[248]"Itaque multæ fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse, ut, cum hæc statim post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent" (p. 748).[249]"Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus Maii Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris,Chron. Major., ii. 174).[250]Ibid.[251]The Early History of Oxford, cap. x.[252]"Ad Radingum infra Rogationes veniens, suscipitur cum honoribus, hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperium convolantibus" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 130).[253]Add. Chart.(Brit. Mus.), 19,576;Arch. Journ., xx. 289;Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389.[254]"Reginaldocomitefilio regis." He had attested, as we have seen, an Oxford charter (circ.March 24) as Reginald "filius regis" simply. This would seem to fix his creation tocirc.April, 1141 (see p. 68).[255]"Roberto fratre ejus."[256]We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on this very point. There is printed in theCartulary of Ramsey(Rolls Series), vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to William, Prior of Ely, and others, notifying the agreement he has made with Walter, Abbot of Ramsey:—"Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de Rameseia consilio et assensu dominæ nostræ Imperatricis et Episcopi Wynton' Apost' sedis legati aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet Linc', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis et Brienni et Milonis ad voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter mando et præcipio sicut me diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed cartulary, is dated "1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a little research would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period in which the Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with her. This fixes it to March-June, 1141. Independent of the great interest attaching to this document as representing a "concordia" in the court of the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of thepersonnelof her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops mentioned were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her court, and we may therefore, on the strength of this document, add those of "Chester" and Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So with the laity. Three of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not yet received the earldom of Hereford) were her constant companions, so that we may safely rely on this evidence for the presence at her court on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk.[257]Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had been Abbot of Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted.[258]See above, p. 66.[259]"Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in monasterio Sancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131).[260]"Apud sanctum Albanum" (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 16;Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388).[261]"Adeunt eam ibi cives multi ex Londoniâ, tractatur ibi sermo multimodus de reddenda civitate" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131).[262]"Imperatrix, ut prædiximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus, comitantibus secum præsulibus multis et principibus, secura properavit ad urbem, et apud Westmonasterium cum processionali suscipitur honorificentiâ." (ibid.).[263]i.e.Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for this custom, theChronicles of the Mayors of London, which record how, a century later (1257), upon the king approaching Westminster, "exierunt Maior et cives,sicut mos estad salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge" (p. 31). The Continuator (p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens ("cum honore susceperunt").[264]"Videns itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis suæ promotionem, post Ascensionem Domini ad eam in Suthangliam profectus est: ... Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium" (Sym. Dun., ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election, I have taken this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p. 80). Cf. p. 5,n.5.[265]"Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus."[266]"Cives ... Imperatricem ... favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo [al.Sexto] Kal. Maii."[267]See theLiber de Antiquis Legibus: "Tandem a Londonensibus expulsa est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet.[268]"Ibique aliquantis diebus ... resedit" (p. 131).[269]"[Legatus] rem exanimans, præscriptam factionem invenit, fautoribusque ipsius dignâ animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in Episcopum nisi canonicâ electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo interdixit omnem ecclesiasticam communionem, si Episcopatum susciperet nisi Canonice promotus. Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistæ. Pactus erat Willelmus ab Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere; et data hæc ei essent, nisi, facta a Londoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis discederetipso diea Londonia Imperatrix."—Continuatio Historiæ Turgoti (Anglia Sacra, i. 711). This passage further proves (though, indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) that the legate remained in London till the actual flight of the Empress. It also illustrates their discordance.[270]"Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa hæc erat: Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consultam esse, et nominatim de illo quem Robertus Archidiaconus nominaret, et quod de illo vellet, et de alio omnino nollet. Quæsitum est ergo quis hic esset. Responsum est quod Willelmus" (ibid.). This has, of course, an important bearing on the question of episcopal election. Strong though the terms of her letter appear to have been, the Empress here waives the right, on which her father and her son insisted, of having the election conducted in her presence and in her own chapel, and anticipated the later practice introduced by the charter of John.