[151] D. B., i. 100 b-101.
[152] Feudal England, p. 115.
[153] D. B., i. 120.
[154] Cf. Feudal England, pp. 109–110.
[155] Feudal England, pp. 109–110.
[156] After the above passage, the author proceeds: “De summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebant in uno comitatu, constituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 7).
[157] A Devonshire manor (i. 100 b) is entered as rendering “in firma regis x solidos ad pensum.” This “firma” can only be a collective ferm from the royal manors.
[158] I do not wish to press the point further than the entry proves, and consequently I leave undetermined the question whether the ‘firma regis’ was that of the whole shire, or merely that of the head manor to which Wedmore belonged.
[159] Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 142.
[160] History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 63.
[161] It was vehemently asserted by Mr. Hubert Hall, in his earlier papers on the Exchequer, that the table was only divided into columns, and that the chequered table was a delusion. He has subsequently himself accepted the “chequered table” (see my ‘Studies on the Red Book,’ p. 76), but Sir James Ramsay (ii. 324) has been misled by his original assertion.
[162] “Sciendum vero quod per hanc taleam combustionis dealbatur firma vicecomitis; unde in testimonium hujus rei semper majori taleæ appensa cohæret” (‘Dialogus’).
[163] pp. 523–4.
[164] p. 105.
[165] “Henricus thesaurarius,” the Domesday tenant (49), is entered in the earlier Winchester survey temp. Hen. I.
[166] One such writ, still preserved, is printed in my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society). It belongs to 1191.
[167] See below.
[168] I punctuate it differently from Dr. Stubbs.
[169] Itinerary, p. 275.
[170] Antiquities of the Exchequer, p. 15.
[171] Ibid. p. 16.
[172] Ibid.
[173] Ibid. p. 66.
[174] See my ‘Calendar of Documents Preserved in France.’
[175] Ibid. p. 354.
[176] Ibid. p. 355.
[177] Ibid. p. 354.
[178] See the ‘Constitutio domus Regis’:—“Willelmus Maudut xiiii d. in die, et assidue in Domo Commedet,” etc. etc. He comes next to the Treasurer.
[179] Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 400.
[180] See my “King Stephen and the Earl of Chester” (‘English Historical Review,’ x. 91).
[181] Testa de Nevill., 231.
[182] Ibid. 235; and ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 460.
[183] Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. See ‘Red Rook of the Exchequer,’ p. 664:—“Garino filio Geroldi xxxiiij lib. bl. in Worde.” Although the subject is one of special interest for the editor, he does not index Garin’s name here at all, while he identifies “Worde” in the Index (p. 1358), as “Worthy” (Hants), though it was Highworth, Wilts.
[184] Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. 355, 356.
[185] “Garinus filius Geroldi Suvenhantone, per serjanteriam cameræ (sic) Regis” (Ibid. p. 486). (Should ‘cameræ’ be ‘camerariæ’?). Also “ut sit Camerarius Regis” (‘Testa,’ p. 148).
[186] “Margeria de Ripariis tenet villam de Creklade de camar[aria] domini regis ad scaccarium: Eadem Margeria tenet villam de Sevenha[m]pton cum pertinentiis de domino rege per predictum servitium” (‘Testa de Nevill.,’ p. 153).
[187] See ‘Red Book of the Exchequer,’ and ‘Testa de Nevill.’
[188] Red Book of the Exchequer, p. cccxv.
[189] For a similar misdescription of the document preceding it see my ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 61.
[190] History of the Exchequer.
[191] Antiquities of the Exchequer, pp. 144–6, 165, 167.
[192] At Portsmouth, the witnesses being Geoffrey the chancellor, Nigel de Albini, and Geoffrey de Clinton.
[193] Oliver’s ‘Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis,’ p. 134.
[194] Ed. Arnold, i. 269.
[195] “Numero satisfaciunt; quales sunt Salop, Sudsex, Northumberland et Cumberland” (i. 7). Shropshire is wanting on the Roll.
