[480] On the firma burgi see Stubbs, ‘Const. Hist.’ (1874), p. 410; and Maitland, ‘Domesday Book and Beyond,’ pp. 204–5.
[481] Compare the ‘Dialogus’: “De summa vero summarum quæ ex omnibus fundis surgebat in uno comitatu constituerunt vicecomitem illius comitatus ad scaccarium teneri” (i. 4).
[482] Op. cit. ut supra.
[483] 21 Henry II., pp. 15–17. For the last quarter of the 20th year they were £59 8s. 2d.
[484] From the county the proceeds must always have been small owing to the absence of royal manors.
[485] Pipe Rolls, passim.
[486] They had paid out £156 7s. 4d. in the three quarters, and owed £9 9s. 9d., making a total of £165 17s. 1d., or at the rate of about £221 a year, as against some £238.
[487] His outgoings were £151 4s. 6d., and he was credited with a “superplus” of £13 8s. 10d. ‘blank.’ This works out at rather over £548 “numero” for the year, the old figure being £547 “numero” (these figures are taken from the unpublished Pipe Roll of 1176). It would be rash to connect the change with the severe Assise of Northampton without further evidence.
[488] An entry on the Roll of 15 Hen. II. records it as £500 “blanch,” plus a varying sum of about £20 “numero.”
[489] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 112 d.
[490] MS.: ‘skiuin.’ The ‘Liber Albus’ (pp. 423–4) uses “eskevyn” for the échevins of Amiens.
[491] i.e. Queen Eleanor.
[492] Walter archbishop of Rouen.
[493] “For their administration and judicial functions in continental towns, see Giry, ‘St. Quentin,’ 28–67; von Maurer, ‘Stadtverf.,’ i. 241, 568” (‘Gild Merchant,’ i. 26 note).
[494] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 110.
[495] Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camden Soc.), p. 2.
[496] London and the Kingdom (1894), i. 72.
[497] London (1887), p. 45.
[498] History of London, i. 190.
[499] Liber Albus, i. 41.
[500] “Quicumque predictorum, sine licentia majoris abierit de congregacione aliorum, tantundem paccabit,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § 4).
[501] “Si quid major celari preceperit, celabunt. Hoc quicunque detexerit, a suo officio deponetur,” etc. (‘Établissements,’ § 2).
[502] See Liber Albus, i. 307–8.
[503] Compare the case quoted in Palgrave’s ‘Commonwealth,’ II. p. clxxxiii.
[504] Arch. Journ., ix. 70.
[505] Ibid. p. 81.
[506] Historic Towns: Winchester, p. 166.
[507] In his valuable ‘Étude sur les origines de la commune de St. Quentin,’ M. Giry has shown that this early example, with those derived from it, was distinguished by the separate existence and status of the échevins. Nor have the Établissements as much in common with the London commune as those of Rouen.
[508] Archæological Journal, L. 256–260.
[509] Feudal England, 552 et seq.
[510] Norgate’s ‘England under the Angevin Kings,’ i. 48–9.
[511] These passages are quoted to show that the influence of Rouen on London is admitted by an independent writer.
[512] ‘Les Établissements de Rouen’ (Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études, publiée sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique, 1883).
[513] He became, in that year, bishop of Lisieux.
[514] I am in a position to date this charter precisely as at or about Feb., 1175.
[515] Recurring, in his “Conclusions” at the end of the volume, to this question of date, M. Giry seems to combine two of his different limits: “L’étude du texte nous a permis de fixer la rédaction des Établissements aux dernières années du règne de Henri II., après 1169. Nous savons, de plus que La Rochelle les avait adoptés avant 1199, que Rouen les avait également possédés vers la même époque, entre 1177 et 1183” (p. 427). Of these dates, I can only repeat that “1183” has its origin in an error; “1177” is, I think, a mistake, and “1169” difficult to understand. My forthcoming calendar of charters in France will throw fresh light upon the date.
[516] Ancient Deeds, A. 1477.
[517] Sheriff of London 1174–6. Also Alderman (Palgrave, II. clxxxiii.).
[518] Cot. MS. Faust, B. ii., fo. 66 d.
[519] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.
[520] “Major debet custodire claves civitatis et cum assensu parium talibus hominibus tradere in quibus salve sint.
“Si aliquis se absentaverit de excubia ipse erit in misericordia majoris secundum quod tunc fuerit magna necessitas excubandi” (‘Établissements de Rouen,’ ii. 44).
