THE PUBLICATIONS

OF THE

,sefbon ,sociefE

irEpt 7avT65 T'V AEEvOepLav

VOLUME CVI

FOR THE YEAR 1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society i 1990

 SSef en %ocieQ
FOUNDED 1887
To encourage the Study and advance the Knowledge of the History of English Law

1990
Patron
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH, K.G.

President
SIR IRVINE GOULDING

Vice-Presidents
THE HON. MORRIS S. ARNOLD
MRS. MARJORIE CHIBNALL, F.B.A.
THE RT. HON. CHIEF JUSTICE R.G.B. DICKSON
THE RT. HON. LORD TEMPLEMAN, M.B.E.

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

Literary Directors
Mr. D. E. C. YALE, F.B.A. PROFESSOR J. H. BAKER, F.B.A.
Honorary Treasurer
Mr. BRIAN J. PRICHARD (8 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, WC2A 3QJ)

Secretary
Mr. VICTOR TUNKEL
(Faculty of Laws, Queen Mary College, Mile End Road, London, El 4NS)

Trustees
Mr. E. R. HEWARD, C.B. THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT MEGARRY, F.B.A.
Mr. BRIAN J. PRICHARD
Honorary Secretaries and Treasurers Overseas
Australia: Mr. G. LINDELL
(Faculty of Law, Australian National University, Canberra 2600)
Canada: PROFESSOR DELLOYD J. GUTH
(Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, 1822 East Mall, Vancouver V6T IYI)
New Zealand: Dr. D. W. MCMORLAND
(Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland 1)
United States: PROFESSOR CHARLES DONAHUE Jr. (Treasurer), Ms. DIANA MOSES (Secretary)
(Harvard Law School, Langdell Hall, Cambridge, Mass 02138)

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society ii 1990

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

EDITED FOR
THE SELDEN SOCIETY
BY

R.C. VAN CAENEGEM

Professorof Medieval and Legal History
in the University of Ghent

LONDON
SELDEN SOCIETY
1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society iii 1990

 C Selden Society 1990

The Selden Society gratefully acknowledges the financial

support provided for this volume by the Francqui Foundation,
Brussels; the Frederic William Maitland Memorial Fund,
Cambridge University; and the British Academy.

Printedin Great Britain

at the Alden Press, Oxford

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society iv 1990

 CONTENTS OF VOLUME I

PREFACE vii

INTRODUCTION. xi

BIBLIOGRAPHY xxix
List of narrative sources xxix
List of collections of charters xxxii
List of works xlv
LAWSUITS (Nos 1-346)

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society v 1990

 To the memory of
T.F.T. Plucknett

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society vi 1990

 PREFACE

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society vii 1990

Vlli PREFACE

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society viii 1990

 PREFACE

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society ix 1990

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society x 1990
 INTRODUCTION

I. SCOPE OF THE COLLECTION

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xi 1990

xii ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xii 1990

 INTRODUCTION

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

II. IMPORTANCE FOR ENGLISH HISTORY

The period under review was an age of transition between two clearly marked
eras, that of 'Anglo-Saxon England' and that of the established common law. The
Old-English kingdom had a clear individuality of its own and we can study its law
in impressive collections of documents: charters, wills, writs, treatises, reports of
lawsuits6 and above all the voluminous and unique series of dooms, stretching over
some five centuries.' The thirteenth century, so admirably analysed by Maitland
and Milsom,8 witnessed the undisputed ascendancy of the common law, the
cornerstone of English law for many centuries, and described in a highly technical
language in one of the great lawbooks of the Middle Ages, Bracton's 'Treatise on
the Laws and Customs of England'. The intervening period, extending roughly
6 They have recently been surveyed in P. Wormald, 'A handlist of Anglo-Saxon lawsuits', Anglo-
Saxon England, 17 (1988), 247-281. D. Whitelock, English HistoricalDocuments c. 500-1042, London,
1955 (English Hist. Docs. ed. by D.C. Douglas, I) contains very few lawsuits, in Part II: Chartersand
Laws. Most of the 82 charters are grants and wills, but there are four law cases; two 'establishments of
free status' occur among the I1 'manumissions'. Vol. II in the series, English Historical Documents
1042-1189, ed. by D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway, London, 1953, contains a small section of
Reports of trials, with seven cases from 1076 to 1189 (nos. 50-56, pp. 449-458), but there is, of course,
some judicial material in the pages relating to the Becket dispute in the ch. The Church in England1154-
1189.
7 They are available in the classic edition by F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols.,
Halle, 1903-1916.
8 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward1, 2 vols.,
Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1898 (reissued with a new introduction and a select bibliography by S.F.C.
Milsom, Cambridge, 1968); S.F.C. Milsom, HistoricalFoundationsof the Common Law, London, 2nd
ed. 1981; S.F.C. Milsom, The legal framework of English feudalism, Cambridge, 1976 (Maitland
Lectures 1972).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xiii 1990

 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

R.C. van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1988.
10Many of these editions are accompanied by modem translations, such as Glanvill, the Dialogue
of the Exchequer or the Leges Henrici Primi, whereas the series English HistoricalDocuments for our
period consists entirely of translations.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xiv 1990

 INTRODUCTION

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xv 1990

 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

III. THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Whereas the relevance of the English lawsuits for English legal history is
obvious, it may not be superfluous to draw attention to their relevance for
eleventh- and twelfth-century Europe at large: never before or after has England's
legal development shed so much light on that of the Continent. From the
thirteenth century onwards it was clear that English and continental law were
going their own, very distinct ways, but in the period under review things were
different. English culture has never been closer to the Continent than in the twelfth
century, when Nicholas Breakspear became pope and John of Salisbury bishop of
Chartres; it is significant that a large proportion of the twelfth-century collections
of papal decretals, on which the great law book of Gregory IX was based, was of
English provenance. 3 There also was a strong political nexus, as for most of the
period the kingdom and the duchy shared a common ruler, were socially
dominated by a single Anglo-Norman knightly class, and developed administra-
tive and judicial structures of remarkable similarity. The shared system of feudal
land-holding was the main element of the law: Norman practice sheds light on the
English and vice versa. However, this Anglo-Norman feudal law was by no means
confined to England and Normandy. It was part of a common West-European
heritage from Carolingian times, and that is why the study of the English feudal
law of the period is part and parcel of European legal history. The burning
question of the age, for example, whether feudal tenures were for life or
inheritable, was a general European concern. So was the much debated problem of
the modes of proof administered in the courts. The twelfth century was, both in
England and on the Continent, critical for the old ordeals - fire, water and
combat - which were attacked by rulers, towns and scholars in a concerted action
that led to the prohibition by the Fourth Lateran Council for the clergy to
participate in their administration. They were replaced in England and on the
Continent by the purgatory oath - less dangerous and painful, less hazardous and
less socially demeaning than the ordeals - and by various forms of the inquest,
including the impanelling of juries (v~ritW du pays on the Continent) and the
interrogation of witnesses. A twelfth-century continental traveller would easily
13C. Duggan, Twelfth century decretalcollections and their importance in English history, London,
1963, pp. 1-12 (University of London Historical Studies, 12).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xvi 1990

 INTRODUCTION xvil

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xvii 1990

XVIll ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xviii 1990

 INTRODUCTION

after which date it was tacitly given up.17 In the meantime J. Ficker had been
engaged on an edition ofltalianplacitaand in vol. TV (1874) of his Untersuchungen
zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens a considerable number of previously
unedited pleas were published. The crowning achievement in this field was,
however, left to the Italians themselves. In 1924 G. Mengozzi had published a
monograph on the School of Pavia, which was for two-thirds based on the study of
lawsuits"8 and it was in that context that C. Manaresi came to plan his edition of
the lawsuits of the Regnum Italiae, the successor state of the kingdom of the
Lombards, for the period 776-1100, entitled I Placitidel 'Regnum Italiae',in the
well known series of Fontiper la Storia d'ltalia,published by the Istituto Storico
Italiano per il Medio Evo. The proposal was made in 1938 and work started in
1950. The first volume was published in 1955 and the enterprise was completed in
three volumes, the last being published in 1960, one year after Manaresi's death.' 9
In the meantime L. Schiaparelli had published the lawsuits of the Lombard era
(620-774), in his Codice Diplomatico Longobardo (two volumes, Rome, 1929-
1933).2" Thus the Italian Institute could boast of the only complete Corpus
Placitorum on the Continent.2' It should, however, be clearly understood that
Manaresi's collection, in contrast with Bigelow's and our own, is limited to placita
in the sense of charters containing court pronouncements, and omits data from
narrative sources.
That the English material is comparatively abundant can be explained by
various circumstances. Already in the Anglo-Saxon period England had attained a
high degree of literacy, certainly when compared with the Norman warrior state
across the Channel. Royal government was advanced, and orderly administration
tends to bring forth written records. England not only produced more of these at
an earlier date than its neighbours, but it escaped much of the destruction that
annihilated so many archives on the Continent in general and in the Low
Countries in particular. Last but not least, modern England, both on the level of
government and of individual workers, has made an admirable effort to preserve,
study and analyse its historical treasures and to put them at the disposal of
scholars.22
17See on all this the detailed survey of H. Keller, 'I placiti nella storiografia degli ultimi cento anni',
Fonti medioevali e problematica storiografica, I, Rome, 1976, 43-45 (Istituto Storico Italiano per il
Medio Evo).
18Ricerche sull' attivit&della scuola di Pavia nell' alto medio evo, Pavia, 1924.
19An additional volume, containing 43 cases from 801 to 1084, was published by R. Volpini,
'Placiti del Regnum Italiae (saec. IX-XI). Primi contributi per un nuovo censimento', Contributidell'
Istituto di Storia Medioevale, ed. by P. Zerbi, III, Milan, 1975, 245-520.
20 In the same series of Fonti. See also L. Bertini, Indici del Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, Bad,
1970 (Istituto di Filologia Romanza di Pisa).
21 Keller, loc. cit.
22 For detailed and up to date information on the sources we have used, the reader may turn to the
admirable new edition of C. Gross's Sources and Literature: E.B. Graves (ed.), A Bibliography of
English History to 1485, Oxford, 1975.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xix 1990

 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

IV. EUROPEAN INTEREST IN CASE LAW

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xx 1990

 INTRODUCTION

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxi 1990

Xxii ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxii 1990

 INTRODUCTION xxiii

Gesellschaft ffir Reichskammergerichtsforschung was founded at Wetzlar, one of

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

V. SOME REFLEXIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE

'ENGLISH LAWSUITS'
It is not our intention to present in this Introduction a picture of English courts
and English law as they functioned and developed in the Norman and early
Angevin era: the legal historian will consult the existing literature and, making use
of the present collection, complete and correct the picture he finds there. Our aim is
merely to put bricks and mortar at the disposal of the contractors and architects,
not to erect a building ourselves. It may nevertheless be appropriate to give a broad
idea of the type of litigation the historian will find here and in what sort of texts. To
begin with the latter, the proportion of narrative and non-narrative material is
roughly 30% of the former and 70% of the latter. This ratio is not stable
throughout the period, the part of narrative sources being, for example,
exceptionally low in the decades 1131-1140 and 1181-1190, and high in 1070-1090
and 1161-1170. That the number of texts increases with the times was only to be
heutigen Stand der Geschichte der hdchsten Gerichtsbarkeit im Alten Reich', Fabrica Historiae
Forensis,49-64. In Amsterdam in 1984 an international symposium was organized on supreme law
courts in the late Middle Ages and early modern period, and the papers were edited by H. De Schepper
under the title Hdchste Gerichtsbarkeit im Spiitmittelalter und der friihen Neuzeit. Internationales
RechtshistorichesSymposium Amsterdam 1.-3. Juni 1984, Amsterdam, 1984.
" D. Simon, loc. cit. See also Max-Planck-Institutflireuropdische Rechtsgeschichte. Tdtigkeits-
bericht 1987-1988, Frankfurt, 1988, pp. 4-6: Medijvistische Justizforschung. The Institute undertook
the preliminary task of establishing a bibliographical status quaestionis,covering the period 1945-1985,
concerning the courts, the forms of process and the lawyers as a social group, from the eleventh to the
fifteenth century in Germany and Austria, the Benelux countries and Northern France, and Italy,
covering ecclesiastical as well as lay courts at all levels, and criminal as well as civil cases.
I See, for example, vol. 2: The Courts and the Development of Commercial Law, ed. by V.
Piergiovanni, 1987 and vol. 4: The TrialJury in England,France, Germany 1700-1900, ed. by A. Padoa
Schioppa, 1987.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxiii 1990

xxiv ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxiv 1990

 INTRODUCTION XXV

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxv 1990

xxvi ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

VI. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

On the left hand page the reader will find the number of the lawsuit, the
reference- to edition or manuscript- and the date. The references given in a
standard abbreviated form are listed in the first column of the lists of narrative and
non-narrative sources in the Bibliography. In the case of royal charters from the
Norman period, the number in the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum is added.
If the date is supplied by the text itself, which is rarely the case, it is given without
brackets, but if the text is undated and modern scholarship has supplied the date, it
is given within square brackets. When there is an explanatory footnote about the
date it is referred to by an asterisk. In this footnote the arguments of the original
editor are reproduced; if we have felt it necessary to correct it or to add elements to
the debate, our own remarks are placed between square brackets and small circles,
as follows o[ ]O, and the same course is taken when the date and the argument for
it are all our own. In cases where the original editor has supplied a date without
giving arguments and we feel we can follow him, there will be no footnote, but the
date will still be between square brackets, because it is not supplied by the text
itself. The text is given in the original language, which means Latin in the vast
majority of the cases, but there are a few in Old English or Norman French. At the
bottom of the page the apparatus criticus, using letter references, supplies the
variants from the manuscripts. Here again we reproduce the notes of the original
edition, but we add between O[ ]' our own critical or additional remarks, based on
the collation of the edition with the manuscripts, and we also provide the
identification of the sigla which the original editors have used to identify their
manuscripts. Here again we use the square brackets with little circles in order to
distinguish our own remarks and material from those of previous editors (which
sometimes are also placed between round or square brackets). For previously
unedited texts we give our own apparatuscriticus.
On the right-hand page the number of the lawsuit is repeated, followed by a
summary of the case and an indication of the main legal issues. This is followed by
an English translation and explanatory footnotes, using figures instead of letters.
The footnotes are numbered continuously throughout the whole text and not
per page. When we reproduce an existing translation, its footnotes are also
reproduced, but here again our own remarks or corrections are given between
°[ ]°, so that they are, as we just explained, easily distinguished from older
material. Abbreviated references used by previous translators are given in their full
form between o[ ]°, so as to spare the reader the trouble of looking them up

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxvi 1990

 INTRODUCTION xxvii

himself, either in bibliographical works of reference or in the book or periodical

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxvii 1990

Xxviii ENGLISH LAWSUITS

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxviii 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF NARRATIVE SOURCES'

Abbreviated reference Full reference
ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE C. CLARK, The Peterborough Chronicle, Oxford, 2nd ed.,
ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE 1970.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A Revised Translation edited
Translation by D. WHITELOCK, with D.C. DOUGLAS and S.I. TUCKER,
London, 1965.
ANNALES MONASTICI Annales Monastici, ed. H. LuARD (Rolls Series), 5 vols.,
London, 1864-1869.
ARNULF OF LisIEUx Letters The letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. F. BARLOW (Camden
Society, 3rd Series, vol. 61), London, 1939.
CHRONICA DE MAILROS Chronica de Mailros, ed. J. STEVENSON (Bannatyne Club),
Edinburgh, 1835.
EADMER HistoriaNovorum Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. RULE (Rolls
Series), London, 1884.
FLORENCE OF WORCESTER Florence of Worcester: Chronicon ex chronicis (450-1117)
Chron. with two continuations to 1140 and 1295, ed. B. THORPE
(English Historical Society Publications), 2 vols., Lon-
don, 1848-1849.
FLORENCE OF WORCESTER The chronicle of John of Worcester 1118-1140, ed. J.R.H.
Continuation WEAVER (Anecdota Oxoniensia), Oxford, 1908 (conti-
nuation of Florence of Worcester's Chronicon).
GERVASE OF CANTERBURY W. STUBBS, The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury,
Actus ii: The minor works (Rolls Series), London, 1880.
GERVASE OF CANTERBURY The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W.
Chron. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1879-1880. Vol. i:
The chronicle of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and
Richard I.
GESTA HENRICI SECUNDI Gesta regis Henrici II Benedicti Abbatis: the chronicle
of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I, 1169-1192,
known commonly under the name of Benedict of
Peterborough, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series), 2 vols.,
London, 1867.2
GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, vol. vii, ed. J.F. DIMOCK
Vita Remigii (Rolls Series), London, 1877.
HENRY OF HUNTINGDON Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon: Historia Anglorum,
Historia Anglorum ed. T. ARNOLD (Rolls Series), London, 1879.
HERBERT DE LOSINGA Epistolae Herberti de Losinga, Osberti de Clara et Elmeri,
Letters ed. R. ANSTRUTHER (Caxton Society), Brussels, London,
1846.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxix 1990

XXX ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

HUGH CANDIDUS Chron. The chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a monk of Peterborough,
ed. W.T. MELLOWS, Oxford, 1949.
HUGH THE CHANTOR C. JOHNSON, Hugh the Chantor. History of the church of
History York 1069-1127 (Medieval Classics), London, 1961.
JOHN OF SALISBURY The Letters of John of Salisbury, ed. W.C. MILLOR and
Letters H.E. BUTLER, rev. by C.N.L. BROOKE, 2 vols., London,
1955-1979 (Nelson's Medieval Texts, Oxford Medieval
Texts).
MAGNA VITA S. HUGONIS Magna Vita S. Hugonis episcopi Lincolniensis, ed. J.F.
DIMOCK (Rolls Series), London, 1864.
MATERIALS BECKET Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of
Canterbury, ed. J.C. ROBERTSON and J.B. SHEPPARD
(Rolls Series), 7 vols., London, 1875-1885.
MEMORIALS ST. DUNSTAN W. STUBBS, Memorials of St. Dunstan (Rolls Series),
London, 1874.
MIGNE Patrologia J.P. MIGNE, Patrologiae cursus completus . Series
secunda in qua prodeunt patres ecclesiae latinae, 222
vols., Paris, 1844-1864.
ORDERIC VITALIS History M. CHIBNALL, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis
(Medieval Classics), 6 vols., Oxford, 1969-1980.
PETER OF BLOIS Letters Petri Blesensis Bathoniensis archidiaconi opera omnia, ed.
J.A. GILES (Patres Ecclesiae), 4 vols., Oxford, 1846-
1847.
RADULFUS NIGER Radulfus Niger: Chronicon Secundum, ed. R.
Chronicon Secundum ANSTRUTHER (Caxton Society), London, 1851.
RALPH DE DICETO Radulphi de Diceto opera historica, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls
Series), 2 vols., London, 1876.
REGINALD OF DURHAM J. RAINE, Reginaldi Monachi Dunelmensis Libellus de
Libellus Cuthberti Admirandis Beati Cuthberti Virtutibus (Surtees
Society), London, 1835.
REGINALD OF DURHAM J. STEVENSON, Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici,
Vita Godrici heremitae de Finchale (Surtees Society), London, 1847.
ROBERT OF LEWES K.R. POTTER, Gesta Stephani (Medieval Texts), London,
Gesta Stephani 1955.
ROBERT DE TORIGNI Chron. The chronicle of Robert of Torigni, in: Chronicles of the
reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iv. ed. R.
ROBERT DE TORIGNI HOWLETT (Rolls Series), London, 1899.
Continuatio Beccensis, in: Chronicles of the reigns of
Continuation Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vol. iv. ed. R. HOWLETT
(Rolls Series), London, 1889.
ROGER OF HOVEDEN Chron. W. STUBBS, Chronica Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series), 4
vols., London, 1868-1871.
ROGER OF WENDOVER Roger of Wendover: Flores Historiarum from the Creation
Flores Historiarum to 1235, ed. H.O. COXE (English Historical Society), 4
vols., London, 1841-1844.
SYMEON OF DURHAM Symeon of Durham, Opera omnia, ed. T. ARNOLD (Rolls
Series), 2 vols., London, 1882-1885.
WALTER DANIEL F.M. POWICKE, Walter Daniel: The Life of Ailred of
Ailred of Rievaulx Rievaulx (Medieval Classics), London, 1950.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxx 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxi

Abbreviated reference Full reference

WALTER OF HFMINGBURGH Chronicon Walteri de Hemingburgh vulgo Hemingford
Chron. nuncupati de gestis regum Angliae (1048-1346), ed. H.C.
HAMILTON (English HistoricalSociety), 2 vols., London,
1848-1849.
WALTER MAP De Nugis M.R. JAMES, Walter Map, De nugis curialium (Anecdota
Oxoniensia. Medieval and modern series, xiv), Oxford,
1914.
WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES J. MARx, Guillaume de Jumi~ges, Gesta Normannorum
Gesta ducum (Societ de l'Histoire de Normandie), Rouen,
Paris, 1914.
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi De gestis pontificum
Gesta Pontificum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. N.E.S.A. HAMILTON (Rolls
Series), London, 1870.
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi De gestis regum An-
Gesta Regum glorum historiae novellae, ed. W. STUBBS (Rolls Series),
2 vols., London, 1887-1889.
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY R.R. DARLINGTON, The Vita Wulfstani of William of
Vita Wulfstani Malmesbury (Camden Society 3rd Series, XL), London.
1928.
WILLIAM OF NEWBURGH William of Newburgh: Historia rerum anglicarum (1016-
Hist. 1198), with a continuation to 1298, in: Chronicles of the
reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, vols. i, ii, ed.
R. HOWLETT (Rolls Series), London, 1884-1885.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxi 1990

xxxii ENGLISH LAWSUITS

3
LIST OF COLLECTIONS OF CHARTERS
Abbreviated reference Full reference
ABINGDON Cart. A Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Lyell 15.
ABINGDON Cart. B Ms. London B.L., Deposit 3009(1) (Duke of Devonshire
Collections, Chatsworth).
ABINGDON Chron. Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. STEVENSON
(Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1858.
BARDNEY Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XX
BARLINGS Cart. Ms. London B.L., Faustina B.I.
BARNWELL Liber Memorandorum ecclesie de Bernewelle, ed. J.W.
Liber Memorandorum CLARK, Cambridge, 1907.
BATH ST PETERCart. Two chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath, ed. W.
HUNT (Somerset Record Society, vii), s.l., 1893.
BATH ST PETER Cart. A. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3316.
BATTLE Cart. Ms. London Lincoln's Inn, Hale Ms. 87
BATTLE Chron. E.M. SEARLE, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (Oxford
Medieval Texts), Oxford, 1980.
BEAUCHAMP Cart. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 28024
BIDDLESDEN Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 4714.
BIGELOW Placita M.M. BIGELOW, Placita Anglo-Normannica, London,
1879.
BINHAM Cart. Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.XIII
BLYBOROUGH Charters K. MAJOR, Blyborough Charters (A medieval miscellanyfor
D.M. Stenton, ed. P.N. BARNES and C.F. SLADE, pp. 203-
219), (Pipe Roll Society Publications,New Series, xxxvi),
London, 1962.
BLYTH Antiquities J. RAINE, The history and antiquities of the parish of Blyth,
Westminster, 1860.
BLYTH Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3579.
BLYTHBURGH Cart. C. HARPER-BILL, Blythburgh Priory Cartulary, I (Suffolk
Record Society), Woodbridge, 1980.
BORETIUS Capitularia A. BORETIUS and V. KRAUSE, Capitularia Regum Fran-
corum (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,Legum Sectio
II, in -4°), Hanover, 1883-1897.
BOXGROVE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Claudius AVI.
BRIDLINGTON Abstracts W.T. LANCASTER, Abstracts of the charters and other
documents contained in the chartulary of the priory of
Bridlington, Leeds, 1912.
BRIDLINGTON Cart. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 40008
BRISTOL Charters N.D. HARDING, Bristol Charters, 1155-1373 (Bristol
Record Society, i), Bristol, 1930.
BURTON Cart. G. WROTTESLEY, An abstract of the contents of the Burton
Cartulary (William Salt Archaeological Society, v, pp.
1-104), London, 1884.
BURY ST EDMUNDS Cart. Ms. London P.R.O., D.L. 42/5.
I This list permits us to quote the charter evidence in the abbreviated form indicated in the first
column; the second column gives the edition or, for the manuscript sources, the repository. In the main
these 'collections of charters' are either medieval cartularies or modern collections relating to various
places or institutions.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxii 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxiii
Abbreviated reference Full reference
BURY ST EDMUNDS Part 1: Ms. Cambridge University Library, Gg. IV, 4.
Cellarer'sReg. Part 2: ibid., Add. Ms. 4220.
BURY ST EDMUNDS Chron. Cronica Jocelini de Brakelonda, ed. H.E. BUTLER (Nelson's
Medieval Classics), London, 1949.
BURY ST EDMUNDS D.C. DOUGLAS, Feudal documents from the abbey of Bury
Feudal Docs. St. Edmunds (British Academy, Records of the socialand
economic history of England and Wales, viii), London,
1932.
BURY ST EDMUNDS R.H.C. DAVIS, The kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St.
Kalendar Edmunds and related documents (Camden Society, 3rd
Series, no. 84), London, 1954.
BURY ST EDMUNDS T. ARNOLD, Memorials of St. Edmunds Abbey (Rolls
Memorials Series), 3 vols., London, 1890-1896.
BURY ST EDMUNDS Ms. Cambridge University Library, Mm. IV. 19.
Nigrum Registrum
BURY ST EDMUNDS F. HERVEY, The Pinchbeck register, 2 vols., Oxford, 1925.
Pinchbeck Reg.
BURY ST EDMUNDS Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 14847.
Registrum Album
BYLAND Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Dodsworth 91 (extracts from a
cartulary, made by R. DODSWORTH in 1636-1637).
CAL. CHARTER ROLLS Calendar of Charter Rolls, 6 vols., London, 1903-1927.
CAL. PATENT ROLLS Calendar of Patent Rolls (Henry III-Henry VII), London,
1891-1916.
CANTERBURY D.C. DOUGLAS, The Domesday Monachorum of Christ
CHRIST CHURCH Church, Canterbury, London, 1944.
Domesday Monachorum
CANTERBURY Mss. Canterbury Cathedral Archives.
CHRIST CHURCH
Reg. B, C and E
CANTERBURY Ms. London B.L., Stowe 924, fo 88-113.
CHRIST CHURCH
Reg. TranscriptI
CANTERBURY Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 29437.
ST AUGUSTINE'S Cart.
CANTERBURY WILLIAM THORNE, Chronica de rebus gestis abbatum S.
ST AUGUSTINE'S Chron. Augustini Cantuariae, ed. R. TWYSDEN, Scriptores His-
toriae Anglicanae Antiqui X, pp. 1753-2202, London,
1652.
CANTERBURY THOMAS OF ELMHAM, Historia monasterii S. Augustini
ST AUGUSTINE'S Hist. Cantuariensis, ed. C. HARDWICK (Rolls Series), London,
1858.
CANTERBURY A. BALLARD, An eleventh-century inquisition of St. Augus-
ST AUGUSTINE'S tine's, Canterbury (British Academy, Records of the
Inquisition Social and Economic History of England and Wales, iv),
London, 1920.
CANTERBURY Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.X.
ST AUGUSTINE'S
Red Book

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxiii 1990

xxxiv ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

CANTERBURY Ms. Canterbury Cathedral Library, Ms. E. 19.
ST AUGUSTINE'S Reg.
CANTERBURY ST GREGORY'S A.M. WOODCOCK, Cartulary of the priory of St. Gregory,
Cart. Canterbury (Camden Society, 3rd Series, vol. 88),
London, 1956.
CARISBROOKE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3667.
CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS L. LANDON, The Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 1-10 (Pipe Roll
Society Publications,Iv. New Series, xvii), London, 1939.
CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS J.C. DAVIS, The Cartae Antiquae Rolls, 11-20 (Pipe Roll
Society Publications, New Series, xxxiii), London,
1960.
CASTLE ACRE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 2110.
CERNE Cart. B. FOSSETr, The cartulary of Cerne Abbey, known as the
Red Book of Cerne (DorsetNaturalHistory andAntiqui-
ties Field Club, Proceedings,xxviii, pp. 65-95; xxix, pp.
195-224), Dorchester, 1907-1908.
CHATTERIS Cart. Ms. London B.L., Julius A.I.
CHERTSEY Cart. Chertsey abbey cartularies (Surrey Record Society, vols. v
and xxvii), London, 1915 and 1928.
CHESTER ST WERBURGH J. TAIT, The chartulary or register of the abbey of St.
Cart. Werburgh, Chester (Chetham Society, New Series, 79,
82), 2 vols., Manchester, 1920-1923.
CHICHESTER Acta H. MAYR-HARTING, Acta of the bishops of Chichester,
1075-1207 (Canterburyand York Society, 130), Torquay,
1964.
CHICHESTER Cart. W.D. PECKHAM, The chartulary of the high church of
Chichester (Sussex Record Society, xlvi), Lewes, 1946.
CHICHESTER Liber E. Ms. Chichester Diocesan Record Office.
CIRENCESTER Cart. W. ST. C. BADDELEY, A history of Cirencester (pp. 111-
117), Cirencester, 1924.
CLERKENWELL Cart. W.O. HASSALL, Cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell (Cam-
den Society, 3rd Series, vol. 71), London, 1949.
COLCHESTER Cart. S.A. MOORE, Cartularium monasterii Si Johannis Baptiste
de Colcestria (Roxburghe Club), 2 vols., London,
1897.
COMBE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vitellius A.I.
COTHAM Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Top. Lincs. d.l.
COVENTRY Cart. Ms. London P.R.O., E 164/21.
CRONDAL Records F.J. BAIGENT, Collection of records and documents relating
to the hundred and manor of Crondal. I. Historical and
manorial (Hampshire Record Society), London, 1891.
CROXTON Cart. Ms. London B.L., Stowe 928.
CROYLAND, Cart. A Ms. Spalding, Gentlemen's Society.
CROYLAND Cart. B Ms. Oxford All Souls College, Ms. 32.
CROYLAND Pseudo-Ingulf INGULF, Historia Croylandensis, with continuations 626-
1486, ed. W. FULMAN, Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores
Veteres (pp. 1- 132, 451-593), Oxford, 1684.
CURIA REGIS ROLLS Curia Regis Rolls, 15 vols., London, 1923-1968 (in pro-
gress).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxiv 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXV

Abbreviated reference Full reference

DANELAW Charters F.M. STENTON, Documents illustrative of the social and
economic history of the Danelaw (British Academy,
Records of the Social and Economic History of England
and Wales, v), London, 1920.
DARLEY Cart. R.R. DARLJNGTON, The cartulary of Darley abbey (Derby-
shire ArchaeologicalSociety), 2 vols., Kendal, 1945.
DAVIS Docs. Anarchy H.W.C. DAVIS, Some documents of the anarchy (Essays
R.L. Poole, pp. 168-189), Oxford, 1927.
DELISLE Chartes Originales L. DELISLE, Notes sur les chartes originales de Henri II au
British Museum et au Record Office (Bibliothbque de
l'Ecole des Chartes, lxviii, pp. 272-314); Recueil de 109
chartes originales de Henri II (ibid., lxix, pp. 541-580),
Paris, 1907-1908.
DELISLE Recueil L. DELISLE and E. BERGER, Recueil des Actes de Henri II
concernant les provinces franqaises, 4 vols.+atlas
(Chartes et Dipl6mes relatifs a l'Histoire de France),
Paris, 1909-1927.
DIEULACRES Cart. G. WROTTESLEY, Chartulary of Dieulacres abbey (William
Salt ArchaeologicalSociety, New Series, ix, pp. 293-365),
London, 1906.
DIEULACRES Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 36869, by H.E. SALTER, 1903.
Cart. Transcript
DOMESDAY Domesday Book seu liber censualis Willelmi Primi regis
Angliae (ed. A. FARLEY) (vols. i and ii), London, 1783;
(ed. H. ELLIS) (vols. iii and iv, Record Commission),
London, 1816. Vols. i and ii contain the Exchequer
Domesday, vol. iv, pp. 1-493, contains the Exon Domes-
day.
DOVER ABBEY Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 336 (St. Radegund's
abbey near Dover).
DOVER PRIORY Reg. Ms. London Lambeth Palace, Ms. 241.
DUGDALE Monasticon W. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. by J. CALEY,
H. ELLIS and B. BANDINEL, 6 vols. in 8, London, 1817-
1830.
DUNSTABLE Cart. G.H. FOWLER, A digest of the charters preserved in the
cartulary of the priory of Dunstable (Bedfordshire
HistoricalRecord Society, 10), Bedford, 1926.
DURHAM Cart. I Ms. Durham Dean and Chapter Library, Cartularium
Primum.
DURHAM De Exordio Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Laud. Misc. 748, autograph of John
of Wessington, De exordio et statu ecclesie Dunelmensis.
DuRHAM History J. RAINE, The history and antiquities of North Durham,
London, 1852.
DuRHAM Scriptores Tres Historiae Dunelmensis scriptores tres, ed. J. RAINE (Surtees
Society), London, 1839.
EARLS COLNE Cart. J.L. FISHER, Cartularium Prioratus de Colne (Essex
Archaeological Society Publications,no. 1), Colchester,
1946.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxv 1990

xxxvi ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

EASBY Cart. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 2827.
ECCLESFIELD Docs. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 27581.
ELY Bentham 's History J. BENTHAM, History of the cathedral church of Ely (1st ed.)
Norwich, 1771; (2nd ed.) Norwich, 1812.
ELY Cart. Ms. London B.L., Tiberius A.VI
ELY Liber Eliensis Liber Eliensis, ed. D.J. STEWART (Anglia Christiana
Society), vol. i (Books 1, 2), London, 1848.
ELY Liber Eliensis E.O. BLAKE, Liber Eliensis (Camden Society 3rdSeries, 92),
London, 1962.
ELY Liber M. Ms. Ely Episcopal Registry.
EVESHAM Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian B.XXIV.
EVESHAM Chron. Chronicon abbatiae de Evesham, ed. W.D. MACRAY (Rolls
Series), London, 1863.
EXETER ST NICHOLAS Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vitellius D.IX.
EYE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3140 (one part); Chelmsford
Essex Record Office, "Register Malet" (other part).
EYNSHAM Cart. H.E. SALTER, The cartulary of the abbey of Eynsham
(Oxford HistoricalSociety, 49, 51) 2 vols., Oxford, 1907-
1908.
FACSIMILES GALBRAITH Facsimiles of English royal writs to A.D. 1100, presented to
V.H. Galbraith, ed. T.A.M. BISHOP and P. CHAPLAIS,
Oxford, 1957.
FINCHALE Charters J. RAINE, Charters of endowment, inventories, and account
rolls of the priory of Finchale (Surtees Society), London,
1837.
FLAMBARD Record H.H.E. CRASTER, A contemporary record of the pontificate
of Ranulf Flambard (Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th Series,
vii, pp. 41-50), Newcastle, 1930.
FOUNTAINS Cart A.I Ms. London B.L., Add Ms. 37770.
FOUNTAINS Cart A.l Ms. London B.L., Add Ms. 40009.
FOUNTAINS Cart. A.IV Ms. Manchester John Rylands Library, Lat. Ms. 224.
FOUNTAINS Cart. B Memorials of the abbey of St Mary of Fountains, ed. J.R.
WALBRAN (Surtees Society), 2 vols., Durham, 1863-
1878.
FURNESS Coucher Book J.C. ATKINSON and J. BROWNBILL, The coucher book of
Furness abbey, 2 vols., each of 3 parts (Chetham Society,
New Series, 9, 11, 14, 74, 76, 78), Manchester, 1886-
1919.
GARENDON Cart. Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 415.
GILBERT FOLIOT Letters Z.N. BROOKE, A. MOREY and C.N.L. BROOKE, The letters
and charters of Gilbert Foliot, Cambridge, 1967.
GILBERTINE HOUSES F.M. STENTON, Transcripts of charters relating to the
Charters Gilbertine houses of Sixle, Ormsby, Catley, Bullington
and Alvingham (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 18). Horn-
castle, 1922.
GLASTONBURY Antiquitas Willelmus Malmesburiensis: De antiquitate Glastoniensis
ecclesie, ed. T. GALE, HistoriaeBrittanniae... Scriptores
XV, iii, pp. 289-335, Oxford, 1691.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxvi 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxvii

Abbreviated reference Full reference

GLASTONBURY Chron. Johannis Glastoniensis chronica sive historia de rebus
Glastoniensibus, ed. T. HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1726.
GLASTONBURY Hist. Adami de Domerham Historia de rebus gestis Glastonien-
sibus, ed. T. HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1727.
GLASTONBURY J.E. JACKSON, Liber Henrici de Soliaco abbatis Glastonien-
Liber Henricide Soliaco sis. An inquisition of the manors of Glastonbury abbey,
1189 (Roxburghe Club), London, 1882.
GLOUCESTER ST PETER Historia et Cartularium monasterii Si Petri Gloucestriae,
Cart. ed. W.H. HART (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1863-
1867.
GLOUCESTER Charters R.B. PATTERSON, The charters and scribes of the Earls and
Countesses of Gloucester to A.D. 1217, Oxford, 1973.
GLOUCESTER ST PETER D. WALKER, Some charters relating to St. Peter's abbey,
Charters Gloucester (A medieval miscellany for D.M. Stenton, ed.
P.N. BARNES and C.F. SLADE, pp. 247-268) (Pipe Roll
Society Publications,New Series, xxxvi), London, 1962.
GODSTOW Cart. Ms. London P.R.O., E. 164/20.
GUISBOROUGH Cart. W. BROWN, Cartularium prioratus de Gyseburne (Surtees
Society, 86, 89), 2 vols., London, 1889-1894.
HAMILTON Inquisitio N.E.S.A. HAMILTON, Inquisitio comitatus Cantabrigiensis.
comitatus Cantabrigiensis Subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, London, 1876.
HARROLD Records G.H. FOWLER, Records of Harrold priory (Bedfordshire
HistoricalRecords Society, vol. 17), Bedford, 1935.
HATTON'S Book of Seals L.C. LLOYD and D.M. STENTON, Sir Christopher Hatton's
Book of Seals (NorthamptonshireRecord Society Publi-
cation), Oxford, 1950.
HAVERHOLME Cart. Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 207A, fo 93-128.
HEREFORD Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 329, fo 121-176.
HEREFORD Charters W.W. CAPES, Charters and records of Hereford cathedral
HEREFORD EARLDOM (Cantilupe Society, xliii), Hereford, 1908.
D. WALKER, Charters of the earldom of Hereford (Camden
Charters 4th Ser., Camden Miscellany, xxii, pp. 1-75), London,
1964.
HEREFORDSHIRE Domesday V.H. GALBRAITH and J. TAIT, Herefordshire Domesday
(PipeRoll Society, lxiii, New Series, xxv), London, 1950.
HEXHAM Hist. The priory of Hexham, its chroniclers, endowments and
annals, ed. J. RAINE (Surtees Society), 2 vols., Durham,
1864-1865.
H.M.C. REPORTS Historical Manuscripts Commission, Reports and Appen-
dices, London, 1870-(in progress).
HOLMCULTRAM Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3891.
HOLTZMANN Papsturkunden W. HOLTZMANN, Papsturkunden in England (Abhandlun-
gen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen,
Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Neue Folge, xxv. 1-2. Dritte Folge,
xiv-xv, xxxiii), 3 vols., Berlin, G6ttingen, 1930-1952.
HORTON (MONKS) Cart. Ms. London B.L., Stowe 935.
HOSPITALLERS Cart. Ms. London B.L., Nero E. VI.
HUNTINGDON Cart. Ms. London B.L., Faustina C.I.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxvii 1990

XXXVIll ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

HUNTINGFIELD Cart. Lincoln, Lincolnshire Archives Office, 3 Anc. 2/1.
°
HYDE Chron. Chronica monasterii de Hida juxta Wintoniam ab a 1035
ad annum 1121, in: Liber monasterii de Hyda, ed. E.
EDWARDS (Rolls Series), London, 1866.
JAFFE-LOEWENFELD P. JAFFt, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita
ecclesia ad annum post Chr. n. MCXCVIII, 2nd ed. by S.
LOEWENFELD et al., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1885-1888.
KENILWORTH Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3650.
KENILWORTH Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 47677.
KIRKSTALL Cart. Ms. London P.R.O., D.L. 42/7.
KIRKSTALL Coucher Book W.T. LANCASTER and W.P. BAILDON, Coucher book of the
abbey of Kirkstall (Thoresby Society, viii), 1904.
KIRKSTALL Foundation E.K. CLARK, The foundation of Kirkstall abbey (Thoresby
Society, iv), Leeds, 1895.
KIRKSTEAD Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XVIII.
LANCASHIRE Charters W. FARRER, The Lancashire pipe rolls and early Lancashire
charters, Liverpool, 1902.
LANGLEY Cart. P.R. Coss, The Langley cartulary (Publications of the
Dugdale Society, ed. P. MORGAN, xxii), Stratford-upon-
Avon, 1980.
LAUNCESTON Cart. Ms. London Lambeth Palace, Ms. 719.
LEICESTERSHIRE Survey C.F. SLADE, The Leicestershire survey (LeicestershireLocal
History OccasionalPapers, no. 7), Leicester, 1956.
LEISTON Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XIV.
LEWES, Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian F.XV.
LEWES Chartulary L.F. SALZMAN, Chartulary of the priory of St. Pancras of
Lewes, i (Sussex Record Society, xxxviii), Lewes, 1932.
LICHFIELD Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Ashmole 1527.
LICHFIELD Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Harley 3868.
LICHFIELD Reg. H.E. SAVAGE, The great register of Lichfield cathedral
known as Magnum Registrum Album (William Salt
Archaeological Society, for 1924), Kendal, 1926.
LILLESHALL Cart. Ms. London, B.L., Add. Ms. 50121.
LINCOLN Final concords C.W. FOSTER, Final Concords of the County of Lincoln
from the Feet of Fines preserved in the P.R.O., ii (Lincoln
Record Society, 17), s.l., 1920.
LINCOLN Reg. C.W. FOSTER and K. MAJOR, the registrum antiquissimum
of the cathedral church of Lincoln (Lincoln Record
Society), Lincoln, 1931-(in progress).
LINCOLNSHIRE Domesday C.W. FOSTER and T. LONGLEY, The Lincolnshire Domes-
day and the Lindsey Survey (Lincoln Record Society, vol.
19), Horncastle, 1924.
LLANTHONY Cart. Ms. London P.R.O., Chancery Masters' Exhibits, C. 115,
A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16 (this last now C. 150.2).
LODERS Cart. L. GUILLOREAU, Cartulaire de Loders (Dorset) (Chartes
anglo-normandes, i), Evreux, 1908.
LONDON ALDGATE TRINITY G.A.J. HODGETT, Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate
Cart. (London Record Society Publications,vii), London, 1971.
LONDON ST GILES Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 4015.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxviii 1990


Abbreviated reference
LONDON ST MARTIN LE
GRAND Cart. A
LONDON ST. MARTIN LE
GRAND Cart. B
LONDON ST. MARTIN LE
GRAND Roll Cart.
LONDON ST PAUL'S
Charters
LUFFIELD Charters
MAITLAND Select pleas
MALCOLM IV Acts
MALMESBURY Reg.
MALTON Cart.
MANS! Amplissima Collectio
MEAUX Chron.
MERTON Cart.
MERTON Foundation
MISSENDEN Cart.
MONASTICON
MONASTICON Dioc. EXON.
MONTACUTE Cart.
MOWBRAY Charters
NEWINGTON LONGUEVILLE
Charters
NEWMINSTER Cart.
NEWNHAM Cart.
NICHOLS Collectanea
NORTHAMPTON Cart. A
NORTHAMPTON Cart. B
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
Charters
HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xxxix 1990
BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxix
Full reference
Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 5.
Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 170, fo 52-118vo
Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 13167.
M. GIBBS, Early charters of the cathedral church of St.
Paul, London (Camden Society, 3rd Series, 58), London,
1939.
G.R. ELVEY, Luffield Priory Charters, i (Northampton
Record Society, xxii), s.l., 1986.
F.W. MAITLAND, Select pleas in manorial and other
seignorial courts, i (Selden Society, 2), London, 1889.
G.W.S. BARROW, The Acts of Malcolm IV King of Scots
1153-1165, Edinburgh, 1960.
Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J.S. BREWER and C.T.
MARTIN (Rolls Series), 2 vols., London, 1879-1880.
Ms. London B.L., Claudius D.XI.
G.D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collectio, 31 vols., Florence, Venice, 1759-1793.
Chronica monasterii de Melsa, ed. E.A. BOND (Rolls
Series), London, 1866.
Ms. London B.L., Cleopatra C.VII.
Ms. London College of Arms, Arundel Ms. 28.
J.G. JENKINS, The cartulary of Missenden Abbey, i, ii
(Records Branch of the Buckinghamshire Archaeological
Society, vols. 2, 10), Jordans, Bucks., 1938, 1956; iii
(HistoricalMss. Commission J.P. i), London, 1962.
W. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, 2nd ed. by J.
CALEY, H. ELLIS, B. BANDINEL, 6 vols., London, 1817-
1830.
G. OLIVER, Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, Exeter, 1846.
Ms. Oxford Trinity College, Ms. 85.
D.E. GREENWAY, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray
1107-1191 (British Academy), London, 1972.
H.E. SALTER, Newington Longueville charters (Oxford-
shire Record Series, 3), Oxford, 1921.
J.T. FOWLER, Chartularium abbathiae de Novo Monas-
terio (Surtees Society, 66), London, 1878.
J. GODBER, The cartulary of Newnham priory, i (Bedford-
shire Hist. Record Society, xliii), Bedford, 1963.
J.G. NICHOLS, Collectanea topographica et genealogica, 8
vols., London, 1834-1863.
Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XVII.
Ms. London B.L., Royal 11 B IX.
F.M. STENTON, Facsimiles of early charters from North-
amptonshire collections (Northamptonshire Record
Society, vol. 4), Northampton, 1930.
 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

NORTHUMBERLAND History J. HODGSON, A history of Northumberland, 7 vols.,
Newcastle, 1820-1858.
NORWICH First Reg. H.W. SAUNDERS, The first register of Norwich cathedral
priory (Norfolk Record Society, vol. xi), Norwich, 1939.
NORWICH Reg. I Ms. Norwich Dean and Chapter Muniments, Registrum
primum.
NORWICH Charters B. DODWELL, The charters of Norwich cathedral priory
(Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series, XL), Lon-
don, 1974.
NOSTELL Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XIX.
OSNEY Cart. H.E. SALTER, The cartulary of Oseney abbey (Oxford
HistoricalSociety, vols. 89, 90, 91, 97, 98, 101), Oxford,
1921-1936.
PALGRAVE Rotuli F. PALGRAVE, Rotuli Curiae Regis (Record Commission),
2 vols., London, 1835.
PERCY Cart. M.T. MARTIN, The Percy chartulary (Surtees Society, 117),
London, 1911.
PETERBOROUGH Cart. A Ms. London Burlington House, Society of Antiquaries,
Ms. 60.
PETERBOROUGH Cart. B Ms. London Burlington House, Society of Antiquaries,
Ms. 38.
PETERBOROUGH Cart. C Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 39758.
PETERBOROUGH Chron. Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense, ed. J.A. GILES (Caxton
Society), London, 1845.
PETERBOROUGH Historiae coenobii Burgensis scriptores varii. Roberti
Swaffham Hist. Swaphami Historia coenobii Burgensis 1177-1245, ed. J.
SPARKE, HistoriaeAnglicanae Scriptores, iii, pp. 97-122,
London, 1723.
PETERBOROUGH Ms. Peterborough, Dean and Chapter, Ms. 1.
Swafjham Reg.
PIPE ROLLS 31 Henry I, 2-4 Henry II and 1 Richard I, ed. J. HUNTER
(Record Commission), London, 1833-1844. The
remainder, from 5 Henry II onwards, by the Pipe Roll
Society, London, 1884-(in progress).
PIPE ROLL 1 Henry II (abstract), ed. H. HALL (The Red Book of the
Exchequer, ii, pp. 648-658), London, 1896.
PIPEWELL Cart. A Ms. London B.L., 2 vols., Caligula A.XII and A.XIII.
PIPEWELL Cart. B Ms. London, B.L., Stowe 937.
PIPEWELL Reg. Ms. London B.L., Otho B.XIV.
PLYMPTON Cart. Ms. Oxford Bodleian, James 23, pp. 151-170 (extracts
made in 1627-1638 by R. JAMES, from a cartulary of
Plympton).
PONTEFRACT Cart. The cartulary of Pontefract, ed. R. HOLMES (Yorkshire
Archaeological and Record Society, xxv, xxx), 2 vols.,
Leeds, 1899-1902.
RAMSEY Cart. Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, ed. W.H. HART and
P.A. LYONS (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1884-1893.
RAMSEY Chron. Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. W.D. MACRAY
(Rolls Series), London. 1886.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xl 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviated reference Full reference

READING Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Harley 1708.
READING Cart. B Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XXV.
READING Cart. C Ms. London B.L., Egerton 3031.
READING Cart. D Ms. London B.L., Domitian A III, f° 40-254.
Red Book of the Exchequer H. HALL, The red book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series),
3 vols., London, 1896.
Regesta Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. i (William I
and William II), ed. H.W.C. DAVIS, Oxford, 1913; vol. ii
(Henry I), ed. C. JOHNSON and H.A. CRONNE, 1956; vol.
iii (Stephen), ed. H.A. CRONNE and R.H.C. DAVIS,
Oxford, 1968.
RIEVAULX Cart. J.C. ATKINSON, Cartularium abbathiae de Rievalle (Surtees
Society, 83), London, 1889.
RIPON Memorials Memorials of the church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon,
ed. J.T. FOWLER (Surtees Society, 74, 78, 81, 115), 4 vols.,
Durham, 1882-1908.
ROCHESTER Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Domitian AX., f, 90-208.
ROCHESTER Cart. B Ms. London B.L., Royal 5 A IV.
ROCHESTER Registrum Roffense, ed. J. THORPE, London, 1769.
Registrum Roffense
ROCHESTER Ms. Rochester Diocesan Registry.
Registrum Temporalium
ROCHESTER Textus Roffensis, ed. TH. HEARNE, Oxford, 1720.
Textus Roffensis
ROUND Ancient Charters J.H. ROUND, Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Society, vol. x),
London, 1888.
RUFFORD Charters C.J. HOLDSWORTH, Rufford Charters (Thoroton Society
Rec. Series), 2 vols., Nottingham, 1972-1974.
RYDEWARE Cart. I.H. JEAYES, The Rydeware chartulary (William Salt
Archaeological Society, xvi, pp. 257-302), London,
1895.
ST ALBAN'S CALDECOTE Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 40734, fo 17-29.
Cart.
ST ALBAN'S Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Nero D.I.
ST ALBAN'S Cart. B Ms. Chatsworth Collections of the Duke of Devonshire.
ST ALBAN'S Cart. C Ms. London B.L., Otho D.III.
ST ALBAN'S Gesta T. WALSINGHAM, Gesta Abbatum monasterii Si Albani, i,
ed. H.T. RILEY (Rolls Series). London, 1867.
ST BEES Reg. J. WILSON, The register of St. Bees (Surtees Societv, vol.
126), London, 1915.
ST BENET'S HULME Reg. J.R. WEST, The eleventh- and twelfth-century sections of
Cott. Ms. Galba E. ii: the register of the abbey of
St Benet of Holme (Norfolk Record Society), Norwich,
1932.
ST FRIDESWIDE Cart. S.R. WIGRAM, The cartulary of the monastery of St.
Frideswide at Oxford (Oxford HistoricalSociety, 28, 31).
2 vols., Oxford, 1895-1896.
ST NEOT'S Cart. Ms. London B.L., Faustina A.IV.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xli 1990

 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

Abbreviated reference Full reference

SALISBURY Cart. Ms. London Inner Temple Library, Petyt Ms. 511/18
(privately printed abstract by Sir T. PHILLIPPS at Middle-
hill, 1822).
SALISBURY Charters Charters and documents of Salisbury, ed. W.H.R. Jows
and W.D. MACRAY (Rolls Series), London, 1891.
SALISBURY Vetus Registrum Vetus registrum Sarisberiense (called the "Register of St
Osmund"), ed. W.H.R. JONES (Rolls Series), 2 vols.,
London, 1883-1884.
SALTER Oxford Muniments H.E. SALTER, Facsimiles of early charters in Oxford
muniment rooms, Oxford, 1929.
SANDFORD Cart. A.M. LEYS, The Sandford cartulary (Oxfordshire Record
Society, 19, 22), 2 vols., Oxford, 1938-1941.
SAWLEY Cart. J. McNULTY, The chartulary of the Cistercian abbey of
St Mary of Sallay in Craven (Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, Record Series, lxxxvii, xc), 2 vols., Worksop,
1933-1934.
SAWTREY Charters Ms. Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B. 142.
SAXHAM Cart. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 7097.
SELBY Coucher Book J.T. FOWLER, The coucher book of Selby, i (Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series, vol. x), Durham,
1891.
SEMPRINGHAM Charters E.M. POYNTON, Charters relating to the priory of Sem-
pringham (The Genealogist, New Series, vols. 15, 16, 17),
London, 1899-1901.
SHAFTESBURY Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 61.
SHENSTONE Charters G. GRAZEBROOK, Shenstone charters (William Salt
Archaeological Society, xvii, pp. 237-298), London,
1896.
SHREWSBURY Cart. A U. REES, Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, 2 vols., Aberys-
twyth, 1975.
SHREWSBURY Cart. B Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 30323 (extracts).
SOUTHWELL Visitations A.F. LEACH, Visitations and memorials of Southwell
Minster (Camden Society, xlviii), London, 1891.
SOUTHWICK Cart. Ms. Winchester Hampshire Record Office, M 54/1.
SPALDING Cart. Ms., 2 vols., London B.L., Add. Ms. 35296 and Harley
742.
STAFFORDSHIRE Cart. R.W. EYTON and G. WROTTESLEY, The Staffordshire
chartulary (William Salt Archaeological Society, ii, pp.
178-276; iii, pp. 178-231), London, 1882-1883.
STENTON Pleas before the king or his justices 1198-1202, ed. D.M.
Pleas before the King STENTON (Selden Society, 67, 68), 2 vols., London, 1952-
1953.
STOKE-BY-CLARE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Cotton. App. xxi.
STONE Cart. Ms. London B.L., Vespasian E.XXIV.
STUBBS Select Charters W. STUBBS, Select charters, 9th edition by H.W.C. DAVIS,
Oxford, 1913.
TAVISTOCK Charters H.P.R. FINBERG, Some early Tavistock charters (English
Historical Review, 62, pp. 352-377), London, 1947.
TEMPLARS Reg. Ms. London B.L., Nero C.IX, fo 23-148.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlii 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xliii

