ii. 310), and he was among the witnesses to the Empress's charters

(Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford and of Essex, and to her charter (Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger (_vide post_). He subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) to Henry de Oxenford (_Cart. Ant._ D., No. 42). See also _Liber Niger_. Working from misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert "filius Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert fitz Reg_inald_ (de Dunstanville) (_History of Shropshire_, ii. 271).

[315] Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in connection with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (_Addl. MSS._, 31,943, fol. 90) affiliate him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established himself in Wales. He witnessed two other charters of the Empress (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 391, 395), both of them at Oxford. A son of his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held five knights' fees of Glastonbury Abbey in 1166.

[316] Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (_vide post_). See for his adultery, treason, and shocking death (? 1143), _Gesta Stephani_, pp. 95, 96, where he is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari virtute approbatum." He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed summæ semper malitiæ machinator" (_ibid._, p. 93). He is affiliated by the editors of Ordericus (Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166.

[317] As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give both versions:—

DUGDALE MS.

"Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil. Martin et Rob' fil Heldebrand' apud Westmonasterium."

ASHMOLE MS.

"Rad lovell et Rad Painell et W. Maminot et Roberto filio R. et Roberto filio Martin Roberto filio _Haidebrandi apud Oxford_."

The three last words are added in a different hand, and "Oxford" appears to have been substituted for "Westmr" by yet another hand.

[318] William de Moiun (Mohun) had attested _eo nomine_ the charter to Glastonbury (_Journ. B. A. A._, xxxi. 389; _Adam de Domerham_) which probably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "_Comite_ Willelmo de Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141. Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his foundation charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under "dates and authorities for the empress's earldoms") no date and no further authority (_Const. Hist._, i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and valuable monograph on _Dunster and its Lords_ (1882), quotes the _Gesta Stephani_ for the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" (p. 6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in 1140, and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem comitem ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same siege (cf. pp. 125, _n._, 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September, 1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on this point, p. 277 _infra_.

[319] See p. 143.

[320] The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester.

[321] "Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere corda a se alienavit" (_Hen. Hunt._, 275).

[322] "Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto et custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit eos" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 132).

[323] All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and his statement to that effect in his _Baronage_. There is nothing in the charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but, unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from gives _Oxford_ as the place of testing. But, then, the word (_vide supra_) appears to have been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion with the Empress's _second_ charter to Geoffrey, which did pass at Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why this charter may not have passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, perhaps, the more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that Westminster was the place.

[324] See p. 42.

[325] See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius."

[326] _Const. Hist._, i. 362.

[327] This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H.

[328] Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur."

[329] See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in vol. xiii. of the _Antiquary_. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms."

[330] "Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi."

[331] _Select Charters._

[332] _Const. Hist._, i. 326, 327.

[333] _Domesday Studies_, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887.

[334] It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl solidis." In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv" (ii. 93).

[335] See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in the _Chronicle of Ramsey_ (p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de Rameseia ut ad firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne vicecomes plus ab eo requirat."

[336] "Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."— Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox's _Baronia_, p. 232, note).

[337] _Const. Hist._, i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of Knight Service into England" in _English Historical Review_, July and October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439).

[338] The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½ knights' service (as also in the _Liber Niger_).

[339] "Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ ... et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis tribus comitatibus."

[340] Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the Curia Regis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally distinguished by the title of 'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'" (_Const. Hist._, i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several other ministers receive the same name [_justitiarius_] even during the time at which he was actually in office; even the title of _capitalis justitiarius_ is given to officers of the _Curia Regis_ who were acting in subordination to him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the style "capitalis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the reign of Henry II. (i. 350).

[341] _Const. Hist._, i. 389, _note_.

[342] See Appendix I.

[343] I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is infused into this portion of the legal administration by the severance of the farm-interest (_firma_) from the judicial functions, which was effected by the appointment of royal _justitiarii_ in the place of the _vicecomes_. The reservation of the royal right of interference now develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i. 180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to pleas "in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis pacem regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat. _Has iii forisfacturas_ habebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas" (i. 152).

[344] See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes."

[345] _Select Charters_, 141.

[346] Foss's _Judges_, i. 145.

[347] _Const. Hist._, i. 470.

[348] "Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [_sic_] intrare in terram suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, but _à fortiori_ it would apply to the king's "justicia."

[349] The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio omnium baronum suorum."

[350] Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the "aliquis ... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter.

[351] These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout with "robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones."

[352] This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to 1163-1166. It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have been granted immediately after it, before the king left England in March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who were entrusted with the execution of the Assize, and that "Earl Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself.