story. In giving to the poem the name -of “the Song of Dermot and the Earl,” the editor has brought out the -fact that its narrative is chiefly concerned with the doings of Dermot -and his son-in-law, ‘Strongbow,’ as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span> the earl of Pembroke has been -commonly named.<a id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a> It is not improbable that the original work was -only carried down to the earl’s death in 1176. Mr. Orpen lays special -stress on the fact that there are but “two allusions pointing to a -much later date,” and claims it as “a remarkable fact that, with the -exception of these two allusions ... there is nothing, so far as I have -observed, pointing to a later date than 1177.” He would seem, however, -to have overlooked an allusion to John de Curci’s subsequent troubles -in Ulster in the lines:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>De curti out anun iohan,</div> - <div>Ki pus isuffri meint [a]han.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>This, however, like the other two, would be only an addition by the -later versifier, and does not affect the main fact that we are dealing -with a metrical version of a story contemporaneous with the conquest, -and enshrining in ll. 3064–3177 “the only connected account of the -subinfeudation of Leinster and Meath ... that has come down to us, a -sort of original Domesday Book of the first Anglo-Norman settlement.” -As such, it has the advantage of date over the ‘Expugnatio’ of -Giraldus; it is also instinct with evidence of native local knowledge; -and, above all, it stands apart from any other authority in its -independent point of view. Giraldus wrote, as is well known, largely -with the object of glorifying his relatives, who made the invasion of -Ireland almost a family undertaking; in Regan, on the other hand, we -have the panegyrist of Dermot and the earl of Pembroke,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span> who carried to -such a height the spirit of party faction as to denounce as “traitors” -all his countrymen who were opposed to Dermot and his foreign allies.</p> - -<p>The opening lines are, unfortunately, imperfect and so obscure that -the nature of the materials from which the <i>trouvère</i> worked -and the exact share in their authorship due to Regan have been, and -must remain, to some extent matters of conjecture. Mr. Orpen himself -inclines to the belief that Regan supplied the unknown <i>trouvère</i> -with a tale already “put into metre”; but Dr. Liebermann has rightly -urged the improbability of our poem being merely an adaptation of -one previously composed. Indeed, that eminent scholar has advanced a -theory of his own, namely, that the real original source was a “lost -chronicle” about the conquest of Ireland which Giraldus Cambrensis -had used in 1188 for his Expugnatio.’ And this theory he bases on -some striking parallel passages.<a id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> To the few typical parallels -adduced by Dr. Liebermann I would myself add some taken from the -stirring tale of the saving of Dublin when, mad for revenge, the ousted -Northmen assembled from all the isles of the north to regain their -lost dominion. This sudden upleaping, for a moment, of the old wiking -flame was but a splendid anachronism: like the Highland rising of the -‘forty-five,’ it was curiously out of date. Yet the old Scandinavian -spirit, if dulled among the traders of Dublin, still burnt in the hardy -rovers they had now summoned to their aid; and the Irish chieftain who -stood aloof watching with his men the surging fray as the little<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span> band -of Anglo-Normans strove to repel the onslaught, saw not merely rival -conquerors, quarrelling, like vultures, for the spoil, but deadly foes -whose own lives hung on the issue of that fight. But while in a fit of -‘berserker’ fury, ‘John the Mad’ led the attack against the eastern -gate, Richard de Cogan, the governor’s brother, had privily sallied -from another one:—</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht2">Este vus Johan le deue<br /> - Vers dyuelyn tut serre,<br /> - Vers la cite od sa gent<br /> - En dreite la porte del orient,<br /> -  . . . . . .<br /> - La cite unt dunc asaillie.</td> - <td class="cht1">Duce Johanne agnomine the Wode ... viri - bellicosi ... ordinatis turmis ad portam orientalem - muros invadunt.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Then, marching round till he reached the rear of the -assailants, he fell on them suddenly with a mighty shout, and the -Northmen, caught between his brother and himself, wavered at last in -their attack. The Danish axe still whirled in the hands of ‘John the -Mad,’ cleaving its way, as of old, through helm and coat of mail:</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht2">De une hache ben tempre<br /> - Cosuit le ior un chevaler<br /> - Que la quisse lui fist voler;<br /> - Od tut la hache de fer blanc<br /> - Lui fist voler la quisse al champe.</td> - <td class="cht1">Militis quoque coxa ferro utrinque vestita uno securis - ictu cum panno loricæ præcisa.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">But John himself fell at last; and the sons of the -wikings fled to their ships. Hasculf, their king, captured alive, -hurled at his captors words of scorn, and was by them promptly -beheaded, “pur son orgoil e ses fous dis,” or, as Giraldus tersely puts -it, “insolenti verbo.”</p> - -<p>If Dr. Liebermann’s theory be accepted, it would<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span> involve, as he -reminds us, the important consequence that we have in our poem and the -‘Expugnatio’ not two independent authorities, but narratives drawn from -a common source. The discrepancies, however, between the two are so -numerous and so significant that we cannot accept this new view as at -all satisfactorily proved.</p> - -<p>But turning to a third source of information, known as “the Book of -Howth,” I have no hesitation in saying that its nature has been quite -misunderstood. It is difficult to render clear, within a short compass, -the hopeless confusion that surrounds the subject, and that is, -virtually, all to be traced to an error of that ardent collector, but -most untrustworthy antiquary, Sir George Carew, whose voluminous MSS. -at Lambeth include both the ‘Regan’ poem and the Book of Howth, and to -whom we should have felt more grateful if he would only have left them -alone. But the worst offender was Professor Brewer, whose work it is -the fashion to rate very highly indeed, though I have found it by no -means unimpeachable even in his calendars of the state papers of Henry -VIII.<a id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> Now the Professor ought to have been quite at home on this -Irish subject, for it fell to his lot to edit the first four volumes -of Giraldus as well as the Book of Howth; yet he not only stereotyped -and carried further Carew’s original error, but found fault, somewhat -unjustly, with Mr. Dimock’s remarks in his preface to the ‘Expugnatio.’</p> - -<p>The real facts of the case are these. So popular were the works of -‘Master Gerald,’ as Mr. Dimock<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span> observed, that they survive, not only -in many MSS., but in several early translations. The pedigree of these -translations has not been properly worked out. At Trinity College, -Dublin, we have two in E. 3, 31, and F. 4, 4, while at Lambeth we have -the so-called ‘Conquest of Ireland’ by Bray—published by Messrs. -Brewer and Bullen, with the Book of Howth—and in the latter (pp. -36–117) there is included another and more modernized version. Of these -the one assigned to Bray was held by Professor Brewer to have been -written about the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century, -and to be “so interesting and curious a specimen of English as spoken -in the Pale” that he decided to print it in full and to retain the -original orthography. But E. 3, 31 was, he admitted, “a still earlier -version.” Yet this latter MS., when submitted by Mr. Dimock to so -competent an authority as Mr. Earle, was pronounced by him to be “a -truly interesting specimen of fifteenth (<i>sic</i>) century Hibernian -English.” He added that it well deserved publication, in which remark I -certainly concur, its language being most curious. Professor Brewer (p. -xxiii.) declared it “an error” of Mr. Dimock and others to term this -MS. a translation of Giraldus, but the real error, we shall find, was -his own. The other Dublin MS. (F. 4, 4), to which he does not allude, -is assigned by Mr. Dimock to “the sixteenth century” (p. lxxvii.), and -declared to be “a transcript from the earlier E. 3, 31,” a description -which, unfortunately, misses the point. The solution, I believe, of -the whole mystery is that there was a very early and exceedingly free -translation of Gerald’s ‘Expugnatio,’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span> which, after the mediæval -fashion, spoke of him at times in the third person, and thus assumed, -in places, a quasi-original form. This original translation, which -seems to be now lost, was copied both by the writer of E. 3, 31 and by -Bray in his ‘Conquest of Ireland,’ the latter only modernizing somewhat -the language. Then come the two other MSS., both of the latter part of -the 16th century. Of these the distinctive feature is that while still -copying, though further modernizing, the original translation—for -internal evidence seems to prove that the Book of Howth at least -was derived from neither of the above copies—they interlard it -with certain passages taken from another and distinct source. This -discovery, which corrects Mr. Dimock and overthrows the conclusions of -Professor Brewer, is based on collation of the essential passage in the -Book of Howth with its parallel passage in the Dublin MS. F. 4, 4 as -given in Hardy’s ‘Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of -Great Britain,’ on the authority of Mr. W. M. Hennessy:</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Book of Howth.</span></td> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Trin. Coll.</span> MS. F. 4, 4.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">This much Cameransse left out in his book aforesaid with other - things, more for displeasure than any truth to tell, the cause afore - doth testifie. God forgive them all. This much that is in this - book more than Camerans did write of was translated by the - Primate Doudall in the year of our Lord 1551 out of a Latin - book into English, which was found with O’Nell in Armaghe.</td> - <td class="cht1">This much Camerans left out of his book ... with other - things more for displeasure than any truth to tell, the cause before - do testifie, God forgive them all. This much that is in this book - more than Camerans did writ of was translated by the Primet - Dowdall in the yere of o<sup>r</sup> Lord God 1551 out of a Latin book - into English, which was found with O’Neil in Armaghe.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Nothing can be more clear than this reference to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span> the -interlarded portions, which can all, I may add, be identified and -separated from the ‘Giraldus’ portion. But Carew carelessly wrote, in -the margin on fo. 6, that the <i>whole</i> narrative “was translated -out of an old book of O’Neale’s written in Latin, and put into English -by Dowdall, Primate of Ardmaghe, beginning in anno 1167.” Though -Professor Brewer had the words of the original before him, and though -he could not but admit that Bray “follows closely the footsteps of -Giraldus,” yet he was so misled by Carew’s unlucky slip as to assert -that the MS. E. 3, 31 was “nothing more than a translation of the -Latin chronicle once in O’Neil’s possession, which Carew calls ‘the -Conquest of Ireland, written by Thomas Bray’” (p. xxiii.). These, on -the contrary, are precisely the versions which have no interpolations -from that source. The Armagh book was devoted to the deeds of John de -Courcy, Conqueror of Ulster, though, by a crowning error, Professor -Brewer was careful to distinguish it from “A Chronicle of the Gests or -Doings of John de Courcey, Earl of Ulster.” Apart from the interest of -its contents, the “book” has a special importance from a significant -allusion by Giraldus, when closing his chapter on John, who was never, -by the way, “Earl of Ulster”:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Sed hæc de Johanne summatim, et quasi sub epilogo commemorantes, -grandiaque ejusdem gesta suis explicanda scriptoribus -relinquentes, etc., etc.</p> -</div> - -<p>Having now cleared up all this confusion, I need not dwell on Professor -Brewer’s further failure to detect the share taken by Christopher lord -of Howth in the compilation of the book that bears the name of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span> his -house, but will resume our discussion of the Anglo-Norman poem.</p> - -<p>Although, as I have said, the nature of the materials supplied to -this 13th century <i>trouvère</i> must remain as yet conjectural, the -question is of some literary interest in its bearing on the relation -of the ‘Carmen Ambrosii’ to the ‘Itinerarium Peregrinorum,’ if not to -the chronicle of Richard of Devizes, in which cases, by a converse -process, we find a French poem utilized by a Latin chronicler. It is -the plausible suggestion of M. Paul Meyer that the <i>trouvère</i> -to whom we owe this poem composed it by desire of the countess of -Pembroke, daughter of the earl, and granddaughter of Dermot, just as -the great ‘Marshal’ poem, now in course of publication, was written for -the glorification of her husband’s family.<a id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> That the writer was -a Pembrokeshire man is rendered extremely probable by his evidently -close acquaintance with that district, and his recognition of the -Flemish element in ‘little England beyond Wales.’ A curious test of his -accuracy is afforded by his mention of the king’s departure for Ireland:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Li rei henri, quant eskipa,</div> - <div>A la croiz en mer entra.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>It is a warning to the critical school of historians that Miss Norgate -very naturally supposed the poet to have here mistaken Crook, in -Waterford harbour, where Henry disembarked, for the place where he -took ship. Mr. Orpen has shown conclusively, from records, that the -‘croix’ was the usual place of embarkation for those leaving Pembroke -for Ireland.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span> We have thus a peculiar feature of the poem in its -combination of the Irish knowledge possessed by the original informant -with the acquaintance of its later versifier with men and places in -that district from which the adventurers had so largely come.</p> - -<p>Among the points on which this poem gives us special information we -may note its mention of a man who played no small part in the royal -administration of Ireland.<a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> We read that, on the coming of king -Henry,—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Willame le fiz audeline</div> - <div>Od lui vint a cel termine (ll. 2603–4).</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>Belonging to the same type as the men whom the first Henry had steadily -raised to office and to power as a check upon the turbulent feudal -nobility, William was called upon to play a similar part in Ireland -as the representative of the royal power among the eager adventurers -who had flocked to the land of promise. Hence their bitter complaints -against his rule to the king, and the violent criticism of his personal -character to which Giraldus gave utterance from the point of view of -his kinsmen. Now Professor Tout rejects the statement, in the two lines -we have quoted, that William came with the king, and infers from the -‘Gesta’ that Henry had despatched him some time before from Normandy to -govern till he came. But there is evidence—though unknown, it would -seem, to historians—that throws fresh light upon the question. Mr. -Eyton, in his ‘Court and Itinerary’ of the king, could not discover -any document belonging to his stay at Pembroke (29th September to 16th -October),<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[152]</span> while waiting to cross to Ireland. It was there, however, -on the 7th of October (as the date is, in this case, given) that he -granted a charter to the men of Maldon,<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> from which we learn that -with him at the time were the earls of Cornwall and Clare (Hertford), -Roger Bigod, three of his ‘dapiferi,’ or household officers, William -Ruffus, Alvred de St. Martin, and William Fitz Audelin, with two men, -Hugh de Gundeville and Robert Fitz Bernard, whom he took with him to -Ireland and left there. It is clear then that if William Fitz Audelin -and Robert Fitz Bernard met him on landing at Waterford, they can only -have preceded him, at most, by a few days. This discovery vindicates -the virtual accuracy of the poem.</p> - -<p>Mr. Eyton’s work, to which I have referred, records (p. 165) another -charter of interest for its date. It belongs to Henry’s stay at -Wexford, in March, 1172, on his way back to England. As only the first -two witnesses were known to Mr. Eyton, a full list may here be appended -as illustrating the king’s <i>entourage</i> on this expedition.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Testibus; Comite Ricardo filio Gilberti; Willelmo de Braosa; -Willelmo de Albin[eio];<a id="FNanchor_347" href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> Reginaldo de Cortenay; Hugone de -Gundevilla; Willelmo filio Aldelini dapifero; Hugone de Cresy; -Willelmo de Stotevilla; Radulfo de Aya (<i>sic</i>); Reginaldo -de Pavily; Radulfo de Verdun; Willelmo de Gerpunvilla; Roberto -de Ruilli; Apud Wesefordam.<a id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[153]</span></p> - -<p>Turning now to other subjects, one of the most curious allusions in -this poem is that which refers to the practice of tendering a folded -glove as a gage for waging one’s law. Maurice de Prendergast is accused -of treason in protecting the king of Ossory from the perfidy of his -foes:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>E Morice a sun guant plee,</div> - <div>A son seignur lad baille,</div> - <div>Quen sa curt ad dressereit</div> - <div>De quant quil mespris aueit.</div> - <div>Asez lunt replegeez</div> - <div>De vassals engleis alosez.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">So, too, when Robert Fitz Stephen was brought as a -traitor before king Henry:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Le fiz estephene pleia sun guant</div> - <div>Al rei le tendi meintenant:</div> - <div>De quantque lui sauerat retter</div> - <div>Lui vodrat robert adrescer</div> - <div>En sa curt mult uolenters</div> - <div>Par la garde de tuz sez pers.</div> - <div>Asez le plegerent errant</div> - <div>Franceis, flamengs e normand.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>Mr. Orpen aptly quotes the case of the dying Roland, when ‘por ses -pechiez Dieu porofrit lo guant,’ and refers us to ‘vadium in duello,’ -and ‘plicare vadia’ in Du Cange. But the most instructive remarks on -this custom will be found in Professor Maitland’s introduction to -precedents for the Court Baron.<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a> The formula he finds for this -antique wager runs thus: “He shall wage his law with his folded glove -(<i>de sun guant plyee</i>) and shall deliver it into the hand of the -other, and then take his glove back and find pledge for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[154]</span> his law.” The -learned, writer explains that the folded glove typified that chattel -of value which “in very old times” was the <i>vadium</i>, <i>wed</i>, -or gage constituting the contract, and that this was now supplanted -by a contract with sureties, who had become the real security for -the party’s appearance in court. This procedure, it will be seen, is -brought out in our poem, which was written about a century earlier -than the treatise Mr. Maitland quotes. The mention here, I may add, of -“his peers,” and the phrase, as Mr. Orpen points out, ‘Li reis receut -le cors’ (l. 2635) suggest surely that the writer of the poem had a -special knowledge of legal formulas.</p> - -<p>The careful reader will detect also a constitutional hint in the -summons to the tenants by knight service to come to the assistance of -king Henry in the rebellion of 1173:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Chevalers, baruns e meyne,</div> - <div><i>A chescun barun par sei</i>,</div> - <div>Par le commandement le rei,</div> - <div>Que tuz passassent la mer</div> - <div>En normandie li reis aider.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>For we see here an allusion to that special summons, to which, -whether for council or for war, each ‘baron’ was entitled. One of the -grievances of Becket, it may be remembered, at Northampton was that -he had not been summoned ‘par sei,’ but only through the sheriff. -Perhaps, however, the most important contribution made by this poem -to institutional history is found in that most important passage, ll. -3064–3177, which the editor describes as “a sort of original Domesday -Book of the first Anglo-Norman settlement,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[155]</span> and as presenting all -the appearance of being, in substance, a contemporary account. For, -apart from its obvious value as “the only connected account of the -subinfeudation of Leinster and Meath by earl Richard Fitz Gilbert and -Hugh de Laci, respectively,” it affords a very striking confirmation -of the new theory on knight service advanced by me in the pages of -the ‘English Historical Review,’ in which, as against the accepted -view maintained by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman, I contended that the -<i>quota</i> of knight service was determined not by the area of the -fief, but by “the unit of the feudal host,” and is therefore reckoned -in round numbers, and is almost invariably a multiple of 5, if not of -10.<a id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> I proved this to be the case for England, and appealed to -the Irish evidence as confirming the discovery. But I did not quote -this remarkable passage, from which we learn that in Meath—which -Henry had granted to Hugh de Lacy for the service of fifty knights (l. -2730)—Richard Fleming was enfeoffed to serve with twenty knights, and -Gilbert de Nugent (as we learn from charter evidence) with five; while -in Leinster, which the Earl, as we learn from charters, held by the -service of a hundred knights, Maurice de Prendergast received his fief -“pur dis <a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> chevalers servise,” Walter de Riddlesford was bound to -furnish twenty knights, and a certain Reginald was assigned fifteen as -his quota. Our confidence in the poem is increased by the fact that -it names fifty knights as the service due from Meath, which we know -to be correct, while so good an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span> authority as the ‘Gesta’ makes it a -hundred. The whole of this curious passage is ably annotated by Mr. -Orpen, and the puzzling place-names identified. But, familiar though he -clearly is with almost every source of information, he would seem to -be unacquainted with the valuable Gormanston Register, which contains, -I believe, a transcript (fo. 190 <i>a</i>) of the actual charter by -which earl Richard granted to Maurice Fitz Gerald Naas and Wicklow (ll. -3085–92)—the former for the service of five knights.<a id="FNanchor_351" href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> The same -Register has copies of three charters (fos. 5<i>b</i>, 188<i>b</i>), -showing how the lands spoken of in the poem as granted to Gilbert de -Nangle came, under Richard I., to Walter de Lacy, who granted them in -turn to his brother Hugh.</p> - -<p>The comparative ease and rapidity with which a handful of adventurers -had parcelled out among themselves the most fertile portions of the -island is perhaps the most surprising feature of the whole story. It -is certain that the native Irish were by no means wanting in courage; -indeed, they were then, as they always have been, only too ready -to fight. Their weapons were good and were skilfully wielded; but -like the wild Celts of Galloway, who had hurled themselves in vain, -at the Battle of the Standard, against a line of mailed warriors, -they scorned the use of defensive armour. Their mode of warfare was -essentially suited to woods and bogs and passes, while their assailants -were accustomed, from continental warfare, to cavalry actions in the -open. Combining the evidence of our poem with that of Master Gerald, -we can see clearly that, as in so many decisive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[157]</span> encounters, from -Hastings itself to Culloden, the issue turned on the conflict of -wholly differing tactics. Precisely as at Hastings, the Normans—now -the Anglo-Normans—enjoyed the enormous advantage derived from the use -of the bow. Giraldus, whatever his defects, was a shrewd and sound -observer; and he tells us of the demoralizing effect on the natives, in -the early days of the conquest, of the arrows against which they had -no means of defence. Careful investigation shows that each band of the -invaders landed with a force of knights and archers, the latter being -usually found in the proportion of ten to one. In the combined action -of these two arms, as at the great battle which had decided the fate -of England, the Normans excelled. “In Hibernis conflictibus,” wrote -Gerald, “hoc summopere curandum, ut semper arcarii militibus turmis -mixtim adjiciantur.” As Harold had discovered, before the Conquest, -how unsuitable was a force composed of heavily-armed English infantry -for pursuit of the nimble Welsh, as Richard was shortly to find his -host of mailed knights and men-at-arms harassed to death by the swift -movements of the light Saracen cavalry, so, writes Gerald, the Irish -could only be successfully attacked by troops able to pursue them among -their mountain fastnesses. Nor are his criticisms less true for being -animated, as they evidently are, by the scorn of his gallant relatives, -as the pioneers of the conquest, for those later comers who despised -their experience, and on whom they looked in their fierce warfare, as a -rough colonist of the present day would look on a pipeclayed guardsman.</p> - -<p>The very first battle in which the invaders took<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span> part proved that the -Irish could not hope to stand against them in the open. Forcing their -way with Dermot into Ossory, through the woods and bogs, they found -themselves deserted at a critical moment by almost all their native -allies, who lost heart suddenly and fled. Maurice de Prendergast, -one of their leaders, saw that the little English band was likely to -be “rushed” by the natives, with whom the woods were swarming (“Que -els lur curusent sure”). In accordance with the old Norman tactics, -he detached his archers to form an ambush, and then spurred for the -open field: the natives followed in hot pursuit, and their wily foes, -reaching ground on which cavalry could act, turned and rode them -down. The archers in their rear completed their discomfiture, like -the English sharpshooters at Poitiers, and the native “friendlies,” -with their beloved axes, were soon spread over the field, pleasantly -engaged in decapitating the corpses of their fellow-countrymen. I see -no reason to doubt the tale of king Dermot gloating over the heads that -his followers brought and piled before him, and leaping for joy as -with a loud voice he rendered thanks to his Creator on detecting among -them the face of a specially hated foe. It may have been the thought -of his own son, blinded by his kingly rival, that made him, we read, -clutch the head and gnaw the features with his teeth. Such a ‘deviation -from humanity’ (to quote a famous phrase) will not seem incredible to -those who have seen his countrymen, centuries later in the history of -civilization, burn alive a woman as a witch,<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> deliberately mutilate -defenceless<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span> men, or dance in the very blood of the murdered Lord -Mountmorres.</p> - -<p>In all this internecine conflict the only motive that can clearly -be traced is the passionate desire for vengeance. To glut that -desire Dermot was ready, not only to call in the alien against his -fellow-countrymen, but even to promise ‘Strongbow’ the succession to -Leinster and his followers landed possessions, which he could only do -at the cost of enraging his own kinsmen and subjects. Giraldus, indeed, -is at pains to justify the position of the English in Ireland, and to -claim that it was virtually brought about by consent rather than by -conquest. Here again we may best picture to ourselves the situation by -comparing the treaties or concessions wrung from barbarous potentates -by the adventurous Englishmen of to-day. Dermot had notoriously -promised what was not his to give, without the least consideration for -the rights or interest of his people. But just as, at the conquest -of England itself, Norman casuistry had enabled William to claim the -succession by gift of his kinsman, and to forfeit as traitors all those -who opposed that claim, and just as his followers, by Norman law, -though standing in the shoes of English thegns, assumed the position of -feudal lords, so, in Ireland, the new settlers looked at things from a -feudal standpoint, and so originated that conflict of irreconcilable -polities which has practically continued without intermission ever -since. In the end indeed, especially outside of Meath and Leinster, -they adapted themselves, as is well known, to the native system of -government, and became, in the eyes of the English, more or less Irish -chieftains. But at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span> first the necessities of the case accentuated their -alien status. For on the one hand the weakness of the royal power, and -on the other the danger of their position, conspired to give their -settlement an intensely feudal character. Our poem, as we have said, -shows us the lords of Meath and Leinster, respectively, enfeoffing -their followers to hold of them by knight service, and these became, it -should be noticed, the “barons” of Meath or of Leinster, a term which -in England was only found in the border palatinates of Chester and of -Durham. These barons were encouraged to construct castles at once as -the best defence against those sudden raids in which the Irish were -wont to indulge. In accordance with the policy of the Romans in their -day, and with our own at the present time, when extending the borders -of the Empire, the shrewd Gerald strongly urged that the country -should be opened up by constructing roads through its wilds, and then -held by fortified posts, or, as he expressed it, by castles. Writing -within twenty years of earl Richard’s landing, he had already to lament -that the Irish had learnt from their foes the use of the bow, and -had so greatly improved their tactics that the easy victories of the -early invaders were no longer possible: by castles alone could their -successors hope to hold the land.</p> - -<p>In the conquest of Ulster we have, perhaps, the most striking exploit -of the whole invasion. Accomplished by individual, and indeed -unauthorized, enterprise, it was not complicated, as in the south, by -native co-operation or royal interference, but was carried through by -the reckless daring of a single<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span> adventurer and his band. With two -and twenty knights and some three hundred followers, John de Courci -set forth from Dublin, about the close of January, 1177, to conquer -the kingdom of Ulster. Eager for plunder and the joys of the foray, -there had flocked to his standard those adventurous spirits who chafed -beneath the strict rule of the governor, William Fitz Audelin. In -the depth of winter they hurried forth, and reaching Down by forced -marches on the fourth day from leaving Dublin, were enabled to seize -it by a <i>coup de main</i>. Masters thus of the capital of the land, -they had also secured a maritime base invaluable for their further -operations. The Irish, stunned by the suddenness of the blow, had -fled, carrying their king with them, and the adventurers were soon -revelling in the plunder they had sought. In vain the natives, rallying -from their flight, endeavoured to recapture their lost stronghold. -Like the garrison of Dublin when beset by Roderick O’Conor and his -host, John and his handful of followers sallied forth upon their foes. -Giraldus shows us their leader as he lived, towering in height above -his fellows, a man of war from his youth up, whose only fault was the -martial ardour that led him, when the battle raged, to forget the -general in the soldier, as he charged headlong on his foes. Mounted -on his famous white war horse, he now performed, as usual, Homeric -deeds of valour, lopping off the heads and limbs of his enemies with -a sweep of his tremendous sword. The Irish, though beaten at length, -attacked him again in the summer, only to experience again defeat at -his hand. But so desperate was the struggle for the land that in one -of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span> his battles he was left with only eleven knights. With their horses -slain, and without food, the little band fought their way, for thirty -miles, through their foes, and made good their escape. By sheer hard -fighting ‘Ulvestere’—now Down and Antrim—was at length virtually -subdued and then ‘castled’ by John. In time there rose on every side -those strongholds of which the crumbling ruins long bore witness to the -harassed lives of the alien lords of the land. Dreading the perils of -the cloud-swept glens, and creeping from rock to rock within sound of -that troubled sea, the “Barons of Ulster,” in their eyries, perched on -the basalt crags, wrought about the land a belt of conquest of which -we have the noblest relic in the wild glory of Dunluce. Their heirs -still lingered on, four centuries later, clinging “in great poverty and -peril” to the lands their ancestors had won. The Savages, the Jordans, -the Russells could still be recognised by their names, but we read -of the “Fitzurses, now degenerate, and called in Irish McMaghon, the -Bear’s son.”<a id="FNanchor_353" href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span></p> - -<p>Like the proud lords of Leinster and of Meath, John de Courci had -his feudal officers, his “constable” and “marshal,” his “seneschal” -and his “chamberlain.” Ulster, in fact, had duly become a typical -feudal principality. Essentially obnoxious as such a development must -have been in the eyes of the English Crown, its weakness in Ireland -compelled it to temporize, nor could it find any better way of checking -this growth of feudal power than by playing off, in Ulster, the Lacys -against De Courci, just as it played them off against the Fitzgeralds -in the south. Thus was initiated that policy of see-saw which, in -practice, has always been, and is still, pursued. A striking passage -on the subject in the quaint Book of Howth is not inapplicable at the -present time, when the prospect of that steady government which Ireland -so badly needs seems as distant as ever.<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By reason that the Irish heard this alteration and change of -governors, they did wholly swear never after to obey to the -English men, and said, ‘Seeing that themselves cannot agree, why -should we condescend to them ever after? For seeing that they -cannot love each one and other of themselves, they would never -love us that is strangers, and their mortal enemies. Therefore -let us take part together, and do that which please God we -shall; and first, here is in Connaught some of their knights, -and if we get the upper hand upon them we shall the easier win -the rest.’</p> -</div> - -<p>‘Divide et impera’ was the policy adopted, and the spirit of faction -which the nobles seem to have imbibed from their Irish neighbours -was thus encouraged by the Crown. This system may be said to have -lasted down to the days of Elizabeth, to be succeeded, in the 17th -century, by the new rivalry<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span> of Catholic and Protestant, Cavalier -and Roundhead. But still the island was allowed to become the battle -ground of parties, favoured now, in turn,, by England, according to -the government in power at the time. But never, perhaps, has this -unfortunate system been more recklessly or disastrously pursued than -since Mr. Gladstone’s bid for the votes of the ‘Nationalist’ party.</p> - -<p>Although Giraldus has been bitterly assailed for criticising with no -sparing hand the undoubted failings of the Irish, he showed, we think, -on the contrary, far more fairness than might reasonably be expected -from a writer in his position. But he did far more than this. It might -indeed be truly said of him ‘Rem acu tetigit’: he boldly gave the -reasons why the conquest of Ireland was a failure, and added frank -and shrewd advice as to its government in the future. Even as we have -been often told that Cromwell would have settled the Irish question, -had only his ‘thorough’ policy been relentlessly pursued, so Giraldus -justly reminds us that the first flood of conquest was checked by Henry -II., when the work was only half done, and that Henry himself, in like -manner, only put his hand to the plough to turn back at once and leave -the work to others. Those others, again, were commissioned only to be -recalled: the strong centralized administration that was shaping the -English realm was never organized in Ireland; the Crown harassed, but -it did not govern. The four prophets of Ireland, he wrote, had duly -foretold that the island would not be mastered by the English till the -eve of the day of judgment. If he accused the Irish of shiftiness and -treachery, as the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span> failings that accompanied their natural quickness, -he sternly rebuked his own countrymen for despoiling their native -allies of their lands, and wantonly insulting the native chieftains -when they came to pay their respects to John as lord of Ireland. He -even charges them with being corrupted by their intercourse with the -natives into sometimes imitating their treachery. That this charge was -not without foundation we learn from the French poem, which gives a -spirited description of the action of Maurice de Prendergast—one of -its heroes—when he brought his ally the king of Ossory to the English -camp, having pledged his word for his safety. The king of Munster -urged that his rival should be treacherously seized, “E li baruns, san -mentir, le voleient tuz consentir.” But Maurice, indignantly denouncing -their contemplated breach of faith, swore by his sword that he would -cleave the head of the first man who should dare to lay a hand upon the -king.</p> - -<p>It is chiefly, I think, because his evidence is fatal to the idle dream -of an Irish golden age that the evidence of Giraldus on the state of -the country has been so bitterly assailed. For my part, I believe his -statement as to the corruption in church matters to be entirely honest, -and deem them in accordance with what we know from other sources. In -his curious sketch of the lay ‘ecclesiastics,’ with their long flowing -hair, and with nothing clerical about them but the absence of weapons, -he touches one of the worst abuses from which the church suffered in -Ireland. The very see of Armagh itself had been held for at least two -centuries in hereditary succession by lay<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span> chieftains, and the practice -had spread widely to the degradation of the church. For half a century, -indeed, before the coming of the invaders, efforts had been made at -church reform; but the initiative had come from England and from Rome, -and little encouragement was given by the native rulers themselves. Nor -will those who are acquainted with Irish society in the past reject as -improbable the statement of Giraldus that the clergy, though greatly -distinguished by their chastity and fervent devotion to divine service, -were apt to spend their evenings in drinking somewhat deeply. But even -to this he is careful to add, there were found honourable exceptions. -The important fact to be remembered is that, if Ireland had once been a -centre of Christianity, a bright star in a heathen age, its church had -deteriorated, not advanced, amidst the ceaseless and murderous strife -of native rule.</p> - -<p>To say that the Anglo-Norman settlement, with its conquest, or rather -half conquest, of the country, proved a blessing to Ireland, is a -proposition that no one, probably, would care to maintain. Why this -should have been so is one of those fascinating problems that must ever -arouse the speculation and stir the interest of the student. The far -earlier Scandinavian settlements in Normandy and in Eastern England -have little in common with the exploits of Strongbow’s daring band. -Sicily in every way affords a closer parallel. Nearer in time to the -events we have discussed, its conquest, also, was no less essentially -a private enterprise. What the sons of Tancred had accomplished in the -south, the children of Nesta<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[167]</span> well might hope to bring to pass in the -west. Indeed the adventurers of the 11th century had faced a task, -to all seeming, harder than that which confronted the adventurers of -the 12th. Some might hold that the Norman race was no longer in its -prime, that its great conquering and governing powers were already -impaired. That its enterprise was less ardent, that in England it was -settling down, is, no doubt, the case: from the turbulent regions of -Wales adventurers were still forthcoming, but the pioneers of Irish -conquest were not supported by that inflow from England which was -needed for so great an undertaking, and which, in earlier days, would -probably have hastened to their support. But this was only one among -the causes of the great Irish failure. Sicily, like England, fortunate -in its kings, was fortunate also in that position of isolation which -enabled its Norman conquerors to work out their own destiny. If only -Ireland had enjoyed the same geographical advantage, if it had been far -enough distant from England, its invaders might, in the same fashion, -have established a dynasty of their own, and have quickly accommodated -themselves, with the marvellous adaptability of their race, to those -native ways to which indeed many of them did, ultimately, so strangely -conform. It is now recognised that the kings of England did not, and -could not, become true English kings till the loss of their Norman -possessions drove them to find in England their true home and country. -Giraldus was right when he urged that his friends should have been let -alone, or the royal power, if brought into play, exercised in full -force. One can, indeed, imagine<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[168]</span> what might have been the fate of -England, if, half conquered by adventurous bands of Normans, she had -then been half governed, from abroad, by a Norman duke.</p> - -<p>Deeper still, however, lay the root of the trouble. The Normans had -found England a kingdom ready made, its people accustomed to governance -and recognising the reign of law. Coming of a kindred stock, and -possessing kindred institutions, the English had only to receive the -addition of a feudal system for which their own development had already -made them ripe. In Ireland, on the contrary, the new comers found no -kindred system. Its tribal polity had placed between its people and -themselves a gulf impassable because dividing two wholly different -stages of civilization. With no common foundation on which to build, -they could only hope to become Irish by cutting themselves off from -their own people. If, on the other hand, they wished to substitute law -and order for native anarchy, there was no indigenous machinery for -the purpose such as the Norman kings had found and used in England: -they had no alternative but to introduce the system they had brought -with them, a system absolutely irreconcilable with all native ideas -of land tenure. Whether Ireland, if left to herself, would even yet -have emerged from the tribal stage of society becomes doubtful when we -contemplate the persistence of the <i>mores Hibernici</i>. A comparison -of the changes in our own people between the 12th century and the days -of Queen Victoria—or even of Queen Elizabeth—and those discernible -in the Irish people suggests relative stagnation. It clings to its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span> -ways as the peasant clings to that patch of soil which he will not -leave, and on which he can exist only in squalor and in want.<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> -Of one thing at least we may be sure. No fonder dream has enthralled -a people’s imagination than that of an Irish golden age destroyed by -ruthless invaders. The first invaders who entered Ireland did so by the -invitation of one of her own sons; and they found it, as an Irishman -has said, “a vast human shambles.”</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Let Erin remember the days of old,</div> - <div>Ere her faithless sons betrayed her.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>We went to Ireland because her people were engaged in cutting one -another’s throats; we are there now because, if we left, they would all -be breaking one another’s heads. When an eminent patriot is good enough -to inform us of his desire, but for the presence of a British judge, to -wring a brother patriot’s neck, we are reminded that the sacred fire -still burns in Celtic breasts. <i>Ævum non animum mutant.</i><a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> -The leaders of the Irish people have not so greatly changed since the -days when ‘King’ MacDonnchadh blinded ‘King’ Dermot’s son, and when -Dermot, in turn, relieved his feelings by gnawing off the nose of his -butchered foe. Claiming to govern a people when they cannot even govern -themselves, they clamour like the baboo of Bengal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[170]</span> against that <i>pax -Britannica</i>, by the presence of which alone they are preserved from -mutual destruction. No doubt, as one of them frankly confessed, they -would rather be governed badly by themselves than well by any one else. -But England also has a voice in the matter; and she cannot allow the -creation of a Pandemonium at her doors.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span></p> - -<h2>VIII<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">One of the hottest historical controversies that this generation -has known has been waged around a certain document popularly but -erroneously styled “the Bull Laudabiliter.” Duly found in the Roman -Bullarium (1739) and in the Annals of Baronius, its authenticity had -remained unshaken by sundry spasmodic attacks, and, some thirty years -ago, it was virtually accepted as genuine by Roman Catholic and by -Protestant historians alike. But since its learned examination and -rejection by Dr. (since Cardinal) Moran in November, 1872,<a id="FNanchor_357" href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> the -tide of battle has surged around it, the racial and religious passions -it aroused imparting bitterness to the strife.</p> - -<p>“It is a question with me,” Mr. Gladstone wrote, of Adrian’s alleged -donation, “whether as an abnormal and arbitrary proceeding, it did -not vitiate, at the fountain head, the relation between English and -Irish, and whether it has not been possibly the source of all the -perversions by which that relation has been marked.... In Ireland the -English fought with an unfair advantage in their hands; they had a kind -of pseudo-religious mission, a mission with religious sanctions<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[172]</span> but -temporal motives. I do not see how this could work well.”<a id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a></p> - -<p>It may be as well to explain at the outset that, as befits an Irish -controversy, the famous “Bull” in dispute is not really a Bull at all, -and that of the two assertions for which it is so furiously assailed, -the one is not to be found in it, but comes from another source, while -the other rests upon documents which even an assailant of the Bull -admits to be “certainly authentic.” But amidst the smoke and dust of -battle, these elementary points seem to have been hopelessly obscured.</p> - -<p>For the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with “the Bull -Laudabiliter,”<a id="FNanchor_359" href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> I may explain that the document in question is -inserted in the ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’ of Giraldus Cambrensis,<a id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> -published in or about 1188, and is asserted by him to be the document -brought from Rome by John of Salisbury in 1155. He also gives with it a -confirmation of it by Alexander III., obtained, he states, by Henry II. -after his visit to Ireland.</p> - -<p>Apart altogether from these two documents are three letters from -Alexander III., which are, similarly, only known to us at second -hand, being transcribed in what is known as the Black Book of the -Exchequer.<a id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a> Broadly speaking, for the moment only, the main -difference between these letters and “the Bull Laudabiliter” is that -while, in the latter, Pope Adrian commends the intention of king Henry -to go to Ireland and reform the gross scandals prevailing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span> there, Pope -Alexander, in the three letters, commends the action of the king in -having gone there for that purpose.</p> - -<p>Having thus given a general idea of the five documents to be -considered, I must now glance at the motives that have animated -the attack on the “Bull.” The first of these is the reluctance of -the Irish, as Roman Catholics, to believe that it was the Pope who -authorized an English king to reign over Ireland; the second is their -refusal to admit that the state of things in Ireland is truly described -in the “Bull.”</p> - -<p>Taking these reasons for attack separately, the first, as I hinted at -the outset, is a curious misconception. I need only, to prove that it -is so, print side by side the words of two bitter assailants of the -Bull—Father Gasquet and Father Morris.</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Father Gasquet.</span></td> - <td class="ctr"><span class="smcap">Father Morris.</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">By this instrument ... Adrian IV. gave the sovereignty - of the island to our English king Henry II.... From time - to time the ‘fact’ that an English Pope made a donation of - Ireland to his own countrymen is used ... for the purpose - of trying to undermine the inborn and undying love and devotion - of the Irish people for the sovereign Pontiffs.... - (But) Dr. Moran, the learned Bishop of Ossory, adduced many - powerful, if not conclusive, reasons for rejecting the ‘Bull’ as - spurious.<a id="FNanchor_362" href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">The document by which Pope Adrian is supposed to have made - over Ireland to Henry Plantagenet....<br /> - <br /> - In this letter there is not one word which suggests the idea of - temporal domination.<a id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">The fact is that the unfortunate document, denounced -for its sanction of Henry’s enterprise, does little, if anything, -more than the three Black Book letters, which emphatically approve -that enterprise, when undertaken, and sanction its results. Yet these -letters are accepted, we shall see, while the Bull is denounced as -“spurious.”</p> - -<p>So, also, the general charges against the character and morals of the -Irish people at the time, implied by the words of the ‘Bull,’ are -actually eclipsed by those formulated in the Black Book letters. And -yet the authenticity of the ‘Bull’ is assailed on the ground of these -charges while that of the letters is either accepted or discreetly let -alone.</p> - -<p>It may have been observed that, in my opinion, these letters have by no -means played that important part in the controversy to which they are -entitled. The reason, perhaps, may be found in the fact that while the -defenders of the documents in the ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’ are conscious -that these letters by no means help their case, the assailants would -rather ignore evidence which confirms those statements in the “Bull” -that have specially aroused their hostility and forced them to denounce -it as ‘spurious.’</p> - -<p>Father Gasquet, for instance, only refers to these letters as affording -“some very powerful arguments against the genuineness of Pope Adrian’s -Bull,”<a id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a> and is careful not to commit himself, personally, to their -authenticity.</p> - -<p>The vigorous attack by Father Morris, in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span> “Adrian IV. and Henry -Plantagenet,”<a id="FNanchor_365" href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> on “the document by which Pope Adrian IV. is -supposed to have made over Ireland to Henry Plantagenet” is painfully -disappointing. For he tells us, at the outset, in his Introduction that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">were it not for the argument which it is supposed to carry with -it against the character of the Irish Church in the twelfth -century, the document itself would not have much importance (p. -xxxii.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is, therefore, his avowed aim to redeem the character -of that church, and his attack on Adrian’s “Bull” is only undertaken -to that end. He wishes to destroy the “impression that the Church in -Ireland in the twelfth century was corrupt and disorganized”; he repels -“the accusation that Ireland, in the 12th century had lapsed into -barbarism, and had so far lost her place in the Christian commonwealth -that the Pope was in a way compelled to come to the rescue.”<a id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> To -prove his case he is bound, of course, to deal with and reject the -three letters of Alexander III. (1172), which contained so detailed and -fearful an indictment of the state of morals and religion in Ireland at -the time. What, then, is our astonishment when he abruptly observes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Our inquiry comes down no farther than Pope Adrian. Subsequent -letters of Roman pontiffs on the subject of Ireland stand by -themselves (p. 141).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Is it possible that he felt himself estopped by the -verdict of his predecessor, Cardinal Moran, whose “judicial spirit” he -commends,<a id="FNanchor_367" href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> and who, while rejecting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span> “Laudabiliter,” accepts as -“certainly authentic” these awkward letters. It seems to me equally -uncandid in Miss Norgate to avoid discussing the “Privilegium” of -Alexander III., and in Father Morris to ignore his letters in the -‘Liber Niger’ which affect so gravely his case, and indeed impugn his -arguments.</p> - -<p>In their blind animosity to the “Bull,” its Roman Catholic opponents -have been led into most astounding, and indeed contradictory, -assertions. Father Gasquet, for instance, prints side by side with -“Laudabiliter” the letter of Adrian to Louis VII., in order to prove -that their opening passages are “almost word for word the same.”<a id="FNanchor_368" href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> -Yet Father Morris, who appeals to this letter, and assures us that -“there is no question as to the authenticity of this document,”<a id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a> -insists that the style of “Laudabiliter” is “in glaring contradiction -to all the authentic ‘Bulls’ of Adrian IV.”<a id="FNanchor_370" href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> It may be retorted -that the letter to Louis was not a “Bull.” But, then, no more was -‘Laudabiliter’: the two documents belong to precisely the same class. -Stranger still, in assailing what he terms “the spurious letter,” he -points out, as a flaw, that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">in the supposed commission to Henry the judge comes, as it -were, with lance in rest, as if he were charging the Moslem, -without any reference to those “undiminished rights (<i>jura -illibata</i>) of each and every church,” in the defence of -which, as we have seen, Pope Adrian was ever inexorable.<a id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It will scarcely be believed that the “spurious letter”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span> -contains the very words for the omission of which it is condemned -(“jure nimirum ecclesiarum illibato et integro permanente”), and that -the test of Father Morris thus recoils against himself. It is difficult -to treat seriously so careless, or so reckless, a controversialist.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Having now briefly explained on what documents the controversy turns, -I may mention that my own reason for joining in so fierce a dispute is -that I hope to be able to contribute towards its decision two facts -which, so far as I know, have as yet escaped notice.</p> - -<p>Wishful to approach the subject from an independent standpoint, I -have not studied the German papers dealing with the subject, but have -contented myself with those of Cardinal Moran (1872), the Analecta -Juris Pontificii (1882), Father Gasquet (1883), Father Malone and -Father Morris (1892), with Miss Norgate’s <i>résumé</i> of the case -and unhesitating defence of ‘Laudabiliter’ in the ‘English Historical -Review’ (1893).<a id="FNanchor_372" href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a></p> - -<p>Miss Norgate, in her lengthy article,<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a> defended the “Bull” with -some warmth, recapitulating and answering the arguments of its various -assailants. There are, however, involved two distinct questions, which, -to quote a phrase of her own, “have been somewhat mixed up”<a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> by -her. For clearness’ sake, I give them thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hangingindent">(1) Did John of Salisbury obtain from Pope Adrian<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span> in -1155 a document which “gave Ireland,” as he expressed it, “to king Henry”?</p> - -<p class="hangingindent">(2) If so, was it the document set forth <i>verbatim</i> by -Giraldus in his ‘Expugnatio Hibernica’?</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">I have read through, not once or twice, but time after -time, with the greatest care, Miss Norgate’s article defending the -authenticity of the “Bull,” and I cannot find that this distinction has -even dawned upon her mind. Yet, to adapt her closing words, “one who -fully accepts the first” of these propositions “may yet dare to say” of -the other, <i>non sequitur</i>.</p> - -<p>To the first of the above questions I give no negative answer: I merely -quote the two passages on which the assertion rests:</p> - -<table summary="passages" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Ad preces meas illustri regi Anglorum Henrico secundo - (Adrianus) concessit et dedit Hiberniam jure hereditario possidendam; - sicut literæ ipsius testantur in hodiernum diem. - Nam omnes insuæ, de jure antiquo, ex donatione Constantini - ... dicuntur ad Romanam ecclesiam pertinere. - Annulum quoque per me transmisit aureum, smaragdo optimo - decoratum, quo fieret investitura juris in gerenda Hibernia; idemque - adhuc annulus in curiali archivo publico custodiri jussus - est.—<span class="smcap">John of Salisbury.</span></td> - <td class="cht1">(privilegium) quod idem rex ab Adriano papa Alexandri decessore - antea perquisierat, per Johannem Salesberiensem, postmodum - episcopum Karnotensem, Romam ad hoc destinatum. Per - quem etiam idem papa Anglorum regi annulum aureum in investituræ - signum præsentavit; qui statim, simul cum privilegio, - in archivis Wintoniæ repositus fuerat.<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a>—<span class="smcap">Giraldus Cambrensis.</span></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[179]</span></p> - -<p>As I only described, at the outset, the documents, I have not hitherto -touched on the passage in the ‘Metalogicus.’ But it should be observed -that just as Miss Norgate confuses two distinct questions, so Father -Gasquet attacks “Laudabiliter” for a statement found, not in that -document, but in this passage from the pen of John of Salisbury.<a id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a></p> - -<p>It is with the second of the above two questions that I am immediately -concerned. Assuming for the present that a document was actually -granted by Adrian, what ground have we for believing that the text in -the ‘Expugnatio’ is authentic? Between the appearance of her ‘England -under the Angevin Kings’ and that of her article in the ‘Review,’ Miss -Norgate seems to have discovered from Pflugk-Harttung, that there was -no copy of it, as she had imagined, “in the Vatican archives.”<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a> She -admitted, therefore, that “the letter actually rests upon the testimony -of Gerald of Wales and the writer of the last chapter of Metalogicus.” -But here we see that confusion of thought of which I have spoken above. -The authenticity of the letter given in the ‘Expugnatio’ rests on the -authority of Gerald, and on his alone.</p> - -<p>Let us then enquire what credence we should give to those documents -he professes to quote <i>verbatim</i>. The two which naturally occur -to one for comparison with “Laudabiliter,” are the letter of Dermot -to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[180]</span> “Strongbow” summoning him to Ireland,<a id="FNanchor_378" href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a> and the “privilegium” -of Alexander III. confirming that of Adrian.<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> The former begins -with a normal address, and then—breaks at once into a quotation from -Ovid!<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a> This gives us a clear issue. Does Miss Norgate believe, or -does she not, that a warrior (and a savage) summoning a warrior, in the -days of Henry II., would parade his classical erudition by dragging in -tags from Ovid? And if she does not, how can she ask us to accept as -genuine a document because it is given by Giraldus. As to the other -test document, the “privilegium” of Alexander III., Miss Norgate is -curiously shy of touching it; I can only find an incidental allusion -to “the letter whereby Alexander III. is said to have confirmed the -favour granted by his predecessor to Henry,” and even this mention of -it is merely introduced to protest against arguments “which are only -appropriate to” that letter being used as fatal to the authenticity -of “Laudabiliter” also.<a id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> Indeed, by writing as she does of “the -silence of Alexander III.” as to Adrian’s letter,<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> she implies -that the document given by Giraldus as his is an absolute imposture; -and she uses, we shall find, in another place, an argument directly -fatal to the authenticity of its contents.