Abbreviated reference Full reference

THAME Cart. H.E. SALTER, The Thame cartulary (Oxfordshire Record
Society, 25, 26), Oxford, 1947-1948.
THEOBALD Charters A. SALTMAN, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury (Univer-
sity of London HistoricalStudies, II), London, 1956.
THORNEY Red Book Ms., 2 vols., Cambridge University Library, Add. Mss.
3020, 3021.
TUTBURY Cart. Ms. London College of Arms, Arundel Ms. 59.
TwINHAm CHRIST CHURCH Ms. London B.L., Tiberius D.VI.
Cart.
WALDEN Cart. Ms. London B.L., Harley 3697.
WALTHAM Cart. A Ms. London B.L., Tiberius C.IX.
WALTHAM Cart. B Ms. London B.L., Harley 391.
WALTHAM Cart. C Ms. London B.L., Harley 4809.
WALTHAM Foundation Tractatus de inventione sanctae crucis nostrae in Monte
Acuto et de ductione ejusdem apud Waltham, ed. W.
STUBBS, Oxford and London, 1861.
WARDON Cart. G.H. FOWLER, Cartulary of the abbey of Old Wardon
(Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 13), Bedford,
1930.
WARNER AND ELLIS G.F. WARNER and H.J. ELLIS, Facsimiles of royal and other
Facsimiles charters in the British Museum, vol. i (William I-
Richard I), London, 1903.
WARWICK COLLEGE Cart. Ms. London P.R.O. 164/22.
WELLS CATHEDRAL Ms. Wells Dean and Chapter Library.
Liber Albus
WELLS City Charters D. SHILTON and R. HOLWORTHY, Wells city charters
(Somerset Record Society, xlvi), s.l., 1932.
WESTMINSTER Crispin J.A. ROBINSON. Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster. A
study of the abbey under Norman rule (Notes and
documents of Westminster abbey, no. 3), Cambridge, 1911.
WESTMINSTER Domesday Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 11.
WESTMINSTER Liber Niger Ms. London Westminster Abbey Muniment Books, vol. 1.
WHITBY Cart. J.C. ATKINSON, Cartularium abbathiae de Whiteby ordinis
Si Benedicti (Surtees Society, 69, 72), 2 vols., London,
1879-1881.
WINCHCOMBE Reg. D. ROYCE, Landboc sive registrum monasterii B. Mariae de
Winchelcumba, 2 vols., Exeter, 1902-1903.
WINCHESTER Cart. Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 29436, f, 10-48.
WINCHESTER Cart. A A.W. GOODMAN, Chartulary of Winchester cathedral,
Winchester, 1927.
WINCHESTER Charters V.H. GALBRAITH, Royal charters to Winchester (English
Historical Review, 35, pp. 382-400), London, 1920.
WINCHESTER Ms. London B.L., Add. Ms. 15350.
Liber Wintoniensis
WINTON DOMESDAY M. BIDDLE, Winchester in the early Middle Ages. An
edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday (Win-
chester Studies, 1), Oxford, 1976.
WORCESTER Heming's Cart. Hemingi chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T.
HEARNE, 2 vols., Oxford, 1723.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xliii 1990


Abbreviated reference
WORCESTER Registrum I
YORK CATHEDRAL Cart. A
YORK CATHEDRAL Cart. B
YORK CATHEDRAL
Historians
YORK ST MARY'S Cart. A
YORK ST MARY'S Cart. B
YORKSHIRE Charters
YORKSHIRE Deeds
HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xliv 1990
ENGLISH LAWSUITS
Full reference
R.R. DARLINGTON, Cartulary of Worcester cathedral
priory (Pipe Roll Society Publications, New Series,
xxxviii), London, 1968.
Ms. London B.L., Lansdowne 402.
Ms. London B.L., Claudius BAIL.
Historians of the church of York and its archbishops, ed.
J. RAINE (Rolls Series), 3 vols., London, 1879-1894.
Ms. Manchester John Rylands Library, Latin Mss. 220 and
221.
Ms. London B.L., Harley 236.
W. FARRER, Early Yorkshire Charters, 3 vols., Edinburgh,
1914-1916; C.T. CLAY, Early Yorkshire Charters, v-x
(Yorkshire ArchaeologicalSociety, Record Series), York,
1936-1956.
W. BROWN, Yorkshire deeds, ii (Yorkshire Alrchaeological
Society, Record Series, 2), York, 1913.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF WORKS1
G.B. Adams, 'Henry I's writ regarding the local courts', American Historical Review, 8
(1903), pp. 487-490.
G.B. Adams, The history of Englandfrom the Norman Conquest to the death of John,
London, 1905 (W. Hunt and R.M. Poole, The Political History of England, ii).
G.B. Adams, The origin of the English constitution, 2nd ed., New Haven, 1920.
G.B. Adams, Council and courts in Anglo-Norman England, New Haven, 1926 (Yale
Historical Publications, Studies, v).
G.B. Adams, Constitutionalhistory of England,2nd ed., London, 1935.
W.O. Ault, Privatejurisdictionin England,New Haven, 1923 (Yale Historical Publications,
Miscellany, x).
F. Barlow, The feudal kingdom of England, 1042-1216, London, 1955 (Medlicott's History
of England).
F Barlow, William I and the Norman Conquest, London, 1965.
G. Barraclough, The earldom andcounty palatineof Chester, Oxford, 1953 (Transactions of
the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, ciii, 1951).
M.M. Bigelow, History of procedure in Englandfrom the Norman Conquest. The Norman
period, 1066-1204, London, 1880.
T.A.M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis. Facsimilesto identify and illustrate the hands of the royal
scribes in original chartersof Henry I, Stephen and Henry II, Oxford, 1961.
J. Boussard, Le gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagen&t, Paris, 1956 (Biblioth~que Elz6-
virienne. Nouvelle S~rie. Etudes et Documents).
C.N.L. Brooke et al., London 800-1216: the Shaping of a City, London, 1975.
Z.N. Brooke, 'The effect of Becket's murder on papal authority in England', Cambridge
HistoricalJournal, 2 (1928), pp. 213 228.
Z.N. Brooke, The English Church and the papacy from the Conquest to the reign of John,
Cambridge, 1931.
H.M. Cam, The hundred and the hundred rolls, an outline of local government in medieval
England, London, 1930.
C.R. Cheney, English bishops' chanceries, 1100-1250, Manchester, 1950 (Publications of
the Faculty of Arts of the University of Manchester, no. 3).
C.R. Cheney, From Becket to Langton. English churchgovernment, 1170-1213, Manchester,
1956.
C.R. Cheney, Hubert Walter, London, 1967.
S.B. Chrimes, English constitutional history, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1953 (Home University
Library, 199).
H.M. Colvin, 'Holme Lacy: an episcopal manor and its tenants in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries', Medieval Studies presented to Rose Graham, Oxford, 1950, pp. 15-40.
Complete peerageof England,Scotland..., by G.E. C(okayne), new ed. by V. Gibbs et al., 12
vols., London, 1910-1959.
H. Cronne, 'Ranulf de Gernuns, earl of Chester, 1129-53', Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society, 4th Series, 20 (1937), pp. 103-134.
H.A. Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 1135-54: anarchy in England,London, 1970 (Studies in
Medieval History).
C.W. David, Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, Cambridge, Mass., 1920 (Harvard
Historical Studies, xxv).
This list contains books and articles which are of importance for our subject and to which we refer
repeatedly: they will be quoted in abbreviated form. Those which we mention only occasionally will be
quoted with their full references under the relevant lawsuits and are not listed here.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlv 1990

 ENGLISH LAWSUITS

H.W.C. Davis, England under the Normans and Angevins, 1066-1272, London, 1905
(C.W.C. Oman, A history of England, ii).
H.W.C. Davis, 'Some documents of the Anarchy', Essays presentedto R.L. Poole, Oxford,
1927, pp. 168-189.
R.H.C. Davis, King Stephen, London, 1967.
R.H.C. Davis, 'An Oxford Charter of 1191 and the Beginnings of Municipal Freedom',
Oxoniensia, 33 (1968), pp. 53-65.
W. de Gray Birch, 'On the great seals of King Stephen', Transactionsof the Royal Society of
Literature, 2nd Series, 11 (1878), pp. 1-29.
E. de Haas and G.D.G. Hall, Early Registers of Writs, London, 1970 (Selden Society
Publications, 87).
F. de Zulueta, The Liber Pauperum of Vacarius, London, 1927 (Selden Society Publications,
44).
Dictionaryof National Biography, first ed., 63 vols., 1885-1900; second ed., 21 vols., 1908-
1909, and 5 supplementary vols., 1909-1949.
D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: the Norman impact upon England, London, 1964.
D.C. Douglas, 'A charter of enfeoffment under William the Conqueror', English Historical
Review, 42 (1927), pp. 245-247.
D.C. Douglas, The social structureof medieval East Anglia, Oxford, 1927 (Oxford Studies in
Social and Legal History, ix).
D.C. Douglas, 'The rise of Normandy', Proceedingsof the British Academy, 1947, pp. 101-
130.
D.C. Douglas, English historicaldocuments, ii, 1042-1189, London, 1953.
F.R.H. du Boulay, The lordshipof Canterbury:an essay on medieval society, London, 1966.
C. du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis,5th ed. by L. Favre, 10
vols., Niort, 1883-1887.
W. Dugdale, OriginesJuridiciales,3rd ed., London, 1680.
C. Duggan, 'Richard of Ilchester, royal servant and bishop', Transactions of the Royal
HistoricalSociety, 5th series, 16 (1966), pp. 1-21.
R.W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols., London, 1853-1860.
R.W. Eyton, Court, household and itinerary of King Henry II, London, 1878.
W. Farrer, 'An outline itinerary of King Henry the First', English Historical Review, 34
(1919), pp. 303-382 and pp. 505-579. Also published separately, London, 1919.
W. Farrer, Honors andknights'fees,3 vols.: 2 vols., London, 1923-1924; 1 vol., Manchester,
1925.
C.T. Flower, Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, A.D. 1199-1230, London, 1944 (Selden
Society, 62).
R. Foreville, L'glise et la royaut6 en Angleterre sous Henri 1! Plantagent,Paris, 1943.
E. Foss, The lives of the judges of England, 9 vols., London, 1848-1864.
E.A. Freeman, The history of the Norman Conquest, 6 vols., Oxford, 1867-1879; 2nd ed.,
vol. i-iv, Oxford, 1870-1876; 3rd ed., vols. i-ii, Oxford, 1877.
E.A. Freeman, The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First, 2 vols.,
Oxford, 1882.
V.H. Galbraith, 'Seven charters of Henry II at Lincoln cathedral', The Antiquaries 'Journal,
12 (1932), pp. 269-278.
V.H. Galbraith, An introduction to the use of the public records, Oxford, 1934.
V.H. Galbraith, 'The literacy of the medieval English kings', Proceedings of the British
Academy, 21 (1935), pp. 201-238.
V.H. Galbraith, 'The making of Domesday Book', English HistoricalReview, 57 (1942), pp.
161-177.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlvi 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xlvii

V.H. Galbraith, Studies in the public records, London, 1948.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlvii 1990

xlviii ENGLISH LAWSUITS

B. Lyon, A constitutional and legal history of medieval England, 2nd ed., New York,
London, 1980.
B.P. McGuire, 'The collapse of a monastic friendship: the case of Jocelin and Samson of
Bury', Journalof Medieval History, 4 (1978), pp. 369-397.
T. Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, London, 1702.
T. Madox, The history and antiquitiesof the exchequer of England (1066-1327), London,
1711.
F.W. Maitland, 'The beatitude of seisin', Law Quarterly Review, 4 (1888), pp. 24-39, 286-
299. Reprinted: Collected Papers, i, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 407-457.
F.W. Maitland, 'History of the register of original writs', HarvardLaw Review, 3 (1889),
pp. 97-115, 167-179, 212-225. Also: Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, ii,
Boston, 1908, pp. 549-596. Reprinted: Collected Papers,ii, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 110-
173.
F.W. Maitland, 'Materials for the history of English law', Select Essays in Anglo-American
Legal History, ii, Boston, 1908, pp. 53-95. Reprinted: Collected Papers,ii, Cambridge,
1911, pp. 1-60.
F.W. Maitland, Collected Papers, ed. H.A.L. Fisher, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1911:
F.W. Maitland, Selected essays, ed. H.D. Hazeltine, G. Lapsley and P. Winfield,
Cambridge, 1936.
F.W. Maitland, The forms of action at common law, ed. A.H. Chaytor and W.J. Whittaker,
Cambridge, 1936 (first printed, together with Equity, in 1909).
D.J.A. Matthew, The Norman Conquest, London, 1966.
H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes on the use of the great seal of England, London,
1926.
H. Mayr-Harting, 'Henry II and the Papacy', Journalof EcclesiasticalHistory, 16 (1965),
pp. 39-53.
E. Miller, 'The Ely land pleas in the reign of William I', English HistoricalReview, 62 (1947),
pp. 438-456.
S.F.C. Milsom, HistoricalFoundationsof the Common Law, 2nd ed., London, 1981.
S.F.C. Milsom, The Legal Framework of English Feudalism, Cambridge, 1976 (Cambridge
Studies in English Legal History).
A. Morey, Bartholomew of Exeter, bishop and canonist. A study in the twelfth century,
Cambridge, 1937.
A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his letters, Cambridge, 1965.
W.A. Morris, The early English county court, Berkeley, 1926 (University of California
Publications, History, vol. 14, no. 2).
W.A. Morris, The medieval English sheriff to A.D. 1300, Manchester, 1927.
W.A. Morris, 'The lesser curia regis under the first two Norman kings of England',
American HistoricalReview, 34 (1929), pp. 772-778.
W.A.Morris, The constitutionalhistory of England to 1216, New York, 1930.
S.A. Painter, Studies in the history of the English feudal barony, Baltimore, 1943 (John
Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, Series 61, no. 3).
F. Palgrave, The rise andprogressof the English commonwealth. Anglo-Saxon period,2 vols.,
London, 1832.
F. Palgrave, Collected historicalworks, ed. R.H.I. Palgrave, 10 vols., London, 1919-1922.
C. Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchieflodale en France et en Angleterre, Xe-XIIPe siicle, Paris,
1933 (Evolution de 'Humanit6, xli).
C. Petit-Dutaillis and G. Lefebvre, Studies and notes supplementary to Stubbs' Constitu-
tional History, 3 vols., Manchester, 1908-1929.
T.F.T. Plucknett, A concise history of the common law, 5th ed., London, 1956.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlviii 1990

 BIBLIOGRAPHY xlix

F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The history of English law before the time of Edward . 2nd
ed., 2 vols., Cambridge, 1898. Reprinted with new introduction and bibliography by
S.F.C. Milsom, 1968.
A.L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta,2nd ed., Oxford, 1955 (Oxford History
of England).
R.L. Poole, The exchequer in the twelfth century, Oxford, 1912 (Ford Lectures).
F.M. Powicke and E.B. Fryde (eds.), Handbook of British Chronology, 2nd ed., London,
1961 (Royal Historical Society. Guides and Handbooks, 2).
W.T. Reedy, jr., 'The origins of the general eyre in the reign of Henry I', Speculum, 41
(1966), pp. 688-724.
H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The Governance of Mediaeval England from the
Conquest to Magna Carta, Edinburgh, 1963.
H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, Law and legislationfrom ,Ethelberht to Magna Carta,
Edinburgh, 1966.
J.H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville. A study of the Anarchy, London, 1892.
J.H. Round, Feudal England, London, 1895.
J.H. Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France illustrative of the history of Great
Britain and Ireland,i: 918-1206, London, 1899.
J.H. Round, The commune of London and other studies, Westminster, 1899.
J.H. Round, 'The date of the grand assize', English HistoricalReview, 31 (1916), pp. 268-
269.
A. Saltman, 'Two early collections of the Becket correspondence and of other contem-
porary documents', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 22 (1949), pp.
152-157.
A. Saltman, Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, London, 1956 (University of London
Historical Studies, ii).
I.J. Sanders, Feudal military service in England. A study of the constitutionaland military
powers of the barones in medieval England, Oxford, 1956 (Oxford Historical Series,
British Series).
I.J. Sanders, English baronies. A study of their origin and descent 1086-1327, Oxford, 1960.
G.O. Sayles, The medievalfoundations of England, London, 1948.
G.V. Scammell, Hugh du Puiset bishop of Durham, Cambridge, 1956.
E. Searle, Lordship and Community. Battle Abbey and its Banlieu 1066-1538, Toronto, 1974
(Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Studies and Texts, 26).
R.W. Southern, St. Anselm and his Biographer, Cambridge, 1963.
D.M. Stenton, 'England under Henry II', Cambridge Medieval History, 5 (1926), pp. 554-
591.
D.M. Stenton, 'Roger of Howden and Benedict', English Historical Review, 68 (1953),
pp. 574-582.
D.M. Stenton, English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter 1066-
1215, London, 1965 (American Philosophical Society. Jane Lectures for 1963).
D.M. Stenton, Pleas before the king or his justices 1198-1202, 1212, i: Introduction with
appendixes containingessoins 1199-1201, a 'King's Roll' of 1200, andwrits of 1190-1200,
ii: Rolls orfragmentsof rollsfrom the years 1198, 1201 and 1202, iii: Rolls orfragments of
rollsfrom the years 1199, 1201, and 1203-1206, 3 vols., London, 1952-1967 (Selden
Society Publications, 67, 68, 83).
F.M. Stenton, 'The Danes in England', Proceedings of the British Academy, 13 (1927),
pp.203-246.
F.M. Stenton, 'Acta episcoporum (XIIth century)', CambridgeHistoricalJournal,3 (1929),
pp. 1-14.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society xlix 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

proposed an edict that the bishop of Worcester should be subjected to the

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

The oppression of tenants of Abingdon Abbey by royal officials with unjust

customs is put right in the county court of Berkshire, thanks, inter alia,to the
intervention of English lawmen.

William, king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc, Robert de Oilly and

Roger de Pitres and all his other lieges of the whole kingdom of England, greeting.
Know that I have granted to St. Mary of Abingdon and Adelelm, abbot of the
same place, all the customs of their lands, which lay in the aforesaid church,
wherever it has them in a borough or outside, so far as this Abbot Adelelm shall be
able to show by writ or charter that the church of St. Mary of Abingdon and his
predecessor have had those customs by the gift of King Edward. The recitation of
those documents in the county court of Berkshire has been most useful for the
abbot and the church. Some royal officials in those days caused many injuries to
the men who lived on the possessions of the church in various places, imposing on
them now these, now those customs, which were quite hard to bear. But after the
aforesaid imperial mandates were exhibited, in which the rights of the church were
then publicly established by a charter of King Edward and the testimony of the
county in the same county court, the officials underwent a repulse which was
adverse to them, but useful to the church. To this end the lord Abbot Adelelm had
been very busy, while two monks of this church had been of the greatest help, two
brothers of whom the older was called Sacol and the younger Godric, together
with the priest Alfwin, who then directed the church of the neighbouring royal
manor of Sutton Courtenay. They were so well versed in secular matters and had
such a good memory for bygone events that the others, on every side, easily
approved as valid the judgment which they proposed. But there were several other
0
8 R. Parret, Somerset O[ = Petherton, Somerset, near the river Parret] .
9 o[See related source material: WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Vita Wulfstani, 78-79; WILLIAM OF
MALMESBURY Gesta Pontificum, 40-41; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Gesta Regum, 349-352. See a
discussion of the case and of the complicated problem of the date in: WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY
Vita Wulfstani, xxviii-xxxi; F. Barlow, William I and The Norman Conquest, London. 1965, 131-
132 (Teach yourself History, ed. A.L. Rowse).]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 6 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

Report of a trial held on complaint of Archbishop Lanfranc and by order of

King William I before the shire-court of Kent, afforced by notable persons
from elsewhere both of Norman and of English descent and presided over by
Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, representing the king, concerning the alleged
despoliation of Canterbury, committed by Bishop Odo of Bayeux and other
magnates, of lands and customary rights belonging to the archiepiscopal see.
Judgment is given in favour of the archbishop.

A. Oldest but incomplete report, representing probably a formal Canterbury

record of the trial on Penenden Heath.
In the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1072 in the 11 th year of the
pontificate of the lord Pope Alexander [II] and the 6 th of the reign of King William
and the 2 nd year of the pontificate of Lanfranc in the church of Canterbury, order
was given at the king's command and the archbishop's request to convene the
whole county without delay and to bring together all the French and specially
the English who were acquainted with the old laws and customs, to deraign the
liberties and customs which the church of Christ has in its own lands and should
have in the king's lands. They gathered on Penenden Heath and all sat down and as
numerous pleas about the deraignment of the lands and words about the
customary laws were exchanged between the archbishop and Bishop Odo of
Bayeux, who had usurped numerous lands of the archbishopric for himself, and as
conflict arose between royal and archiepiscopal customs, which could not be
expedited on the first day, the whole county had to spend three days on this case. In
those three days Lanfranc there deraigned several lands which the men of the said

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 7 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop have held, i.e. Detling, Stoke, Preston, Denton and against Hugh de
Montfort Ruckinge and Brook and against Ralph de Courbepine 60 solidates of
the pasture in the Isle of Grean. All those lands he deraigned to be so free and quit
that there was no man in the whole kingdom who could claim anything in them. In
this same plea he recovered not only those aforesaid lands but he also renewed all
the customs and liberties of his church and having renewed them, recovered them,
i.e. soke and sake, toll, team, flymenfyrm, grithbreche,forestel, hamfare and
infangthief, with all the other customs equal or inferior to these, in lands and
waters, in woods, roads and meadows and all things and places within the city and
without, within the borough and without. And all the wise men who were present
have there deraigned and given judgment...

B. A more "literary" version of the Canterbury record, possibly written at

Canterbury and sent to Rochester (the famous Textus Roffensis contains an
almost identical version and is therefore not repeated here: such variants as it
contains can be found in the apparatus criticus of Le Patourel's edition
reproduced here).
At the time of the great King William, who conquered by force of arms the English
kingdom and submitted it to his authority, it so happened that Odo, bishop of
Bayeux and brother of the said king, arrived in England much sooner than
Archbishop Lanfranc and resided in the county of Kent with great power, exerting
a considerable measure of might. And since in those days there was nobody in that
county able to resist a man of such strength, because of the great sway he wielded,
he seized numerous lands and quite a few customs of the archbishopric of
Canterbury for his own use and by way of usurpation placed them under his
domination. Not long afterwards, however, the aforesaid Lanfranc, abbot of the
church of Caen, also came to England at the king's command and was appointed
archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the whole kingdom of England. After
residing there for some time he found through diligent enquiry and careful
discovery of the truth that many old lands of his church were missing and had been
distributed and distracted by the negligence of his predecessors and he went to see
the king as soon as possible and energetically asked him to take measures.
Thereupon the king ordered the whole county to meet without delay and all the
men of the county, the French and particularly the English who were acquainted
with the old laws and customs, to come together; this they did and all sat down

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 8 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 9 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

C. Enlarged edition of our text B, containing a more detailed list of

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 10 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

possessions that belong to those lands, Reculver, Sandwich, Ratebury, Wedd-

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

D. Brief reference in Domesday Book to the trial between Archbishop

Lanfranc and Odo of Bayeux (see a related entry in CANTERBURY CHRIST
CHURCH Domesday Monachorum. 98).

This bishop' holds Stoke.. This manor belonged and belongs to the
bishopric of Rochester but Earl Godwin bought it in the time of King Edward
from two men who held it from the bishop and this sale took place without him
knowing of it. Afterwards, however, during the reign of King William Archbishop
Lanfranc deraigned it against the bishop of Bayeux and therefore the church of
Rochester is now seised of it.

E. Mention of the Penenden Heath trial in the Acta Lanfranci.

In the third year at Gloucester Lanfranc consecrated Peter as bishop of
Lichfield or Chester. In this year also a great plea was held in the place which is
called Penenden and there Lanfranc deraigned that he and his church held all their
lands and customs, on land and sea, as freely as the king held his. Only three
exceptions to this were admitted: if the king's road was dug up, or if a tree was
felled so as to fall across it, or homicide was committed or blood was shed upon it,
then anyone who was arrested for these crimes, and had given a pledge in respect of
them, should pay his penalty to the king. Otherwise the archbishop was to be free
from interference by royal officials.'
5D I [.e. Gundulf of Rochester.]'
5E I O[Translation taken almost verbatim from D.C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway, English
HistoricalDocuments 1042-1189, ii, 1953, 632.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 11 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

F. Story of the trial in the Vita Sancti Dunstani by Osbern, a monk of

Canterbury, written about 1090.
At this time Archbishop Lanfranc entered into a conflict with the leaders of the
kingdom of the English, particularly the bishop of Bayeux called Odo who was the
king's brother and earl of Kent, concerning the right of the church of Christ and
certain lands of which it had for a long time been unjustly deprived. Since his
wisdom was incomparably greater than that of all others, he was not confident in
his own strength and, more admirable than others because of his humility in the
face of God, he prayed to St. Dunstan to help him to defend the case of his church.
Having offered the salutary eucharist in order to be heard by God, he quietly sat
down waiting for the advocacy of the pleaders, pondering what he could say
against his adversaries and how he could reply to their objections. While he
suffered this mental anxiety, the saint of God appeared to him, surrounded by two
dignified angelic figures, with an angelic expression himself, and giving Lanfranc
an encouraging look. This vision made him confident of winning his case and so he
went without fear to the council of his adversaries and thoroughly confounded
their attacks with a torrent of arguments. Indeed, he beat all the enemies of Christ
and himself in such a way that what belonged by right to the church of Christ was
fully restored and that the servant of the Lord took pride in the fact that this was
brought about not by human wisdom but by divine power.

G. Mention of the trial in the Vita Lanfranci written ca. 1100 by the
archbishop's pupil, Milo Crispin.
Bishop Odo of Bayeux, brother of King William, was earl of Kent when
Lanfranc came to the archbishopric. He plagued the men of that province and at
the same time the men of the church of Canterbury with numerous inconveniences.
Lanfranc resisted him to his face and in the presence of all he deraigned the
freedom of his land by the testimony of old Englishmen who were versed in the
laws of the land and he freed his men from the bad customs which Odo wanted to
impose on them. Several are still alive who knew the place of the plea and the name
of the place and report the way the plea was conducted and the outcome by which
the conflict was terminated.

H. Account of the trial given in the first part of Eadmer's HistoriaNovorum,

for which he had been making notes and gathering material since 1093 and
assembled them as his history between 1109 and 1115.
To mention only one instance, there was the case of Odo, bishop of Bayeux,
brother of King William and earl of Kent, who was throughout the whole

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 12 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

I. Account of the trial in William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum,

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 13 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

J. Brief account of the trial in Gervase of Canterbury's Actus Pontificum,

written in 1205-c. 1210.
In that famous meeting of the nobles and the elders of England which gathered
at Penenden Heath by the king's command Lanfranc deraigned and recovered the
lost lands and revoked the liberties and customs and as the king freely holds the
customs which are his due in his own lands, so the archbishop and the church of
Canterbury hold in all places their men, customs, lands, rights and liberties
according to the charters of the kings which that church has and especially those of
St. Edward and all his successors.

K. Fifteenth-century copy of a late eleventh or early twelfth-century report,

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 14 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

getting away and reaches the land of the archbishop before gage is received from
him, the king shall have nothing more from him for that offence, but he shall pay to
the archbishop. It was also shown that the archbishop of Canterbury justly has
many customs in the lands of the king and the earl, for if somebody spills blood
from the day on which Alleluia is closed until the octave of Easter, he shall pay to
the archbishop, but if somebody commits an offence called childwite at any time,
he shall pay half of it to the archbishop if it was outside Lent, but if it happened
from the day on which Alleluia is closed until the octave of Easter he shall have the
whole payment. He also has in those lands whatever pertains to the cure and
salvation of souls. Lanfranc also reclaimed as of right for his church in that same
plea several lands which the princes and the magnates of the kingdom, who were
present, and their men held, and finally he deraigned by God's grace the lands and
all their customs for himself and his church. Lanfranc also renewed there all the
liberties and customs of his church and showed that as the king freely holds his
customs, so he and his church had in their lands and on their men in all parts of
England those free customs which the English call sake, soke, toll, team,
flymenfyrm, grithbreche,forestel,hamfare and infangthief. And all other customs
which are equal or inferior to those were also shown freely to belong to the church
of Canterbury through old custom, in lands and waters, woods, roads, meadows
and all other things within and outside the city, within and outside the borough
and in all places. For with the exception of the three aforesaid customs it was
consistently confirmed with the unanimous agreement of all present that because
of old custom and the sanction of the kings of England the church of Canterbury,
because of its primacy and because the Christian religion started there to
illuminate the kingdom of the English, the archbishop and the aforesaid church
hold their lands and customs completely free and quit in their demesne, just as the
king himself holds his lands and customs free and quit in his. After all this had been
decided with numerous witnesses and reasons, the glorious king having heard it,
approved it with the consent of his princes, corroborated it and ordered it to be
kept inviolate ever after. This was entrusted to memory for the advantage of future
times and so that the successors to the church of Canterbury should know which
and how many dignities of the said church should be held from God and to which it
is entitled by eternal right vis d vis the king and princes of this kingdom.1
5K ' o[W.Levison, "A Report on the Penenden Trial", E.H.R., 27 (1912), 717-720; D.C. Douglas,
Odo, Lanfranc andthe Domesday Survey, Historical Essays in honour of James Tait, Manchester,
1933,47-57; J. Le Patourel, "The Date of the Trial on Penenden Heath", E.H.R., 61 (1946), 378-
388; J. Le Patourel, The reports of the trial on Penenden Heath, Studies in medieval history
presented to F.M. Powicke, ed. by R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern, Oxford, 1948,
15-21; C. Hart, The Early Charters of Essex: The Norman Period, Leicester, 1957 (Dept. of
English Local History. Occasional Papers, 11); Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury,36-43; D.R.
Bates, "The Land Pleas of William I's Reign: Penenden Heath Revisited", Bulletin of the Institute
of HistoricalResearch, 51 (1978), 1-19; M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, Oxford, 1978, 152, 155; H.
Clover and M. Gibson (eds.), The letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury,Oxford, 1979, 62
(Oxford Medieval Texts).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 15 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

In the county court of Kent, Abbot Scotland of St. Augustine, Canterbury

deraigns eight prebends and the church in Newington with the lands
pertaining to them.

A. Notice in the Domesday Monachorum of St. Augustine's Abbey, Canter-

bury.
Concerning this manor1 St. Augustine and Abbot Scotland deraigned eight
prebends and a church with all the lands and customs belonging to them in the time
of King William I.

B. Notification by King William I that he restores to St. Augustine's Abbey,

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

Waltheof, earl of Northampton and Huntingdon, who was implicated in the

rebellion in 1075 of Ralph de Gael, earl of Norwich, and Roger of Hereford
against William the Conqueror, is imprisoned, condemned in the king's court
and executed on 31 May 1076.

A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis.

At the same time' another grave disturbance broke out, which brought sorrow
and disaster to many in England. Two powerful English earls, Roger of Hereford
6A I 0[i.e. Newington, Milton Hundred, Kent.]'
0
6B ' '[This
0 could be earl Robert of Mortain (as in Regesta i no. 66), but also count Robert of Eu.] 0
2 [This could be Roger of Montgomeri (as in Regesta i, no. 66), but also Earl Roger of Hereford.]

7A I The rebellion of the earls took place in 1075: Orderic must therefore have been very confused
about the chronology of the wars between Fulk and William that he had just described.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 16 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and his brother-in-law Ralph of Norwich, plotted together to stir up rebellion,

wrest the realm of England from King William, and assume authority - or rather
tyranny - over it. To this end they fortified their castles, prepared weapons,
mustered their knights, and sent messengers to all far and near whom they trusted,
using prayers and promises to persuade potential supporters to help them....
With these and similar arguments, urging each other to undertake the
treachery they had conceived, the conspirators sought the ear of Waltheof earl of
Northampton and tempted him with such reasoning as this: "See, gallant lord,
now is the appointed hour for you to recover your lost fiefs and take just vengeance
for the injuries you have suffered. Join our party and stand with us; we can promise
you a third part of England. We wish to restore all the good customs that the realm
of Albion enjoyed in the time of the virtuous King Edward. One of us shall be king
and the other two dukes; and so all the honours of England shall be subject to the
three of us. William is overwhelmed by countless wars overseas, and we know for
certain that he will never return to England. Come, noble lord: respect the counsels
that hold out the greatest hope for you and your descendants, and will bring
salvation to your people, now sunk in slavery."
Waltheof replied: "In such affairs the greatest caution is necessary; and every
man in every country owes absolute loyalty to his liege lord. King William has
lawfully received the oath of fealty which I his vassal rightly swore, and has given
his niece to me in marriage as a pledge of lasting loyalty. He has given me a rich
earldom and counted me among his closest friends. How can I be unfaithful to
such a lord, unless I utterly desecrate my faith? I am known all over the country,
and it would cause great scandal if -which Heaven forbid- I were publicly
proclaimed a sacrilegious traitor. No good song is ever sung of a traitor. All
peoples brand apostates and traitors as wolves, and consider them worthy of
hanging and - if they can- condemn them to the gallows with every kind of
ignominy and insult. Achitophel and Judas committed the crime of treachery, and
both took their own lives by hanging themselves, as men unworthy of either earth
or heaven. The law of England2 punishes the traitor by beheading, and deprives his
whole progeny of their just inheritance. Heaven forbid that I should stain my
honour with the guilt of treachery, and that such shame should be voiced abroad
about me. The Lord God, who delivered David out of the hand of Goliath and of
Saul, Adarezer, and Absalom, has by his grace delivered me also from many
dangers by sea and land. To him I commend myself in all faith; and in him I
faithfully hope that I may never be guilty of treachery in my life nor imitate the
apostasy of the fallen angel Satan."
When Ralph the Breton and Roger heard these words they were bitterly
disappointed and bound him by a terrible oath not to reveal their conspiracy. Not
2 This is correctly stated (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i. 51-52). The punishment
in Norman law was forfeiture and imprisonment. Cf. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,p. 604, and
above, Introduction, p. xxxix. '[=ORDERIC VITALis History ii.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 17 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

long afterwards the rebellion they had plotted broke out all over England and the
king's servants met with open opposition everywhere.' William of Warenne and
Richard of Bienfait, son of Count Gilbert, whom the king had appointed among
his chief ministers4 for all business in England, summoned the rebels to the king's
court. They, however, scorned the summons, preferring to continue in their evil
ways, and joined battle with the king's men....
When the tireless king received these reports from his men he quickly settled
affairs in Normandy and Maine, and leaving everything in excellent order sailed at
once to England. After summoning all the magnates of the kingdom to his court he
warmly praised the men who had kept the law and remained true to him, and
formally asked the fomentors and supporters of rebellion why they preferred
iniquity to justice. The garrison of Norwich made peace and surrendered to the
king, and Ralph of Gael earl of Norwich forfeited his English fiefs. So he was
forced into exile; and returning to Brittany with his wife took up his patrimony,
which the English monarch had no power to confiscate. In Brittany he was lord of
the two strong fortresses of Gael and Montfort, and his children hold them by
hereditary right to this day.' He himself many years later, in the time of Pope
Urban, took the cross and set out for Jerusalem with Robert the second, duke of
Normandy, to fight against the Turks; as a pilgrim and penitent following the way
of God he died, together with his wife.
However, Earl Roger obeyed the summons to the king's court, and when
questioned could not deny the treachery that was plain for all to see. Consequently
he was judged by the laws of the Normans, and condemned to perpetual
imprisonment after forfeiting all his earthly goods.6 Even in prison he continued to
abuse the king in many ways, and give him still greater offence by his provocative
behaviour. For once, whilst the Christian populace was reverently celebrating the
Easter feast, the king sent honourable servants with a store of valuable garments to
Earl Roger in his prison; whereat he commanded that a huge pyre should be
prepared and the royal finery7 - cloak and silken tunic and mantle of ermine skins
from distant parts- burned at once. At the news of this the king exclaimed in
wrath: "It is a proud man who insults me in this way; but by God's glory he shall

Orderic's account of the rebellion agrees in some points with Florence of Worcester (FW ii. 10
12) and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, D, E; but has some details not found elsewhere. The source
for these is unknown: they may have been part of the Crowland tradition. For a discussion of
events see F.S. Scott, Arch. Aeliana, xxx (1952), 205 207.
4 The term justiciar later acquired a technical sense: at this date it implies an ad hoc authority (cf.
Francis West, The Justiciarshipin England, p. 8).
The Breton fiefs descended to Ralph's eldest son William; on his death in 1119 they passed to the
second son, Ralph, in whose line they remained (GEC ix. 574). o[= G.E. Cokayne, The complete
peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and United Kingdom, 13 parts in 14 vols.,
London, 21910-1959.10
See above, p. 314 n. i.
In view of the pretensions of the conspirators the gift that Orderic regards as a courtesy may well
have been taken as an insult.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 18 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 19 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

them carrying out the royal will, and show sympathy for their noble fellow
countryman by murdering the royal guards, they addressed the prostrate earl in
these words: "Get up", they said, "so that we may carry out our lord's orders" To
this he replied: "Wait a little longer, for the love of almighty God, at least until I
have said the Lord's prayer on your behalf and mine". As they agreed he rose, and
kneeling with his eyes raised to heaven and his hands stretched out he began to say
aloud, "Our Father, which art in Heaven". But when he reached the last sentence
and said, "And lead us not into temptation", such tears and lamentations broke
from him that he could not finish his prayer. The executioner refused to wait any
longer, but straightway drawing his sword struck off the earl's head with a mighty
blow. Then the severed head was heard by all present to say in a clear voice, "But
deliver us from evil. Amen". This was the manner in which Earl Waltheof was
executed at Winchester on the morning of 30 April, 2 his body being flung
unceremoniously into a ditch and hastily covered with freshly cut turf.'3

B. The narrative in the Chronicle of Hyde.

While King William tried discreetly to organize the realm in view of the peace,
certain princes of the English desired to cast off the yoke of their unwanted
subjection and did not shrink from rebellion against him, even if it cost them their
lives. Edmesau' Waltheof, one of the old and very rich princes of England and so
striking of appearance that he looked like another Absalom, burnt with anger to
such an extent that no prayers or gifts or the fact that he was said to have married,
for the sake of peace, a relation of the king, named Judith, could establish between
the king and him anything else than a simulated union. Afterwards he was accused
of conspiracy against the king, confessed and underwent judgment, after which he
was left in peace. After another conspiracy was repressed he was condemned
according to the laws of the English and the Danes at London, but soon afterwards
being imprisoned he turned fully to the Lord and begged with fasts, tears and
assiduous and intense prayers to be allowed to become a monk and to be held in
[God's] service forever. His wish was however not fulfilled, though the king himself
came to regret it afterwards. Therefore he was beheaded and his body taken to
some church which he had built along the sea and it is said that till this day
numerous miracles take place at his tomb.

C. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

1075. In this year King William gave to Earl Ralph [Emma], the daughter of
William fitz Osbern. This same Ralph was Breton on his mother's side, and Ralph
12 A slip for lunii: elsewhere Orderic gives the date as 31 May, which agrees with the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, D, 1077 (for 1076).
13 '[Translation from ORDERIC VITALIS History ii. 311-323.10
7B I o[Oldengl. for "respectful".] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 20 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

his father was English, and was born in Norfolk, and the king therefore gave the
earldom there and Suffolk as well to his son. He then took the lady to Norwich.
There was that bride-ale
That was many men's bale.
Earl Roger was there and Earl Waltheof and bishops and abbots, and there they
plotted to drive their royal lord out of his kingdom. And the king in Normandy
was soon informed about this. Earl Ralph and Earl Roger were the ringleaders in
this conspiracy; and they lured the Bretons to their side; and they also sent to
Denmark for a naval force. And Roger went west to his earldom and assembled his
people for the king's undoing, as he thought, but it turned out to his own great
harm. Ralph also wanted to go forward with the men of his earldom, but the castle
garrisons which were in England and also the local people came against them and
prevented them all from doing anything; but he was glad to escape to the ships.
And his wife remained behind in the castle, and held it until she was given safe-
conduct; and then she went out of England, and all her men who wished to go with
her. And the king afterwards came to England, and captured Earl Roger, his
kinsman, and put him in prison. And Earl Waltheof went overseas and accused
himself and asked for pardon and offered treasure. But the king made light of it
until he came to England and then had him captured.
1076. And Earl Waltheof was beheaded at Winchester; and his body was taken
to Crowland. 1

D. The narrative in Florence of Worcester.

Roger of Hereford, son of William, earl of the same shire, gave' his sister as
wife to Earl Ralph of East-Anglia2 against the order of King William and the
magnificent wedding was held in the presence of a considerable number of
magnates in the county of Cambridge at a place called Exning3 and there, with the
agreement of many, a great conspiracy was made against King William and they
forced Earl Waltheof, who knew of their plans, to swear with them, but as soon as
possible he went to see Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury and was given a
penitence by him for this deed, although his oath had not been given freely. He also
on the archbishop's advice went to King William in Normandy and unfolded to
him the unlawful event, placing himself in his mercy. In order to execute their plans
the forementioned leaders of the conspiracy went back to their castles and started
to launch the rebellion with all means, with their accomplices...
7C ' O[Translation by Whitelock, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 156 157.10
7D ' The
0 Sax. Chron. sub aa. 1075, 1076, states that the
0 marriage took place with William's consent.
2 [Ralph de Gael of de Gauder, earl of Norfolk.]
I 0 [Exning (Ixning used to be a commoner spelling) was once considered to be in Cambridgeshire,
but is now in Suffolk to the north-west of Newmarket (W.W. Skeat, The place-names of Suffolk,
Cambridge, 1913, 72).1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 21 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

When Abbot Frederick of St. Alban's, after having leased the manor of
Aldenham to the abbot of Westminster for a limited period, reclaims it, the
latter, with royal support, manages to retain it.

Abbot Frederick, who thought that there was nothing worse than the loss of
life, granted the manor of Aldenham, where many travellers to and from London
were in peril because of the density of the forests, to the abbot of Westminster, who

4 Ingulphi Hist.
Sax. Chron. a. 1076.
6 '[On this defeat of King William, who was forced to retire by King Philip, see Douglas, William

the Conqueror, 234. - See also Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 602-604; Douglas, op. cit., 231-
233; BIGELow Placita, 11.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 22 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 23 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Litigation between Bishop Herfast of Thetford and the abbey of Bury St.
Edmunds, which claims exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. In the face of
the bishop's claim, Abbot Baldwin obtains a papal bull in his favour.
Although the bishop during a visit to Bury St. Edmunds gives up his claim, he
afterwards renews it and puts his case before King William I, who orders
Archbishop Lanfranc to carry out an inquest in which witnesses are heard
from nine counties. The king's court gives judgment in favour of Bury St.
Edmunds, as Bishop Herfast is unable to produce charters.

A. The narrative of events in the Miracles of St. Edmund by Herman, a

monk of Bury.
This same bishop1 plagues the sacrosanct abbey with undeserved complaints.
Counselled by his people and some others, he wants to reduce to servitude what
kings and his predecessors had confirmed in liberty. He maintains that the place of
the precious martyr is part of his diocese. He attempts unjustly and by secular ways
to dominate rather than, as he should, be helpful according to God's will. Like a
wolf he pursues the sheep, that is, he behaves unjustly and inimically against the
flock of the monks, attempting to get one foot inside the door and consequently to
get inside with his whole body. Abbot Baldwin, as a most trustworthy shepherd of
the martyr's flock, was ready to give his life for his sheep and trusting in his
protector repulsed this threatening calamity. Feeling safe because of the charters
of his place, which his predecessors had obtained from the king, he did not respond
very much to those attempts. This did not mean that the bishop left him in peace:
he made the calamity even worse, troubling the place and its appurtenances,
increasing his malice in all ways although he had no writing or chirograph of any
predecessor in his bishopric to support his mischievous undertaking. He only based
himself on the testimony of some vile persons who were not even lawful men, such
as the talk of cross-bearers, and he annoyed the king to such an extent that with his
permission he stealthily got hold of some crosier 2 of the monastery, which was not
done without effort since, as they say, he paid the weight of numerous pennies for
it. Thus the unjust man could vindicate for himself some control over this very holy
place through the crosier, which had been the support of some predecessor of his.
But all he managed to do was to stay as far from his aim as Kodros is from Inachos
or as the Occident is from the Orient. In the meantime Father Baldwin had
travelled with the king's permission to Rome, where he was promoted by Pope

9A ' 0[Herfast, bishop of Elmham/Thetford 1070-1085?]

2 An abbot's or bishop's crosier must be meant by baculus: and what Herman intends to say is
apparently this, that Arfast bribed some one connected with the monastery to bring to him an old
crosier from thence, which, along with evidence to be given by cross-bearers and other such "viles
personae", was to be used in proof of bishops of Thetford having at one time exercised
jurisdiction over St. Edmund's monks.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 24 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Alexander II to the order of priesthood and where Lanfranc of Canterbury and

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

0
[Herman started his career as archdeacon and secretary of Bishop Herfast, but later in life
became a monk at Bury and towards the end of the century wrote his Miracula completely from
the abbey's point of view and at the request of Abbot Baldwin.]'
This curious proverb seems to answer to ours of "baiting with a sprat to catch a mackerel"; but in
what precise way he intended to apply it to the king's dilatory conduct, the archdeacon has left
obscure. No such proverb is found among the Adagia of Erasmus.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 25 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

5 [28 October.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 26 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

6 "that the feeling of the county might be ascertained" 7 'Ri.e. 4 April 108 1.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 27 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the saint by the old kings was proffered.' The abbot also produced a canonical
authority that the liberty which that place had held for fifty-one years was
inviolable, as the abbots had been ordained by the bishops of their choice, firstly
Ufi by Bishop [Aelfwig] of London, secondly Leofstan by Bishop [Aelfwine] of
Winchester and Baldwin himself by Archbishop [Stigand] of Canterbury at
Windsor.
After all this had been discussed in public the king ordered that, as the case of
both parties had been heard, judgment should be given. Now the truth was to arise
from the earth among the faithful and from heaven true justice would look on.
The judges of ecclesiastical cases came down to give sentence: the archbishops with
the bishops and also the abbots and their followers learned in judicial matters.
They all have one desire, viz. to take the path of Ciceronian rhetoric and going
beyond the two sorts of this art, the demonstrative and the deliberative, they enter
upon the third called the judicial. At this stage and led by mother rhetoric they
adopted the technique of controversy called "from authority", commemorating
how dear the abbey of the martyr was to God and to those kings whose authority
ought to be the greatest and why such an important martyr and his place should
enjoy so great a liberty. Nor was it lawful for the good establishment of devoted
kings, conserved in the course of several years, to be infringed, but whatever the
good predecessors worthy of God had disposed ought to remain valid in the peace
of God's Holy Church. This judgment, arrived at by the common assent of all, was
placed before King William, who was already under the inspiration of God's
grace, but the aforesaid bishop, impatient and out of his mind, got up to oppose it
and he declared that judgment, which was unfortunate for him, to be false. As a
gage of his declaration he gave his episcopal ring with the staff, almost as if he was a
bishop no longer, but had been punished with deposition. This resulted in a
shameful confusion for him and the payment for this gage lasted until the day of
his death: he gave eleven hundred pounds of coins and knew of no certain limit to
this payment, as he sighingly told me eight days before his death. Because of the
fear for the highness of heaven and under the influence of God's mercy, after the
claim had been justly cut down and by the good will of the king and the unanimous
favour of his magnates, a privilege was drawn up in the form of a chirograph 9 and
the place of the martyr was ensured by it forever: such wasthe will of the glorious
King William I who granted it aloud. This place conserves as a testimony until this
day the king's mark and that of the illustrious Queen Matilda and of the other co-
signatories together with the privilege, happy to enjoy under the king's aegis the
liberty of which it is worthy, free from the diocesan yoke of the bishops, as is
0
8 [A charter of King Cnut of 1028 has survived granting Bury St. Edmund exemption from
episcopal domination, see BURY ST. EDMUNDS Memorials, i, 342-343.]0
9 See the charter of William I in the Appendix B. '[A text of this royal diploma was conserved at the
abbey and published i.a. in BURY ST. EDMUNDS Memorials, i, p. 347 no. VI, declared spurious in
Regesta i, no. 137.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 28 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. The royal writ notifying the judgment of the court.

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

10

After the conquest Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham attracts several tenants of

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 29 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

men whom his predecessor had had, because he had decided to take away the lands
of all of them if it were possible. Incensed and filled with hate against him because
of this, they sent messengers to Odo, the king's brother and bishop of the church of
Bayeux, who at that time was at the head of this country under the king and
behaving as a tyrant, and proffering false accusations, they said that Abbot
Aethelwig had obtained so many lands by force and not according to rightful law.
Consequently the aforesaid bishop, depraved by the counsel of abominable people
and allured most strongly by the most iniquitous desire to acquire possessions of
the church, went to his brother the king and through money and false accusations
obtained that the lands of this holy monastery should be given to him. As a
rapacious wolf he forthwith ordered, in a place called Ildeberg,1 a gathering of evil
men of five shires and there he obtained, by his iniquitous power rather than byjust
law, that twenty-eight manors out of the thirty-six lands which Abbot Aethelwig
had acquired by paying the appropriate price, were abjured and iniquitously
usurped into his own demesne. Their names are the following: Bengeworth,
Hampton, Upton, Witton, Arrow, Exhall, Ragley, Salford, Edstone, Broom,
Grafton, Chastleton and another Chastleton, Cornwell, Quinton, Shipton,
Salford, Dornford, Stoke, Hidcote, Pebworth, Dorsington, Milcote and another
Milcote, Acton, Bransford, Willenhall, Bevington, Bidford, Evenlode, Dayles-
ford, Weston and Lench which the family of Urse hold against the roll of
Winchester. Of these Abbot Walter recovered Weston, Hampton and the half of
Bengeworth which Ernegrim used to hold, but the half which Bishop [Beorhtheah]
of Worcester gave to Atsere was occupied by Urse.2 A short while afterwards King
William by a just judgment of God became very angry with his execrable brother,
put him in very hard iron chains, and kept him until his death in close custody. And
similarly the divine wrath miserably deprived almost all the perjurers of this
church of this life.

B. The narrative in a Worcester cartulary.

Having mentioned Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham and the lands which he had
taken away by force or guile from this monastery, we have thought it suitable to
describe at length what sort of person he was and how those lands were claimed by
our lord Bishop Wulfstan [of Worcester] in innumerable and frequent trials, so
that no one shall imagine in the future that the lord bishop has kept silent about
this out of negligence. For after this country was vanquished by the Normans and

10A I [Gildenebeorge or Gildeneberga, i.e. Ildeberg is a lost place-name, which can be identified with
Four-Shire Stone in the parish of Evenlode (Worcs.), i.e. a stone which marks the place where
the shires of Worcester, Warwick, Gloucester and Oxford meet, cfr. A. Mawer and F.M.
Stenton, The place-names of Worcestershire,Cambridge, 1969, 124.10
2 o[See DARLINGTON, op. cit., p. 6 n. 3; Urse is Urse d'Abitot, sheriff of Worcestershire at the time
of the Domesday Survey.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 30 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 31 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

William, asked and received from the king, his brother, all the lands which the
aforesaid Abbot Aethelwig possessed, except those which justly belonged to the
abbey, and our own lands, which the abbot had possessed as explained, Odo
invaded with the others. And so we lost them: from some of them the lord bishop
hardly ever received any service and he who had been the first to rob the monastery
of them was left with nothing but his sin.

C. Writ of King William I confirming to Abbot Walter the peaceful

possession of various lands which he deraigned at Four-Shire Stone.
William, king of the English, to Lanfranc the archbishop and Odo, the bishop
of Bayeux, and all his barons of all England, greeting. Know that I have given to
God and St. Mary and W(alter), abbot of Evesham, Westun and [Upper] Swell and
Bengeworth and the other lands which the said abbot deraigned before many of
the barons at Ildeberg. And I will and firmly order that he shall hold the said lands,
as well and freely as ever his predecessors best held them in the time of King
Edward and my own. And I command that nobody shall raise a claim against him
about these lands in spite of my prohibition.

D. Notification by Odo of Bayeux that King William I confirms to Abbot

Walter of Evesham various lands which he deraigned at Four-Shire Stone.
Odo, bishop of Bayeux, to Bishop Wulfstan, Urse, Durand and Walter,
sheriffs of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire and all lieges of the
king, French and English, greeting. Know you all that my lord King William has
restored to God and the church of Evesham and Abbot Walter all those lands
which the abbot has deraigned before seven shires at Ildeberg against all those who
claimed them unjustly, i.e. Weston, Swell, Bengeworth, Bevington, Wixford,
Oldberrow, Kinwarton, Hillborough and Ragley. And in the name of the king I
firmly forbid anyone to cause him any injustice in this, but let him hold these and
all other lands with great honour and in peace and on this he shall answer to no one
but the king.'

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 32 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

11

At a meeting of the king's court and in spite of the privilegium fori, Odo,
bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, is arrested at the command of King
William I and imprisoned in Normandy on a charge of neglecting his duties
and the interests of the king.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 33 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

with estates and gifts of many kinds; now therefore, as we firmly believe, they rest
and enjoy their precious reward in a blessed place. AEthelbert and Edwin, St.
Oswald, Ethelwulf and Alfred, Edward the Elder and Edgar and Edward, my
kinsman and dear lord, all gave wealth to the holy Church which is the bride of
God; my brother, to whom I entrusted the regency of the whole realm, violently
seized the riches, cruelly oppressed the poor, just now suborned the knights with
empty hope and tormented the whole kingdom, shaking it to its foundations with
unjust exactions. Give serious thought to what should be done and tell me, I beg
you, what you decide." As all feared the great man and hesitated to pronounce
sentence on him, the illustrious king said: "Harmful ambition should always be
checked and it is never right to spare one man against the public interest through
any partiality. Arrest this man, who stirs up trouble in the land, and guard him
closely for fear of even worse deeds". As no one dared to lay a hand on the bishop
the king himself seized hold of him first of all. When he protested: "I am a clerk and
a priest of God; you have no right to condemn a bishop without papal judgment,"
the prudent king replied: "I condemn neither a clerk nor a bishop, but arrest my
earl, whom I have made viceroy in my kingdom, desiring to hear an account of the
3
stewardship entrusted to him."
So the king in his royal might arrested the bishop, and had him taken to
Normandy and imprisoned in the tower of Rouen, where he kept him under close
guard for four years, until the end of his own life. Once the instigator of the
disturbance had been overthrown, the tumult among the knights died down; and
the upright king, by his foresight, buttressed his kindgom against attack from
within or without.
In this man you may see fulfilled the saying of Fulgentius in his book on
mythology,4 "He who seeks more than his deserts will sink below his present
station" The bishopric of Bayeux and the earldom of Kent, with its abundant
resources, and a share with his brother in the royal power over all England and
Normandy,5 were not enough for one churchman who aspired to be set over all the
earth, though he was drawn towards this end neither by divine choice nor by
canonical election, but only by the unrestrained presumption of his insatiable
ambition. Consequently he lost what he had and for years pined in captivity,
6
leaving an example to future generations to deter them from such undertakings.
I Cf. LuKE xvi. 2 ff.; and see above, Introduction, pp. xxviii-xxx. For the suggestion that William
treated Odo as a lay lord see A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and his Letters
(Cambridge, 1965), p. 177 n. 2.
4 The Mitologiae of Fulgentius (ed. R. Heim, FabiiPlanciadisFulgentii Opera, Leipzig, 1898), a
brief and inaccurate account of various episodes in classical mythology, with fanciful allegorical
interpretations, enjoyed great popularity in the ninth century and for some time afterwards (see
M.L.W. Laistner, "Fulgentius in the Carolingian age", The Intellectual Heritage of the Early
Middle Ages, ed. C.G. Starr (Ithaca, 1957), pp. 202-215). This trite quotation does not occur in
the work; and Orderic probably accepted the attribution at second hand.
I 0For Odo's authority in England see above, ii. 264-266.
6 [Translation from ORDERIC VITALIs, History, iv, 41-45.]°

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 34 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

12

Alfsi, reeve of the royal manor of Sutton Courtenay, having violated the
rights of Abingdon Abbey, has complained during the absence of King
William the Conqueror to Queen Matilda about the resistance offered by the
abbot. The latter is forced to pay compensation, but the rights of his abbey
are confirmed.

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

12 1 °[Adelelm abbot of Abingdon 1071-1083.10

2 o[See V.C.H. Berks., IV. 393.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 35 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

13

King William I confirms to Abbot Vitalis of Westminster his demesne in

Worcestershire as he can show that it was adjudged to his abbey by Bishop
Wulfstan of Worcester, Abbot Aethelwig of Evesham and Regenbald the
chancellor. This particular confirmation is followed by one in general terms
covering the whole of England.

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

14

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

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

14 1 '[Saint Ecgwin, bishop of Worcester, d. 717.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 36 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

15

Litigation between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and Abbot Walter of

Evesham concerning the hundred of Oswaldslow, and particularly fifteen
hides in Hampton and four hides in Bengeworth. The case first came up on
complaint of Bishop Wulfstan before Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, the
abbot giving up his claims and an agreement being reached; it reappeared in
connection with the compilation of Domesday Book, before royal commis-
sioners, when again an agreement was reached.

A. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc and Bishop Geoffrey of

Coutances to settle the conflict of jurisdiction between Bishop Wulfstan of
Worcester and Abbot Walter of Evesham.
William, king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Geoffrey, bishop of
Coutances, greeting. See to it that soke and sake between Bishop Wulfstan and
Walter, abbot of Evesham, are as they were on the last occasion when, in the time
of King Edward, geld was taken for the fleet, and you, Bishop Geoffrey, shall be in
my place to settle this plea and see to it that Bishop Wulfstan has his right and let
the bishop justly have the houses which he claims against the abbot in Worcester.
Let all those who hold his lands always be ready to do their service to me and to
him. Witness: Roger de Ivry.

B. The narrative of the plea concerning Oswaldslow, held at Worcester

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 37 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 38 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop and the abbot. We also have men of the holy order, priests and deacons,
who are prepared to confirm this by the judgment of God.

C. King William I orders Urse the sheriff of Worcestershire and Osbern son
of Escrop to see to it that Bishop Wulfstan shall have his rights in the hundred
of Oswaldslow, particularly concerning his land in Bengeworth and Hamp-
ton and his houses in Worcester, as they were deraigned against the abbot of
Evesham in the suit before the bishop of Coutances.
William, king of the English, to Urse the sheriff, Osbern son of Escrop and all
men French and English of Worcestershire, greeting. I will and command that
Bishop Wulfstan shall have soke and sake and services and all customs belonging
to his hundred and his lands as fully as best he held them at the time of King
Edward. And concerning the lands which he has deraigned to be held by the abbot
of Evesham as his fee, i.e. four hides in Bengeworth and houses in the city, I
command that if the abbot wants to have them he shall do service for them to him
like his other feudal tenants. And concerning the fifteen hides in Hampton, of
which the bishop has deraigned that the soke and geld and military expedition and
my other services belong to his hundred and church-scot and burial to his vill, I
forbid anyone to hold them otherwise, but let him have everything from them to
my and his benefit as it was deraigned and sworn before Bishop Geoffrey and you,
according to my command and the county being witness. Witnesses: Bishop
Geoffrey and Roger de Ivry.

D. Notification by Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, to Remigius, bishop of

Lincoln, Walter Giffard, Henry de Ferrers and Adam de Ryes (four
Domesday commissioners) that Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester has deraigned
against the abbot of Evesham by the judgment of the shire court, before
himself, Urse de Abetot, Osbern son of Escrop and other barons his rights in
the hundred of Oswaldslow, particularly concerning land in Bengeworth and
Hampton and houses in Worcester.
Geoffrey, bishop of Coutances, to Bishop Remigius, Walter Giffard, Henry de
Ferrers and Adam and other barons of the king, greeting. Know that I bear
witness that when I held at the king's command the plea between Bishop Wulfstan
and the abbot of Evesham, the bishop deraigned that the four hides at Bengeworth
and the houses in the city are of his fee so that the abbot owes services for them to
him like his other feudal tenants. And he deraigned that the soke and sake of
Hampton belong to his hundred of Oswaldslow so that they must plead there and
must pay geld and perform military expedition and other lawful services for these
fifteen hides and must render church-scot and burial to his vill of Cropthorn. This
was deraigned and sworn before me and Urse de Abitot, Osbern son of Escrop and
other barons of the king, the whole county being judge and witness.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 39 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

E. Text of an agreement reached between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and

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

F. Narrative in Heming's cartulary concerning the rights of the church of

Worcester in Oswaldslow, as they were established in the county court of
Worcester in the presence of four Domesday commissioners.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 40 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

16

Conversation between Osbem, a monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, and a

knight, who had been helped by Saint Dunstan in his law case against the
abbot of Saint Augustine's, Canterbury.

Some time before, as I was on the Isle of Thanet, I walked along the sea coast
with a knight who had called upon me for his defence. And thinking of God's
wonders I found there some material for a good sermon and so the conversation
touched upon Father Dunstan, since I believe that any opportunity to talk about
him is most advantageous. As soon as his name was mentioned that knight went all
pale and sighing as from some deep pain he said: "Woe to me, who am so
ungrateful that until now I have been forgetful of so many blessings". To which I
replied: "What was so irksome to cause your panting?" "Do you know" he said
"how inimical the abbot of St. Augustine' was towards me during his lifetime
when he wanted to deprive me of my inheritance?" "I do" I said. "But do you also
know that his immoderate behaviour not only caused no harm, but led even to my
15F I o[J.H. Round, Introductionto the WorcestershireDomesday in: V.C.H. Worcester,1(1901), 254-
256; F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England,Oxford, 19472, 642-643.] °
16 1 Scotland, abbot of St. Augustine's, died in 1087; and if he is the person meant, the mention of
him as now dead would fix the date of the work later than that year. This section, which is not
found in the Lambeth Ms. '[London, Lambeth Palace, Lambeth 159] ° , may have been one of the
latest additions.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 41 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

greater glory?" "This is not unknown" I said "but I do not see to what purpose you
recall these events". "You shall know" he said "that on the night before the day
that had been appointed for the hearing between him and me I remembered, when
I was in my house which is nearby, how often you used to extol Father Dunstan
and that I said to myself: this is an opportunity to find out whether he is as
praiseworthy as I have understood". Bent in prayer I said "Oh God of Father
Dunstan, be favourable to-day to our party" and giving my body some rest I saw
the town of Canterbury in my dreams and Christchurch, a memory of the father,
and bending towards it I noticed a man standing beside it, well shaped, beautifully
dressed and holding a lamp in his hand. Struck by this apparition I said: "Who are
you, most beautiful of man?" "The very same whose help you have invoked a while
ago." "Oh father" I said "how quick you are to take mercy upon miserable people!
Did you know what the lord threatens to do?" To which he replied: "Be not afraid
of his threats and don't attach any importance to them". Such was the story of that
knight who then turned to me and said: "The rest is well-known to you, how I and
you came together, fought and won together". "The saint gave" I said "a great
sign on that day, since they who were so numerous and of such sharp minds left,
beaten by few people and with less sharp minds". Consequently, looking at those
who were present, I explained through the spoken word what I now put down in
writing.

17

It is established in the king's court that Bruman, reeve at Canterbury, has

unjustly taken a toll from foreign merchants to the detriment of the cathedral
monastery of Christ Church at Canterbury and St. Augustine's Abbey there.

A. The passage in Domesday Book.

A certain reeve named Bruman in the time of King Edward took customary
dues from foreign merchants on the land of Holy Trinity and St. Augustine. He
afterwards in the time of King William confessed before Archbishop Lanfranc and
the bishop of Bayeux that he had taken these unjustly and he took oath and swore
that these churches themelves held their customary dues quit [of toll] in the time of
King Edward. And thenceforth either church possessed the customary dues on its
own land by the decision of the king's barons who tried the case.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 42 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The passage in the Inquisition of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, a

compilation made from the original returns for Domesday Book.

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

C. The passage in the Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canter-

bury, a compilation of (at least for its oldest parts) about 1100.

A certain reeve Bruman used to take customs in the time of King Edward from
foreign merchants on the land of Holy Trinity. Afterwards, in the time of King
William, he recognized before Archbishop Lanfranc and the bishop of Bayeux
that he took them unjustly and he confirmed under oath that that church was
entitled of old quietly to have its customs, whence that church has its customs
quietly on its land by a judgment of the king's barons who held the plea.'

18
In the years following the Conquest the abbey of Ely was the victim of
extensive spoliation. Several abbots attempted to restore the rights of the
abbey and obtained royal orders to that effect and various sworn inquests in
local courts dealt with the problem. The details and chronology of these
famous Ely Land Pleas are uncertain and were last elucidated by the editor of
the Liber Eliensis, E.O. Blake. There was an inquest [1071-1075] in the time
of Abbot Thurstan and another at Kentford [prob. in 1081] under the monk
Godfrey; there was more pleading under Abbot Simeon, probably in 1082
and more talk of litigation involving the bishop of Lincoln around the same
time. There also was a royal order for a written report on the inquests [1082-
1087]. When exactly the rights of the abbey were clearly established is
uncertain; even in Domesday Book and related documents traces of these
years of spoliation can be found.

A. In the time of Abbot Thurstan a plea held at the king's command in the
county court determines, on the basis of an inquest, which lands of Ely Abbey
have been unjustly occupied since the time of King Edward. The lands are to
be restored; a long and detailed list of the spoliations is given.

17C '[See Urry, Canterbury,83; CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH Domesdai' Monachorum, p. 27, n. 7.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 43 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

In this plea, where the bishops Geoffrey and Remigius, Earl Waltheof and the
sheriffs Picot and Ilbert met on the command of William, by God's disposition
king of the English, with the whole county, as the king had ordered, it was decided
by the testimony of men who knew the truth which lands had been unjustly taken
away from the church of the Holy Mother of God of the Isle of Ely and of St. Peter,
the prince of the apostles, and of the Holy Virgin Etheldreda, so that the lands
which had been of the demesne in the time of King Edward should return to the
demesne without contradiction by anyone who possessed them. The names of
these lands, with some of those who still retain them unjustly, are here given.

B. In 1081 the monk Godfrey, administering the abbey, obtains an inquest at

Kentford in order to redress the spoliation suffered by his abbey. The inquest
takes place on royal order at a meeting of the three neighbouring shires in the
presence of royal barons. The names of several participants are given. The
text is extremely confused and may well contain elements of earlier similar
inquests, one possibly before 1077 involving five shires and another in 1080
involving four shires.
Under which powerful lords the goods of the church were sworn. In the year of
the Incarnation of the Lord 1080,' the eleventh indiction, the epact being twenty-
six, on 2 April, a discussion took place on the liberty of the church of Ely which,
because King William neglected its defence for fourteen years, was stifled by the
iniquitous exaction of his ministers and in fear of being totally extinguished by this
oppression. While the monk Godfrey2 administered the goods of the saint, the
3
king out of respect for the divine mercy gave order through the bishop of Bayeux
to the powerful lords of the neighbourhood to discuss the matter, in common
examination conducted by the three neighbouring counties at Kentford. Numer-
ous persons took part repeatedly in this discussion (the names of some are
presently given), and loyally brought about an end and a valid conclusion to the
dissension: four abbots with their Frenchmen and Englishmen, Baldwin4 of St.
Edmunds, Wulfwold5 of Chertsey, Wulfketel6 of Crowland and Aelfwold7 of
18B I Date: The indiction for 1080 should be the third, and the mistake may have arisen from a
scribe's reading xi for iii. This report must not be regarded as a formal document, but it may
include extracts from authentic records embellished by the use of a rhyming prose. See infra,
App. D, p. 426. Printed:Hamilton, I.C.C., p. xvii, no. i; BIGELOW, Placita,pp. 2 2 -23. Cf. Davis,
Regesta, i, 32, no. 122.
2 °[Godfrey was a monk of Ely, administering the vacant abbey until 1081. He later became abbot
of Malnesbury.]0
3Odo, bishop of Bayeux. For his part in these proceedings see Miller, El' Land Pleas, p. 443.
Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds, 1065-1097 or 1098 (D.C. Douglas, Feudal Documents
from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, pp. xlviii-ix).
5 Wulfwold, abbot of Chertsey, probably appointed 1058, died 1084. See Harmer, Writs, p. 580.
6 Wulfketel, abbot of Crowland, probably appointed in 1061 or 1062, deposed 1085-1086. See
Robertson, Charters,p. 468. O[ =A.J. Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 1939.]
Aelfwold, abbot of Hulme, probably ruling already in 1066 and died 14 November 1089
(Stenton, Engl. Hist. Rev., xxxvii, 1922, pp. 228. 233).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 44 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

C. Writ of King William I ordering that Ely Abbey shall have all its rights
and customs as it possessed them at the time of King Edward's death and as
they were deraigned at Kentford.
Royal charter on the liberty and the dignity of the place.
William,' king of the English, to all his lieges and the sheriffs in whose counties
I He occurs in a charter of 1069, served as sheriff of Kent and died some time before 1100 (Davis,
Regesta, i, xxiii).
9 The caput of the honour of Tihel de Helium lay in Essex. See J.H. Round, in V.C.H., Essex, i,
350, and in "Hehon of Helion Bumpstead", Essex Arch. Trans. (n.s.), viii, 187-191.
10 The sheriffs belong to Cambs., Hunts., Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk; the knights named, where
they can be identified, held lands in 1086 in Cambs., Suffolk, Norfolk, and Hunts. (if Odo is the
tenant holding of Eustace the sheriff). If Godric is the dapifer of that name he farmed king's
land in Essex as well as Norfolk and Suffolk (V.C.H., Norfolk, ii, 13) and the name Godwine
occurs in Beds. and Herts. as well as in the above-named shires.
1 '[Picot sheriff of Cambridgeshire.]'
°
12O[Eustace sheriff of Huntingdonshire.]
13O[Ralph sheriff of Essex.]0 °
14 o[Walter who appears for Roger and Robert, sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk.]
15 Cf. the preamble to King Edward's charter, supra, ch. 92. '[=pp. 161-1631o
16 Cf. ibid., "sine aliqua exceptione secularis vel ecclesiastice justitie'.
18C ' Date: 1080-87. To suit the dates of Abbot Aethelsige of Ramsey, who seems to have succeeded
Aelfwine in 1079/80 (Harmer, Writs, p. 551) and died in 1087 (Ramsey Cart., iii, 174), and of
Abbot Wulfwold of Chertsey (supra,p. 198, n. 4), the plea referred to in this writ must have been
heard between 1080 and 1084, and there are reasons for placing it early in 1081. See infra, App.
D, p. 427. The writ itself may have been issued soon after this, but the reference in it to the
Kentford settlement reads like an appeal to the authority of the latter made on some later
occasion. Such an occasion may have arisen in 1086 or 1087 when Abbot Simeon complained to
the king of the decline of the abbey's liberties (infra, ch. 134). The rights confirmed are those
granted to Wulfric by Edward the Confessor in ch. 95, with the addition of sake and soke, which

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 45 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

D. In the time of Abbot Simeon, King William I orders Bishop Geoffrey of

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 46 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

E. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc, Robert count of Mortain

and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances to assemble again the shires which took
part in the plea respecting the lands of Ely (earlier in the year). The king's
barons who were present at the aforesaid plea are to attend again. The lands
of which Ely has been despoiled shall be restored on the basis of the sworn
testimony of Englishmen who remember the state of affairs at the time of
King Edward's death.
Royal charter on the restitution of the possessions of the church by their
invaders.
William,1 king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Roger count of
Mortain and Geoffrey bishop of Coutances. I command and order you to
assemble again all the shires which were present at the plea concerning the lands of
the church of Ely before my wife last came to Normandy, and let those of my
barons who conveniently can be present and have taken part in the aforesaid plea
and hold lands of that church also be there. As soon as they are assembled
together, let several of those Englishmen who know how the lands of the aforesaid
church lay on the day when King Edward died be elected and let them confirm
their declarations under oath and afterwards let the lands which were in its
demesne on the day when Edward died be restored to the church, except for those
which the men claim that I gave them to them: of those you will notify me by letter,
which they are and who holds them. Those who hold thegn-lands which should
doubtlessly be held from the church shall come to an agreement with the abbot as
2 Those named are prominent among "invaders" of the abbey lands, as listed in the I.E. and the
summaries included in it, as also in the plea of 1071-1075, all printed in Hamilton, I.C.C.
18E I Date: 1080-1087. Cf. Miller (Ely Land Pleas, pp. 447-449) who argues that this writ may have
set on foot the plea at Kentford referred to in ch. 117, in which case it could be placed in 1081.
But if the placitum at which the shires were present, which are here commanded to be re-
assembled, is that recorded in ch. 121, then ch. 120 cannot have been issued before Simeon's
accession and probably not before Queen Matilda's return to Normandy some time in 1082. Cf.
Davis, Regesta, i, 43, no. 155, where it is dated 1082, and see infra, App. D. p. 428. Printed:
Monasticon, i, 478; Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (2); Hamilton, I.C.C., p. xviii, no. iii:
BIGELOW, Placita,p. 24.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 47 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

F. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc and Bishop Geoffrey of

Coutances to see to it that the abbot of Ely shall be reseised of certain
specified lands, held by named individuals, provided he can prove that these
lands belong to the demesne of his abbey and that the tenants cannot show
that they hold them by gift of the king.
Another royal charter on the restitution of the possessions of the church.
William,' king of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and Geoffrey bishop of
Coutances, greeting. See to it that the abbot of Ely is reseised of the following lands
which the following men hold: Hugh de Montfort one manor called Barham,2
Richard the son of Count Gilbert Broxted,3 Sheriff Picot Impington,4 Hugh de
Berners three hides, 5 Bishop Remigius [of Lincoln] one hide,6 the bishop of Bayeux
two hides, 7 Frodo the brother of Abbot [Baldwin of Bury St. Edmunds] one
manor 8 and two carpenters one hide and three virgates,9 if the abbot can show that
0
[A writ of William I ordering Lanfranc, Geoffrey of Coutances and Robert of Mortain to cause
2
Abbot Simeon to have sake and soke of five hundreds of Suffolk as his predecessor had in the
time of King Edward, should be seen in this same context (ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no.
123, p. 205.- Regesta i, no. 157).]o
18F 1 Date: 1082 1087. It presumably belongs to Abbot Simeon's time. If Frodo's manor is
Chedburgh (infra, p. 205, n. 6) the writ antedates the Domesday returns, since in 1086 he held it
of the abbot (LE., pp. 155, 181, 195; Dd, ii, fo. 384b). Cf. Miller, Ely Land Pleas,p. 451. Cf.also
Davis, Regesta, i, 43, no. 156, dated 1082, and see infra, App. D, p. 431. Printed: Bentham, Ely,
i, App., p. 10, no. v (4); Hamilton, LC.C., p. xix, no. v; BIGELOW, Placita,p. 26.
2 This must be Barham, Suffolk, but in Domesday the manor is listed among the lands of St.
Etheldreda and there is no reference to any usurpation (Dd, ii, fo. 406; V.C.H., Suffolk, i, 394).
In 1086 Ely held 3 hides at Broxted, Essex, of which, according to the entry under St.
Etheldreda's terra, 9 acres had been taken away and were held by Eudo Dapifer (Dd, ii, fo. 18b).
These Richard Fitz Gilbert held of Eudo (Dd, ii, fo. 50).
4 Ely had claimed 3 demesne hides from Picot in the plea of 1071 1075, but there is no evidence
that they had been restored by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 201; LE., p. 192; cf. Miller, Ely Land Pleas,
p. 442).
Presumably part of the berewick of 5 hides at Strethall, Essex, which in 1086 Hugh now held of
the abbot (Dd, ii, fos. 19-19b).
6 In Histon, which had not been recovered by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 190b).
Ely claimed 2 hides and 3 virgates at Hanningfield (South) against the bishop of Bayeux. These
were not of the demesne, but held, according to the testimony of the hundred, by two men who
were only commended to Ely (Dd, ii, fo. 25; I.E., p. 128).
8 Probably Chedburgh, which Ely had claimed against Frodo, brother of Abbot Baldwin of Bury
in the plea of 1070-1075 (Hamilton, I.C.C., p. 195), and which in 1086 was held of the abbot
(Dd, ii, fo. 384b; LE., pp. 155, 181).
The only Ely lands elsewhere recorded to have been held by the carpenters are 3' hides at
Landbeach, but these were not of the demesne, having been held by Oswi, the abbot's man, in
1066, and had not been recovered by 1086 (Dd, i, fo. 202; LE., pp. 114, 177).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 48 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

G. Order by King William I to Archbishop Lanfranc, Bishop Geoffrey of

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

100 [A writ of King William I addressed to Lanfranc and one addressed to Lanfranc Geoffrey of
Coutances and Robert of Mortain, dealing with various rights of Ely Abbey, with the right
claimed by Bishop Remigius of Lincoln to consecrate the abbot of Ely and forbidding the abbot
of Ely to alienate without royal licence any part of the demesne acquired by legal process,
should be seen in this same context. (ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 127, p. 207. - Regesta i,
no. 151; ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 126, p. 207. - Regesta i, no. 153).]
18G ' Date: 1082 1087. Miller suggests "before the departure of Robert of Mortain for Normandy in
the early summer of 1082" (Ely Land Pleas, pp. 449-450). Cf. Davis, Regesta, i, 42, no. 154,
under 1082; also infra, App. D. p. 429. Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 10, no. v (6); Hamilton,
I.C.C., p. xx, no. vii; BIGELOW, Placita,p. 27.
2 Neither Domesday nor the Ely records throw any light on the subject of this plea. William of
Eu, Ralph Fitz Waleran and Robert Gernon are not listed among the despoilers of Ely in 1071-
1075 or in 1086, nor did they hold lands in any of the abbey's hundreds, as far as is known.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 49 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

H. King William I orders Archbishop Lanfranc to send him a written report

on the results of the sworn inquests concerning the lands of Ely Abbey.

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

19

Trial, presided over by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, between Bishop Gundulf of

Rochester and Picot the sheriff concerning land in Gisleham, depending on
Freckenham, in the county court [of Suffolk]. A jury is resorted to, and after
perjury is discovered, a second jury convened. The jurors promise to undergo
the ordeal of hot iron, but fail and pay a fine to the king.

In the time of William the Great, king of the English, father of William, also
king of that nation, there arose a dispute between Gundulf, bishop of Rochester,
and Picot, sheriff of Cambridge, about certain land, belonging to Freckenham but
situated in Gisleham which one of the king's sergeants, called Olchete, had
presumed to occupy in virtue of the sheriff's grant. For the sheriff said that the land
in question was the king's but the bishop declared that it belonged to the church of

18H '[In the twelfth century several charters contain allusions to the Ely land pleas of the time of
King William I: ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), no. 7, pp. 250-251 (A.D. 1109 1116). - Regesta
ii, no. 1048 (A.D. 1114); Regesta iii, no. 261, p. 9 3 (A.D. 1139-1140); CARTAE ANTIQUAE ROLLS,
no. 64, p. 38 (ca. 27 March 1155); Miller, Ely Land Pleas,pp. 455-456 (31 December 1189-April
1196). See Round, FeudalEngland,pp. 123 142; E. Miller, "'The Ely Land Pleas in the Reign of
William I", E.H.R., 62 (1947), pp. 438-456; E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely,
Cambridge, 1951; ELY Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake), Appendix D 4, pp. 426-432; D.J.A. Matthew,
The Norman Conquest, London, 1966, p. 156.]'
19 '[Probably Orthi is meant, who occurs in connection with Freckenham in Domesday Book ii,
381 .]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 50 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 51 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

20

Notification by King William I of the restoration to Thomas, archbishop of

York, of land in Mottisfont, on the basis of the testimony of the county.

William, by God's grace king of the English, to Bishop Walkelin, [Sheriff]

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

21

Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury deraigns the manor of Stoke against

Bishop Odo of Bayeux.

This manor was and is of the bishopric of Rochester, but Earl Godwin in the
time of King Edward bought it from 2 men who held it from the bishop, and this
sale was made without the bishop's knowledge. Afterwards, however, when King
William was reigning, Archbishop Lanfranc deraigned it against the bishop of
Bayeux and the church of Rochester is now seised of it.'

22

The manor of Badlesmere, attributed to Bishop Odo of Bayeux and held by

Ansfrid, is claimed by Abbot Scotland of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, who is
supported by the men of the hundred.

This manor St. Augustine's abbot claims because he had it in the time of King
Edward and the men of the hundred confirm this. But the son of the tenant states
that his father could go to what lord he wished. To this the monks do not agree.

21 1 '[Entries ofajudicial characterare numerous in Domesday Book. Sometimes they only mention the
fact that certain claims or counterclaims are extant, sometimes they go much further and give
information on the law courts and theirprocedure. We have selected the lattercategoryfor inclusion
here, realizing how difficult and arbitrarythis selection must necessarily be: we have, on the whole,
followed Bigelow's choice, who first faced this problem.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 52 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

23

The manor of Treyford, attributed to Roger de Montgomery, earl of

Shrewsbury, is claimed by Abbot Riwallon of St. Peter of Winchester, and
the hundred court is heard.

The abbot of Saint Peter of Winchester claims this manor. The hundred
testifies that in the time of King Edward he who held it from the abbot, held it only
for the term of his life.

24

Dispute before the hundred court of Godalming between Odo, bishop of

Bayeux, and Lufa, royal reeve, concerning the manor of Farncombe.

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

25

Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and Ranulf the sheriff about a
monastery and a waterway in Southwark; testimony of the hundred of
Brixton.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 53 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

26

Dispute in the hundred of Elmbridge concerning the origin of Richard de

Tonbridge's seisin in Apps Court.

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

27

Dispute in the hundred of Brixton concerning the origin of Ansculf's seisin of

the land of Wandsworth, which is held by his son William.

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

28

The king's reeve claims for the use of the manor of King's Somborne some
land which is held by Robert count of Mortain and concerning which the men
of the hundred of King's Somborne were heard.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 54 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

29

The county court of Hampshire testifies concerning the unjust acquisition of

the manor of Alton by the abbot of St. Peter's of Winchester.

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

30

Hayling Island is attributed to the abbey of Jumi~ges, but claimed by the

cathedral monastery of Winchester, Abbot Aelfsige of Ramsey and the
hundred of Bosmere being witnesses.

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

31

In the manor of Clatinges Picot holds land which is claimed by William de

Chernet, a vassal of Hugh de Port, as belonging to the manor of Charford,
which is part of Hugh's fief. The county and the hundred are heard and,
against the witnesses brought by the claimant, Picot brings his own
counterwitnesses who are willing to swear oaths or undergo the ordeal; this
offer is rejected by the claimant's witnesses.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 55 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

32

Hugh de Port claims for the use of his manor of Houghton various lands
against Turstin the chamberlain, and the hundred of King's Somborne is
heard.

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

33

A hide of land in Swampton (Saint Mary Bourne) is attributed to Ralph de

Mortimer, but is claimed by the monks of Winchester Cathedral, and the
hundred of Kingsclere is heard.

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

34

The manor of Itchen Abbas, held from the king by Hugh son of Baldric, is
claimed by St. Mary's abbey of Nunminster, Winchester, with the support of
the courts of the hundred and the county.

The abbess of St. Mary's claims this manor' and the whole hundred, and also
the county court bears witness that it was the abbey's in the time of King Edward
and in the time of King William, and ought of right to be.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 56 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

35

The manor of Compton is held by William the archer, but one virgate is
claimed by Aeldred, brother of Oda, who deraigned it before the queen; the
hundred of King's Somborne testifies.

Aeldred, Oda's brother, claims 1 virgate of land of this manor and says that he
held it the day on which King Edward was quick and dead, and was deprived of it
after King William had crossed the sea, and that he deraigned it before the queen.
Hugh de Port. and the men of the whole hundred bear witness to this fact.

36

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

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

37

Geoffrey the chamberlain holds Hatch, but Odo de Winchester claims it and
maintains that he had it in gage.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 57 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

38

Edwin holds the manor of Oakhanger, where the king's reeve, though
without the support of the county of Hampshire, claims half a hide as
pasture.

Of this manor the king's reeve claims halfa hide for pasture for the king's oxen,
but the shire testifies that he cannot have pasture or pannage in the king's wood, as
he claims, except by authority of the sheriff.

39

Alwi, son of Turber, holds the manor of Tytherley, but the men of the
hundred have never seen seisin being given to his predecessor Alvred.

The men of the hundred1 say that they have never seen the king's seal, or his
messenger give seisin of this manor to Alvred, the predecessor of this present
tenant and that, unless the king bear testimony, he has nothing there.

40

Sawin, a royal thegn, holds half a hide in Rockbourne, which is disputed by

the sheriff's officers who are, however, supported neither by the hundred of
Fordingbridge nor by the county of Hampshire.

Sawin holds half a hide from the king in Rockbourne. He himself held it from
King Edward as an alod... The sheriff's officers say that this half hide belongs to
the king's farm, but the hundred and the shire say that King Edward gave it to him
and he has his seal thereon.

41

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 58 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and 3 acres of meadow for the reason that Godric his predecessor ploughed the
land, when he was sheriff, with his own ploughs. But as the hundred attests, it
belongs of right to the king's court, and so Godric occupied it unjustly.

42

The hundred court of Ganfield, faced with the question of the rights of the
bishopric of Exeter in Buckland, decides to send the case to the king's court.

In the hundred of Ganfield Bishop Osbern holds Buckland in demesne

belonging to his bishopric, he asserts. Ulvric Chenp dwelt there in the time of King
Edward. On this they gave no judgment, but sent the case to be tried before the
king.

43

Dispute before the shiremoot of Berkshire between Anschil and Abingdon

Abbey about the manor of Sparsholt.

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

44

Dispute between the king and Henry de Ferrers concerning land in Sparsholt,
which used to be held by Godric, whose title is, however, contested in the
hundred court of Wantage.

The same Henry holds Sparsholt. Polcehard holds it from him. Godric, a

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 59 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

45

Dispute concerning land in Ardington between the king and Robert de Oilly
before the hundred court of Wantage, involving the position of Azor as
tenant of Robert or tenant in chief.

The same Robert holds 1 hide which Azor, the steward of King Edward, held
and could go with it to what lord he wished... This land the same Azor holds from
Robert, but the men of the hundred testify that he ought to hold it from the king,
since King William gave it to him at Windsor and gave him his writ thereon;
Robert on the other hand holds it unjustly for no one of them has seen the king's
writ, nor on his side the man who gave him seisin.

46

Dispute in the hundred court of Hertford concerning Hormead, which is held

from Ralph Baynard by William, but claimed by the men of Count Eustace of
Boulogne.

In Hormead William holds I virgate from Ralph . . Wulfward, Asgar the

constable's man, held this land. Count Eustace's men claim this land; they had
been seised of it for two years after the count came to this honour himself, as the
men of the hundred testify.

47

Dispute in the county court of Hertfordshire between a freeman and Sheriff

Peter de Valognes concerning land in Libury Hall (a manor previously called
Stuterehela,in the village of Little Munden), which the sheriff had taken from
the freeman for refusing to pay a tax of which, according to the hundred of
Broadwater, he was exempt.
1.
In Libury Peter holds ~ virgate and 10 acres... A sokeman of King Edward's
held it, and he could sell... Peter the sheriff took this land from this sokeman of
King William's; it is in the king's hands, in forfeiture, for his not paying the king's

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 60 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

48

Dispute concerning Berkesden Green between Count Alan of Brittany, who

claims seisin as the hundred of Edwinstree testifies and Hardwin de
Eschalers, who claims Peter de Valognes, sheriff of Hertfordshire, as
warrantor.

Count Alan claims that he should rightly have three parts of this virgate, for he
was seised thereof when he recently crossed the sea, as the men of the hundred bear
witness for him. But Hardwin claims Peter the sheriff as protector and deliverer, by
order of the bishop of Bayeux, because he delivered it to him in exchange for
Libury.

49

Dispute in the county court of Gloucestershire between Walter fitz Roger,

who invokes a donation by William count of Eu, and Abingdon abbey
concerning the manor of Cerney.

This manor is being claimed for the church of St. Mary of Abingdon, but the
whole county has testified that Archbishop Stigand held it for ten years during
King Edward's lifetime. Earl William gave this manor to Sheriff Roger, the father
of Walter.

50

Abbot Walter of Evesham deraigns 5 hides at Bengeworth in a session of the

four shires of Worcester, Warwick, Oxford and Gloucester.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 61 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

51

Uncertainty concerning Bartley Green, which is held from the king by

William fitz Ansculf, but on which the church of Chester has a claim, since the
county court of Worcester testifies that Wulwin bequeathed it to the said
church.

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

52

Land in Abington Pigotts, which has been usurped by Aubrey de Vere, is

deraigned by Picot, the sheriff of Cambridgeshire; testimony of Armingford
hundred.

A. The version in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis

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

B. The version in Domesday Book.

In Abington Picot holds under the king's hand and 1 sokeman, Sagar, holds
half a virgate from him, worth 12d. Elmar held this land in the time of King
Edward and could give it and sell it. Aubrey de Vere invaded it to the detriment of

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 62 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

53

Dispute between Alfwold and his brothers on the one hand and Sheriff
Eustace of Huntingdonshire on the other, concerning land (in Keyston?);
testimony of the county court.

Alfwold and his brothers claim that Eustace unjustly took away their land. The
county deny that they have seen a seal or a seisor who seised him thereof.

54

Dispute concerning land in Easton between William de Caron and Hugh de

Beauchamp, successor to Ralph Taillebois. The latter had disseised William's
father, according to the declaration of the hundred court of Stodden.

In this land belonging to the bishopric' William de Caron lays claim to 60

acres, field and woodland against Hugh de Beauchamp, of which Ralph Taillebois
disseised the father of the same William who held this same land in the time of King
Edward, as the men of the hundred say.

55

Dispute between Hugh de Beauchamp and William de Warenne concerning

the manor of Tilbrook; testimony of the hundred court.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 63 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

56

Dispute between Alvred de Lincoln on the one hand and Walter the Fleming
and Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances on the other concerning halfa hide of land
and some woodland in Wymington, of which Alvred had been unjustly
dispossessed, as the hundred court of Willey testifies.

Alvred de Lincoln holds in Wymington 3 hides and Gleu holds from him..
With these 3 hides Alvred claims against Walter the Fleming half a hide of which
he unjustly disseised him, according to the testimony of the men of the hundred, as
his ancestor was seised thereof in the time of King Edward and Alvred himself was
seised afterwards. With this land Alvred also claims against the bishop of
Coutances a wood for 100 swine, which his ancestor had in the time of King
Edward, but the bishop unjustly disseised him, as the men of the hundred testify.

57

Dispute between William the chamberlain and Adelulf the chamberlain of

Odo, bishop of Bayeux, concerning land in Totternhoe before the half-
hundred of Stanbridge (now in the hundred of Manshead).

This William holds Tottemhoe from the king . . . Lewin, a man of Earl
Waltheof, held this manor... With this manor William the chamberlain claims 2
hides, which his predecessor held in the time of King Edward, as the hundred
testifies, but the bishop of Bayeux took them away from him by force and gave
them to Adelulf, his chamberlain.

58

Dispute between Adeliz, wife of Hugh de Grandmesnil and Hugh de

Beauchamp concerning land in Houghton Conquest which, according to the
testimony of the hundred court of Redbornstoke, Ralph Taillebois had
occupied unjustly.

In this same land the aforesaid Adeliz claims half a virgate and 30 acres of
wood and field against Hugh de Beauchamp and the men of the hundred witness
that that land belonged in the time of King Edward to the other land which Adeliz
holds, and who held that land could give or sell it to whom he liked. Ralph has
unjustly occupied this land, when he was sheriff.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 64 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

59

Faced with certain claims on land in Alveston, Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester

declares that he has deraigned it before Queen Matilda in the presence of four
shire courts.

Bishop Wulfstan says that he has deraigned this land before Queen Matilda in
the presence of four counties and he has writs thereon of King William and the
testimony of the county of Warwick.

60

After Ilbert de Lacy had been seised of land in Cropwell Butler, he lost it
when Roger de Poitou received his land there; the court of Bingham
wapentake bears witness that Ilbert had indeed been seised.

Ilbert de Lacy was seised of this land, but when Roger de Poitou1 received his
land he seized this manor to the detriment of Ilbert. The wapentake bears witness
that Ilbert was seised, now it is in the hand of the king except one third and the
thegn[land] which is the head of the manor and held by Ilbert.

61
Dispute concerning land in Doddington between Baldwin, a tenant in chief
and Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, before the county court of
Lincolnshire.

All this land belongs to Doddington, a manor of St. Peter of Westminster.

Baldwin holds it from the king, but the abbot claims it for St. Peter by the
testimony of the men of the whole county.

62
Earl Hugh claims land in Fylingdales against William de Percy, but offers no
proof.

In Langbargh wapentake Earl Hugh claims against William de Percy 1

carrucate of land in Fylingdales, saying it belongs to Whitby, but he has no
testimony.
60 ' '[Roger de Poitou possessed several lands in Nottinghamshire, interalia,in Cropwell Butler itself,
see DOMESDAY i, fV 290.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 65 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

63

Dispute in the Maneshou (now Ryedale) wapentake between Ralph Pagnell

and the cathedral of York concerning land in Stonegrave.

In Maneshouwapentake Ralph Pagnell claims 6 bovates of land in Stonegrave

of the land of Ulf, but the men who have sworn say it belongs to St. Peter of York.

64

Testimony of the sworn men and of the county court concerning the position
of the land of Asa, which she possessed free from the control of Bernulf, her
husband, and of which William Malet, father of the present claimant, Robert
Malet, had been seised.

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

65

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

The men of Barkston wapentake and of Skyrack wapentake offer testimony to

Osbern de Arches that Gulbert, his predecessor, had all Thorner, by whose gift
they know not, that is 4 manors, 8 carrucates of land. But all Thorner is situated
within the bounds of the castle of Ilbert1 according to the first measurement, and
according to the newest measurement it is situated without.

°
64 1 '[It appears from the preceding paragraph that this phrase refers to the homines quijuraverunt.]
2 o[Probably an allusion to the sack of York in 1069.]
65 ' 0[Ilbert I de Lacy, Domesday lord of Pontefract, d.c. 1093.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 66 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

66

The men of the West Riding of Yorkshire adjudicate to the chapter of

St. John at Beverley the land claimed by Drew de la Beuvrifre.

All the land which Drew claimed against St. John is testified by the men of the
riding to belong to St. John and by the gift of King William, which he gave to St.
John in the time of Archbishop Ealdred. Concerning this, the canons have the seal
of King Edward and of King William.

67

Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, on the one hand and Robert the
dispenser and Earl Hugh on the other concerning land in the hundred of
Tathwell, which the said wapentake declares to be the bishop's by right.

In Tathwell hundred the men of the bishop of Bayeux claim 1 carrucate of land
against Robert the dispenser and the men of the wapentake say that the bishop
himself must have it by right. In the same hundred the men of the same bishop
claim against Earl Hugh 3 bovates of land and the wapentake says that the
bishop himself must have them.

68

Dispute between Bishop Remigius of Lincoln and Earl Alan of Brittany

concerning a mill in Louthesk hundred, which the wapentake declares to be
the bishop's.

In Louthesk hundred the bishop of Lincoln claims one mill against Earl Alan
and the wapentake testifies that it must be the said bishop's.

69

Dispute between Gilbert de Ghent and Losuard concerning land in Well of

which Bishop Odo of Bayeux had been disseised according to the men of th6
West Riding of Lincolnshire.

In the hundred of Risby Losuard claims against Gilbert de Ghent 1carrucate of

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 67 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

70

Dispute between Rainer de Brimou and Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester,

concerning land in Ulceby, in the hundred of Risby, before the men of the
West Riding of Lincolnshire.

In the same hundred Rainer de Brimou claims two bovates of land in Ulceby
against Earl Hugh, and the men of the riding say that he should only have the soke
in Cumberworth, and the earl the land.

71

Dispute between Bishop William of Durham and Gilbert de Ghent

concerning land in Willoughby in the Marsh: the men of the South Riding of
Lincolnshire testify for Gilbert.

In the hundred of Willoughby the bishop of Durham claims the land of Alnot
the priest against Gilbert de Ghent, and the men of the riding say that they have
never seen the predecessor of the bishop being seised, neither by writ nor by
messenger and they testify in favour of Gilbert.

72

Dispute between Bishop William of Durham and Eudo son of Spirewic

concerning land in Horncastle wapentake.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 68 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

73

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

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

74

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

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

75

Dispute between Robert the dispenser on the one hand and the king, Erneis
de Burun, Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester and Bishop Odo of Bayeux on
the other before the wapentake of Wraggoe concerning land in Hainton and
Wragby.

Of the thicket which Robert the dispenser claims against the king in Hainton
and against Erneis de Burun in Wragby he has nothing of it according to the
testimony of the wapentake but he has the soke over 12 acres of Earl Hugh and
8 acres of the bishop of Bayeux, according to the testimony of the men of the
wapentake and the riding.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 69 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

76

Dispute before the wapentake of Wraggoe between Archbishop Thomas of

York and Ivo Taillebois concerning land in the South Riding of Lincoln, that
used to belong to Siward.

Concerning the claim made by Archbishop Thomas, i.e. that he should have
the soke on the land of Siward, the predecessor of Ivo Taillebois, the wapentake
says - and also the riding - that Siward held his land with sake and soke as well as
Godwin, the predecessor of the archbishop and therefore he does not claim rightly.

77

Dispute between Archbishop Thomas of York and Bishop Odo of Bayeux

concerning the soke of the land of Aschil in Willingham which the county
court testifies to be unjustly held by the bishop.

Archbishop Thomas must have the soke over the land of Aschil which the
bishop of Bayeux has in Willingham because, as the whole county testifies, the
predecessor of the archbishop' had sake and soke over that land and the men of
the bishop unjustly deprive the archbishop of that soke.

78

Dispute between Archbishop Thomas of York and Rainer de Brimou

concerning the soke of land in Willingham before the men of the South
Riding of Lincoln.

In the time of King Edward Almar, the predecessor of Archbishop Thomas,

was seised of the soke of 10 bovates in Willingham. This land was Code's and is
now Rainer de Brimou's and in the time of King Edward it was given in gage for
three pounds and now the men of the riding assert that the archbishop must have
this soke by right until the three pounds are restored to him.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 70 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I Il

79

Dispute concerning two carrucates of land in Scremby between Robert the

dispenser and Gilbert de Ghent before the wapentake of Candleshoe.

Concerning the 2 carrucates of land claimed by Robert the dispenser against

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

80

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

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

81

Dispute between Judith, widow of Earl Waltheof, and Robert de Toeni

concerning two manors in Ponton, before the wapentake of Ness, in the
Kesteven district of Lincolnshire.

In Ponton Countess Judith holds two manors which used to belong to Aelmer
and his brothers. Robert de Toeni claims them and the wapentake bears witness in
his favour that they were delivered to him in exchange for Marston.

82

Dispute between Gilbert de Ghent and Robert de Vesci concerning a

meadow in the hundred of Caythorpe before the wapentake.

In the hundred of Caythorpe Gilbert de Ghent claims against Robert de Vesci

the meadow which used to be of Eilric, a predecessor of his, but the wapentake says

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 71 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

83

Drew de la Beuvri~re's claims on lands of Earl Morcar of Northumbria in the

wapentake of Ness in the district of Kesteven are sent to the king's court.

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

84

The wapentake of Ness testifies in favour of Wido de Craon in his dispute

with Drew de la Beuvri~re concerning land in the hundred of Welby.

In the hundred of Welby Drew claims 4 carrucates of land against Wido de

Craon, but the wapentake bears witness in favour of Wido that they are his by
right.

85

Dispute between Wido de Craon and Alan I, earl of Brittany, concerning

land in Drayton and in the hundred of Bicker: proof is offered by ordeal or
judicial combat.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 72 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

86

Wido de Craon claims land in Gosberton against Alan I, earl of Brittany,

who in contrast to Wido gives gage.

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

87

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

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

88

A certain clerk of Count Eustace of Boulogne having invaded land at

Newport, a royal manor in Essex, and holding it as part of the fief of the said
count, the hundred court of Uttlesford testifies that it belongs to the said
royal manor and adjudges the clerk in the king's mercy.

A certain clerk of Count Eustace had invaded 42 acres and was holding them
as part of the fief of Count Eustace, but the hundred testifies that they belong to
Newport, and so the king now has them and the clerk is adjudged to be in the king's
mercy as to all his possessions and his body.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 73 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

89

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

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

90

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

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

91

Land in Alresford, which had been invaded by Turold de Rochester without

the Tendring hundred court knowing how, is taken into the king's hand.

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

92

Ranulf Peverel claims land in Boreham which Count Eustace of Boulogne

gave to one of his knights, who vouches him to warranty; testimony of the
hundred of Chelmsford.

Ranulf Peverel claims half a hide and 18 acres near the church of this manor

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 74 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

93

The hundred court testifies that Scalpin has given land at Leigh in dower to
his wife.

And this manor was given by Esgar to Harold in King Edward's time, and
Harold in turn gave it to a housecarl of his, Scalpin by name, and this Scalpin gave
it in dower to his wife in the sight of two men, namely Roger the marshal and a
certain Englishman, and the hundred testifies that they heard Scalpin recognize it.
And after the king came to this country, Scalpin held it until he went where he died,
in Evreux, in outlawry.

94

King William I has ordered Hugh de Berners to hold the manors of Newton
Hall (in Great Dunmow), Barnston and Berners Roding from Geoffrey de
Mandeville, if the latter can deraign them as belonging to his fief.

And the king commanded through Robert d'Oilli, that Hugh should hold these
3 manors from Geoffrey de Mandeville if Geoffrey could prove that they belonged
to his fief, and before Geoffrey proved that they belonged to his fief, Hugh held
them from Geoffrey.

95

Godric claims land in Breckles, which is part of the Norfolk lands of the king,
as having belonged to the fee of Earl Ralph de Gael.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 75 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

96

The hundred of Henstead testifies in the dispute between the king and Bishop
Odo of Bayeux concerning the status of certain freemen and lands in
Shotesham, which used to be held by Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk.

Of these [forementioned freemen] Earl Ralph fully held three with land of 12
acres when he underwent forfeiture. At present Aitard,' a man of Roger Bigod,
holds and claims them as part of the fee of the bishop of Bayeux, but this Aitard
has from his predecessor only the commendation of one half, as the hundred
witnesses.

97

Dispute concerning the position of freemen in Whitlingham, Bramerton and

Rockland St. Mary, who used to belong to Ralph de Gael until he made
forfeiture and whom Aitard de Vals claims for the fee of the bishop of
Bayeux.

In Whitlingham 1 freeman of Edric's in commendation and in Bramerton 3

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 76 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

98

In Hewingham a sokeman, who previously had belonged to Ralph de Gael

and was seized by Turold, was afterwards recovered and is held now by
Godric.

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

99

Godric claims land in Bittering, which is held in gage by Siward, as having

belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael.

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

100

In Matlask, which is part of the lands of Alan I, count of Brittany, a man of

the king claims 16 acres of land and offers proof against the testimony of the
hundred court of North Erpingham, but a man of the earl offers counter-
proof.

In Matlask, where Count Alan holds, a man of the king claims 16 acres of land,
offering to undergo ordeal or battle against the hundred, which testifies that they
belong to the count, but a man of the count wants to prove either by ordeal or by
battle that the hundred testifies truthfully.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 77 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

101

Godric claims the church of Feltwell, which is part of the Norfolk lands of
William de Warenne, as having belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael in Stow;
offer of ordeal.

This church Godric claims as of the fee of Ralph which lay in Stow, and
thereupon 1 man of Godric is willing to carry the ordeal.

102

Godric claims part of the manor of Griston, in the Norfolk lands of William
de Warenne, as having belonged to the manor of Stow in the time of Ralph de
Gael.

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

103

Helhoughton which is held by William de Warenne is claimed by Drew de la

Beuvri~re whose predecessor Heinfrid held it in the time of Frederick; the
hundred confirms that Heinfrid and Drew have held the manor, but it has
seen no writ or deliverer.

William de Warenne holds Helhoughton of the fee of Frederick. There is one

free man whom his ancestor held, however, in such a way that he could not leave
the land without his permission and the hundred testifies this. And a certain man of
Drew de la Beuvri~re, called Franco, claims it as belonging to the fee of his lord as a
gift by livery of the king maintaining that his predecessor, Heinfrid, held it in the
time of Frederick and that after him Drew held it and the hundred testifies that
they both have held it, but the hundred has not seen any writ or deliverer.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 78 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

104

The manor of North Barsham is held by William de Warenne including two

freemen with one ploughland, but according to a man of the king, who
opposes the testimony of the hundred of Gallow, it should belong to the royal
manor of Fakenham.

In North Barsham, which William de Warenne holds, Harold held 2 freemen

with I ploughland belonging to Fakenham and now William holds them, but his
men do not know how; and the hundred testifies them [to be] William's, that he is
seised of them. But a man of the king offers the ordeal that in the time of King
Edward they used to belong to Fakenham, a manor of the king.

105

Land in Bixley which, according to the hundred of Herstead, belongs to the

fee of Roger Bigod is claimed by Godric the steward, who maintains that he
held it as of the fee of Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk.

This land Godric the steward claims by his man Ralph by ordeal or battle, that
he held it as of the fee of Earl Ralph, and the hundred testifies [that it is] of the fee of
Roger Bigod. But Godric reclaims this with the moiety which is [mentioned] in the
king's writ. This Godric received for half a ploughland.1

106

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

This Alestan commended himself to Alwin de Thetford in the time of King

William, and Alwin was seised of him when King William gave his land to Roger.
But the hundred has not seen a writ or deliverer that gave him to Alwin.

0
105 1 [Cfr. DOMESDAY ii, pp. 277-278.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 79 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

107

The right of Roger Bigod on Bondo, a freeman in Heckingham, is contested

before the hundred court by Godric the steward, who maintains that he held
him when Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk, made forfeiture.

Godric the steward claims him because he held him when Ralph the earl made
forfeiture. And the hundred' testifies that he used to do service to Godric, but they
know not on what terms.

108

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

In Stoke Holy Cross 1 freeman of Gert's by commendation in the time of King

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

109

The claim of Roger Bigod to Godwin and his land in Starston is contested
before the hundred court of Earsham, which testifies that Godwin, the
present tenant, used to pay rent in Earsham, a royal manor.

Now Roger Bigod claims it as the fee of his freemen by gift of the king. But the
hundred testifies that when Richard Punnant was reeve in Earsham it used
to belong to Earsham, but he who now holds it, then Richard's under-reeve in
Earsham, has withdrawn it and by the testimony of the hundred he paid rent in
Earsham of 20s. 6d. each year expressly for this and other land, but this year he has
not paid. And William de Noiers has hitherto had the rent.'

107 '[This is Clavering hundred, Norfolk.]'

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 80 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

110

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

Hermer claims one of those seven [forementioned freemen] of Tasburgh and a

certain Englishman, his man, thereon offers [to prove by] ordeal that his ancestor
was seised of him on the day that King Edward was alive and dead and this the
whole hundred contradicts, either by battle or ordeal; thereon that Englishman
gave gage.

111

Alan III, count of Brittany, claims a sokeman in Stratton, one of the manors
of the bishop of Thetford, and one of his men offers to undergo the ordeal.

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

112

Dispute concerning the customary rights which the predecessor of Bordin, a

freeman, used to enjoy in Garveston, one of the possessions of Hermer de
Ferri6res. Offers of proof by ordeal in the hundred of Mitford.

In the same vill of Garveston there are 19 freemen, 100 acres of land, 4 ploughs
and 9 acres of pasture, worth at that time 20 shillings, now 55 [s.] and 4 d. Of those
Bordin holds 24 acres and they are worth at the same appraisal 4 s. Concerning
them the hundred testifies that his ancestor had no custom except the commenda-
tion and offers the ordeal thereon; and a man of Hermer offers to prove by ordeal
that his ancestor in the time of King Edward had all the custom except the soke of
Saint Etheldreda and that he could sell his land. Thereon they gave gages.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 81 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

113

Dispute between Hermer de Ferri~res and the abbey of Ely concerning a

carrucate in Foston: both parties offer proof.

A. The text in Domesday Book.

Ulchetel, Hermer's man, claims in whatever way trial be made, either by battle
or by ordeal, that this land 1 is free. And another is ready to prove in the same way
that it belonged to the church on the day on which King Edward died. But the
whole hundred witnesses that it belonged in the time of King Edward to St.
Etheldreda. 2

B. The text in the Inquisitio Eliensis.

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

114

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

Norfolk.

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

113A [Photestorp is probably Foston in Tottenhill, Norfolk (V.C.H. Norfolk, ii, p. 135, n. 5.]O
0
2 [This is Clackclose hundred in Norfolk.]'
114 I[Scohies and Escois are ancient forms for present day Ecouis in the d~partement de l'Eure, arr.
Les Andelys (Loyd, Anglo-Norman families, 39).]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 82 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

115

Dispute concerning land in Necton between Ralph de Tosny and Roger

Bigod.

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

116

Testimony of the hundred of Grimshoe concerning the position of fourteen

freemen in Lynford and Ickburgh, which had already been the object of
litigation in the past.

In Lynford and Ickburgh are 14 freemen ... These were commended to the
predecessor of Ralph de Waer, afterwards they were transferred by the king to
Bodin de Ver. Afterwards Ralph deraigned them to his fee and after his forfeiture
Hervey de Ver held them from him. The hundred testifies this.

117

Dispute in the hundred of Loddon concerning land in Chedgrave between

Robert son of Corbutio, who invokes delivery, and Ralph Bainard, who
claims to have been seised first.

Robert son of Corbutio claims this land by delivery, but Bainard was first
seised and Robert afterwards, and the hundred does not know how.

118

Dispute in the hundred of Greenhoe North concerning freemen in the manor

of Barney between William, a tenant of Peter de Valognes and a royal
serjeant, who claims them as having belonged to the fee of Ralph de Gael,
earl of Norfolk, before the latter suffered forfeiture.

Barney is held by William... [he has] 1 7 freemen with 80 acres of land, whom
he claims by delivery to make up that manor ... Of them a king's serjeant claims

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 83 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

119

Dispute concerning land in Seething between a nun, who claims to have held
it from Ralph de Gael, earl of Norfolk and is supported by the hundred of
Loddon, and Isaac, who invokes a royal gift.

In Seething a certain poor nun claims 4 acres of land, which she held under
Ralph both before and since he suffered forfeiture and so the hundred bears
witness. And Isaac claims it as part of his fee by the king's gift.

120

Dispute concerning land in Bramerton, which was forfeited by Ralph de

Gael, earl of Norfolk, whether it is held by Aitard from Robert Blund as in
the king's hand or from Roger Bigod whose vassal Aitard is: testimony of the
hundred of Henstead and offer of proof by ordeal by a freewoman, who used
to hold the land before Earl Ralph.

In Bramerton Aitard holds 16 acres from Roger, which were held by a

freewoman by commendation of Edric; and Earl Ralph held it when he suffered
forfeiture, witness the hundred, and Robert Blund [held it] afterwards as in the
king's hand. And now Aitard, Roger Bigod's man by commendation, holds it since
Ralph's forfeiture. The hundred bears witness that this is so, and the woman offers
to prove by the ordeal that it is true, as the hundred testifies, and Aitard asserts the
contrary.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 84 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

121

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

In Bixley [there was] 1 freeman of Anslec by commendation together with half

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

122

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

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

123

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 85 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

124

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

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

125

Robert Fardenc claims that land in Stoke Ash, which is listed amongst the
possessions of Bury St. Edmunds, belongs to the royal manor of Mendles-
ham and he is prepared to prove his claim against the hundred of Hartismere.

Robert Fardenc, a man of Godric the steward, claims this land as belonging to
the royal manor of Mendlesham and says that Walter de Dol held it when he
suffered forfeiture and he is prepared to prove this by any means against the whole
hundred.

126

Dispute in the county court of Suffolk concerning the status of the priest
Suarin (living in Ashfield, on land of Bury St. Edmunds), of whom both
Ralph de Savigny and the bishop of Elmham (later Norwich) have been
seised at different times and by different persons.

In Ashfield there is Suarin the priest, a freeman in the soke and commendation
of the abbot... Of this priest Walter de Doll was seised when he forfeited his land
and Earl Hugh afterwards, as the hundred testifies. And Norman says that the
king sent him a writ ordering him to give seisin [of Suarin] to Ralph de Savigny
from amongst all the freemen of whom Hubert de Port had seised the bishop and
thus Norman has seised Ralph of that priest, although he does not know whether

126 1 '[Walter de Dol used to be an under-tenant of Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester (d. 1101). The
hundred in question is Claydon in Suffolk. Roger Bigod, royal steward, and Hugh, earl of
Chester, were important tenants in Suffolk.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 86 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

127

Dispute between Ralph Pinellus and Ranulf the brother of Ilger concerning
land in Falkenham, of which Ralph maintains to have been seised. The
parties are summoned before the hundred court of Loes, which adjudicates,
in the absence of Ralph, that Ranulf is seised.

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

128

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 87 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

129

Dispute between Odo, bishop of Bayeux, and the widow of William Malet,
before the hundred of Hoxne (which used to be called Biscopes Hundred),
concerning land in Aspall, which was deraigned by Hubert de Port.

