FOOTNOTES:
[1] Speech in the House of Commons (Times, 6th June, 1899).
[2] It is important to observe that the Pope’s letter of 20th September, 1172, contains an unmistakable reference to the (forged) Donation of Constantine in the words “Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet in Insula quam in terra magna te continua” (see p. [197] below). Dr. Zinkeisen, in his paper on “the Donation of Constantine as applied by the Roman Church,” speaks of this letter as “a genuine bull of Alexander III.” (‘English Historical Review,’ ix. 629), but strangely overlooks the allusion, and asserts that he could find no use made by the Popes of the forged Donation at this period.
[3] See Mr. Scargill-Bird’s ‘Guide to the Public Records.’
[4] ‘Feudal Aids’ (Calendars of State Papers, etc.), vol. i., pp. ix.-xi.
[5] Director of the Royal Historical Society; Lecturer on Palæography and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics, etc., etc.
[6] See pp. 131, 135, 283, etc., and Index.
[7] “The surrender of the Isle of Wight” (in ‘Genealogical Magazine,’ vol. i., p. 1) and “The Red Book of the Exchequer” (in ‘Genealogist,’ July, 1897).
[8] January, 1899 (xiv. 150–151). The first paper in my treatise deals with “the antiquity of scutage,” and contains further evidence for my contention that, contrary to the accepted view, this important tax was levied before the days of Henry II. Mr. Hall replied that it was “curious to find” me seriously citing “forgeries,” the evidence of which he ridiculed, without deigning to discuss them.
The “most conclusive document” (as I termed it) which I cited in my favour is a charter of the time of Stephen, which I printed in full in my treatise (pp. 8–9). Of this I need scarcely say more than that the authorities of the British Museum have now selected it for special exhibition among the most interesting of their charters, and have drawn particular attention to its important mention of scutage (see the official guide to the MSS., p. 40).
The value of Mr. Hall’s assertions, and the futility of his attempted reply, could hardly be more effectively exposed. I may add that I have still a few copies of my treatise available for presentation to libraries used by scholars.
[9] See Index.
[10] Archæological Review, iv. 235.
[11] Prefixed to the Domesday volume published by the Sussex Archæological Society.
[12] A generation later than Domesday we find lands at Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) given to Lewes Priory, which “usque ad modernum tempus silve fuerunt” (Cott. MS. Nero c. iii. fo. 217).
[13] Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 30.
[14] Ibid. Dr. Guest suggested of Ælle, at the battle of Mercred’s Burn (485), that “on this occasion he may have met Ambrosius and a national army; for Huntingdon tells us that the ‘reges et tyranni Brittanum’ were his opponents.” But if the Saxon advance was eastwards, it could not well have brought them face to face with the main force of the Britons.
[15] English Village Community, pp. 126, 127, etc.
[16] Social England, i. 122 et seq.
[17] 2nd ed. p. 178.
[18] English Village Community, pp. 169, 170.
[19] He writes, of ing, that “Mr. Kemble had overlooked no less than 47 names in Kent, 38 in Sussex, and 34 in Essex” (ed. 1888, p. 82).
[20] The Lewes Priory Charters afford instances in point.
[21] Archæological Review, iv. 233 et seq.
[22] One would like to know on what ground the suffix “-well,” familiar in Essex (Broadwell, Chadwell, Hawkwell, Netteswell, Prittlewell, Ridgwell, Roxwell, Runwell), but curiously absent in Sussex, is derived from the Roman ‘villa.’ It is found in Domesday precisely the same as at the present day. Yet Professor Earle writes of “Wilburgewella” that it is “an interesting name as showing the naturalized form of the Latin villa, of which the ordinary Saxon equivalent was haga” (Land Charters, p. 130). This latter equation seems to be most surprising. It is traceable apparently to a charter of 855, in which we read of “unam villam quod nos Saxonice ‘an hagan’ dicimus” (Ib. p. 336), an obviously suspicious phrase. There is no ground for terming the ‘Ceolmundinge haga’ of a starred document (Ib. p. 315) a villa, while the ‘haga’ of another (Ib. p. 364) is clearly a haw, as in ‘Bassishaw.’ Yet another charter (Ib. p. 447) is not in point.
[23] But the more closely one investigates the subject the more difficult one finds it to speak with absolute confidence as to the original existence, in any given instance, of an ing in the modern suffixes -ingham and -ington.
[24] “It is probable that all the primitive villages in whose name the patronymic ing occurs were originally colonized by communities united either really by blood or by the belief in a common descent (see Kemble)”—Stubbs (Const. Hist). “Harling abode by Harling and Billing by Billing, and each ‘wick’ and ‘ham’ and ‘stead’ and ‘tun’ took its name from the kinsmen who dwelt together in it. In this way the house or ham of the Billings was Billingham, and the township of the Harlings was Harlington”—Green (‘Making of England,’ p. 188). “Many family names appear in different parts of England.... Thus we find the Bassingas at Bassingbourn.... The Billings have left their stamp at Billing, in Northampton; Billingford, in Norfolk; Billingham, in Durham; Billingley, in Yorkshire; Billinghurst, in Sussex; and five other places in various other counties. Birmingham, Nottingham, Wellington, Faringdon, Warrington, and Wallingford are well-known names formed on the same analogy.... Speaking generally these clan names are thickest along the original English coast, etc.”—Grant Allen (Anglo-Saxon Britain,’ p. 43).
[25] “The German theory, formerly generally accepted, that free village communities were the rule among the English, seems to have little direct evidence to support it” (Social England, i. 125).
[26] Ibid. i. 130; cf. Canon Taylor: “The Saxon immigration was doubtless an immigration of clans.... In the Saxon districts of the island we find the names not of individuals, but of clans.”
[27] The exceptions that he admits are too slight to affect this general statement.
[28] Stubbs, ut supra.
[29] Canon Taylor relies on the passage, “Ida was Eopping, Eoppa was Esing,” etc.
[30] Saxons in England, i. 449–456, where he treats such names as “Brytfordingas” as “patronymical.”
[31] Ed. 1888, p. 79.
[32] I do not overlook the possibility of ‘hall’ (hala) being a subsequent addition (as in post-Domesday times), but in these cases it was part of the name at least as early as the Conquest, and the presumption must be all in favour of the name being derived from an individual not from a clan.
[33] Saxons in England, i. 56.
[34] Ibid. i. 58 et seq.
[35] “Hence we perceive the value of this word [ing] as an instrument of historical research. For a great number of cases it enables us to assign to each of the great Germanic clans its precise share in the colonization of the several portions of our island.”
[36] Anglo-Saxon Britain, pp. 81–2.
[37] Heming or Haming was a personal name which occurs in Domesday, and which has originated a modern surname.
[38] Even by Kemble, as in ‘Saxons in England,’ i. 60–79; but he terms it a “slight” cause of inaccuracy.
[39] ‘Wihtmund minister’ is found in 938 (Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ p. 326), and ‘Widmundesfelt’ in the earliest extant Essex charter (Ib. p. 13). It is, therefore, amazing that Professor Earle, dealing with the phrase “æt Hwætmundes stane” (Ib. p. 317), should have gone out of his way to adopt a theory started by Mr. Kerslake in the ‘Antiquary,’ connecting it with the “sculptured stone in Panier Alley,” writing: “If now the mund of ‘Wheatmund’ might be this mand [basket], then hwætmundes stane would be the stone of the wheatmaund, and the ‘antiquum petrosum ædificium’ may have been the block of masonry that was once the platform or basis of a market cross which had become the usual pitching-place of cereal produce” (Ib. p. 318). This is an admirable instance of that perverse Folk-etymology which has worked such havoc with our place-names. Morant’s derivation in the last century of ‘Widemondefort,’ from ‘a wide mound,’ is comparatively harmless in its simplicity.
[40] Calendar of Bodleian Charters, p. 80.
[41] ‘Ac’ was the Domesday equivalent of ‘oak.’
[42] Dorset Domesday, p. 57.
[43] So Kemble derived it from the “Færingas.”
[44] Saxons in England, i. 63.
[45] Saxons in England, i. 475.
[46] I have shown (‘Feudal England,’ 103–106) that the solanda of other counties is not (as Seebohm thought, following Hale) in any way the same as the sulung.
