APPENDIX D.THE "FISCAL" EARLS.(See p.53.)
(See p.53.)
"Stephen'searldoms 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:—
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, præcepitea 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 classof 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"? Hadtheir"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 stateabsolutely, 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(orSomerset). 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 omittingEssex(Geoffrey de Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and addingDevon(Baldwin de Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have been conferred upon Baldwin's fathertemp.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 Hertfordfor 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'sofficialcharacter. 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 pacificationwhich 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:—
Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lostendowment 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. Stubbsin 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 thePolycraticus:—
"The following passage of thePolycraticusprobably 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, thedeathof certain magnates, and is written in the spirit of Henry of Huntingdon'sDe 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 mypurpose. 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 theGestathat 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 thestatusof 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.
[799]So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were deposed under Henry II." (Const. Hist., i. 140,note).[800]Stubbs,Const. Hist., i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls," invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda.[801]See alsoSelect Charters, p. 20.[802]The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of the Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui,ex fisci regii redditibusRogerius episcopus collegisset" (Will. Malms.). So, too, in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quiaregalium fiscorum reddituset castella, quæ violentur possederat reddere negligebat" (Gesta). This latter passage has been misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering it: "to pay his dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejusfiscumauxit."[803]Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy.[804]The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms" (Antiquary, xiii. 160).[805]The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was necessitated by the grants of the Empress.[806]Const. Hist., i. 362.[807]"As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (Ibid., i. 362).[808]There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters (ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ nostræ gravissimus persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206n., 213n., 275n.).[809]A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an Inspeximustemp.Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here.[810]Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere, is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl.[811]The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149).[812]In an interesting charter (transcribed inLansdowne MS., 229, fol. 116b) of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at Carisbrooke, he speaks, "Ricardi de Redvers patris mei."[813]I have shown (p. 95n.) that William de Mohun was already an earl in June, 1141, though theGestaassigns his creation to the siege of Winchester, later in the year.[814]Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only inserted herecavendi causa. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are most troublesome titles, owing to the double set of earls with their conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title.[815]This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more counties (as in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially, linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl. Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the other.[816]Select Charters, pp. 20, 21. Cf.Early Plants., p. 37: "All property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created earls."[817]Const. Hist., i. 451.[818]Ibid., i. 333, 334.[819]Robert de Monte.[820]Select Charters, p. 21.[821]The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155, writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that "infra tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus incubator Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit."[822]Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844).[823]Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis comes et Regis vicarius," etc.[824]This is the date given for his death in theTintern Chronicle(Monasticon, O.E., i. 725).[825]"William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is overlooked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (Will. Malms., ed. Stubbs, ii. 587). He was also the "Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et municeps" (Gesta, ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on Wilton nunnery in 1143, and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit." This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et heres noster Comes Patricius" make a grant to the church of Salisbury "nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus filius noster Willelmus Sarum ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established.[826]I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though this does not, of course, prove that he never did so.[827]Gesta(ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73.[828]Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of those of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a Norman count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to decide. Eventually, of course, the dignity became an English earldom.[829]Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation.[830]It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as proving that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh as earl, must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough, reverses the order of the two (Itinerary of Henry II., pp. 2, 3). He was thus misled by an error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's charter, which Foss had acutely detected and explained long before.
[799]So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were deposed under Henry II." (Const. Hist., i. 140,note).
[800]Stubbs,Const. Hist., i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls," invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda.
[801]See alsoSelect Charters, p. 20.
[802]The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of the Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui,ex fisci regii redditibusRogerius episcopus collegisset" (Will. Malms.). So, too, in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quiaregalium fiscorum reddituset castella, quæ violentur possederat reddere negligebat" (Gesta). This latter passage has been misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering it: "to pay his dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejusfiscumauxit."
[803]Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy.
[804]The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms" (Antiquary, xiii. 160).
[805]The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was necessitated by the grants of the Empress.
[806]Const. Hist., i. 362.
[807]"As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (Ibid., i. 362).
[808]There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters (ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ nostræ gravissimus persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206n., 213n., 275n.).
[809]A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an Inspeximustemp.Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here.
[810]Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere, is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl.
[811]The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149).
[812]In an interesting charter (transcribed inLansdowne MS., 229, fol. 116b) of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at Carisbrooke, he speaks, "Ricardi de Redvers patris mei."
[813]I have shown (p. 95n.) that William de Mohun was already an earl in June, 1141, though theGestaassigns his creation to the siege of Winchester, later in the year.
[814]Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only inserted herecavendi causa. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are most troublesome titles, owing to the double set of earls with their conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title.
[815]This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more counties (as in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially, linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl. Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the other.
[816]Select Charters, pp. 20, 21. Cf.Early Plants., p. 37: "All property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created earls."
[817]Const. Hist., i. 451.
[818]Ibid., i. 333, 334.
[819]Robert de Monte.
[820]Select Charters, p. 21.
[821]The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155, writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that "infra tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus incubator Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit."
[822]Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844).
[823]Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis comes et Regis vicarius," etc.
[824]This is the date given for his death in theTintern Chronicle(Monasticon, O.E., i. 725).
[825]"William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is overlooked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (Will. Malms., ed. Stubbs, ii. 587). He was also the "Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et municeps" (Gesta, ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on Wilton nunnery in 1143, and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit." This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et heres noster Comes Patricius" make a grant to the church of Salisbury "nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus filius noster Willelmus Sarum ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established.
[826]I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though this does not, of course, prove that he never did so.
[827]Gesta(ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73.
[828]Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of those of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a Norman count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to decide. Eventually, of course, the dignity became an English earldom.
[829]Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation.
[830]It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as proving that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh as earl, must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough, reverses the order of the two (Itinerary of Henry II., pp. 2, 3). He was thus misled by an error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's charter, which Foss had acutely detected and explained long before.