APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A. STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS.

(See p. 3.)

There are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of Stephen's reign than that which describes, in the Gesta, his "pactio" with the citizens of London. This, because of the striking resemblance between the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" there described and the similar practice in those foreign towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa." Thus at Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, omnes cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... similiter et rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus quod sit bonus dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat eos de omni injuria de se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, in the Perigord, it was (as was usual) the lord who had to swear first before the citizens would do so: "en aital manieira que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste sagrament ...; deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et d'autrui de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las males lor oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome deven li far lo sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de forsa," etc., etc. At Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo in Vasconia, juratur ab eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel a senescallo suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni injuria, et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos juramus ei et senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when the Great Seneschal of Aquitaine, as representing the king, first arrived, he was called upon to swear by all the saints that he would be a good and loyal lord; that he would protect the citizens from all wrong and violence, either from himself or from others; that he would preserve all their rights, customs, and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he held the office, saving his fealty to the king.[746] When he had done so, the mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— "By those saints, will we be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient to you; your life and limbs we will guard; good and loyal counsel will we give you to the best of our power, and your secrets will we keep."[747] These examples, which could be widely paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle and uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum."

We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some such transaction as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of the citizens. We shall find the Empress securing the city in 1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St. Albans with its authorized representatives, and we know that the Conqueror himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester of Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be questioned whether we should accept the startling assertion in the Gesta as literally correct. It would seem at least highly probable that what the Londoners really claimed in 1135 was not the right to elect a king of all England, but to choose their own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom, and to do so by a separate negotiation between himself and them. They were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their lord unless he would first guarantee them the possession of all their liberties. This semi-independent attitude, which was virtually that assumed by Exeter when it attempted to treat with the Conqueror, was distinctly foreign to the English polity so far as our knowledge goes. There are faint hints, however, in Domesday that such towns as London, York, Winchester, and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than it has hitherto been the custom to believe.

APPENDIX B. THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136.

(See p. 8.)

One of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have made in the course of my researches has been the true story of the appeal to Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. Considering the exceptional importance of this episode, in many ways, it has received strangely little attention, with the result that it has been imperfectly understood and almost incredibly misdated.

Mr. Freeman, working, in the Norman Conquest, from the Historia Pontificalis,[748] writes of this episode as taking place on and in consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation of Eustace in 1152.[749] Miss Norgate has gone into the matter far more fully than Mr. Freeman, but at first assigned the debate described in the Historia Pontificalis to "1151."[750]

In so doing, she was guided merely by the Historia passage itself, which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating the matter more closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:—

"From the way in which the trial is brought into the Historia Pontificalis, it would at first sight seem to have taken place in 1151. But the presence of Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester, both of whom died in 1149, and the account of the proceedings written by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count, clearly prove the true date to be 1148."[751]

As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, but in April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no less fatal to Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. But the additional evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's letter requires a special examination.

The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:—

(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council convened at Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.).

(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence by the Pope.

(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to an investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, in reply, calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter."

(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, and Stephen "appears to have consented, as if in desperation, to the proposed trial at Rome."

(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the Historia Pontificalis, and is attended, inter alios, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Gloucester, who had obtained "the succession to the vacant see" of Hereford at the Council of Rheims, and had added, in consequence, to his style the words "et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ mandato Domini Papæ vicarius."

(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, reviewing the treatise which Brian had just composed in support of the claims of the Empress, and alluding to the above "trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert) had attended.

(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by Theobald, at St. Omer, in September (1148).[752]

Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or 1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese (ut supra)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry was ex hypothesi now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been, surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any direct evidence.

But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the Historia Pontificalis to see that they must have been perused with almost incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (a) that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (b) that the "trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143. The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months, and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143. This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, de novo? Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the Historia writer as Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was, further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning again to the passage in the Historia Pontificalis (41), we find that, in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So, indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder by which two passages of the narrative are printed in Pertz as part of the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the Historia, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what extent, his claim came to be confirmed.

This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. For, the trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in 1136, he attended it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as "minimus Cluniacensium," in attendance on his famous abbot, Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It may have been as prior ("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus attended him, for we know from himself that he had held that office.

Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester, Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in crowning Stephen by explaining the grounds on which his scruples had been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759]

The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a moment for the purpose of insisting on the important fact that the sympathies of the house, under its then abbot, must have been with the Angevin cause. This is certain from the documents printed by Sir George Duckett,[760] especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating to the Empress.[761] We have here, I think, the probable explanation of the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert Foliot.

To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful heir.[762] Stephen's supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason given above), the oath was ipso facto void, and the charge fell to the ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first, on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed, to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her stead.[765]

A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the other writer have any inducement to do so, writing (as he did) long after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are precisely those which the author of the Gesta and William of Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was, clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour, described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First, they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir; then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an argument as this speaks for itself.

The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea? The Historia asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found in the Historia, though composed much later, is a more detailed account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He relies on St. Anselm's consent to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the Historia, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea.

Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,[770] to have simply "stampeded the convention" (conventus), and the wrath of the Angevin champion rose to a white heat.[771] The pope commanded that the wrangling should cease, and announced that he would neither pass sentence nor allow the trial to be adjourned. This was equivalent to a verdict that the king was not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter to Stephen confirming him in his possession of the kingdom and the duchy.[772]

Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers relieved his feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of St. Peter.[773]

But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by which the pope (the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in possession. For this connecting link is no other than the letter which meets us in the pages of Richard of Hexham.[774]

Its relevant portion runs thus:—

"Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa, qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."

The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis in regno Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as "ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." Of this "confirmation," as we find it styled by the author of the Historia, by Richard of Hexham, by John of Hexham, and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the text. For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the "conventus" at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, which was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is assigned to the spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive at the fact that the council and debate at Rome belong to the early months of 1136.

To complete while we are about it the explanation of the Historia narrative, we will now take the second passage which has been erroneously printed in Pertz—

"Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam Celestinum, favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam, quia res erat litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est. Successores eius papæ Lucius et Eugenius eandem prohibitionem innovaverunt."

This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer.

The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen. Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (ut supra) of the Historia Pontificalis; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him, when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the authority of all three, including that of the writer of the Historia Pontificalis.

The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged doubt in which his predecessor had left the question. It was, he held, still "res litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing the action of Innocent in the matter, he felt free to forbid any further step in advance. His instructions to that effect, to the primate, were duly renewed by his successors, and covered, when the time arrived, the case of the coronation of Eustace as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could not be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of the "perjured" king.[776]

With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained by Stephen from the pope, I have dealt in the body of this work. There are, however, a few minor points which had better be disposed of here. Of these the first is Miss Norgate's contention that when, in 1148, Stephen met Geoffrey's challenge to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter challenge calling upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy before he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter,"

"Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to his own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."[777]

A reference to the passage in the Historia[778] on which Miss Norgate relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had refused admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of interest.

