THE LIBRARY OF THE OF UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEC DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX. GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY J H. ROUND, M.A. 1 1 > AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN : A CRITICAL ESSAY' "Anno incarnationis Dominicaa millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo inex- tricabilem labyrinthum rerum et negotiornm quae acciderunt in Anglia aggredior evolvere." William of Malmesbury LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST l6th STREET All rights reserved PREFACE " 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 a 3 VI PREFACE. 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." l 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 institu- tional 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 adopt- ing this maxim, I have endeavoured throughout to correct 1 Preface to my Ancient Charters (Pipe-Roll Society). * UtajfordthirK Survey, p. 277. PREFACE. Vll 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 com- pletion 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. Hewlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, viii PREFACE. and Miss Norgate's well-known England under the Angevin Kings. Mr. Hewlett'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 Oesta 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 3 T ear, 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 impos- sibility 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 PREFACE. 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 Eound I am indebted for several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these pages through the press. J. H. ROUND. PAU, Christmas, J801. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. TAG! THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN . 1 CHAPTER II. THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KINO 37 CHAPTER III. TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS V, ... 55 CHAPTER IV. THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 81 CHAPTER V. THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN . . ... . .114 CHAPTER VI. THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER . . .- . . . .123 CHAPTER VII. THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING 13G CHAPTER VIII. THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 163 CHAPTER IX. FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY . . . . . ' . 201 CHAPTER X. THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX 227 xii CONTENTS. APPENDICES. r\(> C. THE EASTEII COURT OF 1130 ...... 2i;'2 I). THE "FISCAL" EARLS 207 E. THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS ...... 27S F. THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER .... 284: G. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES . . 280 H. THE " TEUTIUS DEXAIUUS " 287 I. " VlCECOMITES" AND "C'CSTODES" ..... 207 J. THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS ..... 291) K. GEBVASE DE COKNIIILL ....... 304 L. CHARTER OP THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP . 313 M. THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL ....... 316 N. ROBERT DE VERB ........ 320 O. " TOWER" AND "CASTLE" 328 P. THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON .... 347 Q. OSBEUTtTS OCTODEXARII ....... 374 11. THE FOHEST OF ESSEX ........ 370 S. THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER ........ 37!) T. '' AFFIDATIO IN MANU " ....... 384 U. THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VEHE . . . 388 V. WILLIAM OF ARQVES ........ 397 - X. ROGER " DE RAMIS" ........ 399 Y. THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND . 40.5 7. BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME . . . . . . .411 AA. "TENSERIE" 414 BB. THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL 417 EXCURSUS. THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER .... 120 ADDENDA -137 INDEX 111 CHAPTEE I. THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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, deter- mining, 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." * 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. 2 His first reception was not encouraging : Dover refused him admission, and Canterbury closed her gates. 8 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 pre- decessor Eustace had done, to trouble the land." * 1 Early Plantagenets, p. 13 ; Const, Hist. (1874), i. 319. 2 Gesta Stephani, p. 3. * " A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuariuis exclusus " (Gervase, i. 94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather than the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's " Hrofenses Cantuarien- sibus . . . csedes inferunt " (ii. 23), where the " Hrofenses " are Odo's garrison. So too " Bristoenses " in the Gesta (ed. Hewlett, pp. 38, 40, 41), though rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are clearly the troops of the Earl of Gloucester. 4 Early Plantagenets, p. 14. Compare Const. Hist., i. 319 : " The men of B THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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, inci- dentally, that Canterbury and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held by his father's gift. 1 It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieu- tenants 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. 2 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. 8 The point, however, that I would here Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them from Boulogne, refused to receire him." Miss Norgate adopts the same expla- nation (England under the Angevin Kings, i. 277). 1 There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish pos.-essions in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was allowed, while a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his rents from his Kentish tenants ("ab hominibus suis cle Cantia "). Stephen, then, it would seem, did not forfeit them. 2 In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan, held Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men of Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now cor- rected, to that here discussed, when he wrote that " whatever might be the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to see Count Eustace again within their walls" (Norm. Conq., iv. 116), though they were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the shire to do so. 3 " Id quoque sui esse juris, suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex ipsorum. quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e vestigio suc- cederet" (Gesta, p. 3). This audacious claim of the citizens to such right ELECTION OF STEPHEN. 3 insist on, for it seems to have been scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially con- ditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the citizens. 1 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. 2 It is, surely, to this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the election of the Empress. 8 It can only, I think, be explained on the as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr. Freeman's paraphrase when he speaks of " the citizens of London and Winchester [why Win- chester ?], who freely exercised their ancient right of sharing in the election of the king who should reign over them " (Norm. Conq., v. 251 ; cf. p. 856). 1 "Firmata prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat, mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus tutarentur ; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem suffra- gium, toto sese conatu accingeret " (Gesta, p. 4). See Appendix A. 2 " Spe scilicet captus amplissirna quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastic! vigoris disciplina. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesise et conser- vanda, episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit. Cujus sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non prsetermittam " (p. 704). See Addenda. 3 "Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum quod sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret, malas vero abrogaret ; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno exhibuerit," etc. (ibid,, p. 746). 4 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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 him- self anew on the occasion of his Oxford charter. 1 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. 2 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 1'Arche, who had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert with the head of the adminis- tration, Eoger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it con- tained. 8 Thus strengthened, he returned to London for corona- tion at the hands of the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that " he returned to London for formal election and coronation." 4 His authority for that statement is Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly. 5 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 1 The phrase " districto sacramento " is very difficult to construe. I have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely that Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an agree- ment or treaty between two contracting parties (vide infra passim'). * Ante, p. 3. 1 Gesta, 5, 6 ; Witt. Malms., 703. Note that William Rufus, Henry I., and Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even before their coronation. 4 Const. Hist., i. 319. 5 "A cunctis fere in regem elcctus est, et sic a Willelmo Cautuarensi archiepiscopo coronatus." CORONATION OF STEPHEN. 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 L, the election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself. 1 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." 2 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." 3 The chroniclers are here unsatis- factory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague ; John of Hexham leaves us little wiser ; 4 the Continuator of Florence indeed states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius Angliae 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. 5 William of Malmesbury alone is precise, 6 possibly because an adversary of Stephen could 1 " The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the spot " (Const. Hist., i. 303). 1 Select Charters, p. 108. 3 Early Plantagenets, p. 14. 4 " Oonsentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi archie- piscopo et clericorum et laicorum universitate " (Sym. Dun., ii. 286, 287). 8 " Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum sit, ab omnibus provideatur " (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the primate as acting " Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu " (p. 8). " Tribus episcopis prsesentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi, Salesbiriensi , nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus " (p. 704). See Addenda. THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. alone afford to be so, and bis testimony, we sball find, is singularly confirmed byindependent charter evidence (p. 11). It was at tbis 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 Gcsta, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in extorting that oath, 1 is amplified by Gervase into a story that he had released his barons from its bond, 2 while Ralph " de Diceto " repre- sents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her stead. 3 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* The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the Gcsta 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. 5 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 ; coro- nation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expres- 1 "Supremo cum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, dc jurejurando violentcr baronibus suis injuucto apertissime pscnituit." 2 " Quidam ex potentissimis Angliaj, jurans et dicens se praesentem affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte relaxasset." 3 " Hugo Bigod senescallus regis corarn archiepiscopo Cantuarise sacra- meuto probavit quod, duin Bex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis quibus inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhseredavit, et Stephanum Bolonise comitem haeredern instituit." 4 " Et hyec juramento comitis (sic) Hugonis et duorurn militum probata esse diccbant in facie ecclesie Anglicane " (ed. Pertz, p. 543). 5 " Cum regis (sic) fautores obnixe persuadcrent quatinus eum ad regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis BUSS officio suppleret " (p. G). THE CORONATION CHARTER. J sion, 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 under- stood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had preceded it." l 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, 2 appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully developed form, 3 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 1 Canst. Hist., i. 146. * See his Oxford Charter. * See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die causa secrete corara majori parte cleri Anglise, ad cujus jus potissimum special principem eligere, simulque ordinare " ( Will. Malms., p. 746). THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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. 1 We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians. 2 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 1 Henry had sworn " in ipso suse consecratiouis die " (Esulmer), Stephen " in ipsa consecrationis tuse die " (Innocent's letter). Henry of Huntingdon refers to the " pacta " which Stephen " Deo et populo et sanctse ecclesise concesserat in die coronationis suae." William of Malmesbury speaks of the oath as " postea [i.e. at Oxford] scripto inditum." See Addenda. * See Appendix B : "The Appeal to Rome in 1136." THE APPEAL TO ROME. 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 leesio 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 suc- cessor 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, with- out 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 " recogni- tion" 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 mediaeval illustration, the recognition as pope by an 10 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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 Eome had already heard the case. 1 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 Eeading, whither, after Christmas, Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral. 2 The corpse, says the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium caterva." The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of consider- able importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, " that it furnished an opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen." 3 But the learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I am concerned with is the meeting at Beading. 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. 4 1 See Appendix B. 2 Hen. Hunt., 258 ; Cont. Flor. Wig., 95 ; Witt. Malms., 705. * Const. Hist., i. 321. 4 Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy. STEPHEN AT READING. I I Carta Stephani regis Anglise facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et Brekon'. S. rex Angl. Archiepis Epis Abbatibus. Com. Baron, vie. praepositis, Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Anglise et Walliae Sat. sciatis me red- didisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestrise et hseredibus suis post eum in feod: et hsereditate totum honorem suum de Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit viuus et mortuus. Quare volo et prsecipio quod bene et honorifice et libere teneat in bosco et piano et pratis et pasturis .et aquis et mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et infangene- theof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus quibus unqu melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis qm ego ut dns et Eex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliqua tenatura q tenuisset die qua Kex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' haeredem suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epo Winton. et Epo Sar'. et H. Big et Bob filio Bicardi et Ing de Sai. et W. de Pont et P. filio Jo6. Apud Bading. Sub magno sigillo suo. 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 Bichard, whom we shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal chamberlain ; I 2 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come with Payne fitz John ; William de Pont de 1'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 repre- sented by the author of the Gesta as acting with him at this juncture. 1 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) con- siderably 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. 2 1 Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from coming to court, he writes : " Illi autem, intents, sibi a rege comminatione, cum salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere ; omnibusque ad votura impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberal! hominio, illius sese servitio ex toto manciparunt. Affuit inter reliquos Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, de quo superius fecimus mentionem, ille Herefordensis et Salopesbirise, iste Glocestrensis provincire dominatum gerens : qui in tempore regis Henrici potentise suse culmen extenderant ut a Sabrinfi, flumine usque ad mare per omnes fines Anglise et Waloniffl omnes placitis involverent, angariis onera- rent " (pp. 15, 16). 2 Con*. Flor. Wig. CHARTERS TO MILES OF GLOUCESTER. 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 Beading, 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. 1 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. 2 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 Eobert fitz Eichard, 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 attend- ance at the Easter court. 3 These three barons should 1 "S. rex Anglise Archiepis etc. Sciatismereddidisseet.concessisseMiloni Gloec et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum honorem patris sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad tenendum tali forma (sic) qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut patrimonium suum. Et totum honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia Ministeria sua et terras suas quas teuuit temporo regis Henrici sicut eas melius et houorificentius tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo sicut Rex et dominus Baroni meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore et in pace et libere teneat cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. films Ricardi, Robertus de Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingel- ramus de Sai, Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges " (Lansdowne MS. 229, fols. 123, 124. * History of the Exchequer, p. 135. 3 I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we liave that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny), being then described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de Clare), usually but erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If so, he was also uncle to Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz Richard (de Clare), another witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's 14 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the king. 1 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." 2 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. 3 Surely in the expression " dominus et Rex " (alias " Rex et dominus ") we have in actual words the exponent of this double character. 4 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." charters to which the house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is evidence to suggest that Robert fitz Richard (tie Clare) was lord, in some way, of Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter fitz Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147). 1 There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond exactly, it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the witnesses' names are different. This raises a problem which cannot at present be solved. 2 In the fellow-charter the phrase runs : " sicut Rex et dominus Baroni meo." 3 " The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive ; it practically combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been exercised by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of monarchy, which was exemplified at the time in France and the Empire. . . . The king is accordingly both the chosen head of the nation and the lord paramount of the whole of the land" (Const. Hist., i. 338). 4 Compare the words of address in several of the Carte Baronum (1166): " servitium ut domino ; " " vobis sicut domino meo ; " " sicut domino caris- simo ; " " ut domino suo ligio." STEPHEN AT OXFORD. 15 Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Beading Stephen passed to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his coronation-day. 1 That, on leaving Beading, 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. 2 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." 3 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." 4 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, 1 " Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et con- firmavit pacta quse Deo et populo et sanctae ecclesise concesserat in die coronationis SUSB " (p. 258). 2 " Cum venisset in fine Natalia ad Oxenefordiam " (ibid.). 3 Const. Hist., i. 321. 4 Early Plantagenets, pp. 15, 16. 16 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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. 1 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. 2 It was at Oxford, in January, 8 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, 4 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 " : 1 " The news of this [Scottish] " The second charter . . . was put inroad reached Stephen at Oxford, forth at Oxford before the first year where he had just put forth hia of his reign was out. Stephen had second charter" (Norm.Conq., v. 258). just come back victorious from driv- ing back a Scottish invasion (see p. 258) " (ibid., p. 246). 2 See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's History of Wells Cathedral: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a confirmed habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer from number- less passages, cannot revise what he writes" (Genealogist, (N.S.) ii. 179). 3 " In fine Natalia " (Hen. Hunt., 258). Sym. Dim., ii. 287. EASTER COURT OF Ifj6. I 7 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 promulgate, suramos ecclesiarum due- tores cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam conf use et permixtim, 1 ut solet, ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesise profutura fuerunt et utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata." 2 We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day (Easter) after the king's coronation, a re- vival of the splendours of former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and parsimonious uncle. 3 Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court, 4 which reminds one of William of Malmes- bury's pictures of the Conqueror in his glory. 5 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 1 The curious words, "yulgo . . . ingerente," may be commended to those who uphold the doctriue of democratic survivals in these assemblies. They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the " vulgus " took part in the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of indisputable interest. 2 Ed. Howlett, p. 17. 8 " Quern morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus omisit " ( Will. Malms.). * "Kediens autem inde rex in Quadragesima tenuit curiam suam apud Lundoniam in solemnitate PasChali, qua nunquam fin-rat splendidipr in Anglia multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus, omnimoda- que dapsilitate " (p. 259). s " [Consuetude] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam con- veuirent de necessariis regui tractaturi, simulque visuri regis insigne quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate " ( Vita S. Wulstani). "Con- vivia in prsecipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica inibat ; . . . omnes eo cujuscunque professions magnates regiuin edictum accersiebat, ut exterarum gentium legali speciem multitudinis apparatumque deliciarum nirarentur" (Gesta regum). C I 8 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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, sur- rounded 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. 1 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 wit- nesses 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 Eobert of Lewes. The former is dated " Apud Westmonasterium in presentia et audientia sub- scriptorum anno incarnationis dominicae, 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 1 See in Gesta (ed. Hewlett, pp. 15, 16) bis persistent efforts to conciliate the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the west. THE WESTMINSTER CHARTERS. 19 the original charter itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as to the lists of wit- nesses. 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 Ox- ford 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. 1 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. 2 Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses a fact, from their position, of some importance. 3 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 Ox- 1 See Appendix C. 2 "lu Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in honorem in reverentia praeferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (Sym. Dun., ii. 287). * Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes, of that charter : " Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of Here- ford " \reci Gloucester] " and Brian of Wallingford, were also among the witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made her cause for the time hopeless " (Const. Hist., i. 321, note). 20 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. ford charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record the names of those whom he had in- duced to attend his courts and so to recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange History of the House of Arundcl, 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 re- markable " that the charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three archbishops and thirteen bishops. 1 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. 2 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 1 See Appendix C. z " His autem rex patienter auditis quaecumque postularant gratuite eis indulgena ecclesise libertatem fixam et inviolabilem ease, illius statuta rata et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel ordiuis, omni revereutia honorandos esse praecepit " (Gesta). STEPHEN AND THE CHURCH. 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 prtecedente." 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. Hewlett, 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, 1 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 : KICHARD or HEXHAM. JOHN OF HEXHAM. Eodem quoque anno Innocen- Eodem anno Innocentius papa tius Eomanse sedis Apostolicus, litteris ab Apostolica sede directis Stephano regi Anglise litteras eundem regem Stephanum in ne- suas transmisit, quibus eum Apo- gotiis regni confirmavit. Harum stolica auctoritate in regno Anglise tenore litterarum rex instructus, confirmavit. . . . Igitur Stephanus generali convocato concilio bonas his et aliis modis in regno Anglise et antiquas leges, et justos con- confirmatus, episcopos et proceres suetudines prsecepit conservari, sui regni regali edicto in unum injustitias vero cassari. convenire prsecepit; cum quibus hoc generale concilium celebravit. 1 John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter. 22 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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 ad- journed 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. 1 His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in the chronicler, immediately after- wards : " Eodem aniio, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt epis- copi fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesise et vigorem discipline conservaret." 2 By this writer the incident in question is recorded in con- nection 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 (convendo) between the king and the bishops, at which William of Malmesbury so plainly hints, 1 " Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestrso, cujus prudentiam rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam. . . . Itaque homagium regi fecit sub comlitione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suain integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret " (Will. Malms., 705, 707). Ibid., 707. THE OXFORD CHARTER. 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 conces- sion ; 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 conclu- sion 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 incar- natione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, per- haps, 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 28-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal dapifer, had 24 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. been among the witnesses to this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once. 1 Then followed the suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter. 2 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 stand- point 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, 3 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 Eufus at the siege of Eochester (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 Gcsta that the same was the case at Exeter. The 1 Hen. Hunt., p. 259. 2 Ibid., p. 260. 8 " Vindictam nou exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus; si enim earn tune exercuisset, postca contra cum tot castella retcuta non fuis- sent" (Hen. Hunt., p. 259). DIFFICULTIES OF STEPHEN. 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 Anglo- rum electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctae Komanae ecclesiae legato consecratus, et ab Innocentio sanctae Komanse sedis pontifice confirmatus." 1 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." 2 Eeferring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus : " HENRICUS FILIUS WILLELMI EEGIS post obitum fratris sui Wil- lelmi, Dei gratia rex Anglorum." 3 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 1 Select Charter*, 114 (cf. Will. Malms.). 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 96. 26 THE ACCESSION OF STEP HEX. brother as the sole explanation of his position as king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the election, etc., set forth hy 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 Eegis," 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 filiae 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., 1 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 1 Confirmation Roll, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J. A. C. Vincent in Genealogist (N. S.), ii- 271). This should be compared with the argument of his friends when urging the primate to crown him, that he had not only been elected to the throne (by the Londoners), but also " ad hoc justo germanss propinquitatis jure idoneus accessit" (Gesta, p. 8), and with the admission, shortly after, in the pope's letter, that among his claims he "de prajfati regis [Henrici] prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse." POSITION OF STEPHEN. 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 "Hsec omnia concede et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate mea." 1 And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to break its bonds. 2 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 ; 3 the second, that their allegi- 1 Select Charters, 115. But cf. Will. Malms. 2 As further illustrating the compromise of whicli this charter was the resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula " Dei gratia " with the recital of election, and that he further represents the election as merely a popular "assent" to his succession. 8 Compare the clause in the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1265, establishing the right of insurrection : " Liceat omnibus de regno nostro contra nos in- surgere." 28 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. ance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous diflidatio. 1 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. 2 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 1 See inter alia, Hallam's Middle Age*, i. 168, 169. 2 " Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestrse Robertas, qui erat in Normannia, in proximo paries sororis foret adjuturus, rege tantum- modo ante dijfidato. Nee fides rerum famse levitatem destituit : celeriter enim post Pentecosten missis a Normannia suis regi more majorum amici- tiam etfidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicafo; rationem prseferens quam id juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum aspiraverat, et omnem fidem sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus fuerat" ( Will. Malms., 712). So, too, the Oontinuator of Florence : " Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per prsedictum Brycstowensem comitem et conestabularium Milonem, almegata fidelitate quam illi juraverant, . . . Milo constabularius, regiee majestati redditis fidei sacramentis, ad dominum suum, comitem Glouces- trensem,cum grandi manu militum se contulit"(pp. 110, 117). Compare with these passages the extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct in attacking Lincoln without sending a formal " defiance " to his opponents, and the singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as his lord, without sending him the formal " diffidatio " a clear fortnight beforehand. CLAIM OF THE EMPRESS. 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 inherit- ance, 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 recogni- tion of the elective theory. 1 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." 2 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. 3 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, 1 Const. Hist., I 338, 340. 2 Norm. Conq., v. 251. 3 " In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the throne, the doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by the spindle-side sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the spear-side had nothing to do with either. Then it was that men began to find out that Stephen had been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but also of defrauding the heir to the crown of her lawful right " (ibid., p. 252). 30 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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. 1 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) . 2 It was with reference to this event that Eadmer described him at his death (November, 1120) as " Willelmum jam olim regni haeredem 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. 3 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 1 " Henrici regis filia, . . . vehemeuter exhilarata utpote regnum sibi iuratum . . . jam adepta" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 130). But the above duplex character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that the legate should receive her " tauquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia et Normanuia jurata esset." 2 " Conventiooptimatum et baronum totius Auglite apud Salesbyriam xiv. kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in prsesentia regis Henrici homagium filio suo Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (Flor. Wig., ii. 69). 3 "Normannise priucipes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tune xviii. annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidnlitatis securitatem sacramentis affirmant " (Sym. Dun., ii. 258). THE OATH TO THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 Of what took place upon that occasion, there is, happily, full evidence. 3 We have independent reports of the transaction from William of Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Con- tinuator of Florence, and Gervase of Canterbury. 3 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. 4 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. 5 Symeon introduces the striking expression that 1 Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of Durham , though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places the event under 1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor) instead of 1126, the year given by the other chroniclers. But from him we learn that the Christmas court (i.e. Christmas 1126) was adjourned from Windsor to London, for the new year, " ubi Circumcisione Domini " (January 1) the actual oath was taken. William of Malmesbury dates it, loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Con- tinuator of Florence, more accurately, " finitis diebus festivioribus " (p. 81), which confirms Symeon's statement. 2 It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath taken on this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr. Stubbs (Const. Hist., i. 341) recognizes " a similar oath in 1131 " (on the authority of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the authority of Roger of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally mentioned, and is neither alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to subsequently by William himself ; and the latter, which is similarly devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is represented as securing the succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is strange that so recent and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, should have been ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier oath, described above, alone appealed to. 3 Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at Stephen's accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filise regis Henrici" (p. 256). 4 " Fecit principes ft potentes adjurare eidem filise suse et heredibus suis legitimis regnum Anglise " (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat confirmed by the words which the author of the Gesta places in the primate's mouth (p. 7). 5 " In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, . . . regni jura transferebat " 32 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. the Empress was to succeed " hsereditario jure," 1 but William of Malmesbury, in tbe speecb which he places in the king's mouth, far outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right : "prsefatus quanto incommode patrise fortuna Willelmum filiura suum sibi surripuisset, cui jure regnum competeret : mine superesse filiam, cui soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus ; a matcrno gencre multis retro seculis." 2 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. 3 Thus her claim was neatly traversed by Stephen's advo- cates, at Kome, 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 haeredi ") was void. It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her (p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken " ad jussum regis " (p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase above, and that (quantum valeat) of Roger Hoveden, viz. " constituit eum regem ; " also the "jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was accordingly urged, at Stephen's accession, that the oath had been compulsory, and was therefore invalid. 1 " Juraverunt ut filise euae imperatrici fide servata regnum Anglise lixre- ditario jure post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of Newburgh, on Henry's accetsion : " Hsereditarium regimua suscepit." These expressions are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford to the Conqueror's dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem . . . non enim tantum decus hereditario jure possedi" (Ord. Vit.~). 2 Will. Malms., 691. 3 That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further implied by the passage in William of Malmesbury : " Ego Rogerum Salesbiriensem episcopum sajpe dicentem audivi, ' Solutum se sacramento quod imperatrici fecerat : eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex prseter consilium suum et caeterorum procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra regnum,' " etc., etc. (p. 693). THE EMPRESS AS HEIR. 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 hseredem regni Anglise 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 (6) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones ; l 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 circum- stances, however, as we shall find, had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take her 1 As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife. There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the autumn of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin match, that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should succeed him (" remque ad effectum perduxit eo teuore ut regi, de legitima conjuge hsere- dem non habenti, mortuo gener illius in regnum succederet "). That Geoffrey's claim was recognized at the time is clear from the striking passage quoted by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist (" sceptro . . . non injuste aspirante "). and even more so from the explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido comite cum uxore sua, quaa haeres erat [here again is an allusion to her hereditary right], in regnum succedere, primores terrae, juramenti sui male recordantes, regem ewr suscipere noluerunt, dicentea 'Alienigena non regnabit super nos'" (Select Charters, p. 110). 34 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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 col- lected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English crown presents consider- able 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 " *), and attempts to reduce that election to nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the whole ques- tion 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. 2 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 1 Compare the style of " Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God constitu- tional King of Spain." * "Canonica prius electiono prpecoclente." THE OBSOLESCENCE OF ELECTION. 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 circum- stances 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 Eoses, 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 con- cession. 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 THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN. 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. ( 37 ) CHAPTER II. THE FIKST CHARTER OF THE KINO. 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 Trevieres in the Bessin, 1 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. 2 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. 3 Its statement is confirmed 1 Eotuli Scaccarii Normannise, n. clxxxviii. Such was also the opinion of M. Leopold Delisle. The French editors, however, of Ordericus write: " On ne sait auquel des nombreux Magneville, Mandeville, Manneville de Normandie rapporter le berceau de cette illustre maison" (iv. 108). 9 There is a curious story in the Waltham Chronicle (7)e Inventione, cap. xiii.) that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey in the shoes of Esegar the etaller. The passage runs thus : " Cui [Tovi] successit filius ejus Adelstanus pater Esegari qui stalra inventus est in Anglise conquisitione a Normannis, cujus hereditatem postea dedit conquisitor terrse, rex Willelmus, Galfrido de Mandevile proavi presentis comitis Willelmi. Successit quidem Adelstanus patri suo Tovi, non in totam quidem possessionem quam possederat pater, Fed in earn tantum qu pertinebat ad stallariam, quam nunc habet comes Willelmus." The special interest of this story lies in the official connection of Esegar [or Ansgar] the staller with London and Middlesex, combined with the fact that Geoffrey occupied the same position. See p. 354, and Addenda. 8 " Post cujus [i.e. Galfridi] mortem reliquit filium suum hseredem, cui firmitas turris Londoniarum custodienda committitur. Nobili cum Eege 38 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. by Ordericus Vitalis, who distinctly mentions that the Tower was in charge of William de Mandeville when Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101. 1 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 subse- quent to this. 2 Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory of Hurley, 3 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. 