[271]Add. MSS., 31,943, fol. 97. So too fol. 115: "After June 24, 1141, when the Empress was received in London; before July 25, when Milo was created Earl of Hereford."[272]Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 387). It is possible that the charter to Christ Church, London (ibid., p. 388), may also belong to this occasion; but, even if so, it is of no importance.[273]A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G.[274]Journ. B. A. A., pp. 384-386.[275]The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are supplied from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets.[276]Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted altogether, and RalphLovellbecomes Ralphde London. Dugdale has, of course, misled Mr. Birch.[277]Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known edition of theBritannia(1772), vol. i. p. 125.[278]Second edition, p. 647.[279]Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829).[280]Page 164.[281]"Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo" (Camden).[282]Mr. Birch reads "tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words.[283]Mr. Birch for "eandem terram" (rectius"turrem") conjectures "illam".[284]Mr. Birch conjectures "Preterea."[285]Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden.[286]There was still a toll bridge there in the last century. For table of tolls and exemptions, see Morant'sEssex.[287]Apparently, the high road on the left bank, and the way on the right bank, of the Cam.[288]Neither this market nor this fair are, it would seem, to be traced afterwards.[289]Mr. Birch conjectures "vigiliam."[290]This was presumably a grant of the borough of Maldon (i.e.the royal rights in that borough), though Peverel's fee in Maldon was an escheat at the time. The proof of this is not only that it is here described as a "borough" (burgus), but also that its annual value was to be deducted from the sheriff's ferm, which could only be the case if it formed part of thecorpus comitatus,i.e.was Crown demesne. In Domesday, Peverel's fee in Maldon was valued at £12, and the royal manor at £16 ("ad pondus"), though it had been £24. It was probably the latter which Henry II. granted to his brother William as representing ("pro") £22 ("numero") (see Pipe-Rolls).[291]Depden, three miles south of Walden. It had formed part, at the Survey, of the fief of Randulf Peverel.[292]Catlidge, according to Morant.[293]Mr. Birch conjectures "tenentibus ibidem pro."[294]Bonhunt, now part of Wickham Bonhunt, adjoining Newport. It had been held by Saisselinus at the Survey. In 1485 it was held of the honour of Lancaster.[295]Mr. Birch conjectures "ipse habuit."[296]This, apparently, refers to Depden, as forming part of Peverel's fief, which had been an escheat, in the king's hands, as early as 1130 (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.).[297]Hasculf de Tany was ancestor of the Essex family of Tany, of Stapleford-Tany, Theydon Bois, Elmstead, Great Stambridge, Latton, etc. He appears repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (pp. 53, 56, 58, 60, 99, 152), when he was in litigation with William de Bovill and Rhiwallon d'Avranches.[298]"Graelengus" is proved to be identical with "Graelandus de Thania," the Essex tenant-in-capite of 1166, by Stephen's second charter (Christmas, 1141), which gives his holding as 7½ fees, the very amount at which he returns it in hisCarta(see p. 142). But his contemporary, Graeland "fitz Gilbert" de Tany, on the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II., was probably so styled for distinction, being a son of Gilbert de Tany who figures on the Essex Pipe-Roll of 1158.[299]Compare the phrase "superplus militum" inRot. Pip.31 H. I. (p. 47).[300]"Predictis;" "ei quod omnia;" "et sint inforciata" (Mr. Birch).[301]Bushey in Hertfordshire. Part of Mandeville's Domesday fief.[302]Mr. Birch reads "pertinuerunt."[303]"Pertinuit"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.[304]"Quod aliquando"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.[305]Mr. Birch reads "placito hac teneat."[306]Mr. Birch reads "tre mee."[307]Mr. Birch conjectures "ponantur in (placitum)."[308]Mr. Birch conjectures "Baldewino Comite Devonie."[309]On Robert Arundell, see Yeatman'sHistory of the House of Arundel, p. 49 (where too early a date is suggested for this charter), and p. 105 (where it is implied that he was a tenant of the Earl of Gloucester). He occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and again in the Westminster charters (1136) of Stephen. (See Appendix C.)[310]Robert Malet also was a west-country baron. He figures in connection with Warminster in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is among the witnesses to the Westminster charters (1136), being there styled "Dapifer" (see Appendix C.). Thecartaof the Abbot of Glastonbury (1166) proves that he was the predecessor of William Malet,dapiferto Henry II.[311]Another west-country baron. He was one of the rebels of 1138, when he held Castle Carey against the king (Hen. Hunt., p. 261;Ord. Vit., v. 310;Gesta, p. 43). According to Mr. Yeatman, he was son of "William Gouel de Percival, called Lovel," Lord of Ivry (History of the House of Arundel, p. 136). He is however wrongly termed by him "Robert (sic) Lovel" on p. 268. He witnessed an early charter of the Empress to Glastonbury (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 390).[312]Ralph Paynell had instigated the Earl of Gloucester's raid on Nottingham the previous September (Cont. Flor. Wig., 128), and was one of the rebels in 1138, when he held Dudley against the king (ibid., 110). He was presumably identical with the "Rad[ulfus] Paen[ellus]" of 1130 (Rot. Pip, 31 Hen. I.). He witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and three other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 391, 395, 398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July, 1141).