Transcriber's Note:

Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including accents and capitals) has been retained.

Footnote references in the genealogical tables are not hyper-linked to the corresponding footnotes. Small capitals in the tables have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are indicated by _underscores_. The tables in Appendices K and U have been split into two in order to reduce their width.

Some references to years are encased in square brackets, as for example [1136]. To avoid confusion with the numbered footnotes, these references have instead been encased in rounded brackets.

GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE

FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX (see p. 51).

GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE

A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY

BY
J. H. ROUND, M.A.
AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN: A CRITICAL ESSAY"

"Anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo inextricabilem labyrinthum rerum et negotiorum quæ acciderunt in Anglia aggredior evolvere."—William of Malmesbury

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ᵗʰ STREET
1892

All rights reserved

PREFACE

"The reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest living historian, "is one of the most important in our whole history, as exemplifying the working of causes and principles which had no other opportunity of exhibiting their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus refers, is the chief object I have set before myself in these pages. For this purpose I have chosen, to form the basis of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey de Mandeville, as the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By fixing our glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy and its fruits, it is possible to gain a clearer perception of the true tendencies at work, and to obtain a firmer grasp of the essential principles involved. But, while availing myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, I have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, any materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, or illustrating the points raised by the charters with which I deal.

The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which I cannot too strongly insist, namely, that the charters granted to Geoffrey are the very backbone of my work. By those charters it must stand or fall: for on their relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. If the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the relation I have assigned to them established, it will, I trust, encourage the study of charters and their evidence, "as enabling the student both to amplify and to check such scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to which they relate."[1] It will also result in the contribution of some new facts to English history, and break, as it were, by the wayside, a few stones towards the road on which future historians will travel.

Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw some fresh light are problems of constitutional and institutional interest, such as the title to the English Crown, the origin and character of earldoms (especially the earldom of Arundel), the development of the fiscal system, and the early administration of London. I would also invite attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to Rome in 1136, her intended coronation at Westminster in 1141, the unknown Oxford intrigue of 1142, the new theory on Norman castles suggested by Geoffrey's charters, and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on Gervase de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of Gloucester played in the events of which I write may justify the inclusion of an essay on the creation of his historic earldom, which has, in the main, already appeared in another quarter.

In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is the first step in the discovery of truth."[2] Cordially adopting this maxim, I have endeavoured throughout to correct errors and dispose of existing misconceptions. To "dare to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often reminds us, neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy smooth things, and to accept without question the errors of others, in the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would repeat that "boast as we may of the achievements of our new scientific school, we are still, as I have urged, behind the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is concerned." If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience that no one would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke calmly." The public is slow to believe that writers who have gained its ear are themselves often in error and, by the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of new evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from the conclusions even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches the accuracy of that unrivalled scholar, the profundity of whose learning and the soundness of whose judgment can only be appreciated by those who have followed him in the same field.

The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion and appearance of this work is responsible for some shortcomings of which no one is more conscious than myself. It has been necessary to correct the proof-sheets at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from England, while the length of time that has elapsed since the bulk of the work was composed is such that two or three new books bearing upon the same period have appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, and Miss Norgate's well-known England under the Angevin Kings. Mr. Howlett's knowledge of the period, and especially of its MS. authorities, is of a quite exceptional character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one cannot hope to rival, is a most welcome addition to our historical literature. To Dr. Stubbs, also, we are indebted for a new edition of William of Malmesbury. As I had employed for that chronicler and for the Gesta Stephani the English Historical Society's editions, my references are made to them, except where they are specially assigned to those editions by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which have since appeared.

A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. The text of transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, even where it seemed corrupt; and all my extensions as to which any possible question could arise are enclosed in square brackets. The so-called "new style" has been adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are those of the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly artificial reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," denounced by purists, has been retained as a necessary convention, the admirable Calendar of Patent Rolls, now in course of publication, having demonstrated the impossibility of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the spelling of Christian names, no attempt has been made to produce that pedantic uniformity which, in the twelfth century, was unknown. It is hoped that the index may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions to "the lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy of Lancaster) are based on references to that compilation by seventeenth-century transcribers, which cannot be identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries may, in those days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), with the usual result. I am anxious to call attention to its existence in the hope of its ultimate recovery.

There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks to Mr. Hubert Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS. Department, British Museum, for their invariable courtesy and assistance in the course of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted for several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these pages through the press.

J. H. ROUND.

Pau,

Christmas, 1891.

[1] Preface to my Ancient Charters (Pipe-Roll Society).

[2] Staffordshire Survey, p. 277.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.
THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN.

Before approaching that struggle between King Stephen and his rival, the Empress Maud, with which this work is mainly concerned, it is desirable to examine the peculiar conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown, determining, as they did, his position as king, and supplying, we shall find, the master-key to the anomalous character of his reign.

The actual facts of the case are happily beyond question. From the moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. Stubbs truly observes, "the succession was treated as an open question."[3] Stephen, quick to see his chance, made a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his favour, and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores of Kent.[4] His first reception was not encouraging: Dover refused him admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.[5] On this Dr. Stubbs thus comments:—

"At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. The men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor Eustace had done, to trouble the land."[6]

But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, when all others forsook him, and, remembering this, one would hardly expect to find in them his chief opponents. Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the passage in Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, that Canterbury and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held by his father's gift.[7] It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants of his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought that the prescient king had of set purpose placed these keys of the road to London in the hands of one whom he could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.[8]

Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on rapidly to London. The news of his approach had gone before him, and the citizens flocked to meet him. By them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be king, on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant throne, and that the right to elect one was specially vested in themselves.[9] The point, however, that I would here insist on, for it seems to have been scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially conditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the citizens.[10] The bearing of this will be shown below.

There is another noteworthy point which would seem to have escaped observation. It is distinctly implied by William of Malmesbury that the primate, seizing his opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, as Maurice had done from Henry at his coronation, and as Henry of Winchester was, later, to do in the case of the Empress, an oath to restore the Church her "liberty," a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, he adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this oath by his brother, who himself "went bail" (made himself responsible) for Stephen's satisfactory behaviour to the Church.[11] It is, surely, to this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the election of the Empress.[12] It can only, I think, be explained on the hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had taken, and begged his brother to set him free. If so, the attempt was vain, for he had, we shall find, to bind himself anew on the occasion of his Oxford charter.[13]

At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, came forth from the city to greet him, but this reception must not be confused (as it is by Mr. Freeman) with his election by the citizens of London.[14] His brother, needless to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de l'Arche, who had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert with the head of the administration, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it contained.[15]

Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation at the hands of the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that "he returned to London for formal election and coronation."[16] His authority for that statement is Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.[17] But it will be found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the only authority for this second election, and, moreover, that he ignores the first, as well as the visit to Winchester, thus mixing up the two episodes, between which that visit intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as to whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at the coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This may, perhaps, be a matter of opinion; but in the preceding instance, that of Henry I., the election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.[18] From this point of view, the presentation of the king to the people at his coronation would assume the aspect of a ratification of the election previously conducted. The point is here chiefly of importance as affecting the validity of Stephen's election. If his only election was that which the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least, "informally transacted."[19] Nor was the attendance of magnates at the ceremony such as to improve its character. It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly says, "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of William and Henry."[20] The chroniclers are here unsatisfactory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; John of Hexham leaves us little wiser;[21] the Continuator of Florence indeed states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius Angliæ primoribus" (p. 95), but even the author of the Gesta implies that the primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of magnates present.[22] William of Malmesbury alone is precise,[23] possibly because an adversary of Stephen could alone afford to be so, and his testimony, we shall find, is singularly confirmed by independent charter evidence (p. 11).

It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel the scruples caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the late king. The hint, in the Gesta, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in extorting that oath,[24] is amplified by Gervase into a story that he had released his barons from its bond,[25] while Ralph "de Diceto" represents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her stead.[26] It should be noticed that these last two writers, in their statement that this story was proved by Hugh Bigod on oath, are confirmed by the independent evidence of the Historia Pontificalis.[27]

The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the Gesta in the arguments of Stephen's friends when combating the primate's scruples. They urged that it would ipso facto put an end to all question as to the validity of his election.[28] The advantage, in short, of "snatching" a coronation was that, in the language of modern diplomacy, of securing a fait accompli. Election was a matter of opinion; coronation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression, it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king had begun his reign. Its important bearing is well seen in the case of the Conqueror himself. Dr. Stubbs observes, with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was understood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had preceded it."[29] Now, the fact that the performance of this essential ceremony was, of course, wholly in the hands of the Church, in whose power, therefore, it always was to perform or to withhold it at its pleasure, appears to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion of the ceremony with the actual election itself, that it was for the Church to elect the king. This claim, which in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been only inchoate,[30] appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully developed form,[31] the circumstances of the time having enabled the Church to increase its power in the State with perhaps unexampled rapidity.

May it not have been this development, together with his own experience, that led Stephen to press for the coronation of his son Eustace in his lifetime (1152)? In this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated by the Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and Henry II., warned by his example, succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his heir (1170) in the teeth of Becket's endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold the veto of the Church.

Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, the primate seized the opportunity of extorting from the eager king (besides a charter of liberties) a renewal of his former oath to protect the rights of the Church. The oath which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which Maud had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, it seems, at both, though not till the Oxford charter was it committed, in his case, to writing.[32]

We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians.[33]

The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had despatched an envoy to the papal court, in the person of the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her rival of (1) defrauding her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn oath. Had this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe to assert, have been fascinated by the really singular coincidence between the circumstances of 1136 and of 1066. In each case, of the rivals for the throne, the one based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by (2) an oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by his opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on election duly followed by coronation. In each case the election was fairly open to question; in Harold's, because (pace Mr. Freeman) he was not a legitimate candidate; in Stephen's, because, though a qualified candidate, his election had been most informal. In each case the ousted claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, on the same grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken oath. In each case the successful party was opposed by a particular cardinal, a fact which we learn, in each case, from later and incidental mention. And in each case that cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel ends. Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we know) rejected, the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. We may assign this difference to the closer connection between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the two. For his action was justified by its success. There has been, on this point, no small misconception. Harold has been praised for possessing, and Stephen blamed for lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But læsio fidei was essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the highest of them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far as inheritance affected the question, was brought in many ways within the purview of the courts Christian, as, for instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of Maud. Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played into his hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor in the days of John. His attitude was not that of an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no claim to dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by Maud against Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without formally acquitting him, declined to pronounce him guilty.

Though the king was pleased to describe the papal letter which followed as a "confirmation" of his right to the throne, it was, strictly, nothing of the kind. It was simply, in the language of modern diplomacy, his "recognition" by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince of Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign power, that action would neither alter his status relatively to any other power, nor would it imply the least claim to dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again, to take a mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an English king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy would neither affect any other king, nor constitute a claim to dispose of the papal tiara. Stephen, however, was naturally eager to make the most of the papal action, especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the most formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction of the Church would silence the reproach that he was occupying the throne as a perjured man. Hence the clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which this letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when Geoffrey summoned him, in later years, "to an investigation of his claims before the papal court," he promptly retorted that Rome had already heard the case.[34] He turned, in fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey to justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western counties in the teeth of the papal confirmation of his own right to the throne.

We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, after Christmas, Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral.[35] The corpse, says the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ." The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, "that it furnished an opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen."[36] But the learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, therefore, to quote in extenso a charter which must have passed on this occasion, and which, this being so, is of great value and interest.[37]

Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et Brekon'.

S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. vic. præpositis, Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Angliæ et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ et hæredibus suis post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et præcipio quod bene et honorifice et libere teneat in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et infangenetheof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃ tenuisset die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et H. Big̃ et Roᵬ filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et P. filio Joħ. Apud Rading̃.

Sub magno sigillo suo.

The reflections suggested by this charter are many and most instructive. Firstly, we have here the most emphatic corroboration of the evidence of William of Malmesbury. The four first witnesses comprise the three bishops who, according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance that coronation was so largely due. The four others are Robert fitz Richard, whom we shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal chamberlain; Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, whom we met at Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The impression conveyed by this charter is certainly that Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates, and had still to be content with the handful by whom his coronation had been attended.

An important addition is, however, represented by the grantee, Miles of Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz John. The former was a man of great power, both of himself and from his connection with the Earl of Gloucester, in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is represented by the author of the Gesta as acting with him at this juncture.[38] It should, however, be noted, as important in its bearing on the chronology of this able writer, that he places the adhesion of these two barons (p. 15) considerably after that of the Earl of Gloucester (p. 8), whereas the case was precisely the contrary, the earl not submitting to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (vide infra), and again as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, however, in the coming struggle which Miles of Gloucester was destined to play, was such that it is most important to learn the circumstances and the date of his adhesion to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain, fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.[39]

It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I have here given, another charter was granted to Miles of Gloucester by the king, which, being similarly tested at Reading, probably passed on this occasion. The subject of the grant is the same, but the terms are more precise, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary estates of his house, being specially mentioned.[40] Though both these charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in the volume now missing), the latter alone is referred to by Dugdale, from whose transcript it has been printed by Madox.[41] Though the names of the witnesses are there omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied by an abstract which is elsewhere found. Three of these are among those who attest the other charter—Robert fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de Sai; but the other three names are new, being Robert de Ferrers, afterwards Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the spokesman of Stephen's host at Lincoln (see p. 148), and (Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears in attendance at the Easter court.[42] These three barons should therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the king.[43]

Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be found in each charter is the striking illustration it affords of the method by which Stephen procured the adhesion of the turbulent and ambitious magnates. It is not so much a grant from a king to a subject as a convencio between equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to the words "ut dominus et Rex."[44] I see in them at once the symbol and the outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." In his learned and masterly analysis of this subject, a passage which cannot be too closely studied, Dr. Stubbs shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.[45] Surely in the expression "dominus et Rex" (alias "Rex et dominus") we have in actual words the exponent of this double character.[46] And, more than this, we have here the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked or misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, to be proclaimed "Domina et Regina."

Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Reading Stephen passed to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his coronation-day.[47] That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though the fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be placed beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.[48] But the difficulty is that Henry specifies what these pledges were, and that the version he gives cannot be reconciled either with the king's "coronation charter" or with what is known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later in the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, though he thinks it "probable," in his great work, that Stephen, upon this occasion, made "some vague promises," yet adds, of those recorded by Henry—

"Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: if they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued by the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."[49]

In his later work he seems inclined to place more credence in Henry's story.

"After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, he arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, amplifying the words of his charter, to catch the good will of each class of his subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at the time; anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation for the moment."[50]

It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, and can scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But there is one point beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called "second charter" was issued later in the year, after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman, therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at issue, but has also strangely contradicted himself when he confidently assigns this "second charter" to the king's first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in doing so, to another page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to his other and later visit after his return from the north.[51] If I call attention to this error, it is because I venture to think it one to which this writer is too often liable, and against which, therefore, his readers should be placed upon their guard.[52]

It was at Oxford, in January,[53] that Stephen heard of David's advance into England. With creditable rapidity he assembled an army and hastened to the north to meet him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a peaceable agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a stay of about a fortnight,[54] and returned to keep his Easter (March 22) at Westminster. I wish to invite special attention to this Easter court, because it was in many ways of great importance, although historians have almost ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a little about it, and see how notable an event it must have seemed at the time it was held. We should observe, in the first place, that this was no mere "curia de more": it was emphatically a great or national council. The author of the Gesta describes it thus:—

"Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,[55] ut solet, ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."[56]

We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day (Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival of the splendours of former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and parsimonious uncle.[57]

Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court,[58] which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's pictures of the Conqueror in his glory.[59] When, therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom of the Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (Const. Hist., i. 370), he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of Stephen's reign. Stephen, coming into possession of his predecessor's hoarded treasure, was as eager to plunge into costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death of his mean and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons for this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king to show himself to his new subjects in his capital, surrounded not only by the evidence of wealth, but by that of his national acceptance. The presence at his court of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact which would speak for itself, and to secure which he had clearly resolved that no pains should be spared.[60]

If the small group who attended his coronation had indeed been "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of William and Henry," he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the splendour of his Easter court.

This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses to two charters which must have passed on this occasion. The one is a grant to the see of Winchester of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange for Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric of Bath to Robert of Lewes. The former is dated "Apud Westmonasterium in presentia et audientia subscriptorum anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; the latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii celebratione et Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first sight, I confess, both charters have a rather spurious appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion, which is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary number of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent sources, and dealing with two unconnected subjects, they mutually confirm one another. We have, moreover, still extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed the former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of Lancaster records, we have every reason to believe that the original charter itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as to the lists of witnesses. Abnormally long though these may seem, we must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially towards the close of his reign, there was a tendency to increase the number of witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford charter, by which these were immediately followed, we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven), and, which is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of classification, the court officers being grouped together. I have, therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, all three lists.[61] If we analyze those appended to the two London charters, we find their authenticity confirmed by the fact that, while the Earl of Gloucester, who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously absent from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly appears among the attesting earls, and we are specially told by John of Hexham that he was present at this Easter court.[62] Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from their position, of some importance.[63] It is, too, of interest for our purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de Mandeville. The extraordinary number of witnesses to these charters (no less than fifty-five in one case, excluding the king and queen, and thirty-six in the other) is not only of great value as giving us the personnel of this brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record the names of those whom he had induced to attend his courts and so to recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange History of the House of Arundel, quotes the charter to Winchester as from a transcript "among the valuable collection of MSS. belonging to the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, therefore, be of benefit to students to remind them that it is printed in Hearne's Liber Niger (ii. 808, 809). Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter—

"It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not remarkable, since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter with Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p. 286).

