Thierry, who was ignorant of the Cinque Ports custom—as the historians of the Cinque Ports appear to have been ignorant of that at Amiens—describes this provision as 'loi remarquable en ce qu'elle faisait revivre et sanctionnait par des garanties toutes nouvelles ce principe de la législation romaine, que les offices municipaux sont une charge obligatoire'.13 But this brings us face to face with the difficult and disputed question of the persistence of Roman institutions. Personally, I have always thought it rash to accept similarity as proof of continuity. Here, for instance, the occurrence of this practice at Sandwich might lead to the inference that the institutions of Sandwich were of direct Roman origin. Yet, if this practice was imported from France, we see how erroneous that inference would be. A reductio ad absurdum of this rash argument, as I have elsewhere pointed out, would be found in the suggestion that every modern borough rejoicing in the possession of aldermen had derived its institutions continuously from Anglo-Saxon times. In the particular instance of this practice, we should note that it occurs (a) in that portion of France where the municipal development was least Roman in character; (b) in a peculiar and original form—the 'garanties toutes nouvelles' of Thierry.
Again, we find the infliction of fines for non-acceptance of municipal office a familiar custom in England even to the present day. These fines were undoubtedly commutations for an original expulsion from the community; and at Colchester, for example, we have a case of a man being deprived of 'his freedom' for declining the office of alderman, and of his having to make 'submission' and pay a fine before it was restored. The fact is, that in every community, whether urban or rural, where office was a necessary but burdensome duty—like modern jury-service or mediaeval 'suit'—a penalty had to be imposed upon those who declined to discharge it. The peculiarity of the Sandwich and Amiens cases consists not in the imposition of a penalty, but in the character of the penalty imposed.
Pass we now from the consideration of this penalty to the wider and important conclusions suggested by its local occurrence.
I have always been puzzled by the peculiar phenomena presented by the 'Cinque Ports' organization. To other writers it would seem to present no such difficulty; but to me it is unique in England, and inexplicable on English lines. In that able monograph of Professor Burrows,13 which is the latest contribution on the subject, the writer, I venture to think, leaves the problem as obscure as ever. I shall now, therefore, advance the suggestion, which has long been taking form in my mind, that the 'Cinque Ports' corporation was of foreign origin, and was an offshoot of the communal movement in Northern France.
From Picardy, which faced the Cinque Ports, they derived, I believe, their confederation. To quote Thierry:
La région du nord, qui est le berceau, et pour ainsi dire la terre classique des communes jurées, comprend la Picardie, l'Artois, etc.... Parmi ces provinces, la Picardie est celle qui renferme le plus grand nombre de communes proprement dites, où cette forme de régime atteint le plus haut degré d'indépendance et où dans ses applications, elle offre le plus de variété. Les communes de Picardie avaient en général toute justice, haute, moyenne et basse. Nonseulement dans cette province les chartes municipales des villes se trouvaient appliquées à de simples villages, dont quelques-uns n'existent plus, mais encore il y avait des confédérations de plusieurs villages ou hameaux réunis en municipalités sous une charte et une magistrature collectives.14
Let me briefly summarize the arguments on which I base my hypothesis:
I do not contend that the French 'commune' was adopted intact by the Cinque Ports, for, of course, it was not so. In the matter of names alone, they are not styled a 'commune', nor are the members of their community termed 'jurés' (jurati), but 'barons' (barones). The study, however, of the 'commune' in France itself reveals the adaptation to environment it underwent on transplantation. And, the salient feature of the Cinque Ports organization, the fact that they formed a single community, possessing a single assembly, and receiving a joint charter, is paralleled most remarkably in the joint 'communes' of Picardy, containing from four to eight separate 'Vills'.20
It would be very satisfactory if the French 'communes' could throw light on the obscure title of 'barons' appertaining to the men of the Cinque Ports, and to them, I maintain (against Professor Burrows), alone among English burgesses. I have elsewhere shown that there is evidence of the use of this term at an earlier period than is supposed, viz., in the early years of Stephen;21 but on its origin the 'commune' throws no light. One can only quote the parallel afforded by the 'commune' of Niort, and this is taken from a late document (1579). Its officers are said to hold of the King 'à droit de baronie, à foi et homage-lige, au devoir d'un gant ou cinq sols tournois, pour tous devoirs, payables à chaque mutation de seigneur'.22 This 'devoir' is parallel, it will be seen, to the 'canopy-service' (or 'Honours at Court') of the Cinque Ports, rendered as it was, in practice, 'à chaque mutation de seigneur'. It is noteworthy that a French royal charter of 1196 contains the clause: 'prefati quatuor ville exercitum et equitationem novis debent sicut alie communie nostre';23 but one can scarcely connect this with the naval service of the Cinque Ports. Yet it was part, undoubtedly, of the communal principle that the 'commune' should hold directly of the King, and not of any mediate lord, and this principle would explain the style 'barones regis' applied to the men of the Cinque Ports.
To sum up, there are features about the Cinque Ports organization which can only be accounted for, it seems to me, by the hypothesis here advanced. If this novel solution be accepted,24 a question at once arises as to the date at which this communal confederacy was established. From what we know of the origin of the 'commune', we can scarcely believe in its adoption here till a generation, at least, after the Conquest. 'Only the least informed and most sceptical,' writes Professor Burrows, 'have placed the act of incorporation later than the date of the Conqueror',25 but a wider knowledge of municipal institutions would lead to the opposite conclusion. It is possible that the reign of Henry I may have witnessed the superimposing of a communal confederacy on the existing institutions of the several ports; it is impossible, at any rate, to trace it in Domesday, and difficult, indeed, to reconcile with its existence the evidence afforded by the Great Survey. It is conceivable that the position already attained, in the Conqueror's days, by Dover, may have served as a model for the other Ports, when they learnt the power of the principle that lay at the root of the commune—'L'union fait la force'.26
1 Boys' Sandwich, p. 431.
2 Monographie de la Constitution communale d'Amiens (Essai sur l'Histoire ... du Tiers-Etat, pp. 347-8). The charter of Abbeville prescribed this penalty ('domus ejus et omnia ad ejus mancionem pertinentia prosternantur') for homicide, which lies outside the class of 'political offences'. Giry, in his Etablissements de Rouen (1883), speaks of the 'abattis de maison' as 'caractéristique du droit municipal du Nord' (i. 431), but I do not find that he anywhere mentions it as the penalty appointed for refusing office.
3 Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France, xi., p. 228.
4 So also p. 263, where he calls attention to 'l'établissement de la constitution communale de Rouen et de Falaise dans quatre des provinces annexées au XIIe siècle à la domination anglo-normande'; and to 'cette adoption de la commune jurée selon le type donné par les grandes villes de la Normandie, événement auquel contribua sans doute la politique des rois d'Angleterre'.
5 'À Bordeaux ... le principal titre de magistrature était celui de Jurats, titre qu'on retrouve dans une foule de villes, depuis la Gironde jusqu'au milieu de la chaîne des Pyrénées' (p. 247).
6 'Au milieu de cette unité d'organisation administrative et judiciaire la ville de Bayonne se détache, et contraste avec toutes les autres. On la voit, au commencement du XIII^e siècle, abandonner le régime municipal indigène et chercher de loin une constitution éstrangère, celle des communes normandes, transportée et perfectionée dans les villes du Poitou et de la Saintonge; c'est une double cause, la suzeraineté des rois d'Angleterre étendue de la Normandie aux Pyrénées, et le commerce d'une ville maritime, qui amène ainsi aux extrémités de la zone municipale du Midi la commune jurée dans sa forme native, avec toutes ses règles et ses pratiques' (p. 249).
7 'La soe maizon, so es del marie o d'aquet quiu loguer aura pres, sera darrocade seins contredit.'
8 'E en merce de la comunie, de sa maizon darrocar.'
9 'Sera en merce dou maire e dous pars de sa maizon darrocar.'
10 'La maison ons ed estaue sera abatude per les justizies de la comunie.'
