ELY AND HER DESPOILERS

(1072-5)

The elaborate record of this trial is only found, I believe, in the Trinity College (Cambridge) MS., O. 2, 1 (fos. 210b-213b) from which it has been printed by Mr Hamilton in his Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (pp. 192-5). This 'placitum', therefore, would seem to have remained unknown till the publication of that work (1876).

The date of this important document can be fixed within a few years. It mentions Earl Waltheof among those before whom the plea was held, so that it cannot be later than 1075; and as it also mentions 'Rodulfus comes', it is evidently previous to the revolt of the earls in that year. On the other hand, it is later than the death of William Malet, for it mentions his son Robert as in possession, and later, therefore, than the restoration of Waltheof at the beginning of 1070. Moreover, it is subsequent to the death of Stigand ('post obitum illius'). Now Stigand was not even deposed till the spring of 1070; and we know from Domesday and other sources that he lived some time afterwards. We may safely say, therefore, that this 'placitum' did not take place till after the suppression of the Ely revolt in the autumn of 1071. Practically, therefore, our document belongs to the years 1072-1075. Now, as Abbot Thurstan did not die till 1076—the date given in the Liber Eliensis, and accepted by Mr Freeman—it follows that this great act of restitution in favour of the Abbey took place under Abbot Thurstan himself, a fact unmentioned by the chroniclers, and unsuspected by Mr Freeman, who held that he found no favour in William's eyes.

The great length of this document—so important for its bearing on Domesday—precludes its discussion in detail. But its opening clause must be given and some of its features pointed out.

Ad illud placitum quo pontifices Gosfridus et Remigius, consul vero Waltheuus, necnon vicecom[ites] Picotus atque Ilbertus jussu Willelmi Dei dispositione Anglor[um] regis, cum omni vicecomitatu sicut rex preceperat, convenerunt, testimonio hominum rei veritatem cognoscentium determinaverunt terras que injuste fuerant ablate ab ecclesia sancte Dei genitricis Marie de insulâ ely ... quatinus de dominio fuerant, tempore videlicet regis Ædwardi, ad dominium sine alicujus contradictione redirent quicunque eas possideret.

The mention of Count Eustace among those withholding lands proves that at the date of this document he was already restored to his possessions. Another individual whose name occurs several times in this document is Lisois ('De Monasteriis'), the hero of the passage of the Aire. Collating its evidence with that of Domesday, we find that Lisois had been succeeded, at the date of the great record, by the well-known Eudo Dapifer in a fief, ranging over at least five counties—Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex—in all of which Domesday records his name as the predecessor of Eudo. This is of the more interest because Mr Freeman wrote:

The only notice of this Lisois which I can find in Domesday is in ii. 49b, where he appears in possession, but seemingly illegal possession, of a small holding in Essex.

So again we have in our document this passage relating to Stigand:

He sunt proprie ville monasterii insule Ely quos Stigandus archipresul tenebat, unde per annum victum fratribus reddidit tantum quantum pertinet ad hoc. Has vero tenet rex noster W. post obitum illius, Methelwald et Crokestune et Snegelwelle et Dictun.

Now Stigand, according to the Liber Eliensis 'quasdam illius optimas possessiones sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium retinuit'. Our document identifies these 'possessiones' with Methwold and Croxton in Norfolk, Snailwell and Ditton in Cambridgeshire, and thus disposes of Mr Freeman's very unfortunate suggestion—advanced, of course, to justify Stigand—that the Liber Eliensis here referred to a tiny Hampshire estate, which the Abbey had held under Stigand T.R.E.¹

In my paper on Domesday I have pointed out the importance of this document in its bearing on socmen and their services, while we saw in investigating knight service that its language affords, in this matter, a valuable gloss on that of Domesday. Close examination of its details shows that the aggressions on the Abbey's property which it records, were, in spite of the verdict on this occasion, persisted in, if not increased. Those, for instance, of Hardwin may be recognized in the duplicate entries in Domesday Book, representing the conflicting claims.² On persons as on lands we have some fresh information. Ilbert the Sheriff was, I believe, identical with that 'Ilbert de Hertford', who is alluded to in Domesday (i. 200), and would thus be a pre-Domesday Sheriff of Herts.³ The entry, 'tenet Rotbertus homo Bainardi in Reoden de soca', when compared with the holding of 'Rienduna' by Ralf 'Baignardi' in Domesday (ii. 414), suggests that we have in Bainard the father (hitherto unknown) of this Domesday tenant-in-chief. Bainard would thus be a Christian name, as was also Mainard, which occurs in this same document.

