The whole payment was eighteen pounds yearly. Of this sum six

pounds--that is the earl's third penny--went to the Sheriff

Baldwin.... The other twelve pounds had formed part of the

morning-gift of the lady, and though Edith had been dead

eleven years, they are entered separately as hers.[36]

So far, all is consistent and clear enough. But we find it immediately

added that:

This regular yearly payment of eighteen pounds had taken the

place of various uncertain payments and services.... Thus the

citizens of Exeter, who had offered to pay to William what

they had paid to former kings, found their burthens far

heavier than they had been in the old time. And the lady,

while she lived, reaped her full share of the increased

contributions of her own city.[37]

Or, as expressed in his great work:

The money payment was now raised from an occasional half-marc

of silver to eighteen pounds yearly. The rights of the old

lady were not forgotten, and Eadgyth received two-thirds of

the increased burthen laid upon her morning-gift.[38]

If the 'twelve pounds had formed part of the morning-gift of the

lady', and were accordingly received by her, as we learn,[39] in

the days of King Edward, how could they possibly form part of a new

'burthen' laid upon Exeter, as a punishment for its resistance, by

William? And if the only payment due, under Edward, was an occasional

half-marc of silver 'for the use of the soldiers'[40] what were 'the

royal revenues' from Exeter that Edith was drawing in 1050? A moment's

thought is enough to show that Mr Freeman's statements contradict

themselves, as, indeed, he must have seen, had he stopped to think.

But this he sometimes failed to do.

The whole source of Mr Freeman's confusion was his inexplicable

misunderstanding of the Domesday entry on the city.[41] We must first

note that both his predecessors--Palgrave, who was lacking in

'critical faculty', and Ellis, who was 'far from being up to the

present standard of historical scholarship'--had read this entry

rightly, and given, independently, its gist. It will best enable my

readers to understand the point at issue if I print side by side the

paraphrases of Exeter's offer given by Palgrave and by our author.

PALGRAVE FREEMAN

Tribute or gafol they would We are ready to pay to him the

proffer to their king such as tribute which we have been used

was due to his predecessors.... to pay to former kings.... The

They (1) would weigh out the city paid in money only when

eighteen pounds of silver; (2) London, York, and Winchester

the geld would be paid, if paid, and the sum to be paid was

London, York, and Winchester a single half-marc of silver.

submitted to the tax; and (3) When the king summoned his _fyrd_

if war arose, the king should to his standard by sea or by land,

have the quota of service Exeter supplied the same number of

imposed upon five hydes of men as were supplied by five hides

land.... But the citizens of land.... But the men of Exeter

refused to become the men ... of would not, each citizen personally,

their sovereign; they would become his men; they would not

not ... allow the Basileus to receive so dangerous a visitor

enter within their walls. within their walls.[42]

I have numbered the clauses in Palgrave's paraphrase which render the

three successive clauses in the Domesday Book entry. The first refers

to the _firma_ of the town, payable to its lord (the king);[43] the

second to the 'geld' (tax), payable to the king _qua_ king;[44] the

third to its military service.[45] The distinction between the three

clauses is admirably seen under Totnes (i. 108, _b_), and the sense

of Domesday is absolutely certain to any one familiar with its

formulas.[46]

The 'commutation of geldability' (as Mr Eyton termed it) was by no

means peculiar to Exeter. Totnes paid, 'when Exeter paid', the same

sum of half a marc 'pro geldo'. Bridport paid the same 'ad opus

Huscarlium regis' (75), Dorchester and Wareham a marc each, and

Shaftesbury two marcs (Eyton's _Dorset Domesday_, 70-72). In these

Dorset instances, one marc represented an assessment of ten hides.

What Mr Freeman did was to confuse the first clause with the second,

and to suppose that both referred to the 'money payment' of the town,

the first under William, the second under Edward. He thus evolved

the statement that under William 'the money payment was raised from

an occasional half-marc of silver to eighteen pounds yearly'. This

is roughly equivalent to saying of a house rented at fifty pounds,

and paying a tax of one pound, that its 'money payment' was raised

from one pound to fifty.

But this confusion, with all its results, is carried further still.

Edith's share of the eighteen pounds is entered in Domesday as 'xii.

lib[ras] ad numerum'. This Mr Freeman rightly gave as the amount in

1086;[47] but turning back a few pages, we actually read that

In Domesday twelve houses in Exeter appear as 'liberæ ad

numerum in ministeriis Edid reginæ'.[48]

This is, of course, the same entry, only that here our author changed

pounds into houses, and _libras_ into _liberæ_. What idea was conveyed

to his mind by a house 'libera ad numerum' I do not profess to

explain. But, oddly enough, as he here turned pounds into houses, so

in a passage of his _William Rufus_ he turned houses into pence.[49]

The essence of the whole matter is that the 'burdens' to which Exeter

was subject were not raised at all, but remained precisely the same

as had been paid to former kings. And this fact is the more notable,

because, as Mr Freeman had to admit, 'even the tribute imposed by

William' [on his own hypothesis] 'was not large for so great a city',

and, one may add, a rich one.[50] Indeed, it was so small as to fairly

call for increase.[51] Even Lincoln, which, according to Mr Freeman,

received 'favourable' treatment from William, had its 'tribute largely

raised'[52] in fact, more than trebled.[53] What we have to account

for, therefore, is the fact that a city which had defied, insulted,

and outraged William, received not only 'a free pardon',[54] but

peculiar favour at his hands.

The paradox itself is beyond dispute, whatever may be said of my

solution.

For a solution there is. Only it is not to miracles or legends, nor

to the flatterings of courtly chaplains that we must look to learn the

truth, but, in the words of a memorable essay, to 'the few unerring

notices in Domesday and the chronicles'.[55] As yet we have not, it

must be remembered, heard the story from the English side. Let us

turn, therefore, to the English version, to what Mr Freeman described

as 'the short but weighty account in the Worcester Chronicle, which

gives hints which we should be well pleased to see drawn out at

greater length'.[56] These hints I shall now examine, though I doubt

if Mr Freeman's friends will be well pleased with the result.

We have in the Chronicle a straightforward story, not only

intelligible in itself, but also thoroughly in harmony with the known

facts of the case. The king finds himself compelled to lay formal

siege to Exeter ('besæt þa burh'); he is detained before its walls day

after day ('xviii. dægas') in the depth of an English winter, 'and

þær wearð micel his heres forfaren'. The need for sternness was there

indeed; but swiftness was to him, for the moment, a matter of life

and death. Held at bay by those stubborn walls, learning the might

of those 'two generals'--January and February--in whom the Emperor

Nicholas put his trust, William was in sore straits. Take Mr Freeman's

own words:

The disaffected were intriguing for foreign help;... there

was a chance of his having to struggle for his crown against

Swend of Denmark;... men were everywhere seeking to shake off

the yoke, or to escape it in their own persons. Even where no

outbreak took place local conspiracies were rife.[57]

Swend was in his rear, half England on his flank; before him reared

their head the walls of dauntless Exeter.[58] In that bleak wilderness

of frost and snow his men were falling around him, and, in very

bitterness of spirit, the Conqueror bowed himself for need. So, at

least, I boldly suggest. He fell back on his 'arts of policy', and set

himself to win by alluring terms the men whom he could not conquer.

In the words of the Chronicle, he promised them well ('ac he heom well

behet').

This solution, of course, differs _toto cælo_ from Mr Freeman's

narrative. We have seen that he blindly accepted the statements of

that 'abandoned flatterer', William of Poitiers (whom Orderic had here

'doubtless followed'[59])--against whom he elsewhere warned us--and

combined them with a miracle from William of Malmesbury, which he

euhemerized in the style that he himself had ridiculed in Thierry.[60]

And as he could not harmonize the courtly version with the 'short but

weighty account' in the Chronicle he cut the knot by dismissing the

latter, and pronouncing his own version 'the most likely'.[61]

Resuming the narrative, we learn that the thegns--the party of

non-resistance from the first--must have seized this opportunity for

impressing on their 'concives' the necessity of embracing the offer,

whereupon the latter, in the words of the Chronicle, 'gave up the town

because the thegns had betrayed them'. It is just possible that the

word 'geswicon' may point to some direct treachery, but it seems best

and most naturally explained as referring to their unpatriotic advice,

which would naturally appear to English eyes a 'betrayal' of the

national cause. There can be little doubt, from the admissions of

William of Poitiers (through the mouth of Orderic), that the terms of

agreement included not only a free pardon for all past offences, and

for the city's aggravated resistance, but also security for person and

property from plunder by the Norman soldiery. And the witness of 'the

great record' implies that 'the Exeter patricians', as Mr Freeman

styled them[62]--'the civic aristocracy'[63]--gained their original

selfish aim, and secured an undertaking that they should not pay a

penny more than their 'tributum ex consuetudine pristina'.

What security, it may be asked, could they obtain for the terms they

seem to have exacted? Bold as it may seem, I would here venture to

read between the lines, and to make the suggestion--it is nothing

more--that when there issued from the gates 'the clergy of the city,

bearing their sacred books and other holy things' (as Mr Freeman

rendered the words of Orderic), the real object of their coming forth

was to make the king swear upon their relics[64] to the observance

of the terms they had obtained. It was indeed the irony of fate if

William, who was ever insisting on the breach of Harold's oath, was

driven, by the force of circumstances, to take such an oath himself.

But, it may be urged, should we be justified in treating thus

drastically the witness of Orderic, or rather, of William of Poitiers?

At Alençon, I reply, in Mr Freeman's words:

William of Poitiers is silent altogether, both as to the

vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps

altogether agreeable to a professed panegyrist (_Norm. Conq._,

ii. 285).

Stronger, however, is the case of Le Mans, and more directly to the

point. 'William,' we read, 'followed the same policy against Exeter

(1068) which he had followed against Le Mans' (1063);[65] and so, in

1073, we find him 'calling on the men of Le Mans, as he had called on

the men of Exeter', to submit peacefully, and escape his wrath.[66]

Unlike 'the Exeter patricians', indeed, 'the magistrates of Le Mans'

did receive the king peacefully within their walls; they did not incur

the guilt of offering armed resistance. But the essential point at Le

Mans is that

the Norman version simply tells how they brought the keys of

the city, how they threw themselves on William's mercy, and

were graciously received by him. The local writer speaks

in another tone. The interview between the king and the

magistrates of Le Mans is described by a word often used to

express conferences--in a word, _parliaments_--whether between

prince and prince, or between princes and the estates of their

dominions. They submitted themselves to William's authority

as their sovereign, but they received his oath to observe the

ancient customs and _justices_ of the city. Le Mans was no

longer to be a sovereign commonwealth, but it was to remain a

privileged municipality.[67]

The words 'acceptis ab eo sacramentis, tam de impunitate perfidiæ quam

de conservandis antiquis ejusdem civitatis consuetudinibus'[68] would

apply exactly to the case of Exeter, and William may well have done

there what he actually did, we here read, at Le Mans. There would have

been at Exeter even greater need for an oath, in that its 'perfidia'

had been so much the worse.

But now comes the curious parallel. Though quoting and scrutinizing so

closely the meagre accounts of the Exeter campaign, Mr Freeman seems

to have oddly overlooked the significant words of Florence, although,

of course, familiar with his narrative. Florence, we find, employs a

phrase corresponding with that in the _Vetera Analecta_.

FLORENCE 'VET AN'

Cives autem _dextris acceptis_ _Acceptis ab eo sacramentis_

regi se dedebant. ... sese et sua omnia dederunt.

Mr Freeman argues from the case of Le Mans that _dedere_ in these

times did not imply the fulness of a Roman _deditio_.[69] But we

are not merely dependent upon this. The words, 'dextris acceptis', I

contend, imply a promise and a pledge for its performance, and cannot

therefore be reconciled with an unconditional surrender.

Now if it were not for the fortunate preservation of the _Vetera

Analecta_ in the case of Le Mans, Mr Freeman would there also, as at

Exeter, have been hoodwinked by 'the Norman version'.[70] I am anxious

not to employ a phrase which might be deemed offensive or unjust, so

I restrict myself to that which he himself applied to his predecessor,

Palgrave, when, speaking of the story of Eadric and his brother,

he wrote that Sir Francis Palgrave 'swallowed the whole tale'.[71]

Whether my solution be accepted or not, it is, I repeat, conjectural.