[47] See Earle’s ‘Land Charters,’ pp. 18, 24, 33, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 75, 78, 80, 82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 105, 124, 126, 133, 142, 152, 209.
[48] Ibid. pp. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–24, 26, 29, 31, 40, 45, etc.
[49] Feudal England, pp. 421 et seq.
[50] English Historical Review, xi. 740, 741.
[51] Norm. Conq., iv. 56–7.
[52] According to the Peterborough Chronicle, he gave 40 marcs for this reconciliation.
[53] Norman Conquest, vol. iv., App. C.
[54] The italics are mine.
[55] English Historical Review, xii. 109, 110.
[56] Ibid.
[57] 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452.
[58] The italics are mine.
[59] Compare Dr. Sheppard’s remarks in 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452 a. It would take us too far afield to undertake the distinct task of reconciling the clause in A.I (Ibid.) with Lanfranc’s letter to the pope, which implies, as Mr. Freeman observes, that there was but one hearing, namely, that at Winchester (Norm. Conq., iv. 358). The clause in A.I asserts an adjournment of the hearing at Easter (Winchester), and a decision of the case at Whitsuntide (Windsor).
[60] I need not print the list, as it will be found in the ‘Monasticon,’ and in Kempe’s ‘Historical Notices of St. Martin’s le Grand,’ as well as in Mr. Stevenson’s paper.
[61] E. H. R., xii. 109 note.
[62] Norm. Conq., vol. iv., App. C.
[63] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 435. I do not guarantee the derivation.
[64] Mon. Ang., ii. 302.
[65] He is also clearly the “Eustachius de Huntedune” mentioned under Stamford (D. B. 336 b).
[66] Norman Conquest, vol. ii.
[67] Const. Hist., i. 243.
[68] pp. viii., 299.
[69] See for the above quotations my ‘Feudal England,’ pp. 346, 354–6.
[70] William was familiar with this formation, for he makes, Mr. Freeman wrote, Henry I. bid his English stand firm “in the array of the ancient shield wall.”
[71] Feudal England, p. 354.
[72] Norman Conquest (2nd ed., iii. 764).
[73] Miss Norgate recognises this as “the English shield wall” (‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 292).
[74] Art of War, p. 26; History of the Art of War, p. 163.
[75] See, for these quotations, Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ iii. (2nd ed.), 491 (where he quotes parallels from Dion Cassius and Ammianus), and compare my ‘Feudal England,’ p. 358.
[76] History of the Art of War, p. 61.
[77] Ibid. p. 58.
[78] Ibid. p. 36.
[79] See above, p. 40.
[80] The italics are mine.
[81] The spissa testudo of Florence is “of course” conveniently ignored.
[82] “When the compact shield wall was broken, William thrust his horsemen into the gaps” (p. 300). Just so.
[83] ‘Athenæum,’ 6th Aug., 1898. Mr. Oman had previously tried to escape from his own words by pleading that “silence does not mean a change of opinion” (‘Academy,’ 9th June, 1894). But I had been careful to explain that I did not rely on his ‘silence,’ but on his actually substituting ‘shield wall’ for ‘palisades’ in the above reproduced sentence (‘Academy,’ 19th May, 1894). Similarly, Mr. Oman, as Col. Lloyd has observed (‘English Historical Review,’ x. 538), “takes a different view” of the English formation at Crecy in the latter of these two works from that which he had taken in the earlier, substituting a wholly different arrangement of the archers.
[84] Mr. Freeman wrote of a “fortress of timber” with “wooden walls,” composed of “firm barricades of ash and other timber” (see ‘Feudal England,’ p. 340). Mr. George emphatically rejected this conception (‘Battles of English History’).
[85] ‘Norman Conquest,’ iii. (2nd ed.), 476, faithfully reproducing Henry of Huntingdon’s “dudum antequam coirent bellatores.”
[86] Guy of Amiens describes him as “Agmina præcedens innumerosa ducis.”
[87] Art of War, p. 25.
[88] Social England, p. 299.
[89] Academy, 9th June, 1894.
[90] History of the Art of War, p. 154.
[91] Mr. Oman, in his latest work, makes “brushwood” the material. I had pointed out “the difficulty of hauling timber” under the circumstances (‘Feudal England,’ p. 342).
[92] English Historical Review, ix. 18; cf. ix. 10.
[93] Ibid. ix. 232, 237–8.
[94] History of the Art of War, p. vi.
[95] English Historical Review, ix. 239.
[96] Ibid. p. 14.
[97] See Feudal England, pp. 354–8, 392.
[98] Die Schlacht von Hastings (Berlin), 1896.
[99] Athenæum, July 30, 1898.
[100] Mr. Oman, for instance, writes of the English “ditch and the mound made of the earth cast up from it and crowned by the breastworks” (p. 154), although Mr. Freeman treated “the English fosse” as quite distinct from “the palisades, and at a distance from them” (‘English Historical Review,’ ix. 213). Mr. Archer has had to admit this.
[101] This is also the conclusion of Sir J. Ramsay.
[102] Feudal England, p. 361.
[103] Feudal England, pp. 354–358, 363, 367–8.
[104] Ibid. p. 358.
[105] Ibid. pp. 356–358.
[106] For further details on this subject, and a bibliography of the whole controversy, see ‘Sussex Archæological Collections,’ vol. xlii.
[107] “Lincoln Castle, as regards its earthworks, belongs to that type of English fortress in which the mound has its proper ditch, and is placed on one side of an appended area, also with its bank and ditch.... In general, these fortresses are much alike, and all belong to that class of burhs known to have been thrown up by the English in the ninth and tenth centuries” (Clark’s ‘Mediæval Military Architecture,’ ii. 192).
[108] 9th July, 1898.
[109] Mediæval Military Architecture, i. 24, 25.
[110] Athenæum, July, 1898.
[111] History of the Art of War, p. 525. The italics are mine.
[112] Athenæum, 30th July, 1898.
[113] Ibid., 6th August, 1898.
[114] Ibid., 13th August, 1898.
[115] The acting editor of the ‘Athenæum’ refused to insert my final reply explaining this.
[116] Appendix to ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518.
[117] Flores Historiarum (Rolls), ii. 490.
[118] Ibid. p. 491.
[119] “Ipsi, obsidione turris fortissimæ, quam bellicis insultibus et machinarum ictibus viisque subterraneis expugnatam, fuissent in proximo adepturi, protinus dimissa, Londonias repetierunt” (‘Flores Historiarum,’ ii. 491). Compare ‘Ypodigma Neustriæ,’ p. 518.
[120] Archæological Journal, xx. 205–223 (1863).
[121] First in the ‘English Historical Review’ and then in my ‘Feudal England.’
[122] This was clearly the rule, though there may have been a few exceptions. Compare p. 155 below.
[123] Feudal England, p. 234.
[124] History of the Art of War, p. 359.
[125] Ibid.
[126] Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 450, 451.
[127] History of the Art of War.
[128] Feudal England, p. 234.
[129] History of the Art of War, p. 360.
[130] History of the Art of War, p. 362.
[131] I use the term, for convenience, in 1168.
[132] “Habeo ij milites et dimidium feffatos de veteri feffamento” (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 292).
[133] I may add that Mr. Oman misquotes this carta in his endeavour to extract from it support for his error about the ‘five hides’ (p. 57 above). I place his rendering by the side of the text.
| ... “unusquisque de i virgata. Et ita habetis ij milites et dimidium feodatos.” | ... “only for one virgate each. From them you can make up a knight, and so you have two and a half knights enfeoffed” (p. 362). |
The words I have italicised are, it will be seen, interpolated.
[134] See also Eyton’s ‘History of Shropshire,’ i. 232, and the ‘Cartæ baronum’ (1166) passim.
[135] This allusion has perhaps been somewhat overlooked by legal historians.
[136] Curiosities and Antiquities of the Exchequer.
[137] “Videtur autem eis obviare qui dicunt album firmæ a temporibus Anglicorum cœpisse, quod in libro judiciario in quo totius regni descriptio diligens continetur, et tam de tempore regis Edwardi quam de tempore regis Willelmi sub quo factus est, singulorum fundorum valentia exprimitur, nulla prorsus de albo firmæ fit mentio” (‘Dialogus,’ I. vi.).
[138] Rot. magni Scacc. Norm., I. xv.
[139] The Foundations of England, i. 524; ii. 324.
