selecta ex Registro MSS. sive breviario Monasterii sancti Johannis
Baptistæ Colecestriæ collecto (_sic_) a Joh. Hadlege spectante Johanni
Lucas armigero. Anno Domini, 1633" (_Harl. MS._, 312, fol. 92). This
charter (which, being in MS., was unknown, of course, to Prof. Freeman)
has also an incidental value for its evidence on the Clare pedigree,
Gilbert, Robert, and Richard, the witnesses, being all grandsons of
Count Gilbert, the progenitor of the house. Among the documents in the
_Monasticon_ relating to Bec, we find mention of "Emmæ uxoris Baldewini
filii Comitis Gilberti et filiorum ejus Roberti et Ricardi," which
singularly confirms the accuracy of this charter and its list of
witnesses. This is worth noting, because the charter is curious in form,
and has been described as having "a suspicious ring." It is also found
in (Morant's) transcript of the Colchester cartulary (_Stowe MSS._).
[946] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6.
[947] _Mon. Ang._ (1661), ii. 66 _b_.
[948] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6 (printed in Appendix 5 to _Lords' Reports on
Dignity of a Peer_, pp. 4, 5).
[949] Ed. Howlett, p. 184.
[950] "In operibus Turris de Gloec' vii _li._ vi _s._ ii _d._"
(Pipe-Roll, 2 Hen. II., p. 78).
[951] Henry I. gave land to the abbey (1109) "in escambium pro placia
ubi nunc turris stat Gloecestrie" (i. 59).
[952] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 108.
[953] _Ibid._, i. 79.
[954] _Ibid._, i. 29 (cf. "Mota de Hereford"—_Rot. Pip._, 15 Hen. II.,
p. 140).
[955] _Rotuli scaccarii Normanniæ_ (ed. Stapleton), i. 56. The "turris"
had been added by Henry I. (_vide infra_, p. 333). With the above entry
may be compared the phrase in one of Richard's despatches
(1198)—"castrum cepimus cum turre" (_R. Howden_, iv. 58); also the
expression, "tunc etiam comes turrem et castellum funditus evertit,"
applied to Geoffrey's action at Montreuil (_circ._ 1152) by Robert de
Torigny (ed. Howlett, p. 159).
[956] _Chronique de Jordan Fantosme_ (ed. Howlett), ll. 1423, 1424,
1469, 1470.
[957] It is even applied by Giraldus Cambrensis to the turf entrenchment
thrown up by Arnulf de Montgomery at Pembroke.
[958] _M. M. A._, ii. 420.
[959] _English Towns and Districts_, p. 152.
[960] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 514.
[961] There is a strange use of "castellum," apparently in this sense,
in William of Malmesbury's version (ii. 119) of Godwine's speech on the
Dover riot (1051). The phrase is "magnates _illius castelli_," which Mr.
Freeman unhesitatingly renders "the magistrates of that _town_" (_Norm.
Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 135), a rendering which should be compared with his
remarks on "castles" on the next page but one, and in Appendix S. Mr.
Clark is of opinion that "whether 'castellum' can [here] be taken for
more than the fortified town is uncertain" (_M. M. A._, ii. 8).
[962] Skeat's _Etymological Dictionary_; Oliphant's _Old and Middle
English_, p. 37. It is not, therefore, strictly accurate to say of the
expression "ænne castel," in the chronicle for 1048, that it was "no
English name," as Mr. Freeman asserts (_Norm. Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 137),
or to imply that it then first appeared in the language.
[963] _Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.), ii. 189.
[964] Ed. Howlett, p. 106. Robert also mentions (p. 126) the "towers" of
Evreux, Alençon, and Coutances as among those constructed by Henry I.
[965] "About the Tower," as the chronicle expresses it.
[966] "Henricus Rex circa turrem Rothomagi ... murum altum et latum cum
propugnaculis ædificat, et ædificia ad mansionem regiam congrua infra
eundem murum parat" (_Robert of Torigny_, ed. Howlett, p. 106).
[967] I can make nothing of Mr. Clark's chronology. In his description
of the Tower he first tells us that "all save the keep [_i.e._ the White
Tower] is later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh
century" (_M. M. A._, ii. 205), and then that "the Tower of the close of
the reign of Rufus" (i.e. _before the end of_ "the eleventh century")
... was probably composed of the White Tower with a palace ward upon its
south-east side, and a wall, probably that we now see, and certainly
along its general course, including what is now known as the inner ward"
(_ibid._, ii. 253). Again, as to the Wakefield Tower, which "deserves
very close attention, its lower story being next to the keep in
antiquity" (_ibid._, ii. 220), Mr. Clark tells us that Gundulf (who died
in 1108) was the founder "perhaps of the Wakefield Tower" (_ibid._, ii.
252); nay, that "Devereux Tower ... may be as old as Wakefield, and
therefore in substance _the work of Rufus_" (_ibid._, ii. 253); and yet
we learn of this same basement, that "the basement of Wakefield Tower is
probably late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen or Henry II.,
although this is no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed" (_ibid._,
ii. 224). In other words, a structure which was "the work of Rufus,"
_i.e._ of 1087-1100, can only be attributed, at the very earliest, to
the days of "Stephen or Henry II.," _i.e._ to 1135-1189.
[968] The very same phrase is employed by Robert de Torigny in
describing her husband's action at Torigny ten years later (1151): "dux
obsederat castellum Torinneium, sed propter adventum Regis infecto
negotio discesserat; combustis tamen domibus infra muros usque ad turrem
et _parvum castellum circa eam_" (ed. Howlett, p. 161).
[969] _Ord. Vit._, ii. 296.
[970] A curious touch in a legend of the time brings before us in a
vivid manner the impression that this mighty tower had made upon the
Norman mind. Hugh de Glos, an oppressor of the poor, appearing, after
death, to a priest by night (1090), declared that the burden he was
compelled to bear seemed "heavier to carry than the Tower of Rouen"
("Ecce candens ferrum molendini gesto in ore, quod sine dubio mihi
videtur ad ferendum gravius Rotomagensi arce."—_Ord. Vit._, iii. 373).
[971] _W. Rufus_, i. 245-260.
[972] "De arce prodiit" (_Ord. Vit._, iii. 353). _Arx_, here as above,
is used as a substitute for _turris_.
[973] "Conanus autem a victoribus in arcem ductus est. Quem Henricus per
solaria turris ducens" (_ibid._, iii. 355). "In superiora Rotomagensis
turris duxit" (_W. Malms._).
[974] _W. Rufus_, i. 256, 257.
[975] _Ord. Vit._, v. (Appendix) 199. See p. 422.
[976] _Robert of Torigny_ (ed. Hewlett), p. 153.
[977] My alternative explanation of the choice of style, namely, the
importance of the keep itself relatively to the "castellum," must also
be borne in mind.
[978] "[Rex] in _turri_ de Bristou captivus ponitur.... [Imperatrix]
obsedit _turrim_ Wintonensis episcopi.... Robertus frater Imperatricis
in cujus _turri_ Rex captivus erat" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 275).
[979] "In turri Cenomannica" (_Annales Veteres_, 311).
[980] The Tower of Rouen, we have seen (p. 334), was styled "arx regia."
[981] A fine "motte" is visible from the line between Calais and Paris
(on the right); another, as I think, stood on the Lea, between Bow
Bridge and the "Old Ford," and is (or was) well seen from the Great
Eastern line.
[982] _Archæological Journal_, xx. 205-223 (1863).
[983] _Anglia Sacra_ (ed. Wharton), i. 337, 338.
[984] _Gentleman's Magazine_, N.S., xv. 260.
[985] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421, 422.
[986] _William Rufus_, i. 53, 54.
[987] "Egregia turris" is the expression of Gervase (_Actus
Pontificum_).
[988] The "castrum lapideum" (compare the three "castra lapidea" erected
for the blockade of Montreuil in 1149) is so styled to distinguish it
from the "castrum ligneum," which occurs so often, and which Mr. Freeman
so persistently renders "tower."
[989] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 419.
[990] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi., 471, 472.
[991] Both writers, also, mistake a general exemption from the _trinoda
necessitas_ for a special allusion to Rochester keep.
[992] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421.
[993] Mr. J. R. Boyle has shown that nearly £1000 was spent upon it
between 1172 and 1177, when it was, therefore, in course of erection.
[994] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 186.
[995] _Norman Conquest_, iii. 182.
[996] _Histoire du Château d'Arques_, by A. Deville, pp. x., 412
(Rouen).
[997] Ed. Howlett, p. 106.
[998] _Cours d'antiquités monumentales_ (1835), v. 227, 228.
[999] Colchester, in _Archæologia_, to which he refers, was attributed
to Edward the Elder, and Rochester was, of course, as yet, believed to
be the work of Gundulf.
[1000] Compare Professor Freeman on Falaise: "More probably, I think, of
the twelfth than of the eleventh [century]" (_Norm. Conq._, ii. 175).
[1001] _Château d'Arques_, pp. 307-312.
[1002] _Ibid._, pp. 48, 267.
[1003] Compare the "castrum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit" at
Arques with the "castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" at
Newcastle.
[1004] Compare, on this point, the acute criticism of Dr. Bruce
(repeated by Mr. Freeman) that "Wace (v. 12,628) speaks of the horse of
William Fitz Osbern [in 1066] as 'all covered with iron,' whereas in the
[Bayeux] Tapestry 'not a single horse is equipped in steel armour; and
if we refer to the authors who lived at that period, we shall find that
not one of them mentions any defensive covering for the horse.'" Compare
also the expression of William of Malmesbury, who lived and wrote under
the tower-building king, that the Norman barons took advantage of the
Conqueror's minority "_turres_ agere," these being the structures with
the building of which the writer was most familiar.
[1005] "A flight of steps, beginning upon the north face, passing by a
doorway through its most westerly buttress, and which then, turning, is
continued along the west face" (_M. M. A._, i. 188). Cf. Deville (p.
298), and the plan of 1708 (_ibid._, Pl. XII.).
[1006] _M. M. A._, i. 188, ii. 432.
[1007] Report of 1708 (_Deville_, p. 294).
[1008] It is only right to mention that, according to the _Academy_,
"Mr. Clark has long been recognized as the first living authority on the
subject of castellated architecture;" that, in the opinion of the
_Athenæum_, all those "who in future touch the subject may safely rely
on Mr. Clark;" that his is "a masterly history of mediæval military
architecture" (_Saturday Review_); and that, according to _Notes and
Queries_, "no other Englishman knows so much of our old military
architecture as Mr. Clark."
APPENDIX P.
THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON.
(See p. 151.)
The new light which is thrown by the charters granted to Geoffrey upon a
subject so interesting and so obscure as the government and _status_ of
London during the Norman period requires, for its full appreciation,
detailed and separate treatment. But, before advancing my own
conclusions, it is absolutely needful to dispose of that singular
accretion of error which has grown, by gradual degrees, around the
recorded facts.[1009]
The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of
London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex _ad firmam_, the
"Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex _exclusive of London_. The
actual words of the charter are these:—
"Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex
ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et
hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint
de se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad
custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius
erit justitiarius super ipsos homines London[iarum]."
Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (_vicecomitatus_) and
the ferm (_firma_) mentioned in this passage are the shrievalty and the
ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, nor of London apart from
Middlesex, but of "London _and_ Middlesex." For there is never, from the
first, but one ferm. It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the
almost contemporary Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of
"London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and Geoffrey's
charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen grants him "the
shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"[1010] the Empress, in her turn,
grants him "the shrievalty of London and Middlesex."[1011] Further, the
Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this same _firma_ both as the ferm of
"London," and as that of "London and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8
Ric. I. we find the phrase, "de veteri firma _Comitat'_ Lond' et
Middelsexa." Lastly, the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of
London—
"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et
consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra
civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ...
trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.[1012]
And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and
Middlesex."[1013]
The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When they are
directed to the local authorities, it is to those of "London and
Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." The three are, for all
purposes, used as equivalent terms. There was never, as I have said, but
one ferm, and never but one shrievalty.[1014]
Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" of
Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex _apart from London_. This prevalent but
erroneous assumption has proved the cause of much confusion and
misunderstanding of the facts of the case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been
assigned such prominence as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie
which may derive authority in the eyes of some from the editorial
_imprimatur_ of Mr. Freeman.[1015] We there read as follows:—
"It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That
London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a
fact of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125).
From this interpretation of the "Middlesex" of the charter, it, of
course, followed that the writer took the _firma_ of £300 to be paid in
respect of Middlesex _exclusive of London_.[1016] We need not wonder,
therefore, that to him the grant is difficult to understand. Here are
his comments on its terms:—
"If we could estimate the reasons which led to this grant with any
degree of certainty, we should understand better what the citizens
expected to gain by it besides rights of jurisdiction.... The meaning
and nature of the grant are subjects of which we should like to know
more. But here we can obtain little help from books ... and we may
inquire in vain for a definition of the position and duties of the
sheriff who acts for the citizens in their subject county.... There
must have been advantages to accrue from the payment by London of £300
a year, a sum which, small as it seems to us, was a heavy tax in those
days. We may be sure the willing citizens expected to obtain
correspondingly valuable liberties" (pp. 121-123).
Then follow various conjectures, all of them necessarily wide of the
mark. And as with the ferm, so with the sheriff. Mr. Loftie, taking the
sheriff (_vicecomes_) in question to be a sheriff of Middlesex exclusive
of London (which he hence terms a "subject county"), is of necessity
baffled by the charter. For by it the citizens are empowered to appoint
(_a_) a "vicecomes," (_b_) a "justitiarius." As the "vicecomes,"
according to his view, had nothing to do with the City itself, Mr.
Loftie has to account for "the omission of any reference to the
portreeve in the charter," his assumption being that the City itself was
at this time governed by a portreeve. Though his views are obscurely
expressed, his solutions of the problem are as follows. In his larger
work he dismisses the supposition that the "justitiarius" of the charter
was the "chief magistrate" of the City, _i.e._ the portreeve, because
the citizens must have been "already" entitled to elect that officer.
Yet in his later work, with equal confidence, he tells us that by
"justitiarius" the portreeve is "evidently intended." The fact is that
he is really opposing two different suppositions; the one that Henry
granted by his charter the right to elect a portreeve, the other that he
did not grant it, but retained the appointment in his hands. Mr. Loftie
first denies the former, and then, in his later work, asserts the former
to deny the latter. But really his language is so confused that it is
doubtful whether he realized himself the contradictory drift of his two
arguments, both based on the same assumption, which "it is manifestly
absurd," we learn, to dispute.[1017] And the strange part of the
business is this, What is the "proof" that Mr. Loftie offers for the
later of his two hypotheses? If the "trial" to which he refers had ever
taken place at all, and, still more, if it had taken place before 1115,
the fact would have an important bearing. But, in the first place, he
has wrongly assigned to the record too early a date, and, in the second,
it represents Gilbert Prutfot, not as a judge, but as a culprit. The
expression used is, "Terra quam Gillebertus Prutfot nobis
disfortiat."[1018] Now "defortiare" (or "disfortiare") is rendered by
Dr. Stubbs, in his _Select Charters_ (p. 518), "to deforce, to
dispossess by violence." We have here, therefore, an interesting,
because early, example of the legal offence of "deforcement," defined by
Johnson as "a withholding of lands and tenements by force from the right
owner." But the point to which I would call attention is that, even if
this writer were correct in his facts (which he is not), his "proof"
that (a _vicecomes_ and a _justitiarius_ being mentioned in the charter)
the justitiarius was "evidently" the portreeve consists in the fact that
a _vicecomes_ had "given judgment" in a trial, and being styled
_vicecomes_, was the portreeve! That is to say, the _justitiarius_ must
have been the portreeve _because_ the portreeve was styled (_not_
"justitiarius," but, on the contrary,) _vicecomes_. Such is actually his
argument.[1019]
I have dwelt thus fully on these observations, because they illustrate
the hopeless wandering which is the inevitable result of the adoption of
the above fundamental error.
We have a curiously close parallel to this use of "London and Middlesex"
in the expression "turris et castellum," on which I have elsewhere
dwelt.[1020] Just as the relative importance of the "Tower" of London to
the encircling "castle" at its feet led to the term "turris" alone being
used to describe the two,—while, conversely, in the provinces,
"castellum" was the term adopted,—so did the relative greatness of
London to the county that lay around its walls lead to the occasional
use of "London" as a term descriptive of both together, a usage
impossible in the provinces. Whether a "turris et castellum" were
destined to become known as a "turris" or a "castellum," whether
"Londonia et Middelsex" were described as "Londonia" merely, or as
"Middlesex," in each case the entity is the same. For fiscal, and
therefore for our purposes, "London and Middlesex," under whatever name,
remain one and indivisible.
The special value of the charters granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville lies
not so much in their complete confirmation of the view that the _firma_
of "Middlesex" was that of "London _and_ Middlesex" (for that would be
evident without them), as in their proof of the fact, so strangely
overlooked, that this connection was at least as old as the days of
William the Conqueror, and in their treatment of Middlesex (including
London) as an ordinary county like Essex or Herts, "farmed" in precisely
the same way. The _firma_ of Herts was £60, of Essex £300, and of
Middlesex (because containing London) £300 also.
But now let us leave our record evidence and turn to geography and to
common sense. What must have always been the salient feature which
distinguished Middlesex internally from every other county? Obviously,
that the shire was abnormally small, and its chief town abnormally
large. Nor was it a mere matter of size, but, still more, of comparative
wealth. This is illustrated by the taxation recorded in the Pipe-Roll of
1130. Unlike the _firma_, the taxes were raised, as elsewhere, from the
town and the shire respectively, the town contributing an _auxilium_,
and the shire, without the walls, a Danegeld. We thus learn that London
paid a sum about half as large again as that raised from the rest of the
shire.[1021] The normal relation of the "shire" to the "port" was
accordingly here reversed, and so would be also, in consequence, that of
the shire-reeve to the portreeve. Where, as usual, the "port" formed but
a small item in the _corpus comitatus_, it was possible to sever it from
the rest of the county, to place it _extra firmam_, and to give it a
reeve who should stand towards it in the same relation as the
shire-reeve to the shire, and would therefore be termed the "portreeve."
But to have done this in the case of Middlesex would have been to
reverse the nature of things, to place a mere "portreeve" in a position
greater than that of the "shire-reeve" himself. This is why that change
which, in the provinces, was the aim of every rising town, never took
place in the case of London, though the greatest town of all. I say that
it "never took place," for, as we have seen, the city of London was
never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can trace
them, they are found one and indivisible.
What, then, was the alternative? Simply this. The "reeve," who, in the
case of a normal county, took his title from the "shire" and not from
the "port," took it, in the abnormal case of Middlesex, from the "port"
and not from the "shire." In each case both "port" and "shire" were
alike within his jurisdiction; in each case he took his style from the
most important part of that jurisdiction. Such is the original solution
I offer for this most interesting problem, and I claim that its
acceptance will explain everything, will harmonize with all existing
_data_, and will dispose of difficulties which, hitherto, it has been
impossible to surmount.
My contention is, briefly, that the Norman _vicecomes_ of "London," or
"Middlesex," or "London and Middlesex" was simply the successor, in that
office, of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve." With the sphere of the
_vicecomes_ I have already dealt, and though we are not in a position
similarly to prove the sphere of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve," I might
appeal to the belief of Mr. Loftie himself that "Ulf the Sheriff of
Middlesex is identical with Ulf the Portreeve of London"[1022] (though
he adds, contrary to my contention, that "as yet their official
connection was only that of neighbourhood"),[1023] and that Ansgar,
though one of the "portreeves" (p. 24); "was Sheriff of Middlesex for a
time there can be no doubt" (p. 127).[1024] But I would rather appeal to
the vital fact that the shire-reeve and the portreeve are, so far I
know, never mentioned together, and that writs are directed to a
portreeve or to a shire-reeve,[1025] but never to both. Specially would
I insist upon the indisputable circumstance that such writs as were
addressed to the "portreeve" by the Anglo-Saxon kings, were addressed to
the _vicecomes_ by the Norman, and that the turning-point is seen under
the Conqueror himself, whose Anglo-Saxon charter is addressed to the
"bisceop" and the "portirefan," and whose Latin writs are, similarly,
addressed to the _episcopus_ and the _vicecomes_. More convincing
evidence it would not be easy to find.
The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the alleged
"disappearance of the portreeve," with the difficulties it has always
presented, and the conjectures to which it has given rise.[1026] The
style of the "portreeve" indeed disappears, but his office does not. In
the person of the Norman _vicecomes_, it preserves an unbroken
existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of
Ansgar the portreeve.[1027]
The problem as to what became of the portreeve, a problem which has
exercised so many minds, sprang from the delusion that in the Norman
period the City must have had a portreeve for governor independent of
the Sheriff of Middlesex. I term this an undoubted "delusion," because I
have already made it clear that the City was part of the sheriff's
jurisdiction and contributed its share to his _firma_. There was,
therefore, no room for an independent portreeve; nor indeed does a
"portreeve" of London, I believe, ever occur after the Conqueror's
charter.
But we must here glance at the contrary view set forth by Mr. Loftie:—
"The succession of portreeves is uninterrupted. We have the names of
some of them in the records of the Exchequer. Occasionally two or
three, once as many as five, came to answer for the City and pay the
£300 which was the farm of Middlesex. In 1129, a few years only after
the retirement of Orgar and his companions, we read of 'quatuor
vicecomites' as attending for London. The following year we hear of a
single 'camerarius.' The 'Hugh Buche' of Stowe may be identified with
the Hugo de Bock of the St. Paul's documents, and his 'Richard de Par'
with Richard the younger, the chamberlain. 'Par' is probably a
misreading for Parvus contracted. In the reign of Stephen two members
of the Buckerel family hold office, and we have Fulcred and Robert, who
were related to each other. Another early portreeve was Wluardus, who
attends at the Exchequer in 1138, and who continued to be an alderman
thirty years later" (_Historic Towns: London_, p. 34).
Where are "the records of the Exchequer" from which we learn all this?
The only Pipe-Roll of the period is that of 1130, in which "the farm of
Middlesex" is not £300, but a much larger sum, a fact which, as we shall
find, has a most important bearing. The "quatuor vicecomites" appear "as
attending," not in 1129, but in 1130. The "camerarius" does not (and
could not) appear "in the following year," but, on the contrary,
belonged to a preceding one ("Willelmus _qui fuit_ camerarius de
_veteribus_ debitis"); nor does he account for the _firma_. The _firma_
was always accounted for by "vicecomites," and not (as implied on p.
