[432]Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 62b.[433]"Regem ipsum in concilium introisse" (Will. Malms., 755).[434]"Ipsam quæcunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia obstinate fregisse" (ibid.).[435]"Deum, pro sua clementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse negotia" (ibid.).[436]Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Richard: "His second coronation was understood to have an important significance. He had by his captivity in Germany ... impaired or compromised his dignity as a crowned king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a reconsecration, but a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had undergone no diminution" (Const. Hist., i. 504).[437]"Die qua primum coronatus fui" (Cartulary of Abingdon, ii. 181).[438]"Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (Will. Newburgh, i. 41).[439]Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 3 (based on the late Sir William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his learned paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to the charter.[440]"Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with the addition of 'Inga' and 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by the Empress to make up his £100 a year. Thus these two manors represent the "si quid defuerit adclibratas perficiendas" of the Empress's charters. Maldon itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's brother Theobald, forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted by her to Geoffrey. Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ among the archives of Westminster (printed in Madox'sBaronia Anglica, p. 232), in which Stephen distinctly states (1139) that he had given it him. Thus, in giving it to Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother.[441]The "Phenge" and "Inga" of Domesday (ii. 71b, 72a), which were part of the fief of Randulf Peverel ("of London").[442]Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.). Itsredditus, at the Survey, was "c libras ad pondus et c solidos de gersumâ."[443]Hatfield Broadoak,aliasHatfield Regis. This also was ancient demesne, itsredditus, at the Survey, being "lxxx libras et c solidos de gersumâ." Here the Domesdayredditusremained unchanged, an important point to notice.[444]Robert de Baentonâ was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the Robert "de Bathentona" whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at some length in theGesta. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion, and consequently appear here as an escheat (see my note on him inEnglish Historical Review, October, 1890).[445]Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the Domesday (D. B., ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday fief Robert de Baentonâ had succeeded.[446]Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had similarly formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai.[447]Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf Peverel at the Survey.[448]Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.[449]Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey in (Little) Easton.[450]Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53).[451]Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the "Ichilintone" of Domesday (in which it figures), wasTerra Regis. In theLiber Niger(special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as part of the honour of Boulogne.[452]Anstey, Herts, the "Anestige" of Domesday, part of the honour of Boulogne.[453]Braughing, Herts, the "Brachinges" of Domesday. Also part of the honour of Boulogne.[454]Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.[455]On Graaland de Tany, see p. 91.[456]Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien filius Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here given.[457]William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of Peverel. In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of the honour.[458]William "de Boevilla" (sic) appears in the same roll as a landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (sic) is found in (Hearne's)Liber Niger(p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). But what is here granted is the manor of Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of Peverel "of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour.[459]Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William Peverel holds five fees of the honour.[460]Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. Stephen was of course entitled to theirserviciumin right of his wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166.[461]Possibly theRalphBrito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of Hen. II. as holdingterræ datæ"in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as "Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in theLiber Niger(p. 242), and as Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (ibid., p. 240).[462]Duchy of Lancaster,Royal Charters, No. 18.[463]This same principle is well illustrated by twocartæwhich follow one another in the pages of theLiber Niger. They are those of "Willelmus filius Johannisde Herpetreu" and "Willelmus filius Johannisde Westona." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and "Willoughby de Beke." Many similar instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have been added for the sake of distinction only.[464]See p. 120.[465]Of the absentees, the Earl of Chester and his half-brother the Earl of Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl of Warwick; the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count of Meulan, but he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Hereford were, of course, with the Empress. Thus, with the nine mentioned in the charter, we account for some eighteen earls.[466]See Appendix M, on the latter earldom.[467]See p. 49,n.4.[468]Add. MSS., 31,943, fol. 85 dors.[469]Colchester Cartulary(Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406.