[313]Walchelin Maminot had been among the witnesses to the above Westminster charters of (Easter) 1136, but had held Dover against the king in 1138 (Ord. Vit., v. 310). when Ordericus (v. 111, 112) speaks of him as a son-in-law of Robert de Ferrers (Earl of Derby). He witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and five other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388, 391, 394bis, 398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July 1141), and he appears in the Pipe-Rolls and other records under Henry II. from 1155 to 1170.[314]Robert, natural son of Henry I. by Edith (afterwards married to Robert d'Oilli of Oxford), and uterine brother, as Mr. Eyton observes (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 115), "to Henry d'Oilli of Hook-Norton." He appears in connection with Devonshire in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is probably identical with Robert "brother" of Earl Reginald of Cornwall (vide ante, p. 82). He is mentioned as present (as "Robert fitz Edith") at the siege of Winchester, a few weeks later (Sym. Dun., ii. 310), and he was among the witnesses to the Empress's charters (Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford and of Essex, and to her charter (Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger (vide post). He subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) to Henry de Oxenford (Cart. Ant.D., No. 42). See alsoLiber Niger. Working from misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert "filius Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert fitz Reginald(de Dunstanville) (History of Shropshire, ii. 271).[315]Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in connection with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 90) affiliate him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established himself in Wales. He witnessed two other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 391, 395), both of them at Oxford. A son of his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held five knights' fees of Glastonbury Abbey in 1166.[316]Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (vide post). See for his adultery, treason, and shocking death (? 1143),Gesta Stephani, pp. 95, 96, where he is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari virtute approbatum." He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed summæ semper malitiæ machinator" (ibid., p. 93). He is affiliated by the editors of Ordericus (Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166.[317]As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give both versions:—Dugdale MS.Ashmole MS."Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil. Martin et Rob' fil Heldebrand' apud Westmonasterium.""Rad lovell et Rad Painell et W. Maminot et Roberto filio R. et Roberto filio Martin Roberto filioHaidebrandi apud Oxford."The three last words are added in a different hand, and "Oxford" appears to have been substituted for "Westmr" by yet another hand.[318]William de Moiun (Mohun) had attestedeo nominethe charter to Glastonbury (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389;Adam de Domerham) which probably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "ComiteWillelmo de Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141. Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his foundation charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under "dates and authorities for the empress's earldoms") no date and no further authority (Const. Hist., i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and valuable monograph onDunster and its Lords(1882), quotes theGesta Stephanifor the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" (p. 6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in 1140, and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem comitem ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same siege (cf. pp. 125,n., 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September, 1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on this point, p. 277infra.[319]See p. 143.[320]The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester.[321]"Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere corda a se alienavit" (Hen. Hunt., 275).[322]"Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto et custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit eos" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 132).[323]All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and his statement to that effect in hisBaronage. There is nothing in the charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but, unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from givesOxfordas the place of testing. But, then, the word (vide supra) appears to have been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion with the Empress'ssecondcharter to Geoffrey, which did pass at Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why this charter may not have passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, perhaps, the more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that Westminster was the place.[324]See p. 42.[325]See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius."[326]Const. Hist., i. 362.[327]This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H.[328]Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur."[329]See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in vol. xiii. of theAntiquary. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms."[330]"Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi."[331]Select Charters.[332]Const. Hist., i. 326, 327.[333]Domesday Studies, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887.[334]It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl solidis." In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv" (ii. 93).[335]See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in theChronicle of Ramsey(p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de Rameseia ut ad firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne vicecomes plus ab eo requirat."[336]"Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."—Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox'sBaronia, p. 232, note).