I propose to deal in this chapter with two subjects which are wholly distinct, but which it has now been proposed, by a singular confusion, to connect. Speaking of certain miscellaneous returns in the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ Mr. Hall writes:

The corrupt but curious list of the Dover “wards” and their fees is printed virtually in duplicate on pages 613, 717, though dated by the editor in the former instance ‘1211–12’ throughout, and in the latter, ‘1261–2,’ and even ‘Temp. Edw. I.’ (pp. 721–2). The first of these, from internal evidence, is probably the right date; the remaining list (pp. 706 et seq.), though headed in the MS. 46 Hen. III., is merely this old list rearranged, with a money payment substituted for the military service. I mention this because, as printed, these lists are most misleading to any one unacquainted with their real date.

The ‘Constable’s Honour,’ for which, alone, we have six or seven slightly varying returns, is one of the most interesting in the whole Book, and leads me to say something on this important subject, on which a wholly erroneous belief has hitherto prevailed.

The first point to which I desire to direct attention is that the nine wards (custodiæ), named in the ‘Red Book’ lists—The Constable’s, ‘Abrincis,’ Foubert de Dover,[564] Arsic, Peverel, Maminot, Port, Crevequer, and Adam Fitz William[565]—are all reproduced in the names still attached to towers, including even Fulbert’s Christian name. This coincidence of testimony leads one to believe that these names must have become fixed at a very early period, and to enquire what that period was. Looking at the history of the families named, it seems probable that this period was not later, at least, than the reign of Henry II.

But it is in the Constable’s “Ward” that the interest centres. For the time-honoured belief, preserved by Lyon, and reproduced by Mr. Clark, is that “three barons of the house of Fiennes held the office under the Conqueror, Rufus, and Henry I.” After stating that these barons “held the office of constable” under Henry II., Mr. Clark informs us that “of these lords, the last, James Fiennes, was constable at the accession of Richard I., and in 1191 received, as a prisoner in the castle, Geoffrey, Henry II.’s natural son.”[566] Professor Burrows repeats, though guardedly, the old story:

Mr. Hall has now revived the old legend in full:

Now, how much truth is there in this story? Fifty-six knights, we see, are assigned to John de Fiennes, as first Constable, and fifty-six knights’ fees (plus or minus 1/10 fee) are assigned in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ to the “Warda Constabularii.” But the history of these fees, the “Honor Constabularii,” can be traced with absolute certainty. They are those which had last been held by Henry de Essex, “the Constable,” whose tragic fate is familiar, which had been previously held by Robert de Ver “the Constable,” in right of his wife, a Montfort, and the possession of which can be traced back by Domesday to no other than Hugh de Montfort.[568] We learn then that “the Honour of the Constable” (which we should not otherwise have known) was connected with the custody of Dover Castle, the “clavis et repagulum Angliæ”; and we learn more. For when we turn to the story of the attack on Dover Castle in 1067, we find Hugh de Montfort “the immediate commander of the castle”;[569] and are thus able to trace the “Warda Constabularii” back to the Conquest itself.

Thus the legend of John de Fiennes and his heirs, constables of the castle, together with its “constitutional significance,” is blown, as it were, into space, and should never, henceforth, be heard.

The “Honour of the Constable” passed to the Crown on the forfeiture of Henry of Essex (1163); and as for the alleged action of “James Fienes” as constable in 1191, it is well known that the constable at the time was a brother-in-law of Longchamp, the king’s representative. I have suggested in a paper on “Faramus of Boulogne”[570] a possible origin for the Fiennes story in the castle being held by Faramus at the close of Stephen’s reign, a fact which may account for the late tradition about “quodam comite Boloniæ qui erat ejusdem Castri Constabularius.”[571] For the Fienes family were his heirs, through his daughter; and it was through him, and not on the ground suggested by Mr. Hall, that they obtained Wendover. To Faramus himself, however, it may have been given in compensation.

Thus far I have been dealing with a question of castle-ward. I now pass to the ‘cornage rents’ and to the new theory of their origin. This theory is one of the features of Mr. Hall’s Introduction, in which he devotes to it ten pages; and it follows immediately on his remarks upon “the constableship of Dover.”

As difficult a subject as ‘Scutage,’ and one on which less has been written, the origin and character of “cornage” are problems as yet unsolved. The brilliant pen of Professor Maitland has attacked them in a paper on “Northumbrian tenures”;[572] but he cannot tell us more, virtually, than we know already, namely, that the term points to cattle, and is not derived, as Littleton in his ‘Tenures’ and the older antiquaries held, from the service of blowing a horn.

Mr. Hall, however, “hazards” the new and startling theory that the payment known by this name represents a commutation of castle-ward previously due from the drengs and thegns of the Northern marches. For this, it would seem, his only ground is the entry in the ‘Red Book’ of a list of Northumbrian cornage payments in close proximity to lists of castle-ward services. On this slender foundation is built an edifice of guesses, such as distinguishes this strange work from any other in the Rolls Series. They are prefaced, in their order, as usual, thus:

Rejecting “the accepted definition of cornage as a mere seignorial due in respect of the pasturage of cattle,” Mr. Hall explains that it rests on “a radical misconception,” namely, on “the argument that the references to military service performed by” the Cumberland cornage “tenants are later interpolations in the reign of Edward I.,” whereas, as he observes, they are mentioned in a list of about the end of John’s reign. The criticism is curiously characteristic. For, on turning to Professor Maitland’s paper (p. 629), we find not a hint of “interpolation”; he has merely—misled, no doubt, by the title page of the printed ‘Testa’—mistaken a list of John’s reign for one of “Edward I.’s time.” And, so far from assigning to that period the first mention of this service, he refers us, in the same passage, to its mention in 1238, when, as he actually observes, it “looks like an ancient trait.” The misconception, therefore, is not his, but Mr. Hall’s.

