Part 8

As a matter of fact several of the fifteen citizens can, from records, be identified and traced, if only we reject, at the outset, the whole of the wild confusion into which Mr. Loftie has plunged them.[231] We may take, for instance, “Ailwinus et Robertus frater eius filii Leostani,”[232] whose father I make to be Leofstan the son of Orgar. These brothers witness one St. Paul’s document in the time of Dean Ralf,[233] and are mentioned in another,[234] and they are addressed in a letter of archbishop Theobald (1139–43).[235] Robert accounts for the Weavers’ Gild of London in 1130,[236] while Æthelwine, who witnesses a deed under Dean William, and two under Dean Ralf, will also be found witnessing a charter of the earl of Essex in 1142–3.[237] It is this Æthelwine (‘Ailwinus’) who is wrongly identified by Mr. Loftie with the father of the first Mayor, and with ‘Aylwin child,’ and with a son-in-law of Orgar le Prude, who, by the way, was Orgar ‘the deacon,’ and not Orgar ‘le Prude.’[238]

Two other interesting members of “the fifteen” are “Leostanus aurifaber et Wyzo filius eius”; for the latter is clearly identical with that “Witso filius Leostani” who, so far from being an Austin canon, owes in 1130 half a marc of gold “pro terra et ministerio patris sui,”[239] and with that “Wizo aurifaber” who, with Edward his brother and John his son, makes an agreement with the canons of St. Paul’s.[240]

Returning to the second list of 1137,[241] we recognise in Hacon the dean, not a dean of St. Paul’s, but a witness of the Cnihtengild’s gift in 1125.[242] Tierri son of Deorman was the heir, perhaps the son, of that “Derman of London” who is entered in Domesday as holding half a hide at Islington, and the father of Bertram, “filius Theodorici filii Derman,” otherwise Bertram “de Barwe,” who held Newington Barrow in Islington,[243] who was a benefactor to the nuns of Clerkenwell, and whose son Thomas bestowed a serf upon St. Paul’s about the beginning of the 13th century.[244] The mention of this family leads me here to introduce a most singular genealogy, evidently adduced to prove, _temp._ John, that Peter son of Alan was heir to Thierri, a grandson and namesake of Thierri son of Derman.

Hubert vint de Cham et engendra Alain et Gervase et Will[elme] Blemunt le viel et altres. Alain le eisne engendra Pieres, et P[ieres] Alain, et A[lain] P[ieres]. Gerveise engendra Henri, et Henri Johane ki fu dunée a Hug[ues] de Nevile. Will[] Blemunt prist la suer Bertra[m] de Barue et engendra Will’ et T[er]ri et altres. Will’ devint chanoine a sainte ternite [_sic_] de Lundres et T[er]ri prist la fille Ernaud le rus et engendra une fille si cum lem dist. Iceste fille fu dunée a un petit fiz Johan Viel[245] dunt si ele mært sanz heir de soi. Les heirs al devant dit Alain sunt heirs, kar il sunt les eisnez.[246]

This genealogy, which, we shall find, is certainly incorrect, gives us a pedigree as follows:

HUBERT of Caen | +-------------+---------------+ | | | ALAN GERVASE WILLIAM | (of Cornhill) BLEMUND | | ‘le viel’ | | | PETER HENRY WILLIAM TIERRI | (of Cornhill) Canon of | | | Holy Trinity | | | | ALAN JOAN = HUGH A DAUGHTER | DE NEVILE ob. s. p. PETER

We know (from the names of his son and granddaughter) that the Gervase of the text must be Gervase of Cornhill, who, as a matter of fact, had a brother Alan.[247] But we also know that their father was Roger ‘nepos Huberti,’[248] not Hubert. As there seem to be traces of another Hubert with sons Gervase and Alan,[249] this may account for the confusion. The mention of William Blemund is of special interest, because it is from this name that Bloomsbury [‘Blemundsbury’] is derived. His wife, being a sister of Bertram de Barue,[250] was a daughter of Tierri the son of Derman, which accounts for one of their sons bearing the name of ‘Terri.’ The belief that this great civic family sprang originally from Caen is a fact to be noted.