This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" by the pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented his transferring his allegiance to the Empress, badly though Stephen had treated him, till he received permission from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps of his brother prelates.[780]

The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert Foliot had enraged the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen for the see of Hereford. Wholly Angevin though they were in their sympathies, the prelates maintained that they were bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that the Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.[781]

Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, afterwards the well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's chief envoy in 1136. For Miss Norgate, oddly enough, misses this point in her sketch of this distinguished man's career.[782] She has nothing to say of his doings between his Tractatus de Schismate, "about 1130," and his appointment to the see of Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical or secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in some way or other concerned."[783] This, therefore, constitutes a welcome addition to his career, and, moreover, gives us the reason of Geoffrey's aversion to him, when duke, and of the "heavy price" with which his favour had to be bought by Arnulf.[784]

The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"[785] letter from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful perusal of this composition has led me to believe, from internal evidence, that it refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a "book" by Brian fitz Count, or "a defence of his Lady's rights in the shape of a little treatise,"[786] but to a justification of his own conduct in reply to hostile criticism. And I venture to think that so far from this composition being "unhappily lost,"[787] it may be, and probably is, no other than that lengthy epistle from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy was entered in Richard de Bury's Liber Epistolaris. And there, happily, it is still preserved.[788] This can only be decided when the contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, as they should have been before now.

To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" at Rome took place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, as Miss Norgate argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter of Gilbert Foliot, in which he refers to it, was written, not in 1148, but late in 1143 or early in 1144. The whole of Miss Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369, 370) breaks down entirely. The great debate before the pope at Rome was not the result of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of Geoffrey's challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. The true story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," by the pope, as king is here set forth for the first time, and throws on the whole chain of events a light entirely new.

APPENDIX C. THE EASTER COURT OF 1136.

(See p. 19.)

I here give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's grant to Winchester; (II.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath; (III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at Oxford.

I. II. III.

King Stephen. Queen Matilda. William, Earl Warenne. Ranulf, Earl of Chester. Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotie]. Roger, Earl of Warwick. Waleran, Count of Meulan. William de Albemarla. Simon de Silvanecta. Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius. William de Albini, Pincerna. Robert de Ver, Conestabularius. Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. Brian fitz Count, Conestabularius. Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer. Robert Malet, Dapifer. [William] Martel, Dapifer. Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer. William, Archbishop of Canterbury. Thurstan, Archbishop of York. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. Nigel, Bishop of Ely. Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester. Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. Simon, Bishop of Worcester. Robert, Bishop of Bath. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Robert, Bishop of Hereford. John, Bishop of Rochester. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. John, Bishop of Séez. Richard, Bishop of Avranches. "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. Roger the Chancellor. Roger de Fecamp, Capellanus. Henry, nephew of King Stephen. Reginald, son of King Henry. Barones. Robert de Ferrers. William Peverel de Nottingham. Ilbert de Lacy. Walter Espec. Payn fitz John. Eustace fitz John. Walter de Salisbury. Robert Arundel. Geoffrey de Mandeville. Hamo de St. Clare. Roger de Valoines. Henry de Port. Walter fitz Richard. Walter de Gant. Walter de Bolebec. Walchelin Maminot. William de Percy.[790] William, Archbishop of Canterbury. Thurstan, Archbishop of York. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Henry, Bishop of Winchester. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. Nigel, Bishop of Ely. Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester. Robert, Bishop of Hereford. John, Bishop of Rochester. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Simon, Bishop of Worcester. Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. John, Bishop of Séez. "Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. Richard, Bishop of Avranches. Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. Roger the Chancellor. Henry, the nephew of the king. Henry, son of the King of Scotland. William, Earl Warenne. Waleran, Count of Meulan. Roger, Earl of Warwick. Robert de Ver, Conestabularius. Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius. William de Pont de l'arche, Camerarius. Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius. William de Albini, Pincerna. Robert de Ferrars. Robert Arundel. Geoffrey de Mandeville. Ilbert de Lacy. William Peverel. Geoffrey Talbot. William, Archbishop of Canterbury. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Henry, Bishop of Winchester. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. Nigel, Bishop of Ely. Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich. Simon, Bishop of Worcester. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. Richard, Bishop of Avranches. Robert, Bishop of Hereford. John, Bishop of Rochester. Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. Roger the Chancellor. Henry, the nephew of the king. Robert, Earl of Gloucester. William, Earl Warenne. Ranulf, Earl of Chester. Roger, Earl of Warwick. Conestabuli. Robert de Ver. Miles de Gloucester. Brian fitz Count. Robert de Oilli. Dapiferi. William Martel. Hugh Bigot. Humphrey de Bohun. Simon de Beauchamp. Pincernæ William de Albini. Eudo Martel. Robert de Ferrers. William Peverel de Nottingham. Simon de Saintliz. William de Albamarla. Payn fitz John. Hamo de St. Clare. Ilbert de Lacy.[789]

There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 the two primates of England and twelve of their suffragans, and the primate of Normandy, with four of his—nineteen prelates in all. Next to these, in order of precedence, were Henry, the king's nephew,[791] Henry, son of the King of Scots, and Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as a son of the late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. Among them we find all those of the leading supporters of the Empress in the future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de Aumale, and Geoffrey de Mandeville, we recognize three of those who were to receive earldoms from Stephen. The style and place of William de Aumale deserves special notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy comital rank at the time.[792] This fact, further on, will have an important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva Necta") was clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. It is believed indeed that he was Earl of Northampton, while Henry of Scotland was Earl of Huntingdon. But it is clear that when Henry received from Stephen, as he had just done, Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised Northampton as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon was as loyal as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he may well have received the earldom of Northampton from the king he served so well. But for the present, Henry of Scotland was in high favour with Stephen, so high that the jealousy of the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of Carlisle, blazed forth at this very court.[793] Their mention of Ranulf's presence, as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our charters.

The document with which they should be compared is the charter granted to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his Northampton council in 1131 (September 8).[794] Its witnesses are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, ten bishops (Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander of Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William of Exeter, Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of "Chester," and Ebrard of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon, Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster, Warner of Battle, and Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the chancellor,[795] with Robert "de Sigillo,"[796] and Nigel the Bishop of Salisbury's nephew,[797] five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of Warenne, Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick), nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh Bigod, Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger fitz Richard, Walter fitz Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers, William Peverel of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury, William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In many ways a very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness to the future House of Lords, with its strong clerical element. It is impossible to comment on all the magnates here assembled at Henry's court, many of whom we meet with again, but attention may be called to the significant fact that nine of the earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses represented among the nineteen barons named above.[798]

APPENDIX D. THE "FISCAL" EARLS.

(See p. 53.)

"Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance." Such are the words of the supreme authority on the constitutional history of the time. I propose, therefore, to deal with this subject in detail and at some length, and to test the statements of the chroniclers—too readily, as I think, accepted—by the actual facts of the case, so far as they can now be recovered.