¹ D.B., i. 40b.

² See p. 32 supra.

³ Domesday (i. 200b) styles him, 'Ilbertus de Hertford', and connects him with 'Risedene', a Hertfordshire Manor. On the other hand, the I.C.C. makes him 'Ilbertus de Hereforda' (p. 56), and 'Ilbertus vicecomes' is actually found in Herefordshire (D.B., i. 179b). But what could he be doing in Cambridgeshire?

THE LORDS OF ARDRES

In the History of the Norman Conquest (2nd ed.) we read of Eustace of Boulogne:

An incidental notice of one of his followers throws some light on the class of men who flocked to William's banners, and on the rewards which they received. One Geoffrey, an officer of the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint Omer, who had the charge of its possessions in the County of Guines, sent his sons, Arnold and Geoffrey, to the war ... and in the end they received a grant of lands both in Essex and in the border shires of Mercia and East-Anglia, under the superiority of their patron Count Eustace (iii. 314).

In an Appendix on 'Arnold of Ardres', which Mr Freeman devoted to this subject (iii. 725-6), he gave the 'Historia Comitum Ardensium' (of Lambert of Ardres) for his authority, and he verified, by Domesday, the Manors which Lambert assigns to 'these adventurers', holding that a Bedfordshire estate was omitted, while 'Stebintonia', which he identified with Stibbington, Hunts, was wrongly included, as it was 'held of Count Eustace by Lunen'.

The first point to be noticed here is that 'these adventurers' were the sons (as Lambert explains) not of any 'Geoffrey', a mere Abbey officer, but of a local magnate, Arnold, Lord of Ardres. The next is that Lambert was quite correct in his list of Manors.

In the fourth series of his historical essays Mr Freeman included a paper on 'The Lords of Ardres', for which he availed himself of Dr Heller's edition of Lambert in the Monumenta (vol. xxiv). In this edition the passage runs:

Feodum Stevintoniam et pertinencias eius, Dokeswordiam, Tropintoniam, Leilefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam (cap. 113, p. 615).

Dr Heller, on this, notes:

Secundum 'Domesday Book' recepit Ernulfus de Arda Dochesworde, Trupintone (com. Cantabrig.) et Stiventone (comit. Bedford) a comite Eustacio ... e contra Toheshunt [sic] Hoiland, Leleford recepit ab eodem comite Adelolfus de Merc (prope Calais).

This note enabled Mr Freeman to identify 'Adelolfus' (which he had failed to do in the Norman Conquest), though he must have overlooked the identification of 'Stevintonia' (namely Stevington, Beds.), for we find him still writing:

But of the English possessions reckoned up by our author two only ... can be identified in Domesday as held by Arnold ... The local writer seems to have mixed up the possessions of Arnold with those of a less famous adventurer from the same reign, Adelolf—our Athelwulf—of Merck (pp. 184-5).

And he again insisted that 'Arnold had other lands in Bedfordshire'.

We will now turn to an entry in the Testa de Nevill from the 'milites tenentes de honore Bononie':

Comes de Gines tenet xii. milites, scilicet—in Bedefordescire, in Stiveton et Parva Wahull iii milites, in Cantabr' in Dukesword, et Trumpeton iii milites ... in Essex, Tholehunt et Galdhangr' iii milites, in Hoyland' et Lalesford ibidem iii milites.

Here we have all the Manors mentioned by Lambert (with their appurtenances) assigned to the Count of Guines, the heir of Arnold of Ardres; and we can thus believe the Testa entry (p. 272) of Tolleshunt and Holland, 'quas idem comes et antecessores sui tenuerunt de conquestu Angliæ'. But the Testa does more than this; it informs us that Holland and Lawford were held of the Count by 'Henry de Merk'. Now, 'Adelolf' de Merk is found in Domesday holding many Manors direct from Eustace of Boulogne, and these Manors are divided in the Testa between his descendants Simon and Henry de Merk.¹ It is, therefore, possible that he held the three Essex Manors in 1086, not directly from Count Eustace, but, like his descendant, from their under-tenant (Arnold). This raises, of course, an important question as to Domesday.²

It is interesting to observe that the village of Marck in the Pas de Calais has, through Adelolf and his heirs, transferred its name to the Essex parish of Mark's Tey, though not to that of Marks Hall (so named in Domesday).

