Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924096989029 3 1924 096 989 029 In compliance with current copyright law, Cornell University Library produced this replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1992 to replace the irreparably deteriorated original. 2003 €mm\l iUuwi^itg pibtav|r BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henrg %J. Sage 1891 A -mpZ ii.J5JipO THE COMMUNE OF LONDON THE COMMUNE OF LONDON AND OTHER STUDIES BY J. H. ROUND M.A. AUTHOR OF ' GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE ' 'FEUDAL ENGLAND,' ETC. With a Prefatory Letter by Sir Walter Besant WESTMINSTER ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND CO 2 WHITEHALL GARDENS 1899 Bhtlek & Tanner, The Selwood Printing WoRiiS, Frome, AifD London. Prefatory Letter DEAR MR. ROUND, I have to thank you for kindly letting me see the advance proofs of your new book. It is difficult for me to explain the very great advantage which the study of your books has been to me in my endeavour to get at the facts, especially those of the 1 2th century, connected with the history of London. For instance, I have found in your pages for the first time a working theory of the very difficult questions connected with the creation of the municipality. I have adopted your conclusions to the best of my ability with, I hope, an adequate expression of thanks to the source from which they are derived. I would also point out the great service which you have rendered to the history of the City by giving, for the first time, the exact truth regarding the con- veyance of the Portsoken to the Priory of the Holy Trinity, an event which has been hitherto totally misunderstood. Thirdly, I must acknowledge that it is only from your pages, especially a certain appendix to ' Geoffrey de Mandeville,' that one can understand the ordinary PREFATORY LETTER position of the clergy of the City of London in the 1 2th century. It is unnecessary for me to enumerate many other obligations which I owe to your pages. I remain, dear Mr. Round, Very faithfully yours, WALTER BESANT. Office of the Survey of London, July 6tk, 1899. VI Contents I The Settlement of the South-Saxons and East-Saxons i II Ingelric the Priest and Albert of Lotharingia . 28 III Anglo-Norman Warfare 39 IV The Origin of the Exchequer 62 V London under Stephen 97 VI The Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) 125 VII The Conquest of Ireland 137 vii CONTENTS VIII The Pope and the Conquest of Ireland . . -171 IX The Coronation of Richard 1 201 X The Struggle of John and Longchamp (119 i) . . 207 XI The Commune of London 219 XII The Great Inquest of Service (1212) .... 261 XIII Castle-ward and Cornage 278 XIV Bannockburn 289 XV The Marshalship of England 302 vui Pref£ ace THE paper which gives its title to this volume of unpublished studies deals with a subject of great interest, the origin of the City Corporation. In my previous work, 'Geoffrey de Mandeville' (1892), and especially in the Appendix it contains on ' The early administration of London,' I endeavoured to advance our knowledge of the government and the liberties of the City in the 12th century. In the present volume the paper entitled " London under Stephen " pursues the enquiry further. I have there argued that the " English Cnihtengild " was not the governing body, and have shown that it did not, as is alleged, embrace a religious life by entering Holy Trinity Priory en masse. The great office of " Jus- ticiar of London," created, as I previously held, by the charter of Henry I., is now proved, in this paper, to have been held by successive citizens in the days of Stephen. The communal movement, which, even under Stephen, seems to have influenced the City, attained its triumph under Richard I. ; and the most important discovery, perhaps, in these pages is that of the oath sworn to the Commune of London. From it we learn that the governing body consisted at the time of a Mayor and "fichevins," as in a continental city, and ix PREFACE that the older officers, the Aldermen of the Wards, had not been amalgamated, as has been supposed, with the new and foreign system. The latter, I have urged, is now represented by the Mayor and Common Council, That this communal organization was al- most certainly derived from Normandy, and probably from Rouen, will, I think, be generally admitted ii the light of the evidence here adduced. This conclu- sion has led me to discuss the date of the " Etablisse- ments de Rouen," a problem that has received much attention from that eminent scholar, M. Giry. I have also dwelt on the financial side of London's communal revolution, and shown that it involved the sharp re- duction of the ' firma ' paid by the City to the Crown, the amount of which was a grievance with the citizens and a standing subject of dispute. The strand connecting the other studies contained in this volume is the critical treatment of historical evidence, especially of records and kindred docu- ments. It is possible that some of the discoveries resulting from this treatment may not only illustrate the importance of absolute exactitude in statement, but may also encourage that searching and indepen- dent study of ' sources ' which affords so valuable an historical training, and is at times the means of obtain- ing light on hitherto perplexing problems. The opening paper (originally read before the Society of Antiquaries) is a plea for the more scientific study of the great field for exploration pre- sented by our English place-names. Certain current beliefs on the settlement of the English invaders are based, it is here urged, on nothing but the rash con- PREFACE elusions of Kemble, writing, as he did, under the influence of a now abandoned theory. In the paper which follows, the value of charters, for the Norman period, is illustrated, some points of ' diplomatic ' in- vestigated, and the danger of inexactitude revealed. Finance, the key to much of our early institutional history, is dealt with in a paper on " The origin of the Exchequer," a problem of long standing. On the one hand, allowance is here made for the personal equation of the author of the famous ' Dialogus de Scaccario,' and some of his statements critically examined, with the result of showing that he exaggerates the changes introduced under Henry I., by the founder of his own house, and that certain alleged innovations were, in truth, older than the Conquest. On the other, it is shown that his treatise does, when carefully studied, reveal the existence of a Treasury audit, which has hitherto escaped notice. Further, the office of Chamberlain of the Exchequer is traced back as a feudal serjeanty to the days of the Conqueror him- self, and its connection with the tenure of Porchester Castle established, probably, for the first time. The geographical position of Porchester should, in this connection, be observed. In two papers I deal with Ireland and its Anglo- Norman conquest. The principal object in the first of these is to show the true character of that alleged golden age which the coming of the invaders de- stroyed. It is possible, however, of course, that a " vast human shambles " may be, in the eyes of some, an ideal condition for a country. Mr. Dillon, at least, has consistently described the Soudan, before our con- xi PREFACE quest, as " a comparatively peaceful country."^ In the second of these papers I advance a new solution of the problem raised by the alleged grant of Ireland, by the Pope, to Henry II. As to this fiercely contested point, I suggest that, on the English side, there was a conspiracy to base the title of our kings to Ireland on a Papal donation of the sovereignty of the island, itself avowedly based on the (forged) " donation of Constan- tine." No such act of the Popes can, in my opinion, be proved. Even the " Bull Laudabiliter," which, in the form we have it, is of no authority, does not go so far as this, while its confirmation by Alexander III. is nothing but a clumsy forgery. The only document sent to Ireland, to support his rights, by Henry II. was, I here contend, the letter of Alexander III. (20th September, 11 72), approving of what had been done. That he sent there the alleged bull of Adrian, and that he did so in 1175, are both, I urge, although accepted, facts without foundation.^ The method adopted in this paper of testing the date hitherto adopted, and disproving it by the sequence of events, is one which I have also em- ployed in " The Struggle of John and Longchamp (1191)." The interest of this latter paper consists in 1 Speech in the House of Commons {Times, 6th June, 1899). * It is important to observe that the Pope's letter of 20th Septem- ber, 1172, contains an unmistakable reference to the (forged) Dona- tion of Constantine in the words "Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet in Insula quam in terra magna et continua" (see p. 197 below). Dr. Zinkeisen, in his paper on "the Donation of Constantine as applied by the Roman Church," speaks of this letter as " a genuine bull of Alexander III." (' English Historical Review,' ix. 629), but strangely overlooks the allusion, and asserts that he could find no use made by the Popes of the forged Donation at this period. xii PREFACE its bearing on the whole question of historic prob- ability, and on the problem of harmonising narratives by four different witnesses, as discussed by Dr. Abbott in his work on St. Thomas of Canterbury. This is, perhaps, the only instance in which I have found the historic judgment and the marvellous insight of the Bishop of Oxford, if I may venture to say so, at fault ; and it illustrates the importance of minute attention to the actual dates of events. Another point that I have tried to illustrate is the tendency to erect a theory on a single initial error. In " The Marshalship of England " I have shown that the belief in the existence of two distinct Marshalseas converging on a single house rests only on a careless slip in a coronation claim (1377). A marginal note scribbled by Carew, under a misapprehension, in the days of Elizabeth, is shown (p. 149) to be the source of Professor Brewer's theory on certain Irish MSS, Again, the accepted story of the Cnihtengild rests only on a misunderstanding of a mediaeval phrase (p. 104). Stranger stjll, the careless reading of a marginal note found in the works of Matthew Paris has led astray the learned editors of several volumes in the Rolls Series, and has even been made, as I have shown in "the Coronation of Richard I.," the basis of a theory that a record of that event formerly existed, though now wanting, in the Red Book of the Exchequer. The increasing interest in our public records — due in part to the greater use of record evidence in his- torical research, and in part, also, to the energy with xiii PREFACE which, under the present Deputy- Keeper of the Re- cords, their contents are being made available — leads me to speak of the contributions, in these pages, to their study. A suggestion will be found (p. 88) as to the origin of the valuable " Cartee Antiquae," of which the text too often is corrupt, but which, it may be hoped, will soon be published, as they are at present difificult to consult. In the paper on " The Inquest of Sheriffs " I have proved beyond question the identity of the lost returns discovered at the Public Record Office, and so lamentably misunderstood by their official editor. But the most important, and indeed revolutionary, theory I have here ventured to advance deals with what are known as the Red Book Inquisitions of 12 and 13 John. It is my contention that this Inquest, the existence of which has not been doubted,^ though it rests only on the heading in the Red Book of the Ex- chequer, never took place at all, and that these ' In- quisitions ' are merely abstracts, made for a special purpose, from the original returns to that great In- quest of service (as I here term it) which took place in June, 1212 (14 John). It is singular that this conclu- sion is precisely parallel with that which experts have now adopted on another great Inquest. " Kirkby's Quest," it is now admitted, having been similarly mis- dated in an official transcript, and again, in our own time, by an officer of the Public Record Office, was similarly shown by a private individual to consist, as a rule, " of abridgments only of original inquisitions " ..." extracts from the original inquisitions made for 1 See Mr. Scargill-Bird's ' Guide to the Public Records.' xiv PREFACE a special purpose." ^ Thus, under John, as under Ed- ward I., " the enquiry itself was a much wider one " than would be inferred from the Red Book Inquisi- tions and " Kirkby's Quest" respectively. And, in both cases, its date was different from that which has been hitherto assigned. I cannot doubt that the theory I advance will be accepted, in course of time, by the authorities of the Public Record Office. In the meanwhile, I have endeavoured to identify all the material in the ' Testa de Nevill ' derived from the returns to this Inquest, and thus to make it available for students of local and family history. It is needful that I should say something on the Red Book of the Exchequer. One of the most famous volumes among our public records, it has lately been edited for the Rolls Series by Mr. Hubert Hall, F.S.A., of the Public Record Office.^ The in- clusion of a work in the Rolls Series thrusts it, of necessity, upon every student of English mediaeval history. It also Involves an official cachet, which gives it an authority, as a work of reference, that the public, naturally, does not assign to the book of a private individual. That a certain percentage of mistakes must occur in works of this kind is, perhaps, to be expected ; but when they are made the vehicle of confused and wild guesswork, and become the means of imparting wanton heresy and error, it is ^ ' Feudal Aids ' (Calendars of State Papers, etc.), vol. i., pp. ix.-xi. * Director of the Royal Historical Society ; Lecturer on Paleo- graphy and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics, etc., etc. XV PREFACE poliorcetics of mediaeval England, and on the intro- duction, in this country, of tenure by knight service. It is the object also of the " Bannockburn " paper to illustrate the grossly-exaggerated figures of mediaeval chroniclers, a point which, even now, is insufficiently realized. Here, and elsewhere, it has been my aim to insist upon the value of records as testing and checking our chronicles, placing, as they do, the facts of history on a relatively sure foundation. sviii I The Settlement of the South- and East-Saxons I WOULD venture, at the outset, to describe this as a "pioneer" paper. It neither professes to determine questions nor attempts to exhaust a sub- ject of singular complexity and obscurity. It is only an attempt to approach the problem on independent lines, and to indicate the path by which it may be possible to extend our knowledge in a department of research of which the importance and the interest are universally recognised. It is the fine saying of a brilliant scholar, I mean Professor Maitland, that " the most wonderful of all palimpsests is the map of England, could we but decipher it." ^ But the study of place-names has this in common with the study of Domesday Book. The local worker, the man who writes the history of his own parish, is as ready to explain the name it bears as he is to interpret the Domesday formulce relating to it in the Great Survey, without possessing in either case that knowledge of the subject as a whole which is required for its treatment in detail. On the other ^ Archaeological Review, iv. 235. I B SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS hand, the general student, from the very wideness of his field, is deprived of the advantage conferred by the knowledge of a district in its details. In the hope of steering a middle course between these two dangers, I have specially selected two counties, both of them settled by the Saxon folk — Sussex, with which I am connected by birth ; and Essex, with which are my chief associations. And further, within these two counties I restrict myself to certain classes of names, in order to confine the field of enquiry to well-defined limits. The names with which I propose to deal are those which imply human habitation. And here at once I part company with those, like Kemble and other writers, who appear to think it matter of indifference, so long as a name is formed from what they term a patronymic, whether it ends in -ham or -ton, or in such suffixes as -hurst, -field, -den, or -ford. To them all such names connote village communities; to me they certainly do not. If we glance at the map of Domesday Sussex,^ we see the northern half of the county practically still " backwoods " eight centuries ago.* If we then turn to the Domesday map prefixed to Manning and Bray's Surrey, we find the southern half of that county similarly devoid of place-names. In short, the famous Andredswald was still, at the time of the Conquest, a belt, some twenty miles in 1 Prefixed to the Domesday volume published by the Sussex Archseological Society. * A generation later than Domesday we find lands at Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) given to Lewes Priory, which "usque ad modemum tempus silve fuerunt" (Cott. MS. Nero c. ill fo. 217). 2 '-HAM,' '-TON,' AND ' ING ' width, of forest, not yet opened up, except in a few scattered spots, for human settlement. The place- names of this district have, even at the present day, a quite distinctive character. The hams and tons of the districts lying to the north and the south of it are here replaced by such suffixes as -hurst, -wood, -ley, and -field, and on the Kentish border by -den. We may then, judging from this example, treat such suffixes as evidence that the districts where they occur were settled at a much later time than those of the hams and tons, and under very different conditions. The suffix -sted, so common in Essex, is comparatively rare in Sussex, and we cannot, therefore, classify it with the same degree of certainty. Taking, therefore, for our special sphere, the hams, the tons, and the famous ings, let us see if they occur in such a way as to suggest some definite conclusions. The three principles I would keep in view are : (i) the study, within the limits of a county, of that distribu- tion of names which, hitherto, has been studied for the country as a whole ; (2) a point to which I attach the very greatest importance, namely, the collection, so far as possible, of all the names belonging to this class, instead of considering only those which happen to be now represented by villages or parishes ; (3) the critical treatment of the evidence, by sifting and cor- recting it in its present form. The adoption of these two latter principles will gravely modify the conclu- sions at which some have arrived. There is, as Mr. Seebohm's work has shown, nothing so effective as a special map for impressing on the mind the distribution of names. Such a map is 3 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS an argTiment in itself. But although I have con- structed for my own use special maps of Sussex and Essex, they cannot here be reproduced. I now proceed to apply the first principle of which I spoke, that of examining a single county in the same way as others have examined the maps of Eng- land as a whole. I doubt if any county would prove more instructive for the purpose than that of Sussex, of which the settlement was developed m isolation and determined by well-defined geographical conditions. Whatever may be said of other suffixes, Mr. Seebohm has shown us that, even allowing for a large margin of unavoidable error, the terminations -ing and -ham are not distributed at random, but are specially dis- tinctive of that portion of England which was settled by the earliest immigrants and settled the most com- pletely. As a broad, general conclusion, this is vir- tually established. Now, if we turn to the map of Sussex and ask if this general principle can also be traced in detail, the first point to strike us, I think, is the close connection existing between the hams and the rivers. The people, one might say, who settled the hams were a people who came in boats. Although at first sight the hams may seem to penetrate far inland, we shall find that where they are not actually on the coast, they almost invariably follow the rivers, and follow them as far up as possible; and this is specially the case with the Aran and its tributary the Western Rother. Careful examinatioa reveals the fact that, whUe to the south, round Chichester Harbour and Selsea Bill, we find several hams, and find them again to the north in the valley of the western Rother, 4 '-HAM.' '-TON,' AND ' ING ' there are none to be found in the space between, which shows that the men who settled them found their way round by the Arun and not overland. I need hardly observe that the rivers of those days were far larger than the modern streapis, and their water level higher. It is anticipating somewhat to point out that the same examination shows us a large group of tons covering this district away from the river, where we find no hams. Evidently these suffixes do not occur at random. And now let us pass from the extreme west to the extreme east of the county. Here, instead of a group of tons with a notable absence of hams, we find a most remarkable group of hams, absolutely excluding tons. To understand the occurrence of this g'roup on the Rother — the eastern Rother — and its tributaries, it is essential to remember the great change that has here taken place in the coast line. Unfortunately Dr. Guest, who first discussed the settlement of Sussex, entirely ignored this important change, and his fol- lowers have done the same. The late Mr. Green, for instance, in his map, follows the coast line given by Dr. Guest. Thus they wholly overlooked that great inlet of the sea, which formed in later ages the har- bours of Winchelsea and Rye, and which offered a most suitable and tempting haven for the first Saxon settlers. The result of so doing was that they made the earliest invaders pass by the whole coast of Sussex before finding, at Selsea Bill, one of those marshy inlets of the sea, where they could make themselves at home. Therefore, argued Mr. Grant Allen,^ " the * Anglo-Saxon Britain, p. 30. 5 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS original colony occupied the western half of the modern county ; but the eastern portion still remained in the hands of the Welsh." The orthodox hypothesis seems to be that the settlers then fought their way step by step eastwards, that is, towards Kent, reaching and capturing Pevensey in 491, fourteen years after their first landing,^ As against this view, I would suggest that the distribution of Sussex place-names is in favour of vertical not lateral progress, of separate settlements up the rivers. And, in any case, I claim for the group of hams at the extreme east of the county the position of an independent settlement, to the character of which I shall return. I must not wander too far from what is immediately my point, namely, the grouping of the hams and tons not haphazard but with cause. Even thpse students who discriminate suffixes, instead of lumping them together, like Kemble and his followers, make no distinction, I gather, between hams and tons. Mr. Seebohm, for instance, classes together " the Saxon ' hams ' and ' tuns,' " * and so does Professor York Powell, even though his views on the settlement are exceptionally original and advanced.' There are, however, various reasons which lead me to advance a different view. In the first place, the wide-spread ^ Ibid. Dr. Guest suggested of ^Ue, at the battle of Mercred's Bum (485), that " on this occasion he may have met Ambrosias and a national army ; for Huntingdon tells us that the ' reges et tyranni Brittanum' were his opponents." But if the Saxon advance was eastwards, it could not well have brought them face to face with the main force of the Britons. ^ English Village Community, pp. 126, 127, etc. ' Social England, i. 122 et seq. 6 '-HAM' OLDER THAN '-TON' existence, on the Continent, of ham in its foreign forms proves this suffix to be older than the settle- ment. ' Ton,' on the other hand, as is well known, is virtually absent on the Continent, which implies that it did not come into use till after the settlement in England. And as ham was thus used earlier than ton, so ton, one need hardly add, was used later than ham-. The cases in Scotland, and in what is known as " little England beyond Wales," will at once occur to the reader. Canon Taylor states of the latter that the Flemish names, such as Walterston, " belong to a class of names which we find nowhere else in the kingdom," formed from " Walter and others common in the 12th century."^ But in Herefordshire, for instance, we have a Walterston ; and in Dorset a Bardolfston, a Philipston, a Michaelston, and a Wal- terston, proving that the same practice prevailed within the borders of England. Nor need we travel outside the two counties I am specially concerned with to learn from the ' ^Ifelmston ' of Essex or the Brihtelmston of Sussex that we find ton com- pounded with names of the later Anglo-Saxon period. A third clue is afforded by the later version, found ia the Liber de Hyda, of Alfred's will. For there we find the ham of the original document rendered by ton. It is clear, therefore, I contend, that ton was a later form than ham. Now the map of England as a whole points to the same conclusion ; for ton is by no means distinctive, like ham, of the districts earliest settled. And if we confine ourselves to a particular county, say this of Sussex, we discover, 1 2nd ed. p. 178. 7 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS I maintain, an appreciable difference between the distribution of the hams and the tons. While the hams follow the course of the rivers, the scene of the first settlements, the tons are largely found grouped away on the uplands, as if representing a later stage in the settlement of the country. In connection with this I would adduce the " remark- able passage," as Mr. Seebohm rightly terms it, in one of King Alfred's treatises, where he contrasts the " permanent freehold ham " with the new and at first temporary ton, formed by ' timbering ' a forest clearing in a part not previously settled.^ It is true that Mr. Seebohm, as I have said, recognises no dis- tinction, and even speaks of this example as " the growth of a new ham " ; but it seems to me to con- firm the view I am here advancing* It is obvious that if such a canon of research as that ham (not ton) was a mark of early settlement could be even provisionally accepted, it would greatly, and at once, advance our knowledge of the settlement of England. Although this is nothing more than a ' pioneer ' paper, I may say that, after at least glancing at the maps of other counties, I can see nothing to oppose, but everything to confirm, the view that the settlers in the hams ascended the rivers (much as they seem, on a larger scale, to have done in Germany) ; and a study of the coast of England from the Tweed to the British Channel leads me to believe that, as a mari- time people, their settlements began upon the coast. I now pass to my second point — the insufficient attention which has hitherto been paid to our minor ^ English Village Community, pp. 169, 170. 8 IMPORTANCE OF MINOR PLACE-NAMES place-names. Kemble, for instance, working, as he did, on a large scale, was dependent, so far as names still existing are concerned, on the nomenclature of present parishes. And such a test, we shall find, is most fallacious. Canon Taylor, it is true, has endeavoured to supplement this deficiency,^ but the classification of existing names, whether those of modern parishes or not, has not yet, so far as I can find, been even attempted. Hitherto I have mainly spoken of Sussex, because it is in that county that place-names can be best studied ; the Essex evidence is chiefly of value for the contrast it presents. The principal contrast, and one to which I invite particular attention, is this : confining ourselves to the names I am concerned with — the ings, hams, and tons — we find that in Essex several parishes have only a single place-name between them, while in Sussex, on the contrary, a single parish may contain several of these place-names, each of them, surely, at one time representing a distinct local unit This contrast comes out strongly in the maps I have prepared of the two counties, in which the parishes are disregarded, and each place - name separately entered. I do not pretend that the survey is ex- haustive, especially in the case of Sussex, as I only attempt to show those which are found on an ordinary county map, together with those, now obsolete, which can safely be supplied from Domesday. But, so far as the contrast I am dealing with is concerned, it is at least not exaggerated. ^ He writes, of ing, that " Mr. Kemble had overlooked no less than 47 names in Kent, 38 in Sussex, and 34 in Essex " (ed. 1888, p. 82). 9 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS As the actual names are not shown, I will now adduce a few examples. In Sussex, Burpham is composed of three tythings — Burpham, Wepham, Pippering ; Climping comprises Atherington and Iles- ham ; Offham is included in South Stoke ; Rackham in Amberley ; Coothanl in Storrington ; Ashton, Wel- lingham, and Norlington in Ringmer ; Buddington in Steyning ; and Bidlington in Bramber. In Essex, on the other hand, ' Roothing ' does duty for eight parishes, Colne for four, Hanningfield, Laver, Bardfield, Tolleshunt, and Belchamp for three each, and several more for two. There are, of course, in Sussex also, double parishes to be found, such as North and South Mundham, but they are much scarcer. We may learn, I think, a good deal from the con- trast thus presented. In the first place, it teaches us that parochial divisions are artificial and comparatively modern. The formula that the parish is the town- ship in its ecclesiastical capacity is (if unconsciously adopted) not historically true. Antiquaries fami- liar with the Norman period, or with the study of local .history, must be acquainted with the ruins or the record of churches or chapels (the same building, I may observe in passing, is sometimes called both ecclesia and capella^), which formerly gave townships now merged in parishes a separ- ate or quasi-separate ecclesiastical existence. In Sussex the present Angmering comprises what were once three parishes, each with a church of its own. The parish of Cudlow has long been absorbed ^ The Lewes Priory Charters aflford instances in point. 10 TOWNSHIP, MANOR, AND PARISH in that of Climping. Balsham-in-Yapton was for- merly a distinct hamlet and chapelry. Conversely, the chapelries of Petworth have for centuries been distinct parishes. In Essex we have examples of another kind, examples which remind us that the combination or the subdivision of parishes are processes as familiar in comparatively modern as in far distant times. The roofless and deserted church to be seen at Little Birch testifies to the fact that, though now one. Great and Little Birch, till recently, were ecclesiastically distinct. In the adjoining parish of Stan way, the church, simi- larly roofless and deserted, was still in use in the last century. Again, the civil unit as well as the ecclesiastical, the village, like the parish, may often prove mislead- ing. It is, indeed, very doubtful whether we have ever sufficiently distinguished the manor and the village. If we construct for ourselves a county map from Domesday, we shall miss the names of several villages, although often of antiquity ; but, on the other hand, shall meet with the names of important manors, often extending into several parishes, often suggesting by their forms a name as old as the migration, yet now represented at most by some obscure manor, and perhaps only by a, solitary farm, or even, it may be, a field. In Sussex, for instance, the ' Basingham ' of Domesday cannot now be identified ; its ' Be- lingeham ' is doubtful ; its ' Clotinga ' is now but a farm, as is 'Estockingeham.' 'Sessingham' and 'Wilt- ingham' are manors. In Essex 'Hoosenga' and ' Hasingha ' occur together in Domesday, and are II SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS unidentified. Nor have I yet succeeded in iden- tifying ' Plesingho,' a manor not only mentioned in Domesday, but duly found under Henry III. Morant, followed by Chisenhale- Marsh, identified it wrongly with Pleshy. Such names as these, eclipsed by those of modern villages, require to be disin- terred by archaeological research. Another point on which light is thrown by the contrast of Essex and Sussex is the theory tenta- tively advanced by Mr. Maitland in the 'Archaeo- logical Review,' that the Hundred and the township may, in the beginning, have been represented by the same unit.^ Broadly speaking, he adduced in sup- port of this hypothesis the originally large township of Essex, proved by the existence of a group of villages bearing the same name, comparing it with the small Hundreds characteristic of Sussex. But in Sussex, I think, the small Hundreds were coin- cident with those many small townships ; while in Essex the scattered townships are coincident with larger Hundreds. And this leads me to suggest that the Saxon settlements in Sussex lay far thicker on the ground than those found in Essex, and that we possibly find here some explanation of the admitted silence as to the East-Saxon settlement contrasting with the well-known mention of that in Sussex. It seems to me highly probable that Essex, in those remote times, was not only bordered and penetrated by marshes, but largely covered with forest. It is, perhaps, significant that in the district between West- ^ Archseological Review, iv. 233 et seq. 12 DISTRIBUTION OF '-HAM' ham and Boreham, some twenty-five miles across as the crow flies, there is not a ham to be found. From this I turn to the opposite extreme, that group of hams on the 'Rother' and its tributaries, thirty-seven in number. Isolated alike from ings and tons, and hemmed in by the spurs of the Andredswald, it is, perhaps, unique in character. Nowhere have I lighted on a group of hams so illustrative of the character of these settlements, or affording a test so admirable of the alleged connec- tion between this suffix and the villa of the Roman Empire. One of the sections of Mr. Seebohm's work is devoted to what he terms " the connection between the Saxon ' ham,' the German ' heim,' and the Prankish ' villa.' " This, indeed, it may fairly be said, is one of the important points in his case, and one to which he has devoted special research and attention. Now, I am not here dealing with the equation of 'ham' and 'villa.' If I were, I should urge, perhaps, that, as with the ' Witan ' of the English and the ' Great Council ' of the Normans, it does not follow that an equation of words involves their absolute identity of meaning. I confine myself to the sufifix ' -ham,' "Its early geographical distribution," Mr. Seebohm has sug- gested, " may have an important significance." With this, it will be seen, I entirely agree. But, if the dis- tribution is important, let us make sure of our facts ; let uSj as I urge throughout this volume, test and try our evidence before we advance to our conclusion. When Mr. Seebohm informs us that " the ' hams ' 13 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS of England were most numerous in the south- eastern counties, finding their densest centre in Essex," the statement must startle any one who has the least acquaintance with Essex, where the termi- nation ' -ham ' is comparatively rare in place-names. On turning to Mr. Seebohm's map, one is still further surprised to learn that its "local names ending in ' ham ' " attain in Domesday the enormous propor- tion of 39 per cent. The clue to the mystery is found in a note that " in Essex the h is often dropped, and the suffix becomes am." For the whole calculation is based on a freak of my old friend, the Domesday scribe. The one to whom we are indebted for the text of the Essex survey displayed his misplaced scholarship in Latinizing the English names so thoroughly, that not only did Oakley, the first on the list, become ' Accleia,' but even in the accusa- tive, " Accleiaw tenet Robertus." Thus we need travel no further than the first name on the index to learn how Mr. Seebohm's error was caused. Elmstead, Bonhunt, Bentley, Coggeshall, Danbury, Dunmow, Alresford, and many other such names, have all by this simple process been converted into ' hams.' I hasten to add that my object in correct- ing this error is not to criticise so brilliant an investi- gator and so able a scholar as Mr. Seebohm, but to illustrate the practical impossibility of accomplishing any scientific work in this department of research until the place-names of England have been classi- fied and traced to their origin. I am eager to see this urgent work undertaken county by county, on much the same lines as those adopted by the 14 'BILLINGHAM' AND 'TILLINGHAM' Government in France. It seems to me to be eminently a subject for discussion at the Annual Congress of Archaeological Societies. If it were the case that the English ham represents the Roman villa, this remarkable group on the borders of Kent and Sussex should indicate a dense Roman settlement ; but of such settlement there is, I believe, no trace existing. Conversely, we do not find that the sites of Roman villas are denoted by the suffix ham} From considering this group as a whole, I advance to two settlements on what is known as the Tillingham River, namely, Billingham and Tillingham. One would not easily find names more distinctive of what Kemble insisted on terming the mark system, or what later historians describe as clan settlement. Parenthetically, I may observe that while ham is common in Sussex, the compound ingham is not. This is well seen in the group under consideration. 1 One would like to know on what ground the suffix " -well," familiar in Essex (Broad well, Chad well, Hawk well, Netteswell, Prittlewell, Ridgwell, Roxwell, Runwell), but curiously absent in Sussex, is derived from the Roman ' villa.' It is found in Domes- day precisely the same as at the present day. Yet Professor Earle writes of " Wilburgewella " that it is " an interesting name as show- ing the naturalized form of the Latin villa, of which the ordinary Saxon equivalent was ^a^a " (Land Charters, p. 130). This latter equation seems to be most surprising. It is traceable apparently to a charter of 855, in which we read of "unam villam quod nos Saxonice 'an hagan ' dicimus" (lb. p. 336), an obviously suspicious phrase. There is no ground for terming the ' Ceolmundinge haga ' of a starred document (lb. p. 315) a villa, while the 'haga' of another (lb. p. 364) is clearly a haw, as in ' Bassishaw.' Yet another charter (lb. p. 447) is not in point. 15 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS The same may, I think, be said of Essex, while in North Suffolk ingkam begins to assert its predom- inance. The frequent occurrence in Norfolk and Lincolnshire renders it a note of Anglian rather than Saxon settlement.^ And now for Billingham and TilHngham. Billing is one of the most common of the so-called patronymics ; and there is a TilHngham in Essex. Whether we turn to the specialist works of such writers as Stubbs and Green, or to the latest compendia of English history as a whole, we shall virtually always read that such names as these denote original settlement by a clan.^ In venturing to question this proposition, I am striking at the root of Kemble's theory, that over- ^ But the more closely one investigates the subject the more difficult one finds it to speak with absolute confidence as to the original existence, in any given instance, of an ing in the modern suffixes -ingham and -ington. * " It is probable that all the primitive villages in whose name the patronymic ing occurs were originally colonized by communities united either really by blood or by the belief in a common descent (see Kemble) " — Stubbs (Const. Hist.). " Harling abode by Harling and Billing by Billing, and each 'wick' and 'ham' and 'stead' and ' tun ' took its name from the kinsmen who dwelt together in it In this way the house or ham of the Billings was Billingham, and the township of the Harlings was Harlington" — Green ('Making of England,' p. i88). "Many family names appear in different parts of England. . . . Thus we find the Bassingas at Bassingbourn. . . . The Billings have left their stamp at Billing, in Northamp- ton ; Billingford, in Norfolk ; Billingham, in Durham ; Billingley, in Yorkshire ; Billinghurst, in Sussex ; and five other places in various other counties. Birmingham, Nottingham, Wellington, Faringdon, Warrington, and Wallingford are well-known names formed on the same analogy. . . . Speaking generally these clan names are thickest along the original English coast, etc." — Grant Allen ('Anglo- Saxon Britain,' p. 43). 16 THE OLD 'MARK' THEORY spreading theory of the Mark, which, as it were, has shrunk from its once stately splendour, but in the shadow of which all our historians since his time have written. Even Professor York Powell, although he rejects the mark theory,^ writes of "the first stage" of settlement : " We know that the land was settled when clans were powerful, for the new villages bear clan names, not. personal names."' The whole theory rests on the patronymic zng; which Kemble crudely treated as proving the existence of a mark community, wherever it occurs in place-names.' Now the theory that tng implies a clan, that is, a community united by blood or by the belief in a common descent,* may be tested in two distinct ways. We may either trace its actual use as applied to - individuals or communities ; or we may examine the - localities in the names of which it occurs. I propose to do both. The passage usually adduced to prove the 'clan' meaning is the well-known genealogy in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : " Cerdic was Elesing, Elesa was Esling, Esla was Gewising," ^ etc. Even Mr. Seebohm reluctantly admits, on this "evidence of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," that tng^ was used ^ "The German theory, formerly generally accepted, that free village communities were the rule among the English, seems to have little direct evidence to support it" (Social England, i. 125). * Ibid. i. 130; cf. Canon Taylor: "The Saxon iihmigration was doubtless an immigration of clans. ... In the Saxon districts of the island we find the names not of individuals, but of clans." * The exceptions that he admits are too slight to affect this general statement. * Stubbs, uf supra. ^ Canon Taylor relies on the passage, " Ida was Eopping, Eoppa was Esing," etc. 17 C SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS as alleged. But it always seemed obvious to me that this passage, so far from proving the 'clan' meaning, actually proved the opposite, namely, that the patronymic changed with every generation. Again, if we turn from the Chronicle to the Anglo- Saxon charters, we find inga normally used to denote the dwellers at a certain place, not the descendants of a certain man. It is singular that Kemble, although he was the first to make an exhaustive study of these charters, classed such names with the other ings, from which they were quite distinct.^ His enthusiasm for the 'mark' carried him away. In Sussex, we have, as it seems to me, a very excellent illustration ; the name of Angmering, the present form, occupies, as it were, a medial position between the " Angemare " of Domesday and the " Angmeringatun " of Alfred's will. Here, surely, the Angmeringas were those who dwelt at Angmer, not a ' clan ' descended from a man bearing that name. I will not, however, dwell on this side of the argument, more especially as I would rather lay stress on the other line of attack. For this is my distinctive point : I contend that, in studying the place-names into which ing enters, attention has hitherto ex- clusively, or almost exclusively, been devoted to those now represented by towns or villages. With these it is easy to associate the idea of a clan settlement. But what are we to make of such cases as our Sussex Billingham and Tillingham ? We shall search for them in vain in Lewis' Topographical Dictionary ; and * Saxons in England, L 449-456, where he treats such names as " Brytfordingas " as " patronymical." 18 THE ALLEGED 'CLANS' yet they are names of the same status as fully developed villages. As a Sussex antiquary has observed (though I cannot accept his explanation) : " In the names of many farms we shall likewise find names which also mark whole parishes in the county." Canon Taylor has unconsciously recorded, in the adjoining county of Kent, evidence to the same effect, observing that " the lone farmhouses in Kent, called Shottington, Wingleton, Codington, and Appleton, may be regarded as venerable monuments, showing us the nature of the Saxon colonization of England." ^ I say that this evidence is unconscious, for the Canon applies it only to the evolution of the ton, and seems not to have observed its bearing on that compound ing, which he, like Kemble, fully accepts as proof of a clan community. From Shottington and Codington, as from Billingham and Tillingham, Kemble would have confidently deduced the settlement of a ' mark ' or clan community ; and yet, when we learn what the places are, we see that they represent a settle- ment by households, not by communities. Here, then, is the value of these cases of what we may term arrested development : they warn us against the rashness of assuming that a modern or even a mediceval village has been a village from the first. The village community may be so far from represent- ing the original settlement as to have been, on the contrary, developed from what was at first but a farmstead. The whole argument of such scholars as Professor Earle here and Dr. Andrews in America 1 Ed. 1888, p. 79. 19 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS is based on the assumption that the land was settled by communities, each of them sufificiently large to have a head, whether civil or military. To that supposition such names as I have mentioned are, I think, fatal. Yet another point must be touched on as to this alleged patronymic. To Kemble, as I have said, it was of small moment what suffix his ' marks ' bore. Indeed, those that denoted forest were to him specially welcome, because he associated the idea of a ' mark ' with that of a forest clearing. But we who have seen that such suffixes as -field, -hurst and -den, are distinctive of those districts untouched by the early settlers cannot recognise such names, for instance, as the Itchingfield or Billingshurst of Sussex as denoting village communities. Again, in the Anglo-Saxon charters the characteristic den of Kent is frequently preceded by ing ; and if these dens were clearly from the context only forest pastures for swine, we must here also reject the ing as proof of a clan community. One may also glance in passing at such names as the " Willingehala " of Essex, now " Willingale," and ask whether a clan community is supposed to have settled in a hall ? ^ I trust that I have now sufficiently shown that even where ing genuinely enters into the composition of a place-name it is no proof of settlement by a clan. Kemble looked on the typical ' mark ' as " a hundred heads of houses," which he deemed " not at all an '^ I do not overlook the possibility of ' hall' (hold) being a subse- quent addition (as in post-Domesday times), but in these cases it was part of the name at least as early as the Conquest, and the presumption must be all in favour of the name being derived from an individual not from a clan. 20 EXOGAMY AND TOTEMISM extravagant supposition."^ I think that even at the present day a visit to the hams and tons of Sussex, and, in some cases, to the ings, would lead us in practice to the opposite conclusion, and would throw the gravest doubt on the theory of the village community. I was trained, like others of my generation, to accept that theory as an axiomatic truth ; but difificult as it is to abandon what one has been so taught, the solitary manor house, the lonely farm, is a living protest against it. The village community of the class-room can never have existed there. On paper it holds its own : solvitur ambulando. But the fact that a place bearing a typical clan name may prove to have been but a single homestead takes us farther than this. Ing, which Canon Taylor has described as " the most important element which enters into Anglo-Saxon names," has been held to denote settlement not merely by a clan, but by a portion of a tribe bearing, both in England and abroad, one common name. Kemble insisted strongly upon this,* and is duly followed by Canon Taylor' and others. On the same foundation Mr. Andrew Lang has erected yet another edifice, tracing the occurrence in scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy among our fore- fathers. And this ingenious suggestion has been * Saxons in England, i. 56. * Ibid. i. ^%et seq. ^ " Hence we perceive the value of this word [ing] as an instru- ment of historical research. For a great number of cases it enables us to assign to each of the great Germanic clans its precise share in the colonization of the several portions of our island." 21 SOUTH- AND EASt-SAXONS adopted by Mr. Grant Allen.* But the very first instance he gives, that of the Hemings, will not stand examination.* As yet I have been dealing with those ' clan names ' in which the presence of the ing is genuine ; and I have been urging that it is not proof, as alleged, of settlement by a clan. I now pass to those place- names in which the ing is not genuine, but is merely a corruption. That such names exist has always, of course, been admitted,' but their prevalence has not been sufficiently recognised. And not only are there large deductions, in consequence, to be made from the so-called clan names, but even in cases where the ing is genuine the prefix is often so corrupt that the name of the clan deduced from it is altogether wrong. Let us take some instances in point. Kemble deduced the existence of the Brightlings (' Bright- lingas ') from Brightling in Sussex and Brightlingsea in Essex. Nothing, at first sight, could seem clearer. And yet, on turning to Domesday, we find that the Sussex Brightling is there entered as Brislinga — suggesting that Somerset Brislington from which Kemble deduced the Brislings — while Brightlingsea appears in the Essex Domesday as ' Brictriceseia,' and in that of Suffolk as ' Brictesceseia,' from which forms is clearly derived the local pronunciation ' Bricklesea.' So much for the Brightlings. Yet more striking is the case of an Essex village^ Worm- ^ Anglo-Saxon Britain, pp. 81-2. * Heming or Haming was a personal name which occurs in Domesday, and which has originated a modern surname. * Even by Kemble, as in 'Saxons in England,' i. 60-79 j l^llt he terms it a " slight " cause of inaccuracy. 22 ERRONEOUS DERIVATIONS ingford. Kemble, of course, detects in it the name ' Wyrmingas.' Yet its Domesday name is ' Wide- mondefort,' obviously derived from ' Widemond,' the name of an individual.^ Here the corruption is so startling that it is well to record the transition form ' Wiremundeford,' which I find in the 1 3th century.* Now, as I have often to point out in the course of my historical researches, however unpopular it may be to correct the errors of others, those errors, if uncor- rected, lead too often to fresh ones. Thus, in this case, the ' Wyrmingas,' wrongly deduced from Wormingford, have been claimed by scholars as sons of the 'worm,' and, therefore, as evidence that ' Totemism ' prevailed among the Anglo-Saxons. It would take me, I fear, too far afield to discuss the alleged traces of Totemism ; but when we find Mr. Grant Allen asserting that " the oak has left traces of his descendants at Oakington in Cambridge "(shire), ^ ' Wihtmund minister ' is found in 938 (Earle's ' Land Charters,' p. 326), and 'Widmundesfelt' in the earliest extant Essex charter (lb. p. 13). It is, therefore, amazing that Professor Earle, dealing with the phrase "aet Hwaetmundes stane" (lb. p. 317), should have gone out of his way to adopt a theory started by Mr. Kerslake in the 'Antiquary,' connecting it with the "sculptured stone in Panier Alley," writmg : " If now the mund of ' Wheatmund ' might be this mand [basket], then hwatmundes stane would be the stone of the whgatmaund, and the 'antiquum petrosum eedificium' may have been the block of masonry that was once the platform or basis of a market cross which had become the usual pitching-place of cereal produce" (lb. p. 318). This is an admirable instance of that perverse Folk-etymology which has worked such havoc with our place-names. Morant's derivation in the last century of 'Wide- mondefort,' from ' a wide mound,' is comparatively harmless in its simplicity. * Calendar of Bodleian Charters, p. 80. 23 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS one has to point out that this place figures in Domes- day as ' Hochinton(e)' ^ in no fewer than five entries, although Kemble derives from it more suo the ' ^cingas,' But a few more instances of erroneous derivation must be given in order to establish clearly the worthlessness of Kemble's lists. How simple it seems to derive, with him, the ' Storringas ' and ' Teorringas ' from Storrington, Sussex, and Tarring- ton, Herefordshire, respectively. Yet the former, in Domesday, is 'Storgetune' or ' Storchestune,' while the latter is ' Tatintune ' in both its entries. It might be suggested that the error is that of the Domesday scribe, but in this case I have found the place entered in several documents of the next century as Tadinton or Tatinton, thus establishing the accuracy of Domesday. Indeed, in my experi- ence, the charters of the 12th century prove that Domesday nomenclature is thoroughly deserving of trust. The climax of Kemble's derivations is reached perhaps in Shillingstone, from which Dorset village he duly deduces the ' Scyllingas.' For, as Eyton has shown, its name was ' Acford,' but, from its Domes- day tenant, Schelin, it became known as Ockford Eskelling, Shilling Ockford, and finally, by a yet bolder corruption, Shillingstone.^ As if to make matters worse, Kemble treats ' Shilling-Okeford ' and ' Shillingstone' as two distinct places. Could anything, one asks, be more unfortunate than this ? Alas, one must answer Yes. The great clan of the ' Cypingas ' is found in eight counties : at least so Kemble says. ^ ' Ac ' was the Domesday equivalent of ' oak.' * Dorset Domesday, p. 57. 24 THE '-ING' SUFFIX I have tested his list and discovered that the names which prove the existence of his clan are Chipping Ongar, Chipping Barnet, Chipping Sodbury, Chipping Campden, Chipping Wycombe, Chipping Warden, and Chipping Norton. Even the historical tyro would avoid this wild blunder ; he would know that Chip- ping was about as much of a clan name as is Cheap- side. After this final example, it can hardly be disputed that Kemble's lists are merely a pitfall for the unwary. Yet we still follow in his footsteps. Take such a case as that of Faringdon, which Mr. Grant Allen, we have seen, selected as a typical instance of the ing patronymic in place-names.^ If we turn to Domesday, we find in Berks a ' Ferendone,' in Northants a ' Ferendone ' or ' Faredone,' in Notts a ' Ferendone ' or ' Farendune,' in Hants a ' Feren- done.' These names were all the same ; and yet they have become ' Farndon ' in Notts and Northants, ' Faringdon ' in Berks, and ' Farringdon ' in Hants. Farringdon, therefore, is no more a clan name than is the Essex Parndon, the ' Perenduna ' of Domesday. But, indeed, in Essex itself, there is an even better illustration. We learn from Canon Taylor that " the Thurings, a Visigothic clan, mentioned by Marcellinus . . are found ... at Thorrington in Essex." Kemble had previously described them as " likely to be offshoots of the great Hermunduric race, the Thyringi or Thoringi, now Thuringians, always neigh- bours of the Saxons,^ and claims the Essex " Thorring- ^ So Kemble derived it from the " Fseringas." ' Saxons in England, i. 63. 25 SOUTH- AND EAST-SAXONS ton" as their settlement.'' Now Thorington in the first place was not a ton, and in the second place had not an ing. Both these forms are corruptions. In Domesday it occurs twice, and both times as ' Tor- induna.' With this we may compare ' Worninduna,' which is the Domesday form of Horndon, and occurs frequently. Therefore Thorington and Thorndon, like Farringdon and Farndon, were both originally the same name and destitute alike of ing. As to the names ending in ing, with no other suffix, I prefer, for the present, to reserve my opinion. Kemble's hypothesis, however, that they were the parent settlements, and the hams and tons their filial developments, seems to me to have little support in the facts of their actual distribution. If in that distri- bution there is a feature to be detected, it is, perhaps, that the ings are found along the foot of the downs. This, at least, is often observable. Another point deserving of attention is that, in its French form, igny, this suffix seems as distinctive of the ' Saxon ' settlement about Bayeux as it is absent in that which is found in the Boulogne district. But these are only, as it were, sidelights upon the problem ; and this, as I said, is nothing more than a ' pioneer ' paper. I close with a point that appears to me of no small importance. To the east of Sussex and the south of Sussex there lay that so-called Jutish land, the county of Kent As I pointed out years ago, in my ' Domes- day Studies,' the land system of Kent is found in the Great Survey to be essentially distinct from that which prevailed in other counties. It was not assessed ^ Saxons in England, i. 475. 26 THE 'SULUNG' OF KENT in ' hides,' but in ' solins,' that is, the sulungs of the natives, the land of a suhl or plough. The yokes, or subdivisions, of this unit are also directly connected with the plough. But the hide and virgate of other counties are, as I pointed out, not connected in name with the plough.^ Now if we work through the land charters printed by Professor Earle, we find that this Domesday distinction can be traced back, clear and sharp, to the earliest times within their ken. We read in an Anglo-Saxon charter of " xx swuluncga," while in Latin charters the normal phrase is the land of so many ploughs (' terra trium aratrorum,' ' terra decern aratrorum,' etc.) ; we even meet with the phrase, " decern aratrorum juxta sestimationem provinciae ejus- dem."* In another charter "v aratra " equates " fifsulung landes." But in other counties the normal terms, in these charters, for the land units are " man- entes " and " cassati," ' which occur with similar re- gularity. A cleavage so ancient and so clear as this, in the vital sphere of land division, points to more than a separate rule and confirms the tradition of a distinct origin. ^ I have shown ('Feudal England,' 103-106) that the solanda of other counties is not (as Seebohm thought, following Hale) in any way the same as the sulung. « See Earle's 'Land Charters,' pp. 18, 24, 33, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 75, 78, 80, 82, 87, 95, 96, 100, 105, 124, 126, 133, 142, 152, 209. » Ibid. pp. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, IS, 16, 20-24, 26, 29, 31, 40, 45, etc. 27 II Ingelric the Priest and Albert of Lotharingia IN my paper on " Regenbald, Priest and Chan- cellor," ^ I was able to trace, by combining the evidence of Domesday and of charters, the history of a "priest " of Edward the Confessor, who became the " priest " of his successor also, and held of him rich possessions in churches and lands. Another church- man who flourished both before and after the Con- quest, and must have enjoyed the favour both of the Confessor and of the Conqueror, was Ingelric, first dean of the house of St. Martin's-le-Grand, whose lands had passed before Domesday to Count Eustace of Boulogne. Mr. Freeman was interested in Ingelric as a "commissioner for redemption of lands," but only knew him as a layman. Nor indeed is there anything in Domesday to suggest that he was other. To Mr. W. H. Stevenson belongs the credit of proving that he was a priest by printing "an old English charter of the Conqueror," confirming the foundation of St. Martin's-le-Grand, in which the "cujusdam fidelis mei Ingelrici scilicet peticioni adquiescens" is ^ Feudal England, pp. 42 1 et seq. 28 INGELRIC IN CHARTERS equated by " aefter Ingelrices bene mines preostes." ^ It was similarly as " minan preoste " that William had described Regenbald. The charter I shall now deal with was not known to Mr. Stevenson, and has not, I believe, been printed. It is of real historical interest, apart from the fact that among its witnesses we find Ingelric " the priest." Mr. Freeman held that the reconciliation between the Conqueror and the Abbot of Peterborough — Brand, the Englishman, whose election had been confirmed, even after the Battle of Hastings, by the aetheling Eadgar — was one of the earliest events after William's coronation.^ To that episode I do not hesitate to assign a charter entered in the Peter- borough 'Liber Niger' belonging to the Society of Antiquaries. It is a general confirmation of the abbey's possessions, " petente abbate Brand," ' and is witnessed thus : Huic testes affuere : Aldredus Eboracensis archiepiscopus ; Wlwinus Lincoliensis episcopus ; Merlesuen vicecomes; Ulf filius Topi ; Willelmus comes ; Willelmus Malet ; Ingelri[cus] presbyter. Here we have first Ealdred, by whom William had been crowned ; then Wulfwig, bishop of Dor- chester, here described as bishop "of Lincoln." The mention of Mserleswegen is of special import- ance, for this great English noble had been left in charge of the North by Harold on the eve of the Battle of Hastings, and rose in revolt against William * English Historical Review, xi. 740, 741. * Norm. Conq., iv. 56-7. * According to the Peterborough Chronicle, he gave 40 marcs for this reconciliation. 29 INGELRIC THE PRIEST in the summer of 1068. Here we have evidence of his presence at William's court, when his movements were unknown to Mr. Freeman. We see, moreover, that he was still sheriff (of Lincolnshire). " Ulf filius Topi," who appears in other Peterborough charters, had given " Mannetorp," Lincolnshire, and other lands to the abbey. It is very remarkable that the Norman witnesses are only entered after these Englishmen, although the first is " earl William," in whom we must see the Conqueror's friend, William Fitz Osbern, already, apparently, earl of Hereford. Sufficient attention has hardly been given to this early creation or to the selection of so distant a county as Herefordshire for William's earldom. In addition to this charter, there is known to me another, little later probably, the last witness to which is entered as " Ego Ingelricus ad hoc impetrandum obnixe studui." This brings me to the third charter that I shall deal with in connection with Ingelric. This is the one I mentioned at the outset as granted by the Conqueror at his request, and edited with so much care and learning by Mr. W. H. Stevenson. This, in its stilted, antique form, has much in common with the one preceding, while its style combines those of the two others. I place the three together for com- parison : (i) Ego Willelmus dei beneficio rex Anglorum. (2) jure hereditario Anglorum patrie effectus sum Basileus. (3) Ego Willelmus Dei dispositione et consanguinitatis hereditate Anglorum basileus. Mr. Freeman looked with suspicion on this third 30 THE CONQUEROR'S CHARTER charter, which he termed "an alleged charter of William.*'^ His criticism that, though dated 1068, its list of witnesses closes with the two papal legates who visited England in 1070, is a perfectly sound one. Mr. Stevenson ignored this difficulty in his paper ; and, on my pointing it out, still failed to explain the positive " huic constitutioni interfui " of Cardinal John. Awkward, however, as the difficulty is, the other attestations are so satisfactory that we must treat these as subsequent additions rather than reject the charter. The remarks which immediately follow are intended only for students of what is uncouthly known as ' diplomatic,' a study hitherto much neglected in England. In this charter, as printed in Mr. Steven- son's paper, there is appended the clause : Scripta est hec cartula anno ab incarnatione Domini mlxviii" scilicet secundo anno regni mei. A corresponding clause is found in the old English version of the text which follows it. But in the Latin text the clause is followed by these words : Peracta vero est hec donacio ' die Natali Domini ; at postmodum in die Pentecostes confirmata, quando Mathildis conjux mea . . . in reginam ... est consecrata. Mr. Freeman somewhat carelessly confused the two clauses : The charter (sic) is said to have been granted at the Christmas feast of 1068 (evidently meaning 1067), and to have been confirmed at the coronation of the queen at the following Pentecost (iv. 726). 1 Norman Conquest, vol. iv, App. C. * The italics are mine. 31 INGELRIC THE PRIEST Mr. Stevenson follows him in this confusion, but carries it much further. Speaking of " supplementary confirmations," as used in William's chancery, he writes : We have one in this very charter, which was executed {peracta) on Christmas Day, 1068 {i.e. 1067), but was afterwards confirmed on the occasion of Matilda's coronation at Whitsuntide, 1068. It we had the original charter, we should probably find that the clause relating to the Whitsuntide confirmation had been added, as in similar continental instances, on a blank space in the charter. Ingelric was, as we know from this grant, one of William's clerks, and he must have been a man of considerable influence to have obtained a diploma from a king who was so chary in the granting of diplomata, and to have, moreover, obtained the execution of it at so important a ceremony as the king's coronation, and a confirmation of it at the queen's coronation.^ In the elaborate footnotes appended to this passage there are three points to be dealt with. The first is " the king's coronation " as the time when the charter was executed. Mr. Stevenson writes : Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 724, says that the date of the charter, Christmas 1068, evidently means 1067, the date of William's coronation ; etc. . . . There are good grounds, therefore, for holding that the witnesses were spectators of William's coronation, which gives the charter its greatest historical importance.* But, as we have seen, it is not the fact that Mr. Freeman spoke of Christmas 1067 ^s "the date of William's coronation," That event took place, as all the world knows, at Christmas, 1066, and so was long previous to this gift and charter. Mr. Stevenson's error is a strange one. ^ English Historical Review, xiL 109, no. « Ibid. 32 A POINT OF 'DIPLOMATIC The second point is that of the "supplementary confirmation." Mr. Stevenson, referring us to the best parallel, writes : In the case of the council (or XBlh&c placitum) of 1072 concerning the subjection of York to Canterbury, which, like the charter under consideration, received a supplementary ratification, a second text was drawn up for the later action. I here break off to print, for convenience, the parallel clauses in these documents side by side. 1068. 1072. Peracta vero est hec donacio Ventilata est autem hec causa die Natalis Domini ; et postmo- prius apud Wentanam civitatem, dum in die Pentecostes confir- in Paschali soleranitate, in capella mata q uando Mathildis conjux regia que sita est in castello ; mea in basilica Sancti Petri West- postea in villa regia que vocatur monasterii in reginam divino Windisor, ubi et finem accepit, nutu est consecrata. in presentia Regis, episcoporum, abbatum, diversorum ordinum, qui congregati erant apud curiam in festivitate Pentecostes.^ Resuming now Mr. Stevenson's note on the documents of 1072, at the point where I broke it off, we read : The originals of both still exist. The first, dated at Winchester at Whitsuntide,^ is validated only by the crosses of William and his queen, the papal legate, both archbishops and four bishops (Palaeo- graphical Society, i. fol. 170). The second ... is dated at Windsor, also at Whitsuntide, and is attested by additional bishops, and by numerous abbots. As the former document (A. 2 of the Canterbury charters, apparently overlooked till some twenty years ago) could not possibly be "dated at Winchester at Whitsuntide," one turns to the text as given by the Palseographical Society, only to find that these words 1 5th Report Hist. MSS., 1. 452. * x^e italics are mine. 33 P INGELRIC THE PRIEST are sheef imagination on Mr. Stevenson's part. There is nothing of the kind to be found there. Ow- ing to this incomprehensible error, he has altogether misunderstood these " supplementary confirmations." The clauses I have printed side by side must not be broken up. The earlier, like the later, is a consistent whole, added at one time.^ When, then, was the "Ingelric" charter actually drawn up ? Mr. Stevenson, following, we have seen, Mr. Freeman's loose expressions, tells us that " as the present charter {sic) was peractp, at Christmas, 1067, 2J\<^ confirmata 2X Whitsuntide, it was most probably written at the former date." But it was the " donacio," not the "charter," which was "peracta" at Christmas. The text only tells us of the charter that it was writ- ten "anno ab incarnacione Domini mlxviii°." My own view is that the charter was written not at Christmas, 1067 (which was the date of the act of gift), but at (or after) Whitsuntide, 1068. I base this conclusion on the first three witnesses : Ego Willelmus rex Anglorum, etc. Ego Mathildis regina consensum prsebui. Ego Ricardus regis filius annui. Matilda was not " queen " till Whitsuntide, 1068, and was not even in England at Christmas, 1067. If it be urged that, even though found in this position, 1 Compare Dr. Sheppard's remarks in 5th Report Hist. MSS., i. 452 a. It would take us too far afield to undertake the distinct task of reconciling the clause in A.i (Ibid.) with Lanfranc's letter to the pope, which implies, as Mr. Freeman observes, that there was but one hearing, namely, that at Winchester (Norm. Conq., iv. 358). The clause in A.i asserts an adjournment of the hearing at Easter (Winchester), and a decision of the case at Whitsuntide (Windsor). 34 THE QUEEN'S CORONATION her name was interpolated afterwards, I reply that the name of William's eldest son, Robert, would then have been similarly added. The fact that we find, instead, his second son, Richard (afterwards killed while hunting in the New Forest) is to me the strongest possible evidence that Robert had remained behind, as regent, in Normandy when his mother came over to England to be crowned. The most probable date, therefore, for the execution of this charter is that of her coronation at Westminster, 1068. It pre- serves for us, in that case, the names of the magnates present on that occasion, including Hugh bishop of Lisieux, who may well have escorted her from Nor- mandy, and thus have attended the ceremony.^ My third point follows as a corollary from this con- clusion. For if the charter was drawn up at Whit- suntide, 1068, not at Christmas, 1067, there is an end of Mr. Stevenson's argument and conclusion : The 25th December in the second year of William's reign was in 1067 according to our reckoning. But the old system of reckoning the year " ab Incarnatione " began the year on 25th December. This was the old English system, and this charter proves that William's chancery also commenced the year at the Nativity.^ The time spent on this important charter has not been wasted. We have found that one who stands in the front rank of English philologists, and for whom the same would, doubtless, be claimed in " diplomatic," may arrive, in spite of great learning, at quite er- roneous conclusions, simply from inexact treatment of the evidence before him. 1 I need not print the list, as it will be found in the ' Monasticon,' and in Kempe's ' Historical Notices of St. Martin's le Grand,' as well as in Mr. Stevenson's paper. * E. H. R., xii. 1 09 note. 35 INGELRIC THE PRIEST A word more on Ingelric. According to Mr. Free- man, " that Ingelric was an Englishman seems plain. "^ Mr. Stevenson, however, who has specially studied the subject of personal names, holds that this was Prankish. The St. Martin's charter specially speaks of his hav- ing acquired his lands' under Edward the Confessor. Mr. Stevenson, however, goes further, and states, as we have seen, that it proves him to have been " one of William's clerks " [sic) ; and he argues that " if he was a chancery clerk, he may have continued the traditions of Edward's chancery." It is remarkable, however, that in an Exeter charter (1069) to which Mr. Stevenson refers us, he again attests, as in two of the charters dealt with above, as " Ingelricus pres- byter." I have chosen, therefore, for this paper the style " Ingelric the priest." No question of origin can arise in the case of a third personage, who also enjoyed the favour both of Edward and of his successor, namely, Albert of Lotha- ringia. Known hitherto as having, it is supposed, given its name to Lothbury — for the " Terra Alberti Loteringi " is mentioned in the list of London wards temp. Henry I.^ — he occurs in many places on the pages of Domesday. As " Albertus Lothariensis " we find him a tenant-in-chief in the counties of Herefordshire and Beds (186, 21 6(52), one of his manors in the latter county having been held by him, we read, under Edward the Confessor ; and he also occurs by the same style as holding under the latter king at Hatton, Mid- ^ Norm. Conq., vol. iv., App. C 2 See ' Geoffrey de Mandeville,' p. 435. I do not guarantee the derivation. 36 ALBERT OF LOTHARINGIA dlesex (129). But, so far, there is nothing to show that Albert was a cleric. It is a Westminster Abbey charter that supplies the missing clue : Willelmus rex Anglorum Francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Sancto Petro Westmonasterii et abbati Gilleberto ecclesias de Roteland et terras pertinentes ad easdem ecclesias sicut Albertus Lotharingius de me tenebat ipsas ecclesias cum omaibus pertinent- ibus ad ipsas. Teste Hugone de Portu.^ Turning to " Roteland " in Domesday, we find that the last name in the list of its tenants-in-chief is that of " Albertus clericus," who holds the churches of Oakham, Hambleton, and St. Peter's, Stamford, " cum adjacentibus terris eisdem ecclesiis . . . de rege," the whole forming a valuable estate. Again, we read under Stamford : " Albertus unam eecclesiam Sancti Petri cum duabus mansionibus et dimidia carucata terre quae jacet in Rotelande in Hemeldune ; valet X sol." (336 b). Following up this clue, we recognise our man in the " Albertus clericus " who holds at " Eddintone," in Surrey (30, 36 b), and doubt- less also in " Albertus clericus " who held land as an under-tenant at Windsor (56 b). Nay, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that he is also the " Albertus capellanus " who, at the end of the Kent Domesday (14 b), has a page all to himself as tenant - in-chief of Newington. Thus in the official index to Domesday we find Albert entered under "cleri- cus," " Lothariensis," " Albertus," and (probably) " capellanus," and yet, in each case, it is the same man. Regenbald, exactly in the same way, is * Mon. Ang., ii. 302. 37 INGELRIC THE PRIEST entered under ' Cirecestre,' ' presbyter,' and ' Rein- baldus.' In my ' Feudal England ' I have similarly identified (p. 167) " Eustachius," one tenant-in-chief, with " Eustachius vicecomes," another (and with " Eustachius," an under-tenant),^ and " Oger," a Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief, with Oger " Brito," a Lincolnshire one (p. 220). In the Eastern coun- ties the Breton founder of the house of Helion is similarly indexed under ' Britto ' for Essex, ' Herion ' for Suffolk, and ' Tehelus ' for Norfolk. Small as these points may seem, their ultimate consequence is great, for they still further reduce the number of tenants-in- chief. When the history of these magnates is more fully known, it will probably be found that those who held in capite per servitium militare, thus excluding, of course, mere Serjeants, etc., were a mere handful compared with the vast total given by Ellis and others. Albert's Lotharingian origin becomes of special in- terest now that we know he was a cleric, for Mr. Freeman devoted a special appendix to " Lotharingian churchmen under Edward." ^ Unfortunately he was not acquainted with the case of Albert. Dr. Stubbs also has dwelt on the importance, for the church, of " the increased intercourse with the empire, and es- pecially with Lorraine," under Edward the Confessor.^ He alludes, without committing himself to it, to Mr. Freeman's somewhat fanciful theory on the subject. "^ He is also clearly the " Eustachius de Huntedune " mentioned under Stamford (D. B, 336 b). 2 Norman Conquest, vol. ii. ^ Const. Hist., i. 243. 38 Ill Anglo-Norman Warfoe HAVING devoted special study to the art of war in the Norman period, including therein the subject of castles, I may have, perhaps, some claim to deal with the latest work on a topic which requires for its treatment special knowledge. When a treatise assumes a definite character, and is likely to be per- manently consulted, it calls for closer criticism than a mere ephemeral production, and on this ground I would here discuss some points in Mr. Oman's ' His- tory of the Art of War' (1898). Mr. Oman issued, so far back as 1885, 'The Art of War in the Middle Ages,' so that he enjoys, on this subject, the advantage of prolonged study. In 1894 he contributed to ' Social England ' ^ an article on " Norman Warfare," to which I shall also refer. I should add that in his first (1885), as in his later work (1898), Mr. Oman received the help of Mr. F. York Powell, now Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford. The first point I propose to consider is that of the famous English " formation " before the Norman Con- quest Mr. Oman originally wrote as follows : * pp. viii., 299. 39 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE The tactics of the English axemen were those of the column; arranged in a compact mass, they could beat off almost any attack, and hew their way through every obstacle (' Art of War,' p. 24). This was also the view of the late Professor Freeman, who wrote of the battle of Maldon that — The English stood, as at Senlac, in the array common to them and their enemies — a strong line, or rather wedge of infantry, form- ing a wall with their shields. At the battle of Hastings (" Senlac ") itself he tells us — The English clave to the old Teutonic tactics. They fought on foot in the close array of the shield wall. They were ranged, he held, " closely together in the thick array of the shield wall." He had well observed that " the Norman writers were specially struck with the close array of the English," and had elsewhere spoken of " the close array of the battle-axe men," and of " the English house-carls with their . . . huge battle axes," accustomed to fight in " the close array of the shield wall." ^ To this formation, it is necessary to observe, the term testudo was applied. At the battle of Ashdown, Freeman wrote : Asser calls it a testudo or tortoise. This is the shield wall, the famous tactic of the English and Danes. We shall hear of it in all the great battles down to the end. Florence adopts the same word in describing the formation of the rival hosts on that occasion : Pagani in duas se turmas dividentes, sequali testudine bellum parant (i, 83). ^ See for the above quotations my 'Feudal England,' pp. 346, 354-6. 40 THE ENGLISH SHIELD WALL Alfred , . . Christianas copias contra hostiles exercitus . . . dirigens . . . testudine ordinabiliter condensata (i. 84). So, too, at the battle of Ethandun : Ubi contra Paganorum exercitum universum cum densa testudine atrociter belligerans (i. 96). Again, in 1052 : Pedestris exercitus . . . spissam terribilemque fecit testu- dinem. This is an exact description of the host that faced the Normans, fourteen years later, on the hill of Battle. As William of Malmesbury describes it : Pedites omnes cum bipennibus, conserta ante se scutorum testu- dine, impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt.^ " It is a pleasure," as I wrote, " to find myself here in complete agreement with Mr. Freeman." ^ Mr. Freeman saw in this passage "the array of the shield wall,"' and aptly compared Abbot ^Ethelred's description of the English array at the Battle of the Standard : " Scutis scuta junguntur, lateribus latera conseruntur." * With Mr. Oman also I was no less pleased to find myself in perfect agreement. I myself should speak, as he does, of the " tactics of the phalanx of axemen." ^ It is particularly interesting to read in his latest work (p. 57), that at Zulpich (a.d. 612), according to Fredegarius : ^ William was familiar with this formation, for he makes, Mr. Freeman wrote, Henry I. bid his English stand firm " in the array of the ancient shield wall." 2 Feudal England, p. 354. * Norman Conquest (2nd ed., iii. 764). * Miss Norgate recognises this as "the English shield wall' (' England under the Angevin Kings,' i. 292). s Art of War, p. 26 ; History of the Art of War, p. 163. 41 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE So great was the press when the hostile masses \phalanges\ met and strove against each other, that the bodies of the slain could not fall to the ground, but the dead stood upright wedged among the living. For precisely the same phenomenon is described at the Battle of Hastings. William of Poitiers says of the English : Ob nimiam densitatem eorum labi vix potuerunt interfecti. And Bishop Guy : Spiritibus nequeunt frustrata cadavera sterni, Nee cedunt vivis corpora militibus. Omne cadaver enim, vita licet evacuatum, Stat velut illaesum, possidet atque locum.^ There is nothing strange in this parallel between Ziilpich and Hastings, for Mr. Oman observes that : In their weapons and their manner of fighting, the bands of Angles, Jutes, and Saxons who overran Britain were more nearly similar to the Franks than to the German tribes who wandered south.2 At Poictiers "the Franks fought, as they had done two hundred years before at Casilinum, in one solid mass,"' for their tactics were "to advance in a deep column or wedge." * We have seen that the "column" of English axemen similarly fought, according to Mr. Oman, "arranged in a compact mass." Where the agreement is so complete, I need not labour the point further. In my ' Feudal England ' ^ See, for these quotations. Freeman's ' Norman Conquest,' iii. (2nd ed.), 491 (where he quotes parallels from Dion Cassius and Ammianus), and compare my ' Feudal England,' p. 358. ^ History of the Art of War, p. 61. s Ibid. p. 58. * Ibid. p. 36. 42 MR. OMAN'S CONTRADICTIONS (PP- 354-8), I showed that Mr. Archer's views on the subject could not stand for a moment against those of Mr. Freeman and Mr. Oman, to which they were directly opposed. In ' Social England ' — -just as Mr. Freeman had written that both the English and the Danes stood as a " wedge of infantry forming a wall with their shields " ^ — Mr. Oman writes of their " wedge or column." It is only in his later work that he sud- denly shifts his ground, and flatly contradicts his own words : 1894. 