To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" that the charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three archbishops and thirteen bishops.[64]

Now, although this was a national council, the state and position of the Church was the chief subject of discussion. The author of the Gesta, who appears to have been well informed on the subject, shows us the prelates appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the intolerable oppression which she had suffered, under the form of law, at the hands of Henry I. Stephen, bland, for the time, to all, and more especially to the powerful Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised all they asked.[65] In the grimly jocose language of the day, the keys of the Church, which had been held by Simon (Magus), were henceforth to be restored to Peter. To this I trace a distinct allusion in the curious phrase which meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the bishopric of Bath "canonica prius electione præcedente." This recognition of the Church's right, with the public record of the fact, confirms the account of his attitude on this occasion to the Church. The whole charter contrasts strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its reference to the counsel and consent of the magnates betrays the weakness of his position.

This council took place, as I have said, at London and during Easter. But there is some confusion on the subject. Mr. Howlett, in his excellent edition of the Gesta, assigns it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18), to "early in April." But his argument that, as that must have been (as it was) the date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In this he does but follow the Gesta, which similarly runs into one the two consecutive events. Richard of Hexham also, followed by John of Hexham,[66] combines in one the council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year.

Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:—

The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of Gloucester was not present at the Easter court in London, and that, landing subsequently, he was present when the charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So short an interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned from London to Oxford, and which did so on purpose to meet the virtual head of the opposition, the powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue of the charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the chroniclers should have made of the whole but one transaction.

The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very important and significant reservation that his loyalty would be strictly conditional on Stephen's behaviour to himself.[67]

His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in the chronicler, immediately afterwards:

"Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem disciplinæ conservaret."[68]

By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection with the Oxford charter. In this he must be correct, if it was subsequent to the earl's homage, for this latter itself, we see, must have been subsequent to Easter.

Probably the council at London was the preliminary to that treaty (convencio) between the king and the bishops, at which William of Malmesbury so plainly hints, and of which the Oxford charter is virtually the exponent record. For this, I take it, is the point to be steadily kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as this are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the desire to extort from the king the utmost possible concession; the other, his desire to extort homage at the lowest price he could. Taken in connection with the presence at Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion that this extended version of his meagre "coronation charter" represents his final and definite acceptance, by the magnates of England, as their king.

It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the chronicle-value of charters, that not a single chronicler records this eventful assembly at Oxford. Our knowledge of it is derived wholly and solely from the testing clause of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab incarnatione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, perhaps, be drawn to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to the selection of that spot for this assembly. For this its central position may, doubtless, partly account, especially if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further east. But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, as it were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol and Gloucester, the two strongholds of the opposition. So, conversely, it represented to the Empress an advanced post resting on their base.

Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely the date of this assembly and charter. Easter falling on the 22nd of March, neither the king nor the Earl of Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the end of March or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal dapifer, had been among the witnesses to this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once.[69] Then followed the suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.[70] It would seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly took place early in April (1136).

I have gone thus closely into these details in order to bring out as clearly as possible the process, culminating in the Oxford charter, by which the succession of Stephen was gradually and, above all, conditionally secured.

Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance, has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they deserved. We learn from the author of the Gesta that the same was the case at Exeter. The king's barons again intervened to save those who had rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from securing too signal a triumph.

This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign. That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to further demands.

Let us glance at them both in succession.

Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford charter:—

"Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ legato consecra tus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus."[72]

On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:—

"His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73]

Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:—

"Henricus filius Willelmi Regis post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei gratia rex Anglorum."[74]

Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause in Stephen's charter contains just that which is omitted in Henry's, and omits just that which is contained in Henry's. Henry puts forward his relationship to his father and his brother as the sole explanation of his position as king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in the charter of Henry. What can be more significant than this contrast? Again, the formula in Stephen's charter should be compared not only with that of Henry, but with that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his daughter invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici regis [or regis Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, is styled (1142), as we shall find in a charter quoted in this work, "Henricus filius filiæ regis Henrici." To the importance of this fact I shall recur below. Meanwhile, the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in a charter which must have passed in the first year of his reign, he does adopt the curious style of "Ego Stephanus Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos," etc.,[75] in which he hints, contrary to his practice, at a quasi-hereditary right.

Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he did not venture to allude to such claim, we find him appealing (a) to his election, which, as we have seen, was informal enough; (b) to his anointing by the primate; (c) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible to read such a formula as this in any other light than that of an attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I do not know that it has ever been suggested, though the hypothesis would seem highly probable, that the stress laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical sanction to his succession may have been largely due, as I have said (p. 10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had been sworn to the Empress. Of breaking that oath the Church, he held, had pronounced him not guilty.

Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the drift of the charter itself, that I depend for support of my thesis that Stephen was virtually king on sufferance, or, to anticipate a phrase of later times, "Quamdiu se bene gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases, (1) of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl Robert, (4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their allegiance by submitting to that "original contract" which the political philosophers of a later age evolved from their inner consciousness. It was because his Oxford charter set the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even then, chafed beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving clause—

"Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate meâ."[76]

And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to break its bonds.[77]

The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the "contract" justified ipso facto revolt on theirs;[78] the second, that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous diffidatio.[79]

This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious principle into England. We have seen it hinted at in that charter of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of Gloucester not merely as his king (rex), but also as his feudal lord (dominus). We shall find it acted on three years later (1139), when this same Miles, with his own dominus, the Earl of Gloucester, jointly "defy" Stephen before declaring for the Empress.[80]

Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary right according to feudal rules.

For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—

"The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the elective principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as co-ordinate.... The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the elective theory.[81]

Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen "was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used."[82] He urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh.[83]

So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ("regis Henrici filia"), but she claimed it further because the succession had been assured to her by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.[84] It is important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded in the light of an election. To understand it aright, we must go back to the precisely similar oath which had been previously sworn to her brother. As early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of the magnates "of all England," on the historic spot of Salisbury, to swear allegiance to his son (March 19).[85] It was with reference to this event that Eadmer described him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving Normandy in November, 1120, the king similarly secured the succession of the duchy to his son by compelling its barons to swear that they would be faithful to the youth.[86] On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once more, a male heir. Despairing of this after some years, he took advantage of the Emperor's death to insist on his daughter's return, and brought her with him to England in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps to secure her recognition as his heir (subject however, as the Continuator and Symeon are both careful to point out, to no son being born to him), by the same oath being sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son. It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on the 1st of January, 1127.[87] Of what took place upon that occasion, there is, happily, full evidence.[88]

We have independent reports of the transaction from William of Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator of Florence, and Gervase of Canterbury.[89] From this last we learn (the fact is, therefore, doubtful) that the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress, but to her heirs.[90] The Continuator's version is chiefly important as bringing out the action of the king in assigning the succession to his daughter, the oath being merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement he had made.[91] Symeon introduces the striking expression that the Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"[92] but William of Malmesbury, in the speech which he places in the king's mouth, far outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right:—

"præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium suum sibi surripuisset, cui jure regnum competeret: nunc superesse filiam, cui soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus; a materno genere multis retro seculis."[93]

Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote these words, it will be seen that the Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's heir, and that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a free election.[94] Thus her claim was neatly traversed by Stephen's advocates, at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that she was not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath which had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") was void.

It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her unvarying use of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that this was the true character of her claim will be seen from the terms of a charter I shall quote, which has hitherto, it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly welcomed by Miles of Gloucester "sicut illam quam justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit."

The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the justice of her claim, it was by no means clear in whom it was vested. It might either be vested (a) in herself, in accordance with our modern notions; or (b) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones;[95] or (c) in her son, as, in the event, it was. It may be said that this point was still undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to come to England, and decided to send his son instead, to represent the hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, however, as we shall find, had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take her own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, though even this would not decide the point, as, had she succeeded, her husband, we may be sure, would have claimed the title of king.

Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine right ("Dei gratia"[96]), and attempts to reduce that election to nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. Thus, at the very time when Stephen was formulating his title, he was admitting, in the case of the bishopric of Bath, that the canonical election had preceded his own nomination of the bishop.[97] Yet it is easy to see how, as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases alike, would become, more and more, virtually matters of form, while a weak sovereign or a disputed succession would afford an opportunity for this historical survival, in the case at least of the throne, to recover for a moment its pristine strength.

Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to resume my grounds for urging that, in comparing Stephen with his successor, the difference between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time to construct.

It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects. It will be at least established by the evidence adduced in this work that some of the charges which are brought against him can no longer be maintained.

[3] Early Plantagenets, p. 13; Const Hist. (1874), i. 319.

[4] Gesta Stephani, p. 3.

[5] "A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuarinis exclusus" (Gervase, i. 94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather than the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's "Hrofenses Cantuariensibus ... cædes inferunt" (ii. 23), where the "Hrofenses" are Odo's garrison. So too "Bristoenses" in the Gesta (ed. Hewlett, pp. 38, 40, 41), though rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are clearly the troops of the Earl of Gloucester.

[6] Early Plantagenets, p. 14. Compare Const. Hist., i. 319: "The men of Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them from Boulogne, refused to receive him." Miss Norgate adopts the same explanation (England under the Angevin Kings, i. 277).

[7] There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish possessions in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was allowed, while a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his rents from his Kentish tenants ("ab hominibus suis de Cantia"). Stephen, then, it would seem, did not forfeit them.

[8] In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan, held Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men of Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now corrected, to that here discussed, when he wrote that "whatever might be the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to see Count Eustace again within their walls" (Norm. Conq., iv. 116), though they were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the shire to do so.

[9] "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, p. 3). This audacious claim of the citizens to such right as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr. Freeman's paraphrase when he speaks of "the citizens of London and Winchester [why Winchester?], who freely exercised their ancient right of sharing in the election of the king who should reign over them" (Norm. Conq., v. 251; cf. p. 856).

[10] "Firmatâ prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat, mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus tutarentur; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem suffragium, toto sese conatu accingeret" (Gesta, p. 4). See Appendix A.

[11] "Spe scilicet captus amplissima quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastici vigoris disciplinâ. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et conservanda, episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit. Cujus sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non prætermittam" (p. 704). See Addenda.

[12] "Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum quod sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret, malas vero abrogaret; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno exhibuerit," etc. (ibid., p. 746).

[13] The phrase "districto Sacramento" is very difficult to construe. I have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely that Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an agreement or treaty between two contracting parties (vide infra passim).

[14] Ante, p. 3.

[15] Gesta, 5, 6; Will. Malms., 703. Note that William Rufus, Henry I., and Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even before their coronation.

[16] Const. Hist., i. 319.

[17] "A cunctis fere in regem electus est, et sic a Willelmo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo coronatus."

[18] "The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the spot" (Const. Hist., i. 303).

[19] Select Charters, p. 108.

[20] Early Plantagenets, p. 14.

[21] "Consentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo et clericorum et laicorum universitate" (Sym. Dun., ii. 286, 287).

[22] "Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum sit, ab omnibus provideatur" (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the primate as acting "Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu" (p. 8).

[23] "Tribus episcopis præsentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi, Salesbiriensi, nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus" (p. 704). See Addenda.

[24] "Supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter baronibus suis injuncto apertissime pænituit."

[25] "Quidam ex potentissimis Angliæ, jurans et dicens se præsentem affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte relaxasset."

[26] "Hugo Bigod senescallus regis coram archiepiscopo Cantuariæ sacramento probavit quod, dum Rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis quibus inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhæredavit, et Stephanum Boloniæ comitem hæredem instituit."

[27] "Et hæc juramento comitis (sic) Hugonis et duorum militum probata esse dicebant in facie ecclesie Anglicane" (ed. Pertz, p. 543).

[28] "Cum regis (sic) fautores obnixe persuaderent quatinus eum ad regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis suæ officio suppleret" (p. 6).

[29] Const. Hist., i. 146.

[30] See his Oxford Charter.

[31] See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die causa secreto coram majori parte cleri Angliæ, ad cujus jus potissimum spectat principem eligere, simulque ordinare" (Will. Malms., p. 746).

[32] Henry had sworn "in ipso suæ consecrationis die" (Eadmer), Stephen "in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die" (Innocent's letter). Henry of Huntingdon refers to the "pacta" which Stephen "Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in die coronationis suæ." William of Malmesbury speaks of the oath as "postea [i.e. at Oxford] scripto inditum." See Addenda.

[33] See Appendix B: "The Appeal to Rome in 1136."

[34] See Appendix B.

[35] Hen. Hunt., 258; Cont. Flor. Wig., 95; Will. Malms., 705.

[36] Const. Hist., i. 321.

[37] Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy.

[38] Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from coming to court, he writes: "Illi autem, intentâ sibi a rege comminatione, cum salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere; omnibusque ad votum impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberali hominio, illius sese servitio ex toto mancipârunt. Affuit inter reliquos Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, de quo superius fecimus mentionem, ille Herefordensis et Salopesbiriæ, iste Glocestrensis provinciæ dominatum gerens: qui in tempore regis Henrici potentiæ suæ culmen extenderant ut a Sabrinâ flumine usque ad mare per omnes fines Angliæ et Waloniæ omnes placitis involverent, angariis onerarent" (pp. 15, 16).

[39] Cont. Flor. Wig.

[40] "S. rex Angliæ Archiepĩs etc. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloec̃ et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum honorem patris sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad tenendum tali forma (sic) qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut patrimonium suum. Et totum honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia Ministeria sua et terras suas quas tenuit tempore regis Henrici sicut eas melius et honorificentius tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo sicut Rex et dominus Baroni meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore et in pace et libere teneat cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. filius Ricardi, Robertus de Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingelramus de Sai, Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges" (Lansdowne MS. 229, fols. 123, 124).

[41] History of the Exchequer, p. 135.

[42] I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we have that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny), being then described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de Clare), usually but erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If so, he was also uncle to Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz Richard (de Clare), another witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's charters to which the house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is evidence to suggest that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) was lord, in some way, of Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter fitz Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147).

[43] There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond exactly, it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the witnesses' names are different. This raises a problem which cannot at present be solved.

[44] In the fellow-charter the phrase runs: "sicut Rex et dominus Baroni meo."

[45] "The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive; it practically combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been exercised by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of monarchy, which was exemplified at the time in France and the Empire.... The king is accordingly both the chosen head of the nation and the lord paramount of the whole of the land" (Const. Hist., i. 338).

[46] Compare the words of address in several of the Cartæ Baronum (1166): "servitium ut domino;" "vobis sicut domino meo;" "sicut domino carissimo;" "ut domino suo ligio."

[47] "Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et confirmavit pacta quæ Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in die coronationis suæ" (p. 258).

[48] "Cum venisset in fine Natalis ad Oxenefordiam" (ibid.).

[49] Const. Hist., i. 321.

[50] Early Plantagenets, pp. 15, 16.

[51] "The news of this [Scottish] inroad reached Stephen at Oxford, where he had just put forth his second charter" (Norm. Conq., v. 258).

"The second charter ... was put forth at Oxford before the first year of his reign was out. Stephen had just come back victorious from driving back a Scottish invasion (see p. 258)" (ibid., p. 246).

[52] See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's History of Wells Cathedral: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a confirmed habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer from numberless passages, cannot revise what he writes" (Genealogist, (N.S.) ii. 179).

[53] "In fine Natalis" (Hen. Hunt., 258).

[54] Sym. Dun., ii. 287.

[55] The curious words, "vulgo ... ingerente," may be commended to those who uphold the doctrine of democratic survivals in these assemblies. They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the "vulgus" took part in the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of indisputable interest.

[56] Ed. Howlett, p. 17.

[57] "Quem morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus omisit" (Will. Malms.).

[58] "Rediens autem inde rex in Quadragesimâ tenuit curiam suam apud Lundoniam in solemnitate Paschali, quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior in Angliâ multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus, omnimodaque dapsilitate" (p. 259).

[59] "[Consuetudo] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam convenirent de necessariis regni tractaturi, simulque visuri regis insigne quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate" (Vita S. Wulstani). "Convivia in præcipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica inibat; ... omnes eo cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum accersiebat, ut exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis apparatumque deliciarum mirarentur" (Gesta regum).

[60] See in Gesta (ed. Howlett, pp. 15, 16) his persistent efforts to conciliate the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the west.