[140] “Ubi cum per aliquos annos persedisset, comperit hoc solutionis genere non plene fisco satisfieri: licet enim in numero et pondere videretur satisfactum, non tamen in materia ... Ut igitur regiæ simul et publicæ provideretur utilitati, habito super hoc ipso regis consilio, constitutum est ut fieret ordine prædicto firmæ combustio vel examinatio” (‘Dialogus,’ I. vii.).
[141] “Libræ arsæ et pensatæ,” “Libræ ad arsuram et pensum,” “Libræ ad pensum et arsuram,” “Libræ ad pondus et arsuram,” “Libræ ad ignem et ad pensum,” etc.
[142] Even Sir James Ramsay, though rightly sceptical as to the attribution of certain innovations, by the writer of the ‘Dialogus,’ to Bishop Roger, holds that “the revenues of the Anglo-Saxon kings were to a considerable extent paid in kind; and so they were down to the time of Henry I., who abolished the practice, establishing money payments in all cases” (i. 525).
[143] Cf. p. 205.
[144] “Hiis vero solutis secundum constitutum modum cujusque rei, regii officiales computabant vicecomiti redigentes in summam denariorum: pro mensura scilicet tritici ad panem c hominum, solidum unum,” etc., etc.
[145] Compare my remarks on the quick growth, in those days of erroneous tradition, in ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 77.
[146] pp. 109–115. Professor Maitland has subsequently spoken of it in two or three passages of ‘Domesday Book and Beyond.’
[147] “The Conqueror at Exeter” (‘Feudal England’).
[148] D. B., i. 108.
[149] D. B., i. 108.
[150] Barnstaple rendered forty shillings ‘ad pensum’ to the king, and twenty ‘ad numerum’ to the bishop of Coutances; Lidford sixty ‘ad pensum’; Totnes “olim reddebat iii lib. ad pensum et arsuram,” but, after passing into private hands, its render was raised to “viii lib. ad numerum.” Exeter itself ‘rendered’ £6 “ad pensum et arsuram” to the king, and £12 ‘ad numerum’ for Queen Edith.
[151] D. B., i. 100 b-101.
[152] Feudal England, p. 115.
[153] D. B., i. 120.
[154] Cf. Feudal England, pp. 109–110.
[155] Feudal England, pp. 109–110.
[156] After the above passage, the author proceeds: “De summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebant in uno comitatu, constituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 7).
[157] A Devonshire manor (i. 100 b) is entered as rendering “in firma regis x solidos ad pensum.” This “firma” can only be a collective ferm from the royal manors.
[158] I do not wish to press the point further than the entry proves, and consequently I leave undetermined the question whether the ‘firma regis’ was that of the whole shire, or merely that of the head manor to which Wedmore belonged.
[159] Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 142.
[160] History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 63.
[161] It was vehemently asserted by Mr. Hubert Hall, in his earlier papers on the Exchequer, that the table was only divided into columns, and that the chequered table was a delusion. He has subsequently himself accepted the “chequered table” (see my ‘Studies on the Red Book,’ p. 76), but Sir James Ramsay (ii. 324) has been misled by his original assertion.
[162] “Sciendum vero quod per hanc taleam combustionis dealbatur firma vicecomitis; unde in testimonium hujus rei semper majori taleæ appensa cohæret” (‘Dialogus’).
[163] pp. 523–4.
[164] p. 105.
[165] “Henricus thesaurarius,” the Domesday tenant (49), is entered in the earlier Winchester survey temp. Hen. I.
[166] One such writ, still preserved, is printed in my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society). It belongs to 1191.
[167] See below.
[168] I punctuate it differently from Dr. Stubbs.
[169] Itinerary, p. 275.
[170] Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 15.
[171] Ibid. p. 16.
[172] Ibid.
[173] Ibid. p. 66.
[174] See my ‘Calendar of Documents Preserved in France.’
[175] Ibid. p. 354.
[176] Ibid. p. 355.
[177] Ibid. p. 354.
[178] See the ‘Constitutio domus Regis’:—“Willelmus Maudut xiiii d. in die, et assidue in Domo Commedet,” etc. etc. He comes next to the Treasurer.
[179] Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 400.
[180] See my “King Stephen and the Earl of Chester” (‘English Historical Review,’ x. 91).
[181] Testa de Nevill., 231.
[182] Ibid. 235; and ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 460.
[183] Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. See ‘Red Rook of the Exchequer,’ p. 664:—“Garino filio Geroldi xxxiiij lib. bl. in Worde.” Although the subject is one of special interest for the editor, he does not index Garin’s name here at all, while he identifies “Worde” in the Index (p. 1358), as “Worthy” (Hants), though it was Highworth, Wilts.
[184] Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 355, 356.
[185] “Garinus filius Geroldi Suvenhantone, per serjanteriam cameræ (sic) Regis” (Ibid. p. 486). (Should ‘cameræ’ be ‘camerariæ’?). Also “ut sit Camerarius Regis” (‘Testa,’ p. 148).
[186] “Margeria de Ripariis tenet villam de Creklade de camar[aria] domini regis ad scaccarium: Eadem Margeria tenet villam de Sevenha[m]pton cum pertinentiis de domino rege per predictum servitium” (‘Testa de Nevill.,’ p. 153).
[187] See ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ and ‘Testa de Nevill.’
[188] Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxv.
[189] For a similar misdescription of the document preceding it see my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 61.
[190] History of the Exchequer.
[191] Antiquities of the Exchequer, pp. 144–6, 165, 167.
[192] At Portsmouth, the witnesses being Geoffrey the chancellor, Nigel de Albini, and Geoffrey de Clinton.
[193] Oliver’s ‘Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis,’ p. 134.
[194] Ed. Arnold, i. 269.
[195] “Numero satisfaciunt; quales sunt Salop, Sudsex, Northumberland et Cumberland” (i. 7). Shropshire is wanting on the Roll.
[196] “Hæc per subtractionem xii denariorum e singulis libris dealbantur” (ii. 27).
[197] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. p. 122.
[198] Indeed, the statement that this ferm was fixed by the Conqueror is at variance with the evidence of Domesday, which says, “reddit L libras ad arsuram et pensum” (i. 16).
[199] Vol. ii. p. 115.
[200] It should be observed that the plea was decided by reference to the “liber de thesauro” (Domesday Book, 156 b) and that “liber ille ... sigilli regii comes est in thesauro” (‘Dialogus,’ i. 15). Therefore, “cum orta fuerit in regno contentio de his rebus quæ illic annotantur” (Ibid. i. 16), the plea would conveniently be held “in thesauro.”
[201] See my paper on “Bernard the Scribe” in the ‘English Historical Review,’ 1899.
[202] Introduction to Dialogus.
[203] Ibid.
[204] “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 Stephani’; see ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 2).
[205] Ibid.
[206] Longmans, 1892.
[207] Assuming the regnal years of Stephen to be reckoned in the usual manner, of which I have felt some doubts.
[208] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 252.
[209] Ibid. p. 373.
[210] He was the third named of the fifteen benefactors, who, to obtain the king’s confirmation, “miserunt ... quendam ex seipsis, Ordgarum scilicet le Prude,” to Henry. He occurs in one of the St. Paul’s documents (Hist. MSS. Report, p. 68 a), but what Mr. Loftie has written about him (‘London,’ pp. 35–6) is merely based on confusion with other Ordgars.
[211] Vol. iv. fo. 737, of the Guildhall Transcript.
[212] He appears to take his stand on possession alone.
[213] The king decides to examine the title by a proprietary action.
[214] ‘Christo’ in Ancient Deeds, A. 6683.
[215] As is not unfrequently the case in similar narratives, this charter is wrongly introduced; for it clearly cannot be so early as 1137. It was edited by me in ‘Ancient Charters’ (p. 48) from Ancient Deeds, A. 6683, and assigned to 1143–1148, as being obviously subsequent to the fall of the earl of Essex.
[216] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 222–4.
[217] Trans: ‘Englistcuit’ (the ‘t’ and ‘u’ being obvious misreadings). The text is, it will be seen, corrupt.
[218] Trans: ‘Crichcote.’
[219] Report ut supra, p. 66 b; ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 435–6.
[220] Report ut supra, pp. 61 b, 67 b; cf. ‘Domesday of St. Paul’s,’ p. 124.
[221] London and Middlesex Archæological Transactions, vol. v., pp. 477–493. These documents are the same as those entered in the Priory’s cartulary.
[222] Ibid. p. 480; cf. pp. 490, 491.
[223] London, p. 30.
[224] “Seven or eight” on p. 30.
[225] Ibid. p. 31.
[226] Even Dr. Stubbs seems to imply this when he alludes to “the conversion of the cnihtengild into a religious house” (‘Const. Hist.’ [1874], i. 406).
[227] Compare “the retirement at one time of seven or eight aldermen” only three pages before (p. 30).
[228] p. 33. So also pp. 34, 42, 90.
[229] Coote, ut supra, p. 478.
[230] Good instances in point are found in the Ramsey cartulary, where, in 1081, a benefactor to the abbey “suscepit e contra a domno abbate et ab omnibus fratribus plenam fraternitatem pro rege Willelmo, et pro regina Matilda, et pro comite Roberto, et pro semetipso, et uxore sua, et filio qui ejus erit heres, et pro patre et matre ejus, ut sunt participes orationum, elemosinarum, et omnium beneficiorum ipsorum, sed et omnium fratrum sive monasteriorum a quibus societatem susceperunt in omnibus sicut ex ipsis” (i. 127–8). Better still is this parallel: “Reynaldus abbas, et totus fratrum conventus de Rameseya cunctis fratribus qui sunt apud Ferefeld in gilda, salutem in Christo. Volumus ut sciatis quod vobis nostrum fraternitatem concessimus et communionem beneficii quam pro nobismet ipsis quotidie agimus, per Serlonem, qui vester fuit legatus ad nos, ut sitis participes in hoc et in futuro sæculo” (i. 131). The date of this transaction was about the same as that of the admission of the cnihtengild to a share in the “benefits” of Holy Trinity; and the grant was similarly made in return for an endowment.
[231] See “The First Mayor of London” (‘Antiquary,’ April, 1887).
[232] Coote, ut supra, p. 478.
[233] Report, ut supra, p. 68 a.
[234] Ibid. p. 62 a.
[235] 5th Report Hist. MSS., App. I., p. 446 b.
[236] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.
[237] Infra, p. 118.
[238] Antiquary, as above.
[239] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.
[240] Report, i. 83 b. It is several years later than 1125.
[241] See p. 101, above.
[242] Coote, ut supra, p. 473.
[243] Tomlin’s ‘Perambulation of Islington,’ pp. 60–64.
[244] Report, ut supra, p. 42 a.
[245] See, for him, below.
[246] Add MS. 14,252, fo. 127 d.
[247] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 310, 311.
[248] Ibid. It is remarkable that this man, who (as I have there shown) was joint sheriff of London in 1125, is found as the last witness to a charter of Henry I., granted (apparently in 1120) at Caen (Colchester Cartulary, fo. 10).
[249] Ibid. p. 311.
[250] See above, p. 106.
[251] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139.
[252] Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I., p. 145. See also Ramsey Cartulary, i. 142.
[253] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 309.
[254] See my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), p. 26.
[255] The transcriber seems to have been unable to read these words.
[256] Lansdown MS. 170, fo. 73.
[257] See also the charter on p. 115 (note 3) below.
[258] Sheriff again from 1157 to 1160.
[259] “Writelam ... Ingelricus præoccupavit ii hidas de terra prepositi Haroldi ... postquam rex venit in Angliam et modo tenet comes E[ustachius] ideo quod antecessor ejus inde fuit saisitus” (Domesday, ii. 5 b).
[260] Lansd. MS. 170, fo. 62.
[261] “The influential family of Bucquinte, Bucca-Uncta, which took the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than Italian” (‘Const. Hist.,’ i. 631). The Bucherels also, clearly were of Italian origin (“Bucherelli”).
[262] Ibid.
[263] “Benedictus I., 155–6” (Dr. Stubbs’ authority).
[264] Ibid.
[265] See p. 108, above.
[266] Duchy of Lancaster Charters, L. 107. “Notum sit tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte heredavi in hustingo Londonie (sic) Gervasium de Cornhell[a] et Henricum filium eius et heredes suos de omnibus rectis meis in terris in catallis Et etiam in omnibus aliis rebus et quieta clamavi eis et heredibus eorum hereditario jure tenendis et abendis (sic). Et pro hac conventione dederunt mihi Gervasius de Cornhell[a] et Henricus filius unam dimidiam marcam argenti. Et hoc idem feci in curia Regis apud Westmonasterium. Et ibi dedit mihi Gervasius de Cornhella i marcam argenti. Et ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte saisiavi Gervasium de Cornhell[e] et Henricum filium eius de omnibus tailiis meis et de cartis meis in curia Regis et in hustingo Lond[onie].”
[267] Cartulary, i. 130.
[268] See p. 106, above.
[269] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester, pp. 293–4.
[270] England under the Angevin Kings, pp. 156–7.
[271] i. 157. Hoveden ends: “Præcepit eum suspendi inpatibulo”.
[272] See above, p. 107.
[273] This also was the name of a leading London family.
[274] Dr. Stubbs quotes from the roll of 1169: “de catallis fugitivorum et suspensorum per assisam de Clarendon.”
[275] See my note on Osbert in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ App. Q (pp. 374–5).
[276] Ibid.
[277] Lansd. MS., 170, fo. 62 d. The terms of this writ are of some legal importance in connection with the principle of “novel disseisin” under Henry II. The recovery of seisin is here a preliminary to a proprietary action, and the formula “injuste et sine judicio” (cf. ‘History of English Law,’ ii. 47, 57) recurs in this charter which is of similar illustrative value: “Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Waltero filio Gisleberti et preposito suo de Mealdona salutem. Si Canonici Sancti Martini London’ poterint monstrare quod Oswardus de Meldon’ injuste et sine judicio illos dissaisierit de terra sua de Meldon’ de Burgag’ tunc precipio quod illos faciat[is] resaisiri sicut saisiti fuerunt die quo Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et quicquid inde cepit postea reddi juste faciatis et in pace teneant sicut tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici et eadem consuetudine, et nisi feceritis Ricardus de Lucy et vicecomes de Essex faciant fieri ne audiam inde clamorem pro penuria recti. Teste Warnerio de Lusoriis apud London’” (Ib., fo. 170).
[278] It was almost certainly previous to Stephen’s captivity, though this cannot be actually proved.
[279] Another writ of Stephen (date uncertain) similarly recognises his position:—“Stephanus dei gratia Rex Anglie Osberto Octod[enarii] et Adel (sic) et civibus et vic[ecomiti] Lond[onie] salutem. Precipio quod canonici Sancti Martini London[ie] bene et in pace et honorifice teneant terras suas et estalla sua que eis reddidi et confirmavi” (fo. 57 d).
[280] Endorsed “de Cancellario” (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. 45 b).
[281] Athenæum, 23rd January, 1897.
[282] “Justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis.”
[283] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 305.
[284] Ibid. p. 150.
[285] Quum.
[286] We probably should read “Osberto clerico Willelmi archidiaconi.”
[287] Attests a charter of the earl’s son and namesake in 1157–8 as “Willelmo de Moch’ capellano meo” (‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 229).
[288] Attests same charter (Ibid.).
[289]? Gisleberto.
[290] Ailwin son of Leofstan and Robert de Ponte occur in the London charters of St. Paul’s about this time.
[291] Subsequently sheriff of Essex (see p. 109 above).
[292] This charter, I understand, is taken from the roll at St. Paul’s, which was purposely left uncalendared in Sir H. Maxwell Lyte’s report on the St. Paul’s MSS.
[293] See p. 102.
[294] Add. Cart. 28, 346.
[295] See my paper on “Faramus of Boulogne” (Genealogist [N. S.] xii. 151).
[296] Simone de Suttuna, Wulfwardo de Autona (Carshalton), etc.
[297] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’
[298] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.
[299] Ibid. p. 147.
[300] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’
[301] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.
[302] Ibid.
[303] See above, p. 110.
[304] Add. Cart. 28, 344.
[305] Not to be confused with an (under) sheriff of Salop a generation earlier.
[306] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester (Roxburghe Club), p. 78.
[307] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139, where it is assigned to 1114–1123.
[308] Ibid. i. 144.
