Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl

Chapter 616,464 wordsPublic domain

of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law, Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that 'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos nupta est' (iv. 609).

In asserting under 'Clare' (_Baronage_, i. 208) that Eudo married the widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and more inaccurate document (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269) which actually does speak of

Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]--duas plures enim habuit--conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti, qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis magnates præcessit--

as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter and namesake.

We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham' was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is extant,[1] and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion, which runs as follows:

Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal. Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet.

Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course, equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the above Gervase, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, was no other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.[2] The chain of evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their Manor placed beyond question.

But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed, were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I, who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.[3] Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives.

I have explained in my article on the Clares in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ that there has been much confusion as to the family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his forefathers and his descendants'.

Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus] filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus] frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'[4]

Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard 'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard an Earl of Devon.

Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors--which, originating in the _Monasticon_, is embalmed in Dugdale's _Baronage_--as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her _Battle Abbey Roll_ (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming' the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's _Exeter_ (1887) and by the life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles.

I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon.

Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match. This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter. The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 512-13). She can only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard.

Count Gilbert, of Brionne. Benefactor to Bec. Murdered 1040 | --------------------------------------------(connect to | Richard de Bienfaite) | Albreda=(1) Baldwin (2) Emma de Meules, = _alias_ de Clare, | _alias_ Baldwin of | Exeter, _alias_ | Baldwin the | Sheriff [of Devon]. | Benefactor to Bec | | (connect | to Roger, | 'filius Ricardi') ------------------------------------------- ----- | | | William,[1] Robert,[2] Richard, Gilbert, 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', Sheriff of Devon, held Brionne Sheriff of _alias_ Gilbert 1090 (see p. 256). against Robert Devon, 1129. de Tunbridge, Benefactor to Bec of Normandy Died 1136.[3] mar. Adeliza in 1090. Benefactor to Bec de Clermont Benefactor to Bec (see p. 394) | ----------------------------------------(connect | | to Baldwin, | | 'filius Gilberti') | | | Richard, Gilbert, Walter,[7] 'filius Gilberti,' 'filius Gilberti', 'filius Gilberti,' d. 1136[3] Earl of Pembroke. of Maldon. | Protector of Went on crusade V St Neot's[5] _circ._ 1147 a quo the | Earls of V Hertford (connect to Count Gilbert of Brionne) ---- | Richard = Rohese, dau. of de Bienfaite, Walter Giffard. _alias_ 'filius Benefactress of Gilberti', _alias_ St Neot's Priory 'filius Comitis | Gilberti', _alias_ | 'de Tunbridge', | _alias_ 'de Clare'. | Founder of St | Neot's Priory | (cell to Bec) | | (connect to |(connect Gilbert, |to Robert 'filius Baldwini') |'filius ------------------------------------------------ Ricardi') | | | Roger, Walter, Richard, 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', living 1130 ob. s. p. Monk of Bec, ob. s. p. Founder of Abbot of Ely 1100. Benefactor to Tintern Abbey, Died 1107 Bec[4] 1131, living 1136[5]

(connect to Walter,' 'filius Gilberti') ----------------------------------------- | | | Baldwin, Adelidis Rohese,[8] 'filius Gilberti', 'de Tunbridge' mar. Baderon _alias_ Baldwin mar. William de Monmouth de Clare. de Percy Founder of Deeping | Priory (Benedictine) | and Bourne Priory V (Austin)

(connect to Richard 'filius Ricardi') ---------------------------------------- | | | Robert, Rohese, Adeliza = Walter 'filius Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', | Tirel, d. (after Easter) mar. Eudo Dapifer died at | Lord of Poix, 1136. _circ._ 1088 Conflans, an | under-tenant Bur. at St Neot's, He died 1120. offshoot of Bec, | of his (? Dapifer Regis) She died 1121, _circ._ 1138 | father-in-law, | and was buried | 1086 | at Bec | | | -------------------------------- | | Hugh Walter Maude = William Tirel, 'filius "Roberti', 'de Senliz'. | de Albini Lord of Poix, 'Dapifer Regis[6] Benefactress | 'Brito' Benefactor to Bec. (see p. 360) to St Neot's V Went on crusade 1147 | V

[Footnotes from Family Tree:

[Footnote 1: 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum, Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum, Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed _aliunde_. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.]

[Footnote 2: 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex W.] et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (_Ord. Vit._)]

[Footnote 3: 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi, patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus' (_Robert of Torigni_).]

[Footnote 4: 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et Waltero.']

[Footnote 5: 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).]

[Footnote 6: Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as 'Clarreaus'--a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._ iv. 597. _Formul Ang._ p. 40.]

[Footnote 8: _Mon. Ang._, iv. 597.]]

[_To face page_ 359.]

We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac (1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however, on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale actually relied on a charter,[5] which includes Baldwin among the Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets (_Baronage_, i. 207_b_). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin _de Clare_, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the battle of Lincoln.[6]

Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son 'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire' (_Baronage_, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.[7] The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord of Daventry.

But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud 'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in _anno_ 1140' (_ibid._)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare. The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St Neot's.[8] We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo. 79_b_, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (_al._ "Senliz") filia Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one (fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband:

Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et antecessorum meorum.

Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz mater mea eis prius concesserat'--her said grant of land in Cratfield duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'. Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is found in this entry (1185):

Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et est lx. annorum (_Rot. de Dominabus_, p. 1).

We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of William de Albini, who sent in his _carta_ (under Leicestershire) in 1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167. She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux, and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu and of Achères by the Seine' (_W. Rufus_, II, 322, 673).[9] But the mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087, and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de Poix,[10] and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he who was father of Hugh the Crusader.[11]

Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',[12] which appears to have eluded Mr Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions of the death of William Rufus:

Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a Waltero _de Bekam_, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus, etc., etc.

The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is, even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain the 'Bekam'.[13]

If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy, 'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes 'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not, we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline' and son Hugh to the grant?

Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg, imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the 'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son, we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or 1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.

But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham' to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read of the charter's date:

Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.

Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until, therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we must reject it _in toto_.

I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox, the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:

Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell' licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias quos poterit ibi includere.[18]

Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts' are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.

[Footnote 1: Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in _Arch. Journ._, ii. 46).]

[Footnote 2: Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.]

[Footnote 3: A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he, like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see p. 355 _supra_).]

[Footnote 4: See also _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 329.]

[Footnote 5: Old _Monasticon_, i. 245_b_; and _vide infra_, p. 393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac. This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of drawings.]

[Footnote 6: See also _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, and my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._, v. 178.]

[Footnote 8: Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.]

[Footnote 9: Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by 'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires de Poix Vicomtes d'_Equesnes_' it is probable that the latter was meant.]

[Footnote 10: His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of Amiens, who died in 1116.]

[Footnote 11: The essential reference occurs in the charter of 1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo. 91). These were the first and second known bearers of the name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de Piceio'.]

[Footnote 12: _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin_ (_Documents Inédits_), pp. 267-8.]

[Footnote 13: I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification 'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for 'Belram' [Beaurain]?]

[Footnote 14: _Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix_, etc., etc. (2nd Ed.) 1869.]

[Footnote 15: Vol. vii., pp. 820 _et seq._]

[Footnote 16: _Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de Picardies_ (1876), xxv. 287 _et seq._]

[Footnote 17: M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to have been already in possession of Poix, although, according to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.]

[Footnote 18: Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42. _Supra_, p. 357.]

WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR

The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was, as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_), that his latest appearance as chancellor was early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in Normandy with the King. There is, however, in _Gallia Christiana_ (vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date.

There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.[1] This charter is printed in the _Monasticon_ (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus _temp._ Henry IV. There is, however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I[2] (No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No. 2), with a fuller list of witnesses.[3] I have examined the roll for myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs:

Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^{o} centesimo vii^{o} apud Wintoniam.

The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these Tewkesbury charters,[4] and that suspicion is not lessened by the double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of 1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de Pistres[5]) who was killed in 1106.

On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November 1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,[6] in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.[7] Its date is determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor, combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not, as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the names of the witnesses point to Easter--September 1107; and it is just possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St Andrew's may well have been granted.

Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of Laon,[8] but I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

[Footnote 1: _Judges of England_, i. 140.]

[Footnote 2: _30th Report of Deputy-Keeper_, p. 203.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, p. 204.]

[Footnote 4: See _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, 421, 431-2.]

[Footnote 5: See p. 245 _supra_.]

[Footnote 6: _Judges of England_, i. 79.]

[Footnote 7: _Monasticon_, v. 191.]

[Footnote 8: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 22.]

A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123)

A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the church of Exeter. It is printed in the _Monasticon_ under Plimpton, to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter, however, is also found among those confirmed by Henry VIII (Confirmation Roll, I Henry VIII, p. 5, No. 13), with a list of witnesses arranged in correct order; whereas the _Monasticon_ version is taken from the pleadings under Richard II (Coram Rege, Hil. 2 Richard II, Rot. 20, Devon), and records the witnesses in grievous disorder. The explanation of such disorder is that the clerk in the latter case was not familiar with the system on which the attestations to these charters were arranged, the names of the leading witnesses being placed in a line above the others. This will be made evident from the two lists of witnesses:

_Right Order_ _Wrong Order_

King Henry Queen Adeliza Queen Adeliza William, Archbishop of Canterbury William, Archbishop of Canterbury Thurstan, Archbishop of York Robert, Earl of Gloucester Richard, Bishop of London Thurstan, Archbishop of York William, Bishop of Winchester William, Earl of Surrey Roger, Bishop of Salisbury Roger, Bishop of Salisbury Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln Roger, Earl of Warwick Evrard, Bishop of Norwich Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln Hervey, Bishop of Ely Robert, Earl of Leicester Ralf, Bishop of Chichester Evrard, Bishop of Norwich Ranulf, Bishop of Durham Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ Robert, Bishop of Coventry Hervey, Bishop of Ely 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester William de Pirou, _dapifer_ Bernard, Bishop of St David's Ralf, Bishop of Chichester Richard, Bishop of Hereford William d'Aubeny Godfrey, Bishop of Bath Ranulf, Bishop of Durham Geoffrey the Chancellor Nigel d'Aubeny Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, Robert, Bishop of Coventry Winchester Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock Richard fitz Baldwin Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon Baldwin de Redvers Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury Bernard, Bishop of St David's Robert, Earl of Gloucester Johel de Berdestaple William, Earl of Surrey Richard, Bishop of Hereford David, Earl of Huntingdon Guy de Totness Ranulf, Earl of Chester Godfrey, Bishop of Bath Roger, Earl of Warwick Robert de Cadentona [_sic_] Robert, Earl of Leicester Geoffrey the Chancellor Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ William fitz Odo William de Pirou, _dapifer_ Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, William d'Aubeny Winchester Nigel d'Aubeny Goislin de Pomereda Richard fitz Baldwin Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock Baldwin de Redvers Rainald de Valle Torta Johel de Berdestaple Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne Guy de Totness William fitz Richard Robert de 'Badentona' Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon William fitz Odo Herbert de Alneto Goislin de Pomereda Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury Rainald de Valle Torta Humfrey de Bohun William fitz Richard William, Abbot of Cerne Herbert de Alneto Walter fitz Thurstan[1] Humfrey de Bohun Walter fitz Thurstan

It is obvious that this charter was granted before the death of the Bishop of Worcester (October 20, 1123), and before the King's departure from England (June 1123). But it must be subsequent to the death of the previous chancellor, Ranulf (Christmas 1122), and to the appointment or consecration (February 1123) of Archbishop William. The narrow limit thus ascertained points to the Easter court of 1123 at Winchester, the great gathering of bishops and earls implying some such occasion. Easter fell that year on April 15th.

Now two sees had fallen vacant at the beginning of the year, those of Lincoln and of Bath. Lincoln was given to Alexander, whether at Easter (Winchester), as stated by Henry of Huntingdon, or in Lent, as asserted by the continuator of Florence; but he was not consecrated till July 22nd. Bath was bestowed on Godfrey, whose consecration did not take place till August 26th, though Henry of Huntingdon assigns his appointment, like that of Alexander, to Easter (Winchester). Both these bishops, it will be seen, attest the above charter, which proves that it cannot be earlier than Easter (April 15th), while the evidence below practically limits it to the Easter court at Winchester.

The first point to be observed is that these two bishops attest as such (not as 'elect') long before their consecration. As it is generally held that bishops never did so, this point is of importance (always assuming the accuracy of the evidence) for its bearing on other charters.[2] Secondly, four of the witnesses--the two archbishops, the Bishop of St David's, and the Abbot of Glastonbury--are said by the continuator to have left for Rome after Alexander's appointment. From this charter it is clear that they did not leave till after Easter. The third point is that Earl Roger of Warwick had, at the date of this charter, succeeded his father, Henry.

Turning to Geoffrey the chancellor, we find in this charter perhaps his earliest appearance. Foss, in his useful work, is here a year out. He wrongly assigned the death of the preceding chancellor, Ranulf, to Christmas 1123, instead of Christmas 1122, and he assumed that our charter must be subsequent to Bishop Godfrey's consecration (August 26, 1123), and, in fact, that it belonged to 1124 (to which year he wrongly assigned the death of Bishop Theowulf). It is important for chronological purposes to date the change of chancellor correctly. I have already determined (p. 481) the date of Ranulf's accession to the post.

The correction of this date of Ranulf's death affects that of the foundation of Laund Priory, Leicestershire, which is assigned by Nichols and by the Editors of the _Monasticon_ to 'about 1125'. As the foundation charter is addressed to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it must be subsequent to Alexander's promotion in the spring of 1123 (if not to his consecration on June 22nd). This is admitted by Foss, who accepts the charter without question. There is nothing in the document to excite suspicion, nor do I impugn it without reluctance. But the awkward fact remains that it is witnessed by Ranulf the chancellor, who died, as we have seen, at the beginning of 1123, and actually in the lifetime of Bishop Robert, Alexander's predecessor at Lincoln. There can be no question as to Ranulf's death, for the sequence of events is inexorable. Henry of Huntingdon tells us that (1) the king spent Christmas (1122) at Dunstable; that (2) he went thence to Berkhampstead, where Ranulf was accidentally killed; that (3) he then visited Woodstock, where Bishop Robert met with an equally sudden death; that (4) at the Purification (February 2, 1123) he gave the See of Canterbury to William of Corbeuil; that (5) he gave (at Winchester) the See of Lincoln to Alexander at Easter. It is singular that the members of the foundation had two strings to their bow, another charter of Henry I being adduced for Inspeximus. Its witnesses imply a later date, and their names do not involve any chronological difficulty.

We have in this Exeter charter one of the earliest attestations (according to my theory) of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. It should be noted that he takes at once precedence of all other earls, just as he had taken, before his elevation, precedence of all laymen under the rank of earl.

Of the barons most are familiar. Richard fitz Baldwin was the son and successor of the famous Baldwin of Exeter, and was, like him, sheriff of Devon (see p. 237). Baldwin de Redvers was the son of Richard de Redvers, and became subsequently first earl of Devon (the confusion of these two families, from the similarity of name, seems to be incorrigible).[3] The lords of the great honours of Barnstaple and Totnes[4] are followed by Robert of Bampton, who had succeeded to the Domesday fief of Walter de Douai, and who, as I have shown (_English Historical Review_, v. 746), was afterwards a rebel against Stephen. Goislin de Pomerey was the heir of Ralf de Pomerey, the Domesday baron; and Reginald (Rainaldus) de Vautort was a great under-tenant of the honour of Mortain. William fitz Richard I identify with that great Cornish magnate, whose daughter and heiress carried his fief to Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall. Herbert de Alneto also was a Cornish baron, father of that Richard who, in 1130, paid £100 for his succession (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 158). Specially interesting, however, is the name of William fitz Odo, in whom I detect not the William fitz _Otho_, of Essex and Middlesex (with whom he is confused in the Index to the 1130 Pipe-Roll), but the son of 'Odo filius Gamelin'; a Devonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 116_b_). I see him in that '--filius Odonis', who is entered on the damaged Devonshire roll (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 157) in connection with thirty-four shillings, which proves that he held a considerable estate. The fief of 'Odo filius Gamelin' was assessed at 21-3/16 hides, representing in Devon large estates.[5]

[Footnote 1: It will be observed that this list omits the Bishops of London and Winchester and the Earls of Huntingdon and Chester, but adds the Abbot of Cerne.]

[Footnote 2: An excellent instance of this practice is found, ten years later, in the case of Bishop Nigel, who attested three charters in 1133, before the king's departure, as Bishop of Ely, though he was not consecrated till some months later. They are those found in _Monasticon_, vi. 1174, 1274, and that which granted the chamberlainship to Aubrey de Vere.]

[Footnote 3: It has found its way, under 'Baldwin', into the _Dictionary of National Biography_.]

[Footnote 4: The _Guido de Totteneys_ of this charter seems to be identical with the _Wido de Nunant_ of the charter granted by Henry II to this priory. This conjecture is confirmed by the entry in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I: 'Wido de Nunant reddit comp. de x. marcis pro concessione ferie de Totneis' (p. 154). There is a story quoted by Dugdale, under Totnes priory, from the records of the abbey of Angers, that Juhel 'of Totnes', the Domesday baron, was expelled by William Rufus, and his lands given to Roger de Nunant. I certainly find Roger de Nonant attesting in 1091 the foundation charter of Salisbury Cathedral in conjunction with William fitz Baldwin (see pp. 330, 472); and Manors belonging to Juhel in 1086 are found afterwards belonging to Valletort, Nonant's successor, as part of his honour of Totnes. But it would seem that Juhel retained part of his honour of Barnstaple, while the Nonants held the rest as the honour of Totnes. Indeed, he must have held both _capita_ so late as 1113, when, say the monks of Laon, 'venimus ad castrum, quod dicitur Bannistaplum, ubi manebat quidam princeps nomine Joellus de Totenes', etc. (_Hermannus_, ii. 17), adding that they afterwards visited Totnes 'præfati principis castrum' (_ibid._, 18).]

[Footnote 5: Reprinted, with additions, from _English Historical Review_.]

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES

It is difficult to believe that so interesting a genealogical question as the origin of this famous house should have remained as yet undetermined. I have shown above (p. 137) that we can identify in Domesday Gilbert and Ralph de Neville, the earliest bearers of the name in England, as knightly tenants of the Abbot of Peterborough; but the existing house, as is well known, descends from them only through a female. It is at its origin in the male line that I here glance. The innumerable quarters in which, unfortunately, information of this kind has been published makes it impossible for me to say whether I have been forestalled. So far, however, as I can find at present, two different versions are in the field.

