further proved by his confirmation, in the (MS.) _Colchester Cartulary_,
of a gift by his father, Robert de Essex, to St. John's Abbey,
Colchester.
[1141] I have purposely abstained from touching on the relationship of
Lacy to De Vere, because there is evidently error somewhere in the
account given by Dugdale, and as the descent is without my sphere, I
have not investigated the question. The _Rotulus de Dominabus_ should be
consulted. Nor do I discuss the descent of Sackville. Mr. Ellis wrote:
"The coat of Sackville, _Quarterly, a bend vairé_, is doubtless derived
from De Vere, but by what match does not clearly appear." It is singular
that William de Sackville, who died _circa_ 1158, is said to have
married Adeliza, daughter of "Aubrey the sheriff," which points to some
connection between the two families.
[1142] _Antiquities of Heraldry_, p. 209.
[1143] _Ibid._, p. 230.
[1144] _Ibid._, pp. 228-232.
[1145] Doyle's _Official Baronage_, i. 685.
[1146] I must certainly decline to accept the rash conjecture of Mr.
Ellis that the mullet of De Vere represents the chamberlainship, on the
ground that one of his predecessors, Robert Malet, _might_ have borne a
mullet as an "heraldic and allusive cognizance."
[1147] See p. 226 _n._
[1148] Compare the case of Raymond (le Gros) meeting William fitz
Aldelin, on his landing in Ireland (December, 1176), at the head of
thirty of his kinsmen, "clipeis assumptis unius armaturæ" (_Expugnatio
Hiberniæ_).
APPENDIX V.
WILLIAM OF ARQUES.
(See p. 180.)
Separate treatment is demanded by that clause in the charter to Aubrey
which deals with the fief of William of Arques:—
"Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine placito,
pro servicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et jure quod clamat ex parte
uxoris suæ sicut unquam Willelmus de Archis ea melius tenuit."
The descent of this barony has formed the subject of an erudite and
instructive paper by the late Mr. Stapleton.[1149] The pedigree which he
established may be thus expressed:—
William = Beatrice.
of Arques, |
1086. |
|
|
(1) Nigel = Emma, = (2) Manasses,
de Monville. | heiress of | _Comte_ of
| her father's | Guisnes,
| English | d. _circ._
| fief. | 1139.
| |
Rualon = Matilda. Rose (or = Henry,
d'Avranches | Sybil), | Castellan of
(_de Abrincis_), | ob. v. p. | Bourbourg.
held part of the | |
Arques fief | |
_jure uxoris_, | |
Sheriff of Kent | |
1130. | |
| |
+-----------+ |
| |
William (1) AUBREY = Beatrice, = (2) Baldwin,
d'Avranches, DE VERE. sole heiress. Lord of
son and heir. Ardres.
This descent renders the above clause in the charter intelligible at
once, for it shows that Aubrey was to reunite the whole Arques fief in
his own holding _jure uxoris_.
Mr. Stapleton, who prints the clause from the translation given by
Dugdale, justly pronounces it "extremely important, as establishing the
fact of his marriage at its date with the heiress of the barony of
Arques as well as of the _comté_ of Guisnes." With Aubrey's tenure of
this _comté_ I have dealt at p. 188.
[1149] _Archæologia_, vol. xxxi. pp. 216-237.
APPENDIX X.
ROGER "DE RAMIS."
(See p. 181.)
The entries relating to the fief of this tenant _in capite_ are probably
as corrupt as any to be found in the _Liber Niger_.
The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in this charter and
Domesday invariably as _de Ramis_—an inevitable confusion soon arose
between it and the name of their chief seat in England, Rayne, co.
Essex. Morant, in his history of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne
being entered in Domesday and in the _Liber Niger_ as "Raines," the name
of the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" (i.
237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, 240). The
Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was succeeded by William "de
Raimes," who was dead in 1130, when his sons Roger and Robert are found
indebted to the Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts
(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). Further, if the _Liber Niger_ (i. 237, 239)
is to be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively
by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is clear.
But when we come to the _cartæ_ of 1166 all is hopeless confusion. There
are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex portion, but while the
_carta_ of that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" is intelligible,
though very corrupt, the other is assigned by an amazing blunder to
William fitz Miles, who was merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover,
the entries are so similar that they might be easily taken for variants
of the same _carta_.
Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.). We
there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:—
"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ et IIII _d._
pro Rogero de Ram'.
"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ IIII _d._ pro
Ricardo de Ram'."
They require some explanation. The sums here accounted for (though it is
not so stated) are payments towards "the great scutage" of the year at
two marks on the knight's fee. These were in most cases paid
collectively by the aggregate of knights liable. Here, luckily for us,
these two tenants paid separately. Turning the payments into marcs, and
then dividing by two, we find that each represents an assessment of nine
and a half knights. Now, we know for certain from the _Liber Niger_ (i.
240) that the assessment of one of these two fiefs was ten knights, and
that its holder was entitled to deduct from that assessment an amount
equivalent to half a knight. For such is the meaning in the language of
the Exchequer of the phrase: "feodum dimidii militis ... _quod mihi
computatur_ in X militibus quos Regi debeo." Thus we obtain the exact
amount (nine and a half knights) on which he pays in the above
Roll.[1150]
But we can go further still. Each of the two fiefs was entitled to the
same deduction (_Liber Niger_). Both, therefore, must have been alike
assessed at ten knights. We are now on the right track. These two fiefs
in the _Liber Niger_ are not identical but distinct; they represent an
original fief, assessed at twenty knights, which has been divided into
two equal halves, each with an assessment of ten knights. And as with
the whole fief, so with some of its component parts. Dedham, for
instance, the "Delham" of Domesday (ii. 83) and the "Diham" of our
charter, was held of the lord of the fief by the service of one knight.
When the fief was divided in two, Dedham was divided too. Accordingly,
we find it mentioned in our charter (1142) as "Diham que fuit Rogeri de
Ramis, rectum ... fili_orum_ Rogeri de Ramis." It was their joint right,
because it was divided between them, just as it still appears divided in
the _cartæ_ of 1166.[1151]
But further, why is Dedham alone mentioned in this charter? Because it
was that portion of the fief which the Crown had seized and kept, and
consequently that of which the restoration was now exacted from the
Empress. And why had the Crown seized it? Possibly as security for those
very debts, which were due to it from William "de Raimes" (_Rot. Pip._,
31 Hen. I.).[1152]
Dedham was not the only divided manor in the fief. "Totintuna," in
Norfolk, was similarly shared, its one knight's fee being halved. This
enables us to correct an error in the _Liber Niger_. We there read (i.
237)—
"Warinus de Totinton' medietatem I militis."
And again (i. 239)—
"Warinus dim' mil'.
De Todinton' feodum dimidii militis."
In the latter case the right reading is—
"Warinus de Todinton' dim' mil'.
Feodum dimidii militis[1153] de Hiham, quod," etc.
Further, Robert "de Reines" is returned in both _cartæ_ as holding
(1166) a quarter of a knight's fee in each fief, "de novo fefamento,"
apparently in Higham (Suffolk), not far from Dedham (Essex). This
suggests his enfeofment by the service of half a knight, and the
division of his holding when the fief was divided. It is strange that on
the Roll of 1159 he is entered as paying one marc, which would be the
exact amount payable for half a knight.[1154]
Thus the main points have been satisfactorily established. The genealogy
is not so easy. Our charter tells us that, in 1142, the sons of Roger
"de Ramis" were the "nepotes" of Earl Aubrey. From the earl's age at the
time they could not be his grandsons: they were, therefore, his nephews,
the sons of a sister. Were they the Richard and Roger who, in 1159, held
respectively the two halves of the original fief (_Rot. Pip._, 5
Hen. II.)? To answer this question, we must grasp the _data_ clearly. In
1130 and in 1135 the two fiefs were respectively held by Robert and
Roger, the sons of _William_. In our charter (1142) we find them, it
would seem, held by "the sons of _Roger_," probably of tender years.
This would suggest that the Robert (son of William) of 1135 had died
childless before 1142, and that his fief had been reunited to that of
his brother Roger, only, however, for the joint fief to be again divided
between Roger's sons. But the question is further complicated by some
documents relating to the church of Ardleigh, one of which is addressed
by "Robertus de Ramis filius Rogeri de Ramis" to Robert [de Sigillo],
Bishop of London, while another, addressed to the same bishop, proceeds
from Robert son of _William_ "de Ramis," apparently his uncle. In 1159
the two fiefs reappear as held respectively by Roger and Richard "de
Ramis." In 1165 (_Rot. Pip._, 11 Hen. II.) we find them held by William
and Richard de Ramis, and thenceforth they were always known as the
fiefs of William and of Richard. The actual names of the holders of the
fiefs in 1166 (one of which is ignored by the Black Book and the other
given as Robert) are determined by the Pipe-Roll of 1168, where they are
entered as William and Richard. Thus, at length, we ascertain that the
_carta_ assigned to William "filius Milonis" was in truth that of
William "de Ramis," while that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis"
was in truth that of Richard "de Ramis." The entry on this Pipe-Roll
relating to the latter fief throws so important a light on the _Carta_
of 1166, that I here print the two side by side.
[1166.]
Hii sunt milites qui tenuerunt de feodo Roberti de Raimes die qua Rex
Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, viz:—... Willelmus filius Jocelini II
milites Philippus Parage feodum dim. militis. Horum servitium
difforciant mihi Willelmus filius Jocelini et Philippus. Simon de
Cantilupo detinet mihi Heingeham quam tenere debeo de Rege in dominio
meo.
[1168.]
Ricardus de Reimis [_al._ Raimes] reddit compotum de X marcis pro X
militibus. In thesauro XXXIII sol. et IIII den. Et in dominio Regis de
Dedham i mar. Et debet IIII li. et VI sol. et VIII den. sed
calumpniatur quod Picot de Tanie[1155] habet II milites per Regem, et
Simo de Cantelu IIos, et Comes Albricus dim., et Phylippus Parage dim.
If, as implied by our charter, the sons of Roger ("de Ramis") were
minors at the time of the Anarchy, this would account for Earl Hugh
seizing, as recorded in William's _carta_, five of his knights' fees in
the time of King Stephen (_Liber Niger_, i. 237).
The later history of these two fiefs is one of some complexity, but the
descent of Dedham, which alone concerns our own charter, is fortunately
quite clear. Its two halves are well shown in the _Testa de Nevill_
entry:—
"Leonia de Stutevill tenet feodum unius militia in Byh[a]m unde debet
facere unam medietatem heredi Ricardi de Reymes et alteram medietatem
heredi Willelmi de Reymes" (i. 276).
For this Byham, improbable as it may seem, was really the "Diham" of our
charter, _i.e._ Dedham, and the two halves of the original barony are
here described (as I explained above) as those of Richard and William.
In a survey of Richard's portion of the fief among the inquisitions of
John (_circ._ 1212),[1156] we find Leonia holding half a knight's fee in
"Dyham" of it, and in a later inquisition we find her heir, John de
Stuteville, holding the estate as "Dyhale" (_Testa_, p. 281 _b_). As
early as 1185-86 Leonia was already in possession of Dedham, as will be
seen by the extract below from the _Rotulus de Dominabus_. This entry is
one of a series which have formed the subject of keen, and even hot,
discussion. The fact that Dedham is spoken of here as her "inheritance"
has led to the hasty inference that she was heiress, or co-heiress, to
the Raimes fief. This view seems to have been started by Mr. E. Chester
Waters in a communication to _Notes and Queries_ (1872),[1157] in which,
on the strength of the entries below relating to her and to Alice de
Tani, he drew out a pedigree deriving them both from the "Roger de Ramis
of Domesday." Writing to the _Academy_ in 1885, he took great credit to
himself for his performance in _Notes and Queries_, and observed, of Mr.
Yeatman: "I must refer him to the _Rotulus de Dominabus_ and to the
Chartulary of Bocherville Abbey for the true co-heirs of the fief of
Raimes."[1158] But the extracts which follow clearly show (when combined
with the _Testa_ entry above) that neither Leonia nor Alice were the
"true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes," for they were merely
under-tenants of that fief, Leonia holding one knight's fee from the
tenants of the whole fief, and Alice two knights' fees from the tenants
of Richard's portion.
(Lexden Hundred.)
