Title: Geoffrey de Mandeville - A study of the Anarchy
Author: Round, John Horace
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Geoffrey de Mandeville - A study of the Anarchy" ***


produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)



Transcriber's Note

Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been
rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including accents and capitals) has
been retained. Not all accents display properly in all applications.

Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are
indicated by _underscores_. Text in multiple columns has been rearranged
into single columns.

The sidenotes in Chapter 4 have been transferred to the text, and are
bracketed by ►pointers◄. Genealogical tables in Appendices K and U have
been split into two in order to reduce their widh.

Some references to years are encased in square brackets, as for example
[1136]. To avoid confusion with the numbered footnotes, these references
have instead been encased in rounded brackets.



 GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE

 [Illustration:
 FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX.
 _See p._ 51.]


 GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE
 _A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY_

 BY
 J. H. ROUND, M.A.
 AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN: A CRITICAL ESSAY"

"Anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo
inextricabilem labyrinthum rerum et negotiorum quæ acciderunt in Anglia
aggredior evolvere."—_William of Malmesbury_

 LONDON
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
 AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ᵗʰ STREET

1892

_All rights reserved_



PREFACE


"The reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest living historian,
"is one of the most important in our whole history, as exemplifying the
working of causes and principles which had no other opportunity of
exhibiting their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working
of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus refers, is the
chief object I have set before myself in these pages. For this purpose I
have chosen, to form the basis of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey
de Mandeville, as the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal
and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By fixing our
glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy and its fruits, it is
possible to gain a clearer perception of the true tendencies at work,
and to obtain a firmer grasp of the essential principles involved. But,
while availing myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, I
have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, any
materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, or illustrating
the points raised by the charters with which I deal.

The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which I cannot too
strongly insist, namely, that the charters granted to Geoffrey are the
very backbone of my work. By those charters it must stand or fall: for
on their relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. If
the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the relation I have
assigned to them established, it will, I trust, encourage the study of
charters and their evidence, "as enabling the student both to amplify
and to check such scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to
which they relate."[1] It will also result in the contribution of some
new facts to English history, and break, as it were, by the wayside, a
few stones towards the road on which future historians will travel.

Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw some fresh light
are problems of constitutional and institutional interest, such as the
title to the English Crown, the origin and character of earldoms
(especially the earldom of Arundel), the development of the fiscal
system, and the early administration of London. I would also invite
attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to Rome in 1136,
her intended coronation at Westminster in 1141, the unknown Oxford
intrigue of 1142, the new theory on Norman castles suggested by
Geoffrey's charters, and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on
Gervase de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of Gloucester
played in the events of which I write may justify the inclusion of an
essay on the creation of his historic earldom, which has, in the main,
already appeared in another quarter.

In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is the first step in
the discovery of truth."[2] Cordially adopting this maxim, I have
endeavoured throughout to correct errors and dispose of existing
misconceptions. To "dare to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often
reminds us, neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy
smooth things, and to accept without question the errors of others, in
the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would repeat that "boast as we
may of the achievements of our new scientific school, we are still, as I
have urged, behind the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is
concerned." If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman
that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience that no one
would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke calmly." The public is slow
to believe that writers who have gained its ear are themselves often in
error and, by the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the
same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of new
evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from the conclusions
even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches the accuracy of that
unrivalled scholar, the profundity of whose learning and the soundness
of whose judgment can only be appreciated by those who have followed him
in the same field.

The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion and appearance
of this work is responsible for some shortcomings of which no one is
more conscious than myself. It has been necessary to correct the
proof-sheets at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from
England, while the length of time that has elapsed since the bulk of the
work was composed is such that two or three new books bearing upon the
same period have appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially
mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, and Miss
Norgate's well-known _England under the Angevin Kings_. Mr. Howlett's
knowledge of the period, and especially of its MS. authorities, is of a
quite exceptional character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking
work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one cannot hope to
rival, is a most welcome addition to our historical literature. To Dr.
Stubbs, also, we are indebted for a new edition of William of
Malmesbury. As I had employed for that chronicler and for the _Gesta
Stephani_ the English Historical Society's editions, my references are
made to them, except where they are specially assigned to those editions
by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which have since appeared.

A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. The text of
transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, even where it seemed
corrupt; and all my extensions as to which any possible question could
arise are enclosed in square brackets. The so-called "new style" has
been adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are those of
the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly artificial
reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," denounced by purists, has been
retained as a necessary convention, the admirable _Calendar of Patent
Rolls_, now in course of publication, having demonstrated the
impossibility of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the spelling
of Christian names, no attempt has been made to produce that pedantic
uniformity which, in the twelfth century, was unknown. It is hoped that
the index may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions to "the
lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy of Lancaster) are based
on references to that compilation by seventeenth-century transcribers,
which cannot be identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be
feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries may, in those
days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), with the usual result. I am
anxious to call attention to its existence in the hope of its ultimate
recovery.

There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks to Mr. Hubert
Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS.
Department, British Museum, for their invariable courtesy and assistance
in the course of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted for
several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these
pages through the press.

 J. H. ROUND.
 PAU,
 _Christmas_, 1891.

[1] Preface to my _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe-Roll Society).

[2] _Staffordshire Survey_, p. 277.



CONTENTS


                                                                    PAGE
 CHAPTER I.
 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN                                              1

 CHAPTER II.
 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING                                        37

 CHAPTER III.
 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS                                               55

 CHAPTER IV.
 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS                                     81

 CHAPTER V.
 THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN                                       114

 CHAPTER VI.
 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER                                              123

 CHAPTER VII.
 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING                                      136

 CHAPTER VIII.
 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS                                   163

 CHAPTER IX.
 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY                                          201

 CHAPTER X.
 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX                                                227


APPENDICES.

 A. STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS                              247

 B. THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136                                       250

 C. THE EASTER COURT OF 1136                                         262

 D. THE "FISCAL" EARLS                                               267

 E. THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS                                       278

 F. THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER                             284

 G. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES                      286

 H. THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS"                                           287

 I. "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES"                                     297

 J. THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS                                    299

 K. GERVASE DE CORNHILL                                              304

 L. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP                   313

 M. THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL                                           316

 N. ROBERT DE VERE                                                   326

 O. "TOWER" AND "CASTLE"                                             328

 P. THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON                               347

 Q. OSBERTUS OCTODENARII                                             374

 R. THE FOREST OF ESSEX                                              376

 S. THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND
    GLOUCESTER                                                       379

 T. "AFFIDATIO IN MANU"                                              384

 U. THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE                           388

 V. WILLIAM OF ARQUES                                                397

 X. ROGER "DE RAMIS"                                                 399

 Y. THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND              405

 Z. BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME                                             411

 AA. "TENSERIE"                                                      414

 BB. THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL                         417


 EXCURSUS.
 THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER                           420

 ADDENDA                                                             437

 INDEX                                                               441



 CHAPTER I.
 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN.


Before approaching that struggle between King Stephen and his rival, the
Empress Maud, with which this work is mainly concerned, it is desirable
to examine the peculiar conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown,
determining, as they did, his position as king, and supplying, we shall
find, the master-key to the anomalous character of his reign.

The actual facts of the case are happily beyond question. From the
moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. Stubbs truly observes, "the
succession was treated as an open question."[3] Stephen, quick to see
his chance, made a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his
favour, and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores of
Kent.[4] His first reception was not encouraging: Dover refused him
admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.[5] On this Dr. Stubbs thus
comments:—

 "At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. The
 men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor
 Eustace had done, to trouble the land."[6]

But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, when all others forsook
him, and, remembering this, one would hardly expect to find in them his
chief opponents. Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he
wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the passage in
Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, that Canterbury
and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held
by his father's gift.[7] It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen
should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants of
his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought that the prescient king had
of set purpose placed these keys of the road to London in the hands of
one whom he could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.[8]

Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on rapidly to London.
The news of his approach had gone before him, and the citizens flocked
to meet him. By them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be
king, on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant throne, and
that the right to elect one was specially vested in themselves.[9] The
point, however, that I would here insist on, for it seems to have been
scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially
conditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the
citizens.[10] The bearing of this will be shown below.

There is another noteworthy point which would seem to have escaped
observation. It is distinctly implied by William of Malmesbury that the
primate, seizing his opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had
extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, as Maurice had
done from Henry at his coronation, and as Henry of Winchester was,
later, to do in the case of the Empress, an oath to restore the Church
her "liberty," a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, he
adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this oath by his
brother, who himself "went bail" (made himself responsible) for
Stephen's satisfactory behaviour to the Church.[11] It is, surely, to
this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the
election of the Empress.[12] It can only, I think, be explained on the
hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had taken, and begged
his brother to set him free. If so, the attempt was vain, for he had, we
shall find, to bind himself anew on the occasion of his Oxford
charter.[13]

At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, came forth from the
city to greet him, but this reception must not be confused (as it is by
Mr. Freeman) with his election by the citizens of London.[14] His
brother, needless to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main
object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de l'Arche, who
had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert
with the head of the administration, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed
at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it
contained.[15]

Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation at the hands of
the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that "he returned to London for _formal
election_ and coronation."[16] His authority for that statement is
Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.[17] But it will be
found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the only authority for
this second election, and, moreover, that he ignores the first, as well
as the visit to Winchester, thus mixing up the two episodes, between
which that visit intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as
to whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at the
coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This may, perhaps, be a
matter of opinion; but in the preceding instance, that of Henry I., the
election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was
previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.[18] From
this point of view, the presentation of the king to the people at his
coronation would assume the aspect of a ratification of the election
previously conducted. The point is here chiefly of importance as
affecting the validity of Stephen's election. If his only election was
that which the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least,
"informally transacted."[19] Nor was the attendance of magnates at the
ceremony such as to improve its character. It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly
says, "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended
the summons of William and Henry."[20] The chroniclers are here
unsatisfactory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; John of
Hexham leaves us little wiser;[21] the Continuator of Florence indeed
states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius
Angliæ primoribus" (p. 95), but even the author of the _Gesta_ implies
that the primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of magnates
present.[22] William of Malmesbury alone is precise,[23] possibly
because an adversary of Stephen could alone afford to be so, and his
testimony, we shall find, is singularly confirmed by independent charter
evidence (p. 11).

It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel the scruples
caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the late king. The hint, in
the _Gesta_, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in
extorting that oath,[24] is amplified by Gervase into a story that he
had released his barons from its bond,[25] while Ralph "de Diceto"
represents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had
actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her
stead.[26] It should be noticed that these last two writers, in their
statement that this story was proved by Hugh Bigod on oath, are
confirmed by the independent evidence of the _Historia Pontificalis_.[27]

The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of
the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the
_Gesta_ in the arguments of Stephen's friends when combating the
primate's scruples. They urged that it would _ipso facto_ put an end to
all question as to the validity of his election.[28] The advantage, in
short, of "snatching" a coronation was that, in the language of modern
diplomacy, of securing a _fait accompli_. Election was a matter of
opinion; coronation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression,
it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king had begun his reign.
Its important bearing is well seen in the case of the Conqueror himself.
Dr. Stubbs observes, with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was
understood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had
preceded it."[29] Now, the fact that the performance of this essential
ceremony was, of course, wholly in the hands of the Church, in whose
power, therefore, it always was to perform or to withhold it at its
pleasure, appears to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption
that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion of the ceremony
with the actual election itself, that it was for the Church to elect the
king. This claim, which in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been
only inchoate,[30] appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully
developed form,[31] the circumstances of the time having enabled the
Church to increase its power in the State with perhaps unexampled
rapidity.

May it not have been this development, together with his own experience,
that led Stephen to press for the coronation of his son Eustace in his
lifetime (1152)? In this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated
by the Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his
contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and Henry II., warned
by his example, succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his heir (1170)
in the teeth of Becket's endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold
the veto of the Church.

Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, the primate seized
the opportunity of extorting from the eager king (besides a charter of
liberties) a renewal of his former oath to protect the rights of the
Church. The oath which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which Maud
had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, it seems, at both,
though not till the Oxford charter was it committed, in his case, to
writing.[32]

We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians.[33]

The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had despatched an envoy
to the papal court, in the person of the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her
rival of (1) defrauding her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn
oath. Had this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe to
assert, have been fascinated by the really singular coincidence between
the circumstances of 1136 and of 1066. In each case, of the rivals for
the throne, the one based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by
(2) an oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by his
opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on election duly
followed by coronation. In each case the election was fairly open to
question; in Harold's, because (_pace_ Mr. Freeman) he was _not_ a
legitimate candidate; in Stephen's, because, though a qualified
candidate, his election had been most informal. In each case the ousted
claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, on the same
grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken oath. In each case the
successful party was opposed by a particular cardinal, a fact which we
learn, in each case, from later and incidental mention. And in each case
that cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel ends.
Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we know) rejected, the
jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. We may assign this difference to the
closer connection between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may
see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the two. For his
action was justified by its success. There has been, on this point, no
small misconception. Harold has been praised for possessing, and Stephen
blamed for lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But _læsio fidei_ was
essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the highest of
them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far as inheritance affected
the question, was brought in many ways within the purview of the courts
Christian, as, for instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of
Maud. Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played into his
hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor in the days of John.
His attitude was not that of an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no
claim to dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a
spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by Maud against
Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without formally acquitting him,
declined to pronounce him guilty.

Though the king was pleased to describe the papal letter which followed
as a "confirmation" of his right to the throne, it was, strictly,
nothing of the kind. It was simply, in the language of modern diplomacy,
his "recognition" by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince of
Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign power, that action
would neither alter his status relatively to any other power, nor would
it imply the least claim to dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again,
to take a mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an English
king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy would neither affect
any other king, nor constitute a claim to dispose of the papal tiara.
Stephen, however, was naturally eager to make the most of the papal
action, especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the most
formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction of the Church would
silence the reproach that he was occupying the throne as a perjured man.
Hence the clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which this
letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when Geoffrey summoned him,
in later years, "to an investigation of his claims before the papal
court," he promptly retorted that Rome had already heard the case.[34]
He turned, in fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey
to justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western counties in
the teeth of the papal confirmation of his own right to the throne.

We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, after Christmas,
Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral.[35] The corpse, says
the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ."
The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable
importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, "that it furnished an
opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen."[36] But the
learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I
am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, therefore, to
quote _in extenso_ a charter which must have passed on this occasion,
and which, this being so, is of great value and interest.[37]

 Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et
 Brekon'.

 S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. vic. præpositis,
 Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Angliæ
 et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ
 et hæredibus suis post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de
 Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in
 vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die quâ rex Henricus
 fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et præcipio quod bene et honorifice
 et libere teneat in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et
 mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et
 infangenetheof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus
 quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis
 q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo
 quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃
 tenuisset die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem
 suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et H. Big̃ et Roᵬ
 filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et P. filio Joħ. Apud
 Rading̃.

 Sub magno sigillo suo.

The reflections suggested by this charter are many and most instructive.
Firstly, we have here the most emphatic corroboration of the evidence of
William of Malmesbury. The four first witnesses comprise the three
bishops who, according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together
with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance that coronation
was so largely due. The four others are Robert fitz Richard, whom we
shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal
chamberlain; Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come
with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, whom we met at
Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The impression conveyed by this charter
is certainly that Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates,
and had still to be content with the handful by whom his coronation had
been attended.

An important addition is, however, represented by the grantee, Miles of
Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz John. The former was a man of
great power, both of himself and from his connection with the Earl of
Gloucester, in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is
represented by the author of the _Gesta_ as acting with him at this
juncture.[38] It should, however, be noted, as important in its bearing
on the chronology of this able writer, that he places the adhesion of
these two barons (p. 15) considerably after that of the Earl of
Gloucester (p. 8), whereas the case was precisely the contrary, the earl
not submitting to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates
appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (_vide infra_), and again
as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, however, in the coming
struggle which Miles of Gloucester was destined to play, was such that
it is most important to learn the circumstances and the date of his
adhesion to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain,
fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.[39]

It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I have here
given, another charter was granted to Miles of Gloucester by the king,
which, being similarly tested at Reading, probably passed on this
occasion. The subject of the grant is the same, but the terms are more
precise, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary
estates of his house, being specially mentioned.[40] Though both these
charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in the volume now missing),
the latter alone is referred to by Dugdale, from whose transcript it has
been printed by Madox.[41] Though the names of the witnesses are there
omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied by an abstract
which is elsewhere found. Three of these are among those who attest the
other charter—Robert fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de Sai;
but the other three names are new, being Robert de Ferrers, afterwards
Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the spokesman of Stephen's host at
Lincoln (see p. 148), and (Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears
in attendance at the Easter court.[42] These three barons should
therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the
king.[43]

Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be found in each
charter is the striking illustration it affords of the method by which
Stephen procured the adhesion of the turbulent and ambitious magnates.
It is not so much a grant from a king to a subject as a _convencio_
between equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to the
words "ut dominus et Rex."[44] I see in them at once the symbol and the
outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." In his learned and masterly
analysis of this subject, a passage which cannot be too closely studied,
Dr. Stubbs shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of
Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.[45] Surely in the
expression "dominus et Rex" (_alias_ "Rex et dominus") we have in actual
words the exponent of this double character.[46] And, more than this, we
have here the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and
illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked or
misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, to be proclaimed
"DOMINA ET REGINA."

Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Reading Stephen passed
to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his
coronation-day.[47] That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though
the fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be placed
beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.[48] But the difficulty is
that Henry specifies what these pledges were, and that the version he
gives cannot be reconciled either with the king's "coronation charter"
or with what is known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later
in the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, though he
thinks it "probable," in his great work, that Stephen, upon this
occasion, made "some vague promises," yet adds, of those recorded by
Henry—

 "Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: if
 they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the
 story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued by
 the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."[49]

In his later work he seems inclined to place more credence in Henry's
story.

 "After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, he
 arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, amplifying the
 words of his charter, to catch the good will of each class of his
 subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at the time;
 anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation for the
 moment."[50]

It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, and can
scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But there is one point
beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called "second charter" was issued
later in the year, after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman,
therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at issue, but has
also strangely contradicted himself when he confidently assigns this
"second charter" to the king's first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in
doing so, to another page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to
his other and later visit after his return from the north.[51] If I call
attention to this error, it is because I venture to think it one to
which this writer is too often liable, and against which, therefore, his
readers should be placed upon their guard.[52]

It was at Oxford, in January,[53] that Stephen heard of David's advance
into England. With creditable rapidity he assembled an army and hastened
to the north to meet him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of
February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a peaceable
agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a stay of about a
fortnight,[54] and returned to keep his Easter (March 22) at
Westminster. I wish to invite special attention to this Easter court,
because it was in many ways of great importance, although historians
have almost ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters
with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a little about
it, and see how notable an event it must have seemed at the time it was
held. We should observe, in the first place, that this was no mere
"curia de more": it was emphatically a great or national council. The
author of the _Gesta_ describes it thus:—

 "Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege
 constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores
 cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi
 in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi
 ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,[55] ut solet,
 ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et
 utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."[56]

We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day
(Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival of the splendours of
former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and
parsimonious uncle.[57]

Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court,[58]
which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's pictures of the Conqueror
in his glory.[59] When, therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom
of the Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 370),
he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of Stephen's reign.
Stephen, coming into possession of his predecessor's hoarded treasure,
was as eager to plunge into costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death
of his mean and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons for
this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king to show himself to
his new subjects in his capital, surrounded not only by the evidence of
wealth, but by that of his national acceptance. The presence at his
court of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact which would
speak for itself, and to secure which he had clearly resolved that no
pains should be spared.[60]

If the small group who attended his coronation had indeed been "but a
poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of
William and Henry," he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the
splendour of his Easter court.

This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses to two
charters which must have passed on this occasion. The one is a grant to
the see of Winchester of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange
for Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric of Bath to
Robert of Lewes. The former is dated "Apud Westmonasterium in presentia
et audientia subscriptorum anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; the
latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii celebratione et
Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first sight, I confess, both charters
have a rather spurious appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion,
which is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary number
of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent sources, and dealing
with two unconnected subjects, they mutually confirm one another. We
have, moreover, still extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed
the former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of Lancaster
records, we have every reason to believe that the original charter
itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as
to the lists of witnesses. Abnormally long though these may seem, we
must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially towards the
close of his reign, there was a tendency to increase the number of
witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford charter, by which these were
immediately followed, we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven),
and, which is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of
classification, the court officers being grouped together. I have,
therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, all
three lists.[61] If we analyze those appended to the two London
charters, we find their authenticity confirmed by the fact that, while
the Earl of Gloucester, who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously
absent from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly appears
among the attesting earls, and we are specially told by John of Hexham
that he was present at this Easter court.[62] Miles of Gloucester and
Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from
their position, of some importance.[63] It is, too, of interest for our
purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de Mandeville. The
extraordinary number of witnesses to these charters (no less than
fifty-five in one case, excluding the king and queen, and thirty-six in
the other) is not only of great value as giving us the _personnel_ of
this brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford
charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record
the names of those whom he had induced to attend his courts and so to
recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange
_History of the House of Arundel_, quotes the charter to Winchester as
from a transcript "among the valuable collection of MSS. belonging to
the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, therefore, be of benefit to
students to remind them that it is printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_
(ii. 808, 809). Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter—

 "It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the
 highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single
 ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not
 remarkable, since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter
 with Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p.
 286).

To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" that the
charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three
archbishops and thirteen bishops.[64]

Now, although this was a national council, the state and position of the
Church was the chief subject of discussion. The author of the _Gesta_,
who appears to have been well informed on the subject, shows us the
prelates appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the intolerable
oppression which she had suffered, under the form of law, at the hands
of Henry I. Stephen, bland, for the time, to all, and more especially to
the powerful Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised
all they asked.[65] In the grimly jocose language of the day, the keys
of the Church, which had been held by Simon (Magus), were henceforth to
be restored to Peter. To this I trace a distinct allusion in the curious
phrase which meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the bishopric
of Bath "_canonica prius electione præcedente_." This recognition of the
Church's right, with the public record of the fact, confirms the account
of his attitude on this occasion to the Church. The whole charter
contrasts strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his
predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its reference to
the counsel and consent of the magnates betrays the weakness of his
position.

This council took place, as I have said, at London and during Easter.
But there is some confusion on the subject. Mr. Howlett, in his
excellent edition of the _Gesta_, assigns it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18),
to "early in April." But his argument that, as that must have been (as
it was) the date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of
the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In this he does but
follow the _Gesta_, which similarly runs into one the two consecutive
events. Richard of Hexham also, followed by John of Hexham,[66] combines
in one the council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides
placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year.

Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:—

 RICHARD OF HEXHAM.

 Eodem quoque anno Innocentius Romanæ sedis Apostolicus, Stephano regi
 Angliæ litteras suas transmisit, quibus eum Apostolica auctoritate in
 regno Angliæ confirmavit.... Igitur Stephanus his et aliis modis in
 regno Angliæ confirmatus, episcopos et proceres sui regni regali edicto
 in unum convenire præcepit; cum quibus hoc generale concilium
 celebravit.

 JOHN OF HEXHAM.

 Eodem anno Innocentius papa litteris ab Apostolica sede directis eundem
 regem Stephanum in negotiis regni confirmavit. Harum tenore litterarum
 rex instructus, generali convocato concilio bonas et antiquas leges, et
 justos consuetudines præcepit conservari, injustitias vero cassari.

The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of Gloucester was not
present at the Easter court in London, and that, landing subsequently,
he was present when the charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So
short an interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two
councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned from London
to Oxford, and which did so on purpose to meet the virtual head of the
opposition, the powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the
waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue of the
charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the
chroniclers should have made of the whole but one transaction.

The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very important and
significant reservation that his loyalty would be strictly conditional
on Stephen's behaviour to himself.[67]

His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in
the chronicler, immediately afterwards:

 "Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi
 fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem disciplinæ
 conservaret."[68]

By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection with
the Oxford charter. In this he must be correct, if it was subsequent to
the earl's homage, for this latter itself, we see, must have been
subsequent to Easter.

Probably the council at London was the preliminary to that treaty
(_convencio_) between the king and the bishops, at which William of
Malmesbury so plainly hints, and of which the Oxford charter is
virtually the exponent record. For this, I take it, is the point to be
steadily kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as this
are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the desire to extort
from the king the utmost possible concession; the other, his desire to
extort homage at the lowest price he could. Taken in connection with the
presence at Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this
view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion that this
extended version of his meagre "coronation charter" represents his final
and definite acceptance, by the magnates of England, as their king.

It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the chronicle-value
of charters, that not a single chronicler records this eventful assembly
at Oxford. Our knowledge of it is derived wholly and solely from the
testing-clause of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab
incarnatione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, perhaps, be drawn
to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to the selection of that spot for
this assembly. For this its central position may, doubtless, partly
account, especially if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further
east. But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, as it
were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol and Gloucester, the
two strongholds of the opposition. So, conversely, it represented to the
Empress an advanced post resting on their base.

Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely the date of
this assembly and charter. Easter falling on the 22nd of March, neither
the king nor the Earl of Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the
end of March or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as
Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and
Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal _dapifer_, had been among the witnesses to
this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once.[69] Then followed the
suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.[70]
It would seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly took
place early in April (1136).

I have gone thus closely into these details in order to bring out as
clearly as possible the process, culminating in the Oxford charter, by
which the succession of Stephen was gradually and, above all,
conditionally secured.

Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view
with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly
chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be
possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune,
we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these
writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think,
somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance,
has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of
Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held
Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget
the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege
of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should
both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In
both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the
traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held
back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they
deserved. We learn from the author of the _Gesta_ that the same was the
case at Exeter. The king's barons again intervened to save those who had
rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from
securing too signal a triumph.

This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign.
That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These
were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as
resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as
he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the
existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the
sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could
compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to
further demands.

Let us glance at them both in succession.

Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford
charter:—

 "Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum
 electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ
 ecclesiæ legato consecratus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis
 pontifice confirmatus."[72]

On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:—

 "His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while
 to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be
 interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73]

Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:—

 "HENRICUS FILIUS WILLELMI REGIS post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei
 gratia rex Anglorum."[74]

Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause in Stephen's
charter contains just that which is omitted in Henry's, and omits just
that which is contained in Henry's. Henry puts forward his relationship
to his father and his brother as the sole explanation of his position as
king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the
election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in the charter of
Henry. What can be more significant than this contrast? Again, the
formula in Stephen's charter should be compared not only with that of
Henry, but with that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had
styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his daughter
invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici regis [_or_ regis
Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, is styled (1142), as we
shall find in a charter quoted in this work, "Henricus filius filiæ
regis Henrici." To the importance of this fact I shall recur below.
Meanwhile, the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains
no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in a charter
which must have passed in the first year of his reign, he does adopt the
curious style of "Ego Stephanus Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos,"
etc.,[75] in which he hints, contrary to his practice, at a
quasi-hereditary right.

Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he did not venture
to allude to such claim, we find him appealing (_a_) to his election,
which, as we have seen, was informal enough; (_b_) to his anointing by
the primate; (_c_) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible
to read such a formula as this in any other light than that of an
attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I do not know that it
has ever been suggested, though the hypothesis would seem highly
probable, that the stress laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical
sanction to his succession may have been largely due, as I have said (p.
10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had been sworn to the
Empress. Of breaking that oath the Church, he held, had pronounced him
not guilty.

Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the drift of the
charter itself, that I depend for support of my thesis that Stephen was
virtually king on sufferance, or, to anticipate a phrase of later times,
"Quamdiu se bene gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases,
(1) of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl Robert,
(4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their allegiance by
submitting to that "original contract" which the political philosophers
of a later age evolved from their inner consciousness. It was because
his Oxford charter set the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even
then, chafed beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving
clause—

 "Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate meâ."[76]

And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to
break its bonds.[77]

The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have
rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
"contract" justified _ipso facto_ revolt on theirs;[78] the second, that
their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such,
could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous
_diffidatio_.[79]

This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly
excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of
his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman
followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord.
It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for
a time of this pernicious principle into England. We have seen it hinted
at in that charter of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of
Gloucester not merely as his king (_rex_), but also as his feudal lord
(_dominus_). We shall find it acted on three years later (1139), when
this same Miles, with his own _dominus_, the Earl of Gloucester, jointly
"defy" Stephen before declaring for the Empress.[80]

Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we
approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to
the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from
the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary
right according to feudal rules.

For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs,
who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—

 "The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the elective
 principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or
 possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of
 inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as
 co-ordinate.... The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown
 to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary
 principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the
 recognition of the elective theory.[81]

Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective
theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen
"was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used."[82] He
urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the
eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not
in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the
wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new
belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first
appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh.[83]

So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have
also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think
that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a
single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ("regis
Henrici filia"), but she claimed it further because the succession had
been assured to her by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.[84] It is
important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded
in the light of an election. To understand it aright, we must go back to
the precisely similar oath which had been previously sworn to her
brother. As early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the
succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of the magnates "of
all England," on the historic spot of Salisbury, to swear allegiance to
his son (March 19).[85] It was with reference to this event that Eadmer
described him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam olim regni
hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving Normandy in November, 1120,
the king similarly secured the succession of the duchy to his son by
compelling its barons to swear that they would be faithful to the
youth.[86] On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he
hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once more, a male heir.
Despairing of this after some years, he took advantage of the Emperor's
death to insist on his daughter's return, and brought her with him to
England in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps to secure
her recognition as his heir (subject however, as the Continuator and
Symeon are both careful to point out, to no son being born to him), by
the same oath being sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son.
It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on the 1st of
January, 1127.[87] Of what took place upon that occasion, there is,
happily, full evidence.[88]

We have independent reports of the transaction from William of
Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator of Florence, and Gervase
of Canterbury.[89] From this last we learn (the fact is, therefore,
doubtful) that the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress,
but to her heirs.[90] The Continuator's version is chiefly important as
bringing out the action of the king in assigning the succession to his
daughter, the oath being merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement
he had made.[91] Symeon introduces the striking expression that the
Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"[92] but William of
Malmesbury, in the speech which he places in the king's mouth, far
outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right:—

 "præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium suum sibi
 surripuisset, _cui jure regnum competeret_: nunc superesse filiam, _cui
 soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus_;
 a materno genere multis retro seculis."[93]

Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote these words, it will be
seen that the Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the
least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's
heir, and that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and
recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever
of the character of a free election.[94] Thus her claim was neatly
traversed by Stephen's advocates, at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that
she was not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath which
had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") was void.

It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her unvarying use
of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that this was the true character
of her claim will be seen from the terms of a charter I shall quote,
which has hitherto, it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she
recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly welcomed by Miles
of Gloucester "sicut illam quam justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit."

The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother
lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of
course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II.
been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure,
have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the justice of her
claim, it was by no means clear in whom it was vested. It might either
be vested (_a_) in herself, in accordance with our modern notions; or
(_b_) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones;[95] or (_c_) in
her son, as, in the event, it was. It may be said that this point was
still undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to come to
England, and decided to send his son instead, to represent the
hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, however, as we shall find,
had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take
her own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, though
even this would not decide the point, as, had she succeeded, her
husband, we may be sure, would have claimed the title of king.

Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the
belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English
crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the
case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated
into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort
beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession,
and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them
on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her
claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her
father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when
Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine
right ("Dei gratia"[96]), and attempts to reduce that election to
nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the
whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or
was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. Thus, at the
very time when Stephen was formulating his title, he was admitting, in
the case of the bishopric of Bath, that the canonical election had
_preceded_ his own nomination of the bishop.[97] Yet it is easy to see
how, as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases alike,
would become, more and more, virtually matters of form, while a weak
sovereign or a disputed succession would afford an opportunity for this
historical survival, in the case at least of the throne, to recover for
a moment its pristine strength.

Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to resume my grounds
for urging that, in comparing Stephen with his successor, the difference
between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At
Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had
rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience
of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the
accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled
administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the
advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the
introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated
the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the
Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived
from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by
his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his
work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted
throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for
all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as
Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a
rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened
his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as
effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen.
He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient
administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time
to construct.

It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not
superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's
disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we
might have heard less of his defects. It will be at least established by
the evidence adduced in this work that some of the charges which are
brought against him can no longer be maintained.

[3] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 13; _Const Hist._ (1874), i. 319.

[4] _Gesta Stephani_, p. 3.

[5] "A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuarinis exclusus" (_Gervase_, i.
94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather
than the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's "Hrofenses
Cantuariensibus ... cædes inferunt" (ii. 23), where the "Hrofenses" are
Odo's garrison. So too "Bristoenses" in the _Gesta_ (ed. Hewlett, pp.
38, 40, 41), though rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are
clearly the troops of the Earl of Gloucester.

[6] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14. Compare _Const. Hist._, i. 319: "The
men of Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them
from Boulogne, refused to receive him." Miss Norgate adopts the same
explanation (_England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 277).

[7] There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish
possessions in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was
allowed, while a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his
rents from his Kentish tenants ("ab hominibus suis de Cantia"). Stephen,
then, it would seem, did not forfeit them.

[8] In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan,
held Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men
of Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now
corrected, to that here discussed, when he wrote that "whatever might be
the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to
see Count Eustace again within their walls" (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 116),
though they were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the
shire to do so.

[9] "Id quoque sui esse juris, suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex
ipsorum quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e
vestigio succederet" (_Gesta_, p. 3). This audacious claim of the
citizens to such right as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr.
Freeman's paraphrase when he speaks of "the citizens of London and
Winchester [why Winchester?], who freely exercised their ancient right
of _sharing in_ the election of the king who should reign over them"
(_Norm. Conq._, v. 251; cf. p. 856).

[10] "Firmatâ prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat,
mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus
tutarentur; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem
suffragium, toto sese conatu accingeret" (_Gesta_, p. 4). See Appendix
A.

[11] "Spe scilicet captus amplissima quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in
regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastici vigoris
disciplinâ. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus
Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et
conservanda, episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit.
Cujus sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non
prætermittam" (p. 704). See Addenda.

[12] "Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum quod
sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret,
malas vero abrogaret; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno
exhibuerit," etc. (_ibid._, p. 746).

[13] The phrase "districto Sacramento" is very difficult to construe. I
have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the
meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely
that Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an
agreement or treaty between two contracting parties (_vide infra
passim_).

[14] _Ante_, p. 3.

[15] _Gesta_, 5, 6; _Will. Malms._, 703. Note that William Rufus,
Henry I., and Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even
before their coronation.

[16] _Const. Hist._, i. 319.

[17] "A cunctis fere in regem electus est, et sic a Willelmo Cantuarensi
archiepiscopo coronatus."

[18] "The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the
spot" (_Const. Hist._, i. 303).

[19] _Select Charters_, p. 108.

[20] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14.

[21] "Consentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi
archiepiscopo et clericorum et laicorum universitate" (_Sym. Dun._, ii.
286, 287).

[22] "Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes
pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum
sit, ab omnibus provideatur" (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the
primate as acting "Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu"
(p. 8).

[23] "Tribus episcopis præsentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi,
Salesbiriensi, nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus" (p. 704). See
Addenda.

[24] "Supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et
veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter
baronibus suis injuncto apertissime pænituit."

[25] "Quidam ex potentissimis Angliæ, jurans et dicens se præsentem
affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte
relaxasset."

[26] "Hugo Bigod senescallus regis coram archiepiscopo Cantuariæ
sacramento probavit quod, dum Rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis
quibus inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhæredavit, et
Stephanum Boloniæ comitem hæredem instituit."

[27] "Et hæc juramento comitis (_sic_) Hugonis et duorum militum probata
esse dicebant in facie ecclesie Anglicane" (ed. Pertz, p. 543).

[28] "Cum regis (_sic_) fautores obnixe persuaderent quatinus eum ad
regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis suæ
officio suppleret" (p. 6).

[29] _Const. Hist._, i. 146.

[30] See his Oxford Charter.

[31] See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die
causa secreto coram majori parte cleri Angliæ, _ad cujus jus potissimum
spectat principem eligere, simulque ordinare_" (_Will. Malms._, p. 746).

[32] Henry had sworn "in ipso suæ consecrationis die" (Eadmer), Stephen
"in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die" (Innocent's letter). Henry of
Huntingdon refers to the "pacta" which Stephen "Deo et populo et sanctæ
ecclesiæ concesserat in die coronationis suæ." William of Malmesbury
speaks of the oath as "postea [_i.e._ at Oxford] scripto inditum." See
Addenda.

[33] See Appendix B: "The Appeal to Rome in 1136."

[34] See Appendix B.

[35] _Hen. Hunt._, 258; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 95; _Will. Malms._, 705.

[36] _Const. Hist._, i. 321.

[37] Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both
being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy.

[38] Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from
coming to court, he writes: "Illi autem, intentâ sibi a rege
comminatione, cum salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere;
omnibusque ad votum impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberali
hominio, illius sese servitio ex toto mancipârunt. Affuit inter reliquos
Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, de quo superius fecimus mentionem,
ille Herefordensis et Salopesbiriæ, iste Glocestrensis provinciæ
dominatum gerens: qui in tempore regis Henrici potentiæ suæ culmen
extenderant ut a Sabrinâ flumine usque ad mare per omnes fines Angliæ et
Waloniæ omnes placitis involverent, angariis onerarent" (pp. 15, 16).

[39] _Cont. Flor. Wig._

[40] "S. rex Angliæ Archiepĩs etc. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse
Miloni Gloec̃ et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum
honorem patris sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad
tenendum tali forma (_sic_) qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut
patrimonium suum. Et totum honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia
Ministeria sua et terras suas quas tenuit tempore regis Henrici sicut
eas melius et honorificentius tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et
mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo sicut Rex et dominus Baroni
meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore et in pace et libere teneat
cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. filius Ricardi, Robertus de
Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingelramus de Sai,
Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges" (Lansdowne MS. 229, fols.
123, 124).

[41] _History of the Exchequer_, p. 135.

[42] I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we have that
Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny),
being then described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de
Clare), usually but erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If
so, he was also uncle to Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this
charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz Richard (de Clare), another
witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's charters to which the
house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is evidence to
suggest that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) was lord, in some way, of
Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter fitz
Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147).

[43] There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy
of Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond
exactly, it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the
witnesses' names are different. This raises a problem which cannot at
present be solved.

[44] In the fellow-charter the phrase runs: "sicut Rex et dominus Baroni
meo."

[45] "The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive; it practically
combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been
exercised by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of
monarchy, which was exemplified at the time in France and the Empire....
The king is accordingly both the chosen head of the nation and the lord
paramount of the whole of the land" (_Const. Hist._, i. 338).

[46] Compare the words of address in several of the _Cartæ Baronum_
(1166): "servitium ut domino;" "vobis sicut domino meo;" "sicut domino
carissimo;" "ut domino suo ligio."

[47] "Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et
confirmavit pacta quæ Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in
die coronationis suæ" (p. 258).

[48] "Cum venisset in fine Natalis ad Oxenefordiam" (_ibid._).

[49] _Const. Hist._, i. 321.

[50] _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 15, 16.

[51] "The news of this [Scottish] inroad reached Stephen at Oxford,
where he had just put forth his second charter" (_Norm. Conq._, v. 258).

"The second charter ... was put forth at Oxford before the first year of
his reign was out. Stephen had just come back victorious from driving
back a Scottish invasion (see p. 258)" (_ibid._, p. 246).

[52] See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's _History of
Wells Cathedral_: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a
confirmed habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer
from numberless passages, cannot revise what he writes" (_Genealogist_,
(N.S.) ii. 179).

[53] "In fine Natalis" (_Hen. Hunt._, 258).

[54] _Sym. Dun._, ii. 287.

[55] The curious words, "vulgo ... ingerente," may be commended to those
who uphold the doctrine of democratic survivals in these assemblies.
They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the "vulgus" took part
in the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of
indisputable interest.

[56] Ed. Howlett, p. 17.

[57] "Quem morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus
omisit" (_Will. Malms._).

[58] "Rediens autem inde rex in Quadragesimâ tenuit curiam suam apud
Lundoniam in solemnitate Paschali, quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior in
Angliâ multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus,
omnimodaque dapsilitate" (p. 259).

[59] "[Consuetudo] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam
convenirent de necessariis regni tractaturi, simulque visuri regis
insigne quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate" (_Vita S.
Wulstani_). "Convivia in præcipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica
inibat; ... omnes eo cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum
accersiebat, ut exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis
apparatumque deliciarum mirarentur" (_Gesta regum_).

[60] See in _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett, pp. 15, 16) his persistent efforts to
conciliate the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the
west.

[61] See Appendix C.

[62] "In Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in
honorem in reverentia præferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (_Sym.
Dun._, ii. 287).

[63] Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first
appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes,
of that charter: "Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of
Hereford" [_recté_ Gloucester] "and Brian of Wallingford, were also
among the witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made
her cause for the time hopeless" (_Const. Hist._, i. 321, _note_).

[64] See Appendix C.

[65] "His autem rex patienter auditis quæcumque postulârant gratuite eis
indulgens ecclesiæ libertatem fixam et inviolabilem esse, illius statuta
rata et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel
ordinis, omni reverentiâ honorandos esse præcepit" (_Gesta_).

[66] John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from
Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter.

[67] "Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestræ, cujus prudentiam
rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam.... Itaque homagium
regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam
integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret" (_Will. Malms._, 705, 707).

[68] _Ibid._, 707.

[69] _Hen. Hunt._, p. 259.

[70] _Ibid._, p. 260.

[71] "Vindictam non exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus;
si enim eam tunc exercuisset, postea contra eum tot castella retenta non
fuissent" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 259).

[72] _Select Charters_, 114 (cf. _Will. Malms._).

[73] _Ibid._

[74] _Ibid._, 96.

[75] _Confirmation Roll_, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J.
A. C. Vincent in _Genealogist_ (N. S.), ii. 271). This should be
compared with the argument of his friends when urging the primate to
crown him, that he had not only been elected to the throne (by the
Londoners), but also "ad hoc _justo germanæ propinquitatis jure_ idoneus
accessit" (_Gesta_, p. 8), and with the admission, shortly after, in the
pope's letter, that among his claims he "de præfati regis [Henrici]
prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse."

[76] _Select Charters_, 115. But cf. _Will. Malms._

[77] As further illustrating the compromise of which this charter was
the resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula "Dei
gratiâ" with the recital of election, and that he further represents the
election as merely a popular "_assent_" to his succession.

[78] Compare the clause in the _Confirmatio Cartarum_ of 1265,
establishing the right of insurrection: "Liceat omnibus de regno nostro
contra nos insurgere."

[79] See _inter alia_, Hallam's _Middle Ages_, i. 168, 169.

[80] "Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestræ Robertus, qui
erat in Normannia, in proximo partes sororis foret adjuturus, _rege
tantummodo ante diffidato_. Nec fides rerum famæ levitatem destituit:
celeriter enim post Pentecosten missis a Normanniâ suis regi _more
majorum amicitiam et fidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicato_; rationem
præferens quam id juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum
aspiraverat, et omnem fidem sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus
fuerat" (_Will. Malms._, 712). So, too, the Continuator of Florence:
"Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per prædictum Brycstowensem
comitem et conestabularium Milonem, _abnegata fidelitate quam illi
juraverant_, ... Milo constabularius, _regiæ majestati redditis fidei
sacramentis_, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu
militum se contulit" (pp. 110, 117). Compare with these passages the
extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct in attacking
Lincoln without sending a formal "defiance" to his opponents, and the
singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of
Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as
his lord, without sending him the formal "diffidatio" a clear fortnight
beforehand.

[81] _Const. Hist._, i. 338, 340.

[82] _Norm. Conq._, v. 251.

[83] "In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the
throne, the doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by
the spindle-side sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the
spear-side had nothing to do with either. Then it was that men began to
find out that Stephen had been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but
also of defrauding the heir to the crown of her lawful right" (_ibid._,
p. 252).

[84] "Henrici regis filia, ... vehementer exhilarata utpote regnum sibi
juratum ... jam adepta" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 130). But the above duplex
character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that
the legate should receive her "tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis
Anglia et Normannia jurata esset."

[85] "Conventio optimatum et baronum totius Angliæ apud Salesbyriam XIV.
kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in præsentiâ regis Henrici homagium filio
suo Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (_Flor. Wig._, ii.
69).

[86] "Normanniæ principes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tunc
xviii. annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidelitatis securitatem sacramentis
affirmant" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 258).

[87] Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of
Durham, though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places
the event under 1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor)
instead of 1126, the year given by the other chroniclers. But from him
we learn that the Christmas court (_i.e._ Christmas 1126) was adjourned
from Windsor to London, for the new year, "ubi Circumcisione Domini"
(January 1) the actual oath was taken. William of Malmesbury dates it,
loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Continuator of Florence, more
accurately, "finitis diebus festivioribus" (p. 84), which confirms
Symeon's statement.

[88] It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath
taken on this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr.
Stubbs (_Const. Hist._, i. 341) recognizes "a similar oath in 1131" (on
the authority of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the
authority of Roger of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally
mentioned, and is neither alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to
subsequently by William himself; and the latter, which is similarly
devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is represented as securing the
succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is strange that so recent
and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, should have been
ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier oath,
described above, alone appealed to.

[89] Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at
Stephen's accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filiæ
regis Henrici" (p. 256).

[90] "Fecit principes et potentes adjurare eidem filiæ suæ et heredibus
suis legitimis regnum Angliæ" (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat
confirmed by the words which the author of the _Gesta_ places in the
primate's mouth (p. 7).

[91] "In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, ... regni jura
transferebat" (p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken
"ad jussum regis" (p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase
above, and that (_quantum valeat_) of Roger Hoveden, viz. "_constituit_
eum regem;" also the "jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was
accordingly urged, at Stephen's accession, that the oath had been
compulsory, and was therefore invalid.

[92] "Juraverunt ut filiæ suæ imperatrici fide servata regnum Angliæ
_hæreditario jure_ post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of
Newburgh, on Henry's accession: "Hæreditarium regnum suscepit." These
expressions are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford
to the Conqueror's dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem ...
non enim tantum decus hereditario jure possedi" (_Ord. Vit._).

[93] _Will. Malms._, 691.

[94] That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the
Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further
implied by the passage in William of Malmesbury: "Ego Rogerum
Salesbiriensem episcopum sæpe dicentem audivi, 'Solutum se sacramento
quod imperatrici fecerat: eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex præter
consilium suum et cæterorum procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra
regnum,'" etc., etc. (p. 693).

[95] As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife.
There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have
been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the
autumn of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin
match, that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should
succeed him ("remque ad effectum perduxit eo tenore ut regi, de legitima
conjuge hæredem non habenti, mortuo _gener illius_ in regnum
succederet"). That Geoffrey's claim was recognized at the time is clear
from the striking passage quoted by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist
("sceptro ... non injuste aspirante"), and even more so from the
explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido comite cum uxore suâ, quæ
hæres erat [here again is an allusion to her hereditary right], in
regnum succedere, primores terræ, juramenti sui male recordantes,
reg_em_ e_um_ suscipere noluerunt, dicentes 'Alienigena non regnabit
super nos'" (_Select Charters_, p. 110).

[96] Compare the style of "Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God
constitutional King of Spain."

[97] "Canonica prius electione præcedente."



 CHAPTER II.
 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING.


Geoffrey de Mandeville was the grandson and heir of a follower of the
conqueror of the same name. From Mandeville, a village, according to Mr.
Stapleton, near Trevières in the Bessin,[98] the family took its name,
which, being Latinized as "De Magnavilla," is often found as "De
Magnaville." The elder Geoffrey appears in Domesday as a considerable
tenant-in-chief, his estates lying in no less than eleven different
counties.[99] On the authority of the _Monasticon_ he is said by Dugdale
to have been made constable of the Tower. Dugdale, however, has here
misquoted his own authority, for the chronicle printed by him states,
not that Geoffrey, but that his son and heir (William) received this
office.[100] Its statement is confirmed by Ordericus Vitalis, who
distinctly mentions that the Tower was in charge of William de
Mandeville when Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101.[101] This
may help to explain an otherwise puzzling fact, namely, that a Geoffrey
de Mandeville, who was presumably his father, appears as a witness to
charters of a date subsequent to this.[102]

Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory of Hurley,[103]
and we know the names of his two wives, Athelais and Leceline. By the
former he had a son and heir, William, mentioned above, who in turn was
the father of Geoffrey, the central figure of this work.[104]

The above descent is not based upon the evidence of the _Monasticon_
alone, but is incidentally recited in those royal charters on which my
story is so largely based. It is therefore beyond dispute. But though
there is no pedigree of the period clearer or better established, it has
formed the subject of an amazing blunder, so gross as to be scarcely
credible. Madox had shown, in his _History of the Exchequer_ (ii. 400),
that Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" (Earl of Essex from 1199 to 1213) was Sheriff
of Essex and Herts in 1192-94 (4 & 5 Ric. I.). Now Geoffrey, the son of
Geoffrey "Fitz Piers," assuming the surname of "De Mandeville," became
his successor in the earldom of Essex, which he held from 1213 to 1216.
The noble and learned authors of the _Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a
Peer_ began by confusing this Geoffrey with his namesake the earl of
1141, and bodily transferring to the latter the whole parentage of the
former. Thus they evolved the startling discovery that the father of our
Geoffrey, the earl of 1141, "was Geoffrey Fitz Peter [_i.e._ the earl of
1199-1213], and probably was son of Peter, the sheriff at the time of
the Survey."[105] But not content even with this, they transferred the
shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (_vide supra_)[106] to
a date earlier than the grant to Geoffrey de Mandeville (his supposed
son) in 1141. Now, during that shrievalty the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed
the _tertius denarius_ of the county of Hertford. Thus their lordships
were enabled to produce the further discovery that the Earls "of Clare"
enjoyed it before the date of this grant (1141), that is to say, "either
before or early in the reign of King Stephen."[107] The authority of
these Reports has been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at
Courthope stating in his _Historic Peerage of England_ (p. 248) that
"Richard de Clare ... was Earl of Hertford, and possessed of the third
penny of that county, before or early in the reign of King Stephen."
Courthope has in turn misled Dr. Stubbs,[108] and Mr. Doyle has now
followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was "created Earl of
Hertford (about) 1136."[109] It is therefore something to have traced
this error to its original source in the _Lords' Reports_.

The first mention, it would seem, of the subject of this study is to be
found in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, where we read—

 "Gaufridus de Mandeville reddit compotum de Dccclxvj_li._ et xiii_s._
 et iiij_d._ pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiii_li._ et vi_s._ et
 viii_d._

 "Et debet Dcc et xxxiij_li._ et vj_s._ et viij_d._" (p. 55).

As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two-thirteenths of the
amount due from him for succession, that is the (arbitrary) "relief" to
the Crown, we may infer that his father was but lately dead. He does not
again meet us till he appears at Stephen's court early in 1136.[110]
From the date of that appearance we pass to his creation as an earl by
the first of those royal charters with which we are so largely
concerned.[111]

The date of this charter is a point of no small interest, not merely
because we have in it the only surviving charter of creation of those
issued by Stephen, but also because there is reason to believe that it
is the oldest extant charter of creation known to English antiquaries.
That distinction has indeed been claimed for the second charter in my
series, namely, that which Geoffrey obtained from the Empress Maud. It
is of the latter that Camden wrote, "This is the most ancient
creation-charter that I ever saw."[112] Selden duly followed suit, and
Dugdale echoed Selden's words.[113] Courthope merely observes that it
"is presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express creation
of the title of earl;"[114] and Mr. Birch pronounces it "one of the
earliest, if not the earliest, example of a deed creating a
peerage."[115] In despite, however, of these opinions I am prepared to
prove that the charter with which we are now dealing is entitled to the
first place, though that of the Empress comes next.

We cannot begin an investigation of the subject better than by seeking
the opinion of Mr. Eyton, who was a specialist in the matter of charters
and their dates, and who had evidently investigated the point. His note
on this charter is as follows:—

 "Stephen's earlier deeds of 1136 exhibit Geoffrey de Magnaville as a
 baron only. There are three such, two of which certainly, and the third
 probably, passed at Westminster. He was custos of the Tower of London,
 an office which probably necessitated a constant residence. There are
 three patents of creation extant by which he became Earl of Essex.
 Those which I suppose to precede this were by the Empress. The first of
 them passed in the short period during which Maud was in London, _i.e._
 between June 24 and July 25, 1141. The second within a month after, at
 Oxford. In the latter she alludes to grants of lands previously made by
 Stephen to the said Geoffrey, but to no patent of earldom except her
 own. Selden calls Maud's London patent the oldest on record. It is not
 perhaps that, but it is older than this, though Dugdale thought not.
 Having decided that Stephen's patent succeeded Maud's, it follows that
 it (viz. this charter) passed after Nov. 1, 1141, when Stephen regained
 his liberty and Geoffrey probably forsook the empress. The king was at
 London on Dec. 7. In 1142 we are told (Lysons, _Camb._, 9) that this
 Geoffrey and Earl Gilbert were sent by Stephen against the Isle of Ely.
 He is called earl. We shall also have him attesting a charter of Queen
 Matilda (Stephen's wife).

 "In 1143 he was seized in Stephen's court at St. Alban's.

 "In 1144 he is in high rebellion against Stephen, and an ally of Nigel,
 Bishop of Ely. He is killed in Aug., 1144.

 "On the whole then it would appear that the Empress first made him an
 earl as a means of securing London, the stronghold of Stephen's party,
 but that, on Stephen's release, the earl changed sides and Stephen
 opposed Maud's policy by a counter-patent (we have usually found
 counter-charters, however, to be Maud's). We have also a high
 probability that this charter passed in Dec., 1141, or soon after; for
 Stephen does not appear at London in 1142, when Geoffrey is earl and in
 Stephen's employ."[116]

Here I must first clear the ground by explaining as to the "three
patents of creation" mentioned in this passage, that there were only
_two_ charters (not "patents") of creation—that of the king, which
survives in the original, and that of the Empress, which is known to us
from a transcript. As to the latter, it certainly "passed in the short
period during which Maud was in London," but that period, so far from
being "between June 24 and July 25, 1141," consisted only of a few days
ending with "June 24, 1141." The main point, however, at issue is the
priority of the creation-charters. It will be seen that Mr. Eyton jumped
at his conclusion, and then proceeded: "Having decided," etc. This is
the more surprising because that conclusion was at variance with what he
admits to have been his own principle, namely, that he had "usually
found counter-charters to be Maud's."[117] In this case his conclusion
was wrong, and his original principle was right. I think that Mr.
Eyton's error was due to his ignorance of the second charter granted by
the king to Geoffrey.[118] As he was well acquainted with the royal
charters in the duchy of Lancaster collection it is not easy to
understand how he came to overlook this very long one, which is, as it
were, the keystone to the arch I am about to construct.

It is my object to make Geoffrey's charters prove their own sequence.
When once arranged in their right order, it will be clear from their
contents that this order is the only one possible. We must not attempt
to decide their dates till we have determined their order. But when that
order has been firmly established, we can approach the question of dates
with comparative ease and confidence.

To determine from internal evidence the sequence of these charters, we
must arrange them in an ascending scale. That is to say, each charter
should represent an advance on its immediate predecessor. Tried by this
test, our four main charters will assume, beyond dispute, this relative
order.

 (1) First charter of the king.
 (2) First charter of the Empress.
 (3) Second charter of the king.
 (4) Second charter of the Empress.

The order of the three last is further established by the fact that the
grants in the second are specifically confirmed by the third, while the
third is expressly referred to in the fourth. The only one, therefore,
about which there could possibly be a question is the first, and the
fact that the second charter represents a great advance upon it is in
this case the evidence. But there is, further, the fact that the place I
have assigned it is the only one in the series that it can possibly
occupy. Nor could Mr. Eyton have failed to arrive at this conclusion had
he included within his sphere of view the second charter of the king.

It is clear that Mr. Eyton was here working from the statements of
Dugdale alone. For the three charters he deals with are those which
Dugdale gives. The order assigned to these charters by Dugdale and Mr.
Eyton respectively can be thus briefly shown:—

 Right order        1   2     3   4

 Eyton's order          2  4  1

 Dugdale's order    1   4  2

How gravely Mr. Eyton erred in his conclusions will be obvious from this
table. But it is necessary to go further still, and to say that of the
seven charters affecting Geoffrey de Mandeville, three would seem to
have been unknown to him, while of the rest, he assigned three, one
might almost say all four, to a demonstrably erroneous date. It may be
urged that this is harsh criticism, and the more so as its subject was
never published, and exists only in the form of notes. There is much to
be said for this view, but the fact remains that rash use is certain to
be made of these notes, unless students are placed on their guard. That
this should be so is due not only to Mr. Eyton's great and just
reputation as a laborious student in this field, but also to the
exaggerated estimate of the value and correctness of these notes which
was set, somewhat prominently, before the public.[119]

Advancing from the question of position to that of actual date, we will
glance at the opinion of another expert, Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. We
learn from him, as to the date of this first creation-charter, that—

 "The dates of the witnesses appear to range between A.D. 1139 and A.D.
 1144.... The actual date of the circumstances mentioned in this
 document is a matter of question.... He [Geoffrey] was slain on the
 14th of September, A.D. 1144, and therefore this document must be prior
 to that date."[120]

We see now that it is by no means easy to date this charter with
exactness. It will be best, in pursuance of my usual practice, to begin
by clearing the ground.

If we could place any trust in the copious chronicle of Walden Abbey,
which is printed (in part) in the _Monasticon_ from the Arundel
manuscript, our task would be easy enough. For we are there told that
Stephen had already created Geoffrey an earl when, in 1136, he founded
Walden Abbey.[121] And, in his foundation charter, he certainly styles
himself an earl.[122] But, alas for this precious narrative, it brings
together at the ceremony three bishops, Robert of London, Nigel of Ely,
and William of Norwich, of whom Robert of London was not appointed till
1141, while William of Norwich did not obtain that see till 1146!

Dismissing, therefore, this evidence, we turn to the fact that no
creation of an earldom by Stephen is mentioned before 1138. But we have
something far more important than this in the occurrence at the head of
the witnesses to this creation-charter, of the name of William of Ypres,
the only name, indeed, among the witnesses that strikes one as a note of
time. Mr. Eyton wrote: "A deed which I have dated 1140 ... is his first
known attestation."[123] I have found no evidence contrary to this
conclusion. It would seem probable that when the arrest of the bishops
"gave," in Dr. Stubbs' words, "the signal for the civil war," Stephen's
preparations for the approaching struggle would include the summons to
his side of this experienced leader, who had hitherto been fighting in
Normandy for his cause. Indeed, we know that it was so, for he was at
once despatched against the castle of Devizes.[124]

Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should incidentally, we
shall find, prove the key to the problem. This, which is printed among
the footnotes in Madox's _Baronia Anglica_ (p. 231), from the muniments
of Westminster Abbey, is addressed "Gaufrido de Magnavilla" simply, and
is, therefore, previous to his elevation to the earldom. Now, as this
writ refers to the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later
than the 11th of December, 1139.[125] Consequently Geoffrey's charter
must be subsequent to that date. It must also be previous to the battle
of Lincoln (February, 1141), because, as I observed at the outset, it
must be previous to the charter of the Empress. We therefore virtually
narrow its limit to the year 1140, for Stephen had set out for Lincoln
before the close of the year.[126] Let us try and reduce it further
still. What was the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of
Bishop Roger, hastened to visit Salisbury.[127] He went there from
Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned to Reading (_Cont.
Flor. Wig._). Going and returning he would have passed through Andover,
the place at which this writ is tested. Thus it could have been, and
probably was, issued at this period (December, 1139). Obviously, if it
was issued in the course of 1140, this would reduce still further the
possible limit within which Geoffrey's charter can have passed.
Difficult though it is to trace the incessant movements of the king
throughout this troubled year, he certainly visited Winchester, and
(probably thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, proof of his
presence at Andover.[128] And there are other grounds, I shall now show,
for thinking that the earldom was conferred before March, 1140.

William of Newburgh, speaking of the arrest of Geoffrey de Mandeville,
assures us that Stephen bore an old grudge against him, which he had
hitherto been forced to conceal. Its cause was a gross outrage by
Geoffrey, who, on the arrival of Constance of France, the bride of
Eustace the heir-apparent, had forcibly detained her in the Tower.[129]
We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, from the words
of the Continuator of Florence,[130] and that date agrees well with
Henry of Huntingdon's statement, that Stephen had bought his son's bride
with the treasure he obtained by the death of the great Bishop of
Salisbury (December 11, 1139).[131]

It would seem, of course, highly improbable that this audacious insult
to the royal family would have been followed by the grant of an earldom.
We might consequently infer that, in all likelihood, Geoffrey had
already obtained his earldom.

We have, however, to examine the movements of Stephen at the time. The
king returned, as we saw, to Reading, after spending his Christmas at
Salisbury. He was then summoned to the Fen country by the revolt of the
Bishop of Ely, and he set out thither, says Henry of Huntingdon, "post
Natale" (p. 267). He _may_ have taken Westminster on his way, but there
is no evidence that he did. He had, however, returned to London by the
middle of March, to take part in a Mid-Lent council.[132] His movements
now become more difficult to trace than ever, but it may have been after
this that he marched on Hereford and Worcester.[133] Our next glimpse of
him is at Whitsuntide (May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state
at the Tower.[134] It has been suggested that it was for security that
he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explanation is disposed of
by the fact that the citizens of London were his best friends and
proved, the year after, the virtual salvation of his cause. It would
seem more likely that he was anxious to reassert his impaired authority
and to destroy the effect of Geoffrey's outrage, which might otherwise
have been ruinous to his _prestige_.[135]

It was, as I read it, at the close of Whitsuntide, that is, about the
beginning of June, that the king set forth for East Anglia, and,
attacking Hugh Bigod, took his castle of Bungay.[136]

In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh Bigod;[137] and either
to this, or to his preceding East Anglian campaign, we may safely assign
his charter, granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Reading.[138] Now, the
first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville himself, who is
not styled an earl. We learn, then, that, at least as late as June,
1140, Geoffrey had not received his earldom. This would limit the date
of his creation to June-December, 1140, or virtually, at the outside, a
period of six months.

Such, then, is the ultimate conclusion to which our inquiry leads us.
And if it be asked why Stephen should confer an earldom on Geoffrey at
this particular time, the reply is at hand in the condition of affairs,
which had now become sufficiently critical for Geoffrey to begin the
game he had made up his mind to play. For Stephen could not with
prudence refuse his demand for an earldom.[139]

The first corollary of this conclusion is that "the second type" of
Stephen's great seal (which is that appended to this charter) must have
been already in use in the year 1140, that is to say, before his fall in
1141.

Mr. Birch, who, I need hardly say, is the recognized authority on the
subject, has devoted one of his learned essays on the Great Seals of the
Kings of England to those of Stephen.[140] He has appended to it
photographs of the two types in use under this sovereign, and has given
the text of nineteen original sealed charters, which he has divided into
two classes according to the types of their seals. The conclusion at
which he arrived as the result of this classification was that the
existence of "two distinctly variant types" is proved (all traces of a
third, if it ever existed, being now lost), one of which represents the
earlier, and the other the later, portion of the reign.[141] To the
former belong nine, and to the latter ten of the charters which he
quotes in his paper. The only point on which a question can arise is the
date at which the earlier was replaced by the later type. Mr. Birch is
of opinion that—

 "the consideration of the second seal tends to indicate the alteration
 of the type subsequent to his liberation from the hands of the Empress,
 and it is most natural to suppose that this alteration is owing to the
 destruction or loss of his seal consequent to his own capture and
 incarceration" (p. 15).

There can be no doubt that this is the most natural suggestion; but if,
as I contend, the very first two of the charters adduced by Mr. Birch as
specimens of the later type are previous to "his capture and
incarceration," it follows that his later great seal must have been
adopted before that event. One of these charters is that which forms the
subject of this chapter; the other is preserved among the records of the
duchy of Lancaster.[142] At the date when the latter was granted, the
king was in possession of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln, which
he had seized on the arrest of the bishops in June, 1139. As Alexander
had regained possession of his see by the time of the battle of Lincoln,
this charter must have passed before Stephen's capture, and most
probably passed a year or more before. We have then to account for the
adoption by Stephen of a new great seal, certainly before 1141, and
possibly as early as 1139. Is it not possible that this event may be
connected with the arrest of the chancellor and his mighty kinsmen in
June, 1139, and that the seal may have been made away with in his and
their interest, as on the flight of James II., in order to increase the
confusion consequent on that arrest?[143]

And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself[144]:—

 "S. Rex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus
 Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus
 suis francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me fecisse
 Comitem de Gaufr[ido] de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essex[e] hereditarie.
 Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse et heredes sui
 post eum hereditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus meis bene et in
 pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ
 meâ melius vel liberius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde
 Comites sunt cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertatibus et
 consuetudinibus cum quibus alii Comites mei prefati dignius vel
 liberius tenent.

 "T[estibus] Will[elm]o de Iprâ et Henr[ico] de Essexâ[145] et Joh[ann]e
 fil[io] Rob[erti] fil[ii] Walt[eri][146] et Rob[erto] de Nouo
 burgo[147] et Mainfen[ino] Britoñ[148] et Turg[esio] de Abrinc[is][149]
 et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro[150] et Will[elm]o de
 Dammart[in][151] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Ursi[152] et Will[elm]o de
 Auco[153] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti][154] et Radulfo de Wiret[155]
 (_sic_) et Eglin[o][156] et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi][157] et
 Will[elmo] filio Ernald[i].[158] Apud Westmonasterium."

Taking this, as I believe it to be, as our earliest charter of creation
extant or even known, the chief point to attract our notice is its
intensely hereditary character. Geoffrey receives the earldom
"hereditarie," for himself "et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure."
The terms in which the grant is made are of tantalizing vagueness; and,
compared with the charters by which it was followed, this is remarkable
for its brevity, and for the total omission of those accompanying
concessions which the statements of our historians would lead us to
expect without fail.[159]

We must now pass from the grant of this charter to the great day of
Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the fortunes of England and her king
were changed "in the twinkling of an eye" by the wild charge of "the
Disinherited," as they rode for death or victory.[160]

[98] _Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ_, II. clxxxviii. Such was also the
opinion of M. Leopold Delisle. The French editors, however, of Ordericus
write: "On ne sait auquel des nombreux Magneville, Mandeville,
Manneville de Normandie rapporter le berceau de cette illustre maison"
(iv. 108).

[99] There is a curious story in the Waltham Chronicle (_De Inventione_,
cap. xiii.) that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey in the shoes of Esegar
the staller. The passage runs thus: "Cui [Tovi] successit filius ejus
Adelstanus pater Esegari qui stalra inventus est in Angliæ conquisitione
a Normannis, cuius hereditatem postea dedit conquisitor terræ, rex
Willelmus, Galfrido de Mandevile proavi presentis comitis Willelmi.
Successit quidem Adelstanus patri suo Tovi, non in totam quidem
possessionem quam possederat pater, sed in eam tantum quæ pertinebat ad
stallariam, quam nunc habet comes Willelmus." The special interest of
this story lies in the official connection of Esegar [or Ansgar] the
staller with London and Middlesex, combined with the fact that Geoffrey
occupied the same position. See p. 354, and Addenda.

[100] "Post cujus [_i.e._ Galfridi] mortem reliquit filium suum hæredem,
cui firmitas turris Londoniarum custodienda committitur. Nobili cum Rege
magnificé plura gessit patri non immerito in rebus agendis coæqualis"
(_Monasticon_). Dugdale's error, as we might expect, is followed by
later writers, Mr. Clark treating Geoffrey as the first "hereditary
constable," and his son, whom with characteristic inaccuracy he
transforms from "William" into "Walter," as the second (_Mediæval
Military Architecture_, ii. 253, 254). The French editors of Ordericus
(iv. 108) strangely imagined that William was brother, not son, of
Geoffrey de Mandeville.

[101] "In arce Lundoniensi Guillelmo de Magnavilla custodiendus in
vinculis traditus est" (iv. 108).

[102] See for instance _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 73, 85, 116, where he
attests charters of _circ._ 1110-1112.

[103] _Monasticon_, iii. 433. He founds the priory "pro anima Athelaisæ
primæ uxoris meæ, matris filiorum meorum jam defunctæ;" and "Lecelina
domina uxor mea" is a witness to the charter.

[104] It is necessary to check by authentic charters and other
trustworthy evidence the chronicles printed in the _Monasticon_ under
Walden Abbey. One of these was taken from a long and interesting MS.,
formerly in the possession of the Royal Society, but now among the
Arundel MSS. in the British Museum. This, which is only partially
printed, and which ought to be published in its entirety, has the
commencement wanting, and is, unfortunately, very inaccurate for the
early period of which I treat. It is this narrative which makes the wild
misstatements as to the circumstances of the foundation, which grossly
misdates Geoffrey's death, etc., etc. All its statements are accepted by
Dugdale. The other chronicle, which he printed from Cott. MS., Titus, D.
20, is far more accurate, gives Geoffrey's death correctly, and rightly
assigns him as wife the _sister_ (not the daughter) of the Earl of
Oxford, thus correcting Dugdale's error. It is the latter chronicle
which Dugdale has misquoted with reference to the charge of the Tower.

[105] Who was really Peter de Valognes.

[106] "Madox ... has shown ... that Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex,
obtained from the Crown Grants of the shrievalty of the Counties of
Essex and Hertford when the Earls, commonly called Earls of Clare, were
Earls of Hertford, and had the Third Penny of the Pleas of that County"
(iii. 69, ed. 1829).

[107] "The County of Hertford appears to have been, at the time of the
Survey, in the King's hands, and Peter was then Sheriff; and the
Sheriffwick of Hertfordshire was afterwards granted in Fee, by the
Empress Maud, to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, at a rent as his
father and grandfather had held it. The father of Geoffrey was Geoffrey
Fitz Peter, and probably was son of Peter, the Sheriff at the time of
the Survey. The first trace which the Committee has discovered of the
title of the Earls of Clare to the Third Penny of the County is in the
reign of Henry the Second, subsequent to the grants under which the
Earls of Essex claimed the Shrievalty in fee, at a fee-farm rent. But
the grant of the Third Penny must have been of an earlier date, as the
grant to the Earl of Essex was subject to that charge. The family of
Clare must therefore have had the Third Penny either before or early in
the Reign of King Stephen" (iii. 125).

[108] _Const. Hist._, i. 362.

[109] _Official Baronage_, ii. 175.

[110] See Appendix C.

[111] See Frontispiece.

[112] _Degrees of England._

[113] "Note that this is the most ancient creation-charter which hath
ever been known." _Vide_ Selden, _Titles of Honour_, p. 647.

[114] _Historic Peerage_, p. 178.

[115] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 386.

[116] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 97.

[117] Comp. fol. 96: "My position is that where this system of
counter-charters between Stephen and the Empress _is proved_, the former
generally is the first in point of date."

[118] See p. 41 _ad pedem_.

[119] _Notes and Queries_, 6th Series, v. 83.

[120] _On the Great Seal of King Stephen_, pp. 19, 20.

[121] "Apud regem Stephanum, ac totius regni majores tanti erat ut
nomine comitis et re jampridem dignus haberetur" (_Mon. Angl._, vol. iv.
p. 141).

[122] "Gaufridus de Magnavillâ comes Essexe" (_ibid._).

[123] _Addl. MSS._ 31,943, fol. 85 _dors._

[124] _Ordericus Vitalis_, vol. v. p. 120.

[125] See p. 282, _n._ 4.

[126] "Protractaque est obsidio [Lincolnie] a diebus Natalis Domini
(1140) usque ad Ypapanti Domini" (_Will. Newburgh_, i. 39).

[127] To this visit may be assigned three charters (_Sarum Charters and
Documents_, pp. 9-11) of interest for their witnesses. Two of them are
attested by Philip the chancellor, who is immediately followed by Roger
de Fécamp. The latter had similarly followed the preceding chancellor,
Roger, in one of Stephen's charters of 1136 (see p. 263), which
establishes his official position. Among the other witnesses were Bishop
Robert of Hereford, Count Waleran of Meulan, Robert de Ver, William
Martel, Robert d'Oilli with Fulk his brother, Turgis d'Avranches, Walter
de Salisbury, Ingelram de Say, and William de Pont de l'Arche.

[128] The "P. cancellarius," by whom the writ is tested, was a
chancellor of whom, according to Foss, virtually nothing is known. He
was, however, Philip (de Harcourt), on whom the king conferred at
Winchester, in 1140, the vacant see of Salisbury ("Rex Wintoniam veniens
consilio baronum suorum cancellario suo Philippo Searebyriensem
præsulatum ... dedit" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._)). But the chapter refused to
accept him as bishop, and eventually he was provided for by the see of
Bayeux. He is likely, with or without the king, to have gone straight to
Salisbury after his appointment at Winchester, in which case he would
not have been present at Andover, even if Stephen himself was.

[129] "Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus
opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat. Injuria vero quam regi
nequam ille intulerat talis erat. Rex ante annos aliquot episcopi, ut
dictum est, Salesbiriensis thesauros adeptus, summa non modica regi
Francorum Lodovico transmissa, sororem ejus Constantiam Eustachio filio
suo desponderat; ... eratque hæc cum socru sua regina Lundoniis. Cumque
regina ad alium forte vellet cum eadem nuru sua locum migrare, memoratus
Gaufridus arci tunc præsidens, restitit; nuruque de manibus socrus, pro
viribus obnitentis, abstracta atque retenta, illam cum ignominia abire
permisit. Postea vero reposcenti, et justum motum pro tempore
dissimulanti, regi socero insignem prædam ægre resignavit" (ii. 45).

[130] (1140) "Facta est desponsatio illorum mense Februario in
transmarinis partibus, matre regina Anglorum præsente" (ii. 725).

[131] "Accipiens thesauros episcopi comparavit inde Constantiam sororem
Lodovici regis Francorum ad opus Eustachii filii sui" (p. 265). It is
amusing to learn from his champion (the author of the _Gesta Stephani_)
that the king spent this treasure on good and pious works. This
matrimonial alliance is deserving of careful attention, for the fact
that Stephen was prepared to buy it with treasure which he sorely needed
proves its importance in his eyes as a prop to his now threatened
throne.

[132] _Annals of Waverley_ (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 228), where it is stated
that, at this council, Stephen gave the see of Salisbury to his
chancellor, Philip. According, however, to the Continuator of Florence,
he did this not at London, but at Winchester (see p. 47, _supra_).

[133] See the Continuator of Florence.

[134] _Will. Malms._

[135] See p. 81 as to the alleged riot in London and death of Aubrey de
Vere, three weeks before.

[136] "Ad Pentecostem ivit rex cum exercitu suo super Hugonem Bigod in
Sudfolc" _Ann. Wav._ (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 228).

[137] "Item in Augusto perrexit super eum et concordati sunt, sed non
diu duravit" (_ibid._).

[138] Printed in _Archæological Journal_, xx. 291. Its second witness is
Richard de Luci, whom I have not elsewhere found attesting before
Christmas, 1141.

[139] If, as would seem, Hugh Bigod appears first as an earl at the
battle of Lincoln, when he fought on Stephen's side, it may well be that
the "concordia" between them in August, 1140, similarly comprised the
concession by the king of comital rank. On the other hand, there is a
noteworthy charter (_Harl. Cart._, 43, c. 13) of Stephen, which seems to
belong to the winter of 1140-1, to which Hugh Bigod is witness, not as
an earl, so that his creation may have taken place very shortly before
Stephen's fall. As this charter, according to Mr. Birch, has the second
type of Stephen's seal, it strengthens the view advanced in the text.

[140] _Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature_, vol. xi., New
Series.

[141] Mr. Birch points out the interesting fact that while the earlier
type has an affinity to that of the great seal of Henry I., the later
approximates to that adopted under Henry II.

[142] _Royal Charters_, No. 15. See my _Ancient Charters_, p. 39.

[143] Dr. Stubbs observes that the consequence of the arrest was that
"the whole administration of the country ceased to work" (_Const.
Hist._, i. 326).

[144] Cotton Charter, vii. 4. See Frontispiece.

[145] This is the well-known Henry de Essex (see Appendix U), son of
Robert (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.), and grandson of Swegen of Essex
(Domesday). He witnessed several of Stephen's charters, probably later
in the reign, but was also a witness to the Empress's charters to the
Earls of Oxford and of Essex (_vide post_).

[146] A John, son of Robert fitz Walter (sheriff of East Anglia, _temp._
Hen. I.), occurs in _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 149.

[147] Robert de Neufbourg, said to have been a younger son of Henry,
Earl of Warwick, occurs in connection with Warwickshire in 1130 (_Rot.
Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). Mr. Yeatman characteristically advances "the idea
that Robert de Arundel and Robert de Novoburgo were identical." He was
afterwards Justiciary of Normandy (_Ord. Vit._), having sided with
Geoffrey of Anjou (_Rot. Scacc. Norm._). He is mentioned in the
Pipe-Rolls of 2 and 4 Henry II. According to Dugdale, he died (on the
authority of the _Chronicon Normanniæ_), in August, 1158, a date
followed by Mr. Yeatman. Mr. Eyton, however (_Court and Itinerary_, p.
47), on the same authority (with a reference also to Gervase, which I
cannot verify) makes him die in August, 1159. The true date seems to
have been August 30, 1159, when he died at Bec (_Robert de Torigni_).

[148] The Maenfininus Brito (Mr. Birch reads "Mamseu"), who, in the
Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 100), was late sheriff of Bucks. and Beds.
Probably father of Hamo filius Meinfelini, the Bucks. baron of 1166
(_Cartæ_). See also p. 201, _n._ 2.

[149] Turgis d'Avranches appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as
having married the widow of Hugh "de Albertivillâ." We shall find him
witnessing Stephen's second charter to the earl (Christmas, 1141).

[150] William de St. Clare occurs in Dorset and Huntingdonshire in 1130
(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). He was, I presume, of the same family as
Hamon de St. Clare, _custos_ of Colchester in 1130 (_ibid._), who was
among the witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (Oxford) in 1136.

[151] Odo de Dammartin states in his _Carta_ (1166) that he held one fee
(in Norfolk) of the king, of which he had enfeoffed, _temp._ Hen. I.,
his brother, William de Dammartin.

[152] Richard fitz Urse is of special interest as the father (see _Liber
Niger_) of Reginald fitz Urse, one of Becket's murderers. He occurs
repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. After this charter he
reappears at the battle of Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141):—"Capitur etiam
Ricardus filius Ursi, qui in ictibus dandis recipiendisque clarus et
gloriosus comparuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 274). For his marriage to Sybil,
daughter of Baldwin de Bollers by Sybil de Falaise (_neptis_ of
Henry I.), see Eyton's _Shropshire_, xi. 127, and _Genealogist_, N.S.,
iii. 195. One would welcome information on his connection, if any, with
the terrible sheriff, Urse d'Abetot, and his impetuous son; but I know
of none.

[153] William de Eu appears as a tenant of four knights' fees _de veteri
feoffamento_ under Mandeville in the _Liber Niger_.

[154] Richard fitz Osbert similarly figures (_Liber Niger_) as a tenant
of four knights' fees _de veteri feoffamento_. He also held a knight's
fee of the Bishop of Ely in Cambridgeshire. An Osbert fitz Richard,
probably his son, attests a charter of Geoffrey's son, Earl William, to
Walden Abbey.

[155] A Ralph de _Worcester_ occurs in the _Cartæ_ and elsewhere under
Henry II.

[156] "Eglino," an unusual name, probably represents "Egelino de
Furnis," who attests a charter of Stephen at Eye (_Formularium
Anglicanum_, p. 154).

[157] William fitz Alfred held one fee of Mandeville _de novo
feoffamento_. He also attests the earl's foundation charter of Walden
Abbey (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 149). A William fitz Alfred occurs, also, in the
Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I.

[158] William fitz Ernald similarly held one knight's fee _de novo
feoffamento_. He also attests the above foundation charter just after
William fitz Alfred.

[159] See Appendix D, on "Fiscal Earls."

[160] "Acies exhæredatorum, quæ præibat, percussit aciem regalem ...
tanto impetu, quod statim, quasi in ictu oculi, dissipata est.



 CHAPTER III.
 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS.


At the time of this sudden and decisive triumph, the Empress had been in
England some sixteen months. With the Earl of Gloucester, she had landed
at Arundel,[161] on September 30, 1139,[162] and while her brother,
escorted by a few knights, made his way to his stronghold at Bristol,
had herself, attended by her Angevin suite, sought shelter with her
step-mother, the late queen, in the famous castle of Arundel. Stephen
had promptly appeared before its walls, but, either deeming the fortress
impregnable or being misled by treacherous counsel,[163] had not only
raised his blockade of the castle, but had allowed the Empress to set
out for Bristol, and had given her for escort his brother the legate,
and his trusted supporter the Count of Meulan.[164] From the legate her
brother had received her at a spot appointed beforehand, and had then
returned with her to Bristol. Here she was promptly visited by the
constable, Miles of Gloucester, who at once acknowledged her claims as
"the rightful heir" of England.[165] Escorted by him, she removed to
Gloucester, of which he was hereditary castellan, and received the
submission of that city, and of all the country round about.[166] The
statements of the chroniclers can here be checked, and are happily
confirmed and amplified by a charter of the Empress, apparently unknown,
but of great historical interest. The following abstract is given in a
transcript taken from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the
duchy[167]:—

 "Carta Matilde Imperatricis in quâ dicit, quod[168] quando in Angliam
 venit post mortem H. patris sui[169] Milo de Gloecestrâ quam citius
 potuit venit ad se[170] apud Bristolliam et recepit me ut dominam et
 sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit, et inde me
 secum ad Gloecestram adduxit et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie
 contra omnes homines. Et volo vos scire quod tunc quando homagium suum
 apud Gloecestram recepit, dedi ei pro servicio suo in feodo et
 hereditate sibi et heredibus suis castellum de Sancto Briavel(li) et
 totam forestam de Dene,"[171] etc., etc.

It was at Gloucester that she received the news of her brother's victory
at Lincoln (February 2, 1141), and it was there that he joined her, with
his royal captive, on Quinquagesima Sunday (February 9).[172] It was at
once decided that the king should be despatched to Bristol Castle,[173]
and that he should be there kept a prisoner for life.[174]

In the utter paralysis of government consequent on the king's capture,
there was not a day to be lost on the part of the Empress and her
friends. The Empress herself was intoxicated with joy, and eager for the
fruits of victory.[175] Within a fortnight of the battle, she set out
from Gloucester, on what may be termed her first progress.[176] Her
destination was, of course, Winchester, the spot to which her eyes would
at once be turned. She halted, however, for a while at Cirencester,[177]
to allow time for completing the negotiations with the legate.[178] It
was finally agreed that, advancing to Winchester, she should meet him in
an open space, without the walls, for a conference. This spot a charter
of the Empress enables us apparently to identify with Wherwell.[179]
Hither, on Sunday, the 2nd of March, a wet and gloomy day,[180] the
clergy and people, headed by the legate, with the monks and nuns of the
religious houses, and such magnates of the realm as were present,
streamed forth from the city to meet her.[181]

The compact ("pactum") which followed was strictly on the lines of that
by means of which Stephen had secured the throne. The Empress, on her
part, swore that if the legate would accept her as "domina," he should
henceforth have his way in all ecclesiastical matters. And her leading
followers swore that this oath should be kept. Thereupon the legate
agreed to receive her as "Lady of England," and promised her the
allegiance of himself and of his followers so long as she should keep
her oath. The whole agreement is most important, and, as such, should be
carefully studied.[182]

On the morrow (March 3) the Empress entered Winchester, and was received
in state in the cathedral, the legate supporting her on the right, and
Bernard of St. David's on the left.[183]

Now, it is most important to have a clear understanding of what really
took place upon this occasion.

The main points to keep before us are—(1) that there are two distinct
episodes, that of the 2nd and 3rd of March, and that of the 7th and 8th
of April, five weeks intervening between them, during which the Empress
left Winchester to make her second progress; (2) that the first episode
was that of her _reception_ at Winchester, the second (also at
Winchester) that of her _election_.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that our historians are here in woeful
confusion. Dr. Stubbs alone is, as usual, right. Writing from the
standpoint of a constitutional historian, he is only concerned with the
election of the Empress, and to this he assigns its correct date.[184]
In his useful and excellent _English History_, Mr. Bright, on the
contrary, ignores the interval, and places the second episode "a few
days after" the first.[185] Professor Pearson, whose work is that which
is generally used for this period, omits altogether the earlier
episode.[186] Mr. Birch, on the other hand, in his historical
introduction to his valuable _fasciculus_ of the charters of the
Empress, ignores altogether the later episode, though he goes into this
question with special care. Indeed, he does more than this; for he
transfers the election itself from the later to the earlier occasion,
and assigns to the episode of March 2 and 3 the events of April 7 and 8.
This cardinal error vitiates his elaborate argument,[187] and, indeed,
makes confusion worse confounded. Mr. Freeman, though, of course, in a
less degree, seems inclined to err in the same direction, when he
assigns to the earlier of the two episodes that importance which belongs
to the later.[188]

Rightly to apprehend the bearing of this episode, we must glance back at
the preceding reigns. Dr. Stubbs, writing of Stephen's accession,
observes that "the example which Henry had set in his seizure and
retention of the crown was followed in every point by his
successor."[189] But on at least one main point the precedent was older
than this. The Conqueror, in 1066, and his heir, in 1087, had both
deemed it their first necessity to obtain possession of Winchester.
Winchester first, and then London, was a rule that thus enjoyed the
sanction of four successive precedents. To secure Winchester with all
that it contained, and with all the _prestige_ that its possession would
confer, was now, therefore, the object of the Empress. This object she
attained by the _pactum_ of the 2nd of March, and with it, as we have
seen, the conditional allegiance of the princely bishop of the see.

Now, Henry of Blois was a great man. As papal legate, as Bishop of
Winchester, and as brother to the captive king, he possessed an
influence, in his triple capacity, which, at this eventful crisis, was
probably unrivalled in the land. But there was one thing that he could
not do—he could not presume, of his own authority, to depose or to
nominate an English sovereign. Indeed the very fact of the subsequent
election (April 8) and of his claim, audacious as it was, that that
election should be the work of the clergy, proves that he had no thought
of the even more audacious presumption to nominate the sovereign
himself. This, then, is fatal to Mr. Birch's contention that the Empress
was, on this occasion (March 3), elected "domina Angliæ." Indeed, as I
have said, it is based on a confusion of the two episodes. The legate,
as Mr. Birch truly says, "consented to recognize (_sic_) the Empress as
_Domina Angliæ_, or Lady, that is, Supreme Governor of England," but,
obviously, he could only do so on behalf of himself and of his
followers. We ought, therefore, to compare his action with that of Miles
of Gloucester in 1139, when, as we have seen, in the words of the
Empress—

 "_Recepit_ me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni
 Angliæ _recognovit_ ... et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra
 omnes homines."[190]

Notice here the identity of expression—the "reception" of the Empress
and the "recognition" of her claims. I have termed the earlier episode
the "reception," and the later the "election" of the Empress. In these
terms is precisely expressed the distinction between the two events.
Take for instances the very passages appealed to by Mr. Birch himself:—

 "The exact words employed by William of Malmesbury are 'Nec dubitavit
 Episcopus Imperatricem in Dominam Angliæ recipere' (_sic_). In another
 place the same Henry de Blois declares of her, 'In Angliæ Normanniæque
 Dominam eligimus' (_sic_). This regular election of Mathildis to the
 dignity and office of _Domina Angliæ_ took place on Sunday, March 2,
 A.D. 1141" (p. 378).

Now we know, from William of Malmesbury himself, that "the regular
election in question" took place on the 8th of April, and that the
second of the passages quoted above refers to this later episode,[191]
while the other refers to the earlier.[192] I have drawn attention to
the two words (_recipere_ and _eligimus_) which he respectively applies
to the "reception" and the "election." The description of this
"reception" by William of Malmesbury[193] completely tallies with that
which is given by the Empress herself in a charter.[194] It should
further be compared with the account by the author of the _Gesta
Stephani_, of the similar reception accorded to Stephen in 1135.[195]

But though the legate could open to the Empress the cathedral and the
cathedral city, he had no power over the royal castle. This we saw in
the case of Stephen, when his efforts to secure the constable's
adherence were fruitless till the king himself arrived. Probably the
constable, at this crisis, was the same William de Pont de l'Arche, but,
whoever he was, he surrendered to the Empress the castle and all that it
contained. In one respect, indeed, she was doomed to be bitterly
disappointed, for the royal treasury, which her adventurous rival had
found filled to overflowing, was by this time all but empty. One
treasure, however, she secured; the object of her desires, the royal
crown, was placed in her triumphant hands.[196]

To the one historian who has dealt with this incident it has proved a
stumbling-block indeed. Mr. Freeman thus boldly attacks the problem:—

 "William of Malmesbury (_Hist. Nov._, iii. 42) seems distinctly to
 exclude a coronation; he merely says, 'Honorifica factâ processione,
 recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ.' We must, therefore, see
 only rhetoric when the Continuator says, 'Datur ejus dominio corona
 Angliæ,' and when the author of the _Gesta_ (75) speaks of 'regisque
 castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissime affectârat, ... in
 deliberationem suam contraditis,' and adds that Henry 'dominam et
 _reginam_ acclamare præcepit.' The Waverley Annalist, 1141, ventures to
 say, 'Corona regni est ei tradita.'"[197]

"Only rhetoric." Ah, how easily could history be written, if one could
thus dispose of inconvenient evidence! So far from being "rhetoric," it
is precisely because these statements are so strictly matter-of-fact
that the writer failed to grasp their meaning. Had he known, or
remembered, that the royal crown was preserved in the royal treasury,
the passage by which he is so sorely puzzled would have proved
simplicity itself.[198]

Here again, light is thrown on these events and on the action of the
Empress by the precedent in the case of her father (1100), who, on the
death of his brother, hastened to Winchester Castle ("ubi regalis
thesaurus continebatur"), which was formally handed over to him with all
that it contained ("arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico reddita
est").[199]

We have yet to consider the passage from the _Gesta_, to which Mr. Birch
so confidently appeals, and which is dismissed by Mr. Freeman as
"rhetoric." The passage runs:—

 "In publica se civitatis et fori audientia dominam et reginam acclamare
 præcepit."[200]

By a strange coincidence it has been misconstrued by both writers
independently. Mr. Freeman, as we saw, takes "præcepit" as referring to
Henry himself, and so does Mr. Birch.[201] Though the sentence as a
whole may be obscure, yet the passage quoted is quite clear. The words
are "præcepit _se_," not "præcepit illam." Thus the proclamation, if
made, was the doing of the Empress and not of the legate. Had the legate
been indeed responsible, his conduct would have been utterly
inconsistent. But as it is, the difficulty vanishes.[202]

To the double style, "domina et regina," I have made reference above. My
object now is to examine this assumption of the style "regina" by the
Empress. It might perhaps be urged that the author of the _Gesta_ cannot
here be implicitly relied on. His narrative, however, is vigorous and
consistent; it is in perfect harmony with the character of the Empress;
and so far as the assumption of this style is concerned, it is
strikingly confirmed by that Oxford charter, to which we are now coming.
After her election (April 8), the Empress might claim, as queen elect,
the royal title, but if that were excusable, which is granting much, its
assumption before her election could admit of no defence. Yet,
headstrong and impetuous, and thirsting for the throne, she would
doubtless urge that her rival's fall rendered her at once _de facto_
queen. But this was as yet by no means certain. Stephen's brother, as we
know, was talked of, and the great nobles held aloof. The Continuator,
indeed, asserts that at Winchester (March) were "præsules pene totius
Angliæ, barones multi, principes plurimi" (p. 130), but William, whose
authority is here supreme, does not, though writing as a partisan of the
Empress, make any allusion to their presence.[203] Moreover, the primate
was still in doubt, and of the five bishops who were present with the
legate, three (St. David's, Hereford, and Bath) came from districts
under the influence of the Empress, while the other two (Lincoln and
Ely) were still smarting beneath Stephen's action of two years before
(1139).

The special interest, therefore, of this bold proclamation at Winchester
lies in the touch it gives us of that feminine impatience of the
Empress, which led her to grasp so eagerly the crown of England in her
hands, and now to anticipate, in this hasty manner, her election and
formal coronation.[204]

Within a few days of her reception at Winchester, she retraced her steps
as far as Wilton, where it was arranged that she should meet the
primate, with whom were certain bishops and some lay folk.[205]
Theobald, however, professed himself unable to render her homage until
he had received from the king his gracious permission to do so.[206] For
this purpose he went on to Bristol, while the Empress made her way to
Oxford, and there spent Easter (March 30th).[207] We must probably
assign to this occasion her admission to Oxford by Robert d'Oilli.[208]
The Continuator, indeed, assigns it to May, and in this he is followed
by modern historians. Mr. Freeman, for instance, on his authority,
places the incident at that stage,[209] and so does Mr. Franck
Bright.[210]

But the movements of the Empress, at this stage, are really difficult to
determine. Between her presence at Oxford (March 30)[211] and her
presence at Reading (May 5-7),[212] we know nothing for certain. One
would imagine that she must have attended her own election at Winchester
(April 7, 8), but the chroniclers are silent on the subject, though
they, surely, would have mentioned her presence. On the whole, it seems
most probable that the Continuator must be in error, when he places the
adhesion of Robert d'Oilli so late as May (at Reading) and takes the
Empress subsequently to Oxford, as if for the first time.

It was, doubtless, through her "brother" Robert "fitz Edith" that his
step-father, Robert d'Oilli, was thus won over to her cause. It should
be noted that his defection from the captive king is pointedly mentioned
by the author of the _Gesta_, even before that of the Bishop of
Winchester, thus further confirming the chronology advanced above.[213]
At Oxford she received the submission of all the adjacent country,[214]
and also executed an important charter. This charter Mr. Birch has
printed, having apparently collated for the purpose no less than five
copies.[215] Its special interest is derived from the fact that not only
is it the earliest charter she is known to have issued after Stephen's
fall (with the probable exception of that to Thurstan de Montfort), but
it is also the only one of her charters in which we find the royal
phrases "ecclesiarum _regni mei_" and "pertinentibus _coronæ meæ_." Mr.
Birch writes of its testing-clause ("Apud Oxeneford Anno ab Incarnatione
Domini MC. quatragesimo"):

 The date of this charter is very interesting, because it is the only
 example of an actual date calculated by expression of the years of the
 Incarnation, which occurs among the entire series which I have been
 able to collect.... Now, as the historical year in these times
 commenced on the 25th of March, there is no doubt but that this charter
 was granted to the Abbey of Hulme at some time between the 3rd and the
 25th of March, A.D. 1140-41.[216]

Mr. Eyton has also independently discussed it (though his remarks are
still in MS.), and detects, with his usual minute care, a difficulty, in
one of the three witnesses, to which Mr. Birch does not allude.

 "St. Benet of Hulme.

 "The date given (1140) seems to combine with another circumstance to
 lead to error. Matilda's style is 'Matild' Imp. H. regis filia,' not,
 as usual, 'Anglorum domina.' One might therefore conclude that the deed
 passed before the battle of Lincoln, and so in 1140. However, this
 conclusion would be wrong, for though Matᵃ does not style herself
 Queen, she asserts in the deed Royal rights and speaks of matters
 pertaining 'coronæ meæ.' But we do not know that Maud was ever in
 Oxford before Stephen's captivity, nor can we think it. Again, it is
 certain that Robᵗ de Sigillo did not become Bishop of London till
 after Easter, 1141, for at Easter, 1142, he expressly dates his own
 deed 'anno primo pontif' mei.' He was almost certainly appointed when
 Maud was in London in July, 1141, for he attests Milo's patent of
 earldom on July 25."[217]

The omission of the style "Anglorum domina" is, however, strictly
correct, and not, as Mr. Eyton thought, singular. For it was not till
her election on the 8th of April that she became entitled to use this
style. As for her assumption of the royal phrases, it is here simply
_ultra vires_. Then, as to the attesting bishop ("R. episcopo
Londoniensi"), his presence is natural, as he was a monk of Reading, and
his position would seem to be paralleled by that of his predecessor
Maurice, who appears as bishop in the Survey, though, probably, only
elect. As her father "gave the bishopric of Winchester" the moment he
was elected, and before he was crowned,[218] so the Empress "gave," it
would seem, the see of London to Robert "of the Seal," even before her
formal election—an act, it should be noted, thoroughly in keeping with
her impetuous assumption of the regal style. Besides the bishop and the
Earl of Gloucester, there is a third witness to this charter—"Reginaldo
filio Regis." No one, it seems, has noticed the fact that here alone,
among the charters of the Empress, Reginald attests not as an earl,
which confirms the early date claimed for this charter. A charter which
I assign to the following May is attested by him: "Reginaldo _comite_
filio regis." This would seem to place his creation between the dates of
these charters, _i.e._ _circ._ April (1141).[219] To sum up, the
evidence of this charter is in complete agreement with that of William
of Malmesbury, when he states that the Empress spent Easter (March 30)
at Oxford; and we further learn from it that she must have arrived there
at least as early as the 24th of March.

The fact that Mr. Freeman, in common with others, has overlooked this
early visit of the Empress in March, is no doubt the cause of his having
been misled, as I have shown, by the Continuator's statement.

The Assembly at Winchester took place, as has been said, on the 7th and
8th of April. William of Malmesbury was present on the occasion, and
states that it was attended by the primate "and all the bishops of
England."[220] This latter phrase may, however, be questioned, in the
light of subsequent charter evidence.

The proceedings of this council have been well described, and are so
familiar that I need not repeat them. On the 7th was the private
conclave; on the 8th, the public assembly. I am tempted just to mention
the curiously modern incident of the legate (who presided) commencing
the proceedings by reading out the letters of apology from those who had
been summoned but were unable to be present.[221] On the 8th the legate
announced to the Assembly the result of the previous day's conclave:—

 "filiam pacifici regis ... in Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus, et
 ei fidem et manutenementum promittimus."[222]

On the 9th, the deputation summoned from London arrived and was informed
of the decision; on the 10th the assembly was dissolved.

The point I shall here select for discussion is the meaning of the term
"domina Angliæ," and the effect of this election on the position of the
Empress.

First, as to the term "domina Angliæ." Its territorial character must
not be overlooked. In the charters of the Empress, her style "Ang'
domina" becomes occasionally, though very rarely, "Anglor' domina,"
proving that its right extension is "Angl_orum_ Domina," which differs,
as we have seen, from the chroniclers' phrase. The importance of the
distinction is this. "Rex" is royal and national; "dominus" is feudal
and territorial. We should expect, then, the first to be followed by the
nation ("Anglorum"), the second by the territory ("Angliæ"). But, in
addition to its normal feudal character, the term may here bear a
special meaning.

It would seem that the clue to its meaning in this special sense was
first discovered by the late Sir William (then Mr.) Hardy ("an ingenious
and diligent young man," as he was at the time described) in 1836. He
pointed out that "Dominus Anglie" was the style adopted by Richard I.
"between the demise of his predecessor and his own coronation."[223] Mr.
Albert Way, in a valuable paper on the charters belonging to Reading
Abbey, which appeared some twenty-seven years later,[224] called
attention to the styles "Anglorum _Regina_" and "Anglorum _Domina_," as
used by the Empress.[225] As to the former, he referred to the charter
of the Empress at Reading, granting lands to Reading Abbey.[226] As to
the latter ("Domina Anglorum"), he quoted Mr. Hardy's paper on the
charter of Richard I., and urged that "the fact that Matilda was never
crowned Queen of England may suffice to account for her being thus
styled" (p. 283). He further quoted from William of Malmesbury the two
passages in which that chronicler applies this style to the
Empress,[227] and he carefully avoided assigning them both to the
episode of the 2nd of March. Lastly, he quoted the third passage, that
in the _Gesta Stephani_.

Mr. Birch subsequently read a paper "On the Great Seals of King Stephen"
before the Royal Society of Literature (December 17, 1873), in which he
referred to Mr. Way's paper, as the source of one of the charters of
which he gave the text, and in which he embodied Mr. Way's observations
on the styles "Regina" and "Domina."[228] But instead, unfortunately, of
merely following in Mr. Way's footsteps, he added the startling error
that Stephen was a prisoner, and Matilda consequently in power, till
1143. He wrote thus:—

 "Did the king ever cease to exercise his regal functions? Were these
 functions performed by any other constitutional sovereign meanwhile?
 The events of the year 1141 need not to be very lengthily discussed to
 demonstrate that for a brief period there was a break in Stephen's
 sovereignty, and a corresponding assumption of royal power by another
 ruler unhindered and unimpeached by the lack of any formality necessary
 for its full enjoyment.... William of Malmesbury, writing with all the
 opportunity of an eye-witness, and moving in the royal court at the
 very period, relates at full length in his _Historia Novella_ (ed.
 Hardy, for Historical Society, vol. ii. p. 774[229]), the particulars
 of the conference held at Winchester subsequent to the capture of
 Stephen after the battle of Lincoln, in the early part of the year, 4
 Non. Feb. A.D. 1141.... This election of Matilda as Domina of England
 in place of Stephen took place on Sunday, March 2, 1141.... Until the
 liberation of the king from his incarceration at Bristol, as a sequel
 to the battle at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the hopes of
 the Empress, she held her position as queen at London. The narrative of
 the events of this period, as given by William of Malmesbury in the
 work already quoted, so clearly points to her enjoyment of all temporal
 power needed to constitute a sovereign, that we must admit her name
 among the regnant queens of England" (pp. 12-14).

Two years later (June 9, 1875), Mr. Birch read a paper before the
British Archæological Association,[230] in which, in the same words, he
advanced the same thesis.

The following year (June 28, 1876), in an instructive paper read before
the Royal Society of Literature,[231] Mr. Birch wrote thus:—

 "As an example of new lights which the study of early English seals has
 thus cast upon our history (elucidations, as it were, of facts which
 have escaped the keen research of every one of our illustrious band of
 historians and chroniclers for upwards of seven hundred years), an
 examination into the history of the seal of Mathildis or Maud, the
 daughter and heiress of King Henry I. (generally known as the Empress
 Maud, or _Mathildis Imperatrix_, from the fact of her marriage with the
 Emperor Henry V. of Germany), has resulted in my being fortunately
 enabled to demonstrate that royal lady's undisputed right to a place in
 all tables or schemes of sovereigns of England; nevertheless it is, I
 believe, a very remarkable fact that her position with regard to the
 throne of England should have been so long, so universally, and so
 persistently ignored, by all those whose fancy has led them to accept
 facts at second hand, or from perfunctory inquiries into the sources of
 our national history rather than from careful step-by-step pursuit of
 truth through historical tracks which, like indistinct paths in the
 primæval forest, often lead the wanderer into situations which at the
 outset could not have been foreseen. In a paper on this subject which I
 prepared last year, and which is now published in the _Journal of the
 British Archæological Association_, I have fully explained my views of
 the propriety of inserting the name of Mathildis or Maud as Queen of
 England into the History Tables under the date of 1141-1143; and as
 this position has never as yet been impugned, we may take it that it is
 right in the main; and I have shown that until the liberation of King
 Stephen from his imprisonment at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at
 Winchester in 1143 (so disastrous to the prospects of Mathildis), she
 held her position as queen, most probably at London....

 "Now, I have introduced this apparent digression in this place to point
 to the importance of the study of historical seals, for my claim to the
 restoration of this queen's name is not due so much to my own
 researches as it is to the unaccountable oversight of others."[232]

I fear that, notwithstanding Mr. Birch's criticism on all who have gone
before him, a careful analysis of the subject will reveal that the only
addition he has made to our previous knowledge on this subject, as set
forth in Mr. Way's papers, consists in two original and quite
incomprehensible errors: one of them, the assigning of Maud's election
to the episode of the 2nd and 3rd of March, instead of to that of the
7th and 8th of April (1141); the other, the assigning of Stephen's
liberation to 1143 instead of 1141. When we correct these two errors,
springing (may we say, in Mr. Birch's words?) "from perfunctory
inquiries into the sources of our national history rather than from
careful step-by-step pursuit of the truth," we return to the _status quo
ante_, as set forth in Mr. Way's paper, and find that "the unaccountable
oversight," by all writers before Mr. Birch, of the fact that the
Empress "held her position as queen," for more than two years, "most
probably at London," is due to the fact that her said rule lasted only a
few months, or rather, indeed, a few weeks, while in London itself it
was numbered by days.

But though it has been necessary to speak plainly on Mr. Birch's
unfortunate discovery, one can probably agree with his acceptance of the
view set forth by Mr. Hardy, and espoused by Mr. Way, that the style
"domina" represents that "dominus" which was used as "a temporary title
for the newly made monarch during the interval which was elapsing
between the death of the predecessor and the coronation day of the
living king."[233] To Mr. Hardy's instance of Richard's style, "Dominus
Angl[iæ]," August, 1189, we may add, I presume, that of John, "Dominus
Angliæ," April 17th and 29th, (1199).[234] Now, if this usage be clearly
established, it is certainly a complete explanation of a style of which
historians have virtually failed to grasp the relevance.

But a really curious parallel, which no one has pointed out, is that
afforded in the reign immediately preceding this, by the case of the
king's second wife. Great importance is rightly attached to "the
election of the Empress as 'domina Angliæ'" (as Dr. Stubbs describes
it[235]), and to the words which William of Malmesbury places in the
legate's mouth;[236] and yet, though the fact is utterly ignored, the
very same formula of election is used in the case of Queen "Adeliza,"
twenty years before (1121)!

The expression there used by the Continuator is this: "Puella prædicta,
_in regni dominam electa_, ... regi desponsatur" (ii. 75). That is to
say that before her marriage (January 29) and formal coronation as queen
(January 30) she was elected, it would seem, "Domina Angliæ." The phrase
"in regni dominam electa" precisely describes the _status_ of the
Empress after her election at Winchester, and before that formal
coronation at Westminster which, as I maintain, was fully intended to
follow. We might even go further still, and hold that the description of
Adeliza as "futuram regni dominam,"[237] when the envoys were despatched
to fetch her, implies that she had been so elected at that great
Epiphany council, in which the king "decrevit sibi in uxorem
Atheleidem."[238] But I do not wish to press the parallel too far. In
any case, precisely as with the Empress afterwards, she was clearly
"domina Angliæ" before she was crowned queen. And, if "electa" means
elected, the fact that these two passages, referring to the two
elections (1121 and 1141), come from two independent chronicles proves
that the terms employed are no idiosyncracy, but refer to a recognized
practice of the highest constitutional interest.

Of course the fact that the same expression is applied to the election
of Queen "Adeliza" as to that of the Empress herself, detracts from the
importance of the latter event, regarded as an election to the throne.

At the same time, I hold that we should remember, as in the case of
Stephen, the feudal bearing of "dominus." For herein lies its difference
from "Rex." The "dominatus" of the Empress over England is attained step
by step.[239] At Cirencester, at Winchester, at Oxford, she becomes
"domina" in turn.[240] Not so with the royal title. She could be "lady"
of a city or of a man: she could be "queen" of nothing less than
England.

I must, however, with deep regret, differ widely from Mr. Birch in his
conclusions on the styles adopted by the Empress. These he classes under
three heads.[241] The second ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis filia
et Anglorum regina") is found in only two charters, which I agree with
him in assigning "to periods closely consecutive," not indeed to the
episode of March 2 and 3, but to that of April 7 and 8. Of his remaining
twenty-seven charters, thirteen belong to his first class and fourteen
to his third, a proportion which makes it hard to understand why he
should speak of the latter as "by far the most frequent."

Of the first class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia") Mr.
Birch writes:—

 "It is most probable that these documents are to be assigned to a
 period either before the death of her father, King Henry I., or at most
 to the initial years of Stephen, before any serious attempt had been
 made to obtain the possession of the kingdom."

Now, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of them can be
assigned to the period suggested, that not one of them is previous to
that 2nd of March (1141) which Mr. Birch selects as his turning-point,
still less to "the death of her father" (1135). Nay, on Mr. Birch's own
showing, the first and most important of these documents should be dated
"between the 3rd of March and the 24th of July, A.D. 1141" (p. 380), and
two others (Nos. 21, 28) "must be ascribed to a date between 1149 and
1151" (p. 397 _n._). Nor is even this all, for as in two others the son
of the Empress is spoken of as "King Henry," they must be as late as the
reign of Henry II.

So, also, with the third class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis
filia et Anglorum domina"), of which we are told that it—

 "was in the first instance adopted—I mean used—in those charters which
 contain the word and were promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141,
 by reason of the ceremony of coronation not yet having been performed;
 and with regard to those charters which are placed subsequent to A.D.
 1141, either because the ceremony was still unperformed, although she
 had the possession of the crown, or because of some stipulation with
 her opponents in power" (p. 383).

Here, again, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of these
charters was "promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141." We have,
therefore, no evidence that the Empress, in her charters, adopted this
style until the election of April 7 and 8 (1141) enabled her justly to
do so. But the fact is that Mr. Birch's theory is not only based, as we
have seen, on demonstrably erroneous hypotheses, but must be altogether
abandoned as opposed to every fact of the case. For the two styles which
he thus distinguishes were used at the same time, and even in the same
document. For instance, in the very first of Mr. Birch's documents, that
great charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville, to which we shall come, in the
next chapter, issued at the height of Matilda's power, and on the eve,
as we shall see, of her intended coronation, "Anglorum domina" is
omitted from her style, and the document is therefore, by Mr. Birch,
assigned to the first of his classes. Yet I shall show that in a portion
of the charter which has perished, and which is therefore unknown to Mr.
Birch, her style is immediately repeated with the addition "Anglorum
Domina." It is clear, then, on Mr. Birch's own showing, that this
document should be assigned both to his first and to his third classes,
and, consequently, that the distinction he attempts to draw has no
foundation in fact.

Mr. Birch's thesis would, if sound, be a discovery of such importance
that I need not apologize for establishing, by demonstration, that it is
opposed to the whole of the evidence which he himself so carefully
collected. And when we read of Stephen's "incarceration at Bristol,
which was not terminated until the battle of Winchester in A.D. 1143,
when the hopes of the Empress were shattered" (p. 378), it is again
necessary to point out that her flight from Winchester took place not in
1143, but in September, 1141. Mr. Birch's conclusion is thus expressed:—

 "We may, therefore, take it as fairly shown that until the liberation
 of the king from his imprisonment at Bristol (as a sequel to the battle
 at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the queen's hopes) she
 held her position, as queen, most probably at London," etc. (p. 380).

Here, as before, it is needful to remember that the date is all wrong,
and that the triumph of the Empress, so far from lasting two years or
more, lasted but for a few months of the year 1141, in the course of
which she was not at London for more than a few days.

And now let us turn to my remaining point, "the effect of this election
on the position of the Empress."

To understand this, we must glance back at the precedents of the four
preceding reigns. The Empress, as I have shown, had followed these
precedents in making first for Winchester: she had still to follow them
in securing her coronation and anointing at Westminster. It is passing
strange that all historians should have lost sight of this circumstance.
For the case of her own father, in whose shoes she claimed to stand, was
the aptest precedent of all. As he had been elected at Winchester, and
then crowned at Westminster, so would she, following in his footsteps.
The growing importance of London had been recognized in successive
coronations from the Conquest, and now that it was rapidly supplanting
Winchester as the destined capital of the realm, it would be more
essential than ever that the coronation should there take place, and
secure not merely the _prestige_ of tradition, but the assent of the
citizens of London.[242]

It has not, however, so far as I know, occurred to any writer that it
was the full intention of the Empress and her followers that she should
be crowned and anointed queen, and that, like those who had gone before
her, she should be so crowned at Westminster. It is because they failed
to grasp this that Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman are both at fault. The
former writes:—

 "Matilda became the Lady of the English; she was not crowned, because
 perhaps the solemn consecration which she had received as empress
 sufficed, or perhaps Stephen's royalty was so far forth
 indefeasible."[243]

 "No attempt was made to crown the Empress; the legate simply proposes
 that she should be elected Lady of England and Normandy. It is just
 possible that the consecration which she had once received as empress
 might be regarded as superseding the necessity of a new ceremony of the
 kind, but it is far more likely that, so long as Stephen was alive and
 not formally degraded, the right conferred on him by coronation was
 regarded as so far indefeasible that no one else could be allowed to
 share it."[244]

Dr. Stubbs appears here to imply that we should have expected her
coronation to follow her election. And in this he is clearly right. Mr.
Freeman, however, oddly enough, seems to have looked for it _before_ her
election. This is the more strange in a champion of the elective
principle. He writes thus of her reception at Winchester, five weeks
before her election:—

 "If Matilda was to reign, her reign needed to begin by something which
 might pass for an election and coronation. But her followers, Bishop
 Henry at their head, seem to have shrunk from the actual crowning and
 anointing ceremonies, which—unless Sexburh had, ages before, received
 the royal consecration—had never, either in England or in Gaul, been
 applied to a female ruler. Matilda was solemnly received in the
 cathedral church of Winchester; she was led by two bishops, the legate
 himself and Bernard of St. David's, as though to receive the crown and
 unction, but no crowning and no unction is spoken of."[245]

At the same time, he recurs to the subject, after describing the
election, thus:—

 "Whether any consecration was designed to follow, whether at such
 consecration she would have been promoted to the specially royal title,
 we are not told."[246]

But all this uncertainty is at once dispelled when we learn what was
really intended. Taken in conjunction with the essential fact that
"domina" possessed the special sense of the interim royal title, the
intention of the Empress to be crowned at Westminster, and so to become
queen in name as well as queen in deed, gives us the key to the whole
problem. It explains, moreover, the full meaning of John of Hexham's
words, when he writes that "David rex videns multa competere in
imperatricis neptis suæ promotionem post Ascensionem Domini (May 8) ad
eam in Suth-Anglia profectus est ... plurimosque ex principibus sibi
acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium." We
shall see how this intention was only foiled by the sudden uprising of
the citizens; and in the names of the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter we
shall behold those, "tam episcopi quam cinguli militaris viri, qui _ad
dominam inthronizandam_ pomposé Londonias et arroganter convenerant."[247]

[161] _Will. Malms._, p. 724; _Gesta Stephani_, p. 56.

[162] _Will. Malms._, p. 724. See Appendix E.

[163] Such are the alternatives presented by Henry of Huntingdon (p.
266). The treacherous counsel alluded to was that of his brother the
legate (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 57). According to John of Hexham (_Sym.
Dun._ ii. 302), Stephen acted "ex indiscretâ animi simplicitate."

[164] _Will. Malms._, p. 725.

[165] See Appendix F: "The Defection of Miles of Gloucester."

[166] _Will. Malms._, p. 725; _Cont. Flor._, p. 118. Here the
Continuator's chronology is irreconcilable with that of our other
authorities. He states that the Empress removed to Gloucester on October
15, after a stay of two months at Bristol. This is, of course,
consistent, it should be noticed, with the date (August 1) assigned by
him for her landing.

[167] The text is taken from the transcript in Lansdowne MS. 229, fol.
123, collated with Dugdale's transcript in his MSS. at the Bodleian
Library (L. 21). It will be seen that Dugdale transcribed _verbatim_,
while the other transcript begins in _narratio obliqua_.

[168] "Sciatis quod" (D.).

[169] "Mei" (D.).

[170] "Me" (D.).

[171] These were specially excepted from the grants of royal demesne
made by Henry II. to his son, the second earl.

[172] _Cont. Flor._, p. 129; _Will. Malms._, p. 712; _Gesta_, p. 72.

[173] _Ibid._; _John Hex._, p. 308; _Hen. Hunt._, p. 275.

[174] _Gesta_, p. 72.

[175] "Ob illiusmodi eventum vehementer exhilarata, utpote regnum sibi
juratum, sicut sibi videbatur, jam adepta" (_Cont. Flor._, p. 130).

[176] _Cont. Flor._, 130.

[177] "Simul et ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium" (_ibid._).

[178] "Ut ipsam tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia et
Normannia jurata esset, incunctanter in ecclesiam et regnum reciperet"
(_Will. Malms._, p. 743). Compare the writer's description of the oath
(1127) that the magnates "imperatricem _incunctanter_ et sine ullâ
retractione dominam susciperent" (p. 690).

[179] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389. Mr. Howlett asserts that the
evidence of William of Malmesbury as to the date (2nd and 3rd of March)
"is refuted" by this charter, which places them a fortnight earlier
(Introduction to _Gesta Stephani_, p. xxii.). But I do not think the
evidence of the charter is sufficiently strong to overthrow the accepted
date.

[180] "Pluvioso et nebuloso die" (_Will. Malms._, p. 743).

[181] _Cont. Flor._, p. 130; _Will. Malms._, p. 743.

[182] "Juravit et affidavit imperatrix episcopo, quod omnia majora
negotia in Anglia, precipueque donationes episcopatuum et abbatiarum,
ejus nutum spectarent, si eam ipse in sancta ecclesia in dominam
reciperet, et perpetuam ei fidelitatem teneret. Idem juraverunt cum ea,
et affidaverunt pro ea, Robertus frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et
Brianus filius comitis marchio de Walingeford et Milo de Gloecestrâ,
postea comes de Hereford, et nonnulli alii. Nec dubitavit episcopus
imperatricem in dominam Angliæ recipere et ei cum quibusdam suis
affidare, quod, quamdiu ipsa pactum non infringeret, ipse quoque fidem
ei custodiret" (_Will. Malms._, 743, 744). The parallel afforded by the
customs of Bigorre, as recorded (it is alleged) in 1097, is so striking
as to deserve being quoted here. Speaking of the reception of a new
lord, they provide that "antequam habitatorum terræ fidejussores
accipiat, fide sua securos eos faciat ne extra consuetudines patrias vel
eas in quibus eos invenerit aliquod educat; hoc autem sacramento et fide
quatuor nobilium terræ faciat confirmari."

[183] "Crastino, quod fuit quinto nonas Martii, honorifica facta
processione recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ," etc., etc.
(_ibid._).

[184] _Const. Hist._, i. 326 (_note_); _Early Plantagenets_, 22.

[185] _English History for the Use of Public Schools_, i. 83. The
mistake may have arisen from a confusion with the departure of the
Empress from Winchester a few days ("paucis post diebus") after her
reception.

[186] _History of England during the Early and Middle Ages_, i. 478.

[187] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 377-380.

[188] _Norm. Conq._, v. 303. At the same time it is right to add that
this is not a question of accuracy, but merely of treatment. In the
marginal notes the two episodes are respectively assigned to their
correct dates.

[189] _Const. Hist._, i. 318.

[190] Compare also, even further back, the action, in Normandy, of
Gingan Algasil in December, 1135, who, on the appearance of the Empress,
"[eam] ut naturalem dominam suscepit, eique ... oppida quibus ut
vicecomes, jubente rege præerat, subegit" (_Ord. Vit._, v. 56).

[191] _Will. Malms._, p. 747.

[192] _Ibid._, p. 743.

[193] "Honorifica facta processione _recepta est_ in ecclesia" (p. 744).

[194] "Idem prelatus et cives Wintonie honorifice in ecclesia et urbe
Wintonie me _receperunt_" (_Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 378)

[195] "Præsul Wintonie ... cum dignioribus Wintonie civibus obvius ei
advenit, habitoque in communi brevi colloquio, in civitatem, secundam
duntaxat regni sedem, honorifice induxit" (p. 5). Note that in each case
the "colloquium" preceded the entry.

[196] "Regisque castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissimé
affectârat thesaurisque quos licet perpaucos rex ibi reliquerat, in
deliberationem suam contraditis" (_Gesta_, 75).

[197] _Norm. Conquest_, v. 804 (_note_).

[198] As an instance of the crown being kept at Winchester, take the
entry in the Pipe-Roll of 4 Hen. II.: "In conducendis coronis Regis ad
Wirecestre de Wintoniâ," the crowns being taken out to be worn at
Worcester, Easter, 1158. Oddly enough, Mr. Freeman himself alludes, in
its place, to a similar taking out of the crown, from the treasury at
Winchester, to be worn at York, Christmas, 1069. The words of Ordericus,
as quoted by him, are: "Guillelmus ex civitate Guentâ jubet adferri
coronam, aliaque ornamenta regalia et vasa" (cf. _Dialogus_, I. 14).

[199] _Ordericus Vitalis._

[200] _Gesta_, 75; _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 378.

[201] "He (_sic_) ordered that she should be proclaimed lady and queen."

[202] The _Gesta_ itself is, on this point, conclusive, for it
distinctly states that the Empress "solito severius, solito et
arrogantius procedere et loqui, et cuncta cœpit peragere, adeo ut in
ipso mox domini sui capite reginam se totius Angliæ fecerit, _et
gloriata fuerit appellari_."

[203] _Will. Malms._, 744.

[204] To this visit (if the only occasion on which she was at Winchester
in the spring) must belong the Empress's charter to Thurstan de
Montfort. As it is not comprised in Mr. Birch's collection, I subjoin it
_in extenso_ (from Dugdale's MSS.):—

"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia Rogero Comiti de Warwick et omnibus
fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Warewicscire salutem. Sciatis me
concessisse Thurstino de Monteforti quod habeat mercatum die dominica ad
castellum suum de Bellodeserto. Volo igitur et firmiter præcipio
quatenus omnes euntes, et stantes, et redeuntes de Mercato prædicto
habeant firmam pacem. T. Milone de Glocestria. Apud Wintoniam."

As Milo attests not as an earl, this charter cannot belong to the
subsequent visit to Winchester in the summer. The author of the Gesta
mentions the Earl of Warwick among those who joined the Empress at once
"sponte nulloque cogente."

[205] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 130.

[206] This he did on the ground that the recognition of Stephen as king
by the pope, in 1136, was binding on all ecclesiastics (_Historia
Pontificalis_). _Vide infra_, p. 69, _n._ 1.

[207] _Will. Malms._, p. 744. Oddly enough, Miss Norgate gives this very
reference for her statement that in a few days the Archbishop of
Canterbury followed the legate's example, and swore fealty to the
Empress at Wilton.

[208] "Convenitur ibi ab eadem de principibus unus, vocabulo Robertus de
Oileio, de reddendo Oxenfordensi castello; quo consentiente, venit illa,
totiusque civitatis et circumjacentis regionis suscepit dominium atque
hominium" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 131).

[209] "She then made her way to London by a roundabout path. She was
received at Oxford by the younger Robert of Oily," etc. (_Norm. Conq._,
v. 306).

[210] _English History_, I. 83.

[211] _Will. Malms._

[212] _Cont. Flor. Wig._

[213] "Aliis quoque sponte, nulloque cogente, ad comitissæ imperium
conversis (ut Robertus de Oli, civitatis Oxenefordiæ sub rege præceptor,
et comes ille de Warwic, viri molles, et deliciis magis quam animi
fortitudine affluentes)" (p. 74).

[214] _Cont. Flor. Wig._ (_ut supra_).

[215] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388, 389. It will also be found in the
_Monasticon_ (iii. 87).

[216] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. p. 379.

[217] _Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 118.

[218] _Ang. Sax. Chron._, A.D. 1100.

[219] Relying on the explicit statement of the chronicler (_Will.
Malms._, p. 732), that the Earl of Gloucester "fratrem etiam suum
Reinaldum in tanta difficultate temporis comitem Cornubiæ creavit,"
historians and antiquaries have assigned this creation to 1140 (see
Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 362, _n._; Courthope's _Historic Peerage_;
Doyle's _Official Baronage_). In the version of Reginald's success given
by the author of the _Gesta_, there is no mention of this creation, but
that may, of course, be rejected as merely negative evidence. The above
charter, however, certainly raises the question whether he had indeed
been created earl at the time when he thus attested it. The point may be
deemed of some importance as involving the question whether the Empress
did really create an earl before the triumph of her cause.

[220] "Concilium archiepiscopi Cantuariæ Thedbaldi, et omnium
episcoporum Angliæ" (p. 744). Strange to say, Professor Pearson (I. 478)
states that "Theobald remained faithful" to Stephen, though he had now
formally joined the Empress. On the other hand, "Stephen's queen and
William of Ypres" are represented by him as present, though they were
far away, preparing for resistance. An important allusion to the
primate's conduct at this time is found (under 1148) in the _Historia
Pontificalis_ (Pertz's _Monumenta Historica_, vol. xx.), where we read
"propter obedienciam sedis apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando urgente
mandato domni Henrici Wintoniensis episcopi tunc legationem fungentis in
Anglia post alios episcopos omnes receperat Imperatricem ... licet
inimicissimos habuerit regem et consiliarios suos."

[221] "Si qui defuerunt, legatis et literis causas cur non venissent
dederunt.... Egregie quippe memini, ipsâ die, post recitata scripta
excusatoria quibus absentiam suam quidem tutati sunt," etc. (_Will.
Malms._, pp. 744, 745). Is it possible that we have, in "legati," a hint
at attendance by proxy?

[222] _Ibid._, p. 746.

[223] _Archæologia_, xxvii. 110. See the charter in question in the
Pipe-Roll Society's "Ancient Charters," Part I., p. 92.

[224] _Arch. Journ._ (1863), xx. 281-296.

[225] _Ibid._, p. 283. Mr. Way adopts the extension "Angl_orum_"
throughout.

[226] "The only instances in which we have documentary evidence that she
styled herself Queen of England occur in two charters of this period"
(_ibid._).

[227] _Vide supra_, pp. 61, 69.

[228] Pp. xi.-xiv. (see footnotes).

[229] The volume closes at p. 769.

[230] "A Fasciculus of the Charters of Mathildis, Empress of the
Germans, and an Account of her Great Seal" (_Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._,
xxxi. 376-398).

[231] "On the Seals of King Henry the Second and of his Son, the
so-called Henry the Third" (_Transactions_, vol. xi. part 2, New
Series).

[232] Pp. 2, 3.

[233] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 383.

[234] Wells _Liber Albus_, fol. 10 (_Hist. MSS. Report on Wells MSS._).

[235] _Const. Hist._, i. 326, 341, 342.

[236] "In Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus."

[237] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 75. See Addenda.

[238] _Ibid._

[239] "Pleraque tunc pars Angliæ dominatum ejus suscipiebat" (_Will.
Malms._, p. 749).

[240] "Ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium ... totiusque civitatis
suscepit dominium," etc. (_Cont. Flor. Wig._).

[241] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 382, 383.

[242] It is very singular that Mr. Freeman failed to perceive this
parallel, since he himself writes of Henry (1100). "The Gemót of
election was held at Winchester while the precedents of three reigns
made it seem matter of necessity that the unction and coronation should
be done at Westminster" (_Will. Rufus_, ii. 348). Such an admission as
this is sufficient to prove my case.

[243] _Early Plantagenets_, 22.

[244] _Const. Hist._, i. 339.

[245] _Norm. Conq._, v. 303, 304. The footnote to this statement
("William of Malmesbury seems distinctly to exclude a coronation," etc.,
etc.) has been already given (_ante_, p. 62). Mr. Birch confusing, as we
have seen, the reception of the Empress with her election, naturally
looks, like Mr. Freeman, to the former as the time when she ought to
have been crowned: "The crown of England's sovereigns was handed over to
her, a kind of _seizin_ representing that the kingdom of England was
under the power of her hands (although it does not appear that any
further ceremony connected with the rite of coronation was then
performed)" (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. p. 378). This assumes that the
crown was "handed over to her" at a "ceremony" in the cathedral,
whereas, as I explained, my own view is that she obtained it with the
royal castle.

[246] _Norm. Conq._, v. p. 305.

[247] _Gesta_, 79. In the word "inthronizandam," I contend, is to be
found the confirmation of my theory, based on comparison and induction,
of an intended coronation at Westminster. So far as I know, attention
has never been drawn to it before.



 CHAPTER IV.
 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS.


Though the election of the Empress, says William of Malmesbury, took
place immediately after Easter, it was nearly midsummer before the
Londoners would receive her.[248] Hence her otherwise strange delay in
proceeding to the scene of her coronation. An incidental allusion leads
us to believe that this _interregnum_ was marked by tumult and bloodshed
in London. We learn that Aubrey de Vere was killed on the 9th of May, in
the course of a riot in the city.[249] This event has been assigned by
every writer that I have consulted to the May of the previous year
(1140), and this is the date assigned in the editor's marginal
note.[250] The context, however, clearly shows that it belongs to 1141.
Aubrey was a man of some consequence. He had been actively employed by
Henry I. in the capacity of justice and of sheriff, and was also a royal
chamberlain. His death, therefore, was a notable event, and one is
tempted to associate with it the fact that he was father-in-law to
Geoffrey. It is not impossible that, on that occasion, they may have
been acting in concert, and resisting a popular movement of the
citizens, whether directed against the Empress or against Geoffrey
himself.

The comparison of the Empress's advance on London with that of her
grandfather, in similar circumstances, is of course obvious. The
details, however, of the latter are obscure, and Mr. Parker, we must
remember, has gravely impugned the account of it given in the _Norman
Conquest_.[251]

Of the ten weeks which appear to have elapsed between the election of
the Empress and her reception in London, we know little or nothing.
Early in May she came to Reading,[252] the Continuator's statement to
that effect being confirmed by a charter which, to all appearance,
passed on this occasion.[253] It is attested by her three constant
companions, the Earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and Miles of
Gloucester (acting as her constable), together with John (fitz Gilbert)
the marshal, and her brothers Reginald (now an earl)[254] and Robert
(fitz Edith).[255] But a special significance is to be found in the
names of the five attesting bishops (Winchester, Lincoln, Ely, St.
David's, and Hereford). They are, it will be found, the same five who
attest the charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (midsummer), and they are
also the five who (with the Bishop of Bath) had attended, in March, the
Empress at Winchester. This creates a strong presumption that, in
despite of chroniclers' vague assertions, the number of bishops who
joined the Empress was, even if not limited to these, at least extremely
small.[256]

This is one of the two charters in which the Empress employs the style
"Regina." It is probable that the other also should be assigned to this
period.[257] These two exceptional cases would thus belong to the
interim period during which she was queen elect, though technically only
"domina." Here again the fact that, during this period, she adopted,
alternatively, both styles ("regina" and "domina"), as well as that
which Mr. Birch assigns to his first period, proves how impossible it is
to classify these styles by date.

If we reject the statement that from Reading she returned to
Oxford,[258] the only other stage in her progress that is named is that
of her reception at St. Albans.[259] In this case also the evidence of a
charter confirms that of the chronicler.[260] At St. Albans she received
a deputation from London, and the terms on which the city agreed to
receive her must have been here finally arranged.[261] She then
proceeded in state to Westminster,[262] no doubt by the Edgware Road,
the old Roman highway, and was probably met by the citizens and their
rulers, according to the custom, at Knightsbridge.[263]

Meanwhile, she had been joined in her progress by her uncle, the King of
Scots, who had left his realm about the middle of May for the purpose of
attending her coronation.[264]

The Empress, according to William of Malmesbury, reached London only a
few days before the 24th of June.[265] This is the sole authority we
have for the date of her visit, except the statement by Trivet that she
arrived on the 21st (or 26th) of April.[266] This latter date we may
certainly reject. If we combine the statement that her flight took place
on Midsummer Day[267] with that of the Continuator that her visit lasted
for "some days,"[268] they harmonize fairly enough with that of William
of Malmesbury. If it was, indeed, after a few days that her visit was so
rudely cut short, we are able to understand why she left without the
intended coronation taking place.

From another and quite independent authority, we obtain the same day
(June 24th) as the date of her flight from London, together with a
welcome and important glimpse of her doings. The would-be Bishop of
Durham, William Cumin, had come south with the King of Scots (whose
chancellor he was), accompanied by certain barons of the bishopric and a
deputation from the cathedral chapter. Nominally, this deputation was to
claim from the Empress and the legate a confirmation of the chapter's
canonical right of free election; but, in fact, it was composed of
William's adherents, who purposed to secure from the Empress and the
legate letters to the chapter in his favour. The legate not having
arrived at court when they reached the Empress, she deferred her reply
till he should join her. In the result, however, the two differed; for,
while the legate, warned from Durham, refused to support William, the
Empress, doubtless influenced by her uncle, had actually agreed, as
sovereign, to give him the ring and staff, and would undoubtedly have
done so, but for the Londoners' revolt.[269] It must be remembered that,
for her own sake, the Empress would welcome every opportunity of
exercising sovereign rights, as in her prompt bestowal of the see of
London upon Robert. And though she lost her chance of actually investing
William, she had granted, before her flight, letters commending him for
election.[270]

Thus we obtain the date of the charter which is the subject of this
chapter. In this case alone was Mr. Eyton right in the dates he assigned
to these documents. Nor, indeed, is it possible to be mistaken. For this
charter can only have passed on the occasion of this, the only visit
that the Empress paid to Westminster. Yet, even here, Mr. Eyton's date
is not absolutely correct. For he holds that it "passed in the short
period during which Maud was in London, _i.e._ between June 24 and July
25, 1141";[271] whereas "June 24" is the probable date of her departure,
and not of her arrival, which was certainly previous to that day.

There is but one other document (besides a comparatively insignificant
precept[272]) which can be positively assigned to this visit.[273] This
consideration alone would invest our charter with interest, but when we
add to this its great length, its list of witnesses, and its intrinsic
importance, it may be claimed as one of the most instructive documents
of this obscure and eventful period.

Of the original, now among the Cottonian Charters (xvi. 27), Mr. Birch,
who is exceptionally qualified to pronounce upon these subjects, has
given us as complete a transcript as it is now possible to obtain.[274]
To this he has appended the following remarks:—

 "This most important charter, one of the earliest, if not the earliest
 example of the text of a deed creating a peerage, does not appear to
 have been ever published. I cannot find the text in any printed book or
 MS. Fortunately Sir William Dugdale inspected this charter before it
 had been injured in the disastrous Cottonian fire, which destroyed so
 many invaluable evidences of British history. In his account of the
 Mandevilles, Earls of Essex (_Baronage_, vol. i. p. 202) he says that
 'this is the most antient creation-charter, which hath ever been known,
 _vide_ Selden's _Titles of Honour_, p. 647,' and he gives an English
 rendering of the greater portion of the Latin text, which has enabled
 me to conjecture several emendations and restorations in the above
 transcript."

Mr. Birch having thus, like preceding antiquaries, borne witness to the
interest attaching to "this most important charter," it is with special
satisfaction that I find myself enabled to print a transcript of the
entire document, supplying, there is every reason to believe, a complete
and accurate text. Nor will it only enable us to restore the portions of
the charter now wanting,[275] for it further convicts the great Dugdale
of no less serious an error than the omission of two most important
witnesses and the garbling of the name of a third.[276]

The accuracy of my authorities can be tested by collation with those
portions of the original that are still perfect. This test is quite
satisfactory, as is also that of comparing one of the passages they
supply with Camden's transcript of that same passage, taken from the
original charter. Camden's extract, of the existence of which Mr. Birch
was evidently not aware, was printed by him in his _Ordines
Anglicani_,[277] from which it is quoted by Selden in his well-known
_Titles of Honour_.[278] It is further quoted, as from Camden and
Selden, at the head of the Patents of Creation appended to the _Lords'
Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_,[279] as also in the Third Report
itself (where the marginal reference, however, is wrong).[280] It is
specially interesting from Camden's comment: "This is the most ancient
creation-charter that I ever saw" (which is clearly the origin of the
statement as to its unique antiquity), and from the fact of that great
antiquary speaking of it as "now in my hands."

The two transcripts I have employed for the text (D. and A.) are copies
respectively found in the Dugdale MSS. (L. fol. 81) and the Ashmole MSS.
(841, fol. 3). I have reason to believe that this charter was among
those duly recorded in the missing volume of the Great Coucher.

 CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE
 (Midsummer, 1141).

M. Imperatrix regis Henrici filia Archiepiscopis Episcopis
►"Archiepiscopis, etc." (D.).◄ Abbatibus (Comitibus Baronibus
Justiciariis Vicecomitibus et ministris et omnibus baronibus et
fidelibus) suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et Normanniæ salutem.
(Sciatis►"Sciant" (D.).◄ omnes tam præsentes quam futuri quod Ego
Matildis regis Henrici filia et Anglor[um]►"or'" (D.); "oru'" (A.).◄
domina) do et concedo Gaufrido►"Galfrido" (A.).◄ de Magnavillâ (pro
servitio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit comes de
Essex[iâ]►"Essexa" (D.); "Essex'" (A.).◄ et habeat tertium denarium
Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut comes habere debet in comitatu
suo►"comitat' su'" (A.); "comitatu[m] suu[m]" (D.).◄[281] in omnibus
rebus, et præter hoc reddo illi in feodo et hereditate de me et
heredibus meis totam terram quam) tenuit[282] (Gaufridus de Magnavilla
avus suus et Serlo de Matom in Angliâ et Normanniâ ita libere et[282])
bene et quiete sicut aliquis antecessorum suorum illam unquam melius (et
liberius tenuit, vel ipsemet) postea (aliquo in tempore, sibi dico) et
heredibus suis (post eum), et concedo illi et heredibus suis Custodiam
turris Londonie►"London" (A.); "Londoniæ" (D.).◄ (cum parvo Castello
quod) fuit Ravengeri in feodo et hereditate de me (et heredibus) meis
cum terris et liberationibus et omnibus Consuetudinibus quæ ad (eandem
terram►"terram" (D., A.).◄[283]) pertinerent►"pertinat" (A.);
"pertinent" (D.).◄, et ut inforciet illa secundum voluntatem suam. (Et
similiter[284]) do ei et concedo et heredibus suis C libratas terræ de
me et de (heredibus) meis in dominio, videlicet Niweport►"Newport"
(A.).◄[285] pro tanto quantum reddere solebat die qua rex
H[enricus]►"Henricus rex" (A.).◄ pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ad
rem(ovend') mercatum de Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ in Castellum suum de
Waldena cum omnibus Consuetudinibus que prius mercato illi melius
pertinuerunt in (Thelon[eo] et passag[io]►"passagio" (A.).◄[286]) et
aliis consuetudinibus, (et) ut vie de Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ quæ sunt
juxta littus aquæ[287] dirigantur ex consuetudine ad Waledenam (sup[er]
foris) facturam meam et Mercatum de Waldenâ sit ad diem dominicam►"dictam"
(A.).◄ et ad diem Jovis et ut feria[288] habeatur apud Waledenam et
incipiat in (Vigiliâ Pentecost►"Vigilia Pentecost" (A.); "vigil'
pentecostes" (D.).◄[289]) et duret per totam hebdomadam pentecostes Et
Meldonam[290] ad perficiendum predictas C libratas terræ pro tanto
quantum►"quanto" (A.); "quantum" (D.).◄ inde reddi solebat die quâ (Rex
Henricus fuit) vivus et mortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis et rebus que
adjacebant in terrâ et mari ad Burgum illud predicto die mortis Regis
Henrici, et (Deopedenam[291]) similiter pro tanto quantum inde reddi
solebat die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus cum omnibus
Appendiciis suis et Boscum de chatelegâ[292] cum (hominibus pro)[293] xx
solidis, et terram de Banhunta[294] pro xl solidis, et si►"et si" in D.;
"et" omitted in A.◄ quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas►"perfici
end'" (D.).◄ perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexa (aut in
Hert)fordescirâ►"Heortfordescira" (D.); "Hertfordscira" (A.).◄ aut in
Cantebriggscirâ tali tenore quod si (reddi)dero Comiti Theobaldo totam
terram quam (tenebat)[295] in An(gliâ dabo Gaufrido►"Gaufrido" (D.);
"Galfrido" (A.).◄ Comiti Essex[ie] escambium suum ad valentiam►"valens"
(D.); "valentiam" (A.).◄ in his prædictis tribus►"his tribus" (A.).◄
Comitatibus antequam de) predictis terris dissais(iatur; si etiam►"et
etiam" (A.).◄ reddidero totum honorem et totam terram) heredibus
Willelmi peur[elli] de Lond[oniâ][296] dabo similiter ei escambium ad
valens antequam dissaisiatur de illâ quæ fuit peurelli et illud
(escambium erit) de terrâ que remanebit illi hereditabiliter Et preter
hoc do et concedo ei et heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis tenendum
feodum (et servicium) xx militum et infra servicium istorum xx militum
do ei feodum et servicium terre quam Hasculf[us] de tania[297] tenuit in
Angliâ die quâ fuit (vivus et) mortuus, quam tenet Graeleng[us][298] et
mater sua pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent et totum
superplus istorum xx militum[299] ei perficiam in (prenomina)tis[300]
tribus comitatibus. Et servicium istorum xx militum faciet mihi
separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui. Et preterea concedo
(illi ut)[300] castella sua que habet stent et ei remaneant (ad)
inforcia(nd[um])►"inforciand'" (A.);"inforciandum" (D.).◄[300] ad
voluntatem suam Et ut ille et omnes homines sui teneant terras (et
tenaturas)►"terras et tent'" (A.).◄ suas omnes de quocunque teneant
sicut tenuerunt die quâ ipse homo meus effectus est salvo servitio
dominorum Et ut ipse et homines sui (sint quieti) de omnibus debitis que
debuerunt regi Henrico aut regi Stephano et ut ipse et omnes homines sui
per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis fores(tariis et) assartis que
facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi►"Gaufridi" (D.); "Galfridi" (A.).◄
usque ad (diem quo) homo meus devenit Et ut a die illo in antea omnia
illa ess(arta sint amodo excultibilia et arrabilia sine forisfacto et ut
habeat mercatum die Jovis apud Bisseiam[301] et feriam similiter ibidem
quoque anno; et incipiat►"anno incipiat" (A.).◄ vigiliâ Sancti Jacobi et
duret tres dies. Et [preterea]►"preteria" (A.); "præterea" (D.).◄ do et
concedo ei et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate ad tenendum de me et
heredibus meis vicecomitatum Essex[ie]►"Essex" (A.); "de Essexâ" (D.).◄
reddendo inde rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus
pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, ita quod auferat de summâ
firmâ►"firmæ" (D.); "firma" (A.).◄ vice)comitatus quantum
pertinuerit[302] (ad) Meldonam et Niweport►"Newport" (A.).◄ que ei
(donavi►"donu'" (A.); "donavi" (D.).◄ et) quantum (pertinuerit[303] ad
tertium) denarium de placitis Vicecomitatus unde eum feci Comitem, et ut
teneat omnia excidamenta mea que mihi exciderint (in com)itatu Essexe
reddendo inde firmam rectam quamdiu erunt in Dominio►"Dominica" (D.).◄
meo Et ut sit capitalis Justicia in Essexâ►"Essexiâ" (A.).◄
hereditabiliter mea►"meo" (A.).◄ (et hered[um]) meorum de placitis et
forisfactis que pertinuerint ad Coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam
Justiciam super eum in Comitatu illo nisi[304] (ita sit quod ali)quando
mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod placita
mea juste tractentur Et ut ipse et omnes homines sui sint (quieti
versus) me et versus heredes meos de omni forisfacto et omni
malivolentiâ►"malevolentia" (A.).◄ preteritâ ante diem quo►"anno et die
quo" (A.); "ante diem" (D.).◄ meus homo devenit Et ei firmiter concedo
et (heredibus suis) quod bene et in pace et libere et sine placito
habeat et[305] teneat hereditabiliter, sicut hæc carta confirmat, omnia
tenementa sua (que ei concessi, in terris) et tenaturis►"tenaturis"
(D.); "tenem'tis" (A.).◄ et in feodis et firmis et Castellis et
libertatibus et in omnibus Conventionibus►"consuetudinibus" (A.).◄ inter
nos factis (sicut aliquis Comes) terre[306] mee melius et quietius et
liberius tenet ad modum Comitis in omnibus rebus ita quod ipse vel
aliquis hominum suorum non (ponantur[307] in ullo►"ponantur ullo" (D.).◄
modo) in placitum►"placitum" (D.); "placit'" (A.).◄ de aliquo forisfacto
quod fecissent antequam homo meus factus esset, nec pro aliquo
forisfacto quod facturus sit in (antea ponatur in) placit[um] de feodo
vel Castello vel terrâ vel tenurâ quam ei concesserim quamdiu se
defendere potuerit de scelere sive (traditione►"de traditione" (A.,
D.).◄) ad corpus meum pertinente per se aut per unum militem si quis
coram venerit qui eum appellare inde voluerit.

(T[estibus] H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Winton[ensi]) et A[lexandro] Ep[iscop]o
Lincoln[ensi] et R[oberto] Ep[iscop]o Heref[ordensi] et N[igello]
Ep[iscop]o Ely[ensi] (et B[ernardo] Ep[iscop]o de S[ancto] David et
W[illelmo] Cancellario et Com[ite] R[oberto] de Glocestr[iâ] et Com[ite]
B[aldewino[308]]) et Com[ite] W[illelmo] de Moion et B[riano] fil[io]
Com[itis] (et M[ilone] Glocestr[ie] et R[oberto] Arundell[309]] et
R[oberto] Malet[310] et Rad[ulfo] Lovell[311] et Rad[ulfo] Painell[312])
et W[alkelino] Maminot[313] et Rob[erto] fil[io] R[egis][314] et
Rob[erto] fil[io] Martin[315] (et Rob[ert]o fil[io] Heldebrand[i][316]
Apud Westmonaster[ium]).[317]

One cannot but be greatly struck by the names of the witnesses to this
charter. The legate and his four brother prelates, who had been with the
Empress in Winchester, at her reception on March 3, are here with her
again at Westminster. So are her three inseparable companions; but where
are the magnates of England? Two west-country earls, one of them of her
own making,[318] and a few west-country barons virtually complete the
list. I do not say that these were, of necessity, the sole constituents
of her court; but there is certainly the strongest possible presumption
that had she been joined in person by any number of bishops or nobles,
we should not have found so important a charter witnessed merely by the
members of the _entourage_ that she had brought up with her from the
west. We have, for instance, but to compare this list with that of the
witnesses to Stephen's charter six months later.[319] Or, indeed, we may
compare it, to some disadvantage, with that of the Empress herself a
month later at Oxford.[320] Where were the primate and the Bishop of
London? Where was the King of Scots? These questions are difficult to
answer. It may, however, be suggested that the general disgust at her
intolerable arrogance,[321] and her harshness to the king,[322] kept the
magnates from attending her court.[323] Her inability to repel the
queen's forces, and her instant flight before the Londoners, are alike
suggestive of the fact that her followers were comparatively few.

There are several points of constitutional importance upon which this
instructive charter sheds some welcome light.

In the first place we should compare it with Stephen's charter (p. 51),
to which, in Mr. Eyton's words, it forms the "counter-patent."[324] In
the former the words of creation are: "Sciatis me fecisse comitem de
Gaufredo," etc. In the charter of the Empress they run thus: "Sciatis
... quod ... do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla ... ut sit Comes,"
etc. This contrast is in itself conclusive as to the earldom having been
first _created_ by Stephen and then _recognized_ by the Empress. This
being so, it is the more strange that Mr. Eyton should have arrived at
the contrary conclusion, especially as he noticed the stronger form in
the charter creating the earldom of Hereford ("Sciatis me fecisse
Milonem de Glocestriâ Comitem"), a form corresponding with that in
Stephen's charter to Geoffrey. The earldom of Hereford being _created_
by the Empress, as that of Essex had been by Stephen, we find the same
formula duly employed by both. The distinction thus established is one
of considerable importance.

The special grant of the "tertius denarius" is a point of such extreme
interest in its bearing on earls and earldoms that it requires to be
separately discussed in a note devoted to the subject.[325]

But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage aspect of this
charter, let us see how it illustrates the ambitious policy pursued in
this struggle by the feudal nobles. Dr. Stubbs writes:—

 "It is possible that the frequent tergiversations which mark the
 struggle may have been caused by the desire of obtaining confirmation
 of the rank [of earl] from both the competitors for the crown."[326]

But it is my contention that Geoffrey and his fellows were playing a
deeper game. We find each successive change of side on the part of this
unscrupulous magnate marked by a distinct advance in his demands and in
the price he obtained. Broadly speaking, he was master of the situation,
and he put himself and his fortress up to auction. Thus he obtained from
the impassioned rivals a rapid advance at each bid. Compare, for
instance, this charter with that he had obtained from Stephen, or,
again, compare it with those which are to follow.

The very length of this charter, as compared with Stephen's, is
significant enough in itself. But its details are far more so. Stephen's
grant had not explicitly included the _tertius denarius_; the Empress
grants him the _tertius denarius_ "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu
suo."[327] But what may be termed the characteristic features are to be
found in such clauses as those dealing with the license to fortify, and
with the grants of lands.[328] These latter, indeed, teem with
information, not only for the local, but for the general historian, as
in the case of Theobald's forfeiture. But their special information is
rather in the light they throw on the nature of these grants, and on the
sources from which the Empress, like her rival, strove to gratify the
greed of these insatiable nobles.

Foremost among these were those "extravagant grants of Crown lands"
spoken of by Dr. Stubbs and by Gneist.[329] Now, in this charter, and in
those which follow, we are enabled to trace the actual working of this
fatal policy in practice. The Empress begins, in this charter, by
granting Geoffrey, for this is its effect, £100 a year in land ("C
libratas terræ"). Stephen, we shall find, a few months later, regains
him to his side by increasing the bid to £300 a year ("CCC libratas
terræ"). But how is the amount made up? It is charged on the Crown lands
in his own county of Essex. But observe, for this is an important point,
that it is not charged as a lump sum on the entire _corpus comitatus_
(or, to speak more exactly, on the annual _firma_ of that _corpus_), but
on certain specified estates. Here we have a welcome allusion to the
practice of the early Exchequer. The charter authorizes Geoffrey, as
sheriff, to deduct from the annual ferm of the county, for which he was
responsible at the Exchequer (being that recorded on the _Rotulus
exactorius_), that portion of it represented by the annual rents
(_redditus_) of Maldon and Newport, which, as estates of Crown demesne,
had till then been included in the _corpus_.[330] From the earliest
Pipe-Rolls now remaining we know that the estates so alienated were
usually entered by the sheriff under the head of "_Terræ Datæ_," with
the amount due from each, for which amounts, of course, he claimed
allowance in his account. I think we have here at least a suggestion
that even at the height of the anarchy and of the struggle, the
Exchequer, with all the details of its practice, was recognized as in
full existence. I have never been able to reconcile myself to the
accepted view, as set forth by Dr. Stubbs, of the "stoppage of the
administrative machinery"[331] under Stephen. He holds that on the
arrest of the bishops (June, 1139) "the whole administration of the
country ceased to work," and that Stephen was "never able to restore the
administrative machinery."[332] Crippled and disorganized though it
doubtless was, the Exchequer, I contend, must have preserved its
existence, because its existence was an absolute necessity. Without an
exchequer, the income of the Crown would, obviously, have instantly
disappeared. Moreover, the case of William of Ypres, and others to which
reference will be made below, will go far to establish the important
fact that the Exchequer system remained in force, and that accounts of
some kind must have been kept.

The next point to which I would call attention is the expression "pro
tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et
mortuus," which is applied to Maldon and Newport. The Pipe-Rolls, it
should be remembered, only took cognizance of the total ferm of the
shire. The constituents of that ferm were a matter for the sheriff. At
first sight, therefore, these expressions might seem to cause some
difficulty. Their explanation, however, is this. Just as I have shown in
_Domesday Studies_[333] that the ferm of a town, as in the case of
Huntingdon, was in truth the aggregate of several distinct and separate
ferms, so the ferm of a county must have comprised the separate and
distinct ferms of each of the royal estates. That ferm would be a
customary, that is, fixed, _redditus_ (or, as the charter expresses it,
"quantum inde reddi solebat"). A particularly striking case in point is
afforded by Hatfield Regis (_alias_ Hatfield Broadoak). When Stephen
increased the alienation of Crown demesne to Geoffrey, he granted him
Hatfield _inter alia_ "pro quater xx libris," that is, as representing
£80 a year. This same estate, after the fall of Geoffrey, was alienated
anew to Richard de Luci, and in the early Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. we
read, under "Terræ Datæ" in Essex, "Ricardo de Luci quater xx libræ
numero in Hadfeld." That is to say, in his annual account, the sheriff
claimed to be allowed £80 off the amount of his ferm, in respect of the
alienated estate. Now, the Domesday valuation of this manor is
fortunately very precise: "Tunc Manerium valuit xxxvi libras. Modo lx.
Sed vicecomes recipit inde lxxx libras et c solidos de gersuma" (ii. 2
b). The Domesday _redditus_ of the manor, therefore, had remained
absolutely unchanged. In such cases of alienation of demesne, it was,
obviously, the object of the grantee that the manor should be valued as
low as possible, while that of the sheriff was precisely the reverse. It
was on this account doubtless, to prevent dispute, that these charters
carefully named the sum at which the manor was to be valued, either in
figures, as in the case of Bonhunt,[334] or, as in that of Maldon and
Newport, in the formula "quantum inde reddi solebat" at the death of
Henry I., this formula probably implying that the earlier ferm had been
forced up in the days of the Lion of Justice.

The conclusion I would draw from the above argument is that the sheriff
was not at liberty to exact arbitrary sums from the demesne lands of the
Crown. A fixed annual render (_redditus_) was due to him from each,
though this, like the _firma_ of the sheriff himself, was liable to
revision from time to time.[335]

But it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of evidence
which forms a connecting link between Domesday and the period of the
Pipe-Rolls, especially if it throws some fresh light on the vexed
question of Domesday values. Moreover, we have here an obvious
suggestion as to the purpose of the Conqueror in ascertaining values, at
least so far as concerned the demesne lands of the Crown, for he was
thus enabled to check the sheriffs, by obtaining a basis for calculating
the amount of the _firma comitatus_. With this point we shall have to
deal when we come to Geoffrey's connection with the shrievalty of Essex
and Herts.

Attention may also be called to the formula of "excambion" (as the
Scottish lawyers term it) here employed, for it would seem to be earlier
than any of those quoted in Madox's _Formularium_. But the suggested
exchange is specially interesting in the case of Count Theobald, because
it gives us an historical fact not elsewhere mentioned, namely, that the
Empress, on obtaining the mastery, forfeited his lands at once. Her
doing so, we should observe, is in strict accordance with the
chroniclers' assertions as to her wholesale forfeitures and her special
hostility to Stephen's house. And we can go further still. We can
ascertain not only that Count Theobald was forfeited, as we have seen,
by the Empress, but also that the land she forfeited had been given him
by Stephen himself. In a document which I have previously referred to,
we read that Stephen had given him the "manor" of Maldon,[336] being
that manor of Crown demesne which the Empress here bestows upon
Geoffrey.

Another important though difficult subject upon which this charter bears
is that of knight-service. Indeed, considering its early date—a quarter
of a century earlier than the returns contained in the _Liber Niger_—it
may, in conjunction with Stephen's charter of some six months later, be
pronounced to be among our most valuable evidences for what Dr. Stubbs
describes as "a subject on which the greatest obscurity prevails."[337]

Let us first notice that the Empress grants "feodum et servicium XX
militum," while Stephen grants "LX milites feudatos ... scilicet
servicium" of so and so "pro [LX] militibus." Thus, then, the "milites
feudatos" of Stephen equates the "feodum et servicium ... militum" of
the Empress. And, further, it repeats the remarkable expression employed
by Florence of Worcester when he tells us that the Conqueror instructed
the Domesday Commissioners to ascertain "quot milites feudatos" his
tenants-in-chief possessed, that is to say, how many knights they had
enfeoffed. But the Empress in her charter complicates her grant by
adding the special clause: "Et servicium istorum XX militum faciet mihi
separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui." Had it not been
for this clause, one might have inferred that the object of the grant
was to transfer, to Earl Geoffrey the "servicium" of these twenty
knights' fees due, of right, to the Crown, so that he might enjoy all
such profits as the Crown would have derived from that "servicium," and,
at the same time, have employed these knights as substitutes for those
which he was bound to furnish, from his own fief, to the Crown. But the
above clause is fatal to such a view. Again, both in the charters of the
Empress and of her rival, these special grants of knights and their
"servicium" are kept entirely distinct from those of Crown demesne or
escheated land, which, moreover, are expressed in terms of the "librata
terræ." On the whole I lean strongly to the belief that, although the
working of the arrangement may be obscure, the object of Geoffrey was to
add to the number of the knights who followed his standard, and thus to
increase his power as a noble and the weight that he could throw into
the scale. And the special clause referred to above would imply that the
Crown was to have a claim on him for twenty knights more than those whom
he was bound to furnish from his own fief.

Lastly, we may note the identity of the formula employed for the grant
of lands and for that of knights' service. In each case the grant is
made "pro tanto,"[338] and in each case the Empress undertakes to make
good ("perficere") the balance to him within the limit of the three
counties of Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Herts.[339]

With the subject of castles I propose to deal later on. But there is one
point on which the evidence of this charter is perhaps more important
than on any other, and that is in the retrospective light which it
throws on the system of reform introduced by the first Henry.

Incidentally, we have here witness to that system, of which the
Pipe-Roll of 1130 is the solitary but vivid exponent, and under which
the very name of "plea" became a terror to all men. Every man was
liable, on the slightest pretext, to be brought within the meshes of the
law, with the object, as it seemed, and at least with the result, of
swelling the royal hoard (cf. pp. 11, 12, _n._ 1). Even to secure one's
simplest rights money had always to be paid. Thus, here, Geoffrey
stipulates that he and his men are to hold their possessions "sine
placito," and "ita quod ... non ponantur in ullo modo in placito de
aliquo forisfacto," etc., etc. So again, in his later charter, we find
him insisting that he and they shall hold all their possessions "sine
placito et sine pecuniæ donatione," and that "Rectum eis teneatur de
eorum calumpniis sine pecuniæ donatione." The exactions he dreaded meet
us at every turn on the Pipe-Roll of 1130.

But, on the other hand, the charter, broadly speaking, illustrates, by
the retrograde concessions it extorts, the cardinal factor in the long
struggle between the feudal nobles and their lord the king, namely,
their jealousy of that royal jurisdiction by which the Crown strove, and
eventually with success, to break their semi-independent power, and to
bring the whole realm into uniform subjection to the law.

After the clauses conferring on Geoffrey the _hereditary_ shrievalty of
Essex, a matter which I shall discuss further on, there immediately
follows this passage, the most significant, as I deem it, in the whole
charter:—

 "Et ut sit Capitalis Justicia in Essexiâ hereditabiliter mea et heredum
 meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coronam meam, ita
 quod non mittam aliam justiciam super eum in comitatu illo nisi ita sit
 quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod
 placita mea juste tractentur."

The first point to be dealt with here is the phrase "_Capitalis_
Justicia in Essexiâ." Here we have the term "capitalis" applied to the
_justicia_ of a single county. On this I would lay some stress, for it
has been generally supposed that this style was reserved for the Great
Justiciary, the _alter ego_ of the king himself.[340]

In his learned observations on the "obscurities" of the style
"_justitia_ or _justitiarius_," Dr. Stubbs writes that "the _capitalis
justitia_ seems to be the only one of the body to whom a determinate
position as the king's representative is assigned in formal documents"
(i. 389). It was probably the object of Geoffrey, when he secured this
particular style, to obtain for himself all the powers vested in "the
king's representative," and so to provide against his supersession by a
justiciar claiming in that capacity.

Let us now examine the witness of the charter to the differentiation of
the sheriff (_vicecomes_) and the justice (_justitia_), for that is the
development which its terms involve.

Dr. Stubbs points out that, under the Norman kings, "the authority of
the sheriff, when he was relieved from the company of the ealdorman, ...
would have no check except the direct control of the king" (i. 272); and
Gneist similarly observed that "After the withdrawal of the eorl, the
Anglo-Saxon shir-gerefa became the regular governor of the county, who
was henceforth no longer dependent upon the eorl, but upon the personal
orders of the king, and upon the organs of the Norman central
administration" (i. 140). And for a period of transition between the two
systems, the Anglo-Saxon and the late Norman, the sheriff not only
presided, in his court, as its sole lay head, but also in a dual
capacity. Dr. Stubbs, it is true, with his wonted caution, does but
suggest it as "probable that whilst the sheriff in his character of
sheriff was competent to direct the customary business of the court, it
was in that of _justitia_ that he transacted special business under the
king's writ."[341] But Gneist treats of him, under a separate heading,
in his capacity of "royal justiciary" (i. 142). It is from this dual
position that there developed, by specialization of function, two
distinct officers, the sheriff (_vicecomes_) and the justice
(_justicia_). This is the development which, as yet, has been somewhat
imperfectly apprehended.

The centralizing policy of Henry I., operating through the _Curia
Regis_, has, I need hardly observe, been admirably explained by Dr.
Stubbs. He has shown how two methods were employed to attain the end in
view: the one, to call up certain pleas from the local courts to the
_curia_; the other, to send down the officers of the _curia_ to sit in
the local courts.[342] In the latter case, the royal officer
("justicia") appeared as the representative of the central power of
which the _Curia Regis_ was the exponent. Thus, there were, again, for
the county court two lay presidents, but they were now the sheriff, as
local authority, and the justice, who represented the central. Such an
arrangement was, of course, a step in advance for the Crown, which had
thus secured for itself, through its justice, a footing in the local
courts.[343] But with this arrangement neither side was able to rest
satisfied. Broadly speaking, if I may be allowed the expression, the
Crown sought to centralize the sheriff, and to exclude the local
element; the feudatories would fain have localized the justice, and so
have excluded the central. Thus, before the close of Henry's reign, he
had actually employed on a large scale the officers of his _curia_ as
sheriffs of counties, and "by these means," as Dr. Stubbs observes, "the
king and justiciar kept in their hands the reins of the entire judicial
administration" (i. 392).[344] The same policy was faithfully followed
by his grandson, a generation later, on the occasion of the inquest of
sheriffs (1170), when, says Dr. Stubbs, "the sheriffs removed from their
offices were most of them local magnates, whose chances of oppression
and whose inclination towards a feudal administration of justice were
too great. In their place Henry instituted officers of the Exchequer,
less closely connected with the counties by property, and more amenable
to royal influence, as well as more skilled administrators—another step
towards the concentration of the provincial jurisdiction under the
_Curia Regis_."[345]

This passage enables us to see how essentially contrary to the policy of
the Crown were the provisions of Geoffrey's charter. It not only
feudalized the local shrievalty by placing it in the hands of a feudal
magnate, and, further still, making it hereditary, but it seized upon
the centralizing office of justice, and made it as purely local, nay, as
feudal as the other.

But let us return to the point from which we started, namely, the
witness of Geoffrey's charter to the differentiation of the sheriff and
the justice. It proves that the sheriff could no longer discharge the
functions of "a royal justiciary," without a separate appointment to
that distinct office. When we thus learn how Geoffrey became both
sheriff and justice of Essex, we can approach in the light of that
appointment the writ addressed "Ricardo de Luci Justic' et Vicecomiti de
Essexa," on which Madox relies for Richard's tenure of the post of chief
justiciary.[346] It may be that Richard's appointment corresponded with
that of Geoffrey. But whatever uncertainty there may be on this point,
there can be none on the parallel between Geoffrey's charter and that
which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London. Indeed, in all
municipal charters of the fullest and best type, we find the functions
of the sheriff and the justice dealt with in the same successive order.
The striking thought to be drawn from this is that the feudatories and
the towns, though their interests were opposed _inter se_, presented to
the Crown the same attitude and sought from it the same exemptions. In
proof of this I here adduce three typical charters, arranged in
chronological order. The first is an extract from that important charter
which London obtained from Henry I., the second is taken from Geoffrey's
charter, and the third from that of Richard I. to Colchester, which I
quote because it contains the same word "justicia," and also because it
is, probably, little, if at all, known.

 CHARTER OF HENRY I. TO LONDON.

 "Ipsi cives ponent _vicecomitem_ qualem voluerint de se ipsis, _et
 justitiarium_ qualem voluerint de se ipsis ad custodiendum placita
 coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit Justitiarius super
 ipsos homines Londoniarum."

 CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO GEOFFREY.

 "Concedo ei et heredibus suis ... _vicecomitatum_ Essexie. Et ut sit
 Capitalis _Justicia_ ... de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad
 coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam Justiciam super eum in comitatu
 illo," etc.

 CHARTER OF RICHARD I. TO COLCHESTER.

 "Ipsi ponant de se ipsis _Ballivos_ quoscunque voluerint et _Justiciam_
 ad servanda placita Coronæ nostræ et ad placitanda eadem placita infra
 Burgum suum et quod nullus alius sit inde Justicia nisi quem
 elegerint."

Here we have the two offices similarly distinct throughout. We have also
the _ballivi_, representing to the town what the _vicecomes_ represents
to the shire, a point which it is necessary to bear in mind. The
"bailiff," so far as the town was concerned, stood in the sheriff's
shoes. So also did the "coroner" (or "coroners") in those of the
justice. Indeed, at Colchester, two "coroners" represented the "justice"
of the charter. I cannot find that Dr. Stubbs calls attention to the
fact of this twin privilege, the fact that exemption from the sheriff
and from the justice went, in these charters, hand in hand.

Lastly, we should observe that though, in these charters, the clause
relating to the sheriff precedes that which relates to the justice, yet,
conversely, in the enumeration of those to whom a charter is directed,
"justices" are invariably, I believe, given the precedence of
"sheriffs." This, which would seem to have passed unnoticed, may have an
important bearing. Ordericus, in a famous passage (xi. 2) describing
Henry's ministers, tells us how the king

 "favorabiliter illi obsequentes de ignobili stirpe illustravit, de
 pulvere, ut ita dicam, extulit, dataque multiplici facultate _super_
 consules et illustres oppidanos exaltavit.... Illos ... rex, cum de
 infimo genere essent, nobilitavit, regali auctoritate de imo erexit, in
 fastigio potestatum constituit, ipsis etiam spectabilibus regni
 principibus formidabiles effecit."

Observe how vivid a light such a passage as this throws upon the clause
in Geoffrey's charter:—

 "Non mittam aliam Justiciam _super_ eum in Comitatu illo, nisi ita sit
 quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod
 placita mea juste tractentur."

The whole clause breathes the very spirit of feudalism. It betrays the
hatred of Geoffrey and his class for those upstarts, as they deemed
them, the royal justices, who, clad in all the authority of the Crown,
intruded themselves into their local courts and checked them in the
exercise of their power. Henceforth, in the courts of the favoured earl,
the representative of the Crown was to make his appearance not
regularly, but only now and then ("aliquando"); moreover, when he came,
he was to figure in court not as the superior ("super eum"), but as the
colleague ("cum illo") of the earl; and, lastly, he was not to belong to
the upstart ministerial class: he was to be one of his own class—of his
"peers" ("de paribus suis").

As an illustrative parallel to this clause, I am tempted to quote a
remarkable charter, unnoticed, it would seem, not only by our
historians, but even by Mr. Eyton himself. The Assize of Clarendon, a
quarter of a century (1166) after the date of our charter to Geoffrey,
contained clauses specially aimed against such exemption as he sought.
Referring to these clauses, Dr. Stubbs writes:—

 "No franchise is to exclude the justices.... In the article which
 directs the admission of the justices into every franchise may be
 detected one sign of the anti-feudal policy which the king had all his
 life to maintain."[347]

But the clauses in question, though their sweeping character fully
justifies this description,[348] contrast strangely with the humble,
almost apologetic, charter in which Henry II., immediately afterwards,
announces that he is only sending his "justicia" into the patrimony of
St. Cuthbert "by permission" of the bishop, and as a quite exceptional
measure, not to be taken again. It throws, perhaps, some new light on
the character and methods of the king, when we find him thus stooping,
in form, to gain his point in fact.

"Henricus Rex Angl' et Dux Normann' et Aquitan' et Comes Andegav',
justiciariis Vicecomitibus et omnibus ministris suis de Eborac'sir et de
Nordhummerlanda salutem. Sciatis quod consilio Baronum meorum,[349] et
Episcopi Dunelmensis licencia, mitto hac vice in terram sancti Cuthberti
justiciam meam, quæ[350] videat ut fiat justicia secundum assisam meam
de latronibus et murdratoribus et roboratoribus;[351] non quia velim ut
trahatur in consuetudinem tempore meo vel heredum meorum, sed ad tempus
hoc facio, pro prædicta necessitate; quia volo quod terra beati
Cuthberti suas habeat libertates et antiquas consuetudines, sicut unquam
melius habuit. T. Gavfrido Archiepiscopo [_sic_] Cant. Ric. Arch.
Pictav. Comite Gaufrido, Ricardo de Luci. Apud Wodestoc."[352]

The first charter of the Empress has now been sufficiently discussed. It
was, of course, his possession of the Tower that enabled Geoffrey to
extort such terms, the command of that fortress being essential to the
Empress, to overawe the disaffected citizens.

[248] "Itaque multæ fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse,
ut, cum hæc statim post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis
ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent" (p.
748).

[249] "Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus Maii
Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris, _Chron. Major._, ii.
174).

[250] _Ibid._

[251] _The Early History of Oxford_, cap. x.

[252] "Ad Radingum infra Rogationes veniens, suscipitur cum honoribus,
hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperium convolantibus"
(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 130).

[253] _Add. Chart._ (Brit. Mus.), 19,576; _Arch. Journ._, xx. 289;
_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389.

[254] "Reginaldo _comite_ filio regis." He had attested, as we have
seen, an Oxford charter (_circ._ March 24) as Reginald "filius regis"
simply. This would seem to fix his creation to _circ._ April, 1141 (see
p. 68).

[255] "Roberto fratre ejus."

[256] We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on
this very point. There is printed in the _Cartulary of Ramsey_ (Rolls
Series), vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to
William, Prior of Ely, and others, notifying the agreement he has made
with Walter, Abbot of Ramsey:—"Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de
Rameseia consilio et assensu dominæ nostræ Imperatricis et Episcopi
Wynton' Apost' sedis legati aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet
Linc', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti
Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis et Brienni et Milonis ad
voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter mando et præcipio sicut me
diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed cartulary, is dated
"1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a little research
would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period in which the
Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with her. This
fixes it to March-June, 1141. Independent of the great interest
attaching to this document as representing a "concordia" in the court of
the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of
the _personnel_ of her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops
mentioned were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her
court, and we may therefore, on the strength of this document, add those
of "Chester" and Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So
with the laity. Three of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not
yet received the earldom of Hereford) were her constant companions, so
that we may safely rely on this evidence for the presence at her court
on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk.

[257] _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid,
Bishop of Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had
been Abbot of Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted.

[258] See above, p. 66.

[259] "Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in
monasterio Sancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo"
(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 131).

[260] "Apud sanctum Albanum" (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No.
16; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388).

[261] "Adeunt eam ibi cives multi ex Londoniâ, tractatur ibi sermo
multimodus de reddenda civitate" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 131).

[262] "Imperatrix, ut prædiximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus,
comitantibus secum præsulibus multis et principibus, secura properavit
ad urbem, et apud Westmonasterium cum processionali suscipitur
honorificentiâ." (_ibid._).

[263] _i.e._ Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for this custom, the
_Chronicles of the Mayors of London_, which record how, a century later
(1257), upon the king approaching Westminster, "exierunt Maior et cives,
_sicut mos est_ ad salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge" (p. 31). The
Continuator (p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens
("cum honore susceperunt").

[264] "Videns itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis
suæ promotionem, post Ascensionem Domini ad eam in Suthangliam profectus
est: ... Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi
acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium"
(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election,
I have taken this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p.
80). Cf. p. 5, _n._ 5.

[265] "Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus."

[266] "Cives ... Imperatricem ... favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo
[_al._ Sexto] Kal. Maii."

[267] See the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_: "Tandem a Londonensibus
expulsa est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet.

[268] "Ibique aliquantis diebus ... resedit" (p. 131).

[269] "[Legatus] rem exanimans, præscriptam factionem invenit,
fautoribusque ipsius dignâ animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in
Episcopum nisi canonicâ electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo
interdixit omnem ecclesiasticam communionem, si Episcopatum susciperet
nisi Canonice promotus. Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistæ. Pactus
erat Willelmus ab Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere; et data hæc
ei essent, nisi, facta a Londoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis
discederet _ipso die_ a Londonia Imperatrix."—Continuatio Historiæ
Turgoti (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 711). This passage further proves (though,
indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) that the legate remained in
London till the actual flight of the Empress. It also illustrates their
discordance.

[270] "Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa hæc
erat: Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consultam esse, et
nominatim de illo quem Robertus Archidiaconus nominaret, et quod de illo
vellet, et de alio omnino nollet. Quæsitum est ergo quis hic esset.
Responsum est quod Willelmus" (_ibid._). This has, of course, an
important bearing on the question of episcopal election. Strong though
the terms of her letter appear to have been, the Empress here waives the
right, on which her father and her son insisted, of having the election
conducted in her presence and in her own chapel, and anticipated the
later practice introduced by the charter of John.

[271] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 97. So too fol. 115: "After June 24,
1141, when the Empress was received in London; before July 25, when Milo
was created Earl of Hereford."

[272] Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto
(_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 387). It is possible that the charter to
Christ Church, London (_ibid._, p. 388), may also belong to this
occasion; but, even if so, it is of no importance.

[273] A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G.

[274] _Journ. B. A. A._, pp. 384-386.

[275] The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are
supplied from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets.

[276] Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted
altogether, and Ralph _Lovell_ becomes Ralph _de London_. Dugdale has,
of course, misled Mr. Birch.

[277] Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known
edition of the _Britannia_ (1772), vol. i. p. 125.

[278] Second edition, p. 647.

[279] Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829).

[280] Page 164.

[281] "Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo
Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum
hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium
Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo"
(Camden).

[282] Mr. Birch reads "tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words.

[283] Mr. Birch for "eandem terram" (_rectius_ "turrem") conjectures
"illam".

[284] Mr. Birch conjectures "Preterea."

[285] Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of
the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden.

[286] There was still a toll bridge there in the last century. For table
of tolls and exemptions, see Morant's _Essex_.

[287] Apparently, the high road on the left bank, and the way on the
right bank, of the Cam.

[288] Neither this market nor this fair are, it would seem, to be traced
afterwards.

[289] Mr. Birch conjectures "vigiliam."

[290] This was presumably a grant of the borough of Maldon (_i.e._ the
royal rights in that borough), though Peverel's fee in Maldon was an
escheat at the time. The proof of this is not only that it is here
described as a "borough" (_burgus_), but also that its annual value was
to be deducted from the sheriff's ferm, which could only be the case if
it formed part of the _corpus comitatus_, _i.e._ was Crown demesne. In
Domesday, Peverel's fee in Maldon was valued at £12, and the royal manor
at £16 ("ad pondus"), though it had been £24. It was probably the latter
which Henry II. granted to his brother William as representing ("pro")
£22 ("numero") (see Pipe-Rolls).

[291] Depden, three miles south of Walden. It had formed part, at the
Survey, of the fief of Randulf Peverel.

[292] Catlidge, according to Morant.

[293] Mr. Birch conjectures "tenentibus ibidem pro."

[294] Bonhunt, now part of Wickham Bonhunt, adjoining Newport. It had
been held by Saisselinus at the Survey. In 1485 it was held of the
honour of Lancaster.

[295] Mr. Birch conjectures "ipse habuit."

[296] This, apparently, refers to Depden, as forming part of Peverel's
fief, which had been an escheat, in the king's hands, as early as 1130
(_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.).

[297] Hasculf de Tany was ancestor of the Essex family of Tany, of
Stapleford-Tany, Theydon Bois, Elmstead, Great Stambridge, Latton, etc.
He appears repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (pp. 53, 56, 58,
60, 99, 152), when he was in litigation with William de Bovill and
Rhiwallon d'Avranches.

[298] "Graelengus" is proved to be identical with "Graelandus de
Thania," the Essex tenant-in-capite of 1166, by Stephen's second charter
(Christmas, 1141), which gives his holding as 7½ fees, the very amount
at which he returns it in his _Carta_ (see p. 142). But his
contemporary, Graeland "fitz Gilbert" de Tany, on the Pipe-Rolls of
Henry II., was probably so styled for distinction, being a son of
Gilbert de Tany who figures on the Essex Pipe-Roll of 1158.

[299] Compare the phrase "superplus militum" in _Rot. Pip._ 31 H. I. (p.
47).

[300] "Predictis;" "ei quod omnia;" "et sint inforciata" (Mr. Birch).

[301] Bushey in Hertfordshire. Part of Mandeville's Domesday fief.

[302] Mr. Birch reads "pertinuerunt."

[303] "Pertinuit"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.

[304] "Quod aliquando"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.

[305] Mr. Birch reads "placito hac teneat."

[306] Mr. Birch reads "tre mee."

[307] Mr. Birch conjectures "ponantur in (placitum)."

[308] Mr. Birch conjectures "Baldewino Comite Devonie."

[309] On Robert Arundell, see Yeatman's _History of the House of
Arundel_, p. 49 (where too early a date is suggested for this charter),
and p. 105 (where it is implied that he was a tenant of the Earl of
Gloucester). He occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and
again in the Westminster charters (1136) of Stephen. (See Appendix C.)

[310] Robert Malet also was a west-country baron. He figures in
connection with Warminster in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is among
the witnesses to the Westminster charters (1136), being there styled
"Dapifer" (see Appendix C.). The _carta_ of the Abbot of Glastonbury
(1166) proves that he was the predecessor of William Malet, _dapifer_ to
Henry II.

[311] Another west-country baron. He was one of the rebels of 1138, when
he held Castle Carey against the king (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 261; _Ord.
Vit._, v. 310; _Gesta_, p. 43). According to Mr. Yeatman, he was son of
"William Gouel de Percival, called Lovel," Lord of Ivry (_History of the
House of Arundel_, p. 136). He is however wrongly termed by him "Robert
(_sic_) Lovel" on p. 268. He witnessed an early charter of the Empress
to Glastonbury (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 390).

[312] Ralph Paynell had instigated the Earl of Gloucester's raid on
Nottingham the previous September (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 128), and was one
of the rebels in 1138, when he held Dudley against the king (_ibid._,
110). He was presumably identical with the "Rad[ulfus] Paen[ellus]" of
1130 (_Rot. Pip_, 31 Hen. I.). He witnessed the charter to Roger de
Valoines (see p. 286), and three other charters of the Empress (_Journ.
B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 395, 398), including the creation of the earldom
of Hereford (25 July, 1141).

[313] Walchelin Maminot had been among the witnesses to the above
Westminster charters of (Easter) 1136, but had held Dover against the
king in 1138 (_Ord. Vit._, v. 310). when Ordericus (v. 111, 112) speaks
of him as a son-in-law of Robert de Ferrers (Earl of Derby). He
witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and five other
charters of the Empress (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 388, 391, 394 _bis_,
398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July 1141),
and he appears in the Pipe-Rolls and other records under Henry II. from
1155 to 1170.

[314] Robert, natural son of Henry I. by Edith (afterwards married to
Robert d'Oilli of Oxford), and uterine brother, as Mr. Eyton observes
(_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 115), "to Henry d'Oilli of Hook-Norton." He
appears in connection with Devonshire in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I.,
and is probably identical with Robert "brother" of Earl Reginald of
Cornwall (_vide ante_, p. 82). He is mentioned as present (as "Robert
fitz Edith") at the siege of Winchester, a few weeks later (_Sym. Dun._,
ii. 310), and he was among the witnesses to the Empress's charters
(Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford and of Essex, and to her charter
(Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger (_vide post_). He
subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) to Henry de Oxenford
(_Cart. Ant._ D., No. 42). See also _Liber Niger_. Working from
misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert "filius
Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert
fitz Reg_inald_ (de Dunstanville) (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 271).

[315] Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in
connection with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (_Addl. MSS._, 31,943,
fol. 90) affiliate him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established
himself in Wales. He witnessed two other charters of the Empress
(_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 395), both of them at Oxford. A son of
his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held five knights' fees of
Glastonbury Abbey in 1166.

[316] Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to
Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (_vide post_). See for his
adultery, treason, and shocking death (? 1143), _Gesta Stephani_, pp.
95, 96, where he is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari
virtute approbatum." He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed
summæ semper malitiæ machinator" (_ibid._, p. 93). He is affiliated by
the editors of Ordericus (Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert
fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn
that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a
brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of
Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166.

[317] As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give
both versions:—

 DUGDALE MS.

 "Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil.
 Martin et Rob' fil Heldebrand' apud Westmonasterium."

 ASHMOLE MS.

 "Rad lovell et Rad Painell et W. Maminot et Roberto filio R. et Roberto
 filio Martin Roberto filio _Haidebrandi apud Oxford_."

 The three last words are added in a different hand, and "Oxford"
 appears to have been substituted for "Westmr" by yet another hand.

[318] William de Moiun (Mohun) had attested _eo nomine_ the charter to
Glastonbury (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389; _Adam de Domerham_) which
probably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at
Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "_Comite_
Willelmo de Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141.
Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his
foundation charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes
Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under "dates and
authorities for the empress's earldoms") no date and no further
authority (_Const. Hist._, i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and
valuable monograph on _Dunster and its Lords_ (1882), quotes the _Gesta
Stephani_ for the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the
empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" (p.
6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in 1140,
and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem comitem
ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the
creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same
siege (cf. pp. 125, _n._, 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking
care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September,
1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns
his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on
this point, p. 277 _infra_.

[319] See p. 143.

[320] The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester.

[321] "Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere
corda a se alienavit" (_Hen. Hunt._, 275).

[322] "Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto
et custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem
causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit
eos" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132).

[323] All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter
passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and
his statement to that effect in his _Baronage_. There is nothing in the
charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this
statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but,
unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from gives _Oxford_ as the
place of testing. But, then, the word (_vide supra_) appears to have
been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion
with the Empress's _second_ charter to Geoffrey, which did pass at
Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why this charter may not have
passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, perhaps, the
more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that
Westminster was the place.

[324] See p. 42.

[325] See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius."

[326] _Const. Hist._, i. 362.

[327] This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see
pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H.

[328] Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo
quæcunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur."

[329] See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in
vol. xiii. of the _Antiquary_. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive
alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in
order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms."

[330] "Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad
Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi."

[331] _Select Charters._

[332] _Const. Hist._, i. 326, 327.

[333] _Domesday Studies_, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887.

[334] It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can
compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl
solidis." In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv"
(ii. 93).

[335] See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in the
_Chronicle of Ramsey_ (p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de
Rameseia ut ad firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde
quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne
vicecomes plus ab eo requirat."

[336] "Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."—
Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox's _Baronia_, p. 232, note).

[337] _Const. Hist._, i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of
Knight Service into England" in _English Historical Review_, July and
October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439).

[338] The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and
the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum
de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½
knights' service (as also in the _Liber Niger_).

[339] "Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in
loco competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ
... et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis
tribus comitatibus."

[340] Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct
traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the
Curia Regis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing
other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally
distinguished by the title of 'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'"
(_Const. Hist._, i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the
Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several other ministers
receive the same name [_justitiarius_] even during the time at which he
was actually in office; even the title of _capitalis justitiarius_ is
given to officers of the _Curia Regis_ who were acting in subordination
to him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the
whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the
style "capitalis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the
reign of Henry II. (i. 350).

[341] _Const. Hist._, i. 389, _note_.

[342] See Appendix I.

[343] I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is
infused into this portion of the legal administration by the severance
of the farm-interest (_firma_) from the judicial functions, which was
effected by the appointment of royal _justitiarii_ in the place of the
_vicecomes_. The reservation of the royal right of interference now
develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i.
180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of
the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of
expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to
pleas "in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the
higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great
Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I
think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis pacem
regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero
pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et
tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat. _Has iii
forisfacturas_ habebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas"
(i. 152).

[344] See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes."

[345] _Select Charters_, 141.

[346] Foss's _Judges_, i. 145.

[347] _Const. Hist._, i. 470.

[348] "Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in
honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [_sic_] intrare in
terram suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs,
but _à fortiori_ it would apply to the king's "justicia."