The two main propositions advanced by our historians on this subject are: (1) that Stephen created many new earls, who were deposed by Henry II. on his accession;[799] (2) that these new earls, having no means of their own, had to be provided for "by pensions on the Exchequer."[800] That these propositions are fairly warranted by the statements of one or two chroniclers may be at once frankly conceded; that they are true in fact, we shall now find, may be denied without hesitation.

Let us first examine Dr. Stubbs's view as set forth in his own words:—

"Not satisfied with putting this weapon into the hands of his enemies, he provoked their pride and jealousy by conferring the title of earl upon some of those whom he trusted most implicitly, irrespective of the means which they might have of supporting their new dignity. Their poverty was relieved by pensions drawn from the Exchequer.... Stephen, almost before the struggle for the crown had begun, attempted to strengthen his party by a creation of new earls. To these the third penny of the county was given, and their connection with the district from which the title was taken was generally confined to this comparatively small endowment, the rest of their provision being furnished by pensions on the Exchequer" (Const. Hist., i. 324, 362). "Stephen also would have a court of great earls, but in trying to make himself friends he raised up persistent enemies. He raised new men to new earldoms, but as he had no spare domains to bestow, he endowed them with pensions charged on the Exchequer ... the new and unsubstantial earldoms provoked the real earls to further hostility; and the newly created lords demanded of the king new privileges as the reward and security for their continued services" (Early Plants., p. 19).[801]

Now, these "pensions on the Exchequer" must, I fear, be dismissed at once as having an existence only in a misapprehension of the writer. Indeed, if the Exchequer machinery had broken down, as he holds, it is difficult to see of what value these pensions would be. But in any case, it is absolutely certain that such grants as were made were alienations of lands and rents, and not "pensions" at all.[802] The passages bearing on these grants are as follows. Robert de Torigny (alias "De Monte") states that Stephen "omnia pene ad fiscum pertinentia minus caute distribuerat," and that Henry, on his accession, "cœpit revocare in jus proprium urbes, castella, villas, quæ ad coronam regni pertinebant."[803] William of Newburgh writes:—

"Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent, qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent, præcepit ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus resignari, et in jus statumque pristinum revocari."

In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:—

"Multi siquidem ... a rege, hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcumque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; ... Denique multos etiam comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et redditibus quæ proprio jure regi competebant."

It is on this last passage that Dr. Stubbs specially relies; but a careful comparison of this with the two preceding extracts will show that in none of them are "pensions" spoken of. The grants, as indeed charters prove, always consisted of actual estates.

The next point is that these alienations were, for the most part, made in favour not of "fiscal earls," but, on the contrary, in favour of those who were not created earls.[804] There is reason to believe, from such evidence as we have, that, in this matter, the Empress was a worse offender than the king, while their immaculate successor, as his Pipe-Rolls show, was perhaps the worst of the three. It is, at any rate, a remarkable fact that the only known charter by which Stephen creates an earldom—being that to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140)—does not grant a pennyworth of land, while the largest grantee of lands known to us, namely, William d'Ypres, was never created an earl.[805] Then, again, as to "the third penny." It is not even mentioned in the above creation-charter, and there is no evidence that "the third penny of the county was given" to all Stephen's earls; indeed, as I have elsewhere shown, it was probably limited to a few (see Appendix H).

The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically false assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The idea that his earls were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary delusion. They belonged, in the main, to that class of magnates from whom, both before and after his time, the earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words are in themselves destructive of his view:—

"Stephen made Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk, Aubrey de Vere Earl of Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of Hertford, William of Aumâle Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl of Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont Earl of Bedford."[806]

Were such nobles as these "new men"? Had their "poverty" to be "relieved"? Why, their very names are enough; they are those of the noblest and wealthiest houses in the baronage of Stephen's realm. Even the last, Hugh de Beaumont, though not the head of his house, had two elder brothers earls at the time, nor was it proposed to create him an earl till, by possession of the Beauchamp fief, he should be qualified to take his place among the great landowners of the day.

Having thus, I hope, completely disposed of this strange delusion, and shown that Stephen selected his earls from the same class as other kings, I now approach the alleged deposition of the earls created by the Empress and himself, on the accession of Henry II.

I would venture, on the strength of special research, to make several alterations in the lists given by Dr. Stubbs.[807]

The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:—

Norfolk. Hugh Bigod (before 1153).

Oxford. Aubrey de Vere (questionable).

Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143).

Hertford. Richard de Clare (uncertain).

Yorkshire. William of Aumâle (1138).

Pembroke. Gilbert de Clare (1138).

Derby. Robert de Ferrers (1138).

Bedford. Hugh de Beaumont.

Kent. William of Ypres (questionable).

From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be "questionable:" William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state absolutely, from my own knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom,[808] and Aubrey de Vere, because there is no evidence whatever that Stephen created him an earl. On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of Arundel (or Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.[809] When thus corrected, the list will run:—

Derby. Robert de Ferrers (1138).

Yorkshire. William of Aumâle (1138).

Pembroke. Gilbert de Clare (1138).

Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140).

Lincoln. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140).

Norfolk. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141).

Arundel. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141).

Hertford. Gilbert de Clare[810] (before Christmas, 1141).

Bedford. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138).

A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names of these great earldoms became household words.

Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to new creations, we obtain the following list:—

Cornwall. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141).

Devon. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141).

Dorset (or Somerset). William de Mohun (before June, 1141).

Hereford. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141).

Oxford. Aubrey de Vere (1142).

Wiltshire ("Salisbury"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).[811]

This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting Essex (Geoffrey de Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding Devon (Baldwin de Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have been conferred upon Baldwin's father temp. Henry I.[812] Of these creations, Hereford is the one of which the facts are best ascertained, while Dorset or Somerset is that of which least is known.[813]

The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay. Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry (Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?], Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists, we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken Hertford for his title, because Essex had already been given to Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge, in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been enunciated before.

It may have been observed that I assume throughout that each earl is the earl of a county. It would not be possible here to discuss this point in detail, so I will merely give it as my own conviction that while comital rank was at this period so far a personal dignity that men spoke of Earl Hugh, Earl Gilbert, or Earl Geoffrey, yet that an earl without a county was a conception that had not yet entered into the minds of men.[815] In this, of course, we have a relic of the earl's official character. To me, therefore, the struggles of antiquaries to solve puzzles of their own creation as to the correct names of earldoms are but waste of paper and ink, and occasionally, even, of brain-power. "Earl William" might be spoken of by that style only, or he might be further distinguished by adding "of Arundel," "of Chichester," or "of Sussex." But his earldom was not affected or altered by any such distinctive addition to his style. A firm grasp of the broad principle which I have set forth above should avoid any possibility of trouble or doubt on the question.

But, keeping close to the "fiscal earls," let us now see whether, as alleged, they were deposed by Henry II., and, if so, to what extent.