<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a> And yet Giraldus sets -forth these two “privilegia” together as jointly constituting the title -to Ireland derived by Henry from Rome. The two must stand or fall -together; if<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[181]</span> Gerald was capable of composing the one, he was certainly -capable of composing the other.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Having now shown that the fact of a document being found in the pages -of Giraldus Cambrensis is no proof of its authenticity, I turn to the -first of the two points that I hope to establish.</p> - -<p>The publication, in Ireland, of “the Bull Laudabiliter” is thus dealt -with by Miss Norgate:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It is acknowledged on all hands that there is no sign of any -attempt on Henry’s part to publish the letter in Ireland ... -before 1175. In that year Gerald states that the letter was -read before a synod of bishops at Waterford (Opp. v. 315–6). -This statement, however, rests upon Gerald’s authority alone; -beyond this there is no direct evidence that the letter was ever -formally published in Ireland at all.<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In another passage she admits, I understand, that it -does not appear to have been published by Henry until 1175 at the -earliest.<a id="FNanchor_385" href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> Now it is true that this date is so generally accepted -that Father Gasquet in assailing, and Father Malone in defending, the -authenticity of the Bull, are both agreed upon this point. The former, -indeed, boldly writes: “It is a matter beyond dispute that no mention -whatever was made by Henry of this ‘grant’ of Ireland by the Pope till -at earliest <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1175.”<a id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> Father Morris similarly adopts -“1175” as the date when “Henry is said to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[182]</span> have exhibited it at a synod -held at Waterford.”<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a> Yet, when we turn to the passage referred to -by Miss Norgate, we find that no year is named by Giraldus himself. Mr. -Dimock appended the marginal date “1174 or 1175,” and this was also the -date he adopted in his Introduction. It was doubtless from him that -Professor Tout adopted this date in his life of William Fitz Audelin:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Fitzaldhelm<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a> was also sent in 1174 or 1175 ... to produce -the bull of Pope Adrian.... He soon left Ireland, for -(<i>sic</i>) he appears as a witness to the treaty of Falaise in -October, 1174.<a id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">If William was sent to Ireland, as alleged, in 1175, it -is obvious that he cannot have returned thence by October, 1174. It is -clear, in any case, that, on examination, the date accepted “on all -hands,” as a fixed point, is a guess. Let us then see if, from other -sources, light can be thrown on William’s mission. There is an entry on -the Pipe Roll of 1173, which reads thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In Passagio Willelmi filii Aldelini et sociorum suorum et -Hernesiorum suorum in Hyberniam xxvii sol. et vi den. per breve -Ricardi de Luci (p. 145).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Professor Tout oddly assigns it to an alleged despatch of -William to Ireland in 1171; for in that case it would duly have been -entered on the Pipe Roll of that year.<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a> It must, in the absence of -evidence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[183]</span> to the contrary, be held to refer to a mission of William -between Michaelmas, 1172, and Michaelmas, 1173. Is it then possible -that this was the date of the mission of which we are in search, and -not 1175, or even 1174? The answer, we shall find, involves more than a -mere question of chronology.</p> - -<p>“Gerald,” Miss Norgate writes, “is certainly no chronologist.”<a id="FNanchor_391" href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a> Mr. -Dimock was even more emphatic: “There can be no worse authority than -Giraldus wherever a date is concerned.”<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a> In this case, however, as -I have said, Giraldus does not even commit himself to a date: he merely -uses the vague “interea.” We must therefore deduce the date from the -sequence as he gives it himself. And that sequence is perfectly clear. -He takes us straight back to the Council of Cashel,<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a> and tells us -that the document despatched by William and his colleague to Ireland -had been sent by the Pope in reply to the report of the proceedings at -that Council. Here are his own words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="center p1">(<span class="smcap">Council of Cashel.</span>)</p> - -<p>Ubi, requisitis et auditis publice terræ illius et gentis tam -enormitatibus quam spurcitiis, et in scriptum etiam sub sigillo -legati Lismoriensis, qui ceteris ibidem dignitate tunc præerat, -ex industria redactis, etc. (v. 280).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[184]</span></p> - -<p class="center p1">(<span class="smcap">Alexander’s ‘Privilegium.’</span>)</p> - -<p>Cum, <i>prænotatis</i> spurcitiarum literis in synodo -Cassiliensi per industriam quæsitis, directis ad curiam Romanam -nunciis, ab Alexandro tertio tunc præsidente privilegium -impetravit, etc. (v. 315).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Miss Norgate, both in her History and in her article, -seems to have overlooked this latter important passage, doubtless from -its occurring in another part of Gerald’s work. She has thus not only -missed his sequence, but has failed to adduce his direct testimony to -the despatch of documents to Rome after the Council of Cashel. Roger -Hoveden is the only chronicler she quotes as an authority for the -statement that “the bishops joined with Henry in sending to Rome a -report of his proceedings and their own.<a id="FNanchor_394" href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a> Now the ‘Gesta Henrici’ -is a better authority to quote from here than Hoveden; and from it, -therefore, I take the following statements”:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1) The Irish kings “seipsos ei et ejus dominio dederunt -et homines ejus devenerunt de omnibus tenementis suis, et -fidelitates ei juraverunt” (i. 25).</p> - -<p>(2) The prelates “eum in regem et dominum susceperunt et -fidelitates eo juraverunt contra omnes homines. Et inde recepit -ab unoquoque Archiepiscopo et episcopo litteras suas in modum -cartæ, extra sigillum pendentes, et confirmantes ei et heredibus -suis regnum Hyberniæ, et testimonium perhibentes ipsos eum et -heredes suos sibi in reges et dominos constituisse imperpetuum” -(i. 26).</p> - -<p>(3) “Cum autem hoc factum fuisset predictus rex Angliæ misit -nuncios suos ad Alexandrum summum pontificem cum litteris -archiepiscoporum et episcoporum Hyberniæ ad confirmandum sibi et -heredibus suis regnum Hyberniæ, sicque factum est. Nam summus -pontifex, auctoritate apostolica, confirmavit ei et heredibus -suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit” (i. 28).</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[185]</span></p> - -<p>We have then the independent evidence of Gerald and of the ‘Gesta’—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(<i>A</i>) That Henry sent “nuncii” to Rome after going to -Ireland.</p> - -<p>(<i>B</i>) That these “nuncii” took with them documentary -evidence, in the form, according to Gerald, of “letters” from -the Legate and prelates at Cashel, but according to the ‘Gesta’ -of sealed recognitions, by the several Irish prelates of Henry -and his heirs as kings (of Ireland).</p> - -<p>(<i>C</i>) That the Pope in reply, according to Gerald, sent a -“privilegium” empowering Henry to rule the Irish, and reform -their ecclesiastical condition,<a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a> but, according to the -‘Gesta,’ confirmed Henry in possession of the kingdom of -Ireland, and appointed him and his heirs kings thereof for ever.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Here we have sufficient discrepancy to mark the -independence of the writers, combined with a distinct agreement to the -effect that Henry sent “nuncii” to Rome, that they took something with -them to support the king’s petition, and that the Pope, in reply to it, -sent something back.</p> - -<p>What was it?</p> - -<p>Here we must turn to a third quarter, where the evidence is wholly -independent. This is the Black Book of the Exchequer in which are -entered the three letters from Pope Alexander, all of them dated<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[186]</span> -from Tusculum, 20th September, 1172. Miss Norgate, in her History, -referred to them as documents of undoubted authenticity;<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> but in -her article, though stoutly maintaining that their evidence was not -hostile to the genuineness of the “Bull,” she seems to have felt uneasy -on the subject, for she changes her tone, and writes that they “purport -to have been written by Pope Alexander III.,”<a id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> nay, even speaks of -them as Alexander’s letters, “if they indeed are his.”<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a></p> - -<p>To these letters, which Cardinal Moran pronounced “certainly -authentic,” I now invite attention. The first, which is addressed -to Christian bishop of Lismore (the legate), the four archbishops -(by name), and their suffragans the bishops, speaks of the “vitiorum -enormitates” made known to the writer by their letters (“ex vestrarum -serie literarum,” “ex vestris literis”) and the “abominationis -spurcitiam.”<a id="FNanchor_399" href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> No more exact agreement could be found than this -document presents with the statement of Giraldus that the Legate’s -letters, on behalf of the assembled prelates, recited “tam enormitates -quam spurcitias” of the Irish. Again, the third letter, “to the kings -and princes of Ireland,” similarly charges the Irish<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[187]</span> with “enormitatem -et spurcitiam vitiorum”; and it confirms not only Giraldus but the -‘Gesta’ by its words: “in vestrum Regem et dominum suscepistis et -ei fidelitatem jurastis ... vos voluntate libera subdidistis ... -fidelitatem quam tanto Regi sub juramenti religione fecistis.” Their -“juramenti debitum et fidelitatem predicto Regi exhibitam” is spoken -of also in the letter to the prelates. Passing now to the second -letter, which is to Henry himself, it introduces a new element; for -while that to the prelates had referred to their letters and “aliorum -etiam veridica relatione,” a vague phrase which, in the letter to the -princes, reappears as “communi fama et certa relatione,” the Pope, in -writing to the king, gives as his sources of information, first, the -letters from the Legate and Prelates, and then the <i>viva voce</i> -statements of Ralf archdeacon of Llandaff.<a id="FNanchor_400" href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a> Now we know from the -‘Gesta’ that this Ralf was sent by Henry to hold the Council of the -Irish Prelates at Cashel;<a id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> and we further know that the king had -sent him to Rome as an envoy in the Becket business some two years -before.<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a> We have then, in this letter, confirmation of the fact -that Henry sent a mission, with the prelates’ letter, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[188]</span> Rome, while -the envoy it names is the very one whom he was specially likely to send.</p> - -<p>So far, then, we find a most convincing agreement. Pope Alexander -relied mainly for information as to the state of Ireland and as to -the action of Henry on the written report of his Legate and the other -prelates of Ireland, and on the personal statements of the king’s envoy -who came with it. As to these points, there can really be no question.</p> - -<p>But the best proof, to my mind, of the authenticity of these letters -is that neither Giraldus nor any of the chroniclers used them, and -that, so far at least as the ‘Gesta’ and Hoveden are concerned, they -must have been purposely kept back. For the points of discrepancy -are even more instructive than the points of agreement. It may have -been observed that the ‘Gesta’ speaks of the documentary evidence as -consisting of the prelates’ sealed letters appointing Henry and his -heirs kings of Ireland. Giraldus, on the contrary, makes it consist -of a report from the Council of Cashel on the State of Ireland. The -letters explicitly confirm the latter statement, and wholly ignore -the evidence described in the former. Moreover, the assertion in the -‘Gesta’ that the Pope made Henry and his heirs, in reply, kings of -Ireland for ever is at direct variance with the letters, which do -nothing of the kind. We must, then, it seems to me, conclude that the -‘Gesta’ and Roger Hoveden deliberately strove to represent the Pope as -doing what he did not do, and dared not, therefore, quote the letters, -knowing them to be not at all what was wanted.<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[189]</span></p> - -<p>It seems to me a strong argument in favour of the letters to Henry -himself, and one which may have been overlooked, that Pope Alexander -pointedly speaks of Henry’s fresh expedition as undertaken, like a -crusade, by way of penance for his sins:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Rogamus itaque Regiam excellentiam, monemus et exhortamus -in Domino, atque in remissionem tibi peccatorum injungimus -quatinus, etc ... ut sicut pro tuorum venia peccatorum adversus -eam tantum laborem (ut credimus) assumpsisti, etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Even if the words do not imply that Henry himself had so -represented it, they afford an answer to those who urge that the Pope -could not have approved of such an enterprise by one who was himself at -the time under a grave cloud.</p> - -<p>Broadly speaking, they express the Pope’s warm approval of Henry’s -expedition—as a missionary enterprise. It is as the champion of the -church, and especially of St. Peter and his rights, that they praise -him for what he has done. Specially significant is the fact that the -rights claimed by Rome, under the Donation of Constantine, over all -islands are not asserted (as by John of Salisbury) as justifying the -grant of Ireland to Henry, but as entitling the Papal see to claim -there rights for itself.<a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[190]</span></p> - -<p>Accepting, then, these letters as genuine, let me briefly recapitulate -how the case stands. Their contents agree, we have seen, independently, -in the most indisputable way, with the narrative of Giraldus. Moreover, -that narrative, when carefully examined, leads us to infer that the -Pope’s answer was despatched in reply to Henry’s mission; and with that -inference the date of these letters (20th Sept., 1172) agrees fairly -enough. Such a date as 1174 or 1175 would not agree with it at all. -Lastly, Giraldus tells us that the Pope’s confirmation was despatched -to Ireland with William Fitz Audelin; and, indeed, we should naturally -expect that Henry, when he had succeeded in getting it, would lose no -time in publishing the fact. Both the statement of Giraldus and that -expectation are confirmed by the Pipe Roll entry, which proves that -William Fitz Audelin did visit Ireland between Michaelmas, 1172, and -Michaelmas, 1173, which is just the time that he must have done so, if -he went there in charge of the Pope’s letter (or letters).</p> - -<p>But now comes the hitch. If Giraldus had given us the text of the -letter which the Pope really sent, and which is entered in the Black -Book, it would have agreed with and confirmed his narrative in every -respect. Instead, however, of doing this, he gave a letter, which even -his champions do not venture to defend as authentic, a letter which -does not agree with his narrative—for it ignores the legate’s report<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[191]</span> -and the other information supplied—a letter which, for all we can find -in it, was written in complete ignorance, not only of Henry’s visit to -Ireland, but of every other fact in the case. In short, it is a mere -general confirmation of Adrian’s famous “Bull,” and might as well have -been issued before as after the king’s expedition. And so clumsily -is it introduced that Giraldus does not even make the king ask for -anything of the kind.</p> - -<p>I have said that even his champions do not defend its authenticity. -Miss Norgate, who defends with equal fervour Giraldus and -“Laudabiliter,” admits that its critics are right in stating that the -Pope’s letters in the ‘Liber Niger’</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">make no mention of any papal grant, nor of the tribute of -Peter-pence, which “Laudabiliter” expressly states that Henry -had undertaken to establish in Ireland.<a id="FNanchor_405" href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But, she urges, it was most improbable that the Pope -would refer to Peter-pence in 1172:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It would have been much more surprising, because highly -derogatory to his tact, wisdom, and justice, if he had mentioned -it at that moment.... To expect that he should assail them with -an instant demand for money before they had time to settle -down in their new relations, would be to charge him with equal -recklessness and rapacity.<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">I do not say that I agree with the argument: it could, -I think, scarcely be weaker. But the point is that Pope Alexander, -in the letter given by Giraldus, and asserted by him to have been -sent in reply to the letters from the Council of Cashel (1171–2), is -represented as confirming the “Bull of Adrian”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[192]</span> “salva beato Petro ... -de singulis domibus annua unius denarii pensione.” That is to say that, -if the letter is genuine, he did exactly what Miss Norgate assures us -he would not have done. It follows then, from her own argument, that -the letter cannot be genuine.<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a></p> - -<p>I must here again remind the reader of the cardinal point in my case, -namely, that Giraldus has been misunderstood as assigning to “1175” the -despatch of the Pope’s “privilegium,” whereas his narrative clearly -shows that he treats that “privilegium” as obtained by Henry in reply -to the report of the Council of Cashel (1171–2) and as the Papal -sanction of what he had done in Ireland. That the king was anxious to -obtain this sanction, and to publish it, when obtained, as soon as -possible, we may readily believe. But that he obtained it as soon as -possible, and, having done so, made no use of it till he suddenly, -in “1175,” despatched it to Ireland <i>à propos de bottes</i>, is an -unintelligible hypothesis. In any case, we are confronted with the fact -that both the “privilegium”<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a> and the Black Book letter purport to -have been despatched from Rome in reply to Henry’s mission. But they -could not both be the Pope’s reply: one or the other must be false. -This being so, we need not hesitate to decide in favour<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[193]</span> of the Black -Book letter; for the “privilegium” given by Giraldus is virtually -abandoned, we have seen, even by Miss Norgate.</p> - -<p>The conclusion, then, at which we arrive is that Giraldus substituted -for the true reply of the Pope a false one merely confirming the “Bull” -Laudabiliter. From this conclusion we advance to the question whether, -if he was capable of concocting (or giving it currency when concocted) -a spurious letter of Alexander, he was not also capable of concocting -(or giving it currency when concocted) that letter of Adrian, which he -published with it, in the ‘Expugnatio,’ and which, in fairness, must be -treated as inseparable from it.<a id="FNanchor_409" href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a></p> - -<p>We saw clearly at the outset that he can have had no scruple as to -inserting in his narrative—I will not say a forged document, but -one of which the text was the work of his own pen. On this point, -therefore, we need not hesitate. We may proceed then to enquire whether -Henry II. was likely to keep silence as to Adrian’s “Bull” when he -entered Ireland—the very time when he might be expected to make use of -it—and then produce it at a subsequent time with no particular reason. -Two propositions are here involved. As to the first Father Gasquet has -observed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It was of vital importance when he went over to receive the -homage of the Irish, and could never have been withheld or -concealed at the Council of Cashel in 1172, at which the Papal -legate presided.<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">[410]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[194]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">Father Burke, whom he quotes, has bluntly insisted on the -fact; and Father Morris has similarly dwelt on the king’s suspicious -silence. So great, indeed, is the difficulty of supposing that Henry -made no mention of the “Bull” at the very time when, if ever, he was -likely to make use of it, that Miss Norgate wrote as follows, in her -‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 115):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>We hear not a word of Pope Adrian’s bull, but we can hardly -doubt that its existence and its contents were in some way or -other certified to the Irish prelates before ... they met in -council at Cashel in the first weeks of 1172.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Going even further, in another passage (ii. 81), she -boldly spoke of Henry’s “conquest won with Adrian’s bull in his -hand.” And yet, when afterwards, in her article, she wished to deny -the difficulty, she could turn round and confidently urge that “Henry -said nothing about the Pope’s letter, because it was a matter of no -practical consequence whatever.”<a id="FNanchor_411" href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> Such a <i>volte-face</i> as this -does not tend to inspire confidence in her arguments. But even if we -accept this, her later conclusion, it only increases the difficulty of -explaining why Henry II. formally made the “Bull” public a year or two -later (and still more, why he should have done so, as she holds he did, -in “1175”). And this difficulty, so far as I can find, she does not -attempt to meet.</p> - -<p>Everything then, it seems to me, points to the clear conclusion that -Giraldus substituted for the genuine letters from the Pope, in the -‘Liber Niger,’<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[195]</span> a concocted confirmation of an equally concocted “Bull” -from his predecessor Adrian.</p> - -<p>Having arrived at this conclusion, I propose to ask three questions:</p> - -<ul> - <li>(1) Why did Giraldus do this?</li> - <li>(2) How were his documents concocted?</li> - <li>(3) Was there a conspiracy, in which Giraldus joined?</li> -</ul> - -<p>As to the Welshman’s motive, it has been urged by his critics that he -wished to gratify the king. Miss Norgate retorts:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>At no period of his life is it likely that Gerald would have -had any personal interest in putting in circulation, for King -Henry’s benefit, a document which he knew or suspected to be -forged; least of all would he have cared to do it for the sake -of bolstering up Henry’s claims upon Ireland.<a id="FNanchor_412" href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But whatever may have been his personal feelings towards -Henry II. his eagerness to prove the right of the English Crown to -Ireland is one of the leading features of his ‘Expugnatio Hiberniæ.’ He -sets forth more than once the arguments on which he bases it, and he -treats the Papal action as the crowning argument of all:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et quod solum sufficere posset ad perfectionis cumulum et -absolutæ consummationis augmentum, summorum pontificum, qui -insulas omnes sibi speciali quadam jure respiciunt, totiusque -christianitatis principum et primatum confirmans accessit -auctoritas (v. 320).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The reference, in this passage, to the Donation of -Constantine, and therefore to “Laudabiliter,” is clear.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[196]</span></p> - -<p>I pass to my second question: ‘How were the documents concocted?’ -The unfortunate theory was advanced by the ‘Analecta’ writer that -“Laudabiliter” was adapted from a genuine letter of Adrian written, in -1158, to Henry of England and Louis of France, forbidding them to enter -Ireland, as they proposed to do, in conjunction. It was urged that -this genuine letter had been altered into the ‘Bull’ Laudabiliter, and -thus made to bear the very reverse of its meaning. It was necessary, -for this solution, to hold that the genuine letter did not refer, -as had been supposed, to Spain (<i>H[ispania]</i>) but to Ireland -(<i>H[ibernia]</i>). Although this bold theory was adopted by Father -Gasquet,<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a> he seems to have been conscious of its weakness; for he -leaves it with the words: “Whether this theory as to the origin of the -Bull be correct or not,” etc., etc. The words “pagani” in the genuine -letter are of themselves fatal to the theory, and Father Malone had no -difficulty in showing that it was preposterous.<a id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> It is true that, -as Miss Norgate admits,<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a> “between the introductory sentences of -the two letters there is certainly a close verbal similarity,” but -even if this letter, relating to the Spanish crusade was placed under -contribution by the concocter of our document, I should none the less -advance as my own theory the view that Gerald employed, largely at any -rate, the genuine letters of Alexander III., entered in the ‘Liber -Niger.’ In support of this theory I might adduce certain suggestive -parallels:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[197]</span></p> - -<table summary="parallels" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">THE LETTER.</td> - <td class="ctr">THE “BULL.”</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">sicut ... comperimus, ... ad subjugandum tuo Dominio gentem - illam et ad extirpandum tantæ abominationis spurcitiam ... - tuum animum erexisti.<br /> - <br /> - Christianæ religionis suscipiat disciplinam ... ita etiam - de suæ salutis perfectu coronam merearis suscipere sempiternam.<br /> - <br /> - <br /> - quia, sicut tuæ magnitudinis excellentia [? cognoscit], - Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet in Insula quam in terra magna - et continua, etc.</td> - <td class="cht1">Significasti ... nobis ... te Hiberniæ insulam ad subdendum - illum populum legibus et vitiorum plantaria exstirpanda velle, - intrare.<br /> - <br /> - crescat fidei Christianæ religio, et quæ ad honorem Dei et salutem - pertinent animarum taliter ordinentur, ut a Deo sempiternum - mercedis cumulum consequi merearis.<br /> - <br /> - sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas ... ad jus beati Petri et - sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, quod tua etiam nobilitas - recognoscit, non est dubium pertinere.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>The very fact that these coincidences are rather suggestive than -verbal, favours, I think, the theory of concoction. But I am chiefly -influenced by the fact that “Laudabiliter” does little more than -paraphrase and adapt the contents of Alexander’s letter. Even its -clause as to Peter’s pence might be based on Alexander’s insistence -that Henry was not only to guard “jura beati Petri,” but “si etiam ibi -non habet (jura)”—as was the case with Peter’s pence—to establish -them himself.</p> - -<p>And now as to my third question: ‘Was there a conspiracy?’ I doubt -if sufficient attention has been paid to the remarkable words of the -‘Gesta Henrici,’ followed as they were by Hoveden.<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a> That they were -introduced of set purpose is evident from their repetition.<a id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a> It -should be observed that the story told<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[198]</span> in the ‘Metalogicus’ of Adrian -and in the ‘Gesta’ of Alexander is to the same effect:</p> - -<table summary="story" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr smcap">Metalogicus.</td> - <td class="ctr smcap">Gesta Henrici.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">regi Anglorum Henrico secundo (Papa) concessit et dedit - Hiberniam jure hæreditario possidendam.</td> - <td class="cht1">summus pontifex ... confirmavit ei et heredibus suis regnum - illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Neither the letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ nor even the -documents given by Giraldus can justify these expressions. Yet this -must have been what we may term the view officially adopted. As the -Black Book letters of Alexander III. could not be made to support -this view, its upholders preferred to fall back on the alleged grant -by Adrian, as the source of Henry’s title, and to pretend that his -successor Alexander had merely confirmed it. “Laudabiliter” did not, it -is true, go so far as was required, but it carried back the title to -Adrian’s action, and, so far, supported the story.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The subsequent attitude of Rome towards the English story is a matter -of obvious interest, but, as yet, of much obscurity. Cardinal Moran -relied on the personal information of Theiner for the statement that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">nowhere in the private archives, or among the private papers of -the Vatican, or in the ‘Regesta’ which Jaffé’s researches have -made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical -letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of -Adrian and Alexander.<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In the strict sense of the words, no doubt the above<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[199]</span> -statement may be absolutely true. But in the document below, from -Theiner’s own work,<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> we have, surely, in the words “de voluntatis -sedis ipsius,” a most distinct reference, at least, to Adrian’s alleged -action. In the preamble to a Papal dispensation of the 13th century, we -find these words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Exposita siquidem nobis dilecti filii nobilis viri Galfridi de -Ianvilla patris tui, fili Symon, petitio continebat quod cum -terra Ybernie ac eius incole, ut tenentur, nec sedi eidem, nec -Regi Anglie obedirent, sed velut effrenes per campum licentie -ducerentur, clare memorie Henricus olim Rex Anglorum de -voluntate sedis ipsius armata manu terram predictam intravit, et -eam ac habitatores ipsius ad ejusdem sedis obedientiam suaque -(<i>sic</i>) pro posse reduxit, et tam idem Rex quam ejus -successores in regno prefato probos viros nationis alterius -studuerunt successu temporis in terra memorata Ybernie ad -continuandam inibi sedis ejusdem obedientiam collocare.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The words of this preamble should be most carefully -studied; for though, as I have said, it clearly refers to the action of -Pope Adrian, in its statement that Henry invaded Ireland “at the wish -of the Papal see,” yet the words “velut effrenes per campum licentie -ducerentur” must, surely, be derived from the “tanquam effrenis passim -per abrupta deviat viciorum” of Alexander’s letter to Henry entered in -the ‘Liber Niger.’ If so, they are evidence, even though they stand -alone, that the existence and contents of this letter were known in -Ireland at the time.</p> - -<p>There is another and far later reference to ‘Laudabiliter’ in a Papal -document, which I have not seen mentioned, although the document is one -of great consequence for Irish history. When Innocent X.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[200]</span> despatched -Rinuccini as Papal Nuncio to Ireland (1645) he gave him formal -instructions, in which was comprised a brief outline of past events. In -it we find this definite and most striking passage:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>For a long period the true faith maintained itself, till the -country, invaded by the Danes, an idolatrous people, fell for -the most part into impious superstition. This state of darkness -lasted till the reigns of Adrian IV. and of Henry II., king of -England. Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire, and to secure -the provinces which he possessed beyond sea in France, wished to -subdue the island of Ireland; and, to compass this design, had -recourse to Adrian, who, himself an Englishman, with a liberal -hand granted all he coveted.</p> - -<p>The zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith -moved the soul of Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of -that island. Three important conditions were annexed to the -gift. 1st. That the king should do all in his power to propagate -the Christian religion throughout Ireland. 2nd. That each of his -subjects should pay an annual tribute of one penny to the Holy -See, commonly called Peter’s pence. And 3rd. That civil liberty -should be guaranteed, and the privileges and immunities of the -Church be held inviolate.<a id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This clear testimony to the Pope’s belief, in 1645, that -Adrian had, by ‘Laudabiliter,’ invested Henry II. with the sovereignty -of Ireland can hardly be agreeable reading to Father Gasquet and his -friends.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[201]</span></p> - -<h2>IX<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Coronation of Richard I</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The first coronation of an English king of which we possess a detailed -account is that of Richard I. (3rd Sept., 1189). It was carried out, -says Dr. Stubbs, “in such splendour and minute formality as to form a -precedent for all subsequent ceremonies of the sort.”<a id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a> As a more -recent writer has observed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The order of the procession and the details of the ceremonial -were arranged with unusual care and minuteness; it was the -most splendid and elaborate coronation-ceremony that had ever -been seen in England, and it served as a precedent for all -after-time.<a id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is consequently of some interest to learn on what -authority the narrative of this coronation rests.</p> - -<p>The original authority is that of the writer formerly described as -“Benedictus abbas,” but now virtually known to have been Richard ‘Fitz -Nigel,’<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a> who was not only a contemporary writer, but, as the king’s -Treasurer, would probably have been an actual spectator of the ceremony -he describes. His account is repeated by Hoveden,<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> who was also a -contemporary,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[202]</span> and possibly present, but “adds only matter of extremely -small importance.”<a id="FNanchor_425" href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> We then come to Matthew Paris, writing some two -generations later, who gives, says Dr. Stubbs—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">a similar account of the coronation, more closely resembling -that of Benedict ... in the few and unimportant places where -the two differ. He indicates the common source of information, -the Rolls (ed. Wats, p. 154) or Consuetudines (Abbreviatio, Ed. -Madden, iii. 209) of the Exchequer.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This view was accepted by Dr. Luard (1874), who says of -the narrative given by Matthew in his Chronica Majora (ii. 348–350):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>This account is taken from Benedict. The original source (the -Consuetudines Scaccarii) is referred to in the Hist. Angl., ii. -p. 8, and the Abbreviatio Chronicorum, iii. 209. See Madden’s -note, iii. 209.<a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">We are thus referred to Sir Frederic Madden, who, as -keeper of the MSS. at the British Museum, possessed special knowledge, -and who wrote thus (1869):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The details of Richard’s coronation do not appear either in -the Red or Black Books of the Exchequer, but they are given by -Benedict Abbas, pp. 557–560, and copied by Hoveden, from whom -Wendover somewhat abridges them, and thence repeated in the -greater Chronicle of Matt. Paris, ed. Wats, p. 153, and Hist. -Ang., ii. 6.<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>This, it will be seen, hardly commits the writer to the view that some -Exchequer record was, as alleged above, the original authority. But -such, no doubt, might be the inference from this comment on the text. -As important inferences have now been drawn from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[203]</span> this error, as I -venture to deem it, we must glance at the actual passage on which the -theory is based.</p> - -<p>Unconnected with the narrative of the coronation, which is complete -without it, there is found, in the ‘Historia Anglorum’ (ii. 9) this -marginal note:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Officia prelatorum et magnatum quæ ab antiquo jure et -consuetudine in regum coronationibus sibi vindicant et facere -debent, in rotulis Scaccarii poterunt reperiri.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This obviously refers, not to the narrative in the -text, which is that of the coronation ceremony alone, but to the -services performed “by ancient right and custom” in the king’s house -on that occasion. Of these there is no description in the text. In -another work ascribed, but doubtfully, to Matthew Paris, the so-called -“Abbreviatio,” the coronation is mentioned, but not described; and -there is added a similar note;</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et quia exigit plenitudo historiæ officia quorundam magnatum -qui in coronationibus habent implere, de antiqua consuetudine, -lectorem hujus libelli abbreviati ad historiam transmitto -prolixiorem quæ in consuetudinibus Scaccarii poterit -reperiri.<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In both cases, it will be observed, an exchequer record -is referred to solely for the customary offices or services rendered -by certain magnates; and in both cases the present tense and the word -“coronation<i>ibus</i>” imply that the reference is general, and is -not merely a description of what happened at Richard’s coronation. -Now my contention is that the record referred to is that of Queen -Eleanor’s coronation in 1236, which is preserved, at the present day, -in the Red Book of the Exchequer, and which was known to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[204]</span> Matthew -Paris, who appends to his narrative of the services at that coronation -the marginal note: “Hæc omnia in consuetudinario Scaccarii melius et -plenius reperiuntur.”<a id="FNanchor_430" href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> We actually find in that record the words: -“de prædictis autem officiis nullus sibi jus vendicavit,” etc.,<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> -which at once remind us of the marginal note found in the ‘Historia -Anglorum.’</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The solution, therefore, which I propound is that the narrative of the -coronation, which is admittedly derived from the ‘Gesta,’ was written -by its author from his own knowledge, and certainly not derived by him -from an Exchequer record. In the first place, it is nowhere said that -he did so; in the second, it is little less than absurd to assume that -Richard would refer to a record in his own Exchequer for a ceremony -which must have taken place while he was writing his chronicle, and at -which he was probably present. The idea arose, as I have shown, from -a simple misunderstanding, and has led those who adopt it to direct -self-contradiction, for if Matthew derived, as admitted, his narrative -from the ‘Gesta,’ he could not also have derived it, as Dr. Luard -writes, from some Exchequer record.</p> - -<p>As Richard had not described the coronation <i>services</i>, Matthew, -for these, refers us to that precedent preserved at the Exchequer -(Eleanor’s coronation), which was, we shall find, the recognised -precedent for coronation services so late as 1377.<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[205]</span></p> - -<p>We may now pass to Mr. Hall’s theory that the non-appearance in the -Red Book of “the order of Richard I.’s Coronation, referred to (as he -holds) by Matthew Paris, is a third instance of palpable omission”<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a> -of transcripts it formerly contained. His only reason for denying that -the above marginal notes refer (as I hold) to Eleanor’s coronation -(1236) is that “Hoveden, Bromton, and other authorities give an -abbreviated narrative” which implies the existence of such a record as -is supposed to have been lost. But Hoveden, as we have seen, copies -his narrative from the ‘Gesta,’ which he does not abbreviate, but -expands—and does not describe the “services,” which is what we want.</p> - -<p>Mr. Hall’s meaning, however, is, as usual, obscure; for, having -cited the supposed narrative as at one time existing in our Red Book -(p. xviii.), he next tells us: “It can scarcely be doubted that -Matthew Paris’ reference was to some Exchequer Precedent Book which -no longer exists” (p. xix.), although, we read, it was certainly -from our existing Red Book that he took his “description of the -pageant of 1236” (pp. xix., xxxii.). He calls it the “custumal” -(<i>consuetudinarium</i>) of the Exchequer. And yet on page xxix. we -read of Matthew referring to the</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">‘custumal’ of the Exchequer wherein a certain document of the -reign of Richard I. is said to have been entered, which no -longer exists in the Red Book or in any other Exchequer MS.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">So also we learn, on page lxii., that Swereford compiled -a lost work “which was the custumal known to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[206]</span> Matthew Paris, and the -probable exemplar of the Red Book of the Exchequer.” So Matthew’s -‘custumal’ (<i>consuetudinarium</i>) was not the Red Book itself, but -its now lost “exemplar.” Yet on page xix. we are told that this, the -only ‘custumal’ mentioned by Matthew, was, beyond doubt, the Red Book -of the Exchequer.</p> - -<p>It is here, with Mr. Hall, the same as elsewhere. His work is marred, -throughout, by that confusion of thought which makes it almost -impossible to learn what he really means.</p> - -<p>In any case my own position is clear. I assert that the note by Matthew -Paris refers, not to the narrative of the coronation, which he derived -from the ‘Gesta,’ but to a description of the “services”; and I hold -that he found this description, not in a lost Exchequer record, but in -the Red Book’s account of Queen Eleanor’s coronation.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[207]</span></p> - -<h2>X<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Struggle of John and Longchamp<br /> -(1191)</span></h2> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">It is needless to insist on the critical character of the year 1191 in -England. From the moment when the watchers on the coast of Sicily had -seen the passing of Richard, this country found itself, for the first -time, cut off, for all purposes, from communication with its king. The -sovereign had gone, and his seal with him; and ministerial government, -a government by officials, was thrown on its own resources. If Henry -and his grandfather had taught their subjects faithfully to obey the -ministers of the Crown, with the king ever at their back, the case -was altered when the king had left them for a distant land. And men’s -thoughts turned to John, not only as the visible representative, in his -brother’s absence, of his house, but as not improbably their future -king, and that, it might be, before long. John, traitor at heart, saw -the strength of his position, and Longchamp was far too clever to -ignore the danger of his own.</p> - -<p>To the tale of their inevitable strife for power, the acknowledged -master of that age’s history has devoted special care. In his edition -of the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ (1867), and again in that of Hoveden -(1870), he has given the conclusions at which he arrived concerning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[208]</span> -the order of events in 1191. We have, in the former, the footnote to -vol. ii., pp. 208–9, and in the latter, pp. lvi.-lxiv. of the preface -to vol. iii., and the “long note” on pp. 134–5 of the text. The last of -these is perhaps the one which sets forth most fully and clearly the -final conclusions of the bishop. These conclusions, I may add at once, -have been accepted without question by Mr. Howlett, in his ‘William of -Newburgh’ (1884)<a id="FNanchor_434" href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> and his ‘Richard of Devizes’ (1886),<a id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a> by Miss -Norgate in her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 298–301) and her -Life of Longchamp,<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> and by Mr. Hunt in his Life of John.<a id="FNanchor_437" href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a></p> - -<p>Summing up the narratives found in the ‘Gesta,’ Hoveden, Richard -of Devizes, and William of Newburgh, Dr. Stubbs holds that their -“divergency arises from the fact of the struggle falling into two -campaigns, in which certain details are repeated. There were three -conferences at Winchester, two attempts on the chancellor’s part to -seize the castle of Lincoln, and two settlements.” He then gives “the -harmonized dates, on this hypothesis, in detail.”</p> - -<p>As to the first of these dates, the conference at Winchester on -Mid-Lent Sunday (March 24), recorded by Richard of Devizes, no question -arises. And I am in a position to adduce documentary evidence in its -confirmation; for Longchamp occurs as present at Winchester on March -28 in two separate documents.<a id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> It is when we come to the “two -campaigns,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[209]</span> one in the spring and the other in the summer, that the -difficulties begin. I propose, therefore, to append a sketch of the -sequence of events as recorded by William of Newburgh, the ‘Gesta,’ and -Richard of Devizes. Hoveden practically repeats the Gesta narrative, -and may therefore, for convenience, be omitted.</p> - -<table summary="events" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr smcap">William of Newburgh.</td> - <td class="ctr smcap">Richard of Devizes.</td> - <td class="ctr smcap">Gesta.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">The archbishop of Rouen arrives (April 27).<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">The archbishop of Rouen arrives (April 27).</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp refuses to recognise his - authority. John plots against Longchamp.</td> - <td class="cht1">Richard having left Sicily for the East - (April 10), John hearing this begins - to plot against Longchamp.</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Matters are brought to a crisis by Gerard - de Camville being summoned by Longchamp - to give up Lincoln castle to him, and by - his refusing and joining John.</td> - <td class="cht1">At length matters are brought to a crisis by - Gerard de Camville doing homage to John - for Lincoln Castle, which is declared to be treason.</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp sends abroad for mercenaries, but - hastens to besiege Lincoln castle.</td> - <td class="cht1">Longchamps hastily collects troops, - compels Roger Mortimer to surrender Wigmore, - and then besieges Lincoln castle.</td> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp collects forces _after - Midsummer_, and besieges Lincoln - castle depriving Gerard of his - shrievalty.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">John surprises and seizes Nottingham and Tickhill.</td> - <td class="cht1">John is enabbled to seize Nottingham and Tickhill.</td> - <td class="cht1">Nottingham and Tickhill are surrendered to John.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Thereupon he orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln.</td> - <td class="cht1">He orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln.</td> - <td class="cht1">He orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp knowing many of those with - him were for John, withdraws “confusus.”<br /> - <br /> - A few days later he “learns that his - office of legate had expired by the Pope’s death.”</td> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp is quite taken aback, but - recovering himself, sends the archbishop of - Rouen to summon John to restore the castles he - has taken.</td> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp, terrified, withdraws with his army.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Friends mediate.</td> - <td class="cht1">The archbishop arranges with John a conference - for July 28. Longchamp consents, and withdraws.</td> - <td class="cht1">(Many bishops and other of the king’s - lieges mediate.)<a id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Longchamp makes peace as best he could.</td> - <td class="cht1">Description of agreement between John and - Longchamp (wrongly dated April 25).</td> - <td class="cht1">Brief summary of agreement (which - Hovenden recites in full).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Soon after, Longchamp hears that his - mercenaries have landed, and repudiates - the agreement. At length, however, they - come to terms on a fresh footing.</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>It is the contention of Dr. Stubbs <span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[210]</span>that William of Newburgh, in the -first of these columns, describes the first, or spring “campaign,” -and that Richard and the ‘Gesta’ describe, in the other two, the -second “campaign” later in the year. The difficulty I always felt, in -accepting this conclusion, is the almost incredible coincidence of the -sequence of events here described occurring twice over, in exactly -the same order. But one would not be justified in questioning a view -confidently enunciated by Dr. Stubbs, and accepted, it would seem, by -every one else, on the ground merely of improbability, however extreme. -Let us see, therefore, on what evidence the accepted view is based.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[211]</span></p> - -<p>In the first place, we are told that the above sequence was repeated -twice over. The authorities, however, are all agreed in mentioning one -such sequence, and one only.<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a> Why, then, are we to convert it into -two, in the face of all probability? The only definite reason I can -find for so doing is that, according to William of Newburgh—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Longchamp’s proceedings against Lincoln took place early in the -spring, before the death of pope Clement III. was known, <i>or -the archbishop of Rouen landed</i> [April 27];—<a id="FNanchor_442" href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">while the ‘Gesta’ distinctly state that Longchamp only -set out against Lincoln “after Midsummer.” If this were so, the -discrepancy would be obvious. But leaving aside, for the moment, the -question of the Pope’s death, we find, on reference, that William -of Newburgh, so far from placing the campaign, etc., <i>before</i> -the archbishop’s arrival, actually places it <i>after</i> that -event.<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> The one real discrepancy, therefore, is found to have no -existence.<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[212]</span></p> - -<p>As to the date of Longchamp receiving the news of the Pope’s death, -it must first be observed that William of Newburgh does not assert -categorically that it reached him shortly after the fall of Lincoln. -What he says is that the chancellor “learned that his office of legate -had expired through the death of the pope.”<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> If this merely meant -that he heard of the Pope’s death, it would be irreconcilable with -William’s own statement that all this happened after, and some time -after, the archbishop’s arrival (April 27). Those, therefore, who would -take the words in this sense, must admit that William has blundered, -for he contradicts himself. This would be sufficient for my argument; -but I think we may hold, in fairness to William, that what Longchamp -heard, after withdrawing from Lincoln, was that Pope Cœlestine had not -renewed his legation, and, therefore, that it had expired with the -death of the late Pope.<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a> Great mystery surrounds, it is admitted, -the date of the eventual renewal; and one point, it seems to me, may<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[213]</span> -have escaped notice. According to the envoys’ report in Hoveden, Pope -Cœlestine himself had been earnestly entreated by Richard to make -Longchamp legate. But Cœlestine was not elected Pope till four days -after Richard had left Sicily for the East. If, therefore, the renewal -was granted at Richard’s instance, there must have been considerable -delay before the grant was obtained.</p> - -<p>Moreover, those who uphold the view at present accepted have to explain -a difficulty they hardly seem to have realized. The ‘Gesta’ assigns the -Pope’s death to April 10 (1191), but so uncertain is the date that we -find Dr. Stubbs writing:</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Clement III. died about the end of March, and the news of - his death would reach England about three weeks later (‘Gesta,’ p. 208 note).</td> - <td class="cht1">Pope Clement dies April 10: the news would reach England - in a fortnight or perhaps less. The chancellor, trembling for his - legation, makes a hasty peace (Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">If Clement died April 10—the date adopted by Mr. Howlett -and Miss Norgate<a id="FNanchor_447" href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a>—the difficulty is that the news must have -reached not merely England, but Lincoln (<i>ex hypothesi</i>) in time -to allow of preliminary negotiations between John and Longchamp, of a -conference at Winchester being agreed to, and of their both reaching -Winchester in time for that conference on April 25. For this the news -must have reached Lincoln hardly later than April 20. Could it possibly -have done so?</p> - -<p>Those who have thus far followed my argument will have seen that I hold -there to have been only one<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[214]</span> “campaign,” followed by a conference at -Winchester, which “campaign” did not begin till after midsummer. The -spring campaign, with the alleged conference of April 25 at Winchester, -I hold to be wholly imaginary.</p> - -<p>In case any one should still be in doubt, I now bring up my reserves. -The undisputed statement that Longchamp was at Winchester on March 24 -was supported, we saw, by record evidence that he was there on March -28. Of more importance is the record evidence that he was at Lincoln -on July 8,<a id="FNanchor_448" href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a> for it strongly confirms the statement in the Gesta -that he set out “after midsummer,” and, having rapidly reduced Wigmore, -laid siege to Lincoln Castle. Although I have been trying for years to -collect evidence of Longchamp’s movements in this eventful year, I have -not been able to secure many fixed points. It is certain, however, that -he was at Cambridge on April 21.<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> This affords welcome support to -the crowning discovery I made, in a document preserved in France, that -he was there on April 24.<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a> It will, I presume, not be disputed that -if the chancellor was at Cambridge on April 24, he cannot have devoted -the following day to a conference with John at Winchester.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>I have purposely refrained as yet from discussing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[215]</span> a distinct question, -namely, the terms of the agreement, or agreements, between Longchamp -and John. For they do not affect the question of the sequence of -historical events. We have (<i>a</i>) in Hoveden what purports to -be an actual recital of the agreement made after the chancellor’s -enforced withdrawal from Lincoln; (<i>b</i>) in Richard of Devizes -a <i>résumé</i> of such an agreement effected, according to him, -at a conference on July 28, also, it would seem, consequent on the -chancellor’s retreat.<a id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a> Dr. Stubbs has argued as against Palgrave, -and apparently with complete success, that two distinct agreements are -in question. But this does not establish their date (or respective -dates), nor even their right sequence. I have already disposed of -the alleged conference on April 25, and both agreements, therefore, -must be later than the Lincoln business in July. Now, it is singular -that William of Newburgh distinctly speaks of two agreements, and -implies that the second was the less unfavourable to the chancellor’s -claims. This is, at first sight, in striking harmony with Dr. Stubbs’ -conclusion that the agreement recited by Hoveden is the later of -the two, and that in it “the chancellor gave way somewhat more than -was wise, but less than he had done in April”<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> (<i>i.e.</i> in -the agreement described by Richard of Devizes). But a more minute -examination than Dr. Stubbs could give reveals a serious difficulty. -According to him, the earlier agreement “engages the chancellor to -support John’s claim to the crown<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[216]</span> in case of Richard’s death”;<a id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a> -while the later one contains no such provision. On this distinction he -lays stress because “the succession of Arthur,” he holds, was a “main -point” of Longchamp’s policy;<a id="FNanchor_454" href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> while the archbishop of Rouen also, -he urges, would have “sacrificed other considerations to ... obtaining -the omission of any terms which would have openly asserted John’s claim -to the succession.”<a id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a></p> - -<p>But on turning to the ‘Gesta’ and to William of Newburgh, we find that -the former, in what is admittedly, and the latter in what he explicitly -makes, the later of the two agreements, declare the recognition of -John as heir, in case of Richard’s death, to have been the feature -of that later agreement, in which, according to Dr. Stubbs, it was -conspicuously omitted.<a id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> This grave discrepancy would seem to have -escaped notice.</p> - -<p>I do not profess to determine absolutely the sequence of the two -agreements, but I think it not impossible that the one recited by -Hoveden may prove, after all, to have been the earlier of the two. They -have hardly, perhaps, been examined with sufficient care. Dr. Stubbs, -for instance, writes that in the agreement described by Richard “each -party chooses eleven commissioners,” while in Hoveden, “each chooses -seven.”<a id="FNanchor_457" href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> But the latter were merely sureties for the oaths of the -parties to observe the agreement,<a id="FNanchor_458" href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[217]</span> not arbitrators for arranging -its terms; while, in the other agreement, the eleven were actual -arbitrators, chosen (as for the Provisions of Oxford) for drawing up -the agreement independently of the parties. Again, closer investigation -shows that the agreement described by Richard of Devizes is, in some -ways, more, not less, favourable to the chancellor than the other. -Hoveden, for instance, makes John surrender Tickhill and Nottingham, -not to the chancellor, but to the archbishop as representing the king. -Richard, on the other hand, makes the chancellor not only receive the -castles, but personally take hostages from their keepers for their -safe custody. In Hoveden, indeed, the possession of these two castles -is made, on the contrary, a kind of security for the chancellor’s good -behaviour. Richard, to speak more generally, brings the chancellor -to the front, and leaves the archbishop in the background, which is -precisely what might be expected when Longchamp felt himself strong -enough to pose once more as the king’s representative.</p> - -<p>Moreover, we have a hint as to the order of these agreements in their -provisions as to Gerard de Camville. In Hoveden’s document we read that -he is to be provisionally restored, then to have a fair trial, and, if -convicted, is to lose his castle and his shrievalty.<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> Richard, on -the contrary, describes him as restored to the chancellor’s favour, -and, therefore, to the permanent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[218]</span> custody of the castle.<a id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> The -latter, surely, is a later stage.</p> - -<p>On all these grounds I lean strongly to the view that Richard of -Devizes describes the later and final compromise, which, unlike its -predecessor, was arranged by formal arbitration. On this hypothesis the -archbishop of Rouen had refused to give way about the succession,<a id="FNanchor_461" href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> -while the chancellor purchased concessions from John by throwing over -Arthur. But as I do not claim to have demonstrated this, I hope my view -will be discussed by some duly qualified critic.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, the earlier part of this paper does, I hope, -demonstrate that the accepted view of the order of events in the year -1191 must be altogether abandoned. This, of course, involves the -correction of no fewer than four works in the Master of the Rolls’ -series, and of every modern history of England which deals with the -period in any detail. Yet the chief interest of the enquiry will be -found in its bearing on historical probability and in its demonstration -of the value of minute critical study.