11 'Ca esto tornarie en dano de Nos e de la nuestra Puebla.' (Boletin de la real Academia de la Historia, October 1888.)
12 'Ancienne Coutume d'Amiens' (Recueil des Monum. ined. de l'Histoire du Tiers-Etat, I. pp. 159, 160).
13 He refers us to the Theodosian Code. Lib. XII, tit. 1, 'de decurionibus', and D., Lib. i, tit. 4, 'de muneribus et honoribus'.
13 Cinque Ports (Historic Towns Series), by Montagu Burrows.
14 Essai sur l'Histoire du Tiers-Etat, p. 240. (The italics are my own.)
15 The Danish 'Five Boroughs' stand apart, as a temporary confederation, the character of which we do not know.
16 Professor Burrows makes light of this name, asserting that 'it is hard to say when the French form came into common use' (p. 56). But 'the five Cinque Ports', which he admits to be the correct style, is a pleonasm which proves the 'Cinque' to be older than the 'Five'.
17 'London and the Cinque Ports stand isolated from their fellows in the common absence of the institution' (Burrows, p. 43).
18 'The same may be said of the office of "Alderman" ... The term seems to be only accidentally, if not erroneously, used' (ibid., p. 44).
19 The mayor and his twelve pairs, jurats (or jurés) or échevins, were an essential feature of the commune, and spread with the communal movement.
20 Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France, xi. 231, 237, 245, 277, 291, 308, 315. The text must now be modified in the light of my further criticism, in the next paper, of the early date alleged for the confederation of the Ports.
21 This was written in reliance on the statement by Mr Howlett (Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iii., p. xl) that an interesting writ he quoted from 'the cartulary of St Benet-at-Hulme' was 'safely attributable to the year 1137'. It is a writ of Robert, Earl of Leicester, acting as justiciary, and 'gives', says Mr Howlett, 'a clear idea of the Earl's position at the opening of the reign'. As he has made himself master of the period, and has specially studied its manuscript sources, I accepted his assurance without question. But as it subsequently struck me that such a writ was more likely to be issued by the Earl when justiciary under Henry II, I referred to the cartulary and found that the writ contained the words 'avi regis', proving it, of course, to belong to the reign, not of Stephen, but of Henry II:
'R. Com(es) leg(recestriæ) Baronibus regis de Hastingg' salutem. Precipio quod abbas et monachi de Hulmo teneant bene et in pace et juste terras suas in Gernemut ... sicut eas melius tenuerunt tempore Regis H. avi regis ... T. R. Basset per breve regis de ultra mare' (Galba E. 2, fo. 33b).
We can only, therefore, say of its date that it is previous to the Earl's death in 1168. In any case, however, it is of much interest as connecting Yarmouth with Hastings alone, not, as alleged, with the Cinque Ports as a whole. This is in perfect accordance with the fact that John's charter to Hastings in 1205 duly mentions its rights at Yarmouth, of which there is no mention in his charters to the other ports.
I have noted in this same cartulary, and on the same page, an interesting confirmation by Henry II to the Abbey of the land, 'quam lefwinus et Robertus presbyteri et Bonefacius et ceteri barones mei de Hastingges eidem ecclesie dederunt in Gernemut' apud Den ... Test' Thom' cancellario. Apud Westmonasterium'. The name of Thomas fixes the date as not later than 1158. In the charters of 1205, the people of Hastings are styled 'barons', but those of the other ports only 'homines'.
22 This represents the 'esporle' of South-Western France (cf. p. 243, n. 278).
23 Recueil (ut supra), xi. 277.
24 I can find no trace of it in Professor Burrows' careful résumé of the factors in the Cinque Ports organization.
25 Cinque Ports, p. 56.
26 Professor Burrows is very severe on those who question the alleged charter of Edward the Confessor to the Ports and 'the sweeping franchises' that it conferred (pp. 55-6, 59). But the sole evidence for its alleged existence is the charter of 1278, which does not even, I think, necessarily imply it. For the allusion to the liberties the Ports possessed in the days of Edward and his successors might well be taken from such a charter as that of Henry II to Lincoln, in which he grants to the citizens all the liberties 'quas habuerunt tempore Edwardi et Willelmi et Henrici regum Anglorum'. This does not imply that those kings had granted charters.