On the pleas between the bishop of Bayeux and the mother of Robert Malet...
Of this land William Malet was seised before the bishop of Bayeux, as the hundred
witnesses. And afterwards Hubert de Port came and deraigned the free land and
seised the bishop of it, since it was held by freemen and Robert's mother was seised
of it on the day when Earl Ralph suffered forfeiture and until the plea of Odiham.
Now it is in the king's peace as was ordered by the king between the bishop and the
mother of Robert.

130

Dispute concerning the manor of Newton St. Cyres between Bishop Osbern
of Exeter, who claims to have it along with his manor of Crediton and
maintains that he deraigned it during the reign of King William, and Domne,
who claims to hold it from the king.

With this manor the bishop has the manor which is called Newton, which
Domne holds and renders geld for 3 hides. Concerning this manor Bishop Osbern
has shown his charters which testify that his church was seised of it before the reign
of King Edward and he adds that in the times of King William he pleaded about
this land and deraigned by the testimony of Frenchmen that it was his.'

131

It is recorded that at some time in the past Tavistock Abbey was disseised of
Werrington by royal barons on the basis of a declaration by English witnesses
concerning the state of affairs in King Edward's time.

The abbot of Tavistock was seised of Werrington on the day on which King
William sent his barons to inquire as to the lands of England, and his predecessor
before him had been seised thereof, but by the king's barons he was disseised
129 ' O[Ralph de Gael, of Brittany, earl of Norfolk, led a rebellion in 1075, and fled the country and
forfeited his lands.]'
0
130 [Dorme appears as tenant of Newton St. Cyres in DOMESDAY iv, p. 447. An entry concerning
this dispute appears also in the Exchequer Domesay, fV 101, but we have preferred to print the
entry in the Exon Domesday because it is more detailed.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 88 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

132

After the inquest for Domesday Book has brought to light that Ramsey land
in Isham had been usurped by Sheriff Eustace of Huntingdonshire, the king
orders Sheriff William de Cahagnes of Northamptonshire to put the question
before the court of the latter county and after judgment is given in favour of
Ramsey another royal writ orders the same sheriff to let Abbot Aelfsige have
the land of Isham.

A. Writ of King William II ordering William de Cahagnes, sheriff of

Northamptonshire, to convene the county court, in order to find out whether
the land of Isham belongs to the demesne of the abbot of Ramsey.

William, king of the English, to William de Cahagnes, greeting. I order you to

convene the county [court] of Northampton and to find out by its judgment
whether the land of Isham paid a farm to the monks of St. Benedict in the time of
my father. And if it is found that it did, let it be in the abbot's demesne. But if it is
found to have been teinland, let him who holds it hold it from the abbot and
recognize it [as such]; which if he refuses to do, let the abbot have it in his demesne.
And see that no further complaint come to me thereof. Witness: William bishop of
Durham.'

B. Writ of King William II to William de Cahagnes, sheriff of Northampton-

shire, ordering him to cause Aelfsige, abbot of Ramsey, to have Isham as he
deraigned it at Northampton.

William, king of England, to William the sheriff, greeting. I command and

order you to cause Abbot Aelfsige to have Isham as he deraigned it at
Northampton and as it was witnessed and sworn to the benefit of St. Benedict.
Witness: Roger Bigod.'

0
132A ' [Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 413.10
132B ' O[Translation taken from Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 509.0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 89 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

133

In the court of the abbot of Abingdon, Anskill, a knight of the abbey, is

declared responsible for the illegal rupture of a watercourse called Leach near
Botley.

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

134

Litigation between King William I and William de Saint-Calais, bishop of

Durham, who is accused of conspiracy in the feudal revolt which had broken
out early in 1088 on behalf of Duke Robert of Normandy, the king's older
brother. Land of the see of Durham is seized: the bishop offers to purge
himself, but the king refuses. Although the bishop is summoned to the king's
court at Salisbury, he maintains that only an ecclesiastical court is
competent. He is nevertheless charged with treason in the king's court, which
leads to lengthy discussions. The bishop maintains his position and appeals
to Rome, although Archbishop Lanfranc declares that he is being judged in
his feudal, not his episcopal capacity. The bishop forfeits his fief for refusing
to plead and the king insists that he surrender his castle. The bishop is ready
to prove his loyalty, but declines to throw himself on the king's mercy and
although he has been summoned to appear on 25 December 1088 in the king's
court in London, leaves for Normandy. After three years he returns to
England and is reconciled with the king.

In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1080, Bishop Walcher, who was
killed by people from his diocese, was succeeded after six months and ten days in
the see of Durham by William, elected on 9 November and consecrated by
Archbishop Thomas of York on Sunday 4 January at Gloucester in the presence of
King William and the bishops of the whole of England. A member of the clergy of
Bayeux, he had been a monk in the monastery of Saint-Calais' and prior of the
0
133 ' [The chronicler apparently counts as follows: 1087 is the first calendar year in which William
Rufus reigned; 1088 the second calendar, not regnal year.]0
134 *[Saint-Carilef now called Saint-Calais, situated in the diocese of Le Mans and the county of
Maine.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 90 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 91 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

who was sheriff at that time, refused peace not only to the bishop but to all his
messengers and men who wanted to go to the king. He even arrested a monk of the
bishop who returned from the king, and killed his horse, allowing him afterwards
to return on foot. On top of all this, he gave order to all the lieges of the king, in the
king's name, to hurt the bishop wherever and in whatever way they could. As the
bishop could not reach the king in person or through his messengers and his lands
were destroyed and laid waste without any punishment for seven weeks and more,
the king finally sent the abbot of St. Augustine3 to him with the order that he
should, as he had been told before, appear in his court with the abbot. The bishop,
however, feared the snares of his enemies and the wrath of the king and replied that
he could not come without safe-conduct and sent his messengers to the king under
the conduct of the abbot with the following letter.
William, bishop of Durham, to William, king of the English, his lord, greeting
and faithful service. It is known to you my lord that as soon as I returned from
your court I sent you a messenger and a letter, in which I offered you my service
and the rightful settlement of all complaints as my king and lord, imploring you
mercifully to return to me, as your man and liege who has done nothing to deserve
all this but has always served you faithfully and wanted to serve you, my men and
lands and stock and cattle, which your sheriffs have taken away wherever they
could, i.e. Howden and Welton which they divided between Earl Odo4 and Earl
Alan5 together with other lands in Yorkshire, without any reason being shown on
your part and while I always offered justice. On that occasion, however, it did not
please you to restore to me what was mine, as I requested and as it seemed just to
me, but you granted me your peace by your writ to come safely to you and to stay
with you and leave you and in the same writ you ordered your lieges throughout
England to leave all my things in peace until you knew whether I would stay with
you. When I sent this writ to Ralph Paynell, he not only refused peace to me but
defied me in your name and the following day invaded and pillaged the lands of our
church, distributed what I have mentioned before, sold some men and allowed the
redemption of others. And the monk who carried the writ of your peace was
captured by Paynell's men and his horse killed. As well as all this, I hear that you
have given away part of my lands, and when I wanted to send you a message on all
this, Paynell forbade my messengers to travel through your land. Now, however,
you order me through the abbot of St. Augustine and your letter by your grace to
come to you safely, but I beg and request you as my king and lord that you restore
to me what is mine and which you have taken away from me without reason and
judgment and I shall be glad to appear in your court and to do, according to my
order, whatever shall be justly judged. If I may obtain this from you, I shall thank
God and you for it. If it pleases you to restore my goods to me, I am prepared to
0
[Wido, abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury.]'
Io[Odo, count of Champagne, d. ante 2 Aug. 1107.10
0
[Alan I, count of Brittany, d. 1089.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 92 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 93 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

7 01[8September 1088.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 94 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

everything portable. And no other convention or undertaking shall be demanded

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 95 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

canonically to his impleaders.9 Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "We can certainly

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 96 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 97 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 98 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

force of a royal army, to plead my case in a lay gathering, despoiled of my

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 99 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 100 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 101 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 102 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

am not capable of doing what I would like and ought to do, I shall undergo what
you say unjustly and against my will".
Thereupon William de Merlay stood up and said: "My lord, the bishop's men
who are in the castle robbed my lord the bishop of Coutances of 200 animals under
your safe-conduct before the bishop came to your court and my lord asked them to
return his cattle and they refused. Afterwards Walter d'Eyncourt told them in your
name to restore them, but they would not and we now ask you that you cause these
cattle to be returned to my lord" The king said: "Let these barons see whether I
can justly implead the bishop" To which Archbishop Lanfranc replied: "It would
be unjust for you to implead him any longer since he holds nothing from you and
must have a safe-conduct".
On that day the bishop withdrew in order to choose a port and to return the
following day. The following day14 he asked Count Alan to find him ships and a
port in Southampton. Upon hearing this the king said to the bishop: "You should
know well, bishop, that you will never cross the sea until I have your castle. The
bishop of Bayeux scolded me for it, but carefully see to it that my men have the
castle of Durham by the 14th of November and if my men have the castle in my
power on that day, you shall have the ships and the free-conduct without any
doubt or delay". He therefore ordered Sheriff Gilbert in the hearing of the bishop
and Earl Alan and his other barons to put at the bishop's disposal at Southampton
by the 21st of November as many ships as he would need to cross the sea with his
men. However the bishop said to Earl Alan: "Lord earl, see to it with your
companions in whose trust I am to be escorted that I am not disturbed beyond this
term; and, as long as I am in England, provide me with a good man to find me
lodging and save me from trouble so that you do not break your pledge and I shall
not suffer too much". To which Earl Alan replied: "Some servant of the king will
see to it for you" Thus the bishop stayed at Wilton accompanied by Robert de
Conteville, who was to provide him with lodgings and was to conduct him safely to
Southampton within the appointed term, to receive the ships and wait for a
favourable wind.
Ivo Taillebois and Erneis de Burun took the castle into the king's hand and
disseised the bishop of the church and the castle and of all his land on the 14th of
November and they sent to the men of the bishop Heppo, a royal crossbow-man
and a royal writ with the seal on the outside, containing the following words.
William, king of the English, to all his lieges throughout England, greeting. Know
that the bishop of Durham and all his men have my peace throughout the whole
kingdom of England and cross the sea with my permission and peace: I therefore
15
forbid all men in my powerto do them any harm.
Whilst the men of the bishop hoped that they were secure because of the surety
of the earls and the seal of the king and the safe-conduct of Heppo, Ivo Taillebois
14 o[3 November 1088.10
0
15 [Regesta i, no. 298.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 103 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

took two knights of the bishop and forced them to plead on the animals of the
bishop of Coutances, on which judgment had been given before the king in favour
of the bishop of Durham that he was not compelled to answer. Ivo Taillebois also
caused a knight of the bishop to lose his horse in this same journey. On the 21 st of
November the bishop asked Sheriffs Gilbert and Robert de Conteville to put the
ships at his disposal and let him cross the sea with Roger de Mowbray 16 who was
travelling at the same time. But they told him that they did not intend to give them
any ship and said that the king had ordered them carefully to guard the bishop so
that he did not escape from the king's power until he let them know by his sealed
letter what he wanted to be done with him. They kept the bishop until the 26th of
November, on which day Robert [de Conteville] took him to Southampton, where
they wanted to board the ships since the wind was favourable and everything ready
for the crossing. Nevertheless the king's servants refused him the ships and the
crossing and the following day, when they saw that the wind had fallen, they gave
the bishop permission to sail and put the ships at his disposal: the bishop paid the
passage-money and waited for the necessary wind.
Afterwards, on the 1st of December, Osmund the bishop of Salisbury, Robert
de Lisle and Richard de Courcy"7 came to him summoning him in the name of the
king to be in London at the court of the king on Christmas day and to do him right
concerning his monk Geoffrey, who after the bishop's visit to the court had taken
539 animals from the bishop's demesne and had removed the fortifications of the
castle and also concerning some other men of his who had killed a man of the king.
The bishop answered them: "In none of all this was I involved and I and my men
have a safe-conduct, nor can I go to his court any more since he has deprived me of
everything and I have eaten my horses which were already sold; but if he permits
me and my men to leave and keeps the pledge of his earls, I shall, God willing,
appear before the Roman church to which out of necessity I have appealed.
Otherwise, before I am arrested, I shall defend myself alone and by oaths on all
those accusations that are brought against my men before you that none of all that
was done on my order or with my knowledge, even though I could justly have done
it: I could do with my own what I wanted until he disseised me of my see"
Thereupon the king's ministers said to the bishop: "We now forbid you to board
the ships", to which the bishop replied: "The king has deprived me of all my land
and stock and if he wants to take away my men, I shall not enter a plea for anyone
of them, but if it is permitted I shall cross the sea alone". However, the bishop sent
one of his knights to the king and asked for the love of God and St. Peter to be
permitted to go to Rome. But the king sent to him Bishop Walkelin of Winchester
and Hugh de Port and Geoffrey de Trailli, ordering him to send the monk Geoffrey
16 '[No Roger de Mowbray is otherwise mentioned in the days of Rufus, but Robert de Mowbray is
a well-known figure in the days of William I and William II, so that it is quite possible that
Robert is meant here.]°
'7O[According to Offler (infra, note 24) p. 337, n. L.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 104 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to Durham to stand trial on the forementioned misdeeds and to come himself to

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

1' [A.D. 1088.1'

9 [A.D. 1091.10
20 '[Malcolm III, king of Scotland (1058-1093).]0
21'[i.e. II September 1092.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 105 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

135

Some time after the Penenden Heath trial Odo of Bayeux, with the king's
permission, starts a suit against Archbishop Lanfranc and on the first day, in
Lanfranc's absence, wins his case, but the following day Lanfranc himself
takes part in the proceedings and defeats his opponent.

Again on another occasion this Odo, with the king's permission, instituted a
suit against the church of Canterbury and its guardian, Lanfranc, and took good
care to bring to it all those whom he knew to be well versed in the laws and usages
of the English realm. When time came to try the case, all who had come from every
direction to defend the interests of the church were at the first session so worsted
that their efforts to defend those interests actually resulted in their loss. For
Lanfranc was not himself there to take part. He did not usually take part in such
matters, unless there was urgent need for him to do so. What had happened was
accordingly reported to him as he was reading some book of divinity in his
chamber. Not at all perturbed, he declared that the arguments of the opponents
had been erroneous and accordingly he had the whole matter deferred for
discussion on the following day. That night St. Dunstan in a vision stood beside
the archbishop and told him not to be troubled at the number of his opponents but
in the morning to intervene personally in the suit with a light heart, assured that the
saint would be with him. This he did; and, opening his case with an introductory
statement which to the surprise of all seemed far removed from the matters which
had been already dealt with or were to be dealt with, he so went on from this that he
utterly demolished the arguments which had been used against him on the

22 0[25 December 1095.]

23 0[2 January 1096.]
2' '[Freeman, William Rufus, i, 28; ii, 469-474; C.W. David, "A Tract attributed to Simeon of
Durham", E.H.R., 32 (1917), 382-387; C.W. David, Robert Curthose, 211-220; H.S. Offler,
"The Tractate De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi", E.H.R., 66 (1951). 321-341;
D.R.Bates, "The character and career of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)", Speculum,
50 (1975), 15 17;M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec,Oxford, 1978, 160.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 106 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

136

Agreement in the presence of Archbishop Lanfranc between Bishop Gundulf

of Rochester and Gilbert de Tonbridge.

This is the agreement made at Canterbury in the presence of the lord

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

137

A claim by the city of London to certain rights in the seaport of Stonar

against the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury is settled by royal justices in
favour of the abbey.

A. The narrative in William Thorne's chronicle.

In the year of the Lord 1090 there was a great dispute between the citizens of
London and the abbot and his men of Stonar. The citizens of London claimed the
lordship over the manor of Stonar as belonging to the seaport which was subjected
to the city of London, but King William Rufus being in favour of the abbot, it was
deraigned in that same manor by the justices that nobody should henceforth claim
anything there. Abbot Wido and his convent were to have that land and the whole
coastline as far as the middle of the water without any adverse claim, freely and
quietly, and the abbot of St. Augustine's was to possess freely all rights and

135 1 O[Transl. from G. Bosanquet, Eadmer's History of Recent Events in England, London, 1964,
pp. 18-19.10
136 [The patron saint of the cathedral of Rochester.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 107 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. Writ of King William II.

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

138

Having claimed jurisdiction over Lincoln and Lindsey and the manors of
Stow and Newark against Robert Bloet, royal chancellor and elect of
Lincoln, Archbishop Thomas of York gives them up and, instead, receives
from King William II the abbey of St. German at Selby and the church of
St. Oswald at Gloucester.

A. The narrative in Hugh the Chantor's History of the Church of York.

The next day,' Archbishop Thomas, talking with Archbishop Anselm in the
presence of the bishops who were there as he was about to leave Canterbury,
forbade him2 in the name of God, of St. Peter, and of the lord pope, and by their
own mutual fellowship, to ordain Robert Bloet, elect of Lincoln, bishop of that
see. He did not forbid him to ordain him bishop of Dorchester, as his predecessors

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 108 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. The narrative in Giraldus Cambrensis.

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

C. The charter of King William II concerning the concord which was

brought about between the archbishop of York and the bishop of Lincoln.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Amen. It was the
counsel of the highest Father to redeem his holy city, the celestial Jerusalem, which
had been divided by the devil's pride, through the death of his most beloved son
and to repair the damage caused by the angels through the redemption of
This dispute was settled by a charter of William II (Monasticon, viii, 1271). °[ - Our document
C.]°
'°[Lindsey was an Anglo-Saxon diocese which ceased to exist after the Danish occupation and
was absorbed by the see of Dorchester in 958. Lindsey was never re-established and after the
Conquest the see of Dorchester was transferred to Lincoln: a claim ofjurisdiction over Lindsey
automatically involved the see of Lincoln. Even before the Conquest the archbishop of York
had tried to acquire ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Lindsey but Pope Nicolas II had on 3 May
1061 adjudged the parochia of Lindsay (and the church of Stow) to the bishop of Dorchester
(LINCOLN Reg., i, no. 247, pp. 186-188). - Translation taken from HUGH THE CANTOR Historj,
8-9.]0
138B The charter of William Rufus, stating the settling of this claim of the archbishop of York, and
the compensation given to him, is in the Regist. Mag. of Lincoln, f. 1 b., and printed in
0
DUGDALE, No. 5. [=Our document C.] It was granted in 1094 probably; Bloet is bishop of
Lincoln in it; certainly not later than 1095, as bishop William of Durham, one of the witnesses
to it, died 2 January 1096. '[Robert Bloet was the first chancellor of William Rufus.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 109 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

139

Refusal of reconciliation in a homicide case, in spite of Bishop Wulfstan's

efforts, is punished with madness.

At the invitation of the most reverend abbot [of Gloucester, Wulfstan]

returned to that town and consecrated a church.' There was a vast crowd, which as
usual was hoping for remission of penitence and attached particularly great
importance to the blessing of the bishop. Although rather reticent, he was inclined

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 110 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to rejoice as he saw the crowd gathering in God's service with a fervour

comparable to the surge of floodwater. He did not withhold the torrent of his
eloquence from those who were thirsting for it, but infused it lavishly with his
charity. His sermon filled a good part of the day, as he told them abundantly what
he knew to be the most important thing to hold. I mean peace, than which nothing
is sweeter to hear, nothing more desirable to search for and finally nothing better
to be found by mortals; peace which should be the beginning of human salvation
and its end, and is as it were the extreme limit of God's commands. It was sung by
an angelic choir on the threshold of redemption, it was given by the Lord to his
disciples as he was preparing for crucifixion and was restored to them as a
triumphal gift on his resurrection. All this the bishop explained to the crowd, and
therefore he necessarily had to use examples. But since I speak to literate people,
what I have to say is too well-known to need explanation by examples. Many who
previously resisted all efforts at reconciliation were on that day persuaded to
consent to pacification. People encouraged each other and if anyone thought he
had to resist, the bishop was consulted. A certain William, nicknamed the bold,
lacked the confidence to bring his quarrels into the open. He had killed a man by
accident and not on purpose and he could in no way buy the friendship of the
relations of the killed man nor at any price obtain their forgiveness. The reverend
abbot had often tried to bring about an accord between them, but all his attempts
had been in vain. There were five brothers who were so furious and uttered such
threats for the death of their brother that they could frighten away anyone. Who
would not lose heart if he saw so many mature, strong and bold men rise up as one
group? They were brought before the bishop who asked them to forgive the wrong,
but they refused utterly and violently. They added to their deed some words that
were no milder, i.e. that they would rather be altogether excommunicated than
give up the revenge of the death of their brother. Thereupon the bishop wearing his
episcopal insignia threw himself before their feet hoping to obtain full satisfaction.
As he was lying on the ground, he repeated his prayers promising the benefit of
masses and other advantages, in Worcester as well as Gloucester, to the dead man.
In no way influenced by such humility, they rejected all conciliation. Such was their
sorrow for the death of their brother that they lost all humanity. How great was the
fury that spurned the holy old man, who was lying in the dust before them and
whom the angels themselves, I think, would have revered! Divine injury was added
to his contempt and his pontifical dress was trodden under foot by human
arrogance. Hence, as the bishop made little headway by using blandishments, he
fought the sickness of their stubborn attitude with a more severe remedy,
maintaining that it was easy to distinguish the sons of God from the sons of the
devil. If we believe the truth, since we believe him who said: "blessed are the peace-
makers, for they shall be called the children of God" 2 it is evident that they who
resist peace are sons of the devil, for whose works one does, his son one is called.
2 Matt. V, 9.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 111 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

140

Writ of King William I or II forbidding Abbot Turold of Peterborough to

interfere with the quarrying and transportation of stones to Bury St.
Edmunds.

William, king of England, to Turold, abbot of Peterborough, greeting. I order

and command you to allow Abbot [Baldwin] of St. Edmunds to take a sufficient
amount of stone for his church as he has done so far, and you shall cause him no
more hindrance in the transportation of stone by water than you did previously.
Witness: the bishop of Durham.

141

Writ of King William II ordering that Aldwin, abbot of Ramsey, shall have
his rights in Ringstead and Brancaster as they were sworn at Thetford and as
Abbot Aelfsige deraigned them at Norwich in the time of King William I.

William, king of England, to Bishop Herbert [of Thetford and Norwich],

Roger Bigod, Humphrey the chamberlain, William d'Aubigny and his other lieges,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 112 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

142

General notification by King William II that he has restored to Bishop

Herbert of Thetford land claimed for the crown and given up all the claims
which his chaplain, Ranulf Flambard, had made.

William, king of the English, to Humphrey the chamberlain and all his lieges,
French and English, of Norfolk and Suffolk, greeting. Know that I have restored
to Bishop Herbert of Thetford those lands which were claimed against him and
registered for my account and that he and his men are quit of all the pleas with
which Ranulf my chaplain has impleaded them. Witness: Ranulf the chaplain
himself.

143

In 1095 a baronial revolt broke out in England, led by Robert de Mowbray,

but was quickly quelled by a royal army. At a meeting of the king's court,
Robert de Mowbray is condemned to imprisonment and William of Eu, who
is accused by Geoffrey Bainard of treason against the king, is overcome in
trial by battle and condemned to be blinded and castrated. His steward is to
be hanged and various others are also punished.

A. The version in the Chronicle of Hyde.

Some princes of the Norman-English rebelled against him and thus brought
about their own downfall. A certain Robert, earl of Northumberland, a rich and
powerful man who had in war killed Malcolm, king of Scots and father of Queen
Matilda, with almost his entire army, was arrested by King William as he was
preparing to wage war against him and put in prison. William of Eu, greater by his
ancestry than by his honesty, was also publicly convicted of conspiring against the
royal power and was deprived of his eyes by the said king and rendered completely
useless. He also ordered William of Alderi, steward of the said William and falsely,
141 1 '[There is a writ of King Henry 1,possibly of 110, confirming various rights including jetsam at
Brancaster to the abbey of Ramsey which also refers to the deraignment by Abbot Ailsi in the
time of William I (RAMSEY Chron., no. 223, p. 228; Regesta ii, no. 954).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 113 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

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

C. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis.

When four great ships called canardes1 were on their way from Norway to
England, Robert and his nephew Morel with their minions waylaid them and

143B *[Translation from ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE Translation, 173.J0

143C An unusual name for the large Scandinavian trading ships. See A. Jal, Glossaire nautique
(Paris, 1848), canardus.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 114 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

violently robbed the peaceful merchants of their goods. The merchants, spoiled of
their property, went to the king in great distress and laid a complaint about their
loss. Immediately the king sent a peremptory order to Robert to restore the stolen
property to the merchants without delay, but Robert paid no attention to his
command. The generous king asked the merchants the value of the goods they had
lost, and paid them the full sum out of his own treasure-store. He then summoned
2
Robert to his court, but he declined to come.
At this the king, who knew how perverse and headstrong a man he was,
mustered an army and led a strong force of knights against him. As they were
approaching the bounds of Robert's domains Gilbert of Tonbridge, a rich and
powerful knight, drew the king aside and, to his utter amazement, threw himself at
his feet, saying: "My lord king, pardon, I beg, the wrong I have done you, and I will
recommend something that will contribute greatly to your safety". The king at
first hesitated in his astonishment, and debated with himself what he should do;
but finally he graciously pardoned the suppliant and eagerly awaited the fulfilment
of his promise. Gilbert said: "Stay your foot, I beg, great king, and do not enter the
wood which lies ahead of us. For enemies, fully armed, are lying in ambush there,
hoping to cut your throat. We have conspired against you, and have taken a sworn
oath to achieve your death". On learning this the king halted the march, and learnt
the names and number of the traitors from information that Gilbert of Tonbridge
gave. 3 .
The king, jubilant at his victory over the rebels, rewarded his friends and,
summoning the disturbers of the peace, punished those who were found guilty in
various ways. He confiscated all the land of Roger de Lacy and banished him from
England, giving his inheritance to his brother Hugh, who had remained loyal to
the cause of justice.4 He reproached Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury,5 privately, and
shrewdly took him back into his favour for three thousand pounds. He punished
many others similarly, receiving huge pecuniary fines from them, and out of
respect for their exalted kinsfolk who might have sought vengeance in Normandy
he carefully concealed his real wishes.
2Orderic alone tells this story; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1095) also says, without stating the
cause, that Robert was summoned to the king's court at Whitsuntide 1095, but failed to
appear.
This story occurs only in Orderic; other sources do not mention Gilbert of Tonbridge by name.
Florence of Worcester says that there was a sworn conspiracy of Robert of Mowbray, William
of Eu, and many others to place Stephen of Aumdle on the throne; and William of
Malmesbury (GR ii. 372) also speaks of a conspiracy. A letter of Anselm, written in July 1095,
to Walter, cardinal-bishop of Albano, shows that an invasion of Kent was feared (Southern,
St. Anselm, p. 131; S. Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. F.S. Schmitt, iv. 77, ep. 191). Orderic omits the
first stages of the campaign, which began with the siege of Robert of Mowbray's household
knights in Tynemouth castle (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1095; FW ii. 38), and the siege of
Newcastle (Regesta, i, nos. 366-367).
See W.E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in Englandand Normandy, pp. 170-171.
Hugh of Montgomery is not named in any other source. Florence of Worcester says that Philip
of Montgomery was imprisoned (FW ii. 39). o[ = FLORENCE OF WORCESTER Chron.1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 115 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

D. The narrative in Florence of Worcester.

Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumbria, and William of Eu and many others

attempted to deprive King William of his kingdom and his life and to make
Stephen of Aumale, son of his sister', king; but in vain, for as soon as the king was
informed, he gathered an army from all over England and for two months besieged
the castle of the aforesaid Earl Robert near the mouth of the river Tyne and in the
meantime occupied some smaller fortifications and caught almost all the best
knights of the earl and kept them in custody; afterwards he took the castle that was
under siege and put the earl's brother and the knights whom he had found inside
into custody. Later on he strengthened the castle before Bamborough, i.e. the town
of Queen Bebba,2 where the earl had fled and called it Malveisin and having left
some knights there he returned south of the Humber. After his departure the
knights guarding Newcastle3 promised Earl Robert that they would let him in if he

6 William of Eu held extensive estates in England in 1086, and frequently subscribed royal
charters. Although D.C. Douglas has claimed (D.C. Douglas, Domesday Monachorum, 1944,
pp. 64-65), following E. Chester Waters, GenealogicalMemoirs of the Countsof Eu (1886), that
he was not the same man as William, count of Eu, he has not produced any convincing
evidence for this assertion or suggested who he could have been, if not the son of Robert, count
of Eu. Robert died between 1089 and 1093; his successor William was certainly dead by 1101
(Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Michel du Tr~port, ed. P. Laffleur de Kermaingant (Paris,
1880), pp. 20-22), and probably by the summer of 1096 when, according to Guibert of Nogent,
the widowed countess of Eu, H61isende, and her son saved a Jewish boy in a pogrom in Rouen
(Guibert of Nogent, Self and Society in MedievalFrance, ed. J.F. Benton (1970), pp. 135-136).
That William of Eu was William, count of Eu, is accepted by J.F. Benton (ibid., p. 135 n. 3),
GEC v. 153-154 [= G.E. Cokayne, The complete peerage of England,Scotland, Ireland,Great
Britain and the United Kingdom, 13 parts in 14 vols., London, 21910-1959.0; Sanders, p. 119
and n. 7; Jean le Foyer, Exposr du droitpinalnormandauxiiie si&cle (Paris, 1931), pp. 232-233,
V.C.H. Sussex, ii. 101; ix. 1-2, 14. William of Eu was defeated by Geoffrey Baynard in a
judicial duel in January 1096 (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1096). All sources agree on his
punishment; the story about Hugh of Chester's sister is peculiar to Orderic. The savage penalty
was in line with a judicial pronouncement attributed to William the Conqueror, 'Interdico
etiam ne quis occidatur aut suspendatur pro aliqua culpa, sed eruantur oculi et testiculi
abscidantur' (F. Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1903), i. 488).
0
[Translation taken from ORDERIC VITALIS History IV. 281, 285.]0
143D I O[Florence of Worcester talks of King William's aunt, whereas Adelaide, married to Odo of
Champagne and mother of Stephen of Aumale, was William I's sister. Cfr. Poole, Domesday
Book to Magna Carta, 109.]
2 Urbem Bebbae reginae. See Beda, H.E. 111, 6, 16, also Lappenberg's England, I, p. 119. '[Queen
Bebba or Bebbe, wife of King Aethelfrid of Bernicia and Deira (593-616).]0
3 '[At the place where the town of Newcastle-on-Tyne was later to be founded a fortress had
already been set up in 1080 by King William I. Cfr. Douglas, William the Conqueror, 241.1o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 116 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

came unseen. Happy with this offer, the earl left one night with thirty knights to
do this, but as soon as the knights who guarded the castle knew this, they pursued
him and notified the guards of Newcastle through messengers. Being ignorant of
this he tried on a Sunday to carry out his plan, but did not succeed since he was
trapped. Therefore he fled to the monastery of St. Oswin, king and martyr,4 where
on the sixth day of the siege he was severely injured in the leg while fighting his
enemies, of whom many were killed and many wounded; several of his men were
also wounded and all were captured; he himself fled to the church, but was dragged
out and put in prison. In the meantime the Welsh broke into the castle of
Montgomery and killed several men of Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury there. This made
the king angry, he quickly ordered an expedition and after Michaelmas he led an
army into Wales, where he lost several men and horses. On his return he ordered
Earl Robert to be taken to Bamborough and his eyes to be put out unless his wife
and his nephew Morel surrendered the castle; this they did, forced by necessity,
and the earl was taken to Windsor to be placed in severe custody and Morel
revealed the cause of the betrayal to the king . On the octave of Epiphany a
council was held at Salisbury where the king ordered that William of Eu, who had
been vanquished in battle, was to be deprived of his eyes and testicles, whereas his
steward William of Alderi, a son of his aunt and an accomplice in the treason, was
to be hanged; Count Odo of Champagne, father of the aforesaid Stephen, Philip
son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and some others, who took part in the betrayal,
were put in custody.5

144

Four magnates, sent by King William II to Cornwall and Devon to

investigate royal rights, claim the manor of Werrington as royal demesne
against the abbey of Tavistock, but as the monks prove that they have held
the manor for a long time, the king confirms their possession.

In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1096, the ninth of the reign of
William II of illustrious memory, this same king sent during Lent some of his
barons to Devon, Cornwall and Exeter, i.e. Bishop Walkelin of Winchester,
Ranulf the royal chaplain, William Chi6vre and Hardin fitz Belnold, to investigate
the royal pleas. In those pleas they claimed a manor of Tavistock Abbey, called
Werrington, saying and maintaining that it was unjustly attached to Tavistock
Abbey and had in fact always rightfully belonged to the royal demesne. Rejecting
their declarations and claims, we proved that this manor, on the authority of
several of our predecessors, belonged to Tavistock Abbey without any claim and
0
[This is the priory of Tynemouth (Northumberland), dedicated to St. Mary and St. Oswin.
See
0
a detailed account of these events in D.N.B. 39 (1894), 226.10
[Freeman, The reign of William Rufus, ii, 63-69: Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta,109-
110.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 117 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

by perennial right. We therefore, together with the forementioned royal pleaders,

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

145

On his death, Walter de Rivers, who held land at Beedon from Abingdon
Abbey, leaves behind a boy who is a minor and whose uncle, Joscelin, claims
possession of the said land in the king's court. In spite of Abbot Reginald's
opposition, Joscelin obtains possession as requested, against certain services.

A certain knight Walter, surnamed de Rivers and tenant of the land called
Beedon, died at that time, leaving behind a small son of the same name. In those
circumstances the uncle of that child, called Joscelin, eagerly hoping to obtain
possession of the said land proceeded to argue in the king's court which then met at
144 1 '[According to the Exon Domesday (V.C.H. Devon, i, 431) the abbot of Tavistock was seised of
the manor of Werrington at the time of the Domesday Inquest (it had been granted to Tavistock
shortly after October 1066 by countess Gytha, King Harold's mother, which grant may well
have been a form of restitution of property seized by Harold), but since the Inquest revealed that
the manor had not belonged to Tavistock in the time of King Edward, William I disseised the
abbey. However, when nine years later the magnates looked into the matter and claimed the
manor, Abbot Wimund invoking possession of a certain duration, finally moved William II to
give up his rights.]'
0
2 [E.A" Freeman, The reign of William Rufus and the accessionof Henryv thefirst, Oxford, 1882, ii,
507-508; Regesta I, no. 387; H.P.R. Finberg, "The Early History of Werrington", E.H.R., 59
(1944), 237-251; Idem, Tavistock abbey. A study in the social and economic history of Devon,
Cambridge, 1951, 10-12.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 118 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

146

After illegally giving some abbey land at Dumbleton to his nephew Robert,
Abbot Reginald of Abingdon tries to revoke the donation: the king orders
restitution of the land, after both the abbot and his nephew have offered
money.

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

145 1 '[See V.C.H. Berks., IV, 40.]o

146 1 O[Aelfric ' archbishop of Canterbury 990-1005.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 119 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

147

Raimbald, a knight and son-in-law of Abbot Reginald of Abingdon, is

prosecuted by King William II and threatened with imprisonment unless he
pays 500 pounds.

Another knight called Raimbald, a brother-in-law of the said abbot, was, on

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 120 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

148

Writ of King William I to the sheriff of Oxford confirming the customs of

Abingdon Abbey and ordering him to do full right to Abbot Reginald in the
matter of his, the sheriff's, reeve and other officials who have wronged the
monks.

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

149

As Abbot Benedict of Selby is accused by his monks of misrule, King William

II orders Abbot Stephen of St. Mary, York, to arrest him.

In the monastery of the aforesaid brethren arguments led to quarrels, scandals

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

149 ' o[Eccli. 28, 15.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 121 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

150

As a result of growing religious scepticism King William Rufus casts doubt

on the ordeal: the fact that fifty men accused of forest offences undergo the
ordeal of hot iron with success leads him to an outright condemnation of this
mode of proof.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 122 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

151

William Mauduit I, the father of Robert, having been impleaded by Richard

de Courcy, a royal justice, for encroaching on a lane in Winchester, makes a
fine.

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

152

William Mauduit I, father of Robert, having been impleaded by Richard de

Courcy, a royal justice, for encroaching on a lane in Winchester, makes a fine.

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

152 ' 0[Richard de Courcy occurs often in the charters of William Iand William II: latest certain date
A.D. 1094 (Regesla i, no. 349). Our text is the only one which mentions him as a royal justice in
England, though there are indications that he acted in 1085 as the king's justice in Normandy
(V. C.H.Hampshirei, 1900, p. 533). See on him also H.C. Maxwell Lyte, "Curci", Proceedingsof
the Somersetshire ArchaeologicalandNaturalHistorY Society, lxvi (1921), 98-126; W.T. Reedy,
Originsgeneral eyre, 703.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 123 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

153

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

William, king of England, to Th[omas] the archbishop and Bertram de Verdun

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

154

Writ of King William II to Urse de Abitot, sheriff of Worcester and others

ordering that the abbey of Evesham shall hold its honour as the abbot proved
his right against Bishop Samson of Worcester: if the bishop claims any of
those things which had been confirmed to Evesham, the abbot shall only
answer in the king's court.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 124 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

other barons of the whole of England. At the solemnity of Easter, on the

Wednesday after Easter, at Winchester.

155

Writ of King William II ordering Humphrey the chamberlain and royal

justices to inquire by the county court of Norfolk whether the abbot of
Ramsey or the predecessor of William de Albini was entitled to a certain
forfeiture.

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

156

King William II orders Hugh de Bocland and the sheriff and lieges of
Middlesex to see to it that the land of Yeoveney, in the manor of Staines,
which Abbot Vitalis of Westminster deraigned against Walter fitz Oter, is left
in peace; Abbot Gilbert, his successor, shall answer for it to no one except
before the bishops and justices, before whom the title to the land was
previously proved.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 125 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

157

Writ of King William II ordering Hamo the steward, sheriff of Kent, to

restore to St. Augustine, Canterbury its rights in Newington as they were
deraigned in the time of William the Conqueror.

William, king of the English, to H[amo] the steward, greeting. I command you
to cause the restoration to the prior of St Augustine's and the monks of the said
saint of all their rights of Newington, as it was deraigned in the county [court] in
the time of my father before my barons; and without delay. And he who wants to
go against this, let him plead in the hundred of Milton' or in the county [court].
Witness: R. the bishop; by Fulk the chaplain. At Westminster.

158

Abbot Gunter of Thorney deraigns the land of Charwelton against Baldwin,

a Domesday tenant, by a judgment given at Rockingham before the barons
of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire.

The lord Abbot Gunter obtained at Rockingham in the presence of the leading
men of Northamptonshire and Leicestershire the land of Charwelton against
Baldwin by right of judgment and this Baldwin spontaneously gave up the land
without any claim and Robert gave him 15 s. to put an end to all claims, whereas
the writs which had been obtained from two kings, viz. William the younger and
Henry, were handed over. Witnesses the tenants who are here named and were
called in to testify: Hugh the priest, the sheriff of Northamptonshire, Michael,
William de Houghton, Geoffrey Ridel, Ascelin de Waterville, Grimbald the
steward of Earl Simon [de St. Liz], etc.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 126 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

159

Writ of King William II to Sheriff Sweyn of Essex ordering that the

possessions of the bishop of London shall be quit of various burdens,
according to the deraignment made before the king's justices at Writtle.

William, king of the English, to Sweyn of Essex, greeting. I order you to leave
the lands, the men and all the things of Maurice of London in peace and quit of
ward-pennies, pleas and all other things, as was deraigned at Writtle before my
justices, by their charters and writs, where you yourself were one of the judges.
Witness: Ranulf, bishop of Durham. At London, after Pentecost.

160

Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriffs of Berkshire and Oxfordshire to

ask the men of their counties whether certain lands belong to Rualon of
Avranches or to the abbey of Abingdon.

Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Bocland and William, sheriff of Oxford,

greeting. Order for my part the men of your counties to say the complete truth, as
they love me, concerning three hides of land which Rualon of Avranches claims
back. If they belong to the manor of Stanton Harcourt which I gave him, let him
have them; otherwise let the abbey of Abingdon have them. Witness: Roger the
chancellor; through [Pain?] Basset. At Cambridge.'

161

Summary of a lost charter of King Henry I by which he grants to Robert de

Lacy part of the land of the castelry of Pontefract which the king had
deraigned against him.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 127 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

162

In the court of Abbot Faritius of Abingdon, held in Oxford at the command

of King Henry I, Walter Giffard is forced to become a man of Abingdon for
the manor of Linford, for the service of one knight.

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

163

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

A. Notice of a concord reached in a plea held by King William the

Conqueror at Laycock, manor of William of Eu, between William de Braose
and the abbey of F6camp concerning its land and burial rights in Sussex, and
more particularly the wood of Hoewood, some land which William de Braose
had taken for his park, a toll which he had unlawfully taken, the burial rights
of St. Cuthman's church at Steyning (belonging to F~camp), which had been
impaired by the clergy of William de Braose's church of St. Peter at Beeding,
and various other sources of income.
In connection with the inroads which William de Braose had made into the
possessions of Holy Trinity a plea was held at Laycock, a manor of William of Eu,
where King William held his court, on a Sunday from morning till night, in the
presence of his sons and barons. It was defined and agreed that the wood called
Hoewood should be divided down the middle, both the wood and the land in
which the villeins had dwelt and which belongs to the wood and by the king's

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 128 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

163A o[Steyning in the rape of Bramber, co. Sussex.]0

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 129 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 130 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

C. Writ of King William II to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, Hamo the steward

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

D. Concord between William, abbot of Fcamp, and Philip de Braose in the

court of King Henry I concerning eighteen burgage-tenures in Steyning
which F1camp had deraigned against William de Braose, Philip's father, in
the time of William the Conqueror. Philip had seized them, and now consents
to hold them of the abbot in fee. The concord also concerns various other
rights which had been dealt with in previous pleas (see above A, B, C).

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 131 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 132 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

164

Three cases are decided in one day in the court of the abbot of Abingdon.
William, the king's chamberlain, admits that he owes him the service of one
knight for his tenure, called Lea, Joscelin de Rivers admits that he owes the
service of three knights for land at Beedon and William de Jumi6ges
quitclaims land at Chieveley, obtained unjustly from Abbot Reginald.

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

163D '
o[See V.C.H. Sussex, i. 351; V.C.H. Sussex, ii. 60; D.C. Douglas, The Domesday monachorum
of Christ Church Canterbury,London, 1944, 53; D. Matthew, The Norman monasteries and
their English possessions, Oxford, 1962, 20-21, 38-40.]'
164 o[William the chamberlain occurs from 1101 1102 onwards (Regesta ii, no. 599).10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 133 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

165

Writ of King Henry I ordering that if Joscelin de Rivers claims anything in

the land of Abingdon Abbey at Hill, he is to appear in the court of the abbot.

Henry, king of England, to Henry, earl of Warwick, and William the sheriff,'
greeting. If Joscelin claims anything in the land of St. Mary of Abingdon at Hill, I
order that the said Joscelin shall go to the court of the abbot and there the abbot
himself shall do him right and I forbid the said abbot to answer the said Joscelin in
any other place concerning this dispute. Witnesses: Waldric the chancellor and
Grimbald the physician. At Westminster, at Christmas.

166

In a general confirmation to the monks of Durham, King Henry I specifically

mentions two carrucates of land which they have deraigned against Fulk de
Lusors in the king's court on the basis of oaths of the men of the county.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 134 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

167

Sworn inquest in the hundred of Andover ordered by King Henry I

concerning the rights of Andover Priory.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 135 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

168

Notification by King Henry I that Abbot Richard of Ely has established in

the king's court against Bishop Ranulf of Durham that the manor of
Hadham is demesne land of Ely.

Henry, king of the English, to Maurice, bishop of London and Hugh de

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

169

Notification by King Henry I that Abbot Faritius of Abingdon has criminal

jurisdiction over robbers caught in Abingdon.

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

168 '[That the D of the ms. stands for Drogo and not David, as Salter thought, is accepted in Regesta
ii, nos 684 and 687.10
2'[For this variant rather than Ouilli see Regesta ii. nos 684, 749, 775, 1307.10
3'[See R.W. Finn, Introduction to Domesday Book, New York, 1963, 61.]o
169 ' '[Aubrey de Vere, sheriff of Berkshire 1100-1105?10.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 136 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

170

Many priests having disobeyed the prohibition of association with women,

promulgated at the council of London (of A.D. 1102), King Henry I instructs
his ministers to institute proceedings against them. When this does not
produce the expected amounts of money, various other methods of extortion
are applied.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 137 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

171

Writ of King Henry I confirming the land of Winkfield to the abbey of

Abingdon and commanding that the claim of Godric the reeve be stayed.

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

172
Sworn inquest held in the county court at York at the king's command by
royal justices concerning the liberties and customs of the cathedral of York
and dependent minsters.

A. The notification by the chapter of York Cathedral.

To all sons of Mother Church, the most humble chapter of St. Peter of York,
greeting and prayers in the Lord.' Let all those who receive this letter know that
172A This letter is, perhaps, the most interesting of all the documents in the White Book, as it
preserves one of the most ancient records of the chapter of York, showing the ancient
privileges of the archbishop and canons dating from pre-Norman times, which probably
became a model for the later foundations of Lincoln and Salisbury, as well as the sister
churches of Beverley, Southwell, and Ripon. Unfortunately the letter itself is not dated, but it
was possibly written to assist the chapter of Southwell in view of Quo Warranto proceedings in
the reign of Edward III, third and fifth year of his reign (A.D. 1330-1333), printed at pp. 615,
636, 648 in Placita de quo Warranto (Record Commission), 1818. In these proceedings the
chapter and the canons were called on to show title to their privileges and jurisdictions. Until
that time it would seem that Southwell possessed no separate charter, but merely general
charters, giving them the same privileges as the church of York. After the case had resulted
favourably to Southwell, a special charter was granted by the king reciting the proceedings and
confirming the privileges established. The letter recites fully the proceedings (in the nature of
the later Quo Warranto cases) which took place in the reign of Henry I, A.D. 1106, when the
privileges of York were challenged by royal officers. A good many of the actual privileges
established were recited, but not so fully, in Henry I's charter to York Minster, itself recited in
a charter of Henry III given at Portsmouth A.D. 1253 (White Book, p. 15), and again in an
Inspeximus Charter of Edward II, from which it is printed in Placitorum Abbreviatio (Record
Commission), p. 334. Dugdale also prints Henry I's charter under "York Cathedral", vol. vi.,
p. 1180, from Abp. Greenfield's Register. The part of the verdict referring to Ripon Sanctuary
has been printed in Mem. Ripon, S. S. vol. 74. *[=J.T. Fowler, Memorials of the church of
SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, I, London, 1882 (Surtees Society, lxxiv).]° Henry's charter states
the customs as "under ancient kings and archbishops, and what most will remember under
King Edward and Archbishop Ealdred". It seems to have been given very soon after the
inquiry of 1106, as Bloet, Basset, and Ridel are witnesses.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 138 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 139 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

10Henry I'scharter, as recited by Henry III, begins with these words. °[MONASTICON vi,p. 1180
no. xxxi. - Regesta ii, no. 1083.]
11 Drake, in his Eboracum, p. 548, ed. 1736 0[=F. Drake, Eboracum or the history and antiquities
of the city of York, London, 1736, has made an odd mistake in translating this passage: "the
person that takes him shall make amends by the universal judgment of the hundred, who shall
give damages for the same"
12 The Saxon Frithstool still remains at Beverley and at Hexham, inboth places lately replaced
near the high altar.
13 This paragraph is obscure. It very probably means "the canons were called the household of
St. Peter and their lands his table". But if so the "in" is untranslated.
14"Namum" or "namium" from a word akin to German "nehmen", to take, i.e. distress; security
taken.
15The right of seizing and hanging or beheading a thief. In Henry's charter it is spelt
"infangenetheof"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 140 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 141 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 142 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. Reference made to the inquest of 1106 during an inquest held in the

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

20 The Rev. W. Hunt refers me to Chron. de Abingdon, ii, 30, 131. Rolls Edn. where hora or ora
means a number of pennies, viz., 16. Ten times that sum being a mark, that isprobably the sum
meant here rather than 20 d., the value of the ora in some places in Domesday. See Ducange
under ora. 0[See also Latham, Word-list, 324 where ora is rendered as an ounce of silver.]0
21 The archbishops, like the kings, seldom stayed more than a few days in the same place. Their
trains ate up the provisions of the country at such a pace that they could not be provided for
long. Hence the large number of manor-houses possessed by them were not so much a luxury
as a necessity.
172B ' Pedage is a payment for safely passing through any district; thurgholt seems to be something of
the same kind, through-toll.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 143 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

"nay" and on their "yea" as far as speaking, proving or defending truthfully or

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

173

The inhabitants of Yarmouth eject the chaplain of St. Nicholas by force.

Upon complaint by Bishop Herbert of Norwich, who built the church, King
Henry I orders Roger Bigod, sheriff of Norfolk, to restore it to the bishop,
but the execution of this order leads to a riot.

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

2 °[T.S. Gowland, "'The manors and liberties of Ripon", The Yorkshire ArchaeologicalJournal,
part cxxv, vol. xxxii (1936), 46 and RIPON Memorials, 51.]O
173 ' o[V.C.H. Norfolk, ii, 330; B. Dodwell, "The foundation of Norwich cathedral". Transactionsof
the Royal HistoricalSociety, 7 (fifth series) (1957), 10: J.W. Alexander, "Herbert of Norwich",
Studies in Medieval andRenaissance HistorY, vi (1969), 138. We have almost invariably followed
the translation in NORWICH First Reg. 31, 33]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 144 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 145 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 146 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

175

Deraignment of land by Walter Buistard against Abbot Bernard of Ramsey

before one or more royal justices.

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

176

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

In the year of our Lord 1107 King Henry called his magnates together and
charged Robert de Montfort' with breach of fealty. Since he knew himself to be
guilty, he obtained leave to go to Jerusalem and, giving up his lands to the king, set
2
out with a number of companions.

10 '[Translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 109-113; see Knowles Monastic Order, 616 617;
Searle, Battle Abbey, 215.]
0
175 [Most probably Abbot Bernard, Reinald's predecessor.]'
0
2 [The version of this text in the cartulary mentions one royal justice, the version in the chronicle
several.]'
I [W.T. Reedy, Originsgeneral eyre, 705; Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 180.] °
176 The
0 hereditary constables are discussed by G.H. White in TRHS 4th ser. xxx (1948), 149-150.
2 [Translation from ORDERIC VITALIS History, VI, 101.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 147 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

177

Notification by King Henry I that he has confirmed the fine made in his court
between Bishop Herbert of Norwich and Peter de Valognes concerning the
lands of Binham and Langham.

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

178

After a conflict arose between Abbot Hugh de Flori of St. Augustine's,

Canterbury, and the canons of St. Martin's priory at Dover about a prebend
there, claimed by the abbot and a writ of King Henry I ordering the canons of
Dover to let the abbot have his prebend was unsuccessful, the case comes
before the king's court, where judgment is given in favour of the abbot.

A. The writ of King Henry I to the canons of Dover.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 148 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

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

179

Litigation in the king's court between Abbot Peter of Gloucester and Bishop
Reinhelm of Hereford concerning burial rights; an agreement is reached.

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

178B ' The date assigned to this charter in the "Chronol. August" '[CANTERBURY ST. AUGUSTINE'S
Hist., 3010 is 1101; yet it cannot be earlier than 1107, in which year both these prelates were
consecrated. '[See Richardson and Sayles, Law and Legislation, 61.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 149 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

180

Notification by King Henry I that the case between Bishop Herbert of

Norwich and the monks of Thetford priory concerning the burial of the
bodies of Roger Bigod and his wife, sons and barons, was settled in the king's
court by the monks' quitclaim.

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

181

King Henry I confirms to the church of Durham various lands and customs
which had been claimed by the Northumbrians as belonging to their county
and which Bishop Ranulf deraigned in the king's court.

I Henry by God's grace king of the English, son of the great King William, who
succeeded to King Edward of blessed memory, give to God and St. Cuthbert and
the church of Durham and Bishop Ranulf and all his successors the lands, i.e. of
Burdon, Carleton and Aycliffe, which the men of Northumberland claimed
against St. Cuthbert and Bishop Ranulf, maintaining that they were of their

180 1 '[Roger Bigod was the founder of the Cluniac priory of Thetford where a prior and twelve
monks of Lewes were first installed, to which he had given the old cathedral building at Thetford
about 1103 (Knowles, Medieval Religious Houses, 100; Knowles, Heads, 125; B. Dodwell, "The
foundation of Norwich cathedral", Transactionsof the Royal HistoricalSociety, fifth series, 7
(1957), 7).]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 150 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

182

Notification and confirmation by King Henry I of the deraignment by Abbot

Bernard of Ramsey in the latter's court of the land of Long Stow and Girton
against Pain Peverel, in the presence of a royal justice.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 151 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

183

Robert, the son of sheriff Picot of Cambridgeshire, is accused of conspiracy

against King Henry I, and as he does not appear in the king's court, his
barony is confiscated.

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

184

Hugh, abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury deraigns land in Ripple and

Langdon against Manasser Arsic.

A. The narrative in the chronicle of William Thorne.

In the year of the Lord 1110 Abbot Hugh deraigned in the court of Henry I the
lands of Ripple and Langdon with all appurtenances against Manasser Arsic.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 152 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

185

In the shire court at Sutton in the presence of Hugh de Bocland, the sheriff,
and many men of three shires, Abbot Faritius of Abingdon deraigns the land
of Culham, after some men of Sutton have taken away some turves.
Afterwards the same offence is repeated in secret, and on the order of Sheriff
Hugh de Bocland justice is done to the abbot in the court of Ock Hundred.
However, the abbot does not exact the full penalty from the culprit.

In the tenth year' of the reign of King Henry at Sutton in the full shire court,
which was sitting mainly for the case that follows, the lord Abbot Faritius and the
monks of Abingdon deraigned for the church of Abingdon the land of Culham to
be firm and free of all customs and all men and particularly concerning some
violence which the men of the aforesaid manor of Sutton had committed there by
taking turves to the benefit of the mill and the fishery of the king. In the same way
as his predecessor Abbot Adelelm had protected the land of the aforesaid manor of
Culham from a similar violence in the time of King William the elder and Sheriff
Froger, thus also this Abbot Faritius at the date as indicated has protected it from
the said violence and all customs in the presence of Hugh, the sheriff, 2 an upright
184B I '[After King Henry I had accepted, at Pentecost 1109, a proposal for the marriage of his
daughter Matilda to the German King Henry V, she was sent to Germany in the next spring
and the betrothal took place at Easter, i.e. 10 April 1110; the marriage followed in 1114. This
writ is therefore dated at Pentecost, i.e. 29 May 1110 and the deraignment to which it refers
took place at the Rogation Days, i.e. 15-18 May of that same year 1110.]o
2 '[The abbey's rights in Ripple and Langdon were confirmed by King Stephen in a writ of 1136-
1139 (Regesta iii, no. 152, p. 56) and in a charter of Pope Alexander II of 17 April 1139
(CANTERBURY ST. AUGUSTINE's Hist., 369-372.]o
185 1 decimo regni Henrici.] The tenth regnal year of Henry I extends from 5 Aug. 1109 to 4 Aug.
01110.
2 [Hugh de Bocland, sheriff of Berkshire, 1100- 1115 ?]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 153 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

186

William Baynard, guilty of felony, forfeits his barony.

