Skip to main content

Full text of "The English historical review"

See other formats

' BookbiudeMt 


r> NT 

i ; Law Books 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 






G. N. CLARK, M.A. 













The Legend of ' Eudo Dapifeb '. By J. H. Round, LL.D. . 1 
St. Benet of Holme and the Norman Conquest. By F. M. 

Stenton 225 

The Sheriffs and the Administrative System of Henry I. 

By William A. Morris . . . . . . .161 

Sheriffs in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. By Curtis H. 

Walker 67 

' King Harold's Books.' By Charles H. Raskins, Litt.D., 

LL.D 398 

Annales Radingenses Posteriores. By C. W. Previte-Orton 400 
The Death of Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester. By 

the Rev. H. E. Salter 79 

Daniel of Morley. By Lynn Thorndike .... 540 
The Text of the Ordinance of 1184 concerning an Aid for 

THE Holy Land. By W. E. Lunt ..... 235 

The ' Domesday ' Roll of Chester. By R. Stewart- Broion . 481 

Some Lost Pleas of 1195. By G. H. Fowler, C.B.E. . . 403 
A Proposal for Arbitration between Simon de Montfort 

AND Henry III in 1260. By E. F. Jacob . . 80, 320 
Marsiglio of Padua. Part I : Life. By C. Kenneth Brampton 501 
ScuTAGE UNDER Edward I. By Miss Helena M. Chew . . 321 
Law Merchant in London in 1292. By H. G. Richardson . 242 
A Petition to Boniface VIII from the Clergy of the Pro- 
vince OF Canterbury. By Miss Rose Graham . . 35 
Early Notes of Fines. By R. C. Fowler, O.B.E. ... 82 
The Stamford Schism, ©y the Rev. H. E. Salter . . . 249 
Communitas Villae. By Miss Joan Wake .... 406 
The Great Statute of Praemunire. By W. T. Waugh . 173 
Twelve Medieval Ghost-stories. By the Provost of Eton . 413 
A Visitation of Westminster in 1444. By V. H. Galbraith . 83 
The Capture of Lord Rivers and Sir Anthony Woodville 

in 1460. By Miss Cora L. Scofield . . . . .253 

The Earl of Warwick at Calais in 1460. By C. L. Kingsford 544 
Excerpts from the Register of Louvain University from 

1485 TO 1527. By Pere H. de Vocht ... 89, 320 



Council, Star Chamber, and Privy Council under the 
TuDORS. By A. F. Pollard, D.Lit. : 

I. The Council 337 

II. The Star Chamber ...... 516 

A Calendar of the Correspondence of Sir Thomas More. 

By Miss Elizabeth Frances Rogers ..... 546 
An Early Grant to Sebastian Cabot. By A. P. Newton, D.Lit. 564 
The Birth of Thomas North. By P. 8. Allen . . . 565 
The Mission of Cardinal Pole to enforce the Bull of 
Deposition against Henry VIII. By the Rev. Paul van 

Dyke,D.D , . . . .422 

A General Court of the Merchant Adventurers in 1547. 

By W. P. M. Kennedy, Litt.D 105 

A Declaration before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 

1562. By W. P. M. Kennedy, Litt.D 256 

The Social Status of the Clergy in the Seventeenth and 

Eighteenth Centuries. By the Rev. C. H. Mayo, D.Litt. 258 
Council and Cabinet, 1679-88. By Godfrey Davies . . 47 
The Highland Forts in the ' Forty-Five '. By C. L. Kings- 
ford : . . 361 

The Transition to the Factory System. By George Umoin 206, 383 
Some Early Foreign Office Registers in the Public Record 

Office. By C. S. B. Buckland 567 

The Archdfke Ferdinand Maximilian and the Crown of 

Greece in 1863. By D. Dawson 107 

Lord Bryce. By Ernest Barker, D.Litt., LL.D. . . . 219 

Reviews of Books . . . ... 115, 267, 424, 569 

Short Notices 137, 291, 460, 607 

Index .......... 631 

The English 

Historical Review 

NO. CXLV.— JANUARY 1922 * 

The Legend of * Eudo Dapifer ' 

AMONG the auxiliary departments of historical research 
X\in England, the critical study of baronial genealogy has 
attracted so few scholars that we are still practically dependent 
on Dugdale's well-known Baronage (1675-6) for information on 
the subject. Strange as this assertion may seem, I speak from 
practical experience, having probably devoted more attention 
to historical genealogy ^ than any one else at the present time. 
Paradoxical though it may appear to uphold the dependence 
of modern scholars on a work compiled by a king of arms in the 
days of Charles the Second, its value, I hasten to explain, is 
due solely to the system adopted throughout by Dugdale, namely, 
that of giving exact marginal references for every statement 
that he makes. Record evidence does not change : the renvois 
of Dugdale still provide a priceless key to the Public Records, 
while the muniments in private hands which he was enabled to 
inspect, and which in many cases he so patiently transcribed, 
are, only too often, no longer accessible to ourselves.^ The 
results of his long labour are no unworthy part of that great 
legacy of learning for which the scholar of to-day is indebted 
to the famous antiquaries of the seventeenth century. 

The weakest point in the Baronage is that lack of critical 
treatment which is seen in Dugdale's use of monastic evidence. 
As himself the editor of the first Monasticon — although the 
materials are said to have been chiefly collected by Dodsworth — 
he was, no doubt, apt to place excessive reliance, not merely 
on * cartulary ' charters of more or less doubtful validity, but 
on those curious narratives which were woven by grateful 

1 At the London Congress of Historical Studies I read a paper on ' Historical 
Genealogy ', but have not yet published it. 

* Many of his transcripts are preserved in the Bodleian Library and were employed 
by me for my Geoffrey de Mandeville. 


* All rights reserved. 


monks about the lives of those who had founded a religious 
house. Nor was it only the pious founder, but also his immediate 
relatives, whom monks delighted to honour in those strange 
'histories', by which the uncritical genealogist has often been 
led astray. Indeed, it is insufficiently realized how much 
erroneous genealogy and absolutely fabulous history has found 
its way, through the Baronage, from the tales thus concocted 
into modern books which deal with the ancient baronage of 
England. Yet, even here, the marginal references put the 
reader on his guard against statements based only on monastic 

The great Benedictine abbey of St. John the Baptist, 
Colchester, * was founded towards the end of the eleventh century 
by Eudo, the son of Hubert de Ria, who was dapifer or sewer 
of William Rufiis '.^ Its cartulary, which has been privately 
printed for the Roxburghe Club, has hardly any preface and only 
a poor index of place-names and none at all of persons. I have 
dealt in the pages of this Review ^ with the early charters of 
the abbey, and Dr. Armitage Robinson (then dean of West- 
minster) has carried their critical treatment further still.^ In 
this paper, however, my object is to discuss the curious narrative 
concerning the founder and foundation of the house, which is 
found, not in the cartulary nor among the muniments of the 
abbey, but in a single manuscript in the British Museum,* where 
it is found at the end of the volume, ' in a hand of the sixteenth 
century '.^ Of its origin we know nothing. 

This narrative was known to Dugdaie, who used it in his 
Monasticon {editio prima), and cited it thence in his Baronage 
(1675). Morant, who thus came to know of it, drew upon it 
for his History of Colchester (1748), but the first historian to 
deal with it, and the first to criticize its statements, seems to 
have been Freeman, whose works on the reigns of the Conqueror 
and his successor were conceived on so vast a scale that he was 
enabled to examine the whole of the evidence (in print), good, 
bad, or indifferent, that might possibly bear upon his subject. 
It was, so far as I know, in his William Rufus (1882) that he 
finally and most fully expressed his opinion of the tale. 

In the meanwhile, Mr. Walter Rye, the weU-known Norfolk 
antiquary, was coming forward as an ardent champion of what 

* See the valuable history of this abbey contributed by Mr. Robert C. Fowler, 
O.B.E., F.S.A., of the Public Record Office staff, to the Victoria HiaUyry of Essex 
(ii. 93). « Ante, xvi. 721. 

* See his monograph on Gilbert Crispin (abbot of Westminster). 
« Cotton MS. D. viii, fo. 345. 

6 This statement is made in a paper on ' Medieval Colchester ' by Mr. Dukinfield 
Astley [Essex Arch. Trans, viii. 120), but seems, from what he says, to be taken from 
the CoitahgvA of Bomances in the British Museum (i. 230), a not inappropriate domicile ! 


he terms ' the Colchester Chronicle '. In a recently issued 
treatise -^ he claims that ' the reliability of this Chronicle ', when 
first attacked, ' was at once defended by ' himself, ' no answer 
appearing to ' his ' defence '. This article, it seems, was ' printed 
in 1871 '. It may not have occurred to Mr. Rye that historians 
have a better use for their time than writing replies to what he 
imagines to be convincing arguments. I can only hope that, 
as I happen to have a special knowledge of the period and the 
subject with which this ' Chronicle ' is concerned, I may be doing 
a service to the cause of English history by disposing once for 
all of Mr. Rye's pretensions. The mischief caused by these 
obstinate attempts to bolster up, in Freeman's words, ' a docu- 
ment which, in all points bearing on general history, is highly 
mythical'^ . . . 'wholly mythical',^ amply justifies plain speaking 
by those who have at heart the cause of historical truth. 

Mr. Rye's later onslaught on the ' attackers ', as he terms 
them,'' of the ' Chronicle ' appears in the form of an ' Appendix ' 
to his treatise on Norwich Castle,^ which is headed in the ' Con- 
tents ' ' The reliability of the Colchester Chronicle and justified ^ 
[sic] from the criticism of Freeman and Round '. The cause of 
his wrath, I gather from his list of governors, &c., of the castle, 
is that Eudo's brother, ' Hubert de Rye ', was placed in charge 
of the castle, according to the ' Chronicle ' (in 1074), and that 
the evidence of the ' Chronicle ' is not here accepted.' Mr. Rye, 
of course, has a right to his own opinion, but it is perfectly 
intolerable that he should bring a baseless charge of mala fides 
against those who do not share it. 

All that he can urge as proof is that — 

There is nothing unlikely on the face of it of [sic] the appointment 
and the fact [sic] of the existence of a charter dated before 1162 [sic], by 
which Hubert's son Henry granted the Constableship to Hubert de 
Bavent is the strongest possible evidence of its correctness.^ 

No such charter exists. All that Mr. Rye can urge is that 
' in 1330 ' Thomas de Bavent alleged the existence of a charter by 
which ' before the year 1196 [sic] Henry de Rye, son of Hubert 

* Norwich Castle (April 1921), pp. 36 b, 39 a. This appendix is in double columns, 
having been previously printed in a local newspaper. 

- Opening address to Historical Section of the Arch. Institute at Colchester 
(1876), reprinted in English Towns and Districts (1883), p. 410. 
' William Rufus (1882), ii. 463. 
« Norwich Castle, p. 37 a. * Ibid. pp. 33-62. 

• This and other freaks of grammar are due to Mr. Rye throughout. 

' ' After the flight of de Guader the chronicle of St. John's Abbey, Colchester, 
specially states that he was succeeded by (4) Hvhert de Rye. I am aware the 
credibility of this Chronicle has been denied by Freeman and doubted (except when 
it suits him) by Bound, so I propose to go into the question minutely in an appendix ' 
(p. 17). 

» Ibid. 



the Castellan of 1074, granted the Constableship by the following 
charter which ', says Mr. Rye, ' I translate from the copy set 
out ' by him.^ He has, however, to admit that the petition 
he had found ' is undated \^ and, on another page,^ he assigns 
to it a third date, viz. * before 1166 '. Later we are given a fourth 
date. Mr. Rye there asserts that Hubert's alleged constableship 
of the castle ' is most strongly corroborated by the fact [sic] 
Henry de Rye, probably before 1158-9 and certainly before 
his death in 1166, gave the castellanship to Hubert de Bavant ', 
adding that this ' grant bore no fruit,*. . . but the document 
remains as evidence '. Such is Mr. Rye's idea of ' the strongest 
possible evidence ' and most strong corroboration. 

In the meanwhile Mr. Dukinfield Astley had issued, in 1901, 
the Latin text of the tale, followed by an English translation.* 
Mr. Rye teUs us that his own version is ' reprinted by permission, 
with a few slight emendations ', from this translation. He 
does not, I observe, mention Mr. Astley's very sensible suggestion 
that * it is perhaps a laudatory account of the founder written 
by some monk of the abbey '.^ As a matter of fact, it does 
glorify ' Eudo ', the pious founder, his wife, Rohese, and his 
father Hubert (de Rye) ; this, indeed, seems to be its chief 
purpose. As I observed at the outset, we have always to be on 
our guard against the laudatory narratives concerning the 
founder or foundation of a religious house : they are more 
responsible for error than even spurious charters or the transcripts 
thereof. Mr. Rye, however, asserts, in his wrath, that 

Dr. Round's well-known aversion to all Monastic Chronicles and 
genealogies (which seem to act on him as red rags would to [sic] bulls) 
renders him incapable to [sic] believe the very definite statement, &c. 
(p. 49). 

It was, Mr. Rye tells us, in 1871 that ' the reliability of this 
Chronicle was first attacked ', and ' was at once defended ' by 
himself. He continues thus : 

Both Prof. Freeman and Dr. Round also about this time seems to have 
taken a very unreasoning and determined prejudice against this document. 

The quasi-literary partnership of the two men on the subject was 
not of long duration.' 

* p. 19. Mr. Rye does not ' set out ' the charter, but gives a brief abstract (which 
reads strangely) of its purport and witnesses in English. 

^ p. 20. 3 p. 24. 

* p. 39. This, indeed, is obvious from his own list of the castellans (pp. 17-20). 

* See Essex Arch. Trans, viii. 120-35. 

* Ibid. p. 120. I am not sure whether this suggestion was made by Mr. Astley 
or taken by him from the official ' Catalogue of Romances ', which he consulted for 
a description of the manuscript. 

' pp. 36 b, 37 a. 


To the readers of this Review there could be no more ludicrous 
suggestion than that of a * quasi-literary partnership ' between 
Fi'eeman and myself. It illustrates the reckless character of 
Mr. Rye's assertions. I need only add that, as a matter of fact, 
I was still of schoolboy age in 1871 and had never even heard 
of the ' Chronicle '. 

One has, in present conditions, to cut down as closely as 
possible what one commits to the press ; but it is absolutely 
necessary to expose the worst, at least, of Mr. Rye's statements, 
in order to vindicate the truth. According to him. 

Freeman says : 

(a) II is a family legend devised in honour of the house of Rye. 

(&) The story of the way in which Eudo gained the office of dapifer 
is almost too silly to tell. 

Later on, as will be seen in the following pages, he trims and modifies 
this opinion very greatly.^ 

Is this allegation true ? It is not and could not be true. For 
the two statements here attributed by Mr. Rye to Freeman are 
taken — though he does not say so — ^from The Reign of William 
RufiLS (ii. 463), which appeared in 1882. His fullest and most 
decisive rejection of the Colchester ' Chronicle ' is there found, 
nor is Mr. Rye able to cite any later verdict. Freeman, therefore 
cannot have trimmed or modified his opinion, as Mr. Rye alleges, 
' later on '. His critic, however, goes further ; he even writes, 
on the same page,"^ as follows : 

That Freeman, before he died, 'practically withdrew his case against the 
Chronicle can be shown in many places, e.g. vol. v, p. 39, . . . he goes out 
of his way to say : ' Here we see the lands which Eudo de Rye — Eudo 
of Colchester — the son of the faithful Hubert, received as the reward of 
his own and his father's loyalty.' A more complete volte face cannot be 
imagined ! 

The meaning of this is that Freeman, when he thus wrote, 
was thinking of the tale he had rejected, and that he ' practically ' 
accepted it ' before he died ' by declaring these lands to be the 
reward of the services set forth in that tale. It can obviously 
have no other meaning. This, however, I shall now show, was 
not what Freeman meant. The passage quoted by Mr. Rye — 
and stated, with his strange inaccuracy, to come from ' vol. v, 
p. 39, of The Norman Conquest ', is found on p. 39 of vol. iv 
(not V ^). We there find that Freeman appended to this passage 
a foot-note, in which the reader is referred to ' vol, ii, p. 249 '. 
On looking up this reference, we at once discover that what the 

' pp. 3ft-7. 2 p. 37 b. 

' One has to cite very exactly the volumes of the Norman Conquest on account of 
revision by the author. I quote here the ' second edition, revised ', of vols, ii (1870) 
and iii (1875), but the first edition of vol. iv (1871). 


historian had in mind, when he so wrote, was, not (as Mr, Rye 
alleges) the ' Chronicle ' which he had rejected, but Wace's 
Roman de Rou and its narrative of William's headlong flight, 
when he rode for his life from Valognes. 'As the sun rose', 
Freeman wrote, ' he drew near to the church and castle of 
Rye, the dwelling-place of a faithful vassal named Hubert,' 
Of him we further read : 

He welcomed his prince to his house, he set him on a fresh horse, he 
"bade his three sons ride by his side. . . . The command of their father 
was faithfully executed by his loyal sons. We are not surprised to hear 
that the house of Eye rose high in William's favour ; and we can hardly 
grudge them their share in the lands of England, when we find tfiat Eudo 
the son of Hubert, the King's Dapifer, &c., &c.^ 

I do not claim, in this instance, that Mr. Rye, when charging 
Freeman with an absolute volte face on the subject (p. 37), wilfully 
misrepresented the historian's true meaning ; because his action 
might be accounted for by carelessness or mental confusion. 
It is, however, obvious that Freeman, when he wrote as above 
in his fourth volume (1871), could not possibly be withdrawing, 
as Mr. Rye alleges, ' his case against the Chronicle ' ; for, in 
his Willifam Rufus (1882), more than ten years later, he was 
denouncing its evidence in no measured terms. Mr. Rye, 
moreover, cannot plead that he was imperfectly acquainted with 
William's flight through Rye ; for he here ' ventured to para- 
phrase it in rhyme '.- From these rhymes we learn that the 
Norman aristocracy were then in the habit of addressing one 
another in almost modern fashion. ' Ranoulf de Bessin ', on 
seeing Hubert, 

Speaking fairly, said — ' Tell us, Rye, 
Hast thou seen the Bastard riding past ? ' 

Commenting on the foot-note in which Freeman suggests that 

* there is a passage . . . which sounds mythical ', namely that 
Hubert, when thus questioned, puts the pursuers ' on a wrong 
scent ' — because ' this story is as old as the babyhood of Hermes ' 
— Mr. Rye denounces, in his graceful way, ' this extraordinary 
piece of silliness ' and observes of his victim that ' with this 
one stupid exception [sic] he admits the whole ! ' ^ 

It was, perhaps, unfortunate that, when rejecting the 

* Chronicle ', Freeman did not give in detail the reasons why 

' ii. 246-7. I do not know whether the reference, in vol. iv, to ' p. 249 ' of vol. ii 
is due to a misprint or to a difference of edition ; but the perfect correspondence of 
the two passages which I have quoted in the text should be carefully observed. When 
Freeman wrote in vol. iv (1871) of ' Eudo of Rye . . . son of the faithful Hubert ' and 
of ' his own and his father's loyalty ', he had in mind the ' faithful vassal named 
Hubert ' and ' his loyal sons ' of vol. ii (1870), to which passage, indeed, we are there 

" pp. 42 b-43 a. » p. 44 a. 


he had to do so ; but he probably thought it would be waste of 
time. In view of Mr. Rye's fresh treatise and his attempt to 
defend its accuracy, it is desirable to show, for once and all, the 
true character of the ' legend '.^ A few salient flaws will be 
sufficient for the purpose. Hubert, Eudo's father, is there said 
to have secm-ed the crown for the Norman duke by going on 
an embassy to Edward ' in wonderful state ', and to have been 
rewarded by the king with a grant of Ashe {Essce) in Hampshire.^ 
As to this embassy, Mr. Rye admits ^ that * there is no direct 
evidence for or against the statement ' : in other words, there is 
no corroboration of this notable story. He makes, however, 
the utmost of Edward's alleged grant of Ash (Hampshire) to 
Hubert.^ We first read that, because Freeman admits ' the 
massacre of the Normans at Guildford ' in 1036 (mentioned in 
the ' Chronicle '), ' . . . the fact that Ash is close to Guildford, 
the place of the massacre, is suggestive '.^ A foot-note to this 
statement explains that — 

Ash is five miles N.E. by E. from Farnham (now [sic] said to be in the 
Hundred of Woking in Surrey and on the Basingstoke canal). It is only 
about six miles from Guildford, &c., &c. 

In sober fact Ash, even ' as the crow flies ', is no less than eighteen 
miles (at least) westward (not 'N.E. by E.') from Farnham, and 
fully twenty -seven from Guildford. Even if it were ' close to 
Guildford ', which it is not, that ' fact ' could suggest nothing 
to any one but Mr. Rye.^ 

Immediately, however, before asserting that ' Ash is close 
to Guildford ', he denounces a ' terrible error of Freeman ', 
namely that he ' at first denied the gift to Hubert of Ash, but he 
had overlooked the fact that in Domesday, under Hants [sic], 
is this entry, " In Ovretune Eudo the son of Hubert holds Esse 
of the King " '. After two more sentences, Mr. Rye continues : 

Freeman, however, seems later to have found out his own mistake, 
for in vol. iii, p. 694 [misindexed p. 683], he sets out the history of the 
gift of Ash by the Confessor, and the visit of Hubert de Rye to England, 
and quotes in Domesday just set out [sic], adding . . . 

Yet even this is not all ; there is another blunder to come. 
Incredible though it may seem, Mr. Rye, when charging Freeman 

* It is twice so styled by Freeman in his William Rufus (ii. 463). 

« See Norm. Conq. iii. 694 ; William Rujiis, ii. 463. s p. 40 b. 

« pp. 38 a, 40 b his, and note, 43 b, 44 b, 51 a. « p. 40 b. 

• Mr. Rye's point is that his ' Chronicle ' says that at a meeting of the nobles 
in Normandy, no one but Hubert was willing to go to England, on a mission to 
Edward, because of the murder of Normans at Guildford in 1036. But the fact that 
this tragedy (in 1036) is admitted by Freeman and every one obviously does not 
prove the truth of the alleged assembly at some later time or aflford any support to 
the tale of Hubert's embassy. Nor could the actual position of Ash or even its alleged 
closeness to Guildford have any bearing on the subject. 


with having ' overlooked the fact that in Domesday under 
Hants ' [sic] is the entry concerning Ash (' Esse ') in the Hamp- 
shire Hundred of ' Ovretune ', adds at once ' the fact that Ash 
is close to Guildford '.^ To this ' fact ' he appends the foot-note 
with which I have dealt above. We there read that ' it is only 
about six miles from Guildford on the north slope of the Hog's 
Back, and it is noteworthy it is next to a village bearing the 
suggestive name of Normandy ', &c. This precision of state- 
ment removes all possible doubt as to which was the place of which 
Mr. Rye is here speaking. In the text it is first the Hampshire 
Ash, found in Domesday ' under Hants ' ; and then, even in the 
next line, it is the Surrey Ash. In the foot-note it is the Surrey 
Ash, ' only about six miles from Guildford ' ! More than twenty 
miles apart, the two places, of course, have nothing to do 
with one another. In this reckless confusion of the two we 
discover the clue to the meaning of the word ' now ' in this 
same foot-note. Ash, Mr. Rye there observes, is ' now [sic] 
said to be in the Hundred of Woking in Surrey '. That is to say 
that Mr. Rye's one and only Ash was in the heart of Hampshire 
in 1086, but is ' now ' found in Surrey ! He is thus enabled to 
denounce, after his ' facts ' as to Ash, Freeman's ' terrible 
error ' (p. 40 b), one of those ' glaring errors ' which he has 
' occasion to point out ' (p. 37 a). 

Is it true that ' Freeman seems later to have found out his 
own mistake ' ? It is not true. When he ' sets out the history ' 
of Hubert's embassy on the page cited,^ it is not because he accepts 
it. On the contrary, a year later (1876), he expressly states that 
* the embassies on which Hubert is sent between WiUiam and 
Eadward simply take their place among the Norman legends 
of the Conquest '.^ Mr. Rye, however, boldly insists that — 

The Colchester Chronicle I am now defending, says that Hubert was 
employed as an ambassador between the Duke and King Edward under 
the circumstance it sets out, and that he received from the latter a gift 
of land in Ash, which I shall substantiate.* 

Mr. Rye does not substantiate it; he does not even mention 
again this alleged gift to Hubert in his remaining pages.^ 
Mr. Rye's treatment of Freeman is here perfectly outrageous ; 
asserting that Freeman ' denied the gift to Hubert of Ash ' 
because ' he had overlooked the fact that in Domesday under 

' p. 40 b. 

* Viz. iii. 694. I have before me the ' second edition, revised ' (1875). 

* Address at Colchester 1 August 1876, reprinted in English Towns and Districts 
(1883), pp. 383, 410. In William Rufus (1882) he expressly styles the passage cit«d by 
Mr. Rye (viz. 'iii. 683') 'another legend' (ii, 463). The further passage quoted by 
Mr. Rye (from Norman Conqtiest, iii. 686) refers, not to Hubert's embassy, but to 
alleged trouble in Maine (' at Coenomanica ', says Mr. Rye !) in 1066. 

* p. 43 b. » pp. 44-62. 


Hants [sic\ is this entry : "in Ovretune Hundred Eudo the son 
of Hubert holds Esse of the King " ', he continues : 

I should imagine that this terrible error of Freeman arose because he 
did not find the entry in Ellis's Domesday (ii. 250), when [sic] it was 
unaccountably omitted, and that he did not trouble to look up the entry 
in the text itself.* 

The facts are these : when in the passage I have quoted 
above (viz. Norman Conquest, iii. 694), Freeman (as Mr. Rye 
was aware) cited the Domesday entry concerning the Hampshire 
Ash, he was careful to include the words which I have here 
italicized — 

The place is Ashe in Hampshire which appears in Domesday, 47, as 
held by Hubert's son Eudo, hut which was held T. R. E. hy a tenant of 
Earl Harold.^ 

These vital words are omitted by Mr. Rye (p. 40 b). They 
prove that, at King Edward's death, the land was held, not by 
Hubert, but by an English tenant, who held, not of the king, 
but of Harold the earl. ' I should imagine ', therefore (to quote 
Mr. Rye's words), ' that this terrible error ' was not Freeman's, 
but his own. It is curiously characteristic of the writer's careless- 
ness and haste. He even charges Ellis with here misleading 
Freeman by having ' unaccountably omitted ' what he terms 
' the entry '. Incredible though it may appear, Mr. Rye must 
actually imagine that the Ash entry cited above proves the gift 
of the land by King Edward to Hubert (as alleged in his precious 
' Chronicle '), although what it does prove is precisely the reverse, 
namely that Eudo had here obtained the land of an English 

In at least two places Mr. Rye goes further, by making 
Eudo, as well as Hubert, the pre-Conquest holder. He asserts 
that — 

It is clear that besides Ash Eudo held other possessions in England 
before the Conquest.^ 

Besides Ash Eudo had, before Domesday, held land T. R. E.* 

What is Mr. Rye's authority for alleging this pre-Conquest tenure 
of Ash by Eudo ? He cites none. Apparently he may even 
have mixed up the alleged tenures of Eudo and of his father 
Hubert, for he tells us that ' Hubert I . . . was probably living 
in 1060 ',^ and that ' Hubert (Eudo's father) owned 12 shops 
and solUrs in St. Mary Colechurch, London, ... to Shouldham 
Priory \sic\ and afterwards Geoffrey Fitz Piers . . . gave these 

» p. 40 b. 

* iii. 694. See also my translation of the entry in Victoria County History, Hants, 
i. 401 a : ' ^wacre held it of Earl Harold.' 

* p. 44 a. * p. 51 a. ' pp. 42, 44 a^ 


houses to Shouldham Priory '} This assertion is repeated on 
p. 44 b, where we read that this Geoffrey ' had founded ' that 
priory ' before 1201 '. Mr. Rye attaches great importance to 
this London property,^ and tells us that ' This London holding 
of Hubert's, which passed to Eudo, . . . was probably a large 
one ', and that Eudo, ' before the Conquest, held the church 
of St. Mary . . . called Niewechurch . . . and a stone house 
[sic] called Newchurch, which Eudo also gave to the Colchester 
monks '.^ He is evidently unacquainted with Dr. Armitage 
Robinson's notable appendix on ' the early charters of St, John's 
Abbey, Colchester ',■* in which that eminent scholar not only 
accepts my conclusions ^ but even finds it ' necessary to take 
a further step in the path of criticism which ' I ' have marked 
out '. He deals in sweeping fashion with the Colchester charters, 
not only speaking of ' the Colchester fabricator ' and ' the 
Colchester forgery ',^ but even (as dean of Westminster) urging 
a wholesale falsification by the Colchester monks, who were 
intent on thus supporting the claims of their own house against 
those of his abbey ! He holds that I have sufficiently exposed 
the charter of William Ruf us ' as a forgery ' and ' the forged 
charter of Bishop Richard ' ; but he boldly claims a longer list 
of these documents as impostures. 

St. John's, Colchester, . . . defended its claim by a forged charter 
of Will. II ; a forged charter of Hen. I, dated 1119 ; a forged foundation 
deed of Eudo Dapifer ; and, as we shall see, a forged charter of Richard, 
bishop of London.' 

The learned writer here adds a quotation from my own paper, ^ 
namely that — 

One would hardly expect Eudo to describe as his antecessor Hubert 
de Rye, who was his father. Moreover, so far as I know, we have no other 
evidence of Eudo's father preceding him as a holder of lands in England. 

It will be observed that this criticism directly affects Mr. Rye's 
assertion that Ash was granted (as his ' Chronicle ' alleges) by 
King Edward to Hubert, who was also (he claims) holding 
London property before the Conquest. 

The chief point of contention between the two abbeys seems 
to have been the London chm-ch of St. Mary Newchurch, after- 
wards known, it seems, as St. Mary Woolchurchhaw.^ The dean 

1 p. 42 a. 

* See his Preface, where he speaks of ' the London properties of Eudo d<ipifer '. 
» p. 44. 

* In his Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (1911), pp. 158-66. 

5 See ante, xvi. 721-30. « p. 162. ' p. 165. » Ante, xvi. 726. 

* See Newcourt, Repertorium, which is cited mth no addition, in the ' Account of 
the parish of St. Mary Woolchurchhaw ' prefixed to the transcript of its registers, 
by Messrs. Brooke and Hallen (p. xliii), issued in 1886. 


contends that ' it was granted to Westminster by a charter of 
Will. I and by two charters of WiU. II ', but that it ' somehow ' 
became alienated to the Colchester abbey, which defended its 
right by means of the above forgeries. * It is ', he writes, * in 
the forged charter of Eudo alone that any details regarding the 
gift or the donor appear : there we read " ecclesiam sancte 
Marie de Westchepinge Lundonie, que vocatur Niewecherche, 
concedente Ailwardo grosso presbitero ",' &c.^ 

To this he adds, in a foot-note, ' Compare the " Alfwardus 
cognomento Grossus " of the fictitious first charter of Will. I, 
quoted above, p. 158 '. On looking up this reference, we find 
the donor's name given in three forms, viz. ' Alwardus ', ' Agel- 
wardus ', ' Alfwardus '. No one, however, so far as I know, of 
those who have given his name, has observed that he must be 
identical with the ' Afswand Grossus of London ' who is found 
among the witnesses to a charter of William I (1081) in favour 
of St. Peter's, Ghent, which is now considered spurious.^ 
Mr, Rye asserts that Eudo ' held the church of St. Mary of 
Westcheping in London, called Niewechurch ', before the Con- 
quest, ' and had made All ward [sic] Grossus the parson of it ' 
(p. 44) ; but, here at least, he has certainly confused Eudo with 
his father Hubert, for Eudo's charter (spurious in its present 
form) speaks of ' Ailwardo grosso presbitero, qui in eadem 
ecclesia ex donatione . . . Huberti de Ria personatum consecutus 
fuerat '.^ Continuing the above citation, we find Mr. Rye 
observing, of St. Mary Newchurch, that * Davis (p. 79) notes that 
this purports to be the grant mentioned in a charter ascribed to 
1087-8, upon [sic] no. 306, as the witnesses are, with one omis- 
sion, the same as those in such charter '.'* More confusion and 
misquotation ! On 'p. 79 ' there is no such passage ; but on 
p. 73 Ml'. Davis appends to no. 278 a note that ' this is, with one 
omission, the same list of witnesses as in the forged charter 
Cotton xvi. 30 (no. 216) of 1080-5 '. In other words, Mi-. Davis 
holds that no. 306 (a charter of William II) confirms no. 278 
(a charter of WUliam I) : he also notes that the witnesses to 
no. 278 are the same (with one exception) as those to no. 216. 
JVIr. Rye does not even mention no. 216, but wrongly drags in 
no. 306, which has quite a different set of witnesses. He thus 

1 p. 165. 

^ See Davis, Begesta, no. 141 (pp. 37-8), where notes will be found on its text and 
its spurious character. 

^ Mr. Rye adds, in a foot-note, that ' there is what Davis calls (p. 441) a spurious 
charter of William II, confirming this grant, and this has been challenged by Round 
in the Eng. Hist. Rev. xvi. 725 '. The reference to ' p. 441 ' is, of course, wrong, and 
should be p. 109. Mr. Davis there duly names ' Niewechirche [Westcheap, London] ' 
among the gifts confirmed, and observes that ' The authenticity of the charter is 
challenged, with good reason, by Mr. Round {Eng. Hist. Rev. xvi. 725) '. 

* p. 44 b. 


muddles up two distinct propositions. Finally, although he 
records, in his preface, his special thanks to the ofl&cers of the 
GuildhaU Record Oflfice and the Guildhall Library for ' identify- 
ing the London properties of Eudo Dapifer ',^ including ' the 
church of St. Mary, of West [sic] Cheping in London, called 
Niewechurch ', we may be sure that the two charters ' (nos. 246 
and 272 ^) ' cited can only ' have a bearing on the East [sic] 
Cheap property belonging to his father Hubert mentioned 
before ' ^ (p. 46 b) in Mr. Rye's inaccurate mind. 

The second part of Mr. Rye's paper is devoted to ' Eudo 
Dapifer '.* Having now dealt ', he writes, ' with the elder 
Hubert ', he turns to ' the personal history of his son Eudo 
Dapifer ', the founder of St. John's Abbey, Colchester.^ ' I will 
now deal ', he writes, ' with what we know of the life of Eudo 
Dapifer.' * The most outstanding episode of Eudo's life — ^though 
one of which we know from Mr. Rye's ' Chronicle ' alone — is the 
daring step by which, in 1087, he secured for WiUiam II the 
English crown. When the Conqueror was on his death-bed, he 
accompanied WiUiam Rufus, according to this evidence, in 
his dash for his father's crown. He was, Mr. Rye asserts, ' the 
instrument of placing William II on the throne '.^ Such, indeed, 
is the claim. ^ What corroboration is there of this startling tale ? 
Mr. Rye produces none. The only test that we can apply is 
afforded by the definite statement that William de Pont de 
I'Arche was in charge, at the time, of the treasm-y at Winchester.^ 
As there is no corroboration of this statement, Mr. Rye shifts 
the onus probandi by alleging that Freeman ' affected to doubt 
the existence of WUliam de Pont de I'Arch and called him a 
" person I cannot find in Domesday " '.^° Now it is not the fact 
that Freeman doubted the ' existence ' of William. What he 
had to deal with here was the Chronicle's statement that, 
at the Conqueror's death (1087), William held the keys of 
the treasury at Winchester. He contented himself, therefore, 
not unreasonably, with pointing out that he could not find 
William's name in Domesday (1086). Mr. Rye affects to 

' p. 44. * This is a wrong reference. 

' Viz. on p, 42 a, where we read that ' This London holding of Hubert's, which 
passed to Eudo ', was ' in West [sic] Cheap market '. * pp. 42 b-52. 

= p. 44 b. 6 p. 45 b. ' p. 38 b. 

* Continuing the quotation in the text, Eudo, according to the ' Chronicle ', 
was ' the first ', in Mr. Rye's words, ' to cross over ' to England, and ' by working 
on or in collusion with William de Ponte-arce, the treasurer at Winchester, got the 
keys of the Treasury there ' (p. 38 b). 

» Mr. Rye's rendering of the passage in the ' Chronicle ' is that William and Eudo, 
'gaining the favour of William de Ponte Arce, received the keys of the Treasury 
at Winchester, which are in his custody ' (p. 34 a). 

'• pp. 38 b, 46 b. This quotation is taken from William Rufus, ii. 464. Mr. Rye 
retorts that William ' afterwards founded Southwark ' {sic). 


dispose of this criticism by urging that this William ' was 
a very real person, being the king's treasurer, sheriff, and chamber- 
lain, and references to him will be found in Round's Geoffrey de 
Mandeville, pp. 4, 11, 12, 46, 62, 234, 263, 265, 297'. This is 
a formidable list of references ; but, as Mr. Rye has looked them 
out, he must be perfectly aware that they almost all relate to 
Stephen's reign. Their actual date-limit is 1130-44, so that they 
range from forty-three to fifty-seven years after William's 
alleged action in 1087. 

It is, however, to his second argument ^ that I specially invite 
attention. It is this : 

What is still more to the point is that I can prove \sic\ he (i.e. William) 
was personally known to Eudo, for he had sat on a Commission with him 
in 1072. (See Davis's Regist. [sic], nos. 431-3, pp. 107-8.) 

This reference is most precise. If, however, the reader is 
prudent enough to verify it, he will discover, to his surprise, that 
William de Pont de I'Arche is not even mentioned ; nor, I may 
add, is he to be found in the index to the book. What can be 
the explanation ? I discovered it at last in another portion of 
Mr. Rye's treatise. We there read " that in ' Davis, No. 66 ', 

is mentioned as sitting on a Commission with Lanfranc and William de 
Archis.^ It is possible [sic] the latter was the William de Pont de I'Arche, 
afterwards treasurer of Winchester, mentioned in the Colchester Chronicle 
as helping Eudo in his scheme for getting the throne for Rufus, and whose 
very existence was doubted by Freeman.* 

Mr. Rye's proof, therefore, consists of a suggestion so wild 
that it is not even ' possible ' ! I need scarcely say that Arques 
and Pont de I'Arche are wholly distinct names ; Mr. Davis 
has several entries in his index, under ' Archis ' and ' Arques ' ; 
Mr. Freeman devoted a special appendix to ' The revolt of 
William of Arques ' ^ ; I myself have done the same in my 
Geoffrey de Mandeville.^ There is not, therefore, the slightest 
reason for supposing that the ' Willelmus de Archis ' of 1072 was 
William de Pont de I'Arche, who, moreover, witnessed a charter 
of 1144-7,^ a date which would give him an official career of 
wellnigh sixty years since his alleged action at Winchester in 1087. 

One need hardly pursue Eudo's career further ; but there 
is a gem in this treatise which it is impossible to omit. In 
Mr. Rye's biography of his hero, on p. 47, we read that 

» p. 39 a. ^ p. 45 b. 

^ The italics are Mr. Rye's. So is the style ' treasurer of Winchester '. 

* pp. 45-6. 

' Norman Conquest, vol. iii (2nd ed.), app. S (p. 673). 

« pp. 180, 188, app. V (p. 397) on ' William of Arques '. 

' See Geoffrey df Mandeville, p. 234 (cited by Mr. Rye). 


We now come to a mysterious charter ascribed to 1093-7 (Davis, 
no. 399, p. 101), by which ' Eudo Dapifer ' had seizin of the manor of 
Dereman (Notts.), which Lefstan his brother held. But this must refer 
to the other * Eudo Dapifer ', for I cannot trace any such brother, or that 
Eudo ever had anything to do with Dereman. 

It is not easy to do justice to such a rendering as this. Here 
are two brothers, with the Old English names of Deorman and 
Leofstan, of whom the latter has succeeded to a manor which 
' Dereman ' had held, and of which Eudo is now to have seisin. 
Mr. Rye, failing to understand Mr. Davis's abstract, converts 
' Dereman ' into a manor, and then — because the charter was 
' dated ' at Nottingham ^ — ^places that imaginary manor in 
' Notts.' ! As he then has to provide a ' brother ' for the English 
Leofstan, he finds him in the Norman Eudo, who, he adds, must 
be the other ' Eudo Dapifer ', of whom there seems to be no 
other mention (as such) in his treatise. 

The reader must remember that this criticism is evoked by 
the fierce and confident attacks on Mr. Freeman's work by 
a writer whose own blunders are incomparably worse. As is, 
of course, notorious, I have had occasion myself to correct the 
former's errors, so that no one can allege that I am biased in 
his favoiK. But when we read of the ' glaring errors ' that 
Mr. Rye has found in his work, and of its ' almost innumerable 
inaccuracies ', ^ it is time to speak plainly of Mr. Rye's own 
work. At the very outset, after quoting two passages in 
which Freeman criticized the ' Chronicle ', Mr. Rye alleges that 
' Later on, as will be seen in the following pages, he trims and 
modifies this opinion very greatly '.^ This is not the case, and, 
indeed, could not be so. For, although Mr. Rye is silent as to 
where 'Freeman says' &c.,'* these statements are derived from 
the latest of his well-known works, namely William RufiLS (ii. 463). 
It is not, therefore, surprising that a search through ' the follow- 
ing pages ' fails to reveal any change in Freeman's view of the 
' Chronicle '. The allegation, on the same page, that ' Freeman, 
before he died, practically withdrew his case against the Chronicle ' 
has been completely disposed of by me already in this paper. 

One can well imagine how Freeman, were he now alive, would 
himself have trounced his critic. To dwell on the former's many 
errors, when wholly irrelevant, is in no way to ' vindicate ' the 
* Chronicle ' ; it is, on the contrary, equivalent to admitting 
that its authority cannot be established and that Mr. Rye, 
as its champion, finds himself reduced to the device of diverting 
the reader's mind from the one and only issue. ^ This brings 
me to the passage in which he deliberately invites me to justify 

• See Mr. Davis's index, p. 157 c. * p. 37 a. 

3 pp. 36-7. * p. 36 b. Cf. p. 38 b. # » See pp. 37-8. 


my contention that his ' Chronicle ' is ' in part untrustworthy '.^ 
He himself has to admit that its two salient episodes — ^the 
embassy of Hubert de Rye to Edward and the tale that William II 
' by Eudo's zeal and energy is chosen consecrated and confirmed 
king in England ', or that Eudo was * the instrument of placing 
William II on the throne ' ^ — are whoUy without corroboration,^ 
Of the former he writes that * there is no direct evidence for or 
against the statement ' * ; of William II's accession he can only 
urge that ' though the business is generaUy ascribed to Lanfranc, 
it is not unreasonable to suppose Eudo had a hand in it '.^ In 
other words it is a mere guess. ^ 

Mr. Rye, however, insists on the ' attackers ' of the legend 
supplying more than proof that there is no corroboration of his 
Chronicle's chief statements ; he claims that those who reject 
its evidence must convict it of error. I must here explain that 
he seems unable to understand the position of those critics who — 
like myself and others — endeavour ' to disentangle facts from 
fiction'.' To myself Mr. Rye attributes five comments on the 
' Chronicle ', which he carefully numbers, which he places within 
quotation marks, and to each of which he is careful to append 
the reference. He then proceeds as follows : 

Freeman is dead, but I think I have a right to ask the survivor of the 
two attackers to give some further and better particulars in support of 
his five definite remarks just quoted.^ 

Those who are not familiar with Mr. Rye's productions will 
doubtless be surprised to learn that, of these ' five ' comments, 
one (no. 2) is actually not by me, but by Mr. R. C. Fowler, who 
has made a special study of monastic history ; three are inac- 
curately quoted,* and in three cases out of the five the reference 
is wrong ! ^° Lastly, incredible though it may seem, I am charged 
with two ' remarks ' which are one and the same.^^ Yet it is 

» p. 37 a. 2 pp 34 a, 38 b. 

' For I have disproved the allegations that Ash was granted by Edward to Hubert, 
that ' besides Ash, Eudo held other possessions in England before the Conquest ', 
and that ' he had sat on a Commission with William de Pont de I'Arche in 1072 '. 

« p. 40 b. » p. 39 a. - 

* Nevertheless Mr. Rye professes ' to tabulate all the important statements made 
in it (except the miracle), and place under each head the independent facts (sic) 
which corroborate it ' (p. 38 a). With these facts I have dealt in the text. 

' Victoria County History, Essex, i. 347. * p. 37 a. 

• e. g. my ' foundation histories ^ is quoted as ' foundation charters '. 

»• Viz. ' ii, p. 13 ' for ii, p. 93 (in no. 2) ; ' Id. p. 347 ' for ' i, p. 347 ' (in no. 3) ; 
' p. 347 ' for ' i, p. 347 '. 

(3) (.5) 

' Eudo's life is so embellished in ' The story of his (Eudo's) life is so 

the Chronicle that it is difficult to distin- embellished in the Chronicle of the 
guish [sic] fact from fiction {Id. p. 347).' House founded by him that it is difficult 

to disentangle fact from fiction. . . . 
p. 347.' 


in this column that Mr. Rye informs us that ' Freeman's inac- 
curacies are indeed almost innumerable '. 

As for myself, I need only say that, here again,^ Mr. Rye 
repeats his offensive charge ^ that I ' decide in favour of the 
Colchester narrative on another point when it suits ' me * to 
believe in it '. This point, we find,^ is that Dugdale erred with 
regard to Eudo's wife, 

as pointed out by Round (in his Geoffrey de MandevUle, p. 470), who now 
admits that the Chronicle was perfectly right on this point. . . . 

So the Chronicle proves to be correct after all ! 

So much for the charges against the Chronicle. . . . 

This implies — ^and can only imply — that I had rejected the 
Chronicle's statement that Eudo's wife was a Clare, not a Giffard, 
but have been forced to admit that the Chronicle's statement 
is right. Nowhere, the reader will find, in my Geoffrey de Mande- 
vUle is there anything of the kind ; there are not even in that 
volume ' 470 ' pages. I have written, probably, more than 
any one on the early Clares, and I have never doubted, or even 
questioned, the identity of Eudo's wife. Dugdale, so far as I 
know, has been the only writer to make this mistake, and Dug- 
dale's error was duly corrected by Hornby in his Remarks on 
some of the numberless errors and defects in Dugdale^s Baronage 
(1738), This correction was duly noted by Morant in his History 
of Colchester (1748). Eudo's wife is well known to have been 
Rohese, daughter of Richard Fitz Gilbert (de Clare)* by Rohese, 
daughter of Walter Giffard. 

Mr. Rye claims that he has ' a right to ask ' me ' to give 
some further and better particulars in support ' of my conclusion 
that his ' Chronicle ' is ' in part untrustworthy ', so that ' it is 
difficult to disentangle facts from fiction '.^ By all means. 
It was shown by me above that ' the credibility of this Chronicle ' 
was thus ' minutely ' examined and (as he claims) vindicated by 
him,^ for the reason expressly that Hubert de Rye ' is asserted 
by it to have been placed in charge of Norwich Castle, in 1074, 
and that this statement is found nowhere else.® He was, there- 
fore, bent on proving that the ' Chronicle ' is a trustworthy 

In such cases he is apt to argue that there is nothing ' against 

» p. 37. * From p. 17, » p. 41 a. 

* Dugdale's mistake consisted of confusing mother and daughter and making 
Eudo marry the widow (instead of ' daughter ') of Richard. 

* Mr. R. C. Fowler holds that much of it ' appears to be fiction ', and Dr. Armitage 
Robinson (1911) observes that 'it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction 
in Eudo's story '. 

* ' in my vindication of the Chronicle ' (p. 44 b). 

' Brother of Eudo de Rye, alias ' Eudo dapifer '. 
' Norwich Castle, p. 17. 


the statement',^ or that 'the match itself was a very prob- 
able one, for the parties were of approximately equal rank and 
wealth ' ^ or that ' it is possible ' that William de Archis was 
identical with William de Pont de I'Arche,^ which is quite 
impossible.^ Accordingly, when he has to deal with the 
statement in his ' Chronicle ' that Hubert de Rye was put 
in charge of Norwich Castle ' after the flight of de Guader ', 
he claims ' there is nothing unlikely on the face of it of \sic\ 
the appointment '.^ Let us see. It is common ground that 
Norwich was placed in charge of William Fitz Osbern ® (earl of 
Hereford). Mr. Rye asserts that he was succeeded by 

(2) Ralph de Guader, whose wife Emma was daughter of this William 
Fitz Osbern, held the castle against the king after his flight in 1074-5.' 

Now it is a fact that Ralph fled on the approach of the royal 
forces in 1075 ; but how could he hold * the castle against the 
king after his flight ' therefrom and when, moreover, the king 
was in Normandy, not in Norfolk ? But Mr. Rye's grammar, we 
must remember, is a law unto itself. It was, of course, Emma 
herself who stood the siege.® 

Let us now return to Mr. Rye's chapter on ' The governors, 
castellans and keepers ' of Norwich Castle.^ We there read 
that ' at the same time that the castellanship was put in the 
charge of Hubert de Rye it would seem (Hudson, p. vi ^°) that 
Wm. Fitz Osbern, the father-in-law of Ralph de Guader, was 
given charge of the county '. Now Mr. Rye styles Hubert 
'the Castellan of 1074 '^^ on the ground of the Chronicle's state- 
ment that to him ' was committed the tower of Norwich after 
the flight of Ralph de Waer ',^" which flight, we have seen, he dates 
'in 1074-5 '}^ As a fact, Ralph fled from Norwich in 1075, 
so that the alleged castellanship of Hubert eannot have begun 
earlier than that. Therefore it also cannot have been earlier 
than 1075 that William Fit« Osbern ' was given oharge of the 

* p. 40 b, ' there is no direct evidence for or against the sta;tement '. 

* p. 42 a. » p. 45 b. 

* See p. 13 above, where I have shown he actyally finds in this statement valid 

* p. 17. 

* The authority for this is William of Poitiers, who is dulj' cited by Freeman. 
' p. ]7. 

» See, for a fuller account of all this, Freeman, Norman Conqtiest, iv (ed. 1871), pp. 
64, 67, 73, 252-3, 573-84. William Fitz Osbern was entrust«d with Norwich (pp. 72-3) 
before the king left for Normandy in March 1067 ; but when the Danes landed in 
1069 (c. August) ' William Fitz Osbern was no longer in command ' there. The man 
who then ' commanded at Norwich ' was ' Ralph of Wader ' (pp. 252-3). 

» p. 17. 

1* I am in no way responsible for this citation, nor do I know from which paper it 
is taken. 

» p. 79. ^^ pp. 17, 33 b. " p. 17. 



county '. To continue the above quotation from p. 17, we are 
told of this appointment, that * unluckily no reference is given 
for this statement, but it is very probable ' ! Mr. Rye's curious 
argument fares badly here ; for, as William Fitz Osbern left 
England late in 1070 and was slain at the battle of Cassel early 
in 1071, even Mr. Rye can hardly claim it as 'very probable' 
that he was given charge of Norfolk in 10.75. 

Mr. Rye demands that I should ' give some further and better 
particulars ' of the Chronicle's errors. By all means. 

1. The very statement therein which led him to defend its 
acciu-acy is itself an instance of its errors. For there is not only 
no corroboration of its statement that Hubert de Rye (Eudo's 
brother) was placed in charge of ' the Tower of Norwich ' after 
the flight of Ralph : ^ there is actually evidence as to the garrison 
(and the commanders of that garrison) left in charge of Norwich 
Castle after its surrender to the royal forces in 1075.^ Freeman 
sets forth, quite acciu"ately, the evidence on both these points, 
and — unluckily for his critic — ^it is absolutely certain that 
Mr. Rye must have been well aware that the historian had done 
so. For he himself, in another place,'"* actually claims as a 

corroboration of the statement that the Castellanship of Norwich was 
granted to Hubert de Rye . . . that Robert Malet, who was one of those who 
took a leading part in the attack of the castle, when held by Ralph de 
Guader,* was one of those entrusted with the duty of garrisoning it (Free- 
man's Norman Conquest). 

On verifying this reference, we find that the passage is that 
which I have already quoted in the text. It seems to be the 
source of Mr. Rye's anger that Freeman here relies on the well- 
known chroniclers' statements, as to the strong garrison left 

* p. 33 b. It should be observed that the Latin runs ' turris Norwici ', for, as I have 
shown in my paper on ' Tower and Castle ' {Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 328-46), the 
distinction between the two words is of importance. The keep of Norwich Castle 
(of which there is a striking view in Mr. Rye's treatise) is as truly a turris as the tower 
of London or those of Colchester or of Rouen. But Mrs. Armitage rightly observes 
that ' the magnificent keep ... is undoubtedly a work of the twelfth century ' {Early 
Norman Castles, p. 175), and Mr. Rye, who compares it with Castle Rising, suggests 
1150 as the probable date of the l^ep {Norwich Castle, pp. 8, 9). How then can this 
turris (a term which well describes it) have been standing so early as 1075, as the 
' Chronicle ' implies ? 

« Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 684: 'The castle was occupied by two of the 
besiegers, Bishop Geoffrey and Earl William of Warren [sic]. With them was joined 
Robert Malet. . . . The garrison which they commanded consisted of three hundred 
men-at-arms, and a body of halistarii and other engineers. Norwich was held in safe 
keeping till the king's return.' Freeman had already explained (p. 581) that ' Besides 
William of Warren and Robert the son of William Malet, the two warlike bishops, 
Odo of Bayeux and Geoffrey of Coutances, led forth a vast host of both races to 
attack the Earl of Norfolk '. * p. 39 b. 

* The statement on p. 17 that ' the castle had been stormed and taken by Robert 
Malet ' is, of course, erroneous ; nor was Earl Ralph de Guader holding the castle 
when it was besieged. 


at Norwich and the names of its commanders, ignoring hia 
precious ' Chronicle's ' statement that Hubert de Rye was left 
in charge. It is impossible to reconcile the two conflicting 
statements ; Mr, Rye, therefore, follows the ' Chronicle ' and 
deliberately ignores the contemporary writers.^ 

2. As with Norwich so with Nottingham. Orderic, who was 
a contemporary chronicler, and the value of whose evidence, 
Freeman writes, is here ' constantly increasing ', states that 
early in William's reign, ' Rex Snotingheham castrum con- 
struxit el Guillelmo Peverello commendavit '. Freeman, there- 
fore, tells us that ' the command of the new fortress was placed 
in the safe hands of William Peverel '.^ Mrs. Armitage, similarly, 
following Orderic's statement, asserts that William, who built 
the castle, ' committed it to the keeping of William Peverel '.^ 
But, alas ! Mr, Rye's ' Chronicle ', on the contrary, informs us 
that to Eudo's brother, Ralf, ' was committed the custody of 
the castle and the county of Nottingham ',* as to another brother, 
Hubert, ' was committed the tower of Norwich '.^ Mr. Rye, 
who shows himself so familiar with the works of Freeman 
and Mrs. Armitage, must have been well aware of this most 
inconvenient evidence : drastic treatment was here required. 
' To enable the reader ', in his own words, ' to judge how 
unfair and unreliable are the objections taken against the 
Chronicle ',^ he merely suppresses or ignores Orderic's definite 
statement and leaves the reader to infer that he has completely 
disposed of all ' objections taken against it ', although its ' state- 
ments were in the first instance strenuously denied by Free- 
man 'J 

3. There is no better established fact at the time than that 
the Conqueror died at Rouen (9 September 1087),® though his 
corpse was taken to Caen for burial.^ The ' Chronicle ', however, 
definitely asserts that William ' died at Caen'.-^^ Mr. Rye repeats 
this statement ^^ and coolly ignores the evidence of the authentic 
chroniclers, on whom Freeman relied. This alone should be 
sufficient to condemn his ' Chronicle ' and his methods, 

4. According to the ' Chronicle ' Eudo laid the first stone of 

* His claim that Robert Malet's presence is a ' corroboration ' of the statement in 
the ' Chronicle ' will be found on pp. 39-40. It is contrary to fact that Henry de 
Rye's mother was fined in 1120 because he had ' sided with Robert of Normandy '. 

« Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 200. 

* Early Norman Castles, p. 176. 

* ' cui commissa est custodia castelli et comitatus Notingeham.' 

" pp. 33 b, 39 a, b. « p. 38 a. ' p. 39 a. 

» See Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 704r-12. » Ibid. pp. 714^21. 

>« p. 34 a. 

" p. 38 b : ' William I died at Caen.' It is worth noting that William of Malmes- 
bury speaks of the Conqueror as ' ultima valetudine decumbente ', a word which seems 
to have suggested the Chronicle's ' decumbente rege Willelmo apud Cadomum '. 



St. John's Abbey, ' his wife Rohaisia the second, Gilbert 
the Earl \sic\ brother of Rohaisia,^ the third ', &c.,- in 1097. 
Now it is absolutely certain that this Gilbert (son of Richard 
Fitz Gilbert, the Domesday head of the house) was neither 
an English earl nor a Norman comte and was not styled comes.^ 
The ' Chronicle ', Mr. Rye observes, states ' that Eudo married 
Rohaisia, daughter of Richard, son of Earl Gilbert de Clare '.* 
Here it is not his ' Chronicle ' but his own dreadful confusion 
that is responsible for the error : nowhere, so far as I know, 
has it ever been suggested that the father of the Domesday 
Richard was styled ' Earl Gilbert de Clare ',* In his eagerness 
to convict others of error Mr. Rye plunges into hopeless con- 
fusion ; on p. 41 b he asserts that I have been led into ' extra- 
ordinary error by Freeman's vague denunciations and Dugdale's 
error in . . . saying that Eudo married Rohaisia Giffard '. Yet, 
side by side with this statement, he admits that I have ' pointed 
out ' Dugdale's error. ^ Finally, Mr. Rye actually observes that — 

It may be as well to clear up here a passage in Feudal England, p. 575, 
referring to the Clare pedigree. Eound states t^at, &c., &c. ... To save 
confusion it may be well to point out that this Rohesia who married 
Geoffrey de Mandeville ' must not be confused with her kinswoman of the 
same name who also married the first Geoffrey de Mandeville [!], 

I must here enter a most energetic protest against Mr. Rye, 
of all men, claiming 'to save confusion ' in the minds of my 
readers by comments which reduce the facts to unintelligible 

Satis superque. In order to ' vindicate ' this ' Chronicle ', 
which glorifies the house of Rye, Mr. Rye hurls reckless charges 
at the late Mr. Freeman, whose errors, however numerous they 
may be, are far exceeded by his own. Even in this short treatise, 
when denouncing ' Freeman's inaccuracies ' as ' almost innumer- 
able ', he selects ' his amazing statement ' about the Jews in 
England as proof that ' he did not know ' that such names as 
' Manasses ' and ' Samson ' are found in Domesday. From this 
we learn that his critic has not heard of the names borne by the 
counts of Guines or the house of Biset, and that even the famous 
Abbot Samson ^ would be taken by him for a Jew. On the subject 

* Gilebertus comes Kohaisiao frater, » p. 34 b. 

» Although there has been some confusion, I have shown that the Clare earldom 
(of Hertford) was first created by Stephen {Geoffrey de Mandeville). 

* p. 41 a. 

' On p. 48 a Mr. Rye claims that the Chronicle's erroneous statement as to ' Earl 
[sic] Gilbert of Tonbridgo ' laying one of the stones is ' corroborated ' by another 
chronicle ' which describes Gilbert as Gilbert de Clare ' {not as earl) ! 

* p. 41 a. 

» Namely ' the first earl of Essex ', who is the subject of my book. 
» Compare Rye's Suffolk Fines, pp. 2-3, for Abbot Samson. In 1096 a Samson 
became bishop of Worcester. 


of castle-guard ^ Mr. Rye observes that I have ' kindly corre- 
sponded ' with him on it, and, indeed, I have more than once 
spent much time on trying to explain it to him ; but as he 
restricts what he terms his ' own independent researches ' to 
' Castle Guard service in Norfolk ' — which, after all, is not 
England — ^he is, of course, ' not yet convinced ' (p. 5).^ Of 
the nature of these researches I need only say that he has 
discovered on the Pipe Rolls that 'in 1158 the Knights of the 
Bishops [sic] of Norwich and of the Abbot of St. Edmund [sic] 
were actually paid for their castle-guard services '.^ This 
is so astounding a statement that we turn to his own extracts 
from the Pipe Rolls on p. 13, where we read : 

1157 [sic]. Allowed for payments to the king's knights who held the 
castle of Norwich— £51. 12. 0. (Pipe Roll, 4 Hen. II, 126.) Similarly 
£161 85. was allowed to the king's knights who held the castle of 
Framingham [sic]. 

The (printed) Pipe Roll (1158) shows (p. 126) that the latter 
sum should be £16 18s. — a very different figure. As for 'the bishops 
of Norwich and the abbot of St. Edmund ', neither they nor 
their knights are here so much as mentioned ; the alleged pay- 
ment to them, 'in 1158 ', is but sheer invention on the part of 
Mr. Rye.* 

Whether ho is dealing with ancient or with modern names, 
Mr. Rye's utter carelessness is almost beyond belief. When 
Louis, son of King Philip Augustus, joined the English barons 
in 1216, Mr. Rye speaks of him as ' King Lewis ' ; ^ in his 
chronological list of the ' Governors ', &c., of Norwich Castle, 
he states ^ that in ' 1362 — Sir John Howard had a grant of 
the Constabulary and keeping of the Castle on 3 February, 
1 Edward IV ', but, on the opposite page, that in ' 1464 — Sir 
John Howard was constituted Constable '.^ Mr. Freeman's 
critic is too negligent of a well-known historian of our own time 
to cite accurately even her name : in three successive paragraphs 
we read of 'Mr. F. Norgate ', of ' F. Norgate ', and of ' Miss 

* This is dealt with in chapter ii (pp. 5-7) of his treatise. 

* His theory is that because, in Norfolk, ' much the greater part of the lands 
which owed this service were the lands belonging to churches such as the Bishop 
of Norwich, the Abbot of Bury ', &c., these services ' in early days were a substitution 
for the active military services expected from lay barons ' (p. 5). This view is, 
obviously, due to mental confusion between non-combatant ecclesiastics and their 
militant knights. Mr. Rye, however, actually imputes this view to myself, citing 
my paper on ' The Oxford Debate on Foreign Service ' (Feudal England, pp. 528-38), 
which is not even concerned with the service of ' castle guard ' ! 

» p. 6. 

* On the Pipe Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I) Hamo de St. Clair accounts for the farm of 
Colchester, which was then £40 (Madox, Exchequer, 1711, p. 226, whence Morant 
duly quotes it in his History of Colchester). Mr. Rye makes it ' £190 3s.' (p. 49 b) ! 

' pp. 20, 21, 25. 6 p. 22. ' Mr. Rye is responsible for the italic type. 


Norgate '/ so that one is not surprised to read, on the next 
page, that, ' unluckily ', she ' does not mention the date ' of the 
attack on Norwich by the Flemings under Hugh Bigod, so that 
' we are led to guess it from Blomfield ' and ' Jordan de [sic] 
Fantome '.^ Mr. Rye, therefore, cannot even have heard of the 
great rebellion against Henry II (1173-4).^ He proceeds to assert 
that, according to ' Aifigevin Kings, i. 284 ', Hugh, ' who had 
but a few months before been foremost among the supporters 
of Stephen, seized Norwich Castle '. Yet on the opposite page 
(and on p. 8) we find this episode assigned to ' 1136 ' and ' F. Nor- 
gate ' asserted by Mr. Rye to state that Stephen took the castle 
from Hugh * ' and gave the town and borough to his own third 
son, William de Blois ', who died ' soon after the siege of Toulouse 
in 1168'^ [sic]. Mr. Rye observes, quite gravely, that 'there 
is great confusion here ' ! "^ Mrs. Armitage is carefully named 
' Miss Armitage ' throughout ' in each reference to her valuable 
work on Early Norman Castles (1912). It is not, therefore, 
surprising that Freeman's critic should write : 

Miss \sic\ Armitage (loc. cit.) states that we find from Domesday that 
no less than 113 houses ' were destroyed for the site of the Castle ', but 
I cannot trace any such entry {Norwich Castle, p. 8). 

There is nothing to show to what passage ' loc. cit.' refers, 
but on p. 173, where it is found, the author not only cites the 
Domesday entry, but actually prints it in extenso in a foot-note ! 
Freeman himself does the same.^ I have now sufficiently illus- 
trated Mr. Rye's methods. When he asserts that ' Freeman's 
inaccuracies are indeed almost innumerable ',^ we can safely reply 
that his own inaccuracies are here incomparably worse : he 
wildly discharges his assertions in the hope, apparently, that no 
one will trouble to test their accuracy. Indeed, he has himself 
admitted that this is the method he employs ; he tells us in an 
ingenuous passage that — 

» p. 18. " p. 19. 

' It is, no doubt, not easy to follow the cbronology in Miss Norgate's work, but in 
this case (ii. 155-6) she appends a foot-note, in which the capture of Norwich is assigned 
to ' this summer of 1174 ', and Jordan Fantome is charged with misdating it. Her 
'map to illustrate the rebellion of 1173-4 ' will be found facing p. 149 of vol. ii. 

♦ p. 18. 

* The date of the Toulouse campaign was 1159 (not 1168). Mr. Rye states that — 
' By F. Norgate and others ' William ' has been called the natural son of Stephen, but 
I think there is no warrant for this ' (p. 18). This mistake has been sometimes made ; 
but not, so far as I know, by Miss Norgate (see Angevin Kings, i. 430, 469). 

• See pp. 18, 21. The fearful confusion here is due to Mr. Rye, who first deals 
with Hugh Bigod's retention of the castle against Stephen in ' 1136 ' (p. 18), then with 
its surrender to Henry II ' in 1155-6 ', and finally (p. 19) with its capture in ' 1174 ', 
after which he introduces its resistance to Stephen, early in his reign, all over again I 

' pp. 5, 8, 12, 13, 17. 

» Norman Conquest (1811), iv. 67-8. Domesday repeats the phrase ' in occupatione 
castelli' (ii. 116). » p. 37. 


Of making of mistakes there is no end. Am I not competent to say 
tliis, having made so many myself ? But luckily not many have yet been 
found out, for people don't often verify their own references, let alone 

It is, no doubt, perfectly true that historians cannot be expected 
to test his statements in detail ; but on this he has, here at last, 
relied once too often. When he boasts that no one has ventured 
to answer his defence of the ' Chronicle ' in 1871,^ his fatal rashness 
betrays him : when he asserts, of Freeman's rejection of the 
' Eudo ' legend, that ' further consideration (and possibly 
a perusal of my article in defence of the Chronicle, printed in 
1871) seems to have changed his opinion once more ',^ his asser- 
tion is contrary to fact. 

It is simply and absolutely untrue (1) 'that Freeman, before 
he died, practically withdrew his case against the Chronicle ' ; * 

(2) that ' he trims and modifies his opinion ' of it ' very greatly ' ; ^ 

(3) that the Chronicle's statement ^ that at ' a great assembly 
of nobles ' in Normandy ' the Duke finds only Hubert [de Rye] 
willing to perform the embassy ' is ' confirmed by Freeman 
himself ' ; ^ (4) that Freeman ' overlooked ' the Domesday 
entry as to Ash ; (5) that 'this terrible error of Freeman arose 
because he . . . did not trouble to look up the entry in the text 
itself ' ; (6) that ' it was unaccountably omitted ' in ' Ellis's 
Domesday (ii. 250)';^ (7) that Eudo 'sat on a commission 
with ' William de Pont de I'Arche in 1072, as Mr. Rye claims to 
have discovered ; (8) ' that besides Ash, Eudo held other posses- 
sions in England before the Conquest '.® This last is perhaps 
the worst case of all : it illustrates to perfection Mr. Rye's 
methods. The extremely definite statement in his ' Chronicle ' 
that Edward gave to Hubert ' his mansion in Essce ' (the 
Hampshire Ash) ^° is of the utmost importance as a test of 
its veracity. It seems to be, if true, the only evidence that 
supports Hubert's alleged embassy. Mr. Rye, accordingly, 
charges Freeman here with a ' terrible error ' and Ellis with 
' unaccountably ' omitting the Domesday evidence confirming 
the gift ; ^^ he falsely adds that ' Freeman seems later to have 
found out his own mistake ' {ibid.). As a matter of fact, far 

* Norfolk Songs, Stories, and Sayings (1897), p. 92. 

* ' No answer appearing to my defence ' (p. 36 b). 

» p. 39 a. « p. 37 b. » p. 37 a. « 33 a. 

' p. 40 b. What Mr. Rye has to prove is that this assembly was held and that 
Hubert took his alleged action at it. The events at Guildford long before (i.e. in 1036) 
are not denied, but do not in any way confirm the tale of Hubert's action at this 
alleged assembly. 

» What Mr. Rye here means is Ellis's ' Introduction ' to Domesday ; but the 
reference (ii. 250) is wrong, and the alleged omission is an unfounded charge. 

» p. 44 a ; cf. p. 51 a. " p. 38 a. " p. 40 b 


from overlooking the' Domesday entry on Ash, Freeman at least 
as far back as 1874^ gave an English version of this entry,^ 
which shows Ash ' as held by Hubert's son, Eudo, but which ivas 
held T. R. E. by a tenant of Earl Harold '. In Mr. Rye's version, 
the italicized portion of this entry is suppressed. Instead of 
corroborating his Chronicle's statement, it actually proves that 
statement to be false. For it proves that neither Hubert nor 
Eudo held Ash before the Conquest. 

Again, instead of finding out (as Mr. Rye alleges) ' his own 
mistake ', his * terrible error ', later on. Freeman resolutely and 
quite rightly rejected Hubert's alleged embassy in 1882 and 
1883,^ no less confidently than he had done in 1874.* 

It is perhaps on account of the enormous use that Mr. Rye 
has made of the Regesta Regum that he has gratefully refrained 
from setting Mr. Davis also in the pillory, together with Freeman 
and myself. For we are all alike guilty of preferring the evidence 
of Lanfranc to that of his precious ' Chronicle '. Lanfranc, it 
is true, was on the spot in 1075 and was in charge of the general 
operations when Norwich Castle fell : of the date or authorship 
of the ' Chronicle ' we know absolutely nothing. But while, on 
the other hand, Lanfranc tells us who were the three magnates 
left in charge of the royal garrison and ignores Hubert de Rye, 
the ' Chronicle ' alleges that Hubert de Rye was placed in com- 
mand of the garrison. Mr. Rye, therefore, ignores the direct 
statement of Lanfranc and takes his stand on the ' Chronicle '. 
It is expressly on account of this flat contradiction that he sets 
himself to vindicate ^ the authorship of the whole document 
' in an appendix '.^ 

One of the distinctive features of an old-world antiquary is 
that he cannot grasp what is meant by ' authority ' ; for him 
one authority is as good as another. I have only room for one 
example. Mr, Rye, we have seen, complains (p. 19) that, because 
Miss Norgate does not, ' unluckily ', mention the date of the 
great rebellion against Henry II (in 1173-4), 'wo are led to 
guess it from Blomfield, iii, p. 32 ', &c. Can there be, in these 
days, any other writer who would instinctively try to ' guess ' 
from ' Blomfield ' the date of a landmark in English history ? 
The strange thing is that he had only to tiu-n to a paper edited 
by himself (1908) in his Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, "^ to learn 
that this formidable rebellion, which threatened to become 
* a revolution ', broke out ' in 1173 '.® 

* See his preface to 2nd edition of Norman Conquest, vol. iii, for this date. 
« Ihid. p. 694. 

* William Rufus, ii. 463 ; English Towns and Districts, p. 410. 

* See above. « p. 17. 

" pp. 33-52. ^ » Second Series, part 3, p. 21. 

» Mr. Killick, the author, naturally referred to Stubbs for the date. 


It has fallen chiefly to Freeman to deal with this legend 
of Eudo and his father Hubert de Rye. Others, however, when 
referring to it, have expressed a similar opinion : Mr. L. W. 
Vernon Harcom-t, in 1907, printed from the Cottonian MS. 
part of what he termed ' the Colchester tract ', as ' of very uncer- 
tain authority ', and observed that, in it, * the story of how Eudo 
acquired his office from Fitz-Osbern ' is ' an obvious fabrication ' ; ^ 
in the same year Mr. R. C. Fowler, of the Public Record Office, 
wrote of the Colchester story, that ' Much of this appears to be 
fiction';^ lastly, in 1911, Dr. Armitage Robinson approached 
the question from another point of view, in an appendix to 
his Gilbert Crispin on ' the early charters of St. John's Abbey, 
Colchester '.^ His sweeping exposure of ' the Colchester forgery ' 
and ' the Colchester fabricator ', ' the compiler or compilers of 
these forgeries ', suggests a probable origin for the Colchester 
legend, of which he only says that ' it is difficult to distinguish 
between fact and fiction in Eudo's story '.* When, therefore, 
we seek to discover a probable date for the fabrication of the 
legend, we may perhaps find a clue in the late period suggested 
by Dr. Armitage Robinson for the forged Colchester charters. 
I gather that, in his opinion, ' the Colchester forgery ', as he styles 
the charter of 1119, in its present form cannot be earlier than 
the fourteenth century.^ He points out that ' there can be no 
doubt that the Colchester fabricator had the so-called third charter 
of Edward the Confessor as his authority ' when he concocted the 
charter to St. John's Abbey in its present form. 

I would suggest that when Dr. Armitage Robinson arrives 
at his conclusion that ^ the compiler or compilers of these [Col- 
chester] forgeries must have had ' access to genuine documents, 
which ' furnished the necessary historical setting ', he supplies, 
however unintentionally, a possible clue to the method by which 
this legend was concocted. For instance, the introduction of 
William de Pont de I'Arche as in charge of the royal treasury 
at Winchester in 1087 was doubtless suggested by the fact that, 
at Stephen's accession (1135), an officer of the same name held 
the same office and played the same part as in the legend of 
Eudo.^ On the other hand, it is from William of Malmesbury, 

* His Grace the Steward and the Trial of Peers, pp. 15, 39. 

* Victoria County History, Essex, ii. 93 a. 

» pp. 158-66, « p. 136. 

* Of. cit., pp. 159-62. In my Commune of London and other Studies (p. 318) I have 
suggested that the ' Modus tenendi Parliamentum ', in its present form, dates from 
no earlier period than c. 1386. 

* See my Geoffrey de Mandeville. At the intervening accession of Henry I, in 1 100, 
the post was held by William of Breteuil, who, however, opposed Henry's demand for 
the treasure (see William Rufus, ii. 346, 680). Freeman speaks of ' the Conqueror's 
hoard ' at Winchester in 1087 (ibid. i. 17, 21), and again of ' the hoard at Winchester ' 
in 1100 (ii. 340, 346, 348, 349), and is followed in this by Mr. Davis {England under the 


apparently, that the ' Chronicle ' derives its mention of the 
Winchester treasure being handed over to Rufus (and Eudo).^ 

It is impossible, however, to reconcile the order of events as 
given in the ' Chronicle ' with that which Freeman deduced from 
the chroniclers of the time. The two outstanding dates are 
8 September, when Rufus left his father's deathbed at Rouen, 
and 26 September, when he was crowned at Westminster. 
Between these two dates, wrote Freeman, he went, on landing, to 
Winchester/^ and thence, possibly, to Canterbury, after which he 
was crowned. He then returned to Winchester and obtained pos- 
session of the treasury.^ The narrative in Mr. Rye's ' Chronicle ' 
contains, it appears to me, one outstanding absurdity. After 
the seizure of the royal treasiu-e, we hear no more of William ; 
Eudo fills the stage. He secures, for the new king, Dover, 
Hastings, and Pevensey, and, until he returns to Winchester, he 
keeps the Conqueror's death a most profound secret. As a 
matter of fact, the news of that event is known to have spread 
like wildfire : to assert that Eudo kept it secret is most obviously 

It would be sheer waste of time to discuss this legend further ; 
but there are still a few points which should not be passed over. 
At the outset of his ' vindication ' of the Chronicle's authority, 
Mr. Rye complains of the ' very unreasoning and determined 
prejudice ' of Freeman and myself, ' about ' 1871, ' against this 
document ', and proceeds to quote instances from our writings. 
The earliest of mine from which he quotes is of 1892. He does 
not state from which of Freeman's works his two quotations are 
taken, but they will be found in his William Rufus (ii. 463), 
which was published in 1882. Our ' quasi-literary partnership ', 
as he terms it, is illustrated by the dates ; for I did not begin to 
deal with the ' legend ' till several years after Freeman had 
finished doing so. The point, however, that I wish to make is 
that, although he quotes these passages twice over,* he refrains 
from mentioning the name or date of the work from which he 
quotes. Had he done so, his readers must have seen that his 
insistent allegation that Freeman, ' before he died, practically 
withdrew his case ', could not possibly be true ; for William 

Normans and Angevins, p. 70) ; but Mr. Poole has explained (Exchequer in the Twelfth 
Century, pp. 21-2) since then, that ' the word " hoard " is never found as a designation 
of the king's treasure or treasury. . . . The statement about the " hoard "... seems 
to be due to Freeman '. 

* ' Claves thesaurorum nactus est ', says William (see William Rufus, i. 22 n, ; 
ii. 459-60). ' Claves thesauri Wintonie suscipiunt ', we read in the Chronicle. 

» i. 14. 

' p. 17. One must admit that Freeman's narrative, though full, is by no means 
clear. That of Mr. Davis is far clearer. He holds that William, on landing, ' made 
it his first concern to seize the royal hoard at Winchester ' (p. 70). 

♦ pp. 36 b, 38 b. 


Rufus, instead of appearing ' about ' 1871, was not published 
till several years after the Norman Conquest, namely in 1882. 

The point on which one has to insist is that instead of with- 
drawing his rejection of the * Chronicle ', as Mr. Rye alleges/ 
Freeman, on the contrary, denounced it even more vigorously 
in his William Rufus (1882) than in his Norman Conquest. 
Mr. Rye contrives to give the opposite impression by first quoting 
from the former work, though carefully abstaining from giving 
its date or even its name. He then asserts that ' later on, as 
will be seen in the following pages, he trims and modifies this 
opinion very greatly '. This is not only contrary to fact but 
obviously impossible, as the dates of his works show.^ In 1885 
the late Mr! Chester Waters wrote of the * Chronicle ' that he 
was ' the first to expose its untrustworthy and unhistorical 
character ',^ and that he had ' maintained in 1871 that it was 
not to be relied on ', being ' a discredited authority '.* Mr. Rye's 
mental confusion is so absolutely hopeless that he cannot even 
quote accurately his own ' Chronicle '. For instance, he sets 
himself ' to tabulate all the important statements made in it ', 
with ' the independent facts which corroborate ' each of them. 
The third of these ^ is ' that the intermediary requesting Edward 
[sic] to send a message was a merchant called Goscelin, of Win- 
chester '. What the ' Chronicle ' does state is that Edward 
took the initiative by sending this Goscelin to William ! ® As to 
the alleged corroboration of this important statement, Mr. Rye 
finds it in the Domesday proof that ' there was a Gozelin 
who held much property in Hants, and a Goscelinus also held 
in Norfolk'.' As to the only ' important ' statement, namely 

1 p. 37. 

* Freeman's English Towns and Districts was published in 1883, but the address 
therein, in which he mentions the ' Chronicle ' (p. 410), is only, he explains, a reprint 
of one delivered in 1876. Moreover, he there denounces the ' Chronicle ' as ' highly 
mythical in all points bearing on general history ', and dismisses ' the embassies on 
which Hubert is sent between William and Eadward ' as simply one ' among the 
Norman legends of the Conquest '. 

" Academy, 27 June 1885, 

* I do not commit myself to acceptance of all this writer's statements, as I think 
his knowledge was overrated. Indeed, he asserted (May 1885), in the same organ, 
that ' Ralph fitz Hubert de Bii^ figures ip, Domesday as Constable of Nottingham 
Castle ', a statement which I at ojice denied {Academy, 13 June 1885). Admitting his 
error, he then alleged that his ' statement was originally taken from ' the Colchester 
' Chronicle ', according to which Ralph's ' brother Adam had charge of the Tower 
of Norwich after the banishment of Ralph de Waer in 1076 ' (ibid., 27 June). This 
■Vras a fresh error ; for the ' Chronicle ', as Mr, Rye insists, assigns this appointment 
not to Adam, but to his brother Hubert. 

6 p. 38 a. 

« See p. 33 a. ' Eadward ', says Freeman, (in the Chronicle) ' sends Goscelin, 
a merchant of Winchester, ... on a message to Duke William.' The ' intermediary ' 
(intcrnuntius) sent in return to Edward was (says the Chronicle) Hubert de Rie. 

' p. 40 b. 


that Edward sent him as his envoy to William, there is no 
corroboration at all.^ 

Long although this paper is, and grievous as is the waste 
of time, which might be better employed, in rebutting his argu- 
ments one by one, and showing ' how unfair and unreliable ' — • 
to quote Mr. Rye's own phrase ^ — are the statements in his 
' vindication ' of the ' Chronicle ', it must be remembered that, 
were he right in asserting its story to be true, we should have to 
accept its evidence as a contribution of importance to the English 
history of the time. As Mr. Waters pointed out (in 1885), it ' is 
quoted with confidence by Palgrave, and every other historian 
of the period except Freeman '. This, no doubt, explains the 
wrath of Mr. Walter Rye and his attempt to show, now that 
' Freeman is dead ',^ that he ' practically withdrew his case 
against the Chronicle '. I agree entirely with Freeman's con- 
clusion, in his William Rufus,'^ that ' the share taken by Eudo 
in the accession of William seems to be pure fiction ... to be 
wholly mythical '. 

It is in short a family legend devised in honour of the house of Rye. 
The same part is played in two successive generations ; the father secures 
tlie crown for the elder William, the son for the younger. 

The exaltation, in these monastic stories, of the pious founder 
and his relatives is no uncommon feature ; in the Colchester 
case it may have had some special object. It was possibly 
intended to explain the favour alleged to be shown to Eudo and 
his abbey by the Crown in its charters, where they were spurious. 
Those who can speak with authority on the language of the 
time could tell us whether such a phrase as that Eudo received 
his stewardship ' pro sui patris suaeque ^ in regalem familiam 
devotione ' — which Mr. ^ye renders as ' for the devotion of his 
father and himself to the royal family ' ^ — was even possible at the 

In all my own experience I remember no such instance of 
absolutely reckless inaccuracy as that of which, in this paper, 
I have given conclusive proof. One can only assume that 
Mr. Walter Rye, when he thus set himself to expose what he 
terms ' Freeman's inaccuracies ' [sic] and his ' glaring errors ',' 
cannot possibly have foreseen that the result of this inquiry — 

* I would lay stress on this illustration oi Mr. Rye's methods because (as I havo 
shown above) he similarly claims that the Chronicle's next statement (no. 4) as to 
' the great assembly of nobles, convened ' (p. 33 a) to consider Edward's message, 
' is confirmed by Freeman himself ' when ' he refers to the massacre of the Normans 
at Guildford ' in 1036 (p. 40 b), 

» p. 38 a. » p. 37 a. * ii. 463-5. 

» This is Mr. Dukinfield Astley'a reading {Essex Arch. Tram. viii. 122). 

• p. 33 a- ' p. 37 a. 


for which he claimed * a right to ask ' me ^ — would be to 
demonstrate his own errors, his infinitely worse inaccuracy. 
There are cases in which his carelessness produces sheer nonsense. 
For instance, after expressing at the outset surprise * that no 
one has hitherto attempted to seriously write a history of so 
well known a building as Norwich Castle ', we find in the chapter 
on ' The Fabric and Repairs ' this piece of serious history : ^ 

1350. Norwich to send 60*rmed men to Norwich (Foedera). 

On the opposite page we find my own Geoffrey de Mandeville 
cited for the allegation that ' Ralph de Belphago (Bella fago) 
appears as sheriff temp. Hy. I (1100-54) ', although I do not 
name the reign or imagine that Henry died in ' 1154 ' ! More 
serious is the allegation in what Mr. Rye terms his ' Chapter VIII '.^ 
This * chapter ' is wholly devoted to an attack upon my paper 
on * The Early Sheriffs of Norfolk ' in the pages of this Review.* 
He there deliberately charges me with having ' omitted ' in my 
paper the name of Robert Fitz Walter, although I name him 
(as sheriff) more than a dozen times in all.^ How is one to deal 
with charges that are at absolute variance with fact ? Mr. Rye's 
persistence in this practice is shown in his next sentence, where 
he states that ' the entry in the Ramsey cartulary ^ shows that 
his [i.e. Robert Fitz Walter's] date must have been at least 
eight years earlier than Dr. Round guessed [sic] it '. I do not 
' guess ' my facts : I leave that to Mr. Rye, The reader will 
find, on referring to my paper,' that I cite the Pipe Roll 
of 1130 ^ as proving the date at which Robert went out of office 
(namely Michaelmas 1129 ^). 

It is difficult to speak in temperate language of the direct 
misstatements in Mr. Rye's charges or of the patronizing fashion 
in which he puts them forward. There are cases in which they 
only need to be printed opposite the facts. Here, for instance, 
is his definite charge that I have omitted the names of sheriffs 
whom my paper duly mentions. 

» Ibid. 2 p iQ^ 

» pp. 2S-9. * Ante (October 1920), xxxv. 481 ff. 

" pp. 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488. I mentioned at the very outset (p. 481) 
the tenure of the shrievaltj'^ by this Robert and his sons, and gave a reference to 
the paper in which I had dealt with them more fully. 

• i. e. vol. i, pp. 148-9, where the document of ' 1114-23 ', relied on by Mr. Rye, 
had been duly quoted by me {ante, xxxv. 481, n. 2). 

' p. 483. 

• And the Deputy Keeper's 3l8t Report. 

• Dr. Jessopp, as I there showed, wrongly named him as sheriff in ' 1131 ' ; I have 
given examples of this mistake in my article on ' Early Pipe Rolls ' {ante, xxxvi. 329). 
Evidently Mr. Rye obtains his phrase ' at least eight years ' by deducting 1123 from 
' 1131 '. Obviously Robert might have been sheriff not onlj' in 1128-9, but some 
years earlier as well. 


At the great Kentford gathering Dr. Round makes no attempt to 
of the magnates of the adjacent identify the earliest sheriffs of all, 
counties in 1080 {Inq. Com. Cant. viz. Roger and Robert or their 
p. xvii — ^not, as in Davis, Regesta, deputy Walter, whose names appear 
32, p. 17 [sic]) — there was present on 2nd April, 1088 in an enquiry .. . 
' Walterus pro Rodgero et Roberto which is printed in Davis Regista 
vicecom' ', whom Mr. Davis iden- [sic], No. 22, p. 32. 
tifies (ibid.) as ' sheriffs [of Norfolk In fact he does not mention them 
and Suffolk] '. It would be too at all, so the reference may have 
speculative, save in a foot-note, to slipped him. . . . Dr. Round . . . 
suggest that this Walter, acting, does not even mention this Roger, 
Mr. Morris writes (p. 157), as or indeed any of the earlier sheriffs, 
* a deputy ', was father of Robert so his article is very disappointing, 
Fitz Walter, sheriff under Henry I. &c., &c. . . . 

— Ante, XXXV. 488, note 9. Next comes Robert Fitz Walter. 

. . He is mentioned in another of 
Mr. Round's papers, but is also 
omitted in the present article. — 
Norwich Castle, p. 28. 

Two more of his reckless errors are here the whole sum of my 
critic's contributions to our knowledge : the right date is 
1080, not ' 1088 ', and the number in Mr. Davis's book is, 
not ' 22 ', but 122.^ As for the charge that I do not mention ' any 
of the earlier sheriffs ', I expressly stated at the outset ^ that 
I only set myself ' to supplement the information ' in Mr. Morris's 
learned paper ^ on the sheriff ' in the early Norman period ',* 
where, for instance, Roger Bigod's shrievalty of East Anglia is 
fully dealt with.^ I also explained at the outset that one of the 
points I desired to illustrate was ' the system of hereditary 
(or quasi-hereditary) tenure of certain shrievalties ', and this 
I did in the case of Norfolk.® ' I do not see ', Mr. Rye observes 
of William, 'why he is called " hereditary sheriff" ' by Stapleton.' 
Yet my article (pp. 491-2) makes it clear.® 

More serious is his treatment of Robert son of Walter, a sheriff 

* It is correctly cited by Mr. Morris {ante, xxxiii. 157, n. 94). 

* Ante, XXXV. 481. ^ Ante, xxxiii. 145-75. 

* Mr. Rye complains (p. 28) of my omitting names which, he admits, I had else- 
where mentioned. 

* I do not admit having 'ignored Hugh le Bigod himself the sheriff of 1156-7 ' 
(p. 28) ; for he is also ignored by Eyton, as sheriff of Norfolk, and the Pipe Roll of 1157 
(3 Hen. II) shows that he then only accounted de veteri firma. My paper {ante, xxxv. 
489) shows tliat William ' de Caisneto ' was sheriff from Easter 1157 till Michaelmas 
1 163. I have dealt fully with the shrievalties of his father, his elder brother, himself, hia 
sons, and his son-in-law, Robert Fitz Roger — whom Mr. Rye wrongly styles ' Robert 
Fitz Robert ' in one place {ante, xxxv. 492, n. 5). This William, Mr. Rj'e asserts, was 
sheriff ' 1156-62 ' (p. 18). ' He certainly was sheriff from 1156 and [sic] 1163 ' (p. 14). 
If so, how could Hugh be ' sheriff 1156-7 ' ? 

« Ante, xxxv. 492, 495-6. ' p. 14. 

* Mr. Ryo admits (p. 29) that a certain entry ' seems to help the suggestion . . . 
that the Chcynys had some sort of hereditary right in the sherievalty ' [sic]. 


under Henry I. I have shown above that Mr. Rye charges me 
with having * omitted in the present article ' the name of this 
sheriff,^ though I have there named him more than a dozen 
times, and have shown clearly who he was (pp. 482-5). 

The importance of dating (so far as possible) and identifying 
early sheriffs is so great that I need offer no apology for making 
absolutely clear Mr. Rye's confusion of two men who were 
named Robert Fitz Walter — the more so as he now fully admits 
his own confusion on the subject. In my paper I pointed out 
(p. 482) that the earlier Robert, ' sheriff of East Anglia ',^ has 
' been confused by some with the " Marshal of the Army of God " 
in 1215, or at least assumed to have been a member of his great 
baronial house '. Yet, as I there observed, ' the latter Robert 
died about a century later than the sheriff of East Anglia '. 
Mr. Rye, who has thus confused them, does not venture to 
deny it : indeed, he thus fully admits it in his reply to my 
paper : ^ 

My mistake arose through my confusing Robert Fitz Walter (de 
Cheyny) with another Robert Fitz Walter (de Clare). 

Just so. But even in this admission we detect a fresh error ; 
for it was not the earlier Robert Fitz Walter, but his wife who was 
a Cheyny {de Caineto).^ 

As I have written more than any one on the great family of 
Clare, I desire to make it absolutely clear what is here the point 
at issue. As I accm-ately stated : ^ 

Mr. Walter Rye of Norwich has pkmged the evidence in confusion. 
Although he knows that the Clares, a great baronial house, were quite 
distinct from the Cleres, a local Norfolk family, he asserts that in 1166 
Ralph de Clere held Filby of John, son of Robert Fitz Walter, i. e. de Clare, 
and bases a theory thereon. 

For this I there acciu-ately cited 'his Norfolk Families (1911), 
pp. 103, 104-5 '. At the top of p. 103 we read : 

Clare. The baronial family of de Clare bore Or three chevronels gu. 

The family is there disposed of in three lines. On p. 104 (after 
several other families) we find : 

Clere of Ormesby and Blickling, a Visitation family, used arms in 1460 
Arg. on a fess az, three eaglets displayed, &c. 

For my statement above, which is strictly accurate, as 
I have here shown, ' there is ', Mr. Rye has asserted in this 
Review (January 1921), 'no foundation ' ! ^ 

» p. 28. 

* This is the sherifE whose name Mr. Ryo charges me with omitting. 
» p. 29. 

* See my paper, ante, xxxv. 484. * Ante, xxxv. 485. • Ante, xxxvi. 160. 


Within three months of the appearance of this so-called 

* correction ', Mr. Rye, who had thus lightly accused me of 
a deliberate misstatement, made the astounding admission that 
my paper contained, on this point, * deserved criticisms ' of 
what he had written and that I had * rightly corrected ' him 

* for having tried to show a connexion between ' the two families ! 
Nay, we even read that he was ' doubly wrong '. 

Here are his own words : 

His [Dr. Round's] article ^ is very disappointing, and it is chiefly made 
up of severe and, in two cases, deserved criticisms of the writings of the 
late Dr. Jessopp and myself. 

The only items of value in the article are that it demolishes Dr. Jessopp's 
statement . . . and that he [i.e. myself] rightly corrects me for having tried 
to show a connection between the baronial house of Clare [and the family 
of Clere ?] 2 by stating that Robert Fitz Walter, . . . who before 1166 gave 
Filby to Ralph de Clere, was himself of the baronial family of Clare.^ 

Even here Mr. Rye is guilty of introducing a fresh blunder ; 
for what he actually wrote, on p. 105, was that the Cleres ' may 
be descended from the noble family of Clere ' ! He himself 
however, proceeded to assert, of them, that 

The first undoubted ancestor of this family was Robert Clere alias 
Cleriz of Stokesby, in 1316.^ 

I will now resume the quotation from his reply to my article. 

Here I was doubly wrong, for this Robert Fitz Walter has been proved 
not to be of the house of Clare and tlie donation was from a William 
Fitz Walter \sic\. My mistake arose through my confusing Robert Fitz 
Walter (de Cheyny) ^ with another Robert Fitz Walter (de Clare), the leader 
of the Barons in 1215, ... I find it was very careless of me not to notice 
the wide division of dates.^ 

Now what is the upshot of all this? IVIr. Rye has confused, 
by his own admission, Robert Fitz Walter, sheriff of Norfolk in 
the days of Henry I,' with the famous Robert Fitz Walter, the 
baronial leader, who died in 1235-6. On this supposed identity — 
and on this alone — he has based a theory that ' Ralph de Clere 
was himself of the baronial family of Clare'} This was his 
basic error,^ and this he fully admits. As he abandons the 

* Ante, XXXV. 481-96. 

* This addition is required, in order to make sense of Mr. Rye's statement. 

* This erroneous statement is found on p. 105 of Mr. Rye's Norfolk Familiea. 
It follows immediately on the passage cited (ante, xxxvi. 160) in bis so-called ' correc- 
tion ' of me ! The reader should look up this reference. 

* p. 105. ' The sheriff under Henry I. 

* ? ' discrepancy of dates '. Mr. Rye's English is at fault again. Norwich Castle, 
p. 29. ^ He was son of Walter de Caen. See my paper, ante, xxxv. 482. 

« p. 29. * Ante, xxxv. 482, n. 1, 485. 


premiss, he must also abandon his conclusion. But this is not 
Mr. Rye's way. Forced to abandon his premiss, which he now 
dismisses as a ' guess ', he thinks, we read,^ that he will be able 
' to prove, in a paper now in preparation ', that his ' guess [sic\ 
that the Cleres of Ormesby were offshoots of the Baronial family 
was a correct one, although founded on a mistaken premiss ' ! ^ 
The reader may be safely left to draw his own conclusion from 
the endless gyrations of this elusive antiquary, who first admits 
that he is ' doubly wrong ', and then announces that he is going 
to prove that his ' guess ' was right ! 

Mr. Rye's treatment of Freeman is a very serious matter. 
If and where it can be proved that Freeman has erred in his 
statements, let them by all means be corrected ; I myself should 
be the last to deny one's right to do so. Considering, however, that 

* Freeman is dead ' ^ and cannot vindicate himself, denunciation 
of his statements in this reckless manner is, surely, inconsistent 
with the decencies of controversy. I have shown, in case 
after case, that it is not he, but his critic, whose errors need 
correction and whose charges, when they are tested, again 
and again collapse. To test them, one by one, needs infinite 
patience and a grievous expenditure of time. Mr. Rye, 
no doubt, is right, at least, in relying on the fact that few 
historians would test them at such a cost ; for ' luckily ', in his 
own words, ' people don't often verify their own references, 
let alone yours '. This, however, is precisely what I have here 

When one has made all allowance for his incorrigible careless- 
ness, for haste, and for mental confusion, there remains a residue 
of statement, which can only be accounted for by his curious 
vehemence. Those who have read my paper will have realized 
that this is so. It is his avowed object to vindicate the ' Chronicle ', 
as he terms it, and, in order to attain this object, he does not 
hesitate to allege that ' Freeman, before he died, practically 
withdrew his case against the Chronicle '.* As this is absolutely 
contrary to fact, he built up a theory that Freeman began by 
rejecting its evidence, but ' later on ' changed his view.^ Twice 
over he cited passages from William Rufus, as setting forth the 
view originally held by Freeman, and then relied on his Norman 
Conquest ^ as proving his recantation ! In order to conceal the 
fact that the latter was the earlier (not the later) of these two 
works, he was careful to leave unmentioned the date and even 
the name of Freeman's William Rufus ! ' Freeman ', he writes, 

* in his first edition [sic\ expressed himself fiercely against the 

1 p. 29. 
* p. 37 b. 

» p. 29. 

s pp. 36 b, 39 a. 

» p. 37. 
• p. 37 b. 


— NO. CXLV. 



authenticity of the Colchester Chronicle.' ^ There was never but 
one edition of William Rufus ! 

I have here selected this example of Mr. Rye's methods 
because it will hardly be considered necessary that I should give 
more. No historian, I think, will doubt that I have settled once 
for all the question of the authenticity of this wild narrative 
and of Freeman's attitude towards it. In (1) his Norman Conquest, 
in (2) his William Rufus, and in (3) his English Towns and Districts 
— that is to say, down to 1883 — he continuously denounced the 
authenticity of the tale, finally (1882-3) denouncing the exploits 
of Hubert and Eudo de Rye therein as ' legend ', as * wholly 
mythical ', as ' pure fiction ', as ' simply taking their place 
among the Norman legends of the Conquest '. The ' legend of 
Eudo Dapifer ' is laid to rest at last. J. H. Round. 

' p. 38 b. The two passages which he here cites are taken (the reader will dis- 
cover) from William Btiftis, ii. 463, but the name of that work is omitted. 

1922 35 

A Petition to Boniface VIII front the 
Clergy of the Province of Canterbury 

in i2gy 

AT the assembly of the clergy of the province of Canterbury 
lA which met in London at the New Temple on 10 August 
1297, to discuss the question of making a grant to the king/ it 
was decided to present a petition ' touching the common good 
of the clergy and of the kingdom ' to Pope Boniface VIII, ^ 
which was mainly a plea for relief from heavy and increasing 
financial burdens. 

The first article of the petition dealt with the excessive amount 
of the prociu-ations which were demanded by the cardinals of 
Albano and Palestrina. On 13 February 1295 Boniface VIII had 
given these French cardinals a commission to make peace between 
England and France, and, as was usual when the pope sent a 
legate, they had the power of levying procurations.^ Nominally 
the levy was to pay the cost of the mission, but in reality it was 
a source of revenue for the papal exchequer ; before the cardinals 
left Rome Boniface VIII appointed a firm of papal bankers, 
the Clarenti of Pistoia, which had partners residing in France 
and England, to receive procm-ations levied by the cardinals, 
and to make payments to them for their necessary expenses.* 

The cardinals landed at Dover on 24 June, where they were 
met by the prior of the cathedral church of Canterbury and the 
abbot of St. Augustine's, who escorted them to Canterbury.^ 
The cardinal of Albano spent the night at St. Augustine's, 
and the cardinal of Palestrina in the archbishop's palace, and 
on the morrow both visited the shrine of St. Thomas before 
they set out on their journey to London, The archbishop met 
them at Harbledown and rode with them to Qspringe, and on 

' See Church Quarterly Review, October 1915, p. 109. 

^ Arehiepiscopal Registers of Canterbury, Winchelsey, fos. 309', 310. 

^ Calendar of Papal Letters, i. 562 ; Bartholomaei de Cotton Historia Anglicana, 
ed H. R. Luard (Rolls Ser.), pp. 282, 287-9 ; Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. Digard 
(ficoles Fran^aises d'Athenes et de Rome), i. 247. 

* Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 563 ; Registres de Boniface VIII, i. 247. 

* Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Sen), ii. 311. 



the next day he left them near Gillingham. On their arrival 
in London they probably lodged with the papal collector, Greoffrey 
of Vezano, who had a permanent office for the collection of 
Peter's pence and other dues.-^ 

On 8 July they issued a mandate for the collection of pro- 
curations in which it was stated that they had examined trust- 
worthy witnesses, and had learnt from them that when Cardinal 
Ottoboni was in England from 1265 to 1268 he levied a procuration 
of six marks each year from archbishops and bishops, abbots, priors, 
deans, provosts and archdeacons, rural deans and other prelates 
and ecclesiastical persons, the religious and others, their chapters 
and convents both of orders which were exempt from episcopal 
visitation and of those which were subject to it.^ They appointed 
collectors in every diocese, e. g. in that of London the bishop's 
official and the dean of St. Paul's,^ in those of Norwich and Ely 
the bishop's official and the sacrist of the cathedral monastery,* 
and commanded them under pain of excommunication to collect 
the procuration of six marks and pay it over within a month. 
They published the papal bulls about their procurations at an 
assembly of the bishops of the province of Canterbury in London 
on 15 July.^ Some of the collectors protested that they could 
find no precedent for the collection of Cardinal Ottoboni's pro- 
curation and therefore they did not know how to act. In reply 
the cardinals issued a general mandate, dated 25 July, to arch- 
bishops, bishops, and their collectors in every diocese, notifying 
them that they intended to have the procuration of six marks 
from all dignitaries and religious houses as they had previously 
stated.^ If, however, any of the religious houses were so burdened 
by poverty that they could not pay, the collectors must require 
the archbishops and bishops to nominate certain rectors of 
parishes who could find the money without difficulty, so that the 
full amount might be got in. 

There is some evidence of opposition to the collectors. On 
25 August the king forbade the bishop of London's official and 
the dean of St. Paul's to exact any procuration from the dean 
and chapter of his free chapel of St. Martin-le-Grand,' and it is 
probable that he protected his free chapels in other dioceses, 
e.g. Hastings. The collectors demanded payment of the procura- 
tion of six marks from the monks of Westminster as well as from 
the abbot, and the monks sent their proctors, Reginald of Hadham 

1 Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xix. 230, Rev. O. Jensen, 'The "Denarius 
Sancti Petri " in England '. 

» Cotton, pp. 28a-5. » CaL of Letters Close, 1288-96, p. 423. 

* Cotton, p. 283, Ecclesie dc Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, ed. J. Willis Clark» 
p. 236. 

" Oervase of Canterbury, ii. 312. « Cotton, pp. 289-92. 

' Col. of Letters Close, 1288-96, p. 423. 


«,nd Ralph of Morden, to the bishop of London's house on 
10 August. There a notarial instrument was executed in the 
presence of the collectors and other witnesses in which the 
monks asserted that they gave the sum of six marks out of 
courtesy as a mark of reverence to the cardinals, and not because 
a procuration was due from them ; in accordance with the terms 
of a composition made between the chapter and the abbot, the 
abbot was bound to pay the procm-ations and expenses of all 
papal legates who travelled with ten horses.^ However, the 
protest was of no avail, for in the roll of the treasurer of the 
convent in 1297 the sum of £22 Qs. Kid. is entered as paid for the 
procuration of the cardinals.^ The payment of a double pro- 
curation in 1295, i.e. from the chapter as well as from the head 
of the house, is recorded at Canterbury and Worcester as well as 
at Westminster.^ 

When the cardinals put their proposals before the king and 
the great council at Westminster on 5 August, he replied that he 
could not make either a truce or a peace with the king of France 
without the consent of the king of the Germans.* The chroniclers 
recorded that as the cardinals could not accomplish their business 
they left London for Dover on 14 August ; however, they 
actually carried with them letters from the king of that date, 
authorizing them to conclude a truce until All Saints' Day.^ 

The chronicler of Barnwell entered the receipt for the pro- 
curation paid by his house and observed that the cardinals went 
away ' wealthy with much money and with palfreys which 
they had got from all the bishops '.^ The cardinals had a papal 
privilege enabling them to travel with as many horses as they 
judged necessary for their mission, and to demand them from 
those persons on whom they also levied procurations.' The 
prior of Norwich had duly paid his six marks when he received 
a further demand from the cardinals, dated 13 August, for ten 
marks for the purchase of a baggage horse, to be paid within 
a fortnight to merchants of the firm of the Ammanati of Pistoia 
on pain of excommunication and other penalties which would be 
enforced by Master John de Luco, canon of St. Paul's.^ 

1 Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 9499 a. 

2 Ihid. no. 19838. I am indebted to the Rev. H. F. Westlake for this reference, and 
for kindly giving me access to the Westminster Abbey Muniments. 

3 Literae Cantuarienses, ed. J. B. Sheppard (Rolls Ser.), ii. 174, 175; Annales 
Monastici, ed, Liiard, iv. 521 ; Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard, iii. 280 ; cf. Cotton, 
p. 299. When the head of the house had separate property, a double procuration was 

* Gervase of Canterbury, ii. 311 ; Flores Hist., iii. 279, 280. 
5 Rymer, Foedera, i. 825. 

* Ecclesie de Berneivelle Liber Memorandorum, pp. 235, 236. 
' Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. Digard, i. 243. 

8 Cotton, pp. 292, 293, 


The cardinals returned to France and made Paris their head- 
quarters, but as the truce which preceded the peace between 
England and France was not signed until 1297, they levied 
procm*ations not at the flat rate of six marks as in 1295, but at 
fourpence in the mark for the second year, and at threepence 
in the mark for the third year, on the new assessment of the 
spiritualities and temporalities of the church which was known 
as the Taxation of Pope Nicholas.^ In the second and third 
year they ordered procurations to be collected, for the first 
time, from rectors and vicars of parish churcheg. 

The effect of this change was that all who were assessed at 
under £240 would pay less than six marks at the rate of four- 
pence, but the bishops and the larger monasteries would be liable 
for a much higher amount, and in fact a heavy supertax was 
imposed upon them. The amount due from the archbishop of 
Canterbury for the second year was over £47,^ and the bishop 
of Salisbury actually paid £25 for the second year and £18 15s. Od. 
in the third year as against £4 in the first year.^ Moreover, at 
a rough estimate the yield of the procurations for the second 
and third year for the two provinces of Canterbury and York 
would be £9,000,^ an enormous burden to be borne wholly by 
the church for the peace mission of the two cardinals. 

The mandate for the levy for the second year was dated at 
Paris on 9 October 1296, and was addressed to archbishops and 
bishops in England and Wales ; they were ordered to arrange 
for the demand to reach all who were liable within a month of 
receiving the mandate, and the procuration was due to be paid 
within a month of the demand and delivered in London to the 
firm of merchants who were acting as the cardinals' agents, the 
Clarenti of Pistoia.^ These merchants had a safe-conduct which 
was renewed from time to time by Edward I, who also issued 
a mandate that all persons who refused to pay prociu-ations should, 
after excommunication, be compelled thereto in due manner.* 
Nevertheless the procurations were in arrear, and on 30 April 
1297 the cardinals wrote from Paris to give the resident papal 
collector, Geoffrey of Vezano, the power to absolve the many 
persons who had incurred the penalty of excommunication for 
non-payment.' On 22 August 1297 Geoffrey sent a letter to the 
archbishops and bishops urging them to collect the procm-ations 
and notifying them of his power to absolve offenders ; he was 

> Episcopal Registers of Carlisle, Halton (Canterbury and York Society), i. 90-4. 

^ Archiepiscopal Registers of Canterbury, Reynolds, fo. 80. 

3 Episcopal Registers of Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 113. 

« Stubbs, Const. Hist. (ed. of 1887), ii. 580. 

6 Reg. Carlisle, Halton, i. 90, 91. 

• Cal. of Letters Patent, 1292-1301, pp. 150, 210, &c. 

' Episc. Reg. of Hereford, Svnnfield (Canterbury and York Society), p. 344. 


ready to treat them with gentleness, but he warned them not to 
despise the keys of the church.^ On 5 February 1298 Archbishop 
Winchelsey notified Geoffrey that he would collect the procura- 
tions due from his own diocese for the second and third year, 
and told Geoffrey to address himself to the collectors originally 
appointed by the cardinals.^ The archbishop was then engaged 
in collecting the tenth granted by his province to repel the 
Scottish invasion,^ and it was not until 7 July 1298 that he 
issued instructions for the collection of these procurations which 
were long overdue.^ It is possible that he had delayed in the 
hope that the petition to Boniface VIII from the clergy might 
meet with some success. 

The first article of the petition was that the procurations for 
the second and third year should for several reasons be reduced.^ 
The clergy urged that this new imposition was most burdensome 
and would become a precedent ; the cardinals had exacted a full 
procuration both from England and from France ; the church 
in England was oppressed by many wrongs and was unable to 
find so much money, and the sentences of excommunication 
were so stringently enforced by the cardinals that many of the 
clergy were suffering under them solely for their poverty. Lastly, 
the excessive procuration was recognized to be illegal ; Cardinal 
Ottoboni and other legates were content with the moderate 
procuration of six marks, often they received less, and they never 
attempted to exact it from parish churches. 

The second article of the petition was that the assessment 
of church lands and benefices in 1291, known as the Taxation of 
Pope Nicholas, should be carefully revised ; they were then 
assessed above their value, the value was falling continually, 
and procurations such as those of the cardinals and other con- 
tributions would be levied on this assessment. The clergy 
had some justification for detesting this new assessment. In 
the bull of Nicholas IV there was a reservation that the taxa- 
tion should be borne by churches and their rulers without grave 
inconvenience.^ Even the bishop of Winchester, who to- 
gether with the bishop of Lincoln was responsible to Nicholas IV 
for the making of the assessment, complained to the dean of 
St. Paul's and the archdeacon of Wells that their valuation of 
£3,107 Os. (i\d. for the property of his see was much too high, 
and he got a reduction of £129 16^. 2^ J The rise in the 

» Ibid. p. 344. 

» Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 235. 

» Ante, xxxiv. 201-5, R. Graham, ' An Ecclesiastical Tenth for National Defence 
in 1298 '. * Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 245^. 

5 Ibid. fos. 309^, 310. • Cotton, op. cit., pp. 189, 190. 

' Episc. Reg. of Winchester, Pontissara (Canterbury and York Society), pp. 197, 


assessment was in many cases a real grievance, and it can be most 
easily understood by studying the printed texts of the Norivich 
Taxation of Spiritualities in 1254 in the dioceses of Norwich ^ 
and Ely.^ In the diocese of Ely the assessment of only a small 
number of benefices remained the same, and on the higher 
assessments there was a very considerable increase, Haddenham 
rising from 60 marks to 120, Leverington with the vicarage from 
80 marks to 127| without it, Cottenham from 33 marks to 60, 
Over from 25 marks to 53. The evidence is even more striking 
in other dioceses. In the diocese of Canterbury the parish church 
of Fordwich rose from 1 mark to 10, Sturry from 4^ to 20, 
Reculver from 50 to 200 ; in that of Rochester, Shoreham with 
its chapels was raised from 40 to 80 marks, Northfleet from 40 
to 100, Cliffe from 40 to 110, Sevenoaks, Penshurst, and Chidding- 
stone all from 20 to 50.' In the diocese of Winchester, Wimbledon 
rose from 20 to 60, Merstham from 12 to 35 ; in that of Chichester, 
Tarring rose from 56| to 80, Stanmer from 7| to 20, Ifield 
from 6 to 15.^ But though the Taxation of Pope Nicholas 
resulted in the payment of much heavier taxes by the bishops, 
the larger monasteries, and the richer clergy, the burden was 
most severely felt by the poorer parish priests, many of whom 
now became subject to taxation for the first time, e.g. in the 
diocese of Canterbury the vicarages of Rolvenden, Sittingbourne, 
and Newington were raised from 1| marks to 10, of Chilham, 
Northbourne, and Wye from 3 to 10, of Reculver from 3 to 25, 
Ospringe and Tenter den from 3 to 15, Eastchurch from 3 to 20, 
Elham and Lydd from 6 to 25.^ The sympathy of the province 
of Canterbury with their poorer brethren was shown when they 
met in November 1297 to grant a tenth for defence against the 
Scottish invasion ; the archbishop, bishops, deans and chapters, 
and the heads of monasteries agreed to pay their tenth on the 
Taxation of Pope Nicholas, but the contribution from rectors 
and vicars was levied on the Norwich Taxation of 1254, by which 
most of the poorer clergy were entirely exempted.^ Moreover, 
vicarages which had been created between 1254 and 1291 were not 
in the Norwich Taxation, therefore these vicars escaped altogether. 
In the third article of the petition the clergy requested the 
pope to appoint some one living in England to absolve the clergy 
who had incurred the sentence of excommunication by disregard- 
ing the bull Clericis laicos, and thus relieve them from the 
costly procedure of sending a proctor to the papal penitentiary 

' Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society, xvii. 46-157. 