[The result of my further investigation has been to develop much further the position here Arch. Rev., December 1889, adopted, and to modify accordingly the closing paragraph in the text.]
I have allowed the preceding paper to stand as it was written, in spite of the rejoinder by Professor Burrows, entitled, 'The Antiquity of the Cinque Ports Charters'.1
So far as regards my French analogies, Professor Burrows adopts the argument that I have not proved a parallel sufficiently close and complete. But this does not meet my contention: (1) that in the Cinque Ports organization we find peculiar words and things; (2) that these peculiarities are not found elsewhere in England; (3) that they are found in France. Admitting, however, that 'the earliest title is Norman French', the Professor urges that Edward the Confessor was a 'half-Norman king', and that 'nothing is more likely than that he should grant his charter to the Confederation under a Norman name'.2
This brings us at once to Edward's alleged charter; and, indeed, my critic recurs at the outset to his belief in 'the Ports having been chartered as a Confederation by Edward the Confessor' (p. 439). At the close of the article he reminds us again that he 'accepted the charter of Edward the Confessor as a faithful landmark, and showed how the history of our early kings and their institutions appeared to coincide with the statement'. But he adds that 'if proof can be brought against the issue of such a charter', he will be 'the first to recognize it'.
It is curious that my critic cannot perceive what must be obvious to all those who are familiar with 'the history of our early kings and their institutions', namely that the onus probandi rests, not, as he alleges, on those who question, but on those who maintain the startling proposition that Edward the Confessor issued such a charter of incorporation. Nothing short of proof positive could induce us to accept so unheard-of an anticipation of later times. That proof Professor Burrows claims to find in the great charter of Edward I to the Ports. He contends that, according to this document, Edward 'saw' the Confessor's charter,3 and blames me for omitting its statement to that effect (p. 443). Unfortunately he quotes the words, as indeed he had done in his book, from an English translation only, and that a misleading one. The actual words (as given by Jeake), confirm to the Ports their liberties as held:
temporibus Regum Angliæ Edwardi, Willelmi primi et secundi, Henrici regis proavi nostri, et temporibus Regis Richardi et Regis Johannis avi nostri et Domini Henrici Regis patris nostri per cartas eorundem, sicut cartæ illæ quas iidem Barones nostri inde habent, et quas inspeximus, rationabiliter testantur.
In this peculiar wording we notice two points: (1) that it divides the kings into two groups, and that Henry II is placed in the first group, not, as we should expect, with his sons; (2) that Edward does not say that he has 'inspected' charters of all the kings named, but only 'cartæ illæ quas iidem Barones nostri inde habent'.4 I claim, therefore, to read the words as not implying that Edward had actually seen any charter older than that of Richard, whose name heads what I have termed the second group of kings. It is noteworthy that Richard's is the earliest charter of which the contents are known to ourselves.
But let us see how the matter stands with reference to previous charters. Professor Burrows holds that the form of Edward I's charter 'certainly supposes that the former charters were granted' also to the Ports collectively.5 Indeed, he 'need not point out', we read, 'that the charters referred to are charters to the Confederation, not to separate Ports' (p. 444). Where do we find them? 'That the charter of Henry,' we are told (p. 439), 'which we know about from those of his sons, has no more survived than those of his predecessors, has always seemed to me an argument of some weight.' But no charter of Henry II to the Confederation is spoken of by his sons. We have in the Rotuli Chartarum what Professor Burrows terms, 'the series of six charters, dated June 6, and 7, 1205'. Each Port on this occasion received a separate charter, and in each case reference is made to that Port's charter from Henry II. Of a collective charter we hear nothing. Nor are John's charters even identical in form: to quote once more Professor Burrows:
It should also be noted that the franchises of Sandwich are to be such as the town enjoyed in the reigns of 'William and Henry'; of Dover, as in that of Edward'; of Hythe, as in those of 'Edward, William I, William II, and Henry'.6
And in none of them is any charter mentioned earlier than that of Henry II.
These charters of John are most important, but have not, so far as I know, received scientific treatment. The charter to Hastings is in many ways distinct from the others. It alone speaks of the 'Honours at Court', the rights at Yarmouth, and the ship-service due, and alone mentions that this service was rendered 'pro hiis libertatibus'. The charter to Rye and Winchelsea is modelled on that of Hastings, and neither of them goes back beyond the charter of Henry II. The charters to Dover and to Hythe, it will be found, are closely parallel, and in both cases the privileges are to be enjoyed as in the times of Edward, William I, William II, and Henry (I). Sandwich has her liberties confirmed as in the days of Henry I, King William, 'and our predecessors'; Romney as in the days of Henry I.
If it be urged that the rights of Yarmouth, though only specified in the Hastings charter, were included under general liberties in the charters to the other Ports, I appeal, in reply, to that writ of Henry II7 which treats the Barons of Hastings alone as possessing authority at Yarmouth. The charter and the writ confirm one another.
We see, then, that when we interpret the great charter of Edward I to the Ports (1278) in the light of evidence, not of supposition, we find that Henry II and John did grant separate charters to the different Ports as to other towns (not a collective charter to them all), and that these therefore must have been the charters referred to in the general confirmation of 1278. In other words, it was Edward I, not Edward the Confessor, who granted the first 'Charter to the Confederation', as a whole. Utterly subversive though it be of Professor Burrows' view, this is the only conclusion in harmony with the known facts.
Thus the sole result of examining my critic's evidence is to make me carry my scepticism further still. I now hold that even so late as the days of John, the Ports had individual relations to the crown, although their relations inter se were becoming of a closer character, as was illustrated by the fact that their several charters were all obtained at the same time. Hastings alone, as yet, had rights at Yarmouth recognized: hers were the only portsmen styled 'barons' by the crown.
It is always, in these matters, necessary to bear in mind that the local organization was apt to be ahead of the crown, and that communal institutions and municipal developments might be winked at for a time to avoid formal recognition. In this way I believe the rights and privileges belonging in strictness to Hastings alone were gradually extended in practice to the other ports. There is, for instance, a St Bertin charter granted by the so-called 'barons of Dover', although the formal legend on their seal styles them only 'burgesses'. The portsmen may all in practice have been loosely styled 'barons', even though Hastings alone had a special right to that distinction. Professor Burrows speaks of 'its acknowledged claim to be the Premier Port of the Confederation' as 'a circumstance of the greatest significance in our inquiry',8 and here I entirely agree with him. But I cannot think his explanation of that pre-eminence in any way satisfactory. He lays great stress on 'the identification lately established beyond any reasonable doubt between the town in the Bourne valley and the "New Burgh" of Domesday Book'. I have searched long and in vain for this identification, but, whether it be accepted or not, it throws no light on the old town, the King's town, of Hastings.9
The importance of Hastings before the Conquest is shown not only by the action of its ships in 1049, but also by its possessing a mint. Yet the only mention of this town in Domesday is the incidental entry that the Abbot of Fécamp had 'in Hastings' appurtenant to his Manor of Brede, 'iiii. burgenses et xiiii. bordarios'.10 One is fairly driven to the bold hypothesis that Hastings, which ought to have figured at the head of the county survey (as did Dover in Kent), was one of the important towns wholly omitted in Domesday.11 The fact that its ship-service, when first mentioned, was as large as that of Dover is a further proof of its importance.
The geographical position of Hastings also severs its case, as widely as do its privileges, from those of the Kentish ports. It is therefore difficult to resist the impression that the distinction in John's charter had a real origin and meaning. The 'barons' of Hastings were, I believe, the men of the King's town (not, as alleged, the Abbot's) and so far from the Abbot's men being admitted to share their distinction, we find the latter, at Rye and Winchelsea, styled in John's charter 'homines', not even 'homines nostri'.