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

3 '[See V.C.H. Oxon., vii, 32; D.M. Stenton, English Justice, 57.10
186 1 0[J.A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispinabbot of Westminster, Cambridge, 1911, p. 39; V.C.H. Essex, ii.
150-151.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 154 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

187

Robert of Staverton, a tenant of Thorney Abbey, claims to hold the land of

Charwelton in fee of the abbey and wants to implead his lord Abbot Gunter
but not in the latter's court. He apparently complains to King Henry I that
the abbot fails to do him right and obtains royal writs (now lost) directing
another court, probably the county court of Northamptonshire, to hear the
case. Robert's demand to be given seisin is rejected by the abbot, who denies
that he has any right in the land of Charwelton and is followed by his court,
which declares that Robert should not be seised unless he can show his right
in his lord's court. The abbot also obtains royal writs (now lost) directing
Robert to leave Charwelton in peace. Nevertheless Robert, committing acts
of violence, seizes the land. Abbot Gunter, maintaining that he has not failed
to do right to his tenant, obtains royal writs ordering that, if he can prove this,
the case shall be beard in his court and that Robert's unlawful acts at
Charwelton shall be undone (texts supplied here). Robert, fearing that
judgment in his lord's court will go against him, again proceeds to the king,
but all be obtains is a writ (now lost) ordering some wise men to act as
observers in the abbot's court and to see to it that Robert is rightly treated.
The case is heard and since Robert offers no proof by charter or witnesses, the
land is adjudged to Thorney (the whole narrative is in our document A).)

A. The narrative in the cartulary of Thorney.

Concerning the land of Charwelton which Robert of Staverton wanted to hold

from Abbot Gunter.
Let present and future know that Robert of Staverton impleaded Abbot
Gunter by writs of King Henry touching Charwelton and he wished to hold it in fee
farm of the abbot. But the abbot replied that he could in no wise have it because he
had no right in it. He sought seisin thereof, but the abbot refused to seise him save
through judgment, wherefore the abbot commanded that the court of the saint
should declare the right therein. And the court of the saint declared by right
judgment that Robert ought not to be seised unless he could show greater right
therein, namely a charter or witnesses who could deraign this fee for him. The
abbot set him a day therein. Robert again sought King Henry and the king
instructed Hugh the sheriff that he should send prudent and wise men with Robert
into the abbot's court on the same day who might see and hear that the abbot in
every way treated him in accordance with right. Ascelin de Waterville, William
Olifart and Walter of Clopton, sent with Robert, came at the appointed day and
demanded seisin as he had sought before. And the abbot replied that he had set

187 ' '[Since only fragments of this complicated case have been preserved, our reconstruction of the
sequence of events should be considered tentative. Different views or interpretations have been
put forward by Sir Frank Stenton (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Charters, 14-15) followed by Lady
Stenton (D.M. Stenton, English Justice,p. 57 n. 13, 138-139); Lady Stenton sees here an early
reference to the process of tolt as described in Glanvill VI, 6 and XII, 6, 7.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 155 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

him a day to deraign the fee which he claimed by charter or witness and he having
no charter or witness demanded seisin. The abbot let the court of the saint proceed
to judgment and commanded that they should deliver a true judgment. Jolfrid the
elder de Traili, Roger de Gisneis, Hervey le Moigne, Reginald and the men of the
saint made the judgment. They judged that Robert and his heirs had lost their
claim since he had no charter and witness wherewith he could deraign it and that
the abbot and the church of Thorney should have the same land, namely
Charwelton, free and quit for ever.'

B. Writ of King Henry I ordering Hugh, sheriff of Northamptonshire, to

restore to the land of the abbot of Thorney in Charwelton the grain and the
cattle which Robert, the abbot's man, and the reeve of Fawsley have taken
there.

Henry, king of the English, to Sheriff Hugh, greeting. I order you to see to it
that the land of the abbot of Thorney in Charwelton is without delay reseised of
the grain and the cattle of which his man Robert disseised it, and see to it that
whatever Swain, the reeve of Fawsley, has taken there is restored. And let the land
and the men of the said abbot be in my peace so that no one shall cause them any
injury thereon. And see to it that the men of Fawsley shall cause no wrong in that
land, in the meadows or in the grain, on my forfeiture. Witness: [Ranulf] the
chancellor. At Brampton.

C. Writ of King Henry I to Hugh, sheriff of Northamptonshire, Geoffrey

Ridel and Aubrey the chamberlain concerning the plea of Charwelton and
particularly the disgrace suffered by a monk of Thorney, against the king's
writ.

Henry, king of the English, to Hugh the sheriff and Geoffrey Ridel and Aubrey
the chamberlain,1 greeting. If the abbot of Thorney can show that he has not failed
in right towards Robert, his man, and his father, then I order that the plea shall be
in the court of the foresaid abbot, i.e. about the land and corn of Charwelton. And
as regards the disgrace which has been put on Osbert the monk against my peace
and writ by the said Robert, do the abbot full right when he wants to plead on the
matter, that I hear no complaint thereof for lack of right. Witness: the bishop of
Salisbury. At Woodstock.2
187A See Facsimiles of Early Chartersfrom Northamptonshire Collections, ed., F.M. Stenton,
Northamptonshire Record Society 4 (1930): pp. 12-15, where the actual writ of Henry I
initiating the process of tolt in this case is facsimiled. -[Translation taken from D.M.
Stenton, English Justice, 139.10
187C Aubrey de Ver, the king's chamberlain.
2 Cf the translation in Douglas, HistoricalDocs., ii, 454, no. 53. '[Besides the already mentioned
studies by Sir Frank and Lady Stenton, see also S. Raban, The Estates of Thorney and
Crowland. A study in medieval monastic land tenure, Cambridge, 1977 (Univ. of Cambridge
Dept. of Land Economy. Occasional Paper 7), p. 24.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 156 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

188

Robert de Muschamp is ordered to restore various lands and particularly

that of Ross, which Ranulf, bishop of Durham, has deraigned.

A. Writ by King Henry I to Aluric and Liulf, sheriffs of Northumberland,

ordering them to do full right to Ranulf, bishop of Durham, concerning the
land of Ross, as he deraigned it after Robert de Muschamp had seized it.

Henry, king of England, to Aluric and Liulf the sheriffs, greeting. I order you to
do, without delay and hindrance, full right to Ranulf, bishop of Durham,
concerning the land of Ross which Robert de Muschamps has occupied to the
prejudice of St. Cuthbert and his church; for I will that St. Cuthbert have it even as
Ranulf, his bishop, has deraigned it on his behalf. If you fail to do this, then I order
that Nigel d'Aubigny and another justice of mine shall do it. See that I hear no
complaint for lack of justice. Witness: Ranulf the chancellor. At Portsmouth.

B. Writ by Queen Matilda to Nigel de Albini ordering him to do full right to

Bishop Ranulf of Durham concerning the land of Ross, which Robert de
Muschamp seized.

Matilda, queen of England, to Nigel de Albini, greeting. I order you to do full

right to Bishop Ranulf of Durham concerning Robert de Muschamp and the lands
which he has occupied against St. Cuthbert and particularly the one of Ross and
also the other lands which Robert has occupied after the concord which had been
made between Bishop William 1 and Robert of Northumberland, 2 as Bishop
Ranulf will be able to show.

189

Lawsuit between the men of the hundred of Pyrton and Abbot Faritius of
Abingdon concerning the jurisdiction claimed by the former over the manor
of Lewknor. The king's court, in session at Winchester, decides after
consulting Domesday Book that the claim of the men of the hundred of
Pyrton is unfounded.

The men of the hundred of Pyrton tried to place a manor of this church called
Lewknor under their jurisdiction, but the abbot,1 pleading in the castle of
188B 0'[William of St. Carilef, bishop of Durham, 1080-1096.10 °
2 [Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, 1081-1095.]
0
189 [Faritius abbot of Abingdon 1100-1117.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 157 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

190

Examples of King Henry I's

implacable prosecution of rebellious or faithless
magnates.

Just as he was munificent in his rewards to his loyal servants, so he was

implacable in his enmity to those who broke faith, and scarcely ever pardoned any
of known guilt without taking vengeance on their persons or depriving them of
their honours and wealth. Guilty men experienced this most wretchedly when they
died in his fetters, and could neither gain release through kinship or noble birth,
nor ransom themselves with money. He brought charges against Robert of
Pontefract1 and Robert Malet,2 stripped them of their honours, and drove them
0
2 [See V.C.H. Oxon., II. 6; Boussard, Le gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 277, n. 1; V.C.H. Oxon.,
VIII, 3; West, The Justiciarship,14.]°
190 1 Robert of Pontefract, son of Ilbert of Lacy, was deprived of his English honours and banished
c. 1114; he kept his Norman lands (Wightman, Lacy Family, pp. 66, 73). 0[W.E. Wightman, The
Lacy family in England and Normandy, Oxford, 1966.]o
2 Robert Malet remained in the royal favour until his death c. 1105. Orderic appears to have
confused him with his son William, who suffered forfeiture and exile about the same time as
Robert of Pontefract (C. Warren Hollister, "'Henry I and Robert Malet", in Viator, iv (1973),
115-122).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 158 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

191

Abbot Faritius complains to King Henry I that certain boatmen of Oxford

omit paying a certain toll on the Thames to his abbey. The king orders his
justices and sheriffs of Berkshire and Oxfordshire to do right to the abbey.
Judgment is given in favour of the abbey by the aldermen of Oxford. In the
following year the abbey's cellarer complains that certain boatmen have not
yet complied and measures are taken against them.

It is a custom of this church since the time of the lord Abbot Ordric that for
every ship of the city of Oxford that travels southwards on the Thames near the
court of Abingdon a hundred herring or their equivalent in money are paid every
year to the cellarer, in such a way that the oarsmen make these payments without
being asked from the time of the Purification of St. Mary till Easter. If one of them
is found to withhold this custom, the cellarer prevents that boat from sailing
through the water of the church until right is done. In the time of the lord Abbot
Faritius, the boatmen of the aforesaid city have tried to take away this custom
from the church, but the abbot quickly restrained them from this temerity by a just
See above, v. 98.
4 o[C.W. David, Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, Cambridge Mass., 1920, 138-139; Farrer,
Itin. Henry 1,317; Wightman, op. cit., 260; ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, 35. Translation taken
from ORDERIC VITALIS History, vi. 18.]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 159 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

192

Ralph fitz Walter, tenant of Abingdon Abbey in Dumbleton, commits a theft

and is outlawed, which should lead to the loss of his life and goods. However,
having asked the king's and the queen's pardon, he comes to Abingdon
imploring the abbot's grace and quitclaims his tenure, but not without some
compensation.

Ralph, son of Walter the digger, held of the church and Abbot Faritius one
hide in the manor of Dumbleton, which William Guizenboeth had quitclaimed to
the church and the aforesaid abbot. And it happened that this same Ralph
admitted to the crime of theft for which he lost his lawfulness and, according to the
judicial usage of England, ought to lose his goods and his life. But after having
implored the mercy of King Henry, who was then in Normandy, and of the queen,
who had stayed in England, he came to Abingdon in order similarly to obtain the
abbot's pity. The abbot in his goodness gave him so much in the form of a horse
and money and wheat that he not only gave up to the church the land which he had
held so far, but even confirmed under oath on the Holy Gospels that neither he nor
any of his heirs would ever make any claim or demand on it. The following were
present at his oath: Ralph the cellarer, who accepted this oath in the place of the
abbot, Hubert the prior of Wallingford, Rainbald, William de Seacourt and many
others, in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Henry.'
191 ' 0[Hugh de Bocland, sheriff of Berkshire 1100-1115; Thomas de St. John and Richard de Monte,
both sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1111 .]O
2 anno .... XI] From 5 Aug. ll0 to 4Aug. 1111.
192 1 anno xiii. regni Henrici.] Namely, between 5 Aug. 1112 and 4 Aug. 1113.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 160 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

193

After Ralph son of Segbold de Lowick has joined the fraternity of Thorney
Abbey, making a certain gift of land in Lowick, where the court of the abbot
met to hear a case, he occupies some land of the abbey. The abbot starts
proceedings against him and an oath with oath-helpers is ordained, but an
agreement is arrived at.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 161 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

194

After Ralph de Lowick has invaded two tenures of the abbot's fee of
Thorney, Abbot Gunter starts proceedings, without obtaining final judg-
ment. His successor obtains from Ralph's brother Guy a promise of help for
the deraignment of the two tenures. As Guy fails to carry out his promise, he
is disseised of his land and Ralph, who gives two acres to the abbey, obtains
permission to keep the two tenures during the life-time of his brother.

Ralph de Lowick invaded two tenures of the abbot's fee and Abbot Gunter
pleaded thereon against him to the point that judicial combat was resorted to
between the said Ralph and Osmund, a man of the abbot, but it was postponed by
Geoffrey Ridel from day to day and from term to term, so that the said tenures
belonged to the right of neither of them until they were deraigned. In the meantime
Abbot Robert received the abbacy and Guy came to such a fine with him
concerning his land that he undertook to deraign those tenures for the fee of the
abbot, but as this was forgotten about, he was disseised of his whole land.
Afterwards he came to a fine with the abbot to whom he gave 35 s. a year and
Ralph became a brother of the church of Thorney and gave two acres of land in
order that the said tenures should remain with Ralph as long as Guy lived and that
after the latter's death the abbot could seek his right if he wanted.

195

Walter the digger and his wife quitclaim to the abbey of Abingdon half a hide
of land in Dumbleton, because they were unable to redeem various misdeeds;
they receive some compensation from the abbot.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 162 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

196

Writ of King Henry I informing Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and all his
ministers of Sussex that since the abbot and monks of Battle have proved
before him that various specifically named lands, belonging to the manor of
Alciston, are no possessions of theirs, they are to be quit of the services due
there.

Henry, king of the English, to Ralph, bishop of Chichester, and all his
ministers of Sussex, greeting. Know that as the abbot of Battle and the monks
deraigned before me that they do not have those lands which you said they had,
namely Ovingdean, Coding [in Hove], Batsford [in Warbleton], Daningawurde,
Shuyswell [in Etchingham], Boarzell [in Ticehurst], Winenham, Wertesce, Brem-
breshoc and Seuredeswelle, which of old belonged to Alciston and contain seven
hides of the fifty hides in Alciston and its appurtenances, I order that they shall be
free and quit on this account and that no one shall molest them any further, but
concerning these lands and these hides they shall be completely free and quit as
concerning lands which they do not have and of which they are not seised. I also
order by royal authority that their manor called Alciston, which my father gave to
the church of Battle with other lands for his soul, shall be so free and quit of shires
and hundreds and all customs of land-service as my father himself held it most
freely and quietly, and namely concerning the work on London Bridge and on the
castle of Pevensey. This I command upon my forfeiture. Witness: William de Pont
de l'Arche. At Westbourne.

197

Notification by King Henry I that in his court Godwin, a monk of St. Remi at
Rheims, has deraigned the church of Lapley against Robert de Rouen.

Henry, king of England, to Bishop Robert of Chester, Sheriff Nicholas of

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 163 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

and in peace. Witnesses: Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Bishop Roger of Salisbury,

Bishop William of Exeter, Geoffrey Ridel and Alvred de Lincoln. At Tamworth.

198

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

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

199

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

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

199 1 '[The abbot of Abingdon is Faritius 1100- 1117.10

2 '[See V.C.H. Berks., iv, 391.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 164 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

200

Notification by King Henry I that in his court Wascelina recovered the

manor of Newton as her lawful inheritance against Ulviva and was seised
thereof.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 165 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

201

Writ of King Henry I ordering Haimo the steward, sheriff of Kent, to see to it
that the abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury, shall have his rents and customs
from Ralph Goiz and particularly the church of Newington, according to the
judgment given by three counties at Southwark in the time of King William
II.

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

202

Notification by King Henry I that he has confirmed to the abbey of

Westminster the church of Sudbury, to be held as freely as it was deraigned in
his court.

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

202 1 '[In the time of King Henry I, Wulfric, a royal moneyer, gave the church of St. Bartholomew of
Sudbury to the abbey of Westminster, whereupon a priory, cell to that abbey, was established
there (MONASTICON, iii, p. 459).]1

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 166 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

203

Notification by King Henry I of an exchange in his court and with his

agreement between Abbot Reginald of Ramsey and William de Houghton.

Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Bishop Richard of

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

204

Bricstan of Chatteris is charged by a royal official, Robert Malarteis, with

concealment of treasure trove and usury, and condemned in the county court
at Huntingdon, which is presided over by Ralph Basset, a royal justice. After
five months in prison he is miraculously released.

A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis.

In the time of Henry, king of England and duke of Normandy, in the sixteenth
year of his reign in England and the tenth in the duchy of Normandy,' a certain
man named Bricstan lived in an estate of our church, 2 in a village called Chatteris.
This man, as his neighbours bear witness, did wrong to no man but was content

204A I Between 28 September 1115 and 5 August 1116. A slightly different version of this miracle
occurs in the Liber Eliensis (ed. E.O. Blake, Camden Society, 3rd ser. 1962), pp. 266-269,
where it is shorter and omits both the detailed attack on Robert Malarteis and the account of
judicial proceedings before Ralph Basset. The Ely version gives more prominence to St.
0Etheldreda.
2 [This relates to the bishopric of Ely: Orderic Vitalis quotes here a letter of Hervey, bishop of
Ely.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 167 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

with his own goods, sparing those of others. For he was neither very rich nor very
poor, but managed his affairs and those of his family after the fashion of a layman
with a modest competence. He lent money to his needy neighbours, but not at
usury; only, because so many men are untrustworthy, he retained pledges from his
debtors. So he kept between the two extremes, being considered neither better than
other good men nor worse than bad ones. Believing he was at peace with all men
and without a single enemy, he was inspired by divine grace- as the outcome
proved - to seek to be bound by the rule of St. Benedict and clothed in the habit.
What next? He came to our monastery, which was built in honour of St. Peter the
apostle and St. Etheldreda, sought admission from the monks, promised to put
himself and all that he had under their government. But, sad to relate, the evil one
through whose envy Adam fell from Paradise will never cease to vex with envy his
descendants up to the very last generation. Nevertheless God the omnipotent, who
in his mercy disposes all things well, always brings good out of evil and better out
of good. When his action was generally known, for although he was not a man of
the first rank he was nevertheless of some repute, a certain minister of King Henry,
who was more particularly a servant of the devil with wolf-like fangs, appeared on
the scene.
Now indeed, so that you may know who and what manner of man he was, I will
digress a little. His name wasRobert and he was nicknamed Malarteis,3 from the
Latin meaning 'ill-doer'. The name was deserved. For he seemed to have no
function except to catch men out. All men, I repeat: monks and clerks, knights and
peasants, men of every order, whether living under a religious vow or otherwise;
but, lest I be accused of lying, this was his constant practice wherever he could
exercise his malice. He accused all equally whenever he could, striving with all his
might to harm everyone. When he injured one or more -men he was numbered
among those of whom it is said, 'They rejoice to do evil, and delight in evil and
subversive acts'. 4 If he could find no valid reason for condemning them, he became
an inventor of falsehood and father of lies through the devil who spoke in him. But
since no one, not even one who had been his constant companion since childhood,
could relate, let alone write down, all the evil deeds of this man who is rightly called
'Thousand wiles' I will return to my subject.
When, as I have said, it was rumoured abroad that Bricstan wished to put on
the habit of religion, Robert, following the teaching of his master who always lies
and deceives, appeared on the scene. He, beginning to heap falsehood on
falsehood, said to us: 'Know that this man, Bricstan, is a thief, who has seized the
king's money by larceny and hidden it, and is trying to take the habit to escape
3 Robert Malarteis, a minor royal official with property in Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire,
occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1130, and there are later references to the family (Doris M. Stenton,
English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066-1215 (London,
1965), p. 61). The name "Mille-artifex" was given to a demon who occurs in medieval legends
(Ed. Le Pr~vost, i, 371).
Proverbs ii, 14.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 168 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

Ralph Basset was described by contemporaries as 'capitalisjusticiarius' and acted as itinerant

justice in ten counties; but he was not, as he has sometimes been called,justiciar (F.J. West, The
Justiciarshipin England, 1066-1232 (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 21-23).
6 This is evidence for the absence of local prisons insome counties (R.B. Pugh, Imprisonment in
Medieval England (Cambridge, 1968), p. 58).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 169 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 170 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

Queen Matilda acted as regent during her husband Henry I's absences abroad, which included
the period 1116-1118 (West, The Justiciarshipin England, p. 14).
8 There is some evidence from the seal of Ralph Basset that he had a high conception of his duty
as a judge (cf. D.M. Stenton, English Justice ... 1066-1215, p. 61).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 171 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Westminster, Gilbert, the abbot of the place, 9 a man of great learning in both
secular and divine letters, came out of the monastery to meet him with the whole
flock of monks, bearing the treasures of the church in procession. For he said: 'If
the relics of a dead man should be received in the church with all solemnities, we
ought far more to receive with honour this man who is a living relic. For we who
are still in this transitory life do not know where the spirit of a dead man may be:
but we are in no doubt that this man has been visited and freed in our sight by God
who does nothing in vain'. 0

B. The narrative in the Liber Eliensis.

While' continuing with the praise of the most blessed Etheldreda, we want to
narrate a recent event which is worthy of being told, rightly pleasing to those who
hear it, useful to those who retain it and possibly even of some advantage to the
ignorant. At the time of Henry, king of the English and duke of the Normans, in
the.16th year of his reign in England and the 10th of his rule in Normandy, within
the jurisdiction of the church of Ely in the vill called Chatteris there was a man
called Bricstan. Born in worldly tempest and adversity as is man's lot, he was
educated in the usual way first with the nourishment of children and then that of
young men, until he reached adulthood, when he was caught up more and more in
the wickedness of the world to the point that he obtained his livelihood from
unhappy usury and nothing else. Having thus lived shamefully for a very long
period, he became so ill that his death seemed imminent.2 Having suffered this
intolerable sickness for some time he felt inspired by divine grace to look for a
solution by truthfully promising that he would enter the monastery of the holy
virgin Etheldreda as a monk and stay there for the rest of his days. Losing no time
he brought together whatever he had and most devoutly took it with him to the
monastery of the virgin in order to fulfil his promise and, the lord Bishop Hervey at
that time exercising the pastoral cure in that place, he implored the monks' mercy
and placed himself and his possessions under their authority. But, alas, the evil
one, through whose envy Adam was driven from paradise, will never stop envying
his posterity until the very end. However, God, who disposes everything mercifully
and mildly, being omnipotent turns evil into good and good into better. A certain
minister of King Henry but more specially a servant of the devil, whose name was
Gilbert Crispin. For his life see Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster
0 (Cambridge, 1911).
[Translation from ORDERIC VITALIS History iii, 346-356.]o
204B A slightly different version of this miracle appears in Orderic Vitalis. Hist. Eccl., iii, 122-133,
where itis said to have been written up by Abbot Warin of St. Evroult at Bishop Hervey's
request.
2 Orderic says nothing of his illness and poverty, but describes his trade. "Vicinis suis
indigentibus nummos non tamen ad usuram accomodabat, sed propter infidelitatem
multorum a debitoribus vadimonia retinebat"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 172 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

3Orderic adds a libel on Ralph's methods of doing justice.

4 Cf Regesta, ii, no. 1129, which dates this county court at Huntingdon before Ralph Basset,
justiciar, between 28 September 1115 and 5 August 1116, and probably in Spring 1116.
5Orderic gives a detailed and amusing account of Bricstan's interrogation.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 173 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 174 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

' Gilbert Crispin (d. 1117?).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 175 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

205

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

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

206

In the course of a lawsuit Nigel de Oilly is forced to do homage to the abbot of

Abingdon; his services are enumerated.

Nigel de Oilly held a meadow at Oxford and a hide in Sandford and another
one in Earnigcote, of the fee of Abingdon, but for a long time after the accession of
Orderic's version ends with a pious peroration. For donations received "de Boiis'" see F.R.
Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, i, Cambridge, 1907, 118-119; ii, 35.
9 '[See also Stenton, English Justice, 61; West, Justiciarshipin England, 14; Reedy, Originsof the
generaleyre, 705; Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 186; Van Caenegem, Publicprosecution
of crime, 57-58.10
205 ' o[Stenton, English Justice, 62.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 176 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Abbot Faritius in Abingdon, he had done no homage or service to the church.

Therefore the abbot acted against him in the law courts to force him to do homage
to the church and himself for what he held and to acknowledge for the future that
the church should be quit of all royal geld and that he should serve the abbot
everywhere as his lord. Whenever the abbot will ask him in the counties of
Berkshire and Oxfordshire, he shall be ready to help and serve him and he shall not
be excused from the service of the church unless it be for the execution of a royal
command, in which case he shall send someone from his own best men to serve the
abbot. Whenever the abbot has to plead in the king's court, he will be present on
the abbot's side, unless the plea were against the king, and when the abbot goes to
that court, he shall offer lodgings to him and if nothing appropriate can be found,
he shall respectfully give up his own lodgings for him.

207

Abbot Faritius of Abingdon deraigns a plot of land situated in Oxford

against Nigel de Oilly, his tenant, who agrees to hold it against a rent of 6 d.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 177 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

208

In the court of Abbot Faritius of Abingdon, Egilwin son of Godric de

Chalgrave, who was found to hold more land than he had admitted, is
condemned to pay a higher rent in the future.

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

209

Ermenold, a burgess of Oxford who holds land near Oxford from the abbot
of Abingdon, fails to pay his rent, whereupon the abbot seizes his land.
Ermenold finds pledges that he will appear in the court of the abbot, but fails
to do so at the appointed date and finally renders his land to the church in
exchange for a promise of sustinance. The transaction is approved in the
port-moot of Oxford.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 178 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

210

A young thief condemned to be deprived of his eyesight is rescued by William

Giffard, bishop of Winchester, who came to consecrate the newly built
Augustinian priory of Merton.

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

211

Letter of Herbert Losinga, bishop of Norwich, to Roger of Salisbury, royal

justiciar, containing complaints about excessive financial demands made on
the bishop's lands, inter alia, for pleas.

What answer shall be returned to the representations of your sheep is for your
compassion to decide: I leave it entirely to your discretion to counsel me in my
anxieties. From my lands fifty pounds are demanded for pleas (although my
tenants of those lands have offended neither in their response nor in deed), and

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 179 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

212

The ship of the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, at Sandwich has been
seized unjustly. Orders are given by William, the son of King Henry I, to
William, sheriff of Kent, and by Queen Matilda to Ansfrid, steward of the
archbishop of Canterbury (to whose jurisdiction Sandwich belongs) that the
ship shall be restored, the culprits stand trial and the neighbourhood be
interrogated. The men of the county testify in favour of the abbot and
consequently a writ of William, the king's son, orders the sheriff of Kent to
reseise the abbot.

A. The first writ of William, the king's son, to the sheriff of Kent.

William, the king's son, to William, sheriff of Kent, Igreeting. I order that you
order Hamo, son of Vitalis, and honest people from the neighbourhood of
Sandwich, whom Hamo appointed, to say the truth about the ship of the abbot of
St. Augustine's. And if that ship went on sea on the day when the king last crossed
the sea, then I order that it shall keep going on sea till the king comes back to
England, and in the meantime the said abbot shall be reseised of it. Witnesses: the
bishop of Salisbury2 and the chancellor 3. At Woodstock.

B. The writ of Queen Matilda to Ansfrid, the steward of the archbishop of

Canterbury.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 180 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

C. The second writ of William, the king's son, to the sheriff of Kent.

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

213

Writ of William son of King Henry I to William de Eynesford, sheriff of

Kent, ordering a recognition to be made by the men of the hundred of Milton
concerning the customs of the abbot of St. Augustine, Canterbury, in
Newington.

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

214

Inthe abbey court of Peterborough Leofwin, brother of Colgrim, claims a

rent of 5 shillings against Abbot John, but judgment is given against him.

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

0
212C ' [See Urry, Ca' terbury, 51.]O
213 ' Concerning de \to auxilio, Regesta, no. 1192, point out that "Henry of Huntingdon records
heavy taxation in 1117"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 181 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Waterville, Geoffrey de Gunthorpe, Roger de Torpel, Ralph Papilio, Vivian,

William de Burghley, Martin de Papley, Geoffrey de Castor, William the steward,
Walter fitz Peter, Gilbert de Barnack and Godric de Thorpe.'

215

During the vacancy following the death of Abbot Faritius the abbey of
Abingdon is subjected to certain tax demands. After an appeal to the king's
justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, and on the strength of an order given by the
latter and by Robert, bishop of Lincoln, Ranulf the chancellor and Ralph
Basset, it is established in the county court, on the basis of a statement by
Roger de Hartlevill, a man of the abbey, that the 140 hides held in demesne by
the abbey in Berkshire are exempt from geld.

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

214 '[E. King, PeterboroughAbbey 1086-1310, Cambridge, 1973, p. 32.]

215 Martini
0 17 Nov. A.D. 1119.
2 [Boussard, Le gouvernement d'HenriII, p. 275, n. 10; Richardson and Sayles, The Governance,
p. 176.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 182 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

216

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

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

217

Certain persons, aided by one Benedict, who is in the service of Richard, earl
of Chester, attempt to get hold of certain lands of Abingdon Abbey at
Woodmundslea. The abbey sends a serjeant to the court of the earl of Chester
with a charter to safeguard the rights of the abbey, but he is opposed by
Benedict, who manages to take away the charter, so that the serjeant has to
return empty-handed.

We have also thought it worthwhile, as a warning to posterity, to say some

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 183 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

218

After ceding the mill of Langford to the abbey of Abingdon, William de

Seacourt maintains that the monks had obtained it by force. The king orders
him to be reseised of the mill, but after hearing a spokesman of the monks, he
changes his mind and orders the abbey to be reseised. William quitclaims all
his rights in the chapter.

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

218 ' '[William de Seacourt, son of Ansfrida, a mistress of Henry I.10

0 °
2 [Langford Mill in South Hinksey.1
3 '[See V.C.H. Berks., iv. 408; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 200.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 184 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

219

The litigation between Abbots Robert of Thorney and John of Peterborough

concerning their jurisdiction over four fishermen in Farcet is finally settled, in
favour of Thorney, in the king's court on the basis of sworn statements by
local inhabitants; the fishermen had previously made their submission to
Thorney, probably in the local court of the abbey at Stanground (an early
Thorney possession), but Peterborough had apparently not recognized this
act as valid.

A. The submission of the four fishermen to the abbot of Thorney at

Stanground.

The present narrative is put down in writing for the memory of posterity and
mainly of the monks of Thorney. At the time of Henry, king of the English and
duke of the Normans, the following litigation arose between Abbot John of
Peterborough and Abbot Robert of Thorney. The aforesaid abbot of Peterbo-
rough had four fishermen in a vill of the abbot of Thorney called Farcet who,
whenever they were summoned by the said Abbot Robert or his minister, came to
the abbot's hallmoot at Stanground to do and receive justice there. They also paid
three times a year to the abbot of Thorney the custom which in the vernacular we
call chevage, viz. 2 s. for themselves and their wives for the whole year. In August
they owed the said abbot service during twelve days and the abbot of Thorney had
all their sons and daughters and this custom had stood under his predecessors,
except that the fishermen served the abbot of Peterborough as far as their fishing
duty went and when Abbot John started to rule the monks of Peterborough and
Abbot Robert ruled over Thorney, they carried on litigation on those customs, but
it was terminated as follows. The fishermen came to Stanground and received their
land from Abbot Robert and recognized that they had to go to his hallmoot, to pay
the aforesaid chevage, to do service in August and that the abbot of Thomey
should have their sons and daughters. For the conclusion of this fine Wido the
monk took the place of Abbot Robert who was ill, and also Robert of Yaxley was
there, who received the chevage from the said fishermen. The following were
present and saw this: Aertold, Wlfric, Oger, Thuri, Gerard, Teri, Robert, Swain,
Ansgot, Tedbold, Ralph de Botolph Bridge, etc.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 185 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The judgment in the king's court in favour of the abbot of Thorney.

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

220

Having obtained in 1102 or 1103 the manor of Pytchley for one year from his
brother, Abbot Matthew of Peterborough, Geoffrey Ridel holds on to it in
spite of the claim made against him before King Henry I under Abbot Ernulf.
In 1117 he reaches an agreement with Abbot John about the farming of the
manor and its reversion to the abbey, and upon his death in 1120 Abbot John
seizes the manor into his demesne and obtains a royal writ of confirmation.

[Abbot Matthew] let to farm the manor of Pytchley to his brother Geoffrey
Ridel for one year, but after the abbot was dead, he held that vill by force as long as
he lived. Nevertheless after a claim had been made against him before the king, he
swore on behalf of himself and his heirs, upon the holy altar and the sacred relics of
St. Peter at Burch, and promised that he would compel his wife and his children to
take this same oath, namely, to give back that same manor together with his body
and his chattels and with the restoration of the vill to the monastery without
challenge, and every year so long as he held [it] he would pay four pounds of silver.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 186 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

221

Grant by King Henry I to Robert, bishop of Lincoln, of land which Ralph

Basset had deraigned for the royal demesne.

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

220 'A full account of this transaction is to be found in the Book of Charters of Brother Henry of
Pytchley, Junior, fo. vi (now in the possession of the Dean and Chapter of Peterborough).
2'[The reversion was confirmed in a writ of Henry I of prob. 7 Jan. 1121 (Regesta ii, no. 1244).]"
3"[Translation taken from HUGH CANDIDUS Chron. 46-47.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 187 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

other customs as he best and most honourably holds his other lands. Witnesses:
Ranulf the chancellor, Nigel d'Aubigny, William de Tancarville and Geoffrey de
Clinton. At Guildford.'

222

During the vacancy of the abbey of Abingdon caused by the death of Abbot
Faritius, Simon, the dispenser of Henry I, claiming hereditary right in the
church of Marcham, seizes it by royal command. On complaint by the newly
appointed Abbot Vincent, a fine is reached between the abbot and Simon.

After the venerable Abbot Faritius had left this life for a worthier one, this
church, as we have already mentioned, was left for four years without an abbot.
During that period Simon, the dispenser of King Henry, who was a relation of
William, the son of Abbot Reginald, who by the gift of his father held, for his
lifetimi only, the church of Marcham and some other possessions from this church
and receiving the habit of a monk in this place had quitclaimed everything,
suggested to the king in Normandy that the aforesaid church and land belonged to
him by hereditary right. It was not difficult to persuade the king, in the absence of
anyone who could object, and by royal command Simon seized the land with the
church and held them until Abbot Vincent succeeded as pastor of this place, who
complained to the king about these possessions having been unjustly taken away
and made an agreement with Simon, who realized how unjustly he had made this
acquisition.'

223

The monks of Durham lay claim to the priory of Tynemouth against the
abbey of St. Albans, alleging a grant made by Earl Waltheof and maintaining
that Robert de Mowbray, who expelled them from Tynemouth, unjustly
granted it to St. Albans. The claim comes first before the chapter of the
archbishop of York and is repeated before an assembly of important laymen
(possibly of one or more county courts), where one of them testifies that
Robert de Mowbray, who first gave Tynemouth to St. Albans, later regretted
this unlawful grant.

After a proclamation was made in the chapter of St. Peter at York in the
presence of Turstan [of York], Ranulf of Durham and Audouen of Evreux,
bishops, and many others, the monks of Durham have complained that the church
221 '[See confirmations in identical terms by Henry II in LINCOLN Reg., i, no. 160, pp. 102-103 and
no. 169, p. 108.]o
222 '[See Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 273; Stenton, English Justice, p. 24, n. 5.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 188 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

in Tynemouth was theirs by right through the grant of Earl Waltheof when he sent
his cousin, Morcar the son of his aunt, as a young child to them to be educated for
God in the monastery of Jarrow. IAfter he had entrusted him to them in the church
of Tynemouth, the monks took him by boat to Jarrow and took pains to feed him
and educate him in God's service. From that time onwards they say our brethren,
the monks of Jarrow, have taken care of that place, where Edmund and afterwards
Edred, their monks, served that church together with the priest Elwald, who also
had been a canon of the church of Durham2 and thus used to come over to Durham
and read mass in the course of the week, whenever it was his turn. We also
remember that Wulmar, a monk of our congregation, and other brethren who
performed the divine services there, were sent there by turns from Jarrow. The
bones of St. Oswin were also temporarily carried over to the first place by our
brethren to them in Jarrow, when it pleased them. Finally Aubrey, after receiving
the honour of the earldom, gave the same place to us who were transferred to
Durham. Therefore our monk Turkill was, on the basis of a sentence pronounced
by the whole chapter, sent there, who repaired the roof of that church and lived
there for a long time until he was expelled violently by Earl Robert de Mowbray
through his ministers Gumer and Robert Taca because of his hatred of Bishop
William. Not long afterwards Abbot Paul of the monastery of St. Albans obtained
the aforesaid church from the earl and on his way to inspect it, arrived at York.
Turgot, who was then prior of the church of Durham, sent monks and clerics there
and in the presence of Archbishop Thomas the elder and of many persons of great
eminence forbade him by canonical authority to usurp for himself a place that
belonged of right to the church of Durham and to become a violator of the sacred
canons and fraternal charity. But he replied indignantly that he counted that
prohibition for nothing. And falling ill on the way back, he died in Settrington, not
far from York. This is how we lost the church of Tynemouth. This complaint,
made almost at mid-Lent at York,3 was repeated shortly afterwards in Easter week
on Wednesday 13 April at Durham before a large gathering of important men,
who happened to have assembled there for some business, i.e. Robert de Brus,
Alan de Percy, Walter Espec, Forne son of Sigulf, Robert de Witvila, Odard,
sheriff of the Northumbrians, with the leading men of that county and many
others. As the monks put forward their complaints before this large gathering,
Alan de Percy,4 a rich man from a well known family, steadfast in speaking the
truth, stood up and as a true witness declared before everybody that he had heard
and seen the earl's penitence' for this injury, which he had violently caused St.
223 See above, p. 209. 0[ = SYMEON OF DuRHAM, ii, 209.10
2 '[Durham is a cathedral monastery, where the secular clergy was dispossessed and monks
introduced
0
by Bishop William of St. Calais in 1083. See Dugdale Monasticon, I, 224.]0
3 [About mid-Lent (20 March) 1121.]o
4 '[Probably Alanus is meant here.)'
50[This is Robert de Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, who rebelled in 1095 against William
Rufus and was condemned.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 189 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

224

Judgment in the king's court in favour of Abbot Reginald of Ramsey against

Hugh de Worcester and Roger la Velie, who unjustly held lands in Elton,
Warboys, Houghton and Wyton.

A. Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Gilbert the

sheriff and all the barons of Huntingdonshire that he has restored to Abbot
Reginald of Ramsey lands in Elton and Warboys, which Hugh de Worcester
held, and churches and lands in Houghton and Wyton which Richard la Velie
held.

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

B. Writ of King Henry I ordering Hugh de Worcester and Roger la Velie to

give up the lands mentioned in text A to the abbot of Ramsey, in execution of
a judgment given in the king's court.
0
6 [Around the same time a royal writ addressed to Walter Espec, Forne son of Sigulf and Odard
the sheriff, confirmed the monks of Tynemouth in the possession of all the lands of which they
were seised when abbot Richard of St. Albans died in 1119. Regesta ii, no. 1264 [1121, March ?].
For a discussion of the Durham charters of this period see H.S. Offler, Durham episcopal
charters,1071-1152, Gateshead, 1968, particularly concerning Tynemouth, pp. 39-47.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 190 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of England, to Hugh de Worcester and Roger La Velie, greeting. I

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

225

Notification by King Henry I that a concord was reached in the king's court
between the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and the bishop of Lincoln
concerning land in Royton.

Henry, king of the English, to Archbishop [Ralph] of Canterbury and Bishop

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 191 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

226

In the feudal court of John, bishop of Bath, a writ from William, King Henry
I's son, is produced ordering the bishop to give just seisin to Modbert of the
land in North Stoke which Grenta made him heir to. A discussion on the
justice of this order arises and the prior of Bath denies that Grenta ever
possessed hereditarily the land in Stoke, which has belonged to the church of
Bath for centuries. After witnesses for the priory are produced and a royal
charter read, judgment is given that the plaintiff shall prove his claim by at
least two witnesses or a trustworthy document, which he fails to do.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 192 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

2 o[Cynewulf, king of Wessex acc. 755-d. 786.10

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 193 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

227

Writ of King Henry I ordering Absalon de Sandwich to do right to the abbot

of St. Augustine's, Canterbury according to the judgment of the abbot's
court concerning his fee.

Henry, king of England, to Absalon de Sandwich, greeting. I order you to do

full right to the abbot of St. Augustine in his court according to the judgment of his
court concerning the fee which you hold from St. Augustine and him, namely the
church which you claim to hold from him in fee and inheritance. And unless you
are prepared to do this, I grant that he may recover his fee. Witness: Bishop
[Roger] of Salisbury, at Northampton. And I forbid anyone to disturb him
unjustly on this. Witness: the same.

228

Notification by King Henry I that he has restored to Shaftesbury Abbey the

lands which Abbess Emma deraigned in his court.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 194 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the demesne, against Picot de Burgato in Liddington 5 hides of the demesne,

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

228 [We follow the emended version of note c.]0

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 195 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

229

Writ of King Henry I ordering William, bishop of Winchester, and Adam de

Port to let Roger, bishop of Salisbury, and Thurstan, his clerk, have the
chapel of Woodcott as it was deraigned for the church of Hurstbourne.

Henry, king of the English, to Bishop William of Winchester and Adam de

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

230

Writ of King Henry I to Everard, bishop of Norwich, ordering Roger de

Valognes and the monks at Binham to hold their portion of the church of
Walsingham, as Roger proved his right against Geoffrey de Favarches.

Henry, king of England, to Everard, bishop of Norwich, greeting, I order that

Roger de Valognes and his monks of Binham shall hold their part of the church of
Walsingham, which Warin the priest withheld from them, as well and peacefully
and justly as Robert his predecessor held it, as Roger himself deraigned it against
Geoffrey de Favarches; and do not allow them to suffer any injury on this account.
Witness: the chancellor. At Silverstone.

231

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 196 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of the English, to Robert bishop of Lincoln, Earl David and the
sheriff and all his barons and lieges of Huntingdonshire, greeting. I will and order
that the soke of St. Mary and the canons of Huntingdon and their two hides in
Normancross hundred shall be quit of the community and gelds of the borough of
Huntingdon, for which the county made a claim against the burgesses and failed.
And if some man of their soke has stallage in the borough, let him also belong to
the community of the borough, otherwise let him pay for his stallage the
customary due which he should justly pay. Witnesses: the bishop of Lincoln and
several others.

232

Plea concerning land pertaining to Burton Bradstock between the abbey of

St. Stephen's, Caen and the king's tenants in Bridport, settled in favour of the
abbey by a sworn inquest in a session of seven hundreds in the area of Burton
and Bridport.

In the year 1122 of the Incarnation of the Lord, Henry, king of the English,
ordered a discussion and examination by judges of a complaint by the monks of St.
Stephen of Caen concerning the land appertaining to Burton Bradstock, which the
king's men of Bridport had seized and, thanks to the support of royal ministers,
held for a long time: the decision of the whole question was to be left to the
affirmation of the men of the four parts in that vill's neighbourhood. After
frequent delays a royal command arrived that his order should finally be carried
out. On the appointed day the claim of the monks was heard before seven
hundreds which had come together on that land from neighbouring and more
remote vills, in the presence of Warin, the sheriff of Dorset and Somerset, who had
specially been entrusted with the meeting, and oaths were sworn according to the
king's command. Sixteen men, three from Bridport and three from Burton
Bradstock and ten from the neighbourhood swore that they would make a truthful
affirmation in the inquisition concerning that land. After inquiring who had more
right in it, they confirmed by a trustworthy oath that the land was of old adjacent
to Burton Bradstock and that he who had Burton Bradstock should also have that
land. Everybody agreed with their assertion and by God's grace and the merits of
St. Stephen adjudged to the plaintiffs what was their right and ordered the
immediate transfer of the land of Burton Bradstock to the monks. Thus it
happened on that day.... The names of those who swore are the following:
William de Ver, Ronald Postel, Ruald de Stert, Richard fitz Living, Ailward de
Dagenham, Edward Chingenot, Saric de Berwick, Ailward de Bredy, Leoveric
Burdelin, Alwin Bacon, who was the reeve, Edwin fitz Saric of Bridport, Alvric fitz
Sideflet, Tedwi de Bridport, Torgot de Burton, Saric de Burton, Alwin fitz Onwin
of Burton.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 197 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

233

Litigation between Autin de Huntingdon and his son on the one hand and the
abbey of Ramsey on the other, concerning the church of Shillington. After a
quitclaim by Autin, the case is reopened by his son and heir Baldwin, who
brings a royal writ ordering him to be reseised. After Abbot Reginald has
offered to do right in his court, Bishop Robert of Lincoln claims the case and
Baldwin gives up all his rights in the church.

A. Record of the quitclaim in a church court by Autin de Huntingdon and

his son Baldwin of the church of Shillington to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey.

Be it known to the sons of Holy Mother Church that Autin de Huntingdon and
his son Baldwin have given up in peace and without any claim the church of
Shillington, which they claimed unjustly and in which they had no right, to Abbot
Reginald of Ramsey and his monks at a vill called Sawtry.' Bishop Robert of
Lincoln2 was witness and promoter of this transaction, for he conducted and
terminated this case canonically. And to ensure that the aforesaid Autin and his
son Baldwin should have not the slightest cause of displeasure, Abbot Reginald of
Ramsey, whom we have already mentioned, gave them by the hand of Reginald
called le Moigne 10 marks of silver, on the advice of the forementioned bishop of
Lincoln. Witnesses: Bishop Robert of Lincoln, Henry [of Huntingdon], arch-
deacon [of Huntingdon],3 Robert the priest of Huntingdon, Robert son of Gilbert
de Ghent and others.

B. Decision by Bishop Robert of Lincoln to bring the case concerning the

church of Shillington between the abbey of Ramsey and Baldwin, son of
Autin de Huntingdon, before his court, in spite of a royal writ which ordered
Baldwin to be reseised; Baldwin quitclaims all his rights in the church of
Shillington to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey.

A long time afterwards, when his father Autin was already dead, Baldwin,
moved by avarice, tried to be reseised by royal writ, but since the writ of the king
mentioned that he was to be reseised by right, the aforesaid abbot offered this same
Baldwin right judgment, either in his own court or in the court of the bishop of
Lincoln himself, who had terminated the case before, during the lifetime of
Baldwin's father Autin. And the same bishop also ordered the aforesaid Baldwin
as his parishioner that he and Reginald, who we said was abbot of Ramsey, to
appear again before him at Bedford so that peace could be established again
between Abbot Reginald and Baldwin, on the basis of the previous agreement
233A '[Sale is most probably Sawtry, a well known Domesday possession of Ramsey.]'
2 Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, 1093-1123.
3 Henry of Huntingdon, the historian.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 198 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

234

Grant to Battle Abbey by Wening, who held the manor of Westfield from
William fitz Wibert, of the church of the said manor, together with a 'wist' of
land and the ordeal of water belonging to the church.

A. Narrative of the grant.

At the same epoch one of the neighbours, Wening, gave the abbey in free and
perpetual tenure a near-by church called Westfield, with a wist of land and the
ordeal of water appurtenant to it, and with all its customs.'

B. Confirmation by Ralph, bishop of Chichester.

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

233B ' [Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 315-316; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 44.]1
234A DB, i, 18b. No church is listed under Westfield (Westewelle) there. However, this may be the
nearby independent church held by Ulward, the priest of the manor of Filsham. His church
had one virgate and did not belong to the manor of Filsham, as DB specifically states. It was
therefore relatively easy to sell. Westfield was held as an appropriated rectory in all extant
Battle muniments and was a valuable supplier of corn to the abbey. Searle, Lordship,pp. 447,
453-454. Henry I's confirmation is Regesta, ii, no. 1805. Bishop Ralph Luffa's confirmation is
printed in Mayr-Harting, Acta, no. 5. '[Our translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 121.]O

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 199 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

235

David, earl of Huntingdon and Northampton (the future King David I of

Scotland), helps to make peace between William Peverel and Abbot Robert
of Thorney at an assembly of barons in Keyston by persuading William to
abandon his claim to the church of Bolnhurst.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 200 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

236

After various encroachments on Battle Abbey's banlieu, the whole question

is taken to the court of King Henry I. Order is given to make a new survey of
the leuga, and thus the depredations which the abbey had suffered are ended.

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

237

Royal itinerant justices sitting in Leicestershire condemn forty-four thieves

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

In the course of this same year after St. Andrew's Day, before Christmas,
Ralph Basset and the king's thegns held a council at Hundehoge1 in Leicestershire,
and hanged there more thieves than ever had been hanged before; that was in all
forty-four men in that little time; and six men were blinded and castrated. A large
number of trustworthy men said that many were destroyed very unjustly there, but
our Lord God Almighty that sees and knows all secrets - he sees the wretched
people are treated with complete injustice: first they are robbed of their property

236 1 There is a survey on p. 50 above, where the boundaries of the leuga are given in respect of fiefs
and holdings contiguous to the leuga. But it is later than the one mentioned here, possibly a
version of this, brought up to date by Abbot Walter de Luci. Regesta, ii, no. 1166 (1109-1116)
and no. 1185 are contemporary writs ordering such boundary surveys. Other examples are
mentioned, ibid., p. xix. And see F.W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond (Cambridge,
1897), pp. 432-433. Regesta, ii, no. 619 (and p. 308) commands the barons of Hastings Rape to
make "enclosures against the land of the abbot of Battle"; it no doubt initiated or resulted from
this incident. The context into which the chronicler puts it (the abbot purchasing lands and being
involved in lawsuits obviously attendant upon getting clear 'title') makes the date of 1102, which
the Regesta editors tentatively assign to the writ, unlikely. A date after 1110 is more probable.
'[Our translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 129; see Searle, Battle Abbey, 40.]
237 0[This place has often been identified with Hundcot, Hundcote or Huncote, but Miss Clark, the
editor of the Peterborough chronicle, and Miss Whitelock in her translation of 1961 do not
consider this identification as warranted, so that Hundehoge should be considered as an
unidentified place in Leicestershire.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 201 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

238

After Geoffrey de Delce gave to the cathedral priory of Rochester part of his
land, his son and heir Herbert claims that the monks have taken more land
than they were given; an agreement is reached.

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

0
2 [Translation taken from D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, London, 1961, 191; see Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 28; Reedy, General eyre, 709-
710.10
238 1 O[From ROCHESTER Textus Roffensis, cap. 173, p. 188 it appears that Herbert was a son of
Geoffrey de Delce and the land was held of Walter Tirel.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 202 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

239

A great number of moneyers are summoned to Winchester by Bishop Roger

of Salisbury on royal orders and mutilated because of their false dealing.

A. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

In this year King Henry sent to England from Normandy before Christmas,'
and ordered that all the moneyers who were in England should be mutilated - i.e.
that each should lose the right hand and be castrated. That was because the man
who had a pound could not get a pennyworth at a market. And Bishop Roger of
Salisbury sent over all England and ordered them all to come to Winchester at
Christmas. When they got there, they were taken one by one and each deprived of
the right hand, and castrated. All this was done before Twelfth Night,2 and it was
done very justly because they had ruined all the country with their great false-
3
dealing, which they all paid for.

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

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

C. The narrative in the Continuation of Florence of Worcester.

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

239A ' 1124.

2 6 January 1125.
3 0[Translation taken from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a revised translation, ed. by D.
Whitelock, D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker, London, 1961, p. 191.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 203 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

D. The narrative in Robert of Torigny's History of the reign of Henry I

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

E. The narrative in the Chronicle of Melrose.

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

F. The narrative in the Annals of Winchester.

1125. In this year all the moneyers of all England were mutilated at Winchester,
except for three.I

239D I 'rhis count of Meulan is Waleran, the oldest son of Robert I de Beaumont, count of Meulan
and since c. 1107 earl of Leicester. Robert I died in 1118 and left the honour of Beaumont to his
eldest son Waleran, count of Meulan, and his English lands to his younger son Robert II, earl
of Leicester. Waleran had taken part in a rebellion in Normandy and was taken prisoner on 25
March 1124, see Farrer, Itin. Henry I, no. 505, p. 533 and the narrative in WILLIAM OF JUMIEGES
Gesta, VIII, 23, 294-296).J0
239F 1 '[We know of legislation issued by King Henry I in 1108 against false moneyers, but the
punishment which was then provided was emasculation and blinding and not emasculation
and the loss of the right hand, as was applied at Winchester in 1125. See FLORENCE OF
°
WORCESTER Chron., II. 57 and EADMER Historia Novorun, 193.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 204 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

240

From charters of Roger, earl of Warwick and of King Henry I concerning the
manor of Salford Priors, which belongs in free alms to the newly founded
Augustinian priory of Kenilworth, it appears that the manor had belonged to
the nun Livitha, who deraigned it in King Henry's court, and that it was given
to Kenilworth by Geoffrey de Clinton, whose donation is approved by Earl
Roger and the nun Livitha; this donation is also approved by King Henry I,
who deraigned the manor against Earl Roger.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 205 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. Extract from a charter of confirmation of King Henry I for the

Augustinian priory of Kenilworth granting, interalia, in free alms the manor
of Salford Priors, which the king had deraigned against Roger, earl of
Warwick; the manor had previously belonged to the nun Livitha and was
held by Geoffrey de Clinton from Earl Roger.

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

241

Notification by King Henry I that abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds should
continue to have his mint after his moneyer suffered punishment like all the
others in England.

Henry, king of the English, to Everard bishop of Norwich, Robert fitz Walter
and all his barons and lieges, French and English, of Suffolk, greeting. I grant that,
justice having been done to his moneyer as was done to the other moneyers of
England, the abbot of St. Edmunds1 shall have in the vill of St. Edmunds his mint,

240B '[This grant was also confirmed by King Stephen in 1136-1139 (Regesta iii, no. 418) and by
Bishop Baldwin of Worcester in 1180- 1184 (KENILWORTH Cart., fo 210-210 v0 ).]0
0
241 [Anselm, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds, 1121-1138.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 206 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

moneyer and exchange as he used to have it before. Witnesses: [John], bishop of

Lisieux, [Bernard], bishop of St. David's and Robert de Sigillo. At Rouen.

242

Record confirmed by Walter de Gloucester, royal constable, of various

disputes over the rights of the abbey of Shrewsbury which had arisen in the
past, mainly concerning the hereditary nature of tenures.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 207 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Richard de Mesnilhermer, the chaplain, who had one prebend in that church when
he died, was made a monk by our monks and buried in our church. His son
Hubert, however, a layman, hoped to acquire his father's prebend for his heritage
and therefore caused the monks much trouble until the very pious King Henry
ordered Bishop Richard of London to do right thereon, 4 as the said Hubert could
not justly have that prebend, and after many pleas he gave it up without retaining
any claim. The witnesses thereof were: the aforesaid glorious king, Bishop
Richard, Alan fitz Flaald, Hamo Peverel, Roger Corbet and his brother Robert
and Herbert fitz Helgot, with many other honourable and honest men.
Rainer de Thonglands had a small plot of land of this church called Fertecote,
which Abbot Fulchered had committed to him on the understanding that after his
death it would at once and without anything being retained return to the demesne
of the church. His son William, however, wished to retain it and similarly molested
us considerably, multiplying the pleas. Finally Abbot Fulchered proved the earlier
agreement by his testimonies and recovered by a just judgment that which the
aforesaid William wanted unjustly to take away from this church. Witnesses:
Bishop Richard and all the aforesaid.
Rainer son of Elieth restored to this church and us one hide which his father
had had in the past in farm from this church, and since he did this spontaneously
and without retaining or claiming anything for himself or for any heir of his,
Abbot Godfrey gave him 40 lb. 10 s. before many witnesses, i.e. Theoderic [de Say]
his lord, who brought about this agreement between us and him, Hamo Peverel
and his steward Warn, William a knight of the aforesaid Theoderic, William the
5
cook, Meriet and Weret, the abbot's servants, and many others.
Turstin Buich had some land along the Severn on the borders of Bridgnorth of
this church for a certain term, but after his death his son Rainald wanted to retain
it by force as an inheritance. But he did not outlive his father long and repenting in
his fatal illness, he received the monastic habit from our monks, restored the land
and gave himself up to be buried in our monastery. Present to this were: his uncle
Odo, his brother Richard, Ulger 6 and several others.
Herbert fitz Helgot wanted to avoid any claim being made after him
concerning the gifts which his father and he had made to this church and although
they had been confirmed in a royal charter,7 he wanted his sons to confirm them by
their own grant. He therefore sent them with their pious mother to this church, i.e.
4 °[This may be the writ of Henry I to Richard, bishop of London, of June-July 1121, ordering
that Abbot Godfrey shall hold his lands in peace and not be impleaded for anything which
Abbot Fulchered held when he died (SHREWSBURY Cart. A, no. 43 c, i, p. 50. - Regesta ii, no.
1297).]o
1 0 [The hide in dispute must be Stoke on Tern (Shropshire) and the Theoderic who is said to be the
lord must be Theoderic de Say, who granted a hide there to the abbey between 1094 and 1102
(SHREwsBURY Cart. A, i, p. 4 and p. 33).]
0
6 [i s is Ulger Venator, or the huntsman, who occurs several times in SHREWSBURY Cart. A. ]0
'[See the text of the general confirmation of King Henry I (SHREWSBURY Cart. A, no. 35, i, p.
33).]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 208 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Eutropius who was to be the heir after the father and his brother Nicholas and
Herbert, and having prayed in the chapter and granted the donation of their father
and of their grandfather, they took the text of the gospel into their own hands and
offered before many witnesses what had been granted on the altar of St. Peter, i.e.
the church of Castle [Holdgate], called Stanton, with some land which their
mother had given on her part in the said vill, Norton situated along the wood
called Lyme and some land which their grandfather Helgot gave with the little
wood called Monkmoor and which is situated along the banks of the river Severn
on this side of the river, although it belongs to the vill called Woolston, which is on
the other side of the river.
Robert the priest, the son of Wyger the priest, sold us his house of Castle
[Holdgate], which was among the first or even the first to be built in Castle, with the
licence and the testimony of Bishop Richard who in those days governed this
county under the king and of Rainer who was then a reeve.
Earl Roger gave for the benefit of the church some land for digging sand, on
which there is now a house, as free and quit as he himself, who was the lord, had it.
All this was testified by Bishop Richard of London and all the barons of the
county with him and I Walter [de Gloucester] the constable, who was present, have
after hearing their testimony confirmed it by my own seal, beside the seal of the
8
bishop.

