APPENDICES. (continued 3)

And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized under a sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government of the day was to be found in the petty courts of these various "communities," and not in any central corporation. The only centralizing element was the sheriff, and his office was not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the financial claims of the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of jurisdiction. There was, of course, the general "folkmote" over which, with the bishop, he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were those of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote could no more mould these self-governing bodies into one coherent whole, than they could, or did, accomplish this in the case of an ordinary shire. Here we have a somewhat curious parallel between such a polity as is here described and that of the present metropolis outside the City. There, too, we have the local communities, with their quasi-independent vestries, etc., and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for their "folkmote" or "shiremote."[1032] But, to revert to the days of Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength varying in intension conversely with its sphere in extension, possessed the toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. Thus the original territorial system might never have led to a corporate unity. But what the sheriff and the folkmote could not accomplish, the mayor and the communa could and did. The territorial arrangement was overthrown by the rising power of commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work:

"The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the aristocratic element."[1033]

At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view I have advanced on the shrievalty, because the point is of such paramount importance that it cannot be expressed too clearly. The great illustrative value of Geoffrey's charters is this. They prove, in the first place, that Middlesex (inclusive of London) was treated financially on the same footing as Essex or Herts or any other shire; and in the second they give us that all-important information, the amount of the firma for each of these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we have to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view its firma of £300. Sometimes described as the firma of "London," sometimes "of Middlesex," and sometimes "of London and Middlesex," its identity never changes; it is always, and beyond the shadow of question, the firma of Middlesex inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its amount, an endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the first Geoffrey de Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it was £300. Nearly doubled by Henry I., it was yet reduced to £300 by his charter to the citizens of London. In the succeeding reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured it from both claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II., as the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. John, we shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and the reduction was confirmed by his successor on his assuming the reins of power. For we find a charter of Henry III. conceding to the citizens of London (February 11, 1227)—

"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra Civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et heredibus suis de nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus Civibus Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem Civitatis, et quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris."

The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the forfeiture of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were restored to favour, on payment of heavy sums to the king and to his son, they received permission "to have two sheriffs of their own who should hold the shrievalty of the City and Middlesex as they used to have." But the firma was raised from £300 to £400 a year.[1034] Finally, on the accession of Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the firma was reduced to the original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, "it has remained ever since."[1035]

This one firma, of which the history has here been traced, represents one corpus comitatus, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036] From this conclusion there is no escape.

Hence the firmarii of this corpus comitatus were from the first the firmarii (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London. This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the firma so with the sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of Middlesex inclusive of London.

This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (i.e. Middlesex inclusive of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the corpus comitatus to any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at the low original firma of £300 a year. The change effected was simply that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037]

The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body: "Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis."

It would seem that under the régime adopted by Henry I., the financial exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (i.e. of the financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible. This was effected either by adding to the annual firma, a sum "de cremento," or by exacting from the firmarius, over and above his firma, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be firmarius to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the firma was a low one. But if the firma was a high one, he would not offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus" had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which, seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by no means above indulging in speculations of the kind. But when we make the interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, in this same reign, had acted as Sheriff of London,[1042] may we not infer that, there also, he had indulged in a similar speculation? That the shrievalty of London (i.e. London and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz Walter is debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas argenti de Gersoma pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."[1043]

The firmarius who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would have to recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount of the actual "firma" plus his payment "de gersoma," before he could derive for himself any profit whatever from the transaction. This implied that he had closely to shear the flock committed to his charge. If he was a mere speculator, unconnected with his sphere of operations, he would have no scruple in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion. What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure as the financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear that just as the rotulus exactorius recorded the amounts to which the king was entitled from the firmarii of the various counties, so these firmarii, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly fixed amount from the various constituents of their counties' "corpora." Domesday, however, while recording these sums, shows us, in many remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" being paid than that which was strictly due. The fact is that we are, and must be, to a great extent, in the dark as to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments. That the remarkable rise in the annual firmæ exacted from the towns which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent on, the Conquest would seem to imply that these firmæ, under the loose régime of the old system, had been allowed to remain so long unaltered that they had become antiquated and unduly low. In any case the Conqueror raised them sharply, probably according to his estimate of the financial capacity of the town. And this step would, of course, involve a rise in the total of the firma exacted from the corpus comitatus. The precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed by Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the uttermost farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive use of the "placita" included in the "firma comitatus" that the sheriffs mainly trusted to increase their receipts.

But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed by the sheriffs in the towns within their rule,[1044] and exercised by them to recoup themselves for the increased demands of the Crown, we know that such means there must have been, or it would not have been worth the while of the towns to offer considerable sums for the privilege of paying their firmæ to the Crown directly, instead of through the sheriffs.[1045]

I would now institute a comparison between the cases of Lincoln and of London. In both cases the city formed part of the corpus comitatus; in both, therefore, its firma was included in the total ferm of the shire. Lincoln was at this time one of the largest and wealthiest towns in the country. Its citizens evidently had reason to complain of the exactions of the sheriff of the shire. London, we infer, was in the same plight. Both cities were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial intervention of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways varying with the circumstances of the two cases. London was considerably larger than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus while the firma of Lincoln represented less than a fifth of the ferm of the shire,[1046] that of London would, of course, constitute the bulk of the ferm of Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever itself financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by itself boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of the citizens of Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:—

"Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114).

The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:—

"Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148).

I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. No one appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to the above Lincoln entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II.). We there find £140 deducted from the ferm of the shire in consideration of the severance of the city from the corpus comitatus ("Et in Civitate Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). But we further find the citizens of Lincoln, in accounting for their firma to the Crown direct, accounting not for £140, but for £180. It must, consequently, have been worth their while to offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through the sheriff.[1047] Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions from which they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I have said, set to work a different way. They simply sought to lease the shrievalty of the shire themselves. I can, on careful consideration, offer no other suggestion than that the hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130, represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the shrievalty for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in that year by the "quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather from the Roll that Fulcred fitz Walter had been sheriff for 1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma" is, I take it, represented in the case of the following year (1129-30) by these hundred marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have leased the shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their fellows, as representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such a post was not one to be coveted. To exact sufficient from their fellow-citizens wherewith to meet the claims of the Crown would be a task neither popular nor pleasant. Indeed, the fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites" may imply that they could not find any one man who would consent to fill a post as thankless as that of the hapless decurio in the provinces of the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a later age, in the country towns of England. Hence it may be that we find it thus placed in commission. Hence, also, the eagerness of these vicecomites to be quit of office, as shown by their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs of gold apiece.[1048] It may, however, be frankly confessed that the nature of this payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from the very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one would have thought that such payments would probably have been made to their fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the office rather than to the Crown. Moreover, if their year of office was over, and the city's lease at an end, one would have thought they would be freed from office in the ordinary course of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests itself is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from serving again even though their fellow-citizens should again elect them to office.[1049] But I leave the point in doubt.

The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced is that the citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, for the first time) for the year 1129-30. We have the names of those who held the shrievalty at various periods in the course of the reign, before this year, but there is no evidence that, throughout this period, it was ever leased to the citizens. The important question which now arises is this: How does this view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.?