1898. When Dane had fought Eng- The Danes . . . formed lishman, the battle had always their shield wall. . . . The been between serried bodies^ of shield wall (testudo, as Asser foot soldiery, meeting fairly face pedantically calls it) is of course to face in the wedge or column, not a wedged mass? but only a with its shield wall of warriors line of shielded warriors ' (' His- standing elbow to elbow, etc. tory of the Art of War,' p. 99). ('Social England,' p. 299). The writer's " of course " is delightful. This contradiction of himself, however, is as nothing compared with that to which we are now coming. In his first work Mr. Oman wrote under Mr. Free- man's influence. The Normans, he held, at the Battle of Hastings, were confronted by " impregnable palisades." Nine years later, in his second description of the battle, he substituted for these " impregnable palisades " an " impenetrable shield wall." 1 See above, p. 40. « The italics are mine. * The spissa testudo of Florence is "of course" conveniently ignored. 43 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE 1885. 1894. The Norman knights, if un- His archers, if unsupported by supported by their light infantry, cavalry, might have been driven might have surged for ever around oflF the field by a single charge ; the IMPREGNABLE PALISADES, his cavalry, if unsupported by The archers, if unsupported by archers, might have surged for theknights, could easily have been ever around the impenetrable driven off the field by a general shield wall of the English. But charge. United, however, by by combining the two armies {sic) the skilled tactics of William, with perfect skill, he won his the two divisions of the invading crowning victory (' Social Eng- army won the day ('Art of War,' land,' p. 299). P- 25)- The faithful rSchauff^ of his former narrative only renders the more significant Mr. Oman's change of " impregnable palisades " to " impenetrable shield wall." For what had happened in the meanwhile to account for this change being made ? In July, 1892, there had appeared in the ' Quarterly Review ' my well-known article on " Professor Freeman," in which I had maintained that the English defence consisted, not of impregnable "palisades," but only of an im- penetrable " shield wall." On the furious and famous controversy upon this topic which followed, it is quite unnecessary to dwell. Mr. Oman, we have seen himself adopted the view I had advanced, and not, I hasten to add, on this point alone, for with his whole description of the battle, as given in ' Social England,' I am in complete agreement. The " shield wall " he mentions twice.-^ Of " palisades," intrenchments, or breastworks there is not a word. 1 " When the compact shield wall was broken, William thrust his horsemen into the gaps" (p. 300). Just so. 44 THE ALLEGED PALISADE And yet Mr. Oman, now, is not ashamed to write: I fear that I must plead that I was never converted. This being so, Mr. Round cannot prove that I was.' What is the explanation of Mr. Oman's statement ? Simply that he has again changed his view ; and hav- ing first adopted that of Mr. Freeman, and then abandoned it to adopt my own, he now, in turn, abandons both, and advances a third (or fourth) at variance with both alike ! His Norman knights are still " surging " ; but they " surge " against an obstacle which has once more changed its character : The knights, if unsupported by the bowmen, might have surged for ever against the impregnable breastworks. The archers, unsup- ported by the knights, could easily have been driven off the field by a general charge. United by the skilful hand of William, they were invincible (' History of the Art of War,' p. 164). What then were these " impregnable breastworks " which now make their appearance in our old familiar passage ? They are described on page 154, where we read that " we must not think ... of massive palisading : ^ they were merely 1 'Athenaeum,' 6th Aug., 1898. Mr. Oman had previously tried to escape from his own words by pleading that " silence does not mean a change of opinion" (' Academy,' 9th June, 1894). But I had been careful to explain that I did not rely on his ' silence,' but on his actually substituting ' shield wall ' for ' palisades ' in the above reproduced sentence ('Academy,' 19th May, 1894). Similarly, Mr. Oman, as CoL Lloyd has observed (' English Historical Review,' x. 538), "takes a different view" of the English formation at Crecy in the latter of these two works from that which he had taken in the earlier, substituting a wholly different arrangement of the archers. 2 Mr. Freeman wrote of a "fortress of timber" with "wooden walls," composed of " firm barricades of ash and other timber " (see ' Feudal England,' p. 340). Mr. George emphatically rejected this conception (' Battles of English History'). 45 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE wattled hurdles . . . intended, perhaps, more as a cover against missiles than as a solid protection against the horsemen, for they can have been but hastily constructed things, put together in a few hours by wearied men. Let us place, side by side, Mr. Oman's own words in this his latest work : The knights, if unsupported [The English defences] con- by the bowmen, might have stituted no impregnable fortress, surged for ever against the im- but a slight earthwork, not pregnable breastworks (p. 164). wholly impassable to horsemen (P- 154). That they were, to say the least, "not wholly im- passable" is evident from the writer's own description (p. 159) of the Norman knights' first charge " against the long front of the breastworks, which, in many places, they must have swept down by their mere impetus." Nay, " before the two armies met hand to hand," as Mr. Freeman observes,^ a single horseman — " a minstrel named Taillefer," as Mr. Oman terms him — " burst right through the breastwork and into the English line" (p. 158).* Such, on Mr. Oman's own showing, were his so-called " impregnable breast- works" (p. 164). A single horseman could ride through them ! We see then that, in this his latest work, he not only adopts yet another view, but cannot adopt it consistently even when he does. To me there is nothing strange in all this shift and shuffle. It has distinguished each of my opponents 1 ' Norman Conquest,' iii. (2nd ed.), 476, faithfully reproducing Henry of Huntingdon's " dudum antequam coirent bellatores." * Guy of Amiens describes him as "Agmina praecedens innu- merosa ducis." 46 A SUCCESSION OF THEORIES on this subject from the first. Not only are they all at variance with one another : they are also at variance with themselves. Alone my own theory remains unchanged throughout. The English faced their foes that day in "the close array of the shield wall." Other defences they had none. Mr. Oman has actually advanced four theories in succession : (i) "The impregnable palisades." ^ (2) "The impenetrable shield wall." ^ (3) " An abattis of some sort." * (4) " Wattled hurdles." * The third of these made its appearance after his description in ' Social England.' " I still hold," Mr. Oman wrote, " to the belief that there was an abattis of some sort in front of Harold's line." But how can he " still " hold to a belief which he has never expressed before or since ? For neither the first, second, or fourth of the defences he gives above can by any possibility describe an abattis. The New English Dictionary describes an abattis as a defence constructed by placing felled trees lengthwise, one over the other, with their branches towards the enemy's line. The ' Encyclopaedia Britannica ' gives us a similar description, speaking of this defence as constructed of "felled trees lengthwise . . . the stems in- wards." ^ One is driven to suppose that Mr. Oman 1 Art of War, p. 25. * Social England, p. 299. ' Academy, 9th June, 1894. * History of the Art of War, p. 154 ^ Mr. Oman, in his latest work, makes " brushwood " the material I had pointed out " the difficulty of hauling timber " under the cir- cumstances (' Feudal England,' p. 342). 47 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE IS quite unable to understand what an abattis really is. We have now seen that the writer has actually given in succession four entirely different descriptions of the defences of the English front, while he has not the candour to confess that he has ever changed his mind. At this I am not in the least surprised. As I have observed in 'Feudal England,' p. 342 : As for the defenders of the ' palisade,' they cannot even agree among themselves as to what it really was. Mr. Archer produces a new explanation only to throw it over almost as soon as it is produced. One seeks to know for certain what one is expected to deal with ; but, so far as it is possible to learn, nobody can tell one. There is only a succession of dissolving views, and one is left to deal with a nebulous hypothesis. Even since these words were published, Mr. Oman has produced his fourth explanation, and has pro- duced it in conjunction with Mr. Archer, who had previously enriched this series of explanations by two further ones of his own. In one of them the " fenestres," which Wace makes the principal ingre- dient of the palisade, are rendered by Mr. Archer " windows." ^ In another he describes the English defence as "a structure of interwoven shields and stakes," " shields set in the ground and supported by a palisade of stakes," a defence into which "actual shields have been built." ^ It is only necessary to add that Mr. Oman, who acknowledges here his " in- debtedness to Mr. T. A. Archer," ^ tacitly, but abso- 1 EngUsh Historical Review, ix. 18 ; cf. ix. 10. 2 Ibid. ix. 232, 237-8. * History of the Art of War, p. vi. 48 THE TRUTH EMERGING lutely, rejects both these phantasies, together with Mr. Archer's great theory that the English axemen were " shieldless" at the battle,^ and "could not or did not form the shield wall." " All this Mr. Oman rejects, though, of course, he is careful not to say so ; just as Mr. Archer, before him, had rejected views of Mr. Freeman, while professing to defend his account of the battle against me.^ I have now shown that my opponents are still as unable as ever to agree among themselves on the subject of the alleged English defence, and that as to Mr, Oman, he contradicts himself, not only in suc- cessive works, but even in a single chapter. A little clique of Oxford historians, mortified at my crushing exposd of Mr. Freeman's vaunted accuracy, have en- deavoured, without scruple, and with almost uncon- cealed anger, to silence me at any cost. And they cannot even wait until they have agreed among themselves. How entirely impotent they are to stay the progress of the truth is shown by the fact that a German writer. Dr. Spatz, who has independently examined the authorities and the ground, goes even farther than myself in rejecting Mr. Freeman's narrative, and especially the palisade.* Sir James Ramsay also, on similarly independent investigation, has been driven to the same conclusion, which his recently published ^ English Historical Review, ix. 239. * Ibid. p. 14. * See Feudal England, pp. 354-8, 392. * Die Schlacht von Hastings (Berlin), 1896. 49 E ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE work embodies. Does Mr. Oman refer to Dr. Spatz, whose work is a well-known one ? No, he coolly states that "the whole balance of learned opinion" is against me on this matter,^ although, as we have seen, neither he nor Mr. Archer accepts Mr. Free- man's narrative,^ while their own recorded views hope- lessly differ (see pp. 43, 49). Again, Mr. Oman writes : I do not see what should have induced him [Wace] to bring the wattled barrier into his narrative, unless it existed in the tale of the fight as it had been told him, etc. (p. 153). And yet he made use of my ' Feudal England,' in which I set forth prominently (pp. 409-416), as I had previously done in the 'English Historical Review' (viii. 677 et seq. ; ix. 237), my theory that the passage in Wace " is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury," and that he was clearly misled by the words " conserta . . . testudine," which he did not understand. Mr. Archer discussed this theory, but did not venture to reject it (Ibid.). Mr. Oman finds it safer to ignore it, and to profess that he cannot imagine where Wace got the idea from, except from oral tradition. It is the same with the arrangement of the English host. In his latest work, Mr. Oman states, as a matter 1 Athenseum, July 30, 1898. * Mr. Oman, for instance, writes of the English "ditch and the mound made of the earth cast up from it and crowned by the breastworks" (p. 154), although Mr. Freeman treated "the English fosse " as quite distinct from " the palisades, and at a distance from them" ('English Historical Review,' ix. 213). Mr. Archer has had to admit this. 50 THE ENGLISH HOST of fact, that the " house carles " formed the centre, and that the fyrd, divided no doubt according to its shires, was ranged on either flank (p. 155). There is no authority whatever for this view in any account of the battle, and it is wholly at variance with Mr. Oman's own view, as stated in his earlier works. Backed {sic) by the disorderly There the house carles of King masses of the fyrd, and by the Harold, backed {sic) by the thegn- thegns of the home counties, hood of all southern England the house carles of King Harold and the disorderly masses of the stood ('Art of War,' p. 24). fyrd of the home counties, drew themselves out (' Social England,' p. 229). In perfect agreement with these passages, I hold that "the well-armed house carles," as Mr. Oman terms them, formed the English front, and were " backed " by the rest of the host.'^ Mr. Oman's later view involves a tactical absurdity, as I have maintained throughout.* But here again Mr. Oman finds it the safest plan to ignore an argument he cannot face. Let me, however, part from his narrative of the great struggle with an expression of honest satisfaction that, even in his latest work, he treats " the English host" as ranged "in one great solid mass" (p. 154). This is the essential point on which I have insisted throughout.' " No feature of the great battle is more absolutely beyond dispute " ; * and it absolutely cuts the ground from under Mr. Archer's feet/ 1 This is also the conclusion of Sir J. Ramsay. * Feudal England, p. 361. 3 Feudal England, pp. 354-358, 363, 367-8. * Ibid. p. 358. * Ibid. pp. 356-358. 51 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE I may add that the denseness of the English host is similarly grasped by Sir James Ramsay, who has made an independent examination of the battle, and has set forth his interesting and original conclusions in his recently-published ' Foundations of England.' The ground plan of the battle in his work should be carefully compared with that which is found in Mr. Freeman's History. For the two differ so hopelessly that the wholly conjectural character of Mr. Freeman's views on the matter will at once be vividly shown. The bold conclusion of Sir James Ramsay that the English host held only the little plateau at the summit of the Battle hill, is at least in harmony with their dense array, and is very possibly correct.^ I now turn from battles to castles — those castles which played so prominent a part in Anglo-Norman warfare. Let us first glance at the moated mound, and then at the rectangular keep. I do not desire, on the moated mound, to commit myself to all Mr. Clark's views ; but practical archaeologists, I need scarcely say, are aware that the outer works of these most interesting strongholds were normally of horseshoe or crescent form, the mound being "placed on one side of an appended area." ^ Mr. Oman, while acknow- 1 For further details on this subject, and a bibliography of the whole controversy, see ' Sussex Archsological Collections,' vol. xlii. * " Lincoln Castle, as regards its earthworks, belongs to that type of English fortress in which the mound has its proper ditch, and is placed on one side of an appended area, also with its bank and ditch. ... In general, these fortresses are much alike, and all belong to that class of burhs known to have been thrown up by the English in 52 THE CASTLE MOUND ledging in his book, and in the columns of the ' Athenseum,' his indebtedness to Mr. Clark's " ad- mirable account of the topographical details of English castles," describes the old English burhs as " stake and foss in concentric rings enclosing water-girt mounds" (p. iii). I pointed out in the 'Athenaium'^ that " Mr. Clark, who did more than any one for our knowledge of these burhs, was careful to explain," in his plans,^ that their outer defences were not con- centric, as Mr. Oman asserts. Determined never to admit a mistake, Mr. Oman retorted : Of course, I am quite aware that in many burhs the outer works are not purely concentric ; but the concentric form is the more typical. An admirable example of such a stronghold may be seen on p. 21 of Mr. Clark's book, where he gives the plan of Edward's burh of Towcester built in 921.^ Yet, in dealing with the Norman shell keeps on these " old palisaded mounds," Mr. Oman actually, in his own book, admits, of their "outer defences," that as a general rule, the keep lies nof in the middle of the space, but at one end of it, or set in the walls ... as a general rule the keep stands at one end of the enclosed space, not in its midstJ^ This is the feature of these striking works for which I myself contended, and which, on that account, Mr. Oman at once denied. As to the Towcester burh, I will place side by side my criticism and Mr. Oman's reply : the ninth and tenth centuries " (Clark's ' Mediaeval Military Architec- ture,' ii. 192). 1 9th July, rSgS. ^ Mediaeval Military Architecture, i. 24, 25. 3 Athenaeum, July, 1898. * History of the Art of War, p. 525. The italics are mme. 53 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE Mr. Round. Mr. Oman. A comparison of the plan on He states that Towcester p. 21 with those on pp. 24, 25 burh, as drawn on p. 21 of Mr. will show at once that the former Clark's Mediaeval Military Archi- is that of the " water-girt mound " tecture, is ' a water-girt mound (as Mr. Oman terms it) alone, alone, with no outer works, con- and contains no " outer works," centric or other.' . . . Appar- concentric or other.^ ently Mr. Round cannot read the simplest military sketch ; in this map there are clear indica- tions of outer lines other than the mere water. ... In short, Mr. Round is writing nonsense, and I strongly suspect that he knows it* Any archaeologist comparing the plans will see at once that my statement is correct, and that the plan (compare the section) shows absolutely nothing beyond the actual ditch of the mound. I offered to submit the question to Mr. St, John Hope's decision,^ but Mr. Oman would submit it to no one but his friend and coadjutor, Mr. York Powell, who is not known as an authority on these works, and who is hostile to myself because I exposed Mr. Freeman ! * Having now shown that, in his own words, Mr, Oman " cannot read the simplest military sketch," I pass to the siege of Rochester Castle, famous for its rectangular keep, in 1264, This was an event that deserves attention in a ' History of the Art of War,' for John had breached the keep by mining half a century before, and the stately structure had now to 1 Athenseum, 30th July, 1898. * Ibid., 6th August, 1898. 8 Ibid., 13th August, 1898, * The acting editor of the 'Athenseum ' refused to insert my final reply explaining this. 54 ROCHESTER KEEP BESIEGED stand an energetic siege at the hands of Simon de Montfort. A striking passage in Rishanger's Chronicle tells us that, advancing from London, comes autem de Leycestria, vir in omnibus circumspectus, machinas at alia ad expugnationem castri necessaria secum a civitate Londoniarum per aquam et per terram transvehi prsecepit, quibus inclusos vehementer impugnavit, nee eos indulgere quieti permisit; exemplum relinquens Anglicis qualiter circa castrorum assultationes agendum sit qui penitus hujusmodi diebus illis fuerant ignari.^ The barons promptly stormed the ' outer bailey ' of the castle (April 19),^ and strove desperately to gain the keep, till, a week later, they fled suddenly at the news of the king's advance on London.' But so vigorous were the siege operations by attack, battery, and mining, that they were on the point of succeeding when they had to raise the siege.* Surely a ' History of the Art of War ' should mention the above remarkable allusion to Simon's mastery of siege operations, and to his teaching the English, who were then ignorant of the subject. But all that Mr. Oman tells us is that — the massive strength of Gundulf's Norman keep was too much for such siege appliances as the earl could employ. The garrison under John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, held their own without difficulty (p. 416). We have seen that, on the contrary, the keep was on ^ Appendix to ' Ypodigma Neustriae,' p. 518. ^ Flores Historiarum (Rolls), ii. 490. 8 Ibid. p. 491. * " Ipsi, obsidione turris fortissimse, quam bellicLs insultibus et machinarum ictibus viisque subterraneis expugnatam, fuissent in proximo adepturi, protinus dimissa, Londonias repetierunt " (' Flores Historiarum,' ii. 491). Compare ' Ypodigma Neustriffi,' p. 518. 55 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE the point of being taken. But what are we to say to the words, " Gundulfs Norman keep " ? "It was long the custom," as Mr. Clark wrote, " to attribute this keep to Gundulf, making it contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the Tower of London " ; but, more than thirty years ago) it was shown by Mr. Hart- shorne (in the 'Archaeological Journal') that it was built in later days under William of Corbeuil (1126- 1136).^ No one, in the present state of our know- ledge, could suppose that Gundulf was its builder ; and it is obvious that a writer who does must have yet everything to learn on Norman military archi- tecture. I must lastly deal as briefly as possible with the subject of knight service. The view of modern historians has been that this was gradually evolved during the Norman period out of a pre-conquestual obligation to provide one armed man for every five hides held. As against this I have advanced the theory^ that the whole arrangement was introduced de novo at the Conquest, when the Conqueror assessed the fiefs he granted in terms of the five-knight unit irrespective of hidation. Put in a less technical form my theory is that the Conqueror called on the holder of every considerable fief to furnish a contingent of five knights, or some multiple of five, to the feudal host.^ 1 Archaeological Journal, xx. 205-223 (1863). 8 First in the 'English Historical Review' and then in my 'Feudal England.' 3 This was clearly the rule, though there may have been a few exceptions. Compare p. 155 below. 56 QUOTAS OF KNIGHT SERVICE And this he did arbitrarily, without reckoning the ' hides ' that might be contained in the fief. Further, by the argumentum ad absurdum, I showed that if every five hides had to provide a knight, there would be nothing, or less than nothing, left for the tenant-in- chief. ^ It was of this new theory that Professors Pollock and Maitland observe, in their history of English Law (i. 238-9), that they regard it " as having been proved by Mr. Round's convincing papers." Mr. Oman, however, leans to the now exploded theory, and holds that under Norman rule " the old notion that the five hides must provide a fully armed man was remembered;* and that though "some lay tenants-in-chief" got off easily, "the majority were obliged to supply their proper contingent." ^ He then proceeds : It has been clearly shown of late, by an eminent inquirer into early English antiquities, that the hidage of the townships was very roughly assessed, and that the compilers of Domesday Book incline towards round numbers. Now apart from the fact that this " eminent inquirer," my friend Professor Maitland to wit, gives me full credit for having been first in the field * — a fact which Mr. Oman, with my book before him, of course carefully ignores — his words show that he cannot understand the simplest historical theory. Professor Maitland and I have dwelt on the antiquity of this assessment, with which " the compilers of Domesday Book " had no more to do than Mr. Oman himself, and which indeed ^ Feudal England, p. 234. * History of the Art of War, p. 359. » Ibid. * Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 450, 451. 57 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE the compilation of that book has almost utterly ob- scured. From the fact of the five- hide unit Mr. Oman argues " that there was little difficulty in apportioning the military service due from the tenants-in-chief who owned them," ^ though such apportionment, as I have shown, would result in an actual absurdity.^ Indeed, Mr. Oman himself observes that the tenant-in-chief, to discharge his obligation, " might distribute the bulk of his estate in lots roughly averaging five hides to sub- tenants, who would discharge the service for him,"' although a moment's consideration will show that this process would absorb not " the bulk," but the whole of his estate. But all this is insignificant ty the side of Mr. Oman's double error on the vetus feoffamentum. This begins on p. 359, which is headed "The old 'en- feoffment,' " and which describes the distribution of fiefs by William among the tenants-in-chief. On the next page he writes of " the knights of ' the old enfeoffment,' as William's arrangement was entitled," and proceeds to vouch my ' Feudal England ' as his authority for this statement ! On the same page we read of the landholder's " servitium debitutn according to the assessment of the vetus feoffamentum of the Conqueror"; and further learn that Henry II. demanded a statement as to the number of knights whom each tenant-in-chief owed as subtenants, how many were under the ' old enfeoffment ' of William I., and how many of more recent establishment. ^ History of the Art of War. * Feudal England, p. 234. ^ History of the Art of War, p. 360. 58 THE 'OLD ENFEOFFMENT' We also read that — the importance of King Henry's inquest of 1166 was twofold. It not only gave him the information that he required as to the proper maintenance of the debitum servitium due under the 'old enfeoffment' of the Conqueror, but showed him how many more knights had been planted out {sic) since that assessment (p. 363). Again, on page 364 we read of "the 'old enfeoffment' of the eleventh century," and the phrase (which Mr. Oman quite properly places within quotation marks) occurs in at least three other passages. It is quite evident that Mr. Oman imagines the vetus feoffamentum to be (i) the original distribution by the Conqueror (2) among the tenants-in-chief. Both ideas are absolutely wrong. For (i) it had nothing to do with " William's arrangement " — which determined the servitium debitum, a very different matter; and (2) it referred to the j2<(5-enfeofifment of knights by tenants-in-chief. The dividing line between the " old " and the " new " feoffments, was the death of Henry I. in 1135. All fees existing at that date were of the antiquum feoffamentum ; all fees created subsequently were of the novum feoffametttttm. This essential date is nowhere given by Mr. Oman, who evidently imagined that the latter were those " of more recent establishment" than "the old enfeoffment of William I." The frightful confusion into which Mr. Oman has been led by his double blunder is shown by his own selected instance, the carta of Roger de Berkeley in 1 166. According to him, "Roger de Berkeley owed {sic) two knights and a half on the old enfeoffment." ^ Two distinct things are here hopelessly confused. 1 History of the Art of War, p. 362. 59 ANGLO-NORMAN WARFARE (i) Roger "owed" a servitium debitum (not of 2^, but) of 7 J knights to the Crown ; and his fief paid scutage^ accordingly in 1168, 11 72, and 1190. (2) Roger " has " two and a half knights enfeoffed under the old feoffment * (that is, whose fiefs existed in 1 135), the balance of his servitium debitum being, therefore, chargeable on his demesne,* as no knights had been enfeoffed since 1135. It is difficult to understand how the writer can have erred so grievously, for it was fully recognised by Dr. Stubbs and by myself ('Feudal England,' pp. 237-239) that 1 135 was the dividing point* It may be as well to impress on antiquaries that fees " de antique feoffa- mento" were fees which had been in existence in 1 135, at the death of Henry I., just as tenures, in Domesday Book, ' T.R.E.,' were those which had existed in 1066, at the death of Edward ; for with these two formulas they will frequently meet. It is the "servitium debitum," not the "antiquum feoffamentum," which ^ I use the term, for convenience, in 1168. 2 "ffabeo ij milites et dimidium feffatos de veteri feflFamento" ('Liber Rubeus,' p. 292). » I may add that Mr. Oman misquotes this carta in his endeavour to extract from it support for his error about the 'five hides' (p. 57 above). I place his rendering by the side of the text. . . . "unusquisque de i ... " only for one virgate virgata. Et ita habetis ij milites each. From them you can make et dimidium feodatos." up a knight, and so you have two and a half knights enfeoffed" (p. 362). The words I have italicised are, it will be seen, interpolated. * See also Ey ton's 'History of Shropshire,' i. 232, and the 'Cartae baronum' (11(16) passim. 60 GRIEVOUS CONFUSION " runs back," as Mr. Oman expresses it, to the Con- quest. The result of his confusion is that his account of the origins (in England) of knight service is not only gravely erroneous, but curiously topsy-turvy. This is scarcely wonderful when we find on page 365 that he is hopelessly confused about knights and Serjeants, not having grasped the elementary distinction between tenure by serjeanty and tenure by knight service. From what I have seen of the author's account of the battle of Bannockburn, his errors, I imagine, are by no means restricted to the subjects I have here dis- cussed. A curious combination of confidence and unwillingness to admit his mistakes, with a haste or confusion of thought that leads him into grievous error, is responsible, it would seem, for those miscon- ceptions which render untrustworthy, as it stands, his ' History of the Art of War.' 61 IV The Origin of the Exchequer HISTORIANS have rivalled one another in their witness to the extraordinary interest and im- portance of the twelfth-century Exchequer. " The whole framework of society," writes the Bishop of Oxford, " may be said to have passed annually under its review. . . . The regular action of the central power of the kingdom becomes known to us first in the proceedings of the Exchequer." Gneist insists on " its paramount importance " while " finance is the centre of all government " ; and in her brilliant mono- graph on Henry the Second, Mrs. Green asserts " that the study of the Exchequer is in effect the key to English history at this time. ... It was the fount of English law and English freedom." One can, therefore, understand Mr. Hall's enthusiasm for " the most characteristic of all our national institutions . . . the stock from which the several branches of the administration originally sprang." Nor does this study appeal to us only on account of its importance. A glamour, picturesque, sentimental it may be,' and yet dazzling in its splendour, surrounds an institution possessing so immemorial an antiquity that " Barons of the Exchequer" meet us alike in the days of our Norman kings and in those of Queen Victoria. Its 62 AN ARCHAIC INSTITUTION " tellers," at least coeval with the Conquest, were only finally abolished some sixty years ago, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is believed to represent that " clericus cancellarii " whose seat at the Ex- chequer of the second Henry was close to that of the official ancestor of the present secretary to the Treasury. Yet, older than these, older even than the very name of the Exchequer, was its wondrous system of wooden tallies, that hieroglyphic method of account which carries us back to a distant past, but which. Sir John Lubbock has observed,. was "actually in use at the Exchequer until the year 1824." Of all sur- vivals of an archaic age this was, probably, the most marvellous ; it is not easy to realize that even in the present century English officials were keeping their accounts with pieces of wood which " had attained the dimensions, and presented somewhat the appearance, of one of the wooden swords of the South Sea Islanders." It was an almost tragic feature in the passing of " the old order " that when these antique relics were finally committed to the flames, there perished, in the conflagration said to have been thus caused, that Palace of Parliament which, like them- selves, had lingered on to witness the birth of the era of Reform. But what, it may be asked, was the Exchequer, and why was it so named ? The earliest answer, it would seem, is that of William Fitz Stephen, who, in his biography of Becket, tells us that, in 1164, John the Marshal was in London, officially engaged "at the quadrangular table, which, from its counters {calculis) of two colours, is commonly called the Exchequer 63 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER {scaccarium), but which is rather the king's table for white money {nummis albicoloribus), where also are held the king's pleas of the Crown." ^ The passage is not particularly clear, but I quote it because it is not, I believe, mentioned by Mr. Hall,^ and because William Fitz Stephen knew his London well. The questions I have asked above are those which avowedly are answered in the first chapter of the famous ' Dialogus de Scaccario ' (circ. 1 1 78). I need not, however, repeat in detail the explanations there given, for they should be familiar from the works of Dr. Stubbs and of every writer on the subject. Suf- fice it to say that while, in shape^ the ' Exchequer, with its ledge, as Mr. Hall observes, was not unlike a billiard table, " it derived its name from the chequered cloth " which, says Dr. Stubbs, covered it, and which gave it a resemblance to a chess board {scaccarium). Antiquaries have questioned this, as they will question everything ; but the fact remains that the symbol of the Exchequer, of which types have been depicted by Mr. Hall, is that which swings and creaks before the wayside ' chequers,' which once, in azure and gold, blazed upon the hill of Lewes, and which still is proudly quartered by the Earl Marshal of England. In the present paper I propose to consider the origin and development of the institution, and to examine critically some of the statements in the famous ' Dialogus de Scaccario,' of which the authority has hitherto been accepted almost without question. 1 This allusion has perhaps been somewhat overlooked by legal historians. 2 Curiosities and Antiquities of the Exchequer. 64 ANTIQUITY OF 'BLANCH' SYSTEM It is alleged that a cruel hoax was perpetrated on the Royal Society by that ' merry monarch ' Charles II., who called on its members to account for a phenomenon which existed only in his own imagina- tion. Antiquaries and historians have, with similar success, been hoaxed by Richard the son of Nigel, who stated as a fact in his ' Dialogue on the Exchequer,' that there is no mention of a ' blanch ' ferm to be found in Domesday Book. Richard proceeded to infer from this that those who spoke of ' blanch ' ferm existing before the Conquest must be mistaken.-' Dr. Stubbs actually accepts the statement that " the blanch-ferm is not mentioned in Domesday," but de- clares that Stapleton, in his well-known argument,* has clearly shown it to have had " its origin in a state of things that did not exist in Normandy, and was ' consequent upon the monetary system of the Anglo- Saxons.' The argument," he writes, " is very techni- cal, but quite conclusive." Sir James Ramsay also, though writing as a specialist on finance, contents himself with citing Stapleton, through Stubbs, and with adding a reference to " white silver " in the Laws of .Alfred,' and ignores the evidence in Domesday Book. Now the index to the Government edition of 1 " Videtur autem eis obviare qui dicunt album firmse a temporibus Anglicorum coepisse, quod in libro judiciario in quo totius regni descriptio diligens continetur, et tarn de tempore regis Edwardi quam de tempore regis Willelmi sub quo factus est, singulorum fund- orum valentia exprimitur, nulla prorsus de albo firmas fit raentio " (' Dialogus,' I. vi.). * Rot. magni Scacc. Norm., I. xv. ^ The Foundations of England, i. 524; ii. 324. 65 F THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER Domesday is a very imperfect production, but we need travel no farther than its pages to discover that there is no difficulty to solve; for the "alba firma" is duly entered under an Isle of Wight manor (i. 39 b). More- over, we read on the same folio of " Ix solidos albos ". and " xii libras blancas " in a way that suggests the identity of the two descriptions. But, further, we find, scattered over Domesday, ' Librae albae,' ' blancse,' and 'candidae,' together with ' librae de albis denariis ' or ' de candidis denariis,' and 'librae alborum nummorum' or ' candidorum nummorum.' The ' blanch ' system, therefore, was already quite familiar. This, however, is not all. On the folio mentioned above (i. 39 b) we read of another manor : " T. R. E. xxv lib. ad pensum et arsuram." This can only refer to that payment in weighed and assayed money, the method of which is described in the ' Dialogue ' under ' Quid ad militem argentarium ' and ' Quid ad fusorem ' (I. vi.). All this elaborate system, therefore, must have been already in operation before the Conquest. But the 'Dialogue' asserts in its next and very remarkable chapter — " A quibus vel ad quid instituta fuerit argenti examinatio " — that this system was first introduced by the famous Roger, bishop of Salisbury, the writer's great- uncle, after he had sat at the Ex- chequer for some years, and had discovered the need of introducing it.^ Between this statement and the ^ " Ubi cum per aliquos annos persedisset, comperit hoc solutionis genere non plene fisco satisfieri : licet enim in numero et pondere videretur satisfactum, non taraen in materia . . . Ut igitur regisB simul et publicae provideretur utilitati, habito super hoc ipso regis consilio, constitutum est ut fieret ordine prsedicto firmae combustio vel examinatio " (' Dialogus,' I. vii.). 66 AUTHORITY OF THE ' DIALOGUS ' evidence of Domesday the contradiction is so absolute that a grave question at once arises as to the value of the writer's assertions on the early Norman period. Like the men of his time, he revelled in texts, and loved to drag them in on every possible occasion. One is, therefore, only following his example in sug- gesting that his guiding principle was, " I magnify my office." The greatness and the privileges of a seat at the Exchequer were ever present in his mind. But to this he added another principle, for which insufficient allowance, perhaps, has hitherto been made. And this was, ' I magnify my house.' Nor can one blame the worthy treasurer for dwelling on his family's achieve- ments and exalting his father and his great-uncle as the true pillars of the Exchequer. He was perfectly justified in doing this ; but historians should have been on t^heir guard when he claims for Bishop Roger the introduction of a system which Domesday Book shows us as already in general operation.-^ Enlightened by this discovery, we can more hardily approach a statement by the writer in the same chap- ter, which has been very widely repeated. One need only mention its acceptance by such specialists as Stapleton, in his work on the Norman Exchequer, and Mr. Hubert Hall, who, in his work on the ' Antiquities and Curiosities of the Exchequer,' refers to it four times.* He first tells us that ^ " Librae arsse et pensatse," " Librae ad arsuram et pensum," " Librse ad pensum et arsuram," "Librae ad pondus et arsuram," " Librae ad ignem et ad pensum," etc. * Even Sir James Ramsay, though rightly sceptical as to the attri- bution of certain innovations, by the writer of the |' Dialogus,' to Bishop Roger, holds that " the revenues of the Anglo-Saxon kings 67 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER for half a century after the Conquest there could have been very little need of a central treasury at all, since the greater part of these provisions formed an intrinsic portion of the revenue itself . . . which was still payable in kind. This point is both important and interesting, and has been hitherto somewhat overlooked by economic writers. The fact (which is probable enough in itself) rests on high authority — that of the famous treasurer of the first two Plantagenet kings (p. 4). Again, he writes on p. 161 : We have seen that in the earliest times — previously, that is, to the reorganization of the Exchequer under Henry I. — the revenue of the sovereign was answered in two forms, namely, in specie and in kind ; the former drawn from judicial fines and farms of towns, and the latter rendered, at an arbitrary assessment, by the cultivators of the royal demensne.^ The passage itself in the ' Dialogus,' which Mr. Hall translates in extenso (pp. 180-182), requires careful examination. The " high authority " of which he speaks proves to be, in fact, only tradition, for the opening words of the passage run : " Sicut traditum est a patribus." Now one would not strain unduly the words of the Dialogue's author, but his meaning may be fairly understood to be that the rents of the royal demesne were not only paid in kind (for that he clearly asserts), but were also valued in kind alone. For he thus describes the change introduced under Henry I. : Destinavit [rex] per regnum quos ad id prudentiores et discre- tiores cognoverat, qui circueuntes et oculata fide fundos singulos perlustrantes, habita sestimatione victualium, quae de hiis solv- ebantur, redegerunt in summam denariorum. were to a considerable extent paid in kind ; and so they were down to the time of Henry I., who abolished the practice, establishing money payments in all cases" (i. 525). 