Uxor Roberti de Stuteville est de donatione Domini Regis, et de
parentela Edwardi de Salesburia ex parte patris, et ex parte matris est
de progenie Rogeri de Reimes. Ipsa habet j villam que vocatur Diham que
est hereditas ejus, que valet annuatim xxiiij libras. Ipsa habet j
filium et ij filias, et nescitur eorum etas.
(Tendring Hundred.)
Alizia de Tany est de donatione Domini Regis; terra ejus valet vij
libras, et ipsa habet v filios et ij filias, et heres ejus est xx
annorum, de progenie Rogeri de Reimes.
(Hinckford.)
Alicia filia Willelmi filii Godcelini quam tradidit Dominus Rex Picoto
de Tani est in donatione Domini Regis, et tenet de Domino Rege, et de
feodo Ricardi de Ramis; et terra sua valet vij libras; et ipsa habet v
filios et primogenitus est xx annorum, et ij filias. Picot de Tani
habuit dictam terram v annis elapsis, cum autumpnus venerit.
Leonia is indeed stated to be "de progenie Rogeri de Reimes," and so is
the heir of Alice (_not_, as alleged, Alice herself), but there is
nothing to show that this was the Roger de Raimes "of Domesday." It may
have been his namesake (and grandson?) of 1130-35, or even (though
probably not) the Roger of 1159. Whether the allusion, in our charter
(1142), to Dedham being the "rectum" of the sons of Roger de Ramis, and
the fact of its being in the king's hands then and in 1166-68, had to do
with a claim by Leonia or her mother, or not, it is obvious that Leonia
did not claim, nor did Alice de Tani, to be, in any sense, the heir of
either of the above Rogers, though she may have been, as was the case so
often with under-tenants, connected with them in blood.
[1150] This instance proves that payment was sometimes made on the net
amount due, after making such deduction, instead of being entered as
paid in full, with a subsequent entry of deduction.
[1151] The forms "Diham," "De Hiham," and "Heham" are very confusing
from the fact that Higham also is on the border of Essex and Suffolk.
[1152] Compare the remission by Henry II., in his charter to the second
Earl of Essex, of the Crown's lien upon certain of his manors, dating
from the time of Henry I. (see p. 241).
[1153] The words which follow are on p. 240.
[1154] This has a direct bearing on the very difficult question of the
assessment of the new feoffment.
[1155] Picot de Tani (1168) stood in the shoes of William fitz Jocelin
(1166), having married his daughter Alice (_Rotulus de Dominabus_).
[1156] Printed by Madox as from the _Liber Feudorum_.
[1157] 4th series, vol. ix. p. 314.
[1158] _Academy_, June 27, 1885.
APPENDIX Y.
THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND.
(See p. 198.)
The dates and circumstances of these two visits are a subject of some
importance and interest. Fortunately, they can be accurately ascertained.
It is certain that, on Henry's first visit, he landed with his uncle at
Wareham towards the close of 1142. Stephen had been besieging the
Empress in Oxford since the 26th of September,[1159] and her brother,
recalled to England by her danger, must have landed, with Henry, about
the beginning of December, for she had then been besieged more than two
months, and Christmas was at hand.[1160] This date is confirmed by
another calculation. For the earl, on landing, we are told, laid siege
to the castle of Wareham, and took it, after three weeks.[1161] But as
the flight of the Empress from Oxford coincided with, or followed
immediately after, his capture of the castle,[1162] and as that flight
took place on the eve of Christmas,[1163] after a siege of three
months,[1164] this would similarly throw back the landing of the earl at
Wareham to the beginning of December (1142).
By a strange oversight, Dr. Stubbs, the supreme authority on his life,
makes Henry arrive in 1141, "when he was eight years old, to be trained
in arms;"[1165] whereas, as we have seen, he did not arrive till towards
the end of 1142, when he was nine years and three-quarters old. Nor, it
would seem, was there any intention that he should be then trained in
arms. This point is here mentioned because it bears on the chronology of
Gervase, as criticised by Dr. Stubbs, who, I venture to think, may have
been thus led to pronounce it, as he does, "unsound."
On recovering Wareham, Henry and his uncle set out for Cirencester,
where the earl appointed a rendezvous of his party, with a view to an
advance on Oxford. The Empress, however, in the mean time, unable to
hold out any longer, effected her well-known romantic escape and fled to
Wallingford, where those of her supporters who ought to have been with
her when Stephen assailed her, had gathered round the stronghold of
Brian fitz Count, having decided that their forces were not equal to
raising the siege of Oxford.[1166] Thither, therefore, the earl now
hastened with his charge, and the Empress, we are told, forgot all her
troubles in the joy of the meeting with her son.[1167]
Stephen had been as eager to relieve his beleaguered garrison at Wareham
as the earl had been, at the same time, to raise the siege of Oxford.
Neither of them, however, would attempt the task till he had finished
the enterprise he had in hand.[1168] But now that the fall of Oxford had
set Stephen free, he determined, though Wareham had fallen, that he
would at least regain possession.[1169] But the earl had profited, it
seems, by his experience of the preceding year, and Stephen found the
fortress was now too strong for him.[1170] He accordingly revenged
himself for this disappointment by ravaging the district with fire and
sword.[1171] Thus passed the earlier months of 1143. Eventually, with
his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, he marched to Wilton, where he
proceeded to convert the nunnery of St. Etheldred into a fortified post,
which should act as a check on the garrison of the Empress at
Salisbury.[1172] The Earl of Gloucester, on hearing of this, burst upon
his forces in the night, and scattered them in all directions. Stephen
himself had a narrow escape, and the enemy made a prisoner of William
Martel, his minister and faithful adherent.[1173] This event is dated by
Gervase July 1 (1143).
I have been thus particular in dealing with this episode because, as Dr.
Stubbs rightly observes, "the chronology of Gervase is here quite
irreconcilable with that of Henry of Huntingdon, who places the capture
of William Martel in 1142."[1174] But a careful collation of Gervase's
narrative with that given in the _Gesta_ removes all doubt as to the
date, for it is certain, from the sequence of events in 1142, that at no
period of that year can Stephen and the Earl of Gloucester have been in
Wiltshire at the same time. There is, therefore, no question that the
two detailed narratives I have referred to are right in assigning the
event to 1143, and that Henry of Huntingdon, who only mentions it
briefly, has placed it under a wrong date, having doubtless confused the
two attacks (1142 and 1143) that Stephen made on Wareham.[1175]
Henry, says Gervase (i. 131), now spent four years in England, during
which he remained at Bristol under the wing of his mighty uncle, by whom
his education was entrusted to a certain Master Mathew.[1176] A curious
reference by Henry himself to this period of his life will be found in
the _Monasticon_ (vol. vi.), where, in a charter (? 1153) to St.
Augustine's, Bristol, he refers to that abbey as one
"quam inicio juventutis meæ beneficiis et protectione cœpi juvare et
fovere."
It should be noticed that Gervase twice refers to Henry's stay as one of
four years (i. 125, 133), and that this statement is strictly in harmony
with those by which it is succeeded. Dr. Stubbs admits that Henry's
departure is placed by him "at the end of 1146,"[1177] and this would be
exactly four years from the date when, as we saw, he landed. Again,
Gervase goes on to state that two years and four months elapsed before
his return.[1178] This would bring us to April, 1149; and "here," as Dr.
Stubbs observes, "we get a certain date," for "Henry was certainly
knighted at Carlisle at Whitsuntide [May 22], 1149."[1179] It will be
seen then that the chronology of Gervase is thoroughly consistent
throughout.[1180] When Dr. Stubbs writes: "Gervase's chronology is
evidently unsound here, but the sequence of events is really
obscure,"[1181] he alludes to the mention of the Earl of Gloucester's
death. But it will be found, on reference to the passage, that its
meaning is quite clear, namely, that the earl died during Henry's
absence (_interea_), and in the November after his departure. And such
was, admittedly, the case.
The second visit of Henry to England has scarcely obtained the attention
it deserved. It was fully intended, I believe, at the time, that his
arrival should give the signal for a renewal of the civil war. This is,
by Gervase (i. 140), distinctly implied. He also tells us that it was
now that Henry abandoned his studies to devote himself to arms.[1182] It
would seem, however, to be generally supposed that the sole incident of
this visit was his receiving knighthood from his great-uncle, the King
of Scots, at Carlisle. But it is at Devizes that he first appears,
charter evidence informing us of the fact that he was there, surrounded
by some leading partisans, on April 13.[1183] Again, it has, apparently,
escaped notice that the author of the _Gesta_, at some length, refers to
this second visit (pp. 127-129). His editor, at least, supposed him to
be referring to Henry's _first_ (1142) and _third_ (1153) visits; these,
in that gentleman's opinion, being evidently one and the same.[1184]
According to the _Gesta_, Henry began by attacking the royal garrisons
in Cricklade and Bourton, which would harmonize, it will be seen,
exactly with a northerly advance from Devizes. He was, however,
unsuccessful in these attempts. Among those who joined him, says
Gervase, were the Earls of Hereford and of Chester. The former duly
appears with him at Devizes in the charter to which I have referred; the
latter is mentioned by John of Hexham as being present with him at
Carlisle.[1185] This brings us to the strange story, told by the author
of the _Gesta_, that Henry, before long, deserted by his friends, was
forced to appeal to Stephen for supplies. There is this much to be said
in favour of the story, namely, that the Earl of Chester did play him
false.[1186] Moreover, the Earl of Gloucester, who is said to have
refused to help him,[1187] certainly does not appear as taking any steps
on his behalf. Lastly, it is not impossible that Stephen, whose
generosity, in thus acting, is so highly extolled by the writer, may
have taken advantage of Henry's trouble, to send him supplies on the
condition that he should abandon his enterprise and depart. It is, in
any case, certain that he did depart at the commencement of the
following year (1150).[1188]
[1159] "Tribus diebus ante festum sancti Michaelis inopinato casu
Oxeneford concremavit, et castellum, in quo, cum domesticis militibus
imperatrix erat obsedit" (_Will. Malms._, 766).
[1160] "Consummatis itaque in obsidione plus duobus mensibus ...
appropinquante Nativitatis Dominicæ solempnitate" (_Gervase_, i. 124).
[1161] "Fuitque comes Robertus in obsidione illâ per tres septimanas"
(_ibid._).
[1162] _Ibid._, i. 125; _Will. Malms._, 768.
[1163] "Non procul a Natali" (_Hen. Hunt._, 276).
[1164] "Tribus mensibus" (_Gesta_, p. 89).
[1165] _Const. Hist._, i. 448; _Early Plantagenets_, p. 33. Mr. Freeman
rightly assigns his arrival to 1142, as does also Mr. Hunt (_Norman
Britain_).
[1166] _Will. Malms._, p. 766.
[1167] _Ibid._; _Gervase_, i. 125.
[1168] _Will. Malms._, p. 768. Compare the state of things in 1153
(_Hen. Hunt._, 288).
[1169] "Deinde [after obtaining possession of Oxford] pauco dilapso
tempore, cum instructissimâ militantium manu civitatem Warham ...
advenit" (_Gesta_, p. 91).
[1170] _Ibid._
[1171] _Gesta_; _Gervase_, i. 125.
[1172] _Gesta_, p. 91.
[1173] _Gervase_, i. 126; _Gesta_, p. 92.
[1174] _Gervase_, i. 126, _note_.
[1175] This episode also gave rise to another even stranger confusion, a
misreading of "Wi_n_ton" for "Wi_l_ton" having led Milner and others to
suppose that Stephen was the founder of the royal castle at Winchester.
[1176] "Puer autem Henricus sub tutelâ comitis Roberti apud Bristoviam
degens, per quatuor annos traditus est magisterio cujusdam Mathæi
litteris imbuendus et moribus honestis ut talem decebat puerum
instituendus" (i. 125).
[1177] i. 140, _note_.
[1178] "Fuitque in partibus transmarinis annis duobus et mensibus
quatuor" (i. 131).
[1179] i. 140, _note_.
[1180] The only point, and that a small one, that could be challenged,
is that Gervase makes him land "mense Maio mediante," whereas we know
him to have been at Devizes by the 13th of April (_vide infra_).
[1181] i. 131, _note_.
[1182] "Postpositisque litterarum studiis exercitia cœpit militaria
frequentare."
[1183] _Sarum Charters and Documents_ (Rolls Series), pp. 15, 16. The
witnesses are Roger, Earl of Hereford, Patrick, Earl of Salisbury, John
fitz Gilbert (the marshal), Gotso "Dinant," William de Beauchamp, Elyas
Giffard, Roger de Berkeley, John de St. John, etc.
[1184] See his note to p. 127. Since the above passage was written, Mr.
Howlett's valuable edition of the _Gesta_ for the Rolls Series has been
published, in which he advances, with great confidence, the view that we
are indebted to its "careful author" for the knowledge of an invasion of
England by Henry fitz Empress in 1147, "unrecorded by any other
chronicler" (Chronicles: _Stephen, Henry II., Richard I._, III.,
xvi.-xx. 130; IV., xxi., xxii.). I have discussed and rejected this
theory in the _English Historical Review_, October, 1890 (v. 747-750).
[1185] _Sym. Dun._, iii. 323. Henry of Huntingdon (p. 282) states that
at Carlisle he appeared "cum occidentalibus Angliæ proceribus," and that
Stephen, fearing his contemplated joint attack with David, marched to
York, and remained there, on the watch, during all the month of August.
[1186] "Ranulfus comes promisit cum collectis agminibus suis occurrere
illis. Qui, nichil eorum quæ condixerat prosecutus, avertit propositum
eorum" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 323).
[1187] The author of the _Gesta_, by a pardonable slip, speaks of the
earl as Henry's _uncle_. The then (1149) earl was, of course, his
_cousin_. It is on this slip that Mr. Howlett's theory was based.
[1188] "Henricus autem filius Gaufridi comitis Andegaviæ ducisque
Normanniæ, et Matildis imperatricis, jam miles effectus, in Normanniam
transfretavit in principio mensis Januarii" (_Gervase_, i. 142).
APPENDIX Z.
BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME.
(See p. 209.)
A most interesting and instructive series of papal letters is preserved
in the valuable Cotton MS. known as Tiberius, A. vi. The earliest with
which we are here concerned are those referred to in the _Historia
Eliensis_ as obtained by Alexander and his fellows, the "nuncii" of
Nigel to the pope, in virtue of which the bishop regained his see in
1142 (_ante_, p. 162).[1189] These letters are dated April 29. As the
bishop was driven from the see early in 1140, the year to which they
belong is not, at first sight, obvious. The _Historia_ indeed appears to
place them just before his return, but its narrative is not so clear as
could be wished, nor would it imply that the bishop returned so late as
May (1142). The sequence of events I take to have been this. Nigel, when
ejected from his see (1140), fled to the Empress at Gloucester. There he
remained till her triumph in the following year (1141). He would then,
of course, regain his see, and this would account for his knights being
found in possession of the isle when Stephen recovered his throne. The
king, eager to reassert his rights and to avoid another fenland revolt,
would send the two earls to Ely (1142) to regain possession of its
strongholds. The bishop, now once more an exile, and despairing of
Maud's fortunes, would turn for help to the pope, and obtain from him
these letters commanding his restoration to his see. I should therefore
assign them to April 29, 1142. This would account for the expression
"per longa tempora" in the letter to Stephen. They could not belong to
1141, when the Empress was in power, and the above expression would not
be applicable in the year 1140.
The following is the gist of the letter to Stephen:—
"Serenitati tue rogando mandamus quatinus dignitates et libertates....
Venerabili quoque fratri nostro Nigello eiusdem loci episcopo in
recuperandis possessionibus ecclesie sue injuste distractis consilium
et auxilium prebeas. Nec pro eo quod ecclesia ipsa sua bona jam per
longa tempora perdidit, justitie sue eam sustinere aliquod preiuditium
patiaris" (fol. 114).
To his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, Innocent writes thus:—
"Rogando mandamus et mandando precipimus quatinus sententiam quam
venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus in eos qui
possessiones ecclesie sue iniuste et per violentiam detinent
rationabiliter promulgavit firmiter observetis et observari per vestras
parrochias pariter faciatis" (fol. 113 _b_).
A letter (also from the Lateran) of the same date to Nigel himself
excuses his presence and that of the Abbot of Thorney at a council. A
subsequent letter ("data trans Tyberim") of the 5th of October,
addressed to Theobald and the English bishops, deals with the expulsion
and restitution of Nigel, and insists on his full restoration.
The next series of letters are from Pope Lucius, and belong to May 24,
1144, being written on the occasion of Nigel's visit (_ante_, p. 208).
Of these there are five in all. To Stephen Lucius writes as follows:—
"Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus quamvis
quibusdam criminibus in presentia nostra notatus fuerit, nec tamen
convictus neque confessus est. Unde nos ipsum cum gratia nostra ad
sedem propriam remittentes nobilitati tue mandamus ut eum pro beati
Petri et nostra reverentia honores, diligas, nec ipse sibi vel ecclesie
sue iniuriam vel molestiam inferas nec ab aliis inferri permittas. Si
qua etiam ... ab hominibus tuis ei ablata sunt cum integritate restitui
facias" (fol. 117).
The above "crimina" are those referred to in the _Historia Eliensis_ as
brought forward at the Council of London in 1143:—
"Quidam magni autoritatis et prudentiæ visi adversus Dominum Nigellum
Episcopum parati insurrexerunt: illum ante Domini Papæ præsentiam
appellaverunt, sinistra ei objicientes plurima, maxime quod seditiones
in ipso concitaverat regno, et bona Ecclesie sue in milites
dissipaverat; aliaque ei convicia blasphemantes improperabant" (p. 622).
A second letter of the same date "Ad clerum elyensem de condempnatione
Symonie Vitalis presbyteri" deals with the case of Vitalis, a priest in
Nigel's diocese, who had been sentenced to deprivation of his living,
for simony, and whose appeal to the Council of London in 1143 had been
favourably received by the legate.[1190] The pope had himself reheard
the case, and now confirmed Nigel's decision:—
"Dilectis filiis Rodberto Abbati Thorneie et capitulo elyensi salutem
etc. Notum vobis fieri quia iuditium super causa, videlicet symonia,
Vitalis presbyteri in synodo elyensi habitum in nostra presentia
discussum est et retractatum. Quod nos rationabile cognoscentes
apostolice sedis auctoritate firmavimus," etc., etc. (fol. 117).
Then come two letters, also of the same date, one to Theobald and the
English bishops, the other to the Archbishop of Rouen, both to the same
effect, beginning, "Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus elyensis
episcopus ad sedem apostolicam veniens, nobis conquestus est quod," etc.
(fol. 116 _b_):[1191] the fifth document of the 24th of May (1144) is a
general confirmation to Ely of all its privileges and possessions (fols.
114 _b_-116 _b_).
Last of all is the letter referring to Geoffrey de Mandeville, which
must, from internal evidence, have been written in reply to a letter
from Nigel after his return to England (_ante_, p. 215).
[1189] "Et negotium strenuissime agentes, acceperunt ab excellentiâ
Romanæ dignitatis ad Archiepiscopum et episcopos Angliæ et ad
Rothomagensem Archiepiscopum literas de restituendo Nigello episcopo in
sedem suam" (_Hist. Eliensis_, p. 621).
[1190] "Presbyter quidam Vitalis nomine conquestus est coram omnibus
quod Dominus Elyensis episcopus eum non judiciali ordine de suâ Ecclesiâ
expulerit. Huic per omnia ille Legatus favebat" (_Hist. Eliensis_, p.
622).
[1191] See _ante_, p. 215, for Nigel's complaint.
APPENDIX AA.
"TENSERIE."
(See p. 215.)
The mention of "tenseriæ" in the letter of Lucius is peculiarly welcome,
because (in its Norman-French form) it is the very word employed by the
Peterborough chronicler.[1192] As I have pointed out in the
_Academy_,[1193] the same Latin form is found in the agenda of the
judicial iter in 1194: "de prisis et _tenseriis_ omnium ballivorum" (_R.
Hoveden_, iii. 267), while the Anglo-Norman "tenserie" is employed by
Jordan Fantosme, who, writing of the burgesses of Northampton (1174),
tells us that David of Scotland "ne pot _tenserie_ de eus aver." He also
illustrates the use of the verb when he describes how the Earl of
Leicester, landing in East Anglia, "la terre vait _tensant_.... E ad
_tensé_ la terre cum il en fut bailli." The Latin form of the verb was
"tensare," as is shown by the records of the Lincolnshire eyre in 1202
(Maitland's _Select Pleas of the Crown_, p. 19), where it is used of
extorting toll from vessels as they traversed the marshes. A reference
to the closing portion of the Lincolnshire survey in Domesday will show
the very same offence presented by the jurors of 1086.
To the same number of the _Academy_, Mr. Paget Toynbee contributed a
letter quoting some examples from Ducange of the use of _tenseria_, one
of them taken from the Council of London in 1151: "Sancimus igitur ut
Ecclesiæ et possessiones ecclesiasticæ ab operationibus et exactionibus,
quas vulgo _tenserias_ sive tallagia vocant, omnino liberæ permaneant,
nec super his eas aliqui de cætero inquietare præsumant." The other is
taken from the Council of Tours[1194] (1163), and is specially valuable
because, I think, it explains how the word acquired its meaning. The
difficulty is to deduce the sense of "robbery" from a verb which
originally meant "to protect" or "to defend," but this difficulty is
beautifully explained by our own word "blackmail," which similarly meant
money extorted under pretence of protection or defence. The "defensio"
of the Tours Council supports this explanation, as does the curious
story told by the monks of Abingdon,[1195] that during the Anarchy under
Stephen—
"Willelmus Boterel constabularius de Wallingford, pecunia accepta a
domno Ingulfo abbate, res ecclesiæ Abbendonensis a suo exercitu se
defensurum promisit. Sponsionis ergo suæ immemor, in villam Culeham,
quæ huic cænobio adjacet, quicquid invenire potuit, deprædavit. Quo
audito, abbas ... admirans quomodo quod tueri deberet, fure nequior
diripuisset" etc.
William died excommunicate for this, but his brother Peter made some
slight compensation later.[1196] It was not unusual for conscience or
the Church to extort more or less restitution for lawless conduct, as,
indeed, in the case of Geoffrey de Mandeville and his son. So, too, Earl
Ferrers made a grant to Burton Abbey "propter dampna a me et meis
Ecclesiæ predictæ illata" (cf. p. 276, _n._ 3), previous to going on
pilgrimage to S. Jago de Compostella—an early instance of a pilgrimage
thither.[1197]
While on this subject, it may be as well to add that the grant by
Robert, Earl of Leicester, to the see of Lincoln in restitution for
wrongs,[1198] may very possibly refer to his alleged share in the arrest
of the bishops (1139), and so confirm the statement of Ordericus
Vitalis.[1199]
The complaint of the same English Chronicle that the lawless barons
"cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land with castle works" is
curiously confirmed by a letter from Pope Eugenius to four of the
prelates, July 23, 1147:—
"Religiosorum fratrum Abbendoniæ gravem querelam accepimus quod
Willelmus Martel, Hugo de Bolebec, Willelmus de Bellocampo, Johannes
Marescallus, et eorum homines, et plures etiam alii parochiani vestri,
possessiones eorum violenter invadunt, et bona ipsorum rapiunt et
distrahunt et _indebitas castellorum operationes ab eis exigunt_."[1200]
With characteristic agreement upon this point, William Martel, who
served the king, John the marshal, who followed the Empress, and William
de Beauchamp, who had joined both, were at one in the evil work.
[1192] "Hi læiden gæildes on the tunes ... and clepeden it _tenserie_"
(ed. Thorpe, i. 382). Mr. Thorpe, the Rolls Series editor, took upon
himself to alter the word to _censerie_.
[1193] No. 1001, p. 37 (July 11, 1891).
[1194] "De Cæmeteriis et Ecclesiis, sive quibuslibet possessionibus
ecclesiasticis tenserias dari prohibemus, ne pro Ecclesia vel cæmeterii
defensione fidei sui Clerici sponsionem interponant." Compare the
passage from the _Chronicle of Ramsey_, p. 218 _n._, _ante_.
[1195] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 231.
[1196] William and Peter Boterel were related to Brian Fitz Count (of
Wallingford) through his father. They both attest a charter of his wife,
Matilda "de Wallingford," to Oakburn Priory.
