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.