[61] See Appendix C.

[62] "In Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in honorem in reverentia præferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (Sym. Dun., ii. 287).

[63] Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes, of that charter: "Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of Hereford" [recté Gloucester] "and Brian of Wallingford, were also among the witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made her cause for the time hopeless" (Const. Hist., i. 321, note).

[64] See Appendix C.

[65] "His autem rex patienter auditis quæcumque postulârant gratuite eis indulgens ecclesiæ libertatem fixam et inviolabilem esse, illius statuta rata et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel ordinis, omni reverentiâ honorandos esse præcepit" (Gesta).

[66] John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter.

[67] "Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestræ, cujus prudentiam rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam.... Itaque homagium regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret" (Will. Malms., 705, 707).

[68] Ibid., 707.

[69] Hen. Hunt., p. 259.

[70] Ibid., p. 260.

[71] "Vindictam non exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus; si enim eam tunc exercuisset, postea contra eum tot castella retenta non fuissent" (Hen. Hunt., p. 259).

[72] Select Charters, 114 (cf. Will. Malms.).

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid., 96.

[75] Confirmation Roll, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J. A. C. Vincent in Genealogist (N. S.), ii. 271). This should be compared with the argument of his friends when urging the primate to crown him, that he had not only been elected to the throne (by the Londoners), but also "ad hoc justo germanæ propinquitatis jure idoneus accessit" (Gesta, p. 8), and with the admission, shortly after, in the pope's letter, that among his claims he "de præfati regis [Henrici] prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse."

[76] Select Charters, 115. But cf. Will. Malms.

[77] As further illustrating the compromise of which this charter was the resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula "Dei gratiâ" with the recital of election, and that he further represents the election as merely a popular "assent" to his succession.

[78] Compare the clause in the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1265, establishing the right of insurrection: "Liceat omnibus de regno nostro contra nos insurgere."

[79] See inter alia, Hallam's Middle Ages, i. 168, 169.

[80] "Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestræ Robertus, qui erat in Normannia, in proximo partes sororis foret adjuturus, rege tantummodo ante diffidato. Nec fides rerum famæ levitatem destituit: celeriter enim post Pentecosten missis a Normanniâ suis regi more majorum amicitiam et fidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicato; rationem præferens quam id juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum aspiraverat, et omnem fidem sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus fuerat" (Will. Malms., 712). So, too, the Continuator of Florence: "Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per prædictum Brycstowensem comitem et conestabularium Milonem, abnegata fidelitate quam illi juraverant, ... Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu militum se contulit" (pp. 110, 117). Compare with these passages the extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct in attacking Lincoln without sending a formal "defiance" to his opponents, and the singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as his lord, without sending him the formal "diffidatio" a clear fortnight beforehand.

[81] Const. Hist., i. 338, 340.

[82] Norm. Conq., v. 251.

[83] "In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the throne, the doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by the spindle-side sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the spear-side had nothing to do with either. Then it was that men began to find out that Stephen had been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but also of defrauding the heir to the crown of her lawful right" (ibid., p. 252).

[84] "Henrici regis filia, ... vehementer exhilarata utpote regnum sibi juratum ... jam adepta" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 130). But the above duplex character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that the legate should receive her "tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia et Normannia jurata esset."

[85] "Conventio optimatum et baronum totius Angliæ apud Salesbyriam xiv. kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in præsentiâ regis Henrici homagium filio suo Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (Flor. Wig., ii. 69).

[86] "Normanniæ principes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tunc xviii. annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidelitatis securitatem sacramentis affirmant" (Sym. Dun., ii. 258).

[87] Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of Durham, though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places the event under 1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor) instead of 1126, the year given by the other chroniclers. But from him we learn that the Christmas court (i.e. Christmas 1126) was adjourned from Windsor to London, for the new year, "ubi Circumcisione Domini" (January 1) the actual oath was taken. William of Malmesbury dates it, loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Continuator of Florence, more accurately, "finitis diebus festivioribus" (p. 84), which confirms Symeon's statement.

[88] It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath taken on this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr. Stubbs (Const. Hist., i. 341) recognizes "a similar oath in 1131" (on the authority of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the authority of Roger of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally mentioned, and is neither alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to subsequently by William himself; and the latter, which is similarly devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is represented as securing the succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is strange that so recent and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, should have been ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier oath, described above, alone appealed to.

[89] Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at Stephen's accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filiæ regis Henrici" (p. 256).

[90] "Fecit principes et potentes adjurare eidem filiæ suæ et heredibus suis legitimis regnum Angliæ" (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat confirmed by the words which the author of the Gesta places in the primate's mouth (p. 7).

[91] "In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, ... regni jura transferebat" (p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken "ad jussum regis" (p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase above, and that (quantum valeat) of Roger Hoveden, viz. "constituit eum regem;" also the "jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was accordingly urged, at Stephen's accession, that the oath had been compulsory, and was therefore invalid.

[92] "Juraverunt ut filiæ suæ imperatrici fide servata regnum Angliæ hæreditario jure post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of Newburgh, on Henry's accession: "Hæreditarium regnum suscepit." These expressions are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford to the Conqueror's dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem ... non enim tantum decus hereditario jure possedi" (Ord. Vit.).

[93] Will. Malms., 691.

[94] That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further implied by the passage in William of Malmesbury: "Ego Rogerum Salesbiriensem episcopum sæpe dicentem audivi, 'Solutum se sacramento quod imperatrici fecerat: eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex præter consilium suum et cæterorum procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra regnum,'" etc., etc. (p. 693).

[95] As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife. There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the autumn of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin match, that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should succeed him ("remque ad effectum perduxit eo tenore ut regi, de legitima conjuge hæredem non habenti, mortuo gener illius in regnum succederet"). That Geoffrey's claim was recognized at the time is clear from the striking passage quoted by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist ("sceptro ... non injuste aspirante"), and even more so from the explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido comite cum uxore suâ, quæ hæres erat [here again is an allusion to her hereditary right], in regnum succedere, primores terræ, juramenti sui male recordantes, regem eum suscipere noluerunt, dicentes 'Alienigena non regnabit super nos'" (Select Charters, p. 110).

[96] Compare the style of "Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God constitutional King of Spain."

[97] "Canonica prius electione præcedente."

CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING.

Geoffrey de Mandeville was the grandson and heir of a follower of the conqueror of the same name. From Mandeville, a village, according to Mr. Stapleton, near Trevières in the Bessin,[98] the family took its name, which, being Latinized as "De Magnavilla," is often found as "De Magnaville." The elder Geoffrey appears in Domesday as a considerable tenant-in-chief, his estates lying in no less than eleven different counties.[99] On the authority of the Monasticon he is said by Dugdale to have been made constable of the Tower. Dugdale, however, has here misquoted his own authority, for the chronicle printed by him states, not that Geoffrey, but that his son and heir (William) received this office.[100] Its statement is confirmed by Ordericus Vitalis, who distinctly mentions that the Tower was in charge of William de Mandeville when Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101.[101] This may help to explain an otherwise puzzling fact, namely, that a Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was presumably his father, appears as a witness to charters of a date subsequent to this.[102]

Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory of Hurley,[103] and we know the names of his two wives, Athelais and Leceline. By the former he had a son and heir, William, mentioned above, who in turn was the father of Geoffrey, the central figure of this work.[104]

The above descent is not based upon the evidence of the Monasticon alone, but is incidentally recited in those royal charters on which my story is so largely based. It is therefore beyond dispute. But though there is no pedigree of the period clearer or better established, it has formed the subject of an amazing blunder, so gross as to be scarcely credible. Madox had shown, in his History of the Exchequer (ii. 400), that Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" (Earl of Essex from 1199 to 1213) was Sheriff of Essex and Herts in 1192-94 (4 & 5 Ric. I.). Now Geoffrey, the son of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers," assuming the surname of "De Mandeville," became his successor in the earldom of Essex, which he held from 1213 to 1216. The noble and learned authors of the Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer began by confusing this Geoffrey with his namesake the earl of 1141, and bodily transferring to the latter the whole parentage of the former. Thus they evolved the startling discovery that the father of our Geoffrey, the earl of 1141, "was Geoffrey Fitz Peter [i.e. the earl of 1199-1213], and probably was son of Peter, the sheriff at the time of the Survey."[105] But not content even with this, they transferred the shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (vide supra)[106] to a date earlier than the grant to Geoffrey de Mandeville (his supposed son) in 1141. Now, during that shrievalty the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed the tertius denarius of the county of Hertford. Thus their lordships were enabled to produce the further discovery that the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed it before the date of this grant (1141), that is to say, "either before or early in the reign of King Stephen."[107] The authority of these Reports has been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at Courthope stating in his Historic Peerage of England (p. 248) that "Richard de Clare ... was Earl of Hertford, and possessed of the third penny of that county, before or early in the reign of King Stephen." Courthope has in turn misled Dr. Stubbs,[108] and Mr. Doyle has now followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was "created Earl of Hertford (about) 1136."[109] It is therefore something to have traced this error to its original source in the Lords' Reports.