[470]As by Mr. Eyton (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 96). The said Robert appears in the latter part of this reign as "Robertus filius Alberici de Ver" (Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral, p. 133), and sent in hiscartain 1166 as "Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert de Vere.[471]Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 179.[472]See Appendix N, on "Robert de Vere."[473]SeeOrd. Vit., v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him wrongly).[474]"Tunc, quia rex Stephanus festivâ carebat voce, Baldewino filio Gilleberti, magnæ nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo exhortatorius ad universum cœtum injunctus est.... Capitur etiam Baldewinus qui orationem fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus vulneribus, multis contritus ictibus, ubi egregie resistendo gloriam promeruit sempiternam" (Hen. Hunt., pp. 271, 274).[475]See Appendix O: "Tower and Castle."[476]"Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite phrase was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had ajointfirma at the time (seeRot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.).[477]"Eadem firma qua avus ejus ... tenuit."[478]"Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit."[479]Thefirmaof Essex withHerts, in 1130, was £420 3s."ad pensum,"plus£26 17s."numero,"plus£86 19s.9d."blancas," whereas Geoffrey secured the two for £360. The difference between this sum and the jointfirmaof 1130 curiously approximates that at London (see Appendix, p. 366,n.).[480]Pearson'sHistory of England during the Early and Middle Ages, i. 664 ("County Rentals in Domesday").[481]See Appendix P: "The Early Administration of London."[482]Historic Towns: London(1887).[483]The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is, however, an error in each. The first implies that the charter to Geoffrey was granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to, London. The second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on her flight from London, "withdrew towards Winchester," and that her brother was captured by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not captured till after the siege of Winchester, later in the year, and under different circumstances.[484]It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to separate London from Middlesex, and to treat the former as granted "in demesne," and the latter "in farm." Such a conception is quite erroneous.[485]It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his "father" who "is said by Stow to have been portreeve."[486]See p. 99.[487]"Et computabitur tibi ad scaccarium" is the regular form found in the precepts of Henry II. (Dialogus, ii. 8).[488]See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the "adulterine" castles, theGesta Stephani(p. 66): "Plurima adulterina castella, alia solâ adventus sui famâ vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita subvertit: omnesque circumjacentes provincias, quas castella inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione degravabant, purgavit tunc omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140).[489]See p. 103.[490]Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory advanced by me in theEnglish Historical Review(October, 1891) as to knight-service being grouped in multiples of ten (theconstabularia).[491]See Appendix H.[492]Gervase of Canterbury, i. 123.[493]"Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum stylo committere, quod nescirem solidâ veritate subsistere. Ea porro, quæ de præsenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt principium."[493]"Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eum reginâ suâ Mathilde, venit Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano comite de Richemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit; habuitque in votis pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem et integritatem reformare" (Sym. Dun., ii. 312). Notice that John of Hexham always speaks of Alan as Earl "of Richmond" and William as Earl "of York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl "of Richmond," and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to the Lords' committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its origin and descent (Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer). If, as I believe, no county could, at this period, have two earls, it follows that either Alan "Comes" did not hold an English earldom, and was merely described as of Richmond because that was his seat; or, that "Richmondshire" was, at that time, treated as a county of itself. One or other of these alternatives must, I think, be adopted. But see also p. 290,n.2.[495]Harl. MS., 2044, fol. 55b;Addl. MSS., 5516, No. 9, p. 7 (printed inArchæologia Cantiana, x. 272, but not in Dugdale'sMonasticon).[496]Robert de Crevecœur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu was a benefactor to the priory.[497]Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2.[498]He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter week, 1138.[499]William of Malmesbury writes: "In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem quædam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus conclamaretur" (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between this statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not reach York till "post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more probable.[500]"Præventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat remisit ad propria" (Sym. Dun., ii. 312).[501]Supra, p. 158.[502]"Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavillâ, associante ei Comite Gileberto, ut homines episcopi, qui tunc latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut gladiis truncaret" (Anglia Sacra, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to Earl Geoffrey's wife.[503]"Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit; milites vero teneri jussit; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos spectante populo usque in Ely perduxit" (ibid.).[504]See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."
[432]Ninth Report Hist. MSS., App. i. p. 62b.
[433]"Regem ipsum in concilium introisse" (Will. Malms., 755).
[434]"Ipsam quæcunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia obstinate fregisse" (ibid.).
[435]"Deum, pro sua clementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse negotia" (ibid.).
[436]Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Richard: "His second coronation was understood to have an important significance. He had by his captivity in Germany ... impaired or compromised his dignity as a crowned king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a reconsecration, but a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had undergone no diminution" (Const. Hist., i. 504).
[437]"Die qua primum coronatus fui" (Cartulary of Abingdon, ii. 181).
[438]"Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (Will. Newburgh, i. 41).
[439]Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 3 (based on the late Sir William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his learned paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to the charter.
[440]"Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with the addition of 'Inga' and 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by the Empress to make up his £100 a year. Thus these two manors represent the "si quid defuerit adclibratas perficiendas" of the Empress's charters. Maldon itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's brother Theobald, forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted by her to Geoffrey. Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ among the archives of Westminster (printed in Madox'sBaronia Anglica, p. 232), in which Stephen distinctly states (1139) that he had given it him. Thus, in giving it to Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother.
[441]The "Phenge" and "Inga" of Domesday (ii. 71b, 72a), which were part of the fief of Randulf Peverel ("of London").
[442]Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.). Itsredditus, at the Survey, was "c libras ad pondus et c solidos de gersumâ."
[443]Hatfield Broadoak,aliasHatfield Regis. This also was ancient demesne, itsredditus, at the Survey, being "lxxx libras et c solidos de gersumâ." Here the Domesdayredditusremained unchanged, an important point to notice.
[444]Robert de Baentonâ was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the Robert "de Bathentona" whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at some length in theGesta. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion, and consequently appear here as an escheat (see my note on him inEnglish Historical Review, October, 1890).
[445]Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the Domesday (D. B., ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday fief Robert de Baentonâ had succeeded.
[446]Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had similarly formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai.
[447]Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf Peverel at the Survey.
[448]Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.
[449]Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey in (Little) Easton.
[450]Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53).
[451]Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the "Ichilintone" of Domesday (in which it figures), wasTerra Regis. In theLiber Niger(special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as part of the honour of Boulogne.
[452]Anstey, Herts, the "Anestige" of Domesday, part of the honour of Boulogne.
[453]Braughing, Herts, the "Brachinges" of Domesday. Also part of the honour of Boulogne.
[454]Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.
[455]On Graaland de Tany, see p. 91.
[456]Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien filius Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here given.
[457]William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of Peverel. In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of the honour.
[458]William "de Boevilla" (sic) appears in the same roll as a landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (sic) is found in (Hearne's)Liber Niger(p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). But what is here granted is the manor of Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of Peverel "of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour.
[459]Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William Peverel holds five fees of the honour.
[460]Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. Stephen was of course entitled to theirserviciumin right of his wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166.
[461]Possibly theRalphBrito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of Hen. II. as holdingterræ datæ"in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as "Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in theLiber Niger(p. 242), and as Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (ibid., p. 240).
[462]Duchy of Lancaster,Royal Charters, No. 18.
[463]This same principle is well illustrated by twocartæwhich follow one another in the pages of theLiber Niger. They are those of "Willelmus filius Johannisde Herpetreu" and "Willelmus filius Johannisde Westona." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and "Willoughby de Beke." Many similar instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have been added for the sake of distinction only.
[464]See p. 120.
[465]Of the absentees, the Earl of Chester and his half-brother the Earl of Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl of Warwick; the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count of Meulan, but he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Hereford were, of course, with the Empress. Thus, with the nine mentioned in the charter, we account for some eighteen earls.
[466]See Appendix M, on the latter earldom.
[467]See p. 49,n.4.
[468]Add. MSS., 31,943, fol. 85 dors.
[469]Colchester Cartulary(Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406.
[470]As by Mr. Eyton (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 96). The said Robert appears in the latter part of this reign as "Robertus filius Alberici de Ver" (Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral, p. 133), and sent in hiscartain 1166 as "Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert de Vere.
[471]Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 179.