1 Cf. p. 205. 68 COMMUTATION OF FOOD RENTS This can only imply the substitution of a money valuation for a rent payable in kind. And yet we have to go no further than this very chapter to learn that these rents had previously been reckoned in money (not in kind). For if, as stated in the note below, they had, when they were paid in kind, to be reduced by the king's officers to a money standard, it could only be because their amounts were due, not in kind, but in money.^ Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on this obvious contradiction, for the evidence of Domesday makes it certain that, just as the assay was employed under the Conqueror, and indeed under the Confessor, instead of being first introduced under Henry I., so the valuation in money of the rents from the royal demesne was not a reform effected, as alleged, by the latter king, but was the rule under William I. ; and, indeed, almost as much the rule before the Conquest.* We gather from Domesday that the Conqueror advanced the commutation of the old " firma unius diei," etc., for a sum of money; but even under his predecessor there were only a few localities in which the archaic system had lingered on. I have said something in ' Feudal England ' ^ of the ^ " Hiis vero solutis secundum constitutum modum cujusque rei, regii officiales computabant vicecomiti redigentes in summam denari- orum : pro mensura scilicet tritici ad panem c hominum, solidum unum," etc., etc. 2 Compare my remarks on the quick growth, in those days of erroneous tradition, in ' Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,' P- 77- *pp. 109-115. Professor Maitland has subsequently spoken of it in two or three passages of ' Domesday Book and Beyond.' 69 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER " Firma unius noctis," and I would now add to the evidence that I there adduced on this curious and interesting subject. In Devonshire we meet with a singular feature, which, I think, has escaped attention. Exeter, we read, "reddit xviii. lib. per annum." I have else- where ^ discussed this payment, and shown that it was strangely small ; but I now proceed to a new point, namely, that the figure i8 may prove highly signifi- cant. Lidford, Barnstaple, and Totnes, we read,* " rendered " between them the same amount of (mili- tary) service as Exeter " rendered " ; and this service was equally divided between them.' Now, if we turn from the service to the payments made by this group of boroughs, we find that the "render" of each was £i a year, so that the whole group paid ;£g, exactly half the " render " of Exeter.* If we follow the clue thus given us, and turn to the manors which Queen Edith and Harold's mother and Harold himself had held, but which, in 1086, had passed to the king,^ we find these remarkable figures : 2" 1 5. jC30, £45, jC^^> £4^> £i-h ^48 (formerly £2z), £2, £6, £21 (formerly £i2>\ £20,, £^, £18, 1 " The Conqueror at Exeter" ('Feudal England '). 2 D. B., L 108. » D. B., i. 108. * Barnstaple rendered forty shillings ' ad pensum ' to the king, and twenty ' ad numerum ' to the bishop of Coutances ; Lidford sixty ' ad pensum ' ; Totnes " olim reddebat iii lib. ad pensum et arsuram," but, after passing into private hands, its render was raised to " viii lib. ad numerum." Exeter itself ' rendered ' £6 " ad pen- sum et arsuram " to the king, and ;^i2 'ad numerum ' for Queen Edith. * D. B., L 100 d-101. 70 THE 'FIRMA UNIUS NOCTIS' £Z, ^i8, £i2, /i8, £2^, £\ (?), /24, £1 (?), £l, £6, £^, £^2, £^, £2, £2,, £iS, ;^2o (formerly £24). It is evident enough that these " renders " are based on some common unit, like the ' renders ' of the comital manors in Somerset.^ Moreover, we can trace, in Cornwall, something of the same kind. The manor of royal demesne which heads its survey " reddit xii lib. ad pondus et arsuram," ^ and this is followed by renders of ;^8, ^5, £6, £2, ('olim'), /18, £6, ^3, £7, £^, £6, £4, £s- Even a ' render ' of ^8 was duodecimal in a way ; for on fo. 121^ it occurs four times as ;^8 and thrice as " xii markae." Not only is the rent of these manors distin- guished from that of those in private hands by the form ' reddit,' instead of ' valet,' but the render is stereotyped, being normally unchanged, while the ' valet ' ever fluctuates. The explanation I suggest for these archaic " renders " is that they represent the commutation of some formerly existing payment in kind similar to the " firma unius noctis." If the unit of that payment was commuted at a fixed rate, it would obviously produce that artificial uniformity of which we have seen the traces in Devon and Corn- wall. We may thus penetrate behind these "renders" to an earlier system then extinct. This conclusion is confirmed, I think, by some striking instances in Hampshire.' Of ' Neteham ' we read, " T.R.E. et post valuit Ixxvi lib. et xvi sol. et viii den." (i. 38); and of ' Brestone,' similarly, "T.R.E. et 1 Feudal England, p. 115. 2 D. B., i. 120. ^ Cf. Feudal England, pp. 109-110. 71 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER post valuit Ixxvi lib. et xvi sol. et viii den." (i. 38 3). The explanation is found in these two entries on the latter fo. : Bertune. De firma regis E. Ediinges. Hoc manerium red- fuit, et dimidiam diem firmse didit dimidiam diem firms reddidit in omnibus rebus . . . T.R.E. . . . T.R.E. valebat T.R.E. valebat xxxviii fib. et xxxviii lib. et viii sol. et iiii viii soL et iiii den. den. That is, I take it that the half-day's ferm " ren- dered" T.R.E. was worth ;^38 8^. ^d., so that the two other manors, for each of which the sum was ;^76 16^. Sd., must originally have rendered a whole ' firma.' This gives us the value of the ' firma ' for the other Hampshire manors which " rendered." ^ We will now return to the ' Dialogus ' and its state- ments on the " firma comitatus." It is distinctly asserted, in the above passage, that the ' firma comitatus ' only dated from this reform under Henry I.^ This is at variance with the strong evidence set forth in my ' Geoffrey de Man- deville,' that Geoffrey's grandfather, who was dead before this alleged reform, held Middlesex, Essex, and Herts at farm, the very amount of the farm due from him being mentioned. But, indeed, in Domes- day itself there are hints, if not actual evidence, that jthe ' firma ' was more or less in existence. In War- wickshire, for instance, "T.R.E. vicecomitatus de Warwic cum burgo et cum regalibus Maneriis red- ^ Feudal England, pp. 109-110. 2 After the above passage, the author proceeds : " De summa vero summarum quae ex omnibus fundis surgebant in uno comitatu, con- stituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri " (i. 7). 72 THE KING'S 'PERM' IN DOMESDAY debat Ixv libras," etc., etc. In Worcestershire, also, "vicecomes . . . de Dominicis Maneriis regis reddit cxxiii lib. et iiii sol. ad pensum." Here we have exactly that "summa summarutn" of which the ' Dialogus ' speaks as a novelty introduced under Henry I.^ Again, in at least one passage (i. 85), we recognise a distinct allusion to the " terrae datae " system : De hoc Manerio tenet Giso episcopus unum membrum Wetmore quod ipse tenuit de rege E. Pro eo computat Willelmus vicecomes in firma regis xii lib. unoquoque anno. Now we know the history of this manor, which had been detached from the royal demesne about a quarter of a century before, when Edward gave it to bishop Giso on his return from his visit to Rome. It follows, therefore, that jC^2 must have been, ever since, annually credited to the sheriff, in consideration of the Crown having alienated this manor.^ We thus carry back to a period before the Conquest that Exchequer practice of the 1 2th century, which is thus alluded to in Stephen's charter to Geoffrey earl of Essex (1141) : Ita tamen quod dominica quae de praedictis comitatibus data sunt ... a firma praedicta subtrahantur et . . . ad scaccarium computabuntur." ^ ^ A Devonshire manor (i. 100^) is entered as rendering "in firma regis x solidos ad pensum." This " firma " can only be a collective ferm from the royal manors. 2 I do not wish to press the point further than the entry proves, and consequently I leave undetermined the question whether the ' firma regis ' was that of the whole shire, or merely that of the head manor to which Wedmore belonged. ^ Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 142. 73 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER I hasten to add that the Charter of Constance, the Conqueror's daughter, quoted by Stapleton from the Cartulary of Holy Trinity, Caen, affords an exact parallel in the words : "et ei computabitur in suo redditu cum dica." But the fact remains that we can prove the existence, under Edward the Con- fessor, of characteristic features of the later Exchequer system, of which one, at least, as Stapleton explained, must have been of English origin. What then was the change that took place on the introduction of the Exchequer ? How did it modify the system previously in existence ? Our only clue is found in the well-known words of the 'Dialogus': " Quod autem hodie dicitur ad scaccarium, olim dice- batur ad taleas," Writing as a specialist on Ex- chequer history, Mr. Hall contends that " this expres- sion in itself denotes the actual place of receipt and issue of the revenue rather than a court or council chamber." ^ But one cannot see that ' scaccarium ' in itself denotes a court or council chamber more than does ' talea.' The one was a chequered table, the other a wooden tally. My own view is that the change really consisted of the introduction of the chequered table ^ to assist the balancing of the ac- counts. Previously, tallies alone would be used, and ^ History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 63. ^ It was vehemently asserted by Mr. Hubert Hall, in his earlier papers on the Exchequer, that the table was only divided into columns, and that the chequered table was a delusion. He has subsequently himself accepted the "chequered table" (see my ' Studies on the Red Book,' p. 76), but Sir James Ramsay (ii. 324) has been misled by his original assertion. 74 CHEQUERED TABLE INTRODUCED it is noteworthy that even after the ' Exchequer ' system was in full operation, the deduction for the loss involved by 'combustion' was still effected by tally.^ I have little doubt that the ' combustion ' tally was in use in the i ith century for payments " ad arsuram et pensum." Instead, then, of the sheriffs' accounts being balanced by the cumbrous system of tallies, the in- troduction of the Exchequer table, very possibly under Henry I., enabled them to be depicted to the eye by an ingenious system of counters. To the modern mind it is strange, of course, that, while the reformers were about it, they did not substitute parch- ment, and work out the accounts on it. But, doubt- less for the benefit of unlearned sheriffs, the old system of ocular demonstration was still adhered to, and the Treasurer's Roll merely recorded the results of the ' game ' by which the accounts had been worked out upon the table. Mr. Hall's belief is best set forth in an article he contributed to the ' Athenaeum ' (November 2^, 1886), and of which he reprinted this passage, subsequently, in ' Domesday Studies' (1891) : There is every reason for believing that the audit machinery of the ancient Treasury at Winchester was sufficient for the purpose. . . . It is true, indeed, that the earliest germ of the Exchequer is perceptible in these accounts, which were, however, audited not ' ad scaccarium,' but ' ad taleas,' i.e. in the Treasury or Receipt at Winchester. . . . We find in the Pipe RoUs the old Treasury at Winchester used as a permanent storehouse for the reserve of 1 " Sciendum vero quod per hanc taleam combustionis dealbatur firma vicecomitis ; unde in testimonium hujus rei semper majori talese appensa cohseret" ('Dialogus'). 75 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER treasure, regalia, and records, and we even find Exchequer business transacted there by way of audit of accounts, which formed a special office or ' ministerium ' as late as 1 1 30 (Pipe Roll 3 1 Hen. The purchase of the ' ministerium thesauri Wintoniae,' recorded in the Pipe Roll of 1130,^ does not affect the question of audit. There can be no question that the national Treasury, in 1130, was at Win- chester, or that the Treasurer's official residence was there also.^ The really important passages on the roll, passages which I venture to think have been generally misunderstood, are these : Et in prseterito anno quando comes Gloecestrise et Brientius filius Comitis audienint compotum de thesauro apud Wintoniam. De istis habuit Willelmus de Pontearc' xxx li., de quibus reddidit compotum quando comes Gloecestrise et Brientius audienint com- potum de thesauro apud Wintoniam. It has been assumed that these entries refer to the Exchequer business of balancing the sheriffs' accounts, and Madox even went so far as to draw the conclusion, from their wording, that, at the time of the Roll, Brian Fitz Count was Treasurer. The true meaning was exactly contrary, and an interesting allusion is thus obscured. For the Pipe Rolls do not, as is sometimes imagined, display the national accounts. They probably do not exhaust the receipts (for some, it is believed, were paid ' in camera '), and they certainly only record a portion of the royal expenditure. What became of the money which is so continually entered as paid 1 pp. 523-4. * p. 105. * " Henricus thesaurarius," the Domesday tenant (49), is entered in the earlier Winchester survey temp. Hen. I. 76 AUDIT OF THE TREASURY 'in Thesauro'? It found its way into the national treasury, whence it was paid out as was required by writ of ' Liberate ' addressed to the Treasurer and chamberlains.^ Of these outgoings, in the 12th century, there is, it would seem, no record; but they were certainly audited from time to time, the king calling on the Treasurer to account for the money in his charge, as, at the Exchequer, the Treasurer himself had called on the sheriffs to account for the sums for which they were liable. To this ' generalis compotus,' associated with the Winchester Treasury, there are, in the ' Dialogus,' several allusions which may have been somewhat overlooked. Quod thesaurarius a vicecomite compotum suscipiat, hinc mani- festum est, quod idem ab eo cum regi placuerit requirifur. . . . Sunt tamen qui dicunt thesaurarium et camerarios obnoxios tantum hiis quae scribuntur in rotulis ' in thesauro,' ut de Aits compotus ab eis exigatur (i. i). Raro inquam, hoc est, cum a rege, vel mandato regis, a magnis regni^ compotus a thesaurario et camerariis regni totius recepta sus- cipitur (i. 5). Thesaurarius et camerarii, nisi regis expresso mandato vel praesi- dentis justiciarii, susceptam pecuniam non expendunt : oportet enim ut habeant auctoritatem rescripti regis de distributa pecunia, cum ab eis compotus generalis exigitur (i. 6). [De combustione]. . . . ut de summa ejus thesaurarius et camerarii respondeant (ib.). These are sufficient allusions to the Treasury, as distinct from the Exchequer, account. I invite par- ticular attention to this Treasury audit, because, so far as I can find, it has hitherto escaped notice. The 1 One such writ, still preserved, is printed in my 'Ancient Charters' (Pipe Roll Society). It belongs to 1191. * See below. 77 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER second extract refers to the use of the ;^ 10,000 space on the chequered table, and therefore proves the use of such a table for the Treasury account as well. Now my point is that the earl of Gloucester arid Brian 'Fitz Count,' in 1130, were magnates {magni regni) delegated by the king, as described in the second passage,^ to audit the Treasurer's account. And this view is confirmed by the fact that William de Pont de I'Arche, who here accounts to them, is styled by Dr. Stubbs " the Treasurer," and is, in any case, subsequently described as "custos thesaurorum regalium." Their mission had nothing, I hold, to do with that audit of the sheriffs' accounts, which was the annual function of the Exchequer. There is a remarkable entry on the roll of 1187 which alludes to an overhauling of the national treasure at Winchester, at the beginning of that year, the date proving that it was wholly unconnected with either session of the Exchequer : Et in custamento numerandi et ponderandi thesauram apud Wintoniam post Natale, et pro forulis novis ad reponendum eundem thesaurum et pro aliis minutis negociis ad predictum opus, etc. . . . Et pro carriando thesauro a Wintonia ad Saresburiam et ad Oxinford' et ad Geldeford' et ad plura loca per Angliam One might compare with these phrases the ' Dialogus ' language as to the knights, 'qui et camerarii dicuntur, quod pro camerariis ministrant.' Item officium horum est numeratam pecuniam, et in vasis ligneis per centenos solidos compositam, ponderare, ne sit error in numero, tunc demum in forulos mittere, etc. (i. 3). ^ I punctuate it differently from Dr. Stubbs. . 78 THE TREASURY AT WINCHESTER Also the description of the usher's office : Hie ministrat forulos ad pecuniam reponendam, etc. (ib.). But the latter part of the entry (which is duly quoted by Eyton ^) is also of much importance. For in Mr. Hall's work, under 1187, we only read, 'Treasure conveyed abroad from Winchester.'^ It is an essential part of Mr, Hall's theory, which makes the " Westminster Treasury . . . the prin- cipal Treasury of the kingdom," * that the Winchester Treasury was merely " an emporium in connection with the transport of bullion (and especially of the regalia and plate), as well as other supplies, vi& Southampton, or other seaports, to the Continent" * But the above passage shows us, on the contrary, treasure sent thence to Salisbury, Oxford, and Guildford. It is manifest that treasure, despatched from Westminster to Oxford or Guildford would not be sent vi& Winchester. From this it follows that Winchester was still a central Treasury, and not a mere ' emporium ' en. route to the south. It is certain that under Henry I., some sixty years before, the session at Westminster of the Barons of the Exchequer did not, as Stapleton observed, affect the position of the national Treasury at Win- chester. It is, then, equally certain that the money received at that session must have been duly trans- mitted to the Winchester Treasury. For that was where the treasure (in coined money) was kept when Stephen succeeded at the close of 1135. The whole difficulty has arisen from Mr. Hall's ^ Itinerary, p. 275. ^ Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 15. ' Ibid. p. 16. 4 Ibid. 79 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER inability to distinguish between the ' Receipt ' at Westminster, where the money was paid in, and the national Treasury at Winchester in which it was per- manently stored. This is, roughly speaking, like confusing a man's investments with his balance at his bankers. The steadily growing importance of West- minster and the concurrent decadence of Winchester led, of course, eventually, to the shifting of the central Treasury, but at the time of the ' Dialogus,' in the days of Henry II., it is clear that the Exchequer was not looked on as the seat of a permanent Treasury. For the storage of treasure is always implied by the pay- ment for the light of the night watchman ; and as to the watchman and his light, the evidence of the ' Dialogue ' is clear : Vigilis officium idem est ibi quod alibi ; diligentissima scilicet de nocte custodia, thesauri principaliter, et omnium eorum quse in dorao thesauri reponuntur. . . . Sunt et hiis liberationes constitute dutn scaccarium est, hoc est a die qua convocantur usque ad diem qua generalis secessio. . . . Vigil unum denarium. Ad lumen cujusque noctis circa thesaurum, obolum (i. 3). There is absolutely no escaping from these words : a watchman is only provided for the treasure " while the Exchequer is in session " ; its treasury is tem- porary, not permanent. The whole passage, as it seems to me, is absolutely destructive of Mr. Hall's hypothesis of " the existence of a permanent financial staff under the Treasurer and chamberlains of the Exchequer at Westminster." ^ The change from the " Treasury " to the " Ex- chequer" was, I hold, a gradual process. Careful 1 Ibid. p. 66. 80 A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TREASURY study of the annual revenues bestowed by our sovereigns on the foreign houses of Tiron, Fonte- vrault, and Cluny ^ proves clearly how insensibly the " Treasury at Winchester " was superseded by the " Exchequer at London " as the place of payment. This is especially the case with Tiron, where Henry I.'s original grant, made about the middle of his reign, provides for payment " de thesauro meo, in festo Sancti Michaelis, Wintonie."* Under Richard I. this becomes payable "at Michaelmas from his exchequer at London." ' Documents between the two show us intermediate stages. Precisely the same gradual process is seen in the parallel development of the chamberlainship of the " Exchequer " from that of the " Treasury." Just as Henry O., shortly before his accession, confirmed the grant to Tiron as " de thesauro Wintonie," * so he restored to William Mauduit, at about the same time, "camerariam meam thesauri," which office was held by his descendants as a chamberlainship of the Exchequer. The ' Dialogus ' shows us the Treasurer and the two chamberlains of the Exchequer as the three inseparable Treasury officers. Domesday connects the first with Winchester by showing us Henry "the- saurarius " as a tenant- in-chief in Hampshire. I pro- pose to show that it also connects one of the chamberlains with that county. In that same invalu- able but unprinted charter of which I have spoken 1 See my ' Calendar of Documents Preserved in France.' 2 Ibid. p. 354. 2 Ibid. p. 355. * Ibid. p. 354. 81 G THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER above, which was granted at Leicester (1153) to William Mauduit, Duke Henry says : Insuper etiam reddidi eidem cameraiiam meam thesauri cum liberatione '^ et cum omnibus pertinentibus, castellum scilicet de Porcestra ut supradiximus, et omnes terras ad predictum camerariam et ad predictuin castellum pertinentes, sive sint in Anglia sive Normannia, sicut pater suus illam camerariam cum pertinentibus melius habuit et sicut Robertus Maledoctus frater suus eam habebat die quo vivus fuit et mortuus. This carries back the ' cameraria thesauri ' (' illam camerariam') to the Domesday tenant, whose son Robert occurs in the earlier Winchester Survey, and, though dead in 1130, is mentioned on the Roll of that year (p. 37), in connection with the Treasury in Normandy. The history of Porchester, in the Norman period, has yet to be worked out. Mr. Clark, for instance, tells us that the castle was " always in the hands of the Crown,"* yet we find it here appurtenant to the chamberlainship, and in Domesday (47 h) it was a ' manor ' held by William Malduith. The above charter, in my opinion, was one of those which Duke Henry granted without intending to fulfil.' Porchester had clearly been secured by the Crown, and Henry was not the man to part with such a fortress. Of William Mauduith's Domesday fief. Hartley Mauditt (' Herlege ') also was held by the later Mauduits ; ^ See the ' Constitutio domus Regis ' : — " Willelmus Maudut xiiii d. in die, et assidue in Domo Commedet," etc. etc. He comes next to the Treasurer. ^ Mediaeval Military Architecture, ii. 400. 3 See my "King Stephen and the Earl of Chester" ('English Historical Review,' x. 91). 82 CHAMBERLAINSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER but they held it still "per serjanteriam camar[ariae] Domini Regis " ^ or " per camerariam ad scac- carium." ' It should be added that the other chamberlainship of the Exchequer was similarly a serjeanty associated with land. It cannot, however, be carried back beyond 1156, when Henry II. bestowed on Warin Fitz Ceroid, chamberlain, lands in Wiltshire worth ;i^34 a year, and in Berkshire to nearly the same amount.' The former was the chamberlainship estate, and reappears as Sevenhampton (near Highworth) in his brother's carta (1166), where it is expressly stated to have been given to Warin by the king.* It was similarly held by his heir and namesake (with whom he is often confused), under John,^ and by the latter's heir, Margaret ' de Ripariis,' under Henry III." This estate must not be confused with that of ^ Testa de Nevill., 231. ^ Ibid. 235 ; and ' Red Book of the Exchequer,' p. 460. ' Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. See 'Red Book of the Exchequer,' p. 664 : — " Garino filio Geroldi xxxiiij lib. bl. in Worde." Although the subject is one of special interest for the editor, he does not index Garin's name here at all, while he identifies " Worde " in the Index (p. 1358), as "Worthy" (Hants), though it was Highworth, Wilts. * Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 355, 356. ^ " Garinus filius Geroldi Suvenhantone, per serjanteriam cameras (sic) Regis " (Ibid. p. 486). (Should ' cameras ' be ' camerarias ' ?). Also "ut sit Camerarius Regis " ('Testa,' p. 148). / ^ " Margeria de Ripariis tenet villam de Creklade de caraar[aria] domini regis ad scaccarium: Eadem Margeria tenet villam de Sevenha[m]pton cum pertinentiis de domino rege per predictum servitium " (' Testa de Nevill.,' p. 153). 83 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER Stratton, Wilts, which was bestowed by John (to whom it had escheated) on the later Warin Fitz Gerold, to hold at a fee-farm rent of £is ^ year.^ It is necessary to make this distinction, be- cause Mr. Hall, in dealing with the subject, speaks of it as "held apparehtly by the Countess of Albe- marle as pertaining to the (sic) chamberlainship of England" (stc).^ On the same page he speaks of a de:ed, on page 1024 of the same volume, whereby she " secures to Adam de Strattone, clerk, an annuity of ;^I3, charged on the farm of Stratton." Reference to page 1024 shows that, on the contrary, what she did was to make herself and her heirs responsible to the Exchequer for the annual £is, which was " the farm " of Stratton (so that Adam might hold Stratton quit therefrom). This is a further instance of Mr. Hall's unhappy inability to understand or describe accurately the documents with which he deals.' I have now traced for the first time, so far as I can find, the origin of the two chamberlainships of the Exchequer. That of Mauduit can be traced, we see, to a chamberlainship of the 'Treasury,' existing certainly under Henry I., and possibly under the Conqueror. Of the other the existence is not proved before 1156. Both, I have shown, were associated with the tenure of certain estates. It is very strange that, in his magnum opus,* Madox 1 See ' Red Book of the Exchequer,' and 'Testa de Nevill.' * Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxv. * For a similar misdescription of the document preceding it see my 'Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,' p. 61. * History of the Exchequer. 84 STANDARDS OF PAYMENT not only ignores, it would seem, this descent of the office with certain lands, but gives a most unsatis- factory account of those who held the office, con- fusing it, clearly, with the chamberlainship of England, and not distinguishing or tracing its holders. For the different standards of payment in use at the Exchequer, our authority, of course, is the ' Dialogus,' but the subject, I venture to think, is still exceedingly obscure. Even Mr. Hall, who has studied so closely the ' Dialogus,' seems to leave it rather doubtful whether payment in ' blank ' money meant a deduction of 6d. or of \2d. on the pound.* It will be best to leave the ' Dialogus ' for the moment, and take an actual case where the charters and the rolls can be compared, and a definite result obtained. In Lans. MS. 114, at fo. 55, there is a series of extracts transcribed from a Register of Holy Trinity (or Christchurch) Priory, London, in which are comprised the royal charters relating to Queen Maud's gift of two-thirds of the revenues (ferm) of Exeter. First, Henry I. confirms it, late in his reign,^ as "xxv libras ad scalam," the charter being ad- dressed to William bishop of Exeter, and Baldwin the sheriff {sic). Then we have another charter from him addressed " Rogero episcopo Sar[esbiriensi] et Baronibus Scaccarii," and witnessed, at Winchester, by Geoffrey de Clinton, in which it is "xxv libras blancas." Stephen's charter follows, addressed to 1 Antiquities of the Exchequer, pp. 144-6, 165, 167. * At Portsmouth, the witnesses being Geoflfrey the chancellor, Nigel de Albini, and Geofifrey de Clinton. 85 THE ORIGIN OF THE EXCHEQUER William bishop of Exeter, and Richard son of Baldwin, the sheriff, in which again we have " xxv lib. ad scalam." Lastly, we come to an important entry that seems to have remained unknown : In 1180, on St. Martin's Day, king Henry issued {fecit currere) his new money, in the 26th year of his reign, and as the sherift of Exeter {Exon') would not pay the .prior of Christchurch, for Michaehnas term, jQi2 i6x. ^d. "secundum pondus blancum" Prior Stephen obtained from the king the following writ. Then follows a writ which clearly belongs not to 1 180, but to an earlier period. It is addressed " prepositis et civibus Exonie," and directs that the canons are to enjoy their rents as in his grandfather's time (' Teste Manessero Biset dapifero, apud Wirecestriam '). Next comes a passage so important that it must be quoted in the original words, although, like the whole of the transcript, it seems slightly corrupt. Comperuit igitur Paganus attomatus vicecomitis predicti in Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta predict[i] r[egis] Quod ecclesiam Christi London debere habere predictos denarios blancos et ad scalam id est ad pondus qui fuerint meliores in pondere quam ilia nova moneta per vi s. iii d. pro termino sancti Mich. arch, predicto. Et sic predictus prior et conventus haberent quolibet anno xii f vi 55. ']d. " numero," and out of this, more- over, it had to pay Peter Fitz Walter ;^20 for his services, and the clerks and Serjeants {servientes) em- ployed under him ;^8 los. ; thus the net receipts were only some ;^20o " de exitu firme de Londonia et de Middilsexa."^ I infer from this that the ferm ex- torted for London and Middlesex had been shame- fully high,^ and that this was the cause of the sheriffs being often laden with debt when they went out of office,' as they had to make good, out of their own pockets, the difference between the proceeds of the dues and the ferm exacted by the Crown. It is possible that this was indeed the reason of four sheriffs, as in 11 30, being so often appointed ; the loss would thus be spread over a wider area, and the chance of recovering the debt greater. The system, 1 21 Henry II., pp. 15-17. For the last quarter of the 20th year they were ^^59 8i. zd. ^ From the county the proceeds must always have been small owing to the absence of royal manors. ^ Pipe "KoWs, passim. 231 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON on this hypothesis, was strangely analogous to that by which, at the present day, appointment as sheriff of a county is equivalent to exaction of a fine by the Crown. Combining, as I have elsewhere suggested, the fact that in 1130 each of the four sheriffs gave ;^i2 to the Crown to be. quit of his office with the clause in the earliest charter to Rouen that no citizen should be -compelled to serve as sheriff against his will, we may certainly conclude that such sheriffs were the victims of Crown extortion. But obscurity must still surround the manner of their appointment. There remains the salient fact that the Crown un- doubtedly suffered a heavy annual loss by the substi- tution of custodes for sheriffs in 1 1 74. As this is a fact new to historians, one is tempted to seek an explanation. The Crown's loss being the city's gain, it is at least worth consideration that the change virtually synchronized with the king's arrival in London at the crisis of the feudal revolt. He was welcomed, Fantosme tells us, by the citizens, and reminded iKe nul peiist le Lundreis traiitres apeler. Ne fereient traisun pur les membres colper. In the previous year he had been assured that they were La plus leale gent de tut vostre regn^. Ni ad nul en la vile ki seit de tel ee Ki puisse porter armes, ne seit trfes bien armd. This testimony is in harmony with the fact they gave the Crown that year (1173) a novum donum of 1,000 marcs, supplemented by 100 marcs apiece from three leading citizens. It is, therefore, perfectly possible 232 THE PERM SHARPLY REDUCED that, as Rouen obtained from Henry II. a charter increasing its privileges, as a reward for its attitude in the rebellion, London may have been similarly rewarded by what was in practice financial relief But the change did not last. After two years of the custodes, they went out of office at Midsummer, 1176, their returns, "de exitu ejusdem civitatis," even lower than before.^ Their place was taken by William Fitz Isabel, whose account for the three months' firma at Michaelmas shows that it, at once, leapt up to the huge sum formerly exacted.^ Having traced in 'Geoffrey de Mandeville' the for- tunes of the long struggle between the citizens and the Crown over the amount of th^vc firma — fixed at ;^300 by Henry the First's charter, but raised by Henry II. to over ;^500 — I was led to test the chroniclers' state- ments as to 1 191 by turning to the Pipe Rolls to see if the citizens' triumph enabled them to secure that reduc- tion on which they insisted throughout. In the Roll of I Richard I. we find \}a.Q. firma, as under Henry II., to be between ;i^520 and £^^10^ but in the Roll of two years later (1191) we suddenly meet with this bold entry : " Gives Londoniae — Willelmus de HaverhuU ^ They had paid out ;£^i56 7^. a,d. in the three quarters, and owed £,<) 9^. <)d., making a total of ;^i65 17^. \d.., or at the rate of about £,22\ a year, as against some ;^Z38. * His outgoings were ;^i5i 4^. bd., and he was credited with a "superplus" of ;^i3 8j. 10^. 'blank.' This works out at rather over ^548 "numero" for the year, the old figure being ;^547 " numero " (these figures are taken from the unpublished Pipe Roll of 1 1 76). It would be rash to connect the change with the severe Assise of Northampton without further evidence. * An entry on the Roll of 1 5 Hen. II. records it as ^i^^soo "blanch," plus a varying sum of about ;^2o "numero." 233 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON et Johannes Bucuinte pro eis — reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis pro hoc anno." This sudden return to the old figure was effected at the very time of the change which the chroniclers describe. The fact is as striking as it is welcome where all is so obscure. In the following year (4 Ric. I.) we find the firma again amounting to about ;^300 ; but the difficulty of ascertaining its sum where this is not given is, un- fortunately, so great that until the Pipe Rolls of the reign are in print we cannot speak positively as to the endurance of this amount. In the Pipe Roll, how- ever, of the ninth year (1197) "^^ fi'^d ^^^ account headed (as in 1191): "Gives Lund[oniae] — Nicholas Duket et Robertus Blund pro eis — reddunt compotum de ccc libris blancis de firma Lond[onie] et Mid- delsexe," and in that of the tenth year the sum is similarly stated to be ;^300 "blanch," It is clear, therefore, that at the close of Richard's reign the citizens had made good their claim to farm the city and county for ;;^300 a year, as they had recommenced to do in 1 191. The explanation of their gaining from Richard the confirmation of that success is probably to be found in their payment of ;^ 1,000, thus recorded on the roll of 1 195 (7 Ric. I.) : Gives Lond[onie] M et D marcas de dono suo pro benevolentia domini Regis, et pro liberiatibus suis conseruandis, et de auxilio suo ad redemptionem domini Regis. In that case the king would have dealt with the firma, as he is known to have dealt with the sheriffwicks of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, etc., and simply sold it to the citizens for a lump sum down. In this year (7 Ric. I.), accordingly, it is again the 234 THE OATH OF THE COMMUNE "Gives Lond[onie]," who, through their two repre- sentatives, account for the ferm. It follows from this that when the citizens paid John ;;^2,ooo " pro habendo confirmationem Regis de libertatibus suis," they did not obtain, as I had gathered from his charter, for the first time a re- duction of the Jirma to ;^300, but a confirmation of the reduction they had won at the crisis of 1 191. This, then, up to now has been the sum total of our knowledge : a commune was granted to London in October, 1 1 9 1 ; the ferm of the city was, simultane- ously, reduced from over ;^5oo to the old ^300, as granted by Henry I. ; and the Mayor of London first meets us in the spring of 1 193. Of the nature of the commune we know nothing ; of its very existence after the autumn of 1 191, we are in equal ignorance. It is at this point that the document which follows comes to our help with a flood of light, proving, as it does, that London, in 1 193, possessed a fully developed comm.une of the continental pattern. " Sacramentum commune tempore regis Ricardi quando detentus erat Alemaniam {sic)} Quod fidem portabunt domino regi Ricardo de vita sua et de membris et de terreno honore suo contra omnes homines et feminas qui vivere possunt aut mori et quod pacem suam servabunt et adjuvabunt servare, et quod communam tenebunt et obedientes erunt maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivinps]^ ejusdem ^ Add. MS. i4,2 52,i,fo. 112 d. 2 MS. : 'skiuin.' The ' Liber Albus ' (pp. 423-4) uses " eskevyn " for the khevins of Amiens. 235 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON commune in fide regis et quod sequentur et tenebunt considerationem maioris et skivinorum et aliorum proborum hominum qui cum illis erunt salvo honore dei et sancte ecclesie et fide domini regis Ricardi et salvis per omnia libertatibus civitatis Lond[onie]. Et quod pro mercede nee pro parentela nee pro aliqua re omittent quin jus in omnibus rebus [pro]sequentur et teneant pro posse suo et scientia et quod ipsi communiter in fide domini regis Ricardi sustinebunt bonum et malum et ad vitam et ad mortem. Et si quis presumeret pacem domini regis et regni perturbare ipsi consilio domine ^ et domini Rothomagensis * et aliorum justiciarum domini regis juvabunt fideles domini regis et illos qui pacem servare volunt pro posse suo et pro scientia sua salvis semper in omnibus libertatibus Lond[onie]." Before discussing this document one may well com- pare it with the Freeman's oath at the present day, as taken by the latest honorary freeman, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum (4th November, 1898): I solemnly declare that I will be good and trae to our Sovereign lady Queen Victoria, that I will be obedient to the Mayor of this City, that I will maintain the franchises and customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless in that which in me is ; that I will also keep the Queen's peace in my own person, that I will know no gatherings nor conspiracies made against the Queen's peace, but I will warn the Mayor thereof or hinder it to my power ; and that all these points and articles I will well and truly keep according to the laws and customs of this City to my power." The obligations of allegiance to the Sovereign, of obedience to the Mayor, and of keeping the King's ^ i.e. Queen Eleanor. ^ Walter archbishop of Rouen. 236 THE MAYOR AND ECHEVINS peace against all attempts to disturb it, remain, it will be seen, in force. On the importance, in many aspects, of this unique document it is hardly necessary to dwell. Its form- ulcB deserve to be carefully compared with the oaths of allegiance and of the peace; but here one must restrict attention to its bearing on the commune of London. For the first time we learn that the govern- ment of the city was then in the hands of a Mayor and khevins {skivini). Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English munici- pal institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental institution.^ But in this document the Mayor and ^chevins do not exhaust the governing body. Of Aldermen, indeed, we hear nothing ; but we read of " alii probi homines " as associated with the Mayor and dchevins. For these we may turn to an- other document, fortunately preserved in this volume, which shows us a body of " twenty-four " connected with the government of London some twelve years later (1205-6). " Sacramentum xxiiij"' factum anno regni regis Johannis vif. Quod legaliter intendent ad consulendum secundum suam consuetudinem juri domini regis quod ad illos spectat in civitate Lond[onie] salva libertate civitatis * " For their administration and judicial functions in continental towns, see Giry, 'St. Quentin,' 28-67; von Maurer, ' Stadtverf.,' i. 241, 568 " (' Gild Merchant,' i. 26 note). 237 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON et quod de nullo homine qui in placito sit ad civitatem spectante aliquod premium ad suam conscientiam reciperent. Et si aliquis illorum donum aut promis- sum dum in placitum fatiat illud nunquam recipient, neque aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis. Et quod illi nullum modum premii accipient, nee aliquis per ipsos vel pro ipsis, pro injuria allevanda vel pro jure sternendo. Et concessum est inter ipsos quod si aliquis inde attinctus vel convictus fuerit, libertatem civitatis et eorum societatem amittet."^ Of a body of twenty^/bar councillors, nothing has hitherto been known. To a body of twenty-five there is this one reference : Hoc anno fuerunt xxv electi de discretioribus civitatis, et jurati pro consulendo civitatem una cum Maiore.^ The year is Mich. 1200-Mich. 1201 ; but the authority is not first-rate. Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much discussed. The latest ex- position is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk to the City Corporation : Soon after John's accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), "were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor." Just as, in the constitution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the City — described by Lord Coke as epitome totius regni — the establish- ment of a court of aldermen preceded that of a common council.' '^ Add. MS. 14,252, fo. no. * Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc), p. 2. * London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 72. 238 THE TWENTY-FOUR COUNCILLORS Mr. Loftie, however, had pointed out several years before that this view was erroneous : It has sometimes been assumed that this was the beginning of the court of aldermen. As we have seen, however, the aldermen were in existence long before, and the question is how far they were, under ordinary circumstances, the councillors and assistants of the mayor.^ To any one, indeed, who realizes what the Alder- men were it should be obvious that the passage in question could not possibly apply to them. In his larger work, Mr. Loftie held that these councillors eventually became " identified with the aldermen," but he brought out the very important point that their number could not be that of the wards. The twenty-five councillors who advised the Mayor in the reign of King John had gradually become identified with the aldermen ; and this title, which at first was applied to the heads of trade guilds and other functionaries, was henceforth confined to the rulers of the wards. [Note]. It has been suggested that the twenty-five councillors came from the twenty-five wards, but a chronological arrangement of the facts disposes of this idea. There were not twenty-five wards then in existence — moreover, it would be necessary to account for twenty-six, if the mayor is reckoned. ^ As, then, they were not representatives of the wards their character is left obscure. But when we turn to the foreign evidence, the nature of the twenty-four becomes manifest at once ; and we find in it conclu- sive proof that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. M. Giry's able treatise on the " Etablissements de Rouen " shows us the " Vingt Quatre " forming the administrative body, annually elected, which acted as the Mayor's Council. 1 London (1887), p. 45. * History of London, i. 190. 239 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON And the oath they had to take on their election, as described in the ' Etablissements,' bears, it will be seen, a marked resemblance to that of the " xxiiij" " in London. (II). De centum vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor, assensu centum parium, qui singulis annis removebuntur ; quoram duodecim eschevini vocabuntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti quatuor, in principio sui anni, jurabunt se servaturos jura sancte ecclesie et fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam quod et ipse recte judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam, etc. LIV. Iterum, major et eschevini et pares, in principio sui eschevinatus, jurabunt eque judicare, nee pro inimicitia nee pro amicitia injuste judicabunt. Iterum, jurabunt se nullos denarios nee premia capturos, quod et eque judicabunt secundum suam conscienciam. LV. Si aliquis juratorum possit comperi accepisse premium pro aliqua questione de qua aliquis trahatur in eschevinagio, domus ejus . . . prostematur, nee amplius ille qui super hoc deliraverit, nee ipse, nee heres ejus dominatum in communia habebit. The three salient features in common are (i) the oath to administer justice fairly, (2) the special pro- visions against bribery, (3) the expulsion of any member of the body convicted of receiving a bribe. If we had only "the oath of the Commune," we might have remained in doubt as to the nature of the administrative body ; but we can now assert, on continental analogy, that its twenty-four members comprised twelve " skevini " and an equal number of councillors. We can also assert that it administered justice, even though this has been unsuspected, and may, indeed, at first arouse question. It will, naturally, now be asked : What became of these " twenty-four," who formed the Mayor's council in the days of John ? Mr. Loftie, we have seen, held 240 OATH OF COMMON COUNCIL that they became "identified with the Aldermen"; my own view is that, on the contrary, they were the germ of the Common Council. The vital distinction to be kept in mind is that the Alderman was essentially the ofificer in charge of a ward, while the Common Council, as one body, represented the City as a whole. In questions of this kind little reliance can be placed on late commentators ; but t}ae.formulcs of oaths are usually ancient, and often enshrine information on the duties of an office in the past. Now the oath of a mem- ber of the Common Council contains significant clauses : Sacramentum . . . hominum ad Commune Consilium electorum est tale : . . . bonum et fidele consilium dabis, secundum sensum et scire tuum ; et pro nuUius favore manutenebis proficium singulare contra proficium publicum vel commune dictas civitatis ; et postquam veneris ad Commune Consilium, sine causa rationabili vel Majoris licentia non recedes priusquam Major et socii sui recesserint ; et quod dictum fuerit in Communi Consilio celabis, etc.^ It is not only that this is essentially the oath of one whose function it is to be a councillor : the striking^ point is that it contains three provisions in common with those which bound, at Rouen, the " Vingtquatre." The councillor was (i) not to be influenced by private favour; (2) not to leave the Council without the Mayor's permission ; ^ (3) to keep secret its proceedings.* I * Liber Albus, i. 41. 2 " Quicumque predictorum, sine licentia majoris abierit de con- gregacione aliorum, tantundem paccabit," etc. ('^tablissements,' § 4). ' ''Si quid major celari preceperit, celabunt. Hoc quicunque detexerit, a suo officio deponetur," etc. ( ' Etablissements,' § 2). 241 R THE COMMUNE OF LONDON do not say, of course, that there is verbal concord- ance; but when we turn to the oath of the Alder- man, we see at once how much less resemblance his duties have to those of the " Twenty-four." ^ It presents him as primarily the head of a Ward, respon- sible for certain matterg within the compass of that Ward. He has to take part with the Mayor in assize, pleas, and hustings ; ^ but his functions as councillor obtain only a brief mention in his oath (" et que boun et loial conseil durrez a ley choses touchantz le comune profit en mesme la citee"). If any doubt is felt on the subject, it should be removed by turning to the case of Winchester. There, as in London, according to the ancient custumal of the city, we find the Mayor closely associated with a council of "Twenty-four," which, in that case, con- tinued to exist down to 1835 : II iert en la vile mere eleu par commun assentement des vint et quatre jures et de la commune . . . le quel mere soit remuable de an en an . . . Derechef en la cite deivent estre vint et quatre jurez esluz des plus prudeshommes e des plus sages de la vile e leaument eider e conseiller le avandit mere a franchise sauver et sustener.^ It is clear, to me, that "the Twenty-Four" were no more elected by the Wards (as is persistently believed) in London than at Winchester, but by the city as a whole, though we must not define the Franchise. The Winchester Aldermen, on the contrary, were distinctly district officers, as in London, " whose functions ^ See Liber Albus, i. 307-8. 2 Compare the case quoted in Palgrave's ' Commonwealth,' II. p. clxxxiii. 3 Arch. Journ., ix. 70. 242 THE ALDERMEN AND THE COMMUNE related chiefly, but not wholly, to the police and pre- servation of order, health, and cleanliness within their several limits." ^ Moreover, they retained at Win- chester, down to a late period, their distinct character and existence. According to Dean Kitchin : The aldermen, in later days the civic aristocracy, were originally officers placed over each of the wards of the city, and entrusted with the administration of it. . . . It was not till early in the sixteenth century that they were interposed between the mayca: and the twenty-four men.^ The general powers for the whole town possessed by the Mayor and his council were quite distinct from the local powers of each Alderman in his district. For my part, I cannot resist the impression that, while the sheriff, bailiff, or reeve represented the power of the Crown, and the Alderman the old local officer, the council of twenty-four, so closely associated with the Mayor, and not the representatives of districts, were a later introduction, of different character, and repre- senting the commercial as against the territorial element. Whether the Aldermen joined the council in later days or not, they were never, I believe, originally or essentially, a part of that body. The chief objection, probably, to connecting the " commune " of London with the " fitablissements de Rouen " will be found in the fact that the latter refer to a system based on a body of a hundred pares, of which body there does not seem to be any trace in England, At Winchester the pares were "the twenty-four." It is obvious that, in this respect, there is a marked discrepancy ; but if the electoral body was ^ Ibid. p. 8i. 2 Historic Towns: Winchester, p. i66. 243 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON different, the executive, at any rate, was the same. And if, as must be admitted, there was a foreign element introduced, it would be naturally from Nor- mandy that it came."^ Writing in 1893, before I had discovered the documents on which I. have dwelt above, I in- sisted on the foreign origin of the London " com- mune," and pointed out that the close association between London and Rouen at the time suggested that the office of Mayor was derived by the former from the latter.^ It may be permissible to repeat this argument from presumption, although its form was adapted to a wider circle than that of scholars. The beffroi of France, to which the jurat looked as the symbol and pledge of independence, is found here also in the bell-tower of St. Paul's, which is styled in documents either by that name (berefridurn), or by that of campanile, which brings before us at once the storm- tost commonwealths of Italy. It was indeed from Italy that the fire of freedom spread. With the rise of mediaeval commerce it was carried from the Alps to the Rhine, and quickly burst into flame among the traders and craftsmen of Flanders. Passing into Picardy, it crossed the Channel, according to a theory I have myself advanced, to reappear in the liberties of the Cinque Ports, with their French name, >■ In his valuable ' Etude sur les origines de la commune de St Quentin,' M. Giry has shown that this early example, with those derived from it, was distinguished by the separate existence and status of the ichevins. Nor have the ^tablissements as much in common with the London commune as those of Rouen. * Archaeological Journal, l. 256-260. 244 NORMAN INFLUENCE IN LONDON their French " serements " and their French jurats} Foreign merchants had brought it with them to the port of Exeter also, almost as early as the Conquest, and we cannot doubt that London as well was already infected with the movement, and eager to find in the foreign " commune " the means of attaining that administrative autonomy and political independence which that term virtually expressed. Hostile though our kings might be to the- communal movement here, they favoured it for purposes of their own in their Norman dominions. This is a factor in the problem that we cannot afford to overlook, con- sidering the peculiar relation in which Normandy stood to England. As M. Langlois has observed : Jamais en effet la France et I'Angleterre n'ont ^t^ mfeme de nos jours, aussi intiment en contact . . . Jusqu'k la fin du xii"" sifecle, les deux pays eurent k peu prfes les mSmes institutions poli- tiques, ils pratiquaient la meme religion, on y parlait la meme langue. Des Frangais allaient fr^quemment dans I'ile comme touristes, comme colons, comme marchands. Was it not then from Normandy that London would derive her commune ? And if from Normandy, surely from Rouen. We are apt to forget the close connec- tions between the two capitals of our Anglo-Norman kings, London on the Thames, and Rouen on the Seine. A student of the period has written of these : Citizens of Norman origin, to whom London, in no small measure, owed the marked importance which it obtained under Henry I. . . . Merchants, traders, craftsmen of all sorts, came flocking to seek their fortunes in their sovereign's newly-acquired dominions, not by forcible spoliation of the native people, but by fair traffic and honest labour in their midst. . . . Norman refinement, Norman taste, ^ Feudal England, 552 ^/ seq. 245 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON Norman fashions, especially in dress, made their way rapidly among the English burghers. . . . The great commercial centre to which the Norman merchants had long been attracted as visitors, attracted them as settlers now that it had become the capital of their own sovereign.^ It is known from the ' Instituta Londoniae ' that, so far back as the days of ^thelred, the men of Rouen had traded to London, bringing in their ships the wines of France, as well as that mysterious "cras- pice," which it is the fashion to render "sturgeon," although there is reason to believe that the term denoted the porpoise and even the whale. The charter of Henry, duke of the Normans, to the citizens of Rouen (1150-1), brings out a fact unknown to English historians, by confirming to them their port at Dowgate, as they had held it from the days of Edward the Confessor. And the same charter, by securing them their right to visit all the markets in England, carries back that privilege, I believe, to the days at least of Henry I. ; for, although the fact had escaped notice both in France and England, it could neither have originated with Count Geoffrey nor with Duke Henry his son. Nor does the interest of this Rouen charter stop here. Among the sureties for the young Duke's fidelity to his word we find Richer de Laigle, the youthful friend of Becket, " a constant visitor," as Miss Norgate, writes, " and intimate friend of the little household in Cheapside." And does not the name of Becket remind us how " Thomas of London, the burgher's son," afterwards " Archbishop, saint and ^ Norgate's ' England under the Angevin Kings,' i. 48-9. 246 THE ' ETABLISSEMENTS DE ROUEN' martyr," had for his father a magnate of London, but one who was by birth a citizen of Rouen ? Therefore, the same writer is probably justified in maintaining that " the influence of these Norman burghers was dominant in the city." They seem, she adds, "to have won their predominance by fair means, fairly. They brought a great deal more than mere wealth ; they brought enterprise, vigour, refinement, culture, as well as political progress."^ Now it is my contention that political progress was represented with them by the communal idea. Their interests, moreover, would be wholly commercial, and, therefore, opposed to those of the native territorial element. If we turn to Rouen, we find its Mayor occurring fifteen years at least before the Mayor of London, and styled Mayor of the " Commune " of Rouen — " Major de Communia." For Rouen was a stronghold of the "Commune." It is of importance, therefore, for our purpose to ascertain at what period the communal organization originated at Rouen. In spite of the close attention, from the days of Ch^ruel downwards, that the subject has attracted in France, the conclusions attained cannot be deemed altogether satisfactory. The monograph devoted by M. Giry to the " Etab- lissements de Rouen," ^ represents the fine fieur of French historical scholarship, and its conclusions, ^ These passages are quoted to show that the influence of Rouen on London is admitted by an independent writer. ^ 'Les Etablissements de Rouen' (Bibliothfeque de I'dcoledes hautes Etudes, pubU^e sous les auspices du Ministere de I'instruction publique, 1883). 247 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON therefore, deserve no ordinary consideration. But on one point of the utmost importance, namely, the date at which these " EtabHssements " were compiled, I venture to hold an independent view. The initial difficulty is thus stated by the brilliant French scholar : L'original n'existe plus, et I'on ne sait k quelle dpoque precise il faut faire remonter leur adoption dans les villas de Rouen et de la Rochelle qui les ont eus avant tous les autres (p. 2). The first allusion to the jurisdiction exercised by the Commune of Rouen is found, says M. Giry, in the charter granted it by Henry II. shortly after its gal- lant defence against the French king. He then proceeds : C'est du reste k la fin du regne de Henri II. que nous voyons pour la premiere fois la ville de Rouen dScor^e du litre de Commune (communt'a) dans un grand nombre de chartes dont les listes de tdmoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 et 118 9. Dans ces chartes les mentions d'un maire, de pairs, d'un bailli, nous font voir qu'alors dejk la ville jouissait de I'organisation municipale que les Etablisse- ments exposent avec plus de details ; elles nous permettent de croire que cette constitution, h, peu pres telle qu'elle nous est parvenue y e'tait alors en vigueur (p. 28). A footnote is appended, giving " I'indication de quelques-unes des chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles s'appuie cette demonstration" : [i] "Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173-1181) . . . Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis " . . . [2] "in presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie Rothomagensis (1177-1189) et parium ipsius civitatis," etc. The expert will perceive that these two charters "demonstrate," not a date "entre 11 73 et 1189," 248 THE COMMUNE OF ROUEN but between 1177 and 1181. For if Bartholomew's rule as mayor began in 1177, the first cannot be of earlier date ; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in 1181/ its mention of a "commune " cannot be of later date than that year. As a matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters (from which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bar- tholomew was mayor earlier than 11 77; but I am, for the moment, only concerned with M. Giry's dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing the claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes : Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient decider meme la question d'ant^rioritd, puisqu'ils ne donnent que des dpoques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen antra 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle antra 1169 at 1199 (pp. 67-8.; No reference is given for the date " 1183," but it must be derived from the " demonstration " on p. 29 (foot- note), where a charter is mentioned which speaks of the "Communio Rothomagi" in the time of arch- bishop Hugh, "1129-1183." But now comes the startling fact. It was not Hugh who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had died so early as 11 64. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it proves that the "communio" was in exis- tence, and (as M. Giry holds), the " r^tablissements " with it, at least as early as 11 64. But the fact is that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, of duke Henry's charter, " la communio Rotho- magi (art. 7) ne ddsigne que la communautd des citoyens" (p. 26); it does not prove the existence of ^ He became, in that year, bishop of Lisieux. 249 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON a commune, and, of course, still less of the " !]£tablisse- ments." But I would urge that not even the mention of a ti-ae, commune ("communia") in a charter proves the adoption of the " ^^tablissements " at the time. For Henry's grant of a "communia" to La Rochelle was made, according to M. Giry, between 1 169 and 1 178 ;^ and yet, as we have seen, he does not deem the adop- tion of the " jfitablissements " at La Rochelle proved before 1199. Ii^ that year Queen Eleanor granted to Saintes "ut communiam suam teneant secundum formam et modum communie de Rochella." Even this, I venture to think, is not actual proof that the " Etablissements de Rouen " had already been adopted at La Rochelle, though it certainly affords some pre- sumption in favour of that view. It is only when we turn from this external evidence to the text of the " ^Etablissements " themselves, that we discover, in two passages, a direct clue. In these an exception is made in the words : " nisi dominus rex vel filius ejus adsint Rothomagi vel assisia" (ii. 24, 28). On these M. Giry writes : Les articles qui pr^voient la presence S. Rouen du roi ou de son fils ne peuvent guere s'appliquer qu'^ Henri II. et k. Richard Cceur- de-Lion. C'est done des dernieres ann6es du regne de Henri II., apres I'ann^e 1169, qu'il faut dater la redaction des Etablissements (i. II). Here, then, we have yet another limit — the last (twenty) years of Henry II. No reference, however, is given for the date " 1169" (unless it applies to La ^ I am in a position to date this charter precisely as at or about Feb., 1175. 250 ROUEN AND LA ROCHELLE Rochelle — and even then it is wrong).^ But my point is that between the years "1169" (or "1177") and " 1 183 " the king's son here mentioned was, obviously, not Richard, but Henry, styled king of the English and duke of the Normans, from his coronation in 11 70 to his death in 1183. And, even after Henry's death, Richard was never duke of the Normans in his father's lifetime. My own conclusion, therefore, is that these parts, at least of the " Etablissements," and probably the whole of them, were composed before the death of the young king in 1183, and probably after his corona- tion, and admission to a share of his father's power, in 1 1 70. Thus they may well have been connected with Henry's charter to Rouen granted in 11 74-1 175. These considerations may have led us somewhat far afield ; but if I am right in deriving from the Norman capital of our kings the 12th century "Commune of London," the origins of the Rouen " Commune " deserve our careful study. The same MS. which yielded the leading document in this paper contains two others, of which something must be said. But before doing so we will glance at one of different origin, which, in more ways than one, we may associate with the ' Commune.' ^ Recurring, in his " Conclusions " at the end of the volume, to this question of date, M. Giry seems to combine two of his different limits : " L'^tude du texte nous a permis de fixer la redaction des Etablissements aux dernieres anndes du regne de Henri II., apres ii6g. Nous Savons, de plus que La Rochelle les avait adopt^s avant 1199, que Rouen les avait egalement possddes vers la meme dpoque, entre 1177 et 1183" (p. 427). Of these dates, I can only repeat that " 1183 " has its origin in an error ; " 1177 "is, I think, a mistake, and "1169" difficult to understand. My forthcoming calendar of charters in France will throw fresh light upon the date. 251 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON The charter which follows is chiefly introduced for the interesting phrase found in it : " the greater barons of the city." So far as I know, this phrase is unique ; and apart from its importance for London itself, it has a direct bearing on that famous constitutional problem : who were the "barones. majores" ? In the present case, the phrase, surely, has no specialized meaning. It is probably a coincidence, and nothing more, that "majores" and "minores," at St. Quentin, had a defined meaning. In M. Giry's treatise on its com- mune we read as follows : Notons ici que les citoyens ayant exerce les fonctions de jur^s et d'dchevins formaient dans la ville une veritable aristocratic : on les appelait les grands bourgeois, majores burgenses, par opposition aux petits bourgeois, minores burgenses, qui comprenaient tons les autres membres de la commune (p. cxi.). And again : A Saint-Quentin, comme dans toutes les communes, le pouvoir ^tait aux mains des habitants riches qu'on appelait, ainsi qu'il a ^t^ dit plus haut, les grands bourgeois {majores burgenses), parce qu'ils avaient exercd les charges municipales, et pour les distinguer des petits bourgeois {minores burgenses), denomination appliqu^e S, tous ceux qui n'avaient point rempli les fonctions de jur^ ou d'dchevin. En 1318, pendent la suspension de la commune, ces petits bourgeois se plaignirent de la mauvaise repartition des tailles et traduisirent devant le Parlement les grands bourgeois, auteurs des roles d'imposi- tion incrimines (p. cxv.). The original of this charter is preserved at the Public Record Office.^ It is assigned in the official calendar to 11 89-1 196, but this date can be greatly narrowed. For while it is subsequent to William's consecration (31st Dec, 11 89), it must be previous to his obtaining the legation in June, 1190, for Bishop ^ Ancient Deeds, A. 1477. 252 LONGCHAMP AND THE CITY Hugh was his open foe before he lost it, and could not act with him after that. Willelnius dei gratia Elyensis episcopus Domini Regis cancellarius iiniversis Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit salutem in vero salutari. Universitati vestre notum fieri volumus nos dedisse at concessisse et present! carta nostra confirmasse dilecto et familiari nostro Gaufrido Blundo civi Lond' et heredibus suis totam terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et rebus cunctis que ad predictam terram pertinent, quam terram et quod mesuagium cum pertinentiis emimus de Waltero Lorengo qui fuit nepos Petri filii Walteri* et Roberti filii Walteri et eorum heres per veredictum tocius civitatis Londoniarum {sic), et hoc testificatum fuit coram nobis a maioribus baronibus civitatis apud Turrim Lond'. Que terra et quod mesua- gium cum pertinentiis fuerunt predicti Petri filii Walteri et predicti Roberti filii Walteri qui fuerunt avunculi predicti Walteri Loreng' et jacent in parochia Sancti Laurentii de Judaismo et in parochia Sancte Marie de Aldermanebery, habendum et tenendum predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis jure hereditario imperpetuum cum omnibus pertinentiis et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et cum omnibus rebus, scilicet quicquid ibidem habuimus in terris, in lignis, in lapidibus, in redditibus, et in rebus cunctis, sine aliquo reteni- mento faciendo inde servicium quod inde capitali domino debet, scilicet vj d. per annum ad Pasch' pro omni servitio. Hanc vero terram et mesuagium cum pertinentiis, ut predictum est, ego Willelmus predictus et heredes nostri predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis contra omnes gentes imperpetuum warrantizabimus. Pro hac donatione et concessione et carte nostre confirmatione predictus Gaufridus Blund dedit nobis quatuor viginti et decern libras argenti in gersumam. Et ut hec nostra donatio et concessio rata et inconcussa predicto Gaufrido et heredibus suis imperpetuum per- maneat, eam presenti scripto et sigilli nostri munimine corroboravi- mus. Hiis testibus: Hugoni Cestrensi episcopoj Henrico de Longo Campo fratre nostro ; Willelmo de Brause ; Henrico de Comhell' ; Willelmo Puintel; Ricardo filio Reineri; Henrico filio Ailwin'; 1 Sheriff of London 1 174-6. Also Alderman (Palgrave, IL clxxxiii.). 253 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON Waltero de Hely senescallo nostro ; Matheo de Alenzun camerario nostro ; magistro Michaele ; Willelmo de Sancto Michaele ; Gaufrido Bucuinte; Simone de Aldermannebury; Baldewino capellano nostro ; Stephano Blundo ; Philippo elemosinario nostro ; magistro Willelmo de Nanntes; Daniele de Longo Campo clerico nostro; Reimundo clerico nostro, et multis aliis. We have here a remarkable group of men — Long- champ himself, whose fall, in 1191, was so closely- connected with the birth of the commune, but who is here seen, in the hour of his pride, speaking of " our brother," "our seneschal," "our chamberlain," "our chaplain," "our almoner," and "our clerks"; Bishop Hugh, who was next year to take the lead in ex- pelling him from the Tower, as yet his stronghold ; Henry of Cornhill and Richard Fitz Reiner, who had ceased but a few months before to be sheriffs of London, and who were to play so prominent a part at the crisis of 1191 ; lastly, Henry Fitz Ailwin him- self, who, as the ultimate result of that crisis, was destined to become the first Mayor of the Commune of London. The grantee himself also was a well-known citizen of London. In conjunction with Henry Fitz Ailwin (as Mayor) and other City magnates, he witnessed a gift of property in the City to St. Mary's, Clerkenwell ;^ and he seems to have been the Geoffrey Blund who had, by his wife Ida de Humfraville, a son Thomas, who founded a chantry in St. Paul's for his uncle Richard de Humfraville, and his father Geoffrey. For the London topographer also this charter has an interest, as land in St. Lawrence Jewry, and 1 Cot MS. Faust, B. ii., fo. 66 d. 254 WATCH AND WARD St. Mary Aldermanbury, must have closely adjoined the site of the Guildhall itself. The sum named is a large one for the time. I now pass to the two documents of which mention has been made above. The first of these ^ is of in- terest for its bearing on the " ward " system. At Rouen the " excubia " was in charge of the mayor ; * in London, according to this document, he had not supplanted the sheriffs, by whom it must have been controlled before his appearance. This I attribute to its close connexion with the pre-existing system of " wards," each, I take it, a unit for purposes of de- fence and ward, under its own alderman, with the sheriffs at the head of the whole system. De Excubiis in Natali et Pascha et Pentecost.' Magna custodia debet invenire xii homines sed per libitum vice- comitis abbreviata est usque ad viii homines. Mediocris custodia debet viii vigiles, sed ita abbreviata usque sex. Minor custodia debet sex, sed ita abbreviata usque ad iiij". Debent autem escavingores * eligi qui singulis diebus a vigilia Nat[alis] domini usque ad diem epyphanie videant illos qui debent de nocte vigilare quod sint homines defensibiles et decenter ad hoc armati. Debent autem ad vesperam in die videri et ad horam completorii exire et per totam noctem pacifice vigilare et vicum salve custodire usque pulsetur ad matutinas per capellas, quod vo- ^ Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106. ^ " Major debet custodire claves civitatis et cum assensu parium talibus hominibus tradere in quibus salve sint. " Si aliquis se absentaverit de excubia ipse erit in misericordia majoris secundum quod tunc fuerit magna necessitas excubandi" (' Etablissements de Rouen,' ii. 44). ^ Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106. * MS. ' escauingores.' 255 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON catur daibeUe. Et si aliqua defalta in custodia contigerit, esca- vingores debent illos inbreviare et ad primum hustingum vicecomi- tibus tradere. Potest eciam vicecomes, si vult, cogere eos jurare de defalta quod nulli inde deferebunt nee aliquem celabunt. De Cartis Civitatis. In thesauro due regis Willelmi primi et due de libertatibus regis Ricardi et de eodem rage due carte de kidellis et de rege Johanne due carte de vicecom[itatu], una de libertate et una de kidellis cum sigillo de communi cons ^ (sid) habet i cartam regis Johannis de libertate civitatis W. fil' Ren' habet i regis Henrici de liber- tate et H[enricus] de Cornh[illa] aliam, Ilog[erus] maior habet cartam E.egin[aldi ?] de CornhpUa] de debito civitatis de ccc marcis. The latter portion, it will be observed, describes the custody of the city charters, and is of special value as fixing the date to that of the mayoralty of Roger, who held the office in 12 13. The regulations for the watch are decisive, surely, of the functions originally discharged by the " scav- engers " of London. They were inspectors of the watch. In his introduction to the 'Liber Albus'(i859) Mr. Riley held that — The City Scavagers, it appears, were originally public officers, whose duty it was to attend at the Hythes and Quays for the purpose of taking custom upon the Scavage (i.e. Showage) or opening out of imported goods. At a later period, however, it was also their duty, as already mentioned, to see that due precautions were taken in the construction of houses against fire ; in addition to which it was their business to see that the pavements were kept in repair. . . . These officers, no doubt, gave name to the ^Scavengers' of the present day (p. xli. ; cf. iii. 352, 357). Professor Skeat adopts this view in his etymolo- ^ ? consilio. 256 THE 'DONUM' OF LONDON gical Dictionary, and develops it at some length, holding that " the n before g is intrusive " as in some other cases, " and scavenger stands for scavager." He consequently connects the word with our " shew," through " scavage." But no evidence whatever is adduced by Mr. Riley for his assertion that the " Scavagers " originally performed the above duty or had anything to do with it. The last of these London records with which I have here to deal is the so-called " Hidagium " of Middlesex.^ The explanation of its thus, appearing among documents relating to the administration of London is that when London and Middlesex were jointly "farmed" by the citizens, the sheriffs an- swered jointly for the ' Danegeld ' of Middlesex and the corresponding donum or auxilium, of London. Here therefore we find these two levies side by side as on the Pipe Rolls. But though the latter was levied from the city when Danegeld was levied from the shire, it was in no way connected with hidation, but consisted of arbitrary sums payable by the principal towns. Prof Maitland, therefore, is mis- taken when, in his great work, ' Domesday Book and Beyond,' he makes a solitary reference to our MS., as implying that London " seems to have gelded for 1,200 hides" (p. 409). He has here confused the assessed hidage of boroughs with the arbitrary donum or auxilium. This is shown by comparing the latter, as given by himself (p. 175), with the ascertained hidage of towns and the payments its sum would involve. * Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 126. 257 s THE COMMUNE OF LONDON hides. [geld.] donum. Worcester 15 jCi 10 /15 Northampton . 25 2 10 10 Dorset Boroughs 45 4 10 10 15 Huntingdon . 50 500 8 Hertford 10 I 5 But the special interest of the entry, " c et xx libr." (;^i2o) lies in the fact that this amount, which was the sum paid in 1130 and 11 56, was obsolete after that time, much larger sums being thenceforth exacted from London. It is, of course, just possible that the obsolete figure was retained, as a protest, on this list ; but it is far more probable that what we have here is a copy iemp. John of an earlier document, perhaps not later than the middle of the 12 th century.^ HIDAGIUM COMITATUS TOCIUS MIDDLESEXE. In Hundredo de Osulvestune. Villa de Stebehee . P hid. Terra de Fafintune iiij hid.8 H[er]gotestune ij hid. Abb'is Brambelee . V hid. Fulcham 1^ hid. Villa sancti Petri . xvj hid. 2 dimid. Hamstede . V hid. iiij abb's * Lya X hid. abb'is Tolendune . ij hid. Terra Gub'ti . dim. hid. Abbas Colcestr' dim. hid. Chelchede . ij. hid abb'is Kensintune . X hid. Lilletune V hid. ^ The ' th ' in the first ' Spelethorn ' is an Anglo-Saxon character. * This is the " Terra Roberti Fafiton " (at Stepney) of Domesday, L 130. ' Cf. Domesday, i. 128. 258 THE HIDAGE OF MIDDLESEX Tiburne Willesdune Herlestune Tuferd . . vhid. Vs. XV hid. V hid. iiij xij d. hid. Sum [ma] c et quater xx hid. et xi hid. et dim. In Hundred' de Ystelwrke c et V hid. Stanes . Stanwelle Bedefunte alia Bedefunte Feltham Kenetune Suiieb[er]ia Sep[er]tune Hanewrtha In Hundredo de Spelethorn. XXXV hid. Abb' XV hid. X hid. X hid. XV hid. V hid. vij hid. viij hid. V hid. Abb. Abb. iij Abb' Summa c et x hid. Herghes Kingesb[er]ia Stanmere Terra com' . Alia Stanmere Heneclune ^ . In Hundredo de la Gare. c hid. X hid. ix hid. vj hid. ix. hid. et dim. XX hid. Abb. Summa c et xl et ix hid. In Dimidio Hundredo de Mimes Ixx hid. Toteham . . . . . [5]^ hid. Edelmetune p -1 * hid. Mimes L^ 5 J hid. Enefeld xxx hid. Summa Ix et ix hid. Summa summarum octies c et Iiij hid. et dimid. Summa Hidarum Abbatie Westm'. . c et xviij hid. ^ Rectius " Hendune." ^ From Domesday Book. 259 THE COMMUNE OF LONDON Danegeld. Middelsexe quater xx libr" et c sol. et vj d. Londr* c et xx libr. Osuluestane . Spelthorn Elethorn Garehundr' . Thistelwrkhundr' SUMMA HUNDREDORUM. cc et xj bid. c et X hid. cc et xxiiij hid c et xlix hid. et dim. c et V hid. Explicit de comitatu de Middelsexe. This list obviously requires to be edited by a local worker, who should collate it with Domesday. In its present form it is clearly corrupt. The amount of Danegeld due from the county implies an assessment of 850J hides (at two shillings on the hide), but the actual total is here given as 853^. This again does not tally with the " summa hundredorum," which only records 809^,^ while the detailed list of hundreds, it seems, gives no more than 72^^. It should be ob- served that the hundred of " Mimms " is the Domes- day hundred of Edmonton, while that of ' Isleworth,' similarly, is the Domesday hundred of Hounslow, which contained Isleworth and Hampton. ^ This may be chiefly due to omitting " Mimms " (70 hides) and reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much. 260 I XII The Great Inquest of Service, 12 12 T will be my object in this paper to recover and identify the fragments of a great national inquest, which seems to have escaped the notice of constitu- tional historians, and which, if its full returns had been preserved, might not unworthily be compared with the Domesday Inquest itself. In the course of doing so, I shall hope to prove that abstracts of these re- turns have been wrongly assigned by all antiquaries to an earlier and imaginary inquest, and that their belief has recently received an official confirmation. The solution I shall now propound will remove the ad- mitted difficulties, to which the existing belief on the MSS. has, we shall find, given rise. The bewildering congeries of returns known as the ' Testa de Nevill ' — an Edwardian manuscript shovelled together, and printed by the old Record Commission in 1807 — has long been at once the hunt- ing-ground and the despair of the topographer and the student of genealogy. Now that the returns con- tained in the Red Book of the Exchequer are also at length in type,^ it is possible to collate the two collec- tions, and thus to remove, in part at least, the ob- scurity that has hitherto surrounded them. ^ The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. 469-574. 261 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 Mr. Hall, in his preface to the ' Red Book,' writes thus : The Sergeanties and Inquisitions which form a considerable part of the Feodary in the Red Book of the Exchequer, have hitherto been little known, and their true value has been by no means sufficiently appreciated. This neglect has perhaps arisen from the greater convenience 6f reference to the printed collection known as the Testa de Nevill; but as it is now very generally re- cognised that the text of this work is far from satisfactory in its pre- sent form, the evidence of the kindred returns contained in earlier Exchequer Registers deserves our most careful attention (p. ccxxi.). In the ' Red Book' itself the returns are headed : Inquisitiones factse tempore regis Johannis per totam Angliam anno scilicet regni sui xii° et xiii° in quolibet comitatu de servitiis militum et aliorum qui de eo tenent in capite secundum rotulos liberates thesaurario per manus vicecomitum Angliae tempore prae- dicto (p. 469). They are accordingly given, by the editor, the mar'- ginal date "i 210-12 12" throughout (pp. 469-574). On the other hand, the ' Testa de Nevill ' returns were, as he shows, delivered at the Exchequer on the morrow of St. John the Baptist (25th June), 1212 (p. ccxxi.). Thus then we have, according to him, two successive and " independent returns " : (i) The ' Liber Rubeus ' returns made between May, 12 10, and May, 1212. (2) The ' Testa de Nevill ' returns made in June, 1212.^ It is necessary to keep these dates very clearly in mind, because, although the editor accepts the ' Red Book ' statement, and adopts accordingly the marginal ^ Mr. Hall has since, in the 'Athenaeum' (loth Sept., 1898), re- peated the view that the ' Red Book ' returns were " made in the two preceding years." 262 THE RED BOOK 'INQUISITIONS' date "I2IO-I2I2," he yet, by an incomprehensible confusion, speaks of the same as the Inquisition of " I2IO-I2II " on p. ccxxviii. (dzs), and even as "the earlier Inquisition of 1210 entered in the Red Book" (p. ccxxvi.), and of "the two independent returns of 1 2 10 and 12 12" with "two stormy years" between them (p. ccxxiv.) ; while in another place he actually dates the said "returns of 12 10" as belonging to " 1212" (p. clxv.). He thus dates the Red Book In- quisitions in one place ' 12 10-12 12,' in another ' 1210- 121 1,' in a third ' 12 10,' and in a fourth ' 12 12.' Now I may explain at the outset that what I pro- pose to do is to show that instead of two Inquests (one recorded in the ' Red Book ' and the other in the 'Testa'), there was only a single Inquest, with one series of returns, and that this was the Inquest of June, 1 2 12. As this view is in direct conflict with the heading in the ' Red Book ' itself, we must first glance at Mr. Hall's statement that " the date of the Inquisitions entered in the Red Book can be proved from internal evidence " (p. ccxxiii.). What he there claims to prove is that their date is between 1 209 and " the early part of 1 2 13." Such a conclusion, it will be perceived, in no way proves that they do not belong, as I shall contend they do belong, to June, 121 2. Putting aside the ob- vious and inherent improbability of an Inquest being made in 1212 on the very matter which had formed the subject of an Inquest only just concluded, we need only compare the returns to prove their common origin. Mr. Hall observes that at times we come upon a passage of a few lines or a whole page or more 263 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 in theMSS., headed in the later Register ' De Testa de Nevill,' dated in the original rolls in the 14th year of John, and corresponding entry for entry with the Red Book Inquest of the 12th and 13th years of that reign (p. ccxxv.). But the obvious inference that the two Inquests were really one and the same seems not to have occurred to him. We will glance, therefore, at the parallel returns he has himself selected. Foremost among these is "the Middlesex Inquisition" for 1212, of which he has printed " the original return " as an appendix to his Preface (pp. ccxxvi., cclxxxii.-iv.), for comparison with the texts in the ' Red Book' and in the ' Testa de Nevill.' But he warns us that the numerous variants and the independent wording of the entries, as well as the thirteenth century note " in Libro " on the bottom of the Roll, forbid the supposition that this is really an original of the earlier Inquisition of 12 10 {sic) entered in the Red Book. The " original " return and the two texts all begin with the " Honour " of William de Windsor, who in- herited from his Domesday ancestor, Walter fitz Other, a compact block of four manors. East and West Bedfont, Stanwell, and Hatton, in the south-west of the county. The first entry is for East Bedfont, and the second ran, in the "original" return : " Wal- terius Bedestfont, Andreas Bucherel, feudum unius militis." But Walterius, Mr. Hall tells us, was "al- tered in a contemporary hand to " in alterius." The ' Testa ' renders this as " in villa alterius," while the ' Red Book ' gives us " Walterius de Bedefonte, Andreas Bukerellus j feodum." There can be no question that the 'Testa de Nevill' is right, and that Andrew Bucherel was the sole tenant of the fee, for the scutage 264 ARRANGEMENT OF RETURNS is accounted for accordingly on the same page (p. 361). It follows, therefore, that the 'Red Book' and the " original " return have both evolved, in error, a Walter de Bedfont from " in alteri " Bedfont. Hence I conclude that the strip of parchment termed by Mr. Hall " the original return," was not the original return, and that the error common to the ' Red Book ' and it- self demonstrates a close connection between the two. But if this document was not the original return, what was ? To answer this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How signifi- cantly close is the parallel these entries will show : Comes Albemarlie j tnilitem et Comes Albemarlie tenet Saver- dimidium in Severnestoke, pro nestoke de done regis Ricardi per qua et Kenemertone et Botintone servicium j militis et dimidii pro in Gloucestresyra Rex acquietat qua et pro Kenemerton et Botin- abbatem Westmonasterii de iij ton in Glouc[estresyra] dominus militibus (' Liber Rubeus,' p. Rex acquietat abbatem West- 567). monasterii de iij militibus (' Testa de Nevill,' p. 43). It will be obvious, from the verbal concordances, that instead of representing, as Mr. Hall holds, two " inde- pendent " returns made in different years these texts are derived from one and the same return. But in- stead of being, as in the case of Middlesex, arranged in the same order, they are here found, in the respective texts, arranged in very different order. The explana- tion of this is that the 'Testa' records the Inquest by Hundreds, while the ' Red Book ' groups the fees under the barons' names and the sergeanties apart at the end. This is particularly interesting from the parallel of Domesday Book, where the Inquest, of which the 265 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 original returns were drawn up hundred by hundred, was rearranged in Domesday Book in similar fashion. I was led to suspect that this great Inquest was, gene- rally at least, drawn up by Hundreds, from Mr. Hall's remark that There is a marginal note in the Red Book returns for Wilts, now partially illegible, but {sic) which clearly records the loss of the Inquisition of several of the Hundreds of that county, while a precisely similar note is entered on the dorse of one of the original returns for Norfolk in the Testa (p. ccxxiv.).^ The view I advance at once explains and is confirmed by the remarkable allusion to this Inquest in the ' Annals of Waverley ' : (12 1 2) Idem (rex) scripsit vicecomitibus ut per singulos hundredos facerent homines jurare quse terrae assent de dominico prsedecessorum suorum regum antiquitus, et qualiter a manibus regum exierint, et qui eas modo tenent et pro quibus servitiis. There can, in my opinion, be no question whatever that this refers to the writ ordering the great Inquest of service in 12 12. This is printed in the ' Testa' (p. 54), and as an appendix to the ' Red Book ' (p. cclxxxv.). It is too lengthy to be quoted entire, but in it are found these words : De tenementis omnibus quae antiquitus de nobis aut de pro- genitoribus nostris regibus^ Angliae teneri solent, quse sint data vel alienata . . . et nomina illorum qui ea teneant et per quod servitium. The only difference is that the writ leaves the method of inquest to the sheriff's discretion (" sicut melius inquiri poterit") while the chronicler says it was to be made Hundred by Hundred, which, as we have seen, was probably the method adopted. 1 It will be found on p. 296 ot the printed text 266 WRIT FOR THE INQUEST In the 'Testa' the writ is not dated, but the copy printed by Mr. Hall is dated June i (12 12) at West- minster. This seems but short notice for a return due on June 25, but it is remarkable that the ' Annals of Waverley' mention it in conjunction with a writ dated June 7, which certainly favours the statement. This latter writ directs an enquiry as to the ecclesiastical benefices held under gift of the prelates lately exiled from the realm.^ It is remarkable that the Worcester returns to the great Inquest of service in 12 12 are followed by a return made to such an enquiry : Inquisicio ecclesiarum. Maugerius episcopus dedit ecclesiam de Rippel' Willelmo de Bosco clerico suo et vicariam ejusdem ecclesie dedit Ricardo de Sancto Paterno clerico suo. Qui Ricardus reddit predicto Willelmo x marcas de pensione. Ecclesia autem integra valet per annum L marcas. Idem episcopus dedit ecclesiam de Hambur' juxta Wych magistro Ricardo de Cirencestra, que valet per annum x marcas ('Testa,' p. 44)- Bishop Mauger died in the very month of the In- quest (June, 12 1 2). The Notts and Derbyshire re- turns (p. 18) include two similar entries relating to 1 "Idem rex preecepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut confiscarentur red- ditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a Stephano archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Anglise moram facientibus in transmarinis post inter- dictum Anglicanas ecclesiae, in haec verba : " ' Prsecipiraus vobis quod capiatis . . . et scire faciatis dis- tincte in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistse anno regni nostri xiv baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui- eos receperunt. Datum vii id. Junii ' " (p. 267). It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to be due on the same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture in the ' Testa.' The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could be made to a royal writ should be carefully observed. 267 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 the archbishop of York, and those for Somerset and Dorset contain two at least relating to the bishop of Bath (pp. 161 b, 162 a). The Sussex and Surrey re- turns similarly contain two entries (p. 226 a) relating to Surrey churches to which the archbishop of Canter- bury had presented. » In this last case the annual value of the livings is deposed to, it should be noted, by six men of each parish.^ Having now dealt with Middlesex and Worcester- shire, I pass to Lancashire, another county cited by Mr. Hall for comparison. The magnificent return for this county in 1212^ is noteworthy for several reasons. In the first place, it is headed : Hec est inquisicio facta per sacratnentum fidelium militum de tenementis datis at alienatis infra Limam in comitatu Lancastrie, scilicet per Rogerum Gerneth, etc., etc. This is a good illustration of the principle of "sworn inquest." In the second, it leads off with the entry : " Gilbertus filius Reinfri tenet feodum unius militis." Although this was a well-known man, jure uxoris a local magnate, the ' Red Book ' text leads off with the gross corruption : " Gilfridus filius Rumfrai i militem " (568). Mr. Hall, in his index (p. 1183), identifies him with the " Galfridus filius Reinfrei " of another 'Red Book' return (p. 599) — where the 'Testa' has, rightly, " Gilbertus " — and fails to recognise in him the above Gilbert. This is a striking comment on his views expressed at the outset as to the inferiority of the ' Testa ' text So also is the fact that the ' Red Book' reads "Thomas de Elgburgo " at the foot of 1 " Per veredictum " (printed in ' Testa ' " per unum dictum "). * Testa de Nevill, pp. 401-408. 268 THE 'TESTA' AND 'RED BOOK' TEXTS the same page, where the ' Testa ' has " Thomas de Goldebur[go] " (p. 406), the correctness of the latter reading being proved by the " Thomas de Golde- burgo " of the ' Red Book ' itself (p. 69) in its extract from the Pipe Roll of 1187. Yet the editor ignores the 'Testa' form, and gives ' Elgburgo' in the Index.^ A third point is that the ' Red Book' compresses here into a skeleton nearly thirteen columns of the closely printed ' Testa de Nevill.' The text of the latter is of value not only for its wealth of informa- tion and its witness to the detailed and far-reaching character of this Inquest, but for such expressions as " pro herede Theobaldi Walteri qui est in custodia sua " (i.e. regis). Theobald had died more than five years before the Inquest was made ; and yet in the ' Red Book ' text he appears as the living tenant. This instance is of some importance in its bearing on apparent contrasts in the ' Testa ' and ' Red Book ' versions. For Mr. Hall, believing them to represent two successive returns, observes that In the Inquisitions ... of the years 1210-11 entered in the Red Book of the Exchequer, Walter Tosard is returned as holding his land in Banningham. ... In the original return, dated 12 12, from which the earliest list of Feudal services in Tesfa de Nevill was compiled, we find that Walter Tosard held this serjeanty, and that Avicia Tosard still holds it (p. ccxxviiL). The apparent discrepancy of the two returns is ex- plained, exactly as in the case of Theobald Walter, by the fact that the full return mentioned Walter Tosard as dead, while the brief and inaccurate ab- ^ This corrupt list in the ' Liber Rubeus ' is evidently akin to a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the 'Testa' (p. 408), as is proved by this name. 269 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 stract of it, in the Red Book of the Exchequer, gives his name as if he were aHve. Passing over the elaborate entry for Bradwell, Essex,^ the two versions of which, it will be found, are clearly derived from the same original, I pass, in conclusion, to the return for Northumberland ('Testa,' 392-3). Although not among the counties cited above by Mr. Hall, its return to the " Inquisicio facta de tenementis, etc., que sunt data vel alienata," etc.,^ is specially full and valuable for comparison. Its text appears to reproduce the original in extenso. Now any one comparing this return with the meagre list in the ' Liber Rubeus ' (pp. 562-4) will perceive at once that the latter is derived from the same original. The names occur in identical order. The only dis- crepancy is that the ' Red Book ' shows us " Sewale filius Henrici " in possession of land (Matfen and Nafferton) — held by the interesting serjeanty of being coroner — whilethe 'Testa' reads "Philippusde Ulkotes tenet terram que fuit Sewall' filii Henrici." It might be urged, as is done by Mr. Hall in the case of the serjeanties and the Boulogne Inquest (pp. ccxxviii., 575), that this proves the ' Testa ' return to be the later of the two. But here, again, the real explanation is that — as in the case of Lancashire, where Theobald Walter's name, we saw, is given in the ' Red Book ' when he was dead — the appearance of Sewal is merely due to the carelessness, in the ' Red Book,' of the scribe. This, indeed, is evident from his similar appearance ^ Testa, 268 b ; Liber Rubeus, 499. 2 Compare the wording of the writ of 1212 :" Inquiri facias . . . de tenementis . . . que sint data vel alienata," etc. (see p. 266, above). 270 SUPERIORITY OF THE ' TESTA ' in a list which is, according to Mr. Hall, later than either.^ How essential it is to collate these parallel lists is shown by the very first entry, relating to the interesting tenure of earl Patrick (of Dunbar). Ac- cording to the ' Testa ' (the right reading) he held " iij villas in theynagio." The ' Red Book ' makes him hold " iii milltes (!) in theynagio," a reading which its editor accepts without question. Another no less striking correction is afforded by the ' Testa,' in its entry re- lating to the porter of Bamborough Castle and his tenure : " Robertus Janitor de Bamburg' tenet." In Mr. Hall's text we find him as " Robertus, junior " (!), and, as such, the unfortunate man is indexed, although he appears elsewhere, both in the ' Red Book ' and the ' Testa,' as " Robertus Portarius." * From these in- stances it will be evident that though (in the printed text at least) the ' Testa ' is not perfect, the ' Red Book ' list, for Northumberland, is, when compared with it, worthless. Indeed, the marvellously elaborate returns for Somerset and Dorset, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, etc., printed in the ' Testa de Nevlll,' with which the meagre lists in the ' Liber Rubeus ' cannot be compared for an instant, make one read with absolute amazement Mr. Hall's statement, when comparing the two, that one or the other is in its present form lamentably incomplete. This deficiency chiefly exists on the side of the Testa, for it will be '^ ' Liber Rubeus,' p. 466. I have specially examined the Pipe Rolls for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received the rents up to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date. '^ Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an editor who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a university on the treatment of mediaeval MSS. ? 271 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 evident at once that the isolated and fragmentary membranes which formed the sole surviving contents of Nevill's Testa in the reign of Edward I. cannot be satisfactorily compared with the relatively complete returns preserved in the Red Book (p. ccxxiv.). It is evident that the editor has no conception how many and how long are the returns in the ' Testa ' re- lating to this great Inquest.^ This may be due to his conception that they are there headed " De Testa de Nevill " (p. ccxxv.), an idea which he repeated in a lengthy communication to the 'Athenaeum' (loth Sept., 1898) on the "Testa de Nevill." Mr. Hall wrote : The really important point about the whole matter is one which seems to have been entirely overlooked, namely that not only does the title ' Testa de Nevill ' refer to certain antique lists alone, which, indeed, form but a small percentage of the whole register, but that the greater part of the lists thus headed appear to have been made at a certain date in the fourteenth year of John . . . ^ De Testa de Nevill ' is the invariable heading of these lists (p. 354). The very point of the matter is that, on the contrary, the greater portion of these lists have no such heading, but are hidden away among later returns, from which they can only be disentangled by careful and patient labour.* The result of my researches is that I believe the printed ' Testa ' to contain no fewer than a hundred columns (amounting to nearly an eighth of its con- tents) representing returns to this Inquest. At the 1 The ' Red Book ' hsts, though so inferior, are more in number than those in the 'Testa.' * For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 a) would elude all but close investigation. It records inter alia the interest- ing gift, by Henry II., of land there "Wassail' cantatori." This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word " Wassail " (in a slightly corrupt form). 272 THERE WAS BUT ONE INQUEST close of this paper I append a list of these columns, of which only thirty-eight are headed (or included in the portion headed) " De testa de Nevill." To resume. For the great Inquest of 1 2 1 2 (14 John) we have (i) mention in a chronicle, (2) the writ directing it to be made, (3) the record of a sworn verdict of jurors who made it. For the alleged In- quests of 121 0-12 (12 and 13 John) we have nothing at all.^ We have, further, the fact that, when collated, the returns said to belong to these " independent " Inquests are found to be clearly derived from a single original. In spite, therefore, of the ' Red Book ' and its editor, it may safely be asserted that there was but one Inquest, that of the 14th year, the returns to which were handed in on 25th June (121 2). Thus " the remarkable circumstance," as Mr. Hall terms it (p. ccxxiii.), that the ' Testa' compilers know nothing of "the original returns of the 12th and 13th years," while, " on the other hand, the scribe of the ' Red Book ' had not access to the returns of the 14th year," is at once accounted for : they both used the same returns, those of 1212.^ As my criticism has, at times, been deemed merely destructive, I may point out that, here at least, it has established the facts about an Inquest worthy to be named, in future, by historians in conjunction with 1 Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ' Red Book ' " can be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, nor . . . on the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of vfhich is known to have been preserved" (pp. ccxxii.). 2 It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the returns on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as the ' Red Book ' date implies) over two or three years. 273 T THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 1212 those of 1086 and 1166, while the rough list I shall append of its returns, as printed in the ' Testa,' will, one may hope, enable its evidence to be more generally used than it has been hitherto. The un- fortunate description of the ' Testa,* on its title-page, as "temp. Henry III. and Edward I.," has greatly obscured its character and misled the ordinary searcher. Historically speaking, this Inquest may be viewed from two standpoints. Politically, it illustrates John's exactions by its effort to revive rights of the Crown alleged to have lapsed.^ Institutionally, it is of great interest, not only as an instance of " the sworn in- quest " employed on a vast scale, but also for its con- trast to the inquest of knights in 1 1 66, and its points of resemblance to the Domesday inquest of 1086. Of far wider compass than the former — for it dealt in detail with the towns ^ — it was carried out on a totally different principle. Instead of each tenant-in-chief making his own return of his fees and sending it in 1 This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one selected for mention in the Waverley Annals. 2 " Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra," ran the writ. The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ' Testa ' illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to the interesting return for Yarmouth (' Testa,' p. 296) : " Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth' quod antiquitus no' (sic) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus domini Regis, regibus Angl[i9e] quod sit datum vel alienatum aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi qui bus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium do- mino Regi de tenementis illis," etc. The close concordance of this return with the king's writ ordering it (see p. 226) is remarkable. 274 IMPORTANCE OF THE INQUEST separately, the sheriff conducted the enquiry, Hundred by Hundred, for the county ; and out of these returns the feudal lists had to be subsequently constructed by the officials. Lincolnshire is not among the counties named by Mr. Hall for comparison, but it shows us well how the inquest was made Wapentake by Wapen- take, and then the list of fees within the county ex- tracted from the returns and grouped under Honours. This, I believe, is what was done in Middlesex also.^ It is noteworthy that in the case of Middlesex the returns of 1 2 1 2 were made the basis for collecting the aid "for the marriage of the king's sister," ^ in 1235, the same personal names occurring in both lists. If, as this implies, they formed a definitive assessment, we obtain a striking explanation of the fact that 1 2 1 2, as Mr. Hall observes, seems to mark a terminal break in Swereford's work (pp. lxii.-iii.). Personally, however, I am not sure that " the Scutages," as Mr. Hall asserts, " concluded abruptly " in 1 2 1 2. My reckoning being different from his, I make the last scutage dealt with by Swereford to be that which is recorded on John's 13th year roll, that is, the roll of Michaelmas, 1211. The following list represents an attempt to identify the returns to this great Inquest in the ' Testa,' and to give the relative abstracts in the ' Liber Rubeus.' Out of 39 English counties (then recognised), the 'Testa' seems to have returns or fragments for 25, and the ' Liber Rubeus ' abstracts for 31. Notts and Derbyshire. Testa, pp. 1 7 ^-19 a. Liber Rubeus, p. 5,65. ^ See p. 265 above. * Testa de Nevill, p. 361. 275 THE GREAT INQUEST OF SERVICE, 12 12 Northamptonshire. Testa, p. 36. Liber Rubeus, p. 532. Worcestershire. Testa, pp. 43-4. Liber Rubeus, p. 566. Salop and Staffordshire. Testa, pp. 54-6. ^ Liber Rubeus,^ p. 509. Herefordshire. Testa, pp. 69^-70^. Liber Rubeus, p. 495. Gloucestershire. Testa, pp. 77 a. Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Testa, pp. 115,^ i28a-i29a,^ i29a-i3i^,* 133^-134^.* Somerset and Dorset. Testa, pp. i6oli-i66a. Liber Rubeus, p. 544. Devon. Testa, pp. 194-195. Surrey. Testa, pp. 224^-226^. Liber Rubeus, p. 560. Sussex. Testa, pp. 22658-227^. Liber Rubeus, p. 553. Hants. Testa, pp. 2 36 a,'' 239^.* Essex and Herts. Testa, pp. 26gd^-2'jia.^'^ Liber Rubeus, p. 498. 1 Salop only. * Honour of Wallingford. * Begins with twelfth entry on page 1280:, though there is no break there in printed text ; the ' Liber Rubeus ' (p. 513) has entries for Berkshire. * Borough of Wallingford. ^ Including town of Oxford. * The Chichester Inquest at least. "^ 1$ entries. ^ Hyde Abbey. ^ Beginning at " Abbas de Sancto Walerico." 10 Ending with entry for ' Uggel.' A special Inquest for Writtle is comprised. 276 THE RETURNS IDENTIFIED Norfolk and Suffolk. Testa, pp. 293(7-296 a. Liber Rubeus, p. 475. Lincolnshire. Testa, pp. 3341^1-3483.^ Liber Rubeus, p. 514. Middlesex. Testa, p. 361. Liber Rubeus, p. 541. Cumberland. Testa, pp. 379a '-380 a. Liber Rubeus, p. 493. Northumberland. Testa, pp. 3923-3935.* Liber Rubeus, pp. 562-4. Lancashire. Testa, p. 4oi5-4o8«. Cf. Liber Rubeus, p. 568. The above list can only be tentative, and does not profess to be exhaustive. It is believed, however, that genealogists and topographers will find it of con- siderable assistance. 1 Beginning with " Candeleshou Wap'n'." ^ Including a special Inquest for Stamford. ' Beginning at " Carissimis." * Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne. 277 I •XIII Castle-ward and Cornage PROPOSE to deal in this chapter with two sub- jects which are wholly distinct, but which it has now been proposed, by a singular confusion, to con- nect. Speaking of certain miscellaneous returns in the ' Red Book of the Exchequer,' Mr. Hall writes : The first group in importance comprises the so-called 'Castle- guard Rents,' lists of military services in connection with the Constableship of Dover Castle . . . the Constableship of Windsor Castle, the Wardship of Bamburgh Castle, and the Cornage Rents of Northumberland (p. ccxxxvi.). The corrupt but curious list of the Dover " wards " and their fees is printed virtually in duplicate on pages 613, 717, though dated by the editor in the former in- stance '1211-12' throughout, and in the latter, ' 126 1-2,' and ev&n'Temp. Edw. I.' (pp. 721-2). The first of these, from internal evidence, is probably the right date; the remaining list (pp. 706 et seq.), though headed in the MS. 46 Hen. III., is merely this old list re- arranged, with a money payment substituted for the military service. I mention this because, as printed, these lists are most misleading to any one unacquainted with their real date. The ' Constable's Honour,' for which, alone, we have six or seven slightly varying returns, is one of the 278 THE DOVER CASTLE WARDS most interesting in the whole Book, and leads me to say something on this important subject, on which a wholly erroneous belief has hitherto prevailed. The first point to which I desire to direct attention is that the nine wards (custodies), named jn the ' Red Book ' lists — The Constable's, ' Abrincis,' Foubert de Dover,^ Arsic, Peverel, Maminot, Port, Crevequer, and Adam Fitz William * — are all reproduced in the names still attached to towers, including even Fulbert's Christian name. This coincidence of testimony leads one to believe that these names must have become fixed at a very early period, and to enquire what that period was. Looking at the history of the families named, it seems probable that this period was not later, at least, than the reign of Henry II. But it is in the Constable's "Ward" that the interest centres. For the time-honoured belief, pre- served by Lyon, and reproduced by Mr. Clark, is that " three barons of the house of Fiennes held the office under the Conqueror, Rufus, and Henry I," After stating that these barons "held the office of constable" under Henry 1 1., Mr. Clark informs us that " of these lords, the last, James Fiennes, was constable at the accession of Richard I., and in 1191 received, as a prisoner in the castle, Geoffrey, Henry XL's natural son."* Professor Burrows repeats, though guardedly, the old story : 1 Rightly given as " Fouberd " on p. 708 ; wrongly as " Roberti " on pp. 616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert is an error, and one which throws some light on the MS. * The order is not quite the same in the first of these three lists. * Mediaeval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10. 279 CASTLE- WARD AND CORNAGE William (I.) is now said to have conferred the guardianship of the coast, as an hereditary fief on a certain John de Fiennes, whose name, however, does not appear in any contemporary record. John was to do service for his lands as Constable of the Castle and Warden of the Ports. . . . The office of Constable and Warden ceased to be hereditary in the reign of Richard I.^ Mr. Hall has now revived the old legend in full : In the valuable register formerly belonging to the Priory of Merton ... a similar but shorter list is found, with an inter- esting description of these services, which will be presently referred to (p. ccxxxvii.). The constitutional significance of the tenure itself has not been perfectly realised. The Merton Register mentioned above informs us, under the heading " De Wardis Castri Dovorrae," that the Conqueror granted the constableship of the castle there to the Lord of Fienes, with the service of fifty-six knights, who kept guard each month in turn, some four or five at once. Besides these, other knights were assigned to that constableship, for so many weeks in the year, by the neighbouring Lords of Chilham and Folkestone, and other barons mentioned in the later returns. Thus the Castle-ward was performed down to the reign of John, when it was thought advisable that such an important fortress should be committed to the keeping of a royal constable and a permanent garrison. . . . Hubert de Burgh was appointed constable during pleasure, and the office has continued to the present day in the patronage of the Crown (p. ccxxxviii.). [Note.] William de Fesnes, the last baronial Constable, appears to have received the honour of Wendover by way of compensation ('Testa,' ii. 158). Now, how much truth is there in this story ? Fifty- six knights, we see, are assigned to John de Fienes, as first Constable, and fifty-six knights' fees (plus or minus TO- fee) are assigned in the ' Liber Rubeus ' to the " Warda Constabularii." But the history of these fees, the " Honor Constabularii," can be traced with 1 Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66. 280 THE CONSTABLE'S 'HONOUR' absolute certainty. They are those which had last been held by Henry de Essex, "the Constable," whose tragic fate is familiar, which had been previously held by Robert de Ver " the Constable," in right of his wife, a Montfort, and the possession of which can be traced back by Domesday to no other than Hugh de Mont- fort.^ We learn then that " the Honour of the Con- stable " (which we should not otherwise have known) was connected with the custody of Dover Castle, the " clavis et repagulum Anglise"; and we learn more. For when we turn to the story of the attack on Dover Castle in 1067, we find Hugh de Montfort "the im- mediate commander of the castle " ; * and are thus able to trace the "Warda Constabularii " back to the Con- quest itself. Thus the legend of John de Fiennes and his heirs, constables of the castle, together with its "constitu- tional significance," is blown, as it were, into space, and should never, henceforth, be heard. The " Honour of the Constable " passed to the Crown on the forfeiture of Henry of Essex (11 63); and as for the alleged action of "James Fienes " as constable in 1191, it is well known that the constable at the time was a brother-in-law of Longchamp, the king's representative. I have suggested in a paper on " Faramus of Boulogne " ^ a possible origin for the Fiennes story in the castle being held by Faramus at the close of Stephen's reign, a fact which may account for the late tradition about " quodam comite Boloniae 1 Compare 'Geoffrey de Mandeville,' pp. 326-7. 2 Freeman's ' Norman Conquest,' following William of Poitiers. 3 Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147. 281 CASTLE-WARD AND CORNAGE qui erat ejusdem Castri Constabularius." ^ For the Fienes family were his heirs, through his daughter ; and it was through him, and not on the ground sug- gested by Mr. Hall, that they obtained Wendover. To Faramus himself, however, it may have been given in compensation. Thus far I have been dealing with a question of castle-ward. I now pass to the ' cornage rents ' and to the new theory of their origin. This theory is one of the features of Mr. Hall's Introduction, in which he devotes to it ten pages ; and it follows immediately on his remarks upon " the constableship of Dover." As difficult a subject as ' Scutage,' and one on which less has been written, the origin and character of "cornage" are problems as yet unsolved. The brilliant pen of Professor Maitland has attacked them in a paper on " Northumbrian tenures " ; ^ but he cannot tell us more, virtually, than we know already, namely, that the term points to cattle, and is not derived, as Littleton in his ' Tenures ' and the older antiquaries held, from the service of blowing a horn. Mr. Hall, however, "hazards" the new and startling theory that the payment known by this name repre- sents a commutation of castle-ward previously due from the drengs and thegns of the Northern marches. For this, it would seem, his only ground is the entry in the ' Red Book' of a list of Northumbrian cornage payments in close proximity to lists of castle-ward services. On this slender foundation is built an edifice ^ Lib. Rub., p. ccxl. 2 English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626-7). 282 ORIGIN OF 'CORNAGE' RENTS of guesses, such as distinguishes this strange work from any other jn the Rolls Series. They are prefaced, in their order, as usual, thus : if we might venture to disregard ... we may suspect that . . . the impression remains that . . . May we not then conjecture that ... it will now be possible to hazard some theory . . . It is at least conceivable that . . . will per- haps suggest the theory, etc., etc. . . . (pp. ccxliL-ccxlviii.). Rejecting "the accepted definition of cornage as a mere seignorial due in respect of the pasturage of cattle," Mr. Hall explains that it rests on "a radical misconception," namely, on "the argument that the references to military service performed by" the Cum- berland cornage " tenants are later interpolations in the reign of Edward I.," whereas, as he observes, they are mentioned in a list of about the end of John's reign. The criticism is curiously characteristic. For, on turn- ing to Professor Maitland's paper (p. 629), we find not a hint of " interpolation " ; he has merely — misled, no doubt, by the title page of the printed ' Testa ' — mistaken a list of John's reign for one of " Edward I.'s time." And, so far from assigning to that period the first mention of this service, he refers us, in the same passage, to its mention in 1238, when, as he actually observes, it " looks like an ancient trait." The mis- conception, therefore, is not his, but Mr. Hall's. In the manuscript itself we find the ward service of Newcastle and the details of the Northumberland cornage occupying a, single page (fo. 195 d). But this circumstance, for which I shall account fully below, in no way connects the two. On the contrary, we find eleven territorial units here entered as paying " corn- 283 CASTLE-WARD AND CORNAGE age" in addition to their payments for castle- ward. The two payments, it will be observed, could not both be commutations of the same thing. -"^ It is quite clear that, in Cumberland, all who held " per cornagium " were bound, apart from the payment of that due, to march respectively in the van and in the rear when the king was invading or retreating from Scotland, a duty for which they were, obviously, qualified by their local knowledge ; but this had absolutely nothing to do with castle- ward, nor is even this special service men- tioned in the case of Northumberland. Cornage, from the time we first meet with it, appears in our records as a money payment, not as a military service, and even Mr. Hall admits that the name is derived from horned beasts, unlike the ' ward penny ' of the south, in which he would seek its parallel, and of which the name leaves us in no doubt as to its nature. The institution of cornage, therefore, is, we shall find, as obscure as ever, although there is some evidence, unknown, it seems, to Professor Maitland as it is to Mr. Hall. Its historical importance is beyond question. Of the cornage of Northumberland, as recorded in the ' Red Book,' the editor writes that " it is of the highest importance to trace its earlier history in the records of the Exchequer." It can, as he says, be traced back to 1 1 64 ; but I cannot accept his sugges- tion as to why it then made its appearance. One must 1 Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these entries in the ' Red Book,' devoted sections of his work (Hodgson's 'Northumberland,' part L, pp. 258-261, 261-263) to "cornage" and to " castle-ward," but was careful not to confuse them. 284 THE NORTHUMBERLAND CORNAGE turn, for comparison, to that of Cumberland, concern- ing which we read as follows : In each succeeding year-roll, from the beginning of the reign of Henry II., the sheriff of Cumberland had rendered his account for the Neatgild of the county. The amount of this tribute was fixed at ;£8o. . . . But we have no means of showing how the j^8o was made up, because the sheriff answered for it in a lump sum, and no particulars of his account have survived as in the case of the Northumberland list happily preserved in the Red Book. But this Neatgild (or cornage) can be traced back much further, namely, to the year-roll of 1130, and even earlier. It was ^85 Ss. 8d. under Henry I., and over ;;^8o under Henry H. ; and details of sums paid in respect of it are duly found, not only in the ' Red Book ' (pp. 493-4),^ but also in the ' Testa de Nevill.' Moreover, the cornage of Northumberland as well was answered for " in a lump sum," and this leads me to explain the entry of the Northumbrian lists. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that his manuscript adds up the cornage wrongly, and is even guilty of a further error in asserting that this erroneous total is " xxii den. plus quam alii solebant respondere," its real excess being j£i is. lod} Apart from its obvious bearing on the character and value of the manuscript, this error has misled the editor into stating that the sums entered, 1 From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his preface to the Cumberland Pipe Rolls. * The 'Red Book' (p. 714) reads: "Summa xviij /. iiij s. vj d., videlicet, xxij d. plus quam alii solebant respondere." But I make the real total of its items, not jCi% 4^. dd., but ^^'iS ds. 6d. The two pardons, amounting to ^£2 ip. 4d., brought up the total to ;^2i 3^. lod., but, owing to the above wrong 'summa,' the scribe made it only ;^2i is. lod. He then further omitted the odd pound, and so obtained his " xxij d." 285 CASTLE-WARD AND CORNAGE " less the pardons of the Prior of Tynemouth and the King of Scots, make up the charge of ;^20 for the county." On the contrary, the grand total is £21 3^. jod., although the sheriffs were only liable for the " lump sum" of ;^20. Why is this? It is be- cause Robert " de Insula," to whom we owe the list, held the shire "ut custos." This most important Exchequer phrase, which the editor must have over- looked on the roll, can be traced back, at least, as far as 1 130. It means that the Crown had put its own man in office, and was thus able to get at the details of the payment, for which the normal sheriff was only liable in a "lump sum." This is why the opportunity was taken to set these details on record. This ex- planation applies also to the details of Newcastle ward service immediately preceding the cornage payments. The editor might have learnt from the Pipe Rolls that the sheriff was normally charged, in respect of this payment, with £21^ 4^- 5^- gross, and £22> 14^. ^d. net, which latter sum he was entitled to retain for his wardenship of the castle. But Robert, as " custos," recorded the receipts as amounting to ;^33, and was consequently called upon in 1267 to account for £/^ 55-. "jd. (the difference between ;^33 and £2?) i^. e^d.) "de cremento wardarum Novi Castri de anno xlix° sicut recepit." The entry, therefore, of both lists can be traced to Robert's position " ut custos " in 49 Hen. III. Lastly, the statement that "the cornage of Westmoreland can also be traced on the rolls, but it was of very trifling value," seems unfortunate in view of the fact that it was, when it first appears, nearly thrice as large as the whole cornage of Northumberland. 286 CORNAGE PAID IN COWS That I may not close with a negative result, I append two remarkable charters from the MS. cartu- lary of St Bees, which show us the Cumbrian Noute- geld being actually paid in cows to William earl of Albemarle, as lord of Coupland, which barony was exempt from its payment to the Crown.^ Willelmus comes Albemarlie archiepiscopo Ebor[acensi] et capi- tulo et omnibus matricis ecclesie filiis salutem. Noverit paternitas vestra me dedisse et concessisse deo et sancte Marie et sancte Bege in Copelandia et omnibus {sic) vi vaccas in perpetuam elemosinam reddendas anno omni quo meum Noutegeld debuerit fieri. Hanc autem donacionem feci pro animabus omnium antecessorum meorum et antecessorum uxoris mee Cecilie. Testibus, etc. . . . Willelmus comes Albemarlie omnibus hominibus suis tam futuris quam presentibus salutem. Sciatis quod dedi et presenti carta con- firmavi Deo et sancte Marie et sancte Bege et monachis de sancta Bega vi vaccas de meo Nautegeld {sic) unoquoque anno, quando accipio Nautegeld in Copuland, etc.^ . . . Now it is a most interesting fact that in Durham also we find, as in Coupland, a payment in cows (" vaccas de metride ") made by townships in connection with their payment of " cornage." ^ From the above important charters, it would seem that the two dues '^ These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (' The Pipe Rolls . . . for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,' 1857), p. xxvii. In addition to the section on " the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent " in this work (pp. xxvii. -xxix.), cornage is dealt with ut supra in Hodgson's 'Northumberland,' part i. pp. 258 et seq., and in 'The Boldon Buke ' (1852), pp. Iv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand's ' Newcastle ' a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to the Prior of Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his " pardoned " quota. 2 Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18. ^ 'Boldon Buke' (Surtees ^oc), passim. 287 CASTLE-WARD AND CORNAGE went together. In Durham there Is a classical passage for the " cornage " proper, quoted by those who have dealt with "cornage," but not by Mr. Hall. In a charter of Henry I., which I assign to. 1 128-9, he speaks of " cornagium de Bortona . . . scilicet de unoquoque animali ij d} This is precisely the source of "cornage" which Mr. Hall desires to "disregard." And if further proof were needed of the non-identity of " cornage " with castle-ward, it is found in the fact that, as in Northumberland, both dues existed simul- taneously in Durham, vills which paid cornage being also liable to provide men for castle- ward ("castle- manni ")? 1 ' Durham Feodarium ' (Surtees Soc), p. 145. ^ ' Boldon Buke ' (Surtees Soc), pp. 36-7. 288 XIV Bannockburn AS Sir Henry Howorth has so truly observed, in a presidential address to the members of the Archaeological Institute, the transition from the chronicle to the record as a source of mediaeval history is one of the most striking and hopeful features in recent historical research. And in no respect, perhaps, has the study of original records modified more profoundly the statements of mediaeval chroniclers than in the matter of the figures they contain. Dealing with the introduction of knight-service into England, I was led to give some instances in point,^ and specially to urge that " sixty thousand " occurs repeatedly as a conven- tional number ludicrously remote from the truth. It is now, I believe, generally accepted that my estimate of about five thousand for the number of knights' fees in England ^ is nearer the truth than the " sixty thou- sand" which, in his History, Mr. Green accepted. But we still read in 'Social England' (i. 373) that William I. "is believed to have landed . . , with at least 60,000 men " ; nor did Mr. Freeman himself 1 Feudal England, pp. 289-293. ^ Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any conclusion of mine, appears, in his ' History of the Art of War ' (1898), to admit that I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my conclu- sion in his 'Foundations of England' (1B98), ii. 132. 289 u BANNOCKBURN reject the statement of Orderic that " sixty thousand " men were gathered on Salisbury Plain for the " Mickle Gem6t" of August i, 1086. We who saw, only last summer, the difficulty of there assembling a force scarcely so large, even with all the modern facilities of transport and organisation, can realize, more forcibly than ever, the incredibility of the fact. "Stephen Segrave," Dr. Stubbs reminds us, "the minister of Henry III., reckoned 32,000 as the number" of knights' fees; and even so late as 1371, ministers allowed a parliamentary grant to be calculated on the belief that there were 40,000 parishes in England, when there were, as a fact, less than 9,000.^ So too, as is well known, Fitz Ralph, archbishop of Armagh, declared at Avignon, that at Oxford, in his early days, there were 30,000 students, although it is probable that they cannot have exceeded 3,000 in number.^ It is even said that Wycliffe doubled Fitz Ralph's esti- mate. There is nothing, therefore, strange in the fact that two centuries and a half after the Norman Con- quest, we still find absurd numbers assigned to armies in the field and accepted with thoughtless readiness, even by modern historians. This, we shall see, has been the case, among many other battles, with that of Bannockburn (13 14). The ultimate "authority" for the numbers engaged at this ever memorable fight is Barbour's Brus. Of Edward that romancer wrote : ^ Stubbs' ' Const. Hist.,' ii. 422, 433. 2 Maxwell Lyte's ' History of the University of Oxford' (1886), pp. 93-96. 290 THE NUMBERS PRESENT He had of fechtaris with hym tha Ane hundreth thousand men and ma And fourty thousand war of tha Armyt on hors, bath hede and hand And zeit of thai war thre thousand With helit hors in-till playn male Till mak the front of the battale And fifty thousand of archerys He had, forouten the hoblerys; With men on fut and small rangale. In accordance with this statement we read further of the king, that His folk he delt in battalis ten In ilkane war weill ten thousand. Of the Scots we are told that : Of fectand men I trow thai ware Thretty thousand, and sum deill mare Weill thretty thousand men and ma Mak we four battalis of all thai. The quethir thai war thretty thousand. On the English side we have a statement in the ' Vita Edwardi Secundi.' It is there asserted, of the host marching on Stirling, that Erant autem armatorum ampUus quam duo milia, exeepta peditum turba copiosa.1 The same authority states that Bruce Circiter quadraginta milia hominum secum produxit. . . . Ibant etiam quasi sepes densa conserti, nee leviter potuit talis turba pene- trari.* ^ Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. 201. * Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description of the Scots — " quasi sepes densa " — is an admirable parallel to the meta- phor — " quasi castellum " — ^which Henry of Huntingdon applies to 291 BANNOCKBURN Let us now see how modern writers have dealt with the numbers present, remembering that the char- acter and issue of the battle turn largely on the vast numbers assigned to the English host. In the 'Dictionary of National Biography' (1886) Dr. iEneas Mackay adopts the traditional view of the English numbers, following Barbour, indeed, blindly : On II June the whole available forces of England, with a con- tingent from Ireland, numbering in all about 100,000 men, of whom 50,000 were archers, and 40,000 cavalry, were mustered at Berwick.^ A far abler and more cautious writer, Mr. Joseph Bain, F.S.A. Scot, in his 'Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland' (1887), reckoned that "the whole English army probably did not exceed 50,000."^ Against Hailes on the Scottish side, he supports Hume, who, he writes : founded on the writs enrolled in the Foedera, addressed to the sheriffs of twelve English counties, two earls, and five barons for the foot, who numbered in all 21,540. This is undoubtedly good authority, for . . . the Patent Rolls of the time are not defective. Contingents from all the English shires were not invariably sum- moned. In the writs in question the men of the northern and midland counties, which incurred most danger from the Scots, were summoned (p. xx.). From Mr. Bain I turn to our latest authority, Mr. Oman's ' History of the Art of War,' the English " acies " at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Free- man so deplorably misunderstood (' Feudal England,' p. 343-4). So, too, Adam de Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as "quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum" (p. 106). Such metaphors, I have shown, were common. '^ Vol. vii. p. 122. * Vol. iii. p. xxi. 292 THE ENGLISH FOOT To the memorable Scottish victory Mr. Oman, as we might expect, devotes special attention (pp. 570- 579). He attributes "the most lamentable defeat which an English army ever suffered" to two fatal errors, of which one "was the crowding such a vast army on to a front of no more than two thousand yards" (p. 579). His argument, in detail, is this: Two thousand yards of frontage only affords comfortable space for 1,500 horsemen or 3,000 foot-soldiers abreast This was well enough for the main line of the Scottish host, formed in three battles of perhaps 25,000 men in all, i.e. eight or nine deep in continuous line. But, allowing for the greater space required for the cavalry, the English were far too many for such a front, with the ten thousand horse and 50,000 or 60,000 foot which they may have mustered. The result of this fact was that from the very beginning of the battle the English were crowded and crushed together and wholly unable to manoeuvre (p. 575). In his first work (1885) Mr. Oman had adopted " 100,000 men" as the number of Edward's host; in 1895 it had become "an army that is rated at nearly 100,000 men by the chronicler."^ In 1898 we learn that " the estimate of a hundred thousand men, which the Scottish chroniclers give, is no doubt exaggerated, but that the force was very large is shown by the genuine details which have come down to us " (p. 573). These "genuine details" prove to be the figures in the ' Foedera,' on which Mr. Bain relied, Mr. Oman arrives at his figures thus : Edward II. had brought a vast host with him. . . . There have been preserved of the orders which Edward sent out for the raising of this army only those addressed to the sheriffs of twelve English counties, seven Marcher barons, and the Justices of North and South Wales. Yet these account for twenty-one thousand five 1 History of England, p. 174. 293 BANNOCKBURN hundred men, though they do not include the figures of any of the more populous shires, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent, or Middlesex. The whole must have amounted to more than 50,000 men (p. 573). To the numbers of Edward's host he attaches so great an importance that he gives the details, from Rymer, in a note. I make the total, myself, to be 21,540.^ It is Mr. Oman's extraordinary delusion that the other English counties were similarly called on for troops, but that the orders have not been " preserved." On the strength of this illusion alone he adds some 30,000 men to the English host! A glance at Rymer's list, as given in his own pages, is sufficient to dispel that illusion. As Mr. Bain cor- rectly implies, the counties called on for troops form a compact group, of which Warwick was the southern- most. Moreover, even within that group, the southern counties were evidently called on for much less than the northernmost, Warwick and Leicester only send- ing 500 men, while Northumberland and Durham were called on to supply 4,000, as was also Yorkshire. We have only to turn to the ' Rotuli Scotise ' ^ for 13 14 to learn that the writs originally issued {i.e. in March) for the Bannockburn campaign summoned no more than 6,500 men, and these from the counties " beyond Trent" alone.* As the peril increased subsequent writs called for a further 6,000 men from these coun- ties, and extended the net so as to obtain 3,000 from Lincolnshire, 500 from Warwickshire and Leicester- 1 Mr. Oman reckons the men of the " Marcher Lords " at 1,850. I make them 2,040. 2 Ed. Record Commission. * Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean whence the necessary miners were always obtained. 294 SYSTEM OF THE LEVIES shire, and 500 from Lancashire (previously omitted) ; this, with 4,940 men from Wales and its marches, made up the total. When Edward IIL arrayed his host, twenty-five years later, for the French war, he only asked for 500 foot from Northumberland (as against 2,500), and 1,000 from Yorkshire, but from Warwickshire with Leicestershire he exacted 480. These figures speak for themselves. Any one of ordinary intelligence can see that the forces on these two occasions were raised on entirely different principles, Northumberland being called on for five times as many men in 13 14 as in 1339, while Warwickshire and Leicester supplied almost as many in the latter as in the former year. And yet Mr. Oman actually makes the comparison himself (p. 593), and prints the numbers in detail for both occasions without any comprehension that this was so. Indeed, he bases on his misapprehension a theory that as, at the later date (1339), the quotas were never more than a third of those demanded for Bannockburn (13 14), a comparatively picked force was secured. We note that the Commissions of Array in the latter year were directed to levy only from about one-third to one-fifth of the numbers which the sheriffs had been told to provide in the former year. They were, of course, individually better in proportion to the greater care which could be taken in selecting them.* We have seen that, on the contrary, in Warwick- shire and Leicestershire, the number summoned was almost the same, and that the above theory is, there- fore, another delusion. In 1339 the proportion varied * History of the Art of War, pp. 593-4. 295 BANNOCKBURN from 20 per cent, to 96 per cent, of the numbers sum- moned in 1 3 14, and did so, as we have seen, on a geographical system. Mr. Oman bases his above assertion on a note in which four lines contain four direct mistakes. It asserts that Yorkshire sent "six thousand," Lincolnshire" "four thousand," Warwick "five hundred," and Leicester "five hundred," in 1 3 14, when the right numbers, as given by himself on page 573 of the same volume, were : Yorkshire y^^r thousand, Lincolnshire three thousand, and Warwick and Leicester together five hundred. The result of this astounding inaccuracy is that he fails to under- stand the system of these levies in the least. It is, no doubt, surprising that, after years of study, a writer should produce a work intended to constitute a standard authority on mediaeval warfare, in which he has not even grasped so elementary a fact as the rais- ing of English armies, in the 14th century, on geo- graphical principles, and should consequently invent an imaginary host of nearly 30,000 men. Precisely as in 1 3 14, the bulk of the foot for the Scottish expedi- tion were raised from the Northern counties, so in 1345, for the contemplated French expedition, it was from the counties south of the Trent that the infantry (archers) was raised.^ But it is even more surprising that he should substitute for this system a theory, based on the misquotation of his own figures alone, that, in i339> we meet with a new system of summoning a comparatively small quota of picked men. It is but a further instance of his grievous lack of accuracy that 1 " Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent '' (Wrottesley's 'Cregy and Calais,' p. 8 ; cf. Ibid. pp. 58-61). 296 THE NUMBERS EXAGGERATED on page 599 he renders the "homines armati "^ summoned from the towns as "seventeen hundred archers," although he prints from Rymer, a few pages earlier, the numbers of the foot summoned in 1339, of whom half are distinguished as archers and half as " armati." One would have imagined that the fact of the host being drawn from the northern half of England alone would have been obvious from the dates. The orders from which Mr. Oman takes the numbers demanded were only issued from Newminster on May 2 7,^ and ordered a rendezvous of the force at Wark (Northumberland) on June 10. The troops were to be there on that day " armis competentibus bene muniti, ac prompti et parati ad proficiscendum " to the immediate relief of Stirling. The time was des- perately short, and haste was enjoined ("exasperes, festines "). Moreover, the English leaders were clearly not such fools as Mr. Oman imagines. The " orders " state that foot are wanted because the Scots nituntur, quantum possint, ... in locis fortibus et morosis (ubi equitibus difficilis patebit accessus) adinvicem congregare. Common sense tells one that 60,000 foot could not be manoeuvred in such country, and would only prove an encumbrance. Edward, therefore, only summoned less than 22,000. As to his horse, Mr. Oman writes : if the English " had, as is said, three thousand equites coperti, men-at-arms on barded horses, the whole cavalry was probably ten thousand" (p. 575). But 1 Ibid. pp. 67-8. ^ Rotuli Scotiag, i. p. 127. 297 BANNOCKBURN why ? At Falkirk, sixteen years before, Edward I., he writes (p. 565), had the whole feudal levy of England at his back. He brought three thousand knights on barded horses, and four thousand other men- at-arms. If 3,000 "barded horses" implied 4,000 other horsemen in 1298, why should they imply 7,000 in 1314 ? More especially, why should they do so when, as we have seen, the king, in summoning his foot forces, himself described the scene of the campaign as " ubi equitibus difhcilis patebit accessus," so that he was most unlikely to take a large force of cavalry ? ^ Estimating the horse on the Falkirk basis, the English host cannot have amounted to more than 30,000 men instead of the 60,000 or 70,000, horse and foot, at which Mr. Oman reckons it.^ And what of the Scotch ? Let us compare these passages : The front between the wood There was only something and the marsh was not much slightly more than a mile of more than a mile broad, a space slope between the wood and the not too great to be defended by marshes . . . This was well the forty * thousand men whom enough for the main line of the Bruce had brought together Scottish host, formed in three (p. 571). lines of perhaps twenty-five^ thousand men in all (p. 575). It is true that the Scottish king had a fourth battle in reserve, but, according to Mr. Oman's plan, it was 1 Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently observed that 40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible ('Eng. Hist. Rev.,' xiv. 133). 2 I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents from else- where. " The italics are mine. 298 DISPOSITION OF THE HOSTS no larger than the others, if so large. It would only, therefore, add some 8,000 men to the above 25,000. Where then are the 40,000? From the numbers of the forces I now pass to their disposition on the field. With each of his successive narratives of the battle Mr. Oman has given us a special — and different — aground plan. In all three of these the English ' battles ' are shown as composed of horse and foot, — the horse in the front of each, the foot behind. But in the earliest of these (1885) three such 'battles' are shown, in the second (1895) five, and in the third (1898) ten,} Will the number increase indefinitely ? Again, as to the famous " pottes," dug as traps for the English horse. In the earliest narrative these are described as covering the Scottish flank " to the left," and in the second, as dug by the Scots " on their flanks," though in both the ground plans they are shown in a cluster on the left flank alone. When we turn, however, to the latest account (1898), we find them shown, no longer on the flanks, but as a single line along the Scottish front, and described as dug by Bruce "in front of his line," so that they "practically covered the whole assailable front of the Scottish host" (p. 572). Lastly, on that all-important point, the disposition of the English archers, we are shown in the first ground plan the " English archers considerably in 1 "The host was fold off into ten battles, probably (like the French at Cregy) in three lines of three battles each, with the tenth as a reserve under the king " (p. 574). But in the earlier plans the English battles are shown in single line, and in the earliest, at least, with a widely extended front 299 BANNOCKBURN advance of the main body," and, indeed, almost all on the Scottish side of the burn. In his second they are still in front of the host, but no longer across the burn. In his third there are no "archers" shown, and the English ' battles ' themselves are depicted as close up to the burn. But to realize the completeness of the contradiction, one must place side by side these two passages : His [Edward II. 's] most fatal The worst point of all was mistake, however, was to place that in each corps the archers all his archers in the front line,^ had been placed behind^ the without any protecting body of horsemen . . . condemned horsemen ('Art of War in the from the first to almost entire Middle Ages,' p. loi). uselessness (' History of the Art of War,' p. 575). Poor Edward! He is first made to place his archers in front of his horsemen, and blamed for his folly in doing so ; and then he is made to place them behind, and again blamed for his folly. It is the same with the battle of Cre^y (1346). Let any one compare the four narratives given in succes- sion by Mr. Oman,^ together with the three ground plans, and he will be fairly bewildered. The only thing of which we can be sure is that when Mr. Oman has adopted a view, he will himself afterwards abandon it. It is the same, again, with the numbers also. Mr. Oman, in his second narrative (as apparently in his first), reckons the English host at some 9,300 men (6,000 archers, 2,300 men-at-arms, 1,000 Welsh). In ^ The italics are mine. ^ Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. 174-176; History of England, pp. 187-8; History of the Art of War, pp. 604-615. 300 A VERSATILE HISTORIAN his fourth they exceed 20,000 (11,000 archers, 3,900 men-at-arms, 5,000 or 5,500 Welsh). Need I pursue further this endless contradiction ? It has been my object to warn the reader of Mr. Oman's works on the Art of War to compare his successive views before adopting a single one of them. Whether on the field of Bannockburn or of Hastings we need a guide who knows, at least, his own mind, and whose " cocksureness " is not proportionate to the mutability of his views. 30 1 I XV The Marshalship of England N his valuable essay on a document of which the origin has long been discussed, the ' Modus tenendi Parliamentum,' ^ M. B^mont has drawn attention to the close association of this treatise, in the MSS. which contain it, with the coronation of Richard II. and with a treatise on the Marshal's office. So close, in- deed, is this association that Coke affirme avoir vu de ce traitd [the Modus] un exemplaire " ecrit au temps de Henri II. qui contient la maniSre, la forme et I'usage de Gilbert de Scrogel, mardchal d'Angleterre, et qui indique' comment 11 s'acquittait alors de son office." M. Bemont explains that Coke confused the ' Modus ' with the treatise on the Marshal's ofiflce, but this is not, we shall find, quite the right explanation ; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in question "vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II." As Coke's error as to Gilbert has been very widely followed, it may be well to dispose of it once for all by tracing it to the source of his error. We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the MS. lat 6,049 in the Bibliotheque Nationale (from which is taken Hardy's, and conse- quently Dr. Stubbs', text of the ' Modus.' Although 1 Mdanges Julien Havet : La date de la composition du ' Modus tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia' (1895). 302 A CORONATION CLAIM (1377) M. Bdmont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting as High Steward.^ Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and heiress of Thomas " of Brotherton," marshal of England, who claimed to discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important words : Item quoad ofBcium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall Comitissa Norflf porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato Domino Senescallo in hec verba " A tres honure seignur le Roy de Castille et de Leon, Due de Lancastre, et Seneschall' Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton' nadgaires Conte de Norff' et mareschall dengleterre destre accepte a loffice de mare- schalcie ore al coronement nostre s' le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son piere fesante loffice par son depute come Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second, cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte faitz Chivaler au eel iour un palfrey ove une sele." Supra quo audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad ofScium pre- dictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65 d). ^ M. Bdmont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as " exergant la charge de grand conn^table {sic) d'Angleterre au couronnement de Richard II." 303 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND We have clearly here the origin of Coke's error, when he writes : Many very ancient copies you may find of this Modus, one where- of we have seen in the reign of H. 2, which contains the manner, forme, and usage of Gilbert de Scrogel, marshall of England, in what manner he occupied and used the said roome and office in all his time, and how he was admitted etc. at the coronation of H. 2 (' Institutes,' 4, xxi.). For the error is only found in the above petition. Now, it ought to be obvious that no such person as Gilbert Marshal, earl of ' Strogoil,' could have existed in 1 154, for the Marshals did not inherit till a later time that Earldom, which was held in 11 54 by the house of Clare. It has indeed been suggested that for " Gilbert " we should read " Richard," ^ but this will not help us. For, to secure consistency, we should have to read " Richard de Claret Nevertheless, it has been loosely assumed, on no other evidence, that Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke (" Striguil") acted as Marshal of England at the coronation of Henry II. in 1 154.^ And on this foundation antiquaries have raised theories to which we must return. The real explanation is perfectly simple. On turn- ing to fo. Zdd. of the MS. we find an entry " de officio marescalcie," which we can positively identify as taken from fo. 232 of the ' Red Book of the Exchequer' (p. 759) where it is found among the "services" at Queen Eleanor's coronation in 1236. Then turning back to Countess Margaret's claim (fo. 65 a?), we find that it enshrines, in Norman French, this entry word for word. 1 See Mr. Watson's Note in 'Complete Peerage,' vi. p. 197. * Ibid. V. p. 260 J also Doyle's 'Ofiicial Baronage.' 304 THE ERRONEOUS THEORY Therefore the whole error has been caused by the words "as coronement le Roy Henri second" (1154) appHed to an entry which really related to the corona- tion of Queen Eleanor (1236) ! "Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strigoil " had no existence at the former date, but he actually held the marshal's rod in 1236.^ Camden, it seems, is responsible, in the first instance, for the theory that the office of " Marshal of Eng- land " was distinct in origin and character from that of Marshal of the Household. Strangely enough, in his earlier essay,* he made no such distinction, but, on the contrary, stated that Roger Bigod " was he which first stiled himselfe marescallus Anglics, whereas all his predecessors used noe other stiles than the simple addition of marescallus." In his second essay (3rd Nov., 1603)* he gave a list of the " Marshals of England," deducing the office from a grant of Ste- phen, who " made Gilbert Clare earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England, with the state of inheri- tance, who . . . was comnKjnly called earl of Stryghall." Thus arose the whole theory which Thorns, following Camden, adopts in his ' Book of the Court' (pp. 241, 244), namely, that the two offices were accidentally united by the marriage of William (the) Marshal (of the Household) with Isabel, heiress of the earls of Pembroke, " Marshals of England." From Thorns this theory has found its way into the ' Complete Peerage.' I need not here say more than ^ M. Bdmont writes that he " vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II." But this is a misconception. 2 Hearne's ' Curious Discourses,' ii. 90-97. 3 Ibid. pp. 327-330. 305 X THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND that I have carefully examined the evidence, and that, after the alleged union of the offices, there is no trace of their being granted as more than one. When John confirmed (20th April, 1200) the marshalship to William Marshall, it was as magistratum maresc' curie nbstre quam magistratum Gillebertus Marescallus Henrici Regis avi patris nostri et Johannes filius ipsius Gilleberti disrationaverat coram predicto Rege Henrico in curia sua.^ And when William's younger son Gilbert obtained it from Henry III., after his brother's death, we read of the king (nth June, 1234) — Tradens ei virgam marescalcie curie sue sicut moris est et sicut earn antecessores ejus melius et liberius habuerunt.^ It would not be in place here to discuss the growth of the office with the growth of the administration, just as the constableship developed in its descent from Miles of Gloucester through the Bohuns. The one point to keep in mind is that the office of marshal descended from Gilbert temp. Hen. I., to Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, at whose death in December (1306), the marshalship, by his own arrangement, reverted to the king. It was the king's intention to bestow it on his young son Thomas " of Brotherton " ; but as he was at the time only six years old, it was given, 'during pleasure,' 3rd September, 1307, to Robert de Clifford,' and, a few months later, to Nicholas de Segrave (12th March, 1308), also 'during pleasure.'* These appointments 1 Rot. Chart., i. 46. ^ ]y[ Paris, ' Chronica Majora.' ^ Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 6. * Ibid. p. 51. 306 MARSHALS UNDER EDWARD II are important for their bearing on a note by Dr. Stubbs that William le Mareschal had served as marshal! at the coronation, but was superseded in 1308 by Nicholas Segrave, with whom he went to war in 131 1. It was probably his dismissal that offended Lancaster in 1308 ; see ' M. Malmesb.,' p. 103; and he may be considered as a strong adherent of the earl (of Lancaster). * It is the case that William Marshall had carried the great gilt spurs at the coronation of Edward II. (Feb., 1308), but we do not find his name on the Patent Rolls among the appointments to the " Mar- shalsea of England." He can, therefore, only have been chosen to act at the coronation, and was doubt- less selected, in preference to the temporary Marshal, as being hereditary Marshal of Ireland. Summoned to Parliament as a baron in 1309, he became one of the 'Ordainers' in 13 10. Robert de Clifford, whom Segrave replaced, was afterwards concerned in Gaveston's death (or, at least, pardoned as being so),^ but was clearly a strong sup- porter of the king at the beginning of 1 308. And as appointments and favours were bestowed upon him for two or three years afterwards, one cannot think that he was out of favour, or that he can be alluded to in the passage cited by Dr. Stubbs from the Monk of Malmesbury : (1309) unde magnates terrse coeperunt hsec pro malo habere et prsecipue comes Lancastrise, quia unus ex familiaribus suis, procu- rante Petro, ejectus erat ab officio suo.* ^ Const. Hist., ii. 328. ^ He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, May, 1312. ^ Ed. Heame, p. 103. 307 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND It could not in any case apply, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, to William le Mareschal. Professor Tout not only dates Segrave's appointment a year too late, but goes so far as to say that, against him, — William Marshal, a peer of Parliament and a collateral repre- sentative of the great Marshal family, claimed the office as devolving on him by hereditary right.^ It is obvious that the only person who could make such a claim was the disinherited brother of the late earl of Norfolk. On February lo, 1316, the Marshalship of England became once more an hereditary office, being bestowed on Thomas ' de Brotherton,' then earl of Norfolk, and the heirs male of his body.^ Let me here again insist that the fundamental error has been the anachronism interpolated in Countess Margaret's coronation claim (1377). This is really the sole foundation for the statement that the Clares earls of Pembroke held the office of Marshal of England ; and it can be conclusively shown to arise from mistaking the coronation of 1 236 for that of 1 1 54-' ^ Dictionary of National Biography, IL 204. * The matter has been further complicated by the index to the official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a " Walter de Ferrariis, marshal of England." The document indexed proves (p. 189) to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pem- broke), " late marshal of England." 8 Trivet, it is true, even earlier {circ. 1300), wrote of Strongbow as ' Marshal of England ' : — " Ricardus Comes de Strogoil, mare- scallus Anglias, terris suis omnibus propter quondam ofFensam in manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc Ricardum Anglici ob prsecipuum fortitudinem ' Strangebowe ' cognomina- bant " (p. 66). But although the writer may sometimes preserve a 308 STRONGBOW'S ALLEGED SON Having thus traced to its origin the confusion which made Richard Strongbow and his father Gilbert marshals of England, I may now deal with the further confusion which assigns to Richard ' Strongbow ' a legitimate son Walter. In Ormerod's ' Strigulensia ' (p. 63), in Mr. Archer's biography of Richard/ and now in the ' Complete Peerage,' the fact is accepted as certain. The authority for this statement is a Tintern Abbey charter, in which William Marshal the younger confirms certain grants (22nd March, 1223) — pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi filii Gilbert! Strongbow avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei, et Ysabelle matris mee (' Mon. Ang.,' v. 267). A very able genealogist, Mr. G. W. Watson, holds that this charter makes the existence of a son Walter " certain." ^ But as the text appeared to me obviously corrupt, I referred to the Arundel MS.,' from which it is printed in the ' Monasticon.' I there made the startling discovery that, as I thought possible, the true text is this (in a 15th century transcript of a 14th century inspeximus of the 1 3th century charter) : pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi, Gilberti Strongbowe, Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbowe avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei et Ysabelle matris mee "* (fo. i). This makes perfect sense, giving as it does the descent forgotten story, he cannot be accepted as an authority for earl Richard's tenure of an office, of which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary chronicle or record. '^ Dictionary of National Biography. ^ Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198. 3 Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit Mus.). * The italics and commas are mine, and show how the alleged son of earl Richard was fabricated. 309 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND of the Honour from Walter Fitz Richard (de Clare), founder of Tintern. But a much later hand (? 17th century) has coolly run a pen through the three words I have italicised, thus making nonsense of the passage, which was then, in this mutilated form, printed by Dugdale ! It is but a further instance of the havoc which he and others have wrought in the genealogy of the famous house of Clare. As this charter is of independent value for its early (apparently earliest) ^ mention of the name ' Strong- bow,' its date is of importance; Mr, Archer states that it is "dated Strigul, 22nd March, 1206,* an obviously impossible date. Its real date was 22nd March, 1223^ (7 Hen. III.), We may now return to the office of Marshal in the 14th century. On June 3, 131 7, the king called on the barons of the Exchequer to inform him from their records, " quae et cujusmodi feoda marescalli Angliae qui pro tempore fuerunt et eorum ministri tempori- bus progenitorum nostrorum videlicet de pane, vino, cereolis, et candelis percipere et habere consueverunt." For reply they sent him the relative extract from the " Constitutio domus regis."* In 4 Edward III., 1 Mr. Watson ('Complete Peerage,' vi. 197) states that Giraldus Cambrensis speaks of " Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul," but this is a misapprehension. * Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393. * It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, 1307. Its mention (' Mon. Ang.' v. 268) of " Gilberti et Ricardi Strongbowe " clearly proves that it applied the name to both. * Heame's 'Discourses,' ii. 132-4; 'Calendar of Close Rolls,' p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they identified the marshalship of England with that in the " Constitutio." 310 DUTIES OF THE MARSHAL " Thomas counte Norfolk et marshall d'Engleterre " petitioned the king for his fees " qui appendent a son office de la marechausie dedeinz I'ostell et dehors auxi, come ses predecesseurs countes mareschauls ount estre servy " ; and he annexed a list of them based on the above return.^ Again, on April 13, 1344, the king called on the Exchequer for a return from its records •' de feodis quam de aliis quibuscunque quae pertinent ad officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciae Anglise," etc, etc. Again they sent him the relative extract " in quadam constitutione de domo regis antiquitus facta " ; but they added the passage " in Rubro Libro Scaccarii" on Queen Eleanor's coronation (1236), and a ' Dialogus ' passage on the fees due to the Marshal from those he imprisoned for default at the Ex- chequer.^ Lastly, we have in the treatise on the Marshal's office, as given in Nero D. vi., the following passage at its close (fol. 86 d) : In rubro libro de scaccario Regis folio xxx° sic continetur de marescallo. Et preter hoc debet magister marescalcie habere dicas de donis et liberacionibus que fuerint de Thesauro Regis et de sua camera et debet habere dicas contra omnes officiales Regis ut testis per omnia. Quatuor marescalli qui serviunt familie Regis tam clericis quam militibus quam ministris die qua faciunt herbergeriam vel extra curiam in negocio Regis morantibus, viij d. in die et galonem vini expens' et xij fnistra candelarum si extra tres de die in diem homini suo et cand' plenar' quod si aliquis marescallorum missus fuerit in negocio Regis viij d. ta[ntu]m servientes Marescallorum si 1 Hearne's ' Discourses,' ii. 135-7. This petition, in Norman- French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose use of " countes mareschauls " as the title of his predecessors from the first. * Ibid. pp. 143-5. 311 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND fuerint missi in negocio Regis unusquisque in die iij d. sin autem in domo Regis comedent. De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de StroghuU cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones officiorum ^ facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege at quolibet comite palefridum cum sella. It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in Norman- French in Countess Margaret's petition, with the interpolation of the words which have caused all the confusion. And here it is necessary to observe that the inter- esting reference it contains to the knighting of a ' Baron ' by the king is reduced to what Mr. Freeman would have termed " hideous nonsense " in the official edition of the 'Red Book of the Exchequer.' We there read : Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de] quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p 759). In the ' Red Book ' itself, indeed, the text is now illegible, but Mr. Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for "restoring certain defaced or missing passages" (p. li.). Now in the Hargrave MS. (fo. 132^) the reading is "as clear as a pikestaff" ; it could not be clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading as we find in the above extracts : Recipit autem de quol[ibet] Barone facto milite a rege et quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc. Yet Mr. Hall reads : " de quolibet arma, facto." Really, when one knows that he has undertaken to 1 Altered in MS. 2 133 in the pencil numbering. 312 NOTTINGHAM CREATED MARSHAL teach how mediaeval MSS. should be edited,^ one is driven again reluctantly to ask whether such editing as this should be styled a farce or a burlesque.^ Before returning to the ' Modus,' the point from which we started, we must clear up the confusion that sur- rounds the title of Earl Marshal. Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.' Coke went further, and, as M. Bdmont says, confused the 'Modus' with the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up to my theory.* There is a transcript in Nero D. vi., with a beauti- fully illuminated initial, of the patent by which Richard II. created Thomas Mowbray earl of Nottingham Marshal of England and Earl Marshal (12th Jan., 1386), in tail male. Here again the confusion has been terrible. The Record Commission's Catalogue of the Cottonian MSS. describes it as " Literse R. Ricardi II. constituentes Tho. de Brotherton, com. Notting- ham,^ Marescallum Angliae A°. 1386," and it is this ^ In special classes on Palasography and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics. 2 See ' Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,' p. 34, where the reference is to Mr. Hall's citing the " prizmissa scutagia " of his MS. as "pr^missa scutagia" (pp. clxxii., clxxviL, etc.), and arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29. ^ "There is a treatise carryed about the office of the earle marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the tyme of Thomas of Brotherton (Hearne's 'Discourses,' II. 95). * The Society of Antiquaries possesses an early English version of the 'Modus' to which is prefixed a table of chapters both for the ' Modus ' and for the treatise on the Marshal's office. ^ He was earl of Norfolk. 313 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND doubtless, which has led several writers into grave error, down to M. Bdmont, who enters the document as "les lettres patentes de Richard II. instituant Thomas de Brotherton mardchal d' Angleterre " (p. 472). But, for my purpose, the important point is that this is the first grant of the office of " Earl Marshal." On the one hand, a high authority asserts in the ' Dictionary of National Biography ' that Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, received " the office of Earl Marshal" in 1246 ; on the other, we read in the ' Com- plete Peerage' that an "Earl Marshal" was first created in 1397.^ Neither statement is correct. On June 30, 1385, Richard bestowed on the earl of Nottingham "the office of Marshal of England," which we have traced above.^ Dugdale, citing the record below, wrongly states that Thomas was " constituted Earl Marshal of England " for life on this occasion, and is followed in this by Professor Tout.^ Thomas certainly styled himself " Earl Marshal and of Not- tingham " in the month following, but this was one of the assumptions of the time. He was only so created by the patent which follows. It is desirable, therefore, to give here the exact wording of the grant : Sciatis quod cum nos nuper de gracia nostra special! conces- '^ Vol V. pp. 260, 261. * "Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomara de Holand, comitem Kancie de officio marescalli Angl\ie\, quod nuper habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa dilectum consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh' ad dictum officium ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus aliis ad officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius," etc. (Pat 9 Ric. II., part i, m. 38). ' Dictionary of National Biography. 