108) by a chamberlain, or by a "prefect." The "Hugh Buche" is given in
Mr. Loftie's former work (p. 98) as "Hugh de Buch." He is meant (as even
Foss perceived) for the well-known Hugh de Bocland (the minister of
Henry I.), who cannot be shown to have been a "portreeve." No "Hugo de
Bock" occurs in the St. Paul's documents, which only mention "Hugo de
Bochelanda" and "Hugo de Bock[elanda]," the latter imperfection being
the source of the error. "Richard, the younger, chamberlain" only occurs
in these documents a century later (1204-1215), and "the younger," I
presume, there translates "juvenis," and not "parvus." It is, moreover,
quite certain that Stowe's "de Par" was not "a misreading for 'parvus'
contracted," but for "delpare," as may easily be ascertained. No member
of the Bucherel family occurs in these documents as holding office "in
the reign of Stephen," though some do in the next century. Fulcred was
not a "portreeve," but a "chamberlain;" and Robert, Fulcred's brother,
was neither one nor the other. But what are we to say to "Wluardus" the
portreeve, "who attends at the Exchequer in 1138"? Where are the
"records of the Exchequer for 1138"? They are known to Mr. Loftie
alone.[1028] Moreover, his identification, here, of the _vicecomes_ with
the portreeve is in direct antagonism to the principle laid down just
before (p. 29), that, on the contrary, it was the _justitiarius_ who
should "evidently" be identified with the portreeve (see p. 350,
_supra_).
Perhaps the assumption of a portreeve's existence springs from
forgetfulness or misapprehension of the condition of London at the time.
Its corporate unity, we must always remember, had not yet been
developed. As Dr. Stubbs so truly observes, London was only
"a bundle of communities, townships, parishes, and lordships, of which
each has its own constitution."[1029]
I cannot indeed agree with him in his view that the result of the
charter of Henry I. was to replace this older system by a new "shire
organization."[1030] For my contention is that our great historian not
only misdates the charter in question, but also misunderstands it
(though not so seriously as others), and that it made no difference in
the "organization" at all. But I would cordially endorse these his
words:—
"No new incorporation is bestowed: the churches, the barons, the
citizens retain their ancient customs; the churches their sokens, the
barons their manors, the citizens their township organization, and
possibly their guilds. The municipal unity which they possess is of the
same sort as that of the county and hundred."[1031]
And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized under a
sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government of the day was
to be found in the petty courts of these various "communities," and not
in any central corporation. The only centralizing element was the
sheriff, and his office was not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the
financial claims of the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of
jurisdiction. There was, of course, the general "folkmote" over which,
with the bishop, he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were
those of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote could no
more mould these self-governing bodies into one coherent whole, than
they could, or did, accomplish this in the case of an ordinary shire.
Here we have a somewhat curious parallel between such a polity as is
here described and that of the present metropolis outside the City.
There, too, we have the local communities, with their quasi-independent
vestries, etc., and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for
their "folkmote" or "shiremote."[1032] But, to revert to the days of
Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength varying in
intension conversely with its sphere in extension, possessed the
toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. Thus the original
territorial system might never have led to a corporate unity. But what
the sheriff and the folkmote could not accomplish, the mayor and the
_communa_ could and did. The territorial arrangement was overthrown by
the rising power of commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work:
"The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor
marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire
organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the
aristocratic element."[1033]
At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view I have advanced
on the shrievalty, because the point is of such paramount importance
that it cannot be expressed too clearly. The great illustrative value of
Geoffrey's charters is this. They prove, in the first place, that
Middlesex (inclusive of London) was treated financially on the same
footing as Essex or Herts or any other shire; and in the second they
give us that all-important information, the amount of the _firma_ for
each of these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we have
to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view its _firma_
of £300. Sometimes described as the _firma_ of "London," sometimes "of
Middlesex," and sometimes "of London and Middlesex," its identity never
changes; it is always, and beyond the shadow of question, the _firma_ of
Middlesex inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment
reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its amount, an
endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the first Geoffrey de
Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it was £300. Nearly doubled by
Henry I., it was yet reduced to £300 by his charter to the citizens of
London. In the succeeding reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured
it from both claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II.,
as the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. John, we
shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and the reduction was
confirmed by his successor on his assuming the reins of power. For we
find a charter of Henry III. conceding to the citizens of London
(February 11, 1227)—
"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et
consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra
Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et
heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim
nobis et heredibus nostris _trescentas libras_ sterlingorum
blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus
Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et _quia antiquitus
consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris_."
The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the forfeiture
of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were restored to favour,
on payment of heavy sums to the king and to his son, they received
permission "to have two sheriffs of their own who should hold the
shrievalty of the City and Middlesex as they used to have." But the
_firma_ was raised from £300 to £400 a year.[1034] Finally, on the
accession of Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the _firma_ was reduced to
the original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, "it
has remained ever since."[1035]
This one _firma_, of which the history has here been traced, represents
one _corpus comitatus_, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036]
From this conclusion there is no escape.
Hence the _firmarii_ of this _corpus comitatus_ were from the first the
_firmarii_ (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London.
This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the _firma_ so with the
sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of
London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of
Middlesex inclusive of London.
This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I.
granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (_i.e._ Middlesex inclusive
of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be
regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the _corpus comitatus_ to
any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased
it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at
the low original _firma_ of £300 a year. The change effected was simply
that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes
of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037]
The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual
lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent
provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body:
"Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis."
It would seem that under the _régime_ adopted by Henry I., the financial
exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of
his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (_i.e._ of the
financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible.
This was effected either by adding to the annual _firma_, a sum "de
cremento," or by exacting from the _firmarius_, over and above his
_firma_, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was
offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be
_firmarius_ to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the
_firma_ was a low one. But if the _firma_ was a high one, he would not
offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the
sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu
habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to
have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of
counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus"
had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which,
seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de
Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of
Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an
Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this
lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted
fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by no means
above indulging in speculations of the kind. But when we make the
interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, in this same reign, had
acted as Sheriff of London,[1042] may we not infer that, there also, he
had indulged in a similar speculation? That the shrievalty of London
(_i.e._ London and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is
a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz Walter is
debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas argenti de Gersoma
pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."[1043]
The _firmarius_ who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would have to
recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount of the actual
"firma" _plus_ his payment "de gersoma," before he could derive for
himself any profit whatever from the transaction. This implied that he
had closely to shear the flock committed to his charge. If he was a mere
speculator, unconnected with his sphere of operations, he would have no
scruple in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion.
What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure as the
financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear that just as
the _rotulus exactorius_ recorded the amounts to which the king was
entitled from the _firmarii_ of the various counties, so these
_firmarii_, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly fixed
amount from the various constituents of their counties' "corpora."
Domesday, however, while recording these sums, shows us, in many
remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" being paid than that which was
strictly due. The fact is that we are, and must be, to a great extent,
in the dark as to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments.
That the remarkable rise in the annual _firmæ_ exacted from the towns
which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent on, the
Conquest would seem to imply that these _firmæ_, under the loose
_régime_ of the old system, had been allowed to remain so long unaltered
that they had become antiquated and unduly low. In any case the
Conqueror raised them sharply, probably according to his estimate of the
financial capacity of the town. And this step would, of course, involve
a rise in the total of the _firma_ exacted from the _corpus comitatus_.
The precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed by
Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the uttermost
farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive use of the
"placita" included in the "firma comitatus" that the sheriffs mainly
trusted to increase their receipts.
But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed by the
sheriffs in the towns within their rule,[1044] and exercised by them to
recoup themselves for the increased demands of the Crown, we know that
such means there must have been, or it would not have been worth the
while of the towns to offer considerable sums for the privilege of
paying their _firmæ_ to the Crown directly, instead of through the
sheriffs.[1045]
I would now institute a comparison between the cases of Lincoln and of
London. In both cases the city formed part of the _corpus comitatus_; in
both, therefore, its _firma_ was included in the total ferm of the
shire. Lincoln was at this time one of the largest and wealthiest towns
in the country. Its citizens evidently had reason to complain of the
exactions of the sheriff of the shire. London, we infer, was in the same
plight. Both cities were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial
intervention of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was
this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways varying
with the circumstances of the two cases. London was considerably larger
than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus
while the _firma_ of Lincoln represented less than a fifth of the ferm
of the shire,[1046] that of London would, of course, constitute the bulk
of the ferm of Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever
itself financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would
endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by itself
boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of the citizens of
Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:—
"Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij
marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114).
The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:—
"Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant
Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148).
I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. No one
appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to the above Lincoln
entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II.). We there
find £140 deducted from the ferm of the shire in consideration of the
severance of the city from the _corpus comitatus_ ("Et in Civitate
Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). But we further find the citizens of
Lincoln, in accounting for their _firma_ to the Crown direct, accounting
not for £140, but for £180. It must, consequently, have been worth their
while to offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for
the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through the
sheriff.[1047] Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions from which
they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I have said, set to work a
different way. They simply sought to lease the shrievalty of the shire
themselves. I can, on careful consideration, offer no other suggestion
than that the hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130,
represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the shrievalty
for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in that year by the
"quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather from the Roll that Fulcred
fitz Walter had been sheriff for 1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma"
is, I take it, represented in the case of the following year (1129-30)
by these hundred marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid
nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have leased the
shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their fellows, as
representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such a post was not one
to be coveted. To exact sufficient from their fellow-citizens wherewith
to meet the claims of the Crown would be a task neither popular nor
pleasant. Indeed, the fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites"
may imply that they could not find any one man who would consent to fill
a post as thankless as that of the hapless _decurio_ in the provinces of
the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a later age, in the country
towns of England. Hence it may be that we find it thus placed in
commission. Hence, also, the eagerness of these _vicecomites_ to be quit
of office, as shown by their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs
of gold apiece.[1048] It may, however, be frankly confessed that the
nature of this payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from
the very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one would
have thought that such payments would probably have been made to their
fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the office rather than to the
Crown. Moreover, if their year of office was over, and the city's lease
at an end, one would have thought they would be freed from office in the
ordinary course of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests
itself is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from serving
again even though their fellow-citizens should again elect them to
office.[1049] But I leave the point in doubt.
The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced is that the
citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, for the first time)
for the year 1129-30. We have the names of those who held the shrievalty
at various periods in the course of the reign, before this year, but
there is no evidence that, throughout this period, it was ever leased to
the citizens. The important question which now arises is this: How does
this view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.?
We have first to consider the date to which the charter should be
assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that Rymer, "from the
names appended to it or some other evidence, dates it in 1101."[1050] As
a matter of fact, Rymer assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer
himself even include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of
that work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till
1885 that in the Record Office _Syllabus_, begun by Sir T. D. Hardy, the
date 1101 was assigned to it.[1051] That date is possibly to be traced
to Northouck's _History of London_ (1773), in which the commencement of
Henry's reign is suggested as a probable period (p. 27). This view is
set forth also in a modern work upon the subject.[1052] It is not often
that we meet with a charter so difficult to date. The _formula_ of
address, as it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to
a late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between the
justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. But there is,
unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence to enable us to fix
the date with precision. All that we can say is that such a name as that
of Hugh Bigod points to the period 1123-1135, and that, of the nine
witnesses named, seven or eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31
Hen. I.). This would suggest that these two documents must be of about
the same date. Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty
before Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no
sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to understand
how or why it could be withdrawn within a very few years of its grant.
In short, for this view there is not a scrap of evidence; against it, is
all probability. If, on the contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am
now going to advance, namely, that the charter was later than the
Pipe-Roll, the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a
year, to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by a
permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, which we
find recorded in the charter.
It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on the guess
at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that the charter was
earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and others have merely followed
him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:—
"Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll,
some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In
1130 there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for
the ferm of London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and
part of the account is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right
to appoint the sheriffs has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens
pay a hundred marks of silver that they may have a sheriff of their own
choice," etc., etc.[1053]
But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers "the date of
Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was subsequent to the
Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to the ground.
The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs alludes,
is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of the "vicecomites"
varies throughout. As a matter of fact, the abbreviated forms leave us,
as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, doubtful whether we ought to read
"vicecomite_m_" or "vicecomite_s_," and even if the former is the one
intended, we know, both in this and other cases, that there was nothing
unusual in putting the office in commission between two or more. As to
the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the _firma_, with
which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly enough, Dr. Stubbs has
overlooked the really important point, namely, that the _firma_ is not
£300, as fixed by the charter, but over £500.[1054] This increases the
discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs lays stress. The most natural inference
from this fact is that, as on several later occasions, the Crown had
greatly raised the _firma_ (which had been under the Conqueror £300),
and that the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to
the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter was granted
between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been tempted, by the offer of
an enormous sum down, to grant (1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a
reduction of the fee-farm rent ("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to
which the _firma_ had been raised by the king, together with the annual
_gersoma_, amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only have
been purchased by a large payment in ready money.
It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry accumulated the
vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his death. He may not improbably
in collecting this wealth have kept in view what appears to have been
the supreme aim of his closing years, namely, the securing of the
succession to his heirs. This was to prove the means by which their
claims should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much to
suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens to the
interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. In any case
his efforts were notoriously vain, for London headed throughout the
opposition to the claims of his heirs. I cannot but think that his
financial system had much to do with this result, and that, as with the
Hebrews at the death of Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them
only of his "grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met
the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money[1055] by bluntly
requesting a return to the system of Edward the Confessor.[1056]
In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly ignored both
by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted in turn to the Earl of
Essex the shrievalty of London and Middlesex (1141-42).
A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. What was the
attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's charter? Of our two
latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie tells us that
"Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good
footing with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the
Great Charter of his grandfather."[1057]
Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted by Henry II. to
the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, is simply a confirmation
of his grandfather's."[1058] Such, indeed, would seem to be the accepted
belief. Yet, when we compare the two documents, we find that the special
concessions with which I am here dealing, and which form the opening
clauses of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in
that of Henry II.![1059] This leads us to examine the rest of the latter
document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged the two
charters side by side, and divided their contents into numbered clauses,
italicizing the points of difference.
HENRY I.
(1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo placito.
(2) Sint quieti _de schot et de loth de Danegildo et_ de murdro, et
nullus eorum faciat bellum.
(3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per
sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo
Londoniarum.
(4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea familia,
neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur.
(5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes res
eorum, et per totam Angliam _et per portus maris, de thelonio et
passagio_ et lestagio _et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus_.
(6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in pace
socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in
soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus
socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit.
(7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad
suam _were_, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam
pertineat.
(8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote,
neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in
hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ.
(9) Et terras suas _et wardemotum_ et debita civibus meis habere faciam
_infra civitatem et extra_.
(10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege
civitatis.
(12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in
Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. _Quod si reddere noluerint,
neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent
capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui
debitum debet._
(11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum
ceperit, _cives_ Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi
theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro
theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.[1072]
(13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et
plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et
Sureie.
HENRY II.
(1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum[1060] de
ullo placito _præter placita de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis
monetariis et ministris meis_.
(2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [_et_[1061]] _infra urbem et
Portsokna_,[1062] et quod nullus[1063] faciat bellum.[1064]
(3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus[1065]] se possunt disrationare
secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis.
(4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem
Marescalli.
(5) Omnes cives Londoniarum[1066] sint quieti de theloneo et lestagio
per totam Angliam et per portum[1067] maris.
(6) [This clause is wholly omitted.]
(7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem
civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis[1068] avi mei.
(8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus
semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur.
(9) Terras suas _et tenuras et vadimonia_ et debita omnia juste
habeant, _quicunque eis debeat_.
(10) De terris suis et tenuris _quæ infra urbem sunt_, rectum eis
teneatur secundum legem[1069] civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ
accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,[1070] et de vadimoniis ibidem
factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.[1071]
(11) Et si quis _in tota Anglia_ theloneum et consuetudinem ab
hominibus Londoniarum[1070] ceperit, _postquam ipse a recto defecerit,
Vicecomes_ Londoniarum[1070] namium inde _apud Londonias_[1070] capiat.
(12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque [1073]habuerunt tempore Regis
Henrici avi mei.
(13) _Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis concessi quod[1074]
sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,[1075] et de
Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus_ (sic) _London[iarum][1076] vel
aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat._
Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the
question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from the _Select
Charters_ of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to the _Fœdera_ for his text
(which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is
taken from the transcript in the _Liber Custumarum_ (collated with the
_Liber Rubeus_). Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as
could be wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused
my suspicions,[1077] but the collation of the two charters has led to a
singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of Henry I.
the citizens are guaranteed "terras _et wardemotum_ et debita sua." Now,
this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. Why should the
wardmoot be thus sandwiched between the lands of the citizens and the
debts due to them? And what can be the meaning of confirming to them
their wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned as an
infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? Yet, corrupt
though this passage, on the face of it, appears, our authorities have
risen at this unlucky word, if I may venture on the expression, like
pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr.
Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion.
Historians, like doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do
agree their unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately
proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading of
"vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage its sense by showing
that what Henry confirmed to the citizens was "the property mortgaged to
them, and the debts due to them."[1078]
Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing from the text
as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception of the avowed
addition at the close, the later charter has, in sundry details, the
aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting rather than enlarging the
benefits conferred. This, however, is but a small matter in comparison
with its total omission of the main concession itself. This fact, so
strangely overlooked, coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff
as "vicecomes _meus_" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079] but
explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable
without it, that the _firma_ is again, under Henry II., found to be not
£300, but over £500 a year.
In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the _firma_ of London, if I reckon it right, was,
as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.[1080] In 1160 (6 Hen. II.) it was a
few pounds less,[1081] and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) it was little, it would
seem, over £500.[1082] But in these calculations it is virtually
impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not only from the system of
keeping accounts partly in _libræ_ partly in _marcæ_, and partly in
money "blanched" partly in money "numero," but also from the fact that
the figures on the Pipe-Rolls are by no means so infallible as might be
supposed.[1083]
Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make any change. It
merely confirms that of his father. But John, in addition to confirming
this (June 17, 1199), granted a supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)—
"Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus
Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus
rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ...
reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras
sterlingorum blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum,
quod ipsi de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et
amoveant quando voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem
fecimus civibus Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et
quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."[1084]
Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this
charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of
the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must
not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising
of the _firma_ to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in
1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).
We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on
the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during
the twelfth century (_i.e._ from "1101"), but was held by them for a few
years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the
sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I.,
appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to
reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at
that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in
retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in
that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized
the _régime_ of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey
remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to
that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for
exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that
Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London,
he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's
concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not
be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty
was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its
chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When
that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa"
with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the
chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he
would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become
but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since,
to that of the mayor himself.
The transient existence of the local _justitiarius_ is a phenomenon of
great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville
charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a
middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially _local_
shire-reeve and the _central_ "justice" of the king's court. I have
already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation
of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the
localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the
_justitiarius_ for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a
purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his
bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was
this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de
Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of
Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in
the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the
office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend)
towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of
Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to
find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the
office _eo nomine_ twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice
mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086]
The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure;
its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot,
surely, henceforth be maintained.
[1009] On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'"
(Lond_onia_ or Lond_oniæ_) I would explain at the outset that both
forms, the singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension
is legitimate. I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth
in the _Athenæum_, 1887) that "Londoni_a_" is the Latinization of the
English "Londone," and "Londoni_æ_" of the Norman "Londres."
[1010] "Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."
[1011] "Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."
[1012] Madox's _Firma Burgi_, p. 242, _note_.
[1013] These words were written before the late changes.
[1014] A remarkable illustration of this loose usage is afforded by the
case of the archdeaconry. Take the styles of Ralph "de Diceto." Dr.
Stubbs writes of his archdeaconry: "That it was the archdeaconry of
Middlesex is certain ... it is beyond doubt, and wherever Ralph is
called Archdeacon of London, it is only loosely in reference to the fact
that he was one of the four archdeacons of the diocese" (_Radulfi de
Diceto Opera_, I. xxxv., xxxvi.). But, as to this explanation, the
writer adduces no evidence in support of this view, that all "four
archdeacons" might be described, loosely, as "of London." Indeed, he
admits, further on (p. xl., _note_), "that the title of Essex or
Colchester is generally given to the holders of these two
archdeaconries, so that really the only two between which confusion was
likely to arise were London and Middlesex." Now, in a very formal
document, quoted by Dr. Stubbs himself (p. 1., _note_), Ralph is
emphatically styled "Archdeacon of London." It is clear, therefore,
that, in the case of this archdeaconry, that style was fully recognized,
and the explanation of this is to be found, I would suggest, in the use,
exemplified in the text _ut supra_, of "London" and "Middlesex" as
convertible terms.
[1015] Mr. Freeman himself makes the same mistake, and insists on
regarding Middlesex as a subject district round the City.
[1016] Even Dr. Sharpe, the learned editor of the valuable _Calendar of
Hustings Wills_, is similarly puzzled by a grant of twenty-five marks
out of the king's ferm "de civitate London," to be paid annually by the
sheriffs of London and Middlesex (i. 610), because he imagines that the
_firma_ was paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone.
[1017] "It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a
mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the
election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, but
all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens
already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name he
was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them power to
appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already allowed to
appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the portreeve in the
charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" (_History of
London_, i. 90).
"The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the
leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to
hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for
it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry
allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not
elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the
references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very
early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than 1115,
Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is mentioned as
having some time before given judgment against the dean and chapter as
to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of England"
(_London_, p. 29).
[1018] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 66 _b_.
[1019] Reference to p. 110, _supra_, will show at once how vain is the
effort to wrench "justitiarius" from its natural and well-known meaning.
[1020] See Appendix O.
[1021] Here and elsewhere I use "shire" on the strength of Middlesex
having a "sheriff" (_i.e._ a shire-reeve).
[1022] _London_, p. 126.
[1023] This springs, of course, from what I have termed "the fundamental
error."
[1024] See p. 37, _ante_, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.
[1025] I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London
and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the
City and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of
Middlesex.
[1026] Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the
disappearance of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic
revolution, the history of which is now lost, but which might account
for the earnest support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In
another place (_Select Charters_, p. 300) he writes: "How long the
Portreeve of London continued to exist is not known; perhaps until he
was merged in the _mayor_." I have already dealt with Mr. Loftie's
explanation of "the omission of any reference to the portreeve" in the
charter.
[1027] See p. 37, _ante_, and Addenda.
[1028] See _Athenæum_, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The
First Mayor of London" in _Academy_, November 12, 1887, and _Antiquary_,
March, 1887.
[1029] _Const. Hist._, i. 404.
[1030] "The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early
in the century" [_i.e._ by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of
guild and franchise" (_ibid._, i. 630).
[1031] _Ibid._, i. 405.
[1032] This was written before the days of the London County Council.
[1033] _Ibid._, i. 630.