[1197] _Burton Cartulary_, p. 50. A pilgrimage to this shrine is alluded
to in a charter (of this reign) by the Earl of Chester to his brother
the Earl of Lincoln, "in eodem anno quo ipsemet ... redivit de itinere
S. Jacobi Apostoli."
[1198] "Robertus Comes Leg' Radulfo vicecomiti. Sciatis me pro
satisfactione, ac dampnorum per me seu per meas Ecclesiæ Lincoln'
Episcopo illatorum restitutione, dedisse ... præfatæ Ecclesiæ
Lincolnensi et Alexandro Episcopo," etc. (_Remigius' Register_ at
Lincoln, p. 37).
[1199] See his life by me in _Dictionary of National Biography_.
[1200] _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 200, 543.
APPENDIX BB.
THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL.
(See p. 234.)
This instrument, which is referred to in the text, belongs to the
Devizes series of the charters granted by the Empress, and is enrolled
among some deeds relating to the baronial family of Basset.[1201] As
every charter of the Empress is of interest, while this one possesses
special features, it is here given _in extenso_:—
M. Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia et Anglorum Domina, et H. filius
Ducis Normannorum, Archiep. Epis. Abb. Comit. Baron. Justic. Vicecom.
Minist. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie et
Normannie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Galfrido Ridel
filio Ricardi Basset totam hereditatem suam et omnia recta sua
ubicunque ea ratione poteret ostendere sive in Normannia sive in Anglia
et totam terram quam pater eius Ricardus Basset habuit et tenuit jure
hereditario de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, in Normannia
sive in Anglia, ad tenendum in feodo et hereditate. Et totam terram
Galfridi Ridel avi sui quamcunque habuit et tenuit jure hereditario, In
Anglia sive in Normannia de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset,
ad tenendum in feudo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis de nobis et
heredibus nostris. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod bene et in
pace et quiete et honorifice teneat in bosco et aquis et in viis et
semitis in pratis et pasturis in omnibus locis cum soch et sache cum
tol et them et infangefethef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et
quietudinibus et libertatibus cum quibus antecessores eius tenuerunt.
T[estibus]. Cancellario et Roberto Comite Glovernie et Galfrido Comite
Essex et Roberto filio Reg[is] et Walchelino Maminot [et] Rogero filio
(_sic_) Apud Diuis[as].
The charter with which this one ought to be closely compared is that
granted, also at Devizes, to Humfrey de Bohun, early in 1144.[1202]
These two are the only instances I have yet met with of _joint_ charters
from the Empress and her son. It may not be unjustifiable to infer that
Henry was henceforth included as a partner in his mother's charters. If
so, it would follow that her charters in which he is not mentioned are
probably of earlier date.[1203] The second point suggested by a
comparison of these charters is that here Henry figures as the son of
the Duke of the Normans, while in the other document he is merely son of
the Count of the Angevins. This is at once explained by the fact that
her husband had now won his promotion (1144) from Count of the Angevins
to Duke of the Normans, an explanation which confirms my remarks on the
charter to Humfrey de Bohun.[1204] Thus this charter to Geoffrey Ridel
must be later than the spring of 1144, while anterior to Henry's
departure about the end of 1146. As the (Coucher) charter to Geoffrey de
Mandeville (junior) is attested by Humfrey as "Dapifer," that, also, may
be placed subsequent to Humfrey's own. Again, in the charter here
printed, we have proof that Richard Basset was dead at the time of its
grant, if not before. There has been hitherto no clue as to the time of
his decease, though Foss makes him die, by a strange confusion, in 1154.
Nor is it unimportant to observe that the Bassets and Ridels were
typical members of that official class which Henry I. had fostered, and
which appears to have strongly favoured his daughter's cause. Lastly, in
the re-grant of this charter, by Duke Henry at Wallingford (1153), we
have a valuable illustration of his practice in ignoring his mother's
charters, even when sanctioned by himself in his youth. For, although
the terms of the instrument are reproduced with exactitude, the grant is
made _de novo_, without reference to any former charter.[1205]
[1201] _Sloane_, xxxi. 4 (No. 48).
[1202] See my _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe-Roll Society), pp. 45-47. There
are two Devizes charters of the Empress, besides this one, not included
in Mr. Birch's collection, namely, her grant of Aston (by the Wrekin) to
Shrewsbury Abbey, and her general confirmation to that house. They are
both attested by Earl Reginald, William fitz Alan, Robert de
Dunstanville, and "Goceas" de Dinan, but are later than 1141, to which
date Mr. Eyton and others assign them.
[1203] In the second charter of the Empress to Geoffrey de Mandeville
the elder (1142) we have the first sign of a desire to secure her son's
adhesion.
[1204] _Ancient Charters_, p. 47.
[1205] _Sloane_, xxxi. 4. The witnesses are Randulf Earl of Chester,
Reginald Earl of Cornwall, William Earl of Gloucester, the Earl of
Hereford, Richard de Humez ("duhumesco"), constable, Philip de
Columbers, Ralph Basset, Ralph "Walensis," Hugh de "Hamslep."
EXCURSUS.
THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER.
One of the problems in English history as yet, it would seem, unsolved,
is that of the date at which Henry I. conferred on his natural son
Robert the earldom of Gloucester. The great part which Robert played in
the eventful struggles of his time, the fact that this was, in all
probability, almost the only earldom created in the course of this reign
(1100-1135), and the importance of ascertaining the date of its creation
as fixing that of many an otherwise doubtful record, all combine to
cause surprise that the problem remains unsolved.
Brooke wrote that the earldom of Gloucester was conferred on Robert "in
the eleventh year of his father's reign," and his critic, the argus-eyed
Vincent, in his _Discoverie of Errours_, did not question the statement.
As to Dugdale, he evaded the problem. Ignorance on the point is frankly
confessed in the _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_; while Mr. Freeman,
so far as I can find, has also deemed discretion the better part of
valour.
Three dates, however, have been suggested for this creation.
The first is 1109. This may be traced to Sandford (1707) and Rapin
(1724), who took it from the rhyming chronicle assigned to Robert of
Gloucester:—
"And of the kynges crownement in the [ninthe][1206] yere, The vorst
Erle of Gloucestre thus was mayd there."
This date was revived by Courthope in his well-known edition (1857) of
the _Historic Peerage_ of Sir Harris Nicolas (by whom no date had been
assigned to the creation). It may be said, by inference, to have
received the sanction of the authorities at the British Museum.
The second is 1119. This suspiciously resembles an adaptation of the
preceding date, but may have been suggested, and in the case of Mr.
Clark (_vide infra_) probably was, by reading Dugdale wrong.[1207] It
seems to have first appeared in a footnote to William of Malmesbury
(1840), as edited for the English Historical Society by the late Sir
Thomas Duffus (then Mr.) Hardy. It is there stated that Robert "was
created Earl of Gloucester in 1119" (vol. ii. p. 692). No authority
whatever is given for this statement, but the same date is adopted by
Mr. Clark (1878), who asserts that "Robert certainly bore it [the title]
1119, 20th Henry I." (_Arch. Journ._, xxxv. 5); by Mr. Doyle (1886) in
his valuable _Official Baronage_ (ii. 9); and lastly (1887) by Mr. Hunt
in his _Bristol_ (p. 17). In none of these cases, however, is the source
of the statement given.[1208]
In the mean while, a third date, viz. shortly before Easter (April 2),
1116, was advanced with much assurance. In his essay on the _Survey of
Lindsey_ (1882), Mr. Chester Waters wrote:
"We know that the earldom was conferred on him before Easter, 1116, for
he attested as earl the royal charter in favour of Tewkesbury Abbey,
which was executed at Winchester on the eve of the king's embarkation
for Normandy" (p. 3).
The date attributed to this charter having aroused the curiosity of
antiquaries, the somewhat singular discovery was made that it could also
be found in the MSS. of Mr. Eyton, then lately deceased.[1209] For the
time, however, Mr. Waters enjoyed the credit of having solved an ancient
problem, and "the ennobling of Robert fitz Roy in 1116" was accepted by
no less an authority than Mr. Elton.[1210]
I propose to show that these three dates are all alike erroneous, and
that the Tewkesbury charter is spurious.
Let us first observe that there is no evidence for the belief that
Robert received his earldom at the time of his marriage to the heiress
of Robert fitz Hamon. There is, on the contrary, a probability that he
did not. I do not insist on the Tewkesbury charter (_Mon. Ang._, ii.
66), in which the king speaks of the demesne of Robert fitz Hamon as
being now "Dominium Roberti filii mei," for we have more direct evidence
in a charter of Robert to the church of Rochester, in which he confirmed
the gifts made by his wife and father, not as Robert Earl of Gloucester,
but merely as "Ego Rodbertus Henrici Regis filius."
We must further dismiss late authorities, in which, as we might expect,
we find a tendency to throw back the creation of a title to an early
period of the grantee's life. We cannot accept as valid evidence the
rhymes of Robert of Gloucester (_circa_ 1300), the confusion of later
writers, or the assumptions of the fourteenth-century _Chronicque de
Normandie_, in which last work Robert is represented as already "Earl of
Gloucester" at the battle of Tinchebrai (1106).
The only chronicle that we can safely consult is that of the Continuator
of William of Jumièges, and this, unfortunately, tells us nothing as to
the date of the creation, which, however, it seems to place some time
after the marriage. It is worth mentioning that the writer's words—
"Præterea, quia parum erat filium Regis ingentia prædia possidere
absque nomine et honore alicujus publicæ dignitatis, dedit illi pater
pius comitatum Gloecestre" (Lib. viii. cap. 29, ed. Duchesne, p. 306).
are suspiciously suggestive of Robert of Gloucester's famous story that
Robert's bride refused to marry him "bote he adde an tuo name." It would
be very satisfactory if we could thus trace the story to its source, the
more so as the chronicle is not among those from which Robert is
supposed to have drawn.
We are, therefore, left dependent on the evidence of charters alone.
That is to say, we must look to the styles given to Robert the king's
son, to learn when he first became Earl of Gloucester.
His earliest attestation is, to all appearance, that which occurs in a
charter of 1113. This charter is printed in the appendix to the edition
of Ordericus Vitalis by the Société de l'Histoire de France,[1211] and
as all the circumstances connected with its grant, together with the
names of the chief witnesses, are given by Ordericus in the body of his
work,[1212] there cannot be the slightest doubt, or even hesitation, as
to its date.[1213] In the text he is styled "Rodbertus regis filius,"
and in the charter "Rodbertus filius regis," his name being given, it
should be noticed, last but one. The next attestation, in order, it
would seem, is found in a writ of Henry I. tested at Reading, some time
before Easter, 1116, to judge from the presence of "Rannulfus
Meschinus."[1214] For Randulf became Earl of Chester by the death of his
cousin Richard, when returning to England with the king in November,
1120.[1215]
We next find Robert in Normandy with his father. He there attests a
charter to Savigny, his name ("Robertus filius regis") coming
immediately after those of the earls (in this case Stephen, Count of
Mortain, and Richard, Earl of Chester), that being the position in
which, till his creation, it henceforth always figures. This charter
passed in 1118, probably in the autumn of the year.[1216] Robert's next
appearance is at the battle of Brémulé (or Noyon), August 20, 1119.
Ordericus refers to his presence thus:—
"Ibi fuerunt duo filii ejus Rodbertus et Ricardus, milites egregii, et
tres consules," etc., etc. (iv. 357).
This is certainly opposed to the view that Robert was already an earl,
for he is carefully distinguished from the three earls ("tres consules")
who were present, and is classed with his brother Richard, who never
became an earl. We must assign to about the same date the confirmation
charter of Colchester Abbey, which is known to us only from the
unpublished cartulary now in the possession of Lord Cowper. Robert's
name here comes immediately after those of the earls, and his style is
"Robertus filius henrici regis Anglorum."