314 • CREATION OF AN EARL MARSHAL serimus dilecto consanguineo nostra Thome comiti Notyngh' ofificium marescalli Anglie ad totam vitara suam, Nos jam de uberiori gratia nostra concessimus prefato consanguineo nostra officium predictum una cum nomine et honore comitis Marescalli habend' sibi et heredibus suis masculis de corpore suo exeuntibus cum omnimodis feodis proficuis et pertinenciis quibuscunque dicto officio qualiter- cunque spectantibus. This grant, which is dated at Westminster, 12th January, 1386 (9 Ric. II.), is, oddly enough, unknown even to experts. Dugdale had missed it, and it is consequently ignored in Wallon's ' Richard II.,' in Professor Tout's biography of Nottingham,^ and in the ' Complete Peerage.' It illustrates^ not only the high favour in which Nottingham still stood, but the entourage of the king at the time, which included several of those about to lead the opposition.^ The above grant is duly referred to in the so-called creation of February 10, 1397. This is headed in the Rolls of Parliament : Une chartre du Roy faite a le Conte Mareschall touchant son Office de Mareschall d'Engleterre . . . Sciatis quod cum nuper per literas nostras patentes de gratia nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome Comiti Notyngh' Officium Marescalli Anglie, una cum nomine et honore Comitis Marescalli, habendum sibi et heredibus suis masculis, etc. . . . Nos. . . . volentes proinde pro statu et honore ipsius Comitis uberius providere, de gratia nostra speciali, in present! Parliamento nostro concessimus pro Nobis et heredibus nostris eidem Comiti dictum officium ac nomen, titulum, et honorem * Dictionary of National Biography. 2 The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York and Gloucester, the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de Segrave the treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household. 315 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND Comitis Marescalli Anglie habendum sibi et heredibus suis masculis, etc. (Then follow additional concessions.) The transition, in the marshal's style, is interesting enough. First we have " the Marshal," or rather " the Master Marshal " ; then " the Marshal of Eng- land," as a more high-sounding style ; next a confu- sion due to the fact that the Marshals also held an earldom through the 13th century, and so became, in common parlance (though not in strictness), " Earls Marshall " ; lastly, even so early, we have seen,^ as 1344, there occurs the cumbrous and unmeaning phrase " officium comitis marescalli et mariscalcise Anglise." Proving, though it does, the rapid accretion of error and confusion in the Middle Ages, the double style obtained recognition in the Patent of 1386.* It is singular that, even at the present day, the " Peer- ages " style the duke of Norfolk " Earl Marshal and hereditary marshal of England," although he is simply " Earl Marshal " under the creation of 1672.' An apology is hardly needed for introducing here a characteristic challenge, addressed by the young Earl Marshal in the chivalrous spirit of the time, " a noble et honnore S' le conte de Soissons sire de Coucy." This quaint epistle begins thus : ^ p. 311 above. ^ It seems to have become in the Parliamentary confirmation of 1397 "Earl Marshal of England." ' Mr. Kingsford, in the 'Dictionary of National Biography' (xxxvi. 232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl of Pembroke : " The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter to the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and .eventually to the Howards," etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods. 3^6 THE MARSHAL'S CHALLENGE Honure S' Pour ce que vous estez homme donneur approue de vaillance et de chevalerie et de grant renomee comme bien est cog- neu es plusieurs lieux honnorables, et je suis joesne, etc. . . . Je envoie devers vous Notynghant mon heraut, etc. Then follow the terms of the challenge : et apres les trois cops de lance, trois pointes despee, trois pointes de dague, et trois cops de hache a pie. Every precaution would seem to be taken against the survival of either combatant. The letter closes with due formality : Escript a Londres le x° jour de Janvier Ian de grace mille ccc iiii"''' et neuf selon le compte de leglise d'Angleterre. Par le conte Mareschall' et de Notyngham S' de Moubray et de Segrave mareschall' d'Angleterre. This document, I believe, has not hitherto been known. And now, when we turn to the ' Modus,' we find in the chapter treating " De Casibus et Judiciis difficili- bus " a startling statement that, if difficulties arose, — tunc comes senescallus, comes constabularius, comes marescallus, vel duo eorum, eligent viginti quinque personas de omnibus paribus regni, etc., etc. It need scarcely be said that no such right belonged ex officio to these three magnates, or was even claimed by them. Yet no one has suggested, so far as I know, that there must have been a reason for inserting this clause, and that in such reason we may find a note of time. Ordainers were elected, under Edward II,, in 1 310, and a Commission under Richard II. in 1386, No one, it is certain, could have introduced the refer- ence to an "Earl Marshal" in 13 10, for Thomas, 317 THE MARSHALSfflP OF ENGLAND future marshal of England, was then only a boy of ten. But in 1386 there was, in Nottingham, an Earl Marshal, and one who was, at the time, taking a leading part. Indeed the three chiefs of the opposi- tion at the time were Gloucester, Derby, and Notting- ham, who respectively represented the Constable, the Steward,^ and the Marshal. Add to this that it was in the Parliament of 1386 that we find the precedent of Edward 1 1, prominent in the minds of men,^ and that it was also in this Parliament that appeal was made to a supposed statute, and that the ' Modus ' con- tains a chapter " De Absentia regis in Parliamento " (a grievance in 1386), and we have at least a fair presumption that the 'Modus' — at any rate in the form that has reached us — dates from the constitutional crisis of 1386.^ ^ Derby was the Steward's son and heir. ^ Dr. Stubbs observes that "from the king's later action, it is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for the depo- sition of Edward II." But there is more direct evidence. On the Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against the Lords Appellant that they "firent chercher Recordes deins votre Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel cornent vostre dit besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous," etc., etc. 3 M. B^mont, who approached the question from the standpoint of the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them could possibly be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this must be proved "par des raisons paldographiques." The officials of the MS. department, Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced it to be clearly of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his conclusion. M. B^mont, however, held that the MSS. " ont €t6 composes et Merits dans les premieres ann&s de Richard II., ou d^- rivent de manuscrits rddigds k cette ^poque," on account of the pro- minent place assigned in them to Richard's coronation: I should place the date a few years later. 318 A NEW DOCUMENT I shall now close this article, which has already exceeded its original limits, with a document hitherto unknown, I believe, to English historians. The Rolls of Parliament preserve, in the proceedings of 1397 against Gloucester, the appeal of treason presented to the king by the nobles of his party at Nottingham (5th Aug., 1395). But that appeal is not known to us at first hand. I believe that I have found the terms of the document, which correspond, it will be seen, with the printed version. But instead of closing with the words " soit enterment quasse et adnulle," as in the Rolls of Parliament (iii. 341), it proceeds : laquelle bille nous le prouuerons pour vray avec laide de Dieu et de sa benoiste mere tant comme la vie nous dure. Then follows, in parallel columns, the interesting portion of the document, namely, the five articles of accusation, which are, it will be found, largely different and much shorter than on the Rolls. Opposite them is a notable confession which, from evidence it con- tains, I assign to the duke of Gloucester. P[re]mierement comment ilz Beauz seignors je vous prie a voloient auoir depose mons'. tous mercy et vous prie que vous Item. Ilz le constraindirent veuUiez dire a Mons' le Roy que a leur donner pouoir par letres a il pregne garde de mon filz, quar lencontre de sa regalle et les sil nest chastie tant quil est jeune, libertes de sa couronne. il me resembleira, et je fiz faussete Item. lis le voloient auoir et traison a mons' mon pere, et prins par force hers de son chas- ai pense et eusse mis a execution tel et lauoir amene tout partout contre mons' le Roy contre mon ou ilz voloient et prins son grant neveu de Rottheland et mon seel deuers eulz. cousin le mareschal et plus^ au- Item. Le vouloient auoir tres (;) dedens xv jours ilz eus- assailli dedens sa tour de Lon- sent este mors et madame la 319 THE MARSHALSHIP OF ENGLAND dres lui estant dedens a sa feste Royne envoiee arriere en France, du Noel. et fait du royaulme ce que nous Item. Depuis ont ilz perse- eussions voulu. Et avions or- vere en leur traison et tant quilz donna de rendre tous les hom- ont ymagine et ordene dauoir mages a ceulx qui eussent este destruit et mis a mort ceulx qui de nostre part. Si preng en furent entour la personne de grace ce que Mens' me fera quar Mons'. jai bien desire la mort. From internal evidence this confession must (if genuine) proceed from an uncle of the king, who can only be the duke of Gloucester. I believe him to have sent it from his prison at Calais, after his arrest and deportation thither by the " Earl Marshal of England." Such documents as this still lurk here and there in MS. Their discovery rewards, at rare intervals, the toil of original research, as in those I have printed above bearing on the Commune of London. To this research, as Dr. Stubbs has urged, historians have now to look ; ^ but for it, in England, at the present time, there is neither inducement nor reward.* 1 " The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study " (' Lec- tures in Mediasval and Modem History,' pp. 41—2). 2 See my article on "Historical Research," in 'Nineteenth Cen- tury,' December, 1898. 320 NOTE On page 2 1 I speak of Mr. Andrew Lang " tracing the occurrence in scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy among our fore- fathers." This view, which (as I there state) was adopted by Mr. Grant Allen, is set forth in his notes to Aristotle's ' Politics ' (Ed. Bolland, 1877), pp. 96, 99, 10 1. To show that I have in no way misrepresented that view, I append these extracts : the sibsceaft, or kinship, which, when settled within its own mark of land, is known in early Teutonic history as the Markgenossen- schaft. Whether in Greece, Rome, or England, not to mention other countries, the members of each of these kinships all bore the same patronymic name, etc., etc. Take the case of early England, one finds the traces of the clan of Billingas in Northampton, Lancashire, Durham, Lincoln, Yorkshire, Sussex, Salop, and other widely-separated districts (Kemble). The members of these clans bear each the clan patronymic, per- form the same superstitious rites, and are bound to mutual defence . . . in England a man of the Billinga clan, or of the Arlinga clan, might be a Somersseta, or a Huicca, or a Lindisfara by local tribe. This curious scattering of Shs. family names through the local settlements in England has puzzled Mr. Kemble, who accounts for it by the confusion of the English invasion, and by later wandering and colonisations. But if the Arlingas, Billingas, and so forth, were once scattered over North Germany, as the men of the Sun or Tortoise clans are scattered all over America and Australia, it would necessarily happen that when a Jutland tribe invaded the south of England, it would leave families settled there of the same name as a Schleswig tribe would leave in the north or west of England. 321 Y COMMUNE OF LONDON Mr. Lang then goes on to urge the probability that, as in Australia, this phenomenon had its origin in exogamy. But I question, in my paper on the sub- ject, the 'clan' phenomenon itself. Mr. Lang, like others, wrote under the influence of Kemble ; and it is the very object of my paper to show the danger of building theories on Kemble's rash conclusions. 322 Index Abattis, meaning of, 47. Adrian IV., his alleged donation of Ireland, 171-175, i77-i79. 199, 200. , his "bull Laudabiliter," 171 et seq. Ailwin (^thelwine) son of Leof- stan, 105, 118. Albemarle, William earl of, 287. , , Cecily wife of, 287. Albert of Lotharingia, "clerk," 36-38. Albineio, William de, 152. Aldermannebury, Simon de, 254. Aldermen, see London. Alenzun, Matthew de, 254. Afexander IIL, his alleged con- firmation of " Laudabiliter," 172, 176, 180, 182, 184, 185, 189, 193, 198. , his 'Black Book' letters to Henry II., 172, 173, 174, 17s, 185-190, 191-194, 196- 199. Allen, Mr. Grant, 5, 16, 22, 23, 25> 321. Amiens, ichevins of, 235. Andrew of London, no, in. Andrews, Dr., 19. Anschetil, 121. Archer, Mr. T. A., opposed to Mr. Oman, 43, 48, 50, 51. , , on Strongbow, 309- 310. Archers, English, in 14th century, 296, 297, 299, 300. Archers in Ireland, use of, 157, 160. Armies, English, in 14th century, 262 et seq. Array, Commissions of, 295, 296. Arthur, succession of, 216, 218. Arundel, William (ist) earl of, 126-127,. 132-134- , Honour of, 130-131, 132-134. Ashdown, battle of, 40. Assize in Normandy, 250. Assize of Northampton, 233. B Bain, Mr. Joseph, 292, 293, 294. Balnai, Adam de, 99. Bannockbum, battle of, 289 et seq. Barbour's Brus, 290—291. Barons, feudal, in Ireland, 160, 162. Barons, greater, see London. Basset, Richard, 121. Beaumont (Normandy), Holy Trinity of, 1 16. Becket, see Beket. Beket, Gilbert, loi, 102, 247. , Thomas, 114, 122, 154, 248. Belet, Michael, 87. B^mont, M., 302, 303, 305, 313, 314, 318. Benefices, Inquest (12 12) on ecclesiastical, 267. Berkeley, carta of Roger de, 59-60. 323 INDEX Bigot, Hugh le, 99. Bigod, Roger, 152. Bigod, Roger, 305, 306, 314. Bishops Stortford castle, 120. ' Blanch ferm ' in Domesday, 65, 66. ' Blanch ' money, see Exchequer. Blemund, Blemunt, William,,io7, 108. Bloomsbury, origin of its name, 108. Blund, Geoffrey, 253. , Robert, 234. , Stephen, 254. Bond, Mr. Thomas, 135. Bosham, deanery of, 116. 'Eoshaxa, firma of, 91. Boulogne, Count Eustace of, 28, log, no, 115, 120. , Faramusof, 120, 281. , William of, 120. , Inquest on Honour of, 270. Brad well, Essex, 270. Braose, William de, 152, 253. Bray, Thomas, 147-149. Brewer, Prof, errors of, 146-149. Brito, Meinfininus, 121, 123. Bruce, see Bannockburn. Bucherel, Andrew, 264 ; see also Bukerel. Buchuinte, Bucquinte, Bucca Uncta, Andrew, 98, 110-113, 121, 124. , , justiciar of London, 99, 108. , , Ralf sonof, loi, 108. , John, loi, III, 112, 234. -, Laurence, loi. Bucuinte, Geoffrey, 254. Bukerel, Richard, 120. , Stephen, 101, 120. Bukerel family, no, 121; see also BuchereL Burh, the Old English, see Clark. Burke, Father, 194. Burrows, Prof. Montagu, 279. Caen, a London family derived from, 106-107. Calais, Gloucester imprisoned at, 320. Cambridge, Longchamp at, 214. Cambridgeshire, sheriff of, 122. Camden on the marshalship, 305, 313- Camville, Gerard de, 2 17. Canterbury, Stephen archbishop of, 267. Carew, Sir George, error of, 146, 149- Cartm Antiqua, origin of, 88. Cashel, council of, 183, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194. " Castlemanni " of Durham, the, z88. Castle-mounds, 52-54. Castle Rising, 130. Challenge, a chivalrous, 317. Chamberlains, see Exchequer. Chapel and the township, the, 1 0-1 1. Charters of William I., 28-37 > see also Henry II., John, Chertsey, William abbot of, 121. Chester, Hugh bishop of, 253, 254- Chichester, Hilary bishop of, 115, 117. Chivalry, see Challenge. Christchurch, see Twynham and London (Holy Trinity). Churches, see Benefices. Cinque Ports, institutions of, 244, 245- Clan-names in England, alleged, 16 et seq., 321, 322. Clare, Walter son of Richard de, 310 ; see also Pembroke. Clark, Mr. G. T., on castles, 52-53. 56, 82, 279. Clement III., death of, 210-213. 324 INDEX CliflFord, Robert de, marshal, 306, 307- Cnihtengild, the English, see London. Coelestine II., 212-213. Cogan, Richard de, 145. Coinage, new (1180), 86, 88-89. Coke's Institutes, 302, 304, 313. Commune, the sworn, 223, 224. , , in London, 22/^et seq. , , in Normandy, 244 et seq. Constalularii, Honor, 280-281. Comage, 282-288. Constantine, donation of, 178, 189, 19s, 197- Constitutio domus regis, the, 82, 310. 311- Coote, Mr., 103, 105, 226, 227, 228. Cordel, Hugh, 120. Cornhill, Gervase of, 107, iii, 112, 117, 120. , Henry of, X07, in, 253, 254, 256. , Reginald of, 256. Cornwall, Crown rents in, 71. Coronation, of Matilda wife of William I., 35. of Henry II., 303, 304. of Richard I., 201-206. of Eleanor wife of Henry IIL, 203-206,303,304, 311. -, of Richard II., 302. Coronation services (" ofEcia "), 203-206, 303. Coroner, serjeanty of being, 270. Coucy, the (count of Soissons) sire de, 316. Coupland, Noutegeld of, 287. Courci, John de, 143. , , book of his ' Gestes,' 149. 161-163. -, conquers Ulster, Courci, Jordan de, 162. Courcy, Robert de, 99. Courtenay, Reginald de, 152. Coutances, Algar bishop of, 99. Cows paid for comage, 287. Crecy, battle of, 45, 299-301. Cressy, Hugh de, 152. Cricklade, Wilts, 83. Cumberland, cornage tenants of, 283-285. , Noutegeld in, 287. Curia regis in Treasury, the, 94. , at Westminster, 11 1. Danegeld, see Middlesex ; Towns. Dean, miners from forest of, 294. Deaneries of houses of secular canons, 115-116. Den, the forest, 20. Derman of London, 106; see also Thierri. Dermot, king, 142-144, 158- 159, 169, 179-180. Devon, early jirma from, 73. , stereotyped rents in, 70. Dialogus de Scaccario, authority of, 64 et seq. , cited, 311. Dimock, Mr. J. F., 141, 146- 148, 182, 183, 192. Diplomatic, a point of, 30-36. Disseisin, formula of Novel, 114, 127. Domesday, appeal to, 94. compared with the Inquest of 1212, 265-266, 274. , finance in, 65-67, 68-73. , place-names in, 24. , record of assessment in, 57- -, origin of, 162. tenants variously described, 37-38- Dorchester, Wulfwig bishop of, 29. 325 INDEX Dover castle, constableship o^ 278-282. , wards and towers of, 279. Dover, Foubert de, 279. Duket, Nicholas, 234. Durham, comage in palatinate of, 287, 288. , troops from, 294. Eadwine, alderman of London, 112. Earle, Prof., 15, 19, 23, 27. Edward the Confessor, 28, 36, 38, 98, 99. Edward II. ; see Bannockburn. Edward II., deposition of, 318. Eleanor, queen, wife of Henry II., 236, 250. Ely, Geoffrey, bishop of, 87. Ely, Walter de, 254. Enfeoffment, see Veins. Essex, Henry de, Constable, 281. Essex, Maurice (of Tiltey), sheriff of, 109, 118. Essex, place-names of, 2 et seq. Eustace, nephew of Fulchred, loi, 124. Eustace, the sheriff, 38. Exchequer, chamberlains of the, 77, 81-85, 95- , at Westminster, 79-81. , watchman of the, 80. , a development of the Treasury, 80-84, 93-95- , enrolment at, 89. -, records of the, 202-204 > see also Sheriffs. , tallies of, 63, 74-75. , pleas held at the, 64, 86, 89. , its chequered table, 64, 74, 94- , standards of account at, 65-66, 70, 85-87, 89-93. Exchequer, changes in system of, 66-69, 72-75, 94- , antiquity of assay at, 66, 69. , its 'combustion' tally, 75. , barons of, 62, 85, 86, 89. Exeter, endowment from ferm of, 85-87. , foreign merchants at, 245. Exogamy, alleged traces of, 21, 321-322. Eyton, Mr., 24, 60, 79, 133, 134, 151. 152- Fafiton, Robert, 258. Falkirk, battle of, 298. Fantosme, Jordan, 232. Feipo, Futepoi, Totipon, Adam de, 142. Fergant, Bartholomew, 248-9. Ferm, see Firma. Fiennes family alleged constables of Dover, 279-281. Firma comitatus, the, origin of, 72-73, 230. Firma unius noctis, the, 70-72. Fitz Alan, William, barony of, 128. Fitz Audelin, WilHam, 151, 152, 161, 182-183, 19°- Fitz Count, Brian, 76, 78. Fitz Gerald, Maurice, 156. Fitz Ceroid, Warin, (I. ) chamber- lain, 83, lOI. , , (II.) chamberlain, 84. Fitz Osbern, earl William, 29, 30. Fitz Reinfred, Roger, 87. Fitz Stephen, Robert, 153. Fitz Urse becomes MacMahon, 162. Fitz Walter, Peter, 229, 231, 253. Fitz Walter, Robert, 253. Five-knight unit, the, 56, 155. 326 INDEX Fleming, Richard le, 142, 155. Freeman, Prof., 29-32, 34, 36, 38,40-46, 49, 52, 137, 15s, 289, 292, 312. Fulcher, 116. Fulcoin, Fulkoin, Fulquin, Fulcoi, the sheriff, 121-123. Fulk son of Ralf, 120. Furnellis, Alan de, 87. , G. de, 88. Futepoi, see Feipo. Gasquet, Father, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 181, 193, 196, 200. George, Mr. Hereford, 45. Gerpun villa, William de, 152. Gervase son of Agnes, loi. Gilbert the Sheriff (founder of Merton Priory), 121-123. Gilbert son of Reinfred, 268. Gilds, endowments by, 104-105. Giraldus Cambrensis, 143, 144, I4S> 157. iS9> 160, 164-167, 172, 178-188, 190-198. , early translations of, 147- 149- Giry, M., 237, 239, 244, 247- 252. Glanville, Ranulf de, 87. Gloucester, Milo de, 121, 123, 306. Gloucester, Robert earl of, 76, 78. Gloucester, Thomas duke of, 315, 318 ; his arrest and confession, 319-320. Glove as gage, the, 153. Green, Mr. J. R., 5, 16, 289. Gross, Dr., 228, 237. Guest, Dr., 5, 6. Gundeville, Hugh de, 152. H Hacon the dean, 10 1, 106. Haga not villa, 15. Hall, Mr. Hubert, on the Trea. sury and Exchequer, 62, 67- 68, 74-7S> 79-80, 84, 85. , on the Inquest of Sheriffs, 125 et seq. , on the coronation of Richard I., 205-6. — , on the Red Book Inquisi- tions, 262-273, 275. on castle-ward, 278, 282, 286. — , on Dover Castle, 279-280. — , on cornage, 282-286. — , misreads his MSB., 312- 313- Ham, the sufBx, 2 et seq. Hampshire, Firma. unius noctis in, 71-72. Hartshorne, Mr., 56. Hastings, battle of, 40-52, 301. Haverhell, Brichtmer de, 229. , William de, 233. Haya, Ralf de, 152. Heir, making an, in. Helion, Tehel de, 38. Henry II. and London, 222,223, 228, 232-233, 256. , and Ireland, see Ireland. Henry II., his charters before his accession, 82. Henry son of Henry II., 251. Henry son of Ailwin (^thel- wine), first mayor of London, 105. 225, 253. Hereford, earldom of, 30. Highworth, Wilts, 83. Hinde, Mr. Hodgson, 284, 285. Holand, Thomas de, earl of Kent, marshal, 314. Household, the king's, see Con- stitutio. 327 INDEX Hoveden, Roger, 184, 188, 197, 201, 205, 208-209, 213, 215, 216, 217. Hewlett, Mr., 208. Howorth, Sir Henry, 289. Howth, the Book of, 146-149, 162, 163. , interpolations in, 148-149. , share of Christopher Jord of Howth in, 149. Hubert 'juvenis,' no, 114. Hugh, son of Wulfgar, loi, 102, 118, 120-121. Huitdeniers or Octodenarii, Os- bert, justiciar of London, 113- 114, 116, 121. Humfraville, Ida de, 254. , Richard de, 254. Hundred and the township, the, 12. Hundreds, Inquest of 1212 taken by, 265-266, 275. Hunt, Rev. W., 208. Huntingdon, Austin priory at, 122. Hunts, sheriffs of, 121- 123. I Ing, the sufSx, 3 et seq. Ingelric the priest, 28-30, 36, Ingham, the suffix, 15-16. Innocent X., 199-200. Inquest of 1212, the great, 261 et seq. Inquest of Sheriffs, see Sheriffs. Inquest, sworn, in London, 98- 100. , of 1212, 268, 273, 274. Insula, Robert de, 286. Interdict under John, 267. Ipra (Ypres), William de, 100. Ireland, the Conquest of, 137 et seq. Ireland, its golden age, 137-140, 165, 166, 169. , Scandinavian settlers in, 140, 144. Norman invaders of, 140, 156 tf/ seq. — , feudal settlement of, 143, 155. 159. 160. -, poem on conquest of, 141 et seq. — , Henry II. in, 150-152, 189, 192-194, 199-200. — , internecine conflict in, 159. -, policy of see-saw in, 163- 164. -, failure of its conquest, 164, 167. — , corruption of church in, 165-166, 175. — , publication of 'Lauda- biliter'in, 181, 192, 194. Henry II. recognised as king in, 184-185, 187 ; see also Howth ; ' Laudabiliter.' Ireland, scutageof, 129, 131, 134. Irish, tendencies of, 138-139, 164-165, 168-170. , mode of warfare of, 156- 158. -, their character impugned, 174, 175. 183-187, 197, 199, 200. Islington, Newington Barrow in, 106. Italian citizens of London, no. Jews, debts to, 130. John, exactions of, 274. , the great Inquest (12 12) under, 262. , in Ireland, 165. -, his struggle with Long- champ, 207-218. 328 INDEX John, takes the oath to the Leofstan son of Orgar, 105 Commune, 224. — , claims to succeed Richard, 215-218. — , confirms 'liberties' to London, 235. — , his charters to London, 256. John 'the Mad' ('the Wode'), MS- John son of Ralf son of Everard, 120. K Kemble, Mr., 2, 6, 9, 16-26. Kent, 'sulungs' of, 26-27. Kingsford, Mr., 316. Kitchin, Dean, 221, 243. Knight service, tenure by, 56-61 ; see also Five-knight. Knights' fees, numbers of, 289- 290. Laci, Hugh de, 142, 155 ; Walter de, 150. Lafaite, John, 113. Laigle, Richer de, 246, 249. Lancashire, Inquest of 12 12 in, 268-269. , troops from, 295. Lang, Mr. Andrew, 21, 321-322. ' Laudabiliter,' the 'Bull,' 171 ei seq. Law, see Assize, Curia Regis, Dis- seisin, Enfeoffment, Exchequer, Glove, Heir, Inquest, Peace, Pleas, Possession, Seisin. Leicestershire, troops from, 294- 296. Leinster, feudal settlement of, iSS. i6o- Leofstan the goldsmith, 106. r Estrange, Guy, 128. , John, 128. Liber Hubeus, see Red Book. Liebermann, Prof., 144-145- Lincoln Castle, 208-209, 211, 214, 217, 218. Lincolnshire, Inquest of 12 12 in, 275- , troops from, 294, 296. Lisieux, Arnulf bishop of, see Sdes. , Hugh bishop of, 35. Lismore, Christian (papal legate) bishop of, 183, 186. Llandaff, Ralf archdeacon of, 187. Loftie, Mr., 99, 103-105, 221, 226, 228, 239, 240. London, aldermen of, 2 1 9, 237-9. , aldermen of, officers of the wards, 241-243, 255. , Aldersgate, no, 114. , greater barons of, 252-253. , Blacstan's ward in, 112. , Bloomsbury, 108. , Bucklersbury, 121. 23, charter of Henry I. to, 229, 3, 235. 25, charters of, their custody, 6. , citizens of, 119, 233-235. , Commune of, 219 et seq. , 'daibelle' in^ 256. , donum or auxilium of, 257. , Dowgate, 246. , Eadwine an alderman of, 112. , Edmund an alderman (1137) of, lOI. , its election of Stephen, 97. , the English Cnihtengild of, 102-106, 221. -, exchequer at, see Westmin- ster. — , folkmoot of, 221. 329 INDEX London, foreign influence in, London, Holy Trinity priory, 222, 245-247. — , Fulcred chamberlain of, 121, 124. — , hanging of a citizen in, 113. — , Husting of, III, 221, 222, 242, 256. — , sworn inquest in, 99-100. — , justiciars of, 98, 99, 108, 109, 113, 116-118. — , 'liberties' of, 234-236. — , its loyalty to Henry II., 232. -, mayor of, 238-243. a citizen canon of, 107. — , "twenty-four" (councillors) of the, 237-243. — , a verdict of the city of, 253- -, vineyard in Smithfield, 99, 100. — , ward system of, 255. — , list of wards in, 36, 102. — , weavers' gild of, 105. — , watch and ward in, 254. William archdeacon of, — , mayor and dchevins of, 235-237-. mediseval history, impor- loi, 117, n8. William chamberlain of. tance of it, 220. — , origin of its mayoralty, 219, 223, 225, 226, 235, 244. — , St. Lawrence Jewry, 253, 254- loi, 108. See also St. Paul's; St. Martin's; Derman; Islington; Andrew; Henry ; Oath. London, Maurice bishop of, 116. , Robert bishop of, 118, 119; see also Richard. -, St. Mary, Aldermanbury, London and Middlesex, 'firma' 25.3, 255. , St. Paul's churchyard, 224. — , scavage of, 256-257. — , scavengers (' escavingores ') of, 255. — , shrievalty of, 221-222, 229-235, 255. — , soke of the Cnihtengild, 99, loi- — , schools of, 117. — , , Henry, master of, 117. of, 229-234, 257. Longchamp, William, a London charter of, 253. , his struggle with John, 207-218, 224. , legation of, 210, 212-213. , Henry brother of William, 253- Daniel clerk of William, 254- Lorengus, Walter, 253. Lotharingia, see Albert. Luard, Dr., 202, 204, 253,254,319-. Lubbock, Sir J., 63. — , Holy Trinity priory, its Luci, Richard de, 100, 109, 115, endowment at Exeter, 85-87. 182. — -, , Norman prior of, 99, tower of, 99, lor, 118, 104. M -, Stephen prior of, 86. — , , charters of, 88, 97, 103. Mackay, Dr. .^neas, 292. — , , endowed by the Macmahon, originally Fitz Urse, Cnihtengild, 98, 102, 104, 108. 162. 330 INDEX Madden, Sir Frederic, 202. Mayor, a, associated with the Maerleswegen the sheriff, 29. Commune, 223, 225 ; but not Maitland, Prof., i, 12, 57, 69, essential to it, 228. 153) iS4> 230, 257, 282, 283, Meath, feudal settlement of, 15S) 284. 160. Maldon, charter of Henry II. to, Merton priory, foundation of. 152. , wnt relating to, 115. Malet, William, 29. Malone, Father, 177, 181, 196. Mandeville, Geoffrey (I.) de, 72. , Geoifrey (II.) de, 73, 99. , , earl of Essex, 100. charters of, loi, 118-119. 118, 119. -, Roheis wife of, 102, justiciar of London, 117-118. Mantel, Robert, 87. 'Mark' theory, the, 17, 18, 19, 20. Marshal, Gilbert the, 306. , John the, 306. , William le, 307, 308. Marshal, earl, use of phrase, 311, Mowbray and Segrave, see Not- 122-123. Meyer, M. Paul, 150. Middlesex, 'Hidagium' of, 257- 260. , Danegeld of, 257, 260. , Inquest of 12 12 in, 264- 265, 275. Modus tenendi Parliamentum, 302, 313- , date of, 317-318. Montfort, Hugh de, constable of Dover, 281. Montfort, Simon de, besieges Rochester castle, 54-55- Moran, Cardinal, 171, 175, 177, 179, 181, 186, 198. Morris, Father, 173-177, 181, 194. 313= 316, 317. , , creation of an, 313- 315- Marshal, fees and duties of the, 310-312, 314-315- , development of his office, 316. Marshal's office, treatise on, 302. tingham, Thomas earl of N Naas, barons of the, 156. Nangle, Gilbert de, 156. Marshalship, descent of the, 305- Nantes, Master WilUam de, 254. 306 ei seq. Martel, William, 99. Matilda, Empress, writ of, 116. -, expelled from Lon- don, 222. Matilda wife of William I., 31, 32, 34, 35- Mauduit, Robert, 82. , William, chamberlain, 81- Normandy, no 'blanch ferm' 82. in, 65. -, William, Domesday tenant, , exchequer of, under Henry Neatgild, see Cornage. Newcastle, ward service of, 283- 284, 286. Norfolk, Margaret ' Marshal,' countess of, 303, 304, 308, 312. Norgate, Miss, 41, 112, 113, 150, 176, 177-184, 191-196, 201, 208, 211, 213, 246-247. 82. I-. 95- 331 INDEX Northumberland, cornage pay- ments in, 282-286, 288. , drengs and thegns of, 282. , Inquest of 1212 in, 270- 271. -, troops from, 294-295. Nottingham herald, 317. Nottingham, Thomas Mowbray,' earl of, created Earl Marshal, 313-315. 318, 319-320- , his challenge, 317. Nugent, Gilbert de, 155. Numbers, Mediaeval, exaggera- tion of, 289-290. Oath of the Commune of London, 235 ; of freemen of London, 236] of 'twenty-four' Coun- cillors, 237 ; of Common Council of London, 241 ; of Aldermen of London, 242. Octodenarii, see Huitdeniers. Oger a Domesday tenant, 38. O'Grady, Mr. Standish, 137- 139- Old feoffment, see Vetus. Oman, Mr. C., and his works, 39-61, 155, 289, 293-301 ; see also Archer. Ordgar the deacon, 106. Ordgar "le prude," 98, 100, 106. Orford, castle at, 128. Orpen, Mr. G. A., 141, 143, 144, 150, 153, IS4, 156. Oxford, number of students at, 290. , seizure of the bishops at, 114. Oxford, Ralf de, 121. Palisade, dissolving views of the, 43-49- Pares in municipalities, 240, 243. Paris, Matthew, 202-206. Parish and the township, the, 10-12. Parliament, creation in, 315. Pavily, Reginald de, 152. Peace, the king's, 236, 237. Peers, early mention of a man's, 154. Pembroke, Gilbert de Clare (ist) earl of (? ' Strongbow '), 305, 309> 310- , Gilbert Marshal, earl of. -, confused with Gilbert de Clare, earl of, 302-305, 308. — , Richard de Clare, (2nd) earl of ('Strongbow'), 143, 152, 155. 156, 159. 180, 304, 308, 310. — , , daughter of, 150. — , , alleged son of, 309. — , Walter Marshal, earl of. 308, 316. — , William Marshal, earl of, 30S> 306. -, William (II.), Marshal, earl of, 309. Pembroke, Henry II. at, 151, 152. Percy, Henry de, marshal, 303. Peter son of Alan, 106, 107. Peterborough, Brand, abbot of, 29. Physicians, 10 1. Place-names, plea for classifica- tion of, 14. Pleas in London, 238, 242. Pont de I'arche, William de, 76, 78. Porchester castle and the cham- berlainship, 82. 332 INDEX Port, Hugh de, 37. Porter, serjeanty of being castle, 271. Possession, appeal to, 99. Powell, Prof. York, 6, 17, 39, 54. Prendergast, Maurice de, 153, 155, 158, 165. Puintel, William, 253. Ralf son of Algod, loi, 102. Richard of Devizes, 208-212, 215, 216, 217, 218, 223, 227- 228. Richard, son of Bishop Nigel, 65 «/ se^. , treasurer, 87, 201, 204. Richard son of Osbert, constable, 118. Richard son of Reiner, 253, 254- Richard son of William I., 34, 35- Riddlesford, Walter de, 155. Riley, Mr., 256, 257. Rinuccini, his mission to Ireland, 200. Ripariis, Margaret de, 83. Ramsay, Sir James, 49, 51,52, Robert son of Bernard, 152. 65, 67, 289. Robert son of Leofstan, 105. Ramsey Abbey, endowments of, Rochelle, La, Commune of, 248- 104. 251. Records, value of, 289. Rochester castle, 54-56. Jied Book of the Exchequer, cor- Roger, chancellor to Stephen, rection of errors in, 83, 84, 96, 99. 125 et seg., 205, 206, 262 et Roger mayor of London, 256. seq., 278-286. Roger ' nepos Huberti,' 107. , alleged loss of transcripts Roll, a king's, 86, 88. in, 205. Rouen, Hugh archbishop of, Regan, Maurice, 142, 143-144. 249. Regenbald, priest and chancellor, 28, 29, 37. Rents, crown, payable in kind, 68, 69. Ria, Avelina de, 134. Richard I., in his father's life- time, 250, 251. , his coronation, 201-206. , objects to a Commune, 223, 228. , leaves for the east, 207, -, Rotrou archbishop of, 249. — , Walter (de Coutances) archbishop of, 216, 218, 236. -, charter of Duke Henry to, 213. , his imprisonment in Ger- many, 235. -, his 'redemption,' 234. 246. — , charter of Henry II. to, 233, 248, 251. — , (^ommune of, 244-251. — , Etablissements de, 239- 241, 243, 247-251. — , Mayor of, 247-249. — , vicomte of, 232. -, watch at, 255. Richard II., troubles under, 315, 317-320. Ruffus, William, 152. Ruilli, Robert de, 152. Rumold, 120. , Bernard son of, 120, 121. 333 INDEX St. Bees, gift to, 287. St. Martin, Alvred de St., 152. St. Martin's-le-Grand, deans of, 28, 109, no, 114-117. , canons of, 109, no, 114- "S. 118. -, schools of, 117. St. Paul's, the canons of, 102. , Ralf chancellor of, 10 1. , chantry in, 254. , chapter of, 119. , restoration to, 119. St. Quentin, Commune of, 244, 252. Saintes, Commune of, 250. Salisbury, Roger bishop of, 66- 67, 109, no, 114-116. Salisbury, John of, and the alleged grant of Ireland, 172, 177, 179, 189, 198. Scalam, ad, payment, 85-87, 92-93, 95- Schools, see London. Scots, see Bannockburn. Scots, the King of, 286. Seebohm, Mr., 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17, 27. S6es, Arnulf archdeacon of, 98, 99- Segrave, Nicholas de, marshal, .3?7- Seisin, restoration of, 217. Selby, Mr. Walford, 125. Serjeanty, tenure by, 61, 83. Servitium debitum, the, 58-60. Sevenhampton, Wilts, 83. Sharpe, Dr., 238. Sheriff, an i^ttorney of a, 86. Sheriffs' aid, 118. Sheriffs and 'custodes,' 229-233, 286. , at the Exchequer, 75, 123. , and the firma, 230-231. , under Henry I., 123, 124. Sheriffs, the inquest of, 125- 136. Shield wall, the English, 39-44, 47. 49. 5°. 291. 292- Skeat, Prof., 256. Slane, barons of, 142. Somerset, stereotyped rents in, 71- , Ulster families from, 162. Spatz, Dr., 49, 50. Standard, battle of the, 41. Stapleton, Mr., 65, 67, 74, 79. Stephen, king, 97-100, 109, no, 114-116. Stevenson, Mr. W. H., 28-35. Stotevilla, William de, 154. Stratton, Adam de, 84. Stratton, Wilts, 84. Strogoil, see Pembroke. Strongbow, see Pembroke. Stubbs, Dr., 16, 38, 60, 62, 64, 65. 95. 104. no. III, 113, 119, 125, 126, 129, 155, 201, 202, 207-211, 213, 215, 220, 224, 225-226, 230, 290, 302, 307, 3°8, 318, 320. Surrey, place-names of, 2-3. , sheriffs of, 121-123. Sussex, place-names of, 2 et seq. Swereford, erroneous ' dictum ' of, 129. , error of, 132. Taylor, Canon Isaac, 7, g, 17, 19, 21, 25. Terree data accounted for, 73. ' Testa de Nevill,' nature of, 261, 262. , returns of great Inquest (1212) in, 262, 277. -, misdescribed on the title page, 274, 283. 334 INDEX Testudo, see Shield wall. ThegnagBj Tenure in, 271. Thierri, son of Derman, loi, 106, 112. , Bertram son of, 106, 107. Thomas 'of Brotherton,' mar- shal, 303, 308, 311, 313, 314, 317. 318. Thorns, Mr., 305. Ton, the suffix, 2 et seq. Tosard, Avicia, 269. ', Walter, 269. Totemism, alleged traces of, 23. Tout, Prof., 151, 182, 308, 314, 315- Towcester, the moated mound at, S3. 54- Towns, assessment of, for Dane- geld, 257-258. ^ Township and the parish, the, 10-12. Treasurer, Henry the, 76, 81. -, Richard the, 87. Ulster, conquest of, 161-162. , feudal settlement of, 162- 163. Valoines, Barony of, 127, 130. Ver, Aubrey de, 99, 121. Ver, Robert de, 109, 281. Verdun, Ralf de, 152. Veins feoffamentum, meaning of, 58-60. Vetulus, see Viel. Viel, or Vetulus John, 107, 112, "3- Village, community, the, 19. W Treasury, charters kept in the, 88. , plea held in the, 94. Treasury, records in, searched, Walter, Theobald, 269, 270 Wace misunderstands William of Malmesbury, 50. Wales, troops from, 293-295, 300-301. 318. Treasury, the, at Winchester, 75-81, 94, 178. , audit of, 76-78. , the Exchequer a develop- ment of, 80-84. — — , in Normandy, 82. chamberlainship of, 82, 84. Twynham, deanery of, 116. Tynemouth, prior of, 286, 287. U Ulf son of Topi, 29, 30. Ulkotes, Philip de, 270, 271. Warwickshire, early firma from, 72. , troops from, 294-296. Wassail, 272. Waterford, Henry II. at, 150, 152. , synod at, 180-181. Watson, Mr. G. W., 304, 309, 310. Wendover, 280, 282. Westminster Abbey, its lands in Middlesex, 259-260. , its lands in Worcestershire and Glo'stershire, 265. Westminister, Exchequer at, 79- 81. Westmoreland, cornage ofj 286. Wexford, Henry II. at, 152. William I., charters of, 28-37. 335 INDEX William the chamberlain, see London. William of Malmesbury, 50, 224. William of Newburgh, 208-212, 215, 216. William, son of Isabel, 233. Winchester, Henry bishop of, 109, 114-117. Winchester, conference at, 208, 213, 214. , a council at, 123. , Inquest of 12 12 on, 272. , municipality of, 242-243. , origin of its corporation, 221. -, the Treasury at, 75-81. Windsor, William de, 264. Worcester, Mauger bishop of, 267. Worcestershire, taxlyfirma from, 73- , Inquest of 12 12 m, 265, 267. Wyzo, the goldsmith son of Leofstan, 106. Yarmouth, Inquest of 12 12 on, 274. York, Ealdred, archbishop of, 29. Yorkshire, troops from, 294-296. Sutler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London. BY THE SAME AUTHOR («^ Geoffrey de Mandeville A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY pp. xii., 461 " For many reasons this is the most remarkable historical work which has recently appeared ... at once received fitting recognition as the most accurate and penetrating work that had till then appeared on the subject" — Spectator. " It is not easy, within the limits of a review, to do justice to the learning and ability which characterize Mr. Round's study. . . . Indeed few books so learned and suggestive have recently been pub- lished." — Literary World. "The work is most skilfully and ably done, and a whole series ol important discoveries is derived from Mr. Round's efforts. . . . The result is a very large addition to our knowledge. . . . Mr. Round has carried through an undertaking which raises him to a foremost position among historical scholars." — Athenaum. "All the vivacity, keenness, freshness, and accuracy that have marked Mr. Round's previous writings." — Manchester Guardian. " Fresh life from dry records is what Mr. Round aims at. . . . He has permanently associated his name with the scientific study of Anglo- Norman history." — Prof Liebermann in English Historical Review. "M. J. H. Round vient de nous donner une ^tude des plus p^n^- trantes et fecondes . . . c'est un veritable module, et Ton doit souhaiter pour nos voisins qu'il fasse ecole." — Revue Historique. " Almost, if not quite, the most original effort in history during the last twenty years was a twelfth century biograpichal study in which the value, picturesque and human, of charter evidence was illustrated with unmatched force." — Athenceum. Feudal England HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE Xlth AND Xllth CENTURIES pp. xiv., 587 " Every one who has any care for the true, the intimate history of mediasval England will at once get this book. ... It contains some of the most important contributions that have been made of late years to the earlier chapters of English history. . . . The day for the charters has come, and with the day the man His right to speak is established, and we are listening." — Athenceum. " The whole book leaves the stamp of deep research and of a singularly unbiassed mind. . . . Mr. Round has set all intending researchers an admirable example ... if we ever get a work which is to do for the early institutions of England what the great Coulanges did for those of France, we expect it will be from the pen of Mr. '&.o\mA:'' —Spectator. " Not the least of Mr. Round's merits is that the next generation will never want to know how much rubbish he has swept or helped to sweep away. He has done more than any one scholar to put us in the way of reading Domesday Book aright. He has illustrated by abundant examples the wisdom and the necessity of . . . patient study of our documents, . . . his acute and ever watchful criticism." — Sir F. Pollock in English Historical Review. " In Feudal England as in Geoffrey de Mandeville he displays consum- mate skill in the critical study of records, and uses the evidence thus obtained to check and supplement the chroniclers." — Dr. Gross in American Historical Review. " Plein de faits, d'observations p^nArantes, de conclusions neuves et de grande port^e, . . . il a rdussi &. r^tablir la logique oil, avant lui, on ne trouvait que confusion." — Revue Historique.