The first mention, it would seem, of the subject of this study is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, where we read—

"Gaufridus de Mandeville reddit compotum de Dccclxvjli. et xiiis. et iiijd. pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiiili. et vis. et viiid.

"Et debet Dcc et xxxiijli. et vjs. et viijd." (p. 55).

As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two-thirteenths of the amount due from him for succession, that is the (arbitrary) "relief" to the Crown, we may infer that his father was but lately dead. He does not again meet us till he appears at Stephen's court early in 1136.[110] From the date of that appearance we pass to his creation as an earl by the first of those royal charters with which we are so largely concerned.[111]

The date of this charter is a point of no small interest, not merely because we have in it the only surviving charter of creation of those issued by Stephen, but also because there is reason to believe that it is the oldest extant charter of creation known to English antiquaries. That distinction has indeed been claimed for the second charter in my series, namely, that which Geoffrey obtained from the Empress Maud. It is of the latter that Camden wrote, "This is the most ancient creation-charter that I ever saw."[112] Selden duly followed suit, and Dugdale echoed Selden's words.[113] Courthope merely observes that it "is presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express creation of the title of earl;"[114] and Mr. Birch pronounces it "one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example of a deed creating a peerage."[115] In despite, however, of these opinions I am prepared to prove that the charter with which we are now dealing is entitled to the first place, though that of the Empress comes next.

We cannot begin an investigation of the subject better than by seeking the opinion of Mr. Eyton, who was a specialist in the matter of charters and their dates, and who had evidently investigated the point. His note on this charter is as follows:—

"Stephen's earlier deeds of 1136 exhibit Geoffrey de Magnaville as a baron only. There are three such, two of which certainly, and the third probably, passed at Westminster. He was custos of the Tower of London, an office which probably necessitated a constant residence. There are three patents of creation extant by which he became Earl of Essex. Those which I suppose to precede this were by the Empress. The first of them passed in the short period during which Maud was in London, i.e. between June 24 and July 25, 1141. The second within a month after, at Oxford. In the latter she alludes to grants of lands previously made by Stephen to the said Geoffrey, but to no patent of earldom except her own. Selden calls Maud's London patent the oldest on record. It is not perhaps that, but it is older than this, though Dugdale thought not. Having decided that Stephen's patent succeeded Maud's, it follows that it (viz. this charter) passed after Nov. 1, 1141, when Stephen regained his liberty and Geoffrey probably forsook the empress. The king was at London on Dec. 7. In 1142 we are told (Lysons, Camb., 9) that this Geoffrey and Earl Gilbert were sent by Stephen against the Isle of Ely. He is called earl. We shall also have him attesting a charter of Queen Matilda (Stephen's wife).

"In 1143 he was seized in Stephen's court at St. Alban's.

"In 1144 he is in high rebellion against Stephen, and an ally of Nigel, Bishop of Ely. He is killed in Aug., 1144.

"On the whole then it would appear that the Empress first made him an earl as a means of securing London, the stronghold of Stephen's party, but that, on Stephen's release, the earl changed sides and Stephen opposed Maud's policy by a counter-patent (we have usually found counter-charters, however, to be Maud's). We have also a high probability that this charter passed in Dec., 1141, or soon after; for Stephen does not appear at London in 1142, when Geoffrey is earl and in Stephen's employ."[116]

Here I must first clear the ground by explaining as to the "three patents of creation" mentioned in this passage, that there were only two charters (not "patents") of creation—that of the king, which survives in the original, and that of the Empress, which is known to us from a transcript. As to the latter, it certainly "passed in the short period during which Maud was in London," but that period, so far from being "between June 24 and July 25, 1141," consisted only of a few days ending with "June 24, 1141." The main point, however, at issue is the priority of the creation-charters. It will be seen that Mr. Eyton jumped at his conclusion, and then proceeded: "Having decided," etc. This is the more surprising because that conclusion was at variance with what he admits to have been his own principle, namely, that he had "usually found counter-charters to be Maud's."[117] In this case his conclusion was wrong, and his original principle was right. I think that Mr. Eyton's error was due to his ignorance of the second charter granted by the king to Geoffrey.[118] As he was well acquainted with the royal charters in the duchy of Lancaster collection it is not easy to understand how he came to overlook this very long one, which is, as it were, the keystone to the arch I am about to construct.

It is my object to make Geoffrey's charters prove their own sequence. When once arranged in their right order, it will be clear from their contents that this order is the only one possible. We must not attempt to decide their dates till we have determined their order. But when that order has been firmly established, we can approach the question of dates with comparative ease and confidence.

To determine from internal evidence the sequence of these charters, we must arrange them in an ascending scale. That is to say, each charter should represent an advance on its immediate predecessor. Tried by this test, our four main charters will assume, beyond dispute, this relative order.

1. First charter of the king.
2. First charter of the Empress.
3. Second charter of the king.
4. Second charter of the Empress.

The order of the three last is further established by the fact that the grants in the second are specifically confirmed by the third, while the third is expressly referred to in the fourth. The only one, therefore, about which there could possibly be a question is the first, and the fact that the second charter represents a great advance upon it is in this case the evidence. But there is, further, the fact that the place I have assigned it is the only one in the series that it can possibly occupy. Nor could Mr. Eyton have failed to arrive at this conclusion had he included within his sphere of view the second charter of the king.

It is clear that Mr. Eyton was here working from the statements of Dugdale alone. For the three charters he deals with are those which Dugdale gives. The order assigned to these charters by Dugdale and Mr. Eyton respectively can be thus briefly shown:—

How gravely Mr. Eyton erred in his conclusions will be obvious from this table. But it is necessary to go further still, and to say that of the seven charters affecting Geoffrey de Mandeville, three would seem to have been unknown to him, while of the rest, he assigned three, one might almost say all four, to a demonstrably erroneous date. It may be urged that this is harsh criticism, and the more so as its subject was never published, and exists only in the form of notes. There is much to be said for this view, but the fact remains that rash use is certain to be made of these notes, unless students are placed on their guard. That this should be so is due not only to Mr. Eyton's great and just reputation as a laborious student in this field, but also to the exaggerated estimate of the value and correctness of these notes which was set, somewhat prominently, before the public.[119]

Advancing from the question of position to that of actual date, we will glance at the opinion of another expert, Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. We learn from him, as to the date of this first creation-charter, that—

"The dates of the witnesses appear to range between A.D. 1139 and A.D. 1144.... The actual date of the circumstances mentioned in this document is a matter of question.... He [Geoffrey] was slain on the 14th of September, A.D. 1144, and therefore this document must be prior to that date."[120]

We see now that it is by no means easy to date this charter with exactness. It will be best, in pursuance of my usual practice, to begin by clearing the ground.

If we could place any trust in the copious chronicle of Walden Abbey, which is printed (in part) in the Monasticon from the Arundel manuscript, our task would be easy enough. For we are there told that Stephen had already created Geoffrey an earl when, in 1136, he founded Walden Abbey.[121] And, in his foundation charter, he certainly styles himself an earl.[122] But, alas for this precious narrative, it brings together at the ceremony three bishops, Robert of London, Nigel of Ely, and William of Norwich, of whom Robert of London was not appointed till 1141, while William of Norwich did not obtain that see till 1146!