243

Notification by Richard de Belmeis, bishop of London, that he and the

barons of Shropshire, sitting in the county court, have found that the claim of
Shrewsbury Abbey to be exempt of scutage was justified.

Richard, by the grace of God bishop of London, to all the barons of the county
of Shropshire, greeting. Know that Pain fitz John, who took on the administration
of the county of Shropshire after me,' at Bridgnorth in the first plea which he held
asked me and you all, together with Walter [de Gloucester], the constable, whether
the abbey of St. Peter's of Shrewsbury had ever given knights' aid, for the monks
handed over to him a writ by which the king ordered them to be quit and free of
that aid if they had not given it in the past. We, however, have all answered with
one voice that it was true that the abbot of the aforesaid church had never given it,
nor was he obliged to. I therefore beseech anyone who sees or hears these letters
during my lifetime or after my death to testify for the love of God and for the peace
of his soul to what is written in these letters. Farewell.
I '[See for commentary on several cases SHREwsauRY Cart. A, pp. 3-5.]1
243 ' '[Eversince the revolt of 1102 Richard de Behneis held special powers over the county of
Shropshire and continued to exercise them even after he became bishop of London in 1108. He
resigned them to Pain fitz John, sheriff of Shropshire, possibly as early as 1123, but at the latest in
1126 (SmEwsBURv Cart. A, i, p. 3 and ii, p. 318).10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 209 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

244

Writ of King Henry I ordering Ralph Basset to cause Vincent, abbot of

Abingdon, to have his court in Oxford as in the past, as can be established by
the oath of lawful men of Oxford.

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

245

Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriff of Essex to bring the dispute
between the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbey of Westminster
concerning land in East Ham before the county court.

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

246

King Henry I, misinformed, deprives the abbey of Abingdon of the hundred

of Hormer and the market at Abingdon and imposes a fine on the abbey, but
Abbot Vincent produces a charter of King Edward the Confessor and, after
promising 300 marks of silver, obtains from the king a charter and a writ
confirming the rights of the abbey.

In the days of this father [Abbot Vincent] some malicious people went to the
king and with flattery persuaded him to deprive this church of the hundred of

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 210 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 211 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

d'Aubigny, Robert de Oilly, Ralph Basset, Geoffrey de Clinton, William de Pont

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

247

Writ of King Henry I ordering Sheriff Aubrey de Vere to ascertain in the

county court whether the canons of St. Paul's, London, have the land whence
geld is required: if so, they are to acquit it.

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

248

Notification by King Henry I that his court has heard a case between Gilbert
de Miners and Gloucester Abbey concerning the manor of Coln Rogers and
has found that the said manor was given to the abbey by Roger of Gloucester.

Henry, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
sheriffs and all his lieges, French and English, of all England, greeting. Know that
the monks of Gloucester and Gilbert de Miners came to my court before me on the
appointed day concerning the manor of Coln, which Gilbert claimed against them
and their abbot, and that Adam de Port and William fitz Odo have witnessed

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 212 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

249

Writ of King Henry I ordering William de Houghton to inspect the

boundaries in Cranfield between the land of the abbot of Ramsey and that of
the king of Scotland by the oath of the men of the hundred.

Henry, king of England, to William de Houghton., greeting. I order you to

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

250

Notification by King Henry I that he has restored to the monastic cathedral

of Winchester the manor of Chilbolton, which William Esturmi lost by
judgment of the king's court.

Henry, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs
and all his barons and lieges of all England and his barons and lieges of
Hampshire, greeting. Know that I have restored and granted forever to God and
the church of St. Peter of the see of Winchester and the monks of that church, for
the souls of my father and my mother and the souls of my wife Matilda and my son
William and for the stability of my kingdom, the manor of Chilbolton which
belonged to William Esturmi and which he lost by judgment of my court. And I

248 l O[For the confirmation by King Henry I of the manor of Coin Rogers, given by Roger of
Gloucester, see Regesta ii, no. 706 and 784.] °

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 213 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

251

Robert of Huntingdon gives to Thorney Abbey in full portmanmoot two

houses on the occasion of his son becoming a monk.

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

252

Concord established in the castle of Tutbury on order of King Henry I,

through the good offices of Robert, bishop of Chester and William Peverel,
and confirmed in the chapter of the abbey of Burton-upon-Trent between
Robert de Ferrers and Abbot Geoffrey concerning part of a wood claimed by
the monks, and part of another wood claimed by Robert.

This is the agreement made before numerous witnesses and rich people
between Robert de Ferrers and Abbot Geoffrey of Burton. There was a great
discord between them for a certain part of the wood between Balca and Watsaches
Broc and extending as far as Stanbruge,Hindfold and Merewei which the monks of
Burton claimed, and for some part of the wood of Bromley, which Robert de
Ferrers claimed, to such an extent that word of it reached King Henry. At last,
moved by the fear of God and compelled by the king's command, Robert made a

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 214 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

253

List of invasions and depredations suffered by the estates of St. Paul's

cathedral, London.

Ralph de Marcy bought one hide of land from a villein called Leofwin of
Navestock of the manor of St. Paul's, in spite of the objections of the convent of
the canons and from there he invaded the half hide which belonged to Sevul,
another villein of that same manor and he did the same with the land of Ewin and
Winim and he occupied various bits of land around the manor, avidly nibbling at
them. And he even deprived them of half a wood. Peter de Valognes' deprives the
canons of one hide of land and a meadow with a wood which the enquirers of the
land had sworn to be theirs at the description of England and for which they pay
scot and custom to the king. Otto the goldsmith 2 deprives the canons of lands
within the city and of two hides with a wood outside the city, for which his father
ceased paying the canons ten shillings a year as payment of rent, and those lands
had been given by Edward, a citizen of this town, on the altar of St. Paul at the time
of King Edward and King William, with whom he made a fine for his possession,
253 '[Peter I de Valognes, Domesday lord of Bennington, was followed after 1109 by his son Roger,
0who died in 1141-1142 (SANDERS, English baronies, 12).]
2 [This is Otto the goldsmith the younger (d. before 1128), son of Otto the goldsmith the elder
(d. 1098), who married Eadgiva, widow of Edward, a citizen of London who occurs infra in this
doc. Cfr. J.H. Round, An early reference to Domesday, in: Domesday Studies, ed. P.E. Dove, ii,
London, 1891, 557.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 215 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

254

Dispute concerning the respective rights of the men of the abbot of St.
Augustine's, Canterbury and of the archbishop of Canterbury at Stonar
and Sandwich concerning tolls taken from ships entering the harbour of
Sandwich and concerning the use of the ferry-boat belonging to the
archbishop. King Henry I orders an assembly of twenty-four men to settle the
dispute by declaring on oath what the situation was in the time of William the
Conqueror and of Archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm. In a plea held at
Sandwich and presided over by William, sheriff of Kent, they pronounce a
verdict in favour of the archbishop.

A. The narrative, from a custumal of Sandwich, now lost but printed by

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 216 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 217 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

B. The record of the plea, from the archives of Canterbury Cathedral.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 218 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

255

Sworn inquest concerning fishery rights in the Tyne made in the presence of
royal justices by elder men of Aliwarkfolk [Durham] and Northumberland,
attributing one part to the bishop of Durham and another to the earl of
Northumberland, and declaring a third to be common.

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

254B I '[The above verdict was confirmed by King Henry II in 1155-1162 (Canterbury, Cathedral
Archives, S. 263; ed. Delisle, Chartes Originales, no. 58 [132] p. 561) and in 1162-1173
(Canterbury, Cathedral Archives, Reg. E,f 50; London, B.L. Stowe 924, fo 102). See also Van
Caenegem, Royal Writs, 64-65; Stenton, English Justice, 19-21; Du Boulay, The Lordship of
Canterbury,35.]o
255 ' '[This recordatiowas repeated under Henry II, see no. 437. See Stenton, English Justice, 64.J0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 219 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

256

Abbot Reginald of Ramsey establishes at Outwell that his abbey is entitled to

all customs at Brancaster including jetsam and flotsam. The men of nine
hundreds in Norfolk and Suffolk who had gathered there were prepared to
confirm under oath various cases in the past, where stranded fish or
merchandise had been adjudged to belong to the abbey.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 220 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

257

Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois recovers certain

possessions for the abbey from a knight called Odo, who produced a false
charter. It is only after a second examination of the case, held on royal order
and in the king's court, that the restitution is finally carried out.

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

257 1 0'[Isaiah xlii. 3]O

2 [Round, Feudal England, 302 303.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 221 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

258

Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois recovers certain lands

and churches which had been lost under Abbot Herluin and under Geoffrey
Rufus, chancellor of Henry I, who had for some time administered the abbey
after Abbot Seffrid had become bishop of Chichester.

A certain Ralph de Sainte-Barbe asked Abbot Herluin, my predecessor, for

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

259

Upon becoming abbot of Glastonbury Henry of Blois deraigns land in

Moorlinch, which had been lost under Abbot Thurstan.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 222 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

260

Writ of King Henry I to Fulk fitz Walter, Eustace the sheriff and the barons
of London, ordering that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey shall hold the land in
London which he deraigned before the king's justiciar against Gilbert
Proudfoot.

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

261

Notification by King Henry I that the barons of Ramsey have testified in his
presence that William Peche and his wife ought not to hold the land of Over
from the abbey of Ramsey, except as life tenants.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 223 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

262

Notification by King Henry I that Roger de Luvetot was amerced for a false
claim to the land of Broughton which is of the demesne of the abbey of
Ramsey, as Abbot Ailsi deraigned it at the time of King William the
Conqueror.

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

263

Notification by King Henry I that he has settled the dispute between Avelina
de Hesdin and Bishop Everard of Norwich concerning land at Eaton, which
Avelina claimed as her dower.

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

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 224 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

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

264

Writ of King Henry I notifying Ranulf, earl of Chester, that he confirms to

Robert de Grainville the land of Asgarby which the earl has deraigned
against Walter de Ghent and given in alms to Robert.

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

265

At a meeting of the king's court a charge of high treason is brought against

Geoffrey de Clinton: David I, king of Scots, who attends the meeting, is asked
to investigate the charge.

A. The narrative in Orderic Vitalis.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 225 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

B. The narrative in Roger of Hoveden.

In the 30th year of his reign, i.e. in the year of Christ 1130,1 King Henry was
first, at Christmas, in Worcester and then, at Easter, in Woodstock, where
Geoffrey de Clinton was accused of the infamy of betrayal of the king.

C. The narrative in Henry of Huntingdon.

In the 30th year of his reign King Henry was at Worcester for Christmas and at
Woodstock for Easter and there Geoffrey de Clinton was falsely accused of the
infamy of betrayal of the king.

266

Bernard, the king's scribe, deraigns by the judgment of the court of the
bishop of Exeter, land in Trecharl against the son of Elwius Gold, to whom
the bishop had given the land.

These were present in the court of Bishop William of Exeter where Bernard the
scribe deraigned the land of Trecharl against the son of Elwius Gold to whom the
bishop had given that land and who restored it to the bishop by the judgment of the
bishop's court, and the bishop gave it to Bernard as his inheritance for a relief of 4
marks of silver, i.e. Robert Arundel, Durand de Mohun and Herbert de Aunay,
justices of the lord king, and Clarembald the physician and Arnold the archdeacon
[of Exeter], Edmund de Cuhic, Vivian the treasurer [of Exeter], master Odo, Nigel
de Plympton, William de Warelwast, Malger the steward, Ralph fitz Fulchard and
Orgar de St. Stephen.

267

On the basis of a judgment of the county court of Devon, Archembald the

Fleming restores to Bernard, the king's scribe, land pertaining to the castle of
Launceston which had belonged to his grandfather; Bovo the cleric, who held
the land, receives compensation from both Archembald and Bernard.

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

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 226 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

These are the witnesses who were present where Archembald the Fleming
restored to Bernard by a judgment of the county of Devon the land which was his
grandfather's [and pertained] to the castle of Launceston as his inheritance, which
Bovo the cleric had held, and to this Bovo Archembald gave 40 d. and Bernard the
scribe also gave him 40 d. so that Bovo and his brothers should quitclaim to
Bernard and his heirs that land of their claim, to be held from the king, i.e. Robert
Arundel and Durand de Mohun, Herbert de Aunay, Richard fitz Baldwin,
William de Warelwast, Algor de Cobham, Ralph fitz Ebrard and Stephen fitz
Archembald.

268

Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln and the sheriff

of Bedfordshire and generally, that Abbot Reginald of Ramsey has
deraigned against Simon I de Beauchamp in the king's court a wood and land
in Crawley.

Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriff and the
barons and faithful, French and English, of Bedfordshire, greeting. Know that
Abbot Reginald of Ramsey has deraigned in my court to the advantage of the
church of Ramsey the wood of Crawley and the land pertaining to it against Simon
de Beauchamp, about which they were in dispute, and the aforesaid abbot gave to
Simon 20 marks of silver and two palfreys so that Simon granted them to him out
of goodwill and gave up his claim. And I will and firmly order that the aforesaid
church of Ramsey shall hold that wood and the aforesaid land belonging to the
wood well and in peace, honourably and by perpetual right. Witnesses: Bishop
Roger of Salisbury and Bishop Alexander of Lincoln, King David of Scotland,
Geoffrey the chancellor, Earl Robert of Leicester, Adam de Port, Hugh Bigod,
William d'Aubigny the butler, Geoffrey de Clinton, William d'Aubigny Brito,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 227 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

William Peverel, Pain Peverel, Walter Espec, Robert de Brus, William de Pont de
l'Arche, Hervey le Moigne, Henry fitz William and Berengar fitz Reiner. At
Brampton'.

269

Walter But, who has been summoned twice, fails to appear in the court of the
abbot of Ramsey and gives up his claim to land in Offord in favour of the
abbey.

Walter But held unjustly half a hide in Offord. Abbot Reginald, however,
summoned him to deraign that land a first time and a second time, and he failed to
appear on the appointed day. Finally, seeing that he could not deraign it, he came
to the abbot and gave up that land free and quit of himself and every heir, and the
abbot gave him five shillings worth of pennies, which he handed over to him
immediately. And Hervey le Moigne, Gilbert the son of Guy the steward and
Roger le Moigne [took part in this transaction], before the following witnesses:
Aelfric the priest of Wardon, Robert Mason and others.

270

Sale of property in London by Wulnoth de Walbrook to Abbot Reginald of

Ramsey in the London husting.

Be it known to all the sons of Holy Church that Wulnoth de Walbrook from
London has sold to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey some land of his, which he had on
the Walbrook, concerning which this same Wulnoth de Walbrook had been
summoned, and also a house of stone and a cellar which he had built on that land
with iron doors and windows upstairs and downstairs, and also some wooden
houses which he had built with his own money on some other land, which he held
in fee and inheritance from the church and the abbot of Ramsey, which lay against
that other land, which was his demesne, without any lying in between. That land of
his and the building upon it and the houses and the fee and inheritance of the other
land, which as said before he held from the abbot, were all sold by the aforesaid
Wulnoth to the abbot of Ramsey, who was seised with a rod and claimed totally

268 1 '[Another version occurs in RAMSEY Chron., no. 218, pp. 225-226.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 228 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

free and quit and without any claim. He and Maud, the daughter of himself and his
previous wife, and his wife Maud, whom he had afterwards, and Henry the son of
this second wife and Christina her daughter [gave them] before the whole husting
of London in the house of Alfwin fitz Leofstan, to be held for ever in the church of
Ramsey for ten pounds worth of pennies, which he gave him in the presence of the
whole busting. Of these ten pounds however Wulnoth gave 40 s. to his daughter
Maud because of her grant, because she had that land through her mother. And
the abbot on his part gave her half a mark of silver and to the wife of Wulnoth and
the two other children 5 s. because of their grant. The following are witnesses of
this sale and purchase on the part of the husting: William de Eynesford, sheriff of
London, John his undersheriff and Gervase his clerk, and Andrew Buccuinte and
his son Ralph and Randulf his kinsman, Gilbert Proudfoot, William Bukerel and
many others.

271

Notification that Robert Foliot and his brothers Pain and Helias have, on the
basis of a sworn verdict by men from three manors, given at the command of
King Henry I of England, King David I of Scotland and Roger of Salisbury,
the justiciar, quitclaimed to Abbot Reginald of Ramsey their claim
concerning the boundaries of Cranfield and Crawley.

Be it known to all the faithful of Holy Church that Robert Foliot and his
brothers Pain and Helias have quitclaimed to God and St. Benedict and the abbot
of Ramsey their claim concerning the boundaries of Cranfield and Crawley, as the
men from three manors who had been appointed for this purpose have sworn
them, i.e. four from Cranfield from the men of the abbot: Edwin, Siward, Leofwin
and Theodoric; four from the men of Walter de Bolebech from Crawley: Alfric,
Seman, Godric and Norman; four from the men of Simon de Beauchamp and his
mother Maud: John the smith, Godmer, Leofric and Sewi. We have moreover
found it useful to make known that the deraignment of this land and the concord
on the claim concerning these boundaries between the abbot of Ramsey and the
aforesaid Robert Foliot and his brothers were made at the command of King
Henry of England, King David of Scotland, the head of that land after the king of
England, and the bishop of Salisbury, who was the justice of all England, and by
the grant of William de Houghton of whose fief that land was. The following are
witnesses of this: Hugh fitz Richard, Robert de Broi, Ralph de Borhard, Ebruin,

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 229 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hugh Hayrun, Robert fitz Brien, Hugh de Faldo, Orderic, Alan, Hugh fitz
Harlewin, Robert son of Asketil and others. Whoever violates this agreement and
diminishes the land of St. Benedict, either this or any other, let him be
excommunicated by the authority of God the Father Almighty and the Son and
the Holy Ghost and St. Mary always virgin and all the elect of God, and let him be
deprived of their company forever. Let it be. Let it be. Amen. Amen.'

272

After Abbot Gunter of Thorney has given land at Sibson and Yaxley to his
nephew Robert of Yaxley without the consent of the chapter, his successor
Robert sets about recovering the said property. He refuses to take Robert of
Yaxley's homage and demands the return of the land at Sibson. Upon his
tenant's refusal, the abbot disseises him and acquires a royal writ directing
the justices to restore formal seisin to the abbey. The case is heard in the shire
court of Huntingdon on the basis of a royal writ addressed to the sheriff, who
reports that at the final hearing in the shire court Robert of Yaxley has
abandoned his claim and surrendered his writ to him. Details are given of
various arrangements made on that occasion between the abbot and Robert
of Yaxley, who did homage in full county court. A writ of Henry I confirms
this restitution.

A. Notitia in the cartulary ofThorney on the troubles between Abbot Robert

and Robert of Yaxley and their solution.

Concerning some lands and tenements in Yaxley and Sibson which the late
lord Abbot Gunter had given to a certain Robert, his nephew, without the consent
of the chapter, and which were afterwards recovered from him by the aforesaid
Abbot Robert as appears from the following memoranda.
Let present and future know that the lord Abbot Gunter without the consent of
the full chapter of this church gave land in Yaxley and Sibson to Robert his
nephew. On the death of Abbot Gunter of pious memory, Abbot Robert obtained
the rule of this church. He, hearing how the aforesaid Abbot Gunter had made this
gift contrary to the will and prohibition of the general chapter, with the support of
his intimate advisers refused to take Robert's homage and ordered him through
monks and men of this honour that he should immediately give up that land which
for many days and years he had held unjustly and contrary to the will of the whole

271 1 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 83. Another version occurs in RAMSEY Chron., no. 279,
pp. 255-256.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 230 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

convent. Robert being unwilling and proudly refusing, the abbot disseised him,
broke his houses and stubbed up his holt and, that the matter might be the more
quickly settled, crossed the sea and from our lord the king he sought through his
own efforts and those of his friends a writ ordering that he should be reseised of
that land by the king's justices and should hold it in peace if Robert was unable to
show that it had been given to him by grant of the chapter and that it was not
appropriated to the support of the monks, and that the king had confirmed the gift
by his authority. Robert, seeing that he could in no wise prove these things, - for
all the neighbours and men of the countryside knew that on the day when Sibson
was given him it was in the demesne of this church and that he had never had the
consent of the chapter nor had the king confirmed the gift- laying aside the
fierceness with which he was more than enough puffed up, through the intercession
of neighbours sought the lord abbot and at last, restoring to him the land at Sibson
by the rod of Odo Revel, which is laid up in the treasury of the church, in the
grange at Water Newton he became the man of the abbot and swore fealty to him,
and that to him and all the monks of this church he would be faithful and serve
them to the best of his power, and he has quitclaimed all the suits which he had
brought against the abbot touching his houses and other property, so that neither
by himself nor any heir of his shall any complaint or claim be made therein. These
are the witnesses of this settlement: Hugh de Waterville, Ralph de la Mare,
William of Burghley, Geoffrey Burdun and others.'

B. Notification by Fulk, sheriff of Huntingdon, of the quitclaim in the

county court at Huntingdon by Robert of Yaxley to Abbot Robert of
Thorney of the lands in dispute; details are given of various arrangements
made by the parties.
Again about the aforesaid Robert how in the full county court of Huntingdon
he gave up his writ which he had obtained and all his claim which he had had
against the aforesaid Abbot Robert.
Be it known to all as well future as present that Abbot Robert of Thorney and
Robert of Yaxley in 1127 A.D. on the day of the feast of St. Matthew the apostle,
which is also an ember day, have met before me Fulk the sheriff at Huntingdon,
where there was also a full shire court, and there Robert of Yaxley showed his writ
and made his plaints and claims against the abbot of Thorney. Abbot Robert,

272A 1 '[Translation taken from D.M. Stenton, English Justice, 141 and 143.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 231 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

having heard his claims and complaints, most clearly showed through clerks and
laymen who had been witnesses between them that he owed him absolutely
nothing. Robert of Yaxley, seeing that his quarrel against the abbot would avail
him nothing, taking my advice, that is, the advice of Fulk the sheriff, and that of
Rainald, abbot of Ramsey, has restored by the rod and quitclaimed in the full shire
court all his claims which he had against the abbot and his church, namely
touching the land of Sibson, whether touching houses or holts or men and all other
property, except his land at Yaxley which the abbot has given him, namely 32
virgates; and he has also, in the sight of the whole shire, given up to me his writ.
And that this agreement may endure firm and stable for ever, in my presence and
that of the abbot of Ramsey and the whole shire, Robert of Yaxley has sworn
fealty to Abbot Robert as Hervey le Moigne best knew how to set it out, namely
that he will be faithful to him and all of his as to his lawful lord, and that never
against the abbot will he make any claim or suit, and that never at any time will he
harm him or anyone of his men and that he will keep the aforesaid agreements for
ever. This being done, as confirmation and witness thereof, the abbot has given
him two marks of silver, whereof the abbot of Thorney himself handed him one
part, and I another and the abbot of Ramsey the third and Hervey le Moigne the
fourth, so that there would be manifold testimony and the matter would be firm
and stable. We are the witnesses of this settlement, I, Fulk the sheriff and Rainald,
abbot of Ramsey and his two monks Walter and Daniel, and Martin prior of St.
1
Neots, Henry the archdeacon [of Huntingdon] and others.

C. King Henry I confirms the quitclaim of Robert of Yaxley in favour of

Thorney at Huntingdon.

Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriffs and barons
of Huntingdonshire, greeting. Know that I have granted to God and the church of
Thorney and the monks the restoration of the land of Sibson, containing two
1
hides, as Robert of Yaxley restored it before Fulk the sheriff and the men of four
counties at Huntingdon. And I will and order that it shall remain with the church

272B ' 0[Translation taken from Stenton, op. cit., 143-145. - Various confirmatory quitclaims were
successsively made by Robert of Yaxley, his son William and his grandson Ralph, see Stenton,
op. cit., 144-146.]
272C '[Sheriff Fulk was succeeded in 1129 by Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 232 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

forever as stable as it was done and granted there. Witness: William d'Aubigny
Brito. At King's Cliffe. 2

273

Notification by William, archbishop of Canterbury, that the manor of Betton

Abbots has been adjudged in the king's court to the monks of Shrewsbury as
against Philip de Belmeis.

William, by God's grace archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the apostolic

see, to all the faithful of God's Holy Church throughout England, greeting. Know
those present and future that the land of Betton was adjudged quit and free to the
monks of Shrewsbury because Philip de Belmeis failed to justify himself in the
court of King Henry at Woodstock in the king's presence and our own. Farewell. 1

274

Sitting in London, the royal court considers, inter alia, a dispute between the
bishops of St. David's and Llandaff concerning the boundaries of their
respective dioceses.

The following year King Henry spent Christmas at Dunstable and Easter at
Woodstock. After Easter there was a great plea at London where many questions
were dealt with and mainly the discord between the bishop of St. David's and the
bishop of Llandaff concerning the boundaries of their dioceses.

275

Notification by King Henry I to Bishop Roger of Chester and Sheriff

Nicholas of Staffordshire and that county generally that he has confirmed the
final concord between Kenilworth Priory and Hugh, the king's watchman,
concerning various lands and other property in the inheritance of the latter's
wife.

0
2 [D.M" Stenton, English Justice, 24-25.]
273 1 O[For further litigation concerning Betton Abbots, between the monks of Shrewsbury and
Ranulf. son of Philip de Belmeis, see our document no. 387.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 233 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Henry, king of England, to the bishop of Chester and [Sheriff] Nicholas of

Stafford and his barons, ministers and all lieges, French and English, of
Staffordshire, greeting. Know that I have confirmed and granted the peace and
final concord which was made between the prior and the canons of Kenilworth and
Hugh, my watchman, concerning the lands and things which were of the
inheritance of the said Hugh's wife and about which there was litigation between
them, viz. that the prior and his canons shall have in almoign and hold in peace the
church of Stone with all its appurtenances and all the land which belonged to
Brusard in Stone and one half of the whole wood and the land which belonged to
Alan the son-in-law of Enisan in Colwalton and Aldwin, a cottier, with his land,
which was of the tenement of Ernald son of Enisan, so that they shall hold all this
in chief from Geoffrey son of Geoffrey de Clinton, to whose fee they belong. And
Hugh the watchman, who has quitclaimed all this to them, shall have and hold in
peace all other lands and other things of the same inheritance, as is testified by my
charter which he has thereon and as it is therein apportioned. And I will and firmly
order that the prior and the canons shall hold well, honourably, in peace and freely
with all the liberties, customs and immunities, belonging to the lands and the
church, as Nicholas de Stafford and his son Robert granted and confirmed them by
their charter. Witnesses: Roger bishop of Chester, Miles de Gloucester, Pain fitz
John, Aubrey de Vere, William d'Aubigny Brito and William de Clinton. At
Beckenham.'

276

A conflict between the abbot and the monks of Peterborough concerning the
proposed submission of the abbey to Cluny is brought before the king's court
and decided in favour of the monks.

A. The narrative in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

1132. This year King Henry came to this country. Then Abbot Henry came and
accused the monks of Peterborough to the king, because he wished to put the
monastery under the rule of Cluny, with the result that the king was nearly
deceived, and sent for the monks. And by the mercy of God and by means of
Bishop [Roger] of Salisbury, Bishop [Alexander] of Lincoln and the other
powerful men who were there, the king perceived that he was behaving
treacherously. When he could do no more, he wished that his nephew should be
abbot in Peterborough, but Christ did not wish it. It was not long after that, that

275 1 °[V.C.H. Staffordshire, iii, 240.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 234 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the king sent for him and made him give up the abbacy of Peterborough and go out
of the country.

B. The narrative in Hugh Candidus' Chronicle.

After this the king came from Normandy to England, the Abbot Henry' came
to him, straitly accusing in his presence the monks of Burch, not speaking the truth
but seeking to deceive the king and subject the monastery to the Cluniacs as he had
promised. Now the king was very angry and sent for the monks to Brampton and
proceedings were commenced before him and he would almost have been
deceived, if God's help had not been at hand and also the advice of the bishops of
Salisbury and Lincoln, and the barons who had long known his deceitful wiles.2

277

Notification by King Henry I that in a suit before the barons of the

Exchequer, Abbot Herbert of Westminster deraigned land in Parham and
Mapleford against Herbert fitz Herbert.

Henry, king of the English, to all his barons and lieges of Sussex and
Middlesex, greeting. Know that Abbot Herbert of Westminster has deraigned
before my barons at the Exchequer and by their judgment the land of Parham and
Mapleford' against Herbert fitz Herbert, so that Herbert can make no further
claim to it and that the abbot can have it in his demesne, if he wants to, and do with
it what he likes. And I order that the abbot shall hold it well and in peace and
without any claim, as he deraigned it. Witness: [Roger] bishop of Salisbury. At
Woodstock.

276A '[Translation taken from D. Whitelock, D.C. Douglas, S.I. Tucker, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, London, 1961, 197.] °
276B '[Knowles, Monastic Order, 183, 283; C. Clark, "'This ecclesiastical adventurer': Henry of
Saint-Jean d'Ang6ly," E.H.R., 84 (1969), 548-560.]0
0
2 [Translation taken from HUGH CANDIDUS Chron, 56.]'
277 [Mapleford is unidentified. It may be a place-name in or near Parham as suggested in Regesta
ii, p. 448 or to be identified with the Westminster manor of Pyrford (Surrey) as suggested in
CURIA REGIS ROLLS vi. 461 and 475]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 235 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

278

Writ of King Henry I ordering the sheriff of London to organize a recog-

nition concerning the hithe of Fleet held by Henry Arborarius, to determine
whether it belongs to him or St. Paul's Cathedral.

Henry, king of the English, to the sheriff of London, greeting. I order you to
make honest men of the ward where the hithe of Fleet is situated, which Henry
Arborarius holds and where the boats of St. Paul are wont to be moored when they
bring stone, recognize whether the hithe is of St. Paul or of Henry, and the boats of
St. Paul are wont and should be quit of toll and custom there. And whatever St.
Paul and the bishop were justly entitled to there according to that recognition, let
them have it without delay and in all things, so that I hear no more complaint
about it. Witness: William de Pont de l'Arche. At Winchester.'

279

Writ of King Henry I ordering those who hold land within Well wapentake to
come to the wapentake court of the bishop of Lincoln, at the summons of the
latter's ministers, as they did in the past.

Henry, king of the English, to all barons and vavasours and all lords who hold
lands in the wapentake of Well, greeting. I order you all to come to the pleas and
the wapentake of the bishop of Lincoln, which he holds from me, at the summons
of his ministers and to render him all rights and customs in all things which you
owe to him for your lands in connection with that wapentake, as well and fully as
you ever most fully rendered to Bishop Robert or one of his predecessors and
which you are justly obliged to render. And unless you do this, he shall compel you
by taking your money until you do, so that I myself shall not lose my money which
the bishop owes me for it. Witnesses: [Roger] bishop of Salisbury and Geoffrey the
chancellor. At Fareham.

278 ' °[H.W.C. Davis, "London Lands and Liberties of St. Paul's 1066-1135", Essays in Medieval
History presentedto T.F. Tout, Manchester, 1925, 49-50.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 236 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

280

King Henry I orders that the monks of Worcester Cathedral are to enjoy
peaceful tenure of the lands which they deraigned in the time of Bishop
Theulf.

Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Simon of Worcester and all his barons of
Worcestershire, greeting. I order that the prior and the monks of St. Mary of
Worcester shall hold their lands well, peacefully, justly and honourably as at my
command they deraigned them at the time of Bishop Theulf by the oath of the men
of the said bishop and their own. And let no one cause them any injury or
disturbance on this. Witness: [Geoffrey] the chancellor. At Westminster.'

281

Deraignment by Bernard of land in Blackmarston in the court of the chapter

of Hereford Cathedral by a sworn verdict of twelve men.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, amen. In the year 1133
of the Incarnation of the Lord, during the reign of King Henry, in the second year
of the bishopric of Robert, the venerable bishop of Hereford, Bernard deraigned
the land of Blackmarston in the chapter of St. Mary and St. Ethelbert by the oath
of twelve honest men and the judgment of that court and was seised and invested
thereof with the consent of the chapter, as well as his father Alward had had it and
as the neighbours and those who knew the land had perambulated all around it,
and he holds it for free service in fee farm, paying the chapter five shillings per year
on the feast of St. Ethelbert on top of what is due to the king. Witnesses: Alwyn the
priest, Hugh fitz William the forester, Hugh de Munsley, Walter de Lyde, Herbert
Cardinli, Herbert fitz Fulcold and many others.'

280 Not calendared in Regesta. Bishop Simon was consecrated 14 May 1125, but Henry I did not
return from the Continent until September 1126. The king was not in England again after his
departure in August 1133. '[According to Powicke and Fryde, Handbook, 260 the consecration
of Bishop Simon of Worcester took place on 24 (and not 14) May 1125.10
°
281 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 78.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 237 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

282

Narrative in the cartulary of the priory of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, London,

concerning the church of All Hallows on the Wall, which had been given to
the priory by Ranulf, a priest who became a monk at Reading, and of which
the canons were afterwards disseised. The narrative includes a writ of King
Henry I, ordering Bishop Gilbert to reseise the canons as they can deraign the
church by lawful witnesses, and a letter of Abbot Ansger of Reading in
favour of the priory.

At the time of Prior Norman and Gilbert the Universal, bishop of London,
during the reign of King Henry I, a certain priest called Ranulph left the world to
become a monk at Reading and gave to this church in perpetual alms the church of
All Hallows on the Wall and some land outside the wall and received the fraternity
of this place, and afterwards the aforesaid King Henry wrote as follows to the said
Bishop Gilbert, who had received that church from us into his hand, together with
the aforesaid land.
Henry, king of the English, to Gilbert bishop of London, greeting. I order you
justly to reseise the church of Holy Trinity of its church of All Hallows and of its
land in your soke, which Ranuilph the cleric gave in alms to it and of which that
church was disseised unjustly and without judgment, and let the canons of Holy
Trinity hold them well, peacefully, justly and honourably as they will be able to
deraign by their lawful witnesses that those things were given them in alms, so that
they suffer no loss for lack of full right.
The abbot of Reading also bore witness concerning this same church and wrote
to the aforesaid bishop in the following words.
To the most reverend lord and dearest father, the lord Gilbert, by God's grace
bishop of London, and to all archdeacons, canons and others who are subject to
the authority of St. Paul and the diocese of London, brother Ansger, unworthy
servant of the brethren of Reading, due obedience with all humility and the
support of prayers. We exhort the highness of your prudence diligently and out of
a desire to venerate the splendour and honour of your name, not to be inclined to
believe the spirit who also speaks to Osbern and tries to seduce his heart so that he
causes trouble to the venerable brethren of the church of Christ in London because
of the church of All Hallows and whatever pertains to it, maintaining that it was
given to him by one of our monks called Ranulph, while he was a cleric, and that he
justly possessed it, for this man's claim is doubtless unjust. After we diligently
inquired the truth of the matter, our aforesaid brother firmly maintains that he

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 238 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

gave and granted that church to the aforesaid brethren free and quit as he ever best
had it and also some land outside the walls, free and quit as he had possessed them
both justly and for a long time, but that after this donation he obtained from the
aforesaid canons that they gracefully allowed Osbern, his aforesaid nephew, to
hold the forementioned church from them on the understanding that he should
pay them 3 s. a year as a token of this link of subjection and this was kindly granted
to him by the brethren, as long as he would behave well towards them and pay
freely what had been agreed. Therefore, most reverend lord, I and our brethren,
your servants, beg and ask your clemency and that of those who surround you that
you shall let the house and the alms of our brother be held peacefully and quietly
by the servants of Jesus Christ and of yourself and that the unjust interpellation of
an importune sycophant shall not have more influence with your wisdom than the
servants of Christ's pious prayer for something which was justly granted to them.
Let God, the salvation of all men, keep your holiness forever.1

283

Notification by King Henry I that he has made an agreement between Abbot

Martin of Peterborough and Bishop Alexander of Lincoln in a plea
concerning the parish church of Peterborough.

Henry, king of the English, to all clerics and laymen in the bishopric of Lincoln,
greeting. Know that I have brought about an agreement between the abbot of
Peterborough and the bishop of Lincoln concerning the plea and controversy
between them for the parish church of Peterborough, in this way: the abbot has in
my presence and that of my bishops and barons and my whole court fully
recognized those customs which the bishop claimed in that church and pledged to
restore them into his hand so that it will remain a customary church for the bishop
of Lincoln to hold his pleas, his synod and his chapters in, just as the other parish
churches of the bishopric of Lincoln in which these things are wont to take place. I
also grant and will that the bishop shall indicate a convenient day for the abbot in
the chapter of St. Mary of Lincoln and I will that the abbot shall then go there and
do right to the bishop of Lincoln by the judgment of the chapter of St. Mary and
his peers, the abbots, as the case has been conducted between them so far.
Witnesses: Aethelwulf bishop of Carlisle, Robert de Sigillo, Robert earl of
Gloucester, Earl William de Warenne and Brian fitz Count. At Rouen.

282 1 '[LONDON ALDGATE TRINITY Cart. (Hodgett), nos 779, 780, 781.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 239 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

284

King Henry I orders Bishop Bernard of St. David's to see to it that the monks
of Gloucester Abbey shall have seisin of their church of Daugleddau, as they
deraigned it in the bishop's court on the king's order and as this deraignment
was afterwards recognized in the said court.

Henry, king of the English, to the bishop of St. David's, greeting. I order that
the monks of Gloucester shall have their seisin of their church of Daugleddau and
all its appurtenances as well and peacefully as they have a charter thereon of your
predecessor and your grant and they deraigned it before my transfretation at my
command and by the judgment of your synod and as the synod itself afterwards
recognized that they thus had deraigned it. And let them plead no more on this.
Witness: Miles de Gloucester. At Argentan.'

285

Abbot Hugh of St. Augustine's, Canterbury deraigns land in Mongeham and

in Northbourne in the court of King Henry I.

The manor of Mongeham of St. Augustine's defended itself in the time of King
Edward for two sulings and a half. Of this manor Wadard held all the land of the
villeins that was left over and it must belong to the proper farm of the monks and it
has gone up in value since the monks hold it for sixteen pounds and Wadard held it
for ten pounds. All that land, and that of Northbourne, Abbot Hugh deraigned in
the court of King Henry, with the grant of that king, in the presence of many
magnates, bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs and many others, and he restored it by
hereditary right to St. Augustine, confirmed with the king's seal.

284 ' '[See Regesta ii, no. 1754 and 1755.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 240 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

286

Extract from the sworn recognition by the men of Sawtry Judith, recorded in
a charter of Alexander Maufe, concerning the foundation, in 1147, of Sawtry
Abbey. The jurors recall a dispute between the men of Sawtry and the men
of Woodwalton in the time of King Henry I, which was settled by a
perambulation.

Concerning those boundaries which are named here it should be known that in
the time of King Henry I a discord arose between us and the men of Woodwalton
for which we met on the appointed day at Wylawe and, each producing his own
arguments and as we followed our counsellors and they theirs, we fixed our
boundaries to avoid further litigation or discord between us. We placed one man
to serve as a sign in the middle of the boundary under the wood against
Fishersmere and another at Strache and a third at Waltonholme and a fourth at
Woolveystock on the isle of Higney and thus we walked, beginning from the first
man and so to the three others, and thus we accepted the boundary between us and
them together with the aforesaid boundaries between our marsh and theirs beyond
Higney towards the marshes and so we and they separated in good peace at
Wilawe. From Fishersmere, however, around the wood which Countess Judith
had enclosed with a hedge along the boundary between the wood of Sawtry and
the wood of Walton as far as the fence of Walton Hedge and from there on as
straight a line as a rope is stretched as far as Pidley and from Pidley to Holestok at
Derneheygate and from there to Stangate Hill and from there to Grenehvrst and
from there through Stangate to Coppingfordmere between the wood of Cop-
pingford and the wood of Sawtry to Epaselcrofte through the border of the
oakwood and thence along the road which separates the fields of Sawtry and
Coppingford as far as Slakkemere.'

287

Bishop Nigel of Ely orders an inventory of the possessions of the abbey to be

made and deraigns several of them at Wandlebury in a meeting of nine
hundreds, convened at King Henry I's command and presided over by the
royal justices Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere.

0
286 1 [In Aversley Wood: V.C.H. Huntingdonshire, iii, pp. 131, 207-208.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 241 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

That the lord Bishop Nigel ordered the possessions of St. Etheldreda to be
described and what he regained for his church through his zeal.'
Early on in his pontificate the lord bishop had ordered the whole patrimony of
the church to be described by the hand of the aforesaid Ranulf so that he would
know how much he had and was entitled to receive in demesne, in rent and in
knights' fees, thus avoiding the alienation of anything that lawfully belonged to
him, and ensuring that every person of whatever condition, regular or secular,
should pay his due, so that he should receive and possess unimpaired whatever
belonged to him according to the decrees of the fathers and the institutions of the
councils. He pursued his aim with the help of two kings, mainly by recovering the
possessions through the just judgment of the old King Henry of blessed memory,
as mentioned here, but also by obtaining an authoritative charter concerning all
these possessions from the present new king, the gentle Stephen. Within the Isle:
Coveney and Mepal, and outside: Stetchworth, Wratting, Strede and the Rodings,
Thriplow, Impington, Pampisford, Marham, Cottenham, Snailwell, Gransden,
Terrington, Darmsden, Thaderege and Kingston. These and other possessions of
St. Etheldreda the bishop forcefully recovered from the invaders and they were
claimed and adjudicated at Wandlebury by the authority of the old king in the
past, as well as by the command of the present new king, as we said, before nine
hundreds presided over by the judges Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere.2 It is our
intention to copy here the latter king's charter in testimony of the deed.

288

Writ of King Stephen ordering Miles de Gloucester and Pain fitz John to hold
a sworn recognition as to what woods of the bishop of Hereford were
afforested by King Henry I.

Stephen, king of the English, to Miles de Gloucester and Pain fitz John,
greeting. Let it be recognized by the oath of twelve lawful men of the county of
Hereford which woods of the bishop of Hereford King Henry has afforested in his
lifetime. And all those I restore quietly to the bishop so that nobody shall hunt in

287 1 The Wandlebury plea, the proceedings of which are described in this chapter, must have been
heard between the accession of Nigel in 1133 and the death of Henry I at the end of 1135. The
narrative states that the findings were implemented by the authority of Henry I, but not that they
were confirmed by his charter. Certainly no such charter is known to have been issued. For
Stephen's preceptum, presumably a writ, see the note to infra, ch. 40. '[ELY Liber Eliensis (ed.
Blake), no. 49, p. 288; Regesta iii, no. 261, p. 9 3 (June 1139-Spring 1140).]. Modern equivalents
to the place names will be found in the index, and Bishop Nigel's policy of resuming alienated
lands is discussed, with reference to this chapter, in Miller, Ely, pp. 167-174.
2 Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere I jointly accounted for the farm of Cambridgeshire in 1130
(Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 43).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 242 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

them or meddle with them except with the bishop's permission, upon my
forfeiture. Witness: [Roger] the chancellor. At Oxford.'

289

William, archbishop of Canterbury, notifies the inhabitants of London that

in the controversy between Christ Church Canterbury and the abbey of
Barking concerning land in London it was agreed that, if Canterbury found
lawful witnesses from the city of London in its favour, the abbess of Barking
would seise Canterbury of the land. At a final hearing the archbishop asks the
Londoners to do right according to their conscience.

William, by God's grace, archbishop of Canterbury, to the clerics and laymen,

barons and the good men of London, greeting and God's blessing and his own. Let
it be known and well known to your beloved multitude that this case between our
church, your mother, and the monastery of Barking has for many reasons dragged
on for a long time. Finally the abbess came in our presence at Lambeth and
conceded that on the appointed day, if we had lawful witnesses from the city of
London ready to declare truthfully that our church was ever seised of the land in
dispute, the abbess would after they had produced proof seise our church of it so as
to bring to an end this endless labour. On the appointed day your men came with
witnesses who were ready to offer proof, as I and the abbess had prepared. Your
men offered witnesses whom the abbess refused to accept; as was not unusual with
her, she changed her mind, maintaining that she had not understood it thus but
otherwise. Your people refused to do anything else than what had been appointed
and left without accomplishing anything. Finally, the abbess came to us
maintaining, as she said before, that she had understood differently, but in the end
she recognized that it was so. At long last a day is appointed for ajust judgment to
be given. As the business went like this and as I describe it to you, we beseech you
that, faithful to Holy Church in the charity which is God, you shall be with God in
this affair and spare neither me nor the abbess but give just judgment according to
your conscience. I beseech, warn and adjure you by the faith of Christ that you
shall do right and pursue in this case not what is yours but what is Jesus Christ's
and that you will duly terminate it, as the abbess conceded proof and agreed to
accept it on the appointed day; even though she [had] maintained that it was
otherwise, she with certainty recognized before us that it was so. Farewell.

288 1 0[Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 273.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 243 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

290

King Stephen prosecutes a gang of plunderers led by a doorkeeper of King

Henry I and has them hanged.

So Stephen, having with such good fortune obtained both the title of king and
the royal crown, armed himself like a man to establish peace in the kingdom; and
by boldly meeting those very plunderers who had grievously ravaged the district
round about he earned great glory right at the beginning of his reign. For there was
at that time a certain man who though of humble rank, inasmuch as he had been
King Henry's doorkeeper,' was yet especially ready to do harm and most eager to
offer violence to the poor. Indeed, with a mixed body of peasants and mercenaries,
harassing his neighbours in every direction, he made himself unendurable to all,
sometimes by insatiable pillage, sometimes by fire and sword. At length Stephen
met him with spirit and after triumphantly capturing some of his followers either
deprived them of their lives or put them in chains; and shutting up their leader
2
himself together with others he finally hanged him on a gallows.

291

Record of a plea in King Stephen's court between Prior Norman of Holy

Trinity, London, and Aschuil, custodian of the Tower of London, concern-
ing part of the soke of the English Cnihtengild: it was proved by the oath of
twenty-one men that the part of the soke in dispute had belonged to the rest
of the soke and hence to Holy Trinity since the time of King Edward the
Confessor. Prior Norman had already complained about this in the time of
King Henry I and had obtained a royal writ ordering justice to be done, but
this had been postponed because of obstruction by Aschuil.

Othwer, a former custodian of the royal Tower, used force against Prior
Norman and the canons of the church of Holy Trinity of London, by whose right
the soke called English Cnihtengild came into the possession of that church, and
deprived them of a large part of the soke. Aschuil, Othwer's successor in the
custody of the Tower, kept the same part by force and refused in any way to give it
up, whereupon Prior Norman went to King Henry and asked that justice should be
done to him, which the king granted and ordered by his writ, but because of
Aschuil's obstruction it was postponed until King Henry died. However, in the

290 The only known doorkeepers (or ushers) of Henry I were Osbert hostiarius (c. 1100), John
0hostiarius(c. 1128), and Geoffrey Purcell (Reg. ii, nos. 508, 1550,
° 1650).
2 [Translation taken from ROBERT OF LEWES, Gesta Stephani.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 244 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

second year of the reign of King Stephen the aforesaid prior took the opportunity
of the presence of the king at Westminster to go and see him in the presence and
with the help of Queen Matilda, the king's wife, Algar, bishop of Coutances,
Roger the then chancellor, Arnulf the archdeacon of S6ez, William Martel the
steward, Robert de Courcy, Aubrey de Vere, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Hugh
Bigod, Adam de Belnai, Andrew Buccuinte and many other burgesses of London
and showed diligently by what force and injury that part was severed from the rest.
Aschuil was summoned before the king and asked by what right he had held that
part and what claim he had on it. He answered that he had no claim to it but,
he said, 'I have held' Thereupon the king in a loud voice ordered Andrew
[Buccuinte], his justiciar, and the other burgesses who were then present and
instructed them and others also by his writ to indicate a definite day to the prior
when they could all meet on the land in question, examine the matter reasonably
and, after it had been examined, let things remain as they had been at the time of St.
Edward, the king; if the prior could show that part to belong by right to the church,
he was to be reseised without delay. Thus it was done. On the appointed day the
prior and his helpers met on that land on the one side and Andrew Buccuinte and
several other leading and better Londoners on the other. Everything was
investigated from the time of St. Edward the king until the day when this meeting
took place and it was found and shown that that part belonged to the rest and
everything similarly by the same title. This was also proved there by many
witnesses and the oath of 21 men whose names are: Orgar the monk surnamed le
Prude, Ailwin son of Radumf, Estmund, Alfric Cheich, Brictred the cowherd,
Wulfred, Semar, Batun, Alsi, Berman, Wlpsi the smith, Alfwin Hallen, Lefswin
the smith, Ulwin the abbot, Ailwin the clerk, Algar the brother of Gerald, Wlfric
the butcher, Elfret Cugel, Wlfric, Edric Modlievesune and Godwin Balle. And
many more were ready to swear but those were judged to be sufficient. In this way,
for this reason and justice, all that land and soke was adjudged to the aforesaid
church and confirmed to that church by King Stephen, as appears from the
following charter.I

291 ' o[Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 265-266.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 245 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

292

Henry of Blois, abbot of Glastonbury and bishop of Winchester, explains

that on the accession of King Stephen he found the opportunity to recover for
his abbey by judicial action the manor of Uffculme, which was unjustly held
by Robert fitz Walter the Fleming.

Furthermore after I had perceived that the manor of Uffculme, which was then
in the possession of Robert fitz Walter the Fleming but used to belong of old to
Glastonbury, had passed into alien hands, I confess I was hesitant because of the
antiquity of the situation, and bearing it patiently for some time I postponed
making my claim. Afterwards, King Henry my uncle having gone the way of all
flesh, and my brother Stephen having succeeded in the kingdom, the aforesaid
Robert did homage and swore an oath of fealty as was the custom, together with
the other magnates of the land, but not long afterwards he utterly neglected all
debt of fealty and legality, became contumacious and rebellious to the law and the
king and was compelled by the victory ofjustice, together with several accomplices
to his wickedness, to abjure not only his own property but also the whole of
England. Considering this to be the right occasion and taking my opportunity I
publicly claimed what had belonged to the church and what he had for a long time
withheld from the church by violence as well as fraud. I proffered my claim before
the whole court with whose consent and thanks to God, who directs everything,
the king immediately gave satisfaction to Holy Church and through me liberally
restored the member to the mother church and the aforesaid manor to
Glastonbury.

293

Notification by Pain fitz John to the reeve and burgesses of Hereford that
Estrilda can freely dispose of the land which she has deraigned against him.

Pain fitz John to the reeve of Hereford, whoever he may be, and all burgesses of
of Hereford, French and English, greeting. Know that I have granted to this
Estrilda her land, which was deraigned against me, to be held firmly and quietly to
sell and to give, to herself and her heir. And this I testify for her by my letter and my
seal and according to the law of Breteuil, 1 against the yearly payment of 18 pence.
2
And I forbid anyone to cause her any further injury or contumely. Farewell.
292 1 o[V.C.H. Somerset, ii. 87.] °
293 1 O[M. Bateson, "The laws of Breteuil" E.H.R., xv (1900), 73-78; 302-318; 496-523; 754-757; xvi
(1901), 92-110; 332-345.]1
2 Pain fitz John died fighting the Welsh in that year. °[See GLOUCESTER ST. PETER Charters,248.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 246 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

294

Agreement in the king's court whereby Emma, daughter of Grimbald the

physician, grants her rights in her father's lands to Walter Martel and
promises to warrant his possession of those lands of which she is seised, and
to help him to deraign those of which, although they are hers by right, she is
not seised.

Stephen, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls,

justices, barons, sheriffs, ministers and all his lieges of all England, greeting. Know
that Emma, daughter of Grimbald the physician, has before me and with my
consent quitclaimed and placed back in my hand all the land that belonged to her
father, that of which she was seised as well as what was hers by right and of which
she was not seised. And, in her presence and with her consent, I have given and
granted all that land to Walter Martel in heritable fief for him and his heirs after
him, and she pledged that she will warrant it for him everywhere as far as possible;
and as far as those lands are concerned of which she is not seised and which Walter
will claim, she will help him as far as possible to deraign that land, at Walter's
expense. She confirmed in the hand of William Martel that she and her heirs held
without guile. And for this grant Walter gave Emma in my presence one ring of
gold, and John Marshal, on whose counsel she did this, confirmed for his part that
she held this without guile and Grimbald's wife Atselina will hold the land, which
she holds, in peace as long as she lives from Walter and afterwards the land will
return to Walter's demesne. I therefore will and firmly command that he shall hold
it well and in peace and freely and quietly in all things and places with soke, sake,
toll, team and infangthief and all freedoms belonging to it, with which Grimbald
ever most freely held it or somebody else before him. Witnesses: Waleran count of
Meulan, Robert earl of Leicester, William Martel, Aubrey de Vere, Robert de
Vere, Hugh Bigod, Geoffrey de Mandeville and Eustace fitz John. At Worcester.

295

General notification by Abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds of the customs

which the burgesses of Bury St. Edmunds have deraigned in his court as
theirs in the time of Kings Edward the Confessor, William I, William II and
Henry I.

Anselm, by God's grace abbot of St. Edmunds, to all his barons and men,
French and English, and all their successors, greeting. I notify you that those are

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 247 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the customs which the burgesses of St. Edmunds deraigned before me in my court
as having been theirs in the time of King Edward and in the time of King William
and his sons, William and Henry, and in the time of my predecessors, i.e. Abbot
Baldwin and the other abbots, and which I have granted and confirmed to them by
the grant of the whole convent of St. Edmund. Thus it is their custom to find eight
men per year from the four wards to guard the town at night and on the feast of St.
Edmund sixteen men for the four gates, two during the day and two during the
night and similarly during the twelve days following the birth of the Lord. They
shall also find four gatekeepers per year for the four gates, the fifth gate being the
east gate and in the abbot's hand. If need be, the sacrist shall find the necessary
material for the gates and the burgesses shall repair them and whenever the ditch
that surrounds the town stands in need of repair, if the knights of the abbey and
free sokemen work there, then the burgesses shall work there like the knights or the
sokemen, for this work should weigh more upon the burgesses than upon the
knights. Whoever has dwellings on burgage land in the town of St. Edmunds shall
for every dwelling give every year a halfpenny, one at Pentecost and one at the feast
of St. Martin. They moreover are not obliged to go outside the town of St.
Edmunds to the hundred or the county or to any plea where they may be
impleaded, except for their own portmanmoot. If some burgess has land in the
town of St. Edmunds of his own patrimony or if he bought it or acquired it lawfully
in the town or in the market place and has held it for one year and one day without
any claim, and if he can deraign that through the testimony of burgesses, he shall
thereafter not answer any plaintiff who might appear against him. If he has no son
or close kinsman who wants and is able to pay him so much for his land as anyone
else and if he is driven by necessity, he can sell his land to whomsoever he likes
within the fee of St. Edmunds without having to ask the permission of the provost,
his wife, his children or any of his kinsmen. If anyone has lent his money to
somebody within or without the town and cannot regain it on the appointed day
and this has been recognized in the said town, he shall take goods in distraint
therefore, and if he has obtained a pledge therefor and kept it for a full year and a
day and if the debtor wants to redeem or free it and this has been recognized, let
him sell the pledge before good witnesses for the best possible price and let him
take his money from the proceeds, and if there is anything left, let him give it back
to the other man; if however this is not sufficient for him to recover all his money.
he shall take another pledge for what is lacking. If anyone has acquired land of
burgage custom in that town, whoever he may be, let him fulfil the custom which
that land used to fulfil. Witnesses: Talbot the prior, Sired, Aednoth, Ording,
Jocelin, Hervey the sacrist, Adam the steward, Wulward the cleric, Gilbert fitz
Fulcher, William fitz Albold, Ralph de Loddon, Gilbert de Loddon, Richard de
Loddon, Roger de Gissing, Ralph de Buckenham, Hugh de Gissing, Robert de
Hawstead, Ailbric de Capel, Ailmer de Whatfield, Leomar de Barningham and his

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 248 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

nephew Berard, Brian, Osward, William fitz Peter, Reginald leo, Ralph the
constable, Osbern the butler, Geoffrey de Melford, John de Valle and Robert
Malet.

296

Controversy concerning the church of Luton between Gilbert de Clare, earl

of Pembroke, and William Chamberlain. Earl Gilbert wants his kinsman
William de Cimmay to be appointed to the church, but William Chamberlain
claims to hold the church and its lands as his lay fee. The discussion concerns
the competence of the court of the bishop of Lincoln and the lay or
ecclesiastical nature of the fee. The case is decided by the recognition of the
men of Luton, as ordered by royal writ: it is found that the church and the
land were held in frankalmoign until William Chamberlain turned it into a
military fee. Consequently William Chamberlain is disseised by judgment,
the church placed in the hands of the bishop and, at a Church council in
Oxford, William de Cimmay is finally installed as parson.

In those days there was a church in the town of Luton, with numerous
parishioners and abundantly provided with land. Those lands together with the
church, which belonged to the fee of the earl of Gloucester, were turned into
military service by the unjust violence of one William Chamberlain - of whom we
shall have to say more - who had given Earl Robert of Gloucester 10 marks for
that purpose. How this happened and which entry the aforesaid Robert had in that
church we thought interesting to explain. For when the said earl Robert of
Gloucester died,' his son William entered into the paternal inheritance. While he
was still in the fealty and service of King Stephen, he gave to Earl Gilbert2 the
lordship of the church of Luton as he had it himself and of the land pertaining to
that church and let him be seised thereof by Geoffrey de Waterville, who sent
Walter de Chesney in his place to Luton to perform this investiture. Many people
have seen and heard this donation and seisin, but William Chamberlain, a layman
who was married, had occupied the church and as we said before had reduced the
liberty of the church into the service of military duties. However, Earl Gilbert
understood that this was against reason and as patron and with the agreement of
the king gave and granted the aforesaid church and all the land that belonged to it,
which the aforesaid William Chamberlain had unjustly occupied, in alms to his

296 l '[Since Robert, earl of Gloucester, died on 31 October 1147 and the suit took place in 1138-1139,
the chronicle must be mistaken on this point, see A.W. Douglas, "Frankalmoin and
jurisdictional
0
immunity: Maitland revisited", Speculum, 53 (1978), p. 29 n. 6.]0
2 [This must be either Gilbert de Clare of Hertford, who was created some time before Christmas
1141 and died about 1152, or his uncle Gilbert de Clare of Pembroke, created 1138, died 1148
(Williams, "William the Chamberlain and Luton Church", 726).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 249 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

kinsman Gilbert de Cimmay, a cleric and chaplain of the king, in order to restore
the liberty accoriing to ecclesiastical law. Therefore the king and Earl Gilbert
presented Gilbert de Cimmay to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln with the request
that he should grant him the aforesaid church and appoint him as parson. The
bishop, however, replied that he refused to dismiss William Chamberlain from the
church except by judicial process, even if he possessed it unjustly, and he therefore
appointed a day and a place on which he and Gilbert de Cimmay could plead their
case. On the appointed day William did not come but sent messengers to say that
he would not stand trial before the bishop concerning a church which he possessed
heritably for military service and not in almoign. He was given another day but
again nothing happened. The bishop did not want to judge him in his absence lest
he should be reproached with excessive haste, and appointed a third day in the
town of Luton, where William lived, so that he could not escape or excuse himself.
Within this term the bishop of Lincoln received a mandate of Bishop [Alberic] of
Ostia, who was then legate in England, ordering him to inquire diligently whether
the land which William Chamberlain held belonged by right to the church of
Luton and if this could be established, to reclaim the church and the land into the
liberty of ecclesiastical law; and Gilbert de Cimmay carried this mandate in his
hand. When, however, the third day arrived, William was absent as usual, but
some writ of the king was brought forward ordering the men of Luton to recognize
the truth concerning the right of the church and the land, whether it belonged to
the church, and to approve the truth which they would arrive at in this matter. This
same order was also given by the bishop. They all testified and firmly maintained
that already at the first foundation of the church five hides in Luton were given to it
in free almoign and that afterwards in course of time other lands were acquired by
the parsons of the church and that thus the church with the whole land was always
held in almoign by all of them until the time of the latest, i.e. William Chamberlain,
who turned the ecclesiastical liberty into military service. This was testified by all
and proved by three elected persons with their hands on the Holy Gospels. After
this was established, William who had unjustly occupied the church was disseised
by judgment and the church was seised in the hands of the bishop. This having
been done, Gilbert de Cimmay asked that he should seise him of the free and
vacant church, as he had been presented to him, but the bishop delayed and
postponed the matter until some meeting which he was to have at Oxford. And as
he arrived there, everything, as it had happened, was recorded and shown before
Archbishop Theobald and the bishop of Lincoln and many others, native and
foreign, and Gilbert de Cimmay was, by the common judgment of the archbishop
and the bishops, seised of the church of Luton and the land and everything that
belonged to that church. 3

3 o[Williams, op. cit., 719-730; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 65, 327-328; Richardson and Sayles,
Governance, 286-287, 290; Douglas, op. cit., 26-33.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 250 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

297

Notification by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, to Henry, bishop of Winchester

and papal legate and to Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, that he returns
to the Augustinian priory of St. Frideswide the fair and the church of St.
Mary Magdalene, which Prior Wimund of St. Frideswide has deraigned, and
also the churches of St. Michael and of All Saints and everything else of
which he had unlawfully deprived the said priory.

A. First charter concerning this restitution.

To Henry, by the grace of God legate of the apostolic see, and Theobald,
archbishop of Canterbury, and the whole clergy of the whole of England, Roger,
bishop of Salisbury, greeting. I notify you that for the salvation of my soul I have
restored to the church and the prior and canons of St. Frideswide the fair and the
church of St. Mary Magdalene which Prior Wimund deraigned as being subjected
to the aforesaid church, and also the church of St. Michael above the north gate
and the church of All Saints, which Robert the priest gave to the same church, with
the mill which I gave back to them a long time ago as being their right - but their
aforesaid churches I then retained - and all their other possessions and dignities of
which I had unjustly deprived that same church. Therefore, I beg and firmly and
confidently request that for the love of God you see to it that this shall be firm and
stable. Witnesses: Azo the dean and William the subdean of Salisbury, Richard fitz
William and Gotso the chamberlain. At Salisbury.

B. Second, slightly different charter concerning the same restitution.

To Henry, legate of the apostolic see, and Theobald, archbishop of Canter-

bury, and all the bishops of the whole of England, Roger, bishop of Salisbury,
greeting and blessing. I notify you that for the salvation of my soul I have restored
to the church and the prior and the whole convent of St. Frideswide the fair
belonging to that church and the church of St. Magdalene, which King Henry
granted to that church, on the deraignment of Wimund who was prior of the
aforesaid church. Moreover, I restore to them the church of St. Michael above the
north gate and the church of All Saints, which Robert the priest gave to that
church, with the mill which I gave back to them a long time ago as their right - but

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 251 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

their aforesaid churches I then retained- and all their other possessions and
customs and dignities, of which I unjustly had deprived that same church, I
similarly have restored to them. Therefore I humbly request your dignity that you
see to it that this shall be firm and stable for the love of God, your honour and the
salvation of your souls and mine. Witnesses: Azo the dean, William the sub-dean,
Richard fitz William, Osmund the steward, Walter de Maisi and Serlo fitz Eudo.
At Salisbury.'

298

Writ of Roger of Salisbury, the justiciar, ordering the sheriff and the
constable of Lincoln to cause Bishop Alexander of Lincoln to have certain
lands according to the king's charter and the oath of lawful men of Lincoln,
twelve of the city and twelve of the venue.

Roger, bishop of Salisbury, to Hugh fitz Eudo the sheriff and Reginald the
constable of Lincoln and all burgesses of Lincoln, greeting. I order you to let the
bishop of Lincoln have twenty solidates of land as the king orders in a charter
which he has and where the king orders it, and let him have them loyally and fully
by the oath of twelve lawful men of the city of Lincoln and twelve lawful men of the
venue of Lincoln, who do not belong to that land. Witness: Robert de Vere. At
Westminster.

299

Writ of King Stephen, addressed to Bishop Alexander of Lincoln and various

officials, ordering that Canon Ralph of Lincoln, who holds the prebend of
Asgarby, is to hold his land there which he deraigned before the king's justice.

Stephen, king of the English, to the bishop of Lincoln and the sheriff and all his
ministers of Lincolnshire, greeting. I order that Ralph, the canon of Asgarby, shall
hold his land which the men of Lusby held in the prebend of Asgarby with all its
appurtenances, as well, peacefully, justly, freely and honourably as Robert de
Grainville best and most freely held it in the past and as he deraigned it before my
justice, so that he will not be impleaded thereon unless I order it by name and so
that I hear no more complaint of it. Witness: Roger the chancellor. At
Rockingham.
297B '[The documents are published and discussed in OsNEY Cart., nos. 793 and 794, ii, pp. 233, 234
and p. 214.10
298 I '[See LINCOLN Reg., vii, 1953, p. 86.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 252 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

300

King Stephen confirms the right of the priory of St. Frideswide to its gate in
the city wall of Oxford, as was recognized before him in his court by the
burgesses there.

Stephen, king of the English, to the justice, sheriff, reeves and all burgesses,
French and Enghsh, of Oxford, greeting. Know that I will and grant that the prior
and canons of St. Frideswide shall have and hold freely and quietly their gate in the
wall of the said city, built within the precinct of their monastery, for their own use,
and the easement of that wall to build on and as a support for their own buildings,
so that they shall repair the superstructure made by them and reconstruct it to their
own advantage for all the mural service belonging to the aforesaid wall throughout
the aforesaid precinct. For it was recognized by my burgesses of Oxford before me
and before my earls and barons that the canons of the aforesaid monastery have of
old had the use of the aforesaid possession and the right to build on top of the gate
and the easement of the aforesaid wall, as was said before. Witness: Aubrey de
Vere. At Oxford.

301

Notification by King Stephen of a sworn recognition by the burgesses of

Oxford, held before him in his court, concerning the rents due to the canons
of St. Frideswide's priory within Oxford.

Stephen, king of the English, to the sheriff and all his ministers and lieges of
Oxford, greeting. Know that my burgesses of Oxford have by their oath
recognized before me and before my earls and barons that the canons of the church
of St. Frideswide receive every year, within the borough of Oxford and without, a
yearly rent and have their court for the lands and tenures belonging of old to their
church, i.e. from the land which Ailwin held 27 d.; from the land which Reiner the
priest held 4 s.; from the land which Hemmiger held 6 s.; from the land which
Aldith held 12 d.; from the land which Ingelry held 8 d.; from the land which
Robert de Byseleger held 4 s.; from the land which Sawy held 4 s. 6 d.; from the
land which Durant held 4 d.; from the lands which are said to belong to the altar
of St. Frideswide 39 s. 10 d.; from the land with the oven which Alexander of
Abingdon held 8 s.; from the land which Edith the widow held 26 d.; from the lands

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 253 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

which Helewis held II s.; from the mill on the bridge 1 mark; from the land which
Goldewynethild held 2 s.; from the land which Hildewine held 2 s.; from the land
which Aelfred held 6 s.; from the land which Torald held 8 s.; from the land which
Hildewine held 28 d.; from the lands which Garet held 6 s. 10 d.; from the land
which Wautier held 2 s.; from the land which Hogeles held 2 s.; from the land which
Anketil held 40 d.; from the land which Aelfred held 2 s.; from the land which
Balford held 12 d.; from the land which Thomas the fuller held 5 s.; from the land
which Richard the priest held 3 s.; from the land which William the priest held 2 s.;
from the land which Malger held 28 d.; from the land which Philip the baker held
28 d.; from the land which William the baker held 16 d.; from the lands which Nigel
held 19 s.; from the land which Roger Brodgte held 3 s.; from the land with the
oven which Saul held 28 d.; from the land which Sucling held 12 d.; from the land
which Nicholas the priest held 2 s.; from the land which Roger Pompam held l0 s.;
from the lands which Turald held 20 d.; from the land which Sebrith held 12 d.;
from the land which Ralph Hens held 4 s.; from the land which Goldedernia held
23 s.; from the land with the mill which Godric held 8 s. 8 d.; from the land which
Tolomen held 5 s.; from the land with the oven which Thomas the baker held 16 d.;
from the land which Roger Maton held 4 d.; from the land which Alewi held 16 d.;
from the land which Ailwin held 12 d.; from the land which Osmund Pax held 12 d.;
from the land which Gilbert Wautier held 12 d.; from the land which Godwin
Hocont held 12 d.; from the land which William Lonure held 8 d.; from the land
near the lane which John Cepehan held 2 s.; from the land which Ernald the weaver
held 42 d.; from the land which Alan Romanger held outside the gate 16 s., for
which the aforesaid canons owe every year to the lord of the fee 13 d. and a quarter
for all service. From the land which belongs to the one hide in Walton and from the
land which belongs to Binsey the aforesaid canons have every year the rent and the
service of their rustics and their hundred in everything. They also have every year
one fair in the borough of Oxford and in its whole suburb, lasting seven days
around the feast of St. Benedict' with all the liberties and free customs which
belong to the fair, without disturbance. Therefore I will and grant that the
aforesaid canons shall have and hold forever the aforesaid fair, lands and rents
with all their appurtenances, liberties and free customs. Witnesses: Bishop Robert
of Hereford, Philip the chancellor, Roger de F6camp, Count Waleran of Meulan,
Baldwin de Richerio and Roger de Tosny.

301 1 '[The translation of St. Benedict is on I I July; the fair was held for a week beginning on the vigil
°
of the translation; V.C.H. Oxford, ii. 97.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 254 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

302

Notification by King Stephen that Abbot [Martin] and the monks of

Peterborough have deraigned their land at Northorpe before him at Lincoln
against the canons of that place.

Stephen, king of the English, to the justice, sheriff, barons and all his ministers
and lieges, French and English, of Lincolnshire, greeting. Know that the abbot
and monks of Peterborough have deraigned before me at Lincoln their land of
Northorpe against the canons of Lincoln. Therefore I will and firmly order that the
monks shall hold it well, in peace, freely, quietly and as they have deraigned it
before me in my court and so that they are not impleaded again concerning this
deraignment against this. Witnesses: Ralph fitz Gilbert, Turgis of Avranches,
Robert Gelle and Alan de Craon. At Stamford.'

303

Suit brought in the king's court by the archbishop of Canterbury against the
abbot of Battle whose men of Dunge Marsh (or Dengemarsh) have taken a
Romney ship as wreck. The plaintiff bases his case on an ordinance of King
Henry I, whereas the defendant argues that an ordinance is not binding after
the king's death, unless enacted by consent of the barons. The case is remitted
to the abbot's court of Dunge Marsh, but the men of the archbishop fail to
appear. The matter is again brought before the king's court by the plaintiff,
but decided in favour of the defendant.

In those days, during a storm, a ship out of Romney, in the territory of the
archbishop of Canterbury, fully loaded with various goods, was wrecked upon
land of Battle Abbey in Dengemarsh, a member of Wye. Its crew barely escaped.
Now it should be understood that from antiquity it has been held as law along the
sea-coast that in the case of shipwreck, if the survivors have not repaired her within
a fixed period of time, the ship and whatever may have been landed falls without
challenge under the lordship of that land as 'wreck'. However, King Henry was
averse to this custom and promulgated an ordinance for his own time and
throughout his empire, that if even one person should escape alive out of the
wrecked ship he should have everything. 1 But, new king, new law. For after his
death the magnates of the realm did away with the new ordinance and exercised the
ancient custom themselves. So it was that the men of Dengemarsh, according to
the maritime customs and the royal liberties of the church of Battle, took this
302 1[Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 268.]
303 I '[See on this ordinance G.F. Warner, Deprincipis instructioneliber, London, Rolls Series, 1891
(Giraldi Cambrensis opera, vol. viii), p. 119.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 255 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

wreck by force. When he heard this the archbishop went to court and brought
before the king a complaint against the abbot of Battle, that he had used force and
hostility in this matter. The king at once commanded the abbot to appear before
him. 2 The matter was aired at the royal court before a gathering of nobles. The
king himself was inclined towards the archbishop and, through the zealous and
skilful William of Ypres, 3 who at that time held the county of Kent, he accused the
abbot of breaking the peace, since he had acted against a decree of King Henry.
After much disputation, the abbot calmed the court with an argument planned
ahead of time. For he pointed out that while King Henry could at will change the
ancient rights of the country for his own time, that fact should not establish
anything for posterity except with the common consent of the barons of the realm.
So, if his equals in privilege, namely the barons who were present, would, with the
royal assent, give up for themselves the point at issue, he would willingly give it up
too. The magnates present unanimously refused to do this and it was finally
decreed in common that this hearing be closed and that the abbot should, by royal
privilege, convene his own court on the matter at Dengemarsh on a stated day,
with the archbishop's men in attendance, and should have complete jurisdiction.
Now at this assembly it happened that the abbot uttered with foresight a
memorable phrase that much weakened the king's spirit. For when he was
accused, he turned directly to the king and said: "Not for long may you wear the
crown of England, 0 king, so please it God, if you destroy even such a small liberty
given our church by King William and respected by your other predecessors" The
abbot kept to the arranged day, but no one arrived for the archbishop until the
next day. Thus losing their say in the settlement of the offence, they went away
disappointed, and once more a plaint reached the king from the archbishop. Once
more the abbot was summoned and came. The points of difficulty were explained
and by general consent it was adjudged that the abbot had proved his case and that
he ought not to be challenged further on this by the archbishop. The hearing was
dissolved, and each returned home. The abbot, disposing as he wished of all the
goods that had caused the trouble, pacified the archbishop and his men with some
of the shipwrecked goods, but the important things he kept for himself and for his
church of Battle. And so the quarrel over this matter ended.4
2 The chronicler is using the phraseology of royal writs, as in Van Caenegem, Writs. 422. 488. The
phrase is particularly common in the thirteenth century. Bracton: de Legibus et Consuetudinibus
Angliae, ed. G.E. Woodbine, transl. and revised by S.E Thorne, ii (Cambridge, Mass., 1968),
201-202, 310, 316, 317, 333, 422, 427.
3 William of Ypres, illegitimate son of Philip, count of Ypres, was Stephen's confidant, and
principal mercenary commander. Like the Battle chronicler, Gervase of Canterbury says that he
had custody of Kent. Gervaseof Canterbury(RS), ii. 73. He never appears as earl of that county,
but he drew revenues from it till 1156. His presence therefore provides no clue as to the date of
the incident. The chronicler dates the incident in the mid-I 140s. For William's career see H.A.
Cronne, The Reign of Stephen (London, 1970), pp. 147-149.
0
4 [Translation taken from BATTLE Chron., 143-147. See H.W.C. Davis, "The chronicle of Battle
abbey", English HistoricalReview, xxix (1914), 434; G.B. Adams, Council and courts in Anglo-
NormanEngland, 1926, p. 118; Regesta iii, p. xxvii; Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, pp. 264-265.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 256 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

304

Writ of King Stephen pardoning William fitz Robert for a forfeiture

concerning assarts, on which he had been impleaded.

Stephen, king of the English, to Henry de Essex, Adam de Beaunay 1 and all his
ministers of Essex, greeting. I quitclaim William fitz Robert of the forfeiture on
which he was impleaded for the assarts of his land of Bersiestona, so that
henceforth he shall be quit thereof and shall no more be impleaded therefore, if he
makes no further profits from the aforesaid assarts of Bersiestona.Witness: Robert
de Courcy. At Westminster.

305

Writ of King Stephen ordering that the abbot of Thorney shall have his
market at Yaxley as was adjudged at Huntingdon before Aubrey de Vere and
William Martel, royal judges.

Stephen, king of the English, to the sheriff and his officials of Huntingdonshire,
greeting. I order that the abbot of Thorney have his market and all his customs of
Yaxley as well and peacefully and honourably as ever he best and most freely had
them in the time of King William and of King Henry on the day when he was alive
and dead, and as it was decided before Aubrey de Vere and William Martel at
Huntingdon. And the burgesses of Huntingdon may take their customs where they
were wont to take them in the time of King Henry. Witness: Aubrey de Vere. At
Westminster.'

306

Summary of a charter of King Stephen releasing the men of Ilbert de Lacy

from their forfeitures, especially in connection with the death of William
Maltravers.

Charter of King Stephen by which he quitclaimed all the men of Ilbert de Lacy,

304 In Regesta iii, p. xxiii it is suggested that Adam de Beaunay was a royal itinerant justice; Henry
de Essex was a well known curialis, the son in law of Robert de Vere (tc. 1151), one of King
Stephen's constables.]'
305 1 The "customs" referred to are, in this instance, customary levies. '[Translation taken from
Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 270.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 257 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

French and English, of all the forfeitures which they committed between the death
of King Henry and the day on which the said Stephen was crowned, and namely of
the forfeiture for the death of William Maltravers. 1

307

Confirmation by William de Roumare, earl of Lincoln, to the canons of

Warter of various possessions and, inter alia, the church of Nunburnholme,
which Ivo fitz Forne had quitclaimed to the earl in the latter's court at
Bolingbroke.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, to the kings, archbishops,
bishops, abbots and all faithful sons of Holy Mother Church, William de
Roumare, greeting. Be it known to you all that I have granted the church of St.
James of Warter to the regular canons who live there according to the institutions
of Arrouaise and to their successors forever, with all the appurtenances and
customs which the church has or best had in the days of my father Roger fitz
Gerold, free and quit of all worldly exaction and service, like the neighbouring
churches of congregations which are freer. And to this aforesaid church I give all
the dwellings of my father's courtyard and the site for a mill wherever they can find
it on my land and free milling in my mills and one carrucate of land in Hawold and
also the churches of the priest Gamel of Askham and whatever he held in land and
churches, and in Seaton Ross half a carrucate and my part of the waste of that vill
for his vicarage and also the church of Barton in Westmoreland with all that
belongs to it and the church of Nunburnholme, which Ivo fitz Forne quitclaimed
to me before all my court in Bolingbroke. In the year that I became earl of Lincoln
I gave to the aforesaid church, with the consent of my heir and my wife, 10 marks'
worth of land in Warter, viz. one sixth of my demesne with two ploughmen and
their land and the rest belonging to the rustics, whose names are the following:
Alric son of Swany, Berenger, Auda, Akebrant and the land of Thecca, Effrad,
Chut, Uccha son of Bruni, Ralph son of Asketill, Haldan Bola, Rainald son of
Sywak, Ascan son of Jeffe, Wyna, Ralph son of Ketel, Ralph Byscop, Gamel,
Alryk, Haldan, Tocca and Turold in Seaton Ross. And to ensure that all this will
remain with the said church firmly and unshakenly I and William my heir and
Hawisa my wife have confirmed it by these signs of the Holy Cross, which we make
with our own hands and before the following witnesses: Guy de Vere, Oliver de
Wendora, William de Rushden and his brother Guy, Stephen the chaplain and his

306 1 '[Upon the announcement of King Henry I's death (1 December 1135), Pain, a knight of the
honour of Pontefract (which the Lacy family had lost by 1115/18) inflicted on William
Maltravers (one of King Henry's favourites, who had acquired Pontefract c. 1129/30) a wound
of which he soon died. It looks as if Ilbert de Lacy, to whom Pontefract soon returned, was privy
to this deed (see YoRKsmRE Charters, iii, 143-144; Sanders, Baronies, 138.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 258 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

associate William, Robert the cleric, Robert de Canteloup and his brother Walter,
Gilaberd de Bec, Ralph de Pouyl and other members of my court. I also grant that
if anyone wants to give something to that same church from my fee, he shall be
permitted to do so, saving my service, and the church will be at liberty to accept it.
This charter was made in the seventh year of King Stephen and the third year of my
earldom at my castle of Partney on the Saturday before the Purification of St.
Mary in the year 1135 (sic).

308

Notification by Robert de Sigillo, bishop of London, that a recognition

carried out before him established that Ranulf Peverel had given the estate of
Abberton to St. Paul's, London.

Robert, by God's grace bishop of London, to his beloved sons in Christ the
dean, the archdeacons and the whole chapter of St. Paul and all the barons of St.
Paul and all the faithful of Holy Church throughout the bishopric of London,
greeting in the Lord and our blessing. That all those present and future know that
it was inquired and recognized evidently and without any ambiguity in our
audience and presence by our barons and lawful men of our church, clerics and
laymen, that Ranulf Peverel, whose body rests in our church, gave to God and St.
Paul for the salvation of his soul the land called Abberton in perpetual alms for the
illumination of the church into the hands of the dean and chapter of the church of
St. Paul. Not wanting to diminish or reduce in any way the goods of that church or
the chapter, but wanting to augment and conserve them as far as possible and with
God's help we gladly grant, freely confer and quietly confirm the aforesaid land to
God and St. Paul and the dean and chapter as their own and in view of the
illumination for which it was given. So that this our pious and just grant shall
receive due consent and that all who presume to infringe or diminish it shall receive
due punishment and that this our confirmation shall forever remain valid and
unshaken, we have strengthened this charter with the impression of our present
seal and corroborated it with the testimony of our brethren whose names follow,
ordaining that all shall conserve this grant to God and St. Paul loyally and receive
God's and St. Paul's and our blessing, and let all those who act against it or
diminish it in any way feel the deserved indignation of God and St. Paul and all the
saints and, unless they suitably repent, be excommunicated. Given in London in
the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1142, the first year of our episcopate, in the
presence of our brethren and sons Ralph the dean, the archdeacons Richard
Rufus, Richard de Belmeis and Ailward, Roger Brun the steward, William de

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 259 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Ockendon and his son William, Osbert Masculus, Laurence Buccuinte, master
Andrew and Salomon de Stepney. At London at the feast of Easter.

309

Writ of Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, to Aelard de Guerris, ordering

a recognition concerning land of which the canons of St. Martin le Grand,
London, claim to have been disseised by Walter Long.

Geoffrey, earl of Essex, to Aelard de Guerris, greeting. I order that omitting

any subterfuge or delay and as you love my body and my soul, you restore to the
canons of St. Martin at London their whole grain harvest of Good Easter and all
their things which my men have taken away there and all their goods which can be
found on my land. And let all their men and all their things enjoy my firm peace,
for I have promised satisfaction to those canons and all churches of God because
of my infirmity and for the salvation of my soul. And cause a recognition to be
made by the venue and honest men of that province whether the five acres of land
which Walter Long holds after disseising them and which the canons claim belong
to their tenure, and if it is thus recognized let them be reseised of them and let them
hold them well and in peace.'

310

Writ of King Stephen notifying the justiciar, the sheriff and the barons of
London that Archbishop Hugh of Rouen (formerly abbot of Reading) has
testified in writing that Algar the priest and Baldwin his brother have given
their lands and houses in London in perpetual alms to Reading Abbey, and
ordering that the abbey shall hold them peacefully.

Stephen, king of the English, to the justiciar, the sheriff and the barons of
London, greeting. Know that Archbishop Hugh of Rouen testifies by his writ that
Algar the priest and his brother Baldwin have given in perpetual alms to God and
the church of St. Mary of Reading their lands and houses in London at the time
when the aforesaid archbishop was abbot in the aforesaid church. I therefore will
and firmly order that the church and the monks shall have and hold those lands
and houses so well, peacefully, freely, quietly and honourably as the aforesaid
brothers gave them to them and as the aforesaid archbishop testifies that that
donation was made in his presence. Witness: Robert de Vere. At Windsor.

309 1 0[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, p. 84 and p. 277, n. 4.]o

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 260 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

311

After the death, some time before 1114, of Hubert de Rye the cathedral
priory of Christ Church at Canterbury is violently disseised of the manor of
Mulbarton, which was a donation of his. In spite of Archbishop Ralph's
attempts to regain the land, no progress is made until Theobald becomes
archbishop and takes measures against Hubert's son Henry, who is
excommunicated and admits in the court of the archbishop that he has
alienated the said manor, offering other land in compensation.

Hubert de Rye gave to Christ Church at Canterbury a manor of his called

Mulbarton which was held after his death by Goldwyn, a monk of that church,
until the church was violently deprived of that manor. Afterwards, in the time of
Archbishop Ralph, Hugh the monk, who afterwards became abbot of St.
Augustine's and Richard de Beanfulk and the abbot of St. Alban's were sent out
by the said archbishop to claim the said manor for the monks of Christ Church,
but for a long time the situation remained unchanged. Later on, in the time of King
Stephen, the lord Theobald, archbishop and primate of all England, hearing that
the manor had thus been given to his church and violently taken away. sent a
message to Hubert de Rye's son Henry that he should restore the manor to his
church or do justice, but Henry refused to do either. Afterwards, Henry, having
been requested time and again by the archbishop to act, refused completely and
was summoned in the canonical way not once but several times to do justice, but
failed to appear, whereupon he was, following the dictate of justice, excommuni-
cated by the lord archbishop. He lived for some time under this excommunication
until stung by his own conscience and led by guilt and penitence he came to the lord
Archbishop Theobald in Canterbury on the feast of St. Magnus the martyr and
there, in the chamber of the archbishop, after many speeches were made from both
sides on this matter, he at last declared that the aforesaid manor had been
alienated by him in such a manner that he could in no way revoke it in favour of the
church. He asked, however, that he should be permitted to give some free
hereditary land of his, worth ten marks of silver per year, to Christ Church instead
of the aforesaid manor. To this request the lord archbishop and Prior Walter with
several monks who were present consented, whereupon Henry de Rye swore on
the four Gospels that he would surrender the land, yielding ten marks, on the day
constituted for him by the archbishop, to be in the eternal possession of the monks
of Christ Church. This business having been transacted, he soon came to the
church and in the presence of the archbishop and many others he seised the altar of
Christ of the said land by the placing of a knife and there also fully accepted the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 261 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

fraternity of the church from the archbishop in such a way that he could towards
the end of his life become a monk there if he wanted to. On the same day he also
renewed before the convent in the chapter the donation which he had made for the
soul of his father and his mother and his own, was fully accepted in their society
because of his great devotion and having kissed, as was the custom, all the monks
in the right order, joyfully left them. Afterwards he gave them forever the manor of
Deopham which is in Norfolk. At this act of devotion the following were present:
Walter the prior, Wibert the monk, Hugh the cellarer, Felix the monk, Dunstan
the monk and the clerics: Walter the archdeacon of Canterbury, John of Pagham,
Roger of Pont l'Evfque, Thomas [Becket] of London, Alan of Wells, William
Cumin and Jordan Fantosme and the laymen: Godfrey de Ros, Robert fitz
Godfrey, Berner the steward, William the porter, Roger the porter, William the
porter of the church and many others. This was done in the year of the Incarnation
1146.

312

Notification by Waleran, count of Meulan, that he has granted to Selby

Abbey the manor of Stanford-on-Avon, as it was deraigned in the court of
King Stephen.

Waleran, count of Meulan, to his most beloved brother Robert, earl of

Leicester, and all his barons, friends and lieges of all England, greeting. Know that
I have granted to the abbot and monks of St. Germanus of Selby the manor of
Stanford with all its appurtenances, to be held honourably, freely and quietly as it
is of my demesne alms and as it was deraigned in the court of King Stephen at
Northampton on the basis of a writ of King William. And I pray you, out of love
and for the honour of God and because of my prayer, to guard, maintain and
defend it whenever it may be useful or necessary for them, so that I shall be grateful
to you. Witness: Philip de Belmeis.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 262 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

313

Notification by King Stephen that he has restored to the canons of Holy

Trinity, London, their land in Smithfield, which Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville
had occupied.

Stephen, king of the English, to Bishop [Robert] of London and the justice,
sheriff, barons, ministers and all his lieges, French and English, of London,
greeting. Know that I have restored and granted forever to God and the church of
Holy Trinity of London and the regular canons who serve God there, for the soul
of King Henry and for my salvation and that of Queen Matilda my wife and my
son Eustace and my other children, their land of Smithfield which Earl Geoffrey
had occupied to plant his vineyard. Therefore I will and firmly order that they shall
hold and have the aforesaid land well, peacefully, freely, quietly and honourably as
they best and most freely and quietly hold their other lands and as King Henry
granted it to them and confirmed by his charter. Witnesses: Queen Matilda,
Thomas the chaplain, William of Ypres and Richard de Lucy. At London.'

314

Alexander Maufe, in a charter concerning the foundation of Sawtry Abbey

and containing several data on the composition of Sawtry Judith and its
previous owners, notifies generally that he and Richard le Waleys have, at the
command of the founder of Sawtry, Earl Simon II de St. Liz of Northamp-
ton, organised a sworn inquest by the men of the vill concerning the
boundaries and rights of the said place.

To all the faithful of Holy Mother Church, Alexander Maufe, greeting. Let all
those who see and hear this writing of my attestation know that my lord Simon,
earl of Northampton, gave to the monks of the order of Citeaux for the
construction of an abbey in perpetual alms the whole land of Sawtry, in the wood,
the plain and the marsh, with its proper boundaries and all its other appurte-
nances, liberties, immunities and all other things, as best and most freely and most
extensively as he himself or his father Earl Simon or his grandfather and
grandmother, i.e. Earl Waltheof and Countess Judith, and Turchil the Dane' and
his wife Hurugonda and his other predecessors had and held it, and as King

313 I[Calendared in LONDON ALDGATE TRINITY Cart. (Hodgett), no. 961.10

0
314 [According to V.C.H. Huntingdonshire,iii. 207 the charter confuses Turchil the Dane (ob. 1039)
with Turchil of Harringworth who was living between 1050 and 1070 and consented to his wife
Thurgunt or Hurugonda leaving land in Sawtry by will to Ramsey abbey.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 263 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Wulfhere, the founder of the monastery of Peterborough,2 gave by his charter,

which he made for that foundation, i.e. the marsh with the pools and the lakes of
Chalderbeach 3 and Whittlesey Mere and numerous others pertaining thereto;
this Sawtry [the earl] gave to the aforesaid monks with its proper boundaries and
by his charter. Hence Earl Simon, mindful of the peace, quiet and liberty of the
monks and to ensure as long as this world lasts that it be known how he and his
ancestors held Sawtry most freely and most extensively, ordered me and Richard le
Waleys who at his command have seised the aforesaid monks of Sawtry and
handed it over to them, to make the men of that viii say truthfully by what
boundaries and limits and liberties they or their fathers used to hold Sawtry under
their lords and, thus having sworn and after their oath having consulted each
other, they i.e. Levetus, the reeve of the vill who swore first, Humphrey de Upton,
William de Asper, Lambert and many others gave the following answer after their
oath...

315

Writ of King Stephen to Walter fitz Gilbert and his reeve of Maldon,
ordering them to reseise the canons of St. Martin le Grand, London, of their
burgage land at Maldon, if they can show that Oswald of Maldon disseised
them unjustly and without judgment.

Stephen, king of the English, to Walter fitz Gilbert and his reeve of Maldon,
greeting. If the canons of St. Martin, London, can show that Osward de Maldon
has unjustly and without judgment disseised them of their burgage land of
Maldon, then I order that you cause them to be reseised as they were seised of it on
the day when king Henry was alive and dead. And whatever he has taken there
since, you shall cause it to be restored, and let them hold it in peace, as they held it
in King Henry's time and for the same customary due. And unless you do this,
Richard de Lucy and the sheriff of Essex shall have it done, that I hear no
complaint thereof for lack of right. Witness: Warner de Lusors. In London. 1

2 '[On the foundation of the mid-seventh century abbey of Peterborough see V.C.H. Northamp-
0
tonshire, ii. 84 and DUGDALE Monasticon, i. 344.]
3 [To the south of Whittlesey Mere lay Chalder Mere, now in the village of Holme in the
Normancross hundred in the county of Huntingdon (Place-Names Huntingdonshire, 188)J0
315 1 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, no. 86, p. 456.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 264 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

316

Record of the recovery by the priory of St. Frideswide of a hide of land by an

agreement reached after a judicial combat in the court of Robert II de
Beaumont, earl of Leicester.

This is the truth about the hide of Headington at the time when a composition
was made between the monks of Bec and the canons of St. Frideswide of Oxford
before Pope Eugene at Paris.I A certain knight called Edward held the said hide for
which he refused to do homage or any service to Prior Robert and the canons of St.
Frideswide, wherefore the said prior claimed to hold the said hide in demesne by a
writ of right in the court of the earl of Leicester. And the case took its martial
course and was decided by judicial combat fought in the court of the said earl in a
green meadow above the house of Godwin. Finally, after many blows between the
champions and although the champion of Edward had lost his sight in the fight -
which was unknown to the prior and his men - they both sat down and as neither
dared attack the other peace was established as follows: the said Edward did
homage for it to the said prior and should hold it by hereditary right against the
yearly payment of 19 s. and owing suit for it in the court of the prior of St.
Frideswide of Oxford, like the other free men of that tenement. This Edward was
succeeded by his nephew Robert, who was succeeded by his son Roger, the father
of the woman who now holds by hereditary right and whose wardship was sold by
our predecessor to Gocelin the marshal for 6 marks of silver. While she was still a
little girl, staying with her mother in the custody of Simon de Wancy, to whose
custody the said Gocelin had surrendered her, she was ravished by violence by
Reginald de Calne, who married her to his son before he was of marrigeable age.'

316 1 0[The text of the papal confirmation of this composition, dated 27 May 1147 at Paris, is edited in
ST. FRiDESWME Cart., no. 1122, ii, p. 325.]0
2 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 220.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 265 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

317

Faced by a condemnation for theft in King Henry I's court, Robert de

Meppershall, lord of Biddlesden, loses his land at Biddlesden. Having
regained it by marriage, he loses it again in the time of King Stephen for
failing to render the required service to the earl of Leicester. When in 1147
Biddlesden Abbey is founded, Robert threatens to implead the monks, but
they come to an agreement and obtain a confirmation by giving him 10 marks
silver.

In the time of the old King Henry the lord of Biddlesden was a man called
Robert de Meppershall, who because of some misfortune in the king's court, where
he had stolen a dog, gave the whole manor of Biddlesden with five adjacent
virgates of the land of Whitfield to Geoffrey de Clinton, the chamberlain, who was
then upon a most familiar footing with the king, on the understanding that he
would defend him and thus save him from undergoing the judgment of the court
for his deed. In the meantime, as this Robert of Meppershall had no living quarters
near Silverstone, William fitz Alvred, who was lord of Preston and of the whole of
Marieland, gave to Robert half Marieland to go and live there. In course of time
Geoffrey de Clinton gave to Robert one of his relations as a wife and with her the
manor of Biddlesden with the forementioned five virgates of the land of Whitfield
and thus this Robert held Biddlesden and those five virgates and half Marieland,
and from then onwards half Marieland has followed Biddlesden. In the time of
King Stephen when there was a great war, Robert stayed at Meppershall and left
Biddlesden, and as neither he nor anyone for him rendered service for it to the earl
of Leicester, the land escheated to the earl, who gave it to his steward Ernald de
Bosco for his service. This Ernald, foreseeing that in future this land might not
remain his and his heirs', founded an abbey there with the agreement, counsel and
help of the foresaid earl, who gave a charter of confirmation. Sometime later,
however, Robert de Meppershall wanted to start litigation about Biddlesden,
whereupon the monks of Biddlesden gave him with the help and counsel of the
foresaid earl ten marks and obtained his charter and confirmation. Thus the abbey
of Biddlesden was started and founded in the year of Grace 1147 on 10 July, the
fourteenth year after the foundation of Garendon.1

317 1 o[See DUGDALE Monasticon, 364.]"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 266 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

318

Abbot Anselm of Bury St. Edmunds notifies generally that on the basis of a
deraignment in his court he has granted to William son of Albold and his
heirs the land in Hawstead which Geoffrey the sacrist had held and on which
a sworn inquest was held in the time of King Henry I.

Anselm, by the grace of God abbot of St. Edmunds, to all his men, French and
English, greeting. I notify you that by the grant of the whole convent of St.
Edmund and by the counsel of my barons I have granted and restored to William
son of Albold and his heir Robert and Robert's heirs in fee and inheritance the
land which Geoffrey the sacrist held and had at Hawstead. And this I did because it
was right and because of the deraignment in my court, which he showed he had
concerning that land. For this grant William and his son Robert quitclaimed the
church of Barton and the church of Culford to St. Edmund and me and the monks
forever. Therefore William shall give for the aforesaid land every year to the sacrist
for the altar of St. Edmund 40 s. in fee farm and thus he will be quit of all other
services and all customs and all exactions belonging to St. Edmund. Therefore I
will and order that this William shall hold all that land, i.e. that which belonged to
Leofgifu the wife of Odo the goldsmith, with all the lands which Geoffrey the
sacrist acquired in Hawstead and with the same boundaries as Geoffrey the sacrist
held all that land on the day when he was alive and dead and Benedict de
Blakenham after him and as that land was sworn at the time of King Henry before
Maurice [of Windsor], the steward [of Bury St. Edmunds] and before Ralph the
chaplain, the son of Algot. I forbid anyone to cause him injury, but let him hold all
that land well, honourably and peacefully, in men, meadows, pastures, woods and
in all things as Benedict ever best and most freely held it. And these are the
witnesses: William the prior, Jocelin the monk, Ralph the sacrist, William Brito,
Ralph de Barking, Maurice the steward, Adam de Cockfield, Elias de Melford,
Alan son of Frodo, Robert de Hawstead, Godwin the priest, Robert fitz Wibert,
Walter de Risby, Gilbert fitz Fulcher, Benedict de Blakenham, Berard and
Lemmer.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 267 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

319

Notification by Robert fitz Vitalis that Prior Osbert of St. Augustine's at

Daventry has deraigned various churches, of which the priory had been
unjustly disseised: Robert went to Daventry to reseise the monks.

To all the sons of Holy Mother Church and the faithful of Christ, clerics and
laymen, French and English, Robert fitz Vitalis, true greeting in Christ. Be it
known to all of you, most beloved, that in the third year after Prior Osbert of
Daventry with some of his monks had deraigned at Leicester, before Bishop
Alexander of Lincoln, the churches of all my land of Foxton, i.e. Lubbenham,
Gumley, Scalford, Bisbrooke and Braybrooke with all their appurtenances, of
which I had disseised them unjustly, I went to Daventry moved by remorse and out
of goodness and benevolence reseised the church of St. Augustine of the aforesaid
churches, which the church of Daventry had had previously through my donation
and possessed without disturbance from the year in which Archbishop Anselm of
Canterbury died until the ninth year of the reign of King Stephen, when I occupied
it. I have recognized my guilt and unjust action there publicly and before
numerous clerics and laymen and asked God and St. Augustine whom I had
offended for forgiveness, which I obtained by God's grace from the monks in so far
as it depended on them. Therefore I write to you, as sons of God and most dear
friends, and strongly implore you helpfully to maintain my alms to the advantage
of the church at Daventry and the monks who serve God there, wherever and in
whatever way you can, for the love of God and the salvation of our soul so that by
God's mercy you partake with me in it. I will, pray and desire and as far as it
depends on me I order that they shall hold and possess them well and honourably,
freely and quietly forever. The witnesses of this business and action are: John the
chaplain of Daventry, Thomas the priest of Norton, Nicholas the priest of Foxton,
Jordan the son of Robert fitz Vitalis and many others.

320

Walter de Lucy, abbot of Battle, claims exemption from episcopal authority

against Hilary, bishop of Chichester. Having heard charters of King William I,
King Stephen gives judgment in favour of the abbey.

Upon a time, during the reign of the most pious prince, Stephen, the abbot was
summoned to a synod at Chichester. He did not go, and he was interdicted by the

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 268 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

bishop on these terms: that if he did not come to make satisfaction within forty
days he would be suspended from office. When the abbot heard this he hastened to
the court at St. Albans and put the matter before the royal court. The king,
summoning one of his clerks, Robert surnamed 'de Cornuvilla', sent him to the
bishop commanding that he allow the church of St. Martin of Battle to serve the
Lord Christ free and quit of all exaction and oppression, as if a royal chapel or even
the royal crown.' He set him a date in the week after St. Andrew's Day when he and
the abbot were to come to London so that there their dissension might be settled
before himself, the bishops, and such barons as would be there.2 On the day set
both attended. After many cases had been discussed, the abbot presented himself
to the king, prepared, if anyone should argue against him, to fight for the liberty of
his church calmly and reasonably. But the bishop, occupied with other business
there, failed to appear that day before the king. Thus when the charters and the
supporting evidence containing the assent of the great King William were read out,
the king, guided by noble advice, commanded that the church of St. Martin of
Battle should remain wholly free from all subjection and exaction of the bishop of
Chichester in accordance with the charters of King William and his other royal
predecessors. The following day the abbot was given leave to return home, the king
promising him that he himself would be in all things the protector of Battle 3Abbey,
defending it rightly as he would his own private chapel and royal crown.

321

After the murder in Norwich of the wealthy Jew Eleazar, complaint is made
before King Stephen by the Jewish community. Simon de Novers is accused
of being the instigator, but denies the accusation and is defended by William,
bishop of Norwich, whose tenant he is. Pleading for him, the bishop makes a
countercharge against the Jews for the murder of William of Norwich in
1144. The king postpones the case until a general meeting of clergy and
barons in London, which however fails to reach a conclusion.

I. viii. The enemies of the Christians, being very much alarmed, were quite at a
loss what course to take. And in despair, while one was suggesting this and another
that measure for their common safety, they determined at last to make advances to

320 1 Robert of Comuvilla seems to be known from no other English source, but the editors of the
Regesta suggest an identification with a Robert de "Corneivilla", canon of St. Martin le Grand.
Regesta, iii, p. xii.
2 7 Dec. 1148. The bishop was pursuing the recovery of other lost episcopal rights as well, at the
court. He recovered from the count of Eu the manor of Bexhill in Sussex, seized by the count's
predecessor and held by him in 1086. DB, i. 18. Regesta, iii, no. 183. Bexhill is there incorrectly
indentified with Bexley in Kent.
3 0[Translation taken from BA-rrLE Chron., 151-153. See E. Searle, "Battle Abbey and exemption:
the forged charters", EHR., 83 (1968), 449-480.]*

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 269 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

John the sheriff, who had been wont to be their refuge and their one and only
protector. So by common consent it was arranged that certain of them who were
their chief men in influence and power should go to him and deal with him so that,
supported by his authority, they should hereafter have no cause for alarm. So they
went and passing within the castle walls, were admitted to the presence of the
sheriff and they said that they had a great secret to divulge and wished to
communicate secretly with him alone. Straightway, when all who were present had
withdrawn, John bade them forthwith to speak out what they wanted, and they
replied: "Look you, we are placed in a position of great anxiety, and if you can help
us out of it, we promise you a hundred marks." He, delighted at the number of
marks, promised that he would both keep close their secret and that, according
to his power, he would not fail to give them his support on any occasion.
Accordingly, when the great secret had been revealed, )Elward was hastily
summoned, and on his appearance he was immediately ordered and compelled by
the sheriff, nay, forced, whether he would or no, to take an oath that he would lay
no information against the Jews nor divulge what he had seen during his lifetime,
or at any rate till he himself was at the point of death...
I. xvi. When some days had passed, the day for holding the synod drew near,
and according to custom Bishop Everard presided. The sermon having been
preached, the aforesaid Priest Godwin rose, saying that he was about to bring to
the ears of the bishop and his brother priests a distressing complaint and one which
had not been heard of in the present time. Wherefore, silence having been enjoined
upon all, he began in the manner following: "Very reverend lord and father and
bishop. May that goodness of yours which has been so notorious hitherto, and
which I trust may continue to be so esteemed for all time, vouchsafe to incline your
ears graciously to the words of our complaint... To begin with, from any
complicity in so execrable a murder I hold all Christians excused as guiltless. But,
in the second place, I accuse the Jews, the enemies of the Christian name, as the
doers of this deed, and as the shedders of innocent blood. Thirdly, I am ready to
prove the truth of my words at such time and place and by such proof as is allowed
me by Christian law .. But since it is not seemly that a just judge should
pronounce upon those who are absent and unheard, let the Jews be summoned and
have a hearing on the morrow; if they be convicted, let them receive the
punishment that they deserve" Thus the dealing with this business being put off
till next day, and the business of the synod having been dealt with in part, all
dispersed intending to return next morning. But by order of the bishop the dean of
Norwich on the same day summoned the Jews to appear and ordered them to
attend to answer on the morrow before the synod regarding so important a matter.
The Jews were greatly disturbed and ran to Sheriff John as their only refuge,
seeking help and counsel in so difficult a cause, inasmuch as by trusting to his
patronage they had often escaped many dangers. So John, having taken counsel
and being one who was not ignorant of the truth, did not allow the Jews to come to

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 270 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the synod on the morrow, and indeed he gave notice by his servants to the bishop
that he had nothing to do with the Jews and that in the absence of the king the Jews
should make no answer to such inventions of the Christians. But the bishop having
received this message, and the priest being willing to repeat his yesterday's
complaint in full synod, enquired of the lord Aimar, prior of St. Pancras [Lewes],
and other very learned and prudent men who happened then to be present at that
synod, what answer they thought ought to be given. They declared unanimously
that a manifest outrage was being done to God and Christian law, and they
advised that it should be straightway vindicated with rigorous ecclesiastical
justice. In the meantime however the bishop, not wishing to appear hasty, and yet
not shrinking from doing right, decided that the aforesaid enemies of Christ
should be summoned a second and a third time, lest too much hurrying of the
sentence should either go beyond moderation or transgress the ordinary bounds of
custom. As the bishop had decreed, so the dean did not fail to carry out his order.
But when the Jews refused to appear, the president, when the synod had come to an
end, again consulted with the wisest men as to what was to be done under the
circumstances. Accordingly it was determined by common consent that notice
should be given to John that he should not protect the Jews against God, and to the
Jews that peremptory sentence would be passed upon them, and that unless they at
once came to purge themselves, they must understand that without doubt they
would be exterminated. Of course, John moved by these words came without delay,
and the Jews with him, intending to hear what could be said against them, and
presented himself before the bishop in some dudgeon. Thereupon the aforesaid
priest rose and explained his previous complaint, and what he asserted in word he
promised that he would straightway prove by the judgment of God. The Jews by
the advice of the sheriff denied the charge brought against them, but as to the
ordeal proposed, they asked for some small delay for deliberating. But on the
priest refusing this and protesting against any kind of delay, with the assent of
the bishop they proceed to take counsel intending to confer secretly about it. The
sheriff is consulted as to what remained for them to do in so great a difficulty,
inasmuch as they perceived that on the one hand any delay was denied them, and
on the other they were dreadfully afraid of the trial by ordeal. After seeking some
way of compromise, with a great deal of discussion, and after dealing with each
alternative on its merits, they found no safe escape out of so great a difficulty
except only by obtaining some truce and delay. If they could obtain that, they
hoped they could easily extort from the king the favour which might be bought for
money, of getting a chance of arguing the cause, and so utterly put an end to the
rumour of the crime laid to their charge..
II. x. Wherefore they resorted with prayers and money to Robert the brother of
the murdered boy, who was then a clerk, but subsequently one of our monks, and
to whom the business of the accusation was chiefly entrusted; but they could not by
any means bring him to any peaceful settlement. This same man often told me in

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 271 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

conversation that he could have had ten marks from the Jews if he had hushed up
the charge concerning his brother's murder, with which they were impeached...
Let another argument be brought forward, whereby the wickedness of the Jews
may be shown. In the time when the reign of King Stephen was flourishing, or
rather, in the decline ofjustice, was languishing, a certain knight at Norwich, in the
presence of the king, was accused by the Jews of the murder of a certain Jew and
William, bishop of Norwich, representing the knight, made an able speech, as will
be shown in what follows. So it came to pass that he, by opposing a Christian to a
Jew, and setting the death of one against the death of the other, retorted the whole
charge upon the Jews. So the king appointed a set time for both parties to settle the
difference, to the intent that there might be a full discussion of so important a cause
at London before the clergy and baronage of England. Wherefore, the Jews of all
England being greatly alarmed, when the bishop of Norwich came to London on
the day appointed, the chief men among the Jews went to him and offered a large
sum of money and besought him that the counter-charge of the Christian said to be
slain might be dropped, and undertook to withdraw their complaint regarding the
Jew who was slain. But the God-fearing mind of the bishop, who had his own
reputation in view, could neither be softened by their prayers nor corrupted by
avarice. Let the unbelief of doubters, I beg, draw their conclusions from these
facts, since the Jews would not have acted thus, nor would they have promised so
much, if they had felt themselves guiltless of the charge brought against them...
II. xiii. However, when some time had passed and the king had come to
Norwich, the Jews assembled together before the king and laid their complaint
regarding the aforesaid Jew and ascribing the guilt of the whole act to the
forementioned knight, they accused him in manner following.
II. xiv. "Hear us, most gracious king, of thy well-known clemency, which is
proclaimed throughout the world, is withheld from none that deserves it, and is the
means of procuring peace and quiet for us. Behold, we who trust in thy patronage
have betaken ourselves to thee as to our one and only refuge, and with every
confidence in thy justice, have come before thee as the just judge and faithful
follower of right and equity. Wherefore we, looking for the justice that is our due
for a wrong and injury done us, and demanding too the shield of thy protection
against the fear of a like misfortune, will set forth in few words what the wrong is
that has been done us, and what our wishes are. We are thy Jews. We are thy
tributaries year by year, we are continually necessary to thee in thy necessities,
since we are always faithful to thee and by no means useless to thy realm. For thee,
thou rulest us leniently and quietly. But our tranquillity the audacity of this Simon
whom we see standing there opposed to us - an audacity which deserves to be
punished -has presumed to disturb, after an atrocious sort. For this man having
as his creditor one of our brethren, thy servant, a Jew, having sent to him an
esquire on pretence of his debt being to be paid, called him out of the city into the
country and caused him to be murdered on the road. What more? It is certain, 0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 272 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

lord the king, that thy Jew was slain, and we complain that the fact is so. We lay our
charge against this Simon de Novers as answerable for the homicide of this man
and we assert that by his counsel and device a deed so wicked was planned, aye,
and carried out. But what so base a deed deserves, that the wisdom of so righteous
a judge well knows. But that thou mayest believe that so it was, let the following
arguments for the truth be considered: (1) the treacherous leading him astray, (2)
the road that was marked out through a lonely spot, (3) the convenience of time
and place, (4) and the facility for carrying out the business according to what was
desired. (1) The esquire was sent by the knight as his deputy and was well known to
the creditor, the Jew. This Jew he invited as if to receive his debt, and led him away.
(2) The path took a long and tortuous round and so obviated the fear of any
chance encounter. (3) A wood on the road and the silence of the dark night
afforded the opportunity. (4) The esquire's sword and a crowd of his comrades, as
report says, lying in wait to do the deed, afforded facility for the commission of the
crime. For what other purpose could the knight have had - being as he was in such
great money difficulties and unable to pay - except that by ridding himself of the
bondage of his long-standing embarrassment, he might get freedom for himself,
and by this act he might make an end of the worrying exactions? And to make the
matter plainer, this knightly debtor either would pay and could; or he would and
could not; or he would not and could; or lastly, he neither would nor could. If he
would and could, why did he not pay? And why did he continue in this long
embarrassment? If he would and could not, no wonder if his lack of power
gradually suggested to his mind the desire to get free. If he would not and yet could,
observe how now the thoughts of his evil mind conceived the evil deed. But if, as is
more credible, he neither would nor could pay, it is plainly manifest that the
working of his crafty thoughts brought forth the plot of a wickedness of this
character. Again, if he did not wish for the murder of the Jew which is laid to his
charge, if he was not aware of it - if he did not plan it - why did he not, in order to
turn away from himself all suspicion of the crime, pay the debt to the dead man's
wife or his relations when they asked for it? Why did he wantonly neglect the
engagement by which he was bound to his creditor? On the contrary he has become
now so insolent and contumacious that when we call upon him to fulfil his
engagement, he hurls at us calumnies and abuse and aims at us continual threats,
though we deserve them not. We think therefore that the guilt of this murderous
knight has been sufficiently made out, since the motive of the murder and the
manner of it, and then too the insolence of the assassin and the audacity of his
menaces, have been set forth. But we by no means believe that it is lawful for any
Christian, whoever he be, to slay with impunity according to his pleasure any Jew
who behaves as he ought: and if an act certainly illegal be left unpunished, we
doubt not that there will be many who will be imitators of this man's audacity and
that hereafter things will get to be worse than they are. Furthermore we, as fearing
this kind of treatment for ourselves and sorrowing over the undeserved death of