[196] “Hæc per subtractionem xii denariorum e singulis libris dealbantur” (ii. 27).
[197] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I. p. 122.
[198] Indeed, the statement that this ferm was fixed by the Conqueror is at variance with the evidence of Domesday, which says, “reddit L libras ad arsuram et pensum” (i. 16).
[199] Vol. ii. p. 115.
[200] It should be observed that the plea was decided by reference to the “liber de thesauro” (Domesday Book, 156 b) and that “liber ille ... sigilli regii comes est in thesauro” (‘Dialogus,’ i. 15). Therefore, “cum orta fuerit in regno contentio de his rebus quæ illic annotantur” (Ibid. i. 16), the plea would conveniently be held “in thesauro.”
[201] See my paper on “Bernard the Scribe” in the ‘English Historical Review,’ 1899.
[202] Introduction to Dialogus.
[203] Ibid.
[204] “Id quoque sui esse juris suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex ipsorum quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e vestigio succederet” (‘Gesta Stephani’; see ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 2).
[205] Ibid.
[206] Longmans, 1892.
[207] Assuming the regnal years of Stephen to be reckoned in the usual manner, of which I have felt some doubts.
[208] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 252.
[209] Ibid. p. 373.
[210] He was the third named of the fifteen benefactors, who, to obtain the king’s confirmation, “miserunt ... quendam ex seipsis, Ordgarum scilicet le Prude,” to Henry. He occurs in one of the St. Paul’s documents (Hist. MSS. Report, p. 68 a), but what Mr. Loftie has written about him (‘London,’ pp. 35–6) is merely based on confusion with other Ordgars.
[211] Vol. iv. fo. 737, of the Guildhall Transcript.
[212] He appears to take his stand on possession alone.
[213] The king decides to examine the title by a proprietary action.
[214] ‘Christo’ in Ancient Deeds, A. 6683.
[215] As is not unfrequently the case in similar narratives, this charter is wrongly introduced; for it clearly cannot be so early as 1137. It was edited by me in ‘Ancient Charters’ (p. 48) from Ancient Deeds, A. 6683, and assigned to 1143–1148, as being obviously subsequent to the fall of the earl of Essex.
[216] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 222–4.
[217] Trans: ‘Englistcuit’ (the ‘t’ and ‘u’ being obvious misreadings). The text is, it will be seen, corrupt.
[218] Trans: ‘Crichcote.’
[219] Report ut supra, p. 66 b; ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 435–6.
[220] Report ut supra, pp. 61 b, 67 b; cf. ‘Domesday of St. Paul’s,’ p. 124.
[221] London and Middlesex Archæological Transactions, vol. v., pp. 477–493. These documents are the same as those entered in the Priory’s cartulary.
[222] Ibid. p. 480; cf. pp. 490, 491.
[223] London, p. 30.
[224] “Seven or eight” on p. 30.
[225] Ibid. p. 31.
[226] Even Dr. Stubbs seems to imply this when he alludes to “the conversion of the cnihtengild into a religious house” (‘Const. Hist.’ [1874], i. 406).
[227] Compare “the retirement at one time of seven or eight aldermen” only three pages before (p. 30).
[228] p. 33. So also pp. 34, 42, 90.
[229] Coote, ut supra, p. 478.
[230] Good instances in point are found in the Ramsey cartulary, where, in 1081, a benefactor to the abbey “suscepit e contra a domno abbate et ab omnibus fratribus plenam fraternitatem pro rege Willelmo, et pro regina Matilda, et pro comite Roberto, et pro semetipso, et uxore sua, et filio qui ejus erit heres, et pro patre et matre ejus, ut sunt participes orationum, elemosinarum, et omnium beneficiorum ipsorum, sed et omnium fratrum sive monasteriorum a quibus societatem susceperunt in omnibus sicut ex ipsis” (i. 127–8). Better still is this parallel: “Reynaldus abbas, et totus fratrum conventus de Rameseya cunctis fratribus qui sunt apud Ferefeld in gilda, salutem in Christo. Volumus ut sciatis quod vobis nostrum fraternitatem concessimus et communionem beneficii quam pro nobismet ipsis quotidie agimus, per Serlonem, qui vester fuit legatus ad nos, ut sitis participes in hoc et in futuro sæculo” (i. 131). The date of this transaction was about the same as that of the admission of the cnihtengild to a share in the “benefits” of Holy Trinity; and the grant was similarly made in return for an endowment.
[231] See “The First Mayor of London” (‘Antiquary,’ April, 1887).
[232] Coote, ut supra, p. 478.
[233] Report, ut supra, p. 68 a.
[234] Ibid. p. 62 a.
[235] 5th Report Hist. MSS., App. I., p. 446 b.
[236] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.
[237] Infra, p. 118.
[238] Antiquary, as above.
[239] Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.
[240] Report, i. 83 b. It is several years later than 1125.
[241] See p. 101, above.
[242] Coote, ut supra, p. 473.
[243] Tomlin’s ‘Perambulation of Islington,’ pp. 60–64.
[244] Report, ut supra, p. 42 a.
[245] See, for him, below.
[246] Add MS. 14,252, fo. 127 d.
[247] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 310, 311.
[248] Ibid. It is remarkable that this man, who (as I have there shown) was joint sheriff of London in 1125, is found as the last witness to a charter of Henry I., granted (apparently in 1120) at Caen (Colchester Cartulary, fo. 10).
[249] Ibid. p. 311.
[250] See above, p. 106.
[251] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139.
[252] Rot. Pip., 31 Henry I., p. 145. See also Ramsey Cartulary, i. 142.
[253] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 309.
[254] See my ‘Ancient Charters’ (Pipe Roll Society), p. 26.
[255] The transcriber seems to have been unable to read these words.
[256] Lansdown MS. 170, fo. 73.
[257] See also the charter on p. 115 (note 3) below.
[258] Sheriff again from 1157 to 1160.
[259] “Writelam ... Ingelricus præoccupavit ii hidas de terra prepositi Haroldi ... postquam rex venit in Angliam et modo tenet comes E[ustachius] ideo quod antecessor ejus inde fuit saisitus” (Domesday, ii. 5 b).
[260] Lansd. MS. 170, fo. 62.
[261] “The influential family of Bucquinte, Bucca-Uncta, which took the lead on many occasions, can hardly have been other than Italian” (‘Const. Hist.,’ i. 631). The Bucherels also, clearly were of Italian origin (“Bucherelli”).
[262] Ibid.
[263] “Benedictus I., 155–6” (Dr. Stubbs’ authority).
[264] Ibid.
[265] See p. 108, above.
[266] Duchy of Lancaster Charters, L. 107. “Notum sit tam presentibus quam futuris quod ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte heredavi in hustingo Londonie (sic) Gervasium de Cornhell[a] et Henricum filium eius et heredes suos de omnibus rectis meis in terris in catallis Et etiam in omnibus aliis rebus et quieta clamavi eis et heredibus eorum hereditario jure tenendis et abendis (sic). Et pro hac conventione dederunt mihi Gervasius de Cornhell[a] et Henricus filius unam dimidiam marcam argenti. Et hoc idem feci in curia Regis apud Westmonasterium. Et ibi dedit mihi Gervasius de Cornhella i marcam argenti. Et ego Johannes filius Andree Bucuinte saisiavi Gervasium de Cornhell[e] et Henricum filium eius de omnibus tailiis meis et de cartis meis in curia Regis et in hustingo Lond[onie].”
[267] Cartulary, i. 130.
[268] See p. 106, above.
[269] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester, pp. 293–4.
[270] England under the Angevin Kings, pp. 156–7.
[271] i. 157. Hoveden ends: “Præcepit eum suspendi inpatibulo”.
