The Project Gutenberg EBook of Geoffrey de Mandeville, by John Horace Round

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: Geoffrey de Mandeville
       A study of the Anarchy

Author: John Horace Round

Release Date: August 8, 2020 [EBook #62878]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE ***




Produced by MWS, Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE

FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX (see p. 51).

"The reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest living historian, "is one of the most important in our whole history, as exemplifying the working of causes and principles which had no other opportunity of exhibiting their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus refers, is the chief object I have set before myself in these pages. For this purpose I have chosen, to form the basis of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey de Mandeville, as the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By fixing our glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy and its fruits, it is possible to gain a clearer perception of the true tendencies at work, and to obtain a firmer grasp of the essential principles involved. But, while availing myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, I have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, any materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, or illustrating the points raised by the charters with which I deal.

The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which I cannot too strongly insist, namely, that the charters granted to Geoffrey are the very backbone of my work. By those charters it must stand or fall: for on their {vi} relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. If the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the relation I have assigned to them established, it will, I trust, encourage the study of charters and their evidence, "as enabling the student both to amplify and to check such scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to which they relate."[1] It will also result in the contribution of some new facts to English history, and break, as it were, by the wayside, a few stones towards the road on which future historians will travel.

Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw some fresh light are problems of constitutional and institutional interest, such as the title to the English Crown, the origin and character of earldoms (especially the earldom of Arundel), the development of the fiscal system, and the early administration of London. I would also invite attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to Rome in 1136, her intended coronation at Westminster in 1141, the unknown Oxford intrigue of 1142, the new theory on Norman castles suggested by Geoffrey's charters, and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on Gervase de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of Gloucester played in the events of which I write may justify the inclusion of an essay on the creation of his historic earldom, which has, in the main, already appeared in another quarter.

In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is the first step in the discovery of truth."[2] Cordially adopting this maxim, I have endeavoured throughout to correct {vii} errors and dispose of existing misconceptions. To "dare to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often reminds us, neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy smooth things, and to accept without question the errors of others, in the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would repeat that "boast as we may of the achievements of our new scientific school, we are still, as I have urged, behind the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is concerned." If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience that no one would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke calmly." The public is slow to believe that writers who have gained its ear are themselves often in error and, by the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of new evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from the conclusions even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches the accuracy of that unrivalled scholar, the profundity of whose learning and the soundness of whose judgment can only be appreciated by those who have followed him in the same field.

The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion and appearance of this work is responsible for some shortcomings of which no one is more conscious than myself. It has been necessary to correct the proof-sheets at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from England, while the length of time that has elapsed since the bulk of the work was composed is such that two or three new books bearing upon the same period have appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, {viii} and Miss Norgate's well-known England under the Angevin Kings. Mr. Howlett's knowledge of the period, and especially of its MS. authorities, is of a quite exceptional character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one cannot hope to rival, is a most welcome addition to our historical literature. To Dr. Stubbs, also, we are indebted for a new edition of William of Malmesbury. As I had employed for that chronicler and for the Gesta Stephani the English Historical Society's editions, my references are made to them, except where they are specially assigned to those editions by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which have since appeared.

A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. The text of transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, even where it seemed corrupt; and all my extensions as to which any possible question could arise are enclosed in square brackets. The so-called "new style" has been adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are those of the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly artificial reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," denounced by purists, has been retained as a necessary convention, the admirable Calendar of Patent Rolls, now in course of publication, having demonstrated the impossibility of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the spelling of Christian names, no attempt has been made to produce that pedantic uniformity which, in the twelfth century, was unknown. It is hoped that the index may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions to "the lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy of Lancaster) are based on references to that compilation {ix} by seventeenth-century transcribers, which cannot be identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries may, in those days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), with the usual result. I am anxious to call attention to its existence in the hope of its ultimate recovery.

There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks to Mr. Hubert Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS. Department, British Museum, for their invariable courtesy and assistance in the course of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted for several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these pages through the press.

CONTENTS

Before approaching that struggle between King Stephen and his rival, the Empress Maud, with which this work is mainly concerned, it is desirable to examine the peculiar conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown, determining, as they did, his position as king, and supplying, we shall find, the master-key to the anomalous character of his reign.

The actual facts of the case are happily beyond question. From the moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. Stubbs truly observes, "the succession was treated as an open question."[3] Stephen, quick to see his chance, made a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his favour, and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores of Kent.[4] His first reception was not encouraging: Dover refused him admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.[5] On this Dr. Stubbs thus comments:—

"At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. The men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor Eustace had done, to trouble the land."[6]

{2} But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, when all others forsook him, and, remembering this, one would hardly expect to find in them his chief opponents. Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the passage in Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, that Canterbury and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held by his father's gift.[7] It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants of his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought that the prescient king had of set purpose placed these keys of the road to London in the hands of one whom he could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.[8]

Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on rapidly to London. The news of his approach had gone before him, and the citizens flocked to meet him. By them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be king, on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant throne, and that the right to elect one was specially vested in themselves.[9] The point, however, that I would here {3} insist on, for it seems to have been scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially conditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the citizens.[10] The bearing of this will be shown below.

There is another noteworthy point which would seem to have escaped observation. It is distinctly implied by William of Malmesbury that the primate, seizing his opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, as Maurice had done from Henry at his coronation, and as Henry of Winchester was, later, to do in the case of the Empress, an oath to restore the Church her "liberty," a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, he adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this oath by his brother, who himself "went bail" (made himself responsible) for Stephen's satisfactory behaviour to the Church.[11] It is, surely, to this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the election of the Empress.[12] It can only, I think, be explained on the {4} hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had taken, and begged his brother to set him free. If so, the attempt was vain, for he had, we shall find, to bind himself anew on the occasion of his Oxford charter.[13]

At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, came forth from the city to greet him, but this reception must not be confused (as it is by Mr. Freeman) with his election by the citizens of London.[14] His brother, needless to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de l'Arche, who had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert with the head of the administration, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it contained.[15]

Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation at the hands of the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that "he returned to London for formal election and coronation."[16] His authority for that statement is Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.[17] But it will be found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the only authority for this second election, and, moreover, that he ignores the first, as well as the visit to Winchester, thus mixing up the two episodes, between which that visit intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as to {5} whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at the coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This may, perhaps, be a matter of opinion; but in the preceding instance, that of Henry I., the election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.[18] From this point of view, the presentation of the king to the people at his coronation would assume the aspect of a ratification of the election previously conducted. The point is here chiefly of importance as affecting the validity of Stephen's election. If his only election was that which the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least, "informally transacted."[19] Nor was the attendance of magnates at the ceremony such as to improve its character. It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly says, "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of William and Henry."[20] The chroniclers are here unsatisfactory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; John of Hexham leaves us little wiser;[21] the Continuator of Florence indeed states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius Angliæ primoribus" (p. 95), but even the author of the Gesta implies that the primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of magnates present.[22] William of Malmesbury alone is precise,[23] possibly because an adversary of Stephen could {6} alone afford to be so, and his testimony, we shall find, is singularly confirmed by independent charter evidence (p. 11).

It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel the scruples caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the late king. The hint, in the Gesta, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in extorting that oath,[24] is amplified by Gervase into a story that he had released his barons from its bond,[25] while Ralph "de Diceto" represents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her stead.[26] It should be noticed that these last two writers, in their statement that this story was proved by Hugh Bigod on oath, are confirmed by the independent evidence of the Historia Pontificalis.[27]

The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the Gesta in the arguments of Stephen's friends when combating the primate's scruples. They urged that it would ipso facto put an end to all question as to the validity of his election.[28] The advantage, in short, of "snatching" a coronation was that, in the language of modern diplomacy, of securing a fait accompli. Election was a matter of opinion; coronation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression, {7} it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king had begun his reign. Its important bearing is well seen in the case of the Conqueror himself. Dr. Stubbs observes, with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was understood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had preceded it."[29] Now, the fact that the performance of this essential ceremony was, of course, wholly in the hands of the Church, in whose power, therefore, it always was to perform or to withhold it at its pleasure, appears to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion of the ceremony with the actual election itself, that it was for the Church to elect the king. This claim, which in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been only inchoate,[30] appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully developed form,[31] the circumstances of the time having enabled the Church to increase its power in the State with perhaps unexampled rapidity.

May it not have been this development, together with his own experience, that led Stephen to press for the coronation of his son Eustace in his lifetime (1152)? In this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated by the Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and Henry II., warned by his example, succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his heir (1170) in the teeth of Becket's endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold the veto of the Church.

Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, the primate seized the opportunity of extorting from the {8} eager king (besides a charter of liberties) a renewal of his former oath to protect the rights of the Church. The oath which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which Maud had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, it seems, at both, though not till the Oxford charter was it committed, in his case, to writing.[32]

We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians.[33]

The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had despatched an envoy to the papal court, in the person of the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her rival of (1) defrauding her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn oath. Had this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe to assert, have been fascinated by the really singular coincidence between the circumstances of 1136 and of 1066. In each case, of the rivals for the throne, the one based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by (2) an oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by his opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on election duly followed by coronation. In each case the election was fairly open to question; in Harold's, because (pace Mr. Freeman) he was not a legitimate candidate; in Stephen's, because, though a qualified candidate, his election had been most informal. In each case the ousted claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, on the same grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken oath. In each case the successful party was opposed by a particular cardinal, a fact which we learn, in each case, from later and incidental mention. And in each case that {9} cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel ends. Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we know) rejected, the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. We may assign this difference to the closer connection between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the two. For his action was justified by its success. There has been, on this point, no small misconception. Harold has been praised for possessing, and Stephen blamed for lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But læsio fidei was essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the highest of them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far as inheritance affected the question, was brought in many ways within the purview of the courts Christian, as, for instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of Maud. Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played into his hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor in the days of John. His attitude was not that of an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no claim to dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by Maud against Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without formally acquitting him, declined to pronounce him guilty.

Though the king was pleased to describe the papal letter which followed as a "confirmation" of his right to the throne, it was, strictly, nothing of the kind. It was simply, in the language of modern diplomacy, his "recognition" by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince of Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign power, that action would neither alter his status relatively to any other power, nor would it imply the least claim to dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again, to take a mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an {10} English king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy would neither affect any other king, nor constitute a claim to dispose of the papal tiara. Stephen, however, was naturally eager to make the most of the papal action, especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the most formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction of the Church would silence the reproach that he was occupying the throne as a perjured man. Hence the clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which this letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when Geoffrey summoned him, in later years, "to an investigation of his claims before the papal court," he promptly retorted that Rome had already heard the case.[34] He turned, in fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey to justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western counties in the teeth of the papal confirmation of his own right to the throne.

We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, after Christmas, Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral.[35] The corpse, says the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ." The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, "that it furnished an opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen."[36] But the learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, therefore, to quote in extenso a charter which must have passed on this occasion, and which, this being so, is of great value and interest.[37]

Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et Brekon'.

S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. vic. præpositis, Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Angliæ et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ et hæredibus suis post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et præcipio quod bene et honorifice et libere teneat in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et infangenetheof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃ tenuisset die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et H. Big̃ et Roᵬ filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et P. filio Joħ. Apud Rading̃.

The reflections suggested by this charter are many and most instructive. Firstly, we have here the most emphatic corroboration of the evidence of William of Malmesbury. The four first witnesses comprise the three bishops who, according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance that coronation was so largely due. The four others are Robert fitz Richard, whom we shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal chamberlain; {12} Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, whom we met at Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The impression conveyed by this charter is certainly that Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates, and had still to be content with the handful by whom his coronation had been attended.

An important addition is, however, represented by the grantee, Miles of Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz John. The former was a man of great power, both of himself and from his connection with the Earl of Gloucester, in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is represented by the author of the Gesta as acting with him at this juncture.[38] It should, however, be noted, as important in its bearing on the chronology of this able writer, that he places the adhesion of these two barons (p. 15) considerably after that of the Earl of Gloucester (p. 8), whereas the case was precisely the contrary, the earl not submitting to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (vide infra), and again as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, however, in the coming struggle which Miles of Gloucester was destined to play, was such that it is most important to learn the circumstances and the date of his adhesion to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain, fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.[39]

{13} It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I have here given, another charter was granted to Miles of Gloucester by the king, which, being similarly tested at Reading, probably passed on this occasion. The subject of the grant is the same, but the terms are more precise, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary estates of his house, being specially mentioned.[40] Though both these charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in the volume now missing), the latter alone is referred to by Dugdale, from whose transcript it has been printed by Madox.[41] Though the names of the witnesses are there omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied by an abstract which is elsewhere found. Three of these are among those who attest the other charter—Robert fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de Sai; but the other three names are new, being Robert de Ferrers, afterwards Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the spokesman of Stephen's host at Lincoln (see p. 148), and (Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears in attendance at the Easter court.[42] These three barons should {14} therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the king.[43]

Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be found in each charter is the striking illustration it affords of the method by which Stephen procured the adhesion of the turbulent and ambitious magnates. It is not so much a grant from a king to a subject as a convencio between equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to the words "ut dominus et Rex."[44] I see in them at once the symbol and the outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." In his learned and masterly analysis of this subject, a passage which cannot be too closely studied, Dr. Stubbs shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.[45] Surely in the expression "dominus et Rex" (alias "Rex et dominus") we have in actual words the exponent of this double character.[46] And, more than this, we have here the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked or misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, to be proclaimed "Domina et Regina."

{15} Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Reading Stephen passed to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his coronation-day.[47] That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though the fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be placed beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.[48] But the difficulty is that Henry specifies what these pledges were, and that the version he gives cannot be reconciled either with the king's "coronation charter" or with what is known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later in the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, though he thinks it "probable," in his great work, that Stephen, upon this occasion, made "some vague promises," yet adds, of those recorded by Henry—

"Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: if they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued by the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."[49]

In his later work he seems inclined to place more credence in Henry's story.

"After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, he arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, amplifying the words of his charter, to catch the good will of each class of his subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at the time; anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation for the moment."[50]

It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, and can scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But there is one point beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called "second charter" was issued later in the year, {16} after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman, therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at issue, but has also strangely contradicted himself when he confidently assigns this "second charter" to the king's first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in doing so, to another page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to his other and later visit after his return from the north.[51] If I call attention to this error, it is because I venture to think it one to which this writer is too often liable, and against which, therefore, his readers should be placed upon their guard.[52]

It was at Oxford, in January,[53] that Stephen heard of David's advance into England. With creditable rapidity he assembled an army and hastened to the north to meet him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a peaceable agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a stay of about a fortnight,[54] and returned to keep his Easter (March 22) at Westminster. I wish to invite special attention to this Easter court, because it was in many ways of great importance, although historians have almost ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a little about it, and see how notable an event it must have seemed at the time it was held. We should observe, in the first place, that this was no mere "curia de more": {17} it was emphatically a great or national council. The author of the Gesta describes it thus:—

"Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,[55] ut solet, ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."[56]

We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day (Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival of the splendours of former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and parsimonious uncle.[57]

Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court,[58] which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's pictures of the Conqueror in his glory.[59] When, therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom of the Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (Const. Hist., i. 370), he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of Stephen's reign. Stephen, coming into possession of his predecessor's hoarded treasure, was as eager to plunge into costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death of his mean {18} and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons for this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king to show himself to his new subjects in his capital, surrounded not only by the evidence of wealth, but by that of his national acceptance. The presence at his court of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact which would speak for itself, and to secure which he had clearly resolved that no pains should be spared.[60]

If the small group who attended his coronation had indeed been "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of William and Henry," he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the splendour of his Easter court.

This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses to two charters which must have passed on this occasion. The one is a grant to the see of Winchester of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange for Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric of Bath to Robert of Lewes. The former is dated "Apud Westmonasterium in presentia et audientia subscriptorum anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; the latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii celebratione et Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first sight, I confess, both charters have a rather spurious appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion, which is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary number of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent sources, and dealing with two unconnected subjects, they mutually confirm one another. We have, moreover, still extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed the former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of Lancaster records, we have every reason to believe that {19} the original charter itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as to the lists of witnesses. Abnormally long though these may seem, we must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially towards the close of his reign, there was a tendency to increase the number of witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford charter, by which these were immediately followed, we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven), and, which is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of classification, the court officers being grouped together. I have, therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, all three lists.[61] If we analyze those appended to the two London charters, we find their authenticity confirmed by the fact that, while the Earl of Gloucester, who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously absent from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly appears among the attesting earls, and we are specially told by John of Hexham that he was present at this Easter court.[62] Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from their position, of some importance.[63] It is, too, of interest for our purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de Mandeville. The extraordinary number of witnesses to these charters (no less than fifty-five in one case, excluding the king and queen, and thirty-six in the other) is not only of great value as giving us the personnel of this brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford {20} charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record the names of those whom he had induced to attend his courts and so to recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange History of the House of Arundel, quotes the charter to Winchester as from a transcript "among the valuable collection of MSS. belonging to the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, therefore, be of benefit to students to remind them that it is printed in Hearne's Liber Niger (ii. 808, 809). Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter—

"It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not remarkable, since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter with Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p. 286).

To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" that the charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three archbishops and thirteen bishops.[64]

Now, although this was a national council, the state and position of the Church was the chief subject of discussion. The author of the Gesta, who appears to have been well informed on the subject, shows us the prelates appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the intolerable oppression which she had suffered, under the form of law, at the hands of Henry I. Stephen, bland, for the time, to all, and more especially to the powerful Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised all they asked.[65] In the grimly jocose language of the day, the keys of the Church, which had been held by Simon (Magus), were henceforth to be restored to Peter. To this {21} I trace a distinct allusion in the curious phrase which meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the bishopric of Bath "canonica prius electione præcedente." This recognition of the Church's right, with the public record of the fact, confirms the account of his attitude on this occasion to the Church. The whole charter contrasts strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its reference to the counsel and consent of the magnates betrays the weakness of his position.

This council took place, as I have said, at London and during Easter. But there is some confusion on the subject. Mr. Howlett, in his excellent edition of the Gesta, assigns it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18), to "early in April." But his argument that, as that must have been (as it was) the date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In this he does but follow the Gesta, which similarly runs into one the two consecutive events. Richard of Hexham also, followed by John of Hexham,[66] combines in one the council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year.

Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:—

{22} The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of Gloucester was not present at the Easter court in London, and that, landing subsequently, he was present when the charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So short an interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned from London to Oxford, and which did so on purpose to meet the virtual head of the opposition, the powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue of the charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the chroniclers should have made of the whole but one transaction.

The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very important and significant reservation that his loyalty would be strictly conditional on Stephen's behaviour to himself.[67]

His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in the chronicler, immediately afterwards:

"Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem disciplinæ conservaret."[68]

By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection with the Oxford charter. In this he must be correct, if it was subsequent to the earl's homage, for this latter itself, we see, must have been subsequent to Easter.

Probably the council at London was the preliminary to that treaty (convencio) between the king and the bishops, at which William of Malmesbury so plainly hints, {23} and of which the Oxford charter is virtually the exponent record. For this, I take it, is the point to be steadily kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as this are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the desire to extort from the king the utmost possible concession; the other, his desire to extort homage at the lowest price he could. Taken in connection with the presence at Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion that this extended version of his meagre "coronation charter" represents his final and definite acceptance, by the magnates of England, as their king.

It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the chronicle-value of charters, that not a single chronicler records this eventful assembly at Oxford. Our knowledge of it is derived wholly and solely from the testing clause of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab incarnatione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, perhaps, be drawn to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to the selection of that spot for this assembly. For this its central position may, doubtless, partly account, especially if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further east. But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, as it were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol and Gloucester, the two strongholds of the opposition. So, conversely, it represented to the Empress an advanced post resting on their base.

Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely the date of this assembly and charter. Easter falling on the 22nd of March, neither the king nor the Earl of Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the end of March or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal dapifer, had {24} been among the witnesses to this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once.[69] Then followed the suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.[70] It would seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly took place early in April (1136).

I have gone thus closely into these details in order to bring out as clearly as possible the process, culminating in the Oxford charter, by which the succession of Stephen was gradually and, above all, conditionally secured.

Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance, has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they deserved. We learn from the author of the Gesta that the same was the case at Exeter. The {25} king's barons again intervened to save those who had rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from securing too signal a triumph.

This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign. That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to further demands.

Let us glance at them both in succession.

Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford charter:—

"Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ legato consecra tus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus."[72]

On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:—

"His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73]

Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:—

"Henricus filius Willelmi Regis post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei gratia rex Anglorum."[74]

Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause in Stephen's charter contains just that which is omitted in Henry's, and omits just that which is contained in Henry's. Henry puts forward his relationship to his father and his {26} brother as the sole explanation of his position as king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in the charter of Henry. What can be more significant than this contrast? Again, the formula in Stephen's charter should be compared not only with that of Henry, but with that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his daughter invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici regis [or regis Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, is styled (1142), as we shall find in a charter quoted in this work, "Henricus filius filiæ regis Henrici." To the importance of this fact I shall recur below. Meanwhile, the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in a charter which must have passed in the first year of his reign, he does adopt the curious style of "Ego Stephanus Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos," etc.,[75] in which he hints, contrary to his practice, at a quasi-hereditary right.

Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he did not venture to allude to such claim, we find him appealing (a) to his election, which, as we have seen, was informal enough; (b) to his anointing by the primate; (c) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible to read such a formula as this in any other light than that of an attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I do not know that it has ever been suggested, though the {27} hypothesis would seem highly probable, that the stress laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical sanction to his succession may have been largely due, as I have said (p. 10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had been sworn to the Empress. Of breaking that oath the Church, he held, had pronounced him not guilty.

Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the drift of the charter itself, that I depend for support of my thesis that Stephen was virtually king on sufferance, or, to anticipate a phrase of later times, "Quamdiu se bene gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases, (1) of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl Robert, (4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their allegiance by submitting to that "original contract" which the political philosophers of a later age evolved from their inner consciousness. It was because his Oxford charter set the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even then, chafed beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving clause—

"Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate meâ."[76]

And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to break its bonds.[77]

The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the "contract" justified ipso facto revolt on theirs;[78] the second, that their allegiance {28} to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous diffidatio.[79]

This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious principle into England. We have seen it hinted at in that charter of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of Gloucester not merely as his king (rex), but also as his feudal lord (dominus). We shall find it acted on three years later (1139), when this same Miles, with his own dominus, the Earl of Gloucester, jointly "defy" Stephen before declaring for the Empress.[80]

Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle of {29} election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary right according to feudal rules.

For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—

"The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the elective principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as co-ordinate.... The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the elective theory.[81]

Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen "was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used."[82] He urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh.[83]

So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a single, {30} ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ("regis Henrici filia"), but she claimed it further because the succession had been assured to her by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.[84] It is important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded in the light of an election. To understand it aright, we must go back to the precisely similar oath which had been previously sworn to her brother. As early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of the magnates "of all England," on the historic spot of Salisbury, to swear allegiance to his son (March 19).[85] It was with reference to this event that Eadmer described him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving Normandy in November, 1120, the king similarly secured the succession of the duchy to his son by compelling its barons to swear that they would be faithful to the youth.[86] On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once more, a male heir. Despairing of this after some years, he took advantage of the Emperor's death to insist on his daughter's return, and brought her with him to England in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps to secure her recognition as his heir (subject however, as the Continuator and Symeon are both careful to point {31} out, to no son being born to him), by the same oath being sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son. It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on the 1st of January, 1127.[87] Of what took place upon that occasion, there is, happily, full evidence.[88]

We have independent reports of the transaction from William of Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator of Florence, and Gervase of Canterbury.[89] From this last we learn (the fact is, therefore, doubtful) that the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress, but to her heirs.[90] The Continuator's version is chiefly important as bringing out the action of the king in assigning the succession to his daughter, the oath being merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement he had made.[91] Symeon introduces the striking expression that {32} the Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"[92] but William of Malmesbury, in the speech which he places in the king's mouth, far outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right:—

"præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium suum sibi surripuisset, cui jure regnum competeret: nunc superesse filiam, cui soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus; a materno genere multis retro seculis."[93]

Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote these words, it will be seen that the Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's heir, and that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a free election.[94] Thus her claim was neatly traversed by Stephen's advocates, at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that she was not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath which had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") was void.

It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her {33} unvarying use of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that this was the true character of her claim will be seen from the terms of a charter I shall quote, which has hitherto, it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly welcomed by Miles of Gloucester "sicut illam quam justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit."

The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the justice of her claim, it was by no means clear in whom it was vested. It might either be vested (a) in herself, in accordance with our modern notions; or (b) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones;[95] or (c) in her son, as, in the event, it was. It may be said that this point was still undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to come to England, and decided to send his son instead, to represent the hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, however, as we shall find, had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take her {34} own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, though even this would not decide the point, as, had she succeeded, her husband, we may be sure, would have claimed the title of king.

Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine right ("Dei gratia"[96]), and attempts to reduce that election to nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. Thus, at the very time when Stephen was formulating his title, he was admitting, in the case of the bishopric of Bath, that the canonical election had preceded his own nomination of the bishop.[97] Yet it is easy to see how, as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases alike, would become, more and more, virtually matters of form, while a weak sovereign or a disputed succession {35} would afford an opportunity for this historical survival, in the case at least of the throne, to recover for a moment its pristine strength.

Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to resume my grounds for urging that, in comparing Stephen with his successor, the difference between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time to construct.

It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, {36} suggest itself that Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects. It will be at least established by the evidence adduced in this work that some of the charges which are brought against him can no longer be maintained.

Geoffrey de Mandeville was the grandson and heir of a follower of the conqueror of the same name. From Mandeville, a village, according to Mr. Stapleton, near Trevières in the Bessin,[98] the family took its name, which, being Latinized as "De Magnavilla," is often found as "De Magnaville." The elder Geoffrey appears in Domesday as a considerable tenant-in-chief, his estates lying in no less than eleven different counties.[99] On the authority of the Monasticon he is said by Dugdale to have been made constable of the Tower. Dugdale, however, has here misquoted his own authority, for the chronicle printed by him states, not that Geoffrey, but that his son and heir (William) received this office.[100] Its statement is confirmed {38} by Ordericus Vitalis, who distinctly mentions that the Tower was in charge of William de Mandeville when Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101.[101] This may help to explain an otherwise puzzling fact, namely, that a Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was presumably his father, appears as a witness to charters of a date subsequent to this.[102]

Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory of Hurley,[103] and we know the names of his two wives, Athelais and Leceline. By the former he had a son and heir, William, mentioned above, who in turn was the father of Geoffrey, the central figure of this work.[104]

The above descent is not based upon the evidence of the Monasticon alone, but is incidentally recited in those {39} royal charters on which my story is so largely based. It is therefore beyond dispute. But though there is no pedigree of the period clearer or better established, it has formed the subject of an amazing blunder, so gross as to be scarcely credible. Madox had shown, in his History of the Exchequer (ii. 400), that Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" (Earl of Essex from 1199 to 1213) was Sheriff of Essex and Herts in 1192-94 (4 & 5 Ric. I.). Now Geoffrey, the son of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers," assuming the surname of "De Mandeville," became his successor in the earldom of Essex, which he held from 1213 to 1216. The noble and learned authors of the Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer began by confusing this Geoffrey with his namesake the earl of 1141, and bodily transferring to the latter the whole parentage of the former. Thus they evolved the startling discovery that the father of our Geoffrey, the earl of 1141, "was Geoffrey Fitz Peter [i.e. the earl of 1199-1213], and probably was son of Peter, the sheriff at the time of the Survey."[105] But not content even with this, they transferred the shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (vide supra)[106] to a date earlier than the grant to Geoffrey de Mandeville (his supposed son) in 1141. Now, during that shrievalty the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed the tertius denarius of the county of Hertford. Thus their lordships were enabled to produce the further discovery that the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed it before the date of this grant (1141), that is to say, "either before or early in the reign of King Stephen."[107] The authority of these Reports has {40} been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at Courthope stating in his Historic Peerage of England (p. 248) that "Richard de Clare ... was Earl of Hertford, and possessed of the third penny of that county, before or early in the reign of King Stephen." Courthope has in turn misled Dr. Stubbs,[108] and Mr. Doyle has now followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was "created Earl of Hertford (about) 1136."[109] It is therefore something to have traced this error to its original source in the Lords' Reports.

The first mention, it would seem, of the subject of this study is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, where we read—

"Gaufridus de Mandeville reddit compotum de Dccclxvjli. et xiiis. et iiijd. pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiiili. et vis. et viiid.

"Et debet Dcc et xxxiijli. et vjs. et viijd." (p. 55).

As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two-thirteenths of the amount due from him for succession, that is the (arbitrary) "relief" to the Crown, we may infer that his father was but lately dead. He does not again meet us till he appears at Stephen's court early in 1136.[110] From the date of that appearance we pass to his creation as an earl by the first of those royal charters with which we are so largely concerned.[111]

{41} The date of this charter is a point of no small interest, not merely because we have in it the only surviving charter of creation of those issued by Stephen, but also because there is reason to believe that it is the oldest extant charter of creation known to English antiquaries. That distinction has indeed been claimed for the second charter in my series, namely, that which Geoffrey obtained from the Empress Maud. It is of the latter that Camden wrote, "This is the most ancient creation-charter that I ever saw."[112] Selden duly followed suit, and Dugdale echoed Selden's words.[113] Courthope merely observes that it "is presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express creation of the title of earl;"[114] and Mr. Birch pronounces it "one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example of a deed creating a peerage."[115] In despite, however, of these opinions I am prepared to prove that the charter with which we are now dealing is entitled to the first place, though that of the Empress comes next.

We cannot begin an investigation of the subject better than by seeking the opinion of Mr. Eyton, who was a specialist in the matter of charters and their dates, and who had evidently investigated the point. His note on this charter is as follows:—

Here I must first clear the ground by explaining as to the "three patents of creation" mentioned in this passage, that there were only two charters (not "patents") of creation—that of the king, which survives in the original, and that of the Empress, which is known to us from a transcript. As to the latter, it certainly "passed in the short period during which Maud was in London," but that period, so far from being "between June 24 and July 25, 1141," consisted only of a few days ending with "June 24, 1141." The main point, however, at issue is the priority of the creation-charters. It will be seen that Mr. Eyton jumped at his conclusion, and then proceeded: "Having decided," etc. This is the more surprising because that conclusion was at variance with what he admits to have been his own principle, namely, that he had "usually found counter-charters to be Maud's."[117] In {43} this case his conclusion was wrong, and his original principle was right. I think that Mr. Eyton's error was due to his ignorance of the second charter granted by the king to Geoffrey.[118] As he was well acquainted with the royal charters in the duchy of Lancaster collection it is not easy to understand how he came to overlook this very long one, which is, as it were, the keystone to the arch I am about to construct.

It is my object to make Geoffrey's charters prove their own sequence. When once arranged in their right order, it will be clear from their contents that this order is the only one possible. We must not attempt to decide their dates till we have determined their order. But when that order has been firmly established, we can approach the question of dates with comparative ease and confidence.

To determine from internal evidence the sequence of these charters, we must arrange them in an ascending scale. That is to say, each charter should represent an advance on its immediate predecessor. Tried by this test, our four main charters will assume, beyond dispute, this relative order.

The order of the three last is further established by the fact that the grants in the second are specifically confirmed by the third, while the third is expressly referred to in the fourth. The only one, therefore, about which there could possibly be a question is the first, and the fact that the second charter represents a great advance upon it {44} is in this case the evidence. But there is, further, the fact that the place I have assigned it is the only one in the series that it can possibly occupy. Nor could Mr. Eyton have failed to arrive at this conclusion had he included within his sphere of view the second charter of the king.

It is clear that Mr. Eyton was here working from the statements of Dugdale alone. For the three charters he deals with are those which Dugdale gives. The order assigned to these charters by Dugdale and Mr. Eyton respectively can be thus briefly shown:—

How gravely Mr. Eyton erred in his conclusions will be obvious from this table. But it is necessary to go further still, and to say that of the seven charters affecting Geoffrey de Mandeville, three would seem to have been unknown to him, while of the rest, he assigned three, one might almost say all four, to a demonstrably erroneous date. It may be urged that this is harsh criticism, and the more so as its subject was never published, and exists only in the form of notes. There is much to be said for this view, but the fact remains that rash use is certain to be made of these notes, unless students are placed on their guard. That this should be so is due not only to Mr. Eyton's great and just reputation as a laborious student in this field, but also to the exaggerated estimate of the value and correctness of these notes which was set, somewhat prominently, before the public.[119]

Advancing from the question of position to that of actual date, we will glance at the opinion of another expert, Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. We learn from him, as to the date of this first creation-charter, that—

"The dates of the witnesses appear to range between A.D. 1139 and A.D. 1144.... The actual date of the circumstances mentioned in this document is a matter of question.... He [Geoffrey] was slain on the 14th of September, A.D. 1144, and therefore this document must be prior to that date."[120]

We see now that it is by no means easy to date this charter with exactness. It will be best, in pursuance of my usual practice, to begin by clearing the ground.

If we could place any trust in the copious chronicle of Walden Abbey, which is printed (in part) in the Monasticon from the Arundel manuscript, our task would be easy enough. For we are there told that Stephen had already created Geoffrey an earl when, in 1136, he founded Walden Abbey.[121] And, in his foundation charter, he certainly styles himself an earl.[122] But, alas for this precious narrative, it brings together at the ceremony three bishops, Robert of London, Nigel of Ely, and William of Norwich, of whom Robert of London was not appointed till 1141, while William of Norwich did not obtain that see till 1146!

Dismissing, therefore, this evidence, we turn to the fact that no creation of an earldom by Stephen is mentioned before 1138. But we have something far more important than this in the occurrence at the head of the witnesses to this creation-charter, of the name of William of Ypres, the only name, indeed, among the witnesses that strikes one as a note of time. Mr. Eyton wrote: "A deed which I have dated 1140 ... is his first known attestation."[123] I have found no evidence contrary to this conclusion. It would seem probable that when the arrest of the bishops "gave," in Dr. Stubbs' words, "the signal {46} for the civil war," Stephen's preparations for the approaching struggle would include the summons to his side of this experienced leader, who had hitherto been fighting in Normandy for his cause. Indeed, we know that it was so, for he was at once despatched against the castle of Devizes.[124]

Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should incidentally, we shall find, prove the key to the problem. This, which is printed among the footnotes in Madox's Baronia Anglica (p. 231), from the muniments of Westminster Abbey, is addressed "Gaufrido de Magnavilla" simply, and is, therefore, previous to his elevation to the earldom. Now, as this writ refers to the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later than the 11th of December, 1139.[125] Consequently Geoffrey's charter must be subsequent to that date. It must also be previous to the battle of Lincoln (February, 1141), because, as I observed at the outset, it must be previous to the charter of the Empress. We therefore virtually narrow its limit to the year 1140, for Stephen had set out for Lincoln before the close of the year.[126] Let us try and reduce it further still. What was the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of Bishop Roger, hastened to visit Salisbury.[127] He went there from Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned to Reading (Cont. Flor. Wig.). Going and returning he {47} would have passed through Andover, the place at which this writ is tested. Thus it could have been, and probably was, issued at this period (December, 1139). Obviously, if it was issued in the course of 1140, this would reduce still further the possible limit within which Geoffrey's charter can have passed. Difficult though it is to trace the incessant movements of the king throughout this troubled year, he certainly visited Winchester, and (probably thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, proof of his presence at Andover.[128] And there are other grounds, I shall now show, for thinking that the earldom was conferred before March, 1140.

William of Newburgh, speaking of the arrest of Geoffrey de Mandeville, assures us that Stephen bore an old grudge against him, which he had hitherto been forced to conceal. Its cause was a gross outrage by Geoffrey, who, on the arrival of Constance of France, the bride of Eustace the heir-apparent, had forcibly detained her in the Tower.[129] We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, {48} from the words of the Continuator of Florence,[130] and that date agrees well with Henry of Huntingdon's statement, that Stephen had bought his son's bride with the treasure he obtained by the death of the great Bishop of Salisbury (December 11, 1139).[131]

It would seem, of course, highly improbable that this audacious insult to the royal family would have been followed by the grant of an earldom. We might consequently infer that, in all likelihood, Geoffrey had already obtained his earldom.

We have, however, to examine the movements of Stephen at the time. The king returned, as we saw, to Reading, after spending his Christmas at Salisbury. He was then summoned to the Fen country by the revolt of the Bishop of Ely, and he set out thither, says Henry of Huntingdon, "post Natale" (p. 267). He may have taken Westminster on his way, but there is no evidence that he did. He had, however, returned to London by the middle of March, to take part in a Mid-Lent council.[132] His movements now become more difficult to trace than ever, but it may have been after this that he marched on Hereford and Worcester.[133] Our next glimpse of him is at Whitsuntide (May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state at the Tower.[134] It has been suggested that it was for security {49} that he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explanation is disposed of by the fact that the citizens of London were his best friends and proved, the year after, the virtual salvation of his cause. It would seem more likely that he was anxious to reassert his impaired authority and to destroy the effect of Geoffrey's outrage, which might otherwise have been ruinous to his prestige.[135]

It was, as I read it, at the close of Whitsuntide, that is, about the beginning of June, that the king set forth for East Anglia, and, attacking Hugh Bigod, took his castle of Bungay.[136]

In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh Bigod;[137] and either to this, or to his preceding East Anglian campaign, we may safely assign his charter, granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Reading.[138] Now, the first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville himself, who is not styled an earl. We learn, then, that, at least as late as June, 1140, Geoffrey had not received his earldom. This would limit the date of his creation to June-December, 1140, or virtually, at the outside, a period of six months.

Such, then, is the ultimate conclusion to which our inquiry leads us. And if it be asked why Stephen should confer an earldom on Geoffrey at this particular time, the reply is at hand in the condition of affairs, which had now become sufficiently critical for Geoffrey to begin the game he had made up his mind to play. For Stephen {50} could not with prudence refuse his demand for an earldom.[139]

The first corollary of this conclusion is that "the second type" of Stephen's great seal (which is that appended to this charter) must have been already in use in the year 1140, that is to say, before his fall in 1141.

Mr. Birch, who, I need hardly say, is the recognized authority on the subject, has devoted one of his learned essays on the Great Seals of the Kings of England to those of Stephen.[140] He has appended to it photographs of the two types in use under this sovereign, and has given the text of nineteen original sealed charters, which he has divided into two classes according to the types of their seals. The conclusion at which he arrived as the result of this classification was that the existence of "two distinctly variant types" is proved (all traces of a third, if it ever existed, being now lost), one of which represents the earlier, and the other the later, portion of the reign.[141] To the former belong nine, and to the latter ten of the charters which he quotes in his paper. The only point on which a question can arise is the date at which the earlier was replaced by the later type. Mr. Birch is of opinion that—

"the consideration of the second seal tends to indicate the alteration of the type subsequent to his liberation from the hands of the Empress, {51} and it is most natural to suppose that this alteration is owing to the destruction or loss of his seal consequent to his own capture and incarceration" (p. 15).

There can be no doubt that this is the most natural suggestion; but if, as I contend, the very first two of the charters adduced by Mr. Birch as specimens of the later type are previous to "his capture and incarceration," it follows that his later great seal must have been adopted before that event. One of these charters is that which forms the subject of this chapter; the other is preserved among the records of the duchy of Lancaster.[142] At the date when the latter was granted, the king was in possession of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln, which he had seized on the arrest of the bishops in June, 1139. As Alexander had regained possession of his see by the time of the battle of Lincoln, this charter must have passed before Stephen's capture, and most probably passed a year or more before. We have then to account for the adoption by Stephen of a new great seal, certainly before 1141, and possibly as early as 1139. Is it not possible that this event may be connected with the arrest of the chancellor and his mighty kinsmen in June, 1139, and that the seal may have been made away with in his and their interest, as on the flight of James II., in order to increase the confusion consequent on that arrest?[143]

And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself[144]:—

"S. Rex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de {52} Gaufr[ido] de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essex[e] hereditarie. Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus meis bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel liberius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde Comites sunt cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus cum quibus alii Comites mei prefati dignius vel liberius tenent.

"T[estibus] Will[elm]o de Iprâ et Henr[ico] de Essexâ[145] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Rob[erti] fil[ii] Walt[eri][146] et Rob[erto] de Nouo burgo[147] et Mainfen[ino] Britoñ[148] et Turg[esio] de Abrinc[is][149] et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro[150] et Will[elm]o {53} de Dammart[in][151] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Ursi[152] et Will[elm]o de Auco[153] et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti][154] et Radulfo de Wiret[155] (sic) et Eglin[o][156] et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi][157] et Will[elmo] filio Ernald[i].[158] Apud Westmonasterium."

Taking this, as I believe it to be, as our earliest charter of creation extant or even known, the chief point to attract our notice is its intensely hereditary character. Geoffrey receives the earldom "hereditarie," for himself "et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure." The terms in which the grant is made are of tantalizing vagueness; and, compared with the charters by which it was followed, this is remarkable for its brevity, and for the total omission of those accompanying concessions which the statements of our historians would lead us to expect without fail.[159] {54}

We must now pass from the grant of this charter to the great day of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the fortunes of England and her king were changed "in the twinkling of an eye" by the wild charge of "the Disinherited," as they rode for death or victory.[160]

At the time of this sudden and decisive triumph, the Empress had been in England some sixteen months. With the Earl of Gloucester, she had landed at Arundel,[161] on September 30, 1139,[162] and while her brother, escorted by a few knights, made his way to his stronghold at Bristol, had herself, attended by her Angevin suite, sought shelter with her step-mother, the late queen, in the famous castle of Arundel. Stephen had promptly appeared before its walls, but, either deeming the fortress impregnable or being misled by treacherous counsel,[163] had not only raised his blockade of the castle, but had allowed the Empress to set out for Bristol, and had given her for escort his brother the legate, and his trusted supporter the Count of Meulan.[164] From the legate her brother had received her at a spot appointed beforehand, and had then returned with her to Bristol. Here she was promptly visited by the constable, Miles of Gloucester, who at once acknowledged her claims as "the rightful heir" of England.[165] Escorted by him, she removed to Gloucester, of which he was hereditary castellan, {56} and received the submission of that city, and of all the country round about.[166] The statements of the chroniclers can here be checked, and are happily confirmed and amplified by a charter of the Empress, apparently unknown, but of great historical interest. The following abstract is given in a transcript taken from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the duchy[167]:—

"Carta Matilde Imperatricis in quâ dicit, quod[168] quando in Angliam venit post mortem H. patris sui[169] Milo de Gloecestrâ quam citius potuit venit ad se[170] apud Bristolliam et recepit me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit, et inde me secum ad Gloecestram adduxit et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra omnes homines. Et volo vos scire quod tunc quando homagium suum apud Gloecestram recepit, dedi ei pro servicio suo in feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis castellum de Sancto Briavel(li) et totam forestam de Dene,"[171] etc., etc.

It was at Gloucester that she received the news of her brother's victory at Lincoln (February 2, 1141), and it was there that he joined her, with his royal captive, on Quinquagesima Sunday (February 9).[172] It was at once decided that the king should be despatched to Bristol Castle,[173] and that he should be there kept a prisoner for life.[174]

In the utter paralysis of government consequent on the king's capture, there was not a day to be lost on the part of the Empress and her friends. The Empress herself was {57} intoxicated with joy, and eager for the fruits of victory.[175] Within a fortnight of the battle, she set out from Gloucester, on what may be termed her first progress.[176] Her destination was, of course, Winchester, the spot to which her eyes would at once be turned. She halted, however, for a while at Cirencester,[177] to allow time for completing the negotiations with the legate.[178] It was finally agreed that, advancing to Winchester, she should meet him in an open space, without the walls, for a conference. This spot a charter of the Empress enables us apparently to identify with Wherwell.[179] Hither, on Sunday, the 2nd of March, a wet and gloomy day,[180] the clergy and people, headed by the legate, with the monks and nuns of the religious houses, and such magnates of the realm as were present, streamed forth from the city to meet her.[181]

The compact ("pactum") which followed was strictly on the lines of that by means of which Stephen had secured the throne. The Empress, on her part, swore that if the legate would accept her as "domina," he should henceforth have his way in all ecclesiastical matters. And her leading followers swore that this oath should be kept. Thereupon the legate agreed to receive her as "Lady of {58} England," and promised her the allegiance of himself and of his followers so long as she should keep her oath. The whole agreement is most important, and, as such, should be carefully studied.[182]

On the morrow (March 3) the Empress entered Winchester, and was received in state in the cathedral, the legate supporting her on the right, and Bernard of St. David's on the left.[183]

Now, it is most important to have a clear understanding of what really took place upon this occasion.

The main points to keep before us are—(1) that there are two distinct episodes, that of the 2nd and 3rd of March, and that of the 7th and 8th of April, five weeks intervening between them, during which the Empress left Winchester to make her second progress; (2) that the first episode was that of her reception at Winchester, the second (also at Winchester) that of her election.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that our historians are here in woeful confusion. Dr. Stubbs alone is, as usual, right. Writing from the standpoint of a constitutional historian, he is only concerned with the election of the {59} Empress, and to this he assigns its correct date.[184] In his useful and excellent English History, Mr. Bright, on the contrary, ignores the interval, and places the second episode "a few days after" the first.[185] Professor Pearson, whose work is that which is generally used for this period, omits altogether the earlier episode.[186] Mr. Birch, on the other hand, in his historical introduction to his valuable fasciculus of the charters of the Empress, ignores altogether the later episode, though he goes into this question with special care. Indeed, he does more than this; for he transfers the election itself from the later to the earlier occasion, and assigns to the episode of March 2 and 3 the events of April 7 and 8. This cardinal error vitiates his elaborate argument,[187] and, indeed, makes confusion worse confounded. Mr. Freeman, though, of course, in a less degree, seems inclined to err in the same direction, when he assigns to the earlier of the two episodes that importance which belongs to the later.[188]

Rightly to apprehend the bearing of this episode, we must glance back at the preceding reigns. Dr. Stubbs, writing of Stephen's accession, observes that "the example which Henry had set in his seizure and retention of the crown was followed in every point by his successor."[189] But on at least one main point the precedent was older than this. The Conqueror, in 1066, and his heir, in 1087, had both deemed it their first necessity to obtain possession {60} of Winchester. Winchester first, and then London, was a rule that thus enjoyed the sanction of four successive precedents. To secure Winchester with all that it contained, and with all the prestige that its possession would confer, was now, therefore, the object of the Empress. This object she attained by the pactum of the 2nd of March, and with it, as we have seen, the conditional allegiance of the princely bishop of the see.

Now, Henry of Blois was a great man. As papal legate, as Bishop of Winchester, and as brother to the captive king, he possessed an influence, in his triple capacity, which, at this eventful crisis, was probably unrivalled in the land. But there was one thing that he could not do—he could not presume, of his own authority, to depose or to nominate an English sovereign. Indeed the very fact of the subsequent election (April 8) and of his claim, audacious as it was, that that election should be the work of the clergy, proves that he had no thought of the even more audacious presumption to nominate the sovereign himself. This, then, is fatal to Mr. Birch's contention that the Empress was, on this occasion (March 3), elected "domina Angliæ." Indeed, as I have said, it is based on a confusion of the two episodes. The legate, as Mr. Birch truly says, "consented to recognize (sic) the Empress as Domina Angliæ, or Lady, that is, Supreme Governor of England," but, obviously, he could only do so on behalf of himself and of his followers. We ought, therefore, to compare his action with that of Miles of Gloucester in 1139, when, as we have seen, in the words of the Empress—

"Recepit me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit ... et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra omnes homines."[190]

{61} Notice here the identity of expression—the "reception" of the Empress and the "recognition" of her claims. I have termed the earlier episode the "reception," and the later the "election" of the Empress. In these terms is precisely expressed the distinction between the two events. Take for instances the very passages appealed to by Mr. Birch himself:—

"The exact words employed by William of Malmesbury are 'Nec dubitavit Episcopus Imperatricem in Dominam Angliæ recipere' (sic). In another place the same Henry de Blois declares of her, 'In Angliæ Normanniæque Dominam eligimus' (sic). This regular election of Mathildis to the dignity and office of Domina Angliæ took place on Sunday, March 2, A.D. 1141" (p. 378).

Now we know, from William of Malmesbury himself, that "the regular election in question" took place on the 8th of April, and that the second of the passages quoted above refers to this later episode,[191] while the other refers to the earlier.[192] I have drawn attention to the two words (recipere and eligimus) which he respectively applies to the "reception" and the "election." The description of this "reception" by William of Malmesbury[193] completely tallies with that which is given by the Empress herself in a charter.[194] It should further be compared with the account by the author of the Gesta Stephani, of the similar reception accorded to Stephen in 1135.[195]

But though the legate could open to the Empress the cathedral and the cathedral city, he had no power over {62} the royal castle. This we saw in the case of Stephen, when his efforts to secure the constable's adherence were fruitless till the king himself arrived. Probably the constable, at this crisis, was the same William de Pont de l'Arche, but, whoever he was, he surrendered to the Empress the castle and all that it contained. In one respect, indeed, she was doomed to be bitterly disappointed, for the royal treasury, which her adventurous rival had found filled to overflowing, was by this time all but empty. One treasure, however, she secured; the object of her desires, the royal crown, was placed in her triumphant hands.[196]

To the one historian who has dealt with this incident it has proved a stumbling-block indeed. Mr. Freeman thus boldly attacks the problem:—

"William of Malmesbury (Hist. Nov., iii. 42) seems distinctly to exclude a coronation; he merely says, 'Honorifica factâ processione, recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ.' We must, therefore, see only rhetoric when the Continuator says, 'Datur ejus dominio corona Angliæ,' and when the author of the Gesta (75) speaks of 'regisque castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissime affectârat, ... in deliberationem suam contraditis,' and adds that Henry 'dominam et reginam acclamare præcepit.' The Waverley Annalist, 1141, ventures to say, 'Corona regni est ei tradita.'"[197]

"Only rhetoric." Ah, how easily could history be written, if one could thus dispose of inconvenient evidence! So far from being "rhetoric," it is precisely because these statements are so strictly matter-of-fact that the writer failed to grasp their meaning. Had he known, or remembered, that the royal crown was preserved in the royal treasury, the passage by which he is so sorely puzzled would have proved simplicity itself.[198]

{63} Here again, light is thrown on these events and on the action of the Empress by the precedent in the case of her father (1100), who, on the death of his brother, hastened to Winchester Castle ("ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur"), which was formally handed over to him with all that it contained ("arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico reddita est").[199]

We have yet to consider the passage from the Gesta, to which Mr. Birch so confidently appeals, and which is dismissed by Mr. Freeman as "rhetoric." The passage runs:—

"In publica se civitatis et fori audientia dominam et reginam acclamare præcepit."[200]

By a strange coincidence it has been misconstrued by both writers independently. Mr. Freeman, as we saw, takes "præcepit" as referring to Henry himself, and so does Mr. Birch.[201] Though the sentence as a whole may be obscure, yet the passage quoted is quite clear. The words are "præcepit se," not "præcepit illam." Thus the proclamation, if made, was the doing of the Empress and not of the legate. Had the legate been indeed responsible, his conduct would have been utterly inconsistent. But as it is, the difficulty vanishes.[202]

To the double style, "domina et regina," I have made {64} reference above. My object now is to examine this assumption of the style "regina" by the Empress. It might perhaps be urged that the author of the Gesta cannot here be implicitly relied on. His narrative, however, is vigorous and consistent; it is in perfect harmony with the character of the Empress; and so far as the assumption of this style is concerned, it is strikingly confirmed by that Oxford charter, to which we are now coming. After her election (April 8), the Empress might claim, as queen elect, the royal title, but if that were excusable, which is granting much, its assumption before her election could admit of no defence. Yet, headstrong and impetuous, and thirsting for the throne, she would doubtless urge that her rival's fall rendered her at once de facto queen. But this was as yet by no means certain. Stephen's brother, as we know, was talked of, and the great nobles held aloof. The Continuator, indeed, asserts that at Winchester (March) were "præsules pene totius Angliæ, barones multi, principes plurimi" (p. 130), but William, whose authority is here supreme, does not, though writing as a partisan of the Empress, make any allusion to their presence.[203] Moreover, the primate was still in doubt, and of the five bishops who were present with the legate, three (St. David's, Hereford, and Bath) came from districts under the influence of the Empress, while the other two (Lincoln and Ely) were still smarting beneath Stephen's action of two years before (1139).

The special interest, therefore, of this bold proclamation at Winchester lies in the touch it gives us of that feminine impatience of the Empress, which led her to grasp so eagerly the crown of England in her hands, and now to anticipate, in this hasty manner, her election and formal coronation.[204]

{65} Within a few days of her reception at Winchester, she retraced her steps as far as Wilton, where it was arranged that she should meet the primate, with whom were certain bishops and some lay folk.[205] Theobald, however, professed himself unable to render her homage until he had received from the king his gracious permission to do so.[206] For this purpose he went on to Bristol, while the Empress made her way to Oxford, and there spent Easter (March 30th).[207] We must probably assign to this occasion her admission to Oxford by Robert d'Oilli.[208] The Continuator, indeed, assigns it to May, and in this he is followed by modern historians. Mr. Freeman, for instance, on his authority, places the incident at that stage,[209] and so does Mr. Franck Bright.[210]

But the movements of the Empress, at this stage, are {66} really difficult to determine. Between her presence at Oxford (March 30)[211] and her presence at Reading (May 5-7),[212] we know nothing for certain. One would imagine that she must have attended her own election at Winchester (April 7, 8), but the chroniclers are silent on the subject, though they, surely, would have mentioned her presence. On the whole, it seems most probable that the Continuator must be in error, when he places the adhesion of Robert d'Oilli so late as May (at Reading) and takes the Empress subsequently to Oxford, as if for the first time.

It was, doubtless, through her "brother" Robert "fitz Edith" that his step-father, Robert d'Oilli, was thus won over to her cause. It should be noted that his defection from the captive king is pointedly mentioned by the author of the Gesta, even before that of the Bishop of Winchester, thus further confirming the chronology advanced above.[213] At Oxford she received the submission of all the adjacent country,[214] and also executed an important charter. This charter Mr. Birch has printed, having apparently collated for the purpose no less than five copies.[215] Its special interest is derived from the fact that not only is it the earliest charter she is known to have issued after Stephen's fall (with the probable exception of that to Thurstan de Montfort), but it is also the only one of her charters in which we find the royal phrases "ecclesiarum regni mei" and "pertinentibus coronæ meæ." Mr. {67} Birch writes of its testing clause ("Apud Oxeneford Anno ab Incarnatione Domini MC. quatragesimo"):

The date of this charter is very interesting, because it is the only example of an actual date calculated by expression of the years of the Incarnation, which occurs among the entire series which I have been able to collect.... Now, as the historical year in these times commenced on the 25th of March, there is no doubt but that this charter was granted to the Abbey of Hulme at some time between the 3rd and the 25th of March, A.D. 1140-41.[216]

Mr. Eyton has also independently discussed it (though his remarks are still in MS.), and detects, with his usual minute care, a difficulty, in one of the three witnesses, to which Mr. Birch does not allude.

"St. Benet of Hulme.

"The date given (1140) seems to combine with another circumstance to lead to error. Matilda's style is 'Matild' Imp. H. regis filia,' not, as usual, 'Anglorum domina.' One might therefore conclude that the deed passed before the battle of Lincoln, and so in 1140. However, this conclusion would be wrong, for though Matᵃ does not style herself Queen, she asserts in the deed Royal rights and speaks of matters pertaining 'coronæ meæ.' But we do not know that Maud was ever in Oxford before Stephen's captivity, nor can we think it. Again, it is certain that Robᵗ de Sigillo did not become Bishop of London till after Easter, 1141, for at Easter, 1142, he expressly dates his own deed 'anno primo pontif' mei.' He was almost certainly appointed when Maud was in London in July, 1141, for he attests Milo's patent of earldom on July 25."[217]

The omission of the style "Anglorum domina" is, however, strictly correct, and not, as Mr. Eyton thought, singular. For it was not till her election on the 8th of April that she became entitled to use this style. As for her assumption of the royal phrases, it is here simply ultra vires. Then, as to the attesting bishop ("R. episcopo Londoniensi"), his presence is natural, as he was a monk of Reading, and his position would seem to be paralleled {68} by that of his predecessor Maurice, who appears as bishop in the Survey, though, probably, only elect. As her father "gave the bishopric of Winchester" the moment he was elected, and before he was crowned,[218] so the Empress "gave," it would seem, the see of London to Robert "of the Seal," even before her formal election—an act, it should be noted, thoroughly in keeping with her impetuous assumption of the regal style. Besides the bishop and the Earl of Gloucester, there is a third witness to this charter—"Reginaldo filio Regis." No one, it seems, has noticed the fact that here alone, among the charters of the Empress, Reginald attests not as an earl, which confirms the early date claimed for this charter. A charter which I assign to the following May is attested by him: "Reginaldo comite filio regis." This would seem to place his creation between the dates of these charters, i.e. circ. April (1141).[219] To sum up, the evidence of this charter is in complete agreement with that of William of Malmesbury, when he states that the Empress spent Easter (March 30) at Oxford; and we further learn from it that she must have arrived there at least as early as the 24th of March.

The fact that Mr. Freeman, in common with others, has overlooked this early visit of the Empress in March, is no doubt the cause of his having been misled, as I have shown, by the Continuator's statement.

{69} The Assembly at Winchester took place, as has been said, on the 7th and 8th of April. William of Malmesbury was present on the occasion, and states that it was attended by the primate "and all the bishops of England."[220] This latter phrase may, however, be questioned, in the light of subsequent charter evidence.

The proceedings of this council have been well described, and are so familiar that I need not repeat them. On the 7th was the private conclave; on the 8th, the public assembly. I am tempted just to mention the curiously modern incident of the legate (who presided) commencing the proceedings by reading out the letters of apology from those who had been summoned but were unable to be present.[221] On the 8th the legate announced to the Assembly the result of the previous day's conclave:—

"filiam pacifici regis ... in Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus, et ei fidem et manutenementum promittimus."[222]

On the 9th, the deputation summoned from London arrived and was informed of the decision; on the 10th the assembly was dissolved.

{70} The point I shall here select for discussion is the meaning of the term "domina Angliæ," and the effect of this election on the position of the Empress.

First, as to the term "domina Angliæ." Its territorial character must not be overlooked. In the charters of the Empress, her style "Ang' domina" becomes occasionally, though very rarely, "Anglor' domina," proving that its right extension is "Anglorum Domina," which differs, as we have seen, from the chroniclers' phrase. The importance of the distinction is this. "Rex" is royal and national; "dominus" is feudal and territorial. We should expect, then, the first to be followed by the nation ("Anglorum"), the second by the territory ("Angliæ"). But, in addition to its normal feudal character, the term may here bear a special meaning.

It would seem that the clue to its meaning in this special sense was first discovered by the late Sir William (then Mr.) Hardy ("an ingenious and diligent young man," as he was at the time described) in 1836. He pointed out that "Dominus Anglie" was the style adopted by Richard I. "between the demise of his predecessor and his own coronation."[223] Mr. Albert Way, in a valuable paper on the charters belonging to Reading Abbey, which appeared some twenty-seven years later,[224] called attention to the styles "Anglorum Regina" and "Anglorum Domina," as used by the Empress.[225] As to the former, he referred to the charter of the Empress at Reading, granting lands to Reading Abbey.[226] As to the latter ("Domina Anglorum"), he quoted Mr. Hardy's paper on the charter {71} of Richard I., and urged that "the fact that Matilda was never crowned Queen of England may suffice to account for her being thus styled" (p. 283). He further quoted from William of Malmesbury the two passages in which that chronicler applies this style to the Empress,[227] and he carefully avoided assigning them both to the episode of the 2nd of March. Lastly, he quoted the third passage, that in the Gesta Stephani.

Mr. Birch subsequently read a paper "On the Great Seals of King Stephen" before the Royal Society of Literature (December 17, 1873), in which he referred to Mr. Way's paper, as the source of one of the charters of which he gave the text, and in which he embodied Mr. Way's observations on the styles "Regina" and "Domina."[228] But instead, unfortunately, of merely following in Mr. Way's footsteps, he added the startling error that Stephen was a prisoner, and Matilda consequently in power, till 1143. He wrote thus:—

"Did the king ever cease to exercise his regal functions? Were these functions performed by any other constitutional sovereign meanwhile? The events of the year 1141 need not to be very lengthily discussed to demonstrate that for a brief period there was a break in Stephen's sovereignty, and a corresponding assumption of royal power by another ruler unhindered and unimpeached by the lack of any formality necessary for its full enjoyment.... William of Malmesbury, writing with all the opportunity of an eye-witness, and moving in the royal court at the very period, relates at full length in his Historia Novella (ed. Hardy, for Historical Society, vol. ii. p. 774[229]), the particulars of the conference held at Winchester subsequent to the capture of Stephen after the battle of Lincoln, in the early part of the year, 4 Non. Feb. A.D. 1141.... This election of Matilda as Domina of England in place of Stephen took place on Sunday, March 2, 1141.... Until the liberation of the king from his incarceration at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the hopes of the Empress, she held her {72} position as queen at London. The narrative of the events of this period, as given by William of Malmesbury in the work already quoted, so clearly points to her enjoyment of all temporal power needed to constitute a sovereign, that we must admit her name among the regnant queens of England" (pp. 12-14).

Two years later (June 9, 1875), Mr. Birch read a paper before the British Archæological Association,[230] in which, in the same words, he advanced the same thesis.

The following year (June 28, 1876), in an instructive paper read before the Royal Society of Literature,[231] Mr. Birch wrote thus:—

"As an example of new lights which the study of early English seals has thus cast upon our history (elucidations, as it were, of facts which have escaped the keen research of every one of our illustrious band of historians and chroniclers for upwards of seven hundred years), an examination into the history of the seal of Mathildis or Maud, the daughter and heiress of King Henry I. (generally known as the Empress Maud, or Mathildis Imperatrix, from the fact of her marriage with the Emperor Henry V. of Germany), has resulted in my being fortunately enabled to demonstrate that royal lady's undisputed right to a place in all tables or schemes of sovereigns of England; nevertheless it is, I believe, a very remarkable fact that her position with regard to the throne of England should have been so long, so universally, and so persistently ignored, by all those whose fancy has led them to accept facts at second hand, or from perfunctory inquiries into the sources of our national history rather than from careful step-by-step pursuit of truth through historical tracks which, like indistinct paths in the primæval forest, often lead the wanderer into situations which at the outset could not have been foreseen. In a paper on this subject which I prepared last year, and which is now published in the Journal of the British Archæological Association, I have fully explained my views of the propriety of inserting the name of Mathildis or Maud as Queen of England into the History Tables under the date of 1141-1143; and as this position has never as yet been impugned, we may take it that it is right in the main; and I have shown that until the liberation of King Stephen from his {73} imprisonment at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at Winchester in 1143 (so disastrous to the prospects of Mathildis), she held her position as queen, most probably at London....

"Now, I have introduced this apparent digression in this place to point to the importance of the study of historical seals, for my claim to the restoration of this queen's name is not due so much to my own researches as it is to the unaccountable oversight of others."[232]

I fear that, notwithstanding Mr. Birch's criticism on all who have gone before him, a careful analysis of the subject will reveal that the only addition he has made to our previous knowledge on this subject, as set forth in Mr. Way's papers, consists in two original and quite incomprehensible errors: one of them, the assigning of Maud's election to the episode of the 2nd and 3rd of March, instead of to that of the 7th and 8th of April (1141); the other, the assigning of Stephen's liberation to 1143 instead of 1141. When we correct these two errors, springing (may we say, in Mr. Birch's words?) "from perfunctory inquiries into the sources of our national history rather than from careful step-by-step pursuit of the truth," we return to the status quo ante, as set forth in Mr. Way's paper, and find that "the unaccountable oversight," by all writers before Mr. Birch, of the fact that the Empress "held her position as queen," for more than two years, "most probably at London," is due to the fact that her said rule lasted only a few months, or rather, indeed, a few weeks, while in London itself it was numbered by days.

But though it has been necessary to speak plainly on Mr. Birch's unfortunate discovery, one can probably agree with his acceptance of the view set forth by Mr. Hardy, and espoused by Mr. Way, that the style "domina" represents that "dominus" which was used as "a temporary title for the newly made monarch during the interval which was elapsing between the death of the {74} predecessor and the coronation day of the living king."[233] To Mr. Hardy's instance of Richard's style, "Dominus Angl[iæ]," August, 1189, we may add, I presume, that of John, "Dominus Angliæ," April 17th and 29th, (1199).[234] Now, if this usage be clearly established, it is certainly a complete explanation of a style of which historians have virtually failed to grasp the relevance.

But a really curious parallel, which no one has pointed out, is that afforded in the reign immediately preceding this, by the case of the king's second wife. Great importance is rightly attached to "the election of the Empress as 'domina Angliæ'" (as Dr. Stubbs describes it[235]), and to the words which William of Malmesbury places in the legate's mouth;[236] and yet, though the fact is utterly ignored, the very same formula of election is used in the case of Queen "Adeliza," twenty years before (1121)!

The expression there used by the Continuator is this: "Puella prædicta, in regni dominam electa, ... regi desponsatur" (ii. 75). That is to say that before her marriage (January 29) and formal coronation as queen (January 30) she was elected, it would seem, "Domina Angliæ." The phrase "in regni dominam electa" precisely describes the status of the Empress after her election at Winchester, and before that formal coronation at Westminster which, as I maintain, was fully intended to follow. We might even go further still, and hold that the description of Adeliza as "futuram regni dominam,"[237] when the envoys were despatched to fetch her, implies that she had been so elected at that great Epiphany council, in which the king "decrevit sibi in uxorem Atheleidem."[238] But I {75} do not wish to press the parallel too far. In any case, precisely as with the Empress afterwards, she was clearly "domina Angliæ" before she was crowned queen. And, if "electa" means elected, the fact that these two passages, referring to the two elections (1121 and 1141), come from two independent chronicles proves that the terms employed are no idiosyncracy, but refer to a recognized practice of the highest constitutional interest.

Of course the fact that the same expression is applied to the election of Queen "Adeliza" as to that of the Empress herself, detracts from the importance of the latter event, regarded as an election to the throne.

At the same time, I hold that we should remember, as in the case of Stephen, the feudal bearing of "dominus." For herein lies its difference from "Rex." The "dominatus" of the Empress over England is attained step by step.[239] At Cirencester, at Winchester, at Oxford, she becomes "domina" in turn.[240] Not so with the royal title. She could be "lady" of a city or of a man: she could be "queen" of nothing less than England.

I must, however, with deep regret, differ widely from Mr. Birch in his conclusions on the styles adopted by the Empress. These he classes under three heads.[241] The second ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Anglorum regina") is found in only two charters, which I agree with him in assigning "to periods closely consecutive," not indeed to the episode of March 2 and 3, but to that of April 7 and 8. Of his remaining twenty-seven charters, thirteen belong to his first class and fourteen to his third, a proportion which makes it hard to understand {76} why he should speak of the latter as "by far the most frequent."

Of the first class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia") Mr. Birch writes:—

"It is most probable that these documents are to be assigned to a period either before the death of her father, King Henry I., or at most to the initial years of Stephen, before any serious attempt had been made to obtain the possession of the kingdom."

Now, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of them can be assigned to the period suggested, that not one of them is previous to that 2nd of March (1141) which Mr. Birch selects as his turning-point, still less to "the death of her father" (1135). Nay, on Mr. Birch's own showing, the first and most important of these documents should be dated "between the 3rd of March and the 24th of July, A.D. 1141" (p. 380), and two others (Nos. 21, 28) "must be ascribed to a date between 1149 and 1151" (p. 397 n.). Nor is even this all, for as in two others the son of the Empress is spoken of as "King Henry," they must be as late as the reign of Henry II.

So, also, with the third class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Anglorum domina"), of which we are told that it—

"was in the first instance adopted—I mean used—in those charters which contain the word and were promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141, by reason of the ceremony of coronation not yet having been performed; and with regard to those charters which are placed subsequent to A.D. 1141, either because the ceremony was still unperformed, although she had the possession of the crown, or because of some stipulation with her opponents in power" (p. 383).

Here, again, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of these charters was "promulgated between A.D. 1135 and A.D. 1141." We have, therefore, no evidence that the Empress, in her charters, adopted this style until the election of April 7 and 8 (1141) enabled her justly to do {77} so. But the fact is that Mr. Birch's theory is not only based, as we have seen, on demonstrably erroneous hypotheses, but must be altogether abandoned as opposed to every fact of the case. For the two styles which he thus distinguishes were used at the same time, and even in the same document. For instance, in the very first of Mr. Birch's documents, that great charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville, to which we shall come, in the next chapter, issued at the height of Matilda's power, and on the eve, as we shall see, of her intended coronation, "Anglorum domina" is omitted from her style, and the document is therefore, by Mr. Birch, assigned to the first of his classes. Yet I shall show that in a portion of the charter which has perished, and which is therefore unknown to Mr. Birch, her style is immediately repeated with the addition "Anglorum Domina." It is clear, then, on Mr. Birch's own showing, that this document should be assigned both to his first and to his third classes, and, consequently, that the distinction he attempts to draw has no foundation in fact.

Mr. Birch's thesis would, if sound, be a discovery of such importance that I need not apologize for establishing, by demonstration, that it is opposed to the whole of the evidence which he himself so carefully collected. And when we read of Stephen's "incarceration at Bristol, which was not terminated until the battle of Winchester in A.D. 1143, when the hopes of the Empress were shattered" (p. 378), it is again necessary to point out that her flight from Winchester took place not in 1143, but in September, 1141. Mr. Birch's conclusion is thus expressed:—

"We may, therefore, take it as fairly shown that until the liberation of the king from his imprisonment at Bristol (as a sequel to the battle at Winchester in A.D. 1143, so disastrous to the queen's hopes) she held her position, as queen, most probably at London," etc. (p. 380).

{78} Here, as before, it is needful to remember that the date is all wrong, and that the triumph of the Empress, so far from lasting two years or more, lasted but for a few months of the year 1141, in the course of which she was not at London for more than a few days.

And now let us turn to my remaining point, "the effect of this election on the position of the Empress."

To understand this, we must glance back at the precedents of the four preceding reigns. The Empress, as I have shown, had followed these precedents in making first for Winchester: she had still to follow them in securing her coronation and anointing at Westminster. It is passing strange that all historians should have lost sight of this circumstance. For the case of her own father, in whose shoes she claimed to stand, was the aptest precedent of all. As he had been elected at Winchester, and then crowned at Westminster, so would she, following in his footsteps. The growing importance of London had been recognized in successive coronations from the Conquest, and now that it was rapidly supplanting Winchester as the destined capital of the realm, it would be more essential than ever that the coronation should there take place, and secure not merely the prestige of tradition, but the assent of the citizens of London.[242]

It has not, however, so far as I know, occurred to any writer that it was the full intention of the Empress and her followers that she should be crowned and anointed queen, and that, like those who had gone before her, she should be so crowned at Westminster. It is because they {79} failed to grasp this that Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman are both at fault. The former writes:—

"Matilda became the Lady of the English; she was not crowned, because perhaps the solemn consecration which she had received as empress sufficed, or perhaps Stephen's royalty was so far forth indefeasible."[243]

"No attempt was made to crown the Empress; the legate simply proposes that she should be elected Lady of England and Normandy. It is just possible that the consecration which she had once received as empress might be regarded as superseding the necessity of a new ceremony of the kind, but it is far more likely that, so long as Stephen was alive and not formally degraded, the right conferred on him by coronation was regarded as so far indefeasible that no one else could be allowed to share it."[244]

Dr. Stubbs appears here to imply that we should have expected her coronation to follow her election. And in this he is clearly right. Mr. Freeman, however, oddly enough, seems to have looked for it before her election. This is the more strange in a champion of the elective principle. He writes thus of her reception at Winchester, five weeks before her election:—

"If Matilda was to reign, her reign needed to begin by something which might pass for an election and coronation. But her followers, Bishop Henry at their head, seem to have shrunk from the actual crowning and anointing ceremonies, which—unless Sexburh had, ages before, received the royal consecration—had never, either in England or in Gaul, been applied to a female ruler. Matilda was solemnly received in the cathedral church of Winchester; she was led by two bishops, the legate himself and Bernard of St. David's, as though to receive the crown and unction, but no crowning and no unction is spoken of."[245]

{80} At the same time, he recurs to the subject, after describing the election, thus:—

"Whether any consecration was designed to follow, whether at such consecration she would have been promoted to the specially royal title, we are not told."[246]

But all this uncertainty is at once dispelled when we learn what was really intended. Taken in conjunction with the essential fact that "domina" possessed the special sense of the interim royal title, the intention of the Empress to be crowned at Westminster, and so to become queen in name as well as queen in deed, gives us the key to the whole problem. It explains, moreover, the full meaning of John of Hexham's words, when he writes that "David rex videns multa competere in imperatricis neptis suæ promotionem post Ascensionem Domini (May 8) ad eam in Suth-Anglia profectus est ... plurimosque ex principibus sibi acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium." We shall see how this intention was only foiled by the sudden uprising of the citizens; and in the names of the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter we shall behold those, "tam episcopi quam cinguli militaris viri, qui ad dominam inthronizandam pomposé Londonias et arroganter convenerant."[247]

Though the election of the Empress, says William of Malmesbury, took place immediately after Easter, it was nearly midsummer before the Londoners would receive her.[248] Hence her otherwise strange delay in proceeding to the scene of her coronation. An incidental allusion leads us to believe that this interregnum was marked by tumult and bloodshed in London. We learn that Aubrey de Vere was killed on the 9th of May, in the course of a riot in the city.[249] This event has been assigned by every writer that I have consulted to the May of the previous year (1140), and this is the date assigned in the editor's marginal note.[250] The context, however, clearly shows that it belongs to 1141. Aubrey was a man of some consequence. He had been actively employed by Henry I. in the capacity of justice and of sheriff, and was also a royal chamberlain. His death, therefore, was a notable event, and one is tempted to associate with it the fact that he was father-in-law to Geoffrey. It is not impossible that, on that occasion, they may have been acting in concert, and resisting a popular movement of the citizens, whether directed against the Empress or against Geoffrey himself.

{82} The comparison of the Empress's advance on London with that of her grandfather, in similar circumstances, is of course obvious. The details, however, of the latter are obscure, and Mr. Parker, we must remember, has gravely impugned the account of it given in the Norman Conquest.[251]

Of the ten weeks which appear to have elapsed between the election of the Empress and her reception in London, we know little or nothing. Early in May she came to Reading,[252] the Continuator's statement to that effect being confirmed by a charter which, to all appearance, passed on this occasion.[253] It is attested by her three constant companions, the Earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and Miles of Gloucester (acting as her constable), together with John (fitz Gilbert) the marshal, and her brothers Reginald (now an earl)[254] and Robert (fitz Edith).[255] But a special significance is to be found in the names of the five attesting bishops (Winchester, Lincoln, Ely, St. David's, and Hereford). They are, it will be found, the same five who attest the charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (midsummer), and they are also the five who (with the Bishop of Bath) had attended, in March, the Empress at Winchester. This creates a strong presumption that, in despite of chroniclers' vague assertions, the number of bishops who joined the Empress was, even if not limited to these, at least extremely small.[256]

{83} This is one of the two charters in which the Empress employs the style "Regina." It is probable that the other also should be assigned to this period.[257] These two exceptional cases would thus belong to the interim period during which she was queen elect, though technically only "domina." Here again the fact that, during this period, she adopted, alternatively, both styles ("regina" and "domina"), as well as that which Mr. Birch assigns to his first period, proves how impossible it is to classify these styles by date.

If we reject the statement that from Reading she returned to Oxford,[258] the only other stage in her progress that is named is that of her reception at St. Albans.[259] In this case also the evidence of a charter confirms that of {84} the chronicler.[260] At St. Albans she received a deputation from London, and the terms on which the city agreed to receive her must have been here finally arranged.[261] She then proceeded in state to Westminster,[262] no doubt by the Edgware Road, the old Roman highway, and was probably met by the citizens and their rulers, according to the custom, at Knightsbridge.[263]

Meanwhile, she had been joined in her progress by her uncle, the King of Scots, who had left his realm about the middle of May for the purpose of attending her coronation.[264]

The Empress, according to William of Malmesbury, reached London only a few days before the 24th of June.[265] This is the sole authority we have for the date of her visit, except the statement by Trivet that she arrived on the 21st (or 26th) of April.[266] This latter date we may certainly reject. If we combine the statement that her flight took {85} place on Midsummer Day[267] with that of the Continuator that her visit lasted for "some days,"[268] they harmonize fairly enough with that of William of Malmesbury. If it was, indeed, after a few days that her visit was so rudely cut short, we are able to understand why she left without the intended coronation taking place.

