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.