While on the subject of the Lords of Ardres, it may be convenient to give the reference to a letter of mine to the Academy (May 28, 1892), explaining that Lambert's 'Albericus Aper', who puzzled Dr Heller and Mr Freeman, was our own Aubrey de Vere, first Earl of Oxford, and that Lambert's statement (accepted by Mr Freeman) as to the parentage of Emma, wife of Count Manasses, had been disproved by Stapleton.

¹ An interesting charter belonging to the close of Stephen's reign shows us Queen Matilda compensating Henry 'de Merch' for his land at Donyland (one of these Manors)—which she was giving to St John's, Colchester—'de redditibus transmarinis ad suam voluntatem'. Another and earlier charter from her father and mother (printed by Mr E. J. L. Scott in the Athenæum of December 2, 1893) has Fulco de merc and M. de merc among the witnesses.

² The non-appearance of Arnold's brother, 'Geoffrey', in Domesday which has been deemed a difficulty, is accounted for by Lambert's statement that he made over his English possessions to Arnold.

EARLY IRISH TRADE WITH CHESTER AND ROUEN¹

The eighth report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts speaks of the records of the city of Chester as 'beginning with Henry the Second's writ of licence to the citizens of Chester to trade in Durham [sic] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry the First' (p. xv). The records themselves are similarly described in the actual report on them (pp. 355-403) as 'beginning with a curious writ, addressed by Henry the Second to his bailiffs of the city of Durham' [sic]. This, which is among those items spoken of as 'especially interesting and important', figures thus as the head of the calendar:

(1) Henry II. Licence to the burgesses of Chester to buy and sell at Durham [sic] as they were wont to do in the time of Henry I—'Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et Comes Andegavie balluis [sic] de Dunelina [sic] salutem:—Precipio quod Burgenses Cestrie possint emere et vendere ad detaillum [or doraillum] apud Dunelinam [sic] habendo et faciendo easdem consuetudines quas faciebant tempore Regis Henrici avi mei et easdem ibi habeant rectitudines et libertates et liberas consuetudines quas tempore illo habere solebant, teste, Willelmo filio Ald' dapifero Apud Wintoniam.

Durham is not only a most improbable place for such a writ to refer to, but is also an impossible rendering of the Latin name. The interest and importance of this 'curious writ' has, in short, been obscured and lost through the ignorance of Mr J. C. Jeaffreson, to whom the report was entrusted. The charters which follow the writ, and which are printed on the same page, refer to this writ as relating to Ireland; and the town, of course, to which it refers is not Durham but Dublin (Duuelina).

We have, therefore, in this writ an almost, if not quite, unique reference by Henry II to Dublin in the days of his grandfather, and a confirmation of the 'libertates', etc., which the men of Chester had then enjoyed there, just as if his grandfather had been in his own position. Secondly, we have here record evidence, not merely of a recognized connection, but of what might be termed treaty relations between the traders of Chester and the Ostmen of Dublin, long previous to the Conquest of Ireland, thus confirming Mr Green's observation, 'the port of Chester depended on the trade with Ireland, which had sprung up since the settlement of the Northmen along the Irish Coasts'.² And this has, of course, a bearing on the question of 'a Danish settlement' at Chester. Thirdly, we learn from this document that at the date of its issue Dublin was governed by bailiffs of the King (ballivi sui).

What, then, was its date? The clue, unfortunately, is slight; but it may not improbably belong to the close of 1175 or early part of 1176. This brings us to the interesting question, why was such a writ issued? Remembering that during his stay at Dublin (November 1171-January 1172) Henry II had granted that city to his men of Bristol, we may hold it in accordance with the spirit of the time, and, indeed, a matter of virtual certainty, that Bristol would have striven on the strength of this grant to exclude 'its rival port' (Conquest of England, p. 443) from the benefits of the Dublin trade. Chester would, therefore, appeal to the King on the strength of its antecedent rights, and would thus have obtained from him this writ, recognizing and confirming their validity.

