[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. 116b) 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."