English Lawsuits From William I to Richard I. Volume I: William I to Stephen (Nos 1-346)

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE

,sefbon ,sociefE

irEpt 7avT65 T'V

AEEvOepLav

VOLUME CVI FOR THE YEAR 1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society i 1990

SSef

en %ocieQ

FOUNDED 1887 To encourage the Study and advance the Knowledge of the History of English Law

1990 Patron HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH, K.G. President SIR IRVINE GOULDING

Vice-Presidents THE

THE HON. MORRIS S. ARNOLD MRS. MARJORIE CHIBNALL, F.B.A. RT. HON. CHIEF JUSTICE R.G.B. DICKSON

THE RT. HON. LORD TEMPLEMAN, M.B.E.

Council Professor Thomas G. Barnes Professor S. F. C. Milsom, Q.C., F.B.A. Dr. M. T. Clanchy His Honour Judge E. F. Monier-Williams Professor W. R. Cornish, F.B.A. Mr. C. G. Prestige Professor Charles Donahue Jr. Mr. M. J. Prichard Professor Sir Geoffrey Elton, F.B.A. Professor G. 0. Sayles, F.B.A. The Right Hon. Lord Fletcher Professor A. W. B. Simpson, F.B.A. Mr. P. N. Gerrard Sir Robert Somerville, K.C.V.O. Professor R. H. Graveson, C.B.E., Q.C. Sir Richard Southern, F.B.A. Professor Richard H. Helmholz Mr. G. D. Squibb, Q.C. Mr. E. R. Heward, C.B. Mr. S. A. Stamler, Q.C. Professor Sir James Holt, F.B.A. Professor P. G. Stein, F.B.A. Professor A. M. Honor6, Q.C., F.B.A. Mr. P. W. E. Taylor, Q.C. Dr R. F. Hunnisett Professor Samuel E. Thorne, F.B.A. Sir Jack Jacob, Q.C. The Hon. Mr. Justice Vinelott Professor H. R. Loyn, F.B.A. Colonel Frederick Bernays Wiener The Right Hon. Sir Robert Megarry, F.B.A. Literary Directors

Mr. D. E. C. Mr.

YALE,

BRIAN J. PRICHARD

F.B.A.

PROFESSOR

J. H.

BAKER,

F.B.A.

Honorary Treasurer (8 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, WC2A 3QJ) Secretary Mr. VICTOR TUNKEL

(Faculty of Laws, Queen Mary College, Mile End Road, London, El 4NS) Trustees Mr. E. R.

HEWARD,

C.B.

THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT MEGARRY, F.B.A. Mr. BRIAN J. PRICHARD

Honorary Secretaries and Treasurers Overseas Australia: Mr. G. LINDELL

(Faculty of Law, Australian National University, Canberra 2600) Canada: PROFESSOR DELLOYD J. GUTH (Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 1822 East Mall, Vancouver V6T IYI) New Zealand: Dr. D. W. MCMORLAND (Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland 1) United States: PROFESSOR CHARLES DONAHUE Jr. (Treasurer), Ms. DIANA MOSES (Secretary) (Harvard Law School, Langdell Hall, Cambridge, Mass 02138)

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society ii 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I VOLUME I WILLIAM I TO STEPHEN (Nos 1-346)

EDITED FOR THE SELDEN SOCIETY BY

R.C. VAN CAENEGEM Professorof Medieval and Legal History in the University of Ghent

LONDON SELDEN SOCIETY 1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society iii 1990

C Selden Society 1990

The Selden Society gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided for this volume by the Francqui Foundation, Brussels; the Frederic William Maitland Memorial Fund, Cambridge University; and the British Academy.

Printedin Great Britain at the Alden Press, Oxford

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society iv 1990

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I

PREFACE

vii

INTRODUCTION.

xi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxix

List of narrative sources List of collections of charters List of works LAWSUITS

(Nos 1-346)

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society v 1990

xxix xxxii xlv

To the memory of T.F.T. Plucknett

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society vi 1990

PREFACE It was in London, in the autumn of 1952, that I started the research for my thesis on Royal Writs in Englandfrom the Conquest to Glanvill under the supervision of Professor T.F.T. Plucknett, who taught English legal history at the London School of Economics and whose publications - together with those of Maitland had aroused my interest in twelfth-century English law in the first place. As I was working my way through the relevant charters and chronicles Plucknett advised me to note all references to the working of the law courts - even when they had no direct bearing on the writs - with the intention of editing a complete collection of the English lawsuits of the period. He thought that the time had come for a successor to Bigelow's PlacitaAnglo-Normannica of 1879 and expressed the hope that I would one day undertake this edition, entrusting to a continental European the completion of a task first undertaken by an American. However, since almost all the medieval texts and their modem editions, and even a considerable proportion of the translations, were produced by English writers and scholars, the bulk of the contents of these two volumes may truly be called the fruit of English labour, the American and the continental European contribution being limited in the main to their collection and presentation. I took up Plucknett's suggestion and in the following months and years I made notes of all judicial matters in the narrative and the -much bulkier -nonnarrative sources, whether printed or in manuscript, which I perused for my Royal Writs. Much of this work was done in the British Museum, now the British Library, the Public Record Office and the Institute of Historical Research, but there was also interesting unedited material to be scanned in libraries in Cambridge and Oxford, and in ecclesiastical archives throughout England. I have fond memories of going through the muniments of several cathedrals and I remember with particular warmth working in Westminster Abbey, where the tedium of wading through endless grants of land was relieved by the melodies of evensong. During these early years Professor Plucknett's encouragement and experience were of invaluable help to me, and it seems fitting that the collection should be dedicated to his memory. While the main material was thus collected in England between 1952 and 1954, some additional research was occasionally necessary afterwards. In the meantime the work of photocopying and transcribing the lawsuits went ahead. Memoranda which I submitted in the late 1950s to the Selden Society, whose series of Publications was the natural place for this collection and whose literary director was Professor Plucknett, confidently promised a ready manuscript for the near future. Unfortunately, this proved to be too optimistic. More time-consuming work on dating the lawsuits and identifying persons and places appeared to be

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society vii 1990

Vlli

PREFACE

involved than was at first expected. Also, various teaching and examining obligations, as well as administrative tasks in the University of Ghent, where I became an ordinary professor in 1964, meant that I had to give up work on the English Lawsuits for prolonged periods: there were moments when these Selden Society volumes seemed- like a fata morgana in the desert - to recede in the distance instead of getting closer. Fortunately the situation improved when, no longer burdened by the duties of a Faculty dean or a member of the Governing Body of the University, I happily returned to my Selden Society volumes, eventually completing the manuscript and handing it over in the autumn of 1987, exactly thirty-five years after the work had started. The occasion brought back to me a line in the Proem of Justinian's Institutes: 'We, like sailors crossing the midocean, by the favour of Heaven have now completed a work of which we once despaired' (Moyle's translation). In the course of these thirty-five years I have incurred debts of gratitude to numerous people. The scholarly and secretarial staff of the Medieval Seminar in the University of Ghent have been engaged on the enterprise for many years. I mention in particular Professor Ludo Milis, who helped with the transcription of unedited material, and above all Dr Monique Vleeschouwers-van Melkebeek, who in the course of many years assisted me with great patience in the preparation of these volumes and undertook, under my supervision, the heavy burden of compiling the Index of Persons and Places and gave me considerable help in the compilation of the detailed Index of Subjects: to them I express my thanks and feelings of deep gratitude. Several officers of the Selden Society have, of course, also assisted my endeavours in various ways. I am much indebted to the literary directors, T.F.T. Plucknett, S.F.C. Milsom, D.E.C. Yale and J.H. Baker, to the former Librarian of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, K. Howard Drake, and to the Secretary of the Selden Society, V. Tunkel, who spared no effort in obtaining photostats of documents and authorizations for reproductions of published texts and translations. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife for her continuous support throughout this long and sometimes arduous adventure. My research in England and on the Continent in the 1950s was made possible by grants from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research and the British Council, for which I gladly express my gratitude. At the invitation of Merton College, whose Warden and Fellows elected me as Sir Henry Savile Fellow, I spent some time in Oxford in 1989, making final touches to my material and conveniently discussing typographical questions on the spot with the printer: for this opportunity I am most grateful. Various organizations and funds have contributed toward the extra cost of these two voluminous tomes, namely the British Academy, the Stenton Fund of the British Academy, and the Frederic William Maitland Memorial Fund of Cambridge University, in Britain, and the Francqui Foundation in Belgium: to their managers I extend my sincere thanks.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society viii 1990

PREFACE

Numerous archivists and librarians have helped me with enquiries and even, in the few cases when access to the manuscripts was denied me, with transcripts; other scholars have helped me by making suggestions and discussing my problems. I gratefully mention their names, while apologizing to those whom I might inadvertently overlook: Peter H. Agrell, Ernest Bailey, G.W. Bailey, Geoffrey Barrow, H. Bauwens-van Deyck, E.O. Blake, Maurice Bond, J.P. Brooke-Little, Christopher and Mary Cheney, R.C. Davis, C.R. Dodwell, Marie Fauroux, G.D.G. Hall, Margaret Hendleson, H.C. Johnson, J. Le Cacheux, P.C. Moore, Taylor Milne, Dorothy Owen, L.A. Parker, R.B. Pugh, Eleanor Rathbone, Francis W. Steer, Lady Stenton, J. Sternberg, Lawrence E. Tanner, J. Thomas, R. Trappes-Lomax, W. Urry, Sir Anthony Wagner, R.N. Whiston, Dorothy M. Williamson, S.W. Woodward, P. Wormald, T.S. Wragg and J. Yver. With my enquiries about recalcitrant place-names I repeatedly turned to the English Place-Name Society, and in particular to Kenneth Cameron, its Honorary Director, to whom I extend my thanks. Numerous publishers and learned societies have graciously allowed the reproduction of extracts from texts or translations which made this edition possible and for which I am most grateful. R.C. VAN CAENEGEM Ghent, October 1989

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society ix 1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society x 1990

INTRODUCTION I.

SCOPE OF THE COLLECTION

English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I is a collection of narrative and non-narrative texts from the period 1066-1199 which contain information on English law as it was practised in the courts. It is not a legal history or an analysis of law cases, but an edition of the relevant documents, in the original languages, with synoptic translations in modem English. The texts presented here were mainly culled from charter evidence, conserved in the original or copied in cartularies or inspeximus, and from chronicles, letter collections and hagiographic writings. Some charters were written specifically to record the outcome of a lawsuit, others contain judicial data in an incidental way; similarly some narrative reports were expressly written to record some remarkable lawsuit, even quoting pleadings verbatim, while others touch only incidentally on legal matters and focus their attention on quite different subjects, such as miracles ascribed to some famous saint. In all of them the student will find something of interest, but it is clear that the reliability of the legal information and the precision of the juristic terminology will vary considerably according to the intention and capability of the authors. Some series of documents which have been edited elsewhere have not been included here, such as the Pipe Rolls, since those of the twelfth century are all published - the earlier ones with rather summary indices rerum (more like Latin glossaries), the later ones (from 2 Henry III onwards) with copious subject indexes. We similarly have not included the rolls which can be found in Palgrave's Rotuli CuriaeRegis,' Maitland's Three Rolls of the King's Court,2 the Pipe Roll Society's Feet of Fines for 10 Richard 13 and the CuriaRegis Rolls published by the Public Record Office.' Domesday Book, while not being the record of a law court, contains numerous entries of a judicial character. Some are too vague or brief to be of much use to the legal historian and have been omitted here, but others, offering, for example, information on dispute settlement, throw so much light on the law in action that they are naturally included. Since the distinction between relevant and irrelevant is not always easy to make, we must confess that our selection, which by and large I F. Palgrave (ed.), Rotuli CuriaeRegis, I, London, 1835, containing hundreds of cases from 1194 to 1199. 2 F.W. Maitland (ed.), Three Rolls of the King's Court in the Reign of King RichardI, London, 1891 (Pipe Roll Soc., 14). 3 Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King RichardI, London, 1900 (Pipe Roll Soc., 24), containing, inter alia, a roll of the King's Court. 1 14 4 CuriaRegis Rolls, I, London, 1923, contains pp. ofjudgments from Richard I's reign, and vol. VII, 1935, contains, pp. 327-347, some rolls with judgments from the years 1196-1198.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xi 1990

xii

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

follows Bigelow, is not based on strict and precise criteria, so that the reader who peruses the complete 'Description of the Kingdom of England' may well discover interesting data that are omitted here. Fines, or final concords, which began to flow regularly in the day of Henry II, are included only when they contain some specific information on the procedure followed as, for example, that the fine followed upon the summons of an assize of novel disseisin. Treatises such as the 'Laws of Henry I', the 'Dialogue of the Exchequer' and 'Glanvill' have not been included, for the obvious reason that they are not directly connected with particular lawsuits and that they can easily be consulted in modern editions.5 For similar reasons the - not very substantive - legislative texts of the period, namely royal ordinances, assizes, borough charters and records of ancient customs, were excluded: the Lawsuits describe the practice of the courts, that is, what happened rather than what ought to have happened. Since the collection concerns English law, the activity of the ecclesiastical courts, where the canon law of the Latin Church was applied, is not considered here. Exceptionally an ecclesiastical case has been incorporated because an important secular element, such as a royal writ, played an instrumental role. As English law is our object, the duchy of Normandy also falls outside our scope. This was not an easy or obvious option, since England and Normandy shared the same rulers and the same feudal law and lived in a sort of osmosis. Nevertheless, the English monarchy was founded on such a distinct basis and contained such peculiar institutional and social elements that it seemed justified to devote this collection to the particular English development. A parallel edition of Norman pleas, for the period 1066-1204, would however, be most welcome for the comparative study of the two main components of the Anglo-Norman or Angevin 'Empire'. The chronological limits of the present collection are the beginning of the Conqueror's rule in England and the end of the reign of Richard I. The Conquest was such a momentous event and its impact on English law and institutions so profound that its selection as the terminus a quo was obvious. The end of the reign of Richard I, however, was selected not because of any structural renovation in English law and judicial organization, but because of a great change in the available source material. Indeed, from the end of the twelfth century the legal historian disposes of continuous series of official records of court activity beginning, of course, with those of the king and his justices, at Westminster or in eyre. From then onwards the main outline of the evolution of English law can be studied year in year out in official series, where the activities of the courts were registered, and the earliest of which are available in modern editions. For the ' L.J. Downer (ed.), Leges Henrici Primi,Oxford, 1972; C. Johnson (ed.), Dialogus de scaccario, London, 1950 (Nelson's medieval classics); G.D.G. Hall (ed.), Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie qui Glanvilla vocatur, London, 1965 (Nelson's medieval texts).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xii 1990

INTRODUCTION

previous period no such registers have survived, although some are known to have existed under Henry II, so that our only hope of piecing together the history of the law in those days consists in collecting, from the very disparate sources that are available, all the membra disjecta that throw some light on courts, judges and juries, at all levels, royal, feudal, manorial and communal. To bring them all together here in one collection has been our aim. The vast majority of our texts have been printed before, even if they are not always easily accessible. Even though we include some unedited material from manuscript cartularies, our aim was not to unearth unknown documents or facts, but to put at the disposal of legal historians a comprehensive and hopefully complete collection of cases, provided with an index of persons and places and particularly an index of subjects (containing some 1,500 lemmata), making it unnecessary for them to peruse all the cartularies and all the chronicles whenever they are interested in some aspect of the courts, their procedure or the law they applied. The charter evidence is exclusively English: research in Parisian and Norman archives and libraries for possible English material in cartularies of Norman houses with English possessions has produced no results. II.

IMPORTANCE FOR ENGLISH HISTORY

The period under review was an age of transition between two clearly marked eras, that of 'Anglo-Saxon England' and that of the established common law. The Old-English kingdom had a clear individuality of its own and we can study its law in impressive collections of documents: charters, wills, writs, treatises, reports of lawsuits6 and above all the voluminous and unique series of dooms, stretching over some five centuries.' The thirteenth century, so admirably analysed by Maitland and Milsom,8 witnessed the undisputed ascendancy of the common law, the cornerstone of English law for many centuries, and described in a highly technical language in one of the great lawbooks of the Middle Ages, Bracton's 'Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England'. The intervening period, extending roughly 6 They have recently been surveyed in P. Wormald, 'A handlist of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits', AngloSaxon England, 17 (1988), 247-281. D. Whitelock, English HistoricalDocuments c. 500-1042, London, 1955 (English Hist. Docs. ed. by D.C. Douglas, I) contains very few lawsuits, in Part II: Chartersand Laws. Most of the 82 charters are grants and wills, but there are four law cases; two 'establishments of free status' occur among the I1 'manumissions'. Vol. II in the series, English Historical Documents 1042-1189, ed. by D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway, London, 1953, contains a small section of Reports of trials, with seven cases from 1076 to 1189 (nos. 50-56, pp. 449-458), but there is, of course, some judicial material in the pages relating to the Becket dispute in the ch. The Church in England11541189. 7 They are available in the classic edition by F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols., Halle, 1903-1916. 8 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward1, 2 vols., Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1898 (reissued with a new introduction and a select bibliography by S.F.C. Milsom, Cambridge, 1968); S.F.C. Milsom, HistoricalFoundationsof the Common Law, London, 2nd ed. 1981; S.F.C. Milsom, The legal framework of English feudalism, Cambridge, 1976 (Maitland Lectures 1972).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xiii 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

from the Conquest to Glanvill's treatise, the first, modest exposition of the new law, was a sort of no man's land between two great eras, where everything seemed possible. The Norman occupation and the consequent feudal-military regime changed the face of England and put an end to the epoch of the Anglo-Saxon dooms. It had, however, in no way destroyed everything the Old-English monarchy had built, but the old elements were fused with the new feudal customs and notions into an uneasy blend, a development that was comparable to the mixing of the two peoples living in the kingdom of England. After the 'loss of Normandy' the two races became one English nation, and a new law, common to all freemen, was developed by the royal judges, whose jurisdiction stretched over all of England and produced a new legal synthesis common to the whole kingdom. The period under review was therefore not only a time of transition, but also - in the reign of Henry II - the time of the birth of the English common law, destined to become one of the great legal sytems of the world.9 It is not our intention further to belabour the obvious importance of the period from William I to Richard I, but we would like to draw attention to the exceptionally rich documentation that is now at the disposal of scholars: the modern editions of the treatises, the exchequer accounts, the royal legislation and the borough charters, completed by this collection of the lawsuits, should provide the student of the period with a unique set of texts.10 The present edition is no pioneering effort. That honour belongs to Bigelow's Placita Anglo-Normannica, which appeared just over a century ago. Bigelow understood that the practice of the courts is as important for the historian as laws and treatises, which led him to the idea of publishing a collection of lawsuits from the Conquest to the end of the twelfth century. We may assume that his training in the common law, with its respect for legal precedent and case law, gave him a special interest in that aspect of legal history. The American lawyer Melville Madison Bigelow was born on 2 August 1846 as the son of a Methodist clergyman at Eaton Rapids, Michigan. After studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, he went on to Pontiac, Michigan, and Memphis, Tennessee. In 1868 he was admitted to the Tennessee bar, but, inter alia because of his interest in legal history, in 1870 he removed to Boston, where he was admitted to the bar. When, in 1872, the Boston University Law School was opened, he was appointed a member of the Faculty, where he worked as a lecturer, professor and dean for fifty years. In 1879 he received the degree of Ph.D. from Harvard University, in 1896 the degree of LL.D. from the Northwestern University and in 1912 the degree of LL.D. from the University of Michigan, his own Alma Mater. Besides practical works, such as collections of cases and textR.C. van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1988. 10Many of these editions are accompanied by modem translations, such as Glanvill, the Dialogue of the Exchequer or the Leges Henrici Primi, whereas the series English HistoricalDocuments for our

period consists entirely of translations.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xiv 1990

INTRODUCTION

books, which should not detain us here, he pursued his interest in legal history. This led to two major publications, a history and a collection of texts. The former was his History of Procedurein Englandfrom the Norman Conquest: the Norman Period 1066-1204 (London, 1880) and the latter the PlacitaAnglo-Normannica: law casesfrom William I to RichardI preserved in historicalrecords (London, 1879; republished in Boston, 1881; reprinted in Hildesheim, 1974). Bigelow, who made several visits to England where he met F.W. Maitland, F. Pollock and H.A.L. Fisher, died in Boston, the last survivor of the original Faculty of the Boston Law School, on 4 May 1921. Bigelow's was a truly pioneering effort, preceding comparable undertakings by such scholars as Thrvenin and Hiibner (about whom more later), and it is understandable that, because of the advance of medieval studies, the need was felt for a 'new Bigelow'. Indeed, the PlacitaAnglo-Normannica is only a small book and merely contains texts that were extant in print at the time, sometimes in very old and unsatisfactory editions. The editor, who does not appear to have received any medievalist training, did not use manuscript material, either to produce new editions or to correct old, faulty ones. The Placitacontains no English translations and there is no index of persons and places. There is a glossary of five pages, which is rather rudimentary (with entries such as 'Presbyter: a priest') and a very brief index of subjects, extending over three pages. The collection is furthermore weak on dates and the identification of places and persons. This is a real defect, as most documents of the period under review are undated and we can only locate them in time by using indications such as names of dramatispersonaeand witnesses and of the places where charters were issued. The title of Bigelow's collection is also somewhat misleading, for it has nothing to do with pleas in Normandy and is not confined to the 'Anglo-Norman' kings of England (from William I to Stephen), but includes the reigns of the first two Plantagenet rulers, Henry II and Richard I. Occasionally Bigelow omits passages which do not strictly deal with juristic matters, but nevertheless throw precious light on the contemporary way of thinking: see, for example, the story of the fifty men accused of forest offences under William II (Placita,p. 72; our no. 150). He also tends to include charter material without specific judicial information, for which he was criticized by H. Brunner, who refers to the Placita as an Urkundenbuch."2 If these observations explain why a new edition of English lawsuits was desirable, they in no way detract from Bigelow's considerable merit in planning his book and spending so much of his time and labour on it. There is indeed no substitute for a collection of lawsuits for the legal historian who is not content with consulting laws and treatises, but IISee the notice by H.W. Howard Knott in Dictionary of American Biography,ed. by A. Johnson, II, New York, 1929, pp. 260-261. See also E.A. Harriman, 'Melville M. Bigelow', Boston Unitersity Law Review, 1 (1921), 157 167, with portraits. 12See Brunner's review of Bigelow's Placita and of his History of Procedurein the Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu-r Rechtsgeschichte, G.A., 11 (1881), 202-214.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xv 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

wants to find out what happened in the courts and to capture the ipsissima verba pronounced by the parties, their advocates, friends and counsellors, and by the witnesses, juries and judges, as conserved in contemporary records. Occasionally the sources provide even more, for some authors were not content with reporting what was done and said, but added their critical reflexions and expressed their reactions, thus giving us a precious insight into the thoughts of the questioning observers. III.

THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Whereas the relevance of the English lawsuits for English legal history is obvious, it may not be superfluous to draw attention to their relevance for eleventh- and twelfth-century Europe at large: never before or after has England's legal development shed so much light on that of the Continent. From the thirteenth century onwards it was clear that English and continental law were going their own, very distinct ways, but in the period under review things were different. English culture has never been closer to the Continent than in the twelfth century, when Nicholas Breakspear became pope and John of Salisbury bishop of Chartres; it is significant that a large proportion of the twelfth-century collections of papal decretals, on which the great law book of Gregory IX was based, was of English provenance. 3 There also was a strong political nexus, as for most of the period the kingdom and the duchy shared a common ruler, were socially dominated by a single Anglo-Norman knightly class, and developed administrative and judicial structures of remarkable similarity. The shared system of feudal land-holding was the main element of the law: Norman practice sheds light on the English and vice versa. However, this Anglo-Norman feudal law was by no means confined to England and Normandy. It was part of a common West-European heritage from Carolingian times, and that is why the study of the English feudal law of the period is part and parcel of European legal history. The burning question of the age, for example, whether feudal tenures were for life or inheritable, was a general European concern. So was the much debated problem of the modes of proof administered in the courts. The twelfth century was, both in England and on the Continent, critical for the old ordeals - fire, water and combat - which were attacked by rulers, towns and scholars in a concerted action that led to the prohibition by the Fourth Lateran Council for the clergy to participate in their administration. They were replaced in England and on the Continent by the purgatory oath - less dangerous and painful, less hazardous and less socially demeaning than the ordeals - and by various forms of the inquest, including the impanelling of juries (v~ritW du pays on the Continent) and the interrogation of witnesses. A twelfth-century continental traveller would easily 13C. Duggan, Twelfth century decretalcollections and their importance in English history, London,

1963, pp. 1-12 (University of London Historical Studies, 12).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xvi 1990

INTRODUCTION

xvil

have recognized and grasped the workings of English feudalism and the English administration of proof. He would also have readily understood the progress of the royal jurisdiction and the growing impact of the crown on the traditional local courts, for on the Continent also central government was making inroads on the old communal and seignorial assemblies. He would, however, have been surprised, in Henry II's time, by the rapid rise of the central courts and the radicalism of royal control over the other courts; but his amazement would have been caused by the degree, not the fact of this centralization. Both on the Continent and in England the old oral, public and quick procedure was still predominant, as even the Church courts did not really adopt the learned Roman-canonical procedure before about 1200. Nevertheless people everywhere were moving away from the shapeless amicable settlement at the village level to the strict, judicial dispute-settlement, backed by strong central agencies of enforcement. It should be clear from these cursory observations that a collection of English lawsuits from the period under review is bound to shed light on the European as well as the English situation, even though the latter was not without its national peculiarities. It is all the more important to understand this since the Quellenlage, the situation of the source material, is exceptionally favourable in England: the student of eleventh- and twelfth-century European law should, of course, not neglect any country, but least of all England, because of the comparative wealth of her sources. Nowhere else in Europe do we find a record like Domesday Book, with its incredible detail and precision, nor are the fragments of twelfth-century princely accounts, conserved in a few continental countries, in any way comparable to the Pipe Rolls, where one finds - in a continuous and imposing series from the early years of Henry II onwards - a wealth of information on judicial and feudal matters. For no other country do we have law books and treatises like the Leges Henrici Primi (1116-1118), the Dialogus de Scaccario (1176-1179) or the Tractatusde Legibus et Consuetudinibus(1187-1189): the oldest French coutumier, that of Normandy, dates from the early thirteenth century (1199-1204 and 1218-1223). When we consider, moreover, that the quantity of English charter material is certainly comparable to that on the Continent and that both the quantity and the quality of the English chronicles and (monastic) histories are outstanding, it is clear that the historian interested in the European law of the twelfth century - other than that of Bologna - would only neglect the English 4 picture at his grave peril.' The specific question should now be asked how England compares with the rest of Europe as far as the conservation of lawsuits is concerned. That it has been possible to trace 665 of them for a period when writing was still an esoteric art and which left no court rolls (except a few at the very end), may be considered 14It is appropriate here to quote a recent complaint that 'English law is still treated by many legal historians as though it were outside of European history' (H.J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formationof the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, Mass., 1984, pp. 17-18).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xvii 1990

XVIll

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

satisfactory in itself. How this compares with the Continent is, in the absence of a continental 'Bigelow', difficult to tell. All we can do is quote a few figures for periods that do, unfortunately, not completely tally with our own. Manaresi's Placid,which we shall presently discuss, concerns the North Italian kingdom and contains, for the period 776-1100, a total of 484 lawsuits (and some related material). In 1891 and 1893 Huibner listed, for Germany and France from the seventh century till 1000, 614 cases, and for Italy from 624 till 1150, 1,063 cases; a total of 1,677.1' A recent study of the use of the Visigothic law code, the Forum Judicum or Lex Visigothorum, in the practical workings of the kingdom of Le6n and in Catalonia speaks of 'about fifty relevant documents available from the kingdom of Le6n, including Galicia and Castille, and roughly the same number from Catalonia' for the period from the ninth to the eleventh century and refers to records of court proceedings dealing with disputed titles to property available in printed texts (a figure that in the case of Catalonia 'could be substantially increased by a thorough search through the many unpublished documents of the archives').' 6 Neither for twelfth-century France, Germany or Spain do we have lists, let alone editions in extenso of extant lawsuits, and it may be appropriate here to discuss in some detail the continental attempts and realizations (more of the former than of the latter) in this field. We will naturally turn our attention first to the leading enterprise for the edition of medieval sources, the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Its series of laws, charters and narrative sources had been running for several decades when, in 1887, the famous legal historian Heinrich Brunner (known, inter alia, for his interest in Norman and English law) managed to have the edition of a series of lawsuits placed on its programme. It was to be called CorpusPlacitorumand was in active preparation till 1914. R. Hiibner, as we just mentioned, published his Gerichtsurkunden der frdnkischen Zeit in 1891 and 1893; although these regesta contained only lists of pleas and not the full texts, and were based on printed material, they were useful preparatory publications. From 1898 onwards M. Tangl was also engaged on the project and intended to edit the oldest Frankish placita. The work made such good progress that from 1903 onwards the M.G.H. regularly announced the publication as forthcoming. In fact, the project never materialized. It was hit by the First World War, and in 1921 P.F. Kehr explained that the outlook was uncertain. The last M.G.H. report on the enterprise appeared in 1924, 15R. Hilbner, "Gerichtsurkunden der frankischen Zeit. Erste Abt.: Die Gerichtsurkunden aus Deutschland und Frankreich his zum Jahre 1000", Savigny Zeitschriftfur Rechtsgeschichte, XII, G.A. (1891) 1-118; 'Zweite Abt.: Die Gerichtsurkunden aus Italien bis zum Jahre 1150', ibid., XIV (1893), 1-258. Shortly before, M. Th6venin had edited a considerable number of pleas from the Merovingian and Carolingian era in his Textes relatifs aux institutionsprivieset publiquesaux poques mr&ovingienne et carolingienne,Paris, 1887 (Collection de textes pour servir d l'6tude et d l'enseignement de 'histoire, 3). See on the Merovingian material: W. Bergmann, 'Untersuchungen zu den Gerichtsurkunden der Merowingerzeit', Archiv fur Diplomatik, 22 (1976), 1 186. 16 R. Collins, 'Sicut lex Gothorum continet: law and charters in ninth- and tenth-century Le6n and Catalonia', E.H.R., 100 (1985). 490.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xviii 1990

INTRODUCTION

after which date it was tacitly given up.17 In the meantime J. Ficker had been engaged on an edition ofltalianplacitaand in vol. TV (1874) of his Untersuchungen zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens a considerable number of previously unedited pleas were published. The crowning achievement in this field was, however, left to the Italians themselves. In 1924 G. Mengozzi had published a monograph on the School of Pavia, which was for two-thirds based on the study of lawsuits"8 and it was in that context that C. Manaresi came to plan his edition of the lawsuits of the Regnum Italiae, the successor state of the kingdom of the Lombards, for the period 776-1100, entitled I Placitidel 'Regnum Italiae',in the well known series of Fontiper la Storia d'ltalia,published by the Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. The proposal was made in 1938 and work started in 1950. The first volume was published in 1955 and the enterprise was completed in three volumes, the last being published in 1960, one year after Manaresi's death.' 9 In the meantime L. Schiaparelli had published the lawsuits of the Lombard era (620-774), in his Codice Diplomatico Longobardo (two volumes, Rome, 19291933).2" Thus the Italian Institute could boast of the only complete Corpus Placitorum on the Continent.2' It should, however, be clearly understood that Manaresi's collection, in contrast with Bigelow's and our own, is limited to placita in the sense of charters containing court pronouncements, and omits data from narrative sources. That the English material is comparatively abundant can be explained by various circumstances. Already in the Anglo-Saxon period England had attained a high degree of literacy, certainly when compared with the Norman warrior state across the Channel. Royal government was advanced, and orderly administration tends to bring forth written records. England not only produced more of these at an earlier date than its neighbours, but it escaped much of the destruction that annihilated so many archives on the Continent in general and in the Low Countries in particular. Last but not least, modern England, both on the level of government and of individual workers, has made an admirable effort to preserve, study and analyse its historical treasures and to put them at the disposal of scholars.22 17See on all this the detailed survey of H. Keller, 'I placiti nella storiografia degli ultimi cento anni', Fonti medioevali e problematica storiografica, I, Rome, 1976, 43-45 (Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo). 18Ricerche sull' attivit&della scuola di Pavia nell' alto medio evo, Pavia, 1924. 19An additional volume, containing 43 cases from 801 to 1084, was published by R. Volpini, 'Placiti del Regnum Italiae (saec. IX-XI). Primi contributi per un nuovo censimento', Contributidell' Istituto di Storia Medioevale, ed. by P. Zerbi, III, Milan, 1975, 245-520. 20 In the same series of Fonti. See also L. Bertini, Indici del Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, Bad, 1970 (Istituto di Filologia Romanza di Pisa). 21 Keller, loc. cit. 22 For detailed and up to date information on the sources we have used, the reader may turn to the admirable new edition of C. Gross's Sources and Literature: E.B. Graves (ed.), A Bibliography of English History to 1485, Oxford, 1975.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xix 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

IV.

EUROPEAN INTEREST IN CASE LAW

It would seem that English Lawsuitsfrom William Ito RichardI is published at the right time, for there clearly exists a growing European awareness of the importance of the role of the courts and their everyday practice in the development and even the creation of the law. In England, whose legal system is historically based on case law, it has always been like that and it is therefore not surprising that the study and edition of cases in the Year Books, Curia Regis Rolls and Assize Rolls - have occupied many generations of scholars and continue to do so. On the Continent the situation was different: civil law is professor-made rather than judge-made, and attention tended to be focused on the Corpus Juris and the learned treatises of the jurists rather than the activity of the courts. There are, however, clear signs that the situation is changing and that on the Continent also the role of the judiciary is being appreciated at its true value. This is so among practising lawyers, who admit the growing importance of the courts, even as that of the lawgiver is in decline. 23 It is the case also among legal historians, many of whom are engaged on plans to make the registers of Europe's ancient leading courts accessible for research. By so doing they put a mass of data on everyday life at the disposal of the general historian, but their main aim is to assess more accurately the creative role of the judiciary in the development and even the control of the law. They also try to answer questions about the social and intellectual background of the judges, their independence vis b vis the government and their system of values. The interest in the machinery of justice in the past and in the present, without being entirely new, has certainly been growing recently, and historical Justizforschung is becoming more popular on the Continent than it ever was. This is not the place for a full bibliographical survey, but a few examples of the renewed vigour of this approach may be quoted here.24 Medieval canon law was the fruit of doctrine and legislation rather than the decisions of the courts. Yet even here the interest in the role of the judiciary is growing. The edition of collections of cases in local church courts is attracting 23 D. Simon, 'Norrndurchsetzung. Anmerkungen zu einem Forschungsprojekt des Max-PlanckInstituts ffir europiische Rechtsgeschichte', lus Commune, 15 (1988), 201-208, describes the growing awareness of the influence of forensic practice (Normdurchsetzung) as compared with legislation. He speaks of a bench that is now conscious of its importance and he describes a transition from the traditional intellectual construction of legal concepts to the practical approach of case law. He also sees the contribution of the judiciary as an aspect of the problem of the distribution of power in society. 24 The reader will find useful recent information on various European initiatives for the study of the historic courts of law in J.M.I. Koster-van Dijk and A. Wijffels (eds.), Miscellanea ForensiaHistorica. Ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van Prof. Mr. J.Th. de Smidt, Amsterdam, 1988 (Verzamelen en Bewerken van de Jurisprudentie van de Grote Raad, N.R., no. 14). On judicial records and case law the reader may also consult the wide ranging collection of studies in J.H. Baker (ed.), JudicialRecords, Law Reports, and the Growth of Case Law, Berlin, 1989 (Comparative Studies in Continental and AngloAmerican Legal History, vol. 5), containing, inter alia, a wide survey of the English material by the editor himself, entitled 'Records, Reports and the Origins of Case-Law in England', pp. 15-46.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xx 1990

INTRODUCTION

scholars25 and the role of the Rota Romana has also drawn a good deal of attention. 26 It is obvious that certain historical questions can best be answered by 27 consulting the records of the courts. The Parlement of Paris, one of the greatest European courts of law of the later Middle Ages and the Ancien Rfgime, is being studied systematically by a team of scholars, who first worked under the guidance of the late Professor Pierre Timbal of the and now of Professor Jean Hilaire. The opening up of the immense archive 2 Parlement is a daunting task, but the work is making good progress. 8 The Great Council of Mechelen (Malines), the highest court of appeal for the Low Countries in Burgundian and Habsburg times, has been the subject of intensive research by a team of scholars under the impulse of Belgian and Dutch legal historians, the late Professors Eg.I. Strubbe and J. van Rompaey (Ghent), and Professor J.Th. de Smidt (Amsterdam and Leiden). 29 The study of other 25See, for example, C. Vleeschouwers and M. van Melkebeek (eds.), Liber Sentenciarum van de Officialiteit van Brussel 1448-1459, 2 vols., Brussels, 1982 1983 (Koninklijke Commissie voor de uitgave der Oude Wetten en Verordeningen van BelgiE. Verzameling van de Oude Rechtspraak in Belgi, 7th s.); D. Lambrecht, Acta Processus circa Synodum. Proces gevoerd door Brugge, Damme en het Vrije tegen de Bisschop van Doornik voor de Officialiteit te Reims en de Curiete Rome, 1269 ca 1301, Brussels, 1988 (same series); N. Adams and C. Donahue (eds.), Select Cases from the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Province of Canterbury,c. 1200-1301, London, 1981 (Selden Soc. Vol. 95). See also C. Donahue 'Church Court Records on the Continent and in England', H. Coing and KW_ N6rr (eds.), Englische undkontinentaleRechtsgeschichte:ein Forschungsprojekt,Berlin, 1985 (Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History, ed. by H. Coing and K.W. N6rr, vol. 1). 26 See, inter alia, G. Dolezalek, 'Die handschriftliche Verbreitung von Rechtsprechungssammlungen der Rota', Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfir Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt., 58 (1972), 1-106; G. Dolezalek and K.W. N6rr, 'Die Rechtsprechungssammlungen der mittelalterlichen Rota', H. Coing (ed.), Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europdischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, I: Mittelalter (1100-1500). Die gelehrten Rechte und die Gesetzgebung, Munich, 1973, pp. 849-856. 27 We are thinking of the old Stubbs-Maitland controversy about the authority of papal statutes in medieval English church courts, see C. Donahue, 'Roman canon law in the medieval English church: Stubbs vs. Maitland re-examined after 75 years in the light of some records from the church courts'. Michigan Law Review, 72 (1973-1974), 647 716. 28 P.-C. Timbal, Les obligationscontractuellesdans le droitfrancaisdes XIIIe et XIVe si'cles d'apr's lajurisprudencedu Parlement,2 vols, Paris, 1973 1977 (Centre d'Etude d'Histoire Juridique). See also R.C. van Caenegem, Les arrets etjugts du Parlement de Paris sur appelsflamands consert's dans les registres du Parlement, 2 vols., Brussels, 1966-1977 (Commission royale des Anciennes Lois et Ordonnances de Belgique. Recueil de 'Ancienne Jurisprudence de la Belgique, le sarie); M. Langlois and Y. Lanhers, Confessions etjugements de criminelsau Parlementde Paris (1319 1350), Paris, 197 1; T. Allmand and C.A.J. Armstrong, English suits before the Parlement of Paris, 1420-1436, London, 1982 (Royal Historical Soc., Camden Fourth Series vol. 26); W. Schmale, 'Rechtsquellen zur franzbsischen Sozialgeschichte des Ancien Regime. Die Zivilprozessregister der Jugts des Parlaments von Paris (16.- 18. Jt.)', Zeitschriftfirneuere Rechtsgeschichte, 8 (1986), 1-22: W. Schmale, Bduerlicher Widerstand, Gerichte und Rechtsentwicklung in Frankreich. Untersuchungen zu Prozessen :wischen Bauern und Seigneurs vor dem Parlament von Paris (16-18. Jt.), Frankfurt, 1986. 29J.Th. De Smidt and Eg.I. Strubbe (eds.), ChronologischeLijsten van de GeExtendeerde SententiMn en Procesbundels (dossiers) berustende in het archief van de Grote Road van Mechelen, I: 1465-1504, Brussels, 1966 if. (Koninklijke Commissie voor de uitgave der Oude Wetten en Verordeningen van BelgiE. Chronologische Lijsten van de Processen en Sententi~n van de oude Raden van Justitie van BelgiE. Eerste Reeks) - in 1988 vol. VI was published, reaching 1580. See on the role of the civil law in the Great Council: A. Wijffels, Qui millies allegatur.Les allgationsdu droit savant dans les dossiers du

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxi 1990

Xxii

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

ancient courts in the Low Countries has also led to several learned publications,30 but the most encouraging sign of this renewed and vigorous interest in historical Justizforschung is the recent creation by the Law Faculty of the University of Leiden of a chair for the history of forensic practice. For Italy we have mentioned the editions of Manaresi, Volpini and Schiaparelli. There are no similar publications for Spain, although several scholars have recently drawn attention to the judicial documents that are waiting to be studied 31 and edited there. In Germany we should mention the extensive efforts made in recent years to stimulate the study of the highest courts of the old German Empire from the tenth century onwards. We refer to the series Quellen und Forschungen zur Hchsten Gerichtsbarkeitim Alten Reich, published in Cologne since 1973: nineteen volumes have so far appeared in the main series and three in a Sonderreihe, devoted to calendaring the charters relating to the central courts up to 1451.32 In 1985 the GrandConseildeMalines (causes septentrionales,ca. 1460-1580), 2 vols, Amsterdam, 1985 (doct. diss.). See also the Essays on the History of Forensic Practicepublished by the same author in Miscellanea Consilii Magni, III, Amsterdam, 1988 (Verzamelen en Bewerken van de Jurisprudentie van de Grote Raad, dir. by J.Th. de Smidt, new series, no. 12) and A. Wijffels, 'Legal Records and Reports in the Great Council of Malines (15th to 18th Centuries)', in J.H. Baker (ed.), JudicialRecords, Law Reports, and the Growth of Case Law, Berlin, 1989, pp. 181-206 (Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History, vol. 5). The papers of the colloquium organized in 1973 to celebrate the five-hundredth anniversary of the foundation of the Great Council were published and are still useful: Consilium magnum. 1473-1973. Commemoration du 500e anniversaire de la crbation du Parlementet Grand Conseil de Malines. Colloque (Bruxelles-Malines) 8-9. XII. 1973, Brussels, 1977. 31See, for Holland and Belgium respectively: J.P.A. Coopmans, 'Administratie van justitie en beleyd van politie tijdens de Republiek. Mogelijkheden en wenselijkheden voor het rechtspraakonderzoek', J.M.J. Chorus and A.M. Elias (eds.), FabricaHistoriaeForensis. Handelingen van het afscheid van J.Th. de Smidt als hoogleraaroudvaderlandsrecht aan de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden op 16 December 1988, Leiden, 1989, pp. 5-32 and Ph. Godding, 'Rechtspraakgeschiedenis in Belgie: de huidige stand van het onderzoek', ibid., pp. 33-48. The two papers were read at a colloquium on the history of forensic practice organized in Leiden in honour of Prof. de Smidt, for many years a most dynamic promoter of historical research on the practice of the law courts. 31Interest was often focused on the survival of Visigothic law in the practice of the courts after the fall of the Visigothic kingdom. See W. Kienast, Studien iiber die franzsischen Volksstdmme des Friihmittelalters,Stuttgart, 1968 (Pariser Historische Studien, VII), ch. III, pp. 151-170: Das Fortleben des gotischenRechtes in SiidfrankreichundKatalonien;pp. 151-227 were translated and published, with additions, under the title La Pervivenciadel derecho godo en el sur de Franciay Cataluha, in the Boletin de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, 35 (1973-1974), 265-295 (contains, inter alia,lists of judicial texts). See also R. Collins, 'Sicut lex Gothorum continet: law and charters in ninth- and tenth-century Le6n and Catalonia', E.H.R., 100 (1985), 487-512. The reader will also find a well documented survey in ch. V, Visigothic law and regional custom in disputes in early medieval Spain, by R. Collins, in W. Davies and P. Fouracre (eds.), The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, Cambridge, 1986, pp. 65-84. The most comprehensive study for Catalonia, containing calendars of 523 texts for the period 832-1247, is A. Iglesia Ferreir6s, 'La creacibn del derecho en Catalufia', Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espahol,47 (1977), 92-423. 32 The first volume ofthe calendars of the judicial activity of the German royal court, covering the years 911-1197, was published in Cologne in 1988: B. Diestelkamp and E. Rotter (eds.), Urkundenregestenzur Tdtigkeit des Deutschen Kbnigs- und Hofgerichts bis 1451, 1: Die Zeit vonKonrad L bis Heinrich VI., 911-1197; vol. III, for 1273-1291, edited by U. Rrdel, and vol. V, for 1314-1347, edited by F. Battenberg, had appeared in 1986 and 1987. See the survey by B. Diestelkamp, 'Zum

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxii 1990

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

Gesellschaft ffir Reichskammergerichtsforschung was founded at Wetzlar, one of the old seats of the Imperial Chamber, with the threefold aim of promoting research on the history of the court, the organization of a specialized library and an archive, and the creation and maintenance of a museum (opened in 1987 in Wetzlar). The society organizes lectures and provides a series of publications, the Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft fiir Reichskammergerichtsforschung. It is not surprising that the principal centre for the study of European legal history in Germany, the Max-Planck-Institut ffir europiische Rechtsgeschichte in Frankfurt, has also given Justizforschung a place on its programme. It is at present actively engaged on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but work on the medieval law courts also has already started. 33 It is noteworthy that Professor Helmut Coing, for many years director of the Institute in Frankfurt, has undertaken together with Professor K.W. N6rr the publication of the series Comparative Studies in Continental and Anglo-American Legal History (Berlin, 34 1985), in which case law occupies its proper place. V.

SOME REFLEXIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE 'ENGLISH LAWSUITS'

It is not our intention to present in this Introduction a picture of English courts and English law as they functioned and developed in the Norman and early Angevin era: the legal historian will consult the existing literature and, making use of the present collection, complete and correct the picture he finds there. Our aim is merely to put bricks and mortar at the disposal of the contractors and architects, not to erect a building ourselves. It may nevertheless be appropriate to give a broad idea of the type of litigation the historian will find here and in what sort of texts. To begin with the latter, the proportion of narrative and non-narrative material is roughly 30% of the former and 70% of the latter. This ratio is not stable throughout the period, the part of narrative sources being, for example, exceptionally low in the decades 1131-1140 and 1181-1190, and high in 1070-1090 and 1161-1170. That the number of texts increases with the times was only to be heutigen Stand der Geschichte der hdchsten Gerichtsbarkeit im Alten Reich', Fabrica Historiae Forensis,49-64. In Amsterdam in 1984 an international symposium was organized on supreme law courts in the late Middle Ages and early modern period, and the papers were edited by H. De Schepper under the title Hdchste Gerichtsbarkeit im Spiitmittelalter und der friihen Neuzeit. Internationales RechtshistorichesSymposium Amsterdam 1.-3. Juni 1984, Amsterdam, 1984. " D. Simon, loc. cit. See also Max-Planck-Institutflireuropdische Rechtsgeschichte. Tdtigkeitsbericht 1987-1988, Frankfurt, 1988, pp. 4-6: Medijvistische Justizforschung. The Institute undertook the preliminary task of establishing a bibliographical status quaestionis,covering the period 1945-1985, concerning the courts, the forms of process and the lawyers as a social group, from the eleventh to the

fifteenth century in Germany and Austria, the Benelux countries and Northern France, and Italy, covering ecclesiastical as well as lay courts at all levels, and criminal as well as civil cases. I See, for example, vol. 2: The Courts and the Development of Commercial Law, ed. by V. Piergiovanni, 1987 and vol. 4: The TrialJury in England,France, Germany 1700-1900, ed. by A. Padoa Schioppa, 1987.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxiii 1990

xxiv

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

expected, but here also a rough statistical picture may be presented. We find less than ten cases per decade in 1071-1080, between ten and twenty in 1081-1090, between twenty and thirty in 1091-1110, between thirty and forty per decade in 1111-1120 and 1131-1150, between forty and fifty in 1121-1130, between fifty and sixty in the decade 1151-1160, between sixty and seventy per decade in 1161-1180, and we reach an absolute peak in the decade 1181-1190, with 104 cases. The proportion of previously unedited texts is small. In most decades it remains below 5%, rising to nearly 10% in 1141-1150, between 10 and 20% in 1111-1120, 11511180, and reaching 26% in the decade 1181-1190. It is well known that the degree 35 of litigiousness can vary strongly from one region of a given country to another. The picture that emerges at first glance from our collection and which could certainly be refined by more precise research (like our other statistical indicators), is that there are noticeable and probably significant differences (even allowing for numerous uncertainties about the exact localization). There are counties where numerous cases were conducted and others where we hardly find any. The champions in the former category are Berkshire, Kent and Yorkshire, with twenty or more cases, and above all Middlesex with forty. We find between ten and nineteen cases in Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk and Worcestershire; between five and nine in Cambridgeshire, Durham, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire. In the other counties the number of cases is under five (in some none at all are recorded). Amongst the litigants, women are predictably underrepresented. In many decades they are absent (up to 1110 and in 1141-1150), in others they amount to less than 5% (1111- 1120,1161-1180), and in 1121 -1140,1151-1160 and 1181-1200 to between 5and 8% (the latter percentage being reached in 1151-1160). It was equally predictable that churches and churchmen would be prominent, in an age when literacy was the hallmark of the clergy, and abbeys and cathedrals insisted more than anyone else on written records being drafted, and looked after them more carefully once they had obtained them. Lawsuits in which at least one of the parties belonged to the clergy represent 50% or more of the cases throughout the period. In several decades they represent between 70 and 80% of the total (i.e. in 1161-1170, 1181-1200), and in even more decades this figure lies higher than 80% (i.e. in 1081-1090, 1101-1160). The question of the social status of litigants is more difficult to answer, for although serfs are extremely rare, it is not always possible to make out whether the freemen who appear in the courts are ordinary freemen or knights. Burgesses, who are somewhat easier to identify, remain below 5% in most decades, rising to between 5 and 10% in 1081-1090, 1121-1150, and 1181-1200. " See, for example, Table 10.3 'Geographical distribution of litigation 1606-1750' in C.W. Brooks, 'Interpersonal conflict and social tension: civil litigation in England 1640-1830', Essays L. Stone, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 357-400. See, for modern France B. Schnapper, 'Pour une g6ographie des mentalit~s judiciaires: la litigiosit6 en France au XIXe si~cle', Annales, 34 (1979), 399-412.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxiv 1990

INTRODUCTION

XXV

It is not easy to provide statistical data on the various sorts of courts where litigation took place. The distinction between manorial, seignorial and feudal courts was probably not always self-evident in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and the sources are sometimes silent on what sort of court they describe. Royal courts and royal justices, however, are on the whole clearly recognizable. Together they dealt with a considerable proportion of our lawsuits, roughly between onethird and one-half (with a peak of 62% in 1181-1190). County courts dealt on average with between 5 and 15% of the cases, the percentage of the hundred courts being somewhat lower and comparable to municipal courts. For most decades it is unsafe in around 20 to 30% of the cases to try and determine the exact nature of the court concerned. The great majority of the lawsuits were conducted before a single court. Appeal cases usually amounted to between 5 and 15 %, with a low of 3 % in 1131-1140 and a high of 29.5% in 1161-1170. As to the other question, what sort of litigation the reader can expect to find in this collection, the answer is that a wide spectrum of business is represented. There was, of course, a considerable amount of civil litigation on land tenure, often relating to its hereditary nature, alleged by vassals and denied by lords - an old problem, fraught with strife and strong feelings. Questions of jurisdiction and status were also important and there are some well documented suits on the rights of burgesses and their lords. What we would classify as civil cases greatly outnumber the criminal ones, the proportion on the whole being more than 80 or even 90%; exceptionally we find only 64% of civil litigation in 1091-1100 and 70.5% in 1171-1180. There are, of course, a good deal of criminal cases left, covering a wide spectrum stretching from feudal felonies - the betrayal of a lord being the most heinous crime in popular imagination - to heresy. Procedure - in particular the vexed question of the modes of proof- is never far away, and the historian interested in the debate on 'rational' and 'irrational' proof will find here some interesting material. So will the historian who wants to trace the AngloSaxon, Frankish and Norman elements that made up the suigeneriscomplexion of twelfth-century English courts and their prae-Roman-canonical forms of process. The role of the royal courts is naturally an important feature, and the growing impact of royal justice on the body politic is a clearly audible leitmotiv throughout the collection.3 6 Indeed, anyone who reads Orderic Vitalis's description of the violent, almost lawless Norman warriors of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries must be forcibly struck by the degree ofjudicial law-enforcement that the English kings managed to impose on the knightly class, who were their feudal tenants. By the late twelfth century England had become a law abiding society, in the sense that people with grievances turned to the machinery ofjustice, and above all royal justice, instead of resorting to the heavy-fisted and bloody self-help of 36 The reader who wants to study in detail the growing number of actions can find them in the

Subject Index in Volume II, so that there is no need to give lists of references here.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxv 1990

xxvi

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

earlier generations. For the Anglo-Norman knights, who used to live on the brink of anarchy, litigation had become a new way of life. It was one of the great achievements of a monarchy which, although profoundly feudal, had managed to preserve the solid foundations of the Old-English nation state. VI.

EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

On the left hand page the reader will find the number of the lawsuit, the reference- to edition or manuscript- and the date. The references given in a standard abbreviated form are listed in the first column of the lists of narrative and non-narrative sources in the Bibliography. In the case of royal charters from the Norman period, the number in the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum is added. If the date is supplied by the text itself, which is rarely the case, it is given without brackets, but if the text is undated and modern scholarship has supplied the date, it is given within square brackets. When there is an explanatory footnote about the date it is referred to by an asterisk. In this footnote the arguments of the original editor are reproduced; if we have felt it necessary to correct it or to add elements to the debate, our own remarks are placed between square brackets and small circles, as follows

o[

]O,

and the same course is taken when the date and the argument for

it are all our own. In cases where the original editor has supplied a date without giving arguments and we feel we can follow him, there will be no footnote, but the date will still be between square brackets, because it is not supplied by the text itself. The text is given in the original language, which means Latin in the vast majority of the cases, but there are a few in Old English or Norman French. At the bottom of the page the apparatus criticus, using letter references, supplies the variants from the manuscripts. Here again we reproduce the notes of the original edition, but we add between

O[

]' our own critical or additional remarks, based on

the collation of the edition with the manuscripts, and we also provide the identification of the sigla which the original editors have used to identify their manuscripts. Here again we use the square brackets with little circles in order to distinguish our own remarks and material from those of previous editors (which sometimes are also placed between round or square brackets). For previously unedited texts we give our own apparatuscriticus. On the right-hand page the number of the lawsuit is repeated, followed by a summary of the case and an indication of the main legal issues. This is followed by an English translation and explanatory footnotes, using figures instead of letters. The footnotes are numbered continuously throughout the whole text and not per page. When we reproduce an existing translation, its footnotes are also reproduced, but here again our own remarks or corrections are given between °[

]°, so that they are, as we just explained, easily distinguished from older

material. Abbreviated references used by previous translators are given in their full form between

o[

]°, so as to spare the reader the trouble of looking them up

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxvi 1990

INTRODUCTION

xxvii

himself, either in bibliographical works of reference or in the book or periodical where the translation was originally published. At the end of the translation we include in a final footnote references to literature on the lawsuit. Here the reader will also find references to other source material that has some bearing on the law case, but was not important enough to be included in extenso in this collection. For most lawsuits there is only one text, but sometimes there are several relating to the same suit, either because there are separate texts for successive stages in the procedure or we have descriptions from different quarters of the same judicial event. When that is so, these texts are classed as A, B, C ... under the number of the lawsuit to which they refer. The number and the date (or dates a quo and ante quem) and the general summary of the lawsuit are given at the outset, and separate summaries (and if need be separate dates) are given per text under the A, B, C... headings. The lawsuits are placed in the chronological order; when a suit has stretched over a length of time, it is placed under the final date. The judicial information culled from Domesday Book has, however, all been placed at the end of the reign of William I. When no previous edition existed, we have printed our own, based on the extant manuscripts. When, as is usually the case, the text was available in a modern edition, we have reproduced it, with its apparatus criticus. In many instances, however, we were able to improve on the existing editions, by collating them with the manuscript, supplying more precise dates and identifying places and persons something which, particularly in older editions, had often been neglected. For the sake of uniformity throughout the present collection the Latin spelling has been standardized, jus being preferred to ius, vis to uis and praeterto prceter. For the same reason the use of capitals follows modern practice throughout, but the punctuation of the existing editions has been retained on principle, though certain exaggerations have been eliminated. Round brackets are used where abbreviations are solved and square brackets where missing words are supplied. When translations were available we have reproduced them, with the footnotes, but not without checking and when necessary correcting them and introducing a certain amount of typographical standardization for the sake of uniformity. The spelling of names of places and persons has also been standardized: the standard forms will be found in the Index in Volume II, together with the necessary data for identification and localization. Our own additions to the existing apparatus of explanatory notes are given between °[ ]°. When, as was often the case, no modem translations were available, we have supplied our own. This is an endeavour where many pitfalls await the unwary and no simple solution exists. The translator can strive to produce a text that is fluent, easily accessible to the modem reader and using a readily recognizable terminology, or he can keep as close to the original as possible, at the risk of sounding stilted and remote. We have on the whole preferred the latter course, because the true rendering of the original text seemed to us more important than a translation in elegant modern prose. We

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxvii 1990

Xxviii

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

have in particular tried to avoid using familiar legal terms which now belong to the technical common law vocabulary, but had not been coined in the twelfth century (even though we can trace the rise of a professional language and forms in the final concords of Henry II's reign, which were instruments of the central courts). Their use might have created a false impression of the legal language of the time, which was still very untechnical and - like the law itself - flexible, mainly because the professional judges, who were to create the common law and its vocabulary, were just entering upon their historic role. It should not be forgotten that lawyers and historians who have access to the original medieval languages are becoming less numerous every year: for those without such access there is no substitute for a literal rendering, as they cannot check the translation against the ipsissimaverba of the past, as recorded by the eleventh- and twelfth-century authors and scribes.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxviii 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF NARRATIVE SOURCES' Abbreviated reference

Full reference

ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

C. CLARK, The Peterborough Chronicle, Oxford, 2nd ed.,

ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

1970. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A Revised Translation edited by D. WHITELOCK, with D.C. DOUGLAS and S.I. TUCKER, London, 1965. Annales Monastici, ed. H. LuARD (Rolls Series), 5 vols., London, 1864-1869. The letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. F. BARLOW (Camden Society, 3rd Series, vol. 61), London, 1939. Chronica de Mailros, ed. J. STEVENSON (Bannatyne Club), Edinburgh, 1835. Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. RULE (Rolls Series), London, 1884. Florence of Worcester: Chronicon ex chronicis (450-1117) with two continuations to 1140 and 1295, ed. B. THORPE (English Historical Society Publications), 2 vols., London, 1848-1849. The chronicle of John of Worcester 1118-1140, ed. J.R.H. WEAVER (Anecdota Oxoniensia), Oxford, 1908 (continuation of Florence of Worcester's Chronicon). W. STUBBS, The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ii: The minor works (Rolls Series), London, 1880. The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1879-1880. Vol. i: The chronicle of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I. Gesta regis Henrici II Benedicti Abbatis: the chronicle of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I, 1169-1192, known commonly under the name of Benedict of Peterborough, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1867.2 Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, vol. vii, ed. J.F. DIMOCK (Rolls Series), London, 1877. Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia Anglorum, ed. T. ARNOLD (Rolls Series), London, 1879. Epistolae Herberti de Losinga, Osberti de Clara et Elmeri, ed. R. ANSTRUTHER (Caxton Society), Brussels, London, 1846.

Translation ANNALES MONASTICI ARNULF OF LisIEUx

Letters

CHRONICA DE MAILROS EADMER

HistoriaNovorum

FLORENCE OF WORCESTER

Chron. FLORENCE OF WORCESTER

Continuation GERVASE OF CANTERBURY

Actus GERVASE OF CANTERBURY

Chron.

GESTA HENRICI SECUNDI

GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS

Vita Remigii HENRY OF HUNTINGDON

Historia Anglorum HERBERT DE LOSINGA

Letters

1This list, which includes collections of letters, permits us to quote narrative sources in abbreviated form, as indicated in the first column. 2 For Roger of Howden as author of the Gesta, see D.M. STENTON, Roger of Howden and Benedict.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxix 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

XXX

Full reference The chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a monk of Peterborough, ed. W.T. MELLOWS, Oxford, 1949. C. JOHNSON, Hugh the Chantor. History of the church of York 1069-1127 (Medieval Classics), London, 1961. The Letters of John of Salisbury, ed. W.C. MILLOR and H.E. BUTLER, rev. by C.N.L. BROOKE, 2 vols., London, 1955-1979 (Nelson's Medieval Texts, Oxford Medieval Texts). Magna Vita S. Hugonis episcopi Lincolniensis, ed. J.F. DIMOCK (Rolls Series), London, 1864. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J.C. ROBERTSON and J.B. SHEPPARD (Rolls Series), 7 vols., London, 1875-1885.

Abbreviated reference HUGH CANDIDUS Chron. HUGH THE CHANTOR

History JOHN OF SALISBURY

Letters

MAGNA VITA

S.

HUGONIS

MATERIALS BECKET

MEMORIALS ST. DUNSTAN

W. STUBBS, Memorials of St. Dunstan (Rolls Series),

MIGNE Patrologia

J.P. MIGNE, Patrologiae cursus completus

London, 1874.

ORDERIC VITALIS

History

PETER OF BLOIS Letters

RADULFUS NIGER

Chronicon Secundum RALPH DE DICETO REGINALD OF DURHAM

Libellus Cuthberti REGINALD OF DURHAM

Vita Godrici ROBERT OF LEWES

Gesta Stephani ROBERT DE TORIGNI Chron. ROBERT DE TORIGNI

Continuation ROGER OF HOVEDEN Chron. ROGER OF WENDOVER

Flores Historiarum SYMEON OF DURHAM WALTER DANIEL

Ailred of Rievaulx

. Series secunda in qua prodeunt patres ecclesiae latinae, 222 vols., Paris, 1844-1864. M. CHIBNALL, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis (Medieval Classics), 6 vols., Oxford, 1969-1980. Petri Blesensis Bathoniensis archidiaconi opera omnia, ed. J.A. GILES (Patres Ecclesiae), 4 vols., Oxford, 18461847. Radulfus Niger: Chronicon Secundum, ed. R. ANSTRUTHER (Caxton Society), London, 1851. Radulphi de Diceto opera historica, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1876. J. RAINE, Reginaldi Monachi Dunelmensis Libellus de Admirandis Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus (Surtees Society), London, 1835. J. STEVENSON, Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici, heremitae de Finchale (Surtees Society), London, 1847. K.R. POTTER, Gesta Stephani (Medieval Texts), London, 1955. The chronicle of Robert of Torigni, in: Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iv. ed. R. HOWLETT (Rolls Series), London, 1899. Continuatio Beccensis, in: Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iv. ed. R. HOWLETT (Rolls Series), London, 1889. W. STUBBS, Chronica Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series), 4 vols., London, 1868-1871. Roger of Wendover: Flores Historiarum from the Creation to 1235, ed. H.O. COXE (English Historical Society), 4 vols., London, 1841-1844. Symeon of Durham, Opera omnia, ed. T. ARNOLD (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1882-1885. F.M. POWICKE, Walter Daniel: The Life of Ailred of Rievaulx (Medieval Classics), London, 1950.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxx 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference WALTER OF HFMINGBURGH

Chron.

WALTER MAP

De Nugis

WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES

Gesta WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY

Gesta Pontificum WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY

Gesta Regum WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY

Vita Wulfstani WILLIAM OF NEWBURGH

Hist.

xxxi

Full reference Chronicon Walteri de Hemingburgh vulgo Hemingford nuncupati de gestis regum Angliae (1048-1346), ed. H.C. HAMILTON (English HistoricalSociety), 2 vols., London, 1848-1849. M.R. JAMES, Walter Map, De nugis curialium (Anecdota Oxoniensia. Medieval and modern series, xiv), Oxford, 1914. J. MARx, Guillaume de Jumi~ges, Gesta Normannorum ducum (Societ de l'Histoire de Normandie), Rouen, Paris, 1914. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi De gestis pontificum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. N.E.S.A. HAMILTON (Rolls Series), London, 1870. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi De gestis regum Anglorum historiae novellae, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1887-1889. R.R. DARLINGTON, The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury (Camden Society 3rd Series, XL), London. 1928. William of Newburgh: Historia rerum anglicarum (10161198), with a continuation to 1298, in: Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vols. i, ii, ed. R. HOWLETT (Rolls Series), London, 1884-1885.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxi 1990

xxxii

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

3 LIST OF COLLECTIONS OF CHARTERS

Full reference Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Lyell 15. Ms. London B.L., Deposit 3009(1) (Duke of Devonshire Collections, Chatsworth). Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. STEVENSON (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1858. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XX Ms. London B.L., Faustina B.I. Liber Memorandorum ecclesie de Bernewelle, ed. J.W. CLARK, Cambridge, 1907. Two chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath, ed. W. HUNT (Somerset Record Society, vii), s.l., 1893. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3316. Ms. London Lincoln's Inn, Hale Ms. 87 E.M. SEARLE, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (Oxford Medieval Texts), Oxford, 1980. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 28024 Ms. London B.L., Harley 4714. M.M. BIGELOW, Placita Anglo-Normannica, London, 1879. Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.XIII K. MAJOR, Blyborough Charters (A medieval miscellanyfor D.M. Stenton, ed. P.N. BARNES and C.F. SLADE, pp. 203219), (Pipe Roll Society Publications,New Series, xxxvi),

Abbreviated reference ABINGDON Cart. A ABINGDON Cart. B ABINGDON

Chron.

BARDNEY Cart. BARLINGS Cart. BARNWELL

Liber Memorandorum Cart.

BATH ST PETER

BATH ST PETER BATTLE Cart. BATTLE Chron.

Cart. A.

BEAUCHAMP Cart. BIDDLESDEN Cart. BIGELOW Placita BINHAM Cart. BLYBOROUGH Charters

London, 1962. BLYTH

J. RAINE, The history and antiquities of the parish of Blyth, Westminster, 1860. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3579.

Antiquities

BLYTH Cart. BLYTHBURGH BORETIUS

C. HARPER-BILL, Blythburgh Priory Cartulary, I (Suffolk

Cart.

BOXGROVE Cart. BRIDLINGTON Abstracts

BRIDLINGTON Cart. BRISTOL Charters BURTON

Cart.

BURY ST EDMUNDS

Record Society), Woodbridge, 1980. BORETIUS and V. KRAUSE, Capitularia Regum Francorum (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Legum Sectio II, in -4°), Hanover, 1883-1897. Ms. London B.L., Claudius AVI. W.T. LANCASTER, Abstracts of the charters and other documents contained in the chartulary of the priory of Bridlington, Leeds, 1912. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 40008 N.D. HARDING, Bristol Charters, 1155-1373 (Bristol Record Society, i), Bristol, 1930. G. WROTTESLEY, An abstract of the contents of the Burton Cartulary (William Salt Archaeological Society, v, pp. 1-104), London, 1884. Ms. London P.R.O., D.L. 42/5. A.

Capitularia

Cart.

I This list permits us to quote the charter evidence in the abbreviated form indicated in the first column; the second column gives the edition or, for the manuscript sources, the repository. In the main these 'collections of charters' are either medieval cartularies or modern collections relating to various places or institutions.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxii 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference BURY ST EDMUNDS

Cellarer'sReg. Chron.

BURY ST EDMUNDS BURY ST EDMUNDS

Feudal Docs.

BURY ST EDMUNDS

Kalendar BURY ST EDMUNDS

Memorials BURY ST EDMUNDS

xxxiii

Full reference Part 1: Ms. Cambridge University Library, Gg. IV, 4. Part 2: ibid., Add. Ms. 4220. Cronica Jocelini de Brakelonda, ed. H.E. BUTLER (Nelson's Medieval Classics), London, 1949. D.C. DOUGLAS, Feudal documents from the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds (British Academy, Records of the socialand economic history of England and Wales, viii), London, 1932. R.H.C. DAVIS, The kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and related documents (Camden Society, 3rd Series, no. 84), London, 1954. T. ARNOLD, Memorials of St. Edmunds Abbey (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1890-1896. Ms. Cambridge University Library, Mm. IV. 19.

Nigrum Registrum F. HERVEY, The Pinchbeck register, 2 vols., Oxford, 1925.

BURY ST EDMUNDS

Pinchbeck Reg. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 14847.

BURY ST EDMUNDS

Registrum Album BYLAND Cart.

Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Dodsworth 91 (extracts from a cartulary, made by R. DODSWORTH in 1636-1637). Calendar of Charter Rolls, 6 vols., London, 1903-1927. Calendar of Patent Rolls (Henry III-Henry VII), London, 1891-1916. D.C. DOUGLAS, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, London, 1944.

CAL. CHARTER ROLLS CAL. PATENT ROLLS CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH

Domesday Monachorum Mss. Canterbury Cathedral Archives.

CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH

Reg. B, C and E Ms. London B.L., Stowe 924, fo 88-113.

CANTERBURY

CHRIST CHURCH

Reg. TranscriptI Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 29437.

CANTERBURY

ST AUGUSTINE'S

Cart.

ST AUGUSTINE'S

Chron.

CANTERBURY

ST AUGUSTINE'S CANTERBURY

ST AUGUSTINE'S

Inquisition CANTERBURY

Chronica de rebus gestis abbatum S. Augustini Cantuariae, ed. R. TWYSDEN, Scriptores Historiae Anglicanae Antiqui X, pp. 1753-2202, London, 1652. THOMAS OF ELMHAM, Historia monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis, ed. C. HARDWICK (Rolls Series), London, 1858. WILLIAM THORNE,

CANTERBURY

Hist.

A. BALLARD, An eleventh-century inquisition of St. Augus-

tine's, Canterbury (British Academy, Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, iv), London, 1920. Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.X.

ST AUGUSTINE'S

Red Book

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxiii 1990

xxxiv

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference

Full reference Ms. Canterbury Cathedral Library, Ms. E. 19.

CANTERBURY ST AUGUSTINE'S

Reg.

CANTERBURY ST GREGORY'S

Cart. CARISBROOKE Cart. CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS

CASTLE ACRE CERNE Cart.

CHATTERIS

Cart.

Cart.

CHERTSEY Cart. CHESTER ST WERBURGH

Cart. CHICHESTER

Acta

CHICHESTER

Cart.

CHICHESTER Liber E. CIRENCESTER Cart. CLERKENWELL COLCHESTER

Cart.

Cart.

COMBE Cart. COTHAM Cart. COVENTRY Cart. CRONDAL

Records

CROXTON Cart. CROYLAND, Cart. A CROYLAND

Cart. B

CROYLAND

Pseudo-Ingulf

CURIA REGIS ROLLS

A.M. WOODCOCK, Cartulary of the priory of St. Gregory, Canterbury (Camden Society, 3rd Series, vol. 88), London, 1956. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3667. L. LANDON, The Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 1-10 (Pipe Roll Society Publications,Iv. New Series, xvii), London, 1939. J.C. DAVIS, The Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 11-20 (Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series, xxxiii), London, 1960. Ms. London B.L., Harley 2110. B. FOSSETr, The cartulary of Cerne Abbey, known as the Red Book of Cerne (DorsetNaturalHistory andAntiquities Field Club, Proceedings,xxviii, pp. 65-95; xxix, pp. 195-224), Dorchester, 1907-1908. Ms. London B.L., Julius A.I. Chertsey abbey cartularies (Surrey Record Society, vols. v and xxvii), London, 1915 and 1928. J. TAIT, The chartulary or register of the abbey of St. Werburgh, Chester (Chetham Society, New Series, 79, 82), 2 vols., Manchester, 1920-1923. H. MAYR-HARTING, Acta of the bishops of Chichester, 1075-1207 (Canterburyand York Society, 130), Torquay, 1964. W.D. PECKHAM, The chartulary of the high church of Chichester (Sussex Record Society, xlvi), Lewes, 1946. Ms. Chichester Diocesan Record Office. W. ST. C. BADDELEY, A history of Cirencester (pp. 111117), Cirencester, 1924. W.O. HASSALL, Cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell (Camden Society, 3rd Series, vol. 71), London, 1949. S.A. MOORE, Cartularium monasterii Si Johannis Baptiste de Colcestria (Roxburghe Club), 2 vols., London, 1897. Ms. London B.L., Vitellius A.I. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Top. Lincs. d.l. Ms. London P.R.O., E 164/21. F.J. BAIGENT, Collection of records and documents relating to the hundred and manor of Crondal. I. Historical and manorial (Hampshire Record Society), London, 1891. Ms. London B.L., Stowe 928. Ms. Spalding, Gentlemen's Society. Ms. Oxford All Souls College, Ms. 32. INGULF, Historia Croylandensis, with continuations 6261486, ed. W. FULMAN, Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Veteres (pp. 1- 132, 451-593), Oxford, 1684. Curia Regis Rolls, 15 vols., London, 1923-1968 (in progress).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxiv 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference Charters

DANELAW

DARLEY

Cart.

DAVIS Docs. Anarchy DELISLE

Chartes Originales

DELISLE Recueil

DIEULACRES Cart.

DIEULACRES

XXXV

Full reference F.M. STENTON, Documents illustrative of the social and economic history of the Danelaw (British Academy, Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, v), London, 1920. R.R. DARLJNGTON, The cartulary of Darley abbey (Derbyshire ArchaeologicalSociety), 2 vols., Kendal, 1945. H.W.C. DAVIS, Some documents of the anarchy (Essays R.L. Poole, pp. 168-189), Oxford, 1927. L. DELISLE, Notes sur les chartes originales de Henri II au British Museum et au Record Office (Bibliothbque de l'Ecole des Chartes, lxviii, pp. 272-314); Recueil de 109 chartes originales de Henri II (ibid., lxix, pp. 541-580), Paris, 1907-1908. L. DELISLE and E. BERGER, Recueil des Actes de Henri II concernant les provinces franqaises, 4 vols.+atlas (Chartes et Dipl6mes relatifs a l'Histoire de France), Paris, 1909-1927. G. WROTTESLEY, Chartulary of Dieulacres abbey (William Salt ArchaeologicalSociety, New Series, ix, pp. 293-365), London, 1906. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 36869, by H.E. SALTER, 1903.

Cart. Transcript DOMESDAY

DOVER ABBEY Cart. DOVER PRIORY Reg. DUGDALE Monasticon

DUNSTABLE Cart.

DURHAM Cart. I DURHAM

De Exordio

DuRHAM History DuRHAM

Scriptores Tres

EARLS COLNE

Cart.

Domesday Book seu liber censualis Willelmi Primi regis Angliae (ed. A. FARLEY) (vols. i and ii), London, 1783; (ed. H. ELLIS) (vols. iii and iv, Record Commission), London, 1816. Vols. i and ii contain the Exchequer Domesday, vol. iv, pp. 1-493, contains the Exon Domesday. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 336 (St. Radegund's abbey near Dover). Ms. London Lambeth Palace, Ms. 241. W. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. by J. CALEY, H. ELLIS and B. BANDINEL, 6 vols. in 8, London, 18171830. G.H. FOWLER, A digest of the charters preserved in the cartulary of the priory of Dunstable (Bedfordshire HistoricalRecord Society, 10), Bedford, 1926. Ms. Durham Dean and Chapter Library, Cartularium Primum. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Laud. Misc. 748, autograph of John of Wessington, De exordio et statu ecclesie Dunelmensis. J. RAINE, The history and antiquities of North Durham, London, 1852. Historiae Dunelmensis scriptores tres, ed. J. RAINE (Surtees Society), London, 1839. J.L. FISHER, Cartularium Prioratus de Colne (Essex Archaeological Society Publications,no. 1), Colchester, 1946.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxv 1990

xxxvi

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Full reference

Abbreviated reference EASBY Cart. ECCLESFIELD Docs. ELY Bentham 's History ELY

Cart.

ELY Liber Eliensis ELY Liber Eliensis ELY Liber M.

Cart. Chron.

EVESHAM EVESHAM

EXETER ST NICHOLAS EYE Cart.

Cart.

Cart.

EYNSHAM

FACSIMILES GALBRAITH

FINCHALE

Charters

FLAMBARD

Record

FOUNTAINS Cart A.I FOUNTAINS Cart A.l FOUNTAINS Cart. A.IV FOUNTAINS Cart. B

FURNESS

Coucher Book

GARENDON Cart. GILBERT FOLIOT Letters GILBERTINE HOUSES

Charters

GLASTONBURY

Antiquitas

Ms. London B.L., Egerton 2827. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 27581. J. BENTHAM, History of the cathedral church of Ely (1st ed.) Norwich, 1771; (2nd ed.) Norwich, 1812. Ms. London B.L., Tiberius A.VI Liber Eliensis, ed. D.J. STEWART (Anglia Christiana Society), vol. i (Books 1, 2), London, 1848. E.O. BLAKE, Liber Eliensis (Camden Society 3rdSeries, 92), London, 1962. Ms. Ely Episcopal Registry. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian B.XXIV. Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham, ed. W.D. MACRAY (Rolls Series), London, 1863. Ms. London B.L., Vitellius D.IX. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3140 (one part); Chelmsford Essex Record Office, "Register Malet" (other part). H.E. SALTER, The cartulary of the abbey of Eynsham (Oxford HistoricalSociety, 49, 51) 2 vols., Oxford, 19071908. Facsimiles of English royal writs to A.D. 1100, presented to V.H. Galbraith, ed. T.A.M. BISHOP and P. CHAPLAIS, Oxford, 1957. J. RAINE, Charters of endowment, inventories, and account rolls of the priory of Finchale (Surtees Society), London, 1837. H.H.E. CRASTER, A contemporary record of the pontificate of Ranulf Flambard (Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th Series, vii, pp. 41-50), Newcastle, 1930. Ms. London B.L., Add Ms. 37770. Ms. London B.L., Add Ms. 40009. Ms. Manchester John Rylands Library, Lat. Ms. 224. Memorials of the abbey of St Mary of Fountains, ed. J.R. WALBRAN (Surtees Society), 2 vols., Durham, 18631878. J.C. ATKINSON and J. BROWNBILL, The coucher book of Furness abbey, 2 vols., each of 3 parts (Chetham Society, New Series, 9, 11, 14, 74, 76, 78), Manchester, 18861919. Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 415. Z.N. BROOKE, A. MOREY and C.N.L. BROOKE, The letters and charters of Gilbert Foliot, Cambridge, 1967. F.M. STENTON, Transcripts of charters relating to the Gilbertine houses of Sixle, Ormsby, Catley, Bullington and Alvingham (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 18). Horncastle, 1922. Willelmus Malmesburiensis: De antiquitate Glastoniensis ecclesie, ed. T. GALE, HistoriaeBrittanniae... Scriptores XV, iii, pp. 289-335, Oxford, 1691.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxvi 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference GLASTONBURY Chron. Hist.

GLASTONBURY GLASTONBURY

Liber Henricide Soliaco GLOUCESTER ST PETER

Cart. GLOUCESTER

Charters

GLOUCESTER ST PETER

Charters

xxxvii

Full reference Johannis Glastoniensis chronica sive historia de rebus Glastoniensibus, ed. T. HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1726. Adami de Domerham Historia de rebus gestis Glastoniensibus, ed. T. HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1727. J.E. JACKSON, Liber Henrici de Soliaco abbatis Glastoniensis. An inquisition of the manors of Glastonbury abbey, 1189 (Roxburghe Club), London, 1882. Historia et Cartularium monasterii Si Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W.H. HART (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 18631867. R.B. PATTERSON, The charters and scribes of the Earls and Countesses of Gloucester to A.D. 1217, Oxford, 1973. D. WALKER, Some charters relating to St. Peter's abbey, Gloucester (A medieval miscellany for D.M. Stenton, ed. P.N. BARNES and C.F. SLADE, pp. 247-268) (Pipe Roll

GODSTOW Cart. GUISBOROUGH Cart.

Inquisitio comitatus Cantabrigiensis HARROLD Records HAMILTON

HATTON'S

Book of Seals

HAVERHOLME Cart. HEREFORD Cart. HEREFORD

Charters

HEREFORD EARLDOM

Charters HEREFORDSHIRE

Domesday

HEXHAM

Hist.

H.M.C.

REPORTS

HOLMCULTRAM Cart. HOLTZMANN Papsturkunden

HORTON (MONKS) Cart. HOSPITALLERS Cart. HUNTINGDON

Cart.

Society Publications,New Series, xxxvi), London, 1962. Ms. London P.R.O., E. 164/20. W. BROWN, Cartularium prioratus de Gyseburne (Surtees Society, 86, 89), 2 vols., London, 1889-1894. N.E.S.A. HAMILTON, Inquisitio comitatus Cantabrigiensis. Subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, London, 1876. G.H. FOWLER, Records of Harrold priory (Bedfordshire HistoricalRecords Society, vol. 17), Bedford, 1935. L.C. LLOYD and D.M. STENTON, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (NorthamptonshireRecord Society Publication), Oxford, 1950. Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 207A, fo 93-128. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 329, fo 121-176. W.W. CAPES, Charters and records of Hereford cathedral (Cantilupe Society, xliii), Hereford, 1908. D. WALKER, Charters of the earldom of Hereford (Camden 4th Ser., Camden Miscellany, xxii, pp. 1-75), London, 1964. V.H. GALBRAITH and J. TAIT, Herefordshire Domesday

(PipeRoll Society, lxiii, New Series, xxv), London, 1950. The priory of Hexham, its chroniclers, endowments and annals, ed. J. RAINE (Surtees Society), 2 vols., Durham, 1864-1865. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Reports and Appendices, London, 1870-(in progress). Ms. London B.L., Harley 3891. W. HOLTZMANN, Papsturkunden in England (Abhandlun-

gen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Neue Folge, xxv. 1-2. Dritte Folge, xiv-xv, xxxiii), 3 vols., Berlin, G6ttingen, 1930-1952. Ms. London B.L., Stowe 935. Ms. London B.L., Nero E. VI. Ms. London B.L., Faustina C.I.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxvii 1990

XXXVIll

Abbreviated reference HUNTINGFIELD Cart. HYDE Chron.

JAFFE-LOEWENFELD

KENILWORTH Cart. KENILWORTH Cart. A KIRKSTALL Cart. KIRKSTALL Coucher Book KIRKSTALL Foundation KIRKSTEAD Cart. LANCASHIRE Charters LANGLEY Cart.

LAUNCESTON Cart. LEICESTERSHIRE Survey LEISTON Cart.

LEWES, Cart. LEWES Chartulary LICHFIELD Cart.

LICHFIELD Cart. A LICHFIELD Reg.

LILLESHALL Cart.

LINCOLN Final concords

LINCOLN Reg.

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Full reference Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives Office, 3 Anc. 2/1. ° Chronica monasterii de Hida juxta Wintoniam ab a 1035 ad annum 1121, in: Liber monasterii de Hyda, ed. E. EDWARDS (Rolls Series), London, 1866. P. JAFFt, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Chr. n. MCXCVIII, 2nd ed. by S. LOEWENFELD et al., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1885-1888. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3650. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 47677. Ms. London P.R.O., D.L. 42/7. W.T. LANCASTER and W.P. BAILDON, Coucher book of the abbey of Kirkstall (Thoresby Society, viii), 1904. E.K. CLARK, The foundation of Kirkstall abbey (Thoresby Society, iv), Leeds, 1895. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XVIII. W. FARRER, The Lancashire pipe rolls and early Lancashire charters, Liverpool, 1902. P.R. Coss, The Langley cartulary (Publications of the Dugdale Society, ed. P. MORGAN, xxii), Stratford-uponAvon, 1980. Ms. London Lambeth Palace, Ms. 719. C.F. SLADE, The Leicestershire survey (LeicestershireLocal History OccasionalPapers, no. 7), Leicester, 1956. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XIV. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian F.XV. L.F. SALZMAN, Chartulary of the priory of St. Pancras of Lewes, i (Sussex Record Society, xxxviii), Lewes, 1932. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Ashmole 1527. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3868. H.E. SAVAGE, The great register of Lichfield cathedral known as Magnum Registrum Album (William Salt Archaeological Society, for 1924), Kendal, 1926. Ms. London, B.L., Add. Ms. 50121. C.W. FOSTER, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln from the Feet of Fines preserved in the P.R.O., ii (Lincoln

Record Society, 17), s.l., 1920. C.W. FOSTER and K. MAJOR, the registrum antiquissimum of the cathedral church of Lincoln (Lincoln Record

LINCOLNSHIRE Domesday

Society), Lincoln, 1931-(in progress). C.W. FOSTER and T. LONGLEY, The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey (Lincoln Record Society, vol.

LLANTHONY Cart. LODERS Cart. LONDON ALDGATE TRINITY

Cart. LONDON ST GILES Cart.

19), Horncastle, 1924. Ms. London P.R.O., Chancery Masters' Exhibits, C. 115, A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16 (this last now C. 150.2). L. GUILLOREAU, Cartulaire de Loders (Dorset) (Chartes anglo-normandes, i), Evreux, 1908. G.A.J. HODGETT, Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate (London Record Society Publications,vii), London, 1971. Ms. London B.L., Harley 4015.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxviii 1990

xxxix

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Full reference

Abbreviated reference

Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 5.

LONDON ST MARTIN LE

GRAND Cart. A LONDON ST. MARTIN LE

Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 170, fo 52-118vo

GRAND Cart. B LONDON ST. MARTIN LE

Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 13167.

GRAND Roll Cart. M. GIBBS, Early charters of the cathedral church of St. Paul, London (Camden Society, 3rd Series, 58), London, 1939. G.R. ELVEY, Luffield Priory Charters, i (Northampton Record Society, xxii), s.l., 1986.

LONDON ST PAUL'S

Charters LUFFIELD Charters

MAITLAND Select pleas

F.W. MAITLAND,

MALCOLM IV Acts MALMESBURY Reg. MALTON Cart. MANS! Amplissima Collectio

Select pleas in manorial and other

seignorial courts, i (Selden Society, 2), London, 1889. G.W.S. BARROW, The Acts of Malcolm IV King of Scots 1153-1165, Edinburgh, 1960. Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J.S. BREWER and C.T. MARTIN (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1879-1880. Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.XI. G.D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima

MEAUX Chron.

collectio, 31 vols., Florence, Venice, 1759-1793. Chronica monasterii de Melsa, ed. E.A. BOND (Rolls Series), London, 1866.

MERTON Cart. MERTON Foundation MISSENDEN Cart.

Ms. London B.L., Cleopatra C.VII. Ms. London College of Arms, Arundel Ms. 28. J.G. JENKINS, The cartulary of Missenden Abbey, i, ii

MONASTICON

(Records Branch of the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, vols. 2, 10), Jordans, Bucks., 1938, 1956; iii (HistoricalMss. Commission J.P. i), London, 1962. W. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, 2nd ed. by J. CALEY, H. ELLIS, B. BANDINEL, 6 vols., London, 18171830. G. OLIVER, Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, Exeter, 1846.

MONASTICON Dioc. EXON. MONTACUTE Cart. MOWBRAY Charters NEWINGTON LONGUEVILLE

Charters NEWMINSTER Cart.

NEWNHAM Cart. NICHOLS Collectanea NORTHAMPTON Cart. A NORTHAMPTON Cart. B NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Charters

Ms. Oxford Trinity College, Ms. 85. D.E. GREENWAY, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray

1107-1191 (British Academy), London, 1972. H.E. SALTER, Newington Longueville charters (Oxfordshire Record Series, 3), Oxford, 1921. J.T. FOWLER, Chartularium abbathiae de Novo Monasterio (Surtees Society, 66), London, 1878. J. GODBER, The cartulary of Newnham priory, i (Bedfordshire Hist. Record Society, xliii), Bedford, 1963. J.G. NICHOLS, Collectanea topographica et genealogica, 8 vols., London, 1834-1863. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XVII. Ms. London B.L., Royal 11 B IX. F.M. STENTON, Facsimiles of early charters from Northamptonshire collections (Northamptonshire Record Society, vol. 4), Northampton, 1930.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxix 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference NORTHUMBERLAND

History

NORWICH

First Reg.

NORWICH

Reg. I

NORWICH

Charters

NOSTELL Cart. OSNEY Cart.

PALGRAVE PERCY

Rotuli

Cart.

PETERBOROUGH Cart. A PETERBOROUGH

Cart. B

Cart. C PETERBOROUGH Chron. PETERBOROUGH

PETERBOROUGH

Swaffham Hist.

Full reference A history of Northumberland, 7 vols., Newcastle, 1820-1858. H.W. SAUNDERS, The first register of Norwich cathedral priory (Norfolk Record Society, vol. xi), Norwich, 1939. Ms. Norwich Dean and Chapter Muniments, Registrum primum. B. DODWELL, The charters of Norwich cathedral priory (Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series, XL), London, 1974. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XIX. H.E. SALTER, The cartulary of Oseney abbey (Oxford HistoricalSociety, vols. 89, 90, 91, 97, 98, 101), Oxford, 1921-1936. F. PALGRAVE, Rotuli Curiae Regis (Record Commission), 2 vols., London, 1835. M.T. MARTIN, The Percy chartulary (Surtees Society, 117), London, 1911. Ms. London Burlington House, Society of Antiquaries, Ms. 60. Ms. London Burlington House, Society of Antiquaries, Ms. 38. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 39758. Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense, ed. J.A. GILES (Caxton Society), London, 1845. Historiae coenobii Burgensis scriptores varii. Roberti Swaphami Historia coenobii Burgensis 1177-1245, ed. J. SPARKE, HistoriaeAnglicanae Scriptores, iii, pp. 97-122, J.

HODGSON,

London, 1723. PETERBOROUGH

Ms. Peterborough, Dean and Chapter, Ms. 1.

Swafjham Reg. PIPE ROLLS

PIPE ROLL

PIPEWELL Cart. A PIPEWELL Cart. B PIPEWELL Reg. PLYMPTON Cart.

PONTEFRACT Cart.

31 Henry I, 2-4 Henry II and 1 Richard I, ed. J. HUNTER (Record Commission), London, 1833-1844. The remainder, from 5 Henry II onwards, by the Pipe Roll Society, London, 1884-(in progress). 1 Henry II (abstract), ed. H. HALL (The Red Book of the Exchequer, ii, pp. 648-658), London, 1896. Ms. London B.L., 2 vols., Caligula A.XII and A.XIII. Ms. London, B.L., Stowe 937. Ms. London B.L., Otho B.XIV. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, James 23, pp. 151-170 (extracts made in 1627-1638 by R. JAMES, from a cartulary of Plympton). The cartulary of Pontefract, ed. R. HOLMES (Yorkshire Archaeological and Record Society, xxv, xxx), 2 vols., Leeds, 1899-1902.

RAMSEY

Cart.

RAMSEY

Chron.

Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, ed. W.H. HART and P.A. LYONS (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1884-1893. Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. W.D. MACRAY (Rolls Series), London. 1886.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xl 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference READING Cart. A Cart. B Cart. C READING Cart. D READING READING

Red Book of the Exchequer Regesta

RIEVAULX Cart. RIPON

Memorials

ROCHESTER Cart. A ROCHESTER Cart. B ROCHESTER

Full reference Ms. London B.L., Harley 1708. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XXV. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3031. Ms. London B.L., Domitian A III, f° 40-254. H. HALL, The red book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1896. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. i (William I and William II), ed. H.W.C. DAVIS, Oxford, 1913; vol. ii (Henry I), ed. C. JOHNSON and H.A. CRONNE, 1956; vol. iii (Stephen), ed. H.A. CRONNE and R.H.C. DAVIS, Oxford, 1968. J.C. ATKINSON, Cartularium abbathiae de Rievalle (Surtees Society, 83), London, 1889. Memorials of the church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, ed. J.T. FOWLER (Surtees Society, 74, 78, 81, 115), 4 vols., Durham, 1882-1908. Ms. London B.L., Domitian AX., f, 90-208. Ms. London B.L., Royal 5 A IV. Registrum Roffense, ed. J. THORPE, London, 1769.

Registrum Roffense Ms. Rochester Diocesan Registry.

ROCHESTER

Registrum Temporalium Textus Roffensis, ed. TH. HEARNE, Oxford, 1720.

ROCHESTER

Textus Roffensis ROUND Ancient Charters RUFFORD

Charters

RYDEWARE Cart.