From another and quite independent authority, we obtain the same day (June 24th) as the date of her flight from London, together with a welcome and important glimpse of her doings. The would-be Bishop of Durham, William Cumin, had come south with the King of Scots (whose chancellor he was), accompanied by certain barons of the bishopric and a deputation from the cathedral chapter. Nominally, this deputation was to claim from the Empress and the legate a confirmation of the chapter's canonical right of free election; but, in fact, it was composed of William's adherents, who purposed to secure from the Empress and the legate letters to the chapter in his favour. The legate not having arrived at court when they reached the Empress, she deferred her reply till he should join her. In the result, however, the two differed; for, while the legate, warned from Durham, refused to support William, the Empress, doubtless influenced by her uncle, had actually agreed, as sovereign, to give him the ring and staff, and would undoubtedly have done so, but for the Londoners' revolt.[269] It must be remembered {86} that, for her own sake, the Empress would welcome every opportunity of exercising sovereign rights, as in her prompt bestowal of the see of London upon Robert. And though she lost her chance of actually investing William, she had granted, before her flight, letters commending him for election.[270]

Thus we obtain the date of the charter which is the subject of this chapter. In this case alone was Mr. Eyton right in the dates he assigned to these documents. Nor, indeed, is it possible to be mistaken. For this charter can only have passed on the occasion of this, the only visit that the Empress paid to Westminster. Yet, even here, Mr. Eyton's date is not absolutely correct. For he holds that it "passed in the short period during which Maud was in London, i.e. between June 24 and July 25, 1141";[271] whereas "June 24" is the probable date of her departure, and not of her arrival, which was certainly previous to that day.

There is but one other document (besides a comparatively insignificant precept[272]) which can be positively {87} assigned to this visit.[273] This consideration alone would invest our charter with interest, but when we add to this its great length, its list of witnesses, and its intrinsic importance, it may be claimed as one of the most instructive documents of this obscure and eventful period.

Of the original, now among the Cottonian Charters (xvi. 27), Mr. Birch, who is exceptionally qualified to pronounce upon these subjects, has given us as complete a transcript as it is now possible to obtain.[274] To this he has appended the following remarks:—

"This most important charter, one of the earliest, if not the earliest example of the text of a deed creating a peerage, does not appear to have been ever published. I cannot find the text in any printed book or MS. Fortunately Sir William Dugdale inspected this charter before it had been injured in the disastrous Cottonian fire, which destroyed so many invaluable evidences of British history. In his account of the Mandevilles, Earls of Essex (Baronage, vol. i. p. 202) he says that 'this is the most antient creation-charter, which hath ever been known, vide Selden's Titles of Honour, p. 647,' and he gives an English rendering of the greater portion of the Latin text, which has enabled me to conjecture several emendations and restorations in the above transcript."

Mr. Birch having thus, like preceding antiquaries, borne witness to the interest attaching to "this most important charter," it is with special satisfaction that I find myself enabled to print a transcript of the entire document, supplying, there is every reason to believe, a complete and accurate text. Nor will it only enable us to restore the portions of the charter now wanting,[275] for it further convicts the great Dugdale of no less serious an error than the omission of two most important witnesses and the garbling of the name of a third.[276]

{88} The accuracy of my authorities can be tested by collation with those portions of the original that are still perfect. This test is quite satisfactory, as is also that of comparing one of the passages they supply with Camden's transcript of that same passage, taken from the original charter. Camden's extract, of the existence of which Mr. Birch was evidently not aware, was printed by him in his Ordines Anglicani,[277] from which it is quoted by Selden in his well-known Titles of Honour.[278] It is further quoted, as from Camden and Selden, at the head of the Patents of Creation appended to the Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer,[279] as also in the Third Report itself (where the marginal reference, however, is wrong).[280] It is specially interesting from Camden's comment: "This is the most ancient creation-charter that I ever saw" (which is clearly the origin of the statement as to its unique antiquity), and from the fact of that great antiquary speaking of it as "now in my hands."

The two transcripts I have employed for the text (D. and A.) are copies respectively found in the Dugdale MSS. (L. fol. 81) and the Ashmole MSS. (841, fol. 3). I have reason to believe that this charter was among those duly recorded in the missing volume of the Great Coucher.

Charter of the Empress to Geoffrey de Mandeville
(Midsummer, 1141).

M. Imperatrix regis Henrici filia Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus (Comitibus Baronibus Justiciariis Vicecomitibus {89} et ministris et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus) suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et Normanniæ salutem. (Sciatis omnes tam præsentes quam futuri quod Ego Matildis regis Henrici filia et Anglor[um] domina) do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavillâ (pro servitio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit comes de Essex[iâ] et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut comes habere debet in comitatu suo[281] in omnibus rebus, et præter hoc reddo illi in feodo et hereditate de me et heredibus meis totam terram quam) tenuit[282] (Gaufridus de Magnavilla avus suus et Serlo de Matom in Angliâ et Normanniâ ita libere et[282]) bene et quiete sicut aliquis antecessorum suorum illam unquam melius (et liberius tenuit, vel ipsemet) postea (aliquo in tempore, sibi dico) et heredibus suis (post eum), et concedo illi et heredibus suis Custodiam turris Londonie (cum parvo Castello quod) fuit Ravengeri in feodo et hereditate de me (et heredibus) meis cum terris et liberationibus et omnibus Consuetudinibus quæ ad (eandem terram[283]) pertinerent, et ut inforciet illa secundum voluntatem suam. (Et similiter[284]) do ei et concedo et heredibus suis C libratas terræ de me et de (heredibus) meis in dominio, videlicet Niweport[285] pro tanto quantum reddere solebat die qua rex H[enricus] pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ad rem(ovend') mercatum de Niweport in Castellum suum de Waldena cum omnibus Consuetudinibus que prius mercato illi melius {90} pertinuerunt in (Thelon[eo] et passag[io][286]) et aliis consuetudinibus, (et) ut vie de Niweport quæ sunt juxta littus aquæ[287] dirigantur ex consuetudine ad Waledenam (sup[er] foris) facturam meam et Mercatum de Waldenâ sit ad diem dominicam et ad diem Jovis et ut feria[288] habeatur apud Waledenam et incipiat in (Vigiliâ Pentecost[289]) et duret per totam hebdomadam pentecostes Et Meldonam[290] ad perficiendum predictas C libratas terræ pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ (Rex Henricus fuit) vivus et mortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis et rebus que adjacebant in terrâ et mari ad Burgum illud predicto die mortis Regis Henrici, et (Deopedenam[291]) similiter pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis suis et Boscum de chatelegâ[292] cum (hominibus pro)[293] xx solidis, et terram de Banhunta[294] pro xl solidis, et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexa (aut in Hert)fordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ tali tenore quod si {91} (reddi)dero Comiti Theobaldo totam terram quam (tenebat)[295] in An(gliâ dabo Gaufrido Comiti Essex[ie] escambium suum ad valentiam in his prædictis tribus Comitatibus antequam de) predictis terris dissais(iatur; si etiam reddidero totum honorem et totam terram) heredibus Willelmi peur[elli] de Lond[oniâ][296] dabo similiter ei escambium ad valens antequam dissaisiatur de illâ quæ fuit peurelli et illud (escambium erit) de terrâ que remanebit illi hereditabiliter Et preter hoc do et concedo ei et heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis tenendum feodum (et servicium) xx militum et infra servicium istorum xx militum do ei feodum et servicium terre quam Hasculf[us] de tania[297] tenuit in Angliâ die quâ fuit (vivus et) mortuus, quam tenet Graeleng[us][298] et mater sua pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent et totum superplus istorum xx militum[299] ei perficiam in (prenomina)tis[300] tribus comitatibus. Et servicium istorum xx militum faciet mihi separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui. Et preterea concedo (illi ut)[300] castella sua que habet stent et ei remaneant (ad) inforcia(nd[um])[300] ad voluntatem suam Et ut ille et omnes homines sui teneant terras (et tenaturas) suas omnes de {92} quocunque teneant sicut tenuerunt die quâ ipse homo meus effectus est salvo servitio dominorum Et ut ipse et homines sui (sint quieti) de omnibus debitis que debuerunt regi Henrico aut regi Stephano et ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis fores(tariis et) assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi usque ad (diem quo) homo meus devenit Et ut a die illo in antea omnia illa ess(arta sint amodo excultibilia et arrabilia sine forisfacto et ut habeat mercatum die Jovis apud Bisseiam[301] et feriam similiter ibidem quoque anno; et incipiat vigiliâ Sancti Jacobi et duret tres dies. Et [preterea] do et concedo ei et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis vicecomitatum Essex[ie] reddendo inde rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, ita quod auferat de summâ firmâ vice)comitatus quantum pertinuerit[302] (ad) Meldonam et Niweport que ei (donavi et) quantum (pertinuerit[303] ad tertium) denarium de placitis Vicecomitatus unde eum feci Comitem, et ut teneat omnia excidamenta mea que mihi exciderint (in com)itatu Essexe reddendo inde firmam rectam quamdiu erunt in Dominio meo Et ut sit capitalis Justicia in Essexâ hereditabiliter mea (et hered[um]) meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad Coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam Justiciam super eum in Comitatu illo nisi[304] (ita sit quod ali)quando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod placita mea juste tractentur Et ut ipse et omnes homines sui sint (quieti versus) me et versus heredes meos de omni forisfacto et omni malivolentiâ preteritâ ante diem quo meus homo devenit Et ei firmiter concedo et (heredibus {93}s suis) quod bene et in pace et libere et sine placito habeat et[305] teneat hereditabiliter, sicut hæc carta confirmat, omnia tenementa sua (que ei concessi, in terris) et tenaturis et in feodis et firmis et Castellis et libertatibus et in omnibus Conventionibus inter nos factis (sicut aliquis Comes) terre[306] mee melius et quietius et liberius tenet ad modum Comitis in omnibus rebus ita quod ipse vel aliquis hominum suorum non (ponantur[307] in ullo modo) in placitum de aliquo forisfacto quod fecissent antequam homo meus factus esset, nec pro aliquo forisfacto quod facturus sit in (antea ponatur in) placit[um] de feodo vel Castello vel terrâ vel tenurâ quam ei concesserim quamdiu se defendere potuerit de scelere sive (traditione) ad corpus meum pertinente per se aut per unum militem si quis coram venerit qui eum appellare inde voluerit.

(T[estibus] H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Winton[ensi]) et A[lexandro] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln[ensi] et R[oberto] Ep[iscop]o Heref[ordensi] et N[igello] Ep[iscop]o Ely[ensi] (et B[ernardo] Ep[iscop]o de S[ancto] David et W[illelmo] Cancellario et Com[ite] R[oberto] de Glocestr[iâ] et Com[ite] B[aldewino[308]]) et Com[ite] W[illelmo] de Moion et B[riano] fil[io] Com[itis] (et M[ilone] Glocestr[ie] et R[oberto] Arundell[309]] et R[oberto] Malet[310] et Rad[ulfo] {94} Lovell[311] et Rad[ulfo] Painell[312]) et W[alkelino] Maminot[313] et Rob[erto] fil[io] R[egis][314] et Rob[erto] fil[io] Martin[315] {95} (et Rob[ert]o fil[io] Heldebrand[i][316] Apud Westmonaster[ium]).[317]

One cannot but be greatly struck by the names of the witnesses to this charter. The legate and his four brother prelates, who had been with the Empress in Winchester, at her reception on March 3, are here with her again at Westminster. So are her three inseparable companions; but where are the magnates of England? Two west-country earls, one of them of her own making,[318] and a few west-country {96} barons virtually complete the list. I do not say that these were, of necessity, the sole constituents of her court; but there is certainly the strongest possible presumption that had she been joined in person by any number of bishops or nobles, we should not have found so important a charter witnessed merely by the members of the entourage that she had brought up with her from the west. We have, for instance, but to compare this list with that of the witnesses to Stephen's charter six months later.[319] Or, indeed, we may compare it, to some disadvantage, with that of the Empress herself a month later at Oxford.[320] Where were the primate and the Bishop of London? Where was the King of Scots? These questions are difficult to answer. It may, however, be suggested that the general disgust at her intolerable arrogance,[321] and her harshness to the king,[322] kept the magnates from attending her court.[323] Her inability to repel the queen's forces, and {97} her instant flight before the Londoners, are alike suggestive of the fact that her followers were comparatively few.

There are several points of constitutional importance upon which this instructive charter sheds some welcome light.

In the first place we should compare it with Stephen's charter (p. 51), to which, in Mr. Eyton's words, it forms the "counter-patent."[324] In the former the words of creation are: "Sciatis me fecisse comitem de Gaufredo," etc. In the charter of the Empress they run thus: "Sciatis ... quod ... do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla ... ut sit Comes," etc. This contrast is in itself conclusive as to the earldom having been first created by Stephen and then recognized by the Empress. This being so, it is the more strange that Mr. Eyton should have arrived at the contrary conclusion, especially as he noticed the stronger form in the charter creating the earldom of Hereford ("Sciatis me fecisse Milonem de Glocestriâ Comitem"), a form corresponding with that in Stephen's charter to Geoffrey. The earldom of Hereford being created by the Empress, as that of Essex had been by Stephen, we find the same formula duly employed by both. The distinction thus established is one of considerable importance.

The special grant of the "tertius denarius" is a point of such extreme interest in its bearing on earls and earldoms that it requires to be separately discussed in a note devoted to the subject.[325]

But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage aspect of this charter, let us see how it illustrates the {98} ambitious policy pursued in this struggle by the feudal nobles. Dr. Stubbs writes:—

"It is possible that the frequent tergiversations which mark the struggle may have been caused by the desire of obtaining confirmation of the rank [of earl] from both the competitors for the crown."[326]

But it is my contention that Geoffrey and his fellows were playing a deeper game. We find each successive change of side on the part of this unscrupulous magnate marked by a distinct advance in his demands and in the price he obtained. Broadly speaking, he was master of the situation, and he put himself and his fortress up to auction. Thus he obtained from the impassioned rivals a rapid advance at each bid. Compare, for instance, this charter with that he had obtained from Stephen, or, again, compare it with those which are to follow.

The very length of this charter, as compared with Stephen's, is significant enough in itself. But its details are far more so. Stephen's grant had not explicitly included the tertius denarius; the Empress grants him the tertius denarius "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu suo."[327] But what may be termed the characteristic features are to be found in such clauses as those dealing with the license to fortify, and with the grants of lands.[328] These latter, indeed, teem with information, not only for the local, but for the general historian, as in the case of Theobald's forfeiture. But their special information is rather in the light they throw on the nature of these grants, and on the sources from which the Empress, like her rival, strove to gratify the greed of these insatiable nobles.

Foremost among these were those "extravagant grants {99} of Crown lands" spoken of by Dr. Stubbs and by Gneist.[329] Now, in this charter, and in those which follow, we are enabled to trace the actual working of this fatal policy in practice. The Empress begins, in this charter, by granting Geoffrey, for this is its effect, £100 a year in land ("C libratas terræ"). Stephen, we shall find, a few months later, regains him to his side by increasing the bid to £300 a year ("CCC libratas terræ"). But how is the amount made up? It is charged on the Crown lands in his own county of Essex. But observe, for this is an important point, that it is not charged as a lump sum on the entire corpus comitatus (or, to speak more exactly, on the annual firma of that corpus), but on certain specified estates. Here we have a welcome allusion to the practice of the early Exchequer. The charter authorizes Geoffrey, as sheriff, to deduct from the annual ferm of the county, for which he was responsible at the Exchequer (being that recorded on the Rotulus exactorius), that portion of it represented by the annual rents (redditus) of Maldon and Newport, which, as estates of Crown demesne, had till then been included in the corpus.[330] From the earliest Pipe-Rolls now remaining we know that the estates so alienated were usually entered by the sheriff under the head of "Terræ Datæ," with the amount due from each, for which amounts, of course, he claimed allowance in his account. I think we have here at least a suggestion that even at the height of the anarchy and of the struggle, the Exchequer, with all the details of its practice, was recognized as in full existence. I have never been able {100} to reconcile myself to the accepted view, as set forth by Dr. Stubbs, of the "stoppage of the administrative machinery"[331] under Stephen. He holds that on the arrest of the bishops (June, 1139) "the whole administration of the country ceased to work," and that Stephen was "never able to restore the administrative machinery."[332] Crippled and disorganized though it doubtless was, the Exchequer, I contend, must have preserved its existence, because its existence was an absolute necessity. Without an exchequer, the income of the Crown would, obviously, have instantly disappeared. Moreover, the case of William of Ypres, and others to which reference will be made below, will go far to establish the important fact that the Exchequer system remained in force, and that accounts of some kind must have been kept.

The next point to which I would call attention is the expression "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus," which is applied to Maldon and Newport. The Pipe-Rolls, it should be remembered, only took cognizance of the total ferm of the shire. The constituents of that ferm were a matter for the sheriff. At first sight, therefore, these expressions might seem to cause some difficulty. Their explanation, however, is this. Just as I have shown in Domesday Studies[333] that the ferm of a town, as in the case of Huntingdon, was in truth the aggregate of several distinct and separate ferms, so the ferm of a county must have comprised the separate and distinct ferms of each of the royal estates. That ferm would be a customary, that is, fixed, redditus (or, as the charter expresses it, "quantum inde reddi solebat"). A particularly striking case in point is afforded by Hatfield Regis (alias Hatfield Broadoak). When Stephen increased the alienation of Crown demesne {101} to Geoffrey, he granted him Hatfield inter alia "pro quater xx libris," that is, as representing £80 a year. This same estate, after the fall of Geoffrey, was alienated anew to Richard de Luci, and in the early Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. we read, under "Terræ Datæ" in Essex, "Ricardo de Luci quater xx libræ numero in Hadfeld." That is to say, in his annual account, the sheriff claimed to be allowed £80 off the amount of his ferm, in respect of the alienated estate. Now, the Domesday valuation of this manor is fortunately very precise: "Tunc Manerium valuit xxxvi libras. Modo lx. Sed vicecomes recipit inde lxxx libras et c solidos de gersuma" (ii. 2 b). The Domesday redditus of the manor, therefore, had remained absolutely unchanged. In such cases of alienation of demesne, it was, obviously, the object of the grantee that the manor should be valued as low as possible, while that of the sheriff was precisely the reverse. It was on this account doubtless, to prevent dispute, that these charters carefully named the sum at which the manor was to be valued, either in figures, as in the case of Bonhunt,[334] or, as in that of Maldon and Newport, in the formula "quantum inde reddi solebat" at the death of Henry I., this formula probably implying that the earlier ferm had been forced up in the days of the Lion of Justice.

The conclusion I would draw from the above argument is that the sheriff was not at liberty to exact arbitrary sums from the demesne lands of the Crown. A fixed annual render (redditus) was due to him from each, though this, like the firma of the sheriff himself, was liable to revision from time to time.[335]

{102} But it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of evidence which forms a connecting link between Domesday and the period of the Pipe-Rolls, especially if it throws some fresh light on the vexed question of Domesday values. Moreover, we have here an obvious suggestion as to the purpose of the Conqueror in ascertaining values, at least so far as concerned the demesne lands of the Crown, for he was thus enabled to check the sheriffs, by obtaining a basis for calculating the amount of the firma comitatus. With this point we shall have to deal when we come to Geoffrey's connection with the shrievalty of Essex and Herts.

Attention may also be called to the formula of "excambion" (as the Scottish lawyers term it) here employed, for it would seem to be earlier than any of those quoted in Madox's Formularium. But the suggested exchange is specially interesting in the case of Count Theobald, because it gives us an historical fact not elsewhere mentioned, namely, that the Empress, on obtaining the mastery, forfeited his lands at once. Her doing so, we should observe, is in strict accordance with the chroniclers' assertions as to her wholesale forfeitures and her special hostility to Stephen's house. And we can go further still. We can ascertain not only that Count Theobald was forfeited, as we have seen, by the Empress, but also that the land she forfeited had been given him by Stephen himself. In a document which I have previously referred to, we read that Stephen had given him the "manor" of Maldon,[336] being that manor of Crown demesne which the Empress here bestows upon Geoffrey.

{103} Another important though difficult subject upon which this charter bears is that of knight-service. Indeed, considering its early date—a quarter of a century earlier than the returns contained in the Liber Niger—it may, in conjunction with Stephen's charter of some six months later, be pronounced to be among our most valuable evidences for what Dr. Stubbs describes as "a subject on which the greatest obscurity prevails."[337]

Let us first notice that the Empress grants "feodum et servicium XX militum," while Stephen grants "LX milites feudatos ... scilicet servicium" of so and so "pro [LX] militibus." Thus, then, the "milites feudatos" of Stephen equates the "feodum et servicium ... militum" of the Empress. And, further, it repeats the remarkable expression employed by Florence of Worcester when he tells us that the Conqueror instructed the Domesday Commissioners to ascertain "quot milites feudatos" his tenants-in-chief possessed, that is to say, how many knights they had enfeoffed. But the Empress in her charter complicates her grant by adding the special clause: "Et servicium istorum XX militum faciet mihi separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui." Had it not been for this clause, one might have inferred that the object of the grant was to transfer, to Earl Geoffrey the "servicium" of these twenty knights' fees due, of right, to the Crown, so that he might enjoy all such profits as the Crown would have derived from that "servicium," and, at the same time, have employed these knights as substitutes for those which he was bound to furnish, from his own fief, to the Crown. But the above clause is fatal to such a view. Again, both in the charters {104} of the Empress and of her rival, these special grants of knights and their "servicium" are kept entirely distinct from those of Crown demesne or escheated land, which, moreover, are expressed in terms of the "librata terræ." On the whole I lean strongly to the belief that, although the working of the arrangement may be obscure, the object of Geoffrey was to add to the number of the knights who followed his standard, and thus to increase his power as a noble and the weight that he could throw into the scale. And the special clause referred to above would imply that the Crown was to have a claim on him for twenty knights more than those whom he was bound to furnish from his own fief.

Lastly, we may note the identity of the formula employed for the grant of lands and for that of knights' service. In each case the grant is made "pro tanto,"[338] and in each case the Empress undertakes to make good ("perficere") the balance to him within the limit of the three counties of Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Herts.[339]

With the subject of castles I propose to deal later on. But there is one point on which the evidence of this charter is perhaps more important than on any other, and that is in the retrospective light which it throws on the system of reform introduced by the first Henry.

Incidentally, we have here witness to that system, of which the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is the solitary but vivid {105} exponent, and under which the very name of "plea" became a terror to all men. Every man was liable, on the slightest pretext, to be brought within the meshes of the law, with the object, as it seemed, and at least with the result, of swelling the royal hoard (cf. pp. 11, 12, n. 1). Even to secure one's simplest rights money had always to be paid. Thus, here, Geoffrey stipulates that he and his men are to hold their possessions "sine placito," and "ita quod ... non ponantur in ullo modo in placito de aliquo forisfacto," etc., etc. So again, in his later charter, we find him insisting that he and they shall hold all their possessions "sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione," and that "Rectum eis teneatur de eorum calumpniis sine pecuniæ donatione." The exactions he dreaded meet us at every turn on the Pipe-Roll of 1130.

But, on the other hand, the charter, broadly speaking, illustrates, by the retrograde concessions it extorts, the cardinal factor in the long struggle between the feudal nobles and their lord the king, namely, their jealousy of that royal jurisdiction by which the Crown strove, and eventually with success, to break their semi-independent power, and to bring the whole realm into uniform subjection to the law.

After the clauses conferring on Geoffrey the hereditary shrievalty of Essex, a matter which I shall discuss further on, there immediately follows this passage, the most significant, as I deem it, in the whole charter:—

"Et ut sit Capitalis Justicia in Essexiâ hereditabiliter mea et heredum meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam justiciam super eum in comitatu illo nisi ita sit quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod placita mea juste tractentur."

The first point to be dealt with here is the phrase "Capitalis Justicia in Essexiâ." Here we have the {106} term "capitalis" applied to the justicia of a single county. On this I would lay some stress, for it has been generally supposed that this style was reserved for the Great Justiciary, the alter ego of the king himself.[340]

In his learned observations on the "obscurities" of the style "justitia or justitiarius," Dr. Stubbs writes that "the capitalis justitia seems to be the only one of the body to whom a determinate position as the king's representative is assigned in formal documents" (i. 389). It was probably the object of Geoffrey, when he secured this particular style, to obtain for himself all the powers vested in "the king's representative," and so to provide against his supersession by a justiciar claiming in that capacity.

Let us now examine the witness of the charter to the differentiation of the sheriff (vicecomes) and the justice (justitia), for that is the development which its terms involve.

Dr. Stubbs points out that, under the Norman kings, "the authority of the sheriff, when he was relieved from the company of the ealdorman, ... would have no check except the direct control of the king" (i. 272); and Gneist similarly observed that "After the withdrawal of the eorl, the Anglo-Saxon shir-gerefa became the regular governor of the county, who was henceforth no longer dependent upon the eorl, but upon the personal orders of {107} the king, and upon the organs of the Norman central administration" (i. 140). And for a period of transition between the two systems, the Anglo-Saxon and the late Norman, the sheriff not only presided, in his court, as its sole lay head, but also in a dual capacity. Dr. Stubbs, it is true, with his wonted caution, does but suggest it as "probable that whilst the sheriff in his character of sheriff was competent to direct the customary business of the court, it was in that of justitia that he transacted special business under the king's writ."[341] But Gneist treats of him, under a separate heading, in his capacity of "royal justiciary" (i. 142). It is from this dual position that there developed, by specialization of function, two distinct officers, the sheriff (vicecomes) and the justice (justicia). This is the development which, as yet, has been somewhat imperfectly apprehended.

The centralizing policy of Henry I., operating through the Curia Regis, has, I need hardly observe, been admirably explained by Dr. Stubbs. He has shown how two methods were employed to attain the end in view: the one, to call up certain pleas from the local courts to the curia; the other, to send down the officers of the curia to sit in the local courts.[342] In the latter case, the royal officer ("justicia") appeared as the representative of the central power of which the Curia Regis was the exponent. Thus, there were, again, for the county court two lay presidents, but they were now the sheriff, as local authority, and the justice, who represented the central. Such an arrangement was, of course, a step in advance for the Crown, which had thus secured for itself, through its justice, a footing in the local courts.[343] But with this arrangement {108} neither side was able to rest satisfied. Broadly speaking, if I may be allowed the expression, the Crown sought to centralize the sheriff, and to exclude the local element; the feudatories would fain have localized the justice, and so have excluded the central. Thus, before the close of Henry's reign, he had actually employed on a large scale the officers of his curia as sheriffs of counties, and "by these means," as Dr. Stubbs observes, "the king and justiciar kept in their hands the reins of the entire judicial administration" (i. 392).[344] The same policy was faithfully followed by his grandson, a generation later, on the occasion of the inquest of sheriffs (1170), when, says Dr. Stubbs, "the sheriffs removed from their offices were most of them local magnates, whose chances of oppression and whose inclination towards a feudal administration of justice were too great. In their place Henry instituted officers of the Exchequer, less closely connected with the counties by property, and more amenable to royal influence, as well as more skilled administrators—another step towards the concentration of the provincial jurisdiction under the Curia Regis."[345]

{109} This passage enables us to see how essentially contrary to the policy of the Crown were the provisions of Geoffrey's charter. It not only feudalized the local shrievalty by placing it in the hands of a feudal magnate, and, further still, making it hereditary, but it seized upon the centralizing office of justice, and made it as purely local, nay, as feudal as the other.

But let us return to the point from which we started, namely, the witness of Geoffrey's charter to the differentiation of the sheriff and the justice. It proves that the sheriff could no longer discharge the functions of "a royal justiciary," without a separate appointment to that distinct office. When we thus learn how Geoffrey became both sheriff and justice of Essex, we can approach in the light of that appointment the writ addressed "Ricardo de Luci Justic' et Vicecomiti de Essexa," on which Madox relies for Richard's tenure of the post of chief justiciary.[346] It may be that Richard's appointment corresponded with that of Geoffrey. But whatever uncertainty there may be on this point, there can be none on the parallel between Geoffrey's charter and that which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London. Indeed, in all municipal charters of the fullest and best type, we find the functions of the sheriff and the justice dealt with in the same successive order. The striking thought to be drawn from this is that the feudatories and the towns, though their interests were opposed inter se, presented to the Crown the same attitude and sought from it the same exemptions. In proof of this I here adduce three typical charters, arranged in chronological order. The first is an extract from that important charter which London obtained from Henry I., the second is taken from Geoffrey's charter, and the third {110} from that of Richard I. to Colchester, which I quote because it contains the same word "justicia," and also because it is, probably, little, if at all, known.

Here we have the two offices similarly distinct throughout. We have also the ballivi, representing to the town what the vicecomes represents to the shire, a point which it is necessary to bear in mind. The "bailiff," so far as the town was concerned, stood in the sheriff's shoes. So also did the "coroner" (or "coroners") in those of the justice. Indeed, at Colchester, two "coroners" represented the "justice" of the charter. I cannot find that Dr. Stubbs calls attention to the fact of this twin privilege, the fact that exemption from the sheriff and from the justice went, in these charters, hand in hand.

Lastly, we should observe that though, in these charters, the clause relating to the sheriff precedes that which relates to the justice, yet, conversely, in the enumeration of those to whom a charter is directed, "justices" are invariably, I believe, given the precedence of "sheriffs." This, which would seem to have passed unnoticed, may have an important bearing. Ordericus, in a famous {111} passage (xi. 2) describing Henry's ministers, tells us how the king

"favorabiliter illi obsequentes de ignobili stirpe illustravit, de pulvere, ut ita dicam, extulit, dataque multiplici facultate super consules et illustres oppidanos exaltavit.... Illos ... rex, cum de infimo genere essent, nobilitavit, regali auctoritate de imo erexit, in fastigio potestatum constituit, ipsis etiam spectabilibus regni principibus formidabiles effecit."

Observe how vivid a light such a passage as this throws upon the clause in Geoffrey's charter:—

"Non mittam aliam Justiciam super eum in Comitatu illo, nisi ita sit quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum illo quod placita mea juste tractentur."

The whole clause breathes the very spirit of feudalism. It betrays the hatred of Geoffrey and his class for those upstarts, as they deemed them, the royal justices, who, clad in all the authority of the Crown, intruded themselves into their local courts and checked them in the exercise of their power. Henceforth, in the courts of the favoured earl, the representative of the Crown was to make his appearance not regularly, but only now and then ("aliquando"); moreover, when he came, he was to figure in court not as the superior ("super eum"), but as the colleague ("cum illo") of the earl; and, lastly, he was not to belong to the upstart ministerial class: he was to be one of his own class—of his "peers" ("de paribus suis").

As an illustrative parallel to this clause, I am tempted to quote a remarkable charter, unnoticed, it would seem, not only by our historians, but even by Mr. Eyton himself. The Assize of Clarendon, a quarter of a century (1166) after the date of our charter to Geoffrey, contained clauses specially aimed against such exemption as he sought. Referring to these clauses, Dr. Stubbs writes:—

"No franchise is to exclude the justices.... In the article which directs the admission of the justices into every franchise may be {112} detected one sign of the anti-feudal policy which the king had all his life to maintain."[347]

But the clauses in question, though their sweeping character fully justifies this description,[348] contrast strangely with the humble, almost apologetic, charter in which Henry II., immediately afterwards, announces that he is only sending his "justicia" into the patrimony of St. Cuthbert "by permission" of the bishop, and as a quite exceptional measure, not to be taken again. It throws, perhaps, some new light on the character and methods of the king, when we find him thus stooping, in form, to gain his point in fact.

"Henricus Rex Angl' et Dux Normann' et Aquitan' et Comes Andegav', justiciariis Vicecomitibus et omnibus ministris suis de Eborac'sir et de Nordhummerlanda salutem. Sciatis quod consilio Baronum meorum,[349] et Episcopi Dunelmensis licencia, mitto hac vice in terram sancti Cuthberti justiciam meam, quæ[350] videat ut fiat justicia secundum assisam meam de latronibus et murdratoribus et roboratoribus;[351] non quia velim ut trahatur in consuetudinem tempore meo vel heredum meorum, sed ad tempus hoc facio, pro prædicta necessitate; quia volo quod terra beati Cuthberti suas habeat libertates et antiquas consuetudines, sicut unquam melius habuit. T. Gavfrido Archiepiscopo [sic] Cant. Ric. Arch. Pictav. Comite Gaufrido, Ricardo de Luci. Apud Wodestoc."[352]

{113} The first charter of the Empress has now been sufficiently discussed. It was, of course, his possession of the Tower that enabled Geoffrey to extort such terms, the command of that fortress being essential to the Empress, to overawe the disaffected citizens.

It was at the very hour when the Empress seemed to have attained the height of her triumph that her hopes were dashed to the ground.[353] The disaster, as is well known, was due to her own behaviour. As Dr. Stubbs has well observed, "She, too, was on the crest of the wave and had her little day ... she had not learned wisdom or conciliation, and threw away opportunities as recklessly as her rival."[354] Indeed, even William of Malmesbury hints that the fault was hers.[355]

The Queen, having pleaded in vain for her husband, resolved to appeal to arms. Advancing on Southwark at the head of the forces which she had raised from Kent, and probably from Boulogne, she ravaged the lands of the citizens with fire and sword before their eyes.[356] The {115} citizens, who had received the Empress but grudgingly, and were already alarmed by her haughty conduct, were now reduced to desperation. They decided on rising against their new mistress, and joining the Queen in her struggle for the restoration of the king.[357] There is a stirring picture in the Gesta of the sudden sounding of the tocsin, and of the citizens pouring forth from the gates amidst the clanging of the bells. The Empress was taken so completely by surprise that she seems to have been at table at the time, and she and her followers, mounting in haste, had scarcely galloped clear of the suburbs when the mob streamed into her quarters and rifled them of all that they contained. So great, we are told, was the panic of the fugitives that they scattered in all directions, regardless of the Empress and her fate. Although the Gesta is a hostile source, the evidence of its author is here confirmed by that of the Continuator of Florence.[358] William of Malmesbury, however, writing as a partisan, will not allow that the Empress and her brother were thus ignominiously expelled, but asserts that they withdrew in military array.[359]

The Empress herself fled to Oxford, and, afraid to remain even there, pushed on to Gloucester. The king, it is true, was still her prisoner, but her followers were almost all dispersed; and the legate, who had secured her triumph, was alienated already from her cause. Expelled {116} from the capital, and resisted in arms by no small portion of the kingdom, her prestige had received a fatal blow, and the moment for her coronation had passed away, never to return.[360]

Here we may pause to glance for a moment at a charter of singular interest for its mention of the citizens of London and their faithful devotion to the king.

"Hugo dei gratia Rothomagensis archiepiscopus senatoribus inclitis civibus honoratis et omnibus commune London concordie gratiam, salutem eternam. Deo et vobis agimus gratias pro vestra fidelitate stabili et certa domino nostro regi Stephano jugiter impensa. Inde per regiones notæ vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas."[361]

It is tempting to see in this charter—unknown, it would seem, to the historians of London—a mention of the famous "communa," the "tumor plebis, timor regni," of 1191. But the term, here, is more probably employed, as in the "communa liberorum hominum" of the Assize of Arms (1181), and the "communa totius terre" of the Great Charter (1215). At the same time, there are two expressions which occur at this very epoch, and which might support the former view. One is conjuratio, which, as we have seen, the Continuator applies to the action of the Londoners in 1141,[362] and which Richard of Devizes similarly applies to the commune of 1191.[363] The other is communio, which William of Malmesbury applies to their government in the previous April, and which the keen eye of Dr. Stubbs noted as "a description of municipal unity which suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civil organization."[364] But he failed, it would seem, to observe the passage {117} which follows, and which speaks of "omnes barones, qui in eorum communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant." For in this allusion we recognize a distinctive practice of the "sworn commune," from that of Le Mans (1073),[365] to that of London (1191), "in quam universi regni magnates et ipsi etiam ipsius provinciæ episcopi jurare coguntur."[366]

Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville? A tale is told of him by Dugdale, and accepted without question by Mr. Clark,[367] which, so far as I can find, must be traced to the following passage in Trivet:—

"Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], obsessâ turri, fugatur imperatrix de Londoniâ. Turrim autem Galfridus de Magnavillâ potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis episcopum, partis adversæ fautorem, cepit apud manerium de Fulham."[368]

It is quite certain that this tale is untrustworthy as it stands. We have seen above that Trivet's date for the arrival of the Empress at London is similarly, beyond doubt, erroneous.[369] That the citizens, when they suddenly rose against the Empress, may also have blockaded Geoffrey in his tower, not only as her ally, but as their own natural enemy, is possible, nay, even probable. But that he ventured forth, through their ranks, to Fulham, when thus blockaded, is improbable, and that he captured the bishop as an enemy of the Empress is impossible, for the Empress herself had just installed him,[370] and we find him {118} at her court a month later.[371] At the same time Trivet, we must assume, cannot have invented all this. His story must preserve a confused version of the facts as told in some chronicle now lost, or, at least, unknown.[372] On this assumption it may, perhaps, be suggested that Geoffrey was indeed blockaded in the Tower, but that when he accepted the Queen's offers, and thus made, as we shall see, common cause with the citizens, he signalized his defection from the cause of the Empress by seizing her adherent the bishop,[373] and holding him a prisoner till, as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so became free to join the Empress at Oxford.[374]

And now let us come to the subject of this chapter, the lost charter of the Queen.

That this charter was granted is an historical fact hitherto absolutely unknown. No chronicler mentions the fact, nor is there a trace of any such document, or even of a transcript of its contents. And yet the existence of this charter, like that of the planet Neptune, can be established, in the words of Sir John Herschel, "with a certainty hardly inferior to ocular demonstration." The discovery, indeed, of that planet was effected (magnis componere parva) by strangely similar means. For as the perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of {119} Neptune, so the "perturbations" of Geoffrey de Mandeville point to the existence of this charter.

We know that the departure of the Empress was followed by the arrival of the Queen, with the result that Geoffrey was again in a position to demand his own terms. Had he continued to hold the Tower in the name of the Empress, he would have made it a thorn in the side of the citizens now that they had declared for her rival. We hear, moreover, at this crisis, of offers by the Queen to all those whom bribes or concessions could allure to her side.[375] We have, therefore, the strongest presumption that Geoffrey would be among the first to whom offers were made. But it is not on presumption that we depend. Stephen, we shall find, six months later, refers distinctly to this lost charter ("Carta Reginæ"),[376] and the Empress in turn, in the following year, refers to the charters of the king and of the queen ("quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt ... sicut habet inde cartas illorum").[377] Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it passed about this time may be inferred, not only from the circumstances of the case, but also from the most significant fact that, a few weeks later, at the siege of Winchester, we find Geoffrey supporting the Queen in active concert with the citizens.[378]

What were the terms of the charter by which he was {120} thus regained to his allegiance we cannot now tell. To judge, however, from that of Stephen, which was mainly a confirmation of its terms, it probably represented a distinct advance on the concessions he had wrung from the Empress.

It is an interesting fact, and one which probably is known to few, if any, that there is still preserved in the Public Record Office a solitary charter of the Queen, granted, I cannot but think, at this very crisis. As it is not long, I shall here quote it as a unique and instructive record.