We know that Ralf ‘filius Andree’ (p. 101) must have been a son of Andrew Bucuinte, for “Andreas Bucuinte et Radulfus filius ejus” witness a Ramsey charter under Henry I.[251] William “camerarius” is, no doubt, the William “qui fuit camerarius Lond[onie],” who accounts for London debts on the roll of 1130.[252]

We have seen above that Andrew Buchuinte (_Bucca Uncta_) was, in 1137, Justiciar of London. This clue is of great importance, for, according to another portion of the Holy Trinity narrative, Andrew Buchuinte was the leading witness at the investiture of the Priory with the Cnihtengild’s soke by the two sheriffs of London in 1125.[253] He was also a leading witness to that agreement between Ramsey Abbey and Holy Trinity Priory, which I place between 1125 and 1130.[254]

The charter to which we are now coming shows him addressed by Stephen as the leading man in London in the latter part, we gather, of 1139. Since the appearance of “Justiciars” under Henry I., among those to whom writs and charters were addressed, they always took precedence of the sheriff, and my contention is that when a magnate is named in that position, it is because he was Justiciar. The charters dealt with in this paper afford several instances in point. This one, for example, may be given here, although of somewhat later date.

Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Ricardo de Luci et vicecomiti Essex [ie] salutem. Precipio quod Episcopus Wyntoniensis frater meus ita bene et in pace teneat....[255] et capella(m) sua(m) que canonici diracionaverunt sicut Rogerus episcopus Salisburiensis melius tenuit tempore comitis Eustachii de Bolonia et deinceps usque ad diem qua rex Henricus avunculus meus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et super hoc non ponantur canonici sui de Sancto Martino in placitum versus prepositum de Wyrtela de vel de pecunia sua. Et Moric[ius] vicecomes quietus sit de plegio illius et pecunia canonicorum quam replegiant.

Teste Roberto de Ver apud Wyndsor[es].[256]

The address of this charter would seem to support the view I suggested in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville’ (p. 109), that Richard de Luci may have held the post of local justiciar of Essex.[257] For the sheriff, clearly, was Maurice (de Tiretei, _i.e._ Tiltey).[258] Imperfect though it be, we can, I think, connect the subject in dispute with an aggression consequent on the Conquest by the ‘pious founder’ at Writtle.[259]

Let us now return to the document of which I speak above (p. 109, l. 1):

Stephanus dei gratia rex Anglie Andr[ee] Buch[uinte] et vic[ecomiti] et civibus suis London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod R[ogerus] episcopus Saresberiensis teneat ecclesiam Sancti Martini London[ie] et omnes terras eidem pertinentes in civitate et extra ita bene et honorifice sicut melius tenuit tempore regis Henrici et modo postea. Et de quocunque disseisitus est ipse vel ecclesia sua et canonici sui ejusdem ecclesie postquam discordia incepta inter nos, reseisiantur, et nominatim de terra Alderesgate disseisiti sunt ipse et canonici sui pro filiis Huberti juvenis, et bene et in pace teneant, sicut tenuerunt melius die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et modo postea.[260]

In 1139, therefore, as in 1137, Andrew was the leading man in London; and if, as Dr. Stubbs believes, he was of Italian origin,[261] we have a somewhat unlooked-for foreign influence in the midst of the citizens of London at this most critical epoch. One is indeed reminded of the ‘Buccanigra’ family, and the great part they played at Genoa in the 13th century. It is also suggested by Dr. Stubbs that the “Andrew of London” who led the citizens’ contingent at the taking of Lisbon (1147) “is not improbably the Andrew Bucquinte whose son Richard was the leader of the riotous young nobles of the city who in 1177 furnished a precedent for the Mohawks of the eighteenth century.”[262] The episode in question, although entered under 1177, seems to belong to 1174; but, apart from chronology, we cannot believe that “quidam latronum illorum, Andreas Bucquinte qui cæteros præibat cum face ardenti”[263] was himself the crusading leader of 1147, still less the London magnate of half a century before. The Richard who is styled his “son” by Dr. Stubbs proves to be merely another reading, in one of the texts, for Andrew himself.[264] The great Andrew (of 1125–1139) had a son Ralf,[265] and also a son John, who made Gervase of Cornhill and his son Henry his heirs.[266] It is very tempting to identify this Andrew Buccuinte with ‘Andrew of London,’ but ‘Andreas de Londonia’ is found as a witness to a Ramsey charter under Henry I.,[267] while Andrew Buccuinte used to attest under his own name. There is also a group of three charters of this John son of Andrew Buccuinte in the Colchester cartulary (fo. 133) which have points of interest. The first is witnessed _inter alios_ by Tierri (_Teodricus_), son of Derman and his brother,[268] by Eadwine the alderman, and by Gervase of Cornhill; the second grants land (“in custodia Blacstani”) to Baldwin “clerico patris mei et magistro meo”; the third grants to him the land in which stood the ‘fornax’ of John’s father, Andrew, in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook.[269]