I have, at least, shown that there is a mystery to be solved, that Mr

Freeman's version fails to solve it, and that, so far from Domesday

recording the punishment inflicted upon Exeter, it actually heightens

the mystery of the case by proving that Exeter obtained exceptionally

favourable treatment.

It is not merely a question of how Exeter fell. The issue illustrates

the policy and affects the character of William. The lame manner

in which Mr Freeman accounts for his sudden conversion from fury to

lamb-like gentleness is no less unsatisfactory than his treatment of

the 'weighty account' in the Chronicle when he found that this, his

valued authority, rendered the problem difficult. Even at Le Mans more

was needed than merely to print both stories. The fact that we find in

'the Norman version' the truth conveniently glossed over ought to be

insisted on and duly applied. Time after time in Mr Freeman's work we

find him paraphrasing patches of chronicles, under the impression that

he was writing history. The statements of witnesses are laid before

us, neatly pieced together, but they are not subjected to more than

a perfunctory cross-examination. Even if the accurate reproduction of

testimony were all that we sought from the historian, we should not,

so far as Domesday is concerned, obtain it in this instance. But

the case of Exeter is one where something more is needed, where even

accuracy is not sufficient without the possession of that higher gift,

the power of seizing upon the truth when the evidence is misleading

and contradictory. The paraphrasing of evidence is the work of a

reporter; from the historian we have a right to expect the skilled

summing-up of the judge.

[Footnote 1: Letter from John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter,

1447.]

[Footnote 2: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 34.]

[Footnote 3: It was also the subject of a special paper in his

'Historic Towns and Districts' (1883) reprinted from _Arch.

Journ._, xxx. 297, pp. 49 _et seq._, and _Sat. Rev._, xxix.

764-5.]

[Footnote 4: _Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765.]

[Footnote 5: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 123. The metaphor of a

'sea' waiting in an 'island' is sufficiently original to be

deserving of notice.]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, iv. 140.]

[Footnote 7: See 'The alleged destruction of Leicester',

_infra_, p. 347.]

[Footnote 8: iv. 151. 'It is certain', Mr Freeman had written,

'that what William had to strive against in the West was a

league of towns' (_Sat. Rev._, xxix. 765).]

[Footnote 9: _Cont. Rev._, June 1877, p. 22. See also

Preface.]

[Footnote 10: 'Hi nimirum socios e plagis finitimis inquiete

arcessebant ... alias quoque civitates ad conspirandum in

eadem legationibus instigabant.' _Ord. Vit._, 510 A (quoted in

_Norman Conquest_, iv. 140).]

[Footnote 11: Mr Freeman rendered it 'neighbouring shires',

but I am not at all sure that, taken in conjunction with

the words just before about the accessibility of Exeter from

Ireland and Brittany, and those just after, about 'mercatores

advenas', _plagæ_ does not refer to the shores from which

these merchants came.]

[Footnote 12: The boroughs of Dorset were doubtless among

the towns which had joined in the Civic League. Probably

they stood sieges and were taken by storm (_Norm. Conq._, iv.

151).]

[Footnote 13: Mr Archer deemed it sufficient reply to all

these 'trifling blunders' to admit that 'Mr Freeman did

misread 128 for 100' (_Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 337). I

invite comparison of the errors I have corrected, and of all

the edifice built upon them, with this disingenuous attempt to

represent them as unimportant 'slips' (_ibid._, p. 354).]

[Footnote 14: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 625.]

[Footnote 15: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 71.]

[Footnote 16: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 17: _Norm. Conq._, iv. xiii, and marginal note on p.

156.]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, p. 156.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, i. 289.]

[Footnote 20: 'Dum murum illius destruere moliretur' (quoted

from Florence, on i., p. 309).]

[Footnote 21: Quoted from Florence, on i., p. 315.]

[Footnote 22: It seems possible, at least, that they might

describe a direct attack on the foot of the walls.]

[Footnote 23: I would here compare William's description of

the Conqueror's 'peaceful progress' to London after his great

victory, which better evidence, Mr Freeman observed, 'quite

upsets' (iii. 533).]

[Footnote 24: _Essays_, 1st series.]

[Footnote 25: _Exeter_, p. 36.]

[Footnote 26: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 412.]

[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, iii. 536-7.]

[Footnote 28: 'Supplicia pro reatu nimis metuebant.']

[Footnote 29: 'Militibus crudeliter et contumeliose illuserant

quos ipse de Normannia miserat et tempestas ad portum illorum

appulerat.']

[Footnote 30: So too we read of Torkesey, a little later on,

that it suffered so 'severely as to suggest the idea that

William met with some serious resistance at this point'

(_Ibid._, iv. 217); while speaking of the 'Fall of Chester',

Mr Freeman wrote: 'We know that the resistance which William

met with in this his last conquest was enough to lead him to

apply the same stern remedy which he had applied north of the

Humber. A fearful harrying fell on city and shire, and on the

lands round about' (_Ibid._, iv. 314-5).]

[Footnote 31: 'The Conqueror, faithful to his fearful

oath, now gave the first of that long list of instances of

indifference to human suffering', etc. (_Ibid._, ii. 285).]

[Footnote 32: 'At Ely, as at Alençon, the Conqueror felt no

scruple against inflicting punishments which to our notions

might seem more frightful than death itself' (_Ibid._, iv.

476).]

[Footnote 33: _Ibid._, iv. 160.]

[Footnote 34: _English Towns and Districts_.]

[Footnote 35: _Exeter_ (1887), p. 32.]

[Footnote 36: _Ibid._, pp. 43-4.]

[Footnote 37: _Ibid._, p. 44.]

[Footnote 38: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

[Footnote 39: _Exeter_, p. 32.]

[Footnote 40: _Exeter_, p. 44; _Norm. Conq._, iv. 147.]

[Footnote 41: This grave confusion, with all that it involves,

was one of the 'trifling slips', as Mr Archer terms them

(_Cont. Rev._, p. 354), exposed in my original article

(_Q.R._, July 1892). Such a description is either dishonest,

or must imply that Mr Archer, who boasts that he has 'a

sterner criterion' than myself (_English Historical Review_,

ix. 606), deems such errors of no consequence.]

[Footnote 42: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146-7.]

[Footnote 43: 'Hec reddit xviii. lib. per annum' (100).]

[Footnote 44: 'Hæc civitas T.R.E. non geldabat nisi quando

Londonia et Eboracum et Wintonia geldabant, et hoc erat

dimidia marka Argenti ad opus militum' (100).]

[Footnote 45: 'Quando expeditio ibat per terram aut per mare,

serviebat hæc civitas quantum v. hidæ terræ' (100).]

[Footnote 46: The practice in the Survey of Devon was to state

the render in 1086, and, if it had been different formerly,

to add a note to that effect. Thus we read on 100_b_: 'Reddit

xlviii. lib. ad pensam. Ante Balduinum reddebat xxiii. lib.'

So, too, of Totnes: 'Inter omnes redd' viii. lib. ad numerum.

Olim reddebant iii. lib. ad pensam et arsuram' (108_b_).]

[Footnote 47: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 162.]

[Footnote 48: _Ibid._, 139.]

[Footnote 49: Reading 'Eudo Dapifer [tenet] v. denarios',

where Domesday (ii. 106) has, of course, 'v. d[omus]'.]

[Footnote 50: Mr Freeman held that Domesday hinted it might be

classed with London, York, and Winchester (_Norm. Conq._,

iv. 147; _Exeter_, 45), and quotes William of Malmesbury's

description of its wealth and importance. Even in earlier

days, he wrote, 'both the commercial and the military

importance of the city were of the first rank' (i. 308).]

[Footnote 51: The _firma_ of Gloucester had been raised to

£60, and that of Chester to over £70, while at Wallingford,

where the king had about as many houses as at Exeter, it was

£80.]

[Footnote 52: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 213.]

[Footnote 53: 'T.R.E. reddebat civitas Lincolia regi xx.

libras et comiti x. libras. Modo reddit c. libras ad numerum

inter regem et comitem' (D.B., i. 336_b_).]

[Footnote 54: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 160.]

[Footnote 55: Mr Freeman's 'Pedigrees and Pedigree-makers'

(_Cont. Rev._, June 1887, p. 33).]

[Footnote 56: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

[Footnote 57: _Ibid._, iv. pp. 103, 118. So too _ibid._, p.

126: 'There was the imminent fear of an invasion from Denmark,

and the threatening aspect of the still independent west and

north. William had need of all his arts of war and policy to

triumph over the combination of so many enemies at once.']

[Footnote 58: 'Cives eam tenebant furiosi, copiosæ

multitudinis, infestissimi mortalibus Gallici generis.'--_Ord.

Vit._]

[Footnote 59: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 146.]

[Footnote 60: It is curious to see how Thierry waters down the

miracle: 'Son cheval, glissant sur le pavé, s'abattit et le

froissa dans sa chute.' Of course this is likely enough to

have been the kernel of truth in the legend, but no man has a

right to tell the tale in this shape as if it were undoubted

fact.--_Norm. Conq._, iv. 291.]

[Footnote 61: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151-2.]

[Footnote 62: _Ibid._, 146.]

[Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 147.]

[Footnote 64: Cf. the familiar phrase, 'Tactis sacris

evangeliis', with Orderic's words here, 'sacros libros'.]

[Footnote 65: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 151.]

[Footnote 66: _Ibid._, 559.]

[Footnote 67: _Ibid._, 560.]

[Footnote 68: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 69: _Norm. Conq._, iv. 560.]

[Footnote 70: 'Edicta regalia suis opportune intimavit, et

urbanis imperiose mandavit, ut prudenter sibi consulerent'

(_Ord Vit._, ii. 255).]

[Footnote 71: _Ibid._, i. 662.]

THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF LEICESTER (1068)

This question was raised and discussed by Mr Freeman in his _History

of the Norman Conquest_ (iv. 196-7). We there read as follows:

Is it possible that in the case of Leicester, at least, no

power was left either to follow or to resist? While we have no

evidence either way on which we can rely with confidence, one

of those secondary and local records, which sometimes contain

fragments of authentic tradition, suggests, in a perfectly

casual way, that a doom fell upon Leicester, which might,

doubtless, with some exaggeration, be spoken of as utter

destruction. And this incidental hint may perhaps draw

some indirect confirmation from the highest evidence of

all [Domesday] ... and it may be that Leicester earned its

overthrow by a defence worthy of a borough which was to give

its name to the greatest of England's later worthies.

The 'record' referred to is quoted in a footnote, and is a history

of the foundation of Leicester Abbey, one of a class of narratives

notoriously inaccurate and corrupt:

Robertus Comes Mellenti, veniens in Angliam cum Willelmo Duce

Normanniæ, adeptus consulatum Leycestriæ, ex dono dicti Ducis

et Conquestoris Angliæ, _destructa prius civitate Leicestriæ_

cum castello et ecclesia infra castellum tempore prædicti

Conquestoris, reædificavit ipsam æcclesiam Sancta Mariæ infra

castellum.

Now, it strikes one in the first place as somewhat unlikely that

William, on his arrival at Leicester, should find a castle to destroy.

But, further, how could Robert have obtained the 'consulatus' of

Leicester from the Conqueror, when he is well known to have first

obtained it (under very peculiar circumstances) from Henry I? If this

known event has been so glaringly ante-dated, may not the alleged

'destruction' be so likewise? These it may be said are only

doubts. But, as it happens, we can not only discredit the suggested

'destruction' in the days of the Conqueror: we can actually fix its

date as the reign of Henry I.

We learn from Orderic that the town of Leicester ('urbs Legrecestria')

was divided into four quarters, of which Ivo de Grantmesnil possessed

two, one in his own right, and one (which was the King's share) as the

King's reeve and representative. We also learn that he was among the

'seditiosi proceres', who rebelled against Henry in 1101, and that of

these, 'aliqui contra fideles vicinos guerram arripuerunt et gremium

almæ telluris rapacitatibus et incendiis, cruentisque cædibus

maculaverunt'. Ivo is again mentioned by Orderic in 1102, not only

among the 'proditores' of the previous year, who were now called to

account, but also as a special ringleader in that internecine conflict

to which he had already referred. He tells us that Henry

Ivonem quoque, quia guerram in Anglia c[oe]perat et vicinorum

rura suorum incendia combusserat (quod in illa regione crimen

est inusitatum nec sine grave ultione fit expiatum), rigidus

censor accusatum nec purgatum ingentis pecuniæ redditione

oneravit, et plurimo angore tribulatum mæstificavit.

