If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy, 'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes 'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not, we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline' and son Hugh to the grant?
Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg, imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the 'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son, we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or 1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.
But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham' to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read of the charter's date:
Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.
Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until, therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we must reject it in toto.
I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox, the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:
Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell' licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias quos poterit ibi includere.[18]
Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts' are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.
[1] Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in Arch. Journ., ii. 46).
[2] Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.