According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification which were intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... the new earldoms [were] to be extinguished."[816] Consequently, on his accession as king, "Henry was bound to annul the titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no means certain within what limits the promise would be construed."[817] But I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification any allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor indeed does Dr. Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these terms,[818] include anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, I presume, a retrospective induction.

The fact from which must have been inferred the existence of the above promise is that "cashiering of the supposititious earls" which rests, so far as I can see, on the statement of a single chronicler.[819] Yet that statement, for what it is worth, is sufficiently precise to warrant Dr. Stubbs in saying that "to abolish the 'fiscal' earldoms" was among the first of Henry's reforms.[820] The actual words of our great historian should, in justice, be here quoted:—

"Another measure which must have been taken at the coronation [December 19, 1154], when all the recognized earls did their homage and paid their ceremonial services, seems to have been the degrading or cashiering of the supposititious earls created by Stephen and Matilda. Some of these may have obtained recognition by getting new grants; but those who lost endowment and dignity at once, like William of Ypres, the leader of the Flemish mercenaries, could make no terms. They sank to the rank from which they had been so incautiously raised" (Early Plantagenets, pp. 41, 42). "We have no record of actual displacement; some, at least, of the fiscal earls retained their dignity: the earldoms of Bedford, Somerset, York, and perhaps a few others, drop out of the list; those of Essex and Wilts remain. Some had already made their peace with the king; some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained a new charter for their dignity: this part of the social reconstruction was despatched without much complaint or difficulty" (Const. Hist., i. 451).

Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost endowment and dignity at once." That he ever obtained an English earldom I have already ventured to deny; that he lost his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now proceed to disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger attendant on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are always confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's reign.[821] For though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be absolutely proved by record evidence that William of Ypres continued to enjoy his rich "endowment" down to Easter, 1157.[822] Stephen had, indeed, provided well for his great and faithful follower, quartering him on the county of Kent, where he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value of £261 "blanch," plus £178 8s. 7d. "numero" of Crown escheats formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision was enormous for the time at which it was made.

Returning now to the "cashiering" of the earls, it will be noticed that Dr. Stubbs has great difficulty in producing instances in point, and can find nothing answering to any general measure of the kind. But I am prepared to take firm ground, and boldly to deny that a single man, who enjoyed comital rank at the death of Stephen, can be shown to have lost that rank under Henry II.

Rash though it may seem thus to impugn the conclusions of Dr. Stubbs in toto, the facts are inexorably clear. Indeed, the weakness of his position is manifest when he seeks evidence for its support from a passage in the Polycraticus:—

"The following passage of the Polycraticus probably refers to the transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons mentioned in it were not of Stephen's promoting: "Ubi sunt, ut de domesticis loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon, Gillibertus, non tam comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus Sarisberiensis?" (Const. Hist., i. 451 note).

For this passage has nothing to do with "the transient character of the new dignities": it alludes to a totally different subject, the death of certain magnates, and is written in the spirit of Henry of Huntingdon's De Contemptu Mundi.[823] The magnates referred to are Geoffrey, Earl of Essex (d. 1144); Miles, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143); Randulf, Earl of Chester (d. 1153); Count Alan of Richmond (d. 1146?); Simon, Earl of Northampton (d. 1153); and Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke (d. 1148).[824] Their names alone are sufficient to show that the passage has been misunderstood, for no one could suggest that the Earl of Chester or Earl Simon, Waltheof's heir, enjoyed "new dignities," or that their earldoms proved of a "transient character."[825]

Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected by Dr. Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de Beaumont had lost the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it[826]), together with the fief itself, in 1141.[827] York requires separate treatment: William of Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, under Stephen, Earl of York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank,[828] and that is sufficient for my purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or Somerset) is again a special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl William de Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the statement in the Gesta that he was made Earl of Dorset in 1141; (3) on his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in 1142. The terms of the charter to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to the status of this earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does not subsequently occur, so far as is at present known, and there is nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the accession of Henry II.[829]

Such slight evidence as we have on the dealings of Henry with the earls is opposed to the view that anything was done, as suggested, "at the coronation" (December 19, 1154). It was not, we have seen, till January, 1156, that charters were granted dealing with the earldoms of Essex and of Oxford. And it can only have been when some time had elapsed since the coronation that Hugh Bigod obtained a charter creating him anew Earl of Norfolk.[830]

To sum up the result of this inquiry, we have now seen that no such beings as "fiscal" earls ever existed. No chronicler mentions the name, and their existence is based on nothing but a false assumption. Stephen did not "incautiously" confer on men in a state of "poverty" the dignity of earl; he did not make provision for them by Exchequer pensions; no promise was made, in the terms between Henry and himself, to degrade or cashier any such earls; and no proof exists that any were so cashiered when Henry came to the throne. Indeed, we may go further and say that Stephen's earldoms all continued, and that their alleged abolition, as a general measure, has been here absolutely disproved.

APPENDIX E. THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS.

(See p. 55.)

The true date of this event is involved in considerable obscurity. The two most detailed versions are those of William of Malmesbury and of the Continuator of Florence of Worcester. The former states precisely that the Ecclesiastical Council lasted from August 29 to September 1 (1139), and that the Empress landed, at Arundel, on September 30; the latter gives no date for the council, but asserts that the Empress landed, at Portsmouth, before August 1—that is, two months earlier. These grave discrepancies have been carefully discussed by Mr. Howlett,[831] though he fails to note that the Continuator is thoroughly consistent in his narrative, for he subsequently makes the Empress remove from Bristol, after spending "more than two months" there, to Gloucester in the middle of October. He is, however, almost certainly wrong in placing the landing at Portsmouth,[832] and no less mistaken in placing it so early in the year. The "in autumno" of Ordericus clearly favours William rather than the Continuator.

Mr. Howlett, in his detailed investigation of this "exceedingly complex chronological difficulty," endeavours to exalt the value of the Gesta by laying peculiar stress on its mention of Baldwin de Bedvers' landing, as suggestive of a fresh conjecture. Urging that "Baldwin's was in very truth the main army of invasion," he advances the

"theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the Gesta Stephani say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,' as no doubt he did, for it was only his presence in force that could render the coming of Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty retainers anything else than an act of madness."

Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if the Gesta says that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" (p. 53), it also asserts that the Empress came "cum robustâ militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which Mr. Howlett ignores—while it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving "cum florida militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his following was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the Gesta itself (p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in truth "militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. Howlett speaks, we have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," and asserts that "Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny agree that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of men—twenty, or even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is difficult to see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury distinctly states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred and forty knights,[833] and, in his recapitulation of the earl's conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the Gesta admits that the little band of knights who accompanied, in later years, the young Henry to England, was swollen by rumour to many thousands,[834] surely it is easy to understand how the hundred and forty knights, who accompanied the earl to England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the Continuator of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation that the Continuator confused the two landings and imagined that the Empress had arrived with Baldwin, who "landed at Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so ill informed, what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his statement that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at Wareham, nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is accepted by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, which he terms "no strained conjecture," that "Earl Robert went on by sea to Portsmouth," a guess for which there is no basis or, indeed, probability, and which, even if admitted, would be no explanation; for the Continuator takes the Empress and her brother to Portsmouth first and to Arundel afterwards.

The real point to strike one in the matter is that the Empress should have landed in Sussex when her friends were awaiting her in the west—for Mr. Howlett fails to realize that she trusted to them and not to an "army" of her own.[835] The most probable explanation, doubtless, is that she hoped to evade Stephen, while he was carefully guarding the roads leading from the south-western coast to Gloucester and Bristol. Robert of Torigny distinctly implies that Stephen had effectually closed the other ports ("Appulerunt itaque apud Harundel, quia tunc alium portum non habebant").

In any case Mr. Howlett's endeavour to harmonize the two conflicting dates—the end of July and the end of September—by suggesting as a compromise the end of August, cannot be pronounced a success.[836]

It may afford, perhaps, some fresh light if we trace the king's movements after the arrival of the Empress.

Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period between the landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are at first sight difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to understand, it is possible to unravel the sequence of events by a careful collation of their respective versions, aided by study of the topography and of other relative considerations.

On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, leaving her at Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (Will. Malms., p. 725). Stephen, who, says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), was then besieging Marlborough, endeavoured to intercept him (Gesta, p. 56), but, failing in this, returned to besiege the Empress at Arundel (ibid.; Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 117; Gervase, i. 110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he allowed her to set out for Bristol.[837] Meanwhile, her brother, on his way to Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (Will. Malms., p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted plan of action (it must be remembered that they intended immediate revolt, for they had promised the Empress possession of her realm within a few months[838]). Brian had, accordingly, returned to Wallingford, and declared at once for the Empress (Gesta, p. 58). Stephen now marched against him, but either by the advice of his followers (ibid.) or from impatience at the tedium of the siege,[839] again abandoned his undertaking, and leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 118), marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the revolt. He first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a small fortress of Miles of Gloucester (Gesta, p. 59; Will. Malms., p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news that Robert fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) and expelled his garrison (Will. Malms., p. 726; Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 119; Gesta, p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a fortnight of its capture (Will. Malms., p. 726), after besieging it eight days (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 125), he was then decoyed still further south by the news that Humphrey de Bohun, at the instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against him. Here, however, he was not so fortunate (Will. Malms., p. 726; Gesta, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the instinct of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus afforded him, and, striking out boldly from his stronghold at Gloucester, marched to the relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting by night on the blockading force, he scattered them in all directions, and returned in triumph to Gloucester (Gesta, p. 60). It was probably the tidings of this disaster (though the fact is not so stated) that induced Stephen to abandon his unsuccessful siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to the Thames valley (ibid., pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in November.[840]

Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of November, sacked and burnt Worcester (Cont. Flor. Wig., pp. 118-120). About the same time he made himself master of Hereford and its county for the Empress (Will. Malms., p. 727; Gesta, p. 61). Stephen was probably in the Thames valley when he received news of this fresh disaster, which led him once more to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered Worcester, and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in the castle (ibid.).[841] He therefore advanced to Leominster by way of Little Hereford,[842] but Advent Sunday (December 3) having brought about a cessation of hostilities, he retraced his steps to Worcester (ibid.). Thence, after another brief stay, he marched back to Oxford, probably making for Wallingford and London. Evidently, however, on reaching Oxford, he received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.[843] It was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas at Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning at the close of the year to Reading (ibid.).

The question, then, it will be seen, is this. Assuming, as we must do, that William of Malmesbury is right in the date he assigns to Stephen's visit to Malmesbury and recovery of Malmesbury Castle, is it consistent with the date he assigns to the landing of the Empress and her brother? That is to say, is it possible that the events which, we have seen, must have occurred between the above landing and Stephen's visit to Malmesbury can have been all comprised within the space of a fortnight? This is a matter of opinion on which I do not pronounce.

APPENDIX F. THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER.

(See p. 55.)

Miss Norgate assigns this event to the early summer of the year 1138,[844] on the authority of Gervase of Canterbury (i. 104). The statement of that writer is clear enough, but it is also clear that he made it on the authority of the Continuator of Florence. Now, the Continuator muddled in inextricable confusion the events of 1138 and 1139. In this he was duly followed by Gervase, who gives us, under 1138, first the arrest of the bishops at Oxford (June, 1139), then the diffidatio of the Earl of Gloucester, next the revolt of 1138 and the defection of Miles, next the invitation to the Empress (1139), followed by the Battle of the Standard (1138), and lastly the death of the Bishop of Salisbury (December, 1139). This can be clearly traced to the Continuator,[845] and conclusive evidence, if required, is afforded by the fact that Gervase, like the Continuator, travels again over the same ground under 1139. Thus the defection of Miles is told twice over, as will be seen from these parallel extracts:—

Cont. Flor. Wig. (1138.) Gerv. Cant. (1138.)

"Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per predictum Brycstowensem comitem et conestabularium Milonem, abnegata fidelitate quam illi juraverant, missis nuntiis ad Andegavensem civitatem accersunt ex-imperatricem," etc., etc. "Qui [Comes Glaornensis] ... fidei et sacramentis quibus regi tenebatur renuntiavit.... Milo quoque princeps militiæ regis avertit se a rege, ... Interea conjuratio in regem facta per comitem Glaornensem et Milonem summum regis constabularium invaluit, nam missis nuntiis ... asciverunt ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.

(1139.) (1139.)

"Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu militum se contulit, illi spondens in fide auxilium contra regem exhibiturum." "Milo regis constabularius multique procerum cum multa militum manu ab obsequio regis recesserunt, et pristinis fidei sacramentis innovatis ad partem imperatricis tuendam conversi sunt."

It is obvious from these extracts that the Continuator tells the tale of the constable's diffidatio and defection twice over; it is further obvious, from his own evidence, that the second of the two dates (1139) is the right one, for he tells us that so late as February, 1139, Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to Gilbert Foliot "petente constabulario suo Milone."[846] When we find that this event is assigned by the author of the Gesta to 1139, that the constableship of Miles was not transferred to William de Beauchamp till the latter part of 1139, and that Miles is not mentioned among the rebels in 1138 (though his importance would preclude his omission), nor is any attack on Gloucester assigned to Stephen in that year, we may safely decide that the defection of Miles did not take place till the arrival of the Empress in 1139.

Since writing the above I have noted the presence of Miles of Gloucester among the followers of Stephen at the siege of Shrewsbury (August, 1138).[847] This is absolutely conclusive, proving as it does that Miles was still on the king's side in the revolt of 1138.

APPENDIX G. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES.