I would here insert an observation on the riots of “1177.” The ‘Gesta Henrici’ describes the episode under 1177, but dates it in “tertio præcedenti anno.” Miss Norgate accordingly places it “about June or July 1174,” and points out that Hoveden omits the above words, thus confusing the chronology.[270] Now the ‘Gesta’ asserts that Andrew Buchuinte denounced among his companions

quidam nobilissimus et ditissimus civium Londoniarum qui nominatus est Johannes Senex. Qui cum per judicium aquæ se mundari non posset, obtulit quingentas marcas domino regi pro vita habenda. Sed quia ipse per judicium aque perierat, noluit denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium de eo fieret, et suspensus est.[271]

I suggest that ‘Senex’ is merely an elegant Latinization of ‘Viel,’ the name of a leading London family,[272] which was usually Latinized “Vetulus.” And we have but to turn to the Pipe Roll of 1175 (21 Hen. II.) to find this entry:

Vicecomes reddit compotum de xlii s. et ix d. de catallis Johannis Vetuli suspensi et Johannis Lafaite[273] fugitivi (p. 20).

Here we have the proper formula under the assize of Clarendon,[274] with which we may compare clause V. in the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170):

De catallis fugitivorum pro assisa de Clarendune, et de catallis eorum qui per assisam illam perierunt, inquiratur quid actum sit ... et an aliquis retatus relaxatus fuerit, vel reus, pro præmio vel promissione vel amore, et quis inde præmium acceperit.

Here we have Henry denouncing in 1170 that escape of criminals through bribery, which we have seen him, above, refusing to connive at four or five years later, when he was offered “quingentas marcas”--Miss Norgate says “five thousand”; but one must not be severe on a lady’s Latin.

But if the accuracy of the ‘Gesta’ tale is thus remarkably confirmed, we can hardly accept its description of the man whose chattels produced so little for the Crown as one of the richest of Londoners. I have not observed him elsewhere on the rolls, so that probably he was only a youthful member of his family.

* * * * *

To return. Andrew “of the oily mouth” must have ceased to occupy his high office shortly after Stephen’s writ of 1139, for we soon find it held by no less interesting a man than Osbert “Octodenarii,” otherwise “Huitdeniers.” This was no other than Becket’s kinsman and employer, whom Garnier terms

Un riche hume Lundreis Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d’Engleis.

Other biographers of Thomas describe him as “vir insignis in civitate et multarum possessionum, ... qui non solum inter concives, verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris.”[275] It has been concluded that the future primate was in Osbert’s employment somewhere about 1139–1142,[276] and, according to William Fitz Stephen, “receptus est in partem sollicitudinis reipublicæ Londoniensis.” From the evidence now about to be adduced we learn that Osbert was actually in power at the very time when his young kinsman is believed to have been in his employment. The agreement, therefore, is curiously complete.

Stephanus rex Anglie etc. Osberto octoden[arii] et omnibus Baronibus et vic[ecomiti] et ministris suis London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod faciatis resaisiri ecclesiam Sancti Martini London[ie] et canonicos de terra et de domibus suis de Aldersgate unde filii Huberti juvenis eos injuste et sine judicio dissaisierunt sicut inde saisiti fuerunt antequam episcopus Sar[esberiensis] captus fuisset apud Oxon[iam], et sicut precepi per aliud breve meum. Et quod ipsi postea ceperunt reddi facite juste. Et postea si ipsi quicquid in terras clamaverint Episcopus Wintoniensis cuius ecclesia est et canonici teneant eis inde rectum. Et videte ne audiam amplius inde clamorem.[277]

This writ, which, it would seem, has never yet been printed, is subsequent, not only to the one which is given above (p. 110), but to the death of the bishop of Salisbury in December, 1139.[278] From it we learn that the deanery of St. Martins, which had been held by Roger, was given by Stephen, at Roger’s death, to his own brother, the bishop of Winchester. It is probable that this deanery was a very lucrative appointment, and that its estates were separate from those of the canons of the church. Count Eustace, in his charter addressed to Hugh d’Orival bishop of London, speaks of retaining for himself the lands “quæ propriæ fuerunt Ingelrici et ad decanatum pertinere debeant,” and a charter of the Empress similarly speaks of the houses and lands in London “quæ pertinent ad decanatum.”