4 The above descent is not based upon the evidence of the Monasticon alone, but is incidentally recited in those magnifice plura gessit patri ncm immerito in rebus agendis cossqualis " (Monasticon). Dugdale's error, as we might expect, is followed by later writers, Mr. Clark treating Geoffrey as the first " hereditary constable," and his son, whom with characteristic inaccuracy he transforms from " William " into " Walter," as the second (Mediaeval Military Architecture, ii. 253, 254). The French editors of Ordericus (iv. 108) strangely imagined that William was brother, not son, of Geoffrey de Mandeville. 1 " In arce Lundonieusi Guillelmo de Magna villa custodiendus in vinculis tradihisest" (iv. 108). * See for instance Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 73, 85, 116, where he attests charters of tiro. 1110-1112. * Monasticon, iii. 433. He founds the priory "pro anima Athelaissa primse uxoris mese, matris filiorum meorum jam defunctss ; " and " Lecelina domina uxor mea " is a witness to the charter. 4 It is necessary to check by authentic charters and other trustworthy evidence the chronicles printed in the Monasticon under Walden Abbey. One of these was taken from a long and interesting MS., formerly in the possession of the Royal Society, but now among the Aiundel MSS. in the British Museum. This, which is only partially printed, and which ought to be published in its entirety, has the commencement wanting, and is, unfortunately, very inaccurate for the early period of which I treat. It is this narrative which makes the wild misstatements as to the circumstances of the foundation, which grossly misdates Geoffrey's death, etc., etc. All its statements are accepted by Dugdale. The other chronicle, which he printed from Cott. MS., Titus, D. 20, is far more accurate, gives Geoffrey's death cor- rectly, and rightly assigns him as wife the sister (not the daughter) of the Earl of Oxford, thus correcting Dugdale's error. It is the latter chronicle which Dugdale has misquoted with reference to the charge of the Tower. THE FAMILY OF MANDEVILLE. 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 Bic. 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 pro- bably was son of Peter, the sheriff at thp time of the Survey." * But not content even with this, they transferred the shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (vide supra) 2 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." 3 The authority of these Eeports has 1 Who was really Peter de Valognes. * "Madox ... has shown . . . that Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex, obtained from the Crown Grants of the shrievalty of the Counties of Esstx and Hertford when the Earls, commonly called Earls of Clare, were Earls of Hertford, and had the Third Penny of the Pleas of that County " (iii. 69, ed. 1829). 3 " The County of Hertford appears to have been, at the time of the Survey, in the King's hands, and Peter was then Sheriff; and the Sheriffwick 4O THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at Courthope stating in his Historic Peerage of England (p. 248) that " Kichard de Clare . . . was Earl of Hert- ford, 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, 1 and Mr. Doyle has now followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was " created Earl of Hertford (about) 1136." 2 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 compotuin de Dccclxvj7. et xiiis. et iiijeZ. pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiii/. et vis. et vine?. " Et debet Dec et xxxiijZz, et vjs. et viijd." (p. 55). As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two- thirteenths o. 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 113(>. 3 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. 4 of Hertfordshire was afterwards granted in Fee, by the Empress Maud, to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, at a rent as his father and grand- father had held it. The father of Geoifrey was Geoffrey Fitz Peter, and probably was son of Peter, the Sheriff at the time of the Survey. The first trace which the Committee has discovered of the title of the Earls of Clare to the Third Penny of the County is in the reign of Henry the Second, subsequent to the grants under which the Earls of Essex claimed the Shrievalty in fee, at a fee-farm rent. But the grant of the Third Penny must have been of an earlier date, as the grant to the Earl of Essex was subject to that charge. The family of Clare must therefore have had the Third Penny either before or early in the Reign of King Stephen" (Hi. 125). 1 Const. Hist., i. 362. 2 Official Baronage, ii. 175. * See Appendix C. * See Frontispiece. INTEREST OF THE CHARTER. 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 distinc- tion 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." * Selden duly followed suit, and Dugdale echoed Selden's words. 2 Courthope merely observes that it "is presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express creation of the title of earl; " 3 and Mr. Birch pronounces it " one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example of a deed creating a peerage." 4 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 : " Stephen's earlier deeds of 1136 exhibit Geoffrey de Magnaville as a baron only. There are three such, two of which certainly, and the third probably, passed at Westminster. Ee was custos of the Tower of London, an office which probably necessitated a constant residence. There are three patents of creation extant by which he became Earl of Essex. Those which I suppose to precede this were by the Empress. The first of them passed in the short period during which Maud was in London, i.e. between June 24 and July 25, 1141. The second within a month after, at Oxford. In the latter she alludes to grants of lands previously made by Stephen to the said Geoffrey, but to no patent of 1 Degrees of England. 9 " Note that this is the most ancient creation-charter which hath ever been known." Vide Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 647. 3 Historic Peerage, p. 178. * Journ. Brit. Arch. Asa., xxxi. 386. 42 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. earldom except her own. Seldcn calls Maud's London patent the oldest on record. It is not perhaps that, but it is older than this, though Dugdale thought not. Having decided that Stephen's patent succeeded Maud's, it follows that it (viz. this charter) passed after Nov. 1, 1141, when Stephen regained his liberty and Geoffrey probably forsook the empress. The king was at London on Dec. 7. In 1142 we are told (Lysons, Carrib., 9) that this Geoffrey and Earl Gilbert were sent by Stephen against the Isle of Ely. He is called earl. We shall also have him attesting a charter of Queen Matilda (Stephen's wife). " In 1143 he was seized in Stephen's court at St. Alban's. "In 1144 he is in high rebellion against Stephen, and an ally of Nigel, Bishop of Ely. He is killed in Aug., 1144. " On the whole then it would appear that the Empress first made him an earl as a means of securing London, the stronghold of Stephen's party, but that, on Stephen's release, the earl changed sides and Stephen opposed Maud's policy by a counter-patent (we have usually found counter-charters, however, to be Maud's). We have also a high proba- bility that this charter passed in Dec., 1141, or soon after ; for Stephen does not appear at London in 1142, when Geoffrey is earl and in Stephen's employ." l 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." 2 In 1 Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 97. 2 Comp. fol. 96 : " My position is that where this system of counter- SEQUENCE OF GEOFFREY'S CHARTERS. 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. 1 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. (1) First charter of the king. (2) First charter of the Empress. (3) Second charter of the king. (4) Second charter of the Empress. The order of the three last is further established by the fact that the grants in the second are specifically con- firmed 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 charters between Stephen and the Empress is proved, the former generally ia the first in point of date." 1 See p. 41 ad pedem. 44 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. 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 : Eight order ... ... 1 2 34 Ey ton's order ... ... 241 Dugdale's order ... ... 1 42 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, some- what prominently, before the public. 1 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 1 Notes and Queries, 6th Series, v. 83. DATE OF THE CHARTER. 45 " 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." l 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. 2 And, in his foundation charter, he certainly styles himself an earl. 8 But, alas for this precious narra- tive, 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 men- tioned 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." 4 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 1 On the Great Seal of King Stephen, pp. 19, 20. 2 "Apud regem Stephanum, ac totius regni majores tanti erat ut nomine comitis et re jampridem dignus haberetur" (Mon. Angl., vol. iv. p. 141). 3 "Gaufridus de Magnavilla comes Essexe" (ibid.). 4 Addl. MSS. 31,943, fol. 85 dors. 46 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. 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. 1 Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should incidentally, we shall find, prove the key to the problem. This, which is printed among the foot-notes in Madox's Baronia Anglica (p. 231), from the muniments of West- minster 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 Eoger, Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later than the llth of December, 1139. 2 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. 3 Let us try and reduce it further still. What was the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of Bishop Eoger, hastened to visit Salisbury. 4 He went there from Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned to Beading (Cont. Flor. Wig.}. Going and returning he 1 Ordericus Vitalis, vol. v. p. 120. * See p. 282, n. 4. 1 " Protractaque est obsidio [Lincolnie] a diebus Natalia Domini [1140] usque ad Ypapanti Domini " ( Will. Newburgh, i. 39). 4 To this visit may be assigned three charters (Sarum Charters and Documents, pp. 9-11) of interest for their witnesses. Two of them are attested by Philip the chancellor, who is immediately followed by Roger de Fe'camp. The latter had similarly followed the preceding chancellor, Roger, in one of Stephen's charters of 1136 (see p. 263), which establishes his official position. Among the other witnesses were Bishop Robert of Hereford, Count Waleran of Meulan, Robert de Ver, William Martel, Robert d'Oilli with Fulk his brother, Turgis d'Avranchee, Walter de Salisbury, Ingelram de Say, and William de Pont de 1'Arche. MOVEMENTS OF STEPHEN. 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 (pro- bably thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, proof of his presence at Andover. 1 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. 2 We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, 1 The " P. cancellarius," by whom the writ is tested, was a chancellor of whom, according to Foss, virtually nothing is known. He was, however, Philip (de Harcourt), on whom the king conferred at Winchester, in 1140, the vacant see of Salisbury (" Kex Wintoniam veniens consilio baronum suorum cancellario suo Philippo Searebyriensem prsesulatum . . . dedit" (Gout. Flor. Wig.). But the chapter refused to accept him as bishop, and eventually he was provided for by the see of Bayeux. He is likely, with or without the king, to have gone straight to Salisbury after his appointment at Winchester, in which case he would not have been present at Andover, even if Stephen himself was. * " Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus opportunum quo se ulcisceretur, observabat. Injuria vero quam regi nequam ille intulerat talis erat. Eex ante annos aliquot episcopi, ut dictum est, Salesbiriensis thesauros adeptus, summa non modica regi Francorum Lodovico transmissa, Bororem ejus Constantiam Eustachio filio suo desponderat ; . . . eratque hsec cum socru sua regina Lundoniis. Cumque regina ad alium forte vellet cum eadem nuru sua locum migrare, memoratus Gaufridus arci tune prsesidens, restitit ; nuruque de manibus socrus, pro viribus obnitentis, abstracta atque retenta, illam cum ignominia abire permisit. Postea vero reposcenti, et justum motum pro tempore dissimulanti, regi socero insignem prsedam segre resig- navit " (ii. 45). 48 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. from the words of the Continuator of Florence, 1 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). 2 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 con- sequently 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. 3 His move- ments now become more difficult to trace than ever, but it may have been after this that he marched on Hereford and Worcester. 4 Our next glimpse of him is at Whitsun- tide (May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state at the Tower. 5 It has been suggested that it was for security 1 (1140) "Facta est desponsatio illorum mense Februario in transmarinis partibus, matre regina Anglorum praesente " (ii. 725). 2 "Accipiens thesauros episcopi comparavit iiide Constantiam sororem Lodovici regis Francorura ad opus Eustachii tilii sui " (p. 2t>5). It is amusing to learn from bis champion (the author of the Gesta Stephani) that the king spent this treasure on good and pious works. This matrimonial alliance is deserving of careful attention, for the fact that Stephen was prepared to buy it with treasure which he sorely needed proves its importance in his eyes as a prop to his now threatened throne. 3 Annah of Waverley (Ann. Hon., ii. 228), where it is stated that, at this council, Stephen gave the see of Salisbury to his chancellor, Philip. Accord- ing, however, to the Continuator of Florence, he did this not at London-, but at Winchester (see p. 47, supra). * See the Continuator of Florence. 5 Will. Malms. DATE OF THE CHARTER. 49 that he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explana- tion 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 other- wise have been ruinous to his prestige. 1 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. 2 In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh Bigod ; 8 and either to this, or to his preceding East Anglian campaign, we may safely assign his charter, granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Beading. 4 Now, the first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville him- self, 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 1 See p. 81 as to the alleged " riot in London and death of Aubrey de Vere, three weeks before. * " Ad Pentecostem ivit rex cum exercitu suo super Hugonem Bigod in Sudfolc " Ann. Wav. (Ann. Hon., ii. 228). 3 " Item in Augusto perrexit super eum et concordati suut, sed non diu duravit" (ibid.). 4 Printed in ArchseologicalJournal, xx. 291. Its second witness is Richard de Luci, whom I have not elsewhere found attesting before Christmas, 1141. 50 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. could not with prudence refuse his demand for an earldom. 1 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. 2 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 dis- tinctly 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. 3 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 re- placed 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, 1 If, as would seem, Hugh Bigod appears first as an earl at the battle of Lincoln, when he fought on Stephen's side, it may well be that the "concordia" between them in August, 1140, similarly comprised the con- cession by the king of comital rank. On the other hand, there is a note- worthy charter (Harl. Cart., 43, c. 13) of Stephen, which seems to belong to the winter of 1140-1, to which Hugh Bigod is witness, not as an earl, so that his creation may have taken place very shortly before Stephen's fall. As this charter, according to Mr. Birch, has the second type of Stephen's seal, it strengthens the view advanced in the text. J Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. xi., New Series. * Mr. Birch points out the interesting fact that while the earlier type has an affinity to that of the great seal of Henry I., the later approximates to that adopted under Henry II. GREAT SEALS OF STEPHEN.' 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 pre- served among the records of the duchy of Lancaster. 1 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 capturte, 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 ? 2 And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself 3 : " S. Eex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abba- tibus Comitibus Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis totius AngliaB salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de 1 Royal Charters, No. 1 5. See my Ancient CJiarters, p. 39. * Dr. Stubbs observes that the consequence of the arrest was that " the whole administration of the country ceased to work " (Const. Hist., i. 326). 8 Cotton Charter, vii. 4. See Frontispiece. 52 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. Gaufr[ido] de Magnauilla de Comitatu Essexfe] heredi- tarie. Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod ipse et keredes sui post eum hereditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus ineis bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terra mea 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 Ipra et Henr[ico] de Essexa l et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Eob[erti] filpi] Walt[eri] 2 et Eob[erto] de Nouo burgo 3 et Mainf en [ino] Briton 4 et Turg[esio] de Abrinc[is] 5 et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro 6 et Wil- 1 This is the well-known Henry de Essex (see Appendix U), son of Robert (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.), and grandson of Swegen of Essex (Domes- day). He witnessed several of Stephen's charters, probably later in the reign, but was also a witness to the Empress's charters to the Earls of Oxford and of Essex (vide post). 2 A John, son of Robert fitz Walter (sheriff of East Anglia, temp. Hen. I.), occurs in Ramsey Cartulary, i. 149. 3 Robert de Neufbourg, said to have been a younger son of Henry, Earl of Warwick, occurs in connection with Warwickshire in 1130 (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.). Mr. Yeatman characteristically advances " the idea that Robert de Arundel and Robert de Novoburgo were identical." He was afterwards Justiciary of Normandy (Ord. Vit.), having sided with Geoffrey of Anjou (Rot. Scacc. Norm.). He is mentioned in the Pipe-Rolls of 2 and 4 Henry II. According to Dugdale, he died (on the authority of the Chronico'h Nor- mannise), in August, 1158, a date followed by Mr. Yeatman. Mr. Eyton, however (Court and Itinerary, p. 47), on the same authority (with a reference also to Gervasc, which I cannot verify) makes him die in August, 1159. The true date seems to have been August 30, 1159, when he died at Bee (Robert de Torigni). 4 The Maenfiniuus Brito (Mr. Birch reads " Mamseu "), who, in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 100), was late sheriff of Bucks, and Beds. Probably father of Hamo filius Meinfelini, the Bucks, baron of 1166 (Carte). See also p. 201, n. 2. 5 Turgis d'Avranches appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as having married the widow of Hugh " de Albertivilla." We shall find him witness- ing Stephen's second charter to the earl (Christmas, 1141). 6 William de St. Clare occurs in Dorset and Huntingdonshire in 1130 (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.). He was, I presume, of the same family as Hamon de St. Clare, custos of Colchester in 1130 (ibid.), who was among the wit- nesses to Stephen's Charter of Librrties (Oxford) in 1136. GEOFFREY CREATED EARL OF ESSEX. 53 l[elmjo de Dammart[in] l et Eic[ardo] fil[io] Ursi 2 et Wil- l[elm]o de Auco 3 et Eic[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti] 4 et Radulfo de Wiret 5 (sic) et Eglinfo] 6 et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi] 7 et Will[elmo] filio Ernald[i]. 8 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. 9 1 Odo de Dammartin states in his Carta (1166) that he held one fee (in Norfolk) of the king, of which he had enf^offed, temp. Hen. I., his brother, William de Dammartin. 8 Bichard fitz Urse is of special interest as the father (see Liber Niger) of Keginald fitz Urse, one of Becket's murderers. He occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Eoll of 31 Hen. I. After this charter he reappears at the battle of Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141) : " Capitur etiam Ricardus filius Ursi, qui in ictibus dandis recipiendisque clarus et gloriosus comparuit" (Hen. Hunt., p. 274). For his marriage to Sybil, daughter of Baldwin de Boilers by Sybil de Falaise (neptis of Henry I.), see Eytou's Shropshire, xi. 127, and Genealogist, N.S., iii. 195. One would welcome information on his connection, if any, with the terrible sheriff, Urse d'Abetot, and his impetuous son; but I know of none. * -William de Eu appears as a tenant of four knights' fees de veteri feoffa- mento under Mandeville in the Liber Niger. * Richard fitz Osbert similarly figures (Liber Niger) as a tenant of four knights' fees de veteri feoffamento. He also held a knight's fee of the Bishop of Ely in Cambridgeshire. An Osbert fitz Richard, probably his son, attests a charter of Geoifrey's son, Earl William, to Walden Abbey. 5 A Ralph de Worcester occurs in the Cari.se, and elsewhere under Henry II. 6 " Eglino," an unusual name, probably represents " Egelino de Furnis," who attests a charter of Stephen at Eye (Formularium Anglicanum, p. 154). 7 William fitz Alfred held one fee of Mandeville de novo feoffamento. He also attests the earl's foundation charter of Waldeu Abbey (Mon. Aug., iv. 149). A William fitz Alfred occurs, also, in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. 8 William fitz Ernald similarly held one knight's fee de novo feoffamento. He also attests the above foundation charter just after William fitz Alfred. 9 See Appendix D, on " Fiscal Earls." 54 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING. We must now pass from the grant of this charter to the great day of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the for- tunes of England and her king were changed "in the twinkling of an eye " by the wild charge of " the Dis- inherited," as they rode for death or victory. 1 1 "Acies exhseredatorum, quse prseibat, percussit aciem regalem . . . tanto impetu, quod statim, quasi in iotu oculi, dissipata est. ( 55 ) CHAPTER III. TEIUMPH OF THE EMPBESS. 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, 1 on September 30, 1139, 2 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, 3 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. 4 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. 5 Escorted by him, she removed to Gloucester, of which he was hereditary cas- 1 Will Malms., p. 724 ; Gesta Stephani, p. 56. 2 Will. Malms., p. 724. See Appendix E. * Such are the alternatives presented by Henry of Huntingdon (p. 266). The treacherous counsel alluded to was that of his brother the legate (Gesta Stephani, p. 57). According to John of Hexham (Sym. Dun. ii. 302), Stephen acted " ex indiscreta anicai simpliotate." 4 Will Malms., p. 725. 4 See Appendix F : " The Defection of Miles of Gloucester." 56 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. tellan, and received the submission of that city, and of all the country round about. 1 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 2 : " Carta Matilde Imperatricis in qua dicit, quod 3 quando in Angliam venit post mortem H. patris sui 4 Milo de Gloecestra quam citius potuit venit ad se 5 apud Bristolliam et recepit me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hseredem regni Anglise recognovit, et inde me secum ad Gloecestram adduxit et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra omnes homines. Et volo vos scire quod tune quando homagium suum apud Gloecestram recepit, dedi ei pro servicio suo in feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis castellum de Sancto Bria- vel(li) et totam forestam de Dene," 6 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 Quin- quagesima Sunday (February 9). 7 It was at once decided that the king should be despatched to Bristol Castle, 8 and that he should be there kept a prisoner for life. 9 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 1 Will. Malms., p. 725 ; Cont. Flor., p. 118. Here the Contimmtor's chro- nology is irreconcilable with that of our other authorities. He states that the Empress removed to Gloucester on October 15, after a stay of two months at Bristol. This is, of course, consistent, it should be noticed, with the date (August 1) assigned by him for her landing. 2 The text is taken from the transcript in Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 123, collated with Dugdale's transcript in his MSS. at the Bodleian Library (L. 21). It will be seen that Dugdale transcribed verbatim, while the other transcript begins in narratio obliqua. 3 " Sciatis quod" (D.). 4 " Mei" (D.). 5 " Me" (D.). 8 These were specially exccptcd from the grants of royal demesne made by Henry II. to his son, the second earl. 7 Cont. Flor., p. 129 ; Will. Malms., p. 742 ; Gesta, p. 72. Jlrid. ; John Hex., p. 30S ; Hen. Hunt., p. 275. 1J Gesta, p. 72. PROGRESS OF THE EMPRESS. 57 intoxicated with joy, and eager for the fruits of victory. 1 Within a fortnight of the battle, she set out from Gloucester, on what may be termed her first progress. 2 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, 3 to allow time for completing the negotiations with the legate. 4 It was finally agreed that, advancing to Winchester, she should meet him in an open space, without the walls, for a con- ference. This spot a charter of the Empress enables us apparently to identify with Wherwell. 5 Hither, on Sunday, the 2nd of March, a wet and gloomy day, 6 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. 7 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 1 " Ob illiusmodi eventum vehementer exhilirata, utpote regnutn sibi jura- turn, sicut sibi videbatur, jam adepta " (Cont. Flor., p. 130). 2 Cont. Flor., 130. 3 " Simul et ejusdem civitatis sumena domiuium " (ibid.). 4 "Ut ipsam tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omuls Anglia et Normannia jurata esset, incunctanter iu ecclesiam et regnum reciperet" (Will. Malms., p. 743). Compare the writer's description of the oath (1127) that the magnates " imperatricem incunctanter et sine ulla retractione dominam susciperent " (p. 690). s Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389. Mr. Hewlett asserts that the evidence of William of Malmesbury as to the date (2nd and 3rd of March) " is refuted " by this charter, which places them a fortnight earlier (Introduction to Gesta Stephani, p. xxii.). But I do not think the evidence of the charter is sufficiently strong to overthrow the accepted date. 8 " Pluvioso et nebuloso die " ( Will. Malms., p. 743). 7 Cont. Flor., p. 130 ; Will. Malms., p. 743. 58 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 On the morrow (March 8) the Empress entered Win- chester, and was received in state in the cathedral, the legate supporting her on the right, and Bernard of St. David's on the left. 2 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 inter- vening between them, during which the Empress left Win- chester 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 * " Juravit et affidavit imperatrix episcopo, quod omnia majora negotia in Anglia, precipueque donationes episcopatuum et abbatiarum, ejus nutum spectarent, si cam ipse in sancta ecclesia in dominam reciperet, et perpetuara ei fidelitatem teneret. Idem juraverunt cum ea, et affidaverunt pro ea, Robertas fratcr ejus conies de Gloecestra, et Brianus filius comitis marchio de Walingeford et Milo de Gloecestra, postea comes de Hereford, et nonnulli alii. Nee dubitavit episcopus imperatricem in dominam Anglise recipere et ei cum quibusdam suis affldare, quod, quamdiu ipsa pactum non infringeret, ipse quoque fidem ei custodiret" (Will. Malms., 743, 744). The parallel afforded by the customs of Bigorre, as recorded (it is alleged) in 1097, is so striking as to deserve being quoted here. Speaking of the reception of a new lord, they provide that "antequam habitatorum terree fldejussores accipiat, fide sua secures eos faciat ne extra consuetudines patrias vel eas in quibus eos invenerit aliquod educat ; hoc autem sacramento et fide quatuor nobiliura terrae faciat confirmari." 2 " Crastino, quod fuit quinto nonas Martii, honorifica facta procossione recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniae," etc., etc. (ibid.). THE EMPRESS AT WINCHESTER. 59 Empress, and to this he assigns its correct date. 1 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. 2 Professor Pearson, whose work is that which is generally used for this period, omits altogether the earlier episode. 3 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, 4 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 import- ance which belongs to the later. 5 Eightly 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." 6 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 posses- 1 Const. Hist., i. 326 (note) ; Early Plantagenets, 22. 2 English History for the Use of Public Schools, i. 83. The mistake may have arisen from a eoufusion with the departure of the Empress from Win- chester a few days (" paucis post diebus ") after her reception. 3 History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, i. 478. 4 Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 377-380. s Norm. Conq., v. 303. At the same time it is right to add that this is not a question of accuracy, but merely of treatment. In the marginal notes the two episodes are respectively assigned to their correct dates. Const. Hist., i. 318. 60 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. sion of Winchester. Winchester first, and then London, was a rule that thus enjoyed the sanction of four succes- sive 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 con- tention that the Empress was, on this occasion (March 3), elected " dornina Anglise." 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 Anglise, 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 com- pare 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 hseredem rcgni Anglise recognovit . . . et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie contra omnes homines." 1 1 Compare also, even further back, the action, in Normandy, of Gingan Algasil in December, 1135, who, on the appearance of the Empress, " [earn] RECEPTION OF THE EMPRESS. 6 1 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 ' Nee dubitavit Episcopus Imperatricem in Dominam Angliee recipere' (sic). In another place the same Henry de Blois declares of her, ' In Auglise Normanniseque Dominam eligimus ' (sic). This regular election of Mathildis to the dignity and office of Domina Anglise 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, 1 while the other refers to the earlier. 2 I have drawn attention to the two words (recipere and eligimus) which he respectively applies to the "recep- tion " and the " election." The description of this "recep- tion " by William of Malmesbury 8 completely tallies with that which is given by the Empress herself in a charter. 4 It should further be compared with the account by the author of the Gesta Stephani, of the similar reception accorded to Stephen in 1135. 5 But though the legate could open to the Empress the cathedral and the cathedral city, he had no power over ut naturalem dominam suscepit, eique . . . oppida quibus ut vicecomes, jubente rege prseerat, subegit " (Ord. Vit., v. 56). 1 Will. Malms., p. 747. * Ibid., p. 743. * " Honorifica facta processione recepta est in ecclesia " (p. 744). 4 " Idem prelatus et cives Wintonie honorifice in ecclesia et urbe Win- tonie me receperunt " (Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 378) " Prsesul Wintonie . . . cum dignioribus Wintonie civibus obvius ei advenit, habitoque in communi brevi colloquio, in civitatem, secundam dun- taxat regni sedem, honorifice induxit " (p. 5). Note that in each case the " colloquium" preceded the entry. 62 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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 1'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. 1 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 facta processione, recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintonise.' We must, therefore, see only rhetoric when the Continuator says, ' Datur ejus dominio corona Angliae/ and when the author of the Gesta (75) speaks of 'regisque castello, et regni corona, quam semper ardentissime affectarat, ... in deliberationem suam contraditis,' and adds that Henry 'dominam et reginam acclamare prsecepit.' The Waverley Annalist, 1141, ventures to say, ' Corona regni est ei tradita.' " 2 "Only rhetoric." Ah, how easily could history be written, if one could thus dispose of inconvenient evi- dence ! 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 pre- served in the royal treasury, the passage by which he is so sorely puzzled would have proved simplicity itself. 3 1 "Eegisque castello, et regni corona, quam semper ardentissime' affect arat thesaurisque quos licet perpaucos rex ibi reliquerat, in deliberationem suam contraditis " {Gesta, 75). * Norm. Conquest, v. 304 (note). 1 As an instance of the crown being kept at Winchester, take the entry in THE TREASURY SECURED. 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 contine- batur "), which was formally handed over to him with all that it contained ("arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico reddita est "). 1 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 prsecepit." 2 By a strange coincidence it has been misconstrued by both writers independently. Mr. Freeman, as we saw, takes " prsecepit " as referring to Henry himself, and so does Mr. Birch. 3 Though the sentence as a whole may be obscure, yet the passage quoted is quite clear. The words are "prsecepit se," not "praecepit 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 inconsis- tent. But as it is, the difficulty vanishes. 4 To the double style, "domina et regina," I have made the Pipe-Boll of 4 Hen. II. : " In conducendis coronis Kegis ad Wirecestre de Wintonia," the crowns being taken out to be worn at Worcester, Easter, 1158. Oddly enough, Mr. Freeman himself alludes, in its place, to a similar taking out of the crown, from the treasury at Winchester, to be worn at York, Christmas, 1069. The words of Ordericus, as quoted by him, are : " Guillel- mus ex civitate Guenta jubet adferri coronam, aliaque ornamenta regalia et vasa " (cf. Dialogus, I. 14). 1 Ordericus Vitalis. * Gesta, 75 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 378. 3 " He (sic) ordered that she should be proclaimed lady and queen." 4 The Gesta itself is, on this point, conclusive, for it distinctly states that the Empress " solito severius, solito et arrogantius procedere et loqui, et cuncta crapit peragere, adeo ut in ipso mox domini sui capite reginam se totius Anglise fecerit, et gloriata fuerit appellari." 64 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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 assump- tion 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 im- petuous, 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 "praesules pene totius AngliaD, 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. 1 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 proclama- tion 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. 2 1 Will. Malms., 744. 2 To this visit (if the only occasion on which she was at Winchester in MOVEMENTS OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 Theobald, however, professed himself unable to render her homage until he had received from the king his gracious permission to do so. 2 For this purpose he went on to Bristol, while the Empress made her way to Oxford, and there spent Easter (March 30th). 3 We must probably assign to this occasion her admission to Oxford by Robert d'Oilli. 4 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, 5 and so does Mr. Franck Bright. 6 But the movements of the Empress, at this stage, are the spring) must belong the Empress's charter to Thurstan de Montfort. As it is not comprised in Mr. Birch's collection, I subjoin it in extenso (from Dugdale's MSS.): "M. Imperatrix H. Kegis filia Rogero Comiti de Warwick et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Warewicscire salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Thurstino de Monteforti quod habeat mercatuin die dominica ad castellum suum de Bellodeserto. Volo igitur et firmiter praecipib quatenus omnes euntes, et stantes, et redeuntes de Mercato prsedicto habeaut firmam pacem. T. Milone de Glocestria. Apud Wintoniam." As Milo attests not as an earl, this charter cannot belong to the subse- quent visit to Winchester in the summer. The author of the Gesta mentions the Earl of Warwick among those who joined the Empress at once " sponte nulloque cogente." 1 Cent. Flor. Wig., p. 130. 2 This he did on the ground that the recognition of Stephen as king by the pope, in 1136, was binding on all ecclesiastics (Uistoria Pontificalia). Vide infra, p. 69, n. 1. * Will. Malms., p. 744. Oddly enough, Miss Norgate gives this very reference for her statement that in a few days the Archbishop of Canterbury followed the legate's example, and swore fealty to the Empress at Wilton. 4 " Convenitur ibi ab eadem de prinoipibus unus, vocabulo Eobertus de Oileio, de reddendo Oxenfordensi castello ; quo consentiente, venit ilia, totiusque civitatis et circumjacentis egionis suscepit dorninium atque hominium " (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 131). 5 " She then made her way to London by a roundabout path. She was received at Oxford by the younger Robert of Oily," etc. (Norm. Conq., v. 306). 8 English History, I. 83. F 66 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. really difficult to determine. Between her presence at Oxford (March 30) 1 and her presence at Reading (May 5-7), 2 we know nothing for certain. One would imagine that she must have attended her own election at Win- chester (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 Eobert 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 Gcsta, even before that of the Bishop of Winchester, thus further confirming the chronology advanced above. 3 At Oxford she received the submission of all the adjacent country, 4 and also executed an important charter. This charter Mr. Birch has printed, having apparently collated for the purpose no less than five copies. 5 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 Mont fort), but it is also the only one of her charters in which we find the royal phrases " eccle- Bi&rvmregnimei" and " pertinentibus coronas mese." Mr. 1 Witt. Malms. 2 Cont. Flor. Wig. * " Aliis quoque sponte, nulloque cogeute, ad comitissse imperium conver- Bis (ut Robertas de OH, civitatis Oxenefordise sub rege prseceptor, et comes ille de Warwic, viri molles, et deliciis magis quam animi fortitudine afflu- entes)"(p. 74). 4 Cont. Flor. Wig. (ut supra). * Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388,389. It will also be found in the Monasticon (iii. 87). THE EMPRESS AT OXFORD. 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 com- menced,,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. 1 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 circum- stance 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 Mat" does not style her- self Queen, she asserts in the deed Eoyal rights and speaks of matters pertaining ' coronse mese.' 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 Rob- 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." 2 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 ("B. episcopo Londoniensi "), his presence is natural, as he was a monk of Beading, and his position would seem to be paralleled 1 Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. p. 379. * Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 118. 68 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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, 1 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 comitc filio regis." This would seem to place his creation between the dates of these charters, i.e. circ. April (1141). 2 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. 1 Ang. Sax. Chron., A.D. 1100. 2 Belying on the explicit statement of the chronicler (Will. Malms., p. 732), that the Earl of Gloucester " fratrem etiam suum Reinaldnm in tanta difficultate temporis comitem Cornubise creavit," historians and antiquaries have assigned thia creation to 1140 (see Stubbs' Const. Hist., i. 362, n. ; Court- hope's Historic Peerage ; Doyle's Official Baronage). In the version of Reginald's success given by the author of the Gesta, there is no mention of this creation, but that may, of course, be rejected as merely negative evi- dence. The above charter, however, certainly raises the question whether he had indeed been created earl at the time when he thus attested it. The point may be deemed of some importance as involving the question whether the Empress did really create an earl before the triumph of her cause. ELECTION OF THE EMPRESS. 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." 1 This latter phrase may, however, be ques- tioned, 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. 2 On the 8th the legate announced to the Assembly the result of the previous day's con- clave : "filiam pacific! regis ... in Angliae Normanniseque dominam eligimus, et ei fidem et manutenementum promittimus." 3 On the 9th, the deputation summoned from London arrived and was informed of the decision ; on the 10th the assembly was dissolved. 1 " Concilium archiepiscopi Cantuariae Thedbaldi, et omnium episcoporum Anglise" (p. 744). Strange to say, Professor Pearson (I. 478) states that " Theobald remained faithful " to Stephen, though he had now formally joined the Empress. On the other hand, " Stephen's queen and William of Ypres" are represented by him as present, though they were far away, preparing for resistance. An important allusion to the primate's conduct at this time is found (under 1148) in the Historia Pontificalis (Pertz's Monu- menta Historica, vol. xx.), where we read "propter obedienciam sedis apostolicse proscriptus fuerat, quando urgente mandate domni Henrici Wiu- toniensis episcopi tune legationem fungentis in Anglia post alios episcopos omnes receperat Imperatricem . . . licet inimicissimos habuerit regem et consiliarios suos." 2 " Si qui defuerunt, legatis et literis causas cur non venissent dederuiit. . . . Egregie quippe memini, ipsa die, post recitata scripta excusatoria quibus absentiam suam quidem tutati sunt," etc. (Will. Malms., pp. 744, 745). Is it possible that we have, in " legati," a hint at attendance by proxy ? 3 Ibid., p. 746. /O TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. The point I shall here select for discussion is the meaning of the term " domina Anglia3," and the effect of this election on the position of the Empress. First, as to the term " domina Angliae." 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 ("Angliae"). 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." 1 Mr. Albert Way, in a valuable paper on the charters belonging to Reading Abbey, which appeared some twenty-seven years later, 2 called attention to the styles " Anglorum lleyina " and " Anglorum Domina," as used by the Empress. 3 As to the former, he referred to the charter of the Empress at Reading, grant- ing lands to Reading Abbey. 4 As to the latter (" Domina Anglorum "), he quoted Mr. Hardy's paper on the charter 1 Archxologia, xxvii. 110. See the charter in question in the Pipe-Roll Society's " Ancient Charters," Part I., p. 92. 2 Arch. Journ. (18GB), xx. 281-296. 3 Ibid., p. 283. Mr. Way adopts the extension "Anglorum" throughout. 4 " The only instances in which we have documentary evidence that she styled herself Queen of England occur in two charters of this period" (ibid.). THE EMPRESS AS " DOMINA" 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, 1 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." 2 But instead, unfortunately, of merely follow- ing 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 mean- while ? 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 3 ), the particulars of the conference held at Winchester subse- quent 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 1 Vide supra, pp. 61, 69. * Pp. xi-xiv. (see foot-notes). * The volume closes at p. 769. 72 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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 Archaeological Association, 1 in which, in the same words, he advanced the same thesis. The following year (June 28, 1876), in an instructive paper read before the Eoyal Society of Literature, 2 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 primaeval 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 Archxoloyical 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 1 " A Fasciculus of the Charters of Matliildis, Empress of the Germans, and an Account of her Great Seal" (Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass., xxxi. 370-398). 2 " On the Seals of King Henry the Second and of his Son, the so-called Henry the Third" (Transactions, vol. xi. part 2, New Series). MR. BIRCWS DISCOVERY. 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." 1 I fear that, notwithstanding Mr. Birch's criticism on all who have gone before him, a careful analysis of the sub- ject 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 incom- prehensible 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 tem- porary title for the newly made monarch during the interval which was elapsing between the death of the 1 Pp. 2, 3. 74 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. predecessor and the coronation day of the living king." 1 To Mr. Hardy's instance of Richard's style, " Dominus Angl[iae]," August, 1189, we may add, I presume, that of John, " Dominus Anglise," April 17th and 29th, (1199). 2 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 Anglioe ' " (as Dr. Stubbs describes it 3 ), and to the words which William of Malmesbury places in the legate's mouth ; 4 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 praedicta, in regni dominant electa, . . . regi desponsatur " (ii. 75). That is to say that before her marriage (January 29) and formal coronation as queen (January 80) she was elected, it w r ould seem, "Domina Angliae." The phrase "in regni dominam electa " precisely describes the status of the Empress after her election at Winchester, and before that formal coronation at West- minster which, as I maintain, was fully intended to follow. We might even go further still, and hold that the descrip- tion of Adeliza as " futuram regni dominam," 5 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." e But I 1 Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 383. 2 Wells Liber Albus, fol. 10 {Hist. MSS. Report on Wells MSS.). 3 Const. Hist., i. 326, 341, 342. 4 " In Angliae Normanniaeque dominam eligimus." 3 Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. 75. See Addenda. Ibid. THE EMPRESS AS " DOMINA," 75 do not wish to press the parallel too far. In any case, precisely as with the Empress afterwards, she was clearly "domina Angliae" 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 " Bex." The " dominatus " of the Empress over England is attained step by step. 1 At Cirencester, at Winchester, at Oxford, she becomes " domina " in turn. 2 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. 3 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 con- secutive," 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 1 " Pleraque tuuc pars Anglise dominatum ejua suscipiebat " ( Will. Malms., p. 749}. 8 "Ejusdem civitatis suraens dominium . . . totiusque civitatis suscepit dominium," etc. (Cont. Flor. Wig.). 3 Journ. S. A. A., xxxi. 382, 383. 7 6 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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 Anglorurn 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 subse- quent 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. 388). 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 STYLE OF THE EMPRESS. 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 libera- tion 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). 7 8 TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS. 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 Con- quest, 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. 1 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 1 It is very singular that Mr. Freeman failed to perceive this parallel, since he himself writes of Henry (1100). " The Gemot of election was held at Winchester while the precedents of three reigns made it seem matter of necessity that the unction and coronation should be done at Westminster " (Will. Eufus, ii. 348). Such an admission as this is sufficient to prove my case. THE INTENDED CORONATION. 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 inde- feasible." i " 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 bo 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." 2 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." 3 1 Early Plantagenets, 22. 2 Const. Hist., i. 339. 3 Norm. Cong., v. 303, 304. The foot-note to this statement (" William of Malmesbury seems distinctly to exclude a coronation," etc., etc.) has been already given (ante, p. 62). Mr. Birch confusing, as we have seen, the reception of the Empress with her election, naturally looks, like Mr. Freeman, to the former as the time when she ought to have been crowned : " The crown of England's sovereigns was handed over to her, a kind of seizin representing that the kingdom of England was under the power of her hands (although it does not appear that any further ceremony connected with the rite of 8o TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS, 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." 1 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 impera- tricis neptis suae promotionem post Ascensionem Domini (May 8) ad earn in Suth-Anglia profectus est . . . pluri- mosque 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, " tarn episcopi quam cinguli militaris viri, qui ad dominant intlironizandam pompose Londonias et arroganter convenerant." 2 coronation was then performed) " (Journ.'B. A. A., xxxi. p. 378). This assumes that the crown was " handed over to her " at a " ceremony " in the cathedral, whereas, as I explained, my own view is that she obtained it with the royal castle. 1 Norm. Conq., v. p. 305. * Gesta, 79. In the word " inthronizandam," I contend, is to be found the confirmation of my theory, based on comparison and induction, of an intended coronation at Westminster. So fur as I know, attention has never been drawn to it before. CHAPTER IV. THE FIKST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 1 " Itaque multse fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse, ut, cum hsec statira post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent " (p. 748). 2 "Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus Mail Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris, Chron. Major., ii. 174). 3 Ibid. Q 82 777^ FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 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 Beading, 2 the Continuator's statement to that effect being confirmed by a charter which, to all appearance, passed on this occasion. 3 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 Eeginald (now an earl) 4 and Robert (fitz Edith). 5 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 (mid- summer), and they are also the five who (with the Bishop of Bath) had attended, in March, the Empress at Win- chester. 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. 6 1 Tlie Early History of Oxford, cap. x. 2 "Ad RHdingum infra Rogationes venieus, suscipitur cum honoribus, hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperiuin convolantibus" (Conf. Flor. Wig., 130). 3 Add. Chart. (Brit. Mus.), 19,576 ; Arch. Journ., xx. 289 ; Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389. 4 " Reginaldo comite filio regis." He had attested, as we have seen, an Oxford charter (circ. March 24) as Reginald " films regis " simply. This would seem to fix his creation to circ. April, 1141 (see p. 68). 5 " Roberto fratre ejus." 6 We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on this very point. There is printed in the Cartulary of Ramsey (Rolls Series), THE EMPRESS AS " REGINA." 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. 1 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, 2 the only other stage in her progress that is named is that of her reception at St. Albans. 3 In this case also the evidence of a charter confirms that of vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to William, Prior of Ely, and others, notifying the agreement he has made with Walter, Abbot of Ramsey: "Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de Rameseia consilio et assensu dominse nostrae Imperatricis et Epiacopi Wynton' Apost' sedis legati aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet Line', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis et Brienni et Milouis ad voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter mando et praecipio sicut me diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed cartulary, is dated " 1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a little research would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period in which the Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with her. This fixes it to March June, 1141. Independent of the great interest attaching to this document as representing a " concordia " in the court of the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of the personnel of her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops mentioned were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her court, and we may therefore, on the strength of this document, add those of " Chester " and Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So with the laity. Three of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not yet received the earldom of Hereford) were her constant companions, so that we may safely rely on this evidence for the presence at her court on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk. 1 Journ. P. A. A., xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had been Abbot of Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted. 2 See above, p. 66 . 3 " Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in monasterio Hancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo " (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131). 84 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. the chronicler. 1 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. 2 She then proceeded in state to Westminster, 8 no doubt by the Edgware Road, the old Eoman highway, and was probably met by the citizens and their rulers, according to the custom, at Knightsbridge. 4 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. 5 The Empress, according to William of Malmesbury, reached London only a few days before the 24th of June. 6 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. 7 This latter date we may certainly reject. If we combine the statement that her flight took 1 " Apud sanctum Albanum " (Ducliy of Lancaster : Royal Charters, No. 16 ; Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 388). 2 " Adeunt earn ibi cives multi ex Londonia, tractatur ibi sertuo multi- modus de reddeuda civitate" (C/ont. Flor. Wig., 131). 3 " Imperatrix, ut praediximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus, comitantibus secum prsesulibus ruultis et principibus, secura properavit ad urbern, et apud Westmonaaterium cum processional! suscipitur honorifi- centia " (ibid.). 4 i.e. Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for tbis custom, the Chronicles of the Mayors of London, which record how, a century later (1257), upon the king approaching Westminster, " exierunt Maior et cives, sicut mos est ad salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge " (p. 31). The Continuator (p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens (" cum honore sus- ceperunt "). s "Videus itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis suce promotionem, post Asceusionem Domini ad earn in Suthaugliain profectus est : . . . Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium" (Sym. Dun., ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election, I have taken this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p. 80). Cf. p. 5, n. 5. 6 " Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus." 7 "Cives . . . Imperatricem . . . favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo [al. Sexto] Kal. Mali." THE EMPRESS AT LONDON. 85 place on Midsummer Day l with that of the Continuator that her visit lasted for " some days," 2 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 com- posed 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. 3 It must be remembered 1 See the Liber de Antiquis Legibus : " Tandem a London eusibus expulsa est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet. 2 " Ibique aliquantis diebus . . . resedit " (p. 131). 3 " [Legatus] rem exanimans, prsescriptam factionem invenit, fautoribusque ipsius digna animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in Episcopum nisi canonica electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo interdixit omnem ecclesiasticam communiouem, si Episcopatum susciperet nisi Canonice pro- inotus. Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistse. Pactus erat Willelmus ab Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere ; et data hsec ei essent, nisi, facta a Loudoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis discederet ipso die a Lon- donia Imperatrix." Continuatio Historic Turgoti (Anglia Sacra, i. 711). 86 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 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 " ; 2 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 compara- tively insignificant precept 3 ) which can be positively This passage further proves (though, indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) that the legate remained in London till the actn.il flight of the Empress. It also illustrates their discordance. 1 " Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa haec erat: Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consul tarn esse, et noraiuatim de illo queui Kobertus Archidiaconus nominaret, e-t quod de illo vellet, et de alio omnino nollet. Quaesituui est ergo quis hie esset. Kesponsum est quod Willelnius " (ibid.). This has, of course, an important bearing on the question of episcopal election. Strong though the terms of her letter appear to have been, the Empress here waives the right, on which her father and her son insisted, of having the election conducted in her presence and in her own chapel, and anticipated the later practice introduced by the charter of John. 2 Add. MSS., 31,943, fol.97. So toofol. 115 : "After June 24, 1141, when the Empress was received in London; before July 05, when Milo was created Earl of Hereford." 3 Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 387). It is possible that the chartpr to Christ Church, London (ibid., p. 388), may also belong to this occasion ; but, even if so, it is of no importance. IMPORTANCE OF THE CHARTER. 87 assigned to this visit. 1 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 instruc- tive documents of this obscure and eventful period. Of the original, now among the Cottonian Charters (xvi. 27), Mr. Birch, who is exceptionally qualified to pro- nounce upon these subjects, has given us as complete a transcript as it is now possible to obtain. 2 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, 3 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. 4 1 A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G. 2 Journ. B. A. A., pp. 384-386. 3 The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are supplied from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets. 4 Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted 88 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. The accuracy of my authorities can be tested by colla- tion 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 Ordinea Anglicani, 1 from which it is quoted by Selden in his well- known Titles of Honour* 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,'* as also in the Third Eeport itself (where the marginal reference, however, is wrong). 4 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). Archiepis. M. Imperatrix regis Henrici filia Archiepiscopis Epis- copis, etc." CD.). copis Abbatibus (Comitibus Baronibus Justiciary's Vice- altogether, and Ralph Lovell becomes Ralph de London. Dugdale has, of course, misled Mr. Birch. 1 Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known edition of the Britannia (1772), vol. i. p. 125. 2 Second edition, p. 647. 3 Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829). 4 Page 164. TEXT OF THE CHARTER. 89 comitibus et ministris et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus) suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliee et Normanniee salutem. (Sciatis omnes tarn preesentes quam futuri quod Ego '' D ^ iant " Matildis regis Henrici filia et Anglor[um] domina) do ^"^J.^v concede Gaufrido de Magnavilla (pro servitio suo et here- 'KJaifrido" dibus suis post eiam hereditabiliter ut sit comes de Es- "Essexa- (D.); "Es- sex[ia] et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitis sex> " ( A ->- sicut comes habere debet in comitatu suo 1 in omnibus ^P, 1 ^'. rebus, et prseter hoc reddo illi in feodo et hereditate de me t^"*" et heredibus meis totam terram quam) tenuit 2 (Gaufridus (ixj m] de Magnavilla avus suus et Serlo de Matom in Anglia et Normannia ita libere et 2 ) bene et quiete sicut aliquis ante- cessorum suorum illam unquam melius (et liberius tenuit, vel ipsemet) postea (aliquo in tempore, sibi dico) et here- dibus suis (post eum), et concedo illi et heredibus suis Custodiam turris Londonie (cum parvo Castello quod) fuit "London (A.); "Lon- Eavengeri in feodo et hereditate de me (et heredibus) meis domas"(D.). cum terris et liberationibus et omnibus Consuetudinibus quae ad (eandem terram 3 ) pertinerent, et ut inforciet ilia" 161 "" secundum voluntatem suam. (Et similiter 4 ) do ei et " p? rtinat " (A.) ; " per- concedo et heredibus suis C libratas terrse de me et de tinent "( D )- (heredibus) meis in dominio, videlicet Niweport 5 pro "Newport" tanto quantum reddere solebat die qua rex HTenricusl -Henricus J rex "(A.). pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, et*ad rem(ovend') merca- tum de Niweport in Castellum suum de Waldena cum -Newport - (A.). omnibus Consuetudinibus que prius mercato illi melius 1 " Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitia sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo " (Camden). 2 Mr. Birch reads " tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words. 3 Mr. Birch for " eandem terram " (rectiut " turrem ") conjectures " illam/' 4 Mr. Birch conjectures " Preterea." * Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden. QO THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. -passage- pertinuerunt in (Thelon[eo] et passag[io] l ) et aliis con- Newport- suetudinibus, (et) ut vie de Niweport quas sunt juxta littus aquae 2 dirigantur ex consuetudine ad Waledenam (sup[er] foris)facturam meam et Mercatum de Waldena sit ad diem dictani" dominicam et ad diem Jovis et ut feria 3 habeatur apud (A.). " vigiiia Waledenam et incipiat in (Vigilia Pentecost 4 ) et duret Pentecost " (A.); -vigil- p er totam hebdomadam pentecostes Et Meldonam 5 ad pentecostes" perficiendum predictas C libratas terrse pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die qua (Bex Henricus fuit) vivus et rnortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis et rebus que adjacebant in terra et mari ad Burgum illud predicto die mortis Begis ^quanto" jjenrici, et (Deopedenam 6 ) similiter pro tanto quantum (D q " iUlt inde reddi solebat die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mor- tuus cum omnibus Appendiciis suis et Boscum de chatelega 7 "etsi"m cum (hominibus pro) 8 xx solidis, et terrain de Banhunta 9 mnittedinA. p ro xl solidis, et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas eifd"" (ix). perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexa (aut in Hert)- "Heortforde- . , . . A ,. 8- Comitis in omnibus rebus ita quod ipse vel aliquis hominum suorum non (ponantur 3 in ullo modo) in placitum de ui? " a (D.Y aliquo forisfacto quod fecissent antequam homo meusfactus (n.)T"pia- esset, nee pro aliquo forisfacto quod facturus sit in (antea ponatur in) placit[um] de feodo vel Castello vel terra vel tenura quam ei concesserim quamdiu se defendere potuerit de scelere sive (traditione) ad corpus meum u machinator" (ibid., p. 98). He is affiliated by the editors of Ordericus (Societe de PHistoire de France) as "Robert fils de Herbrand de Sauque- ville " (iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn that he had refused to embark upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, who held five fees from the Abbot of Sherborne and five from the Bishop of Salisbury in 1166. 2 As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give both versions : DUGDALE MS. ASHMOLE MS. " Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. " Rad lovell et Rud Painell et W. Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil. Maminotet Roberto filio R. etRoberio Martin et Rob' fil Heldebraud' apud filio Martin Roberto filio Eaidebrandi Westmonasterium." apud Oxford." The three last words are added in a different hand, and " Oxford " appears to have been substituted for " Westmr " by yet another hand. ' William de Moiun (Mohun) had attested eo nomine the charter to Glastonbury (Journ. B. A. A., xxxi. 389 ; Adam de Domerham) which pro- bably passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at Winchester (see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as " Comite Willelmo de Moion." This fixes his creation as April June, 1141. Courthope gives no date for the creation, and no authority but his foundation-charter to Bruton, in which he styles himself "Comes Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following him, gives (under " dates and authorities for the empress's earldoms ") no date and no further authority (Const. Hist., i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his learned and valuable monograph on Uunster and its Lords (1882), quotes the Gesta Stephani for the fact " that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, the empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset " (p. 6). But Winchester was besieged in (August September) 1141, not in 96 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. country 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 presump- tion 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. 1 Or, indeed, we may compare it, to some disadvantage, with that of the Empress herself a month later at Oxford. 2 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, 3 and her harshness to the king, 4 kept the magnates from attending her court. 5 Her inability to repel the queen's forces, and 1140, and though the writer does speak of " Willelmus de Mohun, quern comitem ibi statuit Dorsetiae " (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates the creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same siege (cf. pp. 125, n., 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking care, places the creation (on the same authority) "before September, 1141" (which happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns his use of the above style ("comes Somersetensia ") to 1142. See also, on this point, p. 277 infra. 1 Seep. 143. * The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester. 3 "Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilein . . . et omnium fere corda a se alienavit " {lien. Hunt., 275). 4 " Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto et custodise ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem causa et a majoribus seu primoribus Anglias ; ... at ilia non exaudivit eos" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 132). 5 All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter passed at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and his state- ment to that effect in his Baronage. There is nothing in the charter (except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this statement, which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter ; but, unfortunately, the transcript I have quoted from gives Oxford as the place of testing. But, then, the word {vide supra) appears to have been added in a later hand, and may have been inserted from confusion with the Empress's second charter to Geoffrey, which did pass at Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why CONTRAST WITH STEPHENS CHARTER. 97 her instant flight before the Londoners, are alike sugges- tive 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." l 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 Magna- villa . . . 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 Glocestria Comi- tem "), 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. 2 But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage aspect of this charter, let us see how it illustrates the this charter may not have passed at Oxford, though its subject makes West- minster, perhaps, the more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no doubt whatever that Westminster was the place. 1 See p. 42. * See Appendix H : " The Tertius Denarius." H 98 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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." 1 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." 2 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. 3 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 1 Const. Hist., i. 362. 2 This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H. 3 Cf. William of Malmesbury : "Hi prsedia, hi castella, postremo quse- cunque semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur." GEOFFREY RAISES HIS DEMANDS. 99 of Crown lands " spoken of by Dr. Stubbs and by Gneist. 1 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 grant- ing Geoffrey, for this is its effect, 100 a year in land (" C libratas terrse "). Stephen, we shall find, a few months later, regains him to his side by increasing the bid to 300 a year (" CCC libratas terras "). 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.* From the earliest Pipe-Bolls now remaining we know that the estates so alienated were usually entered by the sheriff under the head of " Terras Datfe," 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 1 See also Mr. S. E. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in vol. xiii. of the Antiquary. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive alienations of these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms." 8 " Quod auferat de summfi, firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi." 100 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. to reconcile myself to the accepted view, as set forth by Dr. Stubbs, of the " stoppage of the administrative machinery " l 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." 3 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 qua Eex 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 8 that the ferm of a town, as in the case of Hunting- don, was in truth the aggregate of several distinct and separate ferms, so the ferm of a county must have com- prised 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 1 Select Charters. * Const. Hist., i. 326, 327. * Domesday Studies, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887. GRANTS OF LANDS. IOI 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 Eichard de Luci, and in the early Pipe-Eolls of Henry II. we read, under " Terrse Datse " in Essex, "Bicardo de Luci quater xx librse 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 : " Tune Manerium valuit xxxvi libras. Modo Ix. Sed vicecomes recipit inde Ixxx libras et c sjlidos 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, 1 or, as in that of Maldon and Newport, in the formula " quantum inde reddi solebat" at the death of Henry I., this for- mula 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. 2 1 It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can compare the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it " pro xl solidis." In Domesday we read " Tune et post valuit xl solidos. Modo Iv " (ii. 93). * See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in the Chronicle of Ramsey (p. 287): " Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de Bameseia ut ad LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA mwrnomr 102 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. But it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of evidence which forms a connecting link between Domes- day 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 else- where 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, 1 being that manor of Crown demesne which the Empress here bestows upon Geoffrey. fir mam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde quoque anno quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne vicecomes plus ab eo requirat." 1 "Die qua dedi Manerium illud [de Meldona] Comiti Theobaldo." Westminster Abbey Charters (Madox's Flaroma, p. 232, noto). GRANTS OF KNIGHT-SERVICE. 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." l 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 . . . mili- tum " of the Empress. And, further, it repeats the remarkable expression employed by Florence of Worcester when he tells us that the Conqueror instructed the Domes- day 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 istoruni 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 i 1 Const. Hist., i. 260. See my articles on the " Introduction of Knight Service into England " in English Historical Review, July and October, 1891, January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439). 104 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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 terra*. " 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," l 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. 2 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-Koll of 1130 is the solitary but vivid 1 The lands were granted " pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," aud the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) " pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7 knights' service (as also in the Liber Niger). 2 "Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei*.in loco competenti in Essexia aut in Hertfordescira aut in Cantebriggscira . . . . et totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis tribus comitatibus." THE RETROGRADE CONCESSIONS. 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 pecuniae dona- tione," and that " Eectum eis teneatur de eorum calump- niis sine pecunise donatione." The exactions he dreaded meet us at every turn on the Pipe-Eoll 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 sub- jection 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 Essexia hereditabiliter mea et here- dura meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam justiciara 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 Essexia." Here we have the 106 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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. 1 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 repre- sentative 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 de- pendent upon the eorl, but upon the personal orders of 1 Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the Curia Kegis, presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing other judges also called justiciars, the chief being occasionally distinguished by the title of ' summus,' ' magnus,' or ' capitalis ' " (Const. Hist., i. 377). But, in another place, he points out, of the Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that " several other ministers receive the same name \Justitiarius] even during the time at which he was actually in office ; even the title of capitalis justitiarius is given to officers of the Curia Regis who were acting in subordination to him " (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the whole it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the style "capi- talis" was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the reign of Henrv II. (i. 350). THE SHERIFF AND THE JUSTICE. 107 the king, and upon the organs of the Norman central ad- ministration " (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." 1 But Gneist treats of him, under a separate heading, in his capacity of " royal justiciary " (i. 142). It is from this dual posi- tion 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. 2 In the latter case, the royal officer ("jus- ticia ") 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 arrange- ment 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. 3 But with this arrangement 1 Const. Hist., i. 389, note. * See Appendix I. * I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that " A better spirit is infused IO8 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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). l The same policy was faithfully followed by his grandson, a generation later, on the occa- sion 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 in- fluence, as well as more skilled administrators another step towards the concentration of the provincial jurisdiction under the Curia Regis." 2 into this portion of the legal administration by the severance of the farm- interest (firma) from the judicial functions, which was effected by the appointment of royal jmtitiarii in the place of the vicecomes. The reser- vation of the royal right of interference now develops into a periodical delegation of matters to criminal judges " (i. 180). It is probable that this eminent jurist has a right conception of the change, and that, if it is obscured, it is only by his mode of expression. But, when arguing from the laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to pleas " in firma," he might, if one may venture to say so, have added the higher evidence of Domesday. There are several passages in the Great Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the most noteworthy is, I think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrews- bury: " Siquis pacem regis manu propria datani scienter infringebat utlagus fiebat. Qui vero pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos emendabat, et tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat. Has Hi forisfacturas habebat in dominio rex E. in omni Anglia extra firmas " (i. 152). 1 See Appendix I : " Vicecomites " and " Custodes." 2 Select Charters, 141. JURISDICTION FEUDALIZED. 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 central- izing 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 differen- tiation 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 " Eicardo de Luci Justic' et Vicecomiti de Essexa," on which Madox relies for Eichard's tenure of the post of chief justiciary. 1 It may be that Eichard'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 1 FOBB'S Judges, i. 145. 110 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EM 'PRESS. 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. CHARTER OF HENRY I. TO LONDON. " Ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, etjustitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis ad custodiendum pla- cita coronse mese et eadem placitanda ; et nullus alius erit Justitiarius super ipsos homines Lon- doniarum." CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO GEOFFREY. " Concedo ei et heredibus suis . . . vicecomitatum Essexie. Et ut sit Capitalis Justicia . . . de pla- citis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coro- nam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam Justiciam super eum in comitatu illo," etc. CHARTER OF EICHARD I. TO COLCHESTER. " Ipsi ponant de se ipsis Ballivos quoscun- que voluerint et Jus- ticiam ad servanda placitaCoronse nostrae et ad placitanda eadem placita infra Burgum suum et quod nullus alius sit- inde Justicia nisi quern elegerint." Here we have the two offices similarly distinct through- out. 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 THE CROWN OFFICERS OUSTED. Ill passage (xi. 2) describing Henry's ministers, tells us how the king " favorabiliter illi obsequentes de ignobili stirpe illustravit, de pulvere, nt 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 potesta- tum 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 (" ali- quando ") ; 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 him- self. 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. Kef erring 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 THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. detected one sign of the anti-feudal policy which the king had all his life to maintain." * But the clauses in question, though their sweeping cha- racter fully justifies this description, 2 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 Aqtiitan' et Comes Andegav', justiciariis Vicecomitibus et omnibus ministris suis de Eborac'sir et de Nordhummerlanda salutem. Sciatis quod consilio Baronum meorum, 8 et Episcopi Dunelmensis licencia, mitto hac vice in terram sancti Cuthberti justiciam meam, quse 4 videat ut fiat justicia secundum assisam meam de latronibus et murdra- toribus et roboratoribus ; 5 non quia velim ut trahatur in consuetudinem tempore meo vel heredum meorum, sed ad tempus hoc facio, pro praedicta 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." 6 1 Const. Hist., i. 470. * " Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nee in honore etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [sic] intrare in terrain suam vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, but a fortiori it would apply to the king's "justicia." * The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed " de consilio omnium baronum suorum." 4 Notice the "justicia . . . quse videat," as answering to the "aliquia . . . qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter. 5 These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout with ' robatores," " murdratores," and " latrones." 6 This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to 1163-1166. COMMANDING POSITION OF GEOFFREY. 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 can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, which conclusion is confirmed by its language. It must consequently have been granted imme- diately after it, before the king left England in March. Observe that the two last witnesses are the very justices who were entrusted with the execu- tion of the Assize, and that " Earl Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no other than the son and successor of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself. CHAPTEK V. THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN. 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. 1 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." 2 Indeed, even William of Malmesbury hints that the fault was hers. 3 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. 4 The 1 " Ecce, dum ipsa putaretur omni Anglia statim posse potiri, mutata oumia" (Will. Malms., p. 749). 2 Early Plantagenets, p. 22 ; Const. Hist., i. 330. 3 " Satisque constat quod si ejus (i.e. comitis) moderation! et sapientiae a suis esset creditum, non tarn sinistrum postea sensissent alcae casum " (p. 749). 4 " Eegina quod piece non valuit, armis impetrare confidens, splendidissi- mum militantium decus ante Londonias, ex altera fluvii regione, transmisit, utque raptu, et incendio, violenti&, et gladio, in comitissse suorumque pro- spectu, ardentissime circa civitatem dessevirent prsecepit " (Gesta Stephani, p. 78). These expressions appear to imply that she not only wasted the southern bank, but sent over (transmisit) her troops to plunder round the walls of the city itself (circa civitatem'). Mr. Pi arson strangely assigns this action not to the Queen, but to the Empress : " Matilda brought up troops, and cut off the trade of the citizens, and wasted their lauds, to punish their disaffection " (p. 478). THE EMPRESS EXPELLED FROM LONDON. 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. 1 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. 2 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. 8 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 1 The Annals of Plympton (ed. Liebermann, p. 20) imply that the cily was divided on the subject : " In mense Junio facta est sedicio in civitate Londoniensi a eivibus; sed tamen pars sanior vices imperatricis agebat, pars vero quedam earn obpugnabat." 2 "Facta coujuratione adversus earn quam cum honore susceperunt, cum dedecore apprehendere statuerunt. At ilia a quodam civium prsemunita, ignominiosam cum suis fugam arripuit omni sua suorumque supellectili post tergum relicta." 3 " Sensim sine tumultu quadam militari disciplina urbe cesserunt." This is clearly intended to rebut the story of their hurried flight (see also p. 132, infra). Il6 THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN. 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. 1 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 RothomagenRis 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 notse vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas." 2 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, 3 and which Richard of Devizes similarly applies to the commune of 1191. 4 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." 5 But he failed, it would seem, to observe the passage 1 See Appendix J : " The Great Seal of the Empress." Earl MS. 1708, fo. 113. * " Conjuratione facta." * " In indulta sibi conjuratione . . . quanta quippe mala ex conjuratione proveuiunt" (ed. Hewlett, p. 416). 5 Comt. Hist., i. 407. GEOFFREY SEIZES THE BISHOP, I I 7 which follows, and which speaks of " omnes barones, qui in eorum communionem jamdudum recepti faerant." For in this allusion we recognize a distinctive practice of the " sworn commune," from that of Le Mans (1073), l to that of London (1191), "in quam universi regni magnates et ipsi etiam ipsius provincise episcopi jurare coguntur." 2 Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville ? A tale is told of him by Dugdale, and accepted without question by Mr. Clark, 3 which, so far as I can find, must be traced to the following passage in Trivet : "Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], obsessd turri, fugatur imperatrix de Londonia. Turritn autem Galfridus de Magnavilla potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis episcopum, partis adversae fautorera, cepit apud manerium de Fulhara." 4 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. 5 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, 6 and we find him 1 " Facta conspiratione quam communionem vocabant sese omnes pariter sacramentis adstriugunt, et . . . ejusdem regionis proceres quamvis invitos, sacramentis suss conspirationis obligari oompelluut." 2 Richard of Devizes (ed. Hewlett, p. 416). * Medixval Military Architecture, ii. 254. 4 Trivet's Annals (Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 13). 5 See p. 84. 6 "Primo quidem [apud Westmonasterium] quod decuit, sanctse Dei Ecclesise, juxta bouorum consilium, consulere procuravit. Dedit itaque Lun- doniensis ecclesiae praesulatum cuidam Radingensi mouacho viro venerabili preesente et jubente reverendo abbate suo Edwardo " (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131). Il8 THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN. at her court a month later. 1 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. 2 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, 3 and holding him a prisoner till, as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so became free to join the Empress at Oxford. 4 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 com- ponere parva) by strangely similar means. For as the perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of 1 Seep. 123. 2 We have, indeed, a glimpse of this incident in the Liber de Antiquis Legibus (fol. 35), where we read : " Anno predicto, statira in ilia estate obsessa est Turrit Londoniarum a Londoniensibus, quam Willielmus (sic,) de Magnavilla tenebat et firmaverat." 3 The city, it must be remembered, lay between him and Fulhani, so that, obviously, he is more likely to have made this raid when the city was no longer in arms against him. 4 We have a hint that the bishop was disliked by the citizens in the Historia Pontificalis (p. 532), where we learn (in 1148) that they had dis- obeyed the papul authority : " Quando episcopus bone memorie Robertus expulsus est, cui hanc exhibuere devocionem ut omni diligentia procurarent lie patri exulanti in aliquo prodessent." GEOFFREY JOINS THE QUEEN. I 19 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. 1 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 Beginas "), 2 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 illonm"). 