Dismissing, therefore, this evidence, we turn to the fact that no creation of an earldom by Stephen is mentioned before 1138. But we have something far more important than this in the occurrence at the head of the witnesses to this creation-charter, of the name of William of Ypres, the only name, indeed, among the witnesses that strikes one as a note of time. Mr. Eyton wrote: "A deed which I have dated 1140 ... is his first known attestation."[123] I have found no evidence contrary to this conclusion. It would seem probable that when the arrest of the bishops "gave," in Dr. Stubbs' words, "the signal for the civil war," Stephen's preparations for the approaching struggle would include the summons to his side of this experienced leader, who had hitherto been fighting in Normandy for his cause. Indeed, we know that it was so, for he was at once despatched against the castle of Devizes.[124]

Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should incidentally, we shall find, prove the key to the problem. This, which is printed among the footnotes in Madox's Baronia Anglica (p. 231), from the muniments of Westminster Abbey, is addressed "Gaufrido de Magnavilla" simply, and is, therefore, previous to his elevation to the earldom. Now, as this writ refers to the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later than the 11th of December, 1139.[125] Consequently Geoffrey's charter must be subsequent to that date. It must also be previous to the battle of Lincoln (February, 1141), because, as I observed at the outset, it must be previous to the charter of the Empress. We therefore virtually narrow its limit to the year 1140, for Stephen had set out for Lincoln before the close of the year.[126] Let us try and reduce it further still. What was the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of Bishop Roger, hastened to visit Salisbury.[127] He went there from Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned to Reading (Cont. Flor. Wig.). Going and returning he would have passed through Andover, the place at which this writ is tested. Thus it could have been, and probably was, issued at this period (December, 1139). Obviously, if it was issued in the course of 1140, this would reduce still further the possible limit within which Geoffrey's charter can have passed. Difficult though it is to trace the incessant movements of the king throughout this troubled year, he certainly visited Winchester, and (probably thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, proof of his presence at Andover.[128] And there are other grounds, I shall now show, for thinking that the earldom was conferred before March, 1140.

William of Newburgh, speaking of the arrest of Geoffrey de Mandeville, assures us that Stephen bore an old grudge against him, which he had hitherto been forced to conceal. Its cause was a gross outrage by Geoffrey, who, on the arrival of Constance of France, the bride of Eustace the heir-apparent, had forcibly detained her in the Tower.[129] We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, from the words of the Continuator of Florence,[130] and that date agrees well with Henry of Huntingdon's statement, that Stephen had bought his son's bride with the treasure he obtained by the death of the great Bishop of Salisbury (December 11, 1139).[131]

It would seem, of course, highly improbable that this audacious insult to the royal family would have been followed by the grant of an earldom. We might consequently infer that, in all likelihood, Geoffrey had already obtained his earldom.

We have, however, to examine the movements of Stephen at the time. The king returned, as we saw, to Reading, after spending his Christmas at Salisbury. He was then summoned to the Fen country by the revolt of the Bishop of Ely, and he set out thither, says Henry of Huntingdon, "post Natale" (p. 267). He may have taken Westminster on his way, but there is no evidence that he did. He had, however, returned to London by the middle of March, to take part in a Mid-Lent council.[132] His movements now become more difficult to trace than ever, but it may have been after this that he marched on Hereford and Worcester.[133] Our next glimpse of him is at Whitsuntide (May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state at the Tower.[134] It has been suggested that it was for security that he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explanation is disposed of by the fact that the citizens of London were his best friends and proved, the year after, the virtual salvation of his cause. It would seem more likely that he was anxious to reassert his impaired authority and to destroy the effect of Geoffrey's outrage, which might otherwise have been ruinous to his prestige.[135]

It was, as I read it, at the close of Whitsuntide, that is, about the beginning of June, that the king set forth for East Anglia, and, attacking Hugh Bigod, took his castle of Bungay.[136]

In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh Bigod;[137] and either to this, or to his preceding East Anglian campaign, we may safely assign his charter, granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Reading.[138] Now, the first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville himself, who is not styled an earl. We learn, then, that, at least as late as June, 1140, Geoffrey had not received his earldom. This would limit the date of his creation to June-December, 1140, or virtually, at the outside, a period of six months.

Such, then, is the ultimate conclusion to which our inquiry leads us. And if it be asked why Stephen should confer an earldom on Geoffrey at this particular time, the reply is at hand in the condition of affairs, which had now become sufficiently critical for Geoffrey to begin the game he had made up his mind to play. For Stephen could not with prudence refuse his demand for an earldom.[139]

The first corollary of this conclusion is that "the second type" of Stephen's great seal (which is that appended to this charter) must have been already in use in the year 1140, that is to say, before his fall in 1141.

Mr. Birch, who, I need hardly say, is the recognized authority on the subject, has devoted one of his learned essays on the Great Seals of the Kings of England to those of Stephen.[140] He has appended to it photographs of the two types in use under this sovereign, and has given the text of nineteen original sealed charters, which he has divided into two classes according to the types of their seals. The conclusion at which he arrived as the result of this classification was that the existence of "two distinctly variant types" is proved (all traces of a third, if it ever existed, being now lost), one of which represents the earlier, and the other the later, portion of the reign.[141] To the former belong nine, and to the latter ten of the charters which he quotes in his paper. The only point on which a question can arise is the date at which the earlier was replaced by the later type. Mr. Birch is of opinion that—

"the consideration of the second seal tends to indicate the alteration of the type subsequent to his liberation from the hands of the Empress, and it is most natural to suppose that this alteration is owing to the destruction or loss of his seal consequent to his own capture and incarceration" (p. 15).

There can be no doubt that this is the most natural suggestion; but if, as I contend, the very first two of the charters adduced by Mr. Birch as specimens of the later type are previous to "his capture and incarceration," it follows that his later great seal must have been adopted before that event. One of these charters is that which forms the subject of this chapter; the other is preserved among the records of the duchy of Lancaster.[142] At the date when the latter was granted, the king was in possession of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln, which he had seized on the arrest of the bishops in June, 1139. As Alexander had regained possession of his see by the time of the battle of Lincoln, this charter must have passed before Stephen's capture, and most probably passed a year or more before. We have then to account for the adoption by Stephen of a new great seal, certainly before 1141, and possibly as early as 1139. Is it not possible that this event may be connected with the arrest of the chancellor and his mighty kinsmen in June, 1139, and that the seal may have been made away with in his and their interest, as on the flight of James II., in order to increase the confusion consequent on that arrest?[143]

And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself[144]:—

"S. Rex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufr[ido] de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essex[e] hereditarie. Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus meis bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel liberius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde Comites sunt cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus cum quibus alii Comites mei prefati dignius vel liberius tenent.

"T[estibus] Will[elm]o de Iprâ et Henr[ico] de Essexâ[145] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Rob[erti] fil[ii] Walt[eri][146] et Rob[erto] de Nouo burgo[147] et Mainfen[ino] Britoñ[148] et Turg[esio] de Abrinc[is][149] et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro[150] et Will[elm]o de Dammart[in][151] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Ursi[152] et Will[elm]o de Auco[153] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti][154] et Radulfo de Wiret[155] (sic) et Eglin[o][156] et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi][157] et Will[elmo] filio Ernald.[158] Apud Westmonasterium."

Taking this, as I believe it to be, as our earliest charter of creation extant or even known, the chief point to attract our notice is its intensely hereditary character. Geoffrey receives the earldom "hereditarie," for himself "et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure." The terms in which the grant is made are of tantalizing vagueness; and, compared with the charters by which it was followed, this is remarkable for its brevity, and for the total omission of those accompanying concessions which the statements of our historians would lead us to expect without fail.[159]

We must now pass from the grant of this charter to the great day of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the fortunes of England and her king were changed "in the twinkling of an eye" by the wild charge of "the Disinherited," as they rode for death or victory.[160]

[98] Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ, II. clxxxviii. Such was also the opinion of M. Leopold Delisle. The French editors, however, of Ordericus write: "On ne sait auquel des nombreux Magneville, Mandeville, Manneville de Normandie rapporter le berceau de cette illustre maison" (iv. 108).

[99] There is a curious story in the Waltham Chronicle (De Inventione, cap. xiii.) that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey in the shoes of Esegar the staller. The passage runs thus: "Cui [Tovi] successit filius ejus Adelstanus pater Esegari qui stalra inventus est in Angliæ conquisitione a Normannis, cuius hereditatem postea dedit conquisitor terræ, rex Willelmus, Galfrido de Mandevile proavi presentis comitis Willelmi. Successit quidem Adelstanus patri suo Tovi, non in totam quidem possessionem quam possederat pater, sed in eam tantum quæ pertinebat ad stallariam, quam nunc habet comes Willelmus." The special interest of this story lies in the official connection of Esegar [or Ansgar] the staller with London and Middlesex, combined with the fact that Geoffrey occupied the same position. See p. 354, and Addenda.

[100] "Post cujus [i.e. Galfridi] mortem reliquit filium suum hæredem, cui firmitas turris Londoniarum custodienda committitur. Nobili cum Rege magnificé plura gessit patri non immerito in rebus agendis coæqualis" (Monasticon). Dugdale's error, as we might expect, is followed by later writers, Mr. Clark treating Geoffrey as the first "hereditary constable," and his son, whom with characteristic inaccuracy he transforms from "William" into "Walter," as the second (Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 253, 254). The French editors of Ordericus (iv. 108) strangely imagined that William was brother, not son, of Geoffrey de Mandeville.

[101] "In arce Lundoniensi Guillelmo de Magnavilla custodiendus in vinculis traditus est" (iv. 108).

[102] See for instance Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 73, 85, 116, where he attests charters of circ. 1110-1112.

[103] Monasticon, iii. 433. He founds the priory "pro anima Athelaisæ primæ uxoris meæ, matris filiorum meorum jam defunctæ;" and "Lecelina domina uxor mea" is a witness to the charter.

[104] It is necessary to check by authentic charters and other trustworthy evidence the chronicles printed in the Monasticon under Walden Abbey. One of these was taken from a long and interesting MS., formerly in the possession of the Royal Society, but now among the Arundel MSS. in the British Museum. This, which is only partially printed, and which ought to be published in its entirety, has the commencement wanting, and is, unfortunately, very inaccurate for the early period of which I treat. It is this narrative which makes the wild misstatements as to the circumstances of the foundation, which grossly misdates Geoffrey's death, etc., etc. All its statements are accepted by Dugdale. The other chronicle, which he printed from Cott. MS., Titus, D. 20, is far more accurate, gives Geoffrey's death correctly, and rightly assigns him as wife the sister (not the daughter) of the Earl of Oxford, thus correcting Dugdale's error. It is the latter chronicle which Dugdale has misquoted with reference to the charge of the Tower.

[105] Who was really Peter de Valognes.

[106] "Madox ... has shown ... that Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex, obtained from the Crown Grants of the shrievalty of the Counties of Essex and Hertford when the Earls, commonly called Earls of Clare, were Earls of Hertford, and had the Third Penny of the Pleas of that County" (iii. 69, ed. 1829).

[107] "The County of Hertford appears to have been, at the time of the Survey, in the King's hands, and Peter was then Sheriff; and the Sheriffwick of Hertfordshire was afterwards granted in Fee, by the Empress Maud, to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, at a rent as his father and grandfather had held it. The father of Geoffrey was Geoffrey Fitz Peter, and probably was son of Peter, the Sheriff at the time of the Survey. The first trace which the Committee has discovered of the title of the Earls of Clare to the Third Penny of the County is in the reign of Henry the Second, subsequent to the grants under which the Earls of Essex claimed the Shrievalty in fee, at a fee-farm rent. But the grant of the Third Penny must have been of an earlier date, as the grant to the Earl of Essex was subject to that charge. The family of Clare must therefore have had the Third Penny either before or early in the Reign of King Stephen" (iii. 125).

[108] Const. Hist., i. 362.

[109] Official Baronage, ii. 175.

[110] See Appendix C.

[111] See Frontispiece.

[112] Degrees of England.

[113] "Note that this is the most ancient creation-charter which hath ever been known." Vide Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 647.

[114] Historic Peerage, p. 178.

[115] Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 386.

[116] Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 97.

[117] Comp. fol. 96: "My position is that where this system of counter-charters between Stephen and the Empress is proved, the former generally is the first in point of date."

[118] See p. 41 ad pedem.

[119] Notes and Queries, 6th Series, v. 83.

[120] On the Great Seal of King Stephen, pp. 19, 20.

[121] "Apud regem Stephanum, ac totius regni majores tanti erat ut nomine comitis et re jampridem dignus haberetur" (Mon. Angl., vol. iv. p. 141).

[122] "Gaufridus de Magnavillâ comes Essexe" (ibid.).

[123] Addl. MSS. 31,943, fol. 85 dors.

[124] Ordericus Vitalis, vol. v. p. 120.

[125] See p. 282, n. 4.

[126] "Protractaque est obsidio [Lincolnie] a diebus Natalis Domini (1140) usque ad Ypapanti Domini" (Will. Newburgh, i. 39).

[127] To this visit may be assigned three charters (Sarum Charters and Documents, pp. 9-11) of interest for their witnesses. Two of them are attested by Philip the chancellor, who is immediately followed by Roger de Fécamp. The latter had similarly followed the preceding chancellor, Roger, in one of Stephen's charters of 1136 (see p. 263), which establishes his official position. Among the other witnesses were Bishop Robert of Hereford, Count Waleran of Meulan, Robert de Ver, William Martel, Robert d'Oilli with Fulk his brother, Turgis d'Avranches, Walter de Salisbury, Ingelram de Say, and William de Pont de l'Arche.

[128] The "P. cancellarius," by whom the writ is tested, was a chancellor of whom, according to Foss, virtually nothing is known. He was, however, Philip (de Harcourt), on whom the king conferred at Winchester, in 1140, the vacant see of Salisbury ("Rex Wintoniam veniens consilio baronum suorum cancellario suo Philippo Searebyriensem præsulatum ... dedit" (Cont. Flor. Wig.)). But the chapter refused to accept him as bishop, and eventually he was provided for by the see of Bayeux. He is likely, with or without the king, to have gone straight to Salisbury after his appointment at Winchester, in which case he would not have been present at Andover, even if Stephen himself was.

[129] "Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat. Injuria vero quam regi nequam ille intulerat talis erat. Rex ante annos aliquot episcopi, ut dictum est, Salesbiriensis thesauros adeptus, summa non modica regi Francorum Lodovico transmissa, sororem ejus Constantiam Eustachio filio suo desponderat; ... eratque hæc cum socru sua regina Lundoniis. Cumque regina ad alium forte vellet cum eadem nuru sua locum migrare, memoratus Gaufridus arci tunc præsidens, restitit; nuruque de manibus socrus, pro viribus obnitentis, abstracta atque retenta, illam cum ignominia abire permisit. Postea vero reposcenti, et justum motum pro tempore dissimulanti, regi socero insignem prædam ægre resignavit" (ii. 45).

[130] (1140) "Facta est desponsatio illorum mense Februario in transmarinis partibus, matre regina Anglorum præsente" (ii. 725).

[131] "Accipiens thesauros episcopi comparavit inde Constantiam sororem Lodovici regis Francorum ad opus Eustachii filii sui" (p. 265). It is amusing to learn from his champion (the author of the Gesta Stephani) that the king spent this treasure on good and pious works. This matrimonial alliance is deserving of careful attention, for the fact that Stephen was prepared to buy it with treasure which he sorely needed proves its importance in his eyes as a prop to his now threatened throne.

[132] Annals of Waverley (Ann. Mon., ii. 228), where it is stated that, at this council, Stephen gave the see of Salisbury to his chancellor, Philip. According, however, to the Continuator of Florence, he did this not at London, but at Winchester (see p. 47, supra).

[133] See the Continuator of Florence.

[134] Will. Malms.

[135] See p. 81 as to the alleged riot in London and death of Aubrey de Vere, three weeks before.

[136] "Ad Pentecostem ivit rex cum exercitu suo super Hugonem Bigod in Sudfolc" Ann. Wav. (Ann. Mon., ii. 228).

[137] "Item in Augusto perrexit super eum et concordati sunt, sed non diu duravit" (ibid.).

[138] Printed in Archæological Journal, xx. 291. Its second witness is Richard de Luci, whom I have not elsewhere found attesting before Christmas, 1141.

[139] If, as would seem, Hugh Bigod appears first as an earl at the battle of Lincoln, when he fought on Stephen's side, it may well be that the "concordia" between them in August, 1140, similarly comprised the concession by the king of comital rank. On the other hand, there is a noteworthy charter (Harl. Cart., 43, c. 13) of Stephen, which seems to belong to the winter of 1140-1, to which Hugh Bigod is witness, not as an earl, so that his creation may have taken place very shortly before Stephen's fall. As this charter, according to Mr. Birch, has the second type of Stephen's seal, it strengthens the view advanced in the text.

[140] Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. xi., New Series.

[141] Mr. Birch points out the interesting fact that while the earlier type has an affinity to that of the great seal of Henry I., the later approximates to that adopted under Henry II.

[142] Royal Charters, No. 15. See my Ancient Charters, p. 39.

[143] Dr. Stubbs observes that the consequence of the arrest was that "the whole administration of the country ceased to work" (Const. Hist., i. 326).

[144] Cotton Charter, vii. 4. See Frontispiece.

[145] This is the well-known Henry de Essex (see Appendix U), son of Robert (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.), and grandson of Swegen of Essex (Domesday). He witnessed several of Stephen's charters, probably later in the reign, but was also a witness to the Empress's charters to the Earls of Oxford and of Essex (vide post).

[146] A John, son of Robert fitz Walter (sheriff of East Anglia, temp. Hen. I.), occurs in Ramsey Cartulary, i. 149.