The subject of these deaneries of houses of secular canons seems to deserve working out. As the great bishops of Salisbury and Winchester held successively the deanery of St. Martin’s, so the _protégé_ of the latter prelate, Hilary bishop of Chichester, seems to have held that of Twynham both before and after his elevation to the South-Saxon see, while the bishops of Exeter, from Osbern the Norman, seem to have combined the deanery of Bosham with their episcopal office. Maurice bishop of London (1085) held the deanery of Wimborne. In Normandy, similarly, Philip of Harcourt, who had been Stephen’s chancellor, was, as a bishop, dean of the house of Holy Trinity of Beaumont before its annexation to Bec.

We next come to a writ of the Empress, which must belong to the year 1141, and which similarly recognises Osbert Huitdeniers as the leading man in London at the time, and, as I maintain, its Justiciar.[279]

Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angliæ domina Osberto Octodenar[ii] et vic[ecomiti] et civibus London[ie] salutem. Precipio quod saisiatis Henricum episcopum Winton[iensem] et apostolicæ sedis legatum de domibus illis London[ie] et terris ubi Petrus ... mansit (quæ pertinent ad decanatum Sancti Martini London[ie] et ecclesiam suam, et ipsi disseisati sunt), sicut Rogerus episcopus Saresberiensis decanus ejusdem ecclesiæ et Fulcherus saisiti fuerunt vivi et mortui, et domos suas, et omnia quæ inde post mortem Rogeri ablata sunt, facite illi reddi, et terram ipsam et cetera omnia pertinentia ecclesiæ Sancti Martini in pace illi tenere facite.

The connection of this great prince-bishop with St. Martin’s leads me to speak of his striking mandate on the subject of the schools of London:

H. Dei gratia Wintoniensis ecclesie minister capitulo Sancti Pauli et Willelmo archidiacono et ministris suis salutem. Precipio vobis pro obedientia ut trina vocatione sententiam anatematis in eos proferatis qui sine licentia Henrici Magistri Scolarum in tota civitate Lundon legere presumpserint preter eos qui scolas Sancte Marie de Archa et Sancti Martini Magni regunt. Teste Magistro Ilario apud Wintoniam.[280]

No date is assigned to this charter, for Henry’s long rule at Winchester lasted till 1171. But my paper on “Hilary bishop of Chichester”[281] enables us to identify him with “Magister Ilarius” the witness, and to date the charter as previous not only to 1147, but also, in all probability, to 1141, by which time he was dean of Christchurch. This then carries back our charter to the vacancy in the See of London (1134–1141), which explains the bishop of Winchester interfering thus forcibly in its affairs.

* * * * *

I have now proved the existence under Stephen, in accordance with Henry’s charter,[282] of three Justiciars of London, all leading citizens, namely, Andrew Buchuinte, Osbert Huitdeniers, and Gervase of Cornhill.[283] But we must not forget the grant of the office to Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, a grant made by Stephen[284] and confirmed by the Empress. Here again the charters of St. Martin’s enable us to complete our evidence. For in one of them, issued from his stronghold the Tower, we find Geoffrey taking, as if he were proud of it, the style of “Justiciar of London.” We may safely date it 1142–3.

Galfridus dei gratia comes Essex[ie] et Justiciarius London[iæ] Roberto eadem gratia Londoniensi episcopo et Arch[idiacon]o et omnibus baronibus et hominibus suis, et omnibus tenentibus et amicis suis London[iæ] et Essex[iæ] tam clericis quam laicis, salutem. Quam[285] super modum peccavi, et male vivendo et bona ecclesiastica præter rationem diripiendo Deum offendi, ex penitencia mea immerita dampna ecclesiæ Sancti Martini London[iæ] quodam modo restituere, et voluntati canonicorum satisfacere proposui, etc....

This curious charter of the dreaded and unscrupulous earl restores to the canons their Essex manors--

quæ injuste illis ablatæ sunt quietas de operationibus et auxiliis vic[ecomitis] et plac[itis] sicut melius et liberius et quietius tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici et postea melius.

Testibus: Rohaisa comitissa uxore mea, et Willelmo archidiacono London[iensi], et Waltero fratre ipsius, Gregorio clerico, et Osberto clerico, Willelmo archidiacono,[286] et Willelmo de Moching,[287] et Ricardo filio Osberti constabulario,[288] et Gist[289] vic[ecomite], et Ailwino filio Lopstan,[290] et Roberto de Ponte, et Hugone filio Ulgeri, et Moricio de Tirtet.[291] Apud London[iam] in Turri, coram monach[is] Westm[onasterii].

That this charter was wrung from the earl in a passing fit of repentance, consequent on grave illness, is rendered probable by a singular document, of which the text was communicated to me by the bishop of Oxford. It is, unfortunately, imperfect.

Domino ac patri Roberto Dei gratia Londoniensi episcopo et toto capitulo sancti Pauli et omnibus fidelibus sanctæ Ecclesiæ, Gaufridus comes de Essexa salutem et debitam obedientiam. Gratias ago Deo meo qui me oberrantem et jamdudum in Babilonem lapsum misericorditer revocavit: Quia enim miles ad ecclesiæ defensionem constitutus fueram, ejus impugnator et crudelissimus persecutor hactenus ... mei molestia et infirmitate gravatus, me in matrem meam sanctam eccl ... unde et pœnitens veniam peto, pollicens et vovens debita satisfactione ... vobis illata integraliter restituere et pro sensu et facultate ... debitam reverentiam atque manutenementum et protectionem ... quoque quæ inter me et reginam fuerat de castello de Sto[rteford] ... [sancto] Paulo clamo quietum in perpetuum. Hujus autem satisfactionis ... meam et comitissa uxor mea et comes Gast (_i.e._ Gisl[ebertus]) suam ... confirmationem vero hujus restitutionis usque ad festum omnium sanctorum ... capituli catalla nostra in animalibus et ceteris vero pecoribus et ... rebus quæ in mea bailia sunt vel ad præsens invenientur sine dilatione vobis reddi faciam.[292]

We will now revert from the crisis of Stephens reign to the years preceding his accession, when we shall meet with several of those citizens of whom I have spoken above.

A group of three charters, formerly at Barrington Hall, but now in the British Museum (Add. Cart. 28, 344–6), brings before us several of the leading citizens of London at the close of the reign of Henry I. Badly drawn, as deeds, their meaning, in places, is obscure; but the gist of them seems to be that certain land in Hertfordshire, which was held of the Count of Boulogne by ‘Rumoldus’ in Domesday, was given by ‘Rumoldus’ (the same or his namesake), and his sons Payn and Bernard, to Hugh son of Wulfgar, who was one of the fifteen magnates of the “English Cnihtengild” of London in 1125.[293] Further, it would seem that these lands were the dower of Hugh’s sister, who had married one of Rumold’s sons. The first of these charters[294] records the consent of Rumold’s lord, William of Boulogne, to this transaction.[295] I assign it to about the year 1129. First in order among its witnesses come tenants of the Honour of Boulogne; then local Surrey men;[296] and lastly, a group recognisable as Londoners:

Gervasio filio Rogeri; Fulcone filio Radulfi; Johanne filio Radulfi filio Everardi; Hugone Cordello; Guillelmo Gernun; Gileberto de Sancto Victore; Radulfo de Oxenfordia; Ricardo Bucherello; Stephano Bucherello; Rogero filio Anschetilli.

Gervase, who had just succeeded his father, a former sheriff of London, was afterwards eminent as Gervase “of Cornhill” (as son-in-law of Edward of Cornhill, of the Cnihtengild), Justiciar of London and sheriff.[297] Fulk pays for his release from imprisonment on the London pipe roll of 1130;[298] John occurs on the same roll,[299] and was closely associated with Gervase.[300] Hugh Cordel, in 1130, accounts for his release from imprisonment;[301] Ralf of Oxford is one of his pledges.[302] The Bucherells were a great City family, whose name is said to be preserved in Bucklersbury, and who were doubtless of Italian origin.[303]

The second of these charters, from its many points of interest, fairly deserves to be given _in extenso_:

Fulquius vicecomes nepos Gisleberti de Surreia concedit Hugoni filio Ulgeri et heredibus suis conventiones de terra de Alfladewicha et de Hischentuna sicut convencio est inter Bernardum filium Rumoldi et Hugonem filium Ulgeri et sicut cirographum quod factum est inter eos testatur per iiij marcas argenti quas dedit mihi Hugo. Et hoc est requisitione Milonis de Gloecestria et Fulcredi camerarii Lund[onie] et Osberti VIII denarii et Andree Buccuinte et Anschetilli. Et istud concessum fuit factum ante Willelmum abbatem de Certesia, et Ricardum Basset, et Albericum de Ver, et Meinfeninum Britonem, et Robertum de Talewurda, et Rodbertum dapiferum abbatis de Certesia, et Walterum clericum, et Radulfum Bloie.[304]