The Domesday customs of the city (i. 262b) contain a curious allusion to its Irish trade:

Si habentibus martrinas pelles juberet prepositus regis ut nulli venderet donec sibi prius ostensas compararet, qui hoc non observabat xl. solidis emendabat ... Hæc civitas tunc reddebat de firma xlv. lib et iii. timbres pellium martrinium.

There is nothing to show where these marten skins came from, or why they are mentioned under Chester alone. But on turning to the customs of Rouen, as recorded in the charters of Duke Henry (1150-1) and King John (1199), we find they were imported from Ireland.

Quæcunque navis de Hibernia venerit, ex quo caput de Gernes [Guernsey] transierit, Rothomagum veniat, unde ego habeam de unaquâque nave unum tymbrium de martris aut decem libras Rothomagi, si ejusdem navis mercatores jurare poterint se ideo non mercatos fuisse illas martras ut auferrent consuetudinem ducis Normanniæ, et vicecomes Rothomagi de unaquaque habeat viginti solidos Rothomagi et Camerarius Tancarvillæ unam accipitrem aut sexdecim solidos Rothomagi.

Giraldus Cambrensis, it may be remembered, alludes to the abundance of martens in Ireland,³ and describes how they were captured. We thus have evidence in Domesday of the Irish trade with Chester, even in the days of Edward the Confessor.

¹ The error as to the Chester writ was explained by me in a letter to the Academy (No. 734).

² Conquest of England, p. 440.

³ 'Martrinarum copia abundant hic silvestria' (Top. Hib., i. 24).

WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE

In his detailed examination of all the evidence bearing on the death of William Rufus, the late Mr Freeman carefully collected the few facts that are known relative to Walter Tirel. They are, however, so few that he could add nothing to what Lappenberg had set forth (ii. 207) in 1834. He was, however, less confident than his predecessor as to the identity of Walter Tirel with the Essex tenant of that name in Domesday. I hope now to establish the facts beyond dispute, to restore the identity of Walter Tirel, and also to show for the first time who his wife really was.

The three passages we have first to consider are these, taking them in the same order as Mr Freeman:

Adelidam filiam Ricardi de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, strenuissimum militem, marito suo peperit (Ord. Vit.).

Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (Domesday, ii. 41).

Adeliz uxor Walteri Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis argenti de eisdem placitis de La Wingeham (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I).

Dealing first with the Domesday entry, which comes, as Mr Freeman observed, 'among the estates of Richard of Clare', I would point out that though Ellis (who misled Mr Freeman) thought that 'Tirelde' was the name, the right reading is 'tenet Walterus Tirel de R[icardo]', two words (as is not unusual) being written as one. Turning next to the words of Orderic, we find that Lappenberg renders them 'Adelaide, Tochter des Richard Giffard', and Mr Freeman as 'a wife Adelaide by name, of the great line of Giffard'. But there is no trace of a Richard Giffard, nor can 'Adelida' herself be identified among the Giffards. The explanation of the mystery, I hold, is that she was the daughter, not of a Giffard, but of Richard de Clare, by his wife Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard the elder. It is noteworthy that Orderic employs a precisely similar expression in the case of another Adeliza, the daughter of Robert de Grentmesnil. He terms her 'soror Hugonis de Grentemaisnil de clara stirpe Geroianorum', though she was only descended from the famous Geroy through her mother. Richard's daughter was sufficiently described as 'Adelida filia Ricardi', just as her brothers were known as 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi', 'Rogerus filius Ricardi', etc. The position of that mighty family was such that this description was enough, and they were even known collectively as the 'Ricardi', or 'Richardenses' (Mon. Ang., iv. 609). This is well illustrated by the passage in the Ely writer, describing Adeliza's brother Richard, Abbot of Ely, as

parentum undique grege vallatus, quorum familiam ex Ricardis et Gifardis constare tota Anglia et novit et sensit. Ricardi enim et Gifardi, duæ scilicet ex propinquo venientes familiæ, virtutis fama et generis copia illustres effecerat.