In short, as Dr Stubbs reminds us, Ivo 'has the evil reputation of

being the first to introduce the horrors of private warfare into

England'. Bearing in mind the divided authority from which Leicester

suffered, and the statement that Ivo, ruling half the town, plundered

and made fierce war upon his neighbours, we arrive at the conclusion

that the 'destruction', which, in the _Monasticon_ narrative, precedes

the accession of the Count of Meulan to the _comitatus_ of Leicester,

may be assigned, without a shadow of doubt, to the struggle of 1101.

On Ivo's disgrace, as is well known, the wily Count stepped at once

into his shoes, 'et auxilio regis suâque calliditate totam sibi

civitatem mancipavit, et inde consul in Anglia factus'. There is no

reason to doubt the statement that St Mary 'de Castro' was rebuilt

and refounded by Count Robert after his obtaining this position at

Leicester.

It is singular that just as the _Monasticon_ seems to have misled Mr

Freeman at Leicester, so it is responsible for Thierry's 'story of the

fighting monks of Oxford', at about the same time, a story of which Mr

Freeman wrote that 'the whole story is a dream', and 'would not have

been allowable even in an historical novel' (iv. 779-80).

ELY AND HER DESPOILERS (1072-5)

The elaborate record of this trial is only found, I believe, in the

Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2, 1 (fos. 210_b_-213_b_) from

which it has been printed by Mr Hamilton in his _Inquisitio Comitatus

Cantabrigiensis_ (pp. 192-5). This 'placitum', therefore, would seem

to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876).

The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years.

It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was

held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions

'Rodulfus comes', it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls

in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William

Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later,

therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070.

Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ('post obitum

illius'). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070;

and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time

afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this 'placitum' did not

take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn

of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years

1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076--the date

given in the _Liber Eliensis_, and accepted by Mr Freeman--it follows

that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place

under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmentioned by the chroniclers,

and unsuspected by Mr Freeman, who held that he found no favour in

William's eyes.

The great length of this document--so important for its bearing on

Domesday--precludes its discussion in detail. But its opening clause

must be given and some of its features pointed out.

Ad illud placitum quo pontifices Gosfridus et Remigius, consul

vero Waltheuus, necnon vicecom[ites] Picotus atque Ilbertus

jussu Willelmi Dei dispositione Anglor[um] regis, cum omni

vicecomitatu sicut rex preceperat, convenerunt, testimonio

hominum rei veritatem cognoscentium determinaverunt terras que

injuste fuerant ablate ab ecclesia sancte Dei genitricis

Marie de insulâ ely ... quatinus de dominio fuerant,

tempore videlicet regis Ædwardi, ad dominium sine alicujus

contradictione redirent quicunque eas possideret.

The mention of Count Eustace among those withholding lands proves

that at the date of this document he was already restored to his

possessions. Another individual whose name occurs several times in

this document is Lisois ('De Monasteriis'), the hero of the passage of

the Aire. Collating its evidence with that of Domesday, we find that

Lisois had been succeeded, at the date of the great record, by

the well-known Eudo Dapifer in a fief, ranging over at least five

counties--Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and

Essex--in all of which Domesday records his name as the predecessor of

Eudo. This is of the more interest because Mr Freeman wrote:

The only notice of this Lisois which I can find in Domesday

is in ii. 49_b_, where he appears in possession, but seemingly

illegal possession, of a small holding in Essex.

So again we have in our document this passage relating to Stigand:

He sunt proprie ville monasterii insule Ely quos Stigandus

archipresul tenebat, unde per annum victum fratribus reddidit

tantum quantum pertinet ad hoc. Has vero tenet rex noster W.

post obitum illius, Methelwald et Crokestune et Snegelwelle et

Dictun.

Now Stigand, according to the _Liber Eliensis_ 'quasdam illius optimas

possessiones sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium

retinuit'. Our document identifies these 'possessiones' with Methwold

and Croxton in Norfolk, Snailwell and Ditton in Cambridgeshire, and

thus disposes of Mr Freeman's very unfortunate suggestion--advanced,

of course, to justify Stigand--that the _Liber Eliensis_ here referred

to a tiny Hampshire estate, which the Abbey had held under Stigand

T.R.E.[1]

In my paper on Domesday I have pointed out the importance of this

document in its bearing on socmen and their services, while we saw

in investigating knight service that its language affords, in this

matter, a valuable gloss on that of Domesday. Close examination of its

details shows that the aggressions on the Abbey's property which it

records, were, in spite of the verdict on this occasion, persisted in,

if not increased. Those, for instance, of Hardwin may be recognized in

the duplicate entries in Domesday Book, representing the conflicting

claims.[2] On persons as on lands we have some fresh information.

Ilbert the Sheriff was, I believe, identical with that 'Ilbert de

Hertford', who is alluded to in Domesday (i. 200), and would thus be

a pre-Domesday Sheriff of Herts.[3] The entry, 'tenet Rotbertus

homo Bainardi in Reoden de soca', when compared with the holding of

'Rienduna' by Ralf 'Baignardi' in Domesday (ii. 414), suggests that

we have in Bainard the father (hitherto unknown) of this Domesday

tenant-in-chief. Bainard would thus be a Christian name, as was also

Mainard, which occurs in this same document.

[Footnote 1: D.B., i. 40_b_.]

[Footnote 2: See p. 32 _supra_.]

[Footnote 3: Domesday (i. 200_b_) styles him, 'Ilbertus de

Hertford', and connects him with 'Risedene', a Hertfordshire

Manor. On the other hand, the I.C.C. makes him 'Ilbertus de

Hereforda' (p. 56), and 'Ilbertus vicecomes' is actually found

in Herefordshire (D.B., i. 179_b_). But what could he be doing

in Cambridgeshire?]

THE LORDS OF ARDRES

In the _History of the Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.) we read of Eustace

of Boulogne:

An incidental notice of one of his followers throws some light

on the class of men who flocked to William's banners, and on

the rewards which they received. One Geoffrey, an officer of

the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint Omer, who had the charge of

its possessions in the County of Guines, sent his sons, Arnold

and Geoffrey, to the war ... and in the end they received

a grant of lands both in Essex and in the border shires of

Mercia and East-Anglia, under the superiority of their patron

Count Eustace (iii. 314).

In an Appendix on 'Arnold of Ardres', which Mr Freeman devoted to this

subject (iii. 725-6), he gave the 'Historia Comitum Ardensium' (of

Lambert of Ardres) for his authority, and he verified, by Domesday,

the Manors which Lambert assigns to 'these adventurers', holding

that a Bedfordshire estate was omitted, while 'Stebintonia', which he

identified with Stibbington, Hunts, was wrongly included, as it was

'held of Count Eustace by Lunen'.

The first point to be noticed here is that 'these adventurers' were

the sons (as Lambert explains) not of any 'Geoffrey', a mere Abbey

officer, but of a local magnate, Arnold, Lord of Ardres. The next is

that Lambert was quite correct in his list of Manors.

In the fourth series of his historical essays Mr Freeman included a

paper on 'The Lords of Ardres', for which he availed himself of Dr

Heller's edition of Lambert in the _Monumenta_ (vol. xxiv). In this

edition the passage runs:

Feodum Stevintoniam et pertinencias eius, Dokeswordiam,

Tropintoniam, Leilefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam (cap.

113, p. 615).

Dr Heller, on this, notes:

Secundum 'Domesday Book' recepit Ernulfus de Arda Dochesworde,

Trupintone (com. Cantabrig.) et Stiventone (comit. Bedford)

a comite Eustacio ... e contra Toheshunt [_sic_] Hoiland,

Leleford recepit ab eodem comite Adelolfus de Merc (prope

Calais).

This note enabled Mr Freeman to identify 'Adelolfus' (which he had

failed to do in the _Norman Conquest_), though he must have overlooked

the identification of 'Stevintonia' (namely Stevington, Beds.), for we

find him still writing:

But of the English possessions reckoned up by our author two

only ... can be identified in Domesday as held by Arnold ...

The local writer seems to have mixed up the possessions of

Arnold with those of a less famous adventurer from the same

reign, Adelolf--our Athelwulf--of Merck (pp. 184-5).

And he again insisted that 'Arnold had other lands in Bedfordshire'.

We will now turn to an entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ from the

'milites tenentes de honore Bononie':

Comes de Gines tenet xii. milites, scilicet--in

Bedefordescire, in _Stiveton_ et Parva Wahull III milites,

in Cantabr' in _Dukesword_, et _Trumpeton_ III milites ... in

Essex, _Tholehunt_ et Galdhangr' III milites, in _Hoyland'_ et

_Lalesford_ ibidem III milites.

Here we have all the Manors mentioned by Lambert (with their

appurtenances) assigned to the Count of Guines, the heir of Arnold

of Ardres; and we can thus believe the _Testa_ entry (p. 272) of

Tolleshunt and Holland, 'quas idem comes et antecessores sui tenuerunt

de conquestu Angliæ'. But the _Testa_ does more than this; it informs

us that Holland and Lawford were held of the Count by 'Henry de Merk'.

Now, 'Adelolf' de Merk is found in Domesday holding many Manors direct

from Eustace of Boulogne, and these Manors are divided in the _Testa_

between his descendants Simon and Henry de Merk.[1] It is, therefore,

possible that he held the three Essex Manors in 1086, not directly

from Count Eustace, but, like his descendant, from their under-tenant

(Arnold). This raises, of course, an important question as to

Domesday.[2]

It is interesting to observe that the village of Marck in the Pas de

Calais has, through Adelolf and his heirs, transferred its name to the

Essex parish of Mark's Tey, though not to that of Marks Hall (so named

in Domesday).

While on the subject of the Lords of Ardres, it may be convenient

to give the reference to a letter of mine to the _Academy_ (May 28,

1892), explaining that Lambert's 'Albericus Aper', who puzzled Dr

Heller and Mr Freeman, was our own Aubrey de Vere, first Earl of

Oxford, and that Lambert's statement (accepted by Mr Freeman) as to

the parentage of Emma, wife of Count Manasses, had been disproved by

Stapleton.

[Footnote 1: An interesting charter belonging to the close of

Stephen's reign shows us Queen Matilda compensating Henry 'de

Merch' for his land at Donyland (one of these Manors)--which

she was giving to St John's, Colchester--'de redditibus

transmarinis ad suam voluntatem'. Another and earlier charter

from her father and mother (printed by Mr E. J. L. Scott in

the _Athenæum_ of December 2, 1893) has Fulco de merc and M.

de merc among the witnesses.]

[Footnote 2: The non-appearance of Arnold's brother,

'Geoffrey', in Domesday which has been deemed a difficulty,

is accounted for by Lambert's statement that he made over his

English possessions to Arnold.]

EARLY IRISH TRADE WITH CHESTER AND ROUEN[1]

The eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

speaks of the records of the city of Chester as 'beginning with Henry

the Second's writ of licence to the citizens of Chester to trade in

Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry the First'

(p. xv). The records themselves are similarly described in the actual

report on them (pp. 355-403) as 'beginning with a curious writ,

addressed by Henry the Second to his bailiffs of the city of Durham'

[_sic_]. This, which is among those items spoken of as 'especially

interesting and important', figures thus as the head of the calendar:

(1) Henry II. Licence to the burgesses of Chester to buy and

sell at Durham [_sic_] as they were wont to do in the time of

Henry I--'Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie

et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie balluis [_sic_] de Dunelina

[_sic_] salutem:--Precipio quod Burgenses Cestrie possint

emere et vendere ad detaillum [_or_ doraillum] apud Dunelinam

[_sic_] habendo et faciendo easdem consuetudines quas

faciebant tempore Regis Henrici avi mei et easdem ibi habeant

rectitudines et libertates et liberas consuetudines quas

tempore illo habere solebant, teste, Willelmo filio Ald'

dapifero Apud Wintoniam.

Durham is not only a most improbable place for such a writ to refer

to, but is also an impossible rendering of the Latin name. The

interest and importance of this 'curious writ' has, in short, been

obscured and lost through the ignorance of Mr J. C. Jeaffreson, to

whom the report was entrusted. The charters which follow the writ, and

which are printed on the same page, refer to this writ as relating to

Ireland; and the town, of course, to which it refers is not Durham but

Dublin (_Duuelina_).