First, there is Dugdale's view that Robert fitz Maldred, their founder, was 'son of Dolfin, son of Earl Gospatric, son of Maldred fitz Crinan by Algitha daughter of Uchtred, Earl of Northumberland, who was son-in-law to King Æthelred'. This was, apparently, Mr Shirley's view, for, in his _Noble and Gentle Men of England_ he derives the Nevilles from 'Gospatric, the Saxon Earl of Northumberland', though he makes Robert fitz Maldred his _great_-grandson, as Rowland had done in his work on the House of Nevill (1830), by placing Maldred between Dolfin and Robert fitz Maldred. Even that sceptical genealogist, Mr Foster, admitted in his peerage their descent from this Earl Gospatric. The immediate ancestry, however, of their founder, Robert fitz Maldred, can be proved, and is as follows:

Drummond's _Noble British Families_ (1842) set out a new origin for the family without any hesitation, and this was adopted by the Duchess of Cleveland, whose elaborate work on the _Battle Abbey Roll_ has much excellent genealogy. Their patriarch Dolfin was now made the son of that Uchtred, who was a grandson and namesake of Dugdale's Earl Uchtred, _temp._ King Æthelred. A chart pedigree is required to show the descent of the earls:

No authority, unfortunately, is given for the identity of this Uchtred with Uchtred, father of Dolfin, and the assumption of that identity involves the conclusion that Eadwulf 'Rus', who took the lead in the murder of Bishop Walcher (1080), was brother to Dolfin who received Staindrop in 1131, and uncle to a man who died in 1195 or 1196! We cannot therefore accept this descent as it stands, or carry the pedigree at present beyond Dolfin fitz Uchtred (1131). But as this Dolfin, when doing homage to the Prior of Durham for Staindrop, reserved his homage to the kings of England and of Scotland, as well as the Bishop of Durham, he was, no doubt, a man of consequence, and was probably of high Northumbrian birth. It may be worth throwing out, as a hint, the suggestion that his father Uchtred might have been identical with Uchtred, son of Ligulf, that great Northumbrian thegn who was slain at Durham in 1080. But this is only a guess. One cannot, in fact, be too careful, as I have shown in my two papers on 'Odard of Carlisle' and 'Odard the Sheriff',[1] in identifying two individuals of the same Christian names, when, in these northern districts, the names in question were so widely borne. The Whitby cartulary, for instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings was (maternal) grandson of Alan, son of Thorphin 'de Alverstain', son of Uchtred (son of Gospatric), which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby Ravensworth to the abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Rufus. But who Gospatric, his father, was has not been clearly ascertained. The skilled genealogists of the north may be able to decide these points, and to tell us the true descent of 'Dolfin, the son of Uchtred'.

[Footnote 1: _Genealogist_, N.S., v. 25-8; viii. 200.]

THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147

When Mr Richard Howlett, in the preface to his edition of the _Gesta Stephani_ for the Rolls series, announced that we were indebted to its 'careful author' for the knowledge of an invasion of England by Henry FitzEmpress in 1147, 'unrecorded by any other chronicler', and endeavoured at considerable length to establish this proposition,[1] it was received, from all that I can learn, with general incredulity. As, however, in the volume which he has since edited, he reiterates his belief in this alleged invasion,[2] it becomes necessary to examine in detail the evidence for a discovery so authoritatively announced in the pages of the Rolls series.

The accepted view of Henry's movements has hitherto been that, by his father's permission, in the autumn of 1142 he accompanied the Earl of Gloucester to England; that he remained there about four years; that, by his father's wish, at the end of 1146 or beginning of 1147 he returned from England; that he then spent two years and four months over sea; that in the spring of 1149 he again came to England, and was knighted at Carlisle by the king of Scots on May 22nd. As to the above long visit, commencing in 1142, Gervase of Canterbury is our chief authority, but the other chroniclers (omitting for the present the _Gesta Stephani_) harmonize well with his account. Gervase and Robert of Torigni alike mention but one arrival of Henry (1142) and one departure (1146 or 1147), thus distinctly implying there was then only one visit--namely, that visit which Gervase tells us lasted four years. The only slight discrepancy between Gervase and Robert is found in the date of Henry's departure. Robert places that event under 1147, and mentions that Henry visited Bec May 29th in that year. There is also, Mr Howlett has pointed out, charter evidence implying that Henry was back in Normandy in March or April. Now Gervase says distinctly that he was away from England two years and four months. The chroniclers, Gervase included, say that he returned to England in the middle of May 1149. Counting back the two years and four months, this would bring us to January 1147, as the date of his departure from England. But there is a charter of his to Salisbury Cathedral, tested, as Mr Howlett observes, at Devizes, April 13, 1149. If this evidence be trustworthy, it would take us back to December 1146, instead of January 1147. It is easy to see how Gervase may have included in 1146, and Robert in 1147, an event which appears to have taken place about the end of the one or the beginning of the other year.

Much has been made of the alleged circumstance that Gervase assigned the Earl of Gloucester's death to 1146, whereas he is known to have died in 1147. But reference to his text will show that he does nothing of the kind. Writing of Henry's departure at the close of 1146, he tells us that the earl was destined never to see him again, for he died in November [_i.e._ November 1147]. He is here obviously anticipating.

Such being the evidence on which is based the accepted view of Henry's movements, let us now turn to the _Gesta Stephani_. Though Mr Howlett's knowledge of the period is great and quite exceptional, I cannot but think that he has been led astray by his admiration for this fascinating chronicle. Miss Norgate sensibly observes that 'there must be something wrong in the story' as actually preserved in the _Gesta_,[3] but Mr Howlett, unwilling to admit the possibility of error in his chronicle, boldly asserts that the 'romantic account'[4] of Henry's adventures which it contains does not refer to his visit in 1149, but to a hitherto unknown invasion in 1147. He appears to imagine that the only objection in accepting this story is found in the fact that Henry was but just fourteen at the time.[5] But this is not so. Putting aside this objection, as also the silence of other chroniclers, there remains the chronological difficulty. How is the alleged visit to be fitted in? Its inventor, who suggests 'about April 1147', for its date, must first take Henry back to Normandy (why or when he does not even suggest) and then bring him back to England as an invader, neither his alleged going or coming being recorded by any chronicler. Then he assigns to his second return to Normandy (after the alleged invasion) the only passages in Gervase and Robert which speak of his returning at all. Surely nothing could be more improbable than that Henry should rush back to England just after he had left it, and had returned to his victorious father, and this at a time when his cause seemed as hopeless there as it was prosperous over the sea.

The evidence of the _Gesta Stephani_ would have, indeed, to be beyond question if we are to accept, on its sole authority, so improbable a story. But what does that evidence amount to? The _Gesta_, unlike other chronicles, not being arranged chronologically under years, the only definite note of time here afforded in its text is found in the passage, 'Consuluit [Henricus] et avunculum [_sic_] Glaorniæ comitem, sed ipse suis sacculis avide incumbens, rebus tantum sibi necessariis occurrere maluit'.[6]

As Earl Robert is known to have died in the autumn of 1147, the word _avunculus_ does, undoubtedly, fix these events as prior to that date. But is not _avunculus_ a slip of the writer for _cognatus_? Is not the reference to Earl William rather than to his father, Earl Robert?[7] Such a slip is no mere conjecture; the statement that Earl Robert was too avaricious to assist his beloved nephew in his hour of need is not only absolutely contrary to all that we know of his character, but is virtually discredited by the _Gesta_ itself when its author tells us, further on:

Comes deinde Glaorniæ ut erat regis adversariorum strenuissimus et ad magna quevis struenda paratissimus, iterum atque iterum exercitum comparare, jugi hortaminis et admonitionis stimulo complices suos incitavit; illos minis, istos promissis sibi et præmiis conjugare; quatinus omnes in unam concordiam, in unum animum conspirati, exercitum e diverso ad idem velle repararent, et collectis undecumque agminibus, vive et constanter in regem insurgerent.[8]

How can such language as this be reconciled with the statement as to Earl Robert's apathy at the very time when Henry's efforts offered him a unique opportunity of pursuing his war against the king? Mr Howlett does not attempt to meet, or even notice, this objection. Moreover, when the _Gesta_ proceeds to describe Earl William of Gloucester as devoted to his own pleasures rather than to war,[9] we see that the conduct so incredible in his father would in him be what we might expect.

I will not follow Mr Howlett in his lengthy argument relative to the knighting of Eustace and Henry, because he himself admits that it is based only on conjecture.[10] It is sufficient to observe that if the 'romantic' narrative in the _Gesta_ refers to the events of 1149,[11] then the knighting of Eustace, which is a pendant to that narrative, belongs, as the other chroniclers assert, to 1149. The statement, I may add, that Henry applied for help to his mother, by no means involves, as Mr Howlett assumes, her presence in England at the time.

I would suggest, then, that the whole hypothesis of this invasion in 1147 is based on nothing more than a confusion in the _Gesta_. Mr Howlett, indeed, claims that 'mediaeval history would simply disappear if the evidence of chroniclers were to be treated in this way,[12] and detects 'among some modern writers a tendency to incautious rejection', etc.[13] But he himself goes out of his way to denounce, in this connection, as a 'blundering interpolation' a passage in John of Hexham, which he assigns to notes being 'carelessly misplaced' and 'ignorantly miscopied'.[14] The _Gesta_, to my knowledge, is by no means immaculate; its unbroken narrative and vagueness as to dates render its chronology a matter of difficulty; and the circumstance that the passage in dispute occurs towards its close renders it impossible to test it as we could wish by comparison with later portions. The weakness of Mr Howlett's case is shown by his desperate appeal to 'the exact precedent' set by Fulk Nerra, and no talk about the contrast presented by 'physical science' and that 'fragmentary tale of human inconsistencies which we term history' can justify the inclusion of this alleged invasion as a fact beyond dispute in so formal and authoritative a quarter as the preface to a Rolls volume.

[Footnote 1: _Chronicles_, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, vol. iii. pp. xvi-xx, 130.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. xxi-xxii.]

[Footnote 3: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 377.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 5: 'The invasion of England by Henry in 1147, when he was but a boy of fourteen, a piece of history which has hitherto been rejected solely on the ground of improbability.'--Preface (_ut supra_), p. xxi.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 131.]

[Footnote 7: There is a precisely similar slip, by John of Salisbury, in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (Pertz, xx. 532), where the 'Duke' of Normandy is referred to in 1148 as 'qui modo rex est' (_i.e._ Henry). Mr Howlett himself has pointed out (_Academy_, November 12, 1887) that the author 'slipped in the words "qui modo rex est", and thus transferred to Henry a narrative which assuredly relates to his father'. The slip in question, as he observed, had sadly misled Miss Norgate.]

[Footnote 8: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 134.]

[Footnote 9: 'Successit in comitatum suum Willelmus filius suus, senior quidem ætate, sed vir mollis, et thalamorum magis quam militiæ appetitor' (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 134).]

[Footnote 10: Mr Howlett incidentally claims that knighthood was a necessary preliminary to comital rank, and appeals to the fact that the younger Henry was even carefully knighted before his coronation (_Gesta_, p. xxii). But what has he to say to the knighting of Earl Richard of Clare, by Henry VI, and more especially to the knighting of Malcolm, already Earl of Huntingdon and king of Scots, by Henry II, in 1159? (_Robert of Torigni_, p. 203).]

[Footnote 11: Mr Howlett asserts (_Gesta_, p. 130, note) that 'when Henry made his better known visit in 1149 his acts were quite different' from those recorded in the _Gesta_. But if, as he himself admits, in 1149 Henry visited Devizes on his way to Carlisle, what more natural than that he should pass by Cricklade and Bourton (the two places mentioned in the _Gesta_), which lay directly on his road?]

[Footnote 12: Preface to _Gesta_, p. xx.]

[Footnote 13: Preface to _Robert of Torigni_, p. xxii.]

[Footnote 14: Preface to _Gesta_ (_ut supra_), p. xvi.]

THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163)

The great importance attached by historians to the financial dispute at the council of Woodstock in 1163 renders it desirable that the point at issue should be clearly stated and understood. As I venture to believe that the accepted view on the matter in dispute is erroneous, I here submit the reasons which have led me to that conclusion. 'Two most important points,' writes Dr Stubbs, 'stand out' on this occasion: (1) 'this is the first case of any express opposition being made to the king's financial dealings since the Conquest'; (2) 'the first fruit of the first constitutional opposition is the abolition of the most ancient property-tax [danegeld] imposed as a bribe for the Danes'.[1] It is with the second of these points that I propose especially to deal.

The passage which forms our best evidence is found in Grim's _Life of St Thomas_, and its relative portion is as follows:

Movetur quæstio de consuetudine quadam quae in Anglia tenebatur. Dabantur de hida bini solidi ministris regis qui vicecomitum loco comitatus servabant, quos voluit rex conscribere fisco et reditibus propriis associare. Cui archiepiscopus in faciem restitit, dicens, non debere eos exigi pro reditibus, 'nec pro reditu', inquit, 'dabimus eos, domine rex, salvo beneplacito vestro: sed si digne nobis servierint vicecomites, et servientes vel ministri provinciarum, et homines nostros manutenuerint, nequaquam eis deerimus in auxilium.' Rex autem aegre ferens archiepiscopi responsionem, 'Per oculos Dei', ait, 'dabuntur pro reditu, et in scriptura regis scribentur'.

On this passage Dr Stubbs thus comments:

A tax so described can hardly have been anything else than the danegeld, which was an impost of two shillings on the hide, and was collected by the sheriffs, being possibly compounded for at a certain rate and paid by them into the exchequer. As the danegeld from this very year 1163 ceases to appear as a distinct item of account in the Pipe-Rolls, it is impossible to avoid connecting the two ideas, even if we may not identify them. Whether the king's object in making this proposition was to collect the danegeld in full amount, putting an end to the nominal assessment which had so long been in use, and so depriving the sheriffs of such profits as they made from it, or whether he had some other end in view, it is impossible now to determine; and consequently it is difficult to understand the position taken by the archbishop.[2]

The attempt to identify the payment in dispute with the danegeld does indeed lead to the greatest possible difficulties, and Miss Norgate, who follows closely in Dr Stubbs' footsteps, is no more successful in answering them;[3] for, in the first place, the words of Grim do not apply to the danegeld if taken in their natural sense; and in the second the proceeds of the danegeld were already royal revenue, and were duly paid in, as such, at the exchequer. To meet this latter and obvious difficulty Dr Stubbs suggests that:

as the sums paid into the exchequer under that name (danegeld) were very small compared with the extent of land that paid the tax, it is probable that the sheriffs paid a fixed composition and retained the surplus as wages for their services (etc.).[4]

So, too, Miss Norgate urges that the danegeld 'still occasionally made its appearance in the treasury rolls, but in such small amount that it is evident the sheriffs, if they collected it in full, paid only a fixed composition to the crown, and kept the greater part as a remuneration for their own services'.[5] Now this suggestion raises the whole question as to the revenue from danegeld. We are told that 'the danegeld was a very unpopular tax, probably because it was the plea on which the sheriffs made their greatest profit ... having become in the long lapse of years a mere composition paid by the sheriff to the exchequer, while the balance of the whole sums exacted on that account went to swell his own income'.[6]

As against this view I venture to hold that the danegeld was in no way compounded for, but that every penny raised by its agency was due to the royal treasury, leaving no profit whatever to the sheriff. The test is easily applied: let us take the case of Dorset. The Domesday assessment of this county, according to the late Mr Eyton, who had investigated it with his usual painstaking labour, and collated it with the geld-rolls of two years before, was about 2,300 hides.[7] This assessment would produce, at two shillings on the hide, about £230. Now the actual amount accounted for on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is £228 5s; on that of 1156 it is £228 5s; and on that of 1162, the last levy, it is £247 5s.[8] There is certainly no margin of profit for the sheriff here. In other counties, we find that the proceeds of the danegeld in 1130, 1156, and 1162, whilst slightly fluctuating, roughly correspond, as, indeed, they were bound to do, the Domesday assessment remaining unchanged.[9] I can, therefore, find no ground for the alleged discrepancy between the amounts accounted for by the sheriffs and those which the assessment ought to have produced.

This being so, the solitary explanation suggested for Henry's action falls to the ground, and it becomes clear that the payment in dispute could not have been the danegeld, as the proposed change could not increase the amount it produced already. As a matter of fact, the last occasion on which danegeld _eo nomine_ was levied was in 1162, but to connect that circumstance with the Woodstock dispute of 1163 is an instance of the _post hoc propter hoc_ argument, more especially as the danegeld was not in dispute, still less its abolition. On the contrary, the primate desired to keep things as they were. What, then, was this mysterious payment but the _auxilium vicecomitis_, or 'sheriffs' aid'? Garnier distinctly states that this is what it was,[10] and Grim's words no less unmistakably point to the same conclusion. To institutional students of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the _auxilium vicecomitis_ is familiar enough. It was, writes Dr Stubbs, a 'payment made to the sheriff for his services',[11] and was, it may be added, a customary charge, varying in amount,[12] paid over locally to the sheriffs. It may fairly be said to have stood to the danegeld in the relation of rates to taxes.

On this hypothesis the difficulties of the case vanish at once, and Henry's object is made plain. To add this regular annual levy to his own revenues would be all clear gain, and would relieve him _pro tanto_ from the necessity of spasmodic and irregular taxation. As for the sheriffs and the districts beneath their sway, they were possibly to be left to their own devices to find a substitute for the lost 'aid', like a modern county council bereft of its wheel tax; for the thought suggests itself that Henry was attempting to reverse the process that we have lately witnessed, by relieving the taxes at the expense of the rates, instead of the rates at the expense of the taxes. Whether, therefore, the attitude of the primate can be described as 'opposition to the king's will in the matter of taxation' is perhaps just open to question. He took his stand on the sure ground of existing 'custom', recognized at that time as binding on all.[13] One is tempted to discern a grim irony in Henry's action when he promptly proceeded to turn the tables on his old friend by appealing to the _avitæ consuetudines_ as obviously binding on so rigid a constitutional purist as the primate.[14]

[Footnote 1: _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 69, 70. So, too, Miss Norgate: 'It seems, therefore, that for the first time in English history since the Norman Conquest the right of the nation's representatives to oppose the financial demands of the crown was asserted in the Council of Woodstock, and asserted with such success that the king was obliged not merely to abandon his project, but to obliterate the last trace of the tradition on which it was founded' (_Angevin Kings_, ii. 16).]

[Footnote 2: _Const. Hist._, i. 462; so, too, _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 68-70; and _Select Charters_, p. 29, where it is described as 'Henry's proposal to appropriate the sheriffs' share of danegeld'.]

[Footnote 3: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 15, 16.]

[Footnote 4: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 5: But the Auctor Anonymus makes it clear that the king was not asking for the balance of the sums raised, but for the entirety: 'duo illi solidi ... si in unum conferuntur immensum efficere possunt cumulum'.]

[Footnote 6: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 381, 582.]

[Footnote 7: _Dorset Domesday_, p. 144.]

[Footnote 8: Thus accounted for (_Rot. Pip._, 8 Hen. II):

£ s. d. Paid in 141 10 0 Paid out previously 63 0 0 Allowed for remissions 20 1 2 Balance due 22 13 10 ----------------- 247 5 0

N.B. The roll sums up the remissions as £21 [_sic_] 1s 2d, but the total of the items is £20 1s 2d.]

[Footnote 9: Oxfordshire, for instance, where the amounts were £239 9s 3d, £249 6s 5d, £242 0s 10d; or Wiltshire, where they run £388 13s 0d, £389 13s 0d, £388 11s 11d.]

[Footnote 10: _L'Aide al Vescunte_, as quoted by Miss Norgate, who observes thereon, 'This payment, although described as customary rather than legal, and called the "sheriffs' aid", seems really to have been nothing else than the danegeld.... His (Garnier's) story points directly to the danegeld.']

[Footnote 11: _Const. Hist._, i. 382.]

[Footnote 12: In this detail alone Grim appears to have confused it with the uniform two shilling rate of the danegeld. The record in the _Testa de Nevill_ (pp. 85, 86) of the 'auxilium vicecomitis', due from the Vills in the Wapentake of Framelund (Leic.), illustrates well the payment.]

[Footnote 13: Thus the statement that he 'declared at Woodstock that the lands of his church should not pay a penny to the danegeld' (_Const. Hist._, i. 578) misrepresents his position by making him repudiate his undoubted obligation.]

[Footnote 14: This and the preceding and succeeding papers are reprinted from the _English Historical Review_.]

A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170)

The charter given below is cited by Madox as evidence that in the days of Henry II the exchequer was still 'sometimes holden in other places' than Westminster. Contrary to his usual practice, he does not print the charter; so, wishing to ascertain what light it might throw on the private transaction it records, I referred to its original enrolment.[1] Finding that its evidence would prove of some historical value, I decided to edit it for the use of students.[2]

Willelmus comes de Essex' omnibus hominibus [et] amicis suis, Francis [et] Anglis, clericis [et] laicis, tam futuris quam presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse [et] concessisse [et] hac carta mea confirmasse Rogero filio Ricardi [et] suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis] in escambio pro Cunctonia hereditarie tenendam de me [et] heredibus meis sibi [et] heredibus suis per servicium unius militis [et] dimidii, libere et quiete [et] honorifice sicut unquam antecessores mei liberius [et] honorificencius eam tenuerunt [et] habuerunt; scilicet in bosco [et] in plano, in pratis et pascuis, in viis [et] semitis, in aquis, [et] molendinis, [et] in omnibus predicte ville adjacentibus. Et insuper dedi [et] concessi predicto Rogero filio Ricardi terram de Wlauynton' quam pater meus comes Gal[fridus] dedit Willelmo de Moretonio, per servicium michi faciendum quod predictus Willelmus patri meo facere debuit, hereditarie tenendum [_sic_] de me [et] heredibus meis, illi [et] heredibus suis. Quare volo [et] firmiter precipio quod ista donacio rata [et] inconcussa permaneat. Et notum sit omnibus quod istud eschambium factum fuit apud Wynconiam [_sic_] ad Scaccarium coram domino Rege Henrico filio regis Henrici Secundi [et] Baronibus suis. Tes[et]e [_sic_] Reg' comite, Bac'[3] de Luc[i], Willelmo de Sancto Johanne, Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo Archidiacono Pick[tavensi], Hunfrido de Buh[un] constant[e],[4] Manser' Biset dap[ifero], Gilberto Malet dap[ifero], Hugone de Gundvil[la], Alano de Nevill[a], Thoma Basset, Willelmo filio Audel[ini], Johanne Mereschal, Roberto de Bussone, Johanne const[abulario] Cestr[iae], Ranulpho de Glanvile, Gaufrido de Say, Gerard de Kanvill[a], Oseberto filio Ricardi, David de Jarpenvilla, Ricardo filio Hugonis, Johanne Burd, Willelmo filio Gill[eberti], Roberto de Sancto Claro, Johanne de Roch, Hasculfo Capellano, Henrico clerico, Roberto clerico, qui hanc cartam scripsit, [et] multis aliis.

The purpose of the charter is soon disposed of; it records a grant by the Earl of Essex to Roger fitz Richard (who had married the earl's aunt 'Alice of Essex'[5]) of Aynho, Northants, in exchange for Compton, co. Warwick. Both Manors were in the Mandeville fief, and the former was to be held, as the latter had been (in 1166[6]), 'per servicium unius militis et dimidii'.

The interest of the document is to be sought in its witnesses, and its place of testing, and above all in the date which, I hope to show, they suggest. The mention of the two inseparable archdeacons proves that this date cannot be later than 1174, and consequently, as the young king was present, must have been previous to his revolt in 1173, and therefore to his departure from England about the close of 1172. On the other hand, the date must be subsequent to June 1170, when the young king was crowned, and therefore probably to the meeting at Fréteval (July 22, 1170), at which the Archdeacon of Canterbury was present.

Thus we obtain a limit of date. Within this limit we may exclude the young king's stay in England after the departure of the two archdeacons (December 1170), as also his subsequent presence in England in 1171-2 while his father was in Ireland, for William fitz Aldelin was in Ireland with him. Indeed, we are told by Giraldus (v. 286) that when the king left Ireland (April 1172) William was left behind in charge of Wexford.[7] As the young king then accompanied his father over sea, the only period remaining (except July-December 1170) to which we could assign the document is August-November 1172, when he visited England, with his consort Margaret, for his second coronation. This ceremony took place at Winchester, but we cannot tell whether William fitz Aldelin had yet returned from Ireland, or whether any other of our witnesses were present on that occasion.[8]

But if we turn to the other possible period, the latter half of 1170, we find an occasion when six of the witnesses to the above charter can actually be shown to have been present, under circumstances of peculiar interest, with the young king at Winchester.

The evidence of charters is so deficient at this period of the reign that from August 1170 to June 1171, Mr Eyton could only adduce two charters 'quite problematically' and one more 'safely', as he claims, but erroneously, as his own pages show.[9] If, then, our charter belongs to this period, its evidence is proportionately valuable. Now all that we know of the movements of the young king at the time is that he was at Westminster on October 5th, and that he kept his Christmas at Winchester. Mr Eyton's book must here be used with great caution. He has been misled by R. de Diceto (i. 342)[10] into the statement that Henry was at Woodstock when Becket sought to visit him in December; and adds--by a confusion, it would seem, with his October movements--'The young king is at Windsor' (December 4th[11]). Henry was neither at Woodstock nor Windsor at this time, but at Winchester. Becket's biographers are unanimous in stating that he sent his envoy before him to the young king at Winchester.

Landing on December 1st, and entering Canterbury next day, the primate (says William fitz Stephen), 'post octo dierum moram in sede',[12] sent Richard, prior of Dover (who was destined to be his own successor), to the young king to ask permission to visit him 'tanquam regem et dominum suum'. Richard 'veniens Wintoniam, regem invenit, ubi optimates regni ... coegerat'.[13]

The purpose of this special assembly was connected with the scheme for an irregular election to the vacant sees, at the court of the elder king, by deputations whom his son was to send over.[14] Prior Richard was confronted by the young king's guardians (three of whom attest our charter).[15] He himself, on receiving the application, sent (as I read it) to consult Geoffrey Ridel, who was believed to know his father's wishes, and who, with the Archdeacon of Poitiers, was at Southampton, waiting to cross.[16] Turning, for their movements, to William fitz Stephen, we learn that, while on their way to cross from a Kentish port, the two archdeacons, on entering the county, learnt that the primate had arrived at Canterbury, and, turning their horses' heads, made for a more westerly port.[17] Southampton clearly was the port they made for, and on their way thither they must have visited the young king at Winchester. This is admitted in the case of Geoffrey, who went there, says Becket, to lay before him the complaint of the excommunicated bishops.

I believe that our charter belongs to this occasion, when the two attesting archdeacons were at Winchester. _Reg'_ no doubt is Earl Reginald of Cornwall, who was certainly present at the same time[18] and who is probably referred to in 'li cunte' of Garnier. This will establish the presence of six of our witnesses. Of the others, Richard de Luci takes precedence as justiciar; Alan de Nevill, Thomas Basset, and the great Glanville were, like the two archdeacons and the three guardians of the king, members of the judicial body; Humfrey de Bohun, Gilbert Malet, and Manasser Bisset were present as officers of the household; John, constable of Chester, was (then or afterwards) son-in-law to the grantee's wife, and Geoffrey de Say was the son of the earl's aunt; Osbert fitz Richard and David de Jarpenville (probably John de Rochelle also) were among the earl's feudal tenants and are found attesting another of his charters; and Hasculf was the enterprising chaplain who had plotted to carry off the late earl's corpse and present it to the nuns of Chicksand. The only person whose presence need puzzle us is the Earl of Essex himself; for William fitz Stephen[19] asserts that he was despatched from Henry's court after the arrival there of the excommunicated prelates and the Archdeacon of Poitou. Either, then, he had previously paid a flying visit to Winchester, or he must have been absent when this transaction was recorded.

[Footnote 1: Madox gives a misleading reference. The charter occurs among the Clavering enrolments of m. 17 (not 19) of the L.T.R. Memoranda of the Exchequer, containing the Michælmas _communia_ of 5 Edward II.]

[Footnote 2: Mr Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office, kindly undertook to transcribe the charter for me.]

[Footnote 3: Read _Ric[ardo_].]

[Footnote 4: Read _constab[ulo_].]

[Footnote 5: See my paper on 'Who was Alice of Essex?' in the _Essex Arch. Transactions_.]

[Footnote 6: 'Rogerus filius Ricardi i. militem et tres partes unius militis.' Probably the quarter fee was a separate holding.]

[Footnote 7: Humfrey de Bohun also and Hugh de Gundeville were left behind at Waterford.]

[Footnote 8: Foss (_Judges of England_, i. 235) states positively that Hugh de Gundeville did not leave Ireland till 1173, at the time of the rebellion. This, if true, would dispose at once of an 1172 date for our charter; but, unfortunately, he does not give his authority, and I have not succeeded in finding it.]

[Footnote 9: _Court, etc., of Henry II_, pp. 147, 154. The Archdeacon of Canterbury attests the Chinon charter, which Mr Eyton 'safely' assigns to the middle of October 1170, adding that he had 'apparently been with the king ever since the peace of Fréteval' (July 22nd). But he is known to have been with the young king at Westminster on October 5th, as indeed Mr Eyton elsewhere observes (p. 151).]

[Footnote 10: Becket, he says, visited London on his way, 'ad videndam faciem novi regis, qui tunc temporis morabatur apud Wdestoc' [_sic_].]

[Footnote 11: 'Court of King Henry the Younger' (Eyton, pp. 151-2).]

[Footnote 12: _Materials_, p. 121. William of Canterbury places Richard's despatch 'post aliquot dies reditus sui' (_ibid._, i. 106).]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, i. 106; so Garnier (p. 166, Ed. Hippeua)--

'Le juefne Rei aveit à Wincestre trové. Là èrent del pais li barun assemblé.']

[Footnote 14: _Ibid._, 106; so Garnier--

'Pur c'èrent assemblé cele genz à cel jur, Et li prince et li cunte et des baruns plusur.']

[Footnote 15: 'Veniens itaque legatus ad curiam, convenit tutores regis ... Willelmum de Sancto Johanne, Willelmum filium Aldelinae, Hugonem de Gundulfivilla, Randulfum Stephani' (i. 108-9).]

[Footnote 16: 'Qui de portu Suthamtune transfretaturi erant' (i. 111). Geoffrey sent back a scornful reply (see also Garnier) expressing his wonder that the young king could think of meeting a man who meant to disinherit him. This statement agrees with Becket's own complaint (vii. 406) that his _archidiabolus_ Geoffrey was instructed to make this charge.]

[Footnote 17: III. 120. 'Duo archidiaconi ... jam in Cantiam venerant, ad regem illac transfretaturi. Audito autem quod archiepiscopus appulsus Cantuariae esset, lora statim diverterunt, ad occidentals maris portus tendentes.' This convicts Mr Eyton of error in asserting that on December 1st the two archdeacons were at Dover, waiting to cross (p. 149).]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, i. 111.]

[Footnote 19: _Memorials_, iii. 127.]

THE FIRST KNOWN FINE (1175)

In his masterly introduction to _Select Pleas of the Crown_,[1] Professor Maitland, with his usual skill, discusses the evolution of the _Curia Regis_ and the relation of the central to the itinerant courts. An appendix to this introduction is devoted to 'early fines'; and the conclusion arrived at, as to the date when regular fines began, is that 'the evidence seems to point to the year 1178 or thereabouts, just, that is, to the time when King Henry was remodelling the Curia Regis; thenceforward we have traces of a fairly continuous series of fines' (p. xxvii). More definitely still, in his latest work, he traces the existence of fines 'from the year 1179'.

The earlier document I here print from the valuable cartulary of Evesham (_Vesp._ B. xxiv., fo. 71, etc.) is, I contend, a true fine, and is fortunately dated with exactitude (July 20th):

Hæc est finalis concordia facta in curia domini Regis apud Evesham ad proximum festum sancte Margarete post mortem comitis Reginaldi[2] Cornub' coram Willelmo filio Audelini et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo Basset et aliis justiciariis domini regis qui ibi tunc aderant, inter Rogerum filium Willelmi et Robertum Trunket de terra de Ragl' unde placitum fuit inter eos in curia domini Regis. Scilicet quod predictus Wibertus Trunket clamavit quietam predicto Rogero terram illam de Ragl' et [_sic_] feud[um] et hereditatem suam et totum jus suum quod in predicta terra habebat, et ipse trunchet reddidit in curia domini Regis terram illam de Ragl' in manu [_sic_] abbatis de Evesham, et ipse abbas ibi statim in curia Regis reddidit eam predicto Rogero. Pro hac autem concessione dedit predictus Rogerus predicto trunchet xx. marcas argenti, et predictus abbas dedit truchet unum anulum argenteum cum cural.

The transcript of this fine is immediately followed by a royal charter confirming it, and establishing Roger in possession:

H. dei gratia ... Sciatis me concessisse et presenti carta confirmasse finem que factus fuit in curia mea inter, etc., etc. ... et Wibertus eam reddidit solutam et quietam in manu abbatis de evesham de cujus feodo terra illa est.... Et ideo volo et firmiter precipio.... Test. Willelmo Audelin', Willelmo filio Radulfi, Willelmo Basset, Berteram de Verdun, Gaufrido Salvagio. Apud Evesham.

Mr Eyton, to whom this fine was unknown, does not, in his _Court and Itinerary of Henry II_, include Evesham among the places visited by the king in 1175, but makes him visit Feckenham about October (p. 196). But as we learn from the above fine that Henry was at Evesham on July 20th, Mr Eyton's conclusions must be reconsidered. Henry, according to him, was at Woodstock July 8th and at Nottingham August 1st. Now this latter date is derived from a Nottingham charter (p. 193), among the witnesses to which are William fitz Audelin 'Dapifer', William Basset, and William fitz Ralf, the very three justices before whom our fine had been levied at Evesham on July 20th. I hold, therefore, that Henry proceeded (possibly through Lichfield, as Mr Eyton asserts) from Woodstock to Nottingham _via_ Evesham; and, further, that he visited Feckenham (to the north of Evesham) on this occasion, and not, as Mr Eyton imagined, in October. We find accordingly that of the Feckenham charters quoted by that writer (p. 196), one is witnessed by all three of our officers, William fitz Audelin 'Dapifer', William fitz Ralf, and William Basset; one by William fitz Audelin and William fitz Ralf; and the third by William fitz Ralf and William Basset.

Now, working from the Pipe-Rolls, Mr Eyton discovered that:

while the king was in Staffordshire there were pleas held in that county which are expressed to have been held by William fitz Ralph, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset _in curia Regis_ (p. 193).

He also noted that

the Pipe-Roll of 1175, after duly recounting the results of the ordinary assizes, held by William de Lanvall and Thomas Basset (who appear to have visited York while the king was there), contains the following (in regard to a different kind of judicature than that at which the two justiciars presided), and which probably took place in a court of which the king in person was president:

'Placita et conventiones per Willelmum filius Radulfi, Bertram de Verdon, et Willelmum Basset, in curia Regis.' These _Placita_ were apparently nothing more than fines with the crown (p. 194).

So, too, he found that at Northampton

the three justiciars who had attended him in his special _curia_ in Staffordshire and at York, negotiated a fine by Robert de Nevill, 'pro rehabenda saisina de Uppetona quæ fuit Radulfi de Waltervilla' (p. 194).

My own evidence proves that the same three justiciars had been with him, earlier in the summer, in his special _curia_ at Evesham, where an actual fine was levied.

Thus we have proof that in the summer of 1175 the king was accompanied on his progress by a special group of justices, with whose assistance he held pleas, just as, a generation later, John, in his ninth year, 'was journeying about the country with three judges in his train--Simon Pateshull, Potterne, and Pont Audemer'.[3] While he was doing this, as Eyton has shown, two great eyres were going on throughout the country, one of them conducted by William de Lanvall[ei] and Thomas Basset, the other by Ranulf de Glanville and Hugh de Cressi. It is noteworthy that all these four are found, with William fitz Audelin, among the witnesses to a royal charter assigned by Mr Eyton--rightly, no doubt--to the king's stay at York (_circ._ August 10, 1175), as they also are among the witnesses to the Nottingham charter mentioned above (p. 385), assigned by Eyton to August 1st. The latter, therefore, brings together the king's own party of three or four justices with the four justices in eyre.

The great importance of this royal _iter_ consists in its bearing on the evolution of the _curia regis_. The years 1175 and 1176 form a critical epoch in this institutional development. Dr Stubbs, writing on this subject, reminds us that 'the first _placita curiæ regis_ mentioned by Madox are in 1175' (i. 600), and speaks of the 'two circuits of the justices in 1175, and the six circuits of the judges in 1176' (_ibid._). So far, indeed, all is clear. The two judicial eyres of 1175 are known to us from the Pipe-Rolls; the six of 1176 are found in the chronicles also, for they were settled by the Assize of Northampton in January of that year (i. 484-5). The really difficult subject is the king's own _iter_, for which, we have seen, there is clear evidence, but of which Dr Stubbs, working from Madox, seems to have been unaware. His words are:

All the eighteen justices of 1176 were officers of the Exchequer; some of them are found in 1175 holding 'placita curiæ regis' in bodies of three or four judges, and not in the same combinations in which they took their judicial journeys. We can scarcely help the conclusion that the new jurisprudence was being administered by committees of the general body of justices, who were equally qualified to sit in the Curia and Exchequer, and to undertake the fiscal and judicial work of the eyre.

[_Note_: For instance, in 1176, William fitz Ralf, Bertram de Verdun, and William Basset hear pleas in Curia Regis touching Bucks. and Beds.; yet on the eyre, these two counties are visited by three other judges, etc.]

These statements are based on Madox's extracts from the Pipe-Rolls,[4] which afford, however, more definite evidence than Dr Stubbs discovered. In the Pipe-Roll of 1175 and its immediate successor we find 'Placita _in Curia Regis_' held by a single group of judges--William fitz Ralf, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset (Thomas Basset is a substitute in one case and William fitz Audelin, we have seen, in another)--quite distinct from the 'placita' of the justices in eyre, which were not described as 'in curia regis'. The view, therefore, that I now advance is that these pleas, 'in curia regis', were held by a separate group of judges in the train of the king himself, whose _iter_ began at Reading, June 1175.[5] It was there, I believe, that were held the 'placita' for Bucks and Beds, duly recorded in the Pipe-Roll of 1175. That this royal _iter_ was continued through the Exchequer year 1175-6 seems to be well established, and the chronological difficulty of distinguishing between the two years renders the discovery of a fixed point, such as that afforded by the Evesham fine, of special value. Its evidence also establishes the presence of the king in person,[6] whose charter of confirmation should be carefully noted on account of its reciting the fine.

Having now traced the royal _iter_, of which the pleas are distinguished on the Pipe-Rolls as held 'in curia regis', I turn to the circuits of the judges. I have fortunately lighted, in the course of my researches, on two more fines earlier than any known to Professor Maitland. And, better still, one of these is the original document itself. The date of the first is July 1 and of the second June 29, 1176. The justices named in each case are those who are known to have gone the circuits, in which Leicester and Oxford were respectively comprised.[7] The importance of these documents demands that they should be printed _in extenso_.

Hec est finalis concordia facta apud Legr[ecestr]am proxima die Jovis post proximum festum apostolorum petri et pauli postquam Hugucio legatus Rome pervenit in Angliam,[8] coram Hugonem de Gundevile et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo Basset, Justiciariis domini Regis, et ceteris Baronibus qui ibi tunc aderant Inter Galfridum Ridel et Bertramum de Verdun de terra de Madeleye, unde placitum fuit inter eos in curia Domini Regis, Videlicet quod Galfridus Ridel dedit Bertrammo [_sic_] de Verdun feodum I militis in Leycest'syre, scilicet servitium viii. car. terre quas Robert Devel tenet in Swineford et in Walecote et servitium ii. car. terre quas Walterus de Folevile tenet in parva Essebi et servitium I car. terre quam peverel tenet in Flekeneye, et servitium i. car. terre quam Hardeui[nus] tenet in eadem Flekeneye. Et has xii. car. terre dedit ei et concessit in feodo et hereditate per servicium unius militis. Et in Staffordesyre dedit predictus Galfridus prenominato Bretamo [_sic_] xii. bov. terre quas habebat in Crokestene de feodo de Madelye et servitium de Foxwiss et de Hanekote per v. sol. inde annuatim reddendos Galfrido pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent. Has vero terras in Leycest'syre et in Staffordsyre dedit Galfridus Ridel et concessit Bertramo et heredibus suis tenendas de illo et de heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate libere et quiete per prenominatum servitium pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent, et pro ista donatione et concessione Bertrammus [_sic_] de Werdun [_sic_] totam calumpniam quam habuit versus Galfridum in Madeleye quietum clamavit de illo et de heredibus suis Galfrido Ridel et heredibus suis.[9]

Hec est finalis concordia que facta fuit apud Ox[eneforde] in curia Regis coram Ricardo Giffard et Rogero filio Reinfr[idi] et Johanne de Caerdif Justitiis Regis ... proximum festum apostolorum petri et pauli postquam dominus Rex cepit ligantiam baronum Scotie apud [Ebo]racum[10] inter Canonicos Oseneie et Ingream et tres filias eius scilicet Gundream et Isabella et Margaretam de terre de Oxenef[orde] unde placitum fuerat inter eos in curia Regis scilicet quod Ingrea et tres filie sue prenominate clamaverunt predictis canonicis quietam terram illam in Oxenenef[orde] de se et de heredibus suis pro xx. sol. quos canonici illi dederunt et omne jus quod in eadem terra habebant quietum illis clamaverunt.[11]

It will be observed that the Oxford fine is described as made 'in curia regis', while the Leicester one is not. It would seem, then, that in spite of the distinction drawn at first on the rolls, the phrase 'curia regis' was already creeping in as describing a court at which the king was not present.

I have also discovered, in MS., a 'fine' of some ten or twelve years earlier, most valuable for comparison with those which I have here discussed. We have there a similar charter of confirmation, in which the king describes the transaction as 'finem illum quem Abbas Willelmus de Hulmo fecit coram me',[12] and the document confirmed, moreover, describes itself as a 'finis' between the Abbot of Holme and William and Henry de Neville, brothers.[13] But the form is very different from that of the true fine, which is fully developed in our example of 1175. The Holme 'fine' may be safely assigned to March 1163-March 1166,[14] and as it was 'made' at Westminster, it not improbably belongs to the series of proceedings there _circ._ March 8, 1163. It may fairly be presumed that if, at the date of this fine, the fully developed form existed it would have been duly employed at Westminster on this occasion. We may therefore safely assert, at least, that it came into use between the dates of these two transactions.

As bearing on the evolution of the fine, the charter of Henry II, confirming a 'finis et concordia', and assigned by me to 1163-70,[15] ought to be compared with the Holme charter, as indicating, perhaps, some advance, through the close resemblance between the clauses, in these royal charters, confirming the fine points to an almost common stage of development.

HOLME LEWES

Quare volo et firmiter precipio Et ideo volo et firmiter precipio quod finis ille sicut coram me ut finis iste et concordia factus est stabilis sit, et stabilis sit et firma maneat et firmiter et inconcusse ex inconcusse inter eos teneatur, utraque parte teneatur. sicut facta fuit coram me et utrobique concessa.

The part played by William fitz Audelin in the affairs, at this time, of Ireland, gives also some importance to this proof of his presence at Evesham on July 20, 1175. It brings us, indeed, in contact with the great 'Laudabiliter' controversy. Miss Norgate holds that William fitz Audelin was sent to Ireland in charge (with the Prior of Wallingford) of that contested document in 1175.[16] Professor Tout, in his biography of William, writes on the contrary, oddly enough, that he was 'sent in 1174 or 1175' [_sic_] on this mission, but 'soon left Ireland, for he appears as a witness of the treaty of Falaise in October 1174 [_sic_], and in 1175 and 1176 he was constantly in attendance at court in discharge of his duties as steward or seneschal'.[17] This confusion, however, is slight when compared with the statements as to William's tenure of the government of Ireland. It is agreed that he was sent to succeed Earl Richard (who died April 5, 1176); but while Miss Norgate holds that 'early in the next year Henry found it necessary to recall him',[18] Professor Tout places his recall in 1179, consequent on complaints against him to the king in January of that year. Without undertaking to decide the question, I may suggest that William had returned to England by May 1177--for he is proved by charters to have attended the Oxford council of that date--when Henry replaced him, as governor, by Hugh de Lacy, but entrusted him, as Hoveden states, with Wexford. We have only to assume that Gerald, by mistake, assigns to 1172 his Wexford appointment, which really belonged to 1177 (Professor Tout thinks this probable), and then the solution I suggest satisfies all the requirements.

William fitz Audelin, I may add, has been peculiarly the sport of genealogists. Having been selected by them as ancestor to the great Irish house of Burke ('De Burgo') he was further transformed, by a flight of fancy even wilder than usual, into a lineal descendant of Charlemagne. Who he really was seems to have remained unknown, for his life in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ treats with suspicion, though duly mentioning, his alleged descent from Charlemagne. Moreover, his very name would seem to have been left in doubt. It would, of course, be difficult to distinguish 'Aldelinus' from 'Aldelmus' in MS., and I confess to having looked on the latter--which is the form adopted by Professor Tout in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, as by Miss Norgate and others--as probable enough from its likeness to the English 'Aldhelm'. But the 'fitz Audeline' of the Anglo-Norman poem on the Conquest of Ireland seems decisive. 'Willelmus filius Audelini, domini regis dapifer' was the style he used in his own charters.[19]

Having always kept a look-out for him in Yorkshire, I recognized William at once in a charter which is among those abstracted in the Report on the Portland MSS.[20] This is a confirmation by Roger de Mowbray of a grant to Fountains by 'Aldelin de Aldefeld and Ralph his son and his other sons'. Among the witnesses are 'Ralph son of Aldelin, William his brother', and at the close, 'Amelin son of Aldel'. Now, if we turn to the _cartæ_ of 1166, we find, under Yorkshire, that Ralph 'filius Aldelin' held half a knight's fee of Roger de Mowbray, and William filius Aldelin one fee of Henry de Lacy. Here we recognize the two brothers mentioned in the charters above.[21] The small fief of William 'filius Aldelin' himself is entered under Hampshire, where it is described as 'terra quam dominus Rex dedit Willelmo filio Aldelin, Marscallo suo, cum Juliana filia Roberti Dorsnelli'.

It is through this Juliana that we obtain the coping-stone of proof. Her charter granting Little Maplestead, Essex, to the Hospitallers, has for its first witness 'Radulfo filio Adelini', who, as we have seen above, was her husband's brother.[22] And he is also the first witness to William's confirmation of her gift.[23]

The parentage and the true name of William fitz Audelin are thus, at length, clearly established.

[Footnote 1: Vol. i. (Selden Society).]

[Footnote 2: 'Reg.' MS. The earl died July 1, 1175. This fine further confirms the accuracy of the _Gesta Henrici_ (see Eyton, p. 192).]

[Footnote 3: Maitland's _Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xv.]

[Footnote 4: _History of the Exchequer_ (Ed. 1711), pp. 64, 65.]

[Footnote 5: Eyton's _Itinerary_ p. 191.]

[Footnote 6: Prof Maitland has explained that this presence was formal (_Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xiv).]

[Footnote 7: Except that Robert fitz Bernard's place is taken by John of Cardiff.]

[Footnote 8: October 27, 1175.]

[Footnote 9: Sloane Charter xxxi. 4, No. 34. See also Addenda.]

[Footnote 10: August 1175.]

[Footnote 11: Cotton Charter, xi. 73 (original).]

[Footnote 12: Galba, E., II. fo. 31_b_.]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, 62_b_.]

[Footnote 14: The witnesses to the fine and the charter confirming it included Richard Archdeacon of Poitiers and Robert Earl of Leicester. The former gives us the limit March 1163, and the king was not in England in the lifetime of the latter after March 1166.]

[Footnote 15: See my _Ancient Charters_, pp. 67-8.]

[Footnote 16: 'It is acknowledged on all hands that there is no sign of any attempt on Henry's part to publish the letter in Ireland ... before 1175. In that year Gerald states that the letter was read ... at Waterford.' _English Historical Review_, viii. 44. Cf. p. 31. See also _Angevin Kings_, ii. 182.]

[Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_. I differ wholly from both writers, and take the view, based on record evidence, that, contrary to the accepted belief, William visited Ireland some two years earlier.]

[Footnote 18: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 183.]

[Footnote 19: The name of 'Audelin' is extant as a surname. I have met with it in London.]

[Footnote 20: 13th Report Hist. MSS., App. ii., p. 4. We are indebted, I believe, to Mr Maxwell Lyte for these interesting abstracts.]

[Footnote 21: The name seems to be preserved in Thorpe-Audlin (_vulgo_ Audling), a township in the West Riding of Yorkshire, some 4-1/2 miles from Pontefract.]

[Footnote 22: It seems to be printed only in a footnote to Morant's _Essex_ (i. 282). 'Radulfo filio Willelmi domini mei' is a witness, which certainly suggests that William had been married before.]

[Footnote 23: See _Monasticon_. Prof Tout seems to have been unaware of these charters of William, one of which is dated. Indeed he only says that William 'is said to have married' Juliana, giving the _carta_ (1166) as his authority.]

THE MONTMORENCY IMPOSTURE

Many a jest has been levelled at the Irish family of Morres for seeking and obtaining permission from the Crown, some eighty years ago, to assume the glorious name of 'De Montmorency', in lieu of their own, as having been originally that of their family.[1] They have since borne, as is well known, not merely the name, but even the arms and the proud device of that illustrious house. Moreover, the introduction of the name Bouchard, borne by the present Lord Mountmorres, proves the determination of the family to persist in their lofty pretensions.

I am not aware whether these pretensions have ever been regularly exposed: they seem to have been thought too fantastic for serious criticism. At the same time, it must be remembered that they have been formally and officially recognized by Sir W. Betham as Deputy Ulster, by the English crown (on the strength of his statement) and by the Chevalier De la Rue, 'garde-général des archives du Royaume', on the French side, in 1818. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that MM. de Montmorency at the time, in spite of the repeated and strenuous appeals of the Morres family, declined to admit their claim to be members of the house of Montmorency.

To the indignant protest of Col. Hervey Morres (styling himself 'de Montmorency-Morres') against this action of the French house, we owe the most complete exposition of the case on behalf of his family.[2] On it, therefore, my criticisms will be based. Nor will these criticisms be destructive only: they will show that the pedigrees upheld by Col. Morres and his opponents were both alike erroneous, and will establish the real facts, which, it will be found, completely vindicate the accuracy of Giraldus Cambrensis.

The controversy hinged on a well-known personage. 'Herveius de Monte Mauricii', as Giraldus terms him. The French house, taking their stand on the historians of their family, insisted that he was the only Montmorency who had gone to Ireland in his time, and that as he had, admittedly, left no legitimate issue, the Morres claim was untenable. The Irish house contended that, on the contrary, others of the family had come over also, and that they were lineally descended from one of Hervey's brothers, but the whole story undoubtedly sprang from the mention of this Hervey--the sole connecting link--and from the curious form in which Giraldus chose to latinize his name.

Now Duchesne, the historian of the house of Montmorency, whose version Desormeaux and Père Anselme did but follow in the main, wrote thus of Hervey:

Il espousa Elizabeth de Meullent veuve de Gislebert de Claire, Comte de Pembroc en Angleterre et mère de Richard de Claire, surnommé Strongbow, Comte de Pembroke, dompteur de l'Hibernie, duquel à raison de cette alliance un Autheur du temps le qualifie parastre ou beaupère (p. 92).[3]

But this 'Autheur' is Giraldus Cambrensis, on whom Duchesne based his account, and who, we find, does not speak of Hervey as stepfather, but as paternal uncle of Strongbow:

Herveius de Monte Mauricii, vir quoque fugitivus a facie fortunæ, inermis et inops, ex parte Richardi comitis cujus _patruus_ erat, explorator potius quam expugnator advenit (i. 3).

Duchesne's version, therefore, is out of court, although it was repeated by Père Anselme, and even adopted in the _Genealogist_ by so skilled and able a genealogist as Mr G. W. Watson.[4]

Col. Hervey Morres went so far as to accuse Duchesne and Desormeaux 'd'adulation, d'immoralité, et de mauvaise foi' in giving this account of his great namesake; and he proceeded to substitute a version of his own, severing the hapless man and converting him into two! To make this clear, I must print the essential part of the pedigree as given by him.

Hervé de Montmorency | ------------------------------------------- | | | Bouchard Geoffroi Hervé, de Montmorency dit le Riche 1st Bishop V | of Ely [1109-31] | ------------------------------- | | Adelaide = Hervé Robert, fils de de de Montmorency Geoffroi, fils Clermont | de Hervé | | | | ---------------- ----------------------- | | | | | Guillaume, HERVÉ, Etienne, Jordan HERVÉ, ob. s. p. fils de Hervé, d. 1136, V Connétable chamberlain to aged 56 or 57 d'Irelande, Henry II, 1182 | ob. s. p. 1205 | | Robert, fils d'Etienne

The explanation is extremely simple: the whole pedigree is concocted with a view to making the Irish Hervey uncle to Robert fitz Stephen. This was done to satisfy the supposed requirements of Giraldus, whose words Col. Morres thus triumphantly quoted:

Robertus Stephanides ... Inter cæteros _Herveius de Montemaurisco_ ROBERTI PATRUUS, _nepoti suo se_ comitem præbuit (p. 77).

Unfortunately for him, he had gone, not to Giraldus, but to 'Stonyhurst de rebus Hibernicis i. 69-70, _d'après Giraldus Cambrensis'_. Stonyhurst had carelessly made Giraldus speak of Hervey as uncle, not to Earl Richard, but to Robert fitz Stephen, and the pedigree was accordingly constructed to fit this error. When the error is corrected, the pedigree collapses; and the very passage which is quoted to confirm it at once unmasks the concoction.

And now having made it clear that both sides were in error, I shall set forth the true explanation of the words of Giraldus. The clue is given us by those Deeping charters which, oddly enough, Col. Morres duly quoted and appealed to. The first is found in the _Monasticon_,