"M. Regina Angl[ie] Omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis quod dedi Gervasio Justiciario de Lond[oniâ] x marcatas terræ in villâ de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo ... donec ei persolvam debitum quod ei debeo, ut infra illum terminum habeat proficua que exibunt de villa predictâ ... testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[iâ] et Sim[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] de Lisor[iis]. apud Lond[oniam].[379]

The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of Northampton), is known to have been one of the three earls who adhered to the Queen during the king's captivity.[380] Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her nepos, "Pharamus" of Boulogne, who is also known to have been with her.[381] Combining the fact of the charter being the Queen's with that of its subject-matter and that of its place of testing, we obtain the strongest possible presumption that it passed at this crisis, a presumption confirmed, as we have seen, by the name of the leading witness. The endeavour to fix the date of this charter is well worth the making. For it is not merely of interest {121} as a record unique of its kind. If it is, indeed, of the date suggested, it is, to all appearance, the sole survivor of all those charters, such as that to Geoffrey, by which the Queen, in her hour of need, must have purchased support for the royal cause. We see her, like the queen of Henry III., like the queen of Charles I., straining every nerve to succour her husband, and to raise men and means. And as Henrietta Maria pledged her jewels as security for the loans she raised, so Matilda is here shown as pledging a portion of her ancestral "honour" to raise the sinews of war.[382]

But this charter, if the date I have assigned to it be right, does more for us than this. It gives us, for an instant, a precious glimpse of that of which we know so little, and would fain know so much—I mean the government of London. We learn from it that London had then a "justiciary," and further that his name was Gervase. Nor is even this all. The Gamlingay entry in the Testa de Nevill and Liber Niger enables us to advance a step further and to establish the identity of this Gervase with no other than Gervase of Cornhill.[383] The importance of this identification will be shown in a special appendix.[384]

Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was her husband's brother, the legate.[385] He had headed, as we have seen, the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter, but he was {122} deeply injured at the failure of his appeal, on behalf of his family, to the Empress, and was even thought to have secretly encouraged the rising of the citizens of London.[386] He now kept aloof from the court of the Empress, and, having held an interview with the Queen at Guildford, resolved to devote himself, heart and soul, to setting his brother free.[387]

The Empress, it will be remembered, in the panic of her escape, on the sudden revolt of the citizens, had fled to the strongholds of her cause in the west, and sought refuge in Gloucester. Most of her followers were scattered abroad, but the faithful Miles of Gloucester was found, as ever, by her side. As soon as she recovered from her first alarm, she retraced her steps to Oxford, acting upon his advice, and made that fortress her head-quarters, to which her adherents might rally.[388]

To her stay at Oxford on this occasion we may assign a charter to Haughmond Abbey, tested inter alios by the King of Scots.[389] But of far more importance is the well-known charter by which she granted the earldom of Hereford to her devoted follower, Miles of Gloucester.[390] With singular unanimity, the rival chroniclers testify to the faithful service of which this grant was the reward.[391] {124} It is an important fact that this charter contains a record of its date, which makes it a fixed point of great value for our story. This circumstance is the more welcome from the long list of witnesses, which enables us to give with absolute certainty the personnel of Matilda's court on the day this charter passed (July 25, 1141), evidence confirmed by another charter omitted from the fasciculus of Mr. Birch.[392] From a comparison of the dates we can assign these documents to the very close of her stay at Oxford, by which time her scattered followers had again rallied to her standard. It is also noteworthy that the date is in harmony with the narrative of the Continuator of Florence. This has a bearing on the chronology of that writer, to which we have now in the main to trust.

William of Malmesbury, who on the doings of his patron is likely to be well informed, tells us that the rumours of the legate's defection led the Earl of Gloucester to visit Winchester in the hope of regaining him to his sister's cause. Disappointed in this, he rejoined her at Oxford.[393] It must have been on his return that he witnessed the charter to Miles of Gloucester.

The Empress, on hearing her brother's report, decided to march on Winchester with the forces she had now assembled.[394] The names of her leading followers can be recovered from the various accounts of the siege.[395]

{125} The Continuator states that she reached Winchester shortly before the 1st of August.[396] He also speaks of the siege having lasted seven weeks on the 13th of September.[397] If he means by this, as he implies, the siege by the queen's forces, he is clearly wrong; but if he was thinking of the arrival of the Empress, this would place that event not later than the 27th of July. We know from the date of the Oxford charter that it cannot well have been earlier. The Hyde Cartulary (Stowe MSS.) is more exact, and, indeed, gives us the day of her arrival, Thursday, July 31 ("pridie kal. Augusti"). According to the Annals of Waverley, the Empress besieged the bishop the next day.[398]

Of the struggle which now took place we have several independent accounts. Of these the fullest are those given by the Continuator, who here writes with a bitter feeling against the legate, and by the author of the Gesta, whose sympathies were, of course, on the other side. John of Hexham, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon have accounts which should be carefully consulted, and some information is also to be gleaned from the Hyde Cartulary (Stowe MSS.).

It is John of Hexham alone who mentions that the bishop himself had commenced operations by besieging the royal castle, which was held by a garrison of the {126} Empress.[399] It was in this castle, says the Continuator, that she took up her quarters on her arrival.[400] She at once summoned the legate to her presence, but he, dreading that she would seize his person, returned a temporizing answer, and eventually rode forth from the city (it would seem, by the east gate) just as the Empress entered it in state.[401]

Though the Continuator asserts that the Empress, on her arrival, found the city opposed to her, William of Malmesbury, whose sympathies were the same, asserts, on the contrary, that the citizens were for her.[402] Possibly, the former may only have meant that she had found the gates of the city closed against her by the legate. In any case, she now established herself, together with her followers, within the walls, and laid siege to the episcopal palace, which was defended by the legate's garrison.[403] {127} The usual consequence followed. From the summit of the keep its reckless defenders rained down fire upon the town, and a monastery, a nunnery, more than forty (?) churches, and the greater part of the houses within the walls are said to have been reduced to ashes.[404]

Meanwhile, the legate had summoned to his aid the Queen and all the royal party. His summons "was {128} promptly obeyed;[405] even the Earl of Chester, "who," says Dr. Stubbs, "was uniformly opposed to Stephen, but who no doubt fought for himself far more than for the Empress,"[406] joined, on this occasion, the royal forces, perhaps to maintain the balance of power. But his assistance, naturally enough, was viewed with such deep suspicion that he soon went over to the Empress,[407] to whom, however, his tardy help was of little or no value.[408] From London the Queen received a well-armed contingent, nearly a thousand strong;[409] but Henry of Huntingdon appears to imply that their arrival, although it turned the scale, did not take place till late in the siege.[410]

The position of the opposing forces became a very strange one. The Empress and her followers, from the castle, besieged the bishop's palace, and were in turn themselves besieged by the Queen and her host without.[411] It was the aim of the latter to cut off the Empress from her base of operations in the west. With this object they burnt Andover,[412] and harassed so successfully the enemy's convoys, that famine was imminent in the city.[413] The {129} Empress, moreover, was clearly outnumbered by the forces of the Queen and legate. It is agreed on all hands that the actual crisis was connected with an affair at Wherwell, but John of Hexham and the author of the Gesta are not entirely in accord as to the details. According to the latter, who can hardly be mistaken in a statement so precise, the besieged, now in dire straits, despatched a small force along the old Icknield Way, to fortify Wherwell and its nunnery, commanding the passage of the Test, in order to secure their line of communication.[414] John of Hexham, on the contrary, describing, it would seem, the same incident, represents it as merely the despatch of an escort, under John the Marshal and Robert fitz Edith, to meet an expected convoy.[415] In any case, it is clear that William of Ypres, probably the Queen's best soldier, burst upon the convoy close to Wherwell, and slew or captured all but those who sought refuge within the nunnery walls.[416] Nor are the two accounts gravely inconsistent.

On the other hand, the Continuator of Florence appears at first sight to imply that the Marshal and his followers took refuge at Wherwell in the course of the general flight,[417] and this version is in harmony with the Histoire {130} de Guillaume le Maréchal.[418] But putting aside William of Malmesbury, whose testimony is ambiguous on the point, I consider the balance to be clearly in favour of the Gesta and John of Hexham, whose detailed accounts must be wholly rejected if we embrace the other version, whereas the Continuator's words can be harmonized, and indeed better understood, if we take "ad monasterium Warewellense fugientem" as referring to John taking refuge in the nunnery (as described in the other versions) when surprised with his convoy. Moreover, the evidence (vide infra) as to the Empress leaving Winchester by the west instead of the north gate, appears to me to clinch the matter. As to the Marshal poem, on such a point its evidence is of little weight. Composed at a later period, and based on family tradition, its incidents, as M. Meyer has shown, are thrown together in wrong order, and its obvious errors not a few. I may add that the Marshal's position is unduly exalted in the poem, and that Brian fitz Count (though it is true that he accompanied the Empress in her flight) would never have taken his orders from John the Marshal.[419] Its narrative cannot be explained away, but it is the one that we are most justified in selecting for rejection.

{131} To expel the fugitives from their place of safety, William and his troopers fired the nunnery. A furious struggle followed in the church, amidst the shrieks of the nuns and the roar of the flames; the sanctuary itself streamed with blood; but John the Marshal stood his ground, and refused to surrender to his foes.[420] "Silence, or I will slay thee with mine own hands," the undaunted man is said to have exclaimed, as his last remaining comrade implored him to save their lives.[421]

{132} On receiving intelligence of this disaster, the besieged were seized with panic, and resolved on immediate retreat.[422] William of Malmesbury, as before, is anxious to deny the panic,[423] and the Continuator accuses the legate of treachery.[424] The account, however, in the Gesta appears thoroughly trustworthy. According to this, the Empress and her forces sallied forth from the gates in good order, but were quickly surrounded and put to flight. All order was soon at an end. Bishops, nobles, barons, troopers, fled in headlong rout. With her faithful squire by her side the Empress rode for her life.[425] The Earl of Gloucester, with {133} the rear-guard, covered his sister's retreat, but in so doing was himself made prisoner, while holding, at Stockbridge, the passage of the Test.[426]

The mention of Stockbridge proves that the besieged must have fled by the Salisbury road, their line of retreat by Andover being now barred at Wherwell. After crossing the Test, the fugitive Empress must have turned northwards, and made her way, by country lanes, over Longstock hills, to Ludgershall. So great was the dread of her victorious foes, now in full pursuit, that though she had ridden more than twenty miles, and was overwhelmed with anxiety and fatigue, she was unable to rest even here, and, remounting, rode for Devizes, across the Wiltshire downs.[427] It was not, we should notice, thought safe for her to make straight for Gloucester, through Marlborough and Cirencester; so she again set her face due west, as if making for Bristol. Thus fleeing from fortress to fortress, she came to her castle at Devizes. So great, however, was now her terror that even in this celebrated stronghold[428] she would {134} not, she feared, be safe. She had already ridden some forty miles, mainly over bad country, and what with grief, terror, and fatigue, the erst haughty Empress was now "more dead than alive" (pene exanimis). It was out of the question that she should mount again; a litter was hurriedly slung between two horses, and, strapped to this, the unfortunate Lady was conveyed in sorry guise (sat ignominiose) to her faithful city of Gloucester.[429]

On a misunderstanding, as I deem it, of the passage (and especially of the word feretrum), writers have successively, for three centuries, represented the Continuator as stating that the Empress, "to elude the vigilance of her pursuers," was "laid out as a corpse!" Lingard, indeed, while following suit, gravely doubts if the fact be true, as it is recorded by the Continuator alone; but Professor Pearson improves upon the story, and holds that the versatile "Lady" was in turn "a trooper" and a corpse.[430]

{135} On the 1st of November the king was released, and a few days later the Earl of Gloucester, for whom he had been exchanged, reached Bristol.[431] Shortly after, it would seem, there were assembled together at Bristol, the Earl, the Empress, and their loyal adherents, Miles, now Earl of Hereford, Brian fitz Count, and Robert fitz Martin.[432]

The liberation of the king from his captivity was hailed with joy by his adherents, and not least, we may be sure, in his loyal city of London. The greatness of the event is seen, perhaps, in the fact that it is even mentioned in a private London deed of the time, executed "Anno MCXLI., Id est in exitu regis Stephani de captione Roberti filii regis Henrici."[432]

In spite of his faults we may fairly assume that the king's imprisonment had aroused a popular reaction in his favour, as it did in the case of Charles I., five centuries later. The experiences also of the summer had been greatly in his favour. For, however unfit he may have been to fill the throne himself, he was able now to point to the fact that his rival had been tried and found wanting.

He would now be eager to efface the stain inflicted on his regal dignity, to show in the sight of all men that he was again their king, and then to execute vengeance on those whose captive he had been. The first step to be taken was to assemble a council of the realm that should undo the work of the April council at Winchester, and formally recognize in him the rightful possessor of the throne. This council met on the 7th of December at Westminster, the king himself being present.[433] The ingenious legate was now as ready to prove that his {137} brother, and not the Empress, should rightly fill the throne, as, we saw, he was in April to prove the exact reverse. The two grounds on which he based his renunciation were, first, that the Empress had failed to fulfil her pledges to the Church;[434] second, that her failure implied the condemnation of God.[435]

A solemn coronation might naturally follow, to set, as it were, the seal to the work of this assembly. Perhaps the nearest parallel to this second coronation is to be found in that of Richard I., in 1194, after his captivity and humiliation.[436] I think we have evidence that Stephen himself looked on this as a second coronation, and as no mere "crown-wearing," in a precept in favour of the monks of Abingdon, in which he alludes incidentally to the day of his first coronation.[437] This clearly implies a second coronation since; and as the precept is attested by Richard de Luci, it is presumably subsequent to that second coronation, to which we now come.

It cannot be wondered that this event has been unnoticed by historians, for it is only recorded in a single copy of the works of a single chronicler. We are indebted to Dr. Stubbs and his scholarly edition of the writings of Gervase of Canterbury for our knowledge of the fact that in one, and that comparatively imperfect, of the three manuscripts on which his text is based, we read of a coronation of Stephen, at Canterbury, "placed under {138} 1142." We learn from him that in this MS. "it is probably inserted in a wrong place," as indeed is evident from the fact that at Christmas, 1142, Stephen was at Oxford. Here is the passage in question:—

"Deinde rex Stephanus una cum regina et nobilitate procerum ad Natale Domini gratiosus adveniens, in ipsa solempnitate in ecclesiâ Christi a venerabili Theobaldo ejusdem ecclesiæ archiepiscopo coronatus est; ipsa etiam regina cum eo ibidem coronam auream gestabat in capite" (Gervase, i. 123).

It should perhaps be noticed that, while the Queen is merely said to have worn her crown, Stephen is distinctly stated to have been crowned. I cannot but think that this must imply a distinction between them, and supports the view that this coronation was due to the captivity of the king.

My contention is that the date of this event was Christmas, 1141, and that the choice, for its scene, of the Kentish capital was a graceful compliment to that county which, in the darkest hour of the king's fortunes, had remained faithful to his cause, and to the support of which his restoration had been so largely due.[438]

I further hold that the second charter granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville was executed on this occasion, and that in its witnesses we have the list of that "nobilitas procerum" by which, according to Gervase, this coronation was attended.

This charter, when rightly dated, is indeed the keystone of my story. For without it we could not form that series on which the sequence of events is based. It is admittedly subsequent to the king's liberation, for it refers to the battle of Lincoln. It must also be previous to Geoffrey's death in 1144. These are the obvious limits given in the official calendar.[439] But it must further be previous to {139} Geoffrey's fall in 1143. Lastly, it must be previous to the Oxford, or second, charter of the Empress, in which we shall find it is referred to. As that charter cannot be later than the summer of 1142, our limit is again narrowed. Now the charter is tested at Canterbury. Stephen cannot, it seems, have been there in the course of 1142. This accordingly leaves us, as the only possible date, the close of 1141; and this is the very date of the king's coronation at Canterbury. When we add to this train of reasoning the fact that the number of earls by whom the charter is witnessed clearly points to some great state ceremonial, we cannot feel the slightest doubt that the charter must, as I observed, have passed on this occasion. With this conclusion its character will be found in complete accordance, for it plainly represents the price for which the traitor earl consented to change sides again, and to place at the disposal of his outraged king that Tower of London, its citadel and its dread, the possession of which once more enabled him to dictate his own terms.

Those terms were that, in the first place, he should forfeit nothing for his treason in having joined the cause of the Empress, and should be confirmed in his possession of all that he held before the king's capture. But his demands far exceeded the mere status quo ante. Just as he had sold his support to the Empress when she gave him an advance on Stephen's terms, so the Queen must have brought him back by offering terms, at the crisis of the struggle, in excess even of those which he had just wrung from the Empress. He would now insist that these great concessions should be confirmed by the king himself. Such is the explanation of the strange character of this Canterbury charter.

Charter of the King to Geoffrey de Mandeville
(Christmas, 1141).

S. rex Angl[orum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justic[iariis] Vicecomitibus Baronibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis totius Anglie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et firmiter concesisse Gaufr[ido] Comiti de Essexâ omnia sua tenementa que tenuit, de quocunque illa tenuerit, die quâ impeditus fui apud Linc[olniam] et captus. Et præter hoc dedi ei et concessi ccc libratas terræ scilicet Meldonam[440] et Neweport et Depedenam et Banhunte et Ingam et Phingriam[441] et Chateleam cum omnibus suis Appendiciis pro c libris. Et Writelam[442] pro vi.xx libris. Et Hadfeld[443] pro quater.xx libris cum omnibus appendiciis illorum Maneriorum. Et præter hec dedi ei et concessi in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis hæredibus sibi et suis heredibus c libratas terræ de terris excaatis, scilicet totam terram Roberti de Baentona[444] quam tenuit in Essexâ, videlicet {141} Reneham[445] et Hoilandam,[446] Et Amb[er]denam[447] et Wodeham[448] et Eistan',[449] quam Picardus de Danfront[450] tenuit. Et Ichilintonam[451] cum omnibus eorum appendiciis pro c libris. Et præterea dedi ei et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate c libratas terræ ad opus Ernulfi de Mannavilla de ipso Comite Gaufredo tenendas, scilicet Anastiam,[452] et Braching,[453] et Hamam[454] cum omnibus eorum appendiciis. Et c solidatas terræ in Hadfeld ad præfatas c libratas terræ perficiend[um]. Et præterea dedi ei et concessi custodiam turris Lond[oniæ] cum Castello quod ei subest habend[um] et tenendum sibi et suis hæredibus de me et de meis heredibus cum omnibus rebus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus prefate turri pertinentibus. Et Justicias et Vicecomitat' de Lond[oniâ] et de Middlesexâ in feodo et hereditate {142} eadem firma qua Gaufridus de Mannavilla avus suus eas tenuit, scilicet pro ccc libris. Et Justitias et Vicecomitat' de Essexâ et de Heortfordiscirâ eâdem firmâ quâ avus ejus eas tenuit, ita tamen quod dominica que de prædictis Comitatibus data sunt ipsi Comiti Gaufredo aut alicui alii a firmâ præfatâ subtrahantur et illi et hæredibus suis ad scaccarium combutabuntur. Et præterea firmiter ei concessi ut possit firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ et quod stare possit. Et præterea dedi eidem Comiti Gaufr[edo] et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate sibi et hæredibus suis de me et de meis heredibus lx milites feudatos, de quibus Ernulfus de Mannavillâ tenebit x in feodo et hereditate de patre suo, scilicet servicium Graalondi de Tania[455] pro vii militibus et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi filii Roberti pro vii militibus Et servicium Brient[ii] filii Radulfi[456] pro v militibus Et servicium Roberti filii Geroldi pro xi militibus Et servicium Radulfi filii Geroldi pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi de Tresgoz[457] pro vi militibus Et servicium Mauricii de Chic[he] pro v militibus et servicium Radulfi Maled[octi] pro ii militibus Et servicium Goisb[erti] de Ing[â] pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi filii Heru[ei] pro iii militibus Et servicium Willelmi de Auco pro j milite et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi de Bosevillâ[458] pro ii militibus {143} Et servicium Mathei Peur[elli][459] pro iiij militibus Et servicium Ade de Sum[er]i de feodo de Elmedonâ[460] pro iij militibus Et servicium Rann[ulfi] Briton[is][461] pro i milite. Et præterea quicquid Carta Regine testatur ei dedi et concessi. Omnia autem hec prædicta tenementa, scilicet in terris et dominiis et serviciis militum et in Custodia turris Lon[doniæ] et Castelli quod turri subest et in Justiciis et Vicecomitatibus et omnibus prædictis rebus et consuetudinibus et libertatibus, dedi ei et firmiter concessi Comiti Gaufredo in feodo et hereditate de me et de meis heredibus sibi et heredibus suis pro servicio suo. Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum habeant et teneant omnia illa tenementa et concessiones adeo libere et quiete et honorifice sicut aliquis omnium Comitum totius Angliæ aliquod suum tenementum tenet vel tenuit liberius et honorificentius et quietius et plenius.

T[estibus] M. Regina et H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Wint[onensi] et W[illelmo] Com[ite] Warenn[a] et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de Pembroc et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de heortford et W[illelmo] Com[ite] de Albarm[arlâ] et Com[ite] Sim[one] et Comite Will[elmo] de Sudsexâ et Com[ite] Alan[o] et Com[ite] Rob[erto] de Ferrers et Will[elmo] {144} de Ip[râ] et Will[elmo] Mart[el] et Bald[wino] fil[io] Gisl[eberti] et Rob[erto] de V[er] et Pharam[o] et Ric[ardo] de Luci et Turg[isio] de Abrincis et Ada de Belum. Apud Cantuar[iam].[462]

It will at once be seen that this charter is one of extraordinary interest.

The first point to strike one, on examining the list of witnesses, is the presence of no less than eight earls and of no more than one bishop. To these, indeed, we may add perhaps, though by no means of necessity, the Earl of Essex himself. Though the evidence is, of course, merely negative, it is probable, to judge from similar cases, that had other bishops been present, they would appear among the witnesses to the charter. The absence of their names, therefore, is somewhat difficult to explain, unless (if present) they were at enmity with Geoffrey.

Another point deserving of notice is that this great gathering of earls enables us to draw some important conclusions as to the origin and development of their titles. We may, for instance, safely infer that when a Christian name was borne by one earl alone, he used for his style that name with the addition of "Comes" either as a prefix or as a suffix. Thus we have in this instance "Comes Alanus" and "Comes Simon." But when two or more earls bore the same Christian name, they had to be distinguished by some addition. Thus we have "Comes Gislebertus de Pembroc" and "Comes Gislebertus de Heortford," or "Comes Robertus de Ferrers," as distinguished from Earl Robert "of Gloucester." The addition of "de Essexa" to Earl Geoffrey himself, which is found in this and other charters (see pp. 158, 183), can only, it would seem, be intended to distinguish him from Count {145} Geoffrey of Anjou. But here the striking case is that of "Willelmo Comite Warenna," "Willelmo Comite de Albarmarlâ," and "Comite Willelmo de Sudsexâ." These examples show us how perfectly immaterial was the source from which the description was taken. "Warenna" is used as if a surname; "Albarmarla" is "Aumâle," a local name; and "Sudsexa" needs no comment. The same noble who here attests as Earl of "Albarmarla" elsewhere attests as Earl "of York," while the Earl "of Sussex" is elsewhere a witness as Earl "of Chichester" or "of Arundel." In short, the "Comes" really belongs to the Christian name alone. The descriptive suffix is distinct and immaterial. But the important inference which I draw from the conclusion arrived at above is that where we find such descriptive suffix employed, we may gather that there was in existence at the time some other earl or count with the same Christian name.[463]

Among the earls, we look at once, but we look in vain, for the name of Waleran of Meulan. But his half-brother, William de Warenne, one, like himself, of the faithful three,[464] duly figures at the head of the list. He is followed by their brother-in-law, the Earl of Pembroke, whose nephew and namesake, the Earl of Hertford, and brother, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, are also found among the witnesses. With them is another of the faithful three, Earl Simon of Northampton. There too is Earl Alan of Richmond, and {146} the fortunate William of Albini, now Earl William of Sussex. Robert of Ferrers and William of Aumâle, both of them heroes of the Battle of the Standard, complete the list of earls.[465]

It would alone be sufficient to make this charter of importance that it affords the earliest record evidence of the existence of two famous earldoms, that of Hertford or Clare, and that of Arundel or Sussex.[466] Indeed I know of no earlier mention in any contemporary chronicler. We further learn from it that William of Ypres was not an earl at the time, as has been persistently stated. Nor have I ever found a record in which he is so styled. Lastly, we have here a noteworthy appearance of one afterwards famous as Richard de Luci the Loyal, who was destined to play so great a part as a faithful and trusted minister for nearly forty years to come.[467] His appearance as an attesting witness at least as early as this (Christmas, 1141) is a fact more especially deserving of notice because it must affect the date of many other charters. Mr. Eyton thought that "his earliest attestation yet proved is 1146,"[468] and hence found his name a difficulty, at times, as a witness. William Martel was another official in constant attendance on Stephen. He is described in the Gesta (p. 92) as "vir illustris, fide quoque et amicitiâ potissimum regi connexus." At the affair of Wilton, with its disgraceful surprise and rout of the royal forces, he was made prisoner and forced to give Sherborne Castle as the {147} price of his liberty (ibid.). By his wife "Albreda" he was father of a son and heir, Geoffrey.[469]

Of the remaining witnesses, Pharamus (fitz William) de Boulogne was nepos of the queen. In 1130 he was indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sue [Surrey] et ut habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet" (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 50). In the present year (1141) he had been in joint charge of the king's familia during his captivity:—"Rexit autem familiam regis Stephani Willelmus d'Ipre, homo Flandrensis et Pharamus nepos reginæ Matildis, et iste Bononiensis" (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). His ravages—"per destructionem Faramusi"—are referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156 (p. 15), but he retained favour under Henry II., receiving £60 annually from the royal dues in Wendover and Eton. In May, 1157, he attested, at Colchester, the charter of Henry II. to Feversham Abbey (Stephen's foundation). He held six fees of the honour of Boulogne. His grandfather, Geoffrey, is described as a nepos of Eustace of Boulogne. With his daughter and heiress Sibyl, his lands passed to the family of Fiennes.

Robert de V(er) would be naturally taken for the younger brother of Aubrey the chamberlain, slain in 1141.[470] This might seem so obvious that to question it may appear strange. Yet there is reason to believe that his identity was wholly different. I take him to be Robert (fitz Bernard) de Vere, who is presumably the "Robert de Vere" who figures as an Essex landowner in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, for he is certainly the "Robert de Vere" who is entered in that same roll as acquiring lands {148} in Kent, with his wife, for whom he had paid the Crown £210, at that time a large sum. She was an heiress, (sister of Robert and) daughter of Hugh de Montfort, a considerable landowner in Kent and in the Eastern Counties. With her he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks Horton, and in the charters relating to that priory he is spoken of as a royal constable. As such he attested the Charter of Liberties issued by Stephen at Oxford in 1136. I am therefore of opinion that he is the witness who attests this Canterbury charter, the Oxford charter of about a year later,[471] and some others in the course of this reign.[472] He had also witnessed some charters towards the close of the preceding reign, and would seem to be the Robert de Ver who was among those who took charge of the body of Henry I. at his death.[473]

Baldwin fitz Gilbert occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. He was a younger son of Gilbert de Clare, a brother of Gilbert, afterwards Earl of Pembroke, and uncle of Gilbert, Earl of Hertford. He appears, as early as January, 1136, in attendance on Stephen, at Reading, where he witnessed one of the charters to Miles of Gloucester. He was then sent by the king into Wales to avenge the death of his brother Richard (de Clare); but, on reaching Brecknock, turned back in fear (Gesta, p. 12). At the battle of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), he acted as spokesman on the king's behalf, and was captured by the forces of the Empress, after he had been covered with wounds.[474]

{149} Turgis of Avranches (the namesake of its bishop) we have met with as a witness to Stephen's former charter to Geoffrey. He seems to have been placed, on Geoffrey's fall (1143), in charge of his castle of Walden, and, apparently, of the whole property. Though Stephen had raised him, it was said, from the ranks and loaded him with favours, he ended by offering him resistance, but was surprised by him, in the forest, when hunting, and forced to surrender (Gesta, p. 110).

Passing now from the witnesses to the subject-matter of the charter, we have first the clause replacing Geoffrey in the same position as he was before the battle of Lincoln, in despite of his treason to the king's cause. The next clause illustrates the system of advancing bids. Whereas the Empress had granted Geoffrey £100 a year, charged on certain manors of royal demesne in Essex, Stephen now increased that grant to £300 a year, by adding the manors of Writtle (£120) and Hatfield (£80). He further granted him another £100 a year payable from lands which had escheated to the Crown. And lastly, he granted to his son Ernulf £100 a year, likewise charged on land.

The next clause grants him, precisely as in the charter of the Empress, the constableship of the Tower of London and of its appendant "castle,"[475] with the exception that the Empress uses the term "concedo" where Stephen has "dedi et concessi." The latter expression is somewhat strange in view of the fact that Geoffrey had been in full possession of the Tower before the struggle had begun, and, indeed, by hereditary right.

We then return to what I have termed the system of {150} advancing bids. For where the Empress had granted Geoffrey the office of justice and sheriff of Essex alone, Stephen makes him justice and sheriff, not merely of Essex, but of Herts and of London and Middlesex to boot. Nor is even this all; for, whereas the Empress had allowed him to hold Essex to farm for the same annual sum which it had paid at her father's death,[476] Stephen now leases it to him at the annual rent which his grandfather had paid.[477] The fact that in the second charter of the Empress she adopts, we shall find, the original rental,[478] instead of, as before, that which was paid at the time of her father's death, proves that, in this Canterbury charter, Stephen had outbid her, and further proves that Henry I. had increased, after his wont, the sum at which the sheriff held Essex of the Crown. This, indeed, is clear from the Pipe-Roll of 1130, which records a firma far in excess of the £300 which, according to these charters, Geoffrey's grandfather had paid.[479] It may be noted that while Stephen's charter gives in actual figures the "ferm" which had been paid by Geoffrey's grandfather, and which Geoffrey himself was now to pay for London and Middlesex, it merely provides, in the case of Essex and Hertfordshire, that he was to pay what his grandfather had paid, without mentioning what that sum was. Happily, we obtain the information in the subsequent charter of the Empress, and we are tempted to infer {151} from the silence of this earlier charter on the point, that while the ancient firma of London and Middlesex was a sum familiar to men, that of Essex and Herts could only be ascertained by research, pending which the Crown declined to commit itself to the sum.

It is scarcely necessary that I should insist on the extraordinary value of this statement and formal admission by the Crown that London and Middlesex had been held to farm by the elder Geoffrey de Mandeville—that is, towards the close of the eleventh century, or, at latest, in the beginning of the twelfth—and that the amount of the firma was £300 a year. One cannot understand how such a fact, of which the historical student cannot fail to grasp the importance, can have been overlooked so long, when it has virtually figured in Dugdale's Baronage for more than two centuries. The only writer, so far as I know, who has ventured on an estimate of the annual render from London at the time of Domesday arrives at the conclusion that "we can hardly be wrong in putting the returns at ... about £850 a year."[480] We have seen that, on the contrary, the rental, even later than Domesday, was £300 a year, and this not for London only, but for London and Middlesex together.[481]

Nothing, indeed, could show more plainly the necessity for such a work as I have here undertaken, and the new light which the evidence of these charters throws upon the history of the time, than a comparison of the results here obtained with the statements in Mr. Loftie's work,[482] published under the editorship of Professor Freeman, which, though far less inaccurate than his earlier and larger work, contains such passages as this:—

{152} "Matilda had one chance of conciliating the citizens, and she threw it away. The immemorial liberties which had been enjoyed for generations, and confirmed by William and Henry, were taken from the city, which for the first and last time in its history was put 'in demesne.' The Earl of Essex, Geoffrey de Mandeville, whose father is said by Stow to have been portreeve, was given Middlesex 'in farm' with the Tower for his castle, and no person could hold pleas either in city or county without his permission. The feelings of the Londoners were fully roused. Though Stephen was actually a prisoner, and Matilda's fortunes never seemed brighter, her cause was lost.... The citizens soon saw that her putting them in demesne was no mistake committed in a hasty moment in times of confusion, but was part of a settled policy. This decided the waverers and doubled the party of Stephen.... Stephen was exchanged for the Earl of Gloucester, the Tower was surrendered, the dominion was removed, and London had its liberty once more; but after such an experience it is not wonderful that the citizens held loyally to Stephen during the short remainder of his life" (pp. 36, 37).[483]

A more complete travesty of history it would not be possible to conceive. "The immemorial liberties" were no older than the charter wrung from Henry a few years before, and so far from the city being "put 'in demesne'" (whatever may be meant by this expression),[484] "for the first and last time in its history," the Empress, had she done what is here charged to her, would have merely placed Geoffrey in the shoes of his grandfather and namesake.[485] But the strange thing is that she did nothing of the kind, and that the facts, in Mr. Loftie's narrative, are {153} turned topsy-turvey. It was not by Matilda in June, but by Stephen in December, that London and Middlesex were placed in Geoffrey's power. The Empress did not do that which she is stated to have done; and Stephen did do what he is said to have undone. The result of his return to power, so far as London was concerned, was that the Tower was not surrendered, but, on the contrary, confirmed to Geoffrey, and that so far from "the dominion" (an unintelligible expression) being "removed," or London regaining its liberty, it was now deprived of its liberty by being placed, as even the Empress had refrained from placing it, beneath the yoke of Geoffrey. Thus it was certainly not due to his conduct on this occasion "that the citizens of London held loyally to Stephen during the short remainder of his life." Nor, it may be added, is it possible to understand what is meant by that "short remainder," for these events happened early in Stephen's reign, not a third of which had elapsed at the time.

But the important point is this. Here was Stephen anxious on the one hand to reward the Londoners for their allegiance, and, on the other, to punish Geoffrey for his repeated offences against himself, and yet compelled by the force of circumstances actually to reward Geoffrey at the cost of the Londoners themselves. We need no more striking illustration of the commanding position and overwhelming power which the ambitious earl had now obtained by taking advantage of the rival claims, and skilfully holding the balance between the two parties, as was done by a later king-maker in the strife of Lancaster and York.

Passing over for the present the remarkable expressions which illustrate my theory of the differentiation of the offices of justice and sheriff, I would invite attention to Geoffrey's claim to be placed in the shoes of his grandfather, {154} as an instance of the tendency, in this reign, of the magnates to advance quasi-hereditary claims, often involving, as it were, the undoing of the work of Henry I. William de Beauchamp was anxious to be placed in the shoes of Robert le Despenser; the Beaumont Earl of Leicester in those of William Fitz Osbern; the Earl of Oxford in those of William of Avranches; and Geoffrey himself, we shall find, in those of "Eudo Dapifer."

A point of great importance awaits us in the reference which, in this charter, is made to the Exchequer. I expressed a doubt, when dealing with the first charter of the Empress,[486] as to the supposed total extinction of the working of the Exchequer under Stephen. The author of the Dialogus, though anxious to emphasize its re-establishment under Henry II., goes no further than to speak of its system being "pene prorsus abolitam" in the terrible time of the Anarchy (I. viii.). Now here, in 1141, at the very height, one might say, of the Anarchy, we not only find the Exchequer spoken of as in full existence, but, which is most important to observe, we have the precise Exchequer formulæ which we find under Henry II. The "Terræ datæ," or alienated Crown demesnes, are represented here by the "dominia que de predictis comitatibus data sunt," and the provision that they should be subtracted from the fixed ferm ("a firma subtrahantur") is a formula found in use subsequently, as is, even more, the phrase "ad scaccarium computabuntur."[487]

The next clause deals with castles, that great feature of the time. Here again the accepted view as to Stephen's laxity on the subject is greatly modified by this evidence that even Geoffrey de Mandeville, great as was his power, {155} deemed it needful to secure the royal permission before erecting a castle, and that this permission was limited to a single fortress.[488]

In the next clause we return to the system of counter-bids. As the king had trebled the grants of Crown demesne made to Geoffrey by the Empress, and trebled also the counties which had been placed in his charge by her, so now he trebled the number of enfeoffed knights ("milites feudatos"). The Empress had granted twenty; Stephen grants sixty. Of these sixty, ten were to be held of Geoffrey by his son Ernulf. Here, as before,[489] the question arises: what was the nature of the benefits thus conferred on the grantee? They were, I think, of two kinds. In the first place, Geoffrey became entitled to what may be termed the feudal profits, such as reliefs, accruing from these sixty fees. In the second, he secured sixty knights to serve beneath his banner in war. This, in a normal state of affairs, would have been of no consequence, as he would only have led them to serve the Crown. But in the then abnormal condition of affairs, and utter weakness of the crown, such a grant would be equivalent to strengthening pro tanto the power of the earl as arbiter between the two rivals for the throne.

Independently, however, of its bearing at the time, this grant has a special interest, as placing at our disposal a list of sixty knights' fees, a quarter of a century older than the "cartæ" of the Liber Niger.[490]

{156} At the close of all these specified grants comes a general confirmation of the lost charter of the Queen ("Carta Regine").

Our ignorance of the actual contents of that charter renders it difficult to speak positively as to whether Geoffrey obtained from Stephen all the concessions he had wrung from the Empress, or had to content himself, on some points, with less, while on most he secured infinitely more. Thus, in the matter of "the third penny," which was specially granted him by the Empress, we find this charter of Stephen as silent as had been the former.[491] And the omission of a clause authorizing the earl to deduct it from the ferm of the county virtually implies that he did not receive it. He gained, however, infinitely more by the great reduction in the total ferm. The grant by the Empress of a market at Bushey, and her permission that the market at Newport should be transferred to his castle at Walden, are not repeated in this charter; nor does the king, as his rival had done, grant the earl permission to fortify the Tower at his will, or to retain and strengthen the castles he already possessed. On the other hand, he allowed him, by a fresh concession, to raise an additional stronghold. It may also be mentioned, to complete the comparison, that the curious reference to appeal of treason is not found in the king's charter.

We will now turn from this charter to the movements by which it was followed.

At the close of the invaluable passage from Gervase alluded to above, we read:—

"Rex Stephanus a Cantuariâ recedens vires suas reparare studuit, quo severius et acrius imperatricem et omnes ipsius complices debellaret."[492]

His first step in this direction was to make a progress {157} through his realm, or at least through that portion over which he reigned supreme. William of Malmesbury writes of his movements after Christmas:—

"Utræque partes imperatricis et regis se cum quietis modestiâ egerunt a Natale usque ad Quadragesimam; magis sua custodire quam aliena incursare studentes: rex in superiores regiones abscessit nescio quæ compositurus" (p. 763).

This scrupulous reluctance of the writer to relate events of which he had no personal knowledge is evidently meant to confirm his assurance, just above, that he had the greatest horror of so misleading posterity.[493] The thread of the narrative, however, which he drops is taken up by John of Hexham, who tells us that "after Easter" (April 19) the king and queen arrived at York, put a stop to a projected tournament between the two great Yorkshire earls, and endeavoured to complete the preparations for the king's revenge upon his foes.[494]

Before proceeding, I would call attention to two charters which must, it seems, have passed between the king's visit to Canterbury (Christmas, 1141), and his {158} appearance with the queen in Yorkshire (Easter, 1142). I do so, firstly, because their witnesses ought to be compared with those by whom the Canterbury charter was attested; secondly, because one of them is a further instance of how, as in the case of the Canterbury charter, chronicles and charters may be made to confirm and explain each other.

The first of these charters is the confirmation by Stephen of the foundation, by his constable Robert de Vere, of Monks Horton Priory, Kent.[495] If we eliminate from its eleven witnesses those whose attendance was due to the special contents of the charter, namely, the Count of Eu and two Kentish barons,[496] there remain eight names, every one of which appears in the Canterbury charter, one as grantee and seven as witnesses. Here is the list:

"Testibus Comite Gaufrido de Essex et Willelmo Comite de Warrenne ... Et Comite Gilleberto de Penbroc et Willelmo de Iprâ et Willelmo Mart[el] et Turgisio de Abrincis et Ricardo de Luci et Adam de Belu[n] ... apud Gipeswic."

Here then we have what might be described as King Stephen's Restoration Court, or at least the greater portion of its leading members; and this charter is therefore evidence that Stephen must have visited the Eastern Counties early in 1142. It is also evidence that Earl Geoffrey was with him on that occasion, and thus throws a gleam of light on the earl's movements at the time.

The other charter is known to us only from a transcript in the Great Coucher (vol. ii. fol. 445), and is {159} strangely assigned in the official calendar to 1135-37.[497] The grantee is William, Earl of Lincoln, and the list of witnesses is as follows:—

"T. Com. Rann. et Com. Gisl. de Pembroc* et Com. Gisl. de hertf.* et Com. Sim.* et Com. R. de Warwic' et Com. R. de Ferr.* et W. mart.* et Bald. fil. Gisl.* et W. fil. Gisl. et Ric. de Camvill et Ric. fil. Ursi* et E[ustachio] fil. John' et Rad. de Haia et h' Wac' et W. de Coleuill apud Stanf'."

Of these fifteen witnesses at least five are local men, and of the remaining ten no fewer than seven (here distinguished by an asterisk) had attested the Canterbury charter. But further evidence of the close connection, in date, between these two charters is found in yet another quarter. This is the English Chronicle. We there read that after the release of Stephen from his captivity, "the king and Earl Randolf agreed at Stamford and swore oaths and plighted troth, that neither of them should prove traitor to the other." For this is the earliest occasion to which that passage can refer. Stephen would pass through Stamford on his northward progress to York, and here, clearly, at his entrance into Lincolnshire, he was met by the two local magnates, William, Earl of Lincoln, and Randolf, Earl of Chester. Their revolt at Lincoln, at the close of 1140, had led directly to his fall, but it was absolutely needful for the schemes he had in view that he should now secure their support, and overlook their past treason. He therefore came to terms with the two brother earls, and, further, bestowed on the Earl of Lincoln the manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey ("Chircheton"), and confirmed him in possession of his castle of Gainsborough and his bridge over Trent, "libere et quiete tenendum omnibus liberis consuetudinibus cum quibus {160} aliquis comes Anglie tenet castella sua,"—a formula well deserving attention as bearing on the two peculiar features of this unhappy time, its earls and its castles.

Lastly, we should observe the family relationship between the grantee and the witnesses of this charter. The first witness was his half-brother, Earl Randolf of Chester, who was uncle of Earl Gilbert of Hertford, who was nephew of Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, who was brother of W(alter) fitz Gilbert and Baldwin fitz Gilbert, of whom the latter's daughter married H(ugh) Wac (Wake). Of the other witnesses, Ralph de Haye was of the family which then, and Richard de Camville of that which afterwards, held the constableship of Lincoln Castle. Earl R(oger) of Warwick (a supporter of the Empress) should be noticed as an addition to the Canterbury list of earls, and the descriptive style "de Warwicâ" may perhaps be explained as inserted here to distinguish him from Earl R(obert) "de Ferrers."

Gervase of Canterbury and John of Hexham alike lay stress on the fact that the king, eager for revenge, was bent on renewing the strife. William of Malmesbury echoes the statement, but tells us that the king was struck down just as he was about, we gather, to march south. As it was at Northampton that this took place he must have been following the very same road as he had done at this same time of year in 1138.[498] Nor can we doubt that his objective was Oxford, now again the head-quarters of his foe.[499] So alarming was his illness that his death was rumoured, {161} and the forces he had gathered were dismissed to their homes.[500]

But, meanwhile, where was Earl Geoffrey? We have seen that early in the year he was present with Stephen at Ipswich.[501] If we turn to the Ely History, printed in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, we shall find evidence that he was, shortly after, despatched with Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, who had been with him at Ipswich, to Ely.[502] When Stephen had successfully attacked Ely two years before (1140), the bishop had fled, with three companions, to the Empress at Gloucester. His scattered followers had now reassembled, and it was to expel them from their stronghold in the isle that Stephen despatched the two earls. Geoffrey soon put them to flight, doubtless at Aldreth, and setting his prisoners on horseback, with their feet tied together, led them in triumph to Ely.[503] To the monks, who came forth to meet him with their crosses and reliquaries, he threatened plunder and death, and their possessions were at once seized into the king's hands. But, meanwhile, their bishop's envoy to the pope, "a man skilled in the use of Latin, French, and English," had returned from Rome with letters to the primates of England and Normandy, insisting that Nigel should be restored to his see. The monks, also, had approached Stephen and obtained from him a reversal of Geoffrey's violent action. Nigel, therefore, returned to Ely, to the {162} joy, we are told, of his monks and people; and the two earls delivered into his hands the isle and Aldreth, its key.[504]

The point to insist upon, for our own purpose, is that the Earls Geoffrey and Gilbert were both concerned in this business, and that their names will again be found in conjunction in the records of that intrigue with the Empress which is the subject of the next chapter.

We left, it may be remembered, the Empress and her supporters assembled at Bristol, apparently towards the close of the year 1141. Their movements are now somewhat obscure, and the hopes of the Empress had been so rudely shattered, that for a time her party were stunned by the blow. We gather, however, from William of Malmesbury that Oxford became her head-quarters,[504] and it was at Oxford that she granted the charter which forms the subject of this chapter.

From internal evidence it is absolutely certain that this charter is subsequent to that dealt with in the last chapter. That is to say, it must be dated subsequent to Christmas, 1141. But it is also certain, from the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is a witness, that it must have passed previous to his departure from England at the end of June, 1142.[505]

It may, at first sight, excite surprise that, after having extorted such concessions from Stephen, Geoffrey should so quickly turn to his rival, more especially when Stephen appeared triumphant, and the chances of his rival desperate. But, on the one hand, in accordance with his {164} persistent policy, he hoped, by the offer of a fresh treason, to secure from the Empress an even higher bid than that which he had wrung from Stephen; and, on the other, the very weakness of the Empress, he must have seen, would place her more completely at his mercy. In short, he now virtually aspired to the rôle of "the king-maker" himself.[506]

Even he, however, strong though he was, could scarcely have attempted to stem the tide, while the flood of reaction was at its height. He watched, no doubt, for the first signs of an ebb in Stephen's triumph. It was not long before this ebb came in the form of that illness by which the king, as we saw, was struck down about the end of April, on his way south, at Northampton.[507] The dismissal of the host he had so eagerly collected was followed by a rumour of his death.[508] No one, it would seem, has ever noticed the strange parallel between this illness and that of 1136. In each case it was about the end of April that the king was thus seized, and in each case his seizure gave rise to a widespread rumour of his death.[509] On the previous occasion that rumour had been followed by an outburst of treason and revolt,[510] and it is surely, to say the {165} least, not improbable that it now gave the sign for which Geoffrey was watching, and led to the extraordinary charter with which we have here to deal.

The movements of the Empress have also to be considered in their bearing on the date of the charter. We learn from William of Malmesbury that she held two councils at Devizes, one about the 1st of April (Mid-Lent), and one at Whitsuntide (7-14 June). The latter council was held on the return of the envoys who had been despatched, after the former one, to request Geoffrey of Anjou to come to his wife's assistance. Geoffrey had replied that the Earl of Gloucester must first come over to him, and the earl accordingly sailed from Wareham about the end of June. It is most probable that he went there straight from Devizes, in which case he was not at Oxford after the beginning of June. In this case, that is the latest date at which the charter can have passed.

Although the original of this charter cannot, like its predecessor of the previous year, be traced down to this very day, we have the independent authorities of Dugdale and of another transcriber for the fact that it was duly recorded in the Great Coucher of the duchy.[511] If the missing volume, or volumes, of that work should come to light, I cannot entertain the slightest doubt that this charter will be found there entered. Collateral evidence in its favour is forthcoming from another quarter, for the record with which, as I shall show, it is so closely connected that the two form parts of one whole, has its existence proved by cumulative independent evidence.

I have taken for my text, in this instance, the fine {166} transcript from the Great Coucher in Lansd. MS. 229 (fol. 109), with which I have collated Dugdale's transcript, among his MSS. at Oxford (L. 19), "ex magno registro in officio Ducatus Lancastrie." I have also collated another transcript which is among the Dodsworth MSS. (xxx. 113), and which was made in 1649. It is, unfortunately, incomplete. Yet another transcriber began to copy the charter, but stopped almost at once.[512] I have given in the notes the variants (which are slight) in the Dodsworth and Dugdale transcripts.

Carta M. Imperatricis facta Com̃ Gaufredo Essexiæ de pluribus terris et libertatibus.

"M. Imperatrix. H. regis filia et Anglorum Domina. Archiepiscopis.[513] Episcopis. Abbatibus. Comitibus. Baronibus. Justiciariis. Vicecomitibus. Ministris. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et Normanniæ Salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Gaufr[edo] Essexe omnia tenementa sua, sicut Gaufredus avus suus,[514] aut Willelmus pater suus,[515] aut ipsemet postea unquam melius vel liberius tenuerit[516] aliquo tempore in feodo et hæreditate sibi et hæredibus suis, ad tenendum de me et de hæredibus meis. Videlicet in terris et turribus, in Castellis et Bailliis. Et nominatim Turrim Lund[oniæ] cum Castello quod subtus[517] est, ad firmandum et efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Et Vicecomitatum Lund[oniæ][518] et Middelsex per CCC lib[ras] sicut Gaufredus auus eius tenuit. Et vicecomitatum Essex per CCC lib[ras] sicut idem Gaufredus auus eius tenuit.[519] Et vicecomitatum {167} de Heortfordscirâ per LX libras sicut avus eius tenuit. Et præter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo quod habeat hæreditabiliter Justiciã Lund[oniæ] et Middelsex et Essex et de Hertfordscirâ, ita quod nulla alia justicia placitet in hiis supradictis vicecomitatibus nisi per eis[520] [sic]. Et concedo illi,[521] ut habeat illas C libratas terræ quas dedi illi, et servicium illorum XX militum sicut illud ei dedi et per aliam cartam meam confirmavi. Et illas CC libratas terræ quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt. Et illas C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis quas idem Rex et Regina ei dederunt, et servicium militum quod ei dederunt, sicut habet inde cartas illorum. Et do ei totam terram quæ fuit[522] Eudonis Dapiferi in Normanniâ et Dapiferatum ipsius. Et hæc reddo ei ut Rectum suum ut habeat et teneat hæreditabiliter, ita ne ponatur inde in placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviæ et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet Eschaetis et pro servicio militum[523] quod habet totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et[524] mortuus, quia hoc est Rectum suum, Præter illas[525] libratas terræ quas ego dedi ei Et præter seruicium XX militum quod ei dedi, Et præter terram Ernulfi de Mannavill sicut eam tenet de Comite Gaufredo ex servicio X militum Et si potero perquirere erga Episcopum Lund[oniæ] et erga ecclesiam Sancti Pauli Castellum de Storteford per Escambium ad Gratum suum tunc do et concedo illud ei et hæredibus suis in feodo et hereditate tenendum de me et hæredibus meis. Quod si facere non potero, tunc ei convenciono quod faciam illud prosternere {168} et ex toto cadere. Et concedo quod Ernulf[us] de Mannavill teneat illas C libratas terræ quas ei dedi, et servicium X militum de Comite Gaufredo patre suo. Et præter hoc do et concedo eidem Ernulfo C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis Et servicium X militum ad tenendum de domino meo Comite Andegau[ie] et de me in capite hæreditarie sibi et hæredibus suis de nobis et de hæredibus nostris videlicet Cristeshalam[526] et Benedis[527] pro quanto valent. Et superplus perficiam ei per considerationem Comitis Gaufredi. Et convenciono eidem Gaufredo Comiti Essex quod dominus meus Comes Andegauie vel ego vel filii nostri nullam pacem aut concordiam cum Burgensibus Lund[oniæ] faciemus, nisi concessu et assensu prædicti Comitis Gaufredi quia inimici eius sunt mortales. Concedo etiam eidem Gaufredo quod novum castellum quod firmavit super Lviam[528] stet et remaneat ad efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Concedo etiam ei quod firmet unum Castellum ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ sicut ei per aliam cartam meam concessi, et quod stet et remaneat. Concedo etiam eidem Gaufredo quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhesit. Hæc autem omnia supradicta tenementa in omnibus rebus concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie sibi et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse Gaufredus comes et hæredes sui teneant hæc omnia supradicta tenementa ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et {169} plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum totius Angliæ melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet Et præter hoc dedi Willelmo filio Otueɫ[529] fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi C libratas terræ de terris Escaetis tenendis de me et de hæredibus meis in feudo et hæreditate pro seruicio suo, et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi. Concedo etiam quod Willelmus de Sai[530] habeat omnes terras et tenementa quæ fuerunt patris sui, et ipse et hæredes sui, et quod Willelmus Cap'.[531] habeat terram patris sui sine placito et ipse et hæredes sui. Concedo etiam eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod Willelmus filius Walteri[532] et hæredes sui habeant custodiam Castelli de Windesh' et omnia sua {170} tenementa sicut ipse Willelmus et antecessores sui eam habuerunt de Rege H. patre meo et antecessoribus ipsius. Et quod Matheus de Rumilli[533] habeat terram patris sui quam Gaufridus de Turevill[534] tenet. Et Willelmus de Auco[535] habeat Lauendonam sicut Rectum suum hæreditarie. Concedo etiam eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod omnes homines sui teneant terras et tenementa sua de quocunque teneant sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione et ut Rectum eis teneatur de eorum Calumpnijs sine pecuniæ donatione Et quod Osb[ertus] Octod[enarii][536] habeat illas XX libratas terræ quas ei dedi et confirmaui per cartam meam.

"Hanc[537] autem convencionem et donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes Robertus Comes Gloec': et Milo Com' Heref':[538] et Brianus filius Comitis: et Rob' fil' Reg':[539] et Rob' de Curc' Dap:[540] {171} et Joh'es filius Gisleberti:[541] et Milo de Belloc':[542] et Rad' Paganell:[543] et Rob' de Oilli Conest':[544] et Rob' fil' Heldebrand'.[545]

"Et[546] convencionavi eidem Comiti Gaufredo pro posse meâ quod Comes Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu sua propria illud idem[547] tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. Et quod rex Franciæ erit inde[548] obses si facere potero. Et si non potero, faciam quod ipse Rex capiet in manu illud tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse {172} obsides per fidem: Juhel de Moduana,[549] et Robertus de Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill[550] et Pagan' de Clarevall'[551] et Gaufredus de Clarevall' et Andreas de Aluia:[552] et Pipinus de Turon': et Absalon Rumarch'[553] et Reginaldus comes Cornubiæ et Balduinus Comes Devon': et Gislebertus Comes de Penbr': et Comes Hugo de Norff': et Comes Albericus: et Henricus de Essex: et Petrus de Valon':[554] et alii Barones mei quos habere voluerit et ego habere potero, erunt inde obsides similiter. Et quod x'rianitas Angliæ quæ est in potestate meâ capiet in manu istam supradictam conventionem tenendam eidem Comiti[555] Gaufredo et hæredibus suis de me et de hæredibus meis. Apud Oxineford.[556]

"Sub magno sigillo dictæ Matildis Imperatricis."

Let us now, in accordance with the guiding principle on which I have throughout insisted, compare this charter seriatim with those by which it was preceded, with a view to ascertaining what further concessions the unscrupulous {173} earl had won by this last change of front. We shall find that, as we might expect, it marks a distinct advance.

The earlier clauses do little more than specifically confirm the privileges and possessions that he had inherited from his father or had already wrung from the eager rivals for the Crown. This was by no means needless so far as the Empress was concerned, for his desertion of her cause since her previous charter involved, as an act of treason, his forfeiture at her hands. These are followed by a new grant, namely, "totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et Dapiferatum ipsius," with a conditional proposal that Geoffrey should also, in exchange for the grants he had already received, obtain that portion of the Dapifer's fief which lay in England. The large estate which this successful minister had accumulated in the service of the Conqueror and his sons had escheated to the Crown at his death, and is entered accordingly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. This has an important bearing on the noteworthy admission in the charter that Geoffrey is to receive the Dapifer's fief not as a gift, but as his right ("rectum suum"). This expression is referred to by Mr. Eyton in his MSS., as placing beyond doubt the received statement that Geoffrey was maternally a grandson of the Dapifer, whose daughter and heiress Margaret had married his father William. But this statement is taken from Dugdale, who derived it solely from the Historia Fundationis of St. John's Abbey, Colchester, a notoriously inaccurate and untrustworthy document printed in the Monasticon. The fact that this fief escheated to the Crown, instead of passing to the Mandevilles with the Dapifer's alleged daughter, is directly opposed to a story which has no foundation of its own.[557]

{174} The next clause to be noticed is that which refers to Bishop's Stortford. It implies a peculiar antipathy to this castle on the part of Earl Geoffrey, an antipathy explained by the fact of its position, lying as it did on the main road from London to (Saffron) Walden, and thus cutting communications between his two strongholds. We have a curious allusion to this episcopal castle a few years before (1137), when Abbot Anselm of St. Edmund's, who claimed to have been elected to the see, seized and held it.[558]

The next additional grant made in this charter is that of "C libratas terræ de terris eschaetis et servicium X militum" to the earl's son Ernulf. This is followed by what is certainly the most striking clause in the whole charter, that which binds the Empress and her husband "to make no peace and come to no terms with the burgesses (sic) of London, without the permission and assent of the said Earl Geoffrey, because they are his mortal foes." Comment on the character of such a pledge on the part of one who claimed the crown, or on the light it throws on Geoffrey's doings, is surely needless.

The clauses relating to Geoffrey's castles are deserving of special attention on account of the important part which the castle played in this great struggle. The erection of unlicensed ("adulterine") castles and their rapid multiplication throughout the land is one of the most notorious features of the strife, and one for which Stephen's weakness has been always held responsible. It is evident, however, from these charters that the Crown struggled hard against the abdication of its right to control the building of castles, and that even when reduced to sore straits, both Stephen and the Empress made this {175} privilege the subject of special and limited grant. By this charter the earl secures the license of the Empress for a new castle which he had erected on the Lea. He may have built it to secure for himself the passage of the river, it being for him a vital necessity to maintain communication between the Tower of London and his ancestral stronghold in Essex. But the remainder of the passage involves a doubt. The Empress professes to repeat the permission in her former charter that he may construct one permanent castle, in addition to those he has already, anywhere within his fief. Yet a careful comparison of this permission with that contained in her former charter, and that which was granted by Stephen, in his charter between the two, proves that she was really confirming what he, not she, had granted.

As we can trace, in every other instance, the relation of the various charters without difficulty or question, it would seem that we have here to do with an error, whether or not intentional.

We then come to the clauses in favour of Geoffrey's relatives and friends. This is a novel feature which we cannot afford to overlook. It is directly connected with the question of that important De Vere charter to which we shall shortly come.

Lastly, there is the remarkable arrangement for securing the validity of the charter. Let us look at this {176} closely.[559] We should first notice that the Empress describes it, not as a charter, but as a "convencio et donatio." Now this "convencio" is a striking term, for it virtually denotes a treaty between two contracting powers. This conception of treaty relations between the Crown and its subjects is one of the marked peculiarities of this singular reign. It is clearly foreshadowed in those noteworthy charters which the powerful Miles of Gloucester secured from Stephen at his accession, and it meets us again in the negotiations between the youthful Henry of Anjou, posing as the heir to the crown, and the great nobles, towards the close of this same reign. It is in strict accordance with this idea that we here find the Empress naming those who were to be her sureties for her observance of this "convencio," precisely as was done in the case of a treaty between sovereign powers.[560] The {177} exact part which the King of France was to play in this transaction is not as clear as could be wished, but the expression "capere in manu" is of course equivalent to his becoming her "manucaptor," and "tenere" is here used in the sense of "to hold good."[561] The closing words in which "the Lady of England" declared that all the Church of Christ then beneath her sway shall undertake to be responsible for her keeping faith, present a striking picture: but yet more vivid, in its dramatic intensity, is that of the undaunted Empress, the would-be Queen of the English, standing in her water-girdled citadel, surrounded by her faithful followers, and playing, as it were, her last card, as she placed her hand, in token of her faith, in the grip of the Iron Earl.[562]

It was only, indeed, the collapse, to all appearance, of her fortunes, that could have tempted Geoffrey to demand, or have induced the Empress to concede, terms so preposterously high. The fact that she was hoping, at this moment, to allure her husband to her side, that he might join her in a crowning effort, explains her eagerness to secure allies, at the cost of whatever sacrifice, and also, in consequence, the anxiety of those allies to bind her to her promises hard and fast. It further throws light on the constant reference throughout this charter to Geoffrey of Anjou and his son.

Turning to the names of her proposed sureties, we find {178} among them five earls, of whom the Earls of Norfolk and of Pembroke invite special notice. The former had played a shifty part from the very beginning of the reign. He appears to have really fought for his own hand alone, and we find him, the year after this, joining the Earl of Essex in his wild outburst of revolt. With Pembroke the case was different. He had been among the nobles who, the Christmas before, had assembled at Stephen's court, and had attested the charter there granted to the Earl of Essex. He may, in the interval, have quarrelled with Stephen and joined the party of the Empress; but I think the occurrence of his name may be referred, with more probability, to another cause, that of his family ties. It is, indeed, to family ties that we must now turn our attention.

The Earl of Essex had included, as we have seen, in his demands on this occasion, provisions in favour of certain of his relatives, including apparently his sisters' husbands. But these by no means exhausted the concessions he had resolved to exact. He had come prepared to offer the Empress the support, not only of himself, but of a powerful kinsman and ally. This was his wife's brother, Aubrey de Vere.

It will be better to relegate to an appendix the relationship of these two families, without a clear understanding of which it is impossible to grasp Geoffrey's scheme, or to interpret aright these charters in their relation to one another, and in their bearing as parts of a connected whole. Unfortunately, the errors of past genealogists have rendered it a task of some difficulty to ascertain the correct pedigree.[563]

When the fact has been established on a sure footing that Aubrey stood in the relation of wife's brother to Geoffrey, we may turn to the charter upon which my narrative is here founded.

{179} This is a charter of the Empress to Aubrey at Oxford. Mr. Eyton had, of course, devoted his attention to this, as to the other charters, in his special studies on the subject, but his fatal mistake in assigning both this and the above charter to Geoffrey to the year 1141 deprives his conclusions of all value. We may note, however, that he argued from the mention, in the charter granted to Geoffrey, of "Earl Aubrey," that it must, in any case, be subsequent to the charter by which Aubrey was created an earl. He, therefore, dated the latter as "circ. July, 1141," and the former "circ. August, 1141" (or "between July 25 and Aug. 15, 1141").[564] This reasoning could at once be disposed of by pointing out that the Empress accepted her new ally and supporter as "Earl Aubrey" already. Of this, however, more below. But the true answer is to be found in the fact, which Mr. Eyton failed to perceive, that these two charters were not only granted simultaneously, but formed the two complements of one connected whole. In the light of this discovery the whole episode is clear.

It is now time to give the charter with the grounds for believing in its existence and authenticity. We have two independent transcripts to work from. One of them was taken from the Vere register by Vincent in 1622, and printed by him in his curious Discoverie of Brook's Errors. The other was taken, apparently, in 1621, and was used by Dugdale for his Baronage. Vincent's original transcript is preserved at the College of Arms, and this I have used for the text. But we have, fortunately, strong external testimony to the existence of the actual document. There is printed in Rymer's Fœdera (xiii. 251) a confirmation by Henry VIII. (May 6, 1509) of this very charter, in which he is careful to state that it was duly exhibited before {180} him.[565] Thus, from an unexpected source we obtain the evidence we want. It must further be remembered that our knowledge of these twin charters comes from two different and unconnected quarters, one being recorded in the duchy coucher (see p. 165), while the other was found among the muniments of the heir of the original grantee (see p. 183). If, then, these two independent documents confirm and explain one another, there is every reason to believe that their contents are wholly authentic.

Charter of the Empress to Aubrey de Vere (1142).

M. Imp'atrix H. Regis filia et Anglorum Domina Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justiciariis Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico omnes terras et tenementa sua, sicut pater eius Albericus de Veer tenuit, die quâ fuit vivus et mortuus, videlicet, in terris, in feodis, in firmis, in ministeriis, in vadiis, in empcionibus, et hæreditatibus. Et nominatim Camerariam Angliæ sicut Albericus de Veer pater eius vel Robertus Malet vel aliquis Antecessorum suorum eam melius vel liberius tenuit cum omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus quæ ad ea pertinent sicut alia Carta mea quam inde habuit testatur. Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine placito pro seruicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et iure quod clamat ex parte uxoris sue sicut umquam Willelmus de Archis[566] ea melius tenuit. Et turrim et Castellum de Colecestr' sine placito finaliter et sine escampa[567] quam citius ei deliberare potero. Et omnes tenuras suas de {181} quocunque eas teneat in omnibus rebus sicut Carta sua alia quam inde habuit testatur. Et preter hoc do ei et concedo quod sit Comes de Cantebruggescr' et habeat inde tertium denarium sicut Comes debet habere, ita dico si Rex Scotiæ non habet illum Comitatum. Et si Rex habuerit perquiram illum ei ad posse meum per escambium. Et si non potero tunc do ei et concedo quod sit Comes de quolibet quatuor Comitatuum subscriptorum, videlicet Oxenefordscira, Berkscira, Wiltescira, et Dorsetscira per consilium et consideracionem Comitis Gloecestrie fratris mei et Comitis Gaufridi et Comitis Gisleberti et teneat Comitatum suum cum omnibus illis rebus que ad comitatum suum pertineat ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comes melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet comitatum suum. Concedo etiam ei in feodo et hæreditate seruicium Willelmi de Helion,[568] videlicet decem militum ut ipse Willelmus teneat de Comite Alberico et ipse Comes faciat inde michi seruicium et michi et hæredibus meis. Concedo etiam ei et hæredibus suis de cremento Diham[569] que fuit Rogeri de Ramis[570] rectum nepotum ipsius comitis Alberici, videlicet filiorum Rogeri de Ramis.[571] Et similiter concedo ei et heredibus suis Turroc̃[572] que fuit Willelmi Peuerelli de Nottingh', et terram Salamonis Presbiteri[573] de Tilleberiâ.[574] {182} Concedo etiam eidem Alberico Comiti quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis que fecerant usque ad diem quâ seruicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie et meo adhæserunt.[575] Hec omnia supradicta tenementa concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie in omnibus rebus sibi et hæredibus suis de me et de hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse Albericus Comes et heredes sui teneant omnia tenementa sua ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet et preter hoc do et concedo Galfrido de Ver totam terram que fuit Galfridi Talebot[576] in dominiis in militibus si eam ei Warantizare potero. Et si non potero, escambium ei inde dabo ad valentiam per consideracionem Comitis Galfridi Essex et Comitis Gisleberti et Comitis Alberici fratris sui. Et preter hoc concedo Roberto de Ver unam baroniam ad valentiam honoris Galfridi de Ver infra annum quo potestatiua fuero regni Angliæ. Vel aliam terram ad valentiam illius terræ. Et preter hoc do et concedo eidem Comiti Alberico Cancellariam ad opus Willelmi de Ver fratris sui ex quo deliberata fuerit de Willelmo Cancellario fratre Johannis filii Gisleberti qui eam modo habet. Hanc autem convencionem et donacionem tenendam affidaui manu mea propria in manu Galfridi Comitis Essex. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes: Robertus Comes Gloec', et Milo Comes Heref', et Brianus {183} filius Comitis, et Robertus filius Regis[577] et Robertus de Curci Dap', et Johannes filius Gisleb', et Milo de Belloc', et Radulfus Paganel, et Robertus filius Heldebrandi et Robertus de Oileio Conestabularius. Et Convencionaui eidem Comiti Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. Et quod Rex ffrancie erit mihi obses si facere potero Et si non potero, faciam quod rex capiet in manu illud idem tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse obsides per fidem Juhel de Meduana et Rob[ertus] de Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill et Paganus de Clarievall' et Gaufridus de Clarievall et Andreas de Alvia et Pepinus de Turcin, et Absalon de Ruinard[578] et Reginaldus Comes Cornubiæ et Baldwinus Comes Deuoniæ et Comes Gislebertus de Pembroc et Comes Hugo de Norfolc et Comes de Essex Gaufridus et Patricius[579] (sic) de Valoniis, et alii barones mei quos habere voluerit et ego habere potero erunt inde obsides similiter et quod Christianitas Angliæ quæ in potestate meâ est capiat in manu supradictam convencionem tenendam eidem Comiti Alberico et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis Apud Oxin.[580]

The first point to which I would call attention is the identity of expression in the two charters, proving, as I urged above, their close and essential connection. It may be as well to place the passages to which I refer side by side.

Putting together these passages with the fact that the witnesses also are the same in both charters, we see plainly that these two documents, while differing from all others of the kind, correspond precisely with each other. Above all, we note that it was to Geoffrey, not to Aubrey, that the Empress pledged her faith for the fulfilment of Aubrey's charter. This shows, as I observed, that Aubrey obtained this charter as Geoffrey's relative and ally, just as Geoffrey's less important kinsmen were provided for in his own charter.

Here we may pause for a moment, before examining this record in detail, to glance at another which forms its corollary and complement.

It will have been noticed that in both these charters the Empress undertook to obtain their confirmation by her husband and her son. We know not whether the charter to Geoffrey was so confirmed, but presumably it was. For, happily, in the case of its sister-charter, the confirmation by the youthful Henry was preserved. And there is every reason to believe that when this was confirmed the other would be confirmed also.

The confirmation by the future King Henry II. of his mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere may be assigned to July-November, 1142. His uncle Robert crossed to Normandy shortly after witnessing the original charter, and returned to England, accompanied by his nephew, {185} about the end of December.[581] We may assume that no time was lost in obtaining the confirmation by the youthful heir, and though the names of the witnesses and the place of testing are, unluckily, omitted in the transcript, the fact that a Hugh "de Juga" acted as Geoffrey's proxy for the occasion supports the hypothesis that the confirmation took place over sea. That we have a confirmation by Henry, but not by his father, is doubtless due to Geoffrey of Anjou refusing, on this occasion, to come to his wife's assistance, and virtually, by sending his son in his stead, abdicating in his favour whatever pretensions he had to the English throne.

As Henry's charter is printed at the foot of his mother's by Vincent, I shall content myself with quoting its distinctive features, for the subject matter is the same except for some verbal differences.[582] There is some confusion as to the authority for its text. Vincent transcribed it, like that of the Empress, from the Hedingham Castle Register. Dugdale, in his Baronage, mixes it up with the charter granted by Henry when king, so that his marginal reference would seem to apply to the latter. In his MSS., however, he gives as his authority "Autographum in custodia Johis. Tindall unius magror. Curie cancellarie temp. Reg. Eliz." If the original charter itself was in existence so late as this there is just a hope that it may yet be found in some unexplored collection. From time to time such "finds" are made,[583] and few discoveries would be more welcome than that of {186} the earliest charter of one of the greatest sovereigns who have ever ruled these realms, the first Plantagenet king.[584]

Charter of Henry of Anjou to Aubrey de Vere.
July-November, 1142.

"Henricus filius filiæ Regis Henrici, rectus heres Angl. et Normann. etc. Sciatis quod sicut Domina mea, viz. mater mea imperatrix reddidit et concessit, ita reddo et concedo.... Hanc autem convencionem tenendam affidavi manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Juga,[585] sicut mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufr. Testibus," etc.

Henry "fitz Empress" was at this time only nine and a half years old. The claim he is here made to advance as "rightful heir" of England and Normandy sounds the key-note of the coming struggle. Not only till he had obtained the crown, but also after he had obtained it, he steadily dwelt on his "right" to the throne, of which Stephen had wrongfully deprived him.

We should also note that he claims to be "heir" of England and Normandy, but not of Anjou. I take this to imply that he posed as no mere heir-expectant, but as one who ought, by right, to be in actual possession of his realm. He could not, in the lifetime of his father, assume this attitude to Anjou. Hence its omission. As for his mother, he seems, from the first, to have claimed her inheritance, as he eventually obtained it, not for her, but for himself.

{187} Let us now return to the charter of the Empress.

It will be best to discuss its successive clauses seriatim. The opening portion, from "Sciatis me reddidisse" to "sicut alia Carta mea quam inde habuit testatur," is merely a confirmation of her previous charter, granted, as we learn from this, for the purpose of securing him in the possession of his father's fief and office of royal chamberlain. His father, who is said to have been slain in May, 1141, had been granted the chamberlainship by Henry I. in 1133, the charter being printed by Madox from Dugdale's transcript. This confirmation repeats its terms.

The next portion extends from the words "Et do et concedo" to "sicut Carta sua alia quam inde habet testatur." About this there is some obscurity. The word is "do," not "reddo," and the expression "Carta sua" replaces "Carta mea." The clause clearly refers to grants made to Aubrey himself since his father's death, but whether by the king or by the Empress is not so clear as could be wished. The point need not be discussed at length, but the former seems the more probable.

Fortunately, there is no such doubt about the clauses of creation. Here the question of the formula becomes all-important. The case stands thus. There are only two instances in the course of this reign in which we can be quite certain that we are dealing with creations de novo. The one is that by which the king "made" Geoffrey Earl of Essex; the other, that by which the Empress "made" Miles Earl of Hereford. We know that neither grantee had been created an earl before; and we find that the sovereign, in each instance, speaks of having "made" ("fecisse") him an earl.[586] So, again, in the only instance of a "counter-patent" of creation, of which we can be quite {188} certain, namely, that by which the Empress recognized Geoffrey as Earl of Essex after he had received that title from Stephen, the formula used is: "Do et concedo ut sit Comes." The two are essentially distinct. Now, applying this principle to the present charter, we find the latter of the two formulæ employed on this occasion. The words are: "Do ei et concedo ut sit Comes." We infer, therefore, if my view be right, that Aubrey was already in enjoyment of comital rank when he received this charter. It might be, and indeed has been, supposed that he was so by virtue of a creation by Stephen. I have noted an instance in which he attests a charter of Stephen (at the siege of Wallingford) as a "comes,"[587] and it is not likely that Stephen would allow him this title in virtue of a creation by the Empress. On the other hand, in this charter the Empress treats him as already a comes, which she does not do in the case of Geoffrey, who had been created a comes by Stephen.[588] The difference between the two cases is accounted for by the fact that Aubrey was comes not by a creation of Stephen, but in right of his wife Beatrice, heiress of the Comté of Guisnes. This has been clearly explained by Mr. Stapleton in his paper on "The Barony of William of Arques,"[589] although he is mistaken in his dates. He wrongly thought, like others, that Aubrey's father, the chamberlain, was killed in May, 1140, instead of May, 1141, and, like Mr. Eyton, he wrongly assigned this charter of the empress to 1141, instead of 1142.[590] His able identification of "Albericus Aper" with {189} Aubrey de Vere may be supplemented by a reference to the fact that "the blue boar" was the badge of the family through a pun on the Latin verres.

Aubrey was already the husband of Beatrice, the heiress of Guisnes, at the death of her grandfather Count Manasses (? 1139). He thereupon went to Flanders and became (says Lambart d'Ardes) Count of Guisnes. Returning to England, he sought and obtained from Stephen his wife's English inheritance and executed, as Mr. Stapleton observes, in his father's lifetime (i.e. before May, 1141), the charter printed in Morant's Essex (ii. 506). Aubrey was divorced from Beatrice a few years later, when she married (between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr. Stapleton) Baldwin d'Ardres, the claimant of Guisnes. Thus did Aubrey come to be for a time "Count of Guisnes," as recorded, according to Weever, on his tomb at Colne Priory.

Mr. Stapleton was unable to produce any English record or chronicle in which Aubrey is given the style of "Count of Guisnes." It is, therefore, with much satisfaction that I print, from the original charter, the following record, conclusively establishing that he actually had that style:—

Cott. Chart, xxi. 6.

"Ordingus dei gratia Abbas ecclesie sancti eadmundi Omnibus hominibus suis et amicis et fidelibus francis et anglis salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius conventus totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui sicut tenet de honore sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium unius militis et dimidii et totum feudum et seruitium Alani filii Frodonis {190} sicut tenet de honore sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium iii militum, et insuper singulis annis centum solidos ad pascha de camera mea. Hec omnia illi concedo in feudo et hereditate, ipsi et heredibus suis de ecclesia sancti eadmundi et de meis successoribus. Quare uolo et firmiter precipio quod idem Albericus comes Gisnensis et heredes sui jure hereditario teneant de ecclesia sancti eadmundi bene et honorifice hec supradicta omnia per seruitium quod supradiximus. Huius donationis sunt testes ex parte mea Willelmus prior Radulfus sacrista Gotscelinus et Eudo monachi Mauricius dapifer Gilebertus blundus Adam de cocef' Radulfus de lodn' Willelmus filius Ailb'. Helias de melef' Gauffridus frater eius. Ex parte comitis, Gauffridus de ver Robertus filius humfridi Robertus filius Ailr' Garinus filius Geroldi Hugo de ging' Albericus de capella Radulfus filius Adam Guarinus frater eius Radulfus de gisnes Gauffridus filius Humfridi Gauffridus Arsic Rodbertus de cocef' Radulfus carboneal et Hugo filius eius et plures alii."[591]

But, to return to Maud's charter, the point which I am anxious to emphasize is that of the formula she employs, namely, "do et concedo," as against the "sciatis me fecisse" of an original creation. I trace this distinction in later years, when her son, who had already, as we have seen, confirmed this charter to Aubrey, again confirmed it when king (1156), employing for that purpose the same formula: "Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse comiti Alberico." Conversely, in the case of Hugh Bigod, {191} he employs the formula: "Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot comitem de Norfolca" (1155), this being an earldom of Stephen's creation, and, so far as we know, of his alone. This is a view which should be accepted with caution, but which has, if correct, an important bearing.

The very remarkable shifting clause as to the county of which the grantee should be earl requires separate notice. The axiom from which I start is this: When a feudatory was created an earl, he took if he could for his "comitatus" the county in which was situated the chief seat of his power, his "Caput Baroniæ." If this county had an earl already he then took the nearest county that remained available. Thus Norfolk fell to Bigod, Essex to Mandeville, Sussex to Albini, Derby to Ferrers, and so on. De Clare, the seat of whose power was in Suffolk, though closely adjoining Essex, took Herts, probably for the reason that Mandeville had already obtained Essex, while Bigod's province, being in truth the old earldom of the East Angles—"Comes de Estangle," as Henry of Huntingdon terms him,—took in Suffolk. So now, Aubrey de Vere probably selected Cambridgeshire as the nearest available county to his stronghold at Castle Hedingham.[592]

But the Empress, we see, promised it only on the strange condition that her uncle was not already in possession. I say "the strange condition," for one would surely have thought that she knew whether he was or not. Moreover, the dignity was then held not by her uncle, but by his son, and is described as the earldom of Huntingdon, never as the earldom of Cambridge. The first of these difficulties is explained by the fact that the {192} King of Scots had, early in the reign, made over the earldom to his son Henry, to avoid becoming himself the "man" of the King of England. The second requires special notice.

We are taken back, by this provision, to the days before the Conquest. Mr. Freeman, in his erudite essay on The Great Earldoms under Eadward, has traced the shifting relations of the counties of Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Northumberland. The point, however, which concerns us here is that, "under William," Earl Waltheof, "besides his great Northumbrian government, was certainly Earl of Northamptonshire (Ord. Vit., 522 C.), and of Huntingdonshire (Will. Gem., viii. 37)."[593] His daughter Matilda married twice, and between the heirs of these two marriages the contest for her father's inheritance was obstinate and long. Restricting ourselves to his southern province, with which alone we have here to deal, its western half, the county of Northampton, had at this time passed to Simon of St. Liz as the heir of the first marriage, while Huntingdon had conferred an earldom on Henry, the heir of her marriage with the Scottish king. The house of St. Liz, however, claimed the whole inheritance, and as the Earl of Huntingdon, of course, sided with his cousin, the Empress, Earl Simon of Northampton was the steadfast supporter, even in their darkest hours, of Stephen and his queen. Now, the question that arises is this: Was not Earl Henry's province Huntingdonshire with Cambridgeshire? Mr. Freeman writes of Huntingdonshire, that "in 1051 we find it, together with Cambridgeshire, a shire still so closely connected with it as to have a common sheriff, detached altogether from Mercia," etc.[594] It is true that when the {193} former county became "an outlying portion of the earldom of Northumberland," it does not, he observes, "appear that Cambridgeshire followed it in this last migration;"[595] but when we compare this earlier connection with that in the Pipe-Roll of 1130,[596] and with the fact that under another David of Scotland, this earldom, some seventy years later, appears as that of Huntingdon and Cambridge,[597] we shall find in this charter a connecting link, which favours the view that the two counties had, for comital purposes, formed one throughout. We have a notable parallel in the adjacent counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which still formed one, the East Anglian earldom. Dorset and Somerset, too, which were under one sheriff, may have been also intended to form one earldom, for the Lord of Dunster is found both as Earl of "Dorset" and of "Somerset." I suspect also that the Ferrers earldom was, in truth, that of the joint shrievalty of Derbyshire and Notts, and that this is why the latter county was never made a separate earldom till the days of Richard II.

The doubt of the Empress must therefore be attributed to her anxiety not to invade the comital rights of her cousin, in case he should deem that her creation of an earldom of Cambridgeshire would constitute such invasion. It is evident, we shall find, that he did so. The accepted view is, it would appear, that Aubrey, by virtue of this charter, became Earl "of Cambridge."[598] Mr. Doyle, indeed, in his great work, goes so far as to state that he was "cr. Earl of Cambridge by the Empress {194} Maud (after March 2) 1141; ... cr. Earl of Oxford (in exchange) 1155."[599] But in Cole's (unpublished) transcript of the Colne Cartulary (fols. 34, 37), we have a charter of this Aubrey, "Pro animâ patris mei Alberici de Vere," which must have passed between 1141 and 1147, for it is attested by Robert, Bishop of London, appointed 1141, and Hugh, Abbot of Colchester, who died in 1147. In this charter his style is "Albericus Comes Oxeneford." Here, then, we have evidence that, in this reign, he was already Earl "of Oxford," not Earl of Cambridge.

Before quitting the subject of Aubrey's creation, we may note the bearing of the shifting clause on the creation of the earldom of Wiltshire. It implies that Patrick of Salisbury had not yet received his earldom. This conclusion is confirmed by a charter of the Empress tested at Devizes, which he witnesses merely as "Patricio de Sarum conestabulo."[600] The choice of Dorset is somewhat singular, as it suggests an intrusion on the Mohun earldom. But this rather shadowy dignity appears, during its brief existence, as an earldom of Somerset rather than of Dorset.

The specific grant of the "tertius denarius," as in the creation charters of the earldoms of Essex and of Hereford, should also be noticed.

The "Earl Gilbert" who is repeatedly mentioned in the course of this charter is Earl Gilbert "of Pembroke," maternal uncle to Aubrey. It is this relationship that, perhaps, accounts for the part he here plays.

Of the remaining features of interest in the record, attention may be directed to the phrase concerning the knights' fees of William de Helion: "Ut ipse Willelmus {195} teneat de Comite Alberico, et ipse Comes faciat inde michi servitium;" also to the implied forfeiture of William Peverel of Nottingham, he having been made prisoner at Lincoln, fighting on Stephen's side. Lastly, the promise to the earl of the chancellorship for his brother William becomes full of interest when we know that this was the Canon of St. Osyth,[601] and that he was to be thus rewarded as being the clerical member of his house. It enables us further to identify in William, the existing chancellor, the brother of John (fitz Gilbert) the marshal.

We have now examined these two charters, parts, I would again insist, of one connected negotiation. What was its object? Nothing less, in my opinion, than a combined revolt in the Eastern Counties which should take Stephen in the rear, as soon as the arrival from Normandy of Geoffrey of Anjou and his son should give the signal for a renewal of the struggle, and a fresh advance upon London by the forces of the west country. Earl Geoffrey himself was now at the height of his power. If he were supported by Aubrey de Vere, and by Henry of Essex with Peter de Valoines (who are specially named in Geoffrey's charter), he would be virtually master of Essex. And if the restless Earl of the East Angles (p. 178 supra) would also join him, as eventually he did, while Bishop Nigel held Ely, Stephen would indeed be placed between two fires. I cannot but think that it is to the rumour of some such scheme as this that Stephen's panegyrist refers, when he tells us, the following year, that Geoffrey "had arranged to betray the realm into the hands of the Countess of Anjou, and that his intention to do so had been matter of common knowledge."[602]

I would urge that in the charters I have given above {196} we find the key to this allusion, and that they, in their turn, are explained, and at the same time confirmed, by the existence of this concerted plot. We have now to trace the failure of the scheme, and to learn how it was that all came to nought.

Stephen's illness, to which, it may be remembered, I had attributed in part the inception of the scheme, only lasted till the middle of June. By the time that Robert of Gloucester had set forth to cross the Channel, Stephen was restored to health, and ready and eager for action.[603] Swift to seize on such an opportunity as he had never before obtained, he burst into the heart of the enemy's country and marched straight on Wareham. He found its defenders off their guard; the town was sacked and burnt, and the castle was quickly his.[604] The precautions of the Earl of Gloucester had thus been taken in vain, and the port he had secured for his return was now garrisoned by the king.

The effect of this brilliant stroke was to paralyze the party of the Empress. Her brother, who had left her with great reluctance, dreading the fickleness of the nobles, had made her assembled supporters swear that they would defend her in his absence, and had further taken with him hostages for their faithful behaviour.[605] He had also so strengthened her defences at Oxford that the city seemed {197} almost impregnable.[606] Lastly, a series of outlying posts secured the communications of its defenders with the districts friendly to their cause.[607]

But Stephen, in the words of his panegyrist, had "awaked as one out of sleep." Summoning to his standard his friends and supporters, he marched on Gloucestershire itself, and appeared unexpectedly at Cirencester on the line of the enemy's communications. Its castle, taken by surprise, was burnt and razed to the ground. Then, completing the isolation of the Empress, by storming, as he advanced, other of her posts,[608] he arrived before the walls of Oxford on the 26th of September.[609] The forces of the Empress at once deployed on the left bank of the river. The action which followed was a curious anticipation of the struggle at Boyne Water (1690). The king, informed of the existence of a ford, boldly plunged into the water, and, half fording, half swimming, was one of the first to reach the shore. Instantly charging the enemy's line, he forced the portion opposed to him back towards the walls of the city, and when the bulk of his forces had followed him across, the whole line was put to flight, his victorious troops entering the gates pell-mell with the routed fugitives. The torch was as familiar as the sword to the soldier of the Norman age, and Oxford was quickly buried in a sheet of smoke and fire.[610] The castle, then of great strength, alone held out. From the {198} summit of its mound the Empress must have witnessed the rout of her followers; within its walls she was now destined to stand a weary siege.

It is probable that Stephen's success at Oxford was in part owing to the desertion of the Empress by those who had sworn to defend her. For we read that they were led by shame to talk of advancing to her relief.[611] The project, however, came to nothing, and Earl Robert, hearing of the critical state of affairs, became eager to return to the assistance of his sister and her beleaguered followers.

Geoffrey of Anjou had, on various pretences, detained the earl in Normandy, instead of accepting his invitation and returning with him to England. But Robert's patience was now exhausted, and, bringing with him, instead of Geoffrey, the youthful Henry "fitz Empress," he sailed for England with a fleet of more than fifty ships. Such was the first visit to this land of the future Henry II., being then nine years and a half, not (as stated by Dr. Stubbs) eight years old.[612]

The earl made it a point of honour to recapture Wareham as his first step. He also hoped to create a diversion which might draw off the king from Oxford.[613] This was not bad strategy, for Stephen was deemed to be stronger behind the walls of Oxford than he would be in the open country. The position of affairs resembled, in fact, that at Winchester, the year before. But the two sides had changed places. As the Empress, in Winchester, had besieged Wolvesey, so now, in Oxford, Stephen did the {199} same. It would, therefore, have been necessary to besiege him in turn as the Empress was besieged the year before. Well aware of the advantage he enjoyed, Stephen refused to be decoyed away, and allowed the castle of Wareham to fall into Robert's hands. The other posts in the neighbourhood were also secured by the earl, who then advanced to Cirencester, where he had summoned his friends to meet him. Thus strengthened, he was already marching to the relief of Oxford, when he received the news of his sister's perilous escape and flight. A close siege of three months had brought her to the extremity of want, and Stephen was pressing the attack with all the artillery of the time. A few days before Christmas, in a long and hard frost, when the snow was thick upon the ground, she was let down by ropes from the grim Norman tower, which commanded the approach to the castle on the side of the river. Clad in white from head to foot, and escorted by only three knights, she succeeded under cover of the darkness of night, and by the connivance of one of the besiegers' sentries, in passing through their lines undetected and crossing the frozen river. After journeying on foot for six miles, she reached the spot where horses were in waiting, and rode for Wallingford Castle, her still unconquered stronghold.[614]

On receiving the news of this event Robert changed his course, and proceeded to join his sister. In her joy at the return of her brother and the safe arrival of her {200} son, the Empress forgot all her troubles. She was also in safety now, herself, behind the walls of Wallingford, the support of that town and its fidelity to her cause being gratefully acknowledged by her son on his eventual accession to the throne.[615]

But her husband had declined to come to her help; her city of Oxford was lost; her prestige had suffered a final blow; the great combination scheme was at an end.

The movements of Geoffrey during the latter half of 1142 are shrouded in utter darkness. After the surrender of the isle of Ely, we lose sight of him altogether, save in the glimpse afforded us by the Oxford intrigue. It is, however, quite possible that we should assign to the period of the siege of Oxford Castle (September-December, 1142) a charter to Abingdon Abbey which passed at Oxford.[616] For if we deduct from its eight witnesses the two local barons (Walter de Bocland and Hugh de Bolbec), five of the remaining six are found in the Canterbury charter.[617] In that case, Geoffrey, who figures at their head, must have been at Oxford, in Stephen's quarters, at some time in the course of the siege. He would obviously not declare for the Empress till the time was ripe for the scheme, {202} and, in the meanwhile, it might disarm suspicion, and secure his safety in the case of the capture or defeat of the Empress, if he continued outwardly in full allegiance to the king.

It was not till the following year that the crisis at length came. Stephen, at Mid-Lent, had attended a council at London, at which decrees were passed against the general disregard of the rights and privileges of the Church. Her ministers were henceforth to be free from outrage, and her sanctuaries from violation, under penalty of an excommunication which only the pope himself could remove.[618]

At some period in the course of the year (1143) after this council—possibly about the end of September—the king held a court at St. Albans, to which, it would seem, there came the leading nobles of the realm.[619] Among them was the Earl of Essex, still at the height of his power. Of what passed on this occasion we have, from independent quarters, several brief accounts.[620] Of the main fact there is no question. Stephen, acting on that sudden impulse which roused him at times to unwonted vigour, struck at last, and struck home. The mighty earl was seized and bound, and according to the regular practice throughout this internecine warfare, the surrender of the castles on which his strength was based was made the price of his liberty. As with the arrest of the bishops at Oxford in 1139, so was it now with the arrest of the great earl at St. Albans, and so it was again to be at Northampton, with {203} the arrest of the Earl of Chester some three years later. What it was that decided Stephen to seize this moment for thus reasserting his authority, it is not so easy to say. William of Newburgh, who is fullest on the subject, gives us the story, which is found nowhere else, of the earl's outrage on the king more than three years before,[621] and tells us that Stephen had been ever since awaiting an opportunity for revenge.[622] He adds that the height of power to which the earl had attained had filled the king with dread, and hints, I think, obscurely at that great conspiracy of which the earl, as we have seen, was the pivot and the moving spirit.[623] Henry of Huntingdon plainly asserts that his seizure was a necessity for the king, who would otherwise have lost his crown through the King-maker's treacherous schemes.[624] We may, indeed, safely believe that the time had now come when Stephen felt that it must be decided whether he or Geoffrey were master.[625] But, as with the arrest of the bishops at Oxford four years before, so, at this similar crisis, his own feelings and his own jealousy of a power beneath which he chafed were assiduously fostered and encouraged by a faction among the nobles themselves. This is well brought out in the Chronicle of Walden Abbey,[626] and still more so in the Gesta. It is there distinctly asserted that this faction worked upon the king, by reminding him of Geoffrey's {204} unparalleled power, and of his intention to declare for the Empress, urging him to arrest the earl as a traitor, to seize his castles and crush his power, and so to secure safety for himself and peace for his troubled realm.[627] It is added that, Stephen hesitating to take the decisive step, the jealousy of the barons blazed forth suddenly into open strife, taunts and threats being hurled at one another by the earl and his infuriated opponents.[628] On the king endeavouring to allay the tumult, the earl was charged to his face with plotting treason. Called upon to rebut the charge, he did not attempt to do so, but laughed with cynical scorn. The king, outraged beyond endurance, at once ordered his arrest, and his foes rushed upon him.[629]

The actual seizure of the earl appears to have been attended by circumstances of which we are only informed from a somewhat unexpected quarter. Mathew Paris, from his connection with St. Albans, has been able to preserve in his Historia Anglorum the local tradition of the event. From this we learn, firstly, that there was a struggle; secondly, that there was a flagrant violation of the right of sanctuary. The struggle, indeed, was so sharp that the Earl of Arundel, whom we know to have been an old opponent of Geoffrey (see p. 323), was rolled {205} over, horse and all, and nearly drowned in "Holywell." The fact that this tussle took place in the open would seem to imply that the whole of this highly dramatic episode took place out of doors.[630] As to the other of these two points, it is clear that there was something discreditable to Stephen, according to the opinion of the time, in his sudden seizure of the earl. William of Newburgh observes that he acted "non quidem honeste et secundum jus gentium, sed pro merito ejus et metu; scilicet, quod expediret quam quod deceret plus attendens." Henry of Huntingdon similarly writes that such a step was "magis secundum retributionem nequitiæ consulis quam secundum jus gentium, magis ex necessitate quam ex honestate."[631] The Chronicle of Walden, also, complains of the circumstances of his arrest;[632] and even the panegyrist of Stephen {206} is anxious to clear his fame by imputing to the barons the suggestion of what he admits to be a questionable act, and claiming for the king the credit of reluctance to adopt their advice.[633]

But there was a more serious charge brought against the king than that of dishonourable behaviour to the earl. He was accused of violating by his conduct the rights of sanctuary of St. Albans, though he had sworn, we are told, not to do so, and had taken part so shortly before in that council of London at which such violations were denounced. The abbot's knights, indeed, went so far as to resist by force of arms this outrage on the Church's rights.[634] It is clearly to the contest thus caused, rather than (as implied by Mathew) to the actual arrest of Geoffrey, that we must assign the struggle in which the Earl of Arundel was unhorsed by Walchelin de Oxeai, for Walchelin was one of the abbey's knights, and was, therefore, fighting in her cause.[635]

Though the friends of the earl interceded on his {207} behalf,[636] the king had no alternative but to complete what he had begun. After what he had done there could be no hope of reconciliation with the earl. Geoffrey was offered the usual choice; either he must surrender his castles, or he must go to the gallows. Taken to London, he was clearly made, according to the practice in these cases, to order his own garrison to surrender to the king. Thus he saw the fortress which he had himself done so much to strengthen, the source of his power and of his pride, pass for ever from his grasp. He had also to surrender, before regaining his freedom, his ancestral Essex strongholds of Pleshy and Saffron Walden.[637]

The earl's impotent rage when he found himself thus overreached is dwelt on by all the chroniclers.[638] The king's move, moreover, had now forced his hand, and the revolt so carefully planned could no longer be delayed, but broke out prematurely at a time when the Empress was not in a position to offer effective co-operation.

We must now return to the doings of Nigel, Bishop of {208} Ely. That prelate had for a year (1142-43) been peacefully occupied in his see. But at the council of 1143 his past conduct had been gravely impugned. Alarmed at the turn affairs were taking, he decided to consult the Empress.[639] He must, I think, have gone by sea, for we find him, on his way at Wareham, the port for reaching her in Wiltshire. Here he was surprised and plundered by a party of the king's men.[640] He succeeded, however, in reaching the Empress, and then returned to Ely. He had now resolved to appeal to the pope in person, a resolve quickened, it may be, by the fact that the legate, who was one of his chief opponents, had gone thither in November (1143). With great difficulty, and after long debate, he prevailed on the monks to let him carry off, from among the remaining treasures of the church, a large amount of those precious objects without the assistance of which, especially in a doubtful cause, it would have been but lost labour to appeal to the heir of the Apostles. As it was Pope Lucius before whom he successfully cleared his character, and as Lucius was not elected till the March of the following year (1144), I have placed his departure for Rome subsequent to that of the legate. He may, of course, have arrived there sooner and applied to Cœlestine without success, but as that pontiff favoured the Empress, this is not probable. Indeed, the wording of the narrative is distinctly opposed to the idea.[641] In any case, my object is to show that the period of his absence abroad harmonizes {209} well with the London Chronicle, which places Geoffrey's revolt about the end of the year. For the bishop had been gone some time when the earl obtained possession of Ely.[642]

Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, whose allegiance had ever sat lightly upon him, appears to have eventually become his ally,[643] but for the time we hear only of his brother-in-law, William de Say, as actively embracing his cause.[644] He must, however, have relied on at least the friendly neutrality of his relatives, the Clares and the De Veres, in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Essex, as well as on the loyalty of his own vassals. It is possible, from scattered sources, to trace his plan of action, and to reconstruct the outline of what we may term the fenland campaign.

Fordham, in Cambridgeshire, on the Suffolk border, appears to have been his base of operations. Here supplies could reach him from Suffolk and North Essex. He was thence enabled to advance to Ely, the bishop being at this time absent at Rome, and his forces being hard pressed by those which Stephen had despatched against them. The earl gladly accepted their appeal to himself for assistance, and was placed by them in possession of the isle, including its key, Aldreth Castle.[645] He soon made a further advance, and, pushing on in the same direction, burst upon Ramsey Abbey on a December[646] morning at {210} daybreak, seized the monks in their beds, drove them forth clad as they were, and turned the abbey into a fortified post.[647]

He was probably led to this step by the confusion then reigning among the brethren. A certain scheming monk, Daniel by name, had induced the abbot to resign in his favour. The resignation was indignantly repudiated by the monks and the tenants of the abbey, but Stephen, bribed by Daniel, had visited Ramsey in person, and installed him by force as abbot only eighteen days before the earl's attack.[648] It is, therefore, quite possible that, as stated in the Walden Chronicle, Daniel may have been privy to this gross outrage. In any case the earl's conduct excited universal indignation.[649] He stabled his horses in the cloisters; he plundered the church of its most sacred treasures; he distributed its manors among his lawless followers, and he then sent them forth to ravage far and wide. In short, in the words of the pious chronicler, he made of the church of God a very den of thieves.[650]

{211} But for the time these same enormities enabled the daring earl at once to increase the number of his followers and to acquire a strategical position unrivalled for his purpose. The soldiers of fortune and mercenary troopers who now swarmed throughout the land flocked in crowds to his standard, and he was soon at the head of a sufficient force to undertake offensive operations.[651] From his advanced post at Ramsey Abbey, he was within striking distance of several important points, while himself comparatively safe from attack. His front and right flank were covered by the meres and fens; his left was to some extent protected by the Ouse and its tributaries, and was further strengthened by a fortified work, erected by his son Ernulf at one of the abbey's manors, Wood Walton.[652] In his rear lay the isle of Ely, with its castles in the hands of his men, and its communications with the Eastern Counties secured by his garrison at Fordham.[653] His positions at Ely and Ramsey were themselves connected by a garrison, on the borders of the two counties, at Benwick.[654]

{212} Thus situated, the earl was enabled to indulge his thirst for vengeance, if not on Stephen himself, at least on his unfortunate subjects. From his fastness in the fenland he raided forth; his course was marked by wild havoc, and he returned laden with plunder.[655]

Cambridge, as being the king's town, underwent at his hands the same fate that Nottingham had suffered in 1140, or Worcester in 1139, at the hands of the Earl of Gloucester.[656] Bursting suddenly on the town, he surprised, seized, and sacked it. As at Worcester, the townsmen had stored in the churches such property as they could; but the earl was hardened to sacrilege: the doors were soon crashing beneath the axes of his eager troopers, and when they had pillaged to their hearts' content, the town was committed to the flames.[657] The whole country round was the scene of similar deeds.[658] The humblest village church was not safe from his attack,[659] but the religious houses, from their own wealth, and from the accumulated treasures which, for safety, were then stored within their walls, offered the most alluring prize. It is only from the snatch of a popular rhyme that we learn incidentally the fact that St. Ives was treated even as the abbey of which it was a daughter-house. {213} In a MS. of the Historia Anglorum there is preserved by Mathew Paris the tradition that the earl and his lawless followers mockingly sang of their wild doings—

It may not have been observed that this jingle refers to St. Benedict of Ramsey and its daughter-house of St. Ives.[661]

Emboldened by success, he extended his ravages, till his deeds could no longer be ignored.[662] Stephen, at length fairly roused, marched in strength against him, determined to suppress the revolt. But the earl, skilfully avoiding an encounter in the open field, took refuge in the depths of the fenland and baffled the efforts of the king. Finding it useless to prolong the chase, Stephen fell back on his usual policy of establishing fortified posts to hem the rebels in. In these he placed garrisons, and so departed.[663]

Geoffrey was now at his worst. Checked in extending his sphere of plunder, he ravaged, with redoubled energy, the isle itself. His tools, disguised as beggars, wandered from door to door, to discover those who were still able to relieve them from their scanty stores. The hapless {214} victims of this stratagem were seized at dead of night, dragged before the earl as a great prize, and exposed in turn to every torture that a devilish ingenuity could devise till the ransom demanded by their captors had been extorted to the uttermost farthing.[664] I cannot but think that the terrible picture of the cruelties which have made this period memorable for ever in our history was painted by the Peterborough chronicler from life, and that these very doings in his own neighbourhood inspired his imperishable words.

Nor was it only the earl that the brethren of Ely had to fear. Stephen, infuriated at the loss of the isle, laid the blame at their bishop's door, and seized all those of their possessions which were not within the earl's grasp. The monks, thus placed "between the devil and the deep sea," were indeed at their wits' end.[665] A very interesting reference to this condition of things is found in a communication from the pope to Archbishop Theobald, stating {215} that Bishop Nigel of Ely has written to complain that he found on his return from Rome that Earl Geoffrey, in his absence, had seized and fortified the isle, and ravaged the possessions of his church within it, while Stephen had done the same for those which lay without it. As it would seem that this document has not been printed, I here append the passage:—

"Venerabilis frater noster N. elyensis episcopus per literas suas nobis significavit quod dum apostolicorum limina et nostram presentiam visitasset, Gaufridus comes de mandeuilla elyensem insulam ubi sedes episcopalis est violenter occupavit et quasdam sibi munitiones in ea parauit. Occupatis autem ab ipso comite interioribus, Stephanus rex omnes ejusdem ecclesie possessiones exteriores occupavit et pro voluntate sua illicite distribuit."[666]

This letter would seem to have been written subsequent to Nigel's return. The bishop, however, had heard while at Rome of these violent proceedings,[667] and had prevailed on Lucius to write to Theobald and his fellow-bishops, complaining—

"Quod a quibusdam parrochianis vestris bona et possessiones elyensis ecclesie, precipue dum ipse ab episcopatu expulsus esset, direpta sunt et occupata et contra justitiam teneantur. Quidam etiam sub nomine tenseriarum villas et homines suos spoliant et injustis operationibus et exaccionibus opprimunt."[668]

But the bishop was not the only sufferer who turned to Rome for help. When Stephen installed the ambitious Daniel as Abbot of Ramsey in person, Walter, the late abbot, had sought "the threshold of the Apostles." Daniel, whether implicated or not in Geoffrey's sacrilegious deeds, found himself virtually deposed when the {216} abbey became a fortress of the earl. Alarmed also for the possible consequence of Walter's appeal to Rome, he resolved to follow his example and betake himself to the pope, trusting to the treasure that he was able to bring.[669] The guileless simplicity of Walter, however, carried the day; he found favour in the eyes of the curia and returned to claim his abbey.[670] But though he had been absent only three months, the scene was changed indeed. That which he had left "the House of God," he found, as we have seen, "a den of thieves." But the "dove" who had pleaded before the papal court could show himself, at need, a lion. Filled, we are told, with the Holy Spirit, he entered, undaunted, the earl's camp, seized a flaming torch, and set fire not only to the tents of his troopers, but also to the outer gate of the abbey, which they had made the barbican of their stronghold. But neither this novel adaptation of the orthodox "tongues of fire," nor yet the more appropriate anathemas which he scattered as freely as the flames, could convert the mailed sinners from the error of their unhallowed ways. Indeed, it was almost a miracle that he escaped actual violence, for the enraged soldiery threatened him with death and brandished their weapons in his face.[671]

{217} In the excited state of the minds of those by whom such sights were witnessed, portents would be looked for, and found, as signs of the wrath of Heaven. Before long it was noised abroad that the very walls of the abbey were sweating blood, as a mark of Divine reprobation on the deeds of its impious garrison.[672] Far and wide the story spread; and men told with bated breath how they had themselves seen and touched the abbey's bleeding walls. Among those attracted by the wondrous sight was Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who has recorded for all time that he beheld it with his own eyes.[673] And as they spoke to one another of the miracle, in which they saw the finger of God, the starving peasants whispered their hopes that the hour of their deliverance was at hand.

The time, indeed, had come. As the now homeless abbot wandered over the abbey's lands, sick at heart, in weariness and want, the sights that met his despairing eyes were enough to make him long for death.[674] Barely a plough remained on all his broad demesnes; all provisions had been carried off; no man tilled the land. Every lord had now his castle, and every castle was a robber's nest.[675] In vain he boldly appealed to Earl {218} Geoffrey himself, warning him to his face that he and his would remain cut off from the communion of Christians till the abbey was restored to its owners. The earl listened with impatience, and gave him a vague promise; but he kept his hold of the abbey.[676] The heart of the spoiler was hardened like that of Pharaoh of old, and not even miracles could move him to part with his precious stronghold.[677]

But if Ramsey had thus suffered, what had been the fate of Ely? A bad harvest, combined with months of systematic plunder, had brought about a famine in the land. For the space of twenty or even thirty miles, neither ox nor plough was to be seen; barely could the smallest bushel of grain he bought for two hundred pence. The people, by hundreds and thousands, were perishing {219} for want of bread, and their corpses lay unburied in the fields, a prey to beasts and to fowls of the air. Not for ages past, as it seemed to the monks, had there been such tribulation upon earth.[678] Nor were the peasants the only sufferers. Might was then right, for all classes, throughout the land;[679] the smaller gentry were themselves seized, and held, by their captors, to ransom. As they heard of distant villages in flames, as they gazed on strings of captives dragged from their ravaged homes, the words of the psalmist were adapted in the mouths of the terrified monks: "They bind the godly with chains, and the nobles with links of iron."[680] In the mad orgie of wickedness neither women nor the aged were spared. Ransom was wrung from the quivering victims by a thousand refinements of torture. In the groans of the sufferers, in the shrieks of the tortured, men beheld the fulfilment of the words of St. John the Apostle, "In those days shall men ... desire to die, and death shall flee from them."[681]

Again we are tempted to ask if we have not in these very scenes the actual original from which was drawn the {220} picture in the English Chronicle, a picture which might thus be literally true of the chronicler's own district, while not necessarily applicable, as the latest research suggests, to the whole of Stephen's realm.

It was now that men "said openly that Christ slept, and His saints." The English chronicler seems to imply, and Henry of Huntingdon distinctly asserts, that the wicked, emboldened by impunity, said so in scornful derision; but William of Newburgh assigns the cry to the sufferings of a despairing people. It is probable enough that both were right, that the people and their oppressors had reversed the parts of Elijah and the priests of Baal. For a time there seemed to rise in vain the cry so quaintly Englished in the paraphrase of John Hopkins:—

But when night is darkest, dawn is nearest,[682] and the end of the oppressor was at hand. It was told in after days how even Nature herself had shown, by a visible sign, her horror of his impious deeds. While marching to the siege of Burwell on a hot summer's day, he halted at the edge of a wood, and lay down for rest in the shade. And lo! the very grass withered away beneath the touch of his unhallowed form![683]

The fortified post which the king's men had now established at Burwell was a standing threat to Fordham, the key of his line of communications. He was therefore {221} compelled to attack it. And there he was destined to die the death of Richard Cœur de Lion. As he reconnoitred the position to select his point of attack, or as, according to others, he was fighting at the head of the troops, he carelessly removed his headpiece and loosened his coat of mail. A humble bowman saw his chance: an arrow whizzed from the fortress, and struck the unguarded head.[684]

There is a conflict of testimony as to the date of the event. Henry of Huntingdon places it in August, while M. Paris (Chron. Maj., ii. 177) makes him die on the 14th of September, and the Walden Chronicle on the 16th. Possibly he was wounded in August and lingered on into September, but, in any case, Henry's date is the most trustworthy.

The monks of Ramsey gloried in the fact that their oppressor had received his fatal wound as he stood on ground which their abbey owned, as a manifest proof that his fate was incurred by the wrong he had done to their {222} patron saint.[685] At Waltham Abbey, with equal pride, it was recorded that he who had refused to atone for the wrong he had done to its holy cross received his wound in the self-same hour in which its aid was invoked against the oppressor of its shrine.[686] But all were agreed that such a death was a direct answer to the prayer of the oppressed, a signal act of Divine vengeance on one who had sinned against God and man.[687]

For the wound was fatal. The earl, like Richard in after days, made light of it at first.[688] Retiring, it would seem, through Fordham, along the Thetford road, he reached Mildenhall in Suffolk, and there he remained, to die. The monks of his own foundation believed, and perhaps with truth, that when face to face with death, he displayed heartfelt penitence, prayed earnestly that his sins might he forgiven, and made such atonement to God and man as his last moments could afford. But there was none to give him the absolution he craved; indeed, after the action which the Church had taken the year {223} before, it is doubtful if any one but the pope could absolve so great a sinner.[689]

In the mean time the Abbot of Ramsey heard the startling news, and saw that his chance had come. The earl might be willing to save his soul at the cost of restoring the abbey. To Mildenhall he flew in all haste, but only to find that the earl had already lost consciousness. There awaited him, however, the fruit of his oppressor's tardy repentance in the form of instructions from the earl to his son to surrender Ramsey Abbey. Armed with these, the abbot departed as speedily as he had come.[690]

The tragic end of the great earl must have filled the thoughts of men with a strange awe and horror. That one who had rivalled, but a year ago, the king himself in power, should meet an inglorious death at the hands of a wretched churl, that he who had defied the thunders of the Church should fall as if by a bolt from heaven, were facts which, in the highly wrought state of the minds of men at the time, were indeed signs and wonders.[691] But even more tragic than his death was the fate which awaited his corpse. Unshriven, he had passed away laden with the curses of the Church. His soul was lost for ever; and his body no man might bury.[692] As the earl was drawing his {224} last breath there came upon the scene some Knights Templar, who flung over him the garb of their order so that he might at least die with the red cross upon his breast.[693] Then, proud in the privileges of their order, they carried the remains to London, to their "Old Temple" in Holborn. There the earl's corpse was enclosed in a leaden coffin, which was hung, say some, on a gnarled fruit tree, that it might not contaminate the earth, or was hurled, according to others, into a pit without the churchyard.[694] So it remained, for nearly twenty years, exposed to the gibes of the Londoners, the earl's "deadly foes." But with the characteristic faithfulness of a monastic house to its founder, the monks of Walden clung to the hope that the ban of the Church might yet be removed, and the bones of the great earl be suffered to rest among them. According to their chronicle, Prior William, who had obtained his post from Geoffrey's hands, rested not till he had wrung his absolution from Pope Alexander III.[695] (1159-1181). But the Ramsey Chronicle, which appears to be a virtually contemporary record, assigns the eventual {225} removal of the ban to Geoffrey's son and namesake, and to the atonement which he made to Ramsey Abbey on his father's behalf.[696] The latter story is most precise, but both may well be true. For, although the Ramsey chronicler would more especially insist on the fact that St. Benedict had to be appeased before the earl could be absolved, the absolution itself would be given not by the abbot, but by the pope. The grant to Ramsey would be merely a condition of the absolution itself being granted. The nature of the grant is known to us not only from the chronicle, but also from the primate's charter confirming this final settlement.[697] As this confirmation is dated at Windsor, April 6, 1163, we thus, roughly, obtain the date of the earl's Christian burial.[698]

{226} The Prior of Walden had gained his end, and he now hastened to the Temple to claim his patron's remains. But his hopes were cruelly frustrated at the very moment of success. Just as the body of the then earl (1163) was destined to be coveted at his death (1166) by two rival houses, so now the remains of his father were a prize which the indignant Templars would never thus surrender. Warned of the prior's coming, they instantly seized the coffin, and buried it at once in their new graveyard, where, around the nameless resting-place of the great champion of anarchy, there was destined to rise, in later days, the home of English law.[699]

The death of Geoffrey was a fatal blow to the power of the fenland rebels. According, indeed, to one authority, his brother-in-law, William de Say, met his death on the same occasion,[700] but it was the decease of the great earl which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy and hope.[701] For a time Ernulf, his son and heir, clung to the abbey fortress, but at length, sorely against his will, he gave up possession to the monks.[702] Before the year was out, he was himself made prisoner and straightway banished from the realm.[703] Nor was the vengeance of Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the wicked earl was thrown from his horse and killed,[704] and {228} the captain of his foot, who had made himself conspicuous in the violating and burning of churches, met, as he fled beyond the sea, with the fate of Jonah, and worse.[705]

Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest to ignore the subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de Mandeville.[706] He has even been conveniently disposed of by the statement that he died childless.[707] It may therefore fairly be described as a genealogical surprise to establish the fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only that he left issue, but that his descendants flourished for generations, heirs in the direct male line of this once mighty house. Ernulf himself first reappears, early in the following reign, as a witness to a royal charter confirming Ernald de Bosco's foundation at Betlesdene.[708] He also occurs as a principal witness in a family charter, about the same time.[709] This document,[710] which is addressed by Earl Geoffrey "baronibus suis," is a confirmation of a grant of lands in Sawbridgeworth, by {229} his tenant Warine fitz Gerold "Camerarius Regis" and his brother Henry, to Robert Blund of London, who is to hold them "de predictis baronibus meis." The witnesses are: "Roesia Com[itissa] matre mea, Eust[achia] Com[itissa], Ernulfo de Mannavilla fratre meo, Willelmo filio Otuwel patruo meo, Mauricio vicecomite, Willelmo de Moch' capellano meo, Otuwel de bouile, Ricardo filio Osberti, Radulfo de Bernires, Willelmo et Ranulfo fil' Ernaldi, Gaufrido de Gerp[en]villa, Hugone de Augo, Waltero de Mannavilla, Willelmo filio Alfredi, Gaufredo filio Walteri, Willelmo de Plaisiz, Gaufrido pincerna." He is, doubtless, also the "Ernald de Mandevill" who holds a knight's fee, in Yorkshire, of Ranulf fitz Walter in 1166.[711] But in the earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of terræ datæ in Wilts., to the amount of £11 10s. 0d. (blanch) "in Wurda." This grant was not among those repudiated by Henry II., and Geoffrey de Mandeville, Ernulf's heir, was still in receipt of the same sum in 1189[712] and 1201-2.[713] Later on, in a list of knights' fees in Wilts., which must belong, from the mention of Earl William de Longespée, to 1196-1226, and is probably circ. 1212, we read: "Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes unius militis de Rege."[714] That Ernulf should have received a grant in Wilts., a county with which his family was not connected, is probably accounted for by the fact that he {230} obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the case of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts. convenient as a means of rewarding her partisans.[715] But we now come to a series of charters of the highest importance for this discovery. These were preserved among the muniments of Henry Beaufoe of Edmondescote, county Warwick, Esq., when they were seen by Dugdale, who does not, however, in his Baronage, allude to their evidence. By the first of these Earl Geoffrey (died 1166) grants to his brother Ernulf one knight's fee in Kingham, county Oxon.:—

"Sciatis me dedisse et firmiter concessisse Ernulfo de Mandavilla fratri meo terram de Caingeham, ... pro servitio unius militis in excambitione terre Radulfi de Nuer.... Et si Caingeham illi garantizare non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham antequam inde sit dissaisitus.... T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo meo, Henry (sic) fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Rad[ulf]o de Berner[iis], Waltero de Mandavilla, Will[elm]o de Aino, Galfrido de Jarpeuill, Will[elmo] de Plais', Jurdan[o] de Taid', Hug[one] de Auc[o], Willelm[o] fil[io] Alured[i] Rad[ulfo] Magn[?avilla], Audoenus (sic) Pincerna, Rad[ulfo] frater (sic) eius, Aluredus (sic) Predevilain."[716]

Ralph "de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder of four fees from Earl Geoffrey (II.).[717] Of the witnesses to the charter,[718] Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamberlain) held four fees (de novo) of the earl in 1166, Ralph de Berners four (de veteri), Walter de Mandeville four (de veteri), Geoffrey de Jarpe[n]ville one (de novo), Hugh de Ou and William fitz Alfred one each (de novo), "Audoenus Pincerna" and Ralph his brother the fifth of a fee (de novo) jointly. The relative precedence, according to holding, {231} is not unworthy of notice. The second charter is from Earl William, confirming his brother's gift:—

"Willelmus de Mandavilla comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, etc. Sciatis me concessisse Ernulfo de Mandauilla fratri meo donationem quam Comes Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham.... T. Comite Albrico, Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Will[elm]o de Bouilla, Radu[lfo] de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuilla, Ric[ard]o de Rochellâ, Osberto fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone clerico," etc.[719]

Here Earl "Alberic" was uncle both to the grantor and the grantee; Simon de Beauchamp was their uterine brother; Geoffrey de Say their first cousin. William de Boville would be related to Otuel de Boville, the chief tenant of Mandeville in 1166.[720] "Sewalus de Osevill" then (1166) held four fees (de veteri) of the earl. Richard "de Rochellâ" held three-quarters of a fee (de novo). Osbert fitz Richard was probably a son of Richard fitz Osbert, who held four fees (de veteri) in 1166. Wiscard Ledet was a tenant in capite in Oxfordshire (Testa, p. 103).[721]

The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee himself to his son:—

"Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dedi Radulfo de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de {232} Chaingeham ... et hospitium meum Oxenfordie ad prædictam villam pertinens[722] ... T. Henrico Danuers," etc.[723]

From another quarter we are enabled to continue the chain of evidence. We have first a charter to Osney:—

"Ego Gaufridus de Mandeuile ... confirmavi mercatam terre quam Aaliz mater mea eis diuisit in Hugato, sic[?ut] Ernulfus de Mandeuile pater meus eis assignavit."[724]

Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step further:—

"Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuillâ concessi Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuillâ," etc., etc.[725]

Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert de Mandeville, and Ralph his brother, and Hugh de Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of Ralph de Mandeville, to which the first witness is "Galfridus de Mandauilla frater meus."[726]

We have now established this pedigree:—

    GEOFFREY,       =   Roese
  EARL OF ESSEX,    |  de Vere.
  d. 1144.          |
           +--------+
           |
        Ernulf       = Aaliz.
    de Mandeville,   |
     son and heir    |
    (disinherited).  |
                     |
       +-------------+---------+
       |                       |
    Geoffrey                 Ralph
  de Mandeville.        de Mandeville.
       |
    Geoffrey
  de Mandeville.

A further charter (Harl. Cart., 54, I. 44) can now be fitted into this pedigree. It is a notification by Adam de {233} Port, to the Bishop of Lincoln, etc., of his grant of the church of "Hattele." The witnesses are: "Hernaldo de Mandeville et domina Alicia uxore sua, domina Matiltide uxore dicti Adæ de Port, Henrico de Port, fratre ejusdem, Galfrido de Mandeville," etc.[727] Here we have a clue to the parentage of Ernulf's wife.

Passing to the reign of Henry III., we find Kingham then still in possession of the family.[728] In Wiltshire they are found yet later, Worth being still held by them in 1292-93 (21 Edw. I).[729]

The importance of the existence of Ernulf and his heirs is seen when we come to deal with the fate of the earldom of Essex. That Ernulf was "exiled" even for a time becomes a remarkable fact, when we remember that he might have found shelter from the king among the followers of the Empress in the west. But he and his father had offended a power greater than the king. The Empress could not shield him from the vengeance of the outraged Church. It is, I think, in his doings at Ramsey, and in the penalties he had thus incurred, that we must seek the reason of his being, as we shall find, so strangely passed over, in favour of his younger brother Geoffrey, who had not partaken of his guilt.

To another charter, hitherto unknown, we owe our knowledge of the fact that Geoffrey was recognized as his father's heir, by the Empress, on his death. Instructive as its contents would doubtless be, it is known to us only from the following note, made by one who had inspected its transcript in the lost volume of the Great Coucher:—

"Carta M. Imperatricis per quam dat Gaufredo de Mannevill filio {234} Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatem suam et omnes tenuras quas concessit patri suo. Testes R. Com. Gloec., Rag. Com. Cornub., Rog. Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes filius Gisleberti, W. de Pontlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas.[730]

The names of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Roger, Earl of Hereford, limit the date of this charter to 1144-1147, and the father of the grantee died, as we have seen, in August, 1144. It should be noted that nothing is said here of the earldom of Essex, and that only an absolutely new creation could confer the dignity on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir.

Here, however, yet another charter, also at present unknown, comes to our assistance with its unique evidence that Geoffrey must have held his father's title before 1147.[731] He then disappears from view for the time.

We must now skip some twelve years, and pass to that most important charter in which the earldom was conferred anew on Geoffrey by Henry II. Only those who have made a special study of these subjects can realize the value of this charter, a record hitherto unknown. The attitude of Henry II. to the creations of Stephen and Matilda, the extent to which he recognized them, and the method in which he did so, are subjects on which the historian is peculiarly anxious for information, but on which our existing evidence is singularly and lamentably slight. Of the four charters quoted in the Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, only two can be said to have a real bearing on the question, and of these one is of uncertain date, while the meaning of the other is doubtful. But the charter I am about to deal with is remarkably clear in {235} its meaning, and possesses the advantage that its contents enable us to date it with precision.

The original charter was formerly preserved in the Cottonian collection, but was doubtless among those which perished in the disastrous fire.[732] The copy of it made by Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at Oxford, is unfortunately imperfect, but the discovery of an independent copy among the Rawlinson MSS. has enabled me not only to fill the gaps in Dugdale's copy (which I have here placed within brackets), but also to establish by collation the accuracy of the text.

Charter of Henry II. to Geoffrey de Mandeville the Younger (Jan. 1156).

H. Rex Angl[orum] (et) Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Justiciariis Baronibus Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa et dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis Tertium Denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. Et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse Comes et heredes sui[733] post eum [habeant] et teneant comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et plene et honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ vel Normanniâ melius, liberius, quietius, plenius, et honorificentius tenet Comitatum suum. Præterea reddidi ei et concessi totam terram Gaufridi de MagnaVilla proavi sui, et avi sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tam in dominiis quam in feodis militum, tam in Anglia quam in {236} Normannia, que de me tenet in capite, et de quocunque teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et nominatim Waledenam et Sabrichteswordam[734] et Walteham. Et vadium quod Rex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria maneria sua imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et heredibus suis de me et de meis heredibus. Quare volo (et firmiter precipio) quod ipse et heredes sui habeant et teneant (de me et de meis heredibus) comitatum suum predictum ita libere (et quiete et plene) sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia (vel Normannia) melius, (liberius quietius et plenius comitatum suum) tenet. Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes sui omnia predicta tenementa antecessorum suorum predictorum et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita bene (et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et plano et pratis et pascuis in Aquis et molendinis in viis et semitis in forestis et warrennis in rivariis et piscariis infra Burgum et extra et in omnibus locis et nominatim infra Civitatem London[ie], cum Soco et Saca et Toll et Team et Infangtheof et cum omnibus Libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et quietanciis suis) sicut Gaufridus de MagnaVilla proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus unquam melius, (liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et plenius) tenuerunt, tempore Regis Willelmi et Regis Henrici avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo] Archiepiscopo Cantuar' (Rog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Ric[ardo] Ep[iscop]o London', Rob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario], Rag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', R[oberto] Com[ite] Legrec', Rog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, H[enrico] de Essex Conesta[bulo], Ric[ardo] de Hum[ez] Conest[abulo], Ric[ardo] de Lucy, War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero], Rob[er]to de Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud Cantuariam.

{237} The first point to be considered is that of the date. It is obvious at once from the names of the primate and the chancellor that the charter must be previous to the king's departure from England in 1158. But the only occasion within this limit on which the charter can have passed is that of the king's visit to Canterbury on his way to Dover and the Continent in January, 1156 (115⅚). On no other occasion within this limit did he land at or depart from Dover. Now, it is quite certain that the charter to Earl Aubrey (de Vere), which is tested "Apud Dover in transitu Regis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover (January 10, 1156).[735] We find, then, that as in 1142 the charters to Earl Geoffrey and Earl Aubrey were part of one transaction and passed on the same occasion, so now, the charters to Earl Geoffrey the second and Earl Aubrey, his uncle, passed almost on the same day. The long list of witnesses to the former, for which we are indebted to the Rawlinson MS., enables us to compare it closely with those of the four other charters which passed, according to Mr. Eyton, about the same time.[736] The proportions of their witnesses found among the witnesses to this charter are respectively: seven out of ten in the first; nine out of eighteen in the second; the whole ten in the third; and seven out of fourteen in the fourth. As the king had spent his Christmas at Westminster, we can thus fix the date almost to a day, viz. circ. January 2, 1156. And this harmonizes well enough with the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, which show that Earl Geoffrey was in receipt of the tertius denarius in 1157, as from Michaelmas, 1155.

On looking at the terms of this instrument, we are {238} struck at once by the fact that it is a charter of actual creation. This is in perfect accordance with the view advanced above, namely, that the charter granted at Devizes to this Geoffrey, as his father's son, has no bearing on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an absolutely new creation could confer the earldom on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir." It is thus that the existence of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the problem of no small consequence.[737]

Being thus an undoubted new creation, its terms should be examined most carefully. It will then be found that the precedent they follow is not the charter of the Empress (1141), but the original charter of the king (1140).

The explanation is, of course, that the first and third are new creations, while the second is virtually but a confirmation of the previous creation by Stephen. So again, comparing this creation with that of Hugh Bigod, the only instance in point—

Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation accentuates the difference between the clauses relating to the "Tertius Denarius." It will therefore be desirable to compare the clauses as they stand in the Mandeville and the Vere charters (January, 1156):—

It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" is an ambiguous word, as it might refer either to the county or to the "third penny" itself. And, indeed, the above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod would lend support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey was, we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the charter of the empress (1142), she recognized him as already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as Count of Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present charter he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the same ground. For if Henry had recognized him as Earl of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter (1142), he must also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of the shire which was granted by that same charter.[738] But he clearly did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore he did not recognize the validity {240} of his mother's charter. Consequently, he styled Aubrey "comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not make a "comes" of a man who was a "comes" already (p. 187), he merely grants him "the third penny of the pleas" of Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut sit inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which the charter is drawn.[739]

Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of the Earl of Sussex. There the grant runs—

"Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel cum toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de Suthsex unde comes est."

This charter has been looked upon as relating to the earldom itself, whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant of the castle and honour of Arundel and of the "Tertius Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is earl."[740] When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde Comes" and "unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, clear. William was already Earl of Sussex (alias Arundel alias Chichester), but his right to the "Tertius Denarius" of the county was not recognized by the king. The fact that this right required to be granted nominatim confirms my view that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to Geoffrey.[741]

The distinction between the "dedi et concessi" of the "Tertius Denarius" clause and the "reddidi" and "concessi" of those by which the king confirms to Geoffrey his ancestral estates is one always to be noted. The {241} terms of what one may call this general confirmation are remarkably comprehensive, going back as they do to the days of King William and of the grantee's great-grandfather; and the profusion of legal verbiage in which they are enwrapped is worthy of later times. The charter also illustrates the adaptation in Latin of the old Anglo-Saxon formulæ, themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which must bear witness to oral transmission in an archaic state of society.[742]

The release of the lien (upon three manors) which Henry I. had held is a very curious feature. One of these manors, Sawbridgeworth in Herts., is surveyed in Domesday at great length. Its value had then sunk from £60 to £50; but early in the reign of Henry II., Earl Geoffrey gave it in fee to Warine fitz Gerold, the chamberlain, "per (sic) LXXIIII libratas terræ, singulas XX libratas pro servitio unius militis."[743]

Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till {242} his death, at which time we find him lord of more than a hundred and fifty knights' fees. The earldom then (1166) passed to his younger brother William, and did so, as far as we know, without a fresh creation. For the limitation, it is important to observe, in this as in other early creations, is not restricted to heirs of the body—a much later addition. As this point is of considerable importance it may be as well here to compare the essential words of inheritance in the three successive charters:—

It is noteworthy that the earliest of these three—the earliest of all our creation-charters—has the most intensely hereditary ring, a fact at variance with the favourite doctrine that the hereditary principle was a late innovation, and ousted but slowly the official position. It is further to be observed that the term "Comitatus," of which the denotation in Scottish charters has been so long and fiercely debated, has here the abstract signification which it possesses in our own day, namely, that of the dignity of an earl.

When we think of their father's stormy career, it is not a little strange to find these two successive Earls of {243} Essex high in favour with the order-loving king, throughout whose reign, for more than thirty years (1156-1189), we find them honoured and trusted in his councils, in his courts, and in his host. Of Earl William Miss Norgate writes: "The son was as loyal as his father was faithless; he seems, indeed, to have been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his friendship."[744] His fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress of the house of Aumâle, so that, already an earl in England, he thus became, also, a count beyond the sea.

Yet well might men believe that the awful curse of Heaven rested on this great and able house. At the very moment when Earl William seemed to have attained the pinnacle of power, when he had reached the point which his father had reached some half a century before, then, as in his father's case, the prize was snatched from his grasp. King Richard, rightly prizing the earl's loyalty and worth, announced his intention, at the Council of Pipewell (September, 1189), of leaving him, with the Bishop of Durham as his assessor, in charge of the kingdom, as Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. Such an office would have made the earl the foremost layman in the realm. But before the time had come for entering on his exalted duties, indeed within a few weeks of his appointment, he was dead (November 14, 1189).

Like his brother Geoffrey before him, the earl died childless; the vast estates of the house of Mandeville passed to the descendants of his aunt; to his earldom there was no heir.[745] Such was the end that awaited the {244} ambition of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The earldom for which he had schemed and striven, the strongholds on which his power was based, the broad lands which owned his sway—all were lost to his house. And as if by the very irony of fate, Ernulf, his disinherited son, alone continued the race, that there might not be wanting in his hapless heirs an ever-standing monument to the greatness at once of the guilt and of the fall of the man whose story I have told.

There are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of Stephen's reign than that which describes, in the Gesta, his "pactio" with the citizens of London. This, because of the striking resemblance between the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" there described and the similar practice in those foreign towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa." Thus at Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, omnes cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... similiter et rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus quod sit bonus dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat eos de omni injuria de se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, in the Perigord, it was (as was usual) the lord who had to swear first before the citizens would do so: "en aital manieira que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste sagrament ...; deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et d'autrui de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las males lor oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome deven li far lo sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de forsa," etc., etc. At Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo in Vasconia, juratur ab eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel a senescallo suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni injuria, et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos juramus ei et senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when the Great Seneschal of Aquitaine, as representing the king, {248} first arrived, he was called upon to swear by all the saints that he would be a good and loyal lord; that he would protect the citizens from all wrong and violence, either from himself or from others; that he would preserve all their rights, customs, and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he held the office, saving his fealty to the king.[746] When he had done so, the mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— "By those saints, will we be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient to you; your life and limbs we will guard; good and loyal counsel will we give you to the best of our power, and your secrets will we keep."[747] These examples, which could be widely paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle and uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum."

We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some such transaction as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of the citizens. We shall find the Empress securing the city in 1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St. Albans with its authorized representatives, and we know that the Conqueror himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester of Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be questioned whether we should accept the startling assertion in the Gesta as literally correct. It would seem at least highly probable that what the Londoners really claimed in 1135 was not the right to elect a king of all England, but to choose their own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom, and to do so by a separate negotiation between himself and them. They were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their {249} lord unless he would first guarantee them the possession of all their liberties. This semi-independent attitude, which was virtually that assumed by Exeter when it attempted to treat with the Conqueror, was distinctly foreign to the English polity so far as our knowledge goes. There are faint hints, however, in Domesday that such towns as London, York, Winchester, and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than it has hitherto been the custom to believe.

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

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

In so doing, she was guided merely by the Historia passage itself, which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the episode of the proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating {251} the matter more closely, she was clearly led to reject the date she had first given:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his {252} son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or 1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese (ut supra)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry was ex hypothesi now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been, surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any direct evidence.

But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the Historia Pontificalis to see that they must have been perused with almost incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (a) that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (b) that the "trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143. The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months, and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143. This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, de novo? Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the Historia writer as Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that we know the council {253} to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was, further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning again to the passage in the Historia Pontificalis (41), we find that, in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So, indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder by which two passages of the narrative are printed in Pertz as part of the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the Historia, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to Stephen since the beginning of his reign. He, therefore, takes us right back to the year of the king's accession, and tells us how, and to what extent, his claim came to be confirmed.

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

Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in her grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome against Stephen's usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, in his day, had charged Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her rightful inheritance, (2) with breach of his oath. Stephen, when he had overcome the scruples of William of Corbeuil, and had secured coronation at his hands, hastened to take his next step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his cause before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester, Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a clerk of Archbishop William.[758] This last was, of course, intended to represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in crowning Stephen by explaining the {254} grounds on which his scruples had been overruled. The envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite motive power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of the Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which was now in his successor's hands. The pope resolved that so important a cause required no ordinary tribunal: he convoked for the purpose a great council, and among those by whom it was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with Gilbert Foliot in his train.[759]

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

To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as we might term it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who charged Stephen both with perjury, that is, with breaking the oath he had sworn to Henry I., and with usurpation in seizing the throne to the detriment of the rightful heir.[762] Stephen's {255} supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these charges by a defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute harmony. It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they retorted that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and had, therefore, suffered no wrong.[763] But how they disposed of the oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose account we may safely follow, they advanced the subtle and ingenious plea that fidelity had only been sworn to the Empress as heir ("sicut heredi") to the throne, and since (they urged) she was not such heir (for the reason given above), the oath was ipso facto void, and the charge fell to the ground.[764] The other writer asserts that the defence was based, first, on the plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself the right of appointing another heir, and had exercised that right on his deathbed, to the extent of disinheriting the Empress and nominating Stephen in her stead.[765]

A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe that both writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert Foliot would be the last man to invent an argument in favour of Stephen, nor would the other writer have any inducement to {256} do so, writing (as he did) long after that king's death. Moreover, the pleas that (1) the oath had been extorted, (2) Henry I. had released his barons from its obligation, are precisely those which the author of the Gesta and William of Malmesbury[766] respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's behalf. Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he looked on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent of the Great Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all this points to one conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen and of his friends was, clearly, this unlucky oath. Their various attempts to excuse its breach betray their consciousness of the fact. More especially was this the case before a spiritual court. Hence their ingenious endeavour, described by Gilbert Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the lesser of the two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First, they urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the heir; then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was void because the dying king had released them from their obligation. Such an argument as this speaks for itself.

The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, differ, is the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard to the plea that the Empress was not of legitimate birth. Did he contravene this plea? The Historia asserts that when Stephen's advocates had stated the case for the defence, the bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, rejecting them one by one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, admits that the attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument which he discusses) had not been replied to.[767] Now, the version found in the Historia, though composed much later, is a more detailed account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission to his friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the charge had not been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest an effectual reply, and proceeds to suggest one himself.[768] He {257} relies on St. Anselm's consent to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the clue we seek. For the Bishop of Angers, in his speech, as given by the writer of the Historia, had not alluded to St. Anselm's consent.[769] Perhaps he was taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea.

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

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

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

Its relevant portion runs thus:—

"Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte {258} divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,[775] et [quia] beato Petro in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam promisisse, et quia de præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse dinosceris, quod de te factum est gratum habentes, te in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et familiaritatis prærogativa, qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis Henricus a nobis coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."

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

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

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

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

The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, referred to in the previous misplaced passage as opposing the confirmation of Stephen. Observe here that three writers allude quite independently to his sympathy with the Angevin cause. These are—(1) the writer (ut supra) of the Historia Pontificalis; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him, when pope, as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." A coincidence of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the {259} authority of all three, including that of the writer of the Historia Pontificalis.

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

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

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

A reference to the passage in the Historia[778] on which Miss Norgate relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter further.[779] It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had {260} refused admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. This is a fact of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

{264} There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 the two primates of England and twelve of their suffragans, and the primate of Normandy, with four of his—nineteen prelates in all. Next to these, in order of precedence, were Henry, the king's nephew,[791] Henry, son of the King of Scots, and Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as a son of the late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. Among them we find all those of the leading supporters of the Empress in the future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de Aumale, and Geoffrey de Mandeville, we recognize three of those who were to receive earldoms from Stephen. The style and place of William de Aumale deserves special notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy comital rank at the time.[792] This fact, further on, will have an important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva Necta") was clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. It is believed indeed that he was Earl of Northampton, while {265} Henry of Scotland was Earl of Huntingdon. But it is clear that when Henry received from Stephen, as he had just done, Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised Northampton as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon was as loyal as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he may well have received the earldom of Northampton from the king he served so well. But for the present, Henry of Scotland was in high favour with Stephen, so high that the jealousy of the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of Carlisle, blazed forth at this very court.[793] Their mention of Ranulf's presence, as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our charters.

The document with which they should be compared is the charter granted to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his Northampton council in 1131 (September 8).[794] Its witnesses are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, ten bishops (Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander of Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William of Exeter, Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of "Chester," and Ebrard of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon, Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster, Warner of Battle, and Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the chancellor,[795] with Robert "de Sigillo,"[796] and Nigel the Bishop of Salisbury's nephew,[797] five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of Warenne, Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick), nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh Bigod, Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger fitz Richard, Walter fitz {266} Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers, William Peverel of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury, William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In many ways a very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness to the future House of Lords, with its strong clerical element. It is impossible to comment on all the magnates here assembled at Henry's court, many of whom we meet with again, but attention may be called to the significant fact that nine of the earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses represented among the nineteen barons named above.[798]

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

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

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

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

"Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent, qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent, præcepit {269} ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus resignari, et in jus statumque pristinum revocari."

In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:—

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

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

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

The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically false assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The idea that his earls were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary delusion. They belonged, in the main, to that class {270} of magnates from whom, both before and after his time, the earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words are in themselves destructive of his view:—

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

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

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

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

The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:—

From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be "questionable:" William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state {271} absolutely, from my own knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom,[808] and Aubrey de Vere, because there is no evidence whatever that Stephen created him an earl. On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of Arundel (or Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.[809] When thus corrected, the list will run:—

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

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

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

The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay. Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry (Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?], Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists, we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken Hertford {273} for his title, because Essex had already been given to Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge, in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been enunciated before.

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

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

According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification {274} which were intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... the new earldoms [were] to be extinguished."[816] Consequently, on his accession as king, "Henry was bound to annul the titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no means certain within what limits the promise would be construed."[817] But I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification any allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor indeed does Dr. Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these terms,[818] include anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, I presume, a retrospective induction.

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

Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost {275} endowment and dignity at once." That he ever obtained an English earldom I have already ventured to deny; that he lost his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now proceed to disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger attendant on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are always confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's reign.[821] For though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be absolutely proved by record evidence that William of Ypres continued to enjoy his rich "endowment" down to Easter, 1157.[822] Stephen had, indeed, provided well for his great and faithful follower, quartering him on the county of Kent, where he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value of £261 "blanch," plus £178 8s. 7d. "numero" of Crown escheats formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision was enormous for the time at which it was made.

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

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

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

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

Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected by Dr. Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de Beaumont had lost the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it[826]), together with the fief itself, in 1141.[827] York requires separate treatment: William of Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, under Stephen, Earl of York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank,[828] and that is sufficient for my {277} purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or Somerset) is again a special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl William de Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the statement in the Gesta that he was made Earl of Dorset in 1141; (3) on his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in 1142. The terms of the charter to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to the status of this earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does not subsequently occur, so far as is at present known, and there is nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the accession of Henry II.[829]

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

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

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

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

"theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the Gesta Stephani say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,' as no doubt {279} he did, for it was only his presence in force that could render the coming of Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty retainers anything else than an act of madness."

Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if the Gesta says that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" (p. 53), it also asserts that the Empress came "cum robustâ militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which Mr. Howlett ignores—while it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving "cum florida militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his following was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the Gesta itself (p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in truth "militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. Howlett speaks, we have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," and asserts that "Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny agree that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of men—twenty, or even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is difficult to see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury distinctly states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred and forty knights,[833] and, in his recapitulation of the earl's conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the Gesta admits that the little band of knights who accompanied, in later years, the young Henry to England, was swollen by rumour to many thousands,[834] surely it is easy to understand how the hundred and forty knights, who accompanied the earl to England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the Continuator of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation that the Continuator confused the two landings and imagined that the Empress had arrived with Baldwin, who "landed at Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so ill informed, what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his statement that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at Wareham, nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is accepted by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, which he terms "no strained conjecture," that "Earl {280} Robert went on by sea to Portsmouth," a guess for which there is no basis or, indeed, probability, and which, even if admitted, would be no explanation; for the Continuator takes the Empress and her brother to Portsmouth first and to Arundel afterwards.

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

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

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

Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period between the landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are at first sight difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to understand, it is possible to unravel the sequence of events by a careful collation of their respective versions, aided by study of the topography and of other relative considerations. {281}

On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, leaving her at Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (Will. Malms., p. 725). Stephen, who, says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), was then besieging Marlborough, endeavoured to intercept him (Gesta, p. 56), but, failing in this, returned to besiege the Empress at Arundel (ibid.; Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 117; Gervase, i. 110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he allowed her to set out for Bristol.[837] Meanwhile, her brother, on his way to Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (Will. Malms., p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted plan of action (it must be remembered that they intended immediate revolt, for they had promised the Empress possession of her realm within a few months[838]). Brian had, accordingly, returned to Wallingford, and declared at once for the Empress (Gesta, p. 58). Stephen now marched against him, but either by the advice of his followers (ibid.) or from impatience at the tedium of the siege,[839] again abandoned his undertaking, and leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 118), marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the revolt. He first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a small fortress of Miles of Gloucester (Gesta, p. 59; Will. Malms., p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news that Robert fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) and expelled his garrison (Will. Malms., p. 726; Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 119; Gesta, p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a fortnight of its capture (Will. Malms., p. 726), after besieging it eight days (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 125), he was then decoyed still further south by the news that Humphrey de Bohun, at the instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against him. Here, however, he was not so fortunate (Will. Malms., p. 726; Gesta, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the instinct of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus afforded him, and, striking out boldly from his stronghold at Gloucester, marched to the relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting by night on the blockading force, he scattered them in all directions, and returned in triumph to Gloucester (Gesta, p. 60). It was probably the tidings of this disaster (though the fact is {282} not so stated) that induced Stephen to abandon his unsuccessful siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to the Thames valley (ibid., pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in November.[840]

Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of November, sacked and burnt Worcester (Cont. Flor. Wig., pp. 118-120). About the same time he made himself master of Hereford and its county for the Empress (Will. Malms., p. 727; Gesta, p. 61). Stephen was probably in the Thames valley when he received news of this fresh disaster, which led him once more to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered Worcester, and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in the castle (ibid.).[841] He therefore advanced to Leominster by way of Little Hereford,[842] but Advent Sunday (December 3) having brought about a cessation of hostilities, he retraced his steps to Worcester (ibid.). Thence, after another brief stay, he marched back to Oxford, probably making for Wallingford and London. Evidently, however, on reaching Oxford, he received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.[843] It {283} was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas at Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning at the close of the year to Reading (ibid.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday and from record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular {288} clearness, in the charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, creating him Earl of Hereford. In it she grants—

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

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

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

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

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

The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before the Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" in the county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on the evidence of Domesday. But in six of the eight passages on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are distinctly dealing, not with the county ("comitatus"), but with a single town ("burgus"). These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford, Shrewsbury, and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only be that of the redditus burgi, not of the placita comitatus.[853] Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl received a third of each of the items out of which the render {289} ("redditus") of the town was composed. The only cases of those mentioned which could possibly concern the third penny "placitorum comitatus" are those of Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire (336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire (280). Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system which has, I believe, never obtained the attentive study it deserves. This system was confined to the Danish district, to which these counties all belonged.

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

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

This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely erratic. In the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems to have been held by the king himself, though at Cricklade both he and Westminster Abbey are credited with it (64 b, 67). At Leicester it was held by Hugh de Grantmesnil, but we are not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it had been held {290} by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to the Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds share, made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de Stafford.[856] At Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [i.e. placitorum] de duobus hundret," been annexed to an estate held by the local earl. The whole of this was granted by the Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.[857] At Worcester, by a curious arrangement, the total render had been divided, in unequal portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of the whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the third penny" fell to Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with the king's consent, on St. Augustine's, Canterbury, to which the other two-thirds had been given already by the Confessor. The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a characteristic error. We read in Domesday:—

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

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

Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country town, let us turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole county. Independent of the system in the Danelaw to which I have referred above, we have two references in Domesday to {291} this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius denarius de totâ scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of Warwickshire) "tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of these is among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious point about them is that in neither instance was the right annexed to the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which manor was held by the earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this "third penny of the pleas" not quâ earl, but quâ lord of that estate. The distinction is vital. Whether "the third penny of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or only of a single hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to the possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of one, of two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.[859] This peculiarity would seem to have been an essential feature of the system, and I need scarcely point out how opposed it is to the alleged tenure ex officio in days before the Conquest, or to that granted to the earl quâ earl under the Norman and Angevin kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter institution, the recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to the dignity of earl.

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

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

Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:—

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

Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I referred to at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being {292} described as that not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the county. Then there is the question whether this perquisite was indeed the right of "the ancient official earls." Lastly, we must ask whether the earldoms granted in this period did unquestionably "carry with them" this "official perquisite."

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

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

That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the county) was not an innovation introduced in this reign, is proved by the solitary surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in which, however, there is but one mention of this "third penny," namely, in the case of the Earl of Gloucester. Indeed, with the exception of this entry, and of the special arrangement {293} which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts (ut supra), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141, represent the first occurrence of this "third penny."

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

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

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

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

This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords' Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the third penny." The point is of no small {294} importance, for the conclusion drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading, however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the latter refers to the "ista" of the former.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need fuller knowledge, we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., when, on the death of the Earl of Essex (February 15, 1228), his {296} annual third penny, as £40 10s. 10d., was allowed to count, for his heirs, towards the payment of his debts to the Crown.[871] A much later and most important instance is that of Devon, where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of Devon, is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though not an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a decision against him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital rank.

Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs (vicecomites) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not vicecomites, but custodes. The difference is this. By the former a county was held ad firmam; by the latter it was held in custodia. In the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in custodia." By the true sheriff (vicecomes) the county was, in fact, leased. He, as its farmer (firmarius), was responsible for its annual rent (firma). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances, take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff (custos). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London, putting in his own custodes in the place of the regular sheriffs, and, in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. {298} did the same. It was this, I contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof of it is found in this passage:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed that she should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no higher style than that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true that at the time of her actual betrothal (1110), her husband was not, in strictness, "emperor," not having yet been crowned at Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a few months later (April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time therefore of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, one would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we read in the Lüneburg Chronicle, "dar makede he se to keiserinne." At the same time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase and title are never unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant and superstitiously antiquarian,"[874] and there must be some good reason for what appears to be a singular contradiction, though the point is overlooked by Mr. Birch. Two explanations suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry was fully and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, his wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not entitled to the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen of the Romans." As against this, it would seem impossible that the wife of a crowned emperor can have been anything {301} but an empress. Moreover, from the pleadings of her advocate at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 n.), we learn incidentally that she had duly been "anointed to empress." The only other explanation is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and had not been altered since.

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

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

The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not "Anglorum." This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For though the abbreviation found in charters ("Angl'") might {302} stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ," the legend on the seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the form "Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters "Anglorum" (not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable fact that both the queens of Henry I. bore on their seals the legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Anglie" led me to the conclusion that, so far from impugning, this form actually confirmed the genuineness of the alleged legend.

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

We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this seal at Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, by the Empress on this occasion. We may also no less {303} satisfactorily account for the fact that it was never used again. For this, indeed, the events that followed the fall of the Empress from her high estate, and the virtual collapse of her hopes, may be held sufficiently to account. But it is quite possible that in the headlong flight of the Empress and her followers from Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the rest of her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes.

Few discoveries, in the course of these researches, have afforded me more satisfaction and pleasure than that of the origin of Gervase de Cornhill, the founder of an eminent and wealthy house, and himself a great City magnate who played, we shall find, no small part in the affairs of an eventful time.

The peculiar interest of the story lies in the light it throws on the close amalgamation of the Normans and the English, even in the days of Henry I., thereby affording a perfect illustration of the well-known passage in the Dialogus:—

"Jam cohabitantibus Anglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit genere."[881]

It also affords us a welcome glimpse of the territorial aristocracy of the City, as yet its ruling class.

It has hitherto been supposed, as in Foss's work, that Gervase de Cornhill first appears in 1155-56 (2 Hen. II.), in which year he figures on the Pipe-Roll as one of the sheriffs of London. I propose to show that he first appears a quarter of a century before, and so to bridge over Stephen's reign, and to connect the Pipe-Roll of Henry I. with the earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. The problem before us is this. We have to identify the "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti," who figures prominently on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.), with "Gervase, Justiciary of London," who meets us twice under Stephen, with "Gervase" who was one of the sheriffs of London in 1155 and 1156, and with Gervase de Cornhill, whose name occurs at least twice under Stephen, and innumerable times under Henry II., both in a public and private capacity.

{305} Let us first identify Gervase de Cornhill with Gervase, the Justiciary of London. The latter personage occurs once in the legend on the seal affixed to "a 'star' with Hebrew words," which reads, "Sigillum Gervas' justitia' Londoniar';"[882] and once in a charter which confirms this legend, dealing, as it does, with a grant: "Gervasio Justic' de Lond'."[883] But the land (in Gamlingay) granted to "Gervase, Justiciary of London," is entered in a survey of the reign of John as held by "the heirs of Gervase de Cornhill" (see p. 121). Similarly, the land mortgaged in the former transaction to "Gervase, Justiciary of London," is afterwards found in possession of Henry, son and heir of Gervase de Cornhill. Thus is established the identity of the two.

The identity of the Gervase who thus flourished in the reigns of Stephen and Henry II. with the Gervase fitz Roger of 1130 must next occupy our attention. Here are the entries relating to the latter:—

These entries are explained by the charter subjoined, which shows how John and Robert came to have charge of the estate:—

"H. rex Angl[orum] Vic' Lund' et omnibus Baronibus et Vicecomitibus in quorum Bailiis Gervasius filius Rogeri terram habet salutem. Precipio {306} quod Gervasius filius Rogeri sit saisitus et tenens de omnibus terris et rebus patris sui sicut pater ejus erat die quo movit ire ad Jerosolimam.... Et ipse et tota terra sua interim sint in custodia et saisina Johannis et Roberti filiorum Radulfi.... T. Comite Gloecestrie. Apud West'."[885]

John fitz Ralph (fitz Ebrard) was another London magnate, who was more or less connected with Gervase throughout his career. He is found with him at St. Albans, late in Stephen's reign, witnessing a charter of the king;[886] and the two men, as "Gervase and John," were joint sheriffs of London in 2 Hen. II. He is also the first witness to one of Gervase's charters after his brother Alan.[887]

We further find Gervase fitz Roger excused (in the Pipe-Roll of 1130) the payment of two shillings "de veteri Danegeldo" (? 1127-28) in Middlesex, and seven shillings "de preterito Danegeldo" (1128-29) because his land is "waste."[888] The inference to be drawn from all these passages is that Gervase had then (1130) recently succeeded his father, a man of unusual wealth and considerable property in land. We should therefore expect to find him, in his turn, a man of some importance, as was our own Gervase the Justiciar (alias Gervase de Cornhill), the only Gervase who meets us as a man of any consequence. Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on mere inference. The manor of Chalk was granted by the Crown to Roger "nepos Huberti;"[889] it was subsequently regranted to Gervase de Cornhill,[890] whom I identify with Gervase his son. Moreover, the adoption by Gervase of the surname "de Cornhill" can, as it happens, be accounted for. Among the records of the duchy of Lancaster is a grant by William, Archbishop of Canterbury (1123-1136), of land at "Eadintune" to Gervase and Agnes his wife, Agnes being described as daughter of "Godeleve."[891] By the aid of another document relating to the same property,[892] we identify this "Godeleve" as the wife of Edward de Cornhill. To the eye of a trained genealogist all is thus made clear. {307}

But we now find ourselves in the midst of a most interesting family connection. For these same records carry us back to the father of this "Godeleve," namely, Edward of Southwark.[893] It is true that here he figures merely as a "æ. desudwerc," but we have only to turn to another quarter, and there we find "Edwardo de Suthwerke et Willelmo filio ejus" among the leading witnesses to the invaluable document recording the surrender by the English Cnihtengild of their soke to the priory of Christchurch (1125).[894] I need scarcely lay stress on the interest and importance of everything bearing on that remarkable and as yet mysterious institution. We find ourselves now brought into actual contact with the gild. For in one of its members, as named in that document, "Edwardus Hupcornhill," we recognize no other than that "Edward of Cornhill" who was son-in-law to "Edward of Southwark."[895] Following up our man in yet another quarter, we find him witnessing a London deed (temp. William the Dean),[896] and another one of about the middle of the reign of Henry I.,[897] though wrongly assigned in the (Hist. MSS.) Report to "about 1127."[898] Lastly, turning to still another quarter, we find his name among those of the witnesses to an agreement between Ramsey Abbey and the priory of Christchurch soon after 1125.[899]

We are now in a position to construct this remarkable pedigree:—

                                       Edward of Southwark,
                                           living 1125.
                                                |
                                            +---+---------+
                                            |             |
 "Ingenolda," = Roger          Edward   = Godeleve.    William,
 living 1130. | "nepos      de Cornhill,|            living 1125.
              | Huberti."   living 1125.|
              |                         |
              |              +----------+
              |              |
           Gervase    =    Agnes
          Fitz Roger    de Cornhill,
         (afterwards     married
          Gervase de     before 1136.
          Cornhill).

I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the dates, Edward of Southwark must have been born within a very few years of the Conquest, and also because we can feel sure, in the case both of him and of his son-in-law, that we are dealing with men of the old stock, connected with the venerable gild of English "Cnihts." But it further shows us how the elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name of the Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried with the English stock.

Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos Huberti." Here, again, there come to our help the records of the duchy of Lancaster. Among them are two royal charters, the first of which grants to Roger the manor of Chalk, in Kent,[900] while the second was consequent on his death,[901] and should be read in connection with the above extracts from the Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." We may infer from this that he had died on pilgrimage.[902] As Gervase inherited from his father so large an estate, Roger must have been, in his day, a man of some consequence. It is, therefore, rather strange that his name does not occur in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other quarter to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow has preserved for us the gist of a document which he had {309} seen, when he tells us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, by the Cnihtengild—

"The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and Roger nephew to Hubert, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church with the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished, coming upon the ground, Andrew Buchevite[903] and the forenamed witnesses and others standing by."[904]

If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly can, our Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes it highly probable that he was identical with the "Roger" named in a document addressed, a few years earlier:—

"Hugoni de Bocheland, Rogero, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis baronibus Lundoniæ."[905]

I do not know of any other Roger who is likely to have been thus addressed.

We are given by Gervase de Cornhill a further clue as to his parentage in a charter of his, under Henry II., in which he mentions Ralph fitz Herlwin as his uncle ("avunculus"). Ralph fitz Herlwin was in 1130 joint-Sheriff of London.[906] This clue, therefore, is worth following up. Now, Ralph must either have been a brother of the father or of the mother of Gervase. It is highly improbable that Ralph "filius Herlwini" was a brother of Roger "nepos Huberti," each of the two being always mentioned by the same distinctive suffix. It may, therefore, be presumed that Ralph was brother to Roger's wife. Now, we happen to have two documents which greatly concern this Ralph and his son, and which belong to one transaction, although they figure widely apart in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's.[907] Nicholas, son of Ælfgar, parish priest of the church of St. Michael's, Cheap, a living which, like his father before him, he held at lease from St. Paul's, exercised his right to the next presentation in favour of a son of Ralph fitz Herlwin, who had married his niece Mary. From the evidence now in our possession, we may construct this pedigree:—

 "Algar Colessune,"[908]                                    "Herlwin."
 priest of St.Michael's,                                        |
         Cheap.                                                 |
           |                                                    |
   +-------+------+                       +-------------+-------+------+-----
   |              |                       |             |              |
 Nicolas,       [dau.] = Baldwin        Ralph        William         Herlwin
 priest of             | de Arras.       fitz         fitz           fitz
 St. Michael's,        |               Herlwin,     Herlwin,[909]   Herlwin,
 Cheap.                |             joint-sheriff  living 1130.  living 1130.
                       |               in 1130.                      [909]
                       |                  |
                       |           +------+----+------------+
                       |           |           |            |
                      Mary  =    Robert      William.    Herlwin.
                                fitz Ralph,
                               inherited the
                                 living of
                               St. Michael's
                                 from his
                               wife's uncle.


                                  "Herlwin."
                                       |
                                       |
                                       |
                                    ---+------------+
                                                    |
                                            "Ingenolda."[910] = Roger "nepos
                                                              |    Huberti,"
                                                              | joint-sheriff,
                                                              |      1125.
                                                            +-+----------+
                                                            |            |
                                       Agnes       =     Gervase        Alan,
                                     de Cornhill,  |  (nephew to Ralph brother
                                    dau. of Edward |  fitz Herlwin),     to
                                     de Cornhill.  | joint-Sheriff of  Gervase.
                                                   | London, 1155-56.    .
                     +--------------+--------------+                     .
                     |              |              |                     .
 Alice[911]    =   Henry de       Reginald       Ralph                 Roger
 de Courci,    |   Cornhill,    de Cornhill,  de Cornhill.              fitz
 heiress of    |   Sheriff of    Sheriff of                             Alan.
 the English   |  London and        Kent.
 De Courcis,   |  of Kent and        |
 afterwards    |   of Surrey.        |
 wife of Warin |                     |
 fitz Gerold.  |                     +--------------+
               |                                    |
             Joan de  =  Hugh de Nevill,        Reginald de
            Cornhill.   Forester of England.  Cornhill, junior.

It will have been noticed that in this pedigree I assign to Gervase a brother Alan. I do so on the strength of a charter of Archbishop Theobald, late in the reign of Stephen, to Holy Trinity, witnessed inter alios by "Gervasio de Cornhill et Alano fratre ejus,"[912] also of a charter I have seen (Duchy of Lanc., Cart. Misc., ii. 57), in which the first witness to a charter of Gervase is Alan, his brother. The "Roger fitz Alan" for whom I suggest an affiliation to this Alan occurs among the witnesses to a grant made by Ralph, and witnessed by Reginald de Cornhill.[913] This suggests such paternity, and his name, Roger, would then be derived from Roger, his paternal grandfather. We have here, at least, another clue which ought to be followed up, for Roger fitz Alan is repeatedly found among the leading witnesses to London documents of the close of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries, his career culminating in his appointment as mayor on the death of the well-known "Henry fitz Ailwin" in 1212.[914]

The fact that Gervase and Alan were brothers tempts one to recognize in them the "Alanus juvenis et Gervasius fratres," who witness a grant to (their cousin) Robert fitz Ralph fitz Herlwin,[915] and the "Alanus juvenis" and "Gervasius frater Alani" of a similar document.[916] But, unluckily, we find this same Alan elsewhere styled "Alanus filius Huberti juvenis."[917] Possibly they were sons of that Hubert to whom his father was "nepos." But the question, for the present, must be left in doubt.

Both Gervase de Cornhill and Henry his son appear, it may be added, from the evidence of charters, to have lent money on mortgage, and to have acquired landed property by foreclosing. A curious allusion to the mercantile origin and the profitable money-lending transactions of Geoffrey is found in a sneer of Becket's biographer, when, as Sheriff of Kent, he opposed the primate's landing.[918] The contemporary allusion to {312} such pursuits, in the Dialogus, breathes the same scornful spirit for the trader and all his works.[919] Gervase, I think, may have been that "Gervase" who, at the head of the citizens of London, met Henry II. in 1174 (Fantosme, l. 1941); he would seem to have lived on till 1183, and was probably, at his death, between seventy and seventy-five years old. Among his descendants were a Dean of St. Paul's (1243-1254) and a Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1215-1223).

As this important charter has never, I believe, been printed, I have taken the present opportunity of publishing it in extenso. The grantee must, at first, have staunchly supported Stephen, for he received in 1139, from the king, a grant of that constableship which Miles of Gloucester had forfeited on his defection.[920] It is evident, however, from the terms of this charter that he was jealous of Stephen's favourite, Gualeran, Count of Meulan, and of the power which the king had given him at Worcester. The grant of Tamworth also should be carefully noted, because that portion of the Despencer inheritance had fallen to the share of Marmion, which suggests that the Beauchamps and the Marmions were at strife, and that therefore, in this struggle, they embraced opposite sides. An intermarriage between Robert Marmion and Maud de Beauchamp was probably, as in other cases, a compromise of the quarrel.

"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia et Anglor[um] domina Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justic[iariis] vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis tocius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et reddidisse Willelmo de Bellocampo hereditario jure Castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota sibi et heredibus suis ad tenendum de me in capite et heredibus meis. Dedi ei et reddidi vicecomitatum Wigorn[ie] et forestas cum omnibus appendiciis suis in feodo et hereditarie per eandem firmam quam pater eius Walterus de Bellocampo inde reddebat. Et de hoc devenit ipse {314} Willelmus meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales et nominatim contra Gualerann[um] Comitem de Mellent et ita quod nec ipse Comes Gualeran[us] nec aliquis alius de hiis predictis mecum finem faciet quin semper ipse Willelmus de me in capite teneat nisi ipse bona voluntate et gratuita concessione de predicto Comite tenere voluerit. Et præter hoc dedi ei et reddidi castellum et honorem de Tamword ad tenend[um] ita bene et in pace et quiete et plenarie et honorifice et libere sicut unquam melius et quietius et plenarius et honorificentius et liberius Robertus Dispensator frater Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum castellum et honorem tenuerit. Et eciam dedi ei et reddidi Manerium de Cokeford cum omnibus appendiciis suis ut rectum suum sine placito. Et cum hoc dedi ei et reddidi Westonam et Luffenham in Roteland cum omnibus appendiciis suis ut rectum suum similiter sine placito. Dedi eciam ei et concessi de cremento lx libratas terræ de perquisitione Angl' pro servicio suo. Et iterum dedi ei et reddidi conestabulatum quem Urso de Abetot tenuit et dispensam ita hereditarie sicut Walterus pater ejus eam de patre meo H. Rege tenuit. Et item dedi ei et concessi terras et hereditates suorum proximorum parentum qui contra me fuerint in Werra mea et mecum finem facere non poterunt nisi de sua parentela propinquiore michi in ipsa Werra servierit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod de me et de quocunque teneat bene et honorifice in pace et hereditarie et libere et quiete teneat ipse Willelmus et heres suus post eum in bosco in plano in pratis et pasturis in forestis et fugaciis in percursibus et exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis et piscariis in stagnis et mariscis et salinis et viis et semitis in foris et in feriis infra burgum et extra in civitate et extra et in omnibus locis cum saca et soka et toll et team et Infangenthef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus et quietudinibus T[estibus] Ep'o Bern[ardo] de S'cto D., et Nigello Ep'o de Ely, et Rob[erto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et Milon[e] Com[ite] He[re]ford et Brienc[io] fil[io] Com[itis] et Unfr[ido] de Buh[un] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Gilleb[erti] et Walkel[ino] Maminot et Milon[e] de Belloc[ampo] et Gaufr[edo] de Walt[er]vyll[a] et Steph[ano] de Belloc[ampo] et Rob[er]to de Colevill et Isnardo park[?ario] Gaufr[edo] de Abbetot Gilleb[erto] Arch' Nich[olao] fil[io] Isnardi. Apud Oxineford."

{315} There can, I think, be little question that this charter passed at Oxford just after that by which Miles of Gloucester was created Earl of Hereford (July 25, 1141). It is certainly previous to the Earl of Gloucester's departure from England in the summer of 1142, and I do not know of any evidence for the presence of these bishops with the Empress at Oxford after the rout of Winchester. The names of the eight first witnesses to this charter are all found in Miles's charter (Fœdera, N.E., i. 14). As to the others, Miles de Beauchamp had held his castle of Bedford against Stephen (Christmas, 1137), and, though compelled to surrender it, had regained it on the triumph of the Empress. Stephen de Beauchamp heads the list of William de Beauchamp's under-tenants in his Carta (1166), and the Abetots—Heming's "Ursini"—also held of him. "Isnardus" was a landowner in Worcestershire and witnessed a charter to Evesham Abbey in 1130.

The text of this charter—which is taken from the Beauchamp Cartulary (Add. MSS., 28,024, fol. 126 b), a most precious volume, of which the existence is little known—is perhaps corrupt in places, but the document affords several points of considerable interest. Among them are the formula "dedi et reddidi" applied to the grantee's previous possessions, as contrasted with the "dedi et concessi" of the new grant (60 "librates" of land) and of the grant of his relatives' inheritance; the reference to the hereditary shrievalty of Worcester; the allusion to Tamworth Castle as the head of its "honour" (as at Arundel); and the phrase "de hoc devenit ... meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales," to be compared with "pro hiis ... devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes homines" in the charter (1144) to Humfrey de Bohun (Pipe-Roll Society: Ancient Charters, p. 46), and the "homagium suum fecit ligie contra omnes homines" in the charter to Miles of Gloucester (see p. 56). The statement that active opponents of the Empress were precluded from compounding for their offence, except by special intervention, occurs, I think, here alone. The facts that Urse de Abetot was a constable and Walter de Beauchamp an hereditary "Dispenser" are also noteworthy, the latter bearing on the question of the succession to Robert "Dispensator" (see my remarks in Ancient Charters, p. 2).

It is difficult to overrate the importance of the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey in its bearing on the origin and nature of this far-famed earldom. For centuries, antiquaries and lawyers have wrangled over this dignity, the premier earldom of England, but its true character and history have remained an unsolved enigma.

The popular belief that the dignity is "an earldom by tenure" and is annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle, is based on the petitions of John fitz Alan in 11 Hen. IV. and of Thomas Howard in 3 Car. I. This view would be strenuously upheld, of course, by the possessors of the castle, but neither their own ex parte statements, nor even the tacit admission of them by the Crown, can override the facts of the case as established by the evidence of history. The problem is for us, it should be added, of merely historical interest, as the dignity is now, and has been since 1627, held under a special parliamentary entail created in that year.

Even the warmest advocates of the "earldom by tenure" theory would admit that such an anomaly was absolutely unique of its kind. The onus of proving the fact must therefore rest on them, and the presumption, to put it mildly, is completely against them, for I do not hesitate to say that to a student of the dignity of an earl the proposition they ask us to accept is more than impossible: it is ludicrous.

Tierney endeavoured, with some skill, to rebut the arguments of Lord Redesdale in the Reports of the Lords' Committee, but the advance of historical research leaves them both behind. The latest words on the subject have been spoken by Mr. Pym {317} Yeatman, the confidence of whose assertions and the size of whose work[921] might convey the erroneous impression that he had solved this ancient riddle. I shall therefore here examine his arguments in some detail, and, having disposed of his theories, shall then discuss the facts.

An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" theory, Mr. Yeatman has further advanced a view which is quite peculiar to himself. So far as this view can be understood, it "dimidiates" the first earl (d. 1176), and converts him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and a son who died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p. 281),[922] then as "probable" (p. 288),[923] lastly, as "possible" (p. 285).[924] But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to be attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to that conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in relation to the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before it is rejected some reason should be shown for doing so." Yet the only scrap of "evidence" given us is the incidental remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is usually assigned as that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel." Now, this is directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), and Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.[925] Again, it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel "died the 3rd (sic) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto is the authority for the statement that William Albini, Earl of Arundel, died the 17th (sic) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the actual words of the chronicler being given as "iv. die Octobus" {318} (sic). Now, all three dates, as a matter of fact, are wrong, though this is only introduced to show how the laborious researches of the author are marred by a carelessness which is fatal to his work.

Let us now turn to this argument:—

"The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in 1160 by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the statement that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he too was styled Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that the first (sic) Earl of Arundel was so created[926] in 1176" (p. 284).

This argument is based on the fact that the house was "founded in 1160." The Monasticon editors indeed say that this was "about" the date, but, unluckily, a moment's examination of the list of witnesses to the charter shows that its date must be much later,[927] while Mr. Eyton unhesitatingly assigns it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore, falls to the ground.

Another point on which the author insists as of great importance is that the first earl was never Earl of Sussex:—

But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument by quoting Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (sic) de Albineio filio Willielmi Comitis de Arundel [Rex] dedit comitatum {319} de Southsex." For here his own rule would require that if the late earl was, as he admits, Earl of Sussex, he would not be described as Earl of Arundel.[928]

But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" (evidence which does not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive on the subject, and simply annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts to deny to the husband of Queen Adeliza the possession of that title.

With this there falls to the ground the argument based on that denial, viz.:—

"There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of, which proves distinctly that there was (sic) at least five earls, and probably six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12 Henry III. which was made after the last earl of that name was dead three years proves that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear that title," etc. (p. 282).

The above argument that the record in question proves the existence of five, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. But this is by no means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts (p. 281 a) that there were five Albini Earls of Arundel in all, "if indeed there were not six of them." Deducting the last earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us four or five Earl Williams in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in the above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (sic) at least five earls, and probably six, of the name of William de Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there must have been six"!

We will now dismiss from our minds all that has been written on the point by Mr. Yeatman and other antiquaries, and turn to the facts of the case, which are few and beyond dispute. It is absolutely certain, from the evidence of contemporary chronicles and charters, that the first Albini earl, {320} the husband of Queen Adeliza, was indifferently styled at the time (1) Earl of Sussex, (2) Earl of Chichester, (3) Earl of Arundel, (4) Earl William de Albini. The proofs of user of these styles are as follows. First, he attests as Earl of Sussex the Canterbury charter to the Earl of Essex (Christmas, 1141);[929] he also attests as Earl of Sussex Stephen's charter to Barking Abbey, which may have passed about the same time. As this charter is of importance for the argument, I append the full list of witnesses as extracted by me from the Patent Rolls:—

"Matild[a] Regina & Will[elm]o Comite de Sudsexa, & Will[elm]o Mart[el], & Adam de Belum, & Rog[ero] de Fraxin[eto] & Reinald[o] fil[io] Comitis, & Henr[ico] de Novo Mercato, & Ric[ard]o de Valderi, & Godefrid[o] de Petrivilla, & Warn[erio] de Lusoris, Apud Berching[es].[930]

Secondly, it is as "Earl of Chichester" that he attests four charters,[931] one of which is dated 1147, and is confirmed by King Stephen as the grant "quod Comes Willelmus de Arundel fecit;" it is also as Earl of Chichester that he appears in the Buckenham foundation charter,[932] and that he confirms the grants to Boxgrove.[933] As to the two other styles no question arises.

Thus the case of the earldom of Arundel is one of special interest in its bearing on the adoption of comital titles. For it affords, according to the view I have advanced, an example of the use, in a single case, of all the four possible varieties of an earl's title. These four possible varieties are those in which the title is taken (1) from the county of which the bearer is earl, (2) from the capital town of that county, (3) from the earl's chief residence, (4) from his family name. Strictly speaking, when an earl was created, it was always (whatever may be pretended) as the earl of a particular county. The earl and his county were essentially correlative; nor was it then possible to conceive an earl unattached to a county. Titles, however, like surnames in that period of transition, had not yet crystallized into a hard and fast form, and it was {321} deemed unnecessary, when speaking of an earl, that his county should always be mentioned. Men spoke of "Earl Geoffrey," or of "Geoffrey, Earl of Essex," just as they spoke of "King Henry," or of "Henry, King of the English." If the simple "Earl Geoffrey" was not sufficiently distinctive, they added his surname, or his residence, or his county for the purpose of identification. The secondary importance of this addition is the key to Norman polyonomy. The founder, for instance, of the house of Clare was known as Richard "Fitz-Gilbert," or "de Tunbridge," or "de Bienfaite," or "de Clare." The result of this system, or rather want of system, was, as we might expect, in the case of earls, that no fixed principle guided the adoption of their styles. It was indeed a matter of haphazard which of their cognomina prevailed, and survived to form the style by which their descendants were known. Thus, the Earls of Herts and of Surrey, of Derby and of Bucks, were usually spoken of by their family names of Clare and of Warenne, of Ferrers and of Giffard; on the other hand the Earls of Norfolk and of Essex, of Devon and of Cornwall, were more usually styled by those of their counties. Where the name of the county was formed from that of its chief town, the latter, rather than the county itself, was adopted for the earl's style. Familiar instances are found in the earldoms of Chester, Gloucester, and Hereford, of Lincoln, of Leicester, and of Warwick. Rarest, perhaps, are those cases in which the earl took his style from his chief residence, as the Earls of Pembroke(shire) from Striguil (Chepstow), and, perhaps, of Wiltshire from Salisbury, though here the case is a doubtful one, for "de Salisbury" was already the surname of the family when the earldom was conferred upon it. The Earl of Gloucester is spoken of by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester as "Earl of Bristol" (see p. 284), and the Earls of Derby occasionally as Earls "of Tutbury," but the most remarkable case, of course, is that of Arundel itself. It was doubtful for a time by which style this earldom would eventually be known, and "Sussex," under Henry II., seemed likely to prevail. The eventual adoption of Arundel was, no doubt, largely due to the importance of that "honour" and of the castle which formed its "head."

Having now established that the earldom of "Arundel" {322} was from the first the earldom of a county, and thus similar to every other, one is led to inquire on what ground there is claimed for it an absolutely unique and wholly anomalous origin. I reply: on none whatever. There is nothing to rebut the legitimate assumption that William de Albini was created an earl in the ordinary course of things. Here, again, the facts of the case, few and simple though they are, have been so overlaid by assumption and by theory that it is necessary to state them anew. All that has been hitherto really known is that Queen Adeliza married William de Albini between King Henry's death (December, 1135) and the landing of the Empress in the autumn of 1139, and that her husband subsequently appears as an earl. The assertion that he became an earl on his marriage, in virtue of his possession of Arundel Castle, is pure assumption and nothing else.[934] I have already dwelt on the value of the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey as evidence not only that William was Earl "of Sussex," but also that he was already an earl at Christmas, 1141. In that charter I claim to have discovered the earliest contemporary record mention of this famous earldom.[935] William, therefore, became an earl between Christmas, 1135, and Christmas, 1141. This much is certain.

The key to the problem, however, is found in another quarter. The curious and valuable Chronicle of the Holy Cross of Waltham (Harl. MS., 3776) was the work of one who was acquainted—indeed, too well acquainted—with the persons and {323} the doings of those two nobles, Geoffrey de Mandeville and William de Albini. His own neighbourhood became their battleground, and when William harried Geoffrey's manors, and Geoffrey, in revenge, fired Waltham, he was among the sufferers himself.[936] The pictures he draws of these rival magnates are, therefore, of peculiar interest, and his admiration for Geoffrey is so remarkable, in the face of the earl's wild deeds, that no apology is needed for quoting the description in full:—

"E contra Gaufridus iste præcellens multiformi gratia, præcipuus totius Anglie, militia quidem præclivis, morum venustate præclarus, in consiliis regis et regni moderamine cunctis præminens, agebat se inter ceteros quasi unus ex illis, nullius probitatis suæ garrulus, nullius probitatis sibi collatæ vel dignitatis nimius ostensator, rei suæ familiaris providus dispensator, omnium virtutum communium quæ tantum decerent virum affluentia exuberans, si Dei gratiam diligentius acceptam et ceteris prelatam, diligens executor menti suæ sedulus imprimeret; novit populus quod non mentior, quem si laudibus extulerim, meritis ejus assignari potius quam gratiæ nostræ id debere credimus, verumptamen gratiæ divinæ de cujus munere venit quicquid boni provenit homini" (cap. 29).

"Tempore igitur incendii supra memorati, dum observaret comes ille ecclesiam cum multis ne succenderetur, amicissimus ipse et devotus ecclesiæ, afflictus multo dolore quod periclitarentur res ecclesiæ (non tamen poterat manentibus illis injuriam sibi illatam vindicare)," etc. (cap. 31).

As eager to denounce the character of William as to palliate the excesses of Geoffrey, the chronicler thus sketches the husband of Queen Adeliza:—

"Seditionis tempore, cum se inæqualiter agerent homines in terra nostra, et de pari contenderet modicus cum magno, humilis cum summo, et fide penitus subacta, nullo respectu habito servi ad dominum, sic vacillaret regnum et regni status miserabili ductore premeretur fere usque ad exanimationem, e vicino contendebant inter se duo de præcipuis terræ baronibus, Gaufridus de Mandeville, et Comes de Harundel, quem post discessum Regis Henrici conjugio Reginæ Adelidis contigit honorari, unde et superbire et supra se extolli cœpit ultra modum, ut [non] posset sibi pati parem, et vilesceret in oculis suis quicquid præcipuum præter regem in se habebat noster mundus. Habebat tunc temporis Willelmus ille, pincerna, nondum {324} comes, dotem reginæ Waltham, contiguam terris comitis Gaufridi de Mandeville, impatiens quidem omnium comprovincialium terras suo dominio non mancipari.[937]

In the words "nondum comes" we find the clue we seek. If the writer had merely abstained from giving William his title, the value of his evidence would be slight; but when he goes, as it were, out of his way to inform us that though William, in virtue of his marriage, was already in possession of the queen's dower, he was "not yet an earl," he tells us, in unmistakable language, the very thing that we want to know. It was probably in order to accentuate his pride that his critic reminds us that the future earl was as yet only a pincerna;[938] but, whatever the motive, the fact remains, on first-hand evidence, that William was "not yet an earl" at a time when he possessed his wife's dower, and consequently Arundel Castle. This fact, hitherto overlooked, is completely destructive of the time-honoured belief that he acquired the earldom on, and by, obtaining possession of the castle.

So far, all is clear. But the question is further complicated by William appearing in two distinct documents as earl, not of Arundel or Chichester, but of Lincoln! That he held this title is a fact so utterly unsuspected, and indeed so incredible, that Mr. Eyton, finding him so styled in a cartulary of Lewes {325} Priory, dismissed the title, without hesitation, as an obvious error of the scribe.[939] But I have identified in the Public Record Office the actual charter from which the scribe worked, and the same style is there employed. Even so, error is possible; but the evidence does not stand alone. In a cartulary of Reading[940] we find William confirming, as Earl of Lincoln, a grant from the queen, his wife, and here again the original charter is there to prove that the cartulary is right.[941] The early history of the earldom of Lincoln is already difficult enough without this additional complication, of which I do not attempt to offer any solution.

But so far as the earldom of "Arundel" is concerned, I claim to have established its true character, and to have shown that there is nothing to distinguish it in its origin from the other earldoms of the day. The erratic notion of "earldom by tenure," held when the strangest views prevailed as to peerage dignities, was a fallacy of the post hoc propter hoc kind, based on the long connection of the castle with the earls. Nor has Mr. Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this earldom is "the only one of his class left" any better foundation in fact.

This personage, who, as charters show, was in constant attendance on Stephen, is usually, and very naturally, taken by genealogists, from Mr. Eyton downwards, for a younger brother of Aubrey de Vere (the chamberlain) and uncle of the first Earl of Oxford. He was, however, quite distinct, being a son of Bernard de Vere. He owed his position to a marriage with Adeline, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, as recorded on the Pipe-Roll of 1130. By this marriage he became possessed of the honour of Haughley ("Haganet"), and with it (it is important to observe) of the office of constable, in which capacity he figures among the witnesses to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (1136). In conjunction with his wife he founded, on her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks Horton. They were succeeded, in their tenure of the honour, by the well-known Henry of Essex, who thus became constable in his turn. As supporting this view that the honour carried the constableship, attention may be drawn to its compotus as "Honor Constabularie" in 1189-90 (Rot. Pip., 1 Ric. I., pp. 14, 15), just before that of the "Terra que fuit Henrici de Essex." It is therefore worth consideration whether Robert de Montfort, general to William Rufus—"strator Normannici exercitus hereditario jure"—may not have really held the post of constable.

The history of the Montfort fief in Kent is of interest from the Conquest downwards owing to its inclusion of Saltwood and other estates claimed by the Archbishops of Canterbury.[942] {327} Dugdale is terribly at sea in his account of the Montfort descent, wrongly affiliating the Warwickshire Thurstan (ancestor of the Lords Montfort) to the Kentish house, and confusing his generations wholesale (especially in the case of Adeline, wife of William de Breteuil).

The fact that Henry of Essex was appealed of treason and defeated in the trial by battle by a Robert de Montfort (1163), suggests that a grudge on the part of a descendant of the dispossessed line against himself as possessor of their fief may have been at the bottom of this somewhat mysterious affair.

Note.—Since the above was in type, there has appeared (Rot. Pip., 15 Hen. II., p. 111) a most valuable compotus of the 'Honor Constabularie' (with a misleading head-line) for 1169, proving that Gilbert de Gant had held it, at one time, under Stephen, and had alienated nearly a third of it.

The description of the Tower by the Empress, in her charter, as "turris Londonie cum parvo castello quod fuit Ravengeri," and its similar description in Stephen's charter as "turris Lond[oniæ] cum castello quod ei subest," though at first sight singular and obscure, are fraught, when explained, with interest and importance in their bearing on military architecture.

It will be found, on reference to the charter granted to Aubrey de Vere (p. 180), that the Empress gives him Colchester Castle as "turrim et castellum de Colcestr[a]," a grant confirmed by her son as that of "turrim de Colcestr[a] et castellum" (p. 185 n.), and, in later days, by Henry VIII., as "Castrum et turrim de Colcestr[a]."[943] Further, in the charter to William de Beauchamp (p. 313), we find Worcester Castle described as "castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota," Hereford Castle being similarly described in the charter granted at the same time to Miles de Gloucester as "motam Hereford cum toto castello." Before proceeding to the inferences to be drawn from these expressions, it may be as well to strengthen them by other parallel examples. Taking first the case of Colchester, we turn to a charter of Henry I., granted to his favourite, Eudo Dapifer, at the Christmas court of 1101,[944] in which Colchester Castle is similarly described:—

"Henricus Rex Angliæ Mauricio Lond. Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda et omnibus baronibus suis Anglis et Francis de Essex salutem. Sciatis me dedisse benigne et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Civitatem de Colecestrâ et turrim et castellum et omnes ejusdem civitatis firmitates Cum omnibus quæ ad illam pertinent sicut pater meus et frater et ego eam melius {329} habuimus et cum omnibus consuetudinibus illis quas pater meus et frater et ego in eâ unquam habuimus. Et hæc concessio facta fuit apud Westmonaster in primo natali post concordiam Roberti comitis fratris mei de me et de illo.

"T. Rob. Ep. Lincoln et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Rob. Com. de Mellent. et Henr. Com. fr. ejus et Roger Bigoto et Gisleberti fil. Richard et Rob. fil. Baldwin et Ric. fratr. ejus."[945]

Turning to Hereford, we find its description as "mota cum toto castello" recurring in the confirmation by Henry II. and the recital of that confirmation by John.[946] There is another example sufficiently important to deserve separate treatment. This is that of Gloucester.

We find that, in 1137, "Milo constabularius Glocestrie" granted to the canons of "Llanthony the Second"

"Tota oblatio custodum turris et castelli et Baronum ibi commorantium."[947]

Here again the correctness of the description is fortunately confirmed by subsequent evidence; for John recites (April 28, 1200) a charter of his father, Henry II. (which is assigned by Mr. Eyton to the spring of 1155), granting to Miles's son, Roger, Earl of Hereford,

"custodiam turris Gloc' cum toto castello," etc., etc.... "per eandem firmam quam reddere solebat comes Milo pater ejus tempore H. R. avi mei;"[948]

while Robert of Torigny speaks, independently, of "discordia quæ erat inter regem Anglorum Henricum et Rogerium, filium Milonis de Gloecestria, propter turrim Gloecestrie."[949] The {330} "tower" of Gloucester is also referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156,[950] and in the Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey.[951] The importance of its mention lies in the fact that it establishes the character of Gloucester Castle, and proves that what the leading authority has written on the subject is entirely erroneous. Mr. G. T. Clark, in his great work on our castles, refers thus to Gloucester:—

"The castle of Gloucester ... was the base of all extended operations in South Wales. Here the kings of England often held their court, and here their troops were mustered. Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester, but his mound has long been removed, and with it all traces of the Norman building."[952]

In another place he goes further still:—

"Gloucester, a royal castle, stood on the Severn bank, at one angle of the Roman city. It had a mound and a shell-keep, now utterly levelled, and the site partially built over. It was the muster-place and starting-point for expeditions against South Wales, and the not infrequent residence of the Norman sovereigns."[953]

It may seem rash, in the teeth of these assertions, to maintain that this mound and its shell-keep are alike imaginary, but the word "turris" proves the fact. For, as Mr. Clark himself observes with perfect truth,

"in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou (1153) the distinction is drawn between 'Turris Londinensis et Mota de Windesorâ,' London having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a shell-keep upon a mound."[954]

So the keep of Gloucester, being a "turris" and not a "mota," was clearly "a square tower" and not "a shell-keep upon a mound." The fact is that Mr. Clark's assertions would seem to be a guess based on the hypothesis, itself (as could be shown) untenable, that "Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester." Assuming from this the existence of a mound, he must further have assumed that the Normans had crowned it, as elsewhere, with a shell-keep. But the true character of this great fortress is now determined.

{331} Two examples of the double style shall now be adduced from castles outside England. In Normandy we have an entry, in 1180, referring to expenditure "in operationibus domorum turris et castri," etc., at Caen;[955] in Ireland the grant of Dublin Castle to Hugh de Laci (1172) is thus related in the so-called poem of Matthew Regan (ll. 2713-2716):—

The phrase, it will be seen, corresponds exactly with those employed to describe the castles of Carlisle and Appleby, at the same period:—

Having thus established the use of the phrase, let us now pass to its origin.

I would urge that it possesses the peculiar value of a genuine transition form. It preserves for us, as such, the essential fact that there went to the making of the mediæval "castle" two distinct factors, two factors which coalesced so early that the original distinction between them was already being rapidly forgotten, and is only to be detected in the faint echoes of this "transition form."

The two factors to which I refer were the Roman castrum or castellum and the mediæval "motte" or "tour." The former survived in the fortified enclosure; the latter, in the central keep. The Latin word castellum (corresponding with the Welsh caer) continued to be regularly used as descriptive of a fortified enclosure, whether surrounded by walls or earthworks.[957] It is {332} singular how much confusion has resulted from the overlooking of this simple fact and the retrospective application of the denotation of the later "castle." Thus Theodore, in the seventh century, styles the Bishop of Rochester, "Episcopus Castelli Cantuariorum, quod dicitur Hrofesceaster" (Bæda, iv. 5); and Mr. Clark gives several instances, from the eighth and ninth centuries, in which Rochester is alternatively styled a "civitas" and a "castellum."[958] So again, in the ninth century, where the chroniclers, in 876 A.D., describe how "bestæl se here into Werham," etc., Asser and Florence paraphrase the statement by saying that the host "castellum quod dicitur Werham intravit." Now, it is obvious that there could be no "castle" at Wareham in 876, and that even if there had been, an "army" could not have entered it. But when we bear in mind the true meaning of "castellum," at once all is clear. As Professor Freeman observes, "Wareham is a fortified town."[959] Its famous and ancient defences are thus described by Mr. Clark:—

"In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards, the north face 650 yards.... The outline of this rectangular figure is an earthwork, within which the town was built."[960]

Such then was the nature of the "castellum," within which the host took shelter.[961] Passing now to a different instance, we find the Greek κώμη ("a village") represented by "castellum" in the Latin Gospels (Matt. xxi. 2), and this actually Englished as "castel" in the English Gospels of 1000 A.D.[962] Here again, confusion has resulted from a misunderstanding.

{333} As against the castellum, the fortified enclosure, we have a new and distinct type of fortress, the outcome of a different state of society, in the single "motte" or "tour." I shall not here enter into the controversy as to the relation between these two forms, my space being too limited. For the present, we need only consider the "motte" (mota) as a mound (agger) crowned by a stronghold (whether of timber or masonry), but not, as Mr. Clark has clearly shown, "crowned with the square donjon," as so strangely imagined by Mr. Freeman.[963] In the "tour" (turris) we have, of course, the familiar keep of masonry, rectangular in form, and independent of a mound.

The process, then, that we are about to trace is that by which the "motte" or "tour" coalesced with the castellum, and by which, from this combination, there was evolved the later "castle." For my theory amounts to this: in the mediæval fortress, the keep and the castellum were elements different in origin, and, for a time, looked upon as distinct. It was impossible that the compound fortress, the result of their combination, should long retain a compound name: there must be one name for the entire fortress, either "tour" (turris) or "chastel" (castellum). Which was to prevail?

This question may have been decided by either of two considerations. On the one hand, the relative importance of the two factors in the fortress may have determined the ultimate form of its style; on the other—and this, perhaps, is the more probable explanation—the older of the two factors may have given its name to the whole. For sometimes the keep was added to the "castle," and sometimes the "castle" to the keep. The former development is the more familiar, and three striking instances in point will occur below. For the present I will only quote a passage from Robert de Torigny, to whom we are specially indebted for evidence on military architecture:—

(1123) "Henricus rex ... turrem nihilominus excelsam fecit in castello Cadomensi, et murum ipsius castelli, quem pater suus fecerat, in altum crevit.... Item castellum quod vocatur Archas, turre et mœnibus mirabiliter firmavit.... Turrem Vernonis similiter fecit."[964]

{334} More interesting for us is the other case, that in which the "castle" was added to the keep, because it is that of the respective strongholds in the capitals of Normandy and of England. The "Tower of Rouen" and the "Tower of London"—for such were their well-known names—were both older than their surrounding wards (castra or castella). William Rufus built a wall "circa turrim Londoniæ" (Henry of Huntingdon):[965] his brother and successor built a wall "circa turrim Rothomagi."[966] The former enclosed what is now known as "the Inner Ward" of the Tower,[967] the "parvum castellum" of Maud's charter.[968]

Of "the Tower of Rouen" I could say much. Perhaps its earliest undoubted mention is in or about 1078 (the exact date is doubtful), when Robert "Courthose," revolting from his father "Rotomagum expetiit, et arcem regiam furtim præoccupare sategit. Verum Rogerius de Iberico ... qui turrim {335} custodiebat ... diligenter arcem præmunivit," Ordericus here, as often, using turris and arx interchangeably.[969] Passing over other notices of this stronghold, we come in 1090 to one of those tragic deeds by which its history was destined to be stained.[970] Mr. Freeman has told the tale of Conan's attempt and doom.[971] The duke, who was occupying the Tower, left it at the height of the struggle,[972] but on the triumph of his party, and the capture of Conan, the prisoner was claimed by Henry for his prey and was led by him to an upper story of the Tower.[973] At this point I pause to discuss the actual scene of the tragedy. Mr. Freeman writes as follows:—

"Conan himself was led into the castle, and there Henry took him.... The Ætheling led his victim up through the several stages of the loftiest tower of the castle," etc., etc.[974]

Here the writer misses the whole point of the topography. The scene of Conan's death was no mere "tower of the castle," but "the Tower," the Tower of Rouen—Rotomagensis turris, as William here terms it. He fails to realize that the Tower of Rouen held a similar position to the Tower of London. Thus, in 1098, when Helias of Le Mans was taken prisoner, we read that "Rotomagum usque productus, in arce ipsius civitatis in vincula conjectus est" (Vetera Analecta), which Wace renders:—

{336} Again, even in the next reign, a royal charter, assigned by Mr. Eyton to 1114-15, is tested, not at the "castle" of Rouen, but "in turre Rothomagensi."[975] And so, two reigns after that, a century later than Conan's death, we find the custodes of "the Tower of Rouen" entered in the Exchequer Rolls, where it is repeatedly styled "turris."

Thus at Rouen, as at London, the "Tower" not only preserved its name, but ultimately imposed it on the whole fortress. And precisely as the Tower of London is mentioned in 1141 by the transition style of "turris Londoniæ cum castello," so in 1146 we find Duke Geoffrey repairing "sartatecta turris Rothomagensis et castelli," after it fell into his hands.[976]

Here then we have at length the explanation of a difficulty often raised. Why is "the Tower of London" so styled?[977] And although, in England, the style may now be unique, men spoke in the days of which I write of the "Tower" of Bristol or of Rochester as of the Tower of Gloucester.[978] Abroad, the form was more persistent, and special attention may be drawn to the Tower of Le Mans ("Turris Cenomannica),"[979] because the expression "regia turris" which Ordericus applies to it is precisely that which Florence of Worcester applies, in 1114, to the Tower of London, to which it bore an affinity in its relation to the Roman Wall.[980]

All that I have said of the "turris" keep is applicable to the "mota" also, mutatis mutandis, for the motte, though its name was occasionally extended to the whole fortress, was essentially the actual keep, the crowned mound, as is well brought out in the passages quoted by Mr. Clark from French charters:—

"Le motte et les fossez d'entour ... le motte de Maiex ... le motte de mon manoir de Caieux et les fossez d'entour."[981]