[309] Ibid. i. 152.
[310] Ibid. i. 148, 240.
[311] Ibid. i. 245.
[312] Ibid. i. 131.
[313] MS. Arundel, 28.
[314] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 100.
[315] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 72.
[316] Report, p. 25 b.
[317] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 256.
[318] See p. 101 above.
[319] 28th Sept., 1889.
[320] The Red Book of the Exchequer, Ed. Hubert Hall, F.S.A., of the Public Record Office (Master of the Rolls Series), pp. cclxvii.-cclxxxiv.
[321] This phrase and the “sine judicio,” which the Articles employ as its opposite, should be compared with the formula for the Assize of Novel Disseisin.
[322] Rot. Pip. 14 Hen. II. p. 124 (“Honor Willelmi filii Alani”).
[323] See ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 272.
[324] Swereford’s ‘dictum’ is wrong, of course, here as elsewhere (see my ‘Studies on the Red Book’).
[325] See, for example, pp. 75–7, 77–8.
[326] Or rather 1172 (Rot. Pip., 18 Hen. II.), “1171” being Mr. Hall’s date.
[327] Roland de Dinan, Ralf de Toeni, Goscelin the queen’s brother (Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 132).
[328] Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 194.
[329] Rot. 6 Ric. I. (according to Dugdale).
[330] Liber Rubeus, pp. 113, 147.
[331] Rot. 21 Hen. II., p. 82.
[332] History of Shropshire, ii. 201.
[333] Feudal England, p. 245; Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 322.
[334] Rot. 14 Hen. II., p. 29.
[335] i.e. 1172.
[336] Rot. 18 Hen. II., p. 30.
[337] Genealogist (N. S.), vol. i.
[338] See my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer’ (1898), printed for private circulation, passim.
[339] This paper, written a few years ago, is a sketch based on (1) The Song of Dermot and the Earl. Edited by G. A. Orpen. Oxford, 1892. (2) Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vol. v. Edited by J. F. Dimock. London, 1867. (3) The Book of Howth. Edited by J. S. Brewer, 1871.
[340] English Historical Review, vol. iv.
[341] See the paper below on ‘The Marshalship of England.’
[342] English Historical Review, viii. 132.
[343] See my ‘Early Life of Anne Boleyn.’
[344] Romania, xxi. 444–451.
[345] See ‘Feudal England,’ pp. 516–518.
[346] Morant’s Essex, i. 331 note. Morant gives no reference for this early and interesting charter, but I have lately been fortunate enough to find it in Lansd. MS. fo. 170, where it is transcribed among some local records from “Placita corone, 13 Edw. I.” It must, therefore, have been produced in 1284–5.
[347] Son of the earl of Arundel.
[348] MS. Hargrave 313, fo. 44 d (pencil).
[349] Selden Society publications, iv. 17.
[350] See also ‘Feudal England.’ Mr. Oman, of course, questions my theory; but scholars, I understand, accept it (see pp. 56–7 above).
[351] See also my paper on “The Barons of the Naas” in ‘Genealogist.’
[352] 14th March, 1895.
[353] Book of Howth (Carew Papers), p. 23. It would be of great interest to the genealogical student to connect these Fitz Urses of Ulster with the English family of the name, one of whom, Reginald, was among the murderers of Becket (cf. ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 53). Proof may be found, I think, among the charters of Stoke Curcy Priory, Somerset, now at Eton (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. p. 353). The Fitz Urses and De Curcis are found together among the Priory’s benefactors, and William de Curci is the first witness to a charter of Reginald Fitz Urse. We further find (Ibid.) a charter of William de Curci, to which “John de Curci, Jordan de Curci” are witnessed. As the conqueror of Ulster had a brother Jordan who was slain by the Irish, it is probable that he may be found in this John de Curci, and his provenance thus established. It is probable, therefore, that he was followed by Fitz Urse to Ulster from Somerset, and possibly even by Russell (Ibid. pp. 354 a, b).
[354] This was written some years ago.
[355] By the 22nd article of the Irish peace of January, 1648, the natives were promised the repeal of two statutes, one against “the ploughing with horses by the tail,” and the other prohibiting “the burning of oats in the straw.”
[356] As this paper goes to press, the news arrives (3rd April, 1899) of Mr. Davitt being stoned by his fellow-patriots at Swinford.
[357] Irish Ecclesiastical Record.
[358] See ‘Times,’ 8th Feb., 1886, p. 8.
[359] It has been so long spoken of as a “Bull” that one hardly knows how to describe it. So long, however, as it is realized that it was only a letter commendatory, no mistake can arise.
[360] Rolls Series, Edition v., 318.
[361] Ed. Hearne (1774), i. 42–48.
[362] Dublin Review, 3rd Ser., vol. 10, pp. 83–4.
[363] Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 66, 68.
[364] Dublin Review, ut supra, pp. 93, 95.
[365] Ireland and St. Patrick (2nd Ed., 1892), pp. 65–147.
[366] Ibid. pp. 65, 85.
[367] Ibid. p. 143.
[368] Dublin Review, ut supra, p. 101.
[369] Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 128.
[370] Ibid. p. 121.
[371] Ireland and St. Patrick, pp. 128–9.
[372] The latest German papers appear to be those of Scheffer-Boichort in ‘Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreich-Geschichtsforschung,’ Erganzungsband iv. (1892); and of Pflugk-Harttung in ‘Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft,’ x. (1894).
[373] E. H. R., viii. pp. 18–52.
[374] Ibid. p. 42.
[375] “The majority of historians,” Miss Norgate writes (E. H. R., viii. 18), “have assumed that these two statements are two genuine and independent accounts of one real transaction.” On this I pronounce, for the present, no opinion; but I have printed the parallel passages above, that readers may form their own opinion as to the points of resemblance.
[376] It has, of course, been asserted to be an interpolation. But, provisionally, I speak of it as his.
[377] Compare ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 96 note, with E. H. R., viii. 20. Miss Norgate might have learnt the fact from Cardinal Moran’s paper, which was published 15 years before her work appeared.
[378] Vol. v. pp. 246–7.
[379] Ibid. pp. 318–9.
[380] Another quotation from Ovid occurs in the middle of this short document.
[381] E. H. R., viii. 42.
[382] Ibid. p. 48.
[383] Ibid. p. 50.
[384] E. H. R., viii. 44.
[385] Ibid. p. 31.
[386] Dublin Review, ut supra, p. 90. So too on p. 96: “Giraldus Cambrensis asserted that both these Bulls were produced in a synod of Irish clergy at Waterford in A.D. 1175.” Cardinal Moran also argued from this date.
[387] Ireland and St. Patrick, p. 131. He speaks, however, doubtless by oversight, of “the confirmatory letter of Alexander III. himself in 1177” (p. 141), though it belongs to the same date.
[388] This is the erroneous form adopted by Professor Tout.
[389] Dictionary of National Biography, xix. 104.
[390] The words “per breve Ricardi de Luci” imply the king’s absence from England, so that if William was despatched to Ireland in 1171, it must have been before the king’s return on August 3. The charge would, therefore, have appeared on the (Michaelmas) Pipe Roll.
[391] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 115.
[392] Vol. v., p. lxxxiii.
[393] Close of 1171, or beginning of 1172.
[394] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 116.
[395] “Hibernico populo tam dominandi quam ipsum in fidei rudimentis incultissimum ecclesiasticis normis et disciplinis juxta Anglicanæ ecclesiæ mores informandi” (v. 315).
[396] “It is quite certain that the Pope did, some time before September 20, 1172, receive reports of Henry’s proceedings in Ireland, both from Henry himself and from the Irish bishops, for he says so in three letters—one addressed to Henry, another to the kings and bishops of Ireland, and the third to the legate Christian bishop of Lismore—all dated Tusculum, September 20.”
[397] E. H. R., viii. 44.
[398] Ibid. p. 50.
[399] The letter to Henry similarly speaks of “enormitates et vicia” described in the prelates’ letters, and of “abominationis spurcitiam.”
[400] “Suis nobis literis intimarunt, et dilectus filius noster R. Landavensis archidiaconus, vir prudens et discretus, et Regiæ magnitudini vinculo præcipue devotionis astrictus, qui hoc oculata fide perspexit viva nobis voce tam solicite quam prudenter exposuit” ... “eisdem Archiepiscopis et Episcopis significantibus, et præfato Archidiacono plenius et expressius nobis referente, comperimus.”
[401] Gesta, i. 28; and Hoveden, ii. 31.
[402] Becket materials (Rolls, vii. 227, 233).
[403] The language must have been deliberately chosen, for the bishop’s letters and the Pope’s action are described in the same words:
| “confirmantes ei et heredibus suis regnum Hiberniæ, et testimonium perhibentes ipsos eum et heredes suos sibi in reges et dominos constituisse imperpetuum” (p. 26). | “summus pontifex auctoritate apostolica confirmavit ei et heredibus suis regnum illud, et eos imperpetuum reges constituit” (p. 28). |
[404] “Et quia Romana ecclesia ... aliud jus habet in Insula quam in terra magna et continua, nos ... magnificentiam tuam rogamus et solicite commonemus ut in præscripta terra jura beati Petri nobis studeas sollicite conservare,” etc., etc.
[405] E. H. R., viii. 45.
[406] Ibid. p. 50.
[407] In the text of ‘De principis instructione,’ as is pretty generally known, the words “sicut a quibusdam asseritur aut confingitur, ab aliis autem unquam impetratum fuisse negatur,” precede this letter. They look, Mr. Dimock thought, like a marginal note which has found its way into the text. I confess that to me also that is what they suggest.
[408] According to Giraldus, the sole authority for its existence.
[409] The two letters hang together absolutely, it will be seen, in every way.
[410] Dublin Review, ut supra, p. 90.
[411] E. H. R., viii. 48.
[412] E. H. R., viii. 23.
[413] Dublin Review, ut supra, pp. 97–103.
[414] Ibid., 3rd Series, vol. xi., pp. 328–339.
[415] E. H. R., viii. 34.
[416] Vide supra, p. 184.
[417] Gesta, i. 28.
[418] Irish Ecclesiastical Record, p. 61.
[419] Monumenta, p. 151.
[420] Rinuccini’s Embassy in Ireland (Hutton), pp. xxviii.-xxix. For the essential passage the Italian runs: “stimando molto a proposito il soggettare a se l’Isola d’Irlanda, ricorse ad Adriano, e da quel pontefice, che Inglese era, ottene con mano liberale quanto bramava. Le zelo che Arrigo dimostrò di voler convertire alla Fede tutta l’Irlanda, piegò l’animo di Adriano a concedergli il dominio di essa” (Aiazzi’s Nunziatura, p. xxxvi.).
[421] Const. Hist., i. 496.
[422] Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ ii. 276.
[423] Gesta [Ed. Stubbs], ii. 80–83.
[424] Ed. Stubbs, iii. 9–12.
[425] Hoveden, iii. xiv. (1870).
[426] Ibid. iii. 9 note.
[427] Chron. Maj., ii. 348 note.
[428] Hist. Ang., iii. 209 note.
[429] Historia Anglorum, iii. 209.
[430] Chronica Majora, iii. 338 marginal note.
[431] Liber Rubeus, p. 759.
[432] See my paper, below, on “the Marshalship of England.”
[433] Red Book of the Exchequer, p. xviii. Compare my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 49.
[434] Rolls Series, ii. 339 note.
[435] Ibid. ‘Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen,’ etc., iii. 408 note.
[436] Dictionary of National Biography.
[437] Ibid.
[438] Register of St. Osmund, i. 262; and Epistolæ Cantuarienses, p. 327.
[439] The date given by Dr. Stubbs.
[440] This from Hoveden.
[441] So great, indeed, is the difficulty of forcing them into accordance with Dr. Stubbs’ view, that he himself makes them all four refer to a single surrender of Nottingham and Tickhill (Preface to Rog. Hov. III. lvii., lviii.; cf. p. lxiii.), and assigns the Mortimer incident to the earlier campaign, though it is described by Richard of Devizes, who ex hypothesi is narrating the later one.
[442] Gesta Regis Ricardi, ii. 208 note.
[443] Ed. Howlett, p. 337.
[444] It is a further illustration of the difficulty which even those who accept Dr. Stubbs’ view find in adhering to it, that Miss Norgate pronounces it “chronologically impossible” that the archbishop of Rouen can have been sent to John by Longchamp, as stated by Richard of Devizes (‘Angevin Kings,’ ii. 299 note). She must have forgotten that Richard of Devizes ex hypothesi is describing “events in the summer or autumn” (Rog. Hov., iii. 134); and that she accepts April 27 as the date of the archbishop’s arrival (ii. 298).
[445] “Legationis suæ officium per mortem Romani pontificis exspirasse.”
[446] This suggestion is strongly supported by the fact, which has been overlooked, that the bishop of Worcester was consecrated by Longchamp “adhuc legato” on May 5 (Ric. Devizes, p. 403); that the chancellor still styled himself legate on May 13 (‘Ancient Charters,’ p. 96); and that he even used this style on July 8 at Lincoln (vide infra). This implies, as I pointed out so far back as 1888 in my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), that he continued to use the style after Clement’s death and before he could have known whether Cœlestine would renew it to him or not. Indeed, if we may trust the version of Giraldus, he was using it even so late as July 30 (iv. 389). It is notable that in a communication dated “Teste meipso apud Releiam xxv die Augusti,” he no longer employs it.
[447] England under the Angevin Kings, ii. 299.
[448] 9th Report Historical MSS., i. 35 b (where the document is dated “1190–1196”).
[449] 35th Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2.
[450] This cannot be made public till my Calendar of Charters preserved in France is issued. In it this evidence will be found in Document 61 (p. 17).
[451] The dating clause at its end is a blunder admitted on all sides.
[452] Preface to Rog. Hov., III. p. lxiv. This is, according to me, the imaginary conference.
[453] Rog. Hov., iii. 135 note. So also ‘Gesta,’ ii. p. 208: “in which John was recognised as the heir of England.”
[454] Pref. to Rog. Hov., III. lix.
[455] Ibid. p. lxiv.
[456] Gesta, ii. 207–8; Will. Newb., ii. 339.
[457] Roger Hov., iii. 135 note.
[458] Compare my ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 176, 183, with Hoveden’s text.
[459] “Resaisina vicecomitatus Lincolnie fiet Girardo de Camvilla: et eadem die dies ei conveniens præfigetur standi in curia domini regis ad judicium. Quod si contra eum monstrari poterit quod judicio curiæ domini regis vicecomitatum vel castellum Lincolnie perdere debuerit, perdat; sin minus retineat; nisi interim alio modo pax inde fieri poterit.”
[460] “Girardo de Camvilla in gratiam cancellarii recepto, remansit illi in bono et pace custodia castri de Lincolnia.”
[461] Compare Rog. Hov., III. lxiv., ut supra, and the ‘Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal,’ ll. 11,888–11,882:
“Je entent e vei
Que par dreit, si’n sui aseiir,
Le [rei] devom nos faire de Artur.”
[462] Compare my article on “Historical Research” in ‘Nineteenth Century,’ December, 1898.
[463] Archæological Journal, L. 247–263.
[464] Const. Hist., iii. 568.
[465] Mr. Loftie writes, in his ‘London,’ that “in the reign of Henry I. we find the guild in full possession of the governing rights which are elsewhere attributed to a guild merchant” (p. 30). See also p. 103 above.
In the same series, Dean Kitchin applies this assumption to Winchester, and observes of the “Knights,” who possessed a ‘hall’ there under Henry I., that “if we may argue from the parallel of the London Knights’ Guild, the body had the charge of the city, and was in fact the original civic corporation of Winchester,” (‘Historic Towns: Winchester,’ p. 74).
[466] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’
[467] “Nunc primum in sibi indulta conjuratione regno regem deesse cognovit Londonia, quam nec rex ipse Ricardus, nec prædecessor et p. ter ejus Henricus pro mille millibus marcarum argenti fieri permisisset” (Richard of Devizes, p. 416).
[468] “Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt cum dedecore apprehendere statuerunt” (See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 115).
[469] See note above.
[470] Const. Hist., i. 407.
[471] “Facta conspiratione quam communionem vocabant sese omnes pariter sacramentis adstringunt et ... ejusdem regionis proceres, quamvis invitos, sacramentis suae conspirationis obligari compellunt.”
[472] See my paper in ‘Academy’ of 12th November, 1887.
[473] Transactions of the London and Middlesex Arch. Soc., v. 286.
[474] Ibid. p. 286–7.
[475] Mr. Loftie’s argument (‘London,’ p. 53) that Glanville’s words prove that London, if not other towns as well, had already a ‘Commune’ under Henry II. is disposed of by Dr. Gross (‘The Gild Merchant,’ i. 102).
[476] £125 and £5 10s. respectively for a quarter in 19 Hen. II. p. 183, and £375 and £16 10s. respectively for three-quarters in 20 Hen. II. (p 7).
[477] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 297.
[478] 20 Hen. II., p. 9. The official list (Deputy Keeper’s 31st Report) omits to mention that they answered “ut custodes” for this quarter.
[479] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 297–8.
[480] On the firma burgi see Stubbs, ‘Const. Hist.’ (1874), p. 410; and Maitland, ‘Domesday Book and Beyond,’ pp. 204–5.
[481] Compare the ‘Dialogus’: “De summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebat in uno comitatu constituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 4).
[482] Op. cit. ut supra.
[483] 21 Henry II., pp. 15–17. For the last quarter of the 20th year they were £59 8s. 2d.
[484] From the county the proceeds must always have been small owing to the absence of royal manors.
[485] Pipe Rolls, passim.
[486] They had paid out £156 7s. 4d. in the three quarters, and owed £9 9s. 9d., making a total of £165 17s. 1d., or at the rate of about £221 a year, as against some £238.
[487] His outgoings were £151 4s. 6d., and he was credited with a “superplus” of £13 8s. 10d. ‘blank.’ This works out at rather over £548 “numero” for the year, the old figure being £547 “numero” (these figures are taken from the unpublished Pipe Roll of 1176). It would be rash to connect the change with the severe Assise of Northampton without further evidence.
[488] An entry on the Roll of 15 Hen. II. records it as £500 “blanch,” plus a varying sum of about £20 “numero.”
[489] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 112 d.
[490] MS.: ‘skiuin.’ The ‘Liber Albus’ (pp. 423–4) uses “eskevyn” for the échevins of Amiens.
[491] i.e. Queen Eleanor.
[492] Walter archbishop of Rouen.
[493] “For their administration and judicial functions in continental towns, see Giry, ‘St. Quentin,’ 28–67; von Maurer, ‘Stadtverf.,’ i. 241, 568” (‘Gild Merchant,’ i. 26 note).
[494] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 110.
[495] Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc.), p. 2.
[496] London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 72.
[497] London (1887), p. 45.
[498] History of London, i. 190.
[499] Liber Albus, i. 41.
[500] “Quicumque predictorum, sine licentia majoris abierit de congregacione aliorum, tantundem paccabit,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § 4).
[501] “Si quid major celari preceperit, celabunt. Hoc quicunque detexerit, a suo officio deponetur,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § 2).
[502] See Liber Albus, i. 307–8.
[503] Compare the case quoted in Palgrave’s ‘Commonwealth,’ II. p. clxxxiii.
[504] Arch. Journ., ix. 70.
[505] Ibid. p. 81.
[506] Historic Towns: Winchester, p. 166.
[507] In his valuable ‘Étude sur les origines de la commune de St. Quentin,’ M. Giry has shown that this early example, with those derived from it, was distinguished by the separate existence and status of the échevins. Nor have the Établissements as much in common with the London commune as those of Rouen.
[508] Archæological Journal, L. 256–260.
[509] Feudal England, 552 et seq.
[510] Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 48–9.
[511] These passages are quoted to show that the influence of Rouen on London is admitted by an independent writer.
[512] ‘Les Établissements de Rouen’ (Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études, publiée sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique, 1883).
[513] He became, in that year, bishop of Lisieux.
[514] I am in a position to date this charter precisely as at or about Feb., 1175.
[515] Recurring, in his “Conclusions” at the end of the volume, to this question of date, M. Giry seems to combine two of his different limits: “L’étude du texte nous a permis de fixer la rédaction des Établissements aux dernières années du règne de Henri II., après 1169. Nous savons, de plus que La Rochelle les avait adoptés avant 1199, que Rouen les avait également possédés vers la même époque, entre 1177 et 1183” (p. 427). Of these dates, I can only repeat that “1183” has its origin in an error; “1177” is, I think, a mistake, and “1169” difficult to understand. My forthcoming calendar of charters in France will throw fresh light upon the date.
[516] Ancient Deeds, A. 1477.
[517] Sheriff of London 1174–6. Also Alderman (Palgrave, II. clxxxiii.).
[518] Cot. MS. Faust, B. ii., fo. 66 d.
[519] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.
[520] “Major debet custodire claves civitatis et cum assensu parium talibus hominibus tradere in quibus salve sint.
“Si aliquis se absentaverit de excubia ipse erit in misericordia majoris secundum quod tunc fuerit magna necessitas excubandi” (‘Établissements de Rouen,’ ii. 44).
[521] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.
[522] MS. ‘escauingores.’
[523]? consilio.
[524] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 126.
[525] The ‘th’ in the first ‘Spelethorn’ is an Anglo-Saxon character.
[526] This is the “Terra Roberti Fafiton” (at Stepney) of Domesday, i. 130.
[527] Cf. Domesday, i. 128.
[528] Rectius “Hendune.”
[529] From Domesday Book.
[530] This may be chiefly due to omitting “Mimms” (70 hides) and reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much.
[531] The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. 469–574.
[532] Mr. Hall has since, in the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898), repeated the view that the ‘Red Book’ returns were “made in the two preceding years.”
[533] It will be found on p. 296 of the printed text.
[534] “Idem rex præcepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut confiscarentur redditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a Stephano archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Angliæ moram facientibus in transmarinis post interdictum Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, in hæc verba:
“‘Præcipimus vobis quod capiatis ... et scire faciatis distincte in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistæ anno regni nostri xiv baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui eos receperunt. Datum vii id. Junii’” (p. 267).
It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to be due on the same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture in the ‘Testa.’ The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could be made to a royal writ should be carefully observed.
[535] “Per veredictum” (printed in ‘Testa’ “per unum dictum”).
[536] Testa de Nevill, pp. 401–408.
[537] This corrupt list in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ is evidently akin to a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the ‘Testa’ (p. 408), as is proved by this name.
[538] Testa, 268 b; Liber Rubeus, 499.
[539] Compare the wording of the writ of 1212: “Inquiri facias ... de tenementis ... que sint data vel alienata,” etc. (see p. 266, above).
[540] ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 466. I have specially examined the Pipe Rolls for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received the rents up to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date.
[541] Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an editor who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a university on the treatment of mediæval MSS.?
[542] The ‘Red Book’ lists, though so inferior, are more in number than those in the ‘Testa.’
[543] For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 a) would elude all but close investigation. It records inter alia the interesting gift, by Henry II., of land there “Wassall’ cantatori.” This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word “Wassail” (in a slightly corrupt form).
[544] Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ‘Red Book’ “can be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, nor ... on the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of which is known to have been preserved” (pp. ccxxii.).
[545] It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the returns on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as the ‘Red Book’ date implies) over two or three years.
[546] This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one selected for mention in the Waverley Annals.
[547] “Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra,” ran the writ. The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ‘Testa’ illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to the interesting return for Yarmouth (‘Testa,’ p. 296):
“Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth’ quod antiquitus no’ (sic) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus domini Regis, regibus Angl[iæ] quod sit datum vel alienatum aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi quibus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium domino Regi de tenementis illis,” etc.
The close concordance of this return with the king’s writ ordering it (see p. 226) is remarkable.
[548] See p. 265 above.
[549] Testa de Nevill, p. 361.
[550] Salop only.
[551] Honour of Wallingford.
[552] Begins with twelfth entry on page 128a, though there is no break there in printed text; the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (p. 513) has entries for Berkshire.
[553] Borough of Wallingford.
[554] Including town of Oxford.
[555] The Chichester Inquest at least.
[556] 15 entries.
[557] Hyde Abbey.
[558] Beginning at “Abbas de Sancto Walerico.”
[559] Ending with entry for ‘Uggel.’ A special Inquest for Writtle is comprised.
[560] Beginning with “Candeleshou Wap’n’.”
[561] Including a special Inquest for Stamford.
[562] Beginning at “Carissimis.”
[563] Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne.
[564] Rightly given as “Fouberd” on p. 708; wrongly as “Roberti” on pp. 616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert is an error, and one which throws some light on the MS.
[565] The order is not quite the same in the first of these three lists.
[566] Mediæval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10.
[567] Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66.
[568] Compare ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 326–7.
[569] Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ following William of Poitiers.
[570] Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147.
[571] Lib. Rub., p. ccxl.
[572] English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626–7).
[573] Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these entries in the ‘Red Book,’ devoted sections of his work (Hodgson’s ‘Northumberland,’ part i., pp. 258–261, 261–263) to “cornage” and to “castle-ward,” but was careful not to confuse them.
[574] From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his preface to the Cumberland Pipe Rolls.
[575] The ‘Red Book’ (p. 714) reads: “Summa xviij l. iiij s. vj d., videlicet, xxij d. plus quam alii solebant respondere.” But I make the real total of its items, not £18 4s. 6d., but £18 6s. 6d. The two pardons, amounting to £2 17s. 4d., brought up the total to £21 3s. 10d., but, owing to the above wrong ‘summa,’ the scribe made it only £21 1s. 10d. He then further omitted the odd pound, and so obtained his “xxij d.”
[576] These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (‘The Pipe Rolls ... for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,’ 1857), p. xxvii. In addition to the section on “the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent” in this work (pp. xxvii.-xxix.), cornage is dealt with ut supra in Hodgson’s ‘Northumberland,’ part i. pp. 258 et seq., and in ‘The Boldon Buke’ (1852), pp. lv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand’s ‘Newcastle’ a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to the Prior of Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his “pardoned” quota.
[577] Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18.
[578] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), passim.
[579] ‘Durham Feodarium’ (Surtees Soc.), p. 145.
[580] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), pp. 36–7.
[581] Feudal England, pp. 289–293.
[582] Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any conclusion of mine, appears, in his ‘History of the Art of War’ (1898), to admit that I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my conclusion in his ‘Foundations of England’ (1898), ii. 132.
[583] Stubbs’ ‘Const. Hist.,’ ii. 422, 433.
[584] Maxwell Lyte’s ‘History of the University of Oxford’ (1886), pp. 93–96.
[585] Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. 201.
[586] Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description of the Scots—“quasi sepes densa”—is an admirable parallel to the metaphor—“quasi castellum”—which Henry of Huntingdon applies to the English “acies” at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Freeman so deplorably misunderstood (‘Feudal England,’ p. 343–4). So, too, Adam de Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as “quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum” (p. 106). Such metaphors, I have shown, were common.
[587] Vol. vii. p. 122.
[588] Vol. iii. p. xxi.
[589] History of England, p. 174.
[590] Mr. Oman reckons the men of the “Marcher Lords” at 1,850. I make them 2,040.
[591] Ed. Record Commission.
[592] Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean whence the necessary miners were always obtained.
[593] History of the Art of War, pp. 593–4.
[594] “Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent” (Wrottesley’s ‘Creçy and Calais,’ p. 8; cf. Ibid. pp. 58–61).
[595] Ibid. pp. 67–8.
[596] Rotuli Scotiæ, i. p. 127.
[597] Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently observed that 40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible (‘Eng. Hist. Rev.,’ xiv. 133).
[598] I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents from elsewhere.
[599] The italics are mine.
[600] The italics are mine.
[601] “The host was told off into ten battles, probably (like the French at Creçy) in three lines of three battles each, with the tenth as a reserve under the king” (p. 574). But in the earlier plans the English battles are shown in single line, and in the earliest, at least, with a widely extended front.
[602] The italics are mine.
[603] The italics are mine.
[604] Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. 174–176; History of England, pp. 187–8; History of the Art of War, pp. 604–615.
[605] Mélanges Julien Havet: La date de la composition du ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia’ (1895).
[606] M. Bémont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as “exerçant la charge de grand connétable (sic) d’Angleterre au couronnement de Richard II.”
[607] See Mr. Watson’s Note in ‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. p. 197.
[608] Ibid. v. p. 260; also Doyle’s ‘Official Baronage.’
[609] M. Bémont writes that he “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” But this is a misconception.
[610] Hearne’s ‘Curious Discourses,’ ii. 90–97.
[611] Ibid. pp. 327–330.
[612] Rot. Chart., i. 46.
[613] M. Paris, ‘Chronica Majora.’
[614] Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 6.
[615] Ibid. p. 51.
[616] Const. Hist., ii. 328.
[617] He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, May, 1312.
[618] Ed. Hearne, p. 103.
[619] Dictionary of National Biography, li. 204.
[620] The matter has been further complicated by the index to the official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a “Walter de Ferrariis, marshal of England.” The document indexed proves (p. 189) to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pembroke), “late marshal of England.”
[621] Trivet, it is true, even earlier (circ. 1300), wrote of Strongbow as ‘Marshal of England’:—“Ricardus Comes de Strogoil, marescallus Angliæ, terris suis omnibus propter quondam offensam in manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc Ricardum Anglici ob præcipuum fortitudinem ‘Strangebowe’ cognominabant” (p. 66). But although the writer may sometimes preserve a forgotten story, he cannot be accepted as an authority for earl Richard’s tenure of an office, of which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary chronicle or record.
[622] Dictionary of National Biography.
[623] Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198.
[624] Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit. Mus.).
[625] The italics and commas are mine, and show how the alleged son of earl Richard was fabricated.
[626] Mr. Watson (‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. 197) states that Giraldus Cambrensis speaks of “Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul,” but this is a misapprehension.
[627] Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393.
[628] It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, 1307. Its mention (‘Mon. Ang.’ v. 268) of “Gilberti et Ricardi Strongbowe” clearly proves that it applied the name to both.
[629] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 132–4; ‘Calendar of Close Rolls,’ p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they identified the marshalship of England with that in the “Constitutio.”
[630] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 135–7. This petition, in Norman-French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose use of “countes mareschauls” as the title of his predecessors from the first.
[631] Ibid. pp. 143–5.
[632] Altered in MS.
[633] 133 in the pencil numbering.
[634] In special classes on Palæography and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics.
[635] See ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 34, where the reference is to Mr. Hall’s citing the “præmissa scutagia” of his MS. as “promissa scutagia” (pp. clxxii., clxxvii., etc.), and arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29.
[636] “There is a treatise carryed about the office of the earle marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the tyme of Thomas of Brotherton” (Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ II. 95).
[637] The Society of Antiquaries possesses an early English version of the ‘Modus’ to which is prefixed a table of chapters both for the ‘Modus’ and for the treatise on the Marshal’s office.
[638] He was earl of Norfolk.
[639] Vol v. pp. 260, 261.
[640] “Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomam de Holand, comitem Kancie de officio marescalli Angl[ie], quod nuper habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa dilectum consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh’ ad dictum officium ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus aliis ad officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius,” etc. (Pat. 9 Ric. II., part 1, m. 38).
[641] Dictionary of National Biography.
[642] Dictionary of National Biography.
[643] The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York and Gloucester, the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de Segrave the treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household.
[644] p. 311 above.
[645] It seems to have become in the Parliamentary confirmation of 1397 “Earl Marshal of England.”
[646] Mr. Kingsford, in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (xxxvi. 232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl of Pembroke: “The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter to the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and eventually to the Howards,” etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods.
[647] Derby was the Steward’s son and heir.
[648] Dr. Stubbs observes that “from the king’s later action, it is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for the deposition of Edward II.” But there is more direct evidence. On the Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against the Lords Appellant that they “firent chercher Recordes deins votre Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel coment vostre dit besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous,” etc., etc.
[649] M. Bémont, who approached the question from the standpoint of the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them could possibly be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this must be proved “par des raisons paléographiques.” The officials of the MS. department, Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced it to be clearly of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his conclusion. M. Bémont, however, held that the MSS. “ont été composés et écrits dans les premières années de Richard II., ou dérivent de manuscrits rédigés à cette époque,” on account of the prominent place assigned in them to Richard’s coronation. I should place the date a few years later.
[650] “The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study” (‘Lectures in Mediæval and Modern History,’ pp. 41–2).
[651] See my article on “Historical Research,” in ‘Nineteenth Century,’ December, 1898.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.
2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.
3.Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. Dr. or Xxx.