[337]Const. Hist., i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of Knight Service into England" inEnglish Historical Review, July and October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439).[338]The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½ knights' service (as also in theLiber Niger).[339]"Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ ... et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis tribus comitatibus."[340]Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the Curia Regis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally distinguished by the title of 'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'" (Const. Hist., i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several other ministers receive the same name [justitiarius] even during the time at which he was actually in office; even the title ofcapitalis justitiariusis given to officers of theCuria Regiswho were acting in subordination to him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the style "capitalis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the reign of Henry II. (i. 350).[341]Const. Hist., i. 389,note.[342]See Appendix I.[343]I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is infused into this portion of the legal administration by the severance of the farm-interest (firma) from the judicial functions, which was effected by the appointment of royaljustitiariiin the place of thevicecomes. The reservation of the royal right of interference now develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i. 180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to pleas "in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis pacem regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat.Has iii forisfacturashabebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas" (i. 152).[344]See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes."[345]Select Charters, 141.[346]Foss'sJudges, i. 145.[347]Const. Hist., i. 470.[348]"Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [sic] intrare in terram suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, butà fortioriit would apply to the king's "justicia."[349]The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio omnium baronum suorum."[350]Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the "aliquis ... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter.[351]These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout with "robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones."[352]This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to 1163-1166. It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have been granted immediately after it, before the king left England in March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who were entrusted with the execution of the Assize, and that "Earl Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself.
[248]"Itaque multæ fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse, ut, cum hæc statim post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent" (p. 748).
[249]"Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus Maii Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris,Chron. Major., ii. 174).
[250]Ibid.
[251]The Early History of Oxford, cap. x.
[252]"Ad Radingum infra Rogationes veniens, suscipitur cum honoribus, hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperium convolantibus" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 130).
[253]Add. Chart.(Brit. Mus.), 19,576;Arch. Journ., xx. 289;Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389.
[254]"Reginaldocomitefilio regis." He had attested, as we have seen, an Oxford charter (circ.March 24) as Reginald "filius regis" simply. This would seem to fix his creation tocirc.April, 1141 (see p. 68).
[255]"Roberto fratre ejus."
[256]We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on this very point. There is printed in theCartulary of Ramsey(Rolls Series), vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to William, Prior of Ely, and others, notifying the agreement he has made with Walter, Abbot of Ramsey:—"Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de Rameseia consilio et assensu dominæ nostræ Imperatricis et Episcopi Wynton' Apost' sedis legati aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet Linc', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis et Brienni et Milonis ad voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter mando et præcipio sicut me diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed cartulary, is dated "1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a little research would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period in which the Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with her. This fixes it to March-June, 1141. Independent of the great interest attaching to this document as representing a "concordia" in the court of the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of thepersonnelof her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops mentioned were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her court, and we may therefore, on the strength of this document, add those of "Chester" and Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So with the laity. Three of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not yet received the earldom of Hereford) were her constant companions, so that we may safely rely on this evidence for the presence at her court on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk.
[257]Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had been Abbot of Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted.
[258]See above, p. 66.
[259]"Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in monasterio Sancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131).
[260]"Apud sanctum Albanum" (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 16;Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388).
[261]"Adeunt eam ibi cives multi ex Londoniâ, tractatur ibi sermo multimodus de reddenda civitate" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131).