(See p. 87.)

As this charter is not included in Mr. Birch's Fasciculus, and is therefore practically unknown, I here give it in extenso from the Cartæ Antiquæ (K. 24). It will be observed that, of its six witnesses, five attest the Westminster charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville. The sixth is Humfrey de Bohun, a frequent witness to charters of the Empress. This charter is preceded in the Cartæ Antiquæ by enrolments of two charters to the grantee's predecessors from William Rufus and Henry I. respectively. The "service" of Albany de Hairon, a Herts tenant-in-capite, is an addition made by the Empress to these grants of her predecessors. The cartæ of 1166 prove that it was subsequently ignored.

"M. Imperatrix regis H. filia archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus comitibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Rogero de Valoniis in feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis Esendonam et Begefordiam et molendina Heortfordie et servitium Albani de Hairon et omnes alias terras et tenaturas patris sui sicut pater suus eas tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus et preter hoc quicquid modo tenet de quocunque teneat. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod bene et in pace et honorifice et libere et quiete teneat in bosco et plano in pratis et pascuis in turbariis in via et semita in exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et stagnis in foro et navium applicationibus infra burgum et extra cum socha et saka et thol et theam et infanenethef et cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus et quietantiis cum quibus pater suus melius et quietius et liberius tenuit tempore patris mei regis Henrici et ipse post patrem. T. R[oberto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et M[ilone] Gloec[estrie] et Brientio fil[io] Com[itis] et Rad[ulfo] Painel et Walchel[ino] Maminot et Humfr[ido] de Buh[un] apud Westmonasterium."

APPENDIX H. THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS."

(See p. 97.)

Special research has led me to discover that all our historians are in error in their accounts of this institution.

The key to the enquiry will be found in the fact that the term "tertius denarius" had two distinct denotations; that is to say, was used in two different senses. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman have both failed to grasp this essential fact. The two varieties of the "tertius denarius" were these:—

(1) The "tertius denarius placitorum comitatus." This is the recognized "third penny" of which historians speak. Observe that this was not, as it is sometimes loosely termed, and as, indeed, Gneist describes it, "the customary third of the revenues of the county,"[848] but, as Dr. Stubbs accurately terms it, "the third penny of the pleas."[849] So here the Empress grants to Geoffrey de Mandeville "tertium denarium vicecomitatus de placitis" (cf. p. 239). This distinction is all-important, for "the pleas" only represented a small portion of the total "revenues of the county" as compounded for in the sheriff's firma.

(2) The "tertius denarius redditus burgi." This "third penny," which has been strangely confused with the other, differs from it in these two respects. Firstly, it is that, not of the pleas ("placitorum"), but of the total revenues ("redditus"); secondly, it is that, not of the county ("comitatus"), but of a town alone ("burgi").

This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday and from record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular clearness, in the charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, creating him Earl of Hereford. In it she grants—

"Tertium denarium redditus burgi Hereford quicquid unquam reddat,[850] et tertium denarium placitorum totius comitatus Hereford."

Nor is it less clear in the charter (1155), by which Henry II. creates Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk "scilicet de tercio denario de Norwic et de Norfolca."

Now, let us trace how the "tertius denarius redditus burgi" has been erroneously taken for the "tertius denarius placitorum totius comitatus," the only recognized "third penny."

Dr. Stubbs writes: "The third penny of the county which had been a part of the profits of the English earls is occasionally referred to in Domesday."[851] The passage on which this statement is based is found earlier in the volume. Our great historian there writes:—

"Each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the folkmoot, and received a third part of the profits of jurisdiction. (The third penny of the county appears from Domesday [i. 1. 26, 203, 246, 252, 280, 298, 336] to have been paid to the earl in the time of Edward the Confessor.—Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, i. 167)."[852]

The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before the Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" in the county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on the evidence of Domesday. But in six of the eight passages on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are distinctly dealing, not with the county ("comitatus"), but with a single town ("burgus"). These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford, Shrewsbury, and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only be that of the redditus burgi, not of the placita comitatus.[853] Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl received a third of each of the items out of which the render ("redditus") of the town was composed. The only cases of those mentioned which could possibly concern the third penny "placitorum comitatus" are those of Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire (336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire (280). Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system which has, I believe, never obtained the attentive study it deserves. This system was confined to the Danish district, to which these counties all belonged.

The main point, however, which we have to keep in view is that "the third penny" of the revenues of the town has nothing to do with "the third penny" of the pleas of the county, and that the passages in Domesday concerning the former must not be quoted as evidence for the latter. I do not find that Ellis (Introduction, i. 167, 168) is responsible for so taking them, but Dr. Stubbs, as we have seen, clearly confused the two kinds of tertius denarius, and we find that Mr. Freeman does the same when he tells us that at Exeter "six pounds—that is, the earl's third penny—went to the Sheriff Baldwin."[854]

We are reminded by this last instance that not only the earl, but the sheriff, was concerned with "the third penny" of the revenues of the town. This—which (I would here again repeat) is not the earl's "third penny" to which historians allude—sometimes, as for instance at Shrewsbury and Exeter, fell to the sheriff's share. Dr. Stubbs mentions the case of Shrewsbury only, and takes it as evidence that "the sheriff as well as the ealdorman was entitled to a share of the profits of administration."[855]

This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely erratic. In the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems to have been held by the king himself, though at Cricklade both he and Westminster Abbey are credited with it (64 b, 67). At Leicester it was held by Hugh de Grantmesnil, but we are not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it had been held by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to the Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds share, made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de Stafford.[856] At Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [i.e. placitorum] de duobus hundret," been annexed to an estate held by the local earl. The whole of this was granted by the Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.[857] At Worcester, by a curious arrangement, the total render had been divided, in unequal portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of the whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the third penny" fell to Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with the king's consent, on St. Augustine's, Canterbury, to which the other two-thirds had been given already by the Confessor. The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a characteristic error. We read in Domesday:—

"Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxxiii marcas argenti et unam marcam auri p[re]ter firmam regis" (i. 163).

Mr. Freeman, who is never weary of insisting on the value of Domesday, is clearly not so familiar as one could wish with its normal contractions, for he renders the closing words "propter firmam regis." On this he observes: "This looks like the earl's third penny; but Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucestershire."[858] When we substitute for the meaningless "propter" the right reading "preter" ("in addition to"), we see at once that the figures given no longer suggest a "third penny."

Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country town, let us turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole county. Independent of the system in the Danelaw to which I have referred above, we have two references in Domesday to this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius denarius de totâ scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of Warwickshire) "tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of these is among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious point about them is that in neither instance was the right annexed to the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which manor was held by the earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this "third penny of the pleas" not quâ earl, but quâ lord of that estate. The distinction is vital. Whether "the third penny of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or only of a single hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to the possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of one, of two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.[859] This peculiarity would seem to have been an essential feature of the system, and I need scarcely point out how opposed it is to the alleged tenure ex officio in days before the Conquest, or to that granted to the earl quâ earl under the Norman and Angevin kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter institution, the recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to the dignity of earl.

