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

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

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

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

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

Let us now turn to this argument:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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