<a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[219]</span></p> - -<h2>XI<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Commune of London</span></h2> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">When in 1893, the seventh centenary of the year in which a Mayor of -London first appears, I read before the Royal Archæological Institute -a paper on “The origin of the Mayoralty of London,”<a id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> I expressed -the hope that some document might yet be discovered which would throw -further light upon the Mayor and on his connection with the “Commune” -of 1191. Such a document I have since found. Its confirmation of the -fact that a “Commune” was actually established in London is as welcome -as it is important; but the essential fact which it enables us to -determine is that this foreign organization was transplanted bodily to -London. It has hitherto been supposed that the only change involved -by the erection of the “Commune” was the appearance of its typical -officer, the “Mayor,” as an addition to the pre-existent sheriffs and -the aldermen of the city wards. It can, however, now be shown that the -aldermen of the wards had no part in the “communal” organization, which -was modelled exclusively on foreign lines, and was wholly unconnected -with the old and English system.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[220]</span></p> - -<p>The historian’s time can be profitably spent on minute and thorough -examination of London institutions in the 12th century. For the origin -and development in England of municipal liberties is still, in spite of -their paramount interest, involved in much obscurity. As Dr. Stubbs has -truly observed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>London claims the first place in any such investigation, as the -greatest municipality, as the model on which by their charters -of liberties the other large towns of the country were allowed -or charged to adjust their usages, and as the most active, -the most political, and the most ambitious. London has also a -pre-eminence in municipal history, owing to the strength of the -conflicting elements which so much affected her constitutional -progress.<a id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">And yet, as he reminded his hearers in one of his -Oxford lectures, “Mediæval London still waits for its constitutional -historian.”</p> - -<p>Occupying as it did, among English towns, a position apart, in wealth -as in importance, London had a municipal development of her own, a -development of which our best historians can only tell us that it -is “obscure.” That obscurity, however, has been sadly increased by -the careless study and the misapprehension of her great charters of -liberties. Broadly speaking, and disregarding for the moment the -statements of our accepted authorities, the great want of London, in -her early days, was an efficient, homogeneous government of her own. -The City—for the City was then London—found itself in fact, during -the Norman period, in the same plight as greater London found itself -in our own days. “The ordinary system of the parish and the township,” -as an accomplished<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[221]</span> writer has observed, “the special franchises and -jurisdictions of the great individual landowners, of the churches, of -the gilds—all these were loosely bundled together.” For the cause -of this state of things we should have to go back to the origins of -our history, to show that the genius of the Anglo-Saxon system was -ill-adapted, or rather, wholly unsuitable, to urban life; that, while -of unconquerable persistence and strength in small, manageable rural -communities, it was bound to, and did, break down when applied to -large and growing towns, whose life lay not in agriculture, but in -trade. In a parish, a “Hundred,” the Englishman was at home; but in a -town, and still more in such a town as London, he found himself, for -administrative purposes, at his wits’ end.</p> - -<p>Putting aside the “English Knightengild,”—the position of which as a -governing body has been far too rashly assumed,<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a> and rests upon -no foundation,—the only institutions of which we can be sure are the -“folkesmote” and the weekly “husteng” of Henry I.’s charter, and the -Shrievalty. The “folkesmote” was the immemorial open-air gathering, -corresponding<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[222]</span> with the “shire-moot” or “hundred-moot” of the country, -the “borough-moot” or “portman-moot” of the town. The small “husteng,” -as is obvious from its name, was a Danish development, akin to the -“lawmen” of the Danish boroughs. If these represented, in London, a -kind of legal unity, the shrievalty, on the other hand, involved a kind -of financial unity. If, however, as I have urged in my study on the -early shrievalty,<a id="FNanchor_466" href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> the administrative development of London had -proceeded upon these lines, it would no more have brought about a true -municipal unity than the sheriff and the county court could evolve it -in the shire; a “Corporation” was wholly alien to administration on -county principles.</p> - -<p>But in the meanwhile, the great movement in favour of municipal -liberties, which was so prominent a feature of the stirring 12th -century, was spreading like wildfire through France and Flanders, and -London, which, since the coming of the Normans, had become far more -cosmopolitan, was steadily imbibing from foreign traders the spirit -and enthusiasm of the age. But this by no means suited the views, at -the time, of the Crown, which, here as in Germany, looked askance on -this alarming and, too often, revolutionary movement. When the history -of London at this period comes to be properly studied, it will be -found that the growing power of the Londoners, who had practically -seated Stephen on the throne, and had chevied the Empress Matilda from -their midst, were sharply checked by her son Henry, whose policy, in -this respect at least, was faithfully followed by his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[223]</span> successor, -Richard the First. The assumption, therefore, that the Mayoralty of -London dates from Richard’s accession (1189) is an absolute perversion -of history. There is record evidence which completely confirms the -memorable words of Richard of Devizes, who declares that on no terms -whatever would king Richard or his father have ever assented to the -establishment of the “Commune” in London.<a id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a></p> - -<p>Writing mainly for experts, I need scarcely explain that the “sworn -Commune,” to give it its right name—for the oath sworn by its members -was its essential feature—was the association or ‘conspiracy’ as -we choose to regard it, formed by the inhabitants of a town that -desired to obtain its independence. And the head of this Association -or “Commune” was given, abroad, the title of “Maire.” It was at about -the same time that the “Commune” and its “Maire” were triumphantly -reaching Dijon in one direction and Bordeaux in another, that they -took a northern flight and descended upon London. Not for the first -time in her history the Crown’s difficulty was London’s opportunity. -Even so early as 1141, when the fortunes of the Crown hung in the -balance between rival claimants, we find the citizens forming an -effective “conjuratio,”<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a> the very term applied to their “Commune,” -half a century later, by Richard of Devizes.<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[224]</span> Moreover, earlier -in the same year (April), William of Malmesbury applies to their -government the term “communio,” in which the keen eye of the bishop -of Oxford detected “a description of municipal unity which suggests -that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic -organization.”<a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a> But he failed, it would seem, to observe the -passage which follows and which speaks of “omnes barones, qui in eorum -communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant.” For in this allusion we discover -a distinctive practice of the “sworn commune,” from that of Le Mans -(1073),<a id="FNanchor_471" href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a> to that of London, now to be dealt with.</p> - -<p>When, in the crisis of October, 1191, the administration found itself -paralysed by the conflict between John, as the king’s brother, and -Longchamp, as the king’s representative, London, finding that she held -the scales, promptly named the “Commune” as the price of her support. -The chroniclers of the day enable us to picture to ourselves the scene, -as the excited citizens who had poured forth overnight, with lanterns -and torches, to welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the -morning of the eventful 8th October, at the well-known sound of the -great bell, swinging out from its campanile in St. Paul’s churchyard. -There they heard John take the oath to the “Commune,” like a French -king or lord; and then London for the first time had a municipality of -her own.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[225]</span></p> - -<p>This much at least we may deem certain; but what the chroniclers tell -us has proved to be only enough to whet the appetite for more. Of the -character of the “Commune” so granted, of its ultimate fate, and of -the part it played in the municipal development of London, nothing -has been really known. The only fact of importance ascertained from -other sources has been the appearance of a Mayor of London at or -about the same time as the grant of a “Commune.” It cannot, indeed, -be proved that, as has sometimes been supposed, the two phenomena -were synchronistic; for no mention of the Mayor of London, after long -research, is known to me earlier than the spring of the year 1193.<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a> -But there is, of course, the strongest presumption that the grant of -a “Commune” involved a Mayor, and already in 1194 we find a citizen -accused of boasting that “come what may, the Londoners shall have no -king but their Mayor.” It was precisely in the same spirit that the -‘Comuneros’ of Salamanca exclaimed of their leader in 1521: “Juras à -Dios no haber mas Rey ni Papa que Valloria.”</p> - -<p>Before I explain my discoveries on the “Commune” granted to London, -it may be desirable to show how great a discrepancy of opinion has -hitherto prevailed on this important but admittedly obscure subject.</p> - -<p>The first historian, so far as I know, to treat the subject in the -modern spirit was the present bishop of Oxford; and it is a striking -testimony to his almost infallible judgment that what he wrote on the -subject a quarter of a century ago is the explanation that, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[226]</span> this -day, has held the field. In his ‘Select Charters’ (1870), he expressed -the view that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">the establishment of the ‘Communa’ of the citizens of London, -which is recorded by the historians to have been specially -confirmed by the Barons and Justiciar on the occasion of -Longchamp’s deposition from the Justiciarship is a matter of -some difficulty, as the word ‘Communa’ is not found in English -town charters, and no formal record of the act of confirmation -is now preserved. Interpreted, however, by foreign usage, and -by the later meaning of the word ‘communitas,’ it must be -understood to signify a corporate identity of the municipality, -which it may have claimed before, and which may even have been -occasionally recognised, but was now firmly established; a sort -of consolidation into a single organized body of the variety of -franchises, guilds, and other departments of local jurisdiction. -It was probably connected with and perhaps implied by the -nomination of a <i>Mayor</i>, who now appears for the first -time. It cannot, however, be defined with certainty (p. 257).</p> -</div> - -<p>And in his ‘Constitutional History’ he holds that it practically “gave -completeness to a municipal constitution which had long been struggling -for recognition.” These comments, on the whole, suggest rather a -development of existing conditions than the introduction of a foreign -institution.</p> - -<p>Mr. Coote, the next to approach the subject, contended that Dr. Stubbs’ -“view falls very far short of the reality.” In his able paper “A -Lost Charter,”<a id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> he insisted that a charter was actually granted -in 1191 to the Londoners empowering them to elect a Mayor, and that -this is what the chroniclers meant when they spoke of the grant of -“Commune,” for the citizens, he urged, had possessed all the rights of -a “Commune” from the days of the Conqueror. With Mr. Loftie’s work came -the inevitable reaction. Wholly ignoring the definite and contemporary -statement as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[227]</span> to the grant of a “Commune,” he deemed it “far safer -to adopt the received and old-fashioned opinion,” and to date the -Mayoralty from 1189, while, as for the “Commune,” he deemed it to have -been of gradual growth, and to have been practically recognised by the -charter of Henry I.</p> - -<p>Now, whatever the grant of “Commune” implied, it certainly implied -something, and something of importance. “Upon this point there is,” -as Mr. Coote justly observed, “a cloud of contemporary evidence, -clear, exact and positive.” He put together the versions of the -chroniclers,<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> contemporary and well-informed, and their harmony is -complete. The fact, moreover, that the Commune was extorted at a great -crisis, proved that only when the government was weak could so great a -concession be wrung from it. Lastly, the phrase of Richard of Devizes: -“Concessa est ipsa die et instituta Communia Londinensium,” and that -of Giraldus: “Communa seu Communia eis concessa,” correspond exactly -with the formal phrases in the French charters of “Commune.” In the -case of Senlis (1173) it was “Communiam fieri concessimus”; in that of -Compiègne (1153): “Burgensibus villæ concessimus Communiam”; in that -of Abbeville (1185) “concessi eis Communiam habendam”; in that which -Queen Eleanor granted to Poitiers (1199): “Sciatis nos concessisse ... -universis hominibus de Pictavi et eorum heredibus communiam juratam -apud Pictavim.” But if any doubt were yet possible, it would be finally -removed by the words of Richard of Devizes:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[228]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Nunc primum, indulta sibi conjuratione, regno regem deesse -cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus nec prædecessor -et pater ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcis argenti fieri -permississet.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">There is no escaping from these words, and Mr. Loftie’s -theory is, consequently, out of court.<a id="FNanchor_475" href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a></p> - -<p>But what of Mr. Coote’s? With great confidence he wrote that the -“Commune,” in the case of London, which had acquired all other things, -expressed for its citizens the mayoralty only; “nothing else was asked -or desired by them, for it was the sole privilege which was wanting -to their burghal independence” (p. 287). We find, however, that on -the Continent the word ‘Commune’ did not of necessity imply a Mayor, -for Beauvais and Compiègne, though constituted ‘Communes,’ appear to -have had no Mayor during most of the 12th century. The chroniclers, -therefore, had they only meant to speak of the privilege of electing -a Mayor, would not have all employed a word which did not connote it, -but would have said what they meant. Moreover, his theory rests on the -assumption, common till now to all historians, that the citizens had -continuously possessed, from the beginning of the 12th century, the -privileges granted in the charter of Henry I. But I have shown, in my -‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ that these privileges were not renewed by -Henry II. or Richard I., and that this fact strikingly confirms the -explicit words of Richard of Devizes, when he states that neither the -one nor the other would have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[229]</span> allowed the Londoners to form a ‘Commune’ -even for a million of marcs.</p> - -<p>In ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (pp. 357–9) I insisted on the necessity -of keeping steadily in view the annual <i>firma</i> of London and -Middlesex, and showed that it was due in respect of the two jointly, -and not, as has been alleged of Middlesex, apart from London. The -further publication of the Pipe Rolls has enabled me to develop this -position. While the citizens, as I showed, strenuously claimed to hold -the city and county at ferm for £300, as in the charter of Henry I., -the Crown no less persistently strove to exact a <i>firma</i> of more -than £500. The exact amount of the high <i>firma</i> is first recorded -at the change of shrievalty in 1169. The four outgoing sheriffs at -Easter of that year account for £250 “blank” and £11 “numero,” as the -half-year’s <i>firma</i>. This represents a total for the year of £500 -“blank” and £22 “numero,” which is also precisely the sum accounted -for in 1173–4.<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a> The whole sum would thus amount to £547 “numero,” -by the Exchequer system. But at Midsummer, 1174, there was a great -and a sudden change. Brichtmer de Haverhelle and Peter Fitz Walter -came into office not as sheriffs, but “ut custodes,” in the Exchequer -phrase,<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a> and at Michaelmas they accounted not “de firma,” but “de -exitu firme.”<a id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[230]</span></p> - -<p>The sheriff farmed his county and answered for a fixed <i>firma</i>, -as a tenant is responsible for his rent; the ‘custos,’ acting for the -Crown, like a bailiff for a landowner, was responsible only for the -actual proceeds (<i>exitus</i>). This distinction meets us even on the -earliest Pipe Roll (1130).<a id="FNanchor_479" href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a> It is obvious that, on the <i>firma</i> -system, the sheriff might make a profit or a loss, according as the -sources of the ferm provided more or less than the rent for which he -had to account. But the point on which I am anxious to insist is that -the sources of his ferm were by no means so elastic as is alleged.<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> -As Professor Maitland observes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The king’s rights are pecuniary rights; he is entitled to -collect numerous small sums. Instead of these he may be willing -to take a fixed sum every year, or, in other words, to let his -rights to farm.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">He further describes these rights, in the case of a -borough, as “the profits of the market and of the borough court,” -together with “the king’s burgage rents.” Each of these sources, again, -could be sub-farmed.<a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a> This being so, I cannot agree with Dr. Stubbs -in holding that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">the sheriff was answerable to the Crown for a certain sum, and -... nothing was easier than to exact the whole of the legal sum -from the rich burghers, and take for himself the profits of the -shire; or to demand such sums as he pleased of either, without -rendering any account.<a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[231]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">For the sources of the ferm were well defined: they were -limited to certain “rights.” The burgage rents were fixed; so, we -believe, were the tolls; and the fines arising from the courts cannot -have varied much. Outside these sources the sheriff had no right to -“exact” anything from the burghers.</p> - -<p>Here we have the explanation of an otherwise singular phenomenon. The -Crown, which was receiving, as has been shown, £547 “numero” a year -from the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, obtained less than half -that amount when its own <i>custodes</i> were in charge! The proceeds -for the first whole year were £238 5<i>s.</i> 7<i>d.</i> “numero,” and -out of this, moreover, it had to pay Peter Fitz Walter £20 for his -services, and the clerks and serjeants (<i>servientes</i>) employed -under him £8 10<i>s.</i>; thus the net receipts were only some £200 -“de exitu firme de Londonia et de Middilsexa.”<a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a> I infer from -this that the <i>ferm</i> extorted for London and Middlesex had been -shamefully high,<a id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a> and that this was the cause of the sheriffs being -often laden with debt when they went out of office,<a id="FNanchor_485" href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a> as they had -to make good, out of their own pockets, the difference between the -proceeds of the dues and the ferm exacted by the Crown. It is possible -that this was indeed the reason of four sheriffs, as in 1130, being -so often appointed; the loss would thus be spread over a wider area, -and the chance of recovering the debt greater. The system,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[232]</span> on this -hypothesis, was strangely analogous to that by which, at the present -day, appointment as sheriff of a county is equivalent to exaction of -a fine by the Crown. Combining, as I have elsewhere suggested, the -fact that in 1130 each of the four sheriffs gave £12 to the Crown to -be quit of his office with the clause in the earliest charter to Rouen -that no citizen should be compelled to serve as sheriff against his -will, we may certainly conclude that such sheriffs were the victims of -Crown extortion. But obscurity must still surround the manner of their -appointment.</p> - -<p>There remains the salient fact that the Crown undoubtedly suffered a -heavy annual loss by the substitution of <i>custodes</i> for sheriffs -in 1174. As this is a fact new to historians, one is tempted to seek -an explanation. The Crown’s loss being the city’s gain, it is at least -worth consideration that the change virtually synchronized with the -king’s arrival in London at the crisis of the feudal revolt. He was -welcomed, Fantosme tells us, by the citizens, and reminded</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Ke nul peiist le Lundreis traïtres apeler.</div> - <div>Ne fereient traïsun pur les membres colper.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">In the previous year he had been assured that they were</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>La plus leale gent de tut vostre regné.</div> - <div>Ni ad nul en la vile ki seit de tel eë</div> - <div>Ki puisse porter armes, ne seit très bien armé.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">This testimony is in harmony with the fact they gave the Crown that -year (1173) a <i>novum donum</i> of 1,000 marcs, supplemented by 100 -marcs apiece from three leading citizens. It is, therefore, perfectly -possible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[233]</span> that, as Rouen obtained from Henry II. a charter increasing -its privileges, as a reward for its attitude in the rebellion, London -may have been similarly rewarded by what was in practice financial -relief.</p> - -<p>But the change did not last. After two years of the <i>custodes</i>, -they went out of office at Midsummer, 1176, their returns, “de exitu -ejusdem civitatis,” even lower than before.<a id="FNanchor_486" href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a> Their place was -taken by William Fitz Isabel, whose account for the three months’ -<i>firma</i> at Michaelmas shows that it, at once, leapt up to the huge -sum formerly exacted.<a id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a></p> - -<p>Having traced in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ the fortunes of the long -struggle between the citizens and the Crown over the amount of their -<i>firma</i>—fixed at £300 by Henry the First’s charter, but raised by -Henry II. to over £500—I was led to test the chroniclers’ statements -as to 1191 by turning to the Pipe Rolls to see if the citizens’ -triumph enabled them to secure that reduction on which they insisted -throughout. In the Roll of 1 Richard I. we find the <i>firma</i>, as -under Henry II., to be between £520 and £530,<a id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a> but in the Roll of -two years later (1191) we suddenly meet with this bold entry: “Cives -Londoniæ—Willelmus de Haverhull<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[234]</span> et Johannes Bucuinte pro eis—reddunt -compotum de ccc libris blancis pro hoc anno.” This sudden return to -the old figure was effected at the very time of the change which the -chroniclers describe. The fact is as striking as it is welcome where -all is so obscure. In the following year (4 Ric. I.) we find the -<i>firma</i> again amounting to about £300; but the difficulty of -ascertaining its sum where this is not given is, unfortunately, so -great that until the Pipe Rolls of the reign are in print we cannot -speak positively as to the endurance of this amount. In the Pipe -Roll, however, of the ninth year (1197) we find the account headed -(as in 1191): “Cives Lund[oniæ]—Nicholas Duket et Robertus Blund -pro eis—reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis de firma Lond[onie] -et Middelsexe,” and in that of the tenth year the sum is similarly -stated to be £300 “blanch.” It is clear, therefore, that at the close -of Richard’s reign the citizens had made good their claim to farm the -city and county for £300 a year, as they had recommenced to do in 1191. -The explanation of their gaining from Richard the confirmation of -that success is probably to be found in their payment of £1,000, thus -recorded on the roll of 1195 (7 Ric. I.):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Cives Lond[onie] M et D marcas de dono suo pro benevolentia -domini Regis, <i>et pro libertatibus suis conservandis</i>, et -de auxilio suo ad redemptionem domini Regis.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In that case the king would have dealt with the -<i>firma</i>, as he is known to have dealt with the sheriffwicks of -Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, etc., and simply sold it to the citizens for a -lump sum down. In this year (7 Ric. I.), accordingly, it is again the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[235]</span> -“Cives Lond[onie],” who, through their two representatives, account for -the ferm.</p> - -<p>It follows from this that when the citizens paid John £2,000 “pro -habendo confirmationem Regis de libertatibus suis,” they did not -obtain, as I had gathered from his charter, for the first time a -reduction of the <i>firma</i> to £300, but a confirmation of the -reduction they had won at the crisis of 1191.</p> - -<p>This, then, up to now has been the sum total of our knowledge: a -<i>commune</i> was granted to London in October, 1191; the ferm of -the city was, simultaneously, reduced from over £500 to the old £300, -as granted by Henry I.; and the Mayor of London first meets us in the -spring of 1193. Of the nature of the <i>commune</i> we know nothing; of -its very existence after the autumn of 1191, we are in equal ignorance.</p> - -<p>It is at this point that the document which follows comes to our help -with a flood of light, proving, as it does, that London, in 1193, -possessed a fully developed <i>commune</i> of the continental pattern.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p class="center">“<i>Sacramentum commune tempore regis Ricardi quando detentus -erat Alemaniam</i> (<i>sic</i>).<a id="FNanchor_489" href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a></p> - -<p>Quod fidem portabunt domino regi Ricardo de vita sua et -de membris et de terreno honore suo contra omnes homines -et feminas qui vivere possunt aut mori et quod pacem suam -servabunt et adjuvabunt servare, et quod communam tenebunt et -obedientes erunt maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivin[is]<a id="FNanchor_490" href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a> -ejusdem<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[236]</span> commune in fide regis et quod sequentur et tenebunt -considerationem maioris et skivinorum et aliorum proborum -hominum qui cum illis erunt salvo honore dei et sancte ecclesie -et fide domini regis Ricardi et salvis per omnia libertatibus -civitatis Lond[onie]. Et quod pro mercede nec pro parentela nec -pro aliqua re omittent quin jus in omnibus rebus [pro]sequentur -et teneant pro posse suo et scientia et quod ipsi communiter -in fide domini regis Ricardi sustinebunt bonum et malum et -ad vitam et ad mortem. Et si quis presumeret pacem domini -regis et regni perturbare ipsi consilio domine<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a> et domini -Rothomagensis<a id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> et aliorum justiciarum domini regis juvabunt -fideles domini regis et illos qui pacem servare volunt pro posse -suo et pro scientia sua salvis semper in omnibus libertatibus -Lond[onie].”</p> -</div> - -<p>Before discussing this document one may well compare it with the -Freeman’s oath at the present day, as taken by the latest honorary -freeman, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum (4th November, 1898):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I solemnly declare that I will be good and true to our -Sovereign lady Queen Victoria, that I will be obedient to the -Mayor of this City, that I will maintain the franchises and -customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless in that which -in me is; that I will also keep the Queen’s peace in my own -person, that I will know no gatherings nor conspiracies made -against the Queen’s peace, but I will warn the Mayor thereof or -hinder it to my power; and that all these points and articles I -will well and truly keep according to the laws and customs of -this City to my power.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The obligations of allegiance to the Sovereign, of -obedience to the Mayor, and of keeping the King’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[237]</span> peace against all -attempts to disturb it, remain, it will be seen, in force.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>On the importance, in many aspects, of this unique document it is -hardly necessary to dwell. Its <i>formulæ</i> deserve to be carefully -compared with the oaths of allegiance and of the peace; but here -one must restrict attention to its bearing on the <i>commune</i> of -London. For the first time we learn that the government of the city -was then in the hands of a Mayor and <i>échevins</i> (<i>skivini</i>). -Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the -existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English municipal -institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental -institution.<a id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a> But in this document the Mayor and <i>échevins</i> do -not exhaust the governing body. Of Aldermen, indeed, we hear nothing; -but we read of “alii probi homines” as associated with the Mayor and -<i>échevins</i>. For these we may turn to another document, fortunately -preserved in this volume, which shows us a body of “twenty-four” -connected with the government of London some twelve years later -(1205–6).</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p class="center">“<i>Sacramentum xxiiij<sup>or</sup> factum anno regni regis Johannis -vij<sup>o</sup>.</i></p> - -<p>Quod legaliter intendent ad consulendum secundum suam -consuetudinem juri domini regis quod ad illos spectat in -civitate Lond[onie] salva libertate civitatis<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[238]</span> et quod de nullo -homine qui in placito sit ad civitatem spectante aliquod premium -ad suam conscientiam reciperent. Et si aliquis illorum donum -aut promissum dum in placitum fatiat illud nunquam recipient, -neque aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis. Et quod illi nullum -modum premii accipient, nec aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis, -pro injuria allevanda vel pro jure sternendo. Et concessum est -inter ipsos quod si aliquis inde attinctus vel convictus fuerit, -libertatem civitatis et eorum societatem amittet.”<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a></p> -</div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Of a body of twenty-<i>four</i> councillors, nothing has hitherto been -known. To a body of twenty-<i>five</i> there is this one reference:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Hoc anno fuerunt xxv electi de discretioribus civitatis, et -jurati pro consulendo civitatem una cum Maiore.<a id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The year is Mich. 1200–Mich. 1201; but the authority is -not first-rate. Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much -discussed. The latest exposition is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk -to the City Corporation:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Soon after John’s accession we find what appears to be the -first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. -In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), “were -chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city and -sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the -mayor.” Just as, in the constitution of the realm, the House of -Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, -so in the City—described by Lord Coke as <i>epitome totius -regni</i>—the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded -that of a common council.<a id="FNanchor_496" href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[239]</span></p> - -<p>Mr. Loftie, however, had pointed out several years before that this -view was erroneous:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>It has sometimes been assumed that this was the beginning of the -court of aldermen. As we have seen, however, the aldermen were -in existence long before, and the question is how far they were, -under ordinary circumstances, the councillors and assistants of -the mayor.<a id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">To any one, indeed, who realizes what the Aldermen -were it should be obvious that the passage in question could not -possibly apply to them. In his larger work, Mr. Loftie held that these -councillors eventually became “identified with the aldermen,” but he -brought out the very important point that their number could not be -that of the wards.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The twenty-five councillors who advised the Mayor in the reign -of King John had gradually become identified with the aldermen; -and this title, which at first was applied to the heads of trade -guilds and other functionaries, was henceforth confined to the -rulers of the wards.</p> - -<p>[<span class="smcap">Note</span>]. It has been suggested that the twenty-five -councillors came from the twenty-five wards, but a chronological -arrangement of the facts disposes of this idea. There were -not twenty-five wards then in existence—moreover, it would -be necessary to account for twenty-six, if the mayor is -reckoned.<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">As, then, they were not representatives of the wards -their character is left obscure. But when we turn to the foreign -evidence, the nature of the twenty-four becomes manifest at once; and -we find in it conclusive proof that the Commune of London derived -its origin from that of Rouen. M. Giry’s able treatise on the -“Établissements de Rouen” shows us the “Vingt Quatre” forming the -administrative body, annually elected, which acted as the Mayor’s -Council.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[240]</span> And the oath they had to take on their election, as described -in the ‘Établissements,’ bears, it will be seen, a marked resemblance -to that of the “xxiiij<sup>or</sup>” in London.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(II). De centum vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor, assensu -centum parium, qui singulis annis removebuntur; quorum duodecim -eschevini vocabuntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti -quatuor, in principio sui anni, jurabunt se servaturos jura -sancte ecclesie et fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam quod -et ipse recte judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam, etc.</p> - -<p>LIV. Iterum, major et eschevini et pares, in principio sui -eschevinatus, jurabunt eque judicare, nec pro inimicitia nec pro -amicitia injuste judicabunt. Iterum, jurabunt se nullos denarios -nec premia capturos, quod et eque judicabunt secundum suam -conscienciam.</p> - -<p>LV. Si aliquis juratorum possit comperi accepisse premium pro -aliqua questione de qua aliquis trahatur in eschevinagio, -domus ejus ... prosternatur, nec amplius ille qui super hoc -deliraverit, nec ipse, nec heres ejus dominatum in communia -habebit.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The three salient features in common are (1) the oath to -administer justice fairly, (2) the special provisions against bribery, -(3) the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a -bribe.</p> - -<p>If we had only “the oath of the Commune,” we might have remained in -doubt as to the nature of the administrative body; but we can now -assert, on continental analogy, that its twenty-four members comprised -twelve “skevini” and an equal number of councillors. We can also assert -that it administered justice, even though this has been unsuspected, -and may, indeed, at first arouse question.</p> - -<p>It will, naturally, now be asked: What became of these “twenty-four,” -who formed the Mayor’s council in the days of John? Mr. Loftie, we -have seen, held<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[241]</span> that they became “identified with the Aldermen”; my -own view is that, on the contrary, they were the germ of the Common -Council. The vital distinction to be kept in mind is that the Alderman -was essentially the officer in charge of a ward, while the Common -Council, as one body, represented the City as a whole. In questions -of this kind little reliance can be placed on late commentators; but -the <i>formulæ</i> of oaths are usually ancient, and often enshrine -information on the duties of an office in the past. Now the oath of a -member of the Common Council contains significant clauses:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Sacramentum ... hominum ad Commune Consilium electorum est tale: -... bonum et fidele consilium dabis, secundum sensum et scire -tuum; et pro nullius favore manutenebis proficium singulare -contra proficium publicum vel commune dictæ civitatis; et -postquam veneris ad Commune Consilium, sine causa rationabili -vel Majoris licentia non recedes priusquam Major et socii sui -recesserint; et quod dictum fuerit in Communi Consilio celabis, -etc.<a id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is not only that this is essentially the oath of one -whose function it is to be a councillor: the striking point is that -it contains three provisions in common with those which bound, at -Rouen, the “Vingtquatre.” The councillor was (1) not to be influenced -by private favour; (2) not to leave the Council without the Mayor’s -permission;<a id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> (3) to keep secret its proceedings.<a id="FNanchor_501" href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a> I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[242]</span> do not -say, of course, that there is verbal concordance; but when we turn to -the oath of the Alderman, we see at once how much less resemblance his -duties have to those of the “Twenty-four.”<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> It presents him as -primarily the head of a Ward, responsible for certain matters within -the compass of that Ward. He has to take part with the Mayor in assize, -pleas, and hustings;<a id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a> but his functions as councillor obtain only a -brief mention in his oath (“et que boun et loial conseil durrez a ley -choses touchantz le comune profit en mesme la citee”).</p> - -<p>If any doubt is felt on the subject, it should be removed by turning to -the case of Winchester. There, as in London, according to the ancient -custumal of the city, we find the Mayor closely associated with a -council of “Twenty-four,” which, in that case, continued to exist down -to 1835:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Il iert en la vile mere eleu par commun assentement des vint et -quatre jures et de la commune ... le quel mere soit remuable de -an en an ... Derechef en la cite deivent estre vint et quatre -jurez esluz des plus prudeshommes e des plus sages de la vile e -leaument eider e conseiller le avandit mere a franchise sauver -et sustener.<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is clear, to me, that “the Twenty-Four” were no more -elected by the Wards (as is persistently believed) in London than at -Winchester, but by the city as a whole, though we must not define the -Franchise. The Winchester Aldermen, on the contrary, were distinctly -district officers, as in London, “whose functions<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[243]</span> related chiefly, -but not wholly, to the police and preservation of order, health, and -cleanliness within their several limits.”<a id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> Moreover, they retained -at Winchester, down to a late period, their distinct character and -existence. According to Dean Kitchin:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The aldermen, in later days the civic aristocracy, were -originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city, -and entrusted with the administration of it.... It was not till -early in the sixteenth century that they were interposed between -the mayor and the twenty-four men.<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The general powers for the whole town possessed by -the Mayor and his council were quite distinct from the local powers -of each Alderman in his district. For my part, I cannot resist the -impression that, while the sheriff, bailiff, or reeve represented the -power of the Crown, and the Alderman the old local officer, the council -of twenty-four, so closely associated with the Mayor, and not the -representatives of districts, were a later introduction, of different -character, and representing the commercial as against the territorial -element. Whether the Aldermen joined the council in later days or not, -they were never, I believe, originally or essentially, a part of that -body.</p> - -<p>The chief objection, probably, to connecting the “commune” of London -with the “Établissements de Rouen” will be found in the fact that the -latter refer to a system based on a body of a hundred <i>pares</i>, -of which body there does not seem to be any trace in England. At -Winchester the <i>pares</i> were “the twenty-four.” It is obvious that, -in this respect, there is a marked discrepancy; but if the electoral -body was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[244]</span> different, the executive, at any rate, was the same. And if, -as must be admitted, there was a foreign element introduced, it would -be naturally from Normandy that it came.<a id="FNanchor_507" href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a></p> - -<p>Writing in 1893, before I had discovered the documents on which I have -dwelt above, I insisted on the <i>foreign</i> origin of the London -“commune,” and pointed out that the close association between London -and Rouen at the time suggested that the office of Mayor was derived by -the former from the latter.<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a> It may be permissible to repeat this -argument from presumption, although its form was adapted to a wider -circle than that of scholars.</p> - -<p>The <i>beffroi</i> of France, to which the <i>jurat</i> looked as -the symbol and pledge of independence, is found here also in the -bell-tower of St. Paul’s, which is styled in documents either by -that name (<i>berefridum</i>), or by that of <i>campanile</i>, which -brings before us at once the storm-tost commonwealths of Italy. It -was indeed from Italy that the fire of freedom spread. With the rise -of mediæval commerce it was carried from the Alps to the Rhine, and -quickly burst into flame among the traders and craftsmen of Flanders. -Passing into Picardy, it crossed the Channel, according to a theory I -have myself advanced, to reappear in the liberties of the Cinque Ports, -with their French name,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[245]</span> their French “serements” and their French -<i>jurats</i>.<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a> Foreign merchants had brought it with them to the -port of Exeter also, almost as early as the Conquest, and we cannot -doubt that London as well was already infected with the movement, and -eager to find in the foreign “commune” the means of attaining that -administrative autonomy and political independence which that term -virtually expressed.</p> - -<p>Hostile though our kings might be to the communal movement here, they -favoured it for purposes of their own in their Norman dominions. -This is a factor in the problem that we cannot afford to overlook, -considering the peculiar relation in which Normandy stood to England. -As M. Langlois has observed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Jamais en effet la France et l’Angleterre n’ont été, même de nos -jours, aussi intiment en contact ... Jusqu’à la fin du xii<sup>me</sup> -siècle, les deux pays eurent à peu près les mêmes institutions -politiques, ils pratiquaient la même religion, on y parlait la -même langue. Des Français allaient fréquemment dans l’île comme -touristes, comme colons, comme marchands.</p> -</div> - -<p>Was it not then from Normandy that London would derive her commune? And -if from Normandy, surely from Rouen. We are apt to forget the close -connections between the two capitals of our Anglo-Norman kings, London -on the Thames, and Rouen on the Seine. A student of the period has -written of these:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Citizens of Norman origin, to whom London, in no small measure, -owed the marked importance which it obtained under Henry I.... -Merchants, traders, craftsmen of all sorts, came flocking -to seek their fortunes in their sovereign’s newly-acquired -dominions, not by forcible spoliation of the native people, but -by fair traffic and honest labour in their midst.... Norman -refinement, Norman taste,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[246]</span> Norman fashions, especially in dress, -made their way rapidly among the English burghers.... The great -commercial centre to which the Norman merchants had long been -attracted as visitors, attracted them as settlers now that it -had become the capital of their own sovereign.<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a></p> -</div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It is known from the ‘Instituta Londoniæ’ that, so far back as the -days of Æthelred, the men of Rouen had traded to London, bringing in -their ships the wines of France, as well as that mysterious “craspice,” -which it is the fashion to render “sturgeon,” although there is -reason to believe that the term denoted the porpoise and even the -whale. The charter of Henry, duke of the Normans, to the citizens of -Rouen (1150–1), brings out a fact unknown to English historians, by -confirming to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the -days of Edward the Confessor. And the same charter, by securing them -their right to visit all the markets in England, carries back that -privilege, I believe, to the days at least of Henry I.; for, although -the fact had escaped notice both in France and England, it could -neither have originated with Count Geoffrey nor with Duke Henry his son.</p> - -<p>Nor does the interest of this Rouen charter stop here. Among the -sureties for the young Duke’s fidelity to his word we find Richer -de Laigle, the youthful friend of Becket, “a constant visitor,” as -Miss Norgate, writes, “and intimate friend of the little household in -Cheapside.” And does not the name of Becket remind us how “Thomas of -London, the burgher’s son,” afterwards “Archbishop, saint and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[247]</span> martyr,” -had for his father a magnate of London, but one who was by birth a -citizen of Rouen? Therefore, the same writer is probably justified in -maintaining that “the influence of these Norman burghers was dominant -in the city.” They seem, she adds, “to have won their predominance by -fair means, fairly. They brought a great deal more than mere wealth; -they brought enterprise, vigour, refinement, culture, as well as -political progress.”<a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a></p> - -<p>Now it is my contention that political progress was represented with -them by the communal idea. Their interests, moreover, would be wholly -commercial, and, therefore, opposed to those of the native territorial -element. If we turn to Rouen, we find its Mayor occurring fifteen years -at least before the Mayor of London, and styled Mayor of the “Commune” -of Rouen—“Major de Communia.” For Rouen was a stronghold of the -“Commune.” It is of importance, therefore, for our purpose to ascertain -at what period the communal organization originated at Rouen. In spite -of the close attention, from the days of Chéruel downwards, that the -subject has attracted in France, the conclusions attained cannot be -deemed altogether satisfactory.</p> - -<p>The monograph devoted by M. Giry to the “Établissements de Rouen,”<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> -represents the <i>fine fleur</i> of French historical scholarship, and -its conclusions,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[248]</span> therefore, deserve no ordinary consideration. But on -one point of the utmost importance, namely, the date at which these -“Établissements” were compiled, I venture to hold an independent view. -The initial difficulty is thus stated by the brilliant French scholar:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>L’original n’existe plus, et l’on ne sait à quelle époque -précise il faut faire remonter leur adoption dans les villes de -Rouen et de la Rochelle qui les ont eus avant tous les autres -(p. 2).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The first allusion to the jurisdiction exercised by the -Commune of Rouen is found, says M. Giry, in the charter granted it by -Henry II. shortly after its gallant defence against the French king. He -then proceeds:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>C’est du reste à la fin du règne de Henri II. que nous voyons -pour la première fois la ville de Rouen décorée du titre de -Commune (<i>communia</i>) dans un grand nombre de chartes -dont les listes de témoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 -et 1189. Dans ces chartes les mentions d’un maire, de pairs, -d’un bailli, nous font voir qu’alors déjà la ville jouissait -de l’organisation municipale que les Établissements exposent -avec plus de détails; elles nous permettent de croire que cette -constitution, à peu près telle qu’elle nous est parvenue y était -alors en vigueur (p. 28).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">A footnote is appended, giving “l’indication de -quelques-unes des chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles -s’appuie cette démonstration”:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>[1] “Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173–1181) ... -Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis” ... [2] “in -presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie -Rothomagensis (1177–1189) et parium ipsius civitatis,” etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The expert will perceive that these two charters -“demonstrate,” not a date “entre 1173 et 1189,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[249]</span> but between 1177 and -1181. For if Bartholomew’s rule as mayor began in 1177, the first -cannot be of earlier date; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in -1181,<a id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a> its mention of a “commune” cannot be of later date than that -year. As a matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters -(from which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bartholomew -was mayor earlier than 1177; but I am, for the moment, only concerned -with M. Giry’s dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing -the claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient décider -même la question d’antériorité, puisqu’ils ne donnent que des -époques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen -entre 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle entre 1169 et 1199 (pp. -67–8.)</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">No reference is given for the date “1183,” but it must be -derived from the “demonstration” on p. 29 (footnote), where a charter -is mentioned which speaks of the “Communio Rothomagi” in the time of -archbishop Hugh, “1129–1183.” But now comes the startling fact. It was -not Hugh who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had -died so early as 1164. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it -proves that the “communio” was in existence, and (as M. Giry holds), -the “Établissements” with it, at least as early as 1164. But the fact -is that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, -of duke Henry’s charter, “la <i>communio Rothomagi</i> (art. 7) ne -désigne que la communauté des citoyens” (p. 26); it does not prove -the existence of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[250]</span> a <i>commune</i>, and, of course, still less of the -“Établissements.”</p> - -<p>But I would urge that not even the mention of a true <i>commune</i> -(“communia”) in a charter proves the adoption of the “Établissements” -at the time. For Henry’s grant of a “communia” to La Rochelle was -made, according to M. Giry, between 1169 and 1178;<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a> and yet, as we -have seen, he does not deem the adoption of the “Établissements” at -La Rochelle proved before 1199. In that year Queen Eleanor granted to -Saintes “ut communiam suam teneant secundum formam et modum communie -de Rochella.” Even this, I venture to think, is not actual proof that -the “Établissements de Rouen” had already been adopted at La Rochelle, -though it certainly affords some presumption in favour of that view.</p> - -<p>It is only when we turn from this external evidence to the text of -the “Établissements” themselves, that we discover, in two passages, a -direct clue. In these an exception is made in the words: “nisi dominus -rex vel filius ejus adsint Rothomagi vel assisia” (ii. 24, 28). On -these M. Giry writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Les articles qui prévoient la présence à Rouen du roi ou de son -fils ne peuvent guère s’appliquer qu’à Henri II. et à Richard -Cœur-de-Lion. C’est donc des dernières années du règne de Henri -II., après l’année 1169, qu’il faut dater la rédaction des -Établissements (i. 11).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Here, then, we have yet another limit—the last (twenty) -years of Henry II. No reference, however, is given for the date “1169” -(unless it applies to La<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[251]</span> Rochelle—and even then it is wrong).<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a> -But my point is that between the years “1169” (or “1177”) and “1183” -the king’s son here mentioned was, obviously, not Richard, but -Henry, styled king of the English and duke of the Normans, from his -coronation in 1170 to his death in 1183. And, even after Henry’s -death, Richard was never duke of the Normans in his father’s lifetime. -My own conclusion, therefore, is that these parts, at least of the -“Établissements,” and probably the whole of them, were composed before -the death of the young king in 1183, and probably after his coronation, -and admission to a share of his father’s power, in 1170. Thus they -may well have been connected with Henry’s charter to Rouen granted in -1174–1175.</p> - -<p>These considerations may have led us somewhat far afield; but if I am -right in deriving from the Norman capital of our kings the 12th century -“Commune of London,” the origins of the Rouen “Commune” deserve our -careful study. The same MS. which yielded the leading document in this -paper contains two others, of which something must be said. But before -doing so we will glance at one of different origin, which, in more ways -than one, we may associate with the ‘Commune.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[252]</span></p> - -<p>The charter which follows is chiefly introduced for the interesting -phrase found in it: “the greater barons of the city.” So far as I know, -this phrase is unique; and apart from its importance for London itself, -it has a direct bearing on that famous constitutional problem: who were -the “barones majores”? In the present case, the phrase, surely, has no -specialized meaning. It is probably a coincidence, and nothing more, -that “majores” and “minores,” at St. Quentin, had a defined meaning. In -M. Giry’s treatise on its <i>commune</i> we read as follows:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Notons ici que les citoyens ayant exercé les fonctions de -jurés et d’échevins formaient dans la ville une véritable -aristocratie: on les appelait les grands bourgeois, <i>majores -burgenses</i>, par opposition aux petits bourgeois, <i>minores -burgenses</i>, qui comprenaient tous les autres membres de la -commune (p. cxi.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">And again:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>À Saint-Quentin, comme dans toutes les communes, le pouvoir -était aux mains des habitants riches qu’on appelait, ainsi -qu’il a été dit plus haut, les grands bourgeois (<i>majores -burgenses</i>), parce qu’ils avaient exercé les charges -municipales, et pour les distinguer des petits bourgeois -(<i>minores burgenses</i>), dénomination appliquée à tous ceux -qui n’avaient point rempli les fonctions de juré ou d’échevin. -En 1318, pendent la suspension de la commune, ces petits -bourgeois se plaignirent de la mauvaise répartition des tailles -et traduisirent devant le Parlement les grands bourgeois, -auteurs des rôles d’imposition incriminés (p. cxv.).</p> -</div> - -<p>The original of this charter is preserved at the Public Record -Office.<a id="FNanchor_516" href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a> It is assigned in the official calendar to 1189–1196, -but this date can be greatly narrowed. For while it is subsequent to -William’s consecration (31st Dec., 1189), it must be previous to his -obtaining the legation in June, 1190, for Bishop<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[253]</span> Hugh was his open foe -before he lost it, and could not act with him after that.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Willelmus dei gratia Elyensis episcopus Domini Regis -cancellarius universis Christi fidelibus ad quos presens -scriptum pervenerit salutem in vero salutari. Universitati -vestre notum fieri volumus nos dedisse et concessisse et -presenti carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et familiari nostro -Gaufrido Blundo civi Lond’ et heredibus suis totam terram -et mesuagium cum pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis -consuetudinibus et rebus cunctis que ad predictam terram -pertinent, quam terram et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis emimus -de Waltero Lorengo qui fuit nepos Petri filii Walteri<a id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a> et -Roberti filii Walteri et eorum heres per veredictum tocius -civitatis Londoniarum (<i>sic</i>), et hoc testificatum fuit -coram nobis <i>a maioribus baronibus civitatis</i> apud Turrim -Lond’. Que terra et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis fuerunt -predicti Petri filii Walteri et predicti Roberti filii Walteri -qui fuerunt avunculi predicti Walteri Loreng’ et jacent in -parochia Sancti Laurentii de Judaismo et in parochia Sancte -Marie de Aldermanebery, habendum et tenendum predicto Gaufrido -et heredibus suis jure hereditario imperpetuum cum omnibus -pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et cum -omnibus rebus, scilicet quicquid ibidem habuimus in terris, -in lignis, in lapidibus, in redditibus, et in rebus cunctis, -sine aliquo retenimento faciendo inde servicium quod inde -capitali domino debet, scilicet vj d. per annum ad Pasch’ pro -omni servitio. Hanc vero terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis, -ut predictum est, ego Willelmus predictus et heredes nostri -predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis contra omnes gentes -imperpetuum warrantizabimus. Pro hac donatione et concessione et -carte nostre confirmatione predictus Gaufridus Blund dedit nobis -quatuor viginti et decem libras argenti in gersumam. Et ut hec -nostra donatio et concessio rata et inconcussa predicto Gaufrido -et heredibus suis imperpetuum permaneat, eam presenti scripto et -sigilli nostri munimine corroboravimus.</p> - -<p>Hiis testibus: Hugoni Cestrensi episcopo; Henrico de Longo -Campo fratre nostro; Willelmo de Brause; Henrico de Cornhell’; -Willelmo Puintel; Ricardo filio Reineri; Henrico filio Ailwin’;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[254]</span> -Waltero de Hely senescallo nostro; Matheo de Alenzun camerario -nostro; magistro Michaele; Willelmo de Sancto Michaele; Gaufrido -Bucuinte; Simone de Aldermannebury; Baldewino capellano nostro; -Stephano Blundo; Philippo elemosinario nostro; magistro Willelmo -de Nanntes; Daniele de Longo Campo clerico nostro; Reimundo -clerico nostro, et multis aliis.</p> -</div> - -<p>We have here a remarkable group of men—Longchamp himself, whose fall, -in 1191, was so closely connected with the birth of the <i>commune</i>, -but who is here seen, in the hour of his pride, speaking of “our -brother,” “our seneschal,” “our chamberlain,” “our chaplain,” “our -almoner,” and “our clerks”; Bishop Hugh, who was next year to take the -lead in expelling him from the Tower, as yet his stronghold; Henry -of Cornhill and Richard Fitz Reiner, who had ceased but a few months -before to be sheriffs of London, and who were to play so prominent a -part at the crisis of 1191; lastly, Henry Fitz Ailwin himself, who, as -the ultimate result of that crisis, was destined to become the first -Mayor of the <i>Commune</i> of London.</p> - -<p>The grantee himself also was a well-known citizen of London. In -conjunction with Henry Fitz Ailwin (as Mayor) and other City -magnates, he witnessed a gift of property in the City to St. Mary’s, -Clerkenwell;<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a> and he seems to have been the Geoffrey Blund who had, -by his wife Ida de Humfraville, a son Thomas, who founded a chantry -in St. Paul’s for his uncle Richard de Humfraville, and his father -Geoffrey.</p> - -<p>For the London topographer also this charter has an interest, as land -in St. Lawrence Jewry, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[255]</span> St. Mary Aldermanbury, must have closely -adjoined the site of the Guildhall itself. The sum named is a large one -for the time.</p> - -<p>I now pass to the two documents of which mention has been made above. -The first of these<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a> is of interest for its bearing on the “ward” -system. At Rouen the “excubia” was in charge of the mayor;<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a> in -London, according to this document, he had not supplanted the sheriffs, -by whom it must have been controlled before his appearance. This I -attribute to its close connexion with the pre-existing system of -“wards,” each, I take it, a unit for purposes of defence and ward, -under its own alderman, with the sheriffs at the head of the whole -system.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="smcap center">De Excubiis in Natali et Pascha et Pentecost.<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a></p> - -<p>Magna custodia debet invenire xii homines sed per libitum -vicecomitis abbreviata est usque ad viii homines.</p> - -<p>Mediocris custodia debet viii vigiles, sed ita abbreviata usque -sex.</p> - -<p>Minor custodia debet sex, sed ita abbreviata usque ad iiij<sup>or</sup>.</p> - -<p>Debent autem escavingores<a id="FNanchor_522" href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a> eligi qui singulis diebus a -vigilia Nat[alis] domini usque ad diem epyphanie videant illos -qui debent de nocte vigilare quod sint homines defensibiles et -decenter ad hoc armati. Debent autem ad vesperam in die videri -et ad horam completorii exire et per totam noctem pacifice -vigilare et vicum salve custodire usque pulsetur ad matutinas -per capellas, quod vocatur<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[256]</span> <i>daibelle</i>. Et si aliqua -defalta in custodia contigerit, escavingores debent illos -inbreviare et ad primum hustingum vicecomitibus tradere. Potest -eciam vicecomes, si vult, cogere eos jurare de defalta quod -nulli inde deferebunt nec aliquem celabunt.</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="smcap center">De Cartis Civitatis.</p> - -<p>In thesauro due regis Willelmi primi et due de libertatibus -regis Ricardi et de eodem rege due carte de kidellis et de rege -Johanne due carte de vicecom[itatu], una de libertate et una de -kidellis cum sigillo de communi cons<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a> (<i>sic</i>) habet i -cartam regis Johannis de libertate civitatis W.   -fil’ Ren’ habet i regis Henrici de libertate et H[enricus] de -Cornh[illa] aliam, Rog[erus] maior habet cartam Regin[aldi?] de -Cornh[illa] de debito civitatis de ccc marcis.</p> -</div> - -<p>The latter portion, it will be observed, describes the custody of the -city charters, and is of special value as fixing the date to that of -the mayoralty of Roger, who held the office in 1213.</p> - -<p>The regulations for the watch are decisive, surely, of the functions -originally discharged by the “scavengers” of London. They were -inspectors of the watch. In his introduction to the ‘Liber Albus’(1859) -Mr. Riley held that—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">The City Scavagers, it appears, were originally public officers, -whose duty it was to attend at the Hythes and Quays for the -purpose of taking custom upon the <i>Scavage</i> (<i>i.e.</i> -Showage) or opening out of imported goods. At a later period, -however, it was also their duty, as already mentioned, to see -that due precautions were taken in the construction of houses -against fire; in addition to which it was their business to see -that the pavements were kept in repair.... These officers, no -doubt, gave name to the ‘<i>Scavengers</i>’ of the present day -(p. xli.; cf. iii. 352, 357).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Professor Skeat adopts this view in his etymological<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[257]</span> -Dictionary, and develops it at some length, holding that “the <i>n</i> -before <i>g</i> is intrusive” as in some other cases, “and scavenger -stands for scavager.” He consequently connects the word with our -“shew,” through “scavage.” But no evidence whatever is adduced by Mr. -Riley for his assertion that the “Scavagers” originally performed the -above duty or had anything to do with it.</p> - -<p>The last of these London records with which I have here to deal is the -so-called “Hidagium” of Middlesex.<a id="FNanchor_524" href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a> The explanation of its thus -appearing among documents relating to the administration of London is -that when London and Middlesex were jointly “farmed” by the citizens, -the sheriffs answered jointly for the ‘Danegeld’ of Middlesex and -the corresponding <i>donum</i> or <i>auxilium</i> of London. Here -therefore we find these two levies side by side as on the Pipe Rolls. -But though the latter was levied from the city when Danegeld was -levied from the shire, it was in no way connected with hidation, but -consisted of arbitrary sums payable by the principal towns. Prof. -Maitland, therefore, is mistaken when, in his great work, ‘Domesday -Book and Beyond,’ he makes a solitary reference to our MS., as implying -that London “seems to have gelded for 1,200 hides” (p. 409). He has -here confused the assessed hidage of boroughs with the arbitrary -<i>donum</i> or <i>auxilium</i>. This is shown by comparing the latter, -as given by himself (p. 175), with the ascertained hidage of towns and -the payments its sum would involve.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[258]</span></p> - -<table summary="pictures" class="smaller"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr"></td> - <td class="ctr">hides.</td> - <td class="ctr" colspan="3">[geld.]</td> - <td class="ctr">donum.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Worcester</td> - <td class="ctr">15</td> - <td class="right">£1</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">£15</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Northampton</td> - <td class="ctr">25</td> - <td class="right">2</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Dorset Boroughs</td> - <td class="ctr">45</td> - <td class="right">4</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - <td class="right">10</td> - <td class="right">15</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Huntingdon</td> - <td class="ctr">50</td> - <td class="right">5</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">8</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Hertford</td> - <td class="ctr">10</td> - <td class="right">1</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">0</td> - <td class="right">5</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>But the special interest of the entry, “c et xx libr.” (£120) lies in -the fact that this amount, which was the sum paid in 1130 and 1156, was -obsolete after that time, much larger sums being thenceforth exacted -from London. It is, of course, just possible that the obsolete figure -was retained, as a protest, on this list; but it is far more probable -that what we have here is a copy <i>temp.</i> John of an earlier -document, perhaps not later than the middle of the 12th century.<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a></p> - -<table summary="sums" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="header1" colspan="3">HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="3">In Hundredo de Osulvestune.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Villa de Stebehee</td> - <td class="cht1">l<sup>ta</sup> hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Terra de Fafintune</td> - <td class="cht1">iiij hid.<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a></td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">H[er]gotestune</td> - <td class="cht1">ij hid. </td> - <td class="cht2">Abb’is</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Brambelee</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Fulcham</td> - <td class="cht1">l<sup>a</sup> hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Villa sancti Petri</td> - <td class="cht1">xvj hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">2 dimid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Hamstede</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid. iiij</td> - <td class="cht2">abb’s<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Lya</td> - <td class="cht1">x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">abb’is</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Tolendune</td> - <td class="cht1">ij hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Terra Gub’ti</td> - <td class="cht1">dim. hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Abbas Colcestr’</td> - <td class="cht1">dim. hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Chelchede</td> - <td class="cht1">ij. hid</td> - <td class="cht2">abb’is</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Kensintune</td> - <td class="cht1">x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Lilletune</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[259]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Tiburne</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">Vs.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Willesdune</td> - <td class="cht1">xv hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Herlestune</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Tuferd</td> - <td class="cht1">iiij xij d. hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header2">Sum[ma] c et quater xx hid. et xi - hid. et dim.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht3 smcap">In Hundred’ de Ystelwrke</td> - <td class="cht3">c et v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="3">In Hundredo de Spelethorn.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Stanes</td> - <td class="cht1">xxxv hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">Abb’</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Stanwelle</td> - <td class="cht1">xv hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Bedefunte</td> - <td class="cht1">x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">alia Bedefunte</td> - <td class="cht1">x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Feltham</td> - <td class="cht1">xv hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Kenetune</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Suneb[er]ia</td> - <td class="cht1">vij hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">Abb.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Sep[er]tune</td> - <td class="cht1">viij hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">Abb.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Hanewrtha</td> - <td class="cht1">v hid. iij</td> - <td class="cht2">Abb’</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header3">Summa c et x hid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="3">In Hundredo de la Gare.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Herghes</td> - <td class="cht1">c hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Kingesb[er]ia</td> - <td class="cht1">x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Stanmere</td> - <td class="cht1">ix hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Terra com’</td> - <td class="cht1">vj hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Alia Stanmere</td> - <td class="cht1">ix. hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">et dim.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Heneclune<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">xx hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">Abb.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header2">Summa c et xl et ix hid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1" colspan="3"><span class="smcap">In Dimidio Hundredo de Mimes</span> lxx hid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Toteham</td> - <td class="cht1">[5]<a href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Edelmetune</td> - <td class="cht1">[35]<a href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Mimes</td> - <td class="cht1">[35]<a id="FNanchor_529" href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Enefeld</td> - <td class="cht1">xxx hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header2">Summa lx et ix hid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header1">Summa summarum octies c et liij hid. et dimid.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht3">Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm’.</td> - <td class="cht3">c et xviij hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[260]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="3">Danegeld.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Middelsexe</td> - <td class="cht1">quater xx libr’<br /> et c sol. et vj d.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Londr’</td> - <td class="cht1">c et xx libr.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="3">Summa Hundredorum.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Osuluestane</td> - <td class="cht1">cc et xj hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Spelthorn</td> - <td class="cht1">c et x hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Elethorn</td> - <td class="cht1">c et xxiiij hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Garehundr’</td> - <td class="cht1">c et xlix hid.</td> - <td class="cht2">et dim.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Thistelwrkhundr’</td> - <td class="cht1">c et v hid.</td> - <td class="cht2"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td colspan="3" class="header1">Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>This list obviously requires to be edited by a local worker, who should -collate it with Domesday. In its present form it is clearly corrupt. -The amount of Danegeld due from the county implies an assessment of -850¼ hides (at two shillings on the hide), but the actual total is here -given as 853½. This again does not tally with the “summa hundredorum,” -which only records 809½,<a id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> while the detailed list of hundreds, -it seems, gives no more than 725½. It should be observed that the -hundred of “Mimms” is the Domesday hundred of Edmonton, while that of -‘Isleworth,’ similarly, is the Domesday hundred of Hounslow, which -contained Isleworth and Hampton.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[261]</span></p> - -<h2>XII<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Great Inquest of Service, 1212</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">It will be my object in this paper to recover and identify the -fragments of a great national inquest, which seems to have escaped -the notice of constitutional historians, and which, if its full -returns had been preserved, might not unworthily be compared with the -Domesday Inquest itself. In the course of doing so, I shall hope to -prove that abstracts of these returns have been wrongly assigned by -all antiquaries to an earlier and imaginary inquest, and that their -belief has recently received an official confirmation. The solution I -shall now propound will remove the admitted difficulties, to which the -existing belief on the MSS. has, we shall find, given rise.</p> - -<p>The bewildering <i>congeries</i> of returns known as the ‘Testa de -Nevill’—an Edwardian manuscript shovelled together, and printed by the -old Record Commission in 1807—has long been at once the hunting-ground -and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy. Now -that the returns contained in the Red Book of the Exchequer are also -at length in type,<a id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a> it is possible to collate the two collections, -and thus to remove, in part at least, the obscurity that has hitherto -surrounded them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[262]</span></p> - -<p>Mr. Hall, in his preface to the ‘Red Book,’ writes thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The Sergeanties and Inquisitions which form a considerable part -of the Feodary in the Red Book of the Exchequer, have hitherto -been little known, and their true value has been by no means -sufficiently appreciated. This neglect has perhaps arisen from -the greater convenience of reference to the printed collection -known as the <i>Testa de Nevill</i>; but as it is now very -generally recognised that the text of this work is far from -satisfactory in its present form, the evidence of the kindred -returns contained in earlier Exchequer Registers deserves our -most careful attention (p. ccxxi.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In the ‘Red Book’ itself the returns are headed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Inquisitiones factæ tempore regis Johannis per totam Angliam -anno scilicet regni sui xii<sup>o</sup> et xiii<sup>o</sup> in quolibet comitatu de -servitiis militum et aliorum qui de eo tenent in capite secundum -rotulos liberatos thesaurario per manus vicecomitum Angliæ -tempore prædicto (p. 469).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">They are accordingly given, by the editor, the marginal -date “1210–1212” throughout (pp. 469–574). On the other hand, the -‘Testa de Nevill’ returns were, as he shows, delivered at the Exchequer -on the morrow of St. John the Baptist (25th June), 1212 (p. ccxxi.). -Thus then we have, according to him, two successive and “independent -returns”:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hangingindent">(1) The ‘Liber Rubeus’ returns made -between May, 1210, and May, 1212.</p> - -<p class="hangingindent">(2) The ‘Testa de Nevill’ returns made in June, 1212.<a id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is necessary to keep these dates very clearly in -mind, because, although the editor accepts the ‘Red Book’ statement, -and adopts accordingly the marginal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[263]</span> date “1210–1212,” he yet, by an -incomprehensible confusion, speaks of the same as the Inquisition of -“1210–1211” on p. ccxxviii. (<i>bis</i>), and even as “the earlier -Inquisition of 1210 entered in the Red Book” (p. ccxxvi.), and of “the -two independent returns of 1210 and 1212” with “two stormy years” -between them (p. ccxxiv.); while in another place he actually dates -the said “returns of 1210” as belonging to “1212” (p. clxv.). He thus -dates the Red Book Inquisitions in one place ‘1210–1212,’ in another -‘1210–1211,’ in a third ‘1210,’ and in a fourth ‘1212.’</p> - -<p>Now I may explain at the outset that what I propose to do is to show -that instead of two Inquests (one recorded in the ‘Red Book’ and the -other in the ‘Testa’), there was only a single Inquest, with one series -of returns, and that this was the Inquest of June, 1212.</p> - -<p>As this view is in direct conflict with the heading in the ‘Red Book’ -itself, we must first glance at Mr. Hall’s statement that “the date of -the Inquisitions entered in the Red Book can be proved from internal -evidence” (p. ccxxiii.). What he there claims to prove is that their -date is between 1209 and “the early part of 1213.” Such a conclusion, -it will be perceived, in no way proves that they do not belong, as I -shall contend they do belong, to June, 1212. Putting aside the obvious -and inherent improbability of an Inquest being made in 1212 on the very -matter which had formed the subject of an Inquest only just concluded, -we need only compare the returns to prove their common origin. Mr. Hall -observes that at times</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[264]</span></p><div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">we come upon a passage of a few lines or a whole page or more -in the MSS., headed in the later Register ‘De Testa de Nevill,’ -dated in the original rolls in the 14th year of John, and -corresponding entry for entry with the Red Book Inquest of the -12th and 13th years of that reign (p. ccxxv.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But the obvious inference that the two Inquests were -really one and the same seems not to have occurred to him. We will -glance, therefore, at the parallel returns he has himself selected. -Foremost among these is “the Middlesex Inquisition” for 1212, of which -he has printed “the original return” as an appendix to his Preface (pp. -ccxxvi., cclxxxii.-iv.), for comparison with the texts in the ‘Red -Book’ and in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ But he warns us</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">that the numerous variants and the independent wording of the -entries, as well as the thirteenth century note “in Libro” -on the bottom of the Roll, forbid the supposition that this -is really an original of the earlier Inquisition of 1210 -(<i>sic</i>) entered in the Red Book.</p> -</div> - -<p>The “original” return and the two texts all begin with the “Honour” -of William de Windsor, who inherited from his Domesday ancestor, -Walter fitz Other, a compact block of four manors, East and West -Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, in the south-west of the county. The -first entry is for East Bedfont, and the second ran, in the “original” -return: “<i>Walterius</i> Bedestfont, Andreas Bucherel, feudum unius -militis.” But <i>Walterius</i>, Mr. Hall tells us, was altered in a -contemporary hand to “in alterius.” The ‘Testa’ renders this as “in -villa alterius,” while the ‘Red Book’ gives us “Walterius de Bedefonte, -Andreas Bukerellus j feodum.” There can be no question that the ‘Testa -de Nevill’ is right, and that Andrew Bucherel was the sole tenant of -the fee, for the scutage<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[265]</span> is accounted for accordingly on the same page -(p. 361). It follows, therefore, that the ‘Red Book’ and the “original” -return have both evolved, in error, a Walter de Bedfont from “in -alteri” Bedfont. Hence I conclude that the strip of parchment termed -by Mr. Hall “the original return,” was not the original return, and -that the error common to the ‘Red Book’ and itself demonstrates a close -connection between the two.</p> - -<p>But if this document was not the original return, what was? To answer -this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties -cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How -significantly close is the parallel these entries will show:</p> - -<table summary="paeallels" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Comes Albemarlie j militem et dimidium in Severnestoke, pro - qua et Kenemertone et Botintone in Gloucestresyra Rex acquietat - abbatem Westmonasterii de iij militibus (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 567).</td> - <td class="cht1">Comes Albemarlie tenet Savernestoke de dono regis Ricardi per - servicium j militis et dimidii pro qua et pro Kenemerton et Botinton - in Glouc[estresyra] dominus Rex acquietat abbatem Westmonasterii - de iij militibus (‘Testa de Nevill,’ p. 43).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">It will be obvious, from the verbal concordances, that -instead of representing, as Mr. Hall holds, two “independent” returns -made in different years these texts are derived from one and the same -return. But instead of being, as in the case of Middlesex, arranged in -the same order, they are here found, in the respective texts, arranged -in very different order. The explanation of this is that the ‘Testa’ -records the Inquest by Hundreds, while the ‘Red Book’ groups the fees -under the barons’ names and the sergeanties apart at the end. This is -particularly interesting from the parallel of Domesday Book, where -the Inquest, of which the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[266]</span> original returns were drawn up hundred by -hundred, was rearranged in Domesday Book in similar fashion. I was led -to suspect that this great Inquest was, generally at least, drawn up by -Hundreds, from Mr. Hall’s remark that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">There is a marginal note in the Red Book returns for Wilts, now -partially illegible, but (<i>sic</i>) which clearly records -the loss of the Inquisition of several of the Hundreds of that -county, while a precisely similar note is entered on the dorse -of one of the original returns for Norfolk in the <i>Testa</i> -(p. ccxxiv.).<a id="FNanchor_533" href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The view I advance at once explains and is confirmed by -the remarkable allusion to this Inquest in the ‘Annals of Waverley’:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1212) Idem (rex) scripsit vicecomitibus ut <i>per singulos -hundredos</i> facerent homines jurare quæ terræ essent de -dominico prædecessorum suorum regum antiquitus, et qualiter a -manibus regum exierint, et qui eas modo tenent et pro quibus -servitiis.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">There can, in my opinion, be no question whatever that -this refers to the writ ordering the great Inquest of service in 1212. -This is printed in the ‘Testa’ (p. 54), and as an appendix to the ‘Red -Book’ (p. cclxxxv.). It is too lengthy to be quoted entire, but in it -are found these words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>De tenementis omnibus quæ antiquitus de nobis aut de -progenitoribus nostris regibus Angliæ teneri solent, quæ sint -data vel alienata ... et nomina illorum qui ea teneant et per -quod servitium.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The only difference is that the writ leaves the method of -inquest to the sheriff’s discretion (“sicut melius inquiri poterit”) -while the chronicler says it was to be made Hundred by Hundred, which, -as we have seen, was probably the method adopted.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[267]</span></p> - -<p>In the ‘Testa’ the writ is not dated, but the copy printed by Mr. Hall -is dated June 1 (1212) at Westminster. This seems but short notice -for a return due on June 25, but it is remarkable that the ‘Annals of -Waverley’ mention it in conjunction with a writ dated June 7, which -certainly favours the statement. This latter writ directs an enquiry as -to the ecclesiastical benefices held under gift of the prelates lately -exiled from the realm.<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a> It is remarkable that the Worcester returns -to the great Inquest of service in 1212 are followed by a return made -to such an enquiry:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Inquisicio ecclesiarum. Maugerius episcopus dedit ecclesiam -de Rippel’ Willelmo de Bosco clerico suo et vicariam ejusdem -ecclesie dedit Ricardo de Sancto Paterno clerico suo. Qui -Ricardus reddit predicto Willelmo x marcas de pensione. Ecclesia -autem integra valet per annum <span class="allsmcap">L</span> marcas.</p> - -<p>Idem episcopus dedit ecclesiam de Hambur’ juxta Wych magistro -Ricardo de Cirencestra, que valet per annum x marcas (‘Testa,’ -p. 44).</p> -</div> - -<p>Bishop Mauger died in the very month of the Inquest (June, 1212). -The Notts and Derbyshire returns (p. 18) include two similar entries -relating to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[268]</span> the archbishop of York, and those for Somerset and Dorset -contain two at least relating to the bishop of Bath (pp. 161 <i>b</i>, -162 <i>a</i>). The Sussex and Surrey returns similarly contain two -entries (p. 226 <i>a</i>) relating to Surrey churches to which the -archbishop of Canterbury had presented. In this last case the annual -value of the livings is deposed to, it should be noted, by six men of -each parish.<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a></p> - -<p>Having now dealt with Middlesex and Worcestershire, I pass to -Lancashire, another county cited by Mr. Hall for comparison. The -magnificent return for this county in 1212<a id="FNanchor_536" href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a> is noteworthy for -several reasons. In the first place, it is headed:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Hec est inquisicio facta per sacramentum fidelium militum -de tenementis datis et alienatis infra Limam in comitatu -Lancastrie, scilicet per Rogerum Gerneth, etc., etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This is a good illustration of the principle of “sworn -inquest.” In the second, it leads off with the entry: “Gilbertus filius -Reinfri tenet feodum unius militis.” Although this was a well-known -man, <i>jure uxoris</i> a local magnate, the ‘Red Book’ text leads off -with the gross corruption: “Gilfridus filius Rumfrai i militem” (568). -Mr. Hall, in his index (p. 1183), identifies him with the “Galfridus -filius Reinfrei” of another ‘Red Book’ return (p. 599)—where the -‘Testa’ has, rightly, “Gilbertus”—and fails to recognise in him the -above Gilbert. This is a striking comment on his views expressed at -the outset as to the inferiority of the ‘Testa’ text. So also is the -fact that the ‘Red Book’ reads “Thomas de Elgburgo” at the foot of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[269]</span> the -same page, where the ‘Testa’ has “Thomas de Goldebur[go]” (p. 406), -the correctness of the latter reading being proved by the “Thomas de -Goldeburgo” of the ‘Red Book’ itself (p. 69) in its extract from the -Pipe Roll of 1187. Yet the editor ignores the ‘Testa’ form, and gives -‘Elgburgo’ in the Index.<a id="FNanchor_537" href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a></p> - -<p>A third point is that the ‘Red Book’ compresses here into a skeleton -nearly thirteen columns of the closely printed ‘Testa de Nevill.’ The -text of the latter is of value not only for its wealth of information -and its witness to the detailed and far-reaching character of this -Inquest, but for such expressions as “pro herede Theobaldi Walteri qui -est in custodia sua” (<i>i.e.</i> regis). Theobald had died more than -five years before the Inquest was made; and yet in the ‘Red Book’ text -he appears as the living tenant.</p> - -<p>This instance is of some importance in its bearing on apparent -contrasts in the ‘Testa’ and ‘Red Book’ versions. For Mr. Hall, -believing them to represent two successive returns, observes that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">In the Inquisitions ... of the years 1210–11 entered in the Red -Book of the Exchequer, Walter Tosard is returned as holding -his land in Banningham.... In the original return, dated 1212, -from which the earliest list of Feudal services in <i>Testa de -Nevill</i> was compiled, we find that Walter Tosard <i>held</i> -this serjeanty, and that Avicia Tosard still holds it (p. -ccxxviii.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The apparent discrepancy of the two returns is explained, -exactly as in the case of Theobald Walter, by the fact that the full -return mentioned Walter Tosard as dead, while the brief and inaccurate -abstract<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[270]</span> of it, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, gives his name as if -he were alive.</p> - -<p>Passing over the elaborate entry for Bradwell, Essex,<a id="FNanchor_538" href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a> the two -versions of which, it will be found, are clearly derived from the same -original, I pass, in conclusion, to the return for Northumberland -(‘Testa,’ 392–3). Although not among the counties cited above by Mr. -Hall, its return to the “Inquisicio facta de tenementis, etc., que -sunt data vel alienata,” etc.,<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a> is specially full and valuable -for comparison. Its text appears to reproduce the original <i>in -extenso</i>. Now any one comparing this return with the meagre list -in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (pp. 562–4) will perceive at once that the -latter is derived from the same original. The names occur in identical -order. The only discrepancy is that the ‘Red Book’ shows us “Sewale -filius Henrici” in possession of land (Matfen and Nafferton)—held by -the interesting serjeanty of being coroner—while the ‘Testa’ reads -“Philippus de Ulkotes tenet terram que fuit Sewall’ filii Henrici.” It -might be urged, as is done by Mr. Hall in the case of the serjeanties -and the Boulogne Inquest (pp. ccxxviii., 575), that this proves the -‘Testa’ return to be the later of the two. But here, again, the real -explanation is that—as in the case of Lancashire, where Theobald -Walter’s name, we saw, is given in the ‘Red Book’ when he was dead—the -appearance of Sewal is merely due to the carelessness, in the ‘Red -Book,’ of the scribe. This, indeed, is evident from his similar -appearance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[271]</span> in a list which is, according to Mr. Hall, later than -either.<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a> How essential it is to collate these parallel lists is -shown by the very first entry, relating to the interesting tenure of -earl Patrick (of Dunbar). According to the ‘Testa’ (the right reading) -he held “iij villas in theynagio.” The ‘Red Book’ makes him hold “iii -milites (!) in theynagio,” a reading which its editor accepts without -question. Another no less striking correction is afforded by the -‘Testa,’ in its entry relating to the porter of Bamborough Castle and -his tenure: “Robertus Janitor de Bamburg’ tenet.” In Mr. Hall’s text we -find him as “Robertus, junior” (!), and, as such, the unfortunate man -is indexed, although he appears elsewhere, both in the ‘Red Book’ and -the ‘Testa,’ as “Robertus Portarius.”<a id="FNanchor_541" href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> From these instances it will -be evident that though (in the printed text at least) the ‘Testa’ is -not perfect, the ‘Red Book’ list, for Northumberland, is, when compared -with it, worthless.</p> - -<p>Indeed, the marvellously elaborate returns for Somerset and Dorset, -Lincolnshire, Lancashire, etc., printed in the ‘Testa de Nevill,’ with -which the meagre lists in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ cannot be compared for an -instant, make one read with absolute amazement Mr. Hall’s statement, -when comparing the two, that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">one or the other is in its present form lamentably incomplete. -This deficiency chiefly exists on the side of the <i>Testa</i>, -for it will be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[272]</span> evident at once that the isolated and -fragmentary membranes which formed the sole surviving contents -of Nevill’s <i>Testa</i> in the reign of Edward I. cannot be -satisfactorily compared with the relatively complete returns -preserved in the Red Book (p. ccxxiv.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is evident that the editor has no conception how many -and how long are the returns in the ‘Testa’ relating to this great -Inquest.<a id="FNanchor_542" href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> This may be due to his conception that they are there -headed “De Testa de Nevill” (p. ccxxv.), an idea which he repeated in -a lengthy communication to the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898) on the -“Testa de Nevill.” Mr. Hall wrote:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The really important point about the whole matter is one which -seems to have been entirely overlooked, namely that not only -does the title ‘Testa de Nevill’ refer to certain antique lists -alone, which, indeed, form but a small percentage of the whole -register, but that the greater part of the lists thus headed -appear to have been made at a certain date in the fourteenth -year of John.... ‘<i>De</i> Testa de Nevill’ is the invariable -heading of these lists (p. 354).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The very point of the matter is that, on the contrary, -the greater portion of these lists have no such heading, but are hidden -away among later returns, from which they can only be disentangled by -careful and patient labour.<a id="FNanchor_543" href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a> The result of my researches is that I -believe the printed ‘Testa’ to contain no fewer than a hundred columns -(amounting to nearly an eighth of its contents) representing returns -to this Inquest. At the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[273]</span> close of this paper I append a list of these -columns, of which only thirty-eight are headed (or included in the -portion headed) “De testa de Nevill.”</p> - -<p>To resume. For the great Inquest of 1212 (14 John) we have (1) mention -in a chronicle, (2) the writ directing it to be made, (3) the record -of a sworn verdict of jurors who made it. For the alleged Inquests of -1210–12 (12 and 13 John) we have nothing at all.<a id="FNanchor_544" href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a> We have, further, -the fact that, when collated, the returns said to belong to these -“independent” Inquests are found to be clearly derived from a single -original. In spite, therefore, of the ‘Red Book’ and its editor, it may -safely be asserted that there was but one Inquest, that of the 14th -year, the returns to which were handed in on 25th June (1212).</p> - -<p>Thus “the remarkable circumstance,” as Mr. Hall terms it (p. ccxxiii.), -that the ‘Testa’ compilers know nothing of “the original returns of -the 12th and 13th years,” while, “on the other hand, the scribe of the -‘Red Book’ had not access to the returns of the 14th year,” is at once -accounted for: they both used the same returns, those of 1212.<a id="FNanchor_545" href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a></p> - -<p>As my criticism has, at times, been deemed merely destructive, I may -point out that, here at least, it has established the facts about an -Inquest worthy to be named, in future, by historians in conjunction -with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[274]</span> those of 1086 and 1166, while the rough list I shall append of -its returns, as printed in the ‘Testa,’ will, one may hope, enable -its evidence to be more generally used than it has been hitherto. -The unfortunate description of the ‘Testa,’ on its title-page, as -“<i>temp.</i> Henry III. and Edward I.,” has greatly obscured its -character and misled the ordinary searcher.</p> - -<p>Historically speaking, this Inquest may be viewed from two standpoints. -Politically, it illustrates John’s exactions by its effort to revive -rights of the Crown alleged to have lapsed.<a id="FNanchor_546" href="#Footnote_546" class="fnanchor">[546]</a> Institutionally, it -is of great interest, not only as an instance of “the sworn inquest” -employed on a vast scale, but also for its contrast to the inquest -of knights in 1166, and its points of resemblance to the Domesday -inquest of 1086. Of far wider compass than the former—for it dealt in -detail with the towns<a id="FNanchor_547" href="#Footnote_547" class="fnanchor">[547]</a>—it was carried out on a totally different -principle. Instead of each tenant-in-chief making his own return of his -fees and sending it in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[275]</span> separately, the sheriff conducted the enquiry, -Hundred by Hundred, for the county; and out of these returns the feudal -lists had to be subsequently constructed by the officials. Lincolnshire -is not among the counties named by Mr. Hall for comparison, but it -shows us well how the inquest was made Wapentake by Wapentake, and -then the list of fees within the county extracted from the returns and -grouped under Honours. This, I believe, is what was done in Middlesex -also.<a id="FNanchor_548" href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a> It is noteworthy that in the case of Middlesex the returns -of 1212 were made the basis for collecting the aid “for the marriage of -the king’s sister,”<a id="FNanchor_549" href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a> in 1235, the same personal names occurring in -both lists. If, as this implies, they formed a definitive assessment, -we obtain a striking explanation of the fact that 1212, as Mr. Hall -observes, seems to mark a terminal break in Swereford’s work (pp. -lxii.-iii.). Personally, however, I am not sure that “the Scutages,” -as Mr. Hall asserts, “concluded abruptly” in 1212. My reckoning being -different from his, I make the last scutage dealt with by Swereford to -be that which is recorded on John’s 13th year roll, that is, the roll -of Michaelmas, 1211.</p> - -<p>The following list represents an attempt to identify the returns to -this great Inquest in the ‘Testa,’ and to give the relative abstracts -in the ‘Liber Rubeus.’ Out of 39 English counties (then recognised), -the ‘Testa’ seems to have returns or fragments for 25, and the ‘Liber -Rubeus’ abstracts for 31.</p> - -<table summary="counties" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Notts and Derbyshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 17<i>b</i>-19<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 565.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[276]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Northamptonshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, p. 36.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 532.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Worcestershire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 43–4.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 566.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Salop and Staffordshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 54–6.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus,<a id="FNanchor_550" href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a> p. 509.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Herefordshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 69<i>b</i>-70<i>b</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 495.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Gloucestershire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 77<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Oxfordshire and Berkshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1" colspan="2">Testa, pp. 115,<a id="FNanchor_551" href="#Footnote_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a> - 128<i>a</i>-129<i>a</i>,<a id="FNanchor_552" href="#Footnote_552" class="fnanchor">[552]</a> - 129<i>a</i>-131<i>b</i>,<a id="FNanchor_553" href="#Footnote_553" class="fnanchor">[553]</a> - 133<i>b</i>-134<i>b</i>.<a id="FNanchor_554" href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Somerset and Dorset.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 160<i>b</i>-166<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 544.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Devon.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 194–195.</td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Surrey.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 224<i>b</i>-226<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 560.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Sussex.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 226<i>b</i><a id="FNanchor_555" href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a>-227<i>b</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 553.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Hants.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 236<i>a</i>,<a id="FNanchor_556" href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a> - 239<i>b</i>.<a id="FNanchor_557" href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a></td> - <td class="cht1"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Essex and Herts.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 269<i>b</i><a id="FNanchor_558" href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a>-271<i>a</i>.<a id="FNanchor_559" href="#Footnote_559" class="fnanchor">[559]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 498.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[277]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Norfolk and Suffolk.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 293<i>a</i>-296<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 475.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Lincolnshire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 334<i>b</i><a id="FNanchor_560" href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a>-348<i>a</i>.<a id="FNanchor_561" href="#Footnote_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 514.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Middlesex.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, p. 361.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 541.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Cumberland.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 379<i>a</i><a id="FNanchor_562" href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a>-380<i>a</i>.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 493.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Northumberland.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, pp. 392<i>a</i>-393<i>b</i>.<a id="FNanchor_563" href="#Footnote_563" class="fnanchor">[563]</a></td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, pp. 562–4.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header1 smcap" colspan="2">Lancashire.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Testa, p. 401<i>b</i>-408<i>a</i>. Cf.</td> - <td class="cht1">Liber Rubeus, p. 568.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>The above list can only be tentative, and does not profess to be -exhaustive. It is believed, however, that genealogists and topographers -will find it of considerable assistance.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[278]</span></p> - -<h2>XIII<br /> -<span class="subhed">Castle-ward and Cornage</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">I propose to deal in this chapter with two subjects which are wholly -distinct, but which it has now been proposed, by a singular confusion, -to connect. Speaking of certain miscellaneous returns in the ‘Red Book -of the Exchequer,’ Mr. Hall writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The first group in importance comprises the so-called -Castle-guard Rents,’ lists of military services in connection -with the Constableship of Dover Castle ... the Constableship of -Windsor Castle, the Wardship of Bamburgh Castle, and the Cornage -Rents of Northumberland (p. ccxxxvi.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The corrupt but curious list of the Dover “wards” and -their fees is printed virtually in duplicate on pages 613, 717, though -dated by the editor in the former instance ‘1211–12’ throughout, and -in the latter, ‘1261–2,’ and even ‘<i>Temp.</i> Edw. I.’ (pp. 721–2). -The first of these, from internal evidence, is probably the right date; -the remaining list (pp. 706 <i>et seq.</i>), though headed in the MS. -46 Hen. III., is merely this old list rearranged, with a money payment -substituted for the military service. I mention this because, as -printed, these lists are most misleading to any one unacquainted with -their real date.</p> - -<p>The ‘Constable’s Honour,’ for which, alone, we have six or seven -slightly varying returns, is one of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[279]</span> most interesting in the whole -Book, and leads me to say something on this important subject, on which -a wholly erroneous belief has hitherto prevailed.</p> - -<p>The first point to which I desire to direct attention is that the -nine wards (<i>custodiæ</i>), named in the ‘Red Book’ lists—The -Constable’s, ‘Abrincis,’ Foubert de Dover,<a id="FNanchor_564" href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a> Arsic, Peverel, -Maminot, Port, Crevequer, and Adam Fitz William<a id="FNanchor_565" href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a>—are all -reproduced in the names still attached to towers, including even -Fulbert’s Christian name. This coincidence of testimony leads one to -believe that these names must have become fixed at a very early period, -and to enquire what that period was. Looking at the history of the -families named, it seems probable that this period was not later, at -least, than the reign of Henry II.</p> - -<p>But it is in the Constable’s “Ward” that the interest centres. For the -time-honoured belief, preserved by Lyon, and reproduced by Mr. Clark, -is that “three barons of the house of Fiennes held the office under the -Conqueror, Rufus, and Henry I.” After stating that these barons “held -the office of constable” under Henry II., Mr. Clark informs us that “of -these lords, the last, James Fiennes, was constable at the accession -of Richard I., and in 1191 received, as a prisoner in the castle, -Geoffrey, Henry II.’s natural son.”<a id="FNanchor_566" href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a> Professor Burrows repeats, -though guardedly, the old story:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[280]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>William (I.) is now said to have conferred the guardianship of -the coast, as an hereditary fief on a certain John de Fiennes, -whose name, however, does not appear in any contemporary record. -John was to do service for his lands as Constable of the Castle -and Warden of the Ports.... The office of Constable and Warden -ceased to be hereditary in the reign of Richard I.<a id="FNanchor_567" href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>Mr. Hall has now revived the old legend in full:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In the valuable register formerly belonging to the Priory -of Merton ... a similar but shorter list is found, with an -interesting description of these services, which will be -presently referred to (p. ccxxxvii.).</p> - -<p>The constitutional significance of the tenure itself has not -been perfectly realised. The Merton Register mentioned above -informs us, under the heading “De Wardis Castri Dovorræ,” -that the Conqueror granted the constableship of the castle -there to the Lord of Fienes, with the service of fifty-six -knights, who kept guard each month in turn, some four or -five at once. Besides these, other knights were assigned -to that constableship, for so many weeks in the year, by -the neighbouring Lords of Chilham and Folkestone, and other -barons mentioned in the later returns. Thus the Castle-ward -was performed down to the reign of John, when it was thought -advisable that such an important fortress should be committed to -the keeping of a royal constable and a permanent garrison....</p> - -<p>Hubert de Burgh was appointed constable during pleasure, and the -office has continued to the present day in the patronage of the -Crown (p. ccxxxviii.).</p> - -<p>[<span class="smcap">Note.</span>] William de Fesnes, the last baronial Constable, -appears to have received the honour of Wendover by way of -compensation (‘Testa,’ ii. 158).</p> -</div> - -<p>Now, how much truth is there in this story? Fifty-six knights, we see, -are assigned to John de Fiennes, as first Constable, and fifty-six -knights’ fees (plus or minus 1/10 fee) are assigned in the ‘Liber -Rubeus’ to the “Warda Constabularii.” But the history of these fees, -the “Honor Constabularii,” can be traced with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[281]</span> absolute certainty. They -are those which had last been held by Henry de Essex, “the Constable,” -whose tragic fate is familiar, which had been previously held by Robert -de Ver “the Constable,” in right of his wife, a Montfort, and the -possession of which can be traced back by Domesday to no other than -Hugh de Montfort.<a id="FNanchor_568" href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a> We learn then that “the Honour of the Constable” -(which we should not otherwise have known) was connected with the -custody of Dover Castle, the “clavis et repagulum Angliæ”; and we learn -more. For when we turn to the story of the attack on Dover Castle -in 1067, we find Hugh de Montfort “the immediate commander of the -castle”;<a id="FNanchor_569" href="#Footnote_569" class="fnanchor">[569]</a> and are thus able to trace the “Warda Constabularii” back -to the Conquest itself.</p> - -<p>Thus the legend of John de Fiennes and his heirs, constables of the -castle, together with its “constitutional significance,” is blown, as -it were, into space, and should never, henceforth, be heard.</p> - -<p>The “Honour of the Constable” passed to the Crown on the forfeiture -of Henry of Essex (1163); and as for the alleged action of “James -Fienes” as constable in 1191, it is well known that the constable at -the time was a brother-in-law of Longchamp, the king’s representative. -I have suggested in a paper on “Faramus of Boulogne”<a id="FNanchor_570" href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a> a possible -origin for the Fiennes story in the castle being held by Faramus -at the close of Stephen’s reign, a fact which may account for the -late tradition about “quodam comite Boloniæ<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[282]</span> qui erat ejusdem Castri -Constabularius.”<a id="FNanchor_571" href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a> For the Fienes family were his heirs, through his -daughter; and it was through him, and not on the ground suggested by -Mr. Hall, that they obtained Wendover. To Faramus himself, however, it -may have been given in compensation.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Thus far I have been dealing with a question of castle-ward. I now pass -to the ‘cornage rents’ and to the new theory of their origin. This -theory is one of the features of Mr. Hall’s Introduction, in which he -devotes to it ten pages; and it follows immediately on his remarks upon -“the constableship of Dover.”</p> - -<p>As difficult a subject as ‘Scutage,’ and one on which less has been -written, the origin and character of “cornage” are problems as yet -unsolved. The brilliant pen of Professor Maitland has attacked them in -a paper on “Northumbrian tenures”;<a id="FNanchor_572" href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a> but he cannot tell us more, -virtually, than we know already, namely, that the term points to -cattle, and is not derived, as Littleton in his ‘Tenures’ and the older -antiquaries held, from the service of blowing a horn.</p> - -<p>Mr. Hall, however, “hazards” the new and startling theory that the -payment known by this name represents a commutation of castle-ward -previously due from the drengs and thegns of the Northern marches. For -this, it would seem, his only ground is the entry in the ‘Red Book’ of -a list of Northumbrian cornage payments in close proximity to lists of -castle-ward services. On this slender foundation is built an edifice<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[283]</span> -of guesses, such as distinguishes this strange work from any other in -the Rolls Series. They are prefaced, in their order, as usual, thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>if we might venture to disregard ... we may suspect that ... the -impression remains that ... May we not then conjecture that ... -it will now be possible to hazard some theory ... It is at least -conceivable that ... will perhaps suggest the theory, etc., -etc.... (pp. ccxlii.-ccxlviii.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Rejecting “the accepted definition of cornage as a -mere seignorial due in respect of the pasturage of cattle,” Mr. -Hall explains that it rests on “a radical misconception,” namely, -on “the argument that the references to military service performed -by” the Cumberland cornage “tenants are later interpolations in the -reign of Edward I.,” whereas, as he observes, they are mentioned in -a list of about the end of John’s reign. The criticism is curiously -characteristic. For, on turning to Professor Maitland’s paper (p. -629), we find not a hint of “interpolation”; he has merely—misled, no -doubt, by the title page of the printed ‘Testa’—mistaken a list of -John’s reign for one of “Edward I.’s time.” And, so far from assigning -to that period the first mention of this service, he refers us, in the -same passage, to its mention in 1238, when, as he actually observes, -it “looks like an ancient trait.” The misconception, therefore, is not -his, but Mr. Hall’s.</p> - -<p>In the manuscript itself we find the ward service of Newcastle and the -details of the Northumberland cornage occupying a single page (fo. -195 <i>d</i>). But this circumstance, for which I shall account fully -below, in no way connects the two. On the contrary, we find eleven -territorial units here entered as paying “cornage”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[284]</span> in addition to -their payments for castle-ward. The two payments, it will be observed, -could not both be commutations of the same thing.<a id="FNanchor_573" href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a> It is quite -clear that, in Cumberland, all who held “per cornagium” were bound, -apart from the payment of that due, to march respectively in the van -and in the rear when the king was invading or retreating from Scotland, -a duty for which they were, obviously, qualified by their local -knowledge; but this had absolutely nothing to do with castle-ward, nor -is even this special service mentioned in the case of Northumberland. -Cornage, from the time we first meet with it, appears in our records as -a money payment, not as a military service, and even Mr. Hall admits -that the name is derived from horned beasts, unlike the ‘ward penny’ of -the south, in which he would seek its parallel, and of which the name -leaves us in no doubt as to its nature. The institution of cornage, -therefore, is, we shall find, as obscure as ever, although there is -some evidence, unknown, it seems, to Professor Maitland as it is to Mr. -Hall. Its historical importance is beyond question.</p> - -<p>Of the cornage of Northumberland, as recorded in the ‘Red Book,’ the -editor writes that “it is of the highest importance to trace its -earlier history in the records of the Exchequer.” It can, as he says, -be traced back to 1164; but I cannot accept his suggestion as to why it -then made its appearance. One must<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[285]</span> turn, for comparison, to that of -Cumberland, concerning which we read as follows:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>In each succeeding year-roll, from the beginning of the reign of -Henry II., the sheriff of Cumberland had rendered his account -for the Neatgild of the county. The amount of this tribute was -fixed at £80.... But we have no means of showing how the £80 was -made up, because the sheriff answered for it in a lump sum, and -no particulars of his account have survived as in the case of -the Northumberland list happily preserved in the Red Book.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">But this Neatgild (or cornage) can be traced back much -further, namely, to the year-roll of 1130, and even earlier. It was £85 -8<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> under Henry I., and over £80 under Henry II.; -and details of sums paid in respect of it are duly found, not only in -the ‘Red Book’ (pp. 493–4),<a id="FNanchor_574" href="#Footnote_574" class="fnanchor">[574]</a> but also in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ -Moreover, the cornage of Northumberland as well was answered for “in a -lump sum,” and this leads me to explain the entry of the Northumbrian -lists. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that his manuscript adds up the -cornage wrongly, and is even guilty of a further error in asserting -that this erroneous total is “xxii den. plus quam alii solebant -respondere,” its real excess being £1 1<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i><a id="FNanchor_575" href="#Footnote_575" class="fnanchor">[575]</a> Apart -from its obvious bearing on the character and value of the manuscript, -this error has misled the editor into stating that the sums entered,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[286]</span> -“less the pardons of the Prior of Tynemouth and the King of Scots, -make up the charge of £20 for the county.” On the contrary, the grand -total is £21 3<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i>, although the sheriffs were only -liable for the “lump sum” of £20. Why is this? It is because Robert -“de Insula,” to whom we owe the list, held the shire “ut custos.” This -most important Exchequer phrase, which the editor must have overlooked -on the roll, can be traced back, at least, as far as 1130. It means -that the Crown had put its own man in office, and was thus able to -get at the details of the payment, for which the normal sheriff was -only liable in a “lump sum.” This is why the opportunity was taken -to set these details on record. This explanation applies also to the -details of Newcastle ward service immediately preceding the cornage -payments. The editor might have learnt from the Pipe Rolls that the -sheriff was normally charged, in respect of this payment, with £32 -4<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i> gross, and £28 14<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i> net, which -latter sum he was entitled to retain for his wardenship of the castle. -But Robert, as “custos,” recorded the receipts as amounting to £33, -and was consequently called upon in 1267 to account for £4 5<i>s.</i> -7<i>d.</i>(the difference between £33 and £28 14<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i>) -“de cremento wardarum Novi Castri de anno xlix° sicut recepit.” The -entry, therefore, of both lists can be traced to Robert’s position -“ut custos” in 49 Hen. III. Lastly, the statement that “the cornage -of Westmoreland can also be traced on the rolls, but it was of very -trifling value,” seems unfortunate in view of the fact that it was, -when it first appears, nearly thrice as large as the whole cornage of -Northumberland.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[287]</span></p> - -<p>That I may not close with a negative result, I append two remarkable -charters from the MS. cartulary of St. Bees, which show us the Cumbrian -Noutegeld being actually paid in cows to William earl of Albemarle, -as lord of Coupland, which barony was exempt from its payment to the -Crown.<a id="FNanchor_576" href="#Footnote_576" class="fnanchor">[576]</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Willelmus comes Albemarlie archiepiscopo Ebor[acensi] et -capitulo et omnibus matricis ecclesie filiis salutem. Noverit -paternitas vestra me dedisse et concessisse deo et sancte Marie -et sancte Bege in Copelandia et omnibus (<i>sic</i>) vi vaccas -in perpetuam elemosinam reddendas anno omni quo meum Noutegeld -debuerit fieri. Hanc autem donacionem feci pro animabus omnium -antecessorum meorum et antecessorum uxoris mee Cecilie. -Testibus, etc....</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Willelmus comes Albemarlie omnibus hominibus suis tam futuris -quam presentibus salutem. Sciatis quod dedi et presenti carta -confirmavi Deo et sancte Marie et sancte Bege et monachis de -sancta Bega vi vaccas de meo Nautegeld (<i>sic</i>) unoquoque -anno, quando accipio Nautegeld in Copuland, etc.<a id="FNanchor_577" href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a> ...</p> -</div> - -<p>Now it is a most interesting fact that in Durham also we find, as in -Coupland, a payment in cows (“vaccas de metride”) made by townships -in connection with their payment of “cornage.”<a id="FNanchor_578" href="#Footnote_578" class="fnanchor">[578]</a> From the above -important charters, it would seem that the two dues<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[288]</span> went together. In -Durham there is a classical passage for the “cornage” proper, quoted -by those who have dealt with “cornage,” but not by Mr. Hall. In a -charter of Henry I., which I assign to 1128–9, he speaks of “cornagium -de Bortona ... <i>scilicet de unoquoque animali</i> ij <i>d.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_579" href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a> -This is precisely the source of “cornage” which Mr. Hall desires to -“disregard.” And if further proof were needed of the non-identity -of “cornage” with castle-ward, it is found in the fact that, as in -Northumberland, both dues existed simultaneously in Durham, vills -which paid cornage being also liable to provide men for castle-ward -(“castlemanni”).<a id="FNanchor_580" href="#Footnote_580" class="fnanchor">[580]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[289]</span></p> - -<h2>XIV<br /> -<span class="subhed">Bannockburn</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">As Sir Henry Howorth has so truly observed, in a presidential address -to the members of the Archæological Institute, the transition from the -chronicle to the record as a source of mediæval history is one of the -most striking and hopeful features in recent historical research. And -in no respect, perhaps, has the study of original records modified -more profoundly the statements of mediæval chroniclers than in the -matter of the figures they contain. Dealing with the introduction -of knight-service into England, I was led to give some instances -in point,<a id="FNanchor_581" href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a> and specially to urge that “sixty thousand” occurs -repeatedly as a conventional number ludicrously remote from the truth. -It is now, I believe, generally accepted that my estimate of about five -thousand for the number of knights’ fees in England<a id="FNanchor_582" href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a> is nearer -the truth than the “sixty thousand” which, in his History, Mr. Green -accepted. But we still read in ‘Social England’ (i. 373) that William -I. “is believed to have landed ... with at least 60,000 men”; nor -did Mr. Freeman himself<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[290]</span> reject the statement of Orderic that “sixty -thousand” men were gathered on Salisbury Plain for the “Mickle Gemót” -of August 1, 1086. We who saw, only last summer, the difficulty of -there assembling a force scarcely so large, even with all the modern -facilities of transport and organization, can realize, more forcibly -than ever, the incredibility of the fact.</p> - -<p>“Stephen Segrave,” Dr. Stubbs reminds us, “the minister of Henry III., -reckoned 32,000 as the number” of knights’ fees; and even so late as -1371, ministers allowed a parliamentary grant to be calculated on the -belief that there were 40,000 parishes in England, when there were, as -a fact, less than 9,000.<a id="FNanchor_583" href="#Footnote_583" class="fnanchor">[583]</a> So too, as is well known, Fitz Ralph, -archbishop of Armagh, declared at Avignon, that at Oxford, in his -early days, there were 30,000 students, although it is probable that -they cannot have exceeded 3,000 in number.<a id="FNanchor_584" href="#Footnote_584" class="fnanchor">[584]</a> It is even said that -Wycliffe doubled Fitz Ralph’s estimate.</p> - -<p>There is nothing, therefore, strange in the fact that two centuries and -a half after the Norman Conquest, we still find absurd numbers assigned -to armies in the field and accepted with thoughtless readiness, even by -modern historians. This, we shall see, has been the case, among many -other battles, with that of Bannockburn (1314).</p> - -<p>The ultimate “authority” for the numbers engaged at this ever memorable -fight is Barbour’s Brus. Of Edward that romancer wrote:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[291]</span></p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>He had of fechtaris with hym tha</div> - <div>Ane hundreth thousand men and ma</div> - <div>And fourty thousand war of tha</div> - <div>Armyt on hors, bath hede and hand</div> - <div>And zeit of thai war thre thousand</div> - <div>With helit hors in-till playn male</div> - <div>Till mak the front of the battale</div> - <div>And fifty thousand of archerys</div> - <div>He had, forouten the hoblerys;</div> - <div>With men on fut and small rangale.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">In accordance with this statement we read further of the -king, that</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>His folk he delt in battalis ten</div> - <div>In ilkane war weill ten thousand.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p class="p-left">Of the Scots we are told that:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>Of fectand men I trow thai ware</div> - <div>Thretty thousand, and sum deill mare</div> - <div class="spacing">*****</div> - <div>Weill thretty thousand men and ma</div> - <div>Mak we four battalis of all thai.</div> - <div class="spacing">*****</div> - <div>The quethir thai war thretty thousand.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>On the English side we have a statement in the ‘Vita Edwardi Secundi.’ -It is there asserted, of the host marching on Stirling, that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">Erant autem armatorum amplius quam duo milia, excepta peditum -turba copiosa.<a id="FNanchor_585" href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The same authority states that Bruce</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">Circiter quadraginta milia hominum secum produxit.... Ibant -etiam quasi sepes densa conserti, nec leviter potuit talis turba -penetrari.<a id="FNanchor_586" href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[292]</span></p> - -<p>Let us now see how modern writers have dealt with the numbers present, -remembering that the character and issue of the battle turn largely on -the vast numbers assigned to the English host.</p> - -<p>In the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (1886) Dr. Æneas Mackay -adopts the traditional view of the English numbers, following Barbour, -indeed, blindly:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>On 11 June the whole available forces of England, with a -contingent from Ireland, numbering in all about 100,000 men, of -whom 50,000 were archers, and 40,000 cavalry, were mustered at -Berwick.<a id="FNanchor_587" href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">A far abler and more cautious writer, Mr. Joseph Bain, -F.S.A. Scot., in his ‘Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland’ -(1887), reckoned that “the whole English army probably did not exceed -50,000.”<a id="FNanchor_588" href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">[588]</a> Against Hailes on the Scottish side, he supports Hume, -who, he writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">founded on the writs enrolled in the <i>Foedera</i>, addressed -to the sheriffs of twelve English counties, two earls, and -five barons for the foot, who numbered in all 21,540. This is -undoubtedly good authority, for ... the Patent Rolls of the time -are not defective. Contingents from all the English shires were -not invariably summoned. In the writs in question the men of the -northern and midland counties, which incurred most danger from -the Scots, were summoned (p. xx.).</p> -</div> - -<p>From Mr. Bain I turn to our latest authority, Mr. Oman’s ‘History of -the Art of War.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[293]</span></p> - -<p>To the memorable Scottish victory Mr. Oman, as we might expect, devotes -special attention (pp. 570–579). He attributes “the most lamentable -defeat which an English army ever suffered” to two fatal errors, of -which one “was the crowding such a vast army on to a front of no more -than two thousand yards” (p. 579). His argument, in detail, is this:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Two thousand yards of frontage only affords comfortable space -for 1,500 horsemen or 3,000 foot-soldiers abreast. This was well -enough for the main line of the Scottish host, formed in three -battles of perhaps 25,000 men in all, <i>i.e.</i> eight or nine -deep in continuous line. But, allowing for the greater space -required for the cavalry, the English were far too many for such -a front, with the ten thousand horse and 50,000 or 60,000 foot -which they may have mustered.</p> - -<p>The result of this fact was that from the very beginning of the -battle the English were crowded and crushed together and wholly -unable to manœuvre (p. 575).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In his first work (1885) Mr. Oman had adopted “100,000 -men” as the number of Edward’s host; in 1895 it had become “an army -that is rated at nearly 100,000 men by the chronicler.”<a id="FNanchor_589" href="#Footnote_589" class="fnanchor">[589]</a> In 1898 we -learn that “the estimate of a hundred thousand men, which the Scottish -chroniclers give, is no doubt exaggerated, but that the force was very -large is shown by the genuine details which have come down to us” (p. -573). These “genuine details” prove to be the figures in the ‘Foedera,’ -on which Mr. Bain relied. Mr. Oman arrives at his figures thus:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Edward II. had brought a vast host with him.... There have been -preserved of the orders which Edward sent out for the raising of -this army only those addressed to the sheriffs of twelve English -counties, seven Marcher barons, and the Justices of North and -South Wales. Yet these account for twenty-one thousand five<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[294]</span> -hundred men, though they do not include the figures of any of -the more populous shires, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent, or -Middlesex. The whole must have amounted to more than 50,000 men -(p. 573).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">To the numbers of Edward’s host he attaches so great an -importance that he gives the details, from Rymer, in a note. I make -the total, myself, to be 21,540.<a id="FNanchor_590" href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">[590]</a> It is Mr. Oman’s extraordinary -delusion that the other English counties were similarly called on for -troops, but that the orders have not been “preserved.” On the strength -of this illusion alone he adds some 30,000 men to the English host! -A glance at Rymer’s list, as given in his own pages, is sufficient -to dispel that illusion. As Mr. Bain correctly implies, the counties -called on for troops form a compact group, of which Warwick was the -southernmost. Moreover, even within that group, the southern counties -were evidently called on for much less than the northernmost, Warwick -and Leicester only sending 500 men, while Northumberland and Durham -were called on to supply 4,000, as was also Yorkshire. We have only -to turn to the ‘Rotuli Scotiæ’<a id="FNanchor_591" href="#Footnote_591" class="fnanchor">[591]</a> for 1314 to learn that the writs -originally issued (<i>i.e.</i> in March) for the Bannockburn campaign -summoned no more than 6,500 men, and these from the counties “beyond -Trent” alone.<a id="FNanchor_592" href="#Footnote_592" class="fnanchor">[592]</a> As the peril increased subsequent writs called -for a further 6,000 men from these counties, and extended the net -so as to obtain 3,000 from Lincolnshire, 500 from Warwickshire and -Leicestershire,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[295]</span> and 500 from Lancashire (previously omitted); this, -with 4,940 men from Wales and its marches, made up the total.</p> - -<p>When Edward III. arrayed his host, twenty-five years later, for -the French war, he only asked for 500 foot from Northumberland (as -against 2,500), and 1,000 from Yorkshire, but from Warwickshire with -Leicestershire he exacted 480. These figures speak for themselves. -Any one of ordinary intelligence can see that the forces on these two -occasions were raised on entirely different principles, Northumberland -being called on for five times as many men in 1314 as in 1339, while -Warwickshire and Leicester supplied almost as many in the latter as -in the former year. And yet Mr. Oman actually makes the comparison -himself (p. 593), and prints the numbers in detail for both occasions -without any comprehension that this was so. Indeed, he bases on his -misapprehension a theory that as, at the later date (1339), the quotas -were never more than a third of those demanded for Bannockburn (1314), -a comparatively picked force was secured.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>We note that the Commissions of Array in the latter year were -directed to levy only from about one-third to one-fifth of -the numbers which the sheriffs had been told to provide in -the former year. They were, of course, individually better in -proportion to the greater care which could be taken in selecting -them.<a id="FNanchor_593" href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">[593]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">We have seen that, on the contrary, in Warwickshire and -Leicestershire, the number summoned was almost the same, and that the -above theory is, therefore, another delusion. In 1339 the proportion -varied<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[296]</span> from 20 per cent. to 96 per cent. of the numbers summoned -in 1314, and did so, as we have seen, on a geographical system. Mr. -Oman bases his above assertion on a note in which four lines contain -four direct mistakes. It asserts that Yorkshire sent “six thousand,” -Lincolnshire “four thousand,” Warwick “five hundred,” and Leicester -“five hundred,” in 1314, when the right numbers, as given by himself -on page 573 of the same volume, were: Yorkshire <i>four</i> thousand, -Lincolnshire <i>three</i> thousand, and Warwick and Leicester -<i>together</i> five hundred. The result of this astounding inaccuracy -is that he fails to understand the system of these levies in the least.</p> - -<p>It is, no doubt, surprising that, after years of study, a writer should -produce a work intended to constitute a standard authority on mediæval -warfare, in which he has not even grasped so elementary a fact as -the raising of English armies, in the 14th century, on geographical -principles, and should consequently invent an imaginary host of nearly -30,000 men. Precisely as in 1314, the bulk of the foot for the Scottish -expedition were raised from the Northern counties, so in 1345, for the -contemplated French expedition, it was from the counties south of the -Trent that the infantry (archers) was raised.<a id="FNanchor_594" href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">[594]</a> But it is even more -surprising that he should substitute for this system a theory, based on -the misquotation of his own figures alone, that, in 1339, we meet with -a new system of summoning a comparatively small quota of picked men. -It is but a further instance of his grievous lack of accuracy that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[297]</span> on -page 599 he renders the “homines armati”<a id="FNanchor_595" href="#Footnote_595" class="fnanchor">[595]</a> summoned from the towns -as “seventeen hundred archers,” although he prints from Rymer, a few -pages earlier, the numbers of the foot summoned in 1339, of whom half -are distinguished as archers and half as “armati.”</p> - -<p>One would have imagined that the fact of the host being drawn from -the northern half of England alone would have been obvious from the -dates. The orders from which Mr. Oman takes the numbers demanded were -only issued from Newminster on May 27,<a id="FNanchor_596" href="#Footnote_596" class="fnanchor">[596]</a> and ordered a rendezvous -of the force at Wark (Northumberland) on June 10. The troops were to -be there on that day “armis competentibus bene muniti, ac prompti et -parati ad proficiscendum” to the immediate relief of Stirling. The time -was desperately short, and haste was enjoined (“exasperes, festines”). -Moreover, the English leaders were clearly not such fools as Mr. Oman -imagines. The “orders” state that foot are wanted because the Scots</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">nituntur, quantum possint, ... in locis fortibus et morosis (ubi -equitibus difficilis patebit accessus) adinvicem congregare.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Common sense tells one that 60,000 foot could not be -manœuvred in such country, and would only prove an encumbrance. Edward, -therefore, only summoned less than 22,000. As to his horse, Mr. Oman -writes: if the English “had, as is said, three thousand <i>equites -coperti</i>, men-at-arms on barded horses, the whole cavalry was -probably ten thousand” (p. 575). But<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[298]</span> why? At Falkirk, sixteen years -before, Edward I., he writes (p. 565), had</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">the whole feudal levy of England at his back. He brought three -thousand knights on barded horses, and four thousand other -men-at-arms.</p> -</div> - -<p>If 3,000 “barded horses” implied 4,000 other horsemen in 1298, why -should they imply 7,000 in 1314? More especially, why should they do so -when, as we have seen, the king, in summoning his foot forces, himself -described the scene of the campaign as “ubi equitibus difficilis -patebit accessus,” so that he was most unlikely to take a large force -of cavalry?<a id="FNanchor_597" href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">[597]</a> Estimating the horse on the Falkirk basis, the English -host cannot have amounted to more than 30,000 men instead of the 60,000 -or 70,000, horse and foot, at which Mr. Oman reckons it.<a id="FNanchor_598" href="#Footnote_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a></p> - -<p>And what of the Scotch? Let us compare these passages:</p> - -<table summary="compare" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">The front between the wood and the marsh was not much - more than a mile broad, a space not too great to be defended by - the <i>forty</i><a id="FNanchor_599" href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> thousand men whom - Bruce had brought together p. 571).</td> - <td class="cht1">There was only something slightly more than a mile of - slope between the wood and the marshes.... This was well - enough for the main line of the Scottish host, formed in three - lines of perhaps <i>twenty-five</i><a id="FNanchor_600" href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a> - thousand men in all (p. 575).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">It is true that the Scottish king had a fourth battle in -reserve, but, according to Mr. Oman’s plan, it was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[299]</span> no larger than the -others, if so large. It would only, therefore, add some 8,000 men to -the above 25,000. Where then are the 40,000?</p> - -<p>From the numbers of the forces I now pass to their disposition on -the field. With each of his successive narratives of the battle Mr. -Oman has given us a special—and different—ground plan. In all three -of these the English ‘battles’ are shown as composed of horse and -foot,—the horse in the front of each, the foot behind. But in the -earliest of these (1885) <i>three</i> such ‘battles’ are shown, in the -second (1895) <i>five</i>, and in the third (1898) <i>ten</i>.<a id="FNanchor_601" href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a> -Will the number increase indefinitely? Again, as to the famous -“pottes,” dug as traps for the English horse. In the earliest narrative -these are described as covering the Scottish flank “to the left,” and -in the second, as dug by the Scots “on their flanks,” though in both -the ground plans they are shown in a cluster on the left flank alone. -When we turn, however, to the latest account (1898), we find them -shown, no longer on the flanks, but as a single line along the Scottish -front, and described as dug by Bruce “in front of his line,” so that -they “practically covered the whole assailable front of the Scottish -host” (p. 572).</p> - -<p>Lastly, on that all-important point, the disposition of the English -archers, we are shown in the first ground plan the “English archers -considerably in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[300]</span> advance of the main body,” and, indeed, almost all on -the Scottish side of the burn. In his second they are still in front -of the host, but no longer across the burn. In his third there are no -“archers” shown, and the English ‘battles’ themselves are depicted -as close up to the burn. But to realize the completeness of the -contradiction, one must place side by side these two passages:</p> - -<table summary="compare" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">His [Edward II.’s] most fatal mistake, however, was to place - all his archers <i>in the front line</i>,<a id="FNanchor_602" href="#Footnote_602" class="fnanchor">[602]</a> - without any protecting body of horsemen (‘Art of War in the Middle Ages,’ p. 101).</td> - <td class="cht1">The worst point of all was that in each corps the archers - had been placed <i>behind</i><a id="FNanchor_603" href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">[603]</a> the - horsemen ... condemned from the first to almost entire - uselessness (‘History of the Art of War,’ p. 575).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="p-left">Poor Edward! He is first made to place his archers in -front of his horsemen, and blamed for his folly in doing so; and then -he is made to place them behind, and again blamed for his folly.</p> - -<p>It is the same with the battle of Creçy (1346). Let any one compare the -four narratives given in succession by Mr. Oman,<a id="FNanchor_604" href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">[604]</a> together with the -three ground plans, and he will be fairly bewildered. The only thing of -which we can be sure is that when Mr. Oman has adopted a view, he will -himself afterwards abandon it. It is the same, again, with the numbers -also. Mr. Oman, in his second narrative (as apparently in his first), -reckons the English host at some 9,300 men (6,000 archers, 2,300 -men-at-arms, 1,000 Welsh). In<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[301]</span> his fourth they exceed 20,000 (11,000 -archers, 3,900 men-at-arms, 5,000 or 5,500 Welsh).</p> - -<p>Need I pursue further this endless contradiction? It has been my object -to warn the reader of Mr. Oman’s works on the Art of War to compare -his successive views before adopting a single one of them. Whether on -the field of Bannockburn or of Hastings we need a guide who knows, at -least, his own mind, and whose “cocksureness” is not proportionate to -the mutability of his views.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[302]</span></p> - -<h2>XV<br /> -<span class="subhed">The Marshalship of England</span></h2></div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">In his valuable essay on a document of which the origin has long been -discussed, the ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum,’<a id="FNanchor_605" href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">[605]</a> M. Bémont has drawn -attention to the close association of this treatise, in the MSS. which -contain it, with the coronation of Richard II. and with a treatise on -the Marshal’s office. So close, indeed, is this association that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">Coke affirme avoir vu de ce traité [the <i>Modus</i>] un -exemplaire “écrit au temps de Henri II. qui contient la -manière, la forme et l’usage de Gilbert de Scrogel, maréchal -d’Angleterre, et qui indique comment il s’acquittait alors de -son office.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">M. Bémont explains that Coke confused the ‘Modus’ with -the treatise on the Marshal’s office, but this is not, we shall find, -quite the right explanation; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in -question “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” As Coke’s -error as to Gilbert has been very widely followed, it may be well to -dispose of it once for all by tracing it to the source of his error.</p> - -<p>We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the -MS. lat. 6,049 in the Bibliothèque Nationale (from which is taken -Hardy’s, and consequently Dr. Stubbs’, text of the ‘Modus.’) Although<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[303]</span> -M. Bémont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have -observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same -documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian -MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do -service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting -as High Steward.<a id="FNanchor_606" href="#Footnote_606" class="fnanchor">[606]</a> Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and -heiress of Thomas “of Brotherton,” marshal of England, who claimed to -discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important -words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Item quoad officium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall -Comitissa Norff’ porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato -Domino Senescallo in hec verba “A tres honure seignur le Roy -de Castille et de Leon, Duc de Lancastre, et Seneschall’ -Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton’ -nadgaires Conte de Norff’ et mareschall dengleterre destre -accepte a loffice de mareschalcie ore al coronement nostre s<sup>r</sup> -le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son -piere fesante loffice par son depute <i>come Gilbert Mareschall -Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second</i>, -cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son -coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les -hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte -faitz Chivaler au cel iour un palfrey ove une sele.” Supra quo -audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem -quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit -ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et -supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa -pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod -curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis -brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus -de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad -officium predictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65<i>d</i>).</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[304]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">We have clearly here the origin of Coke’s error, when he -writes:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Many very ancient copies you may find of this Modus, one whereof -we have seen in the reign of H. 2, which contains the manner, -forme, and usage of Gilbert de Scrogel, marshall of England, in -what manner he occupied and used the said roome and office in -all his time, and how he was admitted etc. at the coronation of -H. 2 (‘Institutes,’ 4, xxi.).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">For the error is only found in the above petition.</p> - -<p>Now, it ought to be obvious that no such person as Gilbert Marshal, -earl of ‘Strogoil,’ could have existed in 1154, for the Marshals did -not inherit till a later time that Earldom, which was held in 1154 by -the house of Clare. It has indeed been suggested that for “Gilbert” -we should read “Richard,”<a id="FNanchor_607" href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">[607]</a> but this will not help us. For, to -secure consistency, we should have to read “Richard <i>de Clare</i>.” -Nevertheless, it has been loosely assumed, on no other evidence, that -Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke (“Striguil”) acted as Marshal of -England at the coronation of Henry II. in 1154.<a id="FNanchor_608" href="#Footnote_608" class="fnanchor">[608]</a> And on this -foundation antiquaries have raised theories to which we must return.</p> - -<p>The real explanation is perfectly simple. On turning to fo. 86<i>d.</i> -of the MS. we find an entry “de officio marescalcie,” which we can -positively identify as taken from fo. 232 of the ‘Red Book of the -Exchequer’ (p. 759) where it is found among the “services” at Queen -Eleanor’s coronation in 1236. Then turning back to Countess Margaret’s -claim (fo. 65<i>d</i>), we find that it enshrines, in Norman French, -this entry word for word.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[305]</span> Therefore the whole error has been caused -by the words “as coronement le Roy Henri second” (1154) applied to an -entry which really related to the coronation of Queen Eleanor (1236)! -“Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strigoil” had no existence at the former -date, but he actually held the marshal’s rod in 1236.<a id="FNanchor_609" href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">[609]</a></p> - -<p>Camden, it seems, is responsible, in the first instance, for the theory -that the office of “Marshal of England” was distinct in origin and -character from that of Marshal of the Household. Strangely enough, -in his earlier essay,<a id="FNanchor_610" href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">[610]</a> he made no such distinction, but, on the -contrary, stated that Roger Bigod “was he which first stiled himselfe -<i>marescallus Angliæ</i>, whereas all his predecessors used noe -other stiles than the simple addition of <i>marescallus</i>.” In his -second essay (3rd Nov., 1603)<a id="FNanchor_611" href="#Footnote_611" class="fnanchor">[611]</a> he gave a list of the “Marshals -of England,” deducing the office from a grant of Stephen, who “made -Gilbert Clare earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England, with the state -of inheritance, who ... was commonly called earl of Stryghall.” Thus -arose the whole theory which Thoms, following Camden, adopts in his -‘Book of the Court’ (pp. 241, 244), namely, that the two offices were -accidentally united by the marriage of William (the) Marshal (of the -Household) with Isabel, heiress of the earls of Pembroke, “Marshals of -England.”</p> - -<p>From Thoms this theory has found its way into the ‘Complete Peerage.’ -I need not here say more than<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[306]</span> that I have carefully examined the -evidence, and that, after the alleged union of the offices, there is -no trace of their being granted as more than one. When John confirmed -(20th April, 1200) the marshalship to William Marshall, it was as</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">magistratum maresc’ curie nostre quam magistratum Gillebertus -Marescallus Henrici Regis avi patris nostri et Johannes filius -ipsius Gilleberti disrationaverat coram predicto Rege Henrico in -curia sua.<a id="FNanchor_612" href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">[612]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">And when William’s younger son Gilbert obtained it from -Henry III., after his brother’s death, we read of the king (11th June, -1234)—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Tradens ei virgam marescalcie curie sue sicut moris est et sicut -eam antecessores ejus melius et liberius habuerunt.<a id="FNanchor_613" href="#Footnote_613" class="fnanchor">[613]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It would not be in place here to discuss the growth -of the office with the growth of the administration, just as the -constableship developed in its descent from Miles of Gloucester through -the Bohuns. The one point to keep in mind is that the office of marshal -descended from Gilbert <i>temp.</i> Hen. I., to Roger Bigod, earl of -Norfolk, at whose death in December (1306), the marshalship, by his own -arrangement, reverted to the king.</p> - -<p>It was the king’s intention to bestow it on his young son Thomas -“of Brotherton”; but as he was at the time only six years old, it -was given, ‘during pleasure,’ 3rd September, 1307, to Robert de -Clifford,<a id="FNanchor_614" href="#Footnote_614" class="fnanchor">[614]</a> and, a few months later, to Nicholas de Segrave (12th -March, 1308), also ‘during pleasure.’<a id="FNanchor_615" href="#Footnote_615" class="fnanchor">[615]</a> These appointments<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[307]</span> are -important for their bearing on a note by Dr. Stubbs that</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">William le Mareschal had served as marshall at the coronation, -but was superseded in 1308 by Nicholas Segrave, with whom he -went to war in 1311. It was probably his dismissal that offended -Lancaster in 1308; see ‘M. Malmesb.,’ p. 103; and he may be -considered as a strong adherent of the earl (of Lancaster).<a id="FNanchor_616" href="#Footnote_616" class="fnanchor">[616]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is the case that William Marshall had carried the -great gilt spurs at the coronation of Edward II. (Feb., 1308), but we -do not find his name on the Patent Rolls among the appointments to the -“Marshalsea of England.” He can, therefore, only have been chosen to -act at the coronation, and was doubtless selected, in preference to the -temporary Marshal, as being hereditary Marshal of Ireland. Summoned to -Parliament as a baron in 1309, he became one of the ‘Ordainers’ in 1310.</p> - -<p>Robert de Clifford, whom Segrave replaced, was afterwards concerned in -Gaveston’s death (or, at least, pardoned as being so),<a id="FNanchor_617" href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">[617]</a> but was -clearly a strong supporter of the king at the beginning of 1308. And as -appointments and favours were bestowed upon him for two or three years -afterwards, one cannot think that he was out of favour, or that he -can be alluded to in the passage cited by Dr. Stubbs from the Monk of -Malmesbury:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>(1309) unde magnates terræ cœperunt hæc pro malo habere et -præcipue comes Lancastriæ, quia unus ex familiaribus suis, -procurante Petro, ejectus erat ab officio suo.<a id="FNanchor_618" href="#Footnote_618" class="fnanchor">[618]</a></p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[308]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">It could not in any case apply, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, -to William le Mareschal. Professor Tout not only dates Segrave’s -appointment a year too late, but goes so far as to say that, against -him,—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">William Marshal, a peer of Parliament and a collateral -representative of the great Marshal family, claimed the office -as devolving on him by hereditary right.<a id="FNanchor_619" href="#Footnote_619" class="fnanchor">[619]</a></p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is obvious that the only person who could make such a -claim was the disinherited brother of the late earl of Norfolk.</p> - -<p>On February 10, 1316, the Marshalship of England became once more an -hereditary office, being bestowed on Thomas ‘de Brotherton,’ then earl -of Norfolk, and the heirs male of his body.<a id="FNanchor_620" href="#Footnote_620" class="fnanchor">[620]</a></p> - -<p>Let me here again insist that the fundamental error has been the -anachronism interpolated in Countess Margaret’s coronation claim -(1377). This is really the sole foundation for the statement that the -Clares earls of Pembroke held the office of Marshal of England; and it -can be conclusively shown to arise from mistaking the coronation of -1236 for that of 1154.<a id="FNanchor_621" href="#Footnote_621" class="fnanchor">[621]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[309]</span></p> - -<p>Having thus traced to its origin the confusion which made Richard -Strongbow and his father Gilbert marshals of England, I may now deal -with the further confusion which assigns to Richard ‘Strongbow’ a -legitimate son Walter. In Ormerod’s ‘Strigulensia’ (p. 63), in Mr. -Archer’s biography of Richard,<a id="FNanchor_622" href="#Footnote_622" class="fnanchor">[622]</a> and now in the ‘Complete Peerage,’ -the fact is accepted as certain. The authority for this statement is a -Tintern Abbey charter, in which William Marshal the younger confirms -certain grants (22nd March, 1223)—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="p-left">pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi filii Gilberti -Strongbow avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei, et -Ysabelle matris mee (‘Mon. Ang.,’ v. 267).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">A very able genealogist, Mr. G. W. Watson, holds that -this charter makes the existence of a son Walter “certain.”<a id="FNanchor_623" href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">[623]</a> But as -the text appeared to me obviously corrupt, I referred to the Arundel -MS.,<a id="FNanchor_624" href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">[624]</a> from which it is printed in the ‘Monasticon.’ I there made -the startling discovery that, as I thought possible, the true text is -this (in a 15th century transcript of a 14th century <i>inspeximus</i> -of the 13th century charter):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii <i>Ricardi</i>, -<i>Gilberti Strongbowe</i>, Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbowe -avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei et Ysabelle matris -mee<a id="FNanchor_625" href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">[625]</a> (fo. 1).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">This makes perfect sense, giving as it does the descent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[310]</span> -of the Honour from Walter Fitz Richard (de Clare), founder of Tintern. -But a much later hand (? 17th century) has coolly run a pen through the -three words I have italicised, thus making nonsense of the passage, -which was then, in this mutilated form, printed by Dugdale! It is but a -further instance of the havoc which he and others have wrought in the -genealogy of the famous house of Clare.</p> - -<p>As this charter is of independent value for its early (apparently -earliest)<a id="FNanchor_626" href="#Footnote_626" class="fnanchor">[626]</a> mention of the name ‘Strongbow,’ its date is of -importance; Mr. Archer states that it is “dated Strigul, 22nd March, -1206,”<a id="FNanchor_627" href="#Footnote_627" class="fnanchor">[627]</a> an obviously impossible date. Its real date was 22nd March, -1223<a id="FNanchor_628" href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">[628]</a> (7 Hen. III.).</p> - -<p>We may now return to the office of Marshal in the 14th century. On June -3, 1317, the king called on the barons of the Exchequer to inform him -from their records, “quæ et cujusmodi feoda marescalli Angliæ qui pro -tempore fuerunt et eorum ministri temporibus progenitorum nostrorum -videlicet de pane, vino, cereolis, et candelis percipere et habere -consueverunt.” For reply they sent him the relative extract from the -“Constitutio domus regis.”<a id="FNanchor_629" href="#Footnote_629" class="fnanchor">[629]</a> In 4 Edward III.,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[311]</span> “Thomas counte -Norfolk et marshall d’Engleterre” petitioned the king for his fees “qui -appendent a son office de la marechausie dedeinz l’ostell et dehors -auxi, come ses predecesseurs countes mareschauls ount estre servy”; -and he annexed a list of them based on the above return.<a id="FNanchor_630" href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">[630]</a> Again, -on April 13, 1344, the king called on the Exchequer for a return from -its records “de feodis quam de aliis quibuscunque quæ pertinent ad -officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciæ Angliæ,” etc., etc. Again -they sent him the relative extract “in quadam constitutione de domo -regis antiquitus facta”; but they added the passage “in Rubro Libro -Scaccarii” on Queen Eleanor’s coronation (1236), and a ‘Dialogus’ -passage on the fees due to the Marshal from those he imprisoned for -default at the Exchequer.<a id="FNanchor_631" href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">[631]</a></p> - -<p>Lastly, we have in the treatise on the Marshal’s office, as given in -Nero D. vi., the following passage at its close (fol. 86<i>d</i>):</p> - -<p>In rubro libro de scaccario Regis folio xxx<sup>o</sup> sic continetur de -marescallo.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Et preter hoc debet magister marescalcie habere dicas de donis -et liberacionibus que fuerint de Thesauro Regis et de sua -camera et debet habere dicas contra omnes officiales Regis ut -testis per omnia. Quatuor marescalli qui serviunt familie Regis -tam clericis quam militibus quam ministris die qua faciunt -herbergeriam vel extra curiam in negocio Regis morantibus, viij -d. in die et galonem vini expens’ et xij frustra candelarum si -extra tres de die in diem homini suo et cand’ plenar’ quod si -aliquis marescallorum missus fuerit in negocio Regis viij d. -ta[ntu]m servientes Marescallorum si<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[312]</span> fuerint missi in negocio -Regis unusquisque in die iij d. sin autem in domo Regis comedent.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de Stroghull -cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones -officiorum<a id="FNanchor_632" href="#Footnote_632" class="fnanchor">[632]</a> facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit -autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege et quolibet comite -palefridum cum sella.</p> -</div> - -<p>It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in -Norman-French in Countess Margaret’s petition, with the interpolation -of the words which have caused all the confusion.</p> - -<p>And here it is necessary to observe that the interesting reference -it contains to the knighting of a ‘Baron’ by the king is reduced to -what Mr. Freeman would have termed “hideous nonsense” in the official -edition of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer.’ We there read:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de] -quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p. 759).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">In the ‘Red Book’ itself, indeed, the text is now -illegible, but Mr. Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for -“restoring certain defaced or missing passages” (p. li.). Now in the -Hargrave MS. (fo. 132<a id="FNanchor_633" href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">[633]</a>) the reading is “as clear as a pikestaff”; -it could not be clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading -as we find in the above extracts:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Recipit autem de quol[ibet] <i>Barone</i> facto milite a rege et -quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Yet Mr. Hall reads: “de quolibet <i>arma</i>, facto.” -Really, when one knows that he has undertaken to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[313]</span> teach how mediæval -MSS. should be edited,<a id="FNanchor_634" href="#Footnote_634" class="fnanchor">[634]</a> one is driven again reluctantly to -ask whether such editing as this should be styled a farce or a -burlesque.<a id="FNanchor_635" href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a></p> - -<p>Before returning to the ‘Modus,’ the point from which we started, we -must clear up the confusion that surrounds the title of Earl Marshal.</p> - -<p>Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign -the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.<a id="FNanchor_636" href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">[636]</a> -Coke went further, and, as M. Bémont says, confused the ‘Modus’ with -the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up -to my theory.<a id="FNanchor_637" href="#Footnote_637" class="fnanchor">[637]</a></p> - -<p>There is a transcript in Nero D. vi., with a beautifully illuminated -initial, of the patent by which Richard II. created Thomas Mowbray -earl of Nottingham Marshal of England and Earl Marshal (12th Jan., -1386), in tail male. Here again the confusion has been terrible. The -Record Commission’s Catalogue of the Cottonian MSS. describes it -as “Literæ R. Ricardi II. constituentes Tho. <i>de Brotherton</i>, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[314]</span>com. Nottingham,<a id="FNanchor_638" href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">[638]</a> Marescallum Angliæ A<sup>o</sup>. 1386,” and it is this -doubtless, which has led several writers into grave error, down to M. -Bémont, who enters the document as “les lettres patentes de Richard II. -instituant Thomas de Brotherton maréchal d’Angleterre” (p. 472). But, -for my purpose, the important point is that this is the first grant of -the office of “<i>Earl</i> Marshal.” On the one hand, a high authority -asserts in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ that Roger Bigod, -earl of Norfolk, received “the office of Earl Marshal” in 1246; on the -other, we read in the ‘Complete Peerage’ that an “<i>Earl</i> Marshal” -was first created in 1397.<a id="FNanchor_639" href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">[639]</a> Neither statement is correct. On June -30, 1385, Richard bestowed on the earl of Nottingham “the office -of Marshal of England,” which we have traced above.<a id="FNanchor_640" href="#Footnote_640" class="fnanchor">[640]</a> Dugdale, -citing the record below, wrongly states that Thomas was “constituted -<i>Earl</i> Marshal of England” for life on this occasion, and is -followed in this by Professor Tout.<a id="FNanchor_641" href="#Footnote_641" class="fnanchor">[641]</a> Thomas certainly styled -himself “Earl Marshal and of Nottingham” in the month following, but -this was one of the assumptions of the time. He was only so created by -the patent which follows. It is desirable, therefore, to give here the -exact wording of the grant:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Sciatis quod cum nos nuper de gracia nostra speciali -concesserimus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[315]</span> dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome comiti -Notyngh’ officium marescalli Anglie ad totam vitam suam, Nos -jam de uberiori gratia nostra concessimus prefato consanguineo -nostro officium predictum una cum nomine et honore comitis -Marescalli habend’ sibi et heredibus suis masculis de corpore -suo exeuntibus cum omnimodis feodis proficuis et pertinenciis -quibuscunque dicto officio qualitercunque spectantibus.</p> -</div> - -<p>This grant, which is dated at Westminster, 12th January, 1386 (9 Ric. -II.), is, oddly enough, unknown even to experts. Dugdale had missed it, -and it is consequently ignored in Wallon’s ‘Richard II.,’ in Professor -Tout’s biography of Nottingham,<a id="FNanchor_642" href="#Footnote_642" class="fnanchor">[642]</a> and in the ‘Complete Peerage.’ -It illustrates not only the high favour in which Nottingham still -stood, but the <i>entourage</i> of the king at the time, which included -several of those about to lead the opposition.<a id="FNanchor_643" href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">[643]</a></p> - -<p>The above grant is duly referred to in the so-called creation of -February 10, 1397. This is headed in the Rolls of Parliament:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Une chartre du Roy faite a le Conte Mareschall touchant son -Office de Mareschall d’Engleterre....</p> - -<p>Sciatis quod cum nuper per literas nostras patentes de gratia -nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome -Comiti Notyngh’ Officium Marescalli Anglie, una cum nomine et -honore Comitis Marescalli, habendum sibi et heredibus suis -masculis, etc.... Nos.... volentes proinde pro statu et honore -ipsius Comitis uberius providere, de gratia nostra speciali, in -presenti Parliamento nostro concessimus pro Nobis et heredibus -nostris eidem Comiti dictum officium ac nomen, titulum, et -honorem<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[316]</span> Comitis Marescalli Anglie habendum sibi et heredibus -suis masculis, etc. (Then follow additional concessions.)</p> -</div> - -<p>The transition, in the marshal’s style, is interesting enough. First we -have “the Marshal,” or rather “the Master Marshal”; then “the Marshal -of England,” as a more high-sounding style; next a confusion due to the -fact that the Marshals also held an earldom through the 13th century, -and so became, in common parlance (though not in strictness), “Earls -Marshall”; lastly, even so early, we have seen,<a id="FNanchor_644" href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">[644]</a> as 1344, there -occurs the cumbrous and unmeaning phrase “officium comitis marescalli -et mariscalciæ Angliæ.” Proving, though it does, the rapid accretion -of error and confusion in the Middle Ages, the double style obtained -recognition in the Patent of 1386.<a id="FNanchor_645" href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">[645]</a> It is singular that, even -at the present day, the “Peerages” style the duke of Norfolk “Earl -Marshal and hereditary marshal of England,” although he is simply “Earl -Marshal” under the creation of 1672.<a id="FNanchor_646" href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">[646]</a></p> - -<p>An apology is hardly needed for introducing here a characteristic -challenge, addressed by the young Earl Marshal in the chivalrous spirit -of the time, “a noble et honnore S<sup>r</sup> le conte de Soissons sire de -Coucy.” This quaint epistle begins thus:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[317]</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Honure S<sup>r</sup> Pour ce que vous estez homme donneur approue de -vaillance et de chevalerie et de grant renomee comme bien est -cogneu es plusieurs lieux honnorables, et je suis joesne, -etc.... Je envoie devers vous Notynghant mon heraut, etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Then follow the terms of the challenge:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>et apres les trois cops de lance, trois pointes despee, trois -pointes de dague, et trois cops de hache a pie.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Every precaution would seem to be taken against the -survival of either combatant. The letter closes with due formality:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Escript a Londres le x<sup>o</sup> jour de Janvier lan de grace mille ccc -iiii<sup>x(x)</sup> et neuf selon le compte de leglise d’Angleterre.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Par le conte Mareschall’ et de Notyngham S<sup>r</sup> de Moubray et de -Segrave mareschall’ d’Angleterre.</p> -</div> - -<p>This document, I believe, has not hitherto been known.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>And now, when we turn to the ‘Modus,’ we find in the chapter treating -“De Casibus et Judiciis difficilibus” a startling statement that, if -difficulties arose,—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>tunc comes senescallus, comes constabularius, <i>comes -marescallus</i>, vel duo eorum, eligent viginti quinque personas -de omnibus paribus regni, etc., etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It need scarcely be said that no such right belonged -<i>ex officio</i> to these three magnates, or was even claimed by them. -Yet no one has suggested, so far as I know, that there must have been a -reason for inserting this clause, and that in such reason we may find -a note of time. Ordainers were elected, under Edward II., in 1310, -and a Commission under Richard II. in 1386. No one, it is certain, -could have introduced the reference to an “Earl Marshal” in 1310, for -Thomas,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[318]</span> future marshal of England; was then only a boy of ten. But in -1386 there was, in Nottingham, an Earl Marshal, and one who was, at the -time, taking a leading part. Indeed the three chiefs of the opposition -at the time were Gloucester, Derby, and Nottingham, who respectively -represented the Constable, the Steward,<a id="FNanchor_647" href="#Footnote_647" class="fnanchor">[647]</a> and the Marshal. Add to -this that it was in the Parliament of 1386 that we find the precedent -of Edward II. prominent in the minds of men,<a id="FNanchor_648" href="#Footnote_648" class="fnanchor">[648]</a> and that it was also -in this Parliament that appeal was made to a supposed statute, and that -the ‘Modus’ contains a chapter “De Absentia regis in Parliamento” (a -grievance in 1386), and we have at least a fair presumption that the -‘Modus’—at any rate in the form that has reached us—dates from the -constitutional crisis of 1386.<a id="FNanchor_649" href="#Footnote_649" class="fnanchor">[649]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[319]</span></p> - -<p>I shall now close this article, which has already exceeded its original -limits, with a document hitherto unknown, I believe, to English -historians. The Rolls of Parliament preserve, in the proceedings of -1397 against Gloucester, the appeal of treason presented to the king by -the nobles of his party at Nottingham (5th Aug., 1395). But that appeal -is not known to us at first hand. I believe that I have found the terms -of the document, which correspond, it will be seen, with the printed -version. But instead of closing with the words “soit enterment quasse -et adnulle,” as in the Rolls of Parliament (iii. 341), it proceeds:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>laquelle bille nous le prouuerons pour vray avec laide de Dieu -et de sa benoiste mere tant comme la vie nous dure.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">Then follows, in parallel columns, the interesting -portion of the document, namely, the five articles of accusation, which -are, it will be found, largely different and much shorter than on the -Rolls. Opposite them is a notable confession which, from evidence it -contains, I assign to the duke of Gloucester.</p> - -<table summary="articles" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">P[re]mierement comment ilz voloient auoir depose mons<sup>r</sup>.</td> - <td class="cht1" rowspan="5">Beauz seignors je vous prie a tous mercy et vous prie que - vous veulliez dire a Monsr le Roy que il pregne garde de mon - filz, quar sil nest chastie tant quil est jeune, il me - resembleira, et je fiz faussete et traison a mons<sup>r</sup> mon pere, - et ai pense et eusse mis a execution contre mons<sup>r</sup> le Roy - contre mon neveu de Rottheland et mon cousin le mareschal et - plus<sup>s</sup> autres(;) dedens xv jours ilz eussent este mors et madame - la este mors et madame la Royne envoiee arriere en France, et - fait du royaulme ce que nous eussions voulu. Et avions - ordonne de rendre tous les hommages a ceulx qui eussent - este de nostre part. Si preng en grace ce que Mons<sup>r</sup> me fera - quar jai bien desire la mort.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Item. Ilz le constraindirent a leur donner pouoir par letres - a lencontre de sa regalie et les libertes de sa couronne.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Item. Ils le voloient auoir prins par force hors de son - chastel et lauoir amene tout partout ou ilz voloient et - prins son grant seel deuers eulz.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Item. Le vouloient auoir assailli dedens sa tour de - Londres lui estant dedens a sa festedu Noel.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Item. Depuis ont ilz persevere en leur traison et tant quilz - ont ymagine et ordene dauoir destruit et mis a mort ceulx qui - furent entour la personne de Mons<sup>r</sup>.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[320]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">From internal evidence this confession must (if genuine) -proceed from an uncle of the king, who can only be the duke of -Gloucester. I believe him to have sent it from his prison at Calais, -after his arrest and deportation thither by the “Earl Marshal of -England.”</p> - -<p>Such documents as this still lurk here and there in MS. Their discovery -rewards, at rare intervals, the toil of original research, as in -those I have printed above bearing on the Commune of London. To this -research, as Dr. Stubbs has urged, historians have now to look;<a id="FNanchor_650" href="#Footnote_650" class="fnanchor">[650]</a> -but for it, in England, at the present time, there is neither -inducement nor reward.<a id="FNanchor_651" href="#Footnote_651" class="fnanchor">[651]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[321]</span></p> - -<h2 class="smaller">NOTE</h2> -</div> - - -<p>On page 21 I speak of Mr. Andrew Lang “tracing the occurrence in -scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy -among our forefathers.” This view, which (as I there state) was adopted -by Mr. Grant Allen, is set forth in his notes to Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ -(Ed. Bolland, 1877), pp. 96, 99, 101. To show that I have in no way -misrepresented that view, I append these extracts:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>the <i>sibsceaft</i>, or kinship, which, when settled within -its own mark of land, is known in early Teutonic history as the -<i>Markgenossenschaft</i>. Whether in Greece, Rome, or England, -not to mention other countries, the members of each of these -kinships all bore the same patronymic name, etc., etc.</p> - -<p>Take the case of early England, one finds the traces of the -clan of Billingas in Northampton, Lancashire, Durham, Lincoln, -Yorkshire, Sussex, Salop, and other widely-separated districts -(Kemble).</p> - -<p>The members of these clans bear each the clan patronymic, -perform the same superstitious rites, and are bound to mutual -defence ... in England a man of the Billinga clan, or of the -Arlinga clan, might be a Somersæta, or a Huicca, or a Lindisfara -by local tribe. This curious scattering of the <i>family</i> -names through the <i>local</i> settlements in England has -puzzled Mr. Kemble, who accounts for it by the confusion of the -English invasion, and by later wandering and colonisations. But -if the Arlingas, Billingas, and so forth, were once scattered -over North Germany, as the men of the Sun or Tortoise clans are -scattered all over America and Australia, it would necessarily -happen that when a Jutland tribe invaded the south of England, -it would leave families settled there of the same name as a -Schleswig tribe would leave in the north or west of England.</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[322]</span></p> - -<p class="p-left">Mr. Lang then goes on to urge the probability that, as in -Australia, this phenomenon had its origin in exogamy. But I question, -in my paper on the subject, the ‘clan’ phenomenon itself. Mr. Lang, -like others, wrote under the influence of Kemble; and it is the very -object of my paper to show the danger of building theories on Kemble’s -rash conclusions.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[323]</span></p> - -<h2>Index</h2> -</div> - -<p class="p-index">A</p> - -<ul> - <li><i>Abattis</i>, meaning of, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Adrian IV., his alleged donation of Ireland, - <a href="#Page_171">171–175</a>, - <a href="#Page_177">177–179</a>, - <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his “bull Laudabiliter,” - <a href="#Page_171">171</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Ailwin (Æthelwine) son of Leofstan, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li>Albemarle, William earl of, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, Cecily wife of, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li id="Albert">Albert of Lotharingia, “clerk,” - <a href="#Page_36">36–38</a>.</li> - - <li>Albineio, William de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Aldermannebury, Simon de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Aldermen, <i>see</i> <a href="#London">London</a>.</li> - - <li>Alenzun, Matthew de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Alexander III., his alleged confirmation of “Laudabiliter,” - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, - <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, - <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, - <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, his ‘Black Book’ letters to Henry II., - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, - <a href="#Page_185">185–190</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191–194</a>, - <a href="#Page_196">196–199</a>.</li> - - <li>Allen, Mr. Grant, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, - <a href="#Page_321">321</a>.</li> - - <li>Amiens, <i>échevins</i> of, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</li> - - <li id="Andrew">Andrew of London, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> - - <li>Andrews, Dr., - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - - <li>Anschetil, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Archer">Archer, Mr. T. A., opposed to Mr. Oman, - <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, - <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, - <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, on Strongbow, - <a href="#Page_309">309–310</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Archers, English, in 14th century, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, - <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, - <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, - <a href="#Page_300">300</a>.</li> - - <li>Archers in Ireland, use of, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - - <li>Armies, English, in 14th century, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Array, Commissions of, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> - - <li>Arthur, succession of, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, - <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</li> - - <li>Arundel, William (1st) earl of, - <a href="#Page_126">126–127</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132–134</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Honour of, - <a href="#Page_130">130–131</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132–134</a>.</li> - - <li>Ashdown, battle of, - <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li> - - <li id="Assize">Assize in Normandy, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> - - <li>Assize of Northampton, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">B</p> - -<ul> - <li>Bain, Mr. Joseph, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, - <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> - - <li>Balnai, Adam de, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li id="Bannockburn">Bannockburn, battle of, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Barbour’s Brus, - <a href="#Page_290">290–291</a>.</li> - - <li>Barons, feudal, in Ireland, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - - <li>Barons, greater, <i>see</i> <a href="#London">London</a>.</li> - - <li>Basset, Richard, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li>Beaumont (Normandy), Holy Trinity of, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li>Becket, <i>see</i> <a href="#Beket">Beket</a>.</li> - - <li id="Beket">Beket, Gilbert, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, - <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.</li> - - <li>Belet, Michael, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>Bémont, M., - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</li> - - <li id="Benefices">Benefices, Inquest (1212) on ecclesiastical, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - - <li>Berkeley, <i>carta</i> of Roger de, - <a href="#Page_59">59–60</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[324]</span></li> - - <li>Bigot, Hugh le, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Bigod, Roger, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Bigod, Roger, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.</li> - - <li>Bishops Stortford castle, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>‘Blanch ferm’ in Domesday, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.</li> - - <li>‘Blanch’ money, <i>see</i> <a href="#Exchequer">Exchequer</a>.</li> - - <li>Blemund, Blemunt, William, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li>Bloomsbury, origin of its name, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li>Blund, Geoffrey, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Robert, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Stephen, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Bond, Mr. Thomas, - <a href="#Page_135">135</a>.</li> - - <li>Bosham, deanery of, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li>Bosham, <i>firma</i> of, - <a href="#Page_91">91</a>.</li> - - <li>Boulogne, Count Eustace of, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Faramus of, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, - <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William of, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Inquest on Honour of, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li> - - <li>Bradwell, Essex, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li> - - <li>Braose, William de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>Bray, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_147">147–149</a>.</li> - - <li>Brewer, Prof., errors of, - <a href="#Page_146">146–149</a>.</li> - - <li>Brito, Meinfininus, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - - <li>Bruce, <i>see</i> <a href="#Bannockburn">Bannockburn</a>.</li> - - <li>Bucherel, Andrew, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Bukerel">Bukerel</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Buchuinte, Bucquinte, Bucca Uncta, Andrew, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110–113</a>, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, justiciar of London, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, Ralf son of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li>——, John, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Laurence, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li>Bucuinte, Geoffrey, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li id="Bukerel">Bukerel, Richard, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Stephen, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>Bukerel family, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Bukerel">Bucherel</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Burh</i>, the Old English, <i>see</i> <a href="#Clark">Clark</a>.</li> - - <li>Burke, Father, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li> - - <li>Burrows, Prof. Montagu, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">C</p> - -<ul> - <li>Caen, a London family derived from, - <a href="#Page_106">106–107</a>.</li> - - <li>Calais, Gloucester imprisoned at, - <a href="#Page_320">320</a>.</li> - - <li>Cambridge, Longchamp at, - <a href="#Page_214">214</a>.</li> - - <li>Cambridgeshire, sheriff of, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> - - <li>Camden on the marshalship, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - - <li>Camville, Gerard de, - <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> - - <li>Canterbury, Stephen archbishop of, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - - <li>Carew, Sir George, error of, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Cartæ Antiquæ</i>, origin of, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Cashel, council of, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, - <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li> - - <li>“Castlemanni” of Durham, the, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a>.</li> - - <li>Castle-mounds, - <a href="#Page_52">52–54</a>.</li> - - <li>Castle Rising, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> - - <li id="Challenge">Challenge, a chivalrous, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - - <li>Chamberlains, <i>see</i> <a href="#Exchequer">Exchequer</a>.</li> - - <li>Chapel and the township, the, - <a href="#Page_10">10–11</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Charters of William I., - <a href="#Page_28">28–37</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Henry">Henry II.</a>, <a href="#John">John</a>.</li> - - <li>Chertsey, William abbot of, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li>Chester, Hugh bishop of, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Chichester, Hilary bishop of, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - - <li>Chivalry, <i>see</i> <a href="#Challenge">Challenge</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Christchurch, <i>see</i> <a href="#Twynham">Twynham</a> <i>and</i> <a href="#Trinity">London (Holy Trinity)</a>.</li> - - <li>Churches, <i>see</i> <a href="#Benefices">Benefices</a>.</li> - - <li>Cinque Ports, institutions of, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, - <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Clan-names in England, alleged, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a> <i>et seq.</i>, - <a href="#Page_321">321</a>, - <a href="#Page_322">322</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Clare, Walter son of Richard de, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Pembroke">Pembroke</a>.</li> - - <li id="Clark">Clark, Mr. G. T., on castles, - <a href="#Page_52">52–53</a>, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> - - <li>Clement III., death of, - <a href="#Page_210">210–213</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[325]</span></li> - - <li>Clifford, Robert de, marshal, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li> - - <li>Cnihtengild, the English, <i>see</i> <a href="#London">London</a>.</li> - - <li>Cœlestine II., - <a href="#Page_212">212–213</a>.</li> - - <li>Cogan, Richard de, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> - - <li>Coinage, new (1180), - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, - <a href="#Page_88">88–89</a>.</li> - - <li>Coke’s Institutes, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - - <li>Commune, the sworn, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, in London, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, in Normandy, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li><i>Constabularii, Honor</i>, - <a href="#Page_280">280–281</a>.</li> - - <li id="Cornage">Cornage, - <a href="#Page_282">282–288</a>.</li> - - <li>Constantine, donation of, - <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li> - - <li id="Constitutio"><i>Constitutio domus regis</i>, the, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> - - <li>Coote, Mr., - <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, - <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>.</li> - - <li>Cordel, Hugh, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>Cornhill, Gervase of, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Henry of, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Reginald of, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>Cornwall, Crown rents in, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> - - <li>Coronation, of Matilda wife of William I., - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - - <li>—— of Henry II., - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> - - <li>—— of Richard I., - <a href="#Page_201">201–206</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">—— of Eleanor wife of Henry III., - <a href="#Page_203">203–206</a>, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> - - <li>——, of Richard II., - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - - <li>Coronation services (“officia”), - <a href="#Page_203">203–206</a>, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - - <li>Coroner, serjeanty of being, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li> - - <li>Coucy, the (count of Soissons) sire de, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - - <li>Coupland, Noutegeld of, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li>Courci, John de, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, book of his ‘Gestes,’ - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, conquers Ulster, - <a href="#Page_161">161–163</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, origin of, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - - <li>Courci, Jordan de, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - - <li>Courcy, Robert de, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Courtenay, Reginald de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Coutances, Algar bishop of, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Cows paid for cornage, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li>Crecy, battle of, - <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, - <a href="#Page_299">299–301</a>.</li> - - <li>Cressy, Hugh de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Cricklade, Wilts, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - - <li>Cumberland, cornage tenants of, - <a href="#Page_283">283–285</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Noutegeld in, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li id="Curia"><i>Curia regis</i> in Treasury, the, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li> - - <li>——, at Westminster, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">D</p> - -<ul> - <li>Danegeld, <i>see</i> <a href="#Middlesex">Middlesex</a>; <a href="#Towns">Towns</a>.</li> - - <li>Dean, miners from forest of, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> - - <li>Deaneries of houses of secular canons, - <a href="#Page_115">115–116</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Den</i>, the forest, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - - <li id="Derman">Derman of London, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Thierri">Thierri</a>.</li> - - <li>Dermot, king, - <a href="#Page_142">142–144</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158–159</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, - <a href="#Page_179">179–180</a>.</li> - - <li>Devon, early <i>firma</i> from, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> - - <li>——, stereotyped rents in, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent"><i>Dialogus de Scaccario</i>, authority of, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>——, cited, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> - - <li>Dimock, Mr. J. F., - <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, - <a href="#Page_146">146–148</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - - <li>Diplomatic, a point of, - <a href="#Page_30">30–36</a>.</li> - - <li id="Disseisin">Disseisin, formula of Novel, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li> - - <li>Domesday, appeal to, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">—— compared with the Inquest of 1212, - <a href="#Page_265">265–266</a>, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - - <li>——, finance in, - <a href="#Page_65">65–67</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68–73</a>.</li> - - <li>——, place-names in, - <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</li> - - <li>——, record of assessment in, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.</li> - - <li>——, tenants variously described, - <a href="#Page_37">37–38</a>.</li> - - <li>Dorchester, Wulfwig bishop of, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[326]</span></li> - - <li>Dover castle, constableship of, - <a href="#Page_278">278–282</a>.</li> - - <li>——, wards and towers of, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> - - <li>Dover, Foubert de, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li> - - <li>Duket, Nicholas, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - - <li>Durham, cornage in palatinate of, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a>.</li> - - <li>——, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">E</p> - - -<ul> - <li>Eadwine, alderman of London, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - - <li>Earle, Prof., - <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> - - <li>Edward the Confessor, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Edward II.; <i>see</i> <a href="#Bannockburn">Bannockburn</a>.</li> - - <li>Edward II., deposition of, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</li> - - <li>Eleanor, queen, wife of Henry II., - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> - - <li>Ely, Geoffrey, bishop of, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>Ely, Walter de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li id="Enfeoffment">Enfeoffment, <i>see</i> <a href="#Vetus"><i>Vetus</i></a>.</li> - - <li>Essex, Henry de, Constable, - <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> - - <li>Essex, Maurice (of Tiltey), sheriff of, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li>Essex, place-names of, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Eustace, nephew of Fulchred, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - - <li>Eustace, the sheriff, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> - - <li id="Exchequer">Exchequer, chamberlains of the, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, - <a href="#Page_81">81–85</a>, - <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</li> - - <li>——, at Westminster, - <a href="#Page_79">79–81</a>.</li> - - <li>——, watchman of the, - <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, a development of the Treasury, - <a href="#Page_80">80–84</a>, - <a href="#Page_93">93–95</a>.</li> - - <li>——, enrolment at, - <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, records of the, - <a href="#Page_202">202–204</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Sheriffs">Sheriffs</a>.</li> - - <li>——, tallies of, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_74">74–75</a>.</li> - - <li>——, pleas held at the, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, - <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.</li> - - <li>——, its chequered table, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, standards of account at, - <a href="#Page_65">65–66</a>, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, - <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a>, - <a href="#Page_89">89–93</a>.</li> - - <li>Exchequer, changes in system of, - <a href="#Page_66">66–69</a>, - <a href="#Page_72">72–75</a>, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li> - - <li>——, antiquity of assay at, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> - - <li>——, its ‘combustion’ tally, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</li> - - <li>——, barons of, - <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, - <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, - <a href="#Page_89">89</a>.</li> - - <li>Exeter, endowment from ferm of, - <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a>.</li> - - <li>——, foreign merchants at, - <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</li> - - <li>Exogamy, alleged traces of, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, - <a href="#Page_321">321–322</a>.</li> - - <li>Eyton, Mr., - <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, - <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, - <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, - <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, - <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">F</p> - -<ul> - <li>Fafiton, Robert, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</li> - - <li>Falkirk, battle of, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> - - <li>Fantosme, Jordan, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>.</li> - - <li id="Feipo">Feipo, Futepoi, Totipon, Adam de, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> - - <li>Fergant, Bartholomew, - <a href="#Page_248">248–9</a>.</li> - - <li>Ferm, <i>see</i> <a href="#Firma"><i>Firma</i></a>.</li> - - <li>Fiennes family alleged constables of Dover, - <a href="#Page_279">279–281</a>.</li> - - <li id="Firma"><i>Firma comitatus</i>, the, origin of, - <a href="#Page_72">72–73</a>, - <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Firma unius noctis</i>, the, - <a href="#Page_70">70–72</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Alan, William, barony of, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Audelin, William, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182–183</a>, - <a href="#Page_190">190</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Count, Brian, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Gerald, Maurice, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Gerold, Warin, (I.) chamberlain, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, (II.) chamberlain, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Osbern, earl William, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Reinfred, Roger, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Stephen, Robert, - <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Urse becomes MacMahon, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Walter, Peter, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>Fitz Walter, Robert, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li id="Five-knight">Five-knight unit, the, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[327]</span></li> - - <li>Fleming, Richard le, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Freeman, Prof., - <a href="#Page_29">29–32</a>, - <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, - <a href="#Page_40">40–46</a>, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, - <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> - - <li>Fulcher, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Fulcoin, Fulkoin, Fulquin, Fulcoi, the sheriff, - <a href="#Page_121">121–123</a>.</li> - - <li>Fulk son of Ralf, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Furnellis</i>, Alan de, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>——, G. de, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> - - <li>Futepoi, <i>see</i> <a href="#Feipo">Feipo</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">G</p> - - -<ul> - <li class="hangingindent">Gasquet, Father, - <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, - <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, - <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, - <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - - <li>George, Mr. Hereford, - <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> - - <li>Gerpunvilla, William de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Gervase son of Agnes, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Gilbert the Sheriff (founder of Merton Priory), - <a href="#Page_121">121–123</a>.</li> - - <li>Gilbert son of Reinfred, - <a href="#Page_268">268</a>.</li> - - <li>Gilds, endowments by, - <a href="#Page_104">104–105</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Giraldus Cambrensis, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_164">164–167</a>, - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_178">178–188</a>, - <a href="#Page_190">190–198</a>.</li> - - <li>——, early translations of, - <a href="#Page_147">147–149</a>.</li> - - <li>Giry, M., - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, - <a href="#Page_247">247–252</a>.</li> - - <li>Glanville, Ranulf de, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>Gloucester, Milo de, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - - <li>Gloucester, Robert earl of, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> - - <li>Gloucester, Thomas duke of, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">his arrest and confession, - <a href="#Page_319">319–320</a>.</li> - - <li id="Glove">Glove as gage, the, - <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> - - <li>Green, Mr. J. R., - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - - <li>Gross, Dr., - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>.</li> - - <li>Guest, Dr., - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li> - - <li>Gundeville, Hugh de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">H</p> - -<ul> - <li>Hacon the dean, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Haga</i> not <i>villa</i>, - <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Hall, Mr. Hubert, on the Treasury and Exchequer, - <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, - <a href="#Page_67">67–68</a>, - <a href="#Page_74">74–75</a>, - <a href="#Page_79">79–80</a>, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, - <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, on the Inquest of Sheriffs, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, on the coronation of Richard I., - <a href="#Page_205">205–6</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, on the Red Book Inquisitions, - <a href="#Page_262">262–273</a>, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - - <li>——, on castle-ward, - <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li>——, on Dover Castle, - <a href="#Page_279">279–280</a>.</li> - - <li>——, on cornage, - <a href="#Page_282">282–286</a>.</li> - - <li>——, misreads his MSS., - <a href="#Page_312">312–313</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Ham</i>, the suffix, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Hampshire, <i>Firma unius noctis</i> in, - <a href="#Page_71">71–72</a>.</li> - - <li>Hartshorne, Mr., - <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</li> - - <li>Hastings, battle of, - <a href="#Page_40">40–52</a>, - <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li> - - <li>Haverhell, Brichtmer de, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William de, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> - - <li>Haya, Ralf de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li id="Heir">Heir, making an, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> - - <li>Helion, Tehel de, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> - - <li id="Henry">Henry II. and London, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, - <a href="#Page_232">232–233</a>, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>——, and Ireland, <i>see</i> <a href="#Ireland">Ireland</a>.</li> - - <li>Henry II., his charters before his accession, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - - <li>Henry son of Henry II., - <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Henry son of Ailwin (Æthelwine), first mayor of London, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>Hereford, earldom of, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> - - <li>Highworth, Wilts, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - - <li>Hinde, Mr. Hodgson, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, - <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> - - <li>Holand, Thomas de, earl of Kent, marshal, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.</li> - - <li>Household, the king’s, <i>see</i> <a href="#Constitutio"><i>Constitutio</i></a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[328]</span></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Hoveden, Roger, - <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, - <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, - <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208–209</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, - <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> - - <li>Howlett, Mr., - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>.</li> - - <li>Howorth, Sir Henry, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - - <li id="Howth">Howth, the Book of, - <a href="#Page_146">146–149</a>, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, - <a href="#Page_163">163</a>.</li> - - <li>——, interpolations in, - <a href="#Page_148">148–149</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, share of Christopher lord of Howth in, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> - - <li>Hubert ‘juvenis,’ - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> - - <li>Hugh, son of Wulfgar, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, - <a href="#Page_120">120–121</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Huitdeniers">Huitdeniers or Octodenarii, Osbert, justiciar of London, - <a href="#Page_113">113–114</a>, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li>Humfraville, Ida de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Richard de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Hundred and the township, the, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - - <li>Hundreds, Inquest of 1212 taken by, - <a href="#Page_265">265–266</a>, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - - <li>Hunt, Rev. W., - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>.</li> - - <li>Huntingdon, Austin priory at, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> - - <li>Hunts, sheriffs of, - <a href="#Page_121">121–123</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">I</p> - -<ul> - <li><i>Ing</i>, the suffix, - <a href="#Page_3">3</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Ingelric the priest, - <a href="#Page_28">28–30</a>, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Ingham</i>, the suffix, - <a href="#Page_15">15–16</a>.</li> - - <li>Innocent X., - <a href="#Page_199">199–200</a>.</li> - - <li id="Inquest">Inquest of 1212, the great, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Inquest of Sheriffs, <i>see</i> <a href="#Sheriffs">Sheriffs</a>.</li> - - <li>Inquest, sworn, in London, - <a href="#Page_98">98–100</a>.</li> - - <li>——, of 1212, - <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, - <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - - <li>Insula, Robert de, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li>Interdict under John, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - - <li>Ipra (Ypres), William de, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li> - - <li>Ireland, the Conquest of, - <a href="#Page_137">137</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li id="Ireland">Ireland, its golden age, - <a href="#Page_137">137–140</a>, - <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, - <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Scandinavian settlers in, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Norman invaders of, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, feudal settlement of, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - - <li>——, poem on conquest of, - <a href="#Page_141">141</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, Henry II. in, - <a href="#Page_150">150–152</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_192">192–194</a>, - <a href="#Page_199">199–200</a>.</li> - - <li>——, internecine conflict in, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>.</li> - - <li>——, policy of see-saw in, - <a href="#Page_163">163–164</a>.</li> - - <li>——, failure of its conquest, - <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> - - <li>——, corruption of church in, - <a href="#Page_165">165–166</a>, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, publication of ‘Laudabiliter’ in, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, Henry II. recognised as king in, - <a href="#Page_184">184–185</a>, - <a href="#Page_187">187</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Howth">Howth</a>; <a href="#Laudabiliter">‘Laudabiliter.’</a></li> - - <li>Ireland, scutage of, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, - <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, - <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> - - <li>Irish, tendencies of, - <a href="#Page_138">138–139</a>, - <a href="#Page_164">164–165</a>, - <a href="#Page_168">168–170</a>.</li> - - <li>——, mode of warfare of, - <a href="#Page_156">156–158</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, their character impugned, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183–187</a>, - <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, - <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - - <li id="Islington">Islington, Newington Barrow in, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - - <li>Italian citizens of London, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">J</p> - -<ul> - <li>Jews, debts to, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> - - <li id="John">John, exactions of, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - - <li>——, the great Inquest (1212) under, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</li> - - <li>——, in Ireland, - <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his struggle with Longchamp, - <a href="#Page_207">207–218</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[329]</span></li> - - <li>John, takes the oath to the Commune, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - - <li>——, claims to succeed Richard, - <a href="#Page_215">215–218</a>.</li> - - <li>——, confirms ‘liberties’ to London, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his charters to London, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>John ‘the Mad’ (‘the Wode’), - <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> - - <li>John son of Ralf son of Everard, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">K</p> - -<ul> - <li>Kemble, Mr., - <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, - <a href="#Page_16">16–26</a>.</li> - - <li>Kent, ‘sulungs’ of, - <a href="#Page_26">26–27</a>.</li> - - <li>Kingsford, Mr., - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - - <li>Kitchin, Dean, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Knight service, tenure by, - <a href="#Page_56">56–61</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Five-knight">Five-knight</a>.</li> - - <li>Knights’ fees, numbers of, - <a href="#Page_289">289–290</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">L</p> - -<ul> - <li>Laci, Hugh de, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">Walter de, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> - - <li>Lafaite, John, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> - - <li>Laigle, Richer de, - <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li> - - <li>Lancashire, Inquest of 1212 in, - <a href="#Page_268">268–269</a>.</li> - - <li>——, troops from, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a>.</li> - - <li>Lang, Mr. Andrew, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, - <a href="#Page_321">321–322</a>.</li> - - <li id="Laudabiliter">‘Laudabiliter,’ the ‘Bull,’ - <a href="#Page_171">171</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Law, <i>see</i> <a href="#Assize">Assize</a>, <a href="#Curia"><i>Curia Regis</i></a>, <a href="#Disseisin">Disseisin</a>, - <a href="#Enfeoffment">Enfeoffment</a>, <a href="#Exchequer">Exchequer</a>, <a href="#Glove">Glove</a>, <a href="#Heir">Heir</a>, <a href="#Inquest">Inquest</a>, - <a href="#Peace">Peace</a>, <a href="#Pleas">Pleas</a>, <a href="#Possession">Possession</a>, <a href="#Seisin">Seisin</a>.</li> - - <li>Leicestershire, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294–296</a>.</li> - - <li>Leinster, feudal settlement of, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - - <li>Leofstan the goldsmith, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - - <li>Leofstan son of Orgar, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> - - <li>l’Estrange, Guy, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - - <li>——, John, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Liber Rubeus</i>, <i>see</i> <a href="#Book">Red Book</a>.</li> - - <li>Liebermann, Prof., - <a href="#Page_144">144–145</a>.</li> - - <li>Lincoln Castle, - <a href="#Page_208">208–209</a>, - <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, - <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, - <a href="#Page_218">218</a>.</li> - - <li>Lincolnshire, Inquest of 1212 in, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - - <li>——, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> - - <li>Lisieux, Arnulf bishop of, <i>see</i> <a href="#Sees">Sées</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Hugh bishop of, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Lismore, Christian (papal legate) bishop of, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, - <a href="#Page_186">186</a>.</li> - - <li>Llandaff, Ralf, archdeacon of, - <a href="#Page_187">187</a>.</li> - - <li>Loftie, Mr., - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_103">103–105</a>, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, - <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, - <a href="#Page_240">240</a>.</li> - - <li id="London">London, aldermen of, - <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, - <a href="#Page_237">237–9</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, aldermen of, officers of the wards, - <a href="#Page_241">241–243</a>, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Aldersgate, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> - - <li>——, greater barons of, - <a href="#Page_252">252–253</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Blacstan’s ward in, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Bloomsbury, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Bucklersbury, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, charter of Henry I. to, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</li> - - <li>——, charters of, their custody, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>——, citizens of, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, - <a href="#Page_233">233–235</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Commune of, - <a href="#Page_219">219</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>——, ‘daibelle’ in, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>——, <i>donum</i> or <i>auxilium</i> of, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Dowgate, - <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Eadwine an alderman of, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Edmund an alderman (1137) of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li>——, its election of Stephen, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, the English Cnihtengild of, - <a href="#Page_102">102–106</a>, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - - <li>——, exchequer at, <i>see</i> <a href="#Westminster">Westminster</a>.</li> - - <li>——, folkmoot of, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[330]</span></li> - - <li>——, foreign influence in, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, - <a href="#Page_245">245–247</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Fulcred chamberlain of, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - - <li>——, hanging of a citizen in, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Husting of, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>——, sworn inquest in, - <a href="#Page_99">99–100</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, justiciars of, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, - <a href="#Page_116">116–118</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ‘liberties’ of, - <a href="#Page_234">234–236</a>.</li> - - <li>——, its loyalty to Henry II., - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>.</li> - - <li>——, mayor of, - <a href="#Page_238">238–243</a>.</li> - - <li>——, mayor and échevins of, - <a href="#Page_235">235–237</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, mediæval history, importance of it, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, origin of its mayoralty, - <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, - <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> - - <li>——, St. Lawrence Jewry, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>——, St. Mary, Aldermanbury, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>——, St. Paul’s churchyard, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - - <li>——, scavage of, - <a href="#Page_256">256–257</a>.</li> - - <li>——, scavengers (‘escavingores’) of, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>——, shrievalty of, - <a href="#Page_221">221–222</a>, - <a href="#Page_229">229–235</a>, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>——, soke of the Cnihtengild, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li>——, schools of, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, Henry, master of, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - - <li>——, tower of, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, - <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Trinity">——, Holy Trinity priory, its endowment at Exeter, - <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, Norman prior of, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_104">104</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, Stephen prior of, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, charters of, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_103">103</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, endowed by the Cnihtengild, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, - <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, a citizen canon of, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>.</li> - - <li>——, “twenty-four” (councillors) of the, - <a href="#Page_237">237–243</a>.</li> - - <li>——, a verdict of the city of, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>——, vineyard in Smithfield, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ward system of, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>——, list of wards in, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - - <li>——, weavers’ gild of, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> - - <li>——, watch and ward in, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William archdeacon of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William chamberlain of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> - <li class="hangingindent1"><i>See also</i> <a href="#St_Paul">St. Paul’s</a>; <a href="#St_Martin">St. Martin’s</a>; <a href="#Derman">Derman</a>; <a href="#Islington">Islington</a>; - <a href="#Andrew">Andrew</a>; <a href="#Henry">Henry</a>; <a href="#Oath">Oath</a>. - </li> - - <li>London, Maurice, bishop of, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, Robert bishop of, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>; <i>see also</i> <a href="#Richard">Richard</a>.</li> - - <li>London and Middlesex, ‘firma’ of, - <a href="#Page_229">229–234</a>, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> - - <li>Longchamp, William, a London charter of, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his struggle with John, - <a href="#Page_207">207–218</a>, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - - <li>——, legation of, - <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, - <a href="#Page_212">212–213</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Henry brother of William, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Daniel clerk of William, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Lorengus, Walter, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> - - <li>Lotharingia, <i>see</i> <a href="#Albert">Albert</a>.</li> - - <li>Luard, Dr., - <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</li> - - <li>Lubbock, Sir J., - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> - - <li>Luci, Richard de, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">M</p> - -<ul> - <li>Mackay, Dr. Æneas, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - - <li>Macmahon, originally Fitz Urse, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[331]</span></li> - - <li>Madden, Sir Frederic, - <a href="#Page_202">202</a>.</li> - - <li>Mærleswegen the sheriff, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Maitland, Prof., - <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</li> - - <li>Maldon, charter of Henry II. to, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>——, writ relating to, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.</li> - - <li>Malet, William, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> - - <li>Malone, Father, - <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - - <li>Mandeville, Geoffrey (I.) de, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Geoffrey (II.) de, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, earl of Essex, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, charters of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118–119</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, Roheis wife of, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, justiciar of London, - <a href="#Page_117">117–118</a>.</li> - - <li>Mantel, Robert, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>‘Mark’ theory, the, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, - <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - - <li>Marshal, Gilbert the, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - - <li>——, John the, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William le, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - - <li>Marshal, earl, use of phrase, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, creation of an, - <a href="#Page_313">313–315</a>.</li> - - <li>Marshal, fees and duties of the, - <a href="#Page_310">310–312</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314–315</a>.</li> - - <li>——, development of his office, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - - <li>Marshal’s office, treatise on, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> - - <li>Marshalship, descent of the, - <a href="#Page_305">305–306</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Martel, William, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Matilda, Empress, writ of, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, expelled from London, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li> - - <li>Matilda wife of William I., - <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, - <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, - <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - - <li>Mauduit, Robert, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William, chamberlain, - <a href="#Page_81">81–82</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William, Domesday tenant, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - - <li>Mayor, a, associated with the Commune, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">but not essential to it, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>.</li> - - <li>Meath, feudal settlement of, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - - <li>Merton priory, foundation of, - <a href="#Page_122">122–123</a>.</li> - - <li>Meyer, M. Paul, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> - - <li id="Middlesex">Middlesex, ‘Hidagium’ of, - <a href="#Page_257">257–260</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Danegeld of, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, - <a href="#Page_260">260</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Inquest of 1212 in, - <a href="#Page_264">264–265</a>, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Modus tenendi Parliamentum</i>, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>.</li> - - <li>——, date of, - <a href="#Page_317">317–318</a>.</li> - - <li>Montfort, Hugh de, constable of Dover, - <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Montfort, Simon de, besieges Rochester castle, - <a href="#Page_54">54–55</a>.</li> - - <li>Moran, Cardinal, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, - <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, - <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, - <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - - <li>Morris, Father, - <a href="#Page_173">173–177</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Mowbray and Segrave, <i>see</i> <a href="#Nottingham">Nottingham, Thomas earl of</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">N</p> - -<ul> - <li>Naas, barons of the, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - - <li>Nangle, Gilbert de, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - - <li>Nantes, Master William de, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Neatgild, <i>see</i> <a href="#Cornage">Cornage</a>.</li> - - <li>Newcastle, ward service of, - <a href="#Page_283">283–284</a>, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Norfolk, Margaret ‘Marshal,’ countess of, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Norgate, Miss, - <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, - <a href="#Page_177">177–184</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191–196</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, - <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, - <a href="#Page_246">246–247</a>.</li> - - <li>Normandy, no ‘blanch ferm’ in, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> - - <li>——, exchequer of, under Henry I., - <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[332]</span></li> - - <li>Northumberland, cornage payments in, - <a href="#Page_282">282–286</a>, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a>.</li> - - <li>——, drengs and thegns of, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Inquest of 1212 in, - <a href="#Page_270">270–271</a>.</li> - - <li>——, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294–295</a>.</li> - - <li>Nottingham herald, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Nottingham">Nottingham, Thomas Mowbray, earl of, created Earl Marshal, - <a href="#Page_313">313–315</a>, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, - <a href="#Page_319">319–320</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his challenge, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li> - - <li>Nugent, Gilbert de, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> - - <li>Numbers, Mediæval, exaggeration of, - <a href="#Page_289">289–290</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">O</p> - -<ul> - <li id="Oath">Oath of the Commune of London, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">of freemen of London, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">of ‘twenty-four’ Councillors, - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">of Common Council of London, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a>;</li> - <li class="i1">of Aldermen of London, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - - <li>Octodenarii, <i>see</i> <a href="#Huitdeniers">Huitdeniers</a>.</li> - - <li>Oger a Domesday tenant, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> - - <li>O’Grady, Mr. Standish, - <a href="#Page_137">137–139</a>.</li> - - <li>Old feoffment, <i>see</i> <a href="#Vetus"><i>Vetus</i></a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Oman, Mr. C., and his works, - <a href="#Page_39">39–61</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, - <a href="#Page_293">293–301</a>;</li> - <li class="i1"><i>see also</i> <a href="#Archer">Archer</a>.</li> - - <li>Ordgar the deacon, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - - <li>Ordgar “le prude,” - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> - - <li>Orford, castle at, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - - <li>Orpen, Mr. G. A., - <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - - <li>Oxford, number of students at, - <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.</li> - - <li>——, seizure of the bishops at, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> - - <li>Oxford, Ralf de, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">P</p> - -<ul> - <li>Palisade, dissolving views of the, - <a href="#Page_43">43–49</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Pares</i> in municipalities, - <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.</li> - - <li>Paris, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_202">202–206</a>.</li> - - <li>Parish and the township, the, - <a href="#Page_10">10–12</a>.</li> - - <li>Parliament, creation in, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - - <li>Pavily, Reginald de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li id="Peace">Peace, the king’s, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>.</li> - - <li>Peers, early mention of a man’s, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Pembroke">Pembroke, Gilbert de Clare (1st) earl of (? ‘Strongbow’), - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Gilbert Marshal, earl of, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, ——, confused with Gilbert de Clare, earl of, - <a href="#Page_302">302–305</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, Richard de Clare, (2nd) earl of (‘Strongbow’), - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, daughter of, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> - - <li>——, ——, alleged son of, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Walter Marshal, earl of, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William Marshal, earl of, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</li> - - <li>——, William (II.), Marshal, earl of, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> - - <li>Pembroke, Henry II. at, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Percy, Henry de, marshal, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> - - <li>Peter son of Alan, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>.</li> - - <li>Peterborough, Brand, abbot of, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> - - <li>Physicians, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li>Place-names, plea for classification of, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</li> - - <li id="Pleas">Pleas in London, - <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a>.</li> - - <li>Pont de l’arche, William de, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> - - <li>Porchester castle and the chamberlainship, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[333]</span></li> - - <li>Port, Hugh de, - <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> - - <li>Porter, serjeanty of being castle, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</li> - - <li id="Possession">Possession, appeal to, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Powell, Prof. York, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, - <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a>.</li> - - <li>Prendergast, Maurice de, - <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, - <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> - - <li>Puintel, William, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">R</p> - -<ul> - <li>Ralf son of Algod, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - - <li>Ramsay, Sir James, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - - <li>Ramsey Abbey, endowments of, - <a href="#Page_104">104</a>.</li> - - <li>Records, value of, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Book"><i>Red Book of the Exchequer</i>, correction of errors in, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, - <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a> <i>et seq.</i>, - <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a> <i>et seq.</i>, - <a href="#Page_278">278–286</a>.</li> - - <li>——, alleged loss of transcripts in, - <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</li> - - <li>Regan, Maurice, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_143">143–144</a>.</li> - - <li>Regenbald, priest and chancellor, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> - - <li>Rents, crown, payable in kind, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> - - <li>Ria, Avelina de, - <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> - - <li id="Richard">Richard I., in his father’s lifetime, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his coronation, - <a href="#Page_201">201–206</a>.</li> - - <li>——, objects to a Commune, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>.</li> - - <li>——, leaves for the east, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his imprisonment in Germany, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</li> - - <li>——, his ‘redemption,’ - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</li> - - <li>Richard II., troubles under, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, - <a href="#Page_307">317–320</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Richard of Devizes, - <a href="#Page_208">208–212</a>, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, - <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, - <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, - <a href="#Page_227">227–228</a>.</li> - - <li>Richard, son of Bishop Nigel, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>——, treasurer, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</li> - - <li>Richard son of Osbert, constable, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li>Richard son of Reiner, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>Richard son of William I., - <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - - <li>Riddlesford, Walter de, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> - - <li>Riley, Mr., - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> - - <li>Rinuccini, his mission to Ireland, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> - - <li>Ripariis, Margaret de, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - - <li>Robert son of Bernard, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Robert son of Leofstan, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</li> - - <li>Rochelle, La, Commune of, - <a href="#Page_248">248–251</a>.</li> - - <li>Rochester castle, - <a href="#Page_54">54–56</a>.</li> - - <li>Roger, chancellor to Stephen, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Roger mayor of London, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>Roger ‘nepos Huberti,’ - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>.</li> - - <li>Roll, a king’s, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> - - <li>Rouen, Hugh archbishop of, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Rotrou archbishop of, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, Walter (de Coutances) archbishop of, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, - <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>.</li> - - <li>——, charter of Duke Henry to, - <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</li> - - <li>——, charter of Henry II. to, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Commune of, - <a href="#Page_244">244–251</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Établissements de, - <a href="#Page_239">239–241</a>, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, - <a href="#Page_247">247–251</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Mayor of, - <a href="#Page_247">247–249</a>.</li> - - <li>——, vicomte of, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>.</li> - - <li>——, watch at, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> - - <li>Ruffus, William, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Ruilli, Robert de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>Rumold, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Bernard son of, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[334]</span></li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">S</p> - -<ul> - <li>St. Bees, gift to, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> - - <li>St. Martin, Alvred de St., - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="St_Martin">St. Martin’s-le-Grand, deans of, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114–117</a>.</li> - - <li>——, canons of, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114–115</a>, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li>——, schools of, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - - <li id="St_Paul">St. Paul’s, the canons of, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Ralf chancellor of, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li> - - <li>——, chantry in, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> - - <li>——, chapter of, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> - - <li>——, restoration to, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> - - <li>St. Quentin, Commune of, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, - <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</li> - - <li>Saintes, Commune of, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Salisbury, Roger bishop of, - <a href="#Page_66">66–67</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114–116</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Salisbury, John of, and the alleged grant of Ireland, - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, - <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Scalam, ad</i>, payment, - <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a>, - <a href="#Page_92">92–93</a>, - <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</li> - - <li>Schools, <i>see</i> <a href="#London">London</a>.</li> - - <li>Scots, <i>see</i> <a href="#Bannockburn">Bannockburn</a>.</li> - - <li>Scots, the King of, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li>Seebohm, Mr., - <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, - <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, - <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> - - <li id="Sees">Sées, Arnulf archdeacon of, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li> - - <li>Segrave, Nicholas de, marshal, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li> - - <li id="Seisin">Seisin, restoration of, - <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li> - - <li>Selby, Mr. Walford, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</li> - - <li>Serjeanty, tenure by, - <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Servitium debitum</i>, the, - <a href="#Page_58">58–60</a>.</li> - - <li>Sevenhampton, Wilts, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - - <li>Sharpe, Dr., - <a href="#Page_238">238</a>.</li> - - <li>Sheriff, an attorney of a, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</li> - - <li>Sheriffs’ aid, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - - <li id="Sheriffs">Sheriffs and ‘custodes,’ - <a href="#Page_229">229–233</a>, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li>——, at the Exchequer, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - - <li>——, and the <i>firma</i>, - <a href="#Page_230">230–231</a>.</li> - - <li>——, under Henry I., - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - - <li>Sheriffs, the inquest of, - <a href="#Page_125">125–136</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Shield">Shield wall, the English, - <a href="#Page_39">39–44</a>, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, - <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> - - <li>Skeat, Prof., - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>.</li> - - <li>Slane, barons of, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> - - <li>Somerset, stereotyped rents in, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Ulster families from, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - - <li>Spatz, Dr., - <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> - - <li>Standard, battle of the, - <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> - - <li>Stapleton, Mr., - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, - <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, - <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.</li> - - <li>Stephen, king, - <a href="#Page_97">97–100</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114–116</a>.</li> - - <li>Stevenson, Mr. W. H., - <a href="#Page_28">28–35</a>.</li> - - <li>Stotevilla, William de, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> - - <li>Stratton, Adam de, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</li> - - <li>Stratton, Wilts, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</li> - - <li>Strogoil, <i>see</i> <a href="#Pembroke">Pembroke</a>.</li> - - <li>Strongbow, <i>see</i> <a href="#Pembroke">Pembroke</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Stubbs, Dr., - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, - <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, - <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, - <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, - <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, - <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207–211</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, - <a href="#Page_225">225–226</a>, - <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, - <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, - <a href="#Page_320">320</a>.</li> - - <li>Surrey, place-names of, - <a href="#Page_2">2–3</a>.</li> - - <li>——, sheriffs of, - <a href="#Page_121">121–123</a>.</li> - - <li>Sussex, place-names of, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li><i>Swereford</i>, erroneous ‘dictum’ of, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> - - <li>——, error of, - <a href="#Page_132">132</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">T</p> - -<ul> - <li>Taylor, Canon Isaac, - <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Terræ datæ</i> accounted for, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> - - <li>‘Testa de Nevill,’ nature of, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">——, returns of great Inquest (1212) in, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_277">277</a>.</li> - - <li>——, misdescribed on the title page, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[335]</span></li> - - <li><i>Testudo</i>, <i>see</i> <a href="#Shield">Shield wall</a>.</li> - - <li>Thegnage, Tenure in, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</li> - - <li id="Thierri">Thierri, son of Derman, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Bertram son of, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Thomas ‘of Brotherton,’ marshal, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</li> - - <li>Thoms, Mr., - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> - - <li><i>Ton</i>, the suffix, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a> <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Tosard, Avicia, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Walter, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</li> - - <li>Totemism, alleged traces of, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> - - <li>Tout, Prof., - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> - - <li>Towcester, the moated mound at, - <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a>.</li> - - <li id="Towns">Towns, assessment of, for Danegeld, - <a href="#Page_257">257–258</a>.</li> - - <li>Township and the parish, the, - <a href="#Page_10">10–12</a>.</li> - - <li>Treasurer, Henry the, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Richard the, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> - - <li>Treasury, charters kept in the, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> - - <li>——, plea held in the, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li> - - <li>Treasury, records in, searched, - <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</li> - - <li>Treasury, the, at Winchester, - <a href="#Page_75">75–81</a>, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, - <a href="#Page_178">178</a>.</li> - - <li>——, audit of, - <a href="#Page_76">76–78</a>.</li> - - <li>——, the Exchequer a development of, - <a href="#Page_80">80–84</a>.</li> - - <li>——, in Normandy, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>.</li> - - <li>——, chamberlainship of, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a>.</li> - - <li id="Twynham">Twynham, deanery of, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> - - <li>Tynemouth, prior of, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">U</p> - -<ul> - <li>Ulf son of Topi, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> - - <li>Ulkotes, Philip de, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>.</li> - - <li>Ulster, conquest of, - <a href="#Page_161">161–162</a>.</li> - - <li>——, feudal settlement of, - <a href="#Page_162">162–163</a>.</li> - -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">V</p> - -<ul> - <li>Valoines, Barony of, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> - - <li>Ver, Aubrey de, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - - <li>Ver, Robert de, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> - - <li>Verdun, Ralf de, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li id="Vetus"><i>Vetus feoffamentum</i>, meaning of, - <a href="#Page_58">58–60</a>.</li> - - <li>Vetulus, <i>see</i> <a href="#Viel">Viel</a>.</li> - - <li id="Viel">Viel, or Vetulus John, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> - - <li>Village, community, the, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</li> - -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">W</p> - -<ul> - <li>Wace misunderstands William of Malmesbury, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> - - <li>Wales, troops from, - <a href="#Page_293">293–295</a>, - <a href="#Page_300">300–301</a>.</li> - - <li>Walter, Theobald, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li> - - <li>Warwickshire, early <i>firma</i> from, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li> - - <li>——, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294–296</a>.</li> - - <li>Wassail, - <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - - <li>Waterford, Henry II. at, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>——, synod at, - <a href="#Page_180">180–181</a>.</li> - - <li>Watson, Mr. G. W., - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li> - - <li>Wendover, - <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</li> - - <li>Westminster Abbey, its lands in Middlesex, - <a href="#Page_259">259–260</a>.</li> - - <li class="hangingindent" id="Westminster">——, its lands in Worcestershire and Glo’stershire, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>.</li> - - <li>Westminister, Exchequer at, - <a href="#Page_79">79–81</a>.</li> - - <li>Westmoreland, cornage of, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> - - <li>Wexford, Henry II. at, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> - - <li>William I., charters of, - <a href="#Page_28">28–37</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[336]</span></li> - - <li>William the chamberlain, <i>see</i> <a href="#London">London</a>.