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]