* Ecclesie de Bernewelle Liber Memorandorum, pp. 191-9. 
3 Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 6159, fos. 73^-77^. 

* Ibid. » Ibid. 

* Ante, xxiii. 454, R. Graham, ' The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV '. 


for absolution. When Edward I outlawed the clergy on 
30 January 1297 most of them compounded, and so escaped the 
seizure of their property.^ It was represented to the pope that 
many were afraid that they were under excommunication, and 
so they absented themselves from divine service. 

The last two articles of the petition were directed against 
the proceedings of Geoffrey of Vezano, who was resident 
papal collector in England from 1276 until 1302. The yearly 
amount paid in Peter's pence to the pope was 299 marks, and 
the contributions from the difiEerent dioceses were fixed before 
1133.^ A penny was levied from each household. Erom the 
twelfth to the fourteenth century the popes made attempts to 
secure the full amount collected from the people.^ Innocent III 
complained that the bishops acquired a thousand marks in collect- 
ing Peter's pence.* In 1282 Geoffrey of Vezano received a 
mandate from Pope Martin IV to inquire into the way in which 
Peter's pence had been collected by archbishops, bishops, and 
other prelates who were said to keep back part of it, and to 
apply such remedy as might be had without scandal. The clergy 
now petitioned that Geoffrey should demand no more from the 
bishops for Peter's pence than the customary amount ; they 
alleged that Gregory V (996-9), or Gregory VI (1045-6), had 
specified it in a bull and suggested that it could be found by 
searching the register.^ The following papal letter which is 
entered in the register of Simon of Ghent is probably the docu- 
ment which is mentioned in the petition.^ 

Gregorius servus servorum dei venerabilibus fratribus Cantuariensi 
et Eboracensi archiepiscopis et eorum sufEraganeis et dilectis filiis abbatibus 
prioribus archidiaconis eorumque of&cialibus per regnum Anglie consti- 
tutis ad quos iste littere pervenerint salutem et apostolicam benedictio- 
nem. Qualiter denarius beati Petri qui debetur camere nostre colligatur 
in Anglia, scilicet in quibus dyocesibus debeatur ne super hoc dubitari 
contingat presentibus fecimus annotari, sicut in registro sedis apostolice 

The statement of the customary amounts, in which there are two 
trifling clerical errors, follows, and the letter is dated at Orvieto 
on 22 April in the second year of the pope. Erom internal evidence 
it appears to have been written by Gregory X. The diocese of 
Ely was not created until 1109. Gregory VIII was pope from 
20 October to 17 December 1187, Gregory IX was at Perugia on 
the date of the letter, while Gregory X was actually at Orvieto.' 

1 Stubbs, Const. Hist., ii. 135, 136. 

» Royal Hist. Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xv. 183-8, 206, Rev. O. Jensen, 'The 
" Denarius Sancti Petri " in England '. * Ibid. xix. 229, 230. 

« /6m;. p. 229. s Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fos. 309^ 310. 

* Reg. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 184. 
' Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 119, 446. 


It is clear that the archbishops and bishops regarded the differ- 
ence between the sum due to the pope and the total collection 
as a part of their income. In the Sede Vacante Register of the 
diocese of Worcester in 1302 there is an entry that the sum total 
of Peter's pence yearly was £34 125. l^d., of which £10 5s. Od. 
was paid to the pope, so the bishop had £24 Is. l^d} In the later 
years of the thirteenth century in the diocese of Ely, Peter's 
pence reached a total of £15 or over, and £5 was paid to the pope.^ 
There are entries in the Pipe Rolls showing the amount collected 
for Peter's pence during the vacancy of bishoprics and the 
profit to the exchequer after the fixed sum was paid over for the 
pope ; the most striking was in the case of the diocese of York 
in 1 185, when the exchequer profited to the amount of £105 18s. 5d. 
after £11 10s. Od. had been paid to the archbishop of Canterbury 
for the pope.^ 

In the fifth article the clergy asked that the bishops should 
dispose of the goods of the bishops and clergy who died intestate, 
and that they should not be obliged to answer to Geoffrey of 
Vezano or to pay over anything to him. They pointed out that 
Cardinal Ottoboni had recognized the law of the kingdom under 
which the bishops disposed of the goods of intestates ' to pious 
uses '.* 

It was decided to sena Master Robert of Gloucester and 
Master Anselm of Eastry to present the petition to the Pope.^ 
Master Robert of Gloucester was probably the doctor of canon 
law who had held a prebend of the cathedral church of Hereford 
since 1283 ; he was the bishop's official, and had been at the papal 
curia as his proctor.^ He now begged to be excused on the ground 
of ill health and other reasons, of which one perhaps was his 
appointment on 25 October 1297 as official of the old and infirm 
bishop of Worcester.^ In a letter to the bishop of Norwich, 
dated 27 October, Archbishop Winchelsey wrote that after much 
discussion with those whom he usually consulted and other 
persons, it was agreed that Master Hamo of Gateley, rector of 
East Tuddenham, should be appointed in the place of Master 
Robert.* He begged the bishop to put the common good before 
his own advantage and to persuade Master Hamo, who was then 

* Begistrum Sede Vacante, ed. J. Willis Bund (Worcestershire Hist. Soc), pp. 33, 34. 
= Vetus Liber Archidiaconi Elienais, ed. C. T. Feltoe and E. H. Minns, p. 28. 

3 Madox, Hist, oj the Exchequer (ed. of 1769), i. 309, n. r. 

* Lyndwood, Promnciale, Constitutiones Legatinae, p. 121. This was a grievance 
of many years' standing ; cf. Archbishop Kilwardby's letter, dated 1277, entered in 
Episc. Beg. of Winchester, Pontissara, pp. 356, 357. 

5 Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 226. 

* Reg. Heref., Swin field, pp. 5, 41, 66. 

' Reg. Wore, Giffard (Worcestershire Hist. Soc.), p. 489. 
« Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 226. 


in his service, to undertake the mission with Master Anselm of 
Eastry, the rector of Eastry. To avoid further delay he asked 
that the bearer of his letter might bring back an answer from 
the bishop and from Master Hamo. 

On 12 December an order was sent from the king to the 
warden of the Cinque Ports to permit Master Anselm of 
Eastry and Master Hamo of Gatton \sic\ to pass from the port 
of Dover to ports beyond the seas with their servants and 
things.^ They took with them letters to ten cardinals, asking 
them for help and advice so that their business concerning the 
petition might have a quick and happy ending.^ For over six 
months there is no record of the messengers except that on 
1 April Hamo of Gateley was at Rome and secured a dispensa- 
tion from the pope to hold a second benefice with cure of souls.^ 
On 24 July 1298 the archbishop wrote to the two envoys 
to tell them that as they were in need of more money he 
had placed £100 to their credit with the Florentine merchants 
of the firm of the Pulci and Rembertini, which would be paid 
to them for their expenses.* The money for the mission was 
raised by the levy of a halfpenny in the mark on the Taxation 
of Pope Nicholas, and as the archbishop had not received it, he 
was obliged to borrow. He told them that he was amazed at 
their extravagant expenditure, and remonstrated seriously with 
them for quarrelling with each other. So long as their expenses 
were moderate he would see that they were not short of money. 
Before the end of 1298 Hamo of Gateley was back in England, 
and on 10 January 1299 the archbishop wrote to the bishop of 
Norwich asking him to persuade Hamo to return to the curia.^ 
After taking counsel with the bishops and clergy of the province 
it had been decided to send presents to the pope, cardinals, 
officials, and servants of the curia to expedite the business, and 
it was urgent that Hamo, who had promoted it before the pope 
and cardinals, should now bring it to a successful conclusion. 
Moreover there was a rumour that Anselm of Eastry was in despair 
at the curia and he might return, because he was ignorant of 
the remedy which was near at hand. In a letter of the same date 
from his palace at Mayfield, the archbishop urged Hamo to visit 
him as soon as possible to receive further instructions.^ On 
24 January he wrote to Anselm of Eastry to tell him that he had 
appointed Master Reginald of St. Albans as his proctor at the 
curia, and telling him not to withdraw untU he had received 
the archbishop's commands.' 

1 Cal. of Letters Close, 1296-1302, p. 142. 

^ Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 309^. » Cal. of Papal Letters, i. 575 

« Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 311. ^ Ibid. fos. 256^, 257. 

« Ibid., fo. 257. ' Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fo. 314^. 


Apparently Hamo refused to return to the ciu-ia, and 
there was a further delay. On 1 April the archbishop wrote 
from GiUingham to Boniface VIII to offer him a ' small and 
insignificant ' present of two thousand marks from the bishops 
and clergy of the province of Canterbury,^ and to Neapolio, 
cardinal deacon of St. Adrian, telling him that Master William 
of Pickering and Master Reginald of St. Albans would bring 
him a trifling gift of thirty marks. ^ He besought him to help 
them in bringing the business of their church to a favom'able 
conclusion. From an entry in the margin of the register it 
appears that nine other cardinals were offered the same amount, 
all that the church could afford in its time of tribulation. 
But Boniface VIII was in desperate financial straits, and no 
petition which would reduce the revenues of the papal exchequer 
had any prospect of success. There is no record of any answer, 
but it is certain that William of Pickering and Reginald of 
St. Albans effected no more than Hamo of Gateley and Anselm of 
Eastry. The evidence is clear that the clergy continued to suffer 
under the burdens from which they had sought for some relief. 
The Taxation of Pope Nicholas remained the assessment for 
future tenths and other levies. The papal collectors pressed 
for payment of the procurations, and as late as 1309 William 
de Testa was still demanding the arrears due to the cardinals of 
Albano and Palestrina. His mandate to the bishop of Salisbury 
is entered in the register of Simon of Ghent, who gave instructions 
to his archdeacons and the dean of Salisbury to find out the names 
of the collectors and summon them to bring all their documents 
to Sherborne on 13 October.^ 

Those portions of the accounts of the collectors in the diocese 
of Salisbury which are entered in the register of Bishop Simon 
of Ghent show that the procurations had eventually been paid 
almost in full.^ The abbot of Abingdon, collector for the fii'st 
and second years in the archdeaconries of Berkshke and Wiltshii'e, 
got in all but £2 135. Od. The abbot of Milton, collector for the 
first year in the archdeaconries of Dorset and Sarum, got in the 
full amount of £56 and paid £52 to Geoffrey of Vezano, being 
allowed £4 for the cost of collection. When an inquny into the 
amount of arrears was held in 1309 by order of William de Testa, 
the abbot of Sherborne stated that he was collector for the 
third year in the archdeaconries of Dorset and Sarum. The total 
amount due at 3d. in the mark was £151 45. 3d. From this total 
allowances of £28 1 Is. 8^d. had been deducted on certain names, 
probably those of hospitals and poor nunneries, and he had been 
granted the further sum of £6 105. 4|<Z. for his expenses. He held 

» Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fos. 314^ 315. » Ibid. fo. 315. 

» R«g. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fo. 111. * Ibid. fos. 112^, 113. 


receipts from Geoffrey of Vezano for £104 13s. 4c?., and from 
William de Testa for £1 155. \0d., and he had a small sum in hand, 
so the amount outstanding was £8 125. \%d. The debtors had 
been excommunicated, and he gave a list of them. 

Within the next twenty years the clergy were three times 
required to pay procurations to cardinals. In 1307, when 
Clement V sent Peter of Spain, cardinal bishop of Sabina, to 
arrange a general pacification and to assist in settling the marriage 
between Edward, prince of Wales, and Isabella of France, Peter 
demanded a procuration of twelve marks from all ecclesiastical 
persons, with the reservation that those who were too poor to 
find this sum should pay at the rate of fourpence in the mark, 
and in a later letter these were defined as monasteries and others 
whose revenues were less than £100 a year and over £4 a year 
according to the Taxation of Pope Nicholas.^ In 1312, when 
two other cardinals, Arnold, bishop of Albano, and Arnold of 
St. Prisca, were sent on a mission to foster peace in the realm, 
they levied a procuration of twelve marks on all ecclesiastical 
persons whose revenues were assessed at over £200 a year, and 
at threepence in the mark for others.^ Archbishop Winchelsey 
was instructed to collect this procuration from his province within 
twenty-one days. He had been in exile when Cardinal Peter 
of Spain was in England in 1307. He now sent a letter by his 
clerk, Henry of Derby, which was delivered to the cardinals in 
London on 11 May, in which he raised several doubtful points, 
and protested that in the papal bull authorizing the levy of 
procurations there was no mention of rectors, asserting that on 
the occasion of previous levies it was never seen, heard, or 
accustomed that ' simple rectors ' should pay.^ His vigorous 
attempt to protect the parish clergy of his province from this 
imposition was one of his last acts, for he died on 11 May. In 
a subsequent letter to the bishop of Salisbury, commanding him 
to collect the procurations in his diocese, the cardinals explained 
that rectors were included under ecclesiastical persons, and that 
the archbishop's statement concerning them was contrary to 
the truth as they had ascertained from the registers of other 
cardinal legates.^ 

In 1317, when Gaucelin, cardinal of SS. Marcellinus and Peter, 
and Luke, cardinal of St. Mary's in Via Lata, were sent to 
negotiate between Edward II and Robert Bruce, they demanded 
a procuration at the highest possible rate, fom-pence in the mark 
from all.^ Apparently they failed to get more than twelve 
marks on the higher incomes, for the prior of Canterbury reported 

* Reg. Salisbury, Simon de Gandavo, fos. 73-81. 

- Ihid. fos. 153-5. ^ /j^. fo. 155. 4 m^, fo. 155. 

' Reg, Carlisle, Halton, ii. 146-51 ; cf. Reg. Cant., Reynolds, fo. 240. 


to the archbishop in 1338 that after searching the records he had 
ascertained that twelve marks had been paid.* 

There is no record that the pope appointed any one in England 
to absolve the clergy who had incurred excommunication by 
contributing to the subsidy in fear and thus disregarded the bull 
CUricis laicos. Moreover, in 1299 the archbishop's registrar 
noted several instances of absolutions which the papal peniten- 
tiary at Rome had empowered him to grant after taking a caution 
that the offenders, who had erred not through contempt of the 
keys but in ignorance, would obey the mandates of the church 
and after imposing a salutary penance.^ The prior and chapter 
of Worcester were suspended from orders for fifteen days and 
were bound individually to say five psalters and five masses for 
the reformation of the universal church. The abbot of Hayles 
was suspended for several days and ordered to feed forty poor 
persons. It is probable that in addition to the abbots of Walden, 
Barlings, and Basingwerk, and the rector of Batheley in the 
diocese of Norwich, there were numerous other instances which 
were not entered. Another instance was noted in the register 
of John de Pontissara, bishop of Winchester ; others occur in 
1303 and 1306 in the register of William Gainsborough, bishop 
of Worcester.^ 

In spite of the efforts of successive papal collectors, the popes 
did not receive more than the fixed amount for Peter's pence.* 
In 1306 the papal collector, William de Testa, appointed commis- 
saries to secure the collection of firstfruits and all other dues of the 
papacy,^ whose inquisitorial demands stiired the resentment of the 
laity as well as of the clergy, and at the parliament of Carlisle 
in 1307 a petition from lords and commons was presented against 
papal oppression ; it was urged that a fixed sum had been paid 
for Peter's pence from time immemorial, and that the present 
unreasonable exactions would be to the grave loss of the churches 
and of the whole nation.^ 

It has been observed that if the several articles of this peti- 
tion presented at Carlisle had been drafted into a statute, part 
of it would have anticipated the Statute of Premunire, but on 
the arrival of Peter of Spain, cardinal bishop of Sabina, Edward I 
judged it impolitic to provoke a contest with the papacy.' 

Rose Graham. 

1 Literae Cantuarienses, ed. Sheppard, ii. 174, 175. 
" Reg. Cant., Winchelsey, fos. 274, 275, 278^, 279, 280^. 

3 Beg. Winchester, Pontissara, p. 106 ; Beg. Wore, Gainsborough (Worcestershire 
Hist. Soc), pp. 31, 145, 146. 

* Boyal Hist Soc. Trans. (New Ser.), xv. 185. 

» Ibid. p. 185, J. M. Wilson, The Worcester Liber Albus, pp. 70-3, 

« Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 163 ; Bot. Pari. i. 207, 217-23. 

' Tout in The Political History oj England, iii. 230, 231, 

1922 47 

Council and Cabinet^ i6yg-88 

WHEN Charles II dissolved his old privy council on 21 April 
1679 he made a declaration ^ containing three main theses : 
that the members of the new council should be limited in number 
and selected on definite principles, that the government should 
be carried on in accordance with the advice of the new coun- 
cillors, and that the eclipse of the whole body by a committee 
for foreign affairs or cabinet council should cease. ^ Charles did 
not adhere to any of these promises very strictly ; but while 
the first was only partially broken, the second was immediately 
disregarded, and the third cast aside after 1680. James II 
paid no attention at all to the declaration. Let us first examine 
the question of membership. 

Of the thirty -three members of the newly constituted council,^ 
eighteen retained their places at the end of Charles's reign. ^ Of 
the other fifteen four had died : Holies in February 1680, Lauder- 
dale in August, Rupert in November, and Finch in December 
1682. Shaftesbury had been dismissed on 15 October 1679 ; 
Capel, Cavendish, Powle, and Russell had obtained leave to resign 
in January 1680; the names of Salisbury, Essex, and Temple 
had been struck off the list in January 1681,^ and Anglesey had 

» This declaration is entered at the beginning of the Privy Council Register, 
vol. Ixviii, and printed in the Works of Sir William Temple (ed. 1754), i, app. iii, and 
in State Tracts, pt. ii (1693). The important passages were printed by Mr. H. W. V. 
Temperley, ante, xxvii. 684-5. 

* Contemporaries agree in interpreting Charles's promise to abolish the committee 
for foreign affairs as the end of the cabinet council. Bulstrode, Memoirs, p. 300 ; 
Algernon Sidney's Letters to Henri/ Savile (printed separately and in Works of Algernon 
Sidney, 1772), 21 April and 16 July 1679 ; Savile Correspondence, p. 91 ; Hist. MSS. 
Comm., Ormonde MSS., N.S., iv. xx, and v. 55 ; Barillon to Louis XIV, 21 April 
1679, in Christie, Life of Shaftesbury, ii. cix. 

* The best list of the new councillors is to be found in an appendix to the late 
Murray Beaven's Sir William Temple. 

* Sancroft, Ormonde, Arlington, Sunderland, Bath, Compton, Henry Coventry, 
Sir Francis North (created Lord Guilford September 1683), Sir John Ernie, Sir Thomas 
Chichele with Albemarle, Newcastle, Winchester, Worcester (created duke of Beaufort 
December 1682), Bridgewater, Fauconberg, Halifax, and Robartes (created earl of 
Radnor July 1679). The first ten were originally privy councillors by their places, 
and the other eight non-official peers. All the non-official commoners had vanished. 

* Simderland shared the fate of Essex and Temple, but waa readmitted 20 Septem- 
ber 1682. 

48 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

been disgraced in August 1682. In addition Monmouth and Sey- 
mour, though never formally removed, had ceased to attend, 
the former after his disgrace in 1679, the latter as a result of his 
annoyance at the appointment of Halifax instead of himself 
to succeed Anglesey as lord privy seal.^ The additions, however, 
more than compensated for the losses. They were, in 1679, 
Laurence Hyde ; ^ in 1680, Godolphin, Daniel Finch,^ Sir Leoline 
Jenkins, Ossory, Clarendon, and Sir Robert Carr ; in 1681, 
Oxford, Chesterfield, Ailesbury, Conway, Craven ; in 1682, 
George Legge,* Lindsey, Sir F. Pemberton ; in 1683, Huntingdon, 
Peterborough, Jeffreys ; in 1684, Moray and Middleton ; and in 
1685, John Drummond, afterwards earl of Melfort. Of these 
twenty-one new councillors Ossory and Carr died^ and Pemberton 
was dismissed before the end of the reign, so that when James II 
commanded that all the members of the council of Charles II 
should be sworn their number was thirty-six. 

He himself was relatively more lavish in his creations than his 
brother had been. His additions in 1685 were eight in number : 
G«orge, prince of Denmark, Perth and Queensberry, respectively 
lord chancellor and lord treasurer of Scotland, Mulgrave, Berkeley, 
Sir Edward Herbert, chief justice of the king's bench, Preston and 
Plymouth. In 1686 the subservient bishop of Durham took the 
place of the suspended bishop of London, on 1 1 March Arundell of 
Wardour, Belasyse, Dover, and Powis, all catholics, were sworn, 
and in October Tjn-connel was similarly honoured. In 1687 three 
more catholics were admitted and only one protestant, Castle- 
maine. Sir N. Butler, Hamilton, and Edward Petre the Jesuit. In 
1688 three nonconformists were added on 6 July,^ Sir J. Trevor, 
Silas Titus, ^ and Christopher Vane, and another catholic on 
13 July, Sir R. Strickland. To counterbalance this increase of 
twenty-two, seven councillors died — ^Arlington, Henry Coventry, 
Jenkins, Guilford, Bridgewater, Ailesbury, and Plymouth ; 
and three were dismissed, Halifax and Compton in 1685, and 

1 Monmouth's name does not appear in the list for June 1683 (Privy Coun. Reg., 
Ixx) ; that of Seymour is included at that date but omitted in February 1685 {ibid. 
Ixxi), although James ordered the admission of all his late brother's councillors. 
Seymour attended for the last time 20 September 1682 {ibid. Ixix. 545). Cf. Ormonde 
to Arran, 29 October 1682 : ' Mr. Seymour has yet left us . . . palpably in discontent 
because hee was not presently made lord privy scale ' (Bodl. Lib., Carte MS. 219, 
fo. 396). 

^ Created earl of Rochester November 1682. 

* Succeeded as second earl of Nottingham December 1682. 

* Created Lord Dartmouth December 1682. 

* The astonishment caused by these nominations is well illustrated by the entry 
in Clarendon's Diary : ' Good God bless us ! What will the world come to ? ' 

* In December 1694 Titus is reported to have said in parliament : ' He had indeed 
that title, but knew no more of that king's council than the yeoman of the guard who 
stood at the door ' {Lexington Papers, p. 22). Yet he attended with fair regularity 
aud was present at the last meeting recorded in the register on 16 December 1688. 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-dS 49 

Sir T. Chichele in 1687. Thus at the end of 1688 the privy 
council contained forty -eight members. 

More important, however, than this augmentation beyond the 
number prescribed in 1679 was the total failure to observe the 
promise that policy should be in accordance with the advice of 
the reformed council. Small unofficial cliques, or even single 
individuals such as Barillon or the duchess of Portsmouth,^ 
often wielded more influence than any properly constituted 
body, and during 1679-80 Charles chiefly relied first on a group 
of four ^ and then of three advisers,' and finally Laurence Hyde 
was the only minister cognizant of the treaty with Louis XIV 
which enabled Charles to dispense with parliament for the rest 
of his reign.* 

The king's failure to redeem his pledge to govern by the 
' constant advice ' of the privy council is most clearly shown in his 
dealings with parliament. The parliament which met in March 
1679 was prorogued on 27 May without the council's being 
informed beforehand at all. The king explained that if he had 
allowed a debate in council on the question his intention would 
have become known and the two houses would have thus had an 
opportunity of passing some angry votes. ^ This sudden proroga- 
tion, we are told, was received ' with very great resentment of 
both houses ; and such rage of my Lord Shaftesbury, that he 
said upon it aloud in the house, that he would have the heads of 
those who were the advisers of this prorogation '.^ Charles soon 
determined to go a step further and to get rid of the obnoxious 
assembly altogether. On this occasion, however, he and his four 
confidential advisers planned to secure a majority of the council 
on their side by sounding members before the formal meeting.' 
By some extraordinary oversight this prudent step was neglected, 
and when on 3 July Charles brought forward the suggestion 
that the parliament should be dissolved he met with determined 
opposition. According to Temple, the lord chancellor 

* As Sir H.(? enry) C.(? apel) is reported to have said on 26 October 1680, Barillon 
resembled ' rather a prime minister of state of this kingdom than a counsellor to 
another prince ' (Kennet, Complete History, iii. 385). Of the duchess Halifax wrote : 
^ Her ctamber was the true Cabinet Council ' (Character of King Charles II). 

* Essex, Halifax, Sunderland, and Temple. 
' Godolphin, Hyde, and Sunderland. 

* ' Mr. Heyde qui est le seul des ministres avec qui j'aye commerce ' (Barillon to 
Louis, 3 April 1681 (N.S.). Transcripts from Paris, Public Record Office) 

« Southwell to Ormonde {Hist. MSB. Comm., Ormonde M8S., N.S., iv. 520). The 
great secrecy observed is well illustrated by a letter from Henry Coventry, secretary 
of state, to Ormonde, in which he calls the prorogation ' great news to me ', and by an 
■entry in the diary of the lord privy seal : ' This morning was in parliament where 
about two of the clock the king passed some bills & prorogued us unexpectedly till 
Aug. 14. God avert danger by it ' (Anglesey's Diary, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 18730. 
€f. Ormonde MSS. v. 117, 118). 

* Sir William Temple's Works (ed. 1754), i. 424-5. ' Ibid. p. 429. 

50 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

spoke long and violently against the dissolution ; and was followed by 
Lord Shaftesbury in the amplest manner, and most tragical terms ; Lord 
Anglesey followed them, by urging all the fatal consequences that could 
be ; the same style was pursued by Lord Chamberlain, and agreed to by 
the Marquis of Worcester, and pursued from the very top to the very 
bottom of the table by every man there, and at a very full council, 

the four conspirators excepted.^ The debate was adjourned 
for a week, and in the meantime Charles still tried to win the 
approval of a majority by private conversations. Anglesey 
records in his diary that he was sent for by the king to Windsor, 
' and was there a quarter before seven '. He continues : ' Had 
large discourse with him about the dissolution and opposed . . . 
Dined with Lord Newport and after were in councel with the King 
where Lord Chancellor, I and Lord Chamberlain argued against 
the dissolution, Earle of Essex and the Viscount Hallyfax reason- 
ing for it.' ^ When the council met again on 10 July Charles 
said that he had considered the question since their last meeting 
and had resolved to dissolve parliament immediately without again 
asking the opinions of the councillors. Shaftesbury protested 

that the world woidd very much take notice of his Majesty's late declara- 
tion, where he promised to do nothing without the advice of his Council ; 
notwithstanding which his Majesty had not only prorogued the Parliament 
without their advice, but had proceeded to a dissolution against it. To 
this the King replied that in matters of this nature, which were so plain, 
and wherein he was so fully convinced, as of the necessity of dissolving 
this Parliament, he could not divest himself of that power of resolving 
without the plurality of votes in the Council, and that he would in other 
things hearken as much as ever any other prince had done to his council. 
After this almost all the Lords spoke in the same style, and to the same 
purpose as the other day.* 

Protests were, however, in vain, and on 12 July a proclamation 
announced that ' the King's most excellent majesty being 
resolved to meet his people, and to have their advice in frequent 
parliaments, hath thought fit to dissolve this present parlia- 
ment '.* 

When the time for the new parliament to meet was at hand 
the king calmly told the council ' that for very important reasons 

* Temple, Works, i. 431-2. It seems clear that Temple has condensed the debates 
of two separate meetings into one. 

* Diary, 6 July, Add. MS. 18730. In a letter to Ormonde Anglesey wrote on 
12 July : ' On Thursday last at Hampton Court in Council His Majesty declared his 
pleasure to dissolve this Parliament Some of us were sent for to Windsor last Lord's 
day (6 July), where, though we had large debate and discourse with His Majesty, 
nothing could divert this resolution ' {Ormonde MSS. v. 152 ; Henry Sidney's Diary^ 
3 and 6 July 1679). 

^ Ormonde MSS. v. 530. 

* London Gazette, 10 July-14 July 1679, no. 1424. The same formula was employed 
ou 18 January 1681 (ibid. no. 1583). 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 61 

he thought fit to have the Parliament prorogued unto the 26th of 
January ; that he would take this matter upon himself and 
desired nobody to speak therein, for he did not love that any 
should be arraigned abroad for their opinions there ' } Various 
attempts were made, both by arguments in council^ and by 
petitions,^ to secure an earlier session, but the king soon showed 
his indifference to public opinion. On 10 December Charles 
' against the full advice of his councel declared that fatall and 
dismall resolution of prorogueing this parliament till November 
the 1 1th. The Lord save England.' * ' All at council were stunned 
at this surprising resolution ', says Temple, who made a strong 
protest against the usage to which the nominal advisers of the 
king were subjected. He urged that the prorogation of parlia- 
ment was so important that the advice of the council ought to be 
at least sought, and that the king ought to appoint other coun- 
cillors if he distrusted those present. Finally he moved that 
those who had advised the long prorogation should now declare 
their reasons, and his motion was seconded by Essex and sup- 
ported by Halifax and others. The lord chancellor spoke so 
earnestly against the prorogation that he was told to desist 
by his sovereign, who threatened to leave the chair if anything 
more was said.^ Thus the king flouted the almost unanimous 
opinion of the council, and the attorney-general was ordered to 
prepare a proclamation to prorogue the parliament until 
11 November 1680.^ 

Eventually the houses met in October, when the com- 
mons still proved intractable. Accordingly the king told the 
councillors that he was going to dissolve this parliament 
and summon another to meet at Oxford. ,As he disdained 
to ask their advice so he refused to listen to their protests. 
When Salisbury wished to argue against the royal policy 
he was bluntly informed by Charles that his resolution was 
already taken and nothing could change it.' The necessity 
for secrecy prevented Charles from announcing his intention 
summarily to dismiss the Oxford parliament, though he is said 
to have consulted his cabinet council.* Thus it will be seen that 

^ Southwell to Ormonde, Ormonde M8S. iv. 545. 

* Hatton CorrespondeTice, i. 203. 

* The petition of the opposition peers is the best known (Christie, Life of Skaftes- 
bury, ii. 354). « Diary of Anglesey, Add. MS. 18730. 

' It is clear from Hatton Correspondence (i. 211-13) that Temple has confused the 
debate on 15 October with that on 10 December, and that he has misled so great an 
authority as Miss H. C. Foxcroft (see Life of Halifax, i. 196). 

* London Gazette, 8-11 December 1679, no. 1467. 

' Barillon to Louis, 20/30 January 1681. Transcripts from Paris, Public R«cord 
Office ; Anglesey's Diary. 

* Memoirs of Thomas Earl of Aileshury, i. 56. The second part of Andrew 
Marvell's Rise and Grairth of Popery (attributed to Robert Ferguson) states that the 


52 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

Charles had broken on many occasions his pledges to the public, 
but at least he had proved the truth of his statement (as far as 
important questions were concerned) to Ailesbury when discussing 
the reconstructed privy council : ' God's fish, they have put 
a set of men about me, but they shall know nothing.' ^ 

The failure of the ambitious scheme of which Temple claimed 
to be the sole author may be partly attributed to the distrust 
it aroused in the house of commons,^ but its main cause was the 
dishonest character of the king. The composition of the council 
may have been faulty, but Charles could not have found thirty- 
three Englishmen of any considerable political standing who 
would have been willing to follow him along the crooked paths 
in which he delighted. In July 1679 Barillon wrote to Louis 
that the English king had begged him to ' incline your majesty 
to be willing to put England upon your dependence for ever '.* 
So long as Charles entertained such unworthy projects he could 
not afford to guide his policy by the advice of any duly con- 
stituted body. 

If, however, the privy council did not direct the royal policy 
it performed many important functions, although it is very 
difficult to give any summary which comprehends the extremely 
varied business transacted. In the first place, all proclamations 
were issued after approval by the council, which was formally 
responsible for them. It has been suggested that the frequency 
of orders in council instead of proclamations, which is charac- 
teristic of the period under review, is due to a desire to attach 
a personal responsibility by the publication of the names of those 
making the order.* Thus the direction to the clergy to read the 
second declaration of indulgence in all churches is contained 
in an order dated 4 May 1688,^ but in general the political insigni- 
ficance of the subjects dealt with by orders does not support this 
suggestion. Secondly, the council dealt with crimes affecting 
the state, ordering the arrest of suspects, examining them, 
and either releasing them or committing them to prison to await 
trial.* Thirdly, the council acted as a kind of clearing-house for 

dissolution was agreed upon at a cabinet meeting held at Christ Church on Sunday 
night. The Pari. Hist. iv. 1339 quotes the relevant passage. 
^ Ailesbury's Memoirs, i. 35-6. 

* Mr. E, R. Turner has printed extracts from the debates to prove this (ante, 
XXX. 261). North goes so far as to state that the remodelling of the council ' soured 
and spoiled the parliaments and after that time all honest men were discouraged and 
no one good vote was given ' (Add. MS. 32520, fo. 251). Cf. Klopp, Der Fall des 
Hauses Stuart, ii. 202. ' Dalrymple, Memoirs, ii. 230. 

* Ttidor and Stuart Proclamations, ed. Steele and Crawford, cviii. There were sixteen 
orders issued April 1679-February 1685, and eight February 1685-December 1688. 

> Ibid. no. 3865. 

' The most famous of these commitments ordering the imprisonment of the seven 
bishops is printed in Commons^ Journals, x. 185. 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 63 

petitions of all kinds, sometimes answering them at once, but 
more often referring them to standing committees or to com- 
mittees appointed for the purpose,^ or even to single members, 
particularly to the lord treasurer (or first lord of the treasury) 
or to a secretary of state. The recommendations of these 
bodies or individuals were then either approved or disapproved 
and orders given accordingly. Fourthly, various directions were 
given, often to redress grievances of which complaint was made. 
Thus on receipt of a memorial from the French ambassador on 
2 May 1685 L'Estrange was commanded to cause diligent search 
to be made for the translator and printer of a book entitled 
Les Plaintes des Protestans cruellement opprimez dans le Boyaume 
de France in order that they might be prosecuted. At the same 
time a French and an English copy of this work were to be burnt 
by the common hangman.^ Fifthly, the council also approved 
drafts of treaties,^ and ordered certain payments to be made 
from time to time by the treasury.^ Lastly, debates took place 
on the general policy to be pursued, though, as the result alone 
is noticed in the register, information on this topic is scanty and 
vague. ^ To sum up, the perusal of the register leaves the impres- 
sion that there was a perceptible revival of the importance of the 
council in 1679-80, and that decadence set in again afterwards. 
Certainly until the very end of James's reign, when the council 
again came into its own, it was becoming more and more 
concerned only with formal routine. This was inevitable by 
reason of the fact that much of the business was now transacted 
by committees. 

On 22 April 1679 four standing committees were nominated, 
for intelligence, Ireland, Tangier, and trade and plantations, ^ 

* Thus the petition of John de la Cloche of Jersey was referred to the committee 
for the affairs of Jersey on 4 August 1680, and that of John Wheldon to a committee 
of four appointed for the purpose on 21 July 1681. 

* Privy Coun. Reg. Ixxi. 263. Cf. Macaulay, History of England, ch. vi. 

* ' This day the ensuing project of a treaty marine between his majesty and the 
emperor of Fez and Morocco &c. was read at the board & approved by his majesty 
vizt. . . .' (Privy Coun. Reg. Ixix. 517). 

* Thus on 16 April 1686 the arrears of £242,000 due to the servants of the late king 
were ordered to be paid (ibid. Ixxi. 252). 

* Edward Southwell, a former clerk of the privy council, apparently writing in 
1692-5, has the following note : ' Powers of the council Board. . . . The clerk of the 
Parliament did allways bring the Acts of Parliament to be read in Council, before the 
King came to the House to pass them ; but this was left off in King James II time. 
The Privy Council were glad of this because it might not seem to lye on them the 
advising not to pass any bill ' (Brit. Mus, Add. MS. 34349, fo. 21, printed in Hatschek, 
Englische Verfassungsgeschichte, p. 443 n.). 

* Privy Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 5. Cf. ante, xxvii. 689, where Mr. Temperley wrote : 
' We hear before 1679 of a foreign committee, and after it of a committee of intelli- 
gence, both of which seem sometimes to have been loosely described as the " cabinet 
council". They are sharply differentiated from the "Standing Committees", in 
that their function is one of general decision as to policy. Diplomacy appears to have 

54 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

and others, both permanent as well as temporary, were appointed 
from time to time. Thus on 7 May 1679 it was ordered that the 
committee for trade be likewise a committee for the alBEairs of 
Jersey and Guernsey.* On 14 July 1680 a committee for the 
redemption of slaves was named,^ but on 15 September a com- 
mittee of the whole council or any three of them was appointed 
for the same purpose.^ Nor is this the only instance of this 
innovation, for on 27 January 1688 a similar order is given with 
reference to the committee for trade.* Otherwise membership 
was confined to those originally appointed with the addition of 
individuals specifically named. Usually a new member was 
nominated, if at all, to one committee, but occasionally he was 
added to two or even to all.^ There were also a considerable 
number of committees of a more temporary nature, though as 
there is no formal entry of their dissolution it is impossible to 
state exactly when they ceased to exist. Among the more im- 
portant of these committees may be mentioned that for inquiring 
' into all things relating to the plot ',^ which was composed of all 
the councillors, and that for inspecting and revising the lists of 
justices of the peace.' Some at least of these committees had 
their regular clerks, for there is an order of 7 May 1679 that 
William Bridgeman should attend constantly at the committee 
of intelligence ' in like manner as Mr. Blathwait does for the 
business of trade and plantations and as Mr. Cooling is to do for 

been the sphere of the foreign committee, while affairs both domestic and external 
come before the committee of intelligence. On the contrary, both the committee for 
foreign affairs and the committee of intelligence are officially described as standing 
committees (Brit. Miis. Egerton MSS. 2543, fos. 205-6, which are printed, but not 
quite completely, in Hatschek, Handbvjch des Offentliche.n Eeckts, 1906, ii. 108-9, 
and Privy Conn. Reg. Ixviii. 5). Whereas Mr. E. R. Turner has, I think, proved the 
identity of the cabinet and the committee for foreign affairs for the period 1668-79 
{Amer. Hist. Eev. xix), I have only found one mention of the cabinet at all during 
1679-80 {infra, p. 55, n. 3). The notes of Williamson (preserved in State Papers, For. 
Entry Books) prove that the committee for foreign affairs dealt with domestic policy 
as well as diplomacy. Also committees were occasionally entrusted with business 
totally different from that with which they were originally appointed to deal. Thus 
the committee for trade and plantations was ordered to consider the question of the 
safe custody of records in the Rolls House and to report thereon to the council 
(16 January 1685, Privy Coun. Reg. Ixx. 290). 

» Ibid. Ixviii. 26. 
• * Previously matters concerning captives of Algerine pirates had been referred 
to the committee of trade (20 February 1680, ibid. p. 398). 

» Ibid. Ixix. 41, 100. 

♦ Ibid. Ixxii. 685. 

* Robartes was added to the committee of intelligence 28 May 1679, Laurence 
Hyde to the committees of intelligence and trade 23 November 1679, Sir R. Carr 
to all committees 20 October 1680 {ibid. Ixviii, 63, 289 ; Ixix. 127) 

• Appointed 28 May 1679 (ibid. Ixviii. 60). 

' Appointed 22 October 1686. A committee of four had been named on 3 December 
1 679 for a similar purpose ( ibid. Ixxi. 325, 363-79 ; Ixviii. 304-9. ; House of Lords MISS., 
1678-88, pp. 172-93). 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 66 

the business of Tangier ' } It is, therefore, surprising that, with 
the exception of one volume for the committee of intelligence,^ 
no consecutive series of minutes has come to light, though a stray 
minute can be found here and there in the register of the privy 
council itself. 

It remains now to consider the most interesting of these stand- 
ing committees, that for intelligence, and to trace the rebirth of 
the cabinet council.^ The committee of intelligence was more 
important than any other committee, and owed its importance 
chiefly to two factors. One was the presence of the king, who 
generally but not invariably attended its meetings,* and the 
other was the absence of any restriction as to the topics to be 
discussed beyond the caprice of the sovereign.^ The regular 
diplomatic correspondence from ambassadors abroad was read 
at this committee and directions were given to the secretary of 
state concerned as to the replies to be sent. It was sometimes 
required to interview foreign ambassadors or even to negotiate 
a treaty.^ It discussed the answers to be sent to memorials from 
foreign envoys, and suggested that the resident of the duke of 
Neuburg might be expelled for harbouring priests. It also 
dealt with much miscellaneous business referred to it by the 
privy council. Thus on 2 November 1679 it was ordered to 
examine the present condition of the Tower ; ' on 18 August 
1680 its report on the ill posture of affairs in Ireland, with recom- 
mendations to provide for its safety, was read in the privy council.^ 
On 23 June 1680 the king ordered that all instructions for naval 
commanders should always be first brought to the committee 
of intelligence ' as heretofore they have been to the comittee 
for forreine affairs '.^ But the advice of the committee was not 
sought on the great questions which agitated political circles, 

* Privy Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 26. 

* Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 15643, fos. 1-52. A complete transcript of this volume was 
placed at my disposal by Professor C. H. Firth, who also lent me some of his own 
notes on the council, and made many fruitful suggestions. 

' The only reference by an official to the cabinet I have noticed for the period 
April 1679 to February 1681 is that of Southwell in a letter dated 17 February 1680. 
It is clear, however, that he is really referring to the committee of intelligence (Register 
of the committee, 15 and 24 February 1680). 

* There is some evidence to show that he occasionally attended other committees 
in Anglesey's Diary, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 18730. 

* The members ' or any three of them (a secretary of state being always one) [were] 
to be a committee of intelligence for the opening and considering all advices, as well 
forreigne as domestique and to meete where and as often as they shall think fit ' (Privy 
Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 5). 

* Register of the committee of intelligence, 16 July,- 7 August, 8 December 1679. 

' Privy Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 267, 461-3 ; Register of the committee, 23 November, 
2 December 1679. 

« Privy Coun. R«g. Ixix. 72-3 ; Register of the committee, 8 August, 9 November 

^ Register of the committee, 23 June 1680. 

66 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

those connected with the plot, the banishment of the duke of 
York, or the meeting, prorogation, or dissolution of parliament.^ 
Whether the two houses should meet depended more on the 
prospects of a French pension than on the advice of English 
councillors. It is, therefore, natural to find that while the 
committee was occasionally consulted as to the king's speech 
or the answer to be given to an address from the commons,^ 
it was apparently never even informed beforehand of the dissolu- 
tions of July 1679 and January 1681. 

The minutes of the committee end with 1 February 1681, and 
as the clerk, William Bridgeman, used the end of the book for 
other purposes there is no reason to believe that any more were 
kept.^ This is not surprising because the position of the com- 
mittee with respect to the privy council had altered. During the 
first eighteen months of its existence it is mentioned not infre- 
quently in the privy council register, and the earlier additions to 
its membership are made at the meetings of the council, but 
after 18 August 1680 * there seems not to be a single reference 
of any kind to it or to any committee for foreign affairs. 
Another significant fact is that although Sir Robert Carr, chancel- 
lor of the duchy, was appointed to ' be of all committees of the 
board ' on 20 October 1680 ^ he never attended the committee 
of intelligence. The inference is that the committee of intelli- 
gence had ceased to be regarded as an ordinary standing com- 
mittee of the council, and was becoming merely a number of 
councillors selected by the king, not nominated at the council, 
having no business referred to it as formerly by the council 
and making no reports to the council. In other words, it occu- 
pied a position similar in these respects to that of a cabinet. 
Its members were privy councillors, but it was no formal and 

* It is true there was a debate (without any resolution being agreed on) when the 
king produced a petition for summoning parliament and stopping the forces marching 
against the Scotch rebels, but there is nothing to show what was actually discussed 
(Register of committee, 21 June 1679). It is clear from Temple's account that the 
committee did not discuss the dissolution of July 1679, and no record of any debate 
on the prorogation of the newly elected parliament in October 1679 appears in the 
register. On 4 April 1680 the king informed the committee that he was resolved to 
prorogue parliament, but there is no mention of a debate. In any case the proroga- 
tion to the following autumn had already been decided. There was, however, a 
debate on 25 January 1681 on the petition of some peers that parliament should not 
meet at Oxford. 

* Register of the committee, 14 and 25 December 1680. In the latter instance the 
address was read, but the question of the reply to be given was referred to the privj' 

^ Unfortunately the report of the examinatiou of Bridgeman before the com- 
mittee of the house of lords in 1689 is so vague that no argument can be based on it, 
but it, perhaps, indirectly confirms this surmise (lords' Journals, xiv. 388). 

* Privy Coun. Reg. \x\x. 72-3. This is the last reference to the committee of 
intelligence I could find, though I examined the privy council register — somewhat 
hurriedly it is true— up to the revolution. s m^^ i27. 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 57 

recognized committee of the council. Not only did the com- 
mittee change its character, but it also changed its name. Whereas 
down to about the end of 1680 the secretaries of state in their 
official correspondence to English representatives abroad speak 
of the committee of intelligence, afterwards they no longer use 
this term, but refer in precisely similar ways to the committee 
of foreign affairs.^ 

It is probable that the changed status of the committee was 
due to the alterations which had taken place in its membership. 
There were originally nine or ten members — the lord chancellor 
(Heneage, Lord Finch),^ the lord president (Shaftesbury),^ 
Monmouth, the lord chamberlain (Arlington), Sunderland, Essex, 
Halifax, Coventry, secretary of state, Sir William Temple, and 
probably Prince Rupert.^ Of these, Shaftesbury, Monmouth, 
Sunderland, Essex, and Temple had been turned out by February 
1681, and Coventry had practically ceased to attend after he had 
relinquished his secretaryship.* The additions were Robartes 
in May 1679,^ Laurence Hyde in November 1679,^ Jenkins and 
Godolphin in February 1680, and Seymour in January 1681. If 
the surviving members of the committee of intelligence be 
compared with the first available list ' of those present at a meet- 
ing of the committee for foreign affairs there is a remarkable 

» Thus, Jenkins to Silvius, 14 May, 21 December 1680, and Jenkins to Sackville, 
25 April 1681, to Bulstrode 11 November 1681 (Public Record Office, State Papers. 
For. Entry Books, 188-90). There are scores of other references. In a letter to 
Philip Warwick {Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1680-1, p. 95) Jenkins says that his letters 
had been read at the committee of foreign affairs, but he clearly was referring to the 
committee of intelligence (Register of the committee of intelligence, 28 November 
1680). It is noteworthy that Sunderland, the other secretary, also frequently mentions 
the committee of intelligence during 1680 (State Papers, For. Entry Book, 19 ; Heniy 
Sidney, Diary, i. 229, &c.). Unfortunately he was dismissed in January 1681, and 
the papers relating to his second secretaryship are so few that I have been unable to 
find any references by him to the committee after January 1681. 

* ' Who with the two secretaryes may be present at all comittees as often as they 
see fitt.' Original note in Privy Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 5. 

* His name is not given in the list in the privy council register, but heads that 
prefixed to the register of the committee of intelligence. He was first present 
18 September 1679. 

* He was not present from 4 April 1680 to 25 January 1681. 

5 Privy Coun. Reg. Ixviii. 60. He succeeded Shaftesbury as lord president in 
October, having been created earl of Radnor in July. 

* Ihid. 289. This is the last addition mentioned in the council register. 

' Christie, ii, app. cxviii-cxxii. Miss Foxcroft (i. 339) has shown the dat« to be 
January 1682 and not, as printed, June 1681. I think it is clear that those summoned 
to meet the king in the afternoon were the members of the foreign committee, and that 
the morning meeting was merely an informal discussion. Otherwise I cannot account 
for the omission to invite Clarendon to the afternoon gathering. I suppose the arch- 
bishop of Canterbury was invited so that the church might be represented when 
such important subjects as a possible war with France or a reconciUation with 
Shaftesbury were under discussion, although he may have been a member, as later 
archbishops were, of the cabinet. For convenience of comparison these lists are 
printed, infra, app« ii. 

58 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1670-88 January 

resemblance, for seven members are found sitting on both com- 
mittees. As to the remainder, the ill health of Rupert and the 
support Godolphin ^ had given to the Exclusion Bill may account 
for their absence, and the appointment of Conway as the successor 
to Sunderland at the end of January 1681 will explain his presence 
at the meeting in 1682. The next list of councillors is that of 
North,- and seems to belong to the end of December 1682, after 
the deaths of Rupert and Nottingham, the lord chancellor, whose 
place was filled by the promotion of Chief Justice North to be 
lord keeper. The first five members named by North belonged 
to the committee for foreign affairs, and the new-comers were 
Ormonde, who returned from Ireland in the spring of 1682, 
and Godolphin. The last list of the cabinet for Charles II's 
reign, July 1683, is supplied by Tillotson in his examination in 
1689.^ Four of the seven names given by Tillotson belong to 
North's list, the fifth is that of North himself, and the remaining 
two are those of the king and the duke of York. Therefore 
no objection to a theory that the committee of intelligence 
became the committee for foreign afiEairs, and that the 
committee for foreign affairs was the cabinet, is to be found 
by comparing the membership. 

A passage in Roger North's life of his brother,* the lord keeper 
Guilford, may seem to frustrate any attempt to prove that the 
cabinet and the committee for foreign affairs were the same body. 
After stating that the lord keeper was a member of the cabinet 
(which is certainly true), he says that his brother * always declined 
giving any opinion in that branch of royal economy called foreign 
affairs. . . . And although he was for the most part at the com- 
mittees of the privy council, as for trade and plantations, &c., 
which might be called English business, he never cared to attend 
at the committee for foreign affairs.' If North were an infallible 
authority, if he had written that his brother never did attend 
the committee, and if he had given what Carlyle used to call 
' time of day ', this passage might be decisive. As it is two other 
explanations are possible in addition to the view that North 
meant to distinguish between two different bodies. One is that 
he carelessly called the committee of intelligence (1679-80, 
--of which his brother was not a member) the committee for 
foreign affairs ; the other is that he merely intended to explain 
that his brother did not attend when only foreign affairs were to 
be discussed, and that he was a silent auditor when they were 

* Of course Godolphin's absence may be merely due to accidental and temporary 

* Viek, appendix i for the date and contents of North's remarks on the cabinet. 
' Lords' Journals, xiv. 378. 

* Lives of the Norths (ed. Jessopp), i. 328. 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 '69 

introduced. The second alternative is the more probable, for the 
cabinet certainly debated both domestic and foreign policy. 

Moreover, strong arguments may be adduced against the view 
that there were two bodies of confidential advisers. Halifax 
informs his brother Henry Savile that his diplomatic correspon- 
dence was read at the cabinet,^ while the secretary of state writes 
frequently that other letters were read at the committee for 
foreign affairs.^ If these were separate bodies it is strange that 
there is never a remark to the effect that letters were read both 
at the cabinet and at the committee for foreign affairs. It is 
also noteworthy that when a representative abroad is informed 
that the subject-matter of their letters has been or will be con- 
sidered at a committee for foreign affairs ^ there is never a hint 
that there is any other body to be consulted. More important, 
perhaps, is the fact that after the Rye House plot the duke of 
York tells us that he was readmitted to the committee for foreign 
affairs.* The lord keeper and the secretary of state both say 
that James began to attend the cabinet at this time.^ No one 
suggests that he again became a member of two different groups 
of advisers. In addition it would be difficult to assign any 
reason for the co-existence of two bodies, since the cabinet dealt 
with both foreign, domestic, and even colonial affairs.^ It is 
true that Charles from time to time only trusted one or two 
ministers with his secret negotiations with France, but these 
favoured individuals did not form the sole members of any 
committee or cabinet. As Halifax correctly remarks in his 
Character of King Charles II, ' though he had ministers of the 
council, ministers of the cabinet and ministers of the ruelle, 
the ruelle was often the last appeal '.' But although the uncon- 
stitutional government of Charles prevented the formation of 
any responsible ministry, yet there was undoubtedly a group of 
ministers more or less trusted, some having greater weight and 
possessing greater knowledge than their colleagues, who formed 
a body called by contemporaries the cabinet council (or simply 
the cabinet) or the committee for foreign affairs. Nevertheless 
there was no formally recognized chief or prime minister, there 

» Lije of Halifax, i. 299. 

* State Papers, For. Entry Books ; Savile Correspondence. 
' Thus Bulstrode, Memoirs, p. 337. 

* Life of James, i. 738. Original memoir. 

* Infra, p. 63 ; Bulstrode, Memoirs, p. 346. Similarly, while Owen WjTine, in 
an official dispatch dated 2 November 1682, informs Preston that Sunderland has been 
readmitted to the committee for foreign affairs, the Dutch ambassador writes on 
3 November that that nobleman had again become a member of the cabinet council 
{Hist. M88. Comm., Seventh Report, p. 360 ; Life of Halifax, i. 379). 

* Halifax himself says that the debate in November 1684 on the charters for 
New England took place in the cabinet council (Foxcroft, i. 428). 

' Life of Halifax, ii. 352. 

60 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

was certainly no unanimity, and there was no definite principle 
on which members were selected beyond the recognition, in 
practice at least, that certain office-holders ought to be included.^ 
Under James II the cabinet was overshadowed by a clique of 
catholic advisers. James himself attributes this to the machina- 
tions of Sunderland : 

The first step he made, to gain the King wholy to himself, and exclud 
not only My Lord Kochester, but anj others whose intrest or abilitys might 
giue the least jealousie ; " he perswaded the King to apoint some of the 
most considerable Catholicks to meet at certain times either at his office, 
or at Mr. Chivins's, to consult of matters relateing to Religion, and he 
pretending to be much inclin'd too and at the last professing himself 
a Catholick, was not only admitted but soon had the chief direction of this 
Secrect [sic\ juncto ; it was a sort of Committee from the Cabinet Coimcil 
it self, whither by degrees he drew all business and by consequence made 
himself Vmpire of the whole transactions relateing to the government." 
. . . Indeed my Lord Arundell of Wardour before he was superanuated, 
might have deserued a place in that assembly (but it matters not which 
way a disability comes) but as for the rest, which was Father Petre, the 
Marques of Powis, the Lord Bellasis, and Dover, and some time after My 
Lord Castlemain ; it is no disparagement to them, to say, they were very 
unequally match 'd, with one of the most cunning, dissembling, and design- 
ing statesmen of his time.^ 

A little later is another interesting passage : 

As for other Councellors, My Lord Sunderland had rid himself of the 
danger of being twarted by them, by hooking all business into that 
Secret Committee at Mr, Chivens's ; so that not only the Privy Council 
was unacquainted with all transactions, till it was resolued they should 
be made publick, but the Cabinet Council itself was as much a stranger to 
them as the other, few matters of moment being treated of there, but 
the reading forreign letters ; and even least by that, they might get too 
much light into affairs, the King was prevail'd with to giue private instruc- 
tions to his Envoys abroad, never to write anything but Common news 
or publick transactions to the Earle of Middleton, the other Secretary of 

* Sir William Anson stated : ' It is noticeable that these cabinets of Charles II, 
unlike some later cabinets, were composed entirely of persons holding political as 
distinct from household offices ' (ante, xxix. 59). This is not quite correct, for Halifax 
and Sunderland both belonged to the cabinet before they held any office. 

* Life of James, ii. 74—5. This passage is partly a quotation from the king's own 
writings and partly a paraphrase. According to Barillon in February 1685 the 
members were Arundell, Belasyse, Talbot, and Germaine (C. J. Fox, History of James II, 
app. xlviii). In March 1686 he states that Powis had been added to the catholic 
lords ' who often meet at Lord Sunderland's ' (Dalrymple, Memoirs, ii, app., part i, 
p. 176). In Macpherson, Original Papers, i. 148, there is the following passage said 
to be derived from James's own memoirs : Sunderland ' got the King to establish 
a secret council of Roman Catholics, to meet at his office, or Mr. Chiffinch's, to consult 
of matters of religion. Being inclined to it, he drew by degrees all business to it ; 
and he himself was the umpire of all. It consisted of the lords Arundel, Powis, Bellasis, 
Dover, Castlemain, and father Petre. Castlemain was sent to Rome.' 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 61 

State ; and for matters of consequence to mention them to none but 
himself, My Lord Sunderland, or Father Petre. . . . ^ 

In 1688, however, when Sunderland's influence waned as that of 
Petre grew stronger, he tried to redress the balance by proposing 
the union of the cabinet and the catholic clique and to leave to 
this body the domestic administration of England, Scotland, and 
Ireland, but to reserve foreign affairs and those requiring the 
greatest secrecy to a smaller number of confidential advisers.^ 
So far as can be discovered the march of events was too rapid 
to allow time for this interesting experiment to be tried. 

Apart from these valuable general accounts little else can be 
discovered about the cabinet under James. Beaufort, however, 
states that the instruction to examine the political sentiments 
of the deputy lieutenants and justices of the peace in his lieu- 
tenancy ' was deliver 'd me by his Majesty with his owne hand 
on Wensday the 26th. of October 1687 at his Cabinet Council 
in Lord Sunderland's office. Lord Chancellor, Lord President, 
Lord Middleton, Lord Dartmouth, and Lord Godolphin sitting 
with him, and Mr. Bridgeman one of the Clerkes standing by ' } 
It is probable that Tyrconnel * was also a member, and, perhaps, 
Huntingdon.^ Information as to the subjects under discussion 
is rather scanty, but there are notices or rumours of debates on 
the suspension of the bishop of London, on Ireland, on the best 
way to secure a favourable parliament and whether it shall be 
summoned, and on the measures to be adopted against the 
threatened expedition of William of Orange. It is doubtful 
whether the cabinet exercised much real influence. James was 
too autocratic, and at the same time too liable to fall under the 
sway of a chief minister, to permit any recognized group of 
ministers to wield much power. Yet he clearly realized that 
a cabinet was necessary, since in that curious paper of ' advice to 
his son ', which is dated 1692, he defines its correct composition : 
* Two Secretarys of State, Secretary of War, of Admiralty, first 
Commissioner of Treasury, and two others.' ^ 

In conclusion it may be said that the history of the years 
1679-88 proves that any attempt to restore the former greatness 
of the privy council was futile. Since its creation in its modem 

> Life of James, ii. 99-100. 

* Mackintosh, History of the Revolution (ed. 1834), i. 371 ; ii, app. The dispatches 
of Adda supply the only information on this point. 

» Hist. MSS. Comm., Beaufort MSS., p. 91. 

* Ellis Correspondence, i. 296, 14 December 1686. 

* Hatton Correspondence, ii. 88, 21 July 1688. Cf. ibid. p. 106, November 1688. 
• The king, when setting out to take command of his army, ' appointed the Councell 

to meet often and directed five to be of the quorum, viz. Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy 
Seal, Lord Preston, Lord Bellasis, Lord Godolphin, and nothing to be resolved without 
the concurrence of three of them neither without the approbation of the queen '. 

* Life of James, ii. 642. 

62 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

form by Henry VIII the business transacted in the king's name 
had increased so enormously that no one body could cope with 
the work. Relief was afforded by the growing importance of the 
great departments of state and by the subdivision of the privy 
council into committees. The need for co-ordinating the various 
branches of the administration led to the inclusion during the 
period under review of the lord chancellor (or lord keeper), the two 
secretaries of state, and a representative of the treasury in the 
most important of these committees. They formed the nucleus 
of the cabinet, in which the remaining members owed their 
position to their political abilities, their widespread influence in 
parliament or with the electors, or to their popularity with the 
sovereign. There was as yet no sign that the wishes of the 
majority in parliament had any direct weight. If this increased 
the independence of the councillors it also diminished their 
importance, for the king could ignore both parliament and cabinet. 
In fact by 1688 the cabinet had developed as far as was possible 
until representative government had taken the place of the 
personal rule of the Stuarts. Its further progress depended on the 
extension of the powers of parliament, and its rapidly increasing 
importance after the revolution was due to the ability of parlia- 
ment ultimately to enforce its will on the sovereign. Until this 
stage in the evolution of constitutional government was reached, 
the cabinet could only be what it was under Charles II and 
James II, an irresponsible body of privy councillors chosen by 
the sovereign, sometimes consulted and sometimes ignored, and 
rarely unanimous on any one question. Godfrey Davies. 

Appendix I 

Roger North's Account of the Cabinet 

[The following passage is in the handwriting of Roger North, but 
the list of the cabinet and the marginal notes seem to have been copied 
verbatim from the writings of the lord keeper Guilford.] 

Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 32520, fo. 253. 

Concerning his administration from his owne hints in the former 
method as concerning himself and preferments. 

The posture of the cabinett. 
E. Radnor lord president 
M. Halifax lord privy seal ^ 
Lord Conoway ^ 
Sir Lyonel Jenkins 
Lord Rochester in the treasury 
D. Ormond 
Sydney Godolptin. 

» Appointed lord privy seal 25 October 1682 (Foxcroft, i. 361). 
* Dismissed 28 January 1683 (Kennet, iii. 406). 

?■ secretaries 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 63 

Seymor newly I have often heard, his lordship blame Mr. Seymor for his 
withdrawne insolence to the king : he almost scorned to sit at the lower 
end of the council table, but would come up to the king and talk neer him 
and had no care of his expressions. Once he sayd to the king. Sir how 
long will you prevaricate with yourself ? which words the king repeated 
severall times, but made no reply, which shewed a resentment, but he 
hath often wished him againe amongst them to keep some in order that 
came afterwards in when his lordship was left alone without so much as 
one fair correspondent, and that he beleeved him to be a man of honour 
and to intend the publique good. 

Lord Sunderland intro- '^^^^ ^as a melenchoUy omen and gave his lord- 
duct * and after made ship great discontent for he could not but reflect 
secretary in the place of upon his action when formerly secretary, both in 
(Conway) ^j^g parliament and councell, which raised so great 

an indignation in the king that he turned him out with disgrace and the 
mistery of his reentrance was not knowne but beleeved to be a conjuncture 
between the duke of York and the female french interest. This his lordship 
hath often sayd he hoped for no good after he came there. Probatum est. 
Spring 84 secretary There was a great friendship and concurrence in the 
Jenkins quitts to king's business between his lordship and secretary 
Syd. Godolphin Jenkins for he was a true painefuU honest man, that 

intended his office with great sincerity and industry and sought not profit 
much, lived liberally and had no fault but a little pedantick stiffness, 
otherwise a man of signall vertue insomuch that King Charles the 2nd. 
used to sport himself with obscenish jests with him, and upon all such 
passages would look towards him and he had an infirmity of laughing most 
immoderately which augmented the jest always. Upon his going out 
his lordship had no friend left that he could open himselfe to conferr 
with. I have often heard him complain how things were changed 
from what they were before in the conduct of the king's affaires. 
The ministers usually mett every night to consider of matters that 
were in motion and bow to direct them to the king's best advantage 
but then they met as in formality as if it were an indifferent thing 
Upon Discovery Con- which way buissness went. 

spiracy. D[uke of] This must be Russell's plott ^ and not Oatses but 

Y[ork] . . . from that time the Roman Catholicks had hopes of 

making some advances in the court, as it did succeed. 
After Northern circuit I have heard the lord keeper say he told the king 
84 'lord chief justice Jef- he was glad of that person's coming into affaires, 
freys appointed of it.« because he should have assistance in matters of 
law, but he understood for what end he was brought in ° and that matter 
will serve for another time and place to inlarg upon. 

' This implication that Sunderland was a member of the cabinet before he became 
secretary of state is supported by the evidence cited supra, p. 59, n. 5. 
' That is, the Rye House plot. 
' In the Lives of the Norths (i. 307) this date is erroneously printed as 1685. 

* ' Cabanet or caball.' Original note. 

* 'The king given charters and all his behaviour then the motive.' Original 

64 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

When incorporating these notes in his life of Guilford, North inserted 
after the list of the cabinet this sentence : ' This posture of the cabinet 
pleased his lordship well enough ; and it is plainly that which stood when 
he entered, because no notice is taken of the Earl of Nottingham, lord 
chancellor.' The chancellor died on 18 December 1682, so that this list 
can hardly refer to any period earlier than the end of that year. As 
Conway was succeeded as secretary of state by Sunderland at the end 
of the following January the list cannot be later than then. This date 
also fits in very well with the brief remarks of Guilford's printed above. 
Roger North's statements on the time when his brother entered the 
cabinet are inconsistent, for elsewhere he says that his lordship was 
called to the cabinet before he had the Great Seal committed to him.^ 
If this is anything more than a simple blunder, the explanation is probably 
that the eventual lord keeper was sometimes called to the cabinet to give 
advice on legal business without being an ordinary member of it. 

Roger North gives some further information about his brother's atten- 
dance at the council and the cabinet : ' When the king was at Windsor, 
the public council was commonly held at Hampton Court,^ which was 
for the ease of attendance. His lordship (Guilford) had a lodging both 
at Whitehall and Hampton Court to retire to upon these occasions. The 
cabinet council usually sat on Sunday evening ; and when the court was at 
Windsor, that was always a travelling day and a lodging was provided for 
his lordship in the dean's house.' ' Some additional details can be added 
to this account, the last part of which is correct as far as it goes. Whereas 
the committee of intelligence met on every day in the week, though more 
often on Sundays than on any weekday,* the cabinet generally, though by 
no means invariably, met on a Sunday except in times of crises.^ 

* Lives of the Norths, i. 243. Cf . ' It was not long before he was summoned to the 
cabinet for the king found his losses by this new modell, and turned some out, and gave 
others leave to withdraw upon their declining his service becaus their advice was not 
taken, when the lord chief justice North was so farr from following his company that 
he was taken into the most secret recesses of the king's councells ' (Add. MS. 32520, 
fo. 251). 

* The late Sir William Anson gave a curious paraphrase of this and the preceding 
sentences of North's narrative : ' The functions of the privy council were still con- 
sultative, some of its meetings were public and were usually held at Hampton Court 
on Thursdays ' (ante, xxix. 60). The context, however, proves that by a ' public 
council ' North meant one for the transaction of public business as opposed to ' private 
business upon summons ', and that it was only the ' public council ' which usually met 
at Hampton Court on Thursday. I do not think that North is correct, but in any case 
his remarks will not bear the interpretation Sir William Anson placed upon them. 

' Lives of the Norths, i. 321. 

* From 19 May (a Monday) to 27 December 1679 the committee met twenty- 
seven times. There were nine meetings on Sundays, four on Mondays, three on 
Tuesdays, three on Wednesdays, three on Thursdays, one on a Friday, and four on 

* It is unfortunately impossible to collect many definite statements as to the 
exact dates on which the cabinet met, but it is at least clear that in normal times 
it met more often on Sunday — and generally in the evening — than on any other day. 
Thus out of four references chosen at random from four different authorities, three 
of the meetings were held on Sunday and one on Wednesday : 1 January 1682(Reresby, 
Memoirs, ed. 1875, p. 229), 22 July 1683 (Lords' Journals, xiv. 378), 26 October 1687 
(Hist. M8S. Comm., Beaufort MSS., p. 91), and 23 September 1688 (Clarendon's 

1922 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 65 

When the king was at Windsor the cabinet usually met there, though 
he occasionally came to London to confer with his advisers. Otherwise 
the meetings were apparently at Whitehall in the office of the senior 
secretary of state.^ The privy council normally met in the council chamber 
at AVhitehall on Wednesday and Friday, but there was no rigid uniformity. 
Thus between 24 January and 19 March 1680 there were fifteen meetings, 
one on a Monday, one on a Tuesday, five on Wednesdays, six on Fridays, 
and two on Saturdays. Sometimes the privy council met at Windsor,^ 
and, very rarely, on Sundays.^ 

There is one other remark of North's which is worthy of a brief notice, 
as some writers have been inclined to lay stress on it.* After supplying 
an excellent definition of the composition of the cabinet — ' those few great 
officers and courtiers whom the king relied on for the interior dispatch of 
his affairs ' — and explaining that it was derived from the privy council. 
North continues : ' Thus the cabinet council, which at first was but in 
the nature of a private conversation, came to be a formal council and had 
the direction of most transactions of the government, foreign and domestic' ^ 
As North is obviously giving a brief historical sketch of the rise of the 
cabinet, it seems very arbitrary to apply the first part of this particular 
sentence to the period after 1679. It would aptly describe the cabinet of 
James I or Charles I, but is inapplicable to that of Charles II and James II, 
except in the sense that all discussions in the cabinet were private 

Diary, 22 September 1688). Ailesbury states that ' Sundays were Cabinet Council 
days' (Memoim, i. 177, 261). During the crisis which immediately preceded and 
followed the landing of William of Orange at Torbay (5 November 1688), the cabinet 
met frequently. In October there were at least seven meetings, in November nine, 
including five on consecutive days, Thursday 8-Monday 12 November {Hist. MSS. 
Comm., Dartmouth MSS., pp. 143-218, passim ; Eveljoi's Diary, 1 November). 
Similarly, if the references in Wie letters of Jenkins (or his clerks) to Preston for the 
committee for foreign affairs are tabulated, it will be found that the committee met 
on six out of seven occasions on a Sunday, 28 May, 23 July, 27 August, 22 October, 
24 December 1682, 21 October 1683, 20 January 1684 (the last being a Monday) 
{Hist. MSS. Comm., Seventh Report, pp. 353-68). It may be added that the fact that 
both the cabinet and the committee for foreign affairs usually met on Sundaj' supports 
the view that they are identical. 

' ' I am now in Lord Sunderland's office, where a Cabinet Council is holding, the 
King in it ; came from Windsor this evening on purpose ' (18 September 1688, Ellis 
Correspondence, ii. 192). Cf. Ailesbury's Memoirs, i. 298 : ' The first Secretary of 
State (in whose ofiice the Cabinet Council is generally held).' 

* Privy Coun. Reg. Ixx, 30 August, 7 September, &c., 1683. Cf. Ellis Correspon- 
dence, ii. 108, 7 August 1688 : ' Councils and committees were put off at Windsor by 
reason that the King was with the Prince at Windsor.' 

' Privy Coun. Reg. Jxx. 76, 25 November 1683 : ' His Majesty having this after- 
noon called an extraordinary councell, was pleased to acquaint them that the duke 
of Monmouth did last night surrender himself to Mr. secretary Jenkins. . . . His 
Majesty was pleased to pardon the said duke.' 

* Mr. E. R. Turner, to whose many articles on the cabinet I am glad to express 
my obligations, states (after referring to the passage from North I have criticized 
supra, p. 58) : ' This differentiation of the cabinet from the foreign committee gives 
greater significance to the assertion that " the cabinet council ... at first was but in 
i;he nature of a private conversation " ' (Amer. Hist, Rev, xix. 789), 

» Lives of the Norths, i. 298-9. 


COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January 

Lists of committee of 
afiEairs or the cabinet, the 
the others only the names 

1 February 1681. 

Lord chancellor 

Lord chamberlam 









Appej^^dix II 

intelligence and of the committee for foreign 
first containing the names of all the members, 
of those summoned or present on a particular 

21 January 1682. 

Lord chancellor 
Lord chamberlain 

Archbishop of Can- 

c. 1 January 1683- 








July 1683. 

Duke of York 

October 1687. 


Lord chancellor 





1922 67 

Notes and Doctiments 

Sheriffs in the Pipe Roll of ji Henry I 

In 1898 Mr. A. Hughes and Mr. J. Jennings issued their well- 
known List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest 
Times to 1831} This is a useful compilation, especially from the 
year 1155 onwards, when its editors were able to draw from the un- 
interrupted succession of the Pipe Rolls. As a work of reference 
for the preceding period, however, it is much less satisfactory, 
since it does not attempt to do more than to indicate the sheriffs 
and their terms in so far as these may be gathered from Domesday 
and the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. Thus, for the important period 
succeeding the Conquest, the gaps in the List are necessarily 
great. The editors made no attempt to supply these from material 
afforded by charters and chronicles. But even in the unique 
Pipe Roll of Henry I there is much that escaped their notice. 
Careful analysis of this source both discloses a considerable number 
of sheriffs unnoticed in the List, and also enables one to make 
numerous corrections in the terms of service of many there 
given. The results of such an analysis are presented in the 
following paper, where the sheriffs, given by counties, are followed 
by such discussion and proof as seems necessary. 

Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire 

Richard de Wintonia .... Before Michaelmas 1125. 
Maenfinin Michaelmas 1125-9. 

. , - ,, i joint sherifEs . . Michaelmas 1129-30. 

Aubrey de Vere ) ■' 

In these counties Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vera jointly 
account for the 'new' or current farm of the year 1129-30. 
Their account is followed by an entry in which Maenfinin ia 
debited with 10 marks of silver de Gersoma pro Comitatibus 
habendis usque ad Aiij. annas. Finally, a few entries further 
down, Juliana, the daughter of Richard Winton', renders account 
of £43 and more de veteri jirma Bu^kingehamscirae et Bedeford- 
scirae.^ From this last reference it would appear that Richard 

1 Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, no, ix. 
« Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 100. 



had been sheriff of these two counties at some date preceding 
Michaelmas 1125, at which time Maenfinin must already have 
been sheriff. Richard's probable term of service was 1124-5, 
though possibly he held the office for a year or term of years 
preceding that period. 


John Belet Before Michaelmas 1126. 

Baldwin Fitz Clare .... Before Michaelmas 1127. 

Anselm, viscount of Kouen . . . Michaelmas 1127-9. 

William de Pontearch .... Michaelmas 1129-30. 

William de Pontearch accounts for the farm of 1129-30. 
Immediately after the entry relating to William, follows one in 
which his predecessor, Anselm, renders account of £522 and more 
de veteri firma Berchescirae} Since the amount of Anselm's 
indebtedness exceeds* the total, £521, for the farm of the year 
1129-30, as appearing in the accounts of William de Pontearch, 
it would seem that this amount represents a remnant of at 
least a two years' farm. That this was the case is made even 
more certain by other items of Anselm's account. Thus he pays 
down on the farm more than £250, and in other items gives 
evidence of a willingness and ability to meet the demands on 
him. The probability, indeed, is that at Michaelmas of the year 
before he paid down a sum as large as, if not larger than, in the 
present instance, for the amount paid down when the farm was 
first due usually exceeded the amount paid in subsequent years. 
In any case, one can safely say that the sum of £522 and more 
represents a remnant of at least a two years' farm, and that 
consequently Anselm was in office for at least two years. That 
Anselm's term of office should be dated earlier than Michaelmas 
1129 may be taken as certain, since there is not the slightest 
suggestion or probability that William de Pontearch had held 
office before that date. 

Anselm's predecessor, Baldwin, is entered as owing £412 and 
more de veteri firma Berchescirae, £28 and more de Gersoma pro 
Comitatu, and £17 and more de preterite danegeldo which secum 
detulit} Now the farm of the county, as has already been shown, 
totalled a trifle more than £521, so that Baldwin's indebtedness, 
after being out of office for three years, is only £109 less than the 
total farm. In other words, on the supposition that Baldwin's 
original indebtedness represented about £521, or the equivalent 
of one year's farm, in four accountings, the first of which must 
have occurred not later than 1126, Baldwin reduced his debt by 
only £109. Since payment at such a slow rate is exceptional, 
one might be tempted to think that the amount of Baldwin's 

* Pipe Roll, 32 Henry I, p. 122. » Ihid. 


original indebtedness was more than £521, and represented, 
therefore, a term of service of two years rather than one year. 
Yet Baldwin in the present year paid nothing at all, and the 
presumption is created that in the preceding years his payments 
were slight. This presumption is strengthened when it is noted 
that he still owes for his lease of the county and for a remnant 
of the danegeld which he carried off with him. The probability 
is, therefore, not that Baldwin had held the office for two years, 
but that he was, to say the least, an inefficient and negligent 
sheriff for one year only. Since Anselm's term began at least 
by Michaelmas 1127, Baldwin's tenure of office cannot have been 
later than 1126-7, and may have been earlier. 

The evidence relating to Baldwin's predecessor, John Belet, 
occurs in two entries isolated alike from each other and the 
successive entries already referred to in connexion with his three 
successors. One entry occurs in the Berkshire accounts, the 
other in those of Dorset. The former entry runs as follows : 
* John Belet owes £34 . . . for the past danegeld on account of 
the land of the abbot. But he is placed in Surrey.' In the 
Dorset entry John is debited fifty marks of silver pro forisfacturis 
comitatus Berchescirae} Since both items for which John is held 
responsible are characteristic elements of sheriffs' accounts, it is 
clear that at one time John had been sheriff of Berkshire. His 
tenure of office must have been earlier than Baldwin's. 

Fulcoin Michaelmas 1128-9. 

. , . ^j Hoint sheriffs . . Michaelmas 1129-30. 
Aubrey de Vere \ ' 

In the List Fulcoin is given as sheriff of Surrey only, but 
the evidence shows clearly that he held Cambridgeshire and 
Huntingdonshire as well. Under the heading ' Surrey, Cam- 
bridgeshire and Huntingdonshire ' first occur the names of 
' Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere ' as jointly accounting for 
the combined farms of these counties. Immediately following 
the entries dealing with the accounts of these joint sheriffs occurs 
this entry : 

Fulcoius qui fuit vicecomes reddit compotumde .cc. et quater .xx. I. . . . 
de veteri firma. ... Et idem Fulcoius debet quater .xx. I. . . . de 
Gersoma pro comitatibus habendis. 

Then follow the separate accounts of the three counties, that of 
Cambridge coming first.^ It is thus apparent that Fulcoin pre- 
ceded Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere In the administration 
of this combination of the three counties. 

1 Ibid. pp. 123, 13. • Ibid. pp. 43, 44. 


Evidence outside the roll also shows that Fulcoin, at an 
earlier date, was acting as sheriff not only of Surrey but of Cam- 
bridgeshire and Huntingdonshire as weU. From this evidence it 
appears that Fulcoin's term as sheriff of the three counties began 
at least as early as 1126, and that in the office he succeeded his 
uncle Gilbert, who held these counties for a long term of years, 
dating possibly from 1110.^ 

Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 

Serlo de Burg .... Before Michaelmas 1127. 

Ivo de Heriz .... Michaelmas 1127-8. 
^ , ^ C.-1 (Michaelmas 1128-9. 

OsbertSilvanus . . . •] Michaelmas 11 29-Easter 1130. 

bsbert renders account for the ' old farm ' of the counties and 
for the * new farm ' of the same for ' a half year '.^ On the basis 
of this evidence, it appears that Osbert was sheriff at Michaelmas 
1128-9, and from Michaelmas 1129 to Easter 1130. But there 
is no indication that he was supplanted at Easter 1130 by any 
other man. Moreover, the rest of his account gives no hint of 
a tenure of service for less than a whole year, since he apparently 
accounts for the danegeld and the aid of the boroughs for the 
whole year 1129-30. Also in other respects it is a thoroughly 
normal, whole year's account. It would seem highly probable, 
therefore, that Osbert, though at this time accounting for only half 
the farm, was nevertheless in office for the whole year 1129-30. 
An item, quoted in the account of Serlo de Burg below, suggests 
a possibility that Osbert may have been the son of Serlo. 

Immediately after the entries relating to Osbert comes one 
in which Ivo de Heriz accounts for an ' old farm ',^ presumably 
that of 1127-8, since Ivo was the predecessor of Osbert. The 
accounts of Serlo, Ivo's predecessor, suggest that he had been 
out of office for a number of years, so that Ivo's term may have 
begun as early as Michaelmas 1126 or 1125. 

In the accounts of Yorkshire, Serlo de Burg is debited with £60 
and more de veterifirma de Nottinghamscira et Derbiescira, as well as 
with sums for other items.* The last of these is a debt of 20 marks 
of silver pro ministerio Osherti filii sui, and suggests a possible 
identification of Osbert Silvanus, sheriff of the year, as Serlo's son. 

As to Serlo's term of office, there can be little doubt that it 
must be assigned to a year or years preceding Michaelmas 1127. 
For had his account been entered among those of Nottingham- 
shire and Derbyshire, it would have been placed, in all probability, 
immediately after Ivo's, thereby indicating him as Ivo's pre- 
decessor, doubtless his immediate predecessor. If fiirther evidence 

* See J. H. Round, The Commwne of London, pp. 121-3. 

" Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, pp. 6, 7. » Ibid. p. 7. * Ibid. p. 31. 


were needed for the conclusion that Serlo preceded rather than 
followed Ivo, it would be found in a comparison of Serlo's account 
with Ivo's. For in the first place, the remnant of farm for which 
Serlo owes is some £80 less than that owed by Ivo. Thus, other 
things being equal, it seems fair to assume that the smaller the 
remnant the older the account, because the longer it had been on 
the books the more chances it has had of being reduced. This 
argument cannot be pressed far, but it has some weight. Again, 
the same suggestion of greater age is given by the general form of 
Serlo's entry, especially by the greater abbreviation and compres- 
sion of the account. For a noticeable thing about the entries in 
the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, as also in the later Pipe Rolls, is the 
tendency shown by the scribes to abbreviate them after their 
first appearance. Each time an old item presents itself for re- 
copying to the scribe, he seems inclined to treat it more curtly 
and give it less space ; if it is a group of items, such as the 
remnant of a sheriff's account, as in this case, instead of each 
item being accorded a line to itself, all are crowded together into 
as small a space as possible. Now, while every item in that of 
Ivo is stiU given a separate line, those of Serlo's account are all 
crowded together. Thus the smaller amount owed by Serlo and 
the greater compression of the items of his account both suggest, 
apart from other evidence, that his term of office preceded that 
of Ivo de Heriz. As to the length of Serlo's term, there is no 
indication one way or the other. It would be exceptional if he 
had not been in ofiice for at least a year ; it would be nothing 
unusual if his term had covered a number of years preceding 
Michaelmas 1127. 


Richard Fitz Baldwin .... Before Michaelmas 1128. 

Geoffrey de Furnellis .... Michaelmas 1128-30. 

Geoffrey accounts both for the 'new' and the 'old' farm. In 
the entry immediately following, Richard cleared up an indebted- 
ness of £20 for an ' old farm ', doubtless that of 1127-8.^ 

William de Pontearch .... Michaelmas 1128-30. 

William accounts both for the ' new ' and the ' old ' farm. From 
a reference of about the year 1115, it appears that he was also 
holding the office at that date.^ 


Fulcoin. See under Cambridgeshire . . Michaelmas 1128-9. 

Richard Basset | • j^^^ gj^gj-igg Michaelmas 1129-30. 

Aubrey de Vere ) •■ 

» Ibid. p. 153. 

* Ibid. p. 36 ; Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon (Rolls Series), ii. 112. 


Leicestershire and Northamptonshire 

Hugo de Legecestria. See under 

Lincolnshire .... Michaelmas 1127-8. 

Hugo de Legecestria . . . Michaelmas 1128-9. 

Hugh de Warelvilla . . . Michaelmas 1129-Easter 1130. 

AT i TT Moint sheriffs . Easter 1130-Michaelmas 1130. 
Aubrey de Vere ) •' 

At the head of the accounts for Northamptonshire and Leicester- 
shire, Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere are entered as jointly 
accounting for the current farm of the counties, while Hugo de 
Legecestria is entered as accounting for the farm of the year 
preceding. In the printed List Hugo de Legecestria is indicated as 
the predecessor of the joint sheriffs whose tenure of service is 
assigned to the year 1129-30. But hidden away among the 
various items that constitute the new business of the year, set 
apart on the roll from the old business by the heading. Nova 
Placita et Nove Conventiones^ there appears the significant entry : 

Hugo de Warelvilla reddit compotum de .cc. m. argenti de Gersoma pro 
Comitatibus habendis usque ad .v. annos. In thesauro .xx. m. argenti. 
Et in perdona Eidem Hugoni .c. et quater .xx. m. argenti quia non tenet 
nisi dimidio anno.^ 

If the sense of this passage is that Hugh had agreed to pay 
200 marks of silver for a five years' lease of the counties, but is 
excused from paying 120 marks because he held the counties 
only half a year, it would seem that he should be credited with 
the shrievalty for that half-year. It should be noted, however, 
that in the roll he is not held accountable for any part of the 
current farm. If Hugh's term be correctly dated, then the 
beginning of that of the joint sheriffs, Richard Basset and Aubrey 
de Vere, must be postponed to Easter 1130. 


Wilham Torniant ..... Before Michaelmas 1127. 
Hugo de Legecestria . . . . ? Michaelmas 1127-8. 
Eayner de Bada Michaelmas 1128-30. 

The accounts of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire begin, as 
is shown immediately above, with an entry in which Richard 
Basset and Aubrey de Vere jointly account for the current farm 
of the year 1129-30. In the entry immediately following, Hugh 
of Leicester accounts for a large remainder of the ' old farm ' 
of the year 1128-9, pays down some £52, and is still debited 
with more than £170. '^The next entry, the third, states that : 

Idem Hugo debet .c. et quater .xx. et .xj. I. et .xxij. d. pro sej)ara- 
tione comitatus Line' et pro forisfacturis Comitatuum.^ 

1 Pipe RoU, 31 Henry I, pp. 81, 85. » Ibid. p. 81. 


The meaning of this passage, taken in connexion with the entry 
which precedes it, would seem to be (1) that at some previous 
time the three counties of Northampton, Leicester, and Lincoln 
had been combined in the hands of Hugh ; (2) that he wished 
to get rid of the shrievalty of Lincolnshire, while retaining that 
of the other two counties, and that he was forced to pay for the 
privilege of relinquishing it ; (3) that the forisfacturae comitatuum 
are presumably those of all three counties, for otherwise they 
would have been debited in connexion with the preceding account 
of Hugh for the year 1128-9, when he held only the two counties. 
Moreover, since during the year 1128-9 he obviously held only 
the two counties, his tenure of the three together must have 
preceded that year, and should be assigned to the year 1127-8, 
if not to a year or years earlier.^ 

The evidence of the Lincolnshire accounts, it wiU be found, 
points to the same conclusion.^ For in them Rayner de Bada 
accounts both for the farm of the current year, 1129-30, and for 
that of the preceding year, 1128-9, which shows conclusively that 
by that year Lincolnshire was in other hands than Hugh's. 
Furthermore, while William Torniant is, further down the roll, 
found owing for an ' old farm ', the position of the entry and the 
number of items compressed into it suggest that it contains the 
remains of an account of some years' standing. It would thus seem 
likely, considering the evidence of the entries both under North- 
amptonshire and Leicestershire and under Lincolnshire, that 
Hugh's combined tenure of the three counties (granting that it 
took place at all) was of relatively short duration, and fell between 
the terms of Rayner de Bada and William Torniant. It most 
probably fell in the year 1127-8, and may have begun a year 
or possibly two years earlier. 

Separated by a number of entries from those of Rayner de 
Bada occurs one in which Willelmus Torn' is debited with £160 
and more for an ' old farm ' of Lincolnshire. He also owes 
£170 for ' his old debt and that of Richard, his brother, and 
200 marks of silver for the land ' of another brother. The ' old 
farm ' for which William still owes, and on which at this time 
he pays nothing, must, if the dates assigned to Hugh of Leicester 
be correct, be for a year antecedent to 1127-8. Whether or not 
WiUiam held office for a term of years, it is impossible to sa5^ 
His nearest known predecessor was Wigot of Lincoln, sheriff 
about 1120. Wigot's death some years before 1129 is suggested 
by the fact that Alan Fitz Wigot, in an entry immediately follow- 
ing that concerned with William, is credited with a payment of 

'■ The Rev. H. E. Salter has shown that Hugh appears as sheriff of Lincolnshire 
and perhaps Northamptonshire in a document of between 1120 and 1123 {ante, 
xxiii. 725). a Pipe Boll, 31 Henry I, p. 109. 


20 marks of silver ' pro omni debito patris sui ' . Mr . W. Farrer in his 
article on 'The Sheriffs of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, 1066-1130', 
identifies Willelmus Torn' of the Pipe Roll as William Tomiant, 
son of Osbert, a former sheriff of Lincolnshire/ though he fails 
to notice the reference in the Pipe Roll to Hugh of Leicester. 

London and Middlesex 
Ralph Fitz Ebrard .... Before Michaelmas 1128. 
Fulchered Fitz Walter .... Michaelmas 1128-9. 
William Lelutre 

Geofirey Bucherell 
Ralph Fitz Herlewin 
William de Balio 

joint sheriffs . Michaelmas 1129-30. 

In the opening entry on the roll no names are specified ; the 
passage merely runs : Quattuor Vicecomites Londonie redd. comp. 
de firma Londonie. Rut among the items of new business occur 
the names of the four sheriffs in connexion with payments ut 
exeant de Vicecomitatu Londonie.'^ 

The account of the four sheriffs is followed immediately by 
two entries, in the first of which Fulchered Fitz Walter is declared 
* quit ' for a balance of more than £200 indebtedness on an ' old 
farm ' ; in the second he is debited with 120 marks of silver de 
Oersoma pro Vicecomitatu Londonie.^ 

After Fulchered's account, John Fitz Ralph Fitz Ebrard is 
debited with £7 and more de veteri firma Londonie de tempore 
patris sui.* Since Fulchered held the ofl&ce for the year 1128-9, 
and possibly earlier, Ralph Fitz Ebrard's tenure could not have 
lasted beyond Michaelmas 1128. From evidence outside the roll 
it would appear that Aubrey de Vere and Roger, the nephew 
of Hubert, were joint sheriffs in 1125.^ Thus Ralph could not 
have held office before Michaelmas 1125, and there would remain 
a period of three years, Michaelmas 1125-8, during aU or a part of 
which he might have exercised the office of sheriff. 


„ , , , f? Michaelmas 1126-7. 

^"'*°^^ • • • • • ■ h Michaelmas 1127-8. 

T5 , , (? Michaelmas 1128-9. 

Kobert . . . . . . < ,,• i i ,,r»^ o./^ 

/ Michaelmas 1129-30. 

» Ante, XXX. 279, 281. 

" Pipe RoU, 31 Henry I, pp. 143, 149. On page 149 there is first an entry in 
which all four sheriffs together account for 8 marks of gold to be quit of the sheriffship. 
This entry is cancelled. A few lines further along, however, occur two entries, in the 
first of which William Lelutre, Geoffrey Bucherell, Ralph Fitz Herlewin, render 
account of 6 marks for the same purpose, paying down 3 marks, and being debited 
with 3 marks ; in the second, William de Balio renders account of 2 marks, likewise 
for the same purpose. 3 j^^ pp 143^ 144 

* Ibid. In Hughes's List Ralph is put down as the successor rather than the 
predecessor of Fulchered. 

* Stow, Survey, ed. Strype, ii. 4, in Round, Oeoffrey de Mandevilk, p. 309. 


In the case of Robert and Restold the problem is complicated 
somewhat by the damaged condition of the roll, for the beginning 
of the account is missing, and with it the name of the sheriff 
accounting for the current farm. But since the items that stand 
at the beginning of the roll, as we now have it, obviously form 
part of the accounting for the current farm, and since the next 
entry begins with the words ' And the same Robert ', it is possible 
to supply the missing name of the sheriff. That ' Robert ' was 
the name of the sheriff for the year 1129-30 is further confirmed 
by an entry occuring almost immediately after, which states : 
' Et Idem Robertus deb. .ccc. m. argenti de Gersoma pro Comitatu 
habendo.' This entry is again immediately followed by one in 
which Restold renders account of £166 and more de veteri firma 
de Oxenefordscira} He paid down £46, and was debited with 
£120. Restold would, therefore, seem to have been the immediate 
predecessor of Robert. Yet the year to which the ' old farm ' 
of Restold should be assigned is not at first sight clear, for Robert 
may also, on the part of the roll which is now missing, have 
accounted for an ' old farm ', that, namely, for the year 1128-9. 
That such was the case is highly probable, as wiU appear from 
a consideration of the other evidence afforded by the roU. 

In the first place, closely following Restold's account of the 
farm, occurs this entry : 

Et idem IRestoldus] debet .c. et .xv. /. et .xv. s. et .viij. d. quos 
iniuste abstulit villanis et burgensibus de propresturis Maneriorum Regis 
postquam rex mare transivit.^ 

The crossing of the king here referred to took place in August 
1127, and he did not return to England until July 1129.^ His 
stay abroad thus fell within the three fiscal years 1126-7, 1127-8, 
1128-9. Thus during all or a part of the period, Michaelmas 
1126-9, Restold was in office. 

In the next place, among the older items, there occurs this 
entry : 

Et idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xxxv. I. et .iij. s. 
et .X. d. de veteribus placitis et danegeldo de tempore Restoldi.* 

The date of this danegeld ' from the time of Restold ' is shown 
by another entry later in the account and nearer to the heading 
Nova Placita et Nove Conventiones : 

Et Idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xlv. I. et .ij. s. 
et .j. d. de preterito danegeldo. 

From the very fact that this entry stands closer to the heading 
Nova Placita, &c., than does the one first mentioned, it follows, 

> Pipe Roll, 31 Henry 1, p. 2. « Ibid. p. 2. 

' Fairer, Outline Itinerary, nos. 557, 525 a. 
* Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 3. 


according to the method of making up the Pipe Rolls, known 
from a study of those of Henry II and obviously used in this 
unique roU of Henry I, that it deals with a danegeld of more 
recent date than that referred to in the earlier entry. But by 
the usage of the Pipe Roll the adjective preterittts, when applied 
to a danegeld, commonly denotes the danegeld of the year 
1128-9, immediately preceding the current year 1129-30. It is, 
therefore, possible to affirm that the danegeld ' from the time 
of Restold ' must be assigned to a year or years previous to 
1128-9, presumably to the year immediately preceding, namely 
1127-8. There is a chance of course, though only a slight one, 
that the danegeld for 1127-8 had been entirely paid up; in 
such a case, the danegeld ' from the time of Restold ' would be 
concerned with a yet earlier year, presumably 1126-7. 

Furthermore, one should not overlook the impKcation that 
Robert, in accounting for the ' old pleas and danegeld from the 
time of Restold ', is clearing up all the items of this nature that 
were owed by Restold. If this be the case, then the preteritum 
danegeldmn, to which reference has already been made, must have 
fallen due during Robert's tenancy of office, which would then 
have to be extended to include the year 1128-9. On this reading 
of the evidence, Robert's term of office began at least by Michael- 
mas 1128, while Restold's could not have lasted beyond that date. 

Thus Robert's term of office probably began at Michaelmas 
1128, and covered the two years 1128-30 ; Restold's term, on 
the contrary, probably came to an end at least by Michaelmas 
1128. His term must have included one of the two years 1126-7, 
1127-8, and probably covered them both, if indeed it did not 
begin earlier still. 


Nicholas de Stafford .... Before Michaelmas 1123. 
Robert de Stanley .... Michaelmas 1123-8. 

Miles de Gloucester .... Michaelmas 1128-30. 

In the accounts of Staffordshire, immediately following the entries 
dealing with the ' new farm ' and the ' old farm ' as accounted 
for by Miles de Gloucester, occur the following entries : 

Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .liij. I. et .xix. s. blancorum pro 
plegio Roberti de Stanlega de veteri firma quarti anni. Et de .Lxxviij. I. 
.xij. s. .ij. d. blancorum de veteri firma tercii anni pro plegio eiusdem 
Roberti. . . . Robertus de Stanlega debet .xx. m. argenti pro Comitatu 
habendo usque ad .v. annos. Et ipse tantum tenuit. . . .^ 

From these passages it appears that Robert had leased the 
county for five years, that he had held it for the whole of this 
period, that he owed balances on the farms for two of his years 

» Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 73. 


of service, and that for these balances Miles had made himself 
responsible. That his five years of service are to be reckoned 
back from Michaelmas 1128 appears from the facts that Mile^ 
has accounted for the ' old farm ' of the past year, 1128-9, and 
that the vetiis firma tercii anni refers, according to the usage of 
the roll, to the year 1127-8. Thus at Michaelmas 1128 Miles 
superseded Robert, whose last year of service was 1127-8, and who 
had held the office for the four preceding years. Robert's term of 
office, then, extended from Michaelmas 1123 to Michaelmas 1128. 

The reference to Nicholas lies buried in the accounts of 
Northamptonshire, and is as follows : . 

Et Idem Ricardus reddit compotum de .xxxv. m. argenti pro terra 
Matris Nicholai Vicecomitis de Statford. . . .^ 

The sheriffs of Staffordshire, as has just been seen, stretch back 
to 1123, consequently Nicholas's term of service must precede 
that date. It may here be noted that in two writs of Henry I, 
falling between the years 1107 and 1123, a Nicholas de Stafford 
is addressed as sheriff of Staffordshire.^ 

Geoffrey de Clinton .... Michaelmas 1128-30. 

In the List Geoffrey is credited with being sheriff only for 
the current year, 1129-30. He, however, accounts not only for 
the ' new farm ' but also for the ' old farm '.^ In consequence, 
it is possible to extend his tenure of service back through the 
year 1128-9. 


™..,,. (? Michaelmas 1125-6. 

^'^ '^"' (Michaehnas 1126-8. 

Warin Michaemas 1128-30. 

In the List William is put down as a predecessor of Warin, 
sheriff for 1128-30, but no attempt is made to define his term of 
office more exactly. Yet, by observing the amount of William's 
indebtedness and by comparing it with the estimated amount 
of the annual farm for Wiltshire, it is possible to affirm that he 
certainly held the office for two years, and that, in all probability, 
he held it for three years. In the accounts of Dorset and Wilt- 
shire, Warin is entered as accounting for both the ' old farm ' 
and the ' new farm ' of the two counties. Under the head of 
Wiltshire alone, the first entry is as follows : 

WiUelmus qui fuit Vicecomes reddit compotum de .m. et .xxiij. I. et .ij. d. 
blancorum de veteri firma Wiltescirae. In thesauro .xlvij. I. et .iij. s. 

* Ibid. p. 82. * Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normanniea, pp. 95, 137. 

» Pipe Roll 31 Henry J, p. 104. « Ibid. p. 16. 


Thus William's indebtedness amounts to £1,023. If Warin had 
accounted for the farms of Dorset and Wiltshire separately instead 
of jointly, it would have been possible to state definitely the 
amount of the annual farm of Wiltshire. Yet this amount can be 
estimated with a fair degree of accuracy, for on the Pipe Rolls 
of Henry II the farms of the two counties are given separately. 
From the early rolls of this reign it appears that the annual 
farm for Dorset was about £120 ; that for Wiltshire, a trifle more 
than £500. The combination of the two sums produces a total 
of £620, an amount slightly less than the total, £650, of the 
combined farms as accounted for by Warin in the year 1129-30. 
If any change in the size and relative amounts of the two farms 
has taken place between the end of the reign of Henry I and the 
early years of Henry II, such change would seem to have been com- 
paratively slight. It would, therefore, seem reasonable to estimate 
the amount of the farm of Wiltshire as having been about £500 
during the years when William was sheriff. If this is the case, it 
then becomes at once apparent that William's indebtedness of 
more than £1,000, twice the amount of the annual farm, must 
represent at least two years' tenure of office. But this is not all, 
for it is inconceivable that during the two years since William's 
departure from office, and during the added years when the farms 
respectively came due, no payments at all had been made ; even 
in this year William makes a payment of £47. It is, therefore, 
almost necessary to assume that William's indebtedness must 
have exceeded that of the total farm for two year«! ; indeed it 
would not be at all improbable that it exceeded the total farm 
for three years. In other words, it is difficult to conceive that 
William held office for less than three years, and there is some 
probability that he held it for four. Since Warin's term of 
service began at least as early as Michaelmas 1128, WiUiam's 
tenure of office must have come before that date. In all pro- 
bability William was in office during the years 1125-8 ; it is 
possible, also, that he held the office for the year 1124-5. 


Anschetill de Bulemer . . . . Before Michaelmas 1128. 
Bertram de Bulemer .... Michaelmas 1128-30. 

In the accounts of Yorkshire, Bertram de Bulemer renders 
account both for the ' old farm ' and the ' new farm '. Immediately 
following these accounts occurs this entry : 

Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de. xxv. m. argenti de debito patris 
sui pro forisfacturis comitatus. Et de .cc. m. argenti pro terra et ministerio 
patris sui. In thesauro .lij. I. .vj. s. et .viij. d. Et debet .c. et .xlv. m. 

» Pipe Boll, 31 Henry I, p. 24. 


It thus appears that Bertram's father has died, and that Bertram 
has paid a sum of money to take over the ministerium formerly 
exercised by his father. What this ministerium was is shown 
by the father's indebtedness pro forisfacturis comitatus, an item 
ordinarily chargeable only to a sheriff. Obviously, then, Ber- 
tram's father had held the office of sheriff for a year or period of 
years previous to Michaelmas 1128, at which time Bertram was 
already in office. Mr. Farrer supplies the name of Bertram's 
father as Anschetill de Bulemer, and cites references to him in 
various writs and charters of Henry I.^ Mr. Farrer states, with- 
out quoting his authority, that Anschetill did not die until 1129, 
and thinks that he probably continued in office up to his death. 
Against this suggestion should be placed the fact that Bertram 
accounts for the farm of the year 1128-9. 

County unknown 

Geoffrey Vicecon^es de Pourhoi 
William Fitz Rannulf 

In the accounts of Devonshire, among the items of old business, 
occurs this entry : 

Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .x. I. et .iij. s. et .iiij. d. de placitis 
Robert! Arundel de foresta. In thesauro .iij. s. et .iiij. d. Et in perdona 
per breve Regis Gaufrido Vicecomiti de Pourehoi .x. m. argenti. . . .^ 

In the accounts of Yorkshire occurs this entry : 

Willelmus filius Rannulfi Vicecomes reddit compotum de .xx. m. argenti 
de eisdem placitis. In thesauro .x. m. argenti. Et debet .x. m. argenti.^ 

In the accounts of Huntingdonshire occur these entries : 

Et Idem Vicecomes reddit compotum de .iiij. I. et .iiij. s. et .vj. d. de pre- 
terito danegeldo. In perdona per breve Regis Comiti Gloec' .xxxij. s. Comiti 
Morit' .xxxij. s. et .vj. d. Et debet .xx. s. Et remanet in terra Willelmi 
filii Rannulfi. . . . Willelmus filius Rannulfi debet .xviij. I. et .v. s. et .xj. rf. 
de preteritis danegeldis et murdris et placitis et donis que requirebantur 
in terra sua de Cheneboltona.* 

Curtis H. Walker. 

The Death of Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester 

In the Register of Bishop John de Pontissara, as printed by the 
Canterbury and York Society,^ is a dated charter of Henry II, 
which was unknown to Eyton. By it the king, at the request 
of Bishop Henry, confirms to the monks of St. Swithun certain 
manors which the bishop had recently restored to them ; it was 

* Ante, XXX. 284, 285. « Pipe RoU, 31 Henry I, p. 155. 

» Ibid. p. 28. * Ibid. pp. 28, 48. » p. 628. 


issued from the bishop's palace at Winchester and is dated 
6 August 1171, in the seventeenth year of the reign of the king. 
It is likely enough that the original grant was undated, and that 
when the monks entered it in their cartulary, they added the date. 
But it is evidently correct ; for Ralf de Diceto ^ states that the 
king landed on 6 August, and in passing visited the bishop of 
Winchester, who was in extremis and died 8 August. 

The editor of the register, the late Canon Deedes, has a diffi- 
culty about the date of the bishop's death. In the same register ^ 
is printed a charter of the bishop which is dated 6 January 
•Anno Incarnacionis Domini MCLXXI, which the editor takes 
to be 6 January 1172 ; but as the bishop adds that it was in the 
forty-second year of his episcopacy, and he was consecrated 
on 17 November 1129, the year must be 1171. It is evident that 
the monks of St. Swithun, like other Benedictines, began their 
year at Christmas or on 1 January, not on 25 March. Although 
the bishop was alive when King Henry reached Winchester on 
6 August, yet he was no longer in occupation of the see. This 
appears from the Pipe Roll for Michaelmas 1172. At Michaelmas 

1171 the king received nothing from the episcopal revenues, 
although the see was certainly in his hands ; but at Michaelmas 

1172 he received £1,555 Is. Qd. for the year ending at that date, 
and £379 2s. 8d. for the previous year. Now the latter sum is 
/g^ of the former. It is clear, therefore, that the king had held 
the see from 3 July 1171. The assumption is that the bishop, 
like one of his predecessors, entered religion in his last illness 
and so ceased to be bishop. If at Michaelmas 1171 it was uncer- 
tain how much the king's share was, so that it was necessary to 
make an estimate based upon the next year's revenue, it seems 
that there were no satisfactory episcopal accounts at that time, 
and the series of Winchester Pipe Rolls, which is practically 
complete from 1209, cannot have been begun as early as 1171. 
It is not unlikely that the system of Winchester accounts, which 
has strong traces of the royal exchequer, was commenced during 
this vacancy, when the king's clerks received the revenues. 

H. E. Salter. 

A Proposal for Arbitration between Simon de Montfort 
and Henry III in 1260 

The following proposal is to be found on membrane 26 of Curia 
Regis Roll, no. 167, 44 Henry III, which bears the heading 
' Placita coram Domino Rege de tempore H. Bigod lusticarii 
Angliae '. The reference in the text to St. Margaret's day enables 

' Rolls Series, i. 347. ^ p. 624. 


us to date the entry 20 July or thereabouts. It is the sole entry 
on the last membrane of the roll, and is written in a more careful 
and legible hand than any case on the other membranes. In 
the series of references illustrating the various attempts to settle 
the differences between Simon de Montfort and the king which 
are given by M. Bemont^ the above project for a settlement might 
take its place after the abortive attempt to make Hugh Bigod, 
Philip Basset, and Humphrey de Bohun the arbiters (5 February 
1260) ^ and before the first reference of the case to St. Louis in 
1261. It will therefore come second in the order of such attempts, 
and, so far as we can judge from the complete absence of any 
record of the proposed proceedings, failed like that which pre- 
ceded it. The legal form of the process is interesting, and aptly 
illustrates Mailland's remark that ' the king can do wrong, 
but no action lies against him '.* E. F. Jacob. 

Public Record Office, Curia Regis Roll 167, 44 Hen. Ill, mem. 26. 

Memorandum quod cum quedam contentiones suborte essent inter 
dominum Regem Angliae ex una parte et Symonem de Monte forti comitem 
Leicestriae ex altera de quibusdam transgressionibus quas idem dominus 
Rex imposuit predicto comiti sicut continetur in quibusdam articulis 
quos idem dominus Rex liberari fecit eidem comiti et simiUter in qui- 
busdam ahis articuHs quos idem dominus Rex liberare proponit si sibi 
viderit expedire ad parliamentum a die sancti lohannis Baptiste in xv dies 
anno regni Regis Henrici filii Regis lohannis quadragesimo quarto sciUcet 
die Sancte Margarete voluit et concessit dominus Rex ex parte sua ad 
instanciam magnatum suorum et similiter predictus comes ex parte sua 
concessit et instanter petiit quod venerabiles patres B.[onifacius] Cantua- 
riae Archiepiscopus H.[enricu8] Lond. episcopus R.[icardus] Lincoln. 
W.[alterus] Wigorn. S.[imon] Norwic. et W.[alterus] Exon. episcopi 
per sacramentum proborum et legalium hominum per quos rei Veritas 
mehus investigari poterit in premissis diUgentem faciant inquisitionem 
de omnibus transgressionibus illatis modis omnibus quibus mehus inquirere 
poterunt. Et cum inde sufficienter inquisierint id quod fuerit inquisitum 
referent domino Regi et consilio suo Ut idem consihum de transgressioni- 
bus domino Regi illatis per predictum comitem si quae fuerint prout 
inquisitum fuerit competentes domino Regi considerent emendas et ad 
illam considerationem faciendam addantur magnates scilicet Comites et 
Barones pares predicti comitis sufficientes. Et bee inquisitio proficietur 
infra Octabam predicti festi sancte Margarete si sufficienter fieri possit. 
Sin autem, prefati Archiepiscopus et episcopi ultra terminum ilium in- 
quirant de transgressionibus predictis quousque inde sufficienter fuerit 
inquisitum. Quod tamen fiat quam celerrime fieri poterit. Dominus 
noster Rex venire faciet coram prefatis Archiepiscopo et Episcopis illos 
per quos intelligent quod rei veritatem in premissis melius inquirere 
poterint et coram eis sacramentum prestare prout viderint expedire. Et 

* Simon de Montjmt, p. 196 note. - Royal Letters, ed. Shirley, ii. 393. 

* Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. 515. 



si contingat quod aliqui fuerint articuli de quibus adeo festinanter non 
possit inquiri prefigatur alius terminus competens ad inquisitionem illam 
rite faciendam. Ita tamen quod de aliis articulis de quibus sufiScienter 
inquisitujn fuerit nicbilominus procedat consideratio sine dilacione prout 
secundum iustitiam fuerit faciendum. Et sciendum quod bene licebit 
domino Regi pro parte sua et similiter predicto comiti pro parte sua 
dicere et proponere coram prefatis inquisitoribus ea quae eis viderint 
competere et similiter salvia eisdem domino Regi et comiti rationabilibus 
calumpniis suis cum perventum fuerit ad considerationem faciendam quo 
ad personas eorum qui considerationi intererunt. Et sciendum quod 
predicti Archiepiscopus et Episcopi cum perventum fuerit ad considera- 
tionem faciendam quo ad personas eorum qui considerationi intererunt 
iuraverunt in verbo dei ad predictam inquisitionem fideliter et sine fictitia 
faciendam. Si vero omnes iidem Archiepiscopus et episcopi predicte 
inquisitioni interesse non possint quattuor eorum qui presentes fuerint 
ad inquisitionem illam faciendam procedant. 

Early Notes of Fines 

The Notes of Fines practically duplicate the information 
contained in the better-known Feet of Fines, and for this reason 
they have generally been used only to make good gaps or defects 
in the latter series. It has recently been observed, however, in 
the study of Fines by Sir H. C. Maxwell Lyte for Somersetshire 
and by Canon C. W. Foster for Lincolnshire,-"^ that some of the 
earliest Notes have not been engrossed as Feet, and that these 
can be distinguished by the absence of endorsement with the 
letter ' H '. 

The earliest Notes preserved are not dated, but mostly appear 
to belong to the latter part of the reign of Edward I. Then for 
a period, beginning in Easter term, 2 [Edward II], the day and 
regnal year are given, but not the name of the king. This first 
appears in Hilary term, 12-13 Edward III, and is regularly given 

The original files of Notes for Edward III and later are made 
up in terms, the covers usually being endorsed ' Note ingrossate ' 
with the term. The only files for Edward II which still remain 
unbroken are made up in counties, with cover endorsements such 
as * De omnibus annis Ed. II in com' Dors' ' ; the Notes being 
endorsed with the letter ' H ', signifying engrossment. There 
are also some covers for early files endorsed ' Veteres note ', * Novo 
note ', and ' Note ingrossande ', which presumably contained 
Notes before engrossment. Although the files are broken, the 
two classes of Notes have been kept separate ; those not en- 
grossed belonging to the reigns of Edward I and II, and those 

^ Final Concords (Lincoln Record Society), n. xxiii. 


engrossed to the reigns of Edward II and later. Entries on the 
Curia Regis Rolls show that Notes were made in the time of 
Richard I or earlier ; but apparently they were not at first 
thought worth preserving. 

The effect of a Note which has not been engrossed is doubtful. 
Coke says : ^ ' Yet a fine, before it is engrossed, is a perfect 
record, and may be executed, and the conusee ought to sue out 
his quid iuris clamat, per quae servitia or quern redditum reddit, as 
his case lies, before the engrossment of the fine.' Against this, 
a few of the Notes have endorsements showing that action was 
delayed. In a Norfolk case ' Finis iste non ingrossetur sine 
precepto iustic' In a Kent case the tenant for life was a minor : 
' Ideo quo ad ipsum remaneat cognicio usque ad etatem,' &c. 

A careful study of the De Banco Rolls will throw more light 
on this subject, but from their bulk it must be slow and laborious. 
In any case, the information given in an unengrossed Note is of 
value ; for the transaction was certainly contemplated, and may 
have been completed by deed. R. C. Fowler. 

A Visitation of Westminster in 1444 

In Widmore's History of Westminster ^ there is printed an account 
of a curious and successful insurrection of the ' seniour and more 
part ' of the convent against their abbot, Greorge Norwich, who 
agreed to retire from Westminster, resigning the government of 
the house to the prior and two other monks as ' commissarii 
abbatis '.^ Tliis was in 1467, and the detailed record of the 
abbot's autocratic misgovernment and the huge debts he piled 
up appears to justify the monks' action and Widmore's verdict 
upon him as ' an indiscreet and negligent character '. It is 
possible, however, that Abbot Norwich has been too harshly 
judged, since his money difficulties were nob entirely of his own 
making. The Visitation of Westminster here printed carries back 
the evidence of serious financial troubles, if not of virtual bank- 
ruptcy, to the year 1444. It also explains the confident line of 
action adopted by the rebellious monks of 1467, to whom it served 
as a precedent.* Once more the authority of the royal patron was 
secured to bring pressure to bear upon the abbot, while the new 

* Readings on Fines, vol. i. * -A^PP- vii, p. 191 f 

' Pearce, The Monha of Westminster, p. 141. Their names were Thomas Millyng, 
prior, William Chertsey, and John Eastney: see Victoria County History, London, 
i. 446, where the number of the commissarii is incorrectly given as five. 

* The text of the instrument (1467) seems to contain a reference to 1444 : ' . . . Nee 
veniatis ad monasterium Westmonasterii . . . nee equitetis ad generalia capitula neque 
circa visitationes neque arripiatis aliqua itinera sumptuosa que essent vobis causa 
novae indebitationis ' (Widmore, p. 197). 



remedies were a mere repetition of the measures of 1444. Such 
difficulties, in fact, were not uncommon in the fifteenth century : 
few at any rate of the larger Benedictine monasteries escaped 
them. Twenty years later (1490) St. Albans was similarly placed; 
while a few years prior to 1467 the abbot of St. Edmund's had been 
induced by poverty to leave Bury and live at Bermondsey.^ 

* Et plures alii patres ', says the monks' petition, ' fecerunt ante 
hec tempora viventes per certum spatium sub voluntaria par- 
cimonia ad magnam laudem ipsorum et profectum.' 

The visitation of 1444 was, of course, extraordinary, and is not 
to be confused with the regular triennial visitations of the order. 
The circumstances that led to it are not known. The general chapter 
was conceivably petitioned by the convent, or the abbey was in 
arrears with its triennial contributions, or perhaps the condition 
of the house was notorious. The finding of the visitors is very 
guardedly phrased, but naturally arouses suspicion against 

* that excellent divine ' ^ Edmund Kirton. And the plot thickens 
when he is found to have been charged some two years later — 
when perhaps the prior and John Flete were still administering 
the abbey — with being ' a fornicator, dilapidator, adulterer, 
simoniac and guilty of other crimes '.^ This charge was made by 
the abbot of Reading, appointed to visit the monasteries in the 
London diocese, by the prior of Winchester and the abbots of 
Colchester (St. John) and Chertsey,* visitors of the order in 
England. Eugenius IV confirmed the visitation and ordered 
Kirton to be summoned before the abbot of St. Augustine's, 
Canterbury, and John de Obizis, canon of York. If found guilty 
he was to be deposed. The result of this trial is unknown : it 
is only certain that Kirton was not deposed, but remained abbot 
until 1462, when he resigned from old age. The question of his 
guilt or innocence is thus substantially analogous to the much- 
disputed case of Abbot Wallingford of St, Albans, and it may be 
suggested that the charges against these men are not altogether 
disproved by the fact that neither was deposed. Kirton had 
already been proved to be thoroughly incompetent, a ' dilapi- 
dator ' and unfit to rule. A charitable view would explain the 
charges of immorality as a gratuitous addition to the findings of 
1444, merely intended to get rid of an inefficient abbot, when 
inefficiency had already once proved insufficient cause for depriva- 

^ This fact is known to us only from the Westminster Instrument of 1467. 
^ Widmore. 

* Col. Pap. Beg. viii. 309 ; Pearce, p. 130. Kirton had not been elected by the 
convent but provided to the abbey in 1440. 

* The two abbots had taken part in the visitation of 1444. 

* The financial distress of this period (1444-69) is reflected in the slow progress 
of the novum opus. Between 1423 and 1440 (Abbot Harwden) building proceeded 


The text of the visitatioft, which seems to be unique, has been 
taken from a Bury register/ where it perhaps suggested the 
economical expedient of removing the abbot's household to 
Bermondsey. That Westminster documents should find their 
way to Bury was natural enough in view of the special ' con- 
federation ' ^ which had bound the two abbeys since the early 
thirteenth century. But it is remarkable that no trace of the 
visitation has apparently survived among the Westminster 
muniments.^ Widmore — on whose work subsequent accounts 
of Westminster are based — was therefore not unnaturally ignorant 
of its existence. It was, however, known to Tanner, who refers 
to it in his life of Flete with the reference ' Regist. Bur. Novell 
114';^ and we are fortunately able to identify ^ Tanner's 
authority with the manuscript printed below. It is also of 
interest to note that the date of this visitation seems to have 
determined the plan of Flete 's History of Westminster.^ In his 
introduction Flete expresses his intention of carrying the story 
down to the year 1443. The choice of this singular terminus ad 
quern is best explained by the catastrophe of the following year, 
with which the author was himself so intimately connected. 

V. H. Galbraith. 

British Museum, Ad. MS. 7096, fo. 154. 

In del nomine amen. Nos lohannes permissione divina sancti Albani [fo. 154.] 
Lincoln[iensis] Willelmus beate Marie Abendon[e] Sar[isburiensis] WiUel- 
mus sancti lohannis Colcestr[ie] London[iensis] et lohannes sancti Petri 
de Chertesey Wynton[iensis] dioc[e8is] monasteriorum abbates ordinis 
sancti Benedicti per presiden[tem] et capitulum generale nigrorum 
monachorum in Anglia necnon ex precepto metuendissimi in Christo 
principis et domini domini Henrici dei gratia regnorum Anglie et Francie 
regis illustrissimi ad visitand[um] corrigend[um] et reformand[iim] 
monasterium sancti Petri Westm[onasteriensis] iuxta civitatem London- 
[iensem] sedi apostolice immediate subiect[um] tam in capite qiiam in 
membris visitatores correctores et reformatores coniunctim et divisim 

slowly but steadily. Under Kirtoa and Norwich the work (though it did not cease) 
was at a low ebb : see F. Bond, Architectural Hist, of WestmiTister Abbey, p. 121. The 
difficulties of Kirton and Norwich are thus not to be explained as the result of 
a pardonable extravagance upon building. 

1 Add. MS. 7096 (William Curteys), fo. 153' f. 

2 Printed in Widmore, p. 232. 

* I owe this to Canon Westlake, assistant keeper of the muniments, who has very 
kindly assisted my inquiries. 

* Bibliotheca, p. 288 ; cf . Life of Flete in Diet, of Xat. Biog. The writer, evidently 
puzzled by Tanner's reference, states that Flete ruled the monastery during the 
suspension of Abbot Norwich, i. e. in 1467. But Flete died not later than 1466. 

* Tanner, Notitia, svh Bury St. Edmunds : ' Registrum Will. Curteis abbatis 
penes rev. V. lohannem Novel rect. de Hillington 1709. . . .' Moreover, the visitation 
occurs on fo. 114 according to the older numbering. 

^ Flete's History of Westminster Abbey, ed. Armitage Robinson, p. 33. The actual 
narrative stops short in 1386. 


legitime deputati per has litteras nostfas indentatas notum facimus 
universis quod nos officium huiusmodi nobis coniunctim quantum cum 
deo possumus toto mentis conamine adimplere ac remedia pacis quietis et 
utilitatis ad honorem summe et individue trinitatis sancte Marie et sancti 
Petri vicarii lesu Christi in terris in cuius honorem dictum monasterium 
honorifice dedicat[um] ac in subsidium et relevamen loci et augmentum 
religionis in spiritualibus et temporalibus ut nostris laboribus virtuosius 
reformetur cupientes providere merita virtutes sanctamque religionem 
inibi abolivi [sic] multiformiter radiant[er]que restaurare ast omn[ium] 
exorbitancium et inconveniencium procellosis periculis in antea cautius 
obviare lites discordias amputate scandala detractiones obloquia et 
blasphemias removere exempla sancta et virtuosa inter dei ministros 
uberius seminare dictum mon[a8terium] diversis creditoribus utrinque 
lamentabilit[er] oneratum iuxta posse relevare totisque desideriis sata- 
gentes venerabili in Christo patri Edmundo dicti monasterii abbati litteras 
nostras certi tenoris direximus quibus eundem abbatem citari et moneri 
fecimus et per eum omnes et singulos confratres eiusdem loci moneri et 
citari demandavimus ad comparend[um] coram nobis in domo capitulari 
dicti monasterii uno vel pluribus xxviii die mensis Septembris anno domini 
millesimo cccc^o xliiii'^> visitationem nostram huiusmodi quin verius 
totius ordinis et sedis apostolice nobis ut prefert[ur] in hac parte exeq[ui] 
commissam cum omnibus suis emergentibus inciden[tibus] dependen[tibu8] 
et connexis humiliter subitur[os] et receptur[os] dictisque abbati et 
conventui inhibentes palam publice et expresse ne ipse abbas et conventus 
vel aliquis eorundem quocunque quesito colore aliquid in preiudicium 
predicte visitationis attemptent seu faciant aliqualiter attemptari in 
virtute sancte obediencie et sub pena maioris excommunicationis quam 
in contrarium facientes cum omni iuris acrimonia proponimus fulminare 
quousque dicta visitatio nostra debitum sorciat[ur] effectum et finaliter 
fuerit expedita. Quo die adveniente ad dictum monasterium personaliter 
accedentes de modo via et forma in huiusmodi visitationis negocio 
exercend[o] provisuri post longos et diversos tractatus et communica- 
tiones hinc inde habit[os] assiden[tibus] nobis discretis viris magistris 
Stephano London[iensi] in sacra theologia et Willelmo Albon[e] decretorum 
doctor[e] dictani visitationem sic incept[am] capt[a] quadam sana delibera- 
tione ad proximum capitulum generale et quemlibet diem citra cum 
nobis visum fuerit expedire continuavimus et vicesimo quarto die mensis 
Octobris anno domini supradicto prefatus abbas et ceteri omnes et singuli 
confratres et commonachi capitulum et conventum integrum inibi facien- 
[tes] quorum nomina ad omnem iuris effectum exinde secutur[i] hie habere 
volumus pro expressis coram nobis in domo capitulari monasterii sancti 
Petri antedicti unanimiter comparuerunt et nostris visitationi correctioni 
dispositioni et ordinationi pure sponte simpliciter et absolute in alte et 
in basso se submiserunt et eorum quilibet singillatim se submisit supplica- 
verunt et eorum quilibet supplicavit quatinus pro bono statu commodo 
et utilitate dicti monasterii huiusmodi submissionem suam in nos fact[am] 
admittere et acceptare concederemus ac media modum viam et formam 
ad regend[um] et gubernand[um] ipsos et dictum monasterium in spiritua- 
' libus et temporalibus conciperemus | promiserunt insuper et eorum quilibet 


promisit in verbo professionis sue quod omnia et singula per nos in pre- 
missis et eorum quolibet provisa facta et ordinata inconcusse admitterent et 
inviolabiliter observarent sub pena mille librarum fabrice ecclesie per no- 
stram discretionem applicand[aruni]. Nos igitur talentum nobis traditum 
sine lucro abscondere formidantes ac bonam famam et sanam opinionem 
diviciis multis nieliore[m] plus solito cum augmento sancte religionis 
palmites suos extendere centeno fructu cumulat[o] profectius pullulare 
commodum et utilitatem ampliare obloquia et infamiam removere ora 
unquam delatrancium per correctionem et emendacionem defectuum 
obturare quieti paci ac tranquillitati deo famulancium celerius providere 
debita minuere grangias loca ceteraque maneria ruinosa et caduca reparare 
bonum regimen intus et exterius accens[um] desideriis summo opere 
anelantes ponere ut tenemur submissionem huiusmodi sic in nos fact[am] 
pro bono statu loci et religionis incremento ceterisque premissis gratanter 
admisimus et spiritu licet tremulo acceptavimus et ad dispositionem et 
ordinationem feliciter duce domino continuand[am] auctoritate et vigore 
sedis apostolice^ et commissionisnostre suffulti procedimus in hunc modum: 
In dei nomine amen : quia teste deo dictum monasterium ere alieno ultra 
vires multipliciter inter cetera comperimus esse oneratum quamcunque 
administrationem spiritualium et temporalium dict[i] mon[a8terii] interius 
et exterius a dicto abbate exulamus et removemus ac sequestramus et ex 
certis causis nos ad hoc monentibus usque ad proximum generale capitulum 
nostri ordinis omnino interdicimus. Et eundem Edmundum abbatem 
a monasterio sancti Petri Westm[onasteriensis] usque ad monasterium 
sancti lohannis de Colcestr[ie] London[iensis] dioc[esis] vel in prioratum 
de Hurley 2 Sar[isburiensis] dioc[esis] infra spatium quindecim dierum 
post dat[um]' sequ[encium] transire causa relevationis sui monasterii 
supradicti ordinamus decernimus et mandamus ibidem continue per- 
mansur[um] usque ad proximum capitulum generale cum capellano et 
f amilia sua bone fame et conversationis honeste summam centum marcarum 
pro expensis eorundem per manus nostras seu administratorum inferius 
nominandorum annuatim duntaxat receptur[um] sub penis superius 
annotatis administrationem omnium bonorum spiritualium et temporalium 
dictum monasterum concern[encium] in manus nostras assumentes : Et ea- 
dem per discretes et religiosos viros f ratres Willelmum Walssh[e] priorem et 
lohannem Flete interim volumus ministrare adiuncto sibi administratione 
temporalium * uno lobanne Vampage ^ sen[? escallo] qui nobis aut deputatis 
in hac parte compotum calculum et ratiocinium plene et fideliter reddere 
teneantur ubi quotiens et quum nobis videbitur expedire : Et ut quietius 
in vinea domini Sabaoth laboretur quo magis sarculo mature discretionis 
foment[a] dissolutionis ac spuria vitulamina ex fructificancium radicibus 
profundius extirpentur licium et discordiarum materias efiugemus zelum 

^ This is the first mention of papal authority for the visitation. Only the 
president of the general chapter and the king are named in the heading. 

* A cell of Westminster in Berkshire. 

' Inserted above the line, ' presencium immediate '. 

* Inserted above the line, ' honeste '. 

* Westminster Mmiiments. Treasurer's Roll 19946, ' Recreation made to John 
Vampage, J. Yonge, J, Cannefeld and others coming with them this year — eleven 
shillings '. 


caritatem pacem et tranquillitatem inter filios pacis Christique ministros 
serere et plantare valeamus quosdam monachos prefati monasterii 
ad alia loca eiusdem ordinis per nos sibi divisim assignata ibidem per- 
man8ur[os] transire ordinamus et quosdam alios a suis officiis ex certis 
causis nos monentibus removemus aliosque in remotoru[m] officiis ponendos 
quamdiu nobis placuerit decernimus et ordinamus quorum nomina et 
cognomina inter nos et conventum dicti monasterii alibi annotant[ur]. 
Insuper decernimus et ordinamus quod signum sigillum et signetum 
dicti abbatis quocunque nomine censeantur ponantur in cistula serata 
clave eiusdem cistule remanente cum dicto abbate quodque dicta cistula 
includatur in cista cum sigiUo commimi trium clavium cum serrura et 
quod omn[ium] bonorum dicti monasterii quocunqufe nomine et in quo- 
rumcunque officiis seu manibus existencium fidele inventarium conficiatur 
citra finem Natal[is] domini prox[ime] iam futur[e] cum discriptione et 
annotatione cuiuscunque rei numero pondere et mensura inhibentes 
nihilominus dicto abbati et ceteris omnibus et singulis in virtute sancte 
obediencie et sub penis superius annotatis ne ipsi aut aliquis eorundem 
aliqua bona vasa iocalia utensilia libros pannos vel sup[el]lectilia quo- 
runcunque nomine | censeantur vendant alienent impignorent abducant 
seu apportent quoquo modo nisi per visum et assignationem prioris et 
conventus sub indenturis deliberatis et receptis ut prefertur : Eeservata 
eciam nobis potestate eosdem Willelmum Walssli[e] lohannem Flete 
lohannem Vampage ab administratione huiusmodi si opus fuerit interim 
removend[i] et alium vel alios in remotor[um] loca imponend[i] quecunque 
per nostram dispositionem et ordinationem in bac parte fact[a] inter- 
pretand[i] corrigend[i] et reformand[i] et eisdem addend[i] et subtrahend[i] 
quociens nobis visum fuerit durante termino predicto et sub hac forma 
dictam visitationem nostram ad proximum capitulum generale nostri 
ordinis ^ et quemlibet diem citra ut premittitur continuamus. In cuius 
rei testimonium sigilla nostra et dicti abbatis et conventus presentibus 
sunt appensa. Dat[um] in domo capitulari monasterii sancti Petri West- 
m[onasteriensis] antedicti nono die mensis Novembris anno domini 

Ad. MS. 7096, fo. I?''. 

By the King 

Trusty and welbelovid in god we grete you wele and for asmuche as 
we have comaunded thabbott[es] of Saint Albon Abyndon[e] Colchestre 
and Cherteseye to visite and enquire in our monasterie of Westm[ynster] 
and to reforme alle thing[es] ther as the statutes and consuetudis of 
Saint Benett[e] ordre wol and requiren the xxviii day of Septembr[e] next 
folwing for the helthe of yo[ur] soules and the worship[pe] and welfare 
of our seid mon[astrie] we wol and straitly charge you that ye and 
every[che] of you asmoche as in you is mekely obeye the seid visitacion[e] 
withoute eny contradictione as ye wol do us plesir yeven under oure 
Signet of thegle at our manoir withynne oure park of Windesore the 
xxii day of Juill [y] 

To thabbot and covent of Westm[ynster] 

» A general chapter was held at Oxford in 1444 {Add. MS. 38816, fo. 36^). The 
powers of the commissioners were thus apparently to continue for three years. 


Excerpts from the Register of Louvain University 
from i^Sj to ij2y. 

The following excerpts from the matricula of the university 
of Louvain relating to the admission of foreigners and other 
notable scholars are here published in consequence of a delay in the 
publication of the complete work which is likely to be prolonged.-*^ 
The list is not exhaustive, and the absence of any name does not 
imply either that it is not found in the register or that its bearer 
was not a member of the university. The regulations according 
to which all those who were in any way connected with the 
university had to be inscribed were not always strictly observed, 
especially in the cases of foreigners.^ The birthplace or the 
diocese is not always recorded, and the rectors, who had charge 
of the matricula each for only one semester at a time, did not 
make their entries with uniform punctuality and completeness. 
Some wrote down only the name of the student and that of 
his father. The spelling of foreign names is generally bad, 
especially in the last days of the semester, when hundreds of 
names were inscribed. This, of course, renders identification 
difficult. I have given in foot-notes such particulars of the 
individual students as I have been able to trace. It will be 
convenient to add here the explanation of the other entries 
which accompany the names. The word minorennis applies to 
those who, being under age, had to take the matriculation oath 
vicariously through an older member of the university. Pauper 
indicates that the full fee was not to be paid, whereas the nobiles 
were taxed at a higher rate. For the students for the faculty 
of arts, the entries record to which of the four paedagogia they 
belong, Castrenses, Lilienses, Falconenses, and Porcenses.^ Italics 
have been used in the text to indicate additions by later hands. 


June 12. Edmundus Edward anglicus dyoc. london. in iure 

civili fo. 8"^ 

* The manuscript is entitled Tertius Liber Intitulatorum (Brussels, Royal Library, 
MS. 3441). The first volume of the Matricvle de VUniveraiti. de Louvain, 1426-1453, 
edited by E. Reusens, was published in 1903 in the series of the Commission Royale 
d'Histoire. No second part has yet been published. 

* Thus the name of Erasmus is not entered in 1602 or 1503, although he was 
probably then as closely connected with the university as in 1517 ; nor have I 
been able to find the name of J. L. Vives, who on 3 March 1520 was authorized to 
lecture (Valerius Andreas, Fasti Academici Stvdii Generalis Lovaniensis, Louvain, 1650, 
p. 357), nor that of Nicholas Daryngton, who in his letter to Henry Gold, 14 February 
1522, states that he has attended Vives's public lectures and the theological exercises 
(Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. iii, nos. 2052, 2204, 2390 ; ante, xxii. 747-8). 

* Val. Andreas, pp. 261-74. 



January 15. lohannes bryaert^ de Valenchienis cameracensis dioc. 

pauper fo. 11'' 

February 21. Thomas coutes de aberdonia aberdonensis dioc. 

pauper fo. 11' 

July 24. Mgr. florentius oem ^ de hagis leodiensis dioc. fuit hie 

postea doctor fo. 13"^ 

October 25. Dominus lohannes Wod Eboracensis dioc. ex Anglia 

studens in fac. iur. canon. fo. 16 "^ 

„ 25. lohannes poteman Eboracensis dioc. studens in fac. 

legum fo. IB*" 

„ 25. Thomas clercke^ Eboracensis dioc. studens in fac. 

legum fo. 16' 

„ 29. Nicolaus lacobi* de egmonda traiectensis dioc. studens 

in fac. artium fo. 16' 

November 9. Dominus robertus offaert wintonensis dioc. studens in 

fac. iuris canon. fo. 16' 


February 6. Dominus lohannes Wendinck anglicus dyoc. londoniensis 

in fac. theologie fo. 17' 

„ 13. lohannes clemens fo. 17' 

„ 28. lohannes sceneter de Sto. Andrea dioc. Sti. Andree 

ex pedagogio lilii fo. 17^ 

„ 28. Eobertus kynmount de villa Ste. Marie bregernensis 

[? Brechin] dioc. ex pedagogio lilii fo. 17 ^ 

„ 28. bernardus halden de villa Sti. lohannis Dunblanensis 

dioc. ex pedagogio lilii fo. 17^ 

July 30. Anthonius Sucket ^ cameracensis dioc. in fac. art. fo. 21' 

February 25. Valerianus de Busleiden ^ dioc. leodiensis inlilio fo. 23^ 
August 30. Mgr. Wilhelmus Waway de Sto. andrea eiusdem dioc. 

in iure canonico fo. 24' 

December 31. Rychardus Wilton anglicus monachus monast. glasto- 

niensis bathoniensis dioc. fo. 24 ^ 

February 26. Thomas grane de Villa Sti. andree in scocia pauper fo. 24^ 

* See Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 93 ; de Jongh, L'ancienne Factdti 
de Theologie de Louvain, 1432-1540 (Louvain, 1911), pp. 149 £E. 

* Florentius Oom de Wyngaerden : Val. Andreas, pp. 40, 178 ; Enthoven, Brief e 
av Des. Erasmus (Strassburg, 1906), p. 58 ; Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woordenboek, iii. 

^ Possibly identical with Thomas Gierke who became bishop of KiUala : Wood, 
Athenae, p. 553. 

* Nicolaus Egmondanus, Carmelite, the opponent of Erasmus : Biog. Nat. de Belg, ; 
de .Jongh, p. 152 ; Erasmus, Op^lS Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 416. 

' Imperial coimciUor : J. Forstemann and O- Giinther, Briefe an Des. Erasrmta 
(Leipzig, 1904), p. 427. 

* Brother of Jerome : Henne, Histoire du Regne de Charles-Quint en Belgique, 
i. 65. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 



February 10. 

„ 10. 



April 28. 

August 9. 

November 18. 

January 11. 

November 2. 

February 25. 

August 30. 

„ 31. 

February 28. 

Reuerendus in Xo pater Wilhehnus Sancti Andree archi- 
episcopus Regni Scocie primas et apostolice sedis 
legatus in facultate theol. fo. 29^ 

Walterus Drummond, art. mag., eccl. cathedr. dun- 
keldensis canonicus et cancellarius in facult. iuris 
canonici fo. 29^ 

Gilbertus haldan vicarius de dersy in facult. iuris 
canonici fo. 29^ 

Robertus Abirnethy presb. prescripti Dni. archiepiscopi 
familiaris in facult. iuris canonici fo. 29^ 

lacobufi de voecbt ^ de andwerpia cameracensis dioc. 
in artibus fo. 30^ 

Claudius Lapostole Tornacensis pro quo iurauit mgr. 

petrus Lapostole suus frater ^ fo. 35^ 

Johannes laurentij de brugis^ tornacensis dioc~ in 

artibus fo. 38' 

Mgr. franciscus cremensis * dioc. acquilegiensis rhetorice 
artis professor ex privilegio rectori concesso gratis 

fo. 38' 

Johannes de hoichstraten alias de brecht dictus custodis ^ 
cameracensis dioc. fo. 43' 

leronimus edelhere ^ de louanio 
dominus lo. obtrek 

in artibus 

fo. 43V 

Joannes de bursalia ' filius Jacobi beker traiectensis dyoc. 

liliensis dives fo. 51' 

Johannes Sterck de Meerbeke ® cameracensis dyoc. 

falconensis dives fo. 51 ^ 

Joannes de strapeghey ex Scotia 
in artibus pauper ex lilio 

Aberdinensis dyoc. 
fo. 53' 

* Pensionary of Antwerp : Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Allen, i. 356. 

^ Peter I'Apostole ; ' doctor et professor utriusque iuris' : Val. Andreas, pp. 176-8, 
184-6 ; de Jongh, pp. 45, 46. 

' Despautere dedicated to him his Ars Versificatoria, 1509 : [F. Vanderhaeghen], 
Bibliotheca Belgica, D, 294. 

* FranciscQ of Crema, who was Erasmus's host in 1498 : Erasmus, Optis Epist., 
ed. AUen, i. 204 ; de Jongh, p. 74. 

^ John de Coster, humanist, author of a Latin grammar, teacher in the Lily 
and the Castle ; Despautere was one of his pupils : de Jongh, pp. 110, 111. 

* Secretary of Louvain : Val. Andreas, p. 297. 

' Erasmus, Opus Epist, ed. Allen, i. 667 ; de Jongh, pp. 122, 127, 199. 

* President of St. Donatian's College, first president of the Collegium Trilingue : 
Neve, Mimoire sur It College des Trois-Langues d Louvain (Brussels, 1866), pp. 98, &c. ; 
Forstemann and Giinther, p. 364 ; de Jongh, p. 12*. 


February 28. 


January 10. 
February 21. 
June 2. 
August 31. 

March init. 

„ 26. 
June 15. 
„ 15. 
August 31. 

,, 31. 

„ 31. 

September 17. 


February 28. 

Andreas gray de scotia Wychemsis [? Wythe rnensis for 
Gralloway] dyoc. in artibus pauper ex lilio fo. 53' 

Wilhelmus herris de londinia in anglia londoniensis dioc. 
in legibus fo. 59 ^ 

Franciscus Waring de okam in anglia linconiensis dioc. 
in iure canonico fo. 59^ 

Adam bogaert de louanio ^ leodiensis dioc. fo. 60' 

Wernerus de Merode leodiensis dioc. fo. 60^ 

Dnus. Alardus Cornelii traiectensis dioc. fo. 62' 

Alexander filius andree de Sto. Nicholao Aburdoniensis 
dioc. pauper ex castro fo. 63' 

Maximilianus de bergis ^ nobilis fo. 67' 

Arnoldus van den heetvelde ' dioc. leodiensis f o. 67 ' 
Mgr. patricius panter * scotus fo. 67^ 

Mgr. adam witla scotus fo. 67 ^ 

Johannes despaultre^ de Niniuis pauper ex lilio fo. 69' 
lacobus sudelant de Sto. Andrea ex castro pauper fo. 69^ 
lohannes lengherant ^ de binchio dioc. cameracensis 
falconensis fo. 70' 

Symon heerres londoniensis fo. 70^ 

ludocus vroye ' de gaueren Cameracensis dioc. ex lilio 

vtriitsqice iuris D'' fo. 73' 

March 22. Dnus. Alexander Inglis Scotus fo. 73^ 

April 12. lohannes de Nassouwe filius ade de Nassouwe minorennis ; 

pro eo iurauit Henricus Viruli fo. 73^ 

August 3. Mgr. Eolandus blacader clericus Sancti Andree scotus 

fo. 76' 

„ 31. Eustacius de Zichenis ^ ex lilio fo. 76^ 

„ 31. lacobus edelheere ^ de louanio ex porco minorennis pro 

quo iuravit Mag. Rod. de Monckendammis fo. 77^ 

September 11. loannes brachman anglicus dioc. Londoniensis fo. 78* 

November 6. godscalcus rosemons ^" de eyndouia leodiensis dioc. 

fo. 79' 
' ' Doctor et professor medicinae ' : Val. Andreas, p. 230. 

* Lord of Zevenbergen : Henne, ii. 279. ' Henne, viii. 213. 

* Patrick Panter, abbot of Cambuskenneth : Diet, of Nat. Biog. 

* Humanist, professor in the Lily, author of a famous grammar : Neve, Mimoire, 
p. 129 ; de Jongh, pp. Ill, 120 ; Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; Bibliotheca Belgica, &c. 

« Professor of divinity : de Jongh, p. 162. 

' Professor of law : Diet, of Nat. Biog. ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 357 ; Eras- 
mus, Opvs Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 148 ; Enthoven, p. 59 (where his name is wrongly 
spelt Sanerio). 

* Professor of divinity : de Jongh, p. 167 ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 421. 

» President of the Collegium Trilingue 1638-9 : Neve, Mimoire, p. 389 ; Val. 
Andreas, p. 278. 

*' Professor of divinity : de Jongh, p. 165. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


January 29. 

February 28. 

„ 28. 

„ 28. 
March 10. 
June 22. 


February 8. 

Dnus. petrus Wiichman ^ de bruxella cameracensis 

dioc. fo. 80'- 

arbaldus de Sto. andrea fo. 80^ 

karolus lapostole & loannes lapostole de parisio minorennes 

ex lilio fo. 80^ 

lobannes roesemons^ de eyndouia leodiensis dioc. ex 

falcone fo. 81 ' 

lohannes Wiinckel ' de louanio ex falcone minorennis 

pro eo iurauit Mgr. Wil. le Panetier fo. 81' 

Matthias filius Mgri. Cornelii cirurgici de middelburgo 

alias de salsaterra fo. 82' 

Johannes lohannis vulling de louanio pro isto iurauit pater 

notarius uniuersitatis * fo. 82^ 

March 20. 

June 15. 

„ 15. 

„ 15. 
October 12. 

„ 13. 

„ 27. 

December 4. 

Domicellus Johannes primo- 

genitus Dni. bergensis ^ 
Domicellus ludowicus Domi- 

nus de praet ^ 
Willermus Walgraue Thome et Symonis 

scolarium seruitor 
Doctor Dominus Robertus Wodewarde 

nacionis anglie doctor in decretalibus 

iuravit pro eis desid. 
lyshout fo. 86' 


fo. 88 V 


fo. 89' 

Nobilis Dominus Alexander body bathoniensis dioc. 

bachiliarius in decret. fo. 89' 

lohannes clerke ' norwicensis dyoc. in legibus fo. 89' 

D, georgius roess de anglia linconiensis dioc. maiorennis 

in fac. iuris fo. 92^ 

franciscus filius hermanni de cranevelt ^ de nouamagio [sic] 

Leodiensis [Coloniensis] dioc. in legibus fo. 92^ 

Franciscus filius dni. Wilhelmi tserclaes ^ de bruxella 

cameracensis dioc. in lilio . fo. 92 ^ 

Martinus filius bertholomei ^^ de naeldwyck fo. 93' 

* Erasmus's host at Anderlecht, where he was a canon and ' scholaster ' : Erasmus, 
Opera Omnia, 1703-6, iii. 662, &c. ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 460 ; de Vocht in 
Englische Studien, xl. 383, 390. 

* Possibly brother of Godescalo Rosemont : see entry of 6 November 1499. 

* Medical doctor, and with his father founder of a college in Louvain : Val. Andreas, 
p. 299 ; Reusens, Docutnents relatifs a VHist. de V Univ. de Louvain, iii. 139-44 ; he 
was one of Erasmus's friends and patrons at Louvain. 

* Val. Andreas, pp. 52, 72, 74; Enthoven, p. 59 (where his name is evidently 
misspelt Vullmetz) : ' scholasticus divi Petri et scriba huius universitatis'. 

* Henne, vii. 306. 

' Louis de Flandre, lord of Praet, bailiff of Bruges, ambassador in England and 

France : Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; Henne ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 407 ; Letters and Papers, 

'' Pace's friend, secretary to Thomas, duke of Norfolk : Diet, of Nat. Biog. ; Wood, i. 70. 

* Member of the groote raad of Mechlin : Forstemann and Giinther, p. 332 ; 
Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; Neve, La Renaissance des Lettres en Belg., pp. 21 2-4 ; Val. Andreas, 
p. 184 ; N^ve, Mimoire, pp. 206, 336. » Henne, i. 63, 64. 

^» Martin Dorp, the famous humanist : Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; N^ve, Memoire, 
pp. 113-20, &c. ; N^ve, Renaissance, pp. 135, 174 ; Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Alien, 
ii. 11 ; de Jongh, pp. 162-70, &c. 


April 15. 

„ 25. 
August 31. 
„ 31. 
,, 31. 
„ 31. 
„ 31. 


February 25. 
June 11. 

August 31. 

October 7. 

January 29. 

February 29. 

» 29. 




Dnus. lohannes Warsone de anglia eboracensis dioc. 

maiorennis fo. 95' 

M. philippus domicellus de croy^ morinensis dioc. fo. 95^ 

Mathias lawrijn^l „,.. ._, • • ^ j u 

, ..■• . mil Iheronimi* de brueis 
Marcus la wrijn * r ^- 4- 

Petrus la wrijn J 

lobannes wyclaert de londonia liliensis dives 

Johannes bogaert filius rectoris^ de lovanio 


D. Petrus de bradscba anglicus 

fo. 98' 

fo. 98^ 
fo. 98V 
fo. 99 V 

Wilbelmus de abordonia pauper ex lilio fo. 102 ^ 

Robertus de Scto. lohanne in Scotia pauper ex lilio fo. 102^ 
Riwardus nannonis ^ de enchusen traiectensis dioc. 

in artibus fo. 105' 

Conrardus de luxemburgo' filius nicolai veker traiectensis 

dioc. ex falcone fo. 106^ 

Henricus et wilhelmus de Stradio filii cancellarii bra- 

bantie,^ minorennes, nicbil soluerunt et gratis 

intitulatj iurauit pro eis M. loh. maeshroe fo. 108 ^ 

Nicolaus gobbelet' filius nicolai de bowines leodiensis 

fo. 109 V 

glasquensis dioc. 

fo. 110' 

aberdonensis dioc. 

fo. llOv 

Thomas crechton de Sco. lohanne 

Johannes ritzaertsen de aberdonia 

pauper ex castro 
Johannes pettwijn eboracensis dioc 

Ludouicus de Schoere ^^ iurauit pro eo Mgr. ludouicus 

van der haluermilen fo. 112' 

Adrianus iacobi de berlandia ^ traiectensis dioc. fo. 116' 

pauper in porco 
fo. 112' 

^ Duke of Aerschot : Heiine, ix. 341 ; x. 68. 

^ Successor to his father : Erasmus, Optw^pis^., ed. Alien,!. 432; Forstemann and 
Gunther, p. 380. 

* Lord of Watervliet, treasurer of Philip the Fair : Erasmus, Opus Epiat., ed. Allen, 
i. 432 ; Biog. Nat. de Bdg. 

* Dean of St. Donatian's, Bruges, Erasmus's great friend : Erasmus, Opus Epist., 
ed. Allen, i. 432 ; Biog. Nat. de Bdg ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 380 ; Neve, 
Renaissance, pp. 49, 62. 

* Jacobus Bogaert was rector from 28 February to 30 August 1502 : Val. Andreas, 
pp. 40, 229. He is not recorded amongst Jacobus's sons by Val. Andreas. 

* Ruard Tapper, professor of divinity : de Jongh, pp. 180-6. 

' Conrad Vegerius or Veicker, secretary to Adrian VI and Clement VII : Saxe, 
Onomasticon, in. 156. » Henne, i. 33, 64 ; v. 213. 

* Provost of Dinant ; founder of the College of St. Anne in Louvain, 1553 : Val. 
Andreas, p. 311 ; Reusens, iii. 243. 

^^ ' Doctor et professor utriusque iuris ', president of the council of state and the 
groote raad : Val. Andreas, p. 182 ; Biog. Nat. de Belg. 

** Adrian Barland, the famous humanist : Erasmus, Opv^ Epist., ed. Allen, ii. 386 ; 
Bihlioiheca Belgica ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 300 ; de Jongh, pp. 121-3, &c. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 



Mgr. robertus blakadair ^ nobilis lascuen. [Glasgow] 

dioc. fo. 120^ 

Mgr. lacobus herioth lascuen. [Glasgow] dioc. fo. 120^ 

Dns. anthonius de Wargerio archiepiscopus bisontinus 

nobilis fo. 120 ^ 

Ludouicus de thiardo 1 

Mgr. anthonius blaelgier Mamiliares bisontini fo. 120^ 

Mgr. odo bigholet J 

February 28 

laurentius tbome de landonnet Sti. Andree dyoc. pauper 

castrensis fo. 125^ 

„ 28. thomas carintors de Sto. andrea Sti. Andree dyoc. pauper 

liliensis fo. 125^ 

„ 28. Alexander bysset de aberdonia pauper liliensis fo. 125^ 

August 31. lobannes feuin de furnis ^ Cameracensis dioc. dives 

liliensis fo. 128^ 

September init. Domicellus Maximilianus de boargondia filius dni. balduini 

de bourgondia ^ fo. ISO'*^ 

October 8. ludocus Sasbout* de delft fo. 130^ 


February 28. Albertus pigge ^ alias de campis dives falconensis fo. 134' 

August 31. Adam morra de sco. lobanne dioc. Sti. andree pauper 

castrensis . fo. 138'' 

„ 31. lacobus ros de londonio dioc. Sti. andree pauper 

castrensis fo. 138' 

December 20/25 Liuinus goetbals ^ fo. 141^ 

August 30. 

„ 30. 
„ 30. 

„ 30. 

nobilis ac generosus domicellus Wolfardus de brederode 

fo. 145' 
lo. herbeeck de londonia dives castrensis fo. 146' 

lacobus staent de aberdonia aberdonensis dioc. pauper 

ex castro fo. 146' 

Nycolaus de warritj de maruilla ' treuerensis dioc. pauper 

ex falcone fo. 146^ 

* Possibly a relative to Robert Blackader, archbishop of Glasgow : Did. of Nat. 

* John de Fevyn, canon and ' scholaster ' of St. Donatian's, Bruges : Erasmus, 
Opera Omnia, iii. 264, 721, 912, 970 ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 353 (misspelt 
Ferynus) ; Enthoven, pp. 97, 190. 

' See Biog. Nat. de. Belg. 

* Imperial councillor in The Hague : Henne, viii. 23 ; Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woorden- 
boek, ii. 

' Secretary to Adrian VI, provost of St. John's, Utrecht : Saxe, Onomasiicon, 
p. 70 ; Forstemann and Gunther, p. 403 

* Erasmus's famous amanuensis Livinus Panagathus, Algoet : Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; 
de Vocht, vbi supra, p. 375. 

' Nicolas Warry de Marville, president of Busleyden's College : Neve, Mimoire, 
pp. 99-101, 309-10, 388 ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 389. 



February 28. 
May 11. 

„ 11. 

„ 24. 

August 1 . 

„ 30. 
„ 30. 
„ 30. 

September 3. 

August 3. 
„ 28. 

„ 28. 

„ 28. 

October 14. 

„ 28. 


April 28. 

„ 30. 
July 30. 
August 28. 



fr. austatius de zichnis ^ ord. predicatorum, conuentus 
louaniensis postea M agister in theologia fo. 148' 

Wilhelmus haye de abberdonia pauper falconis fo. 150' 
Andrias patricij de Sto. lohanne dyoc. Sci. andree in 
scotia fo. 151' 

Georgius filius andree de bouche de Sto. lohanne dyoc. 
Sci. andree fo. 151' 

Thomas valens de anglia fo. 151^ 

Dns. alexander fothringham de Sto. andrea in scotia 

fo. 152' 
Thomas ray de pert scotus dives castrensis fo. 153' 

Martinus hucchison de hibernia pauper castrensis fo. 153' 
robbertus filius dauid anderson de angusia brix. [? Bre- 
chin] dyoc. pauper liliensis fo. 154' 
petrus filius lohannis de cortte ^ de brugis fo. 155' 

M. petrus tonsoris ' de attrebato atreb. dioc. fo. 160' 
petrus hilson de edemborgo dioc. Sci. Andree in scotia 

pauper castr. fo. 161^ 

georgius bruyn de St. briano dioc. Sci. Andree in scotia 

pauper castr. fo. 161^ 

lacobus hu de earner dioc. Sci. Andree in scotia pauper 

castr. fo. 161^ 

Alexander de pert, filius loannis, Scotus dyoc. Sci. Andree 

pauper fo. 164' 

loannes domeon de britannia de redonis Redon. dyoc. 

fo. 164' 

Johannes moat de abberdonia lasquensis [Glasgow] dioc. 

fo. 166^ 
petrus viruli * de louanio leodiensis dioc. fo. 166^ 

wilhelmus cressel de oxonia lincon. dioc. fo. 167^ 

Robertus virvili * de louanio leodiensis dioc. dives liliensis 

minorennis iuravit pro eo mgr. lo. de steyfordia 

fo. 169 V 
Ghysbertus de edenburgo pauper liliensis fo. 169^ 

Ranolphus de anglia filius Roberti harwar lichfeldensis 

dioc. falconensis dives fo. 170' 

* Matriculated a second time after entering the Dominican Order : see entry of 
31 August 1499. 

* Petrus Curtiua, humanist, first bishop of Bruges : Biog. Nat. de Bdg. ; Forstemann 
and Giinther, p. 334 ; de Vocht, pp. 391-3 ; de Jongh, pp. 53*-60* ; Neve, Renais- 
sance, p. 210. 

^ Pierre Barbier, secretary to Adrian VI, later dean of Toumay : see Erasmus, 
Opus Epist., ed. Allen, ii. 283 ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 299. 

* Grandson of Carolus Viruli, the founder of the Lily : Val. Andreas, p. 261 ; 
Beusens, iv. 168-76 ; probably sons of Nicolas. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


August 28. 
September 12. 
December 3. 

October 11. 

„ 18. 
November 6. 

December 22. 


February 28. 

March 1. 
„ 17. 

August 31. 

lacobus de hoochstraten ^ filius anthonij calcificis earner, 
dioc. falconensis pauper fo. ITO"" 

Georgius Lindecha de Sta. Cruce nationis scocie dioc. 
Sti. Andree clericus pauper fo. 173' 

Wilhelmus de Croy^ sancte sedis apostolice Prothono- 
tarius ac prepositus ecclesie collegiate et secularis 
beate Gertrudis Niuellensis Leodiensis dyoc. lura- 
uit die mercurii 3 Sept. et dominus Daniel Martin j 
curator suus sibi datus pro eo — Nobilis Dominus. 

Hie postea creatus est cardinalis a Leone x el archi- 
episcopus Toletanus qui obijt in florida etate a° xxj in 
Germania tempore coronationis Carolj imperatoris 
nostrj. Sepultu^ in monasterio Heverlensi. fo, 179 "" 

Guillermus et Michael enckeuord ^ Leod. dyoc. Isti duo 
erant minorennes pro quibus iuravit Nicolaus Mys 

fo. 186^ 
Claudius chansonnetus * meten. dyoc. fo. 187' 

loannes de armenteria ^ attrebat. dyoc. fo. 187^ 

Dominus loannes canis ^ presbyter cameracensis dyoc. 

fo. 18 7 V 
Henricus cleynnars ' de diest leodiensis dyoc. fo. 188 "■ 

dyoc. S. Andree falconenses 
pauperes fo. 192'" 

loannes de cupro filius thome 

Nicolaus de Sto. Andrea filius 

allexandrj guilmourt 
Laurentius de fourcondia 

filius loannis rentsen 
Tomas assheleyns dioc. London. fo. 192^ 

Egidius gourmont * de goberville dioc. Constantiensis in 

normania fo. 192^ 

Richardus de cupro. Sti. Andree dioc. pauper liliensis 

fo. 197' 

* Probably a relative of the famous Cologne inquisitor (de Jongh, pp. 100, 168, &c. ; 
Erasmus, Opv^ Epist., ed. Allen, i. 556) who matriculated 20 May 1482. 

* Erasmus, Opiis Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 68 ; de Jongh, 174-5, 199. 

* Probably nephews of Cardinal Enckevoirt ; they were the first two students of 
the Collegium Trilingue. 

* Claude Cantiuncula, jurist : Allgem. Deutsche Biog. ; Forstemann and Giinther, 
p. 318 ; Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 349. 

* President of the Lily : Reusens, iv. 178 ff. ; Val. Andreas, p. 232. 

* John de Hondt, canon of Courtray, to whom Erasmus sold his prebend : Erasmus, 
Opus Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 187. 

' Possibly a brother of the great humanist Nicolas Cleynards of Diest, if not the 
great humanist himself, whom I did not find recorded in the list, and whose Christian 
name may have been wrongly entered. 

* Bookseller and printer admitted by the university : printed Barlandus's Col- 
lectanea about 1515 : Bibliotheca Belgica, B, 252 ; Nouvelle Biographic Oenerale. 



February 28. 

August 30. 







November 23 








October 4. 

May 27. 
July 18. 
August 25. 

„ 25. 

„ 27. 

' „ 28. 


February 26. 

lohannes rent de rossentia Sti. Andree dioc. pauper 

castrensis fo. 200' 

lacobus vrwin de aberdonia in schocia castrensis pauper 

fo. 206' 
lohannes ramsi de linconia castrensis pauper fo. 206' 
loannes crucius de bergis ^ liliensis dives fo. 206' 

Carolus viruli de Lovanio ^ liliensis dives fo. 206^ 

lohannes forestius Edinburgensis ex scotia 

fo. 209V 

Galterus Matthei \ de S. Joanne dioc. S. Andree 
Carolus Henderson J pauperes castrenses fo. 216' 

Hadrianus & Hieronymus ^ de lovanio filii mgri. Nicolai 

viruli leod. dioc. lilienses divites fo. 218' 

Gulielmus flasseer de dondy brigenen 

[? Brechin] dioc. 
Gam. pighet de dickelemuer dioc. 

S. Andree 
Thomas richzaertshzone de londonio 

dioc. Cantuar. 
Rogerus Rescius ' de Maseike leodiensis dioc. 

pauperes lilienses 
fo. 218' 

fo. 218V 

Andreas de ghennep * de balen leodiensis dioc. fo. 221 ^ 
Dns. Symon axete pbr. Cantuariensis dioc. fo. 222' 

Magister Eduardus lee ^ anglicus fo. 222 ^ 

Magister lohannes fyharbart anglicus fo. 222 * 

Robertus fulfurd de viluordia in scotia sub episcopo de 

aberdonia pauper castrensis fo. 223 ^ 

lohannes hay de dundi pauper liliensis fo. 224 ^ 

Nicolaus Everardj de Middeburgo^ Traiectensis dioc. 

porcensis fo. 230 ^ 

Eduardus Copelban de anglia clericus 

Eboracensis dioc. 
fo. 226V 

• Professor of Greek in the Lily : Enthoven, pp. 14-18 ; Beusens, iv. 246. 

* Grandsons of Carolus Viruli : cf. entry on 28 August 1511. 

* Professor of Greek in the Collegium Trilingue : Neve, Renaiasance, pp. 69-76, 
171, &c. ; Mimoire, pp. 202-7 ; Forstemann and Giinther, p. 410 ; Erasmus, Opus 
Epist, ed. Allen, ii. 497 ; de Jongh, pp. 200-4, &c. 

« Professor of Hebrew in the Collegium Trilingue: N6ve, Mimoire, pp. 246-7, 
315, 335. 

^ Later archbishop of York and the first opponent of Erasmus : de Jongh, pp. 141-7, 
188, 196-8, &c. ; Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 203 ; Diet, of Nat. Biog. ; 
Wood, i. 63. 

• Probably a relative of Nicolas Everardi of Middelburg, then a member of the 
groote road : cf. Val. Andreas, p. 177 ; Henne ; Erasmus, Opera Omnia, iii. 667 c ; 
Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woordenboek, iii. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


February 28. 


May 19. 


August 3. 




leronimus rufEouvs ^ de Insulis 

lacobus de wittand de dunde dioc, 

pauper liliensis 

Tornacensis dioc. 

fo. 229V. 

Sti. Andree in Scochia 

fo. 229 V 

frater Wilhelmus Crocynus presb. religiosus in ordine 

Cruciferorum professus London, dioc. fo. 233* 

frater Wilhelmus Chaterlay presb. religiosus in ordine 

Cruciferorum professus London, dioc. fo. 233 * 

Iheronimus lapostolle ^ Mechliniensis clericus camerac. 

dyoc. iuravit pro eo pater eius D. petrus Doctor Vtr. 

luris. fo. 234'- 

Henricus Scot de monte ross dyoc. brichtniens. [? Brechin] 

fo. 234v 
Cristofforus hauster de londino londin. dioc. castrensis 

dives fo. 234* 

Johannes filius codberti thomson de Idenburgo glasgow. 

dioc. pauper castrensis fo. 236' 

Andreas filius lohannis Robertson de aberdonia in scocia 

aberdon. dioc. pauper castrensis fo. 236' 

Aug. penultima. Magister Erasmus de roterodammis sacre theologie 

professor — ille nmninatissimus fo. 236' 

Grerardus viruli ^ de louanio leodiensis dioc. fo. 238' 

September 18 

February 25. 


March 15. 
» 16. 

Antonius Hose de Londyno Londonensis dioc. fo. 239* 

Eduardus Straton de Idenburgo Sti. Andree dioc. 

pauper liliensis fo. 242' 

Dnus Matheus Adrianj * medicine doctor hebreus Xpi 

fo. 244' 

V fo. 244' 

Generosus domicellus Robertus de Croy ^ dioc. 

remensis clericus 
philippus duuereyn de Bruxella prefati 
domicelli familiaris minorennes, iuravit 
pro eis eligius de aldenardo prefatj domi- 
cellj pedagogus 

June 12. Franciscus titelmannus ^ de hasselt leod. dioc. pauper 

in Standonc fo. 244* 

August 15. petrus gratianus ' de laloo in iure civili fo. 245* 

„ 30. lacobus voecht de antwerpia* camerac. dioc. dives 

castrensis fo. 246' 

* Jerome Rufiault, one of Vives's students in Louvain : Erasmus, Opera Omnia, 
iii. 874 e, 1767 d ; A. Bonilla y San Martin, Luis Vivea y la Filosofia del Renacimiento 
(Madrid, 1903), pp. 77, 113. 

* Val. Andreas, p. 176 : he succeeded his father in the groole road, but died before 

' Probably related to the founder of the Lily : cf. entry of 30 April 1511. 

* First professor of Hebrew in the Collegium Trilingue : Erasmus, Opita EpisL, 
.ed. Allen^ iii. 108. 

^ de Jongh, p. 173 ; Biog. Nat. de Belg. 

* Paquay, Fraiis Tittdmans van Hasselt (Hasselt, 1906) ; de Vocht, p. 381. 
' One of Vivea'a students : Bonilla, p. 77. 

* Probably a son of Jacobus de Voecht mentioned in the entry of 28 April 1491. 



August 30. 

„ 30. 

„ 30. 



„ 31. 
„ 31. 

» 31. 

„ 31. 

September 11. 

November 2. 

January 5. 

„ 27. 
„ 27. 

February 26. 

„ 28. 

Albertus iohannis eoute de idenburgo pauper castrensi-s 

fo. 246V 
lacobus thome paterson de ederen pauper castrensis 

fo. 246 V 

Thomas Winterle ^ anglicus cantuariensis dioc. dives 

poreensis minorennis ; iurauit pro eo M. lo. Loemel 

fo. 247' 

Thomas filius dauid mompane de Sto. iohanne pauper 

ex castro fo. 247' 

lohannes Selley anglus dives poreensis fo. 247' 

Thomas Shelley sacerdos 

angli 4" divites porcenses in 
^ ■ ■ fo. 247V 

mre canonico 

Mauritius byrchynsha ^ 

Thomas baretu ; 

Georgius Shelley 

Thomas de Sto. Iohanne dives castrensis fo. 247 ^ 

Andreas Georgius & Thomas forman de Edenburgo 

dioc. S. Andree lilienses divites fo. 248' 

Edmundus greauer de londino liliensis dives fo. 248' 

hugo de dundj pauper liliensis fo. 248 ^ 

D. ghuilhelmus Rauelys anglicus prepositus we Hens. 

dioc. fo. 249 ' 

georgius ualfet anglicus dunell. dioc. pbr. fo. 249' 

Petrus Nannonis^ de alcmara traiectensis dioc. fo. 249 ^ 

RobertusWakefeldius* anglicus eboracensis dioc. fo. 250' 

loachim de Ringhelberghe ^ antverpiensis 

camerac. dioc. 

fo. 250' 

fo. 250V 

pro eo 

fo. 250V 

dioc. Sti. Andree 

pauperes ex 
fo. 253' 

loannes sucket de brugis ^ tornacensis dioc. 
Karolus sucket de brugis ® tornacensis dioc. 

iuravit petrus de foUis 
lohannes Sas de Sto. Iohanne sub episcopo Sti. Andree 

pauper in castro fo. 252 v 

Gilbertus Roberti de 

Sto. andrea 
Laurentius Iohannis de 

Sta. Margarita 

* Thomas Winter, Wolsey's son : cf. Maurice Birchinsha's letter to Wolsey, 
Louvain, 25 November 1519 : Letters and Papers, Henry VIII. vol. iii, no. 525 ; 
Foratemann and Giinther, p. 442. 

^ Maiu-ice Byrchensaw, bachelor of civil law in Oxford in 1515 (Wood, i. 650, 656), 
was tutor to Thomas Winter (see entry of 30 August), son of Wolsey, to whom he 
wrote a letter about the studies of the boy on the latter's return to Louvain, 29 Novem- 
ber 1519 : cf. Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. iii, no. 2648. 

* Professor of Latin in the Collegium Trilingue : Neve, Memoire, pp. 149-55. 

* Profesor of Hebrew in the Collegium Trilingue : Neve, Memoire, pp. 231-3 ,- 
Diet of Nat. Biog. ; Wood, i. 39 ; possibly identical with the ' Master Wakfelde ' 
who in July 1522 brought H. Gold's letter to Nicholas Darynton at Louvain : Letters 
and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. iii, no. 2390. 

* Cf . Paquot, Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire LitUraire des Pays-Bos (Louvain, 
1765), iv. 440-8. 

* Sons of Anthony, of the geheime raad : Forstemann and Giinther, p. 427. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


March 25. 

August 30. 

„ 30. 

„ 30. 


February 13, 
August 30. 
„ 30. 

„ 30. 

„ 30. 

October 2. 

November 28, 


• 1. 











April 8. 

May 24. 

Franciscus Nicolaus & Iheronimus busledius ^ fratres 

fo. 254' 
philippus de montmoraci de bethunia atrebat. dioc. 

Impuber, pro eo iuravitM. loan. Scarleye Regens ex 

castro dives fo. 255^ 

Nicolaus filius Wilhelmi de assendelft^ de haerlem ex 

castro dives fo. 256^ 

Wernerus de Meroda de follonia leodiensis dioc. ex 

falcone dives fo. 257 ^ 

Nicholaus lapostol ' de Mechlinia 
Georgius medelaer de Londino castrensis 
Robertus gibson de handenbino 

pauper castrensis 
Joannes adenson de Sto. Andrea 

pauper castrensis 
Joannes Cockcresh de dumfris 

pauper castrensis 

fo. 261V 

fo. 267' 
sub episcopo Sti. Andree 

fo. 267' 
sub episcopo Sti. Andree 

fo. 267' 
sub episcopo Glascuensi 

fo. 267' 

Dominus Edmondus roughum Anglus dioc. norwicen. 

fo. 270' 
Londoniensis dioc. in 
fo. 270' 
iuravit pro eo 
fo. 270' 

Dominus thomas asper anglus 

Fr. Wilhelmus finus Anglus 

Fr. wilh. Chaterlee * 
Nobilis Karolus de laleyn ^ 

tornacensis dioc. 
hugo de Sto. Andrea schotus pauper 
Johannes alen londoniensis dioc. Anglus 


fil. milit. 

fo. 270' 
fo. 271' 
f 0.271' 

Wilhelmus filius patricij anderson de Sto. Johanne dioc. 

Sci. Andree pauper castrensis fo. 273' 

Johannes craecst de Aberdonia pauper castrensis fo. 273' 
Johannes tenson de Archadia Aberdonensis dioc. pauper 

falconensis fo. 274' 

Alexander Spens de Sto. Andrea Sci. Andree dioc. pauper 

falconensis fo. 274' 

Nicholaus & Judocus filii anthonij vut den houe® de ypris 

morin. dioc. nobiles iuravit pro eis hospes Mich, van 

den Doerne fo. 275' 

D. Robertus beerey anglus noorwicen. dioc. in theologia 

fo. 276' 

' Sons of Gilles Busleyden : Erasmus, Opus Epist., ed. Allen, iii. 108 ; •Nicola.s 
became councillor ; Jerome studied in the Collegium Trilingue, 1526-7 ; cf. entry 
of 4 June 1524. 

* Son of the president of Holland ; studied in the Collegium Trilingue 1532 to 1534. 

* Probably a son of Petrus Lapostolius, who was councillor in the groote road of 
Mechlin : cf. entry of 3 August 1517. 

* See entry of 19 May 1517. 

» Henne, v. 170 ; Biog. Nat. de Bdg. • Henne, ii. 126 ; vii. 34. 


Richard us f. guielmi neuin anglus oxon. in artibus fo. 276 '^ 
Mag. Rogerus Smichtus anglus Cestrensis dioc. in 

theologia fo. 276 ^ 

lodocus filius lohannis Vroeye de gauere camerac. dioc. 

in artibus minister Rectoris^ fo. 277^ 

Karolus & Franciscus, fratres, filii Dni. loannis petrj 

presidentis mechliniensis ^ camerac. dioc. fo. 277^ 
Cornelius Zandelyn de Dordraco traiectensis dioc. 

castrensis dives fo. 278' 

Henricus filius thome trotter de vrittel ex anglia. 

castrensis pauper fo. 279' 

loannes masse de aberdonia dioc. aberdon. castrensis 

pauper fo. 280' 

Laurentius cardine de cardinis dioc. Sti. Andree castrensis 

pauper fo. 280' 

lacobus Key de brighenen dioc. brigenensis castrensis 

pauper fo. 280' 

Thomas doutryde dunde dioc. brigenensis castrensis 

pauper fo. 280' 

David til de dunde dioc. brigenensis castrensis pauper 

fo. 280' 
Andreas clameroch de dumfris dioc. grascuens. castrensis 

pauper fo. 280' 

Alexander digebal de digebal sub episcopo Sti. Bonifacii 

fo. 280' 
Walter us de climner de Sto. andrea castr. paup. fo. 280' 
franciscus filius M. Anthonij Suucket * de brugis dives 

liliensis fo. 280' 

28. Georgius Joust in -^ , , • i- 

m, r 1 I abardonensis dioc. pauperes ex 

r, ir , . . I pedagogio lilii fo. 281' 

Uuilbertus suictor J ^ ® ° 

28. Robertus herreel ^ . , j. 

andree dioc. pauperes ex 


June 10. 



August 25. 

























lohannes Robertson > 

J P' 

T - , . , pedagogio lilii fo. 281' 

lacobus sclegim -* 

September 13. Dns. Eustacius de Croy* prothonotarius morin. dioc. 

nobilis fo. 283' 

November 14. Dns. guillelmus puysso anglicus presb. Noruoicens. dioc. 

fo. 284' 

„ 24. Egmondus thaarguil Anglicus cameracens. dioc. fo. 284' 


January 22. Carolus haerst ^ wichcenburgensis spirensis dioc. fo. 284' 

' Jean Pietere, of Bruges, who died at Middelburg in October 1621. 
^ See entry of 28 February 1499 : Vroeye was rector from 28 February to 
30 August 1521. 

* See entry of 27 January 1519 : Forstemann and Gunther, p. 427 (this son is not 
recorded in their genealogy). 

* Later bishop of Arras : Biog. Nat. de Belg. ; Forstemann and Gunther, p. 333. 

* Later amanuensis to Erasmus : Forstemann and Giinther, pp. 322, 366. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


February 3. Carolus de Croy ^ abbas affligmensis camerac. dioc. 

fo. 284V 

„ 26. lodocus Henrici van Rauenstayn 2 de tyleto traiectensis 

dioc. castrensis dives fo. 285 ^ 

„ 26. Thomas Dauisunus de marouia aberdin. dioc. pauper 

ex castro fo. 286' 

„ 27. Robertus de Norwico Anglicus dives ex porco fo. 286* 

„ 27. Wernerus Aerdt ' de nouiomagio pauper ex porco fo. 287 ' 

„ 27. Egidius busbeca de Insulis tornacensis dioc. dives ex 

lilio fo. 287 V 

„ 27. Guill. virvdus * de louanio leodiens. dioc. dives ex lilio 

fo. 287 V 

April 3. Dnus. georgius Craft anglicus dioc. sarum fo. 288* 

„ 15. Mgr. Thomas Kincragi scotus dioc. dunkildensis fo. 288* 

May 28. Dnus. Johannes smucts anglicus norwicen. dioc. fo. 289' 

„ 28. thomas aerman anglicus norwicen. dioc. fo. 289' 

September 24. Mgr. Joannes de Fonseca alias de bouadilla sallamantiens. 

dioc. fo. 295' 

October 4. Mgr. Ricardus Watkens anglus herfordensis dioc. fo. 295' 

„ 4. Wilhelmus hemmicus anglus linconiensis dioc. fo. 295' 

November 27. Thomas candis de Londonio anglus londoniensis dioc. 

fo. 296' 
„ 27. Petrus Letmat ^ de gouda traiectensis dioc. fo. 296' 

December 3. Dnus. Wilhelmus taleus anglus eboracensis dioc. fo. 296' 
„ 3. Cornelius sceppere ^ de nouo portu morinensis dioc. 

fo. 296' 

„ 3. Franciscus cane anglus linconiensis dioc. ; abfuit iuravit 

pro eo Jo. de goes fo. 296' 

„ 4. Grenerosus iuuenis philippus de beueris ' nobilis et iuravit 

pro eo Mattheus de creppi eius seruitor fo. 296' 

„ 5. Generosus domicellus Jacobus de croy ^ nobilis et iuravit 

pro eo M. Ludovicus de Ath fo. 296* 

„ 6. Generosi domicelli Joannes, Claudius et fridericus caron- 

delet ^ nobiles fratres cameracensis dioc, minorennes 

iuravit pro eis M. Jo. de Arena de Mechlinia fo. 296* 

„ 6. Nobiles JUustres dni. Georgius & Philippus filii Joannis 

comitis egmundensis ^^ fo. 296* 

„ 6. Galfridus bljrthij ^^ de Eboraco eboracensis dioc. 

maiorennis fo. 296* 

* de Jongh, pp. 157, 173, &c. ; he became bishop of Toumay : Biog. Nat. de Bdg. 

* Later professor of divinity, Louvain : Val. Andreas, p. 111. 

* President of the College of Arras, University of Louvain : Reusens, iii. 159. 

* See entries of 30 April 1511 and 18 September 1517. 

* Probably a relative, if not a brother, of Herman Letmat : de Vocht, pp. 388-91. 
" Forstemann and Giinther, pp. 416-17 ; Biog. Nat. de Belg. 

' Probably son of Adolpb, admiral of the sea : Henne ; ^»og. Nat. de Belg. 

* de Jongh, pp. 157, 176. 

* Probably sons to Charles de Carondelet, lord of Potelles, governor of Enghien, 
brother to the archbishop of Palermo : Biog. Nat. de Belg. 

*• Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woordenboek, iii. 

»* Perhaps identical with ' Master Blythe ', who came to Louvain in company with 



Dnus. Arturus sentleger et eius frater Georgius de ulcoin 
cantuariensis dioc. fo. 296^ 

lacobus Robarts de brensele Roffensis dioc. fo. 296^ 
Thomas clee de finingle eboracensis dioc. fo. 296^ 

Dnus. Hemricus Hendley de comitatu eboracensi in anglia 

fo. 296^ 
cisestrensis dioc. 
fo. 296' 
carliolensis dioc. 
fo. 296 V 
20. lacobus filius mgri. loannis bogart^ de Louanio fo. 297' 





Dnus. Richardus 

Guillielmus burbancus ^ 


borde anglus 

January 3. 

Robertus forts de londino anglus londoniensis dioc. 

fo. 297' 
Mgr. Joannes both anglus lichfildiensis dioc. fo. 297' 

Wigglius de Suichem ' de lewardia fo. 299' 

Mgr. Thomas Neche anglus promotus cantabrigensis 

* fo. 301 ' 

Petrus Vulcanius * brugensis pauper fo. 301' 

Robartus colens anglus fo. 301 ' 

Thomas brandelinghe de nouo castro anglus fo. 302' 

Hermannus oem de dordraco traiectensis dioc. dives 

castrensis fo. 303' 

loannes Cornelii montfoerdt de Hagis traiectensis dioc. 

dives castrensis fo. 303' 

loannes clichtoue us ^ de neoportu dives liliensis fo. 305' 
frater Thomas Wif ortd de conuentria dives, non artista — 

ex standonico fo. 307' 

Iheronimus leronimi edelheer^ minorennis pro eo 

iurauit leronimus pater eius fo. 308' 

Mgr. Simon lenyns anglus fo. 308' 

Alexander filius iohannis cocherem de aberdonia pauper 
castrensis fo. 312' 

Nicolaus Iohannis cane' de Amsterdammis fo. 315' 

Antonius thielman de Antwerpia minorennis et pro eo 
iurauit leronimus busleydis ^ fo. 314' 

Nicholas Daryngton, as the latter wrote to Henry Gold, 14 February 1622 : Letters 
and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. iii, no. 2052. 

' Probably identical with William Burbanke, archdeacon of Carlisle : Wood, 
i. 137 ; Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. iii, nos. 739, 741, 753, 2666. 

* Joannes Bogaert was the son of the professor of medicine Jacobus Bogaert : 
see entry of 31 August 1502. 

' Hoynck van Papendrecht, Analecta Belgica, La Haye, 1743 ; Forstemann and 
Giinther, p. 440 ; Nieuw Ned. Biog. Woordenboek. * Ibid., p. 414. 

' Probably a relative of Josse Clictove : Biog. Nat. de Belg. 

* See entry of 25 February 1494. 

' Nicolaus Cannius, Erasmus's amanuensis : Forstemann and Giinther, p. 318 ; 
de Vocht, pp. 386-8. » See entry of 25 March 1619. 

„ 23. 
March 18. 
May 20. 

June 22. 
July 8. 
August 19. 
„ 29. 

„ -29. 

„ 29. 
,, 31. 

October 7. 

November 10. 

February 27. 

May 14. 
June 4. 


FROM 1485 TO 1527 


August 9. 

„ 30. 

October 8. 
„• 9. 
December 24. 

February 23. 

June 8. 

August 31. 

September 2. 

February 27. 

February 28. 


May 13. 
;, 31. 

August 6. 


Wilhelmus Westoun presb. herfordiensis dioc. anglicus 

fo. 316' 
Bisuntinensis dioc. 
fo. 317' 
minorennis fo. 320' 
fo. 320^ 

marcurinus boijssetus de dola ^ 

dives castrensis 
Adrianus lapostoel ^ de mechlinia 
Ricardus Warham^ anglicus 

Dominus Wilhelmus Reuettus Anglus 


fo. 321^ 

Mattheus patersen de loulando Sti. Andree dioc. pauper 
castrensis fo. 322^ 

leronimus Sandelien * traiectens. dioc. minorennis iuravit 
pro eo lo. gastel subpactor librorum fo. 324^ 

Nycolaus Vegerius de Lucemburgo trevirensis dioc. 
dives standonicus fo. 327' 

lacobus Blijth anglus maiorennis fo. 328' 

Petrus tittelmans" de Hasselt 
Dns. Johannes hering anglicus 

dives ex castro 

fo. 329' 
fo. 332' 

sub episcopo Aberdonensi 
fo. 338^' 
fo. 338 V 
fo. 341' 

Dauid menzes de aberdonia 

e castro dives 
Hugo Ryg dunfronensis Grlascuiens. dioc. 
Dominus Johannes Neuellus anglus 
Thomas occleus -> 

Nicolas Ridleus ^ > Angli natione 

Robertus BuUardus J 
Gabriel de Vlierden "^ filius Baltazar Bruxellensis 

pro eo Godscalc. de Dyest 
gysbertus oem de wygaerd ^ dives porcensis 

fo. 341' 

fo. 342' 
fo. 344 V 

A General Court of the Merchant Adventurers in ij/fj 

The document printed below from the Tanner MS. 90 in the 
Bodleian Library appears to consist of two leaves from the Com't 
Books of one of the Tudor trading companies. The references 

> Probably a relative of Claude de Boissot, archdeacon of Arras, dean of Poligny : 
Henne ; Hoynck, Analecta Belgica, 1. 113, 115, &c. 
^ See entry of 3 August 1517. 

* Probably identical with Richard Warham, D.C.L. : Diet, of Nat. Biog. 

* A student in the Collegium Trilingue in 1530 ; later receiver-general of Zeeland: 
Henne, iii. 237. 

* Brother to Francis ; inquisitor : cf . Paquay, Frans TiUdmans van Hasselt (see 
entry of 12 June 1518), pp. 143-7. 

* Later bishop of London : Diet, of Nat. Biog. 
' Val. Andreas, pp. 266, 292. 

* Probably son of Florent and brother to John : see entry of 24 July 1487 : 
Enthoven, pp. 58-60. 


to the general court, to the governor, to ' carseis ' (kerseys) 
point to the Merchant Adventurers. The ' colde marte ' was one 
of the four groups of market-days held annually by that com- 
pany. The document illustrates a dispute with the city of 
Antwerp not previously recorded and the interest of Bergen-op- 
Zoom (' Barowe ') in the Adventurers' trade. ^ It adds weight 
to the contention of Mr. W. E. Lingelbach that the court abroad 
exercised jurisdiction over the entire * fellowship ' and that the 
executive government of the company was abroad and not in 
London, an opinion which is opposed to those of Ehrenberg, 
Gross, Cunningham, and Schanz.^ W. P. M. Kennedy. 

[Bodleian MS. Tanner 90, fos. 151-2.] 

General! Corte holden the 
xxjth day of October ano 1547 

Att this pnt courte beinge by the worshippi^ master gouernor . pro- 
ponid how the lordes of the towne of barowe arne hethier Repaired . and 
haue made Requeste to this worshippfnll fealisheppe for thobseruacion 
and kepinge of this next colde marte att their said towne of barrowe 
accordinge to the mooste aunciente and Right laudable order of longe tyme 
here to foore vsedd. after good deliberacbne and well ponderinge the 
vtillities or discomodities wc their hie might chaunce vnto this fealisheppe . 
speciallie at this pnt perceavinge the continuall and daylie violacion of 
o' priveledges w* in this towne of antwerppe . not w* standinge greate 
and longe sewte made to the lordis of the saide towne for Redresse of the 
same'att whoes handes noo Reasonable . aunswer nor Remeadye in that 
parte can be hadde beinge greatte likelyhod that the contynuall demire 
in this their towne all the fower martes contrarie to oure olde auncyente 
and accostomide maner/ cawsith them the lesse to Regarde the par- 
formance of their saide priueledge w*^ vs / yt is thiere fore thowght moste 
expediente and nessessarie for the better preseruation of our priueledgis / 
leste the same shoUd fall too vtter Ruine and dekey / wc by our auncyentes 
and predesessors in tyme paste w* noo small difficultie ware gotten and 
oppteynede that from hence forthe wee obserue our olde orders in kepinge 
our said martes in bothe townes as in tymes paste wie weare accostomyd / 
And for to haue large triall of all menys oppinyons in this be hallfe the 
determynacion ^ therof beinge putt accordinge to our olde order vnto 
the erectinge and listing vpp of handes, ytt is finallie their by determyned, 
and is by auctoritie of the worshippfuU Mr gouernor assistente and 
generalitie ordeyned and enacted that the said colde marte nexte ensuynge 
shall be hollden and kepid at the said towne of barowe vppon zoone / 
and all suche clothes carseis cottens and all other the comodyteis of the 
Realme of englande whatt soo mever, belonginge or apperteyninge to anye 
the King^ maiesties subiettf w" arne or shall be laded shipped or other 
wyse traunsported hether into theis parties vnto the said colde marte 
shalbe conveyde browght and discherged at the said towne of barowe . 

* See Wheeler, Treatise on Commerce, p. 16. 

* Rovai Hiat. Soc Trans.. New Ser.. xvi. 61 fE. ^ fo. 151*. 


and to noo other plase wtin thies parties of hollande zealande brabant 
and flanders vppon payne too f orfaite for euery clothe other wyse browght 
or to be conveyde contrarie to this acte xxs. st. And for all other como- 
dyteis after the rate / And is further in acted that euerye brother feali- 
shepp hauinge any clothes carseis or otheir whatt soo meuer the comodytes 
of the Kealme of Ynglande here Eemayninge shall cause the same to be 
fardelled trussed and packed vpp . and the same soo ferdellid packed or 
trussed . to be shipped . laden . and to be conveyde to barowe by crestmas 
yeven next ensuyng. w'^out fraude or couUor And their parsonis w*^ all 
to departe hence to the said towne at the said daye att the ^ fEurdeste / 
leade here beinge all Kedye w* in this towne of andwerpe is accepted / 
and that no brother of this fealisheppe after the said daye shal by . sell 
shew nor delyiier . nor by any means vse feate of marchaundise etheir by 
him sellfe or any other for him w4n this towne of andwerpe dewringe the 
contynuance of the said colde marte wMn the said towne of barrowe 
vpon payne of one hundred markes st to be forfayted and paid as often 
as any brother of this fealishepp shalbe found fawtie or directlie or vn- 
derectly doinge in any maner of wyse contrarye to the trewe meanyng 
of this ordynance ayther by fraude color or other wyse and is ordeyned 
that Ires of aduyse shalbe wretten to London and to all other placis 
wheare anye of the bretherin of this fealishipp dwell and arre presydente 
to the intent euerye of them maye haue sufficient warnynge and knowledge 
of the piymisses /. 

The Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian and the Crown 
of Greece, i86j 

The story of the ill-fated Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of 
Austria, who in 1864 became emperor of Mexico, is still in many 
respects obscure, and it is not probable that a full account of his 
relations with the Emperor Napoleon III will ever be published. 
It is, however, of interest and of some historical importance to 
discover that only a year before his departure for Mexico he 
refused a crown in Europe, and that the offer came from the 
British cabinet. In 1862 the Greeks revolted against their 
German king, Otho of Bavaria, and he was compelled to leave 
the country. The Greek assembly declared the throne vacant, 
and in accordance with the nation's desire invited Prince Alfred 
of England to become their monarch. But the Palmerston 
government thought it desirable that the prince should be 
advised to refuse the honour ; the British cabinet at the same 
time taking upon themselves the responsibility of finding a king 
for the Greeks. The vacant throne was offered in turn to Fer- 
dinand of Portugal and Duke Ernest of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. 
It was on the refusal of the latter that Palmerston and Russell, 
who was foreign secretary, turned to the Archduke Maximilian. 

1 fo. 152. 


Their first step was to try to ascertain the views of 
Napoleon III, and the first document dealing with the negotia- 
tion is the copy of a telegram ^ from Russell to Earl Cowley, 
the British ambassador in Paris, dated 11 February 1863. This 
reads, ' Would the Emperor of the French support the Archduke 
Maximilian for the throne of Greece ? ' On the following day 
Russell sent a second telegram ^ to Cowley : ' Act upon my 
instruction of yesterday. The Archduke Maximilian has no 
children, but might adopt an heir who would embrace the Greek 
church.' At 7 p.m. on the 14th Cowley was able to reply : '^ 
' The Emperor is quite favorable to the Arch Duke Maximilian.' 

Meanwhile earlier in this day (14 February) Russell had 
communicated by telegram with Lord Bloomfield, the British 
ambassador in Vienna. The message * read : 

Endeavour to ascertain whether the Arch Duke Maximilian, the brother 
of the Emperor, would accept the crown of Greece. Speak to Rechberg ^ 
and if necessary to the Emperor on the subject. 'The Arch Duke would have 
all the influence of England in his favour and Her Majesty's Government 
would consider the Ionian Islands ^ safe in his hands. 

On the 15th, having now received Cowley's reply, Russell was 
able to send a further telegram to Vienna informing Bloomfield 
that ' The emperor of the French is quite favorable to the Arch 
Duke Maximilian '. 

Having now launched their project the British cabinet were 
not left long in ignorance of its fate. During the evening of 
15 February, Bloomfield forwarded to Russell the following 
telegraphic dispatch : ' 

The Emperor, deeply penetrated at this proof of friendship and con- 
fidence on the part of the Queen and Her Majesty's Government, regrets 
that it is not in his power to accept the proposal that the Arch Duke 
Ferdinand Maximilian should become a candidate for the throne of Greece. 
I communicated the substance of your lordship's telegram last night to 
Count Rechberg. His Excellency has just given me the above answer, 
and on my asking the reason why the Emperor declined the offer, he 
answered that the relations of His Imperial Majesty with the House of 
Bavaria rendered it impossible, and that a communication had been 
lately received from Munich, showmg the fixed determination of the 
Bavarian dynasty not to resign their claims to the Greek throne. I then 
enquired if the Emperor would be disposed to grant me an audience, that 
perhaps His Imperial Majesty would reconsider his decision. His Excel- 

» Foreign Office List, 27 : 1477. ^ /^j-^. 27 : 1477. 

=" Ibid. 27 : 1486. * Ibid. 7 : 648. 

* Count Rechberg was the Austrian minister for foreign affairs. 

" The British government had already decided to terminate their occupation of 
the islands, as the islanders were desirous of becoming members of the kingdom of 

' Ibid. 7 : 651. 


lency replied that the Emperor would see me with pleasure if I desired it, 
but His Imperial Majesty had spoken so positively that he could not 
encourage the supposition that there was at present any likelihood of 
his changing his mind. He added that the Emperor had ordered him 
to make known by telegraph to the Arch Duke Ferdinand Maximilian, 
which was already done, the answer he was to give me, and that he had 
also telegraphed to Count Apponyi.^ 

However, Palmerston and Russell were not disposed to accept 
this refusal as final. On the 16th Russell again made use of the 
telegraph in order to forward a further instruction ^ to Bloomfield. 
The wording of this was : 

Ask Rechberg to procure an audience of the Emperor, or permission to 
address yourself directly to the Arch Duke Maximilian. Say that Her 
Majesty's Government have been greatly disappointed by the answer 
of Austria. King Otho and the Bavarian dynasty are excluded by a vote 
of the Greek assembly declaring the throne vacant, and the Bavarian 
dynasty cannot be restored by force, and never will be restored without 
force. An Austrian king might induce the Assembly to grant liberal 
terms to King Otho in respect of his private property. Any other prince 
to be chosen would be less favourable to Bavaria and the Arch Duke's 
refusal will not help the Bavarian dynasty. A treaty might be proposed 
to Bavaria after the recognition of a new king by Great Britain and 
France. These two Powers are quite agreed in wishing the Arch Duke to 
accept. It will be a happy termination of the difficulty in Greece if the 
Arch Duke can agree to accept if chosen. 

Acting on this instruction Bloomfield secured an audience 
of the emperor. This took place on 18 February and iorms 
the subject of the British ambassador's dispatch ^ no. 86 of the 
same date. This reads : 

I was summoned to the Palace at i o'clock this day and most graciously 
received. The Emperor at once commenced the conversation by desiring 
me to express to Her Majesty's Government his deep regret {desespoir 
was the word used) not to be able to meet their wishes that the Arch Duke 
Ferdinand Maximilian should become a candidate for the throne of Greece. 
His Imperial Majesty said he had immediately communicated to his 
brother the view he took of the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, 
and that the Arch Duke entirely adopted the reasons which had induced 
His Imperial Majesty to decline it. The Emperor continued that his rela- 
tions with the House of Bavaria rendered it totally impossible to entertain 
the project, that King Otho had not abdicated, and had not, according to 
the last information he had received from Munich, any intention of doing 
so. ' But ', I observed to His Imperial Majesty, ' the Greek Assembly has 
declared the throne vacant.' ' This might be,' replied the Emperor, 
but ' le cdte du droit est avec le Roi Othan ', and the principles of Austria's 
policy in this respect were unchanged. ' We stand by the rights of 

* Austrian ambassador at the court of St. James. 

« Foreign Office List, 7 : 648. » Ibid. 7 : 651. 


sovereigns and their dynasties ', and as to the kingdom of Greece itself, 
he could assure me he entirely approved the policy pursued by Austria 
when the monarchy was created. I here observed that it was no longer 
a question of creation but of continuation, and that it was with this view 
Her Majesty's Government were anxious to see placed upon the throne 
of Greece a sovereign connected with this great and powerful Empire 
who would be able to assist in the development of its resources and in 
whose hands the Ionian Islands would be safe. 

His Imperial Majesty replied that he had deeply considered the whole 
bearings of the question, and he had been glad to have time to do so before 
seeing me, but he must inform me he could not depart from his original 
impression, though he should have been glad to do what was agreeable to 
Her Majesty's Government, with whom it was his most earnest desire to 
act in strict concert on all questions, especially those concerned with the 
East, but to entertain the proposal of which I was the bearer would only 
be to create new difficulties for Austria. She was unpopular at Athens. 
Russia and Italy were incessantly at work endeavouring to counteract 
the influence of Austria in Greece and its dependencies ; — would they 
not be violently opposed to the establishment of an archduke as sovereign ? 
' Besides,' said His Imperial Majesty, ' you must permit me to observe 
it is not very flattering, after proposals of this kind have been bandied 
about Europe, that the archduke should have been thought of when all 
else had failed.' Had the proposal been made immediately after the 
Queen had declined the offer of the throne to Prince Alfred, a determina- 
tion on the part of Her Majesty which he should always regret, it certainly 
would have been much more agreeable to him. I here said that I was 
not aware that Her Majesty's Government had made any communication 
except to King Ferdinand of Portugal and to the Duke of Coburg, and that 
although His Imperial Majesty objected to the present proposal, I begged 
leave to draw his attention to the political advantage which the possession 
of the throne of Greece by an archduke would procure to Austria in all 
questions connected with the East, to say nothing of that which would be 
derived from the annexation of the Ionian Islands, and that if an archduke 
were sitting upon the Greek throne, more favourable terms would be 
obtainable in respect to the private property of King Otho, and other 
Bavarian interests. The Emperor answered that he could only repeat 
his regret to be unable to entertain the proposal which had been submitted 
to him, that he must decline it for the reasons he had already given ; 
moreover it included a question of Right and Principle, and that he 
could not depart from the established policy of his Government in such 
cases, whilst the sentiments of his own honour and dignity prevented him 
from considering a project in which the immediate interests of the House 
of Bavaria were so deeply concerned. 

Some further details relative to this audience are contained 
in a private letter ^ which Lord Bloomfield addressed to Russell 
on 19 February. He here says : 

From the first words of Count Rechberg on the subject, I feared the project 
» Foreign Office List, 356 : 38. 

1922 AND THE CROWN OF GREECE, 1863 111 

would not be entertained by the Emperor, and notwithstanding the con- 
stitutional system established in the Empire and its success, there is 
nothing changed in the opinions of the Imperial Family on the rights of 
sovereigns and the principles on which government should be carried on. 
... I hardly thought the Emperor would have shown so much decision in 
the matter, but His Majesty is evidently piqued at the proposal having 
been made here after its failure in other places, and he and all his family 
are as proud as Lucifer. He was most gracious in his reception of me, 
but looked very nervous until he had unburthened himself and was able 
to talk of other matters besides that which had called forth my request 
for an audience. Of one thing I have come from him convinced — that he 
pays close attention to foreign affairs, and if he follows as carefully those 
of all other departments, he must be a man of no small ability and not pass 
much time in idleness. 

The British government made no further attempt to persuade 
Francis Joseph to change his decision, but some further corre- 
spondence passed between Russell and Bloomfield concerning the 
project. Lord Bloomfield's dispatch ^ no. 89 of 18 February 
contains an account of the interview with Count Rechberg at 
which he had asked for an audience of the emperor. 

Count Rechberg again explained that the Emperor's family relations and 
close connection with the House of Bavaria obliged him to decline the 
offer. . . . Moreover he (Rechberg) had little confidence in the honest 
co-operation of France in such a scheme. She would probably act as 
he believed her to have done when the Duke of Coburg was proposed as 
a candidate for the Greek throne. General Maquan had been sent to 
Brussels to see His Royal Highness and to express the readiness of France 
to support him, and at the same time M. Mocquart sent instructions to the 
French press to write against him ; directions were likewise forwarded 
to M. Bourree at Athens with a large sum of money, to create a French 
party and to agitate for the Due d'Aumale. He said Austria could not 
count on France in such a position ; and he believed she had declared her 
readiness to support the candidature of an archduke only because by 
so doing, she met the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, and did a civility 
by Austria, for she must have known beforehand that the proposal would 
be inacceptable to Vienna. 

Lord Bloomfield, however, goes on to say that, 

As far as I can judge from Count Rechberg's observations, it would seem 
that if the Emperor had not decided at once to reject the proposal, His 
Excellency might have been disposed to consider it, for he feels that 
notwithstanding the large sacrifice of men and money its success might 
necessitate, Austria would gain a strong position and one from which 
she could exercise a great influence in the East ; but he dreaded the 
unpopularity of the question in Austria, and he feared also lest an ambitious 
man like the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian on the throne of Greece 
might become the signal for a change in the whole policy of Austria in the 

» Ibid. 7 : 651. 


Eastern question. He thinks too that Austria has troubles enough nearer 
home, and that it might be wiser to avoid creating new ones at a distance. 

Up to this point the diplomatic correspondence relating to 
the project leaves us in almost complete ignorance as to the 
personal feelings of Maximilian himself in the matter. Their 
nature, however, forms the subject of Lord Bloomfield's dispatch ^ 
no. 97 of 21 February. This reads : 

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that Count Rechberg, in request- 
ing me to convey to Her Majesty's Government the thanks of the Arch- 
duke Ferdinand Maximilian for their proof of confidence in desiring that 
he might be called to the Greek throne, and the expression of his deep 
regret to be unable to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, 
added that His Imperial Highness adopts all the reasons which induced 
the Emperor to decline the proposal, and had even commented on them 
more strongly than the Emperor had done. His Excellency said that 
I could judge of the Archduke's personal feelings on the subject from the 
observations he had made, that to any one unacquainted with Greece the 
throne of the Hellenic Kingdom might have many charms, but he had 
visited the country and studied it, and that not only was his knowledge of 
it sufficient to deter him from connecting himself with it officially, but that 
he was astonished King Otho could entertain the thought of returning to 
Athens and that His Majesty Avas not thankful to have left the country 
for ever. 

In 1863, then, Maximilian refused the British offer of a throne 
in Greece. In 1864 he accepted the throne in Mexico erected for 
him by Napoleon III. Now there have been various theories 
put forward to account for Napoleon's desire to enthrone Maximi- 
lian in Mexico. There are those who say that the emperor of the 
French had on foot a grand scheme for ' the regeneration of the 
Latin race ', and that his aim in Mexico was to erect a barrier 
against any further advance by the Anglo-Saxons of the north 
over the remaining portions of the American continent. Emile 
OUivier,^ however, is confident that Napoleon's impelling motive 
was his theory of nationalities ; in short, that the emperor of the 
French was planning to add Venetia to the new Italian kingdom. 
This was to be brought about by the coronation of Maximilian 
in Mexico, for then Francis Joseph, in gratitude for the honour 
done his brother, would in return consent to the cession of 
Venice to Italy. In view of Ollivier's theory Russell's comment 
on Maximilian's refusal to accept the Greek throne is of some 
interest. He wrote to Lord Bloomfield : ^ 

I am very sorry Maximilian does not accept. The Greeks would have taken 
him from France and England, altho' unwillingly, and there would have 

> Foreign Office List, 7: 651. 

* Ollivier, Vemjnre liberal, v. 259. 

' Foreign Office List, 356 : 32, 18 February 1863. 

1922 AND THE CROWN OF GREECE, 1863 113 

been great security for Austria in the Adriatic. To be sure France might 
have said, ' Now you are so safe, give up Venice ', but to that Austria 
would have said ' No ' to the end of the chapter. 

It would seem clear that the evidence relating to the offer 
to Maximilian of the throne of Greece contains a test of the 
soundness of Ollivier's theory as to Napoleon's object in sending 
Maximilian to Mexico. For if Ollivier's theory is to hold, it cannot 
be admitted that Napoleon III in February 1863 was insincere 
or even lukewarm in his support of the British project for placing 
Maximilian on the throne of Greece. If the coronation of Maximi- 
lian was to bring about the assent of Austria to the cession of 
Venice, surely the crowning of Maximilian in. Athens was at least 
as likely to bring about such a result, as was the crowning, a year 
later, of Maximilian in Mexico City. Russell put his finger on 
one very definite gain to Austria should Maximilian become king 
of Greece : ' there would have been great security for Austria 
in the Adriatic ', but there is no record of Russell or of any one 
else discovering in what respect Austria would gain by his becom- 
ing emperor of Mexico. In fact, Francis Joseph and his govern- 
ment were so little aware of its possessing any advantages that 
they tried to dissuade Maximilian from embarking on the Mexican 
adventure, refused to support him with either men or money, 
and compelled him to renounce all his rights of succession to the 
Hapsburg dominions. But when the Greek project had been 
mooted, Count Rechberg had himself admitted ^ to Lord Bloom- 
field that ' the possession of the Greek throne by an archduke 
might be advantageous to Austria in carrying out her Eastern 
policy ', and it was Bloomfield's considered opinion that had 
Francis Joseph not decided to reject the proposal 

Count Rechberg might have been disposed to consider it, for he feels that 
notwithstanding the large sacrifice of men and money its success might 
necessitate, Austria would gain a strong position and one from which 
she could exercise great influence in the East. 

' In the offer of a throne to the Archduke Maximilian ', says 
Ollivier,^ ' Napoleon III perceived an unexpected means of 
freeing a captive province, and hoped that, satisfied with the gift 
to his family, Francis Joseph would perhaps consent later to 
release Venetia.' If this were true the British project for 
placing Maximilian on the throne of Greece should have presented 
itself to Napoleon as an opportunity by no means to be let slip. 
In February 1863 Napoleon's army in Mexico had as yet been 
unable to capture Puebla. The issue of the campaign might 
fairly be regarded as doubtful ; and to erect a Mexican throne 
for Maximilian 30,000 French soldiers were toiling in the fever- 

» Ibid. 7 : 651, Bloomfield's dispatch no. 89. » Ollivier, v. 259. 



stricken swamps and parched uplands of his future empire. But 
in Greece there was a vacant throne. To seat Maximilian on it 
required a minimum of effort. Russell said positively that the 
Greeks would take him from England and France. In 1862 
England had withdrawn from the Mexican expedition just because 
she suspected Napoleon of wishing to crown Maximilian in that 
country ; England in 1863 was inviting Napoleon's co-operation 
in crowning Maximilian king of Greece. If then Napoleon's 
object was to lay that spectre of Venice which Nigra said ' was 
roaming along the corridors of the Tuileries '/it seems reasonable 
to suppose that his support to the British plan for presenting 
Maximilian with a crown would be of the most willing order. 

But beyond signifying to Earl Cowley that he ' was quite 
favorable ' to the archduke, Napoleon does not appear to have 
taken any steps to influence Austria in favour of the project. 
Indeed, what evidence there is points the other way. Rechberg, 
as we have seen, ' hardly trusted the honest co-operation of 
France ' ; he did not believe Napoleon to be sincere. Moreover, 
in his dispatch ^ no. 99 of 21 February, Lord Bloomfield wrote : 

With reference to that passage in my despatch No. 89 of the i8th inst. 
in which I mention Count Rechberg's observations on the support of the 
proposed candidature of the Archduke Maximilian for the Greek Crown 
which might be expected from France, I have the honour to report that 
Prince Metternich ^ reports to his Government that the Emperor had spoken 
to him on this subject, saying that he should approve of the selection but 
was sure the offer would be declined at Vienna. 

This praise is faint indeed. ' D. DAWSOisr. 

1 Ollivier, v. 259. " Foreign Office List, 7 : 651. 

* Austrian ambassador at Paris. 

1922 115 

Reviews of Books 

An Economic History oj Rome to the End of the Republic. By Tenney 
Frank. (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press, 1920.) 

Readers of Professor Frank's numerous contributions to periodical 
literature will be prepared for an original and stimiilating, as well as 
learned, treatment of the subject : their only regret will be that the book 
is not planned on a larger scale (it only numbers 303 pages) and that it 
does not include the imperial period. Dr. Frank has not, as a matter of 
fact, confined himself strictly within the limits set by his title : for the 
last forty pages are largely concerned with conditions under the empire, 
and we hear something of the collegia, the tabulae alimentariae, and the 
inscriptions relating to the African domains. It is to be hoped that 
Dr. Frank will deal more fully with these matters in a second volume, 
although we gather from his preface that this is likely to be deferred. 

The book will be useful both to students of Roman history, for whom 
the well-chosen references to authorities will be very valuable, and also 
to a wider public, since it is not overloaded with detail. The opening 
chapters on agriculture in early Latium and on the early trade of Latium 
and Etruria contain much that will be fresh to many readers. The fine 
products of sixth-century art which have come to light in Latium tend to 
overshadow those found in Rome itself, and it should always be remem- 
bered that their comparative rarity in that city is due to the continuous 
transformation of the site ; this is perhaps not sufficiently emphasized. 
The chapter on the Roman coinage is likely to provoke some controversy. 
Dr. Frank seeks to maintain the thesis that Rome endeavoured to main- 
tain a bimetallic system in spite of violent fluctuations in the market price 
of silver and copper. This involves the supposition that there was an 
enormous appreciation in the value of bronze towards the close of the 
fourth century B.C., owing (as Dr. Frank believes) to the circulation of the 
vast treasures of silver and gold acquired by Alexander in the East ; and 
that ' when in 269 Rome reformed her coinage on a new system she was 
able to restore the old ratio of 120 : 1 which had for some years fallen to 
20 : 1 '. We doubt whether numismatists will prefer this explanation to 
that hitherto accepted. Dr. Frank, by the way, seems to think that 
denasius, later denarius, is cormected by etymology with as (p. 73). 

Some of Dr. Frank's statements on the political history of Rome 
challenge criticism. The reform of 287 B.C. is represented on p. 45 as the 
establishment of ' a kind of soviet government ' : the analogy is somewhat 
remote, except in the formal sense that ' a state within the State . . . grew 



to be the very state itself '. On p. 121 we are told that Tiberius Gracchus 
' revived the long dormant provision of the constitution of 287 which 
permitted a referendum to the plebeian assembly of legislative proposals ', 
where again the modern analogy is far from exact. On p. 129 Dr. Frank 
accepts without question the view that Gaius Gracchus introduced ' a bill 
giving citizenship to all possessors of Latin rights and Latinitas to all 
Italians ', a very questionable supposition. H. Stuart Jones. 

The English Dominicans. By Bede Jarrett, O.P. (London : Burns, 
Oates and Washbourne, 1921.) 

The appearance of a history of the Dominican province of England by 
the provincial is an event of some importance. The interest taken in their 
own history by the Dominicans has been somewhat spasmodic and 
generally confined to individuals. Father Jarrett appears to have insti- 
tuted a more systematic study of the history of the Dominicans in Eng- 
land, and the firstfruits of this movement were seen in Father Gumbley's 
' Provincial Priors and Vicars of the English Dominicans ' in this Review.^ 
The English Dominicans is, so far as I know, the first consecutive 
history of a Dominican province which has ever been written. It is very 
good reading ; and it is written with a gaiety of spirit and sense of humour 
which would be impossible — or at any rate out of place — in the history of 
any other province of the Order. The reason is given by Father Jarrett : 
' The English Dominicans have no record of cruelty or inquisitorial tortures 
against them.' The attempt of the prior of York in 1236 to imprison on 
his own responsibility persons who held ' bad opinions on the articles of 
faith ' was promptly nipped in the bud by the secular power. And the 
part which the friars took in the process against the Templars does not 
seem to have been a prominent one. 

The book is not only entertaining but instructive. It contains a great 
deal of new matter, and facts already known are presented from a new 
point of view and brought into fresh combinations. The chapters on 
' The Priory ', ' The Preachers ', and ' Observance ' are specially valuable. 
The first chapter on ' The Foundations ' is less satisfactory. One 
would have expected a more detailed account of the early foundations 
and an explanation of the comparative slowness of the Dominican advance 
in the first few years. Why, for instance, was no provincial chapter held 
till 1230 ? A more thorough study of founders and benefactors would 
perhaps have led the author to modify his opinion that ' the greater and 
lesser baronage seem to have held aloof from the Friars Preachers ' (p. 150). 
And either here or elsewhere we should expect to get some account of the 
sites and landed property actually held by the friars. The history of 
Langley and Dartford is not ' typical ' (p. 12), but exceptional. Father 
Jarrett does not make clear the use of the nunnery of Dartford as a medium 
for the endowment of the novitiate house of Langley, a point long ago 
brought out by Father Palmer. Father Jarrett generally makes good use 
of Palmer's valuable articles, but it must be admitted that he is not so 
much at home in the public records as his predecessor. We are surprised 

' Ante, xxxiii. 243 ; see also ibid. p. 496. 


to learn that receipts (for expenses incurred in the burial of Piers Gaveston) 
* are still extant among the Patent Rolls ' (p. 6) and that ' the actual 
sums ' (given as royal alms for pittances) ' are entered in the Patent EoUs ' 
(p. 13). These details occur in the Exchequer and Wardrobe Accounts.'^ 

As it may be hoped that a second edition of the book may soon be 
called for, it may be useful to point out some mistakes and suggest addi- 
tions or alterations. The relations between the friars preachers and the 
parish priests receive very inadequate treatment. The explanation of the 
enlargement of the cemetery at Cambridge given on p. 12 is denied on 
p. 26. The date of the Peasants' Revolt was not 1389 (p. 13). The 
authority should be given for the statement on p. 29 that no sepulchral 
effigies were allowed in any Dominican church : certainly ' this ordinance 
was very partially obeyed '. A reference also for the concerts and songs 
in Dominican infirmaries would be welcome (p. 33). Some further informa- 
tion about books belonging to the friars preachers of Cambridge now in 
the Vatican is given in the late Dr. Bannister's article in Collectanea 
Franciscana, vol. i (Brit. Soc. of Franciscan Studies). Matthew Paris (' Mag. 
Chron., ann. 1243 ') says nothing about theological courses given by the 
friars within the greater English abbeys (p. 45) : some details on the 
subject may be culled from other sources. On the same page ' laity ' 
should be ' secular clergy '. 

Some of the evidence which Father Jarrett adduces tentatively in 
favour of the existence of grammar schools in Dominican convents (p. 51) 
is capable of a different explanation. The school of which Friar Galfrid 
had been master was surely the Guildford town grammar school : and the 
grammar school at Yarm, which Friar Clement Guadel was allowed to 
attend by special licence of the master general, was probably the town 
school. There seems to be no evidence of grammar schools in the plentiful 
records of the provinces of Provence and Toulouse. On the other hand, 
the register of Friar Raymund of Capua, with its assignations of foreign 
students to various English convents for purposes of study, throws addi- 
tional light on the special schools in the English province (p. 52-4) : thus 
there was a studium artiuni at Sudbury.^ 

The organization of studia generalia is very complicated, and I can only 
touch on one or two points in Father Jarrett's account. The office of 
master of the students was held by a cursor sententiarum (or B.D.) during 
the year following the delivery of his lectures on the sentences : he lectured 
on set books, not quodlibets (p. 60 : cf. Acta Capit. Gen. ii. 72). The 
statement (p. 60) that ' in 1320 the three great convents of Paris, Oxford, 
and Cambridge were given local autonomy ' and ' could co'opt their 
own professors ' certainly goes too far : in view of the fact that the appoint- 
ments were regularly made by the master general and by the general and 
provincial chapters, one must assume that nominare means to propose. 
Father Jarrett's summary of the rules made by the provincial chapter of 
Lincoln in 1388 (p. 61) are even less intelligible than the original. Mortier 

1 What is meant by ' the private notebooks of the various kings " ? (p. 114). 

- See Loe u. Reichert, Qutlhn u. Forachungen z. Gesch. d. Dominikanerordena in 
Deutscfiland, vi. 18, 22 : other English attidia are mentioned, ibid. pp. 13, 14, 22, 30, 
32, 33. 38, 43. 


remarks that the text is mal redige, but some slight and justifiable emenda- 
tions will make sense. For existenti (Mortier, iii. 655, n. 1, 1. 11) read 
extranei and for Yberniam and Scotiam read Ybernici and Scotici. Then 
Father Jarrett's § c would mean : No Englishman is to be promoted to a 
degree at Oxford or Cambridge in the vacancies reserved for foreigners. 
Irishmen, or Scots. 

Father Jarrett (p. 86) gives a travesty of Father Mandonnet's theory 
a» to the origin of the Franciscan Orders ; but the theory itself, though 
ingenious and attractive, is hard to reconcile with the known facts, and 
the question is rather outside the scope of this book. The ' last reprint ' of 
Thomas Stubbs's Chronicle was not in 1652, but in 1886 in Raine's Historians 
of the Church of York (p. 95). An odd blunder occurs in the account of 
Nicholas Trivet, whose 'signature was appended [February 1315] to 
a condemnation ... of the opinions of Wiclif ' (p. 96). Only less surprising 
is the statement that Trivet's ' authorities are all quoted ' in his annals. 
The first part of the annals is based on Robert of Torigni and William of 
Newburghi, the last part on Walter of Hemingburgh : none of these sources 
are mentioned. It is surely more than an exaggeration to say that in the 
middle ages ' Hebrew was a general accomplishment for any biblical 
scholar ' (p. 99). When Father Jarrett says (p. 101) that the idea of 
converting the Saracens ' suddenly dawned upon ' the Dominican Order 
at the beginning of the fourteenth century he seems to have forgotten 
the establishment of the studium Arahicum by Raymond of Pennafort. 
The idea was constantly present to and constantly acted on by the Francis- 
cans from the time of St. Francis. 

The statements on pp. 125-6 (cf. also pp. 64) require some sorting out. 
John Montagu was Dominican prior of London. The friar whom Dean 
Prophet wanted to secure as lector to a friary at Hereford was John 
David, who was probably the Franciscan of that name who became 
provincial minister, not (as Palmer assumed) the Dominican of Guildford 
who was ordained priest in 1388. Prophet's letters are addressed to the 
provincial and chapter and there is nothing to show whether the Dominican 
or Franciscan Order is meant. But he claims that he and his predecessors 
the dean and chapter of Hereford were ' part founders of your house at 
Hereford ', and this could hardly apply to the friars preachers, since the 
dean and chapter fought tooth and nail for many years against their 
establishment in Hereford : further Prophet, in his will, left a legacy to 
the Franciscans of Hereford and none to the Dominicans. 

In his interesting chapter on ' Observance ',^ Father Jarrett expresses 
the view that poverty and the consequent necessity for begging were 
the principal causes of the decline in the vigour and efficiency of the order. 
He makes a gallant and not altogether unsuccessful attempt to prove 
that the struggle of the English province against the master and chapter 
general at the end of the fourteenth century was not a national or parti- 
cularistic movement against foreign influence (as argued by Mortier), 
but an effort to preserve the discipline of the province against the mis- 

^ On p. 134 reference should have been given to the full text of the accusations 
against the friars preachers in 1314 printed ante, v. 107, vi. 752. Stephen (not Simon) 
de Sydolvesmere does not seem to have been a friar. 


guided reforms of Raymund of Capua. He certainly shows that the latter 
was aft element in the struggle, but the struggle itself began some ten 
years before Raymund became master, and was directed against foreign 
influence. The quarrel centred round the control of promotions in the 
universities, from which Father Jarrett's treatment tends to separate it. 
The volume continues the history of the Dominicans in England to 
the present day. It contains a number of well-chosen illustrations, but 
the index is very inadequate. Apart from some expressions of opinion 
and implied judgements (' the cynicism of Fitz Ralph ', p. 149, is singularly 
inappropriate), it is written in a spirit of fair-mindedness and with an honest 
desire to find out and tell the truth. If in this review I have laid stress 
on errors and defects, I may refer in justification to Father Jarrett's oft- 
expressed opinion that the friars preachers flourish best in opposition.^ 

A. G. Little. 

Charles de France, Frhe de Louis XI. Par Henri Stein. (Memoires 
et documents publics par la Societe de I'^ficole des Chartes. Paris : 
Picard, 1921.) 

M. Henri Stein has made in this work a contribution of the greatest 
value to the history of the fifteenth century. More than 800 pages are 
consecrated to the period 1446 to 1472, and much new light is thrown on 
the motives and rivalries underlying the continuous struggle between 
Louis XI and his younger brother, and on the characters and policies 
of the principal actors and their supporters. The book is a model for the 
historical researcher. It is based wholly upon original sources and very 
largely upon material still in manuscript. The smallest point is worked 
out with the greatest thoroughness and proved by the most minute 
investigation. No statement is made without verification, and no pains 
have been spared to make such verification exhaustive and conclusive. 

M. Stein in his introduction gives a short criticism of the contemporary 
chroniclers, showing in what respects their evidence is most likely to be 
reliable ; but it is not from the chroniclers that the greater part of his 
material has been gleaned. The Archives Nationales have furnished 
a considerable amount of new information, and this has been supplemented 
from departmental and municipal collections in every part of France with 
which the young prince had any sort of connexion, whilst material has 
also been gathered from unprinted records in Brussels, Munich, Vienna, 
and London. The actual text of the narrative, accompanied by copious 
notes, fills little over half the volume ; the remainmg half contains valuable 
appendixes (two in especial, on the chancery and the money of Charles) 
and a number of pieces justijicatives, which might be of great use to any 
historian of the period apart from the illustrations they furnish to the 
book itself. There are a number of accounts, published from originals in 

* I wish to acknowledge Father Jarrett's correction (p. 70) of a statement of mine 
in Grei/ Friars in Oxford, p. 73 : the question at issue between St. Thomas Aquinas 
and Pecham was the unity of forms, not the principium individudtionis. The latter 
was among the errors condemned at Paris, but not among those condemned at Oxford, 
in 1277. 


the Bibliotheque Nationale, which throw light on the exj)enditure of the 
time both in war and peace ; there are various letters and treaties giving 
definite proof of alliances and diplomatic relations : and there are im- 
portant details concerning tolls, imposts, salaries, and inquests, particu- 
larly in connexion with Charles's administration of Guienne. 

The book is very obviously for the historian and not for the general 
reader. Charles of France is no striking figure, nor is the story of his 
relations with the crafty king full of romantic and picturesque events. 
The feeble prince appears, indeed, as a convenient centre to the diplomatic 
complications of the period rather than as a person who excites interest 
on account of his own character or his own actions. Nevertheless the 
narrative does contain much that is interesting, and if Charles still remains 
a colourless and rather shadowy personality, Louis XI stands out as one 
of the most able, unscrupulous, and calculating intriguers who have ever 
occupied a throne. M. Stein has amply proved the king's jealousy of 
his brother from the very first and his constant plots against the welfare 
of the young prince, accusations which some previous writers had attempted 
to modify. The rumour, however, that Louis was responsible for his 
brother's death is shown to be absolutely without foundation and quite 
unnecessary to explain the event, since Charles was born unhealthy and 
did not live in a way which was likely to prolong a life frequently threatened 
by disease. 

Louis's craftiness and successful duplicity is again and again shown 
up. His grant of the duchy of Guienne to Charles was clearly an attempt 
to cause a rupture amongst his enemies and to free his own hands 
for the coming struggle with Burgundy. His addition of certain Gascon 
lands to the apanage was not an act of generosity, but a plan to create 
strained relations between the new duke and the dangerous count of 
Armagnac ; his encouragement of Charles's exercise of authority in his 
dominions, an authority largely used to curtail liberties, was a cunning 
device to render his brother unpopular. All the intrigues concerned with 
the plans for marrying Charles are gone into very thoroughly, and 
illustrate once more the nature of Louis's schemes and machinations. 

The whole story of the Guerre du bien public is recounted in great 
detail, as also the period of Charles's rule in Normandy ; but perhaps 
the most interesting part of the book is that concerned with the closing 
years of the prince's life, after he becomes duke of Guienne. Chapters vi 
and vii are chiefly concerned with the relations between him and the lay 
and spiritual lords of his new dominions and with his administration of the 
duchy. Considerable de*tails are given in regard to the working of the 
cour des grands jours, the centre of Guienne administration at this date, 
and both additions and corrections are made to the work of Brives-Cazes 
on Les Grands Jours du Dernier Due de Guienne. For example, M. Stein 
explains that the shifting of this court to various towns in the duchy 
other than Bordeaiix was caused simply by dangers of plague, not by any 
reasons of high politics, and he corrects a slight error in the names of two 
of its members. He notes also that See, in his Louis XI et les Villes, 
has been mistaken in speaking of a parlement at Bordeaux in 1470, since 
the parletnent had been superseded by the cour des grands jours. On the 


whole this new work maintains that the government of Charles of France 
in Guienne was good and for the most part popular, the supposed opposi- 
tion of La Rochelle and other towns being explained as perfectly friendly 
negotiations regarding old privileges. The weakest point of the prince's 
rule was the financial organization, which M. Stein describes at some length, 
although less fully than he would wish, owing to the lack of complete 
documentary evidence. 

Besides this new material concerning Guienne, a good deal of original 
information is given on the establishment of the prince in Brittany, where 
he took refuge with the duke, on his relations with the university of Cahors, 
on the complicated diplomacy in reference to his marriage, and finally 
on the various accounts dealing with the causes of his death. 

One difficulty raised by M. Petit-Dutaillis ^ in regard to the treaty of 
Peronne, namely that no written record was made of the king's promise 
to cede Champagne and Brie to his brother, is not remarked upon by 
M. Stein, who accepts Commines's account of the transaction, of which he 
was a witness. All through the book, however, constant corrections and 
additions are made to the work of previous writers, whether of books 
or of articles in periodicals. The whole volume gives the impression of the 
most profound erudition and the most scrupulous care. There is little 
doubt that M. Stein has given us the definitive work on the life and times 
of Charles of France. E. C. Lodge. 

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII. 
Vol. i, parts i-iii. Revised and greatly enlarged by R. H. Brodie. 
(London : Stationery Office, 1920.) 

Exactly sixty years ago John Sherren Brewer began the publication of the 
Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, and, though he died before the fifth 
volume had appeared, his work was worthily continued by Dr. James 
Gairdner, who carried it to what seemed its conclusion in 1910. Now 
Gairdner, too, is dead, and it has fallen to the lot of his assistant, Mr. Brodie, 
to reissue, in a greatly enlarged form, the first volume of the series. In 
this volume, which has long been out of print. Brewer relied mainly on that 
mass of papers in the Record Office which are now collected and bound 
as the State Papers of Henry VIII, on the Patent Rolls, Signed Bills, 
and Privy Seals, and on the great collections in the British Museum, 
especially on the Royal MSS. and those of Sir Robert Cotton, though 
he also calendared other documents that had been already printed in the 
Foedera, or among the letters of Louis XII, Erasmus, and Peter Martyr. 

When one weighs the three portly volumes that Mr. Brodie has given 
us in place of Brewer's one, the two questions that spring to one's mind 
are : what new materials has he utilized, and what justification is there 
for their inclusion ? The official title of Brewer's volume was Letters and 
Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the 
Public Record Office, the British Museum, and elsewhere in England ; 
even in this first volume, however, Brewer included letters that were not 
preserved in England, and interpreted the words ' Letters and Papers ' 

^ Lavisae, Hiatoire de France, vol. iv, pt. 2, p. 359. 


so liberally as to embrace the whole range of official and unofficial docu- 
ments from Parliament Kolls and Close Rolls to Piero Griffo's ' History 
of Peter's Pence in England '.^ As the series of calendars progressed fresh 
bodies of material became accessible, and Dr. Gairdner opened his net still 
more widely — ignoring still more boldly that ' preserved in England ' that 
graced his title-page to the very last volume. Spanish and Venetian 
Caletidars began to appear, the Repmis of the Historical Manuscripts 
Commission rapidly increased in bulk, Scottish records were being printed ; 
not only did Gairdner in his later volumes draw upon these, but he began 
using materials that Brewer had either not known or not considered relevant, 
his summaries of the documents became fuller, and he was able to append 
to them more exact references to the original manuscripts. In all these 
matters the first two or three volumes of the Letters and Papers necessarily 
presented a striking contrast to the final ones, and it has been Mr. Brodie's 
task to bring them up to this later standard. Merely to enumerate the 
new sources of information that he has tapped would more than occupy 
the space at our disposal : the Diaries of Marino Sanuto, the Spanish, 
Venetian, and Milanese Calendars, the Roman and Paris Transcripts in 
the Record Office, Le Glay's Correspondance de I'Empereur MaximUien /«'" 
et de Marguerite d'Autriche and his Negociations diplomatique entre la 
France et VAutriche, the Navy Records Society's tenth volume, the 
Confirmation and Pardon Rolls, the Exchequer Accounts, the Calais 
Accounts (T. R. Calais Comptr. Accts.), the vast bulk of the Additional 
Manuscripts, and the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission 
are but a few of the more important. But his energy has not been confined 
to the calendaring of new materials ; the older collections used by Brewer 
have been resifted, and a considerable number of fresh documents have 
been included from the State Papers of Henry VIII, the letters of 
Louis XII and of Erasmus, the Close Rolls, and so on. The vast majority 
of Brewer's summaries have been revised, full references have been added 
in the margin, Mr. P. S. Allen's edition of the letters of Erasmus has been 
consulted, with the result that a considerable number of the letters appear 
for the first time in their proper places in the calendar ; and, finally, 
an elaborate key has been provided in part iii so that one may at a glance 
discover the new reference number of any document in the old edition. 

When so much has been done, and so well done, it seems almost 
ungrateful to sit in criticism ; yet there are certain questions to which 
attention should be called. Is it, for instance, desirable to incorporate 
in this new edition fairly full summaries of documents already printed 
in Spanish or Venetian Calendars or other government publications ? 
Surely these would be accessible to any student who would be likely to 
consvdt the Letters and Papers, and when the time of competent editors 
is so valuable, the costs of publication so large, and so much still remains 
to be done, it seems that a mere reference to the printed version in the 
parallel series of calendars would have sufficed, unless there were some 
serious error to be corrected. We do not mean to imply that what 
Mr. Brodie has done in this connexion is without value, for he has obviously 
gone behind the calendars to the original transcripts, and has often given 

' Old edition, no. 1403. 


us details which the other editors for various reasons omitted, and has even 
on occasion corrected the version already in print ; ^ still we cannot but 
feel that this expenditure of time and money is hardly to be justified. 
Also, if we may venture to say so, Mr. Brodie has shown rather too 
meticulous a respect for the judgement of his predecessor. For example, 
why retain a document which Brewer misdated and which really belongs 
to the reign of Henry VII ? ^ Why not put no. 1364 in what is obviously 
its proper place even though Le Glay places it elsewhere ? An editor must 
have the courage of his opinions. Then again, Brewer included a con- 
siderable number of the letters of James IV of Scotland, even when they 
had practically nothing to do with English history ; Mr. Brodie has 
greatly added to this series from manuscripts preserved in the Advocates' 
Library, but in many cases, however valuable these additions may be for 
Scottish history, they bear little relation to that of England. Much the 
same might be said about some of the letters of Louis XII, the interest of 
which seems to be wholly French or Italian,' or the lengthy account of the 
capture of Brescia.* In short, one cannot but feel that the editor ought to 
have performed his duty of selection with greater firmness ; the Letters and 
Papers are materials for the history of England and not for that of Europe 
during the reign of Henry VIII. 

The amount of really new information that Mr. Brodie has brought 
to light about the great men and the great movements of this period 
does not seem to be very extensive : rather does the new material confirm 
what was already known or guessed, fill in gaps in our sources, and so give 
an air of completeness to our knowledge. The diplomacy of the period 
centred round the efforts to build up the Holy League, and the insertion 
in its proper chronological order of the material hitherto scattered through 
the pages of the Spanish and Venetian Calendars, Sanuto, and Le Glay 
enables one to grasp far more readily the real sequence of these tortuous 
negotiations, to realize the zeal with which the pope and, above all, Venice 
strove to secure the favour of Henry VIII, while the new letters of 
James IV show the real desire that possessed him to preserve the peace 
in Europe, even though his romantic spirit permitted him to believe that 
such peace would result in a new crusade against the infidel. With the 
formation of the Holy League Wolsey became the rising personality in 
England. He appears to have been made a member of the council in 
1509, probably at the time when he was appointed almoner to the king. 
Brewer, followed by Gairdner in the Dictionary of National Biography, 
held that the mandate of 20 November 1509, signed by Wolsey and other 
councillors, was misdated and that he did not become a member of the 
council till November 1511 ; but the earlier date has been confirmed by 
what is undoubtedly a letter from the council dated 12 August 1510 and 
signed by Wolsey.^ The only other correction of date which the new 
material supplies is in connexion with Wolsey's appointment as registrar 
of the Order of the Garter, which seems to have taken place on 27 April 
1510 ^ and not in 1511 as both Brewer and Gairdner state. 

> See no8. 867, 914= 1489. ^ ggg nog, 2.58, 311. 

3 See nos. 113, 522, 536. " no. 1071. 

* no. 655. * no. 442. 


But it is really on the financial and economic side that Mr. Brodie's 
work has proved most fruitful, though undoubtedly the Pardon Rolls 
will be of considerable value to the genealogist. The most interesting 
information is derived from the Exchequer Accounts, the T. R. Calais 
Comptr. Accounts, and the Stowe MS. 146, none of which, we believe, 
has been printed or calendared before. Though the Calais Accounts are 
perhaps the most interesting, because from them can be drawn such 
a complete picture of the financial side of the government interests in that 
town, the Exchequer Accounts are far more varied ; they include the 
accounts of the hanaper, butlerage, and mint, the warrants on the great 
wardrobe for clothing and furniture of every description (especially 
significant are nos. 394 and 381 (95), where preparations are ordered to be 
made for the birth of a prince, though the king knew that this was at 
the time no longer possible), and the expenses, both naval and military, 
of the wars against France and Scotland,^ which supplement the accounts 
printed by Brewer in the old edition from the State Papers of Henry VIII 
and the T. R. Misc. Books. Not only have we now the possibility of imder- 
standing the finance of Henry's early wars and the activities of such 
useful officials as John Daunce, one of the tellers of the exchequer and 
paymaster of the war, or John Heron, treasurer of the chamber, but upon 
purely political matters such as the number and equipment of the English 
troops at the battle of Flodden much fresh light is thrown. 

The calendaring is decidedly well done, though occasionally there is 
a little confusion between the use of the first and of the third person in the 
summarizing of a document. ^ We have noticed few misprints : ' Bodoer ' 
instead of ' Badoer ' (no. 463, ii) ; Julius I should be Julius II (no. 748) ; 
no. 914 is printed in the Venetian and not in the Spanish Calendar ; the 
foot-note to no. 1067 has been omitted ; the reference to no. 2090 (9) 
under ' subsidy ' in the index is meaningless ; the Andrew Barcarii referred 
to in no. 285 is undoubtedly Andrew Barton. The introduction errs, if 
anything, on the side of brevity, for it does not even give a list of the 
new authorities consulted ; and the strength of the binding is wofuUy 
insufficient to bear the weight of even the least of these three volumes. 

E. R. Adair. 

Catherine de Medicis {1519-89). Par Jean-h. Mariejol. (Paris : 
Hachette, 1920.) 

It is fortunate that the first author to utilize Catherine de Medicis' letters 
to the full should be M. Mariejol, who is not only a recognized expert on 
her period, but who can treat a baffling and much -disputed character 
with true historical impartiality. Miss Edith Sichel, it is true, took early 
advantage of their publication in the second volume of her Catherine de 
Medicis, and the present writer contributed an article on the ten volumes 
to the Quarterly Review of October 1911, but almost every one of M. Marie- 
jol's 431 pages is instinct with life drawn from the letters. He does not 
profess that they add very much to our knowledge of the incidents of the 
wars of religion, but they are essential to our valuation of the character 

» e.g. nos, 1453, 2304, 2480, 2651-2, 3612-14. » See no. 1764. 


and, at times, the policy of the queen who played a leading part from 
nearly the beginning until within a short space from the end. The book 
is primarily a biography, almost an autobiography. Naturally enough 
the more obscure stretches of Catherine's career gain more from a perusal 
of her letters than the dramatic scenes of violence such as the St. Bartholo- 
mew or the murder of Henry of Guise, in which latter, indeed, Catherine 
was but indirectly concerned. When she was at the centre of affairs 
the correspondence would be mainly ministerial rather than personal. 
The chapters which contribute most that is fresh are those headed ' La 
Campagne de Pacification a I'lnterieur, 1578-9 ', and ' La Diversion en 
Portugal '. During her travels she was usually away from her son, 
Henry III, and her most trusty ministers, especially Bellievre and Villeroy. 
Her letters, therefore, are more frequent and more personal ; to these may 
be added the chatty correspondence with her chief friend, the Duchesse 

In the former of these chapters Catherine is seen at her very best, for 
she is honestly striving to reconcile her two sons, her daughter, and her 
son-in-law, Navarre, and also the three parties. Catholic, Huguenot, and 
Politique. The letters here illustrate her strong maternal affection, her 
physical endurance of discomfort, danger, and intense fatigue, her real 
patriotism in her efforts to re-create a united kingdom. When on these 
exhausting journeys she emulated, and perhaps surpassed, Louis XI, who 
was her model of what a king should be, in the practice, rare among French 
kings, of gaining a geographical knowledge of France. But, unlike Louis, 
she laboured on the whole rather to reconcile than to divide. 

The ' Diversion en Portugal ' displays her passion for a meddlesome 
foreign policy, dynastic rather than national, having as its aim a Spanish 
marriage for her youngest son. M. Mariejol holds, and, it would seem, 
rightly, that Catherine had little intention of conquering the Azores, still 
less of colonizing Brazil or of realizing her ridiculous pretensions to the 
crown of Portugal. Her plan was to throttle Philip II into concession of 
a principality for Anjou by seizing the key of communication between 
Spain and the Indies. The scheme was strategically correct, superior in 
conception to the individualistic, plundering raids of the English corsairs 
on the Spanish main. But the execution was careless and inept, just as 
was her grudging support of Anjou in his attempts upon the Netherlands, 
which had precisely the same object, not conquest but matrimony. There 
Avas no Chauvinism or militarism in Catherine. She would always avoid 
war if she could help it, for in a great national war a woman and a foreigner 
would lose her influence, but she could not help it, if she was to rid Henry III 
of his unconscionable brother and heir presumptive, and so avoid a civil 
war not only religious but fratricidal. M. Mariejol points out that all 
Catherine's military volitions cease with Anjou's death. He has no belief 
in the hypothesis that Catherine's efforts for the greatness of Anjou 
were based on an idea of Henry's early death, and that their aim was 
therefore the expansion of France. She was working not for Anjou but 
for the security of his elder brother, her favourite son, and the means 
could only be a principality at the expense of Philip II. Yet, it may be 
noted, Spain was the power which she always greatly feared. She could 


not desist from playing with fire, and on the other hand lost any chances 
of success by letting ' I dare not wait upon I would '. Fear and maternal 
ambition were always on the balance. Another theory which M. Mariejol 
rejects is that, after Anjou's death, Catherine schemed for the exclusion 
of Navarre, whom she naturally hated, in favour of the house of Lorraine 
by means of the annulment of the Salic Law. Henry III was only two 
years older than Navarre, and Catherine, accustomed to live from day to 
day, was not the woman to add to pressing difficidties by troubling herself 
about a succession question which would probably arise long after her 
death. In the then state of feeling Navarre would be naturally set aside 
on the ground of religion ; she would, in case of need, prefer a compromise 
in the choice of her old friend the cardinal of Bourbon, which would 
shelve any alteration of a fimdamental principle. Catherine was in fact 
an opportunist without a political system. Matrimonial combinations 
were her main object. Thus she passed from catholic alliances to protes- 
tant, then back to catholic to gratify desire or spite. Her veiled war on 
Philip II was not a renewal of the Valois-Hapsburg struggle, nor even 
a discreet offensive against Spanish predominance, but revenge on this 
everlasting match-maker. But, as M. Mariejol wisely adds, marriages 
should be based on politics, not politics on marriages : and after all how 
poor were her results. Charles IX did not marry the eldest archduchess, 
whom she intended for him, Henry III married a poor cousin of the duke 
of Lorraine, Anjou was an unwilling celibate, and, worst of all, Margot 
married Henry of Navarre, to their mutual demoralization. Her one 
success was the reconciliation of the senior and junior lines of the Medici 
by the wedding of her favourite grand-daughter and the grand duke of 

M. Mariejol's psychological analysis of Catherine's character is eminently 
just, though no two writers will agree on every item. He has no excuse 
but only explanation for her great crime, the crise defureur provoked by 
fear and ambition. But one great crime, he protests, does not always 
imply a criminal nature, and, apart from the St. Bartholomew, her record 
would be a good one. Far from being naturally cruel, she did her utmost 
to prevent bloodshed, urging tolerance even under the brutal rule of 
Henry II. She was chaste in word and deed, in spite of her husband's 
infidelity and the general profligacy of the French court. Her notorious 
flying squadron of disreputable ladies was a legacy from two preceding 
reigns ; she could not dismiss the culprits without alienating the influen- 
tial families which had bred them. Power was her passion, but it was her 
only means for securing her children's future ; she never usurped it, never 
illegally retained it. She genuinely loved to please and to reconcile, 
which may be some excuse for the vague promises, the distant engagements, 
the holy intentions, which cost her nothing. Her intelligence was alert, 
always awake, insinuating and supple. With wonderfid control over her 
feelings she never lost her calm ; violence of language was unknown to 
her who had ordered the most violent crime in all French history. She 
ordered, though with small success, her son Henry to keep his tongue 
under control. In speaking she was eloquent, convincing, and to the 
point ; never short of arguments, with logic peculiar, thinks M. Marie- 


jol, to ladies, she saw no embarrassment in their being contradictory; 
Wheh her cause seemed hopelessly lost, she would continue to argue and 
negotiate to gain time and give fortune's wheel a chance of turning. 
This might result from the strong vein of imagination on which M. Mariejol 
insists. She saw things not as they were but as she wanted them ; in her 
enthusiasms she never doubted success, never saw any but favourable 
solutions ; all her life she dreamt dreams and saw visions. Undoubtedly 
conceited, she thought that she had a monopoly oi finesse, and ascribed 
too little to her adversaries, notably to Henry of Navarre. Sure of unravel- 
ling the threads of the skein of state she had no hesitation in entangling 
them. Notwithstanding her brave bearing, maintained to the very end, 
her contempt for melancholy, and her real liking for the worries of govern- 
ment, she had more ambition than will, more dash than force ; she was 
easily discouraged by obstacles which she ought to have taken by storm. 
Only resolute in personal and dynastic interests, she would take up 
greater causes, drop them, reassume them, and then definitely abandon 
them. In her government, as in her buildings, she never finished anything, 
and lived among the uncompleted. ' Elle n'a point d'esprit de suite,' 
concludes M, Mariejol, ' elle est femme.' She was not a calculating 
machine, as some historians will have it, but one ' qui, quelque maitrise 
qu'elle eut, avait les nerfs, le cceur et les predilections d'une femme '. 

Such are the author's conclusions on Catherine's character. When she 
died, her system of expedients was played out ; she had shown her measure 
both in good and evil. For thirty years she had kept the shaky monarchy 
on its feet in spite of most violent shocks. To judge by her power of 
resistance or by her success one is tempted to rank her among great 
sovereigns. And yet, he thinks, she does not deserve to be placed so high. 
With generous intentions and noble initiatives she lacked the means, and 
even the wish, to bring to fruition those of her efforts which went beyond 
the immediate ends of her day-to-day life. She was too preoccupied 
with the interests of her family or her own to follow a truly national 
policy comprising the triumph of tolerance, the maintenance of royal 
authority, the expansion of France, ' Pitie, regret, confiance en Dieu, 
gratitude personneUe, et meme orgueil familial et dynastique ne sont pas 
un programme d'action.' y 

It may be admitted that Catherine was not a great sovereign, and 
yet but for her France and its monarchy could scarcely have stood the 
strain of the civil wars, which were none of her making. The nation had 
to pay for the sins of Francis I and Henry II and the interminable factions 
of her great nobles. The queen's industry and spirit of compromise, her very 
opportunism, did cause lulls in the religious conflict and keep the nation's 
"^ boundaries intact, until a real sovereign arrived to allay the one and hold 
the other. It is true enough that this sovereign was none of her choosing. 
A woman and a foreigner, with her favourite son a hindrance, and her 
youngest virtually an enemy, she had but a handful of capable civil 
servants of no great position to assist her. It is fair to note that she had 
to cope with antagonists of quite first-rate ability, Henry of Gyise, Henry 
of Navarre, Damville-Montmorency, and, in the Netherland venture, the 
prince of Parma. How different was the fortune of our Elizabeth in all 


these respects. Catherine, like so many of us, was, perhaps, not really 
great, because she never had the chance of being so. 

E. Abmstrong. 

Tlie English Factories in India, 1655-60. By William Foster, CLE. 
(Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1921.) 

We have here a further instalment of the East India Company's early 
records in the fine series published by the Clarendon Press. The increasing 
mvdtiplicity of documents for this period and the enhanced cost of pub- 
lishing have made it undesirable to continue the reproduction of actual 
manuscripts on the same generous scale as before. But the Company's 
papers after the first half of the seventeenth century become so voluminous, 
that, if any progress with their publication were to be made within the 
present generation, some modification of the old method would in any case 
have been necessary. In his new plan Mr. Foster deals year by year 
with all the chief presidencies and factories, giving a simimary of the main 
events, social, commercial, and political, that concern them. There are 
numerous quotations from the records, and those who have had experience 
of the editor's scholarly, erudite, and conscientious methods, will feel 
perfectly satisfied that it would be useless to glean where he has reaped. 
Some of us might even have welcomed further condensation, but Mr. Foster 
no doubt felt that it was best to err on the side of fullness, and certainly 
no aspect of the life of Englishmen in the East during this period remains 
unillustrated. The editor has further a great gift of lucid exposition, and 
amid all the wealth of minor detail he traces clearly and broadly the main 
lines of historical development. These, even in this early period, are not 

In the reign of Charles II the East India Company was destined to 
enjoy a period of remarkable prosperity. These years, 1655-60, formed 
that darkest period which proverbially precedes the dawn. Their privileges 
having been based originally upon a royal charter, the Company's fortunes 
sank with the misfortunes of the house of Stuart. It was for a long time 
doubtful whether the protector would grant them a new charter, or 
terminate their monopoly and declare the trade to the East open. In 
any case, until October 1657, Cromwell lacked both the leisure and the 
inclination to look into their affairs ; and for two years a practical though 
unauthorized trial was made of the effects of that free and open trade 
which the enemies of the great Company had so long desired. We 
may perhaps conjecture that the Commonwealth statesmen were not sorry 
to see the experiment tried, and were quite content that it came about 
through no definite action on their part. If it had succeeded, they would 
no doubt have swept the Company away ; but it did not succeed ; the 
factors in India wrote that their greatest discouragement was 

the losse of this trade and making it (as they miscall it) a free trade ; which there is 
none that understand it well but will conclude a few yeares will render it none at all. 
. . . For the Trade being now not carried on by any Joint Society or Stock, affronts 
are often pilt upon us ; who being not under one head, wee know not how to remidy 
our selves ; by which means we are trampled on by the greatest enimies, as well as 
envyers, to our trade and nation, the Dutch. 

1922 • REVIEWS OF BOOKS 129 

In the end Cromwell granted the Company a charter, but in the mean- 
time the court of committees were almost in despair ; they reduced the 
number of their factories, they cut down every possible expense, they even 
advertised their privileges for sale to the highest bidder. It was only 
a certain patriotic stubbornness that made them persist. 

Had wee not some hope that before much time will be runn out, the trade to India 
would be againe setled in some way of honour and profitt to the nation, wee had at 
this time sent you our positive order for dissolving of all, both your and other, our 
factories. . . . Our worke is now only to contrive to ease our charge and draw home 
what estate wee have in your partes and all other our factories in India. 

The grant of the charter and the subsequent raising of the new general stock, 
which, unlike those that had preceded it, was never wound up but became 
the permanent capital of the Company, was followed by a vigorous attempt 
to restafE the factories and recover the lost trade. The home dispatches 
end with the bright hopes that centred in the Restoration : 

It having pleased the Almightie, by His good and gratious providence to restore our 
Soveraigne, Charles the Second, to his native and just rights, and setled him most 
miraculously in the government of his kingdomes in peace and honour, to the great 
joy of all his loyall subjects, even without any the least shedding of blood (for which 
we blesse his holy name) . . . wee have very great hopes that wee here shall not only 
bee happy in the injoying of soe pious and good a prince, but that the lost honnor and 
repute of our English nation in all parts will be restored to its former lustre and glorie. 

In Indian politics the times were also troubled. The old emperor 
Shah Jahan was falling into ill health, and the Company's servants were 
' distracted with feare and expectation of what miseries might happen 
uppon the ould king's decease, through the ambitious discencion of his four 
sonnes ', though they at the same time foresaw that there might be ' good 
fishing ... in these troubled waters'. The two southern Muhammadan 
kingdoms Bijapur and Golconda, with which Surat and Madras had come 
into closer relations than with their nominal suzerain, the Mughal emperor, 
were approaching the end of their existence menaced alike by the hostility 
of Aurungzeb and the rise of the Marathas. Though Madras was subjected 
in 1658 to a perfunctory blockade, it was not the existence but the trade 
of the Company's servants that was endangered. ' We for our parts ', they 
wrote, ' hitherto enjoy all freedome and quietnesse, though the noyse of 
war and thundering of ordinance are day and night within our hearing.' 

P. E. Roberts. 

Under the Turk in Constantinople. By G. F. Abbott. (London : Mac- 
millan, 1920.) 

The main subject of Mr. Abbott's book, as he indicates in its sub-title, is 
the embassy of Sir John Finch to Turkey, which lasted from 1674 to 1681. 
Finch, as the author points out, was not a great ambassador. ' After 
seven years' residence our ambassador knew almost as little of Turkey 
as on the day of his landing. ... As a diplomat he displayed all the faults 
of one to whom zeal and judgment had not been given in equal proportions. 
. . . That he failed at Constantinople cannot be disguised ' (pp. 353-4). 
Finch had not to deal with great international questions, and his dispatches 
throw little light on European politics. ' God direct me ', says he, * in 


these difficult times, in the carrying on His Majesty's concerns in the 
commerce of his subjects, which is at this time greater than ever in this 
place, and by consequence more envious and more exposed ' (p. 288). 
Of the state of British commerce in Turkey and the many obstructions 
it met with from the Turkish rulers these pages gives a full and vivid 
picture, and in that consists the value of Mr. Abbott's book. It will serve 
as an introduction to the study of any other embassy from England to 
Turkey during the later seventeenth century. 

The unpublished authorities used are the Turkey Papers and Levant 
Company's Papers in the Public Record Office, and the Coventry Papers 
at Longleat. Mr. Abbott has made good use of the older published litera- 
ture such as the works of Sir Paul Rycaut and the Life of Sir Dudley North ; 
and of recent publications such as the Diaries of Dr. John Covel ; the first 
volume of the Historical Manuscripts Commission's report on the manu- 
scripts of Mr. A. G. Finch (which deals with the correspondence of Sir 
T. Winchelsea, ambassador from 1660 to 1668), and Dr. A. Mattoch's 
Finch and Baines. Vandal's Voyages du Marquis de Nointel has also 
been freely employed, as Nointel was the contemporary representative 
of France at Constantinople. Mr. Abbott does not appear to have used 
Paul Masson's Histoire du Commerce Frangais dans le Levant au XV IP 
Siecle, which is to be regretted, for it throws light on some of the questions 
dealt with, and might have suggested to him the more systematic account 
of the development of English commerce during the same period which 
he fails to give us. A little more study of the economic side of the subject 
and a somewhat briefer treatment of personal and incidental matters 
would not have made Mr. Abbott's book less interesting and would have 
increased its utility to historians. C. H. Firth. 

Sir Francis D'lvernois 1757-1842, sa Vie, son (Euvre et son Temps. 
Par Otto Karmin. (Geneve : Revue Historique de la Revolution 
Frangaise et de VEmpire, 1920.) 

Just before his death at the age of thirty-eight M. Otto Karmin completed 
this exhaustive study of one who is barely remembered to-day, but was 
of some importance in his life-time by reason of his close contact with 
certain British ministers during the war with France and his activity 
as a publicist. The book is complete. M. Karmin studied all likely 
sources published and unpublished, and he wrote with critical acumen 
and a good knowledge of general history. D'lvernois left a large collection 
of papers, now in the Geneva Library, which M. Karmin used very fully, 
his other chief source being the Bexley Papers in the British Museum, 
four volumes of miscellaneous correspondence addressed to Sir Nicholas 
Vansittart, first Lord Bexley, chancellor of the exchequer from 1812 to 
1822. A considerable portion of the book deals with Genevan history, 
and particularly with the * little revolutions ' which established political 
equality in place of an aristocratic republic in the city. D'lvernois's 
father was an admirer and helper of Rousseau, and his own first political 
action was on the democratic side. His first contact with British ministers 
was when he attempted without success to persuade Charles James Fox 


to intervene in favour of Genevan independence. When French, Sardinian, 
and Bernese troops entered the city, and restored for a time the aristocratic 
party, D'lvernois was exiled and came to England to further the now 
forgotten project of a Genevan colony in Ireland. The viceroy. Temple, 
was favourable, the duke of Leinster and the earl of Ely offered lands, 
the Irish volunteers approved, and the government promised £50,000 
towards the building of a new town near Waterford. Lack of emigrants 
soon led to the abandonment of ' New Geneva ', but D'lvernois received 
an annual pension of £300 secured in Irish funds from 1789. He returned 
to Geneva after the ' moderate ' revolution of that year, but when the 
revolutionary armies of France invaded Savoy he left the democratic 
party, was entrusted with the secret negotiations with the French general 
Montesquiou, and aided the general to escape when he was * accused ' in 
the convention. Montesquiou was an Orleanist, and through him D'lver- 
nois went to London in 1793 on a mission connected with the fortune of 
Louis-Philippe, which was secretly deposited in England. This mission 
had little success. Soulavie in his Memoirs accuses D'lvernois of acting 
for the British government as an agent provocateur in France, but M. Kar- 
min dismisses this accusation as inherently improbable, though he suggests 
that D'lvernois may have been concerned in Orleanist anti-revolutionary 
schemes, and may have acted as a British agent in connexion with them. 
Unfortunately his correspondence during this period has been destroyed, 
and M. Karmin can throw no light on either Orleanist schemes or British 
participation in them. 

From 1794 D'lvernois became the pamphleteer of Pitt and the British 
ministers. In June 1795 he was denounced by Thibault in the convention, 
and shortly afterwards Sheridan in the house of commons sneered at him 
as a ' pensioner of ministers '. He was what would be called to-day 
a propagandist and was well paid for his work, receiving a knighthood in 
1796 and £10,000 in commutation of his various pensions at the end of the 
war. His writings were chiefly periodical examinations of the finances 
of France under the Revolution and Empire, and studies of the continental 
blockade. They still have some value as illustrating contemporary 
opinion, but are vitiated by their propagandist bias. He constantly 
reiterated that France was ruined and could only continue to exist by war 
and the plunder of foreign countries. He tired out even his admirers by 
harping on this theme. Gentz told him that he had agreed at first with 
his calculations, ' mais ici I'experience a, pour ainsi dire, ecrase les prin- 
cipes '. John Quincy Adams wrote in 1801 : ' as to calculating the 
resources of a great nation, I am done with it as much as Sir F. D'lvernois 
ought to be with his algebra against French resources.' Malthus would 
not admit the conclusion that the Revolution had prevented millions 
of children being born in France. If the two and a half million French 
whom the Revolution had carried off had remained alive, a proportionate 
number of children born to surviving French parents would not have 
been brought into existence. D'lvernois wrote to Perceval a paper 
on the report of the bullion committee. He was angry that this report 
publicly admitted the evil effects of Napoleon's blockade on the value of 
English bank-notes, and declared that the report had led Napoleon to 



revoke his decision, previously arrived at, to abandon the Berlin and Milan 
decrees. Unfortunately the evidence he gives that his own writings had 
induced Napoleon to consider revocation is not very convincing. 

D'lvernois was also employed semi-officially on a mission to Russia 
in 1812, and in the negotiations at Reichenbach leading to subsidy treaties 
between Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia. M. Karmin had previously 
published the documents connected with these missions.^ This book gives 
careful summaries of the transactions, but it would have been more useful to 
give references to the documents themselves, instead of only to the Revue 
articles. D'lvernois's most original idea in war finance was to substitute 
for the weakened credit of the state the credit of individuals. He advocated 
a forced loan from all owners of property, payable not in cash but by way 
of mortgage, repayable by the state after the war. He thought that 
Austria and Spain in 1809, and Russia in 1812, if they had adopted this 
plan, could have withdrawn much of their depreciated paper money, 
and that the mortgages would have been good security for large issues of 
treasury bills by the respective states. In no case was his scheme adopted. 
In 1806 he WMit to Sweden, and some interest attaches to a project he 
elaborated with Armfelt. It is set out in a letter to Vansittart from 
Stralsund (11 April 1806). The proposal was for a joint expedition of 
British and Swedish forces against the colonies first of France, and then of 
France's tributaries, Holland and Spain. Conquests were to be shared. 
This scheme was warmly embraced by Gustavus IV, but there is no record 
of any reply from British ministers. M. Karmin suggests that D'lvernois 
may have been sent expressly to sound Sweden on this proposal, but this 
seems improbable. , British naval power was so preponderant in 1806 that 
there was no temptation to call in a naval ally, to share conquests, and to risk 
the alienation of Russia by the aggrandizement of Sweden. Vansittart 
in 1806 was only secretary to the treasury. Walford D. Green. 

Histoire Religieuse de la Revolution Frangaise. Par Pierre de la Gorge. 
Tome iv. (Paris : Plon-Nourrit, 1921.) 

This volume brings M. de la Gorce's history down to the eve of the 
18 Brumaire. M. de la Gorce is one of the group of French historians who 
have become classics in their own lifetime ; everything he writes is planned 
on a grand scale and executed with a sureness of touch and a magnificence 
for which we seek parallels in centuries other than our own. He claims 
a full right to interpret motives as well as to describe actions, and in 
his general method he is often nearer to Thomas Hardy's Dynasts than 
to M. Aulard or M. Sorel. His strong sympathies (as an artist, rather 
than a partisan) sometimes lead him to exaggerate. Thus he makes 
great play with the banal hypocrisy of the ofi&cial revolutionary jargon. 
One can, indeed, have little patience with officials who, after ten years of 
constant political and constitutional change and equally constant persecu- 
tion of opinion, could report with gravity upon a small catholic school, 
' Pas im seul eleve n'a ete capable de nous dire en quoi consiste la liberte ' ; 
but the language of edification did not begin with the persecutors of 

* Rew£ Historique de la Revolution Franfaise, vols, x, xi, and xii. 


orthodoxy, and, however much one wearies of the pompous phrases of 
anti-clerical bigots, it would be unfair to omit the similar outbursts of ' lea 
Marats a cocarde blanche ', as one of the more moderate emigres called 
the extreme royalists. Again, in discussing the religious policy of the 
directory, M. de la Gorce seems a little ready to ascribe too much to the 
anti-clerical views of the directors themselves, and to underrate the 
genuine fear of clerical royalism. It is not enough to point to the disreput- 
able Barras or the ridiculous Larevelliere-Lepeaux ; the fears of moderate 
men can be understood more clearly by reading the remark of Louis XVIII 
to his brother, ' Le clerge est une de nos meilleures armes ', and his proposal 
(31 October 1797) to divide his kingdom into a number of politico-religious 

There are, however, passages where M. de la Gorce does not always 
make the best of his own case. Thus he mentions the speech of ChoUet 
in the debate of 14 Frimaire, An VI, upon the taking of the oath of 
' haine a la royaute '. He adds that the debate was reopened during 
Nivose, but he does not give details of the insulting way in which the 
assembly dismissed the reasonable interpretation of the minimizing party 
as priestly subtleties beneath its attention, nor does he say that ChoUet 
himself wanted the term ' haine eternelle ', an oath impossible not merely 
for catholics but for any body of men unprepared to die for a particular 
form of constitution. 

A part of this volume has been given to an account of the attempts of 
the directors to set up rival religions to Roman Catholicism. The extracts 
from the ineffable circulars of Frangois de Neufchateau are amusing to 
read. One is reminded of the equally long-winded instructions of Julian the 
Apostate, and the comment of St. Gregory Nazianzen 'ttlOt^kwv fjn^rjixaTa '. 
The same ludicrous absence of a sense of reality showed itself in the 
attempts to rename streets, e.g. ' Rue Mucins Scaevola ', and to see that 
no fish-markets were held on fast-days, while the peasants were returning 
deputies with a mandate to sanction the use of church bells, and were 
post-dating or ante-dating the of&cial celebrations in order to make them 
coincide with the old feast days. 

M. de la Gorce gives a number of brilliant character-sketches, and 
descriptions of dramatic events : he is at his best in dealing with the 
directors, and, perhaps, in showing the pathetic pride of the rebel envoys 
at La Jeunaie. He does less than justice to the Abbe Emery. He praises 
him, indeed, but does not bring out fully the great intellectual as well as 
moral qualities of one of the few men of the revolutionary and Napoleonic 
periods who combined idealism in thought with daring and common sense 
in action. E. L. Woodward. 

J. P. F. AncUlon und Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm IV von Preiissen. Von 
Paul Haake. (Historische Bibliothek, Bd. 42. Munich : Oldenbourg, 

Der Preussische Verfassungskampf vor hundert Jahren. Von Paul Haake. 
(Munich : Oldenbourg, 1921.) 

These two monographs are a real contribution to the better understanding 
of Prussian history in the nineteenth century. In the fixst the malign 


influence of Ancillon's education on the most romantic of the Hohen- 
zollerns is carefully and methodically described and its efiect on the 
momentous decisions of the years succeeding the war of liberation clearly 
indicated. In the second a topic partly considered in the first is worked 
out in greater detail, and an attempt made to assign the responsibility for 
the refusal of Frederick William III to keep his word to his people and 
grant them the constitution which he had promised on. 22 May 1815. 
It is unfortunately slighter and less well supported with evidence than the 
first. Nevertheless Professor Haake has made at least a prima facie case 
for the view of Hardenberg which he puts forward. There is, indeed, 
great need for the book entitled Hardenbergs Kampf fur preussische 
Reichsstdnde, which he had long planned, but which economic condi- 
tions in Germany made it impossible for him to publish, and it may be 
hoped that he will be able to follow these studies with a much-needed full- 
dress biography. 

A more tedious philosopher and statesman than Ancillon it is difficult 
to imagine, whatever his merits as a preacher, and only a stupid and 
emotional nature like that of Frederick William IV could have been so 
impressed by him. Of the crown prince's attachment to his tutor there 
can, however, be no doubt. It was testified in endless letters with a wealth 
of superlatives and exclamation marks. As Dr. Haake points out, Ancillon 
was the last sort of person to be put in charge of a romantic like his pupil. 
He encouraged and increased his undisciplined and visionary outlook on 
life. He used him too as a tool in his opposition to the constitution, 
and the final overthrow of Hardenberg's schemes was partly, though not 
mainly, due to this influence. 

Hardenberg's attempt to force his master to grant some real con- 
stitutional reform to his people is more fully considered in the second 
monograph. Its pitiful failure, which resulted merely in the creation of 
eight provincial assemblies with powers so restricted that they were no 
check whatever on the royal despotism, was due to causes over which 
Hardenberg had no control. Not merely the weak, untrustworthy, and 
ungrateful character of the king, but the whole trend of German, indeed 
of European, politics made it impossible for Hardenberg to carry through 
his plan of a central assembly of estates. Dr. Haake strives to show that 
Hardenberg made an honourable and determined fight for constitutional 
liberty, and that Stein and Humboldt in his place could have done no 
more. He scarcely stresses sufficiently the effects of the physical weak- 
nesses of Hardenberg and the irregularities of his private life. Yet it is true 
that no statesman could have supported with honour to himself the 
intolerable burden of such a master as Frederick William III, and to the 
HohenzoUern character must be mainly attributed the fact that Prussia 
was for so long denied the possibility of constitutional development, 
a fact which altered the whole character of German history in the 
nineteenth century and led to the final catastrophe of the great war. 
Dr. Haake writes of these events with a fine detachment, though he reveals 
at times that he fully realizes how much they have contributed to the 
present position of his country. C. K. Webster. 


Modern Democracies. By James Bryce (Viscount Bryce). 2 vols. 
(London : Macmillan, 1921.) 

Lord Bryce's work is primarily an account of the nature and practical 
working of democratic institutions in France, Switzerland, the United 
States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with shorter studies of the 
city-states of ancient Greece and of the South American republics. 
Democracy itself is defined as ' the rule of the whole people expressing 
their sovereign will by their votes ', and more briefly as ' the rule of the 
majority '. To a comparative study of democratic ideas in different 
countries. Lord Bryce adds general conclusions as to their merits and their 
evolution, and as to the new problems which the modern world has to face. 

The theme is thus more definitely constitutional than that of Lecky's 
Democracy and Liberty, which ranged widely over the political, social, and 
economic controversies of the nineteenth century, and, on the whole, 
it is more closely knit. It is also treated, if possible, with even more 
complete detachment. Lord Bryce's impartiality is, in fact, austere. 
This quality may come the more easily because we are so clearly on the 
threshold of a new age that much of the history here recorded is the history 
of past problems and of dead hopes. Moreover, the centre of gravity 
in our political thought has ceased to be an interest in institutions. In 
his final judgement Lord Bryce struggles gallantly towards optimism, 
and prays that the ' mystic faith in the people ' — ' the vital impulse of 
democracy ' — may survive the disillusionment of to-day. He recognizes 
that democracy has not purified politics ; nor yet cultivated the sense of 
human brotherhood among the nations ; nor induced contentment 
among the masses of the people ; nor adequately enlisted in the service of 
the state the best capacity of each country. His conception of democracy 
as being simply a phase in the march of man, entered into under the 
pressure of actual grievances, and not as an inspiration arising from the 
abstract doctrine of natural rights, shows how far he has travelled from 
early Victorian liberalism. Indeed practically all Dean Inge's indictments 
of democracy — ^the abstinence of able men from public life ; slavery to 
catchwords ; antipathy to reform ; liability to bribery ; want of moral 
courage — are here admitted, although little or no allusion is made to the 
charge that democracy fosters undue interference with individual liberty. 
On the other hand. Lord Bryce truly argues that education and knowledge 
are often no preventives against error, and that the broad common sense 
of the average man has repeatedly proved a sound practical guide in 
forming national judgements. With all its faults, there is nothing in the 
recent history of democracy to tempt the good citizen into a preference 
for that ' direct action ' which Lord Bryce perceives to be the antithesis 
to popular government, and the greatest menace of our day. 

It is difficult to quarrel with conclusions which are always evenly 
balanced, or with arguments which are invariably temperate. It is, I think, 
questionable whether the suggestion, made by every successive generation 
as it looks back upon a long life spent in public service and again put 
forward here by Lord Bryce, that the quality of the house of commons 
has declined, is really well founded. The only criticism that one dares 


to pass on the more general chapters of these volumes is that they are 
very discursive. Lord Bryce recognizes this himself, and tries at the end 
of his treatment of each topic to sum up in short paragraphs the various 
points which he holds to have been established. 

The larger portion of the work is, however, devoted to concise descrip- 
tions of the history and political mechanism of every state which comes 
under his review. Many readers will judge these passages to be the most 
valuable. There are some specially novel and enlightening comments on 
democracy in Australia. Lord Bryce lays stress on the Australians' 
passion for all kinds of sport and on their universal recognition of Sunday 
as a day of pleasure, but also on a narrowness of vision due to deficiency 
in education and mental isolation from other countries. He writes of New 
Zealand with less enthusiasm than many travellers, and urges its need of a 
well-staffed university. He draws attention to Switzerland's fine abnegation 
of titles and honours, and its admirable system of universal military 
training. Many incidental references are made to issues not directly 
relevant to democracy. The value of instilling in early years an interest 
in citizenship and a knowledge of the actual process and machinery of 
central and local government is brought out in the sketch of Swiss life. 
The continued neglect of such subjects in English education is presumably 
due to a fear that party politics must intrude in teaching of this character, 
but it is surely mistaken and deplorable. In relating the story of the 
labour party's achievements in Australia the advantages of a clear-cut 
programme and of iron party discipline are treated as having been the 
salient factors of victory. This phenomenon is of universal application. 
One of the pathetic attributes of democracy is its love of a concrete 
' platform', however crude. One of its cardinal weaknesses is its sub- 
servience to the ' big battalions ', however wrong. 

Modern Democracies has not perhaps quite the sustained interest and 
originality of Lord Bryce's earlier books, but it is none the less likely to 
rank among the classics of its type. It has the learning, the thought, 
and the style that belong to great literature, while occasionally, as in his 
tributes to the republics of antiquity (i. 208) and to the worth of the 
Swiss example (i. 505-6), the prose becomes majestic. 

Gerald B. Hurst. 

1922 137 

Short Notices 

In his valuable study of La Loi de HUron et les Romains (Paris : Boc- 
card, 1919) M. Jerome Carcopino has made a close examination of Cicero's 
third Verrine oration, which should be in the hands of all who are con- 
cerned with that speech or with the Koman tithe-system. M. Carcopino 
passes under review the whole of the literature bearing on the subject, 
and sets out in full the arguments of his predecessors on vexed questions, 
which adds to the value of his book. His reasone'd criticisms always 
repay study and generally carry conviction. He does not, however, 
seem to succeed in proving that the procedure of pignoris capio was 
completely obsolete in the time of Verres, or indeed later : in fact, the 
arguments by which he attempts to invalidate the evidence of the Lex 
Metalli Vipascensis are sophistical. One of the most interesting discus- 
sions in his essay is that devoted to the special and difficult case of the 
ager Leontinus ; it is suggested with much probability that its peculiar 
condition arose from the fact that it belonged to the domain of Hiero II. 
M. Carcopino accepts the view that Hiero borrowed the main features 
of his ordinance from the revenue law of Ptolemy Philadelphus : the 
limits of date are narrow on this theory, and in any case the Egyptian 
methods were modified in some respects. With regard to the circumstances 
and date of the transformation of the Sicilian decumae into a fixed stipen- 
dium, M. Carcopino seems to be clearly right : the process was une oeuvre 
d^assez longtie haleine, and was brought to a close by Augustus in 36 b. c. 


Admirers of the historical method of Signor Ferrero will find much 
of interest in his last book. La Ruine de la Civilisation Antique (Paris : 
Plon-Nourrit, 1921), in which a parallel is drawn between the condition of 
Europe at the present day and that of the Roman world in the third and 
fourth centuries. Signor Ferrero considers that the various causes to 
which historians have attributed the downfall of ancient civilization can 
all be traced back to the absence of any recognized principle on which 
governments could base their authority. He holds that during the first 
and second centuries the authority of the emperors rested on their recogni- 
tion by the senate, and that the year 235 marks an epoch, as after that 
date this recognition was frequently dispensed with. The necessity of 
some principle other than mere force by which they would render their 
position legitimate was recognized by Aurelian and Diocletian, but their 
claim to divine right as representatives of Sol invidus was inconsistent 
with Christianity and thus could not be made by their Christian successors. 

138 SHORT NOTICES January 

The weakness of political authority in the fourth century explains the 
strenuous efforts made by the church to reach absolute certainty in matters 
of faith : ' il etait necessaire de donner aux hommes, desesperes par 
I'universelle mobilite, quelque chose de solide, de fixe, d'inebranlable 
a quoi s'accrocher ' (p. 205). In the last chapter we are told that Europe 
at the present time is threatened with even greater dangers ; governments 
are unstable, the principles of monarchy and democracy being equally 
discredited, while the prevalence of ' intellectual anarchy ' makes it impos- 
sible for the church effectually to counteract disintegrating tendencies. In 
order to support this interesting thesis Signor Ferrero is led to exaggerate 
the power possessed by the senate in the first and second centuries ; he 
even says (p. 22) that from the time of Vespasian it ' governed the empire 
with an energy and wisdom which challenged comparison with the best 
times of the Republic '. Again, he scarcely does justice to the emperors 
of the fourth century when he says that they merely prolonged the agony 
of the dying empire. His statements of fact are not always to be trusted : 
thus on p. 27 we are told that, according to ' the historians of antiquity ', 
Vespasian selected a thousand provincial families, enrolled them in the 
senatorial and equestrian orders, made them come to Rome, and thus 
reconstructed the Roman aristocracy. This seems to be derived from the 
obscure and untrustworthy statement of Aurelius Victor : ' lectis undique 
optimis viris mille gentes compositae ', which is generally taken to refer 
to the conferment of patrician not senatorial rank. G. H. S. 

In her book The Early History oj the Monastery of Cluny (London : 
Milford, 1920) Miss L. M. Smith gives the results of researches which she 
began with an excellent article published some years ago in this Review.^ 
The conclusions which, following the lead of Sackur, she established on 
the relations between Gregory VII and Cluny and on the alleged share of 
Cluny in the origination of the Gregorian tenets, have been carried further 
by M. Paul Fournier, Mr. R. L. Poole, M. A. Fliche, and other scholars. 
In the present volume Miss Smith deals with the early charters of Cluny 
and the lives of the first five abbots. Miss Smith has missed a great 
opportunity, not so much (as has been rather unfairly stated) from lack of 
scholarship as from her failure to realize that a very real enthusiasm for 
her subject did not absolve her from the performance of the technical 
duties of the historian. As she rightly says, there is a comparatively 
unworked mine of rich historical material in the documents and hagio- 
graphical literature which she has used : but it is not sufficient to expose 
this material ; it must be sifted and tested. Even if we assume that it is 
all sound, it should be put in its setting. Miss Smith possesses the ability, 
but apparently has lacked the diligence or imagination to perform this 
critical work. Her book gives the impression that, after working on it 
for a long time, she had despaired of finishing it, and finally published it 
in haste. There is no geographical apparatus — the reader is not even told 
where Cluny and the associated or daughter houses were — no criticism 
of the texts, which are sometimes quoted under such references as 
* Bouquet ', no guide to the value of the existing literature, nor to the 

* Avie, xxvi. 20. 


work of recent years in foreign periodicals, no comparison with other 
texts. If Miss Smith were dealing with well-known authorities or with 
a society whose workings were fairly familiar to the ordinary reader, 
these omissions, though regrettable, would not be so serious ; but she is 
dealing with one of the most difficult, as well as one of the formative, 
periods in European history. One who is no specialist in this field can only 
say that her book, which abounds in interesting matter, presents many 
of the perplexities of an original authority. Historical scholars often 
show a self-important and ostentatious sense of their obligations to 
others ; Miss Smith rims to the opposite extreme. Her attitude is not 
unfairly revealed in a note on p. 9 : ' That St. Maur ever came to Gaul 
has been disputed.' The casual reader would be surprised to learn that the 
* story ' of St. Maur was the cause of one of the longest battles of scholars 
in modern times, a battle which may now be regarded as ended. 

F. M. P. 

Two years ago we called attention to the sumptuous reissue at the 
Cambridge University Press of The Collected Historical Works of Sir Francis 
Palgrave} The third and fourth volumes which have now appeared (1921) 
complete The History of Normandy and of England. Unlike the earlier 
volumes, they include work of Palgrave's which has never been published 
before. The third volume opens with three introductory chapters (71 pages) 
on the ' General Relations of Mediaeval History ', in continuation of the 
three chapters bearing the same title at the beginning of volume. These 
were privately printed before the author's death in 1861. The fact that 
they were written separately and are only now incorporated with the 
History explains a good deal of repetition, not merely of matter but of 
phrase, which will be found on comparing them with book v, chap, iv 
(iv. 448 fE.). Of far greater importance is the history of Henry I and 
Stephen, filling three hundred pages of vol. iv. Its appearance sixty 
years after Palgrave's death reminds one of the way in which Leibniz's 
Annales were exhumed and printed by Pertz in 1843. It displays the 
author's immense and profound learning. He had no rival, unless perhaps 
Stapleton, in his knowledge of the Anglo-Norman families, and he writes 
of them with the intimacy of personal acquaintance. Age had not abated 
his vigour in narrative or the prodigality of his imagination. But it must 
be said that his habit of dictating his work to an amanuensis led to an 
undue reliance upon memory, and imagination plays too large a part in 
the history. Still one cannot but be amazed at the penetration with which 
Palgrave read his authorities. One example must suffice. He inferred 
from a letter of Gilbert Foliot that the Empress Matilda and Stephen both 
submitted their claims to the judgement of the pope in 1136, though 
this was ' totally unnoticed by the chroniclers ' (iv. 610). Some years 
after Palgrave's death the Historia Pontificalis, since proved to have been 
written by John of Salisbury, was discovered and published by Arndt 
in 1868, and the fact discerned by Palgrave was fully established. But 
oddly enough the appeal was placed by accredited historians at various 
dates between 1148 and 1152 ; and the true date, which we now know 
* Ante, vol. xxxiv, p. 447. 

140 SHORT NOTICES January 

was divined by Palgrave without the help of this authority, was first 
advocated in print by Mr. Round in 1892, It is unlucky that the full 
account ' of the principal authorities upon which the text is founded ', 
mentioned in the advertisement to vol. ii, seems not to have been written. 
The editor and his assistants have done their best to repair this omission ; 
but in doing this they have not limited themselves to the ' authorities 
upon which the text is founded ', but have aimed at completeness. The 
result is that they have included a large number of books which were not 
accessible to Palgrave. The notes are industriously compiled, but their 
authors seldom succeed in explaining the many difficult allusions to which 
Palgrave's prodigious memory gave too frequent an opening. The maps 
and pedigrees are a useful addition to the book. R. L. P. 

In his De VOrigine de la Formule ' Dei Gratia ' dans les Charles 
d'Henri II (Extrait des Memoires de I'Academie des Sciences, Arts et 
Belles-Lettres de Caen, 1920), Professor Henri Prentout discusses a problem 
which has attracted the attention of several prominent medieval students, 
and has already received some consideration in this Review.^ Starting 
from Delisle's demonstration, now generally accepted, that the Dei 
Gratia began to be used by Henry II's chancery at some time between 
May 1172 and March or May 1173, M. Prentout sets out to ascertain, 
first a more precise date for the first appearance of the formula, and 
secondly the reason for its introduction. After reconsidering the main 
evidence, M. Prentout concludes that ' the grace ' was not adopted by 
Henry's chancery until 1173, and that the change may very probably 
have come in the latter part of March or in April of that year. He would 
seem to regard April as being, on the whole, the safer hypothesis. As to 
the motive that led to the introduction of the Dei Gratia into Henry II's 
title, he makes an interesting suggestion. On chronological grounds he 
rejects Delisle's tentative hypothesis that the words came in as the result 
of Henry's reconciliation with the church at Avranches in 1172 ; nor is 
he any more favourable to Mr. Round's theory that the change of formula 
may have had some connexion with the changes in chancery personnel 
that occurred in May 1173 : this theory, he thinks, is improbable, and 
anyhow is inadequate as an explanation. M. Prentout himself suggests 
that Henry II assumed the Dei Gratia after the revolt of Young Henry 
in March 1173, and that he did so for two reasons : first, in order to meet 
his enemies' contention that his own regal authority had been abrogated 
by the younger Henry's coronation in 1170, and secondly, in order to 
employ a title exactly similar in form to that used by the chancery of the 
French king, and thereby to claim for his own crown the same dignity 
and divine sanction as were claimed by the Capetians for the crown of 
France. There is one unfortunate misprint : * 1170-1171 ' on p. 8 (1. 4) 
should read ' 1171-1172 '. J. G. E. 

The Lives of the Avignon popes edited by Baluze in 1693 are an indis- 
pensable collection, but seldom to be seen except in great libraries. It 
was therefore much to be desired that the work should be reprinted. In 

» Ante, xxiii. 79-83. 


the volume before us {Vitae Paparum Avenionensium. Stephanus 
Baluzius Tutelensis magnam partem nunc primum edidit. Nouvelle 
edition. Tomes i, iii. Paris : Letouzey & Ane, 1916, 1921) Dr. G. MoUat, 
well known from his excellent calendar of the Litterae Communes of 
John XXII, has done very much more than reprint ; he has produced a 
completely new edition. For this purpose he has rightly used the copy 
of the book which Baluze himself corrected, now in the Bibliotheque 
Nationale, MS. Lat. 13730 ; but he has also collated not merely the manu- 
scripts from which Baluze printed but others which were not at his disposal. 
More than this, where Baluze made omissions Dr. MoUat prints the text 
entire ; he presents the Lives in the form they bear in the manuscript or 
manuscripts, where Baluze at times effected an arbitrary combination of 
more than one text ; and he has greatly assisted the reader by inserting 
precise dates throughout. The original book contained in its first volume 
the multiple sets of Lives and a body of notes more than half as large 
again, with an index to the whole. The second volume consisted of a 
most valuable collection of illustrative documents. Dr. Mollat's tome i 
contains all the Lives with an index to them ; but the notes with their 
index are reserved for future publication as tome ii. In an appendix ha 
prints a seventh Life of Clement VI : its preservation in four manuscripts 
should have been mentioned in appendix ii,^ which contains a full descrip- 
tion of the manuscripts. A third appendix treats of the coins struck by 
the popes at Soignes and Avignon. Tome iii comprises nearly half the 
documents printed in Baluze's second volume, and wherever possible 
Dr. MoUat has collated the texts with the manuscripts. He has also 
made important corrections in the dates supplied by Baluze. The pages 
of the original edition are carefully indicated in the margin, except for 
nos. Ixxv-lxxvii, documents of Lewis the Bavarian, which Dr. MoUat 
reprints from Schwalm's edition in the fifth and sixth volumes of the 
Constitutianes et Acta Publica, included in the Monumenta Germaniae, 
1911-1914. These usually but not invariably furnish an improvement on 
Baluze's text, which is not here collated. The narrative of Henry VII's 
Italian expedition by Bishop Nicholas of Butrinto, which stands at the 
end of Baluze's second volume, is conveniently included in tome iii of the 
new edition. Tome iv wiU no doubt supply an index as well as the 
remainder of Baluze's documents. B. 

The first volume of Professor James Hogan's Ireland m the European 
System (London : Longmans, 1920) covers the years 1500-57, and is the 
first of a series ' which wiU deal with Irish internal affairs ' only ' in so 
far as they were reactions of or reacted upon those of Europe '. The 
subject, which in plain words is the intrigues in Ireland of the continental 
enemies of England and the attempts of certain disaffected Irishmen to 
obtain foreign aid against England, is one deserving of careful investiga- 
tion. The separate treatment, however, of these intrigues tends to give 
them an exaggerated importance, a tendency which Mr. Hogan encourages 
rather than corrects, and if the intrigues here examined were viewed 
together with the general history of Ireland, it would be seen that the 

» Vol. i, pp. 576-7, where the Paris MS. Lat. 16553 is misprinted 6553. 

142 SHORT NOTICES January 

actual intriguers often had their most bitter enemies in their neighbours, 
and that there was no widespread conspiracy among them. The first 
example given is O'Donnell, who in 1516 obtained some heavy guns from 
France to attack his neighbours the O'Conors and O'Neills. The next is 
the earl of Desmond, who seems to have had no support outside his own 
district, except perhaps O'Brien, while with his neighbour the earl of 
Ormonde he was at daggers drawn. His supposed ' invasion of England ' 
in 1529 with an Irish army estimated at 20,000 men seems to be founded 
on entire misapprehension of the authorities (p. 22). In these sporadic 
endeavours to obtain foreign aid against England Mr. Hogan finds proof 
of ' a definite homogeneous nationalism ' in Ireland. Much space is 
devoted to the romantic story of the wanderings of Gerald FitzGerald, 
sole survivor of the house of Kildare, and of the plots which centred 
about his name. All Ireland, we are told, ' was seething with discontent ', 
and for Gerald's return supported by a French army ' the conspirators 
waited in an agony of expectation '. The reader might forget that just 
at this period all the principal Irish chieftains had sworn allegiance to 
Henry VIII, and many of them were receiving titles and rewards at his 
hands and were attending his parliaments. As history, the account given 
of Gerald's supposed intrigues is much shaken by the entire lack of evidence 
that he personally took any part in them ; and as romance, it is spoilt 
by the fact that in the result, at any rate, he proved no traitor, but sought 
a reconciliation with the Crown and was restored to his lands and honours. 
Next we are told of intrigues with the house of Guise and Henry II, 
when again and again but for a storm, or the unlucky election of an 
unsympathetic pope, or the irresolution of the French monarch, ' English 
domination would have vanished in a month '. Mr. Hogan writes clearly 
and well and has throughout commendably examined the primary sources, 
but his inferences are too often warped by his evident inability to think 
anything but evil of England, and by his desire to represent the disaffected 
elements in Ireland as constituting a ' distinct state-entity ' and as actuated 
by a lofty patriotism which excuses all duplicity. We have noticed many 
misprints in dates and some careless errors in names, such as ' the Imperial 
town of Vincennes ' (Valenciennes), pp. 47, 49 ; ' Gonzago, duke of Milan ', 
p. 53. To call Charles V ' Emperor of Austria ' is incorrect, and such 
misleading forms as ' Cahir Donaesha ', p. 26, and ' MacCarthy Righ ', 
p. 64, though occurring in State Papers, should not have been silently 
adopted. Nor should John Strype be called a contemporary writer of 
events that happened about a century before his time. G. H. 0. 

A welcome addition to our knowledge of maritime trade in the sixteenth 
century is made by M. Leon Van der Essen in his Contribution a VHistoire 
du Port d'Anvers et dii Commerce d' Exportation des Pays-Bos vers VEspagne 
et le Portugal a VEpoque de Charles-Quint, 1553-1554, reprinted from the 
Bulletin de V Academic Royale d'Archeologie de Belgique for 1920. This 
gives an account of the contents of a volume in the Archives .Generales at 
Brussels (Chambre des Comptes, Carton no. 326, Anvers), a list of goods 
exported from Antwerp to the Peninsula and the Spanish and Portuguese 
possessions overseas which paid the duty of 2 per cent, levied from 


1 January 1553. The period covered is eighteen months, down to the end 
of June 1554. The first kind of information to be got from the return is 
a list of the names of persons engaged in this commerce. M. Van der Essen 
prints about 320 names of foreign merchants, of which about three hundred 
are Spanish and Portuguese, seventeen Italian, and two German, those of 
the Fuggers and Bonaventure Bodecker. Besides these are 190 names of 
merchants native to the Low Countries : a proportion which seems to 
show that the greater part of this trade was still in the hands of Spanish 
and Portuguese merchants established at Antwerp and that they were 
not yet relinquishing it for the trade of the Indies, while, on the other 
hand, the commerce of Antwerp was not nearly all in the hands of foreigners. 
These conclusions correct those of some former writers. It is less interesting 
to notice that most of the hundred and fifteen ship-masters and carriers 
by land (to the neighbouring ports) are Netherlanders born. Five are 
English, though some of their names are hard to recognize. The only 
instances of specialization by merchants are the almost complete control of 
the export of copper by the Fuggers and the predilection of some houses for 
trading in books. From the total return of the duty it is not possible to infer 
anything more exact than that the export trade to Spain and Portugal 
made up ' une part importante ' of the business of the port, and, although 
M. Van der Essen says that the period of eighteen months is long enough 
to justify general conclusions, it should be added that the value of these 
lists and figures will increase in proportion with the publication of others 
with which they can be supplemented and compared. A curious paper 
of a slightly later date printed from the archives of his family by the 
duque de Alba in the Boletin de la Real Academia de Historia for 
November 1921 (Ixxix. 460 &.), though of far less value, deserves in this 
connexion to be mentioned. G. N. C. 

Professor Hyder E. Rollins, of New York University, has been fortunate 
in his gleanings and diligent as an editor, though he would have done well 
to furnish his Old English Ballads, 1553-1625, chiefly from Manuscripts 
(Cambridge : University Press, 1920), with ampler notes. He seems to 
assume that his readers will have the special knowledge of the student 
of ballads. From rare broadsides and from manuscripts, most of which 
he does not describe except by their library number, he has collected 
seventy-five ballads, and in his introduction he gives the most interesting 
of all, a fragment of twenty lines from the British Museum on the 
Cornish rising of 1548. Most of the ballads concern English literature 
rather than history, but some twenty which express sympathy with 
the Roman side under Mary and Elizabeth are of real historical interest, 
and of greater merit than those of the other side. Among a multitude 
of religious and moralizing ballads it is interesting to find one on the 
betrayal of Edward, duke of Buckingham, which is evidence of the interest 
in English history excited by Holinshed's Chronicle. C. 

The volume of Early Travels in India, 1583-1619 (London : Milford, 
1921), which Mr. William Foster has edited, contains the narratives of 
seven Englishmen who travelled in Northern and Western India during the 

144 SHORT NOTICES January 

reigns of the emperors Akbar and Jehangir when Elizabeth and James I were 
ruling over this country. The narratives are reprinted from the earliest 
printed editions. The authors are Ralph Fitch, John Mildenhall, William 
Hawkins, WiUiam Finch, Nicholas Withington, Thomas Coryat, Edward 
Terry. The text of each narrative is supplemented by excellent foot-notes 
and is prefaced by a brief and admirable introduction. Mr. Foster has made 
a valuable contribution to the history of British pioneers in India. These 
men deserve to be remembered and held in honour for the persistent 
enterprise and courage which were later on to found the British Empire 
in India. Perhaps the most interesting narrative is that of the story of 
the merchant Ralph Fitch, who ' being desirous to see the countreys of 
the East Indies ' sailed with three companions in ' a ship of London ' 
to Tripolis in Syria on Shrove Tuesday 1583. In reading their account of 
the manners, customs, and religious practices of the people, one is impressed 
by the small degree in which the masses have changed since those days. 
But suttee, at any rate, has disappeared for good and all. When, however, 
William Finch tells us that he found ' a continuall forrest ' all the way from 
Agra to Jaunpur via Allahabad, even if we allow for a certain looseness of 
observation, we realize that the face of parts of India has greatly 
altered since those days, and that cultivation has widely extended. The 
narratives give us interesting glimpses of the emperors Akbar and 
Jehangir among their courtiers. We find them governing in the most 
despotic and arbitrary fashion, but with a profusion and a love of 
display which were doubtless appreciated by their subjects. We find 
Jehangir still talking the Turki language which his ancestors had brought 
with them from Central Asia. We find in his empire a religious tolerance 
unknown in other countries ruled by Muslims. The book is one of excep- 
tional value to students of Indian history. H. V. L. 

Although it is primarily intended as a library catalogue, Mr. James 
Thayer Gerould, the compiler of the first number of the Bibliographical 
Series of the Research Publications of the university of Minnesota, expresses 
the hope ' that it may serve some of the purposes ' of a general bibliography. 
Its scope is sufficiently indicated by the title Sources of English History 
of the Seventeenth Century, 1603-1689, with a selection of Secondary Material 
(Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, 1921). There are altogether 
more than four thousand items, and these include not only printed 
books but also photographic facsimiles and a few original manuscripts 
belonging to the university. The arrangement is mainly chronological, 
by the dates of the events dealt with in each book, not by the dates of 
publication, but a careful index makes it possible to use the volume for 
various purposes of reference. Besides giving a most interesting view of 
this important collection, Mr. Gould's work will be of much use to students 
of this period, and will mitigate the inconveniences they suffer from the 
lack of an adequate systematic and critical bibliography of the period. 


In a monograph of Mr. Louis Hamilton, Ursprung der franzosischen 
Bevolkerung Canadas (Berlin : Neufeld und Henius, 1920), we have an 


attempt to establish more precisely the origins of the French-Canadian 
population. Mr. Hamilton detects possible sources of error in the methods of 
his predecessors in this interesting field. Thus he finds with Professor Dionne 
a tendency in Tanguay and others to identify the emigrant's port of sailing 
with his real home, though he admits that the chance of going seriously 
astray from this cause would be less in the first and all-important period 
of settlement, owing to the greater immobility of the home population 
at that earlier time. Mr. Hamilton's own investigations are based on the 
work of Dr. Dionne, and he pursues Dr. Dionne's method of tracing the 
place-name in the family name. But he finds himself compelled to reject 
many of the conjectured etymologies, and bases his own statistics on no 
more than 2,974 of Dr. Dionne's 9,000 names. The important figures 
for his argument are in his tables on pp. 71-3 : Normandy 14 per cent. 
(Lortie 19| per cent.) and lle-de-France 5 per cent. (Lortie 12 per cent.) 
Mr. Hamilton agrees emphatically with all other investigators, Rameau 
excepted, that the basic population is Norman, and he offsets the fact 
that he has appreciably reduced Lortie's percentage of Norman emigrants 
with the observation that the percentage was undoubtedly at its highest 
in the earliest period, and that the Norman settlers who were first in the 
field would set their mark on later settlers from other parts of France. 
He follows this up with a consideration, interesting but not exhaustive, 
of the Norman characteristics, social and linguistic, of the French- 
Canadian of to-day. Mr. Hamilton's reduction of Lortie's percentage 
of emigrants from the lle-de-France is supported by the statement, which 
might have been more fully supported by documents, that all those who 
crossed to Canada in an official, military, or commercial capacity were 
registered in Paris and that many such returned with their families to 
France ; further, that the several detachments of orphan girls who emi- 
grated as filles du roi were also concentrated and registered in Paris. In 
a separate chapter the French- Acadian population is submitted to a similar 
investigation. Mr, Hamilton finds here that Brittany stands first with 
16 per cent., followed by Normandy with 13 per cent. The monograph, 
though its author is a Canadian, has been written in Germany and at 
a certain disadvantage. Some of the writer's political references are rather 
ingenuous ; he includes Drummond and Campbell in a list of French- 
Canadian poets. This makes all the more praiseworthy the care with 
which he has done what lay within his reach. He is inclined to over- 
emphasize his main thesis of Norman (and Germanic) origins, but his 
statistics are not invalidated thereby, and they will have to be considered 
carefully by any who enter this field. There is a fairly extensive biblio- 
graphy and a full index. B. F. 

A curious omission in the Dictionary of National Biography has now 
been supplied by the publication of the first volume of The Life and 
Works of Sir Henry Mainwaring, edited by G. E. Manwaring (Navy 
Records Society, 1920). Mainwaring, an Oxford bachelor of arts, first 
sprang into prominence by his success as a pirate during the years 1613-16. 
He then received a full pardon, and in gratitude wrote and presented to 
James I his famous Discourse of Pirates. From this time onwards his 

146 SHORT NOTICES January 

promotion was rapid, and henceforth, as the editor remarks, the story of 
his life is entirely representative of the naval history of the earlier half 
of the seventeenth century, with the exception of the expeditions to 
Algiers in 1620 and to Cadiz in 1625. Since he combined great technical 
skill with sound seamanship his criticisms of the equipment of the navy 
are important. It seems clear that the constant failures of the navy were 
due, not so much to the incapacity of commanders, as to inefficient sailors 
and bad food. Even the ship-money fleets show little improvement in 
these respects. Thus in 1636 Mainwaring complains that one ship, in no 
way exceptional, had ' scarce a seafaring man except the officers ', while 
the food was mouldy and stinking. Most shameful of all was the treat- 
ment of the sick : ' I have seen some die upon the strand for lack of 
relief,' wrote Mainwaring. In addition to this valuable document, other 
very useful evidence is adduced about the ship-money fleets, and the lists 
of the ships sent to sea 1633-41 supply some biographical details not 
hitherto available about seamen who afterwards distinguished themselves 
during the puritan revolution. Other papers of interest include some 
letters on the blockade of the Forth in 1639 and a dispatch on Tromp's 
victory over Oquendo in the Downs. These documents have been noticed 
in the Calendar of State Papers Domestic, but the editor is to be con- 
gratulated on his zeal in always seeking for the manuscript originals 
instead of being content with printed summaries. On the other hand, 
there is a lack of proportion about this volume and the arrangement is 
defective. Mainwaring was not important enough to have a whole book 
devoted to his life, and many of the papers and lists given in the text 
might with advantage have been relegated to an appendix. Too much 
general history is included, and trivial incidents are treated at considerable 
length. The most striking instance of this tendency to irrelevancy and 
over-elaboration is in the chapter devoted to the royalists in Jersey in 
1 646-7, which might have been cut down to a page or two by reason of the 
full account in Hoskins's Charles II in the Channel Islands. Yet, in spite 
of these errors of judgement, the volume makes an original and important 
contribution to naval history. G. D. 

The admirably edited second volume of The Assembly Books of 
Southampton, a. d. 1609-10 (Southampton Record Society, 1920), like its 
predecessor, published in 1917,^ throws much light on the control exercised 
by the Southampton assembly over the life of the town. In the introduction 
Dr. J. W. Horrock draws attention to the relation between the assembly 
and the several local courts, the treatment of the poor and of new-comers, 
the regulation of trades and prices, and to maritime and commercial 
interests. The everyday details are relieved by several curious entries. 
Monopolies were so common in 1609 that a lacemaker ' humblye requested 
the howse that he onelye and non' other might be allowed to gather ould 
shooes in this Towne '. But the assembly judged the request ' verie unfit- 
tinge '. There is a remarkably enlightened stipulation in the case of a 
mercer who was to keep his apprentice in Spain for two out of his seven 
years ' to learn the language and make him free of the merchants '. In one 

* See ante, xxxv. 434-6. 



case only is a girl apprenticed to learn a trade, that of a wool-comber. On 
p. 53 a word occurs that is not found in the New English Dictionary, a ' jour- 
ney-maid ', evidently a variant for one of those ' charmaids ' whom the 
assembly was bent on driving into regular service. Of special interest are 
the entries which deal with the commercial relations between Southampton 
and foreign parts. Eight Southampton men joined the Spanish Company 
which received its charter in 1605, and of these, three were among the 
first assistants of the company. No fewer than twenty-five Southampton 
men joined the French Company formed in 1606. The Bristol merchants 
had refused to join, being suspicious of the ' politic devices of the merchants 
of London, who for their own singular gain do always seek to suppress 
our charters and privileges for trade of merchandise '. The Southampton 
merchants were doubtless afraid of being shut out of the French trade 
altogether if they held aloof from the new company. In the early seven- 
teenth century Southampton was one of the chief ports whence ships 
went to Newfoundland for fish and train oil. From Southampton in 1610 
Lord de la Warr set out on the voyage that was to ensure the prosperity 
of the Virginia settlement : he was already a burgess, and received a hogs- 
head of sack as a parting gift. The associations of Southampton with the 
Mayflower expedition naturally receive attention : the discussion whether 
the Mayflower of 16 tons mentioned in the mayor's accounts for 1610 is the 
Mayflower of the Pilgrim Fathers brings out some points of interest which 
supplement Mr. Marsden's article ' The Mayflower ' in this Review ^ and 
Dr. Rendel Harris's The Last of the Mayflower. Dr. Horrocks also discusses 
the connexion with Southampton of John Alden, and suggests that he may 
have been the son of George Alden of All Saints within the Bar, a fletcher 
or arrow-maker, whose name appears in the ' stall and art ' lists from 1587 
to 1620, and who may have died while the Mayflower and the Speedwell 
were lying in Southampton Water. In conclusion attention should be drawn 
to a very interesting note on p. 37, which for the first time makes it clear 
that Southampton sent one ship, the Angel, to serve against the Armada, 
under the captaincy of Lauraunce Prowse. C. A. J. S. 

The Mayflower Tercentenary has produced a number of pamphlets 
which add something to Mr. W. H. Burgess's Life of John Robinson. 
The most solid of these is Mr. Champlin Burrage's An Answer to John 
Robinson of Leyden by a Puritan Friend (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard 
University Press, 1920), printed from a manuscript of 1609 in the Bodleian 
Library. The arguments are what would be expected ; the interest 
lies in the allusions to Robinson's career at Norwich. His adversary, 
reproaching him for his secession from non-conforming Anglicanism, 
mentions some incidents of his preachership at St. Andrew's in that city. 
Dr. Rendel Harris has published four Souvenirs of the Mayflower Tercen- 
tenary, with facsimiles (Manchester : University Press, 1920), and 
Dr. Eekhof of Leyden University Three Unknown Documents concerning the 
Pilgrim Fathers in Holland (The Hague : Nijhoff, 1920), again with 
iacsimiles of signatures from notarial acts at Leyden. No doubt the 
importance of the event justifies this elaboration. E. 

1 Ante, six. 669 ff. 


148 SHORT NOTICES January 

In Le Marquis de Cavoye, 1640-1716 (Paris : Champion, 1920), M. Adrien 
Huguet gives us a very carefully written biography of ' un grand marechal 
de logis ' of Louis XIV's court. Cavoye's duties were to superintend the 
assignment of apartments at Versailles and at other places where the 
monarch might be in residence, a somewhat thorny task when some of 
those to whom they were assigned would consider their dignity com- 
promised by the difference of a few cubic feet of space or by the character 
of the view from the windows. In this task he had twelve assistants, 
each bearing as emblem of office 'a cane as a major does* (p. 287) or 
* a stick with a silver top '. A specially intricate duty was that of deciding 
whether, in chalking on the door the name of the person to whom an 
apartment had been assigned, the words ' Pour Monsieur un tel ' or 
simply ' Monsieur un tel ' should be inscribed, the former being reserved 
for princes of the blood, cardinals, and foreign princes, the latter for people 
of less exalted degree. On the whole, it is difficult to be patient with a book 
of this kind. It is infinitely better printed than most books of the present 
time and the paper is of pre-war standard. It is elaborately furnished 
with documents and includes beautifully clear reproductions of Cavoye's 
handwriting. In externals, it is a model of what a book should be. But 
the subject is totally unworthy of the elaborate care bestowed upon it, 
and one cannot imagine that any people other than the descendants of 
the marquis can really be interested in it. The book would be justifiable 
if printed for private circulation. It is not that M. Adrien Huguet is 
unversed in seventeenth-century French history, and, judging by the 
scholarly care lavished on this book, one would welcome from its author 
a monograph on a subject of greater interest or importance. F. 

Dr. William Crooke, C.I.E., has edited in three volumes, with an intro- 
duction and notes, Lieutenant-Colonel James Tod's Annals and Antiquities 
of Rajasthan (London : Milford, 1920). The two original volumes of Tod's 
Annals appeared in 1829 and 1832 and were dedicated to King George IV 
and King William IV respectively. For nearly a hundred years the work 
has held its place as the standard history of the Rajput states at the critical 
period when their relations with the British power were finally determined. 
It has been reprinted several times ; it appeared in a popular form in 
1914 ; and the great desideratum, a scholarly edition, is now supplied in 
the series of classical works on Indian subjects published by the Oxford 
University Press. In accordance with the general scheme of this series 
the text has been preserved almost entire, but it has been edited by a most 
competent authority, Dr. Crooke, whose introduction and notes enable 
the reader to distinguish between what is of permanent value in the Annals 
and what is now merely of interest as marking a stage in the progress of 
scholarship. Tod's historical and ethnographical views were in advance of 
the learning of his time, but they were necessarily speculative. A firm 
basis for early Indian history and for Indian ethnography had not yet been 
secured by the decipherment of the ancient inscriptions and by a compara- 
tive study of the physical characteristics, languages, and institutions of 
existing peoples. In the early years of the nineteenth century the Rajputs, 
situated between the spheres of influence of the Marathas and the British 


and enjoying the protection of neither, found themselves in danger of 
annihilation at the hands of the Pindari freebooters ; and in this plight 
they appealed to the British to abandon the policy of non-intervention and 
to assume that responsibility for the security of smaller states which 
appeared to be the manifest duty of a predominant power. In 1818 
Colonel James Tod was appointed political agent for the states of Western 
Rajputana, and for five years he acted as the guide and counsellor of the 
chiefs, and as the trusty mediator both in their internal feuds and in their 
dealings with the British. His zeal for their interests seems to have been 
regarded as somewhat excessive by his own government ; and in 1823 he 
retired to devote his energies to the work on which his fame now chiefly 
rests. His book preserves for us an intimate picture of a most interesting 
group of peoples — proud aristocratic classes whose geographical seclusion 
has enabled them to escape Muhammadan influence and to retain the 
ideals and even some of the institutions of the heroic age of India as 
depicted in the Sanskrit epics. E. J. R. 

' The purpose of this monograph ', says Dr. W. T. Morgan of his English 
Political Parties and Leaders in the Reign of Queen Anne, 1702-10 (New 
Haven : Yale University Press, 1920), ' is to ascertain the part played by 
Queen Anne in English politics during the period when Godolphin acted as 
her first minister, and to note the relative influence of the Marlboroughs, 
Harley, and Godolphin and the reasons for their downfall ' (p. 17). 
With regard to the queen the author's conclusion is that English 
historians have greatly underestimated both her ability and her influence 
(pp. 45, 186, 395), and he has no difficulty in finding quotations from 
modern writers to illustrate this thesis. On the other hand, he himself, 
confining his attention too exclusively to domestic affairs, is inclined to 
overstate the case for the queen. Sir A. Ward's article in the Dictionary 
of National Biography is a judicious summing-up of the question at 
issue. However, Dr. Morgan demonstrates that the political influence of 
the duchess of Marlborough was much less than is generally supposed, 
brings out the importance of Godolphin more clearly than most historians 
of the period, and traces the rise of Harley (by the aid of the Portland 
Manuscripts) with more fullness and exactness. He gives us also very good 
accounts of the general elections of 1702, 1705, and 1708. The chapter 
containing an account of ' Conditions in England in 1702 ' is less satis- 
factory. Those conditions are far better stated by Lecky in his analysis 
of the principles and composition of the whig and tory parties, and 
Dr. Morgan does not adequately discriminate between the authorities he 
employs, and cites sometimes with too much respect secondary works 
of slight value. There are also a number of small errors and slips. He 
quotes, for instance, Anne's letter complaining that ' Mr. Caliban ', 
as she terms William III, would not allow her to put her lodgings in 
mourning for her father, in support of a mistaken statement that William, 
already embittered against Anne, ' determined to punish her severely by 
refusing the usual formality of mourning at court for her son ' (p. 43). 
Again (p. 154), he refers to a letter of Anne's in the Godolphin Papers in 
the British Museum about Queensberry as evidence that she trusted him, 

160 SHORT NOTICES January 

when he really means the reverse, for the queen says ' it grates my soul 
to take a man into my service that has not only betrayed me, but tricked 
me several times '. There are other indications that the book has been 
somewhat hastily written and insufficiently revised. There are also more 
mistakes than there should be in the bibliographical notes which form 
the appendix. C. H. F. 

Dr. L. H. Gipson's Jared Ingersoll, a Study of American Loyalism in 
relation to British Colonial Government (New Haven: Yale University 
Press, 1920) is an excellent example of the new manner of approaching 
the problems of American colonial history. What American thirty years 
ago could have written as follows ? — 

Nevertheless, casting aside inherited ptejudices and the political opportunism of the 
older historians, both British and American, who demanded a scapegoat in order 
to interpret the history of this period, it is not clear how the Grenville program can be 
regarded other than a sincere and not unenlightened attempt to accomplish something 
of vast importance to the nation, which would have gone far towards making the 
British people, scattered as they were in 1765, ready to face any emergency . . . 
a premature step, taken in good faith, in the direction of realizing a federal system for 
the British Empire. 

With regard to the comparative burden of taxation in England and the 
American colonies, it is interesting to note that in Connecticut no colony 
taxes appear to have been collected between the years 1766 and 1770. 
The authenticity of Barre's speech in the house of commons on the Stamp 
Act has been sometimes questioned ; but it was heard by Ingersoll, who 
sent notes of it at once to America. Jared Ingersoll was an undoubted 
place-hunter, a convinced loyalist, and a stamp distributor imder the 
hated act ; and yet he succeeded in retaining the respect and affection of 
many who differed from him in politics ; and in 1777 he was living in 
a Philadelphian boarding-house on the best of terms with the redoubtable 
Samuel Adams. ' At the parting of the ways ', we are told, ' he sought 
the impossible — to go in both directions. A lonely and repudiated cham- 
pion of the old order of things which was passing away before his eyes 
never to return, he yet sought to adjust himself to the new conditions ', 
by offering advice with regard to the solution of the financial problem 
before the Continental Congress. He died in August 1781, some two 
months before the surrender of Yorktown, his funeral being attended 
' by the gentlemen of the town and a very large assembly '. It only 
remains to add that Dr. Gipson's book is based on a most careful investiga- 
tion of the authorities, in manuscript or printed, bearing on his subject. 

H. E. E. 

The Letters of Theophilus Lindsey (Manchester : University Press, 1920), 
which Dr. H. McLachlan has edited, make an interesting book on an 
episode of considerable importance. The Cambridge movement towards 
unitarianism, as it may fairly be called though one of the seceders 
was a student of Christ Church, had a close resemblance to the 
course, of the Oxford movement. Both were academic, and the earlier 
had even more support than the latter in its university. The master 
and all the resident fellows of Jesus joined in the petition to par- 


liament with which the movement cuhninated in 1772. The appeal was 
for relief from subscription to creeds and articles, and this book gives 
new information as to the opposition of Burke which was fatal to the 
demand. It also shows how there was the same division as to the course 
of duty as in the Oxford case. Some, among them Lindsey and Evanson, 
vicar of Tewkesbury, and the only one of the group who is now remem- 
bered as the pioneer in England of ' higher criticism ' of the Gospels, 
seceded ; others thought it their duty to remain. One, William Frend, 
exactly anticipated the fortunes of W. G. Ward. He claimed to hold 
unitarian doctrine while retaining his office, went to law, and was deprived 
of his degree and his tutorship, though on legal grounds he succeeded in 
retaining his fellowship. The seceders gave a new vigour to the com- 
munity they joined. The unitarianism of the English presbyterians was 
masked by their puritan antecedents. They made little use of the specific 
name ' unitarian ', which indeed was dangerous, since such belief excluded 
its professors from the benefits of the Toleration Act. They had, in fact, 
glided almost insensibly from Calvinism into their new position, and still 
wore their old trappings. Their new consorts breathed a fresh life into 
unitarianism. Their chapel in Essex Street, Strand, the first ever opened 
in England for the avowed purpose of unitarian worship, at once gained 
social importance. The duke of Grafton, who reformed his character after 
retiring from politics, was a regular member of the congregation, and the 
earl of Surrey, afterwards the eleventh duke of Norfolk, an occasional 
attendant. But the accession also brought a new spirit into unitarianism. 
Hitherto, in spite of the zeal of such men as Priestley, the temper had been 
that of a mild whiggery. Now, inspired by men who had cut themselves 
off from their whole past, the unitarians threw themselves into the causes 
of the American and French revolutions, and prepared themselves for 
the influence, far exceeding that of their numbers, which they were to 
exercise upon English politics in the time of the Reform Bill. This book 
shows how deep a moral earnestness underlay the agitations of such men 
as Fyshe Palmer, himself a seceder and formerly a fellow of Queens' 
College, Cambridge, whom Lindsey described as ' a second John Knox '. 

E. W. W. 

In The Senate and Treaties, 1789-1817 (New York : Macmillan, 1920), 
Mr. Ralston Hayden has made a lucid and interesting study of the part 
played by the senate in forming the foreign policy of the United States 
in these early years. The constitution vested the treaty-making power in 
the president, acting ' by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ', 
but did not define the manner in which the president and the senate 
were to co-operate in their common work. In this matter, as in so many 
others, Washington and his immediate successors were obliged to experi- 
ment, and the senate, too, had to feel its way until a procedure which 
guarded the constitutional powers of both and also worked efficiently in 
practice had been established. Should the president consult personally 
with the senate ? Washington made one attempt, but the result was not 
satisfactory. ' When Washington left the senate chamber he said he would 
be damned if he ever went there again.' Should the senate inquire in 

162 SHORT NOTICES January 

detail what proposals were to be embodied in a treaty ? This was found 
to be unwise, and it became established that ' the senate should not attempt 
to participate formally in treaty-making until after the process of 
negotiation had been completed '. Was the senate bound to ratify a treaty 
signed by American ministers in accordance with their instructions ? 
If so, and if it was not consulted till the negotiations were completed, its 
independent powers had gone ; but if not, and if it refused ratification, 
would it not make America guilty of a breach of faith and upset the usual 
practice of diplomacy ? The senate held to its constitutional powers and 
modified treaties the executive had negotiated, and foreign governments 
in time came to realize that the working of the American constitution 
was incompatible with the ordinary rule that a nation ratifies the treaties 
signed by its plenipotentiaries. The history of these decisions and of 
other relevant matters, such as the establishment of the senate committee 
on foreign relations, Mr. Hayden has elucidated in his able, concise, and 
fruitful study of this subject, and he has added considerably to the value 
of his work by a careful and critical description of the material he has 
used. E. A. B. 

It is now seventeen years since the first edition of Herr Max Lehmann's 
well-known Freiherr vom Stein was completed. It is an unfortunate sign 
of the times that the new edition in one volume (Leipzig : Hirzel, 1921) 
has had to be somewhat abbreviated, though mainly in the parts less 
directly relating to Stein's career, and to be published without foot-notes. 
For many readers it will thus be more convenient, but for serious students 
it does not supersede the earlier edition. G. 

In Pan- Americanism — its Beginnings (New York : Macmillan, 1920) 
Mr. Joseph Byrne Lockey traces the origins of this idea in the years of 
revolution and political reconstruction that followed the downfall of Spanish 
power in the new world. Some form of union between the revolting colonies 
of Spain would have been a not unnatural result of their past history and 
their common struggle for independence. But it was never realized, and 
the congress that met at Panama in 1826 to consider such a project 
completely disappointed the ardent hopes it had awakened. The idea of 
a wider union including all American states never entered practical 
politics. Latin America in these years looked as much to Great Britain 
for support and protection as to the United States. It received the 
declaration of President Monroe ' with no more than moderate enthu- 
siasm ', and scarcely welcomed the idea of the preponderance of the 
United States among the nations of the New World. In the United States 
itself, though opinion was divided about Latin America, and Henry Clay 
spoke of his country becoming ' the centre of a system which would 
constitute the rallying-point of human wisdom against the despotism of the 
Old World ', there was little inclination to enter any sort of alliance, 
much less a political union, with other American states. Nor would Great 
Britain, though she did not object to a Latin confederation, have approved 
of an American confederation opposed to Europe, with the United States 
at its head. Thus, though a sense of continental solidarity was born 


with the new states, it found no practical expression in these early years, 
and rather waned than increased in strength as the century progressed. 
Mr. Lockey writes clearly and pleasantly, drawing his information from 
newspapers, books, and pamphlets and carrying the story down to 1830. 

E. A. B. 

It sometimes comes about that a criminal trial which has neither 
psychological nor romantic nor exceptional legal interest may excite so 
much public attention as to deserve an historian. Such a case is that 
described in a recent volume of the Notable Trials Series, the Trial of 
Thurtell and Hunt (Edinburgh : Hodge, 1920). The editor, Mr. Eric K. 
Watson, gives, besides the report of the trial, a very full and careful 
introduction, appendixes of subsidiary documents, specimens of ballads, 
and good illustrations, including some new portrait drawings of the 
principal characters by Mulready. Mr. Watson might with advantage 
have indicated more clearly how the text of his report was put together, 
but he has evidently spared no pains to make it good. H. 

A Histary of Scotland written by an Englishman is a rare thing, and the 
work of Professor C. Sandford Terry (Cambridge : University Press, 1920) 
may claim to be unique ; it dismisses in one sentence the action at Bannock- 
burn. To the country of his adoption, however, the author is always 
generous, although he adheres rather to the school of Andrew Lang than 
to that of Hume Brown. Devoid of any desire to make Scotland rival 
the ' constitutionalism ' of England, he has set in its true light the impor- 
tance of the family in Scottish history, and the excellent genealogical 
tables with which his book is equipped will be a welcome aid to students ; 
detached from many of the old ' controversies ', he has produced a narra- 
tive, graced by many happy phrases, which moves rapidly and smoothly, 
and in which the principal events stand out clear. Not all his judgements, 
however, will command universal agreement, and it is possible that in 
some instances he has been unable to interpret correctly the spirit of the 
Scots. Their inclination towards prelacy at the close of the seventeenth 
century is probably exaggerated, and the covenanters receive rather hard 
measure. It is scarcely fair to suggest (p. 448) that field-preachers were 
attracted to their uncomfortable and dangerous calling by the hope of 
a livelihood ; nor did any presbyterian — least of all the guarded Wodrow — 
ever suggest that Satan administered the sacrament to a presbyterian 
congregation (p. 434). Incidentally, the cause of the ' curates ' would 
have been better served by the omission of all reference to the Keverend 
Gideon Penman, who was deprived for ' uncleanness and other crimes '. 
Dr. Terry's opinions, however, whether the reader agrees with them or 
not, wiU command respect, for his case is presented with great clarity 
and moderation ; but his accuracy is sometimes open to question. In the 
earlier part of his book, especially, errors have crept in. There was no college 
of St. Mary at St. Andrews (p. 96) before the sixteenth century. The act 
enjoining barons to send their sons to school belongs to the year 1496, 
not 1495 (p. 137). At the fight at Linlithgow in 1526 the Douglases and 
the Hamiltons were, for once, on the same side (p. 162). The portrait 

154 SHORT NOTICES January 

of George Wishart (p. 176) was penned, not by Knox, but by Tylney, 
although it is quoted by Laing in his edition of The Works of John Knox 
(vi. 671). Archbishop Hamilton's catechism was published in 1552, not 
1551 (p. 195). Andrew Melville was the uncle, not the brother, of James 
MelviUe (p. 278). J. D. M. 

Dr. Georg Brodnitz of the university of Halle is engaged in editing 
a series of handbooks of the economic history of the European nations. 
The first to appear is that dealing with English economic development 
in the middle ages, for which the editor is himself responsible, Englische 
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. i (Jena : Fischer, 1918). Origins of economic 
institutions and the early development of economic systems are considered 
briefly and perhaps, considering their complexity, rather inadequately. 
Thus the origin of the borough is very cursorily dismissed, while the 
difficult question of the origin of the customs, upon which Dr. Gras of 
Clark University, Mass., has worked for many years, has been almost 
ignored. It is true that Dr. Gras's important work upon the early English 
customs system only appeared in the same year as the volume before us, 
but it is to be regretted that Dr. Brodnitz did not make use of Dr. Gras's 
article upon the origin of the national customs revenue which was printed 
in the Quarterly Journal of Economics as early as 1912, and which throws 
an entirely new light on the subject. A few errors are only to be expected 
in so comprehensive a work ; the author has surely misunderstood 
Mr. Roimd's theory of knight service when he says (p. 196) that every fief 
has to hold in readiness ten knights for forty days' war service. He is 
thinking, no doubt, of the constabularia of ten knights which formed 
the basis of, but was not necessarily itself, the servitium debitum. Again, in 
spite of the convincing article by Mr. Stevenson ^ the triple burden imposed 
on the Anglo-Saxon freeman is still spoken of as the trinoda instead of 
the correct trimoda necessitas. The most valuable portion of the volume 
is that devoted to the beginning of English capitalism and the development 
of foreign trade in the later middle ages ; Dr. Brodnitz has entered more 
fully into this branch of his subject and has incorporated into his book 
the results of recent research both of English and foreign scholars. The 
usefulness of the book is greatly increased by the numerous references to 
authorities supplied in the foot-notes. A. L. P. 

Mr. E. Lipson's English Woollen and Worsted Industries (London : 
Black, 1921) is the first instalment of a new series of ' Histories of English 
Industries ' designed, according to the author's general preface, ' to meet the 
needs of Training Colleges, Continuation Schools, "Workers' Tutorial Classes, 
and all similar institutions in whose curriculum the serious study of Indus- 
trial History is given its proper place '. As the author of a valuable article 
on the sources of the medieval history of the woollen trade, Mr. Lipson 
has dealt with his subject in a scholarly manner, although the reader 
would sometimes welcome more detailed bibliographical indications and 
the references of the text to the ' bibliographical note ' in appendix ii 
can seldom be substantiated. The main lines of industrial develop- 

^ Ante, xxix. 689. 


ment come out with a clearness hardly yet reached by general histories 
even of the standard of the late Dr. Cunningham's or Sir William Ashley's. 
The part, for example, played by the great commercial companies of the 
first modern centuries in promoting both the importation of cotton goods 
and the exportation of undyed cloth would seem to throw much light on 
the repeated and general movements against company rule, although the 
remedies themselves in the age of mercantilism at first mostly took the 
shape of monopolies such as that of James I's friend Alderman Cockayne 
for the dyeing of cloth. The chapter on ' Processes and Inventions ' is on 
the whole a good popular account of a vast and intricate subject. With 
a view to the intended teaching of practical professions more attention 
might perhaps have been given to the latest progress, not only to the rise 
of la grande Industrie in the woollen trade. Here the very instructive 
chapter on the geographical distribution of the industries, as well as the 
closing remarks of the foregoing chapter on the wool supply, rather need 
bringing up to the threshold of the present time. C. B. 

In The Early History of the English Cotton Industry (Manchester : 
University Press, 1920), Mr. G. W. Daniels has written a model short 
monograph in economic history, to which are appended a biographical 
account and some unpublished letters of Samuel Crompton of great 
personal and local interest. In the body of the book, about 150 pages, 
light is thrown on the whole story of the indiistry before the machine age. 
Old Lancashire economic geography is elucidated with the aid of maps. 
The relations between the cotton mill and its precursor the silk-throwing 
mill are made clearer than ever before. The rather dusty controversies 
as to priority of inventions and the relative deserts of inventors are given 
a new freshness and interest. The much-maligned industrial revolution 
is set in a dry light ; and the still prevalent superstition that before it 
cotton-workers were either ' independent producers ' or cheerful persons 
who went singing from agriculture to the loom, is dealt with as it 
deserves. Professor Unwiri supplies a short but pregnant introduction. 

J. H. C. 

A book such as Professor H. M. Vinacke has given us in his Modern 
Constitutional Development in China (Princeton : University Press, 1920) 
is very welcome. In dealing with present-day politics, having little or no 
historical background, it is very difficult for an author to avoid partisan- 
ship. Writing on the subject treated in this work, he will have a natural 
tendency to incline, either to reprobation of so abrupt a departure from 
China's past history and ancient civilization, of the policy of the clean 
slate ; or to an enthusiastic welcome for the earliest of the recent batch 
of adherents to the ranks of republics. Professor Vinacke is, of course, 
a pronounced republican ; but he is not blind to the inadaptability of the 
Chinese nation to representative government. In this he shares the 
opinions of other American advisers to the Chinese government, such as 
Dr. Frank Goodnow (pp. 183 £E.) and Professor W. W. Willoughby (p. 260) ; 
and it is well known that a British adviser. Dr. G. E. Morrison, was sceptical 
of the sincere republicanism of the Chinese people in general. This 

156 SHORT NOTICES January 

narrative is, however, nowhere tinctured by the writer's own views, but 
is an unbiased, historical, and philosophical treatise on its subject ; only 
in his summary (p. 263) does he allow his own judgement to peer out. 

From an oriental despotism to a limited monarchy ; from monarchy to republicanism 
and back to monarchy for a day before the restoration of the Republic ; from a parlia- 
mentary Republic to a division into two States, each ruled by a group of irresponsible 
military chiefs, with the Parliament a dummy rather than a board of control ; such 
have been the political mutations in China during the past twenty years. After tracing 
constitutional development in modem China, seemingly we come back to our starting, 
point, semi-irresponsible government — certainly we do not find such a logical and 
ordered development into a democratic State as seemed to be indicated by the events 
of 1911-12. 

The conclusion of the whole narrative cannot be better expressed than in 
these words of the author ; but on a few unimportant points of detail, 
barely afEecting the main issue, some criticism may be made. Mr. Vinacke 
has the usual American tendency to exaggerate the importance of the open 
door (p. 50). The Szechwan rebellion of 1911 is ascribed (p. 101) to 
the deprivation of the Szechwan gentry of their ' squeeze ' on expenditure 
for railways. A much more probable cause is the prohibition of opium pro- 
duction. Tang Shao-yi was not a ' lieutenant ' (p. 109), nor a ' henchman ' 
(p. Ill), nor a ' follower ' (p. 130) of Yuen Shih-kai, but was his rival ; 
his position in Yuen's administration was that of JefEerson in Washington's, 
the leader of the radical party serving in the cabinet of the leader of the 
conservatives. Tang Shao-yi was the leader of the men of action, as Sun 
Yat-sen was of the idealists, among the Cantonese, who were the backbone 
of the radical republicans ; his true position is indicated (p. 134) by the 
fact that, when he resigned the premiership, he fled from Peking to the 
refuge of the foreign settlements at Tientsin, and thence to Shanghai. 
This book is an admirable piece of work, and it might be a permanent 
work of reference for the period were it not for the want of an index. 

H. B. M. 

Partisans of proportional representation will find many warnings 
against great expectations in Dr. Blaine F. Moore's History of Cumulative 
Voting and Minority Representation in Illinois, 1870-1919 (Urbana : 
University of Illinois, 1919). The system, introduced in 1870, of enabling 
each voter to cast as many votes for one candidate as there are representa- 
tives to be elected or to distribute his votes as he may think fit, has 
secured for the principal minority party in Illinois at least one-third of 
the members of the house of representatives and occasionally an actual 
majority. It has, however, increased what the author describes as ' machine 
control and party bossism '. It has not raised the general level of ability. 
By tending to make parties equally balanced, it has stimulated party 
bitterness, played into the hands of any group which can control the 
balance of power, and paralysed controversial legislation. G. B. H. 

The second instalment of Professor Burnam's work Palaeographia 
Iherica, Facsimiles de Manuscrits Espagnols et Portugais {IX'^-XV^ 
Siecles) (Paris : Champion, 1920), is, despite its faults, a contribution to 
our knowledge of Spanish manuscripts. Unlike Dr. C. U. Clark's Col- 


lectanea His-panica} it includes Portuguese as well as Spanish manuscripts, 
and manuscripts written in ordinary minuscule as well as those written in 
Visigothic. It also differs from Dr. Clark's work in that its plates reproduce 
the manuscripts in the original size, which renders them useful to the 
palaeographer. Unfortunately the work still suffers from the serious 
defects pointed out on the appearance of the first fascicule. ^ It is still 
difficult to discern a plan in the selection and arrangement of the material. 
Thus, plate i, for example, gives us a specimen of Visigothic script of the 
ninth century and of Gothic script of the fifteenth. The description of the 
plates is uneven and inadequate. There is no uniformity in the titles of 
the plates : Latin, French, Spanish, and Portuguese titles occur. Plate 
XX vi has the wrong title. Plate xxxix, assigned to the fifteenth century, is 
incorrectly dated 1146 in the description. Dates are assigned to the plates 
without any reason given in the description. Important abbreviations 
characteristic of the Visigothic script are overlooked, while trite and 
unimportant symbols are mentioned. A form of r and n in combination, 
typical of Visigothic writing, is unnoticed, but perfectly useless and 
meaningless combinations {lettres liees) are painfully enumerated. One is 
amazed at the alphabetically arranged lists of ligatures which serve no 
purpose whatever save as exercises in proof-reading. On p. 106 no less 
than 163 lettres liees are enumerated. Such industry is not merely fruitless ; 
it is wasteful, considering the cost of paperand printing. There arenota few 
errors in transcription. That of plate xxxi, a facsimile of great interest, 
has no less than six : on p. 119, 1. 2, ' terras ' should be read ' terras ' ; 
1.8,' nobis donavit ' (not ' tibi dotavit ') ; 1. 11, ' de eclesia ' ; 1. 13, 
' qwicqwid ' ; 1. 14, ' fontaujia '. Of the twenty plates in this fascicule, 
seven show Visigothic writing, the rest the ordinary minuscule current 
in Europe between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. Most of the 
manuscripts reproduced contain works of patristic and monastic interest. 
Five facsimiles are from manuscripts written in the vernacular. The 
plates are in collotype and excellently done. ' E. A. L. 

The famous generalization of Thorold Rogers that ' from the earliest 
times wheat has been the principal grain on which the English have 
lived ' 3 is attacked in Sir William Ashley's article, ' The Place of Rye in 
the History of English Food' {Economic Journal, September 1921), with 
a heavy battery of evidence collected from various sources and from every 
century from the thirteenth to the eighteenth, and this article goes a 
long way towards proving the contention of Lord Ernie that in medieval 
England rye was the chief bread-stuff of the peasantry and the chief grain - 
crop on the holdings of manorial tenants.* To review the new arguments 
would be to transcribe Sir William Ashley's pages. Perhaps it will be more 
useful to supplement them by a few scraps of additional evidence. The 
Tax Assessment of 1283 for the Hundred of Blackbourne in Suffolk con- 
tains particulars of the stocks of grain held by manorial tenants : the total 

* The first instalment of this work appeared in 1912: see ante, xxiz. 121-3. 

* Ante, xxxvi. 463-6. 

* J. E. Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1906 edition), p. 59. 

* R. E. Prothero, English Farming Past and Present (1912 edition), p. 8. 

158 SHORT NOTICES January 

of siligo is 1,336 quarters and that oi frumentum only 955 quarters.^ At 
the same time a few individuals who can be identified as nativi are found 
with stocks of wheat and no rye or with larger stocks of wheat than of 
rye.2 Again, though the usual preponderance of wheat over rye on demesne 
has been abundantly confirmed by evidence which has been printed since 
Rogers's day, there are exceptions to the rule. For example, in 1208-9 
the acreage under rye exceeded that under wheat on two of the bishop of 
Winchester's manors, or on six manors out of thirty-two, if one counts 
mancorn and rye together. In 1299-1300 mancorn and rye had a larger 
acreage than wheat on four manors, out of forty-two ; but in 1396-7 an 
excess of mancorn and rye is only found on two manors out of forty-three.^ 
One or two points in Sir William Ashley's article may be criticized. He 
suggests that rye is mentioned before wheat in the list of grains given in 
the anonymous Hosebonderie because of its greater practical importance. 
Surely the order is simply determined by the yield : barley comes first 
because it should yield eightfold, and the rest come in descending order 
of expected yield. Secondly, I doubt whether Rogers's omission of * all 
notices of inferior grain ' is important : probably he only meant curallum 
or small corn. In connexion with Sir William Ashley's suggestion that 
frumentum may not always mean wheat, it may be well to remember that 
silligo or sigalum possibly means a mixture of barley and rye in the 
Winchester Pipe Roll of 1208-9.* It is a pity that Sir William Ashley 
has not related his new evidence to the arguments advanced in Steffen's 
criticism of Rogers's theory. StefEen considers that Rogers's argument is 
quite unsound, but sees rather more truth in his conclusions than Sir William 
Ashley allows, though he would largely modify those conclusions and makes 
important distinctions between different periods.^ There is no doubt, 
however, that Sir William Ashley's article is a most important contribu- 
tion to English economic history ; and it is greatly to be hoped that he 
will continue his researches into this very interesting question. R. L. 

The Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society for 1920 (London : 
Baptist Union Publication Department) are reduced to half their usual 
size, but contain much that is interesting. The longest article, ' A Con- 
scientious Objector of 1575 ', gives at full length an unprinted controversy 
between William White, a puritan of the ordinary type, and an unknown 
' S. B.', an English anabaptist, from ' The Second Part of a Register ' in 
Dr. Williams's library. White was a baker, S. B. a carpenter. Both were 
well furnished with scriptural and other materials for controversy, and their 
debate, if tedious, is instructive. The puritan speaks deferentially of that 
* godly father ', Calvin ; the anabaptists for him are a ' poor deceived 
sect '. S. B. is not sparing in his retorts. Unlike the later English 
Baptists, he regards all warfare as unchristian ; among the forbidden 

» Edgar Powell, A Suffolk Hundred in the Year 1283 (1910), pp. xxx-xxxi. 
" The cases I have noticed were at Elmswell, see ibid. p. 82 and Table 8. 
» N. S. B. Gras, Evolution of the English Corn Market (1915), pp. 261, 263, 267. 
♦ Hubert Hall, Pipe Roll of the Bishopric of Winchester (1903), p. xxv. 
' Gustaf F. Stiffen, Studien zur Geschichte der Englischen Lohnarbeiter (1901), 
Bd. I, pp. 231-48. 


trades that are being practised are those of bowyers and fletchers. The 
occasion of the controversy was the arrest on Easter day, 1575, of twenty- 
seven Dutch anabaptists at their worship, two of whom were burned in 
Smithfield, the rest being banished save a few who recanted. Dr. Albert 
Peel's learned notes give much information about the beginning of Baptists 
in England. There is a useful article on dissent in Worcestershire in the 
seventeenth century, which would have been improved had the writer 
been more familiar with the general history of the time. There is also 
a good paper on Baptists in the colonies till 1750, which shows how they 
were persecuted in New England like the Quakers, and traces the influence 
of Welsh and German immigrants. The writer says that ' every German 
Baptist community crossed the ocean, leaving none at all in their former 
land '. This was in response to Penn's invitation, and refers to Baptists 
strictly so called, and not to the Mennonites. I. 

Mr. Egerton Beck's article in The Month which we noticed in our last 
number^ has been followed by a controversy, partly public and partly 
private, for which we must refer our readers to More Roman Catholic 
History (London : Simpkin, Marshall, 1921), which is no. 15 of Dr. Coulton's 
Medieval Studies. J. 

Professor Jorga continues the publication of both the Rumanian 
Academy's Bulletin de la Section Historique ^ and the Bulletin de VInstitut 
pour VEtude de VEurope Sud-Orientale, the former of which is in its ninth 
and the latter in its eighth year. While the latest number of the former, 
'that for the first half of 1921, contains an interesting article by M. Demetre 
Onciul on ' The Phases of the Historical Development of the Rumanian 
People and State ', the latter, which is invaluable for all students of Balkan 
history and politics, has in its latest monthly issue for August-September 
1921 some interesting data from Professor Guyon's Balcanica on the 
history of Albanian immigration into southern Italy from 1448 to 1774. 

W. M. 

Amongst the articles in recent numbers of Bijdragen voor Vaderlandsche 
Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, three of Professor Blok's deserve notice. 
In the first (V® Reeks, Deel vii) he vindicates the claim of William the 
Silent to be regarded as the founder of the Union of Utrecht ; in the 
same volume he gives an account of the education of William III from 
1659 to 1662, and in Deel viii he deals with the captivity of Philip William 
of Orange in Spain. In the former volume Dr. A. C. Bouwman discusses 
the earliest charters of the abbey of Marienweerd, which belong to the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Mr. J. E. Elias continues his naval 
articles. In a long article of which there is one part in each volume, 
Dr. J. S. Theissen analyses the attitude of the republic in the year 1684, 
emphasizing especially the difficulties and shortcomings of the constitution. 
^ - G. N. C. 

The Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis published in Groningen has com- 
pleted its thirty-sixth volume, but its form has been much changed since 
» Ante, xxxvi. 628. * Ante, xxix. 618; xxx. 758; xxxi. 528; xxxvi. 310. 

160 SHORT NOTICES January 1922 

the omission in 1920 of the further words in its title Land- en Volkenkunde. 
It now deals with history alone, but with all periods and aspects of 
history. Professor Otto Cartellieri describes in the German language 
the knightly games at the Burgundian court in 1468 ; Dr. J. J. Salverda 
de Grave has an article on Dante, and Dr. M. Engers on Egypt under the 
Ptolemies. The most important contribution to Dutch history is Dr. W. S. 
Unger's article on the medieval government of the town of Middelburg. 
There are a number of reviews of books and of articles in periodicals. 
Some of the latter take the form of summaries of such length that they 
appear to us likely to be of use mainly to those who are unable to read 
the languages in which the articles originally .appeared. K. 

It is with pleasure that we welcome the first number of Historische 
Blatter, the conjoint venture of the learned officials of the Viennese 
Staatsarchiv and of the enterprising Rikola Verlag. Amongst the con- 
tents of this number, sixth in order of the nine articles but first in interest, 
is a survey of European politics from 1812 to the first peace of Paris 
(part of the introduction to his projected history of the congress of Vienna), 
by the lamented Professor Fournier, a masterly survey, composed with 
his wonted grace and dignity of style. Noteworthy letters from the Arch- 
duke John on Austria and the Sonderbund are printed by Dr. Winkler, 
while (again from the Staatsarchiv) Professor Stern throws light on Wit 
von Dorring's headship of Rechberg's press bureau. The middle ages, 
too, are not ignored with Dr. Otto Cartellieri's pleasing ' Ritterspiele am 
Hofe Karls des Kiihnen von Burgund ' ^ and Dr. Schneider's note on the 
right interpretation of the Dantean tedeschi lurchi, while with v. Below's 
' Das Verhaltnis der deutschen Geschichtschreibung zur Romantik und zu 
Kegels Philosophic ' we enter on another sphere. Here one might perhaps 
observe that the new publication may prove to have too wide an arc of 
fire : it is doubtful what good is served by reprinting Steinacker's ' tenden- 
cious ' address on the historical necessities of German policy or indeed by 
including Dr. Alexander Cartellieri's careful analysis of Bourdon's L'enigme 
allemande of 1913. We hope that future issues will contain articles similar 
to those which form, for example, nos. 15 and 23 of the Mittheilungen 
der Koniglich Preussischen Archivverwaltung, different though the scheme 
of this latter series be. One such contribution the present issue contains 
in Dr. Szekfii's ' Die ungarische Geschichtsforschung und die Wiener 
Archive ', in which we learn with interest of the recent establishment of 
the Hungarian Historical Institute in Vienna, and in which (at pp. 160-1) 
the writer might have found a parallel in the archival relations of Ireland 
with the English seat of government. C. S. B. B. 

* This is distinct from the same author's article in the Tijdschrift voor Ckschiedenis 
noticed above, though the titles, as given in the tables of contents, are the same. 

i HE hNGLISH v--'-'^ ^"'s-:^ 

,.(-7X1 .Ya^.TiH'// 
iBq»2 ni aqsnt ti rfiiW .aiiqma malaaW artt bna '^fneimaO ,111 amuloV 

'" " ' ' ' '-"^ 

rf.iiw I)?b 
tol noiiii 

Historical Review 

.ssmdlov n3J rA .?. .H .1 : H VA >T r <. . M . /I 

NO. CXLVI.— APRIL 1922 * 

Z)^^ Sheriffs and the Administrative 

System of Henry I ^^-tot^.tM 

THE lay officials employed by William the Conqueror, whether 
in central government or in ruling the shires, were regularly 
of baronial status. These were not the only officials, for there 
was an important group of curial bishops, and a force of trained 
clerks was utilized in the work of the chancery, if not also in that 
of the treasury. But the dominant element in early Norman 
administration in England was baronial. The first apparent 
impulse in an opposite direction may be due to the feudal 
disorders of the reign of William Rufus. At any rate it is clear 
that this king appointed some special agents to carry into effect 
his novel measures and policies. By 1106, the date of the battle 
of Tinchebrai, the second generation of the feudal nobility in 
which the Conqueror placed dependence had in no small measure 
proved wanting. The barons who loyally supported Henry I 
in the early and troublous years of his reign seem to have enjoyed 
his undying favour. They remained a powerful influence in 
government. In numerous instances, however, their sons did not 
attain the same position. The new men, who aided the king at 

, the crisis of the reign, and who sometimes acquired the confiscated 

' lands of the rebels, henceforth became more and more prominent. 
Within twenty years a remarkable circle of these persons held the 

, great offices of state and at the same time served as sheriffs, 
a combination of functions which had not been infrequent in 
the days of baronial control. The best illustration, therefore, 
of the change from the earlier to the later type of administrative 
staff is afforded by the personnel of the shrievalty in the reign of 

i Henry Beauclerc. 

Before Tinchebrai, as indeed in the Conqueror's time, one 


* All rights reserved. 


finds the names of obscure sheriffs ; ^ but well after 1100 the 
heads of a dozen shires were still either sheriffs of the Domesday 
period or their sons. William of Cahagnes was in office in the 
earliest years of the reign,^ Roger Bigod apparently until his 
death in 1107,^ Edward of Salisbury possibly until about the 
same date,* Urse d'Abetot some years longer,^ and Aiulf the 
king's chamberlain until fairly late in the reign. ^ Devon, formerly 
in the hands of William, son of Baldwin of Exeter, about 1107 
was passing to his brother Richard fitz Baldwin.' Haimo the 
dapifer and Robert, * sons of Haimo the dapifer of the Conqueror, 
for fifteen years or more served as sheriffs of Kent. In the place 
of Robert of Stafford was his son Nicholas, ^ and in that of Hugh 
de Port in Hampshire his son Henry.^'' Ivo de Grantmesnil 
probably held his father's position in Leicestershire ^^ until in 
1102 he suffered forfeiture for his rebellion. Finally, another 
hereditary shrievalty had towards the end of the late reign 

* These include ' P.', sheriff of York before 1104 (Monasticon, vi, part iii, 1178) ; 
Roger, sheriff of Huntingdon {Ramsey Chartvl., Rolls Series, i. 238), who may well 
be the same as Roger, sheriff of Surrey (Farrer, Itiiverary of Henry I (1920), no. 86) ; 
Helgot, sheriff of Nottingham before 1108 (Blythe Chart., Harl. MS. 3759, fo. 120); 
Alfred of Essex {Cartvl, Monast. S. lohannis de Colecestre, p. 27 ; Chron. Monast. de 
Abingdon, ii. 57-60) ; William of Oxford {ibid. ii. 84, 93), who was a tenant-in-chief 
(Farrer, no. 302); Foucher, sheriff of Shropshire {ibid. nos. 38, 51); Roger Picot 
of Northumberland {Monasticon, vi. 144), who stands in place of Robert Picot, 
sheriff in 1095 (Davis, Regesta, no. 51). Geoffrey, sheriff of Buckingham {Monasticon, 
i. 165), may belong to this period, but possibly only to the preceding reign. Richard 
son of Gotse, sheriff of Nottingham {Monasticon, vi, part iii, 1179), and apparently 
of Derby also (Farrer, no. 38), is a better-known figure. 

' Farrer, Itinerary, nos. 44, 123. The succeeding sheriff of Northamptonshire, 
Robert de PaviUe, is mentioned between 1104 and 1106 {ibid. no. 147). 

^ A writ of the period 1102-6 {Ramsey Chartvl., Rolls Series, i. 249) shows that he 
was sheriff of Suffolk ; the form of address in various writs (Farrer, Itinerary, nos. 78, 
79) indicates that in 1 105 he also held Norfolk. 

* See ante, xxvi. 490. Active at the curia as early as 1170 {Selby Coucher Book, 
i. 11-12; Monasticon, iii. 499), and still earlier if we accept Hist. Monast. Selebiensis, 
p. 9. Cf. p. 164, n. 6, below. 

' Roger, his son and successor, was sheriff of Worcestershire at some time 1110- 
September 1113 (Farrer, no. 290 a). 

* Domesday sheriff of Dorset, holding Somerset also in the preceding reign {ante, 
xxxiii. 151, n. 48) ; sheriff of both counties in this reign before the death of Urse 
d'Abetot {Monasticon, i. 44, no. 67). Cf. p. 167, n. 2, below. 

' Certainly sheriff in 1107 {Montacute Chartvl., Somerset Record Soc, p. 121), 
hardly in 1100 (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 32). 

* Haimo appears as sheriff quite early in the reign {Monasticon, i. 164, no. 14; 
Farrer, no. 21), also within the period July 1107-July 1108 and in the period 1114-16 
(Farrer, nos. 202, 359) ; Robert at some time within the period 1103-9 (Round, 
Calendar o J Docs, in France, no. 1377). 

* Sheriff in the preceding reign (Davis, no. 456), mentioned as in office in a docu- 
ment possibly as late as 1117 {Monasticon, vi, part ii, 1043, no. 7). 

>• Davis, nos. 377, 379 ; Round, Calendar, no. 154 ; Farrer, no. 37. Cf. p. 165, 

" Bateson, Leicester Records, p. xiii ; Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Prevost, iv. 169 : 
' municeps erat et vicecomes et firmarius regis.' 


fallen to Walter of Gloucester, who was destined to hold it about 
twenty years longer and to become the king's constable.^ 

Even before 1106 the king had counteracted the influence 
of baronial officials of doubtful or more than doubtful loyalty 
by the employment of new men. At least two sheriffs who owed 
all to the royal favour were a heritage from the reign of William 
Rufus, and both continued to rise. Osbert, formerly known as 
the priest, retained the shrievalty of Lincolnshire, and before 
1107 was also entrusted with that of Yorkshire.^ His marked 
material prosperity ^ and his tenure in both these positions 
until his death show that he enjoyed the king's especial favour. 
Hugh of Buckland, an important curial, justice, and sheriff of 
Berkshire and Bedfordshire before the close of the late reign,* 
was much esteemed by the king, and before Tinchebrai held 
in addition to these counties at least four others, including the 
shrievalty of London and Middlesex.^ It is possible that the 
remaining two of the eight attributed to him a little later are to 
be counted also at this time, but there is no certainty as to their 
identity. Richard de Belmeis, who despite his earlier employ- 
ment in the service of Robert of Belesme ® remained loyal to the 
king in 1102, was made administrator of the Shropshire palatinate 
after its forfeiture and placed in a position which is described 
both as that of steward ' and of sheriff. His elevation in 1108 
to the see of London and his appearance among the king's great 
officials ® are further proofs of his standing at court. 

The period between 1106 and 1110 was marked by the rise 
of several more sheriffs of the same class and by the displacement 

* Mentioned as sheriff in this period (Farrer, nos. 277, 290 a ; Chron, Monast. 
de Abingdon, ii. 106) and as constable in 1115 (Farrer, no. 361). 

2 SdhyCoucher Book, i. 27-8. 

* For his grant to Selby Abbey see Selby Coucher Book, i. 6-7 ; Farrer, Early 
Yorkshire Charters, i. 355. He was sometimes a witness to the king's writs. 

* Chron. Monast. de Abingdon, ii. 43 ; Davis, no. 395. 

' Hertfordshire in 1106 or 1107 {Liber Eliensis, p. 298) ; Essex at Christmas, 1100 
(Farrer, Itinerary, no. 32 ; of. Monasticon, i. 164, no. 15, and vi. 105) ; Buckingham- 
shire before 1107 [Chron. Monast. de Abingdon, ii. 106-7; cf. 98, 99), certainly by 
1104 ; London and Middlesex before the summer of 1107 {ibid. ii. 56), possibly as early 
as 1103 (Round, no. 1377), clearly before William of Mortain suffered forfeiture after 
Tinchebrai (St. Albans Chartulary, Cotton MS., Otho D. iii, fo. 73); 

* Anrudes Monastici, Rolls Series, ii. 43. 

' Brut y Tyivysogion, Aimo 1106 ; Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Prevost, iv. 275. According 
to Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, ii. 193, he was the successor of Rayner, the 
Domesday sheriff. It is probable, then, that Foucher, the sheriff of 1102, was his 
subordinate, and indeed both sheriffs are named in Monasticon, vi, part ii, 1043. 
Farrer, Itinerary, no. 437, possibly shows Bishop Richard in control as late as 1121. 
Owen and Blakeway, Hist, of Shrewsbury, i. 73, n. 2, make Payn fitz John his successor. 
Fulco is named as sheriff in the period 1120-2 (Farrer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p. 272). 

* As one of the judges who sat at the treasury at Winchester {Chron. Monast. de 
Abingdon, ii. 116). He had been reeve of Chichester in 1107 (Farrer, Itinerary 
no. 106). 



of some of the baronial sheriffs in shires which they had long held. 
Gilbert the knight, whose shrievalty in Surrey begins not later 
than 1107, in 1110 had also the counties of Cambridge and 
Huntingdon.^ Hugh of Leicester, the seneschal of Matilda, 
daughter of Earl Simon of Senliz, in her widowhood, is repre- 
sented as sheriff and also as benefactor of the church at Daventry 
in Northamptonshire.^ Hugh almost certainly held the shrievalty 
of Northamptonshire before the death of Earl Simon in 1109,^ 
and apparently held that of Warwickshire by about 1108.^ His 
surname, moreover, indicates that he was best known as sheriff 
of a third county, which he is known to have held at some time 
after 1109 and before 1120.^ Indeed he may have been made 
sheriff of Leicester, through the influence of Robert of Meulan, not 
long after the disgrace of the Grantmesnils. Other baronial 
shrievalties had vanished, one in Wiltshire by 1107,^ and another 
in Hampshire by 1110. At the latter date William of Pont de 
I'Arche, already prominent in the king's curial service, held both 
counties.' Since Hugh of Buckland is mentioned in the tenth 
year of the reign as sheriff of his eight shires,^ it seems, clear, 
therefore, that no less than seventeen shires were at that date 
under the control of six of the king's trusted agents, who were all 
new men. 

This high centralization, obviously the result of unusual 
stress, was probably soon relaxed somewhat, for in the lifetime of 
Hugh of Buckland another sheriff is mentioned in Hertfordshire.* 
Certainly this was the case after his death and that of Osbert, 
both of which seem to have occurred in 1115.^^ Fewer counties 
were now likely to be controlled by one person, and a succession 
of sheriffs of lesser rank becomes traceable in various localities. 
In Oxfordshire alone do sheriffs of some rank seem to supersede 
obscure persons. Here Thomas of St. John and Richard de Monte, 

> Farrer, Itinerary, nos. 252, 267 ; Round, Commune of London, pp. 121-3. 
Sheriff of Surrey before the death of Roger Bigod (Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, pp. 141-2 ; 
Westminster Chartul., Cotton MS., Faustina A. iii, fo. 67). 

^ MoTMSticon, V. 178-9 ; cf. Farrer, Itinerary, no. 311. 

' Monaaticon, vi, part iii, 1273, no. 33 ; cf. Farrer, Itinerary, no. 219. 

* He seems to be the ' H. sheriff of Warwick ' of Monasticon, vi, part ii, 1043, no. 4. 
His son Ivo in 1130 held land of the earl of Warwick {Pipe Roll, 1130, p. 108) in 

* After the death of Earl Simon and while Geoffrey Ridel was living : Chartul. 
of St. Andrews, Northampton, Cotton MS., Vespasian E. xvii. fo. 17 d. 

' Walter Hosate by this date (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 173) holds the old shrievalty 
of Edward of Salisbury. 

' Ante, XXXV. 392, no. 25. He was employed upon the king's special business in 
Hampshire by W06, possibly by 1103 (ibid. p. 391, nos. 21, 23). 

* Chron. Monast. de Abingdon, ii. 117. 

* Rannulf, Matthew Paris, vi. 36 ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 361. 

" Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, ii. 305-6 ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 361 ; Robinson, 
Gilbert Crispin, p. 138. 


who on occasion appear at the great curia, alternately and for 
at least one year jointly,^ held the office for approximately the 
whole of the decade following 1 107. But the number of hereditary 
shrievalties held by great barons continued to decline despite the 
well-known succession in Worcestershire, first of the son, then of 
the son-in-law of Urse d'Abetot.^ Well before 1120 Kent had 
passed from the family of Haimo and was in the hands of William 
of Eynesford, distinctly a man of the new order.^ William 
Bigod, who succeeded his father as dapifer,* was made sheriff of 
Suffolk and probably of Norfolk ^ also in recognition of the 
services of the elder Bigod. Yet before William went down with 
the White Ship in 1120 both of these counties had been held by 
two other sheriffs of good family but of lesser rank.^ Nicholas 
of Stafford, although called by the title of sheriff in 1130,' could 
not have held the ancestral office for seven years preceding that 
date.^ In all these, as in the two earlier cases, the son of a Domes- 
day sheriff in his lifetime ^ made way for a member of the new 
ruling circle. Moreover Aiulf the chamberlain was after a time 
superseded in Dorset and Somerset. By 1123, at the latest, only 
three sheriffs of the older type remained. Walter of Gloucester 
in Gloucestershire, Walter de Beauchamp in Worcestershire, and 
Richard fitz Baldwin in Devon each held the county ruled by 
two of his family before him, Richard, like his successor of 1128- 
30, appears also to have held Cornwall.^" 

* Thomas was sheriff first. As to his possessions in England and Normandy, see 
Pipe Roll, p. 3, and Round, Calendar, no. 724. The joint shrievalty was in the eleventh 
year of the reign {Chron. Monast. de Abingdon, ii. 119). Richard was sheriff for several 
years after this (ibid. pp. 89, 120), then apparently Thomas again (Farrer, Itinerary, 
no. 316). 

2 See Diet, of Nat. Biog., s.n. ' Urse d'Abetot '. Walter de Beauchamp, the successor 
of Urse's banished son Roger, was placed in possession of the lands of the latter 
possibly as early as 1114 (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 28024, fo. 149 ; Farrer, Itinerary, 
no. 335), clearly by 1116 (ibid. no. 319). 

^ Sheriff of London at some time during the reign (Chron. Ramsey Abbey, Rolls 
Series, p. 249) ; mentioned as sheriff of Kent in a writ possibly as early as 1114 (Elm- 
ham Hist. Monast. Sti. Avgustini, Rolls Series, pp. 365-6), and according to Farrer's 
chronology (Itinerary, nos. 385, 386, 554) sheriff both in 1118 and 1127. 

* Monasticon, v. 148. 

Ramsey Chartvl., Rolls Series, i. 245, 249. 

* Ralph de Beaufeu preceded Robert fitz Walter (Ramsey Chron., p. 267), whose 
shrievalty may date as early as 1114 (Chartul. of St. Benet's Holme, Cotton MS., 
Galba E. ii, fo. 31). 

' Pipe Roll, p. 82. » Below, p. 168. 

* Haimo the dapifer was only recently deceased in 1130 (Pipe Roll, pp. 64, 66) 
and his brother Robert was still living (pp. 95, 97). Walter of Salisbury, son of 
Edward, is mentioned at that date, and Henry de Port was a royal justice holding 
pleas at Dover (Pipe Roll, p. 65). 

*» ' H. rex Angliae Willelmo episcopo Exoniae et Ricardo filio Bald' vicecomiti 
et omnibus iidelibus suis de Devescira et Cornwall ' : Inspeximus of 22 Edward I in 
Cotton MS. xvii. 7, part ii (before 1118). Mr. Round has shown that just prior to 
1130 Richard acted as an itinerant justice (ante. xiv. 420-2). 


For almost two decades following 1110 the usual difficulties 
attending the study of the sheriff are very much increased. But 
despite the paucity of documents and the increasing use at the 
chancery of a form of writ which mentions sheriffs only by title 
and not by name, some rather striking data are attainable. If the 
long tenure and wide authority of Gilbert the knight are without 
parallel, it is more than a coincidence that William of Pont de 
I'Arche, who rose to high position through administrative service, 
governed in the fiscal year 1127-8 the same two shires ^ which were 
in his charge seventeen years before. Moreover the Radulf 
vicecomes, witness of a confirmation made to Abingdon by the 
count of Meulan in the eighth year of the reign, seems to be 
Ralph Basset, a vicinus and especial friend of this monastery ^ 
and a prominent official at the curia. It is quite possible that he 
is Ralph the sheriff of Warwickshire, predecessor of Greoffrey de 
Clinton, who at some time about 1125 witnessed a grant of the 
latter to Kenilworth, although in one of the charters of the same 
series the name of the sheriff of this county is Roger. ^ Hugh of 
Leicester in 1129, as in earlier years, was in possession of the shires 
of Northampton and Leicester.* He seems to be the same 
person as Hugh de Warelville who held these counties until 
Easter 1130.^ He had for a time acted as sheriff of Lincolnshire.^ 
Moreover in the Pipe Roll of 1130 Hugh de Warelville accounted 
for Sussex.'' There is no doubt that Robert fitz Walter, a tenant- 
in-chief, was sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk for nearly, if not quite, 
fifteen years before 1 129.® Odard of Bamborough, who held of the 
king a barony in his own county,^ occupied the same position 
in Northumberland for as long a period,^" probably retaining office 
until his death just before 1133. Warin, who may have been an 

' In 1130 (Pipe Roll, p. 36) he still appears as sheriff of Hampshire, accounting for 
the old farm and for the auxilium civitatis of the third year before (p. 40 ; cf. Farrer, 
Itinerary, no. 551). The princely sums still due to the king in Wiltshire identify him 
as William the predecessor (Pipe Boll, p. 16) of Warin in that shrievalty (Farrer, 
Itinerary, nos. 350, 418), and link the earlier and later periods of his tenure there. 

^ Chron. Monaet. de Abingdon, ii. 103 ; cf. pp. 105, 170, 188. He was in King 
Henry's service before 1103 (ibid.). 

* Monasticon, vi. 221 ; Collections for a Hist, of Staffordshire (William Salt Arch. 
Soc), ii. 195. 

* Pipe Roll, p. 81. 

* Ibid., p. 85. 

* Ante, xxiii. 725, no. 2 ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 464 ; Collections for a Hist, of 
Staffordshire, ii. 203. In 1130 Hugh paid a sum which he stiD owed (Pipe Roll, p. 81) 
pro separatione comitatus Lincolniae. 

' The sheriff of this county at a time prior to December 1125 was William fitz 
Ang' : Reg. de BeUo (Exch. Misc. Books, Augmentation Office, no. 56, fo. 66 a). 

* Sheriff in the period 1114-16 (Chron. Ramsey Abbey, p. 267); in office imtil 
Michaelmas 1129 (Pipe Roll, p. 90) ; mentioned at many intermediate points. 

' Round, Ancient Charters, Pipe Roll Soc. Publications, x. 33. 
>• Sheriff in 1115 or 1116 (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 346) and also appearing in the Pipe 
Roll of 1130. 


exchequer official,^ succeeded Aiulf in Dorset before 1118 and in 
Somerset by 1123.^ During the fiscal year 1128-9 he held 
Wiltshire as a third county.^ William of Eynesford was employed 
for a long term which was divided between various counties.* 
Aubrey de Vere, heir of a Domesday landholder and chamberlain, 
was sheriff of London and Middlesex probably before 1113 ^ and 
as late as 1120 ; also of Essex, presumably in the years just 
preceding 1128.^ He and Robert fitz Walter were probably the 
only sheriffs of this group who could make pretensions to being of 
good family. Maenfinin Brito, sheriff of the counties of Bedford 
and Buckingham from 1125 to 1129,' was a rising person who had 
probably acquired considerable possessions. Even excluding the 
various sheriffs of London ^ and of Lincolnshire, the list points to 
the dominance of the new class of local officials who often serve 
for long periods. Some rule wider territories than those ever 
entrusted to the feudatory sheriffs, and some are professional 

The firm entrenchment of the new order in its position is 
further shown by the fact that officials of this type are occasionally 
succeeded by near relatives. Gilbert at his death in 1125 made 
way in all three of his shires, as Mr. Round has shown,^ for Fulk 
his nephew. Anschetill de Bulmer, Osbert's successor, originally 
reeve of the North Riding ^^ and later the possessor through royal 
grant of some of the lands of former rebels, retained the shrievalty 
until his death in 1129,^^ when it passed to his son, Bertram, the 
sheriff of 1130. WiUiam of Buckland for a time had two of the 
counties which his father had ruled,^^ and the services of his 
family still find recognition in 1130 in the fact that he farms 
Windsor. ^^ Richard de Heriz,^* after an interval of some years, 

1 .See ibid. pp. 16, 23 for the record of his being pardoned his danegeld. 
^ Brit. Mus. Additional Charter 24979, part iv ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 487. 
' Pipe Roll, p. 12. He also accounted for the new farm of Wiltshire in 1129-30, 
but it is uncertain if he now held Somerset. 

* London {Chron. Ramsey Abbey, p. 249), Kent (above, p. 165, n. 3), and 1128-30, 
Essex (Pipe Roll, p. 52). But there was a William de Eynesford senex {ibid. p. 65). 

» Monasticon, vi. 155 ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 470. 

« Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 14847, fo. 39 ; Add. Charter 28313 ; Farrer, Itinerary, no. 675. 

' Mr. Round shows {ante, vi. 438) that in 1166 H. fitz Maenfilin, presumably his 
son, 'held fifteen knights' fees. His predecessor in both counties was Richard of 
Winchester {Pipe Roll, p. 100). 

* For the list see Round, Commune of London, pp. 121-3 ; Farrer, Itinerary, 
nos. 267-8. See also supra. For the sheriffs of Lincolnshire, see ante, xxx. 280-1. 

* Commune of London, pp. 121-2. 

'• Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, ii, introd., p. vi. " Ante, xxx. 285. 

»^ Berkshire in 1119 {Chron. Monast. de Abingdon, ii. 160), and apparently both just 
before and after that year; also Hertfordshire, on account of which shire in 1130 
he still owed £29 pro defectu covering a period of a half-year {Pipe Roll, p. 127) 

•^ Ibid. p. 126. 

'* Richard son of Gotse, whom he succeeded before March 1114 (Farrer, Itinerary, 
no. 290), seems to have held both counties. 


was followed as sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire by his 
son Ivo de Heriz/ in office 1127-9. Futhermore Serlo de Burg, 
who first appears in the royal service as custodian of the property 
of the archbishop of York,^ in later years as justice,^ the type of 
person much employed in administering King Henry's demesne, 
held these two shires^ prior to 1127 and seems to have purchased 
them, in or just before 1129, for his son Osbert Silvanus.^ The 
king, having assured himself that administrative power shall 
not be in the hands of the nobles who have defied authority, is 
content to let it rest with new families which have proved their 
capacity. The administrative motive is present in these days 
even when the personal or political seems to prevail. 

This holds good even where hereditary or baronial shrievalties 
remain. Miles of Gloucester, sheriff as well as constable of the 
realm, after the decease of his father, Walter, from 1128 to 1130 ^ 
held Staffordshire ' along with the old family county. Moreover 
he and Payn fitz John, another border lord prominent at the 
curia, and sheriff of Shropshire and Herefordshire,® were royal 
justices both in this region and in Pembrokeshire.^ The story 
told in the Gesta Stephani ^^ of their oppressive rule from the 
Severn to the sea shows that they were not lacking in energy. 

The occasional letting of a county for a gersoma, the equivalent 
of the later fine pro comitatu habendo, is a further mark of the 
new administrative system. Men who held even the highest 
positions at court were in some instances permitted to purchase 
them. The gersoma represented the consideration for which a 
sheriff received his office with its opportunities for emolument. 
The arrangement was sometimes made for a period of five years, 
the original recorded instance of this being the shrievalty of 
Robert de Stanley in Staffordshire,^-^ which apparently covers the 
interval between 1123 and 1128. The payment made was heavy 
and varied in individual cases.^^ The arrangement was discon- 

* Superseded by 1130 {Pipe Roll, pp. 6, 7). See Farrer, Itinerary, no. 610. 

* Pipe Boll, p. 31. Presumably in the period 1114-19. 

* Ibid. p. 35. Osbert his nephew sat with him. 

* Ibid. p. 31. Cf. Monasticon, vi, partiii, 1180. 

* He owes in 1130 ' xx Marcas argenti pro ministerio Osberti filii sui ' (Pipe Roll, 
p. 31). Osbert also held a knight's fee of the king {ibid. p. 9). He owed only d half- 
year's new ferm at Michaelmas 1130 {ibid. p. 7). 

* Farrer {Itinerary, no. 578) dates between 1127 and 1129 the writ confirming him 
in his father's lands. The Pipe Roll of 1130 indicates that he had been sheriff two 

' Ibid. Apparently for two years preceding Michaelmas, 1130. 

» Farrer, Itinerary, nos. 547, 690 ; Gesta Stephani (Rolls Series), p. 16 ; Owen and 
Blakeway, History of Shrewsbury, i. 73, n. 2. 

» Pipe Rdl, pp. 74, 78, 136 ; Miles also in Hants (p. 38). 

>« p. 16. » Pipe Roll, p. 73. 

" For Oxfordshire in 1130, 400 marks, term unspecified {ibid. p. 2); for London, 
120 marks for the year {ibid. p. 144). 


tinued when a sheriff was replaced, and he then paid according to 
the proportion of the specified time he had been in office.^ Fulk, 
the nephew of Gilbert, left office owing eighty pounds of gersoma,'^ 
presumably the amount due for the four years he held his various 
counties. Whenever applied, this whole procedure was obviously 
in conflict both with indeterminate office-holding and with 
hereditary expectancy. 

The evidence of curial control over the shrievalty in and just 
before 1130 is both varied and convincing. Further proofs which 
may be cited are the increased activity of itinerant justices 
and the obvious subordination of the sheriffs' fiscal activities 
to a strong exchequer. Sheriffs were beginning to come and go 
in comparatively rapid succession ^ as in the time of Henry II. 
The last of the hereditary sheriffs in the south-west was super- 
seded.* Some were mulcted at the exchequer for negligence. 
One whose administrative incapacity is fairly well established 
by the Pipe Roll of 1130 ^ had lately been dismissed from office. 
Furthermore it is clear that special curial agents who had long 
held the position were being shifted from county to county ^ 
very much as was done at some later periods of administrative 

A final and still more potent consideration appears in the 
personnel of the shrievalty for the fiscal year 1 129-30. The king's 
household and other state officials now serve as sheriffs in larger 
number than in the two preceding reigns. The few feudal figures of 
importance who are still sheriffs are so employed. Such are the two 
hereditary sheriffs Miles the constable and Walter de Beauchamp, 
who sits in the seat of Urse d'Abetot, and is probably the king's 
dispenser besides.' The second Robert d'Oilly, another constable, 
seems to be the Robert who for the past year has been sheriff 

* William de Eynesford for holding the counties of Essex and Herts a year gave 
20 marks, a fifth of the sum which had been specified for a quinquennial period 
{ibid. pp. 52-3) ; Hugh de Warelville 20 marks for holding Leicestershire and North- 
amptonshire a half-year of the five for which he was to pay 200 marks (ibid. p. 85). 

* Ibid. p. 44. 

' Apart from Lincolnshire and London and Middlesex, the shrievalty of Notting- 
hamshire and Derbyshire now exemplifies this tendency. In Berkshire Anselm 
vicomte of Rouen in office 1127-9 succeeded Baldwin fitz Clare (Pipe Roll, pp. 122, 124). 
In Kent Ansfrid, probably the former dapifer of the archbishop of Canterbury 
(Rochester Chart., Dom. Ax., p. 102), could have held office but one or two years 
preceding Ruallo, sheriff 1120-3. 

* Richard fitz Baldwin served apparently in 1126 or 1127 (Farrer, Itinerary, 
no. 532). For 1128-30 Geoffrey de Fumell held both Devon and Cornwall. 

* Restold, sheriff of Oxfordshire (Pipe Roll, p. 2). 

* William of Pont de I'Arche from Wiltshire (above, p. 166) to Berkshire, which 
he holds with Hampshire, 1129-30; William de Eynesford from Kent to Essex 
(above, p. 167, n. 4) ; Aubrey de Vere still earlier from London to Essex (above, p. 167) ; 
Hugh of Warelville in 1130 holds Sussex after giving up various other counties. 

' This office after his decease in 1133 was held along with his lands by his son 
William (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 705 ; cf. no. 497). 


of Oxfordshire.^ Of the three leading chamberlains who are 
sheriffs, only one, Aubrey de Vere, belongs to the hereditary class. 
The Norman, Geoffrey de Clinton, who has Warwickshire, has 
risen by long service at the curia,^ and has been treasurer ^ as 
well as chamberlain, and also itinerant justice in many counties. 
William of Pont de I'Arche, lately married to the daughter of 
William Mauduit, is now paying a large sum for his ministerium 
curiae,'^ and a little later will apparently be treasurer.^ William 
d'Aubigny the Breton, a staunch supporter of the king in 1106,* 
now the husband of a daughter of Roger Bigod ' and sheriff 
of Rutlandshire, has been the king's justice in Lincolnshire.^ 
Bertram de Bulmer as well as Warin appears to have a post at 
the exchequer, and Osbert Silvanus has apparently sat at the 
king's pleas. ^ Excluding from consideration the sheriffs of 
London, who this year number four, and the unknown sheriff 
of Somerset, a county apparently lost from the Pipe Roll of 1130, 
there are only seven sheriffs of English counties ^® who seem to 
hold no position at the curia, and of these two are otherwise 
known to have had the king's special confidence. ^^ 

This year shows the highest centralization in local government 
since the period following Tinchebrai. The situation was now very 
exceptional, inasmuch as two curials, Aubrey de Vere and Richard 
Basset, jointly held eleven shires. This famous arrangement is 
known to have been a sudden creation, ^^ It was formed in the 
main at Michaelmas 1129, when Robert fitz Walter andMaenfiinin 
each surrendered his two shires, and Fulk the three which had been 

1 The sheriff of 1130 owes 26 gold marks ' de debito patris sui pro pecunia Widonis 
de Oilly ' {Pipe Roll, pp. 1-2). Robert d'Oilly is represented {Diet, of Nat. Biog., s.n. 
'Robert d'OUgi') as 'civitatis Oxnefordiae sub rege preceptor', and he and his wife 
Edith, in legend at least, as resident in the castle here {Monasticon, vi. 251) when they 
founded the abbey of Osney. He was the founder of the church of St. George within 
the castle of Oxford (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 603). I believe that he first links this 
shrievalty with the custodianship of the castle which had still earlier been in his 

" For his appearance at the curia about 1110 see Ramsey Chartvi. i. 241-2; ii. 83. 
Mr. Round {The Ancestor, xi. 156-7) traces his origin to the neighbourhood of St. L6, 
where he had a castle. 

» Monasticon, vi. 220, 221. * Pipe Roll, p. 37. 

* So accepted by the editors of the Oxford edition of the Dialogue (pp. 26-1), 
and apparently by Mr. Round {ante, xiv. 423). 

* Diet, of Nat. Biog., s.n. ' Albini, William de '. 

' Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 397 ; Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, i. 461. As 
to his shrievalty, see Pipe Roll, pp. 133, 134. 

« Ibid. p. 115. » Ihid. p. 35. 

•" Odard in Northumberland ; Hugh fitz Baldric, Northamptonshire ; Geoffrey 
de Fumell, Cornwall and Devon ; Ruallo de Valognes, Kent ; Hildret, Carlisle ; 
Reiner of Bath, Lincolnshire ; and a Vernon in Westmorland. 

" Odard and Reiner, the latter classed by Ordericus along with Ralph Basset and 
Hugh of Buckland among the persons raised by the king from the dust 

*^ Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 298. 


for some twenty years in his family.^ Probably at Easter it was 
completed by superseding Hugh of Warelville in the shires of 
Leicester and Northampton which he had recently obtained 
for a period of five years, and William of Eynesford in Essex 
and Hertfordshire under exactly the same circumstances.'^ 
As Mr. Round has observed,^ Aubrey and Richard did not farm 
these counties according to customary usage, but were in the 
position of the later custodes. The king was thus free to dispose 
of all the profits arising within a considerable portion of the 
realm, and the fact affords the one plausible explanation * of 
this very remarkable innovation. Moreover, in still other 
directions this is a year of innovation in exchequer accounting.^ 
It is certain that several of the retiring sheriffs were sadly in 
arrears and that the two special administrators placed in control 
of this strong fiscal unit were able to advance a large sum, a super- 
plusagium, over and above their receipts, a part of which went 
to supply the king's needs in Normandy.^ Aubrey de Vere, tha 
king's chamberlain,' had long been a special agent of the adminis- 
trative curia and had had much experience as a sheriff as well. 
The same may be said of Richard's father, Ralph Basset. All 
three held the highest judicial position ^ and did wide itinerant 
service. Richard by marriage also ^ was identified with the same 
circle at court. The placing of two officials of this type over so 
wide a region and the dismissal of tried and experienced sheriffs 
are sufficient indications that the step has administrative rather 
than political significance, and that the matter lay very close to 
important interests of the king. 

1 Pipe Boll, 1130, pp. 44, 90, 100. 

" Ibid. pp. 53, 85. Maenfinin had held his shires for f oiir years of what was probably 
a longer tenn (Pipe Boll, p. 100). Fulk had probably served but part of a five-year 

* Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 297-8. 

* The accusation of treason brought against Geoffrey de Clinton at the Easter 
court, 1130 {Henry of Huntingdon, Rolls Series, p. 252), came rather too late to give 
the explanation. Moreover, there is no intimation that Geoffrey's associates, either 
sheriffs or treasury officials, were involved. At the following Michaelmas he was still 
sheriff. William of Pont de I'Arche was in custody of land which he had held in 
Oxfordshire and Richard Basset of his land in Leicestershire {Pipe Boll, pp. 6, 81). 

* The blanched farms of the previous year in the eleven counties give way to 
farms paid by weight as one might expect. But the same change occurs also in the 
counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Kent, Warwickshire, and Lincolnshire, 
and for half of the year in those of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. 

' Six hundred out of a thousand marks {Pipe Boll, p. 63). 

' He was probably not great chamberlain until 1133 (Farrer, Itinerary, no. 698). 
Concerning him and his family, see Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 388-96. 

' Aubrey is designated ' iustitiarius totius Angliae ' (Roimd, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 
p. 80). a title also given the two Bassets by Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls Series, p. 318 ; 
of. Abingdon Chron. ii. 170). 

* With the daughter of Geoffrey Ridel (Sloane MS., xxxi. 4 (47)), another justiciary 
of all England. 


The climax of the administrative revolution was apparently 
soon passed. How long this group of counties held together 
is unknown. But Aubrey de Vere before the next Michaelmas 
agreed to give a hundred marks to be permitted to withdraw 
from the shrievalties of Essex and Hertfordshire.^ Fulk seems 
again to have been sherifE of Huntingdonshire after 1133,^ and 
Robert fitz Walter, as Mr. Round has shown, was certainly 
sheriff in East Anglia until a decidedly later period.^ The 
new curial control over sheriffs, which largely repaired the 
chief defect in the Norman plan of local government in England, 
of course broke down in Stephen's reign. A few baronial heads 
of shires who survived from King Henry's time were destined 
sometimes to aid, more often to plague, his successor. The 
changes in the personnel of the office during the first third of the 
twelfth century none the less show convincingly a steady approach 
towards conditions of the Angevin period, and, as individual cases 
prove, follow a corresponding trend in the selection of the king's 
central administrative staff.* W. A. Morris. 

1 Pipe Rdl, p. 53. 

^ Ramsey Chartul., Rolls Series, i. 152 ; cf. iii. 176. 

» Ante, XXXV. 483-6. 

* Through the kindness of Dr. Curtis H. Walker, the writer, after this ariiicle was 
written, was enabled to read in proof the article ' Sheriffs in the Pipe RoU of 31 Henry I ' 
(ante, xxxvii. 67). Dr. Walker's chronology of the shrievalties was in several instances 
more exact than that of the writer, and acknowledgement of the debt is gratefully 

1922 173 

The Great Statute of Praemunire 

THE so-called statutes of 'praemunire are among the most 
famous laws in English history, and of the three acts to 
which the title is commonly applied, that of 1393 — sometimes 
called ' the great statute of praemunire ' by modern writers ^ — 
has won special renown, partly because it has been generally 
regarded as an anti-papal enactment of singular boldness, and 
also because it furnished Henry VIII with perhaps the most 
formidable of the weapons used by him to destroy Wolsey and to 
intimidate the clergy. But when the student, anxious to know 
precisely what the statute contained and what it was designed to 
effect, turns for light to the works of modern historians, he finds 
himself faced by a perplexing variety of opinions. Stubbs, who 
in one place ^ says bluntly that ' the great statute of praemunire 
imposed forfeiture of goods as the penalty for obtaining bulls or 
other instruments at Rome ', elsewhere ^ restricts its effect to those 
who procured bulls, instruments, or other things ' which touch 
the king, his crown, regality, or realm ', while in another passage ■* 
he states that though the statute allowed appeals to Rome 
' in causes for which the English common law provided no 
remedy ', it nevertheless contributed to a great diminution in 
the number of such appeals. In other works one may read that 
' the great statute of Praemunire was the most anti-papal Act 
of Parliament passed prior to the reign of Henry VIII ; the Act 
from which the rapid decline of Papal authority in England 
is commonly dated ' ; ^ that by the statute ' papal interference 
was shut out [of England] as far as law could shut it out ' ; ® 
or that with its predecessors of 1353 and 1365 it ranked as 'the 
great bulwark of the independence of the National Church '.' 
On the other hand, Makower, speaking of the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries, says : ' Only in so far as was necessary for 
the execution of the statutes against provisors was the endeavour 

* e.g. by Stubbs {Const. Hist., ii, 4th ed., 509) and Sir James Eamsay (Genesis 
of Lancaster, ii. 288). 

" Stubbs, loc. cit. * /6trf. iii,5thed.,342. 

* Ibid. iii. 363 seq. ^ Ramsay, ii. 288 seq. 

* Gwatkin, Church and State in England to the Death of Queen Anne, p. 106. 

' Capes, The English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, p. 92. 


sustained to limit the power of the pope and to check appeals to 
him. Thus these were in general prohibited simply in cases in 
which the secular authorities were competent ; and even then it 
was the right of patronage which was mainly defended. . . . 
Sole competence in all cases was not at this time claimed by the 
state.' ^ Quite recently, moreover, Professor Pollard has denied 
that the statutes of provisors and praemunire ^ were specifically 
anti-papal in pm-pose, contending that their animus was ' as 
much against the clerical courts in England as against the curia 
at Rome ', that the statutes of 'praemunire ' set no limit to the 
pope's control over English ecclesiastical courts ', and that in 
the middle ages the Crown ' had not the least objection ' ' to 
appeals from English spiritual jurisdiction to the pope '.^ And 
long ago Lingard argued that the measure of 1393 was not reaUy 
a statute at all and thought it ' plain ' that it was ' never properly 
passed in parliament '.^ In face of this remarkable conflict of 
testimony and argument, no apology is needed for a re-examina- 
tion of the purport and effect of the statute. 

One misapprehension, strangely fostered by many modern 
writers, may be disposed of at the outset. Neither the statute 
of 1393 nor any other measure passed in England during the 
middle ages sought to prevent all exercise of the pope's authority 
in the country. The wording of the statute, though in some 
respects obscure, is clear on this point. ' If any one obtains or 
sues ... in the court of Rome or elsewhere any such translations, 
processes, and sentences of excommunication, bulls, instruments 
or anything else whatsoever which touches the king our lord 
against him, his crown and regality, or his realm, as is aforesaid, 
and those who bring them into the realm or receive them, or make 
notification or other execution of them within the realm or 
without, they ', with all their aiders and abettors, ' shall be put 
out of the protection of our said lord the king, and their lands 
and tenements, goods and chattels shall be forfeited to the king 
our lord ', and they shall be arrested and brought before the king 
and his council to answer there, or process shall be made against 
them by praemunire facias in the manner ordained in other 

* Constitutional History oj the Church of England (English translation), p. 229. 

^ Following modem practice, I shall limit the term ' statutes of provisors ' to acts 
which explicitly sought to defeat the pope's claim to dispose of all ecclesiastical bene- 
fices. Acts which strove to maintain the jurisdiction of the king's court against the 
rival claims of other tribunals are commonly called ' statutes of praemunire ', because 
process by writ of praemunire facias was one of the means prescribed for their enforce- 
ment. It would be pedantic to quarrel with this long-established usage, but it should 
be remembered that both terms are applicable to the anti-papal statute of 1366, and 
that the other ' statutes of praemunire ' were sometimes called ' statutes of provisors ' 
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 

» The Evolution of Parliament, pp. 202, 205. 

* History of England, 5th ed., iii. 348 n. . 


statutes of provisors and others who sue in other courts in deroga- 
tion of the rights of the king.^ The act, it is clear, applies only 
to certain kinds of papal documents, and the records of the time 
show that a wide field of papal activity was unaffected by it. 
Englishmen continued to appeal to the papal court, to present 
petitions to the pope, to accept papal graces and to execute papal 
mandates, evidently without any thought that they were breaking 
the law.^ English prelates and magnates still had agents at the 
curia.^ There are, moreover, in the Year Books of the next twenty 
years cases in which judges and counsel not only recognize the 
authority of certain papal bulls but assume that the pope has 
a lawful jurisdiction over Englishmen in certain matters and show 
much scruple in avoiding encroachment on his rights.* Nor, to 
turn to later times, should it be forgotten that Henry VIII, who 
was not the man to put a narrow interpretation upon statutes 
of praemunire, was constrained to plead before a papal court 
and could not have the divorce suit decided within the realm 
until parliament had passed the act in restraint of appeals. 

Of what nature, then, were the ' bulls, instruments, and other 
things ' which came within the meaning of the act ? Only such, 
at any rate, as were against the king, his crown and regality, or 
his realm. ^ In wording the description was somewhat unusual, 

* ' Si ascun purchace ou pursue ou face purchacer ou pursuer en la Court de Rome 
ou aillours ascuns tieux translacions, processes, et sentences de escomengementz 
buUes instrumentz ou autre chose quelconqe, qe touche le Roi notre seignour encountre 
luy sa corone et regalie ou son Roialme come devant est dit, et ceux qe les porte 
deinz le Roialme ou les resceive ou face ent notificacion ou autre execucion quelconqe 
deinz mesme le Roialme ou dehors, soient ils lour notairs procuratours meintenours 
abbettours fautours et conseillours mys hors de la proteccion notre dit seignour le 
Roy, et lours terres et tenementz biens et chatieux forfaitz au Roy notre seignour ; et 
qils soient attachez par lour corps sils purront estre trovez et amesnez devant le 
Roy et son Conseil pur y respondre es cases avauntditz, ou qe processe soit fait devere 
eux par premunire facias en manere come est ordeigne en autres estatutz des provisours 
et autres qui seuent en autry Courte en derogacion de la regalie notre seignour le Roy ' : 
Statutes, ii. 85 seq. . 

* The dealings of Englishmen with Rome are abundantly illustrated in the Calendars 
oj Papal Letters. The passing of the statute of 1393 did not cause any appreciable 
diminution in the number of entries concerning England in the papal registers. It 
is true that many of the transactions recorded were contrary to the statutes of pro 
visors, breaches of which indeed were at times sanctioned by royal licence. But 
the majority were evidently quite lawful in the eyes of the parties concerned, and must 
have been carried out without any reference to the temporal authorities in England. 

' Of particular interest in this relation is the letter-book of William Swan, an 
abbreviator of papal letters at the curia, who was often employed as agent by eminent 
Englishmen — notably Archbishop Kemp — ^in the early years of the reign of Henry VI. 
The book is preserved in MS. Cott., Cleop. C. iv, fos. 124-229 vo. 

* See especially the report of the suit of qnare impedit brought by Henry IV 
against Robert Hallum, bishop of Salisbury, and Henry Chichele, bishop of St. Davids 
( Year Book, ed. 1679, II Hen. IV, pp. 37, 59, 76), and that of a suit between two priors 
about an advowson (ibid. 14 Hen. IV, p. 14). 

5 From Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, p. 635, it appears as if the prior of Kyme got 
into trouble because he obtained certain bulls ' not knowing that the obtaining 


but its connotation was familiar, for since the Conquest the 
kings of England had claimed and asserted the right of excluding 
from the country papal documents prejudicial to their authority 
and to the realm. From time to time writs were issued ordering 
that such documents should be seized, and in 1343 it was ordained 
in parliament that those who introduced them should be arrested 
and brought before the king's council.-^ The qualifying formula 
in the ordinance and writs lacked precision, as it did in the act 
of 1393, and a king like Henry VIII might wrest it to uses which 
medieval kings and parliaments never contemplated. But there 
is no doubt how it was interpreted in 1393 and the next genera- 
tion. The bulls and instruments forbidden to Englishmen were 
such as concerned what in the view of the secular authorities 
were secular affairs. By the fourteenth century most of these 
were recognized as secular by churchmen also ; but there was still 
a debatable ground claimed by both the lus Commune of the 
church and the Common Law of the state. It was to secure the 
state's hold on this that anti-papal statutes were passed and anti- 
papal writs issued. But no English king or parliament before 
the days of Henry VIII had any intention of disputing the pope's 
authority in that wide sphere of human concerns which every 
one except a few heretics agreed to call spiritual.^ The nature 
and extent of papal jurisdiction within its limits were matters 
for the pope and the clergy. So long as the claims of the Common 
Law were respected it mattered nothing to the Crown whether 
' spiritual ' suits were decided before the English courts Christian 
or the papal curia. ^ 

and execution of papal bulls was contrary to law '. The editor, however, ignored 
an important ' aforesaid ', for the corresponding clause in the original runs, ' nesciente 
prefato priore ut asserit impetracionem bullarum predictarum nee execucionem 
earundem fore preiudicialem nee contra leges et statuta regni nostri existere ' 
(Rot. Pat., 19 Ric. II, fo. 2, m. II). The bulls in question affected the king's rights of 

' Makower, p. 237, treats this subject with his customary lucidity and quotes 
a number of writs in illustration of the policy of the Crown. 

^ On the line drawn in England between temporal and spiritual affairs, see Makower, 
sect. 60. It is worth noting that in a petition presented by the commons in 1348 
the pope is styled ' Soverein Govemour de Seinte Esglise en terre ' (Rot. Pari. ii. 173). 

' Dr. Pollard, however, is not justified in saying (cf. supra, p. 174) that the animus 
of the statutes of provisors and praemunire was as much against the English church 
courts as against the court of Rome. Though the statutes of provisors of course 
contained safeguards against possible attempts of the English courts Christian to 
frustrate them, their sole object was to prevent papal interference with rights of 
patronage. As for the ' statutes of praemunire ', the act of 1353 applied to suits in 
English church courts as well as in the court of Rome ; but its enactment was due 
entirely to the activities of the latter, and long before it was passed the Crown had 
ample means of protecting its rights from aggression on the part of the English courts. 
The act of 1365, so far as it was new, was concerned merel^ with the court of Rome. 
When Dr. Pollard says that the statutes of praemunire ' set no limits to the pope's 
control over English ecclesiastical courts ', and that the Crown had no objection 


That this was the attitude of the English Crown towards 
papal jurisdiction can readily be inferred from English and papal 
records of the time. There is no need, however, to multiply 
citations, for we luckily have two statements of the recognized 
principle. In 1412 the prior of B. (the name is not given in full) 
brought a writ of praemunire facias against the prior of N. because 
the latter had resorted to the court of Rome in a dispute between 
J the two about an advowson. The particulars of the case, which 

was a complicated one, need not concern us. But in the course 
of the hearing, counsel for the defence asserted that if a clerk 
were despoiled of his benefice by another clerk, he could sue a 
spoliation in court Christian or in the court of Rome, at his 
choice ; for if a spoliation were sued, the right to the advowson 
of the benefice would not be at issue, and so the matter would 
not be temporal but spiritual. The bench held that the argument 
was not relevant to the case before it, but no one questioned its 

The principle here assumed was affirmed still more clearly 
in October 1415 by the royal council. Roger Lansell, clerk, 
had obtained from Rome citations summoning Nicholas Ryecroft, 
goldsmith, to answer in the curia on certain matters which (ac- 
cording to Ryecroft) were prejudicial to the Crown and contrary 
to the laws and customs of the realm, in particular an ordinance 
of Edward III. Ryecroft then obtained a writ of praemunire 
facias against Lansell and five others, said to be accessories, 
and they were summoned before the king's bench.^ Lansell, 

' to appeals from English spiritual jurisdiction to the pope ', his statements, though 
defensible in the letter, are apt to give a false impression. For the EngUsh ecclesiastical 
courts were forbidden by the Crown to do many things which, in the view of the pope, 
they might and ought to have done. Nor must it be overlooked that the papal court 
was not merely a court of appeal, but also a court of first instance, and very frequently 
used as such by Enghshmen. And to this jurisdiction of the pope as ' universal 
ordinary ' the statutes of 1353 and 1365 did set limits, the same limits of course as 
were already imposed on the jurisdiction of the English courts Christian. How far 
Dr. Pollard's assertions are applicable to the statute of 1393 will, I hope, become 
clear later on. 

» Year Book, 4 Hen. IV, p. 14. Counsel contended that if he presented a clerk 
to a church, and after institution and induction ' il est spoile de son benefice par un 
estrange Gierke, que de cest spoliation il puit suer en Court Christien, pur estre remise 
a sa Esglise, et a sa possession, ou en Court de Rome, a sa volunt, sans estre empeche 
de ceo, car par cest suit il n'est my mis a recoverer le droit de I'advowson, eins pur 
estre remise a son benefice areremaine, et uncore pur cest recoverie jeo ne suy restitute 
a ma advowson, en quel case cest suit nest my temporal eins spiritual '. 

* 'Comme a ce qe nous avons entenduz a la suite de Nicholas Ryecroft orfeour 
par vertue de notre brief de Premuniri facias proces soit fait ... en notre banc envers 
Roger Lansell clerc . . . de ce qe mesme cellui Roger deust avoir purchacez nadgairs 
en la courte de Rome plusieurs citacions appellacions et notificacions dicelles envers 
le susdit Nicholas Ryecroft pur lui avoir fait respondre en mesme la courte sur certaines 
choses en le susdit notre brief especifiez et plusieurs autres choses a nous et a notre 
corone prejudicieles encontre la duetee de sa ligeance en contempt et prejudice de 
nous peril ouvert de la disheritance de notre corone et encontre les loys et custumes 



however, exhibited the obnoxious bulls to the council, who 
pronounced that the cause was purely spiritual, and that the 
bulls contained nothing prejudicial to the Crown or contrary 
to the laws and customs of the realm. ^ The story appears in the 
draft of a letter sent by the council to the justices of the king's 
bench, who were asked to consider whether in the circumstances 
they would proceed with the case or not. It is a pity that we are 
not told why Ryecroft was cited before the court of Rome ; 
but the principle which governed the decision of the council 
could hardly have been put more clearly, and the tenor of the 
letter to the judges indicates that it was one familiar to the 
courts of law. 

Now one might recognize that the statute of 1393 had nothing 
to do with affairs unanimously regarded as spiritual, and yet 
admit it to have been the most comprehensive and drastic of 
the anti-papal measm-es passed in medieval England. But it 
will be noticed that it does not expressly apply to all documents 
prejudicial to the king and the realm, but only to such of them 
as are against the king and the realm as is aforesaid.^ What 
significance then is to be attached to the words ' such ' {tieux) 
and * as is aforesaid ' {come devant est dit) ? 

The statute consists mainly of a long preamble, which reports 
certain proceedings in the parliament of 1393. The commons 
had complained that although suits about the right of patronage 
belonged to the king's court, and bishops and others of the 
clergy with authority to institute to benefices were bound, when 
ordered by the king, to execute the sentences of his court in such 
suits, as also to obey certain other royal mandates,* nevertheless 
the pope had instituted proceedings and issued sentences of 
excommunication against certain English bishops for executing 

de notre roiaume Dengleterre et centre la forme del ordenance et accord par le Roy 
E. notre besaiel et lea pieres grandz et communialtee de son roialme Dengleterre faitz en 
un son consail nadgairs a Westmonster tenuz ' : Ordinances of the Privy Council, ii. 181. 
The significance of the allusion to the ' ordinance ' of Edward III will be considered 

* ' II semble a mesme notre consail qe la cause est meure espirituele et qen les 
dites lettres . , . nest pas contenuz aucune chose prejudiciele a nous ne a notre corone 
nencountre les loys estatutz ordenances ne custumes de notre roiaume desusditz' : 
ibid. pp. 181 seq. 

* See above, p. 175, n. 1. 

» Statutes, ii. 84 : ' notre seignour le Roy et toutz ses liges deivent de droit et 
soloient de tout temps purseuer en la Courte mesme notre seignour le Roi pur recovrer 
lour presentementz as Esglises prebendes et autres benefices de seinte Esglise as queux 
ils ount droit a presenter, la conisance de plee de quelle purseute appartient soulement 
a Courte . . . le Roy . • . et qant juggement soit rendu en mesme sa Courte sur tiel plee 
et purseute, les Ercevesques Evesques et autres persones spiritueles qount institucion 
de tiele benefice deinz lour jurisdiccion sont tenuz et ont fait execucion des tieux 
juggementz par mandement des Rois . . . qare autre lay persone ne poet tiele execucion 
faire, et auxint sont tenuz de droit de faire execucion de plusours autres mandementz 
notre seignour le Roy.' 


such mandates, to the destruction of the king's rights, of his 
laity, and of his whole realm. Moreover, it was currently reported 
that the pope intended to translate — even to places outside the 
realm — certain prelates whose counsel was needed by the king, 
and that without his knowledge or the consent of the prelates 
concerned. If this were suffered the statutes of the realm would 
be annulled, his wise counsellors withdrawn, and the wealth of 
the realm carried away, ' and thus the Crown of England, which 
has always been so free that it has had no earthly sovereign 
but has been immediately subject to God in all things touching 
the regality of the same Crown, would be subject to the Pope, 
and the laws and statutes of the realm would be defeated and 
annulled by him at his will '. The commons added that since 
the things thus attempted by the pope were manifestly prejudicial 
to the Crown and the king's immemorial rights, they and aU the 
commons of the realm wished to uphold the king to the death 
in face of these and all other encroachments on his prerogative.^ 
They asked the king to question each of the lords in parliament 
* and all the estates of parliament ' as to their opinion of the 
aforesaid matters and the support they would give the king in 
maintaining his rights. The temporal lords all expressed the 
same views and intentions as the commons. The lords spiritual 
who were present and the proctors of those absent, first protesting 
that they had no intention of asserting that the pope could not 
excommunicate bishops or translate prelates according to canon 
law,^ repUed severally that if execution were made of such pro- 
cesses as the commons had specified, if any of the king's Heges 
were excommunicated for the reason mentioned, or if execution 
were made of translations exactly like those described, it would be 
against the king and his Crown.^ They further declared that they 
wished and ought to support the king loyally in the cases sub- 

' Et disoient outre les Communes avantdites qe les dites choses ensi attemptez 
sount overtement encountre la corone notre seignour le Roi et sa regalie use et approve 
du temps du touz ses progenitours ; par quoy ils et touz les lieges communes du 
mesme le Roialme veullent estere ovec notre dit seignour le Roy et sa dite corone et 
sa regalie en les cases avauntdites et en touz autres cases attemptez encountre luy 
sa corone et sa regalie en toutz pointz a vivre et mourer ' : ibid. pp. 84 seq. 

* ' Fesantz protestacions qil nest pas lour entencion de dire ne affermer qe . . . le 
Pape ne poet excomenger Evesques ne quil poet faire translacions des prelatz solonc 
la ley de Seinte Esglise ' : ibid. p. 85. 

' ' Si aucunes execucions des processes faitz en la Courte de Rome come devant 
soient faitz par aacuny, et censures de escomengementz soient faitz encountre ascun 
Evesque Dengleterre ou aacun autre liege du Roi puree qils ount fait execucion des 
tieux maundementz, et qe si aucuns execucions des tieux translacions soient faitz 
dascuns prelatz de mesme le Roialme queux seignours sount moult profitables et 
necessairs a . . . le Roi et a son Roiaume suisdit, ou qe ses sages lieges de son counseil 
saunz son assent et encountre sa volunte soient sustretz et esloignez hors du Roialme, 
sique lavoir et tresor du Roialme purroit estre destruit, qe ce est encountre le Roy 
et sa Corone sicome est continuz en la peticion avant nome ' : ibid. 



mitted to them and all others in which his crown and prerogative 
were concerned.^ Whereupon the king, ' with the assent aforesaid 
and at the prayer of his said commons ', ordained and established 
penalties for certain offences in the terms already quoted. 

Now the enacting part of the statute was evidently carelessly 
drafted ; at several points its meaning is open to dispute ; and 
single words or phrases must not be taken too strictly. It may 
be that when the framers of the act spoke of ' such ' bulls or any- 
thing else prejudicial to the king ' as is aforesaid ', they merely 
meant ' documents prejudicial to the king in the same kind of 
way as those indicated in the preamble ', and so intended the act 
to apply to all documents that encroached on the rights of the 
Crown. But it is more natural to apply a stricter interpretation 
to the words tieux and come devant est dit. They need not have 
been inserted at all if the act was meant to cover every document 
prejudicial to the king. Moreover, they direct attention to the 
preamble. Now the preamble is clearly worded with some 
care. It deals with two specific questions, papal action against 
churchmen for executing certain royal mandates and the transla- 
tion of prelates without their assent or that of the king. No other 
topic is mentioned. The lords spiritual, when asked for their 
opinion, drew some nice distinctions, and in their replies kept 
meticulously to the cases put forward by the commons.^ It is 
most improbable that the king would claim their assent to the act, 
as he did, if it really went far beyond the matters submitted 
to them ; and in view of the preamble it is natural to regard the 
words tieux and come devant est dit as referring precisely to 
documents indicated therein, those, that is to say, used by the 
pope in execution of his measures against the ecclesiastics specified 
and in carrying out arbitrary translations. 

Apart from the actual wording of the statute there is much 
evidence in favour of the view that it was intended by those 
who passed it to serve a strictly limited purpose, and that it was 
long before it was regarded as a measure of much importance. 
In the first place it had the assent of the lords spiritual. Even 
if we did not possess their guarded statements in reply to the 
questions put to them at the instance of the commons, it would be 
wellnigh incredible that they should have agreed to a measure 
which warned the pope off the whole of the ground disputed 
between church and state. Neither in the statutes of provisors 
of 1351 and 1390, nor in the statute of praemunire of 1353, is the 

* ' Les ditz seignoiirs espiritueles veuUent et deivent estere ovesque le Roy ... en 
ceux cases loialment en sustenance de sa Corone et en touz autres cases touchantz sa 
Corone et regalie come ils sount tenuz par lour ligeance ' : Statutes, ii. 85. 

» It is true that they .added a general promise to uphold the king's rights in all 
eases as they were bound by their allegiance ; but this is merely common form and 
in any case of little value from men whose allegiance was double. 


consent of the clergy explicitly claimed.^ In the parliament of 1390 
the archbishops made a solemn protest on behalf of the clergy 
against the new statute of provisors and that of 1351, declaring 
that they dissented from them in so far as they restricted the 
power of the pope or impaired ecclesiastical liberty, as the clergy 
had always dissented from such measures in times past.^ More- 
over, in 1397, when the commons gave the king permission to 
modify the statute of provisors, the archbishops, speaking in the 
name of all the lords spiritual, declared that they would oppose 
any arrangement which limited the pope's power or the liberty 
of the church.^ Now the statute of 1390, though a substantial 
joint, was a less formidable meal than the ' great statute of 
praemunire '. Yet we are asked to believe that the clergy 
swallowed the camel whole, though four years later they solemnly 
declared that they would refuse the smallest gnat. If, however, 
the statute merely forbade certain specific things, which the lords 
spiritual had just acknowledged to be prejudicial to the Crown, 
their assent to the act would follow as a matter of course. 

When, furthermore, one examines the attitude of the Crown 
and of parliament towards the pope at the time when the statute 
was passed, it seems unlikely that even the laymen concerned 
would just then have enacted an anti-papal measure more 
comprehensive than any of its predecessors. The statute of 1390 
against provisors had excited much alarm at Rome, where on 
4 February 1391 Boniface solemnly annulled it, together with the 
' statute ' of Carlisle and the statute of 1351.* Papal envoys had 
already been sent to press for the repeal of the new measure,^ and 
in June 1391 there arrived in England the abbot of Nonantola, 
who on behalf of the pope asked for the withdrawal of the statutes 
of provisors and other anti-papal measures, including the statutes, 

* According to itself, the statute of 1365 was enacted ' de lassentement et expresse 
volunte et concorde des Dues, Contes, Barons, Nobles, et communes . . . et de touz 
altres qe la chose touche ' (Statutes, i. 386). This hyperbolical assertion was, however, 
robbed of all significance by the prelates, who formally declared that they assented to 
nothing that might turn to the prejudice of their estate or dignity {Eot. Pari. ii. 285). 

* ' Nolumus nee intendimus alicui Statuto in presenti Parliamento nunc noviter 
edito, nee antiquo pretenso innovato, quatenus Statuta huiusmodi, seu eorum aliquod, 
in reatrictionem Potestatis Apostolice, aut in subversionem, enervationem, seu deroga- 
tionem, Ecclesiastice Libertatis tendere dinoscuntur, quomodolibet consentire, set 
eisdem dissentire, reclamare, et contradicere . . . prout semper dissensimus, reclamavi- 
mu8, et contradiximus temporibus retroactis ' : ibid. iii. 264. 

* ' Coment ils ount fait profession, et sont jurez a notre tres seint Piere le Pape, 
et a la Courte de Rome, et pur ceo, en cas qe ascune ordenance ou autre chose serra 
fait ou assentuz par le Roy, ou Seigneurs Temporels sur cest poair et auctorite de Parle- 
ment touchantes les Provisions del Court de Rome, qe soit en restriction del poair 
do I'Appostoil, ou derogation de la Liberte de Seint Esglise, ils ne veuUent, ne poont, 
ne deyvent, a ce assentir n'accorder en nuUe voie, einz les contredient et disassentont- 
de leur part, en quanc qe a eux appartient ' : ibid. p. 341. 

* Calendar of Papal Letters, iv. 277. ' Cont. Polychron. ix. 250. 


as he called them, of Quare impedit and Praemunire facias. 
He was listened to politely ; but the king brusquely refused to 
do away with the two writs, and said that as statutes were 
established in parliament, they could not be revoked without its 
consent. The next parliament, however, would be asked to 
consider the matter.^ Accordingly one of the reasons officially 
given for the summons of parliament in the following November 
was the desirability of finding some compromise about provisors 
whereby the pope and the king might each have what pertained 
to him.^ According to Walsingham, the king and John of Gaunt 
seemed disposed to give way to the pope ; but the knights refused 
to agree to the repeal of the statute,^ and the commons would 
do no more than allow the king, with the advice and assent of 
the lords, to relax the enforcement of the statute until the next 
parliament, when, as they expressly stated, they would be free 
if they wished to restore it to full vigour.* 

Consequently, when parliament again met, in January 1393, 
it was officially announced that remedy touching the statute of 
provisors was to be considered, with a view to avoiding the 
disputes that might easily arise between the Crown and the 
papacy.^ This time the commons were more tractable. . They 
agreed that the king, with the consent of the lords and the 
council, might take the whole matter into his own hands, giving 
him power to modify the statute and to make ordinance respecting 
it. At the next parliament everything done was to be reported 
to the commons, that they might, if it pleased God, agree thereto.^ 

1 Cont. Polychron. ix. 247 seqq. ; Walsingham, op. cit. ii. 200 seqq. ; cf. Cal. of 
Papal Letters, iv. 278, 279. It must be remembered that the statutes of 1353 and 1365 
were not yet termed ' statutes of praemunire ', and when the abbot spoke of the 
' statute of praemunire facias ' he meant the writ from which they afterwards derived 
their title. 

2 Rot. Pari. iii. 284. s Walsingham, ii. 203. 

* ' Fait a remembrier touchant I'Estatut de Provisours, qe les Communes . . . 
s'assenterent en plein Parlement, qe notre dit Seigneur le Roi, par advys et assent 
des Seigneurs, purra faire tielle soefferance tochant le dit Estatut come lui semblera 
resonable et profitable tan q'al proschein Parlement, par issint qe le dit Estatut ne 
soit repellez en null article d'icelle. . . . Et en outre, qe les ditz Communes se purront 
desagreer a dit proschein Parlement a tielle soefferance pluis outre, et pleinemeht 
resorter al dit Estatut si lour semblera a faire, ove protestation qe cest assent, q'est 
une novellerie et n'ad mye este fait devant ces heures, ne soit trait en ensampie 
n'en consequence en temps a venir ' : Rot. Pari. iii. 285. 

6 Ibid. p. 300. 

• ' Fait a remembrier touchant I'Estatut des Provisours, Qe les Communes . . 
s'accorderent et assenterent en plein Parlement, Qe . . . le Roi, par bone deliberation 
et assent des Seigneurs et de son sage Conseill, preigne toute la matire a luy, et q'il 
eit plein poair et auctorite de modifier le dit Estatut, et ent ordeiner, par deliberation 
et assent bus ditz, en manere come luy semblera meutz a I'honour de Dieu et de Seinte 
Esglise, et salvation de les droitz de sa Corone et de I'estat et profit de sa Terre : et 
de mettre en execution qan qe serra ensy ordeine. Et qe au proschein Parlement 
toutes les choses sus dites soient pleinement monstrez as ditz Communes, aufyn q'ils 
purront alors jxar bon avisement agreer, si Dieu plest, a yceUes ' : ibid. p. 301. 


It seems impossible to ascertain what use the king made of the 
discretionary power bestowed on him at these two parliaments.^ 
But it appears that he might practically have suspended the 
statute from November 1391 to January 1393, while after that date 
he was free to abrogate it altogether and to bargain with the pope 
for a concordat which parliament could not have criticized until 
it had been concluded. It is hard to believe that the commons, 
after making such a concession, should have sought to rob it 
of all effect by pressing for the enactment of a new measure 
which covered the whole of the ground afEected by the statute 
of provisors and more besides. Equally unlikely is it that the 
king should have thrown away the valuable powers just granted 
him by assenting to such an act. If, however, the new statute 
was interpreted in the sense I have suggested, it was perfectly 
compatible with the resolution of the commons about provisions.^ 

^ An examination of the Cal. of Papal Letters and the Cal. oj Pat. Rolls shows that 
the king exercised with great moderation the authority entrusted to him, but does not 
reveal what principle he followed. It seems to have been commonly believed that 
after the parliament of 1391 the pope was allowed to dispose of benefices vacant in 
the curia ; but I have found no confirmation of this in official records (Mon. Evesham, 
p. 123 ; cf. Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, p. 33, and Cont. Polychron. ix. 243, which ascribes 
this concession to the autumn parliament of 1390). 

» The difficulty raised by the proceedings of the parliament of 1393 was noticed 
by Lingard, who, after summarizing the contents of the statute, writes : ' There is 
reason to believe that when this bill was discussed in the house of lords, it met with 
considerable opposition. It was at least withdrawn by the commons, who agreed that 
the king should refer the whole matter to his council, and have full power to make 
such alterations and ordinances as he might think fit, and to carry them, when made, 
into execution. Though they expressed a hope that, when it was thus amended, they 
should assent to it at the next parliament, it does not appear to have ever been laid 
before them again ; but to have been occasionally acted upon and occasionally 
modified, as suited the royal convenience.' In a foot-note Lingard quotes the terms 
of the commons' concession about provisors, and adds that four years later ' another 
memorandum to the same import is inserted in the rolls : and it is added, that imme- 
diately afterwards the prelates protested ', as I have narrated above. ' Hence ', 
proceeds Lingard, ' I think it plain that this statute was never properly passed in 
parliament, and on that account does not appear in the rolls ' {History of England, 
5th ed., iii. 347 seq.). 

The passages quoted bristle with anachronisms, and Lingard's assumption that the 
concession of the commons regarding the statute of provisors referred to a ' bill ' 
which ultimately became the statute of praemunire, is wholly without warrant. Nor 
is there any reason to suppose that the statute met with opposition. As for its not 
being ' properly passed ', it is difficult to say what constituted the ' proper passage ' 
of a legislative measure in the fourteenth century : at all events, this statute stands 
written in a contemporary hand in its proper place in the statute roll. Lingard's state- 
ment that the statute ' does not appear ' in the rolls of parliament requires qualifica- 
tion, for the roll of the Winchester parliament contains a formal record of the answers 
of the prelates to the questions submitted to them, and this embodies a great part of 
the preamble {Rot. Pari. iii. 304). It is, however, true that there is no trace of the 
operative clauses. But the absence of a petition for their enactment is of no great 
moment, and it may still be true that the whole statute was based on ' the prayer ' 
of the commons. The contents of the preamble suggest that the matters under con- 
sideration were brought to the notice of the commons by the Crown, and in that 
case there would doubtless be ' conversations ' both in parliament and in the commons' 


That this interpretation is correct becomes still more likely 
when we examine the eJBEect of the statute, whether on contem- 
porary opinion or on the relations between England and the 
papacy. No chronicler living at the time gives an accurate 
account of its contents. Neither the St. Albans chroniclers,^ 
nor the Continuator of Knighton, nor the ' Monk of Evesham ' 
say anything of anti-papal legislation under the year 1393. 
The Westminster Continuator of the Polychronicon states that 
the Winchester parUament confirmed the statute of provisors,^ 
an assertion which, on any view of its proceedings, is incorrect. 
In fact, of the annahsts with any claim to be regarded as con- 
temporary authorities, only the Continuator of the Eulogium 
Historiarum and the author of the work called by Mr. Kingsford 
A Southern Chronicle suggest that new and important legislation 
alBfecting the papacy was passed at this parliament. Probably, 
too, these should be regarded as but a single witness, seeing that 
for the reign of Richard II they used a common souroe ; and 
since both confuse the statute of 1393 with the statute of pro visors 
of 1390, in which year they evidently suppose the Winchester 
parliament to have been held,^ their testimony is not of much 
value. There is, it is true, what seems at first sight to be an allu- 
sion to the statute of 1393 in a manifesto containing a number 
of charges against Henry IV and probably composed in 1407.* 
Henry is denounced for having ratified and kept in force an anti- 
papal statute ' promulgated and renewed ' at a parHament at 
Winchester. But an examination of the evils said to have been 
wrought by this measure shows that the author was thinking of 

own chamber, at which proposals and requests might be made to the king's representa- 
tives by word of mouth. In any event, there is no reason whatever to suppose that 
the commons did not approve of what was done. 

lingard, however, deserves credit for his reluctance to believe that in one and the 
same parliament the commons virtually sanctioned the abrogation of the statute 
of provisors and initiated the most drastic of the anti-papal laws passed in medieval 
England, and for his recognition of the incompatibility between the assent of the 
prelates to such a measure and their protest against limitations of pajjal authority 
four years later. But all the real difficulties that perplexed him can be satisfactorily 
met if the statute be interpreted in the way I have suggested. 

* Walsingham, it should be remembered, showed great interest in the statute of 
provisors and in the attempts of the pope to secure its repeal. 

* Cont. Polychron. ix. 279. 

» Eulog. Hist. (Rolls Ser.), iii. 368; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 11714, fo. IT. On 
the relation between these two authorities, see Kingsford, English Historical Literalure 
in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 28 seqq. 

* It has generally been held that the document was drawn up by Archbishop 
Scrope in justification of his rebellion ; but Dr. J. H. Wylie argued that it was composed 
after the archbishop's death and circulated in 1407 in preparation for the earl of 
Northumberland's rising in the following year, and that it was not ' the composition 
of a practical politician at all, but an elaborate outburst of academical indignation 
compiled by some disappointed student ' {History oj England under Henry I V, ii. 
214 «eg.). 


the statute of provisors and that the parliament he had in mind 
was really that of 1390.^ It may be concluded that while it was 
remembered that the parHament of 1393 had dealt with the 
relations of England and the papacy, the general public, clergy 
and laity aHke, did not ascribe to it any legislation as severe and 
comprehensive as the statute of praemunire was afterwards 
supposed to be. 

Even greater is the indifference of official records to the ' great 
statute of praemunire '. It duly appears on the statute roll of 
16 Richard II. It forms the subject of a petition of the arch- 
bishops and bishops in 1439.^ Between these dates I have not 
found in official documents any mention of the statute or, except 
perhaps in a record of 1434, any evidence of its existence. 

It is notoriously dangerous to base any conclusion on an 
argument from silence. Nevertheless, the absence from official 
documents, English or papal, of aU apparent allusion to the 
statute for more than forty years after it was passed does seem to 

^ ' Idem dominus Henricus . . . quoddam statutum nefandissimum promulgatum 
et renovatum in Parliamento apud Wintoniam anno Domini Regis [lacuna in text] 
scienter approbat, ratificat et sustinet, nee aliud remedium quam illud ordinat vel 
opponit : quod quidem statutum est directe contra Curiam Romanam, eius potestatem 
ac principatum a Domino nostro lesu Christo, Beato Petro, eiusque successoribus 
Romanis Pontificibus traditam et collatam ; quibua omnium beneficiorum Ecclesia- 
sticorum tam superiorum quam inferiorum plena et libera dispositio, ordinatio et 
collatio . . . deberet ut noscitur pertinere. Quod statutum nefandum est causa efficiens 
multorum scelerum et peccaminum. . . . Quia plures Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, et 
Prelati . . . vacantia beneficia conferunt iuvenibus et illiteratis et indignis personis. 
. . . Et vix reperitur aliquis Praelatus taliter Beneficium conferens, quin ex conven- 
tione ac pacto vult habere singulis annis tertiam vel dimidiam partem Beneficii sic 
collati. Et sic his diebus non promovent aliquos, nisi suos filios spurios et cognates, 
secum in peccatis enormibus laborantes, et commensales. Ita quod per istud statutum 
destruitur Clerus Universitatum. Quia Milites et Armigeri, Mercatores et tota regni 
communitas potius eligunt filios suos et cognatos apprenticios facere vel constituere 
in aliqua arte temporali vel saeculari, quam ad aliquam Universitatem pro Clericis 
fiendis mittere ' : Wharton, Anglia Sacra, ii. 366 seq. 

The writer evidently did not know the date of the parliament to which he alludes ; 
he left a blank space for it, but never filled it in. There is no record of any anti-papal 
statute having been ' promulgatum et renovatum ' in the parliament of 1393 ; on 
the other hand, if we take promulgatum in the sense of ' recited ' the phrase gives 
a fairly accurate impression of what happened to the statute of provisors in 1390. 
The original statute, that of 1351, was recited and declared to be in force, its scope 
being somewhat extended and new penalties being prescribed for its infringement. 
The efifect of the statute of provisors on the universities was a frequent cause of com- 
plaint during the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V (cf. Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 241 seqq. ; 
Chron, Adae de Usk, p. 60 ; Bot. Pari. iv. 81). In 1403 the king suspended the statute 
in favour of graduates of the universities (Wilkins, iii. 275 seqq.), but apparently this 
concession was withdrawn in 1407, when it was enacted that the statutes against 
provisors should be strictly observed, notwithstanding any relaxation of them which 
the king had been authorized to make {Statutes, ii. 161). It was perhaps of this that 
the writer of the tract was thinking when he spoke of the king as having ' ratified ' 
the obnoxious statute. There is no record of Henry's having ratified or having in any 
way noticed the statute of 1393. 

» Wilkins, iii. 534. 


me fatal to the notion that it was intended and understood to be 
a measure of the first importance, protecting against ecclesiastical 
intrusion the whole field of jurisdiction claimed by the Crown. 
It is not as if the anti-papal legislation of the period had been 
a dead letter. The statute of provisors meets one at every turn 
in the Rolls of Parliament and in the Patent Rolls ; the papal 
registers, in spite of the pope's attempts to ignore it, betray 
its effectiveness ; and from time to time it was enforced with 
much vigour .-"^ The statutes of praemunire of 1353 and 1365 
were employed as need arose. There is no greater mistake than 
to suppose, as some modern historians have done, that the 
weapons of the Crown against the papacy were allowed to rust 
unused. This being so, if the statute of 1393 applied to aU 
encroachments of the papacy on the temporal sphere, one would 
expect it to appear very frequently in the records of the time. 
A pardon for a breach of the statute of 1390 would be of no avail 
unless the breach of the statute of 1393 were pardoned too. 
A licence to accept a papal provision ' notwithstanding the statute 
of 13 Richard II ' would not protect the provisor against the 
statute of 16 Richard II. Nevertheless, in the numerous pardons 
for accepting and licences to accept provisions which are entered 
in the patent rolls of the twenty years following its enactment 
it is not once mentioned, while the act of 1390 is repeatedly 
named as if it were the only one that mattered.^ Moreover, 
when Englishmen procured from Rome bulls prejudicial to the 
Crown, why should laws of Edward III be made the ground of 
the proceedings taken against them if a more stringent statute 
of Richard II was equally suited to the case ? But when in 1399 
John Bastard, clerk, was pardoned for failing to obey a writ of 
'praemunire facias, his offence of suing divers processes in the 
Roman court was described as a breach of a statute of Edward III.^ 
When in 1415, as we have seen, a writ of praemunire issued against 
Roger Lansell, it was on the ground that a citation he had pro- 
cured in the court of Rome was contrary to an ordinance of the 
same king.* In 1427 what was evidently a similar offence was 
stigmatized in similar terms. ^ And in other cases of unlawful 

* The effect of the statutes of provisors has never been properly investigated. 
But even a somewhat hasty examination of the calendars of papal registers shows 
that at various times, especially after the council of Constance, the control of the 
pope over English preferment became very slight. 

» The statute of 1390 included that of 1351. After 1390 there is little trace of the 
statute of 1365. Though not formally repealed, it was, as regards papal provisions, 
superseded by the later act. 

» Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1396-9, p. 544. 

* Supra, p. 177. The terms of the reference suggest that the act of 1353 was 
meant. It was confirmed in 1365, the statute of 1365 being supplementary to it. 

« Rot. Pat., 5 Hen. VI, fo. 1, m. 3. The abridgement in Cal of Pat. Rolls, 1422-9, 
p. 400, mentions the ' statute of praemunire '. The original merely refers to an offence 


recourse to the Roman court, it is often evident, even when there 
is no allusion to any statute, that the proceedings against the 
offenders are based on the earUer statutes of praemunire and not 
on the act of 1393.1 

Assuming that the statute of 1393 was an all-sufficient safe- 
guard against papal encroachments, modern writers have often 
given the impression that it marked the end of the anti-papal 
activities of medieval parliaments. This, however, was far 
from being the case. Some of the parliaments of Henry IV show 
as much jealousy of the authority of the pope as any of their 
predecessors. Nor were they merely concerned with the enforce- 
ment of existing laws. Much of their attention was given to 
grievances against which, as they evidently supposed, no adequate 
provision had as yet been made. Thus in 1401 it was complained 
that the Cistercians had obtained bulls granting them certain 
exemptions from the payment of tithes, to the prejudice of the 
rights of the king and other patrons of ecclesiastical benefices. 
Now here, if the statute of 1393 covered all papal bulls prejudicial 
to the Crown, was surely a case which fell within its scope. The 
petition indeed asked that any attempt to execute the bull should 
be punished by loss of the king's protection and forfeiture, 
the very punishments imposed on offenders against the statute 
of 1393 ; but it made no allusion to that measure.^ What is 
more remarkable, the statute which was the outcome of this 
petition, though it directed that all who attempted to execute 
such bulls or procured any in future should be proceeded against 
by writ of praemunire facias, went on to ordain that they should 
incur the penalties prescribed, not in the statute of 1393, but in 
the statute of provisors of 1390.^ This was a singular arrange- 
ment. For that statute had been very carefully drawn up to 
deal with the particular question of papal provisions ; a number 
of different penalties, appropriate to different classes of offenders, 
are enumerated in it ; and which of these were to be inflicted on 
the guilty Cistercians and others in like case is nowhere specified. 
The statute of 1393, if not applicable to the case, might more 
reasonably have been extended to meet it. But apparently no 
one thought of its existence. 

' contra formam ordinationis et concordie in parliamento domini Edwardi nuper regis 
Anglie progenitoris nostri apud Westmonasterium nuper tento editarum '. Doubtless 
one of the ' statutes of praemunire ' is meant, but not that of 1393, to which the entry 
in the calendar would naturally be taken to allude. 

1 See, for example, Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1405-8, pp. 479 seq. ; 1408-13, pp. 27, 263. 
A good example appears in Rot. Pat., 20 Ric. II, fo. 3, m. 34, another letter which has 
had its meaning distorted in the calendar (Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1396-9, p. 106 : pardon 
of the abbot of Dore, whose sentence was not for procuring unlawful citations at 
Rome, but for failing to respond to a writ of praemunire facias). 

* Rot. Pari. iii. 464 seq. The source of the petition is not stated. 

* Statutes, ii. 121 seq. 


It is probable that the terms of the statute in restraint of the 
Cistercians had been suggested by the commons. At any rate, 
the statute of 1390 was evidently regarded by them as an instru- 
ment that could be adapted to the reform of many kinds of 
ecclesiastical abuses. In the same parliament they asked for 
the imposition of the pains ordained ' against provisors in the 
court of Rome ' on those who accepted incompatible benefices, 
obtained papal dispensation for non-residence, or accepted new 
appropriations of churches. -"^ Next year they wanted to extend 
the same penalties to those who put their benefices to farm and 
dwelt elsewhere as stipendiary chaplains, and to the principal 
officers of any order of friars which should accept as a recruit 
any one under twenty-one years of age.^ None of the abuses 
of which the commons complained in these petitions had as yet 
been the object of legislation by Crown or parliament, and it is 
strange that the commons, with a free hand, should have wished 
to bring them under the act of 1390, if there was at their service 
a measure which was not only newer and less complicated but 
also of much wider range. 

In 1406 the commons presented a long petition about provisors 
who, having been prevented by the statute against them from 
securing possession of the benefices they claimed, took pro- 
ceedings in the curia against their successful rivals. This was 
an offence against more than one statute, and the petition was 
needlessly diffuse ; but it is of interest as showing that the commons 
regarded the act of 1390 as the most recent and important measure 
bearing on the question.^ Again, in 1407 there was a petition 
against provisors resident at Rome who secured at the papal 
court sentences against English incumbents before these even 
knew that proceedings were being taken against them. The 
commons asked that no ordinary should admit any clerk to 
a benefice the previous incumbent of which had been deprived 
by ecclesiastical authority without being cited within the realm. 
Any ordinary acting to the contrary, and any presentee pursuing 
his claim to such a benefice, should, they suggested, incur the 
penalties ordained in the statute of 1390, the procedure to be 
followed being that prescribed in the statute of 1353.* The 
petition is of exceptional interest, and raises many points of 
common, statute, and canon law. The commons asserted that 
the abuse could only be remedied by fresh legislation ; but, even 
if the statutes of provisors were not sufficient, it seems to me 
that the statute of 1393, as afterwards interpreted, would have 
been an ample safeguard. The commons, however, were plainly 
trying to frustrate a subtle and dangerous attempt to circumvent 

1 Rot. Pari. iii. 468. « lUd. p. 501. 

« Ibid. p. 595. * Ihid. p. 614. 


the legislation against provisors ; and in their eyes, perhaps, even 
* the great statute of praemunire ' would have left one or two points 
unguarded. But in that case one would still have expected them 
to make use of such a measure, which would have furnished at 
once a suitable procedure and adequate punishments. Instead,, 
they had recourse to two earlier measures, and would apparently 
have left it to the courts to decide which of the numerous penalties 
provided in the statute of 1390 was to be used against the offenders 
they had in view.^ Once again the act of 1393 is ignored — 
unaccountably ignored if it was really the climax of the anti- 
papal legislation of the middle ages. 

It appears then that for many years the English parliament 
and the English courts of law took no notice of the statute. 
And, what is no less remarkable, there seems to be no evidence 
that it called forth any protest from Rome. The statute, it must 
be remembered, was passed at a time when Boniface IX was 
much exercised about the anti-papal legislation in England. 
In 1391 he had solemnly denounced and declared void the so- 
called statute of Carlisle, the statute of 1351, and the new one of 
1390, and he had been trying hard to secure their repeal. But 
I have found nothing to show that he displayed any concern about 
the statute of 1393. In 1394, it is true, Bartholomew of Novara, 
a canonist of some repute, was sent by the pope to England to 
press for the annulment of certain statutes lately made there 
against the pope, the Roman church, and ecclesiastical liberty.^ 
The use of the plural statuta might be thought to indicate that 
the pope had in mind the acts of 1390 and 1393. But in papal 
communications on this topic statutum is often used in its non- 
technical sense of something ordered or decreed. In 1391 the 
abbot of Nonantola spoke of the ' statutes ' of Quare impedit 
and Praemunire facias, and moreover used the plural when 
referring to the act of 1390.^ Further, when Bartholomew stated 
his errand before the king's council, that body reported to 
Richard that he had explained how ' the statute lately made in 

' The petition is not always as explicit as one could wish. I have, however, tried 
to take into account all possible interpretations of obscure passages. To discuss the 
relation of all the anti-papal statutes to the abuse of which the petition complains 
would necessitate a long digression. I have, therefore, contented myself with stating 
the rather inconclusive results to which, in my opinion, such a discussion would lead^ 
The king refused the petition, and promised that the council would do justice to 
aggrieved incumbents. 

2 Cal. of Papal Letters, iv. 47. 

» Cotit. Polyckr. ix. 250 seq. ; Walsingham, ii. 200. The Continuator of the Poly- 
chronicon gives a verbatim report of the abbot's speech. That it is genuine is proved 
not only by internal evidence, but also by the abridged version given by Walsingham, 
who frequently attributes to the abbot whole sentences reported by the Continuator. 
It looks as if the abbot had distributed copies of his speech among the journalists o£ 
the day. 


youi" parliament ' was very detrimental to the estate of the 
apostolic see and the liberty of the church, and had advocated 
its repeal.^ Evidently the council thought that only one statute 
was in question. If that was so, it is probable that Bartholomew 
of Novara was merely renewing the attempt of the abbot of 
Nonantola to obtain the repeal of the statute of provisors and the 
abolition of the obnoxious writs. This hypothesis is strengthened 
by the terms of the commission to Peter bishop of Dax, who in 
1398 was sent to England with power to grant absolution to the 
English people from the penalties incurred under the pope's 
annulment of all the statutes and ordinances made by Richard II 
in parliament at Westminster against ecclesiastical liberty and the 
Roman church, after such annulment should have taken place 
in England.^ The parliament of 1393 was of course held not at 
Westminster but at Winchester ; and while it would be rash 
to make much of this point, it is strange, if the pope had ever 
formally denounced the statute of 1393, that care was not taken 
to have it precisely described in the bishop's commission.^ At 
all events, the St. Albans chronicles say that the bishop came to 
urge the withdrawal of the statute against provisors, the writ 
of Quare impedit, and many such things whereby the curia was 
vexed.* And the outcome of the bishop's visit, as far as the 
objectionable statutes were concerned, was merely a temporary 
concordat regarding the statute of provisors, whereby the pope 
was to be allowed to fill a limited number of English benefices.^ 
It may at least be said that the transactions just noticed might 
all have taken place if the statute of 1393 had never been 

It was not until after the council of Constance that the 
anti-papal laws were again the subject of serious remonstrance 
from Rome. Then, however, Martin V addressed himself to the 
problem with vigour. It has commonly been assumed that his 
angry protests were directed against the statutes of provisors 
and praemunire alike ; but I have found no evidence that either 
Martin V or Eugenius IV, who continued his efforts, was con- 
cerned about any of the so-called statutes of praemunire. As 
a rule, the popes' letters on the subject are not very specific. The 
target of their wrath is usually alluded to as that ' abominable ' 
or ' detestable ' or ' execrable statute against ecclesiastical 

* Ord. Priv. Council, i. 53 seq. The word ' lately ' (nadgaires in the council's report) 
proves nothing. In 1415 a council of Edward III was spoken of as nadgairs tenuz 
(supra, p. 177, n. 2). 

* Cal. of Papal Letters, v. 111. 

' In the formal act recording the pope's denunciation of the statutes of provisors 
in 1391, they are cited with meticulous accuracy {ibid. iv. 277). 

* Walsingham, ii, 228 ; Ann. Ric. II, p. 228. 
» Wilkins, iii. 236 seq. 


liberty '} The use of the singular statutum, whether the word be 
given its technical or its general meaning, suggests that only one 
measure was in debate. English documents relating to the matter 
refer only to one statute," which one or two of them call the statute 
of provisors,^ and it was merely for the repeal of that measure 
that Chichele pleaded when at the bidding of Martin V he put 
the pope's case before the commons during the parliament of 
1428.^ Now if only one statute was in question, there can be no 
doubt as to which it was. On the rare occasions when the pope 
condescends to paraphrase passages in the offensive legislation, 
he seems always to be using the text of the statute of 1390 (in 
which that of 1351 is recited),^ and the one verbatim quotation 
that I have found in a papal letter is drawn from that source.^ 
The archbishop of York,' in a letter written soon after the close of 
the parliament of 1428, speaks of Chichele's efforts as directed 
towards gaining for the pope freedom to dispose of benefices in 
clerical patronage, and in 1435 Eugeniue IV identified the 
measure to which his predecessor had objected with a statute 
which hindered the pope from collating to English benefices.® 
All interested parties, in fact, seem to assume that the papal 
claim to appoint to English benefices was the only question at 
issue throughout the prolonged negotiations. It is hard, in the 
face of this, to believe that the statute of 1393 came into the 

* e.g. ' illud abominabile statutum ' (Wilkins, iii. 479), ' pro abolitione illius detesta- 
bilis statuti contra libertatem ecclestiasticam editi ' {ibid.), ' execrabile illud statutum 
contra libertatem ecclesiasticam editum ' {ibid. p. 473). 

* So, for example, in an official reply, dated October 1419, to one of the pope's 
demands for redress {Foedera ix. 806), and in a letter from Archbishop Chichele 
to William Swan at the curia, dated 27 February 1428 (MS. Cott., Cleop. C. iv, 
fo. 174 b). 

^ e. g. a letter, dated 16 January 1428, from the bishop of Bath and Wells (John 
Stafford) to Swan : ' In instanti parliamento . . . archiepiscopi . . . ac singuli alii epi- 
scopi et prelati pro abolitione illius statuti editi contra provisores diligentissime 
laborarunt ' {ibid. fo. 173 b). 

* Wilkins, iii. 484. 

* Most of Martin's allusions to details occur in his letter to Henry VI dated 1 Decem- 
ber 1426 (Wilkins, iii. 480 seqq.), and in that to Chichele dated 9 December 1426 {ibid. 
482 seq. ; Cal. of Papal Letters, vii. 24 seq. ). 

* This occurs in the letter to Henry VI just cited : ' Ferentes aut destinantes a sede 
apostolica excommunicationis processum contra aliquem de regno contra ipsius 
statuti dispositionem . . . ut ipsius statuti utamur verbis, poenam vitae ac membrorum 
incumint' (Wilkins, iii. 481). Cf. Statutes, i\. 74: 'Si ascun port ou envoie deinz 
le roialme . . . ascun somonces, sentences, ou escomengementz envers ascun persone 
... a cause de la mocion . . . fesance assent ou execucion du dit estatut des provisours 
. . . encourge la pe3me de vie et de membre.' 

' Dated 28 March 1428, and addressed to the bishop of Dax, who was apparently 
at Rome : ' Desideria sanctissimi domini nostri quo ad optatam disponendi libertatem 
de beneficiis videlicet ecclesiasticis hoc in Regno vacaturis saltim [sic] de patronatu 
personarum ecclesiasticarum existentibus omni cum diligencia pertractata fuere ' 
(MS. Ck)tt., Cleop. C. iv, fo. 169). 

» Raynaldus, Annaks (ed. Mansi, 1747-56), xxviii. 199 ; Cal. of Papal Letters, 
viii. 216 seqq. 


dispute at all : on the interpretation that I have suggested 
it only touched the fringe of the question, whUe if given a wider 
significance it would have raised a much broader issue, some 
allusion to which must have appeared in the correspondence that 
was exchanged. Furthermore, if the statute of 1393 covered all 
encroachments on temporal affairs, the repeal of the statute 
of 1390 would have availed the pope nothing ; while, on the other 
hand, the repeal of the statute of 1393 would have left that of 
1390 in force. To secure liberty of conferring English benefices 
the pope would have been obliged to get rid of both measures. 
Yet, as we have seen, it was for the repeal of but one statute 
that Chichele pleaded before the commons, and his conduct 
on that occasion was considered by observers to be proof of zeal 
in the pope's cause, and satisfied even Martin V himself.^ 

There seems then good reason to believe that the popes of 
the forty years after the passing of the statute of 1393 were 
little if at all perturbed by it, and there is apparently no evidence 
that they took any formal notice of it. Thus the wording of the 
act itself, the circumstances in which it was passed, and the 
general disregard of it for so many years point alike to the 
conclusion that it was originally a measure of but limited purpose, 
intended by those who framed it to protect ecclesiastics from 
punishment for executing the sentences of secular courts and 
to prevent arbitrary translations of bishops. But why, it 
may be asked, was such an act required ? Did not existing 
statutes provide adequate safeguards against such exercise of 
papal authority ? 

The statute of 1390 ordained that if any person brought or 
sent into the realm summonses, sentences, or excommunications 
directed against any one for proposing, assenting to, or executing 

* Cal. of Papal Letters, viii. 64. It has sometimes been argued that, as the anti- 
papal legislation had not been enforced, Martin V was not seriously concerned about 
it, and merely used it as a stick for beating Chichele, who (according to this view) had 
been encouraging the English church in a display of independence somewhat alarming 
to the papacy. But, whatever motives led the pope to make his attack on Chichele — 
which, it should be noted, began in 1423 on another issue (B;a3nialdus, Annales, 
xxvii. 573 ; Cal, of Papal Letters, vii. 12) — it is clear from the papal registers that 
throughout his pontificate the statute of provisors was operating effectively, and, 
with the exception of bishoprics, very few English benefices were filled by the pope. 
Martin's attempt to secure some redress began in 1419 ; it was resumed at intervals 
during the next nine years, and renewed by Eugenius IV in 1435 (Foedera, ix. 806 ; 
Raynaldus, ^nwa/es, xxvii. 538, 556 ; xxviii. 20 ; Wilkins, iii. 471 seg-j. ; Cal. of Papal 
Letters, viii. 216 seqq., 263). That he was in earnest is shown by the mere fact that he 
addressed himself mainly to the king ; it was not till late in 1426 that he sought to 
stimulate Chichele's activity in the cause. Moreover, Eugenius IV seems to have had 
no suspicion that when Chichele was reconciled to the Holy See, the incident was really 
closed. One gathers, not merely from official documents but from informal corre- 
spondence preserved in William Swan's letter-book, that Martin's efforts were taken 
quite seriously both at Rome and in England. It is, therefore, important to notice 
the precise terms in which the papal demands were urged. 


the statute, he should be arrested and imprisoned, undergo 
forfeiture of lands and goods, and incur the pain of life and 
member. If, then, a secular court had given judgement in an 
action brought under the statute of provisors, any one bringing 
into the country a bull excommunicating a churchman for carry- 
ing out the sentence would presumably have been liable to the 
penalties recited. In this instance the statute of 1393 would have 
been superfluous. But the clause just cited could not be applied 
unless the statute of 1390 had been involved, and most of the 
sentences which the clergy were called upon to execute would 
have nothing to do with the statute. For one thing, neither 
this act, nor that of 1351, which it confirmed, referred to any 
benefices but those in clerical patronage.^ The impetration at 
the court of Rome of any benefice whatever was indeed an 
offence under the statute of 1365, but that measure was easy to 
evade and made but perfunctory provision against the use of 
papal authority to defeat it.^ Lay patrons, of course, did not 
need statutes of provisors, for they had at their service such 
writs as quare impedit, quare non permittit, quare non admisit, 
not to mention the newfangled one of praemunire facias^ which 
could be obtained on suggestion filed before the king's council.^ 
These resources they were expected to use in suits against papal 
provisors, as well as in the much more numerous suits which did 
not concern the pope at all. Now for many years the spiritual 
courts in England had tacitly waived their claim to determine 
suits regarding patronage, and the papacy had seemingly 
acquiesced. The secular courts decided who was the rightful 
patron of any benefice in dispute, and the ecclesiastic with 
authority to institute admitted his presentee as a matter of 
course, unless it could be proved that he was personally unfit. 
But suppose the pope determined to exercise that jurisdiction 
over patronage which the church had never formally surrendered, 
and threatened with excommunication any prelate who acted 
in pursuance of the sentence of a lay court in a suit concerning 
patronage. A writ of quare non admisit would enforce the claims 
of the common law ; but the wretched churchman might prefer 
ruin or even imminent death to the risk of eventual damnation, 
and it might prove impossible to secure the canonical institution 
of the presentee. If the church might not say who was patron, 
she would not allow any one to be parson. 

One gathers from the preamble to the statute of 1393 that 

1 It is true that the statute of 1390 enacts that the statute of 1351 shall hold good 
of all ecclesiastical benefices whatsoever, and that this reads as though it were to be 
extended to benefices in lay patronage {Statutes, ii. 73). But an examination of the 
text of the earlier statute and of other passages in the later one shows that this cannot 
have been intended. * Ibid. i. 386. 

' Palgrave, The Original Authority of the King's Council, p. 40. 



this was the attitude of Boniface IX. Alarmed by the statute 
of 1390, he had resolved to reopen the whole question of juris- 
diction in cases concerning patronage. Besides demanding the 
repeal of the statutes of provisors, the abbot of Nonantola had 
asked for the abolition of what he called the statutes of qvxire 
impedit and praemunire facias, and had made vague threats as 
to what the pope might do if his requests were denied.^ The 
abolition of the two writs had been curtly refused,^ and the pope 
had got little satisfaction in regard to the statutes. It was 
probably in retaliation that he did the things complained of by 
the commons in 1393. Their petition certainly suggests that he 
had acted on his own initiative. The conventional pretence, 
usually kept up in anti-papal statutes, that English suitors 
at Rome were mainly to blame for all abuses and grievances, is 
altogether dropped. It is also to be remarked that the statute 
of provisors is nowhere mentioned in the petition ; and the 
allusion to the immemorial authority of the king's court in rela- 
tion to patronage and to the right of the king's lieges to sue there 
gives the impression that the commons had in mind, not the 
anti-papal statutes — all fairly recent — but the venerable actions 
at common law which were the natural weapons of lay patrons 
and which even churchmen often employed in cases where 
the authority of the pope was not directly at issue.^ 

Now if the processes and sentences complained of by the 
commons had been the outcome of litigation initiated at Rome 
by an Englishman, he might have been proceeded against under 
the statute of 1353 ; * but if they were the result of a petition 
for papal favour and support, still more if they sprang from the 
pope's own initiative, there was, so far as I am aware, no statute 
under which any one could be punished. It was even considered 
doubtful whether bulls communicating such proceedings were in 
all cases ' prejudicial to the Crown '. Hence the careful consulta- 
tion of the estates in parliament. Of course the pope could not 
be prevented from taking such measures against English eccle- 
siastics ; aU that could be done was to forbid any one to ask 
him to do so, and to try to keep the victims in ignorance of their 

* Cont. Polychr. ix. 251 ; Walsingham, ii. 251, * Cont. Polychr. ix. 256 seq. 

* Compare the passage quoted above, p. 178, n. 3, and a passage in the king's 
reply to the abbot of Nonantola : ' Ex eo namque quod per dictum nuncium petebatur 
statuta " Quare impedit " et " Praemunire facias ", ut praemittitur, aboleri, adniira- 
tionis causa consurgit maxime cum ab aliis summis pontificibus nunquam fuerunt 
haec petita, quoniam constat ilia statuta etiam inter laicos patronos regni nostri 
subditos super iure patronatus eorum et aliter legem tribuere ab antiquissimis tern- 
poribus observatam ' (Cont. Polychr. ix. 256 seq.). 

* He would come within the scope of this act as one of those ' qui suent en autri 
Court a deffaire ou empescher les juggementz renduz en la Court le Roi '. But I do not 
think that the English courts would at this period have construed this clause so as to 
bring within its meaning petitions for papal grace and favour. 


fate. So very severe penalties were prescribed for any one who 
procured, pursued, brought into the realm, or published, docu- 
ments of any kind instituting or announcing proceedings against 
ecclesiastics for executing judgements of English secular courts. 

The question of arbitrary translation was perhaps still more 
perplexing. None of the statutes of provisors mentions transla- 
tions. It was generally recognized that only the pope could 
translate bishops,^ and no one wanted to stop translations 
altogether. The statute of 1351, however, laid it down that 
episcopal elections were to be free, and if it had been enforced 
in this particular, the pope would have been permitted to translate 
a bishop to another English see only at the request of its chapter. 
But what if the pope translated an English bishop to a see in 
partibus infidelium or schistnaticorum ? ^ The king might forbid 
him to leave the realm, but more he could not do. The bishop 
could not retain his English see, and if he did not try to obey 
the pope's command, he might incur the gravest spiritual penalties. 
Even in the case of translations from one English see to another, 
the king's powers, as the law then stood, were of little avail 
against such a policy as Boniface was said to be contemplating. 
He could keep a translated bishop out of his new see ; he could 
proceed against him for a breach of the statute of provisors : 
but he could not keep him in his old see or save him from the 
spiritual dangers of offending the pope. The petition of the 
commons dwells entirely on the negative aspect of translation. 
It was a means whereby the pope might deprive the king 
of his counsellors and also (though this is not expressly men- 
tioned) deprive his counsellors of salaries which were no burden 
on the treasury. The commons limit their complaint to transla- 
tions made without the consent of either the king or the prelates 
affected, and if Boniface really had the intentions ascribed to him, 
it is clear that his motives were political and highly improbable 
that he was prompted by any Englishman. There seems to have 
been no means of preventing the pope from doing what he 
pleased in the matter. The only hope of defeating him lay in 
keeping translated prelates in ignorance of what had befallen 
them. This the statute tried to do, but there was obviously little 
chance of its succeeding. 

Five years afterwards, indeed, Richard II was consulting the 
judges as to what he could do in defence of royal rights threatened 
by a series of translations then being made, and asking the clergy 
whether the pope might lawfully make translations at his will 
and if there were any justifiable method of preventing his doing 

' On this see Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 316. 

* This had, of course, recently been done at the instance of the lords appellant, 
-who prevailed on Urban VI to translate Archbishop Neville from York to St. Andrews. 



so.^ Most of the recent translations in England seem, it is true,, 
to have had the consent of either the king or the bishop concerned, 
if not of both ; but one — that of John Buckingham from Lincoln 
to Coventry and Lichfield — was apparently made contrary to 
the wishes of both Richard and Buckingham himself, and there- 
fore fell clearly within the scope of the statute of 1393. Yet there 
is no indication that any appeal was made to the statute ; the 
Crown recognized the translation of Buckingham as valid, ^ 
though the bishop himself is said to have refused his new see ; * 
and Richard was apparently at a loss how to prevent the pope from 
creating vacancies in English sees as he liked.* In fact, if men 
could be found who were ready to risk the penalties ordained 
in the statute and introduce into the country bulls notifying 
arbitrary translations, the king had no effective remedy for 
the consequent inconvenience to the English church and himself, 
unless he were daring enough to deny the pope's right to exercise 
a prerogative hitherto recognized on all hands as spiritual, and 
strong enough to coerce the clergy into compliance with his 
policy. Neither condition was fulfilled until the days of 
Henry VIII. 

The truth probably is that the enacting part of the statute 
was not regarded very seriously. It was badly drafted. It 
contains a glaring anacoluthon ; the passage prescribing penalties 
and procedure reads like the rough notes of a clerk ; and it 
abounds with words and phrases of doubtful import. In sharp 
contrast is the long preamble, obviously drawn up with care. 
The form of it is singular, and creates the impression that it was 
intended primarily to impress the pope with the unanimity of 
the English nation in opposition to the designs imputed to him. 
Probably, in fact, it should be looked upon as a political manifesto 
rather than as part of a measure of legislation. 5 Nor did it fail of 

*■ Ord. Priv. Council, i. 80 ; Ann. Rie. II, 226 seq. ; Walsingham, ii. 228. 

* Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1396-9, p. 383. 

* Ann. Ric. II, p. 226 ; Walsingham, loc. cit. The St. Albans writers say that 
the bishop, after refusing Coventry and Lichfield, retired to Canterbury, where he 
ended his days as a monk. It is likely enough that Buckingham, an old man, did not 
wish to move from Lincoln to a poorer see and a less orderly diocese ; but the news 
of his translation cannot have reached him more than a few days before his death 
(Eubel, Hierarchia Medii Aevi, i. 216, 242, 319), and five weeks after that event the pope 
had not heard of his refusal of Coventry and Lichfield {Cal. of Papal Letters, v. 167). 
The story in the chronicles cited must therefore be regarded with some scepticism. 

* At St. Albans Richard's anxiety was thought to be assumed, and he was sus- 
pected of having connived with the pope in the recent translations ; but his reference 
of the question to the judges indicates that, whatever his motives, his concern was not 
altogether feigned. The whole episode, however, raises many perplexing problems. 
Its clue is probably to be sought in Richard's political aims at this time ; but these lie 
far beyond the range of my present inquiry. 

' That there was a serious but temporary crisis in the relations between the Crown 
and the papacy is suggested by a writ, issued while the Winchester parliament was 


its efEect. Nothing more is heard of attempts by Boniface IX 
to defeat the sentences of English courts in the way described 
in the statute. Arbitrary translations, if not entirely stopped, 
were not used as a means of coercing the English government. 
The fact was that whatever card the pope of Rome played, 
the English Crown could always trump it as long as there was 
also a pope at Avignon. Boniface IX, in his first zeal, had 
plunged into controversy with England as though he had been 
Boniface VIII. But the preamble of the statute of 1393 told him 
plainly that if he persisted in his intentions he would be regarded 
as an enemy of the Crown and nation. He took the hint : the 
French were threatening his position in Italy, and they and the 
English were drawing together. It was no time for desperate 
measures, and while he continued his attempts to rid himself 
of the statute of provisors and perhaps even repeated his request 
for the abolition of the writ of quare impedit,^ he contented 
himself in future with the methods of polite diplomacy. 

Having served its purpose the statute would naturally 
fall into obscurity. It reappears in the record of the proceedings 
of the convocation of Canterbmry which met in November 1439.^ 
The archbishop, in his speech on the causes of its summons, 
declared that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was being unwontedly 
disturbed and injured by royal writs, especially the writ ' de 
praemunire facias '. After discussion of the matter a petition 
to the king was drafted. It stated that lq a parliament ^ in the 
sixteenth year of Richard II divers punishments and processes 
by writs of praemunire facias were ordained against those who 
sued in the court of Rome or elsewhere, against any of the king's 
lieges, regarding anything which was against the king and his 
crown, as was more fully set forth in the same statute. The 
statute, however, was obscurely worded, and understood by 
some in a sense different from that intended by those who made 
it. For some maintained that it applied to those who sued in 
courts Christian or feudal courts within the realm, just as much 
as to those who sued in the court of Rome. This interpretation, 
the petition urged, was too stringent and would utterly destroy 
spiritual and feudal jurisdiction and gravely injure the status 

still sitting, in which the keepers of the passage at the chief ports were ordered to 
seize all bulls and other documents coming from abroad and to bring them before the 
council (Rot. Claus. 16 Ric. II, mm. 14 d, 18). By 15 June following this strictness had 
been relaxed, and the officials concerned were to arrest only such bulls as they deemed 
prejudicial to the Crown and the realm (Rot. Pat. 16 Ric. II, fo. 3, m. 7 d). 

* The St. Albans chronicles say that the bishop of Dax asked for this in 1398 {Ann. 
Ric. II, p. 228 ; Walsingham, op. cit., ii. 228). 

* WilMns, iii. 533 seqq. 

» Held, according to the petition, at Westminster : a slip which is a warning not 
to make too much of the wording of the commission of the bishop of Dax in 1398 
{supra, p. 190). 


and liberties of the church.^ The king was therefore begged to 
ordain and declare, by authority of the parliament then sitting, 
that the statute did not apply to anything done or procured in 
any courts within the realm, against whose encroachments on 
Crown rights the king had sufficient safeguard, before ever the 
statute was made, in writs of prohibition and attachment. The 
archbishop of York, who was asked to co-operate, drew up a peti- 
tion in English, which was also presented to the king. Henry 
said that owing to the near approach of Christmas he could not 
at present discuss the matter fully with his council, but promised 
that until the next parliament no writ of praemunire should 
issue unless the king and his great council had considered the 
purpose for which it was required. 

The clergy, however, failed to secure a pronouncement in the 
sense desired. The matter was brought before parliament 
without effect in 1444,^ and three years later a long petition 
in English was presented to Henry VI on behalf of all the clergy 
of England.^ It goes into greater detail than the petition of 
1439, emphasizing in particular the words ' such ' (tieux) and 
' in the wise aforesaid ' {come devant est dit), which I have discussed 
above, and arguing from them that when the statute speaks of 
the court of Rome and elsewhere, it must mean ' elsewhere with- 
out the realm '.* Historically, the clergy were doubtless right ; 
but they apparently did not dispute that the statute covered all 

* ' Suppliaunt humblement Henry archevesque de Canterbirs, et touts ses freres 
evesques d'Engleterre, que come par le statut fait al parlement tenuz a Westmonster 
le xvi an du roy Richard le secunde, nadgairs roy d'Engleter, entre aultres divers 
punishmentz et processes par breves le roy appelles " Praemuniri facias " soient 
ordines, et purveues vers ceux, que suont en le court de Rome, ou aylours vers ascun 
liege nostre seigneur le roy, dascun chose, que soit encontre le roy et sa corone, come 
en le dit estatut pluis a plein est contenuz. Le quel estatut en les parols contenuz 
en ycell est obscure, et autrement entenduz as plusieurs que I'entent des faiseurs 
d'icell y fuist al temps del confection de mesme le statut, ascuns intendantes que les 
paroles de mesme le statut et les punishementz contenuz en ycell, auxi ben averoit 
relation a eux, que pursuont en ascun court christiane, ou en courtes temporall des 
seigneurs, et autres, que ount contrepalesez [sic] et courtes franchesez . . . dedeinz 
mesme le royalme, come a ceux, que suont en le court de Rome, come devant est dit, 
que seroit trop dure, et final destruction de tout le jurisdiction espirituel, et toutes 
autres courtes et fraunchesez . . . e[t] contre foy et conscience, et en graunt emblemishe- 
ment del estat et libertes de seint eglise, par le graunt chartre d'Engleterre et par 
nostre seigneur le roy et plusieurs ses progenitours devant en divers parlementz 
grauntes, et confirmes, sil serroit issint suffrees entenduz ou adjuges ' : Wilkins, iii. 534. 

^ Ibid. pp. 540 seq. ' Ibid. pp. 555 seqq. 

* ' It was ordeyned . . . that noo man sholde purchase, nor pursue, ner make to be 
purchased or pursued in the said court of Rome, or other places, ony sute [sic, ? such], 
processe, sentences, or cursjmg instruments, bull, or any other things whatsomeever 
they be, touching the king his regalie, or his reme of Englande in the wise aforsaid ; 
the which words, that is to say, ony such processe, sentences of cursing, and also 
the wordes in the wise aforesaid, owen to be nooted, forasmuch as afore in the sugges- 
tion was it not spoken, but of processe, sentences of cursjTig, and censures maad, 
and yeven be the pope, and of England, and may not therfor resonably be extended 
ferther ' : ibid. p. 555. 


documents prejudicial to the Crown which were of foreign 
origin, and once the statute ceased to be interpreted strictly 
in the light of the preamble there was no good reason for limiting 
the meaning of aillours in the manner suggested. At all events 
it is evident that in the royal courts no attention was being paid 
to the preamble, and that the crucial words tieux and come 
devant est dit were being practically ignored. It is significant that, 
according to the clergy, this was not the only statute which 
their enemies were trying to wi'est to the disadvantage of the 
church, for the petition goes on to complain that a statute of 
1401 against those who procured from the pope exemptions from 
ordinary obedience was being unwarrantably extended to cover 
papal licences for non-residence and certain other dispensations.^ 

The further history of the dispute throws no fresh light on 
the subject of my inquiries. It is enough to say that, except 
for a small concession made by Edward IV,^ the efforts of the 
clergy were unsuccessful. 

The petitions just noticed indicate that the statute was 
being used with vigour against the English ecclesiastical courts, 
and it is remarkable that I have found no clear instance of 
its employment as against the pope up to the middle of the 
century. But that its anti-papal potentialities were not over- 
looked is shown by the report of a case of 1448, in which it is 
described as ' le statut des provisors fait I'An xvi le Roy Richard '.^ 
Probably the defendant, Thomas Kemp, archdeacon of Richmond, 
was being prosecuted for accepting papal provision to the see of 
London,* but we are not told what the case was about, the report 
being concerned eijtirely with a discussion of procedure, which 
suggests that the court of king's bench had had little to do with 
the statute before. The description of the statute is interesting 
as showing that it was regarded primarily as an anti-papal 
measure and as illustrating the fact that such acts, however 
wide their scope, were seldom used to the disadvantage of the 
pope except in suits concerning papal provisions or reservations, 
the one question on which the Crown and the papacy were seriously 
at variance. 

It must of course have been some years before 1439 that the 
statute was rediscovered and first employed to the detriment 
of the English spiritual courts. The precise date can only be 
conjectured. Probably it was prior to 1434 ; for in that year 
Archbishop Chichele, addressing the convocation of Canterbury, 

* The act in question was Stat. 2 Hen. IV, c. 3 {Statutes, ii. 121). 

* That the church courts might entertain suits about tithes on great trees without 
being interfered with by writs of praemunire (Wilkins, iii. 584). 

3 Year Books, 27 Hen. VI, p. 5. 

* Cf. Le Neve, Fasti, ii. 297 ; Official Correspondence of Thomas Bekynton (Bolls 
Ser.), i. 155, 157. 


bewailed the abuse of the writ of praemunire in terms almost 
identical with those which he afterwards used in 1439,^ and 
though the record of this convocation contains no mention of the 
statute, it is almost certain that it furnished the ground of 
the proceedings to which the primate referred. Chichele, we are 
told, asserted on this occasion that the use of the writ ' in any 
matter within the realm ' had been unknown until the last few 
years. This is of course false, and even if he meant * any matter 
originating within the realm ', it would still be inaccurate.^ 
Probably the archbishop has been misreported and really said 
that it was only of late that the writ had been used in restraint 
of English spiritual courts. In any case, the passage points to 
the fact that the writ had recently been put to novel uses, and 
this makes it likely that the statute had attracted particular 
notice not long before. 

Now a few years earlier Humphi'ey duke of Gloucester had 
been trying hard to compass the ruin of Cardinal Beaufort 
by charges arising out of the latter 's acceptance of the red hat 
in 1426. His nearest approach to success was in November 1431, 
when, Henry VI and the cardinal being absent in France, the 
king's Serjeant and attorney, citing the precedents of Arch- 
bishops Kilwardby and Langham, urged in the council that 
Beaufort should be deprived of his see of Winchester, which he 
had papal dispensation to retain. Gloucester then elicited from 
the bishop of Worcester that the late bishop of Lichfield ^ 
had said that he had sued at Rome for the exemption of 
the cardinal from the jurisdiction of Canterbury and had 
paid for it. When asked what they thought of these things, 
the councillors expressed the opinion that nothing should be 
done until those concerned had been duly summoned, that the 
ancient records should be searched, and that the justices should 
state their views on the question.* Three weeks later, however, 
the council agreed that writs of ^praemunire and attachment against 
the cardinal should be sealed ' on the statute ', though they were 
not to be executed until the king returned to England. ^ 

' ' lurisdictio ecclesiastica per brevia regia et alias viae exquisitas et imaginata 
brevia plus solito perturbata extitit et impedita, et praecipue per brevia ilia de "' Prae- 
muniri facias ", quae nonnisi infra paucos annos in aliqua materia infra regnum 
aliquem habebant cursum ' : Wilkins, iii. 523. 

^ For the early history of the writ, see Palgrave, pp. 40, 131, and Leadam and 
Baldwin, Select Cases before the King's Council (Selden Society), pp. 43 seq., 50. 

^ John Caterick, who held the see from 1415 to 1419. Martin V had offered to 
make Beaufort a cardinal in 1418, but Henry V had forbidden him to accept {Letters 
aJid Papers illv^trative of the Wars of the English in France, (Rolls Ser.), ii. 441 ; cf. 
Duck, Vita Henrici Chichele (1617), pp. 76 seq., 78). 

* Ord. Priv. Council, iv. 100 seq. 

* Ihid. pp. 104 seq. : ' Concordatum fuit quod brevia de premunire facias et 
attachiamento super statute contra Cardinalem sigillentur sed quod execucio eorundcm 
diffeiatur usque adventum Regis in Angliam.' 


One is tempted to identify the statute on which the council 
were to rely with the act of 1393. The two writs correspond 
to the alternative modes of procedure sanctioned under that 
measure.-^ No one statute, so far as I know, could be made to 
cover both the offences with which Beaufort was charged, unless 
it were that of 1393, interpreted as involving everything preju- 
dicial to the Crown. Beaufort's acceptance of the cardinalate, 
we must remember, was not in itself an ofiEence and was never 
treated as such. It was his retention of the bishopric of Win- 
chester and his alleged purchase of exemption from archiepiscopal 
jurisdiction that gave his enemies their chance. The king's 
attorney when impugning the first indiscretion seems to have 
relied on custom and precedent ; the second was an offence under 
the statute of 1401 which appeared in the petition of the clergy 
in 1447. It is possible, however, that Gloucester and his friends, 
after considering the results of research in the records and hearing 
the views of the judges, resolved to construe Beaufort's two 
dispensations as prejudicial to the Crown and therefore contrary 
to the statute of 1393. 

On the other hand, when in 1440 Gloucester drew up a long 
and solemn arraignment of Beaufort's career, he argued that the 
see of Winchester became void when Beaufort was made cardinal, 
that it was only some time afterwards that he received permis- 
sion to retain it, and that therefore he was technically appointed 
to it afresh by papal provision and so guilty of an offence against 
the statute of provisors. It is evident from this argument and 
from his allusions to the contents of the statute that he had in 
mind the act of 1390. As for Beaufort's exemption from the 
jurisdiction of Canterbury, that, in Gloucester's opinion, followed 
as a matter of course from his creation as cardinal. He says 
nothing of Beaufort's having puichased it, and it is probable 
that this charge, which seems to have rested on very weak 
evidence, had been dropped.^ 

» It was ordained that offenders ' soient attachez par lour corps sils purront estre 
trovez at amesnez devant le Roy et son Conseil pur y respondre . . . ou qe processe soit 
fait devers eux par premunire facias en manere come est ordeigne en autres estatutz 
des proAdsours et autres qui seuent en autry Courte en derogacion de la regalie notre 
Beignour le Roy ' (Statutes, ii. 86). 

* * Item, thesaide cardinal, thanne being bisshop, was assoylled of his bisshopriche 
of Winchestre. Wherupon he sewed to . . . the pope to have a bulle declaratorie that 
notwithstanding that he was assumpt to the state of cardinal, that the see was not 
voied, where in dede it stode voied by a certayne tyme or that bulle was graunted, 
and so he was exempt from his ordinarie by the taking on hym the state of cardinal ; 
and the bisshopriche of the chirche of Winchester thanne standing voied, he toke it 
ageyn of the pope ; ye [sc. king] not leemed ne knowjoig wherinne he was fallen 
in the cas of provision, wherby alle his goode was clerly and laufully forfaited to you 
. . . with more, as the statute declareth, for youre avauntage ' : Letters and Papers 
illuatrative of the Wars oj the English in France during the Reign of Henry VI (Rolls 
Ser.), ii. 442. The statement that the king might have got more than Beaufort's goods 


It is unfortunate that no light is thrown on the question by 
what occurred after the cardinal's return to England in 1432. 
For he immediately confronted his enemies in parliament, 
said that according to information received while he was abroad 
he was accused of treason, and challenged his accuser to bring 
his charge then and there. Gloucester and the other lords meekly 
answered that no one had accused him of any treason or, to 
the best of their knowledge, wished to do so, but that the king 
held him to be a true and loyal subject.-^ Afterwards, at the 
petition of the commons, it was ordained that Beaufort should be 
exempt from all proceedings on account of any offence against 
any statute of provisors, any exemption, any receipt or execution 
of papal bulls, or anything else whereby he might be liable to the 
penalties contained in the statutes of provisors.^ The wording 
is of course far too comprehensive to be of any service in our 
present inquiry. 

On the whole, it seems likely that the statute ' on ' which 
the two writs against Beaufort were sealed was that of 1390, 
and that the charge of purchasing exemption from obedience 
to Canterbury was dropped. The preparation of two writs 
might have been suggested by the statute of 1365 no less than by 
that of 1393, and was, after all, natural in the circumstances : 
Beaufort was abroad ; if he returned, the writ of attachment 
would be executed ; while if he thought it wise to remain on the 
Continent, proceedings could still be taken against him by writ 
of 'praemunire. Nevertheless, it may well have been as a result 
of the researches ordered by the council that the statute of 1393 
was drawn from the obscurity in which it had lain and that atten- 
tion was attracted to its potentialities as a weapon against the 
pope or the clergy. It is perhaps not without significance that the 
statute of 1401 which figures with it in the petition of 1447 was 
one with a direct bearing on Beaufort's case. That an attempt 
to ruin a cardinal started on its destructive career the measure 
which, nearly a century later, ruined another and yet greater 
one may be a mere conjectiu-e, but it is a conjecture that sorts 
well with all the known facts. 

It is of course true that when the statute began to cause 
public debate, it was generally understood to refer to all docu- 
ments prejudicial to the Crown if they came from abroad, while 
the secular courts held that it applied to all such documents 
irrespective of their source. But there is nothing in this which 
is incompatible with my view of the original intention of the 
measure. That there is no recorded instance of its having been 

proves that Gloucester was thinking of the statute of 1390, under which he would 
have had the right of appointing whom he pleased to the see. 

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 390 seq. * Ihid. p. 392. 


expressly interpreted in the sense I have advocated is of small 
significance ; for if my reading of the act is correct, little use was 
likely to be made of it until a wider construction had been put 
upon it. Again, assuming that I have understood it aright, 
one would even expect its original purpose to be forgotten when, 
after being lost to sight for more than a generation, it was 
rediscovered. The courts of law had seldom if ever had occasion 
to interpret it ; few of those who had taken part in its enactment 
were alive ; and unless the circumstances in which it was passed 
were clearly remembered, it would seem most improbable that 
a long statute, prescribing very drastic penalties for its infringe- 
ment, should be exclusively concerned with the punishment of 
churchmen for executing sentences of the king's courts and the 
translation of bishops without the consent of themselves or the 
king, two things with no apparent connexion and moreover 
unknown in the days of Henry VI. The interval between the 
enactment and the reappearance of the statute had been a stormy 
and chequered one for both church and state, and a revolutionary 
change of dynasty, the conciliar movement, the vicissitudes of 
the French war, to mention nothing else, might well have blotted 
out the memory of Boniface IX and his ambitions. Cardinal 
Beaufort was perhaps as likely as any man to remember the events 
which had occasioned the passing of the act ; but, already under 
suspicion of preferring the interests of the pope to those of the 
Crown, he would hardly give a new handle to his enemies by 
attempting to explain away an anti-papal statute which was 
probably never actually used to his hurt. The English clergy, 
while they protested when the statute was turned against their 
liberties, would only have prejudiced their case if they had put 
forward the pope as a fellow victim of the abuse of the measure. 
There was, in short, hardly any one in England whose interest 
it was to scrutinize the act on behalf of the pope, and as it seems 
to have been some time before it was employed against him, the 
wider interpretation of the statute probably became established 
before the court of Rome realized its dangerous character. 
Further, while the statute may have been honestly misunderstood, 
it is evident that anti-papal statutes were in demand during 
Gloucester's long quarrel with Beaufort, and it appears from the 
complaints of the clergy that an anti-clerical spirit had invaded 
the judicial bench, which a generation earlier had been well 
disposed towards the courts Christian. In a word, conditions 
were extraordinarily favourable for the misinterpretation of the 
statute. It was not the only anti-papal measure that owed its 
importance to a mistake, for the ' statute of Carlisle ', cited at 
length in the first statute of provisors and solemnly denounced 
by Boniface IX, was no statute at all, but only a fruitless petition 


presented at the parliament of Carlisle in 1307.^ But for examples 
of how the meaning of an act can be distorted and its range 
extended, there is no need to look fm-ther than the notorious 
achievements in later times of the very statute we have been 

The statute of 1393, as interpreted after its reappearance, 
was the most serviceable of the laws at the disposal of the Crown 
in its occasional differences with the pope or the English clergy. 
It summed up in itself all previous anti-papal legislation, provided 
simple and effective modes of procedure, and ordained very 
severe punishments for all encroachments on the rights of the 
Crown. But as long as any respect was shown for the wording 
of the statute, it gave the temporal authorities few powers 
that they would not have possessed without it. Writs of prohibi- 
tion, of quare impedit, quare non admisit, and such-like ; the 
long-established royal right, reaffirmed by the ordinance of 1343, 
of forbidding the introduction into the realm of bulls prejudicial 
to the Crown ; and, in addition, the numerous anti-papal acts, 
great and small, passed before and after 1393, furnished the 
Crown with ample resom-ces for resisting invasions of the tem- 
poral sphere, whether by foreign or by English chm-chmen. 
The statute of 1393 did not seriously threaten the established 
relations between church and state until the king's courts took 
to ignoring, not merely the preamble, but certain words in the 
enacting part, words of restrictive force which yet might be 
omitted without destroying grammar or sense. Once the pre- 
amble was disregarded, the words tieux and come devant est dit 
ceased to have much apparent weight, and at some date unknown 
disappeared from writs citing the statute : ^ even when their 
full significance was overlooked, they might have served as 
reminders that the range of the measure was not so wide as the 
courts assumed. But it was more serious still when the statute 
was cited as covering everything which touched the king, his 
cro^vn, regality, or realm, the words ' against him ', awkwardly 
inserted in the original text after the word ' king ', being left 
out.^ Thus, the writ of praemunire in vogue in 1529 makes the 
penalties of the statute apply to those who pm'sue in the court 
of Rome or elsewhere, or bring into the realm, or receive, notify, 
or in any way execute within the same realm any processes, 
sentences of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or other things 

1 Rot. Pari. i. 219. 

* From the wording of the i)etition of the bishops in 1439, it almost looks as if this 
had already happened, but it is impossible to be certain (cf. supra, p. 198, n. 4). 

' It is strange that the clergy, in their petition of 1447, omit these words (cf. supra, 
p. 198, n. 3). They are, however, attempting to quote the text of the statute itself, 
so the omission was probably due to mere inadvertence. But it shoAvs how easily 
the words might be overlooked. 


whatsoever which touch the king, his crown, regality, or realm. ^ 
The pistol was ready primed, and first Wolsey and then the whole 
body of the clergy put up their hands when it was levelled at 
them. No other act would have served the king's ends so readily. 
It is doubtless true that on any conceivable interpretation of 
the statute the clergy might have contested Henry's allegation 
that they had broken it by recognizing Wolsey's legatine authority. 
But the grasp of the statute was wide — who but the king's 
justices could say how wide ? — terrible punishments (partly 
unknown) awaited those who fell into its clutches, and the clergy 
feared their fate too much to make a stand for their deserts. 

W. T. Waugh. 

* ' Cum in statute in parliamento domini [Ricardi] regis Anglie secundi apud Win- 
toniam anno regni sui xvi tento edito inter cetera ordinatum sit et stabilitum quod si 
aliquis impetrauerit aut prosecutus fuerit seu impetrari vel prosequi fecerit in Curia 
Romana vel alibi aliquos processus sententias exoommunicationum buUas instrumenta 
vel alia quecumque quae tangunt nos coronam regaliam seu regnum nostrum, et illi 
qui ea in dictum regnum nostrum detulerint aut ea receperint vel inde notificationem 
seu aliam executionem quamcunque infra idem regnum nostrum seu extra fecerint \ 
&c. : Natura Bretiium, ed. 1529, clxxxiii. 

206 April 

The Transitio7i to the Factory System 

THREE leading contemporary authorities on the early history 
of the cotton industry and of the factory system — Robert 
Owen, WilUam Radcliffe, and John Kennedy — agree in attributing 
considerable importance to the achievements of Samuel Oldknow, 
who first turned the new spinning inventions to full account by 
the production of finer cotton fabrics in successful rivalry with the 
East. A couple of extracts from Robert Owen's autobiography will 
provide the best introduction to the subject of the present article. 

The first British muslins were made when I was an apprentice with 
Mr. McGufiog by a Mr. Oldknow at Stockport in Cheshire, about seven 
miles from Manchester, who must have commenced this branch about the 
year 1780, 81 or 82 ; and it is curious to trace the history of this manu- 
facture. When I first went to Mr. McGuffog there were no other muslins 
for sale except those made in the East Indies, and known as East India 
muslins ; but whilst I was with him Mr. Oldknow began to manufacture 
what he called by way of distinction British Mull Muslins. It was a new 
article in the market, less than a yard wide, for which be charged to 
Mr. McGuffog 9s. or 9s. 6c?. and which Mr. McG. resold to his customers 
at half-a-guinea a yard. It was eagerly sought for and rapidly bought up 
by the nobility at that price. . . } 

This was the once celebrated and most enterprising Samuel Oldknow 
who it was known had not long before made seventeen thousand pounds 
of profit in each of two successive years, and who was then generally 
supposed to be very wealthy, and was considered a great man in the world 
of manufactures and commerce. He had made these profits in the manu- 
facture of muslins, while he purchased the yarn from the cotton spinners. 
He thought the spinners were getting great profits, and he was not like 
many others, content to do well or very well as he was doing, — but being 
ambitious, he desired to become a great cotton spinner, as well as the 
greatest muslin manufacturer. He built a large, handsome and very 
imposing cotton-mill, amidst grounds well laid out, and the mill was 
beautifully situated, for he«possessed general good taste in these matters. 
In fact he was preparing and had made great advances to become a first- 
rate and leading cotton lord.^ 

^ Tht Lije of Robert Owen, written by himself, vol. i. p. 25. 

* Ihid., p. 40. Cf. Kennedy, Brief Memoir of Samtiel Crompton, pp. 339-45. The 
Oentleman's Magazine for November 1828, pp. 469-70, contains an obituary notice of 
Samuel Oldknow, and the late Mr. Joel Wainwright's Reminiscences of Marple gives 
local traditions and several letters addressed to Oldknow by S. Salte. 


This cotton mill, which passed into the hands of the Arkwright 
family, was destroyed by fire in 1892, and has since tha,t date 
been a picturesque and interesting ruin. A detached portion, 
however, lying by the river-side and within a stone's throw from 
the residence built by Oldknow, was not burnt down, and, though 
in a dilapidated condition, has been used in parts for stabling 
or for minor industrial purposes. A body of Austrian prisoners 
was set to work there during the late war. The distribution of 
some eighteenth-century weavers' pay-tickets by an adven- 
turous boy scout to casual passers-by, led one of the recipients 
who is much interested in local history to obtain permission to 
explore the upper floor of this building, and here on 1 January 
1921, when he was accompanied by the present writer, there 
were found a great number of letters, papers, account-books, 
and other business records of every kind and size, covering the 
whole floor of a large room and partly hidden from sight by several 
inches of dirt and debris. To all appearance the records had 
lain there for a century, and as the room since the fire had lost 
its windows they had suffered much from the weather and were 
in many cases indecipherable. The recovery, cleansing, and 
classification of the remainder, which filled several sacks, was 
the work of many week-ends on the spot, and has occupied the 
leisure of the discoverers ever since. ^ 

From the first it was clear that, by a piece of almost inconceiv- 
able good fortune, the records of Oldknow's previous business 
as a muslin manufacturer at Stockport had been deposited at 
Mellor, so that the documents afforded a unique illustration both 
of the final phase of the ' domestic industry ' and of the earliest 
phase of the factory system. A long and vain attempt to inter- 
pret the factory records on the assumption that che fragmentary 
time-books, wage-sheets, &c., related to the Mellor mill alone, 
ended in the discovery that part of the records were those of 
a mill simultaneously erected at Stockport, whilst others con- 
cerned a bleach and print works previously established by Old- 
know at Heaton Mersey. 

Further inquiries in Mellor and Marple, where the tradition 
of Oldknow's achievements is still very much alive, showed that 
our interest in the factory and its records had naturally been 
anticipated by some of those whose fathers or grandfathers had 
been concerned in its working and management, and who kindly 

* I am indebted to Mr. Arthur Hulme of Marple, who discovered the records and 
placed them at the disposal of the University of Manchester, for the classification of an 
immense number of documents, for the transcription of a great many letters, and for 
active co-operation in every part of the investigation. Mr. Hulme is using the material 
for a social and economic history of Marple and Mellor. We are both under great 
obligations to Mr. E. Fumiss, agent of the Arkwright estate in Mellor ; and to Mr. J. 
Taylor of Marple Ridge and Mr. H. Wheeldon of Didsbury for the loan of records. 


placed at our disposal records which had long been treasured 
as family heirlooms. The whole body of records thus recovered 
is undergoing careful investigation by a group of students of local 
and industrial history, and the present article is an attempt to 
state some of the broader results yielded by a preliminary survey. 

Samuel Oldknow was born in 1756 at Anderfcon, which Ues 
about half-way between Bolton and Chorley in the immediate 
neighbourhood of Rivington Pike. His father, who died in 1759 
aged 25, is described on his tombstone at Rivington Chapel, 
where he was buried, as ' Samuel Oldknow of Nottingham late 
of Anderton '. A migration of the family in three generations 
appears to have taken place about this lime to Nottingham, 
where Thomas Oldknow, the grandfather of our Samuel, and 
Thomas junior and Joseph his uncles, are found carrying on 
business. Joseph was apparently a grocer, since he dealt in tea, 
and Thomas junior was certainly a linendraper. Short as his 
father's married life had been, Samuel had a brother Thomas 
and a sister, both of whom lived with him later at Heaton Mersey. 
His widowed mother returned to Anderton and married John 
Clayton of Roscoe Low. The records give many gHmpses of the 
Clayton family. We hear of three children, Margery, Sam, and 
John Clayton, junior, who ultimately succeeded Samuel Oldknow 
at Mellor in 1827. 

Samuel Oldknow was apprenticed to his uncle Thomas the 
linendraper, and in 1781, when in his twenty-fifth year, was 
taken into partnership with him. This partnership had lasted 
scarcely a year when it became the starting-point of a new 
enterprise. It was proposed that Samuel, whilst retaining his 
connexion with the Nottingham business, should return to 
Anderton and set up as manufacturer of cotton goods and 
fustians. The Nottingham shop would furnish the beginnings 
of a market, but there was to be a salesroom in Manchester, and 
Samuel might as a further string to his bow undertake an agency 
for Nottingham hosiery. There can, however, be little doubt 
that the production of muslins, which within eighteen months 
had become the essential feature of the enterprise, was from the 
first under consideration. In his Early English Cotton Industry 
Professor Daniels has shown how favourable in 1781 the condi- 
tions were to such an undertaking. The disallowance of Ark- 
wright's patent for carding as a result of the trial of that year, 
and the almost simultaneous pubUcation of Crompton's inven- 
tion, gave an immense stimulus to the manufacture of the finer 
cotton fabrics. 

It took me [says the inventor of the mule] from 1778 to 1779 to finish 
it. From 1779 to the beginning of 1780 I spun upon it for my own use both 
warp and weft. In the beginning of the year 1780 I began to spin only 


and left off weaving. ... I had not used it constantly more than Six 
Months before I was beset on every side by people of various descriptions 
from the distance of GO miles and upwards as well as my neighbours . . . 
whose curiosity was excited by the superior quality and fineness of the yarn 
I spun hitherto unknown, and which at that time the trade was much 
in want of. In the end of 1780 it was made public. 

The mule was first known as the muslin wheel, and the inventor 
himself later described it as ' that piece of mechanism that has 
produced and increased one of the first manufactories in Europe, 
viz. the fine Muslin and cambric '.^ In view of the fact that the 
manufacture of muslins had actually been attempted at Anderton 
when Oldknow was a boy of eight in 1764, and had failed for want 
of finer yarn, the inference above made seems irresistible,^ The 
fortunate survival of a number of letters, rescued one by one 
from the factory debris at Mellor, and of two of Oldknow's earliest 
account-books, with only a page or two missing, enables us to 
follow in some detail his operations as a manufacturer from his 
settlement at Anderton in midsummer 1782, up to and beyond 
the removal of his head-quarters to Stockport in 1784. The 
first six months were obviously a period of experiment. The 
weavers whom he was recruiting for his muslin manufacture 
had at first to be employed on the articles they were accustomed 
to make. These were the fancy cotton goods of which James 
Ogden in his famous description of Manchester in 1783 has 
attempted an enumeration ; velverets and velveteens, king's cords 
and queen's cords, herringbones and buff jennets, dyed pillows 
and waistcoat jeans, &c. Not until November does the dispatch 
to tlu-ee several customers of three pieces of Balassore handker- 
chief suggest that Oldknow's career as a muslin manufacturer is 
beginning. During the three months from 24 September (when 
the record of sales begins) to Christmas about £400 worth of 
piece goods were sent out. Half of these were disposed of by the 
Nottingham shop and by a firm of linendrapers in Mansfield, 
and one of the remaining quarters was taken by Mr. Samuel 
Mather, who is probably the silk and fustian manufacturer of 
King Street mentioned in the Manchester directory of 1788. 
As Oldknow spent far more on cotton than on yarn at this time, 
he must have found work for a number of small spinners in the 
neighbourhood of Anderton. He likewise opened an account 
with Messrs. Peel & Yates for printing and with a fustian 
calenderer for the finishing of his goods. 

1 Daniels, pp. 101-2, 128-9, 167-9. 

2 Under the heading 'An Old Romance', the Bolton Journal and Guardian for 
13 January 1922 cites a letter in the Manchester Courier of 18 April 1829 signed 
Civis which claims that the muslin manufacture was permanently established by 
Thomas Ainsworth at Bolton in 1780. 



In the beginning of 1783 a new epoch opens in the affairs of 
Samuel Oldknow. The partnership of uncle and nephew ceases. 
though the uncle continues to have important financial relations 
with the nephew and to offer friendly advice. The chief market 
for the goods produced is no longer found in the Nottingham 
connexions or even in Manchester. From this time onwards two 
London firms, S. & W. Salte and Parker, Topham & Sowden, 
take about two-thirds of the rapidly increasing output of Samuel 
Oldknow's manufacture. But — most important of all — it is from 
the spring of 1783 that Oldknow becomes primarily a maker of 
muslins. WitMn three years he was recognized as the first in 
the kingdom. 

Though the detailed record of his sales for this year is wanting, 
a ledger containing the accounts of his creditors, and an account- 
book containing a cash account of receipts and payments, a full 
inventory of his stock-in-trade in August 1783, a list of the 
spinners and weavers in his employ, and an account of his personal 
expenses, furnish full particulars of the expansion of his business, 
and enable us to form a sufficiently clear idea of its commercial 
and industral organization. But the central clue to the recon- 
struction that is taking place is to be found in Oldknow's corre- 
spondence with the two London firms above referred to. 

Oldknow, who had already improvised a warehouse in 
Anderton in a building adjacent to the house of his stepfather, 
had entered in January 1783 into occupation of a salesroom in 
Manchester on the premises of Mr. Cririe, a merchant in St. Anne's 
Square, at a rental of £13 a year. Here he accumulated a stock 
of his goods for show, and rode up weekly at the recorded expense 
of four or five shillings to push sales and to buy cotton weft and 
twist. But no sooner were his weavers adequately trained, and 
a steady flow of muslin products begun, than he discovered that 
London and not Manchester was the most effective market for 
his wares. The travelling partners of the two firms of Parker, 
Topham & Sowden and S. & W. Salte, who were eagerly looking 
out for the latest novelties in Manchester goods for the spring 
trade, had prospected a gold-mine in Oldknow's muslins, and each 
of them was offering to take more than he could produce. Old- 
know was in a dilemma. His artistic tastes and his impulsive and 
speculative temperament urged him to throw himself unreservedly 
into the manufacture of muslins, but, apart from a possible lack 
of fine yarn and skilled labour, there were two serious obstacles 
to the expansion of the business. His output was limited by the 
smaUness of his capital and credit, and the muslin manufacture 
was liable not only to all the fluctuations of a seasonal trade, 
but to a sudden and severe burst of competition whenever a large 
cargo of Indian muslins came into port. Whilst, however, he 


needed considerable advances of capital and the guarantee of 
a steady market for his goods, he did nob wish to purchase these 
advantages by a complete sacrifice of his independence. A draft 
of a letter to S. & W. Salte on 22 April shows him cautiously 
feeling his way in this negotiation. Each of the two firms was 
willing to make advances of capital, but each bargained for an 
exclusive agency. Oldknow compromised the matter by dividing 
the London agency between them, and they continued to take 
two-thirds of his entire output for a number of years. 

Having learnt something of the external relations of the new 
enterprise we may now turn to consider its internal economy. 
Ample data for this purpose are provided by the recorded stock- 
taking of August 1783. But first as regards the warehouse at 
Anderton, in which the business was centred in 1783, there is 
an interesting letter, undated, but clearly belonging to a later 
period, asking the landlord for a lease on the ground of improve- 
ments effected by Oldknow probably in 1784. A plan is attached 
to the letter showing that the original structure adjoining Mr. Clay- 
ton's house was 31 feet 2 inches long by 19 feet 6 inches wide, 
and that the addition made by Oldknow had practically doubled 
the accommodation at a cost of £90. That an eminent manu- 
facturer who claims to have established a new industry should 
regard £90 as a considerable outlay shows how small a part 
fixed capital in buildings or machinery as yet played in industrial 
enterprise. Although there was not much room in Oldknow's 
warehouse before it was enlarged, it is conceivable that it sufficed 
for his stock-in-trade at that time. The whole of his ' Fixtures 
and Utensils ', which comprised office furniture as well as 
machinery, was valued at £57 lis. lid. This modest equipment 
covered all the processes of preparing the warp, giving out the 
cotton, warp, and weft, baking in, examining, finishing, and storing 
the cloth. 

The warehouse, even before it was enlarged, had apparently 
separate rooms for giving out and taking in. In the former 
were four bags of cotton of different kinds, the total quantity 
being only 234 lb. The cotton of Berbice (77 lb. at 2s.) had 
hitherto beeri thought the finest, but that of Brazil (130 lb. 
at 1-s. dd.) was now thought to be equally good material for fine 
fabrics. There were also 97 lb. of St. Domingo at Is. ihd. and 
20 lb. of Smyrna for coarse fabrics at Is. 4c?. Besides this, there 
were 125 lb. in the hands of twenty-three small spinners employed 
by Oldknow, and a further quantity given out to a score of 
weavers who saw to the spinning of their own weft, making 
a total value of about £50.^ Carefully sorted out in the cupboards 
and drawers of this room there lay about a couple of hundred- 

^ Cf. Ogden'a Description oj Manchester, p. 88, and Daniels's Early History, p. 38. 

P 2 


weight of weft and twist of all counts from twenties to nineties, 
wound or unwound, and valued at £180. The nine winders had 
80 lb. more, but most of the yarn was in the hands of the weavers. 
Of the sixty-nine weavers employed by Oldknow one was debited 
only with 2Mb. of cotton and three with a warp apiece. Of 
the remainder two-thirds had received warp and weft, and one- 
third warp and wool. In a score of cases the weavers are said 
to have received with their weft or wool only a third, a half, 
or two -thirds of the warp, the implication being that they were 
to provide the rest themselves. The total value of the materials 
thus given out to the weavers was £261 17s. \\d. But by far the 
greatest part of Oldknow's assets was to be found in his stock of 
manufactured goods valued at £812, of which four-fifths were 
muslins mainly in the Anderton warehouse, and one-fifth other 
cotton goods mainly in the Manchester salesroom ; and in the 
book-debts owing to him, amounting to £1,407. Against total 
assets in these various forms of about £2,636 there were Oldknow's 
own debts, which amounted to £1,548, including a loan from 
A. Crompton, Esq., of £1,000. 

In spite, however, of this favourable balance, the problem 
mooted by Oldknow in his letter to S. & W. Salte in April 
of finding capital for expansion of his business had not yet been 
solved. It is true that both the London firms had given him per- 
mission to draw upon them, that is, to borrow money on security 
of goods not yet delivered ; and, if drafts made in round numbers 
represent such loans, the firm of S. & W. Salte advanced £670, 
their total payments for the year being £1,387. But such tem- 
porary advances, however helpful, did not enable Oldknow to 
realize his ambitions, and it is clear from later letters that Messrs. 
Salte were not prepared to invest larger sums for longer periods 
in the muslin business. The one man who was known to be ren- 
dering this kind of aid in other directions was Richard Arkwright, 
then the recognized leader of the cotton industry, and he likewise 
had in his hands the main supply of one of Oldknow's chief 
materials. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the book of. 
sundry expenses recording two visits of several days each to 
Derby and Cromford in November and December 1783, and three 
longer journeys, one of them lasting a fortnight, to Cromford 
and Nottingham in January and February 1784. These long 
discussions with Arkwright led to business arrangements including 
a loan of £3,000 at 5 per cent., which was to enable Oldknow 
to start his manufacture on a larger scale at Stockport. The 
details of the bargain have not been preserved, but its broad 
significance is clear enough. The new inventions had endowed 
certain forms of fixed capital with unexampled powers of produc- 
tion, and the disposal of the surplus thus created gave to the 


possessors of that capital the initiative and direction of new 
industrial enterprise. Although for some years to come Salte 
remained Oldknow's chief patron and adviser, it was the influence 
of Arkwright that from this time onwards determined his career 
and gradually transformed him from an ' eminent manufac- 
turer ' into a ' captain of industry '. This is shown in a letter 
from Oldknow's brother Thomas, who had from the first been 
brought into his Stockport plans and had shared the interviews 
with Arkwright. ' You will naturally suppose ', he writes to 
Samuel on 16 February 1784, 

my thoughts have been considerably employed in thinking of this new 
employment, but whether a Bleacher or Spinner, I am as yet undecided. 
The profits Mr. Arkwright seemed to think equally advantageous, though 
Bleaching in all probability the most lasting. What Mr. Arkwright says 
with respect to the profits of Bleaching may be true, but cannot say^ my 
throat is sufficiently wide to swallow the information for fact. I dont 
know whether I told y^ou what he said. At least you had not time to 
consider it properly. I shall therefore repeat it for your better considera- 
tion. . . . He said if I returned £1,200 per annum by Bleaching I should 
not have above £300 to pay out of it. He further said if you would manu- 
facture 200 pieces per week the Bleaching and Dressing of them would be 
25. per piece that would amount to £20 per week and that I should clear 
£12 out of the £20. These are profits in my opinion too great for the 
returns, so great that every manufacturer would be his own Bleacher. 
However I shall be satisfied if the profits are half as much. 

Stockport, when Oldknow set up his manufacture there, had 
already passed through one phase of the industrial revolution 
and was just entering on another. Silk-throwing had been carried 
on as a factory industry for over half a century.^ A partnership 
formed in 1732 between three gentlemen of Stockport, two 
chapmen of Heaton Mersey, and a London merchant, had 
acquired and improved the water-power of the manorial corn- 
mill for this purpose. In 1744 a reservoir was constructed on 
a stream running into the Mersey, and by 1768 half a dozen 
silk-mills were at work in the town."^ When, therefore, the new 
spinning inventions began to be widely adopted the whole 
framework of the factory system had been erected at Stockport 
and was waiting to be taken over. Not only water-power and 

'■ In Defoe's Tour (edition of 1769), Stockport is described as ' inhabited by a grer.t 
number of gentry and well filled with warehousemen wJio carry on the check, mohair, 
button and hat manufactures. Here the raw silk is chiefly thrown and prepared for 
the Spitalfields weavers by six engines the buildings of which are of prodigious bulk, 
one of them containing above 45,000 movements which fill the spacious room ujj to the 
fifth storey and are all put in motion by one wheel that goes by water. ... At this 
place poverty is not much felt except by those who are idle, for all persons capable of 
tying knots may find work in the silk mills, which employ near 2,000 people and where 
children of six years old earn a shilling a week and more as they grow capable of 
deserving it.' * Higinbotham, History of Stockport, ii. 317-18. 


buildings but also the child labour could be transferred, readily 
from silk to cotton. Henry Marsland, a cotton manufacturer 
at Bosden near Stockport, who had been one of the first to set 
the new spinning frames to work by horse-power, acquired in 
1783 the Stockport silk-mill with the manorial water-rights, 
and became the first large cotton spinner in the town. There 
were already smaller cotton spinners at work, and Stockport was 
becoming a seat of machine -making and invention.^ 

The new warehouse having been opened in March 1784 
and a connexion already formed amongst the weavers of the 
district by his manager, on 21 July Oldknow rode over to Stock- 
port, taking with him a £50 banknote and £225 in bills, which 
was half the purchase money of a house and land situate in the 
Hillgate, Stockport, belonging to Mr. Giles Walmsley. The 
other half of the price was to be paid within six months. Four- 
teen years later, when Oldknow's property at Stockport was 
offered for sale by auction, it was described in the following 
terms : 

Lot 1. All those extensive PKEMISES, late in the occupation of 
Mr. Oldknow and now occupied by Messrs. Parker, Sykes and Co., pleasantly 
situated in the Higher Hillgate, Stockport ; consisting of a good House, 
Stabling, Offices, Garden, and commodious Buildings five stories high, 
now used for Spinning, and the Manufacture of Muslins and other Piece 
Goods and has every necessary Convenience for making One Thousand 
Pieces per Week ; the site of which contains about 7,640 square yards, 
part freehold and part lease-hold for long terms of years. Together with 
an excellent STEAM ENGINE of Messrs. Boulton and Watts' construct- 
ing ; and many valuable Fixtures which will be sold therewith. 

Lot 2. Five good, substantial BRICK DWELLINGS, with a Picking- 
room and Loom-House standing on lands held for ninety-nine years under 
the Rector of Stockport, adjoining the above. 

The first of these lots is let for £520 a year and the second for £80 ; 
making together a neat rent of £600 a year. 

It was in these premises or part of them that William Radcliffe, 
two or three years later, made what he claimed to be the fu-st 
practical beginning of power-loom weaving. But apart from the 
application of power in weaving, the factory system in every other 
aspect had already, as the above notice shows, been applied to 
the production of cotton goods with spinning as a subsidiary 
process, by Samuel Oldknow on the same spot. This achieve- 
ment, which belongs mainly to the years 1786-92, involved such 
a further acquisition of land, such an increased investment in 
buildings and machinery, that, at the completion of the process 
the rent of the property was more than its capital value had 

* Wheeler, Manchester Chronicle, 19 October 1782, letter signed Senex ; and 
Manchester Mercury, 18 February 1783, advertisement of W. Mycock. 


been at the beginning. It is improbable that more was included 
in the purchase of July 1784 than the house, stabling, and offices, 
and a piece of land to be used for extensions, and it would seem 
that these premises served both as a residence and a warehouse 
from October 1784, when Oldknow moved to Stockport, till 
1786, when he built a house at ' Heaton '. During these two years 
he was still an eminent master-manufacturer of the old style, 
differing in no essential respect from the draper or clothier of 
sixteenth-century England or of fourteenth-century Ghent or 
Florence. It is therefore desirable that we should bring together 
such facts as the new records furnish about the organization of 
his business in its simpler form before the fundamental changes 
that followed the crisis of 1787-8. 

First and foremost he was ?.n employer of weavers. When 
he moved his head-quarters to Stockport he had no intention 
of abandoning his warehouse at Anderton, or of relinquishing the 
assistance of the mushn weavers he had trained there. The list 
grew from sixty-nine in 1783 to over one hundred and fifty in 
1786, of whom all but eighteen were muslin weavers, and from 
May to November 1785 an average of 370 pieces a month was 
being dispatched to Stockport by Thomas Swift, the manager at 
Anderton. At that time the output at Stockport was not so good, 
either in quantity or in quaUty, but by the close of 1786 it had 
reached four times that amount (about 1,600 pieces a month), 
and the Anderton weaving diminished till, in 1793, there were 
only forty weavers on Oldknow's list as compared with 340 
at Stockport. As, however, the Anderton branch kept up 
a connexion with from fifty to a hundred small spinners in the 
Bolton district the value of the yarn sent monthly to Stockport 
grew from £50 in 1785 to £200 in 1788, and £300 in 1790. The 
small spinners of the Stockport district (to the number of about 
fifty) were producing about £400 worth a month in 1786-7 to 
Oldknow's account, but he must have been getting by that time 
from Arkwright and other big spinners more than twice the 
amount of twist and weft supplied by all the small spinners 

It was the relation of the master-manufacturer to the small 
spinners and the weavers that constituted the characteristic 
feature of the old industrial regime. He was their employer in 
the sense that he supplied them with practically all their raw 
material. AU the weavers and most of the spinners thus employed 
were themselves manual workers with a standard of life com- 
parable to that of the modern wage -earner. The weavers had 
long been organized in friendly societies which were in effect 
trade unions,^ and the journeymen spinners had lately followed 

* Daniels, pp. 44-55. 


their example.-^ But in two important respects their position 
differed from that of the organized workers of more recent 
times. The master weavers and spinners were small capitalists 
in respect of the implements of their calling, and they stood 
to their employer in the twofold relation of debtor and of creditor. 
Normally each had a ledger account opened for him where he was 
debited on the one hand with the materials given out to him 
and credited on the other hand with his labour.^ A ledger of 
this kind, complete except for the loss of about a score of its 
initial and final pages, gives a full and continuous account of 
Oldknow's relations with the weavers of the Stockport district 
for almost two years after he set up business there in February 
1784 ; and fragments of similar ledgers exist for 1786 and 1790-1 
(60 folios). There is also a daily record of the goods delivered 
by the weavers from November 1786 to April 1787, and complete 
sets of daily bundles of weavers' pay-tickets for the months 
of December 1793 and June 1794, from which an account of the 
output and the earnings of the weavers for these periods can be 
compiled. A day-book record of the sales of the firm has been 
recovered which, though in tattered fragments, constitutes 
a complete account of the output for twenty-seven of the forty- 
four months between June 1786 and January 1790. Other records 
that have survived are nine warping-mill books, giving a con- 
tinuous record of the character of about half the output from 1787 
to 1792, several weavers' piece-work price-lists, the accounts of 
three stock-takings, and an invaluable costing-book which analyses 
the composition and estimates the cost (including a profit of 20 to 
30 per cent.) of a great variety of calicoes, shirtings, and muslins. 

By a careful study of all these data it should be possible to give 
a far more detailed account of the cotton industry before the coming 
of the factory system than has yet been attempted. All that can 
be done here is to place some of the broader statistical results of the 
investigation in relation to our previous sources of information. 

The locus classicus on this subject is the retrospective account 
of William Radcliffe written in 1 822, which distinguishes between 
three periods, (1) before 1770, (2) 1770-88, (3) 1788 and after. 
In the first period — before the spinning inventions or even the 
fly-shuttle had come into common use — 

the father of a family would earn from eight shillings to half a guinea at 
his loom, and his sons, if he had one, two or three alongside of him, six or 

* Manchester Mercury, 21 January 1785. Advertisement by Friendly Society of 
Cotton Spinners of Stockport. 

' The weaver was never, and the spinner seldom actually, debited in cash value with 
the materials. The amount of the cotton or yam delivered was placed to his debit, no 
doubt with a view to its being recovered, if necessary, at law. The establishment of 
small debt courts, with the employing class as assessors, is one of the most significant 
developments of the period. Cf. 17 Geo. III. c. xv. 


eight shillings each per week ; but the great sheet anchor of all cottages 
and small farms was the labour attached to the hand wheel ... it required 
six to eight hands to prepare and spin yarn ... for one weaver — this 
clearly shows the inexhaustible source there was for labour for every 
person from the age of seven to eighty years ... to earn their bread, say 
one or two shillings per week, without going to the parish.^ 

The idyllic effect of this account is marred by the reflection that 
a father and two sons earning 245. a week would require a family 
of at least eighteen — wives, children, and aged parents — to card 
and spin for them, and that the maximum earnings of such 
a patriarchal group of twenty-one persons would be 605. per 

In the second period — from 1770 to 1788 — ' cotton was become 
the almost universal material ' ; the hand-wheels were displaced 
by jennies, the carding for all but the finer yarn was done upon 
engines, and the fly-shuttle was generally adopted on the looms, 
which would thus have a greatly increased output, even though 
their number (as Radcliffe thinks was the case) did not itself 
increase during this period. Of the family income at this time 
Radcliffe tells us nothing, but though the ' inexhaustible demand ' 
for infant and aged labour was gone those engaged in carding 
and spinning would be earning at least twice the wages of their 
predecessors. The opening of the third epoch in 1788 was due to 
' the mule -twist coming into vogue for the warp as well as weft ', 

put all hands in request of every age. . . . New weavers' cottages with 
loomshops rose in every direction, all immediately filled and when in full 
work the weekly circulation of money as the price of labour only rose to 
five times the amount ever before experienced in this subdivision, every 
family bringing home weekly 40, 60, 80, 100 or even 120 shillings per week.^ 

There are strong a priori reasons for treating these figures 
with critical caution. Writing as a disappointed old man in 
a time of extreme depression for hand-loom weavers, Radcliffe 
could scarcely fail to exaggerate the prosperity which had 
undoubtedly existed in his youth. Whilst our records confirm 
his recollection of a great boom in textiles for two or three years 
following 1788, they do not tend to substantiate his retrospective 
estimate of rise in family incomes, and they show that the boom 
was succeeded by a severe depression. William Radcliffe, it 
should be added, was born at Mellor and began his career by 
supplying warps to Oldknow's weavers. 

The Stockport ledger account shows 73 weavers in regular 

' Radcliffe, The Origin of Power Loom Weaving, pp. 59-60. 
2 Ibid., pp. 61-2. 


work in 1784 and 115 in 1785, and the average earnings in the 
November of these two years is 14s. Id. for weavers with one 
loom, 26s. for those with two looms, and 30s. for those with 
three. The taking-in book of 1786-7 enables us to identify the 
number of looms under the management of each small master. 
There were 300 weavers with 475 looms, subdivided as follows : 

With 1 loom With 2 looms With 3 With 4 With 5 With 6 With 7 

193 68 19 15 2 2 1 

Average weekly earnings of each class : 
13s. Ud. 28s. Id. 38s. 4cZ. 48s. U. 65s. \0d. 

Unfortunately there is no record of the same completeness for the 
two years of exceptional prosperity. A considerable fragment of 
a weavers' ledger for July-December 1790 enables us only to 
ascertain the average earnings of a score of individual looms, 
a few of which were engaged on calicoes and shirtings and the 
rest on muslins. One weaver of figured muslins earned as much 
as 33s. a week, and the earnings of three others were 23s. 9c?., 
23s. If?., and 20s. 3(?., but the average of all the twenty weavers 
is only 12s. 7c?. A complete set of weavers' pay-tickets for June 
1794, when trade was very bad and Oldknow was just about to 
a,bandon the muslin manufacture, and representing 180 weavers 
and 223 looms, shows the average earnings to have been : 

1 loom 

2 looms 

3 looms 

4 looms 





7s. If?. 

14s. M. 

19s. lUl. 

23s. 6(?. 


earnings per week.^ 

If we accept the estimate of Radcliffe for 1770 as a base, ohr 
records show at the end of the second period, i.e. from 1784 to 
1787, an increase of about 50 per cent, in the earnings per loom. 
They do not substantiate any marked increase in earnings per 
loom after 1788, but are not inconsistent with a considerable 
increase in family earnings due to extended employment in 1789- 
90. This latter, indeed, may be regarded as certain, but it cannot 
have been on the scale represented by RadcUffe, and it is very 
improbable that the earnings of even patriarchal households of 
two or three families amounted to £6 or even £5 a week. 

G. Unwin. 

^ The above statistics, drawn from the Oldknow records, were furnished by the 
calculations of Miss F. Collier, M.A., in her thesis on ' The Family Income and the 
Family Economy of the Working-Classes in the Cotton Industry during the Industrial 
Revolution ', and by Mr. G. Taylor, B. A., who is preparing a thesis on ' The Handloom 
Weavers of the Stockport District, J 784-94 '. 

(To he continued) 

1922 219 

Lord Bryce 

IT may be said of Lord Bryce multis ille bonis flebilis occidit. 
In the pages of this Review we may justly, and with a natm^al 
piety, add nullis flebilior quam historicis. He was a man ' universal 
in all things ', touching life at many points, and adorning what he 
touched : he was traveller, jurisprudent, statesman, and publicist ; 
but there are many to whom he will always be remembered most 
especially as a lover of history and historical knowledge. It may 
almost seem that it was by an accident — the winning of the 
Arnold Prize, nearly sixty years ago, by an essay on the Holy 
Roman Empire — that his. thoughts were turned to history. If 
it were so, it was a most fortunate and auspicious accident ; for 
through all the course of a long life history was henceforward 
to be an abiding possession and a perennial interest in his mind. 
Busily occupied as he was in multifarious activities, historical 
studies were rather the occupation of his leisure than the business 
of his working day. But the occupations of leisure can be the 
noblest of occupations ; and the pursuits to which the mind turns 
in moments of freedom may be followed with a zest and a fervour 
which it is hard to maintain in the dull recurrence of daily 
routine. It is certain, at any rate, that Lord Bryce always brought 
an eager and alert vitality to the study of historical problems, 
and always found a genuine delight in the company of historians. 
Two instances occur to the mind which deserve to be recorded. 
Some eighteen years ago Lord Bryce was engaged in the prepara- 
tion of a new edition of the Holy Roman Empire, and it was the 
good fortune of the present \\Titer to be associated with him as 
his assistant. At the end of August 1904 he was just about to 
leave London for the United States, but his mind was running 
with unabated energy on medieval questions. A letter of 
19 August, written on the eve of his departure, raisQS a crop of 
qimestiones — the date of Nicolaus Burgundus ; what is to be 
said about Isaac Angelus and Bonaventura ; what is the best 
edition of Gerhoh ; what manner of bibliography should be 
appended ; whether a clu'onological table of events is desirable, 
and how it should be constructed. The second instance is 
curiously analogous, and much more striking. A dinner Avas 
being arranged at the end of 1905, in honour of Mr. R. L. Poole, 

220 LORD BRYCE April 

to celebrate the completion of twenty years of the Review. 
Bryce was to take the chair. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman 
was forming a ministry ; he had asked Bryce to become Irish 
secretary ; and he was forced to pay a flying visit to Ireland 
two days before the date fixed for the dinner. Just as he was 
about to leave England he wrote a postcard from Holyhead : 
' I have had to cross over to Ireland, but hope to return on 
Thursday night and to be at the dinner on Friday. Should 
anything occur to prevent my arriving, I will telegraph ; but 
I have done everything in my power to secure my being free to 
come.' He came. 

Sixty years of unflagging and versatile work lay between 
the date at which he took his Oxford degree, in 1862, and the 
date of his death. He was called to the bar in 1867, and practised 
for the next fifteen years. Occupied as he was in London, he 
still jnaintained a close connexion with Oxford. He had been 
scholar of Trinity and fellow of Oriel ; in 1870 he became 
regius professor of civil law, and he held the chair, though 
without residing in Oxford, till 1893. But by 1880, when he 
became member of parliament for Tower Hamlets, he had already 
turned to politics. He was under-secretary of state for foreign 
affairs in Mr. Gladstone's brief ministry in 1886 : he was succes- 
sively chancellor for the duchy of Lancaster and president of the 
board of trade in the liberal ministry of 1892-5 ; he was chief 
secretary for Ireland under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman 
from 1905 to 1907. A new epoch of his life began in 1907. Recog- 
nized as a foremost authority on the affairs of the United States 
after 1888, when he published his American Commonwealth, he 
was appointed ambassador at Washington ; and he held that 
office, with unqualified success and universal approbation, till 
1913. The last nine years of his life he divided between his house 
at Forest Row and his flat in Buckingham Gate. They were in 
no sense years of retirement. He served as chairman of the 
committee on Belgian atrocities ; he advocated the cause of 
Armenia ; he played no small part in the thinking and the discus- 
sions which helped to bring into life the League of Nations. He 
was often to be seen, and he often spoke, at public gatherings in 
London — at the opening of the Institute of Historical Research ; 
at the unveiling of the bust of George Washington in St. Paul's ; 
at any gathering which touched the many interests he cherished. 
Only a fortnight before he died he delivered the inaugural address 
at the annual meeting of the Historical Association in King's 
College, London. 

It was a busy life of action ; but he found abundant time for 
the life of contemplation also. The list of his published works 
embraces some fifteen different items. He ranged from the 

1922 LORD BRYCE 221 

Flora of the Island of Arran, on which he published a work in 
1859, at the age of 21, to Modern Democracies, on which ho 
published two volumes in 1921, when he was 83. He wrote 
books of travel ; books of descriptive politics (with which his 
name will perhaps be specially associated) ; studies in law, and 
studies in history. Two of his books — ^the Holy Roman Empire 
and the American Commonwealth — are permanent classics ; two 
others — his Studies in History and Jurisprudence and his Modern 
Democracies — are mines of solid learning and searching observa- 
tion. If he did not write on the classics, he was a sound classical 
scholar, with a classical scholar's gift of happy quotation. If 
he was a politician, he was also an educationalist. One of his 
early writings was a report on the condition of education in 
Lancashire, published in 1867 ; and he rendered an even greater 
service when he acted as chairman of a royal commission on 
secondary education in 1894. If any man ever did, he may 
seem to have filled his life and fulfilled his plans. Yet he had his 
unachieved ambitions. The work on Modern Democracies was 
originally planned as a History of Democracy ; but the mass of 
material proved too abundant for the potter's hand. And 
there was a work on Justinian of which he sometimes spoke, and 
of which, it may be, some portions are to be found among his 
unpublished papers. 

He was a spare figure, with eyes that you could not but 

associate with a rapid and piercing vision, set deep under bushy 

brows. His voice was not resonant, and it had no large compass ; 

but he persuaded and convinced by the weight of what he 

said. He had a great discourse in conversation. He had seen 

many countries, and lived through many years-; and his retentive 

memory gave him a rich material on which he readily drew. There 

were times when his wealth was his own embarrassment ; and 

discursiveness might on occasion be the penalty of his width of 

range. But he had a shrewd judgement : he never missed the 

point, even if he turned aside for the moment to follow the 

many suggestions of association which his memory conjured 

before him ; and you could trust him to reach with a just 

precision the conclusion of the whole matter. He had the 

encyclopaedic mind which is vouchsafed to a chosen few among 

scholars. He could readily have joined the company of Scaliger 

or Casaubon or Grotius. Perhaps he was not, in the strict 

modern sense, a researcher ; but he was, to a very high degree, 

an inquirer. He was an eager traveller in many lands, with 

a zest for climbing ; and he travelled in the mind as he travelled 

in the body, with no less zest for reaching peaks and points of 

vantage. He had that abundant curiosity which is the mother 

of observation and wisdom ; and it was joined with an unassum- 

222 LORD BRYGE April 

ing and natural simplicity of manner, which enabled him to talk 
easily and associate readily with all the men whom he met. All 
the qualities of his mind conspired to win him instant and lasting 
success in the years in which he was ambassador at Washington. 
Americans honoured the encyclopaedic range of the scholar : 
they admired the observer who had written the classical work 
on their own commonwealth ; they had an affection for the 
man himself, with whom it was so easy to talk, on a footing of 
simple equality, whether at receptions, or in clubs, or in the 
Pullman car of the railway train, or in any other place where 
men were gathered together. He was simple in a land that loved 
simplicity ; and of all the j)hases of his political activity that of 
his embassy was perhaps the one in which all his gifts worked 
most harmoniously together to achieve an unparalleled success. 

In the pages of this Review it is fitting that Lord Bryce should 
be more especially mentioned as a political observer and as an 
historian. As a political observer he had for his forerunners 
Montesquieu and Tocqueville, as he has for his successor (if we 
may speak of a successor) Mr. Lawrence Lowell, the author 
of a work on the Government of England which gives back to 
England in good measure what Lord Bryce gave to America 
in his volumes on the American Commonwealth. The cultivation 
of this field of descriptive politics is a matter of no small moment 
in the modern world. To explain to one country the genius of 
the institutions of another is to act as an intellectual ambassador, 
and to lay the foundations of international understanding. There 
is an internal logic which connects the work of Lord Bryce as 
a master of descriptive politics both with his embassy at Washing- 
ton and with his labours in later years in the cause of a League 
of Nations. He was, indeed, following the most native and the 
most strongly marked of all his inclinations when he wrote on 
the institutions of other lands — the United States, France, 
Switzerland, South Africa, and South America ; for here the 
traveller was at one with the scholar, as the scholar was at one 
with the statesman. Not only had he, as a traveller, seen what 
he described face to face ; not only did he, as a scholar, know 
the past of what he described, and the past of other things 
similar : he had also, as a statesman, played his part in active 
politics, and he knew with an internal knowledge the actual 
working of institutions. His books in this field must remain 
for long years the original and authoritative sources from which 
scholars will draw their accounts of the nature of the political 
institutions of a large part of the world at the end of the nine- 
teenth and the beginning of the twentieth centm-y. 

In political theory, as distinct from political institutions, he 
was less interested and less versed. There are pregnant passages 

1922 LORD BRYCE 223 

in the Holy Roman Empire on the medieval theory of the empire ; 
there are essays in the Studies in History and Jurisprudence on 
matters of political theory such as Obedience, the Nature of 
Sovereignty, and the Law of Nature. But his mind inclined to 
the concrete rather than to the abstract ; he had not that passion 
for ' seeing things together ' which makes the philosopher. He 
was less interested in what the state should be than in what it 
was ; he wished to know what it did rather than what it should 
do. He believed, indeed, that a knowledge of the past and the 
present was a guide to the future ; but he did not, perhaps, 
investigate the implications or the validity of that belief, nor 
did he reckon very greatly with the part which ideals — ideals 
that stand above time and experience — may play in the lives 
of men. He was an Aristotelian rather than a Platonist ; he 
turned to the ' polity of the Athenians ' more than to ' the 
polity which is laid up in the heavens '. 

As an historian he gave to his fellows a book which has been 
a profound influence for nearly sixty years and will be a profound 
influence for many more ; an essay on the Life of Justinian by 
Theophilus, which appeared in the second volume of this Review ; 
and a number of historical addresses and studies which range 
from the ancient Roman empire to primitive Iceland. His book 
on the Holy Roman Empire appeared in 1864, with a motto on 
the front page, which disappeared in later editions, verso Tiberim 
regit ordine Rhenus. It was a slim volume of 176 pages ; but 
already, as is stated in its preface, it had been ' greatly changed 
and enlarged since it was composed for the Arnold Prize at 
Oxford '. It continued to be greatly changed and enlarged. 
In forty years there were four new editions (one of which — that 
of 1875 — was reprinted no fewer than fourteen times), as well 
as translations into French, German, and Italian. It is curious 
to compare the edition of 1904 with that of 1864. It contains 
571 pages in place of 176 ; and it contains in addition some 
70 pages of prefatory matter. New chapters have been added, 
especially the fine chapter on the theory of the medieval 
empire ; a profounder learning has given a new substance, and 
a deeper understanding has informed the whole theme. Yet 
we must not undervalue the original edition. Appearing in the 
same decade as Msiine's Ancient Law (1861), it was no less of a land- 
mark and perhaps even more of an influence. It suggested a new 
interpretation of the course of the development of the modern 
world ; and instead of tracing, like Gibbon, the decline and fall 
of civilization from the happy age of the Antonines, scholars 
were henceforward able to regard the imperial scheme as some- 
thing which survived, as a living idea and an active force, through 
ail barbarian invasions and dark ages and tumults, and main- 

224 LORD BRYCE April 

tained the conception of an ordered polity until the days in which 
Europe was able to organize itself on new and original lines of 
its own. 

The author of the Holy Roman Empire was pledged to history 

by his own firstfruits, and he never failed to redeem the pledge. 

He was always prepared to take any pains which might advance 

the cause of historical study. Of the English Historical Review 

itself, as Mr. Poole has testified in a recent number, he was, if 

not the father, at any rate the godfather. As early as 1867 he 

had been planning a purely Historical Review ; and when in 

1885 the foundation of this Review was taken in hand by a group 

of scholars at Oxford — acting, Mr. Poole believes, under the 

inspiration of York Powell, who had talked the matter over 

with Bryce — he was invited to become its editor. Already 

immersed in politics, he was unable to accept the invitation ; 

but it was through him that Creighton became the first editor ; 

it was he who gave a dinner-party at which the policy of the 

Review was settled ; and it was he who wrote the preface for the 

first number. One of the articles which he contributed has 

already been mentioned ; another, which appeared in volume vii, 

was a memorial notice of Freeman. And now, thirty years 

afterwards, in this thirty-seventh volume, it is of Bryce himself 

that a memorial notice falls to be written. Few as are the titles 

of the present writer to compose that notice, he has at any rate 

one — which he shares with many others — that he found in Bryce 

a generous inspiration and encouragement. For he was kind 

with a great kindness to young students : he would write to 

welcome their 'prentice efforts ; he would gather them round his 

table, and encourage them by his suggestion and advice. He 

has left many monuments behind him. His books are possessions 

for ever in the student's library ; the work which he did in politics 

is a permanent part of national, and indeed of international, 

history. Among other monuments there stands the remembrance 

and the affection of those whom he helped and encouraged. 

There are nations which call him benefactor {testis Armenia) ; 

but among other and larger cares he always remembered the 

service of scholarship, and was always ready to aid any student 

concerned with those studies of history and politics of which he 

was so eminent a master. Ernest Barker. 

1922 225 

Notes and Docttments 

St. Benet of Holme and the Norman Conquest 

The agrarian history of East Anglia in the middle ages is the 
natural result of the form of society described in the Domesday 
survey of that region, but the East Anglian Domesday is at 
present a record in isolation. Few documents have been pub- 
lished to illustrate the working of the characteristic East Anglian 
economy in the early decades of the twelfth century. The 
distinctive features of that economy, the absence of any standard 
peasant tenement, the loose attachment of free landowners 
to estates devoid of any geographical, unity, the prevalence of 
the cash nexus as the tie uniting lord and man, undoubtedly 
persisted through this dark age. But at the present time any 
records which throw light upon East Anglian society in the two 
generations which followed the Conqueror's death are of value 
as rarities, quite apart from any intrinsic interest which they may 

The late thirteenth-century register of the abbey of St. Benet 
of Holme ^ contains important material of this kind. Essentially 
a collection of leases and grants of monastic property, it includes 
copies of many royal writs and private charters, and numerous 
incidental memoranda. Among these memoranda a hand of 
the fourteenth century has copied a detailed statement of the 
encroachments which the property of the abbey had su£fered from 
Roger Bigod, the greatest landowner in Norfolk in 1086, and 
his men.^ The original statement was composed between the 
election of Abbot Richer in or soon after October 1101 and 
Roger Bigod's death in 1107. It was a strictly contemporary 
record. It speaks of encroachments by the reeves of Ivo de 
Verdun in the year in which it was written. It may be regarded 
as an appendix to the schedule of ' Invasiones in Nordfulc ' 
which concludes the Norfolk Domesday.^ 

Que Rogerus Bigot 7 homines eius de abbacia sancti Benedicti iniuste 
subtraxerunt .•' subscripta manifestant. Ipsemet .R. apud Smalebergam 

» MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, * fo. 205. 

» The text is reproduced with the punctuation of the manuscript, but capital 
letters have been inserted where sense demanded them. All the places mentioned in 
the memorandum and in the other documents which follow are in Norfolk. 


avifert quicquid Walterus tenet 7 quicquid habet in Tunstede hundred.^ 
Ipse etiam Walterus aufert iniuste . Ulfkitelo homini nostro de Dilham .x. 
acras 7 quendam hominem.^ Et in Ludham ferding in Scharstede .iii. 
acras quas tenuit Oswaldus . 7 Cnut rex dedit monasterio cum Horninga.^ 
Et apud Westwyc. ipse .K. aufert .ii^s. sokemannos. Leffi [sic] 7 Howard.^ 
Et apud Thurgertonam .xx. acras quas possederunt due mulieres . Blide 
7 Tbie [sic] 7 iiii. homines.^ Et apud Sutbstede .•' domum Elfgari cum 
carrucata terre.^ Et Elwyne de Basingham sedet super duas acras que 
pertinent ad aulam de Tliurgertona.' Et in Tweyt .ii. acras 7 dimidiam 
7 quendam hominem aufert ipse .K.^ Et in Grengesvilla domum Wymundi 
presbiteri 7 quicquid pertinet domui. Et de pastura que adiacet aule .•' 
prepositus eius abstulit .xii. acras.^ Et inter Poringlond 7 Magnam 
Schotesbam .xv. acras.^*' Et apud Ludbam ferding aufert ipse .R. scilicet 

* In Smallburgh a sokeman gave a ploughland to St. Benet T. R. E., and held it 
of the abbot in 1086 (/). B. ii. 219 b). In the same place there were twenty-eight 
other sokemen in 1086 with a ploughland among them. Roger Bigod had three free 
men there, of whom one had belonged to Robert Malet's predecessor, the other two 
to St. Benet, who possessed soke over all three {ibid. ii. 187). The Walter of the 
text cannot be identified in Domesday, but he is certainly identical with the Walter of 
Smallburgh whose gift to Thetford priory was confirmed by William Bigod, Roger's 
son {Mon. Ang. v. 149, col. 2). 

* Domesday assigns to St. Benet a sokeman having thirty acres, one bordar, 
and a plough- team (ii. 219 b). The Ulfkitel of the text is probably identical with 
this sokeman. 

^ The phrase Ludham ferding comprises that portion of Happing hundred which is 
included in the Domesday description of St. Benet's manor of Ludham (ii. 220). It 
is probable that this portion was originally an exact quarter of the hundred, for 
Ludham paid 5s. of geld out of 19s. 6^. laid upon the hundred as a whole {Vict. 
County Hist., Norfolk, ii. 207). Another of these quarters was formed by Waxham 
and Happisburgh, paying 2s. Gd. each. ' Scharstede ' is not separately entered in 
Domesday, nor is there any reference to this place in Cnut's charter founding St. Benet's 
abbey, which merely purports to grant the vill called Horning with its appurtenances 
of Ludham and Neatishead {Mon. Ang. iii. 83). The ferding as the quarter of a hundred 
is recorded twice in the Suffolk Domesday {Vict. County Hist., Suffolk, i. 358), but 
■does not occur in the survey of Norfolk. It is difficult to connect the form ferding 
-with the Old English feordling, a quarter. It probably represents the Old Norae 

* Westwick only occurs in Domesday as an appendage to Roger of Poitou's manor 
of Tunstead (ii. 244 b), but between 1127 and 1134 Abbot William I granted to Adam 
son of Herman all that St. Benet possessed in Westwick and Tuttington (MS. Cott. 
Galba E. ii, fo. 55 b). 

" In 1086 St. Benet had a manor of two ploughlands in Thurgarton {D. B. ii. 216). 
Roger Bigod had two bordars in Thurgarton who belonged to Hanworth and an 
unnamed free man held by a certain living (ii. 179 b, 185). 

' Domesday assigns nothing to St. Benet in Sustead. This ploughland may have 
been included in the survey of Thurgarton. ' See above, n. 1. 

» In 1086 St. Benet held a manor of two ploughlands in Thwaite {D. B. ii. 218). 

» This place is now divided between Stoke Holy Cross and Caistor by Norwich 
{Vict. County Hist., Norfolk, ii. 141). St. Benet held a manor of one ploughland there 
in 1086 {D. B. ii. 217). The land was granted at rent by Abbot Richer to William de 
Curecun, a tenant upon the Bigod fee, and the grant was confirmed by Richer's suc- 
cessor Anselm (MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, fo. 56). It was afterwards granted by Abbot 
Daniel to Robert Picot (fo. 59 b). An original half of the chirograph is preserved 
in the Bodleian Library (Norfolk Charters, 607), but has never been published. 

J" In 1086 St. Benet held a manor of three ploughlands in Shottesham St. Mary, 


in Hecham Elwine Ecses 7 quicquid possidet . 7 Edelwold cum dimidia 
possessione . 7 Elfpricum [sic] fratreui eius similiter.^ Et in Fretone .vi 
acras.^ Et in Catefeld diniidiam possessionem cuiusdam domus quam 
tenuit Bondus . 7 manredam cuiusdam mulieris cum .ii. acris.^ In Waltona 
.ii. acras.* • Et Ulf aufert dimidiam acram terre in Fleg.^ Egelwy pater 
Stannardi abstulit apud . . . terram 7 aulam Ringolfi . qui cum abbate 
perrexit in Denemarke. Et ideo Egelwy illam terram reseysiuit ad 
manum regis . nunc autem nee rex nee sanctus Benedictus habet Et in 
eodem tempore seisiuit Lefcbild cum terra sua 7 dimidiam manredam 
Elfredi . 7 dimidiam manredam Snuningi [sic] cum suis possessionibus . 
7 Scotlande cum sua possessione.^ Et Godricum presbiterum de Clypesby 
cum dimidia possessionem Et in eodem tempore ad Reppes seisiuit ipse 
Egelwinus . Bonde pine 7 alterum Bondum filium Offles 7 Lefchild 7 Wlfme- 
rum filium Sirici 7 Haward filium Tudeles.^ Et Tukke fabrum apud 

which may have extended into Poringland (D. B. ii. 217). Already before Domesday 
many men in this part of Norfolk who had once been dependents of St. Benet had 
passed under other lords. Four free men in Shottesham, formerly belonging to 
St. Benet, were annexed to Roger Bigod's fee (ii. 185 b). Three free men and five 
sokemen of St. Benet were held by Walter Giffard in right of Bodin his antecessor 
(ii. 242 b). Walter also possessed one of St. Benet's sokemen who had been worth 
2 orae (ii. 243). But it is probable that the encroachment recorded in the text is 
later than Domesday. 

^ Potter Heigham in Happing hundred, to which this entry relates, was presumably 
included in the Domesday description of St. Benet's manor of Ludham. It is to be 
distinguished from Heigham by Norwich, which also belonged to St. Benet. The 
only explicit reference in Domesday to Potter Heigham records that Godric of Heigham 
holds two free men with two acres who are worth two pence (ii. 272 b). There is nothing 
to connect these men with either Roger Bigod or St. Benet. 

^ Fritton between Ludham and Potter Heigham is doubtless included in the Domes- 
day account of the former place. 

' Nothing ia definitely assigned by Domesday to St. Benet in Catfield. A berewick 
there was annexed to Roger Bigod's manor of Sutton (ii. 179 b). 

* This place is now represented by Walton Hall, a mile north of Ludham, of which 
manor it probably formed a part. 

^ The Fleg of the text covers the hundreds of East and West Flegg, in each of 
which St. Benet possessed considerable estates. 

* The Egelwy of the text is certainly identical with Alwi of Thetford, Roger 
Bigod's antecessor in many places (below, p. 233). The name of the place in which 
Ringulf's land lay was probably illegible when the present memorandum was copied 
into the cartulary of St. Benet. It may, however, be identified with Oby in the 
hundred of West Flegg, where Stanhard, Alwi's son, held of Roger Bigod in 1086 
thirty acres which a free man named Ringulf had held in King Edward's time (D. B. ii. 
174 b). Six free men with thirty acres were Stanhard's tenants annexed to this property 
in Oby ; the four men named in the text are probably included among them. Roger 
Bigod claimed these men in vii-tue of the king's gift, and asserted that they belonged 
to the fee of Alwi of Thetford, his predecessor. St. Benet still possessed a manor 
in Oby to which ten free men belonged through commendation. Another free man 
with twenty-three acres in Oby is the subject of separate entry under St. Benet's 
fee (ii. 216 b, 217). Stanhard son of Alwi encroached further upon this estate after 
Domesday (below, p. 228, n. 4). 

' Roger Bigod held by the king's gift a free man of St. Benet in Clippesby and two 
free men of St, Benet in Ormesby. Alwi had held these men at some period between 
the Conquest and 1086 ; Stanhard was Roger's immediate tenant at the latter date 
{Z>. S.ii. 174 b). 

8 The holdhjgs of seven free men in Repps, four of them St. Benet's men, two of 



Askeby 7 Estan cum sua possessione.^ Et apud Sumertonam abstulit 
ipse .E. dimidiam manredam Anundi cum dimidia possessionem Et 
filius Egelwy .-' Stannardus post abbatis Alfwoldi obitum apud Burch 
triginta acras de terra Eluiue . et tres manredas abstulit cum suis posses- 
sionibus.^ Et apud Ouby abstulit ipse S. domum Leofchildi 7 dimidiam 
possessionem eius.* Et apud Tyrne dimidium possessionis Ulfketeli 7 
.iiii. toftas terre quas ei Alfwoldus abbas accommodauit.^ Et postquam 
abbas Richerus abbaciam suscepit aufert ipse .S. in Ouby Aileue cum 
dimidia possessione , 7 unam acram que pertinet ad aulam de Askeby.* 
In Askeby Wlfmerum filium Tukke cum tribus acris terre 7 unam manre- 
dam Edwini cum familia sua.' Et apud Saxlingbam luo de Verdun aufert 

them Alwi's men, and one a man of Bishop Almar, were held in 1086 by Stanhard of 
Roger Bigod {D. B. ii. 174 b). The hundred also bore witness that an unnamed man 
of Roger Bigod seized half a free man of St. Benet, who is included among seven 
free men in Repps and RoUesby annexed to Roger's manor of Sutton (ii. 174). 
St. Benet's fee still included the holdings of six free men in Repps (ii. 217). 

* There is nothing in Domesday to connect Alwi of Thetford with Ashby. It is, 
however, probable that Tukke and Estan are included among the six free men annexed 
to the estate in Oby which Ringulf had formerly possessed and Stanhard held of 
Roger Bigod in 1086 (D. B. ii. 174 b). St. Benet held a manor in Ashby which included 
thirteen sokemen (ii. 216 b). 

^ Roger Bigod claimed that the king had given to Alwi his predecessor a free man 
in Somerton with twenty-one acres {D. B. ii. 174 b). This free man may have been 
the Anund of the text. 

2 Abbot ^Ifwold died on 14 November 1089. Stanhard's encroachments are 
therefore subsequent to Domesday. The property in Burgh St. Margaret of which 
Stanhard dispossessed St. Benet may be identified with a small estate comprising 
thirty acres of arable, four acres of meadow, three bordarii, and a demesne team 
assigned by Domesday to the abbey in Burgh (ii. 217). An important writ of William II 
commands that St. Benet's abbey and Raunulf the monk be put in seisin of, among 
other property, thirty acres and three bordars in Burgh (Mon. Ang. iii. 86 ; Davis, 
Begesta, no. Ixxx). As this writ was issued after the death of Abbot ^Ifwold, the 
identity of the thirty acres and three bordars to which it relates with the thirty 
acres and three manredae of the present text is hardly open to question. As, moreover, 
the writ expressly states that the property is assigned to St. Benet in the king's 
breves which are in his treasury at Winchester — that is, in the returns to the Domesday 
inquest — ^it follows that the word manredae is used in the present text to cover men 
who are described in Domesday as bordarii. The identification is valuable for its 
bearing upon the condition of the class of cottagers in East Anglia, for it shows that 
they, like the higher peasant classes, were bound to their lords by the tie of homage. 

* Above, p. 227, n. 6. 

s St. Benet held a manor of one ploughland in Thume which included ten sokemen 
with forty- five acres (D. B. ii. 216 b). In 1086 Stanhard son of Alwi held under Roger 
Bigod in Thume half a free man with twenty-one acres under whom there held one free 
man with four acres (ii. 174 b). Stanhard's tenure is probably explained by an entry 
in the list of Norfolk invasiones (ii. 277 b) : 'In Tuma i liber homo sancti Benedicti 
commendatione tantum xliii acrarum, et fuit exlex, et quia Aluuius fecit illegem 
habet dimidium terrae, in feudo Rogeri Bigot. . . .' It is a curious entry, and it» 
interpretation is difficult. But it may be suggested that this free man, after his 
inlawry had been secured by means of Alwi, returned to occupy half his original 
holding under St. Benet. In that case he may be identical with the Ulfketel of the 
text, and the half of his tenement which remained to him may have been annexed 
by Stanhard, Alwi's son, at some time subsequent to Domesday, perhaps upon 
Uifketel'a death. • Above, p. 227, n. 2. 

* Above, p. 227, n. 6. Wulfmer filius Tukke was probably the son of Tukke thfe 
smith of Ashby. 


quinque sokemannos . scilicet . Colsweyn . Langebeyn . Trumwine . Stan- 
nard . Anund . 7 hos homines abstulit post mortem . Alfwoldi abbatis dum 
monasterium esset sub manu regis. ^ Et apud Multone aufert ipse .1. unam 
toftam cum segete . 7 de tofta ecclesie dimidiam acram . 7 de altera tofta 
dimidiam acram. Et apud Waketone auferunt prepositi eius Coleman 
7 Wlricus . in boc anno partem nemoris que ad nos pertinet . 7 partem 
nemoris ad Aselaketonam . aufert ipse .1. 7 homines illius.^ Apud Tyben- 
ham aufert Walterus Canut .ii^. toftas 7 quicquid ad illas pertinet. Et cum 
quidam noster homo uellet domum transferre sicut uicini fecerunt . scilicet 
Ringolf uenit ipse .W. 7 procidit lingna [sic] 7 artiffices [sic] uerberauit . 7 
domum edifficare [sic] prohibuit.' Et iterum de Colesrode aufert quantum 
homines de uilla cognoscunt.* Et preter hec partes terre apud Antingham 
homines Rogeri . Gouti 7 socii sui auferunt quartam partem pasture qua 
fodiuntur turue.^ Et in Stalham Rodbertus Dulum [sic] aufert sextam 
partem pasture 7 nemoris.^ 

At the time when the memorandum was written Norfolk was still 
a county sub lege Danorum. It is therefore natm'al that there 
should be a distinct Scandinavian element among the personal 
names which occm' in the memorandum. It is much smaller 
than the Old English element, but it has a distinctive character. 
The names Gouti, Howard, Langebeyn, Ringolf, Anund, are 
rarely found in documents which relate to the Northern Danelaw. 
Bond or Bonde, one of the commonest native personal names in 
twelfth-century Norfolk, is rare in Lincolnshire. The names 
which occur in other portions of the register of St. Benet's produce 
the same impression. The Anglo-Scandinavian personal names 
which survived into the twelfth centm*y form an immense mass 
of material upon which little work has been done as yet. But 

* Domesday assigns to St. Benet an estate in Saxlingham which Edric, a free man 
of Archbishop Stigand, had given to the abbey in pledge (ii. 217). It had akeady 
suffered encroachment between the Conquest and the date of Domesday ; in King 
Edward's time there had been nine sokemen upon it, in 1086 there were five. As the 
encroachment attributed to Ivo de Verdun must have been made in or soon after 
1089, it is highly probable that the five sokemen whose names are given in the text 
are the identical five sokemen who still remained under the abbey in 1086. 

' Moulton, Wacton, Aslacton, and Tibenham are adjacent villages in Depwade 
hundred, south-south-west of Norwich. The only estate assigned to St. Benet in this 
hundred is a manor of Tibenham {D. B. ii. 221). It was not a large manor, but it may 
well have included tofts in Moulton and wood in Wacton and Aslacton. In 1086 the fee 
of Roger Bigod extended into all three villages. There is nothing in Domesday to 
connect Ivo de Verdun with any of them, but he afterwards gave two-thirds of his 
tithes of Moulton to Thetford priory {Mon. Ang. v. 141). 

' On the last foho of the Norfolk Domesday Walter Canud is assigned the fifteen- 
acre holding of a free man in Tibenham, because Walter's predecessor had received 
it in pledge in King Edward's time. 

* It is difficult to identify this place, which is not mentioned in Domesday. It 
presumably lay near Tibenham. 

' In 1086 Roger Bigod possessed a manor at Suffield, adjoining Antingham on the 
south-east. There was also land of his fee in Antingham itself (Z). B. ii. 184 b), and 
St. Benet held a manor there (ii. 216). 

* St. Benet possessed a manor of one ploughland in Stalham (Z). B. ii. 220 b). 

230 8T, BENET OF HOLME April 

the suggestion may be hazarded that it may be possible ultimately 
to establish differences between the personal nomenclature of 
the several parts of the Danelaw which go back to the settlement 
of the ninth century itself. 

Unlike Domesday, the present memorandum deals with 
individuals, not with classes of men. In two passages it speaks 
of sokemanni, but for the rest it tells nothing of the rank or 
status of the peasants to whom it refers. Nevertheless it provides 
valuable material for comparison with the terminology of Domes- 
day. In particular, the word manreda, a Latin form of the Old 
English mannrcedenn, ' homage.', is interesting in this connexion. 
The word is used in the Old English Chronicle as late as the annal 
for 1137, but it does not seem to have been noticed in any private 
document written after the Norman Conquest.^ The act of 
homage was the essential feature of the transaction by which 
a free man placed himself under the authority of a superior, 
and the present text suggests very strongly that mannrcedenn 
was the English word which the clerks who wrote the East 
Anglian Domesday represented by commendatio. The following 
writ issued by Earl Ralf of East Anglia shows that the word was 
current in that region before the date of Domesday : 

Radulphus comes E. presbitero 7 omnibus baronibus de hundredo, 
salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Grim capellano meo mam-edam Askitelis 
7 quicquid tenet in Walsham cum sache 7 sokne 7 omni consuetudine 
7 ingang 7 utgang ad opus ecclesie sancti Benedicti de Hulmo sicut egomet 
melius habui. Valete.^ 

This writ, which is probably translated from an Old English 
original, anticipates the numerous private charters which record 
the grant of a tenant's homage and land. The phrase ' manredam 
Askitelis et quicquid tenet ' explains the more difficult ' tres 
manredas abstulit cum suis possessionibus ' of the memorandum. 
The ' possessiones ' are the tenements of the men whose homages 
were withdrawn from the abbey. It may also be noted that the 
phrase ' manredam Edwini cum familia sua ', which occurs in 
the memorandum, anticipates the occasional twelfth-century 
charter formulas which convey to a third party ' homagium 
X cum sequela sua '. 

In several passages the memorandum states that the abbey 
has lost half the manred of this or that individual. It is clear 
from the East Anglian Domesday that a man's commendation 
might be divided between two or more lords. ^ There has been 
preserved a copy of the writ by which the Confessor consents 

* See the quotations in Bosworth- Toller, s. v. 

* MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, fo. 35 b. Earl Ralf had soke over St. Benet's land in South 
Walsham T. R. E. 

* VinogradofF, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 423. 


that iElfric Modercope may bow to the two abbots of Bury 
St. Edmunds and Ely.^ In other cases the division of a family 
inheritance might lead to a partition of the profits derived from 
the homage, the commendatio, of free tenants.^ The language of 
Domesday proves that such partitions were, in fact, made,^ 
though it is difficult to find early documents Vhich illustrate 
them. One of the earliest records in the register of St. Benet's 
shows the abbot, as lord, dividing an estate with the manredae 
of the tenants upon it between three claimants : 

Hec est conuencio que facta est ab abbate Richero inter Edricum 7 
sororem 7 nepotein Goduuini monachi de terra apud Felmingham que 
pertinet ad candelam . reddens per annum .xxv. solidos. Partita est tota 
terra ilia cum manredis eiusdem terre in duo . et accepit Edricus unam 
partem unde dabit per annum .xii. solidos 7 vi. denarios ad hos ter- 
minos . ad festuni sancte Marie candelarwm .iiii, solidos 7 duos denarios . 
ad pentecosten .iiii. solidos 7 duos denarios . et ad natiuitatem sancte 
Marie . quatuor solidos 7 duos denarios . Soror quoque 7 nepos Godwini 
acceperunt alteram partem terre . unde totidem solidos 7 totidem denarios 
dabunt ad candelam 7 ad eosdem terminos. Si reddiderint 7 conuen- 
cionem seruauerint .•' scilicet Edricus 7 soror 7 nepos Godwini .•' in pace 
teneant. Quod si non fecerint . toUatur ab eis terra. Testimonio domini 
abbatis Richeri . 7 Godwini monachi . 7 Gilberti monachi . Hermanni 
dapiferi 7 fratris eius Walteri . Roberti balistarii 7 filii eius Odari etc. 
Hec conuencio facta est apud hundredum de Walsham.* 

The personal character of the relationship between lord and 
man expressed in the ceremony of homage explains the general 
character of the invasiones recorded in the memorandum. The 
lands of the abbey had suffered encroachment, though not to 
any very serious extent. The heaviest losses which the abbey 
had sustained consisted in the withdrawal of the homages and 
services of its tenants. It does not seem to have been difficult 
to induce or compel a man to do homage to a new lord without 
his former lord's consent. It need not be assumed that this 
withdrawal was always in defiance of law and custom. There 
is little doubt that most of the men of whose loss the memoran- 
dum complains were personally free — sokemen or liberi homines 
rather than villeins. They or their ancestors may well have 
enjoyed the liberty of choosing a new lord at their own will. 

'■ Thorpe, Diplomatarium, p. 416. It is, at the least, a remarkable coincidence that 
at Staraton, Norfolk, in 1066, there was a free man common to the abbots of St. Ed- 
munds and Ely {D. B. ii. 125 b ; Vict. County Hist., Norfolk, i. 54). 

- Maitland, Domeaday Book a-nd Beyoiid, p. 74. 

' As different men would pay different sums to their lord as an acknowledgement 
of his superiority, the common method of dividing the commendatio of a group of 
tenants between two persons must have been to divide the profits of each tenant's 
commendatio equally between them. 

* MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, fo. 54. The small estate which St. Benet possessed in 
Felmingham, worth twenty-one shillings in 1086, is described in D. B. ii. 219. 


Of actual violence there is little trace in the memorandum. 
The assault which Walter Canut made on Ringolf of Tibenham 
when he wished to move his house to a new place stands alone, 
and should not be taken as evidence of an unsettled state of 
society. Such episodes might occur at any time. They are often 
recorded upon the plea rolls of the thirteenth century. 
' Encroachments of the kind described in the memorandum 
were not confined to the period which followed the Norman 
Conquest. Early in the reign of Henry II Abbot WUliam II 
obtained a writ commanding him to do justice between his church 
and one of its tenants who was deforcing it of lands in the hundreds 
of Flegg. The substance of the writ is entered by a later hand 
at the foot of a page in the register. It was copied with little care, 
and its text is imperfect. But judicial writs issued before 1168 
are not common, and this example has value as an illustration 
of social conditions : 

Memorandum quod dominus rex Hem^icus misit breue suum. abbati 
Willelmo sub hac forma. Precipio quod plenarie rectum teneas ecclesie 
sancti Benedicti et monachis de Hulmo de Richardo filio Hugonis qui 
iniuste eis terras suas difforciat in Fleg et eas sine ullo seruicio tenet . 
terram . scilicet . que fuit Stannardi diaconi . xxv acras in campo et in 
marisco . octo acras . terram Swalegot . viii acras in campo et ii. in marisco . 
terram Wluan . iiii acras in campo . et .ii. in marisco . terram Laui . vi. 
acras . in campo et ii in marisco . terram Alfrici stein . ii. acras in campo 
et dimidiam acram terram Snuning [sic] . i. acram et i. percam infra nemus 
iuxta domum suam .iii. acras et super terram illam est imum horreum et 
omnes alie domus que sunt in curia preter anlam et solarium Et <de> 
dominio abbatis triginta acras et dimidiam et in marisco de Ouby . xl 
acras Et in Burc de terra Bertelot .Ix. acras in campo et .x. in marisco 
Et in Sumertona et in Wyntertona .xvi homwiia et Ivi acras in campo 
. et viii. in marisco . terram Eluuiw [sic] nonne .xl acras in campo et vi. 
hominia [sic] . terram Goche in Clepesby . unam acram in campo. Et si 
non feceris etc.^ 

The resemblance between the encroachments of Richard son of 
Hugh and those which are recorded in the memorandum is 
curiously close. There is the same subtraction of small parcels 
of land and the same withdrawal of tenants' homage. There 
is no doubt that the hominia of the writ represent the manredae 

* MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, fo. 63. The suit seems to have been ended by a compromise. 
The register, fo. 60, includes a copy of a charter by which Abbot William granted to 
Richard son of Hugh of Clippesby the service of Stannard the deacon's land in 
CUppesby, two acres in the same village, an acre in Repps, two parts of the meadow in 
Webfen, four other acres in Clippesby, and all the tenements which Richard's father 
had held of the abbey in Flegg. Richard on his part released to the abbey his claim 
to its land in Waxham and agreed to pay three shillings a year for the property 
described in the charter. The charter is probably later than the writ which has just 
been printed. 


of the memorandum. It is an important social fact that St. Benet 
could stiU claim the homage of twenty-two tenants in the two 
villages of Somerton and Winterton. In this corner of Norfolk, 
at any rate, manorial discipline had not yet superseded the ancient 
bond of homage, with all that it implied of the tenants' original 

It is clear from the memorandum itself that the encroach- 
ments which it records were not entirely the work of Roger Bigod 
and his Norman followers. They had begun before Roger can 
have entered into full possession of his Norfolk fee. Alwi of 
Thetford, the Egelwy of the memorandum and one of the 
wealthiest antecessores of Roger Bigod in Norfolk, had undoubtedly 
filled some official position in that county in the years imme- 
diately after the Conquest. The Norfolk Domesday contains 
several passages which suggest that he may once have been 
sheriff, though he is never addressed in that capacity in any 
writ of William I. It was obviously in process of law that he 
seized the land of the fugitive Ringolf of Oby, and some of the 
other encroachments which are ascribed to him may be explained 
in the same way. In the confusion which followed the Conquest 
the distinction between the land of Alwi's inheritance and the 
land which he seized to the king's use might easily be blurred. 

In a different connexion, the memorandum supplies a frag- 
ment of new evidence relating to the time which immediately 
followed the Conquest. The Abbot AKwold of the memorandum 
was ruling at St. Benet's already in 1066. He is the Abbot 
Alwold to whom King Harold entrusted the defence of the coast 
in that year.^ John of Oxnead, the thirteenth-century monk 
of St. Benet's, who records this fact, goes on to relate that the 
abbot suffered tribulations from the Conqueror, but returned to 
his abbey, and died on 14 November 1089. William of Worcester, 
writing in the fifteenth century, states that the abbot received 
the custody of Norfolk from Harold, fled into Denmark, and 
never returned to England.^ On the question of the abbot's 
return the evidence of John of Oxnead is to be preferred. The 
precision of his chronology makes it certam that ^Ifwold was 
still abbot of St. Benet's at the accession of WiUiam II. He 
was present at the great inquest of 2 April 1080 concerning the 
liberties of the church of Ely.^ It follows that he is the abbot, 
unnamed in the memorandum, with whom Ringolf of Oby fled 
into Denmark, and ^Ifwold of St. Benet's may be added to 
the list of Englishmen who after the Conquest sought for a time 
the court of Swein Estrithson. 

' Freeman, Norman Conquest, hi. >17« 

' Itinerarium WiUelmi de Worcestre, ed. Nasmith, p; 348. 

^ Davis, Eegesta, no. 122. 


The abbot's return is imi)lied in a charter granted by one 
of his successors named William, probably William I, 1127-34 : 

Notum sit presentibus 7 futuris dei fidelibus . dompnum abbatem Willel- 
mum 7 monachos ecclesie sancti Benedicti de Holm in communi capitulo 
dedisse 7 concessisse Petro camerario quecumque fuerunt Egelwardi de 
Houetone ^ in eadem uilla silicet [sic] Houetone 7 in North Walsham . uel in 
aliis locis . in terris 7 homagiis . in pascuis 7 pratis 7 moris . in bosco 7 piano 
7 in omnibus rebus 7 consuetudinibus quas idem Egelwardus uncquam [sic] 
melius habuit una die 7 una nocte tempore Afwoldi abbatis. Ita ut nemo 
ex eisdem rebus aliquid habeat nisi per ipsum . set libere 7 quiete teneat 
omnia ilia in feodum ipse Petrus 7 heres eius in perpetuum reddens inde 
singulis annis celerario octo solidos ad mensam fratrum pro omni seruicio 
tribus competentibus terminis . ad festum sancti Edmundi tres solidos . 
ad pascha duos solidos . octaua die ante festum sancti Benedicti in estate 
tres solidos. Huius donacionis sunt testes Adam dapifer, Richerus de 
Ouby etc.2 

The Abbot Afwold of this document can be no other than the 
Alwold of John of Oxnead and the Athelwold or AKwold of the 
memorandum. The reference to his abbacy as a note of date 
is important. It suggests, what is borne out by many documents 
in the cartulary, that, invasiones apart, the condition of St. Benet*s 
free tenants imderwent little serious change under the Norman 
kings. The following charter, for example, shows a tenant of 
native ancestry receiving between 1153 and 1168 land under the 
conditions which had governed its tenure for the previous two 
generations : 

Sciant presentes 7 futuri fideles dei quod ego secundus Willelmus dei gracia 
abbas ecclesie sancti Benedicti de Hulmo communi consilio 7 uoluntate 
tocius capituli nostri concessi 7 dedi in feodo 7 hereditate Ricardo clerico 
totam terram aui sui Brictnod 7 Hagene patris sui in Burwde ^. 7 insuper 
totam terram Swartingi in eadem uilla . quam emit ab heredibus illius terre 
saluis consuetudinibus ad aulam de Neteshirde ^ pertinentibus. Has uero 
terras habebit 7 tenebit predictus clericus Ricardus 7 heredes sui libere 7 
quiete in campo 7 prato 7 in turbariis sicut unquam predecessores sui eas 
melius 7 liberius tenuerunt in uita sua . 7 eisdem consuetudinibus. Huius 
concessionis 7 donacionis sunt testes . Philippus capellanus . Willelmus 
presbiter de Neteshirda . Henricus medicus de Bolwyc . Richerus filius 
Odonis . Nicholaus miles de Tyrna . Henricus de Stiuekeswrde . Simundus 
de Ludham . JIugo de Rollesby . Haraldus clericus . Wistanus prepositus . 
Reginaldus filius Wistani . Robertus de Ingham . Petrus filius Stannardi 
de Waxtonesham 7 multi alii.* 

1 Hoveton St. John. * MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, f o. 60 b. ' Burwood and Neatishead. 

* MS. Cott. Galba, E. ii, fo. 60. The same impression of continuity is produced by 
another charter of the same abbot (ibid, f o. 60b) : ' Ego Willelmus secundus deigracia abbas 
ecclesie sancti Benedicti de Hulmo . . . concessi et dedi in feodo et hereditate Henrico filio 
Asgar totam terram Edmundi propositi cum filia ipsius herede terre illius sicut parentela 
eius postulauit. Hanc autem terram habebit et tenebit predictus Henricus iure here- 
ditario . . . sicut unquam melius et liberius earn tenuit predictus Edmundus in uita 


The documents in the cartulary make it evident that the payment 
of a rent in money formed the essential tie between the abbey 
and its tenants. The greater estates of the abbey were composed 
of scattered holdings held together by their contribution to 
a common firma} But the tenant was the abbot's justiciable. 
A charter granted by Abbot Anselm between 1134 and 1140 
brings out very clearly the fact that seignorial justice was 
a privilege to the tenant as well as a source of profit and influence 
to the lord : 

Notum sit presentibus y futuris quod ego Anselmus dei gracia abbas 
7 conuentus sancti Benedicti de Hulmo . dedimus 7 concessimus Wyther 
cognoniento Turnel 7 suo heredi in feodo 7 hereditate .xii. acras quas 
Wlmerus de Ristone tenuit 7 unam acram quam Leuinggus cognomento 
Ludding tenuit in Erpingham hundred. Insuper ei dedimus 7 concessimus 
totam terram que pertinet ad dominiiun nostrum de Scothowe ^ in Tunstede 
himdred pro quatraginta denariis de redditu pro omni seruicio per annum . 
nee inde placitet contra aliquem nisi in curia abbatis 7 monachorum ubi 
hec largicio ei facta est in comuni \sic\ capitulo. Ipse uero Wyther 7 heredes 
eius post obitum illius dabit singulis annis ad festum sancti Benedicti in 
estate quatuor denarios ad altare. Huius rei testes sunt . Adam presbiter 
de Tunsted Osbernus de Redham . Willelmus de Hobosse Eudo de 
Felmingham . Lambertus de Birkele . Hugo de Estone . Edricus pet 
Wlricus de Birnesuiurde Eche Suetman . Godricus . Lelberd etc.^ 

The examples which have been given are perhaps enough to 
show the general interest of the early charters in the register 
of St. Benet's. It would be hard to find a series which illustrates 
more clearly the dealings of a great East Anglian religious house 
with its tenants. It is an important fact that these dealings 
throughout presuppose the existence of the peculiar form of 
society which is described in the Domesday survey of East 
Anglia. F. M. Stenton. 

The Text of the Ordinance of 1184 concerning an 
Aid for the Holy Land 

The ordinance dealing with a subsidy for the Holy Land, which 
purports to have been issued by Henry II and Philip Augustus 
in 1184, has been edited several times ; but our knowledge of the 

sua tempore regis Henrici primi . . . pro duobus solidis de censu ad aulam per annum 
pro omnibus consuetudinibus et seruiciis.' This explicit acknowledgement by a lord 
that the daughter of a reeve possessed a right of inheritance to her father's land is good 
evidence of the free condition of men of this class at the middle of the twelfth century. 

' In the reign of Stephen, Abbot Hugh granted certain land between Runton and 
Felbridge to Osbert the priest of Thurgarton for twelve pence a year, noting that these 
twelve pence belonged to the four pounds of Thwaite (fo. 57 b). In 1086 St. Benet's 
manor of Thwaite had only been valued at forty shillings. 

- Scottow, » fo. 56 b. 

236 THE ORDINANCE OF 1184 April 

text is still unsatisfactory.-"^ The different editions present a 
variety of readings, and, since several editors do not state their 
sources, it is difficult to fix the relations of the various editions 
to one another and to the originals. The earliest printed edition 
is that in the second volume of Spelman's Concilia} This volume, 
although it passes under Spelman's name, was edited by Dugdale.^ 
Spelman died in 1641, two years after the publication of the 
first volume,* when he had collected only a small quantity of 
material for the second.^ Dugdale, who took up the work only 
after some delay, did not prepare the second volume for publica- 
tion until 1664.^ He contributed the greater portion of the 
contents through his own researches,' but the ordinance of 1184 
was among the documents left by Spelman,® and so presumably 
we owe the text to him and not to Dugdale. The source of the 
edition in Spelman's Concilia is not named ; and no subsequent 
editor of the ordinance specified a manuscript as his source 
until Riley, in 1860, edited the Liber Custumarum, which contains 
a copy.* This compilation was written during the reign of 
Edward 11,^^ probably about 1310,^^ and in 1328 it came into the 
possession of the city of London. Later it became divided into 
two parts, and one of these found its way into the Cottonian 
collection, where it now forms part of the volume numbered 
Claudius D. ii.^^ Since this is the only manuscript mentioned 
by an editor and seems to be the earliest copy of the ordinance 
known to be extant, Riley's edition ought to have settled some 
of the difficulties of textual criticism. Unfortunately his text 
contains manifest corruptions, which are in part editorial.-'^* 
Just how far they are editorial, however, the reader cannot decide 

^ Luchaire, in Rev. Hist. Ixii. 336 ; Cartellieri, ibid. Ixxvi. 329, 330 ; idem, Philipp II, 
ii. 16, n. 2. 

" pp. 115, 116. 

* Spelman, Concilia, ii, dedicatory epistle ; Dugdale, History of Si. PavTs, 
pp. XX, xxi. 

* Diet, of Nat. Biog. liii. 330, 331. 

* Life of Spelman prefixed to his Etiglish Works, edited by Gibson. 

* This is the date on the title-page, and Dugdale, in the autobiography prefixed 
to his History of Si. Paul's (p. xxi), says that it and another work were published 

about ' 1666. The assertion of Dugdale's biographer in the Diet, of Nat. Biog, 
(xvi. 139), that the volume was published in 1666 and not in 1664, is erroneous. 
' Dugdale, History of St. Paul's, p. xxi. 

* Spelman, Concilia, ii, dedicatory epistle and table of contents. 
» p. 653. 

1" Riley, Liber Custumarum, introd., p. xii ; Cartellieri, in Rev. Hist. Ixxvi. 330. 

^^ Liebermann, t/ber die Leges Anglorum SaecuZo XIII. ineunte Lovdoniis coUectae, 
p. 102. 

'2 Riley, Liber Custumarum, pp. xi-xiii, xvii-xxiv. 

" Cartellieri says of his edition {Rev. Hist. Ixxvi. 329, 330) : ' Un autre texte encore, 
d^figure par des f antes de lecture assez apjjarentes.' He adds, with some exaggeration ; 
'Aucun de ces .textes ne repond aux exigences de la critique modeme. On devra 
meme dine que le plus recent [i. e. Riley's] est le plus mauvais.' 


without reference to the original. An attempt to establish the 
relations of the several editions by collation with Riley's would, 
therefore, be fruitless.^* Since it is desirable that these relations 
should be determined, I have edited again the copy found in the 
Liber Custumarum and collated it with other manuscripts and 
with various printed editions of the document .^^ 

The only known medieval texts of the ordinance of 1184 are 
found in copies of a collection of laws made in the interest of the 
city of London during the reign of John.^^ The autograph of 
this compilation is not known to exist. The only contemporary 
manuscript is now divided into two parts. The first is Codex 174 
in the John Rylands Library at Manchester and the second is 
Additional Manuscript 14252 in the British Museum. This copy 
of the compilation, however, does not contain the ordinance of 
1184. The document which precedes the ordinance in the other 
copies is the last in Codex 174, and the document which follows 
the ordinance is the first in Additional Manuscript 14252. Pro- 
fessor Tout, who kindly examined for me the codex in the John 
Rylands Library, discovered that one folio ■'^' (or possibly two) 
had been cut out at the end.^® The ordinance of 1 184 was unques- 
tionably on the missing folio. Of the later copies of the whole 
or of parts of this compilation only three have the ordinance of 
1184. The Cottonian manuscript, Claudius D. ii, which is the 
one edited by Riley, was written about 1310 ; the manuscript 
numbered 70 in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; 
was written about 1320 ; and the manuscript numbered 46 in 
the library of Oriel College, Oxford, was written about 1330. 
The Cottonian manuscript is generally the best of the three. 

The text of the ordinance given below is taken from the copy 
on folio 71 of the Cottonian manuscript with slight emendations 
from the copies found on folio 109 of the Corpus manuscript 
and on folio 63 of the Oriel manuscript. The first is designated 
as A, the second as B, and the third as C. No conjectural emenda- 
tions have been attempted, since one object of the present 
edition is to remove the difficulties caused by the guesses of 
previous editors. Extensions of words abbreviated in all three 
manuscripts are indicated by italics. The capitalization and 

" I say this after making the attempt. Cartellieri experienced the same difficulty 
{Rev. Hist. Ixxvi. 329, 330). 

" Cartellieri has been insistent on the need of a new edition of this copy {ibid, and. 
Philipp II, ii. 16, n. 2). 

»• This paragraph, with the exception noted, is based upon Liebermann's thorough 
studies of the relations of the manuscript copies of this collection in his V^ber die 
Leges Anglorum Saectdo XIII. ineunte Londoniis collectae, and ante, xxviii. 732-45. 

" This would be fo. 127. 

" Through the courtesy of Mr. Guppy, the librarian, Mr. Tout was able to have the 
binding opened. 

238 THE ORDINANCE OF 1184 April 

punctuation of the manuscripts have not been followed, and the 
division into paragraphs does not appear in the originals. The 
variants are noted, not only from B and C, but also from the later 
editions of the document. D is an edition in manuscript found 
among the collections made by Sir Simonds D'Ewes between 
1623 and 1650.^^ It now occupies folios 95 and 96 of the manu- 
script in the Harleian collection numbered 311. R is Riley's 
edition of A,^^ S is Spelman's edition of the ordinance,^^ L is 
Labbe's,^^ and W is Wilkins's.^^ The editions of Hardouin,-* 
Bessin/^ Dumont,^^ Bouquet,^' and Mansi^® have been disre- 
garded in the construction of the text, since they were all derived 
from Labbe's.^* 

The collation, together with the other evidence adduced, 
establishes as probable the following relationships among the 
originals and the several later editions. B and C are more 
closely related to each other than to A.^^ They are probably 
derived from a common original. A may be derived from the 
same original, but its variations from B and C make probable 
the assumption of another original. ^^ D is undoubtedly a copy 
of A. D'Ewes borrowed the Oriel manuscript (C), when it was 
in the possession of Tate, and made some transcriptions from it,^^ 
but he also copied documents from a manuscript belonging to 
Sir Robert Cotton, which was probably Claudius D. ii (A).^* 
D has potent ^* in common with B and C, but it is presumably 
D'Ewes' independent emendation of the obviously erroneous 
portent of A, since D'Ewes follows none of the other significant 
variants of B and C. The only other variations of D from A, 
which are not mere changes of spelling, such as quae for que^ 
are two scribal errors and three slight emendations.^^ They 
indicate no connexion between D and any manuscript other 
than A. D does not appear to have been used by any subsequent 
editor of the ordinance. Spelman copied A. In his time the part 
of the Liber Custumarum containing the ordinance was already 
in the library of Sir Robert Cotton,^^ to which he had access.^' 

" Diet, of Nat. Biog. xiv. 451-3. *• Liber Custumarum, p. 653. 

*i Concilia, ii. 115. ** Concilia, x. 1740. 

^ Concilia, i, 490. ** Concilia, vi, 1881. 

** Concilia Normanniae, p. 90. *° Corps Diplomatique, i. 109. 

^^ Hist, de la France, xix. 329. *' Concilia, xxii. 485. 

^' Delisle, Catalogue des Actes de Philippe- Auguste, no, 112; Luchaire, in Rtv. 
Hist. Ixxii. 336. 

»• Below, nn. 81, 83, 86, 90, 97, 98, 110, 116, 132, 136, 139, 142. 

** See Liebermann, tJher die Leges, p. 105. 

'* D'Ewes, Autobiography, i. 258 ; Liebermann, Vber die Leges, p. 101. 

»3 D'Ewes, i. 272, 289. '* Below, n. 86, 

'5 Below, nn. 60, 66, 68, 85, 106. 

^' Cotton had it at least as early as 1607 (Riley, Liber Custumarum, p. xviii), and 
Spelman began his work several years later (Life prefixed to his English Works). 

" Diet, of Nat. Biog. xii. 313 ; liii. 329. 


Such departures as he makes from A are his corrections of slight 
errors in the forms of single words or his slight errors in the 
transcription of single words,^* with the exception of his alteration 
of the title. ^* Two of his variants from A agree with those in 
B and C. Poterit for porterit,'^ however, is an obvious emendation, 
and lohanne for Philippo is probably due to a misreading of A.*^ 
Otherwise his variants are independent of all three manuscripts,*^ 
and they are of such a nature as to indicate no relation with any 
other manuscript. The copy in Labbe's Concilia was taken from 
S, though it may have been collated with A.*^ This work, which 
is usually cited under Labbe's name, was edited by him in 
conjunction with Cossart. Labbe died in 1667, when only a part 
of the eighteen volumes had been printed, and the work was 
continued by the other editor.** Volume x, which contains the 
ordinance, was published in 1671, but the first part had gone to 
press before Labbe's death. *^ Thus it is not certain whether the 
document was edited by Labbe or by Cossart. Their edition of 
the councils is based upon an earlier collection published at the 
Louvre in 1644,*^ but the ordinance is not found there.*' It was 
added, therefore, by Labbe or by Cossart. They divide the docu- 
ment into the same paragraphs as Spelman, and, with alterations 
of small importance, they have the title found in S but not in 
A, B, or C. They also preserve Spelman's emendations. Their 
correction of Spelman's erroneous Andagavensis ** may have been 
conjectural, and their acceptance of lohanne for Philippo^^ 
may have been due either to their failure to consult A or to their 
independent misreading of A ; but their substitution of ubi for 
nisi probably was not made independently of A.^° They make 
one emendation ^^ and two errors ^^ which are not based upon 
A, B, C, or S. Of the variations of B and C from A they have only 
the two found in S. Wilkins professes to have taken his edition 
from Spelman's.^^ He emends three of Spelman's variations from 
A to make them correspond with A ; ^* but he follows the remainder 
of Spelman's variants, and he makes emendations of S which 

" Below, nn. 61, 77, 78, 81, 86, 88, 90, 106, 107, 144. 

»» Below, n. 60. « Below, n. 86. " Below, n. 90. 

« Below, nn. 61, 77, 78, 81, 88, 106, 107, 144. 

** Cartellieri, from the comparison of the printed te^ts alone, concluded that 
L copied S {Rev. Hist. Ixxvi. 329). 

** Biographic universelle, xxii. 257. 

*' Le Long, Bibliotheque hiatorique, p. 971 ; Backer, Bibliotheque des Ecrivains, 
ii. 561. 

** The title as given in Brunet's Manuel (ii. 211) is Conciliorum omnium generalium 
et provincialium Collectio regia. I have not seen the work. 

*' Labbe, Concilia, table of contents. 

*" Below, n. 107. ," Below, n. 90. " Below, n. 97. 

" Below, n. 148. ^a ggio^ nn. 61„ 130. 

*» Concilia, i. 490. ■ , • = " Below, nn. 61, 90, 107. ' 

240 TEE ORDINANCE OF 1184 April 

result in radical departures from A and from all other copies.^^ 
These emendations indicate that he did not use A ; and they 
appear to have been made arbitrarily without reference to any 
other copy. He has none of the variants found only in B and C. 
On the other hand, he has one of the few variants found only in 
D ^ and two of the three emendations of S made in IjF W, there- 
fore, may be connected with D and L, though it seems improbable. 
All the printed copies, therefore, are derived directly or indirectly 
from A. W. E. Lijnt. 

Quedam ^^ ordinatio de contributione facienda in subsidium Terre ** 

Auctoritate ^^ litterarwrn^^ dowini pape ^ subnixi,^ presente ^ et appro- 
bante illustri AnglorMm rege Henrico, cum baronibMS suis, et A. de Sumwa,** 
legato summi pontificis, e^iscopi Normanwie ^' in suis e^iscopatibMS ^ hoc 
instituerunt : ut quicuwqMe ^ elemosinam,'^® que "^ ordinata est ad sub- 
ventionem "^ terre "^ lerosolomitane,^* transmiserunt, talem de iniuncta "^^ 
penitentia '^ veniam consequatur : ''^ si in penitentia ''^ f uerit/^ que "^ septem '* 
annos excedat, trium annoiMm venia gaudebunt ; si in penitentia ^ vel 
minori fuerint pro criminali, duorwm annorwm veniam habebunt. Peccata 
vero, de quibws homo recordari non poterit, omnia relaxant ^^ dummodo 
de contemptu penituerit.^^ Venalia quoqwe omnia sub tali penitentia '* 
condonent, ut ^ unusquisqi^, qui elemosinam '" istam solverit, ter in die, 

55 Below, nn. 60, 80, 93, 97, 103, 127, 141, 143. 

5* Below, n. 85. That facere is needed to complete the sentence is so obvious 
that it may have occurred to D'Ewes and WUkins independently. 

" Below, nn. 107, 148. " Quaedam, D, R. ^9 Terrae, D, R. 

*" Sanctae, D, R. D a^ds tempore Regis Henrici Secundi. The heading in S and 
L, which is given in a note in W, is Ordinatio DD. {ova.. W) Johannis {loannia III, L ;- 
Philippi, W), Regis Franciae, et Henrici 2 di {II, L) Regis Angliae, consilio {concilia, W) 
Episcoporum, Comitum et Baronum terrarum suarum, de contributione facienda (om. L) 
in svhsidium Terrae Sanctae, a nativitate 8. Johannis {loannis, L) Baptistae An. Incar- 
nationis Domini 1184, id est, 31. Regis Henrici secundi {id . . . secundi om. W ; anno 
MCLXXXIV, L) in decern annos. The heading in W is Ordinatio Henrici II. regis 
Angliae, et Philippi, regis Franciae, de svbsidio terrae sanctae. 

*i Authoritate, S ; Autoritate, L. 

*2 literarum, W. *^ papae, D, R, S, L, W. 

" To this point B reads : 

Quedam ordinatio de contributione Auctoritate litterarum 

facienda in svhsidium terre sancte. domini pape subnixi. 

«5 praesente, D, R, S, L, W. *' Summo, D. 

*' Normanniae, S, L, W ; norman, R. 

*' episcopatuhus, D. '* quicumque, L. 

•• elemosynam, D ; eleen^osynam, L, W, R ; similarly later in the plural. 

'* quae, D, R, S, L, W. " subvencionem, D. 

" terrae, D, R, S, L, W. 

'* lerosolomitanae, D, R ; Hierosolymitanae, S, L, W. 

" injuncta, R, S, L, W. '* poenitentia, D, R, S, L, W. 

" consequantur, S, L, W ; consequetur, R. 

" fuerint, S, L, W. " fit, B, C 

*• poenitentia, D, S, L, W ; pecunia, R. W inserts quae 5 annos excedit between 
poeniterUia and vel. 

" relaxavit, B, C ; relaxantur, S, L, W. 

" poenituerit, D, R, S, L, W. »» et, B, C. 


vel in nocte, ' Pater noster ' dicat pro salute vivorwiH semel, pro pace 
semel, et semel pro requie ^ defunctoritm. Tres quoqwe elemosinas '^ 
unusquisque ^ tenetur, ut hanc indulgentiam consequatur, si facere 
poterit.®^ Si vero ea paupertate laborat, ut elemosinas '" illas facere non 
possit, ter iterwm ' Pater noster ' pro consequenda ^"^ remissione dicere 

Talis est dispositio ad subveniendum terre "^ IeTOSo\om.itane ^^ a domino 
l^hilippo,^ rege Francie,®^ et Henrico, rege Angh'e,^ communi consilio ^ 
episcopovmn et comitum et baronum terrarwm suarwm approbata, scilicet, 
quod unusquisqwe, tam clericorMm qiiam laicort^m,^ qui plusqwam centum 
solidos non habuit,^ de unaquaqwe domo qwam habuit,^ ubi*' singulis 
diebus ignis consuetudinarie accendetur,®^ II ^ denarios ^^ singulis annis 
usqwe ad tres annos persolvet. Si vero in mobilibi*s plusqwam centum 
solidos habuerit, de unaquaqwe libra in tota terra regis Francie ®^ II ^"^ 
denarios ^'^ Proveniensis ^^ monete,^*'* vel equipollens,^''^ et in terra regis 
Angh'e ^ cismarino ^"^ II ^^^ denarios ^^ Andegavensis ^^ monete,^°* et in 
Anglia unus sterlingus persolvetur usqwe ad predictwm ^^ terminum. Qui 
vero centum libras ^^ in terris i^" vel in redditibws ^^^ habuerit, vel eo am- 
plius, de centum ^^2 lifen's^^^ XX ^^* solw^os^^^ annuatim dabit.^^^ Qui vero 
in redditib?^6' ^^' minus qwam centum ^^^ libras habuerit, de XX ^^® 
li6ris 120 dabit quatuor 121 sohVZos,i22 et de XL 123 Uhris 124 VIII 125 solidos,^^^ 
et ita deinceps veli27 rationem predictam.128 Habentes vero mobilia 
ultra centum ^^^ solidos iurabunt ^29 qwod de singulis XX ^^^ solidis ^^'^ 
fideliter duos ^^^ denanos dabunt. De parte mortui que "^ spectat ad 
eum secwndt^m consuetudinem terre,'^ et unum post, et debet elemo- 
sinam '® pro anima sua facere. 

** regimine, R. ** D and W insert facere here. 

** porterit, A. *' conservanda, B, C. 

'* tenetur, S, L, W. ** lernsalem, D, L, R ; Jerusalem, S, W. 

•" Johanne, B, C, S ; loanne, L. Pho in A looks like loho. 

»» Franciae, D, R, S, L, W. »^ Angliae, D, R, S, L, W. 

•' concilio, W. ** laycorum, C. 

•■^ habuerit, R. »« habuerit, D, R, S, L, W, 

*' m', n', u', or ?i.', A ; i* or i\ B ; in, C ; nisi, D, S ; si, W. 

»« accende, B, C. »» duos, D, L ; 2, W. 

"•> d., S, W. 1" duo, D ; duos, L ; 2, W. 

*'- denarii, D ; rf., S, W. '"' Provenciensis, W ; Provenlc]iensis, R. 

"* monetae, D, R, S, L, W. "' aequipollens, R, S, L, W. 

»»« cismarina, D, S, L, W. "" Andagavensis, S. 

"« praedictum, D, R, S, L, W. "" lib., W. 

»"» terra, B, C. »" redditu, C ; redilibus, W. 

"°- 100, 8, W. »" I., D ; lib., W. 

1" %i«/!, D, L ; 20, S, W. "5 3,^ s^ ^V. 

"* dabit annuatim, B, C. '" reditibus, W. 

"' C, B, C. "» 2(?, S, W. 

»=« i., D ; lib., S, W. »^> ////, B, C, D ; 4, W. 

«* a., D ; solid., S, W. i" 40, S, W. 

'2* lib., S, W. 1" octo, D ; 5, W. 

»" «oZirf., S, W. >" cki, W. 
»" praedictam, D, R, S, L, W. 
'" jurabunt, D, R, S, L, W. 
"» aoitdo*, L ; aoZ., S, W. 
'" //, B, C, S ; 2, W. 


242 AN ORDINANCE OF 1184 April 

Decima debetur ad def ensionem terre "^ leTosolomitane ^^^ a nativitate 
Sawcti ^^ lohawwis ^^ Baptiste ^^ anno incarnatiowis ^^^ Dojnini millesimo 
CraoLXXX^oIIIIto 137 jji (Jecem annos, salvo iure ^^ dominoium et eccle- 
siatum. Excipiuntwr ab ista ordinatione ^'^ in clericis thesauri et ornamenta 
ecclesi&Tum et libri et equi et vasa et vestimenta et gemme ^^^ et utensilia 
que '^ cotidianis ^^ usibus et sibi necessaria sunt ; et in militibws equi et 
arma et vasa et ^^ indumenta que '^ usibus eorwm deputantur. Ad banc 
elemosinam '" coUigendam instituentur in singulis e^iscopatibws duo 
hatres, unus de templo et alter de hospitali, et^^^ singulis parocliianis ^^ illi 
duo f ratres ^^^ et dominws presbiter ^^ ville ^*' et duo de legalioribws paro 
cbianis elemosinam '•^ constitutam fideliter coUigant ^^ et conservabunt. 

Law Merchant in London in I2p2 

In June 1285 the city of London was taken into the king's 
hands and put under the government of a warden. With his 
coming, by a series of royal ' establishments ', changes were intro- 
duced into the procedure of the city courts.-^ We do not perhaps 
know enough of the period before 1285 to say exactly what was 
the extent of the changes, but they clearly meant something 
more than the replacement of the mayor by the warden in the 
husting and the mayor's court,^ although perhaps not very 
much more than the definition or acceleration of developments 
already long in process. Among numerous and detailed instruc- 
tions was one which required the warden or the sheriffs to hold 
a daily court for strangers (foreins) and to appoint a deputy if 
on any day none of them was able to sit, ' issint qe marchauntz 
foreyns en nul manere soient deslayes '.^ Nothing is directly 
said as to the law merchant, but we may presume from the later 
history of the mayor's and sheriffs' courts that this was the law 
to be observed, and indeed there was no other devised to secure 
the expedition required in this court.* A court for merchant 

"2 Jerusalem, B, C, L, R ; Jerusalem, D, S, W. 

"3 S., S, L, W. 1^* Johannis, R, S, W ; Joannis, I>. 

"5 Bapiisfm, D, R, S, L, W. "« Om. B, C. 


"' jure, T>, R, S, L, W. *" estimatione, A ; aestitnatione, J), R, S, L, W. 

"" gemmae, D, R, S, L, W. "^ quoiidianis, W. 

!« Om. B, C. "' W inserts in. 

"* parochiis, S, L, W. R notes that it should be parocJdis. 

i« Om. A, D, R, S, L, W. »" presbyter, D, R, S, L, W. 

"' villae, D, R, S, L, W. »" colligerU, L, W. 

^ Munimenta Oildhallae Jjondoniensis, i. 280 ff., ' cestes establicementes,' p. 296 ; 
cf. p. 280, n. 1. 

^ See especially ' I'Ordinaunce de Pleder ', p. 290, which defines and apparently 
restricts the jurisdiction of the court of husting. . 

' Ibid. pp. 295, 296. 

* It had already been laid down that tallies were to be proved by law merchant: 
ibid., p. 294. 


strangers was no innovation, for something like it should have 
been instituted in 1221, as a result of the eyre held before Hubert 
de Burgh and his feUow justices, in the course of which it was 
agreed that when the court of busting was not sitting, the 
mayor and sheriffs, together with two or three aldermen, should 
sit daily to hear plaints of those ' who are called pepovdrous ', 
and who had hitherto been obliged to wait for a session of the 
busting.^ It is likely, however, that the sheriffs' court had come 
to be the sole tribunal for pleas of foreign merchants, for the 
treatise on the ' Lex Mercatoria ', written probably about 1280,* 
which is preserved in the Little Red Book of Bristol, knows no 
other London court where the procedure is governed by the 
law merchant. Now the books of remembrance of the city of 
Bristol borrow not a little from the city of London, and it is 
difl&cult to avoid the conclusion that this treatise comes also 
from the mother town. London was very much in the mind 
of the author who, even if he derived his knowledge of other 
mercantile courts from practical experience, was certainly no 
stranger to London courts and London practice. But although 
he mentions the mayor several times, no reference is made to 
the mayor's court,^ nor is there to be found, where we might 
expect it had it been required, an alternative form applicable to 
that court ; ' coram vicecomite si sit in Londoniis ' is the 
extent of his teaching.* 

Edward I's ' establishments ', however, reinforced perhaps by 
the Carta Mercatoria,^ were effective, and in the fourteenth 
century it is settled practice for pleas of debt and all other 
personal actions between merchant and merchant to be heard in 
the mayor's court and to be determined according to the law 
merchant : ^ in such cases the justices sitting at St. Martin's- 

» Ibid. p. 67. 

* A date about 1300 has been proposed {ante, xvii. 356), but there is nothing 
in the treatise inconsistent with a date some twenty years earlier. The Carta Merca- 
toria (1303) is not mentioned, and this may be regarded as giving the latest possible 
date : but it seems equally inconceivable that the author could have failed to mention 
the statute of Acton Bumel (1283) had he known of it (cf. Fleta, ii, c. 68): he 
mentions (p. 60) the statute of Marlborough (1267), but no later statute. He knows 
a King Edward son of Henry, and a King Philip of France. He seems not to know 
of a warden in London or of the ' establishments ' and the procedure laid down by 

* Little Red Book, pp. 77, 81, 84, 85. I regard the curious ' Placita coram Maiore, 
vicecomitibus et Ciuibus Ciuitatis Londonianim ', &c., in the formula for a letter on 
p. 85 as an intentional absurdity, like the discrepancies elsewhere between regnal years 
and years of our Lord. 

* Ibid. p. 59 ; cf. p. 82. Alternative forms are given (p. 59) for a fair^ a town, 
and a city (other than London). 

* Mun. Gildh. Land., ii. 208 : ' Item, volumus et concedimus quod aliquis certus 
homo . . . assignetur . . . coram quo valeant specialiter placitare ... si Vicecomes et, 
Maior eis non fecerint de die in diem celeris iustitie complementum.' 

' Ricarfs Kalendar (Camden Soc.) p. 95. I suggest a date between 1321 and 



le-Grand had no jurisdiction in error/ the reasons presum- 
ably being those of expedition and certainty which underlay 
the whole conception of the law merchant.^ The sheriffs for 
a time retained a concurrent jurisdiction with the mayor's 
court. ^ 

The documents printed below * furnish what appears to be 
the earliest record which has been preserved of a case tried 
before warden or mayor according to the law merchant.^ Taken 
together, the transcript of the proceedings in the warden's court 
and the memorandum furnished by the warden in justification 
of the proceedings give us a good deal of information concerning 
the law merchant as it was administered at the end of the thir- 
teenth century, and they tell us also, what is at least as interesting, 
the advantages which London merchants and citizens believed 
they derived from the law merchant. 

It will be at once observed that in one important particular 
the procedure in the warden's court differed from that described 
in the Bristol ' Lex Mercatoria '. The court is not one in which 
the merchants are the judges as in mercantile courts elsewhere.^ 

1327 for the treatise on the courts of London which is found liere and elsewhere : 
see Borough Customs (Selden Soc), i. xxxviii, and, for a variant version, The City 
Latv (1647). The letter to the king {RicarVs KaZ., p. 112) seems undoubtedly to be 
connected with the eyre of 1321. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how 
the passage relating to Southwark (p. 106) could contain no mention of its grant to 
the city if written after 1327. On this basis there is no difficulty in accepting the 
statement (p. 93) that the treatise was contained in a book belonging to Henry Darcy, 
mayor (never recorder) in 1337. 

^ Ibid. p. 101. The justices itinerant sitting at the Tower might try mercantile 
causes : see Assize Roll, no. 546, m. 47d., where the justices taking the London eyre 
of 14 Edward II are directed to try a case ' secundum legem et consuetudinem regni 
nostri vel secundum legem mercatoriam '. 

* It would seem, however, as we might expect, that the Coimcil would afiEord 
relief : below, p. 247. 

* Mun. Gildh. Lond. i. 199, 216. This jurisdiction they lost towards the end of 
the fourteenth century. The Guildhall Liber Dunthom, fo. 68, contains a record of 
a case in 1390 removed on the application of the parties from the sheriffs' court to 
the mayor's court, ' quia eadem querela tangit legem mercatoriam et talis accio 
tangens legem mercatoriam et precipue inter mercatores extraneos non consueuit 
terminari coram Vicecomite, set secimdum consuetudinem Ciuitatis predi«te finiri 
et terminari deberet in camera predicta [sc. interiori camera Gihalde] coram Maiore 
et Aldermannis noticiam legis mercatorie habentibus '. 

* The three documents formed a small complete Chancery file, now merged in the 
modem file which bears the reference Chanc. Misc. 109/1 : the individual documents 
are not yet numbered. 

* By the 'establishments' the warden was required to keep a roll {Mun. Gildh. 
Lond. i. 291), and presumably the mayor did so before him : but the earliest roll 
of the mayor's court now preserved at the Guildhall begins in 1297. There are a 
few notes of earlier cases (not concerning the law merchant) tried in the mayor's or 
warden's court to be foimd in Letter Books A and B. The only full transcript from 
the Court Rolls of earlier date than that now printed appears to be in Letter Book A,, 
fo. 96. This is an action before the warden, 31 July 1291. 

* Little Red Book, p. 70: 'In omni curia mercati singula indicia reddi debent per- 
mercatores eiusdem Curie et non per maiorem nee per senescallum mercati.' 


The warden and aldermen constitute the court/ and the warden 
takes counsel with the aldermen on a point of law just as in 
similar circumstances in the fair court of St. Ives the opinion of 
the merchants is taken. ^ 

In the year before the London case was tried the merchants 
at St. Ives had to determine whether one suspected of making 
a false claim could refuse to put himself upon a jury when he 
was prepared to wage his law. Their decision was in accordance 
with the prevailing doctrine that no one could be compelled to 
put himself upon a jury, and the man duly waged his law.^ Here 
the problem is carried a stage further, for both the parties have 
asked for a jury but not the same kind of jury, and the court, 
after deliberation, awards that it must be a jury of merchants, 
as the plaintiff demands : it will not permit the defendant to 
put himself upon the country.* The reason, we may be sure, 
is that the court is a court for merchants, and there ' the law 
merchant must be observed unless both parties openly and 
directly consent to the common law '.^ The decision, taken 
with doubt and hesitation, became the settled rule in such 
cases : a jury was empanelled from passing merchants engaged 
in overseas trade who were most likely to have knowledge of 
the matter in dispute.^ And if one of the parties refused to put 
himself upon a jury of merchants he would presumably, like 
Thomas Lucas, lose his case and remain in prison until he had 
paid his debt. But we do not know with certainty what would 
have happened to Thomas Lucas if, instead of putting himself 
upon the country, he had refused to put himself upon a jury 
at all and had offered to wage his law. It may have been that 
the court would have overruled him, for even at St. Ives the 

* The style of the court in. Letter Book A, fo. 96, is ' Coram R. de Sandwico custode 
Londoniarum, lohanne de Banquell [aiid two others] Aldremaiinis '. 

* Below, p. 249; Select Cases on the Law Merchant (Selden Soc), pp. 44, 90, 91. 
' Ibid., pp. 38, 44, 45; Select Pleas in Manorial Courts (Selden Soc), p. 136. 

* Below, p. 249. Ciu-iously enough a few years later, in 1299, we find a jury of 
merchants called the country : Mayor's Court Roll, B, m. 1 : ' Et petunt quod hoc 
inquiratur per mercafcores priuatos et extraneos de Ciuitate, etc. Et Radulphus 
Bimiliter, etc. Tdeo summoneatur patria ad diem veneris proximam sequentem.' 
By agreement, however, the case goes to arbitration. 

* LiUle Red Book, p. 68 ; cf . ibid. p. 58. 

* Mun. Gildh. Lond. i. 216. Strictly this applies only to the sheriffs' court, whose 
jurisdiction appears to have been limited to cases where payment, delivery, or accoimt 
was expressly to be made in London, a limitation possibly due to the Carta Mercatoria : 
ibid. ii. 206-7. There is no reason to suppose that the procedure in the sheriffs' court 
was not followed also in the mayor's court in cases tried ' solonc le ley marchaund ' : 
Ricarfs Kal., pp. 95, 101 ; Mun. Gildh. Lond. i. 390. The case recorded in Liber 
Dunthom {supra, p. 244, n. 3) went to arbitration, no question of a jury being raised, 
and therefore affords no guidance. In 1436 we have the direct statement that an 
alternative method of proof is ' per iuratas mercatorura locum exterum vbi res et 
contractus huiusmodi supponuntur et predictam ciuitatem interveniencium si partes 
ad hec consenserint ' : Chanc. Misc. 68/13, no. 395. 


choice would seem not to have been left entirely to the parties ; * 
and it is perhaps necessary that the doctrine that no man was 
eompeUed to put himself upon a jury should not be regarded 
as applying without reserve to cases under the law merchant. 
But the point did not arise in this case, probably because a man 
who could not find sufficient sureties could not find six sufficient 

A London jury consisting entirely of merchants presents 
a marked contrast to St. Ives, where a jury was commonly 
drawn from merchants and neighbours,^ and we may deduce 
from the Bristol ' Lex Mercatoria ' that the latter was the general 
practice throughout the country. The suitors in the market 
or fair court did not consist of merchants only, but of all those 
as well holding land or residing within the bounds of the city, 
fair, or town where the court was held,* and even neighbours 
who owed no suit to the court might apparently be required to 
serve on a jury.^ With a much larger mercantile community 
it was possible for London to develop a more specialized form of 
tribunal ; and at a later period this tendency apparently pro- 
ceeded so far as to exclude from the mayor's court, for the 
purpose of mercantile cases, those aldermen who did not possess 
knowledge of the law merchant.® 

We may ask how it came about that the warden's court 
exercised jurisdiction in a case where the plaintiff was a Grerman 
and the defendant not free of the city, while the dispute concerned 
a bargain made far away at Lynn. But it was a feature of the 
law merchant that a case might be brought into court concerning 
a contract that had been made in another place.' The fair court 
of St. Ives clearly exercised jurisdiction in cases concerning 
transactions in which every act from bargain to the payment 
of the final instalment of the purchase money took place else- 
where, the parties having no other connexion with St. Ives 
than their temporary presence at the fair ; ® and even where 
one of the parties was resident in St. Ives it was not, we may 

* Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, p. 154 ; Select Cases on the Law Merchant, 
pp. 50, 61, 62. 

" Below, p. 248 ; Mun. Gildh. Land. i. 203. 

' Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, pp. 143, 144; Select Cases on, ike Law Merchant, 
pp. 29, 30, 33. 

* Little Red Book, p. 71. Exceptions were clerks and those of and above the 
rank of knight. Cf. Mun. Gildh. Lond. ii. 207-8. 

* lAttle Red Book, pp. 70, 71 : ' Setoportunum est quod rei Veritas . . . inquiratur 
per probos et legales homines, mercatores et sectatores eiusdem Curie et alios eidem 
Curie viciniores.' 

* Liber Dunthom, fo. 68 ; above, p. 244, n. 3. By 1436 the mayor and aldermen 
sitting to determine cases according to law merchant have become ' Curia mercatoria 
tenta hie in interiori camera Guyhalde ' : Chanc. Misc. 68/13, no. 395. 

' Little Red Book, pp. 70, 80. 

» Select Cases on the Law Merchant, pp. 62, 65. 


be confident, this fact, but the presence of both parties at the 
fair that gave the court jurisdiction.^ In the fourteenth centiu'y 
the city authorities would seem to have disliked interfering in 
a case unless some essential act had or ought to have been 
performed in London, payment or delivery made or account 
rendered ; ^ and there is preserved a correspondence in 1299 
and 1300 with the mayor and the wardens of the fair of Cham- 
pagne and Brie which points to a reluctance to take proceedings 
against a foreign subject in the case of a contract executed 
abroad. After three requests to seize the goods and bodies of 
certain Florentine merchants to compel payment of a debt and 
a reply that the debtors had made satisfaction as evidenced by 
a document under the seal of the wardens of the fair, which the 
latter repudiate, the mayor finally declines to take action except 
by special order of the king, inasmuch as the Florentines were 
not freemen of the city.^ The international character of the 
law merchant, if it ever was firmly established in England, 
was clearly breaking down : even the fear of reprisals which 
inspired terror in 1292 does not move the city authorities 
sufficiently in 1300 to execute a request which the theory of the 
law merchant would seem to make imperative : it is true the 
reprisals threatened were limited to exclusion from the fair.* 

Two points remain to be noticed. Of the complaint of the 
men of the craft {de officio), presumably fishmongers, that Thomas 
Lucas's trickery had stopped all trade at Lynn on the terms 
customary between merchants, there is no trace in the proceedings 
in the warden's court : nor, unless we may assume that this 
was an aspect of the case discussed by the aldermen, is there 
any trace of the representation of the citizens that unless speedy 
remedy were given to the aggrieved merchant of Almaine, their 
own goods might be seized overseas. The endorsement on the 
last document in the file appears to be an addition made in the 
chancery when the writ was returned : it is of interest as an 
early example of a mercantile case being sent for hearing before 
the council,^ and as indicating that in the provision of the statute 
of the Staple which gave jurisdiction in error to the chancellor 

» Ibid. pp. 59, 75. 

^ 31 un. Gildh. Lond. i. 216 ; above, p. 245, n. 6 

* Cal. Letter Book C, pp. 59, 64, 76, 77 ; Delpit, Documents fran^ais en Angleterre, 
nos. Ixii, Ixviii, Ixix, Ixxi. 

* Their attitude was perhaps not uninfluenced by the common law. Cf. Abhre- 
matio Placitortim, p. 201 (1291): 'Quod non est consuotudo Anglie quod aliquis 
respondeat in regno Anglie de aliqua transgressione facta in extranea regione tempore 
guerre vel alio modo.' 

* This is, of course, by no means the earliest case. See Curia Regis Roll, no. 115 B, 
m. 16d., for an action between Florentine merchants and their agent in 1234. The 
plaintiffs agree ' quod secundum consuetudinem Regni Anglie deducantur et iusticiam 
habeant '. 


and council,^ there is little more than the formal recognition of 
an existing practice. H. G. Richardson. 

Chancery Miscellanea, bundle no. 109, file no. 1. 

A. Writ of Certiorari to Constable of the Tower. 

Edwardus dei gratia Rex Anglie, Dominus Hibernie et Dux Aquitanie 
dilecto et fideli suo Radulpho de Sandwico Constabulario Turris sue 
Londoniarum sahitem. Quia super modo et causa capcionis Thome Lucas 
capti et detenti in prisona nostra Tunis predicts volumus certiorari, vobis 
mandamus de modo et causa predictis sub sigillo vestro distincte et 
aperte sine dilacione nos rcddatis cerciores, remittentes nobis hoc breve. 
Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium xxvi die lanuarii anno regni nostri 

B. Return to the Writ. 

Vna causa capcionis Thome Lucas est eo quod homines de officio 
conquesti fuerunt ipsos recepisse graue dampnum in Nundinis de Lenne 
occasione empcionis predicti Thome Lucas in Nundinis predictis, eo quod 
latenter abiuit absque solucione aliqua facta, propter quod nullus mercator 
extraneus post illud factum nullam vendicionem Ciuibus Londoniarum 
facere voluerunt antequam in nauibus et domibus suis ad plenum persolue- 
rentur, vocando eos falsos debitores et bona sua maliciose asportantes. Vbi 
antea per vnum denarium . . possent emisse D. uel niic«5 li bonorum 
tantum absque solucione aliqua facta. 

Alia causa est quod latitauit in Londoniis et diffugiebat de villa in 
villam et nichil habuit per quod potuit attachiari nee plegios inuenire 
potuit per vnum quarterium et plus standi recto conquerentis secundum 
legem mercatoriam. 

Alia causa est quod Ciues querebantur quod nisi festinum remedium 
super huiusmodi facto factum fuerit quod bona sua in partibus trans- 
marinis poterint arestari quousque predicto raercatori super debituin et 
eius dampna fuerit secundum dictum suum ad plenum satisfactum etc. 

Alia causa est propter famam mercatorum Londoniarum Nundinas et 
ferias excercentes [stc] que multum per factum suum deterioratur et magis 
possit deteriorari nisi per corpus suum possit iusticiari ex quo nichil habet 
in exemplum aliorum. 

C. Transcript of Proceedings. 

Placita coram Custode Londoniarum die louis proxima ante festum sancti 
Hillarii anno regni regis Edwardi xx^io. 

Thomas Lucas eo quod non est liber Ciuitatis attachiatus fuit ad 
respondendum Arnaldo de Grele Mercatori Alemanie de placito quod 
reddat ei triginta et vnam libras sterlingorum quas ei debet etc. Et vnde 
queritur quod die Lune proxima ante festum Exaltacionis sancte Crucis 
anno xix^ apud Lenne in Nundinis eiusdem emit ah eo stocfisch' pro 
xxx.ti et centum borda pro viginti solidis, que summa asscendit [stc] ad 
triginta et vnam libras sterlingorum predictas, et vnde predicta stocfisch' 

» 27 Edw. IIT, St. 2, c. 21 ; Statutes o/ the Realm, i. 341, n. 1. 


et borda a loco amouisse non debuit quousque mercatori plenarie satis- 
fecerit, idem Thomas noctanter cum mercandisis predictis recessit et 
abduxit contra voluntatem predict! mercatoris, fugendo \sic\ vsque 
Sanctum Botulpbum, de Sancto Botulpbo vsque Lincolniam, de Lincolnia 
vsque Houl, et de Houl vsque Londonias, semper promittendo se satis- 
fecisse eidem mercatori, qui ipsum sic prosecutus fuit de villa in viUam de 
predictis triginta et una libris quas ei non dum soluit vt dicit, set eas ei 
hucusque detinuit, vnde dicit quod deterioratus est et dampnum habet ad 
valenciam xx^i ti. Et hoc paratus est etc. Et predictus Thomas venit et 
defendit vim et iniuriam et quicquid etc. et quod stocfisch' nee bordum 
{sic\ ab eo emit in Nundinis de Lenne, sicut ( i inponit, per quod teneatur 
ei in predictis triginta et vna libris nee in aliquo denario, paratus est 
verificare per patriam etc. Et Arnaldus similiter per mercatores tunc 
existentes in Nundinis predictis etc. Et loquendum est cum Aldermannis 
et consulendum super huiusmodi verificacione vsque diem sabbati etc. 
Et idem dies datus est partibus etc. Ad quem diem idem Thomas recusauit 
se ponere super mercatores in Nundinis predictis tunc existentes etc. 
Ideo moratur etc. 

Endorsed. Coram Domino Rege et eius consilio per Radulphum de 

The Stamford Schism 

The two following poems must be of the years 1330 to 1334. 
They are found in Royal MS. 12. D. xi, a formulary that was 
drawn up at Oxford and contains letters written to and from the 
university during the years 1330-9 ; these letters are printed in 
the first volume of the Collectanea of the Oxford Historical 
Society, but with dates which are now known to be incorrect. 

The first of these poems can be dated closely. It was written 
from Stamford at a time when the king had not yet decided 
whether the schism was to be allowed. It is therefore earlier than 
2 August 1334, when the king forbade the migration from Oxford.^ 
Probably, too, it is earlier than 14 May ; for it is addressed to 
Fitz-Ralph (Fy-Rauf), who ceased to be chancellor of Oxford 
on that day.^ It is probably of the latter half of April, and it 
enables us to reconstruct the history of the Stamford schism. 
Anthony Wood thinks that it began in May 1334 ; but this poem, 
which is certainly earlier than 2 August, says that the seceders 
had already been half a year at Stamford. It is probable, there- 
fore, that they began with the Michaelmas Term of 1333, as 
Francis Peck guessed in his Annals of Stamford. In the Oxford 
Historical Society's volume ^ is a letter of the university which 
speaks of the Stamford schism and is dated by the editor 
14 February 1334, but is certainly of 14 February 1335, for it 

1 Calendar of Close Rolls, p. 330. 

2 Register of Bishop Burgherah, Inst., fo. 268. ' p. 8. 


refers to the new pope who was elected in December 1334. But 
we have two documents about the schism which probably date 
from before April 1334. One of them is a petition to the king, 
printed by Peck ^ from Cotton MS. Vesp. E. xxi, fo. 62 ; in it 
the students dwelling at Stamford assert that they have leit 
Oxford because of the disturbances which are, and have long been, 
there ; that they have withdrawn to Stamford ' a estudier & 
profiter plus en quiete & en pees quils ne soleient faire ', and 
petition the king that they may be allowed to dwell there. From 
the position of the deed in the manuscript, it is probably later 
than 23 January 1334. The other deed is a petition,^ also from 
Stamford, in which the petitioners ask the king to stop the 
robberies and evils at Oxford, which are beyond the control 
of the chancellor and the town, but do not speak of a permanent 
settlement at Stamford. This may be of the autumn of 1333. 
There is a third petition,^ addressed to the king by the masters 
and scholars of Oxford, asking for his help against the disturbances 
and grievances at Oxford, lest there should be a sudden dispersion. 
This may be of the first half of 1333. 

In a poem which depends so much upon rhyme and moreover 
has no punctuation, there is bound to be some obscurity ; but 
Mr. A. G. Little has suggested that it is a taunt addressed to 
Fitz-Ralph, who in a public speech had wagered his head that the 
Stamford schism would be stopped in six months. As it had now 
lasted six months his head was forfeit. As soon as Oxford 
met for the Michaelmas Term in 1333, there would be a meeting 
of congregation, probably, about or before 15 October, at which 
the new Stamford university would be discussed. It may be 
that it was on that occasion that Fitz-Ralph made his rash 

The poem may be paraphrased as follows : ' Fertile Fitz- 
Ralph, who livest in abundance, pour forth other things ; let 
thy pledges be from elsewhere. It is better to leave alone the 
capital penalty and conviction by such a pledge, for it is cause 
of evil. While possessions endure, they are as it were a pledge 
in actuality ; but it is not necessary to offer the head expressly. 
Against Stamford, which is now a place of study, hated by its 
enemies, thou hast uttered heady words, that we ought to be 
suppressed, if there is government in the state ; thou promisest 
to thyself that the head shall be removed from here in half a year. 
What if we persist, and the king and the law allow it ? For 
what the virtue of peace commands is not a crime. It rem?iins 
to endure what was agreed, and thou wilt pay thy head as 
a pledge ; alas for thy wretched fate ; thou wilt then think over 

* Annals o/ Stamford, book xi, p. 16. * Collectanea, iii. 133. 

» Ihid. i. 12 


what was said before. We are all agreed ; wealth will come and 
wealth will go, but the head that has been cut off will never return 
(i.e. to Oxford). Thou didst divine and watch the stars while 
thou wishest to make us toe the mark ; thou didst tread us 
down ; now the net is broken ; thou didst plant much, but 
thou art not a true prophet. I reject the blood-stained Ford and 
the horned Ox ; I change my pasture ; I welcome a more fertile 
spot. Beneath the shield of Stamford I prefer to dwell safely, 
by which I have better thoughts ; so by the exchange I gain 
a noble time.' 

Fy-Rauf fecunde, qui rebus vivis habunde, 
Res alias funde, tua pignora sint aliunde. 
Parcere letali prodest pene capitali, 
Et, quia causa mail, convinci pignore tali. 
Dum res possesse valeant quasi pignus in esse, 
Set caput expresse non est ofEerre necesse. 
In Vada Saxosa, que nunc loca sunt studiosa, 
Hostibus exosa, prefers quedam capitosa, 
Nos debere premi, nisi sint sine remige remi, 
Anno sub demi capud hinc spondes tibi demi. 
Quid si perstemus, velit et rex lege volente ? 
Cum non sit f acinus, pacis virtute iubente. 
Restat pacta pati, capud et pro pignore solves. 
Heu miseri fati ; tunc dicta priora revolves. 
Omnibus est visum ; veniet res resque peribit, 
Sed capud abcisum per tempora nulla redibit. 
Cum divinasti cursus sectando planete, 
• Sidera servasti, dum nos vis iungere mete ; 
Nos conculcasti ; modo frangitur a pede rete ; 
Plurima plantasti ; non sunt tua verba prophete. 
Cum bove cornuto vada sanguinolenta refuto ; 
Pascua permuto ; loca fertiliora saluto. 
Sub saxi scuto magis est michi vivere tuto. 
Quo meliora puto ; sic tempus nobile muto. 

The other poem is a paean by the northern party over the 
death of a southern champion named Fulk ; the northern dog 
has given him a bite, and now he is lying in a loathsome trench, 
eaten by worms ; he was justly punished for his pride and 
bloodshed ; it was a case of death for death ; God gives all 
things according to desert. Where were your allies ? Roger, 
your echo, Herford, Sporman, Wyk and Wymbury ? They 
fled when death was about. Whether you are of the north or the 
south, such is a fit punishment for such evil doers. 

It is unknown who this Fulk was. In the same manuscript 
is an excommunication issued by the chancellor against those 
who made a murderous attack upon Magister Fulco de Lucy. 


It is probable that he is the man of this poem and that he died 
from the results of the attack. The date of the poem is uncertain. 
If Herford is the Thomas de Herford who was one of the beadles 
in 1326/ the date must be not later than midsummer 1332 ; 
for Thomas de Herford died in the autumn of that year.^ It may 
be pointed out that the beadles were the university police, as far 
as the university had any police, and in a parliamentary petition ^ 
which the sheriff of Oxford sent to parliament in 1334 he com- 
plains that the chancellor of the university from day to day 
orders his beadles to deliver to the sheriff northern and southern 
clerks, committed in the chancellor's court for acts of violence, 
to remain in the castle prison at the chancellor's pleasure. Possibly 
Roger was another beadle, for a witness to a deed * of 1332 is 
' Rogerus le Bedel '. Wyk may be mag. Edward de Wyke who 
was elected proctor^ in spring 1333. A certain Alexander 
Sporman was chaplain of St. Anne's chantry in the church of 
All Saints in the years 1351-62, and rector of All Saints in the 
years 1368-83, but this seems to be rather late for the Sporman 
in our poem. A Thomas de Winnesbury, a married man, owned 
a house at the north-east corner of Queen's College, and deeds 
at Queen's College show that he was alive in 1304 and dead in 
1341, but there is no indication that he was a beadle. 

Fulco vir australis, quern gens laicana colebat, 

non mordebat to, Fulco, canis borealis ? 

Fulco, Fulco, spes non fuerat tibi lesus ; 

In tetro sulco latitas, quia vermibus esus. 

Forsan novisti quid fert elatio mentis ; • 

In famulos Christi sevisti more furentis. 

Sanguinis effusor, mutulator quando fuisti, 

Ultor et illusor, Dominum cur non metuisti ? 

Criminis ortator fueras quando potuisti, 

Stultus bellator, set cum fastu cecidisti. 

Mortis condigna — funus pro funere restat — ^ 

In te sunt signa ; digno deus omnia prestat. 

O cinis ex cinere, quo sint tibi carnis honores, 

Egisti temere tot devastando cruores. 

Die ubi Kogerus, Sathane tuus ille satelles, 

In feriendo ferus ; vellet quod dicere velles. 

Herford vexilli lator, dux ille sinister, 

Et Sporman belli ductor mortisque minister. 

Die in conflictu finali, quo latuerunt ; 

Veraci dictu fugerunt, terga dederunt. 

* Munimenta Academica (Rolls Series), p. 116. 

* Liber Albus or Book of Wills, p. 13. 

3 Bot. Pari. ii. 76. * Merton deed, no. 2649. 

* Munimenta Academica, p. 128. 

* Apparently ' funus pro funere restat ' is a parenthesis. 


Wyk die quo fuerat, vel die ubi Wymbyriensis ; 
Cum mors afiuerat, neutrius cernitur ensis. 
Ulcio digna dei per tempora longa pepercit ; 
Demum culpa rei vili te funere mersit. 
Seu sis australis, seu tu sis vir borealis, 
Talibus est talis congrua pena malis. 

There are indications that 1331 was a year of disturbance at 
Oxford. On 24 October the king issued letters patent ^ to the 
mayor and bailiffs that if the chancellor should demand their 
aid for the arrest of malefactors they were to summon the posse 
of the town ; and on 25 October he gave letters patent that the 
sheriff should imprison in the castle those whom the chancellor 
sends to him, and should not allow their friends to visit them in 
a multitude.^ In the spring of 1333 there must have been a more 
serious disturbance than usual, for on 6 May the king appointed 
a commission to make an inquiry about disturbances at Oxford.^ 

H. E. Saltee. 

The Capture of Lord Rivers and Sir Anthony 
Woodville, ig January i^6o 

When Richard, duke of York, and his friends and adherents 
were scattered by their failure at Ludlow in October 1459, York 
himself sought refuge in Ireland, but his eldest son, the earl of 
March, who in less than eighteen months . was to be king of 
England, fled with the earl of Warwick, John Dynham, and 
others to Devonshire and thence to Calais. As the catastrophe 
at Ludlow had been due in large measure to the desertion of 
Andrew Trollope and other members of the Calais garrison who 
had come over to England with Warwick a short time before, 
and as Margaret of Anjou had just succeeded in having her 
favourite, the duke of Somerset, appointed to the captaincy of 
Calais in Warwick's place,* the welcome which awaited the 
fugitives at Calais was somewhat doubtful. Fortunately, how- 
ever, Warwick had left his uncle. Lord Fauconberg, in charge 
of Calais when he went to England, and Fauconberg was so 
successful in keeping the place loyal to the Yorkists that when 
Warwick and March reached there on 2 November they were 
well received. 

After the arrival of York in Ireland and of Warwick and 
March in Calais, there followed some months of watchful waiting 
on the part of the Yorkists while they matured their plans for 
another attempt to assert themselves against Margaret of Anjou 

1 XJniv. Archives (Oxf. Hist. Soc.), i. 347 ; it is not on the Patent Roll. 

2 Ibid. p. 121. » Cal. of Patent Bolls, p. 449. 
* Rymer, Foedera, xi. 436. 


and the unworthy men who administered the government for 
Henry VI. But they were not left to their plotting in peace, as 
even before their flight Somerset had begun to fit out an expedi- 
tion for Calais to make good his right to the captaincy, and very 
soon a royal commission was issued which, stating that the duke 
of York and his accomphces were endeavom*ing to stir up an 
insurrection in Kent, empowered Lord Rivers and the sheriff of 
Kent to array the Kentishmen and to seize all ships belonging 
to the earl of Warwick.^ Acting on this commission, Rivers took 
possession of a few of Warwick's ships which were lying in the 
harbour of Sandwich, and if there was any real danger of an 
insurrection in Kent, it was held in check. On the other hand, 
Somerset's expedition ended in failure, Warwick turned the guns 
of Calais on him, and although the duke succeeded in making 
himself master of the neighbouring fortress of Guines, whose 
garrison he won over with fair promises, all that he could do 
after that was to stay at Guines, keep a covetous eye on Calais, 
and engage in almost daily skirmishes with Warwick which were 
a good deal more disastrous to him than to his rival. In the 
meantime, however, Margaret of Anjou was mindful of her 
friend, and plans were soon made to send Somerset assistance. 
Lord Rivers and Sir Gervase Clifton were to have charge of the 
relief expedition, and Clifton's work was to guard the sea while 
Rivers proceeded to Guines with the reinforcements which, it 
was hoped, would enable Somerset to take Calais.^ But again 
misfortune befell. For Warwick, who had many friends in 
Kent and more than one citizen of Sandwich with him in Calais, 
knew of the preparations his enemies were making, and resolved 
to nip their enterprise in the bud. Two well-known Paston 
letters tell the story of how the earl sent Dynham to Sandwich 
and of how Dynham seized Rivers, his wife, the dowager duchess 
of Bedford, and his son, Sir Anthony Woodville, in their beds 
and carried them off to Calais, but it has remained for the 
following inquisition to determine the exact date of the daring 
raid and also to acquaint us with the names of a number of the 
men who participated in it. Cora L. Scofield. 

Inquisitions. Miscellaneous, Chancery, file 317. 

Inquisicio capta apud Depford' in comitatu Kancie die lune proximo 
post mensem Pasche anno regni Regis Henrici sexti post conquestum 
tricesimo octavo coram lacobo Comite Wiltes', Roberto Hungerford' 
de Hungerford', milite, lohanne Fortescu, milite, lohanne Prisot, milite, 
Petro Ardern, milite, Willelmo Yelverton', lohanne Markham, Ricardo 
Byngham, Nicholao Ayssheton, Roberto Dan vers, Roberto Danby, Waltero 
Moyle, lohanne Nedeham, et Thoma Thorp', lusticiis domini Regis ad 

» Cal. of Patent Rdls, Hen. VI, 1452-61, p. 555. 

* Ibid., Warrants under the Signet, &c., file 1375, 1 December. 


inquirendum per sacramentum proborum et legalium hominum de comi- 
tatu Kancie de omnimodis prodicionibus, feloniis, transgressionibus et 
aliis articulis in litteris domini Regis patentibus eis ac aliis inde directis 
specificatis iuxta formam et affectum earundem factis et ad eosdem 
[sic] audiendas et terminandas assignatis per sacramentum suum. Qui 
dicunt super sacramentum suum quod lobannes Dynham de Calesia in 
partibus Picardie, armiger, alias dictus lohannea Denham de Calesia in par- 
tibus Picardie, armiger, filius et heres lobannis Dynham, militis, Ricardus 
Clapbam de Calesia in partibus Picardie, gentilman, Thomas Martyn', 
nuper de Sandewich' in Comitatu Kancie, yoman', Willelmus Hunden', 
nuper de eadem in eodem Comitatu, taillour, Willelmus Symnet, nuper 
de eadem in eodem Comitatu, chapman, Simon Shippton, nuper de 
eadem in eodem Comitatu, marchaunt, Ricardus Merssh, servant, nuper de 
eadem in eodem Comitatu, yoman', Nicholaus Stokes, nuper de eadem in 
eodem Comitatu, potecary, WiUelmus Elyot de Calesia in partibus Picardie, 
mercer, Robertus loh'nson', nuper de Sandewich in comitatu Kancie, 
yoman, et lohannes Creke, nuper de eadem in eodem Comitatu, bocher, 
ac quamplures alii falsi proditores, rebelles et inimici ignoti Christianissimi 
Principis Henrici Regis Anglie sexti post conquestum per assensum, 
preceptum et voluntatem quamplurimorum aliorum falsorum proditorum 
et inimicorum dicti Regis ignotorum quinto decimo die lanuarii anno 
regni dicti Regis tricesimo octavo apud Sandewich' in Comitatu Kancie 
cum magno numero personarum vi et armis, videlicet, curaces, briganders^ 
lanceis, lakkes, salettis, deploidibus defensiuis bumblastis ac aliis armis 
defensiuis et abilimentis guerre ut in terra guerrina, guerram erga dictum 
Regem suppremum dominum suum contra ligeancie sue debitum falso 
et proditorie adtunc et ibidem levaverunt et fecerunt quodque predicti 
lohannes Dynham, Ricardus Clapham, Thomas, Willelmus Hunden, 
WiUelmus Symnet, Simon, Ricardus Merssh', Nicholaus Stokes, Willelmus 
Elyot, Robertus loh'nson' et lohannes Creke ac alii falsi proditores et 
inimici dicti Regis ignoti adtunc et ibidem Ricardum Wydevyll', militem, 
dominum de Ryvers, per dictum dominum Regem illuc missum pro 
defencione regni predicti ac pro certis aliis de causis necnon arduis et 
assiduis materiis ipsum Regem et regnum suum Anglie tangentibus, ac 
Antonium Wydevyll', militem, filium predicti Ricardi Wydevyll', in pace Dei 
et dicti Regis ibidem existentem, in manibus suis tanquam prisonarios sicut 
in terra guerrina contra voluntatem ipsorum domini de Ryvers et Antonii 
secum detulerunt et acceperunt et eosdem dominum de Ryvers et Antonium 
per ipsos sic captos abinde usque villam Calesie in partibus Picardie cum 
eisdem proditoribus et inimicis abduxerunt sicque predicti lohannes 
Dynham, Ricardus Clapham, Thomas Martyn', Willelmus Himden', Willel- 
mus Symnet, Simon Shippton', Ricardus Merssh', Nicholaus Stokes, WiUel- 
mus Elyot, Robertus loh'nson' et lohannes Creke ac alii falsi proditores 
et rebelles inimici predicti dictis die et anno apud Sandewich' predictam 
destructionem predicti Regis et dominorum suorum tam spiritualium quam 
temporalium infra regnum Anglie existencium per guerram predictam in 
dies falso et proditorie per eorxim inim[tc]am potestatem quantum in ipsis 
existit voluerunt et desideraverunt in finalem destructionem dicti Regis 
ac corone et regalie sue necnon contra Regi [sic] ligeanciam suam etc. 


A Declaration before the Ecclesiastical Commission, 1562 

The following document once formed pages 28-30 of a manuscript 
volume, perhaps belonging to the ecclesiastical commission of 
1562, It illustrates an episode in the life of the second earl of 
Bedford not recorded in the Dictionary oj National Biography, 
but its chief interest is religious. It gives early evidence of the 
spirit of Elizabethan puritanism and of the growing familiarity 
of the people with the scriptural phraseology and atmosphere. 

W. P, M, Kennedy. 

Bodleian MS. Tanner 50, fo. 16. 

The Declaracbn of Elye otherwyse called Ellys Hawle the Carpenters 
sonn of Maunchester in the counte of Lane' before the right honorable 
the . , .^ of bedford, the right Honorable lorde Clynton lorde great 
admyrall [of] ^ England, the lorde Cobham lorde warden of the 
syncke ports Sir Am[brose] ^ Cave chancellor of the duche of 
Lane'. And S"* Rychard Sackfeld treasorer of the queenes Ma^i^^ 
exchequer at the Savoy the xviij of June 1562. 
I Elye otherwyse called Ellys Hawle the Carpenters sonn of Maun- 
chester in the counte of Lane' was borne in the yeare of o^ lorde god 1502 
& contynued in my fathers howse vntill thage of vij yeares at w''^ tyme 
I dyfEred moche from all my fathers Children, for I was geven to solitarynes 
abstinence & prayer, and then was brought vp at a howse which is now 
M^" Gerardes the Queenes Ma^i^^ Ato^'ney gen^'all vntill thaige of xxvij yeares 
still contynuynge yn my vertuous lyvinge. and savinge yo"^ honors rever- 
ences all yn tournynge of the broche & toylinge for my levinge | at wch 
tyme I toke a wyfe and began to have a covetous mynde in settinge all 
my hole mynde in worldlye thinges quyte forgettinge my former vertuous 
lyfe, for in the tyme of Kinge Edwarde the sixte when the great fale of 
money was so that almoste all occupacbns could scante save them selves 
from the sustaynynge of losse. I then beinge a drap gott clearlye that 
yeare & all charges borne the som of v hondred poundes. Thus still lyvinge 
in my covetous mynd & gatheringe of goodes. One nyght as I laye in my 
bed studyinge so sore vppon a great accompte that I could not slepe abowt 
mydnyght I heard a voyce spake vnto me sayinge. Elye thow Carpenters 
sonn aryse & mak thine accompte quycklye faste and praye for the daye 
draweth nere. f wc*» spake these words vnto me thre tymes havinge a lyttle 
dystance betwene them. | After w°l» ther apearyd vnto me a light in my 
chamber so bright that myne eyes could not behoulde yt. ymedyatlye 
after the which me thought I saw as it weare a veale or courteyne drawne 
betwene me & the light, wher a non I saw a mann clothed in white 
havinge fyve woundes bleadinge & so me thought the heavens opened 
& receyved hym vp compassed aboute w' that bright light. & so saw hit 
no more at that tyme. Notw*standing I estemed that vysyon to be but 
a dreame or phantasye, still after contynued in my covetous «fe worldlye 
afEayrea almoste altogether neglectinge my dewtye towardes god for which 
I was not longe after vnplaged w' a sore dysease in my syde as though I had 

* MS. torn away here. 


ben ^ prycked w* an hondred dagers so that I was fayne to kepe my bed 
& could not slepe nor sterr. and thus lyinge in my bed so tormented that 
I could not slepe. vppon a certeyn nyght abowt mydnyght the same 
vysyon apeared to me by my bedd syde. all in white lainge an hand 
vppon my shoulder sayinge. Elye thow Carpenters sonn Aryse faste 
& praye for thow arte elect & chosen of god to declare & pronownce vnto 
his people his worde for thy vertuous lyvinge yn thy youthe tyme. «fe art 
at this tyme so plaged becawse thow dydest vtterlye forsake godes will 
k, comau dement & wholelye gave thy selfe vnto the worlde to the vf^^ 
sayinge I saide lorde I am vnlerned & yf I shuld preach wryte or teaehe 
the thinge w^^ I could not prove, neyther weare agreable to the scryp- 
tures I shulde not be beleved. vnto the w«l» I was answered, wryte of the 
revelacbn that thow haste sene of baptisme repentaunce & amend^ient of 
lyfe. & shew hit to the magistrates & rulers. & that w^b thou shalte vfxyt 
shalbe putt in to thy hed by the holye ghoste. after the w<''' sayinge the 
vysyon depted from me. & I was taken owt of my bed as it were in a tufte 
of fethers w* a worlewynde vp into heaven, wher I sawe o^" Savyo'" 
Chryste sj^tinge in his royall seate compassed abowte w* aungels. Emonges 
whome me thought I saw one havinge a book in his hand lokinge on yt 
on asked hym whether the tyme weare com, who answered no f from thence 
I was caryed into hell, where I saw all the tormentes therof & also a place 
p^'pared for me. yf I wolde not amend my corrupte lyfe. & also a place 
p''pared for me yn heaven yf I wolde follow godes holye will & coiTiand- 
mentes. and so was brought in to my chamber ageyne. from whence I was 
absent two nightes & one daye. in which tyme I was not sene of anye 
mann in the yearth lyvinge. Since w«^ tyme I have apparrelled my selfe 
thus as ye see. & goe wolward to thintent to bringe the fleshe in sub- 
ieccon to the sowle neyther have I eten at any tyme this yeare & this halfe 
any fleshe but white meate & to the same yntent & ever sene that tyme 
have geven my selfe to my foremer vertuous lyvinge in fastinge & prayinge 
& ever since that tyme have wrytten & by godes devyne powre coulde wrj^e 
although but smale as I pfesce before yo*" honors all that before that tyme 
I coulde not wrjrte. Thus | ^ have I ever since settled my selfe to wrjrte 
godes holye wyll and comaundementes and dystrybuted my goodes emonges 
my kynsmen and pore people makinge pclemacbn that yf any mann coulde 
com vnto whome I ought any thinge vnto for every pennye I wolde make 
hym dowble amendes. Also sythens that tyme I have wrytten this booke 
which I have here brought before yow entendinge god wyllinge to delyver 
the same vnto my prynce before that anye mann do throughlye pvse ji;. 
Neyther have I attayned to this hand by any worldlye meanes. Thus 
besechinge yo'" honors all that yf theise my sayinges cann be pvyd false in 
any poynte, lett me suffer deathe to thensample of all others. 

[In a different hand ;] the same Manne was sett on the pillerye In cheape 
the* xxvjtli of Juny beynge ffrydaye w*^ thys superscription In paper 
(ffor seducinge the people by publyshynge ffallce Revelacions). 

[Endorsed'] The Counterfet practyce of Ellis Hall of Manchester in 
Lankeshir the 18 of June 1562 the 4 Eliz. 

1 £o. 16V. 2 £o^ 17 » MS ^^ ^^ 



The Social Status of the Clergy in the Seventeenth and 
Eighteenth Centuries 

There has already been much discussion of the passage in which 
Lord Macaulay some seventy years ago described the social 
position occupied by the clergy of the church of England in the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He wrote that when the 
church lost its old wealth and splendour at the Reformation, 

the sacerdotal office lost its attraction for the higher classes. During the 
century which followed the accession of EUzabeth scarce a single person 
of noble descent took Orders. At the close of the reign of Charles II two 
sons of peers were bishops ; four or five sons of peers were priests, and held 
valuable preferments ; but these rare exceptions did not take away the 
reproach which lay on the body. The clergy were regarded, on the whole, 
as a plebeian class ; and, indeed, for one who made the figure of a gentle- 
man, ten were mere menial servants.^ 

It was of this passage that Mr. Gladstone wrote : 

Few portions of his brilliant work have achieved a more successful notoriety. 
It may perhaps be said to have been stereotyped in the common English 
mind. It is, in its general result, highly disparaging, and yet that genera- 
tion of clergy was, as we conceive, the most powerfid and famous in the 
annals of the English Church. If we do not include yet earlier times, it 
is from want of record, rather than from fear of comparison.^ 

Recent historians ^ of the church of England have concurred in 
Mr. Gladstone's estimate of the general character and ability 
of the clergy at this time ; but there is still room for an examina- 
tion of Macaulay's statement. If it were true, it would seriously 
affect the reputation of the cadet members of noble families 
at the Reformation period, and the gentry of the succeeding 
century, who are said to have ceased to aspire to Holy Orders 
because the emoluments had fallen in value. Equally it would 
redound to the credit of poorer men that they were content to 
serve for smaller stipends and in a less exalted sphere. 

It is, however, greatly exaggerated. The following is a list, 
admitting of extension, of some near relations of peers who 
entered Holy Orders during the seventeenth century : 

Richard Annesley, D.D. (d. 1701), dean of Exeter, 3rd Baron Altham, 
son of Arthur, earl of Anglesey. 

George Berkeley, M.A. (d. 1694), rector of Cranford, canon of West- 
minster, son of George, Baron Berkeley. 

Robert Booth, B.D. (1662-1730), dean of Bristol, &c., son of Robert, 
Baron Delamere. 

' History of England, ed. Firth, i. 318. 

" Review of Trevelyan, Life of Lord Macaulay in Quarterly Review, July 1876, p, 76. 

2 Wakeman, History of the Church of England, p. 380. 


George Brereton, M.A., canon of St. Davids, 1672, second son of William, 
Baron Brereton. 

Henry Compton, D.D. (1632-1713), bishop of London, sixth son of 
Spencer, second earl of Northampton. 

Nathaniel Crewe, D.D. (1633-1721), bishop of Dm-ham, second Baron 
Crewe of Stene. 

Samuel Crewe, M.A. (d. 1661), brother of Nathaniel. 

Henry Fairfax, D.D., canon of York, rector of Bolton Percy (d. 1665), 
fourth son of Thomas, first Baron Fairfax. 

John Feilding, D.D., canon of Sarum, chaplain to William III (d. 1698), 
son of George, first earl of Desmond. 

Richard Fiennes, rector of Oakley, grandson of William, first Viscount 
Saye and Sele, and father of Richard, sixth viscount. 

Leopold Finch, D.D. (1663-1702), warden of All Souls College, son of 
Heneage, second earl of Winchilsea. 

WiUiam Graham, D.D. (1656-1713) dean of Carlisle 1686, and Wells 
1704, brother of Viscount Preston. 

Denis Grenville, D.D. (1637-1703), dean of Durham, son of Sir Bevil 

Anthony Grey, D.D., rector of Aston Flamville, succeeded as earl of 
Kent, 1639. 

James Montagu, D.D. (1568-1618), bishop of Winchester, brother 
of Edward, Baron Montagu of Boughton. 

John North, D.D. (1645-83), master of Trinity College and professor 
of Greek at Cambridge, prebendary of Westminster, fifth son of Dudley, 
fourth Baron North. ^ 

The lists of incumbents and the matriculation registers of 
colleges and universities clearly show that men of gentle if not 
of noble birth continued to seek ordination. Nor was Macaulay 
right in drawing a sharp line between the clergy of the early 
sixteenth century and those of the period after the Reformation. 
The striking instances of display in the earlier period belonged 
to an age when great position demanded a proportionate magnifi- 
cence. The lower clergy even then were drawn from plebeian 
homes, some of them coming of villein parentage ; and while 
influential ecclesiastics were frequently of noble, and sometimes 
even of royal descent, many, like Wolsey himself, were raised 
by their abilities from a humble origin. 

In the later period there is a manifest distinction between 
the more lucrative and the poorer country cures. The former 
were held by persons of some eminence, and their rank or com- 
parative wealth commended them to the upper strata of society, 
to which, in many cases, they already belonged ; while the 
small rustic cures could not provide a good living, and, if held 
by men of position, were regarded as a subsidiary source of 
income, the duties being discharged by a curate of little note and 

» See also Churchill Babington, Mr. Macaulay' a Character of the Clergy, 1849. 



smaller pay. This distinction may be illustrated by reference 
to the town church of Gillingham, in Dorsetshire, which was held 
during the latter part of the sixteenth and the whole of the 
seventeenth centuries by men of note. John Jessop, B.D., who 
was vicar from 1579 to 1625, was a member of a Dorset county 
family seated at Chickerell. His brother was a physician 
resident in the town, and their two recumbent effigies, hand 
clasped in hand, remain in the chancel aisle. Jessop's successor, 
Edward Davenant, D.D., treasurer of Sarum, was a nephew of 
Bishop John Davenant, and his daughters married well, Anne 
to William Ettrick of Wimborne, gentleman, Margaret to 
George Solme, esquire, and Katherine to Thomas Lamplugh, 
who was afterwards archbishop of York. The next vicar, John 
Ward, D.D. (1679-96), was a nephew of Seth Ward, bishop of 
Sarum. He again was succeeded by John Craig, 1696-1731, 
a scholar of some repute, who was in residence till 1723, after 
which year he was represented by a curate, Gilbert Craig, 1724-7, 
and later by Robert Edgar. All these men were capable of holding 
their own socially among the neighbouring gentry, by their attain- 
ments, connexions, and the importance of their ecclesiastical 
preferment. Of Craig, who had been collated by Bishop Burnet 
to the prebendal stall of Durnford, 1708, and by Bishop Hoadly 
to that of Gillingham Major, 1726, it is said that he 

was an inoffensive virtuous man, master of a good Latin style, an excellent 
mathematician, and esteemed by Sir Isaac Newton. Many years before 
his death he resided in London, expecting to have been taken notice of 
for his mathematical abilities, but died there in a mean condition 11th 
October, 1731.1 

He died intestate, and administration was granted to his son 
William, 16 November 1731. 

Gillingham had several daughter chapelries, and tradition 
points to William Young, ciu-ate of East Stower, as the original 
of Parson Adams in Fielding's Joseph Andrews. Adams is 
described as serving four churches at a stipend of £23 per annum, 
' with which he could not make any great figure, because he 
lived in a dear country, and was a little encumbered with wife 
and six children ' ; and even that position was insecure, as he 
could not afEord to pay for a licence. Though Adams was learned 
in modern and ancient languages and his constant companion 
was a manuscript copy of Aeschylus, and though he had a marked 
sense of his dignity as a priest with cure of souls and was loved 
and respected by his parishioners, he could not compete socially 
with Lady Booby, who for his poverty indecently held him up 
as a laughing-stock to her friends. 

1 Hutchins, Dorset, 3rd ed,, iii. 647. 


The country living of Folke, a small village near Sherborne in 
Dorset, may now be examined. WUliam Hymerford (Hemerford), 
rector, who died in 1583, belonged to a family seated at East 
Coker, Somerset, as early as the reign of Richard II, if not 
earlier, of which a branch was in possession of the manor — or 
a moiety of the manor — of Folke in the time of Henry VIII, 
when Henry Hemerford was escheator of Dorset and Somerset ; 
and one of his daughters, Elizabeth, was married to Thomas 
Molyns, esquire, of West Hall. The family also intermarried 
with the Trenchards of Wolveton, Dorset.^ 

Of his successor Walter Chubb, 1583-1614, nothing is known 
except that he had been curate to Hemerford, but Abraham 
Forrester, 1614^68 (B.A. Caius College, Cambridge, incorporated 
M.A. Oxford), married as his third wife Mrs. Joane Paulet, 
widow, and his grandson, born in 1666, married Bridget, 
daughter of Henry Seymer, esquire, of Hanford. At a later date, 
Thomas Ciu-genven, M.A., rector 1694-1714, had been master 
of Sherborne School, and his successor, John Martin, B.A., 
rector 1714-17 (previously vicar of Long Burton and rector of 
Lillington), was a persona grata with the Honourable Mrs. 
Thymic, of Leweston in that neighbourhood.^ 

These undoubtedly held a good position in the county, and the 
same may be said of the Highmores of the retired parish of 
Caundle Purse, where Edward, Nathaniel, Edward, and Richard 
Highmore, all masters of arts of Oxford and descended from 
a gentle Cumberland family, held the benefice in succession from 
1603 to 1717, the second of the name being the father of a distin- 
guished anatomist, Nathaniel Highmore, M.A., D.M. 

One of the poorer benefices, Fisherton Delamere, a small 
Wiltshire parish, was fortunate in having an incumbent, appointed 
in 1613, who left in the parish register a biographical sketch of 
his predecessor : 

1613 Joel Doughty, clericus, huius ecclesiae vicarius, hos habuisse 
vitae mortisque gradus testimonio minime dubitando perhibetur. 

Patria Cantianus, ex oppido sive vico Marden, parentibus ingenuis, 
pueritiam in schola Petroburgensi, adolescentiam in Academia Cantabri- 
giensi, ubi gradum Baccalaureatus est adeptus, exercuit. 

Valedicens Academiae ad Australem Hantoniam est profectus ; ubi 
cum Scholae Gratuitae vixerat aliquantisper Hypodidascalus, coniugio 
sese implicuit, et scholam relinquens, ministerium ingressus, in clientelam 
Honorandi viri Guilelmi domini Marchionis Winton. est admissus, cuius 
benignitate banc obtinuit vicariam, quam cum annos fere septem decem, 
aerumnarum non immunis, tenuerat, commendavit animam Deo, corpus 
humo, opes propinquis, locum successori, et placide expiravit decimo nono 
Octobris : sepultus autem fuit in chore ecclesiae suae primo Novembris. 

' J. Batten, South Somerset, pp. 170-1. 

* See Plumptre, Life of Bishop Ken, ii. 17-4. 


Doughty sprang from ingenui parentes, not generosi, and his 
descendants, as the parish registers testify, returned to the 
cultivation of the soil, some as yeomen, others — ^for they were 
a prolific race — as labourers. 

Thomas Crockford, Doughty's successor, has left a longer 
narrative of his own career, which begins : ' Cui proxime in 
vicaria successi ego Thomas Crockford, patria Bercheriensis, 
parentela ingenuus.' He was born in October 1580, the last 
and only surviving son of Richard Crockford, agricola, ' ex ingenua 
Crockfordorum Pepperensium familia prognatus '. He learned 
grammar ' in choro Templi patrii ' under Thomas Baker, B.A., 
vicar of Dorney in Buckinghamshire. At sixteen he entered the 
service of John Mockett, lord of the manor of Cronstry in Ship- 
lake, and after two years entered on a course of liberal study, 
and by the aid of his patron was admitted to Magdalen College, 
Oxford, in 1597, in "attendance upon Isaac Pococke, fellow of the 
college. In 1602 he came into Wiltshire as schoolmaster at 
Stockton, where for five or six years he studied under John Terry, 
M.A., the rector, to whom he acknowledges his great indebtedness. 
Here also he gained the friendship of two gentlemen by birth, 
Mr. Topp and Mr. Potticary, by whose favour he obtained the 
degree of B.A. (8 July 1603) and was ordained deacon and 
priest, the latter in 1603 by Bishop Cotton of Sarum. He served 
various neighbouring churches as curate, and on 13 January 
1612 he married a lady ' optima parentela generosam, me tamen 
illamque curis domesticis praematuris implicui ; nihil fere 
habens adhuc certi praeter amicos illos Stoctonienses ' . These, 
however, obtained for him from the marquis of Winchester the 
living of Fisherton Delamere (' hanc exiguam vicariam '), to 
which he was inducted 19 November 1613 at the age of thirty- 
three. He died 26 March 1634/5. 

The evidence afforded by an examination of single benefices 
may be confirmed from the records of a clerical family of repute 
in Dorset from the time of Elizabeth to that of Charles II. The 
family of Kelway alias Clerke, using at times the single name of 
Clerke or Kelway indiscriminately, were tenants at MarnhuU, 
under Glastonbury Abbey. William Kelway's will was proved 
in 1492, in the prerogative court of Canterbury, and George 
Kelway was still there when Queen Elizabeth granted him a tene- 
ment, by copy of court roll, in the fourth year of her reign. At 
the close of the sixteenth centm*y it was represented by six 
brothers. Of these, 

(1) Roger, of Marnhull, described in his will, proved in 1597 in the 
prerogative court of Canterbury, as yeoman, was father of Roger, B.A,, 
rector of Todbere, who matriculated from Gloucester Hall 1601, suffered 
severely at the hands of the rebel army, and died in 1665. He married 


Anne, daughter of Richard Bingham of Melcombe Bingham, and was 
father of a third Roger, B.C.L., of Trinity and Pembroke Colleges, Oxford, 
who matriculated in 1634, became prebendary of Bishopstone, Sarum, 
c. 1645, died before 1660,^ and had a son the fourth Roger, B.A., rector 
of Penselwood 1674^1719, who matriculated from Hart Hall 1664. 

The five remaining brothers were all in Holy Orders, viz. : 

(2) Thomas, M.A., rector of Ashmore 1608, of Haselbiiry Bryan 1612, 
and of Mappowder 1624, who matriculated from Gloucester Hall 1599, and 
died c. 1657. His will was proved in the prerogative court of Canterbury.^ 
He had two sons who predeceased him, Thomas, B.A., who matriculated 
from Christ Church in 1631-2, and William, M.A., Pembroke College, who 
matriculated from Christ Church in 1631-2. 

(3) Nicholas, vicar of Fifehead Magdalen. The will of his widow 
Agnes, made in 1613, was proved the next year by her four sons, Josias, 
Thomas, Nicholas, and George, in the prerogative court of Canterbury. 
The son Nicholas occurs as curate of Gillingham in 1628-9 and 1631, 
and he was master of Gillingham Grammar School when he married, 
1622-3, Cecilia, daughter of Joane Dirdo, widow, of a leading local family 
(baptized 1594 as daughter of Charles Dyrdo, generosus). The son Josias, 
M.A., who succeeded his father in the vicarage of Fifehead Magdalen, 
matriculated from Gloucester Hall in 1595-6, aged 16, and was buried at 
Gillingham 21 June 1621. 

(4) William, patron and rector of Ashmore, 1588 (?), matriculated 
from St. Mary Hall 1577, aged 29. His will was proved 1621-2 in the 
prerogative court of Canterbury, and he was father of John, rector of 
Ashmore, 1622. 

(5) John, rector of Nether Compton 1579, whose will was proved 1608 
in the prerogative court of Canterbury. He left three sons, Nicholas, 
John, and Thomas. Of these, John, B.A., matriculated from Oriel College 
1612, became rector of Nether Compton in 1625, and died in 1631. 

(6) Edmund, rector of Buckhorn Weston, 1591, who matriculated 
from St. Mary Hall 1585, aged 19. His will was proved 1649 in the pre- 
rogative court of Canterbury. He had four sons, Nicholas, William, George, 
and Edmund. Of these, Nicholas, M.A., rector of Stowell, matriculated 
from Exeter College 1621, aged 18,. and Edmund, B.A., rector of Kington 
Magna, matriculated from Balliol 1632, signed the Subscription Book 
(Diocese of Bristol) 1 August 1662 as rector, and as schoolmaster 5 August 
1662. He was the father of Nicholas, B.A., rector of Milton Malsor, 
Northants, 1673, who matriculated from Hart Hall in 1664, and Lawrence, 
B.A., who matriculated from Wadham in 1673, aged 16.^ 

Evidence of unworthy treatment is, however, found in 
pamphlets such as A Private Conference between an Alderman 
and a Poor Country Vicar made Public, London, 1670. The 
vicar's dues are represented as being but twenty marks a year, 
raised by gifts to £15. He is grateful to the alderman of the 

> See Walker, ii. 65. ^ gg^ jj,-^.^ p. 217. 

* See also E. W. Watson, History of Ashmore, 1870. 


dialogue, the best friend he had in the town, for entertainment 
at his table and ' two shillings a year duly divided into half 
yearly payments ' ; but something was expected in return. 
Some former vicars had been 

so stubborn and self-willed, and so prodigiously proud, that they have 
made no more reckoning of the mayor and aldermen, than if they had 
coimtry gentlemen to deal with . . . and ... if we did not come to the 
place of hearing within half an hour after they were in their pew (con- 
trary to all duty both to God and man, and what is more, the ancient 
custom of this town) they would begin prayers.^ 

A more humorous work is The Grounds and Occasions of the 
Contempt of the Clergy and Religion, attributed to Laurence 
Echard, which ran through many editions. Barnabas Oley, 
in his reply to Echard,^ justly protests that poverty so far 
from being a ground of contempt is a cause of commiseration 
and honour. He adds, ' I have not observed any one thing 
(behither vice) that hath occasioned so much contempt of the 
clergy as unwillingness to take or keep a poor living '. But 
Echard was no doubt right when he said that landowners 
not only designed the weakest and most ill-favoured of their 
children for the ministry, but also made no proper financial 
provision, leaving them nothing to live on but church preferment. 
Their land descended to the eldest son, and their money was 
used ' for to bind out and set up other children ' in business.^ 

When Macaulay remarks that ' a waiting woman was generally 
considered as the most suitable helpmate for a parson ', he forgets 
that such a position was frequently held by portionless ladies of 
good birth. Two cases may here be mentioned : Marie, daughter 
of Thomas Elton of Ledbury, served in the household of her 
cousin. Sir Richard Lucy, knight and baronet, being descended 
from Sir Edward Aston, father of Walter, Lord Aston of Tixall, 
by Anne his wife, daughter of Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote. 
She mentions in her will, 1636, ' the quarters wages now due 
unto me from my Lady ', Sir Richard Lucy's wife. The other 
instance is that of Catherine Willson, nee Dyer, who represents 
in a petition to her cousin-german, Lord Cottington, chancellor 
of the exchequer, that her ' mistress, by a blow struck in her 
nose, had dejected her fortune in marriage '. Her father, James 
Dyer, was brother of Lord Cottington's mother, and great- 
nephew of Sir James Dyer, chief justice of the common pleas. 

As would naturally be expected, parish priests and their 
assistant curates married into their own rank, finding wives 
among the daughters of neighbouring clergy or in the class from 
which they themselves had sprung. 

• pp. 1, 33. ^ Preface to Greorge Herbert, Country Parson, 1671. 

« pp. 128 S. 


The country gentry, as a rule, had but little ready money at 
then* disposal, but lived upon the rents and profits of their 
estates in land, and were anxious to secure matrimonial alliances 
with heiresses for themselves or for their sons, and if the younger 
sons were not successful in this direction they would either 
settle down in or near their birthplace as farmers or gamekeepers, 
or migrate to towns as apprentices to trade.^ Pope has the 
caustic lines 

Boastful and rough, your first son is a squire, 
The next a tradesman, meek and much a liar, 
Tom struts a soldier, open, bold and brave. 
Will sneaks a scriv'ner, an exceeding knave. ^ 

Sir John Fitzjames, knight, of Leweston (d. 1623) was well- 
to-do, and a leading county magnate ; yet he settled his five 
younger sons as tenant farmers on portions of his estate, and 
some years later one descendant, Grace Fitzjames, was married 
to Hugh Hardy, another, Joane Fitzjames, to John Granger, 
both of yeoman' stock, and a third, Francis Fitzjames, in his 
old age espoused Sarah Best, who kept the village inn.^ 

Any fall in station which may have happened to the sons of 
the poorer clergy was, in fact, the common fate of the younger 
sons or descendants of younger sons of country gentlemen. 
In Dorset a yeoman family is still found — that of Daubeny — which 
has an unbroken descent from the Conquest and earlier ; and the 
village of Minterne still retains descendants of a branch of the 
Napiers (created baronets in 1641) springing from a junior line 
of the esquire owner at the beginning of the seventeenth century. 
Thomas Fuller remarks 

that some who justly own the surnames and blood of Bohuns, Mortimers 
and Plant agenets, (though ignorant of their own extractions), are hid in 
the heap of common . . . people, where they find that under a thatched 
cottage, which some of their ancestors could not enjoy in a leaded castle, 
contentment with quiet and security.^ 

* These examples, and many others, occur in the Bristol Apprentice Rolls : 
Edward, son of Henry Sidnam of Steeple Ashton, gent., 1651, to a grocer. 
Thomas, son of William Baskerville of Garway, gent., 1651, to a soap-boiler. 
John, son of Henry Lyte of Lytes Gary, 1653-4, to a woollen-draper. 
Knightly, son of Sir Anthony Elmes of Greens Norton, knight, 1657, to a linen- 

Robert, son of Robert Minors of Treago, esq., 1668, to a grocer. 

John, son of John Harbin of Newton, esq., 1670, to a mercer. 

John, son of John Scudamore of Kentchurch, esq., 1680-1, to a merchant. 

2 Moral Essays, i, 11. 151-4. 

' The same Sir John Fitzjames appointed John Wilkinson, parson of Babcary, 
Somerset, to be one of the overseers of his last will, and bequeathed to him ' so much 
of finest cloth as will make him a large cloak with sleeves, as ministers do use to 
weare '. He was commissioned to preach the funeral sermon. 

* Worthies, ed. 1811, i. xv. 45, ' Of Shire Reeves or Shiriffes '. 


On the position of domestic chaplains, the object of Macaulay's 
special attack, some light is thrown by an entry in one of the 
Long Burton register books. The widow of the Honourable Henry 
Thynne, a daughter of Sir George Strode, knight, 

was possessed of her father's estate . . . and kept a domestic chaplain 
constantly at Leweston. These domestic chaplains, for three several 
successions of them, were vicars of Burton and Holnest, being presented 
thereto by the proprietor of Leweston, the patron of the vicarage . . . and 
all of them had their board at Leweston without any expense of washing, 
horse-hire, coals, candles, &c., and with the privilege of entertaining also 
at the expense of the house all their visiting friends, with everything which 
cellar and pantry afforded. In this respectable station lived Mr. Martin 
[1696-1713], Mr. Chafy [1713-18], and Mr. Wilkinson [1718-25]. Mr. Martin, 
during his incumbency, was a married man, and his wife usually came to 
church with Mrs. Thynne, and sat in the pew of Leweston constantly 
with her. 

There were indeed unworthy chaplains, who accommodated 
themselves to drunken and illiterate squires. Such a one is 
described in a pamphlet of 1737 : ^ 

a clergyman in the house, who had quite laid aside his sacerdotal character, 
but acted in several lay capacities, valet de chambre, butler, game keeper, 
pot-companion, butt and buffoon, who never said Prayers, or so much 
as said Grace, whilst I was in it, ... a dirty wretch who seemed to live in 
defiance of virtue, decency, good manners and clean linnen, [who] was 
in a measure the first minister and director of the family ; and always 
mention'd with the familiar appellation of Honest Harry, a merry, good 
natured fellow as ever broke bread. 

Whenever a clergyman of higher character found himself 
in a parish where the squire was of this type, he had no alterna- 
tive to social isolation. 

The true causes which militated against the clergy in the 
second half of the seventeenth century would thus appear to be 
four in number. First was the deliberate desire of many country 
gentlemen to keep the parish clergy in a state of subservient 
poverty. Second was the antagonism caused by the restoration 
of church revenues to their legitimate owners, to the loss of those 
who had purchased them during the interregnum. Third was 
. jealousy against the clergy who, though poor, had received 
a university education as good as that of the squire, and were 
sometimes placed in the commission of the peace ; and fourth, the 
unwillingness of the parish priest to join in the dissipated carousals 
of the day.^ Such an attitude produced a standing prejudice ; 
but when the parochial incumbent was sufficiently furnished with 
private or official means, no consideration of rank or birth stood in 
the way of social intercourse or intermarriage. C. H. Mayo. 

* A Short Account of the English Clergy. * See Short Account, pp. 26 ff. 

1922 267 

Reviews of Books 

The Norse Discoverers of America, tJie Wineland Sagas. Translated and 
discussed by G. M. Gathorne-Hardy, F.R.G.S. (Oxford : Clarendon 
Press, 1921.) 

The conclusion of this treatise is that Thorfinn Karlsefni found Cape Cod ; 
that the Wonder Strands are the New England coast, that Straumsey is 
Fisher's Island at the mouth of Long Island Sound, which is Straums- 
f jorcSr ; and that Hop is the bay or estuar}' of the Hudson River. This 
theory is more likely than any other ; distinctly better than Gustav 
Storm's careful argument identifying Wineland with Nova Scotia. The 
choice, we may say, is between these two explanations ; for this reason, 
that the evidence requires a northward pointing cape, with water open for 
exploration on each side of it. There is no such landscape available except 
at Cape Breton Island, which is Storm's choice, and at Cape Cod, which is 
preferred by Mr. Gathorne-Hardy. 

Storm's argument is very plausible. His diagram showing the relative 
positions required by the story, and his application of this diagram to the 
map of Nova Scotia, seem to ' save the appearances ', at any rate. The 
story told in EireJcs saga rauda can be made to fit. 

But Mr. Gathorne-Hardy shows that it does not fit without some 
forcing. Apart from the problem of the vine, which is not quite at home 
so far north, and keeping to geography, we are asked for an immense 
stretch of sandy shore, the 'Wonder Strands', which, briefly, is not there ; 
that defect alone seems enough to refute Nova Scotia. Mr. Gathorne- 
Hardy meets the eminent Norwegian historian, and gives good ground 
for rejecting his explanation. His own theory is even better than he 
knows ; it suffers, in his demonstration, from want of proper diagrams 
and maps. His argument needs one map taking in the whole coast from 
Cape Cod to the mouth of the Hudson ; this is not given ; instead of it 
there are two bits which leave out the Wonder Strands in the middle. 
It may be remarked here that the treatment of the old map of the Ice- 
lander Stephanius is clumsy and cruel, as may be judged by any one who 
will compare the rough sketch here, p. 290, with Storm's reproduction 
{Vinlandsreiserne, Fig. 2). 

After passing the Wonder Strands Karlsefni puts into a fjord. There 
was an island at the mouth, and very strong currents. Karlsefni made 
a camp there, or thereabout, and passed the winter. In the spring Karlsefni 
goes exploring by sea to the south, leaving his base at Straumsfjord, and 
coming at last to Hop— where a river runs through a lake (vatn) to the sea, 
with many shoals at the river-mouth. Mr, Gathorne-Hardy quotes here, 


aptly, the description of Hudson River ' by its first recognized discoverer 
Verezzano ' — * we passed up this river about half a league, when we found 
it formed a most beautiful lake, three leagues in circuit,' Thus according 
to Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, the discoverers knew both Long Island Sound 
[ = Straumsfjor'Sr], the south coast of Long Island, and the estuary of the 
Hudson [ = Hop, a very familiar name ; disguised as ' Oban ^, they say, in 
the Sound of Kerrara]. 

After this southern exploration Karlsefni went north to discover what 
he could : he rounded a cape, steering west : if Hop is the Hudson mouth 
the cape will be Cape Cod. Here conies a passage which Mr. Gathorne- 
Hardy thinks corrupt ; which on the contrary might be taken as a guarantee 
of good faith. It is wrongly translated and badly spelt by Mr. Gathorne- 
Hardy. In Hauk's book, which alone gives the passage in full, it is thus : 
peir setlu'Su oil ein fjoll I'au, ei i Hopi varu ok ])au er nu funnu Ipeix, ok 
Jjat staeSiz mjok sva a, ok vseri jamlangt or StraumsfirtSi beggja vegna. 
This means, ' They reckoned that the mountains at Hope and those they now 
had found were all one, and that this fitted well enough, and either way 
was the same distance from Straumsfjord '. Mr. Gathorne-Hardy trans- 
lates ' ok l^at stse^iz mjok sva a ', ' were therefore close opposite one 
another', which is harder to understand : ' standast a ' means to corre- 
spond, to fit, and ' mjok ' here has its frequent sense of ' pretty nearly '. 
Now this, it might be maintained, is too good not to be true : it must, 
at any rate, be part of a tradition which kept as close as possible to an 
original report. Otherwise, it is Swift or Defoe ; the ordinary yarn-spinner 
does not think of this close geographical study. It is not much against 
Mr. Gathorne-Hardy's identifications that his Hop or Hudson is too far 
away from the Massachusetts coast in the neighbourhood of Boston. For 
it is clear that those Greenland navigators expected a large opening west- 
ward round their cape, and were from the first inclined to make things fit. 
It seems clear, too, that they did not think of those mountains as a narrow 
range. Take an example from Norwegian history : the same Flatey book 
that preserves the other version of the Greenland voyages also contains 
the Life of King Hacon. Hacon we are there told went by Ilarsund, the 
Sound of Islay, round Satirismuli, the Mull of Kintyre, and so to Bute and 
the adjacent islands. Now from Islay he ought to have seen the mountains 
of Herey ( = Arran) over Kintyre, and rounding the Mull he comes in sight 
of Arran again from the inner sea. The view from outside corresponds 
with the view from inside. But the landscape in Wineland is not an easy 
thing like this ; one makes out from the language that there is a large mass 
of mountains, and ' mjok ' = ' well enough ' shows that after all there 
might be room for doubt. Storm's theory, and his map of Nova Scotia, 
show a much closer correspondence and a much shorter .distance between 
the two views : but this possibly is not so much in his favour as might 
appear ; the identification is perhaps too easy. 

Mr. Gathorne-Hardy has argued in favour of a narrative which is 
generally despised ; which Professor Finnur Jonsson in a recent paper 
(1915) rejects : the story of Bjarni Herjulfsson. This captain is said to 
have been driven south in bad weather sailing from Iceland to Greenland 
and to have come in sight of various unknown lands before he came at 


last to his father's house in Greenland. The story is certainly well told 
and life-like ; while, as Mr. Gathorne-Hardy well argues, there is nothing 
in it that any one could have a motive for inventing. The details are 
rather better than here represented : ' whereupon they left the land on 
the port side and let the sheet turn towards it ' (p. 26) is unintelligible, though, 
or because, it is a literal translation. Skaut means either ' tack ' or ' sheet ', 
as the case may be. The meaning clearly is that they were sailing on the 
port tack, with a westerly wind. Here it looks, again, as if there were 
a true tradition. There is no obvious motive for invention, while the 
particulars are clear in themselves. 

There are many other points and matters of interest in the book ; the 
author is to be congratulated on his skill in putting so much into three 
hundred pages. W. P. Ker. 

Mediaeval Archives of the University of Oxford. Edited by the Rev. H. E. 
Salter. 2 vols. (Oxford Historical Society, vols. Ixx and Ixxiii, 

These volumes appeal to students of history with a double emphasis ; 
they are published for the Oxford Historical Society, and edited by 
Mr. Salter. And they are peculiarly important because the documents 
printed are given in their complete form, and the details of them described 
in a competent fashion by a master of his subject. As the editor says in an 
introduction that is all too brief, ' students are always glad to have original 
documents ', and it may be added that no mere study of enrolments, still 
less of calendars, will ever enable the acutest mind to get to the bottom of 
the mysteries of the administration of the medieval chancery. But in 
the first volume of his book Mr. Salter has given us a complete collection 
of material, and just because it is a complete collection and not a selec- 
tion of the most striking documents he has thrown new light on one of the 
obscurest points in medieval chancery practice, the make-up and sealing 
of the so-called letters close. 

If we look at the terminology of the medieval chancery itself apart 
from the actual documents, we find at first sight an apparently simple 
classification based either on the diplomatic form of the instruments or 
on administrative convenience. And it is easy to conclude that this 
classification into charters, letters patent, letters close, fines, and so forth, 
represents the whole system used by all departments of the chancery. 
As a matter of fact it represents only the practice of the enrolling depart- 
ment, and is at its best only a cross-classification. The ' hanaper ' depart- 
ment which looked after the sealing and issuing of the instruments used 
a completely different set of terms, and speaks of writs close, writs or 
letters patent, charters of the small fee, charters of the great fee ; and it 
must be noted that not one of these terms is used in the sense given to 
them by the enrolling department. Again, if we look at the work of the 
engrossing clerks we shall find that the method in which the actual instru- 
ments are prepared for sealing is not simple ; and the character of the 
writing and the make-ui) of the documents are not governed by the rules 
of the enrolling department. So far, indeed, as charters and letters patent 


go, the two departments agree ; a charter enrolled on the Charter Eoll and 
letters patent enrolled on the Patent KoU will be made up by the engrossing 
department and prepared for sealing in a fashion appropriate to their 
importance. The most elaborate documents will have the honour of 
a pendent seal with a lace or a double slip of parchment passed through 
the parchment of the document to receive the seal. The less elaborate ones 
will have a seal a simple queue, fixed on a broad tongue cut along the base 
of the document with the seal fixed at one end ; and below this will be 
a very narrow slip cut the whole width of the document, and doubtless 
meant to be wrapped round it, when folded or ' plied ' for transmission. 
In any case the document can be opened and read and refolded without 
breaking or damaging the seal. In a note on p. 137 of vol. i Mr. Salter 
seems to consider this method of make-up as characteristic of letters close. 
It is dangerous to differ with Mr. Salter, but in this case I incline to think 
that he has come to a wrong conclusion. This method is the normal 
make-Tip of letters patent and charters meant to be sealed a simple queue. 

The story of the engrossing of letters enrolled on the Close Roll is harder 
to understand. From the reign of Henry III, at any rate, the Close Roll 
shows two kinds of letters issued under seal, those marked by the note 
* et postea ista littera fuit signata patenter ' or ' et erat patens ', or some 
such words, and those bearing no note at all. It cannot be assumed that 
the enrolling clerks inserted this note systematically, but it is clear that 
they recognized two kinds of letters as enrolled on the Close Roll, those 
made up ' open ' and those made up ' closed '. Any collection of letters 
close, if examined, will be found to contain both kinds. The letters made 
up ' open ' are made up and sealed in the manner already described as 
employed in the case of letters patent and charters a simple queue, and 
like these can be opened and reclosed without damaging the seal. The 
letters made up ' closed ', on the other hand, have one narrow tongue cut 
across the foot of them ; the seal is affixed not at the end, but across the 
middle of the slip ; beyond the seal on the slip the address is written ; 
and the letter could not be opened without breaking the seal. In fact, 
specimens in which any portion of the seal remains are rare, and in the 
case of returned letters close preserved in the Public Record Office seal 
and slip have usually both disappeared. In consequence the method 
in which the letters were sealed and closed is occult to modern observa- 
tion, although one is in the habit of speaking about it with as much 
familiarity as one might use with an envelope. 

Even the seal used for letters close is not free from peculiarities. Just 
as there are two species of letters close, so there are two species of seals : 
letters are sealed sub pede sigilli or are left without any note of the seal 
used. With admirable and scholarly reticence Mr. Salter, in describing 
the seals affixed to these documents, has refrained from describing them 
as great seals, and has confined himself to the phrase royal seals. The 
wisdom of such reticence is profound ; for the fact is that we only assume 
that letters close made up ' closed ' were sealed with the Great Seal at 
all ; and the current interpretation of the words suh pede sigilli as meaning 
the half-seal, i.e. the reverse of the Great Seal, is nothing more than an 
ingenious conjecture, resting partly on the authority of Mr. W. H. Steven- 


•son in his Calendar of Close Rolls and partly on the authority of the 
New English Dictionary. But no one has ever seen a seal made by using 
the reverse side of the matrix of the Great Seal only, and until such a seal 
is forthcoming respectful doubt is permissible. Of the existence of a half- 
seal in the English chancery there is indeed no doubt ; it is mentioned in 
statutes from 1 Henry VIII, c. 16 down to 2 & 3 William IV, c. 92, and 
it is always spoken of with familiarity and respect ; and yet no one has 
ever seen a specimen of the English half -seal, or handled a matrix adapted 
to create it. This is not a little odd, but it becomes still odder when the 
history of the quarter-seal of the Scottish Chancery is considered. This 
seal, which is used for letters that in England would be letters close, is 
well known ; specimens of the seals exist and can be examined ; the 
matrices are in existence, and the seal is still in use. In view of the general 
puzzledom of the subject it need not surprise us to learn that it is not 
a quarter-seal at all, but a seal in the shape of a semicircle, with an 
obverse and a reverse, modelled on the obverse and reverse of the great 
seal, and only difEering from it in a few minute points. 

Now its existence seems to suggest as a possible hypothesis that the 
half-seal of England may have been a seal of this character, and it is 
at least possible that the phrase sub pede sigilli may mean that in those 
cases also that seal was employed. Only the production of such a seal 
or its matrix can prove such an hypothesis ; but it is possible to support 
it on the evidence of fragments, even small fragments, of seals found adher- 
ing to the tags of letters close. The Public Record Office is a bad place 
for the discovery of such evidence. A returned letter close is of little impor- 
tance, once its duty has been done, and though neglect is often the best 
preservative of parchment, it is fatal to seals. Still even there two speci- 
mens of letters close ^ are known, still bearing small fragments of seals, 
showing a reverse and obverse, which are assuredly not great seals. 
The best preserved of these shows a few letters of the legend. These 
letters are the same size as the letters on the legend of the Great Seal ; 
the curve of the seal and its consequent diameter are those of the Great 
Seal, so far as the small size of the fragment enables them to be determined. 
But the tongue to which this seal is attached measures just two inches from 
the point at which it leaves the body of the writ to the point at which 
the outer rim of the seal was fixed ; and the diameter of the Great 
Seal of the date, the reign of Edward II, is 3*9 inches. There is room 
for a half -seal, but not for a whole seal. Two instances are much, but 
scarcely enough. Had it not been for Mr. Salter's wisdom in printing all 
the documents in his collection, the most remarkable case might never 
have been known. It is no. 101 in the first volume of his work. Again 
we have the same make-up ; a single narrow tag, with the seal half-way 
along it, and the address written at the end of the tag. The seal is of 
course only a fragment, but so far as its appearance goes it might be 
a largish fragment of the Great Seal ; it is certainly the largest fragment 
I have ever seen attached to a letter of the kind. Again, its position on the 
tag makes it clear that there is only room for a half-seal and not for 
a whole seal. It may be added that no. 103 is another letter of the same 
> The reference is R. S. 418 and 419. 


kind, so that between the Public Record Office and the Archives of the 
University of Oxford four instances have now been noted. I feel that 
even in a review I may thank Mr. Poole for allowing me to see what 
Mr. Salter's careful description had caused me to suspect. Other muni- 
ment rooms must contain such seals ; one muniment room may contain 
an unbroken specimen ^. If IMr. Salter could be put in commission, the 
mystery of the English half-seal might cease to be a mystery at all. 

But it must not be thought that these volumes only contain material 
of this kind. They are both rich in matter of more general interest. The 
second contains a roll of proceedings under the Statute of Labourers, a roll 
of great size and importance for which Miss Putnam has supplied a special 
introduction. It contains the best account of the Assize of Bread and 
Ale that I have met with, given by Mr. Salter as an introduction to rolls 
of the proceedings taken in Oxford against offenders in the fourteenth 
century. The introduction and the text are both rich in explanations of 
the technical terms of the baker's trade, and emphasize the point that the 
baker was only concerned with flour and not with the grain of which it was 
made. The proctor's accounts are of less general interest, but even among 
those there are gleanings to be had for the search. 

Corrigenda are too few to need mention. Mr. Salter may, however, 
like to know that the name of the clerk who was killed in 1298 was Fulk 
Neyrnuit. His family name occurs in the Testa de Nevill in a latinized 
form as Nigra Nox. C. Gr. Crump. 

The Queen's College. By John Richard Magrath, D.D., Provost of 
Queen's. (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1921.) 

It was a fortunate accident which prevented Dr. Magrath from completing 
the history of the college for the series published many years ago by 
Mr. F. E. Robinson. If it left that series incomplete, it has procured for us 
the more elaborate and detailed history which the provost has at last been 
able to produce of the college of which he has been for so many years the 
distinguished head. In his preface Dr. Magrath explains that he decided 
to take his original manuscript as the base of his new text and to supplement 
it freely by notes and appendixes. He apologizes for the possible incon- 
venience which this method may have caused. But few are likely to com- 
plain of the process which has given them two such richly documented 
volumes, full of material illustrative not only of the history of the college, 
with which they are primarily concerned, but of the whole university. 
The provost justly calls attention to the new material which he has collected 
on various points that have been before obscure ; to the details in the life 
of the founder and the history of the Eglesfield family ; to the true account 
of the dissension which led in 1379 to the expulsion of Provost Whitfield 
and three of the fellows, an incident which Antony Wood incorrectly 
surmised to be due to Wycliffism ; to the examination of John Wyclif's 
own connexion with the college, where he shows that some of the references 
are to a Poor Boy of the same name ; and to the new treatment of various 

* Two almost complete examples have now been found among the Duchy of 
Lancaster Royal Charters in the Public Record Office, nos. 248, 271. 


other topics. The rebuilding of the college in the eighteenth century has 
made an account of the older buildings of particular interest and importance. 
The original buildings are carefully described, and the process by which 
they were replaced in the course of fifty years from the date of Wren's 
first design in 1682 is set forth in detail and admirably illustrated. There 
is indeed no topic bearing on the history of the college, its growth, its 
social life, the distinction of its members, which does not receive ample 
treatment ; and on all such subjects the notes and appendixes furnish 
abundant illustration. There is little if anything which can have escaped 
the author's search. There is a will of Provost Muskham in the London 
Husting RoUSji but it is only of interest as showing that he was a benefactor 
of Elsing Spittle. Of Thomas Cartwright there are some interesting notices 
in Mr. C. T. Gatty's recent history of Mary Davies and the Manor ofEhury, 
to which of course Dr. Magrath could not have had access. One might 
perhaps wish that the provost's modesty had permitted him to give 
a fuller narrative of his own long tenure of his office. Special attention 
must be directed to the appendixes on the materials for the history, 
and on the site of the college ; and also to the text of the earliest ' Long 
Roll ', for the year 1347-8, which, like other documents of its class, contains 
a mass of details trifling in themselves but collectively invaluable. Queen 
Anne's letter on behalf of the college, written about 1384, must be one of 
the most ancient English documents of its kind now extant. To the lavish 
and beautiful illustrations reference has already been made ; one cannot 
say more than that they and the text which they so well illustrate are 
worthy of one another. C. L. Kingsfobd. 

Calendar of Inquisitions. Vol. x, Edward III. (London : Stationery 
Office, 1921.) 

The effects of the war and of the economies enforced among its results 
have been less than one would expect upon the valuable series of calendars 
compiled at the Public Record Office. To students, however, at a distance, 
who are so dependent upon them, it will be unwelcome news that their 
price, as with other publications, will henceforth have to be raised. The 
series which deals with the inquisitions held after death is of interest to 
many more than genealogists and topographers : an index of subjects 
which extends to thirteen double-column pages illustrates the great 
variety of subjects on which light is thrown by the patient labours of the 
Record Office staff. Under the heading of ' services ' alone we have 
more than eight columns ; students of names and of English words, 
of manorial customs, of ecclesiastical practices, and of social life will all 
find something to their taste. On two subjects we are here given an 
increasing amount of information ; one of these is the practice of recording 
births (not baptisms) and sometimes deaths in sundry church books ; 
the other is the development of returning heirship to the deceased under 
fines and settlements as well as heirship in blood. For instance, John de 
Nevill, the last of the Nevills ' of Essex ', died in 1358, and the returns 
to the inquisitions held thereupon show that, although his kinsman, 

' Shairpe, Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, i. 684. 


William son of John Semor (the name had formerly been read as ' Senior '), 
was * his next heir in blood ', his inheritance passed under ' a fine levied in 
the king's com-t ', after his wife's death, to William de Bohun, earl of 
Northampton, and his heirs, from whom, in due time, it came into the 
hands of the Crown as part of the duchy of Lancaster. 

The present volume carries on this most valuable calendar from 1352 
to 1360, so that at least two volumes more will, apparently, be needed to 
complete the reign of Edward III. Although, as we learn from the brief 
preface, the proofs of the elaborate index had to be passed through the 
press during Mr. O'Reilly's absence on military service, the two hundred and 
twenty-six pages to which it extends should win the gratitude of those who 
use it and adds, as usual, enormously to the value of the volume. One 
notes, on looking through it, a few small points that seem to need correction. 
The John de Beauchamp (de Bello Campo) ' of Warwick ' on p. 530 was 
not, as indexed, ' earl of Warwick ', but a brother of Earl Thomas. The Inq. 
post mortem on John (no. 628) proves the two to be identical. His brother 
Thomas's heir apparent was similarly known as Guy ' de Warwick ' 
(pp. 372, 460). The ' Bourghcher ' on p. 588 is ' Burgcher ' on p. 597, but 
there is no cross-reference ; consequently Eleanor, daughter of John de 
Lovayne, a considerable heiress, who married William Bourchier, is found 
on both of these pages separately. So also Michael de Poynings is found 
on p. 722, but ' Ponynges ', the medieval form, is found on p. 721, with 
no cross-reference. Oddly enough, ' Lionel de Andwerp ' (pp. 261, 567) 
is not recognized as Lionel, son of Edward III (p. 687). 

A tragedy characteristic of the times has its echo in this volume, 
where we can trace the fate of that unhappy widow, Margery de la Beche, 
to its close. ^ She is here recorded to have died at Calais 20 March, 23 
Edward III (1349)— or, on another page (no. 315), 20 Edward III ; but 
her description as ' late the wife of Nicholas de la Beche, sometime wife 
of Edmund Bacoun ' (no. 26), has not availed to identify her in nos. 315, 
316, under Beche, in the index. The previous volume (vol. ix) has a good 
deal about her, owing to her violent abduction, from her manor-house 
of Beaumeis, by Sir John Dalton, son of Robert, who subsequently married 
her without the king's licence, for which her lands were forfeited to the 
Crown. An inquisition in the present volume records the knight's 
succession to his father in 1353, and another headed ' Edmund Bacoun ' 
and taken later in the same year records that on 7 April, 20 Edward III 
(1346), ' John de Dalton, knight, who raped the said Margery, also married 
her, whereby the said manor was taken into the king's hand by reason of 
the forfeiture of the said John ' (p. 77). Yet another of these inquisitions 
(no. 314), relating to ' Edmund Bacoun and Margery his wife ', extends 
over four and a half pages (pp. 262-6). It proves that Edmund had died 
twenty years before (3 April 1336) and deals with his heirs by his two 
wives. Its interest consists chiefly in its references to public records : 
the Crown called for transcripts of fines and ordered ' the Red Book in 
the Exchequer ' and other records there to be examined, and received 
extracts from ' the book of fees at the Exchequer ', the Red Book, and 

^ I have recently dealt with this outrage, which involved murder and plunder, in 
Sussex Arch. Coll. Ixii (1921), pp. 12-18. 

1922 REVIEWS OF BOOKS . 275 

Domesday Book, with the well-known passage in the Dialogus referring to 
the great survey. In another inquisition (no. 446), taken in 1358, the 
treasurer and barons of the exchequer make a return from ' the book of fees 
kept at the Exchequer for evidence and not for record in the counties of 
Cambridge and Huntingdon ', and from ' the Red Book remaining in 
the Exchequer, which is of record in the counties of Cambridge and 
Huntingdon '.^ 

A very important point is here established concerning the tenure by 
serjeanty of Woolbeding in Sussex. Nearly two pages of the preface 
to the Red Book of the Exchequer (pp. ccclxxxv-vii, 556) are devoted 
to vague speculations as to ' the serjeantry [sic\ of Roger de Wolbedinge 
" by the service of being the Gunfenarius of Spicheforde " '. Of this service 
we there read : 

This entry occurs in a list of Sussex serjeanties, and we find among the Sussex 
tenants contributing to the Welsh war of 1165 the name of Walter de Sparkeforde. 

As no reference is given for this statement, I have spent much time and 
trouble in hunting for the said Walter, but neither in the index nor the 
text can I find him. Can he be among the offspring of the editor's fertile 
brain ? I am no less puzzled by the alleged ' Welsh war of 1165 '. It 
seems, however, to be a deduction from the words ' de exercitu quodam 
de Walliis ' in the earl of Arundel's carta of 1166. These are definitely 
rendered by the editor : ' concerning a certain scutage [sic] of Wales ' 
(p. ccv), and we read of ' the " Scutage of Wales " referred to in the Sussex 
charter ' on p. ccvi, and of ' the Scutage [sic] in 1165 ' on p. ccviii. No such 
' scutage ' is mentioned even by Swereford himself.^ However, in an 
inquisition of 1354 (no. 189) we here discover that the manor in question 
was held 

by service of coming on foot to meet (contra) the king in time of war at the bridge 
called Schetebrigg in co. Southampton and carrying from the said bridge, with the 
king, a standard as far as the bridge called Wolvardesbrigg in Sussex.^ 

The index identifies these bridges as Sheet bridge in Petersfield and 
Woolmers bridge near Midhurst. A road, one may add, still follows 
the valley of the Rother from Sheet to Midhurst, to which Woolbeding is 

Before taking leave of this scholarly volume one may draw attention 
to the inquisition on William de Roos, whose great estates require for 
their description more than eight pages. For, in addition to Hemsley, 
his ancestral castle, he held that of Belvoir. Light is thrown by the 
jurors' returns on the cost of upkeep for such castles and, in Lincolnshire, 
of sea defences, while the revenue of their lords was still affected, in 
1352-3, by the ravages of the Black Death, which deprived them not 
only of rents but of the issues of ' common ovens '. In the index ' Gymyles ' 
should be combined with ' Gimeges ', for the two names are the same. 

J. H. Round. 

' See p. 75 of the Red Book for the entry cited. 

" The reader is invited to test my statements in the Red Rook's text, 
' The service will also be found described in Book of Fees, i 71, and the Testa 
p. 226 b, 6ts. 



The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. A Study in Anthropology. By 
Margaret Alice Murray. (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1921.) 

There is no task for the historian so difficult as really to re-think the 
thoughts of the past, especially when these thoughts assume a form which 
modern knowledge discredits. Few, indeed, are the historians capable 
of such a task, and among these few we certainly place Miss Murray. It 
is true that her book is a monument of compressed information, sound 
scholarship, and solid learning. It is more than this. She never loses her- 
self in details, nor forgets in following out its ramifications the main object 
of her work. There is nothing of the kind, so far as we know, in English 
on the study of the ideas of the distant past ; and the work has been so 
thoroughly carried out that it is not likely to be superseded. It is, indeed, 
pleasant to meet with a piece of work so comprehensive in scope, and so 
rich and varied in its treatment of the subject of witch-cult in western 
Europe and notably in England. 

As Mr. Lea in his account of the persecution of the Albigenses was 
able to show that the anti-social views of this sect warranted the authorities 
in putting it down, so Miss Murray demonstrates that the dangers arising 
from the witch-cult constituted just as grave a menace to the framework 
of society. This is, indeed, the most novel feature in her deeply illuminating 
book. Under ' operative witchcraft ' she classes charms and spells, and 
rightly has little to say about it. She concentrates all her attention on 
ritual witchcraft, which she calls the Dianic cult. We all know that 
Mithraism constituted a serious rival to Christianity, and we all are aware 
that the church took over the birthday of Mithra as the birthday of 
Jesus Christ. The old persisted in the new, and this lesson Miss Murray 
enforces in unexpected ways. Mingled with the Christianity of the 
middle ages much of the old paganism remained. The witch-cult per- 
sisted, and with its persistence rites for rain-making and for causing or 
blasting fertility survived. Inevitably Dianists sought to encourage 
fertility among themselves, and to restrain it among their enemies. The 
church denounced the witches for their share in the destruction of fertility. 
In 1488 Innocent VIII held that witches ' blight the marriage bed, destroy 
the births of women and the increase of cattle ; they blast the corn on the 
ground, the grapes of the vineyard, the fruits of the trees, the grass and 
herbs of the field '. To a Dutchman like Adrian VI it was inevitable that 
he should denounce witches ' as a Sect deviating from the Catholic Faith, 
denying their Baptism, and showing Contempt of the Ecclesiastical 
Sacraments, treading Crosses under their Feet, and, taking the Devil for 
their Lord, destroyed the Fruits of the Earth by their Enchantments, 
Sorceries, and Superstitions '. The evidence the author produces, and 
above all her masterly interpretation of it, go far to justify the decrees of 
both popes. 

Miss Murray is successful in showing that the Dianist cult owned 
adherents from Italy to New England during the fifteenth, sixteenth, 
and seventeenth centuries. She laments that the cases in the New World 
have not been published in full, but the material for the Salem Witches 
case has been carefully collected by Mr. G. L. Burr in 1914, and, indeed, this 


author is referred to in her fine bibliography. Some of the instances brought 
forward by Miss Miirray are extraordinarily interesting. The fifth earl 
of Both well attempted to murder the king in 1591. It is plain that men 
feared Bothwell because he was the chief of the witches, and therefore 
was in possession of magical powers. Indeed, some regarded this arch- 
Dianist as divine. Miss Murray traces Dianist influence at the court of 
Charles VII of France. During his reign the Marshal de Eetz suffered 
death as a wizard. 

Miss Murray boldly applies her theory to the case of Joan of Arc. She 
believes — and adduces evidence for her belief — that Joan was put to death 
as a witch, and that the conduct of her associates during her military career 
sustains the fact that she belonged to the Dianic cult, not to the Christian. 
It is not without significance that nine years after her death her com- 
mander, Gilles de Kais, was tried on the same charge and condemned to 
the same fate. Anatole France grasps the fact that behind Joan of Arc 
lay some hidden force, and this force the author identifies with Dianism. 

The questions asked [Miss Murray concludes] by the judges at Joan's trial show that 
they were well aware of an underlying organization of which they stood in some 
dread. The judges were ecclesiastics, and the accusation against the prisoner was on 
points of Christian faith and doctrine and ecclesiastical observance. It was the 
first great trial of strength between the old and the new religions, and the political 
conditions gave the victory to the new, which was triumphant accordingly. ' We 
have caught her now ', said the Bishop of Beauvais, and she was burned without 
even the formality of handing her over to the secular authorities. After the execution, 
the judges and counsellors who had sat in judgement on Joan received letters of 
indemnity from the Great Council ; the Chancellor of England sent letters to the 
Emperor, to the kings and princes of Christendom, to all the nobles and towns of 
France, explaining that King Henry and his Counsellors had put Joan to death 
through zeal for the Christian Faith ; and the University of Paris sent similar letters 
to the Pope, the Emperor, and the College of Cardinals. Such action can hardly be 
explained had Joan been an ordinary heretic or an ordinary political prisoner. But 
if she were in the eyes of the great mass of the population not merely a religious leader 
but actually the incarnate God, then it was only natural for the authorities, who had 
compassed her death, to shelter themselves behind the bulwark of their zeal for the 
Christian religion, and to explain to the heads of that religion their reasons for the 
execution. On the other hand, the belief that Joan was God Incarnate will account, 
as nothing else can, for the extraordinary supineness of the French, who never lifted 
a finger to ransom or rescue Joan from the hands of either the Burgimdians or the 
English. As God himself or his voluntary substitute she was doomed to suffer as the 
sacrifice for the people, and no one of those people could attempt to save her. 

On the whole, we are in agreement with the views Miss Murray expresses. 
She uses, we think, needlessly offensive expressions about the Christian reli- 
gion. As we ponder her evidence a doubt suggests itself. Is she not unduly 
anxious to interpret late medieval evidence as implying more continuity 
with a remote past than there really is ? Robert H. Murray. 

The History of English Parliamentary Privilege. By Carl Wittke. Ohio 
State University Studies : Contributions in History and Political 
Science, no. 6. (Columbus : Ohio State University, 1921.) 

Professor Wittke has undertaken an ambitious task in attempting 
a survey of the whole history of parliamentary privilege from its origins to 
the present day. Writers have long been misinterpreting the history 


of parliament and therefore of parliamentary privilege, and although 
Dr. Wittke states that his book is intended to be ' not so much a history 
of privilege as an essay in the interpretation of the great principles under- 
lying parliamentary privilege ', yet great principles must be deduced from 
sound history, and an independent study of his subject, at least until the 
close of the sixteenth century, was needed. He has, however, been content 
in his earlier pages to accept without criticism the discredited interpreta- 
tions of such predecessors as May. 

Thus Dr. Wittke misconceives the constitutional role of the commons 
in medieval times and evidently thinks of parliament as composed of 
two more or less co-ordinate houses. As a result his view of the early 
history of freedom of speech is unhistorical. ' As early as the reign of 
Edward III,' he writes, ' it is reported, the House of Commons often 
discussed and agreed upon laws exactly contrary to the king's prerogative, 
" yet they were never interrupted in their consultations, nor received 
check for the same ".' In reality this report is simply the personal opinion 
of He my Elsyng, who lived in what Maitland called the prehistoric age. 
The commons, it is essential to grasp, were not a ' house ' in the middle 
ages, their proceedings were not in parliament, and only their Speaker 
enjoyed the right to speak in the parliament chamber, a right which is 
reflected in his petition for the privilege of amending his speeches shoidd 
the need arise. Freedom of speech in the assembly of the commons is, 
therefore, a distinct problem from freedom of speech in parliament, and 
the question of the privilege enjoyed by the lords in parliament during 
the middle ages shoidd at least be raised, although perhaps it cannot be 
satisfactorily answered. So far as the commons are concerned the first 
entry in an official record of the inclusion of this privilege in the Speaker's 
petition at the opening of parliament occurs in 1542, although Dr. Wittke 
should have referred also to Roper's account of More's speech in 1523. 
But the difficulty is to elucidate the development of the privilege before 
the formal claim was made ;< and lacking any commons' journal we are 
dependent upon a few celebrated cases that have been recorded in the 
Rolls of Parliament. 

Haxey's case is usually cited as involving first a breach of this privilege, 
and eventually confirmation of it ; and Dr. Wittke so cites it. But it may 
be questioned whether the conventional construction of the case is really 
sound. In the first place it should be clearly recognized that there is not 
a word in the Rolls of Parliament to suggest that Haxey was a member 
of parliament or a clerical proctor, and the latter suggestion has apparently 
no other basis than an unnecessary assumption by Stubbs and others that 
he must have been in parliament. There were two stages in the case ; 
the proceedings under Richard II, and the reversal of the judgement by 
Henry IV. In the first there is nothing to indicate that the commons 
considered any privilege of free speech to be involved : and indeed it 
would be amazing had they asserted a privilege to discuss the affairs of 
the king's household. Their submission to the king repudiates any such 

For the reversal of the judgement against Haxey there were two peti- 
» Hot. Pari. iii. 339 b. 


tions in the parliament of 1399, one to the king from Haxey himself, the 
other a commons' petition. On the latter great stress has been laid, and 
Dr. Wittke assumes, as other writers have done, that the commons were 
alone responsible for it r they knew of the king's favourable answer to 
Haxey's petition, but were not content to let the matter rest there and 
wished to vindicate their own liberties. Comparison of the two petitions, 
however, will reveal that they are almost verbatim the same, which leads 
one to suggest that, like a wise suitor, Haxey made doubly sure of success 
by sending a second petition to the commons, who thereupon presented 
it to the king. In any event the petition is for the reversal of a specific 
judgement as contrary to law and procedure, and no privilege of free speech 
could have covered Haxey, who was not a member of parliament, nor 
indeed could it have prevailed in any case against a charge of treason. 
Haxey, and the commons as sponsors of the petition, were probably 
either claiming that the offence was not treason or that the trial was 
irregular.^ This reading of the case serves to interpret the oft-quoted 
phrase ' Libertees de ditz Communes ', in which ' Libertees ' does not 
include freedom of speech and ' Communes ' does not refer to the repre- 
sentatives in parliament. 

In 1455 we have the case of Thomas Yonge, who was a member of 
parliament. His assertion of freedom of speech, upon which he based his 
claim for redress of his grievance, is important ; but we should beware of 
over-emphasizing it, and we should not forget that his petition was a personal 
suit. His words no more prove the existence under Henry VI of such 
a liberty as he describes than the very similar words of Peter Wentworth 
prove its existence under Elizabeth ; and the political circumstances of 
the case warn us against accepting the favourable answer to the petition 
as implicit confirmation of the privilege asserted. Even under Elizabeth, 
Yonge's statement would need judicious interpretation to represent 
historical fact, and a century's development for the commons lay between 
the two eras. Free speech, it seems more correct to assume, was a slow 
growth, the stages in which are unchronicled ; but it was a noteworthy 
advance when a prescriptive and possibly vague right was at length given 
expression in the Speaker's petition: and the history of the privilege during 
the second half of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth 
century is that of a contention between a royal and conservative inter- 
pretation of the term ' freedom ' and a parliamentary and progressive 
interpretation of it. When Dr. Wittke describes Elizabeth's veto upon the 
introduction of bills affecting the royal estate as * quibbling ' he simply 
falls into an anachronism. 

On pp. 21 and 22 Dr. Wittke falls into two errors which the verification 
of his references might have prevented. In the first the original culprit 
was May, who quoted the Speaker's petition of 1841. and then asserted that 
the terms of the petition had been the same since 1515. Dr. Wittke 
follows May, only to contradict himself in subsequent pages. In the 
second instance he is following Hatsell's precedents upon the question 
whether a new Speaker coming to office in the middle of a parliament's life 

* Miss I. D. Thomley informs me that in her opinion the procedure was in fact 
unprecedented in the trial of one who was not a peer. 


mast repeat those privilege claims, already made by his predecessor, which 
refer to the commons, or must confine himself to purely personal claims. 
Hatsell quotes the precedents of Onslow in 1566, Charlton in 1672, and 
Foley in 1694. In Foley's case the commons ordered the omission of the 
claims. Not only doop Dr. Wittke misdate Charlton and Foley as 1572 and 
1594 — a piinter's error gives this as 1549 — ^but he evidently mistakes the 
point at issue, and takes the question to be whether privileges ought ever 
to be petitioned for or be merely assumed as 'undoubted rights'. He seems 
to make the house of commons take the latter view in 1594. 

Reference must be made to an aspect of the earlier history of privilege 
which throws invaluable light upon the obscure problem of the evolution 
of the house of commons, but of which Dr. Wittke does not realize the 
importance. This is the transference of jurisdiction over privilege cases 
affecting the commons, from the king in parliament or, as Dr. Wittke 
would write, the house of lords, to the commons themselves. It was 
inevitable that whilst the medieval and unitary conception of parliament 
persisted, jurisdiction should have been exercised in the parliament 
chamber ; and consequently the privilege cases of the middle ages are 
recorded in petitions for remedy addressed to the king or to the king and 
lords in parliament. This practice and the theory behind it are in striking 
contrast with the modern doctrine and practice which were being evolved 
during the sixteenth century and received classical expression in the 
writings of Coke : the high court of parliament, Coke maintained, con- 
sisted of two houses, each of which was itself a court. It was in the reign 
of Henry VIII, so far as we know, that the commons began to assert 
jurisdiction over their own privileges ; and Ferrer's case in 1543, when they 
sent their serjeant to release an imprisoned member, marks a new epoch. 
Then it should be noticed that in 1515 an act had authorized the Speaker 
and commons to license the departure of members before the close of 
parliament, so giving them a control over their own members which was 
to develop and ultimately to lead to the assertion of control over disputed 
elections in 1586. And it is in the same reign that freedom of speech first 
appears in the Speaker's repertory of petitions. Traces of the old sub- 
servience of the commons to the lords can be found under Elizabeth, and 
it required more than half a century's development after the death of 
Henry VIII to express the new constitutional position in so definite a 
theory as Coke's. 

Dr. Wittke's survey of the earlier history of parliamentary privilege 
is, however, brief. His main object is to develop ideas thrown out in 
a chapter of Professor Mcllwain's High Court of Parliament, and to show 
the relation of privilege to parliament's character as a court. Before the 
seventeenth century the history of privilege contributes comparatively 
little to this main study ; but a famous passage in Coke's Institutes became 
the creed of parliamentarians, and with the expansion of their claims and 
the increasing fullness of reports Dr. Wittke has a subject which he handles 
on the whole satisfactorily. He devotes chapters to the conflicts between 
lords and commons over privilege, to the conflict between Lex parliamenti 
and Lex terrae, and to privilege cases in the dependencies ; and he brings 
out the judicial basis of these later privilege claims with convincing fullness. 


He reveals, however, an extraordinary conception of historical proof when 
he cites some cases in the dependencies in the nineteenth century and 
urges that they throw valuable light upon the origin of parliamentary 
privilege in England. Finally it must be added that Dr. Wittke's book 
shows many signs of haste. It has been inadequately revised, and the 
index is too meagre to be of much use. J. E. Neale. 

Tiidor Ideals. By Lewis Einstein. (London : Bell, 1921.) 

Nineteen years ago Mr. Einstein published his illuminating book, The 
Italian Renaissance in England, and this book he meant to serve as an 
introduction to a future history of English sixteenth-century ideals. 
This magnum opus, we regretfully observe, is not to be, for a diplomatic 
career spent mainly in distant parts has interfered with its pursuit. Instead 
of writing history, the author has been engaged in making history. His 
book, he confesses, has another aim 

to justify the apology for its appearance. Dimly conscious as we are of the significance 
of the currents which are now carrying us forward, it is impossible not to realize that 
the great war has marked the end of an epoch, and that we stand to-day at the 
threshold of a new era toward which we are both groping and drifting. . . . Our era 
presents a curious resemblance to the age which forms the subject of this study. Its 
setting is different, its direction is opposite, but in many respects it is not unlike. 

Approaching the history of Tudor ideals in true historical spirit, the author 
sets himself to teach what forms these ideals assumed, whence they were 
derived, and how they came to be what they were. True, there is some 
overlapping in the different chapters, and here and there the chapters 
incline to be sketchy. At the same time Mr. Einstein has studied his 
fascinating subject so thoroughly that he almost makes us believe that it 
is easy. He sets forth the attitude of the people to the Crown, to the 
individual, to conceptions of life and thought, and to all that tended to 
the enrichment of life in luminous fashion, and his setting forth furnishes 
many a clue to the interpretation of the past, and to the tendencies of 
political thought in the present. The book, too, is carefully founded upon 
documents. Seldom, indeed, can we find fault with it, though we are 
surprised to find quoted the letter supposed to have been written by 
Elizabeth to the bishop of Ely : 

Proud Prelate. 

You know what you were before I made you what you are. Obey me instantly, 
or I will unfrock you, by God. 

It is, of course, an eighteenth-century forgery. 

In his able analysis of the theory of majesty Mr. Einstein points out 
that in spite of the boast that Englishmen, unlike men of Europe, were 
not slaves, there was a new spirit of servility hitherto unknown in royal 
annals. Marillac, the French ambassador, remarked that Henry VIII 
had become a ' statue for idolatry '. Nor was this servility confined to 
dignitaries of the church. Members of the family of Henry VIII knelt 
before him in accordance with an etiquette which decreed that no one must 
speak to him 'but in adoration and kneeling'. Naturally Elizabeth 
expected all at court to fall on their knees before her. Details like these 


enforce the lesson that the authority of the Crown must be paramount, 
that all must obey this authority, and that all must render all possible 
respect to the wearer of it. There is nothing novel in this idea : it has long 
been the property of scholars, yet by his skilful marshalling of his material 
the author presses home his point with ability. 

In a dozen chapters Mr. Einstein analyses the individualism of the 
sixteenth century, and in this connexion he has much to say which 
deserves to be pondered. The old order had been the empire or the 
church, the commune, the gild, the scholastic system : the individual is 
always part of some group, and has no existence apart from it. The new 
order was the state, the national church, the merchant, the individual. 
The old order had been authority and asceticism : the new was authority, 
but mingled with it there were reason and joy in the whole of life. For 
a thousand years there had been as much authority in social life as in 
intellectual. Unknown men had been content to build the cathedrals of 
the middle ages, whereas the men of the new age asserted themselves to 
the utmost. The thirst for glory became unquenchable. The statues 
used to be within the cathedral, for they were erected to the glory of 
God. Now they stood in the market-place to be seen of men. Man used 
to be bound to a bishop, a lord, a municipality, a school, or a body. Now 
he proudly steps on the stage as himself, eager to develop his capacities 
for his own benefit, with boundless confidence in his will, his superiority, 
» and his infinite variety. The body, as the author clearly perceives, 
dissolves into the units which compose it. There is no longer the papacy ; 
there is the pope, who is a lord like other lords. There is no longer the 
city ; there is the prince. There is no longer the university ; there is the 
spirit of humanism. The painter ceases to depict the group ; the portrait 
is his masterpiece. He used to describe on the walls of cemeteries the 
triumph of death ; now he describes on the walls of houses the triumph 
of life. All this and much else is set down in the striking piece of work 
which Mr. Einstein has given us. Egbert H. Murray. 

Minnies and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and other 
Records {1553-1620). Vol. i (1553-66). Transcribed by Richard 
Savage with introduction and notes by Edgar I. Fripp. (Publications 
of the Dugdale Society. Vol. i. Oxford, 1921.) 

This well-planned and well-edited volume has a twofold interest, literary 
and historical. It provides material for portraying the life of Stratford- 
on-Avon at the time of Shakespeare's birth ; it includes a number of refer- 
ences to the poet's father, who was for many years prominent in the life 
of the borough ; further, the excellent introduction and notes point out 
several passages in Shakespeare's plays which are illustrated by Stratford 
documents and Stratford doings. The historical interest of the records lies 
in the transition from the ' ancient borough ' with its Gild of the Holy 
Cross maintaining school, almshouse, and bridge, to the ' body Corporate 
and Politic ' of 1553 with its common council, bailiff, and head alderman. 
Mr. Fripp traces the history of the Gild of the Holy Cross, whose chapel 
was built in or soon after 1269 and whose schoolhouse dated from 1427-S. 

1922 REVIEWS OF BOOKS ' 283 

At the dissolution of the gild in 1548 the annual value of its lands and 
possessions was £43. The charter of incorporation was granted (1553) 
in response to the petition of the townsfolk, backed up probably by the lord 
of the manor, the earl of Warwick. Henceforth there was to be a common 
council composed of fourteen aldermen and fourteen capital burgesses ; 
these jointly were to elect year by year a bailiff and head alderman, who 
were to be justices of the peace within the borough. The chamberlains 
were to see to the maintenance of the almshouse and of the grammar- 
school, which was renamed, not very truthfully, the king's new school of 
Stratford-on-Avon. The lord of the manor was to nominate the vicar 
and schoolmaster and to approve the bailiff. Eight days after the signing 
of the charter King Edward died, and within two months by the execution 
of the duke of Northumberland the manor of Stratford passed to Queen 
Mary. Ample illustration of the unquietness of the succeeding years is 
furnished by the borough documents. Stratford was strongly Protestant, 
and ' frays ' between men of opposite views as to religion seem to have been 
frequent. The queen's appointment of Roger Dyos as vicar was evidently 
unpopular. For sixteen months his stipend was withheld altogether, 
though at last a portion was paid. Afterwards, on the news of his con- 
templated departure, he received a further sum, but the balance was not 
paid till he sued the corporation seventeen years later. Mary's reign was 
evidently regarded as a disagreeable interval not likely to last long. When 
the old schoolmaster William Dalan was granted a pension of £8 and 
a chamber next the Gildhall, he was directed to continue the celebration 
of mass in the chapel and on feast-days in the parish church ; but the 
significant words are added, ' as long as he shall live and be lawfully 
disposed to the same '. 

The documents transcribed by Mr. Savage are varied in character, 
beginning with the charter of incorporation (twenty- two pages in length). 
Then follow the proceedings of the court leet and view of frankpledge 
for the years 1554 to 1560, interspersed with sundry agreements and the 
book of orders for 1557. Then comes the rent-roll for 1560-1 and the 
court-roll for 4 May 1561, with various accounts, and minutes of corporation 
meetings. After 1561 there is no entry headed ' View of Frankpledge '. 
The new corporation, like the old court leet, found it a hard matter to 
restrain the wanderings of pigs and ducks, or the propensities of lazy 
householders to make rubbish-heaps where they would. Many fines were 
inflicted for breaking the assize of bread and ale, and for affrays, particularly 
at fair-time. In 1556 an official was appointed, with a distinctive coat, to 
oversee ' all sturdy and strange beggars '. Interesting details are furnished 
as to the fairs (held twice a year), the practice of archery, and the frequent, 
though forbidden, games of bowls. There are many references also to 
the ' inmakes ' or inmates, which may be compared with the similar com- 
plaints in the Southampton Assembly Books half a century later. The 
objection to inmates, as Dr. Horrocks has pointed out, was that they 
increased the risk of infection and fire, and that they might very likely 
come upon the town for relief. 

The Dugdale Society is to be congratulated on the quality and the 
usefulness of its first publication. Caroline A. J. Skeel. 


The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. A study of their 
politics, civil life, and government :. 1558-80, By John Hungerford 
Pollen, S.J. (London : Longmans, 1920.) 

In recent years much welcome light has been thrown on the interesting 
section of English life which foimd itself unable to accept what has been 
called ' the Elizabethan settlement '. From 1905 onward the lengthening 
row of volumes issued by the Catholic Record Society has contributed 
many valuable materials. The two beatifications of English martyrs 
in 1886 and 1895 have led to the publication of several volumes containing 
their lives, and some general discussions as to the incidence and character 
of the various stages of persecution to which the martyrs fell victims. 
The progressive opening and calendaring of archives at home and abroad 
has continued to furnish fresh information of a specially valuable kind. 
Thus, bit by bit, the full materials for the story are becoming available. 
An interesting story it is, though it concerns a by-way of history whether 
regarded as rational or ecclesiastical ; it is full of a drama of hopes and 
fears, lit up by much heroism, as well as spiced by a considerable element of 

It is natural that, so far, biography rather than history has taken 
advantage of the situation. The beatifications have focused attention on 
certain groups of actors, with the result that Bishop Challoner's biographical 
work has been done over again, on a larger scale, and with fresh wealth 
of illustration and detail. The public, too, which is interested in the 
subject most readily welcomes biography : it is a small and compact 
company of people interested in its own heroes. So Gillow's Biographical 
Dictionary has foimd its supplement, just as Challoner's Memorials have 
done ; but what is lacking is a survey on broad historical lines of the 
position of the recusants in England and the exiles abroad. 

Father Pollen is aware of this, and his book is an interesting attempt 
to meet the need. ' I am here endeavouring ', he says in his introduction, 
' to supply an historical background, against which the work of others 
will be seen in due proportion.' At the same time it is doubtful how far 
he has succeeded in his laudable, but difficult, aim. The title which he has 
chosen raises larger hopes than the book satisfies. This volume deals only 
with the first twenty-two years of Queen Elizabeth, and the scene is laid 
for the most part not in England but abroad. It is the diplomatic archives 
which are most successfully employed ; with the result that, while much is 
shown of the political side of the matter, the inner life and the religious 
and social position of the party are very little handled or exemplified. 
We are made to see the situation mainly through the eyes of the exiles. 
This is unsatisfactory unless at the same time something better authenti- 
cated is also produced. For the exiles suffered from the usual disadvan- 
tages of the emigre, fed upon extravagant rumours and false hopes, and 
misled into fantastical ideas and projects. 

What in reality was the extent of recusancy, or of disaffection towards 
the Elizabethan view of religion ? This is a question of primary impor- 
tance ; but the book gives very little help towards arriving at any fair 
conclusion. The fancies of the emigre are very little confronted with the 


sober evidence of English returns, lists, and estimates : nor even with 
general impressions formed on the spot. 

What in reality was the extent of actual prosecution ? How far were 
fines exacted, oaths actually tendered, or prisons filled ? How far were 
the persecuting laws enforced ? Or, in whatever degree they were not, 
to what causes and to whose influence is the mitigation to be traced ? 
Again we ask the questions in vain. 

Questions of this nature are of much greater importance than many of 
the rival attractions which usurp the student's attention, such as the invent- 
ing, or the pooh-poohing, of plots. They may be of secondary interest to the 
apologist ; but they are of prime interest to the historian. Until they 
are solved we are at the mercy of the controversialists, the politicians, 
the diplomatists both amateur and professional, the underworld of informers 
and spies : an uncomfortable position, which still prevails. 

Underneath all this phantasmagoria there is a real world, in which 
people live and act and think ; in which they go to church with some 
sort of conscience, or they do not ; in which perhaps they combine some 
church-going with some venturesome hearing of mass in secret or some 
harbouring of a recusant priest. There are parishes which are content or 
not content with the new ways, and with the new parson, or more often 
with the old one who with more or less of conviction has conformed. 
There are districts which are conservative and districts which are innovat- 
ing. There are views which are protestant and anti-catholic, there are views 
which are catholic and anti-Roman. Where in the midst of all this real 
life is the recusant or the conservative ? If we can get nearer to such 
realities as these, we can afford to care less for Elizabeth and her whims 
or policies, for popes and emperors, for the rivalries of France and Spain. 

The subject of ' The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ' 
seems to demand something more of this sort than the book provides. 
Perhaps the time for accomplishing so difficult a task has hardly come. 
The history of the exiles abroad is another and an easier matter : and 
writers like Lechat who have recently taken up that theme have chosen 
the simpler part. But the situation in England deserves more elucidation 
than it has received as yet : and many judgements must meanwhile be 
held in suspense. W. H. Frere. 

Matthew Prior. A Study of his Public Career and Correspondence. By 
L. G. WiCKHAM Legg. (Cambridge : University Press, 1921.) 

This life of Matthew Prior suffers from the disadvantage of having been 
compiled before, but published after, Mr. Bickley's book on the same 
subject which appeared in 1914. As far as the principal and printed 
sources of information on Prior are concerned, little could be usefully 
added to Mr. Bickley's work. On the other hand, apart from those sources, 
little would have been left of Mr. liCgg's. In the circumstances Mr. Legg 
has decided to publish his book as it stood, although chapters i to vii, 
up to the secret mission of 1711, and chapter xii, after the secret com- 
mittee of 1715, consist chiefly of matter already to be found in the corre- 
sponding chapters of the earlier biography. 

The remainder of the book throws some light, largely derived 


from unpublished material in the Record Oflfice and the archives of the 
French Foreign Office, on the four eventful years during which Prior 
attained a transient and, as it proved, a not wholly enviable eminence. 
A memorandum from Torcy supplements Prior's account of his secret 
mission to Paris in 1711 ; ^ his share in the protracted and complicated 
negotiations which followed is fully described ; and his innocence or rather 
ignorance of the overtures made to the Pretender is demonstrated from 
correspondence preserved in the French archives, part of which was for 
the first time published by Mr. Legg in a previous volume of this Review.^ 
The last fact places Prior's subsequent misfortunes in a rather entertaining 
perspective. The succeeding whig ministers, confidently reckoning to 
find in him a valuable and a yielding repository of incriminating state 
secrets, haled him before their secret committee, where he was subjected 
to that ten hours' examination which he himself has so feelingly described. 
They bullied him, they imprisoned him, they even excepted him from the 
general amnesty of 1717. All was in vain. Prior divulged nothing what- 
ever for the excellent reason that his former masters and friends had 
prudently taken the precaution of leaving him nothing whatever to divulge. 

R. R. Sedgwick. 

Letters of Members of the Continental Congress. Edited by E. C. Burnett. 
Vol. i, 29 August 1774—4 July 1776. (Washington, D.C. : Carnegie 
Institution, 1921.) 

The historical department of the Carnegie Institution of Washington has 
done a very useful work in entrusting to the very competent hands of 
Dr. Burnett the task of collecting and editing the material that has sur- 
vived relating to the American Continental Congress of 1774r-83. The 
published Journals cannot but be in the nature of dry bones which need 
the covering of contemporary letters and diaries to become imbued with 
life and meaning. 

It may seem, at first sight, that the present collection is, in one way, 
a little disappointing, though we are indeed promised better results in future 
volumes. What with the published writings of John Samuel Adams, 
the numerous biographies of those connected with the congress, and the 
documents published in Force's American Archives, the amount of 
manuscript material remaining to be unearthed, at least so far as these 
two first years are concerned, seems to have been of no very great impor- 
tance. At the same time there is great practical convenience in having 
such material under a single cover, instead of its being scattered in scores 
of volumes. 

It is accordingly inevitable that the publication of this volume should 
throw no startingly new light on the character of the congress. The 
personality of John Adams, as revealed by quotations from his Diary 
and from his letters, still holds the foremost place on the stage of the 
history ; though we can gather from the material here presented a clearer 
picture of the separate views of the more extreme and the more moderate 
parties at the congress. A letter, from the Lee Transcripts of the Virginia 
Historical Society, written by Carter Braxton, a New Hampshire delegate, 
* See ante, xxix. 525 £f. » Ante xxx. 501 ff. 


to his uncle, shows very clearly the temper that still prevailed among 
some members of the congress, as late as April 1776. 

However strange it may appear, I am satisfied that the Eastern Colonies do not mean 
to have a reconciliation, and in this I am justified by public and private reasons. . . . 
Two of the New England colonies enjoy a government purely democratical, the nature 
and principle of which, both civil and religious, are so totally incompatible with 
Monarchy, that they have ever lived in a restless state under it. The other two, though 
not so popular in their frame, bordered so near upon it that monarchical influence 
hung very heavy on them. The best opportunity in the world being now offered them 
to throw off all subjection and embrace their darling democracy, they are determined 
to accept it. These are aided by those of a private nature, but not less cogent. The 
colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut, who rule the other two, have claims 
on the province of Pennsylvania in the whole for near one-third of the land within their 
provincial boimds and indeed the claim, extended to its full extent, comes within four 
miles of this city (Philadelphia). This dispute was carried to the King and Council, 
and with them it now lies. . . . And yet without any adjustment of those disputes, 
and a variety of other matters, some are for lugging us into independence. But so 
long as these remain unsettled and men act upon the principles they ever have done, 
you may rely no such thing will be generally agreed on. Upon reviewing the secret 
movements of men and things I am convinced that the assertion of independence is 
far off. If it was now to be asserted, the Continent will be torn in pieces by intestine 
wars and convulsions. Previous to independence all disputes must be healed and 
harmony prevail. A grand Continental league must be formed and a superintending 
power also. ... It is a true saying of a wit — We must hang together or separately ! ' 

Very suggestive also is the disagreement between the northern and the 
southern delegates over the question of military pay. The latter thought 
that the common soldiers received too much and the officers too little ; 
the former that the exactly opposite state of things prevailed. 

There is a further reason why the contents of the present volume reveal 
less than might have been expected. The delegates were sworn to secrecy, 
and letter after letter emphasizes this fact in tiresome apologies for saying 
so little. Again one becomes rather weary of the constant complaints of the 
delegates at the length of the hours during which they have to work. 

Still, with all its limitations, the volume is a storehouse of most, valuable 
knowledge and is well worthy of the time and labour that have been 
expended on it. A subsidiary truth which it enforces is the fallibility of 
men's memories. JefEerson honestly believed that the Declaration of 
Independence had been signed on 4 July by every member of the congress, 
except Dickinson ; it now seems almost proved that the document was 
not, in fact, so signed till a later date, after it had been engrossed on 
parchment. H. E. Egerton. 

TewpyLov 'I. ZoXwra 'IcTTO/oia t^s Xiov. Toyu,o9 A'. I. 'laTopiKrj ToTroypa(f>ia. 
fEv "AO-^vais. TrjTOis U. A. Sa/ccAXapt'ov, 1921.) 

This first instalment of the late George Zolotas's posthumous historical, 
genealogical, and topographical account of his native island is appropriately 
published in time for the centenary of the Massacre of Chios, which so 
deeply stirred Europe in 1822. Its publication is due to the patriotism and 
generosity of a number of his fellow-islanders resident in England, France, 
Greece, Egypt, and India, three of whom, K. Argentes, K. Kalvokoreses, 
and K. Petrokokkinos, formed an editorial committee, and entrusted the 
task of putting together the late scholar's rich materials to his daughter. 



K* Sdrou, If we may judge from the contents of the present volume, the 
complete work will form the most comprehensive history of Chios that 
has yet been published. For since Vlastos issued his Xiaxa in 1840 (the 
second part of which was translated into English by Mr. A. P. Ralli in 
1913, the year after the Greek annexation of the island) much has been 
written about its interesting history. Besides Rodokandkes' gigantic, but 
discursive, biographical treatise on the Giustiniani, and Hopf's scholarly 
disquisition upon them (exhumed and presented in a portable French 
translation by another Vlastos), two numbers of a valuable periodical, 
Xiaxa XpovLKo., have seen the light, and the late F. W. Hasluck studied the 
Latin monuments of Chios. 

The present volume is topographical, dealing with the geology and 
climate, the trade and products — very important subjects in so mercantile 
a community as Chios — and the geographical names of places in ancient, 
medieval, and modern times. There is a full account of the mastic and the 
wine, and it is interesting to learn that ' some English merchants were 
settled at Scio soon after the establishment of our commerce in the Levant 
in consequence of its connexion with the port of Smyrna ', as Dallaway 
says, just as a considerable number of the Greeks in England are, like the 
famous house of Ralli, of Chian origin. There is an analysis of the names 
mentioned in the golden bull of 1259, which is a valuable source for the 
medieval topography of Chios. Specially interesting are the derivations 
of some place-names from foreign races connected with the island in the 
middle ages, Catalans, Armenians, Cumans, and Slavs. Like the Morea, 
Chios had a ' Castle of the Fair Woman ' with a picturesque ballad about 
it, and a legendary foundation of Belisarius, the castle of Volissos. Of 
the churches the most famous is that of Nea Mone, founded by Constantine 
IX Monomachos and stormed by the Turks during the massacre. A large 
map accompanies the volume, which also contains a copious, but (for the 
foreign names in Latin type) not always accurate, bibliography. We shall 
await with interest the volume on the Maona. W. Miller. 

Essays on the Latin Orient. By William Miller. (Cambridge : Uni- 
versity Press, 1921.) 

In this substantial volume, which is a collection oi reprinted and revised 
articles^ and monographs, Mr. Miller continues his work on the Latin Orient, 
of which The Latins in the Levant was an earlier instalment. The present 
volume has a wider chronological range than its predecessor, which was 
confined to the period between 1204 and 1566. To this chapter iii, 
* Frankish and Venetian Greece ', which fills nearly half of the present 
book, corresponds ; but we now have on a smaller scale earlier chapters, 
' The Romans in Greece ' and ' Byzantine Greece ', and at the other end 
chapters on ' Turkish Greece ' and ' The Venetian Revival in Greece ', 
which carry the story down to 1718. Fresh ground is broken also in 
chapter iv, ' The Genoese Colonies in Greece '. The seventh and last 
chapter groups together as ' Miscellanea ' six papers on subjects which 
do not easily fall into the general framework of the book. The whole 
is the work of a scholar who has made this province of history peculiarly 

* See ante, xxxv. 343. 


his own with all its complicated and bewildering details, which only give 
way to comparatively simple conditions under the deadening influence of 
the Turkish domination. No part of the Prankish history of Greece is more 
full of these details than Mr. Miller's new chapter on the history of the 
Genoese colonies in Phocaea, Chios, and Lesbos, interesting, as he points 
out, as being an early example of the government of a colonial dependency 
by a chartered company. Of the thirteen sections into which the chapter 
on Frankish and Venetian Greece is divided, the most interesting are those 
dealing with the marquisate of Boudonitza and with Crete and the Ionian 
Islands under Venetian rule. The earlier sections on the Frankish conquest 
and on Athens under the dukes and Florentines deal with subjects already 
treated in The Latins in the Levant, and suffer also somewhat from the 
repetitious inevitable in a book made of a collection of independent articles. 
A few points in the book call for more detailed notice. 

In the chapter on Byzantine Greece the Slavonic theories of Fall- 
merayer are discussed, and the author points out how small was the basis 
upon which the whole imposing structure was raised. But something 
more may now be made of the evidence of the language than the bare 
statement, itself perfectly true, that not ' even the vulgar language con- 
tains any considerable Slavonic element ' (p. 35). Dr. Gustav Meyer's 
researches {Netigriechische Studien, ii) have shown that of 273 Slav words 
in use either generally or for the most part only in certain dialects, more 
than two-thirds are confined to northern Greece and especially to Epeirus, 
whilst the Peloponnese can claim as peculiar to itself no more than thirty- 
one. This indicates that it was in northern Greece that the Slavonic 
invasions were on a considerable scale, rather than in the Peloponnese, 
upon which Fallmerayer laid so much stress, and supports Mr, Miller's 
use of the quotation on p. 39 from the Epitome of Strabo's Geography 
with its stress upon ' all Epeirus ' in the list of regions colonized by the 
Slavs. A saying that the Greek clergy ' preferred the turban of a Turkish 
priest to the red hat of a Roman cardinal ' is quoted on p. 77, and we do 
not question the correctness of the attribution, from Voltaire. But in a book 
on Greece it would have been better to give the saying in its original form, 
* Better to see in the midst of the city the Turkish turban (<^aKidAiov) than 
the Latin mitre {Kokvirrpav)', and to refer to Ducas, who puts it (p. 148 CD) 
into the mouth of the Grand Duke Notaras at the time of the Turkish 
siege. On the subject of the Tzakonians the author (p. 98) mentions the 
list of Tzakonian words given by the Byzantine satirist Mazaris. The 
curious point about these words is that there is no other evidence to 
connect any of them with Tzakonian, whilst one at least of them {ip)(6vTr](Tav} 
is definitely non-Tzakonian, but is characteristic of the common Greek 
of the north-east Peloponnesos. It is not likely that Mazaris knew any- 
thing of the dialect, and it would seem that he jotted down a few barbarous 
forms, and that the nearest he got to Tzakonian was that some at least of 
them were in vulgar use in the Peloponnese. He should not be quoted 
without qualification as a medieval evidence for Tzakonian. The name of 
the castle where Mohammed II broke wrists and ankles of the Albanians, 
Tokmak Hissari, does not mean, as we are told on p. 104, ' the castle of the 
ankles ' but ' the castle of the mallet '. By the side of a most useful facsimile 
of the Karditsa inscription on the battle of the Kephissos the author, gives. 


on p. 134 Bucbon's transcription with its obvious errors : IIIOY for AFIOY 
in the second line and AYTA for AYTEI {avrq) in the eighth. The inscrip- 
tion is not altogether easy reading, and it would have been better to give 
a fresh reading of it in ordinary minuscules, rather than a version which 
perpetuates Buchon's errors without clearing up the difficulties. With 
regard to Buchon's AYTA the facsimile is clearly correct, as 11. 7 and 8 are 
in the metre into which the iambic trimeter developed in Byzantine hands, 
dodecasyllabic lines which must have an accent on the penultimate 
syllable, and therefore at the end of such a verse the avr?; of the facsimile 
scans, whilst Buchon's AYTA (avra) does not. Codespotos was the litle, 
the author tells lis on p. 302, familiarly given to the Chian officials known as 
rettori. But when he explains it as ' joint-lords ' he must surely be wrong. 
The derivation is to be sought in Ducange's entry : oiKoSeoTrorijs, 'pater- 
familias, rather than in co Sco-ttott^s. 

In the passage on pp. 368, 369 on the Stradioti, which has already 
appeared in The Latins in the Levant, p. 482, we are told that ' a whole 
literature of their poems has been published, mostly written in a peculiar 
dialect resembling that now spoken in Calabria, where many Greek songs 
are still sung by the descendants of the numerous Epeirote families settled 
there after the Turkish conquest '. This can hardly be taken to mean 
anything else but that the published poems of the Stradioti are written 
in the Greek dialect now spoken in a few villages in Calabria, and that 
the Greek songs still sung there were brought with the people from their 
homes in Greece. We do not know any other published poems of the 
Stradioti except those in the volumes of Sathas' Mvry/Acta (vii-ix) referred 
to by the author, and these are in Italian interspersed with a few, and only 
a few, Greek words and phrases. The modern Calabrian folk-songs, though 
written in genuine Greek, are, so far as they have been published by 
Morosi, shaped upon Italian models and entirely different in form and 
content from the folk-songs of any part of Greece, and must therefore 
have been composed after the people came to Calabria. 

The runic inscription carved on the marble lion now outside the 
Arsenal at Venice, whither it was brought in 1688 from the Piraeus by 
Morosini, is mentioned three times, and at least on pp. 64, 396, the writer 
adopts the old view that the inscription contains the name of Harald 
Hardrada, This error began with Rafn in 1856, and from him passed 
into Hopf's Geschichte Griechenlands, and has thus gained currency. 
But Soph us Bugge in 1875 wrote that this reading is purely fanciful ; that 
the most that can be said is that the inscription is a variety of runic, 
and written by a Varangian of the eleventh century. Bugge's view is 
adopted and Rafn's rejected by Vilhelm Thomsen ^ and by Gregorovius,^ 
and the point has been fully worked out by Lampros in a note to his Greek 
translation of Gregorovius.^ 

It is a matter for congratulation that it has been found possible to 
reissue these chapters, and that so much interesting and important work 
has not been left half-buried in the old files of various periodicals and 
reviews. The book is a worthy successor to The Latins in the Levant. 

R. M. Dawkins. 

• The Relations between ancient Russia and Scandinavia, 1877, p. 109. 

^ Geschichte der Stadt Athen im MiUelalter (3rd ed., i. 170). * Ibid. p. 23V. 

1922 . 291 

Short Notices 

Miss Lina Eckenstein, one of Flinders Petrie's excavating party of 
1905-6 at the ancient Egyptian copper and turquoise mines, has written 
a little History of Sinai from the earliest times to the present day (London : 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1921). Egyptians worked the 
mines in Wadi Maghara and, offered at the neighbouring shrine of Hathor 
at Serabit El Khadim at least as early as the first dynasty, and thereafter, 
with interruptions, until the end of the New Kingdom, about 1100 b. c. 
In support of the evidence in the name of Sinai of a primitive worship of 
the moon-god (Sin), Miss Eckenstein quotes the oldest Egyptian monu- 
ments found on the spot ; and she would place the primary goal of the 
Exodus at the ancient cult-centre of Serabit. The next records of this 
barren region are graffiti of Nabataean caravans, after which arrives 
a flood of stories of anchorites and monasteries, and of pilgrims to the 
sacred places. In the fifth century came the remarkable lady Etheria 
who recognized all the landmarks of the Exodus, among them the vast 
ruts made by Pharaoh's chariot-wheels at Suez. The flood of Christianity 
has long since narrowed down to the convent of St. Catharine, and 
geographers and archaeologists in late years overshadow the pious bene- 
factors and pilgrims. Miss Eckenstein seems to have collected her facts 
and traditions industriously, so far at any rate as they are accessible in 
English, French, or Latin, and has furnished her book with a useful index ; 
but her bibliographical references are unsatisfactory, and she should have 
known that it was 'Abbas Hilmy and not Husein Kamil who succeeded 
Tewfik as khedive of Egypt in 1892. F. Ll. G. 

Mr. P. A. Means, in his introduction to the Memorias Antiguas Historiales 
del Peru of Fernando Montesinos, which he has translated and edited for 
the Hakluyt Society (1920), attempts to ' strip away all the husks of 
credulity and superstition ' and to detect ' the folk-lore material hidden 
in Montesinos ', and particularly the part derived from the works, now 
lost, of the Jesuit Bias Valera. A series of tables gives Maya chronology 
from 150 b. c. and Andean chronology from a. d. 150, Montesinos's list 
of ninety pre-Inca kings, and the editor's revised list which reduces the 
number to about fifty, and lastly an outline of Andean history based on 
archaeological research and an adaptation of the list of kings to the 
result of these researches. The book is intended for ' the student of 
Andean proto-history '. F. A. K. 

The fifth, sixth, and seventh volumes of the handsome edition of The 
Collected Historical Works of Sir Francis Palgrave, K.H,, published at the 
Cambridge University Press (1921), contain The History of the Anglo- 


292 8H0RT NOTICES April 

Saxons and The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, Anglo- 
Saxon Period, with its massive supplement of ' Proofs and Illustrations '. 
These books were originally published in 1831 and 1832, and, as is well 
known, differ widely in their scope. The History of the Anglo-Saxons was 
planned on the model of Scott's Tales of a Grandfather and was issued in 
the 'Family Library' : it was to be a book ' that you may carry to the fire, 
and hold readily in your hand '. Palgrave would no doubt have been 
surprised to see his slim little volume reappear in large octavo, with a 
collection of most valuable historical and philological notes, and a series 
of pedigrees contributed by that learned and exact scholar. Professor H. M. 
Chadwick. The English Commonwealth stands on a very different footing. 
It represents an important stage in the interpretation of the materials for 
the history of our institutions, and it will be read at the present time with 
a larger amount of agreement than it would have received fifty years ago. 
The republication of the two books together enables the reader to under- 
stand something of the extraordinary breadth of the author's accomplish- 
ments. We have here a History of the Anglo-Saxons in 233 pages. The 
concluding chapters of the English Commonwealth contain a survey of the 
same period in 179 pages ; and in the volume of ' Proofs and Illustrations '' 
it is once more dealt with in ' summaries ' arranged under the different 
* heptarchic ' kingdoms, which extend to 335 pages. And yet in going 
over the ground three times Palgrave has succeeded in producing three 
almost entirely independent presentments of the course of events. In 
the English Commonwealth he introduced a great deal of illustrative matter 
relating to Wales and Scotland, and in the volume of ' Proofs ' he checked 
the succession of rulers by means of full excerpts from charters. That 
many of the charters are now rejected as forgeries need not be concealed ;. 
but Palgrave wrote some years before Kemble began publishing his 
Codex. In like manner he is not to be reproached for his treatment of 
the Anglo-Saxon laws, for the critical editing of them belongs to a later 
time : he had not even Thorpe to refer to, far less Schmid or Liebermann. 
His work will nevertheless be consulted by scholars for its originality, its 
wealth of suggestion, and its prodigal use of comparison (not always indeed 
relevant) with the legal customs of Scandinavia and other lands ; but ifc 
must never be forgotten that it is a work published in 1832. The present 
edition is a faithful reprint in which none but manifest slips have been 
corrected, and these changes are carefully marked by square brackets. 
We have noticed a single instance in the History of the Anglo-Saxons in 
which ' brother ' has been erroneously altered into ' son ' (v. 67). The 
writers of the notes, on which several hands seem to have been engaged, 
have wisely limited themselves to details and their references are extremely 
useful. Now and then a spurious authority is allowed to pass, but such 
instances are exceptional and need not be here noticed. We must, however, 
deplore that it was thought necessary to furnish translations of all the 
easy Latin of the texts quoted, and even of modern French, so that the 
volume of ' Proofs and Illustrations ' is swollen to the ponderous bulk of 
942 pages. Although a large part of the materials which Palgrave printed 
from manuscripts has been published since his time, still these ' Proofs and 
Illustrations ' remain a quarry in which the student will continue to dig„ 


and seldom without profit. It need not be said that it is not a book for the 
beginner, and through all the three volumes the reader must keep his 
critical powers actively awake. R. L. P. 

In his History of Pisa (Cambridge : University Press, 1921) the late 
Mr. W. Heywood has traced the development of the Tuscan maritime 
commune during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. He relates at length 
its wars with the Saracens, its role in the Crusades, its commercial activities, 
its bitter rivalry with Genoa. He has worked through the local sources 
with admirable thoroughness, quoting freely from them in the foot-notes. 
Unfortunately he has limited his researches to the contents of his own 
library, which appears to have been inadequate for his task. He constantly 
cites his authorities at second hand or from obsolete editions. Thus (p. 16) 
he quotes Gerberb from Amari's Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia for a legend 
that Gerbert as Pope Silvester II in 999 proclaimed a crusade against the 
Moslems ; but M. Ha vet in his edition of the letters has shown that the 
letter in question was written some years before Gerbert became pope, 
probably in 993, and that it contains no idea of a crusade in it. The legend 
thus becomes yet more legendary. On p. 105 by quoting Otto of Freising 
through the medium of Muratori's Annali d'ltalia he is led into a hope- 
less misrepresentation of the bishop's words. ' Otto of Frisingen saw the 
Lucchese captives "wasted, squalid and miserable in the dungeons of Pisa, 
drawing tears of compassion from the eyes of every passing stranger '"is 
Mr. Heywood's rendering, to magnify the triumph of the Pisans over the 
men of Lucca, of the following passage : ' Porro ex Pisanis et Lucensibus 
non tantum plurimi ferro cesi compendio mortis miseriam miserabiliter 
terminavere, sed et innumerabiles utrovis comprehensi ac longa, ut ipse 
vidi, carceris inedia et squalore macerati omnibus pretereuntibus lacri- 
mabile humani casus in se spectaculum prebent ' {Chron. vii, c. xxix). 
But for the history of Pisa the most extraordinary oversight is displayed 
when the author speaks of the constitutions granted by Frederick Barba- 
rossa through the agency of his chancellor Rainald of Dassel in the year 
1162. ' Although ', he says (p. 159), ' the concordia with Lucca is the only 
one which has come down to us, it is practically certain that similar con- 
ventions were entered into with other cities.' Certain indeed, for in addi- 
tion to the convention with Lucca, similar conventions were granted and 
are printed in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Constitutiones et Acta 
Pvblica, i, pp. 282 ff., for Genoa, Cremona, Ravenna, and Pisa itself. This 
important grant of privileges to Pisa Mr. Heywood has entirely ignored, 
and when, nearly thirty years later (1191), it was confirmed in almost 
identical words by Henry VI, he gives a full account of it and regards it 
as a striking innovation; 'these were the prizes', he writes, 'which 
might well be Pisa's, if Henry fulfilled his promises. What wonder that 
the enthusiasm of the citizens for the Sicilian expedition rose to fever-heat ' 
(p. 222). It is a pity that an otherwise useful and careful piece of work 
should be spoiled by such blunders. A. L. P. 

Dr. A. Cartellieri's article ' Die auswartige Politik der Staufer ' con- 
tributed to the Korrespondenzblatt des Gesamtvereins der deutschen Geschichts- 


und Altertumsvereine, 1921, contains little that is new ; many of his con- 
clusions the author has already published in a series of monographs dealing 
with this period, viz. Die staufischen Kaiser und die Auffassung ihrer 
allgemeinen Politik {Neue Heidelberger Jahrhiicher, xiii, 1904) ; Heinrich VI, 
Leipzig, 1914 ; Philipp August und der Zusammenhruch des angeviniscJien 
Reiches, read before the International Historical Congress in London, 
1913. However the present article is not without its value. It attempts 
to explain and connect together the intricate diplomatic history of the 
period. During the reigns of Conrad III and Frederick I the danger which 
threatened the empire came from the Normans of Sicily ; and the menace 
which alliances with the eastern empire, with France, and with England 
were unable to dispel was only finally overcome by the marriage of the 
heir to the empire with the heiress of the Norman kingdom. The 
principal feature which marks the later part of the period with which 
Dr. CarteUieri deals was the alliance of Hohenstaufen and Capetian ou 
the one side, of Welf and Angevin on the other. Much research has 
been done in recent years on various aspects of Hohenstaufen policy. 
The notes at the end of the article contain a useful and critical though 
very brief review of the results of work done by German scholars during 
and since the war which is still not easily accessible to English readers. 

A. L. P. 

Lady Goodenough has rendered a service to students of the middle 
ages and to lovers of a romantic narrative by giving them in two volumes 
the first English translation of The Chronicle of Muntaner (London : 
Hakluyt Society, 1920-1). Buchon considered his edition of 1827 so 
unsatisfactory that he revised it in his second edition of 1841, and nearly 
eighty years have elapsed since the Italian translation of Moise and the 
German version of Lanz. Since then the researches of Hopf and Don 
Antonio Rubio y Lluch have illuminated that part of the Chronicle which 
refers to Muntaner's experiences in Greece. Here the translator does 
not seem to be quite abreast with modern scholarship. For example, 
there is no mystery now (ii. 629, n. 1) about the ' son of the count of 
Aria '. Hopf ^ showed from the Angevin records that the person meant 
was Isnard de Sabran, son of Ermengaud, Coimt of Ariano in Apulia. 
The duke of Athens (ii. 568) whom Muntaner ' found ill ' at Thebes was 
not Guillaume but Guy II, and of the other persons mentioned in that 
connexion ' En Juan Teri ' or ' Tari ' was Giovanni Quirini, ' Miyot ' 
was Minotto, and ' Juan de Misi ' or ' de Amici ' Jean de Maisy. The famous 
cross of the Zaccaria (ii. 561) is now at Genoa. As the Latin kingdom of 
Salonika lasted only till 1223 and was never contemporary with the 
Greek empire at Constantinople, it should scarcely figure on the map at 
the end of volume ii. Muntaner's Chronicle, as the translator says in her 
excellent introduction, is ' a very human document ', whose author com- 
mands our sympathies, and English readers are fortunate in at last having 
a translation which reads like an original piece of good English. There 
are three maps, a table of contemporary rulers, and a copious index. 

W. M. 

• Apvd Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine ETtcyklopddie, hcxxv. 344. 


As Heft 67 of tlie ' Abhandlungen zur Mittleren und Neueren Geschichte ' 
there appears Der Kamjpf urn Sizilien in den Jahren 1302-1337 by Dr. 
Eugen Haberkern (Leipzig: Rothschild, 1921). Dr. Haberkern handles, 
in a careful and scholarly manner, a subject which has hitherto received 
inadequate treatment. His work is in efEect a political history of the reign 
of Frederick II (or III, as he preferred to style himself) from the peace 
of Caltabellota to Frederick's death in 1337. The author has been able 
frequently to throw new light on the period by the use of sources as yet 
imprinted. He is not overwhelmed by details, and tells the story in a 
picturesque and interesting manner ; the notes are relegated to the end, 
so that the reader's attention is not distracted from the narrative. 
Frederick's career deserved a worthy historian. The young prince of 
Aragon, who had accepted the invitation of the Sicilians when they were 
deserted by his elder brother ; who maintained his purpose resolutely 
to establish a dynasty of kings of Sicily, in spite of the peace of Calta- 
bellota and the title of ' rex Trinacriae ' that was all that the pope would 
allow ; who faced the allied powers of the papacy and the Angevins of 
Naples with little support other than the diplomatic assistance of the kings 
of Aragon, his brother and nephew, and occasional backing from the 
Ghibelline party in Italy — such a man was a fitting hero for a larger stage. 
Dr. Haberkern pictures him as a medieval knight, chivalrous and im- 
petuous, anything rather than a diplomatist. But Frederick could bide 
his time when necessary, and bear the frequent blows of fortune with 
patience. It was surely not rashness, but prudence, that caused him to 
risk so much when he allied himself with the Emperor Henry VII ; here 
was the opportunity to realize his highest hopes, and he seized it. He 
failed, only owing to Henry's death. When Lewis the Bavarian came into 
Italy, Frederick risked nothing by joining him, but it was an excess of 
caution that made success impossible on this occasion. As the narrative 
proceeds, it becomes increasingly a matter of surprise that Frederick 
was not overwhelmed by his difficulties. The temperament of his great 
enemy, Robert of Naples, was an asset in his favour ; there were frequent 
occasions, it seems, when Robert, had he struck with all his power, must 
have reconquered Sicily. But it is unwise to speculate ; the alliances 
and counter-alliances, as Dr. Haberkern shows, were so intricate that it 
was impossible to tell what the enemy's strength might be, difficult to 
estimate one's own. The internal politics and economic condition of 
Sicily are only touched upon by the author, so far as they affect the 
position of Frederick ; they become increasingly important as the reign 
advances, and the situation at his death seems so hopeless that Dr. Haber- 
kern is careful to insist that Frederick had not really failed. This the future 
was to prove, more certainly than the past, to which alone the author 
looks. There is one defect in this excellent treatise. It contains no table 
of contents, and there are no chapter-headings. There is an index, but 
only of names, which is of little value by itself. Z. N. B. 

A book on St. Colette can hardly fail to be interesting, but La Belle 
Vie de Sainte Colette de Corbie, by E. Sainte-Marie Perrin (Paris : Plon, s.a.), 
cannot be taken as a serious contribution to history. On p. 40 we read : 


' Father Eubel, who has continued the publication of the BuUarium 
Franciscanum begun by Sbaralea, thus sums up the results of his investiga- 
tions in the Annates Bollandistes ' : then follows a long quotation from 
Father Van Ortroy's review of the seventh volume of the Bullarium in 
Analecta Bollandiana, zxiii. 402. This is typical of the writer's hopelessly 
slipshod work. A. G. L. 

Miss Jessie H. Flemming's England under the Lancastrians (London : 
Longmans, 1921), which is the third of the London University Intermediate 
Source-books, is marked on the whole by the same satisfactory features 
as its predecessors. The notes on the sources have been carefully compiled 
and the selection of passages is judicious, though one misses anything 
bearing on the youth of Henry V and William Lomner's letter describing 
the murder of Suffolk. The length of the period covered must, however, 
have made the choice of material difficult. The translations from Latin 
leave something to be desired : ' maledicti seminaverunt discordias inter 
dominum regem et prefatum comitem ' becomes ' evil-speaking people sowed 
discord between the lords of the realm and the aforesaid Earl ' (p. 13) ; 
' diu transivit de loco ad locum ' does not mean ' he went daily from place 
to place ' (p. 25) ; ' in quibus prae ceteris confidebat ' is expanded into 
' whom he had chosen from amongst them all to be made privy to his 
plans ' (p. 37, where the most interesting and important part of the passage 
relating to Scrope is omitted altogether). There are other doubtful 
renderings, and their presence raises the whole question of the usefulness 
of such source-books for the purpose of teaching. If original sources are 
to be studied in translations, the translation must be as precise and accurate 
as possible, otherwise something is inevitably added to the original which 
it does not contain. It may be doubted whether it is desirable that young 
students should study chronicles either in translations or extracts; the 
bias and peculiar quality of the original will have vanished, and there 
is left little scope for the training of the student in power of discrimination, 
which is the most valuable part of the exercise. The objection does not 
apply in the same degree to the collection of documents, which can be 
more safely dealt with apart from their surroundings and are often difficult 
of access. It may be questioned whether in these volumes it would not 
have been better to omit the extracts from chronicles relating to political 
history (which are of necessity incomplete) altogether, and to confine 
the selection to the illustration of social and economic history, &c., for 
which the collection of material in the present volume is really useful to 
others than those for whom it is primarily intended. C. L. K. 

Dr. Vincenzo Ferrari gives an account, 'II " De republica " di Tito 
Livio de' Frulovisi ', in Studi di Storia, di Letteratura e d'Arte in onore di 
Naborre Campanini (Reggio-Emilia, 1921), of a hitherto unstudied work 
of Frulovisi, the biographer of Henry V. Dr. Ferrari thus confirms a con- 
jecture that such a work existed and was given to Oxford University by 
Humphrey duke of Gloucester.^ The De Republica has a special interest, 
to be expected from Frulovisi's plays of contemporary life, in that it com- 

* See ante, xxx. 77. 


bines classical commonplaces with examples from fifteenth-century Italy. 
It also shows Lionel of Este as his patron after he quitted England. The 
complete publication of this new text of an undeservedly neglected 
humanist is much to be desired. C W. P. 0. 

Mr. F. L. Taylor's essay on The Art of War in Italy, 1494-1529, which 
won the Prince Consort's prize in 1920 (Cambridge : University Press, 
1921), is a very serviceable work on the revolution in Italian warfare 
caused by the French invasion of 1494. He traces its effects separately 
on the several services, infantry, cavalry, artillery, and siege warfare. 
A chapter named * Tactics ' is illustrated by short accounts of the battles 
of Fornovo, Cerignola, Agnadello, Ravenna, No vara, Marignano, Bicocca, 
and Pavia, while a valuable appendix deals at length with Ravenna, for 
which authorities are numerous, and where the general position is clearer 
than usual, though there are difierences in detail, especially in relation to 
the death of Gaston de Foix. If the book is, as we hope, enlarged, more 
space might be given to Agnadello, which had important results, and is 
interesting both for strategy and tactics, though not easy. The mere 
brook, across which it was fought, can hardly be described as a river such 
as the Taro at Fornovo or the Ronco at Ravenna. The high ground of 
which Mr. Taylor, with other writers — for example, Ranke — speaks, is 
imperceptible. When the action was engaged, Alviano was not present, 
and when he reached the attacked rear-guard it was scarcely possible for 
him, apart from his temperament, to break off action. In that case the 
French would have turned the Venetian rear instead of their van, which 
Pitigliano had believed to be their objective, and perhaps originally was. 
We may draw the conclusions that the Italians, in spite or because of 
the Renaissance, were behind the rest of Europe in the art of war, and 
were at the moment singularly lacking in great generals, such as Car- 
magnola, Francesco Sforza, or the Piccinini. No great improvement 
was shown by the close of the period in Italian infantry or cavalry, but 
the scientific services were quick to adapt and improve upon the arts 
of gunnery and the attack and defence of fortresses, in which their experts 
became masters. The actual effects of the French guns in 1494-6 are 
perhaps usually exaggerated ; the two or three fortifications which they 
knocked to pieces were of trifling strength ; it is doubtful what practice 
they would have made against the new constructions at Sarzana or Ostia ; 
as field artillery at Fornovo their execution was not great. The chapter 
on military writers will be found useful. Machiavelli perhaps plays too 
preponderant a part, but that is inevitable, for Machiavelli is the modern 
historians' variant in the text of the old lady's phrase, ' That blessed word 
Mesopotamia '. E. A. 

The Studier i Dansk Herregaards Arkitektur i 16. og 17. Aarhundrede, 
by the well-known Danish architect and historian, Vilhelm Lorenzen, have 
been- published by the Dansk Historisk Forening as part, and instead of 
the regular issue for 1920 and the first six months of 1921, of the Dansk 
Historisk Tidsskrifi, and they certainly repay this munificence. Taking 
their subject up at the most interesting period, that of transition between 


the later Gothic or national Norse and the spreading Renaissance or 
classical European style of building, they are not merely and not even in 
the first place interesting to the historical student of architecture or the 
arts generally. The author purposely turns his attention throughout to 
the social and economic aspects of the manor-house, which links the royal 
palace and the ecclesiastical stronghold of the middle ages with the 
town architecture of modern baroque centuries. His research always 
starts from the conditions of the building sites and the frequent changes 
in them caused by the adventures or the slow development of earlier times, 
especially the various relations between open sites (Byggesteder), farm- yards 
{Ladegaarder), and castle-mounds {Voldsteder). Next come the ground- 
work, the building itself, the inner division and decoration, the artistic 
style, and the relative parts played by the manorial lord and the architect. 
Even before it is possible to assign certain buildings to architects of name 
and reputation, unknown artists' personalities are constructed from types 
of houses after the fashion of the historian of medieval painting and 
woodcutting. Hr. Lorenzen has successfully united difEerent lines of 
inquiry which are usually separated according to either periods or subjects, 
and although the comparative smallness and uniformity of his area facili- 
tated this undertaking, the history of European society would greatly 
profit by the imitation of his model study at least for single territories 
or provinces of the larger European countries. C. B. 

The acquisition by the university of Chicago of a manuscript of ' Die 
Bergchronik des Hardanus Hake, Pastors zu Wildemann ' occasioned the 
selection by the late Miss Helen Boyce of The Mines of the Upper Harz 
from 1514 to 1589 as the subject for her research (Menasha : Collegiate 
Press, 1920) ; but the larger purpose of her essay is ' to draw the attention 
of the English reader to the historical importance of German mining ', 
and, as far as the sixteenth century is concerned, this purpose is admirably 
fulfilled in the two main chapters, which give a full and scholarly account 
of the mining enterprises, policy, and administration of two dukes of 
Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel, Henry the Younger (1514-68) and Julius 
(1568-89). The varying features of Henry's struggle with Goslar and 
Brunswick during the wars of the Reformation delayed the full develop- 
ment of his mining policy till 1552-3, when he took over the regalities 
and pre-emption of the Rammelsberg mines from Goslar and was free 
to develop those of the Upper Harz in Grund, Wildemann, Zellerfeld, and 
Lautenthal unopposed by Brimswick and the Schmalkaldic League. The 
career of Julius as a ducal captain of industry, frugal and hard-working, 
a scientific metallurgist and a keen man of business — who added to his 
mining and metal-working enterprises the making of salt, the quarrying 
of marble, the production of vitriol, and the mining of coal which he 
introduced into his smelting-houses and salt works, and who, like Boulton 
and Wedgwood, planned a canal system as an outlet for his, varied pro- 
ducts — is one of the most interesting chapters in the economic history of 
the sixteenth century. Not the least significant of his achievements was 
the foundation of a university at Helmstedt with a faculty of jurists to 
further the study and adoption of Roman law. The conspicuous financial 


success of this policy sufficiently accounts for the continual efforts of the 
Elizabethan government to find a similar fiscal resource in mining and the 
extractive industries during the same period. Miss Boyce's general views, 
whether implicit or explicit, are sometimes open to criticism, as when 
she regards the abstention of Julius from any share in the European 
conflicts of his time as one of the causes of the Thirty Years' war, or 
implies that the ' careful regulation ' of an industry as practised by civic 
or national authorities in the sixteenth century was an essential factor 
in its prosperity. The general background provided in her two last 
chapters might have gained in breadth if Dr. J. Strieder's recent studies 
in sixteenth-century capitalism had been available, but her essay as a whole 
is the best account of early German mining accessible in English, and by 
her death on the eve of its publication Chicago University has lost a promis- 
ing historian. G. U. 

Miss Cicely Booth's Cosimo I, Duke of Florence (Cambridge : Univer- 
sity Press, 1921), deals with a period in the history of Florence which is 
perforce something of an anticlimax. The days which had already 
become to Italians the lieti tempi, before the first French invasion of 1494, 
were gone never to return ; Spanish domination was the prevailing 
factor in the political situation. Of the Florence of Duke Cosimo perhaps 
the best that can be said is that it is the nearest approach which the 
sixteenth century can show to an earlier and a happier age. Florence 
in 1537 found herself in a dilemma, familiar to students of her history. 
On the one hand, an irradicable love of liberty impelled her to make one 
more bid for a republican form of government. On the other hand, such 
were the evils of party strife that the establishment of a republic brought 
with it grave danger of the loss of Florentine independence. The election 
of Cosimo dei Medici as duke was of the nature of a compromise. Some 
measure of political liberty must be sacrificed in order that Florence 
might gain a champion against the attacks of her own fuorusciti and the 
aggressions of France and Spain. The Florentines had on the whole 
little cause to repent their action. If Cosimo succeeded in making himself 
considerably more of a despot than his original supporters had contem- 
plated, he gave his fellow citizens peace and justice to *a degree hitherto 
unknown. He maintained friendly but independent relations with Spain. 
While consenting to rule Siena as a Spanish fief, he stole a march on Philip II 
by persuading Pius V to crown him as grand duke of Tuscany. He raised 
the prestige of Florence among Italian states and created a navy which 
acquitted itself bravely at Lepanto. The first Medici of the gi'and-ducal 
line was in fact a notable figure in sixteenth-century Europe, and, like his 
fifteenth-century ancestors (Cosimo, be it remembered, wag a great-grandson 
of Lorenzo il Magnifico through his mother), he owed his position mainly 
to his personality. He showed tact, energy, capacity for detail, and great 
political acumen. Above all he had, as Miss Booth says, ' the essential 
quality of the Florentine statesman, that of so identifying himself with his 
city that her fortunes must needs be his, and no good come to him but 
Florence must indirectly share it '. Miss Booth has found fresh material 
for the domestic history of Duke Cosimo in the Florentine archives. 


Carteggio dei Segretarii. From the letters of the ducal secretaries we gain 
a picture of court life in which Tuscan light-heartedness and informality 
competed with Spanish etiquette, and magnificence in public ceremonies 
went side by side with ' extreme domestic discomfort '. This is perhaps 
the most interesting chapter of a scholarly and attractive biography. 

C. M. A. 

Mr. F. A, Mumby, in The Fall of Mary Stuart. A Narrative in Contem- 
porary Letters (London : Constable, 1921), again shows his happy knack 
'in the not too easy science of historical selections. The series of letters 
he gives us begins with the marriage of Mary queen of Scots to Darnley, 
and ends with the time when she had fled to England to find herself the 
unwilling prisoner of her cousin Queen Elizabeth. Thus the period covers 
the strife with Darnley which ended in the Riccio murder, the favour of 
Both well, Darnley 's murder, the Both well marriage, Lochleven, Langside, 
and flight. Not only does Mary Stuart shine as a letter-writer and 
' a notable woman ' in this collection, but also Queen Elizabeth, whether 
she wrote with her own hand or (when the Scots queen's fortune waned) 
by the hand of another. One of the most characteristic letters also is that 
of Catherine de Medicis, queen of France, to the English queen in favour 
of her prisoner. One is glad to find the letter (of 1566-8) which shows 
that Queen Mary's knowledge of her English adherents had never been 
allowed to be forgotten, and the contemporary Spanish references to 
Elizabeth's skill in temporizing about the English succession. Though 
wonderfully impartial, Mr. Mumby is yet against Mary in her relations 
with Riccio and Bothwell. It is difficult — if this is not being too captious — 
to see how he thinks the ' Casket Letters ', as we know them, could ' prove ' 
anything. The originals — whatever tbey were — are no more, and all we 
have are ex parte garbled translations or copies, so that any inference drawn 
from them must be a disputable surmise. We notice that he quotes the 
Venetian ambassador as calling the queen of Scots' half-sister the countess 
of Argyll, ' the Bastard of Holland ', and wonder how this title was 
acquired. We notice also that he identifies her mother as Elizabeth 
Carmichael instead of Elizabeth Bethune of Creich. A. F. S. 

Dr. R. H. Murray has expanded a sermon preached in Trinit}^ College, 
Dublin, in memory of its distinguished alumni and published it under the 
title Dublin University and the New World (London : Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge, 1921). The little volume gives an account of four 
New England worthies who were at some time connected with Trinity 
College. Of these two, John Sherrard and Samuel Mather, were obscure 
and respectable divines ; the other two, Increase Mather and John Win- 
throp the younger, belong to general history. In passing one may note 
that Dr. Murray takes a more favourable view of Increase Mather's 
activities, especially in the question of the restoration of the charter, than 
is taken by the most recent American historians. An appendix gives 
brief notices of some Trinity emigrants and immigrants. H. E. E. 

The life of Henry Duke of Grafton, 1663-90, by Sir Almeric Fitzroy 
(London : Christophers, s.a.), contains many really excellent portraits. 


some of which are here reproduced for the first time. In particular there 
are two most interesting portraits of Charles II, one representing him as 
a young man, the other taken in his old age. Unfortunately the text of 
the book is less valuable. The absence of any private letters of Grafton's 
deprives his biography of much of its unity, and almost compels the 
insertion of some general history to supplement the relatively few personal 
details. It is regrettable, however, that Sir Almeric thought fit to insert 
some very dubious and irrelevant generalizations about the foreign rela- 
tions of Charles II. * The malice and misunderstanding of historians ' 
may have obscured the aims of that monarch and miscalculated their 
results, but it is impossible to accept the view here advanced without 
proof that French money enabled the king ' to pursue a policy which was _ 
neither Dutch nor French, but essentially British, or, in a larger sense, 
European '. The author's summing up of the evidence on single issues 
does not seem any sounder than his verdict on a whole period. An example 
is supplied by his account of Grafton's conduct in the autumn of 1688. 
According to an original memoir in the Life of James II, Grafton, disap- 
pointed at not being offered the command of James's fleet, tried to corrupt 
the sailors' loyalty and planned to seize Dartmouth, the admiral, on board 
Captain Hastings's ship. Sir Almeric calls this ' unsupported fiction ', 
and quotes a letter written by Pepys to Dartmouth that Grafton had the 
royal permission to serve as a volunteer in Hastings's ship. But if Grafton 
wished to plot against James in the navy, he could only be present as 
a volunteer since James gave him no official position. Furthermore 
James's account is not unsupported, for it is stated in the Memoirs relating 
to the Lord Torrington, who as George Byng was undoubtedly a leading 
conspirator on behalf of William of Orange, that there was a design to 
seize Dartmouth on board Hastings's ship and to give the command of the 
fleet to Grafton. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that there are also 
a number of minor errors. Sir Almeric has proved his contention that 
Grafton showed an unusual precocity in achieving so much in the twenty- 
six years allotted to him. * G. D. 

In The Social and Industrial History of Scotland, from the Union to the 
Present Time (London : Longmans, 1921), Professor Mackinnon com- 
jJetes the survey begun in the volume which he published in 1920. 
A book which in 274 pages deals with every aspect of social life during 
two busy centuries must necessarily omit much, and occasionally the 
author omits just what the reader would most like to know. In the 
57 pages which are allotted to the eighteenth century the main thesis is 
that until about the year 1750 little progress was made in any direction, 
but that the second half of the century ' may be described as a period of 
revolution '. This is incontestable ; but the causes, and indeed the 
processes, of the great change are left tantalizingly vague. When, for 
instance, and how, did the Scottish farmer begin to bring his ' outfield * 
under proper cultivation ? Considering the short space at his disposal it 
is too bad of Dr. Mackinnon to tell us twice (p. 33 and p. 37) of the school- 
master's perquisite of the slain fighting-cocks, and twice, in identical 
phrases, of the ' amateur devotees ' of vocal and instrumental music. 


' who performed at the concerts given in St. Cecilia's Hall in the Cowgate ' 
(p. 40 and p. 47). In accordance with ancient custom the Glasgow Guild 
of Hammermen is condemned for its treatment of James Watt, and no 
reference is made to the able vindication of that body published in 1912.^ 
The greater space devoted to the remainder of the period permits both 
of a deeper analysis of the subject-matter, and of a fuller treatment 
of each subsection. The statistics, which are numerous, have mostly 
been culled from secondary sources, and though informative in them- 
selves, they are difficult to use to advantage, since no attempt has been 
made to reduce them to a common measure. Prosperity is reckoned some- 
times in terms of the ' personnel ' or the machinery of production, and again 
in the quantity or the cash- value of output or export ; the years between 
which expansion is measured are hardly ever the same, and the abnormal 
war-period, omitted in some cases, is in others included. Hence the book 
lacks unity ; but none the less it contains much that is instructive, and its 
broad outlines are clear. The steady decline of agriculture and of fishing 
is not nearly balanced by the development of stock-breeding — real though 
that has been — and the social and economic problems of the future will 
centre round the great towns and the great industries. Dr. Mackinnon's 
book will certainly present to the young student a fair picture of ' the 
condition of Scotland ', and if it drives him to examine more fully any 
of the great questions raised, it will have achieved its end. Not the least 
of the author's merits is that he has put on record the services of some 
whose names are famous throughout the world of business, but who are 
unknown to the general public. At the present moment Scotland is once 
more beginning to realize her debt to these bold ' captains of industry ', 
and the story of their achievements will be read with interest. J. D. M. 

Mr. A. Mervyn Davies's essay. The Influence of George III on the 
Development of the Constitution (London : Milford, 1921), was awarded 
the Stanhope Prize last year. It arrives at the conclusion that although 
George III, by his treatment of the whig party, indirectly contributed to 
the cause of parliamentary reform, the effects of his influence were more 
political than constitutional. The conclusion is orthodox, but the 
accuracy of the author's facts is not always above reproach. Nothing 
could be further from the truth than the description (p. 15) of Loid 
Chatham's ministry as an ' avowed attempt ... to establish . . . govern- 
ment by divided, incoherent administrations which would place no obstacle 
between the king and his object ' with ' no common acceptance of the 
leadership of a " First Minister " '. The erroneous assertion (p. 18) that 
George Grenville, as first lord of the treasury, ' was not allowed to have 
any share or voice in the secret bribery ' of members of parliament is 
presumably to be attributed to a confusion between Grenville's position 
in Lord Bute's cabinet and his position in his own. The statement (p. 37) 
that ' the fall of the Pitt-Newcastle Ministry was followed by a general 
proscription of the whigs ' is a misleading description of three separate 
events occurring at intervals extending over fourteen months. Mr. Tem- 
perley did not write Lord Chatham and the Whig Opposition (p. 43), Pitt 

* Lumsden and Aitken, History of the Hammermen of Olasgow, app. to bk. i, xii. 


was not driven from office in 1762 (p. 63), and the whig party was very 
far from being ' completely excluded from office ' after 1762 (p. 66). 

R. R. S. 

Mr. L. S. Mayo has written a careful and interesting account of John 
Wentworth (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1921). As 
governor of New Hampshire (1767-75) and as lieutenant-governor of 
Nova Scotia (1792-1808) Wentworth did useful work in improving the 
communications, the education, and the military defences of these colonies. 
As surveyor-general of the Crown woods he succeeded in performing his 
duties without unduly exciting the opposition of the colonists. His failings, 
the most conspicuous of which was unblushing nepotism, belonged to his 
age ; his merits, unswerving courage, loyalty, and devotion to duty, were 
peculiarly his own. Mr. Mayo has therefore been well advised in under- 
taking this volume. Moreover, the part relating to Peter Livius is of 
special interest to students of Canadian history and the text is illustrated 
by excellent reproductions of portraits by Copley and Wilson. It may be 
added that one sentence requires some alteration, wherein it seems to be 
implied that Franklin was a member of the British Parliament ; that 
Oxford does not give doctorates of Common Law ; and that those who are 
familiar with Sir William Anson's volume will hardly agree that Grafton 
' is remembered, if at all, because of his amours and his horses '. 

H. E. E. 

The lectures delivered by Professor G. M. Wrong of Toronto University, 
under the G. S. Bennett foundation ' for the better understanding of 
national problems ', at Wesleyan University, have been published under 
the title The United States and Canada (Cincinnati : Abingdon Press, 
1921). As was inevitable in the circumstances the amount of historical 
and political exposition the lectures contain is of a somewhat elementary 
character ; but they seem admirably adapted to bring home an under- 
standing of the Canadian point of view to an American audience. 

H. E. E. 

For the purposes of his forthcoming life of Bishop Strachan, Mr. A. H. 
Young, of Trinity College, Toronto, found it necessary to learn as much as 
possible about Strachan's ' spiritual father ', Dr. John Stuart. In this 
connexion he has edited, for the Kingston Historical Society, The Parish 
Register of Kingston, Upper Canada, 1785-1811 (Kingston, Ontario : 
The British Whig, 1921). This register covered the whole period of 
Dr. Stuart's rectorship, and, though defective in places, is an invaluable 
storehouse of information regarding the early settlers in Upper Canada. 
(It must be remembered that Dr. Stuart, as a missionary and as bishop's 
official, worked far beyond the limits of Kingston itself.) Mr. Wood has 
contributed to the volume a careful and interesting introduction, and full 
biographical notices, when possible, of those mentioned in the entries. 
The same investigations had already called forth an undated pamphlet 
from the same press. The Rev. John Stuart, D.D., of Kingston, U.C., an 
exhaustive genealogical study of the distinguished family founded by 
Dr. J. Stuart. B.. E. E. 


In the eighth series of his Etudes et Lemons sur la Revolution Frangaise 
(Paris : Alcan, 1921) M. Aulard has printed, recentiores priores, six lectures 
delivered since the outbreak of the late war. They are frankly popular, 
and deal with the annexation of the left bank of the Rhine by the First 
Republic, the relations between the American and the French Revolutions, 
and the claims of Landau and Sarrelouis to be considered French. Except 
for unpublished letters from Hoche on French policy in the country 
which it was proposed should form the Rhenish republic, these lectures 
contain little that is new, and where he touches on matters outside the 
French Revolution the touch is not as sure as we are accustomed to 
expect from M. Aulard. In his anxiety to prove the identity of the aims 
of the French Revolution and the American rebellion, M. Aulard surely 
obscures the differences between Locke and Rousseau ; it is probable that 
the amount of religious toleration maintained in Maryland by the 'demo- 
cratic' constitution of that colony is less than M. Aulard supposes; while it 
is surely anachronistic to speak of the Pilgrim Fathers as independents or 
levellers. The essay on Landau and Sarrelouis is a plea for the retention 
of these towns by France, and is a good illustration of the difficulty of 
settling frontier questions by an appeal to history. The case for Sarrelouis 
is easy ; down to 1815 the city, which had been founded by Louis XIV, 
had never been other than French ; not so Landau, which before its 
annexation to France had been in the empire. M. Aulard has therefore 
to face the problem of finding a principle which will defeat the German 
claims, but allow the French. Pure history would probably settle the 
question in favour of Germany ; imperialistic motives, as may be imagined, 
are emphatically repudiated byM. Aulard, so force is ruled out as a principle ; 
and eventually we are told ' qu'il faut seulement reparer les injustices 
commises depuis I'avenement du droit moderne, c'est-a-dire depuis la 
Revolution frangaise ' (p. 29). The formula is interesting and even 
convenient ; it comes naturally to a student steeped in the cataclysmic 
ideas of the French Revolution ; but one is tempted to ask what light 
it throws on the position which ought to be assigned in the new Europe 
to Avignon, Montbeliard, and the lands of the dispossessed princes of 
Alsace. L. G. W. L. 

Mr. Sidney Herbert's book, The Fall of Feudalism in France (London : 
Methuen, 1921), is a clear and exact summary of the work of that school of 
historians of which MM. Sagnac, Caron, See, Kovalesky, Loutchisky, are the 
most conspicuous representatives. It will render useful service to students 
by showing them an aspect, too frequently neglected, of the French Revo- 
lution, viz. the part played by the peasant class in the destruction of the 
old regime. Chapter i, ' Feudalism in 1789 ', depicts the feudal regime in 
France on the eve of the Revolution ; chapter ii, ' The Peasants and their 
Programme ', gives a summary of the principal complaints and needs of 
the peasant class ; the next five chapters, ' The First Peasant Revolt ', 
' The Night of 4 August ', ' Legislation and Insurrection, 1789-90 ', ' The 
Rural Revolution, 1790-1 ', ' The End of Feudalism ', show how this 
programme was carried out by the assemblies, in spite of themselves, 
from fear of a peasant rebellion. Though the material of the book is not 


the result of original research, the Uv'^ elusions are Mr. Herbert's own, 
and, I am afraid, will come as a shock to the historical mind. To ascribe 
the name of ' primary cause ' of the French Revolution to any category 
of facts is inadmissible when we consider how little we know of the history 
of the Revolution, how much less still of its causes. To say that ' institu- 
tions do not grow, they are made ', is to ignore intentionally the history 
of institutions. To say ' The popular sense of right may often be wiser 
than the opinion of statesmen ' is to draw a political conclusion which 
gives to a book of historical scholarship a partisan aspect which ought 
to be avoided. All generalizations, all conclusions on this aspect of the 
Revolution are premature until we possess complete local histories and 
studies of details, and until the following two questions of primary impor- 
tance have been confronted and solved : (1) How far can we ascribe to 
the peasants what is given as their ideas in the very numerous documents 
presented in their name to the assemblies ? (2) How is it that the peasant 
class, alleged by these documents to be in such a state of unthinkable 
poverty, was able, even before 1789, to acquire, by payment of ready 
money, the possession of a large part of the soil and to continue, in spite 
of its perpetual complaints, this policy of purchase during the first years 
of the Revolution ? R. F. 

In Robespierre Terroriste (Paris : La Renaissance du Livre, 1921), by 
M. Albert Mathiez,are some interesting papers, mostly reprinted from the 
Annales Revolutionnaires. Specially noteworthy are those on the two 
versions of the trial of the Hebertistes, on the banker Boyd, on ' Le 
Carnet de Robespierre ', and on Robespierre's notes on and for Saint- 
Just's speech demanding the condemnation of Danton, Camille Desmoulins, 
Herault, and the rest. M. Mathiez's aim throughout is to defend and 
exalt Robespierre and, as a means to that end, to blacken Danton. He 
shows his usual erudition and is, as usual, skilful in wringing the last 
drop of evidence from every fact that may tell against Danton ; he puts 
the case in favour of Robespierre with equal skill. E. D. B. 

Every student of the Reign of Terror will be deeply grateful to 
M. Mathiez for his book, Un Proces de Corruption sous la Terreur — L' Affaire 
de la Compagnie des Indes (Paris : Alcan, 1920). The strange and compli- 
cated affair with which it deals brought four of the most prominent 
deputies of the Convention to the scafEold in disgrace, and Danton, who 
had nothing to do with the crime for which they were tried, was tried 
along with them. It is therefore important to follow the business through 
all its windings, and hitherto it has been impossible for any'one to do so 
unless he had access to the Archives Nationales ; a patient study of the 
printed documents relating to the case scattered in many books was not 
enough. M. Mathiez has now, as he says, given historians the means of 
judging for themselves. To put the matter briefly : two or three deputies 
who had the ear of the Convention were accustomed to make speeches 
which sent stocks and shares up and down, in order that they might 
speculate in them. They, or some of them, finally ventured to alter 
certain clauses of a bill for winding up the Compagnie des Indes after the 



bill had passed the Convention and before it became law ; presumably 
they had been bribed by the directors of the company. No one noticed 
that the bill had been alt^ied ; but Chabot, one of the deputies concerned, 
took fright and denounced the others to the government committees, 
representing the financial manoeuvres as part of a great political plot to 
bring the Convention into contempt. Fabre d'lSglantine, the friend of 
Danton, had signed the altered bill, along with Delaunay, the undoubted 
villain of the piece, who forged the signatures of the rest of the committee 
responsible for the bill. Fabre protested that he had signed without 
noticing the alterations and was at first believed ; later on he was arrested, 
and the question of his guilt or innocence is the crux of the affair. Opinions 
will probably always differ, for the written examinations of the accused 
deputies which would have shed most light on the transaction are missing, 
and M. Mathiez shows that the government committees, who were chiefly 
anxious to track the political plot, made no attempt to discover the 
truth about the financial scandal ; they did not even examine the directors 
of the company. M. Mathiez has spared no pains over his book ; he has 
printed all the essential documents in chronological order and has con- 
nected them by illuminating notes ; he has given much that is new, 
including the bill as Delaunay submitted it to the Convention. Above 
all, he has given two excellent facsimiles of the bill, in its second form with 
corrections by Fabre, and in its final form. By the help of these the reader 
can grasp what really happened, as he never could before. It seems 
ungracious to ask for more when so much has been given, and it is only 
because M. Mathiez has been so liberal that one cannot help wishing he had 
reprinted the original of Fabre's Precis Ajpologetique (his defence) instead 
of the truncated version of the Bulletin du Tribunal Revolutionnaire, and 
had included Jopino Lebrun's notes on the trial, which are hard to get at 
and fuller in places than the Bulletin. E. D. B. 

M. Lacour-Gayet's book. Napoleon, sa Vie, son (Euvre, son Temps 
(Paris : Hachette, 1921), is an attempt to evoke the great image of 
Napoleon I and his time. As might be expected from its dedication to 
M. Frederic Masson, the work is after the maimer of that author. It 
consists chiefly of a collection of anecdotes taken from sources most 
diverse, and we may add in some cases most dubious, including even the 
Memoires de Bourrienne. From such an excellent scholar as M. Lacour- 
Gayet we had the right to expect different and certainly better things. 
The book contains numerous illustrations ; those in colour are scarcely 
worthy of the house of Hachette ; but the photographic reproductions 
cannot be too highly praised, and they form a most admirable collection 
illustrative of Napoleonic history. R. F. 

Sir Plunket Barton is doing sound and useful work in writing the 
biography of Bernadotte, of which a second volume, Bernadotte and 
Napoleon (London : Murray, 1921), has now appeared. In this volume 
the author continues the history of Bernadotte from the time of the 
coup d^etat of 1799 to the year 1810, when the marshal of France became 
the crown prince of Sweden, the negotiations which preceded this meta- 


morphosis being described in great detail. The author has handled his 
material ably, and is studiously impartial in his judgements, but the book 
is marred to some extent by defects in style and arrangement. For 
example, the proper place to discuss the change of creed which accom- 
panied Bernadotte's assumption of a new nationality is surely the volume 
which describes that assumption, and not a note to Bernadotte ; the First 
Phase, the volume which closes at a date ten years before the change was 
even contemplated. The book would also have gained considerably in 
value by a more convenient arrangement of the bibliography. L. 

The biography of another marshal of France has been made available 
for the large number of students who do not read Polish by MM. Kozakie- 
wicz and Cazin's translation into French of M. Simon Askenazy's Le Prince 
Joseph Poniatowshi, Marechal de France, 1763-1813 (Paris : Plon-Nourrit, 
1921). As the translators say in their preface, * Si le Prince Joseph appar- 
tient a la Pologne, le Marechal Poniatowski appartient a la France ', 
and we may note that it is the more admirable part of his life that belongs 
to France. Those later years do much to wipe out the memory of the 
mistakes and frivolities that made up only too great a part of the record 
of his earlier life. The translators have done their work adequately. 
There is an obvious mistake in the statement of Poniatowski's age on the 
title-page, and there are some misprints that have escaped the proof- 
reader's eye, but the book as a whole is free from minor defects. L. 

M. Bene de Chauvigny, in his La Resistance au Concordat de 1801 
(Paris : Plon-Nourrit, 1921), has given an account of the clergy in the 
neighbourhood of Blois and Vendome who refused to recognize the validity 
of the agreement made between Napoleon and the papacy. M. de Chau- 
vigny has confined his work to a much smaller area than is covered by 
the books of P. Drochon or M. Latreille, and, within this area, has made 
a detailed study of the relevant correspondence and administrative docu- 
ments. For the existence of this petite eglise there was much reason. The 
papal brief asking the French bishops to resign their sees showed by its 
language that the pope realized the severity of his demands. He claimed, 
indeed, to give precedents, but so moderate an observer as the Abbe 
Emery put no value upon them, while an English Roman catholic, Milner, 
the friend of Burke, Pitt, and Wilberforce, could find no parallel except 
in the attitude of Gregory the Great to the Celtic church in England. 
Again, the later years of the empire showed only too clearly that the 
papacy had little freedom in its dealings with Napoleon. The faithful 
of Blois and Vendome had another excuse for being stifi-necked. The 
bishop of Blois (Mgr. de Themines) was one of the most intransigeant 
among the clergy (he refused even on his death-bed in exile to be reconciled 
with the pope) ; when the see of Blois was abolished by the concordat, 
its territory was given to Orleans, and Orleans was given to Bernier. 
Bernier's desertion of a losing cause made his efficiency in the service 
of a new master seem the more odious. Little wonder then that a handful 
of zealous priests could keep the allegiance of their people, and defy the 
efforts of the civil and religious authorities. M. de Chauvigny's little 

X 2 


book gives an amusing account of the discomfiture of the imperial police, 
of the certainty with which they promise a successful ' round up ', and the 
ease with which their victims escape. There are the typical figures of 
any post-revolutionary period, leaders of the Terror who become respect- 
able bureaucrats, such as, for example, the accusateur. public of the 
Department of Loir-et-Cher (and member of the Legion of Honour), 
who was consistent only in his appropriations of public money. M. de 
Chauvigny's sketches are, on the whole, good. Sometimes he quotes so fully 
from minor documents that the wealth of detail is too great and the 
story too rambling. E. L. W. 

A Short Fiscal and Financial History of England, 1815-1918, by 
J. F. Rees (London : Methuen, 1921), though not a work of original 
research, is based on a careful study of some primary sources, and shows 
an adequate appreciation of the theoretical problems which are suggested 
or elucidated by the history of our modern fiscal system. Mr. Rees 
distinguishes seven stages of financial policy, each of which is characterized 
by some urgent difficulty or some programme of reform. In dealing with 
each stage he supplies a precis of the principal budget-speeches, adding 
a useful commentary and references to other documents of cardinal im- 
portance. He gives a clear account of the aims of each great chancellor of 
the exchequer; but it is a pity that he has not endeavoured to summarize 
on broad lines the general development of financial policy in his period. 
A useful starting-point for such a summary is provided in his appendix, 
which contains (pp. 232-5) a table showing the yield of the chief groups 
of taxes from 1815 to 1918. But it would have been well to analyse on 
similar lines the national expenditure for these years, showing what new 
items have crept in, and how the relative importance of various items has 
altered. The subject of local taxation is almost entirely neglected. A more 
systematic and comprehensive bibliography would have been welcome. 
Mr. Rees is bold in his attempt to survey the financial policy of the years 
1893-1918 in fifty-four pages. He writes this part of the book with com- 
mendable impartiality, but so short an account is necessarily jejune. 


Dr. P. H. van der Kemp has added to his works on the history of the 
Dutch East Indies during the same period Sumatra in 1818 rutar Oorspron- 
Jcelijhe Stukhen (The Hague: Nijhofi, 1920). The present volume is mostly 
occupied with the controversies with Sir Stamford Raffles, then lieutenant- 
governor of Bencoolen on the west coast of Sumatra, and goes fully into 
the action taken by him in the Lampongs, his objection to the surrender 
of Padang, and his military expedition to Palembang, which was foiled by 
the energetic action of Muntinghe. It refers also to his claim to Billiton, 
and has a chapter on his attempts to influence public opinion in England. 
This he hoped to do by publishing a statement, but his action was contrary 
to all established iisage, and did not save him from, if indeed it did not 
precipitate, his disavowal by the government. Raffles's action is examined 
in great detail, supported by numerous quotations of a damaging character, 
and any future biographer of that able and restless man will have to take 


the attack upon him into very serious consideration. Dr.^van der Kemp 
is evidently thoroughly well acquainted with his archives, and prides 
himself on his accuracy in detail, devoting a section of the introduction 
to an attack on Dr. Colenbrander for what he designates as the * scandalous ' 
inaccuracy of his edition of Falck's Gedenhschriften} Unfortunately 
Dr. van der Kemp's own erudition is greater than his judgement. It is 
questionable whether, looking to all the circumstances of the time, his rough 
handling of the Netherlands authorities is really justified — he at least 
shows little sympathy with them — and the attack on Raffles, which 
appears to be the main purpose of the book, overshoots the mark by its 
own vehemence. Strong epithets and a profusion of marks of exclamation 
add nothing to the strength of a case, while remarks such as that on p. 114, 
that Salmond wrote ' with the usual British humbug ', weaken it, since 
they seem to betray bias — and there are a number of other remarks of the 
same kind. The views of the author, or of anybody else, on English folly 
or iniquity in regard to the South African War, the Kaiser, or the German 
colonies (pp. 171, 178, 249) at best are irrelevant, and at worst leave the 
reader wondering whether this is a book of sober history or a ponderous 
party pamphlet. H. L. 

There is something pathetic about the life of the scholar-nobleman, 
John Patrick, Third Marquess of Bute (London : Murray, 1921), by his 
old friend Abbot Hunter Blair. His wealth , his family, his double connexion 
with Scotland and South Wales, combined with his unselfishness and 
strong sense of duty, all seemed to point to a life of great public utility. 
As a public man Lord Bute did all that his position required of him, yet 
his was such a fine mind, such a serious character, with so little time 
wasted in trivialities, that one cannot but feel that he might have done 
much more. His heart, however, was more in his historical and liturgical 
studies and in his architectural restorations than in his public activities. 
At Christ Church he was more interested in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon 
than in the success of his horse in a ' grind ', and later on his translation 
of the Roman Breviary was, as he said, his ' beloved child '. Fortimately 
he found in his work for St. Andrews University a thoroughly congenial 
task, appealing both to his munificence and to his love of ancient institu- 
tions. His lord -rectorship of St. Andrews was the climax of his life. 


Dr. T. M. Marshall has edited, in the University of Colorado Historical 
Collection, the Early Records of Gilpin County, 1859-61 (1920). Ten 
years after the California gold-rush came a flood of prospectors to Colorado, 
some 100,000 in all. In this volume we have records of the organization 
of nineteen self-governing ' districts ' in the new gold area. Most of them 
adopted the Kansas code of laws, but they supplemented these by mining 
legislation. Their ' laws ' were made in mass meeting, following New 
England precedent ; juries were set up, of three, seven, or twelve members ; 
the suffrage was arranged, in one case being given to all those sixteen years 
old. Several districts tried to enforce prohibition, and Nevada resolved 

' See ante, xxx. 357. 


* that there shall be no Bawdy Houses, Grog Shops or Gamboling Saloons ' 
in its borders. Each district fixed its own boundaries, and this brought 
Nevada and Spring Gulch almost to war over a disputed jurisdiction : 
the sheriff of Nevada arrested the Spring Gulch judge, who was tried for 

* contempt of court ', and Spring Gulch denounced this as a breach of 
'the law of nations'. There is, however, no evidence of continual shooting 
and private war ; from the time when a mass meeting ' was Caled to 
orter ' the district records are more concerned with legislation on mining 
claims than with suppressing anarchy. The volume contains a few notes 
and a short introduction ; its chief interest is in the glimpse it affords 
of the formation of society in a western state. E. M. W. 

Professor Coolidge has now translated the second volume of the /Secret 
Treaties of Austria-Hungary ^ (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University 
Press, 1921) in which Dr. Pribram has discussed in detail the negotiations 
which preceded the Triple Alliance and its various renewals. Bismarck 
once remarked, ' We keep coming together again because we cannot get 
along without one another ; ' and the whole diplomatic history, contained 
in these pages, is little more than an elaborate commentary on that text. 
The relations between the allies were seldom harmonious ; and had the 
ultimate decision rested with Austria-Hungary the treaty would probably 
not have been renewed in 1887. That Germany should have consistently 
placed so high a value on the retention of Italy is surprising. It was^ 
indeed, explained in 1887 by the Boulangist movement, and the violent 
expressions of Irredentist feeling in the Alsatian elections, and in 1891 by 
the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance. But in 1902 Italy had 
practically advertised the emptiness of her adherence by the declaration 
which Delcasse was authorized to make in the French chamber that ' In 
no event can these alliances constitute a menace to France either diplo- 
matically or through protocols or military conventions '. Even the 
Italian action in supporting France at Alge9iras, though bitterly resented 
in Germany, did not seriously shake Biilow in his determination to continue 
the alliance. The hostility of Conrad von Hotzendorf to Italy was of course 
notorious, but it is a little surprising to find him urging the unsympathetic 
Aehrenthal to undertake a ' preventive ' war against her in 1907. The 
main effect and probably the intention of this volume is to attribute 
throughout the series of negotiations great cleverness, importunity, and 
even untrustworthiness to Italian diplomacy. The Italians had from the 
first two principal aims, which they followed with consistency. They were 
determined to gain a free hand in Tripoli ; and succeeded in 1887 in 
obtaining the promise of aid from Germany, if they found it necessar\' to 
declare war on France to secure that object. Secondly, they aimed at 
securing a full recognition from their allies that Austria and Italy were 
to be considered as possessing equal interests in the Balkans and the 
Eastern Mediterranean ; and from 1891 their success, at least on paper, 
was complete. Dr. Pribram's references to British policy in his volume 
are only casual, but he appears to make a very large assumption, when he 
states that Italy realized after the conclusion of the Entente in 1904 that 

* See ante, xzzvi. 151. 


if war were to break out between herself and France ' she must now count 
on England's participation in the war as an ally of France '. Dr. Coolidge 
has added some useful appendixes containing the chief documents dealing 
with the Franco-Russian Alliance, and the Franco-Italian agreements 
1900-2. C. R. C. 

During the years 1880-90 Mr. J. F. Baddeley was the special corre- 
spondent of the Standard at St. Petersburg, and he has used the diaries 
he then kept as the basis of his work Russia in the Eighties (London : 
Longmans, 1921). He has been careful, however, to add notes from 
modern works, chiefly biographical, to correct or supplement the informa- 
tion he acquired at the time. Little can be learnt from this book about the 
social or industrial conditions of Russia, and domestic politics are generally 
ignored, though there are some useful notices about nihilists and their 
activities. Much of the space is occupied by accounts of sporting parties, 
which, though in themselves interesting and well described, are of impor- 
tance only because they gave opportunity for the reminiscences of Count 
Peter Schouvaloff. This diplomatist was the intimate friend of the author, 
and told him many anecdotes about his embassy in London and else- 
where. The most important of these confidences concern the congress 
of Berlin, and, although they contribute few new facts, they make the 
attitude of Russia much clearer. A valuable account of a debate which 
took place between Russian ministers in the presence of the tsar about 
May 1878 makes it quite plain that Russia was compelled to accept the 
revision of the treaty of San Stefano by the impossibility of continuing 
the war. Another event on which some new light is thrown is the 
Penjdeh incident. Mr. Baddeley's view is that after the tsar had at first 
refused to submit to arbitration the question whether his troops in Penjdeh 
had broken the agreement of 17 March, Gladstone persuaded him to 
accept on condition that no award should ever be delivered, and that this 
proposal of a sham arbitration was a device to give time to allow the 
effervescence of jingoism in England to subside. If this is the true explana- 
tion of the tame ending of an episode which nearly produced a great 
war — and proof is difficult as the foreign office records cannot be examined 
for so late a year as 1885 — secret diplomacy won a great victory over the 
public press, which in Russia as in England exercised all its influence to 
precipitate an armed conflict. G. D. 

Dr. A. B. Keith's War Government of the British Dominions (Oxford : 
Clarendon Press, 1921) describes somewhat discursively, but most com- 
pletely and with abundant knowledge, 'the influence of the war on the 
activities of the governments of the dominions and on their relations to 
the government of the United Kingdom '. The chapters on the economic 
and military efforts and achievements of the dominions are admirable ; 
the smnmary on pp. 107-8 is convincing. The main point of the constitu- 
tional side of the book is the rapid approximation of the dominions to the 
position of independent states whose approval of the treaty with Germany 
was made a condition precedent to its ratification by the British empire. 
Dr. Keith rightly criticizes a loose dictum of Mr. Bonar Law as to a 


dominion's alleged inherent right to secede (p. 168) ; he estimates highly 
the value of royal visits (p. 46) ; attaches importance to the oversea 
sentiment against titles and decorations (p. 285) ; and does not regret 
the rising feeling against the continuance of appeals to the judicial com- 
mittee of the privy council (p. 288). The saddest feature of his story is 
the recrudescence since the war of a narrow and acrid nationalism in 
almost every quarter of Greater Britain. The book is one of the British 
series of war monographs published on behalf of the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace and, like other volumes of the same origin, is 
handsomely bound and printed. G. B. H. 

The first edition of Sir Percy Sykes's History of Persia was published 
in 1915 ; that a second edition (London : Macmillan, 1921) should be 
called for within the short period of six years is sufficient testimony to 
the appreciation which this work has received. The second edition has 
been revised throughout, but it is unfortunate that the author has not 
obtained the assistance of some orientalist who would have set right the 
numerous instances of the misspelling of Arabic words scattered through- 
out the volume. It differs from the first edition mainly in the addition 
of eight more chapters, carrying on the story of Persia from January 1907 
to 1920, Sir Percy Sykes was himself an eyewitness of much that 
happened in Persia during these recent years, for early in 1916 he was 
placed in command of a British mission, the object of which was to create 
a force for the restoration of law and order in the South of Persia. Of the 
stirring incidents with which he was himself concerned, he gives a vivid 
and interesting account, and his evidence, as that of an experienced eye- 
witness, is of great value. But much more material must be made available 
before a definitive record can be written of events so recent, and the future 
historian will naturally wish to consult the narrations of other European 
observers, and study the accounts that Persian annalists may have to 
give of the last two reigns of the Kajar dynasty. Consequently, from the 
very nature of the case, the latter chapters of Sir Percy Sykes's book are 
hardly in keeping with the rest of his account of a country whose history 
he traces back to so remote a period as 3000 b. c, with the use of sources 
that have frequently been submitted to critical study. But Sir Percy 
Sykes's History of Persia is likely to remain for some time the standard 
work on the subject, and it supplies a continuous record of the troubled 
annals of this country, such as is not otherwise available in English or 
in any other European language. T. W. A. 

Among Indian civil servants of the nineteenth century none devoted 
himself less sparingly to historical studies than did Captain J. C. Grant Duff, 
resident at Satara in 1818, in collecting materials and compiling his History 
of the Mahrattas. This book took eight years of such voluntary work as most 
men would refuse if highly paid : ' I wrote the greater part . . . when 
otherwise working twelve and fourteen hours daily without intermission ', 
and often, as he adds, ' with wet cloths girt about my head ', and kept this 
labour up throughout a sleepless night in some cases, and this in an Indian 
climate ! He had the reward so familiar in imperial history : ' I lost upwards 


of £1,700 by what I had done ' ; but the work remains to-day the classical 
account of these people, and indispensable in every library that is so bold 
as to handle Indian topics. It is hard to believe that for nearly a century 
no fresh English edition has appeared. Three published by The Times of 
India in Bombay in 1863, 1873, and 1878 are all now hard to procure ; 
the fourth, published by Cambray & Co., Calcutta, 1912, is ' very poor ' 
and ' full of misprints '. Mr. S. M. Edwardes, true to civil service 
traditions, has been at great pains to prepare a new edition in two 
volumes, and Mr. Milford has done students of Indian history a great 
service in publishing it. For the Marathas are perhaps the only Hindu 
people who within historic times could ofEer even the germ of a national 
policy. What elements of patriotism there were among them rested 
largely on the foundation of the Hindu religions and owed their consolida- 
tion to the pressure of a foreign rule and creed : just as they seem 
to do to-day. But success aroused too many disruptive rivalries to be 
prolonged, and India is probably far yet from producing real national 
unity. Mr. Edwardes's introduction includes a short memoir of Grant Duff 
and his authorship ; a most scholarly sketch of Maratha literature, in 
which he discusses particularly the religious and reforming basis of the 
Bhakti school of poets and the narrow range of their influence ; and an 
extremely valuable examination of the origin of the Marathas. To Sir 
Herbert Risley's theory that the Marathas were of Scytho-Dravidian 
origin, he prefers Mr. Enthoven's view that their stock was pre-Aryan, 
reinforcing this by showing the aboriginal character of their chief gods, 
Khandoba and Bhavani, and their extreme attachment to the ancient 
land tenures, such men as Sindia and the Bhonsla preferring their title 
of pdtal to any other and striving by all means to retain the tiny village- 
estates of their families. Mr. Edwardes concludes that the Marathas are 
derived from the primeval tribes of the Deccan and their southern lands, 
and that their claims to Rajput descent are unfounded. The book has an 
excellent index and a map of southern, western, and part of central India 
which lacks all indication of contours, often vital to the story, but is 
otherwise admirably clear. M. E. M. J. 

The government of India have published, in a volume of about eighty 
pages, an account of the proceedings at the second meeting of the Indian 
Records Commission, held at Lahore in January 1920. Representatives 
of two Indian states (Indore and Baroda) took part in the deliberations. 
Several matters of importance were discussed, and among the decisions 
reached was one to issue calendars of the correspondence between the 
court of directors and the Indian administrations, beginning with the year 
1757. It was also determined to print in full the Madras general letters 
for the period 1702-39. The volume contains the texts of some interesting 
papers read or presented by members of the commission, as well as the 
rules regulating the access of the public to the records of the government 
of India. W. F. 

In walks along the line of the Roman Wall there is one book, small 
enough to be slipped into the pocket, which every traveller should take 


with him. Dr. J. CoUingwood Bruce 's Handbook to the Roman Wall first 
appeared (under a slightly difEerent title) in 1863, and went through 
three editions in its author's lifetime. Later editions, revised and corrected 
in the light of recent discoveries, have been seen through the press by 
Mr. Robert Blair, who has now produced an eighth edition (London : 
Longmans, 1921). The work is indispensable to any one engaged in an 
archaeological ramble, and is admittedly the best concise account of the 
Roman Wall, although much of its information is out of date. Revision 
by simple addition is not altogether a satisfactory method, and due 
proportion is lost when, as in the present edition, we have no more than 
six pages on Corbridge while the thirty-eight pages on the camp and 
Roman bridge of Chesters are allowed to remain unaltered. Nor is the 
revision as thorough as could be wished. On p. 38 ' a year or two ago * 
of the fifth (1907) edition becomes in the 1921 edition ' five or six years 
ago ', while on p. 51 a find described in 1907 as made ' recently ' is now 
stated to have occurred ' about six years ago '. H. H. E. C. 

A special interest attaches to the constitution of the towns whose 
government was found at the Reformation to be in the hands of a religious 
fraternity, as at Wisbech and at Stratford-on-Avon, where the property 
records and functions of the gilds of Holy Trinity and Holy Cross respec- 
tively were transferred to the municipalities chartered by Edward VI. 
In The Gild of St. Mary Lichfield edited by the late Dr. F. J. Furnivali 
(London : Early English Text Society, 1920) the few documents illustra- 
tive of a similar transition, hitherto printed only in a scarce local history, 
are made more accessible. The gild ordinances of 1387 are those of 
a purely religious and social fraternity and contain no suggestion of 
municipal functions. These appear for the first time in 1487, when the 
master of the gild. Sir Humfrey Stanley, and the worshipful his brethren 
ordain certain articles 'for the worship of the Citie, unite, pease and 
welfare of the Comiualte ', the transitional character of which deserves 
special study. By the first article ' the Master, . . . with the XL VIII 
shall steadfastly abide together ' as they have sworn ' . . . to se good rule 
be kept and pease to be had '. By the second the master and his brothers 
are to hear disputes between the forty-eight, and if any of the parties will 
not abide the decision he is to be kept out of the worshipful election and 
fraternity of the said city and never to come amongst them to no ' Councell ' 
but be discharged as a man forsworn. The third article ordains fines and 
ultimate expulsion for non-attendance of the forty-eight when sum- 
moned by the master and his brethren. Articles 4 to 8 direct the con- 
stable to deal with frays, with nightwalkers, rioters, harlots, and scolds 
by imprisonment, cuckstool, and fine, ' the presentment to my Lord ' and 
' the punishment of the Church ' being carefully reserved. Here alongside 
some of the distinctive terminology of the fifteenth-century municipal 
constitution we have features that recall the town communes of the 
twelfth century, if not the frith gilds of the tenth century. The account 
of Our Lady's Alms-chest, which had been endowed with £40 for loans to 
the poor and which was reformed by the visitation of the dean of Lichfield 
in the same year of reconstruction (1486), is interesting as revealing an 


anticipation (in 1457) of the monies pietatis (1463) of the Franciscans in 
Italy. None is to borrow more than twenty shillings for one half-year, 
and the pledge of gold, silver, tin, lead, brass, pewter, or iron is to be worth 
three shillings and fourpence more than the loan. The first and second 
ordinances of the Lichfield Tailors (1576 and 1697) and Smiths (1601 
and 1630) are primarily and mainly concerned with restrictions on the 
entrance of members not apprenticed in the town and upon the work 
or trade of strangers. The Smiths were an ' ancient society ' comprising 
smiths, goldsmiths, ironmongers, cordmakers, pewterers, plumbers, 
cutlers, and spurrers ; and no member apprenticed to any of these callings 
is to practise one of the others. G. U. 

The Calendar of Deeds and Documents, vol. i. The Coleman Deeds 
(Aberystwyth : National Library of Wales, 1921), compiled by Mr. Francis 
Green, gives a resume of some fifteen hundred documents, once the property 
of the late Mr. James Coleman, but now preserved in the National Library. 
Practically all these documents relate to Wales (every county being 
represented) and Monmouthshire. The great bulk of them are deeds of 
various kinds drawn up in connexion with the transfer of land, but in- 
cluded in the collection are also a fair number of wills and other miscellanea. 
All are of relatively modern date : a few are earlier than 1550, but the 
majority fall between that date and the middle of the nineteenth century, 
those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries being the most numerous. 
The documents are calendared, with a few exceptions, county by county 
and in chronological order, and apart from occasional slips in the spelling 
of place-names — slips that can scarcely be entirely eliminated, and in any 
case are not seriously misleading (e. g. no. 1192, Boiler for BoUes, and no. 
1259, &c., Mertin-ysglaw for Mertin-ysgla»») — the work seems to have 
been carefully done. The volume contains material of considerable interest 
to the student of Welsh history. Especially valuable is the great amount 
of topographical information, such as names of vills, fields, houses, roads, 
and lanes, profusely scattered through the leases and similar deeds. The 
primary value of these data, of course, will be to the student of the rela- 
tively modern period to which the documents belong, but they are not 
without interest even to one whose bent is more towards things medieval. 
To take an example : one of the most difficult problems of Welsh history 
is the problem of medieval Welsh boundaries, especially in the Marches. 
The solution of the problem, so far as a solution can be hoped for, will 
probably be reached only by carefully collating all the available topo- 
graphical data, and it will often be necessary to supplement the strictly 
medieval evidence with later evidence such as is made accessible in the 
present Calendar. The defect of the Calendar as it now stands is the lack 
of an index. The omission is explained in a prefatory note, which promises 
' a full index to the contents of this and other volumes as part of the 
project '. One hopes that the ' other volumes ' will be numerous, and 
therefore that the ' full index ' (it can scarcely be too full) will not be the 
last part of the project to be achieved : for while such volumes as this are 
without an index, their practical utility is gravely diminished. 

J. G. E, 

316 . SHORT NOTICES April 

When writing his interesting pamphlet entitled Loughborough during 
the Great Civil War (Loughborough : Echo Press, s.a.) Mr. E. W. Hensman 
seems to have found it necessary to eke out the history of the town with 
sketches of Leicestershire worthies and accounts of events not especially 
connected with his subject. As Loughborough was not of great importance 
in the civil war, it is a pity that Mr. Hensman did not change his design 
and deal with the county as a whole. If he pursues his researches he will 
do well to track down the Benett collection of Rupert papers. The 
majority of them were acquired by the British Museum ; some were 
purchased by the late Mr. Alfred Morrison ; ^ copies of others were presented 
to the Bodleian Library by Professor C. H. Firth ; and a few are printed 
in W. A. Day's Pythouse Papers (1879). He should also use more modern 
editions of his authorities. This would not only enable readers to find his 
references more easily, but would also supply him with much new 
information. Mr. Firth's edition of the Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson 
is a good example. Had Mr. Hensman used this edition instead of that 
of 1806, he would have found in the appendixes and foot-notes authorities 
mentioned which he did not use, and some valuable extracts from pamphlets, 
newspapers, &c. It is also probable that if he had a wider knowledge of 
the modern historical literature of the civil war he would not express his 
willingness to break a lance on behalf of the authenticity of the Squire 
papers, which historians have long since agreed to regard as spurious. 

G. D. 

Since no adequate topographical history of Oxfordshire exists and 
since the sources are still largely in manuscript, the publication of the first 
part of the Parochial Collections made by Anthony a Wood and Richard 
Rawlinson by the Oxfordshire Record Society (Oxford, 1920) will supply 
a long-felt need. The purpose of both collectors was a parochial history 
of Oxfordshire, Anthony Wood being inspired by Dugdale's Warwickshire, 
Rawlinson aiming at a much larger scheme. Wood toured the county 
in 1656-7 and 1675-6 intent on monumental inscriptions and coats of 
arms ; in 1718 Rawlinson, the non-juring priest, travelling in a chaise 
in company with the bookseller Curll, came to inquire after crosses, 
feast days or wakes, fairs, patron saints, charities, schools, bells, 
sometimes church plate and even registers (see Brize Norton, where 
a ' Clark . . . being a Tayler cut 11 Leaves out of the Register for Measure '). 
Both give details of churches and other buildings and now and then a little 
historical information, too often inaccurate, as that on Clattercoats Priory 
(p. 98) or Coggs. Otherwise, the resultant surveys, made by well-informed 
and on the whole careful recorders (Wood especially), have always been 
an important but, owing to their chaotic character, irritating source for 
the historian of Oxfordshire. Their publication, which has been no light 
task, has been admirably accomplished by the editor of the series, the 
Rev. F. N. Davis. It is now possible to realize the losses of the last two 
hundred years, more especially in brasses and in glass, notably at 
Bampton, Bucknall, Beckley, Chipping Norton, and Coombe. Much 

* Hist. MSS. Comm., 9th Rep,, pt. ii, and the Catalogue of Mr. Morrison's Manu- 
scripts. • 


valuable material will be found in the accounts of churches which have 
been since rebuilt, such as Albury, Banbury, Bladon, and Churchill, and 
in the contemporary notices of structural alterations to, and decorations 
of, churches, vicarages, and other buildings, such as Ham Court, Bampton. 
Pending the appearance of the last part with its appendixes on the 
manuscripts and the index, the name of the paribh heading each page 
and a few editorial notes would have been useful to the reader ; 
we should have liked to know who really was the builder of Steeple 
Barton manor-house and why the inscriptions in Charlbury church 
have been omitted-. Indeed a provisional note on the manuscripts 
might have been given stating their exact date and their correlation, 
and explaining why Rawlinson's copy of Wood's notes is sometimes given 
in prefereifce to the original. Occasionally this leads to mistakes ; the 
information regarding John Osbaldeston on p. 80 is from Wood (E. 1, 
fo. 142), not Rawlinson. The transcript, however, seems to contain 
remarkably few errors : ' 1618 ' should be ' 1616 ' on p. 15 (where also 
the reference — Wood E. 1, fo. 186 — is omitted) ; the tinctures of the 
arms on p. 22 need correction ; on p. 85 ' ye . . . jeweller or belonging to 
Jewell house ' should read ' ye qu[een Elizabeth's] jeweller or belonging 
to ye Jewell house ' (Wood E. 1, fo. 127^) ; a line is omitted in Richard 
Croft's epitaph on p. 93 (Rawl. B. 400 f, fo. 170^) ; while 'Noc' is a misprint 
for ' Noe ' (p. 64) and ' Wood E.' for ' Wood B.' (p. 22). But these are 
small and unimportant points, which may be useful in a ' corrigenda ' note. 

M. V. T. 

The work of Father Gaston Sortais, S. J., La PhilosopMe Moderne depuis 
Bacon jusqu'a Leibniz. Etudes Historiques. (Paris : Lethielleux, 1920), 
is planned on a very elaborate scale, and, when completed, should 
prove a most valuable guide to philosophical literature. The first 
volume, now published, deals only with Bacon and his predecessors. The 
question of method is, of course, fundamental in the preliminary inquiry, 
as indeed it is throughout the volume ; and the views which Bacon's 
predecessors held about method are to be gathered both from the philo- 
sophers and from the men of science themselves. M. Sortais gives a full 
account of the philosophers, dealing with Ramus, Sanchez, Acontio, 
Hemmingsen, and the two Englishmen with whom Bacon may possibly 
have been brought into contact at Cambridge, Everard Digby and William 
Temple. A careful account of all these is given. The treatment of Digby 
and Temple is naturally indebted to -the earlier work of Freudenthal. 
Only rarely is the author confused by English ofl&cial terminology, 
as by the words ' senior fellow ', or when he speaks of Digby as ' Sir 
Everard Digby '. Nor do I know his authority for the statement (p. 54) 
that Digby was given a benefice on being deprived of his fellowship at 
St. John's College, Cambridge, towards the end of 1588. But these are 
small matters. The men of science are dealt with only in general terms, 
and are even spoken of (p. 279) as having merely followed the correct 
method by instinct. This statement cannot be justified, at any rate of 
Gilbert and Galileo. It is true that Gilbert did not write on method ; 
but the character of his work does not support the idea that he had not. 


reflected on method. An analysis of the method employed by him might 
have been usefully compared with the Baconian, and might incidentally 
have thrown some light on the terms in which he is referred to by Bacon. 
Galileo, on the other hand, both criticized the old logic and expounded 
his own logical method, though his writings on the subject were published 
after Bacon's death. The greater portion of the volume is devoted to 
Bacon himself. There is an elaborate review of his life, an analysis 
of his works, a discussion of the value of his ideas, and an account of 
his influence in England and abroad. All this is fully and elaborately 
supported by documents, a vast mass of opinion -from many quarters 
being brought together. In matters open to dispute the author's judge- 
ment usually inclines against Bacon, whether as a man or as a philosopher. 
* Bacon's talent ', he says, ' was rather literary than scientific ' : he was 
a poet and orator rather than a philosopher and man of science (p. 378). 
I do not think that this judgement is entirely justified. There were many 
defects in Bacon's equipment and performance ; but he was something 
more than a mere man of letters ; he had the faculty of vision, and hie 
vision was that of a philosopher. W. R. S. 

In his Lehrbuch der historischen Methodik (Regensburg : Kosel, 1921) 
Professor Alfred Feder, S.J., has published the results of many years' 
educational' work, with a view to assist in the investigation of historical 
material and the promotion of sound historical writing. His field is very 
wide, ranging from the most general conception of history in relation to 
sociology and other human sciences, down to the kind of errors in medieval 
handwriting which beset the beginner in manuscript study. The condi- 
tions of obtaining historical certainty, the need of allowing for the human 
•element in contemporary records, the limits within which historical 
analogy is a safe guide, are subjects which come up for discussion, fre- 
quently illustrated by reference to historians ancient and modern. English 
readers may be disappointed that few of our historians are men- 
tioned. Among historical sources the author lays stress on the monu- 
ments in museums, especially coins. Considering the extent of the ground 
to be covered, and the minute directions and applications of principles 
required, it was necessary that the style should be much compressed. 
The book is to be regarded as a comprehensive scheme of lecture notes, 
4idmirable for discussion in class, rather than as a finished literarv work. 

'a. G. 

The Einfuhrung in das Studium der Geschichte, by Professor Wilhelm Bauer 
'^Tiibingen : Mohr, 1922), is a work similar in general objects to Dr. Feder's. 
It is, however, larger and more comprehensive, and written in a style 
more likely to attract the ordinary student. Some of his remarks on the 
qualifications necessary for a writer of any particular kind of history are 
wise and suggestive. He believes in the desirability of cultivating a good 
literary style, and approves of epigrams, though his examples may not 
always be happy (e. g. Mommsen's ' jenen eckigen vornehmen Muster- 
soldaten * of Pompeius). The weaker side of the work appears in the 
ibibliography at the end, although it has evidently been compiled with 


great learning and labour. English readers will look in vain for mention, 
or for more than casual mention, of some of our epoch-making writers, or 
will find their names (not always rightly spelt) in connexion with some of 
their least important works. This defect may, however, be condoned in 
consideration of the great difficulty of obtaining books at Vienna during 
and shortly after the war. Learning, enthusiasm, breadth of view, and 
sometimes great aptness in expression mark this work and entitle it to 
the notice of teachers or intending writers of history. A. G. 

The third edition of the late Dr. Oppenheim's International Law * has 
now been completed. The revision of the second volume. War and Neutrality 
(London : Longmans, 1921), unfinished at the time of the author's death, 
was earned out by Mr. R. F. Roxburgh. Q. 

Dr. W. S. Holdsworth has edited in the Law Quarterly Review (July 
1921, vol. xxxvii, no. 147) the important tract in which Sir Matthew Hale 
criticized Hobbes's doctrine of sovereignty (Harl. MS. 711). As Sir 
Frederick Pollock, who adds a prefatory note, and Dr. Holdsworth show, 
the tract is ot interest, not so much as a commentary on Hobbes, but as 
a defence of the English legal system and of the historical and political 
ideas which underlay the doctrine of ' mixed monarchy ' favoured by the 
English common lawyers. In the October number of the Review, 
Dr. E. F. Churchill continues his researches into the history of the exercise 
of the English royal power. His article, ' Dispensing Power and the 
Defence of the Realm ' is a study in administrative policy rather than in 
the development of a constitutional problem. Statute law, intended to 
encourage English shipping or to control the movements of persons and 
military material between England and the Continent, was, of course, 
a continuation of purely administrative action. Only slight opposition 
was offered to a free exercise of royal discretion in the administration of 
the statutes. Indeed Dr. Churchill does not distinguish between an 
expression of the dispensing power and the issue of a regulative licence, 
such as a passport, permitted under certain statutes. Probably no clear 
distinction was or could be drawn in practice. But in the latter case 
no question of dispensing from a malum prohibitum arose. The offence 
under 9 Edward III lay, for example, not in the export of bullion but in 
•export without a licence, and presumably, if royal protection were extended 
to offenders, it would take the form of a pardon. F. M. P. 

Some unpublished material in the ' Dutch and Walloon Strangers' 
Book' of Norwich, which covers the years 1564-1643, is used by Miss Kate 
Hotblack in an article in History for January 1922 (New Series, vol. vi, 
no. 24). P. 

The Bodleian Quarterly Record for the fourth quarter of 1921 (vol. iii, 
no. 32) has as a supplement five poems of King James I, printed in the 
Library on the famous press of the late provost of Worcester College, 
Dr. Daniel. Q. 

See ante, xxxvi. 158. 

320 SHORT NOTICES April 1922 

The Italians are capable of an interest in their past that appears to be 
boundless ; witness the numerous ' Deputazioni di storia patria ' and the 
local historical societies which chronicle the history of particular towns. 
It is now the turn of Tivoli. Among the contributors to the first number 
of the Aiti e Memorie della Societa Tihurtina di storia e d'Arte (1921) we are 
glad to find Mrs. Hallam, who claims to have identified the spot where the 
villa of Horace stood, and Mr.