We have, therefore, in this writ an almost, if not quite, unique

reference by Henry II to Dublin in the days of his grandfather, and a

confirmation of the 'libertates', etc., which the men of Chester had

then enjoyed there, just as if his grandfather had been in his own

position. Secondly, we have here record evidence, not merely of a

recognized connection, but of what might be termed treaty relations

between the traders of Chester and the Ostmen of Dublin, long previous

to the Conquest of Ireland, thus confirming Mr Green's observation,

'the port of Chester depended on the trade with Ireland, which

had sprung up since the settlement of the Northmen along the Irish

Coasts'.[2] And this has, of course, a bearing on the question of 'a

Danish settlement' at Chester. Thirdly, we learn from this document

that at the date of its issue Dublin was governed by bailiffs of the

King (_ballivi sui_).

What, then, was its date? The clue, unfortunately, is slight; but it

may not improbably belong to the close of 1175 or early part of

1176. This brings us to the interesting question, why was such a

writ issued? Remembering that during his stay at Dublin (November

1171-January 1172) Henry II had granted that city to his men of

Bristol, we may hold it in accordance with the spirit of the time,

and, indeed, a matter of virtual certainty, that Bristol would have

striven on the strength of this grant to exclude 'its rival port'

(_Conquest of England_, p. 443) from the benefits of the Dublin trade.

Chester would, therefore, appeal to the King on the strength of its

antecedent rights, and would thus have obtained from him this writ,

recognizing and confirming their validity.

The Domesday customs of the city (i. 262_b_) contain a curious

allusion to its Irish trade:

Si habentibus martrinas pelles juberet prepositus regis ut

nulli venderet donec sibi prius ostensas compararet, qui hoc

non observabat xl. solidis emendabat ... Hæc civitas tunc

reddebat de firma xlv. lib et iii. timbres pellium martrinium.

There is nothing to show where these marten skins came from, or why

they are mentioned under Chester alone. But on turning to the customs

of Rouen, as recorded in the charters of Duke Henry (1150-1) and King

John (1199), we find they were imported from Ireland.

Quæcunque navis de Hibernia venerit, ex quo caput de Gernes

[Guernsey] transierit, Rothomagum veniat, unde ego habeam

de unaquâque nave unum tymbrium de martris aut decem libras

Rothomagi, si ejusdem navis mercatores jurare poterint se ideo

non mercatos fuisse illas martras ut auferrent consuetudinem

ducis Normanniæ, et vicecomes Rothomagi de unaquaque habeat

viginti solidos Rothomagi et Camerarius Tancarvillæ unam

accipitrem aut sexdecim solidos Rothomagi.

Giraldus Cambrensis, it may be remembered, alludes to the abundance of

martens in Ireland,[3] and describes how they were captured. We thus

have evidence in Domesday of the Irish trade with Chester, even in the

days of Edward the Confessor.

[Footnote 1: The error as to the Chester writ was explained by

me in a letter to the _Academy_ (No. 734).]

[Footnote 2: _Conquest of England_, p. 440.]

[Footnote 3: 'Martrinarum copia abundant hic silvestria'

(_Top. Hib._, i. 24).]

WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE

In his detailed examination of all the evidence bearing on the death

of William Rufus, the late Mr Freeman carefully collected the few

facts that are known relative to Walter Tirel. They are, however, so

few that he could add nothing to what Lappenberg had set forth (ii.

207) in 1834. He was, however, less confident than his predecessor as

to the identity of Walter Tirel with the Essex tenant of that name in

Domesday. I hope now to establish the facts beyond dispute, to restore

the identity of Walter Tirel, and also to show for the first time who

his wife really was.

The three passages we have first to consider are these, taking them in

the same order as Mr Freeman:

Adelidam filiam Ricardi de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum

conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, strenuissimum militem,

marito suo peperit (_Ord. Vit._).

Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro

ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (_Domesday_, ii. 41).

Adeliz uxor Walteri Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis

argenti de eisdem placitis de La Wingeham (_Rot. Pip._, 31

Hen. I).

Dealing first with the Domesday entry, which comes, as Mr Freeman

observed, 'among the estates of Richard of Clare', I would point out

that though Ellis (who misled Mr Freeman) thought that 'Tirelde' was

the name, the right reading is 'tenet Walterus Tirel de R[icardo]',

two words (as is not unusual) being written as one. Turning next to

the words of Orderic, we find that Lappenberg renders them 'Adelaide,

Tochter des Richard Giffard', and Mr Freeman as 'a wife Adelaide

by name, of the great line of Giffard'. But there is no trace of a

Richard Giffard, nor can 'Adelida' herself be identified among the

Giffards. The explanation of the mystery, I hold, is that she was the

daughter, not of a Giffard, but of Richard _de Clare_, by his wife

Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard the elder. It is noteworthy that

Orderic employs a precisely similar expression in the case of another

Adeliza, the daughter of Robert de Grentmesnil. He terms her 'soror

Hugonis de Grentemaisnil de clara stirpe Geroianorum', though she was

only descended from the famous Geroy through her mother. Richard's

daughter was sufficiently described as 'Adelida filia Ricardi', just

as her brothers were known as 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi', 'Rogerus

filius Ricardi', etc. The position of that mighty family was such that

this description was enough, and they were even known collectively as

the 'Ricardi', or 'Richardenses' (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 609). This is well

illustrated by the passage in the Ely writer, describing Adeliza's

brother Richard, Abbot of Ely, as

parentum undique grege vallatus, quorum familiam ex Ricardis

et Gifardis constare tota Anglia et novit et sensit. Ricardi

enim et Gifardi, duæ scilicet ex propinquo venientes familiæ,

virtutis fama et generis copia illustres effecerat.

The above forms are curious, but not without parallel. Thus the

descendants of Urse d'Abetot are spoken of as 'Ursini' in Heming's

Cartulary. Æthelred of Rievaulx speaks of 'Poncii' and 'Morini' as

present at the battle of the Standard; Gerald, in a well-known passage

(v. 335), speaks of the 'Giraldidæ' and 'Stephanidæ', and Orderic, we

have seen, of the 'Geroiani'.

The doubly influential character of this descent is well illustrated

in this passage (_quantum valeat_) from the chronicle of St John's

Abbey, Colchester.

Parcebatur tamen Eudoni, propter genus uxoris ipsius Rohaisæ:

erat enim hæc de genere nobilissimo Normannorum, filia

scilicet Ricardi, qui fuit filius Gilbert Comitis, duxitque

Rohaisam uxorem, quæ erat soror Willelmi Giffardi, Episcopi

Wintoniæ. Itaque, cum fratres et propinqui junioris Rohaisæ

quoslibet motus machinaturi putarentur, si contra maritum

ipsius aliquid durius decerneretur, sic factum est ut

interventu predicti Episcopi, etc., etc.

This passage is, I believe, the sole evidence for the real parentage

of Bishop William. It was clearly unknown to Canon Venables, who wrote

the Bishop's life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

Like most of these 'foundation' histories, this document is in part

untrustworthy. But it is Dugdale who has misread it, and not the

document itself that is responsible for the grave error (_Baronage_,

i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl

of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a

Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from

referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law,

Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in

its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that

'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos

nupta est' (iv. 609).

In asserting under 'Clare' (_Baronage_, i. 208) that Eudo married the

widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and

more inaccurate document (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269) which actually does

speak of

Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]--duas plures

enim habuit--conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti,

qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis

magnates præcessit--

as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide

in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter

and namesake.

We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who

had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham'

was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an

important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130

(_Rot. Pip._, Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given

her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under

Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster

a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not

yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase

de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is

extant,[1] and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that

it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover

in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of

a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion,

which runs as follows:

Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal.

Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam

Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de

Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem

concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet.

Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare

that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course,

equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This

mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade

of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the

above Gervase, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, was no

other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham

duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.[2] The chain of

evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their

Manor placed beyond question.

But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it

raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces

us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de

Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed,

were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another

brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I,

who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William

Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.[3]

Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant

attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a

Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points

to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at

least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives.

I have explained in my article on the Clares in the _Dictionary of

National Biography_ that there has been much confusion as to the

family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps

be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append

a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will

distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his

forefathers and his descendants'.

Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court

in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging

to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi

et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the

attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus]

filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus]

frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'[4]

Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard

'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different

family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard

an Earl of Devon.

Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors--which,

originating in the _Monasticon_, is embalmed in Dugdale's

_Baronage_--as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the

Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her _Battle Abbey

Roll_ (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming'

the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is

shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's _Exeter_ (1887) and by the

life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_,

by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of

Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his

father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles.

I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in

my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an

earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon.

Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another

daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match.

This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece

and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems

to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter.

The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of

Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and

her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their

mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 512-13). She can

only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de

Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet

another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who

brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard.

[Illustration: Family tree]

Count Gilbert,

of Brionne.

Benefactor to Bec.

Murdered 1040

|

--------------------------------------------(connect to

| Richard de Bienfaite)

|

Albreda=(1) Baldwin (2) Emma

de Meules, =

_alias_ de Clare, |

_alias_ Baldwin of |

Exeter, _alias_ |

Baldwin the |

Sheriff [of Devon]. |

Benefactor to Bec |

| (connect

| to Roger,

| 'filius Ricardi')

------------------------------------------- -----

| | |

William,[1] Robert,[2] Richard, Gilbert,

'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini',

Sheriff of Devon, held Brionne Sheriff of _alias_ Gilbert

1090 (see p. 256). against Robert Devon, 1129. de Tunbridge,

Benefactor to Bec of Normandy Died 1136.[3] mar. Adeliza

in 1090. Benefactor to Bec de Clermont

Benefactor to Bec (see p. 394)

|

----------------------------------------(connect

| | to Baldwin,

| | 'filius Gilberti')

| | |

Richard, Gilbert, Walter,[7]

'filius Gilberti,' 'filius Gilberti', 'filius Gilberti,'

d. 1136[3] Earl of Pembroke. of Maldon.

| Protector of Went on crusade

V St Neot's[5] _circ._ 1147

a quo the |

Earls of V

Hertford

(connect to

Count Gilbert

of Brionne)

----

|

Richard = Rohese, dau. of

de Bienfaite, Walter Giffard.

_alias_ 'filius Benefactress of

Gilberti', _alias_ St Neot's Priory

'filius Comitis |

Gilberti', _alias_ |

'de Tunbridge', |

_alias_ 'de Clare'. |

Founder of St |

Neot's Priory |

(cell to Bec) |

|

(connect to |(connect

Gilbert, |to Robert

'filius Baldwini') |'filius

------------------------------------------------ Ricardi')

| | |

Roger, Walter, Richard,

'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi',

living 1130 ob. s. p. Monk of Bec,

ob. s. p. Founder of Abbot of Ely 1100.

Benefactor to Tintern Abbey, Died 1107

Bec[4] 1131,

living 1136[5]

(connect

to Walter,'

'filius Gilberti')

-----------------------------------------

| | |

Baldwin, Adelidis Rohese,[8]

'filius Gilberti', 'de Tunbridge' mar. Baderon

_alias_ Baldwin mar. William de Monmouth

de Clare. de Percy

Founder of Deeping |

Priory (Benedictine) |

and Bourne Priory V

(Austin)

(connect

to Richard

'filius Ricardi')

----------------------------------------

| | |

Robert, Rohese, Adeliza = Walter

'filius Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', | Tirel,

d. (after Easter) mar. Eudo Dapifer died at | Lord of Poix,

1136. _circ._ 1088 Conflans, an | under-tenant

Bur. at St Neot's, He died 1120. offshoot of Bec, | of his

(? Dapifer Regis) She died 1121, _circ._ 1138 | father-in-law,

| and was buried | 1086

| at Bec |

| |

--------------------------------

| | Hugh

Walter Maude = William Tirel,

'filius "Roberti', 'de Senliz'. | de Albini Lord of Poix,

'Dapifer Regis[6] Benefactress | 'Brito' Benefactor to Bec.

(see p. 360) to St Neot's V Went on crusade 1147

|

V

[Footnotes from Family Tree:

[Footnote 1: 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum,

Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a

monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum,

Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (_Mon.