[349] The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio
omnium baronum suorum."

[350] Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the
"aliquis ... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter.

[351] These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout
with "robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones."

[352] This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to
1163-1166. It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon,
which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have
been granted immediately after it, before the king left England in
March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who
were entrusted with the execution of the Assize, and that "Earl
Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor
of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself.



 CHAPTER V.
 THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN.


It was at the very hour when the Empress seemed to have attained the
height of her triumph that her hopes were dashed to the ground.[353] The
disaster, as is well known, was due to her own behaviour. As Dr. Stubbs
has well observed, "She, too, was on the crest of the wave and had her
little day ... she had not learned wisdom or conciliation, and threw
away opportunities as recklessly as her rival."[354] Indeed, even
William of Malmesbury hints that the fault was hers.[355]

The Queen, having pleaded in vain for her husband, resolved to appeal to
arms. Advancing on Southwark at the head of the forces which she had
raised from Kent, and probably from Boulogne, she ravaged the lands of
the citizens with fire and sword before their eyes.[356] The citizens,
who had received the Empress but grudgingly, and were already alarmed by
her haughty conduct, were now reduced to desperation. They decided on
rising against their new mistress, and joining the Queen in her struggle
for the restoration of the king.[357] There is a stirring picture in the
_Gesta_ of the sudden sounding of the _tocsin_, and of the citizens
pouring forth from the gates amidst the clanging of the bells. The
Empress was taken so completely by surprise that she seems to have been
at table at the time, and she and her followers, mounting in haste, had
scarcely galloped clear of the suburbs when the mob streamed into her
quarters and rifled them of all that they contained. So great, we are
told, was the panic of the fugitives that they scattered in all
directions, regardless of the Empress and her fate. Although the _Gesta_
is a hostile source, the evidence of its author is here confirmed by
that of the Continuator of Florence.[358] William of Malmesbury,
however, writing as a partisan, will not allow that the Empress and her
brother were thus ignominiously expelled, but asserts that they withdrew
in military array.[359]

The Empress herself fled to Oxford, and, afraid to remain even there,
pushed on to Gloucester. The king, it is true, was still her prisoner,
but her followers were almost all dispersed; and the legate, who had
secured her triumph, was alienated already from her cause. Expelled from
the capital, and resisted in arms by no small portion of the kingdom,
her _prestige_ had received a fatal blow, and the moment for her
coronation had passed away, never to return.[360]

Here we may pause to glance for a moment at a charter of singular
interest for its mention of the citizens of London and their faithful
devotion to the king.

 "Hugo dei gratia Rothomagensis archiepiscopus senatoribus inclitis
 civibus honoratis et omnibus commune London concordie gratiam, salutem
 eternam. Deo et vobis agimus gratias pro vestra fidelitate stabili et
 certa domino nostro regi Stephano jugiter impensa. Inde per regiones
 notæ vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas."[361]

It is tempting to see in this charter—unknown, it would seem, to the
historians of London—a mention of the famous "communa," the "tumor
plebis, timor regni," of 1191. But the term, here, is more probably
employed, as in the "communa liberorum hominum" of the Assize of Arms
(1181), and the "communa totius terre" of the Great Charter (1215). At
the same time, there are two expressions which occur at this very epoch,
and which might support the former view. One is _conjuratio_, which, as
we have seen, the Continuator applies to the action of the Londoners in
1141,[362] and which Richard of Devizes similarly applies to the commune
of 1191.[363] The other is _communio_, which William of Malmesbury
applies to their government in the previous April, and which the keen
eye of Dr. Stubbs noted as "a description of municipal unity which
suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of
civil organization."[364] But he failed, it would seem, to observe the
passage which follows, and which speaks of "omnes barones, qui in eorum
communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant." For in this allusion we recognize
a distinctive practice of the "sworn commune," from that of Le Mans
(1073),[365] to that of London (1191), "in quam universi regni magnates
et ipsi etiam ipsius provinciæ episcopi jurare coguntur."[366]

Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville? A tale is told of him by
Dugdale, and accepted without question by Mr. Clark,[367] which, so far
as I can find, must be traced to the following passage in Trivet:—

 "Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], _obsessâ
 turri_, fugatur imperatrix de Londoniâ. Turrim autem Galfridus de
 Magnavillâ potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis
 episcopum, partis adversæ fautorem, cepit apud manerium de Fulham."[368]

It is quite certain that this tale is untrustworthy as it stands. We
have seen above that Trivet's date for the arrival of the Empress at
London is similarly, beyond doubt, erroneous.[369] That the citizens,
when they suddenly rose against the Empress, may also have blockaded
Geoffrey in his tower, not only as her ally, but as their own natural
enemy, is possible, nay, even probable. But that he ventured forth,
through their ranks, to Fulham, when thus blockaded, is improbable, and
that he captured the bishop as an enemy of the Empress is impossible,
for the Empress herself had just installed him,[370] and we find him at
her court a month later.[371] At the same time Trivet, we must assume,
cannot have invented all this. His story must preserve a confused
version of the facts as told in some chronicle now lost, or, at least,
unknown.[372] On this assumption it may, perhaps, be suggested that
Geoffrey was indeed blockaded in the Tower, but that when he accepted
the Queen's offers, and thus made, as we shall see, common cause with
the citizens, he signalized his defection from the cause of the Empress
by seizing her adherent the bishop,[373] and holding him a prisoner
till, as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so became free
to join the Empress at Oxford.[374]

And now let us come to the subject of this chapter, the lost charter of
the Queen.

That this charter was granted is an historical fact hitherto absolutely
unknown. No chronicler mentions the fact, nor is there a trace of any
such document, or even of a transcript of its contents. And yet the
existence of this charter, like that of the planet Neptune, can be
established, in the words of Sir John Herschel, "with a certainty hardly
inferior to ocular demonstration." The discovery, indeed, of that planet
was effected (_magnis componere parva_) by strangely similar means. For
as the perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of Neptune, so
the "perturbations" of Geoffrey de Mandeville point to the existence of
this charter.

We know that the departure of the Empress was followed by the arrival of
the Queen, with the result that Geoffrey was again in a position to
demand his own terms. Had he continued to hold the Tower in the name of
the Empress, he would have made it a thorn in the side of the citizens
now that they had declared for her rival. We hear, moreover, at this
crisis, of offers by the Queen to all those whom bribes or concessions
could allure to her side.[375] We have, therefore, the strongest
presumption that Geoffrey would be among the first to whom offers were
made. But it is not on presumption that we depend. Stephen, we shall
find, six months later, refers distinctly to this lost charter ("Carta
Reginæ"),[376] and the Empress in turn, in the following year, refers to
the charters of the king _and of the queen_ ("quas Rex Stephanus
_et Matildis regina_ ei dederunt ... sicut habet inde cartas
ill_orum_").[377] Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it
passed about this time may be inferred, not only from the circumstances
of the case, but also from the most significant fact that, a few weeks
later, at the siege of Winchester, we find Geoffrey supporting the Queen
in active concert with the citizens.[378]

What were the terms of the charter by which he was thus regained to his
allegiance we cannot now tell. To judge, however, from that of Stephen,
which was mainly a confirmation of its terms, it probably represented a
distinct advance on the concessions he had wrung from the Empress.

It is an interesting fact, and one which probably is known to few, if
any, that there is still preserved in the Public Record Office a
solitary charter of the Queen, granted, I cannot but think, at this very
crisis. As it is not long, I shall here quote it as a unique and
instructive record.

 "M. Regina Angl[ie] Omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis salutem.
 Sciatis quod dedi Gervasio Justiciario de Lond[oniâ] x marcatas terræ
 in villâ de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo ... donec ei persolvam debitum
 quod ei debeo, ut infra illum terminum habeat proficua que exibunt de
 villa predictâ ... testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[iâ]
 et Sim[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] de Lisor[iis]. apud
 Lond[oniam].[379]

The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of Northampton), is known to
have been one of the three earls who adhered to the Queen during the
king's captivity.[380] Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her
_nepos_, "Pharamus" of Boulogne, who is also known to have been with
her.[381] Combining the fact of the charter being the Queen's with that
of its subject-matter and that of its place of testing, we obtain the
strongest possible presumption that it passed at this crisis, a
presumption confirmed, as we have seen, by the name of the leading
witness. The endeavour to fix the date of this charter is well worth the
making. For it is not merely of interest as a record unique of its kind.
If it is, indeed, of the date suggested, it is, to all appearance, the
sole survivor of all those charters, such as that to Geoffrey, by which
the Queen, in her hour of need, must have purchased support for the
royal cause. We see her, like the queen of Henry III., like the queen of
Charles I., straining every nerve to succour her husband, and to raise
men and means. And as Henrietta Maria pledged her jewels as security for
the loans she raised, so Matilda is here shown as pledging a portion of
her ancestral "honour" to raise the sinews of war.[382]

But this charter, if the date I have assigned to it be right, does more
for us than this. It gives us, for an instant, a precious glimpse of
that of which we know so little, and would fain know so much—I mean the
government of London. We learn from it that London had then a
"justiciary," and further that his name was Gervase. Nor is even this
all. The Gamlingay entry in the _Testa de Nevill_ and _Liber Niger_
enables us to advance a step further and to establish the identity of
this Gervase with no other than Gervase of Cornhill.[383] The importance
of this identification will be shown in a special appendix.[384]

Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was her husband's
brother, the legate.[385] He had headed, as we have seen, the witnesses
to Geoffrey's charter, but he was deeply injured at the failure of his
appeal, on behalf of his family, to the Empress, and was even thought to
have secretly encouraged the rising of the citizens of London.[386] He
now kept aloof from the court of the Empress, and, having held an
interview with the Queen at Guildford, resolved to devote himself, heart
and soul, to setting his brother free.[387]

[353] "Ecce, dum ipsa putaretur omni Anglia statim posse potiri, mutata
omnia" (_Will. Malms._, p. 749).

[354] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 22; _Const. Hist._, i. 330.

[355] "Satisque constat quod si ejus (_i.e._ comitis) moderationi et
sapientiæ a suis esset creditum, non tam sinistrum postea sensissent
aleæ casum" (p. 749).

[356] "Regina quod prece non valuit, armis impetrare confidens,
splendidissimum militantium decus ante Londonias, ex alterâ fluvii
regione, transmisit, utque raptu, et incendio, violentiâ, et gladio, in
comitissæ suorumque prospectu, ardentissime circa civitatem desævirent
præcepit" (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 78). These expressions appear to imply
that she not only wasted the southern bank, but sent over (_transmisit_)
her troops to plunder round the walls of the city itself (_circa
civitatem_). Mr. Pearson strangely assigns this action not to the Queen,
but to the Empress: "Matilda brought up troops, and cut off the trade of
the citizens, and wasted their lands, to punish their disaffection" (p.
478).

[357] The _Annals of Plympton_ (ed. Liebermann, p. 20) imply that the
city was divided on the subject:—"In mense Junio facta est sedicio in
civitate Londoniensi a civibus; sed tamen pars sanior vices imperatricis
agebat, pars vero quedam eam obpugnabat."

[358] "Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt, cum
dedecore apprehendere statuerunt. At illa a quodam civium præmunita,
ignominiosam cum suis fugam arripuit omni sua suorumque supellectili
post tergum relicta."

[359] "Sensim sine tumultu quadam militari disciplina urbe cesserunt."
This is clearly intended to rebut the story of their hurried flight (see
also p. 132, _infra_).

[360] See Appendix J: "The Great Seal of the Empress."

[361] _Harl. MS._ 1708, fo. 113.

[362] "Conjuratione facta."

[363] "In indulta sibi conjuratione ... quanta quippe mala ex
conjuratione proveniunt" (ed. Howlett, p. 416).

[364] _Const. Hist._, i. 407.

[365] "Facta conspiratione quam _communionem_ vocabant sese omnes
pariter sacramentis adstringunt, et ... ejusdem regionis proceres
quamvis invitos, sacramentis suæ conspirationis obligari compellunt."

[366] _Richard of Devizes_ (ed. Howlett, p. 416).

[367] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 254.

[368] Trivet's _Annals_ (Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 13).

[369] See p. 84.

[370] "Primo quidem [apud Westmonasterium] quod decuit, sanctæ Dei
Ecclesiæ, juxta bonorum consilium, consulere procuravit. Dedit itaque
Lundoniensis ecclesiæ præsulatum cuidam Radingensi monacho viro
venerabili præsente et jubente reverendo abbate suo Edwardo" (_Cont.
Flor. Wig._, 131).

[371] See p. 123.

[372] We have, indeed, a glimpse of this incident in the _Liber de
Antiquis Legibus_ (fol. 35), where we read: "Anno predicto, statim in
illa estate, _obsessa est Turris Londoniarum a Londoniensibus_, quam
Willielmus (_sic_) de Magnavilla tenebat et firmaverat."

[373] The city, it must be remembered, lay between him and Fulham, so
that, obviously, he is more likely to have made this raid when the city
was no longer in arms against him.

[374] We have a hint that the bishop was disliked by the citizens in the
_Historia Pontificalis_ (p. 532), where we learn (in 1148) that they had
disobeyed the papal authority: "Quando episcopus bone memorie Robertus
expulsus est, cui hanc exhibuere devocionem ut omni diligentia
procurarent ne patri exulanti in aliquo prodessent."

[375] "Regina autem a Londoniensibus suscepta, sexusque fragilitatis,
femineæque mollitiei oblita, viriliter sese et virtuose continere;
invictos ubique coadjutores prece sibi et pretio allicere, regis
conjuratos ubi ubi per Angliam fuerant dispersi ad dominum suum secum
reposcendum constanter sollicitare" (_Gesta Stephani_, 80). "Regina
omnibus supplicavit, omnes pro ereptione mariti sui precibus, promissis,
et obsequiis sollicitavit" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310).

[376] See p. 143.

[377] See p. 167.

[378] "Gaufrido de Mandevillâ (_qui jam iterum auxilio eorum cesserat_,
antea enim post captionem regis imperatrici fidelitatem juraverat) et
Londoniensibus maxime annitentibus, nihilque omnino quod possent
prætermittentibus quo imperatricem contristarent" (_Will. Malms._, p.
752).

[379] _Royal Charters_ (Duchy of Lancaster), No. 22. N.B.—The above is
merely an extract from the charter.

[380] Waleran of Meulan, William of Warrenne, and Simon of Northampton
(_Ord. Vit._, v. 130).

[381] See p. 147.

[382] Gamlingay, in Cambridgeshire, had come to the Queen as belonging
to "the honour of Boulogne."

[383] "Gamenegheia valet xxx _li._ Inde tenent ... heredes Gervas[ii] de
Cornhill x _li._" (_Liber Niger_, 395; _Testa_, pp. 274, 275). This
entry also proves that the loan (1141?) to the Queen was not repaid, and
the property, therefore, not redeemed.

[384] See Appendix K: "Gervase de Cornhill."

[385] "Nunc quidem Wintoniensem episcopum, totius Angliæ legatum, ut
fraternis compatiens vinculis ad eum liberandum intenderet, ut sibi
maritum, plebi regem, regno patronum, toto secum nisu adquireret,
viriliter supplicare" (_Gesta_, 80).

[386] _Gesta_, 79.

[387] _Will. Malms._, p. 750; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132; _Gesta_, 80;
_Annals of Winchester_.



 CHAPTER VI.
 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER.


The Empress, it will be remembered, in the panic of her escape, on the
sudden revolt of the citizens, had fled to the strongholds of her cause
in the west, and sought refuge in Gloucester. Most of her followers were
scattered abroad, but the faithful Miles of Gloucester was found, as
ever, by her side. As soon as she recovered from her first alarm, she
retraced her steps to Oxford, acting upon his advice, and made that
fortress her head-quarters, to which her adherents might rally.[388]

To her stay at Oxford on this occasion we may assign a charter to
Haughmond Abbey, tested _inter alios_ by the King of Scots.[389] But of
far more importance is the well-known charter by which she granted the
earldom of Hereford to her devoted follower, Miles of Gloucester.[390]
With singular unanimity, the rival chroniclers testify to the faithful
service of which this grant was the reward.[391] It is an important fact
that this charter contains a record of its date, which makes it a fixed
point of great value for our story. This circumstance is the more
welcome from the long list of witnesses, which enables us to give with
absolute certainty the _personnel_ of Matilda's court on the day this
charter passed (July 25, 1141), evidence confirmed by another charter
omitted from the fasciculus of Mr. Birch.[392] From a comparison of the
dates we can assign these documents to the very close of her stay at
Oxford, by which time her scattered followers had again rallied to her
standard. It is also noteworthy that the date is in harmony with the
narrative of the Continuator of Florence. This has a bearing on the
chronology of that writer, to which we have now in the main to trust.

William of Malmesbury, who on the doings of his patron is likely to be
well informed, tells us that the rumours of the legate's defection led
the Earl of Gloucester to visit Winchester in the hope of regaining him
to his sister's cause. Disappointed in this, he rejoined her at
Oxford.[393] It must have been on his return that he witnessed the
charter to Miles of Gloucester.

The Empress, on hearing her brother's report, decided to march on
Winchester with the forces she had now assembled.[394] The names of her
leading followers can be recovered from the various accounts of the
siege.[395]

The Continuator states that she reached Winchester shortly before the
1st of August.[396] He also speaks of the siege having lasted seven
weeks on the 13th of September.[397] If he means by this, as he implies,
the siege by the queen's forces, he is clearly wrong; but if he was
thinking of the arrival of the Empress, this would place that event not
later than the 27th of July. We know from the date of the Oxford charter
that it cannot well have been earlier. The _Hyde Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.)
is more exact, and, indeed, gives us the day of her arrival, Thursday,
July 31 ("pridie kal. Augusti"). According to the _Annals of Waverley_,
the Empress besieged the bishop the next day.[398]

Of the struggle which now took place we have several independent
accounts. Of these the fullest are those given by the Continuator, who
here writes with a bitter feeling against the legate, and by the author
of the _Gesta_, whose sympathies were, of course, on the other side.
John of Hexham, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon have
accounts which should be carefully consulted, and some information is
also to be gleaned from the _Hyde Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.).

It is John of Hexham alone who mentions that the bishop himself had
commenced operations by besieging the royal castle, which was held by a
garrison of the Empress.[399] It was in this castle, says the
Continuator, that she took up her quarters on her arrival.[400] She at
once summoned the legate to her presence, but he, dreading that she
would seize his person, returned a temporizing answer, and eventually
rode forth from the city (it would seem, by the east gate) just as the
Empress entered it in state.[401]

Though the Continuator asserts that the Empress, on her arrival, found
the city opposed to her, William of Malmesbury, whose sympathies were
the same, asserts, on the contrary, that the citizens were for her.[402]
Possibly, the former may only have meant that she had found the gates of
the city closed against her by the legate. In any case, she now
established herself, together with her followers, within the walls, and
laid siege to the episcopal palace, which was defended by the legate's
garrison.[403] The usual consequence followed. From the summit of the
keep its reckless defenders rained down fire upon the town, and a
monastery, a nunnery, more than forty (?) churches, and the greater part
of the houses within the walls are said to have been reduced to
ashes.[404]

Meanwhile, the legate had summoned to his aid the Queen and all the
royal party. His summons "was promptly obeyed;[405] even the Earl of
Chester, "who," says Dr. Stubbs, "was uniformly opposed to Stephen, but
who no doubt fought for himself far more than for the Empress,"[406]
joined, on this occasion, the royal forces, perhaps to maintain the
balance of power. But his assistance, naturally enough, was viewed with
such deep suspicion that he soon went over to the Empress,[407] to whom,
however, his tardy help was of little or no value.[408] From London the
Queen received a well-armed contingent, nearly a thousand strong;[409]
but Henry of Huntingdon appears to imply that their arrival, although it
turned the scale, did not take place till late in the siege.[410]

The position of the opposing forces became a very strange one. The
Empress and her followers, from the castle, besieged the bishop's
palace, and were in turn themselves besieged by the Queen and her host
without.[411] It was the aim of the latter to cut off the Empress from
her base of operations in the west. With this object they burnt
Andover,[412] and harassed so successfully the enemy's convoys, that
famine was imminent in the city.[413] The Empress, moreover, was clearly
outnumbered by the forces of the Queen and legate. It is agreed on all
hands that the actual crisis was connected with an affair at Wherwell,
but John of Hexham and the author of the _Gesta_ are not entirely in
accord as to the details. According to the latter, who can hardly be
mistaken in a statement so precise, the besieged, now in dire straits,
despatched a small force along the old Icknield Way, to fortify Wherwell
and its nunnery, commanding the passage of the Test, in order to secure
their line of communication.[414] John of Hexham, on the contrary,
describing, it would seem, the same incident, represents it as merely
the despatch of an escort, under John the Marshal and Robert fitz Edith,
to meet an expected convoy.[415] In any case, it is clear that William
of Ypres, probably the Queen's best soldier, burst upon the convoy close
to Wherwell, and slew or captured all but those who sought refuge within
the nunnery walls.[416] Nor are the two accounts gravely inconsistent.

On the other hand, the Continuator of Florence appears at first sight to
imply that the Marshal and his followers took refuge at Wherwell in the
course of the general flight,[417] and this version is in harmony with
the _Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_.[418] But putting aside William
of Malmesbury, whose testimony is ambiguous on the point, I consider the
balance to be clearly in favour of the _Gesta_ and John of Hexham, whose
detailed accounts must be wholly rejected if we embrace the other
version, whereas the Continuator's words can be harmonized, and indeed
better understood, if we take "ad monasterium Warewellense fugientem" as
referring to John taking refuge in the nunnery (as described in the
other versions) when surprised with his convoy. Moreover, the evidence
(_vide infra_) as to the Empress leaving Winchester by the west instead
of the north gate, appears to me to clinch the matter. As to the Marshal
poem, on such a point its evidence is of little weight. Composed at a
later period, and based on family tradition, its incidents, as M. Meyer
has shown, are thrown together in wrong order, and its obvious errors
not a few. I may add that the Marshal's position is unduly exalted in
the poem, and that Brian fitz Count (though it is true that he
accompanied the Empress in her flight) would never have taken his orders
from John the Marshal.[419] Its narrative cannot be explained away, but
it is the one that we are most justified in selecting for rejection.

To expel the fugitives from their place of safety, William and his
troopers fired the nunnery. A furious struggle followed in the church,
amidst the shrieks of the nuns and the roar of the flames; the sanctuary
itself streamed with blood; but John the Marshal stood his ground, and
refused to surrender to his foes.[420] "Silence, or I will slay thee
with mine own hands," the undaunted man is said to have exclaimed, as
his last remaining comrade implored him to save their lives.[421]

On receiving intelligence of this disaster, the besieged were seized
with panic, and resolved on immediate retreat.[422] William of
Malmesbury, as before, is anxious to deny the panic,[423] and the
Continuator accuses the legate of treachery.[424] The account, however,
in the _Gesta_ appears thoroughly trustworthy. According to this, the
Empress and her forces sallied forth from the gates in good order, but
were quickly surrounded and put to flight. All order was soon at an end.
Bishops, nobles, barons, troopers, fled in headlong rout. With her
faithful squire by her side the Empress rode for her life.[425] The Earl
of Gloucester, with the rear-guard, covered his sister's retreat, but in
so doing was himself made prisoner, while holding, at Stockbridge, the
passage of the Test.[426]

The mention of Stockbridge proves that the besieged must have fled by
the Salisbury road, their line of retreat by Andover being now barred at
Wherwell. After crossing the Test, the fugitive Empress must have turned
northwards, and made her way, by country lanes, over Longstock hills, to
Ludgershall. So great was the dread of her victorious foes, now in full
pursuit, that though she had ridden more than twenty miles, and was
overwhelmed with anxiety and fatigue, she was unable to rest even here,
and, remounting, rode for Devizes, across the Wiltshire downs.[427] It
was not, we should notice, thought safe for her to make straight for
Gloucester, through Marlborough and Cirencester; so she again set her
face due west, as if making for Bristol. Thus fleeing from fortress to
fortress, she came to her castle at Devizes. So great, however, was now
her terror that even in this celebrated stronghold[428] she would not,
she feared, be safe. She had already ridden some forty miles, mainly
over bad country, and what with grief, terror, and fatigue, the erst
haughty Empress was now "more dead than alive" (_pene exanimis_). It was
out of the question that she should mount again; a litter was hurriedly
slung between two horses, and, strapped to this, the unfortunate Lady
was conveyed in sorry guise (_sat ignominiose_) to her faithful city of
Gloucester.[429]

On a misunderstanding, as I deem it, of the passage (and especially of
the word _feretrum_), writers have successively, for three centuries,
represented the Continuator as stating that the Empress, "to elude the
vigilance of her pursuers," was "laid out as a corpse!" Lingard, indeed,
while following suit, gravely doubts if the fact be true, as it is
recorded by the Continuator alone; but Professor Pearson improves upon
the story, and holds that the versatile "Lady" was in turn "a trooper"
and a corpse.[430]

On the 1st of November the king was released, and a few days later the
Earl of Gloucester, for whom he had been exchanged, reached
Bristol.[431] Shortly after, it would seem, there were assembled
together at Bristol, the Earl, the Empress, and their loyal adherents,
Miles, now Earl of Hereford, Brian fitz Count, and Robert fitz
Martin.[432]

[388] "Porro fugiens domina per Oxenefordiam venit ad Glavorniam, ubi
cum Milone ex-constabulario consilio inito statim cum eodem ad
Oxenefordensem revertitur urbem, ibi præstolatura seu recuperatura suum
dispersum militarem numerum" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132).

[389] The other witnesses were Robert, Bishop of London, Alexander,
Bishop of Lincoln, William the chancellor, R[ichard] de Belmeis,
archdeacon, G[ilbert?], archdeacon, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, William
Fitz Alan and Walter his brother, Alan de Dunstanville (_Harl. MS._,
2188, fol. 123). The two bishops and the King of Scots also witnessed
the charter to Miles.

[390] _Fœdera_, N.E., i. 14.

[391] "Et quia ejusdem Milonis præcipue fruebatur consilio et fovebatur
auxilio, utpote quæ eatenus nec unius diei victum nec mensæ ipsius
apparatum aliunde quam ex ipsius munificentiâ sive providentiâ acceperat
sicut ex ipsius Milonis ore audivimus, ut eum suo arctius vinciret
ministerio, comitatum ei Herefordensem tunc ibi posita pro magnæ
remunerationis contulit præmio" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133). Comp.
_Gesta_, 81: "Milo Glaornensis, quem ibi cum gratiâ et favore omnium
comitem præfecit Herefordiæ."

[392] See Appendix L: "Charter of the Empress to William de Beauchamp."

[393] "Ad hos motus, si possit, componendos comes Gloecestrensis non
adeo denso comitatu Wintoniam contendit; sed, re infecta, ad Oxeneford
rediit, ubi soror stativâ mansione jamdudum se continuerat" (p. 751).
The "jamdudum" should be noticed, as a hint towards the chronology.

[394] "Ipsa itaque, et ex his quæ continue audiebat et a fratre tunc
cognovit nihil legatum molle ad suas partes cogitare intelligens,
Wintoniam cum quanto potuit apparatu venit" (_ibid._).

[395] They were her uncle, the King of Scots;* her three brothers, the
Earls of Gloucester* and of Cornwall,* and Robert fitz Edith; the Earls
of Warwick and Devon ("Exeter"), with their newly created fellows, the
Earls of Dorset (or Somerset) and Hereford; Humphrey de Bohun,* John the
Marshal,* Brien fitz Count,* Geoffrey Boterel (his relative), William
fitz Alan, "William" of Salisbury, Roger d'Oilli, Roger "de Nunant,"
etc. The primate* was also of the company. N.B.—Those marked with an
asterisk attested the above charter to Miles de Gloucester.

[396] "Inde [_i.e._ from Oxford] jam militum virtute roborata et numero,
appropinquante festivitate Sancti Petri, quæ dicitur ad Vincula" [August
1] (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133).

[397] "Septem igitur septimanis in obsidione transactis" (_ibid._).

[398] "Die kalendarum Augusti" (_Ann. Mon._, ii. 229).

[399] "Imperatrix, collectis viribus suis, cum rege Scotiæ et Rodberto
comite ascendit in Wintoniam, audiens milites suos inclusos in regia
munitione expugnari a militibus legati qui erant in mœnibus illius"
(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310).

[400] "Ignorante fratre suo, comite Bricstowensi (_i.e._ Earl Robert),
Wintoniensem venit ad urbem, sed eam a se jam alienatam inveniens, in
castello suscepit hospitium" (p. 133). It seems impossible to understand
what can be meant by the expression "ignorante fratre suo." So too
_Will. Malms._: "intra castellum regium sine cunctatione recepta."

[401] _Will. Malms._, p. 751; _Gesta_, p. 80; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 133.
The _Gesta_ alone represents the Empress as hoping to surprise the
legate, which is scarcely probable.

[402] "Wintonienses porro vel tacito ei favebant judicio, memores fidei
quam ei pacti fuerant cum inviti propemodum ab episcopo ad hoc adacti
essent" (p. 752).

[403] There is some confusion as to what the Empress actually besieged.
The _Gesta_ says it was "(1) castellum episcopi, quod venustissimo
constructum schemate in civitatis medio locarat, sed et (2) domum
illius, quam ad instar castelli fortiter et inexpugnabiliter firmarat."
We learn from the _Annals of Winchester_ (p. 51) that, in 1138, the
bishop "fecit ædificare domum quasi palatium cum turri fortissima in
Wintonia," which would seem to be Wolvesey, with its keep, at the
south-east angle of the city. Again, Giraldus has a story (vii. 46) that
the bishop built himself a residence from the materials of the
Conqueror's palace: "Domos regios apud Wintoniam ecclesie ipsius atrio
nimis enormiter imminentes, ... funditus in brevi raptim et subito ...
dejecit, et ... ex dirutis ædificiis et abstractis domos episcopales
egregias sibi in eadem urbe construxit." On the other hand, the _Hyde
Cartulary_ assigns the destruction of the palace to the siege (_vide
infra_.).

[404] "Interea ex turre pontificis jaculatum incendium in domos
burgensium (qui, ut dixi, proniores erant imperatricis felicitati)
comprehendit et combussit abbatiam totam sanctimonialium intra urbem,
simulque cænobium quod dicitur ad Hidam extra" (_Will. Malms._, p. 752).
"Qui intus recludebantur ignibus foras emissis majorem civitatis partem
sed et duas abbatias in favillas penitus redegerunt" (_Gesta_, p. 83).
"Siquidem secundo die mensis Augusti ignis civitati immissis,
monasterium sanctimonialium cum suis ædificiis, ecclesias plus XL cum
majori seu meliori parte civitatis, postremo cænobium monachorum Deo et
Sancto Grimbaldo famulantium, cum suis ædibus redegit in cineres"
(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 133). It is from this last writer that we get
the date (August 2), which we should never have gathered from William of
Malmesbury (who mentions this fire in conjunction with the burning of
Wherwell Abbey, at the close of the siege) or from the _Gesta_. M. Paris
(_Chron. Maj._, ii. 174) assigns the fire, like William of Malmesbury,
to the end of the siege, but his version, "Destructa est Wintonia XVIII
kal. Oct., et captus est R. Comes Glovernie die exaltationis Sancte
Crucis," is self-stultifying, the two dates being one and the same. The
Continuator's date is confirmed by the independent evidence of the _Hyde
Cartulary_ (among the Stowe MSS.), which states that on Saturday, the
2nd of August ("Sabbato IIII. non. Augusti"), the city was burned by the
bishop's forces, "et eodem die dicta civitas Wyntonie capta est et
spoliata." From this source we further obtain the interesting fact that
the Conqueror's palace in the city ("totum palatium cum aula sua")
perished on this occasion. Allusion is made to this fact in the same
cartulary's account of a council held by Henry of Winchester in the
cathedral, in November, 1150, where the parish of St. Laurence is
assigned the site "super quam aulam suam et palacium edificari fecit
(Rex Willelmus)," which palace "in adventu Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie
combustum fuit." The Continuator (_more suo_) assigns the fire to the
cruelty of the bishop; but it was the ordinary practice in such cases.
As from the tower of Le Mans in 1099 (_Ord. Vit._), as from the tower of
Hereford Cathedral but a few years before this (_Gesta Stephani_), so
now at Winchester the firebrands flew: and so again at Lewes, in far
later days (1264), where on the evening of the great battle there blazed
forth from the defeated Royalists, sheltered on the castle height, a mad
shower of fire.

[405] "Statimque propter omnes misit quos regi fauturos sciebat.
Venerunt ergo fere omnes comites Angliæ; erant enim juvenes et leves, et
qui mallent equitationum discursus quam pacem" (_Will. Malms._, p. 751).
Cf. _Hen. Hunt._, p. 275, and _Gesta_, pp. 81, 82.

[406] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 25. Compare _Const. Hist._, i. 329: "The
Earl of Chester, although, whenever he prevailed on himself to act, he
took part against Stephen, fought rather on his own account than on
Matilda's."

[407] _Sym. Dun._, ii. 310.

[408] "Reinulfus enim comes Cestrie tarde et inutiliter advenit" (_Will.
Malms._, p. 751).

[409] "Invictâ Londoniensium catervâ, qui, fere mille, cum galeis et
loricis ornatissime instructi convenerant" (_Gesta_, p. 82).

[410] "Venit _tandem_ exercitus Lundoniensis, et aucti numerose qui
contra imperatricem contendebant, fugere eam compulerunt" (p. 275).

[411] _Gesta_, p. 82. The _Annals of Winchester_ (p. 52) strangely
reverse the respective positions of the two: "Imperatrix cum suis
castellum tenuit regium et orientalem (_sic_) partem Wintonie et
burgenses cum ea; legatus cum suis castrum suum cum parte occidentali"
(_sic_).

[412] _Will. Malms._, p. 752.

[413] _Ibid._; _Gesta_, p. 83.

[414] "Provisum est igitur, et communi consilio provisé, ut sibi
videbatur, statutum, quatinus penes abbatiam Werwellensem, quæ a Ventâ
civitate VI. milliariis distabat, trecentis (_sic_) ibi destinatis
militibus, castellum construerent, ut scilicet inde et regales facilius
arcerentur, et ciborum subsidia competentius in urbe dirigerentur" (p.
83).

[415] "Emissi sunt autem ducenti (_sic_) milites, cum Rodberto filio Edæ
et Henrici regis notho et Johanne Marascaldo, ut conducerent in urbem
eos qui comportabant victualia in ministerium imperatricis et eorum qui
obsessi fuerant" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310).

[416] "Quos persecuti Willelmus Dipre et pars exercitus usque ad
Warewella (ubi est congregatio sanctimonialium) et milites et omnem
apparatum, qui erat copiosus, abduxerunt" (_ibid_). "Subito et
insperaté, cum intolerabili multitudine Werwellam advenerunt,
fortiterque in eos undique irruentes captis et interemptis plurimis,
cedere tandem reliquos et in templum se recipere compulerunt" (_Gesta_,
p. 83).

[417] _Vide infra._ Since the above was written Mr. Howlett, in his
edition of the _Gesta_ (p. 82, _note_), has noted the contradiction in
the narrative, but seems to lean to the latter version as being
supported by the Marshal poem.

[418] As has been duly pointed out by its accomplished editor, M. Paul
Meyer (_Romania_, vol. xi.), who will shortly, it may be hoped, publish
the entire poem.

[419]

  "Li Mareschals de son afaire
  Ne sout que dire ne que feire,
  N'i vit rescose ne confort.
  A Brien de Walingofort
  Commanda a mener la dame,
  E dist, sor le peril de s'alme
  Q'en nul lieu ne s'aresteiisent,
  Por nul besoing que il eiisent,
  N'en bone veie ne en male,
  De si qu'a Lothegaresale;
  E cil tost e hastivement
  En fist tot son commandement" (Lines 225-236).

[420] "Cumque vice castelli ad se defendendos templo uterentur, alii,
facibus undique injectis, semiustulatos eos e templo prodire, et ad
votum suum se sibi subdere coegerunt. Erat quidem horrendum," etc.
(_Gesta_, p. 83). "Johannem etiam, fautorem eorum, ad monasterium
Warewellense fugientem milites episcopi persequentes, cum exinde nullo
modo expellere valuissent, in ipsâ die festivitatis Exaltationis Sanctæ
Crucis [Sept. 14], immisso igne ipsam ecclesiam Sanctæ Crucis cum
sanctimonialium rebus et domibus cremaverunt, ... prædictum tamen
Johannem nec capere nec expellere potuerunt" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p.
135). So also _Will. Malms._ (p. 752): "Combusta est etiam abbatia
sanctimonialium de Warewellâ a quodam Willelmo de Iprâ homine nefando,
qui nec Deo nec hominibus reverentiam observaret, quod in eâ quidam
imperatricis fautores se contutati essent."

[421]

  "Li Mareschas el guié s'estut,
  A son poer les contrestut.
  Tute l'ost sur lui descarcha
  Qui si durement le charcha
  Que n'i pont naint plus durer;
  Trop lui fui fort a endurer,
  Einz s'enbati en un mostier;
  N'ont o lui k'un sol chevaler.
  Quant li real les aperçurent
  Qu'el mostier enbatu se furent:
  'Or ça, li feus!' funt il, 'or sa,
  Li traitres ne li garra.'
  Quant li feus el moster se prist,
  En la vis de la tor se mist.
  Li chevaliers li dist: 'Beau sire,
  Or ardrum ci a grant martire:
  Ce sera pecchiez e damages.
  Rendom nos, si ferom que sages.'
  Cil respundi mult cruelment:
  N'en parler ja, gel te defent;
  Ke, s'en diseies plus ne mains,
  Ge t'occirreie de mes mains.'
  Por le grant feu qui fu entor
  Dejeta li pluns de la tor,
  Si que sor le vis li chaï,
  Dunt leidement li meschaï,
  K'un de ses elz i out perdu
  Dunt molt se tint a esperdu,
  Mais, merci Dieu, n'i murust pas.
  E li real en es le pas
  Por mort e por ars le quiderent;
  A Vincestre s'en returnerent,
  Mais n'i fu ne mors ne esteinz" (Lines 237-269).

[422] "Ubi lacrymabilem præfati infortunii audissent eventum de
obsidione diutius ingerendâ ex toto desperati, fugæ quammaturé inire
præsidium sibi consuluere" (_Gesta_, pp. 83, 84). "Qui jam non in
concertatione sed in fuga spem salutis gerentes egressi sunt, ne forte
victores cum Willelmo d'Ipre ad socios regressi, sumptâ fiduciâ ex
quotidianis successibus, aliquid subitum in eos excogitarent" (_Sym.
Dun._, ii. 310).

[423] "[Comes] cedendum tempori ratus, compositis ordinibus discessionem
paravit" (p. 753).

[424] P. 134. His strong bias against the legate makes this somewhat
confused charge unworthy of credit.

[425]

  "La fist tantost metre a la voie
  Tot dreit a Lotegaresale.

     *       *       *       *

  Ne[l] purrent suffrir ne atendre
  Cil qui o l'empereriz erent:
  Al meiz ku'il purent s'en alerent,
  Poingnant si que regne n'i tindrent
  [J]esque soz Varesvalle vindrent;
  Mès forment les desavancha
  L'empereriz qui chevacha
  Cumme femme fait en seant:
  Ne sembla pas buen ne seant
  Al Marechal, anceis li dist:
  'Dame, si m'ait Jesucrist,
  L'em ne puet pas eu seant poindre;
  Les jambes vos covient desjoindre
  E metre par en son l'arçun.'
  El le fist, volsist ele ou non,
  Quer lor enemis le[s] grevoient
  Qui de trop près les herd[i]oient" (Lines 198, 199, 208-224).

The quaint detail here given is confirmed, as M. Meyer notes, by the
Continuator's phrase (_vide infra_, note 2).

[426] "In loco qui Stolibricge dicitur a Flammensibus cum comite
Warrennensi captus" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 135). Cf. p. 134, and _Will.
Malms._ (pp. 753, 758, 759), _Gesta_ (p. 84), _Sym. Dun._ (ii. 311),
_Hen. Hunt._ (p. 275). As in Matilda's flight from London, so in her
flight from Winchester, the author of the _Gesta_ appears to advantage
with his descriptive and spirited account.

[427] "Hæc audiens domina, vehementer exterrita atque turbata, ad
castellum quo tendebat de Ludkereshala tristis ac dolens advenit, sed
ibi locum tutum quiescendi, propter metum episcopi, non invenit. Unde,
hortantibus suis, equo iterum usu masculino supposita, atque ad Divisas
perducta" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 134).

[428] "Castellum quod vocatur Divise, quo non erat aliud splendidius
intra fines Europæ" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 265). "Castellum ... multis et vix
numerabilibus sumptibus, non (ut ipse præsul dictabat) ad ornamentum,
sed (ut se rei veritas habet) ad ecclesiæ detrimentum, ædificatum"
(_Will. Malms._, pp. 717, 718). It had been raised by the Bishop of
Salisbury, and it passed, at his fall, into Stephen's hands. It is then
described by the author of the _Gesta_ (p. 66) as "castellum regis, quod
Divisa dicebatur, ornanter et inexpugnabiliter muratum." It was
subsequently surprised by Robert fitz Hubert, who held it for his own
hand till his capture, when the Earl of Gloucester tried hard to extort
its surrender from him. In this, however, he failed. Robert was hanged,
and, soon after, his garrison sold it to Stephen, by whom it was
entrusted to Hervey of Brittany, whom he seems to have made Earl of
Wilts. But on Stephen's capture, the peasantry rose, and extorted its
surrender from Hervey. Thenceforth, it was a stronghold of the Empress
(see for this the Continuator and the _Gesta_).

[429] "Cum nec ibi secure se tutari posse, ob insequentes, formidaret,
jam pene exanimis feretro invecta, et funibus quasi cadaver ligata,
equis deferentibus, sat ignominiose ad civitatem deportatur Glaornensem"
(_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 134). The author of the _Gesta_ (p. 85) mentions
her flight to Devizes ("Brieno tantum cum paucis comite, ad Divisas
confugit"), and incidentally observes (p. 87) that she was "ex
Wintoniensi dispersione quassa nimis, et usque ad defectum pené
defatigata" (_i.e._ "tired to death;" cf. _supra_). John of Hexham
merely says: "Et imperatrix quidem non sine magno conflictu et plurima
difficultate erepta est" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310).

[430] Camden, in his _Britannia_, gives the story, but Knighton (De
eventibus Angliæ, lib. ii., in _Scriptores_ X.) seems to be the chief
offender. Dugdale follows with the assertion that "she was necessitated
... for her more security to be put into a coffin, as a dead corps, to
escape their hands" (i. 537 _b_). According to Milner (_History of
Winchester_, p. 162), "she was enclosed like a corpse in a sheet of
lead, and was thus suffered to pass in a horse-litter as if carried out
for interment, through the army of her besiegers, a truce having been
granted for this purpose." Even Edwards, in his introduction to the
_Liber de Hyda_ (p. xlviii.), speaks of "the raising of the siege; a
raising precipitated, if we accept the accounts of Knighton and some
other chroniclers who accord with him, by the strange escape of the
Empress Maud from Winchester Castle concealed in a leaden coffin." _Sic
crescit eundo._

[431] _Will. Malms._, p. 754.

[432] See donation of Miles (_Monasticon_, vi. 137), stated to have been
made in their presence, and in the year 1141, in which he speaks of
himself as "apud Bristolium positus, jamque consulatus honorem adeptus."
Brian had escorted the Empress in her flight, but Miles, intercepted by
the enemy, had barely escaped with his life ("de solâ vita lætus ad
Glaornam cum dedecore fugiendo pervenit lassus, solus, et pene
nudus."—_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 135).



 CHAPTER VII.
 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING.


The liberation of the king from his captivity was hailed with joy by his
adherents, and not least, we may be sure, in his loyal city of London.
The greatness of the event is seen, perhaps, in the fact that it is even
mentioned in a private London deed of the time, executed "Anno MCXLI.,
Id est in exitu regis Stephani de captione Roberti filii regis
Henrici."[432b]

In spite of his faults we may fairly assume that the king's imprisonment
had aroused a popular reaction in his favour, as it did in the case of
Charles I., five centuries later. The experiences also of the summer had
been greatly in his favour. For, however unfit he may have been to fill
the throne himself, he was able now to point to the fact that his rival
had been tried and found wanting.

He would now be eager to efface the stain inflicted on his regal
dignity, to show in the sight of all men that he was again their king,
and then to execute vengeance on those whose captive he had been. The
first step to be taken was to assemble a council of the realm that
should undo the work of the April council at Winchester, and formally
recognize in him the rightful possessor of the throne. This council met
on the 7th of December at Westminster, the king himself being
present.[433] The ingenious legate was now as ready to prove that his
brother, and not the Empress, should rightly fill the throne, as, we
saw, he was in April to prove the exact reverse. The two grounds on
which he based his renunciation were, first, that the Empress had failed
to fulfil her pledges to the Church;[434] second, that her failure
implied the condemnation of God.[435]

A solemn coronation might naturally follow, to set, as it were, the seal
to the work of this assembly. Perhaps the nearest parallel to this
second coronation is to be found in that of Richard I., in 1194, after
his captivity and humiliation.[436] I think we have evidence that
Stephen himself looked on this as a second coronation, and as no mere
"crown-wearing," in a precept in favour of the monks of Abingdon, in
which he alludes incidentally to the day of his _first_ coronation.[437]
This clearly implies a second coronation since; and as the precept is
attested by Richard de Luci, it is presumably subsequent to that second
coronation, to which we now come.

It cannot be wondered that this event has been unnoticed by historians,
for it is only recorded in a single copy of the works of a single
chronicler. We are indebted to Dr. Stubbs and his scholarly edition of
the writings of Gervase of Canterbury for our knowledge of the fact that
in one, and that comparatively imperfect, of the three manuscripts on
which his text is based, we read of a coronation of Stephen, at
Canterbury, "placed under 1142." We learn from him that in this MS. "it
is probably inserted in a wrong place," as indeed is evident from the
fact that at Christmas, 1142, Stephen was at Oxford. Here is the passage
in question:—

 "Deinde rex Stephanus una cum regina et nobilitate procerum ad Natale
 Domini gratiosus adveniens, in ipsa solempnitate in ecclesiâ Christi a
 venerabili Theobaldo ejusdem ecclesiæ archiepiscopo coronatus est; ipsa
 etiam regina cum eo ibidem coronam auream gestabat in capite"
 (_Gervase_, i. 123).

It should perhaps be noticed that, while the Queen is merely said to
have worn her crown, Stephen is distinctly stated to have been crowned.
I cannot but think that this must imply a distinction between them, and
supports the view that this coronation was due to the captivity of the
king.

My contention is that the date of this event was Christmas, 1141, and
that the choice, for its scene, of the Kentish capital was a graceful
compliment to that county which, in the darkest hour of the king's
fortunes, had remained faithful to his cause, and to the support of
which his restoration had been so largely due.[438]

I further hold that the second charter granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville
was executed on this occasion, and that in its witnesses we have the
list of that "nobilitas procerum" by which, according to Gervase, this
coronation was attended.

This charter, when rightly dated, is indeed the keystone of my story.
For without it we could not form that series on which the sequence of
events is based. It is admittedly subsequent to the king's liberation,
for it refers to the battle of Lincoln. It must also be previous to
Geoffrey's death in 1144. These are the obvious limits given in the
official calendar.[439] But it must further be previous to Geoffrey's
fall in 1143. Lastly, it must be previous to the Oxford, or second,
charter of the Empress, in which we shall find it is referred to. As
that charter cannot be later than the summer of 1142, our limit is again
narrowed. Now the charter is tested at Canterbury. Stephen cannot, it
seems, have been there in the course of 1142. This accordingly leaves
us, as the only possible date, the close of 1141; and this is the very
date of the king's coronation at Canterbury. When we add to this train
of reasoning the fact that the number of earls by whom the charter is
witnessed clearly points to some great state ceremonial, we cannot feel
the slightest doubt that the charter must, as I observed, have passed on
this occasion. With this conclusion its character will be found in
complete accordance, for it plainly represents the price for which the
traitor earl consented to change sides again, and to place at the
disposal of his outraged king that Tower of London, its citadel and its
dread, the possession of which once more enabled him to dictate his own
terms.

Those terms were that, in the first place, he should forfeit nothing for
his treason in having joined the cause of the Empress, and should be
confirmed in his possession of all that he held before the king's
capture. But his demands far exceeded the mere _status quo ante_. Just
as he had sold his support to the Empress when she gave him an advance
on Stephen's terms, so the Queen must have brought him back by offering
terms, at the crisis of the struggle, in excess even of those which he
had just wrung from the Empress. He would now insist that these great
concessions should be confirmed by the king himself. Such is the
explanation of the strange character of this Canterbury charter.

 CHARTER OF THE KING TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE
 (Christmas, 1141).

S. rex Angl[orum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus
Justic[iariis] Vicecomitibus Baronibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus
suis francis et Anglis totius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et
firmiter concesisse Gaufr[ido] Comiti de Essexâ omnia sua tenementa que
tenuit, de quocunque illa tenuerit, die quâ impeditus fui apud
Linc[olniam] et captus. Et præter hoc dedi ei et concessi CCC libratas
terræ scilicet Meldonam[440] et Neweport et Depedenam et Banhunte et
Ingam et Phingriam[441] et Chateleam cum omnibus suis Appendiciis pro C
libris. Et Writelam[442] pro vi.xx libris. Et Hadfeld[443] pro quater.xx
libris cum omnibus appendiciis illorum Maneriorum. Et præter hec dedi ei
et concessi in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis hæredibus sibi et
suis heredibus C libratas terræ de terris excaatis, scilicet totam
terram Roberti de Baentona[444] quam tenuit in Essexâ, videlicet
Reneham[445] et Hoilandam,[446] Et Amb[er]denam[447] et Wodeham[448]
et Eistan',[449] quam Picardus de Danfront[450] tenuit. Et
Ichilintonam[451] cum omnibus eorum appendiciis pro C libris. Et
præterea dedi ei et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate C libratas
terræ ad opus Ernulfi de Mannavilla de ipso Comite Gaufredo tenendas,
scilicet Anastiam,[452] et Braching,[453] et Hamam[454] cum omnibus
eorum appendiciis. Et C solidatas terræ in Hadfeld ad præfatas C
libratas terræ perficiend[um]. Et præterea dedi ei et concessi custodiam
turris Lond[oniæ] cum Castello quod ei subest habend[um] et tenendum
sibi et suis hæredibus de me et de meis heredibus cum omnibus rebus et
libertatibus et consuetudinibus prefate turri pertinentibus. Et
Justicias et Vicecomitat' de Lond[oniâ] et de Middlesexâ in feodo et
hereditate eadem firma qua Gaufridus de Mannavilla avus suus eas tenuit,
scilicet pro CCC libris. Et Justitias et Vicecomitat' de Essexâ et de
Heortfordiscirâ eâdem firmâ quâ avus ejus eas tenuit, ita tamen quod
dominica que de prædictis Comitatibus data sunt ipsi Comiti Gaufredo aut
alicui alii a firmâ præfatâ subtrahantur et illi et hæredibus suis ad
scaccarium combutabuntur. Et præterea firmiter ei concessi ut possit
firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ et quod stare
possit. Et præterea dedi eidem Comiti Gaufr[edo] et firmiter concessi in
feodo et hereditate sibi et hæredibus suis de me et de meis heredibus lx
milites feudatos, de quibus Ernulfus de Mannavillâ tenebit x in feodo et
hereditate de patre suo, scilicet servicium Graalondi de Tania[455] pro
vii militibus et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi filii Roberti pro vii
militibus Et servicium Brient[ii] filii Radulfi[456] pro v militibus Et
servicium Roberti filii Geroldi pro xi militibus Et servicium Radulfi
filii Geroldi pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi de Tresgoz[457] pro vi
militibus Et servicium Mauricii de Chic[he] pro v militibus et servicium
Radulfi Maled[octi] pro ii militibus Et servicium Goisb[erti] de Ing[â]
pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi filii Heru[ei] pro iii militibus Et
servicium Willelmi de Auco pro j milite et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi
de Bosevillâ[458] pro ii militibus Et servicium Mathei Peur[elli][459]
pro iiij militibus Et servicium Ade de Sum[er]i de feodo de
Elmedonâ[460] pro iij militibus Et servicium Rann[ulfi] Briton[is][461]
pro i milite. Et præterea quicquid Carta Regine testatur ei dedi et
concessi. Omnia autem hec prædicta tenementa, scilicet in terris et
dominiis et serviciis militum et in Custodia turris Lon[doniæ] et
Castelli quod turri subest et in Justiciis et Vicecomitatibus et omnibus
prædictis rebus et consuetudinibus et libertatibus, dedi ei et firmiter
concessi Comiti Gaufredo in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis
heredibus sibi et heredibus suis pro servicio suo. Quare volo et
firmiter præcipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum habeant et teneant
omnia illa tenementa et concessiones adeo libere et quiete et honorifice
sicut aliquis omnium Comitum totius Angliæ aliquod suum tenementum tenet
vel tenuit liberius et honorificentius et quietius et plenius.

T[estibus] M. Regina et H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Wint[onensi] et W[illelmo]
Com[ite] Warenn[a] et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de Pembroc et Com[ite]
Gisl[eberto] de heortford et W[illelmo] Com[ite] de Albarm[arlâ] et
Com[ite] Sim[one] et Comite Will[elmo] de Sudsexâ et Com[ite] Alan[o] et
Com[ite] Rob[erto] de Ferrers et Will[elmo] de Ip[râ] et Will[elmo]
Mart[el] et Bald[wino] fil[io] Gisl[eberti] et Rob[erto] de V[er] et
Pharam[o] et Ric[ardo] de Luci et Turg[isio] de Abrincis et Ada de
Belum. Apud Cantuar[iam].[462]

It will at once be seen that this charter is one of extraordinary
interest.

The first point to strike one, on examining the list of witnesses, is
the presence of no less than eight earls and of no more than one bishop.
To these, indeed, we may add perhaps, though by no means of necessity,
the Earl of Essex himself. Though the evidence is, of course, merely
negative, it is probable, to judge from similar cases, that had other
bishops been present, they would appear among the witnesses to the
charter. The absence of their names, therefore, is somewhat difficult to
explain, unless (if present) they were at enmity with Geoffrey.

Another point deserving of notice is that this great gathering of earls
enables us to draw some important conclusions as to the origin and
development of their titles. We may, for instance, safely infer that
when a Christian name was borne by one earl alone, he used for his style
that name with the addition of "Comes" either as a prefix or as a
suffix. Thus we have in this instance "Comes Alanus" and "Comes Simon."
But when two or more earls bore the same Christian name, they had to be
distinguished by some addition. Thus we have "Comes Gislebertus de
Pembroc" and "Comes Gislebertus de Heortford," or "Comes Robertus de
Ferrers," as distinguished from Earl Robert "of Gloucester." The
addition of "de Essexa" to Earl Geoffrey himself, which is found in this
and other charters (see pp. 158, 183), can only, it would seem, be
intended to distinguish him from Count Geoffrey of Anjou. But here the
striking case is that of "Willelmo Comite Warenna," "Willelmo Comite de
Albarmarlâ," and "Comite Willelmo de Sudsexâ." These examples show us
how perfectly immaterial was the source from which the description was
taken. "Warenna" is used as if a surname; "Albarmarla" is "Aumâle," a
local name; and "Sudsexa" needs no comment. The same noble who here
attests as Earl of "Albarmarla" elsewhere attests as Earl "of York,"
while the Earl "of Sussex" is elsewhere a witness as Earl "of
Chichester" or "of Arundel." In short, the "Comes" really belongs to the
Christian name alone. The descriptive suffix is distinct and immaterial.
But the important inference which I draw from the conclusion arrived at
above is that where we find such descriptive suffix employed, we may
gather that there was in existence at the time some other earl or count
with the same Christian name.[463]

Among the earls, we look at once, but we look in vain, for the name of
Waleran of Meulan. But his half-brother, William de Warenne, one, like
himself, of the faithful three,[464] duly figures at the head of the
list. He is followed by their brother-in-law, the Earl of Pembroke,
whose nephew and namesake, the Earl of Hertford, and brother, Baldwin
fitz Gilbert, are also found among the witnesses. With them is another
of the faithful three, Earl Simon of Northampton. There too is Earl Alan
of Richmond, and the fortunate William of Albini, now Earl William of
Sussex. Robert of Ferrers and William of Aumâle, both of them heroes of
the Battle of the Standard, complete the list of earls.[465]

It would alone be sufficient to make this charter of importance that it
affords the earliest record evidence of the existence of two famous
earldoms, that of Hertford or Clare, and that of Arundel or Sussex.[466]
Indeed I know of no earlier mention in any contemporary chronicler. We
further learn from it that William of Ypres was not an earl at the time,
as has been persistently stated. Nor have I ever found a record in which
he is so styled. Lastly, we have here a noteworthy appearance of one
afterwards famous as Richard de Luci the Loyal, who was destined to play
so great a part as a faithful and trusted minister for nearly forty
years to come.[467] His appearance as an attesting witness at least as
early as this (Christmas, 1141) is a fact more especially deserving of
notice because it must affect the date of many other charters. Mr. Eyton
thought that "his earliest attestation yet proved is 1146,"[468] and
hence found his name a difficulty, at times, as a witness. William
Martel was another official in constant attendance on Stephen. He is
described in the _Gesta_ (p. 92) as "vir illustris, fide quoque et
amicitiâ potissimum regi connexus." At the affair of Wilton, with its
disgraceful surprise and rout of the royal forces, he was made prisoner
and forced to give Sherborne Castle as the price of his liberty
(_ibid._). By his wife "Albreda" he was father of a son and heir,
Geoffrey.[469]

Of the remaining witnesses, Pharamus (fitz William) de Boulogne was
_nepos_ of the queen. In 1130 he was indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro
placitis terre sue [Surrey] et ut habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua
tenet" (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 50). In the present year (1141) he
had been in joint charge of the king's _familia_ during his
captivity:—"Rexit autem familiam regis Stephani Willelmus d'Ipre, homo
Flandrensis et Pharamus nepos reginæ Matildis, et iste Bononiensis"
(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 310). His ravages—"per destructionem Faramusi"—are
referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156 (p. 15), but he retained favour
under Henry II., receiving £60 annually from the royal dues in Wendover
and Eton. In May, 1157, he attested, at Colchester, the charter of
Henry II. to Feversham Abbey (Stephen's foundation). He held six fees of
the honour of Boulogne. His grandfather, Geoffrey, is described as a
_nepos_ of Eustace of Boulogne. With his daughter and heiress Sibyl, his
lands passed to the family of Fiennes.

Robert de V(er) would be naturally taken for the younger brother of
Aubrey the chamberlain, slain in 1141.[470] This might seem so obvious
that to question it may appear strange. Yet there is reason to believe
that his identity was wholly different. I take him to be Robert (fitz
_Bernard_) de Vere, who is presumably the "Robert de Vere" who figures
as an Essex landowner in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, for he is certainly the
"Robert de Vere" who is entered in that same roll as acquiring lands in
Kent, with his wife, for whom he had paid the Crown £210, at that time a
large sum. She was an heiress, (sister of Robert and) daughter of Hugh
de Montfort, a considerable landowner in Kent and in the Eastern
Counties. With her he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory
of Monks Horton, and in the charters relating to that priory he is
spoken of as a royal constable. As such he attested the Charter of
Liberties issued by Stephen at Oxford in 1136. I am therefore of opinion
that he is the witness who attests this Canterbury charter, the Oxford
charter of about a year later,[471] and some others in the course of
this reign.[472] He had also witnessed some charters towards the close
of the preceding reign, and would seem to be the Robert de Ver who was
among those who took charge of the body of Henry I. at his death.[473]

Baldwin fitz Gilbert occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. He
was a younger son of Gilbert de Clare, a brother of Gilbert, afterwards
Earl of Pembroke, and uncle of Gilbert, Earl of Hertford. He appears, as
early as January, 1136, in attendance on Stephen, at Reading, where he
witnessed one of the charters to Miles of Gloucester. He was then sent
by the king into Wales to avenge the death of his brother Richard (de
Clare); but, on reaching Brecknock, turned back in fear (_Gesta_, p.
12). At the battle of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), he acted as spokesman
on the king's behalf, and was captured by the forces of the Empress,
after he had been covered with wounds.[474]

Turgis of Avranches (the namesake of its bishop) we have met with as a
witness to Stephen's former charter to Geoffrey. He seems to have been
placed, on Geoffrey's fall (1143), in charge of his castle of Walden,
and, apparently, of the whole property. Though Stephen had raised him,
it was said, from the ranks and loaded him with favours, he ended by
offering him resistance, but was surprised by him, in the forest, when
hunting, and forced to surrender (_Gesta_, p. 110).

Passing now from the witnesses to the subject-matter of the charter, we
have first the clause replacing Geoffrey in the same position as he was
before the battle of Lincoln, in despite of his treason to the king's
cause. The next clause illustrates the system of advancing bids. Whereas
the Empress had granted Geoffrey £100 a year, charged on certain manors
of royal demesne in Essex, Stephen now increased that grant to £300 a
year, by adding the manors of Writtle (£120) and Hatfield (£80). He
further granted him another £100 a year payable from lands which had
escheated to the Crown. And lastly, he granted to his son Ernulf £100 a
year, likewise charged on land.

The next clause grants him, precisely as in the charter of the Empress,
the constableship of the Tower of London and of its appendant
"castle,"[475] with the exception that the Empress uses the term
"concedo" where Stephen has "dedi et concessi." The latter expression is
somewhat strange in view of the fact that Geoffrey had been in full
possession of the Tower before the struggle had begun, and, indeed, by
hereditary right.

We then return to what I have termed the system of advancing bids. For
where the Empress had granted Geoffrey the office of justice and sheriff
of Essex alone, Stephen makes him justice and sheriff, not merely of
Essex, but of Herts and of London and Middlesex to boot. Nor is even
this all; for, whereas the Empress had allowed him to hold Essex to farm
for the same annual sum which it had paid at her father's death,[476]
Stephen now leases it to him at the annual rent which his grandfather
had paid.[477] The fact that in the second charter of the Empress she
adopts, we shall find, the original rental,[478] instead of, as before,
that which was paid at the time of her father's death, proves that, in
this Canterbury charter, Stephen had outbid her, and further proves that
Henry I. had increased, after his wont, the sum at which the sheriff
held Essex of the Crown. This, indeed, is clear from the Pipe-Roll of
1130, which records a _firma_ far in excess of the £300 which, according
to these charters, Geoffrey's grandfather had paid.[479] It may be noted
that while Stephen's charter gives in actual figures the "ferm" which
had been paid by Geoffrey's grandfather, and which Geoffrey himself was
now to pay for London and Middlesex, it merely provides, in the case of
Essex and Hertfordshire, that he was to pay what his grandfather had
paid, without mentioning what that sum was. Happily, we obtain the
information in the subsequent charter of the Empress, and we are tempted
to infer from the silence of this earlier charter on the point, that
while the ancient _firma_ of London and Middlesex was a sum familiar to
men, that of Essex and Herts could only be ascertained by research,
pending which the Crown declined to commit itself to the sum.

It is scarcely necessary that I should insist on the extraordinary value
of this statement and formal admission by the Crown that London and
Middlesex had been held to farm by the elder Geoffrey de Mandeville—that
is, towards the close of the eleventh century, or, at latest, in the
beginning of the twelfth—and that the amount of the _firma_ was £300 a
year. One cannot understand how such a fact, of which the historical
student cannot fail to grasp the importance, can have been overlooked so
long, when it has virtually figured in Dugdale's _Baronage_ for more
than two centuries. The only writer, so far as I know, who has ventured
on an estimate of the annual render from London at the time of Domesday
arrives at the conclusion that "we can hardly be wrong in putting the
returns at ... about £850 a year."[480] We have seen that, on the
contrary, the rental, even later than Domesday, was £300 a year, and
this not for London only, but for London and Middlesex together.[481]

Nothing, indeed, could show more plainly the necessity for such a work
as I have here undertaken, and the new light which the evidence of these
charters throws upon the history of the time, than a comparison of the
results here obtained with the statements in Mr. Loftie's work,[482]
published under the editorship of Professor Freeman, which, though far
less inaccurate than his earlier and larger work, contains such passages
as this:—

 "Matilda had one chance of conciliating the citizens, and she threw it
 away. The immemorial liberties which had been enjoyed for generations,
 and confirmed by William and Henry, were taken from the city, which for
 the first and last time in its history was put 'in demesne.' The Earl
 of Essex, Geoffrey de Mandeville, whose father is said by Stow to have
 been portreeve, was given Middlesex 'in farm' with the Tower for his
 castle, and no person could hold pleas either in city or county without
 his permission. The feelings of the Londoners were fully roused. Though
 Stephen was actually a prisoner, and Matilda's fortunes never seemed
 brighter, her cause was lost.... The citizens soon saw that her putting
 them in demesne was no mistake committed in a hasty moment in times of
 confusion, but was part of a settled policy. This decided the waverers
 and doubled the party of Stephen.... Stephen was exchanged for the Earl
 of Gloucester, the Tower was surrendered, the dominion was removed, and
 London had its liberty once more; but after such an experience it is
 not wonderful that the citizens held loyally to Stephen during the
 short remainder of his life" (pp. 36, 37).[483]

A more complete travesty of history it would not be possible to
conceive. "The immemorial liberties" were no older than the charter
wrung from Henry a few years before, and so far from the city being "put
'in demesne'" (whatever may be meant by this expression),[484] "for the
first and last time in its history," the Empress, had she done what is
here charged to her, would have merely placed Geoffrey in the shoes of
his grandfather and namesake.[485] But the strange thing is that she did
nothing of the kind, and that the facts, in Mr. Loftie's narrative, are
turned topsy-turvey. It was not by Matilda in June, but by Stephen in
December, that London and Middlesex were placed in Geoffrey's power. The
Empress did not do that which she is stated to have done; and Stephen
did do what he is said to have undone. The result of his return to
power, so far as London was concerned, was that the Tower was _not_
surrendered, but, on the contrary, confirmed to Geoffrey, and that so
far from "the dominion" (an unintelligible expression) being "removed,"
or London regaining its liberty, it was now deprived of its liberty by
being placed, as even the Empress had refrained from placing it, beneath
the yoke of Geoffrey. Thus it was certainly not due to his conduct on
this occasion "that the citizens of London held loyally to Stephen
during the short remainder of his life." Nor, it may be added, is it
possible to understand what is meant by that "short remainder," for
these events happened early in Stephen's reign, not a third of which had
elapsed at the time.

But the important point is this. Here was Stephen anxious on the one
hand to reward the Londoners for their allegiance, and, on the other, to
punish Geoffrey for his repeated offences against himself, and yet
compelled by the force of circumstances actually to reward Geoffrey at
the cost of the Londoners themselves. We need no more striking
illustration of the commanding position and overwhelming power which the
ambitious earl had now obtained by taking advantage of the rival claims,
and skilfully holding the balance between the two parties, as was done
by a later king-maker in the strife of Lancaster and York.

Passing over for the present the remarkable expressions which illustrate
my theory of the differentiation of the offices of justice and sheriff,
I would invite attention to Geoffrey's claim to be placed in the shoes
of his grandfather, as an instance of the tendency, in this reign, of
the magnates to advance quasi-hereditary claims, often involving, as it
were, the undoing of the work of Henry I. William de Beauchamp was
anxious to be placed in the shoes of Robert le Despenser; the Beaumont
Earl of Leicester in those of William Fitz Osbern; the Earl of Oxford in
those of William of Avranches; and Geoffrey himself, we shall find, in
those of "Eudo Dapifer."

A point of great importance awaits us in the reference which, in this
charter, is made to the Exchequer. I expressed a doubt, when dealing
with the first charter of the Empress,[486] as to the supposed total
extinction of the working of the Exchequer under Stephen. The author of
the _Dialogus_, though anxious to emphasize its re-establishment under
Henry II., goes no further than to speak of its system being "_pene_
prorsus abolitam" in the terrible time of the Anarchy (I. viii.). Now
here, in 1141, at the very height, one might say, of the Anarchy, we not
only find the Exchequer spoken of as in full existence, but, which is
most important to observe, we have the precise Exchequer _formulæ_ which
we find under Henry II. The "Terræ datæ," or alienated Crown demesnes,
are represented here by the "dominia que de predictis comitatibus data
sunt," and the provision that they should be subtracted from the fixed
ferm ("a firma subtrahantur") is a formula found in use subsequently, as
is, even more, the phrase "ad scaccarium computabuntur."[487]

The next clause deals with castles, that great feature of the time. Here
again the accepted view as to Stephen's laxity on the subject is greatly
modified by this evidence that even Geoffrey de Mandeville, great as was
his power, deemed it needful to secure the royal permission before
erecting a castle, and that this permission was limited to a single
fortress.[488]

In the next clause we return to the system of counter-bids. As the king
had trebled the grants of Crown demesne made to Geoffrey by the Empress,
and trebled also the counties which had been placed in his charge by
her, so now he trebled the number of enfeoffed knights ("milites
feudatos"). The Empress had granted twenty; Stephen grants sixty. Of
these sixty, ten were to be held of Geoffrey by his son Ernulf. Here, as
before,[489] the question arises: what was the nature of the benefits
thus conferred on the grantee? They were, I think, of two kinds. In the
first place, Geoffrey became entitled to what may be termed the feudal
profits, such as reliefs, accruing from these sixty fees. In the second,
he secured sixty knights to serve beneath his banner in war. This, in a
normal state of affairs, would have been of no consequence, as he would
only have led them to serve the Crown. But in the then abnormal
condition of affairs, and utter weakness of the crown, such a grant
would be equivalent to strengthening _pro tanto_ the power of the earl
as arbiter between the two rivals for the throne.

Independently, however, of its bearing at the time, this grant has a
special interest, as placing at our disposal a list of sixty knights'
fees, a quarter of a century older than the "cartæ" of the _Liber
Niger_.[490]

At the close of all these specified grants comes a general confirmation
of the lost charter of the Queen ("Carta Regine").

Our ignorance of the actual contents of that charter renders it
difficult to speak positively as to whether Geoffrey obtained from
Stephen all the concessions he had wrung from the Empress, or had to
content himself, on some points, with less, while on most he secured
infinitely more. Thus, in the matter of "the third penny," which was
specially granted him by the Empress, we find this charter of Stephen as
silent as had been the former.[491] And the omission of a clause
authorizing the earl to deduct it from the ferm of the county virtually
implies that he did not receive it. He gained, however, infinitely more
by the great reduction in the total ferm. The grant by the Empress of a
market at Bushey, and her permission that the market at Newport should
be transferred to his castle at Walden, are not repeated in this
charter; nor does the king, as his rival had done, grant the earl
permission to fortify the Tower at his will, or to retain and strengthen
the castles he already possessed. On the other hand, he allowed him, by
a fresh concession, to raise an additional stronghold. It may also be
mentioned, to complete the comparison, that the curious reference to
appeal of treason is not found in the king's charter.

We will now turn from this charter to the movements by which it was
followed.

At the close of the invaluable passage from Gervase alluded to above, we
read:—

 "Rex Stephanus a Cantuariâ recedens vires suas reparare studuit, quo
 severius et acrius imperatricem et omnes ipsius complices
 debellaret."[492]

His first step in this direction was to make a progress through his
realm, or at least through that portion over which he reigned supreme.
William of Malmesbury writes of his movements after Christmas:—

 "Utræque partes imperatricis et regis se cum quietis modestiâ egerunt a
 Natale usque ad Quadragesimam; magis sua custodire quam aliena
 incursare studentes: rex in superiores regiones abscessit nescio quæ
 compositurus" (p. 763).

This scrupulous reluctance of the writer to relate events of which he
had no personal knowledge is evidently meant to confirm his assurance,
just above, that he had the greatest horror of so misleading
posterity.[492b] The thread of the narrative, however, which he drops is
taken up by John of Hexham, who tells us that "after Easter" (April 19)
the king and queen arrived at York, put a stop to a projected tournament
between the two great Yorkshire earls, and endeavoured to complete the
preparations for the king's revenge upon his foes.[493]

Before proceeding, I would call attention to two charters which must, it
seems, have passed between the king's visit to Canterbury (Christmas,
1141), and his appearance with the queen in Yorkshire (Easter, 1142). I
do so, firstly, because their witnesses ought to be compared with those
by whom the Canterbury charter was attested; secondly, because one of
them is a further instance of how, as in the case of the Canterbury
charter, chronicles and charters may be made to confirm and explain each
other.

The first of these charters is the confirmation by Stephen of the
foundation, by his constable Robert de Vere, of Monks Horton Priory,
Kent.[494] If we eliminate from its eleven witnesses those whose
attendance was due to the special contents of the charter, namely, the
Count of Eu and two Kentish barons,[495] there remain eight names, every
one of which appears in the Canterbury charter, one as grantee and seven
as witnesses. Here is the list:

"Testibus Comite Gaufrido de Essex et Willelmo Comite de Warrenne ... Et
Comite Gilleberto de Penbroc et Willelmo de Iprâ et Willelmo Mart[el] et
Turgisio de Abrincis et Ricardo de Luci et Adam de Belu[n] ... apud
Gipeswic."

Here then we have what might be described as King Stephen's Restoration
Court, or at least the greater portion of its leading members; and this
charter is therefore evidence that Stephen must have visited the Eastern
Counties early in 1142. It is also evidence that Earl Geoffrey was with
him on that occasion, and thus throws a gleam of light on the earl's
movements at the time.

The other charter is known to us only from a transcript in the Great
Coucher (vol. ii. fol. 445), and is strangely assigned in the official
calendar to 1135-37.[496] The grantee is William, Earl of Lincoln, and
the list of witnesses is as follows:—

"T. Com. Rann. et Com. Gisl. de Pembroc* et Com. Gisl. de hertf.* et
Com. Sim.* et Com. R. de Warwic' et Com. R. de Ferr.* et W. mart.* et
Bald. fil. Gisl.* et W. fil. Gisl. et Ric. de Camvill et Ric. fil. Ursi*
et E[ustachio] fil. John' et Rad. de Haia et h' Wac' et W. de Coleuill
apud Stanf'."

Of these fifteen witnesses at least five are local men, and of the
remaining ten no fewer than seven (here distinguished by an asterisk)
had attested the Canterbury charter. But further evidence of the close
connection, in date, between these two charters is found in yet another
quarter. This is the _English Chronicle_. We there read that after the
release of Stephen from his captivity, "the king and Earl Randolf agreed
at Stamford and swore oaths and plighted troth, that neither of them
should prove traitor to the other." For this is the earliest occasion to
which that passage can refer. Stephen would pass through Stamford on his
northward progress to York, and here, clearly, at his entrance into
Lincolnshire, he was met by the two local magnates, William, Earl of
Lincoln, and Randolf, Earl of Chester. Their revolt at Lincoln, at the
close of 1140, had led directly to his fall, but it was absolutely
needful for the schemes he had in view that he should now secure their
support, and overlook their past treason. He therefore came to terms
with the two brother earls, and, further, bestowed on the Earl of
Lincoln the manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey ("Chircheton"), and confirmed him
in possession of his castle of Gainsborough and his bridge over Trent,
"libere et quiete tenendum omnibus liberis consuetudinibus cum quibus
aliquis comes Anglie tenet castella sua,"—a formula well deserving
attention as bearing on the two peculiar features of this unhappy time,
its earls and its castles.

Lastly, we should observe the family relationship between the grantee
and the witnesses of this charter. The first witness was his
half-brother, Earl Randolf of Chester, who was uncle of Earl Gilbert of
Hertford, who was nephew of Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, who was brother of
W(alter) fitz Gilbert and Baldwin fitz Gilbert, of whom the latter's
daughter married H(ugh) Wac (Wake). Of the other witnesses, Ralph de
Haye was of the family which then, and Richard de Camville of that which
afterwards, held the constableship of Lincoln Castle. Earl R(oger) of
Warwick (a supporter of the Empress) should be noticed as an addition to
the Canterbury list of earls, and the descriptive style "de Warwicâ" may
perhaps be explained as inserted here to distinguish him from Earl
R(obert) "de Ferrers."

Gervase of Canterbury and John of Hexham alike lay stress on the fact
that the king, eager for revenge, was bent on renewing the strife.
William of Malmesbury echoes the statement, but tells us that the king
was struck down just as he was about, we gather, to march south. As it
was at Northampton that this took place he must have been following the
very same road as he had done at this same time of year in 1138.[497]
Nor can we doubt that his objective was Oxford, now again the
head-quarters of his foe.[498] So alarming was his illness that his
death was rumoured, and the forces he had gathered were dismissed to
their homes.[499]

But, meanwhile, where was Earl Geoffrey? We have seen that early in the
year he was present with Stephen at Ipswich.[500] If we turn to the _Ely
History_, printed in Wharton's _Anglia Sacra_, we shall find evidence
that he was, shortly after, despatched with Earl Gilbert of Pembroke,
who had been with him at Ipswich, to Ely.[501] When Stephen had
successfully attacked Ely two years before (1140), the bishop had fled,
with three companions, to the Empress at Gloucester. His scattered
followers had now reassembled, and it was to expel them from their
stronghold in the isle that Stephen despatched the two earls. Geoffrey
soon put them to flight, doubtless at Aldreth, and setting his prisoners
on horseback, with their feet tied together, led them in triumph to
Ely.[502] To the monks, who came forth to meet him with their crosses
and reliquaries, he threatened plunder and death, and their possessions
were at once seized into the king's hands. But, meanwhile, their
bishop's envoy to the pope, "a man skilled in the use of Latin, French,
and English," had returned from Rome with letters to the primates of
England and Normandy, insisting that Nigel should be restored to his
see. The monks, also, had approached Stephen and obtained from him a
reversal of Geoffrey's violent action. Nigel, therefore, returned to
Ely, to the joy, we are told, of his monks and people; and the two earls
delivered into his hands the isle and Aldreth, its key.[503]

The point to insist upon, for our own purpose, is that the Earls
Geoffrey and Gilbert were both concerned in this business, and that
their names will again be found in conjunction in the records of that
intrigue with the Empress which is the subject of the next chapter.

[432b] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. p. 62 _b_.

[433] "Regem ipsum in concilium introisse" (_Will. Malms._, 755).

[434] "Ipsam quæcunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia
obstinate fregisse" (_ibid._).

[435] "Deum, pro sua clementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse
negotia" (_ibid._).

[436] Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Richard: "His
second coronation was understood to have an important significance. He
had by his captivity in Germany ... impaired or compromised his dignity
as a crowned king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a
reconsecration, but a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had
undergone no diminution" (_Const. Hist._, i. 504).

[437] "Die qua primum coronatus fui" (_Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 181).

[438] "Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (_Will. Newburgh_,
i. 41).

[439] _Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper_, p. 3 (based on the late
Sir William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his
learned paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to
the charter.

[440] "Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with
the addition of 'Inga' and 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by
the Empress to make up his £100 a year. Thus these two manors represent
the "si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas" of the Empress's
charters. Maldon itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's
brother Theobald, forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted
by her to Geoffrey. Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ
among the archives of Westminster (printed in Madox's _Baronia Anglica_,
p. 232), in which Stephen distinctly states (1139) that he had given it
him. Thus, in giving it to Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother.

[441] The "Phenge" and "Inga" of Domesday (ii. 71 _b_, 72 _a_), which
were part of the fief of Randulf Peverel ("of London").

[442] Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.).
Its _redditus_, at the Survey, was "c libras ad pondus et c solidos de
gersumâ."

[443] Hatfield Broadoak, _alias_ Hatfield Regis. This also was ancient
demesne, its _redditus_, at the Survey, being "lxxx libras et c solidos
de gersumâ." Here the Domesday _redditus_ remained unchanged, an
important point to notice.

[444] Robert de Baentonâ was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in
the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the
Robert "de Bathentona" whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at
some length in the _Gesta_. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion,
and consequently appear here as an escheat (see my note on him in
_English Historical Review_, October, 1890).

[445] Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the
Domesday (_D. B._, ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday
fief Robert de Baentonâ had succeeded.

[446] Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had
similarly formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai.

[447] Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf
Peverel at the Survey.

[448] Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of
Randulf Peverel.

[449] Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey
in (Little) Easton.

[450] Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a
landowner in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53).

[451] Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the
"Ichilintone" of Domesday (in which it figures), was _Terra Regis_. In
the _Liber Niger_ (special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as
part of the honour of Boulogne.

[452] Anstey, Herts, the "Anestige" of Domesday, part of the honour of
Boulogne.

[453] Braughing, Herts, the "Brachinges" of Domesday. Also part of the
honour of Boulogne.

[454] Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which
formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.

[455] On Graaland de Tany, see p. 91.

[456] Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who
appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to
the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien
filius Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here
given.

[457] William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a
landowner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the
honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of
Peverel. In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of
the honour.

[458] William "de Boevilla" (_sic_) appears in the same roll as a
landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (_sic_) is
found in (Hearne's) _Liber Niger_ (p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of
Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). But what is here granted is the manor of
Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of
Peverel "of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the
Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour.

[459] Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as
holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William
Peverel holds five fees of the honour.

[460] Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey
by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there.
Stephen was of course entitled to their _servicium_ in right of his
wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166.

[461] Possibly the _Ralph_ Brito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of
Hen. II. as holding _terræ datæ_ "in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as
"Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in the _Liber Niger_ (p. 242), and as
Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (_ibid._, p. 240).

[462] Duchy of Lancaster, _Royal Charters_, No. 18.

[463] This same principle is well illustrated by two _cartæ_ which
follow one another in the pages of the _Liber Niger_. They are those of
"Willelmus filius Johannis _de Herpetreu_" and "Willelmus filius
Johannis _de Westona_." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a
crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not
the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This
leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de
Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and "Willoughby de Beke." Many similar
instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above
principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have
been added for the sake of distinction only.

[464] See p. 120.

[465] Of the absentees, the Earl of Chester and his half-brother the
Earl of Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl
of Warwick; the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count
of Meulan, but he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of
Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Hereford were, of course, with the
Empress. Thus, with the nine mentioned in the charter, we account for
some eighteen earls.

[466] See Appendix M, on the latter earldom.

[467] See p. 49, _n._ 4.

[468] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 85 dors.

[469] _Colchester Cartulary_ (Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406.

[470] As by Mr. Eyton (_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 96). The said Robert
appears in the latter part of this reign as "Robertus filius Alberici de
Ver" (_Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral_, p. 133), and sent in his
_carta_ in 1166 as "Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert
de Vere.

[471] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 179.

[472] See Appendix N, on "Robert de Vere."

[473] See _Ord. Vit._, v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him
wrongly).

[474] "Tunc, quia rex Stephanus festivâ carebat voce, Baldewino filio
Gilleberti, magnæ nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo
exhortatorius ad universum cœtum injunctus est.... Capitur etiam
Baldewinus qui orationem fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus
vulneribus, multis contritus ictibus, ubi egregie resistendo gloriam
promeruit sempiternam" (_Hen. Hunt._, pp. 271, 274).

[475] See Appendix O: "Tower and Castle."

[476] "Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex
Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite
phrase was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had a _joint_ firma at
the time (see _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.).

[477] "Eadem firma qua avus ejus ... tenuit."

[478] "Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit."

[479] The _firma_ of Essex with _Herts_, in 1130, was £420 3_s._ "ad
pensum," _plus_ £26 17_s._ "numero," _plus_ £86 19_s._ 9_d._ "blancas,"
whereas Geoffrey secured the two for £360. The difference between this
sum and the joint _firma_ of 1130 curiously approximates that at London
(see Appendix, p. 366, _n._).

[480] Pearson's _History of England during the Early and Middle Ages_,
i. 664 ("County Rentals in Domesday").

[481] See Appendix P: "The Early Administration of London."

[482] _Historic Towns: London_ (1887).

[483] The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is,
however, an error in each. The first implies that the charter to
Geoffrey was granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to,
London. The second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on
her flight from London, "withdrew towards Winchester," and that her
brother was captured by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not
captured till after the siege of Winchester, later in the year, and
under different circumstances.

[484] It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to
separate London from Middlesex, and to treat the former as granted "in
demesne," and the latter "in farm." Such a conception is quite
erroneous.

[485] It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his "father"
who "is said by Stow to have been portreeve."

[486] See p. 99.

[487] "Et computabitur tibi ad scaccarium" is the regular form found in
the precepts of Henry II. (_Dialogus_, ii. 8).

[488] See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the "adulterine" castles,
the _Gesta Stephani_ (p. 66): "Plurima adulterina castella, alia solâ
adventus sui famâ vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita
subvertit: omnesque circumjacentes provincias, quas castella
inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione degravabant, purgavit tunc
omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140).

[489] See p. 103.

[490] Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory
advanced by me in the _English Historical Review_ (October, 1891) as to
knight-service being grouped in multiples of ten (the _constabularia_).

[491] See Appendix H.

[492] _Gervase of Canterbury_, i. 123.

[492b] "Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum
stylo committere, quod nescirem solidâ veritate subsistere. Ea porro,
quæ de præsenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt principium."

[493] "Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eum reginâ suâ Mathilde, venit
Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano comite
de Richemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit; habuitque in votis
pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem et
integritatem reformare" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 312). Notice that John of
Hexham always speaks of Alan as Earl "of Richmond" and William as Earl
"of York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl "of
Richmond," and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to
the Lords' committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its
origin and descent (_Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer_). If, as I
believe, no county could, at this period, have two earls, it follows
that either Alan "Comes" did not hold an English earldom, and was merely
described as of Richmond because that was his seat; or, that
"Richmondshire" was, at that time, treated as a county of itself. One or
other of these alternatives must, I think, be adopted. But see also p.
290, _n._ 2.

[494] _Harl. MS._, 2044, fol. 55 _b_; _Addl. MSS._, 5516, No. 9, p. 7
(printed in _Archæologia Cantiana_, x. 272, but not in Dugdale's
_Monasticon_).

[495] Robert de Crevecœur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu was a
benefactor to the priory.

[496] _Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper_, p. 2.

[497] He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter week,
1138.

[498] William of Malmesbury writes: "In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem
quædam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud
Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus
conclamaretur" (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between this
statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not
reach York till "post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more
probable.

[499] "Præventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat
remisit ad propria" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 312).

[500] _Supra_, p. 158.

[501] "Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis
strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavillâ, associante ei Comite Gileberto,
ut homines episcopi, qui tunc latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut
gladiis truncaret" (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to
Earl Geoffrey's wife.

[502] "Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit; milites vero
teneri jussit; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos
spectante populo usque in Ely perduxit" (_ibid._).

[503] See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."



 CHAPTER VIII.
 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS.


We left, it may be remembered, the Empress and her supporters assembled
at Bristol, apparently towards the close of the year 1141. Their
movements are now somewhat obscure, and the hopes of the Empress had
been so rudely shattered, that for a time her party were stunned by the
blow. We gather, however, from William of Malmesbury that Oxford became
her head-quarters,[504] and it was at Oxford that she granted the
charter which forms the subject of this chapter.

From internal evidence it is absolutely certain that this charter is
subsequent to that dealt with in the last chapter. That is to say, it
must be dated subsequent to Christmas, 1141. But it is also certain,
from the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is a witness, that it must
have passed previous to his departure from England at the end of June,
1142.[505]

It may, at first sight, excite surprise that, after having extorted such
concessions from Stephen, Geoffrey should so quickly turn to his rival,
more especially when Stephen appeared triumphant, and the chances of his
rival desperate. But, on the one hand, in accordance with his persistent
policy, he hoped, by the offer of a fresh treason, to secure from the
Empress an even higher bid than that which he had wrung from Stephen;
and, on the other, the very weakness of the Empress, he must have seen,
would place her more completely at his mercy. In short, he now virtually
aspired to the _rôle_ of "the king-maker" himself.[506]

Even he, however, strong though he was, could scarcely have attempted to
stem the tide, while the flood of reaction was at its height. He
watched, no doubt, for the first signs of an ebb in Stephen's triumph.
It was not long before this ebb came in the form of that illness by
which the king, as we saw, was struck down about the end of April, on
his way south, at Northampton.[507] The dismissal of the host he had so
eagerly collected was followed by a rumour of his death.[508] No one, it
would seem, has ever noticed the strange parallel between this illness
and that of 1136. In each case it was about the end of April that the
king was thus seized, and in each case his seizure gave rise to a
widespread rumour of his death.[509] On the previous occasion that
rumour had been followed by an outburst of treason and revolt,[510] and
it is surely, to say the least, not improbable that it now gave the sign
for which Geoffrey was watching, and led to the extraordinary charter
with which we have here to deal.

The movements of the Empress have also to be considered in their bearing
on the date of the charter. We learn from William of Malmesbury that she
held two councils at Devizes, one about the 1st of April (Mid-Lent), and
one at Whitsuntide (7-14 June). The latter council was held on the
return of the envoys who had been despatched, after the former one, to
request Geoffrey of Anjou to come to his wife's assistance. Geoffrey had
replied that the Earl of Gloucester must first come over to him, and the
earl accordingly sailed from Wareham about the end of June. It is most
probable that he went there straight from Devizes, in which case he was
not at Oxford after the beginning of June. In this case, that is the
latest date at which the charter can have passed.

Although the original of this charter cannot, like its predecessor of
the previous year, be traced down to this very day, we have the
independent authorities of Dugdale and of another transcriber for the
fact that it was duly recorded in the Great Coucher of the duchy.[511]
If the missing volume, or volumes, of that work should come to light, I
cannot entertain the slightest doubt that this charter will be found
there entered. Collateral evidence in its favour is forthcoming from
another quarter, for the record with which, as I shall show, it is so
closely connected that the two form parts of one whole, has its
existence proved by cumulative independent evidence.

I have taken for my text, in this instance, the fine transcript from the
Great Coucher in _Lansd. MS._ 229 (fol. 109), with which I have collated
Dugdale's transcript, among his MSS. at Oxford (L. 19), "ex magno
registro in officio Ducatus Lancastrie." I have also collated another
transcript which is among the Dodsworth MSS. (xxx. 113), and which was
made in 1649. It is, unfortunately, incomplete. Yet another transcriber
began to copy the charter, but stopped almost at once.[512] I have given
in the notes the variants (which are slight) in the Dodsworth and
Dugdale transcripts.

 "Carta M. Imperatricis facta Com̃ Gaufredo Essexiæ de
 pluribus terris et libertatibus.

M. Imperatrix. H. regis filia et Anglorum Domina. Archiepiscopis.[513]
Episcopis. Abbatibus. Comitibus. Baronibus. Justiciariis. Vicecomitibus.
Ministris. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et
Normanniæ Salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti
Gaufr[edo] Essexe omnia tenementa sua, sicut Gaufredus avus suus,[514]
aut Willelmus pater suus,[515] aut ipsemet postea unquam melius vel
liberius tenuerit[516] aliquo tempore in feodo et hæreditate sibi et
hæredibus suis, ad tenendum de me et de hæredibus meis. Videlicet in
terris et turribus, in Castellis et Bailliis. Et nominatim Turrim
Lund[oniæ] cum Castello quod subtus[517] est, ad firmandum et
efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Et Vicecomitatum Lund[oniæ][518] et
Middelsex per CCC lib[ras] sicut Gaufredus auus eius tenuit. Et
vicecomitatum Essex per CCC lib[ras] sicut idem Gaufredus auus eius
tenuit.[519] Et vicecomitatum de Heortfordscirâ per LX libras sicut avus
eius tenuit. Et præter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo quod habeat
hæreditabiliter Justiciã Lund[oniæ] et Middelsex et Essex et de
Hertfordscirâ, ita quod nulla alia justicia placitet in hiis supradictis
vicecomitatibus nisi per eis[520] [_sic_]. Et concedo illi,[521] ut
habeat illas C libratas terræ quas dedi illi, et servicium illorum XX
militum sicut illud ei dedi et per aliam cartam meam confirmavi. Et
illas CC libratas terræ quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei
dederunt. Et illas C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis quas idem Rex et
Regina ei dederunt, et servicium militum quod ei dederunt, sicut habet
inde cartas illorum. Et do ei totam terram quæ fuit[522] Eudonis
Dapiferi in Normanniâ et Dapiferatum ipsius. Et hæc reddo ei ut Rectum
suum ut habeat et teneat hæreditabiliter, ita ne ponatur inde in
placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviæ et ego
voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet
Eschaetis et pro servicio militum[523] quod habet totam terram quæ fuit
Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et[524]
mortuus, quia hoc est Rectum suum, Præter illas[525] libratas terræ quas
ego dedi ei Et præter seruicium XX militum quod ei dedi, Et præter
terram Ernulfi de Mannavill sicut eam tenet de Comite Gaufredo ex
servicio X militum Et si potero perquirere erga Episcopum Lund[oniæ] et
erga ecclesiam Sancti Pauli Castellum de Storteford per Escambium ad
Gratum suum tunc do et concedo illud ei et hæredibus suis in feodo et
hereditate tenendum de me et hæredibus meis. Quod si facere non potero,
tunc ei convenciono quod faciam illud prosternere et ex toto cadere. Et
concedo quod Ernulf[us] de Mannavill teneat illas C libratas terræ quas
ei dedi, et servicium X militum de Comite Gaufredo patre suo. Et præter
hoc do et concedo eidem Ernulfo C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis Et
servicium X militum ad tenendum de domino meo Comite Andegau[ie] et de
me in capite hæreditarie sibi et hæredibus suis de nobis et de hæredibus
nostris videlicet Cristeshalam[526] et Benedis[527] pro quanto valent.
Et superplus perficiam ei per considerationem Comitis Gaufredi. Et
convenciono eidem Gaufredo Comiti Essex quod dominus meus Comes
Andegauie vel ego vel filii nostri nullam pacem aut concordiam cum
Burgensibus Lund[oniæ] faciemus, nisi concessu et assensu prædicti
Comitis Gaufredi quia inimici eius sunt mortales. Concedo etiam eidem
Gaufredo quod novum castellum quod firmavit super Lviam[528] stet et
remaneat ad efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Concedo etiam ei quod
firmet unum Castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ sicut ei per aliam
cartam meam concessi, et quod stet et remaneat. Concedo etiam eidem
Gaufredo quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia
essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua
servicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhesit. Hæc autem omnia
supradicta tenementa in omnibus rebus concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie
sibi et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter
præcipio quod ipse Gaufredus comes et hæredes sui teneant hæc omnia
supradicta tenementa ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et
honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum totius Angliæ
melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet Et præter hoc dedi Willelmo filio
Otueɫ[529] fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi C libratas terræ de terris
Escaetis tenendis de me et de hæredibus meis in feudo et hæreditate pro
seruicio suo, et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi. Concedo etiam
quod Willelmus de Sai[530] habeat omnes terras et tenementa quæ fuerunt
patris sui, et ipse et hæredes sui, et quod Willelmus Cap'.[531] habeat
terram patris sui sine placito et ipse et hæredes sui. Concedo etiam
eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod Willelmus filius Walteri[531] et hæredes sui
habeant custodiam Castelli de Windesh' et omnia sua tenementa sicut ipse
Willelmus et antecessores sui eam habuerunt de Rege H. patre meo et
antecessoribus ipsius. Et quod Matheus de Rumilli[533] habeat terram
patris sui quam Gaufridus de Turevill[534] tenet. Et Willelmus de
Auco[535] habeat Lauendonam sicut Rectum suum hæreditarie. Concedo etiam
eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod omnes homines sui teneant terras et tenementa
sua de quocunque teneant sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione et ut
Rectum eis teneatur de eorum Calumpnijs sine pecuniæ donatione Et quod
Osb[ertus] Octod[enarii][536] habeat illas XX libratas terræ quas ei
dedi et confirmaui per cartam meam.

"Hanc[537] autem convencionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea
propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides
per fidem et Testes Robertus Comes Gloec': et Milo Com' Heref':[538] et
Brianus filius Comitis: et Rob' fil' Reg':[539] et Rob' de Curc'
Dap:[540] et Joh'es filius Gisleberti:[541] et Milo de Belloc':[542] et
Rad' Paganell:[543] et Rob' de Oilli Conest':[544] et Rob' fil'
Heldebrand'.[545]

"Et[546] convencionavi eidem Comiti Gaufredo pro posse meâ quod Comes
Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu sua propria illud idem[547]
tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. Et quod rex Franciæ erit
inde[548] obses si facere potero. Et si non potero, faciam quod ipse Rex
capiet in manu illud tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse obsides per fidem:
Juhel de Moduana,[549] et Robertus de Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill[550]
et Pagan' de Clarevall'[551] et Gaufredus de Clarevall' et Andreas de
Aluia:[552] et Pipinus de Turon': et Absalon Rumarch'[553] et Reginaldus
comes Cornubiæ et Balduinus Comes Devon': et Gislebertus Comes de
Penbr': et Comes Hugo de Norff': et Comes Albericus: et Henricus de
Essex: et Petrus de Valon':[554] et alii Barones mei quos habere
voluerit et ego habere potero, erunt inde obsides similiter. Et quod
x'rianitas Angliæ quæ est in potestate meâ capiet in manu istam
supradictam conventionem tenendam eidem Comiti[555] Gaufredo et
hæredibus suis de me et de hæredibus meis. Apud Oxineford.[556]

"Sub magno sigillo dictæ Matildis Imperatricis."

Let us now, in accordance with the guiding principle on which I have
throughout insisted, compare this charter _seriatim_ with those by which
it was preceded, with a view to ascertaining what further concessions
the unscrupulous earl had won by this last change of front. We shall
find that, as we might expect, it marks a distinct advance.

The earlier clauses do little more than specifically confirm the
privileges and possessions that he had inherited from his father or had
already wrung from the eager rivals for the Crown. This was by no means
needless so far as the Empress was concerned, for his desertion of her
cause since her previous charter involved, as an act of treason, his
forfeiture at her hands. These are followed by a new grant, namely,
"totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et Dapiferatum
ipsius," with a conditional proposal that Geoffrey should also, in
exchange for the grants he had already received, obtain that portion of
the Dapifer's fief which lay in England. The large estate which this
successful minister had accumulated in the service of the Conqueror and
his sons had escheated to the Crown at his death, and is entered
accordingly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. This has an important bearing
on the noteworthy admission in the charter that Geoffrey is to receive
the Dapifer's fief not as a gift, but as his right ("rectum suum"). This
expression is referred to by Mr. Eyton in his MSS., as placing beyond
doubt the received statement that Geoffrey was maternally a grandson of
the Dapifer, whose daughter and heiress Margaret had married his father
William. But this statement is taken from Dugdale, who derived it solely
from the _Historia Fundationis_ of St. John's Abbey, Colchester, a
notoriously inaccurate and untrustworthy document printed in the
_Monasticon_. The fact that this fief escheated to the Crown, instead of
passing to the Mandevilles with the Dapifer's alleged daughter, is
directly opposed to a story which has no foundation of its own.[557]

The next clause to be noticed is that which refers to Bishop's
Stortford. It implies a peculiar antipathy to this castle on the part of
Earl Geoffrey, an antipathy explained by the fact of its position, lying
as it did on the main road from London to (Saffron) Walden, and thus
cutting communications between his two strongholds. We have a curious
allusion to this episcopal castle a few years before (1137), when Abbot
Anselm of St. Edmund's, who claimed to have been elected to the see,
seized and held it.[558]

The next additional grant made in this charter is that of "C libratas
terræ de terris eschaetis et servicium X militum" to the earl's son
Ernulf. This is followed by what is certainly the most striking clause
in the whole charter, that which binds the Empress and her husband "to
make no peace and come to no terms with the burgesses (_sic_) of London,
without the permission and assent of the said Earl Geoffrey, because
they are his mortal foes." Comment on the character of such a pledge on
the part of one who claimed the crown, or on the light it throws on
Geoffrey's doings, is surely needless.

The clauses relating to Geoffrey's castles are deserving of special
attention on account of the important part which the castle played in
this great struggle. The erection of unlicensed ("adulterine") castles
and their rapid multiplication throughout the land is one of the most
notorious features of the strife, and one for which Stephen's weakness
has been always held responsible. It is evident, however, from these
charters that the Crown struggled hard against the abdication of its
right to control the building of castles, and that even when reduced to
sore straits, both Stephen and the Empress made this privilege the
subject of special and limited grant. By this charter the earl secures
the license of the Empress for a new castle which he had erected on the
Lea. He may have built it to secure for himself the passage of the
river, it being for him a vital necessity to maintain communication
between the Tower of London and his ancestral stronghold in Essex. But
the remainder of the passage involves a doubt. The Empress professes to
repeat the permission in her former charter that he may construct one
permanent castle, in addition to those he has already, anywhere within
his fief. Yet a careful comparison of this permission with that
contained in her former charter, and that which was granted by Stephen,
in his charter between the two, proves that she was really confirming
what he, not she, had granted.

 MAUD (1141).

 "Et præterea concedo illi ut castella sua que habet stent ei et
 remaneant ad inforciandum ad voluntatem suam."

 STEPHEN.

 "Et præterea firmiter ei concessi ut possit firmare quoddam castellum
 ubicunque voluerit in terra sua, et quod stare possit."

 MAUD (1142).

 "Concedo etiam ei quod firmet unum castellum ubicunque voluerit in
 terra sua, _sicut ei per aliam cartam meam concessi_, et quod stet et
 remaneat."

As we can trace, in every other instance, the relation of the various
charters without difficulty or question, it would seem that we have here
to do with an error, whether or not intentional.

We then come to the clauses in favour of Geoffrey's relatives and
friends. This is a novel feature which we cannot afford to overlook. It
is directly connected with the question of that important De Vere
charter to which we shall shortly come.

Lastly, there is the remarkable arrangement for securing the validity of
the charter. Let us look at this closely.[559] We should first notice
that the Empress describes it, not as a charter, but as a "convencio et
donatio." Now this "convencio" is a striking term, for it virtually
denotes a treaty between two contracting powers. This conception of
treaty relations between the Crown and its subjects is one of the marked
peculiarities of this singular reign. It is clearly foreshadowed in
those noteworthy charters which the powerful Miles of Gloucester secured
from Stephen at his accession, and it meets us again in the negotiations
between the youthful Henry of Anjou, posing as the heir to the crown,
and the great nobles, towards the close of this same reign. It is in
strict accordance with this idea that we here find the Empress naming
those who were to be her sureties for her observance of this
"convencio," precisely as was done in the case of a treaty between
sovereign powers.[560] The exact part which the King of France was to
play in this transaction is not as clear as could be wished, but the
expression "capere in manu" is of course equivalent to his becoming her
"manucaptor," and "tenere" is here used in the sense of "to hold
good."[561] The closing words in which "the Lady of England" declared
that all the Church of Christ then beneath her sway shall undertake to
be responsible for her keeping faith, present a striking picture: but
yet more vivid, in its dramatic intensity, is that of the undaunted
Empress, the would-be Queen of the English, standing in her
water-girdled citadel, surrounded by her faithful followers, and
playing, as it were, her last card, as she placed her hand, in token of
her faith, in the grip of the Iron Earl.[562]

It was only, indeed, the collapse, to all appearance, of her fortunes,
that could have tempted Geoffrey to demand, or have induced the Empress
to concede, terms so preposterously high. The fact that she was hoping,
at this moment, to allure her husband to her side, that he might join
her in a crowning effort, explains her eagerness to secure allies, at
the cost of whatever sacrifice, and also, in consequence, the anxiety of
those allies to bind her to her promises hard and fast. It further
throws light on the constant reference throughout this charter to
Geoffrey of Anjou and his son.

Turning to the names of her proposed sureties, we find among them five
earls, of whom the Earls of Norfolk and of Pembroke invite special
notice. The former had played a shifty part from the very beginning of
the reign. He appears to have really fought for his own hand alone, and
we find him, the year after this, joining the Earl of Essex in his wild
outburst of revolt. With Pembroke the case was different. He had been
among the nobles who, the Christmas before, had assembled at Stephen's
court, and had attested the charter there granted to the Earl of Essex.
He may, in the interval, have quarrelled with Stephen and joined the
party of the Empress; but I think the occurrence of his name may be
referred, with more probability, to another cause, that of his family
ties. It is, indeed, to family ties that we must now turn our attention.

The Earl of Essex had included, as we have seen, in his demands on this
occasion, provisions in favour of certain of his relatives, including
apparently his sisters' husbands. But these by no means exhausted the
concessions he had resolved to exact. He had come prepared to offer the
Empress the support, not only of himself, but of a powerful kinsman and
ally. This was his wife's brother, Aubrey de Vere.

It will be better to relegate to an appendix the relationship of these
two families, without a clear understanding of which it is impossible to
grasp Geoffrey's scheme, or to interpret aright these charters in their
relation to one another, and in their bearing as parts of a connected
whole. Unfortunately, the errors of past genealogists have rendered it a
task of some difficulty to ascertain the correct pedigree.[563]

When the fact has been established on a sure footing that Aubrey stood
in the relation of wife's brother to Geoffrey, we may turn to the
charter upon which my narrative is here founded.

This is a charter of the Empress to Aubrey at Oxford. Mr. Eyton had, of
course, devoted his attention to this, as to the other charters, in his
special studies on the subject, but his fatal mistake in assigning both
this and the above charter to Geoffrey to the year 1141 deprives his
conclusions of all value. We may note, however, that he argued from the
mention, in the charter granted to Geoffrey, of "Earl Aubrey," that it
must, in any case, be subsequent to the charter by which Aubrey was
created an earl. He, therefore, dated the latter as "_circ._ July,
1141," and the former "_circ._ August, 1141" (or "between July 25 and
Aug. 15, 1141").[564] This reasoning could at once be disposed of by
pointing out that the Empress accepted her new ally and supporter as
"Earl Aubrey" already. Of this, however, more below. But the true answer
is to be found in the fact, which Mr. Eyton failed to perceive, that
these two charters were not only granted simultaneously, but formed the
two complements of one connected whole. In the light of this discovery
the whole episode is clear.

It is now time to give the charter with the grounds for believing in its
existence and authenticity. We have two independent transcripts to work
from. One of them was taken from the Vere register by Vincent in 1622,
and printed by him in his curious _Discoverie of Brook's Errors_. The
other was taken, apparently, in 1621, and was used by Dugdale for his
_Baronage_. Vincent's original transcript is preserved at the College of
Arms, and this I have used for the text. But we have, fortunately,
strong external testimony to the existence of the actual document. There
is printed in Rymer's _Fœdera_ (xiii. 251) a confirmation by Henry VIII.
(May 6, 1509) of this very charter, in which he is careful to state that
it was duly exhibited before him.[565] Thus, from an unexpected source
we obtain the evidence we want. It must further be remembered that our
knowledge of these twin charters comes from two different and
unconnected quarters, one being recorded in the duchy coucher (see p.
165), while the other was found among the muniments of the heir of the
original grantee (see p. 183). If, then, these two independent documents
confirm and explain one another, there is every reason to believe that
their contents are wholly authentic.

 CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO AUBREY DE VERE (1142).

M. Imp'atrix H. Regis filia et Anglorum Domina Archiepiscopis Episcopis
Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justiciariis Vicecomitibus ministris et
omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis
me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico omnes terras et tenementa
sua, sicut pater eius Albericus de Veer tenuit, die quâ fuit vivus et
mortuus, videlicet, in terris, in feodis, in firmis, in ministeriis, in
vadiis, in empcionibus, et hæreditatibus. Et nominatim Camerariam Angliæ
sicut Albericus de Veer pater eius vel Robertus Malet vel aliquis
Antecessorum suorum eam melius vel liberius tenuit cum omnibus
consuetudinibus et libertatibus quæ ad ea pertinent sicut alia Carta mea
quam inde habuit testatur. Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de
Albrincis sine placito pro seruicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et iure
quod clamat ex parte uxoris sue sicut umquam Willelmus de Archis[566] ea
melius tenuit. Et turrim et Castellum de Colecestr' sine placito
finaliter et sine escampa[567] quam citius ei deliberare potero. Et
omnes tenuras suas de quocunque eas teneat in omnibus rebus sicut Carta
sua alia quam inde habuit testatur. Et preter hoc do ei et concedo quod
sit Comes de Cantebruggescr' et habeat inde tertium denarium sicut Comes
debet habere, ita dico si Rex Scotiæ non habet illum Comitatum. Et si
Rex habuerit perquiram illum ei ad posse meum per escambium. Et si non
potero tunc do ei et concedo quod sit Comes de quolibet quatuor
Comitatuum subscriptorum, videlicet Oxenefordscira, Berkscira,
Wiltescira, et Dorsetscira per consilium et consideracionem Comitis
Gloecestrie fratris mei et Comitis Gaufridi et Comitis Gisleberti et
teneat Comitatum suum cum omnibus illis rebus que ad comitatum suum
pertineat ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et
plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comes melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet
comitatum suum. Concedo etiam ei in feodo et hæreditate seruicium
Willelmi de Helion,[568] videlicet decem militum ut ipse Willelmus
teneat de Comite Alberico et ipse Comes faciat inde michi seruicium et
michi et hæredibus meis. Concedo etiam ei et hæredibus suis de cremento
Diham[569] que fuit Rogeri de Ramis[570] rectum nepotum ipsius comitis
Alberici, videlicet filiorum Rogeri de Ramis.[571] Et similiter concedo
ei et heredibus suis Turroc̃[572] que fuit Willelmi Peuerelli de
Nottingh', et terram Salamonis Presbiteri[573] de Tilleberiâ.[574]
Concedo etiam eidem Alberico Comiti quod ipse et omnes homines sui
habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus
placitis que fecerant usque ad diem quâ seruicio domini mei Comitis
Andegavie et meo adhæserunt.[575] Hec omnia supradicta tenementa
concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie in omnibus rebus sibi et hæredibus suis
de me et de hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse
Albericus Comes et heredes sui teneant omnia tenementa sua ita bene et
in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam
aliquis Comitum meorum melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet et preter
hoc do et concedo Galfrido de Ver totam terram que fuit Galfridi
Talebot[576] in dominiis in militibus si eam ei Warantizare potero. Et
si non potero, escambium ei inde dabo ad valentiam per consideracionem
Comitis Galfridi Essex et Comitis Gisleberti et Comitis Alberici fratris
sui. Et preter hoc concedo Roberto de Ver unam baroniam ad valentiam
honoris Galfridi de Ver infra annum quo potestatiua fuero regni Angliæ.
Vel aliam terram ad valentiam illius terræ. Et preter hoc do et concedo
eidem Comiti Alberico Cancellariam ad opus Willelmi de Ver fratris sui
ex quo deliberata fuerit de Willelmo Cancellario fratre Johannis filii
Gisleberti qui eam modo habet. Hanc autem convencionem et donacionem
tenendam affidaui manu mea propria in manu Galfridi Comitis Essex. Et
hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes: Robertus Comes Gloec',
et Milo Comes Heref', et Brianus filius Comitis, et Robertus filius
Regis[577] et Robertus de Curci Dap', et Johannes filius Gisleb', et
Milo de Belloc', et Radulfus Paganel, et Robertus filius Heldebrandi et
Robertus de Oileio Conestabularius. Et Convencionaui eidem Comiti
Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei
manu suâ propriâ illud idem tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter.
Et quod Rex ffrancie erit mihi obses si facere potero Et si non potero,
faciam quod rex capiet in manu illud idem tenendum. Et de hoc debent
esse obsides per fidem Juhel de Meduana et Rob[ertus] de Sabloill et
Wido de Sabloill et Paganus de Clarievall' et Gaufridus de Clarievall et
Andreas de Alvia et Pepinus de Turcin, et Absalon de Ruinard[578] et
Reginaldus Comes Cornubiæ et Baldwinus Comes Deuoniæ et Comes
Gislebertus de Pembroc et Comes Hugo de Norfolc et Comes de Essex
Gaufridus et Patricius[579] (_sic_) de Valoniis, et alii barones mei
quos habere voluerit et ego habere potero erunt inde obsides similiter
et quod Christianitas Angliæ quæ in potestate meâ est capiat in manu
supradictam convencionem tenendam eidem Comiti Alberico et hæredibus
suis de me et hæredibus meis Apud Oxin.[580]

The first point to which I would call attention is the identity of
expression in the two charters, proving, as I urged above, their close
and essential connection. It may be as well to place the passages to
which I refer side by side.

 CHARTER TO GEOFFREY.

 Hanc autem conventionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea
 propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides
 per fidem et Testes, Robertus etc.

 Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Gaufrido pro posse meâ quod Comes
 Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem
 tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc.

 CHARTER TO AUBREY.

 Hanc autem conventionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea
 propria in manu Galfredi Comitis Essex. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides
 per fidem et Testes, Robertus, etc.

 Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes
 Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem
 tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc.

Putting together these passages with the fact that the witnesses also
are the same in both charters, we see plainly that these two documents,
while differing from all others of the kind, correspond precisely with
each other. Above all, we note that it was to Geoffrey, not to Aubrey,
that the Empress pledged her faith for the fulfilment of Aubrey's
charter. This shows, as I observed, that Aubrey obtained this charter as
Geoffrey's relative and ally, just as Geoffrey's less important kinsmen
were provided for in his own charter.

Here we may pause for a moment, before examining this record in detail,
to glance at another which forms its corollary and complement.

It will have been noticed that in both these charters the Empress
undertook to obtain their confirmation by her husband and her son. We
know not whether the charter to Geoffrey was so confirmed, but
presumably it was. For, happily, in the case of its sister-charter, the
confirmation by the youthful Henry was preserved. And there is every
reason to believe that when this was confirmed the other would be
confirmed also.

The confirmation by the future King Henry II. of his mother's charter to
Aubrey de Vere may be assigned to July-November, 1142. His uncle Robert
crossed to Normandy shortly after witnessing the original charter, and
returned to England, accompanied by his nephew, about the end of
December.[581] We may assume that no time was lost in obtaining the
confirmation by the youthful heir, and though the names of the witnesses
and the place of testing are, unluckily, omitted in the transcript, the
fact that a Hugh "de Juga" acted as Geoffrey's proxy for the occasion
supports the hypothesis that the confirmation took place over sea. That
we have a confirmation by Henry, but not by his father, is doubtless due
to Geoffrey of Anjou refusing, on this occasion, to come to his wife's
assistance, and virtually, by sending his son in his stead, abdicating
in his favour whatever pretensions he had to the English throne.

As Henry's charter is printed at the foot of his mother's by Vincent, I
shall content myself with quoting its distinctive features, for the
subject matter is the same except for some verbal differences.[582]
There is some confusion as to the authority for its text. Vincent
transcribed it, like that of the Empress, from the Hedingham Castle
Register. Dugdale, in his _Baronage_, mixes it up with the charter
granted by Henry when king, so that his marginal reference would seem to
apply to the latter. In his MSS., however, he gives as his authority
"Autographum in custodia Johis. Tindall unius magror. Curie cancellarie
temp. Reg. Eliz." If the original charter itself was in existence so
late as this there is just a hope that it may yet be found in some
unexplored collection. From time to time such "finds" are made,[583] and
few discoveries would be more welcome than that of the earliest charter
of one of the greatest sovereigns who have ever ruled these realms, the
first Plantagenet king.[584]

 CHARTER OF HENRY OF ANJOU TO AUBREY DE VERE.
 July-November, 1142.

"Henricus filius filiæ Regis Henrici, rectus heres Angl. et Normann.
etc. Sciatis quod sicut Domina mea, viz. mater mea imperatrix reddidit
et concessit, ita reddo et concedo.... Hanc autem convencionem tenendam
affidavi manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Juga,[585] sicut mater mea
Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufr. Testibus," etc.

Henry "fitz Empress" was at this time only nine and a half years old.
The claim he is here made to advance as "rightful heir" of England and
Normandy sounds the key-note of the coming struggle. Not only till he
had obtained the crown, but also after he had obtained it, he steadily
dwelt on his "right" to the throne, of which Stephen had wrongfully
deprived him.

We should also note that he claims to be "heir" of England and Normandy,
but not of Anjou. I take this to imply that he posed as no mere
heir-expectant, but as one who ought, by right, to be in actual
possession of his realm. He could not, in the lifetime of his father,
assume this attitude to Anjou. Hence its omission. As for his mother, he
seems, from the first, to have claimed her inheritance, as he eventually
obtained it, not for her, but for himself.

Let us now return to the charter of the Empress.

It will be best to discuss its successive clauses _seriatim_. The
opening portion, from "Sciatis me reddidisse" to "sicut alia Carta mea
quam inde habuit testatur," is merely a confirmation of her previous
charter, granted, as we learn from this, for the purpose of securing him
in the possession of his father's fief and office of royal chamberlain.
His father, who is said to have been slain in May, 1141, had been
granted the chamberlainship by Henry I. in 1133, the charter being
printed by Madox from Dugdale's transcript. This confirmation repeats
its terms.

The next portion extends from the words "Et do et concedo" to "sicut
Carta sua alia quam inde habet testatur." About this there is some
obscurity. The word is "do," not "_red_do," and the expression "Carta
sua" replaces "Carta mea." The clause clearly refers to grants made to
Aubrey himself since his father's death, but whether by the king or by
the Empress is not so clear as could be wished. The point need not be
discussed at length, but the former seems the more probable.

Fortunately, there is no such doubt about the clauses of creation. Here
the question of the formula becomes all-important. The case stands thus.
There are only two instances in the course of this reign in which we can
be quite certain that we are dealing with creations _de novo_. The one
is that by which the king "made" Geoffrey Earl of Essex; the other, that
by which the Empress "made" Miles Earl of Hereford. We know that neither
grantee had been created an earl before; and we find that the sovereign,
in each instance, speaks of having "made" ("fecisse") him an earl.[586]
So, again, in the only instance of a "counter-patent" of creation, of
which we can be quite certain, namely, that by which the Empress
recognized Geoffrey as Earl of Essex after he had received that title
from Stephen, the formula used is: "Do et concedo ut sit Comes." The two
are essentially distinct. Now, applying this principle to the present
charter, we find the latter of the two _formulæ_ employed on this
occasion. The words are: "Do ei et concedo ut sit Comes." We infer,
therefore, if my view be right, that Aubrey was already in enjoyment of
comital rank when he received this charter. It might be, and indeed has
been, supposed that he was so by virtue of a creation by Stephen. I have
noted an instance in which he attests a charter of Stephen (at the siege
of Wallingford) as a "comes,"[587] and it is not likely that Stephen
would allow him this title in virtue of a creation by the Empress. On
the other hand, in this charter the Empress treats him as already a
_comes_, which she does not do in the case of Geoffrey, who had been
created a _comes_ by Stephen.[588] The difference between the two cases
is accounted for by the fact that Aubrey was _comes_ not by a creation
of Stephen, but in right of his wife Beatrice, heiress of the _Comté_ of
Guisnes. This has been clearly explained by Mr. Stapleton in his paper
on "The Barony of William of Arques,"[589] although he is mistaken in
his dates. He wrongly thought, like others, that Aubrey's father, the
chamberlain, was killed in May, 1140, instead of May, 1141, and, like
Mr. Eyton, he wrongly assigned this charter of the empress to 1141,
instead of 1142.[590] His able identification of "Albericus _Aper_" with
Aubrey de Vere may be supplemented by a reference to the fact that "the
blue _boar_" was the badge of the family through a pun on the Latin
_verres_.

Aubrey was already the husband of Beatrice, the heiress of Guisnes, at
the death of her grandfather Count Manasses (? 1139). He thereupon went
to Flanders and became (says Lambart d'Ardes) Count of Guisnes.
Returning to England, he sought and obtained from Stephen his wife's
English inheritance and executed, as Mr. Stapleton observes, in his
father's lifetime (_i.e._ before May, 1141), the charter printed in
Morant's _Essex_ (ii. 506). Aubrey was divorced from Beatrice a few
years later, when she married (between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr.
Stapleton) Baldwin d'Ardres, the claimant of Guisnes. Thus did Aubrey
come to be for a time "Count of Guisnes," as recorded, according to
Weever, on his tomb at Colne Priory.

Mr. Stapleton was unable to produce any English record or chronicle in
which Aubrey is given the style of "Count of Guisnes." It is, therefore,
with much satisfaction that I print, from the original charter, the
following record, conclusively establishing that he actually had that
style:—

 COTT. CHART, xxi. 6.

"Ordingus dei gratia Abbas ecclesie sancti eadmundi Omnibus hominibus
suis et amicis et fidelibus francis et anglis salutem. Sciatis me
concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius conventus
totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui sicut tenet de
honore sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium unius militis et dimidii
et totum feudum et seruitium Alani filii Frodonis sicut tenet de honore
sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium iii militum, et insuper singulis
annis centum solidos ad pascha de camera mea. Hec omnia illi concedo in
feudo et hereditate, ipsi et heredibus suis de ecclesia sancti eadmundi
et de meis successoribus. Quare uolo et firmiter precipio quod idem
Albericus comes Gisnensis et heredes sui jure hereditario teneant de
ecclesia sancti eadmundi bene et honorifice hec supradicta omnia per
seruitium quod supradiximus. Huius donationis sunt testes ex parte mea
Willelmus prior Radulfus sacrista Gotscelinus et Eudo monachi Mauricius
dapifer Gilebertus blundus Adam de cocef' Radulfus de lodn' Willelmus
filius Ailb'. Helias de melef' Gauffridus frater eius. Ex parte comitis,
Gauffridus de ver Robertus filius humfridi Robertus filius Ailr' Garinus
filius Geroldi Hugo de ging' Albericus de capella Radulfus filius Adam
Guarinus frater eius Radulfus de gisnes Gauffridus filius Humfridi
Gauffridus Arsic Rodbertus de cocef' Radulfus carboneal et Hugo filius
eius et plures alii."[591]

But, to return to Maud's charter, the point which I am anxious to
emphasize is that of the formula she employs, namely, "do et concedo,"
as against the "sciatis me fecisse" of an original creation. I trace
this distinction in later years, when her son, who had already, as we
have seen, confirmed this charter to Aubrey, again confirmed it when
king (1156), employing for that purpose the same formula: "Sciatis me
dedisse et concessisse comiti Alberico." Conversely, in the case of Hugh
Bigod, he employs the formula: "Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot comitem
de Norfolca" (1155), this being an earldom of Stephen's creation, and,
so far as we know, of his alone. This is a view which should be accepted
with caution, but which has, if correct, an important bearing.

The very remarkable shifting clause as to the county of which the
grantee should be earl requires separate notice. The axiom from which I
start is this: When a feudatory was created an earl, he took if he could
for his "comitatus" the county in which was situated the chief seat of
his power, his "Caput Baroniæ." If this county had an earl already he
then took the nearest county that remained available. Thus Norfolk fell
to Bigod, Essex to Mandeville, Sussex to Albini, Derby to Ferrers, and
so on. De Clare, the seat of whose power was in Suffolk, though closely
adjoining Essex, took Herts, probably for the reason that Mandeville had
already obtained Essex, while Bigod's province, being in truth the old
earldom of the East Angles—"Comes de Estangle," as Henry of Huntingdon
terms him,—took in Suffolk. So now, Aubrey de Vere probably selected
Cambridgeshire as the nearest available county to his stronghold at
Castle Hedingham.[592]

But the Empress, we see, promised it only on the strange condition that
her uncle was not already in possession. I say "the strange condition,"
for one would surely have thought that she knew whether he was or not.
Moreover, the dignity was then held not by her uncle, but by his son,
and is described as the earldom of Huntingdon, never as the earldom of
Cambridge. The first of these difficulties is explained by the fact that
the King of Scots had, early in the reign, made over the earldom to his
son Henry, to avoid becoming himself the "man" of the King of England.
The second requires special notice.

We are taken back, by this provision, to the days before the Conquest.
Mr. Freeman, in his erudite essay on _The Great Earldoms under Eadward_,
has traced the shifting relations of the counties of Northamptonshire,
Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Northumberland. The point, however,
which concerns us here is that, "under William," Earl Waltheof, "besides
his great Northumbrian government, was certainly Earl of Northamptonshire
(_Ord. Vit._, 522 C.), and of Huntingdonshire (_Will. Gem._, viii.
37)."[593] His daughter Matilda married twice, and between the heirs of
these two marriages the contest for her father's inheritance was
obstinate and long. Restricting ourselves to his southern province, with
which alone we have here to deal, its western half, the county of
Northampton, had at this time passed to Simon of St. Liz as the heir of
the first marriage, while Huntingdon had conferred an earldom on Henry,
the heir of her marriage with the Scottish king. The house of St. Liz,
however, claimed the whole inheritance, and as the Earl of Huntingdon,
of course, sided with his cousin, the Empress, Earl Simon of Northampton
was the steadfast supporter, even in their darkest hours, of Stephen and
his queen. Now, the question that arises is this: Was not Earl Henry's
province Huntingdonshire _with_ Cambridgeshire? Mr. Freeman writes of
Huntingdonshire, that "in 1051 we find it, together with Cambridgeshire,
a shire still so closely connected with it as to have a common sheriff,
detached altogether from Mercia," etc.[594] It is true that when the
former county became "an outlying portion of the earldom of
Northumberland," it does not, he observes, "appear that Cambridgeshire
followed it in this last migration;"[595] but when we compare this
earlier connection with that in the Pipe-Roll of 1130,[596] and with the
fact that under another David of Scotland, this earldom, some seventy
years later, appears as that of Huntingdon and Cambridge,[597] we shall
find in this charter a connecting link, which favours the view that the
two counties had, for comital purposes, formed one throughout. We have a
notable parallel in the adjacent counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which
still formed one, the East Anglian earldom. Dorset and Somerset, too,
which were under one sheriff, may have been also intended to form one
earldom, for the Lord of Dunster is found both as Earl of "Dorset" and
of "Somerset." I suspect also that the Ferrers earldom was, in truth,
that of the joint shrievalty of Derbyshire and Notts, and that this is
why the latter county was never made a separate earldom till the days of
Richard II.

The doubt of the Empress must therefore be attributed to her anxiety not
to invade the comital rights of her cousin, in case he should deem that
her creation of an earldom of Cambridgeshire would constitute such
invasion. It is evident, we shall find, that he did so. The accepted
view is, it would appear, that Aubrey, by virtue of this charter, became
Earl "of Cambridge."[598] Mr. Doyle, indeed, in his great work, goes so
far as to state that he was "cr. Earl of CAMBRIDGE by the Empress Maud
(after March 2) 1141; ... cr. Earl of OXFORD (_in exchange_) 1155."[599]
But in Cole's (unpublished) transcript of the Colne Cartulary (fols. 34,
37), we have a charter of this Aubrey, "Pro animâ patris mei Alberici de
Vere," which must have passed between 1141 and 1147, for it is attested
by Robert, Bishop of London, appointed 1141, and Hugh, Abbot of
Colchester, who died in 1147. In this charter his style is "Albericus
Comes Oxeneford." Here, then, we have evidence that, in this reign, he
was already Earl "of Oxford," not Earl of Cambridge.

Before quitting the subject of Aubrey's creation, we may note the
bearing of the shifting clause on the creation of the earldom of
Wiltshire. It implies that Patrick of Salisbury had not yet received his
earldom. This conclusion is confirmed by a charter of the Empress tested
at Devizes, which he witnesses merely as "Patricio de Sarum
conestabulo."[600] The choice of Dorset is somewhat singular, as it
suggests an intrusion on the Mohun earldom. But this rather shadowy
dignity appears, during its brief existence, as an earldom of Somerset
rather than of Dorset.

The specific grant of the "tertius denarius," as in the creation
charters of the earldoms of Essex and of Hereford, should also be
noticed.

The "Earl Gilbert" who is repeatedly mentioned in the course of this
charter is Earl Gilbert "of Pembroke," maternal uncle to Aubrey. It is
this relationship that, perhaps, accounts for the part he here plays.

Of the remaining features of interest in the record, attention may be
directed to the phrase concerning the knights' fees of William de
Helion: "Ut ipse Willelmus teneat de Comite Alberico, et ipse Comes
faciat inde michi servitium;" also to the implied forfeiture of William
Peverel of Nottingham, he having been made prisoner at Lincoln, fighting
on Stephen's side. Lastly, the promise to the earl of the chancellorship
for his brother William becomes full of interest when we know that this
was the Canon of St. Osyth,[601] and that he was to be thus rewarded as
being the clerical member of his house. It enables us further to
identify in William, the existing chancellor, the brother of John (fitz
Gilbert) the marshal.

We have now examined these two charters, parts, I would again insist, of
one connected negotiation. What was its object? Nothing less, in my
opinion, than a combined revolt in the Eastern Counties which should
take Stephen in the rear, as soon as the arrival from Normandy of
Geoffrey of Anjou and his son should give the signal for a renewal of
the struggle, and a fresh advance upon London by the forces of the west
country. Earl Geoffrey himself was now at the height of his power. If he
were supported by Aubrey de Vere, and by Henry of Essex with Peter de
Valoines (who are specially named in Geoffrey's charter), he would be
virtually master of Essex. And if the restless Earl of the East Angles
(p. 178 _supra_) would also join him, as eventually he did, while Bishop
Nigel held Ely, Stephen would indeed be placed between two fires. I
cannot but think that it is to the rumour of some such scheme as this
that Stephen's panegyrist refers, when he tells us, the following year,
that Geoffrey "had arranged to betray the realm into the hands of the
Countess of Anjou, and that his intention to do so had been matter of
common knowledge."[602]

I would urge that in the charters I have given above we find the key to
this allusion, and that they, in their turn, are explained, and at the
same time confirmed, by the existence of this concerted plot. We have
now to trace the failure of the scheme, and to learn how it was that all
came to nought.

Stephen's illness, to which, it may be remembered, I had attributed in
part the inception of the scheme, only lasted till the middle of June.
By the time that Robert of Gloucester had set forth to cross the
Channel, Stephen was restored to health, and ready and eager for
action.[603] Swift to seize on such an opportunity as he had never
before obtained, he burst into the heart of the enemy's country and
marched straight on Wareham. He found its defenders off their guard; the
town was sacked and burnt, and the castle was quickly his.[604] The
precautions of the Earl of Gloucester had thus been taken in vain, and
the port he had secured for his return was now garrisoned by the king.

The effect of this brilliant stroke was to paralyze the party of the
Empress. Her brother, who had left her with great reluctance, dreading
the fickleness of the nobles, had made her assembled supporters swear
that they would defend her in his absence, and had further taken with
him hostages for their faithful behaviour.[605] He had also so
strengthened her defences at Oxford that the city seemed almost
impregnable.[606] Lastly, a series of outlying posts secured the
communications of its defenders with the districts friendly to their
cause.[607]

But Stephen, in the words of his panegyrist, had "awaked as one out of
sleep." Summoning to his standard his friends and supporters, he marched
on Gloucestershire itself, and appeared unexpectedly at Cirencester on
the line of the enemy's communications. Its castle, taken by surprise,
was burnt and razed to the ground. Then, completing the isolation of the
Empress, by storming, as he advanced, other of her posts,[608] he
arrived before the walls of Oxford on the 26th of September.[609] The
forces of the Empress at once deployed on the left bank of the river.
The action which followed was a curious anticipation of the struggle at
Boyne Water (1690). The king, informed of the existence of a ford,
boldly plunged into the water, and, half fording, half swimming, was one
of the first to reach the shore. Instantly charging the enemy's line, he
forced the portion opposed to him back towards the walls of the city,
and when the bulk of his forces had followed him across, the whole line
was put to flight, his victorious troops entering the gates pell-mell
with the routed fugitives. The torch was as familiar as the sword to the
soldier of the Norman age, and Oxford was quickly buried in a sheet of
smoke and fire.[610] The castle, then of great strength, alone held out.
From the summit of its mound the Empress must have witnessed the rout of
her followers; within its walls she was now destined to stand a weary
siege.

It is probable that Stephen's success at Oxford was in part owing to the
desertion of the Empress by those who had sworn to defend her. For we
read that they were led by shame to talk of advancing to her
relief.[611] The project, however, came to nothing, and Earl Robert,
hearing of the critical state of affairs, became eager to return to the
assistance of his sister and her beleaguered followers.

Geoffrey of Anjou had, on various pretences, detained the earl in
Normandy, instead of accepting his invitation and returning with him to
England. But Robert's patience was now exhausted, and, bringing with
him, instead of Geoffrey, the youthful Henry "fitz Empress," he sailed
for England with a fleet of more than fifty ships. Such was the first
visit to this land of the future Henry II., being then nine years and a
half, not (as stated by Dr. Stubbs) eight years old.[612]

The earl made it a point of honour to recapture Wareham as his first
step. He also hoped to create a diversion which might draw off the king
from Oxford.[613] This was not bad strategy, for Stephen was deemed to
be stronger behind the walls of Oxford than he would be in the open
country. The position of affairs resembled, in fact, that at Winchester,
the year before. But the two sides had changed places. As the Empress,
in Winchester, had besieged Wolvesey, so now, in Oxford, Stephen did the
same. It would, therefore, have been necessary to besiege him in turn as
the Empress was besieged the year before. Well aware of the advantage he
enjoyed, Stephen refused to be decoyed away, and allowed the castle of
Wareham to fall into Robert's hands. The other posts in the
neighbourhood were also secured by the earl, who then advanced to
Cirencester, where he had summoned his friends to meet him. Thus
strengthened, he was already marching to the relief of Oxford, when he
received the news of his sister's perilous escape and flight. A close
siege of three months had brought her to the extremity of want, and
Stephen was pressing the attack with all the artillery of the time. A
few days before Christmas, in a long and hard frost, when the snow was
thick upon the ground, she was let down by ropes from the grim Norman
tower, which commanded the approach to the castle on the side of the
river. Clad in white from head to foot, and escorted by only three
knights, she succeeded under cover of the darkness of night, and by the
connivance of one of the besiegers' sentries, in passing through their
lines undetected and crossing the frozen river. After journeying on foot
for six miles, she reached the spot where horses were in waiting, and
rode for Wallingford Castle, her still unconquered stronghold.[614]

On receiving the news of this event Robert changed his course, and
proceeded to join his sister. In her joy at the return of her brother
and the safe arrival of her son, the Empress forgot all her troubles.
She was also in safety now, herself, behind the walls of Wallingford,
the support of that town and its fidelity to her cause being gratefully
acknowledged by her son on his eventual accession to the throne.[615]

But her husband had declined to come to her help; her city of Oxford was
lost; her _prestige_ had suffered a final blow; the great combination
scheme was at an end.

[504] He states that the Earl of Gloucester, on his release, "circa
germanam sedulo apud Oxeneford mansitabat; quo loco, ut præfatus sum,
illa sedem sibi constituens, curiam fecerat" (p. 754).

[505] He set sail "aliquanto post festum sancti Johannis" (_Will.
Malms._, p. 765).

[506] See the dazzling description of his power given by the author of
the _Gesta_, who speaks of him as one "qui omnes regni primates et
divitiarum potentiâ et dignitatis excedebat opulentiâ; turrim quoque
Londoniarum in manu, sed et castella inexpugnabilis fortitudinis circa
civitatem constructa habebat, omnemque regni partem, quæ se regi
subdiderat, ut ubique per regnum regis vices adimplens, et, in rebus
agendis, rege avidius exaudiretur, et in præceptis injungendis, plus ei
quam regi obtemperaretur" (p. 101). William of Newburgh, in the same
spirit, speaks of him as "regi terribilis" (i. 44).

[507] See p. 160.

[508] "In totâ propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus conclamaretur" (_ibid._).

[509] William of Malmesbury (_ut supra_) is the authority for 1142, and
Henry of Huntingdon for 1136: "Ad Rogationes vero divulgatum est regem
mortuum esse" (p. 259).

[510] "Jam ergo cœpit rabies prædicta Normannorum, perjurio et
proditione pullulare" (_ibid._).

[511] It would seem to have been entered immediately after that charter
to Miles of Gloucester which I have printed on p. 11, and which precedes
it in the transcripts.

[512] _Lansdowne MS._ 259, fol. 66.

[513] "Archiepiscopis, etc." (Dug.).

[514] "suus" omitted (Dug.).

[515] "ejus" (Dug.).

[516] "tenuerunt" (Dug., Dods.).

[517] "subjectum" (Dods.).

[518] "Lundoniæ et Middlesexiæ" (Dug.).

[519] "Et ... tenuit" (Essex shrievalty) omitted by Dugdale (and,
consequently, in his _Baronage_ also).

[520] Dodsworth transcript closes here.

[521] "illi" omitted by Dugdale.

[522] "quæ fuit" omitted by Dugdale.

[523] "per servicium militare" (wrongly, Dug.).

[524] "et" omitted by Dugdale.

[525] "centum libratas" (Dug.).

[526] Chreshall, _alias_ Christhall, Essex. Part of the honour of
Boulogne. Was held by Count Eustace, at the Survey, in demesne. Stephen
granted it to his own son William, who gave it to Richard de Luci.

[527] Bendish Hall, in Radwinter, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne.
It was given by Stephen's son William to Faversham Abbey, Kent.

[528] This word is illegible. It baffled the transcriber in _Lansd. MS._
259. Dugdale has "wiam." The right reading is "luiam," the river Lea
being meant, as is proved by the Pipe-Roll of 14 Hen. II.

[529] William fitz Otwel, Earl Geoffrey's "brother," is referred to by
Earl William (Geoffrey's son) as his uncle ("avunculus") in a charter
confirming his grant of lands (thirty-three acres) in "Abi et Toresbi"
to Greenfield Nunnery, Lincolnshire (_Harl. Cart._, 53, C, 50). He is
also a witness, as "patruus meus," to a charter of Earl Geoffrey the
younger (_Sloane Cart._, xxxii. 64), early in the reign of Henry II. He
was clearly a "uterine" brother of Earl Geoffrey the elder, so that his
father must have married William de Mandeville's widow—a fact unknown to
genealogists.

[530] William de Sai had married Beatrice, sister (and, in her issue,
heiress) of the earl, by whom he was ancestor of the second line of
Mandeville, Earl of Essex. In the following year he joined the earl in
his furious revolt against the king.

[531] This was William "Capra" (_Chévre_), whose family gave its name to
the manor of "Chevers" in Mountnessing, county Essex. He was probably
another brother-in-law of the earl, for I have seen a charter of Alice
(_Adelid[is]_) Capra, in which she speaks of Geoffrey's son, Earl
William, as her nephew ("nepos"). There is also a charter of a Geoffrey
Capra and Mazelina (_sic_) his wife, which suggests that the name of
Geoffrey may have come to the family from the earl. Thoby Priory, Essex,
was founded (1141-1151) by Michael Capra, Roesia his wife, and William,
their son. The founder speaks of Roger fitz Richard ("ex cujus
munificentiâ mihi idem fundus pervenit"), who was the second husband (as
I have elsewhere explained) of "Alice of Essex," _née_ de Vere, the
sister of Earl Geoffrey's wife. A Michael Capra and a William Capra,
holding respectively four and four and a half knights' fees, were feudal
tenants of Walter fitz Robert (the lord of Dunmow) in 1166.

[532] William, son of Walter (Fitz Other) de Windsor, castellan of
Windsor. In the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., he appears as in charge of
Windsor Forest, for which he renders his account. It is probably to this
charter rather than to any separate grant that Dugdale refers in his
account of the family.

[533] This is an unusual name. As William de Say is mentioned just
before, it may be noted that his son (Earl Geoffrey's nephew) promised
(in 1150-1160) to grant to Ramsey Abbey "marcatam redditus ex quo
adipisci poterit quadraginta marcatas de hereditate sua, scilicet de
terra Roberti _de Rumele_" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 305). Mathew de Romeli,
according to Dugdale, was the son of Robert de Romeli, lord of Skipton,
by Cecily his wife. A Mathew de Romeli, with Alan his son, occur in a
plea of 1236-7 (_Bracton's Note-Book_, ed. Maitland, iii. 189).

[534] Geoffrey de Tourville appears in 1130 as holding land in four
counties (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.).

[535] William de Ou (Auco) or Eu is returned in the _carta_ of the Earl
of Essex (1166) as holding four fees of him.

[536] See Appendix Q, on "Osbertus Octodenarii."

[537] Dodsworth's transcript begins again here, and is continued down to
"Belloc[ampo]."

[538] "Comes Herefordiæ" (Dug.).

[539] So also Dodsworth; but Dugdale wrongly extends: "Robertus filius
Reginaldi." See p. 94, _n._ 4.

[540] Robert de Courci of Stoke (Courcy), Somerset. He figures in the
Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. As "Robert de Curci" he witnessed the Empress's
charter creating the earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141), and as "Robert
de Curci Dapifer" her confirmation of the Earl of Devon's gift (_Mon.
Aug._, v. 106; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391), both of them passing at
Oxford, the latter (probably) in 1142, subsequent to the above charter.
He was slain at Counsylth, 1157.

[541] John Fitz Gilbert, marshal to the Empress, and brother, as the
succeeding charter proves, to William, her chancellor. With his father,
Gilbert the Marshal (_Mariscallus_), he was unsuccessfully impleaded,
under Henry I., by Robert de Venoiz and William de Hastings, for the
office of marshal (_Rot. Cart._, 1 John), and in 1130, as John the
Marshal (_Mariscallus_), he appears as charged, with his relief, in
Wiltshire, for his father's lands and office (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.).
He is mentioned among the "barons" on the side of the Empress at the
siege of Winchester (_Gesta Stephani_), and he was, with Robert de
Curcy, witness to her (Oxford) charter, which I assign in the last note
to later in this year, as he also had been to her charter creating the
earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141). Subsequently, he witnessed the
charter to the son of the Earl of Essex (_vide post_). He played some
part in the next reign from his official connection with the Becket
quarrel. See also p. 131.

[542] Miles de Beauchamp, son of Robert de Beauchamp, and nephew to
Simon de Beauchamp, hereditary castellan of Bedford. In 1130 he appears
in connection with Beds. and Bucks. (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). With his
brother (_Salop Cartulary_) Payn de Beauchamp (who afterwards married
Rohaise, the widow of this Geoffrey de Mandeville), he had held Bedford
Castle against the king for five weeks from Christmas, 1137, as
heir-male to his uncle, whose daughter and heir, with the Bedford
barony, Stephen had conferred on Hugh _Pauper_, brother of his
favourite, the Count of Meulan (_Ord. Vit._; _Gesta Steph._). Dugdale's
account is singularly inaccurate. Simon, the uncle, must have been
living in the spring of 1136, for he then witnessed, as a royal
_dapifer_, Stephen's great (Oxford) charter.

[543] See p. 94, _n._ 2.

[544] Robert de Oilli the second, castellan of Oxford, and constable.
Founder of Osney Priory. He appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and
had witnessed, as a royal _constabularius_, Stephen's great (Oxford)
charter of 1136, but had embraced the cause of the Empress in 1141 (see
p. 66). He witnessed five others of the Empress's charters, all of which
passed at Oxford (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 392, 396, 397).

[545] See p. 95, note 1.

[546] Dodsworth's transcript recommences and is continued to the end.

[547] "Ibidem" (Dods., wrongly).

[548] "Ijdem" (Dods., wrongly).

[549] "Meduana" (Dug., rightly).

"Johelus de Meduanâ" (Juhel of Mayenne) figures in the Pipe-Roll of 31
Hen. I. as holding land in Devonshire. At the commencement of Stephen's
reign, Geoffrey of Anjou had entrusted him with three of the castles he
had captured in Normandy, on condition of receiving his support (_R. of
Torigni_).

[550] Guy de Sablé had accompanied the Empress to England in the autumn
of 1139 (_Ord. Vit._, v. 121).

[551] Clairvaux was a castle in Anjou. Payn de Clairvaux (_de Claris
vallibus_) had, in 1130, and for some time previously, been fermor of
Hastings, in Sussex (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I. p. 42). Later on, in
Stephen's reign, he appears at Caen, witnessing a charter of Geoffrey,
Duke of Normandy (Bayeux _Liber Niger_).

[552] "Alvia" (Dug.).

[553] Or "Rumard." Dugdale has "Rumard."

[554] "Valoniis" (Dug.).

Peter de Valoines. The occurrence of this great Hertfordshire baron is
of special interest, because we have seen the Empress granting a charter
to his father, Roger, in 1141. It is probable, therefore, that Roger had
died in the interval. Peter himself died before 1166, when his younger
brother, Robert, had succeeded him. His widow, Gundred (de Warrenne),
was then living.

[555] "Comiti ... meis." Dodsworth has only "Com etc."

[556] "cum sigillo" (Dods.).

[557] The clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship
existed, but it was probably collateral, instead of lineal.

[558] "Possessiones omnes ad ecclesiam pertinentes, castellum quoque de
Storteford in sua dominatione recepit" (_Rad. de Diceto_, i. 250).

[559] This negotiation between the Empress and Geoffrey should be
compared with that between her and the legate in the spring of the
preceding year. Each illustrates the other. In the latter case the
expression used is, "Juravit et _affidavit_ imperatrix episcopo quod,"
etc. In the former, the empress is made to say, "Hanc autem convencionem
et donacionem tenendam _affidavi_," etc. But the striking point of
resemblance is that in each case her leading followers are made to take
part in the pledge of performance. At Winchester, we read in William of
Malmesbury, "Idem juraverunt cum ea, et affidaverunt pro eâ, Robertus
frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et Brianus filius comitis marchio de
Walingeford, et Milo de Gloecestriâ, postea comes de Hereford, et
nonnulli alii" (see p. 58). At Oxford, we read in these charters, "Et
hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes, Robertus comes
Gloecestrie, et Milo comes Herefordie, et Brianus filius comitis et,"
etc. So close a parallel further confirms the genuineness of these
charters.

Another remarkable document illustrative of this negotiation is the
alliance ("Confederatio amoris") between the Earls of Hereford and
Gloucester (see Appendix S). Each earl there "affidavit et juravit" to
the other, and each named certain of his followers as his "obsides per
fidem"—the very phrase here used. See also p. 385, _n._ 3.

[560] That these securities were modelled on the practice of contracting
sovereign powers is seen on comparing them with the treaty between
Henry I. and the Count of Flanders (see Appendix S). But most to the
point is the treaty between King Stephen and Duke Henry, where the
clause for securing the "conventiones" runs:—"Archiepiscopi vero et
episcopi ab utraque parte in manu ceperunt quod si quis nostrum a
predictis conventionibus recederet, tam diu eum ecclesiastica justicia
coercebunt, quousque errata corrigat et ad predictam pactionem
observandam redeat. Mater etiam Ducis et ejus uxor et fratres ipsius
Ducis et omnes sui quos ad hoc applicare poterit, hæc assecurabunt."

[561] We may perhaps compare the oath taken by the French king some
years before, to secure the charter ("Keure") granted to St. Omer by
William, Count of Flanders (April 14, 1127):—"Hanc igitur Communionem
tenendam, has supradictas consuetudines et conventiones esse observandas
fide promiserunt et sacramento confirmaverunt Ludovicus rex Francorum,
Guillelmus Comes Flandriæ," etc., etc.

[562] See Appendix T, on "Affidatio in manu."

[563] See Appendix U: "The Families of Mandeville and De Vere."

[564] _Add. MSS._, 31,943, fols. 86 _b_, 99, 116 _b_.

[565] It is headed "Pro Comite Oxoniæ Carta Matildæ Imperatricis
confirmata," and it confirms the grants made by her "prout per cartam
illam (_i.e._ Matildæ) plenius liquet."

[566] See Appendix V, on "William of Arques."

[567] _i.e._ escambio.

[568] Of Helions in Bumsted Helion, Essex, the other portion of the
parish, viz. Bumsted Hall, being, at and from the Survey, a portion of
the De Vere fief. These his ten fees duly figure in the _Liber Niger_.

[569] Dedham, Essex.

[570] They were named, I presume, from the castle of Rames, adjoining
the forest of Lillebonne.

[571] This would seem to imply that Roger de Ramis had married a sister
of Aubrey de Vere. See Appendix X: "Roger de Ramis."

[572] Grey's Thurrock, in South Essex, being that portion of it which
had been held by William Peverel at the Survey.

[573] Query, the "Salamon clericus de Sudwic" (Northants) of the
Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 85)?

[574] This was not Tilbury on the Thames, but Tilbury (Essex) near
Clare, as is proved by _Liber Niger_ (p. 393), where this land of
Salamon proves to be part of the honour of Boulogne, held as a fifth of
a knight's fee.

[575] See Appendix R: "The Forest of Essex."

[576] Geoffrey Talbot appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Henry I. as paying
two hundred marks of silver for his father's land in Kent (p. 67). As
"Agnes Vxor Gaufredi Talebot" is charged, at the same time, "pro dote et
maritagio suo" (_ibid._), it would seem that our Geoffrey had a father
of the same name. We learn from the _Liber Niger_ (i. 58) that at the
death of Henry I. (1135) he held twenty knights' fees in Kent.

[577] "Rogeri" in MS.

[578] Or "Rumard."

[579] _Rectius_ Petr[us].

[580] "Ex libro quodam pervetusto in pergamena manuscripto in custodia
Henrici Vere nunc Comitis Oxoniæ, et mihi per Capitan: Skipwith, mutuato
21 April, 1622."

[581] See Appendix Y.

[582] As "turrim de Colcestr' et castellum" for "turrim et castellum de
Colcestr'." The only difference of any importance is that Dugdale reads
"Albenejo" in this charter, where he has "Albrincis" in that of the
Empress.

[583] I may perhaps be permitted to refer to my own discovery, in a
stable loft, of a document bearing the seal of the King-maker, and
bearing his rare autograph, which antiquaries had lost sight of since
the days of Camden.

[584] Mr. Eyton must have strangely overlooked this charter, for he
begins his series of Henry's charters in 1149.

[585] "Inga" in Dugdale's transcript, and rightly so, for we find this
same Hugh, as "Hugo de Ging'," a witness to a charter on behalf of Earl
Aubrey, about this time (_infra_, p. 190). There were several places in
Essex named "Ging" _alias_ "Ing."

[586] Compare the famous Lewes charter of William de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, said (if genuine) to be the earliest allusion to a peerage
creation. There the earl speaks of William Rufus, "qui me Surreæ comitem
_fecit_."

[587] _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 179.

[588] It should, however, be observed that in this same charter she
refers to Earl Gilbert (of Pembroke) and Earl Hugh (of Norfolk) by their
comital style, though, so far as we know, they were earls of Stephen's
creation alone. But such a reference as this is very different from the
style formally given in a charter of creation.

[589] _Archæologia_, vol. xxxi.

[590] "Its date is subsequent to the 25th of July, 1141, when the
Empress created Milo de Gloucester Earl of Hereford at Oxford, who has
this title in the charter, and, from its having been given at Oxford,
there can be little doubt that it was contemporaneous with that
creation, and certainly prior to the siege of Winchester in the month of
August following" (_ibid._, pp. 231, 232).

[591] Of these witnesses "ex parte comitis," Geoffrey de Ver held half a
knight's fee of him, Robert fitz Humfrey held one, Robert fitz "Ailric"
one, Ralph fitz Adam a quarter, Ralph de Guisnes one, Geoffrey Arsic
two, Robert de Cocefeld three, Ralph Carbonel one and a half. Hugh de
Ging' was the "Hugo de Inga" who acted as proxy (_vide supra_) at
Henry's confirmation of his mother's charter. This charter has an
independent value for its bearing on knights' fees. See also Addenda.

[592] At the same time, we must remember that he held a considerable
fief in Cambridgeshire (see Domesday), which, if he could not have
Essex, might lead him to select that county.

[593] _Norm. Conq._, ii. 559.

[594] _Ibid._

[595] _Norm. Conq._, ii. 559.

[596] Where they form one shrievalty with one _firma_, though the county
of Surrey as well is inexplicably combined with them.

[597] And the "tertius denarius" of Cambridgeshire was actually held by
its earl (1205).

[598] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 362, _note_.

[599] _Official Baronage_, i. 291.

[600] _Mon. Ang._, v. 440; _Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 392. This conclusion
reveals a further error in the _Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal_,
which gives a very incomprehensible account of this Patrick's action.

[601] See Appendix U.

[602] "Regnum, ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ
Andegavensi conferre disposuerat" (_Gesta Stephani_, p. 101). This very
remarkable incidental allusion should be compared with that in which
Henry of Huntingdon justifies the earl's arrest by Stephen: "Nisi enim
hoc egisset, perfidio consulis illius regno privatus fuisset" (p. 276).

[603] "Duravit improspera valetudo usque post Pentecostem (June 7); tum
enim sensim refusus salutis vigor eum in pedes erexit" (_Will. Malms._,
p. 763).

[604] "Rex ... comitis absentiam aucupatus, subito ad Waram veniens, et
non bene munitum propugnatoribus offendens, succensa et depredata villa,
statim etiam castello potitus est" (_ibid._, p. 766).

[605] "Obsides poposcit sigillatim ab his qui optimates videbantur,
secum in Normannia ducendos, vadesque futuros tam comiti Andegavensi
quam imperatrici quod omnes, junctis umbonibus ab ea, dum ipse abesset,
injurias propulsarent, viribus suis apud Oxeneford manentes" (_Will.
Malms._, p. 764). The phrase "junctis umbonibus" revives memories of the
shield-wall. See also Appendix S.

[606] "Civitatem ... ita comes Gloecestrie fossatis munierat, ut
inexpugnabilis præter per incendium videretur" (_ibid._, p. 766).

[607] _Gesta_, pp. 87, 88.

[608] _Gesta_, p. 88.

[609] "Tribus diebus ante festum Sancti Michaelis" (_Will. Malms._, p.
766).

[610] See the brilliant description of this action in the _Gesta
Stephani_, pp. 88, 89.

[611] "Mox igitur optimates quidem omnes imperatricis, confusi quia a
domina sua præter statutum abfuerant, confertis cuneis ad Walengeford
convenerunt," etc. (_Will. Malms._, p. 766).

[612] Dr. Stubbs has erroneously placed his landing in 1141 instead of
in the autumn of 1142. See Appendix Y, on "The First and Second Visits
of Henry II. to England."

[613] _Will. Malms._, pp. 767, 768.

[614] See, for the story of her romantic escape, the _Gesta Stephani_
(pp. 89, 90), _William of Malmesbury_ (pp. 768, 769), _John of Hexham_
(_Sym. Dun._, ii. 317), _William of Newburgh_ (i. 43), and the
_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (p. 384). This last is of special value for its
mention of her escape from the tower of the castle. It states that
Stephen "besæt hire in the tur," and that she was on the night of her
escape let down by ropes from the tower ("me læt hire dun on niht of the
tur mid rapes"). It is difficult to see how this can mean anything else
than that she was lowered to the ground from the existing tower, instead
of leaving by a gate.

[615] See his charter to Wallingford (printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_
(1771), pp. 817, 818), in which he grants privileges "pro servitio et
labore magno quem pro me sustinuerunt in acquisitione hereditarii juris
mei in Anglia."



 CHAPTER IX.
 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY.


The movements of Geoffrey during the latter half of 1142 are shrouded in
utter darkness. After the surrender of the isle of Ely, we lose sight of
him altogether, save in the glimpse afforded us by the Oxford intrigue.
It is, however, quite possible that we should assign to the period of
the siege of Oxford Castle (September-December, 1142) a charter to
Abingdon Abbey which passed at Oxford.[616] For if we deduct from its
eight witnesses the two local barons (Walter de Bocland and Hugh de
Bolbec), five of the remaining six are found in the Canterbury
charter.[617] In that case, Geoffrey, who figures at their head, must
have been at Oxford, in Stephen's quarters, at some time in the course
of the siege. He would obviously not declare for the Empress till the
time was ripe for the scheme, and, in the meanwhile, it might disarm
suspicion, and secure his safety in the case of the capture or defeat of
the Empress, if he continued outwardly in full allegiance to the king.

It was not till the following year that the crisis at length came.
Stephen, at Mid-Lent, had attended a council at London, at which decrees
were passed against the general disregard of the rights and privileges
of the Church. Her ministers were henceforth to be free from outrage,
and her sanctuaries from violation, under penalty of an excommunication
which only the pope himself could remove.[618]

At some period in the course of the year (1143) after this
council—possibly about the end of September—the king held a court at St.
Albans, to which, it would seem, there came the leading nobles of the
realm.[619] Among them was the Earl of Essex, still at the height of his
power. Of what passed on this occasion we have, from independent
quarters, several brief accounts.[620] Of the main fact there is no
question. Stephen, acting on that sudden impulse which roused him at
times to unwonted vigour, struck at last, and struck home. The mighty
earl was seized and bound, and according to the regular practice
throughout this internecine warfare, the surrender of the castles on
which his strength was based was made the price of his liberty. As with
the arrest of the bishops at Oxford in 1139, so was it now with the
arrest of the great earl at St. Albans, and so it was again to be at
Northampton, with the arrest of the Earl of Chester some three years
later. What it was that decided Stephen to seize this moment for thus
reasserting his authority, it is not so easy to say. William of
Newburgh, who is fullest on the subject, gives us the story, which is
found nowhere else, of the earl's outrage on the king more than three
years before,[621] and tells us that Stephen had been ever since
awaiting an opportunity for revenge.[622] He adds that the height of
power to which the earl had attained had filled the king with dread, and
hints, I think, obscurely at that great conspiracy of which the earl, as
we have seen, was the pivot and the moving spirit.[623] Henry of
Huntingdon plainly asserts that his seizure was a necessity for the
king, who would otherwise have lost his crown through the King-maker's
treacherous schemes.[624] We may, indeed, safely believe that the time
had now come when Stephen felt that it must be decided whether he or
Geoffrey were master.[625] But, as with the arrest of the bishops at
Oxford four years before, so, at this similar crisis, his own feelings
and his own jealousy of a power beneath which he chafed were assiduously
fostered and encouraged by a faction among the nobles themselves. This
is well brought out in the Chronicle of Walden Abbey,[626] and still
more so in the _Gesta_. It is there distinctly asserted that this
faction worked upon the king, by reminding him of Geoffrey's
unparalleled power, and of his intention to declare for the Empress,
urging him to arrest the earl as a traitor, to seize his castles and
crush his power, and so to secure safety for himself and peace for his
troubled realm.[627] It is added that, Stephen hesitating to take the
decisive step, the jealousy of the barons blazed forth suddenly into
open strife, taunts and threats being hurled at one another by the earl
and his infuriated opponents.[628] On the king endeavouring to allay the
tumult, the earl was charged to his face with plotting treason. Called
upon to rebut the charge, he did not attempt to do so, but laughed with
cynical scorn. The king, outraged beyond endurance, at once ordered his
arrest, and his foes rushed upon him.[629]

The actual seizure of the earl appears to have been attended by
circumstances of which we are only informed from a somewhat unexpected
quarter. Mathew Paris, from his connection with St. Albans, has been
able to preserve in his _Historia Anglorum_ the local tradition of the
event. From this we learn, firstly, that there was a struggle; secondly,
that there was a flagrant violation of the right of sanctuary. The
struggle, indeed, was so sharp that the Earl of Arundel, whom we know to
have been an old opponent of Geoffrey (see p. 323), was rolled over,
horse and all, and nearly drowned in "Holywell." The fact that this
tussle took place in the open would seem to imply that the whole of this
highly dramatic episode took place out of doors.[630] As to the other of
these two points, it is clear that there was something discreditable to
Stephen, according to the opinion of the time, in his sudden seizure of
the earl. William of Newburgh observes that he acted "non quidem honeste
et secundum jus gentium, sed pro merito ejus et metu; scilicet, quod
expediret quam quod deceret plus attendens." Henry of Huntingdon
similarly writes that such a step was "magis secundum retributionem
nequitiæ consulis quam secundum jus gentium, magis ex necessitate quam
ex honestate."[631] The Chronicle of Walden, also, complains of the
circumstances of his arrest;[632] and even the panegyrist of Stephen is
anxious to clear his fame by imputing to the barons the suggestion of
what he admits to be a questionable act, and claiming for the king the
credit of reluctance to adopt their advice.[633]

But there was a more serious charge brought against the king than that
of dishonourable behaviour to the earl. He was accused of violating by
his conduct the rights of sanctuary of St. Albans, though he had sworn,
we are told, not to do so, and had taken part so shortly before in that
council of London at which such violations were denounced. The abbot's
knights, indeed, went so far as to resist by force of arms this outrage
on the Church's rights.[634] It is clearly to the contest thus caused,
rather than (as implied by Mathew) to the actual arrest of Geoffrey,
that we must assign the struggle in which the Earl of Arundel was
unhorsed by Walchelin de Oxeai, for Walchelin was one of the abbey's
knights, and was, therefore, fighting in her cause.[635]

Though the friends of the earl interceded on his behalf,[636] the king
had no alternative but to complete what he had begun. After what he had
done there could be no hope of reconciliation with the earl. Geoffrey
was offered the usual choice; either he must surrender his castles, or
he must go to the gallows. Taken to London, he was clearly made,
according to the practice in these cases, to order his own garrison to
surrender to the king. Thus he saw the fortress which he had himself
done so much to strengthen, the source of his power and of his pride,
pass for ever from his grasp. He had also to surrender, before regaining
his freedom, his ancestral Essex strongholds of Pleshy and Saffron
Walden.[637]

The earl's impotent rage when he found himself thus overreached is dwelt
on by all the chroniclers.[638] The king's move, moreover, had now
forced his hand, and the revolt so carefully planned could no longer be
delayed, but broke out prematurely at a time when the Empress was not in
a position to offer effective co-operation.

We must now return to the doings of Nigel, Bishop of Ely. That prelate
had for a year (1142-43) been peacefully occupied in his see. But at the
council of 1143 his past conduct had been gravely impugned. Alarmed at
the turn affairs were taking, he decided to consult the Empress.[639] He
must, I think, have gone by sea, for we find him, on his way at Wareham,
the port for reaching her in Wiltshire. Here he was surprised and
plundered by a party of the king's men.[640] He succeeded, however, in
reaching the Empress, and then returned to Ely. He had now resolved to
appeal to the pope in person, a resolve quickened, it may be, by the
fact that the legate, who was one of his chief opponents, had gone
thither in November (1143). With great difficulty, and after long
debate, he prevailed on the monks to let him carry off, from among the
remaining treasures of the church, a large amount of those precious
objects without the assistance of which, especially in a doubtful cause,
it would have been but lost labour to appeal to the heir of the
Apostles. As it was Pope Lucius before whom he successfully cleared his
character, and as Lucius was not elected till the March of the following
year (1144), I have placed his departure for Rome subsequent to that of
the legate. He may, of course, have arrived there sooner and applied to
Cœlestine without success, but as that pontiff favoured the Empress,
this is not probable. Indeed, the wording of the narrative is distinctly
opposed to the idea.[641] In any case, my object is to show that the
period of his absence abroad harmonizes well with the London Chronicle,
which places Geoffrey's revolt about the end of the year. For the bishop
had been gone some time when the earl obtained possession of Ely.[642]

Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, whose allegiance had ever sat lightly
upon him, appears to have eventually become his ally,[643] but for the
time we hear only of his brother-in-law, William de Say, as actively
embracing his cause.[644] He must, however, have relied on at least the
friendly neutrality of his relatives, the Clares and the De Veres, in
Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Essex, as well as on the loyalty of his own
vassals. It is possible, from scattered sources, to trace his plan of
action, and to reconstruct the outline of what we may term the fenland
campaign.

Fordham, in Cambridgeshire, on the Suffolk border, appears to have been
his base of operations. Here supplies could reach him from Suffolk and
North Essex. He was thence enabled to advance to Ely, the bishop being
at this time absent at Rome, and his forces being hard pressed by those
which Stephen had despatched against them. The earl gladly accepted
their appeal to himself for assistance, and was placed by them in
possession of the isle, including its key, Aldreth Castle.[645] He soon
made a further advance, and, pushing on in the same direction, burst
upon Ramsey Abbey on a December[646] morning at daybreak, seized the
monks in their beds, drove them forth clad as they were, and turned the
abbey into a fortified post.[647]

He was probably led to this step by the confusion then reigning among
the brethren. A certain scheming monk, Daniel by name, had induced the
abbot to resign in his favour. The resignation was indignantly
repudiated by the monks and the tenants of the abbey, but Stephen,
bribed by Daniel, had visited Ramsey in person, and installed him by
force as abbot only eighteen days before the earl's attack.[648] It is,
therefore, quite possible that, as stated in the Walden Chronicle,
Daniel may have been privy to this gross outrage. In any case the earl's
conduct excited universal indignation.[649] He stabled his horses in the
cloisters; he plundered the church of its most sacred treasures; he
distributed its manors among his lawless followers, and he then sent
them forth to ravage far and wide. In short, in the words of the pious
chronicler, he made of the church of God a very den of thieves.[650]

But for the time these same enormities enabled the daring earl at once
to increase the number of his followers and to acquire a strategical
position unrivalled for his purpose. The soldiers of fortune and
mercenary troopers who now swarmed throughout the land flocked in crowds
to his standard, and he was soon at the head of a sufficient force to
undertake offensive operations.[651] From his advanced post at Ramsey
Abbey, he was within striking distance of several important points,
while himself comparatively safe from attack. His front and right flank
were covered by the meres and fens; his left was to some extent
protected by the Ouse and its tributaries, and was further strengthened
by a fortified work, erected by his son Ernulf at one of the abbey's
manors, Wood Walton.[652] In his rear lay the isle of Ely, with its
castles in the hands of his men, and its communications with the Eastern
Counties secured by his garrison at Fordham.[653] His positions at Ely
and Ramsey were themselves connected by a garrison, on the borders of
the two counties, at Benwick.[654]

Thus situated, the earl was enabled to indulge his thirst for vengeance,
if not on Stephen himself, at least on his unfortunate subjects. From
his fastness in the fenland he raided forth; his course was marked by
wild havoc, and he returned laden with plunder.[655]

Cambridge, as being the king's town, underwent at his hands the same
fate that Nottingham had suffered in 1140, or Worcester in 1139, at the
hands of the Earl of Gloucester.[656] Bursting suddenly on the town, he
surprised, seized, and sacked it. As at Worcester, the townsmen had
stored in the churches such property as they could; but the earl was
hardened to sacrilege: the doors were soon crashing beneath the axes of
his eager troopers, and when they had pillaged to their hearts' content,
the town was committed to the flames.[657] The whole country round was
the scene of similar deeds.[658] The humblest village church was not
safe from his attack,[659] but the religious houses, from their own
wealth, and from the accumulated treasures which, for safety, were then
stored within their walls, offered the most alluring prize. It is only
from the snatch of a popular rhyme that we learn incidentally the fact
that St. Ives was treated even as the abbey of which it was a
daughter-house. In a MS. of the _Historia Anglorum_ there is preserved
by Mathew Paris the tradition that the earl and his lawless followers
mockingly sang of their wild doings—

  "I ne mai a live
  For Benoit ne for Ive."[660]

It may not have been observed that this jingle refers to St. Benedict of
Ramsey and its daughter-house of St. Ives.[661]

Emboldened by success, he extended his ravages, till his deeds could no
longer be ignored.[662] Stephen, at length fairly roused, marched in
strength against him, determined to suppress the revolt. But the earl,
skilfully avoiding an encounter in the open field, took refuge in the
depths of the fenland and baffled the efforts of the king. Finding it
useless to prolong the chase, Stephen fell back on his usual policy of
establishing fortified posts to hem the rebels in. In these he placed
garrisons, and so departed.[663]

Geoffrey was now at his worst. Checked in extending his sphere of
plunder, he ravaged, with redoubled energy, the isle itself. His tools,
disguised as beggars, wandered from door to door, to discover those who
were still able to relieve them from their scanty stores. The hapless
victims of this stratagem were seized at dead of night, dragged before
the earl as a great prize, and exposed in turn to every torture that a
devilish ingenuity could devise till the ransom demanded by their
captors had been extorted to the uttermost farthing.[664] I cannot but
think that the terrible picture of the cruelties which have made this
period memorable for ever in our history was painted by the Peterborough
chronicler from life, and that these very doings in his own
neighbourhood inspired his imperishable words.

Nor was it only the earl that the brethren of Ely had to fear. Stephen,
infuriated at the loss of the isle, laid the blame at their bishop's
door, and seized all those of their possessions which were not within
the earl's grasp. The monks, thus placed "between the devil and the deep
sea," were indeed at their wits' end.[665] A very interesting reference
to this condition of things is found in a communication from the pope to
Archbishop Theobald, stating that Bishop Nigel of Ely has written to
complain that he found on his return from Rome that Earl Geoffrey, in
his absence, had seized and fortified the isle, and ravaged the
possessions of his church within it, while Stephen had done the same for
those which lay without it. As it would seem that this document has not
been printed, I here append the passage:—

 "Venerabilis frater noster N. elyensis episcopus per literas suas nobis
 significavit quod dum apostolicorum limina et nostram presentiam
 visitasset, Gaufridus comes de mandeuilla elyensem insulam ubi sedes
 episcopalis est violenter occupavit et quasdam sibi munitiones in ea
 parauit. Occupatis autem ab ipso comite interioribus, Stephanus rex
 omnes ejusdem ecclesie possessiones exteriores occupavit et pro
 voluntate sua illicite distribuit."[666]

This letter would seem to have been written subsequent to Nigel's
return. The bishop, however, had heard while at Rome of these violent
proceedings,[667] and had prevailed on Lucius to write to Theobald and
his fellow-bishops, complaining—

 "Quod a quibusdam parrochianis vestris bona et possessiones elyensis
 ecclesie, precipue dum ipse ab episcopatu expulsus esset, direpta sunt
 et occupata et contra justitiam teneantur. Quidam etiam sub nomine
 _tenseriarum_ villas et homines suos spoliant et injustis operationibus
 et exaccionibus opprimunt."[668]

But the bishop was not the only sufferer who turned to Rome for help.
When Stephen installed the ambitious Daniel as Abbot of Ramsey in
person, Walter, the late abbot, had sought "the threshold of the
Apostles." Daniel, whether implicated or not in Geoffrey's sacrilegious
deeds, found himself virtually deposed when the abbey became a fortress
of the earl. Alarmed also for the possible consequence of Walter's
appeal to Rome, he resolved to follow his example and betake himself to
the pope, trusting to the treasure that he was able to bring.[669] The
guileless simplicity of Walter, however, carried the day; he found
favour in the eyes of the curia and returned to claim his abbey.[670]
But though he had been absent only three months, the scene was changed
indeed. That which he had left "the House of God," he found, as we have
seen, "a den of thieves." But the "dove" who had pleaded before the
papal court could show himself, at need, a lion. Filled, we are told,
with the Holy Spirit, he entered, undaunted, the earl's camp, seized a
flaming torch, and set fire not only to the tents of his troopers, but
also to the outer gate of the abbey, which they had made the barbican of
their stronghold. But neither this novel adaptation of the orthodox
"tongues of fire," nor yet the more appropriate anathemas which he
scattered as freely as the flames, could convert the mailed sinners from
the error of their unhallowed ways. Indeed, it was almost a miracle that
he escaped actual violence, for the enraged soldiery threatened him with
death and brandished their weapons in his face.[671]

In the excited state of the minds of those by whom such sights were
witnessed, portents would be looked for, and found, as signs of the
wrath of Heaven. Before long it was noised abroad that the very walls of
the abbey were sweating blood, as a mark of Divine reprobation on the
deeds of its impious garrison.[672] Far and wide the story spread; and
men told with bated breath how they had themselves seen and touched the
abbey's bleeding walls. Among those attracted by the wondrous sight was
Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who has recorded for all time that he
beheld it with his own eyes.[673] And as they spoke to one another of
the miracle, in which they saw the finger of God, the starving peasants
whispered their hopes that the hour of their deliverance was at hand.

The time, indeed, had come. As the now homeless abbot wandered over the
abbey's lands, sick at heart, in weariness and want, the sights that met
his despairing eyes were enough to make him long for death.[674] Barely
a plough remained on all his broad demesnes; all provisions had been
carried off; no man tilled the land. Every lord had now his castle, and
every castle was a robber's nest.[675] In vain he boldly appealed to
Earl Geoffrey himself, warning him to his face that he and his would
remain cut off from the communion of Christians till the abbey was
restored to its owners. The earl listened with impatience, and gave him
a vague promise; but he kept his hold of the abbey.[676] The heart of
the spoiler was hardened like that of Pharaoh of old, and not even
miracles could move him to part with his precious stronghold.[677]

But if Ramsey had thus suffered, what had been the fate of Ely? A bad
harvest, combined with months of systematic plunder, had brought about a
famine in the land. For the space of twenty or even thirty miles,
neither ox nor plough was to be seen; barely could the smallest bushel
of grain he bought for two hundred pence. The people, by hundreds and
thousands, were perishing for want of bread, and their corpses lay
unburied in the fields, a prey to beasts and to fowls of the air. Not
for ages past, as it seemed to the monks, had there been such
tribulation upon earth.[678] Nor were the peasants the only sufferers.
Might was then right, for all classes, throughout the land;[679] the
smaller gentry were themselves seized, and held, by their captors, to
ransom. As they heard of distant villages in flames, as they gazed on
strings of captives dragged from their ravaged homes, the words of the
psalmist were adapted in the mouths of the terrified monks: "They bind
the godly with chains, and the nobles with links of iron."[680] In the
mad orgie of wickedness neither women nor the aged were spared. Ransom
was wrung from the quivering victims by a thousand refinements of
torture. In the groans of the sufferers, in the shrieks of the tortured,
men beheld the fulfilment of the words of St. John the Apostle, "In
those days shall men ... desire to die, and death shall flee from
them."[681]

Again we are tempted to ask if we have not in these very scenes the
actual original from which was drawn the picture in the English
Chronicle, a picture which might thus be literally true of the
chronicler's own district, while not necessarily applicable, as the
latest research suggests, to the whole of Stephen's realm.

It was now that men "said openly that Christ slept, and His saints." The
English chronicler seems to imply, and Henry of Huntingdon distinctly
asserts, that the wicked, emboldened by impunity, said so in scornful
derision; but William of Newburgh assigns the cry to the sufferings of a
despairing people. It is probable enough that both were right, that the
people and their oppressors had reversed the parts of Elijah and the
priests of Baal. For a time there seemed to rise in vain the cry so
quaintly Englished in the paraphrase of John Hopkins:—

  "Why doost withdraw thy hand aback,
    And hide it in thy lappe?
  O pluck it out, and be not slack
    To give thy foes a rappe!"

But when night is darkest, dawn is nearest,[682] and the end of the
oppressor was at hand. It was told in after days how even Nature herself
had shown, by a visible sign, her horror of his impious deeds. While
marching to the siege of Burwell on a hot summer's day, he halted at the
edge of a wood, and lay down for rest in the shade. And lo! the very
grass withered away beneath the touch of his unhallowed form![683]

The fortified post which the king's men had now established at Burwell
was a standing threat to Fordham, the key of his line of communications.
He was therefore compelled to attack it. And there he was destined to
die the death of Richard Cœur de Lion. As he reconnoitred the position
to select his point of attack, or as, according to others, he was
fighting at the head of the troops, he carelessly removed his headpiece
and loosened his coat of mail. A humble bowman saw his chance: an arrow
whizzed from the fortress, and struck the unguarded head.[684]

There is a conflict of testimony as to the date of the event. Henry of
Huntingdon places it in August, while M. Paris (_Chron. Maj._, ii. 177)
makes him die on the 14th of September, and the Walden Chronicle on the
16th. Possibly he was wounded in August and lingered on into September,
but, in any case, Henry's date is the most trustworthy.

The monks of Ramsey gloried in the fact that their oppressor had
received his fatal wound as he stood on ground which their abbey owned,
as a manifest proof that his fate was incurred by the wrong he had done
to their patron saint.[685] At Waltham Abbey, with equal pride, it was
recorded that he who had refused to atone for the wrong he had done to
its holy cross received his wound in the self-same hour in which its aid
was invoked against the oppressor of its shrine.[686] But all were
agreed that such a death was a direct answer to the prayer of the
oppressed, a signal act of Divine vengeance on one who had sinned
against God and man.[687]

For the wound was fatal. The earl, like Richard in after days, made
light of it at first.[688] Retiring, it would seem, through Fordham,
along the Thetford road, he reached Mildenhall in Suffolk, and there he
remained, to die. The monks of his own foundation believed, and perhaps
with truth, that when face to face with death, he displayed heartfelt
penitence, prayed earnestly that his sins might he forgiven, and made
such atonement to God and man as his last moments could afford. But
there was none to give him the absolution he craved; indeed, after the
action which the Church had taken the year before, it is doubtful if any
one but the pope could absolve so great a sinner.[689]

In the mean time the Abbot of Ramsey heard the startling news, and saw
that his chance had come. The earl might be willing to save his soul at
the cost of restoring the abbey. To Mildenhall he flew in all haste, but
only to find that the earl had already lost consciousness. There awaited
him, however, the fruit of his oppressor's tardy repentance in the form
of instructions from the earl to his son to surrender Ramsey Abbey.
Armed with these, the abbot departed as speedily as he had come.[690]

The tragic end of the great earl must have filled the thoughts of men
with a strange awe and horror. That one who had rivalled, but a year
ago, the king himself in power, should meet an inglorious death at the
hands of a wretched churl, that he who had defied the thunders of the
Church should fall as if by a bolt from heaven, were facts which, in the
highly wrought state of the minds of men at the time, were indeed signs
and wonders.[691] But even more tragic than his death was the fate which
awaited his corpse. Unshriven, he had passed away laden with the curses
of the Church. His soul was lost for ever; and his body no man might
bury.[692] As the earl was drawing his last breath there came upon the
scene some Knights Templar, who flung over him the garb of their order
so that he might at least die with the red cross upon his breast.[693]
Then, proud in the privileges of their order, they carried the remains
to London, to their "Old Temple" in Holborn. There the earl's corpse was
enclosed in a leaden coffin, which was hung, say some, on a gnarled
fruit tree, that it might not contaminate the earth, or was hurled,
according to others, into a pit without the churchyard.[694] So it
remained, for nearly twenty years, exposed to the gibes of the
Londoners, the earl's "deadly foes." But with the characteristic
faithfulness of a monastic house to its founder, the monks of Walden
clung to the hope that the ban of the Church might yet be removed, and
the bones of the great earl be suffered to rest among them. According to
their chronicle, Prior William, who had obtained his post from
Geoffrey's hands, rested not till he had wrung his absolution from Pope
Alexander III.[695] (1159-1181). But the _Ramsey Chronicle_, which
appears to be a virtually contemporary record, assigns the eventual
removal of the ban to Geoffrey's son and namesake, and to the atonement
which he made to Ramsey Abbey on his father's behalf.[696] The latter
story is most precise, but both may well be true. For, although the
Ramsey chronicler would more especially insist on the fact that St.
Benedict had to be appeased before the earl could be absolved, the
absolution itself would be given not by the abbot, but by the pope. The
grant to Ramsey would be merely a condition of the absolution itself
being granted. The nature of the grant is known to us not only from the
chronicle, but also from the primate's charter confirming this final
settlement.[697] As this confirmation is dated at Windsor, April 6,
1163, we thus, roughly, obtain the date of the earl's Christian
burial.[698]

The Prior of Walden had gained his end, and he now hastened to the
Temple to claim his patron's remains. But his hopes were cruelly
frustrated at the very moment of success. Just as the body of the then
earl (1163) was destined to be coveted at his death (1166) by two rival
houses, so now the remains of his father were a prize which the
indignant Templars would never thus surrender. Warned of the prior's
coming, they instantly seized the coffin, and buried it at once in their
new graveyard, where, around the nameless resting-place of the great
champion of anarchy, there was destined to rise, in later days, the home
of English law.[699]

[616] _Chronicle of Abingdon_, ii. 178, 179. Assigned to "probably about
the Christmas of 1135" (p. 542).

[617] See p. 143. They are Earl Geoffrey, Robert de Ver, William of
Ypres, Adam "de Belnaio," and Richard de Luci. The sixth, "Mainfeninus
Brito," we have seen attesting Stephen's first charter to Geoffrey in
1140 (p. 52). Another charter, perhaps, may also be assigned to this
period, namely, that of Stephen (at Oxford) to St. Frideswide's, of
which the original is now preserved in the Bodleian Library. For this,
as for the preceding charter, the date suggested is 1135 (_Calendar of
Charters and Rolls_), but the names of William of Ypres and Richard de
Luci prove that this date is too early. These names, with that of Robert
de Ver, are common to both charters, and if Richard de Luci's earliest
attestation is in the summer of 1140, it is quite possible that this
charter should be assigned to the siege of 1142.

[618] _Rog. Wend._, ii. 233; _Mat. Paris_ (_Hist. Angl._), i. 270; _Hen.
Hunt._, p. 276.

[619] No clue to this date, important though it is for our story, is
afforded by any of the ordinary chroniclers. The London Chronicle,
however, preserved in the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_ (fol. 35),
carefully dates it "post festum Sancti Michaelis."

[620] _Mon. Ang._, iv. 142; _Mat. Paris_ (_Hist. Angl._), i. 270, 271;
_William of Newburgh_, cap. xi.; _Gesta Stephani_, pp. 103, 104; _Hen.
Hunt._, p. 276.

[621] See p. 47.

[622] "Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus
opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat."

[623] "Subtili astutia ingentia moliens."

[624] "Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidia consulis illius regno privatus
fuisset."

[625] Compare the words of the _Gesta_: "Ubique per regnum regis vices
adimplens et in rebus agendis rege avidius exaudiretur et in præceptis
injungendis plus ei quam regi obtemperaretur."

[626] "Tandem vero a quibusdam regni majoribus, stimulante invidia,
iniqua loquentibus, quasi regis proditor ac patriæ dilator erga regem
mendaciter clanculo accusatus est.... Vir autem iste magnanimus subdola
malignantium fraude, ut jam dictum est, delusus" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

[627] "Tum quia Galfridus, ut videbatur, omnia regni jura sibi callide
usurparat, tum quia regnum ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ
Andegavensi conferre disposuerat, ad hoc regem secreta persuasione
impulerunt, quatinus Galfridum de proditionis infamia notatum caperet,
et redditis quæcunque possederat castellis, et rex post hinc securus, et
regnum ipsius haberetur pacatius" (_Gesta_).

[628] "Rege multo tempore differente, ne regia majestas turpi
proditionis opprobrio infameretur, subito inter Galfridum et barones,
injuriis et minis utrinque protensis, orta seditio" (_ibid._).

[629] "Cumque rex habitam inter eos dissensionem, sedatis partibus,
niteretur dirimere, affuerunt quidam, qui Galfridum de proditionis
factione in se et suos machinatâ, libera fronte accusabant. Cumque se de
objecto crimine minime purgaret, sed turpissimam infamiam verbis jocosis
alludendo infringeret, rex et qui præsentes erant Barones Galfridum et
suos repente ceperunt" (_ibid._).

[630] This story, being told by Mathew Paris alone, and evidently as a
matter of tradition, must be accepted with considerable caution. He
makes the singular and careless mistake of speaking of Earl Geoffrey as
William (_sic_) de Mandeville, though he properly terms him, the
following year, "Gaufridus consul de Mandeville." On the other hand, it
is possible to apply a test which yields not unsatisfactory results.
Mathew tells us that the Earl of Arundel was unhorsed "a Walkelino de
Oxeai [_alias_ Oxehaie] milite strenuissimo." Now there was,
contemporary with Mathew himself, a certain Richard "de Oxeya," who held
by knight-service of St. Albans Abbey, and who, in 1245, was jointly
responsible with "Petronilla de Crokesle" for the service of one knight
(_Chron. Majora_, vi. 437). Turning to a list of the abbey's knights,
which is dated by the editor in the Rolls Series as "1258," but which is
quite certainly some hundred years earlier, we find this same knight's
fee held jointly by Richard "de Crokesle" and a certain "Walchelinus."
Here then we may perhaps recognize that very "Walchelinus de Oxeai" who
figures in Mathew's story, a story which Richard "de Oxeya" may have
told him as a family tradition. Indeed, there is evidence to prove that
this identification is correct.

[631] The coincidence of language between these two passages, beginning
respectively "eodem tempore" and "eodem anno," ought to be noticed, for
it has been overlooked by Mr. Howlett in his valuable edition of William
of Newburgh for the Rolls Series, though he notes those on p. 34 before
it, and on p. 48 after it, in his instructive remarks on the
indebtedness of William of Newburgh to others (p. xxvi.).

[632] "Vir iste nobilis, cæteris in pace recedentibus, solus, rege
jubente, fraudulenter comprehensus, et, ne abiret, custodibus
designatis, detentus est" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

[633] "Ne regia majestas turpi proditionis opprobio infamaretur."

[634] "Milites autem beati Albani, qui tunc, ad ecclesiæ ejus custodiam
et villæ fossatis circumdatæ, ipsum vicum, qui juxta cænobium est,
inhabitabant, ipsi regi in faciem viriliter restiterunt, donec ecclesiæ,
quam quidam ex regiis ædituis violaverant, satisfecisset ipse rex, et
ejus temerarii invasores.... Et hoc fecit rex contra jusjurandum, quod
fecerat apud Sanctum Albanum, et contra statuta concilii nuper, eo
consentiente, celebrati" (Mathew Paris, _Historia Anglorum_, i. 271).

[635] An incidental allusion to this conflict between the followers of
the king and the abbey's knights is to be found, I think, in a curious
passage in the _Gesta Abbatum S. Albani_ (i. 94). We there read of Abbot
Geoffrey (1119-1146): "Tabulam quoque unam ex auro et argento et gemmis
electis artificiose constructam ad longitudinem et latitudinem altaris
Sancti Albani, quam deinde, ingruente maxima necessitate, idem Abbas in
igne conflavit et in massam confregit. Quam dedit Comiti de Warrena et
Willelmo de Ypra et Comiti de Arundel et Willelmo Martel, temporibus
Regis Stephani, _Villam Sancti Albani volentibus concremare_." The
conjunction of William of Ypres with Abbot Geoffrey dates this incident
within the limits 1139-1146, and there is no episode to which it can be
so fitly assigned as this of 1143, especially as the Earl of Arundel
figures in both versions.

[636] "Et licet multi amicorum suorum, talia ei injuste illata ægre
ferentium, pro eo regem interpellarent" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

[637] "Rex igitur Galfridum, custodiis arctissime adhibitis, Londonias
adducens, ni turrim et quæ miro labore et artificio erexerat castella in
manus ejus committeret, suspendio cruciari paravit; cum salubri amicorum
persuasus consilio, ut imminens inhonestæ mortis periculum, castellis
redditis, devitaret, regis voluntati tandem satisfecit" (_Gesta_, p.
104). "Igitur, ut rex liberaret eum reddidit ei turrim Lundoniæ et
castellum de Waledene et illud de Plaisseiz" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 276).
"Eique arcem Lundoniensem cum duobus reliquis quæ possidebat castellis
extorsit [rex]" (_W. Newburgh_, i. 45). The castle of (Saffron) Walden,
with the surrounding district, was placed by Stephen in charge of Turgis
d'Avranches, whom we have met with before, and who refused, some two
years later, to admit the king to it (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 101). Mr.
Howlett appears to have confused it with another castle which Stephen
took "in the Lent of 1139," for Walden was Geoffrey's hereditary seat
and had always been in his hands.

[638] "Regnique totius communem ad jacturam, tali modo liberatus de
medio illorum evasit" (_Gesta_, p. 104). "Quo facto, velut equus validus
et infrænis, morsibus, calcibus quoslibet obvios dilaniare non cessavit"
(_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

[639] "Episcopus vero Elyensis pro tam imminenti sibi negotio auxilium
Dominæ Imperatricis et suorum colloquium requirendum putavit" (_Anglia
Sacra_, i. 622).

[640] This might lead us to suppose that the incident belonged to the
latter half of 1142, when Wareham was in the king's hands. The date
(1143), however, cannot be in question.

[641] _Historia Eliensis_, p. 623. Theobald, from his Angevin
sympathies, supported Nigel's cause.

[642] See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."

[643] "Hugone quoque, cognomente Bigot, viro illustri et in illis
partibus potenti, sibi confœderato" (_Gesta_, p. 106).

[644] _Mon. Ang._, iv. 142.

[645] "Homines regis erga locum fratrum Ely insidias unanimiter
paraverunt, adversum quos cum custodes insulæ non sufficerent rebellare,
Galfridum comitem, tunc adversarium [Stephani regis,] incendiis patriam
et seditione perturbantem, suscipiunt; cui etiam castrum de Ely, atque
Alrehede, ob firmamentum tuitionis, submiserunt" (_Historia Eliensis_,
p. 623).

[646] Here again we are indebted for the date to the London Chronicle
(_Liber de Ant. Leg._, fol. 35), which states that Geoffrey "in adventu
Domini fecit castellum Ecclesiam de Rameseya." Geoffrey's doings may
well have been of special interest to the Londoners.

[647] "Ira humanum excedente modum, ita efferatus est, ut procurantibus
Willelmo de Saye et Daniele quodam falsi nominis ac tonsuræ monacho,
navigio cum suis subvectus Rameseiam peteret, ecclesiam Deo ac beato
patri Benedicto dicatam summo mane ausu temerario primitus invadendo
subintraret, monachosque omnes post divinum nocturnale officium sopori
deditos comprehenderet, et vix habitu simplici indutos expellendo statim
perturbaret, nullaque interveniente mora, ecclesiam illam satis
pulcherrimam, non ut Dei castrum sed sicut castellum, superius ac
inferius, intus ac extra, fortiter munivit" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

"Hic totus in rabiem invectus Ramesiam, nobile monasterium invadens,
fugata monachorum caterva, custodiam posuit" (_Leland's Collectanea_, i.
600).

[648] _Chronicon Abbatiæ Ramesiensis_, pp. 327-329.

[649] "Monachis expulsis, raptores immisit, et ecclesiam Dei speluncam
fecit latronum" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277).

[650] "Vasa autem altaris aurea et argentea Deo sacrata, capas etiam
cantorum lapidibus preciosis ac opere mirifico contextas, casulis cum
albis, et cæteris ecclesiastici decoris ornamentis rapuit, et
quibuslibet eruere volentibus vili satis precio distraxit unde militibus
et satellitibus suis debita largitus est stipendia" (_Mon. Ang._, iv.
142). "Cœnobiumque sancti Benedicti de Rameseiâ non solum, captis
monachorum spoliis, altaribus quoque et sanctorum reliquiis nudatis,
expilavit, sed etiam expulsis incompassive monachis de monasterio,
militibusque impositis castellum sibi adaptavit" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Cum
manu forti monasterium ipsum occupavit, monachos dispersit, thesaurum et
omnia ecclesiæ ornamenta sacrilega manu surripuit et ex ipso monasterio
stabulum fecit equorum, villas adjacentes commilitonibus pro stipendiis
distribuit" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 329).

[651] "Galfridus igitur, ubique in regno fide sibi et hominio conjuratis
in unum secum cuneum convocatis, gregariæ quoque militiæ sed et
prædonum, qui undecumque devote concurrerant, robustissima manu in suum
protinus conspirata collegium, ignibus et gladio ubique locorum
desævire" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Crebris eruptionibus atque excursionibus
vicinas infestavit provincias" (_W. Newburgh_, i. 45).

[652] "Castellum quoddam fecerat apud Waltone" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332).

[653] "Inde recessum habuit per Ely quiete: Fordham quoque contra hostes
sibi cum valida manu firmare usurpavit" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623).

[654] "Similiter apud Benewik in transitu aquarum" (_ibid._).

[655] "Omnia adversus regiæ partis consentaneos abripere et consumere,
nudare et destruere" (_Gesta_, p. 105). "Maneria, villas, ceteraque
proprietatem regiam contingentia primitus invasit, igni combussit,
prædasque cum rapinis non minimis inde sublatas commilitonibus suis
larga manu distribuit" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142).

[656] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, ii. 119, 128. Compare the Peterborough
Chronicle: "Ræuedan hi & brendon alle the tunes" (_Ang. Sax. Chron._, i.
382).

[657] _Gesta._

[658] "Talique ferocitate in omnem circumquaque provinciam, in omnibus
etiam, quascunque obviam habebat, ecclesiis immiseranter desæviit;
possessiones cœnobiorum, distractis rebus, depopulatis omnibus in
solitudinem redegit; sanctuaria eorum, vel quæcumque in ærariis
concredita reponebantur sine metu vel pietate ferox abripuit" (_ibid._).

[659] "Locis sacris vel ipsis de ecclesiis nullam deferendo exhibuit
reverentiam" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142).

[660] "Facti enim amentes cantitabat unusquisque Anglice," etc. The
"Anglice" reads oddly. Strange that the sufferings of the people should
be bewailed and made merry over in the same tongue!

[661] Stephen himself behaved no better, to judge from the story in the
_Chronicle of Abingdon_ (ii. 292), where it is alleged that the king,
being informed of a large sum of money stored in the treasury of the
abbey, sent his satellite, William d'Ypres, who, gaining admission on
the plea of prayer, broke open the chest with an axe, and carried off
the treasure.

[662] "Militum suorum numerositate immanior factus, per totam
circumcirca discurrendo provinciam nulli cuicunque pecuniam possidenti
parcere vovit" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

"Crebris eruptionibus et excursionibus vicinas infestavit provincias.
Deinde sumpta ex successu fiducia longius progrediens, regem Stephanum
acerrimis fatigavit terruitque incursibus" (_Will. Newb._, i. 45).

[663] _Gesta._

[664] "Exploratores vero illius, habitu mutato, more egenorum ostiatim
oberrantes, villanis et cæteris hujusmodi hominibus pecunia a Deo data
abundantibus insidiabantur, quibus taliter compertis intempestæ noctis
silentio, tempore tamen primitus considerato, Sathanæ satellites a
comite transmittebantur qui viros innocuos alto sopore quandoque
detentos raperent raptos vero quasi pro magno munere ei presentarent.
Qui mox immani supplicio, per intervalla tamen, vexabantur et tamdiu per
tormenta varia vicissim sibi succedentia torquebantur, donec pecuniæ eis
impositæ ultimum solverent quadrantem" (_Monasticon_, iv. 142). An
incidental allusion to this system of robbery by ransom is found in an
inquisition (_temp._ John) on the royal manor of Writtle, Essex (_Testa
de Nevill_, p. 270 _b_). It is there recorded that Godebold of Writtle,
who held land at Boreham, was captured by Geoffrey and forced to
mortgage his land to raise the means for his ransom: "Godebold de
Writel' qui eam tenuit captus a comite Galfrido, patre Willelmi de
Mandevilla, tempore regis Stephani, pro redemptione sua versus predictum
comitem acquietanda posuit in vadimonium," etc.

[665] "Propterea Rex Stephanus, irâ graviter accensus, omnia hæc
reputavit ab Episcopo Nigello machinari; et jussit e vestigio
possessiones Ecclesiæ a suis undequaque distrahi in vindictam odiorum
ejus. Succisâ igitur Monachis rerum facultate suarum, nimis ægre
compelluntur in Ecclesiâ, maxime ciborum inedia. Unde non habentes
victuum, gementes et anxii reliquas thesaurorum," etc. (_Historia
Eliensis_, p. 623).

[666] _Cotton. MS._, Tib. A. vi. fol. 117.

[667] "Hæc omnia episcopo, quamvis Romæ longius commoranti, satis
innotuerunt, et gratiâ Domini Papæ sublimiter donatus, his munimentis
tandem roboratus contra deprimentum ingenia, ad domum gaudens rediit"
(_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623).

[668] _Cotton. MS._, Tib. A. vi. fol. 116 _b_. See Appendix AA:
"Tenserie."

[669] _Chronicle of Ramsey_, p. 329.

[670] "Quum autem negotium feliciter ibi consummasset, reversus in
Angliam infra tres menses per judices delegatos abbatiam suam, Rege
super hoc multum murmurante, recuperavit" (_ibid._, p. 330).

[671] "Quum vero sæpedictus abbas in possessionem abbatiæ suæ
corporaliter mitti debuisset, invenit sceleratam familiam prædicti
comitis sibi fortiter resistentem. Sed ipse, Spiritu Dei plenus, inter
sagittas et gladios ipsorum sæpius in caput ejus vibratos, accessit
intrepidus, ignem arripuit, et tentoria ipsorum portamque exteriorem
quam incastellaverant viriliter incendit et combussit. Sed nec propter
incendium nec propter anathema quod in eos fuerat sententiatum locum
amatum deserere vel abbati cedere voluerunt. Creditur a multis
miraculose factum esse quod nullus ex insanis prædonibus illis manus in
eum misit dum eorum tecta combureret quamvis lanceis et sagittis, multum
irati, dum hæc faceret, mortem ei cominus intentarent" (_ibid._).

[672] "Aliud etiam illis diebus fertur contigisse miraculum, quod
lapides murorum ecclesiæ Ramesensis, claustri etiam et officinarum quas
prædones inhabitaverant, in magna quantitate guttas sanguinis emiserunt,
unde per totam Angliam rumor abiit admirabilis, et magnæ super hoc
habitæ sunt inter omnes ad invicem collationes. Erat enim quasi
notorium, et omnibus intueri volentibus visu et tactu manifestum"
(_ibid._).

[673] "Dum autem ecclesia illa pro castello teneretur, ebullivit sanguis
a parietibus ecclesie et claustri adjacentis, indignationem divinam
manifestans, exterminationem sceleratorum denuntians; quod multi quidem,
et ipse ego, oculis meis inspexi" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277).

[674] "Miserabilis abbas iste post tot labores et ærumnas quietem habere
et domum suam recuperasse sperabat a qua dolens et exspes recessit,
laboribus expensis ita fatigatus ut jam tæderet eum vivere. Non enim
habebat unde modice familiæ suæ equitaturas et sumptus necessarios
posset providere" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 331).

[675] "In omnibus terris dominicis totius abbatiæ unam tantum carucam
reperit et dimidiam, reperit victualium nihil; debitum urgebat; terræ
jacebant incultæ.... Oportuit præfatum abbatem xxiiii castell[?anis]
vel amplius singulis mensibus pro rusticis suis redemptiones seu
tenserias præstare, qui tam per Danielem quam per ipsos malefactores
multum exhausti fuerant, et extenuati" (_Chron. Ram._, 333, 334). This
description, though it is applied to the state of things which awaited
the abbot on Earl Geoffrey's death, is obviously in point here. It is of
importance for its allusion to the plough, which illustrates the
language of Domesday (the plough-teams being always the first to suffer,
and the most serious loss: compare Bishop Denewulf's tenth-century
charter in _Liber de Hyda_), but still more for its mention of the
_tenseriæ_. Here we have the very same word, used at the very same time,
at Peterborough, Ramsey, and Ely. The correction, therefore, of the
English Chronicle is utterly unjustifiable (see Appendix AA). Moreover,
a comparison of this passage with the letter of Pope Lucius (_ante_, p.
215) shows that at Ramsey, as at Ely, the evil effect of this state of
things continued in these _tenseriæ_ even after the bishop and the abbot
had respectively regained possession.

[676] "Suorum tandem consilio fretus, comitem Gaufridum adiit,
monasterii sui detentorem, patenter et audacter ei ostendens tam ipsum
quam totam familiam ipsius, tam ex ipso facto quam apostolica
auctoritate interveniente, a Christianâ communione esse privatos, domum
suam sibi postulans restitui si vellet absolvi. Quod comes vix patienter
audiens, plures ei terminos de reddenda possessione sua constituit, sed
promissum nunquam adimplevit ita ut cum potius deludere videretur quam
ablatam possessionem sibi velle restituere; unde miser abbas
miserabiliter afflictus mortis debitum jam vellet exsolvisse" (_Chron.
Ram._, p. 331).

[677] "Sed prophani milites in sua malitia pertinaces nec sic domum Dei
quam polluerant reddere voluerant; induratum enim erat cor eorum"
(_ibid._, p. 330).

[678] "Oppresserat enim fames omnem regionem; et ægra seges victum omnem
negaverat; per viginti milliaria seu triginta non bos non aratrum est
inventus qui particulam terræ excoleret; vix parvissimus tunc modius emi
poterat ducentis denariis. Tantaque hominum clades de inopiâ panis
sequuta est, ut per vicos et plateas centeni et milleni ad instar uteris
inflati exanimes jacerent: feris et volatilibus cadavera inhumata
relinquebantur. Nam multo retro tempore talis tribulatio non fuit in
cunctis terrarum regnis" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623).

[679] "Efferbuit enim per totam Angliam Stephani regis hostilis
tribulatio, totaque insula vi potius quam ratione regebatur" (_Chron.
Ram._, p. 334).

[680] "Potentes, per circuitum late vastando, milites ex rapinâ
conducunt; villas comburunt: captivos de longe ducentes miserabiliter
tractabant; pios alligabant in compedibus et nobiles in manicis ferreis"
(_Historia Eliensis_, p. 623).

[681] "Furit itaque rabies vesana. Invicta lætatur malitia: non sexui
non parcunt ætati. Mille mortis species inferunt, ut ab afflictis
pecuniam excutiant: fit clamor dirus plangentium: inhorruit luctus
ubique mærentium; et constat fuisse completum quod nunciatur in
Apocalypsi Joannis: 'quærent homines mori et fugiet mors ab eis'"
(_ibid._).

[682] "Sed verum est quod vulgariter dicitur: 'Ubi dolor maximus ibi
proxima consolatio'" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 331).

[683] "Herba viridissima emarcuit, ut eo surgente quasi præmortua
videretur, nec toto fere anno viridatis suæ vires recuperavit. Unde
datur intelligi quam detestandum sit consortium excommunicatorum"
(_Gervase_, i. p. 128).

[684] "Accessit paulo post cum exercitu suo ad quoddam castellum
expugnandum quod apud Burewelle de novo fuerat constructum, et quum
elevata casside illud circuiret ut infirmiorem ejus partem eligeret ad
expugnandum, ... quidam vilissimus sagittarius ex hiis qui intra
castellum erant capiti ipsius comitis lethale vulnus impressit" (_Chron.
Ram._, 331, 332).

"Hic, cum ... in obsidione supradicti castelli de Burwelle in scuto et
lancea contra adversarios viriliter decertasset, ob nimium calorem
cassidem deposuit, et loricæ ventilabrum solvit, sicque nudato capite
intrepidus militavit. Æstus quippe erat. Quem cum vidisset quispiam de
castello, et adversarium agnosceret, telo gracili quod ganea dicitur eum
jam cominus positum petiit, que testam capitis ipsius male nudati
perforavit" (_Gervase_, i. 128).

"Dum nimis audax, nimisque prudentiæ suæ innitens regiæ virtutis
castella frequentius circumstreperet, ab ipsis tandem regalibus
circumventus prosternitur" (_Gesta_, p. 106).

"Post hujusmodi tandem excessibus aliisque multis his similibus publicam
anathematis non immerito incurrit sententiam, in qua apud quoddam
oppidulum in Burwella lethaliter in capite vulneratus est" (_Mon. Ang._,
iv. 142).

"Inter acies suorum confertas, a quodam pedite vilissimo solus sagitta
percussus est. Et ipse, vulnus ridens, post dies tamen ex ipso vulnere
excommunicatus occubuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, 276).

[685] "In quodam prædio consisteret quod ... ad Ramesense monasterium
pertinebat, et pertinet usque in hodiernum diem.... Quod iccirco in
fundo beati Benedicti factum fuisse creditur ut omnes intelligere
possent quod Deus ultionum dominus hoc fecerat in odium et vindictam
injuriarum quas monasterio beati Benedicti sacrilegus comes intulerat"
(_Chron. Ram._, p. 331).

[686] "Cum nollet satisfacere, placuit fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus
in transgressionis huius vindictam Crucem deponere si forte dives ille
compunctus hoc facto vellet rescipiscere. Tradunt autem qui hiis
inquirendis diligentiam adhibuerunt eadem depositionis hora Comitem
illum ante castrum de Burewelle ad quod expugnandum diligenter operam
dabat letale vulnus suscepisse et eo infra xl dies viam universe Carnis
ingressum fuisse" (_Harl. MS._, 3776). See also Appendix M.

[687] "Verum tantarum tamque immanium persecutionum, tam crudelium
quoque, quas in omnes ingerebat, calamitatum justissimus tandem
respector Deus dignum malitiæ suæ finem imposuit" (_Gesta_, p. 106).

"Quia igitur improbi dixerunt Deum dormitare, excitatus est Deus, et in
hoc signo, et in significato" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277).

[688] "Letiferum sui capitis vulnus deridens nec sic a suo cessavit
furore" (_Gervase_, i. 128, 129).

[689] "Pœnitens itaque valde et Deo cum magna cordis contritione pro
peccatis suis supplicans, quantum taliter moriens poterat, Deo et
hominibus satisfecit, licet a præsentibus absolvi non poterat" (_Mon.
Ang._, iv. 142). Cf. p. 202, _supra_.

[690] "Quum igitur apud Mildehale mortis angustia premeretur, hoc
audiens præfatus abbas ad eum citissime convolavit. Quo cum venisset,
nec erat in ipso comite vox neque sensus, familiares tamen ipsius,
domino suo multum condolentes, eum benigne receperunt et cum literis
ipsius comitis eum ad filium suum scilicet Ernaldum de Magna Villa ...
statim miserunt ut sine mora cœnobium suum sibi restitueret" (_Chron.
Ram._, p. 332).

[691] "Gaufridus de Magna Villa regem validissime vexavit et in omnibus
gloriosus effulsit. Mense autem Augusti miraculum justitia sua dignum
Dei splendor exhibuit" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 277).

[692] "Et sicut, dum viveret, ecclesiam confudit, terram turbavit, sic,
ad eum confundendum tota Angliæ conspiravit ecclesia; quia et
anathematis gladio percussus et inabsolutus abscessit, et terræ
sacrilegum dari non licuit" (_Gesta_, p. 106).

[693] "Illo autem, in discrimine mortis, ultimum trahente spiritum,
quidam supervenere Templarii qui religionis suæ habitum cruce rubea
signatum ei imposuerunt" (_Mon. Ang._, _ut supra_). But the red cross is
said not to have been assumed by the order till the time of Pope Eugene
(1145). See _Monasticon Ang._, ii. 815, 816.

[694] "Ac deinde jam mortuum secum tollentes, et in pomerio suo, veteris
scilicet Templi apud London' canali inclusum plumbeo in arbore torva
suspenderunt" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

"Corpus vero defuncti comitis in trunco quodam signatum, et propter
anathema quo fuerat innodatus Londoniis apud Vetus Templum extra
cimiterium in antro quodam projectum est" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332). This
would seem to be the earliest mention of the Old Temple. _Pomerium_ in
Low Latin is, of course, an orchard, and not, as Mr. Freeman so
strangely imagines (at Nottingham, in Domesday), a town wall.

[695] "Post aliquod vero tempus industria et expensis Willelmi quem jam
pridem in Waldena constituerat priorem, a papa Alexandro, more taliter
decedentium meruit absolvi, inter Christianos recipi, et pro eo divina
celebrari" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142).

[696] "Ibique jacuit toto tempore Regis Stephani magnaque parte Regis
Henrici Secundi, donec Gaufridus filius ejus, Comes Essexie, vir
industrius et justitiarius Domini Regis jam factus Dominum Willelmum
abbatem cæpit humiliter interpellare pro patre suo defuncto offerens
satisfactionem, et quum ab eo benignum super hoc responsum accepisset,
statuta die convenerunt ambo sub præsentia domini Cantuarensis, scilicet
beati Thomæ martyris, super hoc tractaturi.... Quo facto, pater ipsius
comitis Christianæ traditus est sepulturæ."

The earl's grant runs as follows:—

"Gaufridus de Magna Villa Comes Essexie, omnibus amicis suis et
hominibus et universis sanctæ Ecclesiæ filiis salutem.

"Satis notum est quanta damna pater meus, Comes Gaufridus, tempore
guerrarum monasterio de Rameseia irrogaverit.

"Et quia tanta noxia publico dinoscitur indigere remedio, ego tam pro eo
quam pro suis satisfacere volens, consilio sanctæ Ecclesiæ cum Willelmo
Abbate monachisque suprascripti cœnobii in hanc formam composui.... Et
quia constat sepedictum patrem meum in irrogatione damnorum memoratæ
ecclesiæ bona thesauri in cappis, et textis, et hujusmodi plurimum
delapidasse, ad eorundem reparationem ad ecclesiæ ornatum dignum duxi
redditum istum assignari" (_Cart. Ram._, i. 197). Compare p. 276, _n._
3, and p. 415.

[697] _Chron. Ram._, pp. 306, 333. The king was probably at Windsor at
the time, and the date is a useful one for Becket's movements.

[698] A curious archæological question is raised by this date. According
to the received belief, the Templars did not remove to the New Temple
till 1185, but, according to this evidence, they already had their
churchyard there consecrated in 1163, and had therefore, we may presume,
begun their church. The church of the New Temple was consecrated by
Heraclius on his visit in 1185, but may have been finished sooner.

[699] "Cumque Prior ille corpus defunctum deponere et secum Waldenam
deferre satageret, Templarii illi caute premeditati statim illud
tollentes, et in cimiterio novi templi ignobili satis tradiderunt
sepulturæ" (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 142). It was generally believed that his
effigy was among those remaining at the Temple, but this supposition is
erroneous, as has been shown by Mr. J. G. Nichols in an elaborate
article on "The Effigy attributed to Geoffrey de Magnaville, and the
Other Effigies in the Temple Church" (_Herald and Genealogist_ (1866),
iii. 97, _et seq._).



 CHAPTER X.
 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX.


The death of Geoffrey was a fatal blow to the power of the fenland
rebels. According, indeed, to one authority, his brother-in-law, William
de Say, met his death on the same occasion,[700] but it was the decease
of the great earl which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy
and hope.[701] For a time Ernulf, his son and heir, clung to the abbey
fortress, but at length, sorely against his will, he gave up possession
to the monks.[702] Before the year was out, he was himself made prisoner
and straightway banished from the realm.[703] Nor was the vengeance of
Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the wicked earl was
thrown from his horse and killed,[704] and the captain of his foot, who
had made himself conspicuous in the violating and burning of churches,
met, as he fled beyond the sea, with the fate of Jonah, and worse.[705]

Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest to ignore the
subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de Mandeville.[706] He has even
been conveniently disposed of by the statement that he died
childless.[707] It may therefore fairly be described as a genealogical
surprise to establish the fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only that
he left issue, but that his descendants flourished for generations,
heirs in the direct male line of this once mighty house. Ernulf himself
first reappears, early in the following reign, as a witness to a royal
charter confirming Ernald _de Bosco's_ foundation at Betlesdene.[708] He
also occurs as a principal witness in a family charter, about the same
time.[709] This document,[710] which is addressed by Earl Geoffrey
"baronibus suis," is a confirmation of a grant of lands in
Sawbridgeworth, by his tenant Warine fitz Gerold "Camerarius Regis" and
his brother Henry, to Robert Blund of London, who is to hold them "de
predictis baronibus meis." The witnesses are: "Roesia Com[itissa] matre
mea, Eust[achia] Com[itissa], Ernulfo de Mannavilla fratre meo, Willelmo
filio Otuwel patruo meo, Mauricio vicecomite, Willelmo de Moch'
capellano meo, Otuwel de bouile, Ricardo filio Osberti, Radulfo de
Bernires, Willelmo et Ranulfo fil' Ernaldi, Gaufrido de Gerp[en]villa,
Hugone de Augo, Waltero de Mannavilla, Willelmo filio Alfredi, Gaufredo
filio Walteri, Willelmo de Plaisiz, Gaufrido pincerna." He is,
doubtless, also the "Ernald de Mandevill" who holds a knight's fee, in
Yorkshire, of Ranulf fitz Walter in 1166.[711] But in the earliest
Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of _terræ datæ_
in Wilts., to the amount of £11 10_s._ 0_d._ (blanch) "in Wurda." This
grant was not among those repudiated by Henry II., and Geoffrey de
Mandeville, Ernulf's heir, was still in receipt of the same sum in
1189[712] and 1201-2.[713] Later on, in a list of knights' fees in
Wilts., which must belong, from the mention of Earl William de
Longespée, to 1196-1226, and is probably _circ._ 1212, we read:
"Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes unius militis de
Rege."[714] That Ernulf should have received a grant in Wilts., a county
with which his family was not connected, is probably accounted for by
the fact that he obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the
case of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts. convenient as a
means of rewarding her partisans.[715] But we now come to a series of
charters of the highest importance for this discovery. These were
preserved among the muniments of Henry Beaufoe of Edmondescote, county
Warwick, Esq., when they were seen by Dugdale, who does not, however, in
his _Baronage_, allude to their evidence. By the first of these Earl
Geoffrey (died 1166) grants to his brother Ernulf one knight's fee in
Kingham, county Oxon.:—

 "Sciatis me dedisse et firmiter concessisse Ernulfo de Mandavilla
 fratri meo terram de Caingeham, ... pro servitio unius militis in
 excambitione terre Radulfi de Nuer.... Et si Caingeham illi garantizare
 non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham antequam inde
 sit dissaisitus.... T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo meo, Henry (_sic_)
 fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Rad[ulf]o de Berner[iis], Waltero
 de Mandavilla, Will[elm]o de Aino, Galfrido de Jarpeuill, Will[elmo] de
 Plais', Jurdan[o] de Taid', Hug[one] de Auc[o], Willelm[o] fil[io]
 Alured[i] Rad[ulfo] Magn[?avilla], Audoenus (_sic_) Pincerna, Rad[ulfo]
 frater (_sic_) eius, Aluredus (_sic_) Predevilain."[716]

Ralph "de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder of four fees
from Earl Geoffrey (II.).[717] Of the witnesses to the charter,[718]
Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamberlain) held four fees (_de novo_)
of the earl in 1166, Ralph de Berners four (_de veteri_), Walter de
Mandeville four (_de veteri_), Geoffrey de Jarpe[n]ville one (_de
novo_), Hugh de Ou and William fitz Alfred one each (_de novo_),
"Audoenus Pincerna" and Ralph his brother the fifth of a fee (_de novo_)
jointly. The relative precedence, according to holding, is not unworthy
of notice. The second charter is from Earl William, confirming his
brother's gift:—

 "Willelmus de Mandavilla comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, etc. Sciatis
 me concessisse Ernulfo de Mandauilla fratri meo donationem quam Comes
 Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham.... T. Comite Albrico,
 Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Will[elm]o de Bouilla, Radu[lfo]
 de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuilla, Ric[ard]o de Rochellâ, Osberto
 fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de
 Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone clerico," etc.[719]

Here Earl "Alberic" was uncle both to the grantor and the grantee; Simon
de Beauchamp was their uterine brother; Geoffrey de Say their first
cousin. William de Boville would be related to Otuel de Boville, the
chief tenant of Mandeville in 1166.[720] "Sewalus de Osevill" then
(1166) held four fees (_de veteri_) of the earl. Richard "de Rochellâ"
held three-quarters of a fee (_de novo_). Osbert fitz Richard was
probably a son of Richard fitz Osbert, who held four fees (_de veteri_)
in 1166. Wiscard Ledet was a tenant _in capite_ in Oxfordshire (_Testa_,
p. 103).[721]

The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee himself to his son:—

 "Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dedi Radulfo
 de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de
 Chaingeham ... et hospitium meum Oxenfordie ad prædictam villam
 pertinens[722] ... T. Henrico Danuers," etc.[723]

From another quarter we are enabled to continue the chain of evidence.
We have first a charter to Osney:—

 "Ego Gaufridus de Mandeuile ... confirmavi mercatam terre quam Aaliz
 mater mea eis diuisit in Hugato, sic[?ut] Ernulfus de Mandeuile pater
 meus eis assignavit."[724]

Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step further:—

 "Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuillâ concessi
 Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuillâ," etc., etc.[725]

Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert de Mandeville, and
Ralph his brother, and Hugh de Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of
Ralph de Mandeville, to which the first witness is "Galfridus de
Mandauilla frater meus."[726]

We have now established this pedigree:—

       GEOFFREY,       =   Roese
     EARL OF ESSEX,    |  de Vere.
     d. 1144.          |
              +--------+
              |
           Ernulf       = Aaliz.
       de Mandeville,   |
        son and heir    |
       (disinherited).  |
                        |
          +-------------+---------+
          |                       |
       Geoffrey                 Ralph
     de Mandeville.        de Mandeville.
          |
       Geoffrey
     de Mandeville.

A further charter (_Harl. Cart._, 54, I. 44) can now be fitted into this
pedigree. It is a notification by Adam de Port, to the Bishop of
Lincoln, etc., of his grant of the church of "Hattele." The witnesses
are: "Hernaldo de Mandeville et domina Alicia uxore sua, domina
Matiltide uxore dicti Adæ de Port, Henrico de Port, fratre ejusdem,
Galfrido de Mandeville," etc.[727] Here we have a clue to the parentage
of Ernulf's wife.

Passing to the reign of Henry III., we find Kingham then still in
possession of the family.[728] In Wiltshire they are found yet later,
Worth being still held by them in 1292-93 (21 Edw. I).[729]

The importance of the existence of Ernulf and his heirs is seen when we
come to deal with the fate of the earldom of Essex. That Ernulf was
"exiled" even for a time becomes a remarkable fact, when we remember
that he might have found shelter from the king among the followers of
the Empress in the west. But he and his father had offended a power
greater than the king. The Empress could not shield him from the
vengeance of the outraged Church. It is, I think, in his doings at
Ramsey, and in the penalties he had thus incurred, that we must seek the
reason of his being, as we shall find, so strangely passed over, in
favour of his younger brother Geoffrey, who had not partaken of his
guilt.

To another charter, hitherto unknown, we owe our knowledge of the fact
that Geoffrey was recognized as his father's heir, by the Empress, on
his death. Instructive as its contents would doubtless be, it is known
to us only from the following note, made by one who had inspected its
transcript in the lost volume of the Great Coucher:—

 "Carta M. Imperatricis per quam dat Gaufredo de Mannevill filio
 Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatem suam et omnes tenuras quas
 concessit patri suo. Testes R. Com. Gloec., Rag. Com. Cornub., Rog.
 Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes filius
 Gisleberti, W. de Pontlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas.[730]

The names of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Roger, Earl of Hereford,
limit the date of this charter to 1144-1147, and the father of the
grantee died, as we have seen, in August, 1144. It should be noted that
nothing is said here of the earldom of Essex, and that only an
absolutely new creation could confer the dignity on Geoffrey, as he was
not his father's heir.

Here, however, yet another charter, also at present unknown, comes to
our assistance with its unique evidence that Geoffrey must have held his
father's title before 1147.[731] He then disappears from view for the
time.

We must now skip some twelve years, and pass to that most important
charter in which the earldom was conferred anew on Geoffrey by Henry II.
Only those who have made a special study of these subjects can realize
the value of this charter, a record hitherto unknown. The attitude of
Henry II. to the creations of Stephen and Matilda, the extent to which
he recognized them, and the method in which he did so, are subjects on
which the historian is peculiarly anxious for information, but on which
our existing evidence is singularly and lamentably slight. Of the four
charters quoted in the _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, only two can
be said to have a real bearing on the question, and of these one is of
uncertain date, while the meaning of the other is doubtful. But the
charter I am about to deal with is remarkably clear in its meaning, and
possesses the advantage that its contents enable us to date it with
precision.

The original charter was formerly preserved in the Cottonian collection,
but was doubtless among those which perished in the disastrous
fire.[732] The copy of it made by Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at
Oxford, is unfortunately imperfect, but the discovery of an independent
copy among the Rawlinson MSS. has enabled me not only to fill the gaps
in Dugdale's copy (which I have here placed within brackets), but also
to establish by collation the accuracy of the text.

 CHARTER OF HENRY II. TO GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE THE YOUNGER (Jan. 1156).

H. Rex Angl[orum] (et) Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie
Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciariis Baronibus
Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis
Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa
Comitem de Essexa et dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et
heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis Tertium Denarium de
placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. Et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio
quod ipse Comes et heredes sui[733] post eum [habeant] et teneant
comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et plene et
honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ vel Normanniâ melius, liberius,
quietius, plenius, et honorificentius tenet Comitatum suum. Præterea
reddidi ei et concessi totam terram Gaufridi de MagnaVilla proavi sui,
et avi sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tam in dominiis
quam in feodis militum, tam in Anglia quam in Normannia, que de me tenet
in capite, et de quocunque teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et
nominatim Waledenam et Sabrichteswordam[734] et Walteham. Et vadium quod
Rex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria maneria sua
imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et heredibus suis de me et de meis
heredibus. Quare volo (et firmiter precipio) quod ipse et heredes sui
habeant et teneant (de me et de meis heredibus) comitatum suum predictum
ita libere (et quiete et plene) sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia (vel
Normannia) melius, (liberius quietius et plenius comitatum suum) tenet.
Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes sui omnia predicta tenementa
antecessorum suorum predictorum et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita
bene (et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et
plano et pratis et pascuis in Aquis et molendinis in viis et semitis in
forestis et warrennis in rivariis et piscariis infra Burgum et extra et
in omnibus locis et nominatim infra Civitatem London[ie], cum Soco et
Saca et Toll et Team et Infangtheof et cum omnibus Libertatibus et
liberis consuetudinibus et quietanciis suis) sicut Gaufridus de
MagnaVilla proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus unquam melius,
(liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et plenius) tenuerunt, tempore
Regis Willelmi et Regis Henrici avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo]
Archiepiscopo Cantuar' (Rog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Ric[ardo]
Ep[iscop]o London', Rob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o
Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario], Rag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', R[oberto]
Com[ite] Legrec', Rog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, H[enrico] de Essex
Conesta[bulo], Ric[ardo] de Hum[ez] Conest[abulo], Ric[ardo] de Lucy,
War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero],
Rob[er]to de Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud
Cantuariam.

The first point to be considered is that of the date. It is obvious at
once from the names of the primate and the chancellor that the charter
must be previous to the king's departure from England in 1158. But the
only occasion within this limit on which the charter can have passed is
that of the king's visit to Canterbury on his way to Dover and the
Continent in January, 1156 (115⅚). On no other occasion within this
limit did he land at or depart from Dover. Now, it is quite certain that
the charter to Earl Aubrey (de Vere), which is tested "Apud Dover in
transitu Regis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover
(January 10, 1156).[735] We find, then, that as in 1142 the charters to
Earl Geoffrey and Earl Aubrey were part of one transaction and passed on
the same occasion, so now, the charters to Earl Geoffrey the second and
Earl Aubrey, his uncle, passed almost on the same day. The long list of
witnesses to the former, for which we are indebted to the Rawlinson MS.,
enables us to compare it closely with those of the four other charters
which passed, according to Mr. Eyton, about the same time.[736] The
proportions of their witnesses found among the witnesses to this charter
are respectively: seven out of ten in the first; nine out of eighteen in
the second; the whole ten in the third; and seven out of fourteen in the
fourth. As the king had spent his Christmas at Westminster, we can thus
fix the date almost to a day, viz. _circ._ January 2, 1156. And this
harmonizes well enough with the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, which show
that Earl Geoffrey was in receipt of the _tertius denarius_ in 1157, as
from Michaelmas, 1155.

On looking at the terms of this instrument, we are struck at once by the
fact that it is a charter of actual creation. This is in perfect
accordance with the view advanced above, namely, that the charter
granted at Devizes to this Geoffrey, as his father's son, has no bearing
on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an absolutely new creation could
confer the earldom on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir." It is
thus that the existence of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the
problem of no small consequence.[737]

Being thus an undoubted new creation, its terms should be examined most
carefully. It will then be found that the precedent they follow is not
the charter of the Empress (1141), but the original charter of the king
(1140).

 STEPHEN
 (1140).

 Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essexe
 hereditarie.

 MAUD
 (1141).

 Sciatis omnes ... quod ego ... do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla ...
 ut sit Comes de Essexâ.

 HENRY
 (1156).

 Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magnauillâ Comitem de Essexâ.

The explanation is, of course, that the first and third are new
creations, while the second is virtually but a confirmation of the
previous creation by Stephen. So again, comparing this creation with
that of Hugh Bigod, the only instance in point—

 (1155.)

 Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, scilicet de
 tercio denario de Nordwic et de Norfolca.

 (1156.)

 Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mandavillâ Comitem de Essexa, et
 dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis.... Tertium
 denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus.

Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation accentuates
the difference between the clauses relating to the "Tertius Denarius."
It will therefore be desirable to compare the clauses as they stand in
the Mandeville and the Vere charters (January, 1156):—

 MANDEVILLE

 Sciatis me ... dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus
 suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis tertium denarium de placitis
 meis ejusdem Comitatus.

 VERE

 Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico in feodo et
 hereditate tertium denarium de placitis Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde Comes.

It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" is an ambiguous
word, as it might refer either to the county or to the "third penny"
itself. And, indeed, the above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod
would lend support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey was,
we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the charter of the empress
(1142), she recognized him as already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as
Count of Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present charter
he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the same ground. For if Henry
had recognized him as Earl of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter
(1142), he must also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of
the shire which was granted by that same charter.[738] But he clearly
did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore
he did not recognize the validity of his mother's charter. Consequently,
he styled Aubrey "comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed
as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not _make_ a "comes" of a man who
was a "comes" already (p. 187), he merely grants him "the third penny of
the pleas" of Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut sit
inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which the charter is
drawn.[739]

Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of the Earl of
Sussex. There the grant runs—

 "Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel cum
 toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de Suthsex unde
 comes est."

This charter has been looked upon as relating to the earldom itself,
whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant of the castle and honour of
Arundel and of the "Tertius Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is
earl."[740] When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde Comes" and
"unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, clear. William was _already_
Earl of Sussex (_alias_ Arundel _alias_ Chichester), but his right to
the "Tertius Denarius" of the county was not recognized by the king. The
fact that this right required to be granted _nominatim_ confirms my view
that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to Geoffrey.[741]

The distinction between the "dedi et concessi" of the "Tertius Denarius"
clause and the "reddidi" and "concessi" of those by which the king
confirms to Geoffrey his ancestral estates is one always to be noted.
The terms of what one may call this general confirmation are remarkably
comprehensive, going back as they do to the days of King William and of
the grantee's great-grandfather; and the profusion of legal verbiage in
which they are enwrapped is worthy of later times. The charter also
illustrates the adaptation in Latin of the old Anglo-Saxon _formulæ_,
themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which must bear witness to
oral transmission in an archaic state of society.[742]

The release of the lien (upon three manors) which Henry I. had held is a
very curious feature. One of these manors, Sawbridgeworth in Herts., is
surveyed in Domesday at great length. Its value had then sunk from £60
to £50; but early in the reign of Henry II., Earl Geoffrey gave it in
fee to Warine fitz Gerold, the chamberlain, "per (_sic_) LXXIIII
libratas terræ, singulas XX libratas pro servitio unius militis."[743]

Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till his death, at
which time we find him lord of more than a hundred and fifty knights'
fees. The earldom then (1166) passed to his younger brother William, and
did so, as far as we know, without a fresh creation. For the limitation,
it is important to observe, in this as in other early creations, is not
restricted to heirs _of the body_—a much later addition. As this point
is of considerable importance it may be as well here to compare the
essential words of inheritance in the three successive charters:—

 STEPHEN
 (1140).

 Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnavillâ de Comitatu Essexe
 _hereditarie_. Quare volo ... quod ipse _et heredes sui post eum
 hereditario jure_ teneant de me et de heredibus meis ... sicut alii
 Comites mei de terra meâ, etc.

 MAUD.
 (1141).

 Sciatis ... quod ego do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavillâ ... _et
 heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter_ ut sit Comes de Essexâ.

 HENRY II.
 (1156).

 Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa.... Et
 volo ... quod ipse Comes _et heredes sui post eum_ habeant et teneant
 Comitatum suum ... sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ, etc.

It is noteworthy that the earliest of these three—the earliest of all
our creation-charters—has the most intensely hereditary ring, a fact at
variance with the favourite doctrine that the hereditary principle was a
late innovation, and ousted but slowly the official position. It is
further to be observed that the term "Comitatus," of which the
denotation in Scottish charters has been so long and fiercely debated,
has here the abstract signification which it possesses in our own day,
namely, that of the dignity of an earl.

       *       *       *       *       *

When we think of their father's stormy career, it is not a little
strange to find these two successive Earls of Essex high in favour with
the order-loving king, throughout whose reign, for more than thirty
years (1156-1189), we find them honoured and trusted in his councils, in
his courts, and in his host. Of Earl William Miss Norgate writes: "The
son was as loyal as his father was faithless; he seems, indeed, to have
been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his
friendship."[744] His fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress
of the house of Aumâle, so that, already an earl in England, he thus
became, also, a count beyond the sea.

Yet well might men believe that the awful curse of Heaven rested on this
great and able house. At the very moment when Earl William seemed to
have attained the pinnacle of power, when he had reached the point which
his father had reached some half a century before, then, as in his
father's case, the prize was snatched from his grasp. King Richard,
rightly prizing the earl's loyalty and worth, announced his intention,
at the Council of Pipewell (September, 1189), of leaving him, with the
Bishop of Durham as his assessor, in charge of the kingdom, as
Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. Such an office would have
made the earl the foremost layman in the realm. But before the time had
come for entering on his exalted duties, indeed within a few weeks of
his appointment, he was dead (November 14, 1189).

Like his brother Geoffrey before him, the earl died childless; the vast
estates of the house of Mandeville passed to the descendants of his
aunt; to his earldom there was no heir.[745] Such was the end that
awaited the ambition of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The earldom for which he
had schemed and striven, the strongholds on which his power was based,
the broad lands which owned his sway—all were lost to his house. And as
if by the very irony of fate, Ernulf, his disinherited son, alone
continued the race, that there might not be wanting in his hapless heirs
an ever-standing monument to the greatness at once of the guilt and of
the fall of the man whose story I have told.

[700] "Willelmi de Say et Galfridi de Mandeville, qui apud Borewelle
interfecti fuerunt" (_Chron. Ram._, App. p. 347).

[701] "Isto itaque tali modo ad extrema deducto, nox quædam et horror
omnes regis adversarios implevit, quique ex dissensione a Galfrido
exorta regis annisum maxime infirmari putabant, nunc, eo interfecto,
liberiorem et ad se perturbandum, ut res se habebat, expediorem fore
æstimabant" (_Gesta_, p. 104). "Sicque Dei judicio patriæ vastatore
sublato, virtus bellatorum qui secum manum ad perniciem miserorum
firmaverunt plurimum labefacta est, cognoscentes Dominum Christum fideli
suo Regi de hostibus dare triumphum, et adversantes ei potenter elidere,
ad hoc expavit cor inimicorum illius" (_Historia Eliensis_, p. 628).

[702] "Quod post dilationes, non sine difficultate, tandem invitus
fecit; locum enim illum et vicinas ejus partes multum dilexerat.
Prophani milites recedunt cum iniquo satellite" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 332).

[703] "Eodem quoque anno, Ernulfus filius comitis, qui post mortem
patris ecclesiam incastellatam retinebat, captus est et in exilium
fugatus" (_Gervase_, i. 129. Cf. _Hen. Hunt._).

[704] "Cujus princeps militum ab equo corruens effuso cerebro spiritum
exhalavit" (_ibid._).

[705] "Magister autem peditum suorum, qui plus cæteris solitus erat
ecclesias concremare et frangere, dum mare transiret cum uxore sua, ut
multi perhibuerant, navis immobilis facta est. Quod monstrum nautis
stupentibus et sorte data rei causam inquirentibus, sors cecidit super
eum. Quod cum ille totis viribus, nec mirum, contradiceret, secundo et
tertio sors jacta in eum devenit: formidantibus igitur nautis positus
est in cymbam parvulam ipse et uxor ejus et eorum pecunia nequiter
adquisita, ut cum illis esset in perditione; quo facto, navis ut prius
maria libera sulcavit, cymba vero in voragine subsistens circumducta et
absorpta est" (_Hen. Hunt._).

[706] There is abundant evidence that the two names are used
indifferently.

[707] Burke's _Extinct Peerage_. So also Dr. Stubbs.

[708] _Harl. Cart._, 84. C. 4. The charter being attested by Thomas the
Chancellor must be previous to August, 1158, as it passed at
Westminster. It has a rather unusual set of witnesses.

[709] This charter may fairly be dated 1157-1158, on the following
grounds. It speaks of Warine fitz Gerold as the king's chamberlain, and
as living. But he died in the summer of 1158. It is, however, subsequent
to Henry's accession, because it was not till after that event that Fitz
Gerold was enfeoffed in Sawbridgeworth (_Liber Niger_), and also
subsequent to 1155, because Geoffrey occurs as earl. But as Maurice (de
Tiretei) was not sheriff, within these limits, till Michaelmas, 1157, we
obtain the date 1157-1158.

[710] _Sloane Cart._, xxxii. 64.

[711] _Liber Niger_ (ed. 1774), p. 326. The return of the Barony of
Helion (p. 242), in which an Ernulf de Mandeville appears as holding
half a knight's fee in Bumsted (Helion), is of later date.

[712] _Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I. The "Ernald de Magneville" who was among
the Crusaders that reached Acre in June, 1191, may have been a younger
son of the disinherited Ernald, if the latter was then dead. An Ernulf
de Mandeville is found among the witnesses to a star of Abraham fitz
Muriel (1214), granting a house in Westcheap to Geoffrey "de
Mandeville," Earl of Essex and Gloucester.

[713] _Rot. Pip._, 3 John.

[714] _Testa_, p. 142 _b_.

[715] See, for the exceptionally heavy alienations in this county (some
£440 a year), the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II., p. 57.

[716] _Dugdale MS._, 15 (H) fol. 129.

[717] "Feod[um] Rad[ulfi] de Nuers iiii. milites" (_Liber Niger_).

[718] Compare them with the preceding charter of Earl Geoffrey.

[719] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_.

[720] William's succession to Otwel suggests that they were somehow
related to William fitz Otuel (p. 169).

[721] With this charter of Earl William may be compared another (_Cart.
Cott._, x. 1), in which he confirms to Westminster Abbey the church of
Sawbridgeworth. The witnesses are "Willielmo de Ver, Asculfo Capellano,
Ricardo de Vercorol, Willelmo de Lisoris, David de Jarpouilla, Symone
fratre eius, Osberto filio Ricardi, Osberto de sancto Claro, Willelmo de
Norhala, Johanne de Rochella, Eustachio Camerario, Rogero et Simone
clericis Abbatis West'." The second and third witnesses are also found
attesting the earl's charter to the nuns of Greenfield (see p. 169).
Compare further "A charter of William, Earl of Essex" (_Eng. Hist.
Review_, April, 1891). "Asculfus (or Hasculfus) Capellanus" was the hero
of the adventure, on the earl's death, thus related by Dugdale: "A
chaplain of the earl's, called Hasculf, took out his best saddle-horse
in the night, and rode to Chicksand, where the Countess Rohese then
resided," etc., etc.

[722] This is a good instance of the custom, so constantly met with in
Domesday, by which a house in a county town was attached to a manor.

[723] _Dugdale MS._, _ut supra_.

[724] _Dodsworth MS._, vii. fol. 299.

[725] _Ibid._

[726] _Ibid._, xxx. fol. 104.

[727] "Alano de Matem" is among them (cf. p. 89).

[728] "Willelmus de Mandevill tenet in Kaingham feodum unius militis de
feod[o] Comitis Hereford[ie]" (_Testa_, pp. 102 _a_, 106 _a_).

[729] _Lansdowne MS._, 865, fol. 118 _dors._; _Harl. MS._, 154, fol. 45.

[730] _Lansdowne MS._, 229, fol. 123 _b_. This note is followed by one
of the charter by which the Empress confirmed Humfrey de Bohun in his
post of _Dapifer_, and of which the original is still extant among the
Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters (Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient
Charters_, p. 45).

[731] See Appendix BB.

[732] It was, I believe, duly entered in the lost volume of the Great
Coucher.

[733] "Sui" omitted in Rawlinson MS.

[734] "Dabrichteswordam" (Rawlinson).

[735] _R. Diceto_, p. 531.

[736] (1) To the church of St. Jean d'Angely (Canterbury); (2) to
Christchurch, Canterbury (Dover); (3) to St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester
(Dover); (4) to Earl Aubrey (Dover) (_Court and Itinerary of Henry II._,
pp. 15, 16).

[737] It is true that the charter to Geoffrey Ridel (Appendix BB) proves
that Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger enjoyed, at the court of the
Empress, the title of Earl of Essex. But the same charter proves that
Henry did not hold himself bound by his mother's charters or deeds.

[738] "Do et concedo quod sit Comes de ... et habeat inde tertium
denarium sicut comes debet habere."

[739] It is one of the mysteries of the Pipe-Rolls that no such payment
to the earl is to be traced on them, though the grant is quite
unmistakable in its terms. See Appendix H.

[740] The "unde" of this charter answers to the "inde" in the charters
to Earl Aubrey.

[741] See Appendix H.

[742] See, for instance, survivals of them in the charters of Henry I.
to Christchurch, Canterbury, and of Henry II. to Oxford. The former
runs, "on strande and on stream, on wudan and on feldan" (Campbell
Charter, xxix. 5); the latter, "by water and by stronde, by Gode (_sic_)
and by londe" (Hearne's _Liber Niger_, Appendix).

The formula "cum omnibus ad hoc rebus rite pertinentibus, sive
_litorum_, sive camporum, agrorum, saltuumve" (Kemble, _Cod. Dipl._, No.
425; Earle, _Land Charters_, p. 186), suggested to Prof. Maitland
(_Select Pleas in Manorial Courts_) a connection with the "leet" through
the "litus" of early Teutonic law, but Mr. W. H. Stevenson, correcting
him, observed (_Academy_, June 29, 1889) that _litorum_ referred to the
seashore at Reculver (with which this grant deals). Both these
distinguished scholars are mistaken, for the words only render the
general formula: "by lande and by strande ('litorum'), by wode and by
felde." So for instance—

  "bi water and bi lande
  mid inlade and mid utlade
  wit inne burghe and wit outen
  bi lande and by strande
  bi wode and by felde" (_Ramsey Cart._, ii. 80, 81).

Thus we have "in bosco et plano ... infra burgum et extra" (_supra_, p.
236). See also pp. 286, 314, 381.

[743] _Liber Niger_ (1774), i. 239.

[744] _Angevin Kings_, ii. 144.

[745] The inheritance was in dispute for some time between his aunt's
younger son and the two daughters and co-heirs of her elder son
deceased. As the latter were eventually successful in their claim, there
was no one heir to whom the earldom could pass, as of right, under the
charter of 1156 (accepting it as representing a limitation to heirs
whatsoever). I have, however, elsewhere suggested (Pipe-Roll Society:
_Ancient Charters_, p. 99) that the _salvo_ to the elder of the two
daughters of her _antenatio_ may have been connected with a claim to the
dignity by her husband, in her right.



APPENDICES.



 APPENDIX A.
 STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS.
 (See p. 3.)


There are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of Stephen's
reign than that which describes, in the _Gesta_, his "pactio" with the
citizens of London. This, because of the striking resemblance between
the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" there described and the similar
practice in those foreign towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa."
Thus at Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, omnes
cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... similiter et
rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus quod sit bonus
dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat eos de omni injuria de
se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, in the Perigord, it was (as was
usual) the lord who had to swear first before the citizens would do so:
"en aital manieira que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste
sagrament ...; deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et
d'autrui de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il
auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las males lor
oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome deven li far lo
sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui
esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de forsa," etc., etc. At
Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo
in Vasconia, juratur ab eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel
a senescallo suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod
villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni injuria,
et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos juramus ei et
senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when the Great Seneschal of
Aquitaine, as representing the king, first arrived, he was called upon
to swear by all the saints that he would be a good and loyal lord; that
he would protect the citizens from all wrong and violence, either from
himself or from others; that he would preserve all their rights,
customs, and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and
Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he held the
office, saving his fealty to the king.[746] When he had done so, the
mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— "By those saints, will we
be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient to you; your life and limbs we
will guard; good and loyal counsel will we give you to the best of our
power, and your secrets will we keep."[747] These examples, which could
be widely paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural
commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle and
uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum."

We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some such transaction
as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of the citizens. We shall find
the Empress securing the city in 1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St.
Albans with its authorized representatives, and we know that the
Conqueror himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered
London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester of
Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be questioned whether we
should accept the startling assertion in the _Gesta_ as literally
correct. It would seem at least highly probable that what the Londoners
really claimed in 1135 was not the right to elect a king of all England,
but to choose their own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom,
and to do so by a _separate negotiation_ between himself and them. They
were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their lord unless
he would first guarantee them the possession of all their liberties.
This semi-independent attitude, which was virtually that assumed by
Exeter when it attempted to treat with the Conqueror, was distinctly
foreign to the English polity so far as our knowledge goes. There are
faint hints, however, in Domesday that such towns as London, York,
Winchester, and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than it
has hitherto been the custom to believe.

[746] "Lo senescaut de Guiayne deu jurar en sa nabere vengude au mayre
juratz et cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione ... en
queste forme: Per aques sentz Job serey bon seinhor et leyau, de tort et
de force vos guoarderey de mi medichs et dautruy; a mon leyau poder
vostres fors vostres costumes et vostres priviledges sa en rer per los
reys Dangleterre et dux de Guiayne autreyatz vos sauberey, tant quoant
serey en lodit offici, sauban le fideutat de nostre seinhor lo Rey."

[747] "Et losditz maire et juratz deben jurar en le maneyre seguent
disent assi: Per aques sentz nos vos seram bons, fideus, leyaus, et
hobediens; vite et menbres vos guarderam; bon cosseilh et leyau vos
deram, a nostre leyau poder; et segretz vos thieram."



 APPENDIX B.
 THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136.
 (See p. 8.)


One of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have made in
the course of my researches has been the true story of the appeal to
Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. Considering the exceptional
importance of this episode, in many ways, it has received strangely
little attention, with the result that it has been imperfectly
understood and almost incredibly misdated.

Mr. Freeman, working, in the _Norman Conquest_, from the _Historia
Pontificalis_,[748] writes of this episode as taking place on and in
consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation of Eustace in
1152.[749] Miss Norgate has gone into the matter far more fully than Mr.
Freeman, but at first assigned the debate described in the _Historia
Pontificalis_ to "1151."[750]

In so doing, she was guided merely by the _Historia_ passage itself,
which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the
proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating the matter more
closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:—

 "From the way in which the trial is brought into the _Historia
 Pontificalis_, it would at first sight seem to have taken place in
 1151. But the presence of Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester,
 both of whom died in 1149, and the account of the proceedings written
 by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count, clearly prove the true date to
 be 1148."[751]

As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, but in
April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no less fatal to
Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. But the additional
evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's letter requires a special
examination.

The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:—

(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council convened at
Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.).

(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence by the
Pope.

(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to an
investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, in reply,
calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he would agree to any
further proceeding in the matter."

(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, and Stephen
"appears to have consented, as if in desperation, to the proposed trial
at Rome."

(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the _Historia Pontificalis_,
and is attended, _inter alios_, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Gloucester,
who had obtained "the succession to the vacant see" of Hereford at the
Council of Rheims, and had added, in consequence, to his style the words
"et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ mandato Domini Papæ vicarius."

(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, reviewing the
treatise which Brian had just composed in support of the claims of the
Empress, and alluding to the above "trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert)
had attended.

(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by Theobald, at St.
Omer, in September (1148).[752]

Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry
belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or
1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of
events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin
to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those
letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we
must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was
written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style
would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese
(_ut supra_)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry
was _ex hypothesi_ now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been,
surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually
retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her
to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any
direct evidence.

But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the _Historia
Pontificalis_ to see that they must have been perused with almost
incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (_a_)
that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (_b_) that the
"trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in
March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143.
The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months,
and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143.
This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the
case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very
beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how
could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, _de novo_?
Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the _Historia_ writer as
Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss
Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see
as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon
must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that
we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the
writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate
Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was,
further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning
again to the passage in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (41), we find that,
in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So,
indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder
by which two passages of the _narrative_ are printed in Pertz as part of
the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the
_Historia_, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious
to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to
Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right
back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what
extent, his claim came to be confirmed.

This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. For, the
trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in 1136, he attended
it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as "minimus Cluniacensium,"
in attendance on his famous abbot, Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It
may have been as prior ("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus
attended him, for we know from himself that he had held that office.

Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her
grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's
usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged
Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with
breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of
William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened
to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his
cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester,
Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a
clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to
represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in
crowning Stephen by explaining the grounds on which his scruples had
been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite
motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the
Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his
successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required
no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and
among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with
Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759]

The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a moment for the
purpose of insisting on the important fact that the sympathies of the
house, under its then abbot, must have been with the Angevin cause. This
is certain from the documents printed by Sir George Duckett,[760]
especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating
to the Empress.[761] We have here, I think, the probable explanation of
the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert Foliot.

To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term
it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with
perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and
with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful
heir.[762] Stephen's supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these
charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute
harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they
retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and
had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the
oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may
safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity
had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the
throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason
given above), the oath was _ipso facto_ void, and the charge fell to the
ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first,
on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on
the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of
appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed,
to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her
stead.[765]

A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both
writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be
the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the
other writer have any inducement to do so, writing (as he did) long
after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been
extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are
precisely those which the author of the _Gesta_ and William of
Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's
behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of
Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked
on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great
Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one
conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was,
clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach
betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the
case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour,
described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the
lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First,
they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir;
then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void
because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an
argument as this speaks for itself.

The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is
the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that
the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea?
The _Historia_ asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case
for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings,
rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count,
admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument
which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found
in the _Historia_, though composed much later, is a more detailed
account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his
friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not
been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and
proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He relies on St. Anselm's consent
to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For
the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the
_Historia_, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was
taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea.

Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,[770] to have
simply "stampeded the convention" (_conventus_), and the wrath of the
Angevin champion rose to a white heat.[771] The pope commanded that the
wrangling should cease, and announced that he would neither pass
sentence nor allow the trial to be adjourned. This was equivalent to a
verdict that the king was not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter
to Stephen confirming him in his possession of the kingdom and the
duchy.[772]

Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers relieved his
feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of St. Peter.[773]

But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by which the pope
(the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in possession. For this
connecting link is no other than the letter which meets us in the pages
of Richard of Hexham.[774]

Its relevant portion runs thus:—

 "Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte
 divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato
 Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam
 promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu
 originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te
 in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione
 paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa,
 qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis
 coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."

The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis in regno
Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's
Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as "ab Innocentio sanctæ
Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." Of this "confirmation," as we find
it styled by the author of the _Historia_, by Richard of Hexham, by John
of Hexham, and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the
text. For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the
"conventus" at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, which
was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is assigned to the
spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive at the fact that the
council and debate at Rome belong to the early months of 1136.

To complete while we are about it the explanation of the _Historia_
narrative, we will now take the second passage which has been
erroneously printed in Pertz—

 "Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam
 Celestinum, favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi
 archiepiscopo inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa
 coronam, quia res erat litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est.
 Successores eius papæ Lucius et Eugenius eandem prohibitionem
 innovaverunt."

This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer.

The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in
the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen.
Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his
sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (_ut supra_)
of the _Historia Pontificalis_; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him,
when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John
of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence
of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the authority of all
three, including that of the writer of the _Historia Pontificalis_.

The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged doubt in which
his predecessor had left the question. It was, he held, still "res
litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing the action of Innocent in
the matter, he felt free to forbid any further step in advance. His
instructions to that effect, to the primate, were duly renewed by his
successors, and covered, when the time arrived, the case of the
coronation of Eustace as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa
coronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could
not be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of the
"perjured" king.[776]

With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained by Stephen
from the pope, I have dealt in the body of this work. There are,
however, a few minor points which had better be disposed of here. Of
these the first is Miss Norgate's contention that when, in 1148, Stephen
met Geoffrey's challenge to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter
challenge calling upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy
before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter,"

 "Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from
 desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to
 his own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."[777]

A reference to the passage in the _Historia_[778] on which Miss Norgate
relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the
counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter
further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had refused
admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of
interest.

This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" by the
pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive
conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented his transferring his
allegiance to the Empress, badly though Stephen had treated him, till he
received permission from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps
of his brother prelates.[780]

The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert Foliot had enraged
the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen for the see of Hereford. Wholly
Angevin though they were in their sympathies, the prelates maintained
that they were bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that
the Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.[781]

Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, afterwards the
well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's chief envoy in 1136. For Miss
Norgate, oddly enough, misses this point in her sketch of this
distinguished man's career.[782] She has nothing to say of his doings
between his _Tractatus de Schismate_, "about 1130," and his appointment
to the see of Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years
there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical or
secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in
some way or other concerned."[783] This, therefore, constitutes a
welcome addition to his career, and, moreover, gives us the reason of
Geoffrey's aversion to him, when duke, and of the "heavy price" with
which his favour had to be bought by Arnulf.[784]

The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"[785] letter
from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful perusal of this
composition has led me to believe, from internal evidence, that it
refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a "book" by Brian fitz Count, or
"a defence of his Lady's rights in the shape of a little treatise,"[786]
but to a justification of his own conduct in reply to hostile criticism.
And I venture to think that so far from this composition being
"unhappily lost,"[787] it may be, and probably is, no other than that
lengthy epistle from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy
was entered in Richard de Bury's _Liber Epistolaris_. And there,
happily, it is still preserved.[788] This can only be decided when the
contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, as they
should have been before now.

       *       *       *       *       *

To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" at Rome took
place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, as Miss Norgate
argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter of Gilbert Foliot, in
which he refers to it, was written, not in 1148, but late in 1143 or
early in 1144. The whole of Miss Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369,
370) breaks down entirely. The great debate before the pope at Rome was
not the result of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of
Geoffrey's challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the
charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. The true
story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," by the pope, as
king is here set forth for the first time, and throws on the whole chain
of events a light entirely new.

[748] Pertz's _Monumenta Historica_, vol. xx.

[749] "The application to Rome and the debate which followed it there
are to be found in the _Historia Pontificalis_, 41 (Pertz, xx. 543).
Bishop (_sic_) Henry 'promisit se daturum operam et diligentiam ut
apostolicus Eustachium filium regis coronaret. Quod utique fieri non
licebat, nisi Romani pontificis veniâ impetratâ.' I have already (see
above, p. 251) had to refer to some of the points urged in this debate"
(_Norm. Conq._, v. 325, note). On turning to "p. 251," we similarly find
the debate spoken of as belonging to "later years," and at p. 354 also,
while at p. 857 we read: "At a later time, in the argument before Pope
Innocent (_sic_), when Stephen is trying to get the pontiff's consent to
the coronation of his son Eustace (p. 325)," etc., etc. How an argument
could be held before Innocent, many years after his death, Mr. Freeman
does not explain.

[750] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 278, _note_.

[751] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 370, _note_.

[752] _Ibid._, i. 370, 371, 495, 496.

[753] _Academy_, November 12, 1887.

[754] "Sed jam nunc Deo propitio et favente parti huic domino papa
Celestino."

[755] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ
conventum celebrem habuisse."

[756] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500.

[757] Perhaps she did not recognize his name (see below).

[758] "Ex adverso steterunt a rege missi Rogerus Cestrensis episcopus
Lupellus clericus Guillelmi bone memorie Cantuarensis archiepiscopi, et
qui eis in causa patrocinabatur Ernulfus archidiaconus Sagiensis"
(_Hist. Pontif._, 41).

[759] "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ
conventum celebrem habuisse. Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre
nostro domino abbato Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus.
Ibi causa hæc in medium deducta est, et aliquandiu ventilata" (Foliot's
letter, lxxix., ed. Giles, i. 100).

[760] _Charters and Records of the Ancient Abbey of Cluni_ (1888).

[761] "Felicis memoriæ rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum, Henricus,
Willelmi primo ducis dein regis filius, speciali eam [Cluniacensem
ecclesiam] amore coluit et veneratus est. Donis autem multiplicibus et
magnis omnes jam dictos exsuperans, etiam majorem ecclesiam ... miro et
singulari opere inter universas pene tocius orbis ecclesias consummavit.
Ea de causa, specialis apud universos Cluniacensis ordinis fratres ejus
memoria habetur et in perpetuum per Dei gratiam habebitur. Cui in
paterna hereditate succedens Matildis, ejus filia, Henrici magni
Romanorum imperatoris conjux ... paternæ imaginis et prudentiæ formam
velut sigillo impressam representavit, et præter alia digna relatu,
Cluniacensem ecclesiam more patris sincere dilexit" (_ibid._, ii. 104).

[762] "Stabat ab Imperatrice dominus Andegavensis episcopus, qui ... duo
inducebat precipue, jus scilicet hereditarium et factum imperatrici
juramentum" (Foliot's letter, _ut supra_). "Querimoniam imperatricis ad
papam Innocentium Ulgerius Andegavorum venerandus antistes detulit,
arguens regem periurii et illicité presumptionis regni" (_Hist.
Pontif._, 41).

[763] "Hic [Ernulfus] adversus episcopum allegavit publice, quod
imperatrix patris erat indigna successione, eo quod de incestis nupciis
procreata et filia fuerat monialis, quam Rex Henricus de monasterio
Romeseiensi extraxerat eique velum abstulerat" (_Hist. Pontif._).
"Imperatricem, de qua loquitur, non de legitimo matrimonio ortam
denuntiamus. Deviavit a legitimo tramite Henricus rex, et quam non
licebat sibi junxit matrimonio, unde istius sunt natalitia propagata:
quare illam patri in heredem non debere succedere et sacra denuntiant"
(Foliot's letter).

[764] "Sublato enim jure principali, necessario tollitur et secundarium.
In hac igitur causâ principale est, quod dominus Andegavensis de
hereditate inducit et ab hoc totum illud dependet, quod de juramento
subjungitur. Imperatrici namque sicut heredi juramentum factum fuisse
pronunciat. Totum igitur quod de juramento inducitur, exinaniri necesse
est, si de ipso hereditario jure non constiterit" (_ibid._).

[765] "Juramentum confessus est [Ernulfus], sed adjecit violentur
extortum, et sub conditione scilicet imperatrici successionem patris se
pro viribus servaturum, nisi patrem voluntatem mutare contingeret et
heredem alium instituere; poterat enim esse ut ei de uxore filius
nasceretur. Postremo subjecit quod rex Henricus mutaverat voluntatem et
in extremis agens filium sororis suæ Stephanum designavit heredem"
(_Hist. Pontif._).

[766] So also Gervase of Canterbury.

[767] "Hoc in communi audientiâ multum vociferatione declamatum est, et
nihil omnino ab altera parte responsum."

[768] "Rogo, mihi in parte ista respondeas. Interim dicam ipse quod
sentio. Majores natu, personas religiosas et sanctas, sæpius de re ista
conveni. Audio illius matrimonii copulam sancto Anselmo archiepiscopo
ministrante celebratam.... Manus autem sibi præcidi permississet
[Anselmus], quam eas ad opus illicitum extendisset."

[769] His reply was: "Ipsa [Romana ecclesia] enim confirmavit
matrimonium quod accusas, filiamque ex eo susceptam domnus Pascalis
Romanus pontifex inunxit in imperatricem. Quod utique non fecisset de
filia monialis. Nec eum veritas latere poterat, quia non fuit obscurum
matrimonium aut contractum in tenebris."

[770] "Multorum vociferatione declamatum est."

[771] "In Archidiaconum excandescens" (_Hist. Pontif._).

[772] "Non tulit ulterius contentiones eorum domnus Innocentius nec
sententiam ferre voluit aut causam in aliud differre tempus, sed contra
consilium quorundam cardinalium et maxime Guidonis presbiteri sancti
Marci, receptis muneribus regis Stephani, ei familiaribus litteris
regnum Angliæ confirmavit et ducatum Normanniæ." This is the passage so
inexplicably printed in Pertz as part of the bishop's speech, which
immediately precedes it.

[773] "Ulgerius vero cum cognitioni cause supersederi videret, verbo
comico utebatur dicens: 'De causa sua querentibus intus despondebitur;'
et adjiciebat: 'Petrus enim peregre profectus est, nummulariis relicta
domo'" (_Hist. Pontif._).

[774] Ed. Howlett, p. 147.

[775] Compare the description of Henry of Winchester, shortly before
this, as "spe scilicet captus amplissima" that Stephen would do his duty
by the Church.

[776] "Ne filium regis, qui contra jusjurandum regnum obtinuisse
videbatur in regem sublimaret" (_Gervase_).

[777] Vol. i. p. 369.

[778] Pertz, xx. p. 531. Bishop Miles is sent to England, "ad petitionem
Gaufridi comitis Andegavorum, ut regem super perjurio et regni
occupatione conveniret et ducatu Normanniæ, quem invaserat."

[779] Mr. Howlett has duly pointed out that Geoffrey did not, as Miss
Norgate imagines, hand over Normandy to his son in consequence of this
challenge; but I would point out further that Stephen demanded not
merely the surrender of Normandy, but also that of the _English_
districts then under Angevin sway ("Hoc retulit responsum: quod rex
_utrumque_ honorem et jure suo _et ecclesie Romane auctoritate_ adeptus
erat, _nec refugerat stare judicio apostolicæ sedis_, quando eum comes
violenter ducatu spoliavit et parte regni. _Quibus_ non restitutis non
debebat subire judicium" (p. 531)).

[780] "Confiscata sunt (1148) bona ejus et secundo proscriptus pro
obediencia Romane ecclesie. Nam et alia vice propter obedienciam sedis
Apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando, urgente mandato domini Henrici
Wintoniensis episcopi tunc legatione fungentis in Anglia post alios
episcopos omnes receperat imperatricem ... licet inimicissimos habuerit
regem et consiliarios suos" (_Hist. Pontif._).

[781] [Stephen] "quem tota Anglicana ecclesia sequebatur ex
constitutione ecclesie Romane. Licet proceres divisi diversos principes
sequerentur, unum tamen habebat ecclesia ... quod episcopo non licuerat
ecclesiam scindere ei subtrahendo fidelitatem quem ecclesia Romana
recipiebat ut principem" (_Ibid._, pp. 532, 533).

[782] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 500-502.

[783] _Ibid._

[784] The stinging taunts of the Bishop of Angers on Arnulf's humble
origin, as given in the _Hist. Pontif._, are of great importance in
their bearing on Henry I.'s policy of raising men to power "from the
dust." They should be compared with the well-known sneer of Ordericus
(see p. 111).

[785] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. p. 496, _note_.

[786] _Ibid._, p. 369.

[787] _Ibid._, p. 496, _note_.

[788] I called attention to this letter in a communication to the
_Athenæum_, pointing out that in Mr. Horwood's report on the _Liber
Epistolaris_ in an Historical MSS. Commission Report on Lord Harlech's
MSS. (1874), mention was made, among its contents, of a letter from the
Bishop of Winchester to Brian fitz Count, and of Brian's reply, which is
merely described as "a long reply to the above" (it extends over three
folios), and of which a _précis_ should certainly have been given.



 APPENDIX C.
 THE EASTER COURT OF 1136.
 (See p. 19.)


I here give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's
grant to Winchester; (II.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath;
(III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at
Oxford.

 I.

 King Stephen.
 Queen Matilda.
 William, Earl Warenne.
 Ranulf, Earl of Chester.
 Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotie].
 Roger, Earl of Warwick.
 Waleran, Count of Meulan.
 William de Albemarla.
 Simon de Silvanecta.
 Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.
 William de Albini, Pincerna.
 Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.
 Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.
 Brian fitz Count, Conestabularius.
 Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer.
 Robert Malet, Dapifer.
 [William] Martel, Dapifer.
 Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer.
 William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
 Thurstan, Archbishop of York.
 Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
 Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
 Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.
 Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
 Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
 Robert, Bishop of Bath.
 Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
 Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
 John, Bishop of Rochester.
 Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
 John, Bishop of Séez.
 Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
 "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.
 Roger the Chancellor.
 Roger de Fecamp, Capellanus.
 Henry, nephew of King Stephen.
 Reginald, son of King Henry.
 Robert de Ferrers.            }
 William Peverel de Nottingham.}
 Ilbert de Lacy.               }
 Walter Espec.                 }
 Payn fitz John.               }
 Eustace fitz John.            }
 Walter de Salisbury.          }
 Robert Arundel.               }
 Geoffrey de Mandeville.       }
 Hamo de St. Clare.            }
 Roger de Valoines.            } Barones.
 Henry de Port.                }
 Walter fitz Richard.          }
 Walter de Gant.               }
 Walter de Bolebec.            }
 Walchelin Maminot.            }
 William de Percy.[789]        }

 II.

 William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
 Thurstan, Archbishop of York.
 Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
 Henry, Bishop of Winchester.
 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
 Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.
 Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
 Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.
 Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
 John, Bishop of Rochester.
 Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
 Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
 Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
 Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
 John, Bishop of Séez.
 "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.
 Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
 Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.
 Roger the Chancellor.
 Henry, the nephew of the king.
 Henry, son of the King of Scotland.
 William, Earl Warenne.
 Waleran, Count of Meulan.
 Roger, Earl of Warwick.
 Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.
 Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.
 Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.
 William de Pont de l'arche, Camerarius.
 Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius.
 William de Albini, Pincerna.
 Robert de Ferrars.
 Robert Arundel.
 Geoffrey de Mandeville.
 Ilbert de Lacy.
 William Peverel.
 Geoffrey Talbot.

 III.

 William, Archbishop of Canterbury.
 Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.
 Henry, Bishop of Winchester.
 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.
 Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.
 Nigel, Bishop of Ely.
 Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.
 Simon, Bishop of Worcester.
 Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.
 Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.
 Richard, Bishop of Avranches.
 Robert, Bishop of Hereford.
 John, Bishop of Rochester.
 Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.
 Roger the Chancellor.
 Henry, the nephew of the king.
 Robert, Earl of Gloucester.
 William, Earl Warenne.
 Ranulf, Earl of Chester.
 Roger, Earl of Warwick.
 Robert de Ver.       }
 Miles de Gloucester. } Conestabuli.
 Brian fitz Count.    }
 Robert de Oilli.     }
 William Martel.     }
 Hugh Bigot.         } Dapiferi.
 Humphrey de Bohun.  }
 Simon de Beauchamp. }
 William de Albini. } Pincernæ
 Eudo Martel.       }
 Robert de Ferrers.
 William Peverel de Nottingham.
 Simon de Saintliz.
 William de Albamarla.
 Payn fitz John.
 Hamo de St. Clare.
 Ilbert de Lacy.[790]

There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 the two primates
of England and twelve of their suffragans, and the primate of Normandy,
with four of his—nineteen prelates in all. Next to these, in order of
precedence, were Henry, the king's nephew,[791] Henry, son of the King
of Scots, and Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as
a son of the late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of
Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. Among them
we find all those of the leading supporters of the Empress in the
future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de Aumale, and Geoffrey de
Mandeville, we recognize three of those who were to receive earldoms
from Stephen. The style and place of William de Aumale deserves special
notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy
comital rank at the time.[792] This fact, further on, will have an
important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva Necta") was
clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. It is believed indeed
that he was Earl of Northampton, while Henry of Scotland was Earl of
Huntingdon. But it is clear that when Henry received from Stephen, as he
had just done, Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised
Northampton as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence
pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon was as loyal
as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he may well have received
the earldom of Northampton from the king he served so well. But for the
present, Henry of Scotland was in high favour with Stephen, so high that
the jealousy of the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of
Carlisle, blazed forth at this very court.[793] Their mention of
Ranulf's presence, as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our
charters.

The document with which they should be compared is the charter granted
to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his Northampton council in
1131 (September 8).[794] Its witnesses are the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York, ten bishops (Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander
of Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William of Exeter,
Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of "Chester," and Ebrard
of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon,
Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster,
Warner of Battle, and Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the
chancellor,[795] with Robert "de Sigillo,"[796] and Nigel the Bishop of
Salisbury's nephew,[797] five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of
Warenne, Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick),
nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh Bigod,
Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont
de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger
fitz Richard, Walter fitz Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers,
William Peverel of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury,
William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In many ways a
very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness to the future House
of Lords, with its strong clerical element. It is impossible to comment
on all the magnates here assembled at Henry's court, many of whom we
meet with again, but attention may be called to the significant fact
that nine of the earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses
represented among the nineteen barons named above.[798]

[789] This list is here printed as it is given by Hearne, but the order
of the names, of course, is wholly erroneous, the prelates being placed
low down instead of at the head. The right order would be prelates,
chancellor (and chaplain), the "royalties," the earls, the household
officers, and the "barones." But it would not be safe to rearrange the
names in the absence of the original charter, in which they probably
stood in parallel columns.

[790] This list is taken from that in Stubbs' _Select Charters_, which
is derived, through the _Statutes of the Realm_, from a copy at Exeter
Cathedral. There is another version in Richard of Hexham (ed. Howlett,
pp. 149, 150), in which Payn fitz John is omitted and _Hugh_ de St.
Clare entered in error for _Hamon_. But the reading "Silvanecta" (for
"Saint liz") is confirmed by Charter No. I., as well as by a charter in
_Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. (fol. 177). Both versions of this list are
questionable as to the second "pincerna," the statutes reading "Eudone
Mart'," while Richard gives "Martel de Alb'."

[791] Henry de Soilli (or Sully), son of Stephen's brother William. I
find him attesting a charter of Stephen abroad, subsequently, as "H. de
Soilli, nepote regis." He was a monk, and failing to obtain the
bishopric of Salisbury or the archbishopric of York, in 1140, was
consoled with the Abbey of Fécamp.

[792] For if he had even been then a count over sea, he would have
ranked, like the Count of Meulan, among English earls.

[793] "Fuit quoque Henricus filius regis Scottiæ ad curiam Stephani
regis Angliæ in proxima Pascha, quam apud Londoniam festive tenuit, cum
maximo honore susceptus, atque ad mensam ad dexteram ipsius regis sedit.
Unde et Willelmus archiepiscopus Cantuarensis se a rege subtraxit, et
quidam proceres Angliæ erga regem indignati coram ipso Henrico
calumpnias intulerant" (_Ric. Hexham_). Among these "proceres" was the
Earl of Chester.

[794] _Sarum Charters and Documents_ (Rolls Series), pp. 6, 7.

[795] Afterwards Bishop of Durham.

[796] Afterwards Bishop of London.

[797] Afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Ely.

[798] See Appendix D: "The 'Fiscal' Earls."



 APPENDIX D.
 THE "FISCAL" EARLS.
 (See p. 53.)


"Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance."
Such are the words of the supreme authority on the constitutional
history of the time. I propose, therefore, to deal with this subject in
detail and at some length, and to test the statements of the
chroniclers—too readily, as I think, accepted—by the actual facts of the
case, so far as they can now be recovered.

The two main propositions advanced by our historians on this subject
are: (1) that Stephen created many new earls, who were deposed by
Henry II. on his accession;[799] (2) that these new earls, having no
means of their own, had to be provided for "by pensions on the
Exchequer."[800] That these propositions are fairly warranted by the
statements of one or two chroniclers may be at once frankly conceded;
that they are true in fact, we shall now find, may be denied without
hesitation.

Let us first examine Dr. Stubbs's view as set forth in his own words:—

 "Not satisfied with putting this weapon into the hands of his enemies,
 he provoked their pride and jealousy by conferring the title of earl
 upon some of those whom he trusted most implicitly, irrespective of the
 means which they might have of supporting their new dignity. Their
 poverty was relieved by pensions drawn from the Exchequer.... Stephen,
 almost before the struggle for the crown had begun, attempted to
 strengthen his party by a creation of new earls. To these the third
 penny of the county was given, and their connection with the district
 from which the title was taken was generally confined to this
 comparatively small endowment, the rest of their provision being
 furnished by pensions on the Exchequer" (_Const. Hist._, i. 324, 362).

 "Stephen also would have a court of great earls, but in trying to make
 himself friends he raised up persistent enemies. He raised new men to
 new earldoms, but as he had no spare domains to bestow, he endowed them
 with pensions charged on the Exchequer ... the new and unsubstantial
 earldoms provoked the real earls to further hostility; and the newly
 created lords demanded of the king new privileges as the reward and
 security for their continued services" (_Early Plants._, p. 19).[801]

Now, these "pensions on the Exchequer" must, I fear, be dismissed at
once as having an existence only in a misapprehension of the writer.
Indeed, if the Exchequer machinery had broken down, as he holds, it is
difficult to see of what value these pensions would be. But in any case,
it is absolutely certain that such grants as were made were alienations
of lands and rents, and not "pensions" at all.[802] The passages bearing
on these grants are as follows. Robert de Torigny (_alias_ "De Monte")
states that Stephen "omnia pene ad fiscum pertinentia minus caute
distribuerat," and that Henry, on his accession, "cœpit revocare
in jus proprium urbes, castella, villas, quæ ad coronam regni
pertinebant."[803] William of Newburgh writes:—

 "Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent,
 qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem
 regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent,
 præcepit ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus
 resignari, et in jus statumque pristinum revocari."

In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:—

 "Multi siquidem ... a rege, hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcumque
 semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; ... Denique multos etiam
 comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et
 redditibus quæ proprio jure regi competebant."

It is on this last passage that Dr. Stubbs specially relies; but a
careful comparison of this with the two preceding extracts will show
that in none of them are "pensions" spoken of. The grants, as indeed
charters prove, always consisted of actual estates.

The next point is that these alienations were, for the most part, made
in favour not of "fiscal earls," but, on the contrary, in favour of
those who were not created earls.[804] There is reason to believe, from
such evidence as we have, that, in this matter, the Empress was a worse
offender than the king, while their immaculate successor, as his
Pipe-Rolls show, was perhaps the worst of the three. It is, at any rate,
a remarkable fact that the only known charter by which Stephen creates
an earldom—being that to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140)—does not grant a
pennyworth of land, while the largest grantee of lands known to us,
namely, William d'Ypres, was never created an earl.[805] Then, again, as
to "the third penny." It is not even mentioned in the above
creation-charter, and there is no evidence that "the third penny of the
county was given" to all Stephen's earls; indeed, as I have elsewhere
shown, it was probably limited to a few (see Appendix H).

The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically false
assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The idea that his earls
were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary delusion. They
belonged, in the main, to that class of magnates from whom, both before
and after his time, the earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words
are in themselves destructive of his view:—

 "Stephen made Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk, Aubrey de Vere Earl of
 Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of
 Hertford, William of Aumâle Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl of
 Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont Earl of
 Bedford."[806]

Were such nobles as these "new men"? Had _their_ "poverty" to be
"relieved"? Why, their very names are enough; they are those of the
noblest and wealthiest houses in the baronage of Stephen's realm. Even
the last, Hugh de Beaumont, though not the head of his house, had two
elder brothers earls at the time, nor was it proposed to create him an
earl till, by possession of the Beauchamp fief, he should be qualified
to take his place among the great landowners of the day.

Having thus, I hope, completely disposed of this strange delusion, and
shown that Stephen selected his earls from the same class as other
kings, I now approach the alleged deposition of the earls created by the
Empress and himself, on the accession of Henry II.

I would venture, on the strength of special research, to make several
alterations in the lists given by Dr. Stubbs.[807]

The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:—

 NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before 1153).
 OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (_questionable_).
 ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143).
 HERTFORD. Richard de Clare (uncertain).
 YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138).
 PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138).
 DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138).
 BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont.
 KENT. William of Ypres (_questionable_).

From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be "questionable:"
William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state absolutely, from my own
knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom,[808]
and Aubrey de Vere, because there is no evidence whatever that Stephen
created him an earl. On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of
Arundel (or Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.[809] When thus
corrected, the list will run:—

 DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138).
 YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138).
 PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138).
 ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140).
 LINCOLN. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140).
 NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141).
 ARUNDEL. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141).
 HERTFORD. Gilbert de Clare[810] (before Christmas, 1141).
 BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138).

A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our
ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With
the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names
of these great earldoms became household words.

Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to
new creations, we obtain the following list:—

 CORNWALL. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141).
 DEVON. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141).
 DORSET (or SOMERSET). William de Mohun (before June, 1141).
 HEREFORD. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141).
 OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (1142).
 WILTSHIRE ("SALISBURY"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).[811]

This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting ESSEX (Geoffrey de
Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding DEVON (Baldwin de
Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have
been conferred upon Baldwin's father _temp._ Henry I.[812] Of these
creations, Hereford is the one of which the facts are best ascertained,
while Dorset or Somerset is that of which least is known.[813]

The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the
titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from
those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay.
Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by
assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to
note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the
view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their
title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief
territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry
(Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?],
Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception
to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists,
we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in
accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William
of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de
Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are
all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that
where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in
which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining
vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken
Hertford for his title, because Essex had already been given to
Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of
the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected
Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey
de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could
not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge,
in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been
forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his
choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these
he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a
definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been
enunciated before.

It may have been observed that I assume throughout that each earl is the
earl of a county. It would not be possible here to discuss this point in
detail, so I will merely give it as my own conviction that while comital
rank was at this period so far a personal dignity that men spoke of Earl
Hugh, Earl Gilbert, or Earl Geoffrey, yet that an earl without a county
was a conception that had not yet entered into the minds of men.[815] In
this, of course, we have a relic of the earl's _official_ character. To
me, therefore, the struggles of antiquaries to solve puzzles of their
own creation as to the correct names of earldoms are but waste of paper
and ink, and occasionally, even, of brain-power. "Earl William" might be
spoken of by that style only, or he might be further distinguished by
adding "of Arundel," "of Chichester," or "of Sussex." But his earldom
was not affected or altered by any such distinctive addition to his
style. A firm grasp of the broad principle which I have set forth above
should avoid any possibility of trouble or doubt on the question.

But, keeping close to the "fiscal earls," let us now see whether, as
alleged, they were deposed by Henry II., and, if so, to what extent.

According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification which were
intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... the new earldoms [were] to
be extinguished."[816] Consequently, on his accession as king, "Henry
was bound to annul the titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no
means certain within what limits the promise would be construed."[817]
But I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification any
allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor indeed does Dr.
Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these terms,[818] include
anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, I presume, a
retrospective induction.

The fact from which must have been inferred the existence of the above
promise is that "cashiering of the supposititious earls" which rests, so
far as I can see, on the statement of a single chronicler.[819] Yet that
statement, for what it is worth, is sufficiently precise to warrant Dr.
Stubbs in saying that "to abolish the 'fiscal' earldoms" was among the
first of Henry's reforms.[820] The actual words of our great historian
should, in justice, be here quoted:—

 "Another measure which must have been taken at the coronation [December
 19, 1154], when all the recognized earls did their homage and paid
 their ceremonial services, seems to have been the degrading or
 cashiering of the supposititious earls created by Stephen and Matilda.
 Some of these may have obtained recognition by getting new grants; but
 those who lost endowment and dignity at once, like William of Ypres,
 the leader of the Flemish mercenaries, could make no terms. They sank
 to the rank from which they had been so incautiously raised" (_Early
 Plantagenets_, pp. 41, 42).

 "We have no record of actual displacement; some, at least, of the
 fiscal earls retained their dignity: the earldoms of Bedford, Somerset,
 York, and perhaps a few others, drop out of the list; those of Essex
 and Wilts remain. Some had already made their peace with the king;
 some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained a new charter for their dignity:
 this part of the social reconstruction was despatched without much
 complaint or difficulty" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451).

Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that
William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost endowment and dignity at
once." That he ever obtained an English earldom I have already ventured
to deny; that he lost his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now
proceed to disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger
attendant on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of
the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are always
confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's reign.[821] For
though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be absolutely proved by
record evidence that William of Ypres continued to enjoy his rich
"endowment" down to Easter, 1157.[822] Stephen had, indeed, provided
well for his great and faithful follower, quartering him on the county
of Kent, where he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value
of £261 "blanch," _plus_ £178 8_s._ 7_d._ "numero" of Crown escheats
formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision was
enormous for the time at which it was made.

Returning now to the "cashiering" of the earls, it will be noticed that
Dr. Stubbs has great difficulty in producing instances in point, and can
find nothing answering to any general measure of the kind. But I am
prepared to take firm ground, and boldly to deny that a single man, who
enjoyed comital rank at the death of Stephen, can be shown to have lost
that rank under Henry II.

Rash though it may seem thus to impugn the conclusions of Dr. Stubbs _in
toto_, the facts are inexorably clear. Indeed, the weakness of his
position is manifest when he seeks evidence for its support from a
passage in the _Polycraticus_:—

 "The following passage of the _Polycraticus_ probably refers to the
 transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons
 mentioned in it were not of Stephen's promoting: "Ubi sunt, ut de
 domesticis loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon,
 Gillibertus, non tam comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus
 Sarisberiensis?" (_Const. Hist._, i. 451 note).

For this passage has nothing to do with "the transient character of the
new dignities": it alludes to a totally different subject, the _death_
of certain magnates, and is written in the spirit of Henry of
Huntingdon's _De Contemptu Mundi_.[823] The magnates referred to are
Geoffrey, Earl of Essex (d. 1144); Miles, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143);
Randulf, Earl of Chester (d. 1153); Count Alan of Richmond (d. 1146?);
Simon, Earl of Northampton (d. 1153); and Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke (d.
1148).[824] Their names alone are sufficient to show that the passage
has been misunderstood, for no one could suggest that the Earl of
Chester or Earl Simon, Waltheof's heir, enjoyed "new dignities," or that
their earldoms proved of a "transient character."[825]

Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected by Dr.
Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de Beaumont had lost
the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it[826]), together with the
fief itself, in 1141.[827] York requires separate treatment: William of
Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, under Stephen, Earl of
York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank,[828]
and that is sufficient for my purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or
Somerset) is again a special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl
William de Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the
statement in the _Gesta_ that he was made Earl of Dorset in 1141; (3) on
his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in
1142. The terms of the charter to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to
the _status_ of this earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does
not subsequently occur, so far as is at present known, and there is
nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the accession of
Henry II.[829]

Such slight evidence as we have on the dealings of Henry with the earls
is opposed to the view that anything was done, as suggested, "at the
coronation" (December 19, 1154). It was not, we have seen, till January,
1156, that charters were granted dealing with the earldoms of Essex and
of Oxford. And it can only have been when some time had elapsed since
the coronation that Hugh Bigod obtained a charter creating him anew Earl
of Norfolk.[830]

To sum up the result of this inquiry, we have now seen that no such
beings as "fiscal" earls ever existed. No chronicler mentions the name,
and their existence is based on nothing but a false assumption. Stephen
did not "incautiously" confer on men in a state of "poverty" the dignity
of earl; he did not make provision for them by Exchequer pensions; no
promise was made, in the terms between Henry and himself, to degrade or
cashier any such earls; and no proof exists that any were so cashiered
when Henry came to the throne. Indeed, we may go further and say that
Stephen's earldoms all continued, and that their alleged abolition, as a
general measure, has been here absolutely disproved.

[799] So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created
in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were
deposed under Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 140, _note_).

[800] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls,"
invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda.

[801] See also _Select Charters_, p. 20.

[802] The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of
the Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown
demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia
eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui, _ex fisci regii
redditibus_ Rogerius episcopus collegisset" (_Will. Malms._). So, too,
in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quia
_regalium fiscorum redditus_ et castella, quæ violentur possederat
reddere negligebat" (_Gesta_). This latter passage has been
misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering it: "to pay his
dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender
the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of
the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of
Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejus _fiscum_ auxit."

[803] Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching
investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy.

[804] The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown
Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive
alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place
during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch
to endow the new earldoms" (_Antiquary_, xiii. 160).

[805] The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in
point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was
necessitated by the grants of the Empress.

[806] _Const. Hist._, i. 362.

[807] "As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional
importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (_Ibid._,
i. 362).

[808] There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters
(ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ
nostræ gravissimus persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206
_n._, 213 _n._, 275 _n._).

[809] A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an
Inspeximus _temp._ Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire
bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here.

[810] Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere,
is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl.

[811] The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found
is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149).

[812] In an interesting charter (transcribed in _Lansdowne MS._, 229,
fol. 116_b_) of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at
Carisbrooke, he speaks, "Ricardi de Redvers patris mei."

[813] I have shown (p. 95 _n._) that William de Mohun was already an
earl in June, 1141, though the _Gesta_ assigns his creation to the siege
of Winchester, later in the year.

[814] Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only
inserted here _cavendi causa_. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are
most troublesome titles, owing to the double set of earls with their
conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title.

[815] This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more
counties (as in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially,
linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group
might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl.
Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the
other.

[816] _Select Charters_, pp. 20, 21. Cf. _Early Plants._, p. 37: "All
property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the
pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created
earls."

[817] _Const. Hist._, i. 451.

[818] _Ibid._, i. 333, 334.

[819] Robert de Monte.

[820] _Select Charters_, p. 21.

[821] The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155,
writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses
qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis
metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that
"infra tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus
incubator Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit."

[822] Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844).

[823] Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William
fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis
comes et Regis vicarius," etc.

[824] This is the date given for his death in the _Tintern Chronicle_
(_Monasticon_, O.E., i. 725).

[825] "William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by
himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is
overlooked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He
fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken
prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (_Will. Malms._, ed. Stubbs, ii. 587).
He was also the "Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et
municeps" (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on
Wilton nunnery in 1143, and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit."
This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in
which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et
heres noster Comes Patricius" make a grant to the church of Salisbury
"nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in
restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus filius noster Willelmus Sarum
ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established.

[826] I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though
this does not, of course, prove that he never did so.

[827] _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73.

[828] Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of
those of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a
Norman count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to
decide. Eventually, of course, the dignity became an English earldom.

[829] Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation.

[830] It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as
proving that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh
as earl, must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough,
reverses the order of the two (_Itinerary of Henry II._, pp. 2, 3). He
was thus misled by an error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's
charter, which Foss had acutely detected and explained long before.



 APPENDIX E.
 THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS.
 (See p. 55.)


The true date of this event is involved in considerable obscurity. The
two most detailed versions are those of William of Malmesbury and of the
Continuator of Florence of Worcester. The former states precisely that
the Ecclesiastical Council lasted from August 29 to September 1 (1139),
and that the Empress landed, at Arundel, on September 30; the latter
gives no date for the council, but asserts that the Empress landed, at
Portsmouth, before August 1—that is, two months earlier. These grave
discrepancies have been carefully discussed by Mr. Howlett,[831] though
he fails to note that the Continuator is thoroughly consistent in his
narrative, for he subsequently makes the Empress remove from Bristol,
after spending "more than two months" there, to Gloucester in the middle
of October. He is, however, almost certainly wrong in placing the
landing at Portsmouth,[832] and no less mistaken in placing it so early
in the year. The "in autumno" of Ordericus clearly favours William
rather than the Continuator.

Mr. Howlett, in his detailed investigation of this "exceedingly complex
chronological difficulty," endeavours to exalt the value of the _Gesta_
by laying peculiar stress on its mention of Baldwin de Bedvers' landing,
as suggestive of a fresh conjecture. Urging that "Baldwin's was in very
truth the main army of invasion," he advances the

 "theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the _Gesta
 Stephani_ say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,'
 as no doubt he did, for it was only his presence in force that could
 render the coming of Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty
 retainers anything else than an act of madness."

Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if the _Gesta_ says
that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" (p. 53), it also asserts
that the Empress came "cum robustâ militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which
Mr. Howlett ignores—while it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving
"cum florida militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his
following was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the _Gesta_ itself
(p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in truth
"militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. Howlett speaks, we
have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," and asserts that "Malmesbury
and Robert of Torigny agree that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of
men—twenty, or even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is
difficult to see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury
distinctly states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred
and forty knights,[833] and, in his recapitulation of the earl's
conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the _Gesta_ admits that the
little band of knights who accompanied, in later years, the young Henry
to England, was swollen by rumour to many thousands,[834] surely it is
easy to understand how the hundred and forty knights, who accompanied
the earl to England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the
Continuator of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without
resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation that the Continuator
confused the two landings and imagined that the Empress had arrived with
Baldwin, who "landed at Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so
ill informed, what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his
statement that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at
Wareham, nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is accepted
by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, which he terms
"no strained conjecture," that "Earl Robert went on by sea to
Portsmouth," a guess for which there is no basis or, indeed,
probability, and which, even if admitted, would be no explanation; for
the Continuator takes the Empress and her brother to Portsmouth first
and to Arundel afterwards.

The real point to strike one in the matter is that the Empress should
have landed in Sussex when her friends were awaiting her in the west—for
Mr. Howlett fails to realize that she trusted to them and not to an
"army" of her own.[835] The most probable explanation, doubtless, is
that she hoped to evade Stephen, while he was carefully guarding the
roads leading from the south-western coast to Gloucester and Bristol.
Robert of Torigny distinctly implies that Stephen had effectually closed
the other ports ("Appulerunt itaque apud Harundel, quia tunc alium
portum non habebant").

In any case Mr. Howlett's endeavour to harmonize the two conflicting
dates—the end of July and the end of September—by suggesting as a
compromise the end of August, cannot be pronounced a success.[836]

It may afford, perhaps, some fresh light if we trace the king's
movements after the arrival of the Empress.

Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period between the
landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are at first sight
difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to understand, it is
possible to unravel the sequence of events by a careful collation of
their respective versions, aided by study of the topography and of other
relative considerations.

On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, leaving her at
Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (_Will. Malms._, p. 725). Stephen, who,
says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), was then besieging Marlborough,
endeavoured to intercept him (_Gesta_, p. 56), but, failing in this,
returned to besiege the Empress at Arundel (_ibid._; _Cont. Flor. Wig._,
p. 117; _Gervase_, i. 110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he
allowed her to set out for Bristol.[837] Meanwhile, her brother, on his
way to Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (_Will.
Malms._, p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted plan
of action (it must be remembered that they intended immediate revolt,
for they had promised the Empress possession of her realm within a few
months[838]). Brian had, accordingly, returned to Wallingford, and
declared at once for the Empress (_Gesta_, p. 58). Stephen now marched
against him, but either by the advice of his followers (_ibid._) or from
impatience at the tedium of the siege,[839] again abandoned his
undertaking, and leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (_Cont. Flor.
Wig._, p. 118), marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the
revolt. He first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a
small fortress of Miles of Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 59; _Will. Malms._,
p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news that Robert
fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) and expelled his
garrison (_Will. Malms._, p. 726; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 119; _Gesta_,
p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a fortnight of its capture (_Will.
Malms._, p. 726), after besieging it eight days (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, p.
125), he was then decoyed still further south by the news that Humphrey
de Bohun, at the instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against
him. Here, however, he was not so fortunate (_Will. Malms._, p. 726;
_Gesta_, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the instinct
of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus afforded him, and,
striking out boldly from his stronghold at Gloucester, marched to the
relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting by night on the blockading force,
he scattered them in all directions, and returned in triumph to
Gloucester (_Gesta_, p. 60). It was probably the tidings of this
disaster (though the fact is not so stated) that induced Stephen to
abandon his unsuccessful siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to
the Thames valley (_ibid._, pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in
November.[840]

Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from
Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of November,
sacked and burnt Worcester (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, pp. 118-120). About the
same time he made himself master of Hereford and its county for the
Empress (_Will. Malms._, p. 727; _Gesta_, p. 61). Stephen was probably
in the Thames valley when he received news of this fresh disaster, which
led him once more to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered
Worcester, and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (_Cont. Flor.
Wig._, p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the
enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in the castle
(_ibid._).[841] He therefore advanced to Leominster by way of Little
Hereford,[842] but Advent Sunday (December 3) having brought about a
cessation of hostilities, he retraced his steps to Worcester (_ibid._).
Thence, after another brief stay, he marched back to Oxford, probably
making for Wallingford and London. Evidently, however, on reaching
Oxford, he received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of
Salisbury.[843] It was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas
at Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning at
the close of the year to Reading (_ibid._).

The question, then, it will be seen, is this. Assuming, as we must do,
that William of Malmesbury is right in the date he assigns to Stephen's
visit to Malmesbury and recovery of Malmesbury Castle, is it consistent
with the date he assigns to the landing of the Empress and her brother?
That is to say, is it possible that the events which, we have seen, must
have occurred between the above landing and Stephen's visit to
Malmesbury can have been all comprised within the space of a fortnight?
This is a matter of opinion on which I do not pronounce.

[831] Introduction to _Gesta Stephani_, pp. xxi.-xxv.

[832] The _Gesta_ and Robert "De Monte" concur with William that it was
at Arundel.

[833] "Centum et quadraginta milites tunc secum adduxit."

[834] "Ut fama adventus ejus se latius, sicut solet, diffunderet, multa
scilicet millia secum adduxisse ... postquam certum fuit ... militum eum
globum exiguum, non autem exercitum adduxisse" (p. 130).

[835] William of Malmesbury, who was well informed, lays stress on this,
describing the earl as "fretus pietate Dei et fide legitimi sacramenti;
ceterum multo minore armorum apparatu quam quis alius tam periculosum
bellum aggredi temptaret ... in sancti spiritus et dominæ sanctæ Mariæ
patrocinio totus pendulus erat."

[836] Mr. Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, v. 291) takes the place of landing
(Portsmouth) from the one account, and the date (September 30) from the
other, without saying so. I notice this because it is characteristic.
Thus Mr. James Parker (_Early History of Oxford_, p. 191) observes of
Mr. Freeman's account of the Conqueror's advance on London: "Though by
leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the residue may be worked
up into a consecutive and consistent series of events, such a process
amounts to making history, not writing it. Amidst a mass of
contradictory evidence it is impossible to arrive at any sure
conclusion.... It is, however, comparatively easy to piece together such
details as will fit out of the various stories; and more easy still to
discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work produces."

[837] See p. 55.

[838] _Cont. Flor. Wig._, p. 115.

[839] "Obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus" (_ibid._, p. 118).

[840] It is an instance of the extraordinary confusion, at this point,
in the chroniclers that the author of the _Gesta_ makes him go from
Trowbridge to London, and thence to Ely, omitting all the intervening
events, which will be found set forth above.

[841] "Fama volante regiæ majestati nunciatur inimicos suos, juratæ
quidem pacis violatores Herefordiam invasisse, monasterium S. Æthelberti
regis et martyris, velut in castellinum munimen penetrasse." It seems
absolutely certain, especially if we add the testimony of the other
MSS., that this passage refers to the attack on the royal garrison in
the castle so graphically described by the author of the _Gesta_, but
(apparently) placed by him among the events of the summer of the
following year. As, however, his narrative breaks off just at this
point, his sequence of events is left uncertain, and in any case the
chronology of the local chronicler, who here writes as an eyewitness,
must be preferred to his.

[842] This passage (p. 121) should be compared with that on pp. 123, 124
("Rex et comes ... Oxenefordiam"), which looks extremely like a
repetition of it (as the passage on pp. 110, 111 is an anticipation of
that on pp. 116, 117).

[843] Assigned to December 11 by William of Malmesbury (p. 727), and to
December 4 by the Continuator (p. 113). The above facts are rather in
favour of the former of the two dates.



 APPENDIX F.
 THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER.
 (See p. 55.)


Miss Norgate assigns this event to the early summer of the year
1138,[844] on the authority of Gervase of Canterbury (i. 104). The
statement of that writer is clear enough, but it is also clear that he
made it on the authority of the Continuator of Florence. Now, the
Continuator muddled in inextricable confusion the events of 1138 and
1139. In this he was duly followed by Gervase, who gives us, under 1138,
first the arrest of the bishops at Oxford (June, 1139), then the
_diffidatio_ of the Earl of Gloucester, next the revolt of 1138 and the
defection of Miles, next the invitation to the Empress (1139), followed
by the Battle of the Standard (1138), and lastly the death of the Bishop
of Salisbury (December, 1139). This can be clearly traced to the
Continuator,[845] and conclusive evidence, if required, is afforded by
the fact that Gervase, like the Continuator, travels again over the same
ground under 1139. Thus the defection of Miles is told twice over, as
will be seen from these parallel extracts:—

 CONT. FLOR. WIG.
 (1138.)

 "Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per predictum Brycstowensem
 comitem et conestabularium Milonem, abnegata fidelitate quam illi
 juraverant, missis nuntiis ad Andegavensem civitatem accersunt
 ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.

 (1139.)

 "Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad
 dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu militum se
 contulit, illi spondens in fide auxilium contra regem exhibiturum."

 GERV. CANT.
 (1138.)

 "Qui [Comes Glaornensis] ... fidei et sacramentis quibus regi tenebatur
 renuntiavit.... Milo quoque princeps militiæ regis avertit se a
 rege, ... Interea conjuratio in regem facta per comitem Glaornensem et
 Milonem summum regis constabularium invaluit, nam missis nuntiis ...
 asciverunt ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.

 (1139.)

 "Milo regis constabularius multique procerum cum multa militum manu ab
 obsequio regis recesserunt, et pristinis fidei sacramentis innovatis ad
 partem imperatricis tuendam conversi sunt."

It is obvious from these extracts that the Continuator tells the tale of
the constable's _diffidatio_ and defection twice over; it is further
obvious, from his own evidence, that the second of the two dates (1139)
is the right one, for he tells us that so late as February, 1139,
Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to Gilbert Foliot "petente constabulario
suo Milone."[846] When we find that this event is assigned by the author
of the _Gesta_ to 1139, that the constableship of Miles was not
transferred to William de Beauchamp till the latter part of 1139, and
that Miles is not mentioned among the rebels in 1138 (though his
importance would preclude his omission), nor is any attack on Gloucester
assigned to Stephen in that year, we may safely decide that the
defection of Miles did not take place till the arrival of the Empress in
1139.

Since writing the above I have noted the presence of Miles of Gloucester
among the followers of Stephen at the siege of Shrewsbury (August,
1138).[847] This is absolutely conclusive, proving as it does that Miles
was still on the king's side in the revolt of 1138.

[844] _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 295.

[845] Ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., ii. 107-113.

[846] ii. 114. Miss Norgate, having accepted the date of 1138 for the
defection of Miles, finds it difficult to explain this passage. She
writes (i. 494): "Stephen's consent to his appointment can hardly have
been prompted by favour to Miles, who had openly defied the king a year
ago."

[847] Charter dated in third year of Stephen, "Apud Salopesbiriam in
obsidione" (Nero, C. iii. fol. 177).



 APPENDIX G.
 CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES.
 (See p. 87.)


As this charter is not included in Mr. Birch's _Fasciculus_, and is
therefore practically unknown, I here give it _in extenso_ from the
_Cartæ Antiquæ_ (K. 24). It will be observed that, of its six witnesses,
five attest the Westminster charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville. The sixth
is Humfrey de Bohun, a frequent witness to charters of the Empress. This
charter is preceded in the _Cartæ Antiquæ_ by enrolments of two charters
to the grantee's predecessors from William Rufus and Henry I. respectively.
The "service" of Albany de Hairon, a Herts tenant-in-capite, is an
addition made by the Empress to these grants of her predecessors. The
_cartæ_ of 1166 prove that it was subsequently ignored.

"M. Imperatrix regis H. filia archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus
comitibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus
fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me
reddidisse et concessisse Rogero de Valoniis in feodo et hereditate sibi
et heredibus suis Esendonam et Begefordiam et molendina Heortfordie et
servitium Albani de Hairon et omnes alias terras et tenaturas patris sui
sicut pater suus eas tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus et preter hoc
quicquid modo tenet de quocunque teneat. Quare volo et firmiter precipio
quod bene et in pace et honorifice et libere et quiete teneat in bosco
et plano in pratis et pascuis in turbariis in via et semita in exitibus
in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et stagnis in foro et navium
applicationibus infra burgum et extra cum socha et saka et thol et theam
et infanenethef et cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus et
quietantiis cum quibus pater suus melius et quietius et liberius tenuit
tempore patris mei regis Henrici et ipse post patrem. T. R[oberto]
Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et M[ilone] Gloec[estrie] et Brientio fil[io]
Com[itis] et Rad[ulfo] Painel et Walchel[ino] Maminot et Humfr[ido] de
Buh[un] apud Westmonasterium."



 APPENDIX H.
 THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS."
 (See p. 97.)


Special research has led me to discover that all our historians are in
error in their accounts of this institution.

The key to the enquiry will be found in the fact that the term "tertius
denarius" had two distinct denotations; that is to say, was used in two
different senses. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman have both failed to grasp
this essential fact. The two varieties of the "tertius denarius" were
these:—

(1) The "tertius denarius placitorum comitatus." This is the recognized
"third penny" of which historians speak. Observe that this was not, as
it is sometimes loosely termed, and as, indeed, Gneist describes it,
"the customary third of the revenues of the county,"[848] but, as Dr.
Stubbs accurately terms it, "the third penny of the pleas."[849] So here
the Empress grants to Geoffrey de Mandeville "tertium denarium
vicecomitatus _de placitis_" (cf. p. 239). This distinction is
all-important, for "the pleas" only represented a small portion of the
total "revenues of the county" as compounded for in the sheriff's
_firma_.

(2) The "tertius denarius redditus burgi." This "third penny," which has
been strangely confused with the other, differs from it in these two
respects. Firstly, it is that, not of the pleas ("placitorum"), but of
the total revenues ("redditus"); secondly, it is that, not of the county
("comitatus"), but of a town alone ("burgi").

This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday and from
record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular clearness, in the
charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, creating him Earl of
Hereford. In it she grants—

 "Tertium denarium redditus burgi Hereford quicquid unquam reddat,[850]
 et tertium denarium placitorum totius comitatus Hereford."

Nor is it less clear in the charter (1155), by which Henry II. creates
Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk "scilicet de tercio denario de Norwic et de
Norfolca."

Now, let us trace how the "tertius denarius redditus burgi" has been
erroneously taken for the "tertius denarius placitorum totius
comitatus," the only recognized "third penny."

Dr. Stubbs writes: "The third penny of the county which had been a part
of the profits of the English earls is occasionally referred to in
Domesday."[851] The passage on which this statement is based is found
earlier in the volume. Our great historian there writes:—

 "Each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop
 in the folkmoot, and received a third part of the profits of
 jurisdiction. (The third penny of the county appears from Domesday [i.
 1. 26, 203, 246, 252, 280, 298, 336] to have been paid to the earl in
 the time of Edward the Confessor.—Ellis, _Introduction to Domesday_, i.
 167)."[852]

The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before the
Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" in the
county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on the evidence of Domesday.
But in six of the eight passages on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are
distinctly dealing, not with the county ("comitatus"), but with a single
town ("burgus"). These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford,
Shrewsbury, and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only
be that of the _redditus burgi_, not of the _placita comitatus_.[853]
Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl received a
third of each of the items out of which the render ("redditus") of the
town was composed. The only cases of those mentioned which could
possibly concern the third penny "placitorum comitatus" are those of
Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire (336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire
(280). Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only
vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system which has,
I believe, never obtained the attentive study it deserves. This system
was confined to the Danish district, to which these counties all
belonged.

The main point, however, which we have to keep in view is that "the
third penny" of the _revenues_ of the _town_ has nothing to do with "the
third penny" of the _pleas_ of the _county_, and that the passages in
Domesday concerning the former must not be quoted as evidence for the
latter. I do not find that Ellis (_Introduction_, i. 167, 168) is
responsible for so taking them, but Dr. Stubbs, as we have seen, clearly
confused the two kinds of _tertius denarius_, and we find that Mr.
Freeman does the same when he tells us that at Exeter "six pounds—that
is, the earl's third penny—went to the Sheriff Baldwin."[854]

We are reminded by this last instance that not only the earl, but the
sheriff, was concerned with "the third penny" of the _revenues_ of the
_town_. This—which (I would here again repeat) is not the earl's "third
penny" to which historians allude—sometimes, as for instance at
Shrewsbury and Exeter, fell to the sheriff's share. Dr. Stubbs mentions
the case of Shrewsbury only, and takes it as evidence that "the sheriff
as well as the ealdorman was entitled to a share of the profits of
administration."[855]

This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely erratic. In
the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems to have been held by the
king himself, though at Cricklade both he and Westminster Abbey are
credited with it (64 _b_, 67). At Leicester it was held by Hugh de
Grantmesnil, but we are not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it
had been held by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to
the Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds share,
made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de Stafford.[856] At
Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [_i.e._ placitorum] de duobus
hundret," been annexed to an estate held by the local earl. The whole of
this was granted by the Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.[857] At
Worcester, by a curious arrangement, the total render had been divided,
in unequal portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of the
whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the third penny" fell to
Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with the king's consent, on St.
Augustine's, Canterbury, to which the other two-thirds had been given
already by the Confessor. The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a
characteristic error. We read in Domesday:—

 "Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxxiii marcas argenti et unam
 marcam auri p[re]ter firmam regis" (i. 163).

Mr. Freeman, who is never weary of insisting on the value of Domesday,
is clearly not so familiar as one could wish with its normal
contractions, for he renders the closing words "p_rop_ter firmam regis."
On this he observes: "This looks like the earl's third penny; but
Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucestershire."[858] When
we substitute for the meaningless "propter" the right reading "preter"
("in addition to"), we see at once that the figures given no longer
suggest a "third penny."

Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country town, let us
turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole county. Independent
of the system in the Danelaw to which I have referred above, we have two
references in Domesday to this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius
denarius de totâ scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of
Warwickshire) "tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of
these is among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious
point about them is that in neither instance was the right annexed to
the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which manor was held by the
earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this "third penny of the pleas"
not _quâ_ earl, but _quâ_ lord of that estate. The distinction is vital.
Whether "the third penny of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or
only of a single hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to
the possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of one, of
two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.[859] This peculiarity
would seem to have been an essential feature of the system, and I need
scarcely point out how opposed it is to the alleged tenure _ex officio_
in days before the Conquest, or to that granted to the earl _quâ_ earl
under the Norman and Angevin kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter
institution, the recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to
the dignity of earl.

The prevailing view would seem to be that it was so annexed from the
first; that its possession, in fact, was part of, or rather was connoted
by, the dignity of an earl. Madox held that the oldest mode of
conferring the dignity of earl, a mode "coeval to the Norman Conquest,"
was by charter; and he further held that "By the charter the king
granted to the earl the _tertius denarius comitatus_."[860] Dr. Stubbs
writes, of the investiture of earls in the Norman period:—

 "The idea of official position is not lost sight of, although the third
 penny of the pleas and the sword of the shire alone attest its original
 character" (_Const. Hist._, i. 363).

Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:—

 "Earldoms are now in their transitional stage. They have become
 hereditary; but they carry with them the official perquisite of the
 ancient official earls, the third penny of the king's revenues in the
 shire."[861]

Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I referred to
at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being described as that
not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the county. Then there is the
question whether this perquisite was indeed the right of "the ancient
official earls." Lastly, we must ask whether the earldoms granted in
this period did unquestionably "carry with them" this "official
perquisite."

To answer this last question, we must turn to our record evidence. Now,
the very first charter quoted by Madox himself, in support of his own
view, is the creation by Stephen of the earldom of Essex in favour of
Geoffrey de Mandeville. The formula there is quite vague. Geoffrey is to
hold "bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii
Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus
suos unde Comites sunt." Here there is nothing about the "third penny,"
and we must therefore ask whether its grant is included in the above
formula; that is to say, whether an earl received his "third penny" as a
mere matter of course. The contrary is, it would seem, implied by the
special way in which the "third penny" is granted him in the charter of
the Empress, together with the curious added phrase, "sicut comes habere
debet in comitatu suo." This phrase may, of course, be held to imply
that an earl had, as earl, a recognized right to the sum, but the fact
that in the other charters of the Empress (those of the earldoms of
Hereford and Oxford) the "tertius denarius" is made the subject of a
special grant, and that in her son's charters it is the same, would
suggest that, without such special grant, the right was not conveyed.
This is the view taken by Gneist (who founds, in the main, on Madox):—

 "It is only a _donatio sub modo_, the grant of a permanent income 'for
 the better support of the dignity of an earl;' it consists in a mere
 order or precept addressed to the sheriff, and is therefore a right of
 demand, but no feudal right, and is accompanied by no investiture."[862]

That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the county) was not
an innovation introduced in this reign, is proved by the solitary
surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in which, however, there is but one
mention of this "third penny," namely, in the case of the Earl of
Gloucester. Indeed, with the exception of this entry, and of the special
arrangement which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts
(_ut supra_), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141,
represent the first occurrence of this "third penny."

Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though the fact
appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far as the printed
Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less than half the
existing earls were in receipt of the "third penny." Careful examination
of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. reveals this fact. The earls to whom was
paid "the third penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford,
Norfolk, Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those who
are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would seem, cannot
have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Derby
(Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,[863] Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus
seven received this sum, and ten did not. The inference, of course, from
this discovery is that the possession of the dignity of an earl did not
_per se_ carry with it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to
which could only be conferred by a special grant.[864] This, apparently
conclusive, evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the
_Dialogus_:—

 "Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt
 in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ
 requiritur a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed
 ex magna parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes
 percipit, qui ideo sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in
 percipiendis."

 D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt."

 M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum
 munificentia, obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites
 sibi creat et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit,
 quibusdam hæreditarie, quibusdam personaliter."[865]

This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily
be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords'
Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the
third penny." The point is of no small importance, for the conclusion
drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either
hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading,
however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals
with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the
latter refers to the "ista" of the former.

Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, the words of
the _Dialogus_ clearly prove that the view I take is right, and that
Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in stating that "earldoms," at this
stage, "carry with them the third penny."[867] Mr. Hunt, who, here as
elsewhere, seems to follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:—

 "The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction
 in his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman
 kings stripped the earls of their official character."[868]

This view must now be abandoned, and the total absence of any allusion,
in Stephen's creation of the earldom of Essex, to "the third penny of
the pleas," must be taken to imply that the charter in question did not
convey a right to that sum. Thus the charter of the Empress to Geoffrey
in 1141 remains the first record in which that perquisite is granted.

We should also note that the _Dialogus_ passage establishes the fact
that the only recognized "third penny" of the earl was "the third penny
of the pleas," and that the third penny "redditus burgi," which, we saw,
had been taken for it, is not alluded to at all.

Before leaving this subject it may be well to record the sums actually
received under this heading:—

                       £   _s._  _d._
 Devon                18    6     8
 Essex                40   10    10
 Gloucestershire      20    0     0
 Herts.               33    1     6
 Norfolk              28    4     0
 Sussex               13    6     8
 Wilts.               22   16     7[869]

These figures are sufficient to disprove the view that the third penny
actually formed an endowment for the dignity of an earl, but their chief
interest is found in the light they throw on the farming of the "pleas,"
illustrating, as they do, the statement in the _Dialogus_ that the
sheriff's _firma_ "ex magna parte de placitis provenit." For multiplying
these sums by three we obtain the total for which the pleas were farmed
in their respective shires. It will be observed that "the third penny"
is stereotyped in amount, but an important passage bearing upon this
point is quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139) from the Roll of 27
Hen. II.:—

 "Idem Vicecomes redd. comp. de £xxviii de tercio denario Comitatus de
 Legercestria de vii annis præteritis, quos Comes Leg. accipere noluit,
 nisi haberet similiter de cremento, sicut prædecessores sui recipere
 consueverunt tempore Regis Henrici" (_sic_).

The meaning of this entry is that the earl demanded the "third penny,"
not only of the old composition for the "pleas," but also of the
increased sum now paid for them. The passage, of course, is puzzling in
its statement that the earl's predecessors had received "the third
penny," for, so far as the printed Rolls take us, they never did so. A
similar difficulty is caused, in the case of Oxfordshire, by the charter
of Henry II. (see p. 239) granting to Aubrey de Vere its "third penny"
"ut sit inde Comes;" for there is no trace in the printed Rolls of such
payment being made, and in 7 John the then earl actually owes "cc marcas
pro habendo tercio denario Comitatus Oxoniæ de placitis, et ut sit Comes
Oxoniæ."[870]

Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need fuller knowledge,
we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., when, on the death of the Earl
of Essex (February 15, 1228), his annual third penny, as £40 10_s._
10_d._, was allowed to count, for his heirs, towards the payment of his
debts to the Crown.[871] A much later and most important instance is
that of Devon, where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of
Devon, is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though not
an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a decision against
him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital rank.

[848] _Constitutional History_, i. 139.

[849] _Ibid._, i. 363.

[850] This insured him his participation _pro rata_ in any future
increase ("crementum") of the render.

[851] _Const. Hist._, i. 361.

[852] _Ibid._, p. 113.

[853] We must, further, observe that, of these six, Lewes, of which we
are not told if, or how, its _redditus_ was divided before the Conquest,
and Shrewsbury, of which we are told that the "third penny" of its
redditus went, not to the earl, but to the sheriff ("Tempore Regis E ...
duas partes habebat rex et _vicecomes_ tertiam") are not in point for
the earl's share.

[854] _Exeter_, p. 43 (cf. p. 55).

[855] This passage appears to imply that Dr. Stubbs, who sees in the
"third penny" of the county the perquisite of the earl, would look on
that of the borough as the perquisite of the sheriff. But the latter, as
we have seen, was held, as a rule, by the earl, though occasionally by
the sheriff.

[856] This has been strangely misunderstood by Mr. Eyton in his analysis
of the Staffordshire survey. See my paper in _Domesday Studies_.

[857] _Domesday_, ii. 280, 294. We read of Alan's heir, Conan, in 1156,
"Comiti Conano de tercio denario Comit' ix _li._ et x _sol_" (_Rot.
Pip_, 2 Hen. II., p. 8). It is a singular circumstance that Robert de
Torigny alludes to this under 1171, when, at the death of Conan, "tota
Britannia, et _comitatus de Gippewis_ [Ipswich], et honor Richemundie"
passed to the king,—and still more singular that his latest editor, Mr.
Howlett, identifies "Gippewis" with Guingamp (p. 391).

[858] _Will. Rufus_, i. 40.

[859] _Domesday_, i. 38 _b_, 101, 87 _b_, 186 _b_, 253; ii. 294 _b_.

[860] _Baronia Anglica_, pp. 137, 138.

[861] _Exeter_, p. 55.

[862] _Const. Hist._, i. 139.

[863] The Palatinate of Chester is, of course, anomalous, and does not,
strictly, tell either way.

[864] In the third and fifth years the Earl of Arundel is entered as
receiving the third penny "per breve regis."

[865] _Dialogus de Scaccario_, ii. 17.

[866] _Reports on the Dignity of a Peer_, iii. 68.

[867] Gneist is right in insisting on the fact that an earl was only
entitled to the "tertius denarius" in virtue of a distinct grant, but he
fails to grasp the important point that such grant was not made to every
earl as a matter of course, but only as a special favour. He is also, as
we have seen, quite mistaken as to the extent of the third penny (see p.
287).

[868] _Norman Britain_, p. 168.

[869] These figures are taken from the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II., a range
sufficiently wide to establish their permanence. Occasionally, as in the
case of Wilts and Sussex, the "tertius denarius" seems to be omitted for
a year or two, but this does not affect the general result.

[870] Pipe-Roll of John, quoted by Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139).

[871] Madox (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 139).]



 APPENDIX I.
 "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES."
 (See pp. 107, 108.)


Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this
policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard
Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint
sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of
Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as
well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement
requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs
(_vicecomites_) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather
from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not
_vicecomites_, but _custodes_. The difference is this. By the former a
county was held _ad firmam_; by the latter it was held _in custodia_. In
the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We
there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in
custodia." By the true sheriff (_vicecomes_) the county was, in fact,
leased. He, as its farmer (_firmarius_), was responsible for its annual
rent (_firma_). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and
the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that
of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it
himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances,
take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff
(_custos_). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London,
putting in his own _custodes_ in the place of the regular sheriffs, and,
in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. did the same. It was this, I
contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof
of it is found in this passage:—

 "Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis
 argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent _in custodia_" (p. 63).

Here we have the very same phrase as that in the Inquest of Sheriffs,
while the enormous "superplus" of a thousand marcs must represent the
excess of receipts over the amount required for the _firmæ_, which
excess, the counties being "in custodia," fell to the share of the
Crown. Thus we obtain the right explanation of the employment in this
capacity of royal officers, and we further get a glimpse, which we would
not lose, of one of those administrative changes which, as under
Henry II., tell of a system of government as yet empirical and imperfect.

It is clear that this measure was no mere development, but a sudden and
unforeseen step. For in the case of Essex, the scene of our story,
William de Eynsford ("Æinesford"), a Kentish landowner, had leased the
county for five years, from Michaelmas, 1128, the consideration he paid
for his lease being a hundred marcs (£66 13_s._ 4_d._). Early in the
second year of his lease, that is between Michaelmas, 1129, and Easter,
1130, he must have been superseded by the royal _custodes_, on the king
taking the county into his own hands. He, however, received
"compensation for disturbance," four-fifths of his hundred marcs ("de
Gersoma") being remitted to him in consideration of his losing four out
of his five years' lease. All this we learn from the brief record in the
Roll (p. 63).

Another point that should be here noticed is the use of the term
"Gersoma." Retrospectively, its use in this Roll illustrates its use in
Domesday. In those cases, where a _firmarius_ was willing, as a
speculation, to give for an estate more than its fixed rental (_firma_),
he gave the excess "de Gersoma," either in the form of a lump sum, or in
that of an annual payment.



 APPENDIX J.
 THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS.
 (See p. 116.)


There yet remains one point, in connection with this remarkable charter,
perhaps the most striking, certainly the most novel, of all. This is
that of the seal. According to the transcript in the Ashmole MSS., the
legend "in circumferentia sigillo" was this: "Matildis Imperatrix Rom'
et Regina Angliæ."

Now, that any such seal was designed for the Empress has never been
suspected by any historian. We cannot, on a question of royal seals,
appeal to a higher or more recognized authority than Mr. Walter de Gray
Birch. He has written as follows on the subject:—

 "The type of seal of the empress which is invariably fixed to every
 document among this collection that bears a seal is that used by her in
 Germany as 'Queen of the Romans.'... From this date (1106) to that of
 her death, which took place on the 16th of December, A.D. 1167, long
 after the solution of the troubles of the years 1140-1142 in England,
 she was accustomed to use this seal, and this only. It has never been
 suggested by any writer upon the historic seals of England that
 Mathildis employed any Great Seal as Queen of England, made after the
 conventional characteristics which obtain in the Great Seals of
 Stephen, her predecessor, or of her son, King Henry II. The troubled
 state of this country, the uncertain movements of the lady, the
 unsettled confidence of the people, and the consequent inability of
 attending to such a matter as the engraving of a Great Seal—a work, it
 must be borne in mind, involving some time and care—are, when taken
 together, more than sufficient causes to account for the continued
 usage of this type; although we may fairly presume that it was intended
 to supersede this foreign seal with one more consentaneously in keeping
 with English tradition."[872]

The seal to which Mr. Birch refers bore the legend "Mathildis dei Gratia
Romanorum regina."

The question, of course, at once arises as to the amount of reliance
that can be placed on the above transcriber's note. For my part, while
fully admitting the right to reject such evidence, I cannot believe that
any transcriber would for his own private gratification have forged such
a legend, which he could not hope to foist upon the world, if it were
indeed a forgery, since a reference to the original would at once expose
him.[873] And it is quite certain that we cannot account for it by any
misreading, however gross. A comparison of the two legends will put this
out of the question:—

 MATHILDIS DEI GRATIA ROMANORUM REGINA.
 MATILDIS IMPERATRIX ROM' ET REGINA ANGLIÆ.

If we accept the fact, and believe the legend genuine, the first point
to strike us is the substitution of "_Imperatrix_" for "_Regina_
Romanorum."

It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed that she
should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no higher style than
that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true that at the time of her actual
betrothal (1110), her husband was not, in strictness, "emperor," not
having yet been crowned at Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a
few months later (April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time
therefore of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, one
would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we read in the
_Lüneburg Chronicle_, "dar makede he se to _keiserinne_." At the same
time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase and title are never
unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and superstitiously
antiquarian,"[874] and there must be some good reason for what appears
to be a singular contradiction, though the point is overlooked by Mr.
Birch. Two explanations suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry
was fully and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, his
wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not entitled to
the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen of the Romans." As
against this, it would seem impossible that the wife of a crowned
emperor can have been anything but an empress. Moreover, from the
pleadings of her advocate at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 _n._), we learn
incidentally that she had duly been "anointed to empress." The only
other explanation is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the
emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and had not been
altered since.

It is important to remember that a seal is evidence of formal style, and
not of current phraseology. In spite of the efforts of Messrs. Bryce and
Freeman to insist on accuracy in the matter, it is certain that at the
time of which I write a most loose usage prevailed. Thus William of
Malmesbury, although he specially records the solemn coronation of
Henry V. as "Imperator Romanorum," at Rome in 1111, speaks of him as
"Imperator Alemanniæ," or "Imperator Alemannorum," both before and after
that event. This circumstance is the more notable, because I cannot find
that style recognized in Mr. Bryce's work, where the terms
"German Emperor" and "Emperor of Germany" are treated as recent
corruptions.[875] Its common use in the twelfth century is shown by the
scene, in the next reign, between Herbert of Bosham and the king (May 1,
1166), when the latter takes the former to task for speaking of
Frederick as "King," not as "Emperor" _of the Germans_. Had Henry
enjoyed the advantage of sitting under our own professors, he would have
insisted on Frederick being styled Emperor _of the Romans_; but as he
lived in the twelfth century, he employed, to the annoyance of modern
pedants, the current language of his day.[876]

It was natural and fitting that, the legend on her seal being at
variance with her style, the Empress should embrace the opportunity
afforded, by the making of a wholly new seal, to bring the two into
harmony.

The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not "Anglorum."
This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For though the abbreviation
found in charters ("Angl'") might stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ,"
the legend on the seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the
form "Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters "Anglorum"
(not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable fact that both the queens of
Henry I. bore on their seals the legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Ang_lie_"
led me to the conclusion that, so far from impugning, this form actually
confirmed the genuineness of the alleged legend.

It will doubtless be asked why this seal should have been affixed, so
far as we know, to this charter alone. But it is precisely this that
gives it so great an interest. For this is the only known instance of an
original charter, still surviving, belonging to the brief but eventful
period of the Empress's stay at Westminster on the eve of her intended
coronation.[877] It may safely be presumed that a Great Seal was made in
readiness for this event, and that its legend would necessarily include
the style of "Queen of England." The Empress, in at least two of her
charters, had already, though irregularly, assumed this style,[878] and
was clearly eager to adopt it. As to her retention of her foreign style
on her seal as an English sovereign, it might be suggested that she
clung to the loftiest style of all[879] from that haughty pride which
was to prove fatal to her claims; but it is more likely that she found
it needful to distinguish thus her style from that of her rival's queen.
For by a singular coincidence, they would both have had, in the ordinary
course, upon their seals precisely the same legend, viz. "Mathildis dei
gratia Regina Anglie."[880]

We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this seal at
Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, by the
Empress on this occasion. We may also no less satisfactorily account for
the fact that it was never used again. For this, indeed, the events that
followed the fall of the Empress from her high estate, and the virtual
collapse of her hopes, may be held sufficiently to account. But it is
quite possible that in the headlong flight of the Empress and her
followers from Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the
rest of her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes.

[872] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi. 381.

[873] This transcript was taken before the fire in which the charter was
so badly injured.

[874] Bryce's _Holy Roman Empire_.

[875] P. 317 (3rd edition).

[876] "_Rex._ Quare in nomine dignitatis derogas ei, non vocans eum
imperatorem Alemannorum? _Herbertus._ Rex est Alemannorum; sed ubi
scribit, scribit 'Imperator Romanorum, semper Augustus'" (_Becket
Memorials_, iii. 100, 101).

[877] The two other charters which belong (certainly) to this visit are
known to us only from transcripts.

[878] "M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angl[ie] regina."

[879] We must remember the then supreme position and lofty pretensions
of "the Emperor."

[880] Original charters of Stephen's queen are so extremely rare, that
we know but little of her seal. Transcripts, however, of two fine
charters of hers, formerly in the Cottonian collection, will be found in
_Add. MS._ 22,641 (fols. 29, 31), and to one of them is appended a
sketch of the seal, the first half of the legend being "Matildis Dei
Gratia," and the second being lost.



 APPENDIX K.
 GERVASE DE CORNHILL.
 (See p. 121.)


Few discoveries, in the course of these researches, have afforded me
more satisfaction and pleasure than that of the origin of Gervase de
Cornhill, the founder of an eminent and wealthy house, and himself a
great City magnate who played, we shall find, no small part in the
affairs of an eventful time.

The peculiar interest of the story lies in the light it throws on the
close amalgamation of the Normans and the English, even in the days of
Henry I., thereby affording a perfect illustration of the well-known
passage in the _Dialogus_:—

 "Jam cohabitantibus Anglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores
 ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni
 possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit
 genere."[881]

It also affords us a welcome glimpse of the territorial aristocracy of
the City, as yet its ruling class.

It has hitherto been supposed, as in Foss's work, that Gervase de
Cornhill first appears in 1155-56 (2 Hen. II.), in which year he figures
on the Pipe-Roll as one of the sheriffs of London. I propose to show
that he first appears a quarter of a century before, and so to bridge
over Stephen's reign, and to connect the Pipe-Roll of Henry I. with the
earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. The problem before us is this. We have
to identify the "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti," who figures
prominently on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.), with "Gervase,
Justiciary of London," who meets us twice under Stephen, with "Gervase"
who was one of the sheriffs of London in 1155 and 1156, and with Gervase
de Cornhill, whose name occurs at least twice under Stephen, and
innumerable times under Henry II., both in a public and private capacity.

Let us first identify Gervase de Cornhill with Gervase, the Justiciary
of London. The latter personage occurs once in the legend on the seal
affixed to "a 'star' with Hebrew words," which reads, "Sigillum Gervas'
justitia' Londoniar';"[882] and once in a charter which confirms this
legend, dealing, as it does, with a grant: "Gervasio Justic' de
Lond'."[883] But the land (in Gamlingay) granted to "Gervase, Justiciary
of London," is entered in a survey of the reign of John as held by "the
heirs of Gervase _de Cornhill_" (see p. 121). Similarly, the land
mortgaged in the former transaction to "Gervase, Justiciary of London,"
is afterwards found in possession of Henry, son and heir of Gervase _de
Cornhill_. Thus is established the identity of the two.

The identity of the Gervase who thus flourished in the reigns of Stephen
and Henry II. with the Gervase fitz Roger of 1130 must next occupy our
attention. Here are the entries relating to the latter:—

 "Radulfus filius Ebrardi debet cc marcas argenti pro placitis pecunie
 Rogeri nepotis Huberti."

 "Andreas bucca uncta reddit compotum de lxiiij libris et vii solidis et
 viiij denariis pro xx libratis terre de terra Rogeri nepotis Huberti."

 "Johannes filius Radulfi filii Ebrardi et Robertus frater suus reddunt
 Compotum de DCCCC et ij marcis argenti iiij denarios minus de debitis
 Gervasii filii Rogeri pro totâ terrâ patris sui exceptis xx libratis
 terræ quas rex retinuit ad opus Andr' bucca uncta.... Et Idem debent
 iij marcas auri pro concessione terrarum quas Gervasius eis dedit."

 "Ingenolda uxor Rogeri Nepotis Huberti debet ij marcas auri ut habeat
 maritagium et dotem et res suas."

 "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti debet vj libras et xii solidos
 et vj denarios de debitis patris sui."

 "Robertus filius Radufi et Johannes frater ejus reddunt Compotum de iij
 marcis auri ut rex concederet eis vadimonium et terras quas Gervasius
 eis concessit."[884]

These entries are explained by the charter subjoined, which shows how
John and Robert came to have charge of the estate:—

 "H. rex Angl[orum] Vic' Lund' et omnibus Baronibus et Vicecomitibus in
 quorum Bailiis Gervasius filius Rogeri terram habet salutem. Precipio
 quod Gervasius filius Rogeri sit saisitus et tenens de omnibus terris
 et rebus patris sui sicut pater ejus erat die quo movit ire ad
 Jerosolimam.... Et ipse et tota terra sua interim sint in custodia et
 saisina Johannis et Roberti filiorum Radulfi.... T. Comite Gloecestrie.
 Apud West'."[885]

John fitz Ralph (fitz Ebrard) was another London magnate, who was more
or less connected with Gervase throughout his career. He is found with
him at St. Albans, late in Stephen's reign, witnessing a charter of the
king;[886] and the two men, as "Gervase and John," were joint sheriffs
of London in 2 Hen. II. He is also the first witness to one of Gervase's
charters after his brother Alan.[887]

We further find Gervase fitz Roger excused (in the Pipe-Roll of 1130)
the payment of two shillings "de veteri Danegeldo" (? 1127-28) in
Middlesex, and seven shillings "de preterito Danegeldo" (1128-29)
because his land is "waste."[888] The inference to be drawn from all
these passages is that Gervase had then (1130) recently succeeded his
father, a man of unusual wealth and considerable property in land. We
should therefore expect to find him, in his turn, a man of some
importance, as was our own Gervase the Justiciar (_alias_ Gervase de
Cornhill), the only Gervase who meets us as a man of any consequence.
Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on mere inference. The manor
of Chalk was granted by the Crown to Roger "nepos Huberti;"[889] it was
subsequently regranted to Gervase de Cornhill,[890] whom I identify with
Gervase his son. Moreover, the adoption by Gervase of the surname "de
Cornhill" can, as it happens, be accounted for. Among the records of the
duchy of Lancaster is a grant by William, Archbishop of Canterbury
(1123-1136), of land at "Eadintune" to Gervase and Agnes his wife, Agnes
being described as daughter of "Godeleve."[891] By the aid of another
document relating to the same property,[892] we identify this "Godeleve"
as the wife of Edward de Cornhill. To the eye of a trained genealogist
all is thus made clear.

But we now find ourselves in the midst of a most interesting family
connection. For these same records carry us back to the father of this
"Godeleve," namely, Edward of Southwark.[893] It is true that here he
figures merely as a "æ. desudwerc," but we have only to turn to another
quarter, and there we find "Edwardo de Suthwerke et Willelmo filio ejus"
among the leading witnesses to the invaluable document recording the
surrender by the English Cnihtengild of their soke to the priory of
Christchurch (1125).[894] I need scarcely lay stress on the interest and
importance of everything bearing on that remarkable and as yet
mysterious institution. We find ourselves now brought into actual
contact with the gild. For in one of its members, as named in that
document, "Edwardus Hupcornhill," we recognize no other than that
"Edward of Cornhill" who was son-in-law to "Edward of Southwark."[895]
Following up our man in yet another quarter, we find him witnessing a
London deed (_temp._ William the Dean),[896] and another one of about
the middle of the reign of Henry I.,[897] though wrongly assigned in the
(Hist. MSS.) Report to "about 1127."[898] Lastly, turning to still
another quarter, we find his name among those of the witnesses to an
agreement between Ramsey Abbey and the priory of Christchurch soon after
1125.[899]

We are now in a position to construct this remarkable pedigree:—

                                          Edward of Southwark,
                                              living 1125.
                                                   |
                                               +---+---------+
                                               |             |
    "Ingenolda," = Roger          Edward   = Godeleve.    William,
    living 1130. | "nepos      de Cornhill,|            living 1125.
                 | Huberti."   living 1125.|
                 |                         |
                 |              +----------+
                 |              |
              Gervase    =    Agnes
             Fitz Roger     de Cornhill,
            (afterwards     married
             Gervase de     before 1136.
             Cornhill).

I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the dates, Edward
of Southwark must have been born within a very few years of the
Conquest, and also because we can feel sure, in the case both of him and
of his son-in-law, that we are dealing with men of the old stock,
connected with the venerable gild of English "Cnihts." But it further
shows us how the elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name
of the Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried with
the English stock.

Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos Huberti." Here,
again, there come to our help the records of the duchy of Lancaster.
Among them are two royal charters, the first of which grants to Roger
the manor of Chalk, in Kent,[900] while the second was consequent on his
death,[901] and should be read in connection with the above extracts
from the Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its
mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." We may infer
from this that he had died on pilgrimage.[902] As Gervase inherited from
his father so large an estate, Roger must have been, in his day, a man
of some consequence. It is, therefore, rather strange that his name does
not occur in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other
quarter to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow has
preserved for us the gist of a document which he had seen, when he tells
us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, by the Cnihtengild—

 "The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and _Roger
 nephew to Hubert_, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church
 with the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished,
 coming upon the ground, Andrew Buchevite[903] and the forenamed
 witnesses and others standing by."[904]

If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly can, our
Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes it highly probable
that he was identical with the "Roger" named in a document addressed, a
few years earlier:—

 "Hugoni de Bocheland, _Rogero_, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis
 baronibus Lundoniæ."[905]

I do not know of any other Roger who is likely to have been thus
addressed.

We are given by Gervase de Cornhill a further clue as to his parentage
in a charter of his, under Henry II., in which he mentions Ralph fitz
Herlwin as his uncle ("avunculus"). Ralph fitz Herlwin was in 1130
joint-Sheriff of London.[906] This clue, therefore, is worth following
up. Now, Ralph must either have been a brother of the father or of the
mother of Gervase. It is highly improbable that Ralph "filius Herlwini"
was a brother of Roger "nepos Huberti," each of the two being always
mentioned by the same distinctive suffix. It may, therefore, be presumed
that Ralph was brother to Roger's wife. Now, we happen to have two
documents which greatly concern this Ralph and his son, and which belong
to one transaction, although they figure widely apart in the report on
the muniments of St. Paul's.[907] Nicholas, son of Ælfgar, parish priest
of the church of St. Michael's, Cheap, a living which, like his father
before him, he held at lease from St. Paul's, exercised his right to the
next presentation in favour of a son of Ralph fitz Herlwin, who had
married his niece Mary. From the evidence now in our possession, we may
construct this pedigree:—

 "Algar Colessune,"[908]                                    "Herlwin."
 priest of St.Michael's,                                        |
         Cheap.                                                 |
           |                                                    |
   +-------+------+                       +-------------+-------+------+-----
   |              |                       |             |              |
 Nicolas,       [dau.] = Baldwin        Ralph        William         Herlwin
 priest of             | de Arras.       fitz         fitz           fitz
 St. Michael's,        |               Herlwin,     Herlwin,[909]   Herlwin,
 Cheap.                |             joint-sheriff  living 1130.  living 1130.
                       |               in 1130.                      [909]
                       |                  |
                       |           +------+----+------------+
                       |           |           |            |
                      Mary  =    Robert      William.    Herlwin.
                                fitz Ralph,
                               inherited the
                                 living of
                               St. Michael's
                                 from his
                               wife's uncle.

                                  "Herlwin."
                                       |
                                       |
                                       |
                                    ---+------------+
                                                    |
                                            "Ingenolda."[910] = Roger "nepos
                                                              |    Huberti,"
                                                              | joint-sheriff,
                                                              |      1125.
                                                            +-+----------+
                                                            |            |
                                       Agnes       =     Gervase        Alan,
                                     de Cornhill,  |  (nephew to Ralph brother
                                    dau. of Edward |  fitz Herlwin),     to
                                     de Cornhill.  | joint-Sheriff of  Gervase.
                                                   | London, 1155-56.    .
                     +--------------+--------------+                     .
                     |              |              |                     .
 Alice[911]    =   Henry de       Reginald       Ralph                 Roger
 de Courci,    |   Cornhill,    de Cornhill,  de Cornhill.              fitz
 heiress of    |   Sheriff of    Sheriff of                             Alan.
 the English   |  London and        Kent.
 De Courcis,   |  of Kent and        |
 afterwards    |   of Surrey.        |
 wife of Warin |                     |
 fitz Gerold.  |                     +--------------+
               |                                    |
             Joan de  =  Hugh de Nevill,        Reginald de
            Cornhill.   Forester of England.  Cornhill, junior.

It will have been noticed that in this pedigree I assign to Gervase a
brother Alan. I do so on the strength of a charter of Archbishop
Theobald, late in the reign of Stephen, to Holy Trinity, witnessed
_inter alios_ by "Gervasio de Cornhill et Alano fratre ejus,"[912] also
of a charter I have seen (Duchy of Lanc., _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57), in
which the first witness to a charter of Gervase is Alan, his brother.
The "Roger fitz Alan" for whom I suggest an affiliation to this Alan
occurs among the witnesses to a grant made by Ralph, and witnessed by
Reginald de Cornhill.[913] This suggests such paternity, and his name,
Roger, would then be derived from Roger, his paternal grandfather. We
have here, at least, another clue which ought to be followed up, for
Roger fitz Alan is repeatedly found among the leading witnesses to
London documents of the close of the twelfth and beginning of the
thirteenth centuries, his career culminating in his appointment as mayor
on the death of the well-known "Henry fitz Ailwin" in 1212.[914]

The fact that Gervase and Alan were brothers tempts one to recognize in
them the "Alanus juvenis et Gervasius fratres," who witness a grant to
(their cousin) Robert fitz Ralph fitz Herlwin,[915] and the "Alanus
juvenis" and "Gervasius frater Alani" of a similar document.[916] But,
unluckily, we find this same Alan elsewhere styled "Alanus filius
_Huberti_ juvenis."[917] Possibly they were sons of that Hubert to whom
his father was "nepos." But the question, for the present, must be left
in doubt.

Both Gervase de Cornhill and Henry his son appear, it may be added, from
the evidence of charters, to have lent money on mortgage, and to have
acquired landed property by foreclosing. A curious allusion to the
mercantile origin and the profitable money-lending transactions of
Geoffrey is found in a sneer of Becket's biographer, when, as Sheriff of
Kent, he opposed the primate's landing.[918] The contemporary allusion
to such pursuits, in the _Dialogus_, breathes the same scornful spirit
for the trader and all his works.[919] Gervase, I think, may have been
that "Gervase" who, at the head of the citizens of London, met Henry II.
in 1174 (_Fantosme_, l. 1941); he would seem to have lived on till 1183,
and was probably, at his death, between seventy and seventy-five years
old. Among his descendants were a Dean of St. Paul's (1243-1254) and a
Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1215-1223).

[881] _Dialogus_, i. 10.

[882] Such is the reading given by Anstis, who saw this star among the
duchy records. It is greatly to be hoped that it may still be found.
Anstis describes the device as "a Lyon."

[883] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 22.

[884] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 144, 145, 147-149. Compare the clause
in Henry's charter guaranteeing to the citizens "terras suas et
vadimonia." Here the possession has to be paid for.

[885] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 8.

[886] "Gervasio de Corn ..., Johanne filio Radulfi" (Madox's
_Formularium_, 293).

[887] Duchy of Lancaster: _Cart. Misc._, ii. 57.

[888] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., pp. 150, 151.

[889] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 3.

[890] _Ibid._, No. 26 (see Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p.
66).

[891] Grants in boxes, A., No. 156.

[892] _Ibid._, 154.

[893] "Ego Radulfus Archiepiscopus [1114-1122] concedo Æadwardo de
Cornhelle et uxori ejus Godelif et hæredibus suis terram de Eadintune
... quam æ. desudwerc dedit cum filia sua æ. de Cornhelle" (_ibid._,
154). We have here an instance of the caution with which official
calendars should be used. In the official abstract of the above record
(_Thirty-fifth Report of Dep. Keeper_, p. 15), the above words are
rendered, "with his daughter æ. de Cornhelle," the dative being taken
for an ablative, and the wife transformed into her husband!

[894] _London and Middlesex Arch. Journ._, v. 477.

[895] The curious form "Hupcornhill" should, of course, be noted. I have
met with a similar form at Colchester, where the name "Opethewalle,"
which has been supposed to have been connected with the town wall,
occurs earlier (under Edward I.) as "Opethehelle," _i.e._ up the hill.
The idiom still survives in such forms as "up town" and "up the street."
It probably accounts for the strange name, "Hoppeoverhumber," _i.e._ a
man who came from "up beyond the Humber" (cf. for aspirate "Huppelanda
de Berchamstede").

[896] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 61 _b_.

[897] _Ibid._, p. 66 _a_.

[898] _Ibid._, p. 31 _b_. It is certainly earlier than 1120, when Otuel
fitz Count (the leading witness) was drowned, and probably earlier than
the spring of 1116.

[899] Pipe-Roll Society: _Ancient Charters_, p. 26 (Eadwardus de
Corhulle).

[900] Royal Charters, No. 3. This charter must belong to the years
1116-1120.

[901] _Ibid._, No. 8 (see p. 305).

[902] This has a curious bearing on the legend that Gilbert Becket, the
primate's father, had journeyed to Palestine, as showing that this was
actually done by a contemporary City magnate.

[903] This name should be Andrew Buccuinte (Bucca uncta).

[904] Strype's _Stow_, ii. 4.

[905] _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 130. The date there assigned is 1114-1130,
but Hugh de Bocland appears to have died several years before 1130.

[906] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, p. 149.

[907] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 20 _a_, 64 _a_.

[908] The form of this surname should be noted as illustrating the
practice of abbreviation. The name of Ælfgar's father must have been
Colswegen, or some other compound of "Col—"

[909] See Pipe-Roll of 1130.

[910] This involves a double supposition: (_a_) that "Ingenolda," who is
proved to have been the widow of Roger, was the mother of his son
Gervase; (_b_) that Ralph fitz Herlwin was brother to the mother, not
the father, of Gervase. These assumptions seem tolerably certain, but,
at present, they can only be provisionally accepted.

[911] For this descent see Stapleton's preface to the _Liber de Antiquis
Legibus_ (Cam. Soc.).

[912] From a MS. note of Dugdale (L. 41, dors.).

[913] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 52 _b_.

[914] This, it must be well understood, is thrown out merely as a
suggestion.

[915] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 64 _a_.

[916] _Ibid._, 66 _b_.

[917] _Ibid._, 20 _a_.

[918] "Cujus jurisdictioni Cantia subjiciebatur, plus besses et
centesimas usuras quam bonum et æquum attendens" (_Becket Memorials_,
iii. 100).

[919] "Quod si forte miles aliquis vel liber alius a sui status
dignitate, quod absit, degenerans, multiplicandis denariis per publica
mercimonia, vel per turpissimum genus quæstus, hoc est per fœnus
extiterit.... Hiis similis qui multiplicant quocunque modo rem." Compare
_Quadripartitus: ein Englisches Rechtsbuch von 1114_ (ed. Liebermann):
"qui, vera morum generositate carentes et honesta prosapia, longo
nummorum stemmate gloriantur, ... qui vetitum pecunie fenus exercent,
... miseram pecunie stipem, pauperum lacrimis et anxietatibus
cruentatam, omni veritatis et justicie sanctioni mentes perdite
prefecerunt et id solum sapientiam reputant quod eis obtatum pecunie
fenus quibuscunque machinationibus insusurrat" (Dedicatio, § 16, § 33).
Compare also with these Cicero (_De Officiis_, i. 42): "Jam de
artificiis et quæstibus, qui liberales habendi, qui sordidi sint, hæc
præaccepimus. Primum improbantur ii quæstus qui in odia hominum
incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut feneratorum.... Sordidi etiam putandi qui
mercantur a mercatoribus quod statim vendant. Nihil enim proficiunt nisi
admodum mentiantur."



 APPENDIX L.
 CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP.
 (See p. 124.)


As this important charter has never, I believe, been printed, I have
taken the present opportunity of publishing it _in extenso_. The grantee
must, at first, have staunchly supported Stephen, for he received in
1139, from the king, a grant of that constableship which Miles of
Gloucester had forfeited on his defection.[920] It is evident, however,
from the terms of this charter that he was jealous of Stephen's
favourite, Gualeran, Count of Meulan, and of the power which the king
had given him at Worcester. The grant of Tamworth also should be
carefully noted, because that portion of the Despencer inheritance had
fallen to the share of Marmion, which suggests that the Beauchamps and
the Marmions were at strife, and that therefore, in this struggle, they
embraced opposite sides. An intermarriage between Robert Marmion and
Maud de Beauchamp was probably, as in other cases, a compromise of the
quarrel.

 "M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia et Anglor[um] domina Archiepiscopis
 Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justic[iariis] vicecomitibus
 ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis tocius Angliæ
 salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et reddidisse Willelmo de Bellocampo
 hereditario jure Castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota sibi et heredibus
 suis ad tenendum de me in capite et heredibus meis. Dedi ei et reddidi
 vicecomitatum Wigorn[ie] et forestas cum omnibus appendiciis suis in
 feodo et hereditarie per eandem firmam quam pater eius Walterus de
 Bellocampo inde reddebat. Et de hoc devenit ipse Willelmus meus ligius
 homo contra omnes mortales et nominatim contra Gualerann[um] Comitem de
 Mellent et ita quod nec ipse Comes Gualeran[us] nec aliquis alius de
 hiis predictis mecum finem faciet quin semper ipse Willelmus de me in
 capite teneat nisi ipse bona voluntate et gratuita concessione de
 predicto Comite tenere voluerit. Et præter hoc dedi ei et reddidi
 castellum et honorem de Tamword ad tenend[um] ita bene et in pace et
 quiete et plenarie et honorifice et libere sicut unquam melius et
 quietius et plenarius et honorificentius et liberius Robertus
 Dispensator frater Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum castellum et honorem
 tenuerit. Et eciam dedi ei et reddidi Manerium de Cokeford cum omnibus
 appendiciis suis ut rectum suum sine placito. Et cum hoc dedi ei et
 reddidi Westonam et Luffenham in Roteland cum omnibus appendiciis suis
 ut rectum suum similiter sine placito. Dedi eciam ei et concessi de
 cremento lx libratas terræ de perquisitione Angl' pro servicio suo. Et
 iterum dedi ei et reddidi conestabulatum quem Urso de Abetot tenuit et
 dispensam ita hereditarie sicut Walterus pater ejus eam de patre meo H.
 Rege tenuit. Et item dedi ei et concessi terras et hereditates suorum
 proximorum parentum qui contra me fuerint in Werra mea et mecum finem
 facere non poterunt nisi de sua parentela propinquiore michi in ipsa
 Werra servierit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod de me et de
 quocunque teneat bene et honorifice in pace et hereditarie et libere et
 quiete teneat ipse Willelmus et heres suus post eum in bosco in plano
 in pratis et pasturis in forestis et fugaciis in percursibus et
 exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et piscariis in stagnis et
 mariscis et salinis et viis et semitis in foris et in feriis infra
 burgum et extra in civitate et extra et in omnibus locis cum saca et
 soka et toll et team et Infangenthef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et
 libertatibus et quietudinibus T[estibus] Ep'o Bern[ardo] de S'cto D.,
 et Nigello Ep'o de Ely, et Rob[erto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et Milon[e]
 Com[ite] He[re]ford et Brienc[io] fil[io] Com[itis] et Unfr[ido] de
 Buh[un] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Gilleb[erti] et Walkel[ino] Maminot et
 Milon[e] de Belloc[ampo] et Gaufr[edo] de Walt[er]vyll[a] et Steph[ano]
 de Belloc[ampo] et Rob[er]to de Colevill et Isnardo park[?ario]
 Gaufr[edo] de Abbetot Gilleb[erto] Arch' Nich[olao] fil[io] Isnardi.
 Apud Oxineford."

There can, I think, be little question that this charter passed at
Oxford just after that by which Miles of Gloucester was created Earl of
Hereford (July 25, 1141). It is certainly previous to the Earl of
Gloucester's departure from England in the summer of 1142, and I do not
know of any evidence for the presence of these bishops with the Empress
at Oxford after the rout of Winchester. The names of the eight first
witnesses to this charter are all found in Miles's charter (_Fœdera,
N.E._, i. 14). As to the others, Miles de Beauchamp had held his castle
of Bedford against Stephen (Christmas, 1137), and, though compelled to
surrender it, had regained it on the triumph of the Empress. Stephen de
Beauchamp heads the list of William de Beauchamp's under-tenants in his
_Carta_ (1166), and the Abetots—Heming's "Ursini"—also held of him.
"Isnardus" was a landowner in Worcestershire and witnessed a charter to
Evesham Abbey in 1130.

The text of this charter—which is taken from the Beauchamp Cartulary
(_Add. MSS._, 28,024, fol. 126 _b_), a most precious volume, of which
the existence is little known—is perhaps corrupt in places, but the
document affords several points of considerable interest. Among them are
the formula "dedi et reddidi" applied to the grantee's previous
possessions, as contrasted with the "dedi et concessi" of the new grant
(60 "librates" of land) and of the grant of his relatives' inheritance;
the reference to the hereditary shrievalty of Worcester; the allusion to
Tamworth Castle as the head of its "honour" (as at Arundel); and the
phrase "de hoc devenit ... meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales," to
be compared with "pro hiis ... devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes
homines" in the charter (1144) to Humfrey de Bohun (Pipe-Roll Society:
_Ancient Charters_, p. 46), and the "homagium suum fecit ligie contra
omnes homines" in the charter to Miles of Gloucester (see p. 56). The
statement that active opponents of the Empress were precluded from
compounding for their offence, except by special intervention, occurs, I
think, here alone. The facts that Urse de Abetot was a constable and
Walter de Beauchamp an hereditary "Dispenser" are also noteworthy, the
latter bearing on the question of the succession to Robert "Dispensator"
(see my remarks in _Ancient Charters_, p. 2).

[920] See Appendix F.



 APPENDIX M.
 THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL.
 (See p. 146.)


It is difficult to overrate the importance of the Canterbury charter to
Geoffrey in its bearing on the origin and nature of this far-famed
earldom. For centuries, antiquaries and lawyers have wrangled over this
dignity, the premier earldom of England, but its true character and
history have remained an unsolved enigma.

The popular belief that the dignity is "an earldom by tenure" and is
annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle, is based on the petitions
of John fitz Alan in 11 Hen. IV. and of Thomas Howard in 3 Car. I. This
view would be strenuously upheld, of course, by the possessors of the
castle, but neither their own _ex parte_ statements, nor even the tacit
admission of them by the Crown, can override the facts of the case as
established by the evidence of history. The problem is for us, it should
be added, of merely historical interest, as the dignity is now, and has
been since 1627, held under a special parliamentary entail created in
that year.

Even the warmest advocates of the "earldom by tenure" theory would admit
that such an anomaly was absolutely unique of its kind. The _onus_ of
proving the fact must therefore rest on them, and the presumption, to
put it mildly, is completely against them, for I do not hesitate to say
that to a student of the dignity of an earl the proposition they ask us
to accept is more than impossible: it is ludicrous.

Tierney endeavoured, with some skill, to rebut the arguments of Lord
Redesdale in the _Reports of the Lords' Committee_, but the advance of
historical research leaves them both behind. The latest words on the
subject have been spoken by Mr. Pym Yeatman, the confidence of whose
assertions and the size of whose work[921] might convey the erroneous
impression that he had solved this ancient riddle. I shall therefore
here examine his arguments in some detail, and, having disposed of his
theories, shall then discuss the facts.

An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" theory, Mr. Yeatman
has further advanced a view which is quite peculiar to himself. So far
as this view can be understood, it "dimidiates" the first earl (d.
1176), and converts him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and
a son who died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p.
281),[922] then as "probable" (p. 288),[923] lastly, as "possible" (p.
285).[924] But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for
evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our
confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to be
attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to that
conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in relation to
the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before it is rejected some
reason should be shown for doing so." Yet the only scrap of "evidence"
given us is the incidental remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is
usually assigned as that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel."
Now, this is directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us
that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), and
Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.[925] Again,
it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel "died the 3rd
(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto is the authority for
the statement that William Albini, Earl of Arundel, died the 17th
(_sic_) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the actual words of the chronicler
being given as "iv. die Octobus" (_sic_). Now, all three dates, as a
matter of fact, are wrong, though this is only introduced to show how
the laborious researches of the author are marred by a carelessness
which is fatal to his work.

Let us now turn to this argument:—

 "The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry
 known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in
 1160 by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the
 statement that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he
 too was styled Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that
 the first (_sic_) Earl of Arundel was so created[926] in 1176" (p. 284).

This argument is based on the fact that the house was "founded in 1160."
The _Monasticon_ editors indeed say that this was "about" the date, but,
unluckily, a moment's examination of the list of witnesses to the
charter shows that its date must be much later,[927] while Mr. Eyton
unhesitatingly assigns it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore,
falls to the ground.

Another point on which the author insists as of great importance is that
the first earl was never Earl of _Sussex_:—

 "The first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he
 bear that title.... His son was the first Earl of Sussex, and he would
 certainly have given his father the higher title if he ever bore it.
 Yet in confirming his charter to Wymondham, William, Earl of Sussex,
 confirms the grants of his ... father, William, the venerable Earl of
 Arundel.... An earl could not call himself the earl of a county unless
 he had a grant of it, and of this, with respect to the husband of Queen
 Adeliza, there is no evidence" (p. 282).

 "That his son was called Earl of Sussex, and that he was the first
 earl, is equally clear" (p. 282).

 "The chartulary of the Abbey of Buckenham, which the first Earl of
 Arundel founded, preserves the distinction in the titles of himself and
 his son and successor already insisted upon. It was founded _tempe_
 Stephen, and the founder is styled William, Count of Chichester.
 William, Count of Sussex, confirms the charter" (p. 284).

But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument by quoting
Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (_sic_) de Albineio filio
Willielmi Comitis de _Arundel_ [Rex] dedit comitatum de _Southsex_." For
here his own rule would require that if the late earl was, as he admits,
Earl of _Sussex_, he would not be described as Earl of _Arundel_.[928]

But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville
(1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" (evidence which does
not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive on the subject, and simply
annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts to deny to the husband of Queen
Adeliza the possession of that title.

With this there falls to the ground the argument based on that denial,
viz.:—

 "There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of,
 which proves distinctly that there was (_sic_) at least five earls, and
 probably six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12
 Henry III. which was made after the last earl of that name was dead
 three years proves that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the
 first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear
 that title," etc. (p. 282).

The above argument that the record in question proves the existence of
_five_, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. But this is by no
means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts (p. 281 _a_) that there were five
Albini Earls of Arundel in all, "if indeed there were not six of them."
Deducting the last earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us _four_ or _five_
Earl Williams in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in
the above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (_sic_) at
least _five_ earls, and probably _six_, of the name of William de
Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there must have been
_six_"!

We will now dismiss from our minds all that has been written on the
point by Mr. Yeatman and other antiquaries, and turn to the facts of the
case, which are few and beyond dispute. It is absolutely certain, from
the evidence of contemporary chronicles and charters, that the first
Albini earl, the husband of Queen Adeliza, was indifferently styled at
the time (1) Earl of Sussex, (2) Earl of Chichester, (3) Earl of
Arundel, (4) Earl William de Albini. The proofs of user of these styles
are as follows. First, he attests as Earl of Sussex the Canterbury
charter to the Earl of Essex (Christmas, 1141);[929] he also attests as
Earl of Sussex Stephen's charter to Barking Abbey, which may have passed
about the same time. As this charter is of importance for the argument,
I append the full list of witnesses as extracted by me from the Patent
Rolls:—

 "Matild[a] Regina & Will[elm]o Comite de Sudsexa, & Will[elm]o
 Mart[el], & Adam de Belum, & Rog[ero] de Fraxin[eto] & Reinald[o]
 fil[io] Comitis, & Henr[ico] de Novo Mercato, & Ric[ard]o de Valderi, &
 Godefrid[o] de Petrivilla, & Warn[erio] de Lusoris, Apud
 Berching[es].[930]

Secondly, it is as "Earl of Chichester" that he attests four
charters,[931] one of which is dated 1147, and is confirmed by King
Stephen as the grant "quod Comes Willelmus de _Arundel_ fecit;" it is
also as Earl of Chichester that he appears in the Buckenham foundation
charter,[932] and that he confirms the grants to Boxgrove.[933] As to
the two other styles no question arises.

Thus the case of the earldom of Arundel is one of special interest in
its bearing on the adoption of comital titles. For it affords, according
to the view I have advanced, an example of the use, in a single case, of
all the four possible varieties of an earl's title. These four possible
varieties are those in which the title is taken (1) from the county of
which the bearer is earl, (2) from the capital town of that county, (3)
from the earl's chief residence, (4) from his family name. Strictly
speaking, when an earl was created, it was always (whatever may be
pretended) as the earl of a particular county. The earl and his county
were essentially correlative; nor was it then possible to conceive an
earl unattached to a county. Titles, however, like surnames in that
period of transition, had not yet crystallized into a hard and fast
form, and it was deemed unnecessary, when speaking of an earl, that his
county should always be mentioned. Men spoke of "Earl Geoffrey," or of
"Geoffrey, Earl of Essex," just as they spoke of "King Henry," or of
"Henry, King of the English." If the simple "Earl Geoffrey" was not
sufficiently distinctive, they added his surname, or his residence, or
his county for the purpose of identification. The secondary importance
of this addition is the key to Norman polyonomy. The founder, for
instance, of the house of Clare was known as Richard "Fitz-Gilbert," or
"de Tunbridge," or "de Bienfaite," or "de Clare." The result of this
system, or rather want of system, was, as we might expect, in the case
of earls, that no fixed principle guided the adoption of their styles.
It was indeed a matter of haphazard which of their _cognomina_
prevailed, and survived to form the style by which their descendants
were known. Thus, the Earls of Herts and of Surrey, of Derby and of
Bucks, were usually spoken of by their family names of Clare and of
Warenne, of Ferrers and of Giffard; on the other hand the Earls of
Norfolk and of Essex, of Devon and of Cornwall, were more usually styled
by those of their counties. Where the name of the county was formed from
that of its chief town, the latter, rather than the county itself, was
adopted for the earl's style. Familiar instances are found in the
earldoms of Chester, Gloucester, and Hereford, of Lincoln, of Leicester,
and of Warwick. Rarest, perhaps, are those cases in which the earl took
his style from his chief residence, as the Earls of Pembroke(shire) from
Striguil (Chepstow), and, perhaps, of Wiltshire from Salisbury, though
here the case is a doubtful one, for "de Salisbury" was already the
surname of the family when the earldom was conferred upon it. The Earl
of Gloucester is spoken of by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester
as "Earl of Bristol" (see p. 284), and the Earls of Derby occasionally
as Earls "of Tutbury," but the most remarkable case, of course, is that
of Arundel itself. It was doubtful for a time by which style this
earldom would eventually be known, and "Sussex," under Henry II., seemed
likely to prevail. The eventual adoption of Arundel was, no doubt,
largely due to the importance of that "honour" and of the castle which
formed its "head."

Having now established that the earldom of "Arundel" was from the first
the earldom of a county, and thus similar to every other, one is led to
inquire on what ground there is claimed for it an absolutely unique and
wholly anomalous origin. I reply: on none whatever. There is nothing to
rebut the legitimate assumption that William de Albini was created an
earl in the ordinary course of things. Here, again, the facts of the
case, few and simple though they are, have been so overlaid by
assumption and by theory that it is necessary to state them anew. All
that has been hitherto really known is that Queen Adeliza married
William de Albini between King Henry's death (December, 1135) and the
landing of the Empress in the autumn of 1139, and that her husband
subsequently appears as an earl. The assertion that he became an earl on
his marriage, in virtue of his possession of Arundel Castle, is pure
assumption and nothing else.[934] I have already dwelt on the value of
the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey as evidence not only that William was
Earl "of Sussex," but also that he was already an earl at Christmas,
1141. In that charter I claim to have discovered the earliest
contemporary record mention of this famous earldom.[935] William,
therefore, became an earl between Christmas, 1135, and Christmas, 1141.
This much is certain.

The key to the problem, however, is found in another quarter. The
curious and valuable _Chronicle of the Holy Cross of Waltham_ (_Harl.
MS._, 3776) was the work of one who was acquainted—indeed, too well
acquainted—with the persons and the doings of those two nobles, Geoffrey
de Mandeville and William de Albini. His own neighbourhood became their
battleground, and when William harried Geoffrey's manors, and Geoffrey,
in revenge, fired Waltham, he was among the sufferers himself.[936] The
pictures he draws of these rival magnates are, therefore, of peculiar
interest, and his admiration for Geoffrey is so remarkable, in the face
of the earl's wild deeds, that no apology is needed for quoting the
description in full:—

 "E contra Gaufridus iste præcellens multiformi gratia, præcipuus totius
 Anglie, militia quidem præclivis, morum venustate præclarus, in
 consiliis regis et regni moderamine cunctis præminens, agebat se inter
 ceteros quasi unus ex illis, nullius probitatis suæ garrulus, nullius
 probitatis sibi collatæ vel dignitatis nimius ostensator, rei suæ
 familiaris providus dispensator, omnium virtutum communium quæ tantum
 decerent virum affluentia exuberans, si Dei gratiam diligentius
 acceptam et ceteris prelatam, diligens executor menti suæ sedulus
 imprimeret; novit populus quod non mentior, quem si laudibus extulerim,
 meritis ejus assignari potius quam gratiæ nostræ id debere credimus,
 verumptamen gratiæ divinæ de cujus munere venit quicquid boni provenit
 homini" (cap. 29).

 "Tempore igitur incendii supra memorati, dum observaret comes ille
 ecclesiam cum multis ne succenderetur, amicissimus ipse et devotus
 ecclesiæ, afflictus multo dolore quod periclitarentur res ecclesiæ (non
 tamen poterat manentibus illis injuriam sibi illatam vindicare)," etc.
 (cap. 31).

As eager to denounce the character of William as to palliate the
excesses of Geoffrey, the chronicler thus sketches the husband of Queen
Adeliza:—

 "Seditionis tempore, cum se inæqualiter agerent homines in terra
 nostra, et de pari contenderet modicus cum magno, humilis cum summo, et
 fide penitus subacta, nullo respectu habito servi ad dominum, sic
 vacillaret regnum et regni status miserabili ductore premeretur fere
 usque ad exanimationem, e vicino contendebant inter se duo de præcipuis
 terræ baronibus, Gaufridus de Mandeville, et Comes de Harundel, quem
 post discessum Regis Henrici conjugio Reginæ Adelidis contigit
 honorari, unde et superbire et supra se extolli cœpit ultra modum, ut
 [non] posset sibi pati parem, et vilesceret in oculis suis quicquid
 præcipuum præter regem in se habebat noster mundus. Habebat tunc
 temporis Willelmus ille, pincerna, nondum comes, dotem reginæ Waltham,
 contiguam terris comitis Gaufridi de Mandeville, impatiens quidem
 omnium comprovincialium terras suo dominio non mancipari.[937]

In the words "nondum comes" we find the clue we seek. If the writer had
merely abstained from giving William his title, the value of his
evidence would be slight; but when he goes, as it were, out of his way
to inform us that though William, in virtue of his marriage, was already
in possession of the queen's dower, he was "not yet an earl," he tells
us, in unmistakable language, the very thing that we want to know. It
was probably in order to accentuate his pride that his critic reminds us
that the future earl was as yet only a _pincerna_;[938] but, whatever
the motive, the fact remains, on first-hand evidence, that William was
"not yet an earl" at a time when he possessed his wife's dower, and
consequently Arundel Castle. This fact, hitherto overlooked, is
completely destructive of the time-honoured belief that he acquired the
earldom on, and by, obtaining possession of the castle.

So far, all is clear. But the question is further complicated by William
appearing in two distinct documents as earl, not of Arundel or
Chichester, but of Lincoln! That he held this title is a fact so utterly
unsuspected, and indeed so incredible, that Mr. Eyton, finding him so
styled in a cartulary of Lewes Priory, dismissed the title, without
hesitation, as an obvious error of the scribe.[939] But I have
identified in the Public Record Office the actual charter from which the
scribe worked, and the same style is there employed. Even so, error is
possible; but the evidence does not stand alone. In a cartulary of
Reading[940] we find William confirming, as Earl of Lincoln, a grant
from the queen, his wife, and here again the original charter is there
to prove that the cartulary is right.[941] The early history of the
earldom of Lincoln is already difficult enough without this additional
complication, of which I do not attempt to offer any solution.

But so far as the earldom of "Arundel" is concerned, I claim to have
established its true character, and to have shown that there is nothing
to distinguish it in its origin from the other earldoms of the day. The
erratic notion of "earldom by tenure," held when the strangest views
prevailed as to peerage dignities, was a fallacy of the _post hoc
propter hoc_ kind, based on the long connection of the castle with the
earls. Nor has Mr. Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this
earldom is "the only one of his class left" any better foundation in
fact.

[921] _The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel_ (1882).

[922] "Very certain it is that William Earl of Arundel died the 3rd
(_sic_) of October, 1176, and equally certain is it that this was the
son of the first earl."

[923] Where the earl of the Becket quarrel is described as "probably his
[the first earl's] son."

[924] "It is possible that the new earl [son of the earl who died 1176]
was the grandson of the first Earl of Arundel."

[925] Weever similarly kills him in 1176, though he wrongly assigns the
death of his father (the founder of Wymondham) to 3 Hen. II.

[926] ? created Earl of Sussex.

[927] Bishop John of Norwich, for instance, was not elected till 1175.

[928] Mr. Yeatman attempts to get over this difficulty by suggesting
that "Henry's charter to William, Earl of Arundel, styling himself [?
him] incidentally Earl of Sussex, shows that these earls bore both
titles [_i.e._ Arundel and Sussex], just as the first earl was called of
Chichester as well as of Arundel" (p. 285). But this alternative use of
Arundel and Sussex is precisely what the author denies above, in the
case of the first earl, as impossible.

[929] _Supra_, p. 143.

[930] It is not safe from the concurrence of only three witnesses to
assign this charter positively to the same period as the Canterbury one.
The grant which it records is that of the hundred of Barstable, which
Stephen offered "super altare beatæ Mariæ et beatæ Athelburgæ in
ecclesia de Berching[es] per unum cultellum" (Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m.
18).

[931] _Monasticon_, vi. 1169.

[932] _Ibid._, vi. 419.

[933] _Ibid._, vi. 645.

[934] Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him, in 1139,
as "Willelmus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz quondam reginam, quæ
habebat castellum et comitatum Harundel, quod rex Henricus dederat ei in
dote." The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeliza may probably be
accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had
settled Shropshire on her,—"uxori suæ ... comitatum Salopesberiæ dedit"
(ed. Stubbs, ii. 529),—for this would represent the forfeited
inheritance of the house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights
over Sussex. A curious incidental allusion in the _Dialogus_ (i. 7) to
"Salop, _Sudsex_, Northumberland, et Cumberland" having only come to pay
their _firmæ_ to the Crown "per incidentes aliquos casus," suggests
that, like his neighbour in Cheshire, Roger de Montgomery had palatine
rights, including the _firmæ_ of both his counties, Shropshire and
Sussex, which escheated to the Crown on the forfeiture of his heir.

[935] See p. 146.

[936] "Intra se igitur tanti viri pacis et tranquillitatis metas
excedentes et seditiose alter alterius predia vastantes contigit
Gaufridum furore exagitatum, quia succenderat Willelmus domos suas et
universam predam terræ suæ abigi fecerat villam Walthamensem succendere
nec posse domibus canonicorum parcere quia reliquis domibus erant
contigue, testimonium prohibemus qui et dampna cum ceteris sustinuimus"
(_Harl. MS._, 3776). Compare p. 222, _supra_.

[937] There is a curious incidental allusion to the possession of
Waltham by the Earl of Arundel (jure uxoris) in the _Testa de Nevill_
(p. 270 _b_). In an inquisition of John's reign we have the entry:
"Menigarus le Napier dicit quod Rex Henricus, avus [_lege_ proavus]
domini Regis feodavit antecessores suos per serjantiam de Naperie et
dicit quod _quando comes de Arundel duxit Reginam Aliciam in uxorem_
removit illud servicium et fecit inde reddere xx sol. per annum et
predictus Menigarus tenet," etc. That is, that while Waltham was in
Henry's hands, he had enfeoffed this man's predecessor by serjeanty, but
that, this tenure becoming inept when the manor passed to a private
owner, the earl substituted for it an annual money rent. Note here how
Henry provided for his widow from escheats rather than Crown demesne,
and observe the origin of the name "Napier," comparing _Testa_, p. 115:
"Robertus Napparius habet feodum unius militis de hereditate uxoris suæ
... dominus Rex perdonavit predicto Roberto et heredibus ejus per cartam
suam predictum servicium militare per unam nappam de precio iii sol. vel
per tres solidos reddendo pro precio illius nappæ." And p. 118: "Thomas
Napar tenet terram suam ... per serjantiam reddendo singulis annis unam
nappam ... et debet esse naparius domini Regis."

[938] This proves, incidentally, the fact that he had succeeded his
father in this office at the time.

[939] Speaking of the earl's confirmation of a grant by Alan de
Dunstanville to Lewes Priory, of lands at Newtimber, he writes: "This
confirmation purports to be that of William, Earl of _Lincoln_, but is
addressed to his barons and men of the honour of Arundel. The mistake of
the transcriber is obvious" (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 273).

[940] _Harl. MS._, 1708, fol. 97.

[941] _Add. Cart._, 19,586: "Ego Willelmus, Comes Lincolnie."



 APPENDIX N.
 ROBERT DE VERE.
 (See p. 128.)


This personage, who, as charters show, was in constant attendance on
Stephen, is usually, and very naturally, taken by genealogists, from Mr.
Eyton downwards, for a younger brother of Aubrey de Vere (the
chamberlain) and uncle of the first Earl of Oxford. He was, however,
quite distinct, being a son of Bernard de Vere. He owed his position to
a marriage with Adeline, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, as recorded on
the Pipe-Roll of 1130. By this marriage he became possessed of the
honour of Haughley ("Haganet"), and with it (it is important to observe)
of the office of constable, in which capacity he figures among the
witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (1136). In conjunction with
his wife he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks
Horton. They were succeeded, in their tenure of the honour, by the
well-known Henry of Essex, who thus became constable in his turn. As
supporting this view that the honour carried the constableship,
attention may be drawn to its _compotus_ as "Honor Constabularie" in
1189-90 (_Rot. Pip._, 1 Ric. I., pp. 14, 15), just before that of the
"Terra que fuit Henrici de Essex." It is therefore worth consideration
whether Robert de Montfort, general to William Rufus—"strator Normannici
exercitus hereditario jure"—may not have really held the post of
constable.

The history of the Montfort fief in Kent is of interest from the
Conquest downwards owing to its inclusion of Saltwood and other estates
claimed by the Archbishops of Canterbury.[942] Dugdale is terribly at
sea in his account of the Montfort descent, wrongly affiliating the
Warwickshire Thurstan (ancestor of the Lords Montfort) to the Kentish
house, and confusing his generations wholesale (especially in the case
of Adeline, wife of William de Breteuil).

The fact that Henry of Essex was appealed of treason and defeated in the
trial by battle by a Robert de Montfort (1163), suggests that a grudge
on the part of a descendant of the dispossessed line against himself as
possessor of their fief may have been at the bottom of this somewhat
mysterious affair.

       *       *       *       *       *

 NOTE.—Since the above was in type, there has appeared (_Rot. Pip._, 15
 Hen. II., p. 111) a most valuable _compotus_ of the 'Honor
 Constabularie' (with a misleading head-line) for 1169, proving that
 Gilbert de Gant had held it, at one time, under Stephen, and had
 alienated nearly a third of it.

[942] Saltwood was granted by the Conqueror to Hugh de Montfort, was
recovered by Lanfranc in the great _placitum_ on Pennenden Heath, was
thereafter held by the Montforts from the archbishop as two knights'
fees, was so held by Henry of Essex as their successor, was seized by
the Crown upon his forfeiture, was persistently claimed by Becket, and
was finally restored to the see by Richard I.



 APPENDIX O.
 "TOWER AND CASTLE."
 (See p. 149.)


The description of the Tower by the Empress, in her charter, as "turris
Londonie cum parvo castello quod fuit Ravengeri," and its similar
description in Stephen's charter as "turris Lond[oniæ] cum castello quod
ei subest," though at first sight singular and obscure, are fraught,
when explained, with interest and importance in their bearing on
military architecture.

It will be found, on reference to the charter granted to Aubrey de Vere
(p. 180), that the Empress gives him Colchester Castle as "turrim et
castellum de Colcestr[a]," a grant confirmed by her son as that of
"turrim de Colcestr[a] et castellum" (p. 185 _n._), and, in later days,
by Henry VIII., as "Castrum et turrim de Colcestr[a]."[943] Further, in
the charter to William de Beauchamp (p. 313), we find Worcester Castle
described as "castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota," Hereford Castle being
similarly described in the charter granted at the same time to Miles de
Gloucester as "motam Hereford cum toto castello." Before proceeding to
the inferences to be drawn from these expressions, it may be as well to
strengthen them by other parallel examples. Taking first the case of
Colchester, we turn to a charter of Henry I., granted to his favourite,
Eudo Dapifer, at the Christmas court of 1101,[944] in which Colchester
Castle is similarly described:—

 "Henricus Rex Angliæ Mauricio Lond. Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda et
 omnibus baronibus suis Anglis et Francis de Essex salutem. Sciatis me
 dedisse benigne et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Civitatem
 de Colecestrâ et _turrim et castellum_ et omnes ejusdem civitatis
 firmitates Cum omnibus quæ ad illam pertinent sicut pater meus et
 frater et ego eam melius habuimus et cum omnibus consuetudinibus illis
 quas pater meus et frater et ego in eâ unquam habuimus. Et hæc
 concessio facta fuit apud Westmonaster in primo natali post concordiam
 Roberti comitis fratris mei de me et de illo.

 "T. Rob. Ep. Lincoln et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Rob. Com. de
 Mellent. et Henr. Com. fr. ejus et Roger Bigoto et Gisleberti fil.
 Richard et Rob. fil. Baldwin et Ric. fratr. ejus."[945]

Turning to Hereford, we find its description as "mota cum toto castello"
recurring in the confirmation by Henry II. and the recital of that
confirmation by John.[946] There is another example sufficiently
important to deserve separate treatment. This is that of Gloucester.

We find that, in 1137, "Milo constabularius Glocestrie" granted to the
canons of "Llanthony the Second"

 "Tota oblatio custodum _turris et castelli_ et Baronum ibi
 commorantium."[947]

Here again the correctness of the description is fortunately confirmed
by subsequent evidence; for John recites (April 28, 1200) a charter of
his father, Henry II. (which is assigned by Mr. Eyton to the spring of
1155), granting to Miles's son, Roger, Earl of Hereford,

 "custodiam _turris Gloc' cum toto castello_," etc., etc.... "per eandem
 firmam quam reddere solebat comes Milo pater ejus tempore H. R. avi
 mei;"[948]

while Robert of Torigny speaks, independently, of "discordia quæ erat
inter regem Anglorum Henricum et Rogerium, filium Milonis de
Gloecestria, propter _turrim_ Gloecestrie."[949] The "tower" of
Gloucester is also referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156,[950] and in the
Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey.[951] The importance of its mention lies
in the fact that it establishes the character of Gloucester Castle, and
proves that what the leading authority has written on the subject is
entirely erroneous. Mr. G. T. Clark, in his great work on our castles,
refers thus to Gloucester:—

 "The castle of Gloucester ... was the base of all extended operations
 in South Wales. Here the kings of England often held their court, and
 here their troops were mustered. Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester,
 _but his mound has long been removed, and with it all traces of the
 Norman building_."[952]

In another place he goes further still:—

 "Gloucester, a royal castle, stood on the Severn bank, at one angle of
 the Roman city. _It had a mound and a shell-keep, now utterly
 levelled_, and the site partially built over. It was the muster-place
 and starting-point for expeditions against South Wales, and the not
 infrequent residence of the Norman sovereigns."[953]

It may seem rash, in the teeth of these assertions, to maintain that
this mound and its shell-keep are alike imaginary, but the word "turris"
proves the fact. For, as Mr. Clark himself observes with perfect truth,

 "in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou (1153) the
 distinction is drawn between '_Turris_ Londinensis et _Mota_ de
 Windesorâ,' London having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a
 shell-keep upon a mound."[954]

So the keep of Gloucester, being a "turris" and not a "mota," was
clearly "a square tower" and not "a shell-keep upon a mound." The fact
is that Mr. Clark's assertions would seem to be a guess based on the
hypothesis, itself (as could be shown) untenable, that "Brichtric had a
castle at Gloucester." Assuming from this the existence of a mound, he
must further have assumed that the Normans had crowned it, as elsewhere,
with a shell-keep. But the true character of this great fortress is now
determined.

Two examples of the double style shall now be adduced from castles
outside England. In Normandy we have an entry, in 1180, referring to
expenditure "in operationibus domorum _turris et castri_," etc., at
Caen;[955] in Ireland the grant of Dublin Castle to Hugh de Laci (1172)
is thus related in the so-called poem of Matthew Regan (ll. 2713-2716):—

  "Li riche rei ad dune baillé
  Dyvelin en garde la cité
  _E la chastel e le dongun_
  A Huge de Laci le barun."

The phrase, it will be seen, corresponds exactly with those
employed to describe the castles of Carlisle and Appleby, at the
same period:—

  "Mès voist au rei Henri, si face sa clamur
  Que jo tieng Carduil, _le chastel e la tur_."
  "Li reis out ubblié par itant sa dolur
  Quant avait Appelbi, _le chastel e la tur_."[956]

Having thus established the use of the phrase, let us now pass to its
origin.

I would urge that it possesses the peculiar value of a genuine
transition form. It preserves for us, as such, the essential fact that
there went to the making of the mediæval "castle" two distinct factors,
two factors which coalesced so early that the original distinction
between them was already being rapidly forgotten, and is only to be
detected in the faint echoes of this "transition form."

The two factors to which I refer were the Roman _castrum_ or _castellum_
and the mediæval "motte" or "tour." The former survived in the
_fortified enclosure_; the latter, in the _central keep_. The Latin word
_castellum_ (corresponding with the Welsh _caer_) continued to be
regularly used as descriptive of a fortified enclosure, whether
surrounded by walls or earthworks.[957] It is singular how much
confusion has resulted from the overlooking of this simple fact and the
retrospective application of the denotation of the later "castle." Thus
Theodore, in the seventh century, styles the Bishop of Rochester,
"Episcopus _Castelli_ Cantuariorum, _quod dicitur Hrofesceaster_"
(_Bæda_, iv. 5); and Mr. Clark gives several instances, from the eighth
and ninth centuries, in which Rochester is alternatively styled a
"civitas" and a "castellum."[958] So again, in the ninth century, where
the chroniclers, in 876 A.D., describe how "bestæl se here into Werham,"
etc., Asser and Florence paraphrase the statement by saying that the
host "_castellum quod dicitur Werham_ intravit." Now, it is obvious that
there could be no "castle" at Wareham in 876, and that even if there had
been, an "army" could not have entered it. But when we bear in mind the
true meaning of "castellum," at once all is clear. As Professor Freeman
observes, "Wareham is a fortified town."[959] Its famous and ancient
defences are thus described by Mr. Clark:—

 "In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards,
 the north face 650 yards.... The outline of this rectangular figure is
 an earthwork, within which the town was built."[960]

Such then was the nature of the "castellum," within which the host took
shelter.[961] Passing now to a different instance, we find the Greek
κώμη ("a village") represented by "castellum" in the Latin Gospels
(Matt. xxi. 2), and this actually Englished as "castel" in the English
Gospels of 1000 A.D.[962] Here again, confusion has resulted from a
misunderstanding.

As against the _castellum_, the fortified enclosure, we have a new and
distinct type of fortress, the outcome of a different state of society,
in the single "motte" or "tour." I shall not here enter into the
controversy as to the relation between these two forms, my space being
too limited. For the present, we need only consider the "motte" (_mota_)
as a mound (_agger_) crowned by a stronghold (whether of timber or
masonry), but _not_, as Mr. Clark has clearly shown, "crowned with the
square donjon," as so strangely imagined by Mr. Freeman.[963] In the
"tour" (_turris_) we have, of course, the familiar keep of masonry,
rectangular in form, and independent of a mound.

The process, then, that we are about to trace is that by which the
"motte" or "tour" coalesced with the _castellum_, and by which, from
this combination, there was evolved the later "castle." For my theory
amounts to this: in the mediæval fortress, the keep and the _castellum_
were elements different in origin, and, for a time, looked upon as
distinct. It was impossible that the compound fortress, the result of
their combination, should long retain a compound name: there must be one
name for the entire fortress, either "tour" (_turris_) or "chastel"
(_castellum_). Which was to prevail?

This question may have been decided by either of two considerations. On
the one hand, the relative importance of the two factors in the fortress
may have determined the ultimate form of its style; on the other—and
this, perhaps, is the more probable explanation—the older of the two
factors may have given its name to the whole. For sometimes the keep was
added to the "castle," and sometimes the "castle" to the keep. The
former development is the more familiar, and three striking instances in
point will occur below. For the present I will only quote a passage from
Robert de Torigny, to whom we are specially indebted for evidence on
military architecture:—

 (1123) "Henricus rex ... turrem nihilominus excelsam fecit in castello
 Cadomensi, et murum ipsius castelli, quem pater suus fecerat, in altum
 crevit.... Item castellum quod vocatur Archas, turre et mœnibus
 mirabiliter firmavit.... Turrem Vernonis similiter fecit."[964]

More interesting for us is the other case, that in which the "castle"
was added to the keep, because it is that of the respective strongholds
in the capitals of Normandy and of England. The "Tower of Rouen" and the
"Tower of London"—for such were their well-known names—were both older
than their surrounding wards (_castra_ or _castella_). William Rufus
built a wall "circa turrim Londoniæ" (_Henry of Huntingdon_):[965] his
brother and successor built a wall "circa turrim Rothomagi."[966] The
former enclosed what is now known as "the Inner Ward" of the Tower,[967]
the "parvum castellum" of Maud's charter.[968]

Of "the Tower of Rouen" I could say much. Perhaps its earliest undoubted
mention is in or about 1078 (the exact date is doubtful), when Robert
"Courthose," revolting from his father "Rotomagum expetiit, et _arcem
regiam_ furtim præoccupare sategit. Verum Rogerius de Iberico ... qui
turrim custodiebat ... diligenter arcem præmunivit," Ordericus here, as
often, using _turris_ and _arx_ interchangeably.[969] Passing over other
notices of this stronghold, we come in 1090 to one of those tragic deeds
by which its history was destined to be stained.[970] Mr. Freeman has
told the tale of Conan's attempt and doom.[971] The duke, who was
occupying the Tower, left it at the height of the struggle,[972] but on
the triumph of his party, and the capture of Conan, the prisoner was
claimed by Henry for his prey and was led by him to an upper story of
the Tower.[973] At this point I pause to discuss the actual scene of the
tragedy. Mr. Freeman writes as follows:—

 "Conan himself was led into the castle, and there Henry took him....
 The Ætheling led his victim up through the several stages of the
 loftiest tower of the castle," etc., etc.[974]

Here the writer misses the whole point of the topography. The scene of
Conan's death was no mere "tower of the castle," but "_the_ Tower," the
Tower of Rouen—_Rotomagensis turris_, as William here terms it. He fails
to realize that the Tower of Rouen held a similar position to the Tower
of London. Thus, in 1098, when Helias of Le Mans was taken prisoner, we
read that "Rotomagum usque productus, in arce ipsius civitatis in
vincula conjectus est" (_Vetera Analecta_), which Wace renders:—

  "Li reis à Roem l'enveia
  E garder le recomenda
  En la tour le rova garder."

Again, even in the next reign, a royal charter, assigned by Mr. Eyton to
1114-15, is tested, not at the "castle" of Rouen, but "in _turre_
Rothomagensi."[975] And so, two reigns after that, a century later than
Conan's death, we find the _custodes_ of "the Tower of Rouen" entered in
the Exchequer Rolls, where it is repeatedly styled "turris."

Thus at Rouen, as at London, the "Tower" not only preserved its name,
but ultimately imposed it on the whole fortress. And precisely as the
Tower of London is mentioned in 1141 by the transition style of "turris
Londoniæ cum castello," so in 1146 we find Duke Geoffrey repairing
"sartatecta turris Rothomagensis et castelli," after it fell into his
hands.[976]

Here then we have at length the explanation of a difficulty often
raised. Why is "the Tower of London" so styled?[977] And although, in
England, the style may now be unique, men spoke in the days of which I
write of the "Tower" of Bristol or of Rochester as of the Tower of
Gloucester.[978] Abroad, the form was more persistent, and
special attention may be drawn to the Tower of Le Mans ("Turris
Cenomannica),"[979] because the expression "regia turris" which
Ordericus applies to it is precisely that which Florence of Worcester
applies, in 1114, to the Tower of London, to which it bore an affinity
in its relation to the Roman Wall.[980]

All that I have said of the "turris" keep is applicable to the "mota"
also, _mutatis mutandis_, for the _motte_, though its name was
occasionally extended to the whole fortress, was essentially the actual
keep, the crowned mound, as is well brought out in the passages quoted
by Mr. Clark from French charters:—

 "Le motte _et les fossez d'entour_ ... le motte de Maiex ... le motte
 de mon manoir de Caieux _et les fossez d'entour_."[981]

Here the "fossez d'entour" represent the surrounding works, the
"castellum" referred to in the charters of the Empress. But between "the
right to hold a moot there," "the moat (_sic_) and castle" as Mr. Hallam
rendered it, "the moat (_sic_) probably the _motte_" of Mr. Clark (ii.
112), and the clever evasion "mote" in the _Reports on the Dignity of a
Peer_ (_Third Report_, p. 163), the unfortunate "mota" of Hereford has
had a singular fate.

       *       *       *       *       *

And now for the results of those conclusions that I have here
endeavoured to set forth. The three castles to which I shall apply them
are those of Rochester, of Newcastle, and of Arques.

In an elaborate article on the keep of Rochester, Mr. Hartshorne showed
that it was erected, not as was believed by Gundulf, but by Archbishop
William of Corbeuil,[982] between 1126 and 1139. But he did not attempt
to explain what was the "castle of stone" which Gundulf is recorded to
have there constructed. As everything turns on the exact wording, I here
give the relevant portions of the document in point: —

 "Quomodo Willelmus Rex filius Willelmi Regis rogatu Lanfranci
 Archiepiscopi concessit et confirmavit Rofensi ecclesiæ S. Andreæ
 Apostoli ad victum Monachorum manerium nomine Hedenham; quare Gundulfus
 Episcopus _Castrum_ Rofense _lapideum_ totum de suo proprio Regi
 construxit.

 "Gundulfus ... illis contulit beneficium ... _castrum_ etenim, quod
 situm est in pulchriore parte Hrovecestræ.... Regi consuluerunt [duo
 amici] quatinus ... Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentarii plurimum sciens
 et efficax erat, _castrum_ sibi Hrofense _lapideum_ de suo
 construeret.... Dixerunt [Archiepiscopus et Episcopus] ...
 quotiescunque quidlibet ex infortunio aliquo casu in _castro_ illo
 contingeret aut infractione muri aut fissura maceriei, id protinus ...
 exigeretur.... Hoc pacto coram Rege inito fecit _castrum_ Gundulfus
 Episcopus de suo ex integro totum, costamine, ut reor, lx
 librarum."[983]

Though _castrum_ is the term used throughout, Mr. Parker in his essay on
_The Buildings of Gundulph_, 1863, assumed that a _tower_ must be meant,
and wrote of "Gundulf's tower" in the Cathedral: "This is probably the
tower which Gundulph is recorded to have built at the cost of £60."[984]
So too, Mr. Clark wrote:—

 "As to his architectural skill and his work at Rochester Castle, ...
 the bishop [was] to employ his skill, and spend £60 in building a
 castle, _that is, a tower_ of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built
 is the tower which still bears his name.... It may be that Gundulf's
 tower was removed to make way for the new keep, but in this case its
 materials would have been made use of, and some trace of them would be
 almost certain to be detected. But there is no such trace, so that
 probably the new keep did not supersede the other tower."[985]

Mr. Freeman guardedly observes:—

 "The noble tower raised in the next age by Archbishop Walter (_sic_) of
 Corbeuil ... had perhaps not even a forerunner of its own class.

 "Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present tower of Rochester
 was not built by Gundulf, but by William of Corbeuil.... But we have
 seen (see _N. C._, vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did build a stone
 castle at Rochester for William Rufus ('castrum Hrofense lapidum'
 [_sic_]), and we should most naturally look for it on the site of the
 later one. On the other hand, there is a tower seemingly of Gundulf's
 building and of a military rather than an ecclesiastical look, which is
 now almost swallowed up between the transepts of the cathedral. But it
 would be strange if a tower built for the king stood in the middle of
 the monastic precinct."[986]

Thus the problem is left unsolved by all four writers. But the true
interpretation of _castrum_, as established by me above, solves it at
once. For just as William of Corbeuil is recorded to have built the
"turris" or rectangular keep,[987] so Gundulf is described as
constructing the _castrum_ or fortified enclosure.[988] We must look,
therefore, for his work in the wall that girt it round. And there we
find it. Mr. Clark himself is witness to the fact:—

 "Part of the curtain of the _enceinte_ of Rochester Castle may also be
 Gundulph's work. The south wall looks very early, as does the east
 wall."[989]

But Mr. Irvine had already, in 1874, pointed out, in a brief but
valuable communication, that a distinctive peculiarity of Gundulf's
work—the absence of plinth to his buttresses—is found "in the castle
wall at Rochester (also his)."[990] Thus, it will be seen, the character
of the work independently confirms my own conclusion.

Some confusion, it may be well to add, has been caused by such forms as
"castellum Hrofi" and "castrum quod nominatur Hrofesceaster." In these
early forms (as in some other cases), "castrum" denotes the whole of
Rochester, girt by its Roman wall, and not (as Mr. Hartshorne assumed
throughout) the castle enclosure. Mr. Clark leaves the point in
doubt.[991]

Before leaving Rochester, I would point out that, unlike the rest of
Gundulf's work, this _castrum_ can be closely dated. The conjunction of
Lanfranc and William Rufus, in the story of its building, limits it to
September, 1087-March, 1089, while Odo's rebellion would probably
postpone its construction till his surrender. It is most unfortunate,
therefore, that Mr. Clark should write, "This transaction between the
bishop and the king occurred about 1076,"[992] when neither Gundulf was
bishop nor William king.

       *       *       *       *       *

To the case of Newcastle and its keep, I invite special attention,
because we have here the tacit admission of Mr. Clark himself that he
has antedated, incredible though it may seem, by more than ninety years
the erection of this famous keep. To prove this, it is only necessary to
print his own conclusions side by side:—

 (1080.)

 "Of this masonry there is but little which can be referred to the reign
 of the Conqueror or William Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh century. Of
 that period are certainly (_sic_) ... the keeps of Chester, ... and
 Newcastle, though this last looks later than its recorded (_sic_)
 date.... Carlisle ... received from Rufus a castle and a keep, now
 standing; and Newcastle, similarly provided in 1080, also retains its
 keep.... The castle of Newcastle ... was built by Robert Curthose in
 1080, and is a very perfect example of a rectangular Norman keep.
 Newcastle, built in 1080, has very many chambers" (_Mediæval Military
 Architecture_, 1884, i. 40, 49, 94, 128).

 (1172-74.)

 "Newcastle is an excellent example of a rectangular Norman keep.

 "Its condition is perfect, its date known (_sic_), and being late
 (1172-74) in its style, it is more ornate than is usual in its details,
 and is furnished with all the peculiarities of a late (_sic_) Norman
 work.

 "The present castle is an excellent example of the later (_sic_) form
 of the rectangular Norman keep.... Newcastle has its fellow in the keep
 of Dover, known to have been the work of Henry the Second"
 (_Archæological Journal_, 1884).

The origin, of course, of the astounding error by which "the great
master of military architecture" misdated this keep by nearly a
century,[993] and took an essentially late work for one of the earliest
in existence, was the same fatal delusion that _castrum_ or _castellum_
meant precisely what it did not mean, namely, a tower. "Castellum novum
super flumen Tyne condidit" is the expression applied to Robert's work
in 1080, and the absence of a "tower" explains the fact that Fantosme
makes no mention of a "tur" when describing "Le Noef Chasteau sur Tyne,"
the existing keep not being available at the time of which he wrote.

       *       *       *       *       *

We now come to our last case, that of the Château d'Arques.

"Arques," writes Mr. Clark, "is one of the earliest examples of a Norman
castle."[994] It is, Mr. Freeman holds, "a fortress which is undoubtedly
one of the earliest and most important in the history of Norman military
architecture."[995] No apology, therefore, is needed for discussing the
date of this celebrated structure, so long a subject of interest and of
study both to English and to French archæologists.

As at Colchester and in other places, the very wildest theories have
been generally advanced, and archæologists have only gradually sobered
down till they have virtually agreed upon a date for this keep which is
actually, I venture to think, less than a century wrong.

In his noble monograph upon the fortress, the basis of all subsequent
accounts,[996] M. Deville enumerates, with contemptuous amusement (pp.
49, 268-272), the rival theories that it was built (1) by the Romans;
(2) by "Clotaire I." in 553—the date 1553 on one of the additions for
the structure having actually been so read; (3) by "Charles Martel" in
745, 747, or 749 (on the strength of another reading of the same date,
confirmed by a carving of his coat-of-arms)—these being the dates given
by Houard and Toussaint-Duplessis. At the time when Deville himself
wrote the study of castles was still in its infancy, and of the two
sources of evidence now open to us, the internal (that of the structure
itself) and the external (that of chronicles and records), the latter
alone was ripe for use. Now, at Arques, precisely as at our own
Rochester, the written evidence has hitherto appeared conflicting to
archæologists, but only because the language employed has never yet been
rightly understood. On the one hand we read in William of Jumièges, an
excellent authority in the matter, that "Hic Willelmus [the Conqueror's
uncle] castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit;" and in the
_Chronicle of Fontenelle_, that this same William "Arcas castrum in pago
Tellau primus statuit;" also, in William of Poitiers, that "id
munimentum ... ipse primus fundavit:" on the other, we read in Robert du
Mont, a first-rate and contemporary authority, who may indeed be termed
a specialist on the subject, that "Anno MCXXIII. castellum quod vocatur
Archas turre et mœnibus mirabiliter firmavit [Rex Henricus]."[997]

M. de Caumont, that industrious pioneer, whose work appeared four years
before that of M. Deville, boldly followed Robert du Mont, and
confidently assigned the existing keep to 1123.[998] Guided, however, by
M. Le Prévost (1824), he held that the original structure was raised by
the Conqueror's uncle, and that Henry I. merely "fit _re_construire en
entier le donjon et une partie des murs d'enceinte." M. Deville, on the
contrary, in his eager zeal for the honour and glory of the castle,
stoutly maintained that, keep and all, it was clearly Count William's
work. He admitted that his Norman brother-antiquaries assigned it to
Henry I., but urged that they had overlooked the evidence of the
structure, and its resemblance to English keeps assigned (but, as we now
know, wrongly) to the eleventh century, or earlier;[999] and that they
had misunderstood the passage in Robert du Mont, which must have
referred to mere alterations. In order thus to explain it away, he
contends (and this contention Mr. Clark strangely accepts) that Robert
says the same—which he does not—of "Gisors, Falaise, and other castles
known"—which they are not[1000]—"to be of earlier date" (_M. M. A._, i.
194). Lastly, he appeals, though with an apology for doing so ("s'il
nous était permis d'invoquer à l'appui de notre opinion"), to the far
later "Chronique de Normandie" for actual evidence, elsewhere wanting,
that the keep itself (_turris_) was built by William of Arques,[1001]
that is, in 1039-1043.[1002]

"I went over the castle minutely," Professor Freeman writes, "in May,
1868, with M. Deville's book in hand, and can bear witness to the
accuracy of his description, though I cannot always accept his
inferences" (_N. C._, iii. 124, _note_). He accordingly doubts M.
Deville's date for the gateway and walls of the inner ward, but sees "no
reason to doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work"
(_ibid._). We must remember, however, that the Professor is at direct
variance with Mr. Clark on the Norman rectangular keeps, for which he
claims an earlier origin than the latter can concede.

Turning now to Mr. Clark himself, we learn from him that—

 "it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part of the masonry, and
 the work of the Conqueror's uncle, Guillaume d'Arques, and it is
 supposed to be one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the
 rectangular keeps known" (_M. M. A._, i. 194).

He adds that the passage in Robert du Mont

 "has been held to show that the whole structure was the work of Henry,
 who reigned from 1105 (_sic_) to 1135, and the extreme boldness of the
 buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt favour
 this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage, similar
 reference is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known to be of
 earlier date" (_ibid._).

To resume. The external or written evidence is as follows. On the one
hand, we have the clear and positive statement of a contemporary writer,
Robert du Mont, that Henry I. built this keep in 1123. On the other, we
have no statement from any contemporary that it was built by William of
Arques (in 1039-1043). He is merely credited with founding the
_castellum_, and in none of the contemporary accounts of its blockade
and capture by his nephew is there any mention of a _turris_. The
distinction between a _castellum_ and a _turris_, with their respective
independence, has not, as I have shown, hitherto been realized, and it
is quite in the spirit of older students that M. Deville confidently
exclaims—

 "Or, conçoit-on un château-fort sans murailles? Un château-fort sans
 donjon, dans le cours du XIᵉ siècle, en Normandie, n'est guère plus
 rationnel" (p. 310).

As to the "murailles," Mr. Clark has taught us that palisades were not
replaced by walls till a good deal later than has been usually supposed;
and as to the "donjon," if, as I have established, so important a
fortress as Rochester was without a keep in the eleventh, and indeed
well into the twelfth century, other _castella_ must have been similarly
destitute—probably, for instance, Newcastle, as we have seen, and
certainly Exeter, of which Mr. Clark writes: "There is no evidence of a
keep, nor, at so great a height, was any needed" (_M. M. A._, ii. 47).
The same argument from strength of position would _à fortiori_ apply to
Arques, and there is, in short, no reason for doubting that the
_castrum_ of William of Arques need not have included a _turris_.[1003]

On what, then, rests the assertion that the keep was the work of the
Conqueror's uncle? Strange as it may seem, it rests solely on the
so-called _Chronique de Normandie_, an anonymous production, not of the
eleventh, but of the fourteenth century! "Si fist faire une tour moult
forte audessus du chastel d'Arques," runs the passage, which is quoted
by Mr. Clark (i. 194), from Deville (pp. 311, 312), who, however,
apologized for appealing to that authority. This "Chronique" is admitted
to have been based on the poetical histories of Wace and Benoit de St.
More, themselves written several generations later than the alleged
erection of this keep. Of the former, Mr. Freeman holds that, except
where repeating contemporary authorities, "his statements need to be
very carefully weighed" (_N. C._, ii. 162); and of the latter, that he
is "of much smaller historical authority" (_ibid._). To this I may add
that, in my opinion, Wace, writing as he did in the reign of Henry II.,
at the close of the great tower-building epoch, spoke loosely of towers,
when mentioning castles, as if they had been equally common in the reign
of the Conqueror. A careful inspection of his poem will be found to
verify this statement. "La tur d'Arques" was standing when he wrote:
consequently he talks of "La tur d'Arques" when describing the
Conqueror's blockade of the castle in 1053. There is no contemporary
authority for its existence at that date.[1004]

And now let us pass from documentary evidence to that of the structure
itself. We may call Mr. Clark himself to witness that the presumption is
against so early a date as 1039-1043. He tells us, of the rectangular
keep in general, that—

 "not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have
 been constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh
 century, and but very few, if any, before the English conquest" (i. 35).

Therefore, on Mr. Clark's own showing, we ought to ask for conclusive
evidence before admitting that any rectangular keep is as old as
1039-1043. But what was the impression produced on him by an inspection
of the structure itself? This is a most significant fact. While
rejecting, apparently on what he believed to be documentary evidence,
the theory that the keep (_turris_) was the work of Henry I., he
confessed that the features of the building "no doubt favour this view"
(i. 194, _ut supra_).

But leaving, for the present, Mr. Clark's views, to which I shall return
below, I take my stand without hesitation on certain features in this
keep. It is not needful to visit Arques—I have myself never done so—to
appreciate their true significance and their bearing on the question of
the date. The first of these is the forebuilding. Mr. Clark tells us
that Arques possesses "the usual square appendage or forebuilding common
in these keeps" (_M. M. A._, i. 198). But this unscientific treatment of
the forebuilding, ignoring so completely its origin and development,
cannot too strongly be resisted. Restricting ourselves to the case
before us, we at once observe the peculiarity of an external staircase,
not only leading up to a forebuilding, through which the keep is
entered, but actually carried, through a massive buttress, round an
angle of the keep.[1005] Rochester being believed to be the work of
Gundulf, in the days when M. Deville wrote, it was natural that he
should have supposed "cette savante combinaison" to have been familiar
to Gundulf (p. 299). But now that, on these points, we are better
informed, let us ask where can Mr. Clark produce an instance of this
elaborate and striking device as old even as the days of Gundulf, to say
nothing of those of Count William (1039-1043)? Where we do find it is in
such keeps as Dover, the work of Henry II., or Rochester, where the
resemblance is even more remarkable. Now, Rochester, as we know, was
actually built within a few years of the date given by Robert du Mont,
and upheld by me, as that of the construction of Arques. Oddly enough,
it is Mr. Clark himself who thus points out another resemblance:—

 "In the basement of the forebuilding ... was a vaulted chamber, opening
 into the basement of the keep, _as at Rochester_, either a store or
 prison" (_M. M. A._, p. 188).

Lastly, both at Arques and at Rochester, we find on the first floor,
near the entrance, the very peculiar feature of a smaller doorway
communicating with the rampart of the curtain.[1006] This parallel,
which is not alluded to by Mr. Clark, is the more remarkable, as such a
device is foreign to the earlier rectangular keeps, and also implies
that the keep must have been built certainly no earlier, and possibly
later, than the curtain, which curtain, Mr. Clark, as we shall find,
admits, cannot be so old as the days of Count William.

No one, in short, unbiassed by supposed documentary evidence, could
study this keep, with its "petites galeries avec d'autres petites
chambres ou prisons pratiquées dans l'épaisseur des murs"[1007] (as at
Rochester), with the elaborate defences of its entrance, and with those
other special features which made even Mr. Clark uneasy, without
rejecting as incredible the accepted view that it was built by Count
William of Arques (1039-1043). And this being so, there is, admittedly,
no alternative left but to assign it to Henry I. (1123), the date
specifically given by Robert du Mont himself.

But, it may be urged, though there is nothing improbable in Mr. Freeman
being wrong, is it conceivable that so unrivalled an expert as Mr. Clark
himself can have mistaken a keep of 1123 for one of 1039-1043, when we
remember the wonderful development of these structures in the course of
those eighty years? To this objection, I fear, there is a singularly
complete answer in the case of Newcastle, where, as we have seen, he was
led by the same misconception into no less amazing an error.[1008]

In short, the view I have brought forward as to the separate existence
of "tower" and "castle" may be said, from these examples, to
revolutionize the study of Norman military architecture.

[943] _Fœdera_ (O.E.), xiii. 251. See p. 179.

[944] The internal evidence determines its date.

[945] "Collectanea quædam eorum quæ ad Historiam illustrandam conducunt
selecta ex Registro MSS. sive breviario Monasterii sancti Johannis
Baptistæ Colecestriæ collecto (_sic_) a Joh. Hadlege spectante Johanni
Lucas armigero. Anno Domini, 1633" (_Harl. MS._, 312, fol. 92). This
charter (which, being in MS., was unknown, of course, to Prof. Freeman)
has also an incidental value for its evidence on the Clare pedigree,
Gilbert, Robert, and Richard, the witnesses, being all grandsons of
Count Gilbert, the progenitor of the house. Among the documents in the
_Monasticon_ relating to Bec, we find mention of "Emmæ uxoris Baldewini
filii Comitis Gilberti et filiorum ejus Roberti et Ricardi," which
singularly confirms the accuracy of this charter and its list of
witnesses. This is worth noting, because the charter is curious in form,
and has been described as having "a suspicious ring." It is also found
in (Morant's) transcript of the Colchester cartulary (_Stowe MSS._).

[946] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6.

[947] _Mon. Ang._ (1661), ii. 66 _b_.

[948] _Cart._, 1 John, m. 6 (printed in Appendix 5 to _Lords' Reports on
Dignity of a Peer_, pp. 4, 5).

[949] Ed. Howlett, p. 184.

[950] "In operibus Turris de Gloec' vii _li._ vi _s._ ii _d._"
(Pipe-Roll, 2 Hen. II., p. 78).

[951] Henry I. gave land to the abbey (1109) "in escambium pro placia
ubi nunc turris stat Gloecestrie" (i. 59).

[952] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 108.

[953] _Ibid._, i. 79.

[954] _Ibid._, i. 29 (cf. "Mota de Hereford"—_Rot. Pip._, 15 Hen. II.,
p. 140).

[955] _Rotuli scaccarii Normanniæ_ (ed. Stapleton), i. 56. The "turris"
had been added by Henry I. (_vide infra_, p. 333). With the above entry
may be compared the phrase in one of Richard's despatches
(1198)—"castrum cepimus cum turre" (_R. Howden_, iv. 58); also the
expression, "tunc etiam comes turrem et castellum funditus evertit,"
applied to Geoffrey's action at Montreuil (_circ._ 1152) by Robert de
Torigny (ed. Howlett, p. 159).

[956] _Chronique de Jordan Fantosme_ (ed. Howlett), ll. 1423, 1424,
1469, 1470.

[957] It is even applied by Giraldus Cambrensis to the turf entrenchment
thrown up by Arnulf de Montgomery at Pembroke.

[958] _M. M. A._, ii. 420.

[959] _English Towns and Districts_, p. 152.

[960] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 514.

[961] There is a strange use of "castellum," apparently in this sense,
in William of Malmesbury's version (ii. 119) of Godwine's speech on the
Dover riot (1051). The phrase is "magnates _illius castelli_," which Mr.
Freeman unhesitatingly renders "the magistrates of that _town_" (_Norm.
Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 135), a rendering which should be compared with his
remarks on "castles" on the next page but one, and in Appendix S. Mr.
Clark is of opinion that "whether 'castellum' can [here] be taken for
more than the fortified town is uncertain" (_M. M. A._, ii. 8).

[962] Skeat's _Etymological Dictionary_; Oliphant's _Old and Middle
English_, p. 37. It is not, therefore, strictly accurate to say of the
expression "ænne castel," in the chronicle for 1048, that it was "no
English name," as Mr. Freeman asserts (_Norm. Conq._, 2nd ed., ii. 137),
or to imply that it then first appeared in the language.

[963] _Norman Conquest_ (2nd ed.), ii. 189.

[964] Ed. Howlett, p. 106. Robert also mentions (p. 126) the "towers" of
Evreux, Alençon, and Coutances as among those constructed by Henry I.

[965] "About the Tower," as the chronicle expresses it.

[966] "Henricus Rex circa turrem Rothomagi ... murum altum et latum cum
propugnaculis ædificat, et ædificia ad mansionem regiam congrua infra
eundem murum parat" (_Robert of Torigny_, ed. Howlett, p. 106).

[967] I can make nothing of Mr. Clark's chronology. In his description
of the Tower he first tells us that "all save the keep [_i.e._ the White
Tower] is later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh
century" (_M. M. A._, ii. 205), and then that "the Tower of the close of
the reign of Rufus" (i.e. _before the end of_ "the eleventh century")
... was probably composed of the White Tower with a palace ward upon its
south-east side, and a wall, probably that we now see, and certainly
along its general course, including what is now known as the inner ward"
(_ibid._, ii. 253). Again, as to the Wakefield Tower, which "deserves
very close attention, its lower story being next to the keep in
antiquity" (_ibid._, ii. 220), Mr. Clark tells us that Gundulf (who died
in 1108) was the founder "perhaps of the Wakefield Tower" (_ibid._, ii.
252); nay, that "Devereux Tower ... may be as old as Wakefield, and
therefore in substance _the work of Rufus_" (_ibid._, ii. 253); and yet
we learn of this same basement, that "the basement of Wakefield Tower is
probably late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen or Henry II.,
although this is no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed" (_ibid._,
ii. 224). In other words, a structure which was "the work of Rufus,"
_i.e._ of 1087-1100, can only be attributed, at the very earliest, to
the days of "Stephen or Henry II.," _i.e._ to 1135-1189.

[968] The very same phrase is employed by Robert de Torigny in
describing her husband's action at Torigny ten years later (1151): "dux
obsederat castellum Torinneium, sed propter adventum Regis infecto
negotio discesserat; combustis tamen domibus infra muros usque ad turrem
et _parvum castellum circa eam_" (ed. Howlett, p. 161).

[969] _Ord. Vit._, ii. 296.

[970] A curious touch in a legend of the time brings before us in a
vivid manner the impression that this mighty tower had made upon the
Norman mind. Hugh de Glos, an oppressor of the poor, appearing, after
death, to a priest by night (1090), declared that the burden he was
compelled to bear seemed "heavier to carry than the Tower of Rouen"
("Ecce candens ferrum molendini gesto in ore, quod sine dubio mihi
videtur ad ferendum gravius Rotomagensi arce."—_Ord. Vit._, iii. 373).

[971] _W. Rufus_, i. 245-260.

[972] "De arce prodiit" (_Ord. Vit._, iii. 353). _Arx_, here as above,
is used as a substitute for _turris_.

[973] "Conanus autem a victoribus in arcem ductus est. Quem Henricus per
solaria turris ducens" (_ibid._, iii. 355). "In superiora Rotomagensis
turris duxit" (_W. Malms._).

[974] _W. Rufus_, i. 256, 257.

[975] _Ord. Vit._, v. (Appendix) 199. See p. 422.

[976] _Robert of Torigny_ (ed. Hewlett), p. 153.

[977] My alternative explanation of the choice of style, namely, the
importance of the keep itself relatively to the "castellum," must also
be borne in mind.

[978] "[Rex] in _turri_ de Bristou captivus ponitur.... [Imperatrix]
obsedit _turrim_ Wintonensis episcopi.... Robertus frater Imperatricis
in cujus _turri_ Rex captivus erat" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 275).

[979] "In turri Cenomannica" (_Annales Veteres_, 311).

[980] The Tower of Rouen, we have seen (p. 334), was styled "arx regia."

[981] A fine "motte" is visible from the line between Calais and Paris
(on the right); another, as I think, stood on the Lea, between Bow
Bridge and the "Old Ford," and is (or was) well seen from the Great
Eastern line.

[982] _Archæological Journal_, xx. 205-223 (1863).

[983] _Anglia Sacra_ (ed. Wharton), i. 337, 338.

[984] _Gentleman's Magazine_, N.S., xv. 260.

[985] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421, 422.

[986] _William Rufus_, i. 53, 54.

[987] "Egregia turris" is the expression of Gervase (_Actus
Pontificum_).

[988] The "castrum lapideum" (compare the three "castra lapidea" erected
for the blockade of Montreuil in 1149) is so styled to distinguish it
from the "castrum ligneum," which occurs so often, and which Mr. Freeman
so persistently renders "tower."

[989] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 419.

[990] _Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass._, xxxi., 471, 472.

[991] Both writers, also, mistake a general exemption from the _trinoda
necessitas_ for a special allusion to Rochester keep.

[992] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, ii. 421.

[993] Mr. J. R. Boyle has shown that nearly £1000 was spent upon it
between 1172 and 1177, when it was, therefore, in course of erection.

[994] _Mediæval Military Architecture_, i. 186.

[995] _Norman Conquest_, iii. 182.

[996] _Histoire du Château d'Arques_, by A. Deville, pp. x., 412
(Rouen).

[997] Ed. Howlett, p. 106.

[998] _Cours d'antiquités monumentales_ (1835), v. 227, 228.

[999] Colchester, in _Archæologia_, to which he refers, was attributed
to Edward the Elder, and Rochester was, of course, as yet, believed to
be the work of Gundulf.

[1000] Compare Professor Freeman on Falaise: "More probably, I think, of
the twelfth than of the eleventh [century]" (_Norm. Conq._, ii. 175).

[1001] _Château d'Arques_, pp. 307-312.

[1002] _Ibid._, pp. 48, 267.

[1003] Compare the "castrum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit" at
Arques with the "castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" at
Newcastle.

[1004] Compare, on this point, the acute criticism of Dr. Bruce
(repeated by Mr. Freeman) that "Wace (v. 12,628) speaks of the horse of
William Fitz Osbern [in 1066] as 'all covered with iron,' whereas in the
[Bayeux] Tapestry 'not a single horse is equipped in steel armour; and
if we refer to the authors who lived at that period, we shall find that
not one of them mentions any defensive covering for the horse.'" Compare
also the expression of William of Malmesbury, who lived and wrote under
the tower-building king, that the Norman barons took advantage of the
Conqueror's minority "_turres_ agere," these being the structures with
the building of which the writer was most familiar.

[1005] "A flight of steps, beginning upon the north face, passing by a
doorway through its most westerly buttress, and which then, turning, is
continued along the west face" (_M. M. A._, i. 188). Cf. Deville (p.
298), and the plan of 1708 (_ibid._, Pl. XII.).

[1006] _M. M. A._, i. 188, ii. 432.

[1007] Report of 1708 (_Deville_, p. 294).

[1008] It is only right to mention that, according to the _Academy_,
"Mr. Clark has long been recognized as the first living authority on the
subject of castellated architecture;" that, in the opinion of the
_Athenæum_, all those "who in future touch the subject may safely rely
on Mr. Clark;" that his is "a masterly history of mediæval military
architecture" (_Saturday Review_); and that, according to _Notes and
Queries_, "no other Englishman knows so much of our old military
architecture as Mr. Clark."



 APPENDIX P.
 THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON.
 (See p. 151.)


The new light which is thrown by the charters granted to Geoffrey upon a
subject so interesting and so obscure as the government and _status_ of
London during the Norman period requires, for its full appreciation,
detailed and separate treatment. But, before advancing my own
conclusions, it is absolutely needful to dispose of that singular
accretion of error which has grown, by gradual degrees, around the
recorded facts.[1009]

The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of
London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex _ad firmam_, the
"Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex _exclusive of London_. The
actual words of the charter are these:—

 "Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex
 ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et
 hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint
 de se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad
 custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius
 erit justitiarius super ipsos homines London[iarum]."

Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (_vicecomitatus_) and
the ferm (_firma_) mentioned in this passage are the shrievalty and the
ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, nor of London apart from
Middlesex, but of "London _and_ Middlesex." For there is never, from the
first, but one ferm. It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the
almost contemporary Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of
"London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and Geoffrey's
charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen grants him "the
shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"[1010] the Empress, in her turn,
grants him "the shrievalty of London and Middlesex."[1011] Further, the
Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this same _firma_ both as the ferm of
"London," and as that of "London and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8
Ric. I. we find the phrase, "de veteri firma _Comitat'_ Lond' et
Middelsexa." Lastly, the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of
London—

 "Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et
 consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra
 civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ...
 trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.[1012]

And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and
Middlesex."[1013]

The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When they are
directed to the local authorities, it is to those of "London and
Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." The three are, for all
purposes, used as equivalent terms. There was never, as I have said, but
one ferm, and never but one shrievalty.[1014]

Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" of
Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex _apart from London_. This prevalent but
erroneous assumption has proved the cause of much confusion and
misunderstanding of the facts of the case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been
assigned such prominence as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie
which may derive authority in the eyes of some from the editorial
_imprimatur_ of Mr. Freeman.[1015] We there read as follows:—

 "It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That
 London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a
 fact of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125).

From this interpretation of the "Middlesex" of the charter, it, of
course, followed that the writer took the _firma_ of £300 to be paid in
respect of Middlesex _exclusive of London_.[1016] We need not wonder,
therefore, that to him the grant is difficult to understand. Here are
his comments on its terms:—

 "If we could estimate the reasons which led to this grant with any
 degree of certainty, we should understand better what the citizens
 expected to gain by it besides rights of jurisdiction.... The meaning
 and nature of the grant are subjects of which we should like to know
 more. But here we can obtain little help from books ... and we may
 inquire in vain for a definition of the position and duties of the
 sheriff who acts for the citizens in their subject county.... There
 must have been advantages to accrue from the payment by London of £300
 a year, a sum which, small as it seems to us, was a heavy tax in those
 days. We may be sure the willing citizens expected to obtain
 correspondingly valuable liberties" (pp. 121-123).

Then follow various conjectures, all of them necessarily wide of the
mark. And as with the ferm, so with the sheriff. Mr. Loftie, taking the
sheriff (_vicecomes_) in question to be a sheriff of Middlesex exclusive
of London (which he hence terms a "subject county"), is of necessity
baffled by the charter. For by it the citizens are empowered to appoint
(_a_) a "vicecomes," (_b_) a "justitiarius." As the "vicecomes,"
according to his view, had nothing to do with the City itself, Mr.
Loftie has to account for "the omission of any reference to the
portreeve in the charter," his assumption being that the City itself was
at this time governed by a portreeve. Though his views are obscurely
expressed, his solutions of the problem are as follows. In his larger
work he dismisses the supposition that the "justitiarius" of the charter
was the "chief magistrate" of the City, _i.e._ the portreeve, because
the citizens must have been "already" entitled to elect that officer.
Yet in his later work, with equal confidence, he tells us that by
"justitiarius" the portreeve is "evidently intended." The fact is that
he is really opposing two different suppositions; the one that Henry
granted by his charter the right to elect a portreeve, the other that he
did not grant it, but retained the appointment in his hands. Mr. Loftie
first denies the former, and then, in his later work, asserts the former
to deny the latter. But really his language is so confused that it is
doubtful whether he realized himself the contradictory drift of his two
arguments, both based on the same assumption, which "it is manifestly
absurd," we learn, to dispute.[1017] And the strange part of the
business is this, What is the "proof" that Mr. Loftie offers for the
later of his two hypotheses? If the "trial" to which he refers had ever
taken place at all, and, still more, if it had taken place before 1115,
the fact would have an important bearing. But, in the first place, he
has wrongly assigned to the record too early a date, and, in the second,
it represents Gilbert Prutfot, not as a judge, but as a culprit. The
expression used is, "Terra quam Gillebertus Prutfot nobis
disfortiat."[1018] Now "defortiare" (or "disfortiare") is rendered by
Dr. Stubbs, in his _Select Charters_ (p. 518), "to deforce, to
dispossess by violence." We have here, therefore, an interesting,
because early, example of the legal offence of "deforcement," defined by
Johnson as "a withholding of lands and tenements by force from the right
owner." But the point to which I would call attention is that, even if
this writer were correct in his facts (which he is not), his "proof"
that (a _vicecomes_ and a _justitiarius_ being mentioned in the charter)
the justitiarius was "evidently" the portreeve consists in the fact that
a _vicecomes_ had "given judgment" in a trial, and being styled
_vicecomes_, was the portreeve! That is to say, the _justitiarius_ must
have been the portreeve _because_ the portreeve was styled (_not_
"justitiarius," but, on the contrary,) _vicecomes_. Such is actually his
argument.[1019]

I have dwelt thus fully on these observations, because they illustrate
the hopeless wandering which is the inevitable result of the adoption of
the above fundamental error.

We have a curiously close parallel to this use of "London and Middlesex"
in the expression "turris et castellum," on which I have elsewhere
dwelt.[1020] Just as the relative importance of the "Tower" of London to
the encircling "castle" at its feet led to the term "turris" alone being
used to describe the two,—while, conversely, in the provinces,
"castellum" was the term adopted,—so did the relative greatness of
London to the county that lay around its walls lead to the occasional
use of "London" as a term descriptive of both together, a usage
impossible in the provinces. Whether a "turris et castellum" were
destined to become known as a "turris" or a "castellum," whether
"Londonia et Middelsex" were described as "Londonia" merely, or as
"Middlesex," in each case the entity is the same. For fiscal, and
therefore for our purposes, "London and Middlesex," under whatever name,
remain one and indivisible.

The special value of the charters granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville lies
not so much in their complete confirmation of the view that the _firma_
of "Middlesex" was that of "London _and_ Middlesex" (for that would be
evident without them), as in their proof of the fact, so strangely
overlooked, that this connection was at least as old as the days of
William the Conqueror, and in their treatment of Middlesex (including
London) as an ordinary county like Essex or Herts, "farmed" in precisely
the same way. The _firma_ of Herts was £60, of Essex £300, and of
Middlesex (because containing London) £300 also.

But now let us leave our record evidence and turn to geography and to
common sense. What must have always been the salient feature which
distinguished Middlesex internally from every other county? Obviously,
that the shire was abnormally small, and its chief town abnormally
large. Nor was it a mere matter of size, but, still more, of comparative
wealth. This is illustrated by the taxation recorded in the Pipe-Roll of
1130. Unlike the _firma_, the taxes were raised, as elsewhere, from the
town and the shire respectively, the town contributing an _auxilium_,
and the shire, without the walls, a Danegeld. We thus learn that London
paid a sum about half as large again as that raised from the rest of the
shire.[1021] The normal relation of the "shire" to the "port" was
accordingly here reversed, and so would be also, in consequence, that of
the shire-reeve to the portreeve. Where, as usual, the "port" formed but
a small item in the _corpus comitatus_, it was possible to sever it from
the rest of the county, to place it _extra firmam_, and to give it a
reeve who should stand towards it in the same relation as the
shire-reeve to the shire, and would therefore be termed the "portreeve."
But to have done this in the case of Middlesex would have been to
reverse the nature of things, to place a mere "portreeve" in a position
greater than that of the "shire-reeve" himself. This is why that change
which, in the provinces, was the aim of every rising town, never took
place in the case of London, though the greatest town of all. I say that
it "never took place," for, as we have seen, the city of London was
never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as we can trace
them, they are found one and indivisible.

What, then, was the alternative? Simply this. The "reeve," who, in the
case of a normal county, took his title from the "shire" and not from
the "port," took it, in the abnormal case of Middlesex, from the "port"
and not from the "shire." In each case both "port" and "shire" were
alike within his jurisdiction; in each case he took his style from the
most important part of that jurisdiction. Such is the original solution
I offer for this most interesting problem, and I claim that its
acceptance will explain everything, will harmonize with all existing
_data_, and will dispose of difficulties which, hitherto, it has been
impossible to surmount.

My contention is, briefly, that the Norman _vicecomes_ of "London," or
"Middlesex," or "London and Middlesex" was simply the successor, in that
office, of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve." With the sphere of the
_vicecomes_ I have already dealt, and though we are not in a position
similarly to prove the sphere of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve," I might
appeal to the belief of Mr. Loftie himself that "Ulf the Sheriff of
Middlesex is identical with Ulf the Portreeve of London"[1022] (though
he adds, contrary to my contention, that "as yet their official
connection was only that of neighbourhood"),[1023] and that Ansgar,
though one of the "portreeves" (p. 24); "was Sheriff of Middlesex for a
time there can be no doubt" (p. 127).[1024] But I would rather appeal to
the vital fact that the shire-reeve and the portreeve are, so far I
know, never mentioned together, and that writs are directed to a
portreeve or to a shire-reeve,[1025] but never to both. Specially would
I insist upon the indisputable circumstance that such writs as were
addressed to the "portreeve" by the Anglo-Saxon kings, were addressed to
the _vicecomes_ by the Norman, and that the turning-point is seen under
the Conqueror himself, whose Anglo-Saxon charter is addressed to the
"bisceop" and the "portirefan," and whose Latin writs are, similarly,
addressed to the _episcopus_ and the _vicecomes_. More convincing
evidence it would not be easy to find.

The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the alleged
"disappearance of the portreeve," with the difficulties it has always
presented, and the conjectures to which it has given rise.[1026] The
style of the "portreeve" indeed disappears, but his office does not. In
the person of the Norman _vicecomes_, it preserves an unbroken
existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of
Ansgar the portreeve.[1027]

The problem as to what became of the portreeve, a problem which has
exercised so many minds, sprang from the delusion that in the Norman
period the City must have had a portreeve for governor independent of
the Sheriff of Middlesex. I term this an undoubted "delusion," because I
have already made it clear that the City was part of the sheriff's
jurisdiction and contributed its share to his _firma_. There was,
therefore, no room for an independent portreeve; nor indeed does a
"portreeve" of London, I believe, ever occur after the Conqueror's
charter.

But we must here glance at the contrary view set forth by Mr. Loftie:—

 "The succession of portreeves is uninterrupted. We have the names of
 some of them in the records of the Exchequer. Occasionally two or
 three, once as many as five, came to answer for the City and pay the
 £300 which was the farm of Middlesex. In 1129, a few years only after
 the retirement of Orgar and his companions, we read of 'quatuor
 vicecomites' as attending for London. The following year we hear of a
 single 'camerarius.' The 'Hugh Buche' of Stowe may be identified with
 the Hugo de Bock of the St. Paul's documents, and his 'Richard de Par'
 with Richard the younger, the chamberlain. 'Par' is probably a
 misreading for Parvus contracted. In the reign of Stephen two members
 of the Buckerel family hold office, and we have Fulcred and Robert, who
 were related to each other. Another early portreeve was Wluardus, who
 attends at the Exchequer in 1138, and who continued to be an alderman
 thirty years later" (_Historic Towns: London_, p. 34).

Where are "the records of the Exchequer" from which we learn all this?
The only Pipe-Roll of the period is that of 1130, in which "the farm of
Middlesex" is not £300, but a much larger sum, a fact which, as we shall
find, has a most important bearing. The "quatuor vicecomites" appear "as
attending," not in 1129, but in 1130. The "camerarius" does not (and
could not) appear "in the following year," but, on the contrary,
belonged to a preceding one ("Willelmus _qui fuit_ camerarius de
_veteribus_ debitis"); nor does he account for the _firma_. The _firma_
was always accounted for by "vicecomites," and not (as implied on p.
108) by a chamberlain, or by a "prefect." The "Hugh Buche" is given in
Mr. Loftie's former work (p. 98) as "Hugh de Buch." He is meant (as even
Foss perceived) for the well-known Hugh de Bocland (the minister of
Henry I.), who cannot be shown to have been a "portreeve." No "Hugo de
Bock" occurs in the St. Paul's documents, which only mention "Hugo de
Bochelanda" and "Hugo de Bock[elanda]," the latter imperfection being
the source of the error. "Richard, the younger, chamberlain" only occurs
in these documents a century later (1204-1215), and "the younger," I
presume, there translates "juvenis," and not "parvus." It is, moreover,
quite certain that Stowe's "de Par" was not "a misreading for 'parvus'
contracted," but for "delpare," as may easily be ascertained. No member
of the Bucherel family occurs in these documents as holding office "in
the reign of Stephen," though some do in the next century. Fulcred was
not a "portreeve," but a "chamberlain;" and Robert, Fulcred's brother,
was neither one nor the other. But what are we to say to "Wluardus" the
portreeve, "who attends at the Exchequer in 1138"? Where are the
"records of the Exchequer for 1138"? They are known to Mr. Loftie
alone.[1028] Moreover, his identification, here, of the _vicecomes_ with
the portreeve is in direct antagonism to the principle laid down just
before (p. 29), that, on the contrary, it was the _justitiarius_ who
should "evidently" be identified with the portreeve (see p. 350,
_supra_).

Perhaps the assumption of a portreeve's existence springs from
forgetfulness or misapprehension of the condition of London at the time.
Its corporate unity, we must always remember, had not yet been
developed. As Dr. Stubbs so truly observes, London was only

 "a bundle of communities, townships, parishes, and lordships, of which
 each has its own constitution."[1029]

I cannot indeed agree with him in his view that the result of the
charter of Henry I. was to replace this older system by a new "shire
organization."[1030] For my contention is that our great historian not
only misdates the charter in question, but also misunderstands it
(though not so seriously as others), and that it made no difference in
the "organization" at all. But I would cordially endorse these his
words:—

 "No new incorporation is bestowed: the churches, the barons, the
 citizens retain their ancient customs; the churches their sokens, the
 barons their manors, the citizens their township organization, and
 possibly their guilds. The municipal unity which they possess is of the
 same sort as that of the county and hundred."[1031]

And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized under a
sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government of the day was
to be found in the petty courts of these various "communities," and not
in any central corporation. The only centralizing element was the
sheriff, and his office was not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the
financial claims of the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of
jurisdiction. There was, of course, the general "folkmote" over which,
with the bishop, he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were
those of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote could no
more mould these self-governing bodies into one coherent whole, than
they could, or did, accomplish this in the case of an ordinary shire.
Here we have a somewhat curious parallel between such a polity as is
here described and that of the present metropolis outside the City.
There, too, we have the local communities, with their quasi-independent
vestries, etc., and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for
their "folkmote" or "shiremote."[1032] But, to revert to the days of
Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength varying in
intension conversely with its sphere in extension, possessed the
toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. Thus the original
territorial system might never have led to a corporate unity. But what
the sheriff and the folkmote could not accomplish, the mayor and the
_communa_ could and did. The territorial arrangement was overthrown by
the rising power of commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work:

 "The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor
 marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire
 organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the
 aristocratic element."[1033]

At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view I have advanced
on the shrievalty, because the point is of such paramount importance
that it cannot be expressed too clearly. The great illustrative value of
Geoffrey's charters is this. They prove, in the first place, that
Middlesex (inclusive of London) was treated financially on the same
footing as Essex or Herts or any other shire; and in the second they
give us that all-important information, the amount of the _firma_ for
each of these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we have
to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view its _firma_
of £300. Sometimes described as the _firma_ of "London," sometimes "of
Middlesex," and sometimes "of London and Middlesex," its identity never
changes; it is always, and beyond the shadow of question, the _firma_ of
Middlesex inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment
reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its amount, an
endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the first Geoffrey de
Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it was £300. Nearly doubled by
Henry I., it was yet reduced to £300 by his charter to the citizens of
London. In the succeeding reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured
it from both claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II.,
as the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. John, we
shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and the reduction was
confirmed by his successor on his assuming the reins of power. For we
find a charter of Henry III. conceding to the citizens of London
(February 11, 1227)—

 "Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et
 consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra
 Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et
 heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim
 nobis et heredibus nostris _trescentas libras_ sterlingorum
 blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus
 Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et _quia antiquitus
 consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris_."

The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the forfeiture
of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were restored to favour,
on payment of heavy sums to the king and to his son, they received
permission "to have two sheriffs of their own who should hold the
shrievalty of the City and Middlesex as they used to have." But the
_firma_ was raised from £300 to £400 a year.[1034] Finally, on the
accession of Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the _firma_ was reduced to
the original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, "it
has remained ever since."[1035]

This one _firma_, of which the history has here been traced, represents
one _corpus comitatus_, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036]
From this conclusion there is no escape.

Hence the _firmarii_ of this _corpus comitatus_ were from the first the
_firmarii_ (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London.
This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the _firma_ so with the
sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of
London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of
Middlesex inclusive of London.

This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I.
granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (_i.e._ Middlesex inclusive
of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be
regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the _corpus comitatus_ to
any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased
it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at
the low original _firma_ of £300 a year. The change effected was simply
that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes
of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037]

The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual
lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent
provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body:
"Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis."

It would seem that under the _régime_ adopted by Henry I., the financial
exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of
his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (_i.e._ of the
financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible.
This was effected either by adding to the annual _firma_, a sum "de
cremento," or by exacting from the _firmarius_, over and above his
_firma_, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was
offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be
_firmarius_ to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the
_firma_ was a low one. But if the _firma_ was a high one, he would not
offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the
sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu
habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to
have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of
counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus"
had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which,
seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de
Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of
Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an
Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this
lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted
fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by no means
above indulging in speculations of the kind. But when we make the
interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, in this same reign, had
acted as Sheriff of London,[1042] may we not infer that, there also, he
had indulged in a similar speculation? That the shrievalty of London
(_i.e._ London and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is
a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz Walter is
debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas argenti de Gersoma
pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."[1043]

The _firmarius_ who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would have to
recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount of the actual
"firma" _plus_ his payment "de gersoma," before he could derive for
himself any profit whatever from the transaction. This implied that he
had closely to shear the flock committed to his charge. If he was a mere
speculator, unconnected with his sphere of operations, he would have no
scruple in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion.
What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure as the
financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear that just as
the _rotulus exactorius_ recorded the amounts to which the king was
entitled from the _firmarii_ of the various counties, so these
_firmarii_, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly fixed
amount from the various constituents of their counties' "corpora."
Domesday, however, while recording these sums, shows us, in many
remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" being paid than that which was
strictly due. The fact is that we are, and must be, to a great extent,
in the dark as to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments.
That the remarkable rise in the annual _firmæ_ exacted from the towns
which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent on, the
Conquest would seem to imply that these _firmæ_, under the loose
_régime_ of the old system, had been allowed to remain so long unaltered
that they had become antiquated and unduly low. In any case the
Conqueror raised them sharply, probably according to his estimate of the
financial capacity of the town. And this step would, of course, involve
a rise in the total of the _firma_ exacted from the _corpus comitatus_.
The precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed by
Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the uttermost
farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive use of the
"placita" included in the "firma comitatus" that the sheriffs mainly
trusted to increase their receipts.

But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed by the
sheriffs in the towns within their rule,[1044] and exercised by them to
recoup themselves for the increased demands of the Crown, we know that
such means there must have been, or it would not have been worth the
while of the towns to offer considerable sums for the privilege of
paying their _firmæ_ to the Crown directly, instead of through the
sheriffs.[1045]

I would now institute a comparison between the cases of Lincoln and of
London. In both cases the city formed part of the _corpus comitatus_; in
both, therefore, its _firma_ was included in the total ferm of the
shire. Lincoln was at this time one of the largest and wealthiest towns
in the country. Its citizens evidently had reason to complain of the
exactions of the sheriff of the shire. London, we infer, was in the same
plight. Both cities were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial
intervention of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was
this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways varying
with the circumstances of the two cases. London was considerably larger
than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus
while the _firma_ of Lincoln represented less than a fifth of the ferm
of the shire,[1046] that of London would, of course, constitute the bulk
of the ferm of Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever
itself financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would
endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by itself
boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of the citizens of
Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:—

 "Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij
 marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114).

The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:—

 "Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant
 Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148).

I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. No one
appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to the above Lincoln
entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II.). We there
find £140 deducted from the ferm of the shire in consideration of the
severance of the city from the _corpus comitatus_ ("Et in Civitate
Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). But we further find the citizens of
Lincoln, in accounting for their _firma_ to the Crown direct, accounting
not for £140, but for £180. It must, consequently, have been worth their
while to offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for
the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through the
sheriff.[1047] Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions from which
they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I have said, set to work a
different way. They simply sought to lease the shrievalty of the shire
themselves. I can, on careful consideration, offer no other suggestion
than that the hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130,
represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the shrievalty
for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in that year by the
"quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather from the Roll that Fulcred
fitz Walter had been sheriff for 1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma"
is, I take it, represented in the case of the following year (1129-30)
by these hundred marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid
nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have leased the
shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their fellows, as
representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such a post was not one
to be coveted. To exact sufficient from their fellow-citizens wherewith
to meet the claims of the Crown would be a task neither popular nor
pleasant. Indeed, the fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites"
may imply that they could not find any one man who would consent to fill
a post as thankless as that of the hapless _decurio_ in the provinces of
the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a later age, in the country
towns of England. Hence it may be that we find it thus placed in
commission. Hence, also, the eagerness of these _vicecomites_ to be quit
of office, as shown by their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs
of gold apiece.[1048] It may, however, be frankly confessed that the
nature of this payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from
the very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one would
have thought that such payments would probably have been made to their
fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the office rather than to the
Crown. Moreover, if their year of office was over, and the city's lease
at an end, one would have thought they would be freed from office in the
ordinary course of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests
itself is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from serving
again even though their fellow-citizens should again elect them to
office.[1049] But I leave the point in doubt.

The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced is that the
citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, for the first time)
for the year 1129-30. We have the names of those who held the shrievalty
at various periods in the course of the reign, before this year, but
there is no evidence that, throughout this period, it was ever leased to
the citizens. The important question which now arises is this: How does
this view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.?

We have first to consider the date to which the charter should be
assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that Rymer, "from the
names appended to it or some other evidence, dates it in 1101."[1050] As
a matter of fact, Rymer assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer
himself even include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of
that work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till
1885 that in the Record Office _Syllabus_, begun by Sir T. D. Hardy, the
date 1101 was assigned to it.[1051] That date is possibly to be traced
to Northouck's _History of London_ (1773), in which the commencement of
Henry's reign is suggested as a probable period (p. 27). This view is
set forth also in a modern work upon the subject.[1052] It is not often
that we meet with a charter so difficult to date. The _formula_ of
address, as it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to
a late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between the
justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. But there is,
unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence to enable us to fix
the date with precision. All that we can say is that such a name as that
of Hugh Bigod points to the period 1123-1135, and that, of the nine
witnesses named, seven or eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31
Hen. I.). This would suggest that these two documents must be of about
the same date. Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty
before Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no
sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to understand
how or why it could be withdrawn within a very few years of its grant.
In short, for this view there is not a scrap of evidence; against it, is
all probability. If, on the contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am
now going to advance, namely, that the charter was later than the
Pipe-Roll, the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a
year, to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by a
permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, which we
find recorded in the charter.

It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on the guess
at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that the charter was
earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and others have merely followed
him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:—

 "Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll,
 some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In
 1130 there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for
 the ferm of London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and
 part of the account is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right
 to appoint the sheriffs has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens
 pay a hundred marks of silver that they may have a sheriff of their own
 choice," etc., etc.[1053]

But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers "the date of
Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was subsequent to the
Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to the ground.

The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs alludes,
is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of the "vicecomites"
varies throughout. As a matter of fact, the abbreviated forms leave us,
as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, doubtful whether we ought to read
"vicecomite_m_" or "vicecomite_s_," and even if the former is the one
intended, we know, both in this and other cases, that there was nothing
unusual in putting the office in commission between two or more. As to
the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the _firma_, with
which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly enough, Dr. Stubbs has
overlooked the really important point, namely, that the _firma_ is not
£300, as fixed by the charter, but over £500.[1054] This increases the
discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs lays stress. The most natural inference
from this fact is that, as on several later occasions, the Crown had
greatly raised the _firma_ (which had been under the Conqueror £300),
and that the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to
the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter was granted
between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been tempted, by the offer of
an enormous sum down, to grant (1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a
reduction of the fee-farm rent ("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to
which the _firma_ had been raised by the king, together with the annual
_gersoma_, amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only have
been purchased by a large payment in ready money.

It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry accumulated the
vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his death. He may not improbably
in collecting this wealth have kept in view what appears to have been
the supreme aim of his closing years, namely, the securing of the
succession to his heirs. This was to prove the means by which their
claims should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much to
suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens to the
interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. In any case
his efforts were notoriously vain, for London headed throughout the
opposition to the claims of his heirs. I cannot but think that his
financial system had much to do with this result, and that, as with the
Hebrews at the death of Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them
only of his "grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met
the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money[1055] by bluntly
requesting a return to the system of Edward the Confessor.[1056]

In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly ignored both
by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted in turn to the Earl of
Essex the shrievalty of London and Middlesex (1141-42).

A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. What was the
attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's charter? Of our two
latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie tells us that

 "Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good
 footing with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the
 Great Charter of his grandfather."[1057]

Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted by Henry II. to
the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, is simply a confirmation
of his grandfather's."[1058] Such, indeed, would seem to be the accepted
belief. Yet, when we compare the two documents, we find that the special
concessions with which I am here dealing, and which form the opening
clauses of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in
that of Henry II.![1059] This leads us to examine the rest of the latter
document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged the two
charters side by side, and divided their contents into numbered clauses,
italicizing the points of difference.

 HENRY I.

 (1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo placito.

 (2) Sint quieti _de schot et de loth de Danegildo et_ de murdro, et
 nullus eorum faciat bellum.

 (3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per
 sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo
 Londoniarum.

 (4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea familia,
 neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur.

 (5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes res
 eorum, et per totam Angliam _et per portus maris, de thelonio et
 passagio_ et lestagio _et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus_.

 (6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in pace
 socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in
 soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus
 socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit.

 (7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad
 suam _were_, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam
 pertineat.

 (8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote,
 neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in
 hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ.

 (9) Et terras suas _et wardemotum_ et debita civibus meis habere faciam
 _infra civitatem et extra_.

 (10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege
 civitatis.

 (12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in
 Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. _Quod si reddere noluerint,
 neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent
 capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui
 debitum debet._

 (11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum
 ceperit, _cives_ Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi
 theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro
 theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.[1072]

 (13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et
 plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et
 Sureie.

 HENRY II.

 (1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum[1060] de
 ullo placito _præter placita de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis
 monetariis et ministris meis_.

 (2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [_et_[1061]] _infra urbem et
 Portsokna_,[1062] et quod nullus[1063] faciat bellum.[1064]

 (3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus[1065]] se possunt disrationare
 secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis.

 (4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem
 Marescalli.

 (5) Omnes cives Londoniarum[1066] sint quieti de theloneo et lestagio
 per totam Angliam et per portum[1067] maris.

 (6) [This clause is wholly omitted.]

 (7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem
 civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis[1068] avi mei.

 (8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus
 semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur.

 (9) Terras suas _et tenuras et vadimonia_ et debita omnia juste
 habeant, _quicunque eis debeat_.

 (10) De terris suis et tenuris _quæ infra urbem sunt_, rectum eis
 teneatur secundum legem[1069] civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ
 accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,[1070] et de vadimoniis ibidem
 factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.[1071]

 (11) Et si quis _in tota Anglia_ theloneum et consuetudinem ab
 hominibus Londoniarum[1070] ceperit, _postquam ipse a recto defecerit,
 Vicecomes_ Londoniarum[1070] namium inde _apud Londonias_[1070] capiat.

 (12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque [1073]habuerunt tempore Regis
 Henrici avi mei.

 (13) _Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis concessi quod[1074]
 sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,[1075] et de
 Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus_ (sic) _London[iarum][1076] vel
 aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat._

Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the
question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from the _Select
Charters_ of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to the _Fœdera_ for his text
(which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is
taken from the transcript in the _Liber Custumarum_ (collated with the
_Liber Rubeus_). Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as
could be wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused
my suspicions,[1077] but the collation of the two charters has led to a
singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of Henry I.
the citizens are guaranteed "terras _et wardemotum_ et debita sua." Now,
this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. Why should the
wardmoot be thus sandwiched between the lands of the citizens and the
debts due to them? And what can be the meaning of confirming to them
their wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned as an
infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? Yet, corrupt
though this passage, on the face of it, appears, our authorities have
risen at this unlucky word, if I may venture on the expression, like
pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr.
Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion.
Historians, like doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do
agree their unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately
proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading of
"vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage its sense by showing
that what Henry confirmed to the citizens was "the property mortgaged to
them, and the debts due to them."[1078]

Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing from the text
as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception of the avowed
addition at the close, the later charter has, in sundry details, the
aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting rather than enlarging the
benefits conferred. This, however, is but a small matter in comparison
with its total omission of the main concession itself. This fact, so
strangely overlooked, coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff
as "vicecomes _meus_" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079] but
explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable
without it, that the _firma_ is again, under Henry II., found to be not
£300, but over £500 a year.

In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the _firma_ of London, if I reckon it right, was,
as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.[1080] In 1160 (6 Hen. II.) it was a
few pounds less,[1081] and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) it was little, it would
seem, over £500.[1082] But in these calculations it is virtually
impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not only from the system of
keeping accounts partly in _libræ_ partly in _marcæ_, and partly in
money "blanched" partly in money "numero," but also from the fact that
the figures on the Pipe-Rolls are by no means so infallible as might be
supposed.[1083]

Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make any change. It
merely confirms that of his father. But John, in addition to confirming
this (June 17, 1199), granted a supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)—

 "Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus
 Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus
 rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ...
 reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras
 sterlingorum blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum,
 quod ipsi de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et
 amoveant quando voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem
 fecimus civibus Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et
 quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."[1084]

Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this
charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of
the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must
not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising
of the _firma_ to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in
1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).

We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on
the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during
the twelfth century (_i.e._ from "1101"), but was held by them for a few
years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the
sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I.,
appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to
reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at
that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in
retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in
that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized
the _régime_ of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey
remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to
that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for
exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that
Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London,
he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's
concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not
be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty
was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its
chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When
that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa"
with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the
chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he
would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become
but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since,
to that of the mayor himself.

The transient existence of the local _justitiarius_ is a phenomenon of
great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville
charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a
middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially _local_
shire-reeve and the _central_ "justice" of the king's court. I have
already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation
of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the
localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the
_justitiarius_ for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a
purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his
bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was
this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de
Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of
Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in
the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the
office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend)
towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of
Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to
find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the
office _eo nomine_ twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice
mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086]

The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure;
its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot,
surely, henceforth be maintained.

[1009] On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'"
(Lond_onia_ or Lond_oniæ_) I would explain at the outset that both
forms, the singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension
is legitimate. I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth
in the _Athenæum_, 1887) that "Londoni_a_" is the Latinization of the
English "Londone," and "Londoni_æ_" of the Norman "Londres."

[1010] "Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."

[1011] "Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."

[1012] Madox's _Firma Burgi_, p. 242, _note_.

[1013] These words were written before the late changes.

[1014] A remarkable illustration of this loose usage is afforded by the
case of the archdeaconry. Take the styles of Ralph "de Diceto." Dr.
Stubbs writes of his archdeaconry: "That it was the archdeaconry of
Middlesex is certain ... it is beyond doubt, and wherever Ralph is
called Archdeacon of London, it is only loosely in reference to the fact
that he was one of the four archdeacons of the diocese" (_Radulfi de
Diceto Opera_, I. xxxv., xxxvi.). But, as to this explanation, the
writer adduces no evidence in support of this view, that all "four
archdeacons" might be described, loosely, as "of London." Indeed, he
admits, further on (p. xl., _note_), "that the title of Essex or
Colchester is generally given to the holders of these two
archdeaconries, so that really the only two between which confusion was
likely to arise were London and Middlesex." Now, in a very formal
document, quoted by Dr. Stubbs himself (p. 1., _note_), Ralph is
emphatically styled "Archdeacon of London." It is clear, therefore,
that, in the case of this archdeaconry, that style was fully recognized,
and the explanation of this is to be found, I would suggest, in the use,
exemplified in the text _ut supra_, of "London" and "Middlesex" as
convertible terms.

[1015] Mr. Freeman himself makes the same mistake, and insists on
regarding Middlesex as a subject district round the City.

[1016] Even Dr. Sharpe, the learned editor of the valuable _Calendar of
Hustings Wills_, is similarly puzzled by a grant of twenty-five marks
out of the king's ferm "de civitate London," to be paid annually by the
sheriffs of London and Middlesex (i. 610), because he imagines that the
_firma_ was paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone.

[1017] "It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a
mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the
election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, but
all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens
already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name he
was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them power to
appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already allowed to
appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the portreeve in the
charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" (_History of
London_, i. 90).

"The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the
leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to
hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for
it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry
allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not
elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the
references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very
early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than 1115,
Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is mentioned as
having some time before given judgment against the dean and chapter as
to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of England"
(_London_, p. 29).

[1018] _Ninth Report Hist. MSS._, i. 66 _b_.

[1019] Reference to p. 110, _supra_, will show at once how vain is the
effort to wrench "justitiarius" from its natural and well-known meaning.

[1020] See Appendix O.

[1021] Here and elsewhere I use "shire" on the strength of Middlesex
having a "sheriff" (_i.e._ a shire-reeve).

[1022] _London_, p. 126.

[1023] This springs, of course, from what I have termed "the fundamental
error."

[1024] See p. 37, _ante_, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.

[1025] I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London
and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the
City and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of
Middlesex.

[1026] Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the
disappearance of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic
revolution, the history of which is now lost, but which might account
for the earnest support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In
another place (_Select Charters_, p. 300) he writes: "How long the
Portreeve of London continued to exist is not known; perhaps until he
was merged in the _mayor_." I have already dealt with Mr. Loftie's
explanation of "the omission of any reference to the portreeve" in the
charter.

[1027] See p. 37, _ante_, and Addenda.

[1028] See _Athenæum_, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The
First Mayor of London" in _Academy_, November 12, 1887, and _Antiquary_,
March, 1887.

[1029] _Const. Hist._, i. 404.

[1030] "The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early
in the century" [_i.e._ by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of
guild and franchise" (_ibid._, i. 630).

[1031] _Ibid._, i. 405.

[1032] This was written before the days of the London County Council.

[1033] _Ibid._, i. 630.

[1034] _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_, p. 124: "Circa idem tempus, scilicet
Pentecosten (1270), ad instantiam domini Edwardi concessit Dominus Rex
civibus ad habendum de se ipsis duos Vicecomites, qui tenerent
Vicecomitatum Civitatis et Midelsexiæ ad firmam sicut ante solebant:
Ita, tamen, cum temporibus transactis solvissent inde tantummodo per
annum ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum, quod de cetero solvent annuatim
cccc libras sterlingorum computatorum.... Et tunc tradite sunt civibus
omnes antique carte eorum de libertatibus suis que fuerunt in manu
Domini Regis, et concessum est eis per Dominum Regem et per Dominum
Edwardum ut eis plenarie utantur, excepto quod pro firma Civitatis et
Comitatus solvent per annum cccc libras, sicut præscriptum est.

"Tunc temporis dederunt Cives Domino Regi centum marcas sterlingorum....
Dederunt etiam Domino Edwardo Vᶜ. marcas ad expensas suas in itinere
versus Terram Sanctam." This passage is quoted in full because,
important though the transaction is, not a trace of it is to be found in
_The Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of
London_ (1884), the latest work on the subject. So, in 1284, when Edward
I., who had "taken into his hands" the town of Nottingham for some
years, restored the burgesses their liberties, it was at the price of
their _firma_ being raised from £52 to £60 a year.

[1035] _History of London_, ii. 208, 209.

[1036] A curious illustration of the fact that this _firma_ arose out of
the city and county alike is afforded by Henry III.'s charter (1253):
"quod vii libre sterlingorum per annum allocarentur Vicecomitibus in
firma eorum pro libertate ecclesiæ sancti Pauli."

[1037] This is illustrated by the subsequent prohibition of the sheriffs
themselves underletting the county at "farm" (_Liber Custumarum_, p. 91;
_Liber Albus_, p. 46).

[1038] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 2.

[1039] _Ibid._, p. 122.

[1040] _Ibid._, p. 100.

[1041] _Ibid._, p. 52.

[1042] "William de Einesford, vicecomes de Londoniâ," heads the list of
witnesses to a London agreement assigned to 1114-1130 (_Ramsey
Cartulary_, i. 139).

[1043] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 144.

[1044] Probably the mysterious "scotale" was among them (cf. Stubbs,
_Const. Hist._, i. 628).

[1045] Cf. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i. 410.

[1046] The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40
"numero" _plus_ £716 16_s._ 3_d._ "blanch").

[1047] We have a precisely similar illustration, ninety years later, in
the case of Carlisle. In 5 Hen. III. (1220-21) the citizens of Carlisle
obtained permission to hold their city _ad firmam_ for £60 a year
payable to the Crown direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through
the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") and his ferm of the shire (_Ninth Report
Hist. MSS._, App. i. pp. 197, 202).

[1048] _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I., p. 149.

[1049] Compare Henry III.'s charter to John Gifard of Chillington,
conceding that during his lifetime he should not be made a _sheriff_,
coroner, or any other bailiff against his will (_Staffordshire
Collections_, v. [1] 158).

[1050] _History of London_, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie's _London_
("Historic Towns"), p. 28: "The exact date of the charter is given by
Rymer as 1101."

[1051] Vol. iii. p. 4.

[1052] _The Charters of the City of London_ (1884), p. xiiii.: "To
engage the citizens to support his Government he conferred upon them the
advantageous privileges that are conferred in this charter."

[1053] _Const. Hist._, i. 406.

[1054] £327 3_s._ 11_d._ "blanch," _plus_ £209 6_s._ 5½_d._ "numero."

[1055] "Infinitæ copiæ pecuniam ... cum ore imperioso ab eis exegit"
(_Gesta Stephani_).

[1056] "Interpellata est et a civibus ut leges eis regis Edwardi
observare liceret, quia optimæ erant, non patris sui Henrici quia graves
erant" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._).

[1057] _London_ ("Historic Towns"), p. 38. The Master of University
similarly writes: "He [Henry II.] renewed the charter of the city of
London" (i. 90).

[1058] _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 471. The writer, being
only acquainted with the printed copy of the charter (_Liber
Custumarum_, ed. Riley, pp. 31, 32), had only the names of the two
witnesses there given (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
London) to guide her, but, fortunately, the _Liber Rubeus_ version
records all the witnesses (thirteen in number) together with the place
of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, and virtually to 1155.

[1059] The omitted clauses are these: "Sciatis me concessisse civibus
meis Londoniarum, tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad
compotum, ipsis et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, ita quod
ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, et
justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita
coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit justitiarius super
ipsos homines Londoniarum."

[1060] "Lond'" (_Liber Rubeus_).

[1061] "Et" omitted in _L. R._

[1062] "Portsoca" (_L. R._).

[1063] "Nullus eorum" (_L. R._).

[1064] "Duellum" (_L. R._).

[1065] "Pertinentibus" (_L. R._).

[1066] "London'" (_L. R._).

[1067] "Port'" (_L. R._).

[1068] "Regis H." (_L. R._).

[1069] "Consuetudinem" (_L. R._).

[1070] "Lond'" (_L. R._).

[1071] "Apud Lond' teneantur" (_L. R._).

[1072] Clauses 11 and 12 in the charter of Henry I. are transposed in
that of Henry II. But it is more convenient to show the transposition as
I have done in the text.

[1073] "Eas habuerunt" (_L. R._).

[1074] "Omnes sint" (_L. R._).

[1075] "Yeresgieve" (_L. R._).

[1076] "London'" (_L. R._).

[1077] The first two witnesses to that of Henry I. are given as
"episcopo Winton., Roberto filio Richer. (_sic_)." The bishop's initial
ought to be given, and the second witness is probably identical with
Robert fitz Rich_ard_. "Huberto (_sic_) regis camerario" has also a
suspicious sound. In the second charter the witnesses are given in the
_Liber Custumarum_ as "Archiepiscopo Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo
Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's initial should be given; as,
indeed, it is in the (more accurate) _Liber Rubeus_ version, where
(_vide supra_, p. 367) all the witnesses are entered.

[1078] This explanation is confirmed by examining other municipal
charters based on that of London. In them this clause always confirms
(1) "terras et tenuras," (2) "vadia," (3) "debita."

[1079] In confirmation of this view, it may be pointed out that where
this same clause occurs in charters to other towns, the words are
"vicecomes _noster_" in cases, as at Winchester, where the king retains
in his hand the appointment of reeve, but simply (as at Lincoln)
"præpositus" or (as at Northampton) "præpositus Northamtonie," where the
right to elect the reeve was also conceded.

[1080] £66 17_s._ 1_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £474 17_s._ 10½_d._ "numero."

[1081] £445 19_s._ "blanch" _plus_ £78 3_s._ 6_d._ "numero."

[1082] £181 14_s._ 5_d._ "blanch" _plus_ £335 0_s._ 7_d._ "numero."

[1083] As an example of the possibility of error, in the printed Roll of
1159 (5 Hen. II.) a town is entered on the Roll as paying "quater xx.
lv. libras et ii marcas et dim'." The explanation of this unintelligible
entry is, I may observe, as follows. The original entry evidently ran,
"quater xx et ii marcas et dim'" (82½ marcs). Over this a scribe will
have written the equivalent amount in pounds ("lv libræ") by
interlineation. Then came the modern transcriber, who with the stupidity
of a mechanical copyist brought down this interlineation into the middle
of the entry, thus converting it into sheer nonsense. We have also to
reckon with such clerical errors as the addition or omission of an "x"
or an "i," of a "bl." or a "no." Where the total to be accounted for is
stated separately, we have a means of checking the accounts. But where,
as at London, this is not so, we cannot be too careful in accepting the
details as given. See also Addenda.

[1084] _Liber Custumarum_ (Rolls Series), pp. 249-251.

[1085] "Contra Radulfum de Belphago qui tunc vicecomes erat in provincia
illa et contra Radulfum Passelewe ejusdem provinciæ justiciarium"
(_Ramsey Cart._, i. 149).

[1086] See Appendix K, on "Gervase of Cornhill."



 APPENDIX Q
 OSBERTUS OCTODENARII.
 (See p. 170.)


The reference to this personage in the charter to the Earl of Essex is
of quite exceptional interest. He was the Osbert (or Osbern)
"Huit-deniers" (_alias_ "Octodenarii" _alias_ "Octonummi") who was a
wealthy kinsman of Becket and employed him, in his house, as a clerk
about this very time (_circ._ 1139-1142). We meet him as "Osbertus VIII.
denarii" at London in 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.), and I have also
found him attesting a charter of Henry I., late in the reign, as
"Osberto Octodenar[ii]." Garnier[1087] tells us that the future saint—

  "A soen parent vint, un riche hume Lundreis,
  Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d'Engleis,
  O Osbern witdeniers, ki l'retint demaneis.
  Puis fu ses escriveins, ne sais dous ans, u treis."

Another biographer writes:—

 "Rursus vero Osbernus, Octonummi cognomine, vir insignis in civitate et
 multarum possessionum cui carne propinquus erat detentum circa se
 Thomam fere per triennium in breviandis sumptibus redditibusque suis
 jugiter occupabat."[1088]

The influential position of this wealthy Londoner is dwelt on by yet
another biographer:—

 "Ad quendam Lundrensem, cognatum suum, qui non solum inter concives,
 verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris se
 contulit."[1089]

In one of the appendices we shall detect him under the strange form
"Ottdevers"[1090] (= "Ottdeuers," a misreading for "Ottdeners")
witnessing a treaty arrangement between the Earls of Hereford and
Gloucester. This he did in his capacity of feudal tenant to the latter,
for in the Earl of Gloucester's _Carta_ (1166) of his tenants in Kent we
read: "Feodum Osberti oitdeniers i mil[item]," from which we learn that
he had held one knight's fee.[1091]

This singular _cognomen_, though savouring of the nickname period, may
have become hereditary, for we meet with a Philip Utdeners in 1223, and
with Alice and Agnes his daughters in 1233.[1092]

As I have here alluded to Becket it may be permissible to mention that
as the statements of his biographers in the matter of Osbert are
confirmed by this extraneous evidence, so have we also evidence in
charters of his residence, as "Thomas of London," in the primate's
household. To two charters of Theobald to Earls Colne Priory the first
witness is "Thoma Lond' Capellano nostro,"[1093] while an even more
interesting charter of the primate brings before us those three names,
which, says William of Canterbury, were those of his three intimates,
the first witness being Roger of Bishopsbridge, while the fourth and
fifth are John of Canterbury and Thomas of London, "clerks."[1094] Here
is abundant evidence that Becket was then known as "Thomas of London,"
as indeed Gervase of Canterbury himself implies.[1095]

[1087] _Vie de St. Thomas_ (ed. Hippeau, 1859).

[1088] Grim.

[1089] Auctor anonymus.

[1090] Its apparent dissimilarity to the "Octod'" of Geoffrey's charter
is instructive to note.

[1091] Hearne, who prints this entry, "Feodum Osberti oct. deniers i.
mil." (_Liber Niger_, ed. 1774, i. 53), makes it the occasion of an
exquisitely funny display of erudite Latinity, in which he gravely
rebukes Dugdale for his ignorance on the subject ("quid sibi velit
_denariata militis_ ignorasse videtur Dugdalius quam tamen is facile
intelliget," etc., etc.), having himself mistaken the tenant's name for
a term of land measurement.

[1092] _Bracton's Note-book_ (ed. Maitland), ii. 616; iii. 495. A
Nicholas "Treys-deners" or "Treydeners" occurs in Cornwall in the same
reign (_De Banco_, 45-46 Hen. III., Mich., No. 16, m. 62). "Penny" and
"Twopenny" are still familiar surnames among us, as is also
"Pennyfather" (? Pennyfarthing).

[1093] _Addl. MS._, 5860, fols. 221, 223 (ink).

[1094] _Cott. MSS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 188.

[1095] "Clerico suo Thomæ Londoniensi" (i. 160).



 APPENDIX R.
 THE FOREST OF ESSEX.
 (See pp. 92, 168, 182.)


The references to assarts and to (forest) pleas in the first and
second charters of the Empress ought to be carefully compared,
as they are of importance in many ways. They run thus respectively:—

 FIRST CHARTER.

 Ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis
 forestariis et assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi usque
 ad diem quo homo meus devenit, et ut a die illo in antea omnia illa
 essarta sint amodo excultibilia, et arrabilia sine forisfacto.

 SECOND CHARTER.

 Quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua
 libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio
 domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhæsit.

A similar provision will be found in the charter to Aubrey de Vere. It
is evident from these special provisions that the grantees attached a
peculiar importance to this indemnity for their assarts; and it is
equally noteworthy that the Empress is careful to restrict that
indemnity to those assarts which had been made before a certain date
("facta usque ad diem quâ," etc.). This restriction should be compared
with that which similarly limited the indemnity claimed by the barons of
the Exchequer,[1096] and which has been somewhat overlooked.[1097]

Assarts are duly dealt with in the _Leges Henrici Primi_, and would form
an important part of the "placita forestæ" in his reign. It is
reasonable to presume that one of the first results of the removal of
his iron hand would be a violent reaction against the tyranny of "the
forest." Indeed, we know that Stephen was compelled to give way upon the
point. A general outburst of "assarting" would at once follow. Thus the
prospect of the return, with the Empress, of her father's forest-law
would greatly alarm the offenders who were guilty of "assarts."[1098]

But, further, the earl's fief lay away from the forest proper. Why,
then, was this concession of such importance in his eyes? We are helped
towards an answer to this question by Mr. Fisher's learned and
instructive work on _The Forest of Essex_. The facts there given, though
needing some slight correction, show us that the Crown asserted in the
reign of Henry III., that the portion of the county which had been
afforested since the accession of Henry II. had (with the exception of
the hundred of Tendring) been merely _re_afforested, having been already
"forest" at the death of Henry I., though under Stephen it had ceased to
be so. This claim, which was successfully asserted, affected more than
half the county. Now, it is singular that throughout the struggle, on
this subject, with the Crown, the true forest, that of Waltham (now
Epping), was always conceded to be "within forest." Mr. Fisher's
valuable maps show its limits clearly. It was, accordingly, tacitly
admitted by the perambulation consequent on the Charter of the Forest to
have been "forest" before 1154.

The theory suggested to me by these _data_ is this. Stephen, we know, by
his Charter of Liberties consented that all the forests created by
Henry I. should be disafforested, and retained for himself only those
which had been "forest" in the days of the first and the second William.
Under this arrangement he retained, I hold, the small true forest
(Waltham forest), but had to resign the grasp of the Crown on the
additions made to it by Henry I., which amounted to considerably more
than half the county. My view that this sweeping extension of "forest"
was the work of Henry I. is confirmed by the fact that his "forest"
policy is admittedly the most objectionable feature of his rule. Nor, I
take it, was it inspired so much by the love of sport as by the great
facilities it afforded for pecuniary exaction. In the Pipe-Roll of his
thirty-first year we find (to adapt an old saying) "forest pleas as
thick as fleas" in Essex, affording proof, moreover, that his "forest"
had extended to the extreme north-east of the Lexden hundred. Here then
again, I believe, as in so many other matters, Henry II. ignored his
predecessor, and reverted to the _status quo ante_. Nor was the claim he
revived finally set at rest, till Parliament disposed of it for ever in
the days of Charles I.

An interesting charter bearing on this subject is preserved to us by
Inspeximus.[1099] It records the restoration by Stephen to the Abbess of
Barking of all her estates afforested by Henry I.[1100] Now, this
charter, which is tested at Clarendon (perhaps the only record of
Stephen being there), is witnessed by W[illiam] Martel, A[ubrey] de Ver,
and E[ustace] fitz John. The name of this last witness[1101] dates the
charter as previous to 1138 (when he threw over Stephen), and,
virtually, to the king's departure for Normandy early in 1137.
Consequently (and this is an important point) we here have Stephen
granting, as a favour, to Barking Abbey what he had promised in his
great charter to grant universally.[1102] This confirms the charge made
by Henry of Huntingdon that he repudiated the concession he had made.
His subsequent troubles, however, must have made it difficult for him to
adhere to this policy, or check the process of assarting. His grant to
the abbess was unknown to Mr. Fisher, who records an inquest of 1292, by
which it was found that the woods of the abbess were "without the
Regard;" and the Regarders were forbidden to exercise their authority
within them.

[1096] "Ut de hiis essartis dicantur quieti, quæ fuerant _ante diem quâ
rex illustris Henricus primus rebus humanis exemptus est_" (Dialogus, i.
11). The reason for the restriction is added.

[1097] See, for instance, _The Forest of Essex_ (Fisher), p. 313.

[1098] As a matter of fact, her son's succession was marked by the
exaction of heavy sums, under this head, as shown by the extracts from
his first Pipe-Roll in the Red book of the Exchequer.

[1099] Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18.

[1100] "Reddo et concedo ecclesiæ Berchingie et Abbatissæ Adel[iciæ]
omnes boscos et terras suas ... quas Henricus Rex afforestavit, ut illas
excolat et hospitetur."

[1101] Probably present as a brother of the abbess ("Soror Pagani filii
Johannis").

[1102] "Omnes forestas quas rex Henricus superaddidit ecclesiis et regno
quietas reddo et concedo."



 APPENDIX S.
 THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER.
 (See p. 176.)


The document which is printed below is unknown, it would seem, to
historians. It is of a very singular and, in many ways, of a most
instructive character. The fact that Earl Miles is one of the
contracting parties dates the document as belonging to the period
between his creation (July 25, 1141) and his death (December 24, 1143).
Further, the fact that the treaty provides for the surrender by him to
the Earl of Gloucester of one of his sons as a hostage, taken with the
fact that the Earl of Gloucester is recorded (_supra_, p. 196) to have
demanded from his leading supporters their sons as hostages when he left
England for Normandy, creates an extremely strong presumption that this
document should be assigned to that occasion (June, 1142). It is here
printed from a transcript by Dugdale, which I found among his MSS. The
absence of any provision defining the services to be rendered by Earl
Miles suggests that this portion of the treaty is omitted in the
transcript. There is, I think, just a chance that the original may yet
be discovered among the public records, for they fortunately contain a
similar treaty between the sons and successors of the two contracting
parties.[1103] It may be, however, that the original is the document
referred to by Dugdale (_Baronage_, i. 537) as "penes Joh. Philipot
Somerset Heraldum anno 1640." The close resemblance between the later
document[1103] and that which I here print confirms the authenticity of
the latter, and is, it will be seen, illustrated by the wording of the
opening clauses:—

 Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem
 Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie.

 Hæc est confederatio amoris inter Willelmum Comitem Gloec[estrie] et
 Rogerum comitem Herefordie.

We have also the noteworthy coincidence that Richard de St. Quintin and
Hugh de Hese, who are here hostages respectively for the Earls of
Gloucester and Hereford, figure again in the later document as hostages
for the earls' successors.[1104]

Another document with which this treaty should be carefully compared is
the remarkable agreement, in the same reign, between the Earls of
Chester and of Leicester,[1105] though this latter suggests by its
title—"Hæc est conventio ... et finalis pax et concordia," etc.—the
settlement of a strife between them rather than a friendly alliance. I
see in it, indeed, the intervention, if not the arbitration, of the
Church.

Both these alliances, again, should be compared, for their form, with
the treaty between Henry I. and Count Robert of Flanders.[1106] Although
a generation earlier than the document here printed, the parallels are
very striking:—

 Robertus, Comes Flandriæ, fide et sacramento assecuravit Regi Henrico
 vitam suam et membra quæ corpori suo pertinent ... et quod juvabit eum,
 etc.

 Porro Comitissa affidavit, quod, quantum poterit, Comitem in hac
 conventione tenebit, et in amicitia regis, et in prædicto servitio
 fideliter per amorem.

 Hujus conventionis tenendæ ex parte Comitis obsides sunt subscripti....
 Quod si Comes ab hac conventione exierit et ... infra XL dies emendare
 noluerit, etc.


 Robertus, Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide
 et sacramento, ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio
 suam vitam et suum membrum ... et auxiliabitur illi, etc.

 Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris, affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie
 quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse
 suo tenebit.

 Et de hac conventione tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii
 obsides, etc.... Quod si Comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione
 exiret.... Et si infra XL dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie
 erigere, etc.


 THE TREATY.

Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem
Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie, Robertus Comes Gloecestrie
assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide et sacramento ut custodiet
illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum et
terrenum suum honorem, et auxiliabitur illi ad custodiendum sua castella
et sua recta et sua hereditaria et sua tenementa et sua conquisita quæ
modo habet et quæ faciet, et suas consuetudines et rectitudines et suas
libertates in bosco et in plano et aquis, et quod sua hereditaria quæ
modo non habet auxiliabitur ad conquirendum. Et si aliquis vellet inde
Comiti Hereford malum facere, vel de aliquo decrescere, si comes
Hereford vellet inde guerrare, quod Robertus comes Gloecestrie cum illo
se teneret, et quod ad suum posse illi auxiliaretur per fidem et sine
ingenio, nec pacem neque treuias cum illis haberet qui malum comiti
Herefordiæ inferret, nisi per bonum velle et grantam (_sic_) Comitis
Herefordiæ, et nominatim de hac guerra quæ modo est inter Imperatricem
et Regem Stephanum se cum comite Hereford tenebit et ad unum opus erit,
et de omnibus aliis guerris.

Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie
quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse
suo tenebit. Et si inde exiret, ad suum posse illum ad hoc reponeret. Et
si non posset, legalem recordationem, si opus esset, inde faceret ad
suum scire.

Et de hac conventione firmiter tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt
hii obsides per fidem et sacramentum erga Comitem Hereford: hoc modo,
quod si comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum
Comitem Gloecestrie requirerent ut se erga Comitem Herefordiæ erigeret.
Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, se Comiti
Herefordie liberarent, ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos
retinendum in suo servitio donec illos quietos clamaret vel ad illos
ponendos ad legalem redemptionem ita ne terrâ [? terram] perderent. Et
quod legalem recordationem de hac conventione facerent si opus esset,
Guefridus de Waltervill, Ricardus de Greinvill,[1107] Osbernus
Ottdevers,[1108] Reinald de Cahagnis,[1109] Hubertus Dapifer, Odo
Sorus,[1110] Gislebertus de Umfravil,[1111] Ricardus de Sancto
Quintino.[1112]

Et ex parte Milonis Comitis Hereford ad istud confirmandum concessit
Milo Comes Hereford Roberto Comiti Gloecestrie Mathielum filium suum
tenendum in obsidem donec guerra inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum
et Henricum filium Imperatricis finiatur.

Et interim si Milo Comes Hereford voluerit aliquem alium de suis filiis,
qui sanus sit, in loco Mathieli filii sui ponere, recipietur.

Et postquam guerra finita fuerit et Robertus Comes Gloecestrie et Milo
Comes Hereford terras suas et sua recta rehabuerint reddet Robertus
Comes Gloecestrie Miloni Comiti Herefordie filium suum. Et hinc de
probis hominibus utriusque comitis considerabuntur et capientur obsides
et securitates de amore ipsorum comitum tenendo imperpetuum.

Et de hac conventione amoris Rogerus filius Comitis Hereford affidavit
et juravit Comiti Gloecestrie quod patrem suum pro posse suo tenebit; Et
si Comes Hereford inde vellet exire, Rogerus filius suus, inde illum
requireret et inde illum corrigeret. Et si Comes Hereford se inde
erigere nollet, servicium ipsius Rogeri filii sui prorsus perdet, donec
se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erexisset.

Et de hac conventione ex parte Comitis Hereford sunt hii sui homines
obsides erga Comitem Gloecestrie et per sacramenta; hoc modo, quod si
Comes Hereford de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Hereford
requirerent ut se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigeret. Et si infra xl dies
se nollet erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigere se Comiti Gloecestrie
liberarent ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in
suo servicio donec illos quietos clamaret, vel ad illos ponendos ad
legalem redemptionem, ita ne terram perdent. Et quod legalem
recordationem de hac conventione in Curia facerent si opus esset,
Robertus Corbet, Willelmus Mansel, Hugo de la Hese.

[1103] Duchy of Lancaster: Ancient Charters, Box A. No. 4 (_Thirty-Fifth
Report of Deputy Keeper_ (1874), p. 2).

[1104] A somewhat similar treaty to this may be hinted at in the
statement that Roger de Berkeley was connected with Walter de Gloucester
"amicitia et alternæ pacis fœdere sibi astrictum" (_Gesta Stephani_).

[1105] _Cott. MS._, Nero, C. iii. fol. 178.

[1106] Printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_ (i. 16-23).

[1107] Richard de Greinvill appears in 1166 as the _late_ holder of
seven knights' fees from the earl (_Liber Niger_).

[1108] Osbern Ottdevers (_i.e._ Ottde_n_ers) was Osbern Octodenarii,
_alias_ Octonummi (see Appendix Q). He appears in 1166 as the _late_
tenant of one knight's fee from the earl _in Kent_ (_ibid._).

[1109] Philip "de Chahaines" appears as a tenant of the earl in 1166
(_ibid._).

[1110] An Odo Sorus is alleged to have accompanied Robert fitz Hamon
into Wales. Jordan Sorus was the largest tenant of the earl in 1166,
holding fifteen knights' fees from him (_Liber Niger_). His predecessor,
Robert Sorus, had held of the fief under Robert fitz Hamon _circ._ 1107
(_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106).

[1111] Gilbert de Umfravill held nine knights' fees from the earl in
1166 (_Liber Niger_).

[1112] Richard de St. Quintin held ten knights' fees from the earl in
1166 (_ibid._). His family had been tenants of the fief even under
Robert fitz Hamon (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 96, 106).



 APPENDIX T.
 "AFFIDATIO IN MANU."
 (See p. 177.)


"Hanc autem ... affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis
Gaufredi." This formula ("affidavi ... in manu") is deserving of careful
study. It ought to be compared with a passage in the _Chronicle of
Abingdon_ (ii. 160), describing how, some quarter of a century before,
in the assembled county court (_comitatus_) of Berkshire, the delegate
of the abbey, "pro ecclesiâ affidavit fidem in manu ipsius vicecomitis,
vidente toto comitatu." This was a case of "affidatio" by proxy; but in
the above charter we find Geoffrey stipulating for "affidatio" in person
("propria manu") by the Empress, her husband, and her son. Accordingly,
when the young Henry confirms his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere
(see p. 186), he does so "manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Inga,
sicut mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufredi." Thus
Geoffrey allowed himself the privilege, which he refused to the other
contracting party, of "affidatio" by proxy, and made Hugh de Ing his
delegate for the purpose.

A curious allusion to this practice is found in the words of Ranulf
Flambard some half a century earlier, when he promises the captor in
whose power he was to grant him all that he can ask, "et ne discredas
promissis, ecce _manu affirmo_ quod polliceor."—Continuatio Historiæ
Turgoti (_Anglia Sacra_, i. 707). The formula was probably of great
antiquity. It occurs in the lifetime of Archbishop Oswald (died 992),
who obtained a lease for life on behalf of a certain Wulfric, of the
provisions in which we read: "Hoc totum idem Wlfricus, sub oculis
multorum qui aderant, _in manu_ viri Dei qui pro eo intercessor
accesserat _affidavit_" (_Chron. Ram._, p. 81). It is found, however, as
late as 1187, when at the foundation of Dodnash Priory the canons
"juraverunt et fidem _in manu nostra_ corporaliter ... firmaverunt,"
says the bishop (_Ancient Charters_, p. 88). Another late instance is
found in the _Burton Cartulary_ (fol. 33), where Robert fitz Walter,
that his grant "inconcussum permaneat, in toto comitatu, multis
cementibus qui se ipsos testes concesserunt, in manu Vicecomitis
Serlonis manu meâ hoc tenendum et servandum affidavi." So also in the
Pipe-Roll of 3 John we find recorded a lease, "et quod ipse Micael et
Everardus frater suus affidaverunt in manu H. Cantuarensis Arch. hanc
Conventionem fideliter tenendam" (Rot. 6 _b_). An instance, in 1159, may
be quoted from the _Cartulary of St. Michael on the Mount_ because of
its curious legal bearing. Robert de Belvoir mortgages to the abbey
lands which he had settled on his wife in dower, and, in order to bar
her claim, she, _by her brother_, guarantees the transaction by
"affidatio in manu" to the abbot's delegate.[1113] This arrangement
should be compared with that which is discussed in my _Ancient
Charters_, pp. 22, 23.[1114] Perhaps, however, the most singular case is
one which I noted in the _Cartulary_ (MS.) _of Rievaulx_, and which
is also of the reign of Henry II. A widow grants lands to that abbey,
"et illam donationem tenendam et fideliter observandam manu propria
affidavit in manu Vicecomitissæ, vid. Bert[æ] uxoris vicecomitis Ranulfi
de Glanvill[a]."[1115] The conjunction here of the two women, the
presence of the great Glanville himself, and the part played by his
wife, together with the title assigned her, all combine to render the
transaction one of unusual interest.

It was by this formal and binding pledge that the leaders of the English
host swore to one another to do or die on the field of the Battle of the
Standard. Turning to William of Aumâle, and placing his hand in his,
Walter Espec pledged his faith that he would conquer or be slain; and
his fellow-commanders did the same."[1116] It was, again, by this solemn
pledge, towards the close of Stephen's reign, that the Bishop of
Winchester, before his brother prelates, covenanted to surrender
Winchester to the duke at the king's death[1117]—even as the duke
himself had covenanted (April 9, 1152) with the Bishop of Salisbury
concerning Devizes Castle[1118]—in terms to be closely compared with
those of his charter to Aubrey, and his mother's to Earl Geoffrey in
1142.

The practice is, I find, alluded to, incidentally, by Giraldus
Cambrensis, who tells us that the Welsh "Adeo fidei fœdus, aliis
inviolabile gentibus, parvipendere solent, ut non in seriis solum et
necessariis, verum in ludicris, omnique fere verbo firmando, _dextræ
manus ut mos est porrectione, signo usuali dato_, fidem gratis effundere
consueverint." Here the point of the complaint is that they made light
of this solemn practice, indulging in it freely on every occasion
instead of reserving it for important matters. The existence of this
archaic "fidei fœdus" as the _formal confirmation_ of a contract is, of
course, of the greatest interest. It still lingers on, not only with us,
but abroad. In San Marino (Italy), for instance, "sales are conducted
with much animation. Two sturdy proprietors stand back to back.... A
third party stands between the two; ... he pulls one by the shoulder,
the other by an elbow, and finally by an apparently acrobatic feat _he
unites their hands_" ("A Political Survival," _Macmillan's_, January,
1891, p. 197). In the Lebanon, we are told by a well-informed writer: "A
few months ago I had occasion to enter into a business contract with one
of my Druse farmers. When we were about to draw up the agreement, the
Druse suggested that, as he could neither read nor write, we should
ratify the bargain in the manner customary among his people. This
consists of a solemn grasping of hands together in the presence of two
or three other Druses as witnesses, whilst the agreement is recited by
both parties.... Accordingly, the farmer brought three of his neighbours
to me; and the terms of our contract having been made known to them, one
of them took the right hand of each of us and joined them together,
whilst he dictated to us what to say after him" ("The Druses,"
_Blackwood's_, January, 1891, pp. 754, 755). With us, Gerald would be
grieved to hear, the ancient form survives not only for the bargain but
the bet, though it only continues in full vigour as the sign of the
marriage contract, where "the minister ... shall cause the man with his
right hand to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after him as
followeth,"—even as the Druses, we have seen, make their contracts
to-day, and as the Empress Maud sealed her own seven centuries
ago.[1119]

The allusion by the Empress to the "Christianitas Angliæ" refers
doubtless to the fact that the breach of such "affidatio" would
constitute a "læsio fidei," and would thus become a matter for the
jurisdiction of the courts Christian. It was indeed on this plea that
these courts claimed to attract to themselves all cases of contract, a
claim against which, it is necessary to explain, an article (No. 15) of
the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) was specially directed.[1120]

[1113] "Invadiavit Rotbertus de Belueer pro sex libris Cenomannensium,
terram suam quam dederat uxori sue in dotem, ipsa bene hoc concedente,
Philippo fratri insuper fide sua in manu Johannis filii Bigoti illud
idem sororem suam tenere assecurante" (fol. 116).

[1114] Ed. Pipe-Roll Society.

[1115] "Hiis testibus, Ranulfo vicecomite, Bertha vicecomitissâ, Matilda
filia ejus."

[1116] "Hæc dicens vertit se ad comitem Albemarlensem, dataque dextera,
'Do,' inquit, 'fidem quia hodie aut vincam Scottos aut occidar a
Scottis.' Quo similiter voto cuncti se proceres constrixerunt" (Æthelred
of Rievaulx).

[1117] "Episcopus Wintonie in manu archiepiscopi Cantuarensis coram
episcopis affidavit quod si ego decederem castra Wintonie ... Duci
redderet."

[1118] "Hunc supradictam conventionem ... affidavit idem Comes (_sic_)
in manu domini Cantuarensis archiepiscopi ... sine malo ingenio
tenendam; et cum eo Comes Gloucestrie.... Similiter et dominus episcopus
Sarum affidavit in manu ejusdem Legati," etc. (_Sarum Charters and
Documents_, pp. 22, 23).

[1119] Compare the old English term "Handfasting." The law in Austria,
it is said, still recognizes the clasping of hands as a formal contract.

[1120] "Placita de debitis, quæ _fide interposita_ debentur, ... sint in
justitia regis."



 APPENDIX U.
 THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE.
 (See p. 178.)


The confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two families is
due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several generations, the
successive heads of the family of De Vere were all named Aubrey
("Albericus"); and in the second, to a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which
proves as inaccurate as to the marriage of its founder as it is on the
date of his creation.[1121] Dugdale, accepting all its statements
without the slightest hesitation, has combined in a single passage no
less than three errors, together with the means for their
detection.[1122] Among these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."[1123] Accordingly, she so
figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has now
reappeared in Mr. Doyle's _Official Baronage_.[1124] Oddly enough, in
his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, Dugdale makes
Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of Oxford, but of his
grandfather Aubrey,[1125] and so enters her in the tabular
pedigree.[1126] And yet she was, in truth, daughter neither of the earl
nor of his grandfather, but of his father, the chamberlain.[1127] To
establish this will now be my task.

Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey de Vere "senior"
of the _Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey_, about twenty years are interposed.
Their identity, therefore, is not actually proved, though the
presumption, of course, is in its favour. But from the time of the
latter Aubrey all is clear. The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon
Cartulary is as follows:—

                        Aubrey   =  Beatrice,
                        de Vere,  |
                        "senior." |
                                  |
     +----------------+-----------+-+----------+-----------+
     |                |             |          |           |
  Geoffrey       Aubrey de       Roger de   Robert de   William
 (or Godfrey),     Vere,           Vere.      Vere.     de Vere,
 ob. v. p. at    "junior"                               died soon
  Abingdon.     (afterwards                             after his
                "camerarius                              father.
                   Regis"),
                  d. 1141.

Our next source of information is the _Cartulary of Colne Priory_,[1128]
in combination with an invaluable tract, _De miraculis S. Osythæ_,
composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first earl, and a canon of
St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was acquainted with both documents,
but lost the full force of the latter by failing to identify its author.
He gives us as sons to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey
the first earl, (_a_) William de Vere, (_b_) —— de Vere, canon of St.
Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter of
Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" son
William;[1129] secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the earl, witnessed by
his brother William, "presbyter;"[1130] thirdly, by the charter from the
Empress to the earl, in which she provides for all his brothers, the
chancellorship, a clerical post, being promised to William.[1131] We may
further assert of this tract that it must have been written after 1163,
for the canon tells us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of
widowhood at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.[1132]
In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,[1133] as "justitiarius
totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion that he held
that high office, a statement which exercised the mind of Foss, who
complains that "it is difficult to tell on what authority" he is
introduced among its holders both by Dugdale and Spelman.[1134] He
further speaks of his mother as "Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare,
and exults in the fact that she has spent her widowhood, not in the
family priory at Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also
to his sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ."
Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was sister to the
Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and was aunt to their
sons, Earls of Essex.[1135] Accordingly, we find the Countess Rohese
giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory for the souls of her father, Aubrey
de Vere, and her husband, Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl
William, confirming the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."[1136] It is
quite clear that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville,
first Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of
Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of Gilbert
de Clare.

But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an answer to this
question, to the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_. There we shall find that
she married twice, and left issue by both husbands. Her first husband
was Robert de Essex[1137]; her second was Roger fitz Richard, of
Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, Northumberland, ancestor of the
Claverings. Now, "Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and
heir of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror,
and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of the Confessor,
under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The descent is proved, in a
conclusive manner, by the description of the second Robert among the
benefactors to Lewes Priory, in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in
another as Robert de Essex.[1138] Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory
as a cell to Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting
the foundation charter.[1139] Robert's son and heir was the well-known
Henry de Essex.[1140] So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it is
certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod by birth—who
was mother of his son Henry. Therefore "Alice of Essex" cannot have been
his widow. Consequently she must have been the widow of another Robert
de Essex, possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his
elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, Roger fitz
Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of Clavering).

We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular pedigree,
showing the relationship that existed between the families of Mandeville
and De Vere.


                   William de                   Aubrey     =   Alice
                   Mandeville.                  de Vere,   | de Clare,
                       |                     created Great |  dau. of
                       |                      Chamberlain  | Gilbert de
                       |                         1133,     |   Clare,
                       |                       died 1141.  | died _circ._
                       |                                   |   1163.
             +---------+--------+              +-----------+------------
             |                  |              |
 William = Beatrice de  (1) Geoffrey de   =  Rohese   = (2) Payn de
 de Say. | Mandeville.     Mandeville,    |  de Vere, |  Beauchamp,
         |                  1ST EARL OF   |  said to  |  of Bedford.
         |                ESSEX, d. 1144. | have died |
         |                                |   1207.   |
      +--+---------+             +--------+------+    +-------+
      |            |             |               |            |
   William     Geoffrey      Geoffrey de    William de     Simon de
   de Say,     de Say.       Mandeville,   Mandeville,    Beauchamp.
 ancestor of       |         2ND EARL OF   3RD EARL OF        |
 Fitz Piers,       |            ESSEX,        ESSEX,          |
  Earls of         |           d. 1166.      d. 1189.         |
   Essex.          |                                          |
     |             |                                          |
     |             |                                          |
     ↓             ↓                                          ↓
    Arms.         Arms.                                      Arms.
 "_Quarterly,  "_Quarterly,                               "_Quarterly,
    or and       or and                                    or and gules_,
    gules._"      gules._"                                  a bend."

                   Aubrey     =   Alice
                   de Vere,   | de Clare,
                created Great |  dau. of
                 Chamberlain  | Gilbert de
                    1133,     |   Clare,
                  died 1141.  | died _circ._
                              |   1163.
                --------------+-----------------------------+
                              |                             |
               (1) Robert = Alice    = (2) Roger fitz  Aubrey de
                de Essex.   de Vere. |   Richard of      Vere,
                                     |   Warkworth.   1ST EARL OF
                                     |                  OXFORD.
                                     |                     |
                                     |                     |
                                     |                     |
                                Robert fitz             Aubrey
                                 Roger of              de Vere,
                                 Clavering           2ND EARL OF
                                    and                OXFORD.
                                  Warkworth.              |
                                     |                    |
                                     |                    |
                                     |                    |
                                     ↓                    ↓
                                    Arms.                Arms.
                                 "_Quarterly,       _Quarterly, gu._
                                 or and gules_,       and or_, a
                                 a bend sable."      mullet argent
                                                      in the first
                                                       quarter.

It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to show all the
children. It gives those only which are required for our special
purpose. On some points there is still need of more original
information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William de Say, was sister, and
not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. I know of nothing to the
contrary. Still the fact would seem to rest on the authority of the
_Walden Chronicle_. The re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de
Beauchamp, and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well
established, but the date of her death is taken from the _Chronicle_,
and seems suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her
brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after the
charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother survived her
husband for twenty-two years implies that her children may have been
comparatively young at his death. Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore
have been several years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville.

But the main point has been, in any case, established, namely, the true
relationship of these baronial houses. That which is given by Dugdale
contains the further error of representing Alice de Vere as wife, not of
Robert de Essex, but of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his _Antiquities of
Heraldry_ (p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship,
the existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale
contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is "correct, or
approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he errs in assigning to
Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, he transforms Roger fitz
Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, given as her second husband, into
her son-in-law.[1141]

My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had worked out
the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their bearing on the
adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had been anticipated in this
investigation by the author of that scholarly work, _The Antiquities of
Heraldry_. As the conclusions, however, at which I had arrived differ
slightly from those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them
forth.

Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple QUARTERLY shield":—

 "There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial
 ensign is to be found in the distinguished family of DE VERE, as all
 the families in the table who bear it are descended from the head of
 that house who lived at the commencement of the twelfth century."[1142]

I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued and
erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions are
based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further on:—

 "Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it
 Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom
 all, or their wives were descended?"[1143]

Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves this
statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended from Mandeville, but
_not_ descended from De Vere. It is, therefore, shown by his own "table"
that this _must_ have been a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms,
the very practice against which he here strenuously argues.[1144] Thus
the very case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself
proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to emphasize
this point because it is the pivot on which the question turns. If "all
the families in the table" who bore the quarterly coat were indeed
descended from De Vere, Mr. Ellis's theory would account for the facts.
But, by his own showing, they were not. Some other explanation must
therefore be sought.

That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which I am still
compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" of this quarterly
coat was the central figure of this family group, Geoffrey de Mandeville
himself. It being, as I have shown, absolutely clear that there must
have been collateral adoption, the only question that remains to be
decided is from which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere,
was the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former is that
the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, the greatest
personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, at Oxford, as his
dependant rather than as his equal. On this ground, then, it seems to me
far more probable that Aubrey should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey
than that Geoffrey should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second
reason is this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest
form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the simplest
form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, is that borne by
the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded blazons till the reign of
Henry III., but when we do, it is as "quartele de or & de goulez" that
the coat of the Earl of Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville,
first meets us.[1145] But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem,
bear this coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with
a mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for
distinction) being in this case reversed.[1146] Thus heraldry, as well
as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original bearer of
the coat.

It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that Geoffrey de
Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple paternal coat, and that it
is still to be seen on the shield of his effigy among the monuments at
the Temple Church. But antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that
this is indeed his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from
that _Chronicle of Walden_ which is in error in its statements on his
foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. Nor is
there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of his heirs.[1147]

But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet to be
considered. A little thought will soon show that no hypothesis can
possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly coat by these various
families at any other period than this in which they all intermarried.
If we wish to trace to its origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must
go back to some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with
derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle we ought
to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for successive
generations, to those families who were privileged to ally themselves to
it. Yet we can only trace this principle at work in this particular
generation. If Mandeville, and Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds,
the coat of De Vere, why should not De Vere, in the previous generation,
have adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for the
phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats all
originated in this generation and in consequence of these
intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would be adopted by
his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's brother De Vere, and by
those other relatives shown in the pedigree. Once adopted they remain,
till they meet us in the recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III.

The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign of Stephen
was the period in which heraldic bearings were assuming a definite form.
Most heralds would place it later: Mr. Ellis would have us believe that
we ought to place it earlier. The question has been long and keenly
discussed, and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with
certainty the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any
rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation and of
one alone.

If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at Evesham) to
distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not improbable that these
kindred coats may represent the alliance of their bearers, as typified
in the Oxford charters, beneath the banner of the Earl of Essex.[1148]

[1121] See p. 45.

[1122] _Baronage_, i. 203 _b_.

[1123] _Ibid._, i. 201.

[1124] "m. Rohaise, d. of Aubrey de Vere, (afterwards) Earl of Oxford"
(i. 682).

[1125] _Baronage_, i. 188 _b_.

[1126] _Ibid._, 189.

[1127] Strange to say, Dugdale gives also this third (and right) version
(_ibid._, i. 463 _a_).

[1128] In Cole's transcript (British Museum).

[1129] _Ibid._, No. 31.

[1130] _Ibid._, No. 43.

[1131] See p. 182.

[1132] It would seem clear that this William must have been the "Dominus
Willelmus de Ver" to whom Dr. Stubbs alludes as the "early friend and
fellow-student," at the University of Paris, of Arnulf, Bishop of
Lisieux, and of the celebrated Ralf "de Diceto" (who may have been born,
Dr. Stubbs suggests, about 1122). Bishop Arnulf, asking Ralf to come
over and pay him a visit, tells him that William de Ver has promised to
come too (see preface to _Radulfus de Diceto_, pp. xxxii., _note_,
liv.). But some difficulty is caused by his appearing as a canon, not of
St. Osyth's, but of St. Paul's, in 1162 and later (_Ninth Report
Historical MSS._, App. i. pp. 19 _a_, 32 _a_). It would seem to have
been the latter William de Ver who became Bishop of Hereford in 1185,
and died 1199.

[1133] He had received the "Cameraria Angliæ" from Henry I., in a
charter which must have passed on the occasion of the king leaving
England for the last time in 1133. Madox has printed the charter (which
has a valuable list of witnesses) in his _Baronia Anglica_, from
Dugdale's transcript.

[1134] _Judges of England_, i. 89.

[1135] Thus the _Chronicle of Walden Abbey_ (_Arundel MSS._) relates
that at the death of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, in 1166, his mother was
living at her Priory of Chicksand, with her sister "Adeliza" of Essex.
On the succession of his brother William, "Alicia de Essexia" came to
Walden Abbey "ordinante comite Willelmo ejus nepote," and settled and
died there (_ibid._, cap. 18). But the most important evidence is a
charter of this same Earl William, abstracted in _Lansdowne MSS._, 259,
fol. 67, granting to "Adelicia of Essex," his mother's sister, the town
of Aynho in free dower over and above the dower she had received from
Roger fitz Richard, her lord. This charter is witnessed by his mother,
"Roesia Comitissa;" Simon de Beauchamp, his uterine brother; Geoffrey de
Ver and William de Ver, his uncles; Ranulf Glanville, and Geoffrey de
Say, who was his cousin. He had previously granted Aynho (? in 1170) to
Roger fitz Richard in exchange for Compton (co. Warwick), his charter
being witnessed _inter alios_ by John (de Lacy), the constable of
Chester (see p. 392 _n._), Ranulf de Glanville, and Geoffrey de Say (see
my paper on "A Charter of William, Earl of Essex," in _Eng. Hist.
Review_, April, 1891).

[1136] _Colne Cartulary_, Nos. 51, 54.

[1137] "Domino suo primo marito Roberto scilicet de Essexiâ" (_Walden
Abbey Chronicle_). Dugdale makes her, in error, the wife of Henry de
Essex.

[1138] This descent has not hitherto been established, and Mr. Freeman
speaks of Swegen of Essex as "father or grandfather of Henry de Essex."

[1139] He appears in the charters of this priory as "Robertus filius
Suein" and as "Robertus de Essex filius Suein."

[1140] See Appendix N. His paternity, which is well ascertained, is
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

————, John (de Lacy), constable of, 390

Chiche, Maurice de, 142

Chichester, Seffrid, bishop of, 83, 262, 263, 265

————, earl of. _See_ ARUNDEL

Chicksand Priory, 231, 390

Chiévre, Geoffrey, 169

————, Michael, 169

————, William, 169

Chreshall (Essex), 168

"Christianitas Angliæ," 172, 177, 183, 387

Cirencester, Empress at, 57;
  captured by Stephen, 197;
  Earl of Gloucester reaches, 199, 406

Clairvaux, Payne de, 172, 183

————, Robert de, 172, 183

Clare, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (I.), 321

————, Gilbert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 329

————, ————, Baldwin "fitz Gilbert" de, 13, 144, 145, 148, 159

————, ————, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (II.), 40, 148, 270, 271

————, ————, Walter "fitz Gilbert" de, 159

————, Robert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 11, 13, 14, 262, 263, 370

————, Roger "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 265, 427

————, Walter "fitz Richard" (I.) de, 13, 14, 264, 265

————, Alice de (wife of Aubrey de Vere), 390

————, earldom of. _See_ HERTFORD

———— _See also_ PEMBROKE, earl of;
  EXETER, Baldwin of

Clarendon, Stephen at, 378

————, Assize of, 111-113

Clark, Mr. G. T., on Gloucester Castle, 330;
  on the Tower of London, 334;
  on Rochester Castle, 338;
  on the keep of Newcastle, 339, 346;
  on the Château d'Arques, 340-346;
  his authority, 346

Clavering (Essex), 391

Clericus, Hugh, 231

————, Lovel, 253

————, Roger, 231

————, Simon, 231

Clinton, Geoffrey de, 265, 297

Cluny, Peter, abbot of, 253, 254

————, abbey of, favours the Empress, 254

Cnihtengild, the London, 307-309

Cockfield, Adam de, 190, 440

————, Robert de, 190

Coffin, story of the Empress escaping in a, 134

"Cokeford," 314

Colchester, charter of Richard I. to, 110

———— Castle, granted to Eudo Dapifer, 328;
  to Aubrey de Vere, 180, 185, 328

———— Abbey (St. John's), 391;
  charter of Henry I. to, 423-427

———— ————, Hugh, abbot of, 194

Coleville, Robert de, 314

————, W. de, 159

Colne Priory, 390

Columbers, Philip de, 419

"Communa." _See_ LONDONERS

"Communio." _See_ LONDONERS

Compostella, St. Jago de, pilgrimages to, 415

Compton (Warwick), 390

Constableship, hereditary, 285, 314, 315, 326

"Constabularia" (of knights), the, 155

"Constabularie, Honor," 326, 327

Corbet, Robert, 383

Cornhill, Edward de, 306, 307

————, ————, his wife "Godeleve," 306-308

————, Gervase de, 304-312;
  his loan to the Queen, 120, 305;
  justiciar of London, 121, 305;
  sheriff of London, 304;
  of Kent, 311;
  a money-lender, 311;
  his descendants, 312

————, ————, his wife Agnes, 306, 308;
  his brother Alan, 310, 311

————, Henry de (son of Gervase), 305, 310

————, Ralph de, 310

————, Reginald de, 310

————. _See also_ "NEPOS HUBERTI," Roger

Cornwall, Reginald ("filius regis"), earl of, 68, 82, 123, 125, 172,
  183, 234, 236, 263, 264, 271, 418, 419

————, earldom of, 68, 271

Coronation, its relation to election, 5;
  its importance, 6;
  in the power of the Church, 7;
  performed at Westminster, 78, 80;
  repeated by Stephen and by Richard I., 137

Coroners represent, in towns, the "justiciar," 110

Councils, 17-24, 48, 69, 136, 165, 202, 264, 265, 278, 412, 413, 415,
  423, 427-429

Courci, Robert de (Dapifer), 170, 183

————, Alice de, 310

Courtenay, Hugh de, 296

Coutances, "Algarus," bishop of, 262, 263

————, Geoffrey, bishop of, 290

Crevecœur, Robert de, 158

Cricklade, young Henry attacks, 409

————, "third penny" of, 289

Crown, hereditary right to the, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 55, 186,
  200, 253-256;
  elective, 26, 29, 34;
  kept at Winchester, 62

Crown lands, grants of, 99, 101, 140, 142, 149, 154, 167, 269, 275, 440;
  their rents, 100, 268, 293

Culham, 415

Cumin, William, 85

Curci. _See_ COURCI

"Custodes" distinct from sheriffs, 297


D

Dammartin, William de, 53

Danfront, Picard de, 141

Danish district, peculiar payments in the, 289

Danvers, Henry, 232

Dapifer, Eudo, 154, 328;
  his fief and office, 167, 173

————, Hamo, 431

————, Hubert, 382

David, King of Scots, with Henry I. (as earl), 429, 430;
  invades England, 16;
  joins the Empress, 80, 84;
  at her court, 123, 124;
  knights Henry, 409;
  his earldom, 181, 192

Dean, Forest of, 56

Dedham (Essex), 181, 400-404

Deforcement, 351

Depden (Essex), 90, 140, 141

Derby, earldom of, 193, 270, 271

————, earl of. _See_ FERRERS

Devizes, castle of, 46;
  Empress flees to, 133;
  its story, 134, 386;
  councils of the Empress at, 165;
  young Henry at, 408, 409;
  charter granted at, 417, 418

Devon, earldom of, 271, 272, 296

————, "tertius denarius" of, 296

————, Baldwin (de Redvers), earl of, 93, 125, 172, 183

"Dialogus de Scaccario," the, 154, 293, 304, 312, 322, 376, 425

"Diffidatio," the, 28, 284, 285

Diham. _See_ DEDHAM

Dinan, Gotso (or Goceas) de, 409, 418

Dispenser, Robert le, 154, 314, 315;
  his inheritance, 313

Dodnash Priory, foundation of, 385

D'Oilli. _See_ OILLI

Domesday values, 101, 102, 140, 241, 361;
  the "tertius denarius" in, 287-291

Domfront. _See_ DANFRONT

"Domina," the Empress as, 14, 56, 57, 63, 67, 70, 73-75, 80, 83

"Dominus," the king as, 14, 70, 73, 74

Dorset, earldom of, 95, 181, 193, 194, 271, 272, 277. _See_ MOHUN

————, "tertius denarius" of, 291

Douai, Walter de, his fief, 141

Dover, Stephen at, 1;
  granted to Earl of Gloucester, 2;
  held against Stephen, 2, 94;
  Henry II. at, 237;
  a "castellum," 332

———— Castle, 340, 345

Dower, 385

Droitwich, 440

Dublin Castle, 331

Dugdale, his errors, 37, 38, 44, 87, 166, 327, 388, 391

Dunstanville, Alan de, 123, 325

————, Robert de, 236, 418

Durham, Stephen at, 16

————, see of, contest for, 85;
  privileges of, 112

————, bishops of, Ranulf (Flambard), 384;
  ——Geoffrey, 265


E

"Eadintune," 306, 307

Earldoms, always of a county, 273, 320;
  or joint counties, 191-193, 273;
  hereditary, 53, 242, 440;
  formula of creation, 97, 187, 191, 238;
  of confirmation, 89, 97, 188, 190, 238;
  dealings of Henry II. with, 234, 239, 274-277

Earls, their privileges, 52, 93, 98, 143, 160, 169, 181, 182, 235, 292;
  at siege of Winchester, 128;
  at Stephen's court, 139, 144, 159;
  origin of their titles, 144, 181, 191, 272, 273, 320, 321;
  their "third penny," 239, 240, 269, 287-296

————, Stephen's, 266, 270;
  dates of their creation, 270, 271;
  choice of their titles, 272;
  their alleged poverty, 267, 269;
  not "fiscal," 267-277, 440;
  their alleged deposition, 274-277

Easton (Essex), 141

Edgware, 440

Edward I., his dealings with London, 358;
  with Nottingham, 359

Eglinus (? de Furnis), 53

Ellis, Mr. W. S., on the arms of Mandeville, 394;
  of Sackville, 393;
  of De Vere, 395

Elmdon (Essex), 143

Elton, Mr., on Mr. Chester Waters, 421;
  on Mr. Loftie, 436

Ely, Stephen marches on, 48;
  Geoffrey despatched against, 161, 411;
  Geoffrey occupies, 209, 215;
  Geoffrey's doings at, 213, 215, 218;
  Stephen's vengeance on, 214;
  famine and misery at, 219

————, Nigel, bishop of, 45;
  at Stephen's court, 262, 263;
  rebels, 48;
  joins the Empress, 64, 161, 411;
  attends her court, 82, 83, 93, 314;
  appeals to Rome against Stephen, 161, 411;
  restored to his see, 162, 412;
  visits the Empress, 208;
  goes to Rome, 208, 209;
  returns, 215;
  with Henry II., 236

————, William, prior of, 83

Emperor, style of the, 300, 301

Epping Forest. _See_ WALTHAM

Esegar (the staller), succeeded by the Mandevilles, 37;
  sheriff and portreeve, 353, 354

"Esendona," 286

Espec, Walter, 263, 385

Essex, hereditary shrievalty of, 92, 109, 142, 150, 166

————, ———— justiciarship of, 92, 105, 109, 142, 150, 167

————, "firma" of, 92, 142, 150, 166, 298, 360

————, "third penny" of, 89, 92, 235, 237, 239

————, earldom of, created by Stephen, 51-53, 97, 270, 271;
  confirmed by the Empress, 89;
  assigned to Geoffrey the younger, 234, 417;
  re-created by Henry II., 234-239;
  extinct, 243

————, escheatorship of, 92, 439

————, forest of, 376-378

————, earls of. _See_ MANDEVILLE and FITZ PIERS

————, Henry of, 52, 172, 183 (?), 195, 236, 268, 326, 327, 391, 393

————, Robert of, 52, 391

————, Swegen of, 52, 391

————, Alice of, 169, 390

Eu, the count of, 158

Eugene III., Pope, 224, 251, 258, 416

Eustace, son and heir of Stephen, his betrothal, 47;
  his intended coronation, 7, 250, 259

Evreux, Audoen, bishop of, 262, 263

"Excambion," formula of, 102, 167, 180-182, 230

Exchequer system, 108, 293, 352, 355, 360, 400;
  not destroyed by the Anarchy, 99, 142, 154

————, pensions on the, 267-269, 274

Exeter, held against Stephen, 24

————, William, bishop of, 265

————, earldom of, 272. _See_ DEVON

————, "third penny" of, 289

————, Baldwin, (sheriff) of, 289, 329

————, ————, his wife Emma, 329

————, ————, Robert, son of, 329

————, ————, Richard, son of, 329, 428

———— Castle, 343

Eynsford, William de, 158, 298, 360

Eyton, Mr., on the charters to Geoffrey, 41-44, 86, 97;
  to Aubrey de Vere, 179;
  on the charters of the Empress, 67;
  on Richard de Luci, 146;
  on Robert de Vere, 147;
  his MSS., 44, 121;
  on the Tewkesbury charter, 431


F

Fecamp, Roger de, 46, 263

Fenland campaign, 209-212

Ferrers, Robert de (Earl of Derby), 13, 94, 143, 146, 159, 263, 266, 415

Feudalism, its aims, 105, 108, 109, 111, 176, 372. _See also_ "DOMINUS,"
  "DIFFIDATIO"

Feversham Abbey, 147

Fiennes, Sybil de, 147

"Firma burgi," 361-363

———— comitatus," 99, 102, 142, 150, 154, 156, 298, 313, 360, 362;
  its constituents, 100, 287, 293, 361

"Fiscus," meaning of, 268

Fitz (_Filius_) Adam, Ralf, 190

———— ————, Warine, 190

———— Ailb', William, 190

———— "Ailric," Robert, 190

———— Alan, Roger, 310, 311

———— ————, John, 316

———— ————, Walter, 123

———— ————, William, 123, 125, 418

———— Algod, Ralf, 436

———— Alvred, William, 53, 229, 230

———— Baldwin. _See_ EXETER

———— Bigot, John, 385

———— Brian, Ralf, 142

———— Count, Brian, with Henry I, 265, 431;
  meets Earl of Gloucester, 281;
  is besieged and relieved, _ib._;
  at Stephen's court, 19, 262, 263;
  escorts the Empress, 58, 82, 83, 93, 125, 130, 135, 170, 182,
  286, 314;
  his letter, 251, 261

———— ————, Otwel, 307

———— ————, Reginald, 320

———— Ebrard, Ralf, 305

———— Edith, Robert (son of Henry I.), 66, 82, 94, 125, 129, 170,
  183, 234, 418, 434, 435

———— Ernald, William, 53, 229

———— ————, Ranulf, 229

———— Frodo, Alan, 189, 440

———— Gerold, Henry, 229, 230

———— ————, Robert, 142

———— ————, Ralf, 142

———— ————, Warine, 190, 228, 229, 236, 241

———— Gilbert. _See_ CLARE

———— ————, John (the marshal), 82, 125, 129-132, 171, 182, 183, 234,
  314, 409, 416. _See also_ "HISTOIRE"

———— ————, William. _See_ CHANCELLORS

———— Gosbert, Robert, 436

———— Hamon, Robert, 382, 422

———— Heldebrand, Robert, 95, 171, 183

———— ————, Richard, 95

———— Herlwin, Ralf, 309, 310

———— ————, his sons, 310

———— ————, Herlwin, 310

———— ————, William, 310

———— Hervey, William, 142

———— Hubert, Robert, 134, 281

———— Humfrey, Geoffrey, 190

———— ————, Robert, 190

———— Jocelin, William, 402, 404

———— John, Payne, 11, 12, 263, 265, 378

———— ————, Eustace, 159, 264, 378

———— Liulf, Forn, 434

———— Martin, Robert, 94, 135

———— Miles, William, 399

———— Muriel, Abraham, 229

———— Osbern, William (Earl of Hereford), 154

———— Osbert, Richard, 53, 229, 231

———— Other, Walter, 169

———— Oto, William, 86

———— Otwel, William, 169, 229, 231

———— Piers, Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, 39

———— Ralf, Brian, 142

———— ———— (fitz Ebrard), John, 305, 306, 436

———— ———— ————, Robert, 305, 306

———— Richard. _See_ CLARE

———— ————, Osbert, 53, 231

———— ————, Roger, 169, 390-392

———— Robert, Walter (of Dunmow), 169

———— ————, William, 142

———— ———— (fitz Walter), John, 52

———— Roger, Robert, 391

———— Roy. _See_ CORNWALL, FITZ EDITH, GLOUCESTER

———— ————, Richard (son of Henry I.), 423, 427, 434

———— Urse, Richard, 53, 159

———— ————, Reginald, 53

———— Walter, Fulcred, 360, 363

———— ————, Geoffrey, 229

———— ————, Ranulf, 229

———— ————, Robert, 385

———— ————, William, constable of Windsor, 169

———— Wimarc, Robert, 391

Flanders, Count Robert of, 176, 177, 380

Flemings, expulsion of the, 275

Florence of Worcester, his continuater's chronology, 278, 279, 284, 285;
  accuracy, 437, 438

Foliot, Gilbert, attends council at Rome, 251, 253;
  his letter to Brian Fitz Count, 251, 252, 254-257, 261;
  becomes Abbot of Gloucester (1139), 285;
  Bishop of Hereford (1148), 251, 260

Fordham (Camb.), 209, 211, 220, 222

Fordwich, "third penny" of, 290

Forests. _See_ ASSARTS

France, King of, 171, 177, 183

Fraxineto. _See_ FRESNE

Freeman, Professor, his errors, 16, 62, 63, 68, 224, 250, 261, 290,
  291, 294, 325, 333, 335, 338, 346, 349;
  Mr. J. Parker on, 280

Fresne, Roger du, 320

Fulcinus, Albot, 231

Fulham, 117


G

Gainsborough Castle, 159

Gamlingay (Camb.), 120, 305

Gant, Walter de, 264, 266, 428

————, Gilbert de, 327

Geoffrey of Anjou, 167, 168, 171, 183, 184;
  was to succeed Henry I., 33;
  summons Stephen before the Pope, 10, 259;
  invited to England, 165, 177, 195;
  sends his son to England in his stead, 33, 185, 198;
  detains the Earl of Gloucester, 198;
  conquers Normandy, 418;
  cedes Normandy to Henry, 251, 259;
  admits no legate, 260

Gerardmota, Simon de, 120

Gerpenville. _See_ JARPENVILLE

"Gersoma," 298, 360, 363, 366

"Gesta Stephani," its accuracy impugned, 12, 409;
  confirmed, 62, 69, 115, 130, 132

"Gialla." _See_ LONDON

Gifard, John, 364

Giffard, Elyas, 409

"Ging'." _See_ ING

Glanville, Ranulf de, 385, 390

————, ————, his wife Bertha, 385;
  his daughter Maud, 385

Gloucester, Empress reaches, 55, 278;
  leaves it, 57;
  returns to it, 115;
  leaves it again, 123;
  flees to it, 134

———— Castle, 13, 329, 330

————, earldom of, its creation, 420-422, 431-434

————, honour of, 11

————, Robert (son of Henry I.), earl of, 181;
  marries heiress of Robert fitz Hamon, 422;
  his earliest attestation (Rouen, 1113), 423;
  attends his father at Reading, _ib._;
  at the battle of Brémulé, _ib._;
  at Rouen, 424, 426;
  in England, 429, 430;
  created Earl of Gloucester, 432;
  attends his father at Westminster, 433;
  at Portsmouth, 432;
  his increasing greatness, 434;
  attests charters at Westminster, 306;
  at Northampton, 265;
  receives lands in Kent, 2;
  does homage to Stephen at Oxford, 22, 23, 263;
  "defies" Stephen, 28, 284;
  lands at Arundel with the Empress, 55, 279;
  reaches Bristol, 55, 281;
  escorts the Empress to Winchester, 58;
  to Oxford, 68;
  said to have created earldom of Cornwall, _ib._;
  at Reading, 82;
  in London, 87, 93, 286;
  advises moderation in vain, 114;
  withdraws from London, 115;
  goes to Oxford with Maud, 124, 314;
  visits Winchester, 124;
  joins in its siege, 126, 127;
  captured at Stockbridge, 133;
  released and goes to Bristol, 135;
  removes with Maud to Oxford, 163, 170, 182;
  his treaty with Earl Miles, 379;
  goes to Normandy, 163, 165, 184, 196, 379;
  returns and captures Wareham, 185, 198, 405;
  joins Maud at Wallingford, 199, 406;
  is with her at Devizes, 234, 417;
  routs Stephen at Wilton, 407;
  dies, 408;
  his _Carta_, 375, 382;
  his _tertius denarius_, 292-294;
  his London soke, 436;
  his wife, 381

————, William, earl of, 380, 409, 419;
  confused with his father, 410

————, Walter, abbot of, 265

————, Gilbert, abbot of. _See_ FOLIOT

————, Miles de (Earl of Hereford), employed by Henry I. (1130), 297;
  with him at Northampton (1131), 265;
  meets Stephen at Reading (1136), 12;
  obtains charters from him, 11, 13, 14, 28;
  attends his Easter court as constable, 19, 263;
  and witnesses his Oxford charter, 263;
  is with him at siege of Shrewsbury (1138), 285;
  abandons Stephen (1139), 128, 284;
  receives the Empress, 55, 60;
  obtains charter from her, 56;
  loses constableship, 285;
  relieves Brian fitz Count, 281;
  sacks Worcester and captures Hereford, 282;
  escorts the Empress to Winchester (1141), 58, 65;
  to Reading (as constable), 82;
  to London, 83, 93, 286;
  to Gloucester, 123;
  is created by her Earl of Hereford, 97, 123, 271, 273, 288, 315, 328;
  is with her at Oxford, 123, 314;
  and at siege of Winchester, 125;
  escapes to Gloucester and Bristol, 135;
  with the Empress at Oxford, 170, 182;
  his treaty with the Earl of Gloucester, 379;
  his grant to Llanthony, 329;
  his death, 276;
  his son Roger, _see_ HEREFORD, Earls of;
  his son Mahel, 382

————, Walter de (father of Miles), 13, 428

Grantmesnil, Hugh de, 289

Greenfield (Linc.), 169

Greinville, Richard de, 382

Greys Thurrock (Essex), 181

Guisnes, _Comté_ of, 188, 398. _See_ VERE, Aubrey de

————, Manasses, Count of, 189, 397

————, Ralf de, 190


H

Hairon, Albany de, 286

Ham (Essex), 141

"Hamslep," Hugh de, 419

Handfasting. _See_ AFFIDATIO

Harold, his accession compared with Stephen's, 8, 253, 437

Hartshorne, Mr., on Rochester Castle, 337

Hastings, William de, 171

Hatfield Broad Oak (Essex), 100, 140, 141, 149

"Hattele," church of, 233

Haughley (Suffolk), 326

Haye, Ralf de, 159

Hearne as a critic, 375

Hedenham (Bucks.), 337

Hedingham (Essex), 402

Helion, barony of, 229

————, Robert de, 143

————, William de, 181, 194

Henry I., secures Winchester, 63;
  his style, 25, 432;
  at St. Evroul and Rouen, 423, 426;
  at Brampton and Westminster, 428;
  marries Adeliza, 74, 426, 429;
  visits Winchester, 426, 421, 430, 432;
  Portsmouth, 432;
  Westminster, 433;
  secures succession to his children, 2, 30-32, 34;
  dies, 322;
  his widow's dower, 324;
  his gifts to Cluny, 254;
  his reforms, 104, 298;
  his ministers, 111, 418;
  his exactions, 101, 105, 150, 360, 361, 366;
  his forest policy, 377;
  his dealings with London, 347, 358, 359, 365-367;
  his chaplains, 427;
  his military architecture, 333, 334, 341-343, 345, 346;
  his charter to Eudo Dapifer, 328;
  his treaty with the Count of Flanders, 176, 380;
  his knowledge of English, 424

————, his son William, heir to the crown, 30, 427;
  married, 426;
  drowned, 434

————, his children. _See_ MAUD, GLOUCESTER, FITZ EDITH, FITZ ROY

————, his widow. _See_ ADELIZA

Henry II., mentioned in charters of the Empress, 171, 183, 417, 418;
  confirms his mother's charter, 184-186, 384, 418;
  his hereditary right, 186, 200;
  lands with his uncle (1142), 198, 405;
  joins the Empress, 199, 406;
  resides at Bristol, 407;
  his gifts to St. Augustine's, 408;
  lands afresh (1149), 279, 408;
  visits Devizes, 409;
  knighted at Carlisle, 408;
  unsupported, 409;
  leaves England, 410;
  his third visit and negotiations, 176, 386, 418;
  strength of his position, 35;
  his policy, 112, 372, 378;
  his alienations of demesne, 269;
  his charters to Aubrey de Vere, 237, 239;
  to Hugh Bigod, 239;
  to Earl of Arundel, 240;
  to Wallingford, 200;
  his dealings with London, 358, 367, 370, 372, 440

Henry III., his charter to London, 358

Henry VIII., confirms charter of the Empress, 179, 328

Henry (V.), the Emperor, 300, 301

Henry of Scotland. _See_ HUNTINGDON

Heraclius, the Patriarch, consecrates the Temple church, 225

Heraldry. _See_ ARMS, QUARTERLY

Hereditary right. _See_ CROWN

Hereford, Stephen at, 48;
  seized by Miles, 282

————, its "tertius denarius," 288

———— Castle, 328, 329

————, earldom of, created by the Empress, 97, 123, 187, 271, 273

————, earl of, William Fitzosbern, 154, 276

————, earls of. _See_ GLOUCESTER

————, Roger, earl of, 234, 329, 380, 382, 409, 419

————, Richard ("de Sigillo"), bishop of, 427, 428

————, Robert, bishop of, 46, 64, 82, 83, 93, 262, 263, 265

Hertford (or "Clare"), earldom of, 39, 40, 146, 270-272

————, Gilbert, earl of, 143, 145, 159, 271, 276

————, Roger, earl of, 236

————, mills of, 286

Hertfordshire, shrievalty of, 39, 142, 150, 166;
  justiciarship of, 142, 150, 167;
  "firma" of, 142, 150, 166

Hexham, John of, his accuracy confirmed, 19

Hinckford hundred (Essex), 404

"Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal," extracts from, 130-133;
  its authority, 130, 194

_Historia Pontificalis_, editorial errors in, 253

Holland, Great (Essex), 141

Howard, Thomas, 316

Howlett, Mr., on the landing of the Empress, 278-280;
  on an unknown landing by Henry II., 409, 410

"Hugate," 232

Huitdeniers, Osbert, 170, 374, 375, 382

————, Philip, 375

Humez, Richard de, 236, 419

Huntingdon, its "tertius denarius," 288

————, Henry of, his chronology discussed, 407

————, Henry (of Scotland), earl of, 19, 192, 262, 263, 265

————, earldom of, 191-193, 265, 272

Hyde Abbey burnt, 127


I

Ickleton (Camb.), 141

"Inga" (Essex), 140, 186

Ing, Goisbert de, 142

————, Hugh de, 185, 186, 190, 384

Innocent, Pope, hears Maud's appeal against Stephen (1136), 250, 252;
  dismisses it, 9, 257;
  "confirms" Stephen, 9, 257, 258, 260;
  writes to Stephen, 412;
  to Henry of Winchester, _ib._

Ipra. _See_ YPRES

Ipswich, "third penny" of, 290

Irvine, Mr., on Rochester Castle, 338

Issigeac (Perigord), 247


J

Jarpenville, David de, 231

————, ————, Symon, his brother, 231

————, Geoffrey de, 229, 230

Jerusalem, pilgrimage to, 306, 308

Jingles in charters, 241

John, his charters to London, 358, 371

Juga. _See_ INGA _and_ ING

Jurisdiction, the struggle for, 105, 108, 111

_Justicia_, the, localized, 105, 373;
  termed "capitalis," 106;
  differentiated from the sheriff, 107, 109, 153;
  feudalized, 109;
  represented by "coroners," 110;
  has precedence of the sheriff, 110


K

Kent, faithful to Stephen, 2, 138

Kingham (Oxon), 230-233

Kirton-in-Lindsey (Linc.), 159

Knightsbridge, the Londoners meet kings at, 84

Knights' service, grants of, 91, 103, 142, 155, 167, 189, 439


L

Laci, Hugh de, 331

————, Ilbert de, 263

_Læsio fidei_, 9, 387

Lea, the river, 168, 175, 337

Ledet, Wiscard, 231

Legate, the papal. _See_ WINCHESTER, Henry, bishop of;
  CANTERBURY, Theobald, archbishop of

Leicester, "third penny" of, 289

————, Robert, earl of, 146, 154, 236, 265, 380, 415, 433

Leicestershire, "tertius denarius" of, 295

Le Mans, tower of, 336

Leofstan (of London), 309

Leominster, Stephen at, 282

Lewes Priory, 391

Lexden hundred (Essex), 378, 404

_Librata terræ_, the, 99, 104, 140, 141, 241, 305, 314

Liege homage, 315

Lincoln, excludes the sheriff, 362;
  its "firma burgi," 362, 363;
  Stephen besieges, 46, 159, 440;
  battle of, 54, 56, 140, 148, 149

———— Castle, constableship of, 160

————, earldom of, 271, 325

————, Robert (I.), bishop of, 329, 433

————, Alexander, bishop of, 51, 64, 82, 83, 93, 123, 262, 265, 416

————, Robert (II.), bishop of, 236

————, William, earl of, 146, 159, 271, 415

Lisieux, Arnulf, bishop of, Stephen's envoy (1136), 252, 253, 260, 389

Lisures, Warner de, 120, 320

————, William de, 231

Little Hereford, Stephen at, 282

Lodnes, Ralf de, 190

Loftie, Mr. W. J., his strange errors, 152, 349-351, 354-356, 364, 436

London, its name latinized, 347;
  inseparable from Middlesex, 347, 352, 353, 357, 359;
  not a corporate unit, 356;
  its organization territorial, 357;
  earliest list of its wards, 351, 435, 436;
  its _auxilium_, 352

————, portreeve of, 439;
  ignored by Henry I., 350, 351;
  difficulty concerning, 354, 356;
  replaced by Norman _vicecomes_, 353, 354

————, mayor of, 356, 357, 373, 436

————, chamberlain of, 355, 366

————, Tower of, its custody, 439;
  held by the Mandevilles, 38, 89, 117, 141, 143, 149, 156, 166;
  its importance, 98, 113, 119, 139, 164;
  Stephen at, 48;
  surrendered by Geoffrey, 207;
  explanation of its name, 336;
  its inner ward, 334

————, Guildhall (?) of, earliest mention of, 436

————, St. Michael's, Cheap, 309, 310

————, bishops of, Maurice, 68, 328;
  —— Gilbert, 265;
  —— Robert ("de Sigillo"), 45, 67, 117, 118, 123, 167, 194, 402;
  —— Richard, 236, 370

————. _See also_ TEMPLE; CNIHTENGILD

London and Middlesex, spoken of as London, 348, 351, 372;
  as Middlesex, 347;
  sheriff of, replaces portreeve, 353, 354, 356;
  _firma of_, 142, 150, 151, 166, 347-349, 352, 355, 357-359, 362, 366,
  371, 372, 440;
  shrievalty of, 110, 141, 150, 166, 347-349, 358, 359, 363, 364, 367,
  372, 439;
  justiciarship of, 110, 141, 150, 167, 347, 373

London and Middlesex, sheriffs of, Esegar, 353;
  —— Ulf, 353, 354;
  —— Geoffrey de Mandeville (I.), 354, 439;
  —— William de Eynsford, 360
  _See_ also MANDEVILLE

————, justiciars of, Gervase (de Cornhill), 120, 121, 373;
      —— Geoffrey de Mandeville, 141, 150, 167, 373

Londoners, the, obtain from Henry I. shrievalty of Middlesex, 347, 349,
  359, 363, 364, 366;
  dislike his system, 366;
  elect Stephen, 2;
  their compact with him, 3, 27, 247-249;
  faithful to him, 49, 116, 354;
  at the election of the Empress, 69;
  slow to receive her, 81;
  admit her conditionally, 84, 248;
  harassed by the Queen, 114;
  expel the Empress, 115, 117;
  join the Queen, 119, 128;
  record Stephen's release, 136;
  abandoned by him to Geoffrey, 153;
  whose mortal foes they are, 168, 174;
  treatment of, by Henry II., 370-372, 440;
  join Simon de Montfort, 358;
  their charters from the Conqueror, 354, 439;
  from Henry I., 109, 347, 356, 359, 364;
  from Henry II., 367-370, 440;
  from Richard I., 371;
  from John, 358, 371;
  from Henry III., 348;
  their _communa_, 116, 247, 357, 373, 439;
  their alleged early liberties, 152, 372, 440;
  their "wardmoot," 370

Lords' Reports, error in, 39

Lovel, Ralf, 94

Luci, Richard de, 101, 109, 112, 137, 146, 373;
  with Stephen at Norwich, 49;
  at Canterbury, 144;
  at Ipswich, 158;
  at Oxford, 201;
  with Henry II., 236

Lucius, Pope, 208, 215, 258, 412

Ludgershall, the Empress flees to, 133

"Luffenham," 314


M

Magn', Ralf, 230

Maldon (Essex), 90, 92, 99, 100, 102, 140

Malet, Robert (I.), great chamberlain, 180, 395

————, Robert (II.), 93, 262

————, William, 93, 436

Malmesbury, Stephen at, 47, 281

————, William of, his accuracy confirmed, 11, 61;
  impugned, 69, 115, 132;
  discussed, 283, 344, 438

Maminot, Walchelin, 2, 94, 264, 286, 314, 418

Mandeville family, origin of, 37;
  heirs of, 232, 233, 243, 244;
  charters of, 228-233, 390;
  pedigree of, 392

Mandeville, Geoffrey de (I.), 89, 235, 236, 358;
  receives fief from the Conqueror, 37;
  founds Hurley Priory, 38;
  sheriff of three counties, 142, 166;
  said to be "portreeve," 152;
  and may have been, 439

————, Geoffrey de (II.), Earl of Essex, 181-184;
  his parentage, 37;
  succeeds his father, 40;
  at Stephen's court (1136), 19, 263, 264;
  detains Constance in the Tower, 47;
  his first charter from the king, 41-53, 292;
  created Earl of Essex, 52, 270, 272;
  with Stephen at Norwich, 49;
  strengthens the Tower, 81;
  his first charter from the Empress, 87-113, 292;
  made justice, sheriff, and escheator of Essex, 92;
  deserts the Empress, 119;
  seizes Bishop of London, 117;
  obtains a charter from the Queen, 118;
  his second charter from the king, 138-156;
  made justice and sheriff of Herts. and of London and Middlesex, 141, 142;
  with Stephen at Ipswich, 158;
  sent against Ely, 161;
  aspires to be king-maker, 164;
  his second charter from the Empress, 165-178, 183;
  obtains charter for Aubrey de Vere, 183, 184;
  his plot against Stephen, 195;
  is with him at Oxford, 201;
  arrested by Stephen, 202-206;
  surrenders his castles, 207;
  breaks into revolt, _ib._;
  secures Ely, 209;
  seizes Ramsey Abbey, 210;
  holds the fenland, 211;
  sacks Cambridge, 212;
  evades Stephen, 213;
  his atrocities, 214, 218;
  wounded at Burwell, 221;
  dies at Mildenhall, 222, 276;
  fate of his corpse, 224-226;
  his alleged effigy, 226, 395;
  his heirs, 232, 244;
  he founds Walden Abbey, 45;
  burns Waltham, 323;
  his policy, 98, 153, 164, 173, 439;
  his greatness, 164, 203, 223, 323;
  his arms, 392-396

————, Geoffrey de (II.), his sister Beatrice (de Say), 169, 392, 393

————, ————, his wife Rohese (de Vere), 171, 229, 232, 388, 390-393

————, ————, his father-in-law, Aubrey de Vere, 81

————, his brother-in-law, Earl Aubrey, 178. _See also_ VERE

————, Geoffrey de (III.), Earl of Essex, 112, 169, 238;
  succeeds his father, 233;
  styled earl, 238, 417;
  his charter from Henry II., 235;
  procures his father's absolution, 225;
  his charter to Ernulf, 230, 231;
  his grant of Sawbridgeworth, 241;
  his death, 242;
  struggle for his corpse, 226

————, ————, his wife Eustachia, 229

————, Geoffrey de (IV.), Earl of Essex, 229;
  confused with Geoffrey de Mandeville (II.), 39

————, William de (I.), constable of the Tower, 38, 166, 169, 392

————, William de (II.), Earl of Essex, 169, 390;
  his charter to Ernulf, 231;
  succeeds his brother as earl, 242;
  devoted to Henry II., 243;
  becomes Great Justiciar, _ib._;
  dies, _ib._

————, Ernulf (or Arnulf, or Ernald, or Hernald) de, grants to him, 141,
  142, 149, 155, 167, 168, 174;
  fortifies Wood Walton, 211;
  holds Ramsey Abbey, 223;
  surrenders it, 227;
  exiled, _ib._;
  reappears, 228, 238;
  occurs in family charters, 229-233;
  disinherited, 233

————, ————, his wife Aaliz, 232, 233

————, ————, his son Geoffrey, 232

————, ————, his son Ralf, 231

————, ————, his grandson Geoffrey, 232

————, ————, his heir Geoffrey, 229

————, Geoffrey de, 233

————, Hugh de, 232

————, Robert de, 232

————, ————, Ralf, his brother, 232

————, Walter de, 229, 230

————, William de, 233

Mansel, William, 383

Marmion, Robert, 313

Marshal, Gilbert the, 171

————, John the. _See_ FITZ-GILBERT

Martel, Eudo (?), 263

————, Geoffrey, 147

————, William, 46, 144, 146, 158, 159, 206, 262, 263, 320, 378, 407, 416

Masculus, Osbert, 436

Mathew, Master, 407

Matilda (of Boulogne), Stephen's queen, 262;
  advances on London, 114;
  her charter to Geoffrey, 118-121, 139;
  rallies her party, 119;
  her charter to Gervase, 120;
  gains the legate, 122;
  wears crown at Canterbury, 138, 143;
  visits York, 157;
  her charters and seal, 302;
  at Barking, 320

Matom, Alan de, 233

————, Serlo de, 89

Maud, the Empress, her legitimacy, 256;
  marries the Emperor, 300;
  oath sworn to her (1127), 6, 10, 31, 255;
  appeals to Rome (1136), 8, 32, 253-257;
  her claim to the throne, 29-34;
  lands in England (1139), 55, 278-280, 283;
  reaches Bristol, 55;
  resides at Gloucester, 56;
  joined by Miles, 56, 285;
  joined by Bishop Nigel, 161;
  received at Winchester (1141), 57, 64, 79;
  her style, 63-67, 70-77, 300-302;
  visits Wilton and Oxford, 65-67;
  elected "Domina," 58-61, 69;
  forfeits Count Theobald, 102, 140;
  visits Reading, 66, 82;
  advances to St. Albans, 83;
  reaches London, 84;
  her intended coronation, 78, 80, 84, 302;
  her Valoines charter, 286;
  her first charter to Geoffrey, 86-113, 149-155, 238;
  deals with see of Durham, 85;
  expelled from London, 85, 115, 117;
  flees to Gloucester, 115;
  returns to Oxford, 123;
  her Beauchamp charter, 313-315;
  marches on Winchester, 124;
  besieges the legate, 126-128;
  flees from Winchester, 130, 132, 133;
  reaches Gloucester, 134;
  visits Bristol, 135;
  again returns to Oxford, 163;
  holds councils at Devizes, 165;
  sends for her husband, 165, 177;
  her second charter to Geoffrey, 165-177;
  her charter to Aubrey de Vere, 179-184, 187, 190-195;
  is besieged in Oxford, 198;
  escapes to Wallingford, 199;
  visited by Bishop Nigel, 208;
  quarters her followers on Wilts, 230;
  her charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger, 233;
  to Geoffrey Ridel, 234, 417;
  her court, 64, 82, 95, 124, 178, 286;
  her earls, 271-273;
  her seal, 299-303;
  her arrogance, 96, 114, 367;
  her gifts to Cluny, 254

Mauduit, Ralf, 142

Mayenne, Juhel de, 172, 183

Meduana. _See_ MAYENNE

Melford, Geoffrey de, 190

————, Helias de, 190

_Mercata terræ_, 232

Merton, charter to, 433

Meulan, Robert, count of, 329

————, Waleran, count of, 46, 145, 262, 263, 271, 313, 314;
  escorts the Empress, 55;
  faithful to Stephen, 120;
  his brother Hugh, 171

Middlesex, comprised London, 347;
  archdeaconry of, 348.
  _See_ LONDON AND MIDDLESEX

Mildenhall (Suffolk), Geoffrey dies at, 222, 223

Moch' (? Woch[endona]), William de, 229

Mohun (Moion), William de (Earl of Somerset or Dorset), 93, 125,
  266, 272, 277

Money-lending denounced, 311, 312, 440

Monks Horton Priory, 148, 158, 326

Montfort, Hugh de, 148, 326

————, Robert de, 148, 327

————, Thurstan de, 65, 327

Montgomery, Arnulf de, 331

————, Roger de, 322

Montreuil, 331, 338

Mortgage. _See_ VADIMONIUM

'Mottes,' shell-keeps termed, 328, 330, 333, 336, 337

Mountnessing (Essex), 169


N

Napier, origin of the name, 324

"Navium applicationes," 286, 440

"Nepos Huberti," Roger, 305,306, 308-310

————, ————, Ingenolda, his wife, 305, 308, 310

Neufbourg, Robert de, 52

Neufmarché, Henry de, 320

Nevill, Hugh de, 310

Newburgh, William of, his chronicle, 47, 203, 205

Newcastle, keep of, 339, 346

Newport (Essex), 89, 90, 92, 99, 100, 140, 156

Newtimber (Sussex), 325

Norfolk, earldom of, 191, 270, 271, 273, 277.
  _See_ BIGOD

Norhale, William de, 231

Northampton, Stephen ill at, 160, 164;
  its burgesses, 414

————, Simon (de St. Liz or Silvanecta), earl of, 120, 143, 145, 159,
  192, 262-264, 276

Northamptonshire, earldom of, 192, 264, 272

Norwich, Stephen at, 49

————, Ebrard, bishop of, 83, 262, 263, 265

————, William, bishop of, 45

————, John, bishop of, 318

Novo burgo. _See_ NEUFBOURG

———— mercato. _See_ NEUFMARCHé

Noyon, battle of, 423, 427

Nuers, Ralf de, 230

Nunant, Roger de, 125


O

Octodenarii. _See_ HUITDENIERS

Oilli, Fulk d', 46

————, Henry d', 94, 434

————, Robert d', 46, 65, 66, 94, 171, 183, 263, 434

————, Roger d', 125

Ordgar (of London), 309

Osney Priory, 171;
  charters to, 232

Osonville, Sewal de, 231

Ottdevers. _See_ HUITDENIERS

Ou, Hugh d', 229, 230

————, Robert d', 436

————, William d', 53, 142, 170

Oxeaie, Richard de, 205

————, Walkelin de, 205, 206

Oxford, Stephen at (1136), 15, 16, 23, 201, 282;
  the Empress at, 65, 66, 123, 163, 314;
  arrest of the bishops at, 202, 203, 416;
  conspiracy against Stephen at (1142), 162, 195, 203, 207;
  fortified by the Earl of Gloucester, 197;
  stormed by Stephen, 197;
  who besieges its castle, 198, 405;
  from which the Empress escapes, 199, 405, 406;
  leaving it to Stephen, 406

————, St. Frideswide's, charter to, 201

————, house at, 232

————, earl of. _See_ VERE, AUBREY de

Oxfordshire, earldom of, 181, 194, 239, 240, 270, 271, 295

————, "tertius denarius" of, 295


P

Parage, Philip, 402

Paris, Mathew, his accuracy confirmed, 205

Park', Isnardus, 314, 315

————, ————, his son Nicholas, 314

Parker, Mr., on Professor Freeman, 280;
  on Rochester Castle, 337

Pascal, Pope, anoints the Empress, 257

Passelewe, Ralf, 373

"Pauper," Hugh (? Earl of Bedford), 171, 270, 276

Paynell, Ralf, 94, 171, 183, 286

Pechet, Robert, 427

Pedigrees, of Gervase de Cornhill, 308, 310;
  of Aubrey de Vere, 389;
  of the Mandevilles and De Veres, 392;
  of William d'Arques, 397;
  of Ernulf de Mandeville, 232

Pembroke, Gilbert, earl of, 143, 145, 158, 159, 161, 162, 172, 178,
  181-183, 188, 194, 276

————, earldom of, 270, 271

Percy, William de, 264

Peterborough chronicle, the, on the Anarchy, 214, 220, 416

Petrivilla. _See_ PIERREVILLE

Peverel (of London), William, his fief, 90, 91, 140-142

———— (of Nottingham), William, 263, 266;
  forfeited, 195;
  his fief, 181

————, Mathew, 143

Pharamus. _See_ BOULOGNE

"Phingria" (Essex), 140

Pierreville, Geoffrey de, 320

Pincerna, Audoen, 230

————, ————, Ralf, brother of, 230

————, Geoffrey, 229

Pirou, William de, 428

Pleas, dread of, 93, 105, 167, 169, 170, 180;
  farming of, 108, 287, 293, 295, 361

———— of the Crown, 105, 110;
  of the forest, 376-378

Pleshy (Essex), 207

Plessis, Walter de, 229

————, William de, 230

Ploughteam, importance of the, 218

Poitiers, Richard, archdeacon of, 112

Pont de l'Arche, William de, 4, 11, 12, 46, 62, 234, 263, 265, 297

Popes. _See_ ALEXANDER, CELESTINE, EUGENE, INNOCENT, LUCIUS, PASCAL

Port, Adam de, (I.) 233, (II.) 428

————, ————, Matildis, his wife, 233

————, ————, Henry, his brother, 233

————, Henry de, 264

Portsmouth, alleged landing at, 278-280;
  Henry I. at, 432

Predevilain, Alfred, 230

Presbyter, Vitalis, 413

Prittlewell Priory, 391

Protection, money exacted for, 415

Prudfot, Gilbert, 350, 351


Q

_Quadripartitus_, quotation from, 312

Quarterly coat of Mandeville, the, 392-396

"Queen," the Empress styles herself, 63, 64, 66, 83, 302


R

Radwinter (Essex), 168

Raimes, family of de, 399-404;
  Roger (I.), 399, 403, 404;
  William (I.), 399, 401;
  Roger (II.), 181, 399-404;
  Robert (I.), 399, 402;
  William (II.), 402, 403;
  Richard, 400-404;
  Robert (II.), 401

Rainham (Essex), 141

Ramis de. _See_ RAIMES

Ramsey Abbey, grant of a hundred to, 101;
  occupied by Geoffrey, 209;
  fortified by him, 210, 211, 213, 216;
  claimed by Abbot Walter, 216, 218;
  sweats blood, 217;
  avenged, 221;
  surrendered to the abbot, 223, 227;
  compensated for its losses, 225

————, Walter, abbot of, 83, 210;
  goes to Rome, 215;
  returns to Ramsey, 216;
  his misery, 217;
  at Geoffrey's deathbed, 223

————, Daniel, abbot of, 210, 215, 218;
  goes to Rome, 216

————, William, abbot of, 225

Ravengerus, 89

Rayne (Essex), 399

Reading, Stephen at, 10, 46, 48, 283;
  the Empress at, 66, 82

————, Anscher, abbot of (1131), 265

————, Edward, abbot of (1141), 117

Redvers, Baldwin de, 266, 272, 278

————, Richard de, 272

Reinmund (of London), 435, 436;
  his son Azo, _ib._

Richard I., his second coronation, 137

Richmond, earldom of, 157

————, Alan, earl of, 143, 145, 157, 276

————, Conan, earl of, 290

Ridel, Geoffrey (II.), 417-419;
  his grandfather, 417

Rochelle, Richard de, 231

————, John de, 231

Rochester, its early name, 332, 339;
  charter to church of, 422

———— Castle, 337-339, 345, 346

————, Gundulf, bishop of, 334, 337-339

————, John, bishop of, 262, 263, 265

Rome, appeal of the Empress to, 8, 250-261;
  appeals of Bishop Nigel to, 161, 208, 209, 411-413;
  Abbot of Ramsey appeals to, 215

Romeli. _See_ RUMILLI

Rouen, Hugh, archbishop of, 116, 262, 263, 412, 413

————, the Tower of, 334-336

Rumard, Absalom, 172, 183

Rumilli, Alan de, 170

————, Mathew de, 170

————, Robert de, 170


S

Sablé, Guy de, 172, 183

————, Robert de, 172, 183

Sackville, William de, 393;
  arms of, _ib._

Saffron Walden (Essex), 89, 90, 149, 156, 174, 207, 236

Sai, Ingelram de, 11-13, 46

————, Geoffrey de, 231, 243, 390, 392

————, William de, 169, 209, 227, 392, 396

St. Albans, the Empress at, 83;
  Stephen arrests Geoffrey at, 202-207;
  consequent struggle at, 204-206;
  abbot of, Geoffrey, 206, 265

St. Augustine's, Hugh, abbot of, 265

St Briavel's, castle of, 56

St. Clare, Hamo de, 263, 264

————, Osbert de, 231

————, William de, 52

St. David's, Bernard, bishop of, 58, 82, 83, 93, 262, 263, 314, 430

St. Edmundsbury, Anselm, abbot of, 174;
  Ording, abbot of, 189, 439;
  William, prior of, 190;
  Ralf, sacristan of, 190;
  Maurice, dapifer of, 190;
  Goscelin and Eudo, monks of, 190

St. Evroul, charter to, 423, 426

St. Ives, 212, 213

St. John, John de, 409

St. Liz. _See_ NORTHAMPTON

St. Osyth's Priory, 389, 390

St. Quintin, Richard de, 382

Salamon Presbyter, 181

Salisbury, Stephen at, 46, 283;
  held for the Empress, 407

————, earldom of. _See_ WILTSHIRE

————, bishop of, Roger, builds Devizes Castle, 134;
  receives Stephen as king, 4;
  attends his coronation, 5;
  with him at Reading, 11;
  at Westminster, 262, 263;
  at Oxford, 262;
  repudiates his oath to the Empress, 32, 256;
  his death, 46, 48, 282;
  his nephew Nigel, 265 (_see_ ELY, bishops of)

————, Edward de, 404

————, Walter de, 46, 264, 266, 276

————, ————, Sibyl, his wife, 276

————, William de, 125, 276

————, Patrick de (Earl of Salisbury or Wilts), 194, 271, 276, 409

Saltpans, 440

Saltwood (Kent), 326

Savigny, charter to, 423

Sawbridgeworth (Herts.), 228, 236, 241

Scotale, 361, 369

Scutage of 1159, the, 400

Seals, great, of Stephen, 50;
  of Maud, 299, 303

————, keepers of the. _See_ SIGILLO, de

Seez, Arnulf, archdeacon of. _See_ LISIEUX

————, John, bishop of, 262, 263

Sherborne Castle, 146

Sheriff, the, as "justicia," 107, 109;
  as an officer of the "curia," 108;
  as "firmarius," 360-363;
  feudalized, 109;
  his "third penny," 289;
  distinct from the "custos," 297

————. _See also_ BAILIFFS

Ships, toll from, 414, 440

Shrewsbury, Stephen besieges, 285

Shropshire settled on Queen Adeliza, 322

Sigillo, Robert de, 265. _See_ LONDON, bishops of.

————, Richard de, 427. _See_ HEREFORD, bishops of

Silvanecta. _See_ NORTHAMPTON

Soilli, Henry de ("nepos regis"), 262-264

Someri, Adam de, 143

————, Roger de, 143, 168

Somerset, earldom of, 95. _See_ MOHUN

Sorus, Jordan, 382

————, Odo, 382

————, Robert, 382

Southwark, Edward of, 307, 308

————, his son William, 307, 308

Stafford, "third penny" of, 289

————, Robert de, 289

Stamford, 159

Stapleton, Mr., on William of Arques, 188, 397

Stephen, King, attends Henry I. (as Count of Mortain), 423, 429;
  lands in England, 1;
  his treaty with the Londoners, 247-249;
  his election and coronation, 2-8, 437, 438;
  his embassy to Rome, 9, 253-257;
  his charters to Miles of Gloucester, 11-14;
  visits Oxford, 15;
  Durham, 16;
  keeps Easter at Westminster, 16-21, 262-265;
  his Oxford charter of liberties, 22, 258, 438;
  his title to the throne, 25, 29, 258-260;
  besieges Shrewsbury, 285;
  his movements in 1139, 281-283;
  besieges the Empress at Arundel, 55;
  his movements in 1140, 46-49;
  his first charter to Geoffrey, 49-53, 98, 238;
  captured at Lincoln, 54;
  imprisoned at Bristol, 56;
  receives the primate, 65, 260;
  released, 135;
  holds council at Westminster, 136;
  crowned at Canterbury, 138;
  his second charter to Geoffrey, 99, 103, 119, 138-156, 175;
  betrays the Londoners, 153;
  goes north, 157;
  visits Ipswich, 158;
  Stamford, 159;
  recovers Ely, 411;
  ill at Northampton, 160, 164;
  restores Nigel to Ely, 161, 412;
  captures Wareham, 196;
  storms Oxford, 197;
  besieges the Empress, 198, 405;
  his charters to Abingdon and St. Frideswide's, 201;
  recovers Oxford Castle, 406;
  besieges Wareham, _ib._;
  attends council at London, 202;
  routed at Wilton, 407;
  arrests Geoffrey at St. Albans, 202-207;
  visits Ramsey Abbey, 210;
  attacks Geoffrey, 213;
  forfeits monks of Ely, 214;
  arrests Earl of Chester, 203;
  forfeits the primate, 251;
  marches to York, 409;
  stated to have assisted Henry, 410;
  seeks coronation of Eustace, 250, 259;
  his seal, 50;
  his "fiscal" earls, 276, 277, 295, 440;
  his faults, 24, 35, 174, 267, 269;
  grant to his brother Theobald, 102, 140;
  his forest policy, 377, 378;
  papal letters to him, 257, 412

Stephen, King, his wife. _See_ MATILDA

————, his son. _See_ EUSTACE

————, his nephew, Henry (de Soilli), 262-264

Stockbridge (Hants.), 133

Stortford. _See_ BISHOP'S STORTFORD

Stuteville, John de, 403

————, Leonia de, 403, 404

————, Robert de, 404

Sumeri. _See_ SOMERI

Sussex, question as to "firma" of, 322

————, earl of. _See_ ARUNDEL


T

Taid', Jurdan de, 230

Talbot, Geoffrey, 182, 263

Tamworth, 313, 314

Tani, Picot de, 402, 404

————, Alice de, 402-404

————. _See_ also TANY

Tankerville, Richard de, 427

————, William de, 428

Tany, Graeland de, 91, 104, 142

————, Hasculf de, 91

————, Gilbert de, 91

————. _See_ also TANI

Templars, at Geoffrey's deathbed, 224;
  their red cross, _ib._;
  retain Geoffrey's corpse, 226

Temple (London), the old, 224

———— ————, the new, 225, 226, 395

Tendring hundred (Essex), 377, 404

"Tenserie," 215, 218, 414-416

_Terræ datæ._ _See_ CROWN LANDS

"Tertius denarius," the, 287-296;
  grants of the, by the Empress, 292, 293;
  by Henry II., 239, 240, 293;
  only given to some earls, 269, 293-295;
  its two kinds, 287-290;
  attached to manors, 291;
  amount of, 294.
  _See also_ EARLS

Tewkesbury, spurious charter to, 421, 431, 432

Theobald. _See_ BLOIS

"Third penny," the. _See_ "TERTIUS DENARIUS"

Thoby Priory, 169

Thorney, Robert, abbot of, 413

Tilbury by Clare (Essex), 181

Tiretei, Maurice de, 228, 229

Titles, peerage, origin of, 145. _See also_ EARLS

Tolleshunt Tregoz (Essex), 142

Torigny, castle of, 334

Totintone, Warine de, 401

"Towers," rectangular keeps termed, 328-331, 333, 336, 338, 341, 343

Treason, appeal of, 93, 156, 204, 327

Treaties between sovereign and subject, 176

Tresgoz, William de, 142

Treys-deners, Nicholas, 375

Trowbridge (Wilts), 281, 282

Tureville, Geoffrey de, 170

Turonis (?), Pepin de, 172, 183

Turroc', _See_ GREYS THURROCK


U

Ulf the portreeve, 353, 354

Umfraville, Gilbert de, 382

Usury. _See_ MONEY-LENDING


V

"Vadimonium" (or "Vadium"), 214, 236, 305, 369, 370

Valderi, Richard de, 320

Valoines, Peter de (I.), 39

————, Peter de (II.), 172, 183

————, Robert de, 172

————, Roger de, 172, 264;
  Maud's charter to, 286

Venoiz, Robert de, 171

Vercorol, Richard de, 231

Vere, Aubrey de (I.), great chamberlain, his pedigree, 389, 392;
  father-in-law of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 388;
  "justiciar of England," 390;
  slain (1141), 81, 147, 188, 389;
  mentioned, 180, 187, 262, 263, 265, 297, 298, 309, 378, 388-391

————, ————, his wife, Alice de Clare, 390

————, ————, his brothers, Roger de (brother of Aubrey (I.)), 189, 389;
  ——Robert de, 389, 391;
  ——William, 389

————, Geoffrey (fitz Aubrey) de, 182, 190, 390

————, Robert (fitz Aubrey) de, 147, 182

————, William (fitz Aubrey) de, 182, 195, 231, 389, 390.
  _See_ CHANCELLORS

————, Alice de, 169, 390

————, Aubrey de (II.), Earl of Oxford, 154, 172, 195, 230, 231, 270,
  271, 402;
  brother-in-law to Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville, 178;
  his charter from the Empress, 179-195;
  to be Earl of Cambridgeshire, 181, 191-193;
  his charter from Henry of Anjou, 186;
  was Count of Guisnes, 188, 189, 240;
  became Earl of Oxford, 194, 239;
  his charter from St. Edmund's, 189, 439;
  from Henry II., 237, 239;
  his wife Beatrice, 188, 189, 397;
  his arms, 394-396;
  his connection with De Rames, 401

Ver, Robert (fitz Bernard) de, 46, 144, 147, 148, 158, 201, 262,
  263, 326

————, ————, his wife, Adeline de Montford, 326


W

Wac (Wake), Hugh, 159, 160

Wace, authority of, 344

Walden. _See_ SAFFRON WALDEN

Walden Abbey, chronicle of, 38, 45, 203, 205, 210, 388, 390, 393, 395

———— ————, William, prior of, 224, 226

Walensis, Ralf, 419

Wallingford, Stephen besieges, 188, 281;
  Empress escapes to, 198, 199, 406;
  young Henry at, 419;
  charter of Henry II. to, 200

Walterville, Geoffrey de, 314, 381

Waltham (Essex), 236, 323, 324;
  forest, 377

Waltham Abbey, Geoffrey's doings at, 323;
  avenged, 222

———— ————, Chronicle of, 322-324, 439

Waltheof, Earl, 192, 276

Wareham, 165;
  captured by Stephen, 196, 407;
  besieged by Earl of Gloucester, 198;
  captured by him, 199, 405;
  Baldwin lands at, 279;
  its defences, 332;
  besieged by Stephen, 406, 407

Warenne, William, Earl, 120, 143, 145, 158, 206, 262, 263, 265, 430

Warranty, 182, 230

Warwick, Henry, earl of, 329

————, Roger, earl of, 65, 125, 159, 262, 263, 265

Warwickshire, "tertius denarius" of, 291

Waters, Mr. Chester, on the family of De Raimes, 403;
  on the earldom of Gloucester, 421, 432;
  his authority, 432

Way, Mr. Albert, on the styles of the Empress, 70, 73

Welsh, levity of the, 386

Westminster, charters tested at, 18, 53, 86, 95, 262-264, 286, 302,
  306, 329, 428, 433

————, Herbert, abbot of, 265

Weston, 314

Wherwell, Empress at, 57;
  burning of, 127, 129-131

White Ship, loss of the, 423, 428, 429, 434

Wickham Bonhunt (Essex), 90, 140

Wilton, the Empress at, 65;
  affair of, 146, 276, 407

Wiltshire, earldom of, 181, 194, 271

Winchester, Stephen received at, 4, 47;
  Henry I. at, 421, 430, 432;
  Empress received at, 57-64;
  importance of its possession, 60;
  its castle and treasury, 62, 63, 125, 128, 386, 407;
  election of the Empress at, 69;
  its siege by the Empress, 124-132;
  its royal palace, 126, 127

————, William (Giffard), bishop of, 329

————, Henry, bishop of (and papal legate), 265;
  receives Stephen as king, 3, 4;
  attends his coronation, 5;
  with him at Reading, 11;
  at Westminster, 262;
  at Oxford, 263;
  at Arundel, 55;
  receives the Empress, 57;
  his mandate to Theobald, 260;
  conducts Maud's election, 69;
  escorts her, 82, 83, 93;
  opposes her as to William Cumin, 85;
  deserts her and joins the Queen, 121, 122;
  besieged by the Empress, 125;
  his palace, 126;
  burns Winchester, 127;
  restores Stephen, 136;
  at his court, 143;
  with him at Wilton, 407;
  opposed to Nigel of Ely, 413;
  goes to Rome, 208;
  his letter to Brian Fitz Count, 261;
  his covenant with Henry, 386;
  papal letters to, 412

Windsor, Maurice de (dapifer of St. Edmund's), 190, 439

———— Castle, 169;
  Henry I. at, 429

Wiret, Ralf de, 53

Wood Walton, 211

Woodham Mortimer (Essex), 141

Worcester, Stephen at, 48, 282;
  sacked by Miles, 282;
  its "third penny," 290

————, Castle, 313, 328

————, Simon, bishop of, 262, 263, 265

————, Theowulf, bishop of, 432

Worcestershire, earldom (?) of, 271

————, shrievalty of, 313

Worth (Wilts), 229, 233

Writtle (Essex), 140, 149, 214

————, Godebold of, 214

Wymondham, the foundation at, 318


Y

York, Stephen visits, 157, 409

————, Roger, archbishop of, 236

————, Thurstan, archbishop of, 262, 263, 265, 427, 428, 433

————, earldom of, 270, 271, 276

————, earl of. _See_ AUMÂLE

Ypres, William of, in England, 45, 52, 144, 158, 201;
  not an earl, 146, 270, 275;
  in charge of Kent, 147, 275;
  burns Wherwell, 129, 131, 132;
  tries to burn St. Albans, 206;
  robs Abingdon, 213;
  persecutes the Church, 271;
  grants to him, 269, 275





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Geoffrey de Mandeville - A study of the Anarchy" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.