In the manuscript itself we find the ward service of Newcastle and the details of the Northumberland cornage occupying a single page (fo. 195 d). But this circumstance, for which I shall account fully below, in no way connects the two. On the contrary, we find eleven territorial units here entered as paying “cornage” in addition to their payments for castle-ward. The two payments, it will be observed, could not both be commutations of the same thing.[573] It is quite clear that, in Cumberland, all who held “per cornagium” were bound, apart from the payment of that due, to march respectively in the van and in the rear when the king was invading or retreating from Scotland, a duty for which they were, obviously, qualified by their local knowledge; but this had absolutely nothing to do with castle-ward, nor is even this special service mentioned in the case of Northumberland. Cornage, from the time we first meet with it, appears in our records as a money payment, not as a military service, and even Mr. Hall admits that the name is derived from horned beasts, unlike the ‘ward penny’ of the south, in which he would seek its parallel, and of which the name leaves us in no doubt as to its nature. The institution of cornage, therefore, is, we shall find, as obscure as ever, although there is some evidence, unknown, it seems, to Professor Maitland as it is to Mr. Hall. Its historical importance is beyond question.

Of the cornage of Northumberland, as recorded in the ‘Red Book,’ the editor writes that “it is of the highest importance to trace its earlier history in the records of the Exchequer.” It can, as he says, be traced back to 1164; but I cannot accept his suggestion as to why it then made its appearance. One must turn, for comparison, to that of Cumberland, concerning which we read as follows:

But this Neatgild (or cornage) can be traced back much further, namely, to the year-roll of 1130, and even earlier. It was £85 8s. 8d. under Henry I., and over £80 under Henry II.; and details of sums paid in respect of it are duly found, not only in the ‘Red Book’ (pp. 493–4),[574] but also in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ Moreover, the cornage of Northumberland as well was answered for “in a lump sum,” and this leads me to explain the entry of the Northumbrian lists. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that his manuscript adds up the cornage wrongly, and is even guilty of a further error in asserting that this erroneous total is “xxii den. plus quam alii solebant respondere,” its real excess being £1 1s. 10d.[575] Apart from its obvious bearing on the character and value of the manuscript, this error has misled the editor into stating that the sums entered, “less the pardons of the Prior of Tynemouth and the King of Scots, make up the charge of £20 for the county.” On the contrary, the grand total is £21 3s. 10d., although the sheriffs were only liable for the “lump sum” of £20. Why is this? It is because Robert “de Insula,” to whom we owe the list, held the shire “ut custos.” This most important Exchequer phrase, which the editor must have overlooked on the roll, can be traced back, at least, as far as 1130. It means that the Crown had put its own man in office, and was thus able to get at the details of the payment, for which the normal sheriff was only liable in a “lump sum.” This is why the opportunity was taken to set these details on record. This explanation applies also to the details of Newcastle ward service immediately preceding the cornage payments. The editor might have learnt from the Pipe Rolls that the sheriff was normally charged, in respect of this payment, with £32 4s. 5d. gross, and £28 14s. 5d. net, which latter sum he was entitled to retain for his wardenship of the castle. But Robert, as “custos,” recorded the receipts as amounting to £33, and was consequently called upon in 1267 to account for £4 5s. 7d.(the difference between £33 and £28 14s. 5d.) “de cremento wardarum Novi Castri de anno xlix° sicut recepit.” The entry, therefore, of both lists can be traced to Robert’s position “ut custos” in 49 Hen. III. Lastly, the statement that “the cornage of Westmoreland can also be traced on the rolls, but it was of very trifling value,” seems unfortunate in view of the fact that it was, when it first appears, nearly thrice as large as the whole cornage of Northumberland.

That I may not close with a negative result, I append two remarkable charters from the MS. cartulary of St. Bees, which show us the Cumbrian Noutegeld being actually paid in cows to William earl of Albemarle, as lord of Coupland, which barony was exempt from its payment to the Crown.[576]

Now it is a most interesting fact that in Durham also we find, as in Coupland, a payment in cows (“vaccas de metride”) made by townships in connection with their payment of “cornage.”[578] From the above important charters, it would seem that the two dues went together. In Durham there is a classical passage for the “cornage” proper, quoted by those who have dealt with “cornage,” but not by Mr. Hall. In a charter of Henry I., which I assign to 1128–9, he speaks of “cornagium de Bortona ... scilicet de unoquoque animali ij d.”[579] This is precisely the source of “cornage” which Mr. Hall desires to “disregard.” And if further proof were needed of the non-identity of “cornage” with castle-ward, it is found in the fact that, as in Northumberland, both dues existed simultaneously in Durham, vills which paid cornage being also liable to provide men for castle-ward (“castlemanni”).[580]