Ang._, v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed

_aliunde_. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.]

[Footnote 2: 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex

W.] et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (_Ord. Vit._)]

[Footnote 3: 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus

Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi,

patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus'

(_Robert of Torigni_).]

[Footnote 4: 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et

Waltero.']

[Footnote 5: 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione

mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab

antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).]

[Footnote 6: Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of

Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as

'Clarreaus'--a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._ iv. 597. _Formul Ang._ p. 40.]

[Footnote 8: _Mon. Ang._, iv. 597.]]

[_To face page_ 359.]

We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house,

Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his

daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected

that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac

(1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a

well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts

that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de

Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however,

on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale

actually relied on a charter,[5] which includes Baldwin among the

Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets

(_Baronage_, i. 207_b_). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving

Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin

_de Clare_, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the

battle of Lincoln.[6]

Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also

to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son

'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire'

(_Baronage_, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a

monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.[7]

The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of

Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of

Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord

of Daventry.

But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud

'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years

old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died

in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in _anno_ 1140'

(_ibid._)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was

the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare.

The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St

Neot's.[8] We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo.

79_b_, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (_al._ "Senliz") filia

Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one

(fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband:

Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et

concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti

et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et

antecessorum meorum.

Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio

filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius

Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz

mater mea eis prius concesserat'--her said grant of land in Cratfield

duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'.

Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this

grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield

belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in

Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given

to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in

maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what

her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is

found in this entry (1185):

Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et

mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et

est lx. annorum (_Rot. de Dominabus_, p. 1).

We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William

Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may

seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of

William de Albini, who sent in his _carta_ (under Leicestershire) in

1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167.

She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the

Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman

wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of

ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux,

and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu

and of Achères by the Seine' (_W. Rufus_, II, 322, 673).[9] But the

mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman

put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with

Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way

identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and

shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to

be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with

Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of

his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with

the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the

third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087,

and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de

Poix,[10] and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he

who was father of Hugh the Crusader.[11]

Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been

known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon

in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',[12] which appears to have eluded Mr

Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions

of the death of William Rufus:

Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a

Waltero _de Bekam_, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege

in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem

divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte

recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus,

etc., etc.

The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is,

even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain

the 'Bekam'.[13]

If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work

on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy,

'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather

than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's

somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of

original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph

on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts

the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more

critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis

de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their

present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment

of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes

'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not,

we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is

this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline'

and son Hugh to the grant?

Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they

solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg,

imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to

diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter

Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the

'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in

the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader

of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose

evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the

son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son,

we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot

be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter

Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de

Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or

1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.

But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which

proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the

archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of

Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham'

to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had

taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of

Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read

of the charter's date:

Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab

incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.

Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession

of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell

us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that

year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having

survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until,

therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we

must reject it _in toto_.

I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by

which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark

his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he

empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox,

the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:

Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell'

licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi

sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias

quos poterit ibi includere.[18]

Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries

ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts'

are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.

[Footnote 1: Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It

is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam

Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de

lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a

mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons

on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of

coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in

_Arch. Journ._, ii. 46).]

[Footnote 2: Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.]

[Footnote 3: A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims

for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he,

like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see

p. 355 _supra_).]

[Footnote 4: See also _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 329.]

[Footnote 5: Old _Monasticon_, i. 245_b_; and _vide infra_, p.

393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of

Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the

Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost

illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac.

This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of

drawings.]

[Footnote 6: See also _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, and my _Geoffrey

de Mandeville_.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._, v. 178.]

[Footnote 8: Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.]

[Footnote 9: Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by

'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires

de Poix Vicomtes d'_Equesnes_' it is probable that the latter

was meant.]

[Footnote 10: His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of

Amiens, who died in 1116.]

[Footnote 11: The essential reference occurs in the charter of

1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon

filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives

depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo.

91). These were the first and second known bearers of the

name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix

was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of

considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral

is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de

Piceio'.]

[Footnote 12: _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin_

(_Documents Inédits_), pp. 267-8.]

[Footnote 13: I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin

(Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification

'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum

omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that

they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram

militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for

'Belram' [Beaurain]?]

[Footnote 14: _Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la

Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix_, etc., etc.

(2nd Ed.) 1869.]

[Footnote 15: Vol. vii., pp. 820 _et seq._]

[Footnote 16: _Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de

Picardies_ (1876), xxv. 287 _et seq._]

[Footnote 17: M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely

similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to

have been already in possession of Poix, although, according

to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws

doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.]

[Footnote 18: Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42.

_Supra_, p. 357.]

WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR

The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for

chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very

great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was,

as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been

supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the _Dictionary of

National Biography_), that his latest appearance as chancellor was

early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in

taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well

known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in

Normandy with the King. There is, however, in _Gallia Christiana_

(vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided

before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present

being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can

trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date.

There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss

believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in

a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.[1] This charter is printed in the

_Monasticon_ (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus _temp._ Henry IV. There is,

however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I[2]

(No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is

that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No.

2), with a fuller list of witnesses.[3] I have examined the roll for

myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs:

Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^{o}

centesimo vii^{o} apud Wintoniam.

The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the

words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto

apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these

Tewkesbury charters,[4] and that suspicion is not lessened by the

double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of

1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name

was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly

be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de

Pistres[5]) who was killed in 1106.

On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as

chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November

1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,[6]

in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.[7] Its date is

determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop

of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor,

combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was

granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One

must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not,

as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the

names of the witnesses point to Easter--September 1107; and it is just

possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster

gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St

Andrew's may well have been granted.

Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the

chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of

Laon,[8] but I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

[Footnote 1: _Judges of England_, i. 140.]

[Footnote 2: _30th Report of Deputy-Keeper_, p. 203.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, p. 204.]

[Footnote 4: See _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, 421, 431-2.]

[Footnote 5: See p. 245 _supra_.]

[Footnote 6: _Judges of England_, i. 79.]

[Footnote 7: _Monasticon_, v. 191.]

[Footnote 8: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 22.]

A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123)

A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and

biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the

church of Exeter. It is printed in the _Monasticon_ under Plimpton,

to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been

preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter,

however, is also found among those confirmed by Henry VIII

(Confirmation Roll, I Henry VIII, p. 5, No. 13), with a list of

witnesses arranged in correct order; whereas the _Monasticon_ version

is taken from the pleadings under Richard II (Coram Rege, Hil. 2

Richard II, Rot. 20, Devon), and records the witnesses in grievous

disorder. The explanation of such disorder is that the clerk in the

latter case was not familiar with the system on which the attestations

to these charters were arranged, the names of the leading witnesses

being placed in a line above the others. This will be made evident

from the two lists of witnesses:

_Right Order_ _Wrong Order_

King Henry

Queen Adeliza Queen Adeliza

William, Archbishop of Canterbury William, Archbishop of Canterbury

Thurstan, Archbishop of York Robert, Earl of Gloucester

Richard, Bishop of London Thurstan, Archbishop of York

William, Bishop of Winchester William, Earl of Surrey

Roger, Bishop of Salisbury Roger, Bishop of Salisbury

Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln Roger, Earl of Warwick

Evrard, Bishop of Norwich Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln

Hervey, Bishop of Ely Robert, Earl of Leicester

Ralf, Bishop of Chichester Evrard, Bishop of Norwich

Ranulf, Bishop of Durham Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_

Robert, Bishop of Coventry Hervey, Bishop of Ely

'Theold', Bishop of Worcester William de Pirou, _dapifer_

Bernard, Bishop of St David's Ralf, Bishop of Chichester

Richard, Bishop of Hereford William d'Aubeny

Godfrey, Bishop of Bath Ranulf, Bishop of Durham

Geoffrey the Chancellor Nigel d'Aubeny

Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, Robert, Bishop of Coventry

Winchester

Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock Richard fitz Baldwin

Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester

Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon Baldwin de Redvers

Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury Bernard, Bishop of St David's

Robert, Earl of Gloucester Johel de Berdestaple

William, Earl of Surrey Richard, Bishop of Hereford

David, Earl of Huntingdon Guy de Totness

Ranulf, Earl of Chester Godfrey, Bishop of Bath

Roger, Earl of Warwick Robert de Cadentona [_sic_]

Robert, Earl of Leicester Geoffrey the Chancellor

Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ William fitz Odo

William de Pirou, _dapifer_ Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's,

William d'Aubeny Winchester

Nigel d'Aubeny Goislin de Pomereda

Richard fitz Baldwin Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock

Baldwin de Redvers Rainald de Valle Torta

Johel de Berdestaple Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne

Guy de Totness William fitz Richard

Robert de 'Badentona' Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon

William fitz Odo Herbert de Alneto

Goislin de Pomereda Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury

Rainald de Valle Torta Humfrey de Bohun

William fitz Richard William, Abbot of Cerne

Herbert de Alneto Walter fitz Thurstan[1]

Humfrey de Bohun

Walter fitz Thurstan

It is obvious that this charter was granted before the death of

the Bishop of Worcester (October 20, 1123), and before the King's

departure from England (June 1123). But it must be subsequent to the

death of the previous chancellor, Ranulf (Christmas 1122), and to the

appointment or consecration (February 1123) of Archbishop William. The

narrow limit thus ascertained points to the Easter court of 1123 at

Winchester, the great gathering of bishops and earls implying some

such occasion. Easter fell that year on April 15th.

Now two sees had fallen vacant at the beginning of the year, those of

Lincoln and of Bath. Lincoln was given to Alexander, whether at

Easter (Winchester), as stated by Henry of Huntingdon, or in Lent, as

asserted by the continuator of Florence; but he was not consecrated

till July 22nd. Bath was bestowed on Godfrey, whose consecration did

not take place till August 26th, though Henry of Huntingdon assigns

his appointment, like that of Alexander, to Easter (Winchester). Both

these bishops, it will be seen, attest the above charter, which proves

that it cannot be earlier than Easter (April 15th), while the evidence

below practically limits it to the Easter court at Winchester.

The first point to be observed is that these two bishops attest

as such (not as 'elect') long before their consecration. As it is

generally held that bishops never did so, this point is of importance

(always assuming the accuracy of the evidence) for its bearing

on other charters.[2] Secondly, four of the witnesses--the

two archbishops, the Bishop of St David's, and the Abbot of

Glastonbury--are said by the continuator to have left for Rome after

Alexander's appointment. From this charter it is clear that they did

not leave till after Easter. The third point is that Earl Roger of

Warwick had, at the date of this charter, succeeded his father, Henry.

Turning to Geoffrey the chancellor, we find in this charter perhaps

his earliest appearance. Foss, in his useful work, is here a year out.

He wrongly assigned the death of the preceding chancellor, Ranulf,

to Christmas 1123, instead of Christmas 1122, and he assumed that our

charter must be subsequent to Bishop Godfrey's consecration (August

26, 1123), and, in fact, that it belonged to 1124 (to which year he

wrongly assigned the death of Bishop Theowulf). It is important for

chronological purposes to date the change of chancellor correctly. I

have already determined (p. 481) the date of Ranulf's accession to the

post.

The correction of this date of Ranulf's death affects that of the

foundation of Laund Priory, Leicestershire, which is assigned by

Nichols and by the Editors of the _Monasticon_ to 'about 1125'. As the

foundation charter is addressed to William, Archbishop of Canterbury,

and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it must be subsequent to Alexander's

promotion in the spring of 1123 (if not to his consecration on June

22nd). This is admitted by Foss, who accepts the charter without

question. There is nothing in the document to excite suspicion, nor do

I impugn it without reluctance. But the awkward fact remains that it

is witnessed by Ranulf the chancellor, who died, as we have seen, at

the beginning of 1123, and actually in the lifetime of Bishop Robert,

Alexander's predecessor at Lincoln. There can be no question as to

Ranulf's death, for the sequence of events is inexorable. Henry

of Huntingdon tells us that (1) the king spent Christmas (1122) at

Dunstable; that (2) he went thence to Berkhampstead, where Ranulf was

accidentally killed; that (3) he then visited Woodstock, where Bishop

Robert met with an equally sudden death; that (4) at the Purification

(February 2, 1123) he gave the See of Canterbury to William of

Corbeuil; that (5) he gave (at Winchester) the See of Lincoln to

Alexander at Easter. It is singular that the members of the foundation

had two strings to their bow, another charter of Henry I being adduced

for Inspeximus. Its witnesses imply a later date, and their names do

not involve any chronological difficulty.

We have in this Exeter charter one of the earliest attestations

(according to my theory) of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. It should be

noted that he takes at once precedence of all other earls, just as he

had taken, before his elevation, precedence of all laymen under the

rank of earl.

Of the barons most are familiar. Richard fitz Baldwin was the son and

successor of the famous Baldwin of Exeter, and was, like him, sheriff

of Devon (see p. 237). Baldwin de Redvers was the son of Richard de

Redvers, and became subsequently first earl of Devon (the confusion

of these two families, from the similarity of name, seems to be

incorrigible).[3] The lords of the great honours of Barnstaple and

Totnes[4] are followed by Robert of Bampton, who had succeeded to the

Domesday fief of Walter de Douai, and who, as I have shown (_English

Historical Review_, v. 746), was afterwards a rebel against Stephen.

Goislin de Pomerey was the heir of Ralf de Pomerey, the Domesday

baron; and Reginald (Rainaldus) de Vautort was a great under-tenant of

the honour of Mortain. William fitz Richard I identify with that

great Cornish magnate, whose daughter and heiress carried his fief to

Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall. Herbert de Alneto also was a

Cornish baron, father of that Richard who, in 1130, paid £100 for his

succession (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 158). Specially interesting,

however, is the name of William fitz Odo, in whom I detect not the

William fitz _Otho_, of Essex and Middlesex (with whom he is confused

in the Index to the 1130 Pipe-Roll), but the son of 'Odo filius

Gamelin'; a Devonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 116_b_). I see him in

that '--filius Odonis', who is entered on the damaged Devonshire

roll (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 157) in connection with thirty-four

shillings, which proves that he held a considerable estate. The fief

of 'Odo filius Gamelin' was assessed at 21-3/16 hides, representing in

Devon large estates.[5]

[Footnote 1: It will be observed that this list omits the

Bishops of London and Winchester and the Earls of Huntingdon

and Chester, but adds the Abbot of Cerne.]

[Footnote 2: An excellent instance of this practice is found,

ten years later, in the case of Bishop Nigel, who attested

three charters in 1133, before the king's departure, as Bishop

of Ely, though he was not consecrated till some months later.

They are those found in _Monasticon_, vi. 1174, 1274, and that

which granted the chamberlainship to Aubrey de Vere.]

[Footnote 3: It has found its way, under 'Baldwin', into the

_Dictionary of National Biography_.]

[Footnote 4: The _Guido de Totteneys_ of this charter seems to

be identical with the _Wido de Nunant_ of the charter granted

by Henry II to this priory. This conjecture is confirmed

by the entry in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I: 'Wido de Nunant

reddit comp. de x. marcis pro concessione ferie de Totneis'

(p. 154). There is a story quoted by Dugdale, under Totnes

priory, from the records of the abbey of Angers, that Juhel

'of Totnes', the Domesday baron, was expelled by William

Rufus, and his lands given to Roger de Nunant. I certainly

find Roger de Nonant attesting in 1091 the foundation charter

of Salisbury Cathedral in conjunction with William fitz

Baldwin (see pp. 330, 472); and Manors belonging to Juhel in

1086 are found afterwards belonging to Valletort, Nonant's

successor, as part of his honour of Totnes. But it would seem

that Juhel retained part of his honour of Barnstaple, while

the Nonants held the rest as the honour of Totnes. Indeed, he

must have held both _capita_ so late as 1113, when, say the

monks of Laon, 'venimus ad castrum, quod dicitur Bannistaplum,

ubi manebat quidam princeps nomine Joellus de Totenes', etc.

(_Hermannus_, ii. 17), adding that they afterwards visited

Totnes 'præfati principis castrum' (_ibid._, 18).]

[Footnote 5: Reprinted, with additions, from _English

Historical Review_.]

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES

It is difficult to believe that so interesting a genealogical question

as the origin of this famous house should have remained as yet

undetermined. I have shown above (p. 137) that we can identify in

Domesday Gilbert and Ralph de Neville, the earliest bearers of the

name in England, as knightly tenants of the Abbot of Peterborough; but

the existing house, as is well known, descends from them only through

a female. It is at its origin in the male line that I here glance. The

innumerable quarters in which, unfortunately, information of this kind

has been published makes it impossible for me to say whether I have

been forestalled. So far, however, as I can find at present, two

different versions are in the field.

First, there is Dugdale's view that Robert fitz Maldred, their

founder, was 'son of Dolfin, son of Earl Gospatric, son of Maldred

fitz Crinan by Algitha daughter of Uchtred, Earl of Northumberland,

who was son-in-law to King Æthelred'. This was, apparently, Mr

Shirley's view, for, in his _Noble and Gentle Men of England_

he derives the Nevilles from 'Gospatric, the Saxon Earl of

Northumberland', though he makes Robert fitz Maldred his

_great_-grandson, as Rowland had done in his work on the House of

Nevill (1830), by placing Maldred between Dolfin and Robert fitz

Maldred. Even that sceptical genealogist, Mr Foster, admitted in

his peerage their descent from this Earl Gospatric. The immediate

ancestry, however, of their founder, Robert fitz Maldred, can be

proved, and is as follows:

Dolfin,

fitz Uchtred,

received 'Staindropshire'

from the Prior of Durham,

1131. (_Feod. Prior. Dun._ 56, 140)

|

__________________|________________________

| |

| |

Meldred Patrick

fitz Dolfin, fitz Dolfin

(F.P.D. 53, 100, 140) (F.P.D. 100)

| d. 1195-6

|___________________________________________

| |

| |

Isabel = Robert Gilbert

de Neville | fitz Meldred fitz Meldred

| of Raby (F.P.D. 53, 54)

|

Geoffrey

de Neville

Drummond's _Noble British Families_ (1842) set out a new origin for

the family without any hesitation, and this was adopted by the Duchess

of Cleveland, whose elaborate work on the _Battle Abbey Roll_ has much

excellent genealogy. Their patriarch Dolfin was now made the son

of that Uchtred, who was a grandson and namesake of Dugdale's Earl

Uchtred, _temp._ King Æthelred. A chart pedigree is required to show

the descent of the earls:

(1) Earl (2) (3)

= Uchtred, = =

| slain 1016 | |

___________| _____________| |________

| | | |

| | | |

Earl Earl Gospatric Ealdgyth,

Ealdred Eadwulf | mar. Maldred

| | | fitz Crinan

| | | |

daughter, | | |

mar. Siward | | |

| Earl UCHTRED Earl

| Osulf | Gospatric

| | ___________|________

| | | | |

Earl Eadwulf Dolfin Waltheof Gospatric

Waltheof, 'Rus', of Carlisle, of Dunbar

beheaded 1075 living 1080 1092

No authority, unfortunately, is given for the identity of this Uchtred

with Uchtred, father of Dolfin, and the assumption of that identity

involves the conclusion that Eadwulf 'Rus', who took the lead in the

murder of Bishop Walcher (1080), was brother to Dolfin who received

Staindrop in 1131, and uncle to a man who died in 1195 or 1196!

We cannot therefore accept this descent as it stands, or carry the

pedigree at present beyond Dolfin fitz Uchtred (1131). But as this

Dolfin, when doing homage to the Prior of Durham for Staindrop,

reserved his homage to the kings of England and of Scotland, as well

as the Bishop of Durham, he was, no doubt, a man of consequence, and

was probably of high Northumbrian birth. It may be worth throwing

out, as a hint, the suggestion that his father Uchtred might have been

identical with Uchtred, son of Ligulf, that great Northumbrian thegn

who was slain at Durham in 1080. But this is only a guess. One cannot,

in fact, be too careful, as I have shown in my two papers on 'Odard of

Carlisle' and 'Odard the Sheriff',[1] in identifying two individuals

of the same Christian names, when, in these northern districts, the

names in question were so widely borne. The Whitby cartulary, for

instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings was (maternal) grandson

of Alan, son of Thorphin 'de Alverstain', son of Uchtred (son of

Gospatric), which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby Ravensworth to the

abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Rufus. But who Gospatric,

his father, was has not been clearly ascertained. The skilled

genealogists of the north may be able to decide these points, and to

tell us the true descent of 'Dolfin, the son of Uchtred'.

[Footnote 1: _Genealogist_, N.S., v. 25-8; viii. 200.]

THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147

When Mr Richard Howlett, in the preface to his edition of the _Gesta

Stephani_ for the Rolls series, announced that we were indebted to its

'careful author' for the knowledge of an invasion of England by

Henry FitzEmpress in 1147, 'unrecorded by any other chronicler', and

endeavoured at considerable length to establish this proposition,[1]

it was received, from all that I can learn, with general incredulity.

As, however, in the volume which he has since edited, he reiterates

his belief in this alleged invasion,[2] it becomes necessary to

examine in detail the evidence for a discovery so authoritatively

announced in the pages of the Rolls series.

The accepted view of Henry's movements has hitherto been that, by his

father's permission, in the autumn of 1142 he accompanied the Earl of

Gloucester to England; that he remained there about four years; that,

by his father's wish, at the end of 1146 or beginning of 1147 he

returned from England; that he then spent two years and four months

over sea; that in the spring of 1149 he again came to England, and was

knighted at Carlisle by the king of Scots on May 22nd. As to the above

long visit, commencing in 1142, Gervase of Canterbury is our chief

authority, but the other chroniclers (omitting for the present the

_Gesta Stephani_) harmonize well with his account. Gervase and Robert

of Torigni alike mention but one arrival of Henry (1142) and one

departure (1146 or 1147), thus distinctly implying there was then

only one visit--namely, that visit which Gervase tells us lasted four

years. The only slight discrepancy between Gervase and Robert is found

in the date of Henry's departure. Robert places that event under 1147,

and mentions that Henry visited Bec May 29th in that year. There is

also, Mr Howlett has pointed out, charter evidence implying that Henry

was back in Normandy in March or April. Now Gervase says distinctly

that he was away from England two years and four months. The

chroniclers, Gervase included, say that he returned to England in the

middle of May 1149. Counting back the two years and four months, this

would bring us to January 1147, as the date of his departure from

England. But there is a charter of his to Salisbury Cathedral, tested,

as Mr Howlett observes, at Devizes, April 13, 1149. If this evidence

be trustworthy, it would take us back to December 1146, instead of

January 1147. It is easy to see how Gervase may have included in 1146,

and Robert in 1147, an event which appears to have taken place about

the end of the one or the beginning of the other year.

Much has been made of the alleged circumstance that Gervase assigned

the Earl of Gloucester's death to 1146, whereas he is known to have

died in 1147. But reference to his text will show that he does nothing

of the kind. Writing of Henry's departure at the close of 1146, he

tells us that the earl was destined never to see him again, for

he died in November [_i.e._ November 1147]. He is here obviously

anticipating.

Such being the evidence on which is based the accepted view of

Henry's movements, let us now turn to the _Gesta Stephani_. Though Mr

Howlett's knowledge of the period is great and quite exceptional, I

cannot but think that he has been led astray by his admiration for

this fascinating chronicle. Miss Norgate sensibly observes that 'there

must be something wrong in the story' as actually preserved in the

_Gesta_,[3] but Mr Howlett, unwilling to admit the possibility of

error in his chronicle, boldly asserts that the 'romantic account'[4]

of Henry's adventures which it contains does not refer to his visit

in 1149, but to a hitherto unknown invasion in 1147. He appears to

imagine that the only objection in accepting this story is found in

the fact that Henry was but just fourteen at the time.[5] But this

is not so. Putting aside this objection, as also the silence of other

chroniclers, there remains the chronological difficulty. How is the

alleged visit to be fitted in? Its inventor, who suggests 'about April

1147', for its date, must first take Henry back to Normandy (why or

when he does not even suggest) and then bring him back to England as

an invader, neither his alleged going or coming being recorded by any

chronicler. Then he assigns to his second return to Normandy (after

the alleged invasion) the only passages in Gervase and Robert which

speak of his returning at all. Surely nothing could be more improbable

than that Henry should rush back to England just after he had left it,

and had returned to his victorious father, and this at a time when his

cause seemed as hopeless there as it was prosperous over the sea.

The evidence of the _Gesta Stephani_ would have, indeed, to be beyond

question if we are to accept, on its sole authority, so improbable

a story. But what does that evidence amount to? The _Gesta_, unlike

other chronicles, not being arranged chronologically under years, the

only definite note of time here afforded in its text is found in the

passage, 'Consuluit [Henricus] et avunculum [_sic_] Glaorniæ comitem,

sed ipse suis sacculis avide incumbens, rebus tantum sibi necessariis

occurrere maluit'.[6]

As Earl Robert is known to have died in the autumn of 1147, the word

_avunculus_ does, undoubtedly, fix these events as prior to that date.

But is not _avunculus_ a slip of the writer for _cognatus_? Is not the

reference to Earl William rather than to his father, Earl Robert?[7]

Such a slip is no mere conjecture; the statement that Earl Robert was

too avaricious to assist his beloved nephew in his hour of need is not

only absolutely contrary to all that we know of his character, but is

virtually discredited by the _Gesta_ itself when its author tells us,

further on:

Comes deinde Glaorniæ ut erat regis adversariorum

strenuissimus et ad magna quevis struenda paratissimus,

iterum atque iterum exercitum comparare, jugi hortaminis et

admonitionis stimulo complices suos incitavit; illos minis,

istos promissis sibi et præmiis conjugare; quatinus omnes

in unam concordiam, in unum animum conspirati, exercitum e

diverso ad idem velle repararent, et collectis undecumque

agminibus, vive et constanter in regem insurgerent.[8]

How can such language as this be reconciled with the statement as to

Earl Robert's apathy at the very time when Henry's efforts offered him

a unique opportunity of pursuing his war against the king? Mr Howlett

does not attempt to meet, or even notice, this objection. Moreover,

when the _Gesta_ proceeds to describe Earl William of Gloucester as

devoted to his own pleasures rather than to war,[9] we see that the

conduct so incredible in his father would in him be what we might

expect.

I will not follow Mr Howlett in his lengthy argument relative to the

knighting of Eustace and Henry, because he himself admits that it is

based only on conjecture.[10] It is sufficient to observe that if the

'romantic' narrative in the _Gesta_ refers to the events of 1149,[11]

then the knighting of Eustace, which is a pendant to that narrative,

belongs, as the other chroniclers assert, to 1149. The statement,

I may add, that Henry applied for help to his mother, by no means

involves, as Mr Howlett assumes, her presence in England at the time.

I would suggest, then, that the whole hypothesis of this invasion

in 1147 is based on nothing more than a confusion in the _Gesta_. Mr

Howlett, indeed, claims that 'mediaeval history would simply disappear

if the evidence of chroniclers were to be treated in this way,[12]

and detects 'among some modern writers a tendency to incautious

rejection', etc.[13] But he himself goes out of his way to denounce,

in this connection, as a 'blundering interpolation' a passage in John

of Hexham, which he assigns to notes being 'carelessly misplaced' and

'ignorantly miscopied'.[14] The _Gesta_, to my knowledge, is by no

means immaculate; its unbroken narrative and vagueness as to dates

render its chronology a matter of difficulty; and the circumstance

that the passage in dispute occurs towards its close renders it

impossible to test it as we could wish by comparison with later

portions. The weakness of Mr Howlett's case is shown by his desperate

appeal to 'the exact precedent' set by Fulk Nerra, and no talk about

the contrast presented by 'physical science' and that 'fragmentary

tale of human inconsistencies which we term history' can justify the

inclusion of this alleged invasion as a fact beyond dispute in so

formal and authoritative a quarter as the preface to a Rolls volume.

[Footnote 1: _Chronicles_, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, vol.

iii. pp. xvi-xx, 130.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. xxi-xxii.]

[Footnote 3: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 377.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 5: 'The invasion of England by Henry in 1147, when

he was but a boy of fourteen, a piece of history which

has hitherto been rejected solely on the ground of

improbability.'--Preface (_ut supra_), p. xxi.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 131.]

[Footnote 7: There is a precisely similar slip, by John of

Salisbury, in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (Pertz, xx. 532),

where the 'Duke' of Normandy is referred to in 1148 as 'qui

modo rex est' (_i.e._ Henry). Mr Howlett himself has pointed

out (_Academy_, November 12, 1887) that the author 'slipped in

the words "qui modo rex est", and thus transferred to Henry a

narrative which assuredly relates to his father'. The slip in

question, as he observed, had sadly misled Miss Norgate.]

[Footnote 8: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 134.]

[Footnote 9: 'Successit in comitatum suum Willelmus filius

suus, senior quidem ætate, sed vir mollis, et thalamorum magis

quam militiæ appetitor' (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 134).]

[Footnote 10: Mr Howlett incidentally claims that knighthood

was a necessary preliminary to comital rank, and appeals to

the fact that the younger Henry was even carefully knighted

before his coronation (_Gesta_, p. xxii). But what has he to

say to the knighting of Earl Richard of Clare, by Henry VI,

and more especially to the knighting of Malcolm, already

Earl of Huntingdon and king of Scots, by Henry II, in 1159?

(_Robert of Torigni_, p. 203).]

[Footnote 11: Mr Howlett asserts (_Gesta_, p. 130, note) that

'when Henry made his better known visit in 1149 his acts were

quite different' from those recorded in the _Gesta_. But if,

as he himself admits, in 1149 Henry visited Devizes on his

way to Carlisle, what more natural than that he should pass

by Cricklade and Bourton (the two places mentioned in the

_Gesta_), which lay directly on his road?]

[Footnote 12: Preface to _Gesta_, p. xx.]

[Footnote 13: Preface to _Robert of Torigni_, p. xxii.]

[Footnote 14: Preface to _Gesta_ (_ut supra_), p. xvi.]

THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163)

The great importance attached by historians to the financial dispute

at the council of Woodstock in 1163 renders it desirable that the

point at issue should be clearly stated and understood. As I venture

to believe that the accepted view on the matter in dispute is

erroneous, I here submit the reasons which have led me to that

conclusion. 'Two most important points,' writes Dr Stubbs, 'stand

out' on this occasion: (1) 'this is the first case of any express

opposition being made to the king's financial dealings since the

Conquest'; (2) 'the first fruit of the first constitutional opposition

is the abolition of the most ancient property-tax [danegeld] imposed

as a bribe for the Danes'.[1] It is with the second of these points

that I propose especially to deal.

The passage which forms our best evidence is found in Grim's _Life of

St Thomas_, and its relative portion is as follows:

Movetur quæstio de consuetudine quadam quae in Anglia

tenebatur. Dabantur de hida bini solidi ministris regis

qui vicecomitum loco comitatus servabant, quos voluit rex

conscribere fisco et reditibus propriis associare. Cui

archiepiscopus in faciem restitit, dicens, non debere eos

exigi pro reditibus, 'nec pro reditu', inquit, 'dabimus eos,

domine rex, salvo beneplacito vestro: sed si digne

nobis servierint vicecomites, et servientes vel ministri

provinciarum, et homines nostros manutenuerint, nequaquam eis

deerimus in auxilium.' Rex autem aegre ferens archiepiscopi

responsionem, 'Per oculos Dei', ait, 'dabuntur pro reditu, et

in scriptura regis scribentur'.

On this passage Dr Stubbs thus comments:

A tax so described can hardly have been anything else than the

danegeld, which was an impost of two shillings on the hide,

and was collected by the sheriffs, being possibly compounded

for at a certain rate and paid by them into the exchequer. As

the danegeld from this very year 1163 ceases to appear as a

distinct item of account in the Pipe-Rolls, it is impossible

to avoid connecting the two ideas, even if we may not identify

them. Whether the king's object in making this proposition was

to collect the danegeld in full amount, putting an end to

the nominal assessment which had so long been in use, and so

depriving the sheriffs of such profits as they made from it,

or whether he had some other end in view, it is impossible now

to determine; and consequently it is difficult to understand

the position taken by the archbishop.[2]

The attempt to identify the payment in dispute with the danegeld does

indeed lead to the greatest possible difficulties, and Miss Norgate,

who follows closely in Dr Stubbs' footsteps, is no more successful in

answering them;[3] for, in the first place, the words of Grim do not

apply to the danegeld if taken in their natural sense; and in the

second the proceeds of the danegeld were already royal revenue, and

were duly paid in, as such, at the exchequer. To meet this latter and

obvious difficulty Dr Stubbs suggests that:

as the sums paid into the exchequer under that name (danegeld)

were very small compared with the extent of land that paid the

tax, it is probable that the sheriffs paid a fixed composition

and retained the surplus as wages for their services (etc.).[4]

So, too, Miss Norgate urges that the danegeld 'still occasionally made

its appearance in the treasury rolls, but in such small amount that

it is evident the sheriffs, if they collected it in full, paid only

a fixed composition to the crown, and kept the greater part as a

remuneration for their own services'.[5] Now this suggestion raises

the whole question as to the revenue from danegeld. We are told that

'the danegeld was a very unpopular tax, probably because it was the

plea on which the sheriffs made their greatest profit ... having

become in the long lapse of years a mere composition paid by the

sheriff to the exchequer, while the balance of the whole sums exacted

on that account went to swell his own income'.[6]

As against this view I venture to hold that the danegeld was in no way

compounded for, but that every penny raised by its agency was due to

the royal treasury, leaving no profit whatever to the sheriff. The

test is easily applied: let us take the case of Dorset. The Domesday

assessment of this county, according to the late Mr Eyton, who had

investigated it with his usual painstaking labour, and collated it

with the geld-rolls of two years before, was about 2,300 hides.[7]

This assessment would produce, at two shillings on the hide, about

£230. Now the actual amount accounted for on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is

£228 5s; on that of 1156 it is £228 5s; and on that of 1162, the last

levy, it is £247 5s.[8] There is certainly no margin of profit for

the sheriff here. In other counties, we find that the proceeds of the

danegeld in 1130, 1156, and 1162, whilst slightly fluctuating, roughly

correspond, as, indeed, they were bound to do, the Domesday assessment

remaining unchanged.[9] I can, therefore, find no ground for the

alleged discrepancy between the amounts accounted for by the sheriffs

and those which the assessment ought to have produced.

This being so, the solitary explanation suggested for Henry's action

falls to the ground, and it becomes clear that the payment in dispute

could not have been the danegeld, as the proposed change could not

increase the amount it produced already. As a matter of fact, the last

occasion on which danegeld _eo nomine_ was levied was in 1162, but

to connect that circumstance with the Woodstock dispute of 1163 is an

instance of the _post hoc propter hoc_ argument, more especially as

the danegeld was not in dispute, still less its abolition. On the

contrary, the primate desired to keep things as they were. What,

then, was this mysterious payment but the _auxilium vicecomitis_,

or 'sheriffs' aid'? Garnier distinctly states that this is what it

was,[10] and Grim's words no less unmistakably point to the same

conclusion. To institutional students of the twelfth and thirteenth

centuries the _auxilium vicecomitis_ is familiar enough. It

was, writes Dr Stubbs, a 'payment made to the sheriff for his

services',[11] and was, it may be added, a customary charge, varying

in amount,[12] paid over locally to the sheriffs. It may fairly be

said to have stood to the danegeld in the relation of rates to taxes.

On this hypothesis the difficulties of the case vanish at once, and

Henry's object is made plain. To add this regular annual levy to

his own revenues would be all clear gain, and would relieve him _pro

tanto_ from the necessity of spasmodic and irregular taxation. As for

the sheriffs and the districts beneath their sway, they were possibly

to be left to their own devices to find a substitute for the lost

'aid', like a modern county council bereft of its wheel tax; for

the thought suggests itself that Henry was attempting to reverse the

process that we have lately witnessed, by relieving the taxes at

the expense of the rates, instead of the rates at the expense of

the taxes. Whether, therefore, the attitude of the primate can be

described as 'opposition to the king's will in the matter of taxation'

is perhaps just open to question. He took his stand on the sure ground

of existing 'custom', recognized at that time as binding on all.[13]

One is tempted to discern a grim irony in Henry's action when he

promptly proceeded to turn the tables on his old friend by appealing

to the _avitæ consuetudines_ as obviously binding on so rigid a

constitutional purist as the primate.[14]

[Footnote 1: _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 69, 70. So, too, Miss

Norgate: 'It seems, therefore, that for the first time in

English history since the Norman Conquest the right of the

nation's representatives to oppose the financial demands

of the crown was asserted in the Council of Woodstock, and

asserted with such success that the king was obliged not

merely to abandon his project, but to obliterate the last

trace of the tradition on which it was founded' (_Angevin

Kings_, ii. 16).]

[Footnote 2: _Const. Hist._, i. 462; so, too, _Early

Plantagenets_, pp. 68-70; and _Select Charters_, p. 29,

where it is described as 'Henry's proposal to appropriate the

sheriffs' share of danegeld'.]

[Footnote 3: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 15, 16.]

[Footnote 4: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 5: But the Auctor Anonymus makes it clear that the

king was not asking for the balance of the sums raised, but

for the entirety: 'duo illi solidi ... si in unum conferuntur

immensum efficere possunt cumulum'.]

[Footnote 6: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 381, 582.]

[Footnote 7: _Dorset Domesday_, p. 144.]

[Footnote 8: Thus accounted for (_Rot. Pip._, 8 Hen. II):

£ s. d.

Paid in 141 10 0

Paid out previously 63 0 0

Allowed for remissions 20 1 2

Balance due 22 13 10

-----------------

247 5 0

N.B. The roll sums up the remissions as £21 [_sic_] 1s 2d, but

the total of the items is £20 1s 2d.]

[Footnote 9: Oxfordshire, for instance, where the amounts were

£239 9s 3d, £249 6s 5d, £242 0s 10d; or Wiltshire, where they

run £388 13s 0d, £389 13s 0d, £388 11s 11d.]

[Footnote 10: _L'Aide al Vescunte_, as quoted by Miss Norgate,

who observes thereon, 'This payment, although described as

customary rather than legal, and called the "sheriffs' aid",

seems really to have been nothing else than the danegeld....

His (Garnier's) story points directly to the danegeld.']

[Footnote 11: _Const. Hist._, i. 382.]

[Footnote 12: In this detail alone Grim appears to have

confused it with the uniform two shilling rate of the

danegeld. The record in the _Testa de Nevill_ (pp. 85, 86)

of the 'auxilium vicecomitis', due from the Vills in the

Wapentake of Framelund (Leic.), illustrates well the payment.]

[Footnote 13: Thus the statement that he 'declared at

Woodstock that the lands of his church should not pay a penny

to the danegeld' (_Const. Hist._, i. 578) misrepresents his

position by making him repudiate his undoubted obligation.]

[Footnote 14: This and the preceding and succeeding papers are

reprinted from the _English Historical Review_.]

A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170)

The charter given below is cited by Madox as evidence that in the days

of Henry II the exchequer was still 'sometimes holden in other places'

than Westminster. Contrary to his usual practice, he does not print

the charter; so, wishing to ascertain what light it might throw on

the private transaction it records, I referred to its original

enrolment.[1] Finding that its evidence would prove of some historical

value, I decided to edit it for the use of students.[2]

Willelmus comes de Essex' omnibus hominibus [et] amicis suis,

Francis [et] Anglis, clericis [et] laicis, tam futuris quam

presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse [et] concessisse

[et] hac carta mea confirmasse Rogero filio Ricardi [et]

suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis]

in escambio pro Cunctonia hereditarie tenendam de me [et]

heredibus meis sibi [et] heredibus suis per servicium unius

militis [et] dimidii, libere et quiete [et] honorifice sicut

unquam antecessores mei liberius [et] honorificencius eam

tenuerunt [et] habuerunt; scilicet in bosco [et] in plano,

in pratis et pascuis, in viis [et] semitis, in aquis, [et]

molendinis, [et] in omnibus predicte ville adjacentibus.

Et insuper dedi [et] concessi predicto Rogero filio Ricardi

terram de Wlauynton' quam pater meus comes Gal[fridus] dedit

Willelmo de Moretonio, per servicium michi faciendum quod

predictus Willelmus patri meo facere debuit, hereditarie

tenendum [_sic_] de me [et] heredibus meis, illi [et]

heredibus suis. Quare volo [et] firmiter precipio quod ista

donacio rata [et] inconcussa permaneat. Et notum sit omnibus

quod istud eschambium factum fuit apud Wynconiam [_sic_]

ad Scaccarium coram domino Rege Henrico filio regis Henrici

Secundi [et] Baronibus suis. Tes[et]e [_sic_]

Reg' comite, Bac'[3] de Luc[i], Willelmo de Sancto Johanne,

Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo Archidiacono

Pick[tavensi], Hunfrido de Buh[un] constant[e],[4] Manser'

Biset dap[ifero], Gilberto Malet dap[ifero], Hugone de

Gundvil[la], Alano de Nevill[a], Thoma Basset, Willelmo filio

Audel[ini], Johanne Mereschal, Roberto de Bussone, Johanne

const[abulario] Cestr[iae], Ranulpho de Glanvile, Gaufrido de

Say, Gerard de Kanvill[a], Oseberto filio Ricardi, David de

Jarpenvilla, Ricardo filio Hugonis, Johanne Burd, Willelmo

filio Gill[eberti], Roberto de Sancto Claro, Johanne de Roch,

Hasculfo Capellano, Henrico clerico, Roberto clerico, qui hanc

cartam scripsit, [et] multis aliis.

The purpose of the charter is soon disposed of; it records a grant by

the Earl of Essex to Roger fitz Richard (who had married the earl's

aunt 'Alice of Essex'[5]) of Aynho, Northants, in exchange for

Compton, co. Warwick. Both Manors were in the Mandeville fief, and

the former was to be held, as the latter had been (in 1166[6]), 'per

servicium unius militis et dimidii'.

The interest of the document is to be sought in its witnesses, and

its place of testing, and above all in the date which, I hope to show,

they suggest. The mention of the two inseparable archdeacons proves

that this date cannot be later than 1174, and consequently, as the

young king was present, must have been previous to his revolt in 1173,

and therefore to his departure from England about the close of 1172.

On the other hand, the date must be subsequent to June 1170, when

the young king was crowned, and therefore probably to the meeting at

Fréteval (July 22, 1170), at which the Archdeacon of Canterbury was

present.

Thus we obtain a limit of date. Within this limit we may exclude

the young king's stay in England after the departure of the two

archdeacons (December 1170), as also his subsequent presence in

England in 1171-2 while his father was in Ireland, for William fitz

Aldelin was in Ireland with him. Indeed, we are told by Giraldus (v.

286) that when the king left Ireland (April 1172) William was left

behind in charge of Wexford.[7] As the young king then accompanied his

father over sea, the only period remaining (except July-December 1170)

to which we could assign the document is August-November 1172, when he

visited England, with his consort Margaret, for his second coronation.

This ceremony took place at Winchester, but we cannot tell whether

William fitz Aldelin had yet returned from Ireland, or whether any

other of our witnesses were present on that occasion.[8]

But if we turn to the other possible period, the latter half of 1170,

we find an occasion when six of the witnesses to the above charter

can actually be shown to have been present, under circumstances of

peculiar interest, with the young king at Winchester.

The evidence of charters is so deficient at this period of the reign

that from August 1170 to June 1171, Mr Eyton could only adduce two

charters 'quite problematically' and one more 'safely', as he claims,

but erroneously, as his own pages show.[9] If, then, our charter

belongs to this period, its evidence is proportionately valuable. Now

all that we know of the movements of the young king at the time

is that he was at Westminster on October 5th, and that he kept his

Christmas at Winchester. Mr Eyton's book must here be used with great

caution. He has been misled by R. de Diceto (i. 342)[10] into the

statement that Henry was at Woodstock when Becket sought to visit him

in December; and adds--by a confusion, it would seem, with his October

movements--'The young king is at Windsor' (December 4th[11]). Henry

was neither at Woodstock nor Windsor at this time, but at Winchester.

Becket's biographers are unanimous in stating that he sent his envoy

before him to the young king at Winchester.

Landing on December 1st, and entering Canterbury next day, the primate

(says William fitz Stephen), 'post octo dierum moram in sede',[12]

sent Richard, prior of Dover (who was destined to be his own

successor), to the young king to ask permission to visit him 'tanquam

regem et dominum suum'. Richard 'veniens Wintoniam, regem invenit, ubi

optimates regni ... coegerat'.[13]

The purpose of this special assembly was connected with the scheme for

an irregular election to the vacant sees, at the court of the elder

king, by deputations whom his son was to send over.[14] Prior Richard

was confronted by the young king's guardians (three of whom attest

our charter).[15] He himself, on receiving the application, sent (as

I read it) to consult Geoffrey Ridel, who was believed to know his

father's wishes, and who, with the Archdeacon of Poitiers, was at

Southampton, waiting to cross.[16] Turning, for their movements, to

William fitz Stephen, we learn that, while on their way to cross from

a Kentish port, the two archdeacons, on entering the county, learnt

that the primate had arrived at Canterbury, and, turning their horses'

heads, made for a more westerly port.[17] Southampton clearly was the

port they made for, and on their way thither they must have visited

the young king at Winchester. This is admitted in the case of

Geoffrey, who went there, says Becket, to lay before him the complaint

of the excommunicated bishops.

I believe that our charter belongs to this occasion, when the two

attesting archdeacons were at Winchester. _Reg'_ no doubt is Earl

Reginald of Cornwall, who was certainly present at the same time[18]

and who is probably referred to in 'li cunte' of Garnier. This will

establish the presence of six of our witnesses. Of the others, Richard

de Luci takes precedence as justiciar; Alan de Nevill, Thomas Basset,

and the great Glanville were, like the two archdeacons and the three

guardians of the king, members of the judicial body; Humfrey de Bohun,

Gilbert Malet, and Manasser Bisset were present as officers of the

household; John, constable of Chester, was (then or afterwards)

son-in-law to the grantee's wife, and Geoffrey de Say was the son

of the earl's aunt; Osbert fitz Richard and David de Jarpenville

(probably John de Rochelle also) were among the earl's feudal tenants

and are found attesting another of his charters; and Hasculf was the

enterprising chaplain who had plotted to carry off the late earl's

corpse and present it to the nuns of Chicksand. The only person whose

presence need puzzle us is the Earl of Essex himself; for William fitz

Stephen[19] asserts that he was despatched from Henry's court after

the arrival there of the excommunicated prelates and the Archdeacon

of Poitou. Either, then, he had previously paid a flying visit to

Winchester, or he must have been absent when this transaction was

recorded.

[Footnote 1: Madox gives a misleading reference. The charter

occurs among the Clavering enrolments of m. 17 (not 19) of the

L.T.R. Memoranda of the Exchequer, containing the Michælmas

_communia_ of 5 Edward II.]

[Footnote 2: Mr Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office,

kindly undertook to transcribe the charter for me.]

[Footnote 3: Read _Ric[ardo_].]

[Footnote 4: Read _constab[ulo_].]

[Footnote 5: See my paper on 'Who was Alice of Essex?' in the

_Essex Arch. Transactions_.]

[Footnote 6: 'Rogerus filius Ricardi i. militem et tres

partes unius militis.' Probably the quarter fee was a separate

holding.]

[Footnote 7: Humfrey de Bohun also and Hugh de Gundeville were

left behind at Waterford.]

[Footnote 8: Foss (_Judges of England_, i. 235) states

positively that Hugh de Gundeville did not leave Ireland

till 1173, at the time of the rebellion. This, if true,

would dispose at once of an 1172 date for our charter; but,

unfortunately, he does not give his authority, and I have not

succeeded in finding it.]

[Footnote 9: _Court, etc., of Henry II_, pp. 147, 154. The

Archdeacon of Canterbury attests the Chinon charter, which Mr

Eyton 'safely' assigns to the middle of October 1170, adding

that he had 'apparently been with the king ever since the

peace of Fréteval' (July 22nd). But he is known to have been

with the young king at Westminster on October 5th, as indeed

Mr Eyton elsewhere observes (p. 151).]

[Footnote 10: Becket, he says, visited London on his way, 'ad

videndam faciem novi regis, qui tunc temporis morabatur apud

Wdestoc' [_sic_].]

[Footnote 11: 'Court of King Henry the Younger' (Eyton, pp.

151-2).]

[Footnote 12: _Materials_, p. 121. William of Canterbury

places Richard's despatch 'post aliquot dies reditus sui'

(_ibid._, i. 106).]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, i. 106; so Garnier (p. 166, Ed.

Hippeua)--