Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Ricardo de Luci et vicecomiti Essex [ie] salutem. Precipio quod Episcopus Wyntoniensis frater meus ita bene et in pace teneat....[255] et capella(m) sua(m) que canonici diracionaverunt sicut Rogerus episcopus Salisburiensis melius tenuit tempore comitis Eustachii de Bolonia et deinceps usque ad diem qua rex Henricus avunculus meus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et super hoc non ponantur canonici sui de Sancto Martino in placitum versus prepositum de Wyrtela de vel de pecunia sua. Et Moric[ius] vicecomes quietus sit de plegio illius et pecunia canonicorum quam replegiant.
Teste Roberto de Ver apud Wyndsor[es].[256]
The address of this charter would seem to support the view I suggested in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (p. 109), that Richard de Luci may have held the post of local justiciar of Essex.[257] For the sheriff, clearly, was Maurice (de Tiretei, i.e. Tiltey).[258] Imperfect though it be, we can, I think, connect the subject in dispute with an aggression consequent on the Conquest by the ‘pious founder’ at Writtle.[259]
Let us now return to the document of which I speak above (p. 109, l. 1):
Stephanus dei gratia rex Anglie Andr[ee] Buch[uinte] et vic[ecomiti] et civibus suis London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod R[ogerus] episcopus Saresberiensis teneat ecclesiam Sancti Martini London[ie] et omnes terras eidem pertinentes in civitate et extra ita bene et honorifice sicut melius tenuit tempore regis Henrici et modo postea. Et de quocunque disseisitus est ipse vel ecclesia sua et canonici sui ejusdem ecclesie postquam discordia incepta inter nos, reseisiantur, et nominatim de terra Alderesgate disseisiti sunt ipse et canonici sui pro filiis Huberti juvenis, et bene et in pace teneant, sicut tenuerunt melius die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et modo postea.[260]
In 1139, therefore, as in 1137, Andrew was the leading man in London; and if, as Dr. Stubbs believes, he was of Italian origin,[261] we have a somewhat unlooked-for foreign influence in the midst of the citizens of London at this most critical epoch. One is indeed reminded of the ‘Buccanigra’ family, and the great part they played at Genoa in the 13th century. It is also suggested by Dr. Stubbs that the “Andrew of London” who led the citizens’ contingent at the taking of Lisbon (1147) “is not improbably the Andrew Bucquinte whose son Richard was the leader of the riotous young nobles of the city who in 1177 furnished a precedent for the Mohawks of the eighteenth century.”[262] The episode in question, although entered under 1177, seems to belong to 1174; but, apart from chronology, we cannot believe that “quidam latronum illorum, Andreas Bucquinte qui cæteros præibat cum face ardenti”[263] was himself the crusading leader of 1147, still less the London magnate of half a century before. The Richard who is styled his “son” by Dr. Stubbs proves to be merely another reading, in one of the texts, for Andrew himself.[264] The great Andrew (of 1125–1139) had a son Ralf,[265] and also a son John, who made Gervase of Cornhill and his son Henry his heirs.[266] It is very tempting to identify this Andrew Buccuinte with ‘Andrew of London,’ but ‘Andreas de Londonia’ is found as a witness to a Ramsey charter under Henry I.,[267] while Andrew Buccuinte used to attest under his own name. There is also a group of three charters of this John son of Andrew Buccuinte in the Colchester cartulary (fo. 133) which have points of interest. The first is witnessed inter alios by Tierri (Teodricus), son of Derman and his brother,[268] by Eadwine the alderman, and by Gervase of Cornhill; the second grants land (“in custodia Blacstani”) to Baldwin “clerico patris mei et magistro meo”; the third grants to him the land in which stood the ‘fornax’ of John’s father, Andrew, in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook.[269]
I would here insert an observation on the riots of “1177.” The ‘Gesta Henrici’ describes the episode under 1177, but dates it in “tertio præcedenti anno.” Miss Norgate accordingly places it “about June or July 1174,” and points out that Hoveden omits the above words, thus confusing the chronology.[270] Now the ‘Gesta’ asserts that Andrew Buchuinte denounced among his companions
quidam nobilissimus et ditissimus civium Londoniarum qui nominatus est Johannes Senex. Qui cum per judicium aquæ se mundari non posset, obtulit quingentas marcas domino regi pro vita habenda. Sed quia ipse per judicium aque perierat, noluit denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium de eo fieret, et suspensus est.[271]
I suggest that ‘Senex’ is merely an elegant Latinization of ‘Viel,’ the name of a leading London family,[272] which was usually Latinized “Vetulus.” And we have but to turn to the Pipe Roll of 1175 (21 Hen. II.) to find this entry:
Vicecomes reddit compotum de xlii s. et ix d. de catallis Johannis Vetuli suspensi et Johannis Lafaite[273] fugitivi (p. 20).