[472]See Appendix N, on "Robert de Vere."
[473]SeeOrd. Vit., v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him wrongly).
[474]"Tunc, quia rex Stephanus festivâ carebat voce, Baldewino filio Gilleberti, magnæ nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo exhortatorius ad universum cœtum injunctus est.... Capitur etiam Baldewinus qui orationem fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus vulneribus, multis contritus ictibus, ubi egregie resistendo gloriam promeruit sempiternam" (Hen. Hunt., pp. 271, 274).
[475]See Appendix O: "Tower and Castle."
[476]"Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite phrase was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had ajointfirma at the time (seeRot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.).
[477]"Eadem firma qua avus ejus ... tenuit."
[478]"Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit."
[479]Thefirmaof Essex withHerts, in 1130, was £420 3s."ad pensum,"plus£26 17s."numero,"plus£86 19s.9d."blancas," whereas Geoffrey secured the two for £360. The difference between this sum and the jointfirmaof 1130 curiously approximates that at London (see Appendix, p. 366,n.).
[480]Pearson'sHistory of England during the Early and Middle Ages, i. 664 ("County Rentals in Domesday").
[481]See Appendix P: "The Early Administration of London."
[482]Historic Towns: London(1887).
[483]The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is, however, an error in each. The first implies that the charter to Geoffrey was granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to, London. The second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on her flight from London, "withdrew towards Winchester," and that her brother was captured by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not captured till after the siege of Winchester, later in the year, and under different circumstances.
[484]It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to separate London from Middlesex, and to treat the former as granted "in demesne," and the latter "in farm." Such a conception is quite erroneous.
[485]It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his "father" who "is said by Stow to have been portreeve."
[486]See p. 99.
[487]"Et computabitur tibi ad scaccarium" is the regular form found in the precepts of Henry II. (Dialogus, ii. 8).
[488]See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the "adulterine" castles, theGesta Stephani(p. 66): "Plurima adulterina castella, alia solâ adventus sui famâ vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita subvertit: omnesque circumjacentes provincias, quas castella inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione degravabant, purgavit tunc omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140).
[489]See p. 103.
[490]Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory advanced by me in theEnglish Historical Review(October, 1891) as to knight-service being grouped in multiples of ten (theconstabularia).
[491]See Appendix H.
[492]Gervase of Canterbury, i. 123.
[493]"Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum stylo committere, quod nescirem solidâ veritate subsistere. Ea porro, quæ de præsenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt principium."
[493]"Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eum reginâ suâ Mathilde, venit Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano comite de Richemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit; habuitque in votis pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem et integritatem reformare" (Sym. Dun., ii. 312). Notice that John of Hexham always speaks of Alan as Earl "of Richmond" and William as Earl "of York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl "of Richmond," and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to the Lords' committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its origin and descent (Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer). If, as I believe, no county could, at this period, have two earls, it follows that either Alan "Comes" did not hold an English earldom, and was merely described as of Richmond because that was his seat; or, that "Richmondshire" was, at that time, treated as a county of itself. One or other of these alternatives must, I think, be adopted. But see also p. 290,n.2.
[495]Harl. MS., 2044, fol. 55b;Addl. MSS., 5516, No. 9, p. 7 (printed inArchæologia Cantiana, x. 272, but not in Dugdale'sMonasticon).
[496]Robert de Crevecœur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu was a benefactor to the priory.
[497]Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2.
[498]He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter week, 1138.
[499]William of Malmesbury writes: "In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem quædam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus conclamaretur" (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between this statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not reach York till "post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more probable.
[500]"Præventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat remisit ad propria" (Sym. Dun., ii. 312).
[501]Supra, p. 158.
[502]"Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavillâ, associante ei Comite Gileberto, ut homines episcopi, qui tunc latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut gladiis truncaret" (Anglia Sacra, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to Earl Geoffrey's wife.
[503]"Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit; milites vero teneri jussit; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos spectante populo usque in Ely perduxit" (ibid.).
[504]See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."