The above forms are curious, but not without parallel. Thus the descendants of Urse d'Abetot are spoken of as 'Ursini' in Heming's Cartulary. Æthelred of Rievaulx speaks of 'Poncii' and 'Morini' as present at the battle of the Standard; Gerald, in a well-known passage (v. 335), speaks of the 'Giraldidæ' and 'Stephanidæ', and Orderic, we have seen, of the 'Geroiani'.

The doubly influential character of this descent is well illustrated in this passage (quantum valeat) from the chronicle of St John's Abbey, Colchester.

Parcebatur tamen Eudoni, propter genus uxoris ipsius Rohaisæ: erat enim hæc de genere nobilissimo Normannorum, filia scilicet Ricardi, qui fuit filius Gilbert Comitis, duxitque Rohaisam uxorem, quæ erat soror Willelmi Giffardi, Episcopi Wintoniæ. Itaque, cum fratres et propinqui junioris Rohaisæ quoslibet motus machinaturi putarentur, si contra maritum ipsius aliquid durius decerneretur, sic factum est ut interventu predicti Episcopi, etc., etc.

This passage is, I believe, the sole evidence for the real parentage of Bishop William. It was clearly unknown to Canon Venables, who wrote the Bishop's life for the Dictionary of National Biography.

Like most of these 'foundation' histories, this document is in part untrustworthy. But it is Dugdale who has misread it, and not the document itself that is responsible for the grave error (Baronage, i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law, Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that 'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos nupta est' (iv. 609).

In asserting under 'Clare' (Baronage, i. 208) that Eudo married the widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and more inaccurate document (Mon. Ang., v. 269) which actually does speak of

Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]—duas plures enim habuit—conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti, qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis magnates præcessit—

as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter and namesake.

We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham' was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130 (Rot. Pip., Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is extant,¹ and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion, which runs as follows:

Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal. Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet.

Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course, equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the above Gervase, as I have shown in my Geoffrey de Mandeville, was no other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.² The chain of evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their Manor placed beyond question.

But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed, were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I, who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.³ Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives.

I have explained in my article on the Clares in the Dictionary of National Biography that there has been much confusion as to the family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his forefathers and his descendants'.

Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus] filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus] frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'⁴

Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard 'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard an Earl of Devon.

Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors—which, originating in the Monasticon, is embalmed in Dugdale's Baronage—as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her Battle Abbey Roll (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming' the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's Exeter (1887) and by the life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the Dictionary of National Biography, by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles.

I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in my Geoffrey de Mandeville) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon.

Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match. This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter. The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (Mon. Ang., v. 512-13). She can only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard.

^{1      2      3}

^{4      5      6}

^{3a      5a      7      8}

¹ 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum, Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum, Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (Mon. Ang., v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed aliunde. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.

² 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex W. et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (Ord. Vit.)

³, ^3a 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi, patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus' (Robert of Torigni).

⁴ 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et Waltero.'

⁵, ^5a 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).

⁶ Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as 'Clarreaus'—a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.

⁷ Mon. Ang. iv. 597. Formul Ang. p. 40.

⁸ Mon. Ang., iv. 597.

We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac (1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however, on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale actually relied on a charter,⁵ which includes Baldwin among the Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets (Baronage, i. 207b). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin de Clare, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the battle of Lincoln.⁶

Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son 'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire' (Baronage, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.⁷ The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord of Daventry.

But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud 'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in anno 1140' (ibid.)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare. The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St Neot's.⁸ We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo. 79b, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (al. "Senliz") filia Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one (fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband:

Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et antecessorum meorum.

Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz mater mea eis prius concesserat'—her said grant of land in Cratfield duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'. Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is found in this entry (1185):

Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et est lx. annorum (Rot. de Dominabus, p. 1).

We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of William de Albini, who sent in his carta (under Leicestershire) in 1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167. She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux, and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu and of Achères by the Seine' (W. Rufus, II, 322, 673).⁹ But the mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087, and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de Poix,¹⁰ and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he who was father of Hugh the Crusader.¹¹

Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',¹² which appears to have eluded Mr Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions of the death of William Rufus:

Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a Waltero de Bekam, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus, etc., etc.