ST ALBAN'S CALDECOTE

J.H. ROUND, Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Society, vol. x), London, 1888. C.J. HOLDSWORTH, Rufford Charters (Thoroton Society Rec. Series), 2 vols., Nottingham, 1972-1974. I.H. JEAYES, The Rydeware chartulary (William Salt Archaeological Society, xvi, pp. 257-302), London, 1895. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 40734, fo 17-29.

Cart. ST ST ST ST

ALBAN'S ALBAN'S ALBAN'S ALBAN'S

Cart. A Cart. B Cart. C Gesta

ST BEES Reg. ST BENET'S

HULME Reg.

ST FRIDESWIDE Cart.

ST NEOT'S

Cart.

Ms. London B.L., Nero D.I. Ms. Chatsworth Collections of the Duke of Devonshire. Ms. London B.L., Otho D.III. T. WALSINGHAM, Gesta Abbatum monasterii Si Albani, i, ed. H.T. RILEY (Rolls Series). London, 1867. J. WILSON, The register of St. Bees (Surtees Societv, vol. 126), London, 1915. J.R. WEST, The eleventh- and twelfth-century sections of Cott. Ms. Galba E. ii: the register of the abbey of St Benet of Holme (Norfolk Record Society), Norwich, 1932. S.R. WIGRAM, The cartulary of the monastery of St. Frideswide at Oxford (Oxford HistoricalSociety, 28, 31). 2 vols., Oxford, 1895-1896. Ms. London B.L., Faustina A.IV.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xli 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference SALISBURY Cart.

SALISBURY

Charters

SALISBURY

Vetus Registrum

SALTER Oxford

Muniments

SANDFORD Cart. SAWLEY

Cart.

SAWTREY

Charters

SAXHAM Cart. SELBY

Coucher Book

SEMPRINGHAM

Charters

SHAFTESBURY Cart. SHENSTONE Charters

SHREWSBURY

Cart. A

SHREWSBURY

Cart. B

SOUTHWELL Visitations

Cart.

SOUTHWICK

SPALDING Cart. STAFFORDSHIRE Cart.

STENTON

Pleas before the King STOKE-BY-CLARE Cart.

STONE Cart. STUBBS

Select Charters

TAVISTOCK TEMPLARS

Charters Reg.

Full reference Ms. London Inner Temple Library, Petyt Ms. 511/18 (privately printed abstract by Sir T. PHILLIPPS at Middlehill, 1822). Charters and documents of Salisbury, ed. W.H.R. Jows and W.D. MACRAY (Rolls Series), London, 1891. Vetus registrum Sarisberiense (called the "Register of St Osmund"), ed. W.H.R. JONES (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1883-1884. H.E. SALTER, Facsimiles of early charters in Oxford muniment rooms, Oxford, 1929. A.M. LEYS, The Sandford cartulary (Oxfordshire Record Society, 19, 22), 2 vols., Oxford, 1938-1941. J. McNULTY, The chartulary of the Cistercian abbey of St Mary of Sallay in Craven (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, lxxxvii, xc), 2 vols., Worksop, 1933-1934. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 142. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 7097. J.T. FOWLER, The coucher book of Selby, i (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, vol. x), Durham, 1891. E.M. POYNTON, Charters relating to the priory of Sempringham (The Genealogist, New Series, vols. 15, 16, 17), London, 1899-1901. Ms. London B.L., Harley 61. G. GRAZEBROOK, Shenstone charters (William Salt Archaeological Society, xvii, pp. 237-298), London, 1896. U. REES, Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, 2 vols., Aberystwyth, 1975. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 30323 (extracts). A.F. LEACH, Visitations and memorials of Southwell Minster (Camden Society, xlviii), London, 1891. Ms. Winchester Hampshire Record Office, M 54/1. Ms., 2 vols., London B.L., Add. Ms. 35296 and Harley 742. R.W. EYTON and G. WROTTESLEY, The Staffordshire chartulary (William Salt Archaeological Society, ii, pp. 178-276; iii, pp. 178-231), London, 1882-1883. Pleas before the king or his justices 1198-1202, ed. D.M. STENTON (Selden Society, 67, 68), 2 vols., London, 19521953. Ms. London B.L., Cotton. App. xxi. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XXIV. W. STUBBS, Select charters, 9th edition by H.W.C. DAVIS, Oxford, 1913. H.P.R. FINBERG, Some early Tavistock charters (English Historical Review, 62, pp. 352-377), London, 1947. Ms. London B.L., Nero C.IX, fo 23-148.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlii 1990

xliii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference

Full reference

THAME Cart.

H.E. SALTER, The Thame cartulary (Oxfordshire Record

THEOBALD Charters

A. SALTMAN, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury (Univer-

Society, 25, 26), Oxford, 1947-1948. sity of London HistoricalStudies, II), London, 1956. Ms., 2 vols., Cambridge University Library, Add. Mss. 3020, 3021. Ms. London College of Arms, Arundel Ms. 59. Ms. London B.L., Tiberius D.VI.

THORNEY Red Book TUTBURY Cart. TwINHAm CHRIST CHURCH

Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3697. Ms. London B.L., Tiberius C.IX. Ms. London B.L., Harley 391. Ms. London B.L., Harley 4809. Tractatus de inventione sanctae crucis nostrae in Monte Acuto et de ductione ejusdem apud Waltham, ed. W.

WALDEN Cart.

Cart. A WALTHAM Cart. B WALTHAM Cart. C WALTHAM

WALTHAM Foundation

STUBBS, Oxford and London, 1861. G.H. FOWLER, Cartulary of the abbey of Old Wardon

WARDON Cart.

(Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 13), Bedford, 1930. G.F. WARNER and H.J. ELLIS, Facsimiles of royal and other charters in the British Museum, vol. i (William IRichard I), London, 1903. Ms. London P.R.O. 164/22. Ms. Wells Dean and Chapter Library.

WARNER AND ELLIS

Facsimiles WARWICK COLLEGE

Cart.

WELLS CATHEDRAL

Liber Albus D. SHILTON and R. HOLWORTHY,

WELLS City Charters

Wells city charters

(Somerset Record Society, xlvi), s.l., 1932. J.A. ROBINSON. Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster. A study of the abbey under Norman rule (Notes and documents of Westminster abbey, no. 3), Cambridge, 1911. Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 11. Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 1.

WESTMINSTER Crispin

Domesday WESTMINSTER Liber Niger WHITBY Cart. WESTMINSTER

J.C. ATKINSON, Cartularium abbathiae de Whiteby ordinis

Si Benedicti (Surtees Society, 69, 72), 2 vols., London, 1879-1881. D. ROYCE, Landboc sive registrum monasterii B. Mariae de Winchelcumba, 2 vols., Exeter, 1902-1903. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 29436, f, 10-48. A.W. GOODMAN, Chartulary of Winchester cathedral, Winchester, 1927. V.H. GALBRAITH, Royal charters to Winchester (English Historical Review, 35, pp. 382-400), London, 1920. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 15350.

WINCHCOMBE Reg. WINCHESTER Cart.

WINCHESTER Cart. A WINCHESTER Charters WINCHESTER

Liber Wintoniensis WINTON DOMESDAY

WORCESTER Heming's Cart.

M. BIDDLE, Winchester in the early Middle Ages. An edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday (Winchester Studies, 1), Oxford, 1976. Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T. HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1723.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xliii 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference WORCESTER Registrum I

YORK CATHEDRAL Cart. A YORK CATHEDRAL YORK CATHEDRAL

Cart. B

Historians YORK ST MARY'S Cart. A YORK ST MARY'S Cart. B YORKSHIRE Charters

YORKSHIRE Deeds

Full reference R.R. DARLINGTON, Cartulary of Worcester cathedral priory (Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series, xxxviii), London, 1968. Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 402. Ms. London B.L., Claudius BAIL. Historians of the church of York and its archbishops, ed. J. RAINE (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1879-1894. Ms. Manchester John Rylands Library, Latin Mss. 220 and 221. Ms. London B.L., Harley 236. W. FARRER, Early Yorkshire Charters, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1914-1916; C.T. CLAY, Early Yorkshire Charters, v-x (Yorkshire ArchaeologicalSociety, Record Series), York, 1936-1956. W. BROWN, Yorkshire deeds, ii (Yorkshire Alrchaeological Society, Record Series, 2), York, 1913.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xliv 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF WORKS1 G.B. Adams, 'Henry I's writ regarding the local courts', American Historical Review, 8 (1903), pp. 487-490. G.B. Adams, The history of Englandfrom the Norman Conquest to the death of John, London, 1905 (W. Hunt and R.M. Poole, The Political History of England, ii). G.B. Adams, The origin of the English constitution, 2nd ed., New Haven, 1920. G.B. Adams, Council and courts in Anglo-Norman England, New Haven, 1926 (Yale Historical Publications, Studies, v). G.B. Adams, Constitutionalhistory of England,2nd ed., London, 1935. W.O. Ault, Privatejurisdictionin England,New Haven, 1923 (Yale Historical Publications, Miscellany, x). F. Barlow, The feudal kingdom of England, 1042-1216, London, 1955 (Medlicott's History of England). F Barlow, William I and the Norman Conquest, London, 1965. G. Barraclough, The earldom andcounty palatineof Chester, Oxford, 1953 (Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, ciii, 1951). M.M. Bigelow, History of procedure in Englandfrom the Norman Conquest. The Norman period, 1066-1204, London, 1880. T.A.M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis. Facsimilesto identify and illustrate the hands of the royal scribes in original chartersof Henry I, Stephen and Henry II, Oxford, 1961. J. Boussard, Le gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagen&t, Paris, 1956 (Biblioth~que Elz6virienne. Nouvelle S~rie. Etudes et Documents). C.N.L. Brooke et al., London 800-1216: the Shaping of a City, London, 1975. Z.N. Brooke, 'The effect of Becket's murder on papal authority in England', Cambridge HistoricalJournal, 2 (1928), pp. 213 228. Z.N. Brooke, The English Church and the papacy from the Conquest to the reign of John, Cambridge, 1931. H.M. Cam, The hundred and the hundred rolls, an outline of local government in medieval England, London, 1930. C.R. Cheney, English bishops' chanceries, 1100-1250, Manchester, 1950 (Publications of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Manchester, no. 3). C.R. Cheney, From Becket to Langton. English churchgovernment, 1170-1213, Manchester, 1956. C.R. Cheney, Hubert Walter, London, 1967. S.B. Chrimes, English constitutional history, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1953 (Home University Library, 199). H.M. Colvin, 'Holme Lacy: an episcopal manor and its tenants in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries', Medieval Studies presented to Rose Graham, Oxford, 1950, pp. 15-40. Complete peerageof England,Scotland..., by G.E. C(okayne), new ed. by V. Gibbs et al., 12 vols., London, 1910-1959. H. Cronne, 'Ranulf de Gernuns, earl of Chester, 1129-53', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Series, 20 (1937), pp. 103-134. H.A. Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 1135-54: anarchy in England,London, 1970 (Studies in Medieval History). C.W. David, Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, Cambridge, Mass., 1920 (Harvard Historical Studies, xxv). This list contains books and articles which are of importance for our subject and to which we refer repeatedly: they will be quoted in abbreviated form. Those which we mention only occasionally will be quoted with their full references under the relevant lawsuits and are not listed here.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlv 1990

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

H.W.C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins, 1066-1272, London, 1905 (C.W.C. Oman, A history of England, ii). H.W.C. Davis, 'Some documents of the Anarchy', Essays presentedto R.L. Poole, Oxford, 1927, pp. 168-189. R.H.C. Davis, King Stephen, London, 1967. R.H.C. Davis, 'An Oxford Charter of 1191 and the Beginnings of Municipal Freedom', Oxoniensia, 33 (1968), pp. 53-65. W. de Gray Birch, 'On the great seals of King Stephen', Transactionsof the Royal Society of Literature, 2nd Series, 11 (1878), pp. 1-29. E. de Haas and G.D.G. Hall, Early Registers of Writs, London, 1970 (Selden Society Publications, 87). F. de Zulueta, The Liber Pauperum of Vacarius, London, 1927 (Selden Society Publications, 44). Dictionaryof National Biography, first ed., 63 vols., 1885-1900; second ed., 21 vols., 19081909, and 5 supplementary vols., 1909-1949. D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: the Norman impact upon England, London, 1964. D.C. Douglas, 'A charter of enfeoffment under William the Conqueror', English Historical Review, 42 (1927), pp. 245-247. D.C. Douglas, The social structureof medieval East Anglia, Oxford, 1927 (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ix). D.C. Douglas, 'The rise of Normandy', Proceedingsof the British Academy, 1947, pp. 101130. D.C. Douglas, English historicaldocuments, ii, 1042-1189, London, 1953. F.R.H. du Boulay, The lordshipof Canterbury:an essay on medieval society, London, 1966. C. du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis,5th ed. by L. Favre, 10 vols., Niort, 1883-1887. W. Dugdale, OriginesJuridiciales,3rd ed., London, 1680. C. Duggan, 'Richard of Ilchester, royal servant and bishop', Transactions of the Royal HistoricalSociety, 5th series, 16 (1966), pp. 1-21. R.W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols., London, 1853-1860. R.W. Eyton, Court, household and itinerary of King Henry II, London, 1878. W. Farrer, 'An outline itinerary of King Henry the First', English Historical Review, 34 (1919), pp. 303-382 and pp. 505-579. Also published separately, London, 1919. W. Farrer, Honors andknights'fees,3 vols.: 2 vols., London, 1923-1924; 1 vol., Manchester, 1925. C.T. Flower, Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, A.D. 1199-1230, London, 1944 (Selden Society, 62). R. Foreville, L'glise et la royaut6 en Angleterre sous Henri 1! Plantagent,Paris, 1943. E. Foss, The lives of the judges of England, 9 vols., London, 1848-1864. E.A. Freeman, The history of the Norman Conquest, 6 vols., Oxford, 1867-1879; 2nd ed., vol. i-iv, Oxford, 1870-1876; 3rd ed., vols. i-ii, Oxford, 1877. E.A. Freeman, The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First, 2 vols., Oxford, 1882. V.H. Galbraith, 'Seven charters of Henry II at Lincoln cathedral', The Antiquaries 'Journal, 12 (1932), pp. 269-278. V.H. Galbraith, An introduction to the use of the public records, Oxford, 1934. V.H. Galbraith, 'The literacy of the medieval English kings', Proceedings of the British Academy, 21 (1935), pp. 201-238. V.H. Galbraith, 'The making of Domesday Book', English HistoricalReview, 57 (1942), pp. 161-177.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlvi 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xlvii

V.H. Galbraith, Studies in the public records, London, 1948. E.B. Graves (ed.), A Bibliographyof English History to 1485, Oxford, 1975. J.W. Gray, 'The Jus Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton', English HistoricalReview, 67 (1952), pp. 481-508. A.S. Green, 'The centralization of Norman justice under Henry II', Select Essays in AngloAmerican Legal History, i, Cambridge, 1907, pp. 111-138. F.E. Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester, 1952. C.H. Haskins, Norman Institutions,Cambridge, Mass., 1925 (Harvard Historical Studies, xxiv). W.S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 17 vols., London, 1903-1972. W.S. Holdsworth, Sources and literatureof English law, Oxford, 1925. W.S. Holdsworth, Essays in law and history, ed. A.L. Goodhart, Oxford, 1946. N.D. Hurnard, 'The jury of presentment and the Assize of Clarendon', English Historical Review, 56 (1941), pp. 374-410. N.D. Hurnard, 'Magna Carta, clause 34', Studies presented to M. Powicke, Oxford, 1948, pp. 157-179. N.D. Hurnard, 'The Anglo-Norman franchises', English Historical Review, 64 (1949), pp. 289-327 and pp. 433-460. Introduction to the study of the Pipe Rolls, London, 1884 (Pipe Roll Society, 3). C. Johnson, 'Some charters of Henry I', Essays Tait, Manchester, 1933, pp. 137-142. C. Johnson, 'Waldric, the chancellor of Henry I', English Historical Review, 51 (1936), pp. 103-104. J.E.A. Jolliffe, 'The camera regis under Henry II', English Historical Review, 68 (1953), pp. 1-21 and pp. 337-362. J.E.A. Jolliffe, The constitutionalhistory of medieval England, 3rd ed., London, 1954. J.E.A. Jolliffe, Angevin kingship, London, 1955. E.J. Kealy, Roger of Salisbury, viceroy of England, Berkeley, London, 1972. D. Knowles, 'Archbishop Thomas Becket: A character study', Proceedingsof the British Academy, 1949, pp. 177-205. D. Knowles, The monastic order in England: a history of its developmentfrom the times of St. Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 943-1216, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1963. D. Knowles and R.N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales, 3rd ed., London, 1971. D. Knowles et al., The heads of religioushouses: Englandand Wales 940-1216, Cambridge, 1972. S. Kuttner and E. Rathbone, 'Anglo-Norman canonists of the twelfth century', Traditio,7 (1949-1951), pp. 279-358. L. Landon, The Itineraryof King Richard I, London, 1935 (Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series, xiii). L.M. Lappenberg and R. Pauli, Geschichte von England,5 vols., Hamburg, 1834-1858. R.E. Latham, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, London, 1965 (British Academy). J.Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, 3 vols., Oxford, 1854. J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300. I: St. Paul's, London, II: Monastic Cathedrals,III: Lincoln, comp. by D.E. Greenway, London, 1968-1977. Lists and Indexes, IX: List of Sheriffs for Englandand Wales from the earliesttimes to A.D. 1831, London, 1898 (Public Record Office). L.C. Loyd, The originsof some Anglo-Normanfamilies, ed. by C.T. Clay and D.C. Douglas, Leeds, 1951.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlvii 1990

xlviii

ENGLISH LAWSUITS

B. Lyon, A constitutional and legal history of medieval England, 2nd ed., New York, London, 1980. B.P. McGuire, 'The collapse of a monastic friendship: the case of Jocelin and Samson of Bury', Journalof Medieval History, 4 (1978), pp. 369-397. T. Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, London, 1702. T. Madox, The history and antiquitiesof the exchequer of England (1066-1327), London, 1711. F.W. Maitland, 'The beatitude of seisin', Law Quarterly Review, 4 (1888), pp. 24-39, 286299. Reprinted: Collected Papers, i, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 407-457. F.W. Maitland, 'History of the register of original writs', HarvardLaw Review, 3 (1889), pp. 97-115, 167-179, 212-225. Also: Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, ii, Boston, 1908, pp. 549-596. Reprinted: Collected Papers,ii, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 110173. F.W. Maitland, 'Materials for the history of English law', Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, ii, Boston, 1908, pp. 53-95. Reprinted: Collected Papers,ii, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 1-60. F.W. Maitland, Collected Papers, ed. H.A.L. Fisher, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1911: F.W. Maitland, Selected essays, ed. H.D. Hazeltine, G. Lapsley and P. Winfield, Cambridge, 1936. F.W. Maitland, The forms of action at common law, ed. A.H. Chaytor and W.J. Whittaker, Cambridge, 1936 (first printed, together with Equity, in 1909). D.J.A. Matthew, The Norman Conquest, London, 1966. H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes on the use of the great seal of England, London, 1926. H. Mayr-Harting, 'Henry II and the Papacy', Journalof EcclesiasticalHistory, 16 (1965), pp. 39-53. E. Miller, 'The Ely land pleas in the reign of William I', English HistoricalReview, 62 (1947), pp. 438-456. S.F.C. Milsom, HistoricalFoundationsof the Common Law, 2nd ed., London, 1981. S.F.C. Milsom, The Legal Framework of English Feudalism, Cambridge, 1976 (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History). A. Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, bishop and canonist. A study in the twelfth century, Cambridge, 1937. A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his letters, Cambridge, 1965. W.A. Morris, The early English county court, Berkeley, 1926 (University of California Publications, History, vol. 14, no. 2). W.A. Morris, The medieval English sheriff to A.D. 1300, Manchester, 1927. W.A. Morris, 'The lesser curia regis under the first two Norman kings of England', American HistoricalReview, 34 (1929), pp. 772-778. W.A.Morris, The constitutionalhistory of England to 1216, New York, 1930. S.A. Painter, Studies in the history of the English feudal barony, Baltimore, 1943 (John Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, Series 61, no. 3). F. Palgrave, The rise andprogressof the English commonwealth. Anglo-Saxon period,2 vols., London, 1832. F. Palgrave, Collected historicalworks, ed. R.H.I. Palgrave, 10 vols., London, 1919-1922. C. Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchieflodale en France et en Angleterre, Xe-XIIPe siicle, Paris, 1933 (Evolution de 'Humanit6, xli). C. Petit-Dutaillis and G. Lefebvre, Studies and notes supplementary to Stubbs' Constitutional History, 3 vols., Manchester, 1908-1929. T.F.T. Plucknett, A concise history of the common law, 5th ed., London, 1956.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlviii 1990

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xlix

F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The history of English law before the time of Edward . 2nd ed., 2 vols., Cambridge, 1898. Reprinted with new introduction and bibliography by S.F.C. Milsom, 1968. A.L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta,2nd ed., Oxford, 1955 (Oxford History of England). R.L. Poole, The exchequer in the twelfth century, Oxford, 1912 (Ford Lectures). F.M. Powicke and E.B. Fryde (eds.), Handbook of British Chronology, 2nd ed., London, 1961 (Royal Historical Society. Guides and Handbooks, 2). W.T. Reedy, jr., 'The origins of the general eyre in the reign of Henry I', Speculum, 41 (1966), pp. 688-724. H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The Governance of Mediaeval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta, Edinburgh, 1963. H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, Law and legislationfrom ,Ethelberht to Magna Carta, Edinburgh, 1966. J.H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville. A study of the Anarchy, London, 1892. J.H. Round, Feudal England, London, 1895. J.H. Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France illustrative of the history of Great Britain and Ireland,i: 918-1206, London, 1899. J.H. Round, The commune of London and other studies, Westminster, 1899. J.H. Round, 'The date of the grand assize', English HistoricalReview, 31 (1916), pp. 268269. A. Saltman, 'Two early collections of the Becket correspondence and of other contemporary documents', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 22 (1949), pp. 152-157. A. Saltman, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, London, 1956 (University of London Historical Studies, ii). I.J. Sanders, Feudal military service in England. A study of the constitutionaland military powers of the barones in medieval England, Oxford, 1956 (Oxford Historical Series, British Series). I.J. Sanders, English baronies. A study of their origin and descent 1086-1327, Oxford, 1960. G.O. Sayles, The medievalfoundations of England, London, 1948. G.V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset bishop of Durham, Cambridge, 1956. E. Searle, Lordship and Community. Battle Abbey and its Banlieu 1066-1538, Toronto, 1974 (Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Studies and Texts, 26). R.W. Southern, St. Anselm and his Biographer, Cambridge, 1963. D.M. Stenton, 'England under Henry II', Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (1926), pp. 554591. D.M. Stenton, 'Roger of Howden and Benedict', English Historical Review, 68 (1953), pp. 574-582. D.M. Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter 10661215, London, 1965 (American Philosophical Society. Jane Lectures for 1963). D.M. Stenton, Pleas before the king or his justices 1198-1202, 1212, i: Introduction with appendixes containingessoins 1199-1201, a 'King's Roll' of 1200, andwrits of 1190-1200, ii: Rolls orfragmentsof rollsfrom the years 1198, 1201 and 1202, iii: Rolls orfragments of rollsfrom the years 1199, 1201, and 1203-1206, 3 vols., London, 1952-1967 (Selden Society Publications, 67, 68, 83). F.M. Stenton, 'The Danes in England', Proceedings of the British Academy, 13 (1927), pp.203-246. F.M. Stenton, 'Acta episcoporum (XIIth century)', CambridgeHistoricalJournal,3 (1929), pp. 1-14.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlix 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

proposed an edict that the bishop of Worcester should be subjected to the archbishop of Canterbury, and that the archbishop of York had no right over him. He also granted to the church of Worcester the twelve manors which Ealdred had kept for his own use until the day of his death, compensating the archbishop with lands out of royal generosity. Another miracle occurred when Archbishop Lanfranc in this same meeting at Petherton8 granted him the visitation of the 9 bishopric of Chester.

4 The oppression of tenants of Abingdon Abbey by royal officials with unjust customs is put right in the county court of Berkshire, thanks, inter alia,to the intervention of English lawmen. William, king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc, Robert de Oilly and Roger de Pitres and all his other lieges of the whole kingdom of England, greeting. Know that I have granted to St. Mary of Abingdon and Adelelm, abbot of the same place, all the customs of their lands, which lay in the aforesaid church, wherever it has them in a borough or outside, so far as this Abbot Adelelm shall be able to show by writ or charter that the church of St. Mary of Abingdon and his predecessor have had those customs by the gift of King Edward. The recitation of those documents in the county court of Berkshire has been most useful for the abbot and the church. Some royal officials in those days caused many injuries to the men who lived on the possessions of the church in various places, imposing on them now these, now those customs, which were quite hard to bear. But after the aforesaid imperial mandates were exhibited, in which the rights of the church were then publicly established by a charter of King Edward and the testimony of the county in the same county court, the officials underwent a repulse which was adverse to them, but useful to the church. To this end the lord Abbot Adelelm had been very busy, while two monks of this church had been of the greatest help, two brothers of whom the older was called Sacol and the younger Godric, together with the priest Alfwin, who then directed the church of the neighbouring royal manor of Sutton Courtenay. They were so well versed in secular matters and had such a good memory for bygone events that the others, on every side, easily approved as valid the judgment which they proposed. But there were several other 0

8 R. Parret, Somerset O[ = Petherton, Somerset, near the river Parret] . 9 o[See related source material: WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Vita Wulfstani, 78-79; WILLIAM OF

MALMESBURY Gesta Pontificum, 40-41; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Gesta Regum, 349-352. See a discussion of the case and of the complicated problem of the date in: WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY

Vita Wulfstani, xxviii-xxxi; F. Barlow, William I and The Norman Conquest, London. 1965, 131132 (Teach yourself History, ed. A.L. Rowse).]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 6 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

English lawmen at that time in the abbey, whose argumentation no wise person would oppose, for while they looked after the interests of the church, their opponents went silent.

5 Report of a trial held on complaint of Archbishop Lanfranc and by order of King William I before the shire-court of Kent, afforced by notable persons from elsewhere both of Norman and of English descent and presided over by Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, representing the king, concerning the alleged despoliation of Canterbury, committed by Bishop Odo of Bayeux and other magnates, of lands and customary rights belonging to the archiepiscopal see. Judgment is given in favour of the archbishop. A. Oldest but incomplete report, representing probably a formal Canterbury record of the trial on Penenden Heath. In the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1072 in the 11 th year of the pontificate of the lord Pope Alexander [II] and the 6 th of the reign of King William and the 2 nd year of the pontificate of Lanfranc in the church of Canterbury, order was given at the king's command and the archbishop's request to convene the whole county without delay and to bring together all the French and specially the English who were acquainted with the old laws and customs, to deraign the liberties and customs which the church of Christ has in its own lands and should have in the king's lands. They gathered on Penenden Heath and all sat down and as numerous pleas about the deraignment of the lands and words about the customary laws were exchanged between the archbishop and Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who had usurped numerous lands of the archbishopric for himself, and as conflict arose between royal and archiepiscopal customs, which could not be expedited on the first day, the whole county had to spend three days on this case. In those three days Lanfranc there deraigned several lands which the men of the said

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 7 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop have held, i.e. Detling, Stoke, Preston, Denton and against Hugh de Montfort Ruckinge and Brook and against Ralph de Courbepine 60 solidates of the pasture in the Isle of Grean. All those lands he deraigned to be so free and quit that there was no man in the whole kingdom who could claim anything in them. In this same plea he recovered not only those aforesaid lands but he also renewed all the customs and liberties of his church and having renewed them, recovered them, i.e. soke and sake, toll, team, flymenfyrm, grithbreche,forestel, hamfare and infangthief, with all the other customs equal or inferior to these, in lands and waters, in woods, roads and meadows and all things and places within the city and without, within the borough and without. And all the wise men who were present have there deraigned and given judgment... B. A more "literary" version of the Canterbury record, possibly written at Canterbury and sent to Rochester (the famous Textus Roffensis contains an almost identical version and is therefore not repeated here: such variants as it contains can be found in the apparatus criticus of Le Patourel's edition reproduced here). At the time of the great King William, who conquered by force of arms the English kingdom and submitted it to his authority, it so happened that Odo, bishop of Bayeux and brother of the said king, arrived in England much sooner than Archbishop Lanfranc and resided in the county of Kent with great power, exerting a considerable measure of might. And since in those days there was nobody in that county able to resist a man of such strength, because of the great sway he wielded, he seized numerous lands and quite a few customs of the archbishopric of Canterbury for his own use and by way of usurpation placed them under his domination. Not long afterwards, however, the aforesaid Lanfranc, abbot of the church of Caen, also came to England at the king's command and was appointed archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the whole kingdom of England. After residing there for some time he found through diligent enquiry and careful discovery of the truth that many old lands of his church were missing and had been distributed and distracted by the negligence of his predecessors and he went to see the king as soon as possible and energetically asked him to take measures. Thereupon the king ordered the whole county to meet without delay and all the men of the county, the French and particularly the English who were acquainted with the old laws and customs, to come together; this they did and all sat down

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 8 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

equally at Penenden Heath. And since many pleas about the deraignment of the lands and words about the customary laws arose there between the archbishop and the aforesaid bishop of Bayeux and also conflict between royal and archiepiscopal customs, which could not be settled on the first day, the whole county spent three days there on the case. In those three days there Archbishop Lanfranc deraigned several lands which were then held by men of the said bishop, i.e. Herbert fitz Ivo, Turold of Rochester, Ralph de Courbepine and several others of his men, with all the customs and possessions belonging to those lands, against the said bishop of Bayeux and the aforesaid men, his and others, i.e. Detling, Stoke, Preston, Denton and many other small lands. And against Hugh de Montfort he deraigned Ruckinge and Brook and against Ralph de Courbepine 60 solidates of pasture in the Isle of Grean. And all those lands and others he deraigned to be so free and quit that on the day when this plea was finished no one remained in the whole kingdom who made any claim to them or any demand, however small, for anything in those lands. And in that plea he recovered not only those aforesaid lands and others, but he also renewed all the liberties of his church and all its customs and having renewed them, deraigned them there: soke, sake, toll, team, flymenfyrm, grithbreche,forestel, hamfare, infangthief with all other customs equal or inferior to those, in lands and waters, woods, roads and meadows and in all other things within the city and without, within the borough and without and in all other places. And by all those honest and wise men who were present, it was there deraigned and also agreed and adjudicated by the whole county that as the king himself holds his lands free and quit in his demesne, so the archbishop of Canterbury holds his lands completely free and quit in his demesne. The following were present at this plea: Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, who acted in the king's place and held that plea, Archbishop Lanfranc who, as was said, pleaded and deraigned everything, the earl of Kent i.e. the aforesaid bishop of Bayeux, Arnost bishop of Rochester, Aethelric bishop of Chichester, a very old man, very learned in the laws of the land, who had been brought in a chariot at the king's demand in order to discuss and expound these same old legal customs, Richard of Tonbridge,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 9 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hugh de Montfort, William of Arques and Haimo the sheriff. And there were many other barons of the king and the archbishop and many men of those bishops, and other men from other counties also were there together with all of this county, men of great and various authority, French as well as English. In the presence of them all it was demonstrated for numerous and very clear reasons that the king of the English has no customs in any of the lands of the church of Canterbury except three only. And those three customs which he has are the following. One: when some man of the archbishop digs up that royal road which leads from city to city. Two: when somebody cuts a tree along the royal road and lets it fall across the road. Those who are found guilty of those two customs and were detained as they did this - whether gage was accepted from them or not - will nevertheless pay what justly has to be paid at the prosecution of the king's minister and by gage. The third custom is the following: if somebody has spilt blood or committed homicide on the royal road itself or has done something else which is in no way permitted, if only he was apprehended as he did it and was detained, he will make amends to the king. If however he was not apprehended and got away without giving gage, the king cannot rightly demand anything from him. It was similarly shown in the same plea that the archbishop of the church of Canterbury is entitled to numerous customs in all the lands of the king and the earl, for if anyone spilt blood between the day on which Alleluia is sung until the octave of Easter, he shall make amends to the archbishop and who commits the fault which is called cildwite at any time, during Lent or not, the archbishop shall have either the full penalty or half, i.e. during Lent the whole and outside Lent either the whole or half the penalty. He also has in all those lands whatever pertains to the cure and salvation of souls. Having heard the conclusion of this plea, based on numerous witnesses and arguments, the king approved it, confirmed it with the consent of all his magnates and firmly ordered that it was to last uncorrupted thereafter. And that is why it is written down here to stay forever in people's memory and so that the future successors to this church of Christ at Canterbury should know what and how much they should hold from God in the dignities of that church and what they should demand from the kings and the magnates of this kingdom by eternal right.

C. Enlarged edition of our text B, containing a more detailed list of properties recovered for Canterbury (only this additional material is printed here).I In those three days Archbishop Lanfranc deraigned there several lands which Bishop [Odo] himself and his men there held, i.e. Herbert son of Ivo, Turold of Rochester, Ralph de Courbepine, Hugh de Montfort, with all the customs and 5C ' '[The enlarged edition contains literally our text B from Tempore magni regis till per tres dies ibi fuit detentus. Then follows the enlarged part, and our text B is then again followed literally from Et in eodem placito to the end.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 10 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

possessions that belong to those lands, Reculver, Sandwich, Ratebury, Weddington, Lyminge minster with the lands and customs pertaining to that monastery, Saltwood with the borough of Hythe pertaining to Saltwood, Langport, Hevenden, Ruckinge, Detling, Preston, Sundridge, Erith, Orpington, Eynsford, and four prebends in Brook, Newington, Stoke and Denton. In Surrey the archbishop, favoured by King William, deraigned Mortlake. In London the monastery of St. Mary with the lands and the houses which Livingus the priest and his wife had. In Middlesex Harrow and Hayes, in Buckinghamshire Risborough and Halton, in Oxfordshire Newington, in Essex Stisted, in Suffolk Freckenham. Also against Ralph de Courbepine 60 solidates of a meadow in the Isle of Grean. And all these lands and others he deraigned with all the customs and possessions which belonged to those lands, so free and quit that on the day when this plea was finished there was no man left in the whole kingdom of England who claimed any more land or made even the slightest claim on any of these lands. Stoke however and Denton and Freckenham he gave back to the church of St. Andrew because they belonged of old by right to that church.

D. Brief reference in Domesday Book to the trial between Archbishop Lanfranc and Odo of Bayeux (see a related entry in CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH Domesday Monachorum. 98). This manor belonged and belongs to the This bishop' holds Stoke.. bishopric of Rochester but Earl Godwin bought it in the time of King Edward from two men who held it from the bishop and this sale took place without him knowing of it. Afterwards, however, during the reign of King William Archbishop Lanfranc deraigned it against the bishop of Bayeux and therefore the church of Rochester is now seised of it. E. Mention of the Penenden Heath trial in the Acta Lanfranci. In the third year at Gloucester Lanfranc consecrated Peter as bishop of Lichfield or Chester. In this year also a great plea was held in the place which is called Penenden and there Lanfranc deraigned that he and his church held all their lands and customs, on land and sea, as freely as the king held his. Only three exceptions to this were admitted: if the king's road was dug up, or if a tree was felled so as to fall across it, or homicide was committed or blood was shed upon it, then anyone who was arrested for these crimes, and had given a pledge in respect of them, should pay his penalty to the king. Otherwise the archbishop was to be free from interference by royal officials.' 5D I [.e. Gundulf of Rochester.]' 5E I O[Translation taken almost verbatim from D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway, English HistoricalDocuments 1042-1189, ii, 1953, 632.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 11 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

F. Story of the trial in the Vita Sancti Dunstani by Osbern, a monk of Canterbury, written about 1090. At this time Archbishop Lanfranc entered into a conflict with the leaders of the kingdom of the English, particularly the bishop of Bayeux called Odo who was the king's brother and earl of Kent, concerning the right of the church of Christ and certain lands of which it had for a long time been unjustly deprived. Since his wisdom was incomparably greater than that of all others, he was not confident in his own strength and, more admirable than others because of his humility in the face of God, he prayed to St. Dunstan to help him to defend the case of his church. Having offered the salutary eucharist in order to be heard by God, he quietly sat down waiting for the advocacy of the pleaders, pondering what he could say against his adversaries and how he could reply to their objections. While he suffered this mental anxiety, the saint of God appeared to him, surrounded by two dignified angelic figures, with an angelic expression himself, and giving Lanfranc an encouraging look. This vision made him confident of winning his case and so he went without fear to the council of his adversaries and thoroughly confounded their attacks with a torrent of arguments. Indeed, he beat all the enemies of Christ and himself in such a way that what belonged by right to the church of Christ was fully restored and that the servant of the Lord took pride in the fact that this was brought about not by human wisdom but by divine power. G. Mention of the trial in the Vita Lanfranci written ca. 1100 by the archbishop's pupil, Milo Crispin. Bishop Odo of Bayeux, brother of King William, was earl of Kent when Lanfranc came to the archbishopric. He plagued the men of that province and at the same time the men of the church of Canterbury with numerous inconveniences. Lanfranc resisted him to his face and in the presence of all he deraigned the freedom of his land by the testimony of old Englishmen who were versed in the laws of the land and he freed his men from the bad customs which Odo wanted to impose on them. Several are still alive who knew the place of the plea and the name of the place and report the way the plea was conducted and the outcome by which the conflict was terminated. H. Account of the trial given in the first part of Eadmer's HistoriaNovorum, for which he had been making notes and gathering material since 1093 and assembled them as his history between 1109 and 1115. To mention only one instance, there was the case of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, brother of King William and earl of Kent, who was throughout the whole

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 12 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

kingdom recognized as a great man and very powerful even before Lanfranc had come to England. This Odo by the absolute power which he had attained had in many ways encroached not only upon the lands but also upon the liberty of the church of Canterbury, and there being none to offer him any resistance, had restricted her liberty and was still holding her lands. When Lanfranc had learned the true facts of the case, he took up these matters with the king, as he knew it was his bounden duty to do. Accordingly the king ordered an assembly of leading personages and men of integrity not only from the county of Kent but also from other counties of England to be convened and Lanfranc's complaints to be presented to the court, tried and determined. So an assembly of nobles was held at Penenden Heath and Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, a man of great wealth in England at that time, was bidden as the king's representative to do justice to Lanfranc in the matters of which he complained; and this he did most thoroughly. For there Lanfranc, resting his case on sound reasoning, did by the unanimous assent and judgment of the whole assembly recover all that was proved to have belonged by ancient right to the church of Canterbury, both of lands and of customs of various kinds.'

I. Account of the trial in William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum, completed in 1125. The possessions of all the manors which had fallen into strange hands, either through the negligence of his predecessors or the violence of demanding people, he recovered thanks to the favour and support of the king, so that he even forced by entering into a plea the brother of the king himself, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, earl of Kent, to restore what he unjustly detained. The latter's crafty and fallacious mind was indeed eager to acquire possessions of the church of Canterbury, which he surely would have ruined if resistance had not been offered by Lanfranc, who excelled by the liveliness of his mind but also enjoyed the favour of St. Dunstan. For whenever in those circumstances he hesitated, fearing that things were going badly, and obtained the postponement ofjudgment, St. Dunstan appeared to him in his sleep, unmasking the cunning of his adversaries and showing how it could be overcome. Whenever he was ill and depressed with the uncertainties of life, the saint saved him from his crisis and restored him to good health by means of a vision in which he was seen to join him in his struggle.

51- I

[Translation taken almost verbatim from G. Bosanquet, History of recent events in England, London, 1964, pp. 17-18.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 13 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

J. Brief account of the trial in Gervase of Canterbury's Actus Pontificum, written in 1205-c. 1210. In that famous meeting of the nobles and the elders of England which gathered at Penenden Heath by the king's command Lanfranc deraigned and recovered the lost lands and revoked the liberties and customs and as the king freely holds the customs which are his due in his own lands, so the archbishop and the church of Canterbury hold in all places their men, customs, lands, rights and liberties according to the charters of the kings which that church has and especially those of St. Edward and all his successors. K. Fifteenth-century copy of a late eleventh or early twelfth-century report, originating from Canterbury. In the year of the lord 1072 a great gathering of nobles and elders took place at the command of the aforesaid King William in the place called Penenden Heath in order to ascertain carefully from old Englishmen the truth of the law and to have a hearing there about some customs and lands which Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury claimed for himself on the basis of the right of his church. The following were present at this plea: Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances who was appointed as judge in the king's place, Archbishop Lanfranc whose case was heard, the earl of Kent, namely Odo the bishop of Bayeux, Bishop Arnost of Rochester, Bishop Aethelric of Chichester, a very old man and learned in the laws and customs of the English who had been fetched there at the king's command in a chariot, Richard de Tonbridge, Hugh de Montfort, William of Arques, Sheriff Haimo and many other men, French and English, of great and considerable authority. After they had put forward many reasons from both sides on the first day without being able to finish everything which had to be discussed, this meeting was carried on for three consecutive days and it was demonstrated with numerous and most evident arguments in the presence of all that the king of the English has no customs in the lands of the church of Canterbury except three. The three customs which he has are the following. When somebody digs up the king's road which leads from city to city or when somebody cuts a tree along the king's road and lets it fall across that road. Those who are guilty of these two customs and were found, caught and detained while committing these offences and had given gage, shall pay to the king what justly has to be paid. The third custom is the following. If somebody has spilt blood in the king's road or committed homicide or something else which is in no way allowed, if he was caught in this act and had given gage to do right, he shall pay the king. However, if he commits any of those and succeeds in

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 14 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

getting away and reaches the land of the archbishop before gage is received from him, the king shall have nothing more from him for that offence, but he shall pay to the archbishop. It was also shown that the archbishop of Canterbury justly has many customs in the lands of the king and the earl, for if somebody spills blood from the day on which Alleluia is closed until the octave of Easter, he shall pay to the archbishop, but if somebody commits an offence called childwite at any time, he shall pay half of it to the archbishop if it was outside Lent, but if it happened from the day on which Alleluia is closed until the octave of Easter he shall have the whole payment. He also has in those lands whatever pertains to the cure and salvation of souls. Lanfranc also reclaimed as of right for his church in that same plea several lands which the princes and the magnates of the kingdom, who were present, and their men held, and finally he deraigned by God's grace the lands and all their customs for himself and his church. Lanfranc also renewed there all the liberties and customs of his church and showed that as the king freely holds his customs, so he and his church had in their lands and on their men in all parts of England those free customs which the English call sake, soke, toll, team, flymenfyrm, grithbreche,forestel,hamfare and infangthief. And all other customs which are equal or inferior to those were also shown freely to belong to the church of Canterbury through old custom, in lands and waters, woods, roads, meadows and all other things within and outside the city, within and outside the borough and in all places. For with the exception of the three aforesaid customs it was consistently confirmed with the unanimous agreement of all present that because of old custom and the sanction of the kings of England the church of Canterbury, because of its primacy and because the Christian religion started there to illuminate the kingdom of the English, the archbishop and the aforesaid church hold their lands and customs completely free and quit in their demesne, just as the king himself holds his lands and customs free and quit in his. After all this had been decided with numerous witnesses and reasons, the glorious king having heard it, approved it with the consent of his princes, corroborated it and ordered it to be kept inviolate ever after. This was entrusted to memory for the advantage of future times and so that the successors to the church of Canterbury should know which and how many dignities of the said church should be held from God and to which it is entitled by eternal right vis d vis the king and princes of this kingdom.1 5K ' o[W.Levison, "A Report on the Penenden Trial", E.H.R., 27 (1912), 717-720; D.C. Douglas, Odo, Lanfranc andthe Domesday Survey, Historical Essays in honour of James Tait, Manchester, 1933,47-57; J. Le Patourel, "The Date of the Trial on Penenden Heath", E.H.R., 61 (1946), 378388; J. Le Patourel, The reports of the trial on Penenden Heath, Studies in medieval history presented to F.M. Powicke, ed. by R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern, Oxford, 1948, 15-21; C. Hart, The Early Charters of Essex: The Norman Period, Leicester, 1957 (Dept. of

English Local History. Occasional Papers, 11); Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury,36-43; D.R. Bates, "The Land Pleas of William I's Reign: Penenden Heath Revisited", Bulletin of the Institute of HistoricalResearch, 51 (1978), 1-19; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, Oxford, 1978, 152, 155; H. Clover and M. Gibson (eds.), The letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury,Oxford, 1979, 62

(Oxford Medieval Texts).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 15 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

6 In the county court of Kent, Abbot Scotland of St. Augustine, Canterbury deraigns eight prebends and the church in Newington with the lands pertaining to them. A. Notice in the Domesday Monachorum of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury. Concerning this manor1 St. Augustine and Abbot Scotland deraigned eight prebends and a church with all the lands and customs belonging to them in the time of King William I. B. Notification by King William I that he restores to St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, eight prebends in Newington and all the lands pertaining to them, on the basis of the testimony of the county court of Kent. William, by God's grace king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc, Earls Robert' and Roger 2 and the magnates of the whole of England, greeting. Know that I restore to St. Augustine and Abbot Scotland and the brethren of the place eight prebends in Newington and all the lands appertaining to them free and quit with all customs according to the testimony given by the county of Kent before Archbishop Lanfranc, Eudo, my steward, William de Arques, Ralph de Curba Spina and my other magnates of that county. I therefore will and command that the said abbot and place shall henceforth firmly and honourably have, hold and possess them forever as his predecessors best held them. And if anyone causes him any injury thereon, you will do him right. Witness: Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances. At Rouen. Farewell. 7

Waltheof, earl of Northampton and Huntingdon, who was implicated in the rebellion in 1075 of Ralph de Gael, earl of Norwich, and Roger of Hereford against William the Conqueror, is imprisoned, condemned in the king's court and executed on 31 May 1076. A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis. At the same time' another grave disturbance broke out, which brought sorrow and disaster to many in England. Two powerful English earls, Roger of Hereford 6A I 0[i.e. Newington, Milton Hundred, Kent.]' 0 6B ' '[This could be earl Robert of Mortain (as in Regesta i no. 66), but also count Robert of Eu.] 0 0 2 [This could be Roger of Montgomeri (as in Regesta i, no. 66), but also Earl Roger of Hereford.] 7A I The rebellion of the earls took place in 1075: Orderic must therefore have been very confused about the chronology of the wars between Fulk and William that he had just described.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 16 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and his brother-in-law Ralph of Norwich, plotted together to stir up rebellion, wrest the realm of England from King William, and assume authority - or rather tyranny - over it. To this end they fortified their castles, prepared weapons, mustered their knights, and sent messengers to all far and near whom they trusted, using prayers and promises to persuade potential supporters to help them.... With these and similar arguments, urging each other to undertake the treachery they had conceived, the conspirators sought the ear of Waltheof earl of Northampton and tempted him with such reasoning as this: "See, gallant lord, now is the appointed hour for you to recover your lost fiefs and take just vengeance for the injuries you have suffered. Join our party and stand with us; we can promise you a third part of England. We wish to restore all the good customs that the realm of Albion enjoyed in the time of the virtuous King Edward. One of us shall be king and the other two dukes; and so all the honours of England shall be subject to the three of us. William is overwhelmed by countless wars overseas, and we know for certain that he will never return to England. Come, noble lord: respect the counsels that hold out the greatest hope for you and your descendants, and will bring salvation to your people, now sunk in slavery." Waltheof replied: "In such affairs the greatest caution is necessary; and every man in every country owes absolute loyalty to his liege lord. King William has lawfully received the oath of fealty which I his vassal rightly swore, and has given his niece to me in marriage as a pledge of lasting loyalty. He has given me a rich earldom and counted me among his closest friends. How can I be unfaithful to such a lord, unless I utterly desecrate my faith? I am known all over the country, and it would cause great scandal if -which Heaven forbid- I were publicly proclaimed a sacrilegious traitor. No good song is ever sung of a traitor. All peoples brand apostates and traitors as wolves, and consider them worthy of hanging and - if they can- condemn them to the gallows with every kind of ignominy and insult. Achitophel and Judas committed the crime of treachery, and both took their own lives by hanging themselves, as men unworthy of either earth or heaven. The law of England2 punishes the traitor by beheading, and deprives his whole progeny of their just inheritance. Heaven forbid that I should stain my honour with the guilt of treachery, and that such shame should be voiced abroad about me. The Lord God, who delivered David out of the hand of Goliath and of Saul, Adarezer, and Absalom, has by his grace delivered me also from many dangers by sea and land. To him I commend myself in all faith; and in him I faithfully hope that I may never be guilty of treachery in my life nor imitate the apostasy of the fallen angel Satan." When Ralph the Breton and Roger heard these words they were bitterly disappointed and bound him by a terrible oath not to reveal their conspiracy. Not 2 This is correctly stated (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. 51-52). The punishment

in Norman law was forfeiture and imprisonment. Cf. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,p. 604, and above, Introduction, p. xxxix. '[=ORDERIC VITALis History ii.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 17 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

long afterwards the rebellion they had plotted broke out all over England and the king's servants met with open opposition everywhere.' William of Warenne and Richard of Bienfait, son of Count Gilbert, whom the king had appointed among his chief ministers4 for all business in England, summoned the rebels to the king's court. They, however, scorned the summons, preferring to continue in their evil ways, and joined battle with the king's men.... When the tireless king received these reports from his men he quickly settled affairs in Normandy and Maine, and leaving everything in excellent order sailed at once to England. After summoning all the magnates of the kingdom to his court he warmly praised the men who had kept the law and remained true to him, and formally asked the fomentors and supporters of rebellion why they preferred iniquity to justice. The garrison of Norwich made peace and surrendered to the king, and Ralph of Gael earl of Norwich forfeited his English fiefs. So he was forced into exile; and returning to Brittany with his wife took up his patrimony, which the English monarch had no power to confiscate. In Brittany he was lord of the two strong fortresses of Gael and Montfort, and his children hold them by hereditary right to this day.' He himself many years later, in the time of Pope Urban, took the cross and set out for Jerusalem with Robert the second, duke of Normandy, to fight against the Turks; as a pilgrim and penitent following the way of God he died, together with his wife. However, Earl Roger obeyed the summons to the king's court, and when questioned could not deny the treachery that was plain for all to see. Consequently he was judged by the laws of the Normans, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment after forfeiting all his earthly goods.6 Even in prison he continued to abuse the king in many ways, and give him still greater offence by his provocative behaviour. For once, whilst the Christian populace was reverently celebrating the Easter feast, the king sent honourable servants with a store of valuable garments to Earl Roger in his prison; whereat he commanded that a huge pyre should be prepared and the royal finery7 - cloak and silken tunic and mantle of ermine skins from distant parts- burned at once. At the news of this the king exclaimed in wrath: "It is a proud man who insults me in this way; but by God's glory he shall Orderic's account of the rebellion agrees in some points with Florence of Worcester (FW ii. 10 12) and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, D, E; but has some details not found elsewhere. The source for these is unknown: they may have been part of the Crowland tradition. For a discussion of events see F.S. Scott, Arch. Aeliana, xxx (1952), 205 207. 4 The term justiciar later acquired a technical sense: at this date it implies an ad hoc authority (cf. Francis West, The Justiciarshipin England, p. 8). The Breton fiefs descended to Ralph's eldest son William; on his death in 1119 they passed to the second son, Ralph, in whose line they remained (GEC ix. 574). o[= G.E. Cokayne, The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and United Kingdom, 13 parts in 14 vols., London, 21910-1959.10 See above, p. 314 n. i. In view of the pretensions of the conspirators the gift that Orderic regards as a courtesy may well have been taken as an insult.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 18 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

8 never leave my prison as long as I live". The king's sentence was so lasting that even after the king's death nothing but death released him from his fetters. His sons Reginald and Roger became some of the best soldiers in the service of King Henry; and are still awaiting his pardon which seems to them in their bitter conflicts too long delayed. 9 .. Earl Waltheof was summoned before the king and accused, on the deposition of his wife Judith,"° of being a party to the conspiracy and proving unfaithful to his lord. He, however, fearlessly and openly admitted that he had learned from the traitors of their infamous intention, but had refused to give them any support in such a shameful affair. Judgment was demanded on the grounds of this confession: but as the judges could not agree among themselves a decision was postponed several times and delayed a year. During this time the brave earl was kept in the king's prison at Winchester, where with tears and lamentations he repeatedly confessed his sins to holy bishops and abbots. There for the space of a year he did penance as the priests advised, chanting to God daily the hundred and fifty psalms of David which he had learned in childhood.11 He was a handsome man of splendid physique, exceptional for his generosity and courage: a devoted Christian who showed humble obedience to all priests and monks and truly loved the Church and the poor. On account of these spiritual virtues and many others in which he surpassed most laymen he was dearly loved by his own subjects and by god-fearing men everywhere; and it was generally supposed during the year's delay that he would be released from imprisonment. But a powerful group of his enemies met in the king's court and after long discussions judged him worthy of death, because he had given tacit consent to his companions in their plot to kill their lord and had neither resisted their attempt to destroy their master nor openly revealed the conspiracy. Without delay the Normans, who coveted the wealth and wide fiefs of Waltheof and were deeply concerned lest he should escape, led him out of the town of Winchester early in the morning whilst the people slept, and took him up the hill where the church of St. Giles, abbot and confessor, now stands. There he piously divided among the clergy and poor who happened to be present the rich garments which he wore as an earl, and prostrating himself on the ground gave himself up for a long time to prayer, with weeping and lamentation. But since the executioners feared that the citizens would wake and prevent

8 The date of his death is unknown: it must have been after 1087 (GEC vi. 450). 9 Reginald at some date found favour with Henry 1,for he married Emmeline, daughter of Hamelin of Ballon, and by 1130 held the Ballon fief in Wiltshire iure uxoris (J.H. Round, Studies in PeerageandFamily History, Westminster, 1901, pp. 201-205). It is possible that when Orderic wrote this book in 1125-1126 he had not yet acquired the property; on the other hand, Orderic's information may not have been up to date, Nothing further is known of Roger. ° 100 [Judith, daughter of King William's sister Adelaide, by Enguerrand, count of Ponthieu.] monk to be a intended have been boy he may David as a of the psalms If Waltheof had learned before the death of his elder brother. Cf. Scott, Arch. Aeliana, xxx (1952), 156. But at this point Orderic, who was using Crowland traditions, begins to pass from history into hagiography.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 19 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

them carrying out the royal will, and show sympathy for their noble fellow countryman by murdering the royal guards, they addressed the prostrate earl in these words: "Get up", they said, "so that we may carry out our lord's orders" To this he replied: "Wait a little longer, for the love of almighty God, at least until I have said the Lord's prayer on your behalf and mine". As they agreed he rose, and kneeling with his eyes raised to heaven and his hands stretched out he began to say aloud, "Our Father, which art in Heaven". But when he reached the last sentence and said, "And lead us not into temptation", such tears and lamentations broke from him that he could not finish his prayer. The executioner refused to wait any longer, but straightway drawing his sword struck off the earl's head with a mighty blow. Then the severed head was heard by all present to say in a clear voice, "But deliver us from evil. Amen". This was the manner in which Earl Waltheof was executed at Winchester on the morning of 30 April, 2 his body being flung unceremoniously into a ditch and hastily covered with freshly cut turf.'3 B. The narrative in the Chronicle of Hyde. While King William tried discreetly to organize the realm in view of the peace, certain princes of the English desired to cast off the yoke of their unwanted subjection and did not shrink from rebellion against him, even if it cost them their lives. Edmesau' Waltheof, one of the old and very rich princes of England and so striking of appearance that he looked like another Absalom, burnt with anger to such an extent that no prayers or gifts or the fact that he was said to have married, for the sake of peace, a relation of the king, named Judith, could establish between the king and him anything else than a simulated union. Afterwards he was accused of conspiracy against the king, confessed and underwent judgment, after which he was left in peace. After another conspiracy was repressed he was condemned according to the laws of the English and the Danes at London, but soon afterwards being imprisoned he turned fully to the Lord and begged with fasts, tears and assiduous and intense prayers to be allowed to become a monk and to be held in [God's] service forever. His wish was however not fulfilled, though the king himself came to regret it afterwards. Therefore he was beheaded and his body taken to some church which he had built along the sea and it is said that till this day numerous miracles take place at his tomb. C. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 1075. In this year King William gave to Earl Ralph [Emma], the daughter of William fitz Osbern. This same Ralph was Breton on his mother's side, and Ralph 12 A slip for lunii: elsewhere Orderic gives the date as 31 May, which agrees with the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, D, 1077 (for 1076).

13 '[Translation

from

ORDERIC VITALIS

History ii. 311-323.10

7B I o[Oldengl. for "respectful".] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 20 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

his father was English, and was born in Norfolk, and the king therefore gave the earldom there and Suffolk as well to his son. He then took the lady to Norwich. There was that bride-ale That was many men's bale. Earl Roger was there and Earl Waltheof and bishops and abbots, and there they plotted to drive their royal lord out of his kingdom. And the king in Normandy was soon informed about this. Earl Ralph and Earl Roger were the ringleaders in this conspiracy; and they lured the Bretons to their side; and they also sent to Denmark for a naval force. And Roger went west to his earldom and assembled his people for the king's undoing, as he thought, but it turned out to his own great harm. Ralph also wanted to go forward with the men of his earldom, but the castle garrisons which were in England and also the local people came against them and prevented them all from doing anything; but he was glad to escape to the ships. And his wife remained behind in the castle, and held it until she was given safeconduct; and then she went out of England, and all her men who wished to go with her. And the king afterwards came to England, and captured Earl Roger, his kinsman, and put him in prison. And Earl Waltheof went overseas and accused himself and asked for pardon and offered treasure. But the king made light of it until he came to England and then had him captured. 1076. And Earl Waltheof was beheaded at Winchester; and his body was taken to Crowland. 1 D. The narrative in Florence of Worcester. Roger of Hereford, son of William, earl of the same shire, gave' his sister as wife to Earl Ralph of East-Anglia2 against the order of King William and the magnificent wedding was held in the presence of a considerable number of magnates in the county of Cambridge at a place called Exning3 and there, with the agreement of many, a great conspiracy was made against King William and they forced Earl Waltheof, who knew of their plans, to swear with them, but as soon as possible he went to see Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury and was given a penitence by him for this deed, although his oath had not been given freely. He also on the archbishop's advice went to King William in Normandy and unfolded to him the unlawful event, placing himself in his mercy. In order to execute their plans the forementioned leaders of the conspiracy went back to their castles and started to launch the rebellion with all means, with their accomplices... 7C 7D

' O[Translation by Whitelock, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 156 157.10 ' The 0

Sax. Chron. sub aa. 1075, 1076, states that the 0 marriage took place with William's consent.

2 [Ralph de Gael of de Gauder, earl of Norfolk.]

I 0 [Exning (Ixning used to be a commoner spelling) was once considered to be in Cambridgeshire, but is now in Suffolk to the north-west of Newmarket (W.W. Skeat, The place-names of Suffolk, Cambridge, 1913, 72).1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 21 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Afterwards the king came back from Normandy in the autumn and placed Earl Roger in custody; he also put Earl Waltheof in custody, although he had implored his mercy. Edith, the sister of King Harold and late queen of the English, died at Winchester on 19 December [1075] and her body was taken to London at the king's command and honourably buried at Westminster next to that of her lord King Edward. There the king held his court on the following Christmas and some of those who had rebelled against him he outlawed from England and others he mutilated by having their eyes put out or their hands cut off. The Earls Waltheof and Roger, condemned by a judicial sentence, he ordered to be kept in a more severe prison. Earl Waltheof was on King William's order taken outside the city of Winchester and beheaded with an axe in an unworthy and cruel way and buried on the spot, but in the course of time his body was lifted as God had ordained and taken to Crowland with great honour and honourably buried in the church. But while he still enjoyed the temporal life and was kept in a strict prison, he deplored such wrong as he had done incessantly and bitterly. He tried to appease God by vigils, prayers, fasts and alms. Here on earth people wanted to obliterate his memory but it is truly believed that he enjoys heaven with the saints, as was truly testified by the aforesaid Archbishop Lanfranc of pious memory, from whom after his confession he accepted his penitence and who maintained that he was innocent of the crime of which he was accused, namely the aforesaid conspiracy, and that he had deplored with the tears of penitence and as a true Christian what he might otherwise have done wrong. The archbishop also said that hp would be happy if after his own death he could enjoy [the earl's] felicitous rest.' Afterwards, having crossed the sea, the king marched on lower Brittany and laid siege to the castle of 6 5 Earl Ralph which was called Dol until Philip king of the French drove him away.

8 When Abbot Frederick of St. Alban's, after having leased the manor of Aldenham to the abbot of Westminster for a limited period, reclaims it, the latter, with royal support, manages to retain it. Abbot Frederick, who thought that there was nothing worse than the loss of life, granted the manor of Aldenham, where many travellers to and from London were in peril because of the density of the forests, to the abbot of Westminster, who 4 Ingulphi Hist. Sax. Chron. a. 1076. 6 '[On this defeat of King William, who was forced to retire by King Philip, see Douglas, William the Conqueror, 234. - See also Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 602-604; Douglas, op. cit., 231233; BIGELow Placita, 11.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 22 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

had slyly hoped for this, to be possessed during the period of twenty years, against payment of 100 shillings per year together with 4 Easter oxen; after that term the manor would return into the hands of Abbot Frederick. The terms of this agreement were such that the abbot of Westminster had to see to the safety of those roads and be responsible for any damage and if any occurred because of insufficient surveillance, he would be punished by the loss of the tenement. The abbot of Westminster in question was very much a man of the court and the palace and on good terms with William the new king, to whom he gave a considerable donation at his coronation, which was held at Westminster. I In his pride he failed to fulfill what he had promised and was even thirsting after more, particularly a wood which was situated not far from Aldenham and which because of its pleasantness was called Bruteite as it were Prudeite.Carried away by his ambition and employing chicanery he brought a claim against Abbot Frederick, maintaining that it belonged to the aforesaid manor and should be added to it, and complaining to the king about it, he brought great discord which resulted in considerable damage for Abbot Frederick. After the term of twenty years2 had passed, the abbot of Westminster refused to restore the said manor to the abbot of St. Albans, maintaining that Abbot Frederick did him an injury concerning the said wood, although in fact it never belonged to that manor. But he was just seeking a knot in a bulrush, causing litigation and quibbles, in which he was supported by the king. And thus in spite of Abbot Frederick's constant reclamation and vindication, the manor remained for several years in the possession of the abbot of Westminster. Finally Abbot Frederick, undone by old age and despair, gave up this litigation, tired of his numerous losses and exasperated by his injuries.3

8 1 '[The Gesta suggests that the abbot of Westminster was at the coronation of the Conqueror. If the abbot who is meant here assisted at the coronation of King William, it was Eadwin; however it is most unlikely that the Anglo-Saxon Eadwin was curialisnimis et aulicusand afamniliarisof the new king. Therefore the identity of the abbot of Westminster in question remains uncertain.]' 0 2 [The twenty year period mentioned in the Gesta is unacceptable because of the chronology of 0 Abbot Frederick, who ruled between c. 1070 and 1077, when he was succeeded by Paul.] 3 o[See also a royal notification of 1067-1071 confirming Aldenham to Westminster (Regesta i, no. 53); V.C.H. Hertfordshire,iv, 372; MONASTICON ii. 182.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 23 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

9 Litigation between Bishop Herfast of Thetford and the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, which claims exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. In the face of the bishop's claim, Abbot Baldwin obtains a papal bull in his favour. Although the bishop during a visit to Bury St. Edmunds gives up his claim, he afterwards renews it and puts his case before King William I, who orders Archbishop Lanfranc to carry out an inquest in which witnesses are heard from nine counties. The king's court gives judgment in favour of Bury St. Edmunds, as Bishop Herfast is unable to produce charters. A. The narrative of events in the Miracles of St. Edmund by Herman, a monk of Bury. This same bishop1 plagues the sacrosanct abbey with undeserved complaints. Counselled by his people and some others, he wants to reduce to servitude what kings and his predecessors had confirmed in liberty. He maintains that the place of the precious martyr is part of his diocese. He attempts unjustly and by secular ways to dominate rather than, as he should, be helpful according to God's will. Like a wolf he pursues the sheep, that is, he behaves unjustly and inimically against the flock of the monks, attempting to get one foot inside the door and consequently to get inside with his whole body. Abbot Baldwin, as a most trustworthy shepherd of the martyr's flock, was ready to give his life for his sheep and trusting in his protector repulsed this threatening calamity. Feeling safe because of the charters of his place, which his predecessors had obtained from the king, he did not respond very much to those attempts. This did not mean that the bishop left him in peace: he made the calamity even worse, troubling the place and its appurtenances, increasing his malice in all ways although he had no writing or chirograph of any predecessor in his bishopric to support his mischievous undertaking. He only based himself on the testimony of some vile persons who were not even lawful men, such as the talk of cross-bearers, and he annoyed the king to such an extent that with his permission he stealthily got hold of some crosier 2 of the monastery, which was not done without effort since, as they say, he paid the weight of numerous pennies for it. Thus the unjust man could vindicate for himself some control over this very holy place through the crosier, which had been the support of some predecessor of his. But all he managed to do was to stay as far from his aim as Kodros is from Inachos or as the Occident is from the Orient. In the meantime Father Baldwin had travelled with the king's permission to Rome, where he was promoted by Pope 9A ' 0[Herfast, bishop of Elmham/Thetford 1070-1085?] 2 An abbot's or bishop's crosier must be meant by baculus: and what Herman intends to say is apparently this, that Arfast bribed some one connected with the monastery to bring to him an old crosier from thence, which, along with evidence to be given by cross-bearers and other such "viles personae", was to be used in proof of bishops of Thetford having at one time exercised jurisdiction over St. Edmund's monks.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 24 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Alexander II to the order of priesthood and where Lanfranc of Canterbury and Thomas of York had also gone in order to obtain the dignity of the episcopal symbols. The lord and Abbot Baldwin returned provided with an apostolic privilege that took place beside the liberty that had been granted to his monastery by the kings. Because of these events the aforesaid bishop became even more inflamed, his wrath and vexations multiplied and he attacked the aforesaid abbot, proclaiming in a synod that he had gone to Rome without deigning to ask for his bishop's permission. Remembering the reply of somebody who has said: "The wise man is recognized by the paucity of his words", the abbot replied in the synod that he had travelled with the permission of the king and his archbishop, wherefore he appealed to their audience. Thus was nullified and undone the word of the bishop: as one who devours the poor in secret, he stubbornly stuck to his plan and delivered himself to dishonesty and acted with bitterness and evil zeal against the monastery of the saint. I shall not conceal, although I am blushing with confusion, what the said bishop has often transacted in my audience, sending letters (either drafted3 by me or drafted by somebody else and written by me) to the aforesaid king overseas to obtain the said abbey being placed under his authority (and the replies he obtained I also read). These replies were sometimes positive for the bishop because of the counsel of certain people and sometimes they were negative thanks to the power of the saint. And since all is for sale in Rome, the bishop's tongue was inclined to audacity and he promised the king 100 marks of gold if he granted him the opportunity to put his case: he irreverently placed his faith in nothing else and he did not know that the saint's vengeance would quickly strike outside the doors [of the court]. The case which had been placed on high before the king was, I believe, high mindedly reserved and neither publicly granted nor completely refused, as the popular saying has it: "Play the little pig while in fact you want the castle" .4 By that time, however, the martyr who had been patient for a long time, at last took revenge for his people: as the bishop was riding through a forest and talking unjustly with his suite about the aforesaid things, a branch hit his eye -clearly the effect of the saint's revenge - causing that man, whose eyes were both bleeding copiously, sudden and awful pain. The inside of his eyes was seen to be full of putrid flesh, nor could any man or woman give him any help. He was lying there almost completely blind, not like a bishop but like some miserable person and obtained some relief when the purulent blood was removed from his eyes with an ear of barley. Arriving and seeing him one morning and knowing that man's eyes 0

[Herman started his career as archdeacon and secretary of Bishop Herfast, but later in life became a monk at Bury and towards the end of the century wrote his Miracula completely from the abbey's point of view and at the request of Abbot Baldwin.]' This curious proverb seems to answer to ours of "baiting with a sprat to catch a mackerel"; but in what precise way he intended to apply it to the king's dilatory conduct, the archdeacon has left obscure. No such proverb is found among the Adagia of Erasmus.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 25 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

are the weakest of his organs, I felt compassion for him and, moved by a profitable devotion, as appeared later, I spoke with some audacity to the bishop who had come to despair of recovering his eyesight: "My lord bishop, the efforts made for you are vain since no eye-salve seems to be of any use to you: neither Hippocrates nor Galenus, if they were alive, could help you unless God's mercy came to your aid". And I also purposefully added: "Devoutly, however, implore God's grace and at the same time the saint's, who is venerated in these counties, and send as quickly as possible a message to Abbot Baldwin with the humility of peace asking him, after God, to restore you to health". Although, because of his past show of bad will he put no hope in this behest or its success, he nevertheless put this advice before his followers. We all suggested to him that earthly honours are worth little where bodily health is lacking and that therefore he should take the advice given and in the name of peace eliminate all mischievous action between Bishop Arfast and Abbot Baldwin. I was charged with this message and I took it that same day, the feast of the apostles Simon and Jude:' the aforesaid abbot received me joyfully, replied even more joyfully before witnesses and most joyfully of all granted what was requested. This having been granted benignly, the disabled bishop went to the abbey and was received with due ceremony. He also profited from the salutary words of the abbot who admonished him, if he had committed any offence against God or the saint, that he ought to reflect that his medicine would work all the more quickly if he was first freed of his sins. The bishop agreed with these good words. The day arrives when this is to be done and the bishop is taken to the consistory, which was then held in the vestry of the holy monastery, in the presence of the older brethren of that place, but also of some of the king's chief men, who had been invited there by the abbot and who were holding pleas in that vill according to the dictates of justice. Although tedious to the listener, their names serve to witness the truth of our account: Hugh de Mundford, Roger nicknamed Bigod, Richard the son of Earl Gilbert and with them Turold de Lincoln together with Alvred the Spaniard and many others. In their hearing the bishop explained the cause of his necessity, commemorated the action which he had attempted unjustly and several times against the place, admits that he has sinned in word and will against God and the saint and only recalls the taking away of the crosier, which we mentioned before, for which someone from Thetford is sent. He declares himself guilty of all these undertakings, he proclaims in the audience that the place is quit and free of him, he excommunicates the counsellors he has had in these matters and he promises and obliges himself utterly to repudiate them. Having thus made a public confession, he proceeds weeping abundantly to the main altar, upon which he places his bishop's staff for the said offences as a double gage, i.e. that he would restore the aforesaid crosier and that he hoped to obtain forgiveness for his offence from God and the martyr. He afterwards prostrates himself on the base of the 5 [28 October.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 26 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

altar, singing the seven psalms; the abbot and the brethren absolve him, a truly happy man if he could persist for the rest of his life in this compunction. He finally took the abbot's medicine, which consisted of numerous medicinal fomentations and, as I saw myself, cauterizations and the application of excellent eye-salve till, helped also by the prayers which the brethren addressed to God and the martyr, he was soon restored to health. Nevertheless, he retained a certain dimness in the centre of the pupil of one of his eyes, a warning for the future. He himself addressed the people on his recovery on the feast-day of the precious martyr and spurred them on to devotion to the saint, but, which was worse for him, he afterwards broke all his promises: although he was able to, he did not control his tongue and if he wanted to, he did not manage it. Partly under pressure and partly seduced by the advice of evil people, he again began as a prevaricator and resumed his earlier injustice: he denied what he had promised in the king's hearing, with a hardened heart, like the one we read about in the Pharao. At the king's command Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury was sent to Bury St. Edmunds to discuss his claim and to ascertain the feeling of the county, 6 for which purpose a meeting of nine counties was called there and testimony going back to the time of King Cnut was proffered by Abbot Aelfwine of Ramsey, then in the fullness of his days and an old man, and which was confirmed by the voice of the nine counties: the aforesaid abbey thrived at that time on the liberty as testified. The inimical bishop had been invited to that meeting, but had refused, to escape the shame and was breathing flames of wrath, biting venomously and ready to bite sharply. After some time, while God established an equilibrium of equity, the claiming bishop slanderously addressed the king, again demanding that the abbey should be placed under his lawful lordship, confident that his injustice would succeed, but ignorant how far true justice could go. He will really pay the hundred marks of gold which he was silly enough to promise and the last quarter will not yet be paid or a ten-fold payment will be demanded for this suspension of the course of justice and, in truth, he would be lucky if not more were demanded. So in the year 1081 of the Lord becoming man, during the Easter days,7 the case was discussed at the king's command in the presence of all the magnates of England, the archbishop, bishops, abbots and earls, and the rulers of the various regions of Great Britain. The bishop claimed with the greatest pertinacity what he had often claimed in vain before. In the absence of [written] privileges he called on lowly persons instead of a privilege, he said that as a witness he had the keeper of the dogs of his predecessor but as he said this, he was stupified in the middle of his speech and completely lost its thread: thus the power of the saint struck him. After the statement of his claim was thus frustrated, since he could base himself on no lawful testimony, the privileges of the abbot were read in public and the liberty granted to

6

"that the feeling of the county might be ascertained"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 27 1990

7 'Ri.e. 4 April 108 1.]0

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the saint by the old kings was proffered.' The abbot also produced a canonical authority that the liberty which that place had held for fifty-one years was inviolable, as the abbots had been ordained by the bishops of their choice, firstly Ufi by Bishop [Aelfwig] of London, secondly Leofstan by Bishop [Aelfwine] of Winchester and Baldwin himself by Archbishop [Stigand] of Canterbury at Windsor. After all this had been discussed in public the king ordered that, as the case of both parties had been heard, judgment should be given. Now the truth was to arise from the earth among the faithful and from heaven true justice would look on. The judges of ecclesiastical cases came down to give sentence: the archbishops with the bishops and also the abbots and their followers learned in judicial matters. They all have one desire, viz. to take the path of Ciceronian rhetoric and going beyond the two sorts of this art, the demonstrative and the deliberative, they enter upon the third called the judicial. At this stage and led by mother rhetoric they adopted the technique of controversy called "from authority", commemorating how dear the abbey of the martyr was to God and to those kings whose authority ought to be the greatest and why such an important martyr and his place should enjoy so great a liberty. Nor was it lawful for the good establishment of devoted kings, conserved in the course of several years, to be infringed, but whatever the good predecessors worthy of God had disposed ought to remain valid in the peace of God's Holy Church. This judgment, arrived at by the common assent of all, was placed before King William, who was already under the inspiration of God's grace, but the aforesaid bishop, impatient and out of his mind, got up to oppose it and he declared that judgment, which was unfortunate for him, to be false. As a gage of his declaration he gave his episcopal ring with the staff, almost as if he was a bishop no longer, but had been punished with deposition. This resulted in a shameful confusion for him and the payment for this gage lasted until the day of his death: he gave eleven hundred pounds of coins and knew of no certain limit to this payment, as he sighingly told me eight days before his death. Because of the fear for the highness of heaven and under the influence of God's mercy, after the claim had been justly cut down and by the good will of the king and the unanimous favour of his magnates, a privilege was drawn up in the form of a chirograph 9 and the place of the martyr was ensured by it forever: such wasthe will of the glorious King William I who granted it aloud. This place conserves as a testimony until this day the king's mark and that of the illustrious Queen Matilda and of the other cosignatories together with the privilege, happy to enjoy under the king's aegis the liberty of which it is worthy, free from the diocesan yoke of the bishops, as is 0

8 [A charter of King Cnut of 1028 has survived granting Bury St. Edmund exemption from

episcopal domination, see BURY ST. EDMUNDS Memorials, i, 342-343.]0 9 See the charter of William I in the Appendix B. '[A text of this royal diploma was conserved at the abbey and published i.a. in BURY ST. EDMUNDS Memorials, i, p. 347 no. VI, declared spurious in Regesta i, no. 137.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 28 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

known and should be notified to all centuries. The date of this confirmation was 1 June in the year 1081 of the Incarnation of the Lord Christ, in the fourth indiction and the fifteenth year of the reign of the glorious William I, at Winchester in the royal palace, in God's name felicitously. Amen.' 0

B. The royal writ notifying the judgment of the court. William, king of the English, to Roger Bigod and all his other lieges, greeting. Know that on the claim and complaint which Bishop Arfast made against Abbot Baldwin concerning the church of St. Edmund and the town in which it is situated the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and my other magnates have held a plea at my command and before me between the bishop and the abbot and have justly judged and unanimously agreed that Bishop Arfast claimed the aforesaid church and town unjustly and that the abbot should justly have them and that neither Bishop Arfast nor his successors should ever claim anything in the aforesaid church and town. This I firmly order thus to stand inviolate henceforth.

10 After the conquest Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham attracts several tenants of Worcester Cathedral and manages to keep them and their lands in spite of Bishop Wulfstan's attempts to recover them. Abbot Walter, his successor, comes in conflict with the tenants and the case is brought before the king's court. At a meeting of several counties at Four-Shire Stone, ordered by Odo of Bayeux, the abbey loses a considerable number of estates to Odo and recovers a few others. A. The narrative in the chronicle of Evesham. In the third month after the death of this father Aethelwig, the king sent hither a monk from the monastery of Cerisy called Walter, who was most learned in the liberal arts and grammar and Archbishop Lanfranc's chaplain. Having been appointed abbot, he took over this whole abbey as his predecessor had it. But since he was young at that time and not as wise in secular matters as would have been suitable, he took the advice of some young relations of his to the greatest disadvantage of the Church, and refused to receive the homage of several good

10 0[BuRY ST. EDMUNDS Memorials, i, xxii-xxiii; V.C.H. Suffolk, ii, 58; H. Brunner reviewing BIGELOW'S Placita in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung, ii (1881), 204-205.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 29 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

men whom his predecessor had had, because he had decided to take away the lands of all of them if it were possible. Incensed and filled with hate against him because of this, they sent messengers to Odo, the king's brother and bishop of the church of Bayeux, who at that time was at the head of this country under the king and behaving as a tyrant, and proffering false accusations, they said that Abbot Aethelwig had obtained so many lands by force and not according to rightful law. Consequently the aforesaid bishop, depraved by the counsel of abominable people and allured most strongly by the most iniquitous desire to acquire possessions of the church, went to his brother the king and through money and false accusations obtained that the lands of this holy monastery should be given to him. As a rapacious wolf he forthwith ordered, in a place called Ildeberg,1 a gathering of evil men of five shires and there he obtained, by his iniquitous power rather than byjust law, that twenty-eight manors out of the thirty-six lands which Abbot Aethelwig had acquired by paying the appropriate price, were abjured and iniquitously usurped into his own demesne. Their names are the following: Bengeworth, Hampton, Upton, Witton, Arrow, Exhall, Ragley, Salford, Edstone, Broom, Grafton, Chastleton and another Chastleton, Cornwell, Quinton, Shipton, Salford, Dornford, Stoke, Hidcote, Pebworth, Dorsington, Milcote and another Milcote, Acton, Bransford, Willenhall, Bevington, Bidford, Evenlode, Daylesford, Weston and Lench which the family of Urse hold against the roll of Winchester. Of these Abbot Walter recovered Weston, Hampton and the half of Bengeworth which Ernegrim used to hold, but the half which Bishop [Beorhtheah] of Worcester gave to Atsere was occupied by Urse.2 A short while afterwards King William by a just judgment of God became very angry with his execrable brother, put him in very hard iron chains, and kept him until his death in close custody. And similarly the divine wrath miserably deprived almost all the perjurers of this church of this life. B. The narrative in a Worcester cartulary. Having mentioned Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham and the lands which he had taken away by force or guile from this monastery, we have thought it suitable to describe at length what sort of person he was and how those lands were claimed by our lord Bishop Wulfstan [of Worcester] in innumerable and frequent trials, so that no one shall imagine in the future that the lord bishop has kept silent about this out of negligence. For after this country was vanquished by the Normans and 10A I [Gildenebeorge or Gildeneberga, i.e. Ildeberg is a lost place-name, which can be identified with Four-Shire Stone in the parish of Evenlode (Worcs.), i.e. a stone which marks the place where the shires of Worcester, Warwick, Gloucester and Oxford meet, cfr. A. Mawer and F.M. Stenton, The place-names of Worcestershire,Cambridge, 1969, 124.10 2 o[See DARLINGTON, op. cit., p. 6 n. 3; Urse is Urse d'Abitot, sheriff of Worcestershire at the time of the Domesday Survey.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 30 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

all the leading barons of this province were lost, that abbot began to acquire a much greater secular power, because he surpassed everyone by his intelligence, his shrewdness and knowledge of worldly laws (the only ones he studied), particularly since the lord Bishop Wulfstan was the only one in the whole neighbourhood who behaved more honourably by dedicating himself to the service of God and refused (although the occasion frequently presented itself), to be involved in worldly affairs, but avoided them like death fearing their detrimental effect on his honour and authority- "let nobody who serves God be involved in worldly business, etc.". Thus it happened that the aforesaid abbot, having attracted and gradually subdued numerous rich men of this province who were eager for his protection, bound some knights and men of the bishop, with their lands, to himself in this way, either because of kinship or because of their close vicinity and promised them his protection against the Normans. Soon after, having thus first deceived them, he circumvented them by his slyness and defrauded them of their lands and all their goods. This led to no small dispute between him and the lord bishop. But as the Scripture says "The sons of the world are cleverer than the sons of light in their generation", so he seduced the holy man by his slyness, promising him some service or threatening him with some damage to his other lands and managed to keep talking endlessly as long as he lived. Although finally he did service to him for those lands and recognized that they belonged to his demesne, he refused to give them up. These are the lands of this monastery and of the brethren, which he possessed: Acton, Eastbury, Bengeworth and several houses in the city, Milcote, Weston, and of the bishopric: Evenlode and Daylesford. While the dispute about this land was protracted for a long time, the abbot was taken by gout and died without his bishop's absolution and without having made his peace with him. As the most reverend Bishop Wulfstan, moved by compassion, immediately ordered frequent and special prayers to be said for his soul, he suddenly himself suffered the pain of gout in his legs and feet to the point where he could not be helped by the physicians, who had been brought in to heal him and was even given up in despair and the cure stopped. Feeling soon that human assistance could be of no help, he turned to the well-known comfort of prayer and (as he used to tell us quite often) received a divine revelation during nightly prayers that he had incurred this infirmity because he had said special prayers for the soul of that abbot and he was told to stop this, if he wanted to be restored to good health. Having told this to his entourage early in the morning and having wiped the abbot from his memory, as he had been told, he felt better at once and without the help of any human medicine was restored to health within a few days. From this we can gather how damnable it is to invade the lands and possessions of monasteries and to spoil them when even God is averse to prayers being said for these robbers. But enough of this: let us continue with the narrative we intended. Aethelwig was succeeded in his function by Abbot Walter, who continued to possess all the lands which his predecessor had thus acquired. But Odo, bishop of Bayeux, earl of Canterbury and brother of King

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 31 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

William, asked and received from the king, his brother, all the lands which the aforesaid Abbot Aethelwig possessed, except those which justly belonged to the abbey, and our own lands, which the abbot had possessed as explained, Odo invaded with the others. And so we lost them: from some of them the lord bishop hardly ever received any service and he who had been the first to rob the monastery of them was left with nothing but his sin. C. Writ of King William I confirming to Abbot Walter the peaceful possession of various lands which he deraigned at Four-Shire Stone. William, king of the English, to Lanfranc the archbishop and Odo, the bishop of Bayeux, and all his barons of all England, greeting. Know that I have given to God and St. Mary and W(alter), abbot of Evesham, Westun and [Upper] Swell and Bengeworth and the other lands which the said abbot deraigned before many of the barons at Ildeberg. And I will and firmly order that he shall hold the said lands, as well and freely as ever his predecessors best held them in the time of King Edward and my own. And I command that nobody shall raise a claim against him about these lands in spite of my prohibition. D. Notification by Odo of Bayeux that King William I confirms to Abbot Walter of Evesham various lands which he deraigned at Four-Shire Stone. Odo, bishop of Bayeux, to Bishop Wulfstan, Urse, Durand and Walter, sheriffs of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire and all lieges of the king, French and English, greeting. Know you all that my lord King William has restored to God and the church of Evesham and Abbot Walter all those lands which the abbot has deraigned before seven shires at Ildeberg against all those who claimed them unjustly, i.e. Weston, Swell, Bengeworth, Bevington, Wixford, Oldberrow, Kinwarton, Hillborough and Ragley. And in the name of the king I firmly forbid anyone to cause him any injustice in this, but let him hold these and all other lands with great honour and in peace and on this he shall answer to no one but the king.'

10D 1 O[There is a shortened version of the Evesham chronicle material in DUGDALE Monasticon, ii, 37 and an allusion to the court session at Four-Shire Stone in DB.I, fo 175 vo, see no. 50, p. 61 Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii, p. 55 J.H. Round, Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday in: V.C.H. Worcester, i(1901), 253-254; iii, 46-47; R.R. Darlington, "Aethelwig, Abbot of Evesham", E.H.R., 48 (1933), 1-22, 177-198; D.J. Matthew, The Norman Conquest, London, 1966, 155.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 32 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

11 At a meeting of the king's court and in spite of the privilegium fori, Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, is arrested at the command of King William I and imprisoned in Normandy on a charge of neglecting his duties and the interests of the king. King William, wise monarch that he was, learned of these preparations but did not approve of them;1 he judged that they would cause great damage to his kingdom and many others. Crossing immediately to England, he came without warning on Bishop Odo in the Isle of Wight, where he was making preparations to sail to Normandy in great state. There the king assembled the magnates of the kingdom in the royal palace2 and spoke these words: "Great lords, I invite you to listen carefully to my words and give me good counsel. Before crossing to Normandy I entrusted the government of England to my brother, the bishop of Bayeux. In Normandy many rebelled against me and both natives and foreigners, so to say, attacked me. Robert my son and the young men whom I had trained as squires and invested with arms rebelled against me; both my faithless dependants and the enemies on my frontiers readily supported them. In fact, since God whom I serve protected me, they accomplished nothing and got nothing from me save weapons in their wounds. I prepared for war and struck terror into the hearts of the Angevins, who were massed against me; in like manner I crushed the rebellious men of Maine by force of arms. Such enterprises delayed me overseas and I remained there for a long time, labouring for the public good. All this time my brother was oppressing England cruelly, robbing churches of their estates and revenues, stripping them of the ornaments given by his predecessors and misleading my knights, whose duty was to guard England against Danes and Irishmen and other enemies who hate me, and planning to lead them to foreign kingdoms beyond the Alps regardless of my interests. My heart is full of bitter grief, in particular for the churches of God which he has oppressed. The Christian kings who ruled before me loved the Church of God and enriched it 11

'[Orderic explains in the preceding passage that Odo had been making preparations for conquest in Italy and even for becoming pope.]' 2 In dramatizing the trial of Odo Orderic went beyond the known facts, and the implication that Odo was seized in the Isle of Wight and tried on the spot need not be taken too literally. Indeed the proceedings were speeded up progressively in legend as time advanced; Wace (Roman de Rou, ii, 11.9241-9244, 'Ici fus pris e retenu ...Prez fu la nef, boen fu li venz, E lievesques fu mis enz') 0[ = ed. H. Andresen, Heilbronn, 1879]' imagined the bishop bundled straight on board ship and taken to Rouen. The Hyde chronicler (p. 296) has a slightly different version, without placenames: "manifesta ejus versutia, ab eodem rege in consilium vocatur, devincitur, carcen mancipatur" There was considerable flexibility in the curia regis, and the court that tried Odo may have assembled anywhere; but the word "'consilium" is a shred of evidence in favour of one of William I's great courts at Winchester, Westminster, or Gloucester. If Odo was imprisoned just after Christmas 1082 or even Easter 1083 then Orderic is not far wrong in giving the length of his incarceration as four years.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 33 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

with estates and gifts of many kinds; now therefore, as we firmly believe, they rest and enjoy their precious reward in a blessed place. AEthelbert and Edwin, St. Oswald, Ethelwulf and Alfred, Edward the Elder and Edgar and Edward, my kinsman and dear lord, all gave wealth to the holy Church which is the bride of God; my brother, to whom I entrusted the regency of the whole realm, violently seized the riches, cruelly oppressed the poor, just now suborned the knights with empty hope and tormented the whole kingdom, shaking it to its foundations with unjust exactions. Give serious thought to what should be done and tell me, I beg you, what you decide." As all feared the great man and hesitated to pronounce sentence on him, the illustrious king said: "Harmful ambition should always be checked and it is never right to spare one man against the public interest through any partiality. Arrest this man, who stirs up trouble in the land, and guard him closely for fear of even worse deeds". As no one dared to lay a hand on the bishop the king himself seized hold of him first of all. When he protested: "I am a clerk and a priest of God; you have no right to condemn a bishop without papal judgment," the prudent king replied: "I condemn neither a clerk nor a bishop, but arrest my earl, whom I have made viceroy in my kingdom, desiring to hear an account of the 3 stewardship entrusted to him." So the king in his royal might arrested the bishop, and had him taken to Normandy and imprisoned in the tower of Rouen, where he kept him under close guard for four years, until the end of his own life. Once the instigator of the disturbance had been overthrown, the tumult among the knights died down; and the upright king, by his foresight, buttressed his kindgom against attack from within or without. In this man you may see fulfilled the saying of Fulgentius in his book on mythology,4 "He who seeks more than his deserts will sink below his present station" The bishopric of Bayeux and the earldom of Kent, with its abundant resources, and a share with his brother in the royal power over all England and Normandy,5 were not enough for one churchman who aspired to be set over all the earth, though he was drawn towards this end neither by divine choice nor by canonical election, but only by the unrestrained presumption of his insatiable ambition. Consequently he lost what he had and for years pined in captivity, 6 leaving an example to future generations to deter them from such undertakings.

I Cf. LuKE xvi.

2 ff.; and see above, Introduction, pp. xxviii-xxx. For the suggestion that William treated Odo as a lay lord see A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters (Cambridge, 1965), p. 177 n. 2. 4 The Mitologiae of Fulgentius (ed. R. Heim, FabiiPlanciadisFulgentii Opera, Leipzig, 1898), a brief and inaccurate account of various episodes in classical mythology, with fanciful allegorical interpretations, enjoyed great popularity in the ninth century and for some time afterwards (see M.L.W. Laistner, "Fulgentius in the Carolingian age", The Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages, ed. C.G. Starr (Ithaca, 1957), pp. 202-215). This trite quotation does not occur in the work; and Orderic probably accepted the attribution at second hand. I 0For Odo's authority in England see above, ii. 264-266. 6 [Translation from ORDERIC VITALIs, History, iv, 41-45.]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 34 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

12 Alfsi, reeve of the royal manor of Sutton Courtenay, having violated the rights of Abingdon Abbey, has complained during the absence of King William the Conqueror to Queen Matilda about the resistance offered by the abbot. The latter is forced to pay compensation, but the rights of his abbey are confirmed. A royal reeve of the manor of Sutton, in the neighbourhood of this church, called Alfsi, has frequently and barbarously violated the old rights of the church in the plains and the woods, which were circumvallated by the peasants, by often harassing men and beasts and forcing them to perform transport services for the king and by ordering to cut as many virgates as he wanted in the woods of Bagley and Cumnor. The abbot1 resisted his audacity with such a strong hand that from that time onwards nobody followed the example of that man. In the first place, when the said reeve had demanded that oxen of the church should help in the transport of lead, requisitioned for the king's use, to the royal manor of Sutton, he was not without shame hit by the stick which the abbot happened to be carrying, the lead thrown on the ground and the oxen returned. In the second place, when the reeve returned from the wood of Bagley with heavy carts, the abbot seized the load and forced the reeve to flee on horseback and to wade through the water near the mill adjacent to the bridge over the river Ock, wet up to his neck, because he avoided the bridge out of fear of the abbot. However, the man who had been hit went and complained to the queen, who stayed in those days at Windsor and dealt with judicial matters in the place of the king who was in Normandy, about the injury which he had suffered: the abbot, losing no time in preventing a royal inquiry, paid a sum of money to atone for what he had done to the royal official. He also put an end to tyrannical exactions by officials to the advantage of posterity, for in that royal assembly it was laid down after discussion and the testimony of numerous wise people that the church of Abingdon should in no way suffer this sort of exaction, but on the contrary enjoy perpetual freedom. This liberty which was then proclaimed is famous and freely defended until this day.2

12 1 °[Adelelm abbot of Abingdon 1071-1083.10 2 o[See V.C.H. Berks., IV. 393.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 35 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

13 King William I confirms to Abbot Vitalis of Westminster his demesne in Worcestershire as he can show that it was adjudged to his abbey by Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester, Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham and Regenbald the chancellor. This particular confirmation is followed by one in general terms covering the whole of England. William, king of England, to the bishops, abbots, sheriffs and all French and English wherever Abbot Vitalis of St. Peter of Westminster has lands, greeting. Know that I will and firmly grant that Abbot Vitalis shall have all his demesne in Worcestershire as he can be able to show that Bishop Wulfstan, the abbot of Evesham and Regenbald the chancellor have deraigned it for St. Peter of Westminster to be had in demesne. And I also will that he shall similarly have his demesne throughout all England, whosoever happens to hold it at present, as he will be able to show by the county or the hundred that the church of Westminster had it by King Edward's gift and by my gift. I also will that he shall hold his lands, woods, roads and waters with honour. And let French and English come to an agreement with the abbot concerning their fiefs.