The accepted view as to Rye and Winchelsea is thus set forth by Professor Burrows:
The Confessor had evidently intended to make the little group of Sussex towns, the 'New Burgh', Winchelsea, and Rye, a strong link of communication between England and Normandy; but Godwin and Harold had contrived to prevent the two latter from becoming the property of the Abbey of Fécamp, to which Edward granted them in the early part of his reign; and this formed one of the Norman grievances. William promised to restore them to the Abbey, and when he had conquered England he kept his word.... Of the grant of Winchelsea and Rye to the same Abbey as part of the lands of Steyning we have distinct evidence in the charter of resumption issued by Henry III in 1247 (p. 27; cf. supra, p. 248).
Although this view has always been held by local historians and antiquaries, it seems to me obvious that there must be error somewhere. Rye and Winchelsea belonged geographically to the Abbey's lordship of Brede in the extreme west of the county; its lordship of Steyning was in East Sussex. On examining for myself the charter of resumption and comparing it with the Abbey's claims as to Brede at the quo warranto inquiry, I discovered the solution of the mystery. Rye and Winchelsea were not, as alleged, appurtenant to Steyning, but belonged to the Manor of Brede. The Abbey, however, claimed on behalf of its Manor of Brede (including Rye and Winchelsea) all the franchises granted to Steyning, contending that they were meant to extend to all its lands in Sussex. This claim was urged and recognized in the case of the charter of resumption (1246), the source of the whole misapprehension.
But to return to the 'barons', Professor Burrows, discussing the title, writes thus:12
It is admitted that the title was at first only held by the Portsmen in common with the citizens of several other places, as that of a responsible man in a privileged community, of a 'baro' or 'vir' of some dignity; but, of course, not in the least in the sense of a 'baron' such as the word came to mean in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
I do not know which were these 'several other places'; but I think the word 'baron' can be shown to have here had a definite connotation. The exemption from 'wardship and marriage', for instance, granted by Edward I (1278), implies that these 'barons' were subject to the burdens of tenants-in-chief, while their extraordinary appeal, after the battle of St Mahé (1293), to 'the judgment of their peers, earls, and barons'13 has not, so far as I know, received the attention it deserves. By such a phrase the Cinque Ports 'barons' virtually claimed the privilege of peers of the realm.
But one must not wander too far along these tempting paths. When tradition is replaced, as it may be in part, by evidence, we shall have, not improbably, to unlearn much that now passes current as genuine Cinque Ports history. On the other hand, there may be in store for us glimpses of much that is interesting and new.14
Apart, however, from problems as yet difficult and obscure, we shall be standing on sure ground in asserting that the charter of Edward I is the first that was granted to the Ports collectively, and that the rights and liberties it confirmed were those which had been granted to the separate ports by Henry II and John, and which it then made uniform and applicable to the whole confederation. As at London,15 we have always to remember that communal institutions might develop locally before their existence is proved by the crown's formal recognition. Delay in that recognition is not proof of their non-existence. What complicates so greatly the study of the Cinque Ports polity is the difficulty of disentangling its three component elements: the old English institutions common to other towns; the special relation to the crown in connection with their ship-service; and the foreign or communal factor on which I have myself insisted. No impartial student, I believe, will deny that I have fairly established the existence of this third element. Its relative importance and its sphere of action must remain, of course, as yet matter of conjecture.
1 Archæological Review, iv. 439-44.
2 ibid., p. 441.
3 The Cinque Ports, p. 64.
4 Had he seen them all, the wording would have run, 'per cartas eorundem, quas iidem', etc.
5 The Cinque Ports, p. 63.
6 ibid., p. 71.
7 Supra, p. 421.
8 The Cinque Ports, p. 26.
9 The Professor's argument that 'the lordship of St Denis over the Saxon Hastings had ceased—probably when the Northmen took possession of the Seine valley and blocked out the French; that of Fécamp was the renewal of the old idea on an adjoining territory' (Cinque Ports, p. 27), is as baseless as that which follows it as to Winchelsea and Rye. For the 'charter of Offa, king of the Mercians' (p. 25), granting Hastings to St Denis, has been conclusively shown by Mr Stevenson to be a forgery.