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 273 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

our brother, beseech thee of thy clemency, 0 righteous king! that thou provide for
our living in peace and security and that thou do not suffer the undeserved death of
thy Jew to go unpunished."
The knight having been accused in this manner first denied that he was guilty of
anything of the sort. Then, having obtained leave of the king, he retired to consult
with his friends before making a detailed answer to the charge. And inasmuch as
the knight was under the bishop's jurisdiction, as the term is, Bishop William by
licence of the king went to the conference to consult for the knight's safety. And
since all perceived that in so difficult a cause the pleading would require a special
kind of defence, it was determined that in this cause the bishop should represent
the knight as his defender, in order that the high position of the advocate might
make the king, who seemed already convinced of the truth of the charge, give a
favourable hearing, and also that, the charges of his adversaries being weakened,
the bishop's accomplished eloquence, in which he surpassed all others, might get
the knight acquitted. So the prelate, prevailed upon by many petitions, at length
complied. And as he observed that both the king and the auditory were already
indignant, he decided that in the kind of cause which he had to plead it would be
best to make use of a brief statement to begin with, so as to win over insensibly the
hostile minds of his hearers by skilled oratory; and when once their goodwill was
thus gained, he might employ the remainder of his speech in making a
countercharge. Thus armed, as I may say, he rose to engage in the pleading of his
cause, returned from the conference with his friends, and began his speech before
the king in the following terms.
"We agree perfectly with our accusers on one point: that men who deceive
creditors, who deserve well of them, or who, after deceiving, kill them, merit
detestation, nay, condign punishment. And we account that they should be most
strictly pursued who habitually break faith, make light of the crime of fraud, think
nothing of lying, and have neither will nor skill to find a remedy for their debts save
the one way of contriving the death of another. Now, the Jew of whose death the
knight Simon is accused had, while he lived, many debtors besides Simon: some
owed him less, some as much, some again far more than Simon did. If, then, anyone
was desirous of his death in order to be rid of the annoyance of debt, it seems more
likely to have been planned by one who was saddled with a heavy debt than one
who owed less. But can anyone believe that Simon should have desired the death of
his creditor? The man's death was productive of great loss to him: his life had been
the means of repeated advantages to him. With what show of reason can it be made
out that I should be desirous of the death of one whose premature removal I regard
with fear, and whose life I earnestly desire to see prolonged as being in every way
advantageous to me? So with this knight, who is charged with murdering his
creditor. If while he lived he cherished him as being of great use and advantage to
him; if now that he is dead he has not yet ceased to bemoan him - as how should he
not mourn the loss of that which he had possessed with such affection? - who can

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 274 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

contend that he rejoices over the loss of this man or that he desired his death, when
he is so much affected by that loss? Now, as to the charge that is brought against
the esquire, the esquire denies his guilt in toto. And in regard of the real facts of the
matter, I will briefly explain what they were, as I have learned them from him. The
knight, whom I am much surprised to find as the object of such an accusation,
since I have always known him to be of good report, a peaceable, kind, and law-
abiding man, was detained at home by urgent private affairs and could not come to
Norwich, and certainly did send by an esquire for his creditor, that the latter might
receive his debt. The esquire, according to the arrangement of the Jew, left the city
in his company in the quiet of night and took the safest route he knew in order
to avoid the notice of evil-disposed persons under cover of darkness, -and to
escape all suspicious encounters. They accomplished a good part of the way and
were suspecting no sort of ambuscade, when they fell among thieves. These men
came, seized them, threw them from their horses and dragged them violently away
to despoil them. Upon this, the Jew, while attempting to defend himself with the
sword which he carried, fell slain by a hostile weapon. The esquire, naturally, in the
interests of his own safety, while the rest were busied about the Jew, escaped from
the hands of his captors and saved his life by flying swiftly through the thick wood
which was at hand. In this way it appears that the Jew lost his life, my lord king,
and you need not doubt that the knight who is charged with the guilt of his death is
clear from it. Upon hearing of the deed he was at once powerfully affected by its
atrocity and by the undeserved fate of so valued a friend, but never, to this hour,
though he has shown himself a most zealous investigator of the matter, has he been
able to ascertain the perpetrators of this great crime. I am not surprised that
rumour has deviated from the path of truth in this case: but as we see that false
reports become current every day, we must not lend a ready belief to all the reports
we hear. And in fact, whereas the knight is accused of employing threats and
abuse, he is not a little surprised at the charge, for he has always respected the Jews
and been much attached to them. However, to wind up the whole case shortly, the
knight is present here, prepared to prove with all constancy, in whatever way this
court shall prescribe, that he neither desired the death of the Jew in question, nor
planned it, nor knew of it in any other wise than has been stated, and that he never
abused the Jews in any way. But, meanwhile, 0 most just king, we are desirous of
signifying to your most serene discretion that it is our opinion that we Christians
ought not to have been called upon to reply to an accusation of this kind from the
Jews, before they themselves were purged of the murder of one of us, a Christian,
of which they are known to have been accused ere now and not purged. And, to lay
before your most Christian clemency in a plain and concise fashion the whole
case - it is a matter which concerns all Christians - that Jew of whose death the
knight, though innocent, is accused, did, in conjunction with the other Jews then in
the city, in his house, as report says, miserably torment, kill and hide in a wood a
Christian boy. And when, in the days of my predecessor, Bishop Everard, the Jews

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 275 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

had been accused of this in full synod by a priest, yet because Sheriff John
opposed us and maintained them, the Christians were unable to have justice
executed upon them. We have, furthermore, at this day the same priest ready to
prove them guilty of the crime aforesaid at such time, and under such conditions of
trial as you please. On this account, if it be not displeasing to your royal majesty, it
seems to us fitting and right that, just as the death of the Christian, done in
reproach and derision of the Passion of Christ, preceded the death of the Jew, and
the injury inflicted on us preceded that inflicted on them, so the priest's accusation
ought to come first, and the purgation of the knight afterwards. And let the rigour
of justice be no longer deferred, for we complain bitterly that so foul a crime has
remained unpunished to this day, and we earnestly pray that it may no longer be
put off. Yet, let everything be so handled that Christ be first considered in all things
and due reverence be paid, as is right, to the law of Christianity."
As the bishop ended his speech after this sort, the effect, and indeed conviction,
produced in the minds of the king and his assessors was so great that they decreed
that the ghastly outrage of the Jews must be at once punished and gradually were
worked up more and more to take vengeance. But, in regard that the matter
seemed to be one affecting all classes of Christians, the king commanded that it
should be postponed until the general council of the clergy and barons, which was
near at hand, should be assembled at London, and this was done. When the
council met shortly afterwards, William, bishop of Norwich, with many friends
and with the accused knight, was present. A few days before, also, the more
sagacious of the Jews had assembled at London from various cities of England
with the view, as afterwards appeared, of meeting and discussing the matter and
deciding how to secure themselves in so difficult a case. And, finding no other
means of escape, they obtained an audience of the king by bribing his councillors,
as report says, gave him, it is said, a large sum of money, and succeeded with
difficulty in extorting a promise of favour. From his presence they hastened to the
bishop of Norwich. But though they promised him a very large number of marks
and offered to condone the death of the murdered Jew, they were quite unable to
corrupt the prelate's mind. To make a long story short, after three days, the king,
assisted by the bishops and barons, being in court, the aforesaid Bishop William
was present and, after much other business had been discussed, he rose with the
accused knight and said: "Lo, my lord the king, we are here, prepared to set forth
once again our case and to hear your sentence and that of your assessors". The
king replied: "My lord bishop, we have been fatigued by a good deal of discourse
to-day, and have yet some business which keeps us: we are unable, therefore, to
give the requisite attention to so weighty a matter. But wait meanwhile, with
patience, until we have cleared away these briars, as I may call them, and so be the
freer to whet the axe of our justice for the felling of the noxious tree. And inasmuch
as this case is a very difficult one, it is not fitting that we approach it rashly or
hastily. For the more pressing the matter and the crime, the more warily must

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 276 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

justice be applied. Let us therefore defer the case to another season and, being thus
reserved for a greater convenience, when we are able, and our pleasure is, we will
consider it with the care of our common counsel"
Herein let the careful sagacity of the reader perpend that we have inserted this
declamatory contest in our book to no other end than that it may appear that that
most crafty and avaricious race, the Jews, had they not felt themselves to be guilty
of the death of the glorious boy and martyr William, which was charged against
them, would not have so gravely feared, and altogether shrunk from the proof
offered by the priest, and moreover would not have given so much money to the
king and his councillors, nor promised so much to the bishop, to hush up the talk
concerning his death, nor, more especially, would they ever have left undisturbed
the matter of the murdered Jew's death and raised no complaint. It is plain,
therefore, that they were conscious of this great crime, for though they are most
avaricious, they did not shrink from assuaging their fears by a pecuniary loss'

322

Reginald de Dunstanville, earl of Cornwall, extends his protection to

Launceston Priory, confirms its lands and notifies generally that Robert,
prior of Launceston, has deraigned in the county court of Cornwall at Castle
of Dunhevet the rights of the canons in the borough of Launceston, except
the Sunday market which was transferred to the new town of Castle of
Dunhevet.

Reginald, son of King Henry, earl of Cornwall, to all his men French, English
and Welsh, greeting. Know that I have accepted under the protection of God and
the lord King Henry of England and my own the church of Launceston with all its
appurtenances, ecclesiastical and lay, and the canons who serve there in honour of
God and the protomartyr Stephen and assiduously pray to God for the wellbeing,
tranquillity and peace of Henry, king of England and of the kingdom and for the
salvation of the soul of King Henry my father and of all our ancestors and
descendants. Therefore I will and grant and by this my charter confirm that the
canons shall have and hold the church of Launceston and all their lands and
tenures in Cornwall, which they reasonably have or will be able to acquire in the
future, as freely and quietly, peacefully and honourably as they or their
predecessors have most freely and best held them, i.e. with soke and sake, toll and
team and infangthief and with all other freedoms for them and their men from suit
in shires and hundreds, pleas and claims and cliff-guard and all other aids and all

321 ' '[M.D. Anderson, A Saint at Stake. The Strange Death of William of Norwich. 1144. London,
1964, 137-144; C. Roth, A History of the Jews in England,Oxford, 1964,9; Cronne, op. cit., 262-
264. Translation taken from A. Jessopp and M.R. James, o.c., pp. 43, 44, 45-48, 91-92, 92-93,
99-100.].

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 277 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

secular service and exaction and all other occasions and secular customs, in pure
and perpetual alms. Furthermore, I want to make it known to everyone that
Robert, prior of Launceston, has sufficiently and lawfully deraigned in the full
county court before me at the Castle of Dunhevet, I in the presence of the reeve and
the burgesses of that town, that at the time when the count of Mortain transferred
the Sunday market from the town of St. Stephen of Launceston to the new town of
the Castle of Dunhevet, the canons of Launceston retained with the consent and
agreement of the foresaid count of Mortain for themselves and their borough of
Launceston and the burgesses who live there all the freedoms which belong to a
free borough, as fully as they had them of old, except for the Sunday market, and
for this the canons receive from the reeve of the castle 20 s. per year on the feast of
St. Martin. They also deraigned that they have had and held those liberties fully
and quietly and without contradiction throughout the time of King Henry of
England, my father. Therefore I have granted and by this my charter confirmed to
the aforesaid canons and their town of Launceston and the men who live there all
the freedoms who belong to a free borough, with the aforesaid yearly rent of 20 s.
Witnesses: Robert de Dunstanville, Richard de Raddon, Bernard the sheriff of
Cornwall, Robert fitz Anketil, Hugh de Dunstanville, Jordan de Trecarl the reeve
and Mordant Sprakelin.

323

Various claims are made in the king's court against Byland Abbey and its
benefactor Roger de Mowbray, inter alia by Robert de Stuteville and his
brother William, who are supported by the neighbourhood. Roger asks his
friends Earl Marshal and William de Warenne, earl of Surrey, to obtain from
King Stephen the suspension of the plea: the king grants their request and
issues writs to that effect. Afterwards the abbot comes to an agreement with
Robert and William de Stuteville and on the basis of the view of the vicinity a
ditch is dug to mark the limits of the abbey lands.

At the time when the lord Roger de Mowbray gave to Abbot Roger and his
monks the aforesaid two carrucates of waste land in the territory of Coxwold, a
sudden mandate arrived from Normandy to the lord Roger de Mowbray that a
plea had been moved against him by some baron of France concerning the castle of
Bayeux with the whole domain. This castle the king had given him in the past when
he received the belt of knighthood. In order to defend his plea he quickly travelled

322 ' Dunhevede. - This word, denoting the summit of a hill, occurs in other parts of the country.
Bishop Stapeldon, in folio 59 of his Register, dates a letter, on January 31, 1310-1311, from
"Dounheved juxta Shaftesburi" (now Donhead).

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 278 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

to Normandy with a letter by the lord King Stephen, who wrote that he wanted to
warrant that castle with its appurtenances to Roger against all men, and he lost
nothing in that plea. However, after the departure of Roger to Normandy several
disputes arose at once against Abbot Roger and the monks, which they suffered
patiently for some time. Indeed the lord Robert de Stuteville and his brother
William claimed the whole land which the lord Roger de Mowbray had given to
the monks in the territory of Coxwold, where the monks lived, and moved a plea in
the court of the aforesaid king against the lord Roger de Mowbray, which
continued according to the law of the land for a long time, since the neighbours
generally witnessed that they had a good right in their claim. Furthermore the lord
Robert de Dayvill, lord of Kilburn, much obstructed the works of the monks,
protesting that they included a large part of the land which belonged to his manor
of Kilburn and that he in no way was prepared to suffer or permit this. Similarly
the lord Hugh Malebisse, lord of Scawton, caused the monks much trouble by his
own actions and those of his men of Scawton and Dale Town, whose lands and
pastures are adjacent to the lands of the monks, for every day they made
complaints, distraints and caused other nuisances to upset the peace of the monks,
their neighbours. And Guy de Boltby acted in the same way. Since they could not
suffer these grievances for long without a remedy, Abbot Roger after consulting
his convent travelled to Normandy in the year 1147 carrying a letter from the lady
Gundreda, mother of the lord Roger de Mowbray, containing confirmation of the
plea moved by Robert and William de Stuteville and the grievances which Abbot
Roger and his monks suffered. He first went to Savigny to the general chapter and
explained to father abbot that his founder had given him enough land, if he could
possess it quietly without being impleaded by some neighbouring knights, whose
molestations he would fear less if his founder were in England. He also explained
some other business, inter alia, concerning the lord Peter, a monk of Savigny, who
had started the foundation of an abbey in the lands of Richmond, which Earl Alan
fitz Stephen had given to the abbot of Savigny, of which more is said later at the
foundation of Jervaulx. However, as Abbot Roger could not well stay till the end
of the chapter, he hurried to the lord Roger de Mowbray in Normandy. As soon as
he reached him and explained the cause of his labour, he was promised a good and
quick remedy, but various affairs which had not yet been expedited prevented him
from returning to England at that time, wherefore he wrote specially to his friends
Earl Marshal and the earl of Warenne asking them to implore the lord king to
grant as a special grace that the plea which Robert and William de Stuteville had
moved against him in the king's court should remain until his return to England in
its then state. This the earls did and the king granted their request, swearing that
Roger de Mowbray would not lose one foot of land in England by a plea in his
court, as long as he was out of the kingdom. He similarly wrote to Robert de
Dayvill, Guy de Boltby and the lord of Scawton that they were to stop molesting

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 279 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

his monks and if anything had been done unjustly, he wanted to make amends by
the lawful men of the venue according to the law of the land upon his return to
England. He wrote also to his mother and his steward and all his bailiffs in the
county of York that they were to maintain, protect and defend Abbot Roger of
Byland and the brethren, his monks, and their land as their own. As a consequence
of this mandate, which Abbot Roger carried with him, the lord of Scawton to a
certain extent stopped molesting the monks and ordered his people to do the same
out of reverence for the mandate of his lord. Robert de Dayvill however at first
counted the mandate for little, but later respected it and made peace. In fact the
lord Roger de Mowbray made peace with Robert and William de Stuteville after
his return to England, the former quitclaiming his right which he had in the land
and site of the abbey by placing a knife on the main altar at Staking, the latter by
his charter. After Robert and William de Stuteville had thus quitclaimed to the
monks all their right which previously they demanded, the lord Roger de
Mowbray caused one large ditch to be made to the west of the abbey by the view
and the consideration of the neighbours between the land given to the monks and
the land of Robert de Dayvill.

324

Notification by Gilbert de Ghent that Ralph son of Wichard has acted

unjustly and against his will if he has caused any trouble to the abbey of
Rufford; the wood which Ralph son of Wichard unjustly claimed belonged to
Gilbert's demesne and was given in alms to Rufford.

Gilbert de Ghent, to the chapter of St. Mary of Southwell and all his friends
and neighbours and all his men, French and English, greeting. I make known to
you that Ralph son of Wichard acts unjustly and against my will if he were to
molest my brethren of Rievaulx living at Rufford in any way. Know, moreover,
that he claims unjustly the wood which you have heard him claim, since it is not his
nor should it be, but it belongs to my demesne, and I have given all my demesne to
the aforesaid brethren for the exaltation of the house and the order of Rievaulx.
Therefore I forbid the aforesaid Ralph, on his love for me and as he loves whatever
he holds from me, in any way to meddle any more with my almoign and I also
similarly forbid my aforesaid abbot and brethren to deal with Ralph concerning
my almoign and to give any answer concerning it, but if Ralph or somebody else
claims anything from my demesne or my almoign, let him come before myself and I
shall do him full right. Moreover, I pray you all to maintain the aforesaid brethren
and the place of Rufford for the love of God and myself, so that Almighty God
may repay you and that I may show my gratefulness and return your services. 1
0
324 I[RUFFORD Charters, 405.1'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 280 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

325

A case is heard in the court of Robert de Stafford between Ernald de Walton,

son of Enisan, and Stone Priory, a daughter of Kenilworth, concerning
various possessions in and around Stone. As some of them are ecclesiastical,
three representatives of the bishop of Chester take part in the proceedings. By
producing various charters and referring to a final concord confirmed by
King Henry I, the canons convince the court of the righteousness of their
case. A concord is reached by common consent of clerics and laymen and
confirmed by Robert de Stafford.

Robert de Stafford, to all his men and friends, French and English, greeting.
Let it be known to all future and present that I Robert, son of Nicholas de
Stafford, have been at Stone because of some controversy that had arisen between
Emald de Walton, son of Enisan, and the canons of Stone about whom the said
Emald had complained that they had occupied and turned to their own uses some
things that pertained to their right. And since the possession concerned was
ecclesiastical, William archdeacon of Chester, Ralph archdeacon of Stafford and
William archdeacon of London were present on behalf of the lord Walter, bishop
of Chester, to hear this case diligently and to determine it by an ecclesiastical
judgment in the place of the bishop. Therefore the canons have in our presence
produced their charters and muniments which show that whatever Ernald claimed
against them was justly and canonically possessed by them, as the said Ernald and
his father Enisan had sold them to the benefit of the church of Stone by the grant
and confirmation of my father and myself, and which Bishop Roger of Chester had
confirmed by special authority at the request of the said Ernald and Enisan. We
discovered in these same charters that there had been some litigation concerning
the same possession between the aforesaid canons and Hugh the watchman, who
at that time possessed Colwalton through a gift of Enisan and the grant of King
William, and that this case was terminated at Beckenham, which is in Kent, in the
court and the presence of the said king, and that the possession concerned was
adjudged to the church of Stone and confirmed in perpetual alms by a charter of
the same king. I They also produced a privilege of the lord Pope Eugene,2 in which
he had received the aforesaid canons into the protection of St. Peter and his own
and had confirmed all their possessions by apostolic authority, distinctly
threatening assaulters and perturbers of the said church with anathema.
Therefore, understanding their case and the fact that the canons' possession was
supported by so many muniments and confirmed by so many authorities and
moreover being mindful of the peace, we have terminated the aforesaid
controversy by the common counsel of clerics as well as laymen by the following
composition, viz. that the aforesaid Ernald has given up all his claim which he had
325 1 0'[This document is our no. 275.]
2 [This papal bull is edited by Holtzmann Papsturkunden, iii, no. 66, pp. 194-196.]0

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 281 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

against the canons in the presence of all of us. completely and without any
reservation and has forever quitclaimed to them whatever they possessed on that
day in Stone and in Colwalton, in the wood and in the plain, in the meadows and in
the pastures, in the exits of the roads and the assarts, in lands and tithes, in waters
and all other things. The canons on the other hand have granted to Ernald to be
held in fee and inheritance one croft in Colwalton nearby and adjacent to his court
and in exchange for some war-land, which Stephen and Ralph held on that day
from the canons in Colwalton, they have received from the said Ernald another
war-land in Stone, which Manius held on that day from Ernald, on condition that
Ernald and his heirs shall keep that war-land of Stone free of all claim and of all
service and custom belonging to me or my heirs and shall make it so free and quit
as the war-land of Colwalton was when it was in the hand of the canons. Therefore
I Robert of Stafford have, at the request of the said Ernald and with the consent of
the canons, granted this exchange between them and have forever confirmed that
war-land of Stone to the church of Stone, free as far as I and my heirs are
concerned. And Ernald and his heirs shall render me for the war-land of Colwalton
the full service which they owed me for the war-land of Stone. This composition
between the canons and Ernald was made in the year of the Incarnation of the
Lord 11 . ., on the 11th of January, on a Tuesday, in the church of Stone and
there, touching the holy altar, Ernald confirmed that he would keep the peace and
his pledge to the said church. And I Robert as brother and patron of the same
church have confirmed this also on the altar. The witnesses of this composition are:
William archdeacon of Chester, Ralph archdeacon of Stafford, William arch-
deacon of London, Robert Bagot, Robert de Whitgreave, Adam fitz Aldwin,
Richard and another Richard, Ranulf, Alan and William clerics, Roger fitz Henry,
Adam de Audley, Robert fitz Payn, Geoffrey Bras, Ralph Blundel and many
others.

326

Sworn perambulation of land, wood and common pasture in Rowington in

connection with a claim by Hugh fitz Richard against Abbot Walter of
Ramsey; quitclaim by the former.

A. Charter of Hugh fitz Richard concerning the boundaries of the land and
wood of Rowington.

Hugh fitz Richard to all his men and friends, clerics and laymen, French and
English, greeting. Know that on the advice of some of my men I have claimed one

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 282 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

part of the land and wood of Rowington and that a monk called Ingulf, who was
then in charge of that vill, asked personally and through many honourable men -
and gave me 20 s. for it - that he with his men and I with my men should meet on
the land which was claimed, to perambulate the boundaries. And in the year when
Earl Ranulf of Chester caught me hunting, on the second Sunday after Pentecost,
i.e. on 18 June, we came on the land and ordered our people to perambulate the
right boundaries between Shrewley and Rowington on the faith which they owed
to God and ourselves. Having heard this and being followed by us, the following
went ahead on the part of the monk: Tancward son of Walder and Wulfric of
Halefalgawith many others, and on my part: Herding of Shrewley and Helfric of
Nunley with many others, and they lawfully carried out the order, as they
confirmed by oath. I, however, fearing for my soul if I caused the abbey of Reading
any prejudice, have given up forever to St. Mary and the convent of Reading, on
the advice of my wife Margaret and my son and heir William and my other friends
and for the salvation of my soul and that of my people, whatever I had claimed, for
myself and all my heirs as the right of the aforesaid church. Witnesses of this are:
Stephen the priest of Rowington, Robert the priest of Hatton, Thurstan de
Montfort and many others.

B. Charter of Hugh fitz Richard concerning the common pasture at

Rowington.

Let all those present and future know that I Hugh fitz Richard and a monk
from Reading called Ingulf, who was then in charge of Rowington, have, in the
year when Earl Ranulf of Chester caught me hunting, assembled freemen, i.e.
knights, clerics and free-holders, in order to recognize by oath which common
pasture ought to exist between us. The following swore on the part of the monk:
Tancward son of Walder and Wulfric of Halefalgaand Eylward, and on my part:
Herding of Shrewley and Helfric of Nunley with several others, confirming that
the men of Rowington ought to have common pasture everywhere in the wood of
Shrewley, as my men ought to have common pasture in the abbot's wood called
Aspley, just as the men of the abbot. Therefore, satisfied by these lawful men of the
abbot of Reading and my own concerning the truth of the matter, I have
confirmed to my men and those of the abbot the common pasture on both sides, by

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 283 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

the testimony and the attachment of my seal, and have ordered my heirs to
maintain this confirmation forever.'

327

Letter of Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, to Gilbert de Lacy explaining

that while, on a mandate from the king, he was dealing with his complaint
about a breach of sanctuary against the earl of Hereford, the latter appealed
to the archbishop of Canterbury. The bishop advises Gilbert to continue the
case in the archbishop's court.

Gilbert by God's grace bishop of Hereford wishes the lord Gilbert de Lacy the
attainment of salvation through his good deeds. My lord the king has ordered me
to do canonical justice to you concerning the earl of Hereford,' who is said to
compel your knights, who were captured in the church and cemetery, to pay
ransom: know that I shall gladly obey the king's order in this matter in so far as it is
within my means, saving my order, but according to the decrees of the [civil) laws
and the authority of the sacred canons I am not allowed to do any more in this
matter than what, as is well-known, I had already done before I received your
letter. I had set a day for this cause, heard the altercation of the parties,
pronounced judgment on the basis of what I had heard and since I can or could
forbid nobody to appeal, I have heard the earl's appeal against the given judgment.
Once an appeal is made it is just and it is canonical that I should abstain from
audaciously dealing any further with the cause, except by forwarding through
both parties the documents containing the whole course of the procedure to the
judge to whom appeal is made. Those documents, which are also called apostoli,2 I
have offered immediately after the appeal to the earl and also to your knights, but
since you have not accepted them, you may perhaps make little headway on the
day of the appeal. It is just as impossible to me as to the humblest cleric of my
bishopric to do any more in this. I call as witness truth itself, which is God, that if
the earl had not stopped me by lodging his appeal, judgment against him would
not have been delayed for love, hatred or any other reason, and if you do not
believe that there is nothing I can do against this appeal, you should hear the canon
itself: "If somebody, despising the authority of the judge to whom appeal has been
made, proceeds to execute his own judgment, even though it is legitimate, he
forfeits the very judicial authority which he enjoyed." 3 Elsewhere it is also written:

326B l[V.C.H. Warwickshire, iii, 149; Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 78-79.]1
327 '[EarI Roger of Hereford t 1155.] 0
2 See Brooke and Morey, Gilbert Foliotandhis letters, p. 65 n. 1. [Apostoli are letters written, on
the demand of the appealing party, by the judge of first instance to the judge with whom the
appeal is lodged (R. Naz, Dictionnairede droit canonique, I, Paris, 1935, 692-698).]0
Not identified.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 284 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

"It has often been established that even after an appeal has been lodged and
rejected by the judge, nothing should be done to prejudge the deliberation and
everything must remain in the state in which it was at the time of the
pronouncement 0[of the first judgment]0 . Hence it is manifestly known that after
appeal has been made, etc.". 4 For if we lose sheep or oxen or such like, we can
recover them, God giving, but once we are, because of ignorance, foolishness or
contumacious disobedience, ejected from our episcopal office and order, we shall
not easily find someone to give us another. Therefore it is better for us to suffer
some damage than to endanger our order. For if it pleased you to listen to my
advice, you would not seek to cause me any trouble, since thanks to God I am
ready for all prosperity or calamity, and the less I have, the less I shall be worried
and the more with God's help I shall be able to do. If you received the letter which I
have mentioned and you were ready on the appointed day and you sent the squires
of Richard Brito and the captured knights to the archbishop, you will be able to
free him with God's help after proof has been given, and those who will be present
on my behalf will certainly not be of any hindrance to this cause. As to the king's
order that I should recall what was done in his presence concerning the two oxen, I
remember it quite well, since at his request I have not given up the claim which I
had against you, but after an intervention by the archbishop, I have postponed it.
As far as this archiepiscopal mandate is concerned, I shall answer that if he had
taken cognizance of the appeal that was made to him, he would have given no
orders on this matter. Obedience to him means to disclose to him the whole
sequence of events, if there is some new element, whatever you may have said
against us. Farewell. 5

328
Inquisition taken by members of the chapters of Ilchester and Castle Cary on
the advowson of the church of Milborne Port.

This is the narrative of the inquisition held at Milborne on the right of

advowson and the possession of the church of Milborne. In the time of King
William a certain Regenbald was dean of the church of Cirencester where at that
time there were secular canons, but on the death of Regenbald King Henry I,
4 Code, 7, 62, 3 (cf. no. 93).
The case which he had been trying on a mandate from the king had passed by appeal out of his
competence to the archbishop's court. He explains the circumstances to Gilbert de Lacy, advises
him that R(ichard) Brito's squires and the captured knights (see p. 131 n. 1.) should go to the
archbishop's court. His own case against Gilbert de Lacy he is not resigning, but he will not press
it for the moment (this may possibly refer to a dispute over the two knights' fees held by Gilbert
of the bishop, which were certainly the occasion of disagreement in the next decade (H.M.
Colvin, in Essays... presentedto Rose Graham,pp. 15 ff., esp. pp. 17 ff.)). '[See the related letters
in GILBERT FOLIOT Letters, nos 93, 94 and 96.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 285 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

under divine inspiration, with the counsel and consent of the whole of England and
on the authority of Pope Innocent, founded religion there and transferred the
possessions of the secular canons to the use and sustenance of regular canons. He
also gave the canons the church of Milborne with all its appurtenances, which the
aforesaid Regenbald had possessed and transferred it to the proper use of the
regular canons, as the charter of the aforesaid king testifies.I This inquisition was
made on the vigil of St. Lucy2 by the more discreet men of two chapters, i.e.
3
Ilchester and Cary.

329

Notification that the canons of St. Paul's cathedral, London, having bought
an acre of land by the parish church of St. Margaret there, were involved in a
claim which was ended by a settlement between them and various citizens.

Let it be known to those present and future that the canons of St. Paul's in
London have bought an acre of land by St. Margaret's, from which the tenants
used to have five shillings, for twenty-six marks which they have given to Lefstan,
son of Orgar, and to Ailwin and Robert, Lefstan's sons and others of their family,
in order that this whole acre should belong freely and quietly to St. Paul and the
canons forever. But since they and also a sister of the aforesaid Lefstan claimed
this acre, saying that they received no more than fifteen marks out of the aforesaid
twenty-six, the canons bought it back from them for £7 9 s. 11 d. in such a way that
on the said acre Lefstan received 8 marks, Robert, Lefstan's son, 1 mark, his
brother Ailwin 12 marks, Sheriff Gilbert Proudfoot 2 s., Alderman Azo 2 s.,
Lefstan's sister, who claimed together with the other relations and quitclaimed
that whole acre to the canons, 2 s., Hugh fitz Ulgar 3 s., Vitalis the sheriff's clerk,
4 d. and the beadle of that ward 4 d.; the children of the schools, who were present
as witnesses of the purchase, had 3 d. for cherries. On this acre there is a house
which belonged to Eadild, sister of the aforementioned Orgar, which all the
aforesaid people have also quitclaimed to the canons free of demand. The
witnesses of this latter purchase were: Ralph the dean, Richard de Belmeis,
Nicholas senior, Nicholas Scriba, Nicholas son of Clement, Robert de Auco,

328 1 O[cf. CIRENCESTER Cart. (ed. Ross), no. 28/1, i, pp. 21-24; Regesta ii, no. 1782.0
2 o[12 December.]0
I The position of this document (which is in the basic hand of A) immediately preceding two
documents of Archbishop Theobald, taken together with the information which they provide as
to the disputes and inquiries over Cirencester Abbey's claim to Milborne Port church, suggests
that it may well be of mid- 12th century date. If so, this is of interest as an illustration of the work
of the ruridecanal chapters at this time. It is also evidence of an early tradition at Cirencester that
Regenbald was in fact dean of the college of secular canons.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 286 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Master Henry, William de Calne, Walter the son of the bishop,I Hugh, the nephew
of the dean,' Geoffrey Constable, Ranulf Patin, Moyses the priest, Ralph the
priest, Robert the priest, Bartholomew the priest, Ralph related to the archdeacon,
Master Alberic, Richard Ducchet, Eustace his brother, Stephen fitz Edward,
Richard fitz Algar the priest and his father Algar, Ulric the priest, Baldwin the
canon, William Franc, Robert the priest of St. Peter's, Simon fitz John the priest,
Robert Patin, Pain Rufus, Alestan the butler, Richard the son of archdeacon
Richard, John the son of Robert de Auco and Geoffrey the cleric. Laymen: Gilbert
Proudfoot, the sheriff, Azo the alderman, Alfred de Windsor and his sons Henry
and Peter, Andrew the mason, Hugh fitz Ulgar, Fulk fitz Bruning, Thierry de
Montpellier, Robert the waferer, Walchelin, Eustace the nephew of Fulcred, Peter
Hornepite, William fitz Gosbert, Robert de Stobsheath and his brother Richard,
Vitalis the cleric, Rustold, Ailwin son of Lefstan and his brother Robert, Richard
Passelewe, Robert fitz Berner, Vulmar the blood-letter, Roger related to Roger
son of Billeh . . ., John de Stortford, Picot fitz Meinbod, Albert the goldsmith,
Philip son of Fulger Nanus, Gildus, Ralph Brito, Aldwin Sprot, Henry the janitor,
John Brito, Reginald Nanus, Odo de Colchester, John fitz Ulgar, Ralph Arbo,
Simon fitz Ulvred, Durand Scad, Henry his son, Salidus the beadle of the ward and
Gervase the clerk.

330

Narrative in William of Canterbury's Vita of Thomas Becket, written after

1172, of an incident in the life of Hugh de Morville's mother, who falsely
accused a young man of trying to kill her husband and thus caused his
execution.

Hugh de Morville's name, whether understood as the vill of death or of the

dead, relates in whatever way it is said to a place of death. As his mother,I so it is
said, was ardently in love with a young man called Litulf, who rejected adultery,
she asked by some extraordinary female trickery that he should bring her horse
forward and draw his sword as it were to play a game. As he did this, she in the

329 '[This is Walter de Belmeis, son of Richard de Belmeis I, bishop of London (1108-1127), see Le
Neve,
0 Fasti... 1066-1300, i, 65-66.]
2 [This is possibly Hugh de Mareni, who became archdeacon of London and dean, see Le Neve,
°
Fasti... 1066-1300, i, 93.]
330 ' [lHugh de Morville's mother was Ada, daughter of William de Engaine (D.N.B., xxxix, 168-
169). It appears from the anecdote that his father was also called Hugh.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 287 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

language of the country, exclaimed to her husband who was in front of her: "Hugh
2
de Morville, beware, beware, beware, Litulf has drawn his sword". Therefore the
innocent young man was condemned to death, boiled in hot water and underwent
martyrdom as if he had stretched out his hand to spill the blood of his lord. What
shall we hope from the brood of the vipers? Do we collect a grape from thistles or a
fig from a thorn? If a bad tree cannot produce good fruits, as truth testifies, it
follows that innocuous seed cannot be produced by a fetid root.

331

In a joint assembly of the two shires of Norfolk and Suffolk, presided over by
William Martel acting as royal justice, two vassals of Bury St. Edmunds are
accused of treason, but the abbot claims the case for the franchisal
jurisdiction of his abbey. King Stephen orders the assembled shire courts to
examine the problem; they decide in favour of the abbey, not so much on the
basis of the charters produced, but of the oral evidence given by an old man.
King Stephen orders the case to proceed in the court of the abbot, but a few
days later he and the knights are reconciled at Bury St. Edmunds through the
good services of the abbot. On the same occasion another case, which
concerned a wasted warren, between Walter fitz Robert, a royal steward, and
William de Howe, is similarly removed to the abbot's court and settled by
reconciliation.

At some time during the reign of the most noble King Stephen, the two shires of
Norfolk and Suffolk were ordered by that king to meet before him at an appointed
day at Norwich. They met in the bishop's garden' under the presidency of the
king's steward William Martel, who was ready to discuss matters concerning the
common weal with prefectorial dignity. The cause was attended by the venerable
persons Bishop Nigel of Ely and Bishop William of Norwich 2 and Ording, the

2'[This phrase is first given in Middle-English and then translated into Latin.]°
331 "*[William Turbe, bishop of Norwich, 1146 1174.]"
2 Blomefield: 'William Turb, bishop of Norwich' "[F. Blomefield and C. Parkin, An essay towards
a topographicalhistory of the county of Norfolk, ii, Fersfield, 1739, pp. 19 20]".

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 288 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

venerable abbot of Bury St. Edmunds and Daniel, abbot of St. Benet Hulme and
several barons of the province, i.e. Walter fitz Robert the king's steward and
Robert de Vere the king's constable, Reginald de Warenne, Fulk de Oilly, Hugh
fitz Eudo, William de Chesney the son of Robert, and Henry de Rye. As they and
many other honourable and wise men were residing in that assembly, two
members of the court, Jordan de Blossonville and Richard de Valderi, appeared
before them bringing with them some young man called Herbert, whom they placed
in the middle of the assembly before them all. Then Jordan spoke as follows:
"Lords and lieges of the king, listen carefully to what this young man, whom you
see, unveiled to the king. He says that last year he was with Robert fitz Wibert and
in his service. At one moment our lord king convened the army and marched
against his enemies, who held the castle and his city of Bedford against him. As one
day he had a meeting there with his barons in the meadows adjacent to the city, the
aforesaid Robert was in that army and with him was Adam de Horringer and
there, as this young man alleges, that Robert and that Adam had a talk with
enemies of the king and took counsel with them, i.e. Ralph de Hawstead and his
brother Roger, who had secretly left the city to join them 3 for the betrayal and the
death of the king. There they also changed their horses, shields and saddles.4 If
they want to deny this and defend themselves, this young man is ready to give
proof against them". Thereupon the lord king ordered the aforesaid knights to be
heard and judgment to be given according to their answer. As soon as he heard
this, the lord abbot of the church of St. Edmund immediately stood up and turning
to the justice, the bishops, the barons and the whole assembly said: "Lords and
friends, the knights concerned are men of St. Edmund, king and martyr, and our
church. Never before have I heard of the present allegation or charge and, as is
testified by the privileges and charters of our church, this allegation must be
transferred and dealt with in the court of St. Edmund and our church. I therefore
pray that for the love of St. Edmund you abstain from giving judgment in this
matter until I have spoken to the lord king, for I hope by the strength of God and
the Holy Ghost that our lord king will not deprive St. Edmund of anything or
diminish the right and freedom of our church in any way" This was granted and
the lord abbot took friends and monks and barons of his church to the lord king,
showed him the privileges and charters of the church in this matter and made his

0
3 [A n engagement of King Stephen's army against Bedford took place late in 1149. Robert fitz
Gilbert and Adam de Horringer or Horningsheath, vassals of Bury St. Edmunds, were alleged to
have conspired with two of the king's enemies, Ralph and Roger de Hawstead (Regesta iii,
p. xxviii, n. 3 and 4).]
4 Blomefield: "And changed Horses, Shields and Sadles, with the said Rob. and Adam, in order
under Colour thereof, to come at any time into the King's Army, to put in Execution whatever
should be agreed upon, and that this Youth was there ready to prove it, for which Reason the
King had sent him down to hear the Matter, that the two Knights might be lawfully heard and
judged by their Country"

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 289 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

supplication and request. To which the king replied: 5 "Let the privileges be put
before my justice and the counties and be read out, and whatever right and liberty
the barons of the counties will testify to belong to St. Edmund in this matter or
another, this I grant and will that he shall have without reduction or diminution".
Consequently the privileges were put before the counties and publicly recited, and
several people began to say several things. Seeing this, Hervey de Glanvill
suddenly leapt forward and standing in the middle said: "Honest and most
prudent men! It is a long time since I first heard the charters of St. Edmund's which
were read here just now and they have always been authoritative unto this day. I
would have you know that I am a very old man, as you can see, and I remember
many things that happened in the time of King Henry and before, when justice and
right, peace and fidelity flourished in England, whereas now, under pressure of
war, justice has fled and laws have fallen silent and the liberties of churches, like
other good things, have been lost in many places; nonetheless I say for certain,
testify and affirm that fifty years have passed since I first began to attend the
hundred and shire courts with my father, before I had an estate of my own, and I
have done so ever since. And every time a case arose in the shire courts involving
any man of the eight-and-a-half hundreds, whosesoever man he was, the abbot of
St. Edmunds or his steward and officials took that case with them for hearing in the
court of St. Edmunds and, whatsoever the allegation or charge, with the exception
of treasure trove and murder, it was dealt with there". Having heard these words,
the aforesaid bishops and barons agreed, and so did Roger Gulafre and William de
Fraxineto who were then sheriffs and Hervey fitz Hervey. Robert de Glanvill and
many others of the honour of Warenne, the honour of Earl Hugh6 and the honour
of Eye testified in the same sense. The barons therefore presented to William
Martel, the king's justice, the testimony that was proffered concerning the right
and the liberty of the church of St. Edmund, and William, taking with him some of
the barons, notified the king formally of the whole testimony of the barons and the
counties. When the king heard it, he ordered that the testimony should be valid
and unbreakable and he ordered the abbot to fix a day in his court to do him right
concerning his aforesaid men. This the abbot did.
On the same day, in the same place and before the same assembly Walter fitz
Robert, the king's steward, arrived to ask in the king's name that justice should be
done, charging William de Howe that he had wasted his warren of Hempnall, and
to strengthen his accusation he produced nets which his ministers had found in his
warren with the men of the said William. Upon hearing this the abbot obtained
this case upon the same authority and the same deraignment as for the aforesaid
Blomefield: "Upon which the King said, that all justice originally belonged to the County and
Court there, and therefore he sent them back to the County and Council they came from, and
whatever they did as to allowing the liberties or not, he would stand by it: returning therefore to
Norwich, they produced their Charters and Liberties to the Shire-Mote of the County or County-
Court, upon which Sir Hervy de Glanvil rose, &c."
6 Blomefield: "Earl Hugh Bygod" o[Earl of Norfolk]'.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 290 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

suit. A few days later the king came to St. Edmunds where the abbot, with the
counsel of the barons of the church and the aid of the barons of the king,
reconciled 7 his aforesaid knights with the king and William de Howe with Walter.
And so this account has been written in order that posterity may not be ignorant of
the magnitude of the liberty of the church of St. Edmund and how constantly and
strenuously the abbots and good men thereof have laboured to maintain and
conserve the liberty. And let it be known that this chronicle lies open to view in the
psalter which customarily lies before the lord abbot in his chapel. 8

332

Geoffrey de Ivoi restores to Godstow abbey the land called Gare after the
right of the nuns has been established by a recognition in his hallmoot.

Be it known to all the faithful of Holy Church, present and future, that for the
salvation of my soul and that of my ancestors and descendants, I Geoffrey de Ivoi
have restored and granted to God and the church of Holy Mary and St. John the
Baptist of Godstow and the nuns who serve God there the land which in English is
called Gare, along the road which leads from Warborough to Holcombe from the
southwest, where Edward used to live, to be had and held from me and my heirs
free and quit of all secular service and exaction in perpetual alms and eternal
possession; this was done after the right of the nuns in that land was recognized by
the testimony of my hallmoot. The witnesses of this recognition of the right of the
nuns and my restoration and grant are here mentioned: Alvred, abbot of
Dorchester, Robert prior of Dorchester, Hugh de Ivoi my son, Walter de
Bensington, Robert de Warborough, Hainel my nephew, Ralph the butler, Adam
de Godstow, Thomas the clerk, Bartholomew the nephew of the abbot of
Dorchester and also my hallmoot, by whose joint cognizance the recognition of
the right of the aforesaid nuns was finally made and confirmed, never to be
retracted.'

Blomefield adds: "which is worth observation, as it shows us, how speedily and well Justice was
administered even in those troublesome times, as well as the Authority of the Shire-Motes,
County, and Hundredcourts, which were the Fountains of all Justice, and so much valued, that
the King himself referred Justice to them"
'[Richardson and Sayles, Governance, 191; Regesta iii, p. xxvii; Cronne, Reign of King Stephen,
276-278; for certain passages we followed Cronne's translation to a large extent.]'
332 l[Stenton, Feudalism, 42-43 with the date "about the middle of the twelfth century"; Van
Caenegem, Royal Writs, 53.]'

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 291 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

333

Geoffrey de Ivoi restores half a virgate of land, a meadow called Littlemede

and a common pasture to the nuns of Godstow, whose right has been
recognized.

Be it known to all those future and present that after the recognition of the
right of the nuns of Godstow on half a virgate of land, which I had unjustly
detained for a long time and which had belonged to Wolfric Haignord and on the
meadow called Littlemede and a common pasture, according to the charter of
the lady empress concerning the donation and that of the king concerning the
confirmation, I Geoffrey de Ivoi have restored it to them to be held unfettered,
quietly and freely as free alms. Witnesses: Ralph of St. Martin, Hugh fitz Richard,
Thierry the chaplain, Henry of Oxford, Hugh of Elsfield, Hugh fitz Osbert, Ralph
Gubewin, Ansger de Lewknor and Robert the reeve.

334

Writ of King Stephen to Richard de Lucy, justiciar, and Maurice, sheriff of

Essex, ordering them to let Bishop Henry of Winchester and the canons of
St. Martin le Grand, London, have their marsh at Maldon, according to
a recognition held in the hundred court there.

Stephen, king of the English, to Richard de Lucy, justiciar, and Maurice,

sheriff of Essex, greeting. I order you to see to it that Bishop Henry of Winchester,
my brother, and the canons of St. Martin's at London shall have and hold their
marsh, which Ranulf de Venions gave for his soul to the church of St. Mary of
Maldon from the land which King Henry granted and gave him for his service
from the fee of Peverel, which he had in his demesne, as peacefully and honourably
and justly as it was recognized and testified before Sheriff Maurice in the hundred
at Maldon that they held it in the time of King Henry and on the day when he was
alive and dead and afterwards, until the day when Walter fitz Gilbert left for
Jerusalem. And let them not be impleaded thereon unjustly until Walter, from
whom they hold this marsh, returns to England. And do full right to them for the
violence and injury which they suffered, in such a way that my rights, if there were
any, be not forgotten. Witness: Robert de Vere. At London.'

334 1 o[Cronne, Reign of King Stephen, 273-274; V.C.H. London, i, 555-556.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 292 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I 293

335

Writ of King Stephen ordering that the canons of the collegiate church of
St. Martin le Grand of London shall hold their land outside Cripplegate, as
they have deraigned it by the judgment of the husting.

Stephen, by God's grace king of England, to Richard de Lucy and Theodoric

son of Derman, justiciars of London, and the sheriff and ministers of London and
Middlesex, greeting. I order that the canons of St. Martin shall hold well and
peacefully their land outside Cripplegate as they have deraigned it by thejudgment
of the husting and in accordance with their charters and as they held it on the day
when Bishop Henry of Winchester, my brother, their dean, crossed the sea, so that
nobody shall disturb them in the exploitation of that land nor cause them any
injury. And I grant that the stones which have been heaped up against the city wall
in the road between their land and the wall shall be placed against the wall in the
road, in such a way that the latter is obstructed no more.'

336

After the citizens of Oxford, in 1138-1139, have been ordered by King

Stephen to restore the island of Medley (situated in the city) to the priory of
St. Frideswide, they seize it again and, in 1147, grant it to Osney Abbey. The
prior of St. Frideswide takes the matter to law, and a letter of 1150-1152 of
Sheriff Atsur of Oxfordshire to Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury testifies
that the portmanmoot of Oxford has recorded on the order of the king that
St. Frideswide had been despoiled without judgment. After this recognition
was repeated before him in his court, the king confirms the canons of St.
Frideswide in the tenure of the island.

A. The letter of Sheriff Atsur of Oxford.

To Theobald by the grace of God archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all

England and legate of the Apostolic See, Atsur sheriff and citizen of Oxford with
all the other citizens of that city, greeting as to their father and lord. We testify
before God and yourself that at the command and adjuration of the king we have
assembled the portmanmoot and have recalled that the church of St. Frideswide
was in possession of a certain island called Medley when Prior Robert of the said

335 I o[V.C.H. London, i, 555.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 293 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

church set out for Rome, but that when he came back he found that his church had
been despoiled without judgment. And immediately on this same day we have
returned to the king and testified to this fact in the presence of him and his barons.
Farewell in Christ.'

B. The confirmation by King Stephen.

Stephen, king of the English, to Bishop [Robert] of Lincoln, the abbots,

justiciar, sheriff, barons, ministers and all his lieges, French and English, of all
Oxfordshire, greeting. Know that I have given and granted in perpetual alms to
God and the church of St. Frideswide of Oxford and the regular canons, who serve
God there, the island which is called Medley of which my burgesses of Oxford have
recognized before me and before my earls and my barons that they have paid a rent
for that island of half a mark of silver for the restoration of the said church's
lighting, which [the canons] had lost in connection with the market stalls of which
they had been deprived' by [the burgesses]. Therefore I will and firmly order that
they shall hold and have it well, peacefully, freely and quietly for the salvation of
my soul and those of Queen Matilda, my wife, and of my children and for the souls
of King Henry my uncle and my other 3
ancestors, free and quit of all service.
2
Witnesses: Earl Gilbert and others.

337

Letter of Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, to Robert de Chesney, bishop of

London, concerning his clerk Master Ambrose (a Roman lawyer who is
glossing the Digest) and certain cases which have been held over by order of
Henry, duke of Normandy.
To his lord and dearest brother Robert, by God's grace bishop of Lincoln,
Gilbert minister of the church of Hereford, may you taste and enjoy the sweetness
which God has prepared for the poor.' If you are in good health,2 it is as we wish
and it brings our joy to perfection and a peak of gladness. You want the Digest to
336A 1 '[Translation taken from Davis, op. cit., 60.]
336B 1 '[In a writ of 1138- 1139 (Regesta iii, no. 638) King Stephen confirms Medley to St. Frideswide
and mentions that the canons had lost the income from their market stalls there by a royal writ,
unjustly obtained by the burgesses of Oxford. The latter's gift of Medley to Osney in
portmanmot
0
in 1147 is recorded in a charter ed. by Davis, op. cit., 58.10
2 [Two earls are possible here: Earl Gilbert of Hertford (1138 1152) and Gilbert de Ghent, earl
of Lincoln (1149-1154).]'
3 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 277; Davis, op. cit., 58-61; Cronne, Reign of Stephen, 266
267.0
337 1 Cf. Ps. lxvii. ii.
2 Cf. no. 105 '[Gilbert Foliot Letters, no. 105, p. 144.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 294 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

be corrected and glossed and see, your Ambrose never stops labouring on his
threshing. 3 The other things which you have ordered will, God willing, not be
postponed. The outcome of your cases with our powerful people is uncertain and
as soon as what is in the balance is stabilized, you shall immediately know from a
quick letter. Their postponement until Palm Sunday has been granted us by the
lord Henry, but we ask him for a further extension through a messenger, who has
not yet returned. We shall undergo the outcome which the Lord will grant, hoping
to receive the blessings of Him who reproves the thoughts of the people and
dissipates the counsel of the princes.4 We wish, dearest, that you are well in the
Lord, that you are renewed in Him from day to day,5 and that you make progress
in the Lord. 6

338

Simon, earl of Northampton, notifies his men that Anselm de Cioches has
restored in his court and given in alms to the priory of St. Andrew's,
Northampton, two-thirds of the tithe of Wollaston, as the monks had
deraigned them before the bishop of Lincoln.

Simon, earl of Northampton, to all his men French as well as English of

Northamptonshire, greeting. Know that Anselm de Cioches has in my presence
and that of some of my barons at Northampton restored and granted in perpetual
alms to the church of St. Andrew the Apostle at Northampton and the monks who
serve God there two-thirds of his tithe from all his demesne of Wollaston, as was
deraigned by the aforesaid monks in full synod before Bishop Robert of Lincoln. I
will and order that they shall have and hold that almoign free and quit. Witnesses:
Hugh the chaplain, Richard of Oxendon, Randulf the cleric, Robert Grimbald,
Turgis de Avranches, Simon de Brixworth, Hugh Gubiun, William de Boughton,
Robert fitz Sawin, Humphrey the brother of Anselm and Robert de Cransley.1

For Gilbert's knowledge of the Digest, see Brooke and Morey, op. cit., p.64.
Cf. Ps. xxxii. 10.
Cf. II Cor. iv. 16.
6 A letter on private business, on the Digest, which Ambrose (cf. no. 317 and Brooke and Morey,
Gilbert Foliot andhis letters, pp. 66, 288-289) is glossing, and on Gilbert's relations with the lord
Henry (duke of Normandy) (presumably one cannot imagine any other "lord Henry" of this
period who could have treated a bishop in this way; at the same time Gilbert would not have
referred to a king by this title, which was, however, that used (among others) for heirs to the
throne): his cases have been held over until Palm Sunday, and he has asked for a further
extension.
338 1 o[V.C.H. Northamptonshire, i. 347-348; Farrer, op. cit., i. 20-21; Farrer, op. cit., ii. 363.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 295 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

339

Notification by King Stephen that after holding an inquest he has restored to

the monks of Worcester Cathedral the church of Wolverhampton, which he
had wrongly granted to Bishop Roger of Chester; the monks are to suffer no
loss because of any writ which the bishop may produce.

Stephen, king of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots and all his
barons and all his lieges, French and English, of all England, greeting. Know that I
have restored to God and St. Mary and the prior and monks of the church of
Worcester for the soul of my uncle, King Henry, the church of Wolverhampton,
which I had earlier granted unadvisedly to Bishop Roger of Chester. By holding an
inquest, I have learned from many that it was theirs of old and ought to be, and
therefore I will that they shall not lose anything or be disturbed in any way because
of some writ which the bishop may have thereon. Therefore I will and order that
they shall hold it as well, freely and quietly as Bishop Samson [of Worcester] gave it
to them and Archbishop Thomas [of York] granted it and as the charter of King
Henry my uncle testifies.' Witnesses: the chancellor,2 etc.

340

Judgment of the shire court of Kent in favour of Christ Church Canterbury

against Sheriff Ralph Picot concerning land at Elverton, where he used to
exact unjust taxes.

Elverton is land of the monks of Christ Church at Canterbury and belongs to

their table. This land yields four pounds and ten shillings for their nourishment
and three shillings to the altar of Christ for all the services and customs pertaining
to it. From this