[272] See above, p. 107.
[273] This also was the name of a leading London family.
[274] Dr. Stubbs quotes from the roll of 1169: “de catallis fugitivorum et suspensorum per assisam de Clarendon.”
[275] See my note on Osbert in ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ App. Q (pp. 374–5).
[276] Ibid.
[277] Lansd. MS., 170, fo. 62 d. The terms of this writ are of some legal importance in connection with the principle of “novel disseisin” under Henry II. The recovery of seisin is here a preliminary to a proprietary action, and the formula “injuste et sine judicio” (cf. ‘History of English Law,’ ii. 47, 57) recurs in this charter which is of similar illustrative value: “Stephanus rex Angl[orum] Waltero filio Gisleberti et preposito suo de Mealdona salutem. Si Canonici Sancti Martini London’ poterint monstrare quod Oswardus de Meldon’ injuste et sine judicio illos dissaisierit de terra sua de Meldon’ de Burgag’ tunc precipio quod illos faciat[is] resaisiri sicut saisiti fuerunt die quo Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et quicquid inde cepit postea reddi juste faciatis et in pace teneant sicut tenuerunt tempore regis Henrici et eadem consuetudine, et nisi feceritis Ricardus de Lucy et vicecomes de Essex faciant fieri ne audiam inde clamorem pro penuria recti. Teste Warnerio de Lusoriis apud London’” (Ib., fo. 170).
[278] It was almost certainly previous to Stephen’s captivity, though this cannot be actually proved.
[279] Another writ of Stephen (date uncertain) similarly recognises his position:—“Stephanus dei gratia Rex Anglie Osberto Octod[enarii] et Adel (sic) et civibus et vic[ecomiti] Lond[onie] salutem. Precipio quod canonici Sancti Martini London[ie] bene et in pace et honorifice teneant terras suas et estalla sua que eis reddidi et confirmavi” (fo. 57 d).
[280] Endorsed “de Cancellario” (9th Report Hist. MSS., i. 45 b).
[281] Athenæum, 23rd January, 1897.
[282] “Justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis.”
[283] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 305.
[284] Ibid. p. 150.
[285] Quum.
[286] We probably should read “Osberto clerico Willelmi archidiaconi.”
[287] Attests a charter of the earl’s son and namesake in 1157–8 as “Willelmo de Moch’ capellano meo” (‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ p. 229).
[288] Attests same charter (Ibid.).
[289]? Gisleberto.
[290] Ailwin son of Leofstan and Robert de Ponte occur in the London charters of St. Paul’s about this time.
[291] Subsequently sheriff of Essex (see p. 109 above).
[292] This charter, I understand, is taken from the roll at St. Paul’s, which was purposely left uncalendared in Sir H. Maxwell Lyte’s report on the St. Paul’s MSS.
[293] See p. 102.
[294] Add. Cart. 28, 346.
[295] See my paper on “Faramus of Boulogne” (Genealogist [N. S.] xii. 151).
[296] Simone de Suttuna, Wulfwardo de Autona (Carshalton), etc.
[297] See ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’
[298] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.
[299] Ibid. p. 147.
[300] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville.’
[301] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 146.
[302] Ibid.
[303] See above, p. 110.
[304] Add. Cart. 28, 344.
[305] Not to be confused with an (under) sheriff of Salop a generation earlier.
[306] Cartulary of St. John’s, Colchester (Roxburghe Club), p. 78.
[307] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 139, where it is assigned to 1114–1123.
[308] Ibid. i. 144.
[309] Ibid. i. 152.
[310] Ibid. i. 148, 240.
[311] Ibid. i. 245.
[312] Ibid. i. 131.
[313] MS. Arundel, 28.
[314] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 100.
[315] Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I. p. 72.
[316] Report, p. 25 b.
[317] Ramsey Cartulary, i. 256.
[318] See p. 101 above.
[319] 28th Sept., 1889.