The prevailing view would seem to be that it was so annexed from the first; that its possession, in fact, was part of, or rather was connoted by, the dignity of an earl. Madox held that the oldest mode of conferring the dignity of earl, a mode "coeval to the Norman Conquest," was by charter; and he further held that "By the charter the king granted to the earl the tertius denarius comitatus."[860] Dr. Stubbs writes, of the investiture of earls in the Norman period:—

"The idea of official position is not lost sight of, although the third penny of the pleas and the sword of the shire alone attest its original character" (Const. Hist., i. 363).

Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:—

"Earldoms are now in their transitional stage. They have become hereditary; but they carry with them the official perquisite of the ancient official earls, the third penny of the king's revenues in the shire."[861]

Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I referred to at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being described as that not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the county. Then there is the question whether this perquisite was indeed the right of "the ancient official earls." Lastly, we must ask whether the earldoms granted in this period did unquestionably "carry with them" this "official perquisite."

To answer this last question, we must turn to our record evidence. Now, the very first charter quoted by Madox himself, in support of his own view, is the creation by Stephen of the earldom of Essex in favour of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The formula there is quite vague. Geoffrey is to hold "bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde Comites sunt." Here there is nothing about the "third penny," and we must therefore ask whether its grant is included in the above formula; that is to say, whether an earl received his "third penny" as a mere matter of course. The contrary is, it would seem, implied by the special way in which the "third penny" is granted him in the charter of the Empress, together with the curious added phrase, "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu suo." This phrase may, of course, be held to imply that an earl had, as earl, a recognized right to the sum, but the fact that in the other charters of the Empress (those of the earldoms of Hereford and Oxford) the "tertius denarius" is made the subject of a special grant, and that in her son's charters it is the same, would suggest that, without such special grant, the right was not conveyed. This is the view taken by Gneist (who founds, in the main, on Madox):—

"It is only a donatio sub modo, the grant of a permanent income 'for the better support of the dignity of an earl;' it consists in a mere order or precept addressed to the sheriff, and is therefore a right of demand, but no feudal right, and is accompanied by no investiture."[862]

That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the county) was not an innovation introduced in this reign, is proved by the solitary surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in which, however, there is but one mention of this "third penny," namely, in the case of the Earl of Gloucester. Indeed, with the exception of this entry, and of the special arrangement which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts (ut supra), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141, represent the first occurrence of this "third penny."

Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though the fact appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far as the printed Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less than half the existing earls were in receipt of the "third penny." Careful examination of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. reveals this fact. The earls to whom was paid "the third penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford, Norfolk, Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those who are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would seem, cannot have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Derby (Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,[863] Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus seven received this sum, and ten did not. The inference, of course, from this discovery is that the possession of the dignity of an earl did not per se carry with it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to which could only be conferred by a special grant.[864] This, apparently conclusive, evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the Dialogus:—

"Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ requiritur a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed ex magna parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes percipit, qui ideo sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in percipiendis."

D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt."

M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum munificentia, obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites sibi creat et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit, quibusdam hæreditarie, quibusdam personaliter."[865]

This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords' Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the third penny." The point is of no small importance, for the conclusion drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading, however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the latter refers to the "ista" of the former.

Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, the words of the Dialogus clearly prove that the view I take is right, and that Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in stating that "earldoms," at this stage, "carry with them the third penny."[867] Mr. Hunt, who, here as elsewhere, seems to follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:—

"The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction in his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their official character."[868]

This view must now be abandoned, and the total absence of any allusion, in Stephen's creation of the earldom of Essex, to "the third penny of the pleas," must be taken to imply that the charter in question did not convey a right to that sum. Thus the charter of the Empress to Geoffrey in 1141 remains the first record in which that perquisite is granted.

We should also note that the Dialogus passage establishes the fact that the only recognized "third penny" of the earl was "the third penny of the pleas," and that the third penny "redditus burgi," which, we saw, had been taken for it, is not alluded to at all.

Before leaving this subject it may be well to record the sums actually received under this heading:—

[869] £ s. d.

Devon 18 6 8

Essex 40 10 10

Gloucestershire 20 0 0

Herts. 33 1 6

Norfolk 28 4 0

Sussex 13 6 8

Wilts. 22 16 7

These figures are sufficient to disprove the view that the third penny actually formed an endowment for the dignity of an earl, but their chief interest is found in the light they throw on the farming of the "pleas," illustrating, as they do, the statement in the Dialogus that the sheriff's firma "ex magna parte de placitis provenit." For multiplying these sums by three we obtain the total for which the pleas were farmed in their respective shires. It will be observed that "the third penny" is stereotyped in amount, but an important passage bearing upon this point is quoted by Madox (Baronia Anglica, p. 139) from the Roll of 27 Hen. II.:—

"Idem Vicecomes redd. comp. de £xxviii de tercio denario Comitatus de Legercestria de vii annis præteritis, quos Comes Leg. accipere noluit, nisi haberet similiter de cremento, sicut prædecessores sui recipere consueverunt tempore Regis Henrici" (sic).

The meaning of this entry is that the earl demanded the "third penny," not only of the old composition for the "pleas," but also of the increased sum now paid for them. The passage, of course, is puzzling in its statement that the earl's predecessors had received "the third penny," for, so far as the printed Rolls take us, they never did so. A similar difficulty is caused, in the case of Oxfordshire, by the charter of Henry II. (see p. 239) granting to Aubrey de Vere its "third penny" "ut sit inde Comes;" for there is no trace in the printed Rolls of such payment being made, and in 7 John the then earl actually owes "cc marcas pro habendo tercio denario Comitatus Oxoniæ de placitis, et ut sit Comes Oxoniæ."[870]

Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need fuller knowledge, we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., when, on the death of the Earl of Essex (February 15, 1228), his annual third penny, as £40 10s. 10d., was allowed to count, for his heirs, towards the payment of his debts to the Crown.[871] A much later and most important instance is that of Devon, where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of Devon, is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though not an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a decision against him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital rank.

APPENDIX I. "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES."

(See pp. 107, 108.)

Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs (vicecomites) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not vicecomites, but custodes. The difference is this. By the former a county was held ad firmam; by the latter it was held in custodia. In the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in custodia." By the true sheriff (vicecomes) the county was, in fact, leased. He, as its farmer (firmarius), was responsible for its annual rent (firma). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances, take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff (custos). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London, putting in his own custodes in the place of the regular sheriffs, and, in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. did the same. It was this, I contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof of it is found in this passage:—

"Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent in custodia" (p. 63).