8 Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it passed about this time maybe inferred, not only from the circum- stances 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. 4 What were the terms of the charter by which he was 1 " Regina autem a Londouiensibus suscepta, sexusque fragilitatis, femi- nesoque mollitiei oblita, viriliter sese et virtuose continere; invictos ubique coadjutores prece sibi et pretio allicere, regis eonjuratos ubi ubi per Augliam fuerant dispersi ad dominum suum secum reposcendum constanter sol- licitare" (Gesta Stephani, 80). "Regina omnibus supplicavit, omnes pro ereptione mariti sui precibus, promisais, et obsequiis sollicitavit " (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). 2 See p. 143. 3 See p. 167. 4 " Gaufrido de Mandevilla (qui jam iternm auxilio eorum cesserat, antea enim post captionem regis imperatrioi fidelitatem juraverat)et Londoniensibus maxime annitentibus, nihilque omniuo quod possent pnetennittentibus quo imperutricem coatristarent " {Will. Malms., p. 752). I2O THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN. 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[onia] x marcatas terrse in villa de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo . . . donee ei persolvam debitum quod ei debeo, ut infra ilium terminurn habeat proficuaque exibunt de villa predicts, . . . testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[ia] et Sirn[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] de Lisor[iis]. apud Lond^niam]. 1 The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of North- ampton), is known to have been one of the three earls who adhered to the Queen during the king's captivity. 2 Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her nepos, " Pharamus " of Boulogne, who is also known to have been with her. 8 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 pre- sumption that it passed at this crisis, a presumption con- firmed, 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 1 Boyal Charters (Duchy of Lancaster), No. 22. N.B. The above is merely an extract from the charter. 2 Waleran of Meulan, William of Warrenne, and Simon of Northampton (Ord. Vit., v. 130). See p. 147. THE QUEERS CHARTER TO GERVASE. 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 L, 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. 1 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 govern- ment 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. 2 The importance of this identification will be shown in a special appendix. 3 Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was her husband's brother, the legate. 4 He had headed, as we have seen, the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter, but he was 1 Gamlingay, in Cambridgeshire, had come to the Queen as belonging to " the honour of Boulogne." 2 " Gamenegheia valet xxx li. Inde tenent . . heredes GervaB[ii] de Cornhill x li" (Liber Niger, 395 ; Testa, pp. 274, 275). This entry also proves that the loan (1141 ?) to the Queen was not repaid, and the property, there- fore, not redeemed. 3 See Appendix K : " Gervase de Cornhill." 4 "Nunc quidem Wintoniensem episcopum, totius Anglise legatuno, ut fraternis compatiens vinculis ad eum liberandum intenderet, ut sibi maritum, plebi regem, regno patronum, toto secum nisu adquireret, viriliter supplicare" (Gesta, 80). 122 THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN'. 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. 1 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. 2 : Oesta, 79. 2 Will. Malms., p. 750; Cont. Flor. Wig., 132; Gesta, 80; Annals of Winchester. CHAPTER VI THE BOUT OF WINCHESTER. 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. 1 To her stay at Oxford on this occasion we may assign a charter to Haughmond Abbey, tested inter olios by the King of Scots. 2 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. 3 With singular unanimity, the rival chroniclers testify to the faithful service of which this grant was the reward. 4 1 " Porro fugiens domina per Oxenefordiam venit ad Grlavorniam, ubi cum Milone ex-constabulario consilio inito statim cum eodem ad Oxenefordensein revertitur urbem, ibi prsestolatura seu recuperatura suum dispersum mili- tarera numerum" (Cont. Flor. Wig., 132). 2 The other witnesses were Robert, Bishop of London, Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln,William the chancellor, R[ichard]deBelmeis,archdeacon,G[ilbert?], archdeacon, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, William Fitz Alan and Walter his brother, Alan de Dunstanville (Harl. MS., 2188, fol. 123). The two bishops and the King of Scots also witnessed the charter to Miles. 8 Fcedera, N.E., i. 14. 4 "Et quia ejusdem Milonis praecipue fruebatur cousilio et fovebatur auxilio, utpote quse eatenus nee unius diei victum nee mensse ipsius apparatum aliunde quam ex ipsius munificentia sive providentia acceperat sicut ex ipsius Milonis ore audivimus, ut eum suo arctius vinciret ministerio, comitatum ei Here- 124 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 The names of her leading followers can be recovered from the various accounts of the siege. 4 fordensem tune ibi posita pro magnse remunerationis contulit prsemio " (Cont. Flor. Wig., 133). Comp. Gesta, 81 : " Milo Glaornensis, quern ibi cum gratia et favore omnium comitem prsefecit Herefordiae." 1 See Appendix L : " Charter of the Empress to William de Beauchamp." a " Ad hos motus, si possit, componendos comes Gloecestrensis non adeo denso coinitatu Wintoniam contendit; sed, re infecta, ad Oxeneford rediit, ubi soror stativa mansione jamdudum se continuerat " (p. 751). The " jamdu- dum " should be noticed, as a hint towards the chronology. 8 " Ipsa itaque, et ex his quse continue audiebat et a fratre tune cognovit nihil legatum molle ad suas partes cogitare intelligens, Wintoniam cum quanto potuit apparatu venit " (ibid.). * They were her uncle, the King of Scots ; * her three brothers, the Earls THE EMPRESS MARCHES ON WINCHESTER. 125 The Continuator states that she reached Winchester shortly before the 1st of August. 1 He also speaks of the siege having lasted seven weeks on the 13th of Sep- tember. 2 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. 3 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 Hunt- ingdon 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 of Gloucester * and of Cornwall,* and Robert fitz Edith ; the Earls of Warwick and Devon (" Exeter "), with their newly created fellows, the Earls of Dorset (or Somerset) and Hereford; Humphrey de Bohun,* John the Marshal," Brien fitz Count,* Geoffrey Boterel (his relative), William fitz Alan, "William" of Salisbury, Eoger d'Oilli, Roger "de Nunant," etc. The primate * was also of the company. N.B. Those marked with an asterisk attested the above charter to Miles de Gloucester. 1 "Inde [t.e. from Oxford] jam militum virtute roborata et numero, appropinquante festivitate Sancti Petri, quse dicitur ad Vincula" [August 1] (Cont. Flor. Wig., 133). 2 " Septem igitur septiinanis in obsidione transactis" (ibid.). 3 " Die kaleudaruui Augusti " (Ann. Man., ii. 229). 126 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. Empress. 1 It was in this castle, says the Continuator, that she took up her quarters on her arrival. 2 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. 8 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. 4 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. 5 1 " Imperatrix, collectis viribus suis, cum rege Scotise et Rodberto comite ascendit in "VVintoniam, audiens milites suos inclusos in regia munitione expugnari a militibus legati qui erant in moenibus illius " (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). * "Ignorante fratre suo, comite Bricstowensi (i.e. Earl Robert), Winto- niensem venit ad urbem, sed earn a se jam alienatam inveuiens, in castello Kuscepit hospitium" (p. 133). It seems impossible to understand what can be meant by the expression " ignorante fratre suo." So too Will. Malms. : " intra castellum regium sine cunctatione recepta." 3 Will. Malms., p. 751; Gesta, p. 80; Cont. Flor. Wig., 133. The Gesta alone represents the Empress as hoping to surprise the legate, which is scarcely probable. 4 " Wintonienses porro vel tacito ei favebant judicio, memores fidei quam ei pacti fuerant cum inviti propemodum ab episcopo ad hoc adacti essent " (p. 752). 5 There is some confusion as to what the Empress actually besieged. The Gesta says it was " (1) castullum episcopi, quod venustissimo constructum schemate in civitatis medio locarat, sed et (2) domum illius, quam ad instar ciistelli fortiter et inexpugnabiliter firmarat." We learn from the Annals of Winchester (p. 51) that, in 1138, the bishop " fecit sedificare domum quasi palatium cum turri fortissima in Wintonia," which would seem to be Wolvesey, with its keep, at the south-east angle of the city. Again Giraldus has a story (vii. 46) that the bishop built himself a residence from the materials of the Conqueror's j alace : "Domes regies apud Wintoniam ecclesie ipsius atrio nimis enormiter imminentes, . . . funditus in brevi THE BISHOP BURNS WINCHESTER. \2J 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. 1 Meanwhile, the legate had summoned to his aid the Queen and all the royal party. His summons was raptim et subito . . . dejecit, et . . . ex dirutis sedificiis et abstractis domos episcopates egregias sibi in eadem urbe construxit." On the other hand, the Hyde Cartulary assigns the destruction of the palace to the siege (vide infra.). 1 "Interea ex turre pontificis jaculatum incendium in domos burgensium (qui, ut dixi, proniores erant imperatricis felicitati) comprehendit et combussit abbatiam totam sanctimonialium intra urbem, simulque csenobium quod dicitur ad Hidam extra " (Will. Malms., p. 752). " Qui intus reclude- bantur ignibus foras emissis majorera civitatis partem sed et duas abbatias in favillas penitus redegerunt " (Gesta, p. 83). " Siquidem secundo die mensis Augusti ignis civitati immissis, monasterium sanctimonialium cum suis sedificiis, ecclesias plus XL cum majori seu melioii parte civitatis, postremo csenobium monachorum Deo et Sancto Grimbaldo famulantium, cum suis sedibus redegit in cineres " (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 133). It is from this last writer that we get the date (August 2), which we should never have gathered from William of Malmesbury (who mentions this fire in con- junction with the burning of Wherwell Abbey, at the close of the siege) or from the Geeta. M. Paris (Chron. Maj., ii. 174) assigns the fire, like William of Malmesbury, to the end of the siege, but bis version, "Destructa est Wintonia xvm kal. Oct., et captus est R. Comes Glovernie die exaltationis Sancte Crucis," is self-stultifying, the two dates being one and the same. The Continuator's date is confirmed by the independent evidence of the Hyde Cartulary (among the Stowe MSS.), which states that on Saturday, the 2nd of August (" Sabbato nil. non. Augusti "), the city was burned by the bishop's forces, "et eodem die dicta civitas Wyntonie capta est et spoliata." From this source we further obtain the interesting fact that the Conqueror's palace in the city (" totum palatium cum aula sua ") perished on this occasion. Allusion is made to this fact in the same cartulary's account of a council held by Henry of Winchester in the cathedral, in November, 1150, where the parish of St. Laurence is assigned the site " super quam aulam suam et palacium edificari fecit (Rex Willelmus)," which palace " in adventu Roberti Comitis Gloeoestrie combustum fuit." The Continuator (more mo) assigns the fire to the cruelty of the bishop ; but it was the ordinary practice in such cases. As from the tower of Le Mans in 1099 (Ord. Vit.), as from the tower of Hereford Cathedral but a few years before this (Gesta Stephani), BO now at Winchester the firebrands flew : and so again at Lewes, in far later days (1264), where on the evening of the great battle there blazed forth from the defeated Royalists, sheltered on the castle height, a mad shower of fire. 128 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. promptly obeyed ; l even the Earl of Chester, " who," says Dr. Stuhbs, " was uniformly opposed to Stephen, but who no doubt fought for himself far more than for the Empress," 2 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, 3 to whom, however, his tardy help was of little or no value. 4 From London the Queen received a well-armed contingent, nearly a thousand strong ; 5 but Henry of Huntingdon appears to imply that their arrival, although it turned the scale, did not take place till late in the siege. 6 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 them- selves besieged by the Queen and her host without. 7 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, 8 and harassed so successfully the enemy's convoys, that famine was imminent in the city. 9 The 1 " Statimque propter omnes misit quos regi fauturos sciebat. Veneruut ergo fere omnes conrites Anglise ; erant enim juvenes et leves, et qut inallent equitatiouum discursus quani pacein " (Will. Malms., p. 751). Of. Hen. Hunt., p. 275, and Gesta, pp. 81, 82. 2 Early Plantagenetg, p. 25. Compare Const. Hist., i. 329 : " The Earl of Chester, although, whenever he prevailed on himself to act, he took part against Stephen, fought rather on his own account than on Matilda's." Sym. Dun., ii. 310. 4 "Reinulfus enim comes Cestrie tarde et iautiliter advenit" (Will. Malms., p. 751. s "Invicta Londouiensium caterva, qui, fere mille, cum galeis et loricis oruatissime iustructi conveneraut " (Gesta, p. 82). 6 "Venit tandem exercitus Lundoniensis, et aucti numerose qui contra imperatricem contendebant, fugere earn compulerunt" (p. 275). 7 Gesta, p. 82. The Annals of Winchester (p. 52) strangely rererse the respective positions of the two : " Imperatrix cum suis castellum tenuit regiura et orientalem (sic) partem Wiutonie et burgenses eutn ea ; Icgatus cum suis castrum suum cum partc occidental! " (sic). 8 Will. Malms., p. 752. Ibid.; Gcsta, p. 83. THE QUEEN BESIEGES THE EMPRESS. 1 29 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 pre- cise, 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. 1 John of Hexham, on the contrary, describing, it would seem, the same inci- dent, represents it as merely the despatch of an escort, under John the Marshal and Kobert fitz Edith, to meet an expected convoy. 2 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. 3 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, 4 and this version is in harmony with the Histoire 1 "Provisum est igitur, et communi consilio provise, ut sibi videbatur, statutum, quatinus penes abbatiam Werwellensem, quse a Venta civitate vi. milliariis distabat, trecentis (sic) ibi destinatis militibus, castellum constru- erent, ut scilicet inde et regales facilius arcerentur, et ciborum subsidia competentius in urbe dirigerentur " (p. 83). z " Emissi sunt autem ducenti (tc) milites, cum Eodberto filio Edse et Henrici regis notho et Johanne Marascaldo, ut conducerent in urbem eos qui comportabant victualia in ministerium imperatricis et eorum qui obsessi fue- rant" (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). a " Quos persecuti Willelmus Dipre et pars exercitus usque ad Warewella (ubi est congregatio sanctimonialium) et milites et omnem apparatum, qui erat copiosus, abduxerunt " (ibid ). "Subito et insperate, cum intolerabili multitudine Werwellam adveneruut, fortiterque in eos undique irruentes captis et interemptis plurimis, cedere tandem reliquos et in templum se recipere compulerunt " (Geeta, p. 83). 4 Vide infra. Since the above was written Mr. Hewlett, in his edition of 130 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. de Guillaume le Marechal. 1 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. 2 Its narrative cannot be explained away, but it is the one that we are most justified in selecting for rejection. the Gesta (p. 82, note), has noted the contradiction in the narrative, but seems to lean to the latter version as being supported by the Marshal poem. 1 As has been duly pointed out by its accomplished editor, M. Paul Meyer {Romania, vol. xi.), who will shortly, it may be hoped, publish the entire poem. 3 " Li Mareschals de son afaire Ne sout que dire ne que feire, N'i vit rescose ne confort. A Brien de Walingofort Commanda a mener la dame, E dist, sor le peril de s'alme Q'en nul lieu ne s'aresteiisent, Por nul besoing que il eiisent, N'en bone veie ne en male, De si qu'a Lothegaresale ; E cil tost e hastivemeut En fist tot son commandeuient " (Lines 225-236). THE STRUGGLE AT WHERWELL. 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. 1 " 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. 2 1 " Cumque vice castelli ad se defendendos templo uterentur, alii, facibus tmdique injectis, semiustulatos eos e templo prodire, et ad votum suum se sibi subdere coegerunt. Erat quidem horrendum," etc. (Gegta, p. 83). " Jobannem etiam, fautorem eorum, ad monasterium Warewellense fugi- entem milites episcopi persequentes, cum exinde imllo modo expellere valu- issent, in ipsa die festivitatis Exaltationis Sanctaa Crucis [Sept. 14], immisso igne ipsam ecclesiam Sanctse Crucis cum sanctimonialium rebus et domibus cremaverunt, . . . praedicturn tamen Johannem nee capere nee expellere potuerunt " (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 135). So also Will. Malms, (p. 752) : "Com- busta est etiam abbatia sanctimonialium de Warewella a quodam Willelmo de Ipra homine nefando, qui nee Deo nee hominibus reverentiam observaret, quod in ea quidam imperatricis fautores se contutati essent." 2 " Li Mareschas el guie s'estut, A son poer les contrestut. Tute 1'ost sur lai descarcha Qui si durement le charcha Que n'i pont naint plus durer ; Trop lui fui fort a endurer, Einz s'enbati en un mostier ; N'ont o lui k'un sol chevaler. Quant li real les aper9urent Qu'el mostier enbatu se furent : ' Or 9a, li feus 1 ' funt il, ' or sa, Li traitres ne li garra.' Quant li feus el moster se prist, En la vis de la tor se mist. Li chevaliers li dist : ' Beau sire, Or ardrum ci a grant martire : Ce sera pecchiez e damages. Bendom nos, si ferom que sages.' Cil respundi mult cruel ment : N'en parler ja, gel te defent ; Ke, s'en diseies plus ne mains, Ge t'occirreie de mes mains.' For le grant feu qui fu entor Dejeta li pluns de la tor, 132 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. On receiving intelligence of this disaster, the besieged were seized with panic, and resolved on immediate retreat. 1 William of Malmesbury, as before, is anxious to deny the panic, 2 and the Continuator accuses the legate of treachery. 3 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 W 7 ere 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. 4 The Earl of Gloucester, with Si que sor Ic vis li cha'i, Dunt leidcment li meschai, K'un de ses elz i out perdu Dunt molt se tint a esperdu, Mais, merci Dieu, n'i murust pas. E li real en es le pas For mort e por ars le quidcrent ; A Viucestre s'en returnerent, Mais n'i fu ue raors ne esteinz " (Lines 237-269). 1 " Ubi lacrymabilera prsefati infortunii audissent eventum de obsidi- one diutius ingerenda ex toto desperati, fugae quammature inire presidium sibi consuluere " (Gesta, pp. 83, 84). " Qui jam non in concertatione sed in fuga spem salutis gerentes egressi suut, ne forte victorea cum Willelmo d'Ipre ad socios regressi, sumpta tiducia ex quotidianis successibus, aliquid subitum in cos excogitarent " (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). 2 " [Comes] cedendum tempori ratus, compositis ordinibus discessioncm paravit " (p. 753). 3 P. 134. His strong bias against the legate makes this somewhat confused charge unworthy of credit. 4 " La fist tantost metre a la voie Tot dreit a Lotegaresale. Ne[l] purrent suffrir ne atendre Cil qui o 1'empereriz erent : Al meiz ku'il purent s'en alerent, Poingnant si que regne n'i tindrent [J]esque soz Varesvalle viudrent ; Mes forment les desavancha L'empereriz qui chevacha Cumine femme fait en scant : Ne sembla pas buen ne scant Al Marechal, anceis li diet : FLIGHT OF THE EMPRESS. '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. 1 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 north- wards, and made her way, by country lanes, over Long- stock 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. 2 It was not, we should notice, thought safe for her to make straight for Gloucester, through Marlborough and Ciren- cester ; 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 3 she would ' Dame, si m'ait Jesucrist, L'em ne puet pas eii seant poindre ; Les jambes vos covient desjoindre E metre par en son 1'arc.un.' El le fist, volsist ele ou uon, Quer lor enemis le[s] grevoient Qui de trop pres les herd[i]oient " (Lines 198, 199, 208-224). The quaint detail here given is confirmed, as M. Meyer notes, by the Con- tinuator's phrase (vide infra, note 2). 1 " In loco qui Stolibricge dicitur a Flammensibus cum comite Warren- nensi captus" (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 135). Cf. p. 134, and Will. Malms, (jp. 753, 758, 759), Gesta (p. 84), Sym. Dun. (ii. 31 1), Hen. Hunt. (p. 275). As in Matilda's flight from London, so in her flight from Winchester, the author of the Gesta appears to advantage with his descriptive and spirited account. 2 " Hsec audiens dornina, vehementer exterrita atque turbata, ad castellum quo tendebat de Ludkereshala tristris ac dolens advenit, sed ibi locum tutum quiescendi, propter metum episcopi, non invenit. Unde, hortantibus suis, equo iterum usu masculino supposita, atque ad Divisas perducta " (Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 134). 3 " Castellum quod vocatur Divise, quo non erat aliud splendidius intra fines Europse" (Hen. Hunt., p. 265). "Castellum . . . multiset vix iiurnerabi- 134 THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER. 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. 1 On a misunderstanding, as I deem it, of the passage (and especially of the word feretrum), writers have suc- cessively, 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. 2 libus sumptibus, non (ut ipse praesul dictabat) ad ornamentum, sed (ut se rei veritas habet) ad ecclesite detrimentum, sedificatum" (Will. Malms., pp. 717, 718). It had been raised by the Bishop of Salisbury, and it passed, at his fall, into Stephen's hands. It is then described by the author of the Gesta (p. 66) as " castellum regis, quod Divisa dicebatur, ornanter et inexpugna- biliter muratum." It was subsequently surprised by Robert fitz Hubert, who held it for his own hand till his capture, when the Earl of Gloucester tried hard to extort its surrender from him. In this, however, he failed. Robert was hanged, and, soon after, his garrison sold it to Stephen, by whom it was entrusted to Hervey of Brittany, whom he seems to have made Earl of Wilts. But on Stephen's capture, the peasantry rose, and extorted its surrender from Hervey. Thenceforth, it was a stronghold of the Empress (see for this the Continuator and the Gesta). 1 "Cum nee ibi secure se tutari posse, obi nsequentes, formidaret, jam pene exanimis feretro invecta, et funibus quasi cadaver ligata, equis deferenti- bus, sat ignominiose ad civitatem deportatur Glaornensem " (Cont. Flor. Wig., 134). The author of the Gesta (p. 85) mentions her flight to Devizes (" Bri- eno tantum cum paucis comite, ad Divisas confugit"), and incidentally observes (p. 87) that she was " ex Wintoniensi dispersione quassa minis, et usque ad defectum pene defatigata " (i.e. " tired to death ; " cf. supra). John of Hexham merely says : " Et imperatrix quidem non sine magno conflictu et plurima difficultate erepta e^t" (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). 2 Camden, in his Britannia, gives the story, but Knighton (De eventibus RELEASE OF THE KING. 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. 1 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 Eobert fitz Martin. 2 Angliae, lib. ii., in Scriptores X.) seems to be tbe chief offender. Dugdale follows with the assertion that " she was necessitated ... for her more security to be put into a coffin, as a dead corps, to escape their hands " (i. 537 6). According to Milner (History of Winchester, p. 162), " she was enclosed like a corpse in a sheet of lead, and was thus suffered to pass in a horse-litter as if carried out for interment, through the army of her besiegers, a truce having been granted for this purpose." Even Edwards, in his introduction to the Liber de Hyda (p. xlviii.), speaks of " the raising of the siege ; a raising precipitated, if we accept the accounts of Knighton and some other chroniclers who accord with him, by the strange escape of the Empress Maud from Winchester Castle concealed iu a leaden coffin." Sic crescit eundo. 1 Will. Malms., p. 754. * See donation of Miles (Monasticon, vi. 137), stated to have been made in their presence, and in the year 1141, in which he speaks of himself as " apud Bristolium positus, jamque consulatus honorem adeptus." Brian had escorted the Empress in her flight, but Miles, intercepted by the enemy, had barely escaped with his life ("de sola vita lastus ad Glaornam cum dedecore fugiendo pervenit lassus, solus, et pene nudus." Cont. Flor. Wig., p. 135). ( 136 ) CHAPTER VII. THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. 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 Eoberti filii regis Henrici." l 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. 2 The ingenious legate was now as ready to prove that his 1 Ninth Report Hist. MSS., A pp. i. p. 62 1>. 2 " Ri'gem ipsum in concilium introisse " ( Will. Malms., 755). THE CANTERBURY CORONATION. 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 renun- ciation were, first, that the Empress had failed to fulfil her pledges to the Church ; l second, that her failure implied the condemnation of God. 2 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 L, in 1194, after his cap- tivity and humiliation. 3 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. 4 This clearly implies a second coronation since ; and as the precept is attested by Eichard de Luci, it is presumably subsequent to that second coronation, to which we now come. It cannot be wondered that this event has been un- noticed 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 1 " Ipsam quaecunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia obstinate fregisse " (ibid.). 2 " Deura, pro sua dementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse ne- gotia" (ibid.). 3 Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Ricliard : " His second coronation was understood to have an important significance. He had by his captivity in Germany . . . impaired or compromised his dignity as a crowned king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a reconsecration, but a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had undergone no diminution " (Const. Hist., i. 504). 4 " Die qua primum coronatus fui " (Cartulary of Abingdon, ii. 181). 138 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. 1142." We learn from him that in this MS. " it is pro- bably 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 ecclesia Christi a venerabili Tkeobaldo ejusdem ecclesiae archiepiscopo coro- natus est; ipsa etiam regina cum eo ibidem coronam auream gestabat in capite" (Gervase, L 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. 1 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 coro- nation 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. 2 But it must further be previous to 1 " Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (Will. Newlurgh, i. 41). * Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 3 (based on the late Sir DATE OF THE CHARTER. 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 accord- ance, 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. William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his learned paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to the charter. 140 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. CHARTER OF THE KINO TO GEOFFREY DE MXNDEVILLE (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 con- cesisse Gaufr[ido] Comiti de Essexa omnia sua tenementa que tenuit, de quocunque ilia tenuerit, die qua impeditus fui apud Linc[olniam] et captus. Et prater hoc dedi ei et concessi ccc libratas terrae scilicet Meldonam l et Neweport et Depedenam et Banhunte et Ingam et Phin- griam 2 et Chateleam cum omnibus suis Appendiciis pro c libris. Et Writelam 3 pro vi.xx libris. Et Hadfeld 4 pro quater.xx libris cum omnibus appendiciis illorum Mane- riorum. Et praeter hec dedi ei et concessi in feodo et here- ditate de me et de meis haeredibus sibi et suis heredibus c libratas terras de terris excaatis, scilicet totam terrain Eoberti de Baentona 5 quam tenuit in Essexa, videlicet 1 " Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with the addition of 'Inga'aud 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by the Empress to make up his 100 a year. Thus these two manors represent the " si quid defuerit ad c libratas perficiendas " of the Empress's charters. Maldoti itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's brother Theobald, forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted by her to Geoffrey. Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ among the archives of Westminster (printed in Madox's Baronia Anglica, p. 232), in which Stephen distinctly states (1139) that he had given it him. Thus, in giving it to Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother. 2 The " Phenge " and " Inga " of Domesday (ii. 71 b, 72 a), which were part of the fief of Randulf Peverel (" of London "). 3 Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.). Its redditus, at the Survey, was "c libras ad poudus et c solidos de ger- suma." 4 Hatfield Broadoak, alias Hatfield Regis. This also was ancient demesne, its redditus, at the Survey, being " Ixxx libras et c solidos de ger- suma." Here the Domesday redditus remained unchanged, an important point to notice. 5 Robert de Baentonft was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in the TEXT OF THE CHARTER. 141 Eeneham 1 et Hoilandam, 2 Et Amb[er]denam 8 et Wodeham 4 et Eistan', 5 quam Picardus de Danfront 6 tenuit. Et Ichilin- tonam 7 cum omnibus eorum appendiciis pro c libris. Et praeterea dedi ei et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate c libratas terrae ad opus Ernulfi de Mannavilla de ipso Comite Gaufredo tenendas, scilicet Anastiam, 8 et Bracking, 9 et Hamam 10 cum omnibus eorum appendiciis. Et c solidatas terras in Hadfeld ad praefatas c libratas terras perficien- d[um], Et praeterea dedi ei et concessi custodiam turris Lond[oniae] cum Castello quod ei subest habend[um] et tenendum sibi et suis haBredibus de me et de meis heredibus cum omnibus rebus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus pre- fate turri pertinentibus. Et Justicias et Vicecomitat' de Lond[onia] et de Middlesexa in feodo et hereditate Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the Eobert "de Bathentona " whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at some length in the Oesta. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion, and consequently appear here as an escheat (see my note on him in English Historical Review, October, 1890). 1 Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the Domesday (D. B., ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday fief Robert de Baentona had succeeded. 2 Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had similarly formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai. 3 Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf Peverel at the Survey. 4 Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of Randulf Peverel. 5 Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey in (Little) Easton. 8 Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe- Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a land- owner in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53). 7 Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the " Ichilintone " of Domesday (in which it figures), was Terra Regis. In the Liber Niger (special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as part of the honour of Boulogne. 8 Anstey, Herts, the " Anestige " of Domesday, part of the honour of Boulogne. 9 Braughing, Herts, the " Brachinges " of Domesday. Also part of the honour of Boulogne. 10 Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel. 142 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. eadem firina qua Gaufridus de Mannavilla avus suus eas tenuit, scilicet pro ccc libris. Et Justitias et Vicecomitat' de Essexa et de Heortfordiscira eadem firma qua avus ejus eas tenuit, ita tamen quod dominica que de praedictis Comitatibus data sunt ipsi Comiti Gaufredo aut alicui alii a firma praefata subtrahantur et illi et haeredibus suis ad scaccarium combutabuntur. Et praeterea firmiter ei con- cessi ut possit firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque volu- erit in terra sua et quod stare possit. Et praeterea dedi eidem Comiti Gaufr[edo] et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate sibi et haeredibus suis de me et de meis here- dibus Ix milites feudatos, de quibus Ernulfus de Manna- villa tenebit x in feodo et hereditate de patre suo, scilicet servicium Graalondi de Tania l pro vii militibus et dimidio Et servicium Willelmi filii Eoberti pro vii militibus Et ser- vicium Brient[ii] filii Radulfi 2 pro v militibus Et servi- cium Roberti filii Geroldi pro xi militibus Et servicium Radulfi filii Geroldi pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi de Tresgoz 3 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[a] pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi filii Heru[ei] pro iii mili- tibus Et servicium Willelmi de Auco pro j milite et dimi- dio Et servicium Willelmi de Bosevilla 4 pro ii militibus 1 On Graaland de Tuny, see p. 91. s Brien fitz Kalf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Eandulf Peverel. According to the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien filius Radulfi " held five fees of the honour, the very number here given. 3 William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a land- owner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of Peverel. In the above inquisition " William de Tregoz " holds six fees of the honour. 4 William " de Boevilla " (ic) appears in the same roll as a landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William " de Bosevill " (tc) is found in (Hearne's) Liber Niger (p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of Essex (1J fees de vet. fef.). TEXT OF THE CHARTER. 143 Et servicium Mathei Peur[elli] l pro iiij militibus Et servicium Ade de Sura[er]i de feodo de Elmedona 2 pro iij militibus Et servicium Rann[ulfi] Briton[is] 8 pro i milite. Et prseterea quicquid Carta Eegine testatur ei dedi et concessi. Omnia autem hec praedicta tenementa, scilicet in terris et dominiis et serviciis militum et in Cus- todia turris Lon[domae] et Castelli quod turri subest et in Justiciis et Vicecomitatibus et omnibus praedictis 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 prsecipio quod ipse et heredes sui post eum habeant et teneant omnia ilia tenementa et con- cessiones adeo libere et quiete et honorifice sicut aliquis omnium Comitum totius Angliae aliquod suum tenementum tenet vel tenuit liberius et honorificentius et quietius et plenius. T[estibus] M. Eegina et H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Win- t[onensi] et W[illelmo] Com[ite] Warenn[a] et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de Pembroc et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de heort- ford et W[illelmo] Com[ite] de Albarm[arla] et Com[ite] Sim[one] et Comite Will[elmo] de Sudsexa et Com[ite] Alan[o] et Com[ite] Eob[erto] de Ferrers et Will[elmo] But what is here granted is the manor of Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of Peverel " of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour. 1 Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. L as holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William Peverel holds five fees of the honour. 8 Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. Stephen was of course entitled to their servicium in right of his wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166. * Possibly the Ralph Brito who appears in the Pipe- Rolls of Hen. II. as holding terras datx "in Chatelega," and who also figures as "Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in the Liber Niger (p. 242), and as Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (ibid., p. 240). 144 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING, de Ip[ra] et Will[elmo] Mart[cl] et Balil[wino] fil[io] Gisl[eberti] et Rob[erto] de V[er] et Pharam[o] et Bic[ardo] de Luci et Turg[isio] de Abrincis et Ada de Belum. Apud Cantuarfiam]. 1 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 con- clusions 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 Eobertus de Ferrers," as distin- guished 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 1 Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charters, No. 18. EARLS AND THEIR TITLES. 145 Geoffrey of Anjou. But here the striking case is that of "Willelmo Comite Warenna," " Willelmo Comite de Albarmarla," and " Comite Willelmo de Sudsexa." 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 " Aumale," 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. 1 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, 2 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 Kichmond, and 1 This same principle is well illustrated by two cartee which follow one another in the pages of the Liber Niger. They are those of " Willelmus filius Johannis de Herpetreu " and " Willelmus fllius Johannis de Westona." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This leads us to such styles as " Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de Warwick," " Willoughby d'Eresby " and " Willoughby de Beke." Many similar instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have been added for the sake of distinction only. 2 See p. 120. L 146 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. the fortunate William of Albini, now Earl William of Sussex. Eobert of Ferrers and William of Aumale, both of them heroes of the Battle of the Standard, complete the list of earls. 1 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. 2 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 Eichard 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. 3 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," 4 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 amicitia potissi- mum 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 1 Of the absentees, the Earl of Cheater and his half-brother the Earl of Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl of Warwick ; the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count of Meulan, but he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Hereford were, of course, with the Empress. Thus, with the nine mentioned in the charter, we account for some eighteen earls. 2 See Appendix M, on the latter earldom. 3 See p. 49, n. 4. 4 Add. MSS., 31,943, fol. 85 dors. WITNESSES TO THE CHARTER. 147 price of his liberty (ibid.). By his wife " Albreda " he was father of a son and heir, Geoffrey. 1 Of the remaining witnesses, Pharamus (fitz William) de Boulogne was nepos of the queen. In 1130 he was in- debted 20 to the Exchequer " pro placitis terre sue [Surrey] et ut habeat terrain 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: "Kexit autem familiam regis Stephani Willelmus d'Ipre, homo Flandrensis et Pharamus nepos reginas Matildis, et iste Bononienisis " (Sym. Dun., ii. 310). His ravages "per destructionem Faramusi " are referred to in the Pipe-Eoll 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 grand- father, Geoffrey, is described as a nepos of Eustace of Boulogne. With his daughter and heiress Sibyl, his lands passed to the family of Fiennes. Eobert de V(er) would be naturally taken for the younger brother of Aubrey the chamberlain, slain in 1141. 2 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 Eobert (fitz Bernard} de Vere, who is presumably the "Eobert de Vere " who figures as an Essex landowner in the Pipe-Eoll of 1130, for he is certainly the " Eobert de Vere " who is entered in that same roll as acquiring lands 1 Colchester Cartulary (Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406. z As by Mr. Eyton (Addl. MSS., 31,943, fol. 90). The said Robert ap- pears in the latter part of this reign as " Eobertus films Alberici de Ver " (Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral, p. 133), and sent in his carta in 1166 as " Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert de Vere. 148 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. 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 Eobert 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 con- stable. 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 Canter- bury charter, the Oxford charter of about a year later, 1 and some others in the course of this reign. 2 He had also witnessed some charters towards the close of the preceding reign, and would seem to be the Eobert de Ver who was among those who took charge of the body of Henry I. at his death. 3 Baldwin fitz Gilbert occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Eoll 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 Eeading, 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 Eichard (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. 4 1 Abingdon Cartulary, ii. 179. 2 See Appendix N, on " Kobert de Vere." 3 See Ord. Vit., v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him wrongly). 4 " Tune, quia rex Stephanus festiva carebat voce, Baldewino filio Gille- berti, magnse nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo exhortatorius ad uni- versum ccetum injuuctus est. . . . Capitur etiam Baldewinus qui orationem STEPHEN OUTBIDS THE EMPRESS. 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, ap- parently, 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 Lin- coln, 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," l with the exception that the Empress uses the term " concede " where Stephen has " dedi et concessi." The latter expression is some- what 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 fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus vulneribua, multis contritus ictibus, ubi egregie resistendo gloriam promeruit sempiternam " (Z7en. Hunt., pp. 271,274). 1 See Appendix O : "Tower and Castle." I5O THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. 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, 1 Stephen now leases it to him at the annual rent which his grandfather had paid. 2 The fact that in the second charter of the Empress she adopts, we shall find, the original rental, 3 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-Eoll of 1130, which records a firma far in excess of the 300 which, according to these charters, Geoffrey's grandfather had paid. 4 It may be noted that while Stephen's charter gives in actual figures the " ferm " which had been paid by Geoffrey's grand- father, 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 subse- quent charter of the Empress, and we are tempted to infer 1 " Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die qua rex Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite phrase was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had a joint firma at the time (see Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.). 2 " Eadem firrna qua avus ejus . . . tenuit." 3 "Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit." 4 The firma of Essex with Herts, in 1130, was 420 3s. "ad pensum," plus 26 17. " numero," plus 86 19. 9d. " blancas," whereas Geoffrey secured the two for 360. The difference between this sum and the joint firma of 1130 curiously approximates that at London (see Appendix, p. 366, n.). THE " FIRM A " OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX. 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." 1 We have seen that, on the contrary, the rental, even later than Domes- day, was 300 a year, and this not for London only, but for London and Middlesex together. 2 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, 3 published under the editorship of Professor Freeman, which, though far less inaccurate than his earlier and larger work, contains such passages as this : 1 Pearson's History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, i. 664 (" County Kentals in Domesday "). 2 See Appendix P : " The Early Administration of London." 3 Historic Towns : London (1887). 152 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. "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, \vas 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). 1 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), 2 " 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 name- sake. 8 But the strange thing is that she did nothing of the kind, and that the facts, in Mr. Loftie's narrative, are 1 The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is, how- ever, an error in each. The first implies that the charter to Geoffrey was granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to, London. The second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on her flight from London, " withdrew towards Winchester," and that her brother was captured by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not captured till after the siege of Winchester, later in the year, and under different circumstances. 2 It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to separate London' from Middlesex, and to treat the former as gran ted "in demesne," and the latter " in farm." Such a conception is quite erroneous. 3 It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his " father " who " is said by Stow to have been portreeve.'' LONDONERS SACRIFICED TO GEOFFREY. 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, con- firmed 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 expres- sions 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 grand- 154 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. father, 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, 1 as to the supposed total extinction of the working of the Exchequer under Stephen. The author of the Dialogue, though anxious to emphasize its re-estab- lishment 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 formulse which we find under Henry II. The " Terrse dataB," or alienated Crown demesnes, are repre- sented here by the " dominia que de predictis comitatibus data sunt," and the provision that they should be sub- tracted from the fixed ferm ("a fir ma subtrahantur ") is a formula found in use subsequently, as is, even more, the phrase " ad scaccarium computabuntur." 2 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, 1 See p. 99. 2 " Et computabitur tibi ad scaccariuin " is the regular form found iu the precepts of Henry II. (Dialogus, ii. 8). INCREASED GRANT OF KNIGHTS. 155 deemed it needful to secure the royal permission before erecting a castle, and that this permission was limited to a single fortress. 1 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, 2 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, _Jie 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 " cartse " of the Liber Niger. 9 1 See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the " adulterine " castles, the Gesta Stephani (p. 66) : " Plurima adulterina castella, alia sola adventus sui fama vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita subvertit : omnesque circumjacentes provincias, quas castella inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione degravabant, purgavit tune omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140). 8 See p. 103. 3 Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory advanced by me in the English Historical Review (October, 1891) as to knight-service being grouped in multiples of ten (the constdbularia). 156 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. At the close of all these specified grants comes a general confirmation of the lost charter of the Queen ("CartaRegine"). 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. 1 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 permis- sion 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 : " Eex Stephanus a Cantuaria recedens vires suas reparare studuit, quo severius et acrius imperatricem et omnes ipsius complices de- bellaret." 2 His first step in this direction was to make a progress 1 See Appendix H. 2 Gervase of Canterbury, i. 123. STEPHEN GOES TO THE NORTH. 157 through his realm, or at least through that portion over which he reigned supreme. William of Malmesbury writes of his movements after Christmas : " Utraeque partes imperatricis et regis se cum quietis modestia egerunt a Natale usque ad Quadragesimam ; magis sua custodire quam aliena incursare studentes : rex in superiores regiones abscessit nescio quae 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. 1 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 pre- parations for the king's revenge upon his foes. 2 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 1 " Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum stylo committere, quod nescirem solida veritato subsistere. Ea porro, quae de prsesenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt priucipium." 2 " Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eura regina su& Mathilde, venit Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano comite de Eichemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit ; habuitque in votis pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem et integrilatem reformare" (Sym. Dun., ii. 312). Notice that John of Hexham always speaks of Alan as Earl " of Richmond " and William as Earl " of York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl " of Richmond," and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to the Lords' committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its origin and descent {Third Eeport on the Dignity of a Peer). If, as I believe, no county could, at this period, have two earls, it follows that either Alan " Comes " did not hold an English earldom, and was merely described as of Richmond because that was his seat ; or, that " Richmondshire " was, at that time, treated as a county of itself. One or other of these alternatives must, I think, be adopted. But see also p. 290, n. 2. 158 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. appearance with the queen in Yorkshire (Easter, 1142). I do so, firstly, because their witnesses ought to be com- pared 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. 1 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, 2 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 Ipra 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 there- fore 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 tran- script in the Great Coucher (vol. ii. fol. 445), and is 1 Harl. MS., 2044, fol. 55 b; Addl. MSB., 5516, No. 9, p. 7 (printed in Archxologia Cantiana, x. 272, but not in Dugdale's Monasticon). 2 Robert de Crevecceur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu was a benefactor to the priory. STEPHEN AT IPSWICH AND STAMFORD. 159 strangely assigned in the official calendar to 1135-37. l The grantee is William, Earl of Lincoln, and the list of witnesses is as follows : " T. Com. Eann. et Com. Gisl. de Pembroc * et Com. Gisl. de hertf.* et Com. Sim.* et Com. E. de Warwic' et Com. E. de Ferr.* et W. mart.* et Bald. fil. Gisl.* et W. fil. Gisl. et Eic. de Camvill et Eic. fil. Ursi* et E[ustachio] fil. John' et Ead. 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 dis- tinguished 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 Eandolf 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 Eandolf, 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 Gains- borough and his bridge over Trent, "libere et quiete tenendum omnibus liberis consuetudinibus cum quibus 1 Thirty -first Report of Deputy Keeper, p. 2. 160 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. 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 after- wards, 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 Warwica " 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. l Nor can we doubt that his objective was Oxford, now again the head-quarters of his foe. 2 So alarming was his illness that his death was rumoured, 1 He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter week, 1138. 2 William of Malmesbury writes : " In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem qusedam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Anglia sicut mortuus couclamaretur " (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between thia statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not reach York till " post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more probable. GEOFFREY SENT AGAINST ELY. l6l and the forces he had gathered were dismissed to their homes. 1 But, meanwhile, where was Earl Geoffrey ? We have seen that early in the year he was present with Stephen at Ipswich. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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 Eome 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 1 "Prseventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat remisit ad propria " (Sym. Dun., ii. 312). 2 Supra, p. 158. 8 " Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavilla, associante ei Comite Gileberto, ut homines episcopi, qui tune latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut gladiis truncaret" (Anglia Sacra, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to Earl Geoffrey's wife. 4 " Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit ; milites vero teneri jussit ; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos spectante populo iisque in Ely perduxit " (ibid.). M 1 62 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING. joy, we are told, of his monks and people ; and the two earls delivered into his hands the isle and Aldreth, its key. 1 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. 1 See Appendix Z : " Bishop Nigel at Rome." CHAPTEE VIII. THE SECOND CHABTEB OF THE EMPRESS. 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 some- what 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, 1 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. 2 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 des- perate. But, on the one hand, in accordance with his 1 He states that the Earl of Gloucester, on his release, "circa germanam sedulo apud Oxeneford mansitabat ; quo loco, ut prsefatus sum, ilia sedem sibi constituens, curiam fecerat " (p. 754). 2 He set sail " aliquanto post festum sancti Johannis " ( Will. Malms., p. 765). 164 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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 role of "the king-maker" himself. 1 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. 2 The dismissal of the host he had so eagerly collected was followed by a rumour of his death. 3 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. 4 On the previous occasion that rumour had been followed by an outburst of treason and revolt, 5 and it is surely, to say the 1 See the dazzling description of his power given by the author of the Gesta, who speaks of him as one " qui onmes regni primates et divitiarum poteutia et dignitatis excedebat opulentia ; turrim quoque Londoniarum in manu, sed et castella inexpugnabilis fortitudinis circa civitatem constructa habebat, omnemque regni partem, quse se regi subdiderat, ut ubique per regnum regis vices adimplens, et, in rebus ageudis, rege avidius exaudiretur, et in praeceptis injungendis, plus ei quam regi obtemperaretur " (p. 101). William of Newburgh, in the same spirit, speaks of him as " regi terribilia " (i. 44). 2 See p. 160. 3 '-In tota propemodum Anglia sicut inortuus conclamaretur " (ibid.'). 4 William of Malmesbury (ut supra) is the authority for 1142, and Henry of Huntingdon for 1136: "Ad Eogationes vero divulgatum est regem mortuum esse " (p. 259). 5 "Jam ergo coapit rabies prsedicta Normannorum, perjurio et proditioue pullulare " (ibid.). DATE AND AUTHORITIES. 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 con- sidered 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 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. 1 If the miss- ing 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 1 It would seem to have been entered immediately after that charter to Miles of Gloucester which I have printed on p. 11, and which precedes it in the transcripts. 1 66 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. 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, in- complete. Yet another transcriber began to copy the charter, but stopped almost at once. 1 I have given in the notes the variants (which are slight) in the Dodsworth and Dugdale transcripts. " Carta M. Imperatricis facta Com Gaufredo Essexise de pluribus terris et libertatibus. M. Imperatrix. H. regis filia et Anglorum Domina. Archiepiscopis. 3 Episcopis. Abbatibus. Comitibus. Baro- nibus. Justiciary's. Vicecomitibus. Ministris. et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Anglise et Nor- manniaa Salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Gaufr[edo] Essexe omnia tenementa sua, sicut Gaufredus avus stius, 3 aut Willelmus pater suns, 4 aut ipsemet postea unquam melius vel liberius tenuerit 5 aliquo tempore in feodo et haereditate sibi et haBredibus suis, ad tenendum de me et de haeredibus meis. Videlicet in terris et turribus, in Castellis et Bailliis. Et nominatim Turrim Lund[onise] cum Castello quod subtus 6 est, ad firmandum et efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Et Vicecomitatum Lund[onise] 7 et Middelsex per CCC libfras] sicut Gaufredus auus eius tenuit. Et vicecomitatum Essex per CCC lib[ras] sicut idem Gaufredus auus eius tenuit. 8 Et vicecomitatum 1 Lansdoume MS. 259, fol. 66. 2 " Archiepiscopis, etc." (Dug.). 3 " suns " omitted (Dug.). 4 "ejus " (Dug.). s "tenuerunt" (Dug., Dods.). 6 " subjectum " (Dods.). 7 " Lundonise et Middlesex! " (Dug.). 8 " Et . . . tenuit " (Essex shrievalty) omitted by Dugdale (and, con- sequently, in his Baronage also). TEXT OF THE CHARTER. 167 de Heortfordscira per LX libras sicut avus eius tenuit. Et praeter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo quod habeat haereditabiliter Justicia Lund[oniae] et Middelsex et Essex et de Hertfordscira, ita quod nulla alia Justicia placitet in hiis supradictis vicecomitatibus nisi per eis 1 [sic]. Et concedo illi, 2 ut habeat illas C libratas terrse quas dedi illi, et servicium illorum XX militum sicut illud ei dedi et per aliam cartam meam confirmavi. Et illas CC libratas terrae quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt. Et illas G libratas terrae 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 terrain quae fuit 3 Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et Dapi- feratum ipsius. Et haec reddo ei ut Rectum suum ut habeat et teneat hsereditabiliter, ita ne ponatur inde in placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet Eschaetis et pro servicio militum 4 quod habet totam terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et 6 mortuus, quia hoc est Rectum suum, Praeter illas 6 libratas terrae quas ego dedi ei Et praeter seruiciuin XX militum quod ei dedi, Et praeter terram Ernulfi de Mannavill sicut earn tenet de Comite Gaufredo ex servicio X militum Et si potero perquirere erga Episcopum Lund[oniae] et erga ecclesiam Sancti Pauli Castellum de Storteford per Escambium ad Gratum suum tune do et concedo illud ei et haeredibus suis in feodo et hereditate tenendum de me et haeredibus meis. Quod si facere non potero, tune ei convenciono quod faciam illud prosternere 1 Dodsworth transcript closes here. 2 " illi " omitted by Dugdale. * " quse fuit " omitted by Dugdale. 4 " per servicium railitare " (wrongly, Dug.). 5 "et" omitted by Dugdale. 8 "centum libratas " (Dug.). l68 THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS. et ex toto cadere. Et concede quod Ernulf[us] de Manna- vill teneat illas C libratas terrae quas ei dedi, et servicium X militum de Comite Gaufredo patre suo. Et praeter hoc do et concedo eidem Ernulfo C libratas terras de terris Eschaetis Et servicium X militum ad tenendum de domino meo Comite Andegau[ie] et de me in capite haereditarie sibi et haeredibus suis de nobis et de haeredibus nostris videlicet Cristeshalam l et Benedis 2 pro quanto valeut. Et super- plus 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 Lun- d[oniae] faciemtis, nisi concessu et assensu praedicti Comitis Gaufredi quia inimici eius sunt mortales. Concedo etiam eidem Gaufredo quod novum castellum quod firmavit super Lviam 3 stet et remaneat ad efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Concedo etiam ei quod firmet unum Castellum ubicunque voluerit in terra sua 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. Haec autem omnia supradicta tenementa in omnibus rebus conoedo ei tenenda haereditarie sibi et hoeredibus suis de me et haeredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter praecipio quod ipse Gaufredus comes et haeredes sui teneant haec omnia supradicta tenementa ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et 1 Chreshall, alias Christhall, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne. Was held by Count Eustace, at the Survey, in demesne. Stephen granted it to his own son William, who gave it to Richard de Luci. 2 Bendish Hall, in Radwinter, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne. It was given by Stephen's son William to Faversham Abbey, Kent. 3 This word is illegible. It baffled the transcriber in Lansd. MS. 259. Dugdalc has " wiam." The right reading is " luiam," the river Lea bc'ing meant, as is proved by the Pipe-Roll of 14 Hen. IF. TEXT OF THE CHARTER. 169 plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum totius Anglias melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio Otuet * fratri ejusdein Comitis Gaufredi C libratas terras de terris Escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et hsereditate pro seruicio suo, et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi. Concedo etiam quod Willelmus de Sai 2 habeat omnes terras et tenementa qu33 fuerunt patris sui, et ipse et haeredes sui, et quod Willelmus Cap'. 3 habeat terrain patris sui sine placito et ipse et haeredes sui. Concedo etiam eidem Comiti Gau- fredo quod Willelmus films Walteri 4 et haeredes sui habeant custodiarn Castelli de Windesh' et omnia sua 1 William fitz Otwel, Earl Geoffrey's " brother," is referred to by Earl William (Geoffrey's son) as his uncle (" avunculus ") in a charter confirming his grant of lands (thirty-three acres) in "Abi et Toresbi" to Greenfield Nunnery, Lincolnshire (Harl. Cart., 53, C, 50). He is also a witness, as " patruus meus," to a charter of Earl Geoffrey the younger (Sloane Cart., xxxii. 64), early in the reign of Henry II. He was clearly a " uterine " brother of Earl Geoffrey the elder, so that his father must have married William de Mandeville's widow a fact unknown to genealogists. 2 William de Sai had married Beatrice, sister (and, in her issue, heiress) of the earl, by whom he was ancestor of the second line of Mandeville, Earl of Essex. In the following year he joined the earl in his furious revolt against the king. 3 This was William " Oapra " (Cft^ure), whose family gave its name to the manor of " Chevers " in Mountnessing, county Essex. He was probably another brother-in-law of the earl, for I have seen a charter of Alice (Adelid[is]) Capra, in which she speaks of Geoffrey's son, Earl William, as her nephew (" nepos "). There is also a charter of a Geoffrey Capra and Mazelina (sic) his wife, which suggests that the name of Geoffrey may have come to the family from the earl. Thoby Priory, Essex, was founded (1141- 1151) by Michael Capra, Roesia his wife, and William, their son. The founder speaks supported Nigel's cause. GEOFFREY TAKES TO THE FENLAND. 2OQ monizes 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. 1 Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, whose allegiance had ever sat lightly upon him, appears to have eventually become his ally, 2 but for the time we hear only of his brother-in-law, William de Say, as actively embracing his cause. 3 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 re- construct 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 Eome, 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. 4 He soon made a further advance, and, pushing on in the same direction, burst upon Eamsey Abbey on a December 5 morning at 1 See Appendix 2 : " Bishop Nigel at Rome." 2 " Hugone quoque, cognomente Bigot, viro illustri et in illis partibus potenti, sibi confcederato " (Qesta, p. 106). 3 Man. Ang., iv. 142. * " Homines regis erga locum fratmm Ely insidias unanimiter paraverunt, adversum quos cum custodes insulse non sufficereut rebellare, Galfridum comitem, tune adversarium [Stephani regis,] incendiis patriam et seditione perturbantem, suscipiunt; cui etiam castrum de Ely, atque Alrehede, ob firmamentum tuitionis, submiserunt " (Historia Eliensis, p. 623). 4 Here again we are indebted for the date to the London Chronicle (Liber P 210 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. daybreak, seized the monks in their beds, drove them forth clad as they were, and turned the abbey into a fortified post. 1 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 Eamsey in person, and installed him by force as abbot only eighteen days before the earl's attack. 2 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. 3 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. 4 de Ant. Leg., fol. 35), which states that Geoffrey " in adventu Domini fecit castellum Ecclesiam de Rameseya." Geoffrey's doings may well have been of special interest to the Londoners. 1 " Ira humanum excedente modum, ita efferatus est, ut procurantibus Willelmo de Saye et Daniele quodam falsi nominis ac tonsurae monacho, navigio cum suis subvectus Eameseiam peteret, ecclesiam Deo ac beato patri Benedictodicatainsummomane ausu temerario primitus invadendo subintraret, monachosque omnes post divinum nocturnale officium sopori deditos compre- henderet, et vix habitu simplici indutos expellendo statim perturbaret, nullaque interveniente mora, ecclesiam illam satis pulcherrimam, non ut Dei castrurn sed sicut castellum, superius ac iuferius, iutus ac extra, fortiter munivit " (Mon. Ang., iv. 142). " Hie totus in rabicm invectus Ramesiam, nobile monasterium invadens, fugata monachorum caterva, cut>todiam posuit " (Leland's Collectanea, i. 600). 2 Chronicon Abbatix Samesiensis. pp. 327-329. * Monachis expulsis, raptores immisit, et ecclesiam Dei speluncam fecit latronurn" (Hen. Hunt., p. 277). 4 " Vasa autem altaris aurea et argentea Deo sacrata, capas etiam canto- rum lapidibus preciosis ac opere mirifico contextas, casulis cum albis, et STRATEGY OF THE REBELS. 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. 1 From his ad- vanced post at Eamsey Abbey, he was within striking distance of several important points, while himself com- paratively 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. 2 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. 3 His posi- tions at Ely and Eamsey were themselves connected by a garrison, on the borders of the two counties, at Benwick. 4 cseteris ecclesiastic! decoris ornamentis rapuit, et quibuslibet eruere volentibus vili satis precio distraxit unde militibus et satellitibus suis debita largitus est stipendia" (Mun. Aug., iv. 142). " Ccenobiumque sancti Benedict! de Rameseia non solum, captis monachorum spoliis, altaribus quoque et sanc- torum reliquiis nudatis, expilavit, sed etiam expulsis incompassive monachis de monasterio, militibusque impositis castellum sibi adaptavit " (Gesta, p. 105). " Cum manu forti monasterium ipsum occupavit, monachos dispersit, thesau- rum et omnia ecclesiae ornamenta sacrilega manu surripuit et ex ipso monas- terio stabulum fecit equorum, villas adjaceutes cominilitonibus pro stipendiis distribuit " (Chron. Ram., p. 329). 1 " Galfridus igitur, ubique in regno fide sibi et hominio conjuratis in unum secum cuneum convocatis, gregarise quoque militise sed et prrodouum, qui undecumque devote concur rerant, robustissima manu in suum protinus conspirata collegium, ignibus et gladio ubique locorum dessevire " (Gesta, p. 105). " Crebris eruptionibus atque excursionibus vicinas infestavit pro- vincias " ( W. Newburgh, i. 45). * " Castellum quoddam fecerat apud Waltone " (Chron. Bam., p. 332). * " Inde recessum habuit per Ely quiete : Fordham quoque contra hostes sibi cum valida manu firmare usurpavit " (Historia Eliensis, p. 623). 4 " Similiter apud Benewik in transitu aquarum " (ibid.). 212 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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 \vas marked by wild havoc, and he returned laden with plunder. 1 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. 2 Bursting suddenly on the town, he sur- prised, 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. 8 The whole country round was the scene of similar deeds. 4 The humblest village church was not safe from his attack, 5 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- 1 "Omnia adversus regi partis consentaneos abripere et consumere, nudare et destruere" (Gesta, p. 105). " Maneria, villas, ceteraque proprie- tatera regiam contingentia priinitus invasit, igni combussit, prsedasque. cum rapinis non minimis inde sublatas commilitonibus suis larga manu distri- buit " (Monasticon, iv. 142). 2 Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. 119, 128. Compare the Peterborough Chronicle : "Kseuedan hi & breudon alle the tunes" (Ang. Sax. Chron., i. 382). 3 Gesta. 4 "Talique ferocitate in omnem circumquaque provinciam, in omnibus etiaiu, quascunque obviam habebat, ecclesiis immiseranter desseviit ; posses- siones ccenobiorum, distractis rebus, depopulatis omnibus in solitudinem redegit; sauctuaria eorum, vel qusecumque in aerariis concredita rcpone- bautur sine metu vel pietate ferox abripuit" (ibid.). 4 " Locis sacris vel ipsis de ecclesiis nullam deftreudo exhibuit rtveren- tiam" (Monasticon, iv. 142). GEOFFREY RAVAGES THE LAND. 213 house. In a MS. of the Historia Anglorum there is pre- served by Mathew Paris the tradition that the earl and his lawless followers mockingly sang of their wild doings " I ne mai a live For Benoit ne for Ive." x It may not have been observed that this jingle refers to St. Benedict of Eamsey and its daughter-house of St. Ives. 2 Emboldened by success, he extended his ravages, till his deeds could no longer be ignored. 3 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. 4 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 1 "Facti enim amentes cantitabat unusquisque Anglice," etc. The " Anglice " reads oddly. Strange that the sufferings of the people should be bewailed and made merry over in the same tongue 1 8 Stephen himself behaved no better, to judge from the story in the Chronicle of Abingdon (ii. 292), where it is alleged that the king, being informed of a large sum of money stored in the treasury of the abbey, sent his satellite, William d'Ypres, who, gaining admission on the plea of prayer, broke open the chest with an axe, and carried off the treasure. 3 " Militum suorum numerositate immanior factus, per totam ciroumcirca discurrendo provinciam nulli cuicunque pecuniam possidenti parcere vovit " (Mon. Aug., iv. 142). "Crebris eruptionibus et excursionibus vicinas infestavit provincias. Deinde sumpta ex successu fiducia longius progrediens, regem Stephanum acerrimis fatigavit terruitque incursibus " ( Will. Newb., i. 45). 4 Gesta. 214 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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. 1 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 im- perishable 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. 2 A very interesting reference to this condition of things is found in a com- munication from the pope to Archbishop Theobald, stating 1 " Exploratores vero illius, habitu rautato, more egenorum ostiatim oberrantes, villanis et cseteris hujusmodi hominibus pecunia a Deo data abundantibus insidiabantur, quibus taliter compertis intempestse noclis silentio, tempore tamen primitus considerate, Sathanse satellites a comite transmittebantur qui viros innocuos alto sopore quandoque detentos raperent raptos vero quasi pro magno munere ei presentarent. Qui mox immani supplicio, per intervalla tamen, vexabantur et tamdiu per tormenta varia vicissim sibi succedentia torquebantur, donee pecunise eis impositse ultimum solverent quadrantem " (Monasticon, iv. 142). Au incidental allusion to this system of robbery by ransom is found in an inquisition (temp. John) on the royal manor of Writtle, Essex (Testa de Nevill, p. 2706). It is there recorded that Godebold of Writtle, who held land at Borehum, was captured by Geoffrey and forced to mortgage his land to raise the means for his ransom: "Godebold de Write!' qui earn tenuit captus a comite Galfrido, patre Willelmi de Manduvilla, tempore regis Stephani, pro redemptione sua versus predictum comitem acquietanda posuit in vadimonium," etc. 2 " Propterea Rex Stephanus, ira graviter accensus, omnia haec reputavit ab Episcopo Nigello machinari ; et jussit e vestigio possessiones EcclesLe a suis undequaque distrahi in vindictam odiorum ejus. Succisa igitur Monaohia rerum facultate suarum, nimis segre compelluntur in Ecclesia, maxiine ciborum inedia. Unde non habentes victuum, gementes et anxii ruliquns thesaurorum," etc. (Ilistoria Eliensis, p. 623). PROTESTS OF BISHOP NIGEL. 215 that Bishop Nigel of Ely has written to complain that he found on his return from Eome 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 f rater noster N. elyensis episcopus per literas'suas nobis significavit quod dum apostolicorum limina et nostram presen- tiam 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, Stepha- nus rex omnes ejusdem ecclesie possessiones exteriores occupavit tt pro voluntate sua illicite distribuit." 1 This letter would seem to have been written subsequent to Nigel's return. The bishop, however, had heard while at Eome of these violent proceedings, 2 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." 3 But the bishop was not the only sufferer who turned to Eome for help. When Stephen installed the ambitious Daniel as Abbot of Eamsey in person, Walter, the late abbot, had sought "the threshold of the Apostles." Daniel, whether implicated or not in Geoffrey's sacrile- gious deeds, found himself virtually deposed when the 1 Cotton. MS., Tib. A. vi. fol. 117. 8 "Hsec omnia episcopo, quamvis Romse longius commoranti, satis innotuerunt, et gratia Domini Papse sublimiter donatus, his munimentis tandem roboratus contra deprimeiitum ingenia, ad domum gaudens rediit " (Eistoria Eliensis, p. 623). 8 Cotton. MS., Tib. A. vi. fol. 116 b. See Appendix A A : "Tenserie." 2l6 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. abbey became a fortress of the earl. Alarmed also for the possible consequence of Walter's appeal to Eome, he resolved to follow his example and betake himself to the pope, trusting to the treasure that he was able to bring. 1 The guileless simplicity of Walter, however, carried the day ; he found favour in the eyes of the curia and returned to claim his abbey. 2 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. 3 1 Chronicle of Eamsey, p. 329. 2 " Quum autem negotium feliciter ibi consummasset, reversus in Angliam infra tres menses per judices delegates abbatiam suam, Rege super hoc multurn murmurante, recuperavit " (ibid., p. 330). 3 " Quum vero ssepedictus abbas in possessionem abbatise suse corporaliter mitti debuisset, invenit sceleratam familiam prsedicti comitis sibi fortiter resistentem. Sed ipse, Spiritu Dei plenus, inter sagittas et gladios ipsorum esepius in caput ejus vibratos, accessit intrepidus, ignem arripuit, et tentoria ipsorum portamque exteriorem quam incastellaverant viriliter incendit et combussit. Sed nee propter incendium nee propter anathema quod in eos fuerat sententiatum locum amatum deserere vel abbati cedere voluerunt. Creditur a multis miraculose factum esse quod nullus ex insanis praedonibus illis manus in eum misit dum eorum tecta combureret quam vis lanceis et sagittis, multuin irati, dum hsec faceret, mortem ei cominus intentarent " (ibid.). DESECRATION OF RAMSEY ABBEY, 21 7 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. 1 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. 8 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. 3 Barely a "plough remained on all his broad demesnes ; all pro- visions had been carried off; no man tilled the land. Every lord had now his castle, and every castle was a robber's nest. 4 In vain he boldly appealed to Earl 1 "Aliud etiam illis diebus fertur contigisse miraculum, quod lapidos murorum ecclesise Ramesensis, claustri etiam et officinarum quas praedones inhabitaverant, in magna quantitate guttas sanguinis emiserunt, unde per totam Angliam rumor abiit admirabilis, et magnse super hoc babitaa aunt inter omnes ad invicem collationes. Erat enim quasi notorium, et omnibus intueri volentibus visu et tactu manifestum " (ibid.). 2 "Dum autem ecclesia ilia pro castello teneretur, ebullivit sanguis a parietibus ecclesie et claustri adjacentis, indignationem divinam manifestans, exterminationem sceleratorum denuntians ; quod multi quidem, et ipse ego, oculis meis inspexi " (Hen. Hunt., p. 277). 8 " Miserabilis abbas iste post tot labores et serumnas quietem habere et domum suam recuperasse sperabat a qua dolens et exspes recessit, laboribus expensis ita fatigatus ut jam tsederet eum vivere. Non enim habebat unde modice familise suse equitaturas et sumptus necessaries posset providere" (Chrvn. Earn., p. 331). 4 "In omnibus terris dominicis totius abbatise unam tantum carucam reperit et dimidiam, reperit victualium nihil ; debitum urgebat ; terrae jace- 2l8 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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. 1 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. 2 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 be bought for two hundred pence. The people, by hundreds and thousands, were perishing bant iucultse. . . . Oportuit prsefatum abbatem xxiiii castell[?anis] vel amplius singulis mcnsibus pro rusticis suis redemptiories seu tenserias prsestare, qui tam per Danielem quam per ipsos malefactoresmul turn exhaust! fuerant, et extenuati" (Chron. Bam., 333, 334). This description, though it is applied to the state of things which awaited the abbot on Earl Geoffrey's death, is obviously in point here. It is of importance for its allusion to the plough, which illustrates the language of Domesday (the plough-teams being always the first to suffer, and the most serious loss : compare Bishop Dene- wulfs tenth-century charter in Liber de Hydd), but still more for its mtutiou of the tenserias. Here we have the very same word, used at the very same time, at Peterborough, Ramsey, and Ely. The correction, therefore, of the English Chronicle is utterly unjustifiable (see Appendix A A). Moreover, a com- parison of this passage with the letter of Pope Lucius (ante, p. 215) shows that at Ramsey, as at Ely, the evil effect of this state of things continued in these tenser iss even after the bishop and the abbot had respectively regained possession. 1 "Suorum tandem consilio fretus, comitem Gaufridum adiit, monasterii f-ui detentorem, patenter et audacter ei ostendens tam ipsurn quam totam familiam ipsius, tam ex ipso facto quam apostolica auctoritate interveniente, a Christian^ communione esse privates, domum suam sibi postulans restitui si vellet absolvi. Quod comes vix patienter audiens, plures ei terminos de reddeuda possessione sua constituit, scd promissum nunquam adimplevit ita ut cum potius deludere videretur quam ablatam possessionem sibi velle restituere ; unde miser abbas miserabiliter afflictus mortis debitum jam vellet exsolvisse " (Chron. Bam., p. 331). 2 " Sed prophani milites in sua malitia pertinaces nee sic domum Dei quam pollueraut reddere voluerant ; induratum enim erat cor eorum " (ibid., p. 330). HORRORS OF THE ANARCHY. 2 19 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. 1 Nor were the peasants the only sufferers. Might was then right, for all classes, throughout the land ; z 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." 3 In the mad orgie of wickedness neither women nor the aged were spared. Ransom was wrung from the quivering victims by a thousand refine- ments 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 dee from them." 4 Again we are tempted to ask if we have not in these very scenes the actual original from which was drawn the 1 " Oppresserat enim fames omnem regionem ; et aegra seges victum omnem negaverat ; per viginti milliaria seu triginta mm bos non aratrum est inventus qui particulam terrse excoleret ; vix parvissimus tune modius emi poterat ducentis deiiariis. Tantaque hominum elades de inopia patris sequuta est, ut per vicos et plateas centeni et milleni ad instar uteris inflati exanimes jacerent: feris et volatilibus cadavera inhumata relinquebantur. Nam multo retro tempore tails tribulatio non fuit in cunctis terrarum regnis " (Histvria Eliensis, p. 623). 2 "Efferbuit enim per totam Angliam Stephani regis hostilis tribulatio, totaque insula vi potius quam ratione regebatur " (Cliron. Bam., p. 334). 3 " Potentes, per circuitum late vastando, milites ex rapina conducunt ; villas comburunt : captivos de longe ducentes miserabiliter tractabant ; pios alligabant in compedibus et nobiles in manicis ferreis" (Historia Eliensis, p. 623). 4 " Furit itaque rabies vesana. Invicta Isetatur malitia : non sexui non parcunt setati. Mille mortis species inferunt, ut ab afflictis pecuniam excu- tiant : fit clamor dirus plangentium : inhorruit luctus ubique mserentium ; et constat fuisse completum quod nunciatur in Apocalypsi Joannis : ' quserent homines mori et fugiet mors ab eis ' " (ibid.). 220 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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 : " Why doost withdraw thy hand aback, And hide it in thy lappe ? pluck it out, and be not slack To give thy foes a rappe ! " But when night is darkest, dawn is nearest, 1 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 ! 2 The fortified post which the king's men had now estab- lished at Burwell was a standing threat to Fordham, the key of his line of communications. He was therefore 1 " Sed verum est quod vulgariter dicitur : ' Ubi dolor maximus ibi proxima consolatio ' " (Chron. Ram., p. 331). 2 " Herba viridissima emarcuit, ut eo surgente quasi praemortua videretur, nee toto fere anno viridatis suss vires recuperavit. Unde datur intelligi quam detestandum sit consortium excoramunicatorum " (Gervase, i. p. 128). GEOFFREY FATALLY WOUNDED. 221 compelled to attack it. And there he was destined to die the death of Kichard Coeur 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. 1 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 Eamsey 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 1 " Accessit paulo post cum exercitu suo ad quoddam castellum expug- nandum quod apud Burewelle de novo fuerat constructum, et quum elevata casside illud circuiret ut infirmiore m ejus partem eligeret ad expugnandum, . . . quidam vilissimus Sagittarius ex hiis qui intra castellum erant capiti ipsius comitis lethale vulnus impressit " (Chron. Bam., 331, 332). " Hie, cum ... in obsidione supradicti castelli de Burwelle in scuto et lancea contra adversarios viriliter decertasset, ob nimium calorem cassidem deposuit, et loricse ventilabrum solvit, sicque nudato capite intrepidus militavit. JSstus quippe erat. Quern cum vidisset quispiam de castello, et adversarium agnosceret, telo gracili quod ganea dicitur eum jam comiuus positum petiit, que testam capitia ipsius male nudati perforavit" (Gervase, i. 128). " Dum nimis audax, nimisque prudentiaa suae innitens regise virtutis castella frequentius circumstreperet, ab ipsis tandem regalibus circumventus prosternitur" (Gesta, p. 106). "Post hujusmodi tandem excessibus aliisque multis his s-imilibus pub- licam anathematis non immerito incurrit sententiam, in qua apud quoddam oppidulum in Burwella lethaliter in capite vulneratus eat" (Man. Ang., iv. 142). " Inter acies suorum confertas, a quodam peilite vilissimo solus sagitta percussus est. Et ipse, vulnus ridens, post dies tamen ex ipso vuluere excommunicatus occubuit " (Hen. Hunt., 276). 222 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. patron saint. 1 At Waltbam 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 tlje self-same hour in which its aid was invoked against the oppressor of its shrine. 2 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. 8 For the wound was fatal. The earl, like Richard in after days, made light of it at first. 4 Retiring, it would seem, through Fordham, along the Thetford road, he reached Mildenball in Suffolk, and there he remained, to die. The monks of his own foundation believed, and per- haps with truth, that when face to face with death, he displayed heartfelt penitence, prayed earnestly that his sins might be 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 1 "In quodam praedio consisteret quod ... ad Ramesense monasterium pertinebat, et pertinet usque in hodiernum diem . . . Quod iccirco in fuiido beati Benedicti factum fuisse creditur ut omncs intelligere possent quod Dcus ultionum dominus hoc fecerat in odium et vindictam injuriarum quas monasterio beati Benedicti sacrilegus comes intulerat" (Chron. Bam., p. 331). 2 "Cum nollet Batisfacere, placuit fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus in transgressionis huius vindictam Crucem deponere si forte dives ille com- punctus hoc facto vellet rescipiscere. Tradunt autem qui hiis inquirendis diligentiam adhibuerunt eadem depositionis hora Comitem ilium ante castrum de Burewelle ad quod expugnandum diligenter operam dabat letale vulnus suscepisse et eo infra xl dies viam universe Carnis ingressum fuisse " (Harl. MS., 3776). See also Appendix M. 3 " Verum tantarum tamque immanium persecutionum, tarn crudelium quoque, quas in omnes ingerebat, calamitatum jiifctissimus tandem respecter Deus dignum malitiaB suse finem imposuit " (Gesta, p. 106). " Quia igitur improbi dixerunt Deum dormitare, excitatus est Deus, et in hoc signo, et in significato " (Hen. Hunt., p. 277). 4 " Letiferum sui capitis vulnus deridens nee sic a suo cessavit furore " (Gervase, i. 128, 129). GEOFFREY DIES EXCOMMUNICATE. 22$ before, it is doubtful if any one but the pope could absolve so great a sinner. 1 In the mean time the Abbot of Eamsey heard the start- ling 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 Eamsey Abbey. Armed with these, the abbot departed as speedily as he had come. 2 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. 3 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. 4 As the earl was drawing his 1 " Poenitens itaque valde et Deo cum magna cordis contritione pro peccatis suis supplicans, quantum taliter moriens poterat, Deo et homi- nibus satisfecit, licet a prsesentibus absolvi non poterat" (Mon. Ang., iv. 142). Of. p. 202, supra. 2 " Quum igitur apud Mildehale mortis angustia premeretur, hoc audiens prsefatus abbas ad eum citissime convolavit. Quo cum venisset, nee erat in ipso comite vox neque sensus, familiares tamen ipsius, domino suo multum condolentes, eum benigne receperunt et cum literis ipsius comitis eum ad filium suum scilicet Ernaldum de Magna Villa . . . statim miserunt ut sine mora coanobium suum sibi restitueret " (Chron. Ram., p. 332). a " Gaufridus de Magna Villa regem validissime vexavit et in omnibus gloriosus effulsit. Mense autem August! miraculum justitia sua dignum Dei splendor exhibuit " {Hen. Hunt., p. 277). 4 " Et sicut, dum viveret, ecclesiam confudit, terram turbavit, sic, ad eum confundendum tota Anglise conspiravit ecclesia ; quia et anathematis 224 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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. 1 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. 2 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. 8 (1159-1181). But the Ramsey Chronicle, which appears to be a virtually contemporary record, assigns the eventual gladio percussus et inabsolutus abscessit, et terrae sacrilegum dari non licuit" (Gesta, p. 106). 1 " Illo autem, in discrimine mortis, ultimum trahente spiritum, quidam super venere Templarii qui religionis suse habitum cruce rubea signatum ei imposuerunt " (Mow. Ang., ut supra). But the red cross is said not to have been assumed by the order till the time of Pope Eugene (1145). See Monasticon Ang., ii. 815, 816. 2 "Ac deinde jam mortuum secum tollentes, et in pomerio suo, veteris scilicet Templi apud London' canali inclusum plumbeo in arbore torva suspen- derunt " (Man. Aug., iv. 142). "Corpus vero defuncti comitis in trunco quodam signatum, et propter anathema quo fuerat innodatus Londoniis apud Vetus Templum extra cimiterium in antro quodam projectum est " (Chron. Ram., p. 332). This would seem to be the earliest mention of the Old Temple. Pomerium in Low Latin is, of course, an orchard, and not, as Mr. Freeman so strangely imagines (at Nottingham, in Domesday), a town wall. 8 " Post aliquod vero tempus industria et expensis Willelmi quern jam pridem in Waldena constituerat priorem, a papa Alexandro, more taliter decedentium meruit absolvi, inter Christianos recipi, et pro eo divina cele- brari " CMbn. Ang., iv. 142). POSTHUMOUS ABSOLUTION OF GEOFFREY. 22$ removal of the ban to Geoffrey's son and namesake, and to the atonement which he made to Eamsey Abbey on his father's behalf. 1 The latter story is most precise, but both may well be true. For, although the Eamsey 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 Eamsey 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. 2 As this confirmation is dated at Windsor, April 6, 1163, we thus, roughly, obtain the date of the earl's Christian burial. 3 1 "Ibique jacuit toto tempore Regis Stephani magnaque parte Regis Henrici Secundi, donee Gaufridus filius ejus, Comes Essexie, vir industrius et justitiarius Domini Regis jam factus Dominum Willelmum abbatem caepit humiliter interpellate pro patre suo defuncto offerens satisfactionem, et quum ab eo benignum super hoc responsum accepisset, statuta die convenerunt ambo sub prsesentia domini Cantuarensis, scilicet beati Thomae martyris, super hoc tractaturi. . . . Quo facto, pater ipsius comitis Christianse traditus est sepultursB." The earl's grant runs as follows : "Gaufridus de Magna Villa Comes Essexie, omnibus amicis suis et hominibus et universis sanctae Ecclesise filiis salutem. " Satis notum est quanta damna pater meus, Comes Gaufridus, tempore guerrarum monasterio de Rameseia irrogaverit. " Et quia tanta noxia publico dinoscitur indigere remedio, ego tain pro eo quam pro suis satisfacere volens, consilio sanctae Ecclesise cum Willelmo Abbate monachisque suprascripti coanobii in hanc formam composui. . . . Et quia constat sepedictum patrem meum in irrogatione damnorum memoratse ecclesiae bona thesauri in cappis, et textis, et hujusmodi plurimum delapidasse, ad eorundem reparationem ad ecclesiae ornatum dignum duxi redditum istum assignari" (Cart. Ram., i. 197). Compare p. 276, n. 3, and p. 415. 8 Chron. Bam., pp. 306, 333. The king was probably at Windsor at the time, and the date is a useful one for Becket's movements. 1 A curious archaeological question is raised by this date. According to the received belief, the Templars did not remove to the New Temple till 1185, but, according to this evidence, they already had their churchyard there consecrated in 1163, and had therefore, we may presume, begun their church. The church of the New Temple was consecrated by Heraclius on his visit in 1185, but may have been finished sooner. Q 226 FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY. 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. 1 1 " Cumque Prior ille corpus defunctum deponere et secura Waldenam deferre satageret, Templarii illi caute premeditati statim illud tollentes, et in cimiterio novi templi ignobili satis tradiderunt sepulturse " (Man. Aug., iv. 142). It was generally believed that his effigy was among those remaining at the Temple, but this supposition is erroneous, as has been shown by Mr. J. G. Nichols in an elaborate article on " The Effigy attributed to Geoffrey de Magnaville, and the Other Effigies in the Temple Church " (Herald and Genealogist [1866], iii. 97, et seq.). ( 227 ) CHAPTEB X. THE EAELDOM OF ESSEX. 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, 1 but it was the decease of the great earl which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy and hope. 2 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. 3 Before the year was out, he was himself made prisoner and straightway banished from the realm. 4 Nor was the vengeance of Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the wicked earl was thrown from his horse and killed, 5 and 1 " Willelmi de Say et Galfridi de Mandeville, qui apud Borewelle inter- fecti fuerunt " (Chron. Earn., App. p. 347). 2 " Isto itaque tali modo ad extrema deducto, nox qusedam et horror omnes regis adversaries implevit, quique ex dissensione a Galfrido exorta regis annisum maxime infirmari putabant, nunc, eo interfecto, liberiorem et ad se perturbandura, ut res se habebat, expediorem fore sestimabant " (Gesta, p. 104). " Sicque Dei judicio patrise vastatore sublato, virtus bellatorum qui secum manum ad perniciem miserorum firmaverunt plurimum labefacta est, cog- noscentes Dominum Christum fideli suo Regi de hostibus dare triumphum, et adversantes ei potenter elidere, ad hoc expavit cor inimicorum illius" (Higtoria Miensis, p. 628). * " Quod post dilationes, non sine difficultate, tandem invitus fecit ; locum enim ilium et vicinas ejus partes multum dilexerat. Prophani milites recedunt cum iniquo satellite " (Chron. Ram., p. 332). * " Eodem quoque anno, Ernulfus filius comitis, qui post mortem patris ecclesiam incastellatam retiuebat, captas est et in exilium fugatus " (Ger- vase, i. 129. Cf. Hen. Hunt.). * " Cujus priuceps militum ab equo corruens efifuso cerebro spiritum ex- halavit " (ibid.). 228 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. 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. 1 Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest to ignore the subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de Mandeville. 2 He has even been conveniently disposed of by the statement that he died childless. 3 It may there- fore 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 con- firming Ernald de Bosco's foundation at Betlesdene. 4 He also occurs as a principal witness in a family charter, about the same time. 5 This document, 6 which is addressed by Earl Geoffrey " baronibus suis," is a confirmation of a grant of lands in Sawbridgeworth, by 1 " Magister autem peditum suorum, qui plus cseteris solitus erat ecclesias concremare et frangere, dum mare transiret cum uxore sua, ut multi perhi- bucrant, navis immoltilis facta eat. Quod monstrum nautis stupentibus efc sorte data rei causam inquirentibus, sors cecidit super eum. Quod cum illc totis viribus, nee minim, contradiceret, secundo et tertio sors jacta in eum devenit : formidantibtis igitur nautis positus est in cymbam parvulam ipsc et uxor ejus et eorum pecunia nequiter adquisita, ut cum illis esset in perdi- tione ; quo facto, navis ut priua maria libera sulcavit, cymba vero in voragine subsistens circumducta et absorpta est " (Hen. Hunt.). 2 There is abundant evidence that the two names are used indifferently. 3 Burke's Extinct Peerage. So also Dr. Stubbs. 4 Earl. Cart, 84. C. 4. The charter being attested by Thomas the Chancellor must be previous to August, 1158, as it passed at Westminster. It has a rather unusual set of witnesses. 5 This charter may fairly be dated 1157-1158, on the following grounds. It speaks of Warine fitz Gerold as the king's chamberlain, and as living. But he died in the summer of 1158. It is, however, subsequent to Henry's accession, because it was not till after that event that Fitz Gerold was enfeoffed in Sawbridgeworth (Liber Niger), and also subsequent to 1 155, because Geoffrey occurs as earl. But as Maurice (de Tiretei) was not sheriff, within these limits, till Michaelmas, 1157, we obtain the date 1157-1158. K Sloane Cart., xxxii. 64. FATE OF ERNULF DE MANDEVILLE. 2 29 his tenant Warine fitz Gerold " Canierarius 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, Eus- t[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 Man- devill" who holds a knight's fee, in Yorkshire, of Ranulf fitz Walter in 1166. 1 But in the earliest Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of terrse datse in Wilts., to the amount of 11 10s. Qd. (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 2 and 1201-2. 3 Later on, in a list of knights' fees in Wilts., which must belong, from the mention of Earl William de Longespee, to 1196 1226, and is probably circ. 1212, we read : " Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes unius militis de Rege." 4 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 1 Liber Niger (ed. 1774), p. 326. The return of the Barony of Helion (p. 242), in which an Ernulf de Mandeville appears as holding half a knight's fee in Bumsted (Helion), is of later date. * Rot. Pip-, 1 Rio. I. The " Ernald de Magneville" who was among tlie Crusaders that reached Acre in June, 1191, may have been a younger son of the disinherited Ernald, if the latter was then dead. An Ernulf de Mande- ville is found among the witnesses to a star of Abraham fitz Muriel (1214), granting a house in Westcheap to Geoffrey " de Mandeville," Earl of Essex and Gloucester. 8 Rot. Pip., 3 John. Testa, p. 142 b. 230 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the case of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts, con- venient as a means of rewarding her partisans. 1 But we now come to a series of charters of the highest import- ance 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 terrain de Caingeham, . . . pro servitio unius militia in excambitione terre Eadulfi de Nuer. . . . Et si Caingeham illi garan- tizare non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham antequara inde sit dissaisitus. . . . T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo meo, Henry (sic) fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Ead[ulfjo 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, Ead[ulfo] frater (sic) eius, Aluredus (sic) Predevilain." 2 Ralph " de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder of four fees from Earl Geoffrey (II.). 3 Of the witnesses to the charter, 4 Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamber- lain) 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 hold- 1 See, for the exceptionally heavy alienations in this country (some 440 a year), the Pipe-Koll of 2 Henry II., p. 57. * Dugdale MS., 15 (H) fol. 129. 8 " Feod[um] Rad[ulfi] de Nuers iiii. milites " (Liber Niger). 4 Compare them with the preceding charter of Earl Geoffrey. ERNULF DE MANDEVILLE AND HIS HEIRS. 231 ing, is not unworthy of notice. The second charter is from Earl William, confirming his brother's gift : "Willelmus de Manda villa comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, etc. Sciatis me concessisse Ernulfode Mandauilla fratri meo dona- tionem quam Comes Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham. . . . T. Comite Albrico, Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Wil- l[elm]o de Bouilla, Eadu[lfo] de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuillo, Eic[ard]o de Eochella, Osberto fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone clerico," etc. 1 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. 2 " Sewalus de Osevill " then (1166) held four fees (de veteri) of the earl. Eichard "de Eochella" held three-quarters of a fee (de novo). Osbert fitz Eichard was probably a son of Eichard fitz Osbert, who held four fees (de veteri) in 1166. Wiscard Ledet was a tenant in capite in Oxfordshire (Testa, p. 103) . 8 The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee himself to his son : "Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dtdi Kadulfo de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de 1 Dugdale MS., ut supra. 1 William's succession to Otwel suggests that they were somehow related to William fitz Otuel (p. 169). 8 With this charter of Earl William may be compared another {Cart. Cott., x. 1), in which he confirms to Westminster Abbey the church of Sawbridgeworth. The witnesses are " Willielmo de Ver, Asculfo Capellauo, Ricardo de Vercorol, Willelmo de Lisoris, David de Jarpouilla, Symone fratre eius, Osberto filio Ricardi, Osberto de sancto Claro, Willelmo de Nor- hala, Johanne de Rochella, Eustachio Camerario, Rogero et Simone clericis Abbatis West'." The second and third witnesses are also found attesting the earl's charter to the nuns of Greenfield (see p. 169). Compare further " A charter of William, Earl of Essex " (Eng. Hist. Eeview, April, 1891). " Asculfus (or Hasculfus) Capellanus " was the hero of the adventure, on the earl's death, thus related by Dugdale: "A chaplain of the earl's, called Hasculf, took out his best saddle-horse in the night, and rode to Chieksand, where the Countess Rohese then resided," etc., etc. 232 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. Chaingeham . . . et hospitium meum Oxcnfordie ad prsedictam villain pertinens ' . . . T. Henrico Danuers," etc. 2 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." 3 Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step further : " Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuilla con- cessi Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuilla," etc., etc. 4 Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert de Mandeville, and Ealph his brother, and Hugh de Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of Ralph de Man- deville, to which the first witness is " Galfridus de Man- dauilla frater meus." 5 We have now established this pedigree : GEOFFREY, = Roese EABL OF ESSEX, d. 1144. de Vere. Ernulf = Aaliz. de Mandeville, son and heir (disinherited). Geoffrey Ealph 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 1 This is a good instance of the custom, so constantly met with in Domes- day, by which a house in a county town was attached to a manor. * Dugdale MS., ut supra. 3 Dodsicorth MS., vii. fol. 299. 4 Ibid. s Ibid., xxx. fol. 104. ERNULF DE MANDEVILLE DISINHERITED. 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 Adae de Port, Henrico de Port) fratre ejusdem, Galfrido de Mandeville," etc. 1 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. 2 In Wiltshire they are found yet later, Worth being still held by them in 1292-93 (21 Edw. I). 3 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 1 " Alano de Matem " is among them (cf. p. 89). 8 " Willelmus de Mandevill tenet in Kaingham feodum unius militis de feod[o] Comitis Hereford[ie] " (Testa, pp. 102 a, 106 a). 3 Lansdovme MS., 865, fol. 118 dors. ; Earl. MS., 154, fol. 45. 234 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatom suam et omnes tenuras quas concessit patri suo. Testes E. Com. Glooc., Bag. Com.. Cornub., Rog. Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes filius Gisleberti, W. de Poutlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas. 1 The names of Eobert, 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 abso- lutely 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 . 2 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 con- ferred 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 1 Lansdowne MS., 229, fol. 123 b. This note is followed by one of the charter by which the Empress confirmed Humfrey de Bohun in his post of Dapifer, and of which the original is still extant among the Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters (Pipe-Roll Society : Ancient Charters, p. 45). 2 See Appendix BB. GEOFFREY THE YOUNGER RESTORED. 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. 1 The copy of it made by Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at Oxford, is unfortu- nately imperfect, but the discovery of an independent copy among the Eawlinson 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. Eex 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 ejus- dem Comitatus. Et volo et concede et firmiter precipio quod ipse Comes et heredes sui 2 post eum [habeant] et teneant comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et plene et honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia vel Nor- mannia melius, liberius, quietius, plenius, et honorificentius tenet Comitatum suum. Preeterea reddidi ei et concessi totam terram Gaufridi de Magna Villa proavi sui, et avi sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tarn in dominiis quam in feodis militum, tarn in Anglia quam in 1 It was, I believe, duly entered in the lost volume of the Great Coucher. 2 "Sui" omitted in Rawlinson MS. 236 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. Normannia, que de me tenet in capite, et do quocunque teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et norninatim Wale- denam et Sabriehteswordam l et Walteham. Et vadium quod Eex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria maneria sua imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et here- dibus suis de me et de meis heredibus. Quare volo (et fir- miter 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 comi- tatum suum) tenet. Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes sui omnia predicta tenementa antecessorum suorum pre- dictorum et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita bene (et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et piano 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 Magna Villa proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus unquam melius, (liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et plenius) tenuerunt, tempore Kegis Willelmi et Kegis Hen- rici avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo] Archiepiscopo Cantuar' (Eog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Eic[ardo] Ep[iscop]o London', Eob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario],Eag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', E[oberto] Comfite] Legrec', Eog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, H[enrico] de Essex Conesta[bulo], Eic[ardo] de Hum[ez] Conest[abulo], Eic[ardo] de Lucy, War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero], Eob[er]to de Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud Cantu- ariam. 1 " Dabrichteswordam " (Rawlinson). DATE OF GEOFFREYS RESTORATION. 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 (115f). 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 Kegis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover (January 10, 1156). 1 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 Bawlinson MS., enables us to compare it closely with those of the four other charters which passed, according to Mr. Eyton, about the same time. 2 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-Kolls, 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 1 B. Diceto, p. 531. 9 (1) To the church of St. Jean d'Angely (Canterbury) ; (2) to Christ- church, Canterbury (Dover) ; (3) to St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester (Dover) ; (4) to Earl Aubrey (Dover) (Court and Itinerary of Henry II., pp. 15, 16). '38 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. 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 bear- ing on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an abso- lutely new creation could confer the earldom on Geoffrey, as he was not his father's heir." It is thus that the exist- ence of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the problem of no small consequence. 1 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). STEPHEN (1140). Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauilla de Comitatu Essexe he- reditarie. MAUD (1141). Sciatis omnes . . . quod ego . . . do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla . . . ut sit Comes de Essexa. HENRY (1156). Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mag- nauilla Comitem de Essexa. 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 (1155.) Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, (1156.) Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mandavilla Comitem de Essexa, 1 It is true that the charter to Geoffrey Ridel (Appendix BB) proves that Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger enjoyed, at the court of the Empress, the title of Earl of Essex. But the same charter proves that Henry did not hold himself bound by his mother's charters or deeds. THE EARLDOM WAS CREATED ANEW. 239 scilicet de tercio denario de Nord- et dedisse et hereditarie conces- wic et de Norfolca. sisse sibi et heredibus suis. . . . Tertium denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. 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) : MANDEVILLE. VEBB Sciatis me ... dedisse et Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse hereditarie concessisse sibi et Coiniti Alberico in feodo et here- heredibus suis ad tenendum de ditate tertium denarium de placi- me et heredibus meis tertium tis Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde denarium de placitis meis ej usdem Comes. Comitatus. It is said with truth in the Lords' Eeports 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. 1 But he clearly did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore he did not recognize the validity 1 " Do et concede quod sit Comes de . . . et habeat inde tertium denarium Bicut comes debet habere." 240 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. 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. 1 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." a 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. 8 The distinction between the " dedi et concessi " of the " Tertius Denarius " clause and the " reddidi " and " con- cessi " of those by which the king confirms to Geoffrey his ancestral estates is one always to be noted. The 1 It is one of the mysteries of the Pipe-Eolls that no such payment to the earl is to be traced on them, though the grant is quite unmistakable in its terms. See Appendix H. * The " unde " of this charter answers to the " inde " in the charters to Earl Aubrey. s See Appendix H. PECULIARITIES OF THE NEW CHARTER. 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-grand- father ; 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 formulas, themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which must bear witness to oral transmission in an archaic state of society. 1 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 Domes- day 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 terrse, singulas xx libratas pro servitio unius militis." a Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till 1 See, for instance, survivals of them in the charters of Henry I. to Christchurch, Canterbury, and of Henry II. to Oxford. The former runs, " on straude and on stream, on wudan and on feldan " (Campbell Charter, xxix. 5) ; the latter, " by water and by stronde, by Gode (sic) and by londe " (Hearne's Liber Niger, Appendix). The formula " cum omnibus ad hoc rebus rite pertinentibus, sive litorum, sive camporum, agrorum, saltuumve " (Kemble, Cod. Dipl., No. 425 ; Earle, Land Charters, p. 186), suggested to Prof. Maitland (Select Pleas in Manorial Courts) a connection with the "leet" through the "litus" of early Teutonic law, but Mr. W. H. Stevenson, correcting him, observed (Academy, June 29, 1889) that litorum referred to the seashore at Keculver (with which this grant deals). Both these distinguished scholars are mistaken, for the words only render the general formula: "by lande and by strande ('litorum'), by wode and by felde." So for instance " bi water and bi lande mid inlade and mid utlade wit inne burghe and wit outen bi lande and by strande bi wode and by felde " (Ramsey Cart,, ii. 80, 81). Thus we have "in bosco et piano . . . infraburgum et extra" (supra, p. 236). See also pp. 286, 314, 381. 2 Liber Niger (1774), i. 239. R THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. 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 : STEPHEN (1140). Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnavilla de Co- mitatu Essexe here- ditarie. Quare volo . . . quod ipse et here- des sui post eum here- ditario jure teneant de me et de heredibus meis . . . sicut alii Comites mei de terra mea, etc. MAUD. (1141). Sciatis . . . quod ego do et concede Gaufrido de Magna- villa . . . et heredibus suis post eum heredita- biliter ut sit Comes de Essexa. HENRY II. (1156). Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Es- sexa. . . . Et volo . . . quod ipse Comes et hcredes sui post eum habeant et teneant Comitatum suum . . . sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia, etc. 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 DOOM OF THE MANDEVILLES. 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." l His fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress of the house of Aumale, 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 Eichard, 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 king- dom, as Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. Such an office would have made the earl the foremost lay- man 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. 2 Such was the end that awaited the 1 Angevin Kings, ii. 144. 2 The inheritance was in dispute for some time between his aunt's younger son and the two daughters and co-heirs of her elder son deceased. As the latter were eventually successful in their claim, there was no one heir to whom the earldom could pass, as of right, under the charter of 1156 (accepting it as representing a limitation to heirs whatsoever). I have, 244 THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX. 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 great- ness at once of the guilt and of the fall of the man whose story I have told. however, elsewhere suggested (Pipe-Eoll Society : Ancient Charters, p. 99) that the salvo to the elder of the two daughters of her antenatio may have been connected with a claim to the dignity by her husband, in her right. APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS. (See p. 3.) 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 jura- mento " 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 Yasatensibns 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 doomage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, a bona fe, . . . et que las males lor oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en apres, li prohome deven li far lo sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps et sas gentz qui par lui esseron et sas dreitnras 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 praesens, 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 STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS. 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. 1 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." 2 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 Win- chester 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 1 " Lo senescaut de Guiayne deu jurar en sa nabere vengude au mayre juratz et eeut partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione ... en queste forme : Per aques sentz Job serey bon seinhor et leyau, de tort et de force vos guoarderey de mi medichs et dautruy ; a mon leyau poder vostres fora voBtres costumes et vostres priviledges sa en rer per los reys Dangleterre et dux de Guiayne autreyatz vos sauberey, tant quoant serey en lodit offici, sauban le fideutat de nostre seinhor lo Key." 2 " Et losditz maire et juratz deben jurar en le maneyre seguent disent assi : Per aques sentz nos vos seram bons, fideus, leyaus, et hobediens ; vite et menbres vos guarderam ; bon cosseilh et leyau vos deram, a nostre leyau poder ; et segretz vos thieram." THE LONDONERS ACT INDEPENDENTLY. 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. APPENDIX B. THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136. (See p. 8.) 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, 1 writes of this episode as taking place on and in consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the corona- tion of Eustace in 1152. 2 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." 3 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 inves- 1 Pertz's Monumenta Historica, vol. xx. 2 " The application to Koine and the debate which followed it there are to be found in the Historia Pontificalis, 41 (Pertz, xx. 543). Bishop (sic) Henry ' proraisit se daturuin operam et diligentiam ut apostolicus Eusta- cliium filium regis coronaret. Quod utique fieri non licebat, nisi Romani pontificis venia impetrata.' I have already (see above, p. 251) had to refer to some of the points urged in this debate " (Norm. Conq., v. 325, note). On turning to " p. 251," we similarly find the debate spoken of as belonging to " later years," and at p. 354 also, while at p. 857 we read : " At a later time, in the argument before Pope Innocent (sic), when Stephen is trying to get the pontiff's consent to the coronation of his son Eustace (p. 325)," etc., etc. How an argument could be held before Innocent, many years after his death, Mr. Freeman does not explain. 3 England under the Angevin Kings, i. 278, note. MISS NORGATE^S ARGUMENT. 251 tigating 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 Pontificates, 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." * As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, bat 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 Bheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, (March) 1148 (N.S.). (2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in con- sequence 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 ecclesiee mandato Domini Papse 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). 2 Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his 1 England under the Angevin Kings, i. 370, note. 2 lbid.,i. 370,371,495,496. 252 THE APPEAL TO ROME IN ffj6. son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlefct has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or 1151. l 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, 2 (6) that the " trial " took place under Pope Innocent. 3 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 Seez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see as 1141. 4 A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, be not later than this. 5 Lastly, now that we know the council 1 Academy, November 12, 1887. 2 " Sed jam mine Deo propitio et favente parti huic domino papa Celestino." 8 "Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiara et Roinse conventum celebrem habuisse." * England under the Angevin Kings, i. 500. 5 Perhaps she did not recognize his nnme (see bolow). ORIGIN OF THE EXISTING ERROR. 253 to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer "Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Clunia- censi interfui efc 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 Ponti- ficalis (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 Seez (the spokesman of the party), and "Lovel," a clerk of Archbishop William. 1 This last was, of course, intended to represent his master in the matter, and to justify his action in crowning Stephen by explaining the 1 " Ex adverse steterunt a rege missi Eogerus Cestrensis episcopus Lupellus clericus Guilleltni bone memorie Cantuarensis archiepiscopi, et qui eis in causa patrocinabatur Ernulfus arcliidiaconus Sagiensis" (Hist. Pontif., 41). 254 THE APPEAL TO ROME IN IIj6. 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. 1 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 docu- ments printed by Sir George Duckett, 2 especially from the Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating to the Empress. 8 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. 4 Stephen's 1 " Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Komse conventum celebrem habuisse. Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbato Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus. Ibi causa bsec in medium deducta est, et aliquandiu ventilata " (Foliot's letter, Ixxix., ed. Giles, i. 100). 2 Charters and Records of the Ancient Abbey of Cluni (1888). 3 "Felicis memorise rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum, Hcnricus, Willelmi primo ducis deiu regis filius, speciali earn [Cluniacensem ecclesiam] amore coluit et veneratus est. Donis autem multiplicibus et magnis omnes jam dictos exsuperans, etiam majorem ecclesiam . . . miro et singular! opere inter universas pene tocius orbis ecclesias cousummavit. Ea de causa, specialis apud universes Cluniacensis ordinis fratres ejus memoria habetur et in per- Petuum per Dei gratiam habebitur. Cui in paterna hereditate succedens Matildis, ejus filia, Henrici magni Romanorum imperatoris conjux . . . paternse imaginis et prudentisa formam velut sigillo impressam representavit, et praeter alia digna relatu, Cluniacensem ecclesiam morepatris sincere dilexit" (ibid., ii. 104). 4 "Stabat ab Imperatrice dominus Andegavensis episcopus, qui . . . duo inducebat precipue, jus scilicet hereditarium et factum imperatrici jura- mentum " (Foliot's letter, ut supra). " Querirnoniam imperatricis ad papam PLEADINGS BEFORE THE POPE. 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. 1 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. 2 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. 8 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 Innocentium Ulgerius Andegavorum venerandus antistes detulit, arguens regem periurii et illicite presumptionis regni" (Hist. Pontif.,4:l). 1 " Hie [Ernulfus] adversus episcopum allegavit publice, quod imperatrix patris erat indigna successione, eo quod de incestis nupciis procreata et filia fuerat raonialis, quam Bex Henricus de monasterio Romeseiensi extraxerat eique velum abstulerat" (Hist. Pontif.). " Imperatricem, de qua loquitur, non de legitimo matrimonio ortam denuntiamus. Deviavit a legitimo tramite Henricus rex, et quam non licebat sibi junxit matrimonio, unde istius sunt natalitia propagata : quare illam patri in heredem non debere succedere et sacra denuntiant " (Foliot's letter). 2 " Sublato enim jure principal!, necessario tollitur et secundarium. In hac igitur causa principale est, quod dominus Andegavensis de hereditate inducit et ab hoc totum illud dependet, quod de juramento subjungitur. Imperatrici namque sicut heredi juramentum factum fuisse pronunciat. Totum igitur quod de juramento inducitur, exinaniri necesse est, si de ipso hereditario jure non constiterit " (ibid.). 3 " Juramentum confessus est [Ernulfus], sed adjecit violentur extortum, et sub conditione scilicet imperatrici successionem patris se pro viribus serva- turum, nisi patrem voluntatem mutare contingeret et heredem alium insti- tuere ; poterat enim esse ut ei de uxore filius nasceretur. Postremo subjecit quod rex Henricus mutaverat voluntatem et in extremis agens filium sororis suse Stephanum designavit heredem " (Hist. Pontiff. 256 THE APPEAL TO ROME IN Ifj6. do so, writing (as he did) long after that king's death. More- over, 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 Malmesbnry ' 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 re- gard 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, tV bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, rejecting them one one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, admits that tL. attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument which he discusses) had not been replied to. 2 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. 3 He 1 So also Gervase of Canterbury. 2 " Hoc in communi audientia multum vociferatione declamatum est, et nihil omnino ab altera parte responsum." * " Rogo, mihi in parte ista respondeas. Interim dicam ipse quod sentio. Majores natu, personas religiosas et sanctas, esepius de re ista conveni. Audio illius matrimonii copulam sancto Anselmo archiepiscopo minis- STEPHEN RECOGNIZED BY THE POPE. 257 relies on St. Anselm's consent to her parents' marriage. We have here possibly the cine 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. 1 Perhaps he was taken by surprise, and had not expected the plea. Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot, 2 to have simply " stampeded the convention " (conventus), and the wrath of the Angevin champion rose to a white heat. 3 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 con- firming him in his possession of the kingdom and the duchy. 4 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. 5 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. 6 Its relevant portion runs thus : " Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, prseunte trante celebratam .... Manus autem sibi praecidi permississet [Anselmus], m eas ad opus illicitum extendisset." His reply was : " Ipsa [Romana ecclesia] enim confirmavit matri- -ium quod accusas, filiamque ex: eo susceptam domnus Pascalis Romanus pontifex inunxit in imperatricem. Quod utique non fecisset de fllia monialis. Nee eum veritas latere poterat, quia uon fuit obscurum matrimonium aut contractual in tenebris." 2 " Multorum vociferatione declamatum est." 3 "In Archidiaconum excandescens " (Hist. Pontif.). 4 " Non tulit ulterius contentiones eorum domnus Innocentius nee sententiam ferre voluit aut causam in aliud differre tempus, sed contra consilium quorundam cardinaliura et maxime Guidonis presbiteri sancti Marci, receptis muneribus regis Stepbani, ei farniliaribus litteris regnum Anglise confirmavit et ducatum Norniannise." This is the passage so inex- plicably printed in Pertz as part of the bishop's speech, which im- mediately precedes it. s " UlgeriuB vero cum cognitioni cause supersederi videret, verbo comico utebatur dicens : ' De causa sua querentibus iutus despondebitur ; ' et adjiciebat: ' Petrus enim peregre profectus est, nummulariis relicta domo ' " iet. Pontif.). Ed. Hewlett, p. 147. 8 258 THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 7Ij6. divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe ctium certa, 1 et [quia] beato Potro in ipsa consecration is tuas die obedieiitiam et reverentiam protnisisse, et quia dc prnofati regia prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse dinosceris, quod do to factuiu est gratuin habentes, te in specialcm beuti Petri et sauctn* Romanse eecloaie lilium affecHono paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris et faruiliaritatis prssrogativa, qua predeceasor tuus egregiao recordatiouia Henrieus a nobis coronabatur, te propenaiua volumua retinere." The chronicler, observing that Stephen was " his et aliis modis in regno Angliae confirmatus," passes straight from this letter to the King's Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as " ab Innocentio sanctre Romana3 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 " con- ventus " 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 1130. 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 pnpam Celes- tinuni, favore irnperatricis scripsit doumo Theobaldo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo inhibens no qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa corouain, quia res erat litigiosa cujus tranalatio jure reprobata est. Successores eius papse Lucius et Eugenius eaudein 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 1 Compare the description of Henry of Winchester, shortly before this, aa " spe scilicet captus ampliasima " that Stephen would do his duty by the Church. 1 r V THE SUBSEQUENT PAPAL POLICY. 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 eoronam." Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could not be undone. Bat that confirmation did not extend to the son of the " perjured " king. 1 With the character and meaning of the " confirmation " ob- tained 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." s A reference to the passage in the Historia 5 on which Miss Norgate relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving the counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the matter further. 4 It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had 1 " Ne filium regis, qui contra jusjurandum regnum obtinuisse videbatur in regem sublimaret " (Gervase). 2 Vol. i. p. 369. 3 Pertz, xx. p. 531. Bishop Miles is sent to England, "ad petitionem Gaufridi comitis Andegavorum, ut regem super perjurio et regni occupatione conveniret et ducatu Normanniae, quern invaserat." 4 Mr. Hewlett has duly pointed out that Geoffrey did not, as Miss Norgate imagines, hand over Normandy to his son in consequence of this challenge ; but I would point out further that Stephen demanded not merely the sur- render of Normandy, but also that of the English districts then under Angevin sway (" Hoc retulit responsum : quod rex utrumque honorem et jure suo et ecclesie Romans auctoritate adeptus erat, nee refugerat stare judirio apo- stolicse sedii, quando eum comes violenter ducatu spoliavit et parte regni. Quibus non restitutis non debebat subire judicium " (p. 531). 260 THE APPEAL TO RO.\fE IN IIj6. 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 " recog- nition " by the pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of 1141, the sensitive conscience of Archbishop Theobald had pre- vented 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. 1 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. 2 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. 3 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, eccle- siastical or secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was not at some moment or in some way or other concerned." * 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. 5 1 "Confiscata sunt [1148] bona ejus et secundo proscriptus pro obediencia Romane ecclcsie. Nam et alia vice propter obedienciitm scdis Apostolicse proscriptus fuer.it, quando, urgente mandito doruini Henrici Wiutoniensis episcopi tune legatione fungentis in Anglia post alios episcopos ornnes re- ceperat imperatricem . . . licet inimicissimos habuerit regeni et consiliarios BUOS" (Hist. Pontif.). z [Stephen] " quern tota Anglicana ecclesia sequebatur ex constitutione ecclcsie Romane. Licet proceres divisi diversos principes sequerentur, unum tamen habebat ecclesia . . . quod episcopo non licuerat ecclesia m ecindere ei subtrabendo fidelitatem quern ecclesia Romana recipiebat ut prin- cipem" (Ibid., pp. 532, 533). 3 England under the Angevin Kings, i. 500-502. 4 Ibid. * The stinging taunts of the Bishop of Angers on Arnulf s humble origin, THE FACTS ARE NOW ESTABLISHED. 261 The last point concerns the " most interesting and valuable " letter from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Co ant. 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," 2 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," 8 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. 4 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. as given in the Hist. Pontif., are of great importance in their bearing on Henry I.'s policy of raising men to power " from the dust." They should be compared with the well-known sneer of Ordericus (see p. 111). 1 England under the Angevin Kings, i. p. 496, note. 2 Ibid., p. 369. * Ibid., p. 496, note. 4 I called attention to this letter in a communication to the Athenaeum, pointing out that in Mr. Horwood's report on the Liber Epistolaris in an Historical MSS. Commission Report on Lord Harlech's MSS. (1874), mention was made, among its contents, of a letter from the Bishop of Winchester to Brian fitz Count, and of Brian's reply, which is merely described as " a long reply to tbe above" (it extends over three folios), and of which a pre'cis should certainly have been given. ( 262 ) APPENDIX C. THE EASTER COURT OF 1136. (See p. 19.) I HERE give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's grant to Winchester ; (IF.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath ; (III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at Oxford. I. King Stephen. Queen Matilda. William, Earl Wurenne. Ranulf, Earl of Chester. Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotic]. Eoger,Earl of Warwick. Waleran, Count of Meulan. William de Albemarla. Simon de Silvanecta. Aubrey de Vere, Came- rarius. William de Albini, Pin- cerna. Robert de Ver, Cone- stabularius. Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. Brian fitz Count, Conc- stabularius. Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer. Robert Malet, Dapifer. [William] Mattel, Dapi- fer. Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer. William, Archbishop of Canterbury. II. William, Archbishop of Canterbury. Thurstan, Archbishop of York. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Henry, Bishop of Win- chester. Roger, Bishop of Salis- bury. Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. Nigel, Bishop of Ely. Seffrid, Bishop of Chi- chester. Robert, Bishop of Here- ford. John, Bishop of Ro- chester. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Simon, Bishop of Wor- cester. Ebrard, Bishop of Nor- wich. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. John, Bishop of Se'ez. " Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. III. William, Archbishop of Canterbury. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Henry, Bishop of Win- chester. Roger, Bishop of Salis- bury. Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln. Nigel, Bi.-hop of Ely. Ebrard, Bishop of Nor- wich. Simon, Bishop of Wor- cester. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. Richard, Bishop of Avranches. Robert, Bishop of Here- ford. John, Bishop of Ro- chester. Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. Roger the Chancellor. Henry, the nephew of the king. WITNESSES TO STEPHEN'S CHARTERS. 263 I. Thurstan, Archbishop of York. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen. Roger, Bishop of Salis- bury. Nigel, Bishop of Ely. Seffrid, Bishop of Chi- ch ester. Ebrard, Bishop of Nor- wich. Simon, Bishop of Wor- cester. Robert, Bishop of Bath. Bernard, Bishop of St. David's. Robert, Bishop of Here- ford. John, Bishop of Ro- chester. Audoen, Bishop of Evreux. John, Bishop of Se'ez. Richard, Bishop of Avranches. " Algarus," Bishop of Coutances. Roger the Chancellor. Roger de Fecamp, Ca- pellanus. Henry, nephew of King Stephen. Reginald, son of King Henry. Robert de Ferrers. \ William Peverel de Nottingham. Ilbert de Lacy. Walter Espec. Payn fitz John. It Richard, Bishop of Avranches. Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle. Roger the Chancellor. Henry, the nephew of the king. Henry, son of the King of Scotland. William, Earl War- enne. Waleran, Count of Meulan. Roger, Earl of Warwick. Robert de Ver, Cone- stabularius. Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius. Aubrey de "Vere, Came- rarius. William de Pont de 1'arche, Camerarius. Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius. William de Albini, Pincerna. Robert de Ferrars. Robert Arundel. Geoffrey de Mandeville. Ilbert de Lacy. William Peverel. Geoffrey Talbot. III. Robert, Earl of Glou- cester. William, Earl War- enne. Ranulf, Earl of Chester. Roger, Earl of War- wick. Robert de Ver. Miles de Gloucester. Brian fitz Count. Robert de Oilli. William Martel. Hugh Bigot. Humphrey de Bohun. Simon de Beauchamp. William de Albini. Eudo Martel. Robert de Ferrers. William Peverel de Nottingham. Simon de Saintliz. William de Albamarla. Payn fitz John. Hamo de St. Clare. Ilbert de Lacy. 1 1 This list is taken from that in Stubbs' Select Charters, which is derived, through the Statutes of the Realm, from a copy at Exeter Cathedral. There is another version in Richard of Hexham (ed. Howlett, pp. 149, 150), in which Payn fitz John is omitted and Hugh de St. Clare entered in error for Hamon. But the reading " Silvanecta" (for "Saint Hz") is confirmed by Charter No. I., as well as by a charter in Cott. MSS., Nero, C. iii. (fol. 177)- Both versions of this list are questionable as to the second " pincerna," the statutes reading " Eudone Mart'," while Richard give^ " Martel de Alb'." 264 THE EASTER COURT OF I. II. III. Eustace fitz John. > Walter de Salisbury. Robert Arundol. Geoffrey do Mande- ville. Hamo de St. Clare. Roger de Valoines. Henry de Port. Walter fitz Richard. Walter de Gant. Walter de Bolebec. Walchelin Maminot. W T illiam de Percy. 1 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, 2 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 Auraale deserves special notice, because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy comital rank at the time. 3 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 1 This list is here printed as it is given by Hearne, but the order of the names, of course, is wholly erroneous, the prelates being placed low down instead of at the head. The right order would be prelates, chancellor (and chaplain), the "royalties," the earls, the household officers, and the " barones." But it would not be safe to rearrange the names in the absence of the original charter, in which they probably stood in parallel columns. 2 Henry de Soilli (or Sully), son of Stephen's brother William. I find him attesting a charter of Stephen abroad, subsequently, as " H. de Soilli, nepote regis." He was a monk, and failing to obtain the bishopric of Salisbury or the archbishopric of York, in 1140, was consoled with the Abbey of Fe'camp. 3 For if he had even been then a count over sea, he would have ranked, like the Count of Meulan, among English earls. EVIDENCE ON EARLS AND BARONS. 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 North- ampton 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, 1 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). 2 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, 3 with Robert "de Sigillo," 4 and Nigel the Bishop of Salisbury's nephew, 5 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 1'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger fitz Richard, Walter fitz 1 " Fuit quoque Henricus filius regie Scottise ad curiara Stephani regis Anglise in proxima Pascha, quam apud Londouiam festive tenuit, cum maximo honore susceptus, atque ad mensam ad dexterara ipsius regis sedit. Unde et Willelmus archiepiscopus Cantuarensis se a rege subtraxit, et quidam proceres Anglise erga regem indignati coram ipso Henrico calumpnias intulerant" (Eic. Hexham). Among these "proceres" was the Earl of Chester. 2 Sarum Charters and Documents (Bolls Series), pp. 6, 7. 3 Afterwards Bishop of Durham. 4 Afterwards Bishop of London. 5 Afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Ely. 266 THE EASTER COURT OF 7/J<5. Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers, William Pevercl 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. 1 1 See Appendix D: "The 'Fiscal' Earls." ( 26; APPENDIX D. THE " FISCAL " EAELS. (See p. 53.) " 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; 1 (2) that these new earls, having no means of their own, had to be pro- vided for " by pensions on the Exchequer." 2 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 : " Not satisfied with putting this " Stephen also would have a court weapon into the hands of his enemies, of great earls, but in trying to make he provoked their pride and jealousy himself friends he raised up per- by conferring the title of earl upon sistent enemies. He raised new men some of those whom he trusted most to new earldoms, but as he had no implicitly, irrespective of the means spare domains to bestow, he endowed which they might have of supporting them with pensions charged on the their new dignity. Their poverty was Exchequer . . . the new and uusub- 1 So also Gneist : " Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created in great numbers, and with extended powers ; but these pseudo-earls were deposed under Henry II." (Cows<. Hist., i. HO, note). 2 Stubbs, Const. Hist., i. 362. Hence the name of " fiscal earls," invented, I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda. 268 THE "FISCAL" EARLS. relieved by pensions drawn from the stantial earldoms provoked the reil Exchequer. . . . Stephen, almost be- earls to further hostility; and the fore the struggle for the crown had newly created lords demanded of the begun, attempted to strengthen his king new privileges as the reward party by a creation of new earls. To and security for their continued ser- those the third penny of the county vices " (Early Plants., p. 19). 1 was given, and their connection with the district from which the title was taken was generally confined to this comparatively small endowment, the rest of their provision being furnished by pensions on the Exchequer "(Const. Hist., i. 324, 302). Now, these " pensions on the Exchequer " must, I fear, be dismissed at once as having an existence only in a misappre- hension 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. 2 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, " coepit revocare in jus proprium nrbes, castella, villas, quae ad coronam regni pertinebant." 3 William of Newburgh writes : "Considerans autem Rex [Henrieus] quod regii redditus breves essent, qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia domintca per mollitiem regis Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrasscnt, prtccepit 1 See also Select Charters, p. 20. 2 The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of the Latin. The term " fiscus " was used at the time in the sense of Crown demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury " quia eas tempore regis Henrtci, avunculi et antecessoris sui, ex fad regii redditibus Rogerius episcopus collegisset " ( Will. Malms.). So, too, in the same reign, the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, " quia regalium fiscorum redditus et castella, qua3 violentur possederat reddere negligebat " (Gesta). This latter passage has been misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, render- ing it: "to pay his dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl refused to surrender the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. Again, speaking of the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown demesne, William of Newburgh writes : "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejus fiscum auxit." 3 Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching investigation by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy. ORIGIN OF STEPHEN'S EARLS. 269 ca 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 praadia, hi castella, postremo quaecum- que semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; . . . Denique multos etiam comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et redditibus quae 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. 1 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-Bolls 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. 2 Then, again, as to " the third penny." It is not even mentioned in the above creations-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 extra- ordinary delusion. They belonged, in the main, to that class 1 The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on " The Crown Lands," by Mr. S. K. Bird, who writes : " It is true that extensive alienations of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place during the tur- bulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new earldoms " (Antiquary, xiii. 160). 2 The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in point, for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was necessitated by the grants of the Empress. 2 ;o THE "FISCAL" EARLS. 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 Vcre Earl of Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of Hertford, William of Aumale Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl of Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont Earl of Bedford." ' 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 deposi- tion 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. 2 The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these : NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before 1153). OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere {questionable}. ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143). HERTFORD. Richard de Clare (uncertain). YORKSHIRE. William of Aumale (1138). PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138). DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138). BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont. KENT. William of Ypres (questionable). From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be " questionable: " William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state 1 Const. Hist., i. 362. " As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance, it is as well to give the dates and authorities " (Ibid., i. 3G2). CREATIONS BY STEPHEN AND MAUD. 2JI absolutely, from my own knowledge of charters, that he never received an English earldom, 1 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. 2 When thus corrected, the list will run : DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138). YORKSHIRE. William of Aumale (1138). PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138). ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140). LINCOLN. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140). NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141). ARUNDEL. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141). HERTFORD. Gilbert de Clare 3 (before Christmas, 1141). BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138). A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names of these great earldoms became household words. Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to new creations, we obtain the following list : CORNWALL. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141). DEVON. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141). DORSET (or SOMERSET). William de Mohun (before June, 1141). HEREFORD. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141). OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (1142). WILTSHIRE ("SALISBURY"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149) . 4 1 There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters (ed. Giles, i. 174, 175) as " famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesise nostrae gravis- simus persecutor, Willelmuade Ypra" (of. pp. 129, 206 n., 213 n., 275 n.). 2 A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an Inspeximus temp. Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire bestowed on the Count of Meulan, need not be considered here. 3 Son of Eichard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere, is erroneously supposed to have been the first earl. 4 The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found is in the Devizes charter of Henry (1149). 272 THE "FISCAL" EARLS. This varies from Dr. Stubbs'a 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. 1 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. 2 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 3 ), 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 Aumale, 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 1 In an interesting charter (transcribed in Lansdoicne MS., 229. fol. 116 b) of this Earl Baldwin as " Comes Exunie," grunted at Carisbrooke, be speaks, " Ricardi de Redvers patris mei." * I have shown (p. 95 H.) that William de Mohun was already an earl in June, 1141, though the Gesta assigns his creation to the siege of Winchester, later in the year. 3 Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only inserted here cavendi causa. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are most trouble- some titles, owing to the double set of earls with their conflicting claims, and the doubt as to their correct title. CONNECTION OF EARLS WITH COUNTIES. 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 th ese 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. 1 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 a,ny 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 pacifica- 1 This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more counties (as in the case of Waltheof s earldom) might be, officially, linked together, for where this arrangement had lingered on, the group might (or might not) be treated as one county, as regarded the earl. Warwick and Leicester are an instance one way ; Norfolk and Suffolk the other. T 274 THE "FISCAL" EARLS. tion which were intended to bind both Stephen and Henry . . . the new earldoms [were] to be extinguished." ] 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." a 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, 8 include anything of the kind. The statement is there- fore, 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.* 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. 5 The actual words of our great historian should, in justice, be here quoted : " Another measure which must " We have no record of actual dis- have been taken at the coronation placement ; some, at least, of the [December 19, 1154], when all the re- fiscal earls retained their dignity: cognized earls did their homage and the earkloms of Bedford, Somerset, paid their ceremonial services, seems York, and perhaps a few others, drop to have been the degrading or cashier- out of the list ; those of Essex and ing of the supposititious earls created Wilts remain. Some had already by Stephen and Matilda. Some of made their peace with the king; these may have obtained recognition some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained by getting new grants ; but those a new charter for their dignity : this who lost endowment and dignity at part of the social reconstruction was once, like William of Ypres, the despatched without much complaint leader of the Flelnish mercenaries, or difficulty " (Const. Hist., i. 451). could make no terms. They sank to the rank from which they had been so incautiously raised" (Early Plan- tagenets, pp. 41, 42). Before examining these statements, I must deal with the assertion that William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost 1 Select Charters, pp. 20, 21. Cf. Early Plants., p. 37: "All property alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the pensions on the Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created earls." 2 Const. Hist., i. 451 . 3 Ibid., i. 333, 334. 4 Robert de Monte. 5 Select Charters, p. 21. STEPHEN'S EARLS WERE NOT DEPOSED. 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. 1 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. 2 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. Id. "numero" of Crown escheats formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a pro- vision 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. Bash 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 Polyoraticus probably refers to the transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons men- tioned in it were not of Stephen's promoting : " Ubi sunt, ut de domesticis loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon, Gillibertus, noil tarn comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus Sarisberiensis?" (Const. Hist, i. 451 note). 1 The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155, writes Gervase (i. 161), " Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses qui in Angliam confluxerant, indignatiouem et magnauimitatem novi regis metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that " infra tres primes menses coronationis regis "Willelmus de Ypra violentus incubator Cantise cum lachrymis emigravit." * Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1814;). 2 7 6 THE "FISCAL" EARLS. 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. 1 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). 2 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." 8 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 4 ), together with the fief itself, in 1141. 5 York requires separate treatment : William of Aumale sometimes, but rarely, styled him- self, under Stephen, Earl of York; he did not, however, under Henry II., lose his comital rank, 6 and that is sufficient for my 1 Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William fitz Osbern (1071): "Ubi cst Guillelmua Osberni filius, Herfordensis comes et Regis vioarius," etc. 2 This is the date given for his death in the Tintern Chronicle (Monas- ticon, O. E., i. 725). 3 " William of Salisbury " was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned by himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is over- looked by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He fought for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken prisoner by the Earl of Hertford (Witt. Malms., ed. Stubbs, ii. 587). He was also the "Willelmus . . . civitatis Saresbirise prseceptor . . . et municeps" (Gesta, ed. Hewlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on Wilton nunnery in 1143, and " lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit." This brings us to a document in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in which " Walterus, Edwardi vice- comitis filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et heres nnster Comes Patricius " make a grant to the church of Salisbury "nominatim pro aniina Willelmi filii nostri fratris comitis Patricii in restanramentum dampnorum quae praBiiomi- natus filius noster Willelmus Sarum ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William is thus established. 4 I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though this C. Mo nek. AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. My WILLIAM HENRY S. MONCK, M.A. Crown 8vo., 55. Myers. HUMAN PERSONALITY AND ITS SURVIVAL OF BODILY DEATH, By FREDERIC W. H. MYERS. 2 vols. 8vo., 425. net. Pierce. STUDIES IN AUDITORY AND VISUAL SPACE PERCEPTION: Essays on Experimental Psychology. By A. H. PIERCE. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d. net. Richmond. THE MIND OF A CHILD. By ENNIS RICHMOND. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. net. Romanes. MIND AND MOTION AND MONISM. By GEORGE JOHN ROMANES, Cr. 8vo., 45. 6d. Sully (JAMES). AN ESSAY ON LAUGHTER : its Forms, its Cause, its Development and its Value. 8vo., 12$. 6d. net. THE HUMAN MIND : a Text-book of Psychology. 2 vols. 8vo., 2is. OUTLINES OF PSYCHOLOGY. Crown 8vo., gs. THE TEACHER'S HANDBOOK OF PSY- CHOLOGY. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d. STUDIES OF CHILDHOOD. 8vo., i2s. 6d. net. CHILDREN'S WAYS: being Selections from the Author's ' Studies of Childhood '. With 25 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 45. 6d. Sutherland. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE MORAL INSTINCT. By ALEXANDER SUTHERLAND, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo., 28s. Swinburne. PICTURE LOGIC : an Attempt to Popularise the Science of Reasoning. By ALFRED JAMES SWINBURNE, M.A. With 23 Woodcuts. Cr. 8vo., 2s. 6d. Thomas. INTUITIVE SUGGES TION. By J. W. THOMAS, Author of Spiritual Law in the Natural World,' etc. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. net. Webb. THE VEIL OF Is is : a Series of Essays on Idealism. By THOMAS E. WEBB, LL.D., Q.C. 8vo., los. 6d. Weber. HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY By ALFRED WEBER, Professor in the Uni- versity of Strasburg. Translated by FRANK THILLY, Ph.D. 8vo., i6s. Whately (Archbishop). BACON'S ESSAYS. With Annotations. 8vo., IDS. 6d. ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. Cr. 8vo., 45. 6d. ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC. Cr. 8vo., 4S. 6d. Zeller (Dr. EDWARD). THE STOICS, EPICUREANS, AND SCEPTICS. Translated by the Rev. O. J. REICHEL, M.A. Crown 8vo., 15$. OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OP GREEK PHILOSOPHY. Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYNE and EVELYN ABBOTT. M.A., LL.D. Crown 8vo., IDS. 6d. PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYNE and ALFRED GOODWIN, B.A. Crown 8vo., i8s. SOCRATES AND THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS. Translated by the Rev. O. J. REICHEL, M.A. Crown 8vo., IDS. 6d. ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERI- PATETICS. Translated by B. F. C. Cos- TELLOE, M.A., and J. H. MUIRHEAD, M.A. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 245. STONYHURST PHILOSOPHICAL SERIES. A MANUAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. By C. S. DEVAS, M.A. Crown 8vo., 75. 6d. FIRST PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo., 55. GENERAL METAPHYSICS. By JOHN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo., 55. LOGIC. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo., 55. MORAL PHILOSOPHY (ETHICS AND NATURAL LAW). By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo., 55. NATURAL THEOLOGY. By BERNARD BOEDDER, S.J. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d. PSYCHOLOGY. By MICHAEL MAKER, S.J., D.Litt., M.A. (Lond.). Cr. 8vo., 6s. 6d 20 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. History and Science of Language, &e. Davidson. LEADING AND IMPORT- ANT ENGLISH WORDS : Explained and Ex- emplified. By WILLIAM L. DAVIDSON, M.A. Fcp. 8vo., 35. 6d. Graham. ENGLISH SYNONYMS, Classified and Explained : with Practical Exercises. By G. F. GRAHAM. Fcp. 8vo., 6s. Max Miiller (F.). THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., IDS. BIOGRAPHIES OP WORDS, AND THE HOME OF THE ARYAS. Crown 8vo., 55. Max Miiller (F.) continued. CHIPS FROM A GERMAN WORKSHOP. Vol. III. ESSAYS ON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. Crown 8vo., 55. LAST ESSAYS. First Series. Essays on Language, Folk-lore and other Sub- jects. Crown 8vo., 55. Roget. THESAURUS OF ENGLISH WORDS AND PHRASES. Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and assist in Literary Composition. By PETER MARK ROGET, M.D., F.R.S. With full Index. Crown 8vo., gs. net. Political Economy, Economics, &c. Agacy. FREE TRADE, PROTECTION, DUMPING, BOUNTIES AND PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS. By HENRY A. AGACY. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. Ashley (W.J.). ENGLISH ECONOMIC HISTORY AND THEORY, Crown 8vo., Part L, 55. Part II., IDS. 6d. SURVEYS, HISTORIC AND ECONOMIC. Crown 8vo., gs. net. THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES : a Study on the Coal and Iron Industries of Great Britain and the United States. With 4 Maps. 8vo., I2S. 6d. net. BRITISH INDUSTRIES : a Series of General Reviews for Business Men and Students. By various Authors. Edited by W. J. ASHLEY. Crown 8vo., 55. 6d. net. Bagehot. ECONOMIC STUDIES. By WALTER BAGEHOT. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Balfour. ECONOMIC NOTES ON IN- SULAR FREE TRADE. By the Right Hon. ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUB, M.P. 8vo., sewed, is. net ; cloth, is. 6d. net. Barnett. PRACTICABLE SOCIALISM: Essays on Social Reform. By SAMUEL A. and HENRIETTA BARNETT. Crown 8vo., 6s. Devas. A MANUAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. By C. S. DEVAS, M.A. Cr. 8vo., 75. f>d. (Stonyhurst Philosophical Series.) Dewey. FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By DAVIS RICH DEWEY. Crown 8vo., 75. 6d. net. Leslie. ESSAYS ON POLITICAL ECO- NOMY. By T. E. CLIFFE LESLIE, Hon. LL.D., Dubl. 8vo., los. 6d. Macleod (HENRY DUNNING). BIMETALLISM. 8vo., 55. net. THE ELEMENTS OF BANKING. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. Macleod (HENRY DUNNING) cont. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF BANKING. Vol. I. 8vo., ias. Vol. II. 145. THE THEORY OF CREDIT. 8vo. In i Vol., 3os. net; or separately, Vol. L, IDS. net. Vol. II., Part L, IDS. net. Vol II., Part II. IDS. net. INDIAN CURRENCY. 8vo., 25. >d. net. Mill. POLITICAL ECONOMY. By JOHN STUART MILL. Popular Edition. Cr. 8vo.,3s.6rf. Library Edition. 2 vols. 8vo.,3os. Mulhall. INDUSTRIES AND WEALTH OF NATIONS. By MICHAEL G. MULHALL, F.S.S. With 32 Diagrams. Cr. 8vo., 8s. 6d. Sturgis. THE PRIME MINISTER'S PAMPHLET: a Study and Some Thoughts. By JULIAN STURGIS. 8vo., is. net. Symes. POLITICAL ECONOMY : a Short Text-book of Political Economy. With Problems for Solution, Hints for Supplementary Reading, and a Supple- mentary Chapter on Socialism. By J. E. SYMES, M.A. Crown 8vo., 25. 6d. Toynbee. LECTURES ON THE IN- DUSTRIAL REVOLUTION OF THE 18TH CEN- TURY IN ENGLAND. By ARNOLD TOYNBEE. 8vo., los. 6d. Webb. LONDON EDUCATION. By SIDNEY WEBB. Crown 8vo., as. 6d. net. Webb (SIDNEY and BEATRICE). THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM. With Map and Bibliography. 8vo., ys. 6d. net. INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY: a Study in Trade Unionism. 2 vols. 8vo., I2s. net. PROBLEMS OF MODERN INDUSTRY. 8vo., ss. net. THE HISTORY OF LIQUOR LICENSING IN ENGLAND, PRINCIPALLY FROM 1700 TO 1830. Crown 8vo., as. 6d. net. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 21 Evolution, Anthropology, &e. Annandale and Robinson. FAS- CICULI MALAYBNSES : Anthropological and Zoological Results of an Expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay States, 1901-2. Undertaken by NELSON ANNAN- DALE and HERBERT C. ROBINSON. With Plates and Illustrations in the Text. AN- THROPOLOGY, Part I. 410., 155. net. ZOOLOGY, Part I. 410., 305. net. Part II., 4to., 2os. net. Avebury. THE ORIGIN OF CIVILISA- TION, and the Primitive Condition of Man. By the Right Hon. LORD AVEBURY. With 6 Plates and 20 Illustrations. 8vo., i8s. Clodd (EDWARD). THE STORY OF CREATION: a Plain Account of Evolution. With 77 Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. A PRIMER OF EVOLUTION: being a Popular Abridged Edition of ' The Story of Creation '. With Illustrations. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. Doubts about Darwinism. By a SEMI-DARWINIAN. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Keller. QUERIES IN ETHNOGRAPHY, By ALBERT GALLOWAY KELLER, Ph.D. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. net. Lang and Atkinson. -- SOCIAL ORIGINS. By ANDREW LANG, M. A., LL.D. ; and PRIMAL LAW. By J. J. ATKINSON. 8vo., i os. 6d. net. Packard. LAMARCK, THE FOUNDER OF EVOLUTION : his Life and Work, with Translations of his Writings on Organic Evolution. By ALPHEUS S. PACKARD, M.D., LL.D. With 10 Portrait and other Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo., gs. net. Romanes (GEORGE JOHN). ESSAYS. Ed. by C. LLOYD MORGAN. Crown 8vo., 5$. net. AN EXAMINATION OF WEISMANN- ISM. Crown 8vo., 6s. DARWIN, AND AFTER DARWIN: an Exposition of the Darwinian Theory, and a Discussion on Post- Darwinian Questions. Part I. THE DARWINIAN THEORY. With Portrait of Darwin and 125 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., tos. 6d. Part II. POST- DARWINIAN QUESTIONS: Heredity and Utility. With Portrait of the Author and 5 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., IOS. 6li. Part III. Post-Darwinian Questions : Isolation and Physiological Selection. Crown 8vo., 55. The Science of Religion, &c. Lang (ANDREW) continued. MODERN MYTHOLOGY : a Reply t Professor Max Miiller. 8vo., gs. THE MA KING OF REL IGION. C r . 8 vo. , 55. net. Balfour. -- THE FOUNDATIONS OF BELIEF : being Notes Introductory to the Study of Theology. By the Right Hon. ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR. Cr. 8vo., 6s. net. Baring-Gould. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. By the Rev. S. BARING-GOULD. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. each. Campbell. RELIGION IN GREEK LI- TERATURE. By the Rev. LEWIS CAMPBELL, M.A., LL.D. 8vo., 155. James. THE VARIETIES OF RE- LIGIOUS EXPERIENCE : a Study in Human Nature. Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902. By WILLIAM JAMES, LL.D., etc. 8vo., i2s. net. Lang (ANDREW). MAGIC AND RELIGION. 8vo., 105. 6d. CUSTOM AND MYTH: Studies of Early Usage and Belief. With 15 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. MYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 75. Max Mtiller (The Right Hon. R). THE SlLESIAN HORSEHERD (' DAS PFERDEBURLA ') : Questions of the Hour answered by F. MAX MULLER. With a Preface by J. ESTLIN CARPENTER. Crown 8vo., 55. CHIPS FROM A GERMAN WORKSHOP. Vol. IV. Essays on Mythology and Folk- lore. Crown 8vo., 55. THE Six SYSTEMS OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. Crown 8vo., 75. 6d. net. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY. 2 vols. 8vo., 325. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF RELI- GION, as illustrated by the Religions of India. The Hibbert Lectures, delivered at the Chapter House, Westminster Abbey, in 1878. Crown 8vo., 55. 22 , MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. The Science of Religion, &e. continued. Max Miiller (The Right Hon. F.) I Max Miiller (The Right Hon. F.) continued. continued. THREE LECTURES ON THE VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY, delivered at the Royal Institution in March, 1894. Cr. 8vo., 55. LAST ESSAYS. Second Series Essays on the Science of Religion. Crown 8vo., 55. Oakesmith. THE RELIGION OF PLUTARCH: a Pagan Creed of Apostolic Times. An Essay. By JOHN OAKESMITH, D.Litt., M.A. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Wood-Martin (W. G.). TRACES OF THE ELDER FAITHS OF IRELAND : a. Folk-lore Sketch. A Hand- book of Irish Pre-Christian Traditions. With 192 Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo., 305. net. PAGAN IRELAND : an Archaeological Sketch. A Handbook of Irish Pre- Christian Antiquities. With 512 Illus- trations. 8vo., 15*. INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION : Four Lectures delivered at tl c Royal Institution. Crown 8vo., 5$. NATURAL RELIGION. The Gifford Lectures, delivered before the University of Glasgow in 1888. Crown 8vo., 55. PHYSICAL RELIGION. The Gifford Lectures, delivered before the University of Glasgow in 1890. Crown 8vo., 55. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RELIGION. The Gifford Lectures, delivered before the Uni- versity of Glasgow in 1891. Cr. 8vo., 5$. THEOSOPHY, OR PSYCHOLOGICAL RE- LIGION. The Gifford Lectures, delivered before the University of Glasgow in 1892. Crown 8vo., 51. Classical Literature, Translations, &c. Abbott. HELLENICA. A Collection of Essays on Greek Poetry, Philosophy, History, and Religion. Edited by EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A., LL.D. Crown 8vo., 7$. 6d. ./Eschylus. EUMENIDES OF &SCHY- LUS. With Metrical English Translation. By J. F. DAVIES. 8vo., 75. Aristophanes. THE ACHARNIANS OP ARISTOPHANES, translated into English Verse. By R. Y. TYRRELL. Crown 8vo., is. Becker (W. A.), Translated by the Rev. F. METCALFE, B.D. GALLUS : or, Roman Scenes in the Time of Augustus. With Notes and Ex- cursuses. With 26 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. CHARICLES: or, Illustrations ot the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks. With Notes and Excursuses. With 26 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Campbell. RELIGION IN GREEK LI- TERATURE. By the Rev. LEWIS CAMPBELL, M.A., LL.D., Emeritus Professor of Greek, University of St. Andrews. 8vo., 155. Cicero. CICERO'S CORRESPONDENCE. By R. Y. TYRRELL. Vols. I., II., III., 8vo., each i2i. Vol. IV., 155. Vol. V., 145. Vol. VI., i2s. Vol. VII. Index, 75. 6d. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Edited by a Committee of the Classical Instructors of Harvard University. Vols. XL, 1900 ; XII., 1901 ; XIII., 1902 ; XIV., 1903. 8vo., 6s. 6d. net each. Hime. LUC/AN, THE SYRIAN SA- TIRIST. By Lieut.-Col. HENRY W. L. HIME, (late) Royal Artillery. 8vo., 55. net. Homer. THE ODYSSEY OF HOMER. Done into English Verse. By WILLIAM MORRIS. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Horace. THE WORKS OF HORACE, RENDERED INTO ENGLISH PROSE. With Life, Introduction and Notes. By WILLIAM COUTTS, M.A. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Lang. HOMER AND THE EPIC. By ANDREW LANG. Crown 8vo., 95. net. Lucia n. -- TRANSLA TIONS FROM LUCIAN. By AUGUSTA M. CAMPBELL DAVIDSON, M.A. Edin. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Ogilvie. HORAE LATINAE : Studies in Synonyms and Syntax. By the late ROBERT OGILVIE, M.A., LL.D., H.M. Chief Inspector of Schools for Scotland. Edited by ALEXANDER SOUTER, M.A. With a Memoir by JOSEPH OGILVIE, M.A., LL.D. 8yo., i2j. orf. net. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 23 Classical Literature, Translations, &e. continued. Rich. A DICTIONARY OF ROMAN AND Virgil continued. GREEK ANTIQUITIES. By A. RICH, B.A. With 2000 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. Sophocles. Translated into English Verse. By ROBERT WHITELAW, M.A., Assistant Master in Rugby School. Cr. 8vo., 8s. 6d. Theophrastus. THE CHARACTERS OF THEOPHRASTUS : a Translation, with Introduction. By CHARLES E. BENNETT and WILLIAM A. HAMMOND, Professors in Cornell University. Fcp. 8vo., as. 6d. net. Tyrrell. DUBLIN TRANSLATIONS INTO GREEK AND LATIN VERSE. Edited by R. Y. TYRRELL. 8vo., 6s. Virgil. THE POEMS OF VIRGIL. Translated into English Prose by JOHN CONINGTON. Crown 8vo., 6s. THE &NEID OF VIRGIL. Translated into English Verse by JOHN CONINGTON. Crown 8vo., 6s. THE ALNEIDS OF VIRGIL. Done into English Verse. By WILLIAM MORRIS. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE SNEID OF VIRGIL, freely trans- lated into English Blank Verse. By W. J. THORNHILL. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. THE &NEID OF VIRGIL. Translated into English Verse by JAMES RHOADES. Books I. -VI. Crown 8vo., 5$. Books VII. -XII. Crown 8vo., 55. THE ECLOGUES AND GEORGICS OF VIRGIL. Translated into English Prose by J. W. MACKAIL, Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. i6mo., 55. Wilkins. THE GROWTH OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. By G. WILKINS. 8vo.,6s. Poetry and the Drama. Arnold. THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD : or, The Great Consummation. By Sir EDWIN ARNOLD. With 14 Illustrations after HOLMAN HUNT. Crown 8vo., 5$. net. Bell (MRS. HUGH). CHAMBER COMEDIES : a Collection of Plays and Monologues for the Drawing Room. Crown 8vo., 55. net. FAIRY TALE PLAYS, AND How TO ACT THEM. With 91 Diagrams and 52 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. net. NURSERY COMEDIES : Twelve Tiny Plays for Children. Fcap. 8vo., ~>s. 6d. RUMPELSTILTZKIN : a Fairy Play in Five Scenes (Characters, 7 Male ; i Fe- male). From ' Fairy Tale Plays and How to Act Them '. With Illustrations, Diagrams and Music. Cr. 8vo., sewed, 6d. Cochrane. COLLECTED VERSES. By ALFRED COCHRANE, Author of ' The Kes- trel's Nest, and other Verses,' ' Leviore Plectro,' etc. With a Frontispiece by H. J. FORD. Fcp. 8vo., 55. net. Dabney. THE MUSICAL BASIS OF VERSE : a Scientific Study of the Prin- ciples of Poetic Composition. By J. P. DABNEY. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d. net. Graves. - - CLYTAZMNESTRA : A TRAGEDY. By ARNOLD F. GRAVES. With a Preface by ROBERT Y. TYRRELL, Litt.D. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Hither and Thither : Songs and Verses. By the Author of ' Times and Days,' etc. Fcp. 8vo., 55. Ingelow GEAN). POETICAL WORKS. Complete in One Volume. Crown 8vo., gilt top, 6s. net. LYRICAL AND OTHER POEMS. Selec- ted from the Writings of JEAN INGELOW. Fcp. 8vo., 25. fid. cloth plain, 35. cloth gilt. 24 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Poetry and the Kendall. POEMS OF HENRY CLARENCE KENDALL. With Memoir by FREDERICK C. KENDALL. Crown 8vo., 6s. Lang (ANDREW). GRASS OF PARNASSUS. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. THE BLUE POETRY BOOK, Edited by ANDREW LANG. With 100 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. Lecky. POEMS. By WILLIAM ED- WARD HARTPOLE LECKY. Fcp. 8vo., 5$. Lytton (The Earl of), (OWEN MEREDITH). THE WANDERER. Cr. 8vo., IDS. 6d. LUCILE. Crown 8vo., 105. 6d. SELECTED POEMS. Cr. 8vo., 105. 6d. Macaulay. LA YS OFANCIENT ROME, WITH ' IVRY' AND ' THE ARMADA '. By Lord MACAULAY. Illustrated by G. SCHARF. Fcp. 4to., IDS. 6d. Bijou Edition. i8mo., 2s. 6d. gilt top. Popular Edition. Fcp. 4to., 6d. sewed, is. cloth. Illustrated by J. R. WEGUELIN. Crown 8vo., 35. net. Annotated Edition. Fcp. 8vo., is. sewed, is. 6d. cloth. MacDonald. A BOOK OF STRIFE, IN THE FORM OF THE DlARY OF AN OLD SOUL : Poems. By GEORGE MACDONALD, LL.D. i8mo., 6$. Morris (WILLIAM). POETICAL WORKS -LIBRARY EDITION. Complete in n volumes. Crown 8vo., price 5s. net each. THE EARTHLY PARADISE. 4 vols. Crown 8vo., 55. net each. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JASON. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE DEFENCE OF GUENEVERE, and other Poems. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE STORY OF SIGURD THE VOLSUNG, AND THE FALL OF THE NIBLUNGS. Cr. 8vo., 55. net. Drama continued. Morris (WILLIAM) continued. POEMS BY THE WAY, AND LOVE is ENOUGH. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE ODYSSEY OF HOMER. Done into English Verse. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE ALNEIDS OF VIRGIL. Done into English Verse. Crown 8vo., 55. net. THE TALE OF BEOWULF, SOMETIME KING OF THE FOLK OF THE WBDERGEA TS. Translated by WILLIAM MORRIS and A. J. WYATT. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Certain of the POETICAL WORKS may also be had in the following Editions : THE EA R THL Y PA RA DISE. Popular Edition. 5 vols. lamo., 255. ; or 55. each, sold separately. The same in Ten Parts, 255.; or 2s. 6d. each, sold separately. Cheap Edition, in i vol. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. POEMS BY THE WA Y. Square crown 8vo., 6s. THE DEFENCE OF GUENEVERE, and Other Poems Cheaper Impression. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. net. ** For Mr. William Morris's other Works, see pp. 27, 28, 37 and 40. Mors et Victoria. Cr. 8vo., 55. net. *,* This is a drama in three acts, the scene of which is laid in France shortly after the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Morte Arthur: an Alliterative Poem of the Fourteenth Century. Edited from the Thornton MS., with Introduction, Notes and Glossary. By MARY MACLEOD BANKS. Fcp. 8vo., 35. 6d. Nesbit. LA YS AND LEGENDS. By E. NESBIT (Mrs. HUBERT BLAND). First Series. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Second Series. With Portrait. Crown 8vo-, 5s. Riley. OLD FASHIONED ROSES: Poems. By JAMES WHITCOMB RILEY. i2mo., gilt top, 5*. Romanes. A SELECTION FROM THE POEMS OF GEORGE jfoaN ROMANES, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S. With an Introduction by T. HERBERT WARREN, President of Mag- dalen College, Oxford. Crown 8vo., 45. 6d, MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 25 Poetry and the Drama continued. Savage-Armstrong. BALLADS OF DOWN. By G. F. SAVAGE-ARMSTRONG, M.A., D.Litt. Crown 8vo., js. 6d. Shakespeare. BOWDLER'S FAMILY SHAKESPEARE. With 36 Woodcuts, i vol. 8vo., 145. Or in 6 vols. Fcp. 8vo., 2is. THE SHA KESPEARE BIR THDA y BOOK. By MARY F. DUNBAR. 32mo., is. f>d. Stevenson. A CHILD'S GARDEN OF VERSES. By ROBERT Louis STEVENSON. Fcp. 8vo., gilt top, 55. Trevelyan. CECILIA GONZAGA : a Drama. By R. C. TREVELYAN. Fcp. 8vo., 2S. 6d. net. Wagner. THE NIBELUNGEN RING. Done into English Verse by REGINALD RANKIN, B.A., of the Inner Temple, Barris- ter-at-Law. Vol. I. Rhine Gold, The Valkyrie. Fcp. 8vo., gilt top, 45. 6d. Vol. II. Siegfried, The Twilight of the Gods. Fcp. 8vo., gilt top, 45. 6d. Fiction, Humour, &e. Anstey (F.). VOCES POPULI. (Reprinted from 'Punch'.) First Series. With 20 Illustrations by J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. Cr. 8vo., gilt top, 35. net. Second Series. With 25 Illustrations by J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. Cr. 8vo., gilt top, 35. net. THE MAN FROM BLANKLEY'S, and other Sketches. (Reprinted from ' Punch '.) With 25 Illustrations by J. BERNARD PARTRIDGE. Cr. 8vo., gilt top, 35. net. Bailey (H. C.). MY LADY OF ORANGE : a Romance of the Netherlands in the Days of Alva. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. KARL OF ERBACH : a Tale of the Thirty Years' War. Crown 8vo., 6s. THE MASTER OF GRAY : a Tale of the Days of Mary Queen of Scots. Crown 8vo., 6s. Beaconsfield (The Earl of). NOVELS AND TALES. Complete in ii vols. Crown Svo., is. 6d. each, or in sets, n vols., gilt top, 155. net. Contarini Fleming ; The Rise of Iskan- der. Sybil. Henrietta Temple. Venetia. Coningsby. Lothair. Endymion. NOVELS AND TALES. THE HUGH- BNDEN EDITION. With 2 Portraits and Ii Vignettes, u vols. Crown 8vo., 425. Vivian Grey. The Young Duke ; Count Alarcos : a Tragedy. Alroy ; Ixion in Heaven ; The In- fernal Marriage ; Popanilla. Tancred. Bottome. LIFE, THE INTERPRETER. By PHYLLIS BOTTOME. Crown 8vo., 6s. Churchill. SAVROLA : a Tale of the Revolution in Laurania. By WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL, M.P. Cr. 8vo., 6s. Converse. LONG WILL : a Tale of Wat Tyler and the Peasant Rising in the Reign of Richard II. By FLORENCE CON- VERSE. With 6 Illustrations by GARTH JONES. Crown 8vo., 6s. Davenport. BY THE RAMPARTS OF JEZREEL : a Romance of Jehu, King of Israel. By ARNOLD DAVENPORT. With Frontispiece by LANCELOT SPEED. Crown 8vo., 6s. Dougall. BEGGARS ALL. By L. DOUGALL. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Doyle (Sir A. CONAN). Mic AH CLARKE: A Tale of Mon- mouth's Rebellion. With 10 Illustra- tions. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. THE REFUGEES: A Tale of the Huguenots. With 25 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d. THE STARK MUNRO LETTERS. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. THE CAPTAIN OF THE POLES TAR, and other Tales. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. Dunbar. THE SONS o' CORMAC : Irish Legends. By ALOIS DUNBAR. With 8 Illustrations by Miss LUXMORE, Cr, 8vo. 26 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Fiction, Humour, &c. continued. Farrar (F. W., late DEAN OF CAN- TERBURY). DARKNESS AND DAWN: or, Scenes in the Days of Nero. An Historic Tale. Cr. 8vo., gilt top, 6s. net. GATHERING CLOUDS : a Tale of the Days of St. Chrysostom. Cr. 8vo., gilt top, 65. net. Fowler (EDITH H.). THE YOUNG PRETENDERS. A Story of Child Life. With 12 Illustrations by Sir PHILIP BURNE-JONES, Bart. Crown 8vo., 65. THE PROFESSOR'S CHILDREN. With 24 Illustrations by ETHEL KATE BURGESS. Crown 8vo., 6s. Francis (M. E.). CHRISTIAN THAL : a Story of Musi- cal Life. Crown 8vo., 6s. FIANDER'S WIDOW. Cr. 8vo., 6s. YEOMAN FLEETWOOD. With Fron- tispiece. Crown 8vo., 35. net. PASTORALS OF DORSET. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. THE MANOR FARM. With Frontis- piece by CLAUD C. DU PRE COOPER. Crown 8vo., 6s. Froude. THE Two CHIEFS OF DUN- BOY: an Irish Romance of the Last Century. By JAMES A. FROUDE. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. Haggard Side, The : being Essays in Fiction. By the Author of ' Times and Days,' ' Auto da Fe,' &c. Crown 8vo., 55. Haggard (H. RIDER). ALLAN QUATERMAIN. With 31 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 3$. 6d. ALLAJV'S WIFE. With 34 Illustra- tipns. Crown 8vp., 35. 6d. Haggard (H. RIDER) continued. BEATRICE. With Frontispiece and Vignette. Crown 8vo., y. 6d. BLACK HEART AND WHITE HEART, AND OTHER STORIES. With 33 Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. CLEOPATRA. With 29 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. COLONEL QUARITCH, V.C. With Frontispiece and Vignette. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d. DAWN. With 16 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 3s. 6d. DR. THERNE. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. ERIC BRIGHTEYES. With 51 Illus- trations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. HEART OF THE WORLD. With 15 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. JOAN HASTE. With 20 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. LYSBETH. With 26 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. MAIWA'S REVENGE. Cr. 8vo., is. 6d. MONTEZUMA'S DAUGHTER. With 24 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. MR. MEESON'S WILL. With 16 Illustrations. Crown 8vo.. 35. 6d. NADA THE LILY. With 23 Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. PEARL-MAIDEN: a Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem. With 16 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. SHE. With 32 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. STELLA FREGELWS : A Tale of Three Destinies. Crown 8vo., 6s. SWALLOW : a Tale of the Great Trek. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 3$. 6d. THE PEOPLE OF THE MIST. With 16 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE WITCH'S HEAD. With Illustrations. Crowp 8vp,, 3$. 6d. 16 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 27 Fiction, Humour, &e. continued. Haggard and Lang. THE WORLD'S DESIRE. By H. RIDER HAGGARD and ANDREW LANG. With 27 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Harte. IN THE CARQUINEZ WOODS. By BRET HARTE. Crown 8vo., 3$. 6d. Hope. THE HEART OF PRINCESS OSRA. By ANTHONY HOPE. With 9 Illus- trations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Howard. THE FAILURE OF SUCCESS. By Lady MABEL HOWARD. Crown 8vo., 65. Hutchinson. A FRIEND OF NELSON. By HORACE G. HUTCHINSON. Cr. 8vo., 6s. Jerome. SKETCHES IN LAVENDER: BLUB AND GREEN. By JEROME K. JEROME, Author of ' Three Men in a Boat,' etc. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Joyce. OLD CELTIC ROMANCES. Twelve of the most beautiful of the Ancient Irish Romantic Tales. Translated from the Gaelic. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Lang (ANDREW). A MONK OF FIFE ; a Story of the Days of Joan of Arc. With 13 Illustra- tions by SELWYN IMAGE. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE DISENTANGLERS. With 7 Full-page Illustrations by H. J. FORD. Crown 8vo., 6s. Lyall (EDNA). THE HINDERERS. Crown 8vo., 25. 6d. THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A SLANDER. Fcp. 8vo., is. sewed. Presentation Edition. With 20 Illustra- tions by LANCELOT SPEED. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. DOREEN. The Story of a Singer. Crown 8vo., 6s. WAYFARING MEN. Crown 8vo., 65. HOPE THE HERMIT : a Romance of Borrowdale. Crown 8vo., 6s. Marchmont. IN THE NAME OF A WOMAN: a Romance. By ARTHUR W. MARCHMONT. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. Mason and Lang. PARSON KELLY. By A. E. W. MASON and ANDREW LANG. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Max Mtiller. DEUTSCHE LIEBE (GERMAN LOVE) : Fragments from the Papers of an Alien. Collected by F. MAX MULLER. Translated from the German by G. A. M. Crown 8vo., gilt top, 55. Melville (G. J. WHYTE). The Gladiators. The Interpreter. Good for Nothing. The Queen's Maries. Holmby House. Kate Coventry. Digby Grand. General Bounce. Crown 8vo., is. 6d. each. Merriman. FLOTSAM: A Story of the Indian Mutiny. By HENRY SETON MERRIMAN. With Frontispiece and Vig- nette by H. G. MASSEY. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. Morris (WILLIAM). THE SUNDERING FLOOD. Cr. 8vo., ys. fid. THE WATER OF THE WONDROUS ISLES. Crown 8vo., ys. 6d. THE WELL A r THE WORLD'S END. 2 vols. 8vo., 28s. THE WOOD BEYOND THE WORLD. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. THE STORY OF THE GLITTERING PLAIN, which has been also called The Land of the Living Men, or The Acre of the Undying. Square post 8vo., 5s. net. 28 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Fiction, Humour, &e. continued. Morris (WILLIAM) continued. THE ROOTS OF THE MOUNTAINS, wherein is told somewhat of the Lives of the Men of Burgdale, their Friends, their Neighbours, their Foemen, and their Fellows-in-Arms. Written in Prose and Verse. Square crown 8vo., 8s. A TALE OF THE HOUSE OF THE WOLFINGS, and all the Kindreds of the Mark. Written in Prose and Verse. Square crown 8vo., 6s. A DREAM OF JOHN BALL, AND A KING'S LESSON. i6mo., 2s. net. NEWS FROM NOWHERE; or, An Epoch of Rest. Being some Chapters from an Utopian Romance. Post 8vo., is. 6d. THE STORY OF GRETTIR THE STRONG. Translated from the Icelandic by EIRIKR MAGNUSSON and WILLIAM MORRIS. Cr. 8vo. , 55. net. THREE NORTHERN LOVE STORIES, AND OTHER TALES. Translated from the Icelandic by EIRIKR MAGNUSSON and WILLIAM MORRIS. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. ** For Mr. William Morris's other Works, see pp. 24, 37 and 40. Newman (Cardinal). Loss AND GAIN: The Story of a Convert. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. CALLISTA : A Tale of the Third Century. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Phillipps-Wolley. SNAP: a Legend of the Lone Mountain. By C. PHILLIPPS- WOLLEY. With 13 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. , 35. 6d. Portman. STATION STUDIES : being the Jottings of an African Official. By LIONEL PORTMAN. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Sewell (ELIZABETH M.). A Glimpse of the World, Laneton Parsonage. Margaret Percival. Katharine Ashton. The Earl's Daughter. The Experience of Life. Amy Herbert. Cleve Hall. Gertrude. Home Life. After Life. Ursula. Ivors. Cr. 8vo., cloth plain, is. 6d. each. Cloth extra, gilt edges, 2s. 6d. each. Sheehan. LUKE DELMEGE. By the Rev. P. A. SHEEHAN, D.D., Author of ' My New Curate '. Crown 8vo., 6s. Somerville (MARTIN). (E. CE.) and Ross SOME EXPERIENCES OF AN IRISH R.M. With 31 Illustrations by E. (E. SOMERVILLE. Crown 8vo., 6s. ALL ON THE IRISH SHORE: Irish Sketches. With 10 Illustrations by E. CE. SOMERVILLE. Crown 8vo., 6s. THE REAL CHARLOTTE. 8vo., 35. 6d. Crown THE SILVER Fox, Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. AN IRISH COUSIN. Crown 8vo., 65. Stevenson (ROBERT Louis). THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. Fcp. 8vo., is. sewed, is. 6d. cloth. THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE; WITH OTHER FABLES. Crown 8vo., bound in buckram, with gilt top, 55. net. ' Silver Library ' Edition. Crown 8vo., 3S. 6d. MORE NEW ARABIAN NIGHTS THE DYNAMITER. By ROBERT Louis STEVEN- SON and FANNY VAN DE GRIFT STEVEN- SON. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE WRONG Box. By ROBERT Louis STEVENSON and LLOYD OSBOURNE. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 2g Fiction, Humour, &e. continued. Suttner. LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS \ Walford (L. B.) continued. (Die Waff en Niedrr) : The Autobiography j of Martha von Tilling. By BERTHA VON SUTTNER. Translated by T. HOLMES. Cr. 8vo., is. 6d. Trollope (ANTHONY). THE WARDED. Cr. Svo., is. 6d. BARCHESTER TOWERS. Cr.8vo.,is.6d. Vaughan. OLD HENDRIKS TALES. By Captain ARTHUR O. VAUGHAN. With 12 Full-page Illustrations by J. A. SHEPHERD. Crown 8vo. Walford (L. B.). STAY-AT-HOMES. Crown 8vo., 6s. CHARLOTTE. Crown 8vo., 6s. ONE OF OURSELVES. Cr. 8vo., 6s. THE INTRUDERS. Crown 8vo., as. 6d. LEDDY MARGET. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. IVA KILDARE : a Matrimonial Pro- blem. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. MR. SMITH: a Part of his Life. Crown 8vo., 25. 6d. THE, BABY'S GRANDMOTHER. Cr. 8vo., 2s. 6d. COUSINS. Crown 8vo., as. 6d. TROUBLESOME DAUGHTERS. 8vo., 25. 6d. Cr. PAULINE. Crown 8vo., as. 6d. DICK NETHERBY. Cr. 8vo., as. 6d. THE HISTORY OF A WEEK. Cr. 8vo. 2s. 6d. A STIFF-NECKED GENERATION. Cr. 8vo. 25. 6d. NAN, and other Stories. Cr. 8vo., 25. 6d. THE MISCHIEF OF MONICA. 8vo., 25. 6d. Cr. THE ONE GOOD GUEST. Cr. Svo. 25. 6d. 1 PLOUGHED? and other Stories. Crown 8vo., 25. 6d. THE MA TCHMAKER. Cr. 8vo., as. 6d. Ward. ONE POOR SCRUPLE. By Mrs. WILFRID WARD. Crown 8vo., 65. Weyman (STANLEY). THE HOUSE OF THE WOLF. With Frontispiece and Vignette. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. A GENTLEMAN OF PRANCE. With Frontispiece and Vignette. Cr. 8vo., 65. THE RED COCKADE. With Frontis- piece and Vignette. Crown 8vo., 65. SHREWSBURY. With 24. Illustra- tions by CLAUDE A. SHEPPERSON. Cr. 8vo., 6s. SOPHIA. With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo., 65, THE LONG NIGHT : A Story of Geneva in 1602. Crown 8vo., 6s. Yeats (S. LEVETT). THE CHEVALIER D"AuRiAC. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE TRAITOR'S WAY. Cr. 8vo., 6s. Yoxall. THE ROMMANY STONE. By J. H. YOXALL, M.P. Crown 8vo., 65. 30 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Popular Science (Natural History, &e.). Furneaux (W.). Hudson (W. H.). THE OUTDOOR WORLD; or The Young Collector's Handbook. With 18 Plates (16 of which are coloured), and 549 Illustrations in the Text. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. net. BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (British). With 12 coloured Plates and 241 Illus- trations in the Text. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. net. LIFE IN PONDS AND STREAMS. With 8 coloured Plates and 331 Illustra- tions in the Text. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. net. THE SEA SHORE. With 8 Coloured Plates and 300 Illustrations in the Text. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. Hartwig (GEORGE). THE SEA AND ITS LIVING WONDERS. With 12 Plates and 303 Woodcuts. Svo., gilt top, 75. net. THE TROPICAL WORLD. With 8 Plates and 172 Woodcuts. 8vo., gilt top, 75. net. THE POLAR WORLD. With 3 Maps, 8 Plates and 85 Woodcuts. 8vo., gilt top, 75. net. THE SUBTERRANEAN WORLD. With 3 Maps and 80 Woodcuts. 8vo., gilt top, 75. net. Helmholtz. POPULAR LECTURES ON SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS. By HERMANN VON HELMHOLTZ. With 68 Woodcuts. 2 vols. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. each. Hoffmann. ALPINE FLORA : For Tourists and Amateur Botanists. With Text descriptive of the most widely dis- tributed and attractive Alpine Plants. By JULIUS HOFFMANN. Translated by E. S. BARTON (Mrs. A. GEPP). With 40 Plates containing 250 Coloured Figures from Water-Colour Sketches by HERMANN FRIESE. 8vo., 75. 6d. net. HAMPSHIRE DAYS. With n Plates and 36 Illustrations in the Text from Drawings by BRYAN HOOK, etc. 8vo., IDS. 6d. net. BIRDS AND MAN. 8vo., 6s. net. Large crown NATURE IN DOWNLAND. With 12 Plates and 14 Illustrations in the Text by A. D. McCoRMicK. 8vo., los. 6d. net. BRITISH BIRDS. With a Chapter on Structure and Classification by FRANK E. BEDDARD, F.R.S. With 16 Plates (8 of which are Coloured), and over 100 Illus- trations in the Text. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. net. Millais. THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BRITISH SURFACE FEEDING-DUCKS. By JOHN GUILLE MILLAIS, F.Z.S., etc. With 6 Photogravures and 66 Plates (41 in Colours) from Drawings by the Author, ARCHIBALD THORBURN, and from Photo- graphs. Royal 410., 6 6s. Proctor (RICHARD A.). LIGHT SCIENCE FOR LEISURE HOURS. Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects. Crown 8vo., ^s. 6d. ROUGH WA YS MADE SMOOTH. Fami- liar Essays on Scientific Subjects. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. PLEASANT WA YS IN SCIENCE. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. NATURE STUDIES. By R. A. PROC- TOR, GRANT ALLEN, A. WILSON, T. FOSTER and E. CLODD. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6rf. LEISURE READINGS. By R. A. PROC- TOR, E. CLODD, A. WILSON, T. FOSTER and A. C. RANYARD. Cr. Svo. , 35. 6d. %* For Mr. Proctor's other books see pp. 16 a ^ 35. and Messrs. Longmans & Co.'s Cata- logue of Scientific Works. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 31 Popular Science (Natural History, &e.) continued. Wood (Rev. J. G.) continued. Stanley. A FAMILIAR HISTORY OF BIRDS. By E. STANLEY, D.D., formerly Bishop of Norwich. With 160 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. Wood (Rev. J. G.). HOMES WITHOUT HANDS: A Descrip- tion of the Habitations of Animals, classed according to their Principle of Construc- tion. With 140 Illustrations. 8vo., gilt top, 75. net. INSECTS AT HOME : A Popular Ac- count of British Insects, their Structure, Habits and Transformations. With 700 Illustrations. 8vo. , gilt top, js. net. INSECTS ABROAD: A Popular Ac- count of Foreign Insects, their Structure, Habits and Transformations. With 600 Illustrations. 8vo., 75. net. OUT OF DOORS; a Selection of Original Articles on Practical Natural History. With n Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 3 s. 6d. PETLAND REVISITED. With 33 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. STRANGE DWELLINGS : a Description of the Habitations of Animals, abridged from ' Homes without Hands '. With 60 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. Works of Reference. Annual Register (The). A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad, for the year 1902. 8vo., 185. Volumes of the Annual Register for the years 1863-1901 can still be had. i8s. each. Charities Register, The Annual AND DIGEST: being a Classified Register of Charities in or available in the Metropolis. 8vo., 55. net. Chisholm. HANDBOOK OF COM- MERCIAL GEOGRAPHY. By GEORGE G. CHISHOLM, M.A., B.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Geographical and Statistical Societies. With 19 Folding-out Maps and Numerous Maps in the Text. 8vo., 155. net. Gwilt. AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AR- CHITECTURE. By JOSEPH GWILT, F.S.A. With 1700 Engravings. Revised (1888), with Alterations and Considerable Addi- tions by WYATT PAPWORTH. 8vo., 215. net. Longmans' GAZETTEER OF THE WORLD. Edited by GEORGE G. CHIS- HOLM, M.A., B.Sc. Imperial 8vo., i8s. net cloth ; 215. half-morocco. Maunder (SAMUEL). BIOGRAPHICAL TREASURY. With Supplement brought down to 1889. By Rev. JAMES WOOD. Fcp. 8vo., 65. Maunder (SAMUEL) continued. THE TREASURY OF BIBLE KNOW- LEDGE. By the Rev. J. AYRE, M.A. With 5 Maps, 15 Plates, and 300 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo., 6s. TREASURY OF KNOWLEDGE AND LIB- RARY OF REFERENCE. Fcp. 8vo., 6s. THE TREASURY OF BOTANY. Edited by J. LINDLEY, F.R.S., and T. MOORE, F.L.S. With 274 Woodcuts and 20 Steel Plates. 2 vols. Fcp. 8vo., 125. Rich. A DICTIONARY OF ROMAN AND GREEK ANTIQUITIES. By A. RICH, B.A. With 2000 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. Roget. THESAURUS OF ENGLISH WORDS AND PHRASES. Classified and Ar- ranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and assist in Literary Composition. By PETER MARK ROGET, M.D., F.R.S. Recomposed throughout, enlarged and im- proved, partly from the Author's Notes, and with a full Index, by the Author's Son, JOHN LEWIS ROGET. Crown 8vo., 95. net. Wi\lich.~ POPULAR TABLES for giving information for ascertaining the value of Lifehold, Leasehold, and Church Property, the Public Funds, etc. By CHARLES M. WILLICH. Edited by H. BENCE JONE.S,. Crown 8vo., IDS. 6d, 32 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Children's Books. Adelborg. CLEAN PETER AND THE CHILDREN OF GRUBBYLEA. By OTTILIA ADELBORG". Translated from the Swedish by Mrs. GRAHAM WALLAS. With 23 Coloured Plates. Oblong 410., boards, 35. 6d. net. Alick's Adventures. By G. R. With 8 Illustrations by JOHN HASSALL. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Bold Turpin : a Romance, as Sung by Sam Weller. With 16 Illustrations in Colour by L. D. L. Oblong 410., boards, 6s. Brown.. THE BOOK OF SAINTS AND FRIENDLY BEASTS. By ABBIE FARWELL BROWN. With 8 Illustrations by FANNY Y. CORY. Crown 8vo., 45. 6d. net. Crake (Rev. A. D.). EDWY THE FAIR; or, The First Chronicle of ^Escendune. Cr. 8vo. , silver top, 2s. net. ALFGAR THE DANE; or, The Second Chronicle of ^Escendune. Cr. 8vo., silver top, 2s. net. THE RIVAL HEIRS : being the Third and Last Chronicle of ^Escendune. Cr. 8vo., silver top, 25. net. THE HOUSE OF WALDERNE. A Tale of the Cloister and the Forest in the Days of the Barons' Wars. Crown 8vo., silver top, 25. net. BRIAN FITZ- COUNT. A Story of Wallingford Castle and Dorchester Abbey. Cr. 8vo., silver top, 25. net. Dent. IN SEARCH OF HOME : a Story of East-End Waifs and Strays. By PHYLLIS O. DENT. With a Frontispiece in Colour by HAMEL LISTER. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. net. Henty (G. A.). EDITED BY. YULE LOGS : A Story-Book for Boys. By VARIOUS AUTHORS. With 61 Illus- trations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 35. net. YULE TIDE YARNS: a Story-Book for Boys. By VARIOUS AUTHORS. With 45 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 35. net. Lang (ANDREW). EDITED BY. THE BLUE FAIRY BOOK. With 138 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6j. THE RED FAIRY BOOK. With 100 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE GREEN FA IR Y BOOK. With 99 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE GREY FAIRY BOOK. With 65 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 65. THE YELLOW FAIRY BOOK. With 104 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE PINK FAIRY BOOK. With 67 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE VIOLET FAIRY BOOK. With 8 Coloured Plates and 54 other Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE CRIMSON FAIRY BOOK. With 8 Coloured Plates and 43 other Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE BL UE POE TR Y BOOK. W i th i oo Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, bs. THE TRUE STORY BOOK. With 66 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 65. THE RED TRUE STORY BOOK. With 100 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE ANIMAL STORY BOOK. With 67 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE RED BOOK OF ANIMAL STORIES. With 65 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE ARABIAN NIGHTS ENTERTAIN- MENTS. With 66 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 6s. THE BOOK OF ROMANCE. With 8 Coloured Plates and 44 other Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, Os. Lyall. THE BCKGES LETTERS : a Record of Child Life in the Sixties. By EDNA LYALL. With Coloured Frontispiece and 8 other Full-page Illustrations by WALTER S. STACEY. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. Meade (L. T.). DADDY'S BOY. With 8 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., gilt edges, 35. net. DEB AND THE DUCHESS. With 7 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 35. net. THE BERESFORD PRIZE. With 7 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges. 3$. net. THE HOUSE OF SURPRISES. With 6 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., gilt edges, 35. net. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 33 Children's Books continued. Packard. - - THE YOUNG ICE WHALERS: a Tale for Boys. By WIN- THROP PACKARD. With 16 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. Penrose. CHUBBY: A NUISANCE. By Mrs. PENROSE. With 8 Illustrations by G. G. MANTON. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Praeger (ROSAMOND). THE ADVENTURES OF THE THREE BOLD BABES : HEC TOR, HOXOJIA AND ALISANDER. A Story in Pictures. With 24 Coloured Plates and 24 Outline Pic- tures. Oblong 410., 35. 6d. THE FUR THER DOINGS OF THE THREE BOLD BABES. With 24 Coloured Pictures and 24 Outline Pictures. Oblong ^lo.,^s.6d. Roberts. THE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH ; Captain of Two Hundred and Fifty Horse, and sometime President of Virginia. By E. P. ROBERTS. With 17 Illustrations and 3 Maps. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Stevenson. A CHILD'S GARDEN OF VERSES. By ROHEKT Louis STEVENSON. Fcp. two., gilt top, 55. Upton (FLORENCE K. AND BERTHA). THE ADVENTURES OF Two DUTCH DOLLS AND A ' GOLLIWOGG''. With 31 Coloured Plates and numerous Illustra- tions in the Text. Oblong 410., 6s. THE GOLLIWOGG'S BICYCLE CLUB. With 31 Coloured Plates and numerous Illustrations in the Text. Oblong 410., 65. THE GOLLIWOGG AT THE SEASIDE. With 31 Coloured Plates and numerous Illustrations in the Text. Oblong 410. , 6s. THE GoLLrwoGG IN WAR. With 31 Coloured Plates. Oblong 410., 6s. THE GOLLIWOGG'S POLAR ADVEN- TURES. With 31 Coloured Plates. Ob- long 410., 6s. THE GOLLIWOGG 's AUTO-GO-CART. With 31 Coloured Plates and numerous Illustrations in the Text. Oblong 410., 6s. THE GOLLIWOGG' s AIR-SHIP. With 30 Coloured Pictures and numerous Illus- trations in the Text. Oblong 410., 6s. THE GOLLIWOGG' s CIRCUS. With 31 Coloured Pictures. Oblong 4to., boards, 6s. THE VEGE-MEN'S REVENGE. With 31 Coloured Plates and numerous Illus- trations in the Text. Oblong 410., 6s. The Silver Library. CROWN 8vo. 35. 6d. EACH VOLUME. Arnold's (Sir Edwin) Seas and Lands. With 71 Illustrations, y. 6d. Bagehot's i W.i Biographical Studies, y. 6d. Bagehot's (W.) Economic Studies. y. 6d. Bagehot's (W.) Literary Studies. With Portrait. 3 vols. , y. 6d, each. Baker's (Sir 8. W.) Eight Years in Ceylon. With 6 Illustrations, y. 6d. Baker's (Sir S. W.) Rifle and Hound in Ceylon. With 6 Illustrations. 3.5. 6d. Baring-Gould's (Rev. S.) Curious Myths of the Middle Ages. y. 6d. Baring-Gould's (Rev. S.) Origin and Develop- ment of Religious Belief. 2 vols. y. 6d. each. Becker's ( W. A. ) Callus : or, Roman Scenes in the Time of Augustus. With 26 Illus. 3*. 6d. Becker's (W. A.) Charicles : or, Illustrations of the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks. With 26 Illustrations. 3^. 6d. Bent's (3. T.) The Ruined Cities of Mashona- land. With 117 Illustrations, y. 6d. Brassey's (Lady) A Voyage in the ' Sunbeam '. With 66 Illustrations. 3$. 6d. Buckle's (H. T.) History of Civilisation in England. 3 vols. los. 6d. Churchill's (Winston S.) The Story of the Malakand Field Force, 1897. With 6 Maps and Plans. 3^. 6d. Clodd's (E.) Story of Creation: a Plain Account of Evolution. With 77 Illustrations. y. 6d. Conybeare (Rev. W. J.) and Howson's (Very Rev. J. 8.) Life and Epistles of St. Paul. With 46 Illustrations, y. 6d. Dougall's (L.) Beggars All : a Novel. 3;. 6d. Doyle's (Sir A. Conan) Micah Clarke. A Tale of Monmoutn's Rebellion. With 10 Illusts. y. 64. 34 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. The Silver Library continued. Doyle's (Sir A. Conan) The Captain of the Polestar, and other Tales. y. 6d. Doyle's (Sir A. Conan) The Refugees: A Tale of the Huguenots. With 25 Illustrations. y6d. Doyle's (Sir A. Conan) The Stark Munro Letters. y. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) The History of England, from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada. 12 vols. 35. 6d. each. Froude's (J. A.) The English in Ireland. 3 vols. IDS. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon. 3.?. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) The Spanish Story of the Armada, and other Essays. y. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) English Seamen in the Sixteenth Century. 35. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) Short Studies on Great Sub- jects. 4 vols. y. 6d. each. Froude's (J. A.) Oceana, or England and Her Colonies. With 9 Illustrations. 35. 6d. Froude's ( J. A.) The Council of Trent, y. 6d, Froude's (J. A.) The Life and Letters of Erasmus, y. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) Thomas Carlyle : a History of his Life. 1795-1835. 2 vols. ?s. 1834-1881. 2 vols. 7*. Froude's (J. A.) Caesar : a Sketch. 3^. 6d. Froude's (J. A.) The Two Chiefs of Dunboy : an Irish Romance of the Last Century. y. f>d. Froude's (J. A.) Writings, Selections from. 3-r. 6d. Qleig's (Rev. G. R.) Life of the Duke of Wellington. With Portrait, y. 6d. Greville's (C. C. F.) Journal of the Reigns of King George IV., King William IV., and Queen Victoria. 8 vols. , 35. 6d. each. Haggard's (H. R.) She : A History of Adventure. With 32 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Allan Quatermain. With 20 Illustrations. 3^. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Colonel Quaritch, V.C. : a Tale of Country Life. With Frontispiece and Vignette. 35. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.)|Cleopatra. With 29 Illustra- tions, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Eric Brighteyes. With 51 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Beatrice. With Frontispiece and Vignette. 3^. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Black Heart and White Heart. With 33 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Allan's Wife. With 34 Illus- trations. 31. 6d. Haggard (H. R.) Heart of the World. With 15 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Montezuma's Daughter. With 25 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Swallow : a Tale of the Great Trek. With 8 Illustrations. y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) The Witch's Head. With 16 Illustrations. 3*. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Mr. Meeson's Will. With 16 Illustrations. 35. (xt. Haggard's (H. R.) Nada the Lily. With 23 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H.R.) Dawn. With i6Illusts. y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) The People of the Hist. With 16 Illustrations, y. 6d. Haggard's (H. R.) Joan Haste. With 20 Illus- trations, y. 6d. Haggard (H. R.) and Lang's (A.) The World's Desire. With 27 Illustrations, y. 6d. Harte's (Bret) In the Carquinez Woods and other Stories, y. 6d. Helmholtz's (Hermann von) Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects. With 68 Illustrations. 2 vols. y. 6d. each. Hope's (Anthony) The Heart of Princess Osra. With 9 Illustrations. 3^. 6d. Hewitt's (W.) Visits to Remarkable Places. With 80 Illustrations, y. 6d. Jefferies' (R.) The Story of My Heart: My Autobiography. With Portrait. 3*. 6d. Jefferies' (R.) Field and Hedgerow. With Portrait, y. 6d. Jefferies' (R.) Red Deer. With 17 Illusts. y. 6d. Jefferies' (R.) Wood Magic: a Fable. With Frontispiece and Vignette by E. V. B. y. 6d. Jefferies (R.) The Toilers of the Field. With Portrait from the Bust in Salisbury Cathedral. y. 6d. Kaye (Sir J.) and Malleson's (Colonel) History of the Indian Mutiny of 1897-8. 6 vols. y. 6d. each. Knight's (E. F.) The Cruise of the 'Alerte': the Narrative of a Search for Treasure on the Desert Island of Trinidad. With a Maps and 23 Illustrations, y. 6d. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 35 The Silver Library continued. Knight's (E. F.) Where Three Empires Meet: a Narrative of Recent Travel in Kashmir, Western Tibet, Baltistan, Gilgit. With a Map and 54 Illustrations. 35. 6d. Knight's (E. F.) The ' Falcon ' on the Baltic : a Coasting Voyage from Hammersmith to Copenhagen in a Three-Ton Yacht. With Map and n Illustrations, y. 6d. Kostlin's (J.) Life of Luther. With 62 Illustra- tions and 4 Facsimiles of MSS. y. 6d. Lang's (A.) Angling Sketches. With 20 Illustra- tions, y. 6d. Lang's (A.) Custom and Myth : Studies of Early Usage and Belief, y. 6d. Lang's (A. )Cock Laneand Common-Sense, y. 6d. Lang's (A.) The Book of Dreams and Ghosts, y. 6ii. Lang's (A.) A Monk of Fife : a Story of the Days of Joan of Arc. With 13 Illustrations. y. 6d. Lang's (A.) Myth, Ritual, and Religion. 2 vols. 75. Lees (J. A.) and Clutterbuck's (W. J.) B.C. 1887, A Ramble in British Columbia. With Maps and 75 Illustrations. 3^. 6d Levett-Veats' (S.) The Chevalier D'Auriac. y. 6d. Macaulay's (Lord) Complete Works. ' Albany ' Edition. With 12 Portraits. 12 vols. y. 6d. each. Macaulay's (Lord) Essays and Lays of Ancient Rome, etc. With Portrait and 4 Illustrations to the ' Lays '. y. 6d. Macleod's (H. D.) Elements of Banking. 35. 6d. Marshman's (J. C.) Memoirs of Sir Henry Havelock. 3^. 6d. Mason (A. E. W.) and Lang's (A.) Parson Kelly. 3.f. 6d. Merivale's (Dean) History of the Romans under the Empire. 8 vols. 35. 6d. each. Merriman's (H. S. Flotsam : A Tale of the Indian Mutiny, ^. 6d. Mill's (J. S.) Political Economy. 3.?. 6d. Mill's (J. S.) System of Logic, y. 6d. Milner's (Oeo.) Country Pleasures : the Chroni- cle of a Year chiefly in a Garden, y. 6d. Nansen's (F.) The First Crossing of Greenland. With 142 Illustrations and a Map. y. 6d. Fhillipps-Wolley 's (C.) Snap : a Legend of the Lone Mountain With 13 Illustrations. 3*. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) The Orbs Around Us. y. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) The Expanse of Heaven, y. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Light Science for Leisure Hours. 35. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) The Moon. y. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Other Worlds than Ours. y.6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Our Place among Infinities : a Series of Essays contrasting our Little Abode in Space and Time with the Infinities around us. y. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Other Suns than Ours. 35. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Rough Ways made Smooth. y. 6d. Proctor's(R.A.)PleasantWaysin Science. y.6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Myths and Marvels of As- tronomy, y. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Nature Studies. 35. 6d. Proctor's (R. A.) Leisure Readings. By R. A. PROCTOR, EDWARD CLODD, ANDREW WILSON, THOMAS FOSTER, and A. C. RANYARD. With Illustrations. 3^. 6d. Rossetti's (Maria F.) A Shadow of Dante, y. 6,f. Smith's (R. Bosworth) Carthage and the Cartha- ginians. With Maps, Plans, etc. y. 6d, Stanley's (Bishop) Familiar History of Birds. With 160 Illustrations, y. 6d. Stephen's (Sir Leslie) The Playground of Europe (The Alps). With 4 Illustrations, y. 6d. Stevenson's (R. L.) The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; with other Fables, y.bd. Stevenson (R. L.) and Osbourne's (LI.) The Wrong Box. y. 6d. Stevenson (Robert Louis) and Stevenson's (Fanny van de Grift) More Hew Arabian Nights. The Dynamiter. 3*. 6d. Trevelyan's (Sir G. 0.) The Early History of Charles James Fox. y. 6d. Wey man's (Stanley J.) The House of the' Wolf: a Romance, y. 6d. Wood's (Rev. J. 0.) Petland Revisited. With 33 Illustrations y. 6d. Wood's (Rev. J. G.) Strange Dwellings. With 60 Illustrations, y. 6d. Wood's (Rev. J. G.) Out of Doors. With u Illustrations, y, 6d, 36 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Cookery, Domestic Management, &e. Acton. MODERN COOKERY. By ELIZA ACTON. With 150 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo., 4s. 6d. Angwin. SIMPLE HINTS ON CHOICE OF FOOD, with Tested and Economical Recipes. For Schools, Homes, and Classes for Technical Instruction. By M.C. ANGWIN, Diplomate (First Class) of the National Union for the Technical Training of Women, etc. Crown 8vo., is. Ashby. HEALTH IN THE NURSERY. By HENRY ASHBY, M.D., F.R.C.P., Physi- cian to the Manchester Children's Hospital. With 25 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. net. Bull (THOMAS, M.D.). HINTS TO MOTHERS ON THE MAN- AGEMENT OF THEIR HEALTH DURING THE PERIOD OP PREGNANCY. Fcp. 8vo., sewed, is. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, 25. net. THE MATERNAL MANAGEMENT OF CHILDREN IN HEALTH AND I'ISEASE. Fcp. 8vo., sewed, is. 6d. ; cloth, gilt edges, 2s. net. De Salis (Mrs.). A LA MODE COOKERY: Up-to- date Recipes. With 24 Plates (16 in Colour). Crown 8vo.,5s. net. CAKES AND CONFECTIONS A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. DOGS: A Manual for Amateurs. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. DRESSED GAME AND POULTRY A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. DRESSED VEGETABLES A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is 6d. DRINKS A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is,6d. De Sails (Mrs.) continued. ENTREES A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. FLORAL DECORATIONS. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d, GARDENING A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo. Part I., Vegetables, is. 6d. Part II., Fruits, is. 6d. NATIONAL VIANDS A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. NEW-LAID EGGS. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. OYSTERS A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. PUDDINGS AND PASTRY A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. ftd. SAVOURIES A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is.6d. So if PS AND DRESSED FISH A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. SWEETS AND SUPPER DISHES A LA MODE. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. TEMPTING DISHES FOR SMALL IN- COMES. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. WRINKLES AND NOTIONS FOR E VERY HOUSEHOLD. Crown 8vo. , is. 6d. Lear. MAIGRE COOKERY. By H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. i6mo., 25. Poole. COOKERY FOR THE DIABETIC. By W. H. and Mrs. POOLE. With Preface by Dr. PAVY. Fcp. 8vo. , 2s. 6d. Rotheram. HOUSEHOLD COOKERY RECIPES. By M. A. ROTHERAM, First Cla*s Diplomee, National Training School of Cookery, London ; Instructress to the Bed- fordshire County Council. Crown 8vo., 2s. The Fine Arts and Music. Burne-Jones. THE BEGINNING OF . THE WORLD : Twenty-five Pictures by Sir EDWARD BURNE-JONES, Bart. Medium 4to., Boards, -js. 6d. net. Hamlin. A TEXT- BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE. By A. D. F. HAMLIN, A.M. With 229 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., js. 6d. Burns and Colenso. LIVING ANA- Haweis (Rev. H. R.). TOMY. By CECIL L. BURNS, R.B.A., and ROBERT J. COLENSO, M.A., M.D. 40 Plates, ii J by 8| ins., each Plate containing Two Figures (a) A Natural Male or Female Figure ; (b) The same Figure Anatomatised. In a Portfolio, ys. 6d. net. Music AND MORALS. With Portrait of the Author. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. MY MUSICAL LIFE. With Portrait of Richard Wagner and 3 Illustrations, Crown 8vo., 6s. net. MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 37 The Fine Arts and Music continued. Huish, Head, and Longman. SAMPLERS AND TAPESTRY EMBROIDERIES. By MARCUS B. HUISH, LL.B. ; also 'The Stitchery of the Same,' by Mrs. HEAD ; and ' Foreign Samplers,' by Mrs. C. J. LONGMAN. With 30 Reproductions in Colour, and 40 Illustrations in Mono- chrome. 410., z 2s. net. Hullah. THE HISTORY OF MODERN Music. By JOHN HULLAH. 8vo., 8s. 6d. Jameson (Mrs. ANNA). SACRED AND LEGENDARY ART, con- taining Legends of the Angels and Arch- angels, the Evangelists, the Apostles, the Doctors of the Church, St. Mary Mag- dalene, the Patron Saints, the Martyrs, the Early Bishops, the Hermits, and the Warrior- Saints of Christendom, as repre- sented in the Fine Arts. With 19 Etchings and 187 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo., 2os. net. LEGENDS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS, as represented in the Fine Arts, com- prising the Benedictines and Augustines, and Orders derived from their Rules, the Mendicant Orders, the Jesuits, and the Order of the Visitation of St. Mary. With ii Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. i vol. 8vo., los. net. LEGENDS OF THE MADONNA, OR BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. Devotional with and without the Infant Jesus, Historical from the Annunciation to the Assumption, as represented in Sacred and Legendary Christian Art. With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts, i vol. 8vo., IDS. net. THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD, as ex- emplified in Works of Art, with that of His Types, St. John the Baptist, and other persons of the Old and New Testa- ment. Commenced by the late Mrs. JAMESON ; continued and completed by LADY EASTLAKE. With 31 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo., 205. net. Kristeller. ANDREA MANTEGNA . By PAUL KRISTELLER. English Edition by S. ARTHUR STRONG, M.A., Librarian to the House of Lords, and at Chatsworth. With 26 Photogravure Plates and 162 Illustrations in the Text. 410., gilt top, ,3 105. net. Macfarren. LECTURES ON HAR- MONY. By Sir GEORGE A. MACFARREN. 8VO., 125. Matthay. THE ACT OF TOUCH IN ALL ITS DIVERSITY. An Analysis and Synthesis of Pianoforte Tone Production. By TOBIAS MATTHAY, Fellow and Professor of the Royal Academy of Music, London, etc. With 22 Illustrations, 8vo., 75, 6rf, Morris (WILLIAM). ARCHITECTURE, INDUSTRY AND WEALTH. Collected Papers. Crown 8vo., 6s. net. HOPES AND FEARS FOR ART. Five Lectures delivered in Birmingham, Lon- don, etc., in 1878-1881. Cr 8vo., 45. 6d. AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES TO STUDENTS OF THE BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL SCHOOL OF ART ON 2iST FEBRUARY, 1894. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. (Printed in ' Golden ' Type.) SOME HINTS ON PATTERN-DESIGN- ING : a Lecture delivered at the Working Men's College, London, on loth Decem- ber, 1881. 8vo., 25. 6d. net. (Printed in 'Golden' Type.) ARTS AND ITS PRODUCERS (1888) AND THE ARTS AND CRAFTS OF TO-DAY (1889). 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. (Printed in ' Golden ' Type.) ARTS AND CRAFTS ESSAYS. By Members of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society. With a Preface by WILLIAM MORRIS. Crown 8vo., 25. 6d. net. ** For Mr. William Morris's other Works, see pp. 24, 27, 28 and 40. Robertson. OLD ENGLISH SONGS AND DANCES. Decorated in Colour by W. GRAHAM ROBERTSON. Royal 410., 425. net. Scott. PORTRAITURES OF JULIUS CAESAR : a Monograph. By FRANK JESUP SCOTT. With 38 Plates and 49 Figures in the Text. Imperial 8vo., 215. net. Vanderpoel. COLOUR PROBLEMS : a Practical Manual for the Lay Student of Colour. By EMILY NOYES VANDEFPOEL. With 117 Plates in Colour. Sq. 8vo., 215. net. Van Dyke. A TEXT-BOOK ON THE HISTORY OF PAINTING. By JOHN C. VAN DYKE. With no Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., 65. Wellington. A DESCRIPTIVE AND HISTORICAL CATALOGUE OF THE COLLEC- TIONS OF PICTURES AND SCULPTURE AT APSLEY HOUSE, LONDON. By EVELYN, Duchess of Wellington. Illustrated by 52 Photo-Engravings, specially executed by BRAUN, CLKMENT, & Co., of Paris. 2 vols., royal 4to., 6 65. net. Willard. HISTORY OF MODERN ITALIAN ART. By ASHTON ROLLINS WILLARD. Part I. Sculpture. Part II. Painting. Part III. Architecture. With Photogravure Frontispiece and numerous full-page Illustrations. 8vo., 215. net. Wotton. THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHI- TECTURE. Collected by HENRY WOTTON, Kt., from the best Authors and Example Royal i6mo., boards, los. 6*" Worker in both. With 53 Ilhu- from Photographs. 8vo., ios. 6d: net. WOOD AND GARDEN: Notes an. Thoughts, Practical and Critical, of Working Amateur. With7iPho' 8vo., ios. 6d. net. OLD WEST SURREY : Some Reco lections. With numerous Illustration* from Photographs by the Author. 8vo. 1 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. 39 Miscellaneous and Critical Works continued. Johnson (J.&J. H.). THE PATENTEE'S MANUAL : a Treatise on the Law and Practice of Letters Patent. 8vo., IDS. 6d. AN EPITOME OF THE LAW AND PRACTICE CONNECTED WITH PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS, with a reprint of the Patents Acts of 1883, 1885, 1886 and 1888. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. Joyce. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF IRISH NAMES OF PLACES. By P. W. JOYCE, LL.D. 2 vols. Crown 8vo., 55. each. Lang (ANDREW). LETTERS TO DEAD AUTHORS. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. BOOKS AND BOOKMEN. With 2 Coloured Plates and 17 Illustrations. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. OLD FRIENDS. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. LETTERS ON LITERATURE. Fcp. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. SSAVS IN LITTLE. With Portrait of the Author. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. COCK LANE AND COMMON-SENSE. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE BOOK OF DREAMS AND GHOSTS. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Matthews. NOTES ON SPEECH- MAKING. By BRANDER MATTHEWS. Fcp. 8vo., is. 6d. net. Max Mttller (The Right Hon. F.). COLLECTED WORKS. 20 vols. Vols. I. -XIX. Crown 8vo., 55. each. Vol. XX., 75. 6d. net. ;;;.:\fol. I. NATURAL RELIGION: the Gifford Lectures,, 1888. Vol. II. PHYSICAL RELIGION: the Gifford Lectures, 1890. /ol. III. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RELIGION: the Gifford Lectures, 1891. Vol. IV. THBOSOPHY; or, Psychological Religion : the Gifford Lectures, 1892. Max Miiller (The Right Hon. F.) continued. CHIPS FROM A GERMAN WORKSHOP. Vol. V. Recent Essays and Addresses. Vol. VI. Biographical Essays. Vol. VII. Essays on Language and Litera- ture. Vol. VIII. Essays on Mythology and Folk-lore. Vol. IX. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OP RELIGION, as Illustrated by the Re- ligions of India : the Hibbert Lectures, 1878. Vol. X. BIOGRAPHIES OF WORDS, AND THE HOME OF THE AsYAS. Vols. XL, XII. THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE ; Founded on Lectures de- livered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863. 2 vols. tos. Vol. XIII. INDIA: What can it Teach Us? Vol. XIV. INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION. Four Lectures, 1870. Vol. XV. R^MAKRISHNA : his Life and Sayings. Vol. XVI. THREE LECTURES ON THE ' V ED ANT A PHILOSOPHY, 1894. Vol. XVII. LAST ESSAYS. First Series. Essays on Language, Folk-lore, etc. Vol. XVIII. LASTESSAYS. Second Series. Essays on the Science of Religion. Vol. XIX. THE SILESIAN HORSEHERD (' Das Pferdebiirla ') : Questions of the Hour answered by F. MAX MULLER. Translated by OSCAR A. FECHTER, Mayor of North Jakima, U.S.A. With a Preface by J. ESTLIN CARPENTER Crown 8vo., 55. \* This is a translation of a work which was published some years back in Germany, but which is now for the first time translated into English. It consists of a controversy on religion carried on between Professor Max Mi'dler and an unknown correspondent in America. Vol. XX. THE Six SYSTEMS OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY Crown 8vo., 75. 6d. net. 40 MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S STANDARD AND GENERAL WORKS. Miscellaneous and Critical Works continued. Milner. COUNTRY PLEASURES: the Chronicle of a Year chiefly in a Garden. By GEORGE MILNER. Crown 8vo., 35. 6rf. Morris. SIGNS OF CHANGE, Seven Lectures delivered on various Occasions. By WILLIAM MORRIS. Post 8vo., 45. 6d. Parker and Unwin. THE ART OF BUILDING A HOME : a Collection of Lectures and Illustrations. By BARRY PARKER and RAYMOND UNWIN. With 68 Full-page Plates. 8vo., los. 6d. net. Pollock. -JANE AUSTEN: her Con- temporaries and Herself. By WALTER HERRIES POLLOCK. Cr. 8vo., 35. 6d. net. Poore (GEORGE VIVIAN, M.D.). Ess A YS ON RURAL HYGIENE. With 13 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 6s. 6d. THE DWELLING HOUSE. With 36 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. THE EARTH IN RELATION TO THE PRESERVATION AND DESTRUCTION OF CONTAGIA : being the Milroy Lectures delivered at the Royal College of Physi- cians in i8qg, together with other Papers on Sanitation. With 13 Illustrations. Crown 8vo., $s. COLONIAL AND CAMP SANITATION. With ii Illustrations. Cr. 8vo., as. net. Rossetti. A SHADOW OF DANTE : being an Essay towards studying Himself, his World and his Pilgrimage. By MARIA FRANCESCA ROSSETTI. Crown 8vo., 35. 6d. Seria Ludo. By a DILETTANTE. Post 410. , 55. net. %* Sketches and Verses, mainly reprinted front the St. James's Gazette. Shadwell. DRINK : TEMPERANCE AND LEGISLATION. By ARTHUR SHADWELL, M.A., M.D. Crown 8vo., 55. net. Soulsby (Lucv H. M.). STRAY THOUGHTS ON READING. Fcp. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. net. ; limp leather, gilt edges, 35. 6d. net. STRAY THOUGHTS FOR GIRLS. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, as. 6d. net ; limp leather, gilt edges, 35. 6d. net. *,* Copies of the Original Edition can still be had. i6mo., is. 6d. nit. Soulsby (Lucv H. M.) continued. STRA Y THOUGHTS FOR MOTHERS AND TEACHERS. Fcp. 8vo., cloth, 23. 6d. net ; limp leather, gilt edges, 35. 6d. net. STRAY THOUGHTS FOR INVALIDS. i6mo., 2s. net. STRAY THOUGHTS ON CHARACTER. Fcp. 8vo., cloth, as. 6d. net ; limp leather, gilt edges, 3s. 6d. net. Southey. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF RoBERTSouTHEY WITH CAROLINE BOWLES. Edited by EDWARD DOWDEN. 8vo., 145. Stevens. ON THE STOWAGE OF SHIPS AND THEfR CARGOES. With Information re- garding Freights, Charter-Parties, etc. By ROBERT WHITE STEVENS. 8vo., 2is. Thuillier. THE PRINCIPLES OF LAND DEFENCE, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF TO-DAY. By Captain H. F. THUILLIER, R.E. With Maps and Plans. 8vo., i2s. 6d. net. Turner and Sutherland. THE DE- VELOPMENT OF ALSTRALIAN LITERATURE. By HENRY GYLES TURNER and ALEXANDER SUTHERLAND. With Portraits and Illustra- tions. Crown 8vo., 55. Ward. PROBLEMS AND PERSONS. By WILFRID WARD, Author of ' The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman,' &c. 8vo., 145. net. CONTENTS. The Time-Spirit of the Nineteenth Century The Rigidity of Rome Unchanging Dogma and Changeful Man Balfour's ' The Foundations of Belief Candour in Biography Tennyson Thomas Henry Huxley Two Mottoes of Cardinal Ne\vman Newman and Renan Some Aspects of the Life-work of Cardinal Wiseman The Life of Mrs. Augustus Craven. Weathers. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO GARDEN PLANTS. By JOHN WEATHERS, F.R.H.S. With 159 Diagrams. 8vo., 2U. net. Winston. MEMOIRS OF A CHILD. By ANNIE STEGER WINSTON. Fcap. 8vo., 2s. 6d. net. Contents I. The Child and the Child's Earth. II. People. III. The Garden and a few Related Things. IV. Divers Delights. V. The Child and.. ' The Creatures '. VI. Playthings. VII. Portable Property. VIII. Pomps and Vanities. IX. Social Divertisements. X. Conduct and Kindred Matters. XI. Dreams and Reveries. XII. Bugbears. X1I1 Handicraft. XIV. School, Slightly Considered. XV. Books. XVI. Language. XVII. Random Re- flections. Conclusion. 10,000/2/04 A. U. P. & ^^H * Date Lae UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 843 575 2 Library Bureau Cat. No. 1137