[262]"Imperatrix, ut prædiximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus, comitantibus secum præsulibus multis et principibus, secura properavit ad urbem, et apud Westmonasterium cum processionali suscipitur honorificentiâ." (ibid.).
[263]i.e.Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for this custom, theChronicles of the Mayors of London, which record how, a century later (1257), upon the king approaching Westminster, "exierunt Maior et cives,sicut mos estad salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge" (p. 31). The Continuator (p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens ("cum honore susceperunt").
[264]"Videns itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis suæ promotionem, post Ascensionem Domini ad eam in Suthangliam profectus est: ... Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium" (Sym. Dun., ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election, I have taken this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p. 80). Cf. p. 5,n.5.
[265]"Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus."
[266]"Cives ... Imperatricem ... favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo [al.Sexto] Kal. Maii."
[267]See theLiber de Antiquis Legibus: "Tandem a Londonensibus expulsa est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet.
[268]"Ibique aliquantis diebus ... resedit" (p. 131).
[269]"[Legatus] rem exanimans, præscriptam factionem invenit, fautoribusque ipsius dignâ animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in Episcopum nisi canonicâ electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo interdixit omnem ecclesiasticam communionem, si Episcopatum susciperet nisi Canonice promotus. Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistæ. Pactus erat Willelmus ab Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere; et data hæc ei essent, nisi, facta a Londoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis discederetipso diea Londonia Imperatrix."—Continuatio Historiæ Turgoti (Anglia Sacra, i. 711). This passage further proves (though, indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) that the legate remained in London till the actual flight of the Empress. It also illustrates their discordance.
[270]"Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa hæc erat: Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consultam esse, et nominatim de illo quem Robertus Archidiaconus nominaret, et quod de illo vellet, et de alio omnino nollet. Quæsitum est ergo quis hic esset. Responsum est quod Willelmus" (ibid.). This has, of course, an important bearing on the question of episcopal election. Strong though the terms of her letter appear to have been, the Empress here waives the right, on which her father and her son insisted, of having the election conducted in her presence and in her own chapel, and anticipated the later practice introduced by the charter of John.
[271]Add. MSS., 31,943, fol. 97. So too fol. 115: "After June 24, 1141, when the Empress was received in London; before July 25, when Milo was created Earl of Hereford."
[272]Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 387). It is possible that the charter to Christ Church, London (ibid., p. 388), may also belong to this occasion; but, even if so, it is of no importance.
[273]A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G.
[274]Journ. B. A. A., pp. 384-386.
[275]The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are supplied from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets.
[276]Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted altogether, and RalphLovellbecomes Ralphde London. Dugdale has, of course, misled Mr. Birch.
[277]Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known edition of theBritannia(1772), vol. i. p. 125.
[278]Second edition, p. 647.
[279]Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829).
[280]Page 164.
[281]"Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo" (Camden).
[282]Mr. Birch reads "tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words.
[283]Mr. Birch for "eandem terram" (rectius"turrem") conjectures "illam".
[284]Mr. Birch conjectures "Preterea."
[285]Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden.
[286]There was still a toll bridge there in the last century. For table of tolls and exemptions, see Morant'sEssex.
[287]Apparently, the high road on the left bank, and the way on the right bank, of the Cam.
[288]Neither this market nor this fair are, it would seem, to be traced afterwards.
[289]Mr. Birch conjectures "vigiliam."
[290]This was presumably a grant of the borough of Maldon (i.e.the royal rights in that borough), though Peverel's fee in Maldon was an escheat at the time. The proof of this is not only that it is here described as a "borough" (burgus), but also that its annual value was to be deducted from the sheriff's ferm, which could only be the case if it formed part of thecorpus comitatus,i.e.was Crown demesne. In Domesday, Peverel's fee in Maldon was valued at £12, and the royal manor at £16 ("ad pondus"), though it had been £24. It was probably the latter which Henry II. granted to his brother William as representing ("pro") £22 ("numero") (see Pipe-Rolls).
[291]Depden, three miles south of Walden. It had formed part, at the Survey, of the fief of Randulf Peverel.
[292]Catlidge, according to Morant.