10 One cannot, of course, speak positively without seeing that 'identification' on which Professor Burrows relies. But, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that this estate of the Abbey 'in Hastings' was identical with that which it actually possessed in the Bourne Valley. For this by no means included the whole 'town in the Bourne Valley', but only that portion of it at the foot of the West Hill, which is bordered by Courthouse Street, Bourne Street, John Street, and High Street, together with St Clement's Church and its block of buildings (Sussex Arch. Coll., xiv. 67). And this conclusion is strengthened by the fact that in Domesday its rents are 63s 'in Hastings', and 158s in the 'novus burgus', while at the Dissolution they were only 35s 4d in Hastings. In that case we must after all look for the 'novus burgus' of Domesday at Winchelsea or Rye.
Nor is the history of Hastings harbour at all as clear as could be wished. 'The ancient Harbour once occupied', no doubt, 'Priory Valley' (Cinque Ports, p. 9); but I can find no trace of a haven 'formed by the Bourne between the East and West Hills', which replaced it on its silting-up. On the contrary, the old map of Hastings in 1746 (Sussex Arch. Coll., vol. xii) shows us the 'haven' (with ships) in the Priory Valley to the west of the Castle Hill. Was not this a later harbour (1637), and the real original one out to the south?]
11 Chichester, Lewes, and Pevensey are all duly entered, under the names of their respective lords.
12 The Cinque Ports, pp. 77-9.
13 The Cinque Ports, p. 123. Compare the banishment of the Despencers (1321) by the 'piers de la terre, countes et barouns'.
14 The courts of the Cinque Ports, for instance, greatly need investigation. One can only throw out as a mere conjecture the suggestion that if the Court of Guestling derived its name, as Professor Burrows admits is probable, from Guestling (the caput of a Hundred), midway between Hastings and Winchelsea, it may have been originally a Sussex Court for the Hastings group, while the Court of Broadhill—afterwards 'Broderield' and 'Brotherhood' (The Cinque Ports, p. 178)—may have been the Kentish one. The admitted corruption in the traditional derivation of both names, together with the court's change of locale, shows how much obscurity surrounds their true origin. Few, I think, would accept Professor Burrows' view that, because the Brodhull, when we first have record of it, was held 'near the village of Dymchurch' (p. 46), it was named from 'the "broad hill" of Dymchurch, which may well have been some portion of the wall which extended for three miles along the beach' (p. 47). As the Guestling was not a court of 'Guests', so 'the broad hill', from which the meeting derived its name, must have been originally somewhere else than down 'on Dymchurch beach' (p. 75), between Romney Marsh and the sea.
15 See my paper on the origin of 'The Mayoralty of London', in Archæological Journal (1894).
Pages 20, 107. In case I should not have made sufficiently clear my views as to the filiation of the Domesday MSS., it may be well to explain that what I deny on p. 21 is that the Inq. Com. Cant. and the Inq. El. can both have been copied from a third document intermediate between them and the original returns. But, as I state on pp. 20, 123, it cannot be proved that the Inq. Com. Cant. was itself transcribed direct from the original returns, as it might, possibly, be only a copy of an earlier transcript of these returns.
Page 30. A remarkable instance of the occasional untrustworthiness of the figures given in these texts is afforded by the Manors of Stretham and Wilburton, co. Cambridgeshire, which were farmed together. The correct figures for their ploughteams were these:
| Dominium | Homines | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stretham | 41 | 5 | 9 |
| Wilburton | 32 | 4 | 73 |
| — | — | ||
| 7 | 9 |
The footnotes show the errors.
Thus the A text, which is the best known, gives two figures out of three wrongly for Wilburton, and Mr Pell, by accepting as genuine these two erroneous figures, was led to quite erroneous conclusions.
Pages 68-9. The parallel for this system of counting by threes and sixes is found in the wergild of Scandinavia, with its rétt of 3 marcs, or 6, or 12, the 6 or the 12 aurar, the 12 ells or the 12 feet of vadmal.
For the formulæ on p. 68 an instructive parallel is found in the Frostathing's Law:
If a haulld wounds a man, he is liable to pay 6 baugar(rings) to the king, and 12 aurar are in each ring ... a lendrmann 12, a jarl 24, a king 48, 12 aurar being in each ring.
Thus we find in Scandinavia the counterpart of the system of counting found in the 'Danish' districts of England, just as we find in Angeln and Ditmarsh the counterpart of the 'hide', with its four 'yards', found in southern England (Archæologia, xxxvii. 380).
Page 105. For the election of juratores we may compare the Abingdon Abbey case, under Henry II: 'ex utroque parte seniores viri eligerentur qui secundum quod eis verum videretur ... jurarent; ... segregati qui jurarent diversis opinionibus causam suam confundebant'. For juries of eight or sixteen we may compare Jocelin de Brakelonde's narrative of a suit for an advowson in 1191: 'delatum est juramentum per consensum utriusque partis sexdecim legalibus de hundredo'.
Page 126. Compare here Mr Freeman's text (iii. 413-4):
There can be little doubt that William's ravages were not only done systematically, but were done with a fixed and politic purpose.... It is impossible to doubt that the systematic harrying of the whole country round Hastings was done with the deliberate purpose of provoking the English king.... The work was done with a completeness which shows that it was something more than the mere passing damage wrought by an enemy in need of food.
Domesday is appealed to, as in the Appendix, for this view.
Page 205. Though I have spoken in the text of William de Montfichet, following, like Dugdale, the Liber Niger, I have since found that the tenant of the fief, in 1166, was his son Gilbert, the carta being wrongly assigned in the Liber Niger itself to William. There are similar and instructive errors to be found in it.
Page 244. The succession of Schelin, the Domesday under-tenant by his son Robert, in 1095 identifies the former with Schelin, the Dorset tenant-in-chief, from whom Shilling Ockford took its name, and who was succeeded in Dorset also by his son Robert (Montacute Cartulary).
Pages 293-4. To guard (as I have to do at every turn) against misrepresentation, I may explain that the Battle Chronicle is the primary authority I follow for the feigned flight. Its words 'fugam, cum exercitu duce simulante', distinctly assert that the Duke himself, with the main body of his army, 'turned in seeming flight'. It must, surely, be because this evidence is quite opposed to Mr Freeman's view that he ignored it in his text (pp. 488-90). The essential point to grasp, according to my own view, is that a detachment, told off for the purpose, thrust itself between the pursuing English and the hill to cut off their retreat, and that the main body of the Normans then faced about. The English, one may add, are hardly likely to have ventured down into the plain unless the feigned flight was so general as to make them think they could safely do so.
Pages 311-12. 'Mainly from oral tradition.' This refers, of course, to Mr Archer's contention.
Page 356. On the great influence, by their connection, of the Clares see also the Becket Memorials (iii. 43), where Fitz Stephen writes (1163):
Illi autem comiti de Clara fere omnes nobiles Angliæ propinquitate adhærebant, qui et pulcherrimam totius regni sororem habebat, quam rex aliquando concupierat.
We are reminded here of the curious story in the Monasticon (iv. 608) that, some forty years before, Roheis de Clare, the wife of Eudo Dapifer, was, on his death (1120), destined by her brethren for the second wife of Henry I, a story which illustrates, at least, the position attributed to the family.
Pages 357-8. The Montfichet match is not shown in the chart pedigree, nor is the important marriage of Adeliza, another daughter of Gilbert (fitz Richard) de Clare, to Aubrey de Vere, the Chamberlain, which is well ascertained (Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 390-2). By him she had inter alios a daughter, with the Clare name of 'Rohese', who married Geoffrey de Mandeville, first Earl of Essex (ibid.). The existence of this Adeliza may be held to be against my affiliation of 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', which avowedly is only a conjecture.
Page 360. A chart pedigree is here given to illustrate the connection of Robert fitz Richard (de Clare), through his wife, with the Earls of Northampton and the Scottish kings: