diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68933-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68933-0.txt | 12847 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 12847 deletions
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. |