</li> - - <li>William of Malmesbury, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a>.</li> - - <li>William of Newburgh, - <a href="#Page_208">208–212</a>, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</li> - - <li>William, son of Isabel, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> - - <li>Winchester, Henry bishop of, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114–117</a>.</li> - - <li>Winchester, conference at, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, - <a href="#Page_214">214</a>.</li> - - <li>——, a council at, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Inquest of 1212 on, - <a href="#Page_272">272</a>.</li> - - <li>——, municipality of, - <a href="#Page_242">242–243</a>.</li> - - <li>——, origin of its corporation, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a>.</li> - - <li>——, the Treasury at, - <a href="#Page_75">75–81</a>.</li> - - <li>Windsor, William de, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>.</li> - - <li>Worcester, Mauger bishop of, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - - <li>Worcestershire, early <i>firma</i> from, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li> - - <li>——, Inquest of 1212 in, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li> - - <li>Wyzo, the goldsmith son of Leofstan, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="p-index">Y</p> - -<ul> - - <li>Yarmouth, Inquest of 1212 on, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li> - - <li>York, Ealdred, archbishop of, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> - - <li>Yorkshire, troops from, - <a href="#Page_294">294–296</a>.</li> -</ul> - -<p class="center p6 xs">Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[337]</span></p> - -<h2 class="sm">BY THE SAME AUTHOR</h2> -</div> - - <div class="figcenter" id="i_369"> - <img - class="p0" - src="images/i_369.jpg" - alt="" /> - </div> - -<p class="center xxl">Geoffrey de Mandeville</p> - -<p class="center">A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY</p> - -<p class="center sm">pp. xii., 461</p> - -<p>“For many reasons this is the most remarkable historical work which -has recently appeared ... at once received fitting recognition as the -most accurate and penetrating work that had till then appeared on the -subject.”—<i>Spectator.</i></p> - -<p>“It is not easy, within the limits of a review, to do justice to -the learning and ability which characterize Mr. Round’s study.... -Indeed few books so learned and suggestive have recently been -published.”—<i>Literary World.</i></p> - -<p>“The work is most skilfully and ably done, and a whole series of -important discoveries is derived from Mr. Round’s efforts.... The -result is a very large addition to our knowledge.... Mr. Round has -carried through an undertaking which raises him to a foremost position -among historical scholars.”—<i>Athenæum.</i></p> - -<p>“All the vivacity, keenness, freshness, and accuracy that have marked -Mr. Round’s previous writings.”—<i>Manchester Guardian.</i></p> - -<p>“Fresh life from dry records is what Mr. Round aims at.... He -has permanently associated his name with the scientific study of -Anglo-Norman history.”—Prof. <span class="smcap">Liebermann</span> in <i>English -Historical Review</i>.</p> - -<p>“M. J. H. Round vient de nous donner une étude des plus pénétrantes et -fécondes ... c’est un véritable modèle, et l’on doit souhaiter pour nos -voisins qu’il fasse école.”—<i>Revue Historique.</i></p> - -<p>“Almost, if not quite, the most original effort in history during the -last twenty years was a twelfth century biographical study in which the -value, picturesque and human, of charter evidence was illustrated with -unmatched force.”—<i>Athenæum.</i></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p class="center xxl">Feudal England</p> -</div> - -<p class="center">HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE XIth AND XIIth CENTURIES</p> - -<p class="center sm">pp. xiv., 587</p> - -<p>“Every one who has any care for the true, the intimate history of -mediæval England will at once get this book.... It contains some of the -most important contributions that have been made of late years to the -earlier chapters of English history.... The day for the charters has -come, and with the day the man.... His right to speak is established, -and we are listening.”—<i>Athenæum.</i></p> - -<p>“The whole book leaves the stamp of deep research and of a singularly -unbiassed mind.... Mr. Round has set all intending researchers an -admirable example ... if we ever get a work which is to do for -the early institutions of England what the great Coulanges did -for those of France, we expect it will be from the pen of Mr. -Round.”—<i>Spectator.</i></p> - -<p>“Not the least of Mr. Round’s merits is that the next generation will -never want to know how much rubbish he has swept or helped to sweep -away. He has done more than any one scholar to put us in the way of -reading Domesday Book aright. He has illustrated by abundant examples -the wisdom and the necessity of ... patient study of our documents, ... -his acute and ever watchful criticism.”—<span class="smcap">Sir F. Pollock</span> in -<i>English Historical Review</i>.</p> - -<p>“In <i>Feudal England</i> as in <i>Geoffrey de Mandeville</i> -he displays consummate skill in the critical study of records, -and uses the evidence thus obtained to check and supplement the -chroniclers.”—<span class="smcap">Dr. Gross</span> in <i>American Historical Review</i>.</p> - -<p>“Plein de faits, d’observations pénétrantes, de conclusions neuves et -de grande portée, ... il a réussi à rétablir la logique où, avant lui, -on ne trouvait que confusion.”—<i>Revue Historique.</i></p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Speech in the House of Commons (<i>Times</i>, 6th June, -1899).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> It is important to observe that the Pope’s letter of 20th -September, 1172, contains an unmistakable reference to the (forged) -Donation of Constantine in the words “Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet -in Insula quam in terra magna te continua” (see p. <a href="#Page_197">197</a> below). Dr. -Zinkeisen, in his paper on “the Donation of Constantine as applied -by the Roman Church,” speaks of this letter as “a genuine bull of -Alexander III.” (‘English Historical Review,’ ix. 629), but strangely -overlooks the allusion, and asserts that he could find no use made by -the Popes of the forged Donation at this period.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> See Mr. Scargill-Bird’s ‘Guide to the Public Records.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> ‘Feudal Aids’ (Calendars of State Papers, etc.), vol. i., -pp. ix.-xi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Director of the Royal Historical Society; Lecturer on -Palæography and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics, etc., -etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> See pp. 131, 135, 283, etc., and Index.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> “The surrender of the Isle of Wight” (in ‘Genealogical -Magazine,’ vol. i., p. 1) and “The Red Book of the Exchequer” (in -‘Genealogist,’ July, 1897).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> January, 1899 (xiv. 150–151). The first paper in my -treatise deals with “the antiquity of scutage,” and contains further -evidence for my contention that, contrary to the accepted view, this -important tax was levied before the days of Henry II. Mr. Hall replied -that it was “curious to find” me seriously citing “forgeries,” the -evidence of which he ridiculed, without deigning to discuss them.</p> - -<p>The “most conclusive document” (as I termed it) which I cited in my -favour is a charter of the time of Stephen, which I printed in full -in my treatise (pp. 8–9). Of this I need scarcely say more than that -the authorities of the British Museum have now selected it for special -exhibition among the most interesting of their charters, and have drawn -particular attention to its important mention of scutage (see the -official guide to the MSS., p. 40).</p> - -<p>The value of Mr. Hall’s assertions, and the futility of his attempted -reply, could hardly be more effectively exposed. I may add that I -have still a few copies of my treatise available for presentation to -libraries used by scholars.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> See Index.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> Archæological Review, iv. 235.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> Prefixed to the Domesday volume published by the Sussex -Archæological Society.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> A generation later than Domesday we find lands at -Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) given to Lewes Priory, which “usque ad -modernum tempus silve fuerunt” (Cott. MS. Nero c. iii. fo. 217).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> Ibid. Dr. Guest suggested of Ælle, at the battle of -Mercred’s Burn (485), that “on this occasion he may have met Ambrosius -and a national army; for Huntingdon tells us that the ‘reges et tyranni -Brittanum’ were his opponents.” But if the Saxon advance was eastwards, -it could not well have brought them face to face with the main force of -the Britons.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> English Village Community, pp. 126, 127, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> Social England, i. 122 <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> 2nd ed. p. 178.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> English Village Community, pp. 169, 170.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> He writes, of <i>ing</i>, that “Mr. Kemble had overlooked -no less than 47 names in Kent, 38 in Sussex, and 34 in Essex” (ed. -1888, p. 82).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> The Lewes Priory Charters afford instances in point.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> Archæological Review, iv. 233 <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> One would like to know on what ground the suffix -“-well,” familiar in Essex (Broadwell, Chadwell, Hawkwell, Netteswell, -Prittlewell, Ridgwell, Roxwell, Runwell), but curiously absent in -Sussex, is derived from the Roman ‘villa.’ It is found in Domesday -precisely the same as at the present day. Yet Professor Earle writes -of “Wilburgewella” that it is “an interesting name as showing the -naturalized form of the Latin <i>villa</i>, of which the ordinary -Saxon equivalent was <i>haga</i>” (Land Charters, p. 130). This latter -equation seems to be most surprising. It is traceable apparently to a -charter of 855, in which we read of “unam villam quod nos Saxonice ‘an -hagan’ dicimus” (Ib. p. 336), an obviously suspicious phrase. There is -no ground for terming the ‘Ceolmundinge haga’ of a starred document -(Ib. p. 315) a villa, while the ‘haga’ of another (Ib. p. 364) is -clearly a <i>haw</i>, as in ‘Bassishaw.’ Yet another charter (Ib. p. -447) is not in point.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> But the more closely one investigates the subject the -more difficult one finds it to speak with absolute confidence as to -the original existence, in any given instance, of an <i>ing</i> in the -modern suffixes <i>-ingham</i> and <i>-ington</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> “It is probable that all the primitive villages in whose -name the patronymic <i>ing</i> occurs were originally colonized by -communities united either really by blood or by the belief in a common -descent (see Kemble)”—Stubbs (Const. Hist). “Harling abode by Harling -and Billing by Billing, and each ‘wick’ and ‘ham’ and ‘stead’ and ‘tun’ -took its name from the kinsmen who dwelt together in it. In this way -the house or ham of the Billings was Billingham, and the township of -the Harlings was Harlington”—Green (‘Making of England,’ p. 188). -“Many family names appear in different parts of England.... Thus we -find the Bassingas at Bassingbourn.... The Billings have left their -stamp at Billing, in Northampton; Billingford, in Norfolk; Billingham, -in Durham; Billingley, in Yorkshire; Billinghurst, in Sussex; and -five other places in various other counties. Birmingham, Nottingham, -Wellington, Faringdon, Warrington, and Wallingford are well-known names -formed on the same analogy.... Speaking generally these clan names -are thickest along the original English coast, etc.”—Grant Allen -(Anglo-Saxon Britain,’ p. 43).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> “The German theory, formerly generally accepted, that -free village communities were the rule among the English, seems to have -little direct evidence to support it” (Social England, i. 125).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> Ibid. i. 130; cf. Canon Taylor: “The Saxon immigration -was doubtless an immigration of clans.... In the Saxon districts of the -island we find the names not of individuals, but of clans.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> The exceptions that he admits are too slight to affect -this general statement.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> Stubbs, <i>ut supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a> Canon Taylor relies on the passage, “Ida was Eopping, -Eoppa was Esing,” etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> Saxons in England, i. 449–456, where he treats such names -as “Brytfordingas” as “patronymical.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> Ed. 1888, p. 79.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> I do not overlook the possibility of ‘hall’ (<i>hala</i>) -being a subsequent addition (as in post-Domesday times), but in these -cases it was part of the name at least as early as the Conquest, and -the presumption must be all in favour of the name being derived from an -individual not from a clan.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> Saxons in England, i. 56.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> Ibid. i. 58 <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> “Hence we perceive the value of this word [<i>ing</i>] as -an instrument of historical research. For a great number of cases it -enables us to assign to each of the great Germanic clans its precise -share in the colonization of the several portions of our island.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> Anglo-Saxon Britain, pp. 81–2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> Heming or Haming was a personal name which occurs in -Domesday, and which has originated a modern surname.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> Even by Kemble, as in ‘Saxons in England,’ i. 60–79; but -he terms it a “slight” cause of inaccuracy.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> ‘Wihtmund minister’ is found in 938 (Earle’s ‘Land -Charters,’ p. 326), and ‘Widmundesfelt’ in the earliest extant Essex -charter (Ib. p. 13). It is, therefore, amazing that Professor Earle, -dealing with the phrase “æt Hwætmundes stane” (Ib. p. 317), should -have gone out of his way to adopt a theory started by Mr. Kerslake in -the ‘Antiquary,’ connecting it with the “sculptured stone in Panier -Alley,” writing: “If now the <i>mund</i> of ‘Wheatmund’ might be this -<i>mand</i> [basket], then <i>hwætmundes stane</i> would be the stone -of the wheatmaund, and the ‘antiquum petrosum ædificium’ may have been -the block of masonry that was once the platform or basis of a market -cross which had become the usual pitching-place of cereal produce” (Ib. -p. 318). This is an admirable instance of that perverse Folk-etymology -which has worked such havoc with our place-names. Morant’s derivation -in the last century of ‘Widemondefort,’ from ‘a wide mound,’ is -comparatively harmless in its simplicity.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> Calendar of Bodleian Charters, p. 80.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> ‘Ac’ was the Domesday equivalent of ‘oak.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> Dorset Domesday, p. 57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> So Kemble derived it from the “Færingas.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> Saxons in England, i. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> Saxons in England, i. 475.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> I have shown (‘Feudal England,’ 103–106) that the -<i>solanda</i> of other counties is not (as Seebohm thought, following -Hale) in any way the same as the <i>sulung</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> See Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ pp. 18, 24, 33, 49, 51, 54, -58, 60, 75, 78, 80, 82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 105, 124, 126, 133, 142, 152, -209.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> Ibid. pp. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–24, 26, 29, 31, -40, 45, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> Feudal England, pp. 421 <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> English Historical Review, xi. 740, 741.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> Norm. Conq., iv. 56–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> According to the Peterborough Chronicle, he gave 40 marcs -for this reconciliation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> Norman Conquest, vol. iv., App. C.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> English Historical Review, xii. 109, 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> Compare Dr. Sheppard’s remarks in 5th Report Hist. MSS., -i. 452 <i>a</i>. It would take us too far afield to undertake the -distinct task of reconciling the clause in A.<span class="allsmcap">I</span> (Ibid.) with -Lanfranc’s letter to the pope, which implies, as Mr. Freeman observes, -that there was but one hearing, namely, that at Winchester (Norm. -Conq., iv. 358). The clause in A.<span class="allsmcap">I</span> asserts an adjournment -of the hearing at Easter (Winchester), and a decision of the case at -Whitsuntide (Windsor).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> I need not print the list, as it will be found in the -‘Monasticon,’ and in Kempe’s ‘Historical Notices of St. Martin’s le -Grand,’ as well as in Mr. Stevenson’s paper.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> E. H. R., xii. 109 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> Norm. Conq., vol. iv., App. C.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 435. I do not guarantee -the derivation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> Mon. Ang., ii. 302.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> He is also clearly the “Eustachius de Huntedune” -mentioned under Stamford (D. B. 336 <i>b</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> Norman Conquest, vol. ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> Const. Hist., i. 243.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> pp. viii., 299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> See for the above quotations my ‘Feudal England,’ pp. -346, 354–6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> William was familiar with this formation, for he makes, -Mr. Freeman wrote, Henry I. bid his English stand firm “in the array of -the ancient shield wall.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> Feudal England, p. 354.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> Norman Conquest (2nd ed., iii. 764).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> Miss Norgate recognises this as “the English shield wall” -(‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 292).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> Art of War, p. 26; History of the Art of War, p. 163.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> See, for these quotations, Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ -iii. (2nd ed.), 491 (where he quotes parallels from Dion Cassius and -Ammianus), and compare my ‘Feudal England,’ p. 358.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> Ibid. p. 58.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> Ibid. p. 36.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> See above, p. 40.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> The <i>spissa testudo</i> of Florence is “of course” -conveniently ignored.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> “When the compact shield wall was broken, William thrust -his horsemen into the gaps” (p. 300). Just so.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> ‘Athenæum,’ 6th Aug., 1898. Mr. Oman had previously -tried to escape from his own words by pleading that “silence does -not mean a change of opinion” (‘Academy,’ 9th June, 1894). But I had -been careful to explain that I did not rely on his ‘silence,’ but on -his actually <i>substituting</i> ‘shield wall’ for ‘palisades’ in the -above reproduced sentence (‘Academy,’ 19th May, 1894). Similarly, Mr. -Oman, as Col. Lloyd has observed (‘English Historical Review,’ x. 538), -“takes a different view” of the English formation at Crecy in the -latter of these two works from that which he had taken in the earlier, -substituting a wholly different arrangement of the archers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> Mr. Freeman wrote of a “fortress of timber” with “wooden -walls,” composed of “firm barricades of ash and other timber” (see -‘Feudal England,’ p. 340). Mr. George emphatically rejected this -conception (‘Battles of English History’).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> ‘Norman Conquest,’ iii. (2nd ed.), 476, faithfully -reproducing Henry of Huntingdon’s “dudum antequam coirent bellatores.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> Guy of Amiens describes him as “Agmina præcedens -innumerosa ducis.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> Art of War, p. 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> Social England, p. 299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> Academy, 9th June, 1894.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 154.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> Mr. Oman, in his latest work, makes “brushwood” the -material. I had pointed out “the difficulty of hauling timber” under -the circumstances (‘Feudal England,’ p. 342).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> English Historical Review, ix. 18; cf. ix. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> Ibid. ix. 232, 237–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> History of the Art of War, p. vi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> English Historical Review, ix. 239.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> Ibid. p. 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> See Feudal England, pp. 354–8, 392.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> Die Schlacht von Hastings (Berlin), 1896.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> Athenæum, July 30, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> Mr. Oman, for instance, writes of the English “ditch -and the mound made of the earth cast up from it and crowned by the -breastworks” (p. 154), although Mr. Freeman treated “the English fosse” -as quite distinct from “the palisades, and at a distance from them” -(‘English Historical Review,’ ix. 213). Mr. Archer has had to admit -this.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> This is also the conclusion of Sir J. Ramsay.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> Feudal England, p. 361.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> Feudal England, pp. 354–358, 363, 367–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> Ibid. p. 358.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> Ibid. pp. 356–358.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> For further details on this subject, and a bibliography -of the whole controversy, see ‘Sussex Archæological Collections,’ vol. -xlii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> “Lincoln Castle, as regards its earthworks, belongs -to that type of English fortress in which the mound has its proper -ditch, and is placed on one side of an appended area, also with its -bank and ditch.... In general, these fortresses are much alike, and -all belong to that class of burhs known to have been thrown up by the -English in the ninth and tenth centuries” (Clark’s ‘Mediæval Military -Architecture,’ ii. 192).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> 9th July, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> Mediæval Military Architecture, i. 24, 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> Athenæum, July, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 525. The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> Athenæum, 30th July, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> Ibid., 6th August, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> Ibid., 13th August, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> The acting editor of the ‘Athenæum’ refused to insert my -final reply explaining this.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> Appendix to ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> Flores Historiarum (Rolls), ii. 490.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> Ibid. p. 491.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> “Ipsi, obsidione turris fortissimæ, quam bellicis -insultibus et machinarum ictibus viisque subterraneis expugnatam, -fuissent in proximo adepturi, protinus dimissa, Londonias repetierunt” -(‘Flores Historiarum,’ ii. 491). Compare ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> Archæological Journal, xx. 205–223 (1863).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> First in the ‘English Historical Review’ and then in my -‘Feudal England.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> This was clearly the rule, though there may have been a -few exceptions. Compare p. 155 below.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> Feudal England, p. 234.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 359.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 450, 451.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> History of the Art of War.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> Feudal England, p. 234.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 360.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> History of the Art of War, p. 362.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> I use the term, for convenience, in 1168.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> “<i>Habeo</i> ij milites et dimidium feffatos de veteri -feffamento” (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 292).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> I may add that Mr. Oman misquotes this <i>carta</i> in -his endeavour to extract from it support for his error about the ‘five -hides’ (p. 57 above). I place his rendering by the side of the text.</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">... “unusquisque de i virgata. Et ita habetis ij milites - et dimidium feodatos.”</td> - <td class="cht1">... “only for one virgate each. <i>From them you can make - up a knight</i>, and so you have two and a half knights enfeoffed” (p. 362).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p>The words I have italicised are, it will be seen, interpolated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> See also Eyton’s ‘History of Shropshire,’ i. 232, and -the ‘Cartæ baronum’ (1166) <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> This allusion has perhaps been somewhat overlooked by -legal historians.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> Curiosities and Antiquities of the Exchequer.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> “Videtur autem eis obviare qui dicunt album firmæ -a temporibus Anglicorum cœpisse, quod in libro judiciario in quo -totius regni descriptio diligens continetur, et tam de tempore regis -Edwardi quam de tempore regis Willelmi sub quo factus est, singulorum -fundorum valentia exprimitur, nulla prorsus de albo firmæ fit mentio” -(‘Dialogus,’ I. vi.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> Rot. magni Scacc. Norm., I. xv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> The Foundations of England, i. 524; ii. 324.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> “Ubi cum per aliquos annos persedisset, comperit hoc -solutionis genere non plene fisco satisfieri: licet enim in numero et -pondere videretur satisfactum, non tamen in materia ... Ut igitur regiæ -simul et publicæ provideretur utilitati, habito super hoc ipso regis -consilio, constitutum est ut fieret ordine prædicto firmæ combustio vel -examinatio” (‘Dialogus,’ I. vii.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> “Libræ arsæ et pensatæ,” “Libræ ad arsuram et pensum,” -“Libræ ad pensum et arsuram,” “Libræ ad pondus et arsuram,” “Libræ ad -ignem et ad pensum,” etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> Even Sir James Ramsay, though rightly sceptical -as to the attribution of certain innovations, by the writer of -the ‘Dialogus,’ to Bishop Roger, holds that “the revenues of the -Anglo-Saxon kings were to a considerable extent paid in kind; and so -they were down to the time of Henry I., who abolished the practice, -establishing money payments in all cases” (i. 525).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> Cf. p. 205.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> “Hiis vero solutis secundum constitutum modum cujusque -rei, regii officiales computabant vicecomiti <i>redigentes in summam -denariorum</i>: pro mensura scilicet tritici ad panem c hominum, -solidum unum,” etc., etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> Compare my remarks on the quick growth, in those days of -erroneous tradition, in ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. -77.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> pp. 109–115. Professor Maitland has subsequently spoken -of it in two or three passages of ‘Domesday Book and Beyond.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> “The Conqueror at Exeter” (‘Feudal England’).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> D. B., i. 108.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> D. B., i. 108.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> Barnstaple rendered forty shillings ‘ad pensum’ to the -king, and twenty ‘ad numerum’ to the bishop of Coutances; Lidford sixty -‘ad pensum’; Totnes “olim reddebat iii lib. ad pensum et arsuram,” but, -after passing into private hands, its render was raised to “viii lib. -ad numerum.” Exeter itself ‘rendered’ £6 “ad pensum et arsuram” to the -king, and £12 ‘ad numerum’ for Queen Edith.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> D. B., i. 100 <i>b</i>-101.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> Feudal England, p. 115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a> D. B., i. 120.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a> Cf. Feudal England, pp. 109–110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a> Feudal England, pp. 109–110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a> After the above passage, the author proceeds: “De -summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebant in uno comitatu, -constituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. -7).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a> A Devonshire manor (i. 100 <i>b</i>) is entered as -rendering “in firma regis x solidos ad pensum.” This “firma” can only -be a collective ferm from the royal manors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a> I do not wish to press the point further than the entry -proves, and consequently I leave undetermined the question whether the -‘firma regis’ was that of the whole shire, or merely that of the head -manor to which Wedmore belonged.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a> Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 142.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a> History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a> It was vehemently asserted by Mr. Hubert Hall, in his -earlier papers on the Exchequer, that the table was only divided -into columns, and that the chequered table was a delusion. He has -subsequently himself accepted the “chequered table” (see my ‘Studies on -the Red Book,’ p. 76), but Sir James Ramsay (ii. 324) has been misled -by his original assertion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a> “Sciendum vero quod per hanc taleam combustionis -dealbatur firma vicecomitis; unde in testimonium hujus rei semper -majori taleæ appensa cohæret” (‘Dialogus’).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a> pp. 523–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a> p. 105.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a> “Henricus thesaurarius,” the Domesday tenant (49), is -entered in the earlier Winchester survey <i>temp.</i> Hen. I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a> One such writ, still preserved, is printed in my -‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society). It belongs to 1191.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a> See below.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a> I punctuate it differently from Dr. Stubbs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a> Itinerary, p. 275.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a> Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a> Ibid. p. 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a> Ibid. p. 66.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a> See my ‘Calendar of Documents Preserved in France.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a> Ibid. p. 354.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a> Ibid. p. 355.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a> Ibid. p. 354.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a> See the ‘Constitutio domus Regis’:—“Willelmus Maudut -xiiii <i>d.</i> in die, et assidue in Domo Commedet,” etc. etc. He -comes next to the Treasurer.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a> Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 400.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a> See my “King Stephen and the Earl of Chester” (‘English -Historical Review,’ x. 91).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a> Testa de Nevill., 231.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a> Ibid. 235; and ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 460.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a> Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. See ‘Red Rook of the Exchequer,’ p. -664:—“Garino filio Geroldi xxxiiij lib. bl. in Worde.” Although the -subject is one of special interest for the editor, he does not index -Garin’s name here at all, while he identifies “Worde” in the Index (p. -1358), as “Worthy” (Hants), though it was Highworth, Wilts.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a> Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 355, 356.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a> “Garinus filius Geroldi Suvenhantone, per serjanteriam -cameræ (<i>sic</i>) Regis” (Ibid. p. 486). (Should ‘cameræ’ be -‘camerariæ’?). Also “ut sit Camerarius Regis” (‘Testa,’ p. 148).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a> “Margeria de Ripariis tenet villam de Creklade de -camar[aria] domini regis ad scaccarium: Eadem Margeria tenet villam de -Sevenha[m]pton cum pertinentiis de domino rege per predictum servitium” -(‘Testa de Nevill.,’ p. 153).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a> See ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ and ‘Testa de Nevill.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a> Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a> For a similar misdescription of the document preceding -it see my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a> History of the Exchequer.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a> Antiquities of the Exchequer, pp. 144–6, 165, 167.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a> At Portsmouth, the witnesses being Geoffrey the -chancellor, Nigel de Albini, and Geoffrey de Clinton.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">[193]</a> Oliver’s ‘Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis,’ p. 134.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">[194]</a> Ed. Arnold, i. 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">[195]</a> “Numero satisfaciunt; quales sunt Salop, Sudsex, -Northumberland et Cumberland” (i. 7). Shropshire is wanting on the -Roll.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">[196]</a> “Hæc per subtractionem xii denariorum e singulis libris -dealbantur” (ii. 27).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">[197]</a> Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. p. 122.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">[198]</a> Indeed, the statement that this ferm was fixed by the -Conqueror is at variance with the evidence of Domesday, which says, -“reddit <span class="allsmcap">L</span> libras ad arsuram et pensum” (i. 16).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">[199]</a> Vol. ii. p. 115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">[200]</a> It should be observed that the plea was decided by -reference to the “liber de thesauro” (Domesday Book, 156 <i>b</i>) and -that “liber ille ... sigilli regii comes est in thesauro” (‘Dialogus,’ -i. 15). Therefore, “cum orta fuerit in regno contentio de his rebus quæ -illic annotantur” (Ibid. i. 16), the plea would conveniently be held -“in thesauro.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">[201]</a> See my paper on “Bernard the Scribe” in the ‘English -Historical Review,’ 1899.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">[202]</a> Introduction to Dialogus.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">[203]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">[204]</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” (‘Gesta Stephani’; see ‘Geoffrey -de Mandeville,’ p. 2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">[205]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">[206]</a> Longmans, 1892.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">[207]</a> Assuming the regnal years of Stephen to be reckoned in -the usual manner, of which I have felt some doubts.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">[208]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 252.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">[209]</a> Ibid. p. 373.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">[210]</a> He was the third named of the fifteen benefactors, who, -to obtain the king’s confirmation, “miserunt ... quendam ex seipsis, -Ordgarum scilicet le Prude,” to Henry. He occurs in one of the St. -Paul’s documents (Hist. MSS. Report, p. 68 <i>a</i>), but what Mr. -Loftie has written about him (‘London,’ pp. 35–6) is merely based on -confusion with other Ordgars.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">[211]</a> Vol. iv. fo. 737, of the Guildhall Transcript.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">[212]</a> He appears to take his stand on possession alone.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">[213]</a> The king decides to examine the title by a proprietary -action.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">[214]</a> ‘Christo’ in Ancient Deeds, A. 6683.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">[215]</a> As is not unfrequently the case in similar narratives, -this charter is wrongly introduced; for it clearly cannot be so early -as 1137. It was edited by me in ‘Ancient Charters’ (p. 48) from -Ancient Deeds, A. 6683, and assigned to 1143–1148, as being obviously -subsequent to the fall of the earl of Essex.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">[216]</a> See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 222–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">[217]</a> Trans: ‘Englis<i>t</i>c<i>u</i>it’ (the ‘t’ and ‘u’ -being obvious misreadings). The text is, it will be seen, corrupt.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">[218]</a> Trans: ‘Crichcote.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">[219]</a> Report <i>ut supra</i>, p. 66 <i>b</i>; ‘Geoffrey de -Mandeville,’ pp. 435–6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">[220]</a> Report <i>ut supra</i>, pp. 61 <i>b</i>, 67 <i>b</i>; -cf. ‘Domesday of St. Paul’s,’ p. 124.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">[221]</a> London and Middlesex Archæological Transactions, vol. -v., pp. 477–493. These documents are the same as those entered in the -Priory’s cartulary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">[222]</a> Ibid. p. 480; cf. pp. 490, 491.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">[223]</a> London, p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">[224]</a> “Seven or eight” on p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">[225]</a> Ibid. p. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">[226]</a> Even Dr. Stubbs seems to imply this when he alludes to -“the conversion of the cnihtengild into a religious house” (‘Const. -Hist.’ [1874], i. 406).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">[227]</a> Compare “the retirement at one time of <i>seven</i> or -<i>eight</i> aldermen” only three pages before (p. 30).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">[228]</a> p. 33. So also pp. 34, 42, 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">[229]</a> Coote, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 478.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">[230]</a> Good instances in point are found in the Ramsey -cartulary, where, in 1081, a benefactor to the abbey “suscepit e -contra a domno abbate et ab omnibus fratribus plenam fraternitatem -pro rege Willelmo, et pro regina Matilda, et pro comite Roberto, et -pro semetipso, et uxore sua, et filio qui ejus erit heres, et pro -patre et matre ejus, ut sunt participes orationum, elemosinarum, et -omnium beneficiorum ipsorum, sed et omnium fratrum sive monasteriorum -a quibus societatem susceperunt in omnibus sicut ex ipsis” (i. 127–8). -Better still is this parallel: “Reynaldus abbas, et totus fratrum -conventus de Rameseya cunctis fratribus qui sunt apud Ferefeld in -gilda, salutem in Christo. Volumus ut sciatis quod vobis nostrum -fraternitatem concessimus et communionem beneficii quam pro nobismet -ipsis quotidie agimus, per Serlonem, qui vester fuit legatus ad nos, -ut sitis participes in hoc et in futuro sæculo” (i. 131). The date of -this transaction was about the same as that of the admission of the -cnihtengild to a share in the “benefits” of Holy Trinity; and the grant -was similarly made in return for an endowment.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">[231]</a> See “The First Mayor of London” (‘Antiquary,’ April, -1887).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">[232]</a> Coote, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 478.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">[233]</a> Report, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 68 <i>a</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">[234]</a> Ibid. p. 62 <i>a</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">[235]</a> 5th Report Hist. MSS., App. I., p. 446 <i>b</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">[236]</a> Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">[237]</a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 118.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">[238]</a> Antiquary, as above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">[239]</a> Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">[240]</a> Report, i. 83 <i>b</i>. It is several years later than -1125.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">[241]</a> See p. 101, above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">[242]</a> Coote, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 473.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">[243]</a> Tomlin’s ‘Perambulation of Islington,’ pp. 60–64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">[244]</a> Report, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 42 <i>a</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">[245]</a> See, for him, below.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_246" href="#FNanchor_246" class="label">[246]</a> Add MS. 14,252, fo. 127 <i>d</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_247" href="#FNanchor_247" class="label">[247]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 310, 311.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_248" href="#FNanchor_248" class="label">[248]</a> Ibid. It is remarkable that this man, who (as I have -there shown) was joint sheriff of London in 1125, is found as the last -witness to a charter of Henry I., granted (apparently in 1120) at Caen -(Colchester Cartulary, fo. 10).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_249" href="#FNanchor_249" class="label">[249]</a> Ibid. p. 311.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_250" href="#FNanchor_250" class="label">[250]</a> See above, p. 106.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_251" href="#FNanchor_251" class="label">[251]</a> Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_252" href="#FNanchor_252" class="label">[252]</a> Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I., p. 145. See also Ramsey -Cartulary, i. 142.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_253" href="#FNanchor_253" class="label">[253]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 309.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_254" href="#FNanchor_254" class="label">[254]</a> See my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), p. 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_255" href="#FNanchor_255" class="label">[255]</a> The transcriber seems to have been unable to read these -words.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_256" href="#FNanchor_256" class="label">[256]</a> Lansdown MS. 170, fo. 73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_257" href="#FNanchor_257" class="label">[257]</a> See also the charter on p. 115 (note 3) below.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_258" href="#FNanchor_258" class="label">[258]</a> Sheriff again from 1157 to 1160.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_259" href="#FNanchor_259" class="label">[259]</a> “Writelam ... Ingelricus præoccupavit ii hidas de terra -prepositi Haroldi ... postquam rex venit in Angliam et modo tenet comes -E[ustachius] ideo quod antecessor ejus inde fuit saisitus” (Domesday, -ii. 5 <i>b</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_260" href="#FNanchor_260" class="label">[260]</a> Lansd. MS. 170, fo. 62.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_261" href="#FNanchor_261" class="label">[261]</a> “The influential family of Bucquinte, Bucca-Uncta, -which took the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than -Italian” (‘Const. Hist.,’ i. 631). The Bucherels also, clearly were of -Italian origin (“Bucherelli”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_262" href="#FNanchor_262" class="label">[262]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_263" href="#FNanchor_263" class="label">[263]</a> “Benedictus I., 155–6” (Dr. Stubbs’ authority).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_264" href="#FNanchor_264" class="label">[264]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_265" href="#FNanchor_265" class="label">[265]</a> See p. 108, above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_266" href="#FNanchor_266" class="label">[266]</a> Duchy of Lancaster Charters, <span class="allsmcap">L.</span> 107. “Notum sit -tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte -heredavi in hustingo Londonie (<i>sic</i>) Gervasium de Cornhell[a] et -Henricum filium eius et heredes suos de omnibus rectis meis in terris -in catallis Et etiam in omnibus aliis rebus et quieta clamavi eis et -heredibus eorum hereditario jure tenendis et abendis (<i>sic</i>). Et -pro hac conventione dederunt mihi Gervasius de Cornhell[a] et Henricus -filius unam dimidiam marcam argenti. Et hoc idem feci in curia Regis -apud Westmonasterium. Et ibi dedit mihi Gervasius de Cornhella i marcam -argenti. Et ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte saisiavi Gervasium -de Cornhell[e] et Henricum filium eius de omnibus tailiis meis et de -cartis meis in curia Regis et in hustingo Lond[onie].”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_267" href="#FNanchor_267" class="label">[267]</a> Cartulary, i. 130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_268" href="#FNanchor_268" class="label">[268]</a> See p. 106, above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_269" href="#FNanchor_269" class="label">[269]</a> Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester, pp. 293–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_270" href="#FNanchor_270" class="label">[270]</a> England under the Angevin Kings, pp. 156–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_271" href="#FNanchor_271" class="label">[271]</a> i. 157. Hoveden ends: “Præcepit eum suspendi -inpatibulo”.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_272" href="#FNanchor_272" class="label">[272]</a> See above, p. 107.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_273" href="#FNanchor_273" class="label">[273]</a> This also was the name of a leading London family.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_274" href="#FNanchor_274" class="label">[274]</a> Dr. Stubbs quotes from the roll of 1169: “de catallis -fugitivorum et suspensorum per assisam de Clarendon.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_275" href="#FNanchor_275" class="label">[275]</a> See my note on Osbert in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ App. -Q (pp. 374–5).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_276" href="#FNanchor_276" class="label">[276]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_277" href="#FNanchor_277" class="label">[277]</a> Lansd. MS., 170, fo. 62 <i>d</i>. The terms of this writ -are of some legal importance in connection with the principle of “novel -disseisin” under Henry II. The recovery of seisin is here a preliminary -to a proprietary action, and the formula “injuste et sine judicio” (cf. -‘History of English Law,’ ii. 47, 57) recurs in this charter which is -of similar illustrative value: “Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Waltero filio -Gisleberti et preposito suo de Mealdona salutem. Si Canonici Sancti -Martini London’ poterint monstrare quod Oswardus de Meldon’ injuste et -sine judicio illos dissaisierit de terra sua de Meldon’ de Burgag’ tunc -precipio quod illos faciat[is] resaisiri sicut saisiti fuerunt die quo -Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et quicquid inde cepit postea reddi -juste faciatis et in pace teneant sicut tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici -et eadem consuetudine, et nisi feceritis Ricardus de Lucy et vicecomes -de Essex faciant fieri ne audiam inde clamorem pro penuria recti. Teste -Warnerio de Lusoriis apud London’” (Ib., fo. 170).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_278" href="#FNanchor_278" class="label">[278]</a> It was almost certainly previous to Stephen’s captivity, -though this cannot be actually proved.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_279" href="#FNanchor_279" class="label">[279]</a> Another writ of Stephen (date uncertain) similarly -recognises his position:—“Stephanus dei gratia Rex Anglie Osberto -Octod[enarii] et Adel (<i>sic</i>) et civibus et vic[ecomiti] -Lond[onie] salutem. Precipio quod canonici Sancti Martini London[ie] -bene et in pace et honorifice teneant terras suas et estalla sua que -eis reddidi et confirmavi” (fo. 57 <i>d</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_280" href="#FNanchor_280" class="label">[280]</a> Endorsed “de Cancellario” (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. 45 -<i>b</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_281" href="#FNanchor_281" class="label">[281]</a> Athenæum, 23rd January, 1897.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_282" href="#FNanchor_282" class="label">[282]</a> “Justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_283" href="#FNanchor_283" class="label">[283]</a> See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 305.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_284" href="#FNanchor_284" class="label">[284]</a> Ibid. p. 150.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_285" href="#FNanchor_285" class="label">[285]</a> Quum.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_286" href="#FNanchor_286" class="label">[286]</a> We probably should read “Osberto clerico Willelmi -archidiaconi.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_287" href="#FNanchor_287" class="label">[287]</a> Attests a charter of the earl’s son and namesake in -1157–8 as “Willelmo de Moch’ capellano meo” (‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ -p. 229).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_288" href="#FNanchor_288" class="label">[288]</a> Attests same charter (Ibid.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_289" href="#FNanchor_289" class="label">[289]</a>? Gisleberto.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_290" href="#FNanchor_290" class="label">[290]</a> Ailwin son of Leofstan and Robert de Ponte occur in the -London charters of St. Paul’s about this time.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_291" href="#FNanchor_291" class="label">[291]</a> Subsequently sheriff of Essex (see p. 109 above).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_292" href="#FNanchor_292" class="label">[292]</a> This charter, I understand, is taken from the roll at -St. Paul’s, which was purposely left uncalendared in Sir H. Maxwell -Lyte’s report on the St. Paul’s MSS.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_293" href="#FNanchor_293" class="label">[293]</a> See p. 102.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_294" href="#FNanchor_294" class="label">[294]</a> Add. Cart. 28, 346.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_295" href="#FNanchor_295" class="label">[295]</a> See my paper on “Faramus of Boulogne” (Genealogist [N. -S.] xii. 151).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_296" href="#FNanchor_296" class="label">[296]</a> Simone de Suttuna, Wulfwardo de Autona (Carshalton), -etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_297" href="#FNanchor_297" class="label">[297]</a> See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_298" href="#FNanchor_298" class="label">[298]</a> Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_299" href="#FNanchor_299" class="label">[299]</a> Ibid. p. 147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_300" href="#FNanchor_300" class="label">[300]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_301" href="#FNanchor_301" class="label">[301]</a> Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_302" href="#FNanchor_302" class="label">[302]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_303" href="#FNanchor_303" class="label">[303]</a> See above, p. 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_304" href="#FNanchor_304" class="label">[304]</a> Add. Cart. 28, 344.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_305" href="#FNanchor_305" class="label">[305]</a> Not to be confused with an (under) sheriff of Salop a -generation earlier.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_306" href="#FNanchor_306" class="label">[306]</a> Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester (Roxburghe Club), p. -78.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_307" href="#FNanchor_307" class="label">[307]</a> Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139, where it is assigned to -1114–1123.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_308" href="#FNanchor_308" class="label">[308]</a> Ibid. i. 144.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_309" href="#FNanchor_309" class="label">[309]</a> Ibid. i. 152.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_310" href="#FNanchor_310" class="label">[310]</a> Ibid. i. 148, 240.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_311" href="#FNanchor_311" class="label">[311]</a> Ibid. i. 245.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_312" href="#FNanchor_312" class="label">[312]</a> Ibid. i. 131.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_313" href="#FNanchor_313" class="label">[313]</a> MS. Arundel, 28.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_314" href="#FNanchor_314" class="label">[314]</a> Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 100.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_315" href="#FNanchor_315" class="label">[315]</a> Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 72.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_316" href="#FNanchor_316" class="label">[316]</a> Report, p. 25 <i>b</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_317" href="#FNanchor_317" class="label">[317]</a> Ramsey Cartulary, i. 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_318" href="#FNanchor_318" class="label">[318]</a> See p. 101 above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_319" href="#FNanchor_319" class="label">[319]</a> 28th Sept., 1889.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_320" href="#FNanchor_320" class="label">[320]</a> The Red Book of the Exchequer, Ed. Hubert Hall, -F.S.A., of the Public Record Office (Master of the Rolls Series), pp. -cclxvii.-cclxxxiv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_321" href="#FNanchor_321" class="label">[321]</a> This phrase and the “sine judicio,” which the Articles -employ as its opposite, should be compared with the formula for the -Assize of Novel Disseisin.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_322" href="#FNanchor_322" class="label">[322]</a> Rot. Pip. 14 Hen. II. p. 124 (“Honor Willelmi filii -Alani”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_323" href="#FNanchor_323" class="label">[323]</a> See ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 272.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_324" href="#FNanchor_324" class="label">[324]</a> Swereford’s ‘dictum’ is wrong, of course, here as -elsewhere (see my ‘Studies on the Red Book’).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_325" href="#FNanchor_325" class="label">[325]</a> See, for example, pp. 75–7, 77–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_326" href="#FNanchor_326" class="label">[326]</a> Or rather 1172 (Rot. Pip., 18 Hen. II.), “1171” being -Mr. Hall’s date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_327" href="#FNanchor_327" class="label">[327]</a> Roland de Dinan, Ralf de Toeni, Goscelin the queen’s -brother (Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 132).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_328" href="#FNanchor_328" class="label">[328]</a> Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 194.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_329" href="#FNanchor_329" class="label">[329]</a> Rot. 6 Ric. I. (according to Dugdale).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_330" href="#FNanchor_330" class="label">[330]</a> Liber Rubeus, pp. 113, 147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_331" href="#FNanchor_331" class="label">[331]</a> Rot. 21 Hen. II., p. 82.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_332" href="#FNanchor_332" class="label">[332]</a> History of Shropshire, ii. 201.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_333" href="#FNanchor_333" class="label">[333]</a> Feudal England, p. 245; Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 322.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_334" href="#FNanchor_334" class="label">[334]</a> Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_335" href="#FNanchor_335" class="label">[335]</a> <i>i.e.</i> 1172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_336" href="#FNanchor_336" class="label">[336]</a> Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_337" href="#FNanchor_337" class="label">[337]</a> Genealogist (N. S.), vol. i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_338" href="#FNanchor_338" class="label">[338]</a> See my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer’ -(1898), printed for private circulation, <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_339" href="#FNanchor_339" class="label">[339]</a> This paper, written a few years ago, is a sketch based -on (1) The Song of Dermot and the Earl. Edited by G. A. Orpen. Oxford, -1892. (2) Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vol. v. Edited by J. F. Dimock. -London, 1867. (3) The Book of Howth. Edited by J. S. Brewer, 1871.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_340" href="#FNanchor_340" class="label">[340]</a> English Historical Review, vol. iv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_341" href="#FNanchor_341" class="label">[341]</a> See the paper below on ‘The Marshalship of England.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_342" href="#FNanchor_342" class="label">[342]</a> English Historical Review, viii. 132.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_343" href="#FNanchor_343" class="label">[343]</a> See my ‘Early Life of Anne Boleyn.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_344" href="#FNanchor_344" class="label">[344]</a> Romania, xxi. 444–451.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_345" href="#FNanchor_345" class="label">[345]</a> See ‘Feudal England,’ pp. 516–518.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_346" href="#FNanchor_346" class="label">[346]</a> Morant’s Essex, i. 331 note. Morant gives no reference -for this early and interesting charter, but I have lately been -fortunate enough to find it in Lansd. MS. fo. 170, where it is -transcribed among some local records from “Placita corone, 13 Edw. I.” -It must, therefore, have been produced in 1284–5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_347" href="#FNanchor_347" class="label">[347]</a> Son of the earl of Arundel.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_348" href="#FNanchor_348" class="label">[348]</a> MS. Hargrave 313, fo. 44 <i>d</i> (pencil).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_349" href="#FNanchor_349" class="label">[349]</a> Selden Society publications, iv. 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_350" href="#FNanchor_350" class="label">[350]</a> See also ‘Feudal England.’ Mr. Oman, of course, -questions my theory; but scholars, I understand, accept it (see pp. -56–7 above).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_351" href="#FNanchor_351" class="label">[351]</a> See also my paper on “The Barons of the Naas” in -‘Genealogist.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_352" href="#FNanchor_352" class="label">[352]</a> 14th March, 1895.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_353" href="#FNanchor_353" class="label">[353]</a> Book of Howth (Carew Papers), p. 23. It would be of -great interest to the genealogical student to connect these Fitz Urses -of Ulster with the English family of the name, one of whom, Reginald, -was among the murderers of Becket (cf. ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. -53). Proof may be found, I think, among the charters of Stoke Curcy -Priory, Somerset, now at Eton (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. p. 353). -The Fitz Urses and De Curcis are found together among the Priory’s -benefactors, and William de Curci is the first witness to a charter of -Reginald Fitz Urse. We further find (Ibid.) a charter of William de -Curci, to which “John de Curci, Jordan de Curci” are witnessed. As the -conqueror of Ulster had a brother Jordan who was slain by the Irish, -it is probable that he may be found in this John de Curci, and his -<i>provenance</i> thus established. It is probable, therefore, that he -was followed by Fitz Urse to Ulster from Somerset, and possibly even by -Russell (Ibid. pp. 354 <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_354" href="#FNanchor_354" class="label">[354]</a> This was written some years ago.