We have first to consider the date to which the charter should be assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that Rymer, "from the names appended to it or some other evidence, dates it in 1101."[1050] As a matter of fact, Rymer assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer himself even include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of that work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till 1885 that in the Record Office Syllabus, begun by Sir T. D. Hardy, the date 1101 was assigned to it.[1051] That date is possibly to be traced to Northouck's History of London (1773), in which the commencement of Henry's reign is suggested as a probable period (p. 27). This view is set forth also in a modern work upon the subject.[1052] It is not often that we meet with a charter so difficult to date. The formula of address, as it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to a late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between the justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. But there is, unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence to enable us to fix the date with precision. All that we can say is that such a name as that of Hugh Bigod points to the period 1123-1135, and that, of the nine witnesses named, seven or eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.). This would suggest that these two documents must be of about the same date. Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty before Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to understand how or why it could be withdrawn within a very few years of its grant. In short, for this view there is not a scrap of evidence; against it, is all probability. If, on the contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am now going to advance, namely, that the charter was later than the Pipe-Roll, the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a year, to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by a permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, which we find recorded in the charter.

It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on the guess at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that the charter was earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and others have merely followed him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:—

"Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll, some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In 1130 there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for the ferm of London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and part of the account is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right to appoint the sheriffs has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens pay a hundred marks of silver that they may have a sheriff of their own choice," etc., etc.[1053]

But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers "the date of Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was subsequent to the Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to the ground.

The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs alludes, is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of the "vicecomites" varies throughout. As a matter of fact, the abbreviated forms leave us, as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, doubtful whether we ought to read "vicecomitem" or "vicecomites," and even if the former is the one intended, we know, both in this and other cases, that there was nothing unusual in putting the office in commission between two or more. As to the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the firma, with which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly enough, Dr. Stubbs has overlooked the really important point, namely, that the firma is not £300, as fixed by the charter, but over £500.[1054] This increases the discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs lays stress. The most natural inference from this fact is that, as on several later occasions, the Crown had greatly raised the firma (which had been under the Conqueror £300), and that the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter was granted between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been tempted, by the offer of an enormous sum down, to grant (1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a reduction of the fee-farm rent ("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to which the firma had been raised by the king, together with the annual gersoma, amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only have been purchased by a large payment in ready money.

It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry accumulated the vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his death. He may not improbably in collecting this wealth have kept in view what appears to have been the supreme aim of his closing years, namely, the securing of the succession to his heirs. This was to prove the means by which their claims should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much to suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens to the interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. In any case his efforts were notoriously vain, for London headed throughout the opposition to the claims of his heirs. I cannot but think that his financial system had much to do with this result, and that, as with the Hebrews at the death of Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them only of his "grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money[1055] by bluntly requesting a return to the system of Edward the Confessor.[1056]

In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly ignored both by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted in turn to the Earl of Essex the shrievalty of London and Middlesex (1141-42).

A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. What was the attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's charter? Of our two latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie tells us that

"Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good footing with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the Great Charter of his grandfather."[1057]

Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted by Henry II. to the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, is simply a confirmation of his grandfather's."[1058] Such, indeed, would seem to be the accepted belief. Yet, when we compare the two documents, we find that the special concessions with which I am here dealing, and which form the opening clauses of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in that of Henry II.![1059] This leads us to examine the rest of the latter document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged the two charters side by side, and divided their contents into numbered clauses, italicizing the points of difference.

Henry I. Henry II.

(1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo placito. (1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum[1060] de ullo placito præter placita de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis monetariis et ministris meis.

(2) Sint quieti de schot et de loth de Danegildo et de murdro, et nullus eorum faciat bellum. (2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [et[1061]] infra urbem et Portsokna,[1062] et quod nullus[1063] faciat bellum.[1064]

(3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo Londoniarum. (3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus[1065]] se possunt disrationare secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis.

(4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea familia, neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur. (4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem Marescalli.

(5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes res eorum, et per totam Angliam et per portus maris, de thelonio et passagio et lestagio et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus. (5) Omnes cives Londoniarum[1066] sint quieti de theloneo et lestagio per totam Angliam et per portum[1067] maris.

(6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in pace socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit. [This clause is wholly omitted.]

(7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad suam were, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam pertineat. (7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis[1068] avi mei.

(8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote, neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ. (8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur.

(9) Et terras suas et wardemotum et debita civibus meis habere faciam infra civitatem et extra. (9) Terras suas et tenuras et vadimonia et debita omnia juste habeant, quicunque eis debeat.

(10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege civitatis. (10) De terris suis et tenuris quæ infra urbem sunt, rectum eis teneatur secundum legem[1069] civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,[1070] et de vadimoniis ibidem factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.[1071]

(12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. Quod si reddere noluerint, neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui debitum debet. (11) Et si quis in tota Anglia theloneum et consuetudinem ab hominibus Londoniarum[1070] ceperit, postquam ipse a recto defecerit, Vicecomes Londoniarum[1070] namium inde apud Londonias[1070] capiat.

(11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum ceperit, cives Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.[1072] (12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque[1073]habuerunt tempore Regis Henrici avi mei.

(13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et Sureie. (13) Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis concessi quod[1074] sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,[1075] et de Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus (sic) London[iarum][1076] vel aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat.

Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must glance at the question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is taken from the Select Charters of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to the Fœdera for his text (which is taken from an Inspeximus of 5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is taken from the transcript in the Liber Custumarum (collated with the Liber Rubeus). Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as could be wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused my suspicions,[1077] but the collation of the two charters has led to a singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of Henry I. the citizens are guaranteed "terras et wardemotum et debita sua." Now, this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. Why should the wardmoot be thus sandwiched between the lands of the citizens and the debts due to them? And what can be the meaning of confirming to them their wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned as an infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? Yet, corrupt though this passage, on the face of it, appears, our authorities have risen at this unlucky word, if I may venture on the expression, like pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr. Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion. Historians, like doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do agree their unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading of "vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage its sense by showing that what Henry confirmed to the citizens was "the property mortgaged to them, and the debts due to them."[1078]

Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing from the text as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception of the avowed addition at the close, the later charter has, in sundry details, the aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting rather than enlarging the benefits conferred. This, however, is but a small matter in comparison with its total omission of the main concession itself. This fact, so strangely overlooked, coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff as "vicecomes meus" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),[1079] but explains above all the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable without it, that the firma is again, under Henry II., found to be not £300, but over £500 a year.

In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the firma of London, if I reckon it right, was, as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.[1080] In 1160 (6 Hen. II.) it was a few pounds less,[1081] and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) it was little, it would seem, over £500.[1082] But in these calculations it is virtually impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not only from the system of keeping accounts partly in libræ partly in marcæ, and partly in money "blanched" partly in money "numero," but also from the fact that the figures on the Pipe-Rolls are by no means so infallible as might be supposed.[1083]

Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make any change. It merely confirms that of his father. But John, in addition to confirming this (June 17, 1199), granted a supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)—

"Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ... reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras sterlingorum blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum, quod ipsi de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et amoveant quando voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus civibus Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."[1084]

Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising of the firma to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in 1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).

We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during the twelfth century (i.e. from "1101"), but was held by them for a few years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I., appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized the régime of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London, he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa" with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since, to that of the mayor himself.

The transient existence of the local justitiarius is a phenomenon of great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially local shire-reeve and the central "justice" of the king's court. I have already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the justitiarius for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend) towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the office eo nomine twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086]

The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure; its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot, surely, henceforth be maintained.

APPENDIX Q OSBERTUS OCTODENARII.

(See p. 170.)