This charter suggests a very important question. That its form, in the
cartulary, is that in which it was originally granted we may confidently
deny. At the same time, the circumstances by which its grant was
accompanied are told by the monks in great detail and in the form of a
separate narrative. Indeed, on that narrative is based the belief, so
dear to Mr. Freeman's heart, that Henry I. was, more or less, familiar
with the English tongue. Moreover, it is suggested by internal evidence
that the charter, as we have it, is based on an originally genuine
record. Now, the accepted practice is to class charters as genuine,
doubtful, or spurious, "doubtful" meaning only that they are either
genuine or spurious, but that it is not quite certain to which of these
classes they belong. For my part I see no reason why there should not be
an indefinite number of stages between an absolutely genuine record and
one that is a sheer forgery. It was often, whether truly or falsely,
alleged (we may have our own suspicions) that the charter originally
granted had been lost, stolen, or burnt. In the case of this particular
charter, its predecessor was said to have been lost; at Leicester, a
riot was made accountable; at Carlisle a fire. In these last two cases,
those who were affected were allowed to depose to the tenor of the lost
charter. In the case of that which we are now considering, I have
recorded in another place[1217] my belief that the story was probably a
plot of the monks anxious to secure an enlarged charter. Of course,
where a charter was really lost, and it was thought necessary to supply
its place either by a pseudo-original document, or merely in a
cartulary, deliberate invention was the only resource. But, in such
cases, it was almost certain that, in the days when the means of
historical information were, compared with our own, non-existent, the
forger would betray himself at once by the names in his list of
witnesses. There was, however, as I imagine, another class of forged
charters. This comprised those cases in which the original had not been
lost, but in which it was desired to substitute for that original a
charter with more extensive grants. Here the genuine list of witnesses
might, of course, be copied, and with a little skill the interpolations
or alterations might be so made as to render detection difficult, if not
impossible. I speak, of course, of a cartulary transcript; in an actual
charter, the document and seal would greatly assist detection. But I
would suggest that there might be another class to be considered. This
Colchester charter is a case in point. The impression it conveys to my
mind is that of a genuine charter, adapted by a systematic process of
florid and grandiloquent adornment to a depraved monkish taste. In
short, I look on this charter as not, of necessity, a "forgery," that
is, intended to deceive, but as possibly representing the results of a
process resembling that of illumination. Such an hypothesis may appear
daring, but it is based, we must remember, on a mental attitude, on, so
to speak, an historic conscience, radically different from our own.
After all, it is but in the present generation that the sacredness of an
original record has been recognized as it should. Such a conception was
wholly foreign to the men of the Middle Ages. I had occasion to allude
to this essential fact in a study on "The Book of Howth," when calling
attention to the strange liberties allowed themselves by the early
translators of the _Expugnatio Hiberniæ_. Geoffrey of Monmouth
illustrates the point. Looking not only at him but his contemporaries in
the twelfth century, we cannot but compare the impertinent obtrusion of
their pseudo-classical and, still more, their incorrigible Biblical
erudition, with the same peculiar features in such charters as those of
which I speak. Another remarkable parallel, I think, may be found in the
_Dialogus de Scaccario_. Observe there the opening passage, together
with the persistent obtrusion of texts, and compare them with the
general type of forged, spurious, or "doctored" charters. The
resemblance is very striking. It was, one might say, the systematic
practice of the monkish forger or adapter to make the royal or other
grantor in such charters as these indulge in a homily from the monkish
standpoint on the obligation to make such grants, and to quote texts in
support of that thesis. Once viewed in this light, such passages are as
intelligible as they are absurd.
But, in addition to, and distinct from, these stilted moralizations, is
the process which I have ventured to compare with illumination or even
embroidery. This was, in most cases, so overdone, as to bury the simple
phraseology of the original, if genuine, instrument beneath a pile of
grandiloquence. Take for instance this clause from the Colchester
charter in question:
"Data Rothomagi deo gratias solemniter et feliciter Anno ab incarn'
dom' MCXIX. Quo nimirum anno prætaxatus filius regis Henrici Will's rex
designatus puellam nobilissimam filiam Fulconis Andegavorum comitis
Mathildam nomine Luxouii duxit uxorem."
Now, if we compare this clause with that appended to an original charter
of some ten years later, we there read thus:—
"Apud Wintoniam eodem anno, inter Pascham et Pentecostem, quo Rex duxit
in uxorem filiam ducis de Luvain."[1218]
This peculiar method of dating charters which is found in this reign
suggests that the genuine charter to Colchester would contain a similar
clause (if any),[1219] beginning "Apud Rothomagum eodem anno quo," etc.,
etc. As it stands in the cartulary, the original clause has been treated
by the monkish scribe much as an original passage in a chronicle might
be worked into his text, in the present day, by an historian of the
"popular" school.[1220] But wide and interesting though the conclusions
are to which such an hypothesis might lead, I must confine myself here
to pointing out that the list of witnesses, in its minutest details, is
apparently beyond impeachment. Specially would I refer to four names,
those of the clerks of the king's chapel. It is rare, indeed, to find so
complete and careful a list. The four "capellani regis," as they are
here styled, are (1) John de Bayeux;[1221] (2) Nigel de Caine;[1222] (3)
Robert "Pechet;"[1223] (4) Richard "custos sigilli regis."[1224] The
remarkable and, we may fairly assume, undesigned coincidence between the
list of witnesses attesting this charter, and that of the king's
followers at the battle of Brémulé (fought, there is reason to believe,
within a few weeks of its grant), as given by Ordericus Vitalis, ought
to be carefully noted, confirming, as it obviously does, the authority
of both the lists, and consequently my hypothesis that the charter in
the Colchester cartulary represents a genuine original record belonging
to the date alleged.[1225]
It is also, perhaps, worth notice that Eadmer applies to William "the
Ætheling" the very same term as that which meets us in this charter,
namely, "designatus."[1226]
Approaching now the question of date, we note that the charter must have
been subsequent to the marriage at Lisieux (June, 1119) to which it
refers, and previous to the Council of Rheims (October 20, 1119), which
Archbishop Thurstan attended, and from which he did not return.[1227] We
know that between these dates Henry was in Rouen at least once, viz. at
the end of September (1119),[1228] so that we can determine the date of
the charter within exceedingly narrow limits.
The remaining charters which we have now to examine are all subsequent
to the king's return and the disaster of the White Ship (November 25,
1120).
The desolate king had spent his Christmas (1120) in comparative
seclusion at Brampton, attended by his nephew, Theobald of Blois.[1229]
In January (1121) he came south to attend a great council before his
approaching marriage. By Eadmer and the Continuator of Florence of
Worcester, the assembling of the council is assigned to the Epiphany
(January 6, 1121). Richard "de Sigillo" was on the following day
(January 7) elected to the see of Hereford, and was consecrated nine
days later (January 16, 1121) at Lambeth.[1230]
To this council we may safely assign a charter in the British Museum
(Harley, 111, B. 46),[1231] of value for its list of witnesses,
twenty-six in number. It gives us the names of no fewer than thirteen
bishops, by whom, in addition to the primate, this council was
attended.[1232] Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, by whom so much has been done
to encourage the study of charters and of seals, has edited this record
in one of his instructive sphragistic monographs.[1233] He has, however,
by an unfortunate inadvertence, omitted about half a dozen
witnesses,[1234] while his two limits of date are not quite correct; for
Richard was consecrated Bishop of Hereford, not on "the 16th of January,
1120," but on the 16th of January, 1121 (N.S.), and Archbishop Ralph
died, not "19th September," but 19th October (xiv. kal. Novembris),
1122. Thus the limit for this charter would be, not "from April, 1120,
to September, 1122," but from January, 1121, to October, 1122. Mr. Birch
further observes that "the date may be taken very shortly after the
consecration of Richard." Here again, I must reluctantly differ, for by
the practice of the time, the grant of the temporalities did not come
after, but before, the consecration. The charter, in short, as I
observed above, can be safely assigned to the council of January, 1121.
In it the subject of this paper attests as "Roberto filio Regis." His
name occurs in its right place immediately after those of the earls,
who, oddly enough, are in this charter the same two, at least in
title,[1235] after whom he had attested the Savigny charter in
1118.[1236]
The next charters in my chain of evidence are two which passed at
Windsor. We are told by Simeon of Durham that at the time of the king's
marriage (January 29-30, 1121) there was gathered together at Windsor a
council of the whole realm.[1237] To this council I assign a charter
printed by Madox from the original among the archives of Westminster
Abbey.[1238] I am led to do so because, firstly, the names of the
witnesses are all found, with three exceptions, in charters belonging to
this date; second, the said three exceptions are those of Count Theobald
of Blois, who had, we know, joined the king not long before, of Earl
David, from Scotland, whose visit would be due to the occasion of his
brother-in-law's wedding, and of the Archbishop of Rouen, whose presence
may be also thus accounted for;[1239] third, the attestation of two
archbishops with four bishops suggests the presence of a "concilium," as
described by Simeon of Durham.
If this is the date of the charter in question, it may also be that of
another charter, also to Westminster Abbey,[1240] for its eleven
witnesses are all found among those of the preceding charter. In both
these cases "Robert, the king's son," attests in his regular place
immediately after the earls.[1241]
We now come to an original charter in every way of the highest
importance.[1242] I have already quoted its dating clause,[1243] which
proves it to have been executed at Winchester, between Easter (April 10)
and Pentecost (May 29), 1121. Moreover, as the king spent his Easter at
Berkeley and his Whitsuntide at Westminster,[1244] the limit of date, as
a matter of fact, is somewhat narrower still. Here again Robert attests
("Rob[erto] fil[io] Regis") at the head of all the laity beneath the
rank of earl.
The last charter which I propose to adduce, as attested by "Robert, the
king's son," is one which, in all probability, may be assigned to this
same occasion, for the whole of its thirteen witnesses had attested the
previous charter, with the exception of two bishops, whose presence can
be otherwise accounted for,[1245] and of William de Warenne (Earl of
Surrey).
The importance of this charter is not so great as that of those adduced
above, for it is known to us only from the Rymer Collectanea (_Add.
MSS._, 4573), of which an abstract is appended to the Fœdera.[1246]
Moreover, in one minute detail its accuracy may be fairly impugned, for
"Willielmo de Warennâ" clearly stands for "Willielmo _Comite_ de
Warennâ," Nor, indeed, is its evidence needed, the proof being complete
without it. Yet, as the charter (_quantum valeat_) has been assigned, I
think, to a wrong date, the point may be worth glancing at. In the Rymer
Collectanea the date is fixed as "1115" (or "16 Henry I.") on the ground
that it belongs to the same date as a charter of Henry I. to Bardney,
which was granted "Apud Wynton' xvj. anno postquam rex recepit regnum
Angliæ."[1247] Mr. Eyton also, in a late addition to his MS. Itinerary
of Henry I.,[1248] wrote that the presence of three of the bishops
(Lincoln, Salisbury, and St David's) suggested "the latter part of
1115." But we must remember that the Bardney charter is known to us only
from a late Inspeximus,[1249] and that the dating clause is somewhat
suspicious. Yet even if the version were entirely genuine, the fact
remains that the list of witnesses has only four names[1250] in common
with that in the charter I am discussing, which has, on the contrary, no
less than ten in common with those in the original charter of
1121.[1251] I cannot, therefore, but fix on 1121 as a far more probable
date for its grant than 1115-1116.
This, however, as I said, is but a small matter. The really important
fact is this: that we have a continuous chain of evidence, proving that
"Robert, the king's son," was not yet Earl of Gloucester, at least as
late as April-May, 1121.
Against this weight of accumulated evidence what is there? Absolutely
nothing but that Tewkesbury charter, which is quoted from Dugdale's
_Monasticon_, where it is quoted from a mere _Inspeximus_ of the 10th
Henry IV. (1408-9), some three centuries after its alleged date![1252] I
need scarcely say that this miserable evidence for the assertion that
Robert was Earl of Gloucester, at Easter, 1116, is simply annihilated
and crumpled up by the proof afforded by original charters that he had
not yet received the earldom even five years later on (1121).
It is, however, satisfactory to be able to add that, even independent of
this rebutting evidence, the charter itself, on its own face, bears
witness of its spurious character. Mr. Eyton, indeed, was slightly
uneasy about two of the witnesses, it being, he thought, as unusually
early for an attestation of Brian fitz Count, as it was late for that of
Hamo Dapifer.[1253] Yet he was not, on that account, led to reject it;
indeed, he not only accepted, but unfortunately built upon its evidence.
He never, however, we must remember, committed his conclusions to print,
so that it may be urged with perfect justice that he might have
reconsidered and changed his views before he made them public. Not so
with Mr. Chester Waters. Announcing the discovery which Mr. Eyton had so
strangely anticipated, he wrote—
"We know that the earldom [of Gloucester] was conferred on him [Robert]
before Easter, 1116, for he attested as earl the royal charter in
favour of Tewkesbury Abbey which was executed at Winchester, on the eve
of the king's embarkation for Normandy (_Monasticon_, vol. ii. p.
66)."[1254]
When Mr. Waters thus wrote, had he observed that in this charter the
king's style appears as "Henr' dei gratia Rex Angl' _et dux Norm'_"? And
if he had done so, if he had glanced at the charter on which he based
his case, is it possible that he was so unfamiliar with the charters and
the writs of Henry I., as not to be aware that such a style, of itself,
throws doubt upon the charter?[1255] To those who remember that he
confessed (in reply to certain criticisms of my own) to having
"carelessly repeated a statement which comes from a discredited
authority,"[1256] and that he announced a discovery as to the meeting of
Henry I. and Robert of Normandy, in 1101,[1257] which, as I proved, was
based only on his own failure to read a charter of this reign
aright,[1258] such a correction as this will come as no surprise.
Having now shown that Robert fitz Roy was not yet Earl of Gloucester in
April-May, 1121, I proceed to show that he was earl in June, 1123.
The charter by which I prove this is granted "apud Portesmudam in
transfretatione meâ."[1259] It is dated in the thirty-first Report of
the Deputy Keeper of the Records (in the calendar of these charters
drawn up by the late Sir William Hardy) as "1115-1123." Its exact date
can, however, be determined, and is 3-10 June, 1123. This I prove thus.
The parties addressed are Theowulf, Bishop of Worcester (who died
October 20, 1123), and Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who was not yet earl
in April-May, 1121). These being the limits of date, the only occasion
within these limits on which the king "transfretavit" was in June, 1123.
And we learn from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the king, on that
occasion, was at Portsmouth, waiting to cross, all Pentecost week (June
3-10). This is conclusive.
It is certain, therefore, that Robert fitz Roy received the earldom of
Gloucester between April-May, 1121, and June, 1123. We may even reduce
this limit if we can trust a charter in the Register of St. Osmund (i.
382) which is absurdly assigned in the Rolls edition to circ. 1109. The
occurrence of Robert, Earl of Leicester, proves that it must be
subsequent to his father's death in 1118, and consequently (as the
charter is tested at Westminster) to the king's return in 1120. Again,
as Bishop Robert of Lincoln witnesses the charter, it must be previous
to his death, January 10, 1123, But as the king had not been at
Westminster for some time before that, it cannot be placed later than
1122. Now, we have seen that in April-May, 1121, Robert was not yet Earl
of Gloucester; consequently, this charter must belong to the period
between that date and the close of 1122. It is, therefore, the earliest
mention, as yet known to me, of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. As we
increase our knowledge of the charters of this reign we shall doubtless
be able to narrow further the limit I have thus ascertained.
There is, indeed, a charter which, if we could trust it, would greatly
reduce the limit. This is Henry I.'s great charter to Merton,[1260]
which is attested by Robert, as Earl of Gloucester, and which purports
to have passed August 5-December 31, 1121 (? 24th March, 1122).[1261]
But it is quite certain that, in the form we have it, this charter is
spurious. It is true that the names given in the long list of witnesses
are, apparently, consistent with the date,[1262] but all else is fatally
bad. Both the charter itself, and the attestations thereto, are in the
worst and most turgid style; the precedence of the witnesses is
distinctly wrong,[1263] and the mention of the year-date would alone
rouse suspicion. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the charter is
based on a genuine document, it is not easy to decide. A reference to
the new _Monasticon_ will show that there is a difficulty, a conflict of
testimony, about the facts of the foundation. This increases the doubt
as to the authenticity of the charter, from the evidence of which, if
not confirmed, we are certainly not entitled to draw any authoritative
conclusion as to the date of Robert's creation.
Adhering then, for the present, to the limits I have given above
(1121-1122) I may point out that Robert's promotion may possibly have
been due to his increased importance, consequent on the loss in the
White Ship of the king's only legitimate son, and of his natural son
Richard. Of Henry's three adult sons he now alone remained.[1264] It is
certain that he henceforth continued to improve his position and power
till, as we know, he contested with his future rival, Stephen, the
honour of being first among the magnates to swear allegiance to the
Empress.
Before passing to a corollary of the conclusion arrived at in this paper
it may be well to glance at Robert's younger brother and namesake. This
was a son of Henry by another mother, Edith, whose parentage, by the
way, suggests a genealogical problem.[1265] He was quite a nonentity in
the history of the time as compared with the elder Robert; nor does his
name, so far as I know, occur before 1130, when it is entered in the
Pipe-Roll for that year. He is found as a witness to one of his royal
father's charters, which is only known to us from the _Cartæ Antiquæ_,
and which belongs to the end of the reign.[1266] There is no possibility
of confusion between his brother and himself, for his earliest
attestations are, as we have seen, several years later than his
brother's elevation to the earldom, so that they cannot both have been
attesting, at any one period, as "Robert, the king's son." It is,
moreover, self-evident that such a style could only be used when there
was but one person whom it could be held to denote.
As illustrating the value of such researches as these, and the
importance of securing a "fixed point" as a help for other inquiries, I
shall now give an instance of the results consequent on ascertaining the
date of this creation. Let us turn to that remarkable record among the
muniments of St. Paul's, which the present Deputy Keeper of the Records
first made public,[1267] and which has since been published _in extenso_
and in fac-simile by the Corporation of London in their valuable
_History of the Guildhall_. The importance of this record lies in its
mention of the wards of the City, with their respective rulers, at an
exceptionally early date. What that date was it is most desirable to
learn. Mr. Loftie has rightly, in his later work,[1268] made the
greatest use of this list, which he describes (p. 93) as "the document I
have so often quoted as containing a list of the lands of the dean and
chapter before 1115." Indeed, he invariably treats this document as one
"which must have been written before 1115" (p. 82). But the only reason
to be found for his conclusion is that—
"Coleman Street appears in the St. Paul's list as 'Warda Reimundi,' and
this is the more interesting as we know that Reimund, or Reinmund, was
dead before 1115, which helps us to date the document. Azo, his son,
succeeded him" (p. 89).[1269]
This is a most astounding statement, considering that all "we know,"
from these documents, of Reimund or Reinmund is that both he and his son
Azo were living in 1132, when they attested a charter![1270] Turning
from this strange blunder to the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is
among those mentioned in this list,[1271] we learn at once that, so far
from being _earlier_ than 1115, it is _later_ than the earl's creation
in 1121-1122. And this conclusion accords well with the fact that other
names which it contains, such as those of John fitz Ralf (fitz
Evrard),[1272] William Malet, etc., belong to the close of the
reign.[1273]
Before taking leave of this record, I would glance at the curious entry:—
"Terra Gialle [reddit] ii sol[idos] et est latitudinis LII pedum
longitudinis CXXXII pedum."
Mr. Price, the editor of the work, renders this "The land of Gialla;"
but what possible proper name can "Gialla" represent? When we find that
the list is followed by a reference to the Jews being "incarcerati apud
Gyhalam," _temp._ Edward I., and when Mr. Price admits that "Gyaula" is
among the early forms of "Guildhall," is it too rash a conjecture that
we have in the above "Gialla" a mention of the Guildhall of London
earlier, by far, than he, or any one else, has ever yet discovered?
[1206] This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful.
[1207] "He was advanced to the earldom of Gloucester by the king (his
father). After which, in Anno 1119 (20 Hen. I.), he attended him in that
famous battle at Brennevill," etc., etc. (_Baronage_, i. 534).
[1208] A paper on the earldom was read by the late Mr. J. G. Nichols, at
the Gloucester Congress of the Institute (1851), but I do not find that
it was ever printed, so that I cannot give the date which he assigned.
[1209] _Athenæum_, May 9 and June 27, 1885.
[1210] _Academy_, September 29, 1883 (p. 207).
[1211] v. 199.
[1212] iv. 302.
[1213] The king promised the charter on the occasion of his visit
(February 3, 1113), and when it had been drawn up, it received his
formal approval at Rouen, "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit
et Cenomanniam de me, meus homo factus, recepit."
[1214] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 77.
[1215] Henry remained abroad between the above dates.
[1216] _Gallia Christiana_, xi. (Instrumenta), pp. 111-112. The charter
is there assigned, but without any reason being given, to 1118. A
collation, however, of this record with the names given by Ordericus
Vitalis (iv. 329) of those present at the Council of Rouen, October 7,
1118, makes it all but certain that it passed on that occasion.
[1217] _Academy_, No. 645.
[1218] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1219] Compare the Rouen charter (1113) to St. Evroul, where the clause
is "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit," etc., etc. (see p.
423).
[1220] This is specially applicable to the insertion of the year in
numerals. Such date would be, though actually an addition, yet a
legitimate inference from the event alluded to in the charter. It may be
worth alluding to another case, though it stands on somewhat a different
footing, to illustrate the infinite variety of treatment to which such
charters were subjected, even when there were neither occasion nor
intention to deceive. This is that of the final agreement between the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, of which the record is preserved at
Canterbury. It has been discovered that the document from which
historians have quoted (A. 1) is not really the original, but a copy
"which was plainly intended for public exhibition" (_Fifth Report Hist.
MSS._, App. i. p. 452). Moreover, the real original (A. 2) was found not
to contain the final clause (narrating the place and circumstances of
the agreement), which is hence supposed to have been subsequently added,
for the sake of convenience, by the clerk. (See my letter in _Athenæum_,
December 19, 1891.)
[1221] Natural son of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror's
half-brother.
[1222] "Nigellus de Calna reddit compotum de j marca argenti pro
Willelmo nepote suo" (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 18).
[1223] Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry early in 1121.
[1224] _Alias_ "de Sigillo." He was made Bishop of Hereford in January,
1121, as "Ricardus qui regii sigilli sub cancellario custos erat"
(Eadmer).
[1225] In both we have the same three earls, neither more nor less; in
both we have the same two _filii regis_, Robert and Richard; in both we
have Richard de Tankerville and Nigel de Albini and Roger fitz Richard.
[1226] "Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Compare
the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, who, speaking of the very
event (1119) by which this charter is dated, describes him as William
"quem jam [i.e. 1116] hæredem totius regni sui constituerat" (ii. 72).
[1227] _Florence of Worcester_, ii. 72.
[1228] _Ordericus Vitalis_ (ed. Société de l'Histoire de France), iv.
371.
[1229] Henry of Huntingdon.
[1230] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 75; _Eadmer_, 290.
[1231] "Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo episcopo episcopatum
de Hereford," etc., etc.
[1232] Five of them joined the primate in the consecration of the Bishop
of Hereford (January 16). The Archbishop of York was not at the council,
being still in disgrace with the king for his conduct at the Council of
Rheims (October, 1119).
[1233] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxix. 258, 259.
[1234] Reading "Willelmo, & Ricardo filiis Baldewini," where the charter
has:—"(1) William de Tankerville, (2) William de Albini, (3) Walter de
Gloucester, (4) Adam de Port, (5) William de Pirou, (6) Walter de Gant,
(7) Richard fitz Baldwin.
[1235] The Count of Mortain, and the Earl of Chester. The latter was, of
course, now Randolf, who had succeeded his cousin Richard, drowned in
the White Ship.
[1236] _Vide supra_, p. 423.
[1237] "Anno MCXXI Concilio totius Angliæ ante purificationem ... apud
Winderesoram adunato, Henricus rex ... Adelinam matrimonio sibi junxit"
(ii. 219).
[1238] _Formularium Anglicanum_, No. lxv. (p 39).
[1239] This would give us, as the principal guests assembled at the
king's wedding, his brother-in-law, Earl David, his nephews Theobald,
Count of Blois, and Stephen, Count of Mortain, with the primates of
England and of Normandy.
[1240] Madox's _Formularium Anglicanum_, No. ccccxcvi. (p. 292).
[1241] Earl David and the Count of Blois.
[1242] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1243] _Supra_, p. 426.
[1244] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle._
[1245] Winchester, who had attested the Windsor charters, and who here
attests in his own city; and St. David's, who is constantly found at
Court, and who had attested, in January, the charter at Westminster, to
the Bishop of Hereford (_supra_, p. 428).
[1246] "Concessio Manerii de clara Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi."
[1247] _Mon. Ang._, i. 629.
[1248] _Add. MSS._, 31,937, fol. 130.
[1249] Cart., 5 Edw. III., n. 10.
[1250] The chancellor and three bishops.
[1251] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.
[1252] _Monasticon Anglicanum_, ii. 66.
[1253] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 68, _b_.
[1254] _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 3. See my paper on "The spurious
Tewkesbury Charter" in _Genealogist_, October, 1891.
[1255] "Rex Anglorum" was the normal style employed in the English
charters of Henry I.: "Dux Normannorum," etc., was added by Henry II.
[1256] _Academy_, June 27, 1885.
[1257] _Notes and Queries_, 6th series, i. 6.
[1258] _Athenæum_, Dec. 19, 1885.
[1259] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 5.
[1260] _Cartæ Antiquæ_, R. 5.
[1261] It is dated 1121, and in the twenty-second year of the reign.
[1262] That is, if Archbishop Thurstan was yet restored to favour.
[1263] The chancellor, for instance, instead of attesting after the
bishops and before the laity, actually follows immediately after the
archbishops, and precedes the whole "bench of bishops." I have been
amazed to find antiquaries who thought nothing of this matter of
precedence.
[1264] Robert and Richard are the two of Henry's natural sons, who are
mentioned as with him in Normandy, and fighting beneath his standard at
Noyon (1119).
[1265] If, as suggested by the narrative in the _Monasticon_ of the
foundation of Osney Abbey, her father's name was "Forne," one is tempted
to ask if the bearer of so uncommon a name was identical with the Forn
Ligulfson ("Forne filius Ligulfi"), who is mentioned by Simeon of
Durham, in 1121, as one of the magnates of Northumbria, and if so,
whether the latter was son of the wealthy but ill-fated Ligulf, murdered
near Durham in 1080. Should both these queries be answered in the
affirmative, Edith would have been named after her grandmother
"Eadgyth," the highly born wife of Ligulf. Writing at a distance from
works of reference I cannot tell whether such a descent has been
suggested before, but it would certainly, could it be proved, be of
quite exceptional interest. Edith, as is tolerably well known, was first
the mistress of Henry, and then the wife of Robert D'Oilli. Thus her son
by the former, Robert fitz Edith (see p. 94, _n._ 4), was (half)-brother
to Henry D'Oilli, and is so described by the latter in one of his grants
to Osney (Dugdale's _Baronage_, i. 460). It should be added that an "Ivo
fil' Forn" appears in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 25). Was he brother to
Edith?
[1266] Charter to the church of Durham, printed in Rymer's _Fœdera_
(Record edition), i. 13, and assigned by Sir T. D. Hardy (_Syllabus_) to
"1134." It was, in any case, subsequent to Flambard's death (September
5, 1128).
[1267] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 56.
[1268] _Historic Towns: London._
[1269] Mr. Loftie elsewhere tells us (p. 27) that Reinmund "was
succeeded by his more eminent son Azo, the goldsmith, whom it would be
interesting to identify with one of the Azors of Domesday." How does Mr.
Loftie know that Azo was "more eminent" than his father, or that he was
a "goldsmith"? On one point we can certainly agree with him. It _would_
be most "interesting" to identify a Domesday tenant in a man whose
father was living in 1132!
[1270] _Ninth Report_ (_ut supra_), p. 67 _b_. For similar instances of
eccentric statements on the City fathers in Mr. Loftie's book, see p.
355, and my paper on "The First Mayor of London" (_Antiquary_, March,
1887). They throw, it will be found, a strange light on Mr. Elton's
unfortunate remark that "Mr. Loftie makes good use of the documents
discovered at St. Paul's" (_Academy_, April 30, 1887, p. 301).
[1271] "Socce Comitis Gloecestrie."
[1272] Cf. pp. 305, 306.
[1273] Ralf fitz "Algod," Robert fitz Gosbert, and Robert d'Ou occur in
a deed of 1132 (_Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 67 _b_), and
Osbert Masculus in one of 1142 (_ibid._, p. 40 _b_).
ADDENDA.
Page 5. The assertion by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester that
Stephen kept his coronation court "cum totius Angliæ primoribus" has an
important bearing on the assertion by Florence that Harold was elected
to the throne "a totius Angliæ primatibus." For this latter phrase is
the sheet-anchor upon which Mr. Freeman relies for the fact of Harold's
valid election, and which he is avowedly compelled to strain to the
uttermost:—
"He was chosen, not by some small or packed assembly, but by the chief
men of the land. And he was chosen, not by this or that shire or
earldom, but by the chief men of the whole land.... All this is implied
in the weighty and carefully chosen words of Florence" (_Norman
Conquest_ (1869), iii. 597).
So also he confidently insists that—
"There can be no doubt that the Witan of Northumberland, no less than
the Witan of the rest of England, had concurred in the election of
Harold. The expressions of our best authorities declare that the chief
men of all England concurred in the choice" (_ibid._, p. 57).
The only authority given for this assertion is the above statement by
Florence that "Harold was 'a totius Angliæ primatibus ad regale culmen
electus.'"
Now, the known authorities from which Florence worked (the Abingdon and
Worcester chronicles) "are," Mr. Freeman admits, "silent about the
election." The fact, therefore, rests on the _ipse dixit_ of Florence
(for the words of the Peterborough chronicler are quite general, and,
moreover, he is admittedly a partisan), who was, strictly speaking, not
a contemporary authority.
Stephen's election, as Mr. Freeman observes, "can hardly fail to call to
our minds" that of Harold, and in the case of Stephen's accession we
have what he himself terms the "valuable contemporary" evidence of the
Continuator of Florence." This evidence, which is better, because more
contemporary, than that of Florence as to 1066, is equally precise
(_vide supra_), and might, in the absence of rebutting testimony, be
appealed to as confidently as Mr. Freeman appeals to that of Florence.
But in this case it is proved, by rebutting evidence, to be worthless,
just as it is at Maud's "reception" in 1141 (see p. 64).
Therefore, we see how dangerous it is to accept such statements, when
unsupported, as exact in every detail, and are led to regard the words
of Florence as a mere conventional phrase, rather than to hold, as Mr.
Freeman insists, that in "no passage in any writer of any age ... does
every word deserve to be more attentively weighed."
The caution with which such evidence should be used is one of the chief
lessons this work is intended to enforce (see p. 267).
Page 8. There is much confusion as to the charters of liberties issued
by Stephen. The "second" charter, as explained in the text, was issued
at Oxford in the spring of 1136; the other, commonly termed the
"coronation" charter, is found only, it would seem, in the Cottonian MS.
Claud. D. II., and has no note of date. Mr. Hubert Hall has been good
enough to inform me that the authority of this MS. is first-rate; and,
as to the date at which the charter was issued, that of the coronation,
there is no doubt, was the most _probable_. It is important to observe
that the oath stated by William of Malmesbury to have been taken by
Stephen at his first arrival (and afterwards committed to writing at
Oxford) was "de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et conservanda." William's
remark that this oath, "postea scripto inditum, loco suo non
prætermittam," proves that he must have looked on the _Oxford_ charter
as the record of this oath in writing; for that is the only charter
which he gives in his work. This fits in with the fact that the charter
assigned to the coronation contains no mention of the Church and her
liberties, while the "second" (Oxford) charter is full of them. It would
appear, then, that the Oxford charter combined the original oath to the
Church with the "coronation" charter to the people at large, at the same
time expanding them both in fuller detail.
Page 37. (Cf. p. 354.) It would, perhaps, have been rash to introduce
into the text the conjecture that in the first Geoffrey de Mandeville we
have the actual "Gosfregth Portirefan" to whom the Conqueror's charter
to the citizens of London was addressed, although the story in the _De
Inventione_, the known connection of the Mandevilles with the
shrievalty, and the striking resemblance of the two names (even closer
than in "Esegar" and "Ansgar"), all point to the same conclusion.
The association of the custody of the Tower with the shrievalty of
London and Middlesex is a point of considerable interest, because in
other cases—such as those of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Wilts, and
Devon—we find the custody of the fortress in the county town and the
shrievalty of the shire hereditarily vested in the same hands.
Page 74. The phrase "in regni dominam electa" must, as explained in the
text, not be pressed too far, as it may be loosely used. But the
parallel is too curious to be passed over.
Page 92. The grant of "excidamenta" confers on Geoffrey the
escheatorship of Essex to the exclusion of any Crown officer.
Page 93. The closing clauses of this charter suggest that Geoffrey was
even then guarding himself against the consequences of future treason.
Page 103. The grants of knight-service to Geoffrey should be carefully
compared with those, by Henry I., to William de Albini "Pincerna," as
recorded in the _carta_ of his fief (_Liber Rubeus_, ed. Hall, p. 397),
and are also illustrated by the charter to Aubrey, p. 189.
Page 112. "Archiepiscopo Cant." is, of course, a transcriber's wrong
extension for "Arch[idiacono] Cant."
Page 116. The phrase "senatoribus inclitis, civibus honoratis, et
omnibus commune London" may be compared with the "cent partz et a laut
poble et comunautat de Baione" on p. 248.
Page 182. The expression "una baronia" should be noted as a very early
instance of its use.
Page 189. The name of Abbot Ording dates this charter as between 1148
and 1156 (_Memorials of St. Edmundsbury_, I. xxxiv.).
Page 190. "Mauricius dapifer" was Maurice de Windsor, steward of the
Abbey. For him and for the Cockfield family, see the Camden Society's
edition of Jocelyn de Brakelonde.
"Alanus filius Frodonis" was probably the heir of Frodo, brother to
Abbot Baldwin of St. Edmund's (see Domesday).
Page 205. Compare William of Malmesbury's criticism on Stephen's conduct
in attacking Lincoln (1140) without due notice: "Iniquum id visum
multis," etc.
Page 235. The transcriber is responsible, of course, for the extension
of the king's style.
Page 242. It is only fair to add that the peculiar strength of the words
of inheritance might be held to support the view that hereditary
earldoms were a novelty.
Page 267. The charters of Henry II. to certain earls in no way affect my
real contention, namely, that no "fiscal" earls were, as is alleged,
deprived by him of their earldoms.
Page 275. On the gradual resumption of Crown Lands, see my _Ancient
Charters_, page 47.
Page 286. "Navium applicationibus" (cf. _Domesday_, 32: "De exitu aquæ
ubi naves applicabant") is a phrase occurring elsewhere as "appulatione
navium." It there equates "theloneum," and was doubtless a payment for
landing-dues. So, "de teloneo dando ad Bilingesgate" is found in the
Instituta Londoniæ of Æthelred.
Page 312, note 1. Compare the charge against Harold (in the French life
of the Confessor) that he "deners cum usurer amasse."
Page 314. The occurrence of "salinis" among the general words in this
charter is clearly due to the rights of the Beauchamps in Droitwich and
its salt-pans.
Page 371. The amount of the _firma_ seems to be determined by an entry
in the Pipe-Roll of 15 Hen. II. (page 169), which makes it £500
"blanch," _plus_ a varying sum of about £20 "numero."
Page 372. Henry's jealousy of the Londoners might also be due, in part,
to their steadfast support of Stephen and opposition to his mother. His
restriction of clauses (1) and (10) to lands within the walls is
illustrated by a citizen having to pay, in 1169 (_Rot. Pip._ 15
Hen. II., p. 173), "ut placitet contra W. de R. _in civitate Lund'_ de
terra de Eggeswera" (Edgware), as a special favour.
INDEX.
A
Abetot, Geoffrey d', 314
————, Urse d', 314, 315
Abingdon Abbey, its treasury robbed, 213;
its troubles, 415, 416;
its delegate, 384
———— ————, Ingulf, abbot of, 265, 415
Adeliza, Queen (wife of Henry I.), her "election," 74, 439;
marries Henry I., 429;
William de Albini, 319, 322, 323;
dowered by Henry I., 322, 324;
her grant to Reading, 325
Ælfgar ("Colessune"), 310
————, Nicholas, son of, 309, 310
_Affidatio_, 170, 176, 182, 384-387
Aino, William de, 230
Albamarle. _See_ AUMÂLE
Albini, Nigel de, 427
————, William de ("Pincerna"), 262, 263, 324, 428, 439.
_See also_ ARUNDEL
Aldreth (Camb.), 161, 162, 209
Alexander, Pope, absolves Earl Geoffrey, 224
Algasil, Gingan, 60
Alvia, Andrew de, 172, 183
Anarchy, incidents of the, 127-132, 134, 206, 209-220, 323, 403, 414-416
Andover, Stephen at, 47;
burnt by his queen, 128
Angers, Ulger, bishop of, pleads for Maud at Rome, 8, 254-257
Anjou. _See_ GEOFFREY
Ansgar. _See_ ESEGAR
Anstey (Herts.), 141
Appleby Castle, 331
Arch', Gilbert, 314
Ardleigh (Essex), 402
Ardres, Baldwin d', 189, 397
Arms, collateral adoption of, 394;
date of their origin, 396
Arques, Château d', 340-346;
its keep built by Henry I., 333
————, Count William of, 341-343, 345, 346
————, William of, 180, 188, 397
Arras, Baldwin of, 310
Arsic, Geoffrey, 190, 230
Arundel, Robert, 93, 263, 261, 266
————, Empress lands at, 55, 278, 280
————, William (de Albini), earl of, 143, 145, 146;
"pincerna," 324;
created earl, 322;
styled Earl of Chichester, 318, 320;
Earl of Sussex, 146, 319, 320;
Earl of Lincoln, 324, 325;
his charter from Henry II., 240;
his "third penny," 293;
holds Waltham, 324;
at St. Albans, 204-206;
dies, 317;
his character, 323
————, earldom of, 316-325;
its earliest mention, 146, 271, 322;
not an earldom by tenure, 316, 324;
its various names, 320, 321;
similar to other earldoms, 322, 325
Assarts (forest), 92, 168, 182, 376-378
Aston (Salop), 418
Auco. _See_ OU
Aumâle, William of (Earl of York), 143, 145, 146, 157, 262-264, 276, 385
Avranches, Rhiwallon d', 397
————, Turgis d', 46, 52, 144, 149, 158, 207
————, William d', 154, 180, 397
————, bishop of, Richard, 262, 263
Aynho (Northants), 390
Azo. _See_ REINMUND
B
Baentona. _See_ BAMPTON
Bailiffs, represent, in towns, the sheriff, 110
Balliol, Joscelin de, 236
Bampton, Robert de, 140
Bareville, Walter de, 231
Barking, Stephen at, 320;
his charters to, 320, 378;
Alice, abbess of, 378
"Baronia," grant of a, 182, 439
Barstable, hundred of, grant of the, 320
Basset, Ralf, 419
————, Richard, 265, 297, 298, 417, 418
Bath, Stephen grants his bishopric of, 18, 21
————, Robert, bishop of, 18, 64, 263
Battle, Warner, abbot of, 265
Bayeux, John de, 427
————, Odo, bishop of, 427
Bayonne, customs of, 247
Bazas (Aquitaine), customs of, 247
Beauchamp, Maud de, 313
————, Stephen de, 314, 315
————, Walter de, 313-315
————, William de, 154, 409, 416;
constable, 285, 313;
his charter from the Empress, 313-315
———— (of Bedford), Miles de, 171, 183, 314, 315
————, Payne de, 171, 392, 393
————, Robert de, 171
————, Simon de, 171, 231, 262, 263, 390, 392, 393
Beaudesert Castle, 65
Beaufoe, Henry, 230;
Ralf de, 373
Beaumont, Hugh de. _See_ "PAUPER"
Becket, Thomas, his youth, 374, 375;
as chancellor, 228, 236.
_See also_ CANTERBURY
Bedford, earldom of, 270, 271, 276
"Begeford," 286
Belmeis, Richard de (archdeacon), 123
Belun, Adam de, 144, 158, 201, 320
Belvoir, Robert de, 385
Benwick, 211
Berkeley, Henry I. at, 430
————, Roger de, 380, 409
Berkshire, earldom of, 181
Berners, Ralf de, 229-231
Bigod, Gunnor, 391
————, Hugh (Earl of Norfolk), 403;
with Henry I., 265, 365;
asserts the Empress was disinherited, 6;
with Stephen at Reading, 11, 13;
at Oxford, 263;
rebels, 23;
attacked by Stephen, 49;
created earl, 50, 188, 191, 238, 270;
with the Empress, 83, 172, 178, 183;
opposed to Stephen, 195;
rebels, 209;
his earldom East Anglian, 273;
created anew by Henry II., 277
————, Roger, 329
Bigorre, customs of, quoted, 58
Birch, Mr. W. de Gray, on a charter of Henry I., 428;
on the charters to Geoffrey, 44, 87;
on the seals of Stephen, 50, 139;
on the election of the Empress, 59-61, 63;
on the charters of the Empress, 66, 76;
on the styles of the Empress, 75-78, 83;
on the seal of the Empress, 299;
his remarkable discovery, 71-73
Bishopsbridge, Roger of, 375
Bishop's Stortford, 167;
its castle, 174
Bisset, Manasser, 236
Blois, Count Theobald of, 91, 428-430;
forfeited by the Empress, 102, 140
Blundus, Gilbert, 190
————, Robert, 229
Bocland, Hugh de, 309, 328, 355
————, Walter de, 201
Boeville, William de, 142, 231
————, Otwel de, 229
Bohun, Humfrey de, 125, 234, 263, 265, 281, 286, 314, 315, 418
Bolbec, Hugh de, 201, 416
————, Walter de, 264
Bonhunt. _See_ WICKHAM BONHUNT
Boreham (Essex), 214
"Bosco, de," Ernald, 228
Boseville, William de, 142
Bosham, Herbert of, on the Emperor, 301
Boterel, Geoffrey, 125
————, Peter, 415
————, William, 415
Boulogne, Count Eustace of, 1, 2, 143, 168
————, Geoffrey de, 147
————, Pharamus de, 120, 144, 147
————, Richard de, 120
————, honour of, 121, 141, 147, 168, 182
Bourton, young Henry attacks, 409
Boxgrove Priory, 320
Brampton, Henry I. at, 428
Braughing (Herts.), 141
Breteuil, William de, 327
Bristol, Empress arrives at, 55, 278;
Stephen imprisoned at, 56, 65;
Empress and her followers at, 135, 163;
young Henry at, 407
————, St. Augustine's Abbey, 408
Brito, Mainfeninus, 52, 201, 360
————, Ranulf (? Ralf), 143
Brittany, Alan of. _See_ RICHMOND
Buccuinte, Andrew, 305, 309
Buckenham Abbey, foundation of, 318
Buckingham, earldom of, 272
Bumsted Helion (Essex), 181
Bungay (Suffolk), the foundation at, 318
Burwell, besieged by Geoffrey, 220;
who falls there, 221
Bury, Richard de, his "Liber Epistolaris," 261
Bushey (Herts.), 92, 156
C
Caen, castle of, 331, 333
Calne, Nigel de, 427
Cambridge, sacked by Geoffrey, 212
Cambridgeshire, "tertius denarius" of, 181, 193, 194
————, earldom of, 181, 191-193, 271, 273
"Camera abbatis," annuity from the, 190
Camerarius, Eustace, 231
————, Fulcred, 355
————, Richard, 355
————, William, 355
Camville, Richard de, 159
Cantelupe, Simon de, 402
Canterbury, Gervase of, his accuracy confirmed, 137, 375;
his chronology discussed, 284, 406-408
————, John of (clerk), 375
————, archbishops of, Lanfranc, 326, 337;
——Anselm, sanctions marriage of Henry I., 257;
——Ralf, 307, 428;
——William, 265, 306;
extorts oath from Stephen, 3;
crowns him, 4-8, 253;
with him at Reading, 11;
at Westminster and Oxford, 262;
his clerk "Lovel," 253;
builds keep of Rochester, 337, 338;
——Theobald, 311, 370, 386;
meets the Empress, 65;
hesitates to receive her, 260;
attends her election, 69;
at her court, 125;
supports her cause, 208;
forfeited by Stephen, 251;
with Henry II., 236;
patron of Becket, 375;
papal letters to, 214, 215, 412, 413;
——Thomas (Becket), confirms compensation to Ramsey, 225;
claims Saltwood, 327.
_See also_ BECKET
————, archdeacon of, Geoffrey, 112, 439
————, Stephen at, 1;
granted to Earl of Gloucester, 2;
Stephen re-crowned at, 137-139;
Henry II. at, 236, 237
———— and York, charter of settlement between, 426
Capella, Aubrey de, 190
Capellanus, Hasculf, 231
———— regis, 427. _See also_ FECAMP
Capra. _See_ CHIÉVRE
Carbonel, Hugh (fitz Ralf) de, 190
————, Ralf de, 190
Carlisle, Athelwulf, bishop of, 262, 263
————, "firma" of, 363
————, young Henry at, 408, 409
———— Castle, 331
_Cartæ_ of 1166, erroneous headings of, 399, 402;
carelessly transcribed, 401;
illustrated by Pipe-Rolls, 402
"Castellum," special meaning of, 331-334, 337, 338, 340, 343
Castles, erection of, and license for, 142, 154, 156, 160, 168,
174, 175;
misery caused by, 217, 416;
surrender of, extorted, 202, 207;
their character, 331, 334, 343, 346;
in hands of sheriffs, 439
"Castrum." _See_ "CASTELLUM"
Catlidge (Essex), 90, 140
Celestine, Pope, favours the Empress, 252, 258, 259
Cerney, 281
Chahaines, Philip de, 382
————, Reginald de, 382
Chalk (Kent), 306, 308
Chamberlainship of England, the, 180, 187, 390
Chancellors (Stephen's), Philip (de Harcourt), 46-48;
——Roger (le Poor), 262, 263
———— (the Empress's), William (fitz Gilbert), 93, 123, 171, 182, 195;
——William de Vere, 182, 195
———— (of Henry I.), Geoffrey, 265
Charters of Henry I., 19, 25, 422-434;
to London, 109, 347, 356, 359, 364, 367, 370;
to Aubrey de Vere, 187, 390;
to church of Salisbury, 265;
to Gervase of Cornhill, 305;
to Bishop of Hereford, 428;
to Colchester Abbey, 423-427;
to Westminster, 429;
to Tewkesbury, 431;
to Bardney, 430;
Eudo Dapifer, 328
———— of Stephen, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 438;
to Miles of Gloucester, 11-14, 176;
to church of Salisbury, 46;
to Geoffrey de Mandeville, 41-53, 138, 156;
to Monks Horton, 158;
to Earl of Lincoln, 159;
to Abingdon, 201;
to St. Frideswide's, 201;
to Barking, 320, 378
———— of the Empress Maud, 82, 83, 194;
to Geoffrey de Mandeville, 41, 42, 86-113, 139, 163-177, 291;
to Miles of Gloucester, 56, 60, 123, 165, 288;
to St. Bene't of Hulme, 67;
to Thurstan de Montfort, 65, 66;
to Glastonbury, 83;
to Haughmond, 123;
to Aubrey de Vere, 178-195;
to Geoffrey de Mandeville, jun., 233;
to Roger de Valoines, 286;
to William de Beauchamp, 313-315, 440;
to Geoffrey Ridel, 417;
to Humfrey de Bohun, 418;
to Shrewsbury Abbey, 418
———— of Queen Matilda, to Geoffrey, 118-121, 139, 156;
to Gervase, 120
———— of Henry II., 112;
to Wallingford, 200;
to Feversham Abbey, 147;
to Aubrey de Vere, 184-186, 237, 239;
to Geoffrey the younger, 234-241;
to Earl of Arundel, 240, 277;
to Hugh Bigod, 239, 277, 288;
to London, 367-371, 440;
to Geoffrey Ridel, 418
———— of Richard I., to Colchester, 110
———— of John, to London, 372
———— of Henry III., to London, 358
————, dating clauses in, 426, 431, 433;
archaic _formulæ_, in, 241;
forged, altered, and enlarged, 424, 425, 431;
garbled, 426, 433;
granted at Easter court (1136), 18, 19, 262-265;
of Henry I. and Henry II. to London, compared, 368-371;
of Mandeville family, 228-233, 390;
of Basset family, 417
Chester, Randulf, earl of, 146, 160, 262, 263, 265, 380, 423, 429;
at Easter court (1136), 265;
at siege of Winchester, 128;
reconciled to Stephen, 159;
his wrong doings, 268;
arrested by Stephen, 203;
joins Henry, 409, 419;
dies, 276;
his charter of restitution, 415
————, Richard, earl of, 423, 429
————, Roger, bishop of, 83, 253, 265;
died, 251