The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is, even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain the 'Bekam'.¹³

If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy, 'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.¹⁴ It savours, however, of Peerage rather than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's somewhat jejune narrative¹⁵ on private MS. collections instead of original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,¹⁶ who accepts the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes 'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not, we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline' and son Hugh to the grant?

Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg, imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the 'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son, we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or 1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.

But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham' to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read of the charter's date:

Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.

Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that year.¹⁷ The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until, therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we must reject it in toto.

I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox, the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:

Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell' licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias quos poterit ibi includere.¹⁸

Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts' are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.

¹ Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in Arch. Journ., ii. 46).

² Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.

³ A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he, like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see p. 355 supra).

⁴ See also Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 329.

⁵ Old Monasticon, i. 245b; and vide infra, p. 393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac. This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of drawings.

⁶ See also Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I, and my Geoffrey de Mandeville.

⁷ Mon. Ang., v. 178.

⁸ Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.

⁹ Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by 'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires de Poix Vicomtes d'Equesnes' it is probable that the latter was meant.

¹⁰ His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of Amiens, who died in 1116.

¹¹ The essential reference occurs in the charter of 1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo. 91). These were the first and second known bearers of the name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de Piceio'.

¹² Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin (Documents Inédits), pp. 267-8.

¹³ I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification 'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for 'Belram' [Beaurain]?

¹⁴ Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix, etc., etc. (2nd Ed.) 1869.

¹⁵ Vol. vii., pp. 820 et seq.

¹⁶ Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de Picardies (1876), xxv. 287 et seq.

¹⁷ M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to have been already in possession of Poix, although, according to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.

¹⁸ Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42. Supra, p. 357.

WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR

The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was, as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the Dictionary of National Biography), that his latest appearance as chancellor was early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in Normandy with the King. There is, however, in Gallia Christiana (vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date.

There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.¹ This charter is printed in the Monasticon (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus temp. Henry IV. There is, however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I² (No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No. 2), with a fuller list of witnesses.³ I have examined the roll for myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs:

Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^o centesimo vii^o apud Wintoniam.

The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these Tewkesbury charters,⁴ and that suspicion is not lessened by the double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of 1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de Pistres⁵) who was killed in 1106.

On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November 1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,⁶ in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.⁷ Its date is determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor, combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not, as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the names of the witnesses point to Easter—September 1107; and it is just possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St Andrew's may well have been granted.

Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of Laon,⁸ but I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

¹ Judges of England, i. 140.

² 30th Report of Deputy-Keeper, p. 203.

³ ibid., p. 204.

⁴ See Geoffrey de Mandeville, 421, 431-2.

⁵ See p. 245 supra.

⁶ Judges of England, i. 79.

⁷ Monasticon, v. 191.

⁸ England under the Angevin Kings, i. 22.

A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123)

A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the church of Exeter. It is printed in the Monasticon under Plimpton, to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter, however, is also found among those confirmed by Henry VIII (Confirmation Roll, i Henry VIII, p. 5, No. 13), with a list of witnesses arranged in correct order; whereas the Monasticon version is taken from the pleadings under Richard II (Coram Rege, Hil. 2 Richard II, Rot. 20, Devon), and records the witnesses in grievous disorder. The explanation of such disorder is that the clerk in the latter case was not familiar with the system on which the attestations to these charters were arranged, the names of the leading witnesses being placed in a line above the others. This will be made evident from the two lists of witnesses:

It is obvious that this charter was granted before the death of the Bishop of Worcester (October 20, 1123), and before the King's departure from England (June 1123). But it must be subsequent to the death of the previous chancellor, Ranulf (Christmas 1122), and to the appointment or consecration (February 1123) of Archbishop William. The narrow limit thus ascertained points to the Easter court of 1123 at Winchester, the great gathering of bishops and earls implying some such occasion. Easter fell that year on April 15th.

Now two sees had fallen vacant at the beginning of the year, those of Lincoln and of Bath. Lincoln was given to Alexander, whether at Easter (Winchester), as stated by Henry of Huntingdon, or in Lent, as asserted by the continuator of Florence; but he was not consecrated till July 22nd. Bath was bestowed on Godfrey, whose consecration did not take place till August 26th, though Henry of Huntingdon assigns his appointment, like that of Alexander, to Easter (Winchester). Both these bishops, it will be seen, attest the above charter, which proves that it cannot be earlier than Easter (April 15th), while the evidence below practically limits it to the Easter court at Winchester.

The first point to be observed is that these two bishops attest as such (not as 'elect') long before their consecration. As it is generally held that bishops never did so, this point is of importance (always assuming the accuracy of the evidence) for its bearing on other charters.² Secondly, four of the witnesses—the two archbishops, the Bishop of St David's, and the Abbot of Glastonbury—are said by the continuator to have left for Rome after Alexander's appointment. From this charter it is clear that they did not leave till after Easter. The third point is that Earl Roger of Warwick had, at the date of this charter, succeeded his father, Henry.

Turning to Geoffrey the chancellor, we find in this charter perhaps his earliest appearance. Foss, in his useful work, is here a year out. He wrongly assigned the death of the preceding chancellor, Ranulf, to Christmas 1123, instead of Christmas 1122, and he assumed that our charter must be subsequent to Bishop Godfrey's consecration (August 26, 1123), and, in fact, that it belonged to 1124 (to which year he wrongly assigned the death of Bishop Theowulf). It is important for chronological purposes to date the change of chancellor correctly. I have already determined (p. 365) the date of Ranulf's accession to the post.

The correction of this date of Ranulf's death affects that of the foundation of Laund Priory, Leicestershire, which is assigned by Nichols and by the Editors of the Monasticon to 'about 1125'. As the foundation charter is addressed to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it must be subsequent to Alexander's promotion in the spring of 1123 (if not to his consecration on June 22nd). This is admitted by Foss, who accepts the charter without question. There is nothing in the document to excite suspicion, nor do I impugn it without reluctance. But the awkward fact remains that it is witnessed by Ranulf the chancellor, who died, as we have seen, at the beginning of 1123, and actually in the lifetime of Bishop Robert, Alexander's predecessor at Lincoln. There can be no question as to Ranulf's death, for the sequence of events is inexorable. Henry of Huntingdon tells us that (1) the king spent Christmas (1122) at Dunstable; that (2) he went thence to Berkhampstead, where Ranulf was accidentally killed; that (3) he then visited Woodstock, where Bishop Robert met with an equally sudden death; that (4) at the Purification (February 2, 1123) he gave the See of Canterbury to William of Corbeuil; that (5) he gave (at Winchester) the See of Lincoln to Alexander at Easter. It is singular that the members of the foundation had two strings to their bow, another charter of Henry I being adduced for Inspeximus. Its witnesses imply a later date, and their names do not involve any chronological difficulty.

We have in this Exeter charter one of the earliest attestations (according to my theory) of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. It should be noted that he takes at once precedence of all other earls, just as he had taken, before his elevation, precedence of all laymen under the rank of earl.

Of the barons most are familiar. Richard fitz Baldwin was the son and successor of the famous Baldwin of Exeter, and was, like him, sheriff of Devon (see p. 236²³⁹). Baldwin de Redvers was the son of Richard de Redvers, and became subsequently first earl of Devon (the confusion of these two families, from the similarity of name, seems to be incorrigible).³ The lords of the great honours of Barnstaple and Totnes⁴ are followed by Robert of Bampton, who had succeeded to the Domesday fief of Walter de Douai, and who, as I have shown (English Historical Review, v. 746), was afterwards a rebel against Stephen. Goislin de Pomerey was the heir of Ralf de Pomerey, the Domesday baron; and Reginald (Rainaldus) de Vautort was a great under-tenant of the honour of Mortain. William fitz Richard I identify with that great Cornish magnate, whose daughter and heiress carried his fief to Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall. Herbert de Alneto also was a Cornish baron, father of that Richard who, in 1130, paid £100 for his succession (Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I, p. 158). Specially interesting, however, is the name of William fitz Odo, in whom I detect not the William fitz Otho, of Essex and Middlesex (with whom he is confused in the Index to the 1130 Pipe-Roll), but the son of 'Odo filius Gamelin'; a Devonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 116b). I see him in that '—filius Odonis', who is entered on the damaged Devonshire roll (Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I, p. 157) in connection with thirty-four shillings, which proves that he held a considerable estate. The fief of 'Odo filius Gamelin' was assessed at 21-3/16 hides, representing in Devon large estates.⁵