The reference to this personage in the charter to the Earl of Essex is of quite exceptional interest. He was the Osbert (or Osbern) "Huit-deniers" (alias "Octodenarii" alias "Octonummi") who was a wealthy kinsman of Becket and employed him, in his house, as a clerk about this very time (circ. 1139-1142). We meet him as "Osbertus VIII. denarii" at London in 1130 (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.), and I have also found him attesting a charter of Henry I., late in the reign, as "Osberto Octodenar[ii]." Garnier[1087] tells us that the future saint—

Another biographer writes:—

"Rursus vero Osbernus, Octonummi cognomine, vir insignis in civitate et multarum possessionum cui carne propinquus erat detentum circa se Thomam fere per triennium in breviandis sumptibus redditibusque suis jugiter occupabat."[1088]

The influential position of this wealthy Londoner is dwelt on by yet another biographer:—

"Ad quendam Lundrensem, cognatum suum, qui non solum inter concives, verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris se contulit."[1089]

In one of the appendices we shall detect him under the strange form "Ottdevers"[1090] (= "Ottdeuers," a misreading for "Ottdeners") witnessing a treaty arrangement between the Earls of Hereford and Gloucester. This he did in his capacity of feudal tenant to the latter, for in the Earl of Gloucester's Carta (1166) of his tenants in Kent we read: "Feodum Osberti oitdeniers i mil[item]," from which we learn that he had held one knight's fee.[1091]

This singular cognomen, though savouring of the nickname period, may have become hereditary, for we meet with a Philip Utdeners in 1223, and with Alice and Agnes his daughters in 1233.[1092]

As I have here alluded to Becket it may be permissible to mention that as the statements of his biographers in the matter of Osbert are confirmed by this extraneous evidence, so have we also evidence in charters of his residence, as "Thomas of London," in the primate's household. To two charters of Theobald to Earls Colne Priory the first witness is "Thoma Lond' Capellano nostro,"[1093] while an even more interesting charter of the primate brings before us those three names, which, says William of Canterbury, were those of his three intimates, the first witness being Roger of Bishopsbridge, while the fourth and fifth are John of Canterbury and Thomas of London, "clerks."[1094] Here is abundant evidence that Becket was then known as "Thomas of London," as indeed Gervase of Canterbury himself implies.[1095]

APPENDIX R. THE FOREST OF ESSEX.

(See pp. 92, 168, 182.)

The references to assarts and to (forest) pleas in the first and second charters of the Empress ought to be carefully compared, as they are of importance in many ways. They run thus respectively:—

First Charter. Second Charter.

Ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis forestariis et assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi usque ad diem quo homo meus devenit, et ut a die illo in antea omnia illa essarta sint amodo excultibilia, et arrabilia sine forisfacto. Quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhæsit.

A similar provision will be found in the charter to Aubrey de Vere. It is evident from these special provisions that the grantees attached a peculiar importance to this indemnity for their assarts; and it is equally noteworthy that the Empress is careful to restrict that indemnity to those assarts which had been made before a certain date ("facta usque ad diem quâ," etc.). This restriction should be compared with that which similarly limited the indemnity claimed by the barons of the Exchequer,[1096] and which has been somewhat overlooked.[1097]

Assarts are duly dealt with in the Leges Henrici Primi, and would form an important part of the "placita forestæ" in his reign. It is reasonable to presume that one of the first results of the removal of his iron hand would be a violent reaction against the tyranny of "the forest." Indeed, we know that Stephen was compelled to give way upon the point. A general outburst of "assarting" would at once follow. Thus the prospect of the return, with the Empress, of her father's forest-law would greatly alarm the offenders who were guilty of "assarts."[1098]

But, further, the earl's fief lay away from the forest proper. Why, then, was this concession of such importance in his eyes? We are helped towards an answer to this question by Mr. Fisher's learned and instructive work on The Forest of Essex. The facts there given, though needing some slight correction, show us that the Crown asserted in the reign of Henry III., that the portion of the county which had been afforested since the accession of Henry II. had (with the exception of the hundred of Tendring) been merely reafforested, having been already "forest" at the death of Henry I., though under Stephen it had ceased to be so. This claim, which was successfully asserted, affected more than half the county. Now, it is singular that throughout the struggle, on this subject, with the Crown, the true forest, that of Waltham (now Epping), was always conceded to be "within forest." Mr. Fisher's valuable maps show its limits clearly. It was, accordingly, tacitly admitted by the perambulation consequent on the Charter of the Forest to have been "forest" before 1154.

The theory suggested to me by these data is this. Stephen, we know, by his Charter of Liberties consented that all the forests created by Henry I. should be disafforested, and retained for himself only those which had been "forest" in the days of the first and the second William. Under this arrangement he retained, I hold, the small true forest (Waltham forest), but had to resign the grasp of the Crown on the additions made to it by Henry I., which amounted to considerably more than half the county. My view that this sweeping extension of "forest" was the work of Henry I. is confirmed by the fact that his "forest" policy is admittedly the most objectionable feature of his rule. Nor, I take it, was it inspired so much by the love of sport as by the great facilities it afforded for pecuniary exaction. In the Pipe-Roll of his thirty-first year we find (to adapt an old saying) "forest pleas as thick as fleas" in Essex, affording proof, moreover, that his "forest" had extended to the extreme north-east of the Lexden hundred. Here then again, I believe, as in so many other matters, Henry II. ignored his predecessor, and reverted to the status quo ante. Nor was the claim he revived finally set at rest, till Parliament disposed of it for ever in the days of Charles I.

An interesting charter bearing on this subject is preserved to us by Inspeximus.[1099] It records the restoration by Stephen to the Abbess of Barking of all her estates afforested by Henry I.[1100] Now, this charter, which is tested at Clarendon (perhaps the only record of Stephen being there), is witnessed by W[illiam] Martel, A[ubrey] de Ver, and E[ustace] fitz John. The name of this last witness[1101] dates the charter as previous to 1138 (when he threw over Stephen), and, virtually, to the king's departure for Normandy early in 1137. Consequently (and this is an important point) we here have Stephen granting, as a favour, to Barking Abbey what he had promised in his great charter to grant universally.[1102] This confirms the charge made by Henry of Huntingdon that he repudiated the concession he had made. His subsequent troubles, however, must have made it difficult for him to adhere to this policy, or check the process of assarting. His grant to the abbess was unknown to Mr. Fisher, who records an inquest of 1292, by which it was found that the woods of the abbess were "without the Regard;" and the Regarders were forbidden to exercise their authority within them.

APPENDIX S. THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER.

(See p. 176.)

The document which is printed below is unknown, it would seem, to historians. It is of a very singular and, in many ways, of a most instructive character. The fact that Earl Miles is one of the contracting parties dates the document as belonging to the period between his creation (July 25, 1141) and his death (December 24, 1143). Further, the fact that the treaty provides for the surrender by him to the Earl of Gloucester of one of his sons as a hostage, taken with the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is recorded (supra, p. 196) to have demanded from his leading supporters their sons as hostages when he left England for Normandy, creates an extremely strong presumption that this document should be assigned to that occasion (June, 1142). It is here printed from a transcript by Dugdale, which I found among his MSS. The absence of any provision defining the services to be rendered by Earl Miles suggests that this portion of the treaty is omitted in the transcript. There is, I think, just a chance that the original may yet be discovered among the public records, for they fortunately contain a similar treaty between the sons and successors of the two contracting parties.[1103] It may be, however, that the original is the document referred to by Dugdale (Baronage, i. 537) as "penes Joh. Philipot Somerset Heraldum anno 1640." The close resemblance between the later document[1103] and that which I here print confirms the authenticity of the latter, and is, it will be seen, illustrated by the wording of the opening clauses:—

Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie. Hæc est confederatio amoris inter Willelmum Comitem Gloec[estrie] et Rogerum comitem Herefordie.

We have also the noteworthy coincidence that Richard de St. Quintin and Hugh de Hese, who are here hostages respectively for the Earls of Gloucester and Hereford, figure again in the later document as hostages for the earls' successors.[1104]

Another document with which this treaty should be carefully compared is the remarkable agreement, in the same reign, between the Earls of Chester and of Leicester,[1105] though this latter suggests by its title—"Hæc est conventio ... et finalis pax et concordia," etc.—the settlement of a strife between them rather than a friendly alliance. I see in it, indeed, the intervention, if not the arbitration, of the Church.

Both these alliances, again, should be compared, for their form, with the treaty between Henry I. and Count Robert of Flanders.[1106] Although a generation earlier than the document here printed, the parallels are very striking:—

Robertus, Comes Flandriæ, fide et sacramento assecuravit Regi Henrico vitam suam et membra quæ corpori suo pertinent ... et quod juvabit eum, etc. Porro Comitissa affidavit, quod, quantum poterit, Comitem in hac conventione tenebit, et in amicitia regis, et in prædicto servitio fideliter per amorem. Hujus conventionis tenendæ ex parte Comitis obsides sunt subscripti.... Quod si Comes ab hac conventione exierit et ... infra XL dies emendare noluerit, etc. Robertus, Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide et sacramento, ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum ... et auxiliabitur illi, etc. Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris, affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse suo tenebit. Et de hac conventione tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii obsides, etc.... Quod si Comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione exiret.... Et si infra XL dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, etc.

The Treaty.

Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum Comitem Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie, Robertus Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie fide et sacramento ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum et terrenum suum honorem, et auxiliabitur illi ad custodiendum sua castella et sua recta et sua hereditaria et sua tenementa et sua conquisita quæ modo habet et quæ faciet, et suas consuetudines et rectitudines et suas libertates in bosco et in plano et aquis, et quod sua hereditaria quæ modo non habet auxiliabitur ad conquirendum. Et si aliquis vellet inde Comiti Hereford malum facere, vel de aliquo decrescere, si comes Hereford vellet inde guerrare, quod Robertus comes Gloecestrie cum illo se teneret, et quod ad suum posse illi auxiliaretur per fidem et sine ingenio, nec pacem neque treuias cum illis haberet qui malum comiti Herefordiæ inferret, nisi per bonum velle et grantam (sic) Comitis Herefordiæ, et nominatim de hac guerra quæ modo est inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum se cum comite Hereford tenebit et ad unum opus erit, et de omnibus aliis guerris.

Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse suo tenebit. Et si inde exiret, ad suum posse illum ad hoc reponeret. Et si non posset, legalem recordationem, si opus esset, inde faceret ad suum scire.

Et de hac conventione firmiter tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii obsides per fidem et sacramentum erga Comitem Hereford: hoc modo, quod si comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Gloecestrie requirerent ut se erga Comitem Herefordiæ erigeret. Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, se Comiti Herefordie liberarent, ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in suo servitio donec illos quietos clamaret vel ad illos ponendos ad legalem redemptionem ita ne terrâ [? terram] perderent. Et quod legalem recordationem de hac conventione facerent si opus esset, Guefridus de Waltervill, Ricardus de Greinvill,[1107] Osbernus Ottdevers,[1108] Reinald de Cahagnis,[1109] Hubertus Dapifer, Odo Sorus,[1110] Gislebertus de Umfravil,[1111] Ricardus de Sancto Quintino.[1112]

Et ex parte Milonis Comitis Hereford ad istud confirmandum concessit Milo Comes Hereford Roberto Comiti Gloecestrie Mathielum filium suum tenendum in obsidem donec guerra inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum et Henricum filium Imperatricis finiatur.

Et interim si Milo Comes Hereford voluerit aliquem alium de suis filiis, qui sanus sit, in loco Mathieli filii sui ponere, recipietur.

Et postquam guerra finita fuerit et Robertus Comes Gloecestrie et Milo Comes Hereford terras suas et sua recta rehabuerint reddet Robertus Comes Gloecestrie Miloni Comiti Herefordie filium suum. Et hinc de probis hominibus utriusque comitis considerabuntur et capientur obsides et securitates de amore ipsorum comitum tenendo imperpetuum.

Et de hac conventione amoris Rogerus filius Comitis Hereford affidavit et juravit Comiti Gloecestrie quod patrem suum pro posse suo tenebit; Et si Comes Hereford inde vellet exire, Rogerus filius suus, inde illum requireret et inde illum corrigeret. Et si Comes Hereford se inde erigere nollet, servicium ipsius Rogeri filii sui prorsus perdet, donec se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erexisset.

Et de hac conventione ex parte Comitis Hereford sunt hii sui homines obsides erga Comitem Gloecestrie et per sacramenta; hoc modo, quod si Comes Hereford de hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Hereford requirerent ut se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigeret. Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Gloecestrie erigere se Comiti Gloecestrie liberarent ad faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in suo servicio donec illos quietos clamaret, vel ad illos ponendos ad legalem redemptionem, ita ne terram perdent. Et quod legalem recordationem de hac conventione in Curia facerent si opus esset, Robertus Corbet, Willelmus Mansel, Hugo de la Hese.

APPENDIX T. "AFFIDATIO IN MANU."

(See p. 177.)

"Hanc autem ... affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi." This formula ("affidavi ... in manu") is deserving of careful study. It ought to be compared with a passage in the Chronicle of Abingdon (ii. 160), describing how, some quarter of a century before, in the assembled county court (comitatus) of Berkshire, the delegate of the abbey, "pro ecclesiâ affidavit fidem in manu ipsius vicecomitis, vidente toto comitatu." This was a case of "affidatio" by proxy; but in the above charter we find Geoffrey stipulating for "affidatio" in person ("propria manu") by the Empress, her husband, and her son. Accordingly, when the young Henry confirms his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere (see p. 186), he does so "manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Inga, sicut mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufredi." Thus Geoffrey allowed himself the privilege, which he refused to the other contracting party, of "affidatio" by proxy, and made Hugh de Ing his delegate for the purpose.

A curious allusion to this practice is found in the words of Ranulf Flambard some half a century earlier, when he promises the captor in whose power he was to grant him all that he can ask, "et ne discredas promissis, ecce manu affirmo quod polliceor."—Continuatio Historiæ Turgoti (Anglia Sacra, i. 707). The formula was probably of great antiquity. It occurs in the lifetime of Archbishop Oswald (died 992), who obtained a lease for life on behalf of a certain Wulfric, of the provisions in which we read: "Hoc totum idem Wlfricus, sub oculis multorum qui aderant, in manu viri Dei qui pro eo intercessor accesserat affidavit" (Chron. Ram., p. 81). It is found, however, as late as 1187, when at the foundation of Dodnash Priory the canons "juraverunt et fidem in manu nostra corporaliter ... firmaverunt," says the bishop (Ancient Charters, p. 88). Another late instance is found in the Burton Cartulary (fol. 33), where Robert fitz Walter, that his grant "inconcussum permaneat, in toto comitatu, multis cementibus qui se ipsos testes concesserunt, in manu Vicecomitis Serlonis manu meâ hoc tenendum et servandum affidavi." So also in the Pipe-Roll of 3 John we find recorded a lease, "et quod ipse Micael et Everardus frater suus affidaverunt in manu H. Cantuarensis Arch. hanc Conventionem fideliter tenendam" (Rot. 6 b). An instance, in 1159, may be quoted from the Cartulary of St. Michael on the Mount because of its curious legal bearing. Robert de Belvoir mortgages to the abbey lands which he had settled on his wife in dower, and, in order to bar her claim, she, by her brother, guarantees the transaction by "affidatio in manu" to the abbot's delegate.[1113] This arrangement should be compared with that which is discussed in my Ancient Charters, pp. 22, 23.[1114] Perhaps, however, the most singular case is one which I noted in the Cartulary (MS.) of Rievaulx, and which is also of the reign of Henry II. A widow grants lands to that abbey, "et illam donationem tenendam et fideliter observandam manu propria affidavit in manu Vicecomitissæ, vid. Bert[æ] uxoris vicecomitis Ranulfi de Glanvill[a]."[1115] The conjunction here of the two women, the presence of the great Glanville himself, and the part played by his wife, together with the title assigned her, all combine to render the transaction one of unusual interest.

It was by this formal and binding pledge that the leaders of the English host swore to one another to do or die on the field of the Battle of the Standard. Turning to William of Aumâle, and placing his hand in his, Walter Espec pledged his faith that he would conquer or be slain; and his fellow-commanders did the same."[1116] It was, again, by this solemn pledge, towards the close of Stephen's reign, that the Bishop of Winchester, before his brother prelates, covenanted to surrender Winchester to the duke at the king's death[1117]—even as the duke himself had covenanted (April 9, 1152) with the Bishop of Salisbury concerning Devizes Castle[1118]—in terms to be closely compared with those of his charter to Aubrey, and his mother's to Earl Geoffrey in 1142.

The practice is, I find, alluded to, incidentally, by Giraldus Cambrensis, who tells us that the Welsh "Adeo fidei fœdus, aliis inviolabile gentibus, parvipendere solent, ut non in seriis solum et necessariis, verum in ludicris, omnique fere verbo firmando, dextræ manus ut mos est porrectione, signo usuali dato, fidem gratis effundere consueverint." Here the point of the complaint is that they made light of this solemn practice, indulging in it freely on every occasion instead of reserving it for important matters. The existence of this archaic "fidei fœdus" as the formal confirmation of a contract is, of course, of the greatest interest. It still lingers on, not only with us, but abroad. In San Marino (Italy), for instance, "sales are conducted with much animation. Two sturdy proprietors stand back to back.... A third party stands between the two; ... he pulls one by the shoulder, the other by an elbow, and finally by an apparently acrobatic feat he unites their hands" ("A Political Survival," Macmillan's, January, 1891, p. 197). In the Lebanon, we are told by a well-informed writer: "A few months ago I had occasion to enter into a business contract with one of my Druse farmers. When we were about to draw up the agreement, the Druse suggested that, as he could neither read nor write, we should ratify the bargain in the manner customary among his people. This consists of a solemn grasping of hands together in the presence of two or three other Druses as witnesses, whilst the agreement is recited by both parties.... Accordingly, the farmer brought three of his neighbours to me; and the terms of our contract having been made known to them, one of them took the right hand of each of us and joined them together, whilst he dictated to us what to say after him" ("The Druses," Blackwood's, January, 1891, pp. 754, 755). With us, Gerald would be grieved to hear, the ancient form survives not only for the bargain but the bet, though it only continues in full vigour as the sign of the marriage contract, where "the minister ... shall cause the man with his right hand to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after him as followeth,"—even as the Druses, we have seen, make their contracts to-day, and as the Empress Maud sealed her own seven centuries ago.[1119]

The allusion by the Empress to the "Christianitas Angliæ" refers doubtless to the fact that the breach of such "affidatio" would constitute a "læsio fidei," and would thus become a matter for the jurisdiction of the courts Christian. It was indeed on this plea that these courts claimed to attract to themselves all cases of contract, a claim against which, it is necessary to explain, an article (No. 15) of the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) was specially directed.[1120]

APPENDIX U. THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE.

(See p. 178.)

The confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two families is due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several generations, the successive heads of the family of De Vere were all named Aubrey ("Albericus"); and in the second, to a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which proves as inaccurate as to the marriage of its founder as it is on the date of his creation.[1121] Dugdale, accepting all its statements without the slightest hesitation, has combined in a single passage no less than three errors, together with the means for their detection.[1122] Among these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a daughter of Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."[1123] Accordingly, she so figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has now reappeared in Mr. Doyle's Official Baronage.[1124] Oddly enough, in his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, Dugdale makes Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of Oxford, but of his grandfather Aubrey,[1125] and so enters her in the tabular pedigree.[1126] And yet she was, in truth, daughter neither of the earl nor of his grandfather, but of his father, the chamberlain.[1127] To establish this will now be my task.

Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey de Vere "senior" of the Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey, about twenty years are interposed. Their identity, therefore, is not actually proved, though the presumption, of course, is in its favour. But from the time of the latter Aubrey all is clear. The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon Cartulary is as follows:—

Our next source of information is the Cartulary of Colne Priory,[1128] in combination with an invaluable tract, De miraculis S. Osythæ, composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first earl, and a canon of St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was acquainted with both documents, but lost the full force of the latter by failing to identify its author. He gives us as sons to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey the first earl, (a) William de Vere, (b) —— de Vere, canon of St. Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter of Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" son William;[1129] secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the earl, witnessed by his brother William, "presbyter;"[1130] thirdly, by the charter from the Empress to the earl, in which she provides for all his brothers, the chancellorship, a clerical post, being promised to William.[1131] We may further assert of this tract that it must have been written after 1163, for the canon tells us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of widowhood at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.[1132] In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,[1133] as "justitiarius totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion that he held that high office, a statement which exercised the mind of Foss, who complains that "it is difficult to tell on what authority" he is introduced among its holders both by Dugdale and Spelman.[1134] He further speaks of his mother as "Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare, and exults in the fact that she has spent her widowhood, not in the family priory at Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also to his sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ." Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was sister to the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and was aunt to their sons, Earls of Essex.[1135] Accordingly, we find the Countess Rohese giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory for the souls of her father, Aubrey de Vere, and her husband, Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl William, confirming the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."[1136] It is quite clear that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of Gilbert de Clare.

But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an answer to this question, to the Chronicle of Walden Abbey. There we shall find that she married twice, and left issue by both husbands. Her first husband was Robert de Essex[1137]; her second was Roger fitz Richard, of Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, Northumberland, ancestor of the Claverings. Now, "Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and heir of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror, and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of the Confessor, under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The descent is proved, in a conclusive manner, by the description of the second Robert among the benefactors to Lewes Priory, in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in another as Robert de Essex.[1138] Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory as a cell to Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting the foundation charter.[1139] Robert's son and heir was the well-known Henry de Essex.[1140] So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it is certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod by birth—who was mother of his son Henry. Therefore "Alice of Essex" cannot have been his widow. Consequently she must have been the widow of another Robert de Essex, possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, Roger fitz Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of Clavering).

We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular pedigree, showing the relationship that existed between the families of Mandeville and De Vere.

It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to show all the children. It gives those only which are required for our special purpose. On some points there is still need of more original information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William de Say, was sister, and not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. I know of nothing to the contrary. Still the fact would seem to rest on the authority of the Walden Chronicle. The re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de Beauchamp, and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well established, but the date of her death is taken from the Chronicle, and seems suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after the charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother survived her husband for twenty-two years implies that her children may have been comparatively young at his death. Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore have been several years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville.

But the main point has been, in any case, established, namely, the true relationship of these baronial houses. That which is given by Dugdale contains the further error of representing Alice de Vere as wife, not of Robert de Essex, but of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his Antiquities of Heraldry (p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship, the existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is "correct, or approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he errs in assigning to Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, he transforms Roger fitz Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, given as her second husband, into her son-in-law.[1141]

My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had worked out the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their bearing on the adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had been anticipated in this investigation by the author of that scholarly work, The Antiquities of Heraldry. As the conclusions, however, at which I had arrived differ slightly from those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them forth.

Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple QUARTERLY shield":—

"There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial ensign is to be found in the distinguished family of De Vere, as all the families in the table who bear it are descended from the head of that house who lived at the commencement of the twelfth century."[1142]

I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued and erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions are based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further on:—

"Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom all, or their wives were descended?"[1143]

Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves this statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended from Mandeville, but not descended from De Vere. It is, therefore, shown by his own "table" that this must have been a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms, the very practice against which he here strenuously argues.[1144] Thus the very case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to emphasize this point because it is the pivot on which the question turns. If "all the families in the table" who bore the quarterly coat were indeed descended from De Vere, Mr. Ellis's theory would account for the facts. But, by his own showing, they were not. Some other explanation must therefore be sought.

That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which I am still compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" of this quarterly coat was the central figure of this family group, Geoffrey de Mandeville himself. It being, as I have shown, absolutely clear that there must have been collateral adoption, the only question that remains to be decided is from which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere, was the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former is that the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, the greatest personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, at Oxford, as his dependant rather than as his equal. On this ground, then, it seems to me far more probable that Aubrey should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey than that Geoffrey should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second reason is this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the simplest form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, is that borne by the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded blazons till the reign of Henry III., but when we do, it is as "quartele de or & de goulez" that the coat of the Earl of Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first meets us.[1145] But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem, bear this coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with a mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for distinction) being in this case reversed.[1146] Thus heraldry, as well as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original bearer of the coat.

It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that Geoffrey de Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple paternal coat, and that it is still to be seen on the shield of his effigy among the monuments at the Temple Church. But antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that this is indeed his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from that Chronicle of Walden which is in error in its statements on his foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. Nor is there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of his heirs.[1147]

But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet to be considered. A little thought will soon show that no hypothesis can possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly coat by these various families at any other period than this in which they all intermarried. If we wish to trace to its origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must go back to some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle we ought to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for successive generations, to those families who were privileged to ally themselves to it. Yet we can only trace this principle at work in this particular generation. If Mandeville, and Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds, the coat of De Vere, why should not De Vere, in the previous generation, have adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for the phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats all originated in this generation and in consequence of these intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would be adopted by his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's brother De Vere, and by those other relatives shown in the pedigree. Once adopted they remain, till they meet us in the recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III.

The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign of Stephen was the period in which heraldic bearings were assuming a definite form. Most heralds would place it later: Mr. Ellis would have us believe that we ought to place it earlier. The question has been long and keenly discussed, and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with certainty the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation and of one alone.

If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at Evesham) to distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not improbable that these kindred coats may represent the alliance of their bearers, as typified in the Oxford charters, beneath the banner of the Earl of Essex.[1148]

APPENDIX V. WILLIAM OF ARQUES.

(See p. 180.)

Separate treatment is demanded by that clause in the charter to Aubrey which deals with the fief of William of Arques:—

"Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine placito, pro servicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et jure quod clamat ex parte uxoris suæ sicut unquam Willelmus de Archis ea melius tenuit."

The descent of this barony has formed the subject of an erudite and instructive paper by the late Mr. Stapleton.[1149] The pedigree which he established may be thus expressed:—

This descent renders the above clause in the charter intelligible at once, for it shows that Aubrey was to reunite the whole Arques fief in his own holding jure uxoris.

Mr. Stapleton, who prints the clause from the translation given by Dugdale, justly pronounces it "extremely important, as establishing the fact of his marriage at its date with the heiress of the barony of Arques as well as of the comté of Guisnes." With Aubrey's tenure of this comté I have dealt at p. 188.

APPENDIX X. ROGER "DE RAMIS."

(See p. 181.)

The entries relating to the fief of this tenant in capite are probably as corrupt as any to be found in the Liber Niger.

The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in this charter and Domesday invariably as de Ramis—an inevitable confusion soon arose between it and the name of their chief seat in England, Rayne, co. Essex. Morant, in his history of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne being entered in Domesday and in the Liber Niger as "Raines," the name of the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" (i. 237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, 240). The Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was succeeded by William "de Raimes," who was dead in 1130, when his sons Roger and Robert are found indebted to the Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.). Further, if the Liber Niger (i. 237, 239) is to be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is clear. But when we come to the cartæ of 1166 all is hopeless confusion. There are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex portion, but while the carta of that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" is intelligible, though very corrupt, the other is assigned by an amazing blunder to William fitz Miles, who was merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover, the entries are so similar that they might be easily taken for variants of the same carta.

Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.). We there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:—

"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII l. et XIII s. et IIII d. pro Rogero de Ram'.

"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII l. et XIII s. IIII d. pro Ricardo de Ram'."

They require some explanation. The sums here accounted for (though it is not so stated) are payments towards "the great scutage" of the year at two marks on the knight's fee. These were in most cases paid collectively by the aggregate of knights liable. Here, luckily for us, these two tenants paid separately. Turning the payments into marcs, and then dividing by two, we find that each represents an assessment of nine and a half knights. Now, we know for certain from the Liber Niger (i. 240) that the assessment of one of these two fiefs was ten knights, and that its holder was entitled to deduct from that assessment an amount equivalent to half a knight. For such is the meaning in the language of the Exchequer of the phrase: "feodum dimidii militis ... quod mihi computatur in X militibus quos Regi debeo." Thus we obtain the exact amount (nine and a half knights) on which he pays in the above Roll.[1150]

But we can go further still. Each of the two fiefs was entitled to the same deduction (Liber Niger). Both, therefore, must have been alike assessed at ten knights. We are now on the right track. These two fiefs in the Liber Niger are not identical but distinct; they represent an original fief, assessed at twenty knights, which has been divided into two equal halves, each with an assessment of ten knights. And as with the whole fief, so with some of its component parts. Dedham, for instance, the "Delham" of Domesday (ii. 83) and the "Diham" of our charter, was held of the lord of the fief by the service of one knight. When the fief was divided in two, Dedham was divided too. Accordingly, we find it mentioned in our charter (1142) as "Diham que fuit Rogeri de Ramis, rectum ... filiorum Rogeri de Ramis." It was their joint right, because it was divided between them, just as it still appears divided in the cartæ of 1166.[1151]

But further, why is Dedham alone mentioned in this charter? Because it was that portion of the fief which the Crown had seized and kept, and consequently that of which the restoration was now exacted from the Empress. And why had the Crown seized it? Possibly as security for those very debts, which were due to it from William "de Raimes" (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.).[1152]

Dedham was not the only divided manor in the fief. "Totintuna," in Norfolk, was similarly shared, its one knight's fee being halved. This enables us to correct an error in the Liber Niger. We there read (i. 237)—

And again (i. 239)—

In the latter case the right reading is—

Further, Robert "de Reines" is returned in both cartæ as holding (1166) a quarter of a knight's fee in each fief, "de novo fefamento," apparently in Higham (Suffolk), not far from Dedham (Essex). This suggests his enfeofment by the service of half a knight, and the division of his holding when the fief was divided. It is strange that on the Roll of 1159 he is entered as paying one marc, which would be the exact amount payable for half a knight.[1154]

Thus the main points have been satisfactorily established. The genealogy is not so easy. Our charter tells us that, in 1142, the sons of Roger "de Ramis" were the "nepotes" of Earl Aubrey. From the earl's age at the time they could not be his grandsons: they were, therefore, his nephews, the sons of a sister. Were they the Richard and Roger who, in 1159, held respectively the two halves of the original fief (Rot. Pip., 5 Hen. II.)? To answer this question, we must grasp the data clearly. In 1130 and in 1135 the two fiefs were respectively held by Robert and Roger, the sons of William. In our charter (1142) we find them, it would seem, held by "the sons of Roger," probably of tender years. This would suggest that the Robert (son of William) of 1135 had died childless before 1142, and that his fief had been reunited to that of his brother Roger, only, however, for the joint fief to be again divided between Roger's sons. But the question is further complicated by some documents relating to the church of Ardleigh, one of which is addressed by "Robertus de Ramis filius Rogeri de Ramis" to Robert [de Sigillo], Bishop of London, while another, addressed to the same bishop, proceeds from Robert son of William "de Ramis," apparently his uncle. In 1159 the two fiefs reappear as held respectively by Roger and Richard "de Ramis." In 1165 (Rot. Pip., 11 Hen. II.) we find them held by William and Richard de Ramis, and thenceforth they were always known as the fiefs of William and of Richard. The actual names of the holders of the fiefs in 1166 (one of which is ignored by the Black Book and the other given as Robert) are determined by the Pipe-Roll of 1168, where they are entered as William and Richard. Thus, at length, we ascertain that the carta assigned to William "filius Milonis" was in truth that of William "de Ramis," while that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" was in truth that of Richard "de Ramis." The entry on this Pipe-Roll relating to the latter fief throws so important a light on the Carta of 1166, that I here print the two side by side.

1166. 1168/

Hii sunt milites qui tenuerunt de feodo Roberti de Raimes die qua Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, viz:—... Willelmus filius Jocelini II milites Philippus Parage feodum dim. militis. Horum servitium difforciant mihi Willelmus filius Jocelini et Philippus. Simon de Cantilupo detinet mihi Heingeham quam tenere debeo de Rege in dominio meo. Ricardus de Reimis [al. Raimes] reddit compotum de X marcis pro X militibus. In thesauro XXXIII sol. et IIII den. Et in dominio Regis de Dedham i mar. Et debet IIII li. et VI sol. et VIII den. sed calumpniatur quod Picot de Tanie[1155] habet II milites per Regem, et Simo de Cantelu IIos, et Comes Albricus dim., et Phylippus Parage dim.

If, as implied by our charter, the sons of Roger ("de Ramis") were minors at the time of the Anarchy, this would account for Earl Hugh seizing, as recorded in William's carta, five of his knights' fees in the time of King Stephen (Liber Niger, i. 237).

The later history of these two fiefs is one of some complexity, but the descent of Dedham, which alone concerns our own charter, is fortunately quite clear. Its two halves are well shown in the Testa de Nevill entry:—

"Leonia de Stutevill tenet feodum unius militia in Byh[a]m unde debet facere unam medietatem heredi Ricardi de Reymes et alteram medietatem heredi Willelmi de Reymes" (i. 276).

For this Byham, improbable as it may seem, was really the "Diham" of our charter, i.e. Dedham, and the two halves of the original barony are here described (as I explained above) as those of Richard and William. In a survey of Richard's portion of the fief among the inquisitions of John (circ. 1212),[1156] we find Leonia holding half a knight's fee in "Dyham" of it, and in a later inquisition we find her heir, John de Stuteville, holding the estate as "Dyhale" (Testa, p. 281 b). As early as 1185-86 Leonia was already in possession of Dedham, as will be seen by the extract below from the Rotulus de Dominabus. This entry is one of a series which have formed the subject of keen, and even hot, discussion. The fact that Dedham is spoken of here as her "inheritance" has led to the hasty inference that she was heiress, or co-heiress, to the Raimes fief. This view seems to have been started by Mr. E. Chester Waters in a communication to Notes and Queries (1872),[1157] in which, on the strength of the entries below relating to her and to Alice de Tani, he drew out a pedigree deriving them both from the "Roger de Ramis of Domesday." Writing to the Academy in 1885, he took great credit to himself for his performance in Notes and Queries, and observed, of Mr. Yeatman: "I must refer him to the Rotulus de Dominabus and to the Chartulary of Bocherville Abbey for the true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes."[1158] But the extracts which follow clearly show (when combined with the Testa entry above) that neither Leonia nor Alice were the "true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes," for they were merely under-tenants of that fief, Leonia holding one knight's fee from the tenants of the whole fief, and Alice two knights' fees from the tenants of Richard's portion.

(Lexden Hundred.)

Uxor Roberti de Stuteville est de donatione Domini Regis, et de parentela Edwardi de Salesburia ex parte patris, et ex parte matris est de progenie Rogeri de Reimes. Ipsa habet j villam que vocatur Diham que est hereditas ejus, que valet annuatim xxiiij libras. Ipsa habet j filium et ij filias, et nescitur eorum etas.

(Tendring Hundred.)

Alizia de Tany est de donatione Domini Regis; terra ejus valet vij libras, et ipsa habet v filios et ij filias, et heres ejus est xx annorum, de progenie Rogeri de Reimes.

(Hinckford.)

Alicia filia Willelmi filii Godcelini quam tradidit Dominus Rex Picoto de Tani est in donatione Domini Regis, et tenet de Domino Rege, et de feodo Ricardi de Ramis; et terra sua valet vij libras; et ipsa habet v filios et primogenitus est xx annorum, et ij filias. Picot de Tani habuit dictam terram v annis elapsis, cum autumpnus venerit.

Leonia is indeed stated to be "de progenie Rogeri de Reimes," and so is the heir of Alice (not, as alleged, Alice herself), but there is nothing to show that this was the Roger de Raimes "of Domesday." It may have been his namesake (and grandson?) of 1130-35, or even (though probably not) the Roger of 1159. Whether the allusion, in our charter (1142), to Dedham being the "rectum" of the sons of Roger de Ramis, and the fact of its being in the king's hands then and in 1166-68, had to do with a claim by Leonia or her mother, or not, it is obvious that Leonia did not claim, nor did Alice de Tani, to be, in any sense, the heir of either of the above Rogers, though she may have been, as was the case so often with under-tenants, connected with them in blood.

APPENDIX Y. THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND.

(See p. 198.)

The dates and circumstances of these two visits are a subject of some importance and interest. Fortunately, they can be accurately ascertained.

It is certain that, on Henry's first visit, he landed with his uncle at Wareham towards the close of 1142. Stephen had been besieging the Empress in Oxford since the 26th of September,[1159] and her brother, recalled to England by her danger, must have landed, with Henry, about the beginning of December, for she had then been besieged more than two months, and Christmas was at hand.[1160] This date is confirmed by another calculation. For the earl, on landing, we are told, laid siege to the castle of Wareham, and took it, after three weeks.[1161] But as the flight of the Empress from Oxford coincided with, or followed immediately after, his capture of the castle,[1162] and as that flight took place on the eve of Christmas,[1163] after a siege of three months,[1164] this would similarly throw back the landing of the earl at Wareham to the beginning of December (1142).

By a strange oversight, Dr. Stubbs, the supreme authority on his life, makes Henry arrive in 1141, "when he was eight years old, to be trained in arms;"[1165] whereas, as we have seen, he did not arrive till towards the end of 1142, when he was nine years and three-quarters old. Nor, it would seem, was there any intention that he should be then trained in arms. This point is here mentioned because it bears on the chronology of Gervase, as criticised by Dr. Stubbs, who, I venture to think, may have been thus led to pronounce it, as he does, "unsound."

On recovering Wareham, Henry and his uncle set out for Cirencester, where the earl appointed a rendezvous of his party, with a view to an advance on Oxford. The Empress, however, in the mean time, unable to hold out any longer, effected her well-known romantic escape and fled to Wallingford, where those of her supporters who ought to have been with her when Stephen assailed her, had gathered round the stronghold of Brian fitz Count, having decided that their forces were not equal to raising the siege of Oxford.[1166] Thither, therefore, the earl now hastened with his charge, and the Empress, we are told, forgot all her troubles in the joy of the meeting with her son.[1167]

Stephen had been as eager to relieve his beleaguered garrison at Wareham as the earl had been, at the same time, to raise the siege of Oxford. Neither of them, however, would attempt the task till he had finished the enterprise he had in hand.[1168] But now that the fall of Oxford had set Stephen free, he determined, though Wareham had fallen, that he would at least regain possession.[1169] But the earl had profited, it seems, by his experience of the preceding year, and Stephen found the fortress was now too strong for him.[1170] He accordingly revenged himself for this disappointment by ravaging the district with fire and sword.[1171] Thus passed the earlier months of 1143. Eventually, with his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, he marched to Wilton, where he proceeded to convert the nunnery of St. Etheldred into a fortified post, which should act as a check on the garrison of the Empress at Salisbury.[1172] The Earl of Gloucester, on hearing of this, burst upon his forces in the night, and scattered them in all directions. Stephen himself had a narrow escape, and the enemy made a prisoner of William Martel, his minister and faithful adherent.[1173] This event is dated by Gervase July 1 (1143).

I have been thus particular in dealing with this episode because, as Dr. Stubbs rightly observes, "the chronology of Gervase is here quite irreconcilable with that of Henry of Huntingdon, who places the capture of William Martel in 1142."[1174] But a careful collation of Gervase's narrative with that given in the Gesta removes all doubt as to the date, for it is certain, from the sequence of events in 1142, that at no period of that year can Stephen and the Earl of Gloucester have been in Wiltshire at the same time. There is, therefore, no question that the two detailed narratives I have referred to are right in assigning the event to 1143, and that Henry of Huntingdon, who only mentions it briefly, has placed it under a wrong date, having doubtless confused the two attacks (1142 and 1143) that Stephen made on Wareham.[1175]

Henry, says Gervase (i. 131), now spent four years in England, during which he remained at Bristol under the wing of his mighty uncle, by whom his education was entrusted to a certain Master Mathew.[1176] A curious reference by Henry himself to this period of his life will be found in the Monasticon (vol. vi.), where, in a charter (? 1153) to St. Augustine's, Bristol, he refers to that abbey as one

"quam inicio juventutis meæ beneficiis et protectione cœpi juvare et fovere."

It should be noticed that Gervase twice refers to Henry's stay as one of four years (i. 125, 133), and that this statement is strictly in harmony with those by which it is succeeded. Dr. Stubbs admits that Henry's departure is placed by him "at the end of 1146,"[1177] and this would be exactly four years from the date when, as we saw, he landed. Again, Gervase goes on to state that two years and four months elapsed before his return.[1178] This would bring us to April, 1149; and "here," as Dr. Stubbs observes, "we get a certain date," for "Henry was certainly knighted at Carlisle at Whitsuntide [May 22], 1149."[1179] It will be seen then that the chronology of Gervase is thoroughly consistent throughout.[1180] When Dr. Stubbs writes: "Gervase's chronology is evidently unsound here, but the sequence of events is really obscure,"[1181] he alludes to the mention of the Earl of Gloucester's death. But it will be found, on reference to the passage, that its meaning is quite clear, namely, that the earl died during Henry's absence (interea), and in the November after his departure. And such was, admittedly, the case.

The second visit of Henry to England has scarcely obtained the attention it deserved. It was fully intended, I believe, at the time, that his arrival should give the signal for a renewal of the civil war. This is, by Gervase (i. 140), distinctly implied. He also tells us that it was now that Henry abandoned his studies to devote himself to arms.[1182] It would seem, however, to be generally supposed that the sole incident of this visit was his receiving knighthood from his great-uncle, the King of Scots, at Carlisle. But it is at Devizes that he first appears, charter evidence informing us of the fact that he was there, surrounded by some leading partisans, on April 13.[1183] Again, it has, apparently, escaped notice that the author of the Gesta, at some length, refers to this second visit (pp. 127-129). His editor, at least, supposed him to be referring to Henry's first (1142) and third (1153) visits; these, in that gentleman's opinion, being evidently one and the same.[1184] According to the Gesta, Henry began by attacking the royal garrisons in Cricklade and Bourton, which would harmonize, it will be seen, exactly with a northerly advance from Devizes. He was, however, unsuccessful in these attempts. Among those who joined him, says Gervase, were the Earls of Hereford and of Chester. The former duly appears with him at Devizes in the charter to which I have referred; the latter is mentioned by John of Hexham as being present with him at Carlisle.[1185] This brings us to the strange story, told by the author of the Gesta, that Henry, before long, deserted by his friends, was forced to appeal to Stephen for supplies. There is this much to be said in favour of the story, namely, that the Earl of Chester did play him false.[1186] Moreover, the Earl of Gloucester, who is said to have refused to help him,[1187] certainly does not appear as taking any steps on his behalf. Lastly, it is not impossible that Stephen, whose generosity, in thus acting, is so highly extolled by the writer, may have taken advantage of Henry's trouble, to send him supplies on the condition that he should abandon his enterprise and depart. It is, in any case, certain that he did depart at the commencement of the following year (1150).[1188]

APPENDIX Z. BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME.

(See p. 209.)

A most interesting and instructive series of papal letters is preserved in the valuable Cotton MS. known as Tiberius, A. vi. The earliest with which we are here concerned are those referred to in the Historia Eliensis as obtained by Alexander and his fellows, the "nuncii" of Nigel to the pope, in virtue of which the bishop regained his see in 1142 (ante, p. 162).[1189] These letters are dated April 29. As the bishop was driven from the see early in 1140, the year to which they belong is not, at first sight, obvious. The Historia indeed appears to place them just before his return, but its narrative is not so clear as could be wished, nor would it imply that the bishop returned so late as May (1142). The sequence of events I take to have been this. Nigel, when ejected from his see (1140), fled to the Empress at Gloucester. There he remained till her triumph in the following year (1141). He would then, of course, regain his see, and this would account for his knights being found in possession of the isle when Stephen recovered his throne. The king, eager to reassert his rights and to avoid another fenland revolt, would send the two earls to Ely (1142) to regain possession of its strongholds. The bishop, now once more an exile, and despairing of Maud's fortunes, would turn for help to the pope, and obtain from him these letters commanding his restoration to his see. I should therefore assign them to April 29, 1142. This would account for the expression "per longa tempora" in the letter to Stephen. They could not belong to 1141, when the Empress was in power, and the above expression would not be applicable in the year 1140.