[1034] _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_, p. 124: "Circa idem tempus, scilicet
Pentecosten (1270), ad instantiam domini Edwardi concessit Dominus Rex
civibus ad habendum de se ipsis duos Vicecomites, qui tenerent
Vicecomitatum Civitatis et Midelsexiæ ad firmam sicut ante solebant:
Ita, tamen, cum temporibus transactis solvissent inde tantummodo per
annum ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum, quod de cetero solvent annuatim
cccc libras sterlingorum computatorum.... Et tunc tradite sunt civibus
omnes antique carte eorum de libertatibus suis que fuerunt in manu
Domini Regis, et concessum est eis per Dominum Regem et per Dominum
Edwardum ut eis plenarie utantur, excepto quod pro firma Civitatis et
Comitatus solvent per annum cccc libras, sicut præscriptum est.
"Tunc temporis dederunt Cives Domino Regi centum marcas sterlingorum....
Dederunt etiam Domino Edwardo Vᶜ. marcas ad expensas suas in itinere
versus Terram Sanctam." This passage is quoted in full because,
important though the transaction is, not a trace of it is to be found in
_The Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of
London_ (1884), the latest work on the subject. So, in 1284, when Edward
I., who had "taken into his hands" the town of Nottingham for some
years, restored the burgesses their liberties, it was at the price of
their _firma_ being raised from £52 to £60 a year.
[1035] _History of London_, ii. 208, 209.
[1036] A curious illustration of the fact that this _firma_ arose out of
the city and county alike is afforded by Henry III.'s charter (1253):
"quod vii libre sterlingorum per annum allocarentur Vicecomitibus in
firma eorum pro libertate ecclesiæ sancti Pauli."
[1037] This is illustrated by the subsequent prohibition of the sheriffs
themselves underletting the county at "farm" (_Liber Custumarum_, p. 91;
_Liber Albus_, p. 46).
[1038] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 2.
[1039] _Ibid._, p. 122.
[1040] _Ibid._, p. 100.
[1041] _Ibid._, p. 52.
[1042] "William de Einesford, vicecomes de Londoniâ," heads the list of
witnesses to a London agreement assigned to 1114-1130 (_Ramsey
Cartulary_, i. 139).
[1043] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 144.
[1044] Probably the mysterious "scotale" was among them (cf. Stubbs,
_Const. Hist._, i. 628).
[1045] Cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 410.
[1046] The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40
"numero" _plus_ £716 16_s._ 3_d._ "blanch").
[1047] We have a precisely similar illustration, ninety years later, in
the case of Carlisle. In 5 Hen. III. (1220-21) the citizens of Carlisle
obtained permission to hold their city _ad firmam_ for £60 a year
payable to the Crown direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through
the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") and his ferm of the shire (_Ninth Report
Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 197, 202).
[1048] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 149.
[1049] Compare Henry III.'s charter to John Gifard of Chillington,
conceding that during his lifetime he should not be made a _sheriff_,
coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (_Staffordshire
Collections_, v. [1] 158).
[1050] _History of London_, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie's _London_
("Historic Towns"), p. 28: "The exact date of the charter is given by
Rymer as 1101."
[1051] Vol. iii. p. 4.
[1052] _The Charters of the City of London_ (1884), p. xiiii.: "To
engage the citizens to support his Government he conferred upon them the
advantageous privileges that are conferred in this charter."
[1053] _Const. Hist._, i. 406.
[1054] £327 3_s._ 11_d._ "blanch," _plus_ £209 6_s._ 5½_d._ "numero."
[1055] "Infinitæ copiæ pecuniam ... cum ore imperioso ab eis exegit"
(_Gesta Stephani_).
[1056] "Interpellata est et a civibus ut leges eis regis Edwardi
observare liceret, quia optimæ erant, non patris sui Henrici quia graves
erant" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._).
[1057] _London_ ("Historic Towns"), p. 38. The Master of University
similarly writes: "He [Henry II.] renewed the charter of the city of
London" (i. 90).
[1058] _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 471. The writer, being
only acquainted with the printed copy of the charter (_Liber
Custumarum_, ed. Riley, pp. 31, 32), had only the names of the two
witnesses there given (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
London) to guide her, but, fortunately, the _Liber Rubeus_ version
records all the witnesses (thirteen in number) together with the place
of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, and virtually to 1155.
[1059] The omitted clauses are these: "Sciatis me concessisse civibus
meis Londoniarum, tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad
compotum, ipsis et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, ita quod
ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, et
justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita
coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit justitiarius super
ipsos homines Londoniarum."
[1060] "Lond'" (_Liber Rubeus_).
[1061] "Et" omitted in _L. R._
[1062] "Portsoca" (_L. R._).
[1063] "Nullus eorum" (_L. R._).
[1064] "Duellum" (_L. R._).
[1065] "Pertinentibus" (_L. R._).
[1066] "London'" (_L. R._).
[1067] "Port'" (_L. R._).
[1068] "Regis H." (_L. R._).
[1069] "Consuetudinem" (_L. R._).
[1070] "Lond'" (_L. R._).
[1071] "Apud Lond' teneantur" (_L. R._).
[1072] Clauses 11 and 12 in the charter of Henry I. are transposed in
that of Henry II. But it is more convenient to show the transposition as
I have done in the text.
[1073] "Eas habuerunt" (_L. R._).
[1074] "Omnes sint" (_L. R._).
[1075] "Yeresgieve" (_L. R._).
[1076] "London'" (_L. R._).
[1077] The first two witnesses to that of Henry I. are given as
"episcopo Winton., Roberto filio Richer. (_sic_)." The bishop's initial
ought to be given, and the second witness is probably identical with
Robert fitz Rich_ard_. "Huberto (_sic_) regis camerario" has also a
suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in the
_Liber Custumarum_ as "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo
Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as,
indeed, it is in the (more accurate) _Liber Rubeus_ version, where
(_vide supra_, p. 367) all the witnesses are entered.
[1078] This explanation is confirmed by examining other municipal
charters based on that of London. In them this clause always confirms
(1) "terras et tenuras," (2) "vadia," (3) "debita."
[1079] In confirmation of this view, it may be pointed out that where
this same clause occurs in charters to other towns, the words are
"vicecomes _noster_" in cases, as at Winchester, where the king retains
in his hand the appointment of reeve, but simply (as at Lincoln)
"præpositus" or (as at Northampton) "præpositus Northamtonie," where the
right to elect the reeve was also conceded.
[1080] £66 17_s._ 1_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £474 17_s._ 10½_d._ "numero."
[1081] £445 19_s._ "blanch" _plus_ £78 3_s._ 6_d._ "numero."
[1082] £181 14_s._ 5_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £335 0_s._ 7_d._ "numero."
[1083] As an example of the possibility of error, in the printed Roll of
1159 (5 Hen. II.) a town is entered on the Roll as paying "quater xx.
lv. libras et ii marcas et dim'." The explanation of this unintelligible
entry is, I may observe, as follows. The original entry evidently ran,
"quater xx et ii marcas et dim'" (82½ marcs). Over this a scribe will
have written the equivalent amount in pounds ("lv libræ") by
interlineation. Then came the modern transcriber, who with the stupidity
of a mechanical copyist brought down this interlineation into the middle
of the entry, thus converting it into sheer nonsense. We have also to
reckon with such clerical errors as the addition or omission of an "x"
or an "i," of a "bl." or a "no." Where the total to be accounted for is
stated separately, we have a means of checking the accounts. But where,
as at London, this is not so, we cannot be too careful in accepting the
details as given. See also Addenda.
[1084] _Liber Custumarum_ (Rolls Series), pp. 249-251.
[1085] "Contra Radulfum de Belphago qui tunc vicecomes erat in provincia
illa et contra Radulfum Passelewe ejusdem provinciæ justiciarium"
(_Ramsey Cart._, i. 149).
[1086] See Appendix K, on "Gervase of Cornhill."
APPENDIX Q
OSBERTUS OCTODENARII.
(See p. 170.)
The reference to this personage in the charter to the Earl of Essex is
of quite exceptional interest. He was the Osbert (or Osbern)
"Huit-deniers" (_alias_ "Octodenarii" _alias_ "Octonummi") who was a
wealthy kinsman of Becket and employed him, in his house, as a clerk
about this very time (_circ._ 1139-1142). We meet him as "Osbertus VIII.
denarii" at London in 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.), and I have also
found him attesting a charter of Henry I., late in the reign, as
"Osberto Octodenar[ii]." Garnier[1087] tells us that the future saint—
"A soen parent vint, un riche hume Lundreis,
Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d'Engleis,
O Osbern witdeniers, ki l'retint demaneis.
Puis fu ses escriveins, ne sais dous ans, u treis."
Another biographer writes:—
"Rursus vero Osbernus, Octonummi cognomine, vir insignis in civitate et
multarum possessionum cui carne propinquus erat detentum circa se
Thomam fere per triennium in breviandis sumptibus redditibusque suis
jugiter occupabat."[1088]
The influential position of this wealthy Londoner is dwelt on by yet
another biographer:—
"Ad quendam Lundrensem, cognatum suum, qui non solum inter concives,
verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris se
contulit."[1089]
In one of the appendices we shall detect him under the strange form
"Ottdevers"[1090] (= "Ottdeuers," a misreading for "Ottdeners")
witnessing a treaty arrangement between the Earls of Hereford and
Gloucester. This he did in his capacity of feudal tenant to the latter,
for in the Earl of Gloucester's _Carta_ (1166) of his tenants in Kent we
read: "Feodum Osberti oitdeniers i mil[item]," from which we learn that
he had held one knight's fee.[1091]
This singular _cognomen_, though savouring of the nickname period, may
have become hereditary, for we meet with a Philip Utdeners in 1223, and
with Alice and Agnes his daughters in 1233.[1092]
As I have here alluded to Becket it may be permissible to mention that
as the statements of his biographers in the matter of Osbert are
confirmed by this extraneous evidence, so have we also evidence in
charters of his residence, as "Thomas of London," in the primate's
household. To two charters of Theobald to Earls Colne Priory the first
witness is "Thoma Lond' Capellano nostro,"[1093] while an even more
interesting charter of the primate brings before us those three names,
which, says William of Canterbury, were those of his three intimates,
the first witness being Roger of Bishopsbridge, while the fourth and
fifth are John of Canterbury and Thomas of London, "clerks."[1094] Here
is abundant evidence that Becket was then known as "Thomas of London,"
as indeed Gervase of Canterbury himself implies.[1095]
[1087] _Vie de St. Thomas_ (ed. Hippeau, 1859).
[1088] Grim.
[1089] Auctor anonymus.
[1090] Its apparent dissimilarity to the "Octod'" of Geoffrey's charter
is instructive to note.
[1091] Hearne, who prints this entry, "Feodum Osberti oct. deniers i.
mil." (_Liber Niger_, ed. 1774, i. 53), makes it the occasion of an
exquisitely funny display of erudite Latinity, in which he gravely
rebukes Dugdale for his ignorance on the subject ("quid sibi velit
_denariata militis_ ignorasse videtur Dugdalius quam tamen is facile
intelliget," etc., etc.), having himself mistaken the tenant's name for
a term of land measurement.
[1092] _Bracton's Note-book_ (ed. Maitland), ii. 616; iii. 495. A
Nicholas "Treys-deners" or "Treydeners" occurs in Cornwall in the same
reign (_De Banco_, 45-46 Hen. III., Mich., No. 16, m. 62). "Penny" and
"Twopenny" are still familiar surnames among us, as is also
"Pennyfather" (? Pennyfarthing).
[1093] _Addl. MS._, 5860, fols. 221, 223 (ink).
[1094] _Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 188.
[1095] "Clerico suo Thomæ Londoniensi" (i. 160).
APPENDIX R.
THE FOREST OF ESSEX.
(See pp. 92, 168, 182.)
The references to assarts and to (forest) pleas in the first and
second charters of the Empress ought to be carefully compared,
as they are of importance in many ways. They run thus respectively:—
FIRST CHARTER.
Ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis
forestariis et assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi usque
ad diem quo homo meus devenit, et ut a die illo in antea omnia illa
essarta sint amodo excultibilia, et arrabilia sine forisfacto.
SECOND CHARTER.
Quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua
libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio
domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhæsit.
A similar provision will be found in the charter to Aubrey de Vere. It
is evident from these special provisions that the grantees attached a
peculiar importance to this indemnity for their assarts; and it is
equally noteworthy that the Empress is careful to restrict that
indemnity to those assarts which had been made before a certain date
("facta usque ad diem quâ," etc.). This restriction should be compared
with that which similarly limited the indemnity claimed by the barons of
the Exchequer,[1096] and which has been somewhat overlooked.[1097]
Assarts are duly dealt with in the _Leges Henrici Primi_, and would form
an important part of the "placita forestæ" in his reign. It is
reasonable to presume that one of the first results of the removal of
his iron hand would be a violent reaction against the tyranny of "the
forest." Indeed, we know that Stephen was compelled to give way upon the
point. A general outburst of "assarting" would at once follow. Thus the
prospect of the return, with the Empress, of her father's forest-law
would greatly alarm the offenders who were guilty of "assarts."[1098]
But, further, the earl's fief lay away from the forest proper. Why,
then, was this concession of such importance in his eyes? We are helped
towards an answer to this question by Mr. Fisher's learned and
instructive work on _The Forest of Essex_. The facts there given, though
needing some slight correction, show us that the Crown asserted in the
reign of Henry III., that the portion of the county which had been
afforested since the accession of Henry II. had (with the exception of
the hundred of Tendring) been merely _re_afforested, having been already
"forest" at the death of Henry I., though under Stephen it had ceased to
be so. This claim, which was successfully asserted, affected more than
half the county. Now, it is singular that throughout the struggle, on
this subject, with the Crown, the true forest, that of Waltham (now
Epping), was always conceded to be "within forest." Mr. Fisher's
valuable maps show its limits clearly. It was, accordingly, tacitly
admitted by the perambulation consequent on the Charter of the Forest to
have been "forest" before 1154.
The theory suggested to me by these _data_ is this. Stephen, we know, by
his Charter of Liberties consented that all the forests created by
Henry I. should be disafforested, and retained for himself only those
which had been "forest" in the days of the first and the second William.
Under this arrangement he retained, I hold, the small true forest
(Waltham forest), but had to resign the grasp of the Crown on the
additions made to it by Henry I., which amounted to considerably more
than half the county. My view that this sweeping extension of "forest"
was the work of Henry I. is confirmed by the fact that his "forest"
policy is admittedly the most objectionable feature of his rule. Nor, I
take it, was it inspired so much by the love of sport as by the great
facilities it afforded for pecuniary exaction. In the Pipe-Roll of his
thirty-first year we find (to adapt an old saying) "forest pleas as
thick as fleas" in Essex, affording proof, moreover, that his "forest"
had extended to the extreme north-east of the Lexden hundred. Here then
again, I believe, as in so many other matters, Henry II. ignored his
predecessor, and reverted to the _status quo ante_. Nor was the claim he
revived finally set at rest, till Parliament disposed of it for ever in
the days of Charles I.
An interesting charter bearing on this subject is preserved to us by
Inspeximus.[1099] It records the restoration by Stephen to the Abbess of
Barking of all her estates afforested by Henry I.[1100] Now, this
charter, which is tested at Clarendon (perhaps the only record of
Stephen being there), is witnessed by W[illiam] Martel, A[ubrey] de Ver,
and E[ustace] fitz John. The name of this last witness[1101] dates the
charter as previous to 1138 (when he threw over Stephen), and,
virtually, to the king's departure for Normandy early in 1137.
Consequently (and this is an important point) we here have Stephen
granting, as a favour, to Barking Abbey what he had promised in his
great charter to grant universally.[1102] This confirms the charge made
by Henry of Huntingdon that he repudiated the concession he had made.
His subsequent troubles, however, must have made it difficult for him to
adhere to this policy, or check the process of assarting. His grant to
the abbess was unknown to Mr. Fisher, who records an inquest of 1292, by
which it was found that the woods of the abbess were "without the
Regard;" and the Regarders were forbidden to exercise their authority
within them.
[1096] "Ut de hiis essartis dicantur quieti, quæ fuerant _ante diem quâ
rex illustris Henricus primus rebus humanis exemptus est_" (Dialogus, i.
11). The reason for the restriction is added.
[1097] See, for instance, _The Forest of Essex_ (Fisher), p. 313.
[1098] As a matter of fact, her son's succession was marked by the
exaction of heavy sums, under this head, as shown by the extracts from
his first Pipe-Roll in the Red book of the Exchequer.
[1099] Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18.
[1100] "Reddo et concedo ecclesiæ Berchingie et Abbatissæ Adel[iciæ]
omnes boscos et terras suas ... quas Henricus Rex afforestavit, ut illas
excolat et hospitetur."
[1101] Probably present as a brother of the abbess ("Soror Pagani filii
Johannis").
[1102] "Omnes forestas quas rex Henricus superaddidit ecclesiis et regno
quietas reddo et concedo."
APPENDIX S.
THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER.
(See p. 176.)
The document which is printed below is unknown, it would seem, to
historians. It is of a very singular and, in many ways, of a most
instructive character. The fact that Earl Miles is one of the
contracting parties dates the document as belonging to the period
between his creation (July 25, 1141) and his death (December 24, 1143).
Further, the fact that the treaty provides for the surrender by him to
the Earl of Gloucester of one of his sons as a hostage, taken with the
fact that the Earl of Gloucester is recorded (_supra_, p. 196) to have
demanded from his leading supporters their sons as hostages when he left
England for Normandy, creates an extremely strong presumption that this
document should be assigned to that occasion (June, 1142). It is here
printed from a transcript by Dugdale, which I found among his MSS. The
absence of any provision defining the services to be rendered by Earl
Miles suggests that this portion of the treaty is omitted in the
transcript. There is, I think, just a chance that the original may yet
be discovered among the public records, for they fortunately contain a
similar treaty between the sons and successors of the two contracting
parties.[1103] It may be, however, that the original is the document
referred to by Dugdale (_Baronage_, i. 537) as "penes Joh. Philipot
Somerset Heraldum anno 1640." The close resemblance between the later
document[1103] and that which I here print confirms the authenticity of
the latter, and is, it will be seen, illustrated by the wording of the
opening clauses:—
Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem
Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie.
Hæc est confederatio amoris inter Willelmum Comitem Gloec[estrie] et
Rogerum comitem Herefordie.
We have also the noteworthy coincidence that Richard de St. Quintin and
Hugh de Hese, who are here hostages respectively for the Earls of
Gloucester and Hereford, figure again in the later document as hostages
for the earls' successors.[1104]
Another document with which this treaty should be carefully compared is
the remarkable agreement, in the same reign, between the Earls of
Chester and of Leicester,[1105] though this latter suggests by its
title—"Hæc est conventio ... et finalis pax et concordia," etc.—the
settlement of a strife between them rather than a friendly alliance. I
see in it, indeed, the intervention, if not the arbitration, of the
Church.
Both these alliances, again, should be compared, for their form, with
the treaty between Henry I. and Count Robert of Flanders.[1106] Although
a generation earlier than the document here printed, the parallels are
very striking:—
Robertus, Comes Flandriæ, fide et sacramento assecuravit Regi Henrico
vitam suam et membra quæ corpori suo pertinent ... et quod juvabit eum,
etc.
Porro Comitissa affidavit, quod, quantum poterit, Comitem in hac
conventione tenebit, et in amicitia regis, et in prædicto servitio
fideliter per amorem.
Hujus conventionis tenendæ ex parte Comitis obsides sunt subscripti....
Quod si Comes ab hac conventione exierit et ... infra XL dies emendare
noluerit, etc.
Robertus, Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide
et sacramento, ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio
suam vitam et suum membrum ... et auxiliabitur illi, etc.
Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris, affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie
quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse
suo tenebit.
Et de hac conventione tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii
obsides, etc.... Quod si Comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione
exiret.... Et si infra XL dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie
erigere, etc.
THE TREATY.
Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem
Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie, Robertus Comes Gloecestrie
assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide et sacramento ut custodiet
illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum et
terrenum suum honorem, et auxiliabitur illi ad custodiendum sua castella
et sua recta et sua hereditaria et sua tenementa et sua conquisita quæ
modo habet et quæ faciet, et suas consuetudines et rectitudines et suas
libertates in bosco et in plano et aquis, et quod sua hereditaria quæ
modo non habet auxiliabitur ad conquirendum. Et si aliquis vellet inde
Comiti Hereford malum facere, vel de aliquo decrescere, si comes
Hereford vellet inde guerrare, quod Robertus comes Gloecestrie cum illo
se teneret, et quod ad suum posse illi auxiliaretur per fidem et sine
ingenio, nec pacem neque treuias cum illis haberet qui malum comiti
Herefordiæ inferret, nisi per bonum velle et grantam (_sic_) Comitis
Herefordiæ, et nominatim de hac guerra quæ modo est inter Imperatricem
et Regem Stephanum se cum comite Hereford tenebit et ad unum opus erit,
et de omnibus aliis guerris.
Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie
quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse
suo tenebit. Et si inde exiret, ad suum posse illum ad hoc reponeret. Et
si non posset, legalem recordationem, si opus esset, inde faceret ad
suum scire.
Et de hac conventione firmiter tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt
hii obsides per fidem et sacramentum erga Comitem Hereford: hoc modo,
quod si comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum
Comitem Gloecestrie requirerent ut se erga Comitem Herefordiæ erigeret.
Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, se Comiti
Herefordie liberarent, ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos
retinendum in suo servitio donec illos quietos clamaret vel ad illos
ponendos ad legalem redemptionem ita ne terrâ [? terram] perderent. Et
quod legalem recordationem de hac conventione facerent si opus esset,
Guefridus de Waltervill, Ricardus de Greinvill,[1107] Osbernus
Ottdevers,[1108] Reinald de Cahagnis,[1109] Hubertus Dapifer, Odo
Sorus,[1110] Gislebertus de Umfravil,[1111] Ricardus de Sancto
Quintino.[1112]
Et ex parte Milonis Comitis Hereford ad istud confirmandum concessit
Milo Comes Hereford Roberto Comiti Gloecestrie Mathielum filium suum
tenendum in obsidem donec guerra inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum
et Henricum filium Imperatricis finiatur.
Et interim si Milo Comes Hereford voluerit aliquem alium de suis filiis,
qui sanus sit, in loco Mathieli filii sui ponere, recipietur.
Et postquam guerra finita fuerit et Robertus Comes Gloecestrie et Milo
Comes Hereford terras suas et sua recta rehabuerint reddet Robertus
Comes Gloecestrie Miloni Comiti Herefordie filium suum. Et hinc de
probis hominibus utriusque comitis considerabuntur et capientur obsides
et securitates de amore ipsorum comitum tenendo imperpetuum.
Et de hac conventione amoris Rogerus filius Comitis Hereford affidavit
et juravit Comiti Gloecestrie quod patrem suum pro posse suo tenebit; Et
si Comes Hereford inde vellet exire, Rogerus filius suus, inde illum
requireret et inde illum corrigeret. Et si Comes Hereford se inde
erigere nollet, servicium ipsius Rogeri filii sui prorsus perdet, donec
se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erexisset.
Et de hac conventione ex parte Comitis Hereford sunt hii sui homines
obsides erga Comitem Gloecestrie et per sacramenta; hoc modo, quod si
Comes Hereford de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Hereford
requirerent ut se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigeret. Et si infra xl dies
se nollet erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigere se Comiti Gloecestrie
liberarent ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in
suo servicio donec illos quietos clamaret, vel ad illos ponendos ad
legalem redemptionem, ita ne terram perdent. Et quod legalem
recordationem de hac conventione in Curia facerent si opus esset,
Robertus Corbet, Willelmus Mansel, Hugo de la Hese.
[1103] Duchy of Lancaster: Ancient Charters, Box A. No. 4 (_Thirty-Fifth
Report of Deputy Keeper_ (1874), p. 2).
[1104] A somewhat similar treaty to this may be hinted at in the
statement that Roger de Berkeley was connected with Walter de Gloucester
"amicitia et alternæ pacis fœdere sibi astrictum" (_Gesta Stephani_).
[1105] _Cott. MS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 178.
[1106] Printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_ (i. 16-23).
[1107] Richard de Greinvill appears in 1166 as the _late_ holder of
seven knights' fees from the earl (_Liber Niger_).
[1108] Osbern Ottdevers (_i.e._ Ottde_n_ers) was Osbern Octodenarii,
_alias_ Octonummi (see Appendix Q). He appears in 1166 as the _late_
tenant of one knight's fee from the earl _in Kent_ (_ibid._).
[1109] Philip "de Chahaines" appears as a tenant of the earl in 1166
(_ibid._).
[1110] An Odo Sorus is alleged to have accompanied Robert fitz Hamon
into Wales. Jordan Sorus was the largest tenant of the earl in 1166,
holding fifteen knights' fees from him (_Liber Niger_). His predecessor,
Robert Sorus, had held of the fief under Robert fitz Hamon _circ._ 1107
(_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106).
[1111] Gilbert de Umfravill held nine knights' fees from the earl in
1166 (_Liber Niger_).
[1112] Richard de St. Quintin held ten knights' fees from the earl in
1166 (_ibid._). His family had been tenants of the fief even under
Robert fitz Hamon (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106).
APPENDIX T.
"AFFIDATIO IN MANU."
(See p. 177.)
"Hanc autem ... affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis
Gaufredi." This formula ("affidavi ... in manu") is deserving of careful
study. It ought to be compared with a passage in the _Chronicle of
Abingdon_ (ii. 160), describing how, some quarter of a century before,
in the assembled county court (_comitatus_) of Berkshire, the delegate
of the abbey, "pro ecclesiâ affidavit fidem in manu ipsius vicecomitis,
vidente toto comitatu." This was a case of "affidatio" by proxy; but in
the above charter we find Geoffrey stipulating for "affidatio" in person
("propria manu") by the Empress, her husband, and her son. Accordingly,
when the young Henry confirms his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere
(see p. 186), he does so "manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Inga,
sicut mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufredi." Thus
Geoffrey allowed himself the privilege, which he refused to the other
contracting party, of "affidatio" by proxy, and made Hugh de Ing his
delegate for the purpose.
A curious allusion to this practice is found in the words of Ranulf
Flambard some half a century earlier, when he promises the captor in
whose power he was to grant him all that he can ask, "et ne discredas
promissis, ecce _manu affirmo_ quod polliceor."—Continuatio Historiæ
Turgoti (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 707). The formula was probably of great
antiquity. It occurs in the lifetime of Archbishop Oswald (died 992),
who obtained a lease for life on behalf of a certain Wulfric, of the
provisions in which we read: "Hoc totum idem Wlfricus, sub oculis
multorum qui aderant, _in manu_ viri Dei qui pro eo intercessor
accesserat _affidavit_" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 81). It is found, however, as
late as 1187, when at the foundation of Dodnash Priory the canons
"juraverunt et fidem _in manu nostra_ corporaliter ... firmaverunt,"
says the bishop (_Ancient Charters_, p. 88). Another late instance is
found in the _Burton Cartulary_ (fol. 33), where Robert fitz Walter,
that his grant "inconcussum permaneat, in toto comitatu, multis
cementibus qui se ipsos testes concesserunt, in manu Vicecomitis
Serlonis manu meâ hoc tenendum et servandum affidavi." So also in the
Pipe-Roll of 3 John we find recorded a lease, "et quod ipse Micael et
Everardus frater suus affidaverunt in manu H. Cantuarensis Arch. hanc
Conventionem fideliter tenendam" (Rot. 6 _b_). An instance, in 1159, may
be quoted from the _Cartulary of St. Michael on the Mount_ because of
its curious legal bearing. Robert de Belvoir mortgages to the abbey
lands which he had settled on his wife in dower, and, in order to bar
her claim, she, _by her brother_, guarantees the transaction by
"affidatio in manu" to the abbot's delegate.[1113] This arrangement
should be compared with that which is discussed in my _Ancient
Charters_, pp. 22, 23.[1114] Perhaps, however, the most singular case is
one which I noted in the _Cartulary_ (MS.) _of Rievaulx_, and which
is also of the reign of Henry II. A widow grants lands to that abbey,
"et illam donationem tenendam et fideliter observandam manu propria
affidavit in manu Vicecomitissæ, vid. Bert[æ] uxoris vicecomitis Ranulfi
de Glanvill[a]."[1115] The conjunction here of the two women, the
presence of the great Glanville himself, and the part played by his
wife, together with the title assigned her, all combine to render the
transaction one of unusual interest.
It was by this formal and binding pledge that the leaders of the English
host swore to one another to do or die on the field of the Battle of the
Standard. Turning to William of Aumâle, and placing his hand in his,
Walter Espec pledged his faith that he would conquer or be slain; and
his fellow-commanders did the same."[1116] It was, again, by this solemn
pledge, towards the close of Stephen's reign, that the Bishop of
Winchester, before his brother prelates, covenanted to surrender
Winchester to the duke at the king's death[1117]—even as the duke
himself had covenanted (April 9, 1152) with the Bishop of Salisbury
concerning Devizes Castle[1118]—in terms to be closely compared with
those of his charter to Aubrey, and his mother's to Earl Geoffrey in
1142.
The practice is, I find, alluded to, incidentally, by Giraldus
Cambrensis, who tells us that the Welsh "Adeo fidei fœdus, aliis
inviolabile gentibus, parvipendere solent, ut non in seriis solum et
necessariis, verum in ludicris, omnique fere verbo firmando, _dextræ
manus ut mos est porrectione, signo usuali dato_, fidem gratis effundere
consueverint." Here the point of the complaint is that they made light
of this solemn practice, indulging in it freely on every occasion
instead of reserving it for important matters. The existence of this
archaic "fidei fœdus" as the _formal confirmation_ of a contract is, of
course, of the greatest interest. It still lingers on, not only with us,
but abroad. In San Marino (Italy), for instance, "sales are conducted
with much animation. Two sturdy proprietors stand back to back.... A
third party stands between the two; ... he pulls one by the shoulder,
the other by an elbow, and finally by an apparently acrobatic feat _he
unites their hands_" ("A Political Survival," _Macmillan's_, January,
1891, p. 197). In the Lebanon, we are told by a well-informed writer: "A
few months ago I had occasion to enter into a business contract with one
of my Druse farmers. When we were about to draw up the agreement, the
Druse suggested that, as he could neither read nor write, we should
ratify the bargain in the manner customary among his people. This
consists of a solemn grasping of hands together in the presence of two
or three other Druses as witnesses, whilst the agreement is recited by
both parties.... Accordingly, the farmer brought three of his neighbours
to me; and the terms of our contract having been made known to them, one
of them took the right hand of each of us and joined them together,
whilst he dictated to us what to say after him" ("The Druses,"
_Blackwood's_, January, 1891, pp. 754, 755). With us, Gerald would be
grieved to hear, the ancient form survives not only for the bargain but
the bet, though it only continues in full vigour as the sign of the
marriage contract, where "the minister ... shall cause the man with his
right hand to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after him as
followeth,"—even as the Druses, we have seen, make their contracts
to-day, and as the Empress Maud sealed her own seven centuries
ago.[1119]
The allusion by the Empress to the "Christianitas Angliæ" refers
doubtless to the fact that the breach of such "affidatio" would
constitute a "læsio fidei," and would thus become a matter for the
jurisdiction of the courts Christian. It was indeed on this plea that
these courts claimed to attract to themselves all cases of contract, a
claim against which, it is necessary to explain, an article (No. 15) of
the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) was specially directed.[1120]
[1113] "Invadiavit Rotbertus de Belueer pro sex libris Cenomannensium,
terram suam quam dederat uxori sue in dotem, ipsa bene hoc concedente,
Philippo fratri insuper fide sua in manu Johannis filii Bigoti illud
idem sororem suam tenere assecurante" (fol. 116).
[1114] Ed. Pipe-Roll Society.
[1115] "Hiis testibus, Ranulfo vicecomite, Bertha vicecomitissâ, Matilda
filia ejus."
[1116] "Hæc dicens vertit se ad comitem Albemarlensem, dataque dextera,
'Do,' inquit, 'fidem quia hodie aut vincam Scottos aut occidar a
Scottis.' Quo similiter voto cuncti se proceres constrixerunt" (Æthelred
of Rievaulx).
[1117] "Episcopus Wintonie in manu archiepiscopi Cantuarensis coram
episcopis affidavit quod si ego decederem castra Wintonie ... Duci
redderet."
[1118] "Hunc supradictam conventionem ... affidavit idem Comes (_sic_)
in manu domini Cantuarensis archiepiscopi ... sine malo ingenio
tenendam; et cum eo Comes Gloucestrie.... Similiter et dominus episcopus
Sarum affidavit in manu ejusdem Legati," etc. (_Sarum Charters and
Documents_, pp. 22, 23).
[1119] Compare the old English term "Handfasting." The law in Austria,
it is said, still recognizes the clasping of hands as a formal contract.
[1120] "Placita de debitis, quæ _fide interposita_ debentur, ... sint in
justitia regis."
APPENDIX U.
THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE.
(See p. 178.)
The confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two families is
due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several generations, the
successive heads of the family of De Vere were all named Aubrey
("Albericus"); and in the second, to a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which
proves as inaccurate as to the marriage of its founder as it is on the
date of his creation.[1121] Dugdale, accepting all its statements
without the slightest hesitation, has combined in a single passage no
less than three errors, together with the means for their
detection.[1122] Among these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."[1123] Accordingly, she so
figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has now
reappeared in Mr. Doyle's _Official Baronage_.[1124] Oddly enough, in
his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, Dugdale makes
Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of Oxford, but of his
grandfather Aubrey,[1125] and so enters her in the tabular
pedigree.[1126] And yet she was, in truth, daughter neither of the earl
nor of his grandfather, but of his father, the chamberlain.[1127] To
establish this will now be my task.
Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey de Vere "senior"
of the _Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey_, about twenty years are interposed.
Their identity, therefore, is not actually proved, though the
presumption, of course, is in its favour. But from the time of the
latter Aubrey all is clear. The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon
Cartulary is as follows:—
Aubrey = Beatrice,
de Vere, |
"senior." |
|
+----------------+-----------+-+----------+-----------+
| | | | |
Geoffrey Aubrey de Roger de Robert de William
(or Godfrey), Vere, Vere. Vere. de Vere,
ob. v. p. at "junior" died soon
Abingdon. (afterwards after his
"camerarius father.
Regis"),
d. 1141.
Our next source of information is the _Cartulary of Colne Priory_,[1128]
in combination with an invaluable tract, _De miraculis S. Osythæ_,
composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first earl, and a canon of
St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was acquainted with both documents,
but lost the full force of the latter by failing to identify its author.
He gives us as sons to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey
the first earl, (_a_) William de Vere, (_b_) —— de Vere, canon of St.
Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter of
Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" son
William;[1129] secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the earl, witnessed by
his brother William, "presbyter;"[1130] thirdly, by the charter from the
Empress to the earl, in which she provides for all his brothers, the
chancellorship, a clerical post, being promised to William.[1131] We may
further assert of this tract that it must have been written after 1163,
for the canon tells us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of
widowhood at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.[1132]
In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,[1133] as "justitiarius
totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion that he held
that high office, a statement which exercised the mind of Foss, who
complains that "it is difficult to tell on what authority" he is
introduced among its holders both by Dugdale and Spelman.[1134] He
further speaks of his mother as "Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare,
and exults in the fact that she has spent her widowhood, not in the
family priory at Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also
to his sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ."
Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was sister to the
Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and was aunt to their
sons, Earls of Essex.[1135] Accordingly, we find the Countess Rohese
giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory for the souls of her father, Aubrey
de Vere, and her husband, Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl
William, confirming the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."[1136] It is
quite clear that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville,
first Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of
Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of Gilbert
de Clare.
But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an answer to this
question, to the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_. There we shall find that
she married twice, and left issue by both husbands. Her first husband
was Robert de Essex[1137]; her second was Roger fitz Richard, of
Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, Northumberland, ancestor of the
Claverings. Now, "Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and
heir of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror,
and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of the Confessor,
under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The descent is proved, in a
conclusive manner, by the description of the second Robert among the
benefactors to Lewes Priory, in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in
another as Robert de Essex.[1138] Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory
as a cell to Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting
the foundation charter.[1139] Robert's son and heir was the well-known
Henry de Essex.[1140] So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it is
certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod by birth—who
was mother of his son Henry. Therefore "Alice of Essex" cannot have been
his widow. Consequently she must have been the widow of another Robert
de Essex, possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his
elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, Roger fitz
Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of Clavering).
We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular pedigree,
showing the relationship that existed between the families of Mandeville
and De Vere.
William de Aubrey = Alice
Mandeville. de Vere, | de Clare,
| created Great | dau. of
| Chamberlain | Gilbert de
| 1133, | Clare,
| died 1141. | died _circ._
| | 1163.
+---------+--------+ +-----------+------------
| | |
William = Beatrice de (1) Geoffrey de = Rohese = (2) Payn de
de Say. | Mandeville. Mandeville, | de Vere, | Beauchamp,
| 1ST EARL OF | said to | of Bedford.
| ESSEX, d. 1144. | have died |
| | 1207. |
+--+---------+ +--------+------+ +-------+
| | | | |
William Geoffrey Geoffrey de William de Simon de
de Say, de Say. Mandeville, Mandeville, Beauchamp.
ancestor of | 2ND EARL OF 3RD EARL OF |
Fitz Piers, | ESSEX, ESSEX, |
Earls of | d. 1166. d. 1189. |
Essex. | |
| | |
| | |
↓ ↓ ↓
Arms. Arms. Arms.
"_Quarterly, "_Quarterly, "_Quarterly,
or and or and or and gules_,
gules._" gules._" a bend."
Aubrey = Alice
de Vere, | de Clare,
created Great | dau. of
Chamberlain | Gilbert de
1133, | Clare,
died 1141. | died _circ._
| 1163.
--------------+-----------------------------+
| |
(1) Robert = Alice = (2) Roger fitz Aubrey de
de Essex. de Vere. | Richard of Vere,
| Warkworth. 1ST EARL OF
| OXFORD.
| |
| |
| |
Robert fitz Aubrey
Roger of de Vere,
Clavering 2ND EARL OF
and OXFORD.
Warkworth. |
| |
| |
| |
↓ ↓
Arms. Arms.
"_Quarterly, _Quarterly, gu._
or and gules_, and or_, a
a bend sable." mullet argent
in the first
quarter.
It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to show all the
children. It gives those only which are required for our special
purpose. On some points there is still need of more original
information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William de Say, was sister, and
not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. I know of nothing to the
contrary. Still the fact would seem to rest on the authority of the
_Walden Chronicle_. The re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de
Beauchamp, and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well
established, but the date of her death is taken from the _Chronicle_,
and seems suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her
brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after the
charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother survived her
husband for twenty-two years implies that her children may have been
comparatively young at his death. Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore
have been several years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville.
But the main point has been, in any case, established, namely, the true
relationship of these baronial houses. That which is given by Dugdale
contains the further error of representing Alice de Vere as wife, not of
Robert de Essex, but of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his _Antiquities of
Heraldry_ (p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship,
the existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale
contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is "correct, or
approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he errs in assigning to
Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, he transforms Roger fitz
Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, given as her second husband, into
her son-in-law.[1141]
My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had worked out
the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their bearing on the
adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had been anticipated in this
investigation by the author of that scholarly work, _The Antiquities of
Heraldry_. As the conclusions, however, at which I had arrived differ
slightly from those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them
forth.
Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple QUARTERLY shield":—
"There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial
ensign is to be found in the distinguished family of DE VERE, as all
the families in the table who bear it are descended from the head of
that house who lived at the commencement of the twelfth century."[1142]
I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued and
erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions are
based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further on:—
"Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it
Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom
all, or their wives were descended?"[1143]
Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves this
statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended from Mandeville, but
_not_ descended from De Vere. It is, therefore, shown by his own "table"
that this _must_ have been a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms,
the very practice against which he here strenuously argues.[1144] Thus
the very case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself
proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to emphasize
this point because it is the pivot on which the question turns. If "all
the families in the table" who bore the quarterly coat were indeed
descended from De Vere, Mr. Ellis's theory would account for the facts.
But, by his own showing, they were not. Some other explanation must
therefore be sought.
That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which I am still
compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" of this quarterly
coat was the central figure of this family group, Geoffrey de Mandeville
himself. It being, as I have shown, absolutely clear that there must
have been collateral adoption, the only question that remains to be
decided is from which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere,
was the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former is that
the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, the greatest
personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, at Oxford, as his
dependant rather than as his equal. On this ground, then, it seems to me
far more probable that Aubrey should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey
than that Geoffrey should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second
reason is this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest
form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the simplest
form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, is that borne by
the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded blazons till the reign of
Henry III., but when we do, it is as "quartele de or & de goulez" that
the coat of the Earl of Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville,
first meets us.[1145] But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem,
bear this coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with
a mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for
distinction) being in this case reversed.[1146] Thus heraldry, as well
as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original bearer of
the coat.
It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that Geoffrey de
Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple paternal coat, and that it
is still to be seen on the shield of his effigy among the monuments at
the Temple Church. But antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that
this is indeed his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from
that _Chronicle of Walden_ which is in error in its statements on his
foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. Nor is
there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of his heirs.[1147]
But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet to be
considered. A little thought will soon show that no hypothesis can
possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly coat by these various
families at any other period than this in which they all intermarried.
If we wish to trace to its origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must
go back to some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with
derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle we ought
to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for successive
generations, to those families who were privileged to ally themselves to
it. Yet we can only trace this principle at work in this particular
generation. If Mandeville, and Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds,
the coat of De Vere, why should not De Vere, in the previous generation,
have adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for the
phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats all
originated in this generation and in consequence of these
intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would be adopted by
his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's brother De Vere, and by
those other relatives shown in the pedigree. Once adopted they remain,
till they meet us in the recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III.
The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign of Stephen
was the period in which heraldic bearings were assuming a definite form.
Most heralds would place it later: Mr. Ellis would have us believe that
we ought to place it earlier. The question has been long and keenly
discussed, and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with
certainty the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any
rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation and of
one alone.
If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at Evesham) to
distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not improbable that these
kindred coats may represent the alliance of their bearers, as typified
in the Oxford charters, beneath the banner of the Earl of Essex.[1148]
[1121] See p. 45.
[1122] _Baronage_, i. 203 _b_.
[1123] _Ibid._, i. 201.
[1124] "m. Rohaise, d. of Aubrey de Vere, (afterwards) Earl of Oxford"
(i. 682).
[1125] _Baronage_, i. 188 _b_.
[1126] _Ibid._, 189.
[1127] Strange to say, Dugdale gives also this third (and right) version
(_ibid._, i. 463 _a_).
[1128] In Cole's transcript (British Museum).
[1129] _Ibid._, No. 31.
[1130] _Ibid._, No. 43.
[1131] See p. 182.
[1132] It would seem clear that this William must have been the "Dominus
Willelmus de Ver" to whom Dr. Stubbs alludes as the "early friend and
fellow-student," at the University of Paris, of Arnulf, Bishop of
Lisieux, and of the celebrated Ralf "de Diceto" (who may have been born,
Dr. Stubbs suggests, about 1122). Bishop Arnulf, asking Ralf to come
over and pay him a visit, tells him that William de Ver has promised to
come too (see preface to _Radulfus de Diceto_, pp. xxxii., _note_,
liv.). But some difficulty is caused by his appearing as a canon, not of
St. Osyth's, but of St. Paul's, in 1162 and later (_Ninth Report
Historical MSS._, App. i. pp. 19 _a_, 32 _a_). It would seem to have
been the latter William de Ver who became Bishop of Hereford in 1185,
and died 1199.
[1133] He had received the "Cameraria Angliæ" from Henry I., in a
charter which must have passed on the occasion of the king leaving
England for the last time in 1133. Madox has printed the charter (which
has a valuable list of witnesses) in his _Baronia Anglica_, from
Dugdale's transcript.
[1134] _Judges of England_, i. 89.
[1135] Thus the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_ (_Arundel MSS._) relates
that at the death of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, in 1166, his mother was
living at her Priory of Chicksand, with her sister "Adeliza" of Essex.
On the succession of his brother William, "Alicia de Essexia" came to
Walden Abbey "ordinante comite Willelmo ejus nepote," and settled and
died there (_ibid._, cap. 18). But the most important evidence is a
charter of this same Earl William, abstracted in _Lansdowne MSS._, 259,
fol. 67, granting to "Adelicia of Essex," his mother's sister, the town
of Aynho in free dower over and above the dower she had received from
Roger fitz Richard, her lord. This charter is witnessed by his mother,
"Roesia Comitissa;" Simon de Beauchamp, his uterine brother; Geoffrey de
Ver and William de Ver, his uncles; Ranulf Glanville, and Geoffrey de
Say, who was his cousin. He had previously granted Aynho (? in 1170) to
Roger fitz Richard in exchange for Compton (co. Warwick), his charter
being witnessed _inter alios_ by John (de Lacy), the constable of
Chester (see p. 392 _n._), Ranulf de Glanville, and Geoffrey de Say (see
my paper on "A Charter of William, Earl of Essex," in _Eng. Hist.
Review_, April, 1891).
[1136] _Colne Cartulary_, Nos. 51, 54.
[1137] "Domino suo primo marito Roberto scilicet de Essexiâ" (_Walden
Abbey Chronicle_). Dugdale makes her, in error, the wife of Henry de
Essex.
[1138] This descent has not hitherto been established, and Mr. Freeman
speaks of Swegen of Essex as "father or grandfather of Henry de Essex."
[1139] He appears in the charters of this priory as "Robertus filius
Suein" and as "Robertus de Essex filius Suein."