14 At Oxford a thief is taken in the act and condemned to death, but saved by the intervention of Saint Ecgwin.

As, strengthened by the relics of Saint Ecgwin,' the aforesaid brethren happily arrived at Oxford and preached the word of God to the people, a man of great faith (as appeared later) humbly approached the reliquary of Saint Ecgwin among the others, very devoutly completed his prayers three times and during these prayers put his hand into his purse and produced a threefold donation which he faithfully offered to God's saint. But the old enemy was not prepared to let this happen and with ardent greed instigated one of his followers, who was present as chaff amongst the wheat, to cause the faithful man, who was concentrating on his holy prayers, some secret damage. Remarkable madness! While almost everybody was thinking of higher things, this unhappy creature, as a member of the devil, approaches that man and stealthily takes away from his purse as many pennies as he can; he repeats his wicked work and commits this same act a third time. But Saint Ecgwin did not wait long to punish the hands of this thief, for when this unfortunate man put his hand into the purse for the third time, it suddenly dried up and was retained inside 14 1 '[Saint Ecgwin, bishop of Worcester, d. 717.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 36 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

that space as if it were closed. You should have seen this thief tremble, turn pale, wildly look around as if he had gone mad and fearing all sorts of deaths! The onlookers understood how it had all come about and proceeded to catch the thief, to marvel at the event and to praise God's saint aloud. Under general applause the thief is condemned to death according to the law and they prepare the execution. However, the monks, carrying the relics of the saint, did not stop praying until, with the help of Saint Ecgwin, they overcame the decision of the judges. Thus the Almighty twice showed his benignity through his saint at one and the same occasion, by saving his servant from theft and mercifully saving the thief from death.

15 Litigation between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and Abbot Walter of Evesham concerning the hundred of Oswaldslow, and particularly fifteen hides in Hampton and four hides in Bengeworth. The case first came up on complaint of Bishop Wulfstan before Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, the abbot giving up his claims and an agreement being reached; it reappeared in connection with the compilation of Domesday Book, before royal commissioners, when again an agreement was reached. A. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances to settle the conflict of jurisdiction between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and Abbot Walter of Evesham. William, king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, greeting. See to it that soke and sake between Bishop Wulfstan and Walter, abbot of Evesham, are as they were on the last occasion when, in the time of King Edward, geld was taken for the fleet, and you, Bishop Geoffrey, shall be in my place to settle this plea and see to it that Bishop Wulfstan has his right and let the bishop justly have the houses which he claims against the abbot in Worcester. Let all those who hold his lands always be ready to do their service to me and to him. Witness: Roger de Ivry.

B. The narrative of the plea concerning Oswaldslow, held at Worcester before Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances and members of neighbouring county courts and various barons. After several witnesses have appeared for the bishop, the abbot gives up his claim and an agreement is reached. This is the narrative of the plea that was between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of Evesham, the bishop claiming against the abbot sake and soke, burial,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 37 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

church-scot and the exactions and all the customs which are due to the church of Worcester in the hundred of Oswaldslow, and the king's geld and service and military expeditions on land and at sea for the fifteen hides in Hampton and the four hides in Bengeworth, which the abbot had to hold from the bishop, as the other tenants of the church freely hold for all due service to the king and the bishop. On this matter there was a great controversy between the bishop and the abbot, the latter resisting for a long time and defending himself unjustly. However, this case was finally heard and justly discussed on the basis of a writ and command of King William the elder, which he sent from Normandy, in the presence of Geoffrey of Coutances, whom the king had ordered to be present at that plea and to see to it that the truth about the bishop and the abbot was discerned and full right done. The case started and a great gathering of neighbouring counties and barons met at Worcester before Bishop Geoffrey to discuss the matter. Bishop Wulfstan made his claim against the abbot, who rejected it. The bishop invoked lawful witnesses who had seen how things were in the time of King Edward and had received the aforesaid services to the advantage of the bishop. Whereupon at the command of the king's justice and by the decree of the barons, judgment was reached and since the abbot said that he had no witnesses against the bishop, the magnates gave judgment that the bishop should name his witnesses and produce them at the appointed day to prove under oath the words of the bishop, whereas the abbot could bring in whatever relics he wanted. Both parties agreed and when the appointed day arrived, Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter came and, at the command of Bishop Geoffrey, the barons who had taken part in the previous plea and judgment were also present, whereas the abbot produced the relics, i.e. the body of Saint Ecgwin. On the part of the bishop several trustworthy persons were present, prepared to swear the aforesaid oath, one of whom was Edric, the steersman of the bishop's ship in the time of King Edward and the leader of that bishop's army in the king's service, and on the day he offered to swear he was a man of Bishop Robert of Hereford and held nothing from Bishop Wulfstan. Kineward, who was sheriff of Worcestershire and who had seen this, was also present and testified in this sense. Also present were Siward, a rich man from Shropshire, Osbern fitz Richard and Turkil of Warwickshire and many other senior and noble people, who are now mostly dead, but many others are still alive who have heard them and many survivors from the time of King William testify in that sense. When the abbot saw that sworn proof was ready and would certainly proceed if he was willing to receive it, he accepted his friends' counsel and renounced the oath in favour of the bishop, recognizing the whole complaint and everything which the bishop had claimed and agreed to conclude a concord with the bishop. And we have lawful witnesses of this, knights, men of Saint Mary and the bishop, who have seen and heard this and are ready to prove it by oath and battle against Ranulf, Abbot Walter's brother (whom they saw there and who carried on this plea with his brother against the bishop), in case he tried to deny this agreement between the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 38 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop and the abbot. We also have men of the holy order, priests and deacons, who are prepared to confirm this by the judgment of God. C. King William I orders Urse the sheriff of Worcestershire and Osbern son of Escrop to see to it that Bishop Wulfstan shall have his rights in the hundred of Oswaldslow, particularly concerning his land in Bengeworth and Hampton and his houses in Worcester, as they were deraigned against the abbot of Evesham in the suit before the bishop of Coutances. William, king of the English, to Urse the sheriff, Osbern son of Escrop and all men French and English of Worcestershire, greeting. I will and command that Bishop Wulfstan shall have soke and sake and services and all customs belonging to his hundred and his lands as fully as best he held them at the time of King Edward. And concerning the lands which he has deraigned to be held by the abbot of Evesham as his fee, i.e. four hides in Bengeworth and houses in the city, I command that if the abbot wants to have them he shall do service for them to him like his other feudal tenants. And concerning the fifteen hides in Hampton, of which the bishop has deraigned that the soke and geld and military expedition and my other services belong to his hundred and church-scot and burial to his vill, I forbid anyone to hold them otherwise, but let him have everything from them to my and his benefit as it was deraigned and sworn before Bishop Geoffrey and you, according to my command and the county being witness. Witnesses: Bishop Geoffrey and Roger de Ivry. D. Notification by Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, to Remigius, bishop of Lincoln, Walter Giffard, Henry de Ferrers and Adam de Ryes (four Domesday commissioners) that Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester has deraigned against the abbot of Evesham by the judgment of the shire court, before himself, Urse de Abetot, Osbern son of Escrop and other barons his rights in the hundred of Oswaldslow, particularly concerning land in Bengeworth and Hampton and houses in Worcester. Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, to Bishop Remigius, Walter Giffard, Henry de Ferrers and Adam and other barons of the king, greeting. Know that I bear witness that when I held at the king's command the plea between Bishop Wulfstan and the abbot of Evesham, the bishop deraigned that the four hides at Bengeworth and the houses in the city are of his fee so that the abbot owes services for them to him like his other feudal tenants. And he deraigned that the soke and sake of Hampton belong to his hundred of Oswaldslow so that they must plead there and must pay geld and perform military expedition and other lawful services for these fifteen hides and must render church-scot and burial to his vill of Cropthorn. This was deraigned and sworn before me and Urse de Abitot, Osbern son of Escrop and other barons of the king, the whole county being judge and witness.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 39 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

E. Text of an agreement reached between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and Abbot Walter of Evesham before monks of Worcester Cathedral and of Evesham Abbey and four Domesday commissioners, that the lands in Bengeworth and Hampton fall under the bishop's jurisdiction over the hundred of Oswaldslow without, however, belonging to his demesne. This is the confirmation of the agreement reached between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of Evesham concerning the fifteen hides in Hampton and four in Bengeworth, i.e. that the abbot has recognized, the whole convent of the church of Worcester being witness as well as many brethren from Evesham and Bishop Remigius [of Lincoln], Henry de Ferrers, Walter Giffard and Adam, royal magnates who had come to make an inquest on the lands of the county, that those fifteen hides justly belong to the bishop's hundred of Oswaldslow and must pay the king's geld with the bishop and all other services that belong to the king and depend on it for their pleas, and similarly as far as the aforesaid four hides in Bengeworth are concerned. But the bishop demanded more there, for he claimed all that land as his demesne, but since the abbot humbly acknowledged this, the bishop at the request of those who were present granted the land to the abbot and the brethren on condition that the abbot should do honourable recognition for it and service, in such a way and for so long as the bishop might require. Witnesses to this agreement were the aforesaid royal barons and the others whose names are here given: Serlo, abbot of Gloucester, Nigel, a clerk of Bishop Remigius, Ulf, monk of Bishop Remigius, his priest Wulfi and his monk Ranulf, Edric de Hindlip, Alfwin a monk of Bishop Remigius (?), Godric de Piria, Ailric the archdeacon, Ordric Niger, Frederic the clerk and Alfwin the son of Brihtmer.

F. Narrative in Heming's cartulary concerning the rights of the church of Worcester in Oswaldslow, as they were established in the county court of Worcester in the presence of four Domesday commissioners. In the county of Worcester Saint Mary of Worcester has one hundred, called Oswaldslow, in which there are three hundred hides of which the bishop of that church, as was constituted in ancient times, has all the incomes of the sokes and all the customs belonging thereto for himself, and also the king's service and his own in such a way that neither the sheriff nor any one else who is entitled to demand royal services can make any demands there in pleas or any other business, witness the county. And these three hundred hides were of the demesne of the church and whatever way they were leased and to whatever person to render service to the bishop, the holder of that leased land could not retain for himself any custom at all except through the bishop nor could he hold the land for a longer term than had

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 40 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

been established between them nor could he turn elsewhere with that land or usurp it to hold it by hereditary right or claim it as his fief except according to the bishop's will and the agreement which he had made with him. This testimony was confirmed under oath by the whole county of Worcester in the time of King William the elder and at the behest and through the efforts of the most pious and prudent father, lord Wulfstan the bishop, before magnates of that king: Bishop Remigius of Lincoln, Earl Walter Giffard, Henry de Ferrers and Adam, brother of the king's steward Eudo, who had been sent out to examine and to describe the possessions and the customs of the king and his magnates in this province and in several others at the time when the king ordered the whole of England to be described. Therefore, this matter having been examined by them and confirmed by the oath of the whole county, they had this testimony, confirmed by their royal authority, written down in the king's authentic charter and afterwards they adjudged with the king's consent that this liberty was to belong, firmly and without any complaint or claim, to the bishop in respect of that hundred and the lands belonging to it. To confirm this business a copy was entered into the king's authentic charter as foresaid, which is conserved in the king's treasury with the description of the whole of England. 1

16 Conversation between Osbem, a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, and a knight, who had been helped by Saint Dunstan in his law case against the abbot of Saint Augustine's, Canterbury. Some time before, as I was on the Isle of Thanet, I walked along the sea coast with a knight who had called upon me for his defence. And thinking of God's wonders I found there some material for a good sermon and so the conversation touched upon Father Dunstan, since I believe that any opportunity to talk about him is most advantageous. As soon as his name was mentioned that knight went all pale and sighing as from some deep pain he said: "Woe to me, who am so ungrateful that until now I have been forgetful of so many blessings". To which I replied: "What was so irksome to cause your panting?" "Do you know" he said "how inimical the abbot of St. Augustine' was towards me during his lifetime when he wanted to deprive me of my inheritance?" "I do" I said. "But do you also know that his immoderate behaviour not only caused no harm, but led even to my 15F I o[J.H. Round, Introductionto the WorcestershireDomesday in: V.C.H. Worcester,1(1901), 254256; F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,Oxford, 19472, 642-643.] ° 16 1 Scotland, abbot of St. Augustine's, died in 1087; and if he is the person meant, the mention of him as now dead would fix the date of the work later than that year. This section, which is not found in the Lambeth Ms. '[London, Lambeth Palace, Lambeth 159] ° , may have been one of the latest additions.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 41 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

greater glory?" "This is not unknown" I said "but I do not see to what purpose you recall these events". "You shall know" he said "that on the night before the day that had been appointed for the hearing between him and me I remembered, when I was in my house which is nearby, how often you used to extol Father Dunstan and that I said to myself: this is an opportunity to find out whether he is as praiseworthy as I have understood". Bent in prayer I said "Oh God of Father Dunstan, be favourable to-day to our party" and giving my body some rest I saw the town of Canterbury in my dreams and Christchurch, a memory of the father, and bending towards it I noticed a man standing beside it, well shaped, beautifully dressed and holding a lamp in his hand. Struck by this apparition I said: "Who are you, most beautiful of man?" "The very same whose help you have invoked a while ago." "Oh father" I said "how quick you are to take mercy upon miserable people! Did you know what the lord threatens to do?" To which he replied: "Be not afraid of his threats and don't attach any importance to them". Such was the story of that knight who then turned to me and said: "The rest is well-known to you, how I and you came together, fought and won together". "The saint gave" I said "a great sign on that day, since they who were so numerous and of such sharp minds left, beaten by few people and with less sharp minds". Consequently, looking at those who were present, I explained through the spoken word what I now put down in writing. 17 It is established in the king's court that Bruman, reeve at Canterbury, has unjustly taken a toll from foreign merchants to the detriment of the cathedral monastery of Christ Church at Canterbury and St. Augustine's Abbey there. A. The passage in Domesday Book. A certain reeve named Bruman in the time of King Edward took customary dues from foreign merchants on the land of Holy Trinity and St. Augustine. He afterwards in the time of King William confessed before Archbishop Lanfranc and the bishop of Bayeux that he had taken these unjustly and he took oath and swore that these churches themelves held their customary dues quit [of toll] in the time of King Edward. And thenceforth either church possessed the customary dues on its own land by the decision of the king's barons who tried the case.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 42 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The passage in the Inquisition of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, a compilation made from the original returns for Domesday Book. And when foreign merchants arrived in the city and lodged on land of Holy Trinity or St. Augustine, their reeves received [the customary dues]. But there was one reeve called Bruman who unjustly took all customs and toll throughout the territory of the city. The monks complained about him to King William, who ordered the matter to be brought before the bishop of Bayeux, Hugh de Montfort, William the count of Eu and Richard fitz Gilbert who made him swear to say the truth on this matter. After taking an oath he told them that he had truly taken a toll throughout the city, but unjustly from the land of Holy Trinity and St. Augustine.

C. The passage in the Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, a compilation of (at least for its oldest parts) about 1100. A certain reeve Bruman used to take customs in the time of King Edward from foreign merchants on the land of Holy Trinity. Afterwards, in the time of King William, he recognized before Archbishop Lanfranc and the bishop of Bayeux that he took them unjustly and he confirmed under oath that that church was entitled of old quietly to have its customs, whence that church has its customs quietly on its land by a judgment of the king's barons who held the plea.'

18 In the years following the Conquest the abbey of Ely was the victim of extensive spoliation. Several abbots attempted to restore the rights of the abbey and obtained royal orders to that effect and various sworn inquests in local courts dealt with the problem. The details and chronology of these famous Ely Land Pleas are uncertain and were last elucidated by the editor of the Liber Eliensis, E.O. Blake. There was an inquest [1071-1075] in the time of Abbot Thurstan and another at Kentford [prob. in 1081] under the monk Godfrey; there was more pleading under Abbot Simeon, probably in 1082 and more talk of litigation involving the bishop of Lincoln around the same time. There also was a royal order for a written report on the inquests [10821087]. When exactly the rights of the abbey were clearly established is uncertain; even in Domesday Book and related documents traces of these years of spoliation can be found. A. In the time of Abbot Thurstan a plea held at the king's command in the county court determines, on the basis of an inquest, which lands of Ely Abbey have been unjustly occupied since the time of King Edward. The lands are to be restored; a long and detailed list of the spoliations is given. 17C

'[See Urry, Canterbury,83; CANTERBURY

CHRIST CHURCH Domesdai' Monachorum, p. 27, n. 7.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 43 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

In this plea, where the bishops Geoffrey and Remigius, Earl Waltheof and the sheriffs Picot and Ilbert met on the command of William, by God's disposition king of the English, with the whole county, as the king had ordered, it was decided by the testimony of men who knew the truth which lands had been unjustly taken away from the church of the Holy Mother of God of the Isle of Ely and of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and of the Holy Virgin Etheldreda, so that the lands which had been of the demesne in the time of King Edward should return to the demesne without contradiction by anyone who possessed them. The names of these lands, with some of those who still retain them unjustly, are here given. B. In 1081 the monk Godfrey, administering the abbey, obtains an inquest at Kentford in order to redress the spoliation suffered by his abbey. The inquest takes place on royal order at a meeting of the three neighbouring shires in the presence of royal barons. The names of several participants are given. The text is extremely confused and may well contain elements of earlier similar inquests, one possibly before 1077 involving five shires and another in 1080 involving four shires. Under which powerful lords the goods of the church were sworn. In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1080,' the eleventh indiction, the epact being twentysix, on 2 April, a discussion took place on the liberty of the church of Ely which, because King William neglected its defence for fourteen years, was stifled by the iniquitous exaction of his ministers and in fear of being totally extinguished by this oppression. While the monk Godfrey2 administered the goods of the saint, the 3 king out of respect for the divine mercy gave order through the bishop of Bayeux to the powerful lords of the neighbourhood to discuss the matter, in common examination conducted by the three neighbouring counties at Kentford. Numerous persons took part repeatedly in this discussion (the names of some are presently given), and loyally brought about an end and a valid conclusion to the dissension: four abbots with their Frenchmen and Englishmen, Baldwin4 of St. Edmunds, Wulfwold5 of Chertsey, Wulfketel6 of Crowland and Aelfwold7 of 18B I Date: The indiction for 1080 should be the third, and the mistake may have arisen from a scribe's reading xi for iii. This report must not be regarded as a formal document, but it may include extracts from authentic records embellished by the use of a rhyming prose. See infra, App. D, p. 426. Printed:Hamilton, I.C.C., p. xvii, no. i; BIGELOW, Placita,pp. 2 2 -23. Cf. Davis, Regesta, i, 32, no. 122. 2

°[Godfrey was a monk of Ely, administering the vacant abbey until 1081. He later became abbot

of Malnesbury.]0 bishop of Bayeux. For his part in these proceedings see Miller, El' Land Pleas, p. 443. Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds, 1065-1097 or 1098 (D.C. Douglas, Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, pp. xlviii-ix). 5 Wulfwold, abbot of Chertsey, probably appointed 1058, died 1084. See Harmer, Writs, p. 580. 6 Wulfketel, abbot of Crowland, probably appointed in 1061 or 1062, deposed 1085-1086. See Robertson, Charters,p. 468. O[ =A.J. Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 1939.] Aelfwold, abbot of Hulme, probably ruling already in 1066 and died 14 November 1089 (Stenton, Engl. Hist. Rev., xxxvii, 1922, pp. 228. 233). 3Odo,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 44 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hulme, emissaries of the king, Richard son of Count Gilbert [de Clare], Hamo, 8 12 1 9 the steward and Tihel de Herion, the sheriffs" with their men, Picot," Eustace, Ralph, 3 Walter 4 appearing for Roger and Sheriff Robert, Harduin, Wido, Wimer, Wichumer, Odo, Godric, Norman, Colswein, Godwin and many other good knights, French and English, from the four counties of Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon and Bedford. The venerable agreement on this liberty is that the Holy Queen has fully possessed her goods from the beginning and that charters i5 of the Kings Edgar, Ethelred and Edward prove that through the efforts of saints and particularly Ethelwold they were restored and redeemed through copious payment 6 from all secular interference and a curse was written down and called upon all those who maliciously retained them. This most effective discussion and most wise arrangement was defended by the king's provident and benevolent zeal in order to avoid any troublesome claims and straightened by his precepts, confirmed by his edicts, augmented by his gifts and made secure by his charters, one of which, containing the enumeration of the goods, he ordered to be added to the present document.

C. Writ of King William I ordering that Ely Abbey shall have all its rights and customs as it possessed them at the time of King Edward's death and as they were deraigned at Kentford.

Royal charter on the liberty and the dignity of the place. William,' king of the English, to all his lieges and the sheriffs in whose counties I He occurs in a charter of 1069, served as sheriff of Kent and died some time before 1100 (Davis, Regesta, i, xxiii). 9 The caput of the honour of Tihel de Helium lay in Essex. See J.H. Round, in V.C.H., Essex, i, 350, and in "Hehon of Helion Bumpstead", Essex Arch. Trans. (n.s.), viii, 187-191. 10 The sheriffs belong to Cambs., Hunts., Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk; the knights named, where they can be identified, held lands in 1086 in Cambs., Suffolk, Norfolk, and Hunts. (if Odo is the tenant holding of Eustace the sheriff). If Godric is the dapifer of that name he farmed king's land in Essex as well as Norfolk and Suffolk (V.C.H., Norfolk, ii, 13) and the name Godwine occurs in Beds. and Herts. as well as in the above-named shires. 1 '[Picot sheriff of Cambridgeshire.]' ° 12O[Eustace sheriff of Huntingdonshire.] 13O[Ralph sheriff of Essex.]0 ° 14 o[Walter who appears for Roger and Robert, sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk.] 161-1631o 15 Cf. the preamble to King Edward's charter, supra, ch. 92. '[=pp. 16 Cf. ibid., "sine aliqua exceptione secularis vel ecclesiastice justitie'.

18C ' Date: 1080-87. To suit the dates of Abbot Aethelsige of Ramsey, who seems to have succeeded Aelfwine in 1079/80 (Harmer, Writs, p. 551) and died in 1087 (Ramsey Cart., iii, 174), and of Abbot Wulfwold of Chertsey (supra,p. 198, n. 4), the plea referred to in this writ must have been heard between 1080 and 1084, and there are reasons for placing it early in 1081. See infra, App. D, p. 427. The writ itself may have been issued soon after this, but the reference in it to the Kentford settlement reads like an appeal to the authority of the latter made on some later occasion. Such an occasion may have arisen in 1086 or 1087 when Abbot Simeon complained to the king of the decline of the abbey's liberties (infra, ch. 134). The rights confirmed are those granted to Wulfric by Edward the Confessor in ch. 95, with the addition of sake and soke, which

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 45 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the abbey of Ely has lands, greeting. I order that the abbey shall have all its customs, i.e. sake and soke, toll and team and infangthief, hamsoken, breach of peace, fightwite and fyrdwite, in the borough and outside and all other forfeitures which may be incurred on its land by its men. All these, I say, it shall have as it had them on the day when King Edward was alive and dead and as they were deraigned at my command at Kentford by several shires before my barons, namely Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, Abbot Baldwin,2 Abbot Aelsi3 and Abbot Wulfwold, 4 Ivo Tailleboisj Peter de Valognes, Picot the sheriff,6 Tihel de Herion, Hugh de Hosdeng, Gocelin of Norwich and several others. Witness: Roger Bigod. These undertakings in the time of the monk Godfrey have strengthened the position of the church of Ely in no small way (in what way he obtained the administration of Ely we have briefly explained).

D. In the time of Abbot Simeon, King William I orders Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances and Robert count of Mortain to assemble the tenants of Ely Abbey and several barons and to see to it that the abbey has its lands as on the day of King Edward's death. If any man claims to hold by the king's gift, he will receive land or some other provision in exchange. Another precept on the same matter. William,1 king of the English, to Bishop Geoffrey and Robert, count of Mortain, greeting. Assemble all those who hold lands from the demesne of the church of Ely and I will that the church shall have them as it had them on the day when King Edward was alive and dead. And if anyone says that he has some of it as my gift, let me know the size of the land and how he claims it and according to what

are mentioned in his charter of confirmation (ch. 92). Cf. Harmer, Writs, pp. 222-225. Printed: Hamilton, LC.C., p. xviii (no. ii); Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 9, no. v (1); Monasticon, i, 477, no. x; BIGELOW, Placita,pp. 23-24. The writ has been the subject of frequent confirmations, noted in Davis, Regesta, i, 34, no. 129, and has been the model for charters of Henry I (infra, Book III, ch. 7), Henry II (Ely, D. and C., Cart. no. 10, printed Delisle-Berger, Recueil des Actes de Henri II, i, no. Ix, and CartaeAntiquae Rolls 1-10, Pipe Roll Soc., 1939, no. 64), and John (Ely, D. and C., Cart. no. 16, printed Miller, Ely Land Pleas, p. 455). 2 '[Baldwin abbot of Bury St. Edmunds 1065-1097/8.]' 3"[Aelsi abbot of Ramsey 1080-1087.] 4 o[Wulfwold abbot of Chertsey ?1058-1084.]" 5 The lands of the barons here named lay in the counties where Ely held its lands and rights Cambs., Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Herts. - and also in Lincs. (e.g. Dd, i, fos, 132, 140b, 201b; ii, 78, 88, 187, 256, 278b, 337, 420b, 427b). 6 °[Picot sheriff of Cambridgeshire.]' 18D I Date: 1082-1087. Miller (Ely Land Pleas, p. 449) suggests soon after Simeon's accession "'at least by 1082". Cf Davis, Regesta, i, 72, no. 276, dated 1082-1087. See infra, App. D, pp. 428, 431. Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (3); Hamilton, LC.C., p. xix, no. iv; BIGELOW, Placita,pp. 25-26.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 46 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

I hear I shall give him land in exchange or do something else. See to it also that Abbot Simeon has all the customs that belong to the abbey of Ely as his predecessor had them in the time of King Edward. See to it furthermore that the abbot is seised of those thegnlands that belonged to the abbey on the day when King Edward died, if they who have them refuse to come to an agreement with him. And summon to this plea William de Warenne, Richard the son of Count Gilbert, Hugh de Montford, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Ralph de Belfou, Hervey of Bourges and Hardwin de Scalers and others whom the abbot will mention to you.2

E. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc, Robert count of Mortain and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances to assemble again the shires which took part in the plea respecting the lands of Ely (earlier in the year). The king's barons who were present at the aforesaid plea are to attend again. The lands of which Ely has been despoiled shall be restored on the basis of the sworn testimony of Englishmen who remember the state of affairs at the time of King Edward's death. Royal charter on the restitution of the possessions of the church by their invaders. William,1 king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Roger count of Mortain and Geoffrey bishop of Coutances. I command and order you to assemble again all the shires which were present at the plea concerning the lands of the church of Ely before my wife last came to Normandy, and let those of my barons who conveniently can be present and have taken part in the aforesaid plea and hold lands of that church also be there. As soon as they are assembled together, let several of those Englishmen who know how the lands of the aforesaid church lay on the day when King Edward died be elected and let them confirm their declarations under oath and afterwards let the lands which were in its demesne on the day when Edward died be restored to the church, except for those which the men claim that I gave them to them: of those you will notify me by letter, which they are and who holds them. Those who hold thegn-lands which should doubtlessly be held from the church shall come to an agreement with the abbot as 2

Those named are prominent among "invaders" of the abbey lands, as listed in the I.E. and the summaries included in it, as also in the plea of 1071-1075, all printed in Hamilton, I.C.C.

18E I Date: 1080-1087. Cf. Miller (Ely Land Pleas, pp. 447-449) who argues that this writ may have set on foot the plea at Kentford referred to in ch. 117, in which case it could be placed in 1081. But if the placitum at which the shires were present, which are here commanded to be reassembled, is that recorded in ch. 121, then ch. 120 cannot have been issued before Simeon's accession and probably not before Queen Matilda's return to Normandy some time in 1082. Cf. Davis, Regesta, i, 43, no. 155, where it is dated 1082, and see infra, App. D. p. 428. Printed: Monasticon, i, 478; Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (2); Hamilton, I.C.C., p. xviii, no. iii: BIGELOW, Placita,p. 24.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 47 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

best they can and if they refuse, the lands shall remain with the church (the same shall be done concerning those who hold soke and sake). Order finally those men who by my command and disposal used to repair the bridge of Ely, to go on doing so. 2

F. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances to see to it that the abbot of Ely shall be reseised of certain specified lands, held by named individuals, provided he can prove that these lands belong to the demesne of his abbey and that the tenants cannot show that they hold them by gift of the king. Another royal charter on the restitution of the possessions of the church. William,' king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Geoffrey bishop of Coutances, greeting. See to it that the abbot of Ely is reseised of the following lands which the following men hold: Hugh de Montfort one manor called Barham,2 Richard the son of Count Gilbert Broxted,3 Sheriff Picot Impington,4 Hugh de Berners three hides, 5 Bishop Remigius [of Lincoln] one hide,6 the bishop of Bayeux two hides, 7 Frodo the brother of Abbot [Baldwin of Bury St. Edmunds] one manor 8 and two carpenters one hide and three virgates,9 if the abbot can show that 0

[A writ of William I ordering Lanfranc, Geoffrey of Coutances and Robert of Mortain to cause Abbot Simeon to have sake and soke of five hundreds of Suffolk as his predecessor had in the time of King Edward, should be seen in this same context (ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 123, p. 205.- Regesta i, no. 157).]o 18F 1 Date: 1082 1087. It presumably belongs to Abbot Simeon's time. If Frodo's manor is Chedburgh (infra, p. 205, n. 6) the writ antedates the Domesday returns, since in 1086 he held it of the abbot (LE., pp. 155, 181, 195; Dd, ii, fo. 384b). Cf. Miller, Ely Land Pleas,p. 451. Cf.also Davis, Regesta, i, 43, no. 156, dated 1082, and see infra, App. D, p. 431. Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (4); Hamilton, LC.C., p. xix, no. v; BIGELOW, Placita,p. 26. 2 This must be Barham, Suffolk, but in Domesday the manor is listed among the lands of St. Etheldreda and there is no reference to any usurpation (Dd, ii, fo. 406; V.C.H., Suffolk, i, 394). In 1086 Ely held 3 hides at Broxted, Essex, of which, according to the entry under St. Etheldreda's terra, 9 acres had been taken away and were held by Eudo Dapifer (Dd, ii, fo. 18b). These Richard Fitz Gilbert held of Eudo (Dd, ii, fo. 50). 4 Ely had claimed 3 demesne hides from Picot in the plea of 1071 1075, but there is no evidence that they had been restored by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 201; LE., p. 192; cf. Miller, Ely Land Pleas, p. 442). Presumably part of the berewick of 5 hides at Strethall, Essex, which in 1086 Hugh now held of the abbot (Dd, ii, fos. 19-19b). 6 In Histon, which had not been recovered by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 190b). Ely claimed 2 hides and 3 virgates at Hanningfield (South) against the bishop of Bayeux. These were not of the demesne, but held, according to the testimony of the hundred, by two men who were only commended to Ely (Dd, ii, fo. 25; I.E., p. 128). 8 Probably Chedburgh, which Ely had claimed against Frodo, brother of Abbot Baldwin of Bury in the plea of 1070-1075 (Hamilton, I.C.C., p. 195), and which in 1086 was held of the abbot (Dd, ii, fo. 384b; LE., pp. 155, 181). The only Ely lands elsewhere recorded to have been held by the carpenters are 3' hides at Landbeach, but these were not of the demesne, having been held by Oswi, the abbot's man, in 1066, and had not been recovered by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 202; LE., pp. 114, 177). 2

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 48 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the aforesaid lands are of the demesne of the church and if the aforesaid men cannot show that they have them by my gift. See also to it that the aforesaid abbot has sake and soke and other customs as his predecessor had them on the day when King Edward was alive and dead."°

G. Order by King William I to Archbishop Lanfranc, Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances and Robert count of Mortain not to let Bishop Remigius of Lincoln claim new customs in the Isle of Ely: if the bishop wants to go to law he shall plead before the addressees and as he would have done in the time of King Edward. The addressees are to stay the proceedings started by William of Eu, Ralph fitz Waleran and Robert Gernon, unless the latter are prepared to follow the procedure of King Edward's time. Royal prohibition forbidding the bishop of Lincoln or a secular justice to claim customs in the Isle [of Ely]. William,' king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc, Bishop Geoffrey and Robert count of Mortain. Prohibit Bishop Remigius to demand new customs within the Isle of Ely, for I will not that he have anything more than his predecessor had in the time of King Edward and on the day when that king died. And if Bishop Remigius wants to plead thereon, let him do so as he would have done in the time of King Edward and that plea shall be in your presence. See to it that Abbot Simeon is quit of the guard-duty at Norwich, but he is to send his garrison and keep it there. Put a stop to the plea on the lands2 claimed by William of Eu, Ralph fitz Waleran and Robert Gemon if they refuse to proceed as they would have proceeded in the time of King Edward. And I will that the abbey shall fully have its customs as it used to have them at that time, as the abbot can prove that he is entitled to them by his charters and by his witnesses.

100 [A writ of King William I addressed to Lanfranc and one addressed to Lanfranc Geoffrey of Coutances and Robert of Mortain, dealing with various rights of Ely Abbey, with the right claimed by Bishop Remigius of Lincoln to consecrate the abbot of Ely and forbidding the abbot of Ely to alienate without royal licence any part of the demesne acquired by legal process, should be seen in this same context. (ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 127, p. 207. - Regesta i, no. 151; ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 126, p. 207. - Regesta i, no. 153).] 18G ' Date: 1082 1087. Miller suggests "before the departure of Robert of Mortain for Normandy in the early summer of 1082" (Ely Land Pleas, pp. 449-450). Cf. Davis, Regesta, i, 42, no. 154, under 1082; also infra, App. D. p. 429. Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (6); Hamilton, I.C.C., p. xx, no. vii; BIGELOW, Placita,p. 27. 2 Neither Domesday nor the Ely records throw any light on the subject of this plea. William of Eu, Ralph Fitz Waleran and Robert Gernon are not listed among the despoilers of Ely in 10711075 or in 1086, nor did they hold lands in any of the abbey's hundreds, as far as is known.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 49 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

H. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc to send him a written report on the results of the sworn inquests concerning the lands of Ely Abbey.

That King William has ordered the abbot of Ely to be ordained by the archbishop according to the old custom of the Church and that he ordered the possessions of the place, the minor as well as the major ones, to be listed. William, king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc, greeting. I want you to inspect the charters of the abbot of Ely and if they say that the abbot of that place shall be ordained wherever the king of the land commands, I order you to ordain him. See to it furthermore that the bridge of Ely shall without any excuse be maintained by those who used to maintain it. Inquire through the bishop of Coutances and Bishop Walkelin [of Winchester] and the others who caused the lands of St. Aetheldreda to be listed and sworn, how they were sworn and who has sworn them, who heard the oaths and which are the lands and their dimension and their number and their names and their tenants, and have it all carefully noted and written down. See that I soon hear the truth of the matter by your writ and send an emissary of the abbot with it.'

19 Trial, presided over by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, between Bishop Gundulf of Rochester and Picot the sheriff concerning land in Gisleham, depending on Freckenham, in the county court [of Suffolk]. A jury is resorted to, and after perjury is discovered, a second jury convened. The jurors promise to undergo the ordeal of hot iron, but fail and pay a fine to the king. In the time of William the Great, king of the English, father of William, also king of that nation, there arose a dispute between Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, and Picot, sheriff of Cambridge, about certain land, belonging to Freckenham but situated in Gisleham which one of the king's sergeants, called Olchete, had presumed to occupy in virtue of the sheriff's grant. For the sheriff said that the land in question was the king's but the bishop declared that it belonged to the church of 18H

'[In the twelfth century several charters contain allusions to the Ely land pleas of the time of King William I: ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 7, pp. 250-251 (A.D. 1109 1116). - Regesta

ii, no. 1048 (A.D. 1114); Regesta iii, no. 261, p. 9 3 (A.D. 1139-1140); CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS, no. 64, p. 38 (ca. 27 March 1155); Miller, Ely Land Pleas,pp. 455-456 (31 December 1189-April 1196). See Round, FeudalEngland,pp. 123 142; E. Miller, "'The Ely Land Pleas in the Reign of William I", E.H.R., 62 (1947), pp. 438-456; E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, Cambridge, 1951; ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), Appendix D 4, pp. 426-432; D.J.A. Matthew, The Norman Conquest, London, 1966, p. 156.]'

19

'[Probably Orthi is meant, who occurs in connection with Freckenham in Domesday Book ii, 381 .]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 50 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

St. Andrew.2 And so they came before the king who ordered that all of the men of that shire should be brought together, that by their judgment it might be determined to whom the land should more rightly belong. Now they, when assembled, through fear of the sheriff, declared the land to belong to the king, rather than to Blessed Andrew, but the bishop of Bayeux, who was presiding over the plea, did not believe them, and directed that if they were sure that what they said was true they should choose twelve out of their number to confirm with an oath what all had said. But when the twelve had withdrawn to consider the matter, they were struck with terror by a message from the sheriff and so, on returning, they swore that to be true what they had said before. Now, these men were Edward of Chippenham, Heruld and Leofwine of the sake of Exning, Eadric of Gisleham, Wulfwine of Landwade, Ordmer of Barningham, and six others of the better men of the county. After all this, the land remained in the king's hand. But in the same year a certain monk, called Grim, came to the bishop like a messenger from God, for when he heard what the Cambridge men had sworn, he was amazed, and in his wrath called them all liars. For this monk had formerly been the reeve of the lord of Freckenham, and had received services and customary payments from the land in question as from the other lands belonging there, while he had under him in that manor one of the very men who had made the sworn confirmation. When the bishop of Rochester had heard this, he went to the bishop of Bayeux and told him the monk's story in order. Then the bishop of Bayeux summoned the monk before himself and heard the same tale from him, after which he summoned one of those who had sworn, who instantly fell down before his feet and acknowledged himself to be a liar. Then again he summoned the man who had sworn first of all, and on being *questionedhe likewise confessed his perjury. Lastly, he ordered the sheriff to send the remaining jurors to London to appear before him together with twelve others of the better men of the county to confirm the oath of the former twelve. To the same place also, he summoned many of the greater barons of England, and when all were assembled in London, judgment was given both by French and English that all those were perjured, since the man after whom all had sworn had owned himself to be a perjuror. After a condemnation of this kind the bishop of Rochester kept the land, as was just, but since the other twelve jurors wished to assert that they did not agree with those who had first sworn, the bishop of Bayeux said they should prove this by the ordeal of iron. They promised to do so, but failed, and by the judgment of the other men of their county they paid three 3 hundred pounds to the king.

2 '[St. Andrew was the patron saint of the cathedral of Rochester.]'

3 0[Douglas, William the Conqueror,307, 309; Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 207-208; F.M. Stenton, William the Conqueror, New York, 1908, 434-435. Translation taken almost verbatim from Stenton, loc. cit.]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 51 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

20 Notification by King William I of the restoration to Thomas, archbishop of York, of land in Mottisfont, on the basis of the testimony of the county. William, by God's grace king of the English, to Bishop Walkelin, [Sheriff] Hugh de Port and his lieges of Hampshire, greeting. I notify you that I have restored to Archbishop Thomas of York one hide of land pertaining to the church of Mottisfont, as Archbishop Ealdred best had it at the time of King Edward, in meadows and wood and pasture and in common pasturage for as many animals as the maximum he could have there at the time of King Edward, as was testified before Bishop [William] of Durham and Bertram de Verdun and devised by the men of the county. Farewell. Witnesses: Bishop William of Durham and Bertram de Verdun.

21 Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury deraigns the manor of Stoke against Bishop Odo of Bayeux. This manor was and is of the bishopric of Rochester, but Earl Godwin in the time of King Edward bought it from 2 men who held it from the bishop, and this sale was made without the bishop's knowledge. Afterwards, however, when King William was reigning, Archbishop Lanfranc deraigned it against the bishop of Bayeux and the church of Rochester is now seised of it.' 22 The manor of Badlesmere, attributed to Bishop Odo of Bayeux and held by Ansfrid, is claimed by Abbot Scotland of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, who is supported by the men of the hundred. This manor St. Augustine's abbot claims because he had it in the time of King Edward and the men of the hundred confirm this. But the son of the tenant states that his father could go to what lord he wished. To this the monks do not agree. 21 1 '[Entries ofajudicial characterare numerous in Domesday Book. Sometimes they only mention the fact that certain claims or counterclaims are extant, sometimes they go much further and give information on the law courts and theirprocedure. We have selected the lattercategoryfor inclusion here, realizing how difficult and arbitrarythis selection must necessarily be: we have, on the whole, followed Bigelow's choice, who first faced this problem.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 52 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

23 The manor of Treyford, attributed to Roger de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, is claimed by Abbot Riwallon of St. Peter of Winchester, and the hundred court is heard. The abbot of Saint Peter of Winchester claims this manor. The hundred testifies that in the time of King Edward he who held it from the abbot, held it only for the term of his life.

24 Dispute before the hundred court of Godalming between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and Lufa, royal reeve, concerning the manor of Farncombe.

A reeve of the king's named Lufa claims this manor. The men of the hundred testify that he held it from the king, when the king was in Wales, that he kept it afterwards until the bishop of Bayeux came to Kent.1 The bishop himself transferred Rodsell and Farncombe to the Bramley ferm.

25 Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and Ranulf the sheriff about a monastery and a waterway in Southwark; testimony of the hundred of Brixton. In Southwark the bishop has a monastery and a tidal waterway himself. King Edward held them at his death; whoever had the church, held from the king. The king had two parts of the income from the waterway where ships moored, Earl Godwin the third part. But the men of the hundred, French and English, testify that the bishop of Bayeux began a suit with Ranulf the sheriff about them, but when he realized that the suit was not rightfully conducted to the king's advantage, he withdrew the suit. The bishop however gave the church and the waterway first to Aethelwold, and then to Ralph, in exchange for a house. The sheriff also denies that he ever received the king's command or seal in this matter. The men of Southwark testify that in the time of King Edward no one but the king took toll on the shore or in the waterfront. If a criminal was charged there, he paid his fine to 24 1 O[The king was in Wales in 1081 and the bishop of Bayeux went to Kent probably in 1082, cfr. J. Morris (ed.), Domesday Book, 3, Surrey, Chichester, 1975, notes 5, 3]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 53 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the king, but if he was not charged, and went elsewhere, under a person who had sake and soke, that person had the culprit's fine.

26 Dispute in the hundred of Elmbridge concerning the origin of Richard de Tonbridge's seisin in Apps Court.

The same Richard has 6 hides in the manor of Apps Court, which Abbot Wulfwold delivered to him for the improvement of Walton, so the men of Richard say, but the men of the hundred say that they have never seen a writ or a deliverer of the king who seised him thereof.

27 Dispute in the hundred of Brixton concerning the origin of Ansculf's seisin of the land of Wandsworth, which is held by his son William.

William holds Wandsworth himself. Ansculf has had this land after he became sheriff, but the men of the hundred say they have seen neither seal nor deliverer.

28 The king's reeve claims for the use of the manor of King's Somborne some land which is held by Robert count of Mortain and concerning which the men of the hundred of King's Somborne were heard. The reeve claims 1 virgate of land for the use of this manor, and some pasture which they call Down which pays 15 shillings. The count of Mortain holds it, but the hundred testifies that it ought to be included in the king's demesne farm and was so in the time of King Edward, with the meadow in the same.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 54 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

29 The county court of Hampshire testifies concerning the unjust acquisition of the manor of Alton by the abbot of St. Peter's of Winchester.

The county testifies of this manor that the abbot received it unjustly, in exchange for the king's house, because the house was the king's.

30 Hayling Island is attributed to the abbey of Jumi~ges, but claimed by the cathedral monastery of Winchester, Abbot Aelfsige of Ramsey and the hundred of Bosmere being witnesses. The monks of the bishopric of Winchester claim this manor, because Queen Emma gave it to the church of St. Peter and St. Swithun, and at that time gave the monks seisin of one half, the other half she demised to Ulward for his life only, on condition that, on his death, the monks should have his body for burial and the manor. And on these terms Ulward held his part of the manor from the monks, till he died, in the time of King William. This is attested by Aelfsige, abbot of Ramsey, and by the whole hundred.

31 In the manor of Clatinges Picot holds land which is claimed by William de Chernet, a vassal of Hugh de Port, as belonging to the manor of Charford, which is part of Hugh's fief. The county and the hundred are heard and, against the witnesses brought by the claimant, Picot brings his own counterwitnesses who are willing to swear oaths or undergo the ordeal; this offer is rejected by the claimant's witnesses. William de Chernet claims this land' and says that it belongs to the manor of Charford, Hugh de Port's fief, as the inheritance of his ancestor and he has thereof brought his testimony from the better and old men of the whole county and of the hundred, and Picot has brought against it as his testimony villeins and common people and reeves, who are willing to maintain by oath or by the judgment of God that he who held the land was a free man and could betake himself with his land 31 1 o[Clatinges in the hundred of Fordingbridge (Hampshire) is unidentified, but since it was held together with South Charford by William de Chernet from Hugh de Port, it was probably situated near that place (V.C.H. Hampshireiv, 559).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 55 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

where he would. But the witnesses of William refuse to accept any law except that of King Edward until the case is determined by the king.

32 Hugh de Port claims for the use of his manor of Houghton various lands against Turstin the chamberlain, and the hundred of King's Somborne is heard. The said Hugh claims, for the use of this manor, 3 messuages and the corner of a meadow and 1 virgate and 5 acres of land, against Turstin the chamberlain. Concerning this the whole hundred bears testimony that his predecessors were seised thereof, and tenants on the day on which King Edward was alive and dead.

33 A hide of land in Swampton (Saint Mary Bourne) is attributed to Ralph de Mortimer, but is claimed by the monks of Winchester Cathedral, and the hundred of Kingsclere is heard. The same Ralph holds 1 hide in Swampton. Cheping held it from the bishop and monks and it was always the minister's. But it was granted to him to hold for his own life only, after which it was to revert to the church. This is affirmed by the monks, but the hundred knows nothing of an agreement; but they know this, that it was the minister's and that it did not give geld, nor does it now, and they know not why it has thus continued.

34 The manor of Itchen Abbas, held from the king by Hugh son of Baldric, is claimed by St. Mary's abbey of Nunminster, Winchester, with the support of the courts of the hundred and the county. The abbess of St. Mary's claims this manor' and the whole hundred, and also the county court bears witness that it was the abbey's in the time of King Edward and in the time of King William, and ought of right to be.

34 1 o[Itchen Abbas, Hampshire, was in the hundred of Bountisborough.] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 56 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

35 The manor of Compton is held by William the archer, but one virgate is claimed by Aeldred, brother of Oda, who deraigned it before the queen; the hundred of King's Somborne testifies. Aeldred, Oda's brother, claims 1 virgate of land of this manor and says that he held it the day on which King Edward was quick and dead, and was deprived of it after King William had crossed the sea, and that he deraigned it before the queen. Hugh de Port. and the men of the whole hundred bear witness to this fact.

36 Herbert son of Remi holds land at Farley, which is claimed by William de Eu, but without the support of the hundred.

William de Eu claims this hide and says that it belongs to his manor. But the men of the hundred1 do not bear witness that he ought to have it, but that it was encroached upon the king.

37 Geoffrey the chamberlain holds Hatch, but Odo de Winchester claims it and maintains that he had it in gage. Odo de Winchester claims this hide and says that he had it in gage for 10 pounds from Alsi, with the permission of King William, and that he is therefore deprived of it unjustly, but Geoffrey holds it from the king, for the service he performed to his daughter Matilda.1

0

Hants., was in the hundred of King's Somborne.] 36 '[Farley, 37 1 0[The land held by Geoffrey is called Heche in Domesday Book. It is identified as Hatch, in Cliddesden, in the hundred of Basingstoke, Hampshire. According to DOUGLAS, William the Conqueror, 394-395, this is the only source for the existence of King William's daughter Matilda.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 57 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

38 Edwin holds the manor of Oakhanger, where the king's reeve, though without the support of the county of Hampshire, claims half a hide as pasture. Of this manor the king's reeve claims halfa hide for pasture for the king's oxen, but the shire testifies that he cannot have pasture or pannage in the king's wood, as he claims, except by authority of the sheriff. 39 Alwi, son of Turber, holds the manor of Tytherley, but the men of the hundred have never seen seisin being given to his predecessor Alvred.

The men of the hundred1 say that they have never seen the king's seal, or his messenger give seisin of this manor to Alvred, the predecessor of this present tenant and that, unless the king bear testimony, he has nothing there. 40 Sawin, a royal thegn, holds half a hide in Rockbourne, which is disputed by the sheriff's officers who are, however, supported neither by the hundred of Fordingbridge nor by the county of Hampshire. Sawin holds half a hide from the king in Rockbourne. He himself held it from King Edward as an alod... The sheriff's officers say that this half hide belongs to the king's farm, but the hundred and the shire say that King Edward gave it to him and he has his seal thereon.

41 Dispute between Henry de Ferrers and the king concerning land in Sutton Courtenay before the hundred court of Sutton.

Henry de Ferrers holds in this manor, in the king's demesne 120 acres of land 39 l [Tytherley, Hamps. is in the hundred of Thorngate, which at the time of Domesday was known as Broughton.] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 58 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and 3 acres of meadow for the reason that Godric his predecessor ploughed the land, when he was sheriff, with his own ploughs. But as the hundred attests, it belongs of right to the king's court, and so Godric occupied it unjustly. 42 The hundred court of Ganfield, faced with the question of the rights of the bishopric of Exeter in Buckland, decides to send the case to the king's court.

In the hundred of Ganfield Bishop Osbern holds Buckland in demesne belonging to his bishopric, he asserts. Ulvric Chenp dwelt there in the time of King Edward. On this they gave no judgment, but sent the case to be tried before the king. 43 Dispute before the shiremoot of Berkshire between Anschil and Abingdon Abbey about the manor of Sparsholt.

Anschil holds Sparsholt from the abbot. Edric held it as an alod of King Edward and could go to what lord he wished... About this manor the shire attests that Edric who used to hold it gave it over to his son who was a monk in Abingdon, to hold it at farm and to provide the donor therefrom with the necessaries of life, and after his death to have the manor, and therefore the men of the shire do not know how far it belongs to the abbey, for they have seen neither the king's writ nor his seal concerning it. The abbot testifies that in the time of King Edward he [i.e. Edric's son] transferred the manor to the church to which he belonged and concerning this he has the writ and seal of King Edward and all his monks attest this.

44 Dispute between the king and Henry de Ferrers concerning land in Sparsholt, which used to be held by Godric, whose title is, however, contested in the hundred court of Wantage. The same Henry holds Sparsholt. Polcehard holds it from him. Godric, a

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 59 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

freeman, held it... This land Henry states to have been his predecessor Godric's, but according to the attestation of the hundred Godric occupied it against King William after the battle of Hastings, and he never held it in King Edward's time.

45 Dispute concerning land in Ardington between the king and Robert de Oilly before the hundred court of Wantage, involving the position of Azor as tenant of Robert or tenant in chief. The same Robert holds 1 hide which Azor, the steward of King Edward, held and could go with it to what lord he wished... This land the same Azor holds from Robert, but the men of the hundred testify that he ought to hold it from the king, since King William gave it to him at Windsor and gave him his writ thereon; Robert on the other hand holds it unjustly for no one of them has seen the king's writ, nor on his side the man who gave him seisin.

46 Dispute in the hundred court of Hertford concerning Hormead, which is held from Ralph Baynard by William, but claimed by the men of Count Eustace of Boulogne. In Hormead William holds I virgate from Ralph . . Wulfward, Asgar the constable's man, held this land. Count Eustace's men claim this land; they had been seised of it for two years after the count came to this honour himself, as the men of the hundred testify.

47 Dispute in the county court of Hertfordshire between a freeman and Sheriff Peter de Valognes concerning land in Libury Hall (a manor previously called Stuterehela,in the village of Little Munden), which the sheriff had taken from the freeman for refusing to pay a tax of which, according to the hundred of Broadwater, he was exempt. 1.

In Libury Peter holds ~ virgate and 10 acres... A sokeman of King Edward's held it, and he could sell... Peter the sheriff took this land from this sokeman of King William's; it is in the king's hands, in forfeiture, for his not paying the king's

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 60 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

geld, as his men say. But the men of the shire do not bear witness to the sheriff, because it was always exempt from geld and from other things concerning the king for as long as he held it, as the hundred testifies.

48 Dispute concerning Berkesden Green between Count Alan of Brittany, who claims seisin as the hundred of Edwinstree testifies and Hardwin de Eschalers, who claims Peter de Valognes, sheriff of Hertfordshire, as warrantor. Count Alan claims that he should rightly have three parts of this virgate, for he was seised thereof when he recently crossed the sea, as the men of the hundred bear witness for him. But Hardwin claims Peter the sheriff as protector and deliverer, by order of the bishop of Bayeux, because he delivered it to him in exchange for Libury.

49 Dispute in the county court of Gloucestershire between Walter fitz Roger, who invokes a donation by William count of Eu, and Abingdon abbey concerning the manor of Cerney. This manor is being claimed for the church of St. Mary of Abingdon, but the whole county has testified that Archbishop Stigand held it for ten years during King Edward's lifetime. Earl William gave this manor to Sheriff Roger, the father of Walter.

50 Abbot Walter of Evesham deraigns 5 hides at Bengeworth in a session of the four shires of Worcester, Warwick, Oxford and Gloucester.

This same church holds 4 hides at Bengeworth and a fifth hide is held by Urse.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 61 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Abbot Walter deraigned these 5 hides at Ildeberg in 4 shires before the bishop of Bayeux and other barons of the king.

51 Uncertainty concerning Bartley Green, which is held from the king by William fitz Ansculf, but on which the church of Chester has a claim, since the county court of Worcester testifies that Wulwin bequeathed it to the said church. The same Wulwin bought this manor in the time of King Edward from the bishop of Chester for three lives. When he was ill and had come to the end of his life, he called his son, Bishop [Leofwine] of Lichfield, 1 his wife and several of his friends and said: "Hear, my friends. I desire that my wife hold this land which I bought from the church so long as she lives; and after her death, let the church from which I received it receive it back and let him who takes it from the church be excommunicate". That this was so, is testified by the best men of the whole county.

52 Land in Abington Pigotts, which has been usurped by Aubrey de Vere, is deraigned by Picot, the sheriff of Cambridgeshire; testimony of Armingford hundred. A. The version in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis

This land was and is worth 12d. Picot holds it in the king's hand; there is a sokeman. In the time of King Edward Almar held it, he could give and sell it to whom he wished. Aubrey de Vere occupied this land against the king, but Sheriff Picot deraigned it from him and still retains it against him. Three years have gone by and the foresaid Aubrey still [retains] of the cattle which he took there 380 sheep and 1 plough[team], as the men of the hundred testify. B. The version in Domesday Book. In Abington Picot holds under the king's hand and 1 sokeman, Sagar, holds half a virgate from him, worth 12d. Elmar held this land in the time of King Edward and could give it and sell it. Aubrey de Vere invaded it to the detriment of

51 1 '[Bishops of Lichfield (transferred in 1075 to Chester) in the time of King Edward: Wulfsige (1039-1053) and Leofwine (1053-1067).]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 62 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the king and Picot deraigned it against him. Of the cattle which Aubrey took away there he still holds 380 sheep and one plough[team], as the men of the hundred testify.

53 Dispute between Alfwold and his brothers on the one hand and Sheriff Eustace of Huntingdonshire on the other, concerning land (in Keyston?); testimony of the county court. Alfwold and his brothers claim that Eustace unjustly took away their land. The county deny that they have seen a seal or a seisor who seised him thereof.

54 Dispute concerning land in Easton between William de Caron and Hugh de Beauchamp, successor to Ralph Taillebois. The latter had disseised William's father, according to the declaration of the hundred court of Stodden. In this land belonging to the bishopric' William de Caron lays claim to 60 acres, field and woodland against Hugh de Beauchamp, of which Ralph Taillebois disseised the father of the same William who held this same land in the time of King Edward, as the men of the hundred say.

55 Dispute between Hugh de Beauchamp and William de Warenne concerning the manor of Tilbrook; testimony of the hundred court.

Hugh Beauchamp claims this land of Tilbrook against William and the men of the hundred' witness that Ralph Taillebois, his ancestor, was seised of it by the king and held it. 54

*[This is the bishopric of Lincoln: our fragment comes under chapter four of the county of 0 Bedford headed Terra episcopi Lincoliensis.] 55 I omih s is the hundred of Stodden in Bedfordshire, to which in Domesday times the manor of Tilbrook belonged.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 63 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

56 Dispute between Alvred de Lincoln on the one hand and Walter the Fleming and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances on the other concerning halfa hide of land and some woodland in Wymington, of which Alvred had been unjustly dispossessed, as the hundred court of Willey testifies. Alvred de Lincoln holds in Wymington 3 hides and Gleu holds from him.. With these 3 hides Alvred claims against Walter the Fleming half a hide of which he unjustly disseised him, according to the testimony of the men of the hundred, as his ancestor was seised thereof in the time of King Edward and Alvred himself was seised afterwards. With this land Alvred also claims against the bishop of Coutances a wood for 100 swine, which his ancestor had in the time of King Edward, but the bishop unjustly disseised him, as the men of the hundred testify.

57 Dispute between William the chamberlain and Adelulf the chamberlain of Odo, bishop of Bayeux, concerning land in Totternhoe before the halfhundred of Stanbridge (now in the hundred of Manshead). This William holds Tottemhoe from the king . . . Lewin, a man of Earl Waltheof, held this manor... With this manor William the chamberlain claims 2 hides, which his predecessor held in the time of King Edward, as the hundred testifies, but the bishop of Bayeux took them away from him by force and gave them to Adelulf, his chamberlain.

58 Dispute between Adeliz, wife of Hugh de Grandmesnil and Hugh de Beauchamp concerning land in Houghton Conquest which, according to the testimony of the hundred court of Redbornstoke, Ralph Taillebois had occupied unjustly. In this same land the aforesaid Adeliz claims half a virgate and 30 acres of wood and field against Hugh de Beauchamp and the men of the hundred witness that that land belonged in the time of King Edward to the other land which Adeliz holds, and who held that land could give or sell it to whom he liked. Ralph has unjustly occupied this land, when he was sheriff.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 64 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

59 Faced with certain claims on land in Alveston, Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester declares that he has deraigned it before Queen Matilda in the presence of four shire courts. Bishop Wulfstan says that he has deraigned this land before Queen Matilda in the presence of four counties and he has writs thereon of King William and the testimony of the county of Warwick. 60 After Ilbert de Lacy had been seised of land in Cropwell Butler, he lost it when Roger de Poitou received his land there; the court of Bingham wapentake bears witness that Ilbert had indeed been seised. Ilbert de Lacy was seised of this land, but when Roger de Poitou1 received his land he seized this manor to the detriment of Ilbert. The wapentake bears witness that Ilbert was seised, now it is in the hand of the king except one third and the thegn[land] which is the head of the manor and held by Ilbert. 61 Dispute concerning land in Doddington between Baldwin, a tenant in chief and Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, before the county court of Lincolnshire. All this land belongs to Doddington, a manor of St. Peter of Westminster. Baldwin holds it from the king, but the abbot claims it for St. Peter by the testimony of the men of the whole county. 62 Earl Hugh claims land in Fylingdales against William de Percy, but offers no proof.

In Langbargh wapentake Earl Hugh claims against William de Percy 1 carrucate of land in Fylingdales, saying it belongs to Whitby, but he has no testimony. 60 ' '[Roger de Poitou possessed several lands in Nottinghamshire, interalia,in Cropwell Butler itself, see DOMESDAY i, fV 290.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 65 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

63 Dispute in the Maneshou (now Ryedale) wapentake between Ralph Pagnell and the cathedral of York concerning land in Stonegrave.

In Maneshouwapentake Ralph Pagnell claims 6 bovates of land in Stonegrave of the land of Ulf, but the men who have sworn say it belongs to St. Peter of York.

64 Testimony of the sworn men and of the county court concerning the position of the land of Asa, which she possessed free from the control of Bernulf, her husband, and of which William Malet, father of the present claimant, Robert Malet, had been seised. Concerning all the land of Asa, they testify1 that it ought to belong to Robert Malet, because she had her land separate and free from the rule and control of Bernulf, her husband, even when they were together, so that he could neither make gift nor sale of it, nor forfeit it. But after their separation, she withdrew with all her land and possessed it as lady thereof. But the men of the county have seen William Malet seised both of that land and of all her land, until the castle was invaded. This they testify concerning all the land of Asa which she had in Yorkshire.2

65 Dispute concerning Thorner over which the men of Barkston wapentake and of Shyrack wapentake testify in favour of Osbern de Arches.

The men of Barkston wapentake and of Skyrack wapentake offer testimony to Osbern de Arches that Gulbert, his predecessor, had all Thorner, by whose gift they know not, that is 4 manors, 8 carrucates of land. But all Thorner is situated within the bounds of the castle of Ilbert1 according to the first measurement, and according to the newest measurement it is situated without. ° 64 1 '[It appears from the preceding paragraph that this phrase refers to the homines quijuraverunt.] 2 o[Probably an allusion to the sack of York in 1069.] 65 ' 0[Ilbert I de Lacy, Domesday lord of Pontefract, d.c. 1093.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 66 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

66 The men of the West Riding of Yorkshire adjudicate to the chapter of St. John at Beverley the land claimed by Drew de la Beuvrifre.

All the land which Drew claimed against St. John is testified by the men of the riding to belong to St. John and by the gift of King William, which he gave to St. John in the time of Archbishop Ealdred. Concerning this, the canons have the seal of King Edward and of King William. 67 Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, on the one hand and Robert the dispenser and Earl Hugh on the other concerning land in the hundred of Tathwell, which the said wapentake declares to be the bishop's by right. In Tathwell hundred the men of the bishop of Bayeux claim 1 carrucate of land against Robert the dispenser and the men of the wapentake say that the bishop himself must have it by right. In the same hundred the men of the same bishop claim against Earl Hugh 3 bovates of land and the wapentake says that the bishop himself must have them. 68 Dispute between Bishop Remigius of Lincoln and Earl Alan of Brittany concerning a mill in Louthesk hundred, which the wapentake declares to be the bishop's. In Louthesk hundred the bishop of Lincoln claims one mill against Earl Alan and the wapentake testifies that it must be the said bishop's. 69 Dispute between Gilbert de Ghent and Losuard concerning land in Well of which Bishop Odo of Bayeux had been disseised according to the men of th6 West Riding of Lincolnshire. In the hundred of Risby Losuard claims against Gilbert de Ghent 1carrucate of

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 67 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

land in Well. The men of the riding say that in the time of King Edward Turolf had it with sake and soke and after him Tonna had it and that land was delivered to Bishop Odo by charter, but they have not seen any royal writ thereon and he himself had it on the day when he was arrested and afterwards he was disseised.

70 Dispute between Rainer de Brimou and Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester, concerning land in Ulceby, in the hundred of Risby, before the men of the West Riding of Lincolnshire. In the same hundred Rainer de Brimou claims two bovates of land in Ulceby against Earl Hugh, and the men of the riding say that he should only have the soke in Cumberworth, and the earl the land.

71 Dispute between Bishop William of Durham and Gilbert de Ghent concerning land in Willoughby in the Marsh: the men of the South Riding of Lincolnshire testify for Gilbert. In the hundred of Willoughby the bishop of Durham claims the land of Alnot the priest against Gilbert de Ghent, and the men of the riding say that they have never seen the predecessor of the bishop being seised, neither by writ nor by messenger and they testify in favour of Gilbert.

72 Dispute between Bishop William of Durham and Eudo son of Spirewic concerning land in Horncastle wapentake.

Concerning the case between the bishop of Durham and Eudo son of Spirewic, the men of Horncastle wapentake have testified, with the assent of the whole riding, that the 3 brothers Herold and Godevert and Aluric had divided equally and similarly the demesne land of their father and that Herold and Godevert alone had divided the soke of their father without the third brother and they held it equally and similarly in the time of King Edward.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 68 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

73 Dispute between William, bishop of Durham, and Eudo before the men of Wraggoe wapentake concerning land in Langton and Thorpe.

Concerning the soke of 6 bovates about which there is a claim between the bishop and Eudo in Langton and in Thorpe, the men of Wraggoe wapentake say that the aforesaid two brothers have had the soke equally and similarly in the time of King Edward, but in the year of this king's death the sons of Godevert had the whole soke, but they do not know on what ground they had it, either by force or through their uncle's gift.

74 Dispute before the Wraggoe wapentake between Robert the dispenser and Gilbert de Ghent concerning the wood of Langton.

Concerning the claim made by Robert the dispenser against Gilbert de Ghent on the wood in Langton, the wapentake of Wraggoe says that Tonna had it in the time of King Edward with sake and soke in Baumber and therefore Gilbert de Ghent has it by right; the whole riding agreed.

75 Dispute between Robert the dispenser on the one hand and the king, Erneis de Burun, Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester and Bishop Odo of Bayeux on the other before the wapentake of Wraggoe concerning land in Hainton and Wragby. Of the thicket which Robert the dispenser claims against the king in Hainton and against Erneis de Burun in Wragby he has nothing of it according to the testimony of the wapentake but he has the soke over 12 acres of Earl Hugh and 8 acres of the bishop of Bayeux, according to the testimony of the men of the wapentake and the riding.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 69 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

76 Dispute before the wapentake of Wraggoe between Archbishop Thomas of York and Ivo Taillebois concerning land in the South Riding of Lincoln, that used to belong to Siward. Concerning the claim made by Archbishop Thomas, i.e. that he should have the soke on the land of Siward, the predecessor of Ivo Taillebois, the wapentake says - and also the riding - that Siward held his land with sake and soke as well as Godwin, the predecessor of the archbishop and therefore he does not claim rightly.

77 Dispute between Archbishop Thomas of York and Bishop Odo of Bayeux concerning the soke of the land of Aschil in Willingham which the county court testifies to be unjustly held by the bishop. Archbishop Thomas must have the soke over the land of Aschil which the bishop of Bayeux has in Willingham because, as the whole county testifies, the predecessor of the archbishop' had sake and soke over that land and the men of the bishop unjustly deprive the archbishop of that soke.

78 Dispute between Archbishop Thomas of York and Rainer de Brimou concerning the soke of land in Willingham before the men of the South Riding of Lincoln. In the time of King Edward Almar, the predecessor of Archbishop Thomas, was seised of the soke of 10 bovates in Willingham. This land was Code's and is now Rainer de Brimou's and in the time of King Edward it was given in gage for three pounds and now the men of the riding assert that the archbishop must have this soke by right until the three pounds are restored to him.

77

[his is probably the same Godwin, antecessor archiepiscopi,as in the previous document.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 70 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Il

79 Dispute concerning two carrucates of land in Scremby between Robert the dispenser and Gilbert de Ghent before the wapentake of Candleshoe.

Concerning the 2 carrucates of land claimed by Robert the dispenser against Gilbert de Ghent in Scremby because of Wiglac, his predecessor, the wapentake says that he had only 1 carrucate and its soke was in Bardney. Wiglac forfeited the land against his lord, Gilbert, and therefore Robert has nothing there, according to the testimony of the riding.

80 Dispute before the county court in the North Riding of Lincoln between Ivo Taillebois and the king concerning land in Limber.

In Limber Ivo Taillebois claims against the king 6 bovates of land. The men of the county say that he must have the land and the king the soke.

81 Dispute between Judith, widow of Earl Waltheof, and Robert de Toeni concerning two manors in Ponton, before the wapentake of Ness, in the Kesteven district of Lincolnshire. In Ponton Countess Judith holds two manors which used to belong to Aelmer and his brothers. Robert de Toeni claims them and the wapentake bears witness in his favour that they were delivered to him in exchange for Marston.

82 Dispute between Gilbert de Ghent and Robert de Vesci concerning a meadow in the hundred of Caythorpe before the wapentake.

In the hundred of Caythorpe Gilbert de Ghent claims against Robert de Vesci the meadow which used to be of Eilric, a predecessor of his, but the wapentake says

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 71 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

that this Eilric has had the whole meadow, but the [immediate] predecessor of Gilbert had nothing there except by way of lease against remuneration.

83 Drew de la Beuvri~re's claims on lands of Earl Morcar of Northumbria in the wapentake of Ness in the district of Kesteven are sent to the king's court.

The claims which Drew de la Beuvri~re makes on lands of Morcar, they send to be judged by the king.

84 The wapentake of Ness testifies in favour of Wido de Craon in his dispute with Drew de la Beuvri~re concerning land in the hundred of Welby.

In the hundred of Welby Drew claims 4 carrucates of land against Wido de Craon, but the wapentake bears witness in favour of Wido that they are his by right.

85 Dispute between Wido de Craon and Alan I, earl of Brittany, concerning land in Drayton and in the hundred of Bicker: proof is offered by ordeal or judicial combat. Wido de Craon holds 4 bovates of land in Drayton and 10 bovates of the land of Athelstan Godramson in the hundred of Bicker. Earl Alan claims this and Alger his man has given gage to the king's barons in order to assert by ordeal or by battle that this Athelstan was not seised of those 14 bovates in the time of King Edward. On the other hand Alestan of Frampton, Wido's man, gave his gage in order to convince [the court] that he was seised, with sake and soke and Wido was seised thereof from the time of Ralph the staller until the present and now holds.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 72 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

86 Wido de Craon claims land in Gosberton against Alan I, earl of Brittany, who in contrast to Wido gives gage.

Guerd, a man of Earl Alan, gave gage to confirm that the predecessor of Earl Alan had 6 bovates of land with sake and soke in Gosberton and therefore Wido de Craon does not claim them rightly.

87 The hundred of Witham testifies in the dispute between Goscelin the lorimer and Ely Abbey concerning land in the manor of Witham.

Goscelin the lorimer has the land of one and does not render customary due, that is 1 hide, which is claimed by the monks of St. Etheldreda of Ely and the hundred testifies in their favour concerning one half, and as to the other part they know nothing.

88 A certain clerk of Count Eustace of Boulogne having invaded land at Newport, a royal manor in Essex, and holding it as part of the fief of the said count, the hundred court of Uttlesford testifies that it belongs to the said royal manor and adjudges the clerk in the king's mercy. A certain clerk of Count Eustace had invaded 42 acres and was holding them as part of the fief of Count Eustace, but the hundred testifies that they belong to Newport, and so the king now has them and the clerk is adjudged to be in the king's mercy as to all his possessions and his body.

88 ' [Count Eustace of Boulogne owned much land in various parts of Essex, see pp. 26-34.]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 73 1990

DOMESDAY

ii,

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

89 Certain land in Great Fanton Hall is claimed for the king, as the abbey of Westminster obtained it by a false writ.

This land is claimed for the king's use on the ground that it came to the church through a false writ.

90 Dispute concerning land in Tollesbury between Odo, a man of Swein, and the abbey of Barking before the hundred of Thurstable.

Odo a man of Suain has obtained 10 acres which belonged to the church and the hundred bears witness to this, but he vouches his lord as warrantor thereon.

91 Land in Alresford, which had been invaded by Turold de Rochester without the Tendring hundred court knowing how, is taken into the king's hand.

A certain freeman held in Alresford half a hide, which Turold invaded like the other land and when he received it there was half a carrucate, now none, but there could be. And the hundred knows not how he has this land; as neither a messenger nor any other man came on his behalf to prove his right to deraign this land, it is in the king's hand with the rest.

92 Ranulf Peverel claims land in Boreham which Count Eustace of Boulogne gave to one of his knights, who vouches him to warranty; testimony of the hundred of Chelmsford. Ranulf Peverel claims half a hide and 18 acres near the church of this manor

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 74 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and half the church and Ingelric1 has not been seised, but Count Eustace has given them to some knight of his who vouches him to defend him and he also claims 30 acres, which yielded 12d. per year to Ranulf Peverel's ancestor, as the hundred testifies. 93 The hundred court testifies that Scalpin has given land at Leigh in dower to his wife.

And this manor was given by Esgar to Harold in King Edward's time, and Harold in turn gave it to a housecarl of his, Scalpin by name, and this Scalpin gave it in dower to his wife in the sight of two men, namely Roger the marshal and a certain Englishman, and the hundred testifies that they heard Scalpin recognize it. And after the king came to this country, Scalpin held it until he went where he died, in Evreux, in outlawry. 94 King William I has ordered Hugh de Berners to hold the manors of Newton Hall (in Great Dunmow), Barnston and Berners Roding from Geoffrey de Mandeville, if the latter can deraign them as belonging to his fief. And the king commanded through Robert d'Oilli, that Hugh should hold these 3 manors from Geoffrey de Mandeville if Geoffrey could prove that they belonged to his fief, and before Geoffrey proved that they belonged to his fief, Hugh held them from Geoffrey. 95 Godric claims land in Breckles, which is part of the Norfolk lands of the king, as having belonged to the fee of Earl Ralph de Gael.

In Breckles [is also] the fourth part of I acre and a certain customary due in pasture; this belonged to Saham in the time of King Edward and does so still, but 92 1 '[Domesday Book explains on the same page that Ingelric had invaded land in Boreham after it had passed into the king's hand. Boreham belonged to the Essex possessions of Eustace of Boulogne. Ingelric, who appears repeatedly in Domesday Book, had clearly been an important landowner in Essex under King Edward and King William; he had frequently taken men and lands illegally and many of his possessions had passed to Eustace of Boulogne.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 75 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Godric reclaims it for the fee of Earl Ralph' in Stow, asserting that he held it for 2 years before he made forfeiture and [it remained so] 2 years afterwards. Of this a certain servant of the king from Stow offers to carry the ordeal.

96 The hundred of Henstead testifies in the dispute between the king and Bishop Odo of Bayeux concerning the status of certain freemen and lands in Shotesham, which used to be held by Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk. Of these [forementioned freemen] Earl Ralph fully held three with land of 12 acres when he underwent forfeiture. At present Aitard,' a man of Roger Bigod, holds and claims them as part of the fee of the bishop of Bayeux, but this Aitard has from his predecessor only the commendation of one half, as the hundred witnesses.

97 Dispute concerning the position of freemen in Whitlingham, Bramerton and Rockland St. Mary, who used to belong to Ralph de Gael until he made forfeiture and whom Aitard de Vals claims for the fee of the bishop of Bayeux. In Whitlingham 1 freeman of Edric's in commendation and in Bramerton 3 and in Rockland 1; of 4 Edric had commendation in the time of King Edward and Ulketel of 1 and Alvred only had commendation of half [one freeman], after King William conquered England, and Ralph held them all when he made forfeiture and afterwards Godric as the king's steward. This the hundred testifies. Now Aitard de Vals [holds them], and reclaims them for the fee of the bishop of Bayeux as of the tenure of Alvred, his predecessor, and the hundred' does not support him, because they did not belong to his predecessor.

95 ' '[This is Ralph de Gael (an important lordship in Brittany), earl of Norfolk since about 1069, who rose in 1075 against William the Conqueror; the suppression of his rebellion led to fierce penalties 0 for several Bretons in England.] 96 1 O[Aitard's claim to hold the men and the lands of the bishop of Bayeux is in conflict with their registration in Domesday Book amongst the "Lands of the King which Godric keeps".]' 0 97 1 O[This is the hundred of Henstead, co. Norfolk.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 76 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

98 In Hewingham a sokeman, who previously had belonged to Ralph de Gael and was seized by Turold, was afterwards recovered and is held now by Godric. Leustan, the predecessor of Tihel, held this [sokeman] in the time of King Edward and Ralph held him when he made forfeiture, and he is of the soke of Cawston. Now Godric holds him. But Turold, a man of William de Warenne's, seized him against the king and held him for 3 years. Now he has been recovered against him, and Turold pays 5 shillings for [him as] a king's chattel and gave gage to do justice.

99 Godric claims land in Bittering, which is held in gage by Siward, as having belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael.

In Bittering 7 acres of wood and 1 acre of land on which are 4 bordars. This Godric reclaims to the fee of Ralph the earl, and a certain woman who held it in the time of King Edward is willing to carry the ordeal that it is released from gage. This is held by Siward in gage.

100 In Matlask, which is part of the lands of Alan I, count of Brittany, a man of the king claims 16 acres of land and offers proof against the testimony of the hundred court of North Erpingham, but a man of the earl offers counterproof. In Matlask, where Count Alan holds, a man of the king claims 16 acres of land, offering to undergo ordeal or battle against the hundred, which testifies that they belong to the count, but a man of the count wants to prove either by ordeal or by battle that the hundred testifies truthfully.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 77 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

101 Godric claims the church of Feltwell, which is part of the Norfolk lands of William de Warenne, as having belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael in Stow; offer of ordeal. This church Godric claims as of the fee of Ralph which lay in Stow, and thereupon 1 man of Godric is willing to carry the ordeal.

102 Godric claims part of the manor of Griston, in the Norfolk lands of William de Warenne, as having belonged to the manor of Stow in the time of Ralph de Gael. In Griston 1 church and 10 acres of land; Godric claims this to have belonged in the time of Earl Ralph to Stow and the men of the hundred witness that it is of the fee of William de Warenne, and a certain king's man is willing to carry the ordeal that it belonged to Stow when Ralph made forfeiture and 1 year before and 1 year after.

103 Helhoughton which is held by William de Warenne is claimed by Drew de la Beuvri~re whose predecessor Heinfrid held it in the time of Frederick; the hundred confirms that Heinfrid and Drew have held the manor, but it has seen no writ or deliverer. William de Warenne holds Helhoughton of the fee of Frederick. There is one free man whom his ancestor held, however, in such a way that he could not leave the land without his permission and the hundred testifies this. And a certain man of Drew de la Beuvri~re, called Franco, claims it as belonging to the fee of his lord as a gift by livery of the king maintaining that his predecessor, Heinfrid, held it in the time of Frederick and that after him Drew held it and the hundred testifies that they both have held it, but the hundred has not seen any writ or deliverer.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 78 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

104 The manor of North Barsham is held by William de Warenne including two freemen with one ploughland, but according to a man of the king, who opposes the testimony of the hundred of Gallow, it should belong to the royal manor of Fakenham. In North Barsham, which William de Warenne holds, Harold held 2 freemen with I ploughland belonging to Fakenham and now William holds them, but his men do not know how; and the hundred testifies them [to be] William's, that he is seised of them. But a man of the king offers the ordeal that in the time of King Edward they used to belong to Fakenham, a manor of the king.

105 Land in Bixley which, according to the hundred of Herstead, belongs to the fee of Roger Bigod is claimed by Godric the steward, who maintains that he held it as of the fee of Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk. This land Godric the steward claims by his man Ralph by ordeal or battle, that he held it as of the fee of Earl Ralph, and the hundred testifies [that it is] of the fee of Roger Bigod. But Godric reclaims this with the moiety which is [mentioned] in the king's writ. This Godric received for half a ploughland.1

106 The rights of Roger Bigod on Alestan and his lands in Hales are contested before the hundred court.

This Alestan commended himself to Alwin de Thetford in the time of King William, and Alwin was seised of him when King William gave his land to Roger. But the hundred has not seen a writ or deliverer that gave him to Alwin.

0

105 1 [Cfr. DOMESDAY ii, pp. 277-278.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 79 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

107 The right of Roger Bigod on Bondo, a freeman in Heckingham, is contested before the hundred court by Godric the steward, who maintains that he held him when Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk, made forfeiture. Godric the steward claims him because he held him when Ralph the earl made forfeiture. And the hundred' testifies that he used to do service to Godric, but they know not on what terms.

108 Dispute before the hundred of Henstead between Aitard and Roger Bigod concerning land in Stoke Holy Cross.

In Stoke Holy Cross 1 freeman of Gert's by commendation in the time of King Edward with 24 acres of land, whom Ralph the earl held when he made forfeiture with half the land and Robert Bainard the other half, as the hundred testifies. Now Roger Bigod holds it, and claims it as part of the fee of his freemen by the king's gift and Aitard contradicts the hundred that testifies this, but Meinard affirms it with the hundred... And Roger Bigod acknowledges that he received it after that Ralph made forfeiture, to be kept in the king's hand; and he still keeps it.

109 The claim of Roger Bigod to Godwin and his land in Starston is contested before the hundred court of Earsham, which testifies that Godwin, the present tenant, used to pay rent in Earsham, a royal manor. Now Roger Bigod claims it as the fee of his freemen by gift of the king. But the hundred testifies that when Richard Punnant was reeve in Earsham it used to belong to Earsham, but he who now holds it, then Richard's under-reeve in Earsham, has withdrawn it and by the testimony of the hundred he paid rent in Earsham of 20s. 6d. each year expressly for this and other land, but this year he has not paid. And William de Noiers has hitherto had the rent.' 107 109

'[This is Clavering hundred, Norfolk.]' '[William de Noiers is a royal official who kept various lands of Archbishop Stigand in the king's hand (DOMESDAY ii, 135 sqq.] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 80 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

110 Hermer de Ferri~res claims one of seven freemen in Tasburgh and offers the ordeal, but is contradicted by the hundred of Depwade.

Hermer claims one of those seven [forementioned freemen] of Tasburgh and a certain Englishman, his man, thereon offers [to prove by] ordeal that his ancestor was seised of him on the day that King Edward was alive and dead and this the whole hundred contradicts, either by battle or ordeal; thereon that Englishman gave gage. 111 Alan III, count of Brittany, claims a sokeman in Stratton, one of the manors of the bishop of Thetford, and one of his men offers to undergo the ordeal.

And 26 sokemen are held by Ranulf and Walter the deacon; the king and the count have half the soke and they have 83 acres, then as now 2 ploughs. Then as now they are worth 4 pounds and 2 shillings. A certain man of Earl Alan's claims one of these [sokemen], and he says that Ralph held him before he made forfeiture. Of this he offers the ordeal.

112 Dispute concerning the customary rights which the predecessor of Bordin, a freeman, used to enjoy in Garveston, one of the possessions of Hermer de Ferri6res. Offers of proof by ordeal in the hundred of Mitford. In the same vill of Garveston there are 19 freemen, 100 acres of land, 4 ploughs and 9 acres of pasture, worth at that time 20 shillings, now 55 [s.] and 4 d. Of those Bordin holds 24 acres and they are worth at the same appraisal 4 s. Concerning them the hundred testifies that his ancestor had no custom except the commendation and offers the ordeal thereon; and a man of Hermer offers to prove by ordeal that his ancestor in the time of King Edward had all the custom except the soke of Saint Etheldreda and that he could sell his land. Thereon they gave gages.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 81 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

113 Dispute between Hermer de Ferri~res and the abbey of Ely concerning a carrucate in Foston: both parties offer proof. A. The text in Domesday Book. Ulchetel, Hermer's man, claims in whatever way trial be made, either by battle or by ordeal, that this land 1 is free. And another is ready to prove in the same way that it belonged to the church on the day on which King Edward died. But the whole hundred witnesses that it belonged in the time of King Edward to St. Etheldreda. 2

B. The text in the Inquisitio Eliensis. Ulchetel, Hermer's man, claims in whatever way trial be made, either by battle or by ordeal, that this land is free. And another is ready to prove in the same way that it belonged to the church on the day on which King Edward died and gave his gage. But the whole hundred witnesses that it belonged in the time of King Edward to St. Etheldreda.

114 Deraignment of half the land of Clenchwarton by Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk.

This land was held by Rafrid. And Earl Ralph successfully deraigned half, and held it on the day on which he suffered forfeiture. Now Uruoi, Rafrid's man, holds it as of the fee of William de Scohies' and vouches the king to warranty.

113A

[Photestorp is probably Foston in Tottenhill, Norfolk (V.C.H. Norfolk, ii, p. 135, n. 5.]O 2 [This is Clackclose hundred in Norfolk.]' I[Scohies and Escois are ancient forms for present day Ecouis in the d~partement de l'Eure, arr. Les Andelys (Loyd, Anglo-Norman families, 39).]O 0

114

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 82 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

115 Dispute concerning land in Necton between Ralph de Tosny and Roger Bigod.

This land is held by Ralph in Necton, but in the time of King Edward and Harold it was not situated in Necton, and Roger Bigod claims it on the basis of a royal gift and calls the deliverer to warranty.

116 Testimony of the hundred of Grimshoe concerning the position of fourteen freemen in Lynford and Ickburgh, which had already been the object of litigation in the past. In Lynford and Ickburgh are 14 freemen ... These were commended to the predecessor of Ralph de Waer, afterwards they were transferred by the king to Bodin de Ver. Afterwards Ralph deraigned them to his fee and after his forfeiture Hervey de Ver held them from him. The hundred testifies this.

117 Dispute in the hundred of Loddon concerning land in Chedgrave between Robert son of Corbutio, who invokes delivery, and Ralph Bainard, who claims to have been seised first. Robert son of Corbutio claims this land by delivery, but Bainard was first seised and Robert afterwards, and the hundred does not know how.

118 Dispute in the hundred of Greenhoe North concerning freemen in the manor of Barney between William, a tenant of Peter de Valognes and a royal serjeant, who claims them as having belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk, before the latter suffered forfeiture. Barney is held by William... [he has] 1 7 freemen with 80 acres of land, whom he claims by delivery to make up that manor ... Of them a king's serjeant claims

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 83 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

132 as belonging to the fee of Earl Ralph, who held them when he suffered forfeiture, by whatever ordeal judgment may be given, and to this the hundred bears witness.

119 Dispute concerning land in Seething between a nun, who claims to have held it from Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk and is supported by the hundred of Loddon, and Isaac, who invokes a royal gift. In Seething a certain poor nun claims 4 acres of land, which she held under Ralph both before and since he suffered forfeiture and so the hundred bears witness. And Isaac claims it as part of his fee by the king's gift.

120 Dispute concerning land in Bramerton, which was forfeited by Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk, whether it is held by Aitard from Robert Blund as in the king's hand or from Roger Bigod whose vassal Aitard is: testimony of the hundred of Henstead and offer of proof by ordeal by a freewoman, who used to hold the land before Earl Ralph. In Bramerton Aitard holds 16 acres from Roger, which were held by a freewoman by commendation of Edric; and Earl Ralph held it when he suffered forfeiture, witness the hundred, and Robert Blund [held it] afterwards as in the king's hand. And now Aitard, Roger Bigod's man by commendation, holds it since Ralph's forfeiture. The hundred bears witness that this is so, and the woman offers to prove by the ordeal that it is true, as the hundred testifies, and Aitard asserts the contrary.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 84 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

121 Dispute in the hundred of Henstead between Roger Bigod and Godric the steward concerning land and a freeman in Bixley; offer of ordeal or battle.

In Bixley [there was] 1 freeman of Anslec by commendation together with half a freeman in the time of King Edward, holding 17 acres. Then as now there were half a plough, 1 villein, 1 bordar. Roger Bigod kept this man, as he says, in the king's hand and renders rent in the hundred. But the hundred bears witness that Godric the steward held him under the king, during one year as of the fee of Earl Ralph before he suffered forfeiture and afterwards for 2 years by the king's gift. And in reply Roger Bigod's man offers to prove the contrary by ordeal or by battle. Godric claims this estate with half the land which is in Roger Bigod's writ, and which Godric the steward received for half a ploughland.

122 The men of the vill of Mendlesham are prepared to prove as against the hundred of Hartismere that Burchard shares jurisdiction there with the king.

And the hundred bears witness that the king and the earl' truly held soke and sake in the time of King Edward, but the men of that vill bear witness that Burchard similarly had the soke of his freemen as well as of his villeins and they have no other witness than themselves and nevertheless they are prepared to give proof by any means.

123 Dispute between Roger de Raimes and Roger Bigod before the hundred of Bosmere concerning seventeen freemen in the vill of Stonham.

In this same [vill] 17 freemen were added to this manor in the time of King William of whom the predecessor of Roger Bigod had nothing. These freemen Roger de Raimes claims to have held as part of his fee before Roger Bigod received his land in Suffolk, but the hundred testifies that Roger Bigod received them first into his fee, which is contradicted by Roger de Raimes by all means of proof. 122 1 0[This must be Godwin, earl of Wessex, the father of King Harold.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 85 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

124 Dispute between Roger de Raimes and Roger Bigod concerning land and tenants in Hemingstone before the hundred of Bosmere.

Roger de Raimes claims all the land of Wiculf and all those freemen held by Warengar from Roger Bigod and he says that everything was delivered to him before Roger Bigod. And the hundred cannot tell the truth on this question because Warengar held from both of them. However, Warengar claims to belong to the fee of Roger Bigod and Roger de Raimes contradicts this by all means of proof.

125 Robert Fardenc claims that land in Stoke Ash, which is listed amongst the possessions of Bury St. Edmunds, belongs to the royal manor of Mendlesham and he is prepared to prove his claim against the hundred of Hartismere. Robert Fardenc, a man of Godric the steward, claims this land as belonging to the royal manor of Mendlesham and says that Walter de Dol held it when he suffered forfeiture and he is prepared to prove this by any means against the whole hundred.

126 Dispute in the county court of Suffolk concerning the status of the priest Suarin (living in Ashfield, on land of Bury St. Edmunds), of whom both Ralph de Savigny and the bishop of Elmham (later Norwich) have been seised at different times and by different persons. In Ashfield there is Suarin the priest, a freeman in the soke and commendation of the abbot... Of this priest Walter de Doll was seised when he forfeited his land and Earl Hugh afterwards, as the hundred testifies. And Norman says that the king sent him a writ ordering him to give seisin [of Suarin] to Ralph de Savigny from amongst all the freemen of whom Hubert de Port had seised the bishop and thus Norman has seised Ralph of that priest, although he does not know whether 126 1 '[Walter de Dol used to be an under-tenant of Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester (d. 1101). The hundred in question is Claydon in Suffolk. Roger Bigod, royal steward, and Hugh, earl of Chester, were important tenants in Suffolk.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 86 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hubert had previously seised the bishop of him. And the king's barons have found that there was peace about this between Roger Bigod and Earl Hugh when they went to the county and this peace will last till he has been deraigned.

127 Dispute between Ralph Pinellus and Ranulf the brother of Ilger concerning land in Falkenham, of which Ralph maintains to have been seised. The parties are summoned before the hundred court of Loes, which adjudicates, in the absence of Ralph, that Ranulf is seised. This Bricmar had several lands and part of them was delivered by the king to Ingelric and other parts to Ranulf, the brother of Ilger and a third part to Ralph Pinellus. And in this third part the aforesaid land was delivered to Ralph, as he himself says and produces testimony that he was seised first, but whether he was seised by the king or not [the witnesses] do not know and they also say that Ranulf has claimed that land against Ralph, and Sheriff Roger appointed a certain date for them, ordering them both to be present. Whereas Ranulf came, Ralph stayed away and the men of the hundred gave judgment that Ranulf who now holds was seised, but Ralph Pinellus denies having been summoned to this plea.

128 Since Berengar has invaded royal land in Uggeshall, he is in the king's mercy, but as he was ill, he could not appear in court.

In Uggeshall there are 2 freemen, Norman and Ketel with 18 acres and half a ploughland, worth 3 s. Berengar, a man of St. Edmund's [Bury], invaded it and is in the king's mercy. He was ill and could not come to the plea. They are now in the custody of the sheriff.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 87 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

129 Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and the widow of William Malet, before the hundred of Hoxne (which used to be called Biscopes Hundred), concerning land in Aspall, which was deraigned by Hubert de Port. On the pleas between the bishop of Bayeux and the mother of Robert Malet... Of this land William Malet was seised before the bishop of Bayeux, as the hundred witnesses. And afterwards Hubert de Port came and deraigned the free land and seised the bishop of it, since it was held by freemen and Robert's mother was seised of it on the day when Earl Ralph suffered forfeiture and until the plea of Odiham. Now it is in the king's peace as was ordered by the king between the bishop and the mother of Robert.

130 Dispute concerning the manor of Newton St. Cyres between Bishop Osbern of Exeter, who claims to have it along with his manor of Crediton and maintains that he deraigned it during the reign of King William, and Domne, who claims to hold it from the king. With this manor the bishop has the manor which is called Newton, which Domne holds and renders geld for 3 hides. Concerning this manor Bishop Osbern has shown his charters which testify that his church was seised of it before the reign of King Edward and he adds that in the times of King William he pleaded about this land and deraigned by the testimony of Frenchmen that it was his.'

131 It is recorded that at some time in the past Tavistock Abbey was disseised of Werrington by royal barons on the basis of a declaration by English witnesses concerning the state of affairs in King Edward's time. The abbot of Tavistock was seised of Werrington on the day on which King William sent his barons to inquire as to the lands of England, and his predecessor before him had been seised thereof, but by the king's barons he was disseised 129 130

' O[Ralph de Gael, of Brittany, earl of Norfolk, led a rebellion in 1075, and fled the country and

forfeited his lands.]' [Dorme appears as tenant of Newton St. Cyres in DOMESDAY iv, p. 447. An entry concerning this dispute appears also in the Exchequer Domesay, fV 101, but we have preferred to print the entry in the Exon Domesday because it is more detailed.]' 0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 88 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

thereof on the ground that, according to Englishmen's testimony, it did not belong to the abbey on the day that King Edward was alive and dead.

132 After the inquest for Domesday Book has brought to light that Ramsey land in Isham had been usurped by Sheriff Eustace of Huntingdonshire, the king orders Sheriff William de Cahagnes of Northamptonshire to put the question before the court of the latter county and after judgment is given in favour of Ramsey another royal writ orders the same sheriff to let Abbot Aelfsige have the land of Isham. A. Writ of King William II ordering William de Cahagnes, sheriff of Northamptonshire, to convene the county court, in order to find out whether the land of Isham belongs to the demesne of the abbot of Ramsey. William, king of the English, to William de Cahagnes, greeting. I order you to convene the county [court] of Northampton and to find out by its judgment whether the land of Isham paid a farm to the monks of St. Benedict in the time of my father. And if it is found that it did, let it be in the abbot's demesne. But if it is found to have been teinland, let him who holds it hold it from the abbot and recognize it [as such]; which if he refuses to do, let the abbot have it in his demesne. And see that no further complaint come to me thereof. Witness: William bishop of Durham.' B. Writ of King William II to William de Cahagnes, sheriff of Northamptonshire, ordering him to cause Aelfsige, abbot of Ramsey, to have Isham as he deraigned it at Northampton. William, king of England, to William the sheriff, greeting. I command and order you to cause Abbot Aelfsige to have Isham as he deraigned it at Northampton and as it was witnessed and sworn to the benefit of St. Benedict. Witness: Roger Bigod.'

132A 132B

0

' [Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 413.10 ' O[Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 509.0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 89 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

133 In the court of the abbot of Abingdon, Anskill, a knight of the abbey, is declared responsible for the illegal rupture of a watercourse called Leach near Botley. In the second year 1 of the reign of this king, when he besieged the city of Rochester which the king's uncle Odo, the bishop of Bayeux, held against him, the men of Seacourt, who were then under the authority of Anskill, broke the watercourse, called Leach in the vernacular, at Botley in an illegal attempt. But afterwards this question was brought before the abbot and it was decided in a public discussion that this breach should not have been caused in the way it was. The said Anskill paid for this deed ten shillings to the abbot, but he obtained that the miller of the place should be told to pay him every year the sum of two ores.

134 Litigation between King William I and William de Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, who is accused of conspiracy in the feudal revolt which had broken out early in 1088 on behalf of Duke Robert of Normandy, the king's older brother. Land of the see of Durham is seized: the bishop offers to purge himself, but the king refuses. Although the bishop is summoned to the king's court at Salisbury, he maintains that only an ecclesiastical court is competent. He is nevertheless charged with treason in the king's court, which leads to lengthy discussions. The bishop maintains his position and appeals to Rome, although Archbishop Lanfranc declares that he is being judged in his feudal, not his episcopal capacity. The bishop forfeits his fief for refusing to plead and the king insists that he surrender his castle. The bishop is ready to prove his loyalty, but declines to throw himself on the king's mercy and although he has been summoned to appear on 25 December 1088 in the king's court in London, leaves for Normandy. After three years he returns to England and is reconciled with the king. In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1080, Bishop Walcher, who was killed by people from his diocese, was succeeded after six months and ten days in the see of Durham by William, elected on 9 November and consecrated by Archbishop Thomas of York on Sunday 4 January at Gloucester in the presence of King William and the bishops of the whole of England. A member of the clergy of Bayeux, he had been a monk in the monastery of Saint-Calais' and prior of the 0

133

' [The chronicler apparently counts as follows: 1087 is the first calendar year in which William

134

*[Saint-Carilef now called Saint-Calais, situated in the diocese of Le Mans and the county of

Rufus reigned; 1088 the second calendar, not regnal year.]0

Maine.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 90 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

cloister and afterwards head-prior and then abbot of the monastery of St. Vincent,2 until finally he was transferred to the see of Durham by King William, who had discovered his zeal in very difficult affairs. He had a sharp intelligence, his counsel was subtle and his eloquence as well as his wisdom considerable. Since he had read in the ecclesiastical history of the English people and in the life of St. Cuthbert that the convent of monks had served for many years in this church before and after Father Cuthbert, but had afterwards been destroyed with almost all churches and monasteries by the onslaught of the pagans, he planned to restore the old service to the see of this church. He went to Rome on King William's order and explained truthfully to the lord Pope Gregory the previous and present state of affairs in the church of Durham. Returning with an apostolic order and authority, he restored monastic life around the body of the Blessed Cuthbert on 28 May, the holy day of Pentecost, in the third year of his bishopric and the seventeenth year of William's reign, after whose death his son William was crowned king on 26 September. The bishop was honoured by him as he had been by his father but, as a great conflict arose between the king and the primates of England, the bishop trapped by envious people bore the wrath of the king, who expelled him as is explained in the right place in the following pages. King William the younger disseised the bishop of Durham of his lands and those of his church on 12 March and ordered the seizure of his men and all his possessions wherever possible. He also ordered the arrest of the bishop and laid many snares for him, which the bishop avoided, gaining Durham by God's help; and on the day he entered Durham he sent his messenger with the following letter to the king. To William, king of the English, his lord, William bishop of Durham, greeting and faithful service. Know, my lord, that your men of York and Lincoln hold my men in captivity and have seized my lands and would have arrested me if they had been able, and say they have done all this on your order. I ask you as my lord to return my men and my lands with stock and cattle to me as your man and liege, whom you have never accused of any misdeed and who has never violated your right. Afterwards, if you accuse me of some misdeed, I am ready to stand trial in your court at a convenient moment after receiving a safe conduct, and I beg you diligently not to treat me dishonourably and shamefully or to disseise me unjustly on the advice of my enemies. It does not belong to everybody to judge bishops and I offer to do full justice according to my order and if you now demand service from me or my men, I offer it to you at your pleasure. After receiving and hearing the bishop's letter, the king gave the lands of the bishop to his barons under the eyes of the messenger whom the bishop had sent to him and he told the bishop to come to him on the understanding that he would be free to return to Durham in security, if in spite of the king's will he refused to stay. As the bishop was ready to go to the king after hearing this reply, he sent word to the sheriff in York, requesting his peace to travel to the king, but Ralph Paynell, 2 o[SaintVincent-du-Lorou&r, now in the arrondissement Saint-Calais.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 91 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

who was sheriff at that time, refused peace not only to the bishop but to all his messengers and men who wanted to go to the king. He even arrested a monk of the bishop who returned from the king, and killed his horse, allowing him afterwards to return on foot. On top of all this, he gave order to all the lieges of the king, in the king's name, to hurt the bishop wherever and in whatever way they could. As the bishop could not reach the king in person or through his messengers and his lands were destroyed and laid waste without any punishment for seven weeks and more, the king finally sent the abbot of St. Augustine3 to him with the order that he should, as he had been told before, appear in his court with the abbot. The bishop, however, feared the snares of his enemies and the wrath of the king and replied that he could not come without safe-conduct and sent his messengers to the king under the conduct of the abbot with the following letter. William, bishop of Durham, to William, king of the English, his lord, greeting and faithful service. It is known to you my lord that as soon as I returned from your court I sent you a messenger and a letter, in which I offered you my service and the rightful settlement of all complaints as my king and lord, imploring you mercifully to return to me, as your man and liege who has done nothing to deserve all this but has always served you faithfully and wanted to serve you, my men and lands and stock and cattle, which your sheriffs have taken away wherever they could, i.e. Howden and Welton which they divided between Earl Odo4 and Earl Alan5 together with other lands in Yorkshire, without any reason being shown on your part and while I always offered justice. On that occasion, however, it did not please you to restore to me what was mine, as I requested and as it seemed just to me, but you granted me your peace by your writ to come safely to you and to stay with you and leave you and in the same writ you ordered your lieges throughout England to leave all my things in peace until you knew whether I would stay with you. When I sent this writ to Ralph Paynell, he not only refused peace to me but defied me in your name and the following day invaded and pillaged the lands of our church, distributed what I have mentioned before, sold some men and allowed the redemption of others. And the monk who carried the writ of your peace was captured by Paynell's men and his horse killed. As well as all this, I hear that you have given away part of my lands, and when I wanted to send you a message on all this, Paynell forbade my messengers to travel through your land. Now, however, you order me through the abbot of St. Augustine and your letter by your grace to come to you safely, but I beg and request you as my king and lord that you restore to me what is mine and which you have taken away from me without reason and judgment and I shall be glad to appear in your court and to do, according to my order, whatever shall be justly judged. If I may obtain this from you, I shall thank God and you for it. If it pleases you to restore my goods to me, I am prepared to 0

[Wido, abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury.]' Io[Odo, count of Champagne, d. ante 2 Aug. 1107.10 0 [Alan I, count of Brittany, d. 1089.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 92 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

come to your court, protected by a safe-conduct which is. also valid for my return to my church and I shall defend myself in the sight of all your barons that I have made or received no promise or oath to the detriment of your body, lands or honour. I was never aware of any plans to your detriment nor did I hide anything damaging to you when I heard of something harmful, but I informed you as soon as possible by word of mouth, messenger or letter until the day when I last went to your court. And I declare in truth that I would gladly have come with this abbot, if I had not feared my enemies and the ignorant multitude of the people more, although I do not doubt your writ and the good faith of your barons. I therefore beg you to send me a safe-conduct that will take me and return me with your honour and my safety, since I firmly believe your word that nobody ought by your will to cause me any contumely, but that if against your will it were done, your subsequent vengeance would give me little relief. If I appear before you disseised, I shall enter no other plea than my defence through purgation. Having seen this letter the king sent a safe-conduct to the bishop and assured him by his letter that neither he nor his men would cause him any damage until he was back in Durham from his visit to the king. The bishop went to the king and begged his consent that right should be done to him as his bishop. But the king answered that if he wanted to plead as laymen do and place himself outside the peace which the king had given him, he was willing to do right to him and that if he refused to plead thus, he would send him back to Durham. The bishop asked the archbishop of York6 and the bishops who were present to give him counsel, but they replied that the king had forbidden them to counsel him. Thereupon the bishop summoned his archbishop by the duty which he owed to his church and himself to give him counsel, but after the archbishop had consulted the king, he told the bishop again that he could not counsel him. Thereupon the bishop himself asked the king to agree that counsel should be given him by his archbishop and primate and his fellow bishops, but the king forbade it entirely, whereupon the bishop offered the king to purge his crime and perjury, but the king refused to accept it and the bishop went back to Durham. In the meantime, the king had taken away more than seven-hundred men and much plunder and the bishop again sent one of his monks with the following letter to the king. William, bishop of Durham, to his lord William, king of the English, greeting and, if it pleases, service. It is known to you, my dearest lord, that I have often implored your mercy through several letters and messengers, offering most diligently to purge myself in your court by right judgment of my order from infidelity and perjury, and since I could not obtain it in that way I personally came before you with my request, but the counsel of my enemies prevailed and I obtained little. And since I desire to retrieve your love, which I unjustly lost, I ask you as my lord and king to accept to do right to me as your man and bishop 6

0

[Thomas of Bayeux, archbishop of York (1070-1100).]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 93 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

according to the rightful judgment of my order in the security of your peace, and if you stand by your judgment that I should purge myself as laymen do, I am prepared previously to undergo rightful judgment, on condition that if anyone tries to oppress me in connection with ajust judgment, I shall be allowed, while the security of the aforesaid peace is conserved, to contradict him according to the rightful judgments of my order in a place where judgment is given canonically, and whatever is rightfully judged there I promise completely to carry out, whether it be imprisonment or the loss of the dignity of my honour or (which God may grant, as it is just) my restoration in the comfort of your love (on this I am ready to give you a fitting undertaking). If you refuse this and you are immutably determined not to grant me any right, allow me at least to purge myself in your court of the accusation of perjury and infidelity by rightful judgment, for I have no intention to hold any land from you against your will, for the land which I have was given me by a lord who allowed me to have it honourably and promised to give me much more. Having seen this letter, the king had the monk who had brought it arrested and kept in custody and sent his army against the bishop, and when this army had wasted the bishop's land with looting and burning, the barons talked to the bishop and confirmed the following agreement by their faith. Earl Alan, Roger of Poitou and Count Odo have given their pledge to the bishop of Durham on the feast of the Nativity of Saint Mary7 that they would bring him safely and in good health with all his men to the king's court, on the understanding that if the king refused to do right to him according to episcopal law and through judges who justly ought to sit in judgment over a bishop, then the aforesaid earls would bring the bishop with all his men back to Durham without any delay being made against his will. If, however, a judgment were pronounced against the bishop which he contradicted (because it seemed unjust to him) and it was left to the king or the judges (who wanted the judgment confirmed) to take the case where controverted judgments on bishops ought justly to be terminated (as mentioned above), the bishop would be brought back to his castle. And if the king consented to do such right to the bishop as could not justly be denied, and no contradiction arose or if such contradiction did arise on behalf of the king or the judges, nevertheless his judgment should be confirmed where this sort ofjudgment justly should be confirmed or annulled and if the bishop would not or could not accept or fulfil that judgment, then the king should find (without any detention or delay) a port and the necessary ships for the bishop and all his men who wanted to follow him, as the bishop chose between Exeter and Sandwich, and the bishop and his men should have the king's safe-conduct until they arrived on land overseas with their possessions. They should also be allowed under the king's safe-conduct to take with them gold and silver, horses, cloths, arms, dogs, hawks, and 7 01[8September 1088.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 94 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

everything portable. And no other convention or undertaking shall be demanded from the bishop or his men either by force or guile nor shall they be forced to do anything else than the bishop and his men have promised to Roger of Poitou. The bishop gave his pledge to Roger of Poitou that if he were brought back to his castle on the aforesaid condition, and the castle had been strengthened in men or ammunition or the fortification of the structure expanded to a greater degree than on that day, the bishop would have this completely undone, so that he would gain no advantage and the king suffer no loss. The bishop also faithfully promised that before he set off to the court he would not knowingly seek or receive anything detrimental to the king until Michaelmas. Furthermore seven men have sworn on the bishop's command to Roger of Poitou, who acted on behalf of the king, that if the bishop (as mentioned above) should reject a right judgment and should choose to go overseas, they would surrender the castle of Durham to the king. The bishop for his part faithfully promised to Roger of Poitou that he would keep this agreement vis d vis the king as long as the earls' undertaking was observed towards himself, without any wicked cleverness except such cleverness as he might use in his plea against the king. The earls faithfully promised to the bishop that the king would observe this agreement and that the beginning of the suit would not be later than the forthcoming feast of Saint Michael, except by the bishop's consent or on such terms as lawful judges might justly deem to be necessary in such cases between a king and a bishop. And if some man or horse of the bishop happened to fall ill, they and their attendants should have the king's peace as long as they were detained by their infirmity and afterwards other men of the bishop, who were prepared to stay with him with his consent and who were prepared to plight their faith to the king, might join him with all their possessions under the king's safe conduct. If the king should break in any way the aforesaid agreement through the earls or any other of his men (and by their own will and consent), they shall gain no profit until the bishop has absolved them gladly and without violence or guile. This undertaking having been accepted, both parties agreed to postpone the plea until 2 November.8 On that day the bishop arrived at Salisbury, and Urse d'Abitot, one of the king's serjeants, admonished him to appear before the king. And the bishop sent his messengers ahead asking for permission to talk to some of the bishops, his brethren, who were present, for none of them, so they said, dared kiss him or speak to him (as the bishop had already experienced from his own metropolitan). After the king had refused this and none of them had exhibited this gesture of fraternity and precept of the holy law, the bishop at last went in and asked the archbishops whether he should enter robed and said that he was not going to act there in any way that was not canonical and according to his order, and it seemed to him that ecclesiastical custom demanded that he should plead his cause robed before people who were themselves robed and that he should reply 8 0[2 November 1088.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 95 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

canonically to his impleaders.9 Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "We can certainly discuss the king's and your business dressed as we are; clothes do not hinder truth" Rising to his feet, the bishop asked the king to return his see, which he had so long ago taken away from him without judgment, and as the king remained silent Lanfranc said: "The king has not deprived you of your see in any way nor anyone on his authority, nor have you seen a writ of his by which he disseised you or ordered you to be disseised of your see" To which the bishop replied: "I have observed Roger Paynell, whom I see here, disseise me on the king's order of my whole bishopric in the county of York. When I questioned the king on this by my letters and messengers, imploring him to restore to me what was mine, and if he wanted to implead me on any matter to do full right to me as his own bishop, the king restored nothing but distributed the lands of the church to his barons as it pleased him. And when afterwards I had myself offered full right to the king in his court and he had utterly refused this, he not only held what he had already carried away, but he ordered that what was left to me should also be taken, and he sent sealed letters to the barons in our region, adjuring and ordering them to cause me all possible harm. And not yet satisfied, he sent earls and barons with his army and through them laid waste my whole bishopric, taking away the lands and the men and the cattle of Saint Cuthbert and myself and forced me temporarily even to abjure our see. Even the vassals of the church, who were my liege men and held whatever they had by ecclesiastical enfeoffment, have waged war on me on the king's order, and whereas they peacefully hold their lands from the king, I see them here in agreement with the king against me" To which Lanfranc replied: "The king invites you to do him right and his barons have brought you here for that purpose and you demand that he should first do right to you; do right to him first and ask him afterwards what you have just requested" To which the bishop answered: "My lord archbishop, do you say what you have just said by way of counsel or ofjudgment?" "I certainly do not say this by way ofjudgment", he said, "but if the king would follow me, he would soon have judgment pronounced" Whereupon the laymen, excited by the words of Lanfranc, the primate of all England, shouted against the bishop that it would be unjust for the king to answer the bishop before he had done justice to the king. When silence was established after the laymen had shouted these and many other words, the bishop said: "My lords barons and laymen, allow me, I beg you, to say what I intend to say to the king and to reply to the archbishops and bishops, since I have nothing to say to you and I have not come here to undergo your judgment, which I utterly reject; and if it would please the lord our king and the '0[Thebishop probably refers to a canonical collection which Lanfranc is known to have brought to England and which stressed, inter alia, the pre-eminence of the Roman court and the principle spoliatus ante omnia restituendus, which was invoked earlier in the proceedings. See on this principle the classic work of F. Ruffini, L'Actio spolii. Studio giuridico,Turin. 1889.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 96 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

archbishops and bishops that you be present at this business, it would not be fitting for me to contradict". Then the king said: "I hoped that the bishop would have answered me first concerning my accusations and I am much amazed that he demands otherwise", to which Earl Alan and Earl Roger said: "That is what we have brought the bishop for, that he shall do right to the king". "I am prepared", said the bishop, "to answer as one despoiled, if it is thus canonically adjudged, for I shall in no way transgress the law of my order in this suit" Then Roger Bigod said to the king: "You should tell the bishop what you want to accuse him of and afterwards if he is willing to answer us, let him be judged on his reply; if not, act according to your barons' counsel". To which the bishop replied: "I have already said and I shall say again that I reject utterly any lay judgment and whatever is against the canons, and I shall accept no accusation unless I am first invested with my bishopric or unless it be canonically pronounced that I must be accused, give reply and be judged before the investiture". Hugh de Beaumont 1" coming forward on the king's order then said to the bishop: "The king accuses you because when he heard that his enemies were gathering against him and some of his men, i.e. the bishop of Bayeux and Earl Roger [de Mowbray] and several others wanted to rob him of his realm and his crown and he went out to fight them by your counsel, he summoned you in my hearing to go with him and you replied that you would gladly join him with the seven knights whom you had there and that you would send quickly for several others to your castle, but afterwards you fled from his court without his permission, taking some of his household with you, thus failing him in his necessity. And now he wants you to do what his court shall judge, and if it is necessary he shall accuse you again and again". But the bishop replied: "Hugh, you can say what you like, but I am not going to answer you to-day nor shall I accept any accusation or enter into any plea until it is justly adjudged that I am to stand trial despoiled or canonically invested with my bishopric: and afterwards I shall willingly answer to everything of which the king accuses me and I will show that I have done lawfully whatever I have done and I shall see to it, as justice dictates, that I be found utterly and in every way innocent" As the laymen tumultuously continued to attack the bishop, some with arguments and some with insults and he refused to reply, Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances said: "My lords archbishops, it is not opportune to go on with this discussion, but it would be fitting for us to rise, to convoke bishops and abbots, to have with us some of these barons and earls and justly to decide with them whether the bishop should first be invested or embark on the case on the king's complaints before investiture" To which Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "It is not necessary for us to rise, but let the bishop and his men leave and we who remain behind, clerics and laymen, should equally consider what we ought justly to do" "I", said the bishop, "will gladly 0

[Outside the Libellus no mention of Hugh de Beaumont occurs in the records of Rufus' reign,

where Henry de Beaumont, earl of Warwick often appears, so that it is possible he and not Hugh is meant here.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 97 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

leave, but I insist, archbishops and bishops, that you do whatever you do concerning my case in an orderly and canonical fashion, and that you should not have with you, when you pronounce judgment, whoever is excluded from judging bishops by the decrees and the canons" "Go", said Archbishop Lanfranc, "for we shall do justly whatever we do" Hugh de Beaumont said to the bishop: "If I cannot to-day judge you and your order, you and your order will never again sit in judgment over me". "See to it", said the bishop, "that those who stay in this house disposed to judge me shall be canonical judges and shall judge me canonically, for if they acted otherwise, I would utterly reject their judgments". After the bishop had left with his men, the king sitting in judgment with his bishops, earls, sheriffs, reeves, huntsmen and some other officers, the bishop was recalled after long delays and returned to hear Archbishop Thomas of York say: "My lord bishop, our lord the archbishop and the king's court judge that you must do right to the king before he reinvests you with your fief". To which the bishop replied: "I have requested that the investiture of my bishopric should be restored to me, as I was despoiled without summons or judgment and I left this house so that you could give judgment concerning my bishopric and on this point I demand judgment, for nobody has to-day said a word to me or I to anyone concerning the fief". To which the archbishop replied: "This court pronounces judgment over you because the king is not obliged to reseise you of anything before you have done him right". And the bishop: "I would like some canonical sentence to be shown to me by which I could see that this judgment is canonical, for this sort of judgment I have not heard of in ecclesiastical usage or in the Christian law and if I accepted a judgment against the canons, I would gravely sin against Holy Church and against the holy order of the priesthood: what might hurt me a little at present, might confound many in the future because of this example. I therefore demand that a certain sentence be shown to me by which I can perceive that this is just". Upon which Archbishop Lanfranc said: "This judgment is just and it behoves you either to concede and to follow, or to contradict it". To which the bishop replied: "I would like to discuss this with some of the bishops, with the king's and your consent, and do what has to be done and dismiss what has to be dismissed by their counsel". And Archbishop Lanfranc said: "The bishops are judges and you should not have them as your counsellors" "I pray the king", replied the bishop, "that he allows them to give me counsel out of fraternal charity". The king however replied: "Consult your own men, for you cannot expect any one of us to give you counsel". To which the bishop replied: "I find little counsel in these seven men against the virtue and the knowledge of this whole kingdom, which I find here united against me " Having received permission for counsel, the bishop left with his men and upon returning to the plea he said to the archbishop: "The judgment which has been pronounced here I reject, as it was given against the canons and against our law, for I was not summoned canonically but was compelled to stand trial here by the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 98 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

force of a royal army, to plead my case in a lay gathering, despoiled of my bishopric, outside my province, in the absence of all my comprovincial bishops. My enemies who have denied me their counsel and the conversation and the kiss of peace have sat in judgment over me not on the basis of what I have said, but of what I have not said, and they are at the same time accusers and judges. And I find in our law that it is forbidden for me to accept such a judgment even if out of foolishness I were inclined to do so. My archbishop and primate should out of respect for God and the clerical order charitably stop me from committing this presumption. And since I sense you all to be my adversaries because of the king's hatred, I appeal to the apostolic see, the Holy Roman Church and St. Peter and his vicar, that I may deserve to receive a just judgment on my case as he will dispose. for whose decision the major ecclesiastical cases and the judging of bishops are reserved by the old authority of the apostles and their successors and of the canons". To which Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "We do not judge you because of your bishopric, but because of your fief; and in this way we have judged [Odo] the bishop of Bayeux concerning his fief before the father of the present king, and the king did not call him bishop in that suit, but brother and earl" The bishop said: "My lord archbishop, I did not make any mention of my fief to-day and did not even say I had one, but I have complained and I still complain about the disseisin of my bishopric". The archbishop said: "Even if I never have heard you talk of a fief, I still know that you have a large one and it is thereupon that we have judged you". The bishop said: "My lord archbishop, I hear now that you have dismissed all I have said and have judged me according to your conscience, but since by God's grace you are very wise and renowned, I understand that your wisdom in this matter is so sublime that my smallness cannot comprehend it, but with the king's and your permission I want to appear before the apostolic see to which out of necessity I have appealed" "Leave", said the archbishop, "and the king having consulted his men will tell you what pleases him". After the bishop had left and had been recalled, Hugh de Beaumont stood up and said to him: "My lord bishop, the king's court and the barons justly judge that, as you refused to answer them on those points of which you have been charged through me and proceed with your plea to Rome, you forfeit your fief". To which the bishop replied: "Wherever justice and not violence dominates I am prepared to purge myself of any crime or perjury and what you have pronounced here as judgment I shall show to be false and unjust in the Roman church" "I", said Hugh, "and my peers are prepared to confirm our judgment in the court", to which the bishop replied: "In this court I am at present going to enter into no further litigation, since there is nothing I could say here, however well, which the helpers of the king would not deprave and pervert, oppressing me after my appeal with an illegal judgment out of irreverence for the apostolic authority, but I shall go to Rome and implore the help of God and St. Peter" The king then said: "'I now want you to surrender your castle to me, since you do not follow the judgment of my court" To which the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 99 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop replied: "There was never an agreement between us that I would surrender my castle to you unless I refused a canonical judgment and unless (if there arose a contradiction of judgment) I refused to go for that contradiction to that place where I ought justly to receive the final sentence on this contradiction and I am prepared to contradict in the Roman church the judgments that were given against me, for to it final judgment within my order belongs and has belonged since apostolic times". To which the king replied: "By the holy face at Lucca, you will never get out of my hands, until I have the castle". To which the bishop answered: "My lord king, I have suffered the lands and the stock of my church being carried off by three of your servants in the presence of one hundred of my knights and I have offered you no resistance and since nothing would be left of my bishopric except the very town where the see of the church is and you want to take it away from me, I will resist you with no other virtue than God's, but in the name of God and St. Peter and his vicar the lord pope, I tell you not to take them away: I am prepared to give you good hostages and sureties that my men, whom I leave there while I am going to Rome, will keep it in your fealty and if you want, will gladly serve you". To which the king said: "In truth, bishop, believe me that you will in no way go back to Durham nor will your men stay in Durham nor will you escape from my hands until you have freely rendered your castle to me" The bishop said: "I am confident that because of the pledge given me by the earls I shall be safely conducted back to my church, a condition that was agreed between us and recognized in this suit before you". Archbishop Lanfranc then said to the king: "If the bishop goes on refusing his castle to you, you may well arrest him, for by first breaking the agreement he has now given up the free conduct which he has so far enjoyed, and he tries to prove against your barons that they have not acted loyally". Ralph Peverel' and all laymen then exclaimed unanimously: "Arrest him, arrest him, for this old blood-hound knows how to talk well" When Earl Alan heard this he stood up and said: "I have brought him from his castle to the king's court after giving my word that if the king refused to do such justice as he could not justly refuse to one of his bishops, I would return him safely with all his men to his castle. If the king offered him, as a bishop of his, such right as could not be justly refused and the bishop would not or could not follow it, then the king would find for him and all his men, according to the bishop's wish (wherever he preferred), ships and a port from Exeter to Sandwich. He would also be allowed to have all his men whom he wanted and who wanted to accompany him and to take them with him with all their possessions under the king's safeguard, until they had reached the continent across the sea. And I strongly ask the lord my king that he should not make me belie my faith, since he would not be able to count on me in the future". As the Earls Roger and Odo made the same request, Archbishop Lanfranc said: "The king has fully acquitted you, for he has but not a Ralph n O[A Ranulph Peverel is attested around the time of William I and William II, Peverel, so it is probable that Ranulph is meant here.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 100 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

offered to do full right to the bishop, but he has refused it in your own hearing and he also has unjustly tried to take the king to Rome. Let the bishop therefore admit that we have made ajust judgment and that he refuses to accept it and the king will find ships for him and give him a safe-conduct" The bishop said: "I firmly admonish you, earls, who have promised on your word to conduct me, to take me back to Durham, for the king has in no way consented to do me right and this I am prepared to demonstrate in the Roman church" "It is not just", said Lanfranc, "for a plea or a judgment of the king to be dragged out because of some contradiction, but whenever the court arrives at a judgment it should at once be accepted or rejected, therefore accept our judgment here or reject it here for some evident reason" To which the bishop replied: "I here formulate the strongest objection and I demand that my rejection be judged at Rome where it belongs and where justice rather than violence prevails. And since no one amongst you dares to pronounce anything in judgment or in testimony which displeases the king, and as I have no other witnesses, I invoke the Christian law which I have here in writing as witness that I can justly proceed to Rome as I said and that the final sentence in this case must come from the authority of the Roman pontiff". The king said: "You can say what you like, but you will not escape my hands unless you first give me back the castle" To which the bishop answered: "As you have taken away unjustly not only my bishopric but all that was mine and you now even want to rob me violently of my see, I shall not let myself be taken for anything that I could do". A day was set at which the bishop was to withdraw his men from the town and the king should place his men there, whereupon the bishop said to the king: "My lord king, I would like to hear from you if you will at least leave me something from my bishopric from which I can live?" And Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "You are going to Rome, doing damage to the king and shaming us all and he should leave you your land? Stay in his land and he will give you back your bishopric except the town on condition that you do right to him in his court according to the judgment of his barons" "I have appealed to the apostolic see", said the bishop, "because in this court I hear no just judgment and nothing will stop me going there". "If you", said the archbishop "go to Rome without the king's permission, we will tell him what should be done with your bishopric". And the bishop said: "At present you say nothing to him that is of any use to me, although you can freely say what you like, but before I leave Iam prepared to purge myself before all these barons of any crime and perjury and to establish by all means that I have knowingly caused or sought no damage to the king's body or his land in any way and that I have given or received no surety thereon to anyone and as soon as I heard of this damage, I warned him of it as soon as I could and I helped him loyally against his enemies and I will show that I acted lawfully in this. I shall indeed make clear that I have kept Dover and Hastings, which he had almost lost, in his allegiance, London also which had already rebelled I pacified so that it stayed loyal, for I took the twelve best citizens of that town with me, thus to ensure the better behaviour of the others.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 101 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

And that I acted in this way I shall demonstrate by the testimony of the barons if he gives them permission and I strongly beg him to accept now the purgation I have mentioned and let him afterwards justly allow me to show that he can count on my service; and, if it pleases him and he would benignly give his permission, I would have several of these bishops as witnesses to this purgation" As the bishop forcefully and repeatedly requested this and the king refused it,Archbishop Lanfranc said to the bishop: "You would do better to throw yourself completely upon the king's mercy and I shall be glad to intervene at his feet on your behalf", to which the bishop replied: "'I firmly beg his mercy to emend lawfully and for the love of God and the honour of Holy Church the judgments that were here pronounced to the detriment of God's Holy Church, the confusion of the holy orders and the ignominy of the Christian law, and for that I shall be glad to serve him and to pay him a contribution out of my own substance if it pleases him" "Throw yourself completely upon his mercy", said the archbishop, "and entirely refrain from rebelling against the judgment of his court". But the bishop said: "Let met not contemplate receiving or admitting a judgment which goes against the canons and, even worse, leads to their destruction". Thereupon the king said: "Let the bishop give me his surety that he will not seek or accept anything overseas to damage me and that the ships which I shall find for him shall not be detained by my brother or one of his own to my damage and against the will of the sailors" To which the bishop replied: "My lord, our earls have faithfully promised that I or my men would not be forced to give any surety by force or guile on top of the surety which we gave them at Durham and the surety which you now demand I shall only give under pressure" To which Reginald Paynell 2 said: "Your earls have certainly given the promise as the bishop says and you should keep them to their agreement". "Keep silent", said the king, "for I shall not suffer the loss of my ships for anyone's surety, but if the bishop recognizes that he has already given surety on it, I shall not request another on top of it". And the bishop said: "I know that we have given surety to your barons on many points and you should not ask for more nor must I give more", to which the king angrily replied: "By the holy face at Lucca, you shall not cross the sea in this year unless you previously give the surety which I request concerning the ships" "I shall give this surety and much more, if necessary", said the bishop, "before I am kept in captivity here, but let everyone clearly hear that I would do it against my will and compelled by the fear of imprisonment". And so the bishop gave surety and asked for the ships and the safe-conduct, whereupon the king said: "You will have no safe-conduct, but you will stay at Wilton13 until I truly know that I have the castle in my power. Only then will you receive the ships and the conduct". To which the bishop replied: "Since I 12

O[NO Reginald Paynell is otherwise known in the days of Rufus, whereas Ralph Paynell is well attested, so that it is quite possible that Ralph is meant here.]'

13 o[Wilton,

co. Wiltshire.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 102 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

am not capable of doing what I would like and ought to do, I shall undergo what you say unjustly and against my will". Thereupon William de Merlay stood up and said: "My lord, the bishop's men who are in the castle robbed my lord the bishop of Coutances of 200 animals under your safe-conduct before the bishop came to your court and my lord asked them to return his cattle and they refused. Afterwards Walter d'Eyncourt told them in your name to restore them, but they would not and we now ask you that you cause these cattle to be returned to my lord" The king said: "Let these barons see whether I can justly implead the bishop" To which Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "It would be unjust for you to implead him any longer since he holds nothing from you and must have a safe-conduct". On that day the bishop withdrew in order to choose a port and to return the following day. The following day14 he asked Count Alan to find him ships and a port in Southampton. Upon hearing this the king said to the bishop: "You should know well, bishop, that you will never cross the sea until I have your castle. The bishop of Bayeux scolded me for it, but carefully see to it that my men have the castle of Durham by the 14th of November and if my men have the castle in my power on that day, you shall have the ships and the free-conduct without any doubt or delay". He therefore ordered Sheriff Gilbert in the hearing of the bishop and Earl Alan and his other barons to put at the bishop's disposal at Southampton by the 21st of November as many ships as he would need to cross the sea with his men. However the bishop said to Earl Alan: "Lord earl, see to it with your companions in whose trust I am to be escorted that I am not disturbed beyond this term; and, as long as I am in England, provide me with a good man to find me lodging and save me from trouble so that you do not break your pledge and I shall not suffer too much". To which Earl Alan replied: "Some servant of the king will see to it for you" Thus the bishop stayed at Wilton accompanied by Robert de Conteville, who was to provide him with lodgings and was to conduct him safely to Southampton within the appointed term, to receive the ships and wait for a favourable wind. Ivo Taillebois and Erneis de Burun took the castle into the king's hand and disseised the bishop of the church and the castle and of all his land on the 14th of November and they sent to the men of the bishop Heppo, a royal crossbow-man and a royal writ with the seal on the outside, containing the following words. William, king of the English, to all his lieges throughout England, greeting. Know that the bishop of Durham and all his men have my peace throughout the whole kingdom of England and cross the sea with my permission and peace: I therefore 15 forbid all men in my powerto do them any harm. Whilst the men of the bishop hoped that they were secure because of the surety of the earls and the seal of the king and the safe-conduct of Heppo, Ivo Taillebois 14 o[3 November 1088.10 15

0

[Regesta i, no. 298.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 103 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

took two knights of the bishop and forced them to plead on the animals of the bishop of Coutances, on which judgment had been given before the king in favour of the bishop of Durham that he was not compelled to answer. Ivo Taillebois also caused a knight of the bishop to lose his horse in this same journey. On the 21 st of November the bishop asked Sheriffs Gilbert and Robert de Conteville to put the ships at his disposal and let him cross the sea with Roger de Mowbray 16 who was travelling at the same time. But they told him that they did not intend to give them any ship and said that the king had ordered them carefully to guard the bishop so that he did not escape from the king's power until he let them know by his sealed letter what he wanted to be done with him. They kept the bishop until the 26th of November, on which day Robert [de Conteville] took him to Southampton, where they wanted to board the ships since the wind was favourable and everything ready for the crossing. Nevertheless the king's servants refused him the ships and the crossing and the following day, when they saw that the wind had fallen, they gave the bishop permission to sail and put the ships at his disposal: the bishop paid the passage-money and waited for the necessary wind. Afterwards, on the 1st of December, Osmund the bishop of Salisbury, Robert de Lisle and Richard de Courcy"7 came to him summoning him in the name of the king to be in London at the court of the king on Christmas day and to do him right concerning his monk Geoffrey, who after the bishop's visit to the court had taken 539 animals from the bishop's demesne and had removed the fortifications of the castle and also concerning some other men of his who had killed a man of the king. The bishop answered them: "In none of all this was I involved and I and my men have a safe-conduct, nor can I go to his court any more since he has deprived me of everything and I have eaten my horses which were already sold; but if he permits me and my men to leave and keeps the pledge of his earls, I shall, God willing, appear before the Roman church to which out of necessity I have appealed. Otherwise, before I am arrested, I shall defend myself alone and by oaths on all those accusations that are brought against my men before you that none of all that was done on my order or with my knowledge, even though I could justly have done it: I could do with my own what I wanted until he disseised me of my see" Thereupon the king's ministers said to the bishop: "We now forbid you to board the ships", to which the bishop replied: "The king has deprived me of all my land and stock and if he wants to take away my men, I shall not enter a plea for anyone of them, but if it is permitted I shall cross the sea alone". However, the bishop sent one of his knights to the king and asked for the love of God and St. Peter to be permitted to go to Rome. But the king sent to him Bishop Walkelin of Winchester and Hugh de Port and Geoffrey de Trailli, ordering him to send the monk Geoffrey 16 '[No Roger de Mowbray is otherwise mentioned in the days of Rufus, but Robert de Mowbray is

a well-known figure in the days of William I and William II, so that it is quite possible that Robert is meant here.]° '7O[According to Offler (infra, note 24) p. 337, n. L.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 104 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to Durham to stand trial on the forementioned misdeeds and to come himself to London to do right to the king at Christmas concerning his men. "Ever since I made the agreement with the king's earls", replied the bishop, "I have remained in the king's custody and the earls have given me their surety that if the castle of Durham was surrendered to the king, I and my men who wanted to follow me would have safe-conduct and ships and a port without any detention or delay being caused by any men against my will. As the king has Durham and we under the conduct of the king and the earls have reached a port, have received the ships on the king's order, paid the price for them and are on the way to Rome to appear before the apostolic see, he who detains us sins gravely. Nevertheless, if by so doing I obtain your permission to leave, I am prepared to purge myself before you without delay that none of the things which you mentioned was done on my order or with my cognizance, nor did I obtain or expect to obtain the price of a single loaf out of them. If afterwards he detains my men, let them suffer whatever he does to them, for nobody will stop me going to Rome if I can be freed from this detention" Thereupon the king's servants had the bishop guarded day and night and the bishop sadly sent a message to the Earls Alan, Roger and Odo telling them about his troubles and adjuring them, by the faith which they had received at their baptism and which they had plighted to him, to liberate him from his captivity and to find him without delay ships and a port and safe-conduct, justly mending the trouble and damage which he had unjustly suffered. At long last the king was swayed by their urgent entreaty and allowed the bishop to depart. It is in the eighth year of his episcopate 8 that he was expelled from England, but he was honourably received by the king's brother, Robert, the count of the Normans, and was looked after by the whole of Normandy. However, three years later he was reconciled with the king and was restored to his bishopric19 and the king himself with his brother and the whole English army, which was marching against Malcolm 20 and Scotland, reinstated him in his see on the very day he had been expelled from it. On the 11 th of September. 2 the second year after his return. he demolished down to the foundation the old church which Bishop Ealdhun had built, and the following year, i.e. in the year 1093 of the Incarnation of the Lord, he started another and better one, i.e. in the thirteenth year of his episcopate and the eleventh year since he had brought the monks together in Durham. In this same year on Thursday 11 August he and Prior Turgot, who held the second rank in the church, laid the first stones of the foundations, in the presence of King Malcolm of the Scots who co-operated with them in the placing of the foundation stones. In the third year after the beginning of the construction of the church, at Windsor on 1' [A.D.

9

1088.1'

[A.D. 1091.10

20 '[Malcolm III, king of Scotland (1058-1093).]0 21'[i.e. II September 1092.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 105 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Christmas day2 he felt more ill than usual, was visited several times by Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury of blessed memory and received his absolution and repeated benediction; there he also was anointed and strengthened with the Eucharist by Archbishop Thomas of York and Walkelin of Winchester and John of Bath. On the 2nd of January23 he died in the night, having completed the 16th year of his episcopate and two months minus two days, i.e. in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1096, which was the thirteenth year since the monks were united at Durham. His body was taken from Windsor to Durham and buried in the 24 chapter of the monks on the 16th of January.

135 Some time after the Penenden Heath trial Odo of Bayeux, with the king's permission, starts a suit against Archbishop Lanfranc and on the first day, in Lanfranc's absence, wins his case, but the following day Lanfranc himself takes part in the proceedings and defeats his opponent. Again on another occasion this Odo, with the king's permission, instituted a suit against the church of Canterbury and its guardian, Lanfranc, and took good care to bring to it all those whom he knew to be well versed in the laws and usages of the English realm. When time came to try the case, all who had come from every direction to defend the interests of the church were at the first session so worsted that their efforts to defend those interests actually resulted in their loss. For Lanfranc was not himself there to take part. He did not usually take part in such matters, unless there was urgent need for him to do so. What had happened was accordingly reported to him as he was reading some book of divinity in his chamber. Not at all perturbed, he declared that the arguments of the opponents had been erroneous and accordingly he had the whole matter deferred for discussion on the following day. That night St. Dunstan in a vision stood beside the archbishop and told him not to be troubled at the number of his opponents but in the morning to intervene personally in the suit with a light heart, assured that the saint would be with him. This he did; and, opening his case with an introductory statement which to the surprise of all seemed far removed from the matters which had been already dealt with or were to be dealt with, he so went on from this that he utterly demolished the arguments which had been used against him on the 22 0[25 December 1095.] 23 0[2 January 1096.] 2' '[Freeman, William Rufus, i, 28; ii, 469-474; C.W. David, "A Tract attributed to Simeon of Durham", E.H.R., 32 (1917), 382-387; C.W. David, Robert Curthose, 211-220; H.S. Offler, "The Tractate De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi", E.H.R., 66 (1951). 321-341; D.R.Bates, "The character and career of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)", Speculum, 50 (1975), 15 17;M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec,Oxford, 1978, 160.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 106 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

previous day and shewed them to be without substance, with the result that thenceforth for the rest of his life on earth no one dared stand up and say a word to oppose him.1

136 Agreement in the presence of Archbishop Lanfranc between Bishop Gundulf of Rochester and Gilbert de Tonbridge.

This is the agreement made at Canterbury in the presence of the lord Archbishop Lanfranc and put in writing at his command between Bishop Gundulf and Gilbert de Tonbridge. By the judgment of this same lord archbishop, Gilbert is obliged to give 50 s. a year to the lord Bishop Gundulf for the land of St. Andrew, ' which this Gilbert has until he gives him so much of his other land from which he receives 50 s. a year or their equivalent. Witnesses: the said Archbishop Lanfranc, Bishop William of Durham, Abbot Gilbert of Westminster, Abbot Paul of St. Alban's, Haimo the sheriff of Canterbury, Bertram de Verdun and the majority of the household of the lord archbishop.

137 A claim by the city of London to certain rights in the seaport of Stonar against the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury is settled by royal justices in favour of the abbey. A. The narrative in William Thorne's chronicle. In the year of the Lord 1090 there was a great dispute between the citizens of London and the abbot and his men of Stonar. The citizens of London claimed the lordship over the manor of Stonar as belonging to the seaport which was subjected to the city of London, but King William Rufus being in favour of the abbot, it was deraigned in that same manor by the justices that nobody should henceforth claim anything there. Abbot Wido and his convent were to have that land and the whole coastline as far as the middle of the water without any adverse claim, freely and quietly, and the abbot of St. Augustine's was to possess freely all rights and 135 1 O[Transl. from G. Bosanquet, Eadmer's History of Recent Events in England, London, 1964, pp. 18-19.10 136 [The patron saint of the cathedral of Rochester.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 107 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

customs pertaining to the said manor. And in this proceeding there are two charters of the aforesaid king. This record or deraignment was confirmed by King Henry I, Stephen, John and Henry III, kings of England, who confirmed this in their times by their charters.

B. Writ of King William II.

William, by the grace of God king of the English, to the archbishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs and all lieges of the whole of England, greeting. Know that I will and command on my friendship that no one henceforth shall claim anything in Stonar, but Wido, abbot of St. Augustine's and the brethren of that place shall freely and quietly have that land and all the coastline as far as the middle of the water, without any claim, since it was thus deraigned between my men of London and the men of the abbot in my time before my justice at Stonar. Witnesses: William, bishop of Durham, and Roger Bigod. At Windsor.

138 Having claimed jurisdiction over Lincoln and Lindsey and the manors of Stow and Newark against Robert Bloet, royal chancellor and elect of Lincoln, Archbishop Thomas of York gives them up and, instead, receives from King William II the abbey of St. German at Selby and the church of St. Oswald at Gloucester. A. The narrative in Hugh the Chantor's History of the Church of York. The next day,' Archbishop Thomas, talking with Archbishop Anselm in the presence of the bishops who were there as he was about to leave Canterbury, forbade him2 in the name of God, of St. Peter, and of the lord pope, and by their own mutual fellowship, to ordain Robert Bloet, elect of Lincoln, bishop of that see. He did not forbid him to ordain him bishop of Dorchester, as his predecessors

138A 1 '[The day before, 4 December 1093, Anselm was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury.] ° 2 '[i.e. Anselm.]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 108 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

had been; but said that the town of Lincoln and a great part of Lindsey were and rightly should be in the diocese of the church of York, and had been wrongfully taken from it, together with three towns, Stow, Louth, and Newark, which belonged to St. Peter of York; as he was prepared to prove if justice were granted him. 3 He made this claim of the bishop elect, who was among the audience. He had come to the consecration of his archbishop, and was to have been ordained bishop of Lincoln by him within the next few days; but his ordination was put off on account of this claim until King William arranged a concord between them against the will of Archbishop Thomas, who opposed it, and without consulting the chapter of York. All England knows that Bishop Robert gave King William £3,000 for this.'

B. The narrative in Giraldus Cambrensis. [Robert Bloet] managed through gifts of money and exchanges to obtain from King William, the son of William, whose chancellor he was, a perpetual arrangement for a great controversy started at considerable cost by Archbishop Thomas of York for the recovery for his church, of Lindsey and all the land connected with it as far as Louth and their reintegration in his diocese.

C. The charter of King William II concerning the concord which was brought about between the archbishop of York and the bishop of Lincoln. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Amen. It was the counsel of the highest Father to redeem his holy city, the celestial Jerusalem, which had been divided by the devil's pride, through the death of his most beloved son and to repair the damage caused by the angels through the redemption of This dispute was settled by a charter of William II (Monasticon, viii, 1271). °[

-

Our document

C.]° '°[Lindsey was an Anglo-Saxon diocese which ceased to exist after the Danish occupation and was absorbed by the see of Dorchester in 958. Lindsey was never re-established and after the Conquest the see of Dorchester was transferred to Lincoln: a claim ofjurisdiction over Lindsey automatically involved the see of Lincoln. Even before the Conquest the archbishop of York had tried to acquire ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Lindsey but Pope Nicolas II had on 3 May 1061 adjudged the parochia of Lindsay (and the church of Stow) to the bishop of Dorchester (LINCOLN Reg., i, no. 247, pp. 186-188). - Translation taken from HUGH THE CANTOR Historj,

138B

8-9.]0 The charter of William Rufus, stating the settling of this claim of the archbishop of York, and the compensation given to him, is in the Regist. Mag. of Lincoln, f. 1 b., and printed in 0 DUGDALE, No. 5. [=Our document C.] It was granted in 1094 probably; Bloet is bishop of Lincoln in it; certainly not later than 1095, as bishop William of Durham, one of the witnesses to it, died 2 January 1096. '[Robert Bloet was the first chancellor of William Rufus.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 109 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

mankind. Considering this, I William by God's grace king of the English and son of King William, who succeeded King William by hereditary right, seeing the church of the English divided and in discord, wanted to bring together what had been wrongly separated and reunite in true charity what had stood for a long time in dispute and discord. I have therefore redeemed with my own means the claim which the church of York and Thomas its archbishop had on Lincoln and Lindsey and on the manors of Stow and Louth and for them I gave to the church of St. Peter at York the abbey of St. German of Selby and the church of St. Oswald of Gloucester with everything pertaining to them by law, to be possessed by perpetual right. And I gave the abbey of St. German to Archbishop Thomas and his successors as the archbishop of Canterbury has the bishopric of Rochester. And for these aforesaid benefices Archbishop Thomas has benignly and gladly given up the aforesaid claim, forever and with the consent of his clergy and in my presence and that of my bishops and magnates, to myself and Bishop Robert of Lincoln and his successors. And I redeemed this claim out of grace for the said Bishop Robert because he had been my chancellor. The The The The The The

sign sign sign sign sign sign

of King William. of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury. of Archbishop Thomas of York. of Bishop Walkelin of Winchester. of Bishop Gundulf of Rochester. of Bishop William of Durham.

139 Refusal of reconciliation in a homicide case, in spite of Bishop Wulfstan's efforts, is punished with madness.

At the invitation of the most reverend abbot [of Gloucester, Wulfstan] returned to that town and consecrated a church.' There was a vast crowd, which as usual was hoping for remission of penitence and attached particularly great importance to the blessing of the bishop. Although rather reticent, he was inclined

139 l Apparently not the abbey church the re-building of which was begun by Serlo in 1089 (GLOUCESTER ST. PETER Cart., p. 11; Annals of Tewkesbury, ANNALES MONASTICI, I, p. 43). and which was not consecrated until 1100 (FLORENCE OF WORCESTER Chron., II. p. 44; GLOUCESTER ST. PETER Cart., p. 12).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 110 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to rejoice as he saw the crowd gathering in God's service with a fervour comparable to the surge of floodwater. He did not withhold the torrent of his eloquence from those who were thirsting for it, but infused it lavishly with his charity. His sermon filled a good part of the day, as he told them abundantly what he knew to be the most important thing to hold. I mean peace, than which nothing is sweeter to hear, nothing more desirable to search for and finally nothing better to be found by mortals; peace which should be the beginning of human salvation and its end, and is as it were the extreme limit of God's commands. It was sung by an angelic choir on the threshold of redemption, it was given by the Lord to his disciples as he was preparing for crucifixion and was restored to them as a triumphal gift on his resurrection. All this the bishop explained to the crowd, and therefore he necessarily had to use examples. But since I speak to literate people, what I have to say is too well-known to need explanation by examples. Many who previously resisted all efforts at reconciliation were on that day persuaded to consent to pacification. People encouraged each other and if anyone thought he had to resist, the bishop was consulted. A certain William, nicknamed the bold, lacked the confidence to bring his quarrels into the open. He had killed a man by accident and not on purpose and he could in no way buy the friendship of the relations of the killed man nor at any price obtain their forgiveness. The reverend abbot had often tried to bring about an accord between them, but all his attempts had been in vain. There were five brothers who were so furious and uttered such threats for the death of their brother that they could frighten away anyone. Who would not lose heart if he saw so many mature, strong and bold men rise up as one group? They were brought before the bishop who asked them to forgive the wrong, but they refused utterly and violently. They added to their deed some words that were no milder, i.e. that they would rather be altogether excommunicated than give up the revenge of the death of their brother. Thereupon the bishop wearing his episcopal insignia threw himself before their feet hoping to obtain full satisfaction. As he was lying on the ground, he repeated his prayers promising the benefit of masses and other advantages, in Worcester as well as Gloucester, to the dead man. In no way influenced by such humility, they rejected all conciliation. Such was their sorrow for the death of their brother that they lost all humanity. How great was the fury that spurned the holy old man, who was lying in the dust before them and whom the angels themselves, I think, would have revered! Divine injury was added to his contempt and his pontifical dress was trodden under foot by human arrogance. Hence, as the bishop made little headway by using blandishments, he fought the sickness of their stubborn attitude with a more severe remedy, maintaining that it was easy to distinguish the sons of God from the sons of the devil. If we believe the truth, since we believe him who said: "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" 2 it is evident that they who resist peace are sons of the devil, for whose works one does, his son one is called. 2

Matt. V, 9.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 111 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

The people shouted that this was so and was what they wanted, and they heaped abuse upon those who showed contempt [for the bishop]. The malediction of the people was followed immediately by divine vengeance, for one of the brothers, the most violent, went mad. He rolled around on the ground, biting the soil and scratching it with his fingers, foaming abundantly at the mouth and as his limbs were steaming in an unheard manner he infested the air with a horrible stench. What courage do you think was left to the others when they saw this? Their pride left them, their insolence disappeared, their arrogance withered away. You should also have seen them cherish what they had spurned, offer peace, inplore mercy. Fright had forced them into reverence, compassion with their brother had led them to humility. For they were afraid that their bad deed would be punished in the same way as his, they were all equally involved. The sight of these events moved the bishop to clemency and immediately after mass he restored health to the patient and security to the others and established peace between them all.

140 Writ of King William I or II forbidding Abbot Turold of Peterborough to interfere with the quarrying and transportation of stones to Bury St. Edmunds. William, king of England, to Turold, abbot of Peterborough, greeting. I order and command you to allow Abbot [Baldwin] of St. Edmunds to take a sufficient amount of stone for his church as he has done so far, and you shall cause him no more hindrance in the transportation of stone by water than you did previously. Witness: the bishop of Durham.

141 Writ of King William II ordering that Aldwin, abbot of Ramsey, shall have his rights in Ringstead and Brancaster as they were sworn at Thetford and as Abbot Aelfsige deraigned them at Norwich in the time of King William I. William, king of England, to Bishop Herbert [of Thetford and Norwich], Roger Bigod, Humphrey the chamberlain, William d'Aubigny and his other lieges,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 112 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

French and English, in Norfolk, greeting. I will that Abbot Aelfsige of Ramsey shall have in Ringstead and Brancaster soke and sake and toll and team and the fines and all customs which his predecessors best and most fully had in the time of my father and as they were sworn at Thetford and as Abbot Aelfsige deraigned those customs at Norwich, and I will not allow anyone to cause him injury. Witness: Bishop William of Durham.'

142 General notification by King William II that he has restored to Bishop Herbert of Thetford land claimed for the crown and given up all the claims which his chaplain, Ranulf Flambard, had made. William, king of the English, to Humphrey the chamberlain and all his lieges, French and English, of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting. Know that I have restored to Bishop Herbert of Thetford those lands which were claimed against him and registered for my account and that he and his men are quit of all the pleas with which Ranulf my chaplain has impleaded them. Witness: Ranulf the chaplain himself.

143 In 1095 a baronial revolt broke out in England, led by Robert de Mowbray, but was quickly quelled by a royal army. At a meeting of the king's court, Robert de Mowbray is condemned to imprisonment and William of Eu, who is accused by Geoffrey Bainard of treason against the king, is overcome in trial by battle and condemned to be blinded and castrated. His steward is to be hanged and various others are also punished. A. The version in the Chronicle of Hyde. Some princes of the Norman-English rebelled against him and thus brought about their own downfall. A certain Robert, earl of Northumberland, a rich and powerful man who had in war killed Malcolm, king of Scots and father of Queen Matilda, with almost his entire army, was arrested by King William as he was preparing to wage war against him and put in prison. William of Eu, greater by his ancestry than by his honesty, was also publicly convicted of conspiring against the royal power and was deprived of his eyes by the said king and rendered completely useless. He also ordered William of Alderi, steward of the said William and falsely, 141 1 '[There is a writ of King Henry 1,possibly of 110, confirming various rights including jetsam at Brancaster to the abbey of Ramsey which also refers to the deraignment by Abbot Ailsi in the time of William I (RAMSEY Chron., no. 223, p. 228; Regesta ii, no. 954).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 113 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

as they say, accused of taking part in this same conspiracy, to be hanged. As the princes, struck with grief (for he was famous because of his body, soul and family) begged the king for his life and offered to pay him three times his weight in gold and silver, the king could not be persuaded to renounce the execution by any prayers or gifts. It is said that something remarkable happened in this context, for as he saw that he was destined to die, he completely turned towards the Lord and threw himself before the knees of some priest, barefoot, naked and holding a bundle of rods and, humbly imploring forgiveness and absolution of his sins, he let himself be severely whipped. As he was led to his execution, he turned round to his followers and said: "Know that I am as free of the fault of which I am accused as I wish the Lord will be propitious towards my soul at the hour of my death". Having arrived at the place [of execution] and uttered these words, he expired. Arnulf de Hesdin, of striking stature, very industrious and wealthy, was accused before the king in a way that was as unjust as it was invidious. Finally, having defended himself in lawful battle and having won through one of his men against one of the king's, he was so stirred up with grief and wrath that he threw up everything he held from the king in England and notwithstanding the latter's displeasure and opposition, left and joined the army of the Christians. He reached Antioch and ended his life there.

B. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In this year King William held his court at Christmas at Windsor, and William, bishop of Durham, died there on New Year's Day [1 Jan. 1096]. And on the octave of the Epiphany the king and all his councillors were at Salisbury. There Geoffrey Baynard accused William of Eu, the king's kinsman, of having been a party to the treason against the king; and fought it out with him, and overcame him in trial by battle, and when he was overcome, the king ordered his eyes to be put out and that afterwards he should be castrated. And his steward, called William, who was son to his mother's sister, the king ordered to be hanged on a gallows. Also, Odo, count of Champagne, the king's uncle, and many others were deprived of their lands there, and some men taken to London and there destroyed.'

C. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis. When four great ships called canardes1 were on their way from Norway to England, Robert and his nephew Morel with their minions waylaid them and 143B 143C

*[Translation from ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE Translation, 173.J0 An unusual name for the large Scandinavian trading ships. See A. Jal, Glossaire nautique (Paris, 1848), canardus.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 114 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

violently robbed the peaceful merchants of their goods. The merchants, spoiled of their property, went to the king in great distress and laid a complaint about their loss. Immediately the king sent a peremptory order to Robert to restore the stolen property to the merchants without delay, but Robert paid no attention to his command. The generous king asked the merchants the value of the goods they had lost, and paid them the full sum out of his own treasure-store. He then summoned 2 Robert to his court, but he declined to come. At this the king, who knew how perverse and headstrong a man he was, mustered an army and led a strong force of knights against him. As they were approaching the bounds of Robert's domains Gilbert of Tonbridge, a rich and powerful knight, drew the king aside and, to his utter amazement, threw himself at his feet, saying: "My lord king, pardon, I beg, the wrong I have done you, and I will recommend something that will contribute greatly to your safety". The king at first hesitated in his astonishment, and debated with himself what he should do; but finally he graciously pardoned the suppliant and eagerly awaited the fulfilment of his promise. Gilbert said: "Stay your foot, I beg, great king, and do not enter the wood which lies ahead of us. For enemies, fully armed, are lying in ambush there, hoping to cut your throat. We have conspired against you, and have taken a sworn oath to achieve your death". On learning this the king halted the march, and learnt the names and number of the traitors from information that Gilbert of Tonbridge gave. 3 . The king, jubilant at his victory over the rebels, rewarded his friends and, summoning the disturbers of the peace, punished those who were found guilty in various ways. He confiscated all the land of Roger de Lacy and banished him from England, giving his inheritance to his brother Hugh, who had remained loyal to the cause of justice.4 He reproached Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury,5 privately, and shrewdly took him back into his favour for three thousand pounds. He punished many others similarly, receiving huge pecuniary fines from them, and out of respect for their exalted kinsfolk who might have sought vengeance in Normandy he carefully concealed his real wishes. 2Orderic alone tells this story; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1095) also says, without stating the

cause, that Robert was summoned to the king's court at Whitsuntide 1095, but failed to appear. This story occurs only in Orderic; other sources do not mention Gilbert of Tonbridge by name. Florence of Worcester says that there was a sworn conspiracy of Robert of Mowbray, William of Eu, and many others to place Stephen of Aumdle on the throne; and William of Malmesbury (GR ii. 372) also speaks of a conspiracy. A letter of Anselm, written in July 1095, to Walter, cardinal-bishop of Albano, shows that an invasion of Kent was feared (Southern, St. Anselm, p. 131; S. Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F.S. Schmitt, iv. 77, ep. 191). Orderic omits the first stages of the campaign, which began with the siege of Robert of Mowbray's household knights in Tynemouth castle (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1095; FW ii. 38), and the siege of Newcastle (Regesta, i, nos. 366-367). See W.E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in Englandand Normandy, pp. 170-171. Hugh of Montgomery is not named in any other source. Florence of Worcester says that Philip of Montgomery was imprisoned (FW ii. 39). o[ = FLORENCE OF WORCESTER Chron.1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 115 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

At that time William of Eu 6 was publicly found guilty of treason, and the king had him blinded and castrated. This sentence was carried out at the instigation of Hugh earl of Chester, whose sister he had married; he had not remained faithful to her, but, neglecting her, he had three children by a concubine.7

D. The narrative in Florence of Worcester. Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumbria, and William of Eu and many others attempted to deprive King William of his kingdom and his life and to make Stephen of Aumale, son of his sister', king; but in vain, for as soon as the king was informed, he gathered an army from all over England and for two months besieged the castle of the aforesaid Earl Robert near the mouth of the river Tyne and in the meantime occupied some smaller fortifications and caught almost all the best knights of the earl and kept them in custody; afterwards he took the castle that was under siege and put the earl's brother and the knights whom he had found inside into custody. Later on he strengthened the castle before Bamborough, i.e. the town of Queen Bebba,2 where the earl had fled and called it Malveisin and having left some knights there he returned south of the Humber. After his departure the knights guarding Newcastle3 promised Earl Robert that they would let him in if he 6 William of Eu held extensive estates in England in 1086, and frequently subscribed royal charters. Although D.C. Douglas has claimed (D.C. Douglas, Domesday Monachorum, 1944, pp. 64-65), following E. Chester Waters, GenealogicalMemoirs of the Countsof Eu (1886), that he was not the same man as William, count of Eu, he has not produced any convincing evidence for this assertion or suggested who he could have been, if not the son of Robert, count of Eu. Robert died between 1089 and 1093; his successor William was certainly dead by 1101 (Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Michel du Tr~port, ed. P. Laffleur de Kermaingant (Paris, 1880), pp. 20-22), and probably by the summer of 1096 when, according to Guibert of Nogent, the widowed countess of Eu, H61isende, and her son saved a Jewish boy in a pogrom in Rouen (Guibert of Nogent, Self and Society in MedievalFrance, ed. J.F. Benton (1970), pp. 135-136). That William of Eu was William, count of Eu, is accepted by J.F. Benton (ibid., p. 135 n. 3), GEC v. 153-154 [= G.E. Cokayne, The complete peerage of England,Scotland, Ireland,Great Britain and the United Kingdom, 13 parts in 14 vols., London, 21910-1959.0; Sanders, p. 119 and n. 7; Jean le Foyer, Exposr du droitpinalnormandauxiiie si&cle (Paris, 1931), pp. 232-233, V.C.H. Sussex, ii. 101; ix. 1-2, 14. William of Eu was defeated by Geoffrey Baynard in a judicial duel in January 1096 (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1096). All sources agree on his punishment; the story about Hugh of Chester's sister is peculiar to Orderic. The savage penalty was in line with a judicial pronouncement attributed to William the Conqueror, 'Interdico etiam ne quis occidatur aut suspendatur pro aliqua culpa, sed eruantur oculi et testiculi abscidantur' (F. Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1903), i. 488). 0

[Translation taken from ORDERIC VITALIS History IV. 281, 285.]0

143D I O[Florence of Worcester talks of King William's aunt, whereas Adelaide, married to Odo of Champagne and mother of Stephen of Aumale, was William I's sister. Cfr. Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 109.] 2 Urbem Bebbae reginae. See Beda, H.E. 111, 6, 16, also Lappenberg's England, I, p. 119. '[Queen Bebba or Bebbe, wife of King Aethelfrid of Bernicia and Deira (593-616).]0 3 '[At the place where the town of Newcastle-on-Tyne was later to be founded a fortress had already been set up in 1080 by King William I. Cfr. Douglas, William the Conqueror, 241.1o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 116 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

came unseen. Happy with this offer, the earl left one night with thirty knights to do this, but as soon as the knights who guarded the castle knew this, they pursued him and notified the guards of Newcastle through messengers. Being ignorant of this he tried on a Sunday to carry out his plan, but did not succeed since he was trapped. Therefore he fled to the monastery of St. Oswin, king and martyr,4 where on the sixth day of the siege he was severely injured in the leg while fighting his enemies, of whom many were killed and many wounded; several of his men were also wounded and all were captured; he himself fled to the church, but was dragged out and put in prison. In the meantime the Welsh broke into the castle of Montgomery and killed several men of Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury there. This made the king angry, he quickly ordered an expedition and after Michaelmas he led an army into Wales, where he lost several men and horses. On his return he ordered Earl Robert to be taken to Bamborough and his eyes to be put out unless his wife and his nephew Morel surrendered the castle; this they did, forced by necessity, and the earl was taken to Windsor to be placed in severe custody and Morel revealed the cause of the betrayal to the king . On the octave of Epiphany a council was held at Salisbury where the king ordered that William of Eu, who had been vanquished in battle, was to be deprived of his eyes and testicles, whereas his steward William of Alderi, a son of his aunt and an accomplice in the treason, was to be hanged; Count Odo of Champagne, father of the aforesaid Stephen, Philip son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and some others, who took part in the betrayal, were put in custody.5 144 Four magnates, sent by King William II to Cornwall and Devon to investigate royal rights, claim the manor of Werrington as royal demesne against the abbey of Tavistock, but as the monks prove that they have held the manor for a long time, the king confirms their possession. In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1096, the ninth of the reign of William II of illustrious memory, this same king sent during Lent some of his barons to Devon, Cornwall and Exeter, i.e. Bishop Walkelin of Winchester, Ranulf the royal chaplain, William Chi6vre and Hardin fitz Belnold, to investigate the royal pleas. In those pleas they claimed a manor of Tavistock Abbey, called Werrington, saying and maintaining that it was unjustly attached to Tavistock Abbey and had in fact always rightfully belonged to the royal demesne. Rejecting their declarations and claims, we proved that this manor, on the authority of several of our predecessors, belonged to Tavistock Abbey without any claim and 0 [This is the priory of Tynemouth (Northumberland), dedicated to St. Mary and St. Oswin. See a detailed account of these events in D.N.B. 39 (1894), 226.10 0 [Freeman, The reign of William Rufus, ii, 63-69: Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta,109-

110.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 117 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

by perennial right. We therefore, together with the forementioned royal pleaders, asked the king of the English to concede for the love of God and St. Mary that the forementioned manor was subjected to Tavistock Abbey without any claim, by perpetual right. After this was heard and explained before the king, the king himself granted our petition and answered, for the soul of his father and his mother, that he restored that manor, i.e. Werrington, forever to the church of the abbey of God and St. Mary at Tavistock, with the following words: I William, king of the English, to Bishop Osbern [of Exeter], William fitz Baldwin, Guarin the sheriff of Cornwall and all my lieges, French and English, of Devonshire and Cornwall, greeting. Know that I have given to God and St. Mary and the church of Tavistock for the souls of my father and my mother and my own, the manor of Werrington' so that Wimund and the abbots appointed as his successors shall henceforth and forever possess it well and honourably in all things. And let all know that the king made this gift at the court by an ivory knife which he held in his hand and handed over to the abbot, the men whose names are here written down being witnesses. I Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, gave witness, I John, bishop of Bath, have agreed and I Abbot Turstin of Glastonbury have given my consent etc. And this knife lies in the shrine of St. Rumon and on its handle the following inscription was made "I King William gave the land of Werrington to God and St. Mary of Tavistock" .2

145 On his death, Walter de Rivers, who held land at Beedon from Abingdon Abbey, leaves behind a boy who is a minor and whose uncle, Joscelin, claims possession of the said land in the king's court. In spite of Abbot Reginald's opposition, Joscelin obtains possession as requested, against certain services. A certain knight Walter, surnamed de Rivers and tenant of the land called Beedon, died at that time, leaving behind a small son of the same name. In those circumstances the uncle of that child, called Joscelin, eagerly hoping to obtain possession of the said land proceeded to argue in the king's court which then met at 144 1 '[According to the Exon Domesday (V.C.H. Devon, i, 431) the abbot of Tavistock was seised of the manor of Werrington at the time of the Domesday Inquest (it had been granted to Tavistock shortly after October 1066 by countess Gytha, King Harold's mother, which grant may well have been a form of restitution of property seized by Harold), but since the Inquest revealed that the manor had not belonged to Tavistock in the time of King Edward, William I disseised the abbey. However, when nine years later the magnates looked into the matter and claimed the manor, Abbot Wimund invoking possession of a certain duration, finally moved William II to give up his rights.]' 0 2 [E.A" Freeman, The reign of William Rufus and the accessionof Henryv thefirst, Oxford, 1882, ii, 507-508; Regesta I, no. 387; H.P.R. Finberg, "The Early History of Werrington", E.H.R., 59 (1944), 237-251; Idem, Tavistock abbey. A study in the social and economic history of Devon,

Cambridge, 1951, 10-12.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 118 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Beckley, but his attempt was frustrated by Abbot Reginald who held the child's hand and pleaded against him. Whereupon he gave up his attempt and asked that he would be allowed that possession until the majority of the child, pledging not to undertake anything mischievous to his own advantage and also promising the service of three knights, to whom the abbot was entitled, in his place and in the customary way. His wish was granted and he pledged to the abbot that he would fully carry out what he had promised. Nevertheless the child, when he had grown up, did not manage to be admitted to what was owed to him according to that public plea, until various requests had been made.'

146 After illegally giving some abbey land at Dumbleton to his nephew Robert, Abbot Reginald of Abingdon tries to revoke the donation: the king orders restitution of the land, after both the abbot and his nephew have offered money. As Abbot Reginald had a nephew called Robert, who had done studies abroad and had not been able to find hereditary feudal land, he called him to the vill called Dumbleton and meaning to do well he conveyed his intention and gave him that manor. Shortly afterwards he was deeply sorry at what he had done, for until then he had not known who had given that land to this place. But after a charter preserved in the chest of this church was recited before him, he realized that Aelfric, the archbishop' and devoted servant of God, had been the donor and had vehemently forbidden that the land should be taken from the proper usage by the monks and called his nephew, begging him to have mercy upon him by restoring the place which he had been so ill advised to give him, so that they might escape the maledictions of a man of such authority. After the abbot had lost much time in this entreaty, being in no way able to obtain his nephew's consent, he finally insisted so much with the head of the realm, with offers of prayers and payment of money, that the said land was restored to the freedom of the church by imperial decree. The payment was reckoned to amount to fifty pounds of public money, to which were added two horses suitable for royal usage. But since Robert afterwards offered the king seventy to regain the land which had been taken away from him, the abbot, compelled by this necessity, added twenty pounds to the aforesaid sum which he had given. The man, however, refused to be put off until he was struck by a grave attack of paralysis which made him completely immobile and speechless. Repenting during this illness, he implored the indulgence of the church and its

145 1 '[See V.C.H. Berks., IV, 40.]o 146 1 O[Aelfric ' archbishop of Canterbury 990-1005.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 119 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

inhabitants as best he could with great devotion and sighs. The monks forgave him his deeds with even greater devotion, gave him the holy habit [of a monk] and received him in the monastery where, thanking God, he served the Lord sincerely till the end of his days. From that time onwards Dumbleton remained freely in the demesne of the monks.

147 Raimbald, a knight and son-in-law of Abbot Reginald of Abingdon, is prosecuted by King William II and threatened with imprisonment unless he pays 500 pounds. Another knight called Raimbald, a brother-in-law of the said abbot, was, on the ground of various motives, vehemently prosecuted by the king, who threatened to throw him into prison for a long time unless he paid him five hundred pounds in order to be reconciled at the king's command and found people to become pledges. Raimbald fearing even greater threats, as the king was most severe towards those with whom he was angry, begged those who had gone with him not to leave him, but rather to accept being pledges for the money that was demanded: he would appeal so carefully to his friends and acquaintances that they had no reason to fear any harm. As the abbot and the friends of Raimbald had gone to the king to become pledges for him, the abbot for three hundred pounds and his friends for two hundred, and were going back from the court, Raimbald had hastily and without telling anyone gone to Dover, crossed the sea and joined the count of Flanderst and placed himself under his protection. This caused the people who became pledges great harm, as the king demanded from them the total amount which they had pledged, without any remission, thus reducing several of them to extreme poverty; the reserves of the abbey were almost completely exhausted so that this misfortune is regretted to the present day.

147 l '[This was either Robert I the Frisian, 1071-1093 or Robert II of Jerusalem, 1093-1111.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 120 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

148 Writ of King William I to the sheriff of Oxford confirming the customs of Abingdon Abbey and ordering him to do full right to Abbot Reginald in the matter of his, the sheriff's, reeve and other officials who have wronged the monks. Another proof of the king's goodwill, responding to the abbot's sympathy, was given by a writ which he sent to Peter, the sheriff of Oxford, concerning some people under the latter's authority who had wronged the abbot and which contained the following command: William, king of the English, to Peter of Oxford, greeting. Know that I will and command that Abbot Reginald of Abingdon and the monks of his church shall have and hold all their customs everywhere and in all things as well and honorably and quietly as they best had them in the time of King Edward and in the time of my father and that no man shall do them wrong any more. Witness: Ranulf the chaplain. Do full right to the aforesaid abbot concerning Eadwi, your reeve, and your other officials, who have wronged his monks.

149 As Abbot Benedict of Selby is accused by his monks of misrule, King William II orders Abbot Stephen of St. Mary, York, to arrest him.

In the monastery of the aforesaid brethren arguments led to quarrels, scandals grew, grumbling became stronger, dissension caused turbulence, savage accusation was bandied about, peace was extinguished and discord lived and reigned: thus a little ferment corrupts the whole mass, thus the state of health of one sick sheep attacks and destroys the health of the whole flock, thus also the grumbling and accusation of one brother destroys the harmony in the whole congregation, breaks up the unity and destroys charity. Therefore Solomon said: "Cursed the double-tongued tale-bearer, for he will disturb many who enjoy peace". 1 This those sowers of discord did with their virulent attacks, endlessly defaming the abbot throughout the provinces and the monasteries until they accused him of criminal behaviour in front of King William II himself, who as was usual with him was immediately inclined to believe this sinister accusation and attempted to exercise against the accused Abbot Benedict the tyranny of his cruelty, as he had done against several others. Thus it was that he ordered Abbot Stephen of York, 149 ' o[Eccli. 28, 15.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 121 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

who happened to be present then, to arrest Abbot Benedict and to keep him in custody until his command would force him to do something else with him.

150 As a result of growing religious scepticism King William Rufus casts doubt on the ordeal: the fact that fifty men accused of forest offences undergo the ordeal of hot iron with success leads him to an outright condemnation of this mode of proof. As he became more and more confirmed in this belief, he fell also into such a state of mind that he became sceptical of God's judgment and, accusing it of injustice, asserted that God either has no knowledge of men's actions or does not weigh them in an equal balance. As an instance of this there is the following story. Some fifty men, who in those days seemed still blessed with some traces of wealth from the old English nobility, were apprehended and falsely accused of having taken, killed and eaten the king's deer. They denied it. Thereupon they were promptly hauled off to the seat of judgment where judgment was given that they must clear themselves of the accusation brought against them by the ordeal of the red-hot iron. So a day was fixed, and without scruple or mercy they were made to undergo the punishment prescribed by that judgment. It was a pitiful sight. But Almighty God, whose mercy and judgment are celebrated in the psalter of David, by mercifully preserving the hands of all of them from burning made clear to all their innocence, and by His just judgment declared how unjust was the malice of the men who so wickedly sought to ruin them. When the king was told that on the third day after the ordeal these men who had been condemned all presented themselves in a body with hands un-burnt, he is said to have exclaimed in disgust: "What is this? God a just judge? Perish the man who after this believes so. For the future, by this and that I swear it, answer shall be made to my judgment, not to God's, which inclines to one side or the other in answer to each man's prayer. 1

150 ' 0[Transl. from G. Bosanquet, Eadmer's History of Recent Events in England, London, 1964, pp. 105-106.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 122 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

151 William Mauduit I, the father of Robert, having been impleaded by Richard de Courcy, a royal justice, for encroaching on a lane in Winchester, makes a fine. The house of Stanulf the priest was quit in the time of King Edward except for watch and gelds. Now Robert Mauduit holds it and it is similarly quit, but his father occupied one room and afterwards Richard de Courcy impleaded him, but afterwards made a fine before the king's justice; and the men of the house pay geld and render [..

152 William Mauduit I, father of Robert, having been impleaded by Richard de Courcy, a royal justice, for encroaching on a lane in Winchester, makes a fine.

The house of Siward Leofrun's son rendered custom in the time of King Edward. Now Robert Mauduit holds it and similarly performs the custom, but the father of this Robert occupied one room in that house, for which he was impleaded by Richard de Courcy, I who then was a justice of the king and then he made a fine on this plea before the justice of the king; and this house and his other houses render £6 and 16 s.

152 ' 0[Richard de Courcy occurs often in the charters of William Iand William II: latest certain date A.D.

1094 (Regesla i, no. 349). Our text is the only one which mentions him as a royal justice in

England, though there are indications that he acted in 1085 as the king's justice in Normandy (V. C.H.Hampshirei, 1900, p. 533). See on him also H.C. Maxwell Lyte, "Curci", Proceedingsof the Somersetshire ArchaeologicalandNaturalHistorY Society, lxvi (1921), 98-126; W.T. Reedy, Originsgeneral eyre, 703.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 123 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

153 King William II restores land to Bishop Ranulf of Durham, who had carried on litigation against Alan de Percy, and orders Bertram de Verdun, sheriff of Yorkshire, to seise him of it.

William, king of England, to Th[omas] the archbishop and Bertram de Verdun and his barons, French and English, of Yorkshire, greeting. Know that I have restored to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, all those lands concerning which there was suit between him and Alan de Percy and specially Lund and Holme and whatsoever pertains to Welton; and do you, Bertram, seise him thereof. Witnesses: William the chancellor, the count of Meulan and Robert, son of Hamo. At Salisbury, on the fourth day of Epiphany.!

154 Writ of King William II to Urse de Abitot, sheriff of Worcester and others ordering that the abbey of Evesham shall hold its honour as the abbot proved his right against Bishop Samson of Worcester: if the bishop claims any of those things which had been confirmed to Evesham, the abbot shall only answer in the king's court. William, king of the English, to sheriff Urse and the other sheriffs and ministers under whom the church of Evesham has lands, greeting. Know that I will and order that that church shall have and hold the whole honour which belongs to it with the lands, laws and customs and with the clerics and laymen, as honourably and peacefully and freely as it ever best had them in the time of King Edward and my father and in my own, and as the abbot has deraigned before me against Bishop Samson. And I forbid the bishop or any powerful man to invade or cause any injustice to the church and the abbot concerning these things. If however the bishop or anyone else makes any claim against the abbot concerning these things, which belong to the church and which my father has granted and I grant, let the abbot not answer him or enter into any plea except in my court. And let no bishop personally hold ordinations or synods there or confer orders unless he was asked to do so by the abbot of the place. This charter was written in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1100 at the command of the king. Witnesses: Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, Maurice, bishop of London, Robert, bishop of Lincoln and Ranulf, bishop of Durham, Abbot Gilbert of Westminster and Abbot Richard of St. Albans, Eudo the steward and William the chancellor and many 153 1 Translation by Craster, Ranulf Flambard,no. VIII, p. 41.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 124 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

other barons of the whole of England. At the solemnity of Easter, on the Wednesday after Easter, at Winchester.

155 Writ of King William II ordering Humphrey the chamberlain and royal justices to inquire by the county court of Norfolk whether the abbot of Ramsey or the predecessor of William de Albini was entitled to a certain forfeiture. William, king of England, to H[umphrey] the chamberlain' and his justices and all his lieges, greeting. Inquire by the county 2 who had more justly a forfeiture of this kind in the time of my father, whether the abbot of Ramsey or the predecessor of William d'Aubigny. And if the county agrees that it is rather the abbot who ought rightly to have the said forfeiture, then I order that the 100 shillings which Ralph Passelewe impleaded [about] be restored to the abbot without delay. 3 Witness: the bishop of Durham.

156 King William II orders Hugh de Bocland and the sheriff and lieges of Middlesex to see to it that the land of Yeoveney, in the manor of Staines, which Abbot Vitalis of Westminster deraigned against Walter fitz Oter, is left in peace; Abbot Gilbert, his successor, shall answer for it to no one except before the bishops and justices, before whom the title to the land was previously proved. William, king of the English, to Hugh de Bocland and the sheriff and all his lieges of Middlesex, greeting. Know that I will and firmly order that the land of Yeoveney, which is a pasture of the manor of Staines and which Abbot Vitalis deraigned for St. Peter's church at Westminster against Walter fitz Oter, at the time of my father, shall be in peace so that no one shall molest or disquiet him thereon, nor shall Abbot Gilbert of that same place answer for it to anyone except before the bishops and judging barons who were present where the same land was deraigned, nor shall I in any way accept anyone to take away or diminish anything there, but let it remain without any diminution as the gift was granted and confirmed by King Edward. Witnesses: Earl Alan [Rufus], Roger Bigod, Milo Crispin, Geoffrey de Mandeville and several others. 155 1 Humphrey the chamberlain, sheriff of Norfolk. 2 The shire court of Norfolk. 0 3 [Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, pp. 413-414.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 125 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

157 Writ of King William II ordering Hamo the steward, sheriff of Kent, to restore to St. Augustine, Canterbury its rights in Newington as they were deraigned in the time of William the Conqueror. William, king of the English, to H[amo] the steward, greeting. I command you to cause the restoration to the prior of St Augustine's and the monks of the said saint of all their rights of Newington, as it was deraigned in the county [court] in the time of my father before my barons; and without delay. And he who wants to go against this, let him plead in the hundred of Milton' or in the county [court]. Witness: R. the bishop; by Fulk the chaplain. At Westminster. 158 Abbot Gunter of Thorney deraigns the land of Charwelton against Baldwin, a Domesday tenant, by a judgment given at Rockingham before the barons of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. The lord Abbot Gunter obtained at Rockingham in the presence of the leading men of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire the land of Charwelton against Baldwin by right of judgment and this Baldwin spontaneously gave up the land without any claim and Robert gave him 15 s. to put an end to all claims, whereas the writs which had been obtained from two kings, viz. William the younger and Henry, were handed over. Witnesses the tenants who are here named and were called in to testify: Hugh the priest, the sheriff of Northamptonshire, Michael, William de Houghton, Geoffrey Ridel, Ascelin de Waterville, Grimbald the steward of Earl Simon [de St. Liz], etc.

157 ' *[This could be Middleton (co. Kent) or Milton (co. Kent); since Newington is in Milton hundred, the latter identification is to be preferred.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 126 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

159 Writ of King William II to Sheriff Sweyn of Essex ordering that the possessions of the bishop of London shall be quit of various burdens, according to the deraignment made before the king's justices at Writtle. William, king of the English, to Sweyn of Essex, greeting. I order you to leave the lands, the men and all the things of Maurice of London in peace and quit of ward-pennies, pleas and all other things, as was deraigned at Writtle before my justices, by their charters and writs, where you yourself were one of the judges. Witness: Ranulf, bishop of Durham. At London, after Pentecost.

160 Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriffs of Berkshire and Oxfordshire to ask the men of their counties whether certain lands belong to Rualon of Avranches or to the abbey of Abingdon. Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Bocland and William, sheriff of Oxford, greeting. Order for my part the men of your counties to say the complete truth, as they love me, concerning three hides of land which Rualon of Avranches claims back. If they belong to the manor of Stanton Harcourt which I gave him, let him have them; otherwise let the abbey of Abingdon have them. Witness: Roger the chancellor; through [Pain?] Basset. At Cambridge.'

161 Summary of a lost charter of King Henry I by which he grants to Robert de Lacy part of the land of the castelry of Pontefract which the king had deraigned against him. Charter of King Henry I by which he gave to Robert de Lacy all the land that remained from Robert's land in the castelry of Pontefract which the king had deraigned against him, to be held by him and his heir by hereditary right with soke and sake.

160 1 '[See Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 83.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 127 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

162 In the court of Abbot Faritius of Abingdon, held in Oxford at the command of King Henry I, Walter Giffard is forced to become a man of Abingdon for the manor of Linford, for the service of one knight. Earl Walter junior, called Giffard, held a manor of seven hides called Linford, which belongs by right to this church, but he attempted to withhold the service which he owed. Therefore Abbot Faritius made such an effort that he obtained that, in the presence of Roger of Salisbury, Robert of Lincoln and many barons of the kingdom, the earl became the man of the church and of the abbot with the understanding that he render for that land the service of one knight, wherever the other knights of the church serve. All this was deraigned at the command of King Henry in Oxford, at the house of Thomas de St. John, where the abbot then held his court because Thomas was his man.

163 Pleas in the king's court, extending from King William the Conqueror to King Henry I, between, on the one hand, William de Braose and afterwards his son Philip, involving the abbey of Saumur because of its cell at Beeding, founded by the said William and, on the other hand, the abbey of Holy Trinity at F~camp, concerning various rights and possessions in and around Steyning. A. Notice of a concord reached in a plea held by King William the

Conqueror at Laycock, manor of William of Eu, between William de Braose and the abbey of F6camp concerning its land and burial rights in Sussex, and more particularly the wood of Hoewood, some land which William de Braose had taken for his park, a toll which he had unlawfully taken, the burial rights of St. Cuthman's church at Steyning (belonging to F~camp), which had been impaired by the clergy of William de Braose's church of St. Peter at Beeding, and various other sources of income.

In connection with the inroads which William de Braose had made into the possessions of Holy Trinity a plea was held at Laycock, a manor of William of Eu, where King William held his court, on a Sunday from morning till night, in the presence of his sons and barons. It was defined and agreed that the wood called Hoewood should be divided down the middle, both the wood and the land in which the villeins had dwelt and which belongs to the wood and by the king's

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 128 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

command a hedge was made through the middle and we kept our share and William his. As to the burial rights of St. Cuthman it was decreed that they should remain unimpaired and at the king's command the bodies which had been buried at William's church were dug up by William's own men and transferred to the church of St. Cuthman for lawful burial, and Herbert the dean restored the pennies which he had received for the burials, the wakes, the tolling of the bells and all dues for the dead: he first made one of his relatives swear in his place that he had had no more. At Uckham William had taken land of Holy Trinity for his park, wherefore it was adjudged that the park should be destroyed; and it was destroyed so that the land remained unimpaired. As to the warren which he had made on the land of Holy Trinity, the same judgment, that it was to be destroyed, was given, and it was destroyed. As to the toll which he took at his bridge from the men of Holy Trinity, it was adjudged that it should not be given since it was never given in the time of King Edward and by the king's command what had been received there was restored, the tollman swearing that he had not received more. As to the ships which go up the river to the port of St. Cuthman 1 , it was adjudged that they should be quit for twopence, going up and down stream, unless they made another market at William's castle.2 It was adjudged that the road which he had made on Holy Trinity's land was to be destroyed and it was destroyed. As to the ditch which had been made to bring water to the castle, it was adjudged that it should be filled up and it was filled up and the land remained unimpaired. As to the marsh, it was decreed that it should remain the abbey's up to the hill and all around and the saltpits. The eighteen gardens were adjudged to be Holy Trinity's. As to the toll which is taken throughout the week, it was fully adjudged to the saint, saving William's half on the Saturday. All this had remained quit and free to the church of F&camp and for all these incursions William has given his gage in the king's hand, as being at his mercy. The following barons have seen this fine: the king's sons William and Henry, Archbishops Lanfranc and Thomas, Bishops William of Durham, Walkelin of Winchester, Remigius of Lincoln, Geoffrey of Coutances, Robert of Chester, Robert of Hereford, Osmund of Salisbury and Maurice of London. The Counts Robert of Mortain, Alan Rufus and Roger de Montgomery. The Barons Richard the son of Count Gilbert, Baldwin his brother, Roger Bigod, Henry de Ferrers, Bernard de Neufmarch6, William of Eu, Hugh de Port, Richard Goiz, Eudo the steward, Robert the dispenser, Robert fitz Tetbald, William de Percy, Robert de Rhuddlan, Nigel de Torp, Roger de Courcelles, Alvred de Lincoln, William de Falaise and Henry de Beaumont. The Abbots Serlo of Gloucester and Turstin of Glastonbury. The monks of Holy Trinity, the brothers William and Raher and Bernard fitz Ospac. The laymen William Malconduit, Geoffrey his brother, Sotriz, Leviet, Richard de Bodes and Geroldin. 163A

o[Steyning in the rape of Bramber, co. Sussex.]0 2 0[Bramber castle in the rape of Bramber, co. Sussex.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 129 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. Notice of a plea held in the court of King William II between the monks of Saumur and Philip de Braose on one hand and the monks of Fcamp on the other concerning the parish rights belonging to St. Cuthman (Steyning) in Bramber castle, Beeding and Bidlington. After Count Robert de Meulan has testified that the right of F~camp in Steyning had been proved in the court of King William I (see A), the monks of Saumur are ordered to restore what they had received since the latter's death. King William II sends writs to this effect to his justiciars in England. At Foucarmont a plea was held in the court of King William the younger between the monks of Saumur and Philip de Braose on various matters which are set out below. Among other things which the monks of Saumur claimed against Philip de Braose and the church of F~camp was the parish pertaining to St. Cuthman in the castle of Steyning, in Beeding and in Bidlington. Abbot William the third [of F~camp] was present at the plea and recognized this and Count Robert de Meulan testified for the abbot and monks that the whole parish of St. Cuthman and all that belongs to it was deraigned in the court of King William the elder as belonging to the church of Fcamp without any claim from anybody. And since Philip was present and did not contradict this but conceded it and the monks of Saumur did the same, it was agreed and adjudged that the monks of Saumur should restore to the church of Fcamp whatever they had received since the death of the king, in tithes, burial rights, offerings and in all other things that belong to the church of St. Cuthman. But as this was being postponed, the king sent sealed letters to his justiciars of England, i.e. Ralph, bishop of Chichester, Ranulf the chaplain, Hamo the steward and Urse de Abitot, in which he ordered them to see to it that the church of Holy Trinity should have the whole parish of St. Cuthman and the tithes, the bodies and all the customs from the living and from the dead, as they belonged to the church of St. Cuthman before William de Braose had the castle of Bramber and to make the monks of Saumur restore whatever they had taken from those customs. In this plea the following judges sat on behalf of the king: Robert count of Meulan, Eudo the steward, William Giffard the chancellor, William de Warelwast and William fitz Oger. On behalf of Holy Trinity the following were present: Abbot William, Prior Hugh, Roger Bainard, Raher, Philip de Braose, Fulbert the archdeacon, Roger fitz Gerold, Geoffrey Martel, William Grenet, Ingelrand, Richard de la Mare, Odo fitz Ansger, William Malconduit and many others.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 130 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

C. Writ of King William II to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, Hamo the steward and Urse de Abitot, ordering them to cause the abbey of Fecamp to have its rights in Bramber castle and Beeding according to the above judgment given in the king's court against the monks of Saumur and Philip de Braose. Hugh de Bocland is to enforce the said judgment. William, king of the English, to Ranulf, bishop of Durham and Hamo the steward and Urse de Abitot, greeting. I order that you cause Holy Trinity of F&camp and its abbot and monks to have all their rights and customs in the castle of Steyning and at Beeding and their parish, both the living and the dead and the offerings and tithes, as they have deraigned all this in the court of my father and my own against the monks of St. Florent of Saumur and against Philip, the son of William de Braose. And see to it that whatever the aforesaid monks have taken there shall be restored and send Hugh de Bocland to do this justice and see to it that I hear no complaint thereon for default of justice. Witness: the count of Meulan. At Lillebonne.