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_355" href="#FNanchor_355" class="label">[355]</a> By the 22nd article of the Irish peace of January, 1648, -the natives were promised the repeal of two statutes, one against “the -ploughing with horses by the tail,” and the other prohibiting “the -burning of oats in the straw.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_356" href="#FNanchor_356" class="label">[356]</a> As this paper goes to press, the news arrives (3rd -April, 1899) of Mr. Davitt being stoned by his fellow-patriots at -Swinford.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_357" href="#FNanchor_357" class="label">[357]</a> Irish Ecclesiastical Record.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_358" href="#FNanchor_358" class="label">[358]</a> See ‘Times,’ 8th Feb., 1886, p. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_359" href="#FNanchor_359" class="label">[359]</a> It has been so long spoken of as a “Bull” that one -hardly knows how to describe it. So long, however, as it is realized -that it was only a letter commendatory, no mistake can arise.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_360" href="#FNanchor_360" class="label">[360]</a> Rolls Series, Edition v., 318.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_361" href="#FNanchor_361" class="label">[361]</a> Ed. Hearne (1774), i. 42–48.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_362" href="#FNanchor_362" class="label">[362]</a> Dublin Review, 3rd Ser., vol. 10, pp. 83–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_363" href="#FNanchor_363" class="label">[363]</a> Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 66, 68.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_364" href="#FNanchor_364" class="label">[364]</a> Dublin Review, <i>ut supra</i>, pp. 93, 95.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_365" href="#FNanchor_365" class="label">[365]</a> Ireland and St. Patrick (2nd Ed., 1892), pp. 65–147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_366" href="#FNanchor_366" class="label">[366]</a> Ibid. pp. 65, 85.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_367" href="#FNanchor_367" class="label">[367]</a> Ibid. p. 143.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_368" href="#FNanchor_368" class="label">[368]</a> Dublin Review, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 101.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_369" href="#FNanchor_369" class="label">[369]</a> Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 128.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_370" href="#FNanchor_370" class="label">[370]</a> Ibid. p. 121.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_371" href="#FNanchor_371" class="label">[371]</a> Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 128–9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_372" href="#FNanchor_372" class="label">[372]</a> The latest German papers appear to be those -of Scheffer-Boichort in ‘Mitteilungen des Instituts für -Österreich-Geschichtsforschung,’ Erganzungsband iv. (1892); and of -Pflugk-Harttung in ‘Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft,’ -x. (1894).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_373" href="#FNanchor_373" class="label">[373]</a> E. H. R., viii. pp. 18–52.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_374" href="#FNanchor_374" class="label">[374]</a> Ibid. p. 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_375" href="#FNanchor_375" class="label">[375]</a> “The majority of historians,” Miss Norgate writes (E. H. -R., viii. 18), “have assumed that these two statements are two genuine -and independent accounts of one real transaction.” On this I pronounce, -for the present, no opinion; but I have printed the parallel passages -above, that readers may form their own opinion as to the points of -resemblance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_376" href="#FNanchor_376" class="label">[376]</a> It has, of course, been asserted to be an interpolation. -But, provisionally, I speak of it as his.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_377" href="#FNanchor_377" class="label">[377]</a> Compare ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 96 note, -with E. H. R., viii. 20. Miss Norgate might have learnt the fact from -Cardinal Moran’s paper, which was published 15 years before her work -appeared.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_378" href="#FNanchor_378" class="label">[378]</a> Vol. v. pp. 246–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_379" href="#FNanchor_379" class="label">[379]</a> Ibid. pp. 318–9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_380" href="#FNanchor_380" class="label">[380]</a> Another quotation from Ovid occurs in the middle of this -short document.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_381" href="#FNanchor_381" class="label">[381]</a> E. H. R., viii. 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_382" href="#FNanchor_382" class="label">[382]</a> Ibid. p. 48.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_383" href="#FNanchor_383" class="label">[383]</a> Ibid. p. 50.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_384" href="#FNanchor_384" class="label">[384]</a> E. H. R., viii. 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_385" href="#FNanchor_385" class="label">[385]</a> Ibid. p. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_386" href="#FNanchor_386" class="label">[386]</a> Dublin Review, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 90. So too on p. 96: -“Giraldus Cambrensis asserted that both these Bulls were produced in -a synod of Irish clergy at Waterford in <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1175.” Cardinal -Moran also argued from this date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_387" href="#FNanchor_387" class="label">[387]</a> Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 131. He speaks, however, -doubtless by oversight, of “the confirmatory letter of Alexander III. -himself in 1177” (p. 141), though it belongs to the same date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_388" href="#FNanchor_388" class="label">[388]</a> This is the erroneous form adopted by Professor Tout.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_389" href="#FNanchor_389" class="label">[389]</a> Dictionary of National Biography, xix. 104.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_390" href="#FNanchor_390" class="label">[390]</a> The words “per breve Ricardi de Luci” imply the king’s -absence from England, so that if William was despatched to Ireland -in 1171, it must have been before the king’s return on August 3. The -charge would, therefore, have appeared on the (Michaelmas) Pipe Roll.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_391" href="#FNanchor_391" class="label">[391]</a> England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 115.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_392" href="#FNanchor_392" class="label">[392]</a> Vol. v., p. lxxxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_393" href="#FNanchor_393" class="label">[393]</a> Close of 1171, or beginning of 1172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_394" href="#FNanchor_394" class="label">[394]</a> England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 116.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_395" href="#FNanchor_395" class="label">[395]</a> “Hibernico populo tam dominandi quam ipsum in fidei -rudimentis incultissimum ecclesiasticis normis et disciplinis juxta -Anglicanæ ecclesiæ mores informandi” (v. 315).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_396" href="#FNanchor_396" class="label">[396]</a> “It is quite certain that the Pope did, some time before -September 20, 1172, receive reports of Henry’s proceedings in Ireland, -both from Henry himself and from the Irish bishops, for he says so -in three letters—one addressed to Henry, another to the kings and -bishops of Ireland, and the third to the legate Christian bishop of -Lismore—all dated Tusculum, September 20.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_397" href="#FNanchor_397" class="label">[397]</a> E. H. R., viii. 44.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_398" href="#FNanchor_398" class="label">[398]</a> Ibid. p. 50.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_399" href="#FNanchor_399" class="label">[399]</a> The letter to Henry similarly speaks of “enormitates -et vicia” described in the prelates’ letters, and of “abominationis -spurcitiam.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_400" href="#FNanchor_400" class="label">[400]</a> “Suis nobis literis intimarunt, et dilectus filius -noster R. Landavensis archidiaconus, vir prudens et discretus, et Regiæ -magnitudini vinculo præcipue devotionis astrictus, qui hoc oculata -fide perspexit viva nobis voce tam solicite quam prudenter exposuit” -... “eisdem Archiepiscopis et Episcopis significantibus, et præfato -Archidiacono plenius et expressius nobis referente, comperimus.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_401" href="#FNanchor_401" class="label">[401]</a> Gesta, i. 28; and Hoveden, ii. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_402" href="#FNanchor_402" class="label">[402]</a> Becket materials (Rolls, vii. 227, 233).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_403" href="#FNanchor_403" class="label">[403]</a> The language must have been deliberately chosen, for the -bishop’s letters and the Pope’s action are described in the same words:</p> - -<table summary="dates" class="smaller" style="max-width: 50em"> - <tr> - <td class="cht1">“confirmantes ei et heredibus suis regnum Hiberniæ, et testimonium - perhibentes ipsos eum et heredes suos sibi in reges et - dominos constituisse imperpetuum” (p. 26).</td> - <td class="cht1">“summus pontifex auctoritate apostolica confirmavit ei et heredibus - suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit” (p. 28).</td> - </tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_404" href="#FNanchor_404" class="label">[404]</a> “Et quia Romana ecclesia ... aliud jus habet in Insula -quam in terra magna et continua, nos ... magnificentiam tuam rogamus -et solicite commonemus ut in præscripta terra jura beati Petri nobis -studeas sollicite conservare,” etc., etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_405" href="#FNanchor_405" class="label">[405]</a> E. H. R., viii. 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_406" href="#FNanchor_406" class="label">[406]</a> Ibid. p. 50.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_407" href="#FNanchor_407" class="label">[407]</a> In the text of ‘De principis instructione,’ as is -pretty generally known, the words “sicut a quibusdam asseritur aut -confingitur, ab aliis autem unquam impetratum fuisse negatur,” precede -this letter. They look, Mr. Dimock thought, like a marginal note which -has found its way into the text. I confess that to me also that is what -they suggest.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_408" href="#FNanchor_408" class="label">[408]</a> According to Giraldus, the sole authority for its -existence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_409" href="#FNanchor_409" class="label">[409]</a> The two letters hang together absolutely, it will be -seen, in every way.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_410" href="#FNanchor_410" class="label">[410]</a> Dublin Review, <i>ut supra</i>, p. 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_411" href="#FNanchor_411" class="label">[411]</a> E. H. R., viii. 48.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_412" href="#FNanchor_412" class="label">[412]</a> E. H. R., viii. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_413" href="#FNanchor_413" class="label">[413]</a> Dublin Review, <i>ut supra</i>, pp. 97–103.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_414" href="#FNanchor_414" class="label">[414]</a> Ibid., 3rd Series, vol. xi., pp. 328–339.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_415" href="#FNanchor_415" class="label">[415]</a> E. H. R., viii. 34.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_416" href="#FNanchor_416" class="label">[416]</a> <i>Vide supra</i>, p. 184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_417" href="#FNanchor_417" class="label">[417]</a> Gesta, i. 28.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_418" href="#FNanchor_418" class="label">[418]</a> Irish Ecclesiastical Record, p. 61.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_419" href="#FNanchor_419" class="label">[419]</a> Monumenta, p. 151.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_420" href="#FNanchor_420" class="label">[420]</a> Rinuccini’s Embassy in Ireland (Hutton), pp. -xxviii.-xxix. For the essential passage the Italian runs: “stimando -molto a proposito il soggettare a se l’Isola d’Irlanda, ricorse ad -Adriano, e da quel pontefice, che Inglese era, ottene con mano liberale -quanto bramava. Le zelo che Arrigo dimostrò di voler convertire alla -Fede tutta l’Irlanda, piegò l’animo di Adriano a concedergli il dominio -di essa” (Aiazzi’s Nunziatura, p. xxxvi.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_421" href="#FNanchor_421" class="label">[421]</a> Const. Hist., i. 496.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_422" href="#FNanchor_422" class="label">[422]</a> Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 276.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_423" href="#FNanchor_423" class="label">[423]</a> Gesta [Ed. Stubbs], ii. 80–83.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_424" href="#FNanchor_424" class="label">[424]</a> Ed. Stubbs, iii. 9–12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_425" href="#FNanchor_425" class="label">[425]</a> Hoveden, iii. xiv. (1870).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_426" href="#FNanchor_426" class="label">[426]</a> Ibid. iii. 9 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_427" href="#FNanchor_427" class="label">[427]</a> Chron. Maj., ii. 348 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_428" href="#FNanchor_428" class="label">[428]</a> Hist. Ang., iii. 209 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_429" href="#FNanchor_429" class="label">[429]</a> Historia Anglorum, iii. 209.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_430" href="#FNanchor_430" class="label">[430]</a> Chronica Majora, iii. 338 marginal note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_431" href="#FNanchor_431" class="label">[431]</a> Liber Rubeus, p. 759.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_432" href="#FNanchor_432" class="label">[432]</a> See my paper, below, on “the Marshalship of England.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_433" href="#FNanchor_433" class="label">[433]</a> Red Book of the Exchequer, p. xviii. Compare my ‘Studies -on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 49.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_434" href="#FNanchor_434" class="label">[434]</a> Rolls Series, ii. 339 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_435" href="#FNanchor_435" class="label">[435]</a> Ibid. ‘Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen,’ etc., iii. -408 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_436" href="#FNanchor_436" class="label">[436]</a> Dictionary of National Biography.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_437" href="#FNanchor_437" class="label">[437]</a> Ibid.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_438" href="#FNanchor_438" class="label">[438]</a> Register of St. Osmund, i. 262; and Epistolæ -Cantuarienses, p. 327.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_439" href="#FNanchor_439" class="label">[439]</a> The date given by Dr. Stubbs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_440" href="#FNanchor_440" class="label">[440]</a> This from Hoveden.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_441" href="#FNanchor_441" class="label">[441]</a> So great, indeed, is the difficulty of forcing them into -accordance with Dr. Stubbs’ view, that he himself makes them all four -refer to a single surrender of Nottingham and Tickhill (Preface to -Rog. Hov. III. lvii., lviii.; cf. p. lxiii.), and assigns the Mortimer -incident to the earlier campaign, though it is described by Richard of -Devizes, who <i>ex hypothesi</i> is narrating the later one.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_442" href="#FNanchor_442" class="label">[442]</a> Gesta Regis Ricardi, ii. 208 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_443" href="#FNanchor_443" class="label">[443]</a> Ed. Howlett, p. 337.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_444" href="#FNanchor_444" class="label">[444]</a> It is a further illustration of the difficulty which -even those who accept Dr. Stubbs’ view find in adhering to it, that -Miss Norgate pronounces it “chronologically impossible” that the -archbishop of Rouen can have been sent to John by Longchamp, as stated -by Richard of Devizes (‘Angevin Kings,’ ii. 299 note). She must have -forgotten that Richard of Devizes <i>ex hypothesi</i> is describing -“events in the summer or autumn” (Rog. Hov., iii. 134); and that she -accepts April 27 as the date of the archbishop’s arrival (ii. 298).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_445" href="#FNanchor_445" class="label">[445]</a> “Legationis suæ officium per mortem Romani pontificis -exspirasse.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_446" href="#FNanchor_446" class="label">[446]</a> This suggestion is strongly supported by the fact, which -has been overlooked, that the bishop of Worcester was consecrated by -Longchamp “adhuc legato” on May 5 (Ric. Devizes, p. 403); that the -chancellor still styled himself legate on May 13 (‘Ancient Charters,’ -p. 96); and that he even used this style on July 8 at Lincoln (<i>vide -infra</i>). This implies, as I pointed out so far back as 1888 in my -‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), that he continued to use the -style after Clement’s death and before he could have known whether -Cœlestine would renew it to him or not. Indeed, if we may trust the -version of Giraldus, he was using it even so late as July 30 (iv. 389). -It is notable that in a communication dated “Teste meipso apud Releiam -xxv die Augusti,” he no longer employs it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_447" href="#FNanchor_447" class="label">[447]</a> England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_448" href="#FNanchor_448" class="label">[448]</a> 9th Report Historical MSS., i. 35 <i>b</i> (where the -document is dated “1190–1196”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_449" href="#FNanchor_449" class="label">[449]</a> 35th Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_450" href="#FNanchor_450" class="label">[450]</a> This cannot be made public till my Calendar of Charters -preserved in France is issued. In it this evidence will be found in -Document 61 (p. 17).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_451" href="#FNanchor_451" class="label">[451]</a> The dating clause at its end is a blunder admitted on -all sides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_452" href="#FNanchor_452" class="label">[452]</a> Preface to Rog. Hov., III. p. lxiv. This is, according -to me, the imaginary conference.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_453" href="#FNanchor_453" class="label">[453]</a> Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note. So also ‘Gesta,’ ii. p. 208: -“in which John was recognised as the heir of England.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_454" href="#FNanchor_454" class="label">[454]</a> Pref. to Rog. Hov., III. lix.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_455" href="#FNanchor_455" class="label">[455]</a> Ibid. p. lxiv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_456" href="#FNanchor_456" class="label">[456]</a> Gesta, ii. 207–8; Will. Newb., ii. 339.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_457" href="#FNanchor_457" class="label">[457]</a> Roger Hov., iii. 135 note.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_458" href="#FNanchor_458" class="label">[458]</a> Compare my ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 176, 183, with -Hoveden’s text.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_459" href="#FNanchor_459" class="label">[459]</a> “Resaisina vicecomitatus Lincolnie <i>fiet</i> Girardo -de Camvilla: et eadem die dies ei conveniens <i>præfigetur</i> standi -in curia domini regis ad judicium. Quod si contra eum monstrari poterit -quod judicio curiæ domini regis vicecomitatum vel castellum Lincolnie -perdere debuerit, perdat; sin minus retineat; nisi interim alio modo -pax inde fieri poterit.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_460" href="#FNanchor_460" class="label">[460]</a> “Girardo de Camvilla in gratiam cancellarii recepto, -remansit illi in bono et pace custodia castri de Lincolnia.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_461" href="#FNanchor_461" class="label">[461]</a> Compare Rog. Hov., III. lxiv., <i>ut supra</i>, and the -‘Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal,’ ll. 11,888–11,882:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“Je entent e vei</div> - <div>Que par dreit, si’n sui aseiir,</div> - <div>Le [rei] devom nos faire de Artur.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_462" href="#FNanchor_462" class="label">[462]</a> Compare my article on “Historical Research” in -‘Nineteenth Century,’ December, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_463" href="#FNanchor_463" class="label">[463]</a> Archæological Journal, <span class="allsmcap">L.</span> 247–263.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_464" href="#FNanchor_464" class="label">[464]</a> Const. Hist., iii. 568.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_465" href="#FNanchor_465" class="label">[465]</a> Mr. Loftie writes, in his ‘London,’ that “in the reign -of Henry I. we find the guild in full possession of the governing -rights which are elsewhere attributed to a guild merchant” (p. 30). See -also p. 103 above.</p> - -<p>In the same series, Dean Kitchin applies this assumption to Winchester, -and observes of the “Knights,” who possessed a ‘hall’ there under -Henry I., that “if we may argue from the parallel of the London -Knights’ Guild, the body had the charge of the city, and was in fact -the original civic corporation of Winchester,” (‘Historic Towns: -Winchester,’ p. 74).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_466" href="#FNanchor_466" class="label">[466]</a> See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_467" href="#FNanchor_467" class="label">[467]</a> “Nunc primum in sibi indulta conjuratione regno regem -deesse cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus, nec prædecessor -et p. ter ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcarum argenti fieri -permisisset” (Richard of Devizes, p. 416).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_468" href="#FNanchor_468" class="label">[468]</a> “Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore -susceperunt cum dedecore apprehendere statuerunt” (See ‘Geoffrey de -Mandeville,’ p. 115).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_469" href="#FNanchor_469" class="label">[469]</a> See note above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_470" href="#FNanchor_470" class="label">[470]</a> Const. Hist., i. 407.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_471" href="#FNanchor_471" class="label">[471]</a> “Facta conspiratione quam communionem vocabant sese -omnes pariter sacramentis adstringunt et ... ejusdem regionis proceres, -quamvis invitos, sacramentis suae conspirationis obligari compellunt.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_472" href="#FNanchor_472" class="label">[472]</a> See my paper in ‘Academy’ of 12th November, 1887.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_473" href="#FNanchor_473" class="label">[473]</a> Transactions of the London and Middlesex Arch. Soc., v. -286.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_474" href="#FNanchor_474" class="label">[474]</a> Ibid. p. 286–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_475" href="#FNanchor_475" class="label">[475]</a> Mr. Loftie’s argument (‘London,’ p. 53) that Glanville’s -words prove that London, if not other towns as well, had already a -‘Commune’ under Henry II. is disposed of by Dr. Gross (‘The Gild -Merchant,’ i. 102).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_476" href="#FNanchor_476" class="label">[476]</a> £125 and £5 10<i>s.</i> respectively for a quarter in -19 Hen. II. p. 183, and £375 and £16 10<i>s.</i> respectively for -three-quarters in 20 Hen. II. (p 7).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_477" href="#FNanchor_477" class="label">[477]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 297.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_478" href="#FNanchor_478" class="label">[478]</a> 20 Hen. II., p. 9. The official list (Deputy Keeper’s -31st Report) omits to mention that they answered “ut custodes” for this -quarter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_479" href="#FNanchor_479" class="label">[479]</a> ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 297–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_480" href="#FNanchor_480" class="label">[480]</a> On the <i>firma burgi</i> see Stubbs, ‘Const. Hist.’ -(1874), p. 410; and Maitland, ‘Domesday Book and Beyond,’ pp. 204–5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_481" href="#FNanchor_481" class="label">[481]</a> Compare the ‘Dialogus’: “De summa vero summarum quæ -ex omnibus fundis surgebat in uno comitatu constituerunt vicecomitem -illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 4).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_482" href="#FNanchor_482" class="label">[482]</a> Op. cit. <i>ut supra</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_483" href="#FNanchor_483" class="label">[483]</a> 21 Henry II., pp. 15–17. For the last quarter of the -20th year they were £59 8<i>s.</i> 2<i>d.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_484" href="#FNanchor_484" class="label">[484]</a> From the county the proceeds must always have been small -owing to the absence of royal manors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_485" href="#FNanchor_485" class="label">[485]</a> Pipe Rolls, <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_486" href="#FNanchor_486" class="label">[486]</a> They had paid out £156 7<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> in the -three quarters, and owed £9 9<i>s.</i> 9<i>d.</i>, making a total of -£165 17<i>s.</i> 1<i>d.</i>, or at the rate of about £221 a year, as -against some £238.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_487" href="#FNanchor_487" class="label">[487]</a> His outgoings were £151 4<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, and -he was credited with a “superplus” of £13 8<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i> -‘blank.’ This works out at rather over £548 “numero” for the year, -the old figure being £547 “numero” (these figures are taken from the -unpublished Pipe Roll of 1176). It would be rash to connect the change -with the severe Assise of Northampton without further evidence.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_488" href="#FNanchor_488" class="label">[488]</a> An entry on the Roll of 15 Hen. II. records it as £500 -“blanch,” plus a varying sum of about £20 “numero.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_489" href="#FNanchor_489" class="label">[489]</a> Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 112 <i>d</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_490" href="#FNanchor_490" class="label">[490]</a> MS.: ‘skiuin.’ The ‘Liber Albus’ (pp. 423–4) uses -“eskevyn” for the <i>échevins</i> of Amiens.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_491" href="#FNanchor_491" class="label">[491]</a> <i>i.e.</i> Queen Eleanor.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_492" href="#FNanchor_492" class="label">[492]</a> Walter archbishop of Rouen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_493" href="#FNanchor_493" class="label">[493]</a> “For their administration and judicial functions -in continental towns, see Giry, ‘St. Quentin,’ 28–67; von Maurer, -‘Stadtverf.,’ i. 241, 568” (‘Gild Merchant,’ i. 26 note).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_494" href="#FNanchor_494" class="label">[494]</a> Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_495" href="#FNanchor_495" class="label">[495]</a> Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc.), p. 2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_496" href="#FNanchor_496" class="label">[496]</a> London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 72.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_497" href="#FNanchor_497" class="label">[497]</a> London (1887), p. 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_498" href="#FNanchor_498" class="label">[498]</a> History of London, i. 190.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_499" href="#FNanchor_499" class="label">[499]</a> Liber Albus, i. 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_500" href="#FNanchor_500" class="label">[500]</a> “Quicumque predictorum, sine licentia majoris abierit de -congregacione aliorum, tantundem paccabit,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § -4).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_501" href="#FNanchor_501" class="label">[501]</a> “Si quid major celari preceperit, celabunt. Hoc -quicunque detexerit, a suo officio deponetur,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ -§ 2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_502" href="#FNanchor_502" class="label">[502]</a> See Liber Albus, i. 307–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_503" href="#FNanchor_503" class="label">[503]</a> Compare the case quoted in Palgrave’s ‘Commonwealth,’ -II. p. clxxxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_504" href="#FNanchor_504" class="label">[504]</a> Arch. Journ., ix. 70.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_505" href="#FNanchor_505" class="label">[505]</a> Ibid. p. 81.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_506" href="#FNanchor_506" class="label">[506]</a> Historic Towns: Winchester, p. 166.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_507" href="#FNanchor_507" class="label">[507]</a> In his valuable ‘Étude sur les origines de la commune -de St. Quentin,’ M. Giry has shown that this early example, with those -derived from it, was distinguished by the separate existence and status -of the <i>échevins</i>. Nor have the <i>Établissements</i> as much in -common with the London <i>commune</i> as those of Rouen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_508" href="#FNanchor_508" class="label">[508]</a> Archæological Journal, <span class="allsmcap">L.</span> 256–260.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_509" href="#FNanchor_509" class="label">[509]</a> Feudal England, 552 <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_510" href="#FNanchor_510" class="label">[510]</a> Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 48–9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_511" href="#FNanchor_511" class="label">[511]</a> These passages are quoted to show that the influence of -Rouen on London is admitted by an independent writer.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_512" href="#FNanchor_512" class="label">[512]</a> ‘Les Établissements de Rouen’ (Bibliothèque de -l’école des hautes études, publiée sous les auspices du Ministère de -l’instruction publique, 1883).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_513" href="#FNanchor_513" class="label">[513]</a> He became, in that year, bishop of Lisieux.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_514" href="#FNanchor_514" class="label">[514]</a> I am in a position to date this charter precisely as at -or about Feb., 1175.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_515" href="#FNanchor_515" class="label">[515]</a> Recurring, in his “Conclusions” at the end of the -volume, to this question of date, M. Giry seems to combine two of his -different limits: “L’étude du texte nous a permis de fixer la rédaction -des Établissements aux dernières années du règne de Henri II., après -1169. Nous savons, de plus que La Rochelle les avait adoptés avant -1199, que Rouen les avait également possédés vers la même époque, entre -1177 et 1183” (p. 427). Of these dates, I can only repeat that “1183” -has its origin in an error; “1177” is, I think, a mistake, and “1169” -difficult to understand. My forthcoming calendar of charters in France -will throw fresh light upon the date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_516" href="#FNanchor_516" class="label">[516]</a> Ancient Deeds, A. 1477.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_517" href="#FNanchor_517" class="label">[517]</a> Sheriff of London 1174–6. Also Alderman (Palgrave, II. -clxxxiii.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_518" href="#FNanchor_518" class="label">[518]</a> Cot. MS. Faust, B. ii., fo. 66 <i>d</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_519" href="#FNanchor_519" class="label">[519]</a> Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_520" href="#FNanchor_520" class="label">[520]</a> “Major debet custodire claves civitatis et cum assensu -parium talibus hominibus tradere in quibus salve sint.</p> - -<p>“Si aliquis se absentaverit de excubia ipse erit in misericordia -majoris secundum quod tunc fuerit magna necessitas excubandi” -(‘Établissements de Rouen,’ ii. 44).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_521" href="#FNanchor_521" class="label">[521]</a> Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_522" href="#FNanchor_522" class="label">[522]</a> MS. ‘escauingores.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_523" href="#FNanchor_523" class="label">[523]</a>? consilio.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_524" href="#FNanchor_524" class="label">[524]</a> Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 126.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_525" href="#FNanchor_525" class="label">[525]</a> The ‘th’ in the first ‘Spelethorn’ is an Anglo-Saxon -character.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_526" href="#FNanchor_526" class="label">[526]</a> This is the “Terra Roberti Fafiton” (at Stepney) of -Domesday, i. 130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_527" href="#FNanchor_527" class="label">[527]</a> Cf. Domesday, i. 128.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_528" href="#FNanchor_528" class="label">[528]</a> Rectius “Hendune.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_529" href="#FNanchor_529" class="label">[529]</a> From Domesday Book.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_530" href="#FNanchor_530" class="label">[530]</a> This may be chiefly due to omitting “Mimms” (70 hides) -and reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_531" href="#FNanchor_531" class="label">[531]</a> The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. -469–574.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_532" href="#FNanchor_532" class="label">[532]</a> Mr. Hall has since, in the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., -1898), repeated the view that the ‘Red Book’ returns were “made in the -two preceding years.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_533" href="#FNanchor_533" class="label">[533]</a> It will be found on p. 296 of the printed text.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_534" href="#FNanchor_534" class="label">[534]</a> “Idem rex præcepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut -confiscarentur redditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a -Stephano archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Angliæ moram facientibus in -transmarinis post interdictum Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, in hæc verba:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hangingindent">“‘Præcipimus vobis quod capiatis ... et scire faciatis distincte -in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistæ anno regni nostri xiv -baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et -quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui eos receperunt. -Datum vii id. Junii’” (p. 267).</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to -be due on the same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture -in the ‘Testa.’ The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could -be made to a royal writ should be carefully observed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_535" href="#FNanchor_535" class="label">[535]</a> “Per veredictum” (printed in ‘Testa’ “per unum dictum”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_536" href="#FNanchor_536" class="label">[536]</a> Testa de Nevill, pp. 401–408.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_537" href="#FNanchor_537" class="label">[537]</a> This corrupt list in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ is evidently -akin to a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the ‘Testa’ (p. 408), -as is proved by this name.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_538" href="#FNanchor_538" class="label">[538]</a> Testa, 268 <i>b</i>; Liber Rubeus, 499.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_539" href="#FNanchor_539" class="label">[539]</a> Compare the wording of the writ of 1212: “Inquiri facias -... de tenementis ... que sint data vel alienata,” etc. (see p. 266, -above).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_540" href="#FNanchor_540" class="label">[540]</a> ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 466. I have specially examined the -Pipe Rolls for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received -the rents up to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_541" href="#FNanchor_541" class="label">[541]</a> Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an -editor who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a -university on the treatment of mediæval MSS.?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_542" href="#FNanchor_542" class="label">[542]</a> The ‘Red Book’ lists, though so inferior, are more in -number than those in the ‘Testa.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_543" href="#FNanchor_543" class="label">[543]</a> For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 -<i>a</i>) would elude all but close investigation. It records <i>inter -alia</i> the interesting gift, by Henry II., of land there “Wassall’ -cantatori.” This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word -“Wassail” (in a slightly corrupt form).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_544" href="#FNanchor_544" class="label">[544]</a> Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ‘Red -Book’ “can be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, -nor ... on the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of -which is known to have been preserved” (pp. ccxxii.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_545" href="#FNanchor_545" class="label">[545]</a> It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the -returns on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as -the ‘Red Book’ date implies) over two or three years.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_546" href="#FNanchor_546" class="label">[546]</a> This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one -selected for mention in the Waverley Annals.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_547" href="#FNanchor_547" class="label">[547]</a> “Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra,” ran the -writ. The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ‘Testa’ -illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to -the interesting return for Yarmouth (‘Testa,’ p. 296):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="hangingindent">“Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth’ quod antiquitus no’ -(<i>sic</i>) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus -domini Regis, regibus Angl[iæ] quod sit datum vel alienatum -aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi -quibus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium domino -Regi de tenementis illis,” etc.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p-left">The close concordance of this return with the king’s writ -ordering it (see p. 226) is remarkable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_548" href="#FNanchor_548" class="label">[548]</a> See p. 265 above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_549" href="#FNanchor_549" class="label">[549]</a> Testa de Nevill, p. 361.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_550" href="#FNanchor_550" class="label">[550]</a> Salop only.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_551" href="#FNanchor_551" class="label">[551]</a> Honour of Wallingford.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_552" href="#FNanchor_552" class="label">[552]</a> Begins with twelfth entry on page 128<i>a</i>, though -there is no break there in printed text; the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (p. 513) -has entries for Berkshire.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_553" href="#FNanchor_553" class="label">[553]</a> Borough of Wallingford.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_554" href="#FNanchor_554" class="label">[554]</a> Including town of Oxford.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_555" href="#FNanchor_555" class="label">[555]</a> The Chichester Inquest at least.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_556" href="#FNanchor_556" class="label">[556]</a> 15 entries.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_557" href="#FNanchor_557" class="label">[557]</a> Hyde Abbey.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_558" href="#FNanchor_558" class="label">[558]</a> Beginning at “Abbas de Sancto Walerico.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_559" href="#FNanchor_559" class="label">[559]</a> Ending with entry for ‘Uggel.’ A special Inquest for -Writtle is comprised.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_560" href="#FNanchor_560" class="label">[560]</a> Beginning with “Candeleshou Wap’n’.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_561" href="#FNanchor_561" class="label">[561]</a> Including a special Inquest for Stamford.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_562" href="#FNanchor_562" class="label">[562]</a> Beginning at “Carissimis.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_563" href="#FNanchor_563" class="label">[563]</a> Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_564" href="#FNanchor_564" class="label">[564]</a> Rightly given as “Fouberd” on p. 708; wrongly as -“Roberti” on pp. 616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert -is an error, and one which throws some light on the MS.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_565" href="#FNanchor_565" class="label">[565]</a> The order is not quite the same in the first of these -three lists.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_566" href="#FNanchor_566" class="label">[566]</a> Mediæval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_567" href="#FNanchor_567" class="label">[567]</a> Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_568" href="#FNanchor_568" class="label">[568]</a> Compare ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 326–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_569" href="#FNanchor_569" class="label">[569]</a> Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ following William of -Poitiers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_570" href="#FNanchor_570" class="label">[570]</a> Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_571" href="#FNanchor_571" class="label">[571]</a> Lib. Rub., p. ccxl.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_572" href="#FNanchor_572" class="label">[572]</a> English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626–7).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_573" href="#FNanchor_573" class="label">[573]</a> Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson -Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these -entries in the ‘Red Book,’ devoted sections of his work (Hodgson’s -‘Northumberland,’ part i., pp. 258–261, 261–263) to “cornage” and to -“castle-ward,” but was careful not to confuse them.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_574" href="#FNanchor_574" class="label">[574]</a> From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his -preface to the Cumberland Pipe Rolls.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_575" href="#FNanchor_575" class="label">[575]</a> The ‘Red Book’ (p. 714) reads: “Summa xviij <i>l.</i> -iiij <i>s.</i> vj <i>d.</i>, videlicet, xxij <i>d.</i> plus quam alii -solebant respondere.” But I make the real total of its items, not £18 -4<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, but £18 6<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> The two pardons, -amounting to £2 17<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i>, brought up the total to £21 -3<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i>, but, owing to the above wrong ‘summa,’ the -scribe made it only £21 1<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i> He then further omitted -the odd pound, and so obtained his “xxij <i>d.</i>”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_576" href="#FNanchor_576" class="label">[576]</a> These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (‘The -Pipe Rolls ... for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,’ 1857), p. -xxvii. In addition to the section on “the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent” in -this work (pp. xxvii.-xxix.), cornage is dealt with <i>ut supra</i> -in Hodgson’s ‘Northumberland,’ part i. pp. 258 <i>et seq.</i>, and in -‘The Boldon Buke’ (1852), pp. lv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand’s -‘Newcastle’ a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to -the Prior of Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his “pardoned” quota.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_577" href="#FNanchor_577" class="label">[577]</a> Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_578" href="#FNanchor_578" class="label">[578]</a> ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_579" href="#FNanchor_579" class="label">[579]</a> ‘Durham Feodarium’ (Surtees Soc.), p. 145.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_580" href="#FNanchor_580" class="label">[580]</a> ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), pp. 36–7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_581" href="#FNanchor_581" class="label">[581]</a> Feudal England, pp. 289–293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_582" href="#FNanchor_582" class="label">[582]</a> Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any -conclusion of mine, appears, in his ‘History of the Art of War’ (1898), -to admit that I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my -conclusion in his ‘Foundations of England’ (1898), ii. 132.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_583" href="#FNanchor_583" class="label">[583]</a> Stubbs’ ‘Const. Hist.,’ ii. 422, 433.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_584" href="#FNanchor_584" class="label">[584]</a> Maxwell Lyte’s ‘History of the University of Oxford’ -(1886), pp. 93–96.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_585" href="#FNanchor_585" class="label">[585]</a> Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. -201.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_586" href="#FNanchor_586" class="label">[586]</a> Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description -of the Scots—“quasi sepes densa”—is an admirable parallel to the -metaphor—“quasi castellum”—which Henry of Huntingdon applies to the -English “acies” at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Freeman so -deplorably misunderstood (‘Feudal England,’ p. 343–4). So, too, Adam de -Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as -“quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum” (p. 106). Such metaphors, -I have shown, were common.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_587" href="#FNanchor_587" class="label">[587]</a> Vol. vii. p. 122.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_588" href="#FNanchor_588" class="label">[588]</a> Vol. iii. p. xxi.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_589" href="#FNanchor_589" class="label">[589]</a> History of England, p. 174.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_590" href="#FNanchor_590" class="label">[590]</a> Mr. Oman reckons the men of the “Marcher Lords” at -1,850. I make them 2,040.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_591" href="#FNanchor_591" class="label">[591]</a> Ed. Record Commission.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_592" href="#FNanchor_592" class="label">[592]</a> Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean -whence the necessary miners were always obtained.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_593" href="#FNanchor_593" class="label">[593]</a> History of the Art of War, pp. 593–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_594" href="#FNanchor_594" class="label">[594]</a> “Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent” -(Wrottesley’s ‘Creçy and Calais,’ p. 8; cf. Ibid. pp. 58–61).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_595" href="#FNanchor_595" class="label">[595]</a> Ibid. pp. 67–8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_596" href="#FNanchor_596" class="label">[596]</a> Rotuli Scotiæ, i. p. 127.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_597" href="#FNanchor_597" class="label">[597]</a> Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently -observed that 40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible (‘Eng. Hist. -Rev.,’ xiv. 133).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_598" href="#FNanchor_598" class="label">[598]</a> I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents -from elsewhere.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_599" href="#FNanchor_599" class="label">[599]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_600" href="#FNanchor_600" class="label">[600]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_601" href="#FNanchor_601" class="label">[601]</a> “The host was told off into ten battles, probably -(like the French at Creçy) in three lines of three battles each, with -the tenth as a reserve under the king” (p. 574). But in the earlier -plans the English battles are shown in <i>single</i> line, and in the -earliest, at least, with a widely extended front.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_602" href="#FNanchor_602" class="label">[602]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_603" href="#FNanchor_603" class="label">[603]</a> The italics are mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_604" href="#FNanchor_604" class="label">[604]</a> Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. -174–176; History of England, pp. 187–8; History of the Art of War, pp. -604–615.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_605" href="#FNanchor_605" class="label">[605]</a> Mélanges Julien Havet: La date de la composition du -‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia’ (1895).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_606" href="#FNanchor_606" class="label">[606]</a> M. Bémont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as -“exerçant la charge de grand connétable (<i>sic</i>) d’Angleterre au -couronnement de Richard II.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_607" href="#FNanchor_607" class="label">[607]</a> See Mr. Watson’s Note in ‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. p. 197.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_608" href="#FNanchor_608" class="label">[608]</a> Ibid. v. p. 260; also Doyle’s ‘Official Baronage.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_609" href="#FNanchor_609" class="label">[609]</a> M. Bémont writes that he “vivait au temps de Richard -II., non de Henri II.” But this is a misconception.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_610" href="#FNanchor_610" class="label">[610]</a> Hearne’s ‘Curious Discourses,’ ii. 90–97.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_611" href="#FNanchor_611" class="label">[611]</a> Ibid. pp. 327–330.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_612" href="#FNanchor_612" class="label">[612]</a> Rot. Chart., i. 46.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_613" href="#FNanchor_613" class="label">[613]</a> M. Paris, ‘Chronica Majora.’</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_614" href="#FNanchor_614" class="label">[614]</a> Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_615" href="#FNanchor_615" class="label">[615]</a> Ibid. p. 51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_616" href="#FNanchor_616" class="label">[616]</a> Const. Hist., ii. 328.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_617" href="#FNanchor_617" class="label">[617]</a> He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, -May, 1312.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_618" href="#FNanchor_618" class="label">[618]</a> Ed. Hearne, p. 103.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_619" href="#FNanchor_619" class="label">[619]</a> Dictionary of National Biography, li. 204.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_620" href="#FNanchor_620" class="label">[620]</a> The matter has been further complicated by the index to -the official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a “Walter -de Ferrariis, marshal of England.” The document indexed proves (p. 189) -to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pembroke), “late -marshal of England.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_621" href="#FNanchor_621" class="label">[621]</a> Trivet, it is true, even earlier (<i>circ.</i> 1300), -wrote of Strongbow as ‘Marshal of England’:—“Ricardus Comes de -Strogoil, marescallus Angliæ, terris suis omnibus propter quondam -offensam in manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc -Ricardum Anglici ob præcipuum fortitudinem ‘Strangebowe’ cognominabant” -(p. 66). But although the writer may sometimes preserve a forgotten -story, he cannot be accepted as an authority for earl Richard’s tenure -of an office, of which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary -chronicle or record.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_622" href="#FNanchor_622" class="label">[622]</a> Dictionary of National Biography.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_623" href="#FNanchor_623" class="label">[623]</a> Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_624" href="#FNanchor_624" class="label">[624]</a> Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit. Mus.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_625" href="#FNanchor_625" class="label">[625]</a> The italics and commas are mine, and show how the -alleged son of earl Richard was fabricated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_626" href="#FNanchor_626" class="label">[626]</a> Mr. Watson (‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. 197) states that -Giraldus Cambrensis speaks of “Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul,” but -this is a misapprehension.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_627" href="#FNanchor_627" class="label">[627]</a> Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_628" href="#FNanchor_628" class="label">[628]</a> It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, -1307. Its mention (‘Mon. Ang.’ v. 268) of “Gilberti et Ricardi -Strongbowe” clearly proves that it applied the name to both.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_629" href="#FNanchor_629" class="label">[629]</a> Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 132–4; ‘Calendar of Close -Rolls,’ p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they -identified the marshalship of England with that in the “Constitutio.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_630" href="#FNanchor_630" class="label">[630]</a> Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 135–7. This petition, in -Norman-French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose -use of “countes mareschauls” as the title of his predecessors from the -first.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_631" href="#FNanchor_631" class="label">[631]</a> Ibid. pp. 143–5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_632" href="#FNanchor_632" class="label">[632]</a> Altered in MS.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_633" href="#FNanchor_633" class="label">[633]</a> 133 in the pencil numbering.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_634" href="#FNanchor_634" class="label">[634]</a> In special classes on Palæography and Diplomatic at the -London School of Economics.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_635" href="#FNanchor_635" class="label">[635]</a> See ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. -34, where the reference is to Mr. Hall’s citing the “pr<i>æ</i>missa -scutagia” of his MS. as “pr<i>o</i>missa scutagia” (pp. clxxii., -clxxvii., etc.), and arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_636" href="#FNanchor_636" class="label">[636]</a> “There is a treatise carryed about the office of the -earle marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the -tyme of Thomas of Brotherton” (Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ II. 95).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_637" href="#FNanchor_637" class="label">[637]</a> The Society of Antiquaries possesses an early English -version of the ‘Modus’ to which is prefixed a table of chapters both -for the ‘Modus’ and for the treatise on the Marshal’s office.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_638" href="#FNanchor_638" class="label">[638]</a> He was earl of Norfolk.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_639" href="#FNanchor_639" class="label">[639]</a> Vol v. pp. 260, 261.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_640" href="#FNanchor_640" class="label">[640]</a> “Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomam -de Holand, comitem Kancie de <i>officio marescalli Angl[ie]</i>, quod -nuper habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa -dilectum consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh’ ad -<i>dictum officium</i> ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus -aliis ad officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius,” etc. (Pat. -9 Ric. II., part 1, m. 38).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_641" href="#FNanchor_641" class="label">[641]</a> Dictionary of National Biography.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_642" href="#FNanchor_642" class="label">[642]</a> Dictionary of National Biography.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_643" href="#FNanchor_643" class="label">[643]</a> The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the -bishops of London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York -and Gloucester, the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de -Segrave the treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_644" href="#FNanchor_644" class="label">[644]</a> p. 311 above.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_645" href="#FNanchor_645" class="label">[645]</a> It seems to have become in the Parliamentary -confirmation of 1397 “Earl Marshal of England.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_646" href="#FNanchor_646" class="label">[646]</a> Mr. Kingsford, in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ -(xxxvi. 232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl -of Pembroke: “The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter -to the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and -eventually to the Howards,” etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it -under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_647" href="#FNanchor_647" class="label">[647]</a> Derby was the Steward’s son and heir.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_648" href="#FNanchor_648" class="label">[648]</a> Dr. Stubbs observes that “from the king’s later action, -it is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for -the deposition of Edward II.” But there is more direct evidence. On -the Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against -the Lords Appellant that they “firent chercher Recordes deins votre -Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel coment vostre dit -besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous,” etc., -etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_649" href="#FNanchor_649" class="label">[649]</a> M. Bémont, who approached the question from the -standpoint of the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them -could possibly be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this -must be proved “par des raisons paléographiques.” The officials of the -MS. department, Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced -it to be clearly of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his -conclusion. M. Bémont, however, held that the MSS. “ont été composés -et écrits dans les premières années de Richard II., ou dérivent de -manuscrits rédigés à cette époque,” on account of the prominent place -assigned in them to Richard’s coronation. I should place the date a few -years later.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_650" href="#FNanchor_650" class="label">[650]</a> “The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study” -(‘Lectures in Mediæval and Modern History,’ pp. 41–2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_651" href="#FNanchor_651" class="label">[651]</a> See my article on “Historical Research,” in ‘Nineteenth -Century,’ December, 1898.</p> - -</div> -</div> - - -<p class="transnote">Transcriber’s Notes:<br /> - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been -corrected silently.<br /> - -2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have -been retained as in the original.<br /> - -3.Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D<sup>r</sup>. or -X<sup>xx</sup>.</p> - - - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNE OF LONDON ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks 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. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -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™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - 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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(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™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • 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™ - 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™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • 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. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s 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 website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -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 -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ 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. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -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. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/68933-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68933-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 84c792a..0000000 --- a/old/68933-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68933-h/images/i_107.jpg b/old/68933-h/images/i_107.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8916176..0000000 --- a/old/68933-h/images/i_107.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68933-h/images/i_369.jpg b/old/68933-h/images/i_369.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7ac30eb..0000000 --- a/old/68933-h/images/i_369.jpg +++ /dev/null |
