130.
[527] Cf. Domesday, i. 128.
[528] Rectius “Hendune.”
[529] From Domesday Book.
[530] This may be chiefly due to omitting “Mimms” (70 hides) and
reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much.
[531] The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. 469–574.
[532] Mr. Hall has since, in the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898),
repeated the view that the ‘Red Book’ returns were “made in the two
preceding years.”
[533] It will be found on p. 296 of the printed text.
[534] “Idem rex præcepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut confiscarentur
redditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a Stephano
archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Angliæ moram facientibus in transmarinis
post interdictum Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, in hæc verba:
“‘Præcipimus vobis quod capiatis ... et scire faciatis distincte
in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistæ anno regni nostri xiv
baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et
quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui eos receperunt.
Datum vii id. Junii’” (p. 267).
It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to be due on the
same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture in the ‘Testa.’
The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could be made to a
royal writ should be carefully observed.
[535] “Per veredictum” (printed in ‘Testa’ “per unum dictum”).
[536] Testa de Nevill, pp. 401–408.
[537] This corrupt list in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ is evidently akin to
a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the ‘Testa’ (p. 408), as is
proved by this name.
[538] Testa, 268 _b_; Liber Rubeus, 499.
[539] Compare the wording of the writ of 1212: “Inquiri facias ... de
tenementis ... que sint data vel alienata,” etc. (see p. 266, above).
[540] ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 466. I have specially examined the Pipe Rolls
for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received the rents up
to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date.
[541] Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an editor
who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a
university on the treatment of mediæval MSS.?
[542] The ‘Red Book’ lists, though so inferior, are more in number than
those in the ‘Testa.’
[543] For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 _a_)
would elude all but close investigation. It records _inter alia_
the interesting gift, by Henry II., of land there “Wassall’ cantatori.”
This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word “Wassail” (in
a slightly corrupt form).
[544] Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ‘Red Book’ “can
be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, nor ... on
the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of which is
known to have been preserved” (pp. ccxxii.).
[545] It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the returns
on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as the ‘Red
Book’ date implies) over two or three years.
[546] This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one selected for
mention in the Waverley Annals.
[547] “Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra,” ran the writ.
The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ‘Testa’
illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to
the interesting return for Yarmouth (‘Testa,’ p. 296):
“Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth’ quod antiquitus no’
(_sic_) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus
domini Regis, regibus Angl[iæ] quod sit datum vel alienatum
aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi
quibus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium domino
Regi de tenementis illis,” etc.
The close concordance of this return with the king’s writ ordering it
(see p. 226) is remarkable.
[548] See p. 265 above.
[549] Testa de Nevill, p. 361.
[550] Salop only.
[551] Honour of Wallingford.
[552] Begins with twelfth entry on page 128_a_, though there is no
break there in printed text; the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (p. 513) has entries
for Berkshire.
[553] Borough of Wallingford.
[554] Including town of Oxford.
[555] The Chichester Inquest at least.
[556] 15 entries.
[557] Hyde Abbey.
[558] Beginning at “Abbas de Sancto Walerico.”
[559] Ending with entry for ‘Uggel.’ A special Inquest for Writtle is
comprised.
[560] Beginning with “Candeleshou Wap’n’.”
[561] Including a special Inquest for Stamford.
[562] Beginning at “Carissimis.”
[563] Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne.
[564] Rightly given as “Fouberd” on p. 708; wrongly as “Roberti” on pp.
616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert is an error, and
one which throws some light on the MS.
[565] The order is not quite the same in the first of these three lists.
[566] Mediæval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10.
[567] Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66.
[568] Compare ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 326–7.
[569] Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ following William of Poitiers.
[570] Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147.
[571] Lib. Rub., p. ccxl.
[572] English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626–7).
[573] Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson
Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these
entries in the ‘Red Book,’ devoted sections of his work (Hodgson’s
‘Northumberland,’ part i., pp. 258–261, 261–263) to “cornage” and to
“castle-ward,” but was careful not to confuse them.
[574] From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his preface to
the Cumberland Pipe Rolls.
[575] The ‘Red Book’ (p. 714) reads: “Summa xviij _l._ iiij _s._ vj
_d._, videlicet, xxij _d._ plus quam alii solebant respondere.” But I
make the real total of its items, not £18 4_s._ 6_d._, but £18 6_s._
6_d._ The two pardons, amounting to £2 17_s._ 4_d._, brought up the
total to £21 3_s._ 10_d._, but, owing to the above wrong ‘summa,’ the
scribe made it only £21 1_s._ 10_d._ He then further omitted the odd
pound, and so obtained his “xxij _d._”
[576] These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (‘The Pipe Rolls
... for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,’ 1857), p. xxvii. In
addition to the section on “the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent” in this work
(pp. xxvii.-xxix.), cornage is dealt with _ut supra_ in Hodgson’s
‘Northumberland,’ part i. pp. 258 _et seq._, and in ‘The Boldon
Buke’ (1852), pp. lv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand’s ‘Newcastle’
a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to the Prior of
Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his “pardoned” quota.
[577] Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18.
[578] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), _passim_.
[579] ‘Durham Feodarium’ (Surtees Soc.), p. 145.
[580] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), pp. 36–7.
[581] Feudal England, pp. 289–293.
[582] Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any conclusion of
mine, appears, in his ‘History of the Art of War’ (1898), to admit that
I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my conclusion in his
‘Foundations of England’ (1898), ii. 132.
[583] Stubbs’ ‘Const. Hist.,’ ii. 422, 433.
[584] Maxwell Lyte’s ‘History of the University of Oxford’ (1886), pp.
93–96.
[585] Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. 201.
[586] Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description of
the Scots--“quasi sepes densa”--is an admirable parallel to the
metaphor--“quasi castellum”--which Henry of Huntingdon applies to the
English “acies” at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Freeman so
deplorably misunderstood (‘Feudal England,’ p. 343–4). So, too, Adam de
Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as
“quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum” (p. 106). Such metaphors,
I have shown, were common.
[587] Vol. vii. p. 122.
[588] Vol. iii. p. xxi.
[589] History of England, p. 174.
[590] Mr. Oman reckons the men of the “Marcher Lords” at 1,850. I make
them 2,040.
[591] Ed. Record Commission.
[592] Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean whence
the necessary miners were always obtained.
[593] History of the Art of War, pp. 593–4.
[594] “Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent”
(Wrottesley’s ‘Creçy and Calais,’ p. 8; cf. Ibid. pp. 58–61).
[595] Ibid. pp. 67–8.
[596] Rotuli Scotiæ, i. p. 127.
[597] Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently observed that
40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible (‘Eng. Hist. Rev.,’ xiv.
133).
[598] I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents from
elsewhere.
[599] The italics are mine.
[600] The italics are mine.
[601] “The host was told off into ten battles, probably (like the
French at Creçy) in three lines of three battles each, with the tenth
as a reserve under the king” (p. 574). But in the earlier plans the
English battles are shown in _single_ line, and in the earliest,
at least, with a widely extended front.
[602] The italics are mine.
[603] The italics are mine.
[604] Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. 174–176;
History of England, pp. 187–8; History of the Art of War, pp. 604–615.
[605] Mélanges Julien Havet: La date de la composition du ‘Modus
tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia’ (1895).
[606] M. Bémont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as “exerçant la
charge de grand connétable (_sic_) d’Angleterre au couronnement de
Richard II.”
[607] See Mr. Watson’s Note in ‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. p. 197.
[608] Ibid. v. p. 260; also Doyle’s ‘Official Baronage.’
[609] M. Bémont writes that he “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de
Henri II.” But this is a misconception.
[610] Hearne’s ‘Curious Discourses,’ ii. 90–97.
[611] Ibid. pp. 327–330.
[612] Rot. Chart., i. 46.
[613] M. Paris, ‘Chronica Majora.’
[614] Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 6.
[615] Ibid. p. 51.
[616] Const. Hist., ii. 328.
[617] He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, May,
1312.
[618] Ed. Hearne, p. 103.
[619] Dictionary of National Biography, li. 204.
[620] The matter has been further complicated by the index to the
official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a “Walter de
Ferrariis, marshal of England.” The document indexed proves (p. 189)
to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pembroke), “late
marshal of England.”
[621] Trivet, it is true, even earlier (_circ._ 1300), wrote
of Strongbow as ‘Marshal of England’:--“Ricardus Comes de Strogoil,
marescallus Angliæ, terris suis omnibus propter quondam offensam in
manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc Ricardum Anglici
ob præcipuum fortitudinem ‘Strangebowe’ cognominabant” (p. 66). But
although the writer may sometimes preserve a forgotten story, he cannot
be accepted as an authority for earl Richard’s tenure of an office, of
which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary chronicle or
record.
[622] Dictionary of National Biography.
[623] Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198.
[624] Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit. Mus.).
[625] The italics and commas are mine, and show how the alleged son of
earl Richard was fabricated.
[626] Mr. Watson (‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. 197) states that Giraldus
Cambrensis speaks of “Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul,” but this is
a misapprehension.
[627] Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393.
[628] It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, 1307. Its
mention (‘Mon. Ang.’ v. 268) of “Gilberti et Ricardi Strongbowe”
clearly proves that it applied the name to both.
[629] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 132–4; ‘Calendar of Close Rolls,’
p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they identified the
marshalship of England with that in the “Constitutio.”
[630] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 135–7. This petition, in
Norman-French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose
use of “countes mareschauls” as the title of his predecessors from the
first.
[631] Ibid. pp. 143–5.
[632] Altered in MS.
[633] 133 in the pencil numbering.
[634] In special classes on Palæography and Diplomatic at the London
School of Economics.
[635] See ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 34, where the
reference is to Mr. Hall’s citing the “pr_æ_missa scutagia” of his
MS. as “pr_o_missa scutagia” (pp. clxxii., clxxvii., etc.), and
arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29.
[636] “There is a treatise carryed about the office of the earle
marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the tyme
of Thomas of Brotherton” (Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ II. 95).
[637] The Society of Antiquaries possesses an early English version
of the ‘Modus’ to which is prefixed a table of chapters both for the
‘Modus’ and for the treatise on the Marshal’s office.
[638] He was earl of Norfolk.
[639] Vol v. pp. 260, 261.
[640] “Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomam de Holand,
comitem Kancie de _officio marescalli Angl[ie]_, quod nuper
habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa dilectum
consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh’ ad _dictum
officium_ ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus aliis ad
officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius,” etc. (Pat. 9 Ric.
II., part 1, m. 38).
[641] Dictionary of National Biography.
[642] Dictionary of National Biography.
[643] The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of
London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York and Gloucester,
the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de Segrave the
treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household.
[644] p. 311 above.
[645] It seems to have become in the Parliamentary confirmation of 1397
“Earl Marshal of England.”
[646] Mr. Kingsford, in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (xxxvi.
232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl of
Pembroke: “The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter to
the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and
eventually to the Howards,” etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it
under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods.
[647] Derby was the Steward’s son and heir.
[648] Dr. Stubbs observes that “from the king’s later action, it
is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for the
deposition of Edward II.” But there is more direct evidence. On the
Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against the
Lords Appellant that they “firent chercher Recordes deins votre
Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel coment vostre dit
besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous,” etc.,
etc.
[649] M. Bémont, who approached the question from the standpoint of
the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them could possibly
be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this must be proved
“par des raisons paléographiques.” The officials of the MS. department,
Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced it to be clearly
of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his conclusion. M. Bémont,
however, held that the MSS. “ont été composés et écrits dans les
premières années de Richard II., ou dérivent de manuscrits rédigés à
cette époque,” on account of the prominent place assigned in them to
Richard’s coronation. I should place the date a few years later.
[650] “The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study” (‘Lectures
in Mediæval and Modern History,’ pp. 41–2).
[651] See my article on “Historical Research,” in ‘Nineteenth Century,’
December, 1898.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
3. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r. or
X^{xx}.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.