[521] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 106.
[522] MS. ‘escauingores.’
[523]? consilio.
[524] Add. MS. 14,252, fo. 126.
[525] The ‘th’ in the first ‘Spelethorn’ is an Anglo-Saxon character.
[526] This is the “Terra Roberti Fafiton” (at Stepney) of Domesday, i. 130.
[527] Cf. Domesday, i. 128.
[528] Rectius “Hendune.”
[529] From Domesday Book.
[530] This may be chiefly due to omitting “Mimms” (70 hides) and reckoning Ossulston at 20 hides too much.
[531] The Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), pp. 469–574.
[532] Mr. Hall has since, in the ‘Athenæum’ (10th Sept., 1898), repeated the view that the ‘Red Book’ returns were “made in the two preceding years.”
[533] It will be found on p. 296 of the printed text.
[534] “Idem rex præcepit omnibus vicecomitibus ut confiscarentur redditus et omnia beneficia clericorum data eis a Stephano archiepiscopo et ab episcopis Angliæ moram facientibus in transmarinis post interdictum Anglicanæ ecclesiæ, in hæc verba:
“‘Præcipimus vobis quod capiatis ... et scire faciatis distincte in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptistæ anno regni nostri xiv baronibus nostris de scaccario ubi fuerint redditus illi et quantum singuli valeant et qui illi sunt qui eos receperunt. Datum vii id. Junii’” (p. 267).
It is noteworthy that the returns to both writs were to be due on the same day (June 25), which accounts for their commixture in the ‘Testa.’ The remarkable rapidity with which such returns could be made to a royal writ should be carefully observed.
[535] “Per veredictum” (printed in ‘Testa’ “per unum dictum”).
[536] Testa de Nevill, pp. 401–408.
[537] This corrupt list in the ‘Liber Rubeus’ is evidently akin to a similarly corrupt one interpolated in the ‘Testa’ (p. 408), as is proved by this name.
[538] Testa, 268 b; Liber Rubeus, 499.
[539] Compare the wording of the writ of 1212: “Inquiri facias ... de tenementis ... que sint data vel alienata,” etc. (see p. 266, above).
[540] ‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 466. I have specially examined the Pipe Rolls for evidence on this tenure, and find that Sewal received the rents up to Easter, 1210, and Philip de Ulcote after that date.
[541] Would it, in any country but England, be possible for an editor who prints, without correcting, these gems to lecture before a university on the treatment of mediæval MSS.?
[542] The ‘Red Book’ lists, though so inferior, are more in number than those in the ‘Testa.’
[543] For instance, that which relates to Winchester (p. 236 a) would elude all but close investigation. It records inter alia the interesting gift, by Henry II., of land there “Wassall’ cantatori.” This would seem to be the earliest occurrence of the word “Wassail” (in a slightly corrupt form).
[544] Mr. Hall himself admits that their heading in the ‘Red Book’ “can be verified neither from the external evidence of Records, nor ... on the authority of the original Returns, no single specimen of which is known to have been preserved” (pp. ccxxii.).
[545] It might be added that, as in 1166 and 27 Hen. III., the returns on such Inquests were made at one time, and did not extend (as the ‘Red Book’ date implies) over two or three years.
[546] This, as its grave and alarming feature, is the one selected for mention in the Waverley Annals.
[547] “Omnimodis tenementis infra burgum sive extra,” ran the writ. The elaborate returns for Stamford and Wallingford in the ‘Testa’ illustrate this side of the Inquest. Reference should also be made to the interesting return for Yarmouth (‘Testa,’ p. 296):
“Nullum tenementum est in Jernemuth’ quod antiquitus no’ (sic) tenebatur de domino Rege aut de progenitoribus domini Regis, regibus Angl[iæ] quod sit datum vel alienatum aliquo modo quo minus de domino Rege teneatur in capite et illi quibus tenementa sunt data faciunt plenar[ie] servicium domino Regi de tenementis illis,” etc.
The close concordance of this return with the king’s writ ordering it (see p. 226) is remarkable.
[548] See p. 265 above.
[549] Testa de Nevill, p. 361.
[550] Salop only.
[551] Honour of Wallingford.
[552] Begins with twelfth entry on page 128a, though there is no break there in printed text; the ‘Liber Rubeus’ (p. 513) has entries for Berkshire.
[553] Borough of Wallingford.
[554] Including town of Oxford.
[555] The Chichester Inquest at least.
[556] 15 entries.
[557] Hyde Abbey.
[558] Beginning at “Abbas de Sancto Walerico.”
[559] Ending with entry for ‘Uggel.’ A special Inquest for Writtle is comprised.
[560] Beginning with “Candeleshou Wap’n’.”
[561] Including a special Inquest for Stamford.
[562] Beginning at “Carissimis.”
[563] Ending with an Inquest for Newcastle-on-Tyne.
[564] Rightly given as “Fouberd” on p. 708; wrongly as “Roberti” on pp. 616, 719. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that Robert is an error, and one which throws some light on the MS.
[565] The order is not quite the same in the first of these three lists.
[566] Mediæval Military Architecture (1884), ii. 10.
[567] Cinque Ports (1888), p. 66.
[568] Compare ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville,’ pp. 326–7.
[569] Freeman’s ‘Norman Conquest,’ following William of Poitiers.
[570] Genealogist, N. S., xii. 147.
[571] Lib. Rub., p. ccxl.
[572] English Historical Review, Oct., 1890 (v. 626–7).
[573] Forty years ago an able northern antiquary, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, who was well acquainted with early records, and knew these entries in the ‘Red Book,’ devoted sections of his work (Hodgson’s ‘Northumberland,’ part i., pp. 258–261, 261–263) to “cornage” and to “castle-ward,” but was careful not to confuse them.
[574] From which they were printed by Hodgson Hinde in his preface to the Cumberland Pipe Rolls.
[575] The ‘Red Book’ (p. 714) reads: “Summa xviij l. iiij s. vj d., videlicet, xxij d. plus quam alii solebant respondere.” But I make the real total of its items, not £18 4s. 6d., but £18 6s. 6d. The two pardons, amounting to £2 17s. 4d., brought up the total to £21 3s. 10d., but, owing to the above wrong ‘summa,’ the scribe made it only £21 1s. 10d. He then further omitted the odd pound, and so obtained his “xxij d.”
[576] These charters were unknown to Mr. Hodgson Hinde (‘The Pipe Rolls ... for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham,’ 1857), p. xxvii. In addition to the section on “the Noutgeld or Cornage Rent” in this work (pp. xxvii.-xxix.), cornage is dealt with ut supra in Hodgson’s ‘Northumberland,’ part i. pp. 258 et seq., and in ‘The Boldon Buke’ (1852), pp. lv.-lvi. There is also printed in Brand’s ‘Newcastle’ a valuable detailed list of the cornage rents payable to the Prior of Tynemouth, which greatly exceeded his “pardoned” quota.
[577] Harl. MS. 434, fo. 18.
[578] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), passim.
[579] ‘Durham Feodarium’ (Surtees Soc.), p. 145.
[580] ‘Boldon Buke’ (Surtees Soc.), pp. 36–7.
[581] Feudal England, pp. 289–293.
[582] Even Mr. Oman, though most reluctant to adopt any conclusion of mine, appears, in his ‘History of the Art of War’ (1898), to admit that I am right in this. Sir James Ramsay also adopts my conclusion in his ‘Foundations of England’ (1898), ii. 132.
[583] Stubbs’ ‘Const. Hist.,’ ii. 422, 433.
[584] Maxwell Lyte’s ‘History of the University of Oxford’ (1886), pp. 93–96.
[585] Annals of Edward I. and Edward II. (Rolls Series), ii. 201.
[586] Ibid. p. 203. It will be observed that this description of the Scots—“quasi sepes densa”—is an admirable parallel to the metaphor—“quasi castellum”—which Henry of Huntingdon applies to the English “acies” at the Battle of Hastings, and which Mr. Freeman so deplorably misunderstood (‘Feudal England,’ p. 343–4). So, too, Adam de Murimuth speaks of the French fleet at the Battle of Sluys (1340) as “quasi castrorum acies (or aciem) ordinatum” (p. 106). Such metaphors, I have shown, were common.
[587] Vol. vii. p. 122.
[588] Vol. iii. p. xxi.
[589] History of England, p. 174.
[590] Mr. Oman reckons the men of the “Marcher Lords” at 1,850. I make them 2,040.
[591] Ed. Record Commission.
[592] Except a special body of 100 men from the Forest of Dean whence the necessary miners were always obtained.
[593] History of the Art of War, pp. 593–4.
[594] “Commissioners of Array for all counties citra Trent” (Wrottesley’s ‘Creçy and Calais,’ p. 8; cf. Ibid. pp. 58–61).
[595] Ibid. pp. 67–8.
[596] Rotuli Scotiæ, i. p. 127.
[597] Since this was written Mr. Morris has independently observed that 40,000 or even 10,000 horse are impossible (‘Eng. Hist. Rev.,’ xiv. 133).
[598] I omit, as he does, in this reckoning, any contingents from elsewhere.
[599] The italics are mine.
[600] The italics are mine.
[601] “The host was told off into ten battles, probably (like the French at Creçy) in three lines of three battles each, with the tenth as a reserve under the king” (p. 574). But in the earlier plans the English battles are shown in single line, and in the earliest, at least, with a widely extended front.
[602] The italics are mine.
[603] The italics are mine.
[604] Art of War in Middle Ages, 104; Social England,, ii. 174–176; History of England, pp. 187–8; History of the Art of War, pp. 604–615.
[605] Mélanges Julien Havet: La date de la composition du ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum in Anglia’ (1895).
[606] M. Bémont, by a slip, describes him (p. 471), as “exerçant la charge de grand connétable (sic) d’Angleterre au couronnement de Richard II.”
[607] See Mr. Watson’s Note in ‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. p. 197.
[608] Ibid. v. p. 260; also Doyle’s ‘Official Baronage.’
[609] M. Bémont writes that he “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” But this is a misconception.
[610] Hearne’s ‘Curious Discourses,’ ii. 90–97.
[611] Ibid. pp. 327–330.
[612] Rot. Chart., i. 46.
[613] M. Paris, ‘Chronica Majora.’
[614] Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1307–1313, p. 6.
[615] Ibid. p. 51.
[616] Const. Hist., ii. 328.
[617] He was one of those besieging him in Scarborough Castle, May, 1312.
[618] Ed. Hearne, p. 103.
[619] Dictionary of National Biography, li. 204.
[620] The matter has been further complicated by the index to the official calendar of Edward II. Close Rolls, which gives a “Walter de Ferrariis, marshal of England.” The document indexed proves (p. 189) to be a reference (6th July, 1315) to Walter (earl of Pembroke), “late marshal of England.”
[621] Trivet, it is true, even earlier (circ. 1300), wrote of Strongbow as ‘Marshal of England’:—“Ricardus Comes de Strogoil, marescallus Angliæ, terris suis omnibus propter quondam offensam in manu regis acceptis, exsul in Hibernia moratur. Hunc Ricardum Anglici ob præcipuum fortitudinem ‘Strangebowe’ cognominabant” (p. 66). But although the writer may sometimes preserve a forgotten story, he cannot be accepted as an authority for earl Richard’s tenure of an office, of which there is absolutely no trace in any contemporary chronicle or record.
[622] Dictionary of National Biography.
[623] Complete Peerage, vi. 197, 198.
[624] Now MS. Ar. xix. (Brit. Mus.).
[625] The italics and commas are mine, and show how the alleged son of earl Richard was fabricated.
[626] Mr. Watson (‘Complete Peerage,’ vi. 197) states that Giraldus Cambrensis speaks of “Richard Strongbow, earl of Strigul,” but this is a misapprehension.
[627] Dictionary of Nat. Biography, p. 393.
[628] It was inspected by Edw. I. at Carlisle, 20th March, 1307. Its mention (‘Mon. Ang.’ v. 268) of “Gilberti et Ricardi Strongbowe” clearly proves that it applied the name to both.
[629] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 132–4; ‘Calendar of Close Rolls,’ p. 558. The reply is of interest as showing that they identified the marshalship of England with that in the “Constitutio.”
[630] Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ ii. 135–7. This petition, in Norman-French, is of interest for certain additions and for the loose use of “countes mareschauls” as the title of his predecessors from the first.
[631] Ibid. pp. 143–5.
[632] Altered in MS.
[633] 133 in the pencil numbering.
[634] In special classes on Palæography and Diplomatic at the London School of Economics.
[635] See ‘Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer,’ p. 34, where the reference is to Mr. Hall’s citing the “præmissa scutagia” of his MS. as “promissa scutagia” (pp. clxxii., clxxvii., etc.), and arguing therefrom. See also Ibid. p. 29.
[636] “There is a treatise carryed about the office of the earle marshall in the tyme of King Henry the Second, and another of the tyme of Thomas of Brotherton” (Hearne’s ‘Discourses,’ II. 95).