Here we have the very same phrase as that in the Inquest of Sheriffs, while the enormous "superplus" of a thousand marcs must represent the excess of receipts over the amount required for the firmæ, which excess, the counties being "in custodia," fell to the share of the Crown. Thus we obtain the right explanation of the employment in this capacity of royal officers, and we further get a glimpse, which we would not lose, of one of those administrative changes which, as under Henry II., tell of a system of government as yet empirical and imperfect.

It is clear that this measure was no mere development, but a sudden and unforeseen step. For in the case of Essex, the scene of our story, William de Eynsford ("Æinesford"), a Kentish landowner, had leased the county for five years, from Michaelmas, 1128, the consideration he paid for his lease being a hundred marcs (£66 13s. 4d.). Early in the second year of his lease, that is between Michaelmas, 1129, and Easter, 1130, he must have been superseded by the royal custodes, on the king taking the county into his own hands. He, however, received "compensation for disturbance," four-fifths of his hundred marcs ("de Gersoma") being remitted to him in consideration of his losing four out of his five years' lease. All this we learn from the brief record in the Roll (p. 63).

Another point that should be here noticed is the use of the term "Gersoma." Retrospectively, its use in this Roll illustrates its use in Domesday. In those cases, where a firmarius was willing, as a speculation, to give for an estate more than its fixed rental (firma), he gave the excess "de Gersoma," either in the form of a lump sum, or in that of an annual payment.

APPENDIX J. THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS.

(See p. 116.)

There yet remains one point, in connection with this remarkable charter, perhaps the most striking, certainly the most novel, of all. This is that of the seal. According to the transcript in the Ashmole MSS., the legend "in circumferentia sigillo" was this: "Matildis Imperatrix Rom' et Regina Angliæ."

Now, that any such seal was designed for the Empress has never been suspected by any historian. We cannot, on a question of royal seals, appeal to a higher or more recognized authority than Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. He has written as follows on the subject:—

"The type of seal of the empress which is invariably fixed to every document among this collection that bears a seal is that used by her in Germany as 'Queen of the Romans.'... From this date (1106) to that of her death, which took place on the 16th of December, A.D. 1167, long after the solution of the troubles of the years 1140-1142 in England, she was accustomed to use this seal, and this only. It has never been suggested by any writer upon the historic seals of England that Mathildis employed any Great Seal as Queen of England, made after the conventional characteristics which obtain in the Great Seals of Stephen, her predecessor, or of her son, King Henry II. The troubled state of this country, the uncertain movements of the lady, the unsettled confidence of the people, and the consequent inability of attending to such a matter as the engraving of a Great Seal—a work, it must be borne in mind, involving some time and care—are, when taken together, more than sufficient causes to account for the continued usage of this type; although we may fairly presume that it was intended to supersede this foreign seal with one more consentaneously in keeping with English tradition."[872]

The seal to which Mr. Birch refers bore the legend "Mathildis dei Gratia Romanorum regina."

The question, of course, at once arises as to the amount of reliance that can be placed on the above transcriber's note. For my part, while fully admitting the right to reject such evidence, I cannot believe that any transcriber would for his own private gratification have forged such a legend, which he could not hope to foist upon the world, if it were indeed a forgery, since a reference to the original would at once expose him.[873] And it is quite certain that we cannot account for it by any misreading, however gross. A comparison of the two legends will put this out of the question:—

Mathildis dei gratia Romanorum regina. Matildis Imperatrix Rom' et regina Angliæ.

If we accept the fact, and believe the legend genuine, the first point to strike us is the substitution of "Imperatrix" for "Regina Romanorum."

It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed that she should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no higher style than that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true that at the time of her actual betrothal (1110), her husband was not, in strictness, "emperor," not having yet been crowned at Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a few months later (April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time therefore of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, one would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we read in the Lüneburg Chronicle, "dar makede he se to keiserinne." At the same time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase and title are never unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and superstitiously antiquarian,"[874] and there must be some good reason for what appears to be a singular contradiction, though the point is overlooked by Mr. Birch. Two explanations suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry was fully and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, his wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not entitled to the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen of the Romans." As against this, it would seem impossible that the wife of a crowned emperor can have been anything but an empress. Moreover, from the pleadings of her advocate at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 n.), we learn incidentally that she had duly been "anointed to empress." The only other explanation is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and had not been altered since.

It is important to remember that a seal is evidence of formal style, and not of current phraseology. In spite of the efforts of Messrs. Bryce and Freeman to insist on accuracy in the matter, it is certain that at the time of which I write a most loose usage prevailed. Thus William of Malmesbury, although he specially records the solemn coronation of Henry V. as "Imperator Romanorum," at Rome in 1111, speaks of him as "Imperator Alemanniæ," or "Imperator Alemannorum," both before and after that event. This circumstance is the more notable, because I cannot find that style recognized in Mr. Bryce's work, where the terms "German Emperor" and "Emperor of Germany" are treated as recent corruptions.[875] Its common use in the twelfth century is shown by the scene, in the next reign, between Herbert of Bosham and the king (May 1, 1166), when the latter takes the former to task for speaking of Frederick as "King," not as "Emperor" of the Germans. Had Henry enjoyed the advantage of sitting under our own professors, he would have insisted on Frederick being styled Emperor of the Romans; but as he lived in the twelfth century, he employed, to the annoyance of modern pedants, the current language of his day.[876]

It was natural and fitting that, the legend on her seal being at variance with her style, the Empress should embrace the opportunity afforded, by the making of a wholly new seal, to bring the two into harmony.

The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not "Anglorum." This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For though the abbreviation found in charters ("Angl'") might stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ," the legend on the seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the form "Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters "Anglorum" (not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable fact that both the queens of Henry I. bore on their seals the legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Anglie" led me to the conclusion that, so far from impugning, this form actually confirmed the genuineness of the alleged legend.

It will doubtless be asked why this seal should have been affixed, so far as we know, to this charter alone. But it is precisely this that gives it so great an interest. For this is the only known instance of an original charter, still surviving, belonging to the brief but eventful period of the Empress's stay at Westminster on the eve of her intended coronation.[877] It may safely be presumed that a Great Seal was made in readiness for this event, and that its legend would necessarily include the style of "Queen of England." The Empress, in at least two of her charters, had already, though irregularly, assumed this style,[878] and was clearly eager to adopt it. As to her retention of her foreign style on her seal as an English sovereign, it might be suggested that she clung to the loftiest style of all[879] from that haughty pride which was to prove fatal to her claims; but it is more likely that she found it needful to distinguish thus her style from that of her rival's queen. For by a singular coincidence, they would both have had, in the ordinary course, upon their seals precisely the same legend, viz. "Mathildis dei gratia Regina Anglie."[880]

We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this seal at Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, by the Empress on this occasion. We may also no less satisfactorily account for the fact that it was never used again. For this, indeed, the events that followed the fall of the Empress from her high estate, and the virtual collapse of her hopes, may be held sufficiently to account. But it is quite possible that in the headlong flight of the Empress and her followers from Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the rest of her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes.