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.”