[293]Mr. Birch conjectures "tenentibus ibidem pro."
[294]Bonhunt, now part of Wickham Bonhunt, adjoining Newport. It had been held by Saisselinus at the Survey. In 1485 it was held of the honour of Lancaster.
[295]Mr. Birch conjectures "ipse habuit."
[296]This, apparently, refers to Depden, as forming part of Peverel's fief, which had been an escheat, in the king's hands, as early as 1130 (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.).
[297]Hasculf de Tany was ancestor of the Essex family of Tany, of Stapleford-Tany, Theydon Bois, Elmstead, Great Stambridge, Latton, etc. He appears repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (pp. 53, 56, 58, 60, 99, 152), when he was in litigation with William de Bovill and Rhiwallon d'Avranches.
[298]"Graelengus" is proved to be identical with "Graelandus de Thania," the Essex tenant-in-capite of 1166, by Stephen's second charter (Christmas, 1141), which gives his holding as 7½ fees, the very amount at which he returns it in hisCarta(see p. 142). But his contemporary, Graeland "fitz Gilbert" de Tany, on the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II., was probably so styled for distinction, being a son of Gilbert de Tany who figures on the Essex Pipe-Roll of 1158.
[299]Compare the phrase "superplus militum" inRot. Pip.31 H. I. (p. 47).
[300]"Predictis;" "ei quod omnia;" "et sint inforciata" (Mr. Birch).
[301]Bushey in Hertfordshire. Part of Mandeville's Domesday fief.
[302]Mr. Birch reads "pertinuerunt."
[303]"Pertinuit"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.
[304]"Quod aliquando"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.
[305]Mr. Birch reads "placito hac teneat."
[306]Mr. Birch reads "tre mee."
[307]Mr. Birch conjectures "ponantur in (placitum)."
[308]Mr. Birch conjectures "Baldewino Comite Devonie."
[309]On Robert Arundell, see Yeatman'sHistory of the House of Arundel, p. 49 (where too early a date is suggested for this charter), and p. 105 (where it is implied that he was a tenant of the Earl of Gloucester). He occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and again in the Westminster charters (1136) of Stephen. (See Appendix C.)
[310]Robert Malet also was a west-country baron. He figures in connection with Warminster in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is among the witnesses to the Westminster charters (1136), being there styled "Dapifer" (see Appendix C.). Thecartaof the Abbot of Glastonbury (1166) proves that he was the predecessor of William Malet,dapiferto Henry II.
[311]Another west-country baron. He was one of the rebels of 1138, when he held Castle Carey against the king (Hen. Hunt., p. 261;Ord. Vit., v. 310;Gesta, p. 43). According to Mr. Yeatman, he was son of "William Gouel de Percival, called Lovel," Lord of Ivry (History of the House of Arundel, p. 136). He is however wrongly termed by him "Robert (sic) Lovel" on p. 268. He witnessed an early charter of the Empress to Glastonbury (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 390).
[312]Ralph Paynell had instigated the Earl of Gloucester's raid on Nottingham the previous September (Cont. Flor. Wig., 128), and was one of the rebels in 1138, when he held Dudley against the king (ibid., 110). He was presumably identical with the "Rad[ulfus] Paen[ellus]" of 1130 (Rot. Pip, 31 Hen. I.). He witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and three other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 391, 395, 398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July, 1141).
[313]Walchelin Maminot had been among the witnesses to the above Westminster charters of (Easter) 1136, but had held Dover against the king in 1138 (Ord. Vit., v. 310). when Ordericus (v. 111, 112) speaks of him as a son-in-law of Robert de Ferrers (Earl of Derby). He witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and five other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388, 391, 394bis, 398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 July 1141), and he appears in the Pipe-Rolls and other records under Henry II. from 1155 to 1170.
[314]Robert, natural son of Henry I. by Edith (afterwards married to Robert d'Oilli of Oxford), and uterine brother, as Mr. Eyton observes (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 115), "to Henry d'Oilli of Hook-Norton." He appears in connection with Devonshire in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is probably identical with Robert "brother" of Earl Reginald of Cornwall (vide ante, p. 82). He is mentioned as present (as "Robert fitz Edith") at the siege of Winchester, a few weeks later (Sym. Dun., ii. 310), and he was among the witnesses to the Empress's charters (Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford and of Essex, and to her charter (Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger (vide post). He subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) to Henry de Oxenford (Cart. Ant.D., No. 42). See alsoLiber Niger. Working from misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert "filius Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert fitz Reginald(de Dunstanville) (History of Shropshire, ii. 271).
[315]Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in connection with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 90) affiliate him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established himself in Wales. He witnessed two other charters of the Empress (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 391, 395), both of them at Oxford. A son of his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held five knights' fees of Glastonbury Abbey in 1166.
[316]Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (vide post). See for his adultery, treason, and shocking death (? 1143),Gesta Stephani, pp. 95, 96, where he is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari virtute approbatum." He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed summæ semper malitiæ machinator" (ibid., p. 93). He is affiliated by the editors of Ordericus (Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166.
[317]As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give both versions:—
[318]William de Moiun (Mohun) had attestedeo nominethe charter to Glastonbury (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389;Adam de Domerham) which probably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "ComiteWillelmo de Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141. Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his foundation charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under "dates and authorities for the empress's earldoms") no date and no further authority (Const. Hist., i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and valuable monograph onDunster and its Lords(1882), quotes theGesta Stephanifor the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" (p. 6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in 1140, and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem comitem ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same siege (cf. pp. 125,n., 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September, 1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on this point, p. 277infra.
[319]See p. 143.
[320]The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester.
[321]"Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere corda a se alienavit" (Hen. Hunt., 275).
[322]"Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto et custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit eos" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 132).
[323]All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and his statement to that effect in hisBaronage. There is nothing in the charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but, unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from givesOxfordas the place of testing. But, then, the word (vide supra) appears to have been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion with the Empress'ssecondcharter to Geoffrey, which did pass at Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why this charter may not have passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, perhaps, the more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that Westminster was the place.
[324]See p. 42.
[325]See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius."
[326]Const. Hist., i. 362.
[327]This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H.
[328]Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur."
[329]See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in vol. xiii. of theAntiquary. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms."
[330]"Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi."
[331]Select Charters.
[332]Const. Hist., i. 326, 327.
[333]Domesday Studies, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887.
[334]It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl solidis." In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv" (ii. 93).
[335]See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in theChronicle of Ramsey(p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de Rameseia ut ad firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne vicecomes plus ab eo requirat."
[336]"Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."—Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox'sBaronia, p. 232, note).
[337]Const. Hist., i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of Knight Service into England" inEnglish Historical Review, July and October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439).
[338]The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½ knights' service (as also in theLiber Niger).
[339]"Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ ... et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis tribus comitatibus."
[340]Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the Curia Regis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally distinguished by the title of 'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'" (Const. Hist., i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several other ministers receive the same name [justitiarius] even during the time at which he was actually in office; even the title ofcapitalis justitiariusis given to officers of theCuria Regiswho were acting in subordination to him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the style "capitalis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the reign of Henry II. (i. 350).
[341]Const. Hist., i. 389,note.
[342]See Appendix I.
[343]I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is infused into this portion of the legal administration by the severance of the farm-interest (firma) from the judicial functions, which was effected by the appointment of royaljustitiariiin the place of thevicecomes. The reservation of the royal right of interference now develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i. 180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to pleas "in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis pacem regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat.Has iii forisfacturashabebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas" (i. 152).
[344]See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes."
[345]Select Charters, 141.
[346]Foss'sJudges, i. 145.
[347]Const. Hist., i. 470.
[348]"Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [sic] intrare in terram suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, butà fortioriit would apply to the king's "justicia."
[349]The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio omnium baronum suorum."
[350]Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the "aliquis ... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter.
[351]These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout with "robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones."
[352]This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to 1163-1166. It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have been granted immediately after it, before the king left England in March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who were entrusted with the execution of the Assize, and that "Earl Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself.