mil III III! 3176103597 1019

rt

^■^r ^ -. -■ -^S-^S?.: ^?^-— ^c;q(si^

#ot(ltt'm Smith,

^x,.

j14— :^c^<rrir;::?Tte=-:x— <I5>- ^ti'o—'^e- — — A--- ^ ■ •< f#

THE

JUDGES OF EJ)^GLAFD.

VOL. I.

London :

Spottiswoode and ShaWj

Ne w- stree t- Square.

THE

JUDGES OF ENGLAND:

SKETCHES or THEIR LIVES,

AND

MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES

CONNECTED WITH

THE COURTS AT WESTMINSTER,

FROM THE TIME OF THE CONQUEST.

BY EDWARD FOSS, F.S.A,

OF THE INNER TEMPLE.

VOL. I.

CONTAINING THE UEIGNS OP

T^^LLIAM I., WILLIAM II., HENRY I., STEPHEN, HENRY II., AND RICHARD I.

1066—1199.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR

LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS,

PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1848.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

HENRY, LORD LANGDALE,

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

My Lord, It would be as distasteful to your Lordship, as it would be repugnant to my own feelings, were I to take advantage of your consent to receive this Dedi- cation by using the language of flattery. I applied for your permission, not so much on account of the respect which I entertain towards your Lordship, in common with those who share with you in the ad- ministration of justice, as from the gratitude which I and all who are interested in the preservation of the Public Records must feel for the zeal, the learning, and the assiduity which you have devoted to that national and important object ; — for the exertions you have made for their security ; for tlie perse- verance and judgment by which you have reduced their confusion into order and system ; and for the arrangements by which reference to them has been

A 3

VI

DEDICATION.

facilitated, and their inspection rendered easy and simple.

That the investigations which form the subject of my work are " labours you delight in," would be a sufficient reason for inscribing it to your Lord- ship:— not to acknowledge those indefatigable re- searches which have so materially diminished my own, would be an act of injustice ; — and the fear even of wounding your Lordship's feelings would not jus- tify my silence, were I to omit the expression of my respectful gratitude for the ready access, the kind and flattering encouragement, and the cordial assistance, with which your Lordship has furthered my humble endeavours.

I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's sincerely obliged and most obedient servant,

EDWARD FOSS.

Street-End House, near Canterbury, October, 1848.

CONTENTS

THE FIRST V O L U M E

Introduction

William L, 1066—1087.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

William II., 1087—1100.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

Henry I., 1100—1135.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

Stephen, 1135—1154.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

Henry II., 1154—1189.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

Richard L, 1189—1199.

Survey of the Reign - Biographical Notices -

Page ix — xxiv

1— 26 27— 50

51— 57

58— 72

73— 95 96—141

142—146 147—159

160—183 184-323

324—336 337—426

Index, in which the names of the Judges are given - 427 — 432

A 4

mTRODUGTION.

It is somewhat surprising, amidst the numerous biographical works with which the Hterature of England has teemed, though many of them have been confined to distinct classes of men, as Bishops, Poets, Dramatists, Painters, Admirals, &c., that no separate publication, in a comprehensive form, of the Lives of the Judges has ever yet appeared. Various reasons may be adduced for the omission ; but the strongest will be found in the fact, that those who have been most com- petent to the task have seldom had leisure for its accom- plishment. Even the most superficial attempt could not be undertaken without some knowledge of the law, and a con- siderable intimacy with the constitution of the courts; and to ensure a successful result, a perseverance and assiduity in laborious investigation must be added, which none but those who have a real devotion to tlie subject would be inclined to bestow. Lawyers of any eminence, while in the pursuit of their profession, have little time to spare from their forensic avocations ; and when they retire, either for their occasional vacation, or at the termination of their busy career, they are either too glad, if any season of activity remains, to throw aside their books entirely, and to enter into the re- laxations of society ; or too anxious to pursue their political promptings to enter upon a new field of inquiry, the tilling of which nmst be attended with much toil, and the fruit of which they may despair of seeing harvested.

It is not improbable, also, that the absence of sucli a work

X INTRODUCTION.

may in some measure have arisen from the supposition that the subject would not be one of sufficient interest to arrest public attention ; that it would be without attraction to the general reader, and that lawyers are too much immersed in their professional duties, and too much oppressed with the books absolutely necessary for their studies, to afford either money for the purchase or time for the perusal. That this objection is without a substantial foundation, the avidity with which recent publications of individual lives have been re- ceived, affords ample testimony : an avidity not at all to be wondered at, considering the ability displayed in their composition, and the proofs they give that the apparently dreary purlieus of Westminster Hall are as rife with anec- dote and wit as the gayest drawing-rooms, or the most popular clubs in London.

The surprise, however, is that such an objection should ever have had any weight. When it is recollected that the Judges of the land are, by the nature of their office, in some respect the representatives of majesty, presiding in the judg- ment-seat, and traversing the country in all the " pomp and circumstance " of their position, interpreting the laws and administering justice in the presence of multitudes; that the highest constitutional questions, as well as the minutest civil rights, are subject to their decision ; that many of them have, from the most humble origin, been raised to their high station by their own industry, abilities, and character, selected from the elite of a most arduous and honourable pro- fession ; that every judicial act they perform, every opinion they offer, and every word they utter, is subject to the observation of their contemporaries, equally educated, and many of them equally competent to form a judgment; and that their intercourse on the circuits is not confined to their legal brethren, but extends over the highest and most intel- ligent branches of the community ; it seems only a natural

INTRODUCTION. XI

consequence that tlie rise and progress, the conduct and the character, the lineage and descendants of those who have pursued such a career, should abound with interest to all classes of society, as well those who are partakers in the benefits and are conversant with the history of their country's institutions, as those who are prosecuting the same studies and aspiring to similar honours.

Let it not be supposed that such an interest would be limited to the eminent names which dwell within the memory of the living, or which are known to them by the traditionary accounts of their fathers. Experience contradicts such an assumption, and proves that nothing is looked for more eagerly, or enjoyed with greater zest, than those relations which illustrate the proceedings of the courts in former times, which exhibit the character and habits of those who presided in them, and which supply the link of connection between ancient and modern practices, explaining customs still pre- served, although their origin may have been forgotten.

I am much mistaken, then, if there are not many classes of readers who will be desirous of encouraging such a work ; while the want of a progressive account of our legal insti- tutions has been ever felt by historians and jurists. No inconsiderable step towards supplying this deficiency would be made by arranging the catalogue and sketching the memoirs of those who have occupied the judicial bench; and students will not be sorry to diminish the difficulty, which Dugdale describes as common in his time, and which must still be encountered, of distinguishing in the old reports the judges from the advocates, and even of ascertaining and establishing their actual names.

The quaint Fuller, in his notices of the WouTiiiES of the law, remarks, that " though Judges leave more land than Bishops, they leave lesse vicmorialh behind them, of the timey place, and manner, when and tcliere horn and dyed, and how

Xll INTKODUCTION.

they demeaned themselves; " and he has limited his notices to a few of what he denominates the " capital judges," or heads of the different courts of law. Had he extended his inquiries a little further, we should not now have had to complain of the great deficiency which exists in this branch of biography. If he, or any such pleasant historian, had in that age industriously sought after such memorials as then existed, a collection might have been formed, which, by the gradual additions of subsequent writers, would by this time have swelled to a respectable dictionary of legal bio- graphy. The commencement of such an undertaking might well terrify many to whom the inquiry would be interesting ; but the adding to one already formed would be an agreeable occupation for those fleeting leisure moments which a la- borious life can aiford. Nor w^ould the result have been so barren as Fuller seems to suspect ; for the records of West- minster Hall, both printed and oral, in addition to the reminiscences of the neighbourhoods in which even our puisne judges were always deservedly looked up to as emi- nent in their day, would have enabled an active and judicious investigator to have compiled not only tolerably correct accounts of " when and w^here " they were " born and dyed," but also an interesting representation of the manner in which " they demeaned themselves " both in public and pri- vate life.

Surrounded with difficulties as a work of this nature must now evidently be, it may be fairly asked upon what induce- ments, or rather, perhaps, on what presumption, I have ventured to attempt it. I can only say that very early in my professional career I felt anxious to know something about the history of the courts in which I practised ; and having been brought up to look with reverence on those who ruled in them, I inquired in vain for some account of their predecessors. Finding no regular memorials, it was

INTRODUCTIOX. XlU

my amusement to collect all tlie incidents relative to each which any of the various books I read could furnish ; and, making allowance for the few opportunities to be found in an active and laborious professional career, a large body of materials was eventually formed, arranged under the names to which they applied in . alphabetical order. The time of my retirement arrived ; and not having been delayed, as is too frequently the case, till the sense of enjoyment is blunted and the powers of the mind are decayed and gone, I found that full employment was necessary to my existence and my happiness; and, after devoting a few more years to public duties, which I owed to my professional brethren, I natu- rally reverted to my biographical collections, with the double view of occupying my leisure, and of supplying the deficiency of which others, besides myself, had complained.

I must confess, however, that on contemplating the plan which it would be necessary to adopt, I was startled by the magnitude of the undertaking. I was soon satisfied that, to make the work I projected really useful, it would be requisite to commence at a distant period ; and that, as com- paratively few of my collected notes referred to the earlier judges, it would require laborious research before I could supply materials to justify such a publication. But though somewhat intimidated, I did not abandon my labours, and encouraged to proceed by those best qualified to advise, I overcame my reluctance, and finally arranged the plan, which I now submit to the judgment of the public.

In the choice of a period for the commencement of the work, I could find none more peculiarly fitting than the Norman Conquest. The invasion of England by William the Conqueror forms so important an epoch in its history, and occasioned so considerable an alteration in the habits and customs which had previously prevailed, that it seemed to offer, even without any other reason, the most natural

XIV INTRODUCTION.

starting-point ; but the introduction, if not of a new system of laws, at least of a new mode of judicature, which has subsisted, with slight variation, to the present time, rendered the selection of that period one almost of necessity in preference to any subsequent date. Had it been possible to ascertain with any preciseness the period when the division of the courts took place, or rather the substitution of them for the general jurisdiction of the Curia Regis, I should no doubt have preferred avoiding the labour of the previous reigns : but the change was so gradual, and the time of its completion so uncertain, that at the very outset I must have involved myself in a disputable question.

The arrangement to be adopted in giving the several lives was a subject of considerable perplexity. If they were to be placed altogether alphabetically in the form of a dictionary, a period must have been fixed at which the series was to terminate; and that could not well have been earlier than the end of the reign of George III. Independently of the perpetually increasing incompleteness as years rolled on, and the continual jumble of generations which it involves, the number of the judges between the two points is so large, that I could have had no expectation of bringing the work to a conclusion. If, on the other hand, the classification were to be strictly chronological with reference to persons and not to reigns, it would be a question whether they were to be introduced at the beginning or at the end of their career ; in the one case anticipating events of a future reign, and in the other repeating details applicable to a former one.

It seemed to me to be possible to avoid the disadvantages and to unite the conveniences attendant on both schemes ; and I trust I have done so in the plan I have adopted, by keeping each reign separate and distinct. Preserving thus the chronological order, I have further secured the utmost

INTRODUCTION. XV

simplicity of reference to the judges who flourished under each sovereign, by arranging their lives alphabetically : so that all the judges of each reign appear in one list, and each individual is classed amidst his contemporaries. A separate alphabetical index is given to each volume, for facility of reference ; and a general one will close the work, showing in what reigns each individual held office.

Where judges have sat on the bench in more than one reign, their names, with the office they held and the year of their appointment, will appear in due order in each reign of their career, and their lives will be given in the last.

In addition to these sketches I have at the commencement of each reign distributed the several judges who flourished in it among the different courts in chronological order; and I have added, under the title of " survey of the reign," some description of the nature and progress of each court, and of the officers of the various departments, with short accounts of the inns of court and Chancery, and their origin ; of the Serjeants and other advocates ; and of the reporters and legal writers ; adding whatever appeared interesting in the history of the time as connected with the judicature of the country ; and collecting such illustrative anecdotes of Westminster Hall as seemed to demand a place. Thus each reign, as far as I can make it, will be complete in itself: and thus every inconvenience that might result from any sudden termination of my labours will be avoided; inasmuch as the plan, if approved, may be continued by others, and carried on for successive generations.

Let me specially remind my readers, however, that it is altogether foreign from my purpose to introduce any legal discussions, or to attempt to trace the history of the law itself. Besides being conscious of my total incapacity for such a task, I feel that it has already been accomplished in works of learned writers which have justly acquired a solid repu-

XVI INTRODUCTION.

tation. The preliminary surveys which I offer are simply intended as necessary introductions to the principal object of my undertaking. They aim at no higher purpose than to give correct lists, as far as they can be correct, of the judges in their several courts ; to preserve some of the traditions of the seat of justice ; to trace to their origin some of the cus- toms which still are found there ; and to bring together such materials as may throw some light on the forensic practices of the time.

The lists of the judges which have been hitherto published are extremely deficient and frequently inaccurate : indeed, very few attempts have been made to form a systematic series, and very little labour has been expended in former enquiries.

The principal list is that of Dugdale at the end of his Origines Juridiciales ; which, considering that he was not a lawyer by profession, is an extraordinary performance, the general excellence of which, notwithstanding the errors it contains, has no doubt prevented others from labouring in the same field. But even if it were more perfect than it is, the time that has elapsed since its publication, — not far from two centuries, — and the lights which subsequent enquiries have thrown on the subject, at once suggest the necessity for new explorers, both to correct the old series, and to continue it till the present time.

The " Chronica Juridicialia " is an abridgment of Dug- dale's work, arranged in a manner far less comprehensive and useful, but carried down to a later date.

Beatson professes to give lists of the chancellors and judges; but a very slight inspection will show how little reliance is to be placed on them. It is enough to mention as an example, that Kalph de Diceto, the historian, is introduced as a chancellor in the reign of Henry III.

The only other general catalogue with which I am ac-

INTRODUCTION. XVll

quahited is ii little volume produced in America, called " The Judicial Chronicle, being a List of the Judges in the Courts of Common Law and Chancery in England and America, 1834." It contains a chronological list from the earliest period of the reports ; and the latter are mentioned contem- poraneously with the judges in a corresponding column. It is a neat and compact work, very creditable to its author, George Gibbs, of Dane Law College.

There are several other lists more limited in extent, or confined to specific classes or courts.

Woolrych's Series of the Law Officers does not commence till the reign of Elizabeth ; but it is rendered peculiarly valuable by the reference he gives to his authorities.

The lists in Spelman's Glossarium Archaeologicum are confined to the chancellors and the chiefs of the three other courts ; omitting the puisne judges and barons.

Some of the books of reports also have lists ; and in par- ticular. Sir Harbottle Grimstone has furnished one at the end of Croke Charles.

The chancellors of England, however, from the place they hold in the political history of the country, have naturally demanded a more peculiar attention, and have consequently been the subject of several separate works, besides those general lists already mentioned in which their names are included. The majority of these, and, I am sorry to say, even the most modern, appear to have followed too closely the first that was compiled, incomplete as it was.

This first essay was by Francis Thynne, afterwards Lancas- ter herald, who, in his continuation of Holinshed's Chronicle, published in 1587, gives a catalogue of the "Chancellors of England collected out of sundrie ancient histories."' Although valuable and curious as the earliest attempt at forming a col-

' Holinshed's Chronicles, ed. 1808, iv. 346. VOL. I. a

XVlll

INTRODUCTION.

lection, it is in truth a very meagre work, and seems to have been so considered by its author ; since he calls it the " first rough hewing"; and intimates his intention (which he did not execute) of producing an "ample discourse," "purposely written, of the lives of the chancellors." He expresses his willingness to amend the imperfections, " in mistaking or misplacing of name, person, or time," of which he appears to have been somewhat conscious; and we cannot help wishing that he had lived to correct the errors with which it abounds, and to produce better authority for some of the names than " an anonymal pamphlet in written hand," to which he is fond of referring. He died about 1608.

The " Series Cancellariorum Anglias" in Spelman's Glossary, first published in 1626, is mainly extracted, as he acknowleges, from Thynne's list, and gives nothing more than the names.

But in 1636, John Philipot, Somerset herald, published a " Catalogue of the Chancellors of England, &c.," which for the most part was a servile copy of Thynne's collections in extenso, even to the errors which they contain. This, from being a separate publication, almost entirely superseded Thynne's, which formed part only of a voluminous w^ork : so that the latter is scarcely known and never quoted ; while Philipot's Catalogue, piracy as it is, is almost universally cited as the authority.

The " Chronica Series " appended to the Origines Juridi- ciales of Sir William Dugdale appeared in 1666, and varies considerably from Thynne's list : but it contains some names which have no claim to be inserted, and omits others which ought to be there.

The last work devoted to the chancellors, previous to the present century, was that compiled by Mr. Oldmixon in 1708, entitled " The Lives of all the Lord Chancellors, &c., by an impartial hand." It was an addition made to an original design of giving only the lives of Lord Clarendon and

INTRODUCTION. XIX

Bulstrode Whitlock, which, as the title say.^, are written ''more at large"; and in general follows Dugdale's list, giving a " succinct account" of the chancellors therein named. By taking credit for his being the "first [attempt] of the kind that he knows in the world," he exposes his ignorance of both Thynne's and Philipot's w^orks.

More than a century then elapsed without any production on this subject, except new editions of former lists, carrying the series a little later ; but within the last five years the interest in it seems to have revived, and two works have ac- cordingly issued from the press especially devoted to the holders of the great seal. The first of these is a " Catalogue of Lord Chancellors, Keepers of the Great Seal, &c.," by Mr. Thomas DufFus Hardy, 1843, in a tabular form; and the other, in seven large volumes, bearing the same title as Mr. Oldmixon's work, is from the pen of Lord Cami)bell, 1845-7. However the learning and industry of the former must be acknowledged from the evidence afforded by tlie publications of the Record Commission, and with whatever zest the interesting and entertaining pages of the latter must be read, it is impossible not to feel a deep regret that in the earlier reigns both have adopted the names and followed the arrangement of their predecessors without inquiry ; and that the latter especially, by the popularity of his work, has, to a certain extent, perpetuated errors which a little examination and care might have corrected.

This expressionof regret applies principally, but not entirely, to the first five reigns after the Conquest : — viz. those of William I., William II., Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II. ; in I'cference to which Mr. Hardy says, that " it has been thought advisable merely to give the names of the various chancellors, because the precise dates of the deliveries of the seals cannot be ascertained " ; and Lord Campbell adopts the spirit of this excuse. Passing over that the same reason

a 2

XX

INTRODUCTION.

would be equally forcible for omitting the dates of several chancellors in subsequent reigns, the reader is left to under- stand that, though no dates are appended, the names are correct ; that there is sufficient authority for every one which is inserted ; that none who held the office are omitted ; and that the order in which they stand represents with accuracy the line of their succession. As, however, I fear that it would be unsafe to rely on any of these presumptions, I am bound to state the grounds of my apprehension ; and I shall do so only in a cursory manner in this place, reserving the fuller exhibition of my proofs for the several reigns in which the instances occur.

The five re'gns in question give no less than thirteen examples of chancellors incorrectly, or, at all events, in- considerately introduced. In the reign of AVilliam J., two chancellors are named, for one of whom no authority what- ever is cited by the compiler of any previous list ; and the other (misnamed by Dugdale and Lord Campbell) did not hold the seal till the following reign.' In William II.'s short reign, one chancellor is brought forward, of whom there is no proof, and scarcely any presumption, that he held the office.^ In the reign of Henry I. there are four who ought to be omitted : one for whom the authority given is only " an anonymal pamphlett ; " another was clearly only chancellor to the queen ; the third is inserted upon no other ground than a loose exj)ression (a sort of obiter dictum) of Leland ; and the fourth from the erroneous appropriation of a charter of the next reign. ^ Under Stephen there are two who have no claim to be there ; one being mistaken for his cousin, and the other having only the anonymous au-

1 Herman, Bishop of Sherborne; Baldric. Hardy, 1 ; Lord Campbell, \.A?>. ^ Ralph Flambard, Bishop of Durham. Hardy, 1 ; J^ord Campbell, i. 47. ^ I. Herbert; 2. Godfrey, Bishop of Bath ; f3. Reginald, Prior of Montague ; 4. Thomas (omitted by Lord Campbell). Hardy, 2, 3. ; Lord Campbell, i. 5\.

INTRODUCTION. XXI

thorlty before alluded to.^ Lastly, in the reign of the second Henry, four chancellors are named : for the first of whom Mr. Thynne, the original compiler, from whom all the rest have copied, gives not the slightest authority ; another was only vice-chancellor ; the third, introduced for the first time in Mr. Hardy's Catalogue, followed by Lord Campbell, was dead long before the appointment of the chancellor who is named as his predecessor in office, and has no other foundation for his name being inserted in any place than the evident miscopying of a charter ; and though the fourth certainly held the office of chancellor, it was to the Scottish, and not to the English king.^

There is an omission also of one chancellor in the reign of William I. ^ besides the other in that of William II. *, who was incorrectly inserted, as already mentioned, under his predecessor; and there are various amendments in the order of the succession under the Conqueror and Henry I., which it will be more convenient to particularise in the pages which treat of those reigns.

I bring forward these instances in the first five reigns, not in the presumptuous confidence that I am correct in all of them, but as proving the necessity of investigation, and to justify the regret I have expressed. No compiler of a new catalogue can maintain the propriety of preserving every name to be found in former lists, without satisfying himself that the previous writers were correct in adopting them, and using the necessary means of verification. The question is not whether Thynne, or Philipot, or Dugdale, or Spelman introduced a particular individual as chancellor, but whether

' Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln ; Re;finald, Abbot of Walden. Hardy, 3. ; Lord Campbell, i 56. 58.

"^ 1. John; 2. Walter de Constantiis ; D. Nigel, IJishop of Ely; 1. Walter de IVidun (omitted by Mr. Hardy). Hardy, 4. ; Lord Cami)bill, i. 1(X).

' Osbcrt. * Galdric, called l)y Lord Caini»bell, Baldric.

XXll INTRODUCTION.

those authors were right in introducing him, and whether the authorities they cite are sufficient warranty for his introduction. Unless such a course is pursued, the new catalogue is not merely unnecessary, but, as far as it gives further authenticity to errors in the old lists, is an evil, instead of a benefit, to literature and to history.

Ample means exist of making some approach to correct- ness ; for though, with regard to most of the ^\e reigns to which these observations refer, very few records remain for the guidance of the historian, it is to be noted that during the period over which they extend, the Monasticon alone contains very nearly one hundred and fifty charters to which the names of chancellors are attached. Some of these are dated ; and the dates of the others may be discovered with sufficient nearness from the witnesses who attest them ; so that a diligent enquirer, even without other aid, may make a considerable advance in ascertaining the order of their succession, and, in connection with other known facts, almost the dates of their appointments. If my attempt to effect this has not been entirely successful, I hope that at least it will have produced a nearer approximation to the truth than has yet been offered.

In the subsequent reigns the rolls, for the most part, contain memoranda of the appointment of the several chan- cellors ; and Lord Langdale has greatly lightened the labour of the antiquary by collecting together all the entries to be found in them, not only relative to the great seal, but also to the office of Master of the Rolls, which he so honourably fills. For the use of this valuable manuscript, as well as for many other kindnesses, and for that en- couragement to persist in my work which has stimulated my exertions, I cannot refrain from offering my most grateful acknowledgments.

In bespeaking the indulgence of the reader for the two

INTRODUCTION. XXlll

volumes which I now offer, I must remind him that neither the subjects introduced into them, nor the biographical sketches they contain, should be considered as affording an adequate specimen of those which are to follow. The reigns they comprise are so distant, that, though considerable interest must no doubt be felt in tracino* and discussino; the origin of our legal institutions, little minute information or forensic anecdote can be expected ; and the lives of those who flourished during the period can be distinguished by few incidents of individual character, nor can the parties themselves be always ascertained with sufficient marks of personal identity. The frequent absence of surnames; the constant combination of Christian names by the word " filius," or " Fitz," with slight means to distinguish the families to which they belong ; the common designation of men from the place of their birth, education, or pre- ferment, and sometimes from their office, occupation, or profession ; and the occasional adoption of two appellations by the same individual ; are difficulties which those Avho are conversant with the records of the time will know how to appreciate; and it will perhaps excite some wonder, that out of the FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY judgcs, regular and itinerant, comprehended in these two volumes, there are so few of whom I have not been able to collect something beyond the mere fact that they held the one or the other position.

However great were the obstacles that impeded me, or however small were the results that rewarded some of my researches, the plan of my work compelled me to make the most of the one, and to endeavour to surmount the other. If I have tolerably succeeded in doing this; if I have shown that though the land was untilled it was not wholly barren ; if I have proved that even the unpromising soil on which I have hitherto ventured is capable of pro-

XXIV

INTRODUCTION.

ducing some fruit, it is not perhaps too mucli to hope that, in advancino; into a district more cultivated and better known, there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a richer and more abundant harvest.

My ambition, however, does not extend to the com- position of a "parlour-window book," nor, by making a romance of history, to obtain for it a temporary popularity. Its aspirations may perhaps be deemed less humble when I confess that their aim is to produce a work which will supply a vacuum long acknowledged ; that it is my hope to interest the general reader by the lives which it sketches, — the historian by the information he may glean from it, — and the lawyer by the means of reference which it affords, and by the notices of individuals who flourished, and of incidents wliich occurred in that arena in which he is now contending.

To the descendants, the connections, and the friends of any judge, who would kindly supply me with an account of his life and family, and any incidents of his public or private career, I should feel under great obligations ; and it would materially assist me if my legal friends would furnish me with details relative to the courts and their officers, to illustrate and enliven my future volumes.

Street-End House, neai- Canterbury. October, 1848.

THE

JUDGES OF ENGLAND

WILLIAM I.

Reigned 20 years, 8 months, and 15 days ; from December 25, 1066, to September 9, 1087.

SURVEY OF THE REIGN.

The various branches of judicial business which are now dis- tributed among the four Courts of Westminster, denominated — 1. The Court of Chancery; 2. The Court of King's, or Queen's, Bench ; 3. The Court of Common Pleas ; and 4. The Court of Exchequer ; were in the reign of William the Conqueror all administered in one. This supreme court was called the Aula, or Curia, Eegis, from being held in the hall or court of the king's palace.

It is generally considered to have been one of the insti- tutions which William introduced into this country ; as there is no notice of any Court in England so designated previous to the Conquest, and as it certainly existed at that time in Normandy. Its primitive foundation is the simple principle that the King is the fountain of justice, to whom alone his subjects can look for the removal of their grievances and the redress of their wrongs. The discussion of lecjislative and other important measures necessary for the government of the state, formed accordingly a principal part of its delibe- rations ; but to the administration of justice between man and

VOL. I. B

CURIA REGIS.

Will. I.

man, as there conducted, the following pages are exclusively confined.

The Curia Regis necessarily, from its nature, followed the King's own movements; and in the palace in which he happened to be resident, this supreme court was held; in the judicial department of which, as well in this as in several of the subsequent reigns, the King himself frequently presided. In fact, judicature was inseparable from his person; he adminis- tered justice uhicunque fuerat in Anglid.

There were, however, three special periods of the year in which King William usually held his court, or, as it was called, " wore his crown," with peculiar solemnity. These were at Christmas, at Easter, and at Whitsuntide ; and Lon- don and Westminster, Windsor, Winchester, Gloucester, and Salisbury, are the places recorded as the scenes of these auo^ust assemblino's.

o o

Regal magnificence and hospitality, the arrangement of the revenue, and the consideration of national affairs, would necessarily occupy several of the earlier days of these festivals ; and the conclusion of them would fall on the commencement of those particular periods, which, according to the law then existing, were specially devoted to the transaction of legal business, and which, in modern phraseology, would be called the " Law Terras."

Some old and most modern historians have attributed the introduction of the " Terms " into our system of law to Wil- liam the Conqueror ; but Sir Henry Spelman ^, in a very learned paper on the subject, has ably exposed the error. He traces the foundation of the institution to the Romans, who appropriated certain days to judicial proceedings, and shows that its introduction into our judicature is to be ascribed, not to William, but to our Saxon king, Edward the Elder ; that

' The Original of the four Terms of the Year, by Sir Henry Spelman. Reliquiae Spelmannianje, 1698, p. 67.

1066—1087. ORIGIN OF THE TERMS. 3

it was adopted by Canute the Dane ; and that it was fully established by Edward the Confessor in a separate chapter of his laws, entitled, " De temporibus et diebus pacis Regis." All that William the Conqueror did here was to confirm the law of Edward the Confessor, from whose example he had previously introduced it into Normandy, before his invasion of England.

But while Spelman thus refutes the claim made by the historians on the part of King William to the credit of the invention, he at the same time adopts their assertion, that the number of the Terms thus introduced was four ; an assertion the truth of which may be doubtful, and, at all events, is worthy of examination.

If, as Spelman states, Polydore Vergil was the first his- torian who gave circulation to the fable that King William instituted the four Terms, his authority as to the original number of these legal divisions will amount to little. His history having been written at the beginning of the sixteenth century, he would, in alluding to the Terms, naturally speak of them as they existed at that period, and would presume, without inquiry, that they had continued in the same form from the time of their institution ; so that the question at issue remains untouched.

Before analysing the law which introduced the division, by which alone the point can be determined, it may be as well to give a slight notice of the practice among the Romans and others.

By the Romans certain days only were used for the legal decision of controversies. These were called Fasti, because their Praetor, or Judge, on those days might fari^ or speak freely. The days of vacation or intermission were called Ne fasti, because the Praetor might nefari, not speak in them judicially: thus dividing their year between their gods and the commonwealth.

B 2

TERMS AND VACATIONS.

Will. I.

By the Civilians and Canonists, in like manner, the year was divided into Dies juridicos, law days, and Dies feriales, festival days, or days of intermission, as sequestered from worldly business, and devoted to the service of God ; answer- ing to our Terms and Vacations.

Among our Saxon and Norman ancestors, the days appro- priated to God were denominated Dies pacis EcclesicB ; and those devoted to law were called Dies, or Tempus pacis Regis.

The early Christians used all days alike for hearing causes, not excepting Sundays. By a canon, however, in A. D. 517, it was ordained " that no bishop or inferior person should presume to judge or try causes on the Lord's Day : " thus leaving all other days in the year to be dies juridici. Several festivals were afterwards taken from the Courts of Justice, among which were the days in Easter Week, commonly called the Octaves. Afterwards, the octaves of Pentecost, St. Michael, the Epiphany, and other principal feasts, were gradually exempted from legal proceedings ; intervals which were subsequently enlarged by the addition of other periods, which it is not necessary to notice here.

The words of Edward the Confessor's law, confirmed, as before stated, by William the Conqueror, were as follow :

" Ab adventu Domini usque ad Octabas Epiphaniae pax Dei et Sanctae Ecclesiae per omne Begnum : similiter a Septua- gesima usque ad Octabas Paschse : Item ab Ascensione Domini usque ad Octabas Pentecostes : Item omnibus diebus quatuor Temporum ^ : Item omnibus Sabbatis ab hora nona ^, et tota die sequenti usque ad diem Lunae : Item vigiliis Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Michaelis, Sancti Johannis Baptistse, Apos- tolorum omnium et Sanctorum quorum solemnitates a sacer- dotibus Dominicis annunciantur diebus; et omnium Sanc-

' The Ember Weeks.

* Namelj', three o'clock in the afternoon, according to the Judaical compu- tation.

4

1066—1087. TERMS A^'D VACATIONS. 5

torum in Kalendris Novembris, semper ab hora noiia Vigi- liarum, et subsequent! solemnitate."

Now, looking at the language of this law, the question arises, where do we find in it the division of four Terms, which that law is stated to have instituted ? On the con- trary, it seems apparent on its face, that, deducting the three longer intervals appropriated to God and the Holy Church, only three periods will be left for the transaction of judicial business, which can fall under the denomination of Tempora €t dies pads Regis : and that during neither of these three judicial periods are there a sufficient number of fasts or festivals to divide it into two, — to makeup the alleged four.

In adjusting these divisions according to their order, it will simplify the inquiry, some of them being dependent on moveable feasts, if the years 1846-7 are taken for the purpose of illustration.

The first period devoted by Edward the Confessor's law to the church, (that is, in modern language, the first vacation,) was " from the Advent of our Lord till the octaves of the Epiphany;" viz., from November 29 to January 13: and the second vacation began on Septuagesima.

The^r5^ Law Term, therefore, (using the word Term ac- cording to its modern acceptation), began on January 13, and received the name of Hilary Term, from that day being- dedicated to the saint of that name. It would finish, in the year specified, on January 31 : but its length would of course vary in other years according to the falling of Easter, from which festival Septuagesima is calculated.

The second vacation, or period devoted to the church, commenced at Septuagesima, and lasted till the octaves of Easter; that is to say, in the year 1847, from January 31 to April 1 1 : and the third sacred period, or vacation, began on Ascension-day.

So that the second Law Term, or Easier JVnii, would

B 3

6 TERMS AND VACATIONS. Will. I.

begin on April 12 (April 11 being Sunday), and continue till May 13, Ascension-day.

The third and last period devoted to the church by Edward the Confessor's law, commenced on Ascension-day, and terminated on the octave of Pentecost ; that is, from May 13 to May 30 inclusive.

Consequently, the third Law Term would commence on May 31, the day after the dies pacis Ecclesice concluded; and its continuance, according to the language of Edward the Confessor's law, would manifestly be until the recurrence of another period made sacred by that law. It follows, therefore, as there are no other periods of any duration mentioned in it except those already described, that this third Law Term, as then regulated, commencing on May 31, would last till the Advent of our Lord, that is to say, till November 28.

By this arrangement it appears that what we now call Michaelmas Term was altogether excluded as a separate and distinct division ; the whole of the time now appropriated to it being comprehended in the third legal division, which, from the period of its commencement, would be called Trinity Term. Nor is the diflSculty removed by any of the festivals or fasts mentioned in the law occurring so closely together as to form a sufficient partition in this long Term to break it into two.

Of the separate fasts and festivals which are directed to be kept holy, three of the Ember weeks do not occur within the period required ; and the other, which comprehends the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after September 14, Holy- rood day, would be palpably not enough of itself to form a sufficient division between two Law Terms. None of the other festivals designated in the law, which come within the same period, are so near to these Ember days as to unite with them ; nor can the unnamed festivals during the same

1066—1087. TERMS AND VACATIONS. 7

interval, by their number or contiguity, assist in forming a period from which to commence what is now called Michael- mas Term.

It is difficult, therefore, to come to any other conclusion, than that, under the law of Edward the Confessor, as adopted and confirmed by William the Conqueror, there were only three periods of the year devoted to judicial business, and that there is nothing in that law to show that the longest of those periods had any authorised division.

That there were only three legal Terms in the time of King William is strongly corroborated by the fact, upon which all historians are agreed, that he (and indeed several of his suc- cessors) always "wore his crown" three times in every year when he was in England ; and that none of those times are stated to be at or about Michaelmas ; but that they are in- variably at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. And it is to be recollected that on these occasions he sat not only for the consideration of affairs of state, but also for the adminis- tration of justice.

Although Spelman evades all explanation of the point, he was evidently aware of the difficulty; for, in speaking of Trinity and Michaelmas Terms, he adverts to the un- certainty of the end of the former, and of the beginning of the latter.

No means exist of determining the precise period when the change took place ; but it is not difficult to understand how the third period, arranged by Edward the Confessor's law for the transaction of legal business, came at first to be divided, and gradually to assume the appearance of two Terms instead of one ; till at length the latter half was permanently established in the form it afterwards assumed.

The fourth vacation, though not directed by Edward's law, was, as Brady says, " made by necessity." At some period between May 31 and November 28, it would be

n 4

8 TERMS AND VACATIONS. Will. I.

requisite to relieve the people from attendance, for the pur- pose of their collecting the hay and corn harvests and the other autumnal products ; and there can be little doubt that there was a regular adjournment of the Court while they were thus employed in getting in the fruits of the earth. Such an adjournment would be attended with little incon- venience to the suitors, as it is not likely that there was, in those times, sufficient business to occupy so long a period as that which had been thus appropriated to legal affairs.

This adjournment would be naturally extended to the termination of these important occupations, which would be a short time after Michaelmas; — a period for re-assembling, which there was still another reason for fixing.

The sheriffs of the several counties, who were in fact the collectors of the royal rents, and the other debtors of the crown, were called upon to account for their receipts and expenditure half-yearly ; and the two periods that were appointed for this purpose, which were called the ^' Duo Scac- carii" were at Easter and Michaelmas. These reckonings were made in a branch of the Curia Regis, called the Ex- chequer, where the whole business of the revenue was conducted. There the same judges and officers sat as in the principal court; and as they must necessarily be present on these occasions of accounting, the audit at Michaelmas would be the natural and most convenient period for re- suming the ordinary legal business which had been inter- rupted for the reason mentioned.

Thus, it may be presumed, arose the partition of Edward's long legal period, extending from the octave of Pentecost to the Advent of our Lord ; and thus, being an annual practice, did the latter portion of that period gradually assume a distinct form, until it eventually became a separate and es- tablished division, under the designation of Michaelmas Term.

It is worthy of observation, that the word " Term " does

1066—1087. JURISDICTION OF CURIA REGIS. 9

not occur with its modern signification for several reigns after the Conquest. Spelman, in his Treatise, refrains from all attempt to trace the period of its introduction. In Ranulph de Glanville's book, written at the end of Henry II. *s reign, it is never used in this legal sense, but only as a day or time for payment or appearance : and in the Dialogus de Scaccario, written by Richard Fitz-Neale, afterwards Bishop of London in the reign of Richard I., although the word is introduced, the author evidently refers to the two Exchequer Terms of payment and account.

The jurisdiction of the Curia Regis was unlimited in its extent. Its ordinary inquiries were confined to such pleas as immediately concerned the king and his realm, whether of a civil or criminal nature ; and also to such other matters as from their superior importance required solemn investi- gation. Appeals also from all the inferior Courts of Anglo- Saxon origin lay to this Court ; and in some cases private individuals obtained from the king the privilege not to be impleaded before any other tribunal. For this privilege, and also for the removal of their suits from the inferior tribunals, fines, varying in amount ^ were paid to the king ; where- upon writs under the royal seal were issued, authorising the justices to hear and determine the particular controversy. Final concords, feoffments, releases, and conventions of divers kinds were also made in this Court ^ ; and the affairs of the revenue were likewise administered in that branch of it called tlie Exchequer (^Scaccarium), to which allusion has been already made.

Some of the best historians assert that the pleadings in the Court were, by the direction of the Conqueror, carried on in the French language; and that he also commanded that it sliould be universally taught in the schools : but Mr.

' Miiclux ^ Kxuli. 1. ;>b. - ibid. l\6.

10 MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF CURIA REGIS. Will. I.

Luders, in his excellent " Essay on the Use of the French Language in our ancient Laws and Acts of State," with great force of reasoning maintains a contrary opinion. He disputes the promulgation of any such ordinance ; and shows not only the total absence of any pleas in that language, but that the Exchequer forms, the judicial writs, the reports of trials in William's reign, and the records of the Curia Regis even under Richard I., were all in Latin.

The members of the Curia Regis consisted of various officers of the palace, and the prelates and barons of the realm. Of the latter, some from their avocations would be unable to attend, and others from their ignorance would be incompetent to assist in the judicial duties of the Court. These functions were gradually left to the management of a few of the barons who were expressly selected on account of their superior judgment or attainments, until, by the advance of legal science and the increase of technical intricacies, it became necessary at first to associate with them, and even- tually to substitute for them, persons whose lives had been devoted to juridical studies. These were called Justicige, or Justiciarii ; but no record of, nor reference to, any such ap- pointment in this reign has yet been discovered.

The officers who formed a part of the court w^ere the Chief Justiciary, the Constable, the Marshall, the Seneschal, or Dapifer, the Chamberlain, the Chancellor, and the Treasurer. At present it will be necessary to speak only of the Chief Justiciary and the Chancellor.

The Chief Justiciary, or Justiciarius Anglise, was the chief officer next the king in the Curia Regis. In the sovereign's absence he presided there in all criminal and civil causes, and also in the Exchequer, having by virtue of his office the principal management of the royal revenue : and, in addition to this, the entire government of the state was entrusted to him as regent when the king was absent from the realm.

4

1066—1087. CHIEF JUSTICIARY. 11

After a period of two hundred years, this officer was dis- continued in the reign of Henry III., when his principal judicial duties were transferred to the chief justice of the King's Bench.

It seems doubtful, however, whether this office of Jus- ticiarius Anglise was fully established under William the Conqueror ; for though in subsequent reigns it was regularly filled, whether the king were absent or present, yet in this reign no such appointment is recorded, except on those occasions when the king quitted his English dominions. It is also to be remarked, that even then he was careful never to delegate his authority to one individual ; two being generally joined in the commission, and at one time three. The want of records, however, renders any statement of their succession a matter of great uncertainty : and the only approach that can be made to a correct list, either of them or the chan- cellors, must be by recording the years in which they were known to have held their respective appointments.

In March, 1067, when King William returned to Nor- mandy, he left his uterine brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, and William Fitz-Osberne, Earl of Here- ford, as regents of the kingdom and chief justiciaries.^ The king's absence continued till December 7, during which they exercised sovereign power. No instance, however, is mentioned of their acting after the king's return.

Again, in 1073, the king, on quitting England, left Bishop Odo regent, and appointed Wilham de Warenne and Richard de Benefacta his chief justiciaries-; in which office it is not stated how long they continued.

Dugdale ^ states that he has seen precepts addressed to Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutance, and Robert, Earl of Moreton, which seem to

' Dugdale's Chron. Sen ; Madox's Exch. i. 3i. » Ibid.

^ Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 20.

12

CHIEF JUSTICIARY.

Will. 1.

imply that they held this appointment jointly. The au- thority from which he quotes gives no date : but it was probably while in the administration of the duties of the office that Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutance, " qui in loco regis fuit, et justiciam habuit," presided at Penenden Heath on the trial of the plea between Archbishop Lanfranc, and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, relating to certain lands and privileges belonging to the church of Canterbury, which had been seized by Odo as Earl of Kent. This trial appears to have been conducted with great solemnity, in the presence of many prelates and barons, and of all the great men of that and other counties. It lasted three days, and resulted in a decision against Odo, and a restoration of the whole to the Archbishop.^ Although no precise date is mentioned, this must have occurred, if not before 1080, the supposed com- mencement of the great survey, at least before 1086, its completion, as it is alluded to in Domesday Book under the manor of Estoches or Stokes.^

Brady says that the precept under which this investigation took place was not confined to the matters in dispute be- tween Lanfranc and Odo; but that it was a general one, by which the king commanded the restitution of all lands and liberties taken away from bishopricks and abbeys: and he refers to similar inquiries with respect to the church of Ely, heard before the Bishop of Coutance and certain of the king's barons, and with respect to the church of Worcester, heard before Queen Matilda by the testimony of the county of Warwick.^

In these judicial proceedings at a distance from the court Dugdale sees the origin of the Itinera, which were after- wards established on a permanent footing in the reign of Henry 11/

' Madox's Exch. i. 32. quoting Einulf, Hist, apud Angl. Sac. i. 334, 335. ' Brady's England, i. 140. ^ jjjij. 141.

^ Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 52.

1066—1087. OFFICE OP CHANCELLOR. 13

The King's Chancellor, Cancellarius Regis,- was another officer of the Curia Regis ; holding at this period a rank greatly inferior to that which he afterwards attained. The origin of the name has been much disputed, and its meaning variously defined ; but there is no question that the office existed long before this reign, its antiquity having been traced as far back as the time of Ethelbert, the first king among the Saxons who embraced Christianity. This officer was usually an ecclesiastical person ; and " in truth," says Madox, " was the king's chief chaplain, and had the superior care of his chapel : " supporting his assertion by one record in the reign of Henry III., by which he is allowed certain ex- penses on that account, and another in the reign of Edward I., in which he is expressly so denominated.^

His precise duty in the reign of William it is impossible to ascertain ; but the nature of it evidently placed him in per- sonal connection with the king, to whom he probably acted as a secretary. There is no doubt that by him were prepared and issued the various writs and precepts in reference to the proceedings of the Curia Regis. It was his province also to supervise the royal charters and grants, and all other in- struments to which the king's seal was to be attached ; and the seal itself was kept in his custody, or at least under his direction. Dugdale quotes, in evidence of this, the words " Mauritius, Regis Cancellarius, relegit et sigillavit," which arc attached to King William's charter of confirmation to the Abbey of Westminster ^ ; but, on inspection of this charter in the British Museum, it is declared to be a forgery.

As in the performance of these services the chancellor would necessarily be brought into intimate and almost daily com- munication with the sovereign, it is natural to suppose that his advice would be frequently required, and that much

' Madox's Kxcli. i. 60. » Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 34.

14

OFFICE OF CHANCELLOR.

Will. I.

reliance would by degrees be placed on his opinion and experience. Thus no doubt did he gradually become a regular counsellor in affairs of state, and thus did his office in time advance from a rank of comparatively minor signifi- cation to one of great dignity and pre-eminence ; until, when the power of the chief justiciary was finally abolished under Henry III., he was considered the king's chief legal adviser, and in fact prime minister of the realm.

From the account of the allowance made to the chancellor, which is recorded in a very ancient memorial concerning the constitution of the king's house, and copied into the Red Book of the Exchequer, it would appear that this officer was resident in the palace. His allowance was "Five shillings a day, a simnel (described Dominic?) and two seasoned simnels; one sextary of clear wine, and one sextary of household wine; one large wax candle, and forty pieces of candle." 1

The place where the business pertaining to his office was performed was called the Chancery ( Cancellaria) ; and, though he had then no jurisdiction to hear and determine causes, it seems not unlikely that questions might arise and be discussed before him as to the form of the writs he was called upon to issue, and the grants and commissions he was required to prepare ; in order to prevent in the one case the establishment of evil precedents, and in the other to check impositions on the royal bounty. That this was so in the time of Henry II. may be presumed from the prologue to " The Life of Saint Thomas, Archbishop and Martyr," by William Fitz- Stephen, who says he was one of Becket's " clerks, and an inmate in his family ; and as by express invitation I was called to his service, I became a remem- brancer in his Chancery ; a sub-deacon in his chapel, whenever

Madox's Exch. i. 195.

\

1066—1087. OFFICE OF CHANCELLOR. 15

he officiated ; and, when lie sat to hear and determine causes, a reader of the bills and petitions ; and sometimes, when he was pleased to order it, I even performed the office of an advocate,''^ ^

To perform the duties of his department there were neces- sarily a variety of clerks ; among whom are named the Clericus, or Magister Scriptorii, who was the chief; the Scriptor rotuli de Cancellaria ; and the Spigurnell, or sealer of the writs. The perquisites added to the pecuniary salaries of these officers tend to show that the whole establishment were inmates of the royal palace. The allowance, for instance, of the Clericus Scriptorii was " Tenpence a day, and one seasoned simnel, and half a sextary of the household wine, and one large candle, and twelve pieces of candle." This allowance was considerably increased by Henry II. He took rank next to the chancellor, and his duty was constantly to attend in the Exchequer (where the royal seal was de- posited), and to provide fit persons to transcribe the rolls of the court and the documents issuing from it.^

Seven chancellors have been assigned to William's reign, with different and sometimes conflicting dates, and some of them occupying the office more than once. No satisfactory attempt has yet been made to place them in regular order, and it nmst be acknowledged that the want of tlie public records of the reign renders any endeavour to do so extremely difficult. It is to be regretted, however, that recent writers, who have published works expressly devoted to the subject, should have been satisfied with the lists as they found them, without an effort for either their verifi- cation or their correction. It cannot be alleged that no means of investigation exist, since charters of the period are

' Fitz- Stephen's Description of London, translated by an antiquary, Dr. Pcgge, 1772, p. 19.

» Madox's Exch. i. 19.5.

16 CHANCELLORS. Will. T.

accessible as well in print as in public and private reposi- tories; the dates of which, even where not actually given, may be traced through the attestation of the witnesses.

The Monasticon contains the largest collection of printed charters of the earlier reigns ; and it is not too much to say that, from an examination of them alone, a far more correct arrangement may be formed than any that has hitherto ap- peared.

In framing the following list, with the charters for my guide, I have stated my reasons for every variation from the former catalogue ; and without the presumption of believing that I have discovered the exact truths I hope I have made some advance towards its attainment.

Arfastus is the first individual under the Conqueror, to whose name the title of Chancellor is added in the charters contained in the Monasticon. He is a witness to the charter granted to the dean and canons of St. Martin's, London ^ which is dated at Pentecost, in 1068 ; that is to say, when King William had been on the throne less than a year and a half. There is nothing to show that he had been then newly appointed ; and the fact that he was one of William's chaplains previously to the invasion of England, renders it probable that he was appointed chancellor immediately after the Conquest. A charter to the church of Exeter, dated in

1069, has also his name as chancellor^; and about Easter,

1070, he became Bishop of Helmham^: which see, a few years afterwards, he removed to Thetford.

OsBERT is not mentioned in any preceding list ; but that there was a chancellor of this name appears by his attestation

' Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 1325. ^ Ibid. ii. 531.

^ Lord Campbell has followed the extraordinary blunder in Oldmixon's " Lives of the Lord Chancellors," 1708, in calling Arfastus Bishop of Helmstadt, in Germany ; although Spelman, the only authority his lordship cites, expressly describes him as Bishop of Thetford.

1066—1087. CHANCELLORS. 17

to the charter of King William to the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury.^ It has no date, but it must have been granted between 1070 and 1075, as William, Bishop of London, who died in the latter year, and Scotlandus the Abbot, who was raised to that dignity in the former year, are two of its witnesses. .Thus it is probable that he suc- ceeded Arfastus when he was elected Bishop of Helmham in 1070, and continued in office till he himself was elevated to the bishoprick of Exeter in 1074. He was sometimes called Osbern.

Osmund is the next chancellor whose date may be approxi- mated. He attested two undated charters, one to St. Paul's, London^, and the other to the abbey of Fescamp in Nor- mandy.^ To the former Archbishop Lanfranc was a witness, so that it must have been granted after 1070, the year of his consecration ; and both of them must have been before 1078, when Osmund was elected Bishop of Salisbury.

Maurice usually stands at the head of the list of chan- cellors, as well as in this place. But the charter to AYest- minster Abbey attested by him in 1067, which Dugdale quotes '*, being found on reference to it in the British Museum to be altogether a forgery, I have discovered no other that will justify me in continuing his name under that date. That he was chancellor about this period is proved by King William's confirmation of the grant by William de Warenne and Gundreda his wife of the church of St. Pancras at Lewes to the monks of Cluny^ which, looking at the foundation, was probably dated about 1078. In 1081 also we find him witnessing the charter confirming the decision of the contest between Arfastus, Bishop of Thetford and Baldwin, Abbot of Bury^; and in 1082 he attested King

' Dugdale's Monast. i. 144. • Dugdale's St. Paul's (1716), 51.

•* Monasticon, vi. 1082. * Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 34,

* Archaeologia, xxxil. 12:5. " Monabt. iii. 141.

VOL. I. C

18

CHANCELLORS.

Will. I.

William's charter granting the priory of Covenham to the abbey of Karilephus, in the diocese of Maine. ^ When he retired from the office does not appear ; but he was elected Bishop of London either in 1183 or 1185.

William Welson follows in the succession. The attes- tation of " William the Chancellor " is appended to the Conqueror's charter confirming the grant of Yvo Tailboys to St. Nicholas of Angiers^; the first witness to which is William, Bishop of Durham, who was not elected to that see till November, 1080. Its date, therefore, must have been between that time and (if this was William Welson, as seems most probable,) the year 1085, when this chancellor also was made Bishop of Thetford.

If both Maurice and William Welson were raised to the episcopal bench in the same year, the last-recited charter would show that Maurice resigned the Seal before he became a bishop; but if he was elected in 1083, that probably was the period when William obtained possession of the office, which he no doubt retained till his own election to the pre- lacy.

Some little confusion arises from the next and last chan- cellor of this reign, William Giffard, having the same Christian name as his predecessor. There is no positive evidence, for instance, to which of the two the attestation of the last charter is to be ascribed. It is now placed accord- ing to the best judgment I could form. In general, however, where the name of William the Chancellor appears, there is some internal or collateral evidence to decide the question. The Monasticon contains no other charter of William I. besides this, that bears the name of William the Chancellor ; but as there must have been some chancellor after William Welson's accession to the bishoprick : and as William Giffard

Dugdale's Monast. vi. 993.

* Ibid. iii. 'J 16.

1066—1087. CHANCELLORS. 19

is always mentioned as holding the office at the death of that king, and there is sufficient evidence that he retained it for some time on the accession of William II., it may be reason- ably concluded that he succeeded William Welson on liis removal to the prelacy.

Looking, then, at the list thus suggested, and presuming that during the first eighteen months of the reign Arfastus occupied the same position as he did at their termination, it will be found that there is as near a succession as can be expected ; each new appointment, except perhaps in the case of Maurice, appearing to be consequent on the elevation of his prede- cessor to the prelacy ; and leaving few intervals that can raise a question.

Besides one new chancellor, not previously introduced, ^ve of the seven contained in former catalogues have found their place, though not in the same order. It now remains to notice the two who have been omitted, and to state the reasons for their exclusion.

1. The first of these is Baldric, introduced by Dugdale, on the authority of a charter which he attributes to William I., granting the church of Andover to the monks of St. Floren- tius.^ On consideration of its language, however, it will be manifest that it was granted, not by the Conqueror, but by William II. After the usual introduction it proceeds to re- cite " that king William, ivho suhjv gated the land of England to himself by arms, gave (dedit) the church of Andover," &c. Now, even if the Conqueror could be supposed to speak of his conquest in this manner (which is not very probable), he would have related the fact in the first person, as "I the king, who " &c. ** have given." His son, however, was not at all unlikely to use this language. But what decides the question is, that the first witness to this charter, immediately

' Dugdale's Monast. vi. 992. c 2

20

CHANCELLORS.

Will. L

preceding the chancellor, is " Rotbertus Episcopus de Nicola/' (Lincoln) ; of which see there was no bishop of that name in the reign of William I., while under that of William II., Rohej't Bloet was elected, in the year 1093.

To the next reign, therefore, this chancellor must be re- moved ; but it may be as well to notice here that his name, as recorded in the charter, is not Baldric, but Galdric.

2. Herman, Bishop of Sherborne. Thynne says of him, "he is that Hirmanus which, / suppose, was chancellor to William the Conqueror : " and upon this sole authority have Philipot and all his copyists, down to the present time, thought proper to continue his name. It is needless to say that I have discovered no charter bearing his name as chan- cellor.

Table of Chancellors and Chief Justiciaries.

A.R.	A.D.
I.	1067
	1168
IV.	1070
VIL	1073
VIIL	1074
XIL	1078
XVIL	1083
XX.	1086

Chancellors.

Arfastus, afterwards Bishop of

Helmham (1070) Osbert, afterwards Bishop of

Exeter (1074)

Osmund, afterwards Bishop of

Salisbury (1078) Maurice, afterwards Bishop of

London (1083-5)

"William Welson, afterwards Bishop of Thetford (1085)

William Giffard, afterwards Bishop of Winchester (1100)

Chief Justiciaries.

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, and

Earl of Kent, and William Fitz-Osbern, Earl of

Hereford.

William de Warenne, and Richard de Benefacta.

Lanfranc, Archbishop of Can- terbury,

Geoffrey, Bishop of Constance, and

Robert, Earl of Moreton.

A long controversy has been carried on among antiquaries as to the period when Seals were first appended to instru- ments for the purpose of attestation : and the argument, that, in the Saxon times, the words signum and sigillum, appearing

1066—1087. SEALS. 21

on many ancient charters, were synonymous, has been relied on by the advocates both of their earlier and their later intro- duction. It is universally allowed, however, that a royal seal was used in this country by Edward the Confessor, who is said to have adopted the practice from Normandy, where he received his education ^ ; and the evidence of its existence in the time of William the Conqueror is unquestionable.

The ordinary place of depositing the king's seal about this time, was in the treasury of the Exchequer : and the writs of Chancery were frequently sealed there. ^

In one part of the Dialogus de Scaccario, the Exchequer is described as being said to have been erected at the Con- quest^; but in another chapter it appears that the sittings which in the author's time, the reign of Henry II., were called ad Scaccarium, had formerly been designated ad Taleas.^ Mr. Stapleton, in his Observations on the Norman Rolls, ascribes the introduction of the Exchequer to the reign of Henry I. ; and Alexander de Swereford, an officer of that court under King John, states in the Red Book that no yearly rolls of the Conqueror had been seen by any one in his days."^ At whatever date it was established, it formed a part of Curia Regis, and had the same judges. Its pleas, however, were kept separate from those of the principal court, but it cannot now be determined in what manner the chief justiciary, who presided in both, distributed the pro- ceedings between the two.

It was sometimes called Curia Regis ad Scaccarium ; and its name was derived from the table at which it sat, which was "a four-cornered board, about ten feet long and five feet broad, fitted in manner of a table to sit about ; on every side whereof is a standing ledge or border, four fingers

• Archaeologia, xviii. 12. 40. • Mudox's Exch. i. 194. » Madox's Exch. ii. ;359. * Ibid. ii. 353.

• Rot. Scaccarii Normannia;, Observations, i. xlx — xxii,

c 3

22

THE EXCHEQUER.

Will. I.

broad. Upon this board is laid a cloth bought in Easter Term, which is of black colour, rowed with strekes, distant about a foot or span ; " like a chess-board. On the spaces of this Scaccarium, or chequered cloth, counters were ranged, with denoting marks, for checking the computations.

The peculiar jurisdiction of this court was to adjust the king's revenue, which, in this and some following reigns, was paid partly in kind and partly in money ; the different farms supplying necessaries for the daily use of the king's household, and the cities and towns furnishing money for the soldiers and other purposes of the state. ^ Pleas between private individuals were afterwards heard in this branch of the court, and fines levied and recorded in it ; but no in- stances occur previous to the reign of Henry II.

The king himself sometimes presided ; but the chief jus- ticiary was usually styled, and sat as president. He was assisted by the chancellor, treasurer, and barons, both eccle- siastical and secular ; and the persons who acted as justices in the King's Court were usually employed as justiciers or barons in the Exchequer ; the two designations, Baro and Justiciarius, being frequently used without any perceivable difference. They were all, however, commonly called Barones Scaccarii. In William's reign, there do not appear to have been any barons distinct from those who acted in the King's Court.

From the earliest times there were two notable Terms or periods of the year in the Exchequer, called the Duo Scac- carii ; one the Scaccarium Paschce, and the other the Scac- carium S. Micliaelis ; being the times at which the writs for levying the king's debts were made returnable.

The natural consequence of the proceedings in the Curia Regis being carried on in a foreign tongue, whether

• Dialogus de Scaccario, Madox's Exch. ii, 380.

066—1087. CONTEURS — SERJEANTS. 23

French or Latin, was that the parties who were engaged in the causes before it were incompetent to conduct them, and were therefore obliged to employ persons who were not only conversant with the law as administered, but familiar with the language of the court. These persons were designated " Conteurs^'' or, in Latin, " Narratores.''^ They were at first principally imported from the Norman courts; and none others were allowed to be heard. The only trace of this prohibition now remaining is to be found in the refusal of the courts in Westminster Hall to receive special pleas, &c. without the signature of counsel.

The monopoly which these Conteurs or Countors enjoyed in the fees for their services is stated by Mr. Sergeant Manning ^ to have induced the Conqueror, or his more immediate successors, to treat their office as a ^' Serjeanty in gross ; " and to assume, if they did not possess it before, the right of appointing to this serjeanty. The mode in which this was effected was by a royal mandate or writ, issued in the most solemn form, under the great seal, and addressed to the Serjeants practising in the Curia Regis. The same course was afterwards adopted when the Court of Common Pleas was established, and has ever since been continued.

The following is the form that is found in the most ancient registers : —

"Rex, &c. N. N. salutem. Quia de advisamento consilii nostri ordinavimus vos ad statum et gradum servientis ad legem ... die mensis . . . proximo futuro, suscepturos: Vobis mandamus, firmiter injungentes, quod vos ad statum et gradum praedictum, ad diem et locum, in forma prajdicta susci- piendum, ordinetis et pra^paretis : et hoc sub poena mille li- brarum nullatenus omittatis. Teste, &c."^

' Manning's Servient ad Legem, Preface, ix. ' Dugdale's Orig. Jurid, IHf).

c 4

24

SERJEANTS.

Will. I.

The modern form is precisely the same : —

" To our trusty and well-beloved greeting.

For-

asmuch as, by the advice of our council, we have ordained you to take upon you the state and degree of a serjeant-at-law, on " &c., " We, strictly enjoining, command you to put in order and prepare yourself, to take upon you the state and degree aforesaid in form aforesaid, and this you may in nowise omit under the pain of one thousand pounds." ^

Lord Coke notices four several marks of dignity attaching to a Serjeant in the mode of his appointment : — 1. That he is called by the king by advice of his council; 2. That he is called by the king's writ ; 3. That the writ is directed to him in the plural number, vobis, a special mark of dignity ; 4. That he is called ad statum et ^radum servientis ad legemJ^

It is needless to say that no writ of this early period is extant. The first that occurs is in the reign of Kichard II. ; and Dugdale's list of Serjeants commences only in that of Edward I.

The oath administered to a Serjeant on his creation was in the following form : —

'' You shall swear well and truly to serve the king's people as one of the serjeants-at-law ; and you shall truly counsel them that you be retained with, after your cunning ; and you shall not defer or delay their causes willingly for covetise of money or other thing that may turn you to profit, and you shall give due attendance accordingly: So help you God."

In the earlier times all serjeants-at-law appear to have been called " Servientes Regis ad Legem ; " and no distinction seems to have existed between that title and the simple one of serviens ad legem, while the Curia Regis constituted one entire court. But afterwards the former title was applied to

Manning's Serviens ad Legem, 33.

Preface to Coke's 10 Report.

1066—1087. SERJEANTS. 25

those only who, having been previously called by writ to the degree of serjeant-at-law, were specially appointed by letters patent to transact the king's business.^

Sir Henry Chauncey ^, however, who was a serjeant-at-hiw in 1700, says that they were originally distinct ; the servientes regis ad legem sitting with the sheriff in the county court, and the servientes ad legem sitting with the great lords in the courts held for their manors. That Serjeants did attend at these courts is proved by Bracton ^ ; but the question must remain undetermined whether there was any difference in their degree.

Few men in those ages were learned in the laws except the clergy, who were bound by their order to shave their heads. The serjeant-countors, being originally part of this body, were of course obliged to follow the rule ; but for " decency and comeliness," or rather perhaps for warmth, were by degrees allowed to cover their baldness with a coif. This was at first a thin linen cover gathered together in the form of a skull or helmet ; the material being afterwards changed into white silk, and the form eventually into the black patch at the top of the forensic wig, which is now the distinguishing mark of the degree. Thus they were frequently called Serjeants of the coif.

The remainder of the dress was a long priest-like robe, with a cape about the shoulders furred with lambskin, and a hood with two labels upon it. They had also party- coloured robes, " that the people," as Chauncey says, " should show the greater respect as well to their persons as their profession." It seems, however, probable that these party- coloured robes were not introduced till about the time of Chaucer, who inveighs against them as a new fashion.

' Manning's Serviens ad I^cgem, Preface, ix, * Hist. Antiq. of Herts, 75. ' Wynne's Serjeant-at-law, 1 5.

26

LAW CASES.

Will. I.

There is no record of the names of any of the countors or Serjeants who flourished in this reign and practised in the Curia Regis : but several of the clergy are noted for their legal learning. In the great cause between Lanfranc and Odo, Agelric, the venerable Bishop of Chichester, was by the king's command brought to Penenden Heath in a chariot, to instruct the judges in the ancient laws and customs of the land, as the most skilful person in the knowledge of them ; and Alfwin, rector of Sutton, and Sacolus and Godric, monks of Abingdon, are all mentioned as persons so expert in those laws, that others in divers parts did easily submit to their judgment.^

History reports but few other cases tried in this reign besides those already mentioned as to the restitution of the church's lands and liberties. The great cause between Lan- franc, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas, Archbishop of York, relative to the primacy, was opened in Easter, 1072, at the king's court at Winchester, and was determined at the following Whitsuntide, when the king held his court at Windsor.

In a contest relative to the land of Fracenham, which Gundolf, Bishop of Rochester, claimed as belonging to his church, and Pichot, Sheriif of Cambridgeshire, alleged to be the king's, the question was referred by the king to be tried by the men of the county. Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, presided on the occasion, and after a double hearing decided in favour of Gundolf ; fining twelve w^ho had sworn untruly in favour of the sheriff, in the then enormous sum of 300/. The con- troversy between Arfastus, Bishop of Helmham, and the Abbot of Bury, in 1081, has already been referred to.

Dugdale's Grig, Jurid. 21.

27

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES

THE JUDGES UlSIDER THE REIGN OF WILLIAM L

ARFASTUS, or HERFASTUS, Bishop op Helmhaji and Thetford.

Chancellor, 1068.

Arfastus, or Herfastus, was by birth a Norman, and was one of the chaplains of William the Conqueror before his invasion of England. He had previously been a monk in the Abbey of Bee in Normandy, where, from the greater igno- rance of his brethren, his slender pretensions to learning made some show. It seems, however, that he was merely luscus inter strahones, a blinkard among the blind : and it is related that after Lanfranc had raised the character of the abbey, Arfastus, as one of the duke's chaplains, visited it in great pomp; when Lanfranc, soon discovering his defi- ciencies, somewhat rudely ridiculed and exposed them ; an indignity which Arfastus revenged by procuring his tempo- rary disgrace and banishment.^

After the Conquest, Arfastus continued in great favour with King William, and became his chancellor. The date of his appointment does not appear ; but as it is certain that he held the office at Whitsuntide, 1068, his name with that addition being attached to the charter which William then granted to the church of St. Martin's-le-Grand, in London 2, it is not unlikely that he was William's first chancellor.

' Godwin de Praesulibus, 1743, p. 60. • Monast. Anglic, vi. 1324.

28

ARFASTUS.

Will. I.

Dugdale, in his " Chronica Series," and Oldmixon and Lord Campbell, in their " Lives of the Lord Chancellors," give the date of 1073, referring to the same charter; an inspec- tion of which will prove their error. Thynne, Philipot, and Spelman state it correctly.

He was chancellor in the following year, 1069, being an attesting witness to King William's charter to the church at Exeter.^ He probably retired about the middle of the year 1070, when he received the bishoprick of Helmham in Norfolk ; not Helmstadt in Germany, as Oldmixon and Lord Campbell erroneously assert.

In 1075, in consequence of the mandate of the council of London, that the episcopal sees should be transferred from villages to the most eminent towns in their dioceses, this see was removed to Thetford ; and the bishop made a subsequent attempt to fix it at Bury. Alleging that a great part of the revenues then belonging to the monastery there had been alienated from the see by his predecessor, he took active measures against the Abbot Aylwin ; but that dignitary, claiming to be exempt from the episcopal jurisdiction, strenu- ously defended the rights of his house; and the contest, notwithstanding the bishop's interest with the king, was decided against him in 1081.

One author places Arfastus as chancellor again in 1077 ^ and another mentions Maurice in the same year^; but as they neither cite any authority, and as there is proof that Maurice was chancellor probably in 1078, and certainly in 1081, when the above decision was pronounced between the bishop and the abbot, no sufficient ground is oiFered for reliance on this statement.

' Monast. Anglic, ii. 531.

* Francis Thynne's Catalogue, in Holinshed's Chron, 1808. iv. 348. merely copies him.

^ Philipot's Catalogue, 1636, p. 4.

Spelman

1066—1087. RICHARD DE FITZ-GILBERT. 29

That he was not de2)rived, however, of the royal favour is evidenced by the grant which he received of all the churches and various other possessions in Thetford ; where, assisted by Roger Bigod, he rebuilt the church of St. Mary, and spared neither pains nor cost in augmenting and improving his see.

His death occurred in 1084, and he was buried in the ca- thedral at Thetford. Weever has preserved his epitaph. He bequeathed his possessions among Richard and his other sons, who, no doubt, were born long before the promulgation of the decree of the synod of Winchester in 1076, enforcing the celibacy of the clergy.'

His successor in the bishoprick was William Welson, or Bellofago, another chancellor of the Conqueror.

BAYEUX, Bishop of. See Odo.

BEAUFO, 1

BELFAGUS, \ See William Welson.

BELLOFAGO. J

BENEFACTA, RICHARD DE. See Richard de Fitz-Gil-

BERT.

CANTERBURY, Archbishop of. See Lanfranc CLARE, RICHARD DE. See Richard Fitz-Gh^bert. CORNWALL, Earl of. See Robert. COUTANCE, Bishop of. See Geoffrey. DORSET, Earl of. See Osmund. EXETER Bishop of. See Osbert.

FITZ-GILBERT, RICHARD DE, or, De Benefacta ; or, De Tun bridge ; or, De Clare.

Just. Angl. 1073.

This great man is mentioned under all these names. He was first called Richard Fitz-Gilbert, from his father ; and after- wards de Benefacta, from his estate of Benefield in North- amptonshire ; de Tunbridge, from that castle in Kent ; and

' Weever's Funeral Monuments, 785. 827. ; Bloomlicld's Norfolk, i. 404. and Norwich, i. 463.

30

RICHARD DE FITZ-GILBERT.

Will. I.

de Clare, from the honour or earldom of that name in Suffolk ; all of which were included in his possessions.

He was the son of Gilbert Crispin, Earl of Brion and Ou, whose father Geoffrey was a natural son of Richard I. Duke of Normandy : so that he was second cousin to the Conqueror on his father's side ; and if his mother was, as one pedigree asserts ^ Arlotta, who was also mother of the Conqueror, he was, on her side, that monarch's half-brother : but this re- lationship is very doubtful.

Thus closely allied to the duke, he naturally joined him in his enterprise against England, and was a participator in the dangers of the field of Hastings. His share in the lands distributed among the Norman adventurers, it may be pre- sumed, was not a niggardly one. At the general survey he was found to be possessed (among others) of thirty- eight lordships in Surrey, thirty-five in Essex, three in Cambridge- shire, and ninety-five in Suffolk, of which Clare was the chief, the name of which his descendants adopted. He ex- changed the strong castle of Brion in Normandy, which he inherited, for the town and castle of Tunbridge, with a circuit round them, the extent of which was fixed by the same rope by which his own domains at Brion had been measured, comprehending three miles from every part of the walls.

When King William went to Normandy in 1073, he was left as joint chief justiciary of the kingdom with William de Warenne. While exercising this power, little is recorded of them, except that about three years afterwards they defeated Roger Fitz-Osberne, Earl of Hereford, and Ralph de Guader, Earl of Norfolk, who had headed a rebellion against the royal authority. The battle was fought at Fagadun or Bicham in Norfolk, and the leaders were corn-

Manning and Bray's Surrey, i. xix.

1066—1087. WILLIAM PITZ-OSBERNE. 31

pelled to appear at the king's court, and receive their sentences.

After the Conqueror's death he at first took the part of his son Eobert, but afterwards adhered to William Rufus, and his successor Henry I. In the reign of the latter he was slain in an ambush, while marching to his property in Cardiganshire.

He married Rohais, the daughter of Walter GifFard, Earl of Buckingham, who, after his death, married Eudo the Dapifer. By her he left five sons, the eldest of whom was Gilbert, who is generally spoken of as de Tunhridge, whose eldest son, Richard, was created Earl of Hertford, a title which was successively enjoyed (together with that of Clare) by his two sons Gilbert and Roger de Clare ; the latter of whom will be mentioned under the reign of Henry II. Gil- bert's second son, Gilbert, Avas created Earl of Pembroke by King Stephen, and this title devolved on the famous William Mareschall, who will be noticed under the reign of Richard I., by his marriage with this earl's grand- daughter. ^

FITZ-OSBERNE, WILLIAM, Earl of Hereford.

Just. Angl. 1067.

William Fitz-Osberne was the son of Osberne de Crepon, and grandson of Herfastus, who was the brother of Gunnora, a forester's daughter, first concubine, and then wife, to Richard I., the third Duke of Normandy, and great- grandfather of William the Conqueror. He was conse- quently connected by distant relationship with the young prince, and was brought up with him from infancy. On his father's death he succeeded to the office of steward or dapifer in the ducal household, and was Count of Bretteville in

' Madox's Exch. i. 32. ; Dugdale's Barunagc, i. 206. ; Manning and Bray's Surrey, i. xix. ; Brady's England, &c.

32 WILLIAM FITZ-OSBERNE. Will. L

Normandy. After the accession of Duke William, Fitz- Osberne aided him in quelling every civil commotion of his Norman subjects. To his instigation was attributed the determination of William to undertake the invasion of England, and when the nobles opposed the expedition, his address and cunning induced them not only to withdraw their objections, but to come forward with liberal supplies. Forty of the ships to convey the invading army were equipped at his own expense, and one of the three divisions at the battle of Hastings was placed under his command.

Having contributed to the conquest of England, he as- sisted greatly in the maintenance of the acquisition by his valour and good counsels. To his vigilance was entrusted the erection of a castle at Winchester for the purpose of overawing the inhabitants ; and when, in the year after the conquest, the king returned to Normandy, to him and to Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the government of the realm was committed as chief justiciaries. The southern division was appropriated to Odo, and the northern to Fitz-Osberne, on whom the earldom of Hereford, and the office of constable or marshal (Magister Militum), were also conferred.

Besides presiding over the Curia Regis during the king's absence, they also managed the king's revenue ; but their conduct was so arrogant and rapacious that the indignation of the English was roused. The efforts of the people, how- ever, to relieve themselves were so ill-concerted that they were easily subdued; and the regents were rewarded, in- stead of being punished for their oppression.

In 1069 we find Fitz-Osberne assisting his sovereign in the suppression of various insurrections in the north and in the west of England ; and in conjunction with Walter de Lacy opposing the Welsh. Soon after he was employed by the king in aiding Queen Matilda in the defence of Nor- mandy; and in 1072 he proceeded to Flanders to assist

1066—1087. WILLIAM FITZ-OSBERNE. 33

Arnulph, the heir of Baldwin, its earl, in resisting the invasion of the disinherited Robert de Frison. In this ex- pedition he was surprised by the exile, and perished through his careless security.

To his zeal, courage, and wisdom, King William was greatly indebted for his success ; and he was rewarded accordingly. Besides the grant of the county of Hereford, he received the Isle of Wight and various other possessions and advantages, the extent and number of which are uncer- tain, as the general survey did not take place till several years after his death. But, notwithstanding the rich gifts which were lavished on him, his prodigality always left him in poverty, which King William, with whom he was a great favourite, at once chided and supplied. Quarrels, however, would now and then occur between his sovereign and him. On one occasion, being steward of the household, he had set upon the royal table the flesh of a crane scarcely half- roasted, when the king in his rage aimed a severe blow at him, which, though it was warded off by Eudo, another favourite, so offended Fitz-Osberne, that he resigned his office, which, at his request, the king then conferred on Eudo, who in history is always mentioned as Eudo Dapifer.

He introduced into Hereford many of the laws and cus- toms of his Norman seignory of Brettevillc. In building the castle of Gloucester he destroyed sixteen houses ; and by his advice, the king seized all the money and valuables which private individuals had lodged for security in the monasteries. Though brave and generous as a soldier, he was severe and oppressive in his government, and was looked upon as the pride of the Normans and the scourge of the English.

He was twice married. His first wife was Adeline, daughter of Koger de Toney, a great Norman baron',

' Dugdale's Baronage, i. 67. Yet this author afterwards says, p. 469., that Roger de Toni married Alice, daughter of William Fitz-Osberne.

VOL. I. D

34 GEOFFREY, BISHOP OF COUTANCE. Will. T.

standard-bearer of King William; and the second was Richild, daughter and heir of Reginald, Earl of Renault, the mother by a former husband of Arnulph, in whose cause he fell. By the latter he had no children ; and though by the former he left three sons and two daughters, his title and his family soon became extinct.

William, his eldest son, succeeded to his Norman posses- sions, and died without issue ; Ralph, his second son, be- came a monk ; and his third son, Roger, upon whom the earldom of Hereford devolved, entered into a conspiracy against the king with Ralph de Guader, Earl of Norfolk, his sister's husband; and being defeated in 1076 by William de Warenne and Richard de Benefacta or Fitz-Gilbert, the justiciaries, was sentenced to imprisonment, which only terminated with his life, accompanied with a forfeiture of all his property.^

GEOFFREY, Bishop of Coijtance.

Just. Angl. ? 107 . .

Geoffrey was a member of the noble Norman house of Mowbray, and was elected bishop of the see of Coutance (Constantia), in Lower Normandy, in 1048. He was, how- ever, more of a soldier than a divine, and, accompanying William on his invasion of England, held a distinguished command in the battle of Hastings. He assisted at the coronation of the Conqueror, and harangued the Normans on the occasion. He afterwards exerted himself in suppressing the rebellions of the English, and in resisting the incursions of the Danes. At the head of the men of Monmouth, London, and Salisbury, he checked the assault of the West- Saxons of Dorset and Somerset on Montacute, and he joined

' Will. Malmesb. Gesta Regum Angl. pp. 396. 431.; Madox's Exch. i. 31. 40. 49. 78. ; Dugdale's Baronage ; Chauncey's Hertf. 121. ; Daniel, Turner, Rapin ; Spelman's Earl Marshals.

1066—1087. GEOFFREY, BISHOP OF COUTANCE. 35

in reducing to subjection the rebels under the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk.

Dugdale is of opinion, that during some part of William's reign he held the office of chief justiciary in conjunction with Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert, Earl of Moreton ; having seen several precepts directed to them by the king which bear that interpretation. There is no doubt that he presided in loco regis at the contest between Arch- bishop Lanfranc and Bishop Odo, relative to certain lands and rights of which the former alleged his church of Can- terbury had been disseised by the latter. The trial took place on Penenden Heath, about 1076, lasting three days, and was decided in favour of Lanfranc.

During William's life he devoted himself faithfully to his service, and was present when the last honours were paid to his remains. After his death, he assisted Robert, the king's eldest son, in his attempt on the English crown, and having with his nephew, Robert Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, ravaged Bath, Berkeley, and part of Wiltshire, they fortified themselves in Bristol. On the failure of Robert's enterprise, the bishop was allowed to return to Normandy, where he died on February 4, 1093 ; but his less fortunate nephew, entering into a new conspiracy, was two years afterwards vanquished by the king's forces, and confined in Windsor Castle, where be languished for the remainder of his life.

The Conqueror held Geoffrey in high esteem, and rewarded his services with no less than 280 English manors, which were all forfeited to the crown on the revolt of his nephew Robert, to whom he had left them. Before the earldom of Northumberland was given to this Robert, it was for a time under the government of Bishop Geoffrey.*

' Monast. Anglic. 1846, i. 546.; Will. Malmcsb. 487.; Madox's Exch. i. 32. ; Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 20. ; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 56. ; Hutchins'si Dorsetsh. i. 11.; Kapin, Turner, Lingard.

D 2

36 HERMAN, BISHOP OF SHERBORNE. Will. I.

GIFFARD, WILLIAM, afterwards Bishop of Winchester.

Chancellor, 1086.

See under the reigns of William II. and Henry I.

HELMHAM, Bishop of. See Arfastus. HEREFORD, Earl of. See W. Fitz-Osberne. HERFASTUS. See Arfastus.

HERMAN, Bishop of Sherborne and Salisbury.

? Chancellor, 10. .

This prelate was of Flemish origin, and had been one of the chaplains of Edward the Confessor, by whom he was ad- vanced in 1045 to the small bishoprick of Wilton, which in the preceding century had been cut off from the diocese of Sherborne, and the seat of which was sometimes at Wilton, sometimes at Ramsbury, and sometimes at Sunning. In 1050 he visited Rome in company with Aldred, Bishop of Worcester, and on his return he used his utmost endeavours to remove his see to Malmsbury ; but, though the king con- sented, he was defeated by the opposition of the monks there. Indignant and disgusted, he retired to Bertin, in France, in 1055, and remained in that monastery for three years. On the death, however, of Efwold, Bishop of Sherborne, in 1058, he returned and succeeded in procuring the re-union of the two sees of Sherborne and Wilton. In 1070 he assisted at the consecration of Lanfranc to the archbishoprick of Can- terbury ; and in 1075, taking advantage of the order of the Council of London, that the bishop's sees should be removed from obscure places to towns of greater note, he effected the transfer of his to Old Sarum ; no doubt, however, under the influence of favour, as that place was then little better than a castle. He there commenced the erection of the cathedral, but did not live to witness its completion. His death is fixed

I

1066—1087. LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURY. 37

by different writers in the years 1076, 1077, and 1078 : he was succeeded by Osmund, who will be presently noticed.

Thynne, in his Catalogue of Chancellors, introduces him with these words, " He is that Hirmanus which, I suppose, was chancellor to William the Conqueror." Upon such au- thority as this, and I find no other, I should think myself bold to imitate the followers of Thynne, who have unhe- sitatingly admitted his name.

He wrote the Life and Miracles of St. Edmund, king of the East Angles, which, it is understood, is about to be published by the English Historical Society.'

KENT, Earl of. See Odo. LANFRANC, Archbisuop of CANXERBURr.

Just. Angl. 107 . .

This learned divine was born at Pavia about the year lOOo, and belonged to an illustrious family which is said to have descended from the emperors Cams and Numerian. After acquiring some celebrity in his native city, where he was for several years professor of laws, his anxiety to travel took him to Normandy, where he first opened a school at Avranches, and eventually, about 1042, retired to the poor and lonely abbey of Bee, then one of the most insignificant of the Norman monasteries. Herluin, the abbot, discovering his ♦ talents, induced him to resume his office of teacher, and the fame of his lectures became so widely extended, that students flocked to them from all parts ; Pope Alexander II. being one of his pupils.

He thus diffused a taste for knowledge among the clergy,

' Thynne'h Catalugut'; Ilolinsh. iv. 348; Godwin du 1'nei.ul. i330',; Hutchliiii's Dorsetsh. ii. r57f5.

D 3

38

LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

Will. I.

and to him-, in a great degree, is to be attributed the revival of Latin literature and the liberal arts in France. His ex- posure of the ignorance of Arfastus has been already men- tioned, and the enmity it occasioned. Its effect, however, was soon removed by the good humour of Duke William, and he became first a monk, and then prior, of the monastery. Among the students who came to receive his instructions, there were some who had been pupils of Berengarius, Arch- deacon of Angers, who was master of a school at Tours. This desertion exciting the envy of Berengarius, who had pro- pounded some doctrines relative to the Eucharist in opposition to those maintained by the Roman church, he in revenge endeavoured to implicate Lanfranc in the same opinions. Lanfranc, however, had little difficulty, not merely in satis- fying the Pontiff of his orthodoxy, but in establishing such a reputation at Rome, as to be called upon to refute the ob- noxious heresy in the Council then assembled.

Duke William, who highly appreciated his talents, took advantage of his visit to Rome, by employing him to obtain a repeal of the sentence of excommunication to which he had been subjected by Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen, on account of his marriage with Matilda, alleged to be related to him within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. Lanfranc was successful in obtaining the papal dispensation, accom- panied by a condition that William and his wife should each found an abbey at Caen. This injunction they immediately obeyed; dedicating one of them to St. Stephen, and the other to the Holy Trinity. Of the former, Lanfranc was appointed the first abbot in 1063, and pursued his lectures there with increased celebrity.

The abilities evinced by Lanfranc in this negotiation secured to him the confidence and favour of William, who not only entrusted to him the education of his children, but offered him the archbishoprick of Rouen. This promotion he

1066—1087. LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 39

was allowed to refuse: but after the Conquest, on the removal of Stigand from the archbishoprick of Canterbury, the king, feeling the importance of supplying his place with a man of weight and prudence, faithful to his interests, and equal to the burden, selected Lanfranc as his successor, and overcame the scruples with which the modest abbot resisted his elevation. He was not only willingly accepted by the monks, and approved by the barons and people, but gladly confirmed by the Pope. He was accordingly consecrated in August, 1070, and on visiting Rome in the following year to receive the pall, was welcomed with particular respect by his former pupil Alexander II., who rose to give him audience, kissed him instead of presenting his slipper for that obeisance, and not satisfied with giving him the usual pall, invested him with that which he had himself used in celebrating mass. In this visit he defended the rights of the church of Canterbury against the claims of Thomas, Archbishop of York; and eventually succeeded in establishing them before the king, to whose decision the Pontiff referred the question.

On his return from Rome, he devoted himself strenuously to the duties of his office, and laboured successfully in reform- ing the irregularities and rudeness of the clergy. His severity in depriving many occasioned considerable complaints ; but the introduction of foreign scholars in their places contri- buted effectually to the enlightenment of the nation. His efforts in support of his church were unremitting, nor were they repressed by the power of his opponents. Finding that the king's brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, and Earl of Kent, while Stigand was in disgrace, had taken possession of many of the manors belonging to the archbishoprick, Lanfranc instituted a suit against him, which was tried before Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutance, at a shiremote on Penenden Heath, when, after three days' hearing, the restoration of twenty-five manors was adjudged to him.

1) 4

40 LANFRANC, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. Will. I.

Enjoying the favour of the Conqueror and of his successor, (whom he crowned, and whose selection, in preference of the eldest son Robert, is attributed to his recommendation,) he employed the power he thus acquired in the advancement of justice and the protection of the English. His private charities were widely diffused ; and his munificence as a pre- late is proved by his rebuilding the cathedral of Canterbury, recently destroyed by fire, together w^ith all the buildings for the monks, whose numbers he increased from twenty to one hundred and forty. He founded also the two hospitals of St. Nicholas at Harbledown, and of St. John at Canterbury, for lepers and the infirm : he repaired many churches and monasteries in his diocese which had suffered in the wars, and he contributed largely to the restoration of Rochester Cathedral.

Dugdale infers that Lanfranc, in conjunction with Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutance, and Robert, Earl of Moreton, held the office of chief justiciary during some part of the Conqueror's reign, from the existence of several precepts he had seen, directed to them by the king, which he can only thus inter- pret. How far this inference is correctly drawn, we have not the means of judging, but his influence with the king was undoubted. The arrest of Odo is ascribed to his over- coming the Conqueror's reluctance to touch an ecclesiastical person, by suggesting that he might take him, not as Bishop of Bayeux, but as Earl of Kent.

After a useful and active occupation of the primacy for nineteen years, he died in May, 1089, at the age of 84 ; and was buried in his cathedral.

Although devoted to literature during the whole of his life, few proofs of his learning remain. His principal work was his treatise against Berengarius. The others were chiefly upon ecclesiastical matters, including a commentary on the Epistles

1066—1087. MAURICE, BISHOP OF LONDON. 41

of St. Paul. Several editions of his writings have been pub- lished.^

LONDON, Bishop of. See Maurice. MAINE, Archdeacon of. See Maurice.

MAURICE, Archdeacon of Maine ; Bishop of London.

Chancellor, 1078.

Op the early life of Maurice no details have been discovered. At the time of the Conquest he was one of William's chap- lains, and so continued until he was appointed Bishop of London. This event is stated in the Annals of Waverley to have occurred in 1083 ; but the Saxon Chronicle and other authorities fix his elevation at Christmas, 1085.

He is generally named as the first chancellor of King William ; and Dugdale quotes a charter of confirmation to Westminster Abbey, dated 1067, which he witnesses as " Regis CanceUarius." ^ That document, however, on exami- nation, is found to be a forgery : and no other record of that period, with his name as chancellor, having been found, his appointment must be removed to a later date. The earliest that occurs is William's charter confirming the deed by which William de Warenne, and Gundreda his wife, gave the priory of Lewes to the monastery of Cluny ^ : and this was granted about 1078. His name is also attached to the king's decision of the controversy between Arfastus, Bishop of Thetford, and the Abbot of Bury, which was pronounced in the year 1081 "^ ; and to a charter granted to the abbey of Karilephus

' Biog. Britan. Literaria, ii. 1.; Godwin de Praisul. 59.; Madox's Exch. i. 8. 32. ; Dugdale's Grig. Jurid. 20. ; Will. Malmesb. 447—495. ; Roger de Wendover, ii. 8 — 36. ; Daniel, Lingard, Rapin, &c.

* Dugdale's Orig. Jurid. 34. •"' Archajologia, xxxii. 123.

* Bloomfield's Norwich, i. 404.; Dugdale's Monast. (1846), iii. 141.

42 MAURICE, BISHOP OF LONDON. Will. I.

in 1082 ^ ; in the latter of which he is styled " Cenomanensis Ecclesiae Archidiaconus."

His retirement from the chancellorship took place shortly afterwards, possibly on his election to the bishoprick of London, if it occurred in 1083 ; but certainly before 1085, as his successor, William Welson, was himself raised to the episcopal bench in that year.

The private character of Maurice does not seem to have stood very high, although the grounds on which it is slight- ingly mentioned are not named. But after his elevation to the bishoprick of London he is universally praised for the liberality and zeal with which he devoted himself to the re- edification of the cathedral of St. Paul's, when it was destroyed by the fire that consumed the greatest part of London in 1086. The bishop was not satisfied to restore it to its former appearance, but determined to rebuild it in a magnificent manner. He laid foundations so vast in extent, that his contemporaries would not believe that the pile could ever be completed ; nor was it till some time after his death, although he applied himself diligently and energetically to the work during the remainder of his life. The king assisted his labours by permitting him to employ in its structure the stones of a castle called the Palatine Tower, which then stood at the entrance of the Fleet river, near the present site of Bridewell ; and he granted to him and his successors the town and castle of Bishop's Stortford, with the estates at- tached to it.

That Maurice, on the death of the Conqueror, did not side with his eldest son Robert, appears from his attending the first court of William IL at Christmas, 1087 ; and crowning Henry L in 1100.

* Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 993.

1066—1087. OSBERT, BISHOP OF EXETER. 43

He died on September 26, 1107, having presided over the see for nearly twenty-two years. ^

MORETON, OR MORTAGNE, Earl of. See Robert. ODO, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent. Just. Angl. 1067. See under the reign of William 11.

OSBERT. ? Bishop of Exeter.

Chancellor, 1070.

The name of Osbert has not hitherto been introduced among the chancellors of this reign, and is now offered on the au- thority of a charter granted by King William to the monas- tery of St. Augustine at Canterbury ; among the signatures to which appears " Signum Osberti Cancellarii." Two other signatures are those of Scotland the Abbot, and William, Bishop of London : and as the former was appointed in 1070 and the latter died in 1075, the date of the charter must have been between those two years, or in one of them.^

If, as is most probable, he were the Osbert who was made Bishop of Exeter in 1074, the period within which he held the chancellorship is reduced even to a shorter compass. The bishop was a Norman by birth, and is described by Malmes- bury as "frater Gulielmi pre-excellentissimi comitis," and brought up in the court of King Edward. He ruled the see for nearly thirty years, and died in 1103. He sometimes is called Osbern, under which name he attested the charter to St. Martin's in London, in 1068, as chaplain ; and he used both names indiscriminately as bishop.^

' Stow's London, 35. 61. ; Godwin de Praesul. 175. ; Madox's Exch. 1. 7, 8, ; Ellis's Introd, to Domesday Book.

* Monast. Anglic, i. 144.

' Ibid. iii. 141., iv. 16, 17. 20., vi. 1325. ; Lc Neve, 80. ; Godwin de Pr.TsuI. 401.

44 OSMUND, BISHOP OF SALISBURY. Will. L

OSMUND, Earl of Dorset ; Bishop of Salisbury.

Chancellor, ? 1075.

According to one of the episcopal chartularies, Osmund was the nephew of William the Conqueror, being son of his sister Isabella, the wife of Henry, Count of Seez, in Normandy.^ To this title he succeeded, and came over as a layman in the retinue of his uncle, who is said to have created him Earl of Dorset. Dugdale, however, does not include his name in his Baronage. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that King William selected him for his superior judgment as one of his principal advisers, and placed him in the office of chancellor.

The date of his appointment is uncertain, but it is evidently not so early as is usually assigned. Arfastus was chancellor in 1068, if not before, and Osbert somewhere between 1070 and 1074. William's charter of confirmation to the cathedral church of St. Paul ^, to which the name " Osmund the Chan- cellor " is attached as one of the witnesses, must have been granted after 1070, inasmuch as Lanfranc the archbishop is another witness, and he was not consecrated till that year. Osmund probably succeeded on Osbert's elevation to the prelacy about 1075, one of the dates given by Thynne and Philipot ; and there is every reason to presume that he re- tained the seal till his own appointment as Bishop of Salisbury in 1078, as no other chancellor occurs in the intervening period.

There is another charter with his name as chancellor, con- firming the land of Staning, in Sussex, to the abbey of Fescamp, in Normandy ^; but it affords no evidence of having been granted either at an earlier or a later date.

' Hist, of Modern Wilts, by Siv R. C. Hoare, Bart., City of Salisbury, 8., quoting Registrum Rubrum H.

« Dugdale's St. Paul's (1716), p. 51. '■^ Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 1082.

1066—1087. OSMUND, BISHOP OF SALISBURY. 45

On the death of Herman, Bishop of Salisbury, Osmund, having become an ecclesiastic, was appointed his successor. His first efforts were devoted to the completion of the ca- thedral commenced by Herman, which he effected in the year 1092, founding a deanery and thirty-six canonries in it, and nobly endowing it with various churches and towns. In his charter of foundation ^, he calls himself merely Bishop of Salisbuiy, without any reference to his Xorman or English titles of Seez and Dorset.

He died on December 3 or 4, 1099, and was buried in the cathedral he erected; but his remains were removed in 1457 to the new cathedral, where they now lie under a plain stone, with no other inscription than the date of his death.

The title of Osmund the Good, which he acquired in his life, is the best illustration of his character ; he was a prelate of the severest manners and strictest moderation, filling his office with dignity and reputation, the patron of learned men, and an impartial assertor of the rights of his see. He was canonized by Pope Calixtus in 1457, above 350 years after his death, the day of that event being made sacred to his memory.

To bring into some uniformity the services of the church, he compiled the breviary, missal, and ritual, which, under the name of " The Use of Sarum," was afterwards generally adopted, and continued to be employed till the Reformation. The first Salisbury missal was printed abroad in 1494, the last in London in 1557. He is also stated to have written the life of St. Aldhelm, first bishop of Sherborne.^

'. Monast. AngUc. vi. 1294.

* Godwin de Pr^sul. 336.; Hutchins's Dorsetsh. i. 10. &c. ; Lc Neve, 256.; Watt's Biblioth. Brilan. ; Biog. Brit. Literaria, ii. 23.

46

ROBERT, EARL OF MORETON.

Will. I,

ROBERT, Earl of Moreton or Mortagne, and Earl of Cornwall.

Just. Angl. 107. .

Arlotta, the mistress of Robert, Duke of Normandy, and mother of William the Conqueror, afterwards married Her- luin de Conteville, the founder of the abbey of Crestein, and had by him two sons, the eldest of whom was this Robert, and the youngest was Odo, Bishop of Bayeux. Robert re- ceived from Duke William the Barony of Bourgh and the Earldom of Moreton or Mortagne in Normandy.

When the invasion of England was projected, Robert greatly promoted the expedition, and assisted in the triumph of his brother, bearing the banner of St. Michael before him in the battle. As a warrior, he would not have been over- looked by the generosity of William ; but, considering even his relationship to the Conqueror, his share in the spoil seems enormous. He not only was created Earl of Cornwall, but received vast possessions in various counties, amounting, it is stated, to no less than 973 manors.

Although he is described as somewhat heavy in intellect, yet, with these proofs of the king's affection, it is not unlikely that he should have been appointed, in conjunction with Archbishop Lanfranc, and Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutance, to the office of chief justiciary during some part of this reign, as Dugdale supposes from several precepts having been dis- covered which appear to bear that interpretation.

It is believed that he outlived the Conqueror, and died about 1090; his remains were buried in the church of Ber- mondsey, where he had a mansion.

He was a great benefactor to his father's abbey of Crestein, as well as to various other religious houses both in Normandy and England; and he founded the

10G6— 1087. WILLIAM DE WARENNE, EARL OF SURREY. 47

monastery of St. Michael's in Cornwall, in memory of the banner he had borne at Hastings.

By his wife Maud, the daughter of Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, he left a son William, who succeeded to both his earldoms ; but having joined with Duke Kobert against King Henry I., they were defeated at Tenchebral in 1105, and taken prisoners. The confinement of both lasted till their deaths, but Earl William suffered in addition the cruel deprivation of his eyes.

Some authors state that he died childless, but others describe him as the ancestor of William Fitz-Aldelm and Hubert de Burgh, who will be noticed respectively under the reigns of Richard I. and Henry III.^

SALISBURY, Bishops of. See Herman ; Osmund. SHERBORNE, Bishop of. See Herman. SURREY, Earl of. See W. de Warenne. THETFORD, Bishops of. See Arfastus ; W. Welson. TUNBRIDGE, RICHARD DE. See R. Fitz-Gilbert.

WARENNE, WILLIAM DE, Earl Warenne, and Earl of

Surrey.

Just. Angl. 1073.

The Norman family of Warenne was ennobled long before the conquest of England, bearing the name of St. Martin before the earldom of Warenne was conferred upon them. William de Warenne was distantly related to tlic Conqueror, his aunt Gunnora having been that prince's great-grand- mother. This connection was further cemented by his subsequent marriage with Gundreda, one of the daughters

' Will. Malm. Gesta. 45C. ; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 24. ; Biographic Uni- verselle (Hubert de Burgh); Burke's Extinct Peerage; Hutchins's Dorsetsh.

48 WILLIAM DE WARENNE, EARL OF SURREY. Will. L

of King William and Matilda. An attempt has lately been made to prove that she was the daughter of Matilda by a former marriage with Gerbodo, an avoue of St. Bertin, at St. Omer^; but the hypothesis is fully and satisfactorily overturned by an able paper in the Archaaologia.^

Accompanying Duke William in his enterprise against England, he was entrusted with a command at the battle of Hastings, and greatly contributed to its successful result. In reward, the lavish Conqueror conferred upon him lord- ships and lands in almost every part of the kingdom ; his share of the spoil amounting to 298 manors. He built castles at Keigate in Surrey, Castle Acre in Norfolk, Co- nigsburgh in Yorkshire, and Lewes in Sussex ; at the latter of which he fixed his residence.

When the king left England in 1073, he and Eichard Fitz-Gilbert or De Benefacta were appointed chief jus- ticiaries of the kingdom. Their government was principally distinguished by overcoming the rebellion raised by the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk; but they disgraced their victory by cruelly ordering the right feet of their pri- soners to be amputated; a barbarous practice, for which they had the example of the king in some of his Norman wars.

On the death of the Conqueror, William de Warenne assisted his second son, William, to mount the throne ; and was in such favour with tliat monarch, that he was created Earl of Surrey at his coronation. He did not long survive this honour, dying in the following June. The decease of his wife had occurred in May, 1085 ; and the remains of both were interred in the chapter-house of the priory of Lewes, wliich they had founded for monks of the Cluniac order, whom they first introduced into England. He also founded

' Archaeol. Journ. iii. 1. 26. ^ xVichcCologia, xxxii. 108.

1066—1087. WILLIAM WELSOJN, BISHOP OF THETFORD. 49

a monastery at Castle Acre, in Norfolk ; and endowed both of them most magnificently ; besides making liberal benefac- tions to several religious houses.

He left two sons and three daughters. The two earldoms devolved on his eldest son William ; whose son, William, dying in 1148 without male issue, that of Surrey passed with his daughter Isabel to her husband, Hameline Plantagenet, and ultimately, through sisters, first to the Fitz- Alans, and afterwards to the Howards, Dukes of Norfolk, in which title it is now merged.^

WELSON, WILLIAM; or Galsagus; or De Bellofago ; Bisnop OP Thetford.

Chancellor, 1083.

William Welson is known also by the names of Galsagus and De Bellofago, with their varieties of Beaufo and Belfagus. According to Thynne and Philipot, he was of a noble house, and was chaplain to William I.

The period when he held the chancellorship was probably between 1083-1085, after Maurice. There is a charter- con- firming the grant of Yvo Tailboys of the manor of Spalding to St. Nicholas of Angiers, to which the attestation of " William the Chancellor " is appended, which must have been dated after 1080, as another of the witnesses is William, Bishop of Durham, who was not elected till November in that year. At Christmas, 1085, the bishojjrick of Thetford was given to Wiliam Welson, upon the death of Arfastus.

Although it does not appear that he did anything towards adorning the church at Thetford, he was one of the most

' Dugdale's liaronago, i. 73.; Ilorsficlil's Lewis, i. 116.; Turner, Lingan], Ilapin. * Monast. iii. 216.

VOL. I. E

50 WILLIAM WELSON, BISHOP OF THETFORD. Will. L

munificent benefactors of the see, by enriching it with many of the manors and other lands which he received from the royal bounty ; the extent of which is a plain evidence of the esteem in which the king held him.^

He died about 1091, leaving his family very rich; and so it continued for many years at Herling and elsewhere in Norfolk.

Two sons of his are mentioned : one, Kichard de Bello- fago, who was Archdeacon of Norwich in 1107; and the other, Ralph de Bellofago, who was Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk in the reign of Henry I.^

WINCHESTER, Bishop of. See William Giffard.

' A full account of these is given in Blooinfield's Norwich, ii. 531. * Godwin de Praesul. 426. j Bloomfield's Norwich, ii. 465. 638-

1

51

WILLIAM II.

Reigned 12 years, 10 months, and 7 days; from September 26, 10S7, to August 2, 1100,

SURVEY OF THE REIGN".

The most remarkable event in the annals of law which oc- curred in this reign, was the erection of the Great Hall at Westminster. This magnificent edifice has survived the palace of which it then formed a part, and, to whatever use it may in future be applied, must ever be especially vene- rated as the arena of judicial contests, the cradle of our legal worthies, and the honoured spot which has given to the law itself " a local habitation and a name."

The associations which arise at the mention of " West- minster Hall " are not linked so much with the parliaments that have assembled in it, or the solemn festivals which it has witnessed, as with the high legal purposes to which it has for centuries been devoted; recalling to the mind the glorious succession of venerable men who have administered justice within its walls, and of eminent advocates who have made its roof resound with their eloquence.

Connected as it is with every judicial reminiscence, hal- lowed as it must be in the minds of those devoted to legal studies, it is not surprising that the recent attempts in parlia- ment to remove the courts to another locality, and apply the ancient building to different objects, should have been looked on by many as a species of sacrilege and profanation of the rdif/io loci. These feelings of reverence, however,

£ 2

52

COURTS AND TERMS.

Will. IL

may be indulged beyond reasonable bounds ; and, while the ties of association are not to be harshly or inconsiderately broken, they ought not to be allowed to interrupt the pro- gress of improvement, nor to prevent those changes which may be called for by the necessities of the times and the convenience of the public.

When the persons most interested in the question — the prac- titioners and the suitors — are all but unanimous in their de- mand for the removal, it is time to listen to their complaints, and to consider whether the sentiment which gives a sort of sacredness to the spot is an equivalent for the benefits which it is believed would be derived from the change. It has been alleged that a more central position is rendered indispen- sable in order to meet the alteration of circumstances, the increase of litigation, and the additional number of courts and of judges. The question has not yet had a full discussion, nor will it be fairly debated till other than legal members of the legislature apply their minds to its consideration.

Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas, in this reign, as in the last, were the periods at which the king held his courts. The places named are London, Gloucester, Winchester, Windsor, and Salisbury.

At that which he held at Christmas, 1096, an instance of the trial by battle occurs, in which Geoffrey Bainard accused William, Earl of Eu, a near relation of the king, of a trea- sonable conspiracy, and vanquished him in single combat. This being deemed sufficient proof of the earl's guilt, he was punished with the loss of his eyes and manhood.

It is curious that this judgment was pronounced " in Octa- bls Epiphanlas," ^ being the day on which, according to the constitutions of Edward the Confessor, confirmed by William the Conqueror, Hilary Term then began.

' Madox's Excb. i. 8.

I

1087—1100. CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. 06

At Whitsuntide, in 1099, the king held his court for the first time in the new hall at Westminster ; so that nearly seven centuries and a half have elapsed since that sacred spot was first applied to legal uses.

It may be questioned whether the office of chief justiciary was as yet completely established in the distinct form it afterwards assumed. The title is never used in any of the charters of this reign that are extant : and the manner in which it is sometimes applied by the historians to the three individuals who are supposed to have filled the office under William II., connecting it as they do with other and varied titles to the same persons, tends to raise a suspicion that it had not yet acquired that precise character which would leave no doubt of the designation to be given to its possessor.

An advance in the progress towards its ultimate esta- blishment is however evident : for, while the appointment in the reign of the Conqueror was more in the nature of a regent, acting only in the absence of the sovereign, under William II. it is manifest that its functions were performed during the king's residence in England. At the same time, it will appear probable that during some part of the reign no person was invested with the office.

The first who is named is Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the uterine brother of the late king. Restored to liberty at the death of the Conqueror, he returned to England, and at the king's first court, held at Christmas, 1087, he is described as " Justiciarius et princeps totius Angliaj." His administra- tion nmst have been very short, for in the following Easter he was in arms against the king ; and one cause of his dis- content is stated to be that he had no longer the power he for- merly exercised, and that tlie counsels of Lanfranc prevailed.

The next occupant of the office was William de Cari- LEFO, Bishop of Durham, whose ascendancy, if Odo ever hold it, must have been shorter still. It would appear, how-

B 3

54 CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. Will. II.

ever, from the language of William of Malmesbury, when speaking of Odo's jealousy, "nam Willelmo Dunelmensi episcopo commendata erat administratio rerum publicarum," that he was in the office before Odo's return. Roger de Wendover expressly says of him, " quem rex Justitiarium fecerat." At whatever period he entered the office, he de- serted it by joining Odo's conspiracy in the spring of 1088, and soon afterwards shared in his defeat and banishment.

No new name appears till after the death of Archbishop Lan franc, which occurred in June, 1089; so that there was clearly no occupant of the office for a year. How long be- yond this period it remained vacant, if ever filled, is uncer- tain.

It was not till after Lanfranc's death that Ranulph Flam- bard, who is the third on the usual list, insinuated himself into the confidence of King William. His progress, it may be presumed, was gradual ; and as his name, with the simple designation of " the Chaplain," amdi following that of " William the Chancellor," appears as witness to a charter granted be- tween 1093 and 1098, it is certain that at the prior date at least he held no such prominent position : and not till after William Giffard was re-appointed to the chancellorship. The titles given to him by Henry of Huntingdon and Roger de Hoveden are, " Placitator et Exactor totius Anglias ;" and by Roger de Wendover, " Placitator et Procurator Regis." The only author who calls him " Justiciarius " is Ordericus Vitalis, who diminishes the significancy of the title by the additional designation of " Summus regiarum procurator opum." Whatever was his office, he held it to the end of the reign, in the last year of which he received the bishoprick of Durham.

Dugdale, in his Chronica Series, names only one chan- cellor in this reign ; viz. Robert Bloet. Diflferent authorities, however, mention others ; the first of whom is William

1087—1100. ^ ClIANCELLOliS. 55

Glffiird, already noticed as the last chancellor of William the Conqueror.

Although there are no charters extant which ^x positively who was chancellor in 1087, 1088, or 1089, it seems most probable that William Giffard was continued in the office during these first three years. There are several charters bearing his name as a witness, which, without any certain evidence of their date, may well have been granted during that period ^ : and there is one, which must have been dated between 1088 and 1090, showing that Robert Bloet had not yet attained the office.^

In 3 William II., about July or August, 1090, Egbert Bloet was certainly chancellor ^ ; and also in 1091^; and he probably did not resign the seal until he was raised to the bishoprick of Lincoln in 1093. After that event there is no charter with his name as chancellor.

Galdric, not Baldric, as Dugdale calls him, was chan- cellor after Bloet's elevation to the episcopal bench. An undated charter, to which his name is attached as a witness, giving the church of Andover to the abbey of St. Floren- tius, is quoted by Dugdale as proving that he was chan- cellor to William I. : but the simple fact, that Bloet as Bishop of Lincoln is the first witness to it, is sufficient evidence that it was granted by William 11.^ May not this Galdric be the same individual who, ten years later, was

' Dugdale's Monast. (1846), ii. 65. ; iii. 15. 217. * Ibid. i. 241.

3 Ibid. vi. 1271. * Ibid. vi. 1295.

* See ante, p. 19. ; Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 992. Lord Campbell, f. p. 43., who has evidently not seen the Charter, from his calling it one '* to the Monks of St. Florentius of Andover,'' adopts Dugdale's name of Baldric. It is therefore with much reluctance that I feel compelled to substitute that of Galdric; the more especially as the fanciful etymology on which his lordship has ventured is thus annihilated, and the poetical quotations from Johnsons Dictionary which he has introduced as proofs of it, are rendered no longer applicable. A more probable definition of the word Baldrick will be found in Richardson's Dictionary.

li 4

56 CHANCELLORS. Will. IL

chancellor to Henry I. under the name of Waldric, the letters Gr and W being not uncommonly used interchangeably in Christian names ?

The last witness to the same charter is Drogo, to whose name are attached the words " qui custodiebat sigillum." It is difficult to say what was his particular office, as no prior mention occurs of any such appointment as keeper, either independent of, or in connection with, the chancellor.

It may be presumed that Galdric followed Bloet in the office, because, during the latter part of the reign, there is little difficulty in showing that William Giffard was restored to the chancellorship, and probably continued in it without interruption. From various charters, in which he is so described, almost a continuous holding may be traced. There is, for instance, one which, from internal evidence, must have been granted between 1093 and 1098 ^ ; another between 1095 and 1100 2; a third in 1099 or 1100 3; and a fourth at Easter, llOO.^ William II. died in August, 1100, and William Giffiird continued chancellor under his successor, Henry I., by whom he was made Bishop of Winchester.

The name of no other chancellor occurs in any charter of this reign : but Ranulph Flambard, afterwards Bishop of Durham, is introduced into Spelman's List. That author, who generally, though not in this instance, follows Thynne and Philipot, refers to William of Malmesbury and Bishop Godwin, neither of whom, however, say anything that will bear that interpretation. Lord Campbell, the last authority, repeats the name ^ but says nothing to justify its adoption : unless the addition of the minute detail of Flambard's amaz- ing and terrifying his enemies by appearing at Court " ivith

' Dugdale's Monasticon (1846), i. 164. ^ Ibid. i. 241.

^ Ibid. i. 241. * Ibid. ii. 18.

* Lord Campbell's Chaiiccllovs, i. 47.

los:

1100. CHANCELLORS AND CHIEF JUSTICIARIES.

57

the great seal in his hand,'^ ^ after he had escaped from their plot, may be so considered. If his lordship had kindly referred to the author from whom he culled this interesting incident, which, it must be confessed, has more the ap- pearance of modern colouring than of antiquarian truth, some reliance might have been placed upon his subsequent assertion, that " at all events he appears to have held the great seal till the end of this reign."

There is, however, no evidence that he held the great seal at all ; and the charters that have been already cited dis- tinctly prove that during the last years of the reign it v;as in the possession of AYilliam Giflfard. Kanulph Flambard's name must, therefore, be excluded from the list of chan- cellors.

Table of Chancellors and Chief Justiciaries.

A.R.	A.D.	Chancellors.	Chief Justiciaries.
I.	1087, Sept. 26	William GifFard, afterwards	Odo, Bishop of Bayeux,
		Bishop of Winchester	and Earl of Kent.
	1088		William de Carilefo, Bishop of Durham.
in.	1090, July	Robert Bloet, afterwards Bishop of Ijincoln
VL	1093	Galdric ? Drogo, Keeper with him
vn.	1094	William Giffard again	Ranulph Flambard, after- wards Bishop of Durham.

The clergy still continued not only to fill the legal offices, but for the most part to engross the practice of the courts. William of Malmesbury describes Ranulph Flambard as " invictus causidicus," and complains bitterly that there was then " nuUus clericus nisi causidicus."

' Lord Campbell in telling the story, has copied the language of Lingard, wiib the sUfjht addition of the words in italics.

58

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES

THE JUDGES UNDER THE REIGN OF WILLIAM U.

BAYEUX, Bishop of. See Odo. BLOET, ROBERT, Bishop of Lincoln.

Chancellor, 1090.

See under the reign of Henry I.

CARILEFO, WILLIAM DE, Bishop of Durham.

Just. Angl. 1088.

William de Carilefo, a native of Bayeux, was so named from having been a monk of St. Carilefo, from which he was advanced to be Abbot of St. Vincentius ; both being monas- teries in the province of Maine : the former having a cell at Covenham in Lincolnshire, and the latter one at Abergavenny in Montgomeryshire.

He was elected Bishop of Durham on November 10, 1080, in the place of Walcherus, who Avas slain about six months before. It appears by his charter, to w^hich the bishops and barons in council with William the Conqueror set their hands and seals in 1082, that the church of Durham had been greatly neglected, and that, by the barbarity of sacrilegious persons, neither monks nor canons were left there. The bishop thereupon expresses his determination to bring the monks of Weremouth and Jarrow, and that the liberties of the church, with the lands (a particular specifica- tion of which is inserted), shall be preserved to it for ever ;

1087—1100. -WILLIAM DE CARILEFO. 59

and he concludes the instrument with a terrific anathema against its violators, reserving them " to be punished with everlasting fire, with the devil and his angels." The present edifice was commenced by him, and affords sufficient proof of the munificent expenditure, not only of this bishop, but of his successor, Ranulph Flambard, in its structure.

AYilliam of Malmesbury, who describes him as a man of a ready tongue, and very powerful in his time, says, that he was appointed by William Rufus to administer the public affairs in 1088 ; and Roger de Wendover distinctly mentions that he was made " Justiciarius." His tenure of that office, however, must have been very short ; for Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, is described as holding it at the previous Christmas, and Carilefo, in the spring, had joined that prelate in the confederacy to depose King William, and raise his brother Robert to the throne.

The insurrection being quelled by the defeat of Odo, the king proceeded to Durham to chastise the bishop, whom he obliged to surrender and to quit the kingdom. After a banish- ment of two or three years he was permitted to return, when he endeavoured to ingratiate himself with the king by taking part against Archbishop Anselm ; not, however, without a suspicion of being influenced by the hope to succeed to the archbishoprick.

In this object he not only failed, but was soon after sum- moned to the court to meet certain charges made against himself. His plea of illness was disregarded, the king swearing it was a mere pretence. He was therefore com- pelled to obey, when the event proved the sincerity of his excuse. He reached the Court of Windsor with difficulty, and, surviving only a few days, died there on January 2, 1095. His remains were removed to Durham, where they were deposited in his cathedral.

He is described as endowed with the highest mental gift;,

60 DROGO. Will. II.

with wit, erudition, eloquence, and subtlety, and as second to none in tlie conduct of business ; but with unbridled ambition, and wanting faith and integrity. To his see, however, he was a great benefactor, increasing its riches, asserting its liberties, and founding its church.^

DROGO.

? Keeper, 1093.

The only notice of this person is contained in a charter of William II.^ cited in Pat. 8 Edward II., p. 2, m. 1, and in Pat. 1 Henry IV. p. 6, m. 23, granting the church of Andover to the monks of St. Florentius; the last witness to which is " Drogo, qui custodiebat sigillum." Galdric (under whose name this charter is more particularly noticed) was chancellor at the time, being the second witness to it ; so that it is difficult to explain the nature of the office held by Drogo ; unless, if the " sigillum " mentioned was the royal seal, he was merely the officer attendant on the chancellor, whose duty it was to carry it. This is the less unlikely, from the fact that no previous evidence exists of any such aj^point- ment as keeper of the seal, either independent of or in con- nection with the chancellor, and from his position at the end of the list of witnesses. The charter has no date, but was probably granted in or soon after 1093.

DURHAM, Bishops of. See William de Carilefo, and . Ranulph Flambard.

1 Dugdale's Monast. (1846), i. 224. &c. ; Godwin de Pra3sul. 731.; Angl. Sac. i. 704. ; Will. Malmes. Gesta Regum, 486. e^c. ; Roger de Wcndover, ii. 32. 34.

^ Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 992.

1087—1100. KANULPH FLAMBARD, BISIlOr OF DURHAM. Gl

FLAMBARD, RANULPH, Bishop of Durham.

? Just. Angl. 10 . . .

This extraorcllnaiy man was a Norman of the lowest ex- traction, whose mother had the reputation of being a witch, and of conversing with demons. He followed the court of the Conqueror into England, and having entered into holy orders, obtained from that prince the church of Godalming in Surrey. According to Domesday Book, he had three tenements which King William held in Gildford, with sac and soc there, and which, belonging to the church of Godalming, were given by Henry I. to found a canonry in Salisbury Cathedral. He next received the prebend of Sutton and Buckingham in the church of Lincoln, and the deanery of Christchurch in Plampshire ; and became chaplain to ]\Iaurice, Bishop of London. By the favour of that prelate the prebend of Totenhall, in the church of St. Paul, was added to his preferments; but, not satisfied with these pluralities, he demanded the vacant deanery of that cathedral from his patron, and, indignant at his refusal, left his service.

By what means he passed into the household of William Rufus does not appear ; but it is not unlikely that he held an office in the chancery under Maurice ; and IVIalmesbury's description of him, as "invictus causidicus," shews he was connected with the courts. He is next found, however, as one of the king's chaplains ; and he is a witness with that designation to three charters, granted by William II. at some time between the years 1088 and 1098.^ The position in which he stands in each of these does not shew that he then occupied any high station.

It was not long, however, before he contrived to ino;ratiato

n

Duf^dale's Monast. (\MG), i. KM. 174. 2'1I,

62 RANULPH FLAMBARD, BISHOP OF DURHAM. Will. II.

himself with his sovereign. During the life of Archbishop Lanfranc, the rapacious disposition of Rufus was under some restraint ; but after the death of that wise and excellent man, in 1089, his profuseness and extravagance exhausted the treasury. Ranulph soon discovered the character of his royal master, and saw that he could best serve his own ambitious views by flattering the vices and feeding the avarice of the king. Unprincipled himself, he did not hesitate to suggest measures, which, however oppressive to the people, or disreputable to the crown, would produce the desired object of filling the royal coffers. By his instigation, new offences were created for the sake of the fines which followed them ; a price was set on crimes by substituting a pecuniary payment for the punishment ; the forest laws were loaded with severe penalties; and the impost on the land, so lately established according to the entries in Domesday Book, was disturbed, and rendered more oppressive by a new survey of the kingdom. Not content with this, he drew down upon himself the deepest indignation of the clergy, by suggesting to the king that on the death of any dignitary of the church, whether bishop or abbot, the temporalities devolved to the crown till the vacancy was supplied. The king was not slow in acting upon this advice ; and the injurious effect on the ecclesiastical revenues may be easily conceived ; since the parties to whom the church lands were entrusted in the interim, having paid largely for their use, and knowing how precarious was their tenure, could not be expected to neglect any means, however detrimental to the property, of making the most of their bargain. This source of profit will readily account for the long periods allowed to elapse between the death of a bishop and the appointment of his successor ; and also for the fact, that on the death of the king there were no less than one archbishoprick, four bishop- ricks, and eleven abbeys vacant.

1087—1100. RANULPII FLAMBARD, BISHOP OF DURHAM. G3

Flambarcl^ as may be supposed, obtained the custody of several of these vacant benefices. In 1088 the abbey of Win- chester, in 1089 the archbishoprick of Canterbury, and in 1092 the bislioprick of Lincoln and the abbey of Chertsey, were severally entrusted to him ; and by the spoil of their churches and the pressure of their tenants both rich and poor, he did. not fail to enrich himself. To these modes of imposition lie added another device to supply the royal wants. When any of these vacancies were at last filled, he made a simoniacal con- tract for the king with the candidate for the clerical honour, compelling him to pay a large sum before he was instituted.

William was conscious that his minister could not escape the unpopularity which would necessarily result from these proceedings : but he looked upon him more favourably on that account, saying, that he was the only man in his dominions who regarded not the hatred of others so that he pleased his master. His approval was manifested by the confidence he reposed on him during the remainder of his reign, and by raising him to high office in the state.

What the precise nature or title of his office was, it is diffi- cult to determine. Dugdale introduces him into his list of chief justiciaries. The only historian who gives him that title is Ordericus Vitalis, whose words are, " Summus regiarum Procurator opum, et Justitiarius factus est." Henry of Huntingdon and Roger de Hoveden style him " Placitator et Exactor totius Anglije ; " by the former of which titles, Madox says, may be meant chief justicier, and by the latter, intendant of the revenue, or treasurer. Roger de Wendover calls him by the names of Placitator and Procurator regis, and William of Malmesbury is altogether silent as to the title that he bore.

' The representation, that he acquired tie cognomen of riambard, a devouring torch, from his oppressive exactions, is a fable of the historians, and is at once contradicted by the fact that he is so called in Domesday Book, compiled long before he attained power.

64 RANULPII FLAMBARD, BISHOP OF DURHAM. Will. II.

The only authority of any importance who describes him as chancellor is Spelman ; but there is evidently no foun- dation for supposing that he held that office. He refers to Malmesbury, who says nothing like it; and to Godwin, whose language has been palpably misunderstood. That author, after saying, from Malmesbury, that Kanulph became *^ totius regni Procurator," merely adds this explanation : — " Unde illam omnem authoritatem videtur consequutus, qua hodie potiuntur Cancellarius, Thesaurarius, et nescio quot alii."

The office of Chief Justiciary seems scarcely yet to have been completely established ; but, by whatever title Ranulph was distinguished, he was clearly the king's chief minister. The oppressive nature of his exactions naturally caused fre- quent complaints against him. They were fruitless, however ; for it was not likely that much regard would be paid to re- monstrances which could be no otherwise prevented than by desisting from a course the profits of which were so agreeable to the kino;. The evils under which the klno^dom suffered being thus unredressed, the instigator of them became the object of popular indignation, and narrowly escaped the fate that was prepared for him.

Being inveigled, by a pretended message from the Bishop of London, into a boat on the river, he was forced into a ship, and carried out to sea. A storm arising, and his intended murderers quarrelling among themselves, Ranulph took advantage of both, by working upon the fear and gratitude of Gerold, the principal of them, who had formerly been a mariner in his service; and they were prevailed upon to release him, and put him on shore. The terror and amaze- ment of his enemies, when three days afterwards he appeared in his usual place at court, may well be imagined. His appointment to the bishoprick of Durham Immediately fol- lowed, as if it were in compensation for the danger he had

1087—1100. RANULril FLAMBAllD, BISHOP OF DURHAM. 65

encountered. Three years and four months had elapsed since the death of William de Carilefo, its last incumbent, and Ranulph's consecration was performed on June 4, 1099. The king, however, benefiting by the lessons his minister had taught, made him feel the effect in his own person, by compelling him to pay one thousand pounds for his advance- ment.

On the death of William Rufus, which occurred in the following year, one of the first acts of Henry, his successor, was to satisfy the clamours of the people by imprisoning the hated Flambard in the Tower of London, to which he was committed on August 15, 1100. But even in this extre- mity his good fortune did not desert him. Out of the allowance of two shillings a day which he received for his subsistence (equal to thirty shillings now), with the addi- tional help of his friends, he kept a sumptuous table, and by his affability and his wit captivated his keepers. En- couraging them in their habits of intemperance, he lulled their watchfulness ; and on the 4th of the following Febru- ary, taking advantage of their excess at a feast he had pro- vided, he contrived to escape by means of a rope which his friends had concealed in the bottom of a pitcher of wine; not, however, without cutting his ungloved hands to the bone in the adventure.

He succeeded in obtaining shipping to Normandy, where he instigated the Duke Robert to pursue his claim to the English crown, and accompanied him on his invasion. By the settlement which the policy of Henry then effected, Ranulph, on the retirement of the Duke, was permitted to return to his bishoprick, and obtained a charter restoring all its immunities.

From this time, it does not appear that he interfered further in politics ; though Dugdale, on the authority of

VOL. 1. F

66 RANULPH FLAMBARD, BISHOP OF DURHAM. Will. II.

Mathew Paris, places him in the list of treasurers to Henry I.

The completion of his cathedral, the erection of Norham Castle, the fortification of the walls of Durham, and numerous other works, among which were the endowment of the College of Christchurch, where he had been dean, and the foundation of the priory of Mottisford, near Lincoln, not only are ample proofs of his munificence, but seem sufiicient occupation for the remainder of his life. He filled the see rather more than twenty-nine years, and died on September o, 1128.

The character of Flambard may be collected from the incidents of his life. There can be no doubt that he was an able, artful, and uncompromising minister; that he had considerable eloquence and ready wit ; and that he was convivial in his habits and generous in his expenditure. It is evident, also, that he was not free from the vices of the time; that he was ambitious, crafty, prodigal, and rapacious : but some abatement should be made from the unfavourable colouring with which he is painted by the historians, who, writing near his time, and being mostly ecclesiastics, would look with a jaundiced eye on one whom they considered to be the adviser of measures oppressive to the Church.

He is stated to have had a son, named Elias, who suc- ceeded him in his prebend in Lincoln Cathedral ; and a brother, named Geoffrey, whose daughter is mentioned in the Great Roll of 31 Henry I. as paying 101 of the money of the Bishop of Durham.*

» Roger de Wendover, ii. 157. 165. 185. 193. 209.; Will. Malm. 497. 619, 620. ; Angl. Sacr. 295. &c. ; Godwin de Praesul. 732. ; Madox's Exch. i. 32. 78. ; Manning and Bray's Surrey, i. 643. ; Hunter's Edition of the Great Roll, SI Henry I., 79. ; Turner and Lingard's Hist, of England.

1087 -1100. GALDRIC. 67

GALDRIC.

Chancellor, 1093.

In Dugdale's Chronica Series, the name of this cliancellor, very probably by a misprint, is erroneously called Baldricus ; and he is, as erroneously, placed in the reign of William I., on the authority of a charter granting the church of St. Mary of Andover to the abbey of St. Florence, at Sahnur, in Anjou.

The charter, however, was evidently granted by Wil- liam II., though the gift of the church had been previously made by the Conqueror. That gift is recited in these words : — "Noscant qui sunt et futuri sunt, quod Willielmus rex, qui armis Anglicam terram sibi subjugavit, dedit sancto Florentio ecclesiam de Andeura," ^ &c., — language which the Con- queror himself never could have used, but which would be very natural in his son. But the date is placed beyond the possibility of doubt by the fact that the first witness to the charter is Robert, Bishop of Lincoln. Now, the first bishop of that see who bore the name of Robert was Robert Bloet ; and he was not raised to the bishoprick till some years after the accession of William II.

" Galdricus Cancellarius " is the second witness to this charter; and he probably was the immediate successor of Robert Bloet as chancellor, on his resigning the seal when he was appointed bishop in 1093 ; because there is sufficient testimony that William Giffard was restored to the office soon afterwards, and retained it without interruption to the end of the reign.

In the reign of Henry I., there was a chancellor of the name of Waldric ; and, considering that the letters G and W were often indiscriminately used in spelling Christian

• Dugdale's Monast. (1846), vi. 992. F 2

68 ODO, BISHOP OF BAYEUX. Will. II

names, as Gualterus, Walterus ; Gulielmus, Willielmus ; — and also that there is only an interval of ten years between them, it does not appear improbable that Waldric was the same man. There is not, however, sufficient evidence to warrant an united notice.

Galdric was one of the royal chaplains, and accom- panied King Henry in 1106 to Normandy, where he distin- guished himself in the battle of Tenchebrai, fought on September 28, by taking Duke Robert prisoner. He was rewarded for his services with the bishoprick of Llandaff ; but, incurring the hatred of the citizens, who were probably disgusted at the king's forcing a bishop upon them, he was murdered in a field with five of his prebendaries. ^

GIFFARD, WILLIAM, afterwards Bishop of Winchester.

Chancellor, 1087. See under the reign of William I. and Henry I.

LINCOLN, Bishop or. See Robert Bloet. ODO, Bishop of Bayeux, and Earl of Kent.

Just. Angl. 1087. See under the Reign of William I.

Odo was a younger son of Arlotta, the mother of William the Conqueror, by Herluin de Conteville, whom she married after her connection with Robert Duke of Normandy. Herluin was in but moderate circumstances till William succeeded to the dukedom ; after which, the confiscated es- tates of the rebellious nobles enabled the Duke to enrich his uterine brothers. Of the elder of them, Robert Earl of Moreton, an account has already been given.'^ Odo, the younger, obtained the earldom of Eu on the banishment of William, its former earl, who had opposed the duke's succes-

• Lingard's England, ii. 115., who quotes Orderic, 821. ® See p. 46.

1087—1100. ODO, BISHOP OF BAYEUX. 69

slon : to which was added, in 1049, the ^'aluable bishoprick of Bayeux. His disposition, however, exhibiting more of the soldier than the priest, he was employed to lead part of his brother's forces against the King of France, to whose defeat he is said to have greatly contributed. In William's enterprise against England, also, he not only accompanied him, but contributed a supply of forty ships.

Forbidden by his clerical character from bearing offensive arms, he is represented in the tapestry of Bayeux on horse- back and in complete armour, but without any sword. He bears a staff only ; and the superscription " Hie Odo Eps baculum tenens confortat," is meant to intimate that his pe- culiar duty was to encourage the soldiers. After the battle, the castle of Dover and the whole county of Kent were committed to his care.

Early in 1067, King William, returning to his Norman dominions, left Odo and William Fitz-Osberne regents and justiciaries of England ; Kent, of which he was then created earl, being particularly placed under Odo's care. The con- duct of the viceroys was harsh and rapacious, occasioniDg many insurrections. These, however, were quickly sup- pressed; and the impunity which the regents enjoyed on the king's return, excited some suspicion that their severe pro- ceedings were not altogether without his authority. After Fitz-Osberne's death Odo was still continued regent, or, as Malmesbury calls him, " vice dominus," on another visit of the King to Normandy, in 1073, to arrest the progress of Philip of France ; and his energy and address were exhibited in assisting Richard de Benefacta and William de Warcnne, the chief justiciaries, in crushing the conspiracy of Boger Fitz- Osberne, Earl of Hereford (the son of his former coadjutor in the government), and Ralph de Guader, Earl of Suffolk and Norfolk.

The king, with his accustomed munificence, not only

F 3

70

ODO, BISHOP OF BAYEUX.

Will. II.

rewarded Odo's services with the honours already mentioned, which raised him to the second rank in the kingdom, but by more substantial gifts enabled him splendidly to support it. His share in the distribution of crown lands amounted to 184 lordships in Kent alone, with above 250 in other coun- ties. With the immense riches thus amassed, he aspired to a still higher dignity, and conceived the mad project of purchasing the papacy. He bought a magnificent palace at Rome, and engaging many of the English nobles in the enterprise, he prepared a number of ships for the conveyance of them and his treasures there, to await the death of the reigning pope, Gregory VII. Taking advantage of the king's absence in Normandy in 1079, he had collected his friends, and was ready to sail from the Isle of Wight, when, adverse winds delaying the expedition, the king received intelligence of his project, and hastening to the scene, ordered the ambitious prelate to be arrested. The fear, however, of incurring ecclesiastical censure, by laying violent hands on a bishop, restrained his officers from obeying the royal com- mands, so that the king was reduced to the necessity of being his own officer, and made the arrest himself. Odo claimed the privilege of his order, and appealed to the pope ; but William was too determined in his purpose to desist, and on the suggestion of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, answered, " I do not arrest the clergyman or the bishop, but my own earl, whom by my own will I made governor of my kingdom, and from whom I require an account of his stewardship." Odo was accordingly committed to safe cus- tody in the castle of Rouen, where he remained a prisoner till the end of his brother's reign : and all his property was confiscated to the king's use.

Even on his death-bed, William could scarcely conquer his resentment against his ungrateful brother ; and in the first instance excepted him from the general liberation wliich he

1087—1100. ODO, BISHOP OF BAYEUX. 71

then commanded of all persons in confinement. By the importunity of his nobles, however, he was at last induced, reluctantly, to consent to his enlargement ; but not without exj^ressing surprise at their intercession, and prophecying that new troubles would arise from the release of so restless a disturber.

On the Conqueror's death, in September, 1087, Odo re- turned to England, and was restored to his earldom of Kent, and the vast possessions which he had forfeited. He was present at the Court which William Kufus held at the fol- lowing Christmas, on which occasion he is described as " Justiciarius et princeps totius Angliae."

Whatever friendship the king might profess for him at this time, it is probable that it did not last long. Odo soon found that he no longer possessed the influence he had formerly exercised, and that the counsels of Lanfranc prevailed. In- stigated by disappointment and jealousy, he excited the Norman barons to join in raising Robert, the king's elder brother, to the English throne. A conspiracy was formed, and by the following Easter the standard of rebellion was raised in various counties. William, however, wisely at- tacked Odo, the principal insurgent, at Pevensey, where he had retired to await the arrival of Robert, and after seven weeks' siege compelled him to surrender ; granting him his life and liberty on condition that he would deliver up the castle of Rochester and leave England for ever. On being taken to Rochester for this purpose, Eustace, Earl of Bou- logne, to whom he had entrusted its command, pretended he was a traitor, and took him and his guard prisoners ; where- upon William, justly indignant, made a vigorous attack on the castle, which, after an obstinate defence, he took ; and though the lives of the garrison were spared, Odo was com- pelled to evacuate the place amid the taunts of the conquerors. In the vexation of the moment lie could not restrain his

F 4

72

ODO, BISHOP OF BAYEUX.

Will. II.

tlireats of revenge ; but no opportunity was afforded liim of carrying them into execution.

Retiring to Normandy, he assisted Robert in the manage- ment of his dukedom ; and, according to some writers, ac- companied him to Jerusalem, and was killed at the siege of Antioch. According to others, he died and was buried at Palermo, in his way to Rome. The event, wherever it took place, occurred in the year 1096.

His career affords the best evidence that the church was not the profession he should have selected. His talents and his tendencies were of a military character, and he was formed to shine in the active duties of the field. Energetic in counsel, he was daring and prompt in the execution of his conceptions. Although ambitious and worldly, and making riches and power the pi^ncipal objects of his pursuit, he was at the same time bountiful to the poor, and an encourager of learning. He expended his splendid revenue with a liberal hand ; spent large sums in the erection of his cathedral, and in beautifying his episcopal city. Even in the contradictory accounts of the historians, some of whom were his contem- poraries, enough is shown to prove that, if he had some vices, there were many virtues to counterbalance them.^

* Dugdale's Grig. Jurid. 20., and Chron. Series; Dugdale's Baron, i. 22.; Madox's Exch. i. 8.; Hutcbins's Dorsetsh. i. 11.; Will. Malmesb. Gesta Regum, 456. &c. ; Roger de Wendover, ii. 20. &c. ; Rapin, Daniel, Turner, Lingard, &c.

73

HENRY I.

Reigned 35 years, 3 months, and 27 days; from August 5, 1100, to December 1 , 1 1 35.

SURVEY OF THE REIGN.

The charter which King Henry granted on the day of his coronation made no alteration in the constitution of the Curia Regis, nor in the officers who acted in it : nor was any change introduced during this reign in the administration of justice, except that the establishment of Itinera or circuits through the different counties, for the purpose of hearing and deter- mining such criminal causes as arose therein, is supposed to have taken place about this period. Henry is stated to have adopted them in imitation of a similar institution, introduced about the same time into France by Louis le Gros.

The great and increasing extent of the business of the Curia Regis, both in its ordinary department and in that of the Exchequer, rendered some such arrangement necessary ; and the judges entrusted with the duty were invested with all the authority and power of the superior court, to which, however, there was an appeal from their decisions.

The Rolls of the Exchequer commence in this reign, to the great assistance of the legal antiquary. The absence of any for the two preceding reigns tends to corroborate the opinion that this court was first established by Henry. Unfortunately, however, only one of his rolls has been preserved, and none remain of the reign of Stephen ; although from the first institution of the Exchequer one was probably formed for eacli year. To the confusion of the kingdom, the destruction

74

GREAT KOLL OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Hen. r.

of Stephen's rolls may be perhaps attributed ; but the excuse cannot apply to some others of this reign, which certainly ex- isted in the reign of Henry III., Alexander Swereford, who lived at that time, having inspected them. Their loss can only be accounted for by the carelessness of those in whose custody they were deposited. The roll also of the first year of Henry II. is missing ; but from the second year of that reign to the present time the series is complete, with the exception of the rolls of 1 Henry III. and 7 Henry IV.

The history of this roll of Henry I. is so peculiar, that, as it is one of the most ancient records of the kingdom, some account of it will probably be interesting.

These rolls are sometimes called the great rolls of the Exchequer, and sometimes the pipe rolls. They contain the accounts of the king's revenue year by year, as they are made up with the king's officers in the Exchequer by the sheriffs and others, each of whom states the debts due to the crown in the county or lordship of which he has the custody, the sum he has received in respect of those debts, and the payments he has made on account of the royal expenditure to persons whose claims have been allowed. A separate roll is appropriated to each county, or to two counties where they are united under one sheriff; and they are all then joined together in one great roll or bundle.

This, the earliest roll, consists of sixteen smaller rolls of two membranes each, written mostly on both sides. But it is believed, from the omission of the accounts of some of the counties, that several of the smaller rolls have been lost.

It is a curious fact, and not much to the credit of the knowledge of former officers of the department, or of the diligence of early investigators, that the date of this roll has only now, after a lapse of seven hundred years, been correctly ascertained. It has been attributed at various times to no less than three several reigns, and four different years.

1100—1135. GREAT ROLL OF THE EXCHEQUER. 75

1. In the first instance, it was appropriated to the first year of Henry II., and that date is actually indorsed on one of the sheets. This was a somewhat natural mistake, made by some ignorant clerk in the oflSce, who, without investi- gation, presumed that as the following roll was that of 2 Henry II. this must of course belong to the preceding year. A slight comparison, however, with the list of sheriffs re- corded in the Red Book of the Exchequer, soon proved that none of them tallied ; and from other sources it was known that several of those named in the roll were dead at its pre- sumed date.

2. The 5 Stephen was next marked upon it, in the early part of the seventeenth century ; Sir Simonds D'Ewes having misconceived one of the entries without a sufficient examina- tion of the rest. That this date is incorrect is evidenced not only by various historical facts in contradiction to its contents, but by the previotlfe death of persons whose existence when the roll was made appears from its entries.

3. In the year 1688, Prynne proved, by internal evidence, that the roll belonged to the reign of Henry I. ; and he fixed upon the eighteenth year, principally because it contained an allowance to the sheriffs of London for oil to burn at the Queen's sepulchre; and Henry's first wife. Queen Maude, died, and was buried at Westminster in that year.

Dugdale either was not acquainted with Prynne's argu- ment, or did not consider it conclusive ; for, though his Baron- age was first published seven years afterwards, in 1675, he invariably refers to the roll as 5 Stephen.

Madox, in a very learned " Disceptatio," published at the end of his valuable History of the Exchequer, adduced many additional facts to demonstrate the correctness of Prynne's appropriation of the roll to the reign of Henry I. : but he modestly left to others to decide on the precise year.

It is to be lamented that, notwithstanding his own refu-

76

GREAT EOLL OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Hen. I.

tation, Madox should, throughout the body of his work, have adopted the incorrect date of 5 Stephen. Care must there- fore be taken in referring not only to that work, but to Dugdale's Baronage also, to appropriate to the reign of Henry I. the incidents which on the authority of this roll are placed in that of Stephen; greatly confusing, in many instances, the relation of which they form a part.

4. The roll itself has been now published under the direction of the Record Commission, with a luminous preface (from which the principal part of this account has been taken) by its editor, the Rev. Joseph Hunter, who, by a series of learned and ingenious arguments and illustrations, drawn from an industrious comparison of known facts with various entries on this curious record, conclusively establishes its date to be that of the tliirty-Jirst year of Henry I.

He shows that the oil for Queen Maude's tomb was an- nually supplied ; that one bishop named was not elected till after the eighteenth year ; that another was not elected till the thirtieth year ; that a third, mentioned as alive, died in 32 Henry I., and that an account is rendered by an abbot of Abingdon, alive at the beginning of the roll, but who died in that very year, and whose discharge is in consequence subsequently entered, " quia mortuus est ; " thus precisely fixing the date. Many other equally curious correspon- dences are brought forward, which afford honourable testi- mony to the care, discrimination, and learning with which the able editor has investigated the subject.

The annual accounts are always made up to Michaelmas ; so that as Henry's reign began on August 5, the accounts in this roll are principally applicable to the thirtieth year, with only a small part of the thirty-first.

Historians mention that the king held his Court between thirty and forty times when he was in England, and all at the customary periods of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide.

1100—1135. CHANCELLORS. 77

A meeting at Westminster, at Michaelmas, 1102, can scarcely be considered an exception ; as, although the king was present, it was rather an ecclesiastical synod held by Archbishop Anselm, " wherein many canons pertaining to religion were made, and several persons were deprived of their pastoral staves and dignity." ^ No court having been held at the same festival in any subsequent year of the reign, it is probable that the precise period of Michaelmas Term had not yet been fixed.

The only alteration of the Terms in this reign is made by Henry's charter, by which, under the title " De observatione temporis Leges faciendi," the Lent vacation, which the law of Edward the Confessor had limited to " Octabis Paschai," was extended to fifteen days after Easter.

In consequence of other justiciaries being now introduced besides the Justiciarius Anglia), it will be more convenient in this and the succeeding reigns to give precedence to the consideration of the chancellors.

In the list compiled by Thynne, he enumerates eight chancellors under Henry I., and Philipot adds a ninth. Most of the subsequent writers have followed the lead, and have adopted the series without further investigation. Three or four of them, I believe, never held the office, and the dates and succession of the rest are in several in- stances given erroneously.

The following catalogue, which is founded solely upon charters and other instruments, and which appropriates almost every year of the reign, is offered as a nearer ap- proach to correctness.

That William Giffard, who was chancellor at the close of the last reign, was continued in the office at the commencement of this, is shown by his being a witness

' Madox's Excli. i. 9-

78

CHANCELLORS.

Hen. I.

to a charter to the priory of Lewes S which must have been granted between August 5, 1100, the clay of Henry's coronation, and November or December following. " Girard the Bishop " is one of the witnesses to it, and he was raised from Hereford to the archhishoprick of York in one of the latter months. WiUiam Giffard w^as succeeded by

Roger, who attested two charters to the church of Nor- wich in September, 1101.^ He was made Bishop of Salis- bury in 1102 or 1103; after which there are two charters, one to Rochester and the other to Abingdon 3, witnessed by him as bishop and chancellor.

William Giffard was reinstated before March 10, 1103, as he was present in the character of chancellor on that day, when the convention between the king and the Earl of Flanders was executed.'^ He soon after this fell into disgrace for refusing to be consecrated by the Arch- bishop of York to the bishoprick of Winchester, to which he had been appointed, and was succeeded in his office by

Waldric, whose name appears as chancellor to the concord between the abbot of Fescamp and Philip de Braiosa, made at Salisbury on January 13, 1103-4.^ He is a witness also to four charters, which must have been executed within a year or two of this date.^

The name of Walter has never yet been mentioned as that of one of King Henry's chancellors ; and yet there are two charters bearing the attestation of " Walteri Cancellarii ; " one dated in 1 106, granted to the church of Tewkesbury ^ ; and the other to the priory of Thetford, dated at Ramsey, in transitu regis, on February 14, without naming the year®; but probably signed by the king on his proceeding to Kor-

Dugdale's Monast. (1846), v. Ibid. i. 164. 521. Dugdale's Monast. vi. 1083. Ibid. ii. 66.

14. * Ibid. iv. 16, 17.

< Rymer's Foedera (1816), i. 12. « Ibid. i. 164.; vi. 1106. 1273. « Ibid. V. 149.

1100—1135. CHANCELLOES. 79

niandy in the same year, on the expedition against Duke Robert. There can be very little doubt, however, that these signatures are merely errors of the scribe or the printer, in mis-spelling or misreading the name of Waldric.

If there be any ground for the suggestion ventured under the reign of William II., that the names Galdric and Waldric belong to one individual, some confirmation is shown by the presumption which this last charter affords, that Waldric accompanied the king when he then went into Normandy. Galdric certainly did so, and by his hand Duke Kobert was taken prisoner in the following September at the battle of Tench ebrai. He was rewarded with the bishoprick of Llandaff, and was soon afterwards murdered by the citizens of that place. The absence of Waldric's attestation to any subsequent charter adds some weight to the probability.

The next chancellor was Ranulph, who is generally described as entering into office in the year 1116. But the clearest proof is afforded from charters attested by him, that he held the seal as early at least as 8 Henry I. 1107-8, and as late as 1123. The former is the date of the charter to the priory of St. Andrew at Northampton ' , and the latter of that to the priory of Laund in Leicestershire.^ Other charters give the specific dates of seven of the intervening years: 1109, 1110, 1111, 1115-6, 1117, 1120, 1121-2 S not, as may be seen, all coming together, but at various distances; and the remaining periods are sufficiently ac- counted for by numerous other documents which have no dates to distinguish them. Ranulph was killed by a fall from his horse at Christmas, 1123 ; when

Geoffrey, generally called Geoffrey Rufus, became chancellor. His name is attached to the charter to Exeter

' Dugdale's Monast. v. 191. " Ibid. vi. 188.

' Ibid. i. 308. 483. C29., ii. 267., iii. 86-, vi. 1075. 1180.

80

CHANCELLORS.

Hen. L

Cathedral, which was granted in 1124, previous to the death in that year of Teoldus, Bishop of Worcester, as he is one of the witnesses. Godfrey, Bishop of Bath, another witness, was only raised to that see in August, 1123, so that it must have been after that date.

His continuance in office till the end of the reign is evidenced by his attestation to instruments executed, and charters granted, before and in 1127 ; before and in 1131 ; in 1132^; and in the autumn of 1134^; besides numerous others to fill up the intervening dates. He became Bishop of Durham in 1133 ; and King Henry died in Normandy on December 1, 1135.

It thus appears that, though no record of the actual ap- pointment of any chancellor of this reign is preserved, there are very few years in which we cannot ascertain who was the then chancellor by means of existing documents ; and that those years in no instance occur between the retirement or death of one and the succession of another. The few untouched intervals in the time of each of the chancellors might be supplied from numerous undated charters, in which their names are inserted ; but the investigation would be as unprofitable as tedious.

The following names, which have been inserted by Thynne, and adopted successively on his authority by Philipot, Spel- raan. Hardy, and Lord Campbell, but not by Dugdale, must be excluded from the list of the chancellors of this reign for the reasons to be now adduced.

Godfrey, Bishop of Bath ; the insertion of whose name is founded solely on Matthew Parker's calling him " Regni Cancellarium," when he was consecrated in August, 1123.

' Dugdale's Monast. ii. 539. Ibid. i. 482., ii. 617., iii. 448. Feed. i. 8.

•' Madox's Exch. i. 56.

iv. 538., V. 121., vi. 240. 1271.; Rymer's

1100—1135. CHANCELLORS. 81

This is an evident misprint or mistake for " RegincB Cancel- larium ; " as he certainly held the latter office, and is never mentioned as possessing the former ; as at the date assigned Ranulph was chancellor ; and as the term " Cancellarius Regni" or "Angliae" was not introduced till long after- wards, that officer being at this period invariably styled " Cancellarius Regis."

Herbekt ; the only authority for the mention of whose name in 1104 Thynne acknowledges to be "an anonymall pamphlet in written hand." The absence, however, of any other testimony, and the fact that Waldric was chancellor at the time named, will be sufficient to exclude him.

The next is Reginald; and Thynne's authority is a passage from Leland's Itinerary, in ^vhich he enumerates among the priors and benefactors of the priory of Montacute " one Reginaldus Cancellarius, so namyd, hy likehjhode^ of his office." The " likelyhode " is sorely diminished by the total silence, both historical and documentary, of such a chancellor ; and by the fact, that not only kings and queens, but barons and bishops, and even persons of lower degree, had officers with that title. His name therefore, cannot, with any propriety, be admitted.

Thomas is first introduced by Philipot in addition to Thynne's list; on the authority of a charter to Norwich. On reference to it, however, it is plainly a charter, not of Henry I., but of Henry II., and the chancellor Thomas, who is a witness to it, is Thomas Bccket. To tliat reign, therefore, he must be removed.

Richard the chaplain is mentioned by Thynne as keeper of the great seal while Ranulph was chancellor ; but in none of tlie numerous charters of this reign does his name appear with that designation. Malmesbury calls him with more probability " Clericus de Sigillo." He was preferred to the bishoprick of Hereford in 1120.

VOL. I. G

82 CHANCELLORS. Hen. I.

In the Great Roll of 31 Henry I., of which a description has been already given, is an entry, from whlcli Madox under- stands, and Lord Campbell asserts, that Geoffrey (afterwards Bishop of Durham) purchased the office of chancellor for the sum of 3006/. 135. 4d. It is evident that Madox was not aware how long he had held the office at the date of that roll, as he speaks of this sum as a " Fine then lately made." What effect, therefore, the fact of Geoffrey having possessed the seal for seven or eight previous years might have had upon his opinion, can only be matter of surmise.

The words are, " Et idem Cancellarius debet mmm et VJ 1. et XIII s. et IIIJ d. pro Sigillo." In them, it will be observed, there is nothing about a purchase or a fine ; they simply state a debt due from him to the king, for or on account of the seal ; without saying when or how it was incurred, or whether it is a whole sum or the balance of a larger amount. Although it is not altogether improbable that Henry may have received some fine for the grant of the Chancery (of which, however, there is no other evidence than this entry affords), it may be worth while, before the record is accepted as positive proof of the fact, to consider whether it is suffi- cient in itself for that purpose, and how far probabilities operate upon the question.

As all the great rolls previous to this have been long destroyed, the only argument that can be raised upon its contents must be founded on the presumption that the same system then prevailed which is apparent in the subsequent rolls that are extant. JSTov/ in these rolls, which contain the accounts of the various crown debtors, the common course is this : — A. B. renders an account, " reddit compotum," of what he owes as sheriff, custos, fermer, &c., for this amerciament, or for that rent or fine, &c. He pays so much by writs from the king, and so much into the treasury ; and if his whole receipt is thus exhausted, the entry is **et quietus est;"

4

1100—1135. CHANCELLORS. 83

but if any balance remains unpaid, then it is " et debet " so much; and this debet is carried over to the roll of the following year. It may be inferred, therefore, that this debt of 3006Z. 135. 4 J., so declared due from Geoffrey the chancellor, is the balance of a larger sum of which he had rendered an account in a former year ; and this becomes still more likely when its fractional amount is considered.

The very circumstance of its being a fractional amount makes it less probable that it was the precise fine he had agreed to pay (if he did in truth agree to pay anything) for receiving the great seal : and if it was only part of a larger sum, the Improbability becomes still greater, when it is re- collected that money was then at least fifteen times more valuable than it is now, and that even the balance specified would be worth in present currency about 45,000/. The probability, however, is almost entirely destroyed by the fact that Geoffrey was placed in the office in the early part of 1124, nearly eight years before the close of this roll : for it never can be supposed that the king, selling the office at such a rate, even without an immediate necessity for the money, would forego the possession of the tempting prize, and permit it to continue in arrear for so long a period. The only supposition that would give it an appearance of truth would be, that after Geoffrey had held the seals for some years, the king had threatened, without such an advance, to take them away and give them to some other candidate : but of this there is no evidence whatever.

It is observable that no one historian mentions the fact, which is one not likely to have been omitted if it had any foun- dation. It seems necessary, therefore, to seek for some more reasonable explanation of the entry, than that which is open to so much objection. From the ignorance that must prevail of the precise duties of the chancellor at this period, and of what sums of money passed through his hands on the king's

G 2

84 CHANCELLORS. Hen. L

account, it Is difficult to do this with any satisfaction ; but it is apparent from the same roll, that (whether as chancellor or independently of the office does not appear) he was the custos of the bishopricks of Coventry and Hereford, and of the abbey of Chertsey, during their respective vacancies ; and also of various manors and lands belonging to the king. It is true that he accounts for the sums received by him in respect of these during the year in question : but it may easily be supposed that he had been allowed in previous years to retain part of his various receipts, until by accumu- lating balances they had arrived at the amount specified. It seems as probable that the words " pro sigillo " might mean what he had received for the king on account of holding the seal, as that they should be interpreted into a fine for the possession of the seal itself

The bishoprick of Durham, to which Geoffrey eventually was appointed, at the date of this roll had been vacant about three years ; and it is known that both Henry and his prede- cessor extorted money from those whom they raised to the episcopal bench, as tlie price of their preferment. It is not impossible, nor indeed unlikely, that Geoffrey should have bargained for this rich bishoprick on the payment of a speci- fied sum, too large to produce at once, but of which this might be the balance ; and that the words " pro sigillo " were added as a cover to prevent the simoniacal contract from appearing on the record. The loss of the subsequent rolls takes away the power of discovering whether the balance was discharged before his consecration in 1133 ; so that the sub- ject must remain in the obscurity which now involves it.

If, however, the entry in question is to be considered as a proof that a fine of that or of larger amount was imposed by the king on a grant of the office of chancellor, it would de- monstrate that its dignity and importance had been greatly increased, and that its emoluments must be estimated at a

I

1100—1135. CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. 85

very considerable standard, to be at all proportionate to the assumed price. What those emoluments were cannot now be ascertained : but from the roll referred to, some of the payments and allowances made to the chancellor may be dis- covered. He was excused the Danegeld and other taxes on all the property he possessed, and there are no less than twenty entries of exemption in fifteen counties where Geoffrey had land. He received fifty marks from a fine imposed on the abbot of Westminster ; and he is allowed 10/. 155. " in llberatione " for forty-three days in which he was not present at the Exchequer with the other barons ; being at the rate of five shillings a day.

This last entry proves that it was his duty to sit with the barons in the Exchequer ; and as it was in that department of the Curia Regis that the Common Pleas, or those between private individuals, were heard, his occupations may now have begun to assume a judicial character. There is also another entry, mentioning a writ issued by him charging the sheriff of Leicestershire with a debt due by an inhabitant of that county.

The chief justiciaries of this reign are more difficult to ascertain than the chancellors, from the confused account of the historians, and from the fact that the charters which have been preserved afford no single instance of that title being attached to the name of any witness to them, as is invariably the case with respect to the chancellors.

This omission may excite a doubt whether the oflSce of chief justiciary was even yet established on the footing it subsequently acquired ; and this doubt will not be diminished by seeing that not only the chancellor, but the constable, the chamberlain, the dapifer, and other officers attesting those charters, are described by their respective offices ; and that the persons whom the historians notice as chief justiciaries are frequent witnesses without the appendage of the title.

G 3

m

CHIEF JUSTICIARIES.

Hen. I.

The only record that has been mentioned as using that title is the charter of liberties, granted by the king in the first year of his reign ; which Roger de Wendover, and Matthew Paris after him, cite, in one place, as being addressed "Hugoni de Boclande, justiciario Angli^e." But each of these authors, in a previous page, gives another copy of the same charter, addressed " Hugoni de Boclande vicecomiti ; " and the address in both is thus continued : " et omnibus fide- libus suis, tarn Francis quam Anglis, in Herefordescire," (in one, but more correctly *' Hertfordescire " in the other) " salutem." It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that the charter was addressed to him as sheriff of Hertfordshire, and that all the other sheriffs had copies similarly addressed to them, in pursuance of the order then issued, and reported by both these authors, that " as many copies should be made as there w ere counties in England, to be deposited in the abbeys of the different counties as a memorial."

As no other mention is made of Hugh de Bocland in the character of chief justiciary ; but, on the contrary, as there is evidence that he was sheriff of London and the united counties of Hertford and Essex ; it is impossible upon such vague and contradictory testimony to admit him into the list of those holding that office.

KoBERT Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, the chancellor of the last reign, is expressly stated by Henry of Huntingdon, in his epistle " De Mundi Contemptu," to have been " Justicia- rius totius Angllai : " and as that writer was one of the bishop's archdeacons, and lived in his family, the assertion, supported as it is by some anecdotes, may be taken as authority in this instance : although the manner in which he invests others with the same dignity may raise a question whether they were entitled to be so distinguished.

The only other person who can be safely asserted to have been '.nvested with the authority attributed to the office of

I

1100—1135. CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. 87

chief justiciary, (though it does not appear that the title was ever used by him), was Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, who has been already mentioned as chancellor from 1101 to 1103. Although, when he was then raised to the prelacy, he was in the king's full confidence, and acting as his chief minister, he is said to have refused the highest judicial post, until he had received the sanction of the Pope and Archbishop Anselm. This was not attainable till the return of the latter in 1107 ; but from that period to the end of the reign, both when the king was in England and when he was absent in Normandy, he retained the ascendancy. Of his excellent management of the Exchequer, whether as its president, or as treasurer (which office he also held in some part of the reign), there is most decisive evidence in the " Dialogus de Scaccario," written by his grand-nephew, Richard Fitz-Nigel, Bishop of London.

There are, however, five other persons who are introduced into Dugdale's list of chief justiciaries of this reign ; viz. Ralph Basset, Richard Basset his son, Geoffrey Ridel, Geoffrey de Clinton, and Alberic de Yere ; the first four of whom, principally upon the authority of Henry of Hunting- don's epistle " De Mundi Contemptu." In that composition he refers to the great men of whose career in life he had been witness ; and writing somewhat loosely from early recollec- tions of having seen them in the exercise of judicial functions, his testimony as to the actual position they held must be re- ceived with considerable caution.

Of Ralph Basset's occupation of the station of chief justiciary, Ordericus Vitalis certainly gives some evidence ; and the fact that he presided at the trials at Huncote in 1124 is not without weight. Still, however, this only proves that he was high in rank among the justiciaries, not that he was distinguished by the chief title. To his name as a witness to charters no such addition ever occurs ; and, though he was

G 4

88

CHIEF JUSTICIARIES.

Hen, I.

dead at the date of the Great Roll, previously alluded to, his pleas of former years which appear in it, are never mentioned in a manner to give the slightest intimation of his holding a higher rank than the other justiciaries, whose pleas are re- corded. He is also the last of no less than fifteen attet^ting witnesses to King Henry's charter to Westminster, which was granted either in 1121 or 1122; the immediate preced- ing witness being Geoffrey de Clinton.

KiCHARD Basset is also mentioned by Ordericus Vitalis, as having great power under Henry I., " utpote Capitalis Justitia ; " not a very decisive expression. In the Roll of 31 Henry I. there is nothing whatever to give a semblance of his having held the office: and his position among the witnesses to the charter granting the office of great chamber- lain to Alberic de Vere, the date of which must have been in 1134, the last year of Henry's reign, affords almost positive evidence that he then occupied a much inferior station. There are twelve witnesses to it, of whom, instead of being the first, where such an office would have placed him, he stands last but one. The first of them is Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, who was probably the highest minister at that time, whether his title was chief justiciary or not ; then follows the chancellor, and afterwards the constable, both officers who, in the supposed arrangement of precedency, would take rank after the chief justiciary.

Geoffrey Rldel is inserted as " Justitiarius totius An- glise " in one copy of Henry of Huntingdon's epistle, but omitted in another. Dugdale states that he succeeded Ralph Basset in the office ; and then relates that he was drowned with Prince William, in 1119. The fact, however, that Ralph Basset presided at the trials at Hunloge seems in direct contradiction to this ; and the expression of Roger de Wendover, when describing the death of the prince, that " dapiferi, camerarii, pincernaa regis, ac multi proceres cum

1100—1135. CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. 89

eis," perished with him, precludes the idea that any officer of higher rank shared in the calamity.

Henry of Huntingdon is also quoted by Dugdale, as his authority for placing Geoffrey de Clinton among the chief justiciaries ; but the passage he refers to is not in the published copy of the Epistle. That he acted as one of the justiciers on various iters, and as a justice of the forests, is proved by the roll of 31 Henry I. ; and there is evidence there and in other places, to show that he held the office of treasurer, as well as chamberlain, to the king : but none that he was chief justiciary.

Alberic de Vere is introduced by Dugdale and Spel- raan among the chief justiciaries ; but it is difficult to tell on what authority. He was Portgrave of London about 1125; and the amercement of 550/. and four war-horses imposed upon him for the escape of a prisoner, with the fine of 100 marks which he paid to be relieved from the sheriffiilty of the united counties of Essex and Herts, in which the oc- currence happened, appearing on the roll of 31 Henry I., may be considered as proofs that he was not chief justiciary at its date. His attestation as the second witness, without any addition to his name, of a charter dated about 1133, is additional testimony; and his appointment in 1134 to the office of hereditary great chamberlain, brings him nearly to the end of tlie reign. The first witness to that charter was Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, who Avas then, no doubt, the king's chief minister. William of Malmcsbury, in speaking of him under King Stephen, calls him " Albericus quidam de Vere ;" and again, " Albericus Causidicus ;" a style he would scarcely have used in speaking of one who held so distin- guished an office.

Although some doubts may exist as to the five last-named persons having been chief justiciaries in this reign, it is cer- tain that all of them, except, perhaps, Alberic de Vere, were

90 CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. Hen. I.

employed as justiciers; and that two, or perhaps three, acted together at the same period in the administration of justice.

That there were many justiciers at this time whose names are now lost, there is every probability; and that tliey formed a distinct order, both in the Curia Regis and in the provinces, there can be little doubt ; as the word " Justi- tiariis " began to be regularly introduced among the persons to whom the charters of this reign Avere addressed ; though the title is never so used in the charters of William I., and very seldom in those of William II.

Although all the great barons were intitled to sit in the Curia Regis, it may easily be supposed that many of them would not interfere with the legal business transacted there. Many would be incapable; many disinclined; some would be drawn off by the frequent wars; and others be occupied in different employments. Thus the duty of hearing and determining pleas would be gradually left to the established officers of the court, and those barons whose education or whose abilities would make them efficient members of it. Geoffi^ey de Clinton and Alberic de Vere, for instance, were chamberlains, and no doubt regularly attended the court, and acted as justiciaries. The barons who devoted themselves to this duty could not but acquire some experience in its per- formance, and would by degrees take the lead in the judg- ments pronounced. The real judicial power would thus be eventually vested in them; and though they could not all be correctly termed chief justiciaries in the sense usually applied to that designation, they might be looked up to as the principal administrators of the law ; and the contemporary historians, who probably would not have a precise knowledge of the actual constitution of the court, would, not unna- turally, ascribe to them the highest judicial powers.

A solution of the apparent difficulty may be found by re- membering that, as the duties of every department of the

1100—1135. CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. 91

state increased, it became necessary to divide the labour. The political and legal business would be in a great degree kept separate ; and the legal again would be subjected to several subdivisions. Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, when he held the highest position in the kingdom, perhaps, as chief justiciary, acted more as the principal minister of the king while present, and as his viceroy while absent, regulating all the state affairs; and not a'single record remains of any pleas held before him.

In the legal department there is little doubt that during this reign, and possibly before it, the pleas in civil causes be- tween private individuals, or what were called Common Pleas, which were brought into the Curia Regis for decision, were lieard before justices specially appointed for the purpose, sitting in that division of the court called the Exchequer. It is asserted that even at that day the distinction between the King's Bench and that of the Common Pleas began to exist ; not only the two benches, but the judges of assize also, being expressly referred to in a charter of confirmation alleged to have been granted by King Henry to a certain abbot of B., as reported in the Year Book of Edward III., called " The Book of Assizes." (Anno 26, plea 24.) The words of the grant are, " That the abbot should have conu- zance of all manner of pleas, so that the justices of one bench, or of the other, or justices of assize, should not meddle," &c. The value of this authority, however, may be questioned.

If the chief justiciary were presiding in that branch of the court devoted to the hearing of the King's Pleas, some other justiciary, or officer of the court, or one of the more ex- perienced barons, must necessarily preside over that division in which Common Pleas were heard: and the same course must also have been frequently adopted in the King's Court itself, considering the numerous political duties wlilch would

92

CHANCELLORS AND CHIEF JUSTICIARIES. Hen. L

occasion the absence of the chief justiciary. Thus the two persons usually selected for this purpose would be generally looked up to as being in fact, though not in name, the chief justices of the land: and it is not to be wondered at that monkish historians should so describe them.

In forming the table, therefore, of chief justiciaries of this reign, it seems the safest course not to exclude any who have been named, except Hugh de Bocland, for whom there is not even a well-grounded presumption ; but to place a denot- ing mark against those whose positions are doubtful.

Table of the Chancellors and Chief Justiciaries, or Justiciaries,

A.R.	A.D.	Chancellors.	Chief Justiciaries, or Justiciaries. The latter marlied ?
I.	1100, Aug. 5.	William GifFard, afterwards	Robert Bloet, Bishop of
		Bishop of Winchester	Lincoln.
IL	1101, Sept.	Roger, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury
TIL	1103, March	William Giffard again
IV.	1104, Jan.	Waldric
VIIL	1107-8	Ilanulph, ob. 1123	Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. ? Geoff'rey Ridel.
XXIV.	1124	Geoffrey Rufus, afterwards' ? Ralph Basset. |
		Bishop of Durham	? Richard Basst-t. ? Geoff'rey de Clinton. ? Alberic de Vere.

Although there is a reasonable presumption for fixing the first appointment of itinerant justices in this reign, there is no positive evidence of the fact. Neither can the precise year of their introduction be ascertained. All that is proved by the ancient roll in the Exchequer is that they had been acting on their circuits previously to the 31 Henry I., the year of its date.

The roll states the amount of the debts due from the persons possessing land in each county, as imposed or set- tled by the justices itinerant holding pleas therein ; in this manner, " Robertus filius Toli debet xxx marcas argenti, de placitis G. de Clinton:" in the counties of Nottingham

1100—1135. JUSTICES ITINERANT. 93

and Derby. The names of the judges who acted in most of the counties are thus preserved ; but as the accounts of no less than nine counties are either entirely wanting or are imperfectly recorded, the list is by no means complete.

There are nine judges only so named on the roll, of whom three were connected with the Curia Regis, viz. —

Ralph Basset, whose name appears as holding pleas in the six counties of Nottingham, Derby, Wilts, Buck- ingham, Bedford, and Lincoln. Geoffrey de Clinton, who acted also in the above-men- tioned six counties, and in twelve others: viz. those of York, Hants, Surrey, Essex, Kent, Sussex, Stafford, Leicester, Norfolk, Suffolk, Warwick, and Berks. Richard Basset, who had the six counties of Hertford, Sussex, Leicester, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Lincoln ; in five of which one or other or both of the two preced- ing also acted. The remaining six judges were great barons residing in, or in the neighbourhood of, the counties to which they were appointed: viz. —

Walter Espec and Eustace Fitz-John had Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham; to the first of which Geoffrey de Clinton was also attached. Milo of Gloucester and Pain Fitz-John had the coun- ties of Gloucester and Stafford ; in the latter of which Geoffrey de Clinton acted also. Henry de Port was appointed for Kent in connection

with Geoffrey de Clinton. William de Albini-Brito had Lincolnshire, with Geoffrey de Clinton and the two Bassets. To these must be added the name of —

Richard Fitz-Alured, who fined fifteen marks that he might sit with Ralph Basset to hold the king's pleas in Buckinghamshire.

94 EXCHEQUER. Hen. I.

As all the debts recorded are in separate entries, there are no certain means in many counties of determining whether they were imposed during one iter or circuit ; and as in most cases each separate debt is awarded by one judge only, there is nothing to show that the several judges acted together at the same time. For instance, in the example given by Madox for the county of Lincoln, one debt is stated to be " de placitis " of Geoifrey de Clinton, another of those of Ralph Basset, another of Richard Basset, and a fourth of William de Albini. • But in some counties the entries mani- festly refer to pleas held in some preceding year. In Buck- inghamshire the sheriff accounts for one sum " de veteribus placitis Badulfi Basset ; " and for another " de placitis G. de Clinton de Judicibus Burgi de Buckingeham ; " plainly denoting two periods, and showing that the establishment of itinera must be fixed at a date earlier than that of the roll.

There is a curious entry in this ancient roll of the judges (Walter Espec and Eustace Fitz-John) and jurors of York- shire fining in the sum of 100/. that they should not be judges and jurors any longer.

That the civil causes or common pleas were usually heard in the Exchequer, appears from a writ of King Henry still extant, directing the bishop of London to do fall right to the Abbot of Westminster, against those who broke into his church of Winton ; and adding that if he failed, the king's barons of the Exchequer should do so. Another writ of the same king, confirming a grant to the church of the Holy Trinity in London, is directed to Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, (then chief justiciary, or perhaps treasurer, and president of the Exchequer) " et Baronibus Scaccarii."

Judges and barons were in this age nearly equivalent terms. The special appointment of judges had hardly yet commenced, but they were such barons of the land as were accustomed to take part in the judicial proceedings of the

I

1100—1135. EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS TO JUDGES. 95