(Vol. ix., p. 105.)
Robert, Earl of Moreton, and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conquerors uterine brothers, both accompanied William, acting conspicuous parts on his invasion of England in 1066. The former died about 1090. Odo had been elected Bishop as far back as 1049. In 1088 he headed a conspiracy against William II.; but being defeated at Rochester, retired to Normandy. The time of his death is uncertain, but is supposed to have occurred in 1096.
The first notice of Robert Bloet's name, is as a witness to one of the charters of William II. to the monastery of Durham, granted in 1088 or 1089. He was appointed Chancellor in 1090, consecrated Bishop of Lincoln in 1093, and died in 1123.
These dates plainly prove that he was not "identical" with Robert, Earl of Moreton; and scarcely could be called cotemporary with him.
His supposed relationship to Odo is affirmed by Richardson, in his notes to Goodwin de Præsulibus, from an expression in his grant of the manor of Charleton to the priory of Bermondsey (Claud. A. 8., f. 118., MSS. Hutton); in which he says, "quod pro salute animæ Dom. mei Willelmi Regis, et fratris mei Bajocens. Episcopi." If Odo be the Bishop here intended, the meaning of "fratris mei" may be translated, not in the natural, but in the episcopal sense, as brother of his order. But the grant is probably a forgery, or its date of 1093 incorrect, for at that time Odo was in exile; and Bloet would have scarcely ventured to insult the king, from whom he had just received rewards and advancement, by coupling with his the name of one who had been banished as a traitor.
For farther particulars, allow me to refer your correspondent Mr. Sansom to The Judges of England, vol. i. p. 103.
Edward Foss.
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
A Hint to the Photographic Society.—It has been objected to this Society, that beyond the establishment of its Journal, and the forming of an Exhibition, it has done very little to promote the improvement of the beautiful art it was specially intended to advance. Such objections are very easily urged; but those who make them should at least propose a remedy. It is in no unfriendly spirit that we allude to these complaints; and we well know how difficult it is for a body like the Photographic Society to take any important step which shall not be liable to misconstruction. We would however suggest, that among those endeavours which it would become the Society to make, there is one which might at once be taken, namely, to secure for the photographic public a good paper. The want of such an article is hourly felt. If the Photographic Society, following the example of the Society of Arts, should appoint a Committee to take this matter into consideration, to define clearly and unmistakeably the essentials of a good negative paper for calotypes (for perhaps it would be well to keep to a good negative paper), and offer a premium for its production, a very short time would elapse before specimens of such an article would be submitted for examination. It is clear that the premium need be one only of small pecuniary value; for the fact of a maker having produced such an article as should gain the prize, would secure him an ample recompense in the enormous demand which would instantly arise for a paper which should be stamped with the public approval of a body entitled to speak with so much authority on such a subject as the Council of the Photographic Society.