D. Concord between William, abbot of Fcamp, and Philip de Braose in the court of King Henry I concerning eighteen burgage-tenures in Steyning which F1camp had deraigned against William de Braose, Philip's father, in the time of William the Conqueror. Philip had seized them, and now consents to hold them of the abbot in fee. The concord also concerns various other rights which had been dealt with in previous pleas (see above A, B, C). In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1103, on 13 January, the octave of Epiphany, at Salisbury, William the third abbot of F~camp and Philip de Braose made a concord in the presence of Henry, the glorious king of the English, his wife Matilda, beloved of God, and numerous barons, in this way. There were eighteen burgesses whom William, Philip's father had seized in Steyning in the demesne of the saint and whom the abbot had proved to be his and recovered by a judgment of the king and the barons, in the presence of King William the elder, and of whom he was seised on the day when that king was alive and dead until, after the king's death, Philip seized them again, committing violence against the church of Fcamp. Finally, forced by the claims of the abbot and the assertions of the truth, he confessed that he held them unjustly and sinfully and accepted them from the abbot in fee and he became the abbot's man for them and did fealty to him and the church of F~camp. He also received in fee the warren on the understanding that the monk of Steyning and the men belonging to his household shall hunt rabbits in Philip's warren as well as in the abbot's and if one of the other men of Holy Trinity commits a forfeiture in the warren, Philip will make a complaint to the monk or his official and the monk will accept the forfeiture, leaving no part of it to Philip. If however, some stranger is found there who invokes his authority, he shall be led to him and if he recognizes him as being one of his men, he will deal with him,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 131 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

otherwise Philip will deal with him as a trespassing stranger. Whenever the abbot is in the province he shall be free to send his familiars to hunt rabbits in both warrens, Philip's and his own and whatever is caught in the forest will quietly belong both to the abbot and Philip, each having his own. As to the ships which cannot pass the bridge because of the obstructions, it was understood and agreed that the bridge will be constructed in such a way that the ships can freely pass under it upstream and downstream and be quit by paying the custom which existed in the time of King Edward. And if this aforesaid construction of the bridge is slowed down, the coming and going ships shall be quit by paying the same custom to the castle of Philip as to the port of St. Cuthman. As to the parish of St. Cuthman, which had been invaded in the castle of Philip and in Beeding, it was agreed and adjudged that it also should remain quietly and freely to Holy Trinity and the church of F6camp, concerning the living and the dead and all customs that pertain to the parish, as it was before the Normans took England and in the time of King Edward. It should be known, however, that everything which Philip has received from the abbot in view of peace and concord of the demesne of the church of Fbcamp will be left to the church of Holy Trinity of F6camp, if he should die without a legitimate heir or forfeit his land or leave for somebody else's land. As to the toll which the men of Philip unjustly received from the men of Steyning and those who belonged to that manor, the abbot made a claim to the king in the hearing of Philip after reference had been made to what had been done concerning that toll at Laycock in the presence of William the elder and his barons, but as Philip replied that he was ignorant of all this, a day was set by the king at the Purification of St. Mary for the deraignment or the giving up of that toll, and since he had not appeared on that day, judgment was given by the king and the barons that since Philip did not come or send a man in his place, the toll was to remain quietly and forever to Holy Trinity, as it had been deraigned in the time of King William that it ought to be. All this I, Henry, by God's grace king of the English, grant, confirm with the sign of my authority and corroborate with the impression of my seal. I, Queen Matilda, grant and confirm. The following barons were present: Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Roger of Salisbury, John of Bath, Roger fitz Hamo and his brother Hamo, Eudo the steward, Richard de Redvers, Roger Bigod, Humphrey de Bohun, William d'Aubigny, Gilbert fitz Richard, Roger de Nonant, Waldric the chancellor, Henry de Port, Payn Peverel and Walter fitz Ansger. On Holy Trinity's side: Abbot William, the monks Roger, Robert, Hugh and Hulric, John the bishop's son, John de S&ez, Helgot the archdeacon, Herbert de Ros, Geoffrey Martel, William Malconduit, Richard of Bayeux, the king's champion, Magnus the Bald, Theobald de Wimo and his brother Judicael, Hoel and his son, William, Ingelram, Geoffrey fitz Odo, Ralph Aforeillun, Robert Grislon, Robert fitz Wimund, Simon de Conteville, Girald, Richard de North, Witsi, Sotriz, Turbert, Martin, Gilbert

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 132 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the clerk. On Philip's side: his brother Robert, the son of Anketil, Geoffrey, William de Lancing, Ralph de Lyminster, Ralph de Pennybridge, Turstin the Fleming, Gilbert de Saint-Ouen, Ralph de Gumay, Ordwin and Alvieth.'

164 Three cases are decided in one day in the court of the abbot of Abingdon. William, the king's chamberlain, admits that he owes him the service of one knight for his tenure, called Lea, Joscelin de Rivers admits that he owes the service of three knights for land at Beedon and William de Jumi6ges quitclaims land at Chieveley, obtained unjustly from Abbot Reginald. Near the town of Abingdon there is a tenure of one knight called Lea, which was held by William, the king's chamberlain' from London, but he refused to do knight service or homage to the lord Abbot Faritius on his becoming abbot. In the meantime King Henry mobilized the whole kingdom against his brother Robert, the count of Normandy, who was invading England with an army. As the abbot demanded that William should send a knight and incurred an impolite refusal, which he suffered with prudence, he sent another knight, as required, in his stead. After the king had concluded peace with his brother, the abbot produced witnesses that this land owed a knight's service already in the time of King William and Abbot Adelelm and that this service had now clearly been withheld from the reigning King Henry who needed it. The abbot caused the case to be discussed in the presence of wise men for so long that William the chamberlain denied neither point and was even forced to admit that such was the true situation. After it had been decided according to the law of the country that he should rightly be deprived of the tenement, the abbot, urged by the good men who were present, gave back the land to William on the understanding that he became his man, gave him ten pounds by way of amends and owed him the service of one knight in all places where the other men of the church did knight's service and also that he should sell that land to nobody nor give it in gage or in fee or in fee-farm. He must allow the abbot's men in the neighbourhood to let their cattle graze in his land as in the time of Abbot Adelelm and for the meadows William is entitled to those customs from the abbot, which his predecessors had in the time of Abbot Adelelm and the latter's predecessors. This was done before the following witnesses: Nigel de Oilly, Hugh de Bocland, William the sheriff, Ralph Basset and many others. On that same day 163D

164

' o[See V.C.H. Sussex, i. 351; V.C.H. Sussex, ii. 60; D.C. Douglas, The Domesday monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury,London, 1944, 53; D. Matthew, The Norman monasteries and their English possessions, Oxford, 1962, 20-21, 38-40.]' o[William the chamberlain occurs from 1101 1102 onwards (Regesta ii, no. 599).10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 133 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Abbot Faritius also deraigned the service of one knight for Beedon against Joscelin de Rivers: the latter maintained that he owed no more than two knights for the service which he held from the church, but the abbot and his men said that he owed three. He finally pledged to do rightful service to the abbot and confirmed and fully conceded that he owed and would in future do the service of three knights. This was done in the chamber of Abingdon before Abbot Faritius and many witnesses. On that same day when the aforesaid case was completed and before the same witnesses William of Jumifges gave back and quitclaimed to Abbot Faritius five hides of land in a place called Bradley in the vill of Chieveley, which Abbot Reginald had unjustly given him, because they were of the demesne, and he also gave up to the abbot all that was on that land.

165 Writ of King Henry I ordering that if Joscelin de Rivers claims anything in the land of Abingdon Abbey at Hill, he is to appear in the court of the abbot.

Henry, king of England, to Henry, earl of Warwick, and William the sheriff,' greeting. If Joscelin claims anything in the land of St. Mary of Abingdon at Hill, I

order that the said Joscelin shall go to the court of the abbot and there the abbot himself shall do him right and I forbid the said abbot to answer the said Joscelin in any other place concerning this dispute. Witnesses: Waldric the chancellor and Grimbald the physician. At Westminster, at Christmas.

166 In a general confirmation to the monks of Durham, King Henry I specifically mentions two carrucates of land which they have deraigned against Fulk de Lusors in the king's court on the basis of oaths of the men of the county.

Henry, king of England, to Ralph de Aincourt and William de Luvetot and all his lieges of Nottinghamshire, greeting. Know that I will and grant that the monks of Durham shall hold and have their lands and customs and all their things of Nottinghamshire as well and honourably as they best and most quietly held them in the time of my father and my brother and my own, inside and outside the borough and as I ordered and granted them by my writs. And namely two

165 1 '[William (de Cahagnes?), sheriff of Warwickshire (1100-1107?).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 134 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

carrucates of land which they deraigned in my court against Fulk de Lusors and as the men of the county have sworn and for 4 s. per year and no more. And the cattle which he has taken shall quickly be restored. Witness: Nigel d'Aubigny. At Woodstock.

167 Sworn inquest in the hundred of Andover ordered by King Henry I concerning the rights of Andover Priory. Concerning all these [lands] and the houses of the monks which were built next to the church Alvric, the reeve of Andover, caused the monks many injuries to such an extent that Wihenoc, a monk of St. Florence [at Saumur] complained to King Henry. Thereupon the king ordered Henry, the sheriff of Hampshire and Gerald, the reeve of Winchester to call together the hundred of Andover and to inquire from it what belonged to that church, and this was done. The hundred, called together according to the command of the king, agreed at once and wanted to swear upon relics that the forementioned possessions belonged to the church of Andover from the time of King Edward and that the land of the church is so free and quit of all claim that if some man has done some wrong, no matter what man he is, and can come to the land of the saint without constraint of anyone's power, the justice and the correction shall belong to the monks, except for the bodily punishment of thieves, which belongs to the king. The hundred agreed on this matter in the house of Edwin, the old reeve on the feast of St. Lucy and the following are witnesses: Wihenoc the monk and Hervey and Peter and among laymen Henry de Port, Gerald the reeve, William de Virguel and Robert his brother and Nidulf, Hugh de Cormeilles, Robert, Ralph de Foscote and Edward, William de Enham, Bernard the forester, Wulfun de Clafford. Dunard the chaplain, Segar the cleric.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 135 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

168 Notification by King Henry I that Abbot Richard of Ely has established in the king's court against Bishop Ranulf of Durham that the manor of Hadham is demesne land of Ely.

Henry, king of the English, to Maurice, bishop of London and Hugh de Bocland, sheriff of Hertfordshire and all his lieges, clerics and laymen, greeting. Know that Richard, abbot of Ely, has deraigned in my court at Romsey before me and my barons against Ranulf, bishop of Durham, that the manor of Hadham is demesne of St. Peter and the blessed virgin of God Etheldreda of Ely and of the brethren, i.e. the monks who serve God there. I will and command therefore that the abbey of Ely shall hold and have in demesne the aforesaid manor of Hadham quietly and without any claim from now until eternity. Witnesses: Robert, bishop of Lincoln, William Giffard, bishop of Winchester, John, bishop of Bath, Ralph, bishop of Chichester, Waldric the chancellor, Drogo the chaplain,' Everard the chaplain son of the earl [of Shrewsbury, Roger de Montgomery], John of Bayeux the chaplain, Thomas the chaplain, Audin the chaplain, Eudo the steward, Hamo the steward, Roger Bigod, Walter fitz Richard, Robert Malet, Henry de Port, Osbert the sheriff, Robert Peche, Hugh de Bocland, Roger de Sumeri,2 Peter de Valognes, Geoffrey Ridel, Alvred de Lincoln, William Peverel of Dover, William Peverel of London, Harding fitz Alnod and Edward the chamberlain. At Romsey 3 in the fifth year of the coronation of King Henry.

169 Notification by King Henry I that Abbot Faritius of Abingdon has criminal jurisdiction over robbers caught in Abingdon.

Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Bocland and Aubrey' and all barons, French and English, of Berkshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to Faritius, abbot of St. Mary's of Abingdon, that he shall do justice concerning the priest guilty of robbery imprisoned by him in Abingdon and that he shall do justice 168

'[That the D of the ms. stands for Drogo and not David, as Salter thought, is accepted in Regesta ii, nos 684 and 687.10

2'[For this variant rather than Ouilli see Regesta ii. nos 684, 749, 775, 1307.10 3'[See R.W. Finn, Introduction to Domesday Book, New York, 1963, 61.]o

169

'

'[Aubrey de Vere, sheriff of Berkshire 1100-1105?10.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 136 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

similarly concerning his other robbers in view of the county. Witness: Roger Bigod. Through Walter Huse. At Brill.

170 Many priests having disobeyed the prohibition of association with women, promulgated at the council of London (of A.D. 1102), King Henry I instructs his ministers to institute proceedings against them. When this does not produce the expected amounts of money, various other methods of extortion are applied. In the council of London, as we have said above, all priests and canons in England were prohibited from association with women and this prohibition had during Anselm's 1 absence in exile been disobeyed by very many of them, who had never parted from their women or, if they had, had taken them back again. Accordingly the king, not willing to let this sin go unpunished, instructed his agents to institute proceedings against them and to take their money by way of expiation of this sin. But, when very many of them were found innocent of this offence, the money, which was in fact being sought for the prince's needs, did not yield so large an amount as his collectors had had reason to expect. So the ruling was altered or rather was turned right round so as to include the innocent with the guilty, and all churches which had parishes were put under contribution and each having a certain sum of money charged upon it was ordered to effect its redemption by payment made through the person who served God in that church. So everywhere was a spectacle of misery. While the blast of this campaign of extortion was raging and quite a number, who had either nothing to give or detesting such unprecedented procedure refused to give anything for such a cause, were being ignominiously seized, imprisoned and tortured, just then the king happened to be coming to London. Thereupon about two hundred priests, so it is said, joined together and arrayed in their albs and priests' stoles, walking barefoot, met him as he was going to his palace and implored him with one voice to take pity on them. But he, his mind distracted perhaps, as does happen, by many other concerns, untouched with any pity at their prayers, or at any rate in some way considering them as men devoid of any religion, undeserving of the courtesy of an answer, ordered them to be be quickly driven from his sight. Thereupon, covered with confusion upon confusion, they went to the queen and implored her to intervene. She, it is said, was so touched with sympathy that she dissolved into 2 tears, but was too frightened to intervene. 170 1 0[Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, was in exile from 1103 till 1107.]0 2 o[See C.N.L. Brooke, "Gregorian reform in action: clerical marriage in England, 1050-1200", Cambr. Hist. Journal,xii (1956), 1-21. Our transl. taken from G. Bosanquet, Eadner's History of Recent Events in England, London, 1964, pp. 105-106.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 137 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

171 Writ of King Henry I confirming the land of Winkfield to the abbey of Abingdon and commanding that the claim of Godric the reeve be stayed. Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Bocland and Godric and the barons of Berkshire, French and English, greeting. I will and command that the church of St. Mary of Abingdon shall have and hold its land of Winkfield with all appurtenances as well and honourably and in firm peace as it best held it in the time of my father and my brother. And I order that the plaint which Godric, the reeve of Windsor, makes on that land concerning the hedge, be stayed completely and forever. Witnesses: Roger Bigod and Grimbald, the physician. At Northampton.

172 Sworn inquest held in the county court at York at the king's command by royal justices concerning the liberties and customs of the cathedral of York and dependent minsters. A. The notification by the chapter of York Cathedral. To all sons of Mother Church, the most humble chapter of St. Peter of York, greeting and prayers in the Lord.' Let all those who receive this letter know that 172A

This letter is, perhaps, the most interesting of all the documents in the White Book, as it preserves one of the most ancient records of the chapter of York, showing the ancient privileges of the archbishop and canons dating from pre-Norman times, which probably became a model for the later foundations of Lincoln and Salisbury, as well as the sister churches of Beverley, Southwell, and Ripon. Unfortunately the letter itself is not dated, but it was possibly written to assist the chapter of Southwell in view of Quo Warranto proceedings in the reign of Edward III, third and fifth year of his reign (A.D. 1330-1333), printed at pp. 615, 636, 648 in Placita de quo Warranto (Record Commission), 1818. In these proceedings the chapter and the canons were called on to show title to their privileges and jurisdictions. Until that time it would seem that Southwell possessed no separate charter, but merely general charters, giving them the same privileges as the church of York. After the case had resulted favourably to Southwell, a special charter was granted by the king reciting the proceedings and confirming the privileges established. The letter recites fully the proceedings (in the nature of the later Quo Warranto cases) which took place in the reign of Henry I, A.D. 1106, when the privileges of York were challenged by royal officers. A good many of the actual privileges established were recited, but not so fully, in Henry I's charter to York Minster, itself recited in a charter of Henry III given at Portsmouth A.D. 1253 (White Book, p. 15), and again in an Inspeximus Charter of Edward II, from which it is printed in Placitorum Abbreviatio (Record Commission), p. 334. Dugdale also prints Henry I's charter under "York Cathedral", vol. vi., p. 1180, from Abp. Greenfield's Register. The part of the verdict referring to Ripon Sanctuary has been printed in Mem. Ripon, S. S. vol. 74. *[=J.T. Fowler, Memorials of the church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, I, London, 1882 (Surtees Society, lxxiv).]° Henry's charter states the customs as "under ancient kings and archbishops, and what most will remember under King Edward and Archbishop Ealdred". It seems to have been given very soon after the inquiry of 1106, as Bloet, Basset, and Ridel are witnesses.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 138 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

those are the customs and liberties of the church of St. Peter which were given long ago by King Athelstan and preserved reverently by his successors and confirmed by apostolic privileges. In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1106 when Osbert first was sheriff of York he wanted, by pleading, to deprive the church of St. Peter and the whole archbishopric of all the good customs which they had held of old and to make them injurious to them. As [Arch]bishop Gerard 2 had complained to the king, the king sent Bishop Robert of Lincoln, 3 Ralph Basset,4 Geoffrey Ridel, Ranulf le Meschin and Peter de Valognes 5 to York to inquire there which were the customs of the church of St. Peter. Having convoked the county court they asked the wisest Englishmen of that city by the fealty which they owed the king to say the truth about those customs, viz. Uttreth 6 son of Alwin, 7 Gamel son of Swartecol, Gamel son of Grim, Norman the priest, William son of Ulf, Frenger the priest, Uttreth son of Turkil, Norman son of Basing, Turstin son of Turmot, Gamel son of Ormi,8 Morcar son of Ligulf 9 and Ulvet son of Forno, the city's lawmen by hereditary right (which in Latin could be rendered as lawgiver or judge); and there was a foreman who spoke before them, and Ansketil de Bulmer, at that time reeve of the North Riding, was interpreter. We all remember and testify that all the land belonging to the prebends of the church of St. Peter is so quit and free that neither the king's reeve nor the sheriff nor anyone else may have right on it or take gage until the canon of that prebend has first been asked, and if that canon does not do right, the dean must be asked and he shall set a day to do right at the gate of St. Peter.

2 Gerard was a nephew of Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, connected with the Conqueror. He

I I

5

7 8

9

had been precentor at Rouen, was a witness of Henry I's charters, made bishop of Hereford, and archbishop of York A.D. 1101-1108. He died while sleeping in the garden of his palace at Southwell; on monkish authority, by no means in the odour of sanctity, because a book of astrology or astronomy was found under his pillow. Robert Bloet, brother of Hugh, bishop of Bayeux, chancellor to William the Conqueror, made bishop by William Rufus 1094, was justiciary to Henry I. Ralph Basset was justiciary under Henry I, and the first of a great legal family. He is said to have hung at one time at Hundehoge in Herts, in 1124, forty-two thieves. He and Geoffrey Ridel, who was drowned in the White Ship in 1119, were also two of the commissioners for the Winton Domesday, which was probably compiled a year or two later than this. Probably the lawman of Lincoln, Peter de Valognes, mentioned in Domesday. Freeman, Norm. Conq., iv, 213. The Danish or Northman character of the names is very marked. One is inclined to think that Normannus and Frengerus are rather adjectives than names, and mean a Norman priest or Frank priest. At all events the foreign character of their names is marked. The names of the sons of Ulf and of Basing seem to suggest that many of the English concealed their origin under Norman names. The Alwin vicecomes, of Domesday? Freeman, Norm. Conq., iv, 488. See Freeman, Norm. Conq., ii, 488 and v, 633. Is this the Ligulf, father of Morkere, whose murder is related by Freeman, Norm. Conq., iv, 671?

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 139 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

If' ° anyone captures within the close somebody who is guilty of and condemned for a crime or shameful deed and retains him, he shall by general judgment pay a fine of six hundreth, " if within the church twelve hundreth and if within the choir eighteen hundreth, on top of which each time a penance for sacrilege is to be imposed. One hundreth contains six pounds. If anyone agitated by a mad spirit presumes with devilish audacity to seize anyone in the stone chair near the altar, which the English call Frithstool,12 which means the chair of quiet or peace, for so atrocious a sacrilege amends are within no judgment, and can be ended by no amount of money, and it is called among the English boteless, which means without amends. Those amends however in no way belong to the archbishop but to the canons only. The canons 3 were called the household of St. Peter and the land of the canons St. Peter's own table. Consequently if any wrong is done in the church or in the churchyard or in the houses of the canons or on their lands either by the canons against each other or against other people or by other people against the canons or against other people, then no forfeiture shall be adjudged to the archbishop but the whole to the canons. The archbishop, however, has this right only in the possessions of the canons that when a canon dies he grants the prebend to another, but not even so without the counsel and the agreement of the chapter. If the archbishop has wronged the pope or the king and needs money to make amends and pacify them, the canons shall, however, give nothing to the archbishop against 14 their will, nor shall the possessions of the canons and their men be taken in gage for the archbishop's misdeed or debt. The canons have in their houses and lands soke and sake, toll and team and infangthief, 5 "in-toll" and "out-toll" and all the same customs of honour and liberty which the king himself has in his lands and which the archbishop himself holds from the Lord God and from the king. Furthermore nobody from the land of the canons of St. Peter is bound to service of wapentake-moot, riding-moot or shire-moot, but the plaintiff and the defendant shall receive or do right before the door of St. Peter's Minster: this way of doing suit to the aforesaid pleas and of

10Henry I'scharter,

as recited by Henry III, begins with these words. °[MONASTICON vi,p. 1180

no. xxxi. - Regesta ii, no. 1083.] 11 Drake, in his Eboracum, p. 548, ed. 1736

0[=F.

Drake, Eboracum or the history and antiquities

of the city of York, London, 1736, has made an odd mistake in translating this passage: "the person that takes him shall make amends by the universal judgment of the hundred, who shall give damages for the same" 12 The Saxon Frithstool still remains at Beverley and at Hexham, inboth places lately replaced near the high altar. 13 This paragraph is obscure. It very probably means "the canons were called the household of St. Peter and their lands his table". But if so the "in" is untranslated. 14"Namum" or "namium" from a word akin to German "nehmen", to take, i.e. distress; security taken. 15The right of seizing and hanging or beheading a thief. In Henry's charter it is spelt "infangenetheof"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 140 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

holding them was arranged 6 by religious leaders and good ancestors. And if anyone gives or sells some land to St. Peter, nobody shall thereafter claim soke or sake, toll or team in it, but it shall enjoy the same customs as other land of St. Peter, so great is the honour and reverence which our ancestors showed to the church of the holy prince of the apostles, and finally the land of St. Peter is quit and free of all custom and exaction. When, however, the king assembles the army one man only shall be equipped from the whole land of the canons, with the standard of St. Peter who, if the burgesses go to the army, shall precede them as leader and standardbearer and if the burgesses do not go, he will not go either. 7 If a homicide or thief or criminal or outlaw takes refuge in the church of St. Peter to protect his life and limbs, he shall enjoy peace there for the duration of thirty days. If within that period they cannot reconcile the man with those whom he has wronged, the clerics can bring him within those 30 days to any place the malefactor chooses, up to 30 miles away, with some emblem of peace of the church and with relics, and if anyone breaks the peace against them within the aforesaid space he shall be guilty of a breach of the peace of the church, i.e. one hundreth and in this way they can take him, i.e. the malefactor, three times and bring him back. If, however, somebody living amongst evil people wants to break away from their company and comes to the church of St. Peter preferring to live there in peace rather than to stay with criminals, he can according to the custom of the church be in peace there as long as he likes and if anyone wants to leave for some urgent reason he can, accompanied by the canons and the sign of peace of the church, peacefully go to a neighbouring church which enjoys the same liberty of peace, viz. the church of St. John the Baptist in Beverley, the church of St. Wilfrid in Ripon, of St. Cuthbert in Durham and the church of St. Andrew in Hexham. And the aforesaid churches have the same fine for breach of the peace, but the church of St. John in Beverley has one mile around it free and quit of all royal custom, all payment of money and all the geld which is paid to the king throughout the whole of England. If anyone commits a breach of the peace from the beginning of that mile to the cross of King Athelstan, he shall be guilty of one hundreth, from 16 In Henry's charter here is inserted "quatinus canonici placitantes, pulso signo, ad horas canonicas cito possint regredi. Archiepiscopo vero per senascallos suos et milites suos facilius erat" &c. Doubtless the copyist omitted by mistake this pleasing picture of the canons in court adjourning to choir for service. 17 Henry I's charter ends here, except that there is added a clause which, if genuine, and not a later invention, goes to prove the existence (hitherto denied) in England, before the Conquest, at least in Edward the Confessor's reign, of the judicial duel. "Hanc igitur consuetudinem sive dignitatem habent canonici Sancti Petn ab antecessoribus regibus, nominatim quorum a rege Edwardo, concessam et confirmatam, ut nullus de familia regis, vel de exercitu ejus in propriis domibus canonicorum, nec in civitate, nec extra hospitetur. Ubicunque sit duellum Ebor. juramenta debent fieri super textum, vel super reliquias Sancti Petri; et facto duello, victor arma victi ad ecclesiam Sancti Petri offerebat, gratias a Deo et Sancto Petro pro victoria." Then comes another short clause to the effect that whenever the canons or their men sue in the king's pleas their claim is to be determined before every case, so far as it can be determined saving the dignity of the Church.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 141 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Athelstan's cross to the churchyard three hundreth, who commits breach of the peace in the churchyard six hundreth and within the church twelve hundreth, and if within the choir he shall lose all his goods and his body will be in danger, without any possibility of satisfaction by paying money. The same applies to the similar liberty in the mile around the church of St. Wilfrid in Ripon: from its beginning to the churchyard the violator of the peace shall be guilty of three hundreth, in the churchyard six and in the choir as we have said above about the others. Moreover at the three feasts 18 and at Pentecost all those who come to the feasts from their homes shall have peace, coming and returning and if anyone breaches the peace against them he shall be guilty of one hundreth. Similarly at the feast of St. John the Baptist and of St. John the Confessor and the feast of the dedication of the church at Beverley in the same way and also at the two feasts of St. Wilfrid those who come and go shall have peace and whoever breaches it then, a mile coming and a mile returning, shall be guilty of one hundreth for breach of the peace. That land, however, which the archbishop has in the city of York must be as quit and free of all customs to the archbishop's advantage as the king's demesne is to the king, and if merchants, wherever they come from, want to stay in the archbishop's land, they are not to be hindered by the king's reeve or anyone else and if they have given the custom to the archbishop's ministers on the archbishop's land, they shall be free to leave where they will. Moreover, at Walmgate and at Fishergate whosesoever the land is, the third part of the revenue ought to be the archbishop's in pleas, toll, house-tax and all custom and all the toll in Clementhorpe from, all the ships that arrive there and below as far as the archbishop's land extends shall belong to the archbishop, as also the whole custom of fish from both sides of the water. 9 Moreover, in the manor of Sherburn there ought to be a reeve who attends the shire, the riding and the wapentake, and if anyone from the territory of that manor is charged there he must offer right there for him and also do right in the manor according to the archbishop's custom: through that reeve and his appearance in those pleas the men in his territory ought to be left in peace. However, that reeve ought to have respite and not to go to the shire or other pleas in the period between the day on which he first starts to prepare the archbishop's manor-house and the eighth day after the archbishop's departure and if in that period, as long as the archbishop stays at the manor, some charge is brought concerning the men of that manor, the charged person ought to be quit through the pledge of that reeve until eight days after the departure of the archbishop from the manor. And if the reeve stays away from the shire or other pleas without showing an evident reason, he

Viz., probably of St. Peter in Cathedra, 22 February, St. Peter the Apostle, 29 June, and St. Peter ad Vincula, 1 Aug. '9 The Ouse. '8

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 142 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

shall the first time pay the fine20of one ox, the second time 5 s. 4 d. and the third time half a forfeiture, i.e. 10 ores. The manor of Beverley, which pertains to it, also has this custom and the other manors of the whole archbishopric. And the archbishop's steward, if he is in the shire, acquits all the reeves of the manors by performing that which the reeves 21 would do if they were present.

B. Reference made to the inquest of 1106 during an inquest held in the thirteenth year of King Henry III before royal justices concerning litigation between the sheriff of York and the bailiff of the archbishop of York on the one hand, and the chapter of Ripon on the other. Asked by the justices how they know whatever is so expressed, the jurors say on their oath that they never saw the said church and the aforesaid chapter be without seisin of the aforesaid liberties and that it appeared also that they had the aforesaid liberties and customs from an inquisition made at York on the Tuesday after the feast of the translation of St. Thomas in the year of the Lord 1106, the sixth year of the reign of King Henry, the brother of William, the Conqueror's son, before the bishop of Lincoln and other justices appointed at the king's command and at the request of the archbishop of York, the dean and chapter of the church of St. Peter of York and the chapter of St. Wilfrid at Ripon. And they similarly know that this is true because for a long time after the Conquest it was usual to give the manors to justices in almost all cases where this is so now and neither then nor ever before did any sheriff do any execution when anything happened, but only the bailiffs of the said chapter dealt with the aforesaid liberties after something happened, except recently when the bailiffs of the same archbishop started to execute mandates of this sort by usurpation and this has happened for some time. And the church itself, the chapter, the canons and their men and the liege men of St. Wilfrid are and have been from the time of King Athelstan until now quit of toll, pontage, pavage, passage, thurgholt, toll paid by travellers' and any other payments by land or by water, in markets and fairs throughout all the land under the king's rule, on condition that they have the sign of the chapter that they are lieges of St. Wilfrid. And all men should in this connection be believed on whatever matter on their 20 The

21

Rev. W. Hunt refers me to Chron. de Abingdon, ii, 30, 131. Rolls Edn. where hora or ora means a number of pennies, viz., 16. Ten times that sum being a mark, that isprobably the sum meant here rather than 20 d., the value of the ora in some places in Domesday. See Ducange under ora. 0[See also Latham, Word-list, 324 where ora is rendered as an ounce of silver.]0 The archbishops, like the kings, seldom stayed more than a few days in the same place. Their trains ate up the provisions of the country at such a pace that they could not be provided for

long. Hence the large number of manor-houses possessed by them were not so much a luxury as a necessity. 172B ' Pedage is a payment for safely passing through any district; thurgholt seems to be something of the same kind, through-toll.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 143 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

"nay" and on their "yea" as far as speaking, proving or defending truthfully or falsely is concerned, except for the assizes of the country on tenures and the inquisitions on life and limbs. And the aforesaid land and its fiefs and men shall be as quit of all gelds and services to the lord king and the suits of assizes, shires, ridings and wapentakes as the demesne lands of the lord king himself, as was shown above by inquisition.'

173 The inhabitants of Yarmouth eject the chaplain of St. Nicholas by force. Upon complaint by Bishop Herbert of Norwich, who built the church, King Henry I orders Roger Bigod, sheriff of Norfolk, to restore it to the bishop, but the execution of this order leads to a riot. There was at that time, however, on the beach at Yarmouth, a certain tiny chapel built in which divine services were only celebrated during the season of the herring fishery, for there were not there more than four or five small houses provided for the reception of the fishermen. The aforesaid bishop besought King Henry for a licence to build on the same sands a church. The desired licence being asked for and secured, he built a church there, placing therein a chaplain to celebrate divine service always; and he provided the necessary equipment from his own possessions. And after a time, those coming from the adjoining ports turned out the said chaplain by force and arms, thinking to force their will on the same church. Hearing which, the aforesaid bishop directed letters to the king concerning the injury done to him by the men of the ports in these parts. The king was at that time in Normandy and, having heard the aforesaid, directed letters to Roger Bigod guardian of Norfolk. The latter, desiring to carry out the command of the king directed to him, got together men of the county in order that he might restore to the said bishop the church of Yarmouth and, if necessary, drive out with force the men of the ports therefrom. The men of the ports resisted with force of arms and in the conflict which followed certain were killed by the sword and the remainder put to flight. And the bishop, restored by Roger Bigod anew to the possession of the said church, then gave at the same time and granted to his monks of Norwich the aforementioned church of Yarmouth and the church of St. Leonards with the chapel of St. Michael.' 2 °[T.S. Gowland, "'The manors and liberties of Ripon", The Yorkshire ArchaeologicalJournal,

part cxxv, vol. xxxii (1936), 46 and RIPON Memorials, 51.]O 173 ' o[V.C.H. Norfolk, ii, 330; B. Dodwell, "The foundation of Norwich cathedral". Transactionsof the Royal HistoricalSociety, 7 (fifth series) (1957), 10: J.W. Alexander, "Herbert of Norwich", Studies in Medieval andRenaissance HistorY, vi (1969), 138. We have almost invariably followed the translation in NORWICH First Reg. 31, 33]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 144 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

174 Case of the monk Geoffrey of Saint-Calais, custodian of Battle Abbey during the vacancy, against Robert de Chilton, reeve of the abbey in the manor of Wye, concerning the latter's administration. A conflict of jurisdiction arises involving the manorial court, the county court and the honorial court. The barons of Battle give judgment in the court of the abbey against the reeve. When he visited the church's principal manor, Wye, which a servant of the late abbot, one Robert, surnamed "de Chilton", had charge of, he found it entirely fragmented. 1 He began to question this manager as to the reasons, and to demand an account of his management.' The man retorted that he had satisfied his lord, now dead, and would not agree to summoning witnesses therefore. At last the procurator charged him in the court of the manor as one manifestly guilty. However, the manager was there backed by the force of the county nobles whom he had brought with him, and he totally refused to come to an equitable agreement. Therefore the procurator of the church summoned him in the king's name, along with his supporters who were present, to appear at the court of Battle on a named day. After much dispute they made no positive reply, and they parted on this note. On the named day, the pleaders, namely Fulbert of Chilham,3 Robert Fillel,4 Hamo fitz Vitalis,5 and Broier, a priest,6 and a number of other barons 174 1 Wye was particularly easily broken up, since like many Kentish manors it was made up of separated and probably enclosed tenementa, as well as distant members, such as Dengemarsh, itself already becoming a separate manor in the twelfth century. S.R. Scargill-Bird, Custumals of Battle Abbey, Camden Soc. N.S. xli (1887), 101 136. H. Muhlfeld, A Survey of the Manor of Wve (New York, 1933), esp. pp. xxxiii-xxxiv. For early precedents of the royal writ ordering an accounting see Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 188, 345-346. Robert de Chilton was a landholder at Wingham in Kent. Cal. Ch. Rolls i 316. Chilton was a hamlet in the archbishop's manor of Wingham: Du Boulay, Canterburi', p. 125. He was perhaps the Robert de Wi who witnessed a contemporary Battle charter. Hist. Mss. Comm., Third Report (1872), p. 2 2 3 . 0 2 [As appears from the preceding chapter of the Chronicon the subject of this phrase is the monk Geoffrey of Saint-Calais. He had been appointed as custodian of the abbey during the vacancy, succeeding to Vivian, a royal chaplain, who had been appointed custodian on the death of Abbot Henry. Geoffrey had started his term of office on 22 July 1102, so presumably the incident concerning Wye, the first to be mentioned in the chronicle, must have taken place in 1102 or shortly after, rather than at the end of his term in 1107, when the new abbot was appointed. although the later years cannot be excluded.]0 I.J. Sanders, English Baronies (Oxford, 1960), p. 111. Fulbert I of Dover, a Domesday tenant of Bishop Odo, was the founder of the "probable barony" of Chilham. He also held Hothfeld. He was one of the witnesses for the abbot of Battle of a charter of the late eleventh or early twelfth century. Hist. Mss. Comm., Third Report, p. 223. That charter attests the reacquisition of Battle's manor of Alciston after "plurima placita et plures contentiones", not unlike those over Wye. 4 Robert was probably a landholder in Kent. He himself cannot be traced, but a Baldwin Fillol was a knight and landholder in Kent in the early thirteenth century. Red Book, ii. 614, 622, 707. Kentish landholder, D.C. Douglas, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury (London, 1944), p. 57. Regesta, i. no. 188. 6 Bro ir is an Old Norse personal name. He acted with Fulbert of Chilham as one of the abbot's witnesses to a chirograph concerning the Alciston land plea. See above, p. 110, n. 1. The four "placitatores" were in all probability the lords to whom Robert de Chilton had let out Wye lands.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 145 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

came to the Battle court along with the aforesaid Robert, brought by the power and terror of the royal name. 7 Since it was already turning to evening, Dom Geoffrey, by conviction, albeit regretfully, put off the case till the first day of the Lord's Advent.8 For he had a custom worth remembering that, during external business which would set a precedent for the future, he would take care that not only the older brothers, but also the younger should be present,9 and the observance of the rule prohibited this from being done at so late an hour. Thus after lavish hospitality, the court was constituted and with the brothers seated around him Geoffrey addressed the men he had summoned: "My very dear lords, since you have presented yourselves to this court in response to a summons, I ask whether you have come for the purpose of pursuing and accepting justice here." They urged that they were bound to be subject to all justice done in their own county court, but not here. After much argument, Dom Geoffrey put it to them: "If therefore, as you.assert, you are not bound by pleas of justice except in your county, would you not resist the settlement of the complaint, supposing you were brought before the royal court?" "Not at all", they replied. "Well then", he said, "you cannot on that ground resist this court, for it is the king's." But they trusted to the reasoning of force and attempted to resist by actually walking out, and so he instantly commanded that the doors of the church be locked, vowing that each of them would be reported to the king if they would not subject themselves to the rights of a royal court. When they had thought over the courage of this man and the fairness of the royal distraint, finally the timid bullies subsided and declared that they would both do and receive justice there. Thereupon Dom Geoffrey expatiated upon the destruction of the manor of Wye and upon a steward unable to give an account of the estate. At last, after much bandying of words, Robert was declared guilty by the general judgment. He acknowledged the charge and, since he sincerely asked forgiveness, he was mercifully released, after it was adjudged that he pay ten pounds of silver and ten measures of wheat. After this was completed, Dom Geoffrey inquired whether the parties had any complaint against him, and when no complaint was brought by anyone, the court was dismissed. However, he committed that manor and the rest of the church's possessions to men faithful to himself and to the church entrusted to him, to be thoroughly restored, while he himself, though closely supervising the prosperity of the servants of God in every

The description would apply to a writ. None specifically concerning this case is extant, but Geoffrey could well have been using the general one issued in favour of Battle by Henry I the year before in 1101. Regesta, ii, no. 529. He could also show that the general writ had been backed up by one specifically transferring a Kentish case to the abbey court at Battle. Ibid., no. 530. But in the last analysis his power may have rested upon the fact of his being a royal agent. 8 The text isperhaps corrupt. It would make more sense in context if it read "in primum adventum diei recrastinavit": ".. .till the dawn of the next day". The custos had had enough trouble getting the Kentish barons to Battle. He could delay the hearing no longer than necessary. 9 Regula, c. 3.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 146 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

aspect, concentrated his attention on the building and buttressing of the house and on putting up a wall around the precincts.10

175 Deraignment of land by Walter Buistard against Abbot Bernard of Ramsey before one or more royal justices.

Walter Buistard has deraigned against Bernard1 before a royal justice2 half a hide of land to be held hereditarily by him and his heirs from that same Bernard in Burwell for 10 s. a year for all service and for all things belonging to that land. And that land is of the fee of the abbot of Ramsey and of Stephen des Eschalers, who holds it from the abbot. Buistard himself gave that same land to Bernard as hereditarily as he held it himself for the yearly payment of the same 10 s. And this was done before Hugh des Eschalers who well granted this and who at that time had Stephen and his land in custody, and he was there and also granted this. Witnesses: Hugh des Eschalers and Alan his steward, Rorges, Robert Martin, Robert Pedwold, Hugh fitz Alan, Gudred de Knapwell, Hervey le Moigne, Godric de Ellington, Alan de Gillinges, Jocelin le Latimer, Morin a knight of the abbot, Arnulf the chamberlain, Warin Cepel and Guy de Burwell.3

176 Robert de Montfort, charged with breach of fealty, gives up his lands to the king and leaves the country.

In the year of our Lord 1107 King Henry called his magnates together and charged Robert de Montfort' with breach of fealty. Since he knew himself to be guilty, he obtained leave to go to Jerusalem and, giving up his lands to the king, set 2 out with a number of companions. 10 '[Translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 109-113; see Knowles Monastic Order, 616 617;

Searle, Battle Abbey, 215.] 0 [Most probably Abbot Bernard, Reinald's predecessor.]' 0 2 [The version of this text in the cartulary mentions one royal justice, the version in the chronicle several.]' I [W.T. Reedy, Originsgeneral eyre, 705; Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 180.] ° 176 The hereditary constables are discussed by G.H. White in TRHS 4th ser. xxx (1948), 149-150. 0 2 [Translation from ORDERIC VITALIS History, VI, 101.10

175

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 147 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

177 Notification by King Henry I that he has confirmed the fine made in his court between Bishop Herbert of Norwich and Peter de Valognes concerning the lands of Binham and Langham. Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Herbert and Ralph de Beaufou and all his barons, French and English, of Suffolk and Norfolk, greeting. Know that I have granted the fine which Bishop Herbert and Peter de Valognes have made between them concerning Binham and Langham in my court at Norwich before me and my barons. That part of the disputed land which was ploughland on the day when my father was alive and dead, I order to remain ploughland and what was not so on that day shall in future be common pasture between Langham and Binham. Witnesses: Roger, bishop of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, Gilbert de l'Aigle, William d'Aubigny, Roger fitz Richard and his brother Gilbert, Otuer fitz Count and Simon de Moulins. At Norwich, on St. Andrew's day.

178 After a conflict arose between Abbot Hugh de Flori of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and the canons of St. Martin's priory at Dover about a prebend there, claimed by the abbot and a writ of King Henry I ordering the canons of Dover to let the abbot have his prebend was unsuccessful, the case comes before the king's court, where judgment is given in favour of the abbot. A. The writ of King Henry I to the canons of Dover.

Henry, king of the English, to the canons of Dover, greeting. I order you to let Abbot Hugh of St. Augustine's have his prebend of Dover and his community inside and outside as well and fully and honourably as his predecessor ever best and most honourably had them. And unless you do this, Haimo the steward will have it done. Witness: William, bishop of Exeter. At Windsor.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 148 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The notification by King Henry I of the judgment of his court.

Henry, king of the English, to Archbishop Anselm, the convent of canons of St. Martin's of Dover, Haimo the steward and his barons and lieges, French and English, of Kent, greeting. Know that Abbot Hugh of St. Augustine's Canterbury by the deraignment of my realm and court, has one prebend from me in the church of St. Martin of Dover as his predecessors had it from my predecessors. And I will and order that he shall have it so fully and provide for it through one canon in the church of St. Martin, as his predecessors most fully and best had it and provided for it, and whatever has been taken away there, after Hugh became abbot, shall be fully restored. Unless this is done, you Haimo shall compel the opponents. Witnesses: Roger, bishop of Salisbury and William, bishop of Exeter. At Westminster at Pentecost. 1 179 Litigation in the king's court between Abbot Peter of Gloucester and Bishop Reinhelm of Hereford concerning burial rights; an agreement is reached.

At that time there was a great dispute between the lord Abbot Peter and Bishop Reinhelm of Hereford in the presence of King Henry, the lord Archbishop Anselm, Robert count of Meulan and many bishops, abbots and magnates, at Pentecost, because of the removal of the body of Ralph fitz Asketil, which Bishop Reinhelm had forcibly taken away. And it was adjudged that the body should be dug up and restored, according to the judgment put forward by Count Robert, so as to ensure to everyone in the future the freedom of being buried after his death where he had decided during his lifetime. As all the bishops who were present gave their consent, Bishop Reinhelm gave up all claims and demands which he had against the lord Abbot Peter concerning the church of St. Peter in Hereford, except as to the ringing of the bells [of the monks] before [those of] the canons, if only the body was not disinterred. And for that reason the body was left in peace.

178B

'

The date assigned to this charter in the "Chronol. August"

'[CANTERBURY ST. AUGUSTINE'S Hist., 3010 is 1101; yet it cannot be earlier than 1107, in which year both these prelates were consecrated. '[See Richardson and Sayles, Law and Legislation, 61.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 149 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

180 Notification by King Henry I that the case between Bishop Herbert of Norwich and the monks of Thetford priory concerning the burial of the bodies of Roger Bigod and his wife, sons and barons, was settled in the king's court by the monks' quitclaim. Henry, king of the English, to all his lieges, French and English of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting. Be it known to you all and your successors that Bishop Herbert of Norwich has deraigned the bodies of Roger Bigod and his wife, sons and barons against the Cluniac monks of Thetford as follows. The monks claimed that the aforesaid bishop had buried the body of Roger Bigod at Norwich, maintaining that Roger Bigod had given himself and his wife and sons to the monastery of Thetford. The bishop replied, supported by the testimony of many of his parishioners, that before the monks came to Thetford Roger Bigod had given himself with his wife, sons and barons to the church of Norwich. It came to a judgment, but before it was given the monks admitted their injustice and asked forgiveness for unjustly harassing the bishop and quitclaimed Roger and his wife, sons and barons. This was done in the presence of King Henry, Archbishop Gerard of York, Bishop William of Winchester, Bishop William of Exeter, Bishop Robert of Chester, Robert count of Meulan, Henry earl of Warwick and other barons, who were there present at Nottingham.'

181 King Henry I confirms to the church of Durham various lands and customs which had been claimed by the Northumbrians as belonging to their county and which Bishop Ranulf deraigned in the king's court. I Henry by God's grace king of the English, son of the great King William, who succeeded to King Edward of blessed memory, give to God and St. Cuthbert and the church of Durham and Bishop Ranulf and all his successors the lands, i.e. of Burdon, Carleton and Aycliffe, which the men of Northumberland claimed against St. Cuthbert and Bishop Ranulf, maintaining that they were of their 180 1 '[Roger Bigod was the founder of the Cluniac priory of Thetford where a prior and twelve monks of Lewes were first installed, to which he had given the old cathedral building at Thetford about 1103 (Knowles, Medieval Religious Houses, 100; Knowles, Heads, 125; B. Dodwell, "The foundation of Norwich cathedral", Transactionsof the Royal HistoricalSociety, fifth series, 7 (1957), 7).]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 150 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

county, to be had quit and free forever, as St. Cuthbert best and quietly has his other lands which belong to his church. Furthermore the Northumbrians, French and English, claimed also access to the woods of St. Cuthbert between the Tees and the Tyne for hunting and the right, for one penny, of cutting in the forest of the aforesaid saint as much wood as can be carried in one cart per year. They also claimed a right to one tree, the biggest they chose in those woods, for one penny, to make a ship and similarly they claimed customs in the Tyne waters of St. Cuthbert. All these customs and their claims Bishop Ranulf has deraigned against them in the presence of myself and my barons and I grant them to God and St. Cuthbert and the church of Durham and Bishop Ranulf and all his successors completely quit and free forever. This donation was made in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1109 at Nottingham in a council of the whole of England. Witnesses: Thomas archbishop of York, Richard bishop of London, William bishop of Exeter, Robert bishop of Chester, Herbert bishop of Norwich and Hervey bishop of Ely, Gilbert abbot of Westminster, Robert count of Meulan, William de Warenne, Gilbert de l'Aigle, Nigel d'Aubigny, Robert de Lacy, Humphrey de Bohun, Robert de Brus, Geoffrey Ridel and Alvred de Lincoln.

182 Notification and confirmation by King Henry I of the deraignment by Abbot Bernard of Ramsey in the latter's court of the land of Long Stow and Girton against Pain Peverel, in the presence of a royal justice. Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Ely and the justices, sheriffs and all his lieges, French and English, of Cambridgeshire, greeting. Know that Abbot Bernard of Ramsey has deraigned in his court at St. Ives before my justice, whom I had sent, the land of Stow and Girton against Pain Peverel, who claimed to hold it from the church of Ramsey. And it was found there that he could not claim any

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 151 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

right in that land, but the land remained with the church of Ramsey and the abbot, free and quit of all claims by Pain and his successors. And I warrant this deraignment and confirm it by my charter and therefore I will and order that the church of Ramsey and the abbot shall henceforth hold it in peace and quietly and freely as the demesne of that same church, so that they shall no more answer him or anyone of his successors or anyone else who claims by him. Witnesses: Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Pain fitz John and William de Houghton. At Westminster.

183 Robert, the son of sheriff Picot of Cambridgeshire, is accused of conspiracy against King Henry I, and as he does not appear in the king's court, his barony is confiscated. But this Robert did not follow in the footsteps of his parents and was shortly accused of having conspired to kill the king and betray the kingdom.' Having been summoned on this by the glorious King Henry I, he escaped the day which had been set for him to be tried in the king's court by taking to flight. His barony went to the royal treasury according to the law of the kingdom, his house became poor under the weight of this charge and all his friends despised it and became his enemies.

184 Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury deraigns land in Ripple and Langdon against Manasser Arsic. A. The narrative in the chronicle of William Thorne. In the year of the Lord 1110 Abbot Hugh deraigned in the court of Henry I the lands of Ripple and Langdon with all appurtenances against Manasser Arsic.

183 ' '[The conspiracy of Robert Curthose against his brother Henry I in 1100-1101, see C.W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Cambridge Mass., 1920, 127 137.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 152 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. Writ of King Henry I notifying generally that abbot Hugh has won his case against Manasser Arsic. Henry, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, earls, sheriffs, barons and all his lieges, French and English, greeting. Know that Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, has deraigned in my court his lands of Ripple and Langdon with everything pertaining to them against Manasser Arsic. And I will and concede and firmly order that he shall hold them from now onwards for ever in the demesne of the church, as well and honourably as Abbot Hugh himself has ever best and most honourably and quietly held his other demesne lands. Witnesses: the bishop of Lincoln and the count of Meulan. At Windsor, at Pentecost, in the year when the king gave his daughter to the emperor.' This has been deraigned in London in the Rogation Days.2

185 In the shire court at Sutton in the presence of Hugh de Bocland, the sheriff, and many men of three shires, Abbot Faritius of Abingdon deraigns the land of Culham, after some men of Sutton have taken away some turves. Afterwards the same offence is repeated in secret, and on the order of Sheriff Hugh de Bocland justice is done to the abbot in the court of Ock Hundred. However, the abbot does not exact the full penalty from the culprit. In the tenth year' of the reign of King Henry at Sutton in the full shire court, which was sitting mainly for the case that follows, the lord Abbot Faritius and the monks of Abingdon deraigned for the church of Abingdon the land of Culham to be firm and free of all customs and all men and particularly concerning some violence which the men of the aforesaid manor of Sutton had committed there by taking turves to the benefit of the mill and the fishery of the king. In the same way as his predecessor Abbot Adelelm had protected the land of the aforesaid manor of Culham from a similar violence in the time of King William the elder and Sheriff Froger, thus also this Abbot Faritius at the date as indicated has protected it from the said violence and all customs in the presence of Hugh, the sheriff, 2 an upright 184B I '[After King Henry I had accepted, at Pentecost 1109, a proposal for the marriage of his daughter Matilda to the German King Henry V, she was sent to Germany in the next spring and the betrothal took place at Easter, i.e. 10 April 1110; the marriage followed in 1114. This writ is therefore dated at Pentecost, i.e. 29 May 1110 and the deraignment to which it refers took place at the Rogation Days, i.e. 15-18 May of that same year 1110.]o 2 '[The abbey's rights in Ripple and Langdon were confirmed by King Stephen in a writ of 11361139 (Regesta iii, no. 152, p. 56) and in a charter of Pope Alexander II of 17 April 1139 (CANTERBURY ST. AUGUSTINE's Hist., 369-372.]o 185 1 decimo regni Henrici.] The tenth regnal year of Henry I extends from 5 Aug. 1109 to 4 Aug. 01110. 2 [Hugh de Bocland, sheriff of Berkshire, 1100- 1115 ?]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 153 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and wise man, who was not only sheriff of Berkshire but of seven other counties as well - so well he was loved by the king - and in the presence of many men from the three counties who were then sitting together. After this deraignment, when nobody would have dared to repeat the same deed in public, they attempted to do it in secret. As soon as the abbot had heard this with certainty, he put the matter before Hugh de Bocland, who then governed the county of Berkshire, at whose command right was done to the church and the abbot concerning this injustice in the hundred adjacent to Sutton, the aforesaid royal vill. At that time the miller of the mill, which was situated on the river Thames to the east of the said royal manor, was called Gamel and used during the night to transport from the other side of the river from land belonging to the manor of Culham turves which he dug up in secret to repair the mill, placed in his care. As he was prosecuted in the hundred court for his misdeed, which he could not deny, and had to undergo the law, the justices of the hundred decided that he should pay a fine of five mancuses worth of pennies to the abbot and the church. This was done. But as the miller produced the mancuses in the abbot's presence, the latter only accepted one penny for each mancus, remitting the rest out of clemency. This was witnessed by all who were in the hundred court. The aforesaid five pennies the abbot ordered to be kept in the chests of the church in memory of these amends.3

186 William Baynard, guilty of felony, forfeits his barony.

William Baynard under whom the lady Juga held the manor of Little Dunmow lost his barony by misfortune and felony, and Henry, king of England, gave the whole foresaid barony to Robert son of Richard fitz Gilbert, earl of Clare and his heirs with the honour of Castle Baynard and its appurtenances in the city of London; at that time this Robert was steward of the lord King Henry.'

3 '[See V.C.H. Oxon., vii, 32; D.M. Stenton, English Justice, 57.10 186 1 0[J.A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispinabbot of Westminster, Cambridge, 1911, p. 39; V.C.H. Essex, ii.

150-151.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 154 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

187 Robert of Staverton, a tenant of Thorney Abbey, claims to hold the land of Charwelton in fee of the abbey and wants to implead his lord Abbot Gunter but not in the latter's court. He apparently complains to King Henry I that the abbot fails to do him right and obtains royal writs (now lost) directing another court, probably the county court of Northamptonshire, to hear the case. Robert's demand to be given seisin is rejected by the abbot, who denies that he has any right in the land of Charwelton and is followed by his court, which declares that Robert should not be seised unless he can show his right in his lord's court. The abbot also obtains royal writs (now lost) directing Robert to leave Charwelton in peace. Nevertheless Robert, committing acts of violence, seizes the land. Abbot Gunter, maintaining that he has not failed to do right to his tenant, obtains royal writs ordering that, if he can prove this, the case shall be beard in his court and that Robert's unlawful acts at Charwelton shall be undone (texts supplied here). Robert, fearing that judgment in his lord's court will go against him, again proceeds to the king, but all be obtains is a writ (now lost) ordering some wise men to act as observers in the abbot's court and to see to it that Robert is rightly treated. The case is heard and since Robert offers no proof by charter or witnesses, the land is adjudged to Thorney (the whole narrative is in our document A).) A. The narrative in the cartulary of Thorney. Concerning the land of Charwelton which Robert of Staverton wanted to hold from Abbot Gunter. Let present and future know that Robert of Staverton impleaded Abbot Gunter by writs of King Henry touching Charwelton and he wished to hold it in fee farm of the abbot. But the abbot replied that he could in no wise have it because he had no right in it. He sought seisin thereof, but the abbot refused to seise him save through judgment, wherefore the abbot commanded that the court of the saint should declare the right therein. And the court of the saint declared by right judgment that Robert ought not to be seised unless he could show greater right therein, namely a charter or witnesses who could deraign this fee for him. The abbot set him a day therein. Robert again sought King Henry and the king instructed Hugh the sheriff that he should send prudent and wise men with Robert into the abbot's court on the same day who might see and hear that the abbot in every way treated him in accordance with right. Ascelin de Waterville, William Olifart and Walter of Clopton, sent with Robert, came at the appointed day and demanded seisin as he had sought before. And the abbot replied that he had set 187

' '[Since only fragments of this complicated case have been preserved, our reconstruction of the sequence of events should be considered tentative. Different views or interpretations have been

put forward by Sir Frank Stenton

(NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Charters, 14-15) followed by Lady

Stenton (D.M. Stenton, English Justice,p. 57 n. 13, 138-139); Lady Stenton sees here an early reference to the process of tolt as described in Glanvill VI, 6 and XII, 6, 7.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 155 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

him a day to deraign the fee which he claimed by charter or witness and he having no charter or witness demanded seisin. The abbot let the court of the saint proceed to judgment and commanded that they should deliver a true judgment. Jolfrid the elder de Traili, Roger de Gisneis, Hervey le Moigne, Reginald and the men of the saint made the judgment. They judged that Robert and his heirs had lost their claim since he had no charter and witness wherewith he could deraign it and that the abbot and the church of Thorney should have the same land, namely Charwelton, free and quit for ever.' B. Writ of King Henry I ordering Hugh, sheriff of Northamptonshire, to restore to the land of the abbot of Thorney in Charwelton the grain and the cattle which Robert, the abbot's man, and the reeve of Fawsley have taken there. Henry, king of the English, to Sheriff Hugh, greeting. I order you to see to it that the land of the abbot of Thorney in Charwelton is without delay reseised of the grain and the cattle of which his man Robert disseised it, and see to it that whatever Swain, the reeve of Fawsley, has taken there is restored. And let the land and the men of the said abbot be in my peace so that no one shall cause them any injury thereon. And see to it that the men of Fawsley shall cause no wrong in that land, in the meadows or in the grain, on my forfeiture. Witness: [Ranulf] the chancellor. At Brampton. C. Writ of King Henry I to Hugh, sheriff of Northamptonshire, Geoffrey Ridel and Aubrey the chamberlain concerning the plea of Charwelton and particularly the disgrace suffered by a monk of Thorney, against the king's writ. Henry, king of the English, to Hugh the sheriff and Geoffrey Ridel and Aubrey the chamberlain,1 greeting. If the abbot of Thorney can show that he has not failed in right towards Robert, his man, and his father, then I order that the plea shall be in the court of the foresaid abbot, i.e. about the land and corn of Charwelton. And as regards the disgrace which has been put on Osbert the monk against my peace and writ by the said Robert, do the abbot full right when he wants to plead on the matter, that I hear no complaint thereof for lack of right. Witness: the bishop of Salisbury. At Woodstock.2 See Facsimiles of Early Chartersfrom Northamptonshire Collections, ed., F.M. Stenton, Northamptonshire Record Society 4 (1930): pp. 12-15, where the actual writ of Henry I initiating the process of tolt in this case is facsimiled. -[Translation taken from D.M. Stenton, English Justice, 139.10 187C Aubrey de Ver, the king's chamberlain. 2 Cf the translation in Douglas, HistoricalDocs., ii, 454, no. 53. '[Besides the already mentioned studies by Sir Frank and Lady Stenton, see also S. Raban, The Estates of Thorney and Crowland. A study in medieval monastic land tenure, Cambridge, 1977 (Univ. of Cambridge Dept. of Land Economy. Occasional Paper 7), p. 24.]1 187A

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 156 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

188 Robert de Muschamp is ordered to restore various lands and particularly that of Ross, which Ranulf, bishop of Durham, has deraigned. A. Writ by King Henry I to Aluric and Liulf, sheriffs of Northumberland, ordering them to do full right to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, concerning the land of Ross, as he deraigned it after Robert de Muschamp had seized it. Henry, king of England, to Aluric and Liulf the sheriffs, greeting. I order you to do, without delay and hindrance, full right to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, concerning the land of Ross which Robert de Muschamps has occupied to the prejudice of St. Cuthbert and his church; for I will that St. Cuthbert have it even as Ranulf, his bishop, has deraigned it on his behalf. If you fail to do this, then I order that Nigel d'Aubigny and another justice of mine shall do it. See that I hear no complaint for lack of justice. Witness: Ranulf the chancellor. At Portsmouth.

B. Writ by Queen Matilda to Nigel de Albini ordering him to do full right to Bishop Ranulf of Durham concerning the land of Ross, which Robert de Muschamp seized. Matilda, queen of England, to Nigel de Albini, greeting. I order you to do full right to Bishop Ranulf of Durham concerning Robert de Muschamp and the lands which he has occupied against St. Cuthbert and particularly the one of Ross and also the other lands which Robert has occupied after the concord which had been made between Bishop William 1 and Robert of Northumberland, 2 as Bishop Ranulf will be able to show.

189 Lawsuit between the men of the hundred of Pyrton and Abbot Faritius of Abingdon concerning the jurisdiction claimed by the former over the manor of Lewknor. The king's court, in session at Winchester, decides after consulting Domesday Book that the claim of the men of the hundred of Pyrton is unfounded. The men of the hundred of Pyrton tried to place a manor of this church called Lewknor under their jurisdiction, but the abbot,1 pleading in the castle of 188B 189

0'[William

of St. Carilef, bishop of Durham, 1080-1096.10

2 [Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, 1081-1095.]

°

0

[Faritius abbot of Abingdon 1100-1117.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 157 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Winchester before the bishops Roger of Salisbury, Robert of Lincoln and Richard of London and many royal barons, showed that their claim was unjust. Therefore he obtained by ajudgment of the king's justices that the manor should in no way be answerable to another hundred than his own and as the king was then in Normandy, the queen, who was present, confirmed it by her seal. Matilda, queen of England, to Robert bishop of Lincoln and Thomas de St. John and all barons, French and English, of Oxfordshire, greeting. Know that Faritius, abbot of Abingdon, has in the court of my lord and my own in Winchester at the treasury, before Roger, bishop of Salisbury and Robert, bishop of Lincoln and Richard, bishop of London and William de Courcy, Adam de Port, Turstin the chaplain, Walter de Gloucester, Herbert the chamberlain, William de Oilly, Geoffrey fitz Herbert, William de Anesy, Ralph Basset, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Geoffrey Ridel and Walter, the archdeacon of Oxford, deraigned by the book of the treasury that his manor of Lewknor is not obliged to do anything in the hundred of Pyrton and that whatever has to be done, shall be done only in the hundred of Lewknor, where the church of Abingdon has seventeen hides. Witnesses: Roger, bishop of Salisbury and William de Courcy and Adam de Port. At Winchester. 2

190 Examples of King Henry I's implacable prosecution of rebellious or faithless magnates.

Just as he was munificent in his rewards to his loyal servants, so he was implacable in his enmity to those who broke faith, and scarcely ever pardoned any of known guilt without taking vengeance on their persons or depriving them of their honours and wealth. Guilty men experienced this most wretchedly when they died in his fetters, and could neither gain release through kinship or noble birth, nor ransom themselves with money. He brought charges against Robert of Pontefract1 and Robert Malet,2 stripped them of their honours, and drove them 2

0

[See V.C.H. Oxon., II. 6; Boussard, Le gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 277, n. 1; V.C.H. Oxon.,

VIII, 3; West, The Justiciarship,14.]° 190 1 Robert of Pontefract, son of Ilbert of Lacy, was deprived of his English honours and banished c. 1114; he kept his Norman lands (Wightman, Lacy Family, pp. 66, 73). 0[W.E. Wightman, The Lacy family in England and Normandy, Oxford, 1966.]o 2

Robert Malet remained in the royal favour until his death c. 1105. Orderic appears to have confused him with his son William, who suffered forfeiture and exile about the same time as Robert of Pontefract (C. Warren Hollister, "'Henry I and Robert Malet", in Viator, iv (1973), 115-122).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 158 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

into exile. An unbending judge, he accused Ivo [of Grandmesnil], who was unable to clear himself of waging war in England and burning the crops of his neighbours, which is an unheard-of crime in that country and can be atoned only by a very heavy penalty. The king imposed a huge fine on him and brought all kinds of tribulations on his sorrowing head, so that he applied for help to Robert, count of Meulan, who was the king's chief counsellor, and, made desperate by all his troubles, placed himself under his protection. To begin with he was ashamed of the disgrace which had made him a laughing-stock, because he had been one of the "rope-dancers' who had slid down the walls of Antioch. 3 Then he was full of fears, as he turned his predicament over and over in his mind, that it would be very difficult if not impossible for him ever to regain the king's friendship which he had forfeited. Consequently he resolved to set out on another pilgrimage. It was settled that the count should mitigate the king's wrath towards him, lend him five hundred marks of silver to make provision for his journey, and receive all his lands as a pledge for fifteen years, at the end of which time he would give the daughter of his brother Henry, earl of Warwick, in marriage to young Ivo, and restore his paternal inheritance to him. This contract was confirmed with an oath and received the royal assent. Ivo set out on pilgrimage with his wife; he died on the journey and his inheritance passed into other hands.4

191 Abbot Faritius complains to King Henry I that certain boatmen of Oxford omit paying a certain toll on the Thames to his abbey. The king orders his justices and sheriffs of Berkshire and Oxfordshire to do right to the abbey. Judgment is given in favour of the abbey by the aldermen of Oxford. In the following year the abbey's cellarer complains that certain boatmen have not yet complied and measures are taken against them. It is a custom of this church since the time of the lord Abbot Ordric that for every ship of the city of Oxford that travels southwards on the Thames near the court of Abingdon a hundred herring or their equivalent in money are paid every year to the cellarer, in such a way that the oarsmen make these payments without being asked from the time of the Purification of St. Mary till Easter. If one of them is found to withhold this custom, the cellarer prevents that boat from sailing through the water of the church until right is done. In the time of the lord Abbot Faritius, the boatmen of the aforesaid city have tried to take away this custom from the church, but the abbot quickly restrained them from this temerity by a just See above, v. 98. 4 o[C.W. David, Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, Cambridge Mass., 1920, 138-139; Farrer, Itin. Henry 1,317; Wightman, op. cit., 260; ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, 35. Translation taken from ORDERIC VITALIS History, vi. 18.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 159 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

deraignment: he put his case before King Henry, who by his writs ordered his justices and the sheriffs of Berkshire and Oxfordshire' to do right justice so that the church was no more deprived of her custom. And thus in the reign of this same king in the eleventh year of his empire, 2 when Thomas de St. John and Richard de Monte were sheriffs of Oxfordshire, a lawsuit was held on this matter in the city of Oxford in the house of Harding the priest and it was judged by the common decree of the aldermen of that place that the request of the church was justified and that the custom had to be paid every year by the ships of the whole city. In the following year Ralph, the cellarer, complained to a gathering of the aldermen of Oxford that from some of those boatmen he still had not received the ordained custom. They were immediately summoned and told to take what was due to the church with their boats to the cellarer, which was done, all who were present being witnesses. Richard de Monte, who was then sheriff, Walter the archdeacon and many others were present at the deraignment.

192 Ralph fitz Walter, tenant of Abingdon Abbey in Dumbleton, commits a theft and is outlawed, which should lead to the loss of his life and goods. However, having asked the king's and the queen's pardon, he comes to Abingdon imploring the abbot's grace and quitclaims his tenure, but not without some compensation. Ralph, son of Walter the digger, held of the church and Abbot Faritius one hide in the manor of Dumbleton, which William Guizenboeth had quitclaimed to the church and the aforesaid abbot. And it happened that this same Ralph admitted to the crime of theft for which he lost his lawfulness and, according to the judicial usage of England, ought to lose his goods and his life. But after having implored the mercy of King Henry, who was then in Normandy, and of the queen, who had stayed in England, he came to Abingdon in order similarly to obtain the abbot's pity. The abbot in his goodness gave him so much in the form of a horse and money and wheat that he not only gave up to the church the land which he had held so far, but even confirmed under oath on the Holy Gospels that neither he nor any of his heirs would ever make any claim or demand on it. The following were present at his oath: Ralph the cellarer, who accepted this oath in the place of the abbot, Hubert the prior of Wallingford, Rainbald, William de Seacourt and many others, in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Henry.' 191 ' 0[Hugh de Bocland, sheriff of Berkshire 1100-1115; Thomas de St. John and Richard de Monte, both sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1111 .]O XI] From 5 Aug. ll0 to 4Aug. 1111. 2 anno .... 192 1 anno xiii. regni Henrici.] Namely, between 5 Aug. 1112 and 4 Aug. 1113.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 160 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

193

After Ralph son of Segbold de Lowick has joined the fraternity of Thorney Abbey, making a certain gift of land in Lowick, where the court of the abbot met to hear a case, he occupies some land of the abbey. The abbot starts proceedings against him and an oath with oath-helpers is ordained, but an agreement is arrived at. Ralph son of Segbold de Lowick wanted to join our fraternity and first gave free of all claim to this church in the general chapter before the abbot and all the brethren a small plot in the plough-land of his estate, situated in the midst of our lands, and afterwards, in the church before some of the brethren and before his older brother Guy, he confirmed this same donation and joyfully placed his gage upon the main altar with his own hand. He moreover promised to give every year something to the use of the church out of humanity, on condition that after he had satisfied nature in the human way his body would be brought hither for burial. And to avoid the semblance that these agreements were made secretly, it should be known that before these matters were concluded they gave up the aforesaid land, free to us, at Lowick, where Abbot Robert had summoned several of our men and friends and the said Ralph several of his neighbours and friends to some plea. Witnesses of this business are on our part the lord Abbot Robert, the monks Ralph and Roger, Robert de Yaxley, William de Chesterton, etc. After this donation it came about that the said Ralph unjustly and without reason occupied one plot of land where the orchard of our smith was, who lived in the said vill, and proclaimed openly that it should be his. After we had met there often because of this injury and had pleaded against him before many, we finally obtained that he should swear an oath, wherefore we once brought forward there our relics on which he should have sworn with six others, but our men and his friends, who had our advantage more in mind than his, suggested that we should exchange the land which he had occupied for some other land on which our mill was situated. Hearing this, we have by the counsel and with the consent of our men and friends gladly agreed to this; and so finally did the said Ralph, although with great reluctance. The witnesses to this exchange were the following: the lord Abbot Robert, Vitalis the monk, Hugh the priest, etc.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 161 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

194 After Ralph de Lowick has invaded two tenures of the abbot's fee of Thorney, Abbot Gunter starts proceedings, without obtaining final judgment. His successor obtains from Ralph's brother Guy a promise of help for the deraignment of the two tenures. As Guy fails to carry out his promise, he is disseised of his land and Ralph, who gives two acres to the abbey, obtains permission to keep the two tenures during the life-time of his brother. Ralph de Lowick invaded two tenures of the abbot's fee and Abbot Gunter pleaded thereon against him to the point that judicial combat was resorted to between the said Ralph and Osmund, a man of the abbot, but it was postponed by Geoffrey Ridel from day to day and from term to term, so that the said tenures belonged to the right of neither of them until they were deraigned. In the meantime Abbot Robert received the abbacy and Guy came to such a fine with him concerning his land that he undertook to deraign those tenures for the fee of the abbot, but as this was forgotten about, he was disseised of his whole land. Afterwards he came to a fine with the abbot to whom he gave 35 s. a year and Ralph became a brother of the church of Thorney and gave two acres of land in order that the said tenures should remain with Ralph as long as Guy lived and that after the latter's death the abbot could seek his right if he wanted.

195 Walter the digger and his wife quitclaim to the abbey of Abingdon half a hide of land in Dumbleton, because they were unable to redeem various misdeeds; they receive some compensation from the abbot. In the fourteenth year' of King Henry Walter the digger gave up and quitclaimed, together with his wife, half a hide in the manor of Dumbleton in the hand of Abbot Faritius, for himself and all his heirs. He had forfeited it for many reasons and as he could not purge himself on various counts, by the counsel of wise men he gave up what he held to the church and the aforesaid abbot, as we said, and in return the abbot gave him thirty shillings and four measures of grain. This was done before the following witnesses: Girmund, abbot of Winchcombe, and from the neighbours of Abingdon Ralph Basset and Richard de Gray and from the men 2 of Abbot Faritius Rainbald and Ralph the chamberlain.

195 ' anno xiiii Henrici regis.] From 5 Aug. 1113 to 4 Aug. in the year following. 2 '[See the related case no. 192.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 162 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

196 Writ of King Henry I informing Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and all his ministers of Sussex that since the abbot and monks of Battle have proved before him that various specifically named lands, belonging to the manor of Alciston, are no possessions of theirs, they are to be quit of the services due there. Henry, king of the English, to Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and all his ministers of Sussex, greeting. Know that as the abbot of Battle and the monks deraigned before me that they do not have those lands which you said they had, namely Ovingdean, Coding [in Hove], Batsford [in Warbleton], Daningawurde, Shuyswell [in Etchingham], Boarzell [in Ticehurst], Winenham, Wertesce, Brembreshoc and Seuredeswelle, which of old belonged to Alciston and contain seven hides of the fifty hides in Alciston and its appurtenances, I order that they shall be free and quit on this account and that no one shall molest them any further, but concerning these lands and these hides they shall be completely free and quit as concerning lands which they do not have and of which they are not seised. I also order by royal authority that their manor called Alciston, which my father gave to the church of Battle with other lands for his soul, shall be so free and quit of shires and hundreds and all customs of land-service as my father himself held it most freely and quietly, and namely concerning the work on London Bridge and on the castle of Pevensey. This I command upon my forfeiture. Witness: William de Pont de l'Arche. At Westbourne. 197 Notification by King Henry I that in his court Godwin, a monk of St. Remi at Rheims, has deraigned the church of Lapley against Robert de Rouen.

Henry, king of England, to Bishop Robert of Chester, Sheriff Nicholas of Stafford and all the barons, French and English, of Staffordshire, greeting. Know that Godwin, a monk of St. Remi at Rheims, has deraigned before me and my barons at Tamworth the church of Lapley and the tithe and the bodies of the dead against Robert de Rouen, my chaplain, as St. Remi best held and had them at the time of King Edward and my father and my brother, King William. And I will that the saint himself and his monks shall hold this and all their other possessions well

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 163 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and in peace. Witnesses: Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Bishop William of Exeter, Geoffrey Ridel and Alvred de Lincoln. At Tamworth.

198 Notification that a certain priest failed in the court of Philip de Braose in his claim to the parish of Southwick and Brambleden against Sele Priory.

Be it known to all, French and English, that in the court of the lord Philip at Washington N. the priest failed to deraign the parish of Southwick and Brambleden, which he claimed against the monks of Sele. Witnesses: Bucy the sheriff [of the rape of Bramber in Sussex], Robert le Sauvage, William Halsart, Robert the chaplain, William Bishop, Ailric de Lewes and Edwin de Annington.

199 King Henry I orders that a certain plea shall belong to the abbot of Abingdon's hundred of Hormer.

Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Bocland and his justiciars and all his barons, French and English, of Berkshire, greeting. I order that the abbot1 of Abingdon have his hundred of Hormer as well and pbacefully and honourably as any of his predecessors had it in the time of my father and my brother and my own; and, namely, the plea concerning a mare, as to which Osbert was accused. Witness: 2 the chancellor. At Winchester.

199 1 '[The abbot of Abingdon is Faritius 1100- 1117.10 2 '[See V.C.H. Berks., iv, 391.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 164 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

200 Notification by King Henry I that in his court Wascelina recovered the manor of Newton as her lawful inheritance against Ulviva and was seised thereof.

Henry, king of the English, to all his barons and men, greeting. Know that Wascelina has deraigned against Ulviva in my court Newton with all its appurtenances, and by the judgment of my court was seised as of her legitimate inheritance and that afterwards with my agreement she gave it in perpetual alms to the church of Holy Trinity of Norwich and the monks who serve God there, as Ralph fitz Godric had previously given it to them. The same Ralph also, as far as it concerned him, returned in my hand that same land forever quit from him and his heirs, and at his request I gave it to the church of Holy Trinity and the monks there in perpetual alms. I therefore grant that the aforesaid monks shall have that land with all its appurtenances freely, quietly, with sake and soke, toll and team and all other customs. Witnesses: Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Haimo the steward, Ralph de Belfou, William Bigod and many other barons of mine, at Norwich.'

200 1 0[One might imagine the following sequence of events. In 1086 Newton was crown-land, " hich afterwards was granted to Godric, dapiterof William II, who before 3 September 1101 granted it in his turn to Norwich cathedral; this grant was confirmed by Henry I in the early years of his reign. Shortly after, possibly in 1107, Godric died and his son Ralph confirmed his father's grant. Norwich cathedral granted Newton to a relative of a certain Wascelina and upon this relative's death, Wascelina got involved in a dispute with Ulviva. This case is settled in the king's court at the latest in 1116: Wascelina recovers Newton and grants it to Norwich cathedral and Ralph, the son of Godric, quitclaims all possible rights to the king, who in his turn confirms the grant to Wascelina. Newton from then on remains in the possession of the cathedral, as appears from several confirmations. See: B. Dodwell, "The foundation of Norwich cathedral", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. 7 (fifth series) (1957), 12-14; NoRwICH Charters,no. 7, p. 6 (Regestaii, no. 740); NORWICH Charters,no. 8, p. 6 (Regesta ii, no. 1059): NORWICH Charters,no. 112, pp. 60-61; NORWICH Charters,no. 23, p. 15 (Regesta iii, no. 616); NORWICH Charters, no. 32, pp. 19-20.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 165 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

201 Writ of King Henry I ordering Haimo the steward, sheriff of Kent, to see to it that the abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury, shall have his rents and customs from Ralph Goiz and particularly the church of Newington, according to the judgment given by three counties at Southwark in the time of King William II. Henry, king of the English, to Haimo the steward, greeting. I command you to see to it that St. Augustine and Abbot Hugh shall have all their rents and customs and, inter alia, the church of Newington from Ralph Goiz as well and honourably and fully as was adjudged in the time of my brother in three counties at Southwark, for I will that he shall hold all his own with honour. And see to it that I hear no further complaint thereon for lack of justice. Witness: William, bishop of Exeter. At Northampton.

202 Notification by King Henry I that he has confirmed to the abbey of Westminster the church of Sudbury, to be held as freely as it was deraigned in his court. Henry, king of England, to Bishop Herbert of Norwich and Haimo the steward and the burgesses of Sudbury and all his ministers and lieges, French and English, of Suffolk, greeting. Know that I have granted to God and St. Peter and the monastery of Westminster, for the redemption of my soul, the church of St. Bartholomew of Sudbury, which Wulfric my moneyer gave them for the benefit of the monks who serve there, because of the fraternity and the status of a monk which he assumed there.1 Therefore I will and firmly order that they shall henceforth hold it well, quietly, honourably and freely and without any claim or disturbance, with lands and tithes, sake and soke, toll and team, thief and all things and customs and laws, and as well, fully and freely as ever before in the past, as it was deraigned in my court before my barons. I therefore forbid and prohibit anyone on the forfeiture of 10 pounds to cause them any injury or tort for any reason or even to presume to molest or disturb them in any way. And if one of the faithful should ever want to support them for the salvation of his soul, in lands or in tithes or in alms or some other benefice, I grant this with full benevolence and liberty. Witnesses: Archbishop Ralph [of Canterbury], Bishop Richard of 202 1 '[In the time of King Henry I, Wulfric, a royal moneyer, gave the church of St. Bartholomew of Sudbury to the abbey of Westminster, whereupon a priory, cell to that abbey, was established there (MONASTICON, iii, p. 459).]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 166 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

London, Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Ranulf the chancellor, Nigel d'Aubigny and many others. At Westminster.

203 Notification by King Henry I of an exchange in his court and with his agreement between Abbot Reginald of Ramsey and William de Houghton.

Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Bishop Richard of London, Bishop Herbert of Norwich, William Bigod, Earl David [of Huntingdon and Northampton], Gilbert the sheriff and all the barons, French and English, of Norfolk and Huntingdonshire, greeting. Know that I grant that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey shall have Wimbotsham with its appurtenances and Bury, which William de Houghton held, free and quit of William de Houghton since he gave him, in my presence and that of my barons and by my command, an exchange for those lands. Witnesses: Archbishop Thurstan of York, Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Bishop Richard of London, [Robert de Beaumont], count of Meulan, Nigel d'Aubigny, William d'Aubigny, Walter de Gloucester and Geoffrey Ridel. At Burnham.

204 Bricstan of Chatteris is charged by a royal official, Robert Malarteis, with concealment of treasure trove and usury, and condemned in the county court at Huntingdon, which is presided over by Ralph Basset, a royal justice. After five months in prison he is miraculously released. A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis. In the time of Henry, king of England and duke of Normandy, in the sixteenth year of his reign in England and the tenth in the duchy of Normandy,' a certain man named Bricstan lived in an estate of our church, 2 in a village called Chatteris. This man, as his neighbours bear witness, did wrong to no man but was content 204A I Between 28 September 1115 and 5 August 1116. A slightly different version of this miracle occurs in the Liber Eliensis (ed. E.O. Blake, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 1962), pp. 266-269, where it is shorter and omits both the detailed attack on Robert Malarteis and the account of judicial proceedings before Ralph Basset. The Ely version gives more prominence to St. 0Etheldreda. 2 [This relates to the bishopric of Ely: Orderic Vitalis quotes here a letter of Hervey, bishop of Ely.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 167 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

with his own goods, sparing those of others. For he was neither very rich nor very poor, but managed his affairs and those of his family after the fashion of a layman with a modest competence. He lent money to his needy neighbours, but not at usury; only, because so many men are untrustworthy, he retained pledges from his debtors. So he kept between the two extremes, being considered neither better than other good men nor worse than bad ones. Believing he was at peace with all men and without a single enemy, he was inspired by divine grace- as the outcome proved - to seek to be bound by the rule of St. Benedict and clothed in the habit. What next? He came to our monastery, which was built in honour of St. Peter the apostle and St. Etheldreda, sought admission from the monks, promised to put himself and all that he had under their government. But, sad to relate, the evil one through whose envy Adam fell from Paradise will never cease to vex with envy his descendants up to the very last generation. Nevertheless God the omnipotent, who in his mercy disposes all things well, always brings good out of evil and better out of good. When his action was generally known, for although he was not a man of the first rank he was nevertheless of some repute, a certain minister of King Henry, who was more particularly a servant of the devil with wolf-like fangs, appeared on the scene. Now indeed, so that you may know who and what manner of man he was, I will digress a little. His name wasRobert and he was nicknamed Malarteis,3 from the Latin meaning 'ill-doer'. The name was deserved. For he seemed to have no function except to catch men out. All men, I repeat: monks and clerks, knights and peasants, men of every order, whether living under a religious vow or otherwise; but, lest I be accused of lying, this was his constant practice wherever he could exercise his malice. He accused all equally whenever he could, striving with all his might to harm everyone. When he injured one or more -men he was numbered among those of whom it is said, 'They rejoice to do evil, and delight in evil and subversive acts'. 4 If he could find no valid reason for condemning them, he became an inventor of falsehood and father of lies through the devil who spoke in him. But since no one, not even one who had been his constant companion since childhood, could relate, let alone write down, all the evil deeds of this man who is rightly called 'Thousand wiles' I will return to my subject. When, as I have said, it was rumoured abroad that Bricstan wished to put on the habit of religion, Robert, following the teaching of his master who always lies and deceives, appeared on the scene. He, beginning to heap falsehood on falsehood, said to us: 'Know that this man, Bricstan, is a thief, who has seized the king's money by larceny and hidden it, and is trying to take the habit to escape 3

Robert Malarteis, a minor royal official with property in Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire, occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1130, and there are later references to the family (Doris M. Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066-1215 (London,

1965), p. 61). The name "Mille-artifex" was given to a demon who occurs in medieval legends (Ed. Le Pr~vost, i, 371). Proverbs ii, 14.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 168 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

judgment and punishment for his crime, not for any other kind of salvation. For he found hidden treasure, and by secretly stealing from it has become a usurer. Since he is guilty of the crimes of larceny and usury, he fears to come before the king or his justices. Therefore I have been sent here to you at the king's command, and I forbid you to receive him into your community'. We therefore, hearing the king's prohibition and fearing to incur his wrath, refused to receive the man among us. What next? He was sent under surety to trial. With Ralph Basset' presiding, all the men of the county were assembled at Huntingdon, according to English custom, and I, Hervey, was present with Reginald abbot of Ramsey, Robert abbot of Thorney, and a number of clerks and monks. To cut a long story short, the accused was charged together with his wife, and the crimes falsely attributed to him were repeated. He denied the charge; he could not confess what he had not done. The opposing party charged him with lying and made fun of him, for he was short in stature, somewhat corpulent, and had what one might call a homely face. After many undeserved contumelies had been heaped upon him, he was unjustly condemned like Susannah, and sentenced to be handed over with all his goods to the king's custody. When, after the sentence, he was forced to hand over his goods he gave up his ready money, stating where his debts lay and who were his debtors. But when he was pressed to give more and admit to more he replied in English: 'That wat min lauert God elmihtin that ic sege soth', or as we Latins say: 'My Lord, God almighty knows that I speak the truth'. After repeating this again and again he fell silent. When he had publicly produced all his possessions, the relics were brought in. At the moment of swearing, he said to his wife: 'Dear companion, I entreat you by the bond of love that binds us, not to allow me to perjure myself, for I fear spiritual danger more than bodily anguish. If therefore your conscience tells you that anything has been omitted, do not hesitate to bring it out. For our spiritual foe is more eager to bring our souls to damnation than to tear our flesh'. But she replied: 'My lord, I have nothing over and above what you have revealed except sixteen shillings and two rings worth fourpence'. When these had been produced the brave woman added: 'Now, dearest husband, swear with safety; I will confirm afterwards with my conscience as witness that what you have sworn is true; and if you so command I will publicly, in the sight of all who wish to see, carry the hot iron in my bare hand'. What next? He took oath. Then he was bound and given into custody, and taken to London where he was thrown into a dark prison. 6 There, unjustly laden with iron fetters of excessive weight, he suffered the torment of daily hunger and cold for a considerable time. But, finding himself in such a plight, he cried out as well as he knew how for divine aid to come to him in his great Ralph Basset was described by contemporaries as 'capitalisjusticiarius' and acted as itinerant justice in ten counties; but he was not, as he has sometimes been called,justiciar (F.J. West, The 6

Justiciarshipin England, 1066-1232 (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 21-23).

This is evidence for the absence of local prisons insome counties (R.B. Pugh, Imprisonment in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1968), p. 58).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 169 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

need. But because he hesitated to seek this through his own merits, which he considered slight or, to tell the truth, wholly lacking, he called incessantly with a sorrowful heart and all the voice he could raise on St. Benedict, under whose rule he had vowed in all sincerity to live, as I have told, and on the holy virgin Etheldreda, in whose monastery he had proposed to do so. In this way, both weighed down and bound with iron, tormented by cold and weakened by hunger, for five whole months he woefully endured a wretched life in darkness. He must certainly have felt, it seems to me, that death was preferable to such a miserable life. And seeing that no human aid was at hand, he never ceased to call on St. Benedict and St. Etheldreda with constant groans, sighs, sobs, and tears, both with his lips and in his heart. One night when the bells were ringing for the night offices throughout the city, and he in his prison had been without food of any kind for three days, in addition to his other sufferings, and was almost at his last gasp and without hope of bodily recovery, he was repeating the names of the saints in a feeble voice. But God, who is kind and merciful and remains the inexhaustible source of all goodness, who refuses no man in great need and favours no man for his power or wealth, at length showed the suppliant the mercy which he had long sought, but which had been withheld so that his desire might be increased and he might cherish it the more when he received it. St. Benedict and St. Etheldreda, with her sister St. Sexburga, appeared to the suppliant. He indeed, terrified by the unaccustomed brightness of the light which heralded the coming of the saints, covered his eyes with his hand. But as the saints drew near in the blaze of light, St. Etheldreda spoke first. 'Why, Bricstan', said she, 'are you continually shaken with sobs? Why do you disturb us with your constant wailing?' But he, weakened by fasting and almost out of his mind, though filled with joy at this great miracle, was incapable of speech. Then the saint added: 'I am Etheldreda, whom you have called so often. Here stands St. Benedict, under whose habit you vowed to serve God, from whom you have implored help so many times. Do you wish to be freed?' Hearing these words his spirits revived, and he said like a man waking from sleep: 'My lady, if it is possible for me to go on living, I long to leave this vile prison. But I am already afflicted with so many torments that all my bodily strength has vanished and I no longer have any hope of escape'. Then the holy virgin, turning to St. Benedict, said: 'St. Benedict, why do you not carry out your Lord's commands?' At these words the venerable Benedict placed his hand on the ring-fetters and broke them on both sides, drawing them from the feet of the prisoner in such a way that he felt nothing at all and the saint seemed to have broken them more by his command than by force. When he had pulled them off he tossed them aside almost contemptuously and struck the beam which supported the room above the dungeon with such violence that he made a great crack in it. At the sound of the impact the guards, who were sleeping in the room above, were all awakened in terror. Fearing that the prisoners had fled they lit torches and rushed to the prison. Finding the doors

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 170 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

undamaged and locked, they turned the keys and entered. When they saw that the man whom they had thrown into fetters was freed, they marvelled greatly. When they inquired about the great noise they had heard, who had made it, and who had freed the fettered man, another prisoner replied (for Bricstan kept silence): 'Some persons, I know not who, entered the prison in a blaze of light and spoke for a time with my companion here. But as for what they said to him or did, ask him, who is better able to answer' Turning to him they said: 'Tell us what you heard and saw'. And he replied: 'St. Benedict, St. Etheldreda, and her sister, St. Sexburga, were here and took the fetters off my feet. If you do not believe me, at least believe your own eyes'. But they, having witnessed the miracle, believed it, and when morning came they told it to Queen Matilda,7 who happened to be in the city at the time. Then she sent Ralph Basset, who had had Bricstan unjustly condemned and declared that the deed had been done by magical arts, to the prison. Going in, he began to speak in a mocking way with Bricstan, as he had done before: 'Now what are you up to, Bricstan? Did God really talk to you through his angels? Did he really come down into your prison? Now tell me what trickery you are up to' But he remained as one dead, making no reply. Then Ralph, seeing how the fetters for his feet were broken, and hearing from his companion about the three persons who had entered the prison in a blaze of light, of the words that had been spoken, of the sound they had made, and 8 perceiving that this was without question an act of God, began to weep copiously. And turning to Bricstan he said: 'Brother, I am a servant of St. Benedict and the holy virgin Etheldreda; for their sakes speak to me'. Then he replied: 'If you are a servant of these saints you are welcome. Be assured that the things you see and hear about me are true happenings and not witchcraft'. So Ralph took charge of him and, rejoicing and weeping, brought him into the presence of the queen and all the barons who were with her. Meanwhile the story sped swifter than a bird all through the city of London and came to the ears of almost all the citizens. At the news the citizens everywhere raised a great clamour to heaven, young and old of both sexes together blessed the name of the Lord and rushed to the court, where they heard he had been taken. Many shed tears ofjoy; others were full of wonder at what they saw and heard. The queen herself was filled with joy at the news of such a miracle, for she was a good Christian. She commanded the bells of all the churches in the city to be rung and the praises of God to be sung by every convent of religious. And whilst Bricstan visited several churches in the city, pouring out humble thanks to God in overwhelming joy at his delivery, a great crowd thronged round him in the streets, for everyone wished to see him as if he were a man reborn. When he reached the church of the blessed Peter which is called in English Queen Matilda acted as regent during her husband Henry I's absences abroad, which included the period 1116-1118 (West, The Justiciarshipin England, p. 14).

8 There is some evidence from the seal of Ralph Basset that he had a high conception of his duty

as a judge (cf. D.M. Stenton, English Justice ...

1066-1215, p. 61).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 171 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Westminster, Gilbert, the abbot of the place, 9 a man of great learning in both secular and divine letters, came out of the monastery to meet him with the whole flock of monks, bearing the treasures of the church in procession. For he said: 'If the relics of a dead man should be received in the church with all solemnities, we ought far more to receive with honour this man who is a living relic. For we who are still in this transitory life do not know where the spirit of a dead man may be: but we are in no doubt that this man has been visited and freed in our sight by God who does nothing in vain'. 0 B. The narrative in the Liber Eliensis. While' continuing with the praise of the most blessed Etheldreda, we want to narrate a recent event which is worthy of being told, rightly pleasing to those who hear it, useful to those who retain it and possibly even of some advantage to the ignorant. At the time of Henry, king of the English and duke of the Normans, in the.16th year of his reign in England and the 10th of his rule in Normandy, within the jurisdiction of the church of Ely in the vill called Chatteris there was a man called Bricstan. Born in worldly tempest and adversity as is man's lot, he was educated in the usual way first with the nourishment of children and then that of young men, until he reached adulthood, when he was caught up more and more in the wickedness of the world to the point that he obtained his livelihood from unhappy usury and nothing else. Having thus lived shamefully for a very long period, he became so ill that his death seemed imminent.2 Having suffered this intolerable sickness for some time he felt inspired by divine grace to look for a solution by truthfully promising that he would enter the monastery of the holy virgin Etheldreda as a monk and stay there for the rest of his days. Losing no time he brought together whatever he had and most devoutly took it with him to the monastery of the virgin in order to fulfil his promise and, the lord Bishop Hervey at that time exercising the pastoral cure in that place, he implored the monks' mercy and placed himself and his possessions under their authority. But, alas, the evil one, through whose envy Adam was driven from paradise, will never stop envying his posterity until the very end. However, God, who disposes everything mercifully and mildly, being omnipotent turns evil into good and good into better. A certain minister of King Henry but more specially a servant of the devil, whose name was Gilbert Crispin. For his life see Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster 1911). [Translation from ORDERIC VITALIS History iii, 346-356.]o A slightly different version of this miracle appears in Orderic Vitalis. Hist. Eccl., iii, 122-133, where itis said to have been written up by Abbot Warin of St. Evroult at Bishop Hervey's request. Orderic says nothing of his illness and poverty, but describes his trade. "Vicinis suis indigentibus nummos non tamen ad usuram accomodabat, sed propter infidelitatem multorum a debitoribus vadimonia retinebat"

0 (Cambridge,

204B 2

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 172 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Robert and whose surname was Malarteis, heard from several people that the aforesaid man wanted to put on the religious habit and following the doctrine of his master, who always lies and deceives, he arrived and on royal order forbade that man to put on the religious habit, pretending that he was a thief, that he had and hid money of the king as in theft and that he wanted to become a monk in order to escape the condemnation and punishment for that crime and for no bther reason of salvation.3 What more? Having given sureties he finally stood trial, Ralph Basset acting as judge and all the members of the county gathering at Huntingdon, as is the custom in England.4 The aforementioned lord Hervey, bishop of Ely, was present together with the abbots Reginald of Ramsey and Robert of Thorney and numerous monks and clerics. And to cut the story short, the accused man is presented and the crimes of which he is falsely accused are repeated. He denied what he had not done; he could not confess what he had not committed. The others, however, call him mad, laugh at him and cover him with abuse and, having suffered numerous and undeserved contumelies5 , he was condemned like Susanna, and placed in the king's mercy with all his goods. Afterwards he is taken to London in fetters and under guard, locked up in a dark prison and forcefully and shamefully restrained there with heavy iron fetters, suffering for quite a while the daily torture of hunger and cold. In this great misery he prayed, in so far as his physical and intellectual abilities allowed, for divine help in this grave necessity. But since he thought that his own merits were very small or more rightly non-existent, he did not believe that he alone would be successful and therefore he made a continous appeal, with a weeping heart and with the voice that was at his disposal, to Saint Benedict under whose rule, as was said before, he had placed himself and to the holy virgin Etheldreda in whose monastery he intended to live. For five full months, sighing in darkness, weighed down and shackled in iron, tortured by cold and exhausted by fasting, he led a miserable life and would certainly have preferred to die rather than to live so unhappily. And seeing that there was no trace of human succour, he incessantly prayed in his heart or with his mouth to St. Benedict and St. Etheldreda with continuous sighing, groaning, sobbing and occasionally weeping. What more? On a certain night when the bells rang throughout the town for the nocturns and he was suffering in his prison among other tortures from a lack of food during the past three days, feeling utterly exhausted and totally despairing that his body could ever recover, he repeated the names of the aforesaid saints with a tearful voice. But God, who is compassionate and merciful, remains the unshaken fount of all goodness, spurns no one who is in trouble and prefers no one because of his influence or wealth, at long last showed the mercy which had been so ardently desired: it had been postponed so long in 3Orderic adds a libel on Ralph's methods of doing justice.

4 Cf Regesta, ii, no. 1129, which dates this county court at Huntingdon before Ralph Basset,

justiciar, between 28 September 1115 and 5 August 1116, and probably in Spring 1116.

5Orderic gives a detailed and amusing account of Bricstan's interrogation.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 173 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

order to sharpen [Bricstan's] hope and thus to increase his love when salvation materialized. Saint Benedict and Saint Etheldreda with her sister Sexburga appeared to the praying man, who was frightened by the unusual light which preceded the saints and covered his eyes with his hands. As soon as the saints themselves appeared in the light, St. Etheldreda spoke to him as follows: "Why, Bricstan, do you so often turn to us with your tears? Why do you try to move us with such complaints?" He, however, weakened by fasting, could utter no word in reply when he heard his name being pronounced and was overjoyed at this miracle happening. Thereupon the saint added: "I am Etheldreda whom you have so often invoked and here with me is St. Benedict under whose habit you have promised to serve God and whose help you have often implored. Do you want to be set free?" Upon hearing these words his spirit was revived and, as it were awakening from a dream, he said: "My lady, if I could live in some way, I would like to leave this execrable prison, but I find myself so weakened by various sufferings that I have no more hope of escaping since I have lost all the strength of my body". To which the saint replied: "The order of reason does not require things to happen as you say and therefore I want you to spend the rest of your days devoted to me and in my church, as you intended". Thereupon the holy virgin turned to St. Benedict and said: "Do, lord Benedict, what was ordered by the Lord". Upon these words the venerable man Benedict approached the man who was locked in foot-irons, put his finger in the iron ring between the two irons and pulling lightly removed those foot-irons, which were broken by God's will, from the feet of the prisoner without him feeling anything. After he had taken them from him, he threw them away with an indignant gesture of his hand and hit a very large beam of the upper-room with such a force that the guards who were lying there were frightened and awakened by the noise of this blow. Fearing that the prisoners had escaped, they lit their lamps and hastened to the prison but finding the doors undamaged and closed, they took out their keys and went in. Seeing the man whom they had left fettered free of his chains, they were even more surprised and as they asked him what that voice was which they had heard and who had caused it and loosened the foot-irons, he kept silent, but another man who was in chains with him in prison replied: "I do not know which persons have entered the prison with a very large light and talked at length with this companion of mine, but ask him who knows better what they said and did". So they turned to him and said: "Tell us what you heard and saw". And he replied: "St. Benedict was here with St. Etheldreda and her sister Sexburga and they removed the foot-irons from my feet and if you don't believe me then at least believe your own eyes". And having seen the miracle and entertaining no doubt, they went as soon as it was day-light to Queen Matilda who happened to stay in the same town and told her. Immediately she sent one of the chaplains of the court, called Ralph,6 to the prison to find out whether this story was true or not. He came and saw how the foot-irons had been broken, was told by this companion of 6 Ralph Basset according to Orderic's version.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 174 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Bricstan's about the three persons who had entered the prison surrounded by light and the words which they had spoken and the noise they had caused and finding that all this had without doubt happened by divine influence, he began to weep copiously and turning to Bricstan said: "Brother, I am the servant of St. Benedict and St. Etheldreda, speak to me in their love". To which he replied: "If you are a servant of the forementioned saint, your arrival is welcome and you should know that what you see and hear to have happened around me is true and not magical". So Ralph, weeping for joy, took him with him into the presence of the queen and many magnates of the land who were there. In the meantime the news of this event flew round the whole town of London faster than a bird and reached the ears of almost all citizens, who raised their voices to heaven from all sides. Every sex and age blessed the Lord together and hastened to the court where they had heard he had been taken. Many shed tears ofjoy and others marvelled at what they saw and heard. Full ofjoy because of such an unusual miracle, the queen ordered the bells of all the monasteries of the city to be rung and God's praise to the sung in all convents of the clerical order. As he visited numerous churches of the city and thanked God for the abundant joy of his liberation, a numerous crowd followed or preceded him through the streets and everyone wanted to see him as if he were a new man, and when he arrived at the church of St. Peter, called Westminster, Abbot Gilbert,7 a man learned in the liberal arts and the scriptures, went to meet him outside the monastery at the head of a whole group of monks saying: "If the relics of some dead man must be received in the church in a festive way, we ought to receive all the more honourably live relics, this man. About the whereabouts of the soul of a dead man we, who still dwell in this fragile life, are in doubt; but we are in no ignorance as far as this man is concerned who was visited and set free in our presence by God, who does nothing unjustly. After these events the queen hoped to have his fetters at her disposal, but he refused to be separated from them until he had taken them to the monastery of St. Etheldreda, virgin and queen, by whose intervention he knew he had been freed from them and the queen, hearing this reason, used no force against him, but ordered him to be conducted to the aforesaid place with honour. So, young and old went out of the city to marvel at him, the virgins and the widows to admire him and great numbers of people of both sexes went to look at him and give thanks to almighty God. Equally, upon his arrival in the foresaid monastery the bishop and all the brethren went out to greet him in a procession, praising God and Etheldreda, their patron saint and there he carried out his plan and put on the habit of a monk. The fetters however with which his feet had been locked were suspended in that church before the altar in

' Gilbert Crispin (d. 1117?).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 175 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

memory of such a miracle, to be seen by the people and in praise of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom honour and glory be given throughout the ages.8 Amen.9

205 Plea in the king's court about a rent of forty shillings between Abbot John of Peterborough and Azo Wardeden: judgment is given against the latter.

Be it known to all future and present that in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1116, the tenth indiction, Abbot John deraigned at Brampton in the king's court 40 s. which Azo Wardeden had unjustly had for a long time. The aforesaid Azo had indeed often complained to the king that he could not have the 40 s. from the abbot of Peterborough, since the abbot maintained that he ought not unjustly to have them and that he claimed them unjustly. King Henry set a date for his claim and both Abbot John and Azo Wardeden went to Brampton on the appointed day and there after the reasons of both of them had been heard the bishops and barons who were present gave judgment that Azo Wardeden had no right to the aforesaid 40 s. so that those pennies remained with Abbot John. The following were witnesses and judges of this judgment: [Roger] bishop of Salisbury, [Robert] bishop of Lincoln, the sheriffs Hugh and Gilbert, Walter de Gloucester and Ralph Basset. The witnesses on behalf of the abbot were: Geoffrey Ridel, Ascelin de Waterville, William de Lisours, Geoffrey de Gunthorpe, Roger de Torpel, Guy Malfeth, William de Burghley and Martin de Papley.'

206 In the course of a lawsuit Nigel de Oilly is forced to do homage to the abbot of Abingdon; his services are enumerated.

Nigel de Oilly held a meadow at Oxford and a hide in Sandford and another one in Earnigcote, of the fee of Abingdon, but for a long time after the accession of

205

Orderic's version ends with a pious peroration. For donations received "de Boiis'" see F.R. Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, i, Cambridge, 1907, 118-119; ii, 35. 9 '[See also Stenton, English Justice, 61; West, Justiciarshipin England, 14; Reedy, Originsof the generaleyre, 705; Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 186; Van Caenegem, Publicprosecution of crime, 57-58.10 ' o[Stenton, English Justice, 62.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 176 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Abbot Faritius in Abingdon, he had done no homage or service to the church. Therefore the abbot acted against him in the law courts to force him to do homage to the church and himself for what he held and to acknowledge for the future that the church should be quit of all royal geld and that he should serve the abbot everywhere as his lord. Whenever the abbot will ask him in the counties of Berkshire and Oxfordshire, he shall be ready to help and serve him and he shall not be excused from the service of the church unless it be for the execution of a royal command, in which case he shall send someone from his own best men to serve the abbot. Whenever the abbot has to plead in the king's court, he will be present on the abbot's side, unless the plea were against the king, and when the abbot goes to that court, he shall offer lodgings to him and if nothing appropriate can be found, he shall respectfully give up his own lodgings for him.

207 Abbot Faritius of Abingdon deraigns a plot of land situated in Oxford against Nigel de Oilly, his tenant, who agrees to hold it against a rent of 6 d.

In the same month in which this case was heard, the abbot deraigned against the same Nigel de Oilly a small plot of land situated in the city of Oxford in the street that leads from St. Michael's church to the castle. This land belonged of old to the manor of Tadmarton, but had for some time been neglected so that Nigel gave no sign of recognition for it to the church. However, submitting to the just reason of the abbot, he received the land to hold from the said church on the understanding that the old customary gavel of six pence was to be paid and that Nigel should hand them over every year on the Nativity of Holy Mary to the collector in the said vill, who receives the other gavel of the church there. This plea was held on the land itself before many witnesses.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 177 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

208 In the court of Abbot Faritius of Abingdon, Egilwin son of Godric de Chalgrave, who was found to hold more land than he had admitted, is condemned to pay a higher rent in the future. Egilwin son of Godric de Chalgrave hid from Abbot Faritius how much land he had. He said that he had only a field of twelve acres as had been agreed in the chapter of the monks, but the abbot made a definite inquiry and found that the reality was different and that he held much more land beside the aforesaid twelve acres. It was therefore adjudged in the court of the abbot that for this misdeed the aforesaid man should pay six sesters of honey instead of the previous two and should continue the same services for the monks as previously.

209 Ermenold, a burgess of Oxford who holds land near Oxford from the abbot of Abingdon, fails to pay his rent, whereupon the abbot seizes his land. Ermenold finds pledges that he will appear in the court of the abbot, but fails to do so at the appointed date and finally renders his land to the church in exchange for a promise of sustinance. The transaction is approved in the port-moot of Oxford. Ermenold, a burgess of Oxford, held land of Abbot Faritius near the bridge of Oxford for a gavel of 40 s., and as he withheld it during one year, the abbot in the following year at harvest time ordered all the cattle to be seized that could be found on that land and forbade him access to it. Thereupon Ermenold sent Walter the archdeacon of Oxford and Richard de Stanlake to the abbot and received back his cattle, because they pledged that he would plead on the appointed day and redeem the pledge. When the appointed day came, neither pleader nor pledge was present, so that the abbot proceeded against the aforesaid pledges who were summoned about the matter in hand, and as they belonged to his beloved confidants, it was arranged through their mediation between him and the said Ermenold that that man should seek the abbot's mercy and concede to the abbot and church of Abingdon so much of his goods that whatever land he held for his maintenance in and outside the borough, whether it be his property or held in gage (except what belonged to the king, a baron or a bishop), should totally belong to the church. As far as the creditors of the land were concerned, they could come to an arrangement

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 178 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

with the abbot that the mortgage was redeemed and they received the land, or if not, the land would remain in the possession of the abbot and the monks. The abbot on the other hand granted to that man that if he wanted to become a monk, he would make him a monk in Abingdon, but if he preferred to live in the vill of Abingdon as a layman, convenient lodging would be found for him and he would receive the sustinance of one monk and one servant. This was done in the aforesaid house of Ermenold with the agreement of his wife and his son William, before the aforesaid Walter and Richard de Stanlake and many others, and it was also shown and conceded in the same way and under the same agreement in the port-moot.

210 A young thief condemned to be deprived of his eyesight is rescued by William Giffard, bishop of Winchester, who came to consecrate the newly built Augustinian priory of Merton. In the meantime a wooden chapel was being built there and the bishop of Winchester, William Giffard, was invited to consecrate the cemetery and was received with great hospitality in the house of Sheriff [Gilbert Norman]. As the bishop arrived, an incident happened that was somehow a presage to further events, for as the bishop went with his followers to his residence, he happened along the road to come across a child who was to be deprived of his eyes for committing a theft and whom he saved from this imminent danger by his pastoral staff. This was a sign that in the place which he came to consecrate, many would be saved from the darkness of vice and restored to the light ofjustice by the rigour of discipline.

211 Letter of Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, to Roger of Salisbury, royal justiciar, containing complaints about excessive financial demands made on the bishop's lands, inter alia, for pleas. What answer shall be returned to the representations of your sheep is for your compassion to decide: I leave it entirely to your discretion to counsel me in my

anxieties. From my lands fifty pounds are demanded for pleas (although my tenants of those lands have offended neither in their response nor in deed), and

210 ' o[A. Heales, The Records of Merton Priory, in the county of Surrey, London, 1898, p. 3.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 179 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

another sixty pounds for knights, which I find it the more difficult to pay since my resources in recent years have seriously diminished. What is worst of all, my neighbours are seeking to bring under contribution Thorpe, which our lord the king granted for the fabric of the church, as free as ever the manor was when in his hands and as his other manors are. The charter to this effect you have frequently inspected, as well as repeated writs.1

212 The ship of the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, at Sandwich has been seized unjustly. Orders are given by William, the son of King Henry I, to William, sheriff of Kent, and by Queen Matilda to Ansfrid, steward of the archbishop of Canterbury (to whose jurisdiction Sandwich belongs) that the ship shall be restored, the culprits stand trial and the neighbourhood be interrogated. The men of the county testify in favour of the abbot and consequently a writ of William, the king's son, orders the sheriff of Kent to reseise the abbot. A. The first writ of William, the king's son, to the sheriff of Kent. William, the king's son, to William, sheriff of Kent, Igreeting. I order that you order Hamo, son of Vitalis, and honest people from the neighbourhood of Sandwich, whom Hamo appointed, to say the truth about the ship of the abbot of St. Augustine's. And if that ship went on sea on the day when the king last crossed the sea, then I order that it shall keep going on sea till the king comes back to England, and in the meantime the said abbot shall be reseised of it. Witnesses: the bishop of Salisbury2 and the chancellor 3. At Woodstock.

B. The writ of Queen Matilda to Ansfrid, the steward of the archbishop of Canterbury. Matilda, queen, to Ansfrid the steward, greeting. I order you to see to it that the ship of the abbot of St. Augustine and all his goods that were taken are justly restored and all those men who took it shall give pledges that they stand trial before the king when he wants them. And I command that all his goods shall be in peace, as they were on the day when the king crossed the sea' until he comes back to England. Witness: the bishop of Salisbury. At Westminster. 211 ' O[Translation by Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 160.]° 212A '[William de Eynesford, sheriff of Kent c. 1115 1129.] 2 '[Roger bishop of Salisbury 1102-1139.]" 3 "[Ranulf the chancellor 1107-1123.]o 212B ' '[Henry I crossed to Normandy in April 1116 and returned in November 1120.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 180 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

C. The second writ of William, the king's son, to the sheriff of Kent. William, the king's son, to William, sheriff of Kent, greeting. I order you to reseise the abbot of St. Augustine of his ship, as I ordered myself by my other writ and as it was recognized by the honest men of the county that the abbot was seised of it on the day when the king last crossed the sea, and let him hold it in peace. Witness: the chancellor. At Windsor. And this without delay, that I hear no further complaint thereon. Witness: the same.'

213 Writ of William son of King Henry I to William de Eynesford, sheriff of Kent, ordering a recognition to be made by the men of the hundred of Milton concerning the customs of the abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury, in Newington. William, the king's son, to William, sheriff of Kent, greeting. Have recognized by the men of the hundred of Milton what customs the abbot of St. Augustine's ought to have in the vill of Newington and what he had there before. And such [as are there recognized] cause him to have without delay as he had them before, especially as concerns the aid which is now being raised.' Witness: [Roger], bishop of Salisbury. At Westminster.

214 Inthe abbey court of Peterborough Leofwin, brother of Colgrim, claims a rent of 5 shillings against Abbot John, but judgment is given against him.

This same Leofwin, brother of Colgrim, claimed 5 s. for the houses beyond the river of Stamford against the aforesaid Abbot John because, so he said, he had had them from Abbot Ernulf and other abbots and since he could not have them, he came on the appointed day to the court of St. Peter of Peterborough and there in the presence of Abbot John and by a judgment he lost those 5 s. in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1118. The judges and witnesses were: Askelin de 0

' [See Urry, Ca' terbury, 51.]O

212C

213

'

Concerning de \to auxilio, Regesta, no. 1192, point out that "Henry of Huntingdon records heavy taxation in 1117"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 181 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Waterville, Geoffrey de Gunthorpe, Roger de Torpel, Ralph Papilio, Vivian, William de Burghley, Martin de Papley, Geoffrey de Castor, William the steward, Walter fitz Peter, Gilbert de Barnack and Godric de Thorpe.'

215 During the vacancy following the death of Abbot Faritius the abbey of Abingdon is subjected to certain tax demands. After an appeal to the king's justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, and on the strength of an order given by the latter and by Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Ranulf the chancellor and Ralph Basset, it is established in the county court, on the basis of a statement by Roger de Hartlevill, a man of the abbey, that the 140 hides held in demesne by the abbey in Berkshire are exempt from geld. In the third year after the death of Abbot Faritius, while the abbey was still waiting for an abbot and the king's decision thereon, the demesne of the church was quit of the gelds which were demanded in the whole county; nevertheless the collectors in the county of Berkshire demanded more geld than was due by the church and this happened repeatedly. After an appeal was made to royal justice, it was decreed by the bishops Roger of Salisbury and Robert of Lincoln and by Ranulf the chancellor who had been most helpful and by Ralph Basset that somebody from the church should confirm on oath in the aforesaid county court how many demesne hides of the church should be free. Thereupon, at a session of the county court in Sutton Courtenay, William de Bocland being sheriff, on the Monday after the feast of St. Martin' Roger de Hartlevill, a man of the church, confirmed on oath in the hand of the said sheriff and in view of the whole county in favour of the church that the abbey should be free whenever a geld was imposed as far as 140 hides demesne land in Berkshire were concerned. At that time the collector of the county was Edwin, the priest of Cholsey, and also Samuel his son. The following people were present from our side: Robert the sacrist, William Brito and another William, a monk, and William de Seacourt and Turstin and Ralph the chamberlain and many others. 2

214 215 2

'[E. King, PeterboroughAbbey 1086-1310, Cambridge, 1973, p. 32.] 17 Nov. A.D. 1119. Martini 0

[Boussard, Le gouvernement d'HenriII, p. 275, n. 10; Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, p. 176.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 182 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

216 Writ of King Henry I ordering Bishop Herbert of Norwich and Robert fitz Walter, the sheriff, to put Richard, bishop of London, in possession of the churches of Blythburgh and Stowmarket according to the verdict of twelve men of the hundred.

Henry, by God's grace, etc., to H(erbert), bishop of Norwich, and Robert the sheriff, greeting. I order that you let Richard, bishop of London, have the churches of Blythburgh and Stowe with all the customs that belong to them as twelve among the better men of the hundred will be able to swear and as I ordered in my other writ. And let this not be left undone because of my voyage to Normandy, and let him hold them in peace and honour with suit, soke, toll and team and infangthief and with all other customs, as ever any of my predecessors most honourably and most quietly held them. Witness, etc.'

217 Certain persons, aided by one Benedict, who is in the service of Richard, earl of Chester, attempt to get hold of certain lands of Abingdon Abbey at

Woodmundslea. The abbey sends a serjeant to the court of the earl of Chester with a charter to safeguard the rights of the abbey, but he is opposed by Benedict, who manages to take away the charter, so that the serjeant has to return empty-handed. We have also thought it worthwhile, as a warning to posterity, to say some more of that same place. Some greedy people wanted to enjoy the fruits of a portion of that land and counted on a certain Benedict, a very skilful man who used to act frequently as counsellor for the earl. As he promised them that he would obtain complete success, or so he thought, they awaited the outcome with high hopes. He began his machinations by firstly demanding unusual dues from that place, and afterwards, when what had been demanded was not delivered, by carrying off whatever could be found there. These things took place after the death of Abbot Faritius. As these things happened all too frequently, a serjeant of the church was sent at the behest of those who governed the public life of the monastery, to the court of the earl, carrying a charter in order to invoke the earl's authority in favour of the freedom of that land of all exaction. The envoy, having

216 ' '[Translation taken from Van Caenegem Royal Writ, no. 149, p. 491.]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 183 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

completed his journey, entered the court as he was told, made his complaint before the most important judges concerning the case with which he had been entrusted and produced the charter of freedom as proof of his sayings. The man whom we have mentioned before was also present, awaiting the outcome of demands and replies, and after the charter had been read in common audience, he asked that it should be handed over to him as he did no understand it well, but as soon as it was handed over, he put it away in his bosom. The carrier of the document was perplexed by this gesture, hesitated at first and afterwards, as he asked it back, received nothing but laughter from the intruder. Those of the assembly who favoured justice were indignant, but those who were otherwise inclined laughed and thus the envoy, not having accomplished his mission, came back home with this detriment, exhausted by his labours and sadness. Divine mercy, however, afterwards turned this business, which for some time had gone badly, into a piece of good fortune. God deigned to deprive the said Benedict of the earl's friendship and to expel the man who had misled, against his will, the carrier of the charter which was left behind. He was ruined and punished by divine vengeance, whilst the monks, who had addressed their prayers to God, recovered the writings which they had previously lost.

218 After ceding the mill of Langford to the abbey of Abingdon, William de Seacourt maintains that the monks had obtained it by force. The king orders him to be reseised of the mill, but after hearing a spokesman of the monks, he changes his mind and orders the abbey to be reseised. William quitclaims all his rights in the chapter. After the death of Abbot Faritius, this same William1 complained to the king, who was then in Normandy, concerning the aforesaid mill,2 claiming that the church had it because of force used by the abbot rather than by his own free will and therefore he was seised of it by a royal mandate. But afterwards, finding out the truth from Walter, the chaplain of William de Bocland, who had been sent by the monks, he ordered the church to be reseised. Therefore William de Seacourt himself, recognizing his injustice, put right what he had done and in the chapter gave up all claim to this same mill for ever and confirmed this in the church by placing a rod on the altar of the Lord.3

218 ' '[William de Seacourt, son of Ansfrida, a mistress of Henry I.10 0 ° 2 [Langford Mill in South Hinksey.1 3 '[See V.C.H. Berks., iv. 408; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 200.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 184 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

219 The litigation between Abbots Robert of Thorney and John of Peterborough concerning their jurisdiction over four fishermen in Farcet is finally settled, in favour of Thorney, in the king's court on the basis of sworn statements by local inhabitants; the fishermen had previously made their submission to Thorney, probably in the local court of the abbey at Stanground (an early Thorney possession), but Peterborough had apparently not recognized this act as valid. A. The submission of the four fishermen to the abbot of Thorney at Stanground. The present narrative is put down in writing for the memory of posterity and mainly of the monks of Thorney. At the time of Henry, king of the English and duke of the Normans, the following litigation arose between Abbot John of Peterborough and Abbot Robert of Thorney. The aforesaid abbot of Peterborough had four fishermen in a vill of the abbot of Thorney called Farcet who, whenever they were summoned by the said Abbot Robert or his minister, came to the abbot's hallmoot at Stanground to do and receive justice there. They also paid three times a year to the abbot of Thorney the custom which in the vernacular we call chevage, viz. 2 s. for themselves and their wives for the whole year. In August they owed the said abbot service during twelve days and the abbot of Thorney had all their sons and daughters and this custom had stood under his predecessors, except that the fishermen served the abbot of Peterborough as far as their fishing duty went and when Abbot John started to rule the monks of Peterborough and Abbot Robert ruled over Thorney, they carried on litigation on those customs, but it was terminated as follows. The fishermen came to Stanground and received their land from Abbot Robert and recognized that they had to go to his hallmoot, to pay the aforesaid chevage, to do service in August and that the abbot of Thomey should have their sons and daughters. For the conclusion of this fine Wido the monk took the place of Abbot Robert who was ill, and also Robert of Yaxley was there, who received the chevage from the said fishermen. The following were present and saw this: Aertold, Wlfric, Oger, Thuri, Gerard, Teri, Robert, Swain, Ansgot, Tedbold, Ralph de Botolph Bridge, etc.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 185 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The judgment in the king's court in favour of the abbot of Thorney. At the time of Henry, king of the English, a controversy arose between Abbot Robert of Thorney and Abbot John of Peterborough concerning four fishermen living in Farcet, the abbot of Peterborough maintaining that they were his fishermen owing no suit to the abbot of Thorney's hallmoot and no chevage to him, and Abbot Robert of Thorney on the contrary maintaining that he should have the aforesaid fishermen. And as they were disagreeing amongst themselves on this and on several other points, they finally appeared before the aforesaid king in the vill called Brampton, where their case came to the following conclusion. Sheriff Gilbert of Huntingdon and Ralph fitz Baldric recorded before the king and all the others who were present that eighteen men of the hundred swore at the behest of Ralph Basset, who was at the time justiciar of England, that those fishermen belonged by right to the abbot of Thorney and had to go to his hallmoot and pay him chevage and work for him 12 days in August and do whatever else for him as for their lord on whose land they lived and who took their defence in the shires and hundreds. King Henry has by the just judgment of his court and the grant of both abbots ordered this oath to be valid and unshaken. The following persons were present at this plea and fine: the said King Henry, Nigel d'Aubigny and his brother William, Ralph Basset etc.

220 Having obtained in 1102 or 1103 the manor of Pytchley for one year from his brother, Abbot Matthew of Peterborough, Geoffrey Ridel holds on to it in spite of the claim made against him before King Henry I under Abbot Ernulf. In 1117 he reaches an agreement with Abbot John about the farming of the manor and its reversion to the abbey, and upon his death in 1120 Abbot John seizes the manor into his demesne and obtains a royal writ of confirmation. [Abbot Matthew] let to farm the manor of Pytchley to his brother Geoffrey Ridel for one year, but after the abbot was dead, he held that vill by force as long as he lived. Nevertheless after a claim had been made against him before the king, he swore on behalf of himself and his heirs, upon the holy altar and the sacred relics of St. Peter at Burch, and promised that he would compel his wife and his children to take this same oath, namely, to give back that same manor together with his body and his chattels and with the restoration of the vill to the monastery without challenge, and every year so long as he held [it] he would pay four pounds of silver.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 186 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

This oath he took in the time of Abbot Ernulf. And in the time of Abbot John, in the year 1117 A.D. in the eleventh indiction, this same Geoffrey Ridel, claiming by himself and by many other worthy men, at last persuaded the same Abbot John, to grant unto him the manor of Pytchley for his life-time. So Geoffrey Ridel came to Abbot John, and in his chamber at Burch the abbot let him the aforesaid land to farm at four pounds for the benefit of the abbot by such pact and agreement, and that he would swear this to him, that after the death of Geoffrey, the same manor, with all stock that was there, on the day on which Geoffrey should be quick and dead, should revert, without any challenge on the part of his wife or sons, to the demesne of St. Peter and the monks. Geoffrey swore therefore upon the text of the gospel this pact and covenant which he had made, as is aforesaid, that this manor should revert to the demesne without any challenge, and promised [this] by oath. And he made his wife and his son grant and swear this also. Of this pact or covenant and oath many men were witnesses, hearing and seeing these things, whose names I have thought it superfluous to mention, because they are written in the text of the gospel.' Now the third year after this covenant was made, to wit in 1120, the aforesaid Geoffrey Ridel was drowned in the sea with William, the king's son. Then Abbot John seized the manor into his demesne as had been agreed between them, but fearing lest any challenge should arise, he petitioned the king, and paid him sixty silver marks; whereupon the king, by his writ,2 granted that this manor of Pytchley should be, and should remain certainly for ever, in the demesne of St. Peter of Burch, the abbot and the monks.3

221 Grant by King Henry I to Robert, bishop of Lincoln, of land which Ralph Basset had deraigned for the royal demesne. Henry, king of England, to Earl Ranulf of Chester, Hugh of Leicester and all the barons of Lincolnshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to God and the Church and Robert bishop of Lincoln the twelve bovates of land which Ralph Basset deraigned as being in my demesne, namely six bovates in Burgh and six bovates in Willingham. And I will and order that he shall hold them well and honourably and freely with sake and soke, toll and team and infangthief and all his

220

A full account of this transaction is to be found in the Book of Charters of Brother Henry of Pytchley, Junior, fo. vi (now in the possession of the Dean and Chapter of Peterborough). 2'[The reversion was confirmed in a writ of Henry I of prob. 7 Jan. 1121 (Regesta ii, no. 1244).]" '

3"[Translation taken from HUGH CANDIDUS Chron. 46-47.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 187 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

other customs as he best and most honourably holds his other lands. Witnesses: Ranulf the chancellor, Nigel d'Aubigny, William de Tancarville and Geoffrey de Clinton. At Guildford.' 222 During the vacancy of the abbey of Abingdon caused by the death of Abbot Faritius, Simon, the dispenser of Henry I, claiming hereditary right in the church of Marcham, seizes it by royal command. On complaint by the newly appointed Abbot Vincent, a fine is reached between the abbot and Simon. After the venerable Abbot Faritius had left this life for a worthier one, this church, as we have already mentioned, was left for four years without an abbot. During that period Simon, the dispenser of King Henry, who was a relation of William, the son of Abbot Reginald, who by the gift of his father held, for his lifetimi only, the church of Marcham and some other possessions from this church and receiving the habit of a monk in this place had quitclaimed everything, suggested to the king in Normandy that the aforesaid church and land belonged to him by hereditary right. It was not difficult to persuade the king, in the absence of anyone who could object, and by royal command Simon seized the land with the church and held them until Abbot Vincent succeeded as pastor of this place, who complained to the king about these possessions having been unjustly taken away and made an agreement with Simon, who realized how unjustly he had made this acquisition.' 223 The monks of Durham lay claim to the priory of Tynemouth against the abbey of St. Albans, alleging a grant made by Earl Waltheof and maintaining that Robert de Mowbray, who expelled them from Tynemouth, unjustly granted it to St. Albans. The claim comes first before the chapter of the archbishop of York and is repeated before an assembly of important laymen (possibly of one or more county courts), where one of them testifies that Robert de Mowbray, who first gave Tynemouth to St. Albans, later regretted this unlawful grant. After a proclamation was made in the chapter of St. Peter at York in the presence of Turstan [of York], Ranulf of Durham and Audouen of Evreux, bishops, and many others, the monks of Durham have complained that the church 221 222

'[See confirmations in identical terms by Henry II in LINCOLN Reg., i, no. 160, pp. 102-103 and no. 169, p. 108.]o '[See Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 273; Stenton, English Justice, p. 24, n. 5.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 188 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

in Tynemouth was theirs by right through the grant of Earl Waltheof when he sent his cousin, Morcar the son of his aunt, as a young child to them to be educated for God in the monastery of Jarrow. IAfter he had entrusted him to them in the church of Tynemouth, the monks took him by boat to Jarrow and took pains to feed him and educate him in God's service. From that time onwards they say our brethren, the monks of Jarrow, have taken care of that place, where Edmund and afterwards Edred, their monks, served that church together with the priest Elwald, who also had been a canon of the church of Durham2 and thus used to come over to Durham and read mass in the course of the week, whenever it was his turn. We also remember that Wulmar, a monk of our congregation, and other brethren who performed the divine services there, were sent there by turns from Jarrow. The bones of St. Oswin were also temporarily carried over to the first place by our brethren to them in Jarrow, when it pleased them. Finally Aubrey, after receiving the honour of the earldom, gave the same place to us who were transferred to Durham. Therefore our monk Turkill was, on the basis of a sentence pronounced by the whole chapter, sent there, who repaired the roof of that church and lived there for a long time until he was expelled violently by Earl Robert de Mowbray through his ministers Gumer and Robert Taca because of his hatred of Bishop William. Not long afterwards Abbot Paul of the monastery of St. Albans obtained the aforesaid church from the earl and on his way to inspect it, arrived at York. Turgot, who was then prior of the church of Durham, sent monks and clerics there and in the presence of Archbishop Thomas the elder and of many persons of great eminence forbade him by canonical authority to usurp for himself a place that belonged of right to the church of Durham and to become a violator of the sacred canons and fraternal charity. But he replied indignantly that he counted that prohibition for nothing. And falling ill on the way back, he died in Settrington, not far from York. This is how we lost the church of Tynemouth. This complaint, made almost at mid-Lent at York,3 was repeated shortly afterwards in Easter week on Wednesday 13 April at Durham before a large gathering of important men, who happened to have assembled there for some business, i.e. Robert de Brus, Alan de Percy, Walter Espec, Forne son of Sigulf, Robert de Witvila, Odard, sheriff of the Northumbrians, with the leading men of that county and many others. As the monks put forward their complaints before this large gathering, Alan de Percy,4 a rich man from a well known family, steadfast in speaking the truth, stood up and as a true witness declared before everybody that he had heard and seen the earl's penitence' for this injury, which he had violently caused St. 223 See above, p. 209. 0[ = SYMEON OF DuRHAM, ii, 209.10 2 '[Durham is a cathedral monastery, where the secular clergy was dispossessed and monks

introduced by Bishop William of St. Calais in 1083. See Dugdale Monasticon, I, 224.]0 0

3 [About mid-Lent (20 March) 1121.]o 4 '[Probably Alanus is meant here.)' 50[This is Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, who rebelled in 1095 against William

Rufus and was condemned.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 189 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Cuthbert. "When", he said "the earl was taken in the place of which he had robbed St. Cuthbert and was carried on a litter to Durham because of his wounds, he asked permission to enter the church to pray and when the barons did not allow it, he burst into tears and looking at the church he sighed": "Oh St. Cuthbert, I justly suffer these miseries because I have sinned against you and your people: this is your punishment for the wickedness of my life and I beg you, holy man of God, to have mercy upon me". Hearing this, everyone said that the church of Durham had been unjustly treated and whereas the matter could not be put right at once, they maintained that the complaint had been wisely made for the future before this numerous assembly.6

224 Judgment in the king's court in favour of Abbot Reginald of Ramsey against Hugh de Worcester and Roger la Velie, who unjustly held lands in Elton, Warboys, Houghton and Wyton. A. Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Gilbert the sheriff and all the barons of Huntingdonshire that he has restored to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey lands in Elton and Warboys, which Hugh de Worcester held, and churches and lands in Houghton and Wyton which Richard la Velie held. Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and Gilbert the sheriff and all the barons, French and English, of Huntingdonshire, greeting. Know that I have restored to the church and Abbot Reginald of Ramsey the land which Hugh de Worcester held in Elton and Warboys, as freely and quietly as he best and most honourably holds his other lands and I similarly grant him to hold quietly and honourably the churches and the lands belonging to those churches which Richard la Velie held in Houghton and Wyton. Witnesses: Bishop [Roger] of Salisbury, Bishop [Robert] of Lincoln, Bishop [William] of Winchester, Ranulf the chancellor, Nigel d'Aubigny, Walter of Gloucester, Ralph Basset, Vitalis Engaine, Eurewin, Durand and Herbert. At Woodstock.

B. Writ of King Henry I ordering Hugh de Worcester and Roger la Velie to give up the lands mentioned in text A to the abbot of Ramsey, in execution of a judgment given in the king's court. 6

0

[Around the same time a royal writ addressed to Walter Espec, Forne son of Sigulf and Odard

the sheriff, confirmed the monks of Tynemouth in the possession of all the lands of which they were seised when abbot Richard of St. Albans died in 1119. Regesta ii, no. 1264 [1121, March ?]. For a discussion of the Durham charters of this period see H.S. Offler, Durham episcopal charters,1071-1152, Gateshead, 1968, particularly concerning Tynemouth, pp. 39-47.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 190 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Worcester and Roger La Velie, greeting. I order that you quickly deliver the land of the abbot of Ramsey, as it was adjudged before me, and that you take away what you brought on it, and leave behind what you found there. Witness: Nigel d'Aubigny. And unless you do it, Gilbert the sheriff and Reginald le Moigne shall have it done. Witness: the same. At Westminster.

225 Notification by King Henry I that a concord was reached in the king's court between the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and the bishop of Lincoln concerning land in Royton. Henry, king of the English, to Archbishop [Ralph] of Canterbury and Bishop [Ernulf] of Rochester and the sheriff and all his barons of Kent, greeting. Know that the plea between Bishop [Robert] of Lincoln and Abbot [Hugh] of St. Augustine concerning the land of Royton was settled in my court in this way that it was recognized that this land is of the fee of St. Augustine and the bishop of Lincoln must hold it from the abbot of St. Augustine. The abbot granted to the bishop of Lincoln that he could hold the land from him, rendering and doing the services which belong to that land except [castle] guard and host during the bishop's lifetime. If, however, after the bishop's death his heir has that land by my grant, he shall hold it from the abbot of St. Augustine and render all the services that belong to that land fully with guard and host, but if I give the purchases of the bishop to somebody else than his heir, the abbot shall do right in his court to him who claims the aforesaid land. And the abbot shall not lose his right because of this concord, which was made between the bishop and the abbot. The aforesaid land belongs with its customs to the abbot's manor of Lenham. Witnesses: William, bishop of Winchester, Roger, bishop of Salisbury, Richard, bishop of London, Bernard, bishop of St. David's, Robert the king's son, Roger fitz Richard and Walter and Robert his brothers and his two nephews Richard and Baldwin, William de Thanet, Nigel d'Aubigny, William de Montfichet, Robert de Crevecoeur, Fulbert de Dover and Rualon of Avranches. At Winchester.

° 224B I '[Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, no. 191, p. 512.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 191 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

226 In the feudal court of John, bishop of Bath, a writ from William, King Henry I's son, is produced ordering the bishop to give just seisin to Modbert of the land in North Stoke which Grenta made him heir to. A discussion on the justice of this order arises and the prior of Bath denies that Grenta ever possessed hereditarily the land in Stoke, which has belonged to the church of Bath for centuries. After witnesses for the priory are produced and a royal charter read, judgment is given that the plaintiff shall prove his claim by at least two witnesses or a trustworthy document, which he fails to do. In the month of June on the day after the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, as John, bishop of Bath, was sitting in his court with his friends and barons, who had gathered for the feast day, a letter was brought with a royal seal containing the following. William, the king's son, to John, bishop of Bath, greeting. I order you justly to seise Modbert of the land which Grenta of Stoke has held, to which he has made 1 him heir during his lifetime. Witness: the bishop of Salisbury. After the letter was read the bishop said: "I agree to do what I have been ordered by the son of my lord by this letter, if it is just. However, my friends and lords, who are solemnly gathered in this court on the occasion of the apostolic feast-day, I beg you to discuss which is the more just cause in this matter" Thereupon the lord prior, having consulted the brethren and having diligently obtained everybody's attention, spoke as follows: "Since neither the king nor the king's son has ordered anything here to be done except justly and it is committed to you, as good men and knowledgeable in the law, to discuss whether what is ordered is just, you will see more clearly the truth of the matter if you are willing patiently to listen to my short speech. It is established that this land, which we are discussing, had been given from early days to the brethren of this holy house of the Lord for their own use and in free possession and has never come under military law by the decision of a king, bishop or abbot. Grenta himself with whose inheritance we are now dealing has not passed this under silence on his deathbed, for when he made dispositions for his house and divided by name the various parts of his money, he was secretly asked by the members of his household to make a testament and publicly institute an heir, but he said: 'This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, which I am permitted to hold as long as I live against payment and not hereditarily, and now that I die, I leave myself with the land to the brethren to whom it belongs by law'. That is the testament he made and those are his last words, after which having suffered for a few days, he died a monk. I see some people here who were present and heard it all". Lawful witnesses came forward and standing in the middle firmly asserted that they would prove by all means that he had not betrayed the truth by one single word. Nevertheless, a charter of an old 226 1 '[Roger, bishop of Salisbury.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 192 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

donation was soon read which Cynewulf,2 king of the Saxons, had ordered to be written and signed with his own hand, with the agreement and consent of archbishops, bishops, abbots, primates of all dignities and ministers. It was written there that those who had signed the charter with a cross invoked the eternal ire and fury of the Lord against anyone who would dare to pervert by whatever means of deterioration such a liberal donation by a very Christian king. After the reading and expounding of the content of the charter, the truth of the forementioned argumentation was confirmed, some people supporting the right position, others agitating on the other side and foremost among them that man who insolently and mendaciously asserted that he most justly was the heir, since he was married to the daughter of the deceased (who during his lifetime had adopted him as his son) and that the father had held the land not, as was objected, against payment but rather freely and hereditarily. As because of the contradictory assertions of the parties the case went on for a long time, the bishop said: "As the day is passing and we have to settle other business, we wish that those amongst you whom we know to be neither advocates nor supporters of the parties shall diligently study the case and decide by what final judgment it shall be solved" Those who were older and more learned in the law left the crowd and weighed subtly and wisely all the arguments they had heard and settled the case. After they came back, the following pronouncement was made by one man's mouth for all of them, who said: "Considering all the circumstances of this case we have decided that the man who purports to be the legal heir shall prove irrefutably what he has just claimed in support of his case by at least two free and lawful witnesses from the familiars of the church, who shall be named today and produced within a week, or by a signed and credible chirograph: if he fails in either, he shall not be heard again". Everybody replied that this was worthy and just, the plaintiff remained silent and thus they left the court. This was done in the year of the Lord 1121 under the presidency and with the approval for this just solution of two bishops, John of Bath and Maurice from Ireland, 3 with three archdeacons, Johel of Salisbury, Girbert of Bath and Arald, with numerous clerics and chaplains, Atselin Hose, Girbert Rufus, Ralph de Laon, Henry de Lidiard, Robert de Bethune. The following were witnesses: Patricius de Chaorciis,4 Hubert de St. Susanna, Winebald de Balloni Alexander de Alno, Reginald de Dunstanville, Giffard de Salford, Elias de Deingt', Thomas de Backwell, Robert, 6 Roger de la Mare, William the steward and another William. 2 o[Cynewulf, king of Wessex acc. 755-d. 786.10

'[This is probably Mael Iosa 0 Foghludha (Mauricius), archbishop of Cashel, who died in 1131 (Powicke, Handbook, 322).] '[This is Sourches in Normandy, arr. Le Mans, in the commune of Saint-Symphorien. The name also occurs in the English form of Chaworth (see L. C. Loyd, The origins of some Anglo-Norman families, Leeds, 1951, p. 27).] '[On this family and place-name, see Loyd, op. cit., p. 12.10 6 '[See Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, pp. 199-200; for the writ of William, the king's son, with the date May 1118-May 1119, see Regesta ii, no. 1201 and Van Caenegem, op. cit., no. 11, p. 4 18.]"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 193 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

227 Writ of King Henry I ordering Absalon de Sandwich to do right to the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury according to the judgment of the abbot's court concerning his fee. Henry, king of England, to Absalon de Sandwich, greeting. I order you to do full right to the abbot of St. Augustine in his court according to the judgment of his court concerning the fee which you hold from St. Augustine and him, namely the church which you claim to hold from him in fee and inheritance. And unless you are prepared to do this, I grant that he may recover his fee. Witness: Bishop [Roger] of Salisbury, at Northampton. And I forbid anyone to disturb him unjustly on this. Witness: the same.

228 Notification by King Henry I that he has restored to Shaftesbury Abbey the lands which Abbess Emma deraigned in his court.

Henry, by the grace of God, king of the English and duke of the Normans, to the archbishops, bishops and all his barons and lieges, French and English, of all England, greeting. I want it to be known to you all that for the sake ofjustice and for the love of God I both grant and restore to God and the church of St. Mary and St. Edward of Shaftesbury, to be freely and well possessed henceforth in demesne, all those lands which Abbess Emma deraigned in my presence and that of my barons at Eling, i.e. against Harding fitz Alnod in Stoke the 5 hides that were of the demesne of the church of St. Edward, against Thomas the kinsman of Abbess Eulalia in Stoke 1 hide of the demesne, in Bryanston 1 hide and 1 virgate of the demesne, in Elworth 1 hide and a half, in Esgrave 1 hide of the demesne, against Turstin fitz Haimfrid and his brother in Kilmington 1 hide which was given with the daughter of Serlo de Burci, in Gussage 2 hides which were of the demesne and given with some nun called Aileva, in Bridsor 2 hides of the demesne, in Tarrant 1 hide of the demesne which was given with the daughter of Garmund, in Donhead 1 mill of the demesne, against Osmund fitz Godescal in Ludwell I hide and 1 mill of

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 194 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the demesne, against Picot de Burgato in Liddington 5 hides of the demesne, against Roger Waspail in Hatch 3 hides that were of the demesne, against Alvred de Foxley 1 hide and 3 virgates which were given with the daughter of Roger de Berkeley, against the wife of William de Cheselbourne and his daughter halfa hide of the demesne in Shilvinghampton and 5 virgates which were given with the daughter of Alvred the butler. All this I grant to God and the church of St. Mary and St. Edward to be possessed well and freely forever for the salvation of my soul and those of my wife and children and my father and mother and my ancestors, as Abbess Emma deraigned them before me. I also grant the 2 hides in Fosbury which Joscelin de Ripariis gave with his daughter and in Iland 2 hides which Drew de Montacute gave with his daughter and in Farnham the half hide which Aiulf the sheriff had held of the land of the aforesaid church and afterwards finally restored it to the aforesaid church with his daughter, the nun, and in Blandford 1 hide and a half which Aiulf the chamberlain gave for the soul of his wife and in Bradford and in Badbury 1 hide and a half which Abbess Emma bought from Saconus and his sons and in Brimbley 1 virgate of land which Duncan gave with his daughter, the nun, and the church of Thorton with the adjacent land and tithes and Little Wareham, which Odo fitz Gamelin gave with his two daughters, nuns, and the tithe of the demesne of Richard de St. Clair of Wareham which he gave with his daughter, the nun, and 30 acres of his demesne in that same vill and the monastry of Keevil with the adjacent land and tithe which Ernald de Hesdin gave with some kinswoman, a nun, and the chapel of Bratton with the adjacent land and tithe, which Gundreda gave with some kinswoman, a nun.1 Signed by King Henry of the English, Ralph the chancellor, Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Earl Robert of Gloucester, Humphrey de Bohun, Alvred de Lincoln, Robert de Arundel etc.2

228

[We follow the emended version of note c.]0 2 [For a later confirmation by King Stephen, of 22 March-22 December 1136, see Regesta iii, no. (818, p. 301.] ° 0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 195 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

229 Writ of King Henry I ordering William, bishop of Winchester, and Adam de Port to let Roger, bishop of Salisbury, and Thurstan, his clerk, have the chapel of Woodcott as it was deraigned for the church of Hurstbourne. Henry, king of the English, to Bishop William of Winchester and Adam de Port, greeting. Let Bishop Roger of Salisbury and Thurstan, his clerk, have the chapel and the parish of Woodcott as justly as it was deraigned to the benefit of the church of Hurstbourne and let them similarly have all things that pertain to it, so that I hear no complaint thereof for lack ofjustice. Witness: [Archbishop] Ralph of Canterbury. At Olney. And see to it that those who have caused injury in this connection shall undergo my justice. Witness: the same.

230 Writ of King Henry I to Everard, bishop of Norwich, ordering Roger de Valognes and the monks at Binham to hold their portion of the church of Walsingham, as Roger proved his right against Geoffrey de Favarches. Henry, king of England, to Everard, bishop of Norwich, greeting, I order that Roger de Valognes and his monks of Binham shall hold their part of the church of Walsingham, which Warin the priest withheld from them, as well and peacefully and justly as Robert his predecessor held it, as Roger himself deraigned it against Geoffrey de Favarches; and do not allow them to suffer any injury on this account. Witness: the chancellor. At Silverstone.

231 Writ by King Henry I to Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Earl David and the county of Huntingdon concerning the soke of the canons of St. Mary of Huntingdon and especially the tax position of its inhabitants who do business in the borough of Huntingdon.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 196 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of the English, to Robert bishop of Lincoln, Earl David and the sheriff and all his barons and lieges of Huntingdonshire, greeting. I will and order that the soke of St. Mary and the canons of Huntingdon and their two hides in Normancross hundred shall be quit of the community and gelds of the borough of Huntingdon, for which the county made a claim against the burgesses and failed. And if some man of their soke has stallage in the borough, let him also belong to the community of the borough, otherwise let him pay for his stallage the customary due which he should justly pay. Witnesses: the bishop of Lincoln and several others. 232 Plea concerning land pertaining to Burton Bradstock between the abbey of St. Stephen's, Caen and the king's tenants in Bridport, settled in favour of the abbey by a sworn inquest in a session of seven hundreds in the area of Burton and Bridport. In the year 1122 of the Incarnation of the Lord, Henry, king of the English, ordered a discussion and examination by judges of a complaint by the monks of St. Stephen of Caen concerning the land appertaining to Burton Bradstock, which the king's men of Bridport had seized and, thanks to the support of royal ministers, held for a long time: the decision of the whole question was to be left to the affirmation of the men of the four parts in that vill's neighbourhood. After frequent delays a royal command arrived that his order should finally be carried out. On the appointed day the claim of the monks was heard before seven hundreds which had come together on that land from neighbouring and more remote vills, in the presence of Warin, the sheriff of Dorset and Somerset, who had specially been entrusted with the meeting, and oaths were sworn according to the king's command. Sixteen men, three from Bridport and three from Burton Bradstock and ten from the neighbourhood swore that they would make a truthful affirmation in the inquisition concerning that land. After inquiring who had more right in it, they confirmed by a trustworthy oath that the land was of old adjacent to Burton Bradstock and that he who had Burton Bradstock should also have that land. Everybody agreed with their assertion and by God's grace and the merits of St. Stephen adjudged to the plaintiffs what was their right and ordered the immediate transfer of the land of Burton Bradstock to the monks. Thus it happened on that day.... The names of those who swore are the following: William de Ver, Ronald Postel, Ruald de Stert, Richard fitz Living, Ailward de Dagenham, Edward Chingenot, Saric de Berwick, Ailward de Bredy, Leoveric Burdelin, Alwin Bacon, who was the reeve, Edwin fitz Saric of Bridport, Alvric fitz Sideflet, Tedwi de Bridport, Torgot de Burton, Saric de Burton, Alwin fitz Onwin of Burton.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 197 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

233 Litigation between Autin de Huntingdon and his son on the one hand and the abbey of Ramsey on the other, concerning the church of Shillington. After a quitclaim by Autin, the case is reopened by his son and heir Baldwin, who brings a royal writ ordering him to be reseised. After Abbot Reginald has offered to do right in his court, Bishop Robert of Lincoln claims the case and Baldwin gives up all his rights in the church. A. Record of the quitclaim in a church court by Autin de Huntingdon and his son Baldwin of the church of Shillington to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey. Be it known to the sons of Holy Mother Church that Autin de Huntingdon and his son Baldwin have given up in peace and without any claim the church of Shillington, which they claimed unjustly and in which they had no right, to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey and his monks at a vill called Sawtry.' Bishop Robert of Lincoln2 was witness and promoter of this transaction, for he conducted and terminated this case canonically. And to ensure that the aforesaid Autin and his son Baldwin should have not the slightest cause of displeasure, Abbot Reginald of Ramsey, whom we have already mentioned, gave them by the hand of Reginald called le Moigne 10 marks of silver, on the advice of the forementioned bishop of Lincoln. Witnesses: Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Henry [of Huntingdon], archdeacon [of Huntingdon],3 Robert the priest of Huntingdon, Robert son of Gilbert de Ghent and others.

B. Decision by Bishop Robert of Lincoln to bring the case concerning the church of Shillington between the abbey of Ramsey and Baldwin, son of Autin de Huntingdon, before his court, in spite of a royal writ which ordered Baldwin to be reseised; Baldwin quitclaims all his rights in the church of Shillington to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey. A long time afterwards, when his father Autin was already dead, Baldwin, moved by avarice, tried to be reseised by royal writ, but since the writ of the king mentioned that he was to be reseised by right, the aforesaid abbot offered this same Baldwin right judgment, either in his own court or in the court of the bishop of Lincoln himself, who had terminated the case before, during the lifetime of Baldwin's father Autin. And the same bishop also ordered the aforesaid Baldwin as his parishioner that he and Reginald, who we said was abbot of Ramsey, to appear again before him at Bedford so that peace could be established again between Abbot Reginald and Baldwin, on the basis of the previous agreement 233A

'[Sale is most probably Sawtry, a well known Domesday possession of Ramsey.]' 2 Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, 1093-1123.

3 Henry of Huntingdon, the historian.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 198 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

which this same bishop had brought about during the lifetime of Autin, Baldwin's father. Seeing that he could make no headway either in the abbot's court or in the bishop's, Baldwin acted wisely to have the abbot's friendship: at Huntingdon in the house of Drogo, he himself as well as his brother Burred again gave up by a rod to the aforesaid abbot whatever he claimed in the church of Shillington. Witnesses: Gilbert the sheriff, Reginald le Moigne, Robert de Huntingdon, Ralph de Huntingdon, Fulk the nephew of [Gilbert] the sheriff, Godric of Ellington and others.1

234 Grant to Battle Abbey by Wening, who held the manor of Westfield from William fitz Wibert, of the church of the said manor, together with a 'wist' of land and the ordeal of water belonging to the church. A. Narrative of the grant. At the same epoch one of the neighbours, Wening, gave the abbey in free and perpetual tenure a near-by church called Westfield, with a wist of land and the ordeal of water appurtenant to it, and with all its customs.'

B. Confirmation by Ralph, bishop of Chichester. Be it known to all the faithful of Christ, present and future, that I Ralph, bishop of Chichester, grant and confirm by episcopal authority the gift which Wening made to the church of St. Martin of Battle and the monks who serve God there, i.e. the church of Westfield and one wist of land to be forever in their possession, and I also grant the ordeal of water which belongs by right to that church. I will however and firmly command that nobody shall concern himself with the foresaid ordeal of water, which Wening has granted and I with him, except 233B 234A

' [Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 315-316; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 44.]1

DB, i, 18b. No church is listed under Westfield (Westewelle) there. However, this may be the nearby independent church held by Ulward, the priest of the manor of Filsham. His church had one virgate and did not belong to the manor of Filsham, as DB specifically states. It was therefore relatively easy to sell. Westfield was held as an appropriated rectory in all extant Battle muniments and was a valuable supplier of corn to the abbey. Searle, Lordship,pp. 447, 453-454. Henry I's confirmation is Regesta, ii, no. 1805. Bishop Ralph Luffa's confirmation is printed in Mayr-Harting, Acta, no. 5. '[Our translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 121.]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 199 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the abbot of Battle and his monks. Whenever the priest of this church dies or is degraded for any cause, the abbot and the monks of St. Martin of Battle shall appoint in their chapter and with the assent of the whole chapter a vicar to that church, as they please and they will present him to the bishop or the archdeacon or the dean with the testimony of their writing, and thus he shall fulfil the priestly service in the church of Westfield by the written grant of the monks of St. Martin of Battle. Witnesses: Henry, the archdeacon, Gilbert the dean, Hugh de Flokes, Robert de Andevill etc. with others.1

235

David, earl of Huntingdon and Northampton (the future King David I of Scotland), helps to make peace between William Peverel and Abbot Robert of Thorney at an assembly of barons in Keyston by persuading William to abandon his claim to the church of Bolnhurst. Be it known to all present and future that William Peverell was in conflict with the abbot of Thorney and the monks of that place concerning the church of Bolnhurst, but that the lord Abbot Robert, who had received the administration of that church, often addressed himself to the aforesaid William and obtained that in the future he would give up all further conflict concerning that church. This was done as follows. One day when Earl David, William Peverel and Abbot Robert of Thorney came together in a vill called Keyston, the said abbot asked William to give up the aforesaid conflict for the salvation of his soul and for the souls of his ancestors, which he promptly did through the intervention of the earl and numerous other magnates who were present there, transferring [the church] into the abbot's hand by a rod. And for this Earl David kissed his hand and afterwards that of the abbot, and thus he as well as the earl became participants in all the benefits of the church of Thorney. The following are witnesses of this business: Earl David, Hugh [Peverel] nephew of William, Reinald fitz Herefrid etc. on William's part, and the lord Abbot Robert, Hugh the monk, another monk called Hugh, Odo Revel, Robert the priest, etc. on the part of the monks.

234B '[See V.C.H. Sussex, ix, pp. 90-94; Regesta ii, no. 1805.10 235 ' 0[This is William I Peverel of Dover, who died c. 1132-1133, see Barrow, op. cit., p. 103 and p. 133 n. I and Sanders, English baronies, 151 .]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 200 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

236 After various encroachments on Battle Abbey's banlieu, the whole question is taken to the court of King Henry I. Order is given to make a new survey of the leuga, and thus the depredations which the abbey had suffered are ended.

At that time most of the neighbours, complaining that the leuga around the abbey included certain of their own lands, were constantly harassing the abbot and monks with false claims. Finally matters came to the point that complaint was made to the king, and it was the common counsel that the leuga should be measured with a line. When that was completed, everything that it had before, and even some lands in a number of places outside the leuga boundary included in the line's measurement were conceded to the church: thus ended the quarrels, with the abbey holding them free and quit to the present day.' 237 Royal itinerant justices sitting in Leicestershire condemn forty-four thieves

to be hanged and six men to be blinded and castrated.

In the course of this same year after St. Andrew's Day, before Christmas, Ralph Basset and the king's thegns held a council at Hundehoge1 in Leicestershire, and hanged there more thieves than ever had been hanged before; that was in all forty-four men in that little time; and six men were blinded and castrated. A large number of trustworthy men said that many were destroyed very unjustly there, but our Lord God Almighty that sees and knows all secrets - he sees the wretched people are treated with complete injustice: first they are robbed of their property 236 1 There is a survey on p. 50 above, where the boundaries of the leuga are given in respect of fiefs and holdings contiguous to the leuga. But it is later than the one mentioned here, possibly a version of this, brought up to date by Abbot Walter de Luci. Regesta, ii, no. 1166 (1109-1116) and no. 1185 are contemporary writs ordering such boundary surveys. Other examples are mentioned, ibid., p. xix. And see F.W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 432-433. Regesta, ii, no. 619 (and p. 308) commands the barons of Hastings Rape to make "enclosures against the land of the abbot of Battle"; it no doubt initiated or resulted from this incident. The context into which the chronicler puts it (the abbot purchasing lands and being involved in lawsuits obviously attendant upon getting clear 'title') makes the date of 1102, which the Regesta editors tentatively assign to the writ, unlikely. A date after 1110 is more probable. '[Our translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 129; see Searle, Battle Abbey, 40.] 237 0[This place has often been identified with Hundcot, Hundcote or Huncote, but Miss Clark, the editor of the Peterborough chronicle, and Miss Whitelock in her translation of 1961 do not consider this identification as warranted, so that Hundehoge should be considered as an unidentified place in Leicestershire.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 201 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and then they are killed. It was a very troublous year: the man who had any property was deprived of it by severe taxes and severe courts; the man who had none died of hunger.2

238 After Geoffrey de Delce gave to the cathedral priory of Rochester part of his land, his son and heir Herbert claims that the monks have taken more land than they were given; an agreement is reached. Be it known to all, future as well as present, that Geoffrey de Delce has, with the consent of his lord and his sons, given to the church of St. Andrew some part of his land which he had in Delce, together with his son whom he made a monk in that church. This land was held by the church and the monks for the rest of Geoffrey's life and for a long time during that of his heir Herbert in peace and without any claim. 1 However, after some discord arose between the monks and Herbert, the latter began to claim the part of the land which his father had given to the church, saying that the monks had usurped more of his land than his father had given them. In order to settle and terminate forever this discord and claim, the monks gave him 10 s. and a palfrey worth 10 s. and he gave up the said claim for the soul of his father and his own and those of his wife and his children, so that the monks do not owe any service or any custom, neither for the land which was without claim nor for that which was claimed, except only for the king's scot which is called danegeld and then that whole land will pay scot for 20 acres. Witnesses: Martin the monk and cellarer, Humphrey the monk, Warner the monk of Canterbury, Hervey the archdeacon [of Rochester], Robert de Dover, Adelard, William the cook, Humphrey the porter, Norman, Brihtric de Southgate and many others.

0

2 [Translation taken from D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker, The Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, London, 1961, 191; see Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 28; Reedy, General eyre, 709710.10 238 1 O[From ROCHESTER Textus Roffensis, cap. 173, p. 188 it appears that Herbert was a son of Geoffrey de Delce and the land was held of Walter Tirel.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 202 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

239 A great number of moneyers are summoned to Winchester by Bishop Roger of Salisbury on royal orders and mutilated because of their false dealing. A. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. In this year King Henry sent to England from Normandy before Christmas,' and ordered that all the moneyers who were in England should be mutilated - i.e. that each should lose the right hand and be castrated. That was because the man who had a pound could not get a pennyworth at a market. And Bishop Roger of Salisbury sent over all England and ordered them all to come to Winchester at Christmas. When they got there, they were taken one by one and each deprived of the right hand, and castrated. All this was done before Twelfth Night,2 and it was done very justly because they had ruined all the country with their great false3 dealing, which they all paid for.

B. The narrative in Simeon of Durham's Historia regurn.

The main moneyers of all England were caught for having made adultenine, viz. not pure pennies of silver, and at the king's command they were all brought together at Winchester on one day and emasculated and their right hand amputated.

C. The narrative in the Continuation of Florence of Worcester. The moneyers throughout England were caught with false money and underwent the king's implacable edict, having their right hand and the inferior parts of their body cut off. The ensuing change of money made everything dear.

239A

1124. 6 January 1125. 3 0[Translation taken from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a revised translation, ed. by D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker, London, 1961, p. 191.] '

2

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 203 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

D. The narrative in Robert of Torigny's History of the reign of Henry I (book VIII of William of Jumi6ges' Gesta). I shall narrate something that took place while the aforesaid discord between the king and the count of Meulan' was going on and from which the severity of his justice against the impious will be apparent, as also his contempt of money in the maintenance of rectitude. For as he was involved in warfare in Normandy, it so happened that, depraved by I don't know what perversity, almost all the moneyers of the English kingdom produced coins consisting of an alloy of silver and lead containing hardly one third of silver, whereas those coins used to consist entirely of silver. As, however, the king's knights received their stipend in that false money, which had been transported to Normandy, and could buy nothing with it as it was not legitimate, they went and complained to the king of its falsity. So the king got angry because of the injury done to his knights and even more because justice was violated, and he pronounced a sentence commanding and ordering those whom he had appointed in his place in England to cause all the moneyers who could justly be convicted of this impiety to be mutilated by the amputation of the right hand and the genitals. 0 manful defender of justice and keenest punisher of iniquity! 0 if he had been prepared to accept redemption money for the limbs of so many impious men, how many thousands of talents might he have gained, but as we said he despised money out of love for justice.

E. The narrative in the Chronicle of Melrose. The principal moneyers of all England were caught at the command of King Henry as they were all gathered at Winchester and they had their right hand cut off and were emasculated by the amputation of their testicles, immediately after the Circumcision of the Lord.

F. The narrative in the Annals of Winchester. 1125. In this year all the moneyers of all England were mutilated at Winchester, except for three.I 239D I 'rhis count of Meulan is Waleran, the oldest son of Robert I de Beaumont, count of Meulan and since c. 1107 earl of Leicester. Robert I died in 1118 and left the honour of Beaumont to his eldest son Waleran, count of Meulan, and his English lands to his younger son Robert II, earl

of Leicester. Waleran had taken part in a rebellion in Normandy and was taken prisoner on 25 March 1124, see Farrer, Itin. Henry I, no. 505, p. 533 and the narrative in WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES 239F

Gesta, VIII, 23, 294-296).J0 1

'[We know of legislation issued by King Henry I in 1108 against false moneyers, but the punishment which was then provided was emasculation and blinding and not emasculation and the loss of the right hand, as was applied at Winchester in 1125. See FLORENCE OF ° WORCESTER Chron., II. 57 and EADMER Historia Novorun, 193.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 204 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

240 From charters of Roger, earl of Warwick and of King Henry I concerning the manor of Salford Priors, which belongs in free alms to the newly founded Augustinian priory of Kenilworth, it appears that the manor had belonged to the nun Livitha, who deraigned it in King Henry's court, and that it was given to Kenilworth by Geoffrey de Clinton, whose donation is approved by Earl Roger and the nun Livitha; this donation is also approved by King Henry I, who deraigned the manor against Earl Roger. A. Earl Roger of Warwick grants the manor of Salford in free alms to the canons of Kenilworth, as Geoffrey de Clinton has given it to them with his agreement and that of the nun Livitha, who had deraigned it in the king's court. Roger, earl of Warwick, to all his men and friends, greeting. Know that for the love of God and the souls of my ancestors and successors and my own I, Earl Roger, have granted in perpetual alms to the church of St. Mary of Kenilworth and the canons who serve God there the manor of Salford with all its appurtenances, which Geoffrey de Clinton gave them in alms with my grant and the consent of the nun Livitha, who had recovered that manor by a judgment of the court of King Henry. I therefore will and grant and firmly order that the canons shall have and possess that manor free and quit of all service and secular aid belonging to me and my heirs and namely of the service of one knight which Geoffrey used to render me for it. And Geoffrey de Clinton himself shall similarly be quit of all services and aids belonging to that manor whenever and however they might occur. This grant was made by me before King Henry, as was confirmed by him in his charter. The following are also witnesses: Siward fitz Turchil, Robert de Montfort, Peter fitz William, Ranulf de Munneville, Geoffrey Luvet, Walter de Turberville, Ralph fitz Juhel, Richard de Vernon, Hervard fitz Godric, William de Hauvill and Robert de Beaumais. The following were witness on behalf of Geoffrey: William de Clinton, his brother Geoffrey, Roger fitz Ralph, Aschetil the reeve of Geoffrey, Hugh de Tiwe and his brother Goisbert, Geoffrey de Top and many others.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 205 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. Extract from a charter of confirmation of King Henry I for the Augustinian priory of Kenilworth granting, interalia, in free alms the manor of Salford Priors, which the king had deraigned against Roger, earl of Warwick; the manor had previously belonged to the nun Livitha and was held by Geoffrey de Clinton from Earl Roger. Henry, by God's grace king of the English and duke of the Normans, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs, barons, ministers and all his lieges of all England, greeting. Know that I have permitted Geoffrey de Clinton, my treasurer and chamberlain, to found the church of St. Mary in the land of Kenilworth, which I gave him in fee and inheritance from my demesne. And I grant in alms to God and St. Mary and the regular canons whom he has instituted there to serve God, the lands, churches, tithes and all things which he gave and granted them or acquired or will acquire for them or to which in future they will be entitled, i.e. the whole land of Kenilworth itself in the wood and in the plain, which Geoffrey surrendered to Prior Bernard to serve the aforesaid church, except however the land on which his castle is built and which he has retained in his demesne to make his borough, his fishpond and his park. Furthermore I grant to the same church the manor of Salford with all its appurtenances, which used to belong to the nun Livitha and which I have deraigned against Earl Roger of Warwick as belonging to my alms and which Geoffrey held from the said earl. The latter has with my agreement given the manor to the church free and quit of the service of one knight, which Geoffrey rendered for it, and of all aids and services belonging to that manor . .

241 Notification by King Henry I that abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds should continue to have his mint after his moneyer suffered punishment like all the others in England. Henry, king of the English, to Everard bishop of Norwich, Robert fitz Walter and all his barons and lieges, French and English, of Suffolk, greeting. I grant that, justice having been done to his moneyer as was done to the other moneyers of England, the abbot of St. Edmunds1 shall have in the vill of St. Edmunds his mint,

240B 241

'[This grant was also confirmed by King Stephen in 1136-1139 (Regesta iii, no. 418) and by Bishop Baldwin of Worcester in 1180- 1184 (KENILWORTH Cart., fo 210-210 v0 ).]0 0 [Anselm, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 1121-1138.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 206 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

moneyer and exchange as he used to have it before. Witnesses: [John], bishop of Lisieux, [Bernard], bishop of St. David's and Robert de Sigillo. At Rouen.

242 Record confirmed by Walter de Gloucester, royal constable, of various disputes over the rights of the abbey of Shrewsbury which had arisen in the past, mainly concerning the hereditary nature of tenures. The venerable Earl Roger [of Montgomery] several times considered building this church in honour of the holy apostles Peter and Paul and called before him Siward called Gross, who had in the past been the lord of this place,' and indicated his desire to him saying that if he agreed with good grace to the establishment of this almoign, he would give him a vill, [Cheney] Longville. As he was a good man, he gladly gave his consent as soon as he heard the request and accepting the said vill from the earl, immediately and happily gave it to St. Peter and his monks in the presence of the earl and his barons, retaining only the right to hold it from the monks as long as he lived, which was gladly granted. After his death and fitting burial in this monastery, his son Aldred refused to follow in his father's footsteps and kept the aforesaid viii for himself and by force and because of the power of Richard de Belmeis, who was then the steward of this county and was afterwards made bishop of London,2 he possessed it for some time, wasting everything which his father had left in it. Seeing this, Abbot Fulchered of pious memory attempted to recover the aforesaid vill through friendship rather than by litigation. Following the advice of friends and of the aforesaid Richard, he gave 15 pounds to the aforesaid Aldred and donations to his brothers so that they would render the aforesaid vill to him without retaining anything. This having been granted and confirmed before numerous witnesses, our church received what it had unjustly lost and it should be known that at that time that vill was so poor that it could not have been sold to strangers for that price. Witnesses were: the aforesaid Richard, Roger Corbet and his brother Robert, Hamo Peverel and the whole county. Founding this our church, the aforesaid Earl Roger gave to St. Peter and his monks the church of St. Gregory [of Morville]3 with all that pertained to it, as is written in the king's charter to the effect that whenever the canons who had prebends there died, the prebends would enter into the demesne of the monks. 242 ' '[The abbey of St. Peter and St. Paul at Shrewsbury founded c. 1083 1087 by Roger of Montgomery, first earl of Shrewsbury, was preceded by a Saxon church, built by Siward Gross, 0son of Edelgar, a kinsman of King Edward (SHREWSBURY Cart. A, p. x; Knowles, Heads,p. 71).]° 2 [Richard de Belmeis, here called steward of the county, was given special powers in Shropshire in 1102; he became bishop of London in July 1108 and died 1127.10 0 [The church of St. Gregory is at Morville (Shropshire). The royal confirmation is contained in a charter of Henry I, of c. 29 May 1121, ed. SHREWSaURY Cart.A, no. 35, i. pp. 31-36.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 207 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Richard de Mesnilhermer, the chaplain, who had one prebend in that church when he died, was made a monk by our monks and buried in our church. His son Hubert, however, a layman, hoped to acquire his father's prebend for his heritage and therefore caused the monks much trouble until the very pious King Henry ordered Bishop Richard of London to do right thereon, 4 as the said Hubert could not justly have that prebend, and after many pleas he gave it up without retaining any claim. The witnesses thereof were: the aforesaid glorious king, Bishop Richard, Alan fitz Flaald, Hamo Peverel, Roger Corbet and his brother Robert and Herbert fitz Helgot, with many other honourable and honest men. Rainer de Thonglands had a small plot of land of this church called Fertecote, which Abbot Fulchered had committed to him on the understanding that after his death it would at once and without anything being retained return to the demesne of the church. His son William, however, wished to retain it and similarly molested us considerably, multiplying the pleas. Finally Abbot Fulchered proved the earlier agreement by his testimonies and recovered by a just judgment that which the aforesaid William wanted unjustly to take away from this church. Witnesses: Bishop Richard and all the aforesaid. Rainer son of Elieth restored to this church and us one hide which his father had had in the past in farm from this church, and since he did this spontaneously and without retaining or claiming anything for himself or for any heir of his, Abbot Godfrey gave him 40 lb. 10 s. before many witnesses, i.e. Theoderic [de Say] his lord, who brought about this agreement between us and him, Hamo Peverel and his steward Warn, William a knight of the aforesaid Theoderic, William the 5 cook, Meriet and Weret, the abbot's servants, and many others. Turstin Buich had some land along the Severn on the borders of Bridgnorth of this church for a certain term, but after his death his son Rainald wanted to retain it by force as an inheritance. But he did not outlive his father long and repenting in his fatal illness, he received the monastic habit from our monks, restored the land and gave himself up to be buried in our monastery. Present to this were: his uncle Odo, his brother Richard, Ulger 6 and several others. Herbert fitz Helgot wanted to avoid any claim being made after him concerning the gifts which his father and he had made to this church and although they had been confirmed in a royal charter,7 he wanted his sons to confirm them by their own grant. He therefore sent them with their pious mother to this church, i.e. 4 °[This may be the writ of Henry I to Richard, bishop of London, of June-July 1121, ordering

that Abbot Godfrey shall hold his lands in peace and not be impleaded for anything which Abbot Fulchered held when he died (SHREWSBURY Cart. A, no. 43 c, i, p. 50. - Regesta ii, no. 1297).]o 1 0 [The hide in dispute must be Stoke on Tern (Shropshire) and the Theoderic who is said to be the lord must be Theoderic de Say, who granted a hide there to the abbey between 1094 and 1102 (SHREwsBURY Cart. A, i, p. 4 and p. 33).] 0 6 [i s is Ulger Venator, or the huntsman, who occurs several times in SHREWSBURY Cart. A. ]0 '[See the text of the general confirmation of King Henry I (SHREWSBURY Cart. A, no. 35, i, p. 33).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 208 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Eutropius who was to be the heir after the father and his brother Nicholas and Herbert, and having prayed in the chapter and granted the donation of their father and of their grandfather, they took the text of the gospel into their own hands and offered before many witnesses what had been granted on the altar of St. Peter, i.e. the church of Castle [Holdgate], called Stanton, with some land which their mother had given on her part in the said vill, Norton situated along the wood called Lyme and some land which their grandfather Helgot gave with the little wood called Monkmoor and which is situated along the banks of the river Severn on this side of the river, although it belongs to the vill called Woolston, which is on the other side of the river. Robert the priest, the son of Wyger the priest, sold us his house of Castle [Holdgate], which was among the first or even the first to be built in Castle, with the licence and the testimony of Bishop Richard who in those days governed this county under the king and of Rainer who was then a reeve. Earl Roger gave for the benefit of the church some land for digging sand, on which there is now a house, as free and quit as he himself, who was the lord, had it. All this was testified by Bishop Richard of London and all the barons of the county with him and I Walter [de Gloucester] the constable, who was present, have after hearing their testimony confirmed it by my own seal, beside the seal of the 8 bishop. 243 Notification by Richard de Belmeis, bishop of London, that he and the barons of Shropshire, sitting in the county court, have found that the claim of Shrewsbury Abbey to be exempt of scutage was justified. Richard, by the grace of God bishop of London, to all the barons of the county of Shropshire, greeting. Know that Pain fitz John, who took on the administration of the county of Shropshire after me,' at Bridgnorth in the first plea which he held asked me and you all, together with Walter [de Gloucester], the constable, whether the abbey of St. Peter's of Shrewsbury had ever given knights' aid, for the monks handed over to him a writ by which the king ordered them to be quit and free of that aid if they had not given it in the past. We, however, have all answered with one voice that it was true that the abbot of the aforesaid church had never given it, nor was he obliged to. I therefore beseech anyone who sees or hears these letters during my lifetime or after my death to testify for the love of God and for the peace of his soul to what is written in these letters. Farewell. I '[See for commentary on several cases SHREwsauRY Cart. A, pp. 3-5.]1 243

' '[Ever

since the revolt of 1102 Richard de Behneis held special powers over the county of Shropshire and continued to exercise them even after he became bishop of London in 1108. He resigned them to Pain fitz John, sheriff of Shropshire, possibly as early as 1123, but at the latest in 1126 (SmEwsBURv Cart. A, i, p. 3 and ii, p. 318).10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 209 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

244 Writ of King Henry I ordering Ralph Basset to cause Vincent, abbot of Abingdon, to have his court in Oxford as in the past, as can be established by the oath of lawful men of Oxford. Henry, king of England, to Ralph Basset, greeting. I order that you let Abbot Vincent of Abingdon have his court in Oxford as well and fully as the church of Abingdon or any of his predecessors best and most fully and most honourably held it. And let his men not plead outside his court unless the abbot has first failed to do right in his court and as you can inquire through lawful men of Oxford that he should have his court. Witness the chancellor. At Woodstock.

245 Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriff of Essex to bring the dispute between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbey of Westminster concerning land in East Ham before the county court. Henry, king of the English, to Aubrey de Vere, sheriff, greeting. Cause the county court of Essex to sit on the land of Alestan' which is claimed by the archbishop of Canterbury and by the abbot of Westminster and let the county court recognize which of them has right in that land and let him to whom it should justly belong be seised thereof. Witness: Nigel d'Aubigny. At Westminster.

246 King Henry I, misinformed, deprives the abbey of Abingdon of the hundred of Hormer and the market at Abingdon and imposes a fine on the abbey, but Abbot Vincent produces a charter of King Edward the Confessor and, after promising 300 marks of silver, obtains from the king a charter and a writ confirming the rights of the abbey. In the days of this father [Abbot Vincent] some malicious people went to the king and with flattery persuaded him to deprive this church of the hundred of

245 1 '[Westminster Abbey held some land in East Ham which according to Domesday Book was held by Alestan at the time of King Edward the Confessor (see Regesta ii, no. 1539).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 210 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hormer and to forbid the market of this vill; they told him mendaciously that no abbot of this place had ever had the hundred in his own power and denied that the market had existed of old in this vill. Moved by these adulations the king ordered some of his justices to start proceedings on this matter, who, before they had found out the real situation, put the whole abbey in the king's forfeiture. Faced with this, the very prudent abbot manfully resisted this savage storm and went to the king, showing a privilege of King Edward and asked that it should be read to everyone. After Bishop Roger of Salisbury had read it at the king's command, the latter became less indignant and talked in a more friendly way to the abbot, who was supported by the favour of the barons they all loved him because he was munificent and generous. The abbot asked the king to confirm the abbey's right to the hundred with his own privilege and to strengthen it with his seal, and promised to give him 300 marks of silver if he was allowed henceforth to have it in his power quietly and without plaint, as in the past. The king granted his prayer and ordered that his request should immediately be fulfilled, but he ordered equally that the will of the abbot should be carried out concerning the market of the vill, confirming with his seal what he had ordered to be written down. Thereupon Abbot Vincent thoroughly polished up the reliquary of St. Athelwold, which was made of gold and silver, and obtained the price of more than 300 marks for it, which he gave to the king for the confirmation of his liberty, so as to avoid that, in later times when human malice was growing, the knights or the men of the hundred or the market would claim the liberty for themselves, alleging their own contribution to the purchase. Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Salisbury and the sheriff and justices and all his barons and lieges, French and English, of Berkshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to God and the church of St. Mary of Abingdon and Abbot Vincent and all the abbots his successors and the monks who serve God there the hundred of Hormer to hold and have by perpetual right in their legitimate and freest power and justice, as Edward, king of the English, gave and granted it to the aforesaid church and confirmed by his charter, which I testify was read before me and my barons, and as my father King William granted and corroborated the gifts of King Edward by his charter. I will and firmly order that the abbot and the monks, present and future, shall hold the aforesaid hundred in peace and quietly and honourably with all its customs and immunities, with which they best and most honourably held it in the time of the aforesaid kings, i.e. that no sheriff or his officials shall interfere there, but that they shall freely have and exercise their own justice. Witnesses: Roger, bishop of Salisbury, Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, Geoffrey the chancellor, Robert de Sigillo, Nigel, the bishop's nephew, William

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 211 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

d'Aubigny, Robert de Oilly, Ralph Basset, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont (del Arche), Miles de Gloucester, Aubrey de Vere, William de Albini Brito and Richard Basset. At London. Henry, king of England, to the bishop of Salisbury and the sheriff and justices and all his barons and lieges of Berkshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to the church of St. Mary of Abingdon and Abbot Vincent and the monks the market of Abingdon as the aforesaid church and the abbots and Abbot Vincent himself ever best and most freely had it and on the day on which I gave the abbey to the aforesaid Vincent, and they shall hold it well, peacefully, honourably and quietly. Witnesses: Roger, bishop of Salisbury, Geoffrey the chancellor, Geoffrey de Clinton and William de Pont (del Arche). At London.

247 Writ of King Henry I ordering Sheriff Aubrey de Vere to ascertain in the county court whether the canons of St. Paul's, London, have the land whence geld is required: if so, they are to acquit it. Henry, king of the English, to Aubrey de Vere, greeting. Let the men of the county quickly recognize whether or not the canons of St. Paul's, London, have the land whence geld is required from them for four hides and one virgate of land. And if they have it then I want them to acquit it, otherwise let them who have it acquit it. Witness: Bishop [Roger] of Salisbury. At Winchester.

248 Notification by King Henry I that his court has heard a case between Gilbert de Miners and Gloucester Abbey concerning the manor of Coln Rogers and has found that the said manor was given to the abbey by Roger of Gloucester. Henry, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, sheriffs and all his lieges, French and English, of all England, greeting. Know that the monks of Gloucester and Gilbert de Miners came to my court before me on the appointed day concerning the manor of Coln, which Gilbert claimed against them and their abbot, and that Adam de Port and William fitz Odo have witnessed

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 212 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

before me that they were present where Roger of Gloucester gave that manor in alms to the church of St. Peter and the monks who serve God there and where I, at Roger's request, granted them that donation' and concerning which Gilbert refused judgment. Witnesses: William archbishop of Canterbury, Roger bishop of Salisbury, William bishop of Winchester, Bernard bishop of St. David's, William bishop of Exeter, Urban bishop of Glamorgan, Geoffrey the chancellor, Robert de Sigillo, Miles de Gloucester, Henry de Port, Walter de Amfreville, William de la Folie and Roger and William sons of Adam de Port. At Winchester, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1127. By Robert.

249 Writ of King Henry I ordering William de Houghton to inspect the boundaries in Cranfield between the land of the abbot of Ramsey and that of the king of Scotland by the oath of the men of the hundred. Henry, king of England, to William de Houghton., greeting. I order you to perambulate the boundaries between the Cranfield land of Abbot [Reginald] of Ramsey and the land of King [David] of Scotland and to let each one of them have justly what is his by the oath of honest men of the hundred, as the king of Scotland himself ordered you to by his writ, so that I hear no complaint thereon for lack of right. And unless you do it, Mainfenin the sheriff will see to it that it is done. Witness: [Geoffrey] the chancellor. At Eling.

250 Notification by King Henry I that he has restored to the monastic cathedral of Winchester the manor of Chilbolton, which William Esturmi lost by judgment of the king's court. Henry, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs and all his barons and lieges of all England and his barons and lieges of Hampshire, greeting. Know that I have restored and granted forever to God and the church of St. Peter of the see of Winchester and the monks of that church, for the souls of my father and my mother and the souls of my wife Matilda and my son William and for the stability of my kingdom, the manor of Chilbolton which belonged to William Esturmi and which he lost by judgment of my court. And I 248 l O[For the confirmation by King Henry I of the manor of Coin Rogers, given by Roger of Gloucester, see Regesta ii, no. 706 and 784.] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 213 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

will and firmly order that the monks shall have and hold that manor with the other demesne of their church, which they have for their maintenance as land that has of old belonged to their aforesaid church, and let them hold well, in peace, honourably, freely and quietly with soke and sake, toll and team and infangthief and with all customs and liberties with which they hold the other demesne of the aforesaid church. Witnesses: Bishop Roger of Salisbury, Geoffrey the chancellor, Robert de Sigillo, Geoffrey de Clinton and William de Pont de l'Arche. At Eling.

251 Robert of Huntingdon gives to Thorney Abbey in full portmanmoot two houses on the occasion of his son becoming a monk.

Let it be known that Robert de Huntingdon, as a gift to his son Henry when by divine inspiration he made him a monk, gave us in perpetual gift two houses and the plots of land on which those houses were situated1 and seised Roger, our monk, of them before his brothers and friends in full portmanmoot and before Robert de Yaxley, who was then justiciar of that same vill.

252 Concord established in the castle of Tutbury on order of King Henry I, through the good offices of Robert, bishop of Chester and William Peverel, and confirmed in the chapter of the abbey of Burton-upon-Trent between Robert de Ferrers and Abbot Geoffrey concerning part of a wood claimed by the monks, and part of another wood claimed by Robert. This is the agreement made before numerous witnesses and rich people between Robert de Ferrers and Abbot Geoffrey of Burton. There was a great discord between them for a certain part of the wood between Balca and Watsaches Broc and extending as far as Stanbruge,Hindfold and Merewei which the monks of Burton claimed, and for some part of the wood of Bromley, which Robert de Ferrers claimed, to such an extent that word of it reached King Henry. At last, moved by the fear of God and compelled by the king's command, Robert made a

251 1 '[It appears from the rubric in the cartulary that the two houses were situated in the town of Huntingdon.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 214 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

concord with the church of Burton as follows. He made himself a tutor and friend of the church, and the monks of Burton granted him that wood between Balca and Watsaches Broc for twenty shillings per year and he allowed the monks to have two carts in his wood to carry wood for the fire of the monks from the dead wood in Needwood. Furthermore Robert must maintain and defend the monks and their goods so that no harm will be caused to them by himself or his people in their lands or woods. Witnesses of this concord, which was first made in the castle of Tutbury and afterwards confirmed in the chapter of Burton, are: Robert, bishop of Chester and William Peverel, whom the king sent to bring about this concord and also Geoffrey Halselin, Robert de Heriz, Robert de Moreton, William fitz Nigel, Henry fitz Saswal, Fulcher and Hugh, his brothers, Reginald, the clerk of the bishop of Chester, William fitz Herbert, Ralph fitz William, Ralph de Montgomery, Swein the prior, Durand the monk, John the monk, William de Stretton, Hugh de Horley, Orm de Ocker and Andrew his son-in-law, William the cook, Lepsi, Wardebois and many others.

253 List of invasions and depredations suffered by the estates of St. Paul's cathedral, London.

Ralph de Marcy bought one hide of land from a villein called Leofwin of Navestock of the manor of St. Paul's, in spite of the objections of the convent of the canons and from there he invaded the half hide which belonged to Sevul, another villein of that same manor and he did the same with the land of Ewin and Winim and he occupied various bits of land around the manor, avidly nibbling at them. And he even deprived them of half a wood. Peter de Valognes' deprives the canons of one hide of land and a meadow with a wood which the enquirers of the land had sworn to be theirs at the description of England and for which they pay scot and custom to the king. Otto the goldsmith 2 deprives the canons of lands within the city and of two hides with a wood outside the city, for which his father ceased paying the canons ten shillings a year as payment of rent, and those lands had been given by Edward, a citizen of this town, on the altar of St. Paul at the time of King Edward and King William, with whom he made a fine for his possession, 253

'[Peter I de Valognes, Domesday lord of Bennington, was followed after 1109 by his son Roger, died in 1141-1142 (SANDERS, English baronies, 12).] 2 [This is Otto the goldsmith the younger (d. before 1128), son of Otto the goldsmith the elder (d. 1098), who married Eadgiva, widow of Edward, a citizen of London who occurs infra in this doc. Cfr. J.H. Round, An early reference to Domesday, in: Domesday Studies, ed. P.E. Dove, ii, London, 1891, 557.] 0who

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 215 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and his wife paid ten shillings as long as she lived. After her death St. Paul should have been heir, but since Otto the elder had married her, St. Paul lost. Beside these, he deprives them of another land which Dirman gave when his son became a canon. Herbert the chamberlain caused them injury in connection with one land which the neighbours testify to belong to St. Paul.

254 Dispute concerning the respective rights of the men of the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury and of the archbishop of Canterbury at Stonar and Sandwich concerning tolls taken from ships entering the harbour of Sandwich and concerning the use of the ferry-boat belonging to the archbishop. King Henry I orders an assembly of twenty-four men to settle the dispute by declaring on oath what the situation was in the time of William the Conqueror and of Archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm. In a plea held at Sandwich and presided over by William, sheriff of Kent, they pronounce a verdict in favour of the archbishop. A. The narrative, from a custumal of Sandwich, now lost but printed by William Boys in Collectionsfor an History of Sandwich, Canterbury, 1792, pp. 551-555. In the year from the Lord's Incarnation 1127 by the command of Henry king of the English, William archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all Britain and legate of the Holy Roman See agreeing, a plea was held at Sandwich touching the toll and custom of the port of Sandwich. Cnut, king of the English, had in former days given the same port and all the issues and customs on each side of the water to Christ Church, Canterbury, with the golden crown from his head, which is still preserved in the aforesaid church on the top of the Saviour's cross. Of recent times some people, thinking that the other side of the harbour on the abbot of St. Augustine's land called Stonar would be a convenient place for ships to tie up in fair weather, have built little houses there for themselves because of the ships coming there. Whence it happens that St. Augustine's men have secretly received the toll and customs from foreigners who have come there, which the ministers of Sandwich and the port of Sandwich ought to have received. But when this became known, the ministers of the port went over and justly took away from the abbot's men forcibly whatever toll or custom they had wrongfully received. Furthermore, there was a little boat in the harbour, belonging like the port of Sandwich to Christchurch, in which men and their goods coming or going to the market were carried, nor had anyone else any right to a ferry-boat there, but after the abbot's men began to live on their land at Stonar and secretly to usurp the rights belonging to Sandwich, as is aforesaid, they secretly also used their ferry-boat to carry men

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 216 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and their goods from the island of Thanet, for the abbot had a great multitude of men there. Wherefore many disputes and quarrels without number broke out among them, while the ministers of Christ Church rightfully and consistently tried to retain the ancient custom, they, with cunning guile and daring fierceness, tried to strengthen their hold on what they had wrongfully seized. The king heard how the monks of Canterbury wished to retain their rights and the abbot of St. Augustine's with his men wished to take them away, and, wishing to provide for the peace of both the churches, he commanded that an assembly of wise men, living near the sea should gather at Sandwich and there the rights which each church should have could be investigated, the findings could be confirmed by oath, and thus henceforward held firm and unshaken. And thus the assembly having come together, before the king's command had been read, William the archbishop with an appropriate warning for his own part, briefly addressed the people, urging them and calling upon them by their Christian faith that all should consider most carefully the truth of this case and declare it without fear or favour. The royal power also laid this upon them by the faith and oath by which they were bound. All received his words with agreement and promised to do as they were bidden. Then when almost all said that they had never known the rent of the port of Sandwich to belong to anyone other than Christ Church, Canterbury, it was asked that what the king had commanded should be heard. And so the letters were produced: Henry, king of the English to the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of St. Augustine's and the sheriff of Kent, greeting. Cause the truth to be declared by the oath of twelve lawful men of Dover and twelve lawful men of the neighbourhood of Sandwich, who are neither the men of the archbishop nor the men of the abbot, touching the claim of customs which is between them, as they were in the time of my father and in the time of Lanfranc the archbishop and Anselm the archbishop, and let the archbishop have such customs and the abbot have such customs as it is declared that their predecessors had at that time, so that each church shall fully have its right. Witnesses: the bishop of Lincoln and Robert de Sigillo and Geoffrey of Glympton 0[ = de Clinton]'. At London. When this had been read and understood in the hearing of the whole assembly, there were elected as the king had commanded, from among the men of the king and the barons, twenty-four wise old men full of years and having good testimony. These, therefore, having been named by the whole assembly, were asked what they would say on this matter, so that they could say what they knew to be true and could prove on oath. Without hesitation, they firmly declared that the aforesaid port, toll, and maritime customs belonged to the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, and that no one else ought to have any right in the port save them and their ministers from the place called Burgegate as far as Merkesfliete on each side of the river. To these things the great multitude agreed. A copy of the holy gospels was brought and the twelve king's men of Dover swore. Wulfwine son of Beornwig, Wulfwine Dod, Eadwine, Cnut Kenward, Wulfig son of Wulfnoth,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 217 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Godwin the smith, Leofwine Gille, Eadwine the clerk, Brunman son of Lemay, Goldstan son of Bruning, Odo the moneyer, Baldwin son of Fike: afterwards those of the neighbourhood of Sandwich, including the barons of St. Margaret, Blacsune, Sigar, Alfword son of Elwold, Alfword son of Blacman, Siric son of Godwin, Wulfwig of Buckland in Woodnesborough, Richard man of Henry de Port, Wulfword of Chillenden, Eadwin of Each End in Woodnesborough, Wulfwine son of Cake, Alfwine of Each End, Hergod man of Alan Pirot. The first of these was Wulfwine son of Beornwig, standing in the midst of the multitude and holding in his hand the book of the sacred gospels he spoke thus: "I swear, the toll of the port of Sandwich, all maritime customs on either side of the river from Burgegate to Merkesfliete and the ferry-boat belong only to the archbishop and monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, nor has any other person any right there save they and their ministers, as I have received from my ancestors and I have seen and heard from my youth up to now, so help me God and these holy gospels." Those who had been chosen as his fellows, without delay followed him. William sheriff of Kent held the place ofjudge in this plea and with him there were present William archbishop of Canterbury, legate of the Holy Roman See and primate of all Britain, John bishop of Rochester, Hugh abbot of St. Augustine's, Robert de Ver the king's constable, Ruelent of Avranches, Hugh of Chilham, William of Eynsford, Hamo son of Vitalis, Roger of Well and his son William, Reiner de Hesdin and his son William, Asketur de Rettlynge, Ralph Pieoc, Ralph the chamberlain, Humphrey of Wickham, Hamo the chaplain, Ralph Coffin, Rainolf the brother of the archbishop, Ralph Cannel, Nigel son of Godfrey, Nigel of Whitacre, Giffard chaplain of Luvel, Henry, Jordan, Godfrey the priest, Wulfric, Geldewin, Leofwine, Wikemonde, Alan, Wiber of St. Gregory, Adam de Hethe, Sprot, Richard, Robard of Tilmanstone, and very many others, both clerk and lay, of whom the multitude cannot be numbered.'

B. The record of the plea, from the archives of Canterbury Cathedral. In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 1127, twenty-four mature, wise, old men of good repute were elected by order of Henry, king of the English, from the men of the king and the barons who best knew the matter and whose names are: the twelve king's men of Dover, Wulfwine of Beornwig, Wulfwine Dod, Eadwine, Cnut Kenward, etc. The text of the gospels was brought forward and they swore. After they had sworn and before the edict which the king had decreed was read, Archbishop William briefly addressed the people with a worthy

254A ' 0[Translation taken from Stenton, English Justice, Appendix, no. i, pp. 117-123.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 218 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

admonition, pressing and inducing them by their Christian faith to give their utmost attention to this case and to assert the truth without any fear or favour for the parties. The royal power gave them the same order, by the fealty and oath by which they were obliged. They all together accepted these pronouncements and promised to act accordingly. Those who were elected and nominated from the whole multitude swore and constantly and without any fear maintained that the port of Sandwich, the toll and all the maritime customs belonged to the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury and that no man had any right in the port except they and their ministers, from the place called Edburgegate to Merkesfleot on both sides of the river. A great multitude testified to this pronouncement and also that the ferry-boat only belonged to those same monks and that no one else had any right in that boat, as they were told by their ancestors and as they saw and heard from their adolescence until this day, thus God and the holy gospels help them. William, the sheriff of Kent, held the justice of this plea, at which were present Archbishop William, legate of the Holy Roman Church, etc. John, bishop of Rochester, and Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine. 1

255 Sworn inquest concerning fishery rights in the Tyne made in the presence of royal justices by elder men of Aliwarkfolk [Durham] and Northumberland, attributing one part to the bishop of Durham and another to the earl of Northumberland, and declaring a third to be common. In the time of King Henry I, son of King William, the following recording of the fishery of the Tyne was made, as the older men of the whole of Aliwarkfolk and Northumberland have sworn in the time of Bishop Ranulf in the presence of the justiciars Walter Espec and Eustace fitz John, i.e. that Stanleyburn as far as Tynemouth and into the sea with half the water of the Tyne belongs to St. Cuthbert and the bishop of Durham, and the other half to the earl of Northumberland; a third part of the water, however will be common and free. And this water should be measured at flood-tide, at high water, so that it is full from bank to bank. And all the fisheries have places and names etc.'

254B I '[The above verdict was confirmed by King Henry II in 1155-1162 (Canterbury, Cathedral Archives, S. 263; ed. Delisle, Chartes Originales, no. 58 [132] p. 561) and in 1162-1173

(Canterbury, Cathedral Archives, Reg. E,f 50; London, B.L. Stowe 924, fo 102). See also Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 64-65; Stenton, English Justice, 19-21; Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury,35.]o

255

' '[This recordatiowas repeated under Henry II, see no. 437. See Stenton, English Justice, 64.J0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 219 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

256 Abbot Reginald of Ramsey establishes at Outwell that his abbey is entitled to all customs at Brancaster including jetsam and flotsam. The men of nine hundreds in Norfolk and Suffolk who had gathered there were prepared to confirm under oath various cases in the past, where stranded fish or merchandise had been adjudged to belong to the abbey. We want it to be known to all those who love the splendor of the house of God that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey has deraigned at Outwell in the presence of the then sheriff Robert fitz Walter and Alan, the undersheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and in the presence of many other Frenchmen and Englishmen and by the testimony of men of nine hundreds, who had gathered there, that King Cnut gave Brancaster with all its appurtenances to St. Benedict of Ramsey so freely and quietly that he excepted not one single custom, be it in land or in water, marsh or plain. The aforesaid men from the nine hundreds were indeed prepared to swear that they had heard and seen the plea between Abbot Aelfsige of Ramsey and Roger Bigod, at that time sheriff of that province, first at Norwich and afterwards fully settled and declared at Kentford, concerning a certain whale captured in an appurtenance of Brancaster, whence Abbot Aelfsige returned home happy at having deraigned his fish. These same witnesses were prepared to swear that at some other time they saw and heard Abbot Aldwin of Ramsey deraign at Thetford in the same way a whale, which had stranded at Brancaster, against Ralph de Belfou, who was then the sheriff in that same province and against Ralph Passelewe, the justiciar of that same province. Finally the conflict which we mentioned was resolved so that the justiciar, Ralph Passelewe and the sheriff himself, Ralph de Belfou, and whoever had had anything of the aforesaid whale gave their gages to Aldwin, who as we said was abbot of Ramsey at that time, and promised to give it back and to make amends. At the time of Abbot Reginald of Ramsey, as mentioned before, and the time of Robert fitz Walter, the then sheriff and Alan the undersheriff, this same Abbot Reginald deraigned at Outwell through the aforesaid lawful witnesses a barrel of wine wrecked at Brancaster. This wine was, with the full support of the many who were there present - and no one could or wanted to oppose given by Abbot Reginald to the priests of that region to say masses and to remind people that no one should ever again doubt that Brancaster and its appurtenances and all its customs, which the king of England himself might have there if it belonged to his own use, belonged to St. Benedict of Ramsey without contradiction or any ambiguity. The following

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 220 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

witnesses were present at this last deraignment which Abbot Reginald made at Outwell: Robert fitz Walter the then sheriff, Alan fitz Odo, Roger de Giroie, John the son of Robert the sheriff, Ralph fitz Godric, Philip de Warenne, Ralph de Wancy, Geoffrey de Favarches, Ralph de Cahagnes, Robert de Fresne, Peter Werenges and William.

257 Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois recovers certain possessions for the abbey from a knight called Odo, who produced a false charter. It is only after a second examination of the case, held on royal order and in the king's court, that the restitution is finally carried out. A certain knight, called Odo, had deprived the abbey of a stewardess of the church and three manors through the gift of my predecessor Abbot Seffrid, who wanted to please a niece of his, whom this Odo had married; and, as I received his homage, he carefully asked me to grant him all he had. As I demanded to see a certain chirograph which he had received from the aforesaid abbot against the will of the brethren, he produced another which according to the testimony of many witnesses had been fraudulently tampered with and was so false that, full of confusion, he refused to stand trial concerning his possessions and concerning the false chirograph. Thus vanquished, thus found guilty, he lost what he had wrongly held, by the just consideration of those who were present and he promised, and made a payment for the turpitude of the case. Afterwards by command of the king, into whose ears this Odo had slyly instilled something, all this was mentioned in the presence of numerous magnates, but after they had carefully examined the case, Odo was found to be guilty, blushed with confusion, was vanquished and restored what he had wrongly held first into my hand and afterwards, in the sight of many, on the altar of St. Mary. But since it rang in my ears that a bruised reed should not be broken,1 I promised him, on the intervention of some people, forty shillings worth of land and the service of a knight of Ashbury and since he was prevented by death, I fully granted to his son Roger what I had promised to the father.2

257 1 0'[Isaiah xlii. 3]O 2 [Round, Feudal England, 302 303.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 221 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

258 Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois recovers certain lands and churches which had been lost under Abbot Herluin and under Geoffrey Rufus, chancellor of Henry I, who had for some time administered the abbey after Abbot Seffrid had become bishop of Chichester. A certain Ralph de Sainte-Barbe asked Abbot Herluin, my predecessor, for some land in Brent Marsh adjacent to the river Axe, which as he wrongly argued had been of no use to the church and could be of no use in the present or in the future. He possessed that land as foresaid and also had thereon a charter of donation. As one day I entered the aforesaid manor and walked along my boundaries through erratic causeways, I hit upon a field which in some part was protected by a round bank and in another by a deep watercourse. I saw there a shiny golden harvest, sweetly rustling in a light breeze, presenting a wide and even surface without any excrescence of weeds or anything to separate adversely the stalks that were standing close together, and offering the harvester bundles rather than ears. As I asked what that field was called I heard that the aforesaid knight had given it the name of "useless". So when on the appointed day this great fraud was unveiled to the numerous people who had been convoked, I received back through their judgment the aforesaid land, whose name was suitably changed. When my predecessor Seffrid left the abbey to become bishop, Geoffrey the chancellor received the administration of the possessions of the church of Glastonbury and converted to his own demesne and profit five churches torn away from their mother. Those I seized and refused to give back in spite of promises, threats and terrorization, but finally vanquished by the king's request and keeping two, I gave up to him the other three, on condition that the mother church should not lose whatever it had possessed in those churches by way of tithes or such like and that he should keep them during his lifetime in their present state, but return them freely to the mother church at his death and on becoming another being.

259 Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois deraigns land in Moorlinch, which had been lost under Abbot Thurstan.

With the permission of Abbot Thurstan, a certain Asketil, his brother, has a long time ago usurped from the demesne of the abbey two and a half hides of land

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 222 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

in the manor of Moorlinch. When he made a fine with me concerning the fief which he held by military right from the abbey, he publicly restored the demesne land, which had been unreasonably taken away from the church, but with God's help deraigned by me. And in order to augment the revenues of the chamber of the monks I granted it to them and confirmed this grant in the presence of the community, offering it on the altar of Glastonbury by the text of the Gospel, so that nobody in the future shall be bold enough to pervert it.

260 Writ of King Henry I to Fulk fitz Walter, Eustace the sheriff and the barons of London, ordering that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey shall hold the land in London which he deraigned before the king's justiciar against Gilbert Proudfoot. Henry, king of England, to Fulk fitz Walter and Eustace his sheriff and all the barons of London, greeting. I order that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey shall hold his London land, which he deraigned against Gilbert Proudfoot before my justice, well and in peace and honourably so that no one shall cause him any injury or contumely thereon, and I order that the men who live on it with his consent shall have my firm peace so that no one shall cause them any contumely; and concerning the disturbance which Gilbert Proudfoot caused them, let him stand trial before me as soon as I go to London. Witness Geoffrey de Clinton. At Woodstock.

261 Notification by King Henry I that the barons of Ramsey have testified in his presence that William Peche and his wife ought not to hold the land of Over from the abbey of Ramsey, except as life tenants. Henry, king of England, to Bishop [Hervey] of Ely and the barons, justices, sheriffs and ministers of Cambridgeshire, greeting. Know that it has been testified and recognized before me by the barons of the honour of Ramsey and by a chirograph of that church that William Peche and Elfwen his wife ought not to hold the land of Over from the fief of the abbot of Ramsey except for their lives only, against the yearly payment of 6 pounds and that after their death that land ought to return to the demesne of the church and the abbot without any claim.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 223 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Therefore I will and order that the church of Ramsey and the abbot shall henceforth hold and have it finally in their demesne free and quit of all claim and demand by the heirs and descendants of William Peche and his wife Elfwen. Witnesses: the chancellor, [William] de Tancarville, chamberlain [of Normandy], and Geoffrey de Clinton. At Windsor.

262 Notification by King Henry I that Roger de Luvetot was amerced for a false claim to the land of Broughton which is of the demesne of the abbey of Ramsey, as Abbot Ailsi deraigned it at the time of King William the Conqueror. Henry, king of England, to the bishop of Lincoln and the barons and justiciars and the sheriff and ministers and all his lieges of Huntingdonshire, greeting. Know that I recognize and testify that Roger de Luvetot has been in my mercy for the land of Broughton of the demesne of the abbey of Ramsey, concerning which he has told me a lie. And therefore I order that the church of Ramsey hold the said land of Broughton henceforth in peace in its demesne without being impleaded, as abbot Ailsi has deraigned it in the time of my father, so that the abbot does not plead thereon. Witnesses: [William] de Tancarville the chamberlain and Geoffrey de Clinton. In London.'

263 Notification by King Henry I that he has settled the dispute between Avelina de Hesdin and Bishop Everard of Norwich concerning land at Eaton, which Avelina claimed as her dower. Henry, king of England, to all his barons, ministers and lieges, French and English, of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting. Know that I have reconciled Bishop Everard of Norwich and Avelina de Hesdin concerning the land at Eaton which Avelina claimed as her dower against the bishop, i.e. that Bishop Everard shall

262 1 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 200. - Translation taken from op. cit., no. 193, p. 513.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 224 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

give her 100 solidates of land as long as she lives and that after Avelina's death these 100 solidates of land shall remain free and quit to the church of Holy Trinity of Norwich. Witnesses: Nigel d'Aubigny, Roger fitz Richard and his brother Walter, Adam de Port, Walter de Gloucester, Edward de Salisbury, Pain fitz John, Eustace fitz John, Maurice de Windsor, Rualon d'Avranches, William de Curson, Thurgis [d'Avranches] and Roger de Fleg. At Winchester.

264 Writ of King Henry I notifying Ranulf, earl of Chester, that he confirms to Robert de Grainville the land of Asgarby which the earl has deraigned against Walter de Ghent and given in alms to Robert. Henry, king of the English, to Earl Ranulf, greeting. Know that I grant to Robert de Grainville the land and all things of Asgarby which you have deraigned against Walter de Ghent and which you have given and granted to that same Robert in alms in the same way as you have granted them to him, and I will that he shall hold them well and peacefully and honourably. Witnesses: Geoffrey the chancellor, Nigel the nephew of the bishop' and William de Tancarville. At Woodstock.

265 At a meeting of the king's court a charge of high treason is brought against Geoffrey de Clinton: David I, king of Scots, who attends the meeting, is asked to investigate the charge. A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis. In the year of our Lord 1130, while King David was carefully investigating a case in the court of King Henry, and meticulously examining a charge of treason which Geoffrey of Clinton was said to have committed against the king,' Angus earl of Moray and Malcolm Macbeth entered Scotland with five thousand armed 2 men, attempting to gain control of the kingdom. 1 '[This is the future bishop Nigel of Ely, 1133-1169, who was a nephew of Bishop Roger le Poor of Salisbury, 1102-1139.] 265A I For the career of Geoffrey of Clinton, one of Henry I's "'new men", see R.W. Southern, Medieval Humanism, Oxford, 1970, pp. 214-217. Geoffrey later succeeded in making his peace with the king. 2 '[King David had numerous English connections: he was an English earl by his marriage to the daughter of Earl Waltheof, he had inherited the honour of Huntingdon, which made him one of the greatest English landowners. -Translation from ORDERIC VITALIs History, iv, 277.]0 264

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 225 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The narrative in Roger of Hoveden. In the 30th year of his reign, i.e. in the year of Christ 1130,1 King Henry was first, at Christmas, in Worcester and then, at Easter, in Woodstock, where Geoffrey de Clinton was accused of the infamy of betrayal of the king. C. The narrative in Henry of Huntingdon. In the 30th year of his reign King Henry was at Worcester for Christmas and at Woodstock for Easter and there Geoffrey de Clinton was falsely accused of the infamy of betrayal of the king. 266 Bernard, the king's scribe, deraigns by the judgment of the court of the bishop of Exeter, land in Trecharl against the son of Elwius Gold, to whom the bishop had given the land.

These were present in the court of Bishop William of Exeter where Bernard the scribe deraigned the land of Trecharl against the son of Elwius Gold to whom the bishop had given that land and who restored it to the bishop by the judgment of the bishop's court, and the bishop gave it to Bernard as his inheritance for a relief of 4 marks of silver, i.e. Robert Arundel, Durand de Mohun and Herbert de Aunay, justices of the lord king, and Clarembald the physician and Arnold the archdeacon [of Exeter], Edmund de Cuhic, Vivian the treasurer [of Exeter], master Odo, Nigel de Plympton, William de Warelwast, Malger the steward, Ralph fitz Fulchard and Orgar de St. Stephen. 267 On the basis of a judgment of the county court of Devon, Archembald the Fleming restores to Bernard, the king's scribe, land pertaining to the castle of Launceston which had belonged to his grandfather; Bovo the cleric, who held the land, receives compensation from both Archembald and Bernard.

265B'I[The year 1130 is indeed meant, for King Henry I was at Woodstock at Easter, i.e. 30 March, 1130 (Farrer, Jin. Henry I, no. 607, p. 504).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 226 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

These are the witnesses who were present where Archembald the Fleming restored to Bernard by a judgment of the county of Devon the land which was his grandfather's [and pertained] to the castle of Launceston as his inheritance, which Bovo the cleric had held, and to this Bovo Archembald gave 40 d. and Bernard the scribe also gave him 40 d. so that Bovo and his brothers should quitclaim to Bernard and his heirs that land of their claim, to be held from the king, i.e. Robert Arundel and Durand de Mohun, Herbert de Aunay, Richard fitz Baldwin, William de Warelwast, Algor de Cobham, Ralph fitz Ebrard and Stephen fitz Archembald.

268 Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln and the sheriff of Bedfordshire and generally, that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey has deraigned against Simon I de Beauchamp in the king's court a wood and land in Crawley. Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriff and the barons and faithful, French and English, of Bedfordshire, greeting. Know that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey has deraigned in my court to the advantage of the church of Ramsey the wood of Crawley and the land pertaining to it against Simon de Beauchamp, about which they were in dispute, and the aforesaid abbot gave to Simon 20 marks of silver and two palfreys so that Simon granted them to him out of goodwill and gave up his claim. And I will and firmly order that the aforesaid church of Ramsey shall hold that wood and the aforesaid land belonging to the wood well and in peace, honourably and by perpetual right. Witnesses: Bishop Roger of Salisbury and Bishop Alexander of Lincoln, King David of Scotland, Geoffrey the chancellor, Earl Robert of Leicester, Adam de Port, Hugh Bigod, William d'Aubigny the butler, Geoffrey de Clinton, William d'Aubigny Brito,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 227 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

William Peverel, Pain Peverel, Walter Espec, Robert de Brus, William de Pont de l'Arche, Hervey le Moigne, Henry fitz William and Berengar fitz Reiner. At Brampton'.

269 Walter But, who has been summoned twice, fails to appear in the court of the abbot of Ramsey and gives up his claim to land in Offord in favour of the abbey. Walter But held unjustly half a hide in Offord. Abbot Reginald, however, summoned him to deraign that land a first time and a second time, and he failed to appear on the appointed day. Finally, seeing that he could not deraign it, he came to the abbot and gave up that land free and quit of himself and every heir, and the abbot gave him five shillings worth of pennies, which he handed over to him immediately. And Hervey le Moigne, Gilbert the son of Guy the steward and Roger le Moigne [took part in this transaction], before the following witnesses: Aelfric the priest of Wardon, Robert Mason and others. 270 Sale of property in London by Wulnoth de Walbrook to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey in the London husting.

Be it known to all the sons of Holy Church that Wulnoth de Walbrook from London has sold to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey some land of his, which he had on the Walbrook, concerning which this same Wulnoth de Walbrook had been summoned, and also a house of stone and a cellar which he had built on that land with iron doors and windows upstairs and downstairs, and also some wooden houses which he had built with his own money on some other land, which he held in fee and inheritance from the church and the abbot of Ramsey, which lay against that other land, which was his demesne, without any lying in between. That land of his and the building upon it and the houses and the fee and inheritance of the other land, which as said before he held from the abbot, were all sold by the aforesaid Wulnoth to the abbot of Ramsey, who was seised with a rod and claimed totally

268 1 '[Another version occurs in RAMSEY Chron., no. 218, pp. 225-226.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 228 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

free and quit and without any claim. He and Maud, the daughter of himself and his previous wife, and his wife Maud, whom he had afterwards, and Henry the son of this second wife and Christina her daughter [gave them] before the whole husting of London in the house of Alfwin fitz Leofstan, to be held for ever in the church of Ramsey for ten pounds worth of pennies, which he gave him in the presence of the whole busting. Of these ten pounds however Wulnoth gave 40 s. to his daughter Maud because of her grant, because she had that land through her mother. And the abbot on his part gave her half a mark of silver and to the wife of Wulnoth and the two other children 5 s. because of their grant. The following are witnesses of this sale and purchase on the part of the husting: William de Eynesford, sheriff of London, John his undersheriff and Gervase his clerk, and Andrew Buccuinte and his son Ralph and Randulf his kinsman, Gilbert Proudfoot, William Bukerel and many others.

271 Notification that Robert Foliot and his brothers Pain and Helias have, on the basis of a sworn verdict by men from three manors, given at the command of King Henry I of England, King David I of Scotland and Roger of Salisbury, the justiciar, quitclaimed to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey their claim concerning the boundaries of Cranfield and Crawley. Be it known to all the faithful of Holy Church that Robert Foliot and his brothers Pain and Helias have quitclaimed to God and St. Benedict and the abbot of Ramsey their claim concerning the boundaries of Cranfield and Crawley, as the men from three manors who had been appointed for this purpose have sworn them, i.e. four from Cranfield from the men of the abbot: Edwin, Siward, Leofwin and Theodoric; four from the men of Walter de Bolebech from Crawley: Alfric, Seman, Godric and Norman; four from the men of Simon de Beauchamp and his mother Maud: John the smith, Godmer, Leofric and Sewi. We have moreover found it useful to make known that the deraignment of this land and the concord on the claim concerning these boundaries between the abbot of Ramsey and the aforesaid Robert Foliot and his brothers were made at the command of King Henry of England, King David of Scotland, the head of that land after the king of England, and the bishop of Salisbury, who was the justice of all England, and by the grant of William de Houghton of whose fief that land was. The following are witnesses of this: Hugh fitz Richard, Robert de Broi, Ralph de Borhard, Ebruin,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 229 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hugh Hayrun, Robert fitz Brien, Hugh de Faldo, Orderic, Alan, Hugh fitz Harlewin, Robert son of Asketil and others. Whoever violates this agreement and diminishes the land of St. Benedict, either this or any other, let him be excommunicated by the authority of God the Father Almighty and the Son and the Holy Ghost and St. Mary always virgin and all the elect of God, and let him be deprived of their company forever. Let it be. Let it be. Amen. Amen.'

272 After Abbot Gunter of Thorney has given land at Sibson and Yaxley to his nephew Robert of Yaxley without the consent of the chapter, his successor Robert sets about recovering the said property. He refuses to take Robert of Yaxley's homage and demands the return of the land at Sibson. Upon his tenant's refusal, the abbot disseises him and acquires a royal writ directing the justices to restore formal seisin to the abbey. The case is heard in the shire court of Huntingdon on the basis of a royal writ addressed to the sheriff, who reports that at the final hearing in the shire court Robert of Yaxley has abandoned his claim and surrendered his writ to him. Details are given of various arrangements made on that occasion between the abbot and Robert of Yaxley, who did homage in full county court. A writ of Henry I confirms this restitution. A. Notitia in the cartulary ofThorney on the troubles between Abbot Robert and Robert of Yaxley and their solution.

Concerning some lands and tenements in Yaxley and Sibson which the late lord Abbot Gunter had given to a certain Robert, his nephew, without the consent of the chapter, and which were afterwards recovered from him by the aforesaid Abbot Robert as appears from the following memoranda. Let present and future know that the lord Abbot Gunter without the consent of the full chapter of this church gave land in Yaxley and Sibson to Robert his nephew. On the death of Abbot Gunter of pious memory, Abbot Robert obtained the rule of this church. He, hearing how the aforesaid Abbot Gunter had made this gift contrary to the will and prohibition of the general chapter, with the support of his intimate advisers refused to take Robert's homage and ordered him through monks and men of this honour that he should immediately give up that land which for many days and years he had held unjustly and contrary to the will of the whole

271 1 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 83. pp. 255-256.10

Another version occurs in RAMSEY Chron., no. 279,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 230 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

convent. Robert being unwilling and proudly refusing, the abbot disseised him, broke his houses and stubbed up his holt and, that the matter might be the more quickly settled, crossed the sea and from our lord the king he sought through his own efforts and those of his friends a writ ordering that he should be reseised of that land by the king's justices and should hold it in peace if Robert was unable to show that it had been given to him by grant of the chapter and that it was not appropriated to the support of the monks, and that the king had confirmed the gift by his authority. Robert, seeing that he could in no wise prove these things, - for all the neighbours and men of the countryside knew that on the day when Sibson was given him it was in the demesne of this church and that he had never had the consent of the chapter nor had the king confirmed the gift- laying aside the fierceness with which he was more than enough puffed up, through the intercession of neighbours sought the lord abbot and at last, restoring to him the land at Sibson by the rod of Odo Revel, which is laid up in the treasury of the church, in the grange at Water Newton he became the man of the abbot and swore fealty to him, and that to him and all the monks of this church he would be faithful and serve them to the best of his power, and he has quitclaimed all the suits which he had brought against the abbot touching his houses and other property, so that neither by himself nor any heir of his shall any complaint or claim be made therein. These are the witnesses of this settlement: Hugh de Waterville, Ralph de la Mare, William of Burghley, Geoffrey Burdun and others.'

B. Notification by Fulk, sheriff of Huntingdon, of the quitclaim in the county court at Huntingdon by Robert of Yaxley to Abbot Robert of Thorney of the lands in dispute; details are given of various arrangements made by the parties. Again about the aforesaid Robert how in the full county court of Huntingdon he gave up his writ which he had obtained and all his claim which he had had against the aforesaid Abbot Robert. Be it known to all as well future as present that Abbot Robert of Thorney and Robert of Yaxley in 1127 A.D. on the day of the feast of St. Matthew the apostle, which is also an ember day, have met before me Fulk the sheriff at Huntingdon, where there was also a full shire court, and there Robert of Yaxley showed his writ and made his plaints and claims against the abbot of Thorney. Abbot Robert,

272A 1 '[Translation taken from D.M. Stenton, English Justice, 141 and 143.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 231 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

having heard his claims and complaints, most clearly showed through clerks and laymen who had been witnesses between them that he owed him absolutely nothing. Robert of Yaxley, seeing that his quarrel against the abbot would avail him nothing, taking my advice, that is, the advice of Fulk the sheriff, and that of Rainald, abbot of Ramsey, has restored by the rod and quitclaimed in the full shire court all his claims which he had against the abbot and his church, namely touching the land of Sibson, whether touching houses or holts or men and all other property, except his land at Yaxley which the abbot has given him, namely 32 virgates; and he has also, in the sight of the whole shire, given up to me his writ. And that this agreement may endure firm and stable for ever, in my presence and that of the abbot of Ramsey and the whole shire, Robert of Yaxley has sworn fealty to Abbot Robert as Hervey le Moigne best knew how to set it out, namely that he will be faithful to him and all of his as to his lawful lord, and that never against the abbot will he make any claim or suit, and that never at any time will he harm him or anyone of his men and that he will keep the aforesaid agreements for ever. This being done, as confirmation and witness thereof, the abbot has given him two marks of silver, whereof the abbot of Thorney himself handed him one part, and I another and the abbot of Ramsey the third and Hervey le Moigne the fourth, so that there would be manifold testimony and the matter would be firm and stable. We are the witnesses of this settlement, I, Fulk the sheriff and Rainald, abbot of Ramsey and his two monks Walter and Daniel, and Martin prior of St. 1 Neots, Henry the archdeacon [of Huntingdon] and others.

C. King Henry I confirms the quitclaim of Robert of Yaxley in favour of Thorney at Huntingdon.

Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriffs and barons of Huntingdonshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to God and the church of Thorney and the monks the restoration of the land of Sibson, containing two 1 hides, as Robert of Yaxley restored it before Fulk the sheriff and the men of four counties at Huntingdon. And I will and order that it shall remain with the church

272B ' 0[Translation taken from Stenton, op. cit., 143-145. - Various confirmatory quitclaims were successsively made by Robert of Yaxley, his son William and his grandson Ralph, see Stenton, op. cit., 144-146.]

272C

'[Sheriff Fulk was succeeded in 1129 by Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 232 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

forever as stable as it was done and granted there. Witness: William d'Aubigny Brito. At King's Cliffe. 2

273 Notification by William, archbishop of Canterbury, that the manor of Betton Abbots has been adjudged in the king's court to the monks of Shrewsbury as against Philip de Belmeis. William, by God's grace archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the apostolic see, to all the faithful of God's Holy Church throughout England, greeting. Know those present and future that the land of Betton was adjudged quit and free to the monks of Shrewsbury because Philip de Belmeis failed to justify himself in the court of King Henry at Woodstock in the king's presence and our own. Farewell. 1

274 Sitting in London, the royal court considers, inter alia, a dispute between the bishops of St. David's and Llandaff concerning the boundaries of their respective dioceses. The following year King Henry spent Christmas at Dunstable and Easter at Woodstock. After Easter there was a great plea at London where many questions were dealt with and mainly the discord between the bishop of St. David's and the bishop of Llandaff concerning the boundaries of their dioceses.

275 Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Roger of Chester and Sheriff Nicholas of Staffordshire and that county generally that he has confirmed the final concord between Kenilworth Priory and Hugh, the king's watchman, concerning various lands and other property in the inheritance of the latter's wife.

2

0

[D.M" Stenton, English Justice, 24-25.]

273 1 O[For further litigation concerning Betton Abbots, between the monks of Shrewsbury and Ranulf. son of Philip de Belmeis, see our document no. 387.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 233 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of England, to the bishop of Chester and [Sheriff] Nicholas of Stafford and his barons, ministers and all lieges, French and English, of Staffordshire, greeting. Know that I have confirmed and granted the peace and final concord which was made between the prior and the canons of Kenilworth and Hugh, my watchman, concerning the lands and things which were of the inheritance of the said Hugh's wife and about which there was litigation between them, viz. that the prior and his canons shall have in almoign and hold in peace the church of Stone with all its appurtenances and all the land which belonged to Brusard in Stone and one half of the whole wood and the land which belonged to Alan the son-in-law of Enisan in Colwalton and Aldwin, a cottier, with his land, which was of the tenement of Ernald son of Enisan, so that they shall hold all this in chief from Geoffrey son of Geoffrey de Clinton, to whose fee they belong. And Hugh the watchman, who has quitclaimed all this to them, shall have and hold in peace all other lands and other things of the same inheritance, as is testified by my charter which he has thereon and as it is therein apportioned. And I will and firmly order that the prior and the canons shall hold well, honourably, in peace and freely with all the liberties, customs and immunities, belonging to the lands and the church, as Nicholas de Stafford and his son Robert granted and confirmed them by their charter. Witnesses: Roger bishop of Chester, Miles de Gloucester, Pain fitz John, Aubrey de Vere, William d'Aubigny Brito and William de Clinton. At Beckenham.'

276 A conflict between the abbot and the monks of Peterborough concerning the proposed submission of the abbey to Cluny is brought before the king's court and decided in favour of the monks. A. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. 1132. This year King Henry came to this country. Then Abbot Henry came and accused the monks of Peterborough to the king, because he wished to put the monastery under the rule of Cluny, with the result that the king was nearly deceived, and sent for the monks. And by the mercy of God and by means of Bishop [Roger] of Salisbury, Bishop [Alexander] of Lincoln and the other powerful men who were there, the king perceived that he was behaving treacherously. When he could do no more, he wished that his nephew should be abbot in Peterborough, but Christ did not wish it. It was not long after that, that

275 1 °[V.C.H. Staffordshire, iii, 240.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 234 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the king sent for him and made him give up the abbacy of Peterborough and go out of the country.

B. The narrative in Hugh Candidus' Chronicle. After this the king came from Normandy to England, the Abbot Henry' came to him, straitly accusing in his presence the monks of Burch, not speaking the truth but seeking to deceive the king and subject the monastery to the Cluniacs as he had promised. Now the king was very angry and sent for the monks to Brampton and proceedings were commenced before him and he would almost have been deceived, if God's help had not been at hand and also the advice of the bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln, and the barons who had long known his deceitful wiles.2

277 Notification by King Henry I that in a suit before the barons of the Exchequer, Abbot Herbert of Westminster deraigned land in Parham and Mapleford against Herbert fitz Herbert. Henry, king of the English, to all his barons and lieges of Sussex and Middlesex, greeting. Know that Abbot Herbert of Westminster has deraigned before my barons at the Exchequer and by their judgment the land of Parham and Mapleford' against Herbert fitz Herbert, so that Herbert can make no further claim to it and that the abbot can have it in his demesne, if he wants to, and do with it what he likes. And I order that the abbot shall hold it well and in peace and without any claim, as he deraigned it. Witness: [Roger] bishop of Salisbury. At Woodstock.

276A

'[Translation taken from D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas, S.I. Tucker, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, London, 1961, 197.] ° 276B '[Knowles, Monastic Order, 183, 283; C. Clark, "'This ecclesiastical adventurer': Henry of Saint-Jean d'Ang6ly," E.H.R., 84 (1969), 548-560.]0 0 2 [Translation taken from HUGH CANDIDUS Chron, 56.]' 277 [Mapleford is unidentified. It may be a place-name in or near Parham as suggested in Regesta ii, p. 448 or to be identified with the Westminster manor of Pyrford (Surrey) as suggested in CURIA REGIS ROLLS vi. 461 and 475]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 235 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

278 Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriff of London to organize a recognition concerning the hithe of Fleet held by Henry Arborarius, to determine whether it belongs to him or St. Paul's Cathedral. Henry, king of the English, to the sheriff of London, greeting. I order you to make honest men of the ward where the hithe of Fleet is situated, which Henry Arborarius holds and where the boats of St. Paul are wont to be moored when they bring stone, recognize whether the hithe is of St. Paul or of Henry, and the boats of St. Paul are wont and should be quit of toll and custom there. And whatever St. Paul and the bishop were justly entitled to there according to that recognition, let them have it without delay and in all things, so that I hear no more complaint about it. Witness: William de Pont de l'Arche. At Winchester.'

279 Writ of King Henry I ordering those who hold land within Well wapentake to come to the wapentake court of the bishop of Lincoln, at the summons of the latter's ministers, as they did in the past. Henry, king of the English, to all barons and vavasours and all lords who hold lands in the wapentake of Well, greeting. I order you all to come to the pleas and the wapentake of the bishop of Lincoln, which he holds from me, at the summons of his ministers and to render him all rights and customs in all things which you owe to him for your lands in connection with that wapentake, as well and fully as you ever most fully rendered to Bishop Robert or one of his predecessors and which you are justly obliged to render. And unless you do this, he shall compel you by taking your money until you do, so that I myself shall not lose my money which the bishop owes me for it. Witnesses: [Roger] bishop of Salisbury and Geoffrey the chancellor. At Fareham.

278 ' °[H.W.C. Davis, "London Lands and Liberties of St. Paul's 1066-1135", Essays in Medieval History presentedto T.F. Tout, Manchester, 1925, 49-50.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 236 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

280 King Henry I orders that the monks of Worcester Cathedral are to enjoy peaceful tenure of the lands which they deraigned in the time of Bishop Theulf. Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Simon of Worcester and all his barons of Worcestershire, greeting. I order that the prior and the monks of St. Mary of Worcester shall hold their lands well, peacefully, justly and honourably as at my command they deraigned them at the time of Bishop Theulf by the oath of the men of the said bishop and their own. And let no one cause them any injury or disturbance on this. Witness: [Geoffrey] the chancellor. At Westminster.'

281 Deraignment by Bernard of land in Blackmarston in the court of the chapter of Hereford Cathedral by a sworn verdict of twelve men.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, amen. In the year 1133 of the Incarnation of the Lord, during the reign of King Henry, in the second year of the bishopric of Robert, the venerable bishop of Hereford, Bernard deraigned the land of Blackmarston in the chapter of St. Mary and St. Ethelbert by the oath of twelve honest men and the judgment of that court and was seised and invested thereof with the consent of the chapter, as well as his father Alward had had it and as the neighbours and those who knew the land had perambulated all around it, and he holds it for free service in fee farm, paying the chapter five shillings per year on the feast of St. Ethelbert on top of what is due to the king. Witnesses: Alwyn the priest, Hugh fitz William the forester, Hugh de Munsley, Walter de Lyde, Herbert Cardinli, Herbert fitz Fulcold and many others.'

280

Not calendared in Regesta. Bishop Simon was consecrated 14 May 1125, but Henry I did not return from the Continent until September 1126. The king was not in England again after his departure in August 1133. '[According to Powicke and Fryde, Handbook, 260 the consecration of Bishop Simon of Worcester took place on 24 (and not 14) May 1125.10

281

'[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 78.]

°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 237 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

282 Narrative in the cartulary of the priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, London, concerning the church of All Hallows on the Wall, which had been given to the priory by Ranulf, a priest who became a monk at Reading, and of which the canons were afterwards disseised. The narrative includes a writ of King Henry I, ordering Bishop Gilbert to reseise the canons as they can deraign the church by lawful witnesses, and a letter of Abbot Ansger of Reading in favour of the priory. At the time of Prior Norman and Gilbert the Universal, bishop of London, during the reign of King Henry I, a certain priest called Ranulph left the world to become a monk at Reading and gave to this church in perpetual alms the church of All Hallows on the Wall and some land outside the wall and received the fraternity of this place, and afterwards the aforesaid King Henry wrote as follows to the said Bishop Gilbert, who had received that church from us into his hand, together with the aforesaid land. Henry, king of the English, to Gilbert bishop of London, greeting. I order you justly to reseise the church of Holy Trinity of its church of All Hallows and of its land in your soke, which Ranuilph the cleric gave in alms to it and of which that church was disseised unjustly and without judgment, and let the canons of Holy Trinity hold them well, peacefully, justly and honourably as they will be able to deraign by their lawful witnesses that those things were given them in alms, so that they suffer no loss for lack of full right. The abbot of Reading also bore witness concerning this same church and wrote to the aforesaid bishop in the following words. To the most reverend lord and dearest father, the lord Gilbert, by God's grace bishop of London, and to all archdeacons, canons and others who are subject to the authority of St. Paul and the diocese of London, brother Ansger, unworthy servant of the brethren of Reading, due obedience with all humility and the support of prayers. We exhort the highness of your prudence diligently and out of a desire to venerate the splendour and honour of your name, not to be inclined to believe the spirit who also speaks to Osbern and tries to seduce his heart so that he causes trouble to the venerable brethren of the church of Christ in London because of the church of All Hallows and whatever pertains to it, maintaining that it was given to him by one of our monks called Ranulph, while he was a cleric, and that he justly possessed it, for this man's claim is doubtless unjust. After we diligently inquired the truth of the matter, our aforesaid brother firmly maintains that he

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 238 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

gave and granted that church to the aforesaid brethren free and quit as he ever best had it and also some land outside the walls, free and quit as he had possessed them both justly and for a long time, but that after this donation he obtained from the aforesaid canons that they gracefully allowed Osbern, his aforesaid nephew, to hold the forementioned church from them on the understanding that he should pay them 3 s. a year as a token of this link of subjection and this was kindly granted to him by the brethren, as long as he would behave well towards them and pay freely what had been agreed. Therefore, most reverend lord, I and our brethren, your servants, beg and ask your clemency and that of those who surround you that you shall let the house and the alms of our brother be held peacefully and quietly by the servants of Jesus Christ and of yourself and that the unjust interpellation of an importune sycophant shall not have more influence with your wisdom than the servants of Christ's pious prayer for something which was justly granted to them. Let God, the salvation of all men, keep your holiness forever.1 283 Notification by King Henry I that he has made an agreement between Abbot Martin of Peterborough and Bishop Alexander of Lincoln in a plea concerning the parish church of Peterborough. Henry, king of the English, to all clerics and laymen in the bishopric of Lincoln, greeting. Know that I have brought about an agreement between the abbot of Peterborough and the bishop of Lincoln concerning the plea and controversy between them for the parish church of Peterborough, in this way: the abbot has in my presence and that of my bishops and barons and my whole court fully recognized those customs which the bishop claimed in that church and pledged to restore them into his hand so that it will remain a customary church for the bishop of Lincoln to hold his pleas, his synod and his chapters in, just as the other parish churches of the bishopric of Lincoln in which these things are wont to take place. I also grant and will that the bishop shall indicate a convenient day for the abbot in the chapter of St. Mary of Lincoln and I will that the abbot shall then go there and do right to the bishop of Lincoln by the judgment of the chapter of St. Mary and his peers, the abbots, as the case has been conducted between them so far. Witnesses: Aethelwulf bishop of Carlisle, Robert de Sigillo, Robert earl of Gloucester, Earl William de Warenne and Brian fitz Count. At Rouen.

282 1 '[LONDON

ALDGATE TRINITY

Cart. (Hodgett), nos 779, 780, 781.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 239 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

284 King Henry I orders Bishop Bernard of St. David's to see to it that the monks of Gloucester Abbey shall have seisin of their church of Daugleddau, as they deraigned it in the bishop's court on the king's order and as this deraignment was afterwards recognized in the said court. Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of St. David's, greeting. I order that the monks of Gloucester shall have their seisin of their church of Daugleddau and all its appurtenances as well and peacefully as they have a charter thereon of your predecessor and your grant and they deraigned it before my transfretation at my command and by the judgment of your synod and as the synod itself afterwards recognized that they thus had deraigned it. And let them plead no more on this. Witness: Miles de Gloucester. At Argentan.'

285 Abbot Hugh of St. Augustine's, Canterbury deraigns land in Mongeham and in Northbourne in the court of King Henry I.

The manor of Mongeham of St. Augustine's defended itself in the time of King Edward for two sulings and a half. Of this manor Wadard held all the land of the villeins that was left over and it must belong to the proper farm of the monks and it has gone up in value since the monks hold it for sixteen pounds and Wadard held it for ten pounds. All that land, and that of Northbourne, Abbot Hugh deraigned in the court of King Henry, with the grant of that king, in the presence of many magnates, bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs and many others, and he restored it by hereditary right to St. Augustine, confirmed with the king's seal.

284 ' '[See Regesta ii, no. 1754 and 1755.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 240 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

286 Extract from the sworn recognition by the men of Sawtry Judith, recorded in a charter of Alexander Maufe, concerning the foundation, in 1147, of Sawtry Abbey. The jurors recall a dispute between the men of Sawtry and the men of Woodwalton in the time of King Henry I, which was settled by a perambulation. Concerning those boundaries which are named here it should be known that in the time of King Henry I a discord arose between us and the men of Woodwalton for which we met on the appointed day at Wylawe and, each producing his own arguments and as we followed our counsellors and they theirs, we fixed our boundaries to avoid further litigation or discord between us. We placed one man to serve as a sign in the middle of the boundary under the wood against Fishersmere and another at Strache and a third at Waltonholme and a fourth at Woolveystock on the isle of Higney and thus we walked, beginning from the first man and so to the three others, and thus we accepted the boundary between us and them together with the aforesaid boundaries between our marsh and theirs beyond Higney towards the marshes and so we and they separated in good peace at Wilawe. From Fishersmere, however, around the wood which Countess Judith had enclosed with a hedge along the boundary between the wood of Sawtry and the wood of Walton as far as the fence of Walton Hedge and from there on as straight a line as a rope is stretched as far as Pidley and from Pidley to Holestok at Derneheygate and from there to Stangate Hill and from there to Grenehvrst and from there through Stangate to Coppingfordmere between the wood of Coppingford and the wood of Sawtry to Epaselcrofte through the border of the oakwood and thence along the road which separates the fields of Sawtry and Coppingford as far as Slakkemere.'

287 Bishop Nigel of Ely orders an inventory of the possessions of the abbey to be made and deraigns several of them at Wandlebury in a meeting of nine hundreds, convened at King Henry I's command and presided over by the royal justices Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere.

0 286 1 [In Aversley Wood: V.C.H. Huntingdonshire, iii, pp. 131, 207-208.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 241 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

That the lord Bishop Nigel ordered the possessions of St. Etheldreda to be described and what he regained for his church through his zeal.' Early on in his pontificate the lord bishop had ordered the whole patrimony of the church to be described by the hand of the aforesaid Ranulf so that he would know how much he had and was entitled to receive in demesne, in rent and in knights' fees, thus avoiding the alienation of anything that lawfully belonged to him, and ensuring that every person of whatever condition, regular or secular, should pay his due, so that he should receive and possess unimpaired whatever belonged to him according to the decrees of the fathers and the institutions of the councils. He pursued his aim with the help of two kings, mainly by recovering the possessions through the just judgment of the old King Henry of blessed memory, as mentioned here, but also by obtaining an authoritative charter concerning all these possessions from the present new king, the gentle Stephen. Within the Isle: Coveney and Mepal, and outside: Stetchworth, Wratting, Strede and the Rodings, Thriplow, Impington, Pampisford, Marham, Cottenham, Snailwell, Gransden, Terrington, Darmsden, Thaderege and Kingston. These and other possessions of St. Etheldreda the bishop forcefully recovered from the invaders and they were claimed and adjudicated at Wandlebury by the authority of the old king in the past, as well as by the command of the present new king, as we said, before nine hundreds presided over by the judges Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere.2 It is our intention to copy here the latter king's charter in testimony of the deed.

288 Writ of King Stephen ordering Miles de Gloucester and Pain fitz John to hold a sworn recognition as to what woods of the bishop of Hereford were afforested by King Henry I. Stephen, king of the English, to Miles de Gloucester and Pain fitz John, greeting. Let it be recognized by the oath of twelve lawful men of the county of Hereford which woods of the bishop of Hereford King Henry has afforested in his lifetime. And all those I restore quietly to the bishop so that nobody shall hunt in 287 1 The Wandlebury plea, the proceedings of which are described in this chapter, must have been heard between the accession of Nigel in 1133 and the death of Henry I at the end of 1135. The narrative states that the findings were implemented by the authority of Henry I, but not that they were confirmed by his charter. Certainly no such charter is known to have been issued. For Stephen's preceptum, presumably a writ, see the note to infra, ch. 40. '[ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 49, p. 288; Regesta iii, no. 261, p. 9 3 (June 1139-Spring 1140).]. Modern equivalents to the place names will be found in the index, and Bishop Nigel's policy of resuming alienated lands is discussed, with reference to this chapter, in Miller, Ely, pp. 167-174. 2 Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere I jointly accounted for the farm of Cambridgeshire in 1130 (Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 43).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 242 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

them or meddle with them except with the bishop's permission, upon my forfeiture. Witness: [Roger] the chancellor. At Oxford.'

289 William, archbishop of Canterbury, notifies the inhabitants of London that in the controversy between Christ Church Canterbury and the abbey of Barking concerning land in London it was agreed that, if Canterbury found lawful witnesses from the city of London in its favour, the abbess of Barking would seise Canterbury of the land. At a final hearing the archbishop asks the Londoners to do right according to their conscience. William, by God's grace, archbishop of Canterbury, to the clerics and laymen, barons and the good men of London, greeting and God's blessing and his own. Let it be known and well known to your beloved multitude that this case between our church, your mother, and the monastery of Barking has for many reasons dragged on for a long time. Finally the abbess came in our presence at Lambeth and conceded that on the appointed day, if we had lawful witnesses from the city of London ready to declare truthfully that our church was ever seised of the land in dispute, the abbess would after they had produced proof seise our church of it so as to bring to an end this endless labour. On the appointed day your men came with witnesses who were ready to offer proof, as I and the abbess had prepared. Your men offered witnesses whom the abbess refused to accept; as was not unusual with her, she changed her mind, maintaining that she had not understood it thus but otherwise. Your people refused to do anything else than what had been appointed and left without accomplishing anything. Finally, the abbess came to us maintaining, as she said before, that she had understood differently, but in the end she recognized that it was so. At long last a day is appointed for ajust judgment to be given. As the business went like this and as I describe it to you, we beseech you that, faithful to Holy Church in the charity which is God, you shall be with God in this affair and spare neither me nor the abbess but give just judgment according to your conscience. I beseech, warn and adjure you by the faith of Christ that you shall do right and pursue in this case not what is yours but what is Jesus Christ's and that you will duly terminate it, as the abbess conceded proof and agreed to accept it on the appointed day; even though she [had] maintained that it was otherwise, she with certainty recognized before us that it was so. Farewell.

288 1 0[Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 273.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 243 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

290 King Stephen prosecutes a gang of plunderers led by a doorkeeper of King Henry I and has them hanged.

So Stephen, having with such good fortune obtained both the title of king and the royal crown, armed himself like a man to establish peace in the kingdom; and by boldly meeting those very plunderers who had grievously ravaged the district round about he earned great glory right at the beginning of his reign. For there was at that time a certain man who though of humble rank, inasmuch as he had been King Henry's doorkeeper,' was yet especially ready to do harm and most eager to offer violence to the poor. Indeed, with a mixed body of peasants and mercenaries, harassing his neighbours in every direction, he made himself unendurable to all, sometimes by insatiable pillage, sometimes by fire and sword. At length Stephen met him with spirit and after triumphantly capturing some of his followers either deprived them of their lives or put them in chains; and shutting up their leader 2 himself together with others he finally hanged him on a gallows.

291 Record of a plea in King Stephen's court between Prior Norman of Holy Trinity, London, and Aschuil, custodian of the Tower of London, concerning part of the soke of the English Cnihtengild: it was proved by the oath of twenty-one men that the part of the soke in dispute had belonged to the rest of the soke and hence to Holy Trinity since the time of King Edward the Confessor. Prior Norman had already complained about this in the time of King Henry I and had obtained a royal writ ordering justice to be done, but this had been postponed because of obstruction by Aschuil. Othwer, a former custodian of the royal Tower, used force against Prior Norman and the canons of the church of Holy Trinity of London, by whose right the soke called English Cnihtengild came into the possession of that church, and deprived them of a large part of the soke. Aschuil, Othwer's successor in the custody of the Tower, kept the same part by force and refused in any way to give it up, whereupon Prior Norman went to King Henry and asked that justice should be done to him, which the king granted and ordered by his writ, but because of Aschuil's obstruction it was postponed until King Henry died. However, in the 290

The only known doorkeepers (or ushers) of Henry I were Osbert hostiarius (c. 1100), John 1650). 0hostiarius(c. 1128), and Geoffrey Purcell (Reg. ii, nos. 508, 1550, ° 2 [Translation taken from ROBERT OF LEWES, Gesta Stephani.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 244 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

second year of the reign of King Stephen the aforesaid prior took the opportunity of the presence of the king at Westminster to go and see him in the presence and with the help of Queen Matilda, the king's wife, Algar, bishop of Coutances, Roger the then chancellor, Arnulf the archdeacon of S6ez, William Martel the steward, Robert de Courcy, Aubrey de Vere, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Hugh Bigod, Adam de Belnai, Andrew Buccuinte and many other burgesses of London and showed diligently by what force and injury that part was severed from the rest. Aschuil was summoned before the king and asked by what right he had held that part and what claim he had on it. He answered that he had no claim to it but, he said, 'I have held' Thereupon the king in a loud voice ordered Andrew [Buccuinte], his justiciar, and the other burgesses who were then present and instructed them and others also by his writ to indicate a definite day to the prior when they could all meet on the land in question, examine the matter reasonably and, after it had been examined, let things remain as they had been at the time of St. Edward, the king; if the prior could show that part to belong by right to the church, he was to be reseised without delay. Thus it was done. On the appointed day the prior and his helpers met on that land on the one side and Andrew Buccuinte and several other leading and better Londoners on the other. Everything was investigated from the time of St. Edward the king until the day when this meeting took place and it was found and shown that that part belonged to the rest and everything similarly by the same title. This was also proved there by many witnesses and the oath of 21 men whose names are: Orgar the monk surnamed le Prude, Ailwin son of Radumf, Estmund, Alfric Cheich, Brictred the cowherd, Wulfred, Semar, Batun, Alsi, Berman, Wlpsi the smith, Alfwin Hallen, Lefswin the smith, Ulwin the abbot, Ailwin the clerk, Algar the brother of Gerald, Wlfric the butcher, Elfret Cugel, Wlfric, Edric Modlievesune and Godwin Balle. And many more were ready to swear but those were judged to be sufficient. In this way, for this reason and justice, all that land and soke was adjudged to the aforesaid church and confirmed to that church by King Stephen, as appears from the following charter.I

291 ' o[Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 265-266.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 245 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

292 Henry of Blois, abbot of Glastonbury and bishop of Winchester, explains that on the accession of King Stephen he found the opportunity to recover for his abbey by judicial action the manor of Uffculme, which was unjustly held by Robert fitz Walter the Fleming. Furthermore after I had perceived that the manor of Uffculme, which was then in the possession of Robert fitz Walter the Fleming but used to belong of old to Glastonbury, had passed into alien hands, I confess I was hesitant because of the antiquity of the situation, and bearing it patiently for some time I postponed making my claim. Afterwards, King Henry my uncle having gone the way of all flesh, and my brother Stephen having succeeded in the kingdom, the aforesaid Robert did homage and swore an oath of fealty as was the custom, together with the other magnates of the land, but not long afterwards he utterly neglected all debt of fealty and legality, became contumacious and rebellious to the law and the king and was compelled by the victory ofjustice, together with several accomplices to his wickedness, to abjure not only his own property but also the whole of England. Considering this to be the right occasion and taking my opportunity I publicly claimed what had belonged to the church and what he had for a long time withheld from the church by violence as well as fraud. I proffered my claim before the whole court with whose consent and thanks to God, who directs everything, the king immediately gave satisfaction to Holy Church and through me liberally restored the member to the mother church and the aforesaid manor to Glastonbury. 293 Notification by Pain fitz John to the reeve and burgesses of Hereford that Estrilda can freely dispose of the land which she has deraigned against him.

Pain fitz John to the reeve of Hereford, whoever he may be, and all burgesses of of Hereford, French and English, greeting. Know that I have granted to this Estrilda her land, which was deraigned against me, to be held firmly and quietly to sell and to give, to herself and her heir. And this I testify for her by my letter and my seal and according to the law of Breteuil, 1 against the yearly payment of 18 pence. 2 And I forbid anyone to cause her any further injury or contumely. Farewell. 292 1 o[V.C.H. Somerset, ii. 87.] ° 293 1 O[M. Bateson, "The laws of Breteuil" E.H.R., xv (1900), 73-78; 302-318; 496-523; 754-757; xvi (1901), 92-110; 332-345.]1 2 Pain fitz John died fighting the Welsh in that year. °[See GLOUCESTER ST. PETER Charters,248.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 246 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

294 Agreement in the king's court whereby Emma, daughter of Grimbald the physician, grants her rights in her father's lands to Walter Martel and promises to warrant his possession of those lands of which she is seised, and to help him to deraign those of which, although they are hers by right, she is not seised. Stephen, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, justices, barons, sheriffs, ministers and all his lieges of all England, greeting. Know that Emma, daughter of Grimbald the physician, has before me and with my consent quitclaimed and placed back in my hand all the land that belonged to her father, that of which she was seised as well as what was hers by right and of which she was not seised. And, in her presence and with her consent, I have given and granted all that land to Walter Martel in heritable fief for him and his heirs after him, and she pledged that she will warrant it for him everywhere as far as possible; and as far as those lands are concerned of which she is not seised and which Walter will claim, she will help him as far as possible to deraign that land, at Walter's expense. She confirmed in the hand of William Martel that she and her heirs held without guile. And for this grant Walter gave Emma in my presence one ring of gold, and John Marshal, on whose counsel she did this, confirmed for his part that she held this without guile and Grimbald's wife Atselina will hold the land, which she holds, in peace as long as she lives from Walter and afterwards the land will return to Walter's demesne. I therefore will and firmly command that he shall hold it well and in peace and freely and quietly in all things and places with soke, sake, toll, team and infangthief and all freedoms belonging to it, with which Grimbald ever most freely held it or somebody else before him. Witnesses: Waleran count of Meulan, Robert earl of Leicester, William Martel, Aubrey de Vere, Robert de Vere, Hugh Bigod, Geoffrey de Mandeville and Eustace fitz John. At Worcester. 295 General notification by Abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds of the customs which the burgesses of Bury St. Edmunds have deraigned in his court as theirs in the time of Kings Edward the Confessor, William I, William II and Henry I. Anselm, by God's grace abbot of St. Edmunds, to all his barons and men, French and English, and all their successors, greeting. I notify you that those are

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 247 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the customs which the burgesses of St. Edmunds deraigned before me in my court as having been theirs in the time of King Edward and in the time of King William and his sons, William and Henry, and in the time of my predecessors, i.e. Abbot Baldwin and the other abbots, and which I have granted and confirmed to them by the grant of the whole convent of St. Edmund. Thus it is their custom to find eight men per year from the four wards to guard the town at night and on the feast of St. Edmund sixteen men for the four gates, two during the day and two during the night and similarly during the twelve days following the birth of the Lord. They shall also find four gatekeepers per year for the four gates, the fifth gate being the east gate and in the abbot's hand. If need be, the sacrist shall find the necessary material for the gates and the burgesses shall repair them and whenever the ditch that surrounds the town stands in need of repair, if the knights of the abbey and free sokemen work there, then the burgesses shall work there like the knights or the sokemen, for this work should weigh more upon the burgesses than upon the knights. Whoever has dwellings on burgage land in the town of St. Edmunds shall for every dwelling give every year a halfpenny, one at Pentecost and one at the feast of St. Martin. They moreover are not obliged to go outside the town of St. Edmunds to the hundred or the county or to any plea where they may be impleaded, except for their own portmanmoot. If some burgess has land in the town of St. Edmunds of his own patrimony or if he bought it or acquired it lawfully in the town or in the market place and has held it for one year and one day without any claim, and if he can deraign that through the testimony of burgesses, he shall thereafter not answer any plaintiff who might appear against him. If he has no son or close kinsman who wants and is able to pay him so much for his land as anyone else and if he is driven by necessity, he can sell his land to whomsoever he likes within the fee of St. Edmunds without having to ask the permission of the provost, his wife, his children or any of his kinsmen. If anyone has lent his money to somebody within or without the town and cannot regain it on the appointed day and this has been recognized in the said town, he shall take goods in distraint therefore, and if he has obtained a pledge therefor and kept it for a full year and a day and if the debtor wants to redeem or free it and this has been recognized, let him sell the pledge before good witnesses for the best possible price and let him take his money from the proceeds, and if there is anything left, let him give it back to the other man; if however this is not sufficient for him to recover all his money. he shall take another pledge for what is lacking. If anyone has acquired land of burgage custom in that town, whoever he may be, let him fulfil the custom which that land used to fulfil. Witnesses: Talbot the prior, Sired, Aednoth, Ording, Jocelin, Hervey the sacrist, Adam the steward, Wulward the cleric, Gilbert fitz Fulcher, William fitz Albold, Ralph de Loddon, Gilbert de Loddon, Richard de Loddon, Roger de Gissing, Ralph de Buckenham, Hugh de Gissing, Robert de Hawstead, Ailbric de Capel, Ailmer de Whatfield, Leomar de Barningham and his

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 248 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

nephew Berard, Brian, Osward, William fitz Peter, Reginald leo, Ralph the constable, Osbern the butler, Geoffrey de Melford, John de Valle and Robert Malet.

296 Controversy concerning the church of Luton between Gilbert de Clare, earl of Pembroke, and William Chamberlain. Earl Gilbert wants his kinsman William de Cimmay to be appointed to the church, but William Chamberlain claims to hold the church and its lands as his lay fee. The discussion concerns the competence of the court of the bishop of Lincoln and the lay or ecclesiastical nature of the fee. The case is decided by the recognition of the men of Luton, as ordered by royal writ: it is found that the church and the land were held in frankalmoign until William Chamberlain turned it into a military fee. Consequently William Chamberlain is disseised by judgment, the church placed in the hands of the bishop and, at a Church council in Oxford, William de Cimmay is finally installed as parson.

In those days there was a church in the town of Luton, with numerous parishioners and abundantly provided with land. Those lands together with the church, which belonged to the fee of the earl of Gloucester, were turned into military service by the unjust violence of one William Chamberlain - of whom we shall have to say more - who had given Earl Robert of Gloucester 10 marks for that purpose. How this happened and which entry the aforesaid Robert had in that church we thought interesting to explain. For when the said earl Robert of Gloucester died,' his son William entered into the paternal inheritance. While he was still in the fealty and service of King Stephen, he gave to Earl Gilbert2 the lordship of the church of Luton as he had it himself and of the land pertaining to that church and let him be seised thereof by Geoffrey de Waterville, who sent Walter de Chesney in his place to Luton to perform this investiture. Many people have seen and heard this donation and seisin, but William Chamberlain, a layman who was married, had occupied the church and as we said before had reduced the liberty of the church into the service of military duties. However, Earl Gilbert understood that this was against reason and as patron and with the agreement of the king gave and granted the aforesaid church and all the land that belonged to it, which the aforesaid William Chamberlain had unjustly occupied, in alms to his 296 l '[Since Robert, earl of Gloucester, died on 31 October 1147 and the suit took place in 1138-1139, 2

the chronicle must be mistaken on this point, see A.W. Douglas, "Frankalmoin and jurisdictional immunity: Maitland revisited", Speculum, 53 (1978), p. 29 n. 6.]0 0 [This must be either Gilbert de Clare of Hertford, who was created some time before Christmas

1141 and died about 1152, or his uncle Gilbert de Clare of Pembroke, created 1138, died 1148 (Williams, "William the Chamberlain and Luton Church", 726).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 249 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

kinsman Gilbert de Cimmay, a cleric and chaplain of the king, in order to restore the liberty accoriing to ecclesiastical law. Therefore the king and Earl Gilbert presented Gilbert de Cimmay to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln with the request that he should grant him the aforesaid church and appoint him as parson. The bishop, however, replied that he refused to dismiss William Chamberlain from the church except by judicial process, even if he possessed it unjustly, and he therefore appointed a day and a place on which he and Gilbert de Cimmay could plead their case. On the appointed day William did not come but sent messengers to say that he would not stand trial before the bishop concerning a church which he possessed heritably for military service and not in almoign. He was given another day but again nothing happened. The bishop did not want to judge him in his absence lest he should be reproached with excessive haste, and appointed a third day in the town of Luton, where William lived, so that he could not escape or excuse himself. Within this term the bishop of Lincoln received a mandate of Bishop [Alberic] of Ostia, who was then legate in England, ordering him to inquire diligently whether the land which William Chamberlain held belonged by right to the church of Luton and if this could be established, to reclaim the church and the land into the liberty of ecclesiastical law; and Gilbert de Cimmay carried this mandate in his hand. When, however, the third day arrived, William was absent as usual, but some writ of the king was brought forward ordering the men of Luton to recognize the truth concerning the right of the church and the land, whether it belonged to the church, and to approve the truth which they would arrive at in this matter. This same order was also given by the bishop. They all testified and firmly maintained that already at the first foundation of the church five hides in Luton were given to it in free almoign and that afterwards in course of time other lands were acquired by the parsons of the church and that thus the church with the whole land was always held in almoign by all of them until the time of the latest, i.e. William Chamberlain, who turned the ecclesiastical liberty into military service. This was testified by all and proved by three elected persons with their hands on the Holy Gospels. After this was established, William who had unjustly occupied the church was disseised by judgment and the church was seised in the hands of the bishop. This having been done, Gilbert de Cimmay asked that he should seise him of the free and vacant church, as he had been presented to him, but the bishop delayed and postponed the matter until some meeting which he was to have at Oxford. And as he arrived there, everything, as it had happened, was recorded and shown before Archbishop Theobald and the bishop of Lincoln and many others, native and foreign, and Gilbert de Cimmay was, by the common judgment of the archbishop and the bishops, seised of the church of Luton and the land and everything that belonged to that church. 3 3

o[Williams, op. cit., 719-730; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 65, 327-328; Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 286-287, 290; Douglas, op. cit., 26-33.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 250 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

297 Notification by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, to Henry, bishop of Winchester and papal legate and to Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, that he returns to the Augustinian priory of St. Frideswide the fair and the church of St. Mary Magdalene, which Prior Wimund of St. Frideswide has deraigned, and also the churches of St. Michael and of All Saints and everything else of which he had unlawfully deprived the said priory. A. First charter concerning this restitution.

To Henry, by the grace of God legate of the apostolic see, and Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and the whole clergy of the whole of England, Roger, bishop of Salisbury, greeting. I notify you that for the salvation of my soul I have restored to the church and the prior and canons of St. Frideswide the fair and the church of St. Mary Magdalene which Prior Wimund deraigned as being subjected to the aforesaid church, and also the church of St. Michael above the north gate and the church of All Saints, which Robert the priest gave to the same church, with the mill which I gave back to them a long time ago as being their right - but their aforesaid churches I then retained - and all their other possessions and dignities of which I had unjustly deprived that same church. Therefore, I beg and firmly and confidently request that for the love of God you see to it that this shall be firm and stable. Witnesses: Azo the dean and William the subdean of Salisbury, Richard fitz William and Gotso the chamberlain. At Salisbury.

B. Second, slightly different charter concerning the same restitution.

To Henry, legate of the apostolic see, and Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and all the bishops of the whole of England, Roger, bishop of Salisbury, greeting and blessing. I notify you that for the salvation of my soul I have restored to the church and the prior and the whole convent of St. Frideswide the fair belonging to that church and the church of St. Magdalene, which King Henry granted to that church, on the deraignment of Wimund who was prior of the aforesaid church. Moreover, I restore to them the church of St. Michael above the north gate and the church of All Saints, which Robert the priest gave to that church, with the mill which I gave back to them a long time ago as their right - but

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 251 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

their aforesaid churches I then retained- and all their other possessions and customs and dignities, of which I unjustly had deprived that same church, I similarly have restored to them. Therefore I humbly request your dignity that you see to it that this shall be firm and stable for the love of God, your honour and the salvation of your souls and mine. Witnesses: Azo the dean, William the sub-dean, Richard fitz William, Osmund the steward, Walter de Maisi and Serlo fitz Eudo. At Salisbury.'

298 Writ of Roger of Salisbury, the justiciar, ordering the sheriff and the constable of Lincoln to cause Bishop Alexander of Lincoln to have certain lands according to the king's charter and the oath of lawful men of Lincoln, twelve of the city and twelve of the venue. Roger, bishop of Salisbury, to Hugh fitz Eudo the sheriff and Reginald the constable of Lincoln and all burgesses of Lincoln, greeting. I order you to let the bishop of Lincoln have twenty solidates of land as the king orders in a charter which he has and where the king orders it, and let him have them loyally and fully by the oath of twelve lawful men of the city of Lincoln and twelve lawful men of the venue of Lincoln, who do not belong to that land. Witness: Robert de Vere. At Westminster.

299 Writ of King Stephen, addressed to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln and various officials, ordering that Canon Ralph of Lincoln, who holds the prebend of Asgarby, is to hold his land there which he deraigned before the king's justice. Stephen, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriff and all his ministers of Lincolnshire, greeting. I order that Ralph, the canon of Asgarby, shall hold his land which the men of Lusby held in the prebend of Asgarby with all its appurtenances, as well, peacefully, justly, freely and honourably as Robert de Grainville best and most freely held it in the past and as he deraigned it before my justice, so that he will not be impleaded thereon unless I order it by name and so that I hear no more complaint of it. Witness: Roger the chancellor. At Rockingham. 297B 298

'[The documents are published and discussed in OsNEY Cart., nos. 793 and 794, ii, pp. 233, 234 and p. 214.10 I '[See LINCOLN Reg., vii, 1953, p. 86.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 252 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

300 King Stephen confirms the right of the priory of St. Frideswide to its gate in the city wall of Oxford, as was recognized before him in his court by the burgesses there. Stephen, king of the English, to the justice, sheriff, reeves and all burgesses, French and Enghsh, of Oxford, greeting. Know that I will and grant that the prior and canons of St. Frideswide shall have and hold freely and quietly their gate in the wall of the said city, built within the precinct of their monastery, for their own use, and the easement of that wall to build on and as a support for their own buildings, so that they shall repair the superstructure made by them and reconstruct it to their own advantage for all the mural service belonging to the aforesaid wall throughout the aforesaid precinct. For it was recognized by my burgesses of Oxford before me and before my earls and barons that the canons of the aforesaid monastery have of old had the use of the aforesaid possession and the right to build on top of the gate and the easement of the aforesaid wall, as was said before. Witness: Aubrey de Vere. At Oxford.

301 Notification by King Stephen of a sworn recognition by the burgesses of Oxford, held before him in his court, concerning the rents due to the canons of St. Frideswide's priory within Oxford. Stephen, king of the English, to the sheriff and all his ministers and lieges of Oxford, greeting. Know that my burgesses of Oxford have by their oath recognized before me and before my earls and barons that the canons of the church of St. Frideswide receive every year, within the borough of Oxford and without, a yearly rent and have their court for the lands and tenures belonging of old to their church, i.e. from the land which Ailwin held 27 d.; from the land which Reiner the priest held 4 s.; from the land which Hemmiger held 6 s.; from the land which Aldith held 12 d.; from the land which Ingelry held 8 d.; from the land which Robert de Byseleger held 4 s.; from the land which Sawy held 4 s. 6 d.; from the land which Durant held 4 d.; from the lands which are said to belong to the altar of St. Frideswide 39 s. 10 d.; from the land with the oven which Alexander of Abingdon held 8 s.; from the land which Edith the widow held 26 d.; from the lands

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 253 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

which Helewis held II s.; from the mill on the bridge 1 mark; from the land which Goldewynethild held 2 s.; from the land which Hildewine held 2 s.; from the land which Aelfred held 6 s.; from the land which Torald held 8 s.; from the land which Hildewine held 28 d.; from the lands which Garet held 6 s. 10 d.; from the land which Wautier held 2 s.; from the land which Hogeles held 2 s.; from the land which Anketil held 40 d.; from the land which Aelfred held 2 s.; from the land which Balford held 12 d.; from the land which Thomas the fuller held 5 s.; from the land which Richard the priest held 3 s.; from the land which William the priest held 2 s.; from the land which Malger held 28 d.; from the land which Philip the baker held 28 d.; from the land which William the baker held 16 d.; from the lands which Nigel held 19 s.; from the land which Roger Brodgte held 3 s.; from the land with the oven which Saul held 28 d.; from the land which Sucling held 12 d.; from the land which Nicholas the priest held 2 s.; from the land which Roger Pompam held l0 s.; from the lands which Turald held 20 d.; from the land which Sebrith held 12 d.; from the land which Ralph Hens held 4 s.; from the land which Goldedernia held 23 s.; from the land with the mill which Godric held 8 s. 8 d.; from the land which Tolomen held 5 s.; from the land with the oven which Thomas the baker held 16 d.; from the land which Roger Maton held 4 d.; from the land which Alewi held 16 d.; from the land which Ailwin held 12 d.; from the land which Osmund Pax held 12 d.; from the land which Gilbert Wautier held 12 d.; from the land which Godwin Hocont held 12 d.; from the land which William Lonure held 8 d.; from the land near the lane which John Cepehan held 2 s.; from the land which Ernald the weaver held 42 d.; from the land which Alan Romanger held outside the gate 16 s., for which the aforesaid canons owe every year to the lord of the fee 13 d. and a quarter for all service. From the land which belongs to the one hide in Walton and from the land which belongs to Binsey the aforesaid canons have every year the rent and the service of their rustics and their hundred in everything. They also have every year one fair in the borough of Oxford and in its whole suburb, lasting seven days around the feast of St. Benedict' with all the liberties and free customs which belong to the fair, without disturbance. Therefore I will and grant that the aforesaid canons shall have and hold forever the aforesaid fair, lands and rents with all their appurtenances, liberties and free customs. Witnesses: Bishop Robert of Hereford, Philip the chancellor, Roger de F6camp, Count Waleran of Meulan, Baldwin de Richerio and Roger de Tosny.

301 1 '[The translation of St. Benedict is on I I July; the fair was held for a week beginning on the vigil ° of the translation; V.C.H. Oxford, ii. 97.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 254 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

302 Notification by King Stephen that Abbot [Martin] and the monks of Peterborough have deraigned their land at Northorpe before him at Lincoln against the canons of that place. Stephen, king of the English, to the justice, sheriff, barons and all his ministers and lieges, French and English, of Lincolnshire, greeting. Know that the abbot and monks of Peterborough have deraigned before me at Lincoln their land of Northorpe against the canons of Lincoln. Therefore I will and firmly order that the monks shall hold it well, in peace, freely, quietly and as they have deraigned it before me in my court and so that they are not impleaded again concerning this deraignment against this. Witnesses: Ralph fitz Gilbert, Turgis of Avranches, Robert Gelle and Alan de Craon. At Stamford.'

303 Suit brought in the king's court by the archbishop of Canterbury against the abbot of Battle whose men of Dunge Marsh (or Dengemarsh) have taken a Romney ship as wreck. The plaintiff bases his case on an ordinance of King Henry I, whereas the defendant argues that an ordinance is not binding after the king's death, unless enacted by consent of the barons. The case is remitted to the abbot's court of Dunge Marsh, but the men of the archbishop fail to appear. The matter is again brought before the king's court by the plaintiff, but decided in favour of the defendant. In those days, during a storm, a ship out of Romney, in the territory of the archbishop of Canterbury, fully loaded with various goods, was wrecked upon land of Battle Abbey in Dengemarsh, a member of Wye. Its crew barely escaped. Now it should be understood that from antiquity it has been held as law along the sea-coast that in the case of shipwreck, if the survivors have not repaired her within a fixed period of time, the ship and whatever may have been landed falls without challenge under the lordship of that land as 'wreck'. However, King Henry was averse to this custom and promulgated an ordinance for his own time and throughout his empire, that if even one person should escape alive out of the wrecked ship he should have everything. 1 But, new king, new law. For after his death the magnates of the realm did away with the new ordinance and exercised the ancient custom themselves. So it was that the men of Dengemarsh, according to the maritime customs and the royal liberties of the church of Battle, took this 302 1[Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 268.] 303 I '[See on this ordinance G.F. Warner, Deprincipis instructioneliber, London, Rolls Series, 1891 (Giraldi Cambrensis opera, vol. viii), p. 119.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 255 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

wreck by force. When he heard this the archbishop went to court and brought before the king a complaint against the abbot of Battle, that he had used force and hostility in this matter. The king at once commanded the abbot to appear before him. 2 The matter was aired at the royal court before a gathering of nobles. The king himself was inclined towards the archbishop and, through the zealous and skilful William of Ypres, 3 who at that time held the county of Kent, he accused the abbot of breaking the peace, since he had acted against a decree of King Henry. After much disputation, the abbot calmed the court with an argument planned ahead of time. For he pointed out that while King Henry could at will change the ancient rights of the country for his own time, that fact should not establish anything for posterity except with the common consent of the barons of the realm. So, if his equals in privilege, namely the barons who were present, would, with the royal assent, give up for themselves the point at issue, he would willingly give it up too. The magnates present unanimously refused to do this and it was finally decreed in common that this hearing be closed and that the abbot should, by royal privilege, convene his own court on the matter at Dengemarsh on a stated day, with the archbishop's men in attendance, and should have complete jurisdiction. Now at this assembly it happened that the abbot uttered with foresight a memorable phrase that much weakened the king's spirit. For when he was accused, he turned directly to the king and said: "Not for long may you wear the crown of England, 0 king, so please it God, if you destroy even such a small liberty given our church by King William and respected by your other predecessors" The abbot kept to the arranged day, but no one arrived for the archbishop until the next day. Thus losing their say in the settlement of the offence, they went away disappointed, and once more a plaint reached the king from the archbishop. Once more the abbot was summoned and came. The points of difficulty were explained and by general consent it was adjudged that the abbot had proved his case and that he ought not to be challenged further on this by the archbishop. The hearing was dissolved, and each returned home. The abbot, disposing as he wished of all the goods that had caused the trouble, pacified the archbishop and his men with some of the shipwrecked goods, but the important things he kept for himself and for his church of Battle. And so the quarrel over this matter ended.4 2 The chronicler is using the phraseology of royal writs, as in Van Caenegem, Writs. 422. 488. The

phrase is particularly common in the thirteenth century. Bracton: de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. G.E. Woodbine, transl. and revised by S.E Thorne, ii (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 201-202, 310, 316, 317, 333, 422, 427. 3 William of Ypres, illegitimate son of Philip, count of Ypres, was Stephen's confidant, and principal mercenary commander. Like the Battle chronicler, Gervase of Canterbury says that he had custody of Kent. Gervaseof Canterbury(RS), ii. 73. He never appears as earl of that county, but he drew revenues from it till 1156. His presence therefore provides no clue as to the date of the incident. The chronicler dates the incident in the mid-I 140s. For William's career see H.A. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen (London, 1970), pp. 147-149. 0 4 [Translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 143-147. See H.W.C. Davis, "The chronicle of Battle abbey", English HistoricalReview, xxix (1914), 434; G.B. Adams, Council and courts in AngloNormanEngland, 1926, p. 118; Regesta iii, p. xxvii; Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, pp. 264-265.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 256 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

304 Writ of King Stephen pardoning William fitz Robert for a forfeiture concerning assarts, on which he had been impleaded.

Stephen, king of the English, to Henry de Essex, Adam de Beaunay 1 and all his ministers of Essex, greeting. I quitclaim William fitz Robert of the forfeiture on which he was impleaded for the assarts of his land of Bersiestona, so that henceforth he shall be quit thereof and shall no more be impleaded therefore, if he makes no further profits from the aforesaid assarts of Bersiestona.Witness: Robert de Courcy. At Westminster.

305 Writ of King Stephen ordering that the abbot of Thorney shall have his market at Yaxley as was adjudged at Huntingdon before Aubrey de Vere and William Martel, royal judges. Stephen, king of the English, to the sheriff and his officials of Huntingdonshire, greeting. I order that the abbot of Thorney have his market and all his customs of Yaxley as well and peacefully and honourably as ever he best and most freely had them in the time of King William and of King Henry on the day when he was alive and dead, and as it was decided before Aubrey de Vere and William Martel at Huntingdon. And the burgesses of Huntingdon may take their customs where they were wont to take them in the time of King Henry. Witness: Aubrey de Vere. At Westminster.'

306 Summary of a charter of King Stephen releasing the men of Ilbert de Lacy from their forfeitures, especially in connection with the death of William Maltravers. Charter of King Stephen by which he quitclaimed all the men of Ilbert de Lacy, 304

In Regesta iii, p. xxiii it is suggested that Adam de Beaunay was a royal itinerant justice; Henry de Essex was a well known curialis, the son in law of Robert de Vere (tc. 1151), one of King Stephen's constables.]' 305 1 The "customs" referred to are, in this instance, customary levies. '[Translation taken from Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 270.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 257 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

French and English, of all the forfeitures which they committed between the death of King Henry and the day on which the said Stephen was crowned, and namely of the forfeiture for the death of William Maltravers. 1

307 Confirmation by William de Roumare, earl of Lincoln, to the canons of Warter of various possessions and, inter alia, the church of Nunburnholme, which Ivo fitz Forne had quitclaimed to the earl in the latter's court at Bolingbroke. In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the kings, archbishops, bishops, abbots and all faithful sons of Holy Mother Church, William de Roumare, greeting. Be it known to you all that I have granted the church of St. James of Warter to the regular canons who live there according to the institutions of Arrouaise and to their successors forever, with all the appurtenances and customs which the church has or best had in the days of my father Roger fitz Gerold, free and quit of all worldly exaction and service, like the neighbouring churches of congregations which are freer. And to this aforesaid church I give all the dwellings of my father's courtyard and the site for a mill wherever they can find it on my land and free milling in my mills and one carrucate of land in Hawold and also the churches of the priest Gamel of Askham and whatever he held in land and churches, and in Seaton Ross half a carrucate and my part of the waste of that vill for his vicarage and also the church of Barton in Westmoreland with all that belongs to it and the church of Nunburnholme, which Ivo fitz Forne quitclaimed to me before all my court in Bolingbroke. In the year that I became earl of Lincoln I gave to the aforesaid church, with the consent of my heir and my wife, 10 marks' worth of land in Warter, viz. one sixth of my demesne with two ploughmen and their land and the rest belonging to the rustics, whose names are the following: Alric son of Swany, Berenger, Auda, Akebrant and the land of Thecca, Effrad, Chut, Uccha son of Bruni, Ralph son of Asketill, Haldan Bola, Rainald son of Sywak, Ascan son of Jeffe, Wyna, Ralph son of Ketel, Ralph Byscop, Gamel, Alryk, Haldan, Tocca and Turold in Seaton Ross. And to ensure that all this will remain with the said church firmly and unshakenly I and William my heir and Hawisa my wife have confirmed it by these signs of the Holy Cross, which we make with our own hands and before the following witnesses: Guy de Vere, Oliver de Wendora, William de Rushden and his brother Guy, Stephen the chaplain and his 306 1 '[Upon the announcement of King Henry I's death (1 December 1135), Pain, a knight of the honour of Pontefract (which the Lacy family had lost by 1115/18) inflicted on William Maltravers (one of King Henry's favourites, who had acquired Pontefract c. 1129/30) a wound of which he soon died. It looks as if Ilbert de Lacy, to whom Pontefract soon returned, was privy to this deed (see YoRKsmRE Charters, iii, 143-144; Sanders, Baronies, 138.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 258 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

associate William, Robert the cleric, Robert de Canteloup and his brother Walter, Gilaberd de Bec, Ralph de Pouyl and other members of my court. I also grant that if anyone wants to give something to that same church from my fee, he shall be permitted to do so, saving my service, and the church will be at liberty to accept it. This charter was made in the seventh year of King Stephen and the third year of my earldom at my castle of Partney on the Saturday before the Purification of St. Mary in the year 1135 (sic).

308 Notification by Robert de Sigillo, bishop of London, that a recognition carried out before him established that Ranulf Peverel had given the estate of Abberton to St. Paul's, London. Robert, by God's grace bishop of London, to his beloved sons in Christ the dean, the archdeacons and the whole chapter of St. Paul and all the barons of St. Paul and all the faithful of Holy Church throughout the bishopric of London, greeting in the Lord and our blessing. That all those present and future know that it was inquired and recognized evidently and without any ambiguity in our audience and presence by our barons and lawful men of our church, clerics and laymen, that Ranulf Peverel, whose body rests in our church, gave to God and St. Paul for the salvation of his soul the land called Abberton in perpetual alms for the illumination of the church into the hands of the dean and chapter of the church of St. Paul. Not wanting to diminish or reduce in any way the goods of that church or the chapter, but wanting to augment and conserve them as far as possible and with God's help we gladly grant, freely confer and quietly confirm the aforesaid land to God and St. Paul and the dean and chapter as their own and in view of the illumination for which it was given. So that this our pious and just grant shall receive due consent and that all who presume to infringe or diminish it shall receive due punishment and that this our confirmation shall forever remain valid and unshaken, we have strengthened this charter with the impression of our present seal and corroborated it with the testimony of our brethren whose names follow, ordaining that all shall conserve this grant to God and St. Paul loyally and receive God's and St. Paul's and our blessing, and let all those who act against it or diminish it in any way feel the deserved indignation of God and St. Paul and all the saints and, unless they suitably repent, be excommunicated. Given in London in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1142, the first year of our episcopate, in the presence of our brethren and sons Ralph the dean, the archdeacons Richard Rufus, Richard de Belmeis and Ailward, Roger Brun the steward, William de

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 259 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Ockendon and his son William, Osbert Masculus, Laurence Buccuinte, master Andrew and Salomon de Stepney. At London at the feast of Easter.

309 Writ of Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, to Aelard de Guerris, ordering a recognition concerning land of which the canons of St. Martin le Grand, London, claim to have been disseised by Walter Long. Geoffrey, earl of Essex, to Aelard de Guerris, greeting. I order that omitting any subterfuge or delay and as you love my body and my soul, you restore to the canons of St. Martin at London their whole grain harvest of Good Easter and all their things which my men have taken away there and all their goods which can be found on my land. And let all their men and all their things enjoy my firm peace, for I have promised satisfaction to those canons and all churches of God because of my infirmity and for the salvation of my soul. And cause a recognition to be made by the venue and honest men of that province whether the five acres of land which Walter Long holds after disseising them and which the canons claim belong to their tenure, and if it is thus recognized let them be reseised of them and let them hold them well and in peace.' 310 Writ of King Stephen notifying the justiciar, the sheriff and the barons of London that Archbishop Hugh of Rouen (formerly abbot of Reading) has testified in writing that Algar the priest and Baldwin his brother have given their lands and houses in London in perpetual alms to Reading Abbey, and ordering that the abbey shall hold them peacefully. Stephen, king of the English, to the justiciar, the sheriff and the barons of London, greeting. Know that Archbishop Hugh of Rouen testifies by his writ that Algar the priest and his brother Baldwin have given in perpetual alms to God and the church of St. Mary of Reading their lands and houses in London at the time when the aforesaid archbishop was abbot in the aforesaid church. I therefore will and firmly order that the church and the monks shall have and hold those lands and houses so well, peacefully, freely, quietly and honourably as the aforesaid brothers gave them to them and as the aforesaid archbishop testifies that that donation was made in his presence. Witness: Robert de Vere. At Windsor. 309 1 0[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, p. 84 and p. 277, n. 4.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 260 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

311 After the death, some time before 1114, of Hubert de Rye the cathedral priory of Christ Church at Canterbury is violently disseised of the manor of Mulbarton, which was a donation of his. In spite of Archbishop Ralph's attempts to regain the land, no progress is made until Theobald becomes archbishop and takes measures against Hubert's son Henry, who is excommunicated and admits in the court of the archbishop that he has alienated the said manor, offering other land in compensation. Hubert de Rye gave to Christ Church at Canterbury a manor of his called Mulbarton which was held after his death by Goldwyn, a monk of that church, until the church was violently deprived of that manor. Afterwards, in the time of Archbishop Ralph, Hugh the monk, who afterwards became abbot of St. Augustine's and Richard de Beanfulk and the abbot of St. Alban's were sent out by the said archbishop to claim the said manor for the monks of Christ Church, but for a long time the situation remained unchanged. Later on, in the time of King Stephen, the lord Theobald, archbishop and primate of all England, hearing that the manor had thus been given to his church and violently taken away. sent a message to Hubert de Rye's son Henry that he should restore the manor to his church or do justice, but Henry refused to do either. Afterwards, Henry, having been requested time and again by the archbishop to act, refused completely and was summoned in the canonical way not once but several times to do justice, but failed to appear, whereupon he was, following the dictate of justice, excommunicated by the lord archbishop. He lived for some time under this excommunication until stung by his own conscience and led by guilt and penitence he came to the lord Archbishop Theobald in Canterbury on the feast of St. Magnus the martyr and there, in the chamber of the archbishop, after many speeches were made from both sides on this matter, he at last declared that the aforesaid manor had been alienated by him in such a manner that he could in no way revoke it in favour of the church. He asked, however, that he should be permitted to give some free hereditary land of his, worth ten marks of silver per year, to Christ Church instead of the aforesaid manor. To this request the lord archbishop and Prior Walter with several monks who were present consented, whereupon Henry de Rye swore on the four Gospels that he would surrender the land, yielding ten marks, on the day constituted for him by the archbishop, to be in the eternal possession of the monks of Christ Church. This business having been transacted, he soon came to the church and in the presence of the archbishop and many others he seised the altar of Christ of the said land by the placing of a knife and there also fully accepted the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 261 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

fraternity of the church from the archbishop in such a way that he could towards the end of his life become a monk there if he wanted to. On the same day he also renewed before the convent in the chapter the donation which he had made for the soul of his father and his mother and his own, was fully accepted in their society because of his great devotion and having kissed, as was the custom, all the monks in the right order, joyfully left them. Afterwards he gave them forever the manor of Deopham which is in Norfolk. At this act of devotion the following were present: Walter the prior, Wibert the monk, Hugh the cellarer, Felix the monk, Dunstan the monk and the clerics: Walter the archdeacon of Canterbury, John of Pagham, Roger of Pont l'Evfque, Thomas [Becket] of London, Alan of Wells, William Cumin and Jordan Fantosme and the laymen: Godfrey de Ros, Robert fitz Godfrey, Berner the steward, William the porter, Roger the porter, William the porter of the church and many others. This was done in the year of the Incarnation 1146.

312 Notification by Waleran, count of Meulan, that he has granted to Selby Abbey the manor of Stanford-on-Avon, as it was deraigned in the court of King Stephen. Waleran, count of Meulan, to his most beloved brother Robert, earl of Leicester, and all his barons, friends and lieges of all England, greeting. Know that I have granted to the abbot and monks of St. Germanus of Selby the manor of Stanford with all its appurtenances, to be held honourably, freely and quietly as it is of my demesne alms and as it was deraigned in the court of King Stephen at Northampton on the basis of a writ of King William. And I pray you, out of love and for the honour of God and because of my prayer, to guard, maintain and defend it whenever it may be useful or necessary for them, so that I shall be grateful to you. Witness: Philip de Belmeis.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 262 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

313 Notification by King Stephen that he has restored to the canons of Holy Trinity, London, their land in Smithfield, which Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville had occupied. Stephen, king of the English, to Bishop [Robert] of London and the justice, sheriff, barons, ministers and all his lieges, French and English, of London, greeting. Know that I have restored and granted forever to God and the church of Holy Trinity of London and the regular canons who serve God there, for the soul of King Henry and for my salvation and that of Queen Matilda my wife and my son Eustace and my other children, their land of Smithfield which Earl Geoffrey had occupied to plant his vineyard. Therefore I will and firmly order that they shall hold and have the aforesaid land well, peacefully, freely, quietly and honourably as they best and most freely and quietly hold their other lands and as King Henry granted it to them and confirmed by his charter. Witnesses: Queen Matilda, Thomas the chaplain, William of Ypres and Richard de Lucy. At London.'

314 Alexander Maufe, in a charter concerning the foundation of Sawtry Abbey and containing several data on the composition of Sawtry Judith and its previous owners, notifies generally that he and Richard le Waleys have, at the command of the founder of Sawtry, Earl Simon II de St. Liz of Northampton, organised a sworn inquest by the men of the vill concerning the boundaries and rights of the said place. To all the faithful of Holy Mother Church, Alexander Maufe, greeting. Let all those who see and hear this writing of my attestation know that my lord Simon, earl of Northampton, gave to the monks of the order of Citeaux for the construction of an abbey in perpetual alms the whole land of Sawtry, in the wood, the plain and the marsh, with its proper boundaries and all its other appurtenances, liberties, immunities and all other things, as best and most freely and most extensively as he himself or his father Earl Simon or his grandfather and grandmother, i.e. Earl Waltheof and Countess Judith, and Turchil the Dane' and his wife Hurugonda and his other predecessors had and held it, and as King 313 314

I[Calendared in

LONDON ALDGATE TRINITY Cart. (Hodgett), no. 961.10 [According to V.C.H. Huntingdonshire,iii. 207 the charter confuses Turchil the Dane (ob. 1039) with Turchil of Harringworth who was living between 1050 and 1070 and consented to his wife Thurgunt or Hurugonda leaving land in Sawtry by will to Ramsey abbey.] 0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 263 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Wulfhere, the founder of the monastery of Peterborough,2 gave by his charter, which he made for that foundation, i.e. the marsh with the pools and the lakes of Chalderbeach 3 and Whittlesey Mere and numerous others pertaining thereto; this Sawtry [the earl] gave to the aforesaid monks with its proper boundaries and by his charter. Hence Earl Simon, mindful of the peace, quiet and liberty of the monks and to ensure as long as this world lasts that it be known how he and his ancestors held Sawtry most freely and most extensively, ordered me and Richard le Waleys who at his command have seised the aforesaid monks of Sawtry and handed it over to them, to make the men of that viii say truthfully by what boundaries and limits and liberties they or their fathers used to hold Sawtry under their lords and, thus having sworn and after their oath having consulted each other, they i.e. Levetus, the reeve of the vill who swore first, Humphrey de Upton, William de Asper, Lambert and many others gave the following answer after their oath...

315 Writ of King Stephen to Walter fitz Gilbert and his reeve of Maldon, ordering them to reseise the canons of St. Martin le Grand, London, of their burgage land at Maldon, if they can show that Oswald of Maldon disseised them unjustly and without judgment.

Stephen, king of the English, to Walter fitz Gilbert and his reeve of Maldon, greeting. If the canons of St. Martin, London, can show that Osward de Maldon has unjustly and without judgment disseised them of their burgage land of Maldon, then I order that you cause them to be reseised as they were seised of it on the day when king Henry was alive and dead. And whatever he has taken there since, you shall cause it to be restored, and let them hold it in peace, as they held it in King Henry's time and for the same customary due. And unless you do this, Richard de Lucy and the sheriff of Essex shall have it done, that I hear no complaint thereof for lack of right. Witness: Warner de Lusors. In London. 1

'[On the foundation of the mid-seventh century abbey of Peterborough see V.C.H. Northamptonshire, ii. 84 and DUGDALE Monasticon, i. 344.] 0 3 [To the south of Whittlesey Mere lay Chalder Mere, now in the village of Holme in the Normancross hundred in the county of Huntingdon (Place-Names Huntingdonshire, 188)J0 315 1 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, no. 86, p. 456.] 2

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 264 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

316 Record of the recovery by the priory of St. Frideswide of a hide of land by an agreement reached after a judicial combat in the court of Robert II de Beaumont, earl of Leicester. This is the truth about the hide of Headington at the time when a composition was made between the monks of Bec and the canons of St. Frideswide of Oxford before Pope Eugene at Paris.I A certain knight called Edward held the said hide for which he refused to do homage or any service to Prior Robert and the canons of St. Frideswide, wherefore the said prior claimed to hold the said hide in demesne by a writ of right in the court of the earl of Leicester. And the case took its martial course and was decided by judicial combat fought in the court of the said earl in a green meadow above the house of Godwin. Finally, after many blows between the champions and although the champion of Edward had lost his sight in the fight which was unknown to the prior and his men - they both sat down and as neither dared attack the other peace was established as follows: the said Edward did homage for it to the said prior and should hold it by hereditary right against the yearly payment of 19 s. and owing suit for it in the court of the prior of St. Frideswide of Oxford, like the other free men of that tenement. This Edward was succeeded by his nephew Robert, who was succeeded by his son Roger, the father of the woman who now holds by hereditary right and whose wardship was sold by our predecessor to Gocelin the marshal for 6 marks of silver. While she was still a little girl, staying with her mother in the custody of Simon de Wancy, to whose custody the said Gocelin had surrendered her, she was ravished by violence by Reginald de Calne, who married her to his son before he was of marrigeable age.'

316 1 0[The text of the papal confirmation of this composition, dated 27 May 1147 at Paris, is edited in ST. FRiDESWME Cart., no. 1122, ii, p. 325.]0 2

'[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 220.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 265 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

317 Faced by a condemnation for theft in King Henry I's court, Robert de Meppershall, lord of Biddlesden, loses his land at Biddlesden. Having regained it by marriage, he loses it again in the time of King Stephen for failing to render the required service to the earl of Leicester. When in 1147 Biddlesden Abbey is founded, Robert threatens to implead the monks, but they come to an agreement and obtain a confirmation by giving him 10 marks silver.

In the time of the old King Henry the lord of Biddlesden was a man called Robert de Meppershall, who because of some misfortune in the king's court, where he had stolen a dog, gave the whole manor of Biddlesden with five adjacent virgates of the land of Whitfield to Geoffrey de Clinton, the chamberlain, who was then upon a most familiar footing with the king, on the understanding that he would defend him and thus save him from undergoing the judgment of the court for his deed. In the meantime, as this Robert of Meppershall had no living quarters near Silverstone, William fitz Alvred, who was lord of Preston and of the whole of Marieland, gave to Robert half Marieland to go and live there. In course of time Geoffrey de Clinton gave to Robert one of his relations as a wife and with her the manor of Biddlesden with the forementioned five virgates of the land of Whitfield and thus this Robert held Biddlesden and those five virgates and half Marieland, and from then onwards half Marieland has followed Biddlesden. In the time of King Stephen when there was a great war, Robert stayed at Meppershall and left Biddlesden, and as neither he nor anyone for him rendered service for it to the earl of Leicester, the land escheated to the earl, who gave it to his steward Ernald de Bosco for his service. This Ernald, foreseeing that in future this land might not remain his and his heirs', founded an abbey there with the agreement, counsel and help of the foresaid earl, who gave a charter of confirmation. Sometime later, however, Robert de Meppershall wanted to start litigation about Biddlesden, whereupon the monks of Biddlesden gave him with the help and counsel of the foresaid earl ten marks and obtained his charter and confirmation. Thus the abbey of Biddlesden was started and founded in the year of Grace 1147 on 10 July, the fourteenth year after the foundation of Garendon.1

317 1 o[See DUGDALE Monasticon, 364.]"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 266 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

318 Abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds notifies generally that on the basis of a deraignment in his court he has granted to William son of Albold and his heirs the land in Hawstead which Geoffrey the sacrist had held and on which a sworn inquest was held in the time of King Henry I. Anselm, by the grace of God abbot of St. Edmunds, to all his men, French and English, greeting. I notify you that by the grant of the whole convent of St. Edmund and by the counsel of my barons I have granted and restored to William son of Albold and his heir Robert and Robert's heirs in fee and inheritance the land which Geoffrey the sacrist held and had at Hawstead. And this I did because it was right and because of the deraignment in my court, which he showed he had concerning that land. For this grant William and his son Robert quitclaimed the church of Barton and the church of Culford to St. Edmund and me and the monks forever. Therefore William shall give for the aforesaid land every year to the sacrist for the altar of St. Edmund 40 s. in fee farm and thus he will be quit of all other services and all customs and all exactions belonging to St. Edmund. Therefore I will and order that this William shall hold all that land, i.e. that which belonged to Leofgifu the wife of Odo the goldsmith, with all the lands which Geoffrey the sacrist acquired in Hawstead and with the same boundaries as Geoffrey the sacrist held all that land on the day when he was alive and dead and Benedict de Blakenham after him and as that land was sworn at the time of King Henry before Maurice [of Windsor], the steward [of Bury St. Edmunds] and before Ralph the chaplain, the son of Algot. I forbid anyone to cause him injury, but let him hold all that land well, honourably and peacefully, in men, meadows, pastures, woods and in all things as Benedict ever best and most freely held it. And these are the witnesses: William the prior, Jocelin the monk, Ralph the sacrist, William Brito, Ralph de Barking, Maurice the steward, Adam de Cockfield, Elias de Melford, Alan son of Frodo, Robert de Hawstead, Godwin the priest, Robert fitz Wibert, Walter de Risby, Gilbert fitz Fulcher, Benedict de Blakenham, Berard and Lemmer.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 267 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

319 Notification by Robert fitz Vitalis that Prior Osbert of St. Augustine's at Daventry has deraigned various churches, of which the priory had been unjustly disseised: Robert went to Daventry to reseise the monks. To all the sons of Holy Mother Church and the faithful of Christ, clerics and laymen, French and English, Robert fitz Vitalis, true greeting in Christ. Be it known to all of you, most beloved, that in the third year after Prior Osbert of Daventry with some of his monks had deraigned at Leicester, before Bishop Alexander of Lincoln, the churches of all my land of Foxton, i.e. Lubbenham, Gumley, Scalford, Bisbrooke and Braybrooke with all their appurtenances, of which I had disseised them unjustly, I went to Daventry moved by remorse and out of goodness and benevolence reseised the church of St. Augustine of the aforesaid churches, which the church of Daventry had had previously through my donation and possessed without disturbance from the year in which Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury died until the ninth year of the reign of King Stephen, when I occupied it. I have recognized my guilt and unjust action there publicly and before numerous clerics and laymen and asked God and St. Augustine whom I had offended for forgiveness, which I obtained by God's grace from the monks in so far as it depended on them. Therefore I write to you, as sons of God and most dear friends, and strongly implore you helpfully to maintain my alms to the advantage of the church at Daventry and the monks who serve God there, wherever and in whatever way you can, for the love of God and the salvation of our soul so that by God's mercy you partake with me in it. I will, pray and desire and as far as it depends on me I order that they shall hold and possess them well and honourably, freely and quietly forever. The witnesses of this business and action are: John the chaplain of Daventry, Thomas the priest of Norton, Nicholas the priest of Foxton, Jordan the son of Robert fitz Vitalis and many others.

320 Walter de Lucy, abbot of Battle, claims exemption from episcopal authority against Hilary, bishop of Chichester. Having heard charters of King William I, King Stephen gives judgment in favour of the abbey. Upon a time, during the reign of the most pious prince, Stephen, the abbot was summoned to a synod at Chichester. He did not go, and he was interdicted by the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 268 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop on these terms: that if he did not come to make satisfaction within forty days he would be suspended from office. When the abbot heard this he hastened to the court at St. Albans and put the matter before the royal court. The king, summoning one of his clerks, Robert surnamed 'de Cornuvilla', sent him to the bishop commanding that he allow the church of St. Martin of Battle to serve the Lord Christ free and quit of all exaction and oppression, as if a royal chapel or even the royal crown.' He set him a date in the week after St. Andrew's Day when he and the abbot were to come to London so that there their dissension might be settled before himself, the bishops, and such barons as would be there.2 On the day set both attended. After many cases had been discussed, the abbot presented himself to the king, prepared, if anyone should argue against him, to fight for the liberty of his church calmly and reasonably. But the bishop, occupied with other business there, failed to appear that day before the king. Thus when the charters and the supporting evidence containing the assent of the great King William were read out, the king, guided by noble advice, commanded that the church of St. Martin of Battle should remain wholly free from all subjection and exaction of the bishop of Chichester in accordance with the charters of King William and his other royal predecessors. The following day the abbot was given leave to return home, the king promising him that he himself would be in all things the protector of Battle 3Abbey, defending it rightly as he would his own private chapel and royal crown.

321 After the murder in Norwich of the wealthy Jew Eleazar, complaint is made before King Stephen by the Jewish community. Simon de Novers is accused

of being the instigator, but denies the accusation and is defended by William, bishop of Norwich, whose tenant he is. Pleading for him, the bishop makes a countercharge against the Jews for the murder of William of Norwich in 1144. The king postpones the case until a general meeting of clergy and barons in London, which however fails to reach a conclusion. I. viii. The enemies of the Christians, being very much alarmed, were quite at a loss what course to take. And in despair, while one was suggesting this and another that measure for their common safety, they determined at last to make advances to 320 1 Robert of Comuvilla seems to be known from no other English source, but the editors of the Regesta suggest an identification with a Robert de "Corneivilla", canon of St. Martin le Grand. Regesta, iii, p. xii. 2 7 Dec. 1148. The bishop was pursuing the recovery of other lost episcopal rights as well, at the court. He recovered from the count of Eu the manor of Bexhill in Sussex, seized by the count's predecessor and held by him in 1086. DB, i. 18. Regesta, iii, no. 183. Bexhill is there incorrectly indentified with Bexley in Kent. 3 0[Translation taken from BA-rrLE Chron., 151-153. See E. Searle, "Battle Abbey and exemption: the forged charters", EHR., 83 (1968), 449-480.]*

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 269 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

John the sheriff, who had been wont to be their refuge and their one and only protector. So by common consent it was arranged that certain of them who were their chief men in influence and power should go to him and deal with him so that, supported by his authority, they should hereafter have no cause for alarm. So they went and passing within the castle walls, were admitted to the presence of the sheriff and they said that they had a great secret to divulge and wished to communicate secretly with him alone. Straightway, when all who were present had withdrawn, John bade them forthwith to speak out what they wanted, and they replied: "Look you, we are placed in a position of great anxiety, and if you can help us out of it, we promise you a hundred marks." He, delighted at the number of marks, promised that he would both keep close their secret and that, according to his power, he would not fail to give them his support on any occasion. Accordingly, when the great secret had been revealed, )Elward was hastily summoned, and on his appearance he was immediately ordered and compelled by the sheriff, nay, forced, whether he would or no, to take an oath that he would lay no information against the Jews nor divulge what he had seen during his lifetime, or at any rate till he himself was at the point of death... I. xvi. When some days had passed, the day for holding the synod drew near, and according to custom Bishop Everard presided. The sermon having been preached, the aforesaid Priest Godwin rose, saying that he was about to bring to the ears of the bishop and his brother priests a distressing complaint and one which had not been heard of in the present time. Wherefore, silence having been enjoined upon all, he began in the manner following: "Very reverend lord and father and bishop. May that goodness of yours which has been so notorious hitherto, and which I trust may continue to be so esteemed for all time, vouchsafe to incline your ears graciously to the words of our complaint... To begin with, from any complicity in so execrable a murder I hold all Christians excused as guiltless. But, in the second place, I accuse the Jews, the enemies of the Christian name, as the doers of this deed, and as the shedders of innocent blood. Thirdly, I am ready to prove the truth of my words at such time and place and by such proof as is allowed me by Christian law .. But since it is not seemly that a just judge should pronounce upon those who are absent and unheard, let the Jews be summoned and have a hearing on the morrow; if they be convicted, let them receive the punishment that they deserve" Thus the dealing with this business being put off till next day, and the business of the synod having been dealt with in part, all dispersed intending to return next morning. But by order of the bishop the dean of Norwich on the same day summoned the Jews to appear and ordered them to attend to answer on the morrow before the synod regarding so important a matter. The Jews were greatly disturbed and ran to Sheriff John as their only refuge, seeking help and counsel in so difficult a cause, inasmuch as by trusting to his patronage they had often escaped many dangers. So John, having taken counsel and being one who was not ignorant of the truth, did not allow the Jews to come to

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 270 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the synod on the morrow, and indeed he gave notice by his servants to the bishop that he had nothing to do with the Jews and that in the absence of the king the Jews should make no answer to such inventions of the Christians. But the bishop having received this message, and the priest being willing to repeat his yesterday's complaint in full synod, enquired of the lord Aimar, prior of St. Pancras [Lewes], and other very learned and prudent men who happened then to be present at that synod, what answer they thought ought to be given. They declared unanimously that a manifest outrage was being done to God and Christian law, and they advised that it should be straightway vindicated with rigorous ecclesiastical justice. In the meantime however the bishop, not wishing to appear hasty, and yet not shrinking from doing right, decided that the aforesaid enemies of Christ should be summoned a second and a third time, lest too much hurrying of the sentence should either go beyond moderation or transgress the ordinary bounds of custom. As the bishop had decreed, so the dean did not fail to carry out his order. But when the Jews refused to appear, the president, when the synod had come to an end, again consulted with the wisest men as to what was to be done under the circumstances. Accordingly it was determined by common consent that notice should be given to John that he should not protect the Jews against God, and to the Jews that peremptory sentence would be passed upon them, and that unless they at once came to purge themselves, they must understand that without doubt they would be exterminated. Of course, John moved by these words came without delay, and the Jews with him, intending to hear what could be said against them, and presented himself before the bishop in some dudgeon. Thereupon the aforesaid priest rose and explained his previous complaint, and what he asserted in word he promised that he would straightway prove by the judgment of God. The Jews by the advice of the sheriff denied the charge brought against them, but as to the ordeal proposed, they asked for some small delay for deliberating. But on the priest refusing this and protesting against any kind of delay, with the assent of the bishop they proceed to take counsel intending to confer secretly about it. The sheriff is consulted as to what remained for them to do in so great a difficulty, inasmuch as they perceived that on the one hand any delay was denied them, and on the other they were dreadfully afraid of the trial by ordeal. After seeking some way of compromise, with a great deal of discussion, and after dealing with each alternative on its merits, they found no safe escape out of so great a difficulty except only by obtaining some truce and delay. If they could obtain that, they hoped they could easily extort from the king the favour which might be bought for money, of getting a chance of arguing the cause, and so utterly put an end to the rumour of the crime laid to their charge.. II. x. Wherefore they resorted with prayers and money to Robert the brother of the murdered boy, who was then a clerk, but subsequently one of our monks, and to whom the business of the accusation was chiefly entrusted; but they could not by any means bring him to any peaceful settlement. This same man often told me in

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 271 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

conversation that he could have had ten marks from the Jews if he had hushed up the charge concerning his brother's murder, with which they were impeached... Let another argument be brought forward, whereby the wickedness of the Jews may be shown. In the time when the reign of King Stephen was flourishing, or rather, in the decline ofjustice, was languishing, a certain knight at Norwich, in the presence of the king, was accused by the Jews of the murder of a certain Jew and William, bishop of Norwich, representing the knight, made an able speech, as will be shown in what follows. So it came to pass that he, by opposing a Christian to a Jew, and setting the death of one against the death of the other, retorted the whole charge upon the Jews. So the king appointed a set time for both parties to settle the difference, to the intent that there might be a full discussion of so important a cause at London before the clergy and baronage of England. Wherefore, the Jews of all England being greatly alarmed, when the bishop of Norwich came to London on the day appointed, the chief men among the Jews went to him and offered a large sum of money and besought him that the counter-charge of the Christian said to be slain might be dropped, and undertook to withdraw their complaint regarding the Jew who was slain. But the God-fearing mind of the bishop, who had his own reputation in view, could neither be softened by their prayers nor corrupted by avarice. Let the unbelief of doubters, I beg, draw their conclusions from these facts, since the Jews would not have acted thus, nor would they have promised so much, if they had felt themselves guiltless of the charge brought against them... II. xiii. However, when some time had passed and the king had come to Norwich, the Jews assembled together before the king and laid their complaint regarding the aforesaid Jew and ascribing the guilt of the whole act to the forementioned knight, they accused him in manner following. II. xiv. "Hear us, most gracious king, of thy well-known clemency, which is proclaimed throughout the world, is withheld from none that deserves it, and is the means of procuring peace and quiet for us. Behold, we who trust in thy patronage have betaken ourselves to thee as to our one and only refuge, and with every confidence in thy justice, have come before thee as the just judge and faithful follower of right and equity. Wherefore we, looking for the justice that is our due for a wrong and injury done us, and demanding too the shield of thy protection against the fear of a like misfortune, will set forth in few words what the wrong is that has been done us, and what our wishes are. We are thy Jews. We are thy tributaries year by year, we are continually necessary to thee in thy necessities, since we are always faithful to thee and by no means useless to thy realm. For thee, thou rulest us leniently and quietly. But our tranquillity the audacity of this Simon whom we see standing there opposed to us - an audacity which deserves to be punished -has presumed to disturb, after an atrocious sort. For this man having as his creditor one of our brethren, thy servant, a Jew, having sent to him an esquire on pretence of his debt being to be paid, called him out of the city into the country and caused him to be murdered on the road. What more? It is certain, 0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 272 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

lord the king, that thy Jew was slain, and we complain that the fact is so. We lay our charge against this Simon de Novers as answerable for the homicide of this man and we assert that by his counsel and device a deed so wicked was planned, aye, and carried out. But what so base a deed deserves, that the wisdom of so righteous a judge well knows. But that thou mayest believe that so it was, let the following arguments for the truth be considered: (1) the treacherous leading him astray, (2) the road that was marked out through a lonely spot, (3) the convenience of time and place, (4) and the facility for carrying out the business according to what was desired. (1) The esquire was sent by the knight as his deputy and was well known to the creditor, the Jew. This Jew he invited as if to receive his debt, and led him away. (2) The path took a long and tortuous round and so obviated the fear of any chance encounter. (3) A wood on the road and the silence of the dark night afforded the opportunity. (4) The esquire's sword and a crowd of his comrades, as report says, lying in wait to do the deed, afforded facility for the commission of the crime. For what other purpose could the knight have had - being as he was in such great money difficulties and unable to pay - except that by ridding himself of the bondage of his long-standing embarrassment, he might get freedom for himself, and by this act he might make an end of the worrying exactions? And to make the matter plainer, this knightly debtor either would pay and could; or he would and could not; or he would not and could; or lastly, he neither would nor could. If he would and could, why did he not pay? And why did he continue in this long embarrassment? If he would and could not, no wonder if his lack of power gradually suggested to his mind the desire to get free. If he would not and yet could, observe how now the thoughts of his evil mind conceived the evil deed. But if, as is more credible, he neither would nor could pay, it is plainly manifest that the working of his crafty thoughts brought forth the plot of a wickedness of this character. Again, if he did not wish for the murder of the Jew which is laid to his charge, if he was not aware of it - if he did not plan it - why did he not, in order to turn away from himself all suspicion of the crime, pay the debt to the dead man's wife or his relations when they asked for it? Why did he wantonly neglect the engagement by which he was bound to his creditor? On the contrary he has become now so insolent and contumacious that when we call upon him to fulfil his engagement, he hurls at us calumnies and abuse and aims at us continual threats, though we deserve them not. We think therefore that the guilt of this murderous knight has been sufficiently made out, since the motive of the murder and the manner of it, and then too the insolence of the assassin and the audacity of his menaces, have been set forth. But we by no means believe that it is lawful for any Christian, whoever he be, to slay with impunity according to his pleasure any Jew who behaves as he ought: and if an act certainly illegal be left unpunished, we doubt not that there will be many who will be imitators of this man's audacity and that hereafter things will get to be worse than they are. Furthermore we, as fearing this kind of treatment for ourselves and sorrowing over the undeserved death of

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 273 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

our brother, beseech thee of thy clemency, 0 righteous king! that thou provide for our living in peace and security and that thou do not suffer the undeserved death of thy Jew to go unpunished." The knight having been accused in this manner first denied that he was guilty of anything of the sort. Then, having obtained leave of the king, he retired to consult with his friends before making a detailed answer to the charge. And inasmuch as the knight was under the bishop's jurisdiction, as the term is, Bishop William by licence of the king went to the conference to consult for the knight's safety. And since all perceived that in so difficult a cause the pleading would require a special kind of defence, it was determined that in this cause the bishop should represent the knight as his defender, in order that the high position of the advocate might make the king, who seemed already convinced of the truth of the charge, give a favourable hearing, and also that, the charges of his adversaries being weakened, the bishop's accomplished eloquence, in which he surpassed all others, might get the knight acquitted. So the prelate, prevailed upon by many petitions, at length complied. And as he observed that both the king and the auditory were already indignant, he decided that in the kind of cause which he had to plead it would be best to make use of a brief statement to begin with, so as to win over insensibly the hostile minds of his hearers by skilled oratory; and when once their goodwill was thus gained, he might employ the remainder of his speech in making a countercharge. Thus armed, as I may say, he rose to engage in the pleading of his cause, returned from the conference with his friends, and began his speech before the king in the following terms. "We agree perfectly with our accusers on one point: that men who deceive creditors, who deserve well of them, or who, after deceiving, kill them, merit detestation, nay, condign punishment. And we account that they should be most strictly pursued who habitually break faith, make light of the crime of fraud, think nothing of lying, and have neither will nor skill to find a remedy for their debts save the one way of contriving the death of another. Now, the Jew of whose death the knight Simon is accused had, while he lived, many debtors besides Simon: some owed him less, some as much, some again far more than Simon did. If, then, anyone was desirous of his death in order to be rid of the annoyance of debt, it seems more likely to have been planned by one who was saddled with a heavy debt than one who owed less. But can anyone believe that Simon should have desired the death of his creditor? The man's death was productive of great loss to him: his life had been the means of repeated advantages to him. With what show of reason can it be made out that I should be desirous of the death of one whose premature removal I regard with fear, and whose life I earnestly desire to see prolonged as being in every way advantageous to me? So with this knight, who is charged with murdering his creditor. If while he lived he cherished him as being of great use and advantage to him; if now that he is dead he has not yet ceased to bemoan him - as how should he not mourn the loss of that which he had possessed with such affection? - who can

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 274 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

contend that he rejoices over the loss of this man or that he desired his death, when he is so much affected by that loss? Now, as to the charge that is brought against the esquire, the esquire denies his guilt in toto. And in regard of the real facts of the matter, I will briefly explain what they were, as I have learned them from him. The knight, whom I am much surprised to find as the object of such an accusation, since I have always known him to be of good report, a peaceable, kind, and lawabiding man, was detained at home by urgent private affairs and could not come to Norwich, and certainly did send by an esquire for his creditor, that the latter might receive his debt. The esquire, according to the arrangement of the Jew, left the city in his company in the quiet of night and took the safest route he knew in order to avoid the notice of evil-disposed persons under cover of darkness, -and to escape all suspicious encounters. They accomplished a good part of the way and were suspecting no sort of ambuscade, when they fell among thieves. These men came, seized them, threw them from their horses and dragged them violently away to despoil them. Upon this, the Jew, while attempting to defend himself with the sword which he carried, fell slain by a hostile weapon. The esquire, naturally, in the interests of his own safety, while the rest were busied about the Jew, escaped from the hands of his captors and saved his life by flying swiftly through the thick wood which was at hand. In this way it appears that the Jew lost his life, my lord king, and you need not doubt that the knight who is charged with the guilt of his death is clear from it. Upon hearing of the deed he was at once powerfully affected by its atrocity and by the undeserved fate of so valued a friend, but never, to this hour, though he has shown himself a most zealous investigator of the matter, has he been able to ascertain the perpetrators of this great crime. I am not surprised that rumour has deviated from the path of truth in this case: but as we see that false reports become current every day, we must not lend a ready belief to all the reports we hear. And in fact, whereas the knight is accused of employing threats and abuse, he is not a little surprised at the charge, for he has always respected the Jews and been much attached to them. However, to wind up the whole case shortly, the knight is present here, prepared to prove with all constancy, in whatever way this court shall prescribe, that he neither desired the death of the Jew in question, nor planned it, nor knew of it in any other wise than has been stated, and that he never abused the Jews in any way. But, meanwhile, 0 most just king, we are desirous of signifying to your most serene discretion that it is our opinion that we Christians ought not to have been called upon to reply to an accusation of this kind from the Jews, before they themselves were purged of the murder of one of us, a Christian, of which they are known to have been accused ere now and not purged. And, to lay before your most Christian clemency in a plain and concise fashion the whole case - it is a matter which concerns all Christians - that Jew of whose death the knight, though innocent, is accused, did, in conjunction with the other Jews then in the city, in his house, as report says, miserably torment, kill and hide in a wood a Christian boy. And when, in the days of my predecessor, Bishop Everard, the Jews

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 275 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

had been accused of this in full synod by a priest, yet because Sheriff John opposed us and maintained them, the Christians were unable to have justice executed upon them. We have, furthermore, at this day the same priest ready to prove them guilty of the crime aforesaid at such time, and under such conditions of trial as you please. On this account, if it be not displeasing to your royal majesty, it seems to us fitting and right that, just as the death of the Christian, done in reproach and derision of the Passion of Christ, preceded the death of the Jew, and the injury inflicted on us preceded that inflicted on them, so the priest's accusation ought to come first, and the purgation of the knight afterwards. And let the rigour of justice be no longer deferred, for we complain bitterly that so foul a crime has remained unpunished to this day, and we earnestly pray that it may no longer be put off. Yet, let everything be so handled that Christ be first considered in all things and due reverence be paid, as is right, to the law of Christianity." As the bishop ended his speech after this sort, the effect, and indeed conviction, produced in the minds of the king and his assessors was so great that they decreed that the ghastly outrage of the Jews must be at once punished and gradually were worked up more and more to take vengeance. But, in regard that the matter seemed to be one affecting all classes of Christians, the king commanded that it should be postponed until the general council of the clergy and barons, which was near at hand, should be assembled at London, and this was done. When the council met shortly afterwards, William, bishop of Norwich, with many friends and with the accused knight, was present. A few days before, also, the more sagacious of the Jews had assembled at London from various cities of England with the view, as afterwards appeared, of meeting and discussing the matter and deciding how to secure themselves in so difficult a case. And, finding no other means of escape, they obtained an audience of the king by bribing his councillors, as report says, gave him, it is said, a large sum of money, and succeeded with difficulty in extorting a promise of favour. From his presence they hastened to the bishop of Norwich. But though they promised him a very large number of marks and offered to condone the death of the murdered Jew, they were quite unable to corrupt the prelate's mind. To make a long story short, after three days, the king, assisted by the bishops and barons, being in court, the aforesaid Bishop William was present and, after much other business had been discussed, he rose with the accused knight and said: "Lo, my lord the king, we are here, prepared to set forth once again our case and to hear your sentence and that of your assessors". The king replied: "My lord bishop, we have been fatigued by a good deal of discourse to-day, and have yet some business which keeps us: we are unable, therefore, to give the requisite attention to so weighty a matter. But wait meanwhile, with patience, until we have cleared away these briars, as I may call them, and so be the freer to whet the axe of our justice for the felling of the noxious tree. And inasmuch as this case is a very difficult one, it is not fitting that we approach it rashly or hastily. For the more pressing the matter and the crime, the more warily must

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 276 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

justice be applied. Let us therefore defer the case to another season and, being thus reserved for a greater convenience, when we are able, and our pleasure is, we will consider it with the care of our common counsel" Herein let the careful sagacity of the reader perpend that we have inserted this declamatory contest in our book to no other end than that it may appear that that most crafty and avaricious race, the Jews, had they not felt themselves to be guilty of the death of the glorious boy and martyr William, which was charged against them, would not have so gravely feared, and altogether shrunk from the proof offered by the priest, and moreover would not have given so much money to the king and his councillors, nor promised so much to the bishop, to hush up the talk concerning his death, nor, more especially, would they ever have left undisturbed the matter of the murdered Jew's death and raised no complaint. It is plain, therefore, that they were conscious of this great crime, for though they are most avaricious, they did not shrink from assuaging their fears by a pecuniary loss'

322 Reginald de Dunstanville, earl of Cornwall, extends his protection to Launceston Priory, confirms its lands and notifies generally that Robert, prior of Launceston, has deraigned in the county court of Cornwall at Castle of Dunhevet the rights of the canons in the borough of Launceston, except the Sunday market which was transferred to the new town of Castle of Dunhevet. Reginald, son of King Henry, earl of Cornwall, to all his men French, English and Welsh, greeting. Know that I have accepted under the protection of God and the lord King Henry of England and my own the church of Launceston with all its appurtenances, ecclesiastical and lay, and the canons who serve there in honour of God and the protomartyr Stephen and assiduously pray to God for the wellbeing, tranquillity and peace of Henry, king of England and of the kingdom and for the salvation of the soul of King Henry my father and of all our ancestors and descendants. Therefore I will and grant and by this my charter confirm that the canons shall have and hold the church of Launceston and all their lands and tenures in Cornwall, which they reasonably have or will be able to acquire in the future, as freely and quietly, peacefully and honourably as they or their predecessors have most freely and best held them, i.e. with soke and sake, toll and team and infangthief and with all other freedoms for them and their men from suit in shires and hundreds, pleas and claims and cliff-guard and all other aids and all 321 ' '[M.D. Anderson, A Saint at Stake. The Strange Death of William of Norwich. 1144. London, 1964, 137-144; C. Roth, A History of the Jews in England,Oxford, 1964,9; Cronne, op. cit., 262264. Translation taken from A. Jessopp and M.R. James, o.c., pp. 43, 44, 45-48, 91-92, 92-93, 99-100.].

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 277 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

secular service and exaction and all other occasions and secular customs, in pure and perpetual alms. Furthermore, I want to make it known to everyone that Robert, prior of Launceston, has sufficiently and lawfully deraigned in the full county court before me at the Castle of Dunhevet, I in the presence of the reeve and the burgesses of that town, that at the time when the count of Mortain transferred the Sunday market from the town of St. Stephen of Launceston to the new town of the Castle of Dunhevet, the canons of Launceston retained with the consent and agreement of the foresaid count of Mortain for themselves and their borough of Launceston and the burgesses who live there all the freedoms which belong to a free borough, as fully as they had them of old, except for the Sunday market, and for this the canons receive from the reeve of the castle 20 s. per year on the feast of St. Martin. They also deraigned that they have had and held those liberties fully and quietly and without contradiction throughout the time of King Henry of England, my father. Therefore I have granted and by this my charter confirmed to the aforesaid canons and their town of Launceston and the men who live there all the freedoms who belong to a free borough, with the aforesaid yearly rent of 20 s. Witnesses: Robert de Dunstanville, Richard de Raddon, Bernard the sheriff of Cornwall, Robert fitz Anketil, Hugh de Dunstanville, Jordan de Trecarl the reeve and Mordant Sprakelin.

323 Various claims are made in the king's court against Byland Abbey and its benefactor Roger de Mowbray, inter alia by Robert de Stuteville and his brother William, who are supported by the neighbourhood. Roger asks his friends Earl Marshal and William de Warenne, earl of Surrey, to obtain from King Stephen the suspension of the plea: the king grants their request and issues writs to that effect. Afterwards the abbot comes to an agreement with Robert and William de Stuteville and on the basis of the view of the vicinity a ditch is dug to mark the limits of the abbey lands. At the time when the lord Roger de Mowbray gave to Abbot Roger and his monks the aforesaid two carrucates of waste land in the territory of Coxwold, a sudden mandate arrived from Normandy to the lord Roger de Mowbray that a plea had been moved against him by some baron of France concerning the castle of Bayeux with the whole domain. This castle the king had given him in the past when he received the belt of knighthood. In order to defend his plea he quickly travelled

322 ' Dunhevede. - This word, denoting the summit of a hill, occurs in other parts of the country. Bishop Stapeldon, in folio 59 of his Register, dates a letter, on January 31, 1310-1311, from "Dounheved juxta Shaftesburi" (now Donhead).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 278 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to Normandy with a letter by the lord King Stephen, who wrote that he wanted to warrant that castle with its appurtenances to Roger against all men, and he lost nothing in that plea. However, after the departure of Roger to Normandy several disputes arose at once against Abbot Roger and the monks, which they suffered patiently for some time. Indeed the lord Robert de Stuteville and his brother William claimed the whole land which the lord Roger de Mowbray had given to the monks in the territory of Coxwold, where the monks lived, and moved a plea in the court of the aforesaid king against the lord Roger de Mowbray, which continued according to the law of the land for a long time, since the neighbours generally witnessed that they had a good right in their claim. Furthermore the lord Robert de Dayvill, lord of Kilburn, much obstructed the works of the monks, protesting that they included a large part of the land which belonged to his manor of Kilburn and that he in no way was prepared to suffer or permit this. Similarly the lord Hugh Malebisse, lord of Scawton, caused the monks much trouble by his own actions and those of his men of Scawton and Dale Town, whose lands and pastures are adjacent to the lands of the monks, for every day they made complaints, distraints and caused other nuisances to upset the peace of the monks, their neighbours. And Guy de Boltby acted in the same way. Since they could not suffer these grievances for long without a remedy, Abbot Roger after consulting his convent travelled to Normandy in the year 1147 carrying a letter from the lady Gundreda, mother of the lord Roger de Mowbray, containing confirmation of the plea moved by Robert and William de Stuteville and the grievances which Abbot Roger and his monks suffered. He first went to Savigny to the general chapter and explained to father abbot that his founder had given him enough land, if he could possess it quietly without being impleaded by some neighbouring knights, whose molestations he would fear less if his founder were in England. He also explained some other business, inter alia, concerning the lord Peter, a monk of Savigny, who had started the foundation of an abbey in the lands of Richmond, which Earl Alan fitz Stephen had given to the abbot of Savigny, of which more is said later at the foundation of Jervaulx. However, as Abbot Roger could not well stay till the end of the chapter, he hurried to the lord Roger de Mowbray in Normandy. As soon as he reached him and explained the cause of his labour, he was promised a good and quick remedy, but various affairs which had not yet been expedited prevented him from returning to England at that time, wherefore he wrote specially to his friends Earl Marshal and the earl of Warenne asking them to implore the lord king to grant as a special grace that the plea which Robert and William de Stuteville had moved against him in the king's court should remain until his return to England in its then state. This the earls did and the king granted their request, swearing that Roger de Mowbray would not lose one foot of land in England by a plea in his court, as long as he was out of the kingdom. He similarly wrote to Robert de Dayvill, Guy de Boltby and the lord of Scawton that they were to stop molesting

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 279 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

his monks and if anything had been done unjustly, he wanted to make amends by the lawful men of the venue according to the law of the land upon his return to England. He wrote also to his mother and his steward and all his bailiffs in the county of York that they were to maintain, protect and defend Abbot Roger of Byland and the brethren, his monks, and their land as their own. As a consequence of this mandate, which Abbot Roger carried with him, the lord of Scawton to a certain extent stopped molesting the monks and ordered his people to do the same out of reverence for the mandate of his lord. Robert de Dayvill however at first counted the mandate for little, but later respected it and made peace. In fact the lord Roger de Mowbray made peace with Robert and William de Stuteville after his return to England, the former quitclaiming his right which he had in the land and site of the abbey by placing a knife on the main altar at Staking, the latter by his charter. After Robert and William de Stuteville had thus quitclaimed to the monks all their right which previously they demanded, the lord Roger de Mowbray caused one large ditch to be made to the west of the abbey by the view and the consideration of the neighbours between the land given to the monks and the land of Robert de Dayvill.

324 Notification by Gilbert de Ghent that Ralph son of Wichard has acted unjustly and against his will if he has caused any trouble to the abbey of Rufford; the wood which Ralph son of Wichard unjustly claimed belonged to Gilbert's demesne and was given in alms to Rufford. Gilbert de Ghent, to the chapter of St. Mary of Southwell and all his friends and neighbours and all his men, French and English, greeting. I make known to you that Ralph son of Wichard acts unjustly and against my will if he were to molest my brethren of Rievaulx living at Rufford in any way. Know, moreover, that he claims unjustly the wood which you have heard him claim, since it is not his nor should it be, but it belongs to my demesne, and I have given all my demesne to the aforesaid brethren for the exaltation of the house and the order of Rievaulx. Therefore I forbid the aforesaid Ralph, on his love for me and as he loves whatever he holds from me, in any way to meddle any more with my almoign and I also similarly forbid my aforesaid abbot and brethren to deal with Ralph concerning my almoign and to give any answer concerning it, but if Ralph or somebody else claims anything from my demesne or my almoign, let him come before myself and I shall do him full right. Moreover, I pray you all to maintain the aforesaid brethren and the place of Rufford for the love of God and myself, so that Almighty God may repay you and that I may show my gratefulness and return your services. 1 324

0

I[RUFFORD

Charters, 405.1'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 280 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

325 A case is heard in the court of Robert de Stafford between Ernald de Walton, son of Enisan, and Stone Priory, a daughter of Kenilworth, concerning various possessions in and around Stone. As some of them are ecclesiastical, three representatives of the bishop of Chester take part in the proceedings. By producing various charters and referring to a final concord confirmed by King Henry I, the canons convince the court of the righteousness of their case. A concord is reached by common consent of clerics and laymen and confirmed by Robert de Stafford. Robert de Stafford, to all his men and friends, French and English, greeting. Let it be known to all future and present that I Robert, son of Nicholas de Stafford, have been at Stone because of some controversy that had arisen between Emald de Walton, son of Enisan, and the canons of Stone about whom the said Emald had complained that they had occupied and turned to their own uses some things that pertained to their right. And since the possession concerned was ecclesiastical, William archdeacon of Chester, Ralph archdeacon of Stafford and William archdeacon of London were present on behalf of the lord Walter, bishop of Chester, to hear this case diligently and to determine it by an ecclesiastical judgment in the place of the bishop. Therefore the canons have in our presence produced their charters and muniments which show that whatever Ernald claimed against them was justly and canonically possessed by them, as the said Ernald and his father Enisan had sold them to the benefit of the church of Stone by the grant and confirmation of my father and myself, and which Bishop Roger of Chester had confirmed by special authority at the request of the said Ernald and Enisan. We discovered in these same charters that there had been some litigation concerning the same possession between the aforesaid canons and Hugh the watchman, who at that time possessed Colwalton through a gift of Enisan and the grant of King William, and that this case was terminated at Beckenham, which is in Kent, in the court and the presence of the said king, and that the possession concerned was adjudged to the church of Stone and confirmed in perpetual alms by a charter of the same king. I They also produced a privilege of the lord Pope Eugene,2 in which he had received the aforesaid canons into the protection of St. Peter and his own and had confirmed all their possessions by apostolic authority, distinctly threatening assaulters and perturbers of the said church with anathema. Therefore, understanding their case and the fact that the canons' possession was supported by so many muniments and confirmed by so many authorities and moreover being mindful of the peace, we have terminated the aforesaid controversy by the common counsel of clerics as well as laymen by the following composition, viz. that the aforesaid Ernald has given up all his claim which he had 325 1 0'[This document is our no. 275.] 2 [This papal bull is edited by Holtzmann Papsturkunden, iii, no. 66, pp. 194-196.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 281 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

against the canons in the presence of all of us. completely and without any reservation and has forever quitclaimed to them whatever they possessed on that day in Stone and in Colwalton, in the wood and in the plain, in the meadows and in the pastures, in the exits of the roads and the assarts, in lands and tithes, in waters and all other things. The canons on the other hand have granted to Ernald to be held in fee and inheritance one croft in Colwalton nearby and adjacent to his court and in exchange for some war-land, which Stephen and Ralph held on that day from the canons in Colwalton, they have received from the said Ernald another war-land in Stone, which Manius held on that day from Ernald, on condition that Ernald and his heirs shall keep that war-land of Stone free of all claim and of all service and custom belonging to me or my heirs and shall make it so free and quit as the war-land of Colwalton was when it was in the hand of the canons. Therefore I Robert of Stafford have, at the request of the said Ernald and with the consent of the canons, granted this exchange between them and have forever confirmed that war-land of Stone to the church of Stone, free as far as I and my heirs are concerned. And Ernald and his heirs shall render me for the war-land of Colwalton the full service which they owed me for the war-land of Stone. This composition between the canons and Ernald was made in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 11 . ., on the 11th of January, on a Tuesday, in the church of Stone and there, touching the holy altar, Ernald confirmed that he would keep the peace and his pledge to the said church. And I Robert as brother and patron of the same church have confirmed this also on the altar. The witnesses of this composition are: William archdeacon of Chester, Ralph archdeacon of Stafford, William archdeacon of London, Robert Bagot, Robert de Whitgreave, Adam fitz Aldwin, Richard and another Richard, Ranulf, Alan and William clerics, Roger fitz Henry, Adam de Audley, Robert fitz Payn, Geoffrey Bras, Ralph Blundel and many others.

326 Sworn perambulation of land, wood and common pasture in Rowington in connection with a claim by Hugh fitz Richard against Abbot Walter of Ramsey; quitclaim by the former. A. Charter of Hugh fitz Richard concerning the boundaries of the land and wood of Rowington. Hugh fitz Richard to all his men and friends, clerics and laymen, French and English, greeting. Know that on the advice of some of my men I have claimed one

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 282 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

part of the land and wood of Rowington and that a monk called Ingulf, who was then in charge of that vill, asked personally and through many honourable men and gave me 20 s. for it - that he with his men and I with my men should meet on the land which was claimed, to perambulate the boundaries. And in the year when Earl Ranulf of Chester caught me hunting, on the second Sunday after Pentecost, i.e. on 18 June, we came on the land and ordered our people to perambulate the right boundaries between Shrewley and Rowington on the faith which they owed to God and ourselves. Having heard this and being followed by us, the following went ahead on the part of the monk: Tancward son of Walder and Wulfric of Halefalgawith many others, and on my part: Herding of Shrewley and Helfric of Nunley with many others, and they lawfully carried out the order, as they confirmed by oath. I, however, fearing for my soul if I caused the abbey of Reading any prejudice, have given up forever to St. Mary and the convent of Reading, on the advice of my wife Margaret and my son and heir William and my other friends and for the salvation of my soul and that of my people, whatever I had claimed, for myself and all my heirs as the right of the aforesaid church. Witnesses of this are: Stephen the priest of Rowington, Robert the priest of Hatton, Thurstan de Montfort and many others.

B. Charter of Hugh fitz Richard concerning the common pasture at

Rowington. Let all those present and future know that I Hugh fitz Richard and a monk from Reading called Ingulf, who was then in charge of Rowington, have, in the year when Earl Ranulf of Chester caught me hunting, assembled freemen, i.e. knights, clerics and free-holders, in order to recognize by oath which common pasture ought to exist between us. The following swore on the part of the monk: Tancward son of Walder and Wulfric of Halefalgaand Eylward, and on my part: Herding of Shrewley and Helfric of Nunley with several others, confirming that the men of Rowington ought to have common pasture everywhere in the wood of Shrewley, as my men ought to have common pasture in the abbot's wood called Aspley, just as the men of the abbot. Therefore, satisfied by these lawful men of the abbot of Reading and my own concerning the truth of the matter, I have confirmed to my men and those of the abbot the common pasture on both sides, by

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 283 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the testimony and the attachment of my seal, and have ordered my heirs to maintain this confirmation forever.'

327 Letter of Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, to Gilbert de Lacy explaining that while, on a mandate from the king, he was dealing with his complaint about a breach of sanctuary against the earl of Hereford, the latter appealed to the archbishop of Canterbury. The bishop advises Gilbert to continue the case in the archbishop's court. Gilbert by God's grace bishop of Hereford wishes the lord Gilbert de Lacy the attainment of salvation through his good deeds. My lord the king has ordered me to do canonical justice to you concerning the earl of Hereford,' who is said to compel your knights, who were captured in the church and cemetery, to pay ransom: know that I shall gladly obey the king's order in this matter in so far as it is within my means, saving my order, but according to the decrees of the [civil) laws and the authority of the sacred canons I am not allowed to do any more in this matter than what, as is well-known, I had already done before I received your letter. I had set a day for this cause, heard the altercation of the parties, pronounced judgment on the basis of what I had heard and since I can or could forbid nobody to appeal, I have heard the earl's appeal against the given judgment. Once an appeal is made it is just and it is canonical that I should abstain from audaciously dealing any further with the cause, except by forwarding through both parties the documents containing the whole course of the procedure to the judge to whom appeal is made. Those documents, which are also called apostoli,2 I have offered immediately after the appeal to the earl and also to your knights, but since you have not accepted them, you may perhaps make little headway on the day of the appeal. It is just as impossible to me as to the humblest cleric of my bishopric to do any more in this. I call as witness truth itself, which is God, that if the earl had not stopped me by lodging his appeal, judgment against him would not have been delayed for love, hatred or any other reason, and if you do not believe that there is nothing I can do against this appeal, you should hear the canon itself: "If somebody, despising the authority of the judge to whom appeal has been made, proceeds to execute his own judgment, even though it is legitimate, he forfeits the very judicial authority which he enjoyed." 3 Elsewhere it is also written: 326B l[V.C.H. Warwickshire, iii, 149; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 78-79.]1 327 '[EarI Roger of Hereford t 1155.] 0 2 See Brooke and Morey, Gilbert Foliotandhis letters, p. 65 n. 1. [Apostoli are letters written, on the demand of the appealing party, by the judge of first instance to the judge with whom the appeal is lodged (R. Naz, Dictionnairede droit canonique, I, Paris, 1935, 692-698).]0 Not identified.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 284 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

"It has often been established that even after an appeal has been lodged and rejected by the judge, nothing should be done to prejudge the deliberation and everything must remain in the state in which it was at the time of the pronouncement 0[of the first judgment]0 . Hence it is manifestly known that after appeal has been made, etc.". 4 For if we lose sheep or oxen or such like, we can recover them, God giving, but once we are, because of ignorance, foolishness or contumacious disobedience, ejected from our episcopal office and order, we shall not easily find someone to give us another. Therefore it is better for us to suffer some damage than to endanger our order. For if it pleased you to listen to my advice, you would not seek to cause me any trouble, since thanks to God I am ready for all prosperity or calamity, and the less I have, the less I shall be worried and the more with God's help I shall be able to do. If you received the letter which I have mentioned and you were ready on the appointed day and you sent the squires of Richard Brito and the captured knights to the archbishop, you will be able to free him with God's help after proof has been given, and those who will be present on my behalf will certainly not be of any hindrance to this cause. As to the king's order that I should recall what was done in his presence concerning the two oxen, I remember it quite well, since at his request I have not given up the claim which I had against you, but after an intervention by the archbishop, I have postponed it. As far as this archiepiscopal mandate is concerned, I shall answer that if he had taken cognizance of the appeal that was made to him, he would have given no orders on this matter. Obedience to him means to disclose to him the whole sequence of events, if there is some new element, whatever you may have said against us. Farewell. 5 328 Inquisition taken by members of the chapters of Ilchester and Castle Cary on the advowson of the church of Milborne Port. This is the narrative of the inquisition held at Milborne on the right of advowson and the possession of the church of Milborne. In the time of King William a certain Regenbald was dean of the church of Cirencester where at that time there were secular canons, but on the death of Regenbald King Henry I, 4 Code, 7, 62, 3 (cf. no. 93). The case which he had been trying on a mandate from the king had passed by appeal out of his competence to the archbishop's court. He explains the circumstances to Gilbert de Lacy, advises

him that R(ichard) Brito's squires and the captured knights (see p. 131 n. 1.) should go to the archbishop's court. His own case against Gilbert de Lacy he is not resigning, but he will not press it for the moment (this may possibly refer to a dispute over the two knights' fees held by Gilbert of the bishop, which were certainly the occasion of disagreement in the next decade (H.M. Colvin, in Essays... presentedto Rose Graham,pp. 15 ff., esp. pp. 17 ff.)). '[See the related letters

in

GILBERT FOLIOT

Letters, nos 93, 94 and 96.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 285 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

under divine inspiration, with the counsel and consent of the whole of England and on the authority of Pope Innocent, founded religion there and transferred the possessions of the secular canons to the use and sustenance of regular canons. He also gave the canons the church of Milborne with all its appurtenances, which the aforesaid Regenbald had possessed and transferred it to the proper use of the regular canons, as the charter of the aforesaid king testifies.I This inquisition was made on the vigil of St. Lucy2 by the more discreet men of two chapters, i.e. 3 Ilchester and Cary.

329 Notification that the canons of St. Paul's cathedral, London, having bought an acre of land by the parish church of St. Margaret there, were involved in a claim which was ended by a settlement between them and various citizens. Let it be known to those present and future that the canons of St. Paul's in London have bought an acre of land by St. Margaret's, from which the tenants used to have five shillings, for twenty-six marks which they have given to Lefstan, son of Orgar, and to Ailwin and Robert, Lefstan's sons and others of their family, in order that this whole acre should belong freely and quietly to St. Paul and the canons forever. But since they and also a sister of the aforesaid Lefstan claimed this acre, saying that they received no more than fifteen marks out of the aforesaid twenty-six, the canons bought it back from them for £7 9 s. 11 d. in such a way that on the said acre Lefstan received 8 marks, Robert, Lefstan's son, 1 mark, his brother Ailwin 12 marks, Sheriff Gilbert Proudfoot 2 s., Alderman Azo 2 s., Lefstan's sister, who claimed together with the other relations and quitclaimed that whole acre to the canons, 2 s., Hugh fitz Ulgar 3 s., Vitalis the sheriff's clerk, 4 d. and the beadle of that ward 4 d.; the children of the schools, who were present as witnesses of the purchase, had 3 d. for cherries. On this acre there is a house which belonged to Eadild, sister of the aforementioned Orgar, which all the aforesaid people have also quitclaimed to the canons free of demand. The witnesses of this latter purchase were: Ralph the dean, Richard de Belmeis, Nicholas senior, Nicholas Scriba, Nicholas son of Clement, Robert de Auco, 328 1 O[cf. CIRENCESTER Cart. (ed. Ross), no. 28/1, i, pp. 21-24; Regesta ii, no. 1782.0 2 o[12

December.]0

I The

position of this document (which is in the basic hand of A) immediately preceding two documents of Archbishop Theobald, taken together with the information which they provide as to the disputes and inquiries over Cirencester Abbey's claim to Milborne Port church, suggests that it may well be of mid- 12th century date. If so, this is of interest as an illustration of the work of the ruridecanal chapters at this time. It is also evidence of an early tradition at Cirencester that Regenbald was in fact dean of the college of secular canons.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 286 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Master Henry, William de Calne, Walter the son of the bishop,I Hugh, the nephew of the dean,' Geoffrey Constable, Ranulf Patin, Moyses the priest, Ralph the priest, Robert the priest, Bartholomew the priest, Ralph related to the archdeacon, Master Alberic, Richard Ducchet, Eustace his brother, Stephen fitz Edward, Richard fitz Algar the priest and his father Algar, Ulric the priest, Baldwin the canon, William Franc, Robert the priest of St. Peter's, Simon fitz John the priest, Robert Patin, Pain Rufus, Alestan the butler, Richard the son of archdeacon Richard, John the son of Robert de Auco and Geoffrey the cleric. Laymen: Gilbert Proudfoot, the sheriff, Azo the alderman, Alfred de Windsor and his sons Henry and Peter, Andrew the mason, Hugh fitz Ulgar, Fulk fitz Bruning, Thierry de Montpellier, Robert the waferer, Walchelin, Eustace the nephew of Fulcred, Peter Hornepite, William fitz Gosbert, Robert de Stobsheath and his brother Richard, Vitalis the cleric, Rustold, Ailwin son of Lefstan and his brother Robert, Richard Passelewe, Robert fitz Berner, Vulmar the blood-letter, Roger related to Roger son of Billeh . . ., John de Stortford, Picot fitz Meinbod, Albert the goldsmith, Philip son of Fulger Nanus, Gildus, Ralph Brito, Aldwin Sprot, Henry the janitor, John Brito, Reginald Nanus, Odo de Colchester, John fitz Ulgar, Ralph Arbo, Simon fitz Ulvred, Durand Scad, Henry his son, Salidus the beadle of the ward and Gervase the clerk.

330 Narrative in William of Canterbury's Vita of Thomas Becket, written after 1172, of an incident in the life of Hugh de Morville's mother, who falsely accused a young man of trying to kill her husband and thus caused his execution. Hugh de Morville's name, whether understood as the vill of death or of the dead, relates in whatever way it is said to a place of death. As his mother,I so it is said, was ardently in love with a young man called Litulf, who rejected adultery, she asked by some extraordinary female trickery that he should bring her horse forward and draw his sword as it were to play a game. As he did this, she in the

'[This is Walter de Belmeis, son of Richard de Belmeis I, bishop of London (1108-1127), see Le Fasti... 1066-1300, i, 65-66.] Neve, 0 2 [This is possibly Hugh de Mareni, who became archdeacon of London and dean, see Le Neve, ° Fasti... 1066-1300, i, 93.] 330 ' [lHugh de Morville's mother was Ada, daughter of William de Engaine (D.N.B., xxxix, 168169). It appears from the anecdote that his father was also called Hugh.]' 329

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 287 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

language of the country, exclaimed to her husband who was in front of her: "Hugh 2 de Morville, beware, beware, beware, Litulf has drawn his sword". Therefore the innocent young man was condemned to death, boiled in hot water and underwent martyrdom as if he had stretched out his hand to spill the blood of his lord. What shall we hope from the brood of the vipers? Do we collect a grape from thistles or a fig from a thorn? If a bad tree cannot produce good fruits, as truth testifies, it follows that innocuous seed cannot be produced by a fetid root.

331 In a joint assembly of the two shires of Norfolk and Suffolk, presided over by William Martel acting as royal justice, two vassals of Bury St. Edmunds are accused of treason, but the abbot claims the case for the franchisal jurisdiction of his abbey. King Stephen orders the assembled shire courts to examine the problem; they decide in favour of the abbey, not so much on the basis of the charters produced, but of the oral evidence given by an old man. King Stephen orders the case to proceed in the court of the abbot, but a few days later he and the knights are reconciled at Bury St. Edmunds through the good services of the abbot. On the same occasion another case, which concerned a wasted warren, between Walter fitz Robert, a royal steward, and William de Howe, is similarly removed to the abbot's court and settled by reconciliation. At some time during the reign of the most noble King Stephen, the two shires of Norfolk and Suffolk were ordered by that king to meet before him at an appointed day at Norwich. They met in the bishop's garden' under the presidency of the king's steward William Martel, who was ready to discuss matters concerning the common weal with prefectorial dignity. The cause was attended by the venerable persons Bishop Nigel of Ely and Bishop William of Norwich 2 and Ording, the

'[This phrase is first given in Middle-English and then translated into Latin.]° 331 "*[William Turbe, bishop of Norwich, 1146 1174.]" 2 Blomefield: 'William Turb, bishop of Norwich' "[F. Blomefield and C. Parkin, An essay towards a topographicalhistory of the county of Norfolk, ii, Fersfield, 1739, pp. 19 20]". 2

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 288 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

venerable abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and Daniel, abbot of St. Benet Hulme and several barons of the province, i.e. Walter fitz Robert the king's steward and Robert de Vere the king's constable, Reginald de Warenne, Fulk de Oilly, Hugh fitz Eudo, William de Chesney the son of Robert, and Henry de Rye. As they and many other honourable and wise men were residing in that assembly, two members of the court, Jordan de Blossonville and Richard de Valderi, appeared before them bringing with them some young man called Herbert, whom they placed in the middle of the assembly before them all. Then Jordan spoke as follows: "Lords and lieges of the king, listen carefully to what this young man, whom you see, unveiled to the king. He says that last year he was with Robert fitz Wibert and in his service. At one moment our lord king convened the army and marched against his enemies, who held the castle and his city of Bedford against him. As one day he had a meeting there with his barons in the meadows adjacent to the city, the aforesaid Robert was in that army and with him was Adam de Horringer and there, as this young man alleges, that Robert and that Adam had a talk with enemies of the king and took counsel with them, i.e. Ralph de Hawstead and his brother Roger, who had secretly left the city to join them 3 for the betrayal and the death of the king. There they also changed their horses, shields and saddles.4 If they want to deny this and defend themselves, this young man is ready to give proof against them". Thereupon the lord king ordered the aforesaid knights to be heard and judgment to be given according to their answer. As soon as he heard this, the lord abbot of the church of St. Edmund immediately stood up and turning to the justice, the bishops, the barons and the whole assembly said: "Lords and friends, the knights concerned are men of St. Edmund, king and martyr, and our church. Never before have I heard of the present allegation or charge and, as is testified by the privileges and charters of our church, this allegation must be transferred and dealt with in the court of St. Edmund and our church. I therefore pray that for the love of St. Edmund you abstain from giving judgment in this matter until I have spoken to the lord king, for I hope by the strength of God and the Holy Ghost that our lord king will not deprive St. Edmund of anything or diminish the right and freedom of our church in any way" This was granted and the lord abbot took friends and monks and barons of his church to the lord king, showed him the privileges and charters of the church in this matter and made his 0

3 [A n engagement of King Stephen's army against Bedford took place late in 1149. Robert fitz

Gilbert and Adam de Horringer or Horningsheath, vassals of Bury St. Edmunds, were alleged to have conspired with two of the king's enemies, Ralph and Roger de Hawstead (Regesta iii, p. xxviii, n. 3 and 4).]

4 Blomefield: "And changed Horses, Shields and Sadles, with the said Rob. and Adam, in order under Colour thereof, to come at any time into the King's Army, to put in Execution whatever should be agreed upon, and that this Youth was there ready to prove it, for which Reason the King had sent him down to hear the Matter, that the two Knights might be lawfully heard and judged by their Country"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 289 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

supplication and request. To which the king replied: 5 "Let the privileges be put before my justice and the counties and be read out, and whatever right and liberty the barons of the counties will testify to belong to St. Edmund in this matter or another, this I grant and will that he shall have without reduction or diminution". Consequently the privileges were put before the counties and publicly recited, and several people began to say several things. Seeing this, Hervey de Glanvill suddenly leapt forward and standing in the middle said: "Honest and most prudent men! It is a long time since I first heard the charters of St. Edmund's which were read here just now and they have always been authoritative unto this day. I would have you know that I am a very old man, as you can see, and I remember many things that happened in the time of King Henry and before, when justice and right, peace and fidelity flourished in England, whereas now, under pressure of war, justice has fled and laws have fallen silent and the liberties of churches, like other good things, have been lost in many places; nonetheless I say for certain, testify and affirm that fifty years have passed since I first began to attend the hundred and shire courts with my father, before I had an estate of my own, and I have done so ever since. And every time a case arose in the shire courts involving any man of the eight-and-a-half hundreds, whosesoever man he was, the abbot of St. Edmunds or his steward and officials took that case with them for hearing in the court of St. Edmunds and, whatsoever the allegation or charge, with the exception of treasure trove and murder, it was dealt with there". Having heard these words, the aforesaid bishops and barons agreed, and so did Roger Gulafre and William de Fraxineto who were then sheriffs and Hervey fitz Hervey. Robert de Glanvill and many others of the honour of Warenne, the honour of Earl Hugh6 and the honour of Eye testified in the same sense. The barons therefore presented to William Martel, the king's justice, the testimony that was proffered concerning the right and the liberty of the church of St. Edmund, and William, taking with him some of the barons, notified the king formally of the whole testimony of the barons and the counties. When the king heard it, he ordered that the testimony should be valid and unbreakable and he ordered the abbot to fix a day in his court to do him right concerning his aforesaid men. This the abbot did. On the same day, in the same place and before the same assembly Walter fitz Robert, the king's steward, arrived to ask in the king's name that justice should be done, charging William de Howe that he had wasted his warren of Hempnall, and to strengthen his accusation he produced nets which his ministers had found in his warren with the men of the said William. Upon hearing this the abbot obtained this case upon the same authority and the same deraignment as for the aforesaid Blomefield: "Upon which the King said, that all justice originally belonged to the County and Court there, and therefore he sent them back to the County and Council they came from, and whatever they did as to allowing the liberties or not, he would stand by it: returning therefore to Norwich, they produced their Charters and Liberties to the Shire-Mote of the County or CountyCourt, upon which Sir Hervy de Glanvil rose, &c." 6 Blomefield: "Earl Hugh Bygod" o[Earl of Norfolk]'.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 290 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

suit. A few days later the king came to St. Edmunds where the abbot, with the counsel of the barons of the church and the aid of the barons of the king, reconciled 7 his aforesaid knights with the king and William de Howe with Walter. And so this account has been written in order that posterity may not be ignorant of the magnitude of the liberty of the church of St. Edmund and how constantly and strenuously the abbots and good men thereof have laboured to maintain and conserve the liberty. And let it be known that this chronicle lies open to view in the psalter which customarily lies before the lord abbot in his chapel. 8

332 Geoffrey de Ivoi restores to Godstow abbey the land called Gare after the right of the nuns has been established by a recognition in his hallmoot. Be it known to all the faithful of Holy Church, present and future, that for the salvation of my soul and that of my ancestors and descendants, I Geoffrey de Ivoi have restored and granted to God and the church of Holy Mary and St. John the Baptist of Godstow and the nuns who serve God there the land which in English is called Gare, along the road which leads from Warborough to Holcombe from the southwest, where Edward used to live, to be had and held from me and my heirs free and quit of all secular service and exaction in perpetual alms and eternal possession; this was done after the right of the nuns in that land was recognized by the testimony of my hallmoot. The witnesses of this recognition of the right of the nuns and my restoration and grant are here mentioned: Alvred, abbot of Dorchester, Robert prior of Dorchester, Hugh de Ivoi my son, Walter de Bensington, Robert de Warborough, Hainel my nephew, Ralph the butler, Adam de Godstow, Thomas the clerk, Bartholomew the nephew of the abbot of Dorchester and also my hallmoot, by whose joint cognizance the recognition of the right of the aforesaid nuns was finally made and confirmed, never to be retracted.'

Blomefield adds: "which is worth observation, as it shows us, how speedily and well Justice was administered even in those troublesome times, as well as the Authority of the Shire-Motes, County, and Hundredcourts, which were the Fountains of all Justice, and so much valued, that

the King himself referred Justice to them" '[Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 191; Regesta iii, p. xxvii; Cronne, Reign of King Stephen, 276-278; for certain passages we followed Cronne's translation to a large extent.]' 332 l[Stenton, Feudalism, 42-43 with the date "about the middle of the twelfth century"; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 53.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 291 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

333 Geoffrey de Ivoi restores half a virgate of land, a meadow called Littlemede and a common pasture to the nuns of Godstow, whose right has been recognized. Be it known to all those future and present that after the recognition of the right of the nuns of Godstow on half a virgate of land, which I had unjustly detained for a long time and which had belonged to Wolfric Haignord and on the meadow called Littlemede and a common pasture, according to the charter of the lady empress concerning the donation and that of the king concerning the confirmation, I Geoffrey de Ivoi have restored it to them to be held unfettered, quietly and freely as free alms. Witnesses: Ralph of St. Martin, Hugh fitz Richard, Thierry the chaplain, Henry of Oxford, Hugh of Elsfield, Hugh fitz Osbert, Ralph Gubewin, Ansger de Lewknor and Robert the reeve.

334 Writ of King Stephen to Richard de Lucy, justiciar, and Maurice, sheriff of Essex, ordering them to let Bishop Henry of Winchester and the canons of St. Martin le Grand, London, have their marsh at Maldon, according to a recognition held in the hundred court there. Stephen, king of the English, to Richard de Lucy, justiciar, and Maurice, sheriff of Essex, greeting. I order you to see to it that Bishop Henry of Winchester, my brother, and the canons of St. Martin's at London shall have and hold their marsh, which Ranulf de Venions gave for his soul to the church of St. Mary of Maldon from the land which King Henry granted and gave him for his service from the fee of Peverel, which he had in his demesne, as peacefully and honourably and justly as it was recognized and testified before Sheriff Maurice in the hundred at Maldon that they held it in the time of King Henry and on the day when he was alive and dead and afterwards, until the day when Walter fitz Gilbert left for Jerusalem. And let them not be impleaded thereon unjustly until Walter, from whom they hold this marsh, returns to England. And do full right to them for the violence and injury which they suffered, in such a way that my rights, if there were any, be not forgotten. Witness: Robert de Vere. At London.'

334 1 o[Cronne, Reign of King Stephen, 273-274; V.C.H. London, i, 555-556.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 292 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

293

335 Writ of King Stephen ordering that the canons of the collegiate church of St. Martin le Grand of London shall hold their land outside Cripplegate, as they have deraigned it by the judgment of the husting. Stephen, by God's grace king of England, to Richard de Lucy and Theodoric son of Derman, justiciars of London, and the sheriff and ministers of London and Middlesex, greeting. I order that the canons of St. Martin shall hold well and peacefully their land outside Cripplegate as they have deraigned it by thejudgment of the husting and in accordance with their charters and as they held it on the day when Bishop Henry of Winchester, my brother, their dean, crossed the sea, so that nobody shall disturb them in the exploitation of that land nor cause them any injury. And I grant that the stones which have been heaped up against the city wall in the road between their land and the wall shall be placed against the wall in the road, in such a way that the latter is obstructed no more.'

336 After the citizens of Oxford, in 1138-1139, have been ordered by King Stephen to restore the island of Medley (situated in the city) to the priory of St. Frideswide, they seize it again and, in 1147, grant it to Osney Abbey. The prior of St. Frideswide takes the matter to law, and a letter of 1150-1152 of Sheriff Atsur of Oxfordshire to Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury testifies that the portmanmoot of Oxford has recorded on the order of the king that St. Frideswide had been despoiled without judgment. After this recognition was repeated before him in his court, the king confirms the canons of St. Frideswide in the tenure of the island. A. The letter of Sheriff Atsur of Oxford. To Theobald by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and legate of the Apostolic See, Atsur sheriff and citizen of Oxford with all the other citizens of that city, greeting as to their father and lord. We testify before God and yourself that at the command and adjuration of the king we have assembled the portmanmoot and have recalled that the church of St. Frideswide was in possession of a certain island called Medley when Prior Robert of the said

335 I o[V.C.H. London, i, 555.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 293 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

church set out for Rome, but that when he came back he found that his church had been despoiled without judgment. And immediately on this same day we have returned to the king and testified to this fact in the presence of him and his barons. Farewell in Christ.' B. The confirmation by King Stephen. Stephen, king of the English, to Bishop [Robert] of Lincoln, the abbots, justiciar, sheriff, barons, ministers and all his lieges, French and English, of all Oxfordshire, greeting. Know that I have given and granted in perpetual alms to God and the church of St. Frideswide of Oxford and the regular canons, who serve God there, the island which is called Medley of which my burgesses of Oxford have recognized before me and before my earls and my barons that they have paid a rent for that island of half a mark of silver for the restoration of the said church's lighting, which [the canons] had lost in connection with the market stalls of which they had been deprived' by [the burgesses]. Therefore I will and firmly order that they shall hold and have it well, peacefully, freely and quietly for the salvation of my soul and those of Queen Matilda, my wife, and of my children and for the souls ancestors, free and quit of all service. of King Henry my uncle and my other 3 2 Witnesses: Earl Gilbert and others.

337 Letter of Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, to Robert de Chesney, bishop of London, concerning his clerk Master Ambrose (a Roman lawyer who is glossing the Digest) and certain cases which have been held over by order of Henry, duke of Normandy. To his lord and dearest brother Robert, by God's grace bishop of Lincoln, Gilbert minister of the church of Hereford, may you taste and enjoy the sweetness which God has prepared for the poor.' If you are in good health,2 it is as we wish and it brings our joy to perfection and a peak of gladness. You want the Digest to 336A 1 '[Translation taken from Davis, op. cit., 60.] 336B 1 '[In a writ of 1138- 1139 (Regesta iii, no. 638) King Stephen confirms Medley to St. Frideswide and mentions that the canons had lost the income from their market stalls there by a royal writ, unjustly obtained by the burgesses of Oxford. The latter's gift of Medley to Osney in portmanmot in 1147 is recorded in a charter ed. by Davis, op. cit., 58.10 0 2 [Two earls are possible here: Earl Gilbert of Hertford (1138 1152) and Gilbert de Ghent, earl of Lincoln (1149-1154).]' 3 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 277; Davis, op. cit., 58-61; Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 266 267.0 337 1 Cf. Ps. lxvii. ii. 2 Cf. no. 105 '[Gilbert Foliot Letters, no. 105, p. 144.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 294 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

be corrected and glossed and see, your Ambrose never stops labouring on his threshing. 3 The other things which you have ordered will, God willing, not be postponed. The outcome of your cases with our powerful people is uncertain and as soon as what is in the balance is stabilized, you shall immediately know from a quick letter. Their postponement until Palm Sunday has been granted us by the lord Henry, but we ask him for a further extension through a messenger, who has not yet returned. We shall undergo the outcome which the Lord will grant, hoping to receive the blessings of Him who reproves the thoughts of the people and dissipates the counsel of the princes.4 We wish, dearest, that you are well in the Lord, that you are renewed in Him from day to day,5 and that you make progress in the Lord. 6

338 Simon, earl of Northampton, notifies his men that Anselm de Cioches has restored in his court and given in alms to the priory of St. Andrew's, Northampton, two-thirds of the tithe of Wollaston, as the monks had deraigned them before the bishop of Lincoln. Simon, earl of Northampton, to all his men French as well as English of Northamptonshire, greeting. Know that Anselm de Cioches has in my presence and that of some of my barons at Northampton restored and granted in perpetual alms to the church of St. Andrew the Apostle at Northampton and the monks who serve God there two-thirds of his tithe from all his demesne of Wollaston, as was deraigned by the aforesaid monks in full synod before Bishop Robert of Lincoln. I will and order that they shall have and hold that almoign free and quit. Witnesses: Hugh the chaplain, Richard of Oxendon, Randulf the cleric, Robert Grimbald, Turgis de Avranches, Simon de Brixworth, Hugh Gubiun, William de Boughton, Robert fitz Sawin, Humphrey the brother of Anselm and Robert de Cransley.1

For Gilbert's knowledge of the Digest, see Brooke and Morey, op. cit., p.64. Cf. Ps. xxxii. 10. Cf. II Cor. iv. 16. 6 A letter on private business, on the Digest, which Ambrose (cf. no. 317 and Brooke and Morey, Gilbert Foliot andhis letters, pp. 66, 288-289) is glossing, and on Gilbert's relations with the lord Henry (duke of Normandy) (presumably one cannot imagine any other "lord Henry" of this period who could have treated a bishop in this way; at the same time Gilbert would not have referred to a king by this title, which was, however, that used (among others) for heirs to the throne): his cases have been held over until Palm Sunday, and he has asked for a further extension. 338 1 o[V.C.H. Northamptonshire, i. 347-348; Farrer, op. cit., i. 20-21; Farrer, op. cit., ii. 363.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 295 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

339 Notification by King Stephen that after holding an inquest he has restored to the monks of Worcester Cathedral the church of Wolverhampton, which he had wrongly granted to Bishop Roger of Chester; the monks are to suffer no loss because of any writ which the bishop may produce. Stephen, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots and all his barons and all his lieges, French and English, of all England, greeting. Know that I have restored to God and St. Mary and the prior and monks of the church of Worcester for the soul of my uncle, King Henry, the church of Wolverhampton, which I had earlier granted unadvisedly to Bishop Roger of Chester. By holding an inquest, I have learned from many that it was theirs of old and ought to be, and therefore I will that they shall not lose anything or be disturbed in any way because of some writ which the bishop may have thereon. Therefore I will and order that they shall hold it as well, freely and quietly as Bishop Samson [of Worcester] gave it to them and Archbishop Thomas [of York] granted it and as the charter of King Henry my uncle testifies.' Witnesses: the chancellor,2 etc.

340 Judgment of the shire court of Kent in favour of Christ Church Canterbury against Sheriff Ralph Picot concerning land at Elverton, where he used to exact unjust taxes. Elverton is land of the monks of Christ Church at Canterbury and belongs to their table. This land yields four pounds and ten shillings for their nourishment and three shillings to the altar of Christ for all the services and customs pertaining to it. From this land a certain sheriff called Ralph Picot unjustly demanded scot, danegeld, murdrum and other dues which lands usually yield. Finally, after many speeches and pleadings the case came before the county court, which this same Ralph held at Keston, and there by the judgment of the whole county it was shown and deraigned by justices and ministers of the king and other people that nothing of the aforesaid should be demanded or received and that no one had any power on that land except the monks of Christ Church Canterbury, since it is their demesne land. The following were present in the county court where this was deraigned. This was done in the time of King Stephen and Archbishop Theobald under the aforesaid sheriff at Keston in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 339

1 2

'[Thi s confirmation by King Henry I can be found in WORCESTER Registrum I, no. 261, pp. 138139 sub anno 1100- 1108.10 '[King Stephen's third and last chancellor, Robert de Gant, assumed office in March 1140.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 296 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

1153. Ralph Picot, Asketin de Reling', Richard Castel, Thomas Margar, Malgier, William de Richesey, Reginald the steward, William fitz Ansfrid, Ralph his brother, Humphrey de Wateringbury, Philip de Tonge, Roger Folet, Turstan the bishop's steward, Gerard de Hardres, Robert de Cloevile, Guy de Vapier, William de Ashford, Stephen de Kenardington, Thomas de Ashdon, Robert le Vethel, Peter de Otham, Hugh Brittin, Thomas de Lidsing, Heilnoth the reeve of Hollingbourne, Florent de Bossington, Alan de Reading, Reinberd, Hugh fitz Thomas de Bockingfold, Robert de Arblast', Robert Pel de Lee, Ailwin de Cliffe.'

341 Writ of Duke Henry of Normandy, the future King Henry II, ordering the abbey of Reading to keep the agreement made before him concerning the church of Berkeley. Henry, duke of the Normans and the Aquitainians and count of the Angevins, to Abbot Reginald of Reading and the whole convent, greeting and love. I command and order you, as my love is dear to you and as you want to place your trust in me, to hold the agreement' which was made through me and before me concerning the church of Berkeley valid and unshaken, for Reginald [de Dunstanville] earl [of Cornwall], who acts in my place in this and other affairs in England, will assign to your church to be obtained in perpetual alms from my demesne the 15 pounds' worth of land which I pledged to give you, so you shall go to him on the date which he will indicate and receive that land without any further trouble, and I take for valid and firm whatever he will do for you, and I would have assigned that land to you long ago if I had not been retained by great and numerous affairs. Witnesses: Earl Reginald of Cornwall and Robert de Dunstanville. At Eu.2

340 I o[Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 230, 272-273.] 341 'Iitis not immediately clear between whom there has been a controversy. There may have been a disagreement between Reading and Duke Henry in which interests were involved of Robert fitz Harding, who had received certain rights in Berkeley from Duke Henry in January-May 1153 (Regesta iii, no. 309, 310), and Roger de Berkeley, who in 1150-1151 had been ordered by Duke Henry to leave the church of Berkeley in peace (Regesta iii, no. 707, 708).0 2 [Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 256.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 297 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

342 Writ of King Stephen addressed to Richard de Lucy and Maurice, sheriff of Essex, ordering that Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, shall hold Ulwin Mud, his fugitive villein, and the latter's chattels, which the canons of the collegiate church of St. Martin's le Grand, London, have deraigned. Stephen, king of the English, to Richard de Lucy and the sheriff of Essex, greeting. I order that the bishop of Winchester,' my brother, shall hold as well and peacefully Ulwin Mud, his fugitive, and his chattels, which the canons have deraigned, as Roger, the bishop of Salisbury, best held them in the time of Count Eustace of Boulogne and afterwards till the day when King Henry, my uncle, was alive and dead. And his canons of St. Martin's shall not be impleaded on this as against the reeve of Writtle concerning [the fugitive] himself or his money. And Maurice the sheriff shall be quit of what he pledged for replevying him and the 2 canons' money. Witness: Robert de Vere. At Windsor.

343 A dispute breaks out between Walter, prior of the Augustinian priory of Southwick (previously established at Porchester), and Herbert de Boarhunt about the exchange of certain lands which had been made in the time of King Henry I: Herbert de Boarhunt did not respect the terms of the exchange and took certain lands into his demesne. Attempts by the justice of the lord of Porchester and other persons from the neighbourhood to reach an agreement are unsuccessful, but Herbert is taken ill, recognizes that he has wronged the church and wants his son Alexander, through the sworn verdict of men of the venue, to restore things as they were in the time of King Henry I. Thereupon Herbert dies and Alexander agrees with Prior Walter that a jury, composed of ten men, shall be selected by the two parties. The jury gives a detailed verdict. Chirograph between us and Herbert de Boarhunt under the seal of R. de

342

0

[At first sight it is not clear why the bishop of Winchester should hold a villein who was deraigned by St. Martin's le Granl in London. The connection, however, becomes apparent when one realizes that the bishop of Winchester was Henry of Blois, who had been made dean of St. Martin's by King Stephen between the imprisonment of Bishop Roger of Salisbury, his predecessor as dean, and the latter's death, i.e. between 24 June 1139 and 11 December 1139 (cfr. Voss, Heinrich von Blois, 101).]o 2 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 338, 342; V.C.H. London, i, 555-556.] '

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 298 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hunton. Let all the sons of Holy Mother Church know that a discord and quarrel broke out between Prior Walter and the convent of St. Mary of Southwick and Herbert de Boarhunt because of some exchanges of land which were made between the church and the said Herbert in the time of King Henry and changed afterwards, and because of some common pastures, which they should have had in common between them and Herbert had enclosed and occupied into his own demesne. To settle and pacify this, the justice of the lord of Porchester and neighbours and friends of the church met several times without managing to end the business so as to take the interests of both parties into account. Herbert, however, having been overcome by the illness that was to cost him his life, summoned his friends, sent for the prior and the brethren of the church and humbly doing penance admitted that he had acted against his mother the Church unjustly and on the basis of bad counsel, and had unjustly vexed her in many respects. Therefore he restored into the prior's hand whatever he had occupied from the right of the church or withheld from its almoign, and he seised him of it by a green branch, and to ensure firm peace between the church and his heirs he ordered his son and heir Alexander to promise in the hand of the prior to maintain firmly towards the church whatever he would decide and for no counsel to change anything, and this he did. Firstly he recognized that he had given a long time ago his tithe and chapel to God and the canons and this gave him great joy. He also recognized that he gave to the church for the soul of his mother the site of the mill with the land pertaining to the mill, and the canons built the mill: he wanted the church to hold it in perpetual alms. While he was still imprisoned at Porchester, he promised to give to God for his liberation 1 virgate of land in alms and after he had left prison, he gave for that virgate his part of the common of Appelstead to the canons, i.e. the whole of his part of the common between the two waters. He gave these alms to the church, free of all service which he might have kept for himself, in which grant he wasjoined by all his sons and he prayed the prior repeatedly to have the exchange of lands recognized by the oath of lawful men of the venue, to establish how they were at the time of King Henry and thus they were to stay, and the prior promised him to do this. Having thus been reconciled with his church, Herbert died. His heir Alexander, however, wanted his father's almoign to grow larger for the sake of his father's soul and gave the land of Shadwell by the road to the church and was joined in this grant by all his brothers, who all offered the land on the altar with him so that the anniversary of their father should always be celebrated in the church. Thus the following agreement was made between the church and Alexander after the death of his father Herbert, that the prior elected four men from the men of Alexander, i.e. Selingar, Sewin Ribout, Jocelin Niger and Edwin Harel. And 343 1 '[The lord of Porchester mentioned in this document was either William I Mauduit or his second son Henry: William died before February 1158, but the castle and manor of Porchester were granted to Henry in 1153 (Sanders, English baronies, 50; V.C.H. Hampshire, iii, 152).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 299 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

from the men of the prior, Alexander elected Roger the cleric, Blakeman, Seward and Pain. They also elected by the common counsel of both parties William de Morville and Roger Esturmi from the men of Reinelm de Boarhunt. Those ten swore to say the truth about the exchanges and the pastures, of the church as well as of Alexander, according to their knowledge. It was recognized by their oath that the 7 acres of Gerseworthe were an exchange for the 7 acres of Ditchcroft and the grove next to Gerseworthe to the west remained to the church and the other grove remained completely to Alexander. It was recognized that the 7 acres on the hill north of the road were an exchange for Smithcroft and Wlgithemore. It was recognized that the 5 acres in their two garstons and the one beyond the hill were an exchange for the 6 acres of Churchfurlong at the Thorn. It was recognized that Good Half [Acre] was of the church and 1 acre beside the half acre of Downing to the north [also] of the church. It was recognized that the 2 acres of Shadwell were of the church and that the 5 acres of Oseden were of the church. It was recognized that the I acre above Reiner's 2 acres was of the church and also the acre of Oseden was of the church. It was recognized that the 1 acre above Reiner's 2 acres was of the church and also the acre on the road of Wymering, about which the roads runs. It was recognized that the 1 half acre between its two marl-pits is of the church and that Wlmer with his park was of the church. It was recognized that the half acre that belonged to Roger Esturmi among his garstons was of the church and that also the acre under Apsancre which used to belong to Aldwin Peche also was of the church. It was recognized that the half acre in the southern part of its marl-pit was cut off from the 32 acres of the church and that the 3 acres of the church above Butieres's Wlfithemore remained with Alexander because of the half acre in Blackfurlong. It was recognized in Staplecroft that 1 acre by the marsh, half an acre on the hill next to our newly broken land, half an acre in Reginald's enclosure, the little meadow and the court-yard were of the church and the field of rushes which belonged to Wlward Knave were also of the church. In the enclosure of Alexander 5 acres. In exchange of those the church has 3 acres in the tenement of Sericus Surlefoche and 2 with the land of Odo. It was recognized that Chalcroft was common. It was recognized that all Woodhill was common and that what was taken from it after the death of King Henry reverted to the common and that the land before Reginald's house was common. It was recognized that the dike before the mill to the west as far as the bridge and the two little meadows were of the church; Ditchcroft at Colemore is of the church. It was recognized by lawful neighbours and jurors that 1 salt-pit of Porchester was of the church. Furthermore the following exchange was made between the church and Alexander by the counsel of thejurors and neighbours. The half acre of Roger Esturmi of his garston and the half acre to the east of the road in the land of Wlmer and the half acre between his 2 marl-pits are left to Alexander because of the 2 acres of South Pantulf's Wood. These lands having thus been recognized, perambulated and recorded, the prior agreed that Alexander could keep his lands till the following

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 300 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Michaelmas, since they were sown, so that he would not lose his labour and his seed, but then, as soon as the harvest was taken away, he would give them up and what previously had been common would revert to the common. To encourage him to do this gladly and in good heart, the prior demised to him 1 ferling of land, viz. the land Horeapeldre, which the jurors witness to be of the fee of Pantulf, and the angle of the hedge and 1 naif of his, viz. Edwin Harel. When, however, Michaelmas had come, Alexander gave up part of the lands, but retained the rest so that the quarrel between him and the church broke out again and as the king happened in that same year to take a danegeld from the land, Alexander wanted to demand service of the church for his father's and his own almoign and that whatever the church held of his fee would be assessed at half a hide. The prior, however, refused to enter into the service since the church had never before done this and by the counsel of friends and neighbours reached a settlement with Alexander, giving him one palfrey and one mark of silver so that the church could hold forever from him and his heirs the aforesaid alms free and quit of all service and all aids, which were demanded by the king or lords, and so that Alexander could to its advantage exchange the 2 acres in Shadwell of the fee of Hamelin with Robert de Faversham, if it were feasible, and if not, he would give the prior the equivalent of those acres in another place. And Alexander granted all this and confirmed it by the following witnesses: Gilbert de Exton and his brother, Reginald de Hambledon, William de Risfort and his brother Osbert, Richard the priest of Wymering, Richard fitz Daniel, Reiner de Boarhunt and his brother Richard, Peter de Cosham, Robert de Hoe, Henry the cleric of Hambledon, Alexander's brothers Bernard, Henry and Ralph, Selingar, Edwin Harel, Simon de Hambledon, Roger the cleric, Godwin Turneor and his sons Osmund and Robert, Elgar, Richard Court, Edmund, Adam Cook, Blakeman, Seward, Pain, Seman Peche, Seman the merchant and Odo.

344 Confirmation to Osney priory by Geoffrey de Clinton of land in Oxford, which Sewi son of Snelling gave to his brother Elwi and which the latter gave to Osney, as it was recognized in Geoffrey de Clinton's court in Oxford. Geoffrey de Clinton, the chamberlain, to all his men and lieges. Be it known to you all that I have granted and confirmed to the prior and canons of Osney in

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 301 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

perpetual possession that land on the main street of Oxford which Sewi son of Snelling granted and gave to his brother Elwi in heredity and which this Elwi gave to the aforesaid prior and canons with the agreement of the said Sewi, as was recognized in my court in Oxford before my bailiff William de Rampenna before the men of Oxford, saving my rent which Sewi used to pay me for it. Witnesses: William de Clinton and William de Rampenna.'

345 Notification by Roger de Mowbray of various grants and the settlement of a dispute between himself and the abbey of St. Mary of York concerning land situated between Beningbrough and the abbey's manors of Overton and Shipton on the basis of the sworn verdict of twelve lawful men, who were appointed by the abbot of St. Mary and appeared in the presence of the prior of Newburgh and men of William de Arches, to whose fee Beningbrough belongs. To all sons of the Church, Roger de Mowbray, greeting. As I and my men have repeatedly caused the abbey of York considerable harm, I have granted and confirmed by the present charter to the aforesaid church as compensation and satisfaction by way of perpetual peace in the future from me and my heirs and all those who belong to me that that church henceforth shall be free and quit of every exaction from me and my men concerning work on castles and tallage, which used to be exacted from the burgesses violently and unjustly. I also granted to the aforesaid church that they shall have in the vill of Myton on Swale their mill and pond and fishery as they ever best had them in the past. And since I have destroyed the bridge of that same vill I have granted them a boat until they shall be able to repair their bridge, which they had in the time of my father and my own, for the proper transit for themselves and their men and all those who want to travel

through the vill, saving the peace and the indemnity of my castle, and for delivering and taking away whatever is necessary to them. I have also fully pacified and

settled that controversy which has existed for a long time between Beningbrough and their two vills of Overton and Shipton concerning the land situated between the wood and the plain, by the oath of twelve lawful men whom the abbot of the aforesaid church has indicated, in the presence of Prior Augustine of Newburgh and the men of William de Arches, to whose fee the aforesaid vill of Beningbrough belongs, namely Guy of Wilstrop, Aubrey de Marston and Fulk de Hammerton, 344 1 The seal is 2 inches in diameter: a winged monster, with the head of a horse and the tail of a lion, pouncing on a monster, with claws, a lion's tail, and apparently the head of a bull. SIGILLV GALFRIDI DE GLI[ ]TVNIA CAMERARII REGIS. Grey wax varnished light brown. In the Calendarof Documentsin France (ed. Round), p. 299, a description is given of the seal of the younger Geoffrey de Clinton. The device is the same as this seal, but the spelling of the legend is not the same.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 302 1990

FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

who at my command were present on the appointed day, viz. that henceforth they shall possess that land in the future, quit and free of all claim. I have also restored freely and quietly to the aforesaid church the land of Ousefleet, in meadow as well as in arable, which Norman and William, sons of Mazeline, had given me for my patronage and protection. I have by my own hand pledged to hold this agreement and pact inviolate and Robert de Daiville and Hugh Malebisse have pledged the same.

346 Notification by Walchelin Maminot that the men of Ellesmere have declared in his court that his uncle William Peverel unjustly took away the land of Lee from the monks of Shrewsbury and that he has returned the land to them. Walchelin Maminot, to all his kinsmen and friends and all the faithful of Holy Church, greeting. Know that the men of Ellesmere have conceded before me and my knights that my uncle William Peverel unjustly took away the land of Lee from the monks of Shrewsbury. Hearing this I strove by the counsel of my men to liberate the soul of my uncle and the souls of those who gave him this counsel from the punishment of this sin and I restored that land to St. Peter and the monks, so free and quit that none of my successors shall have any more claim to it. And therefore I beg all those who shall come after me never to burden this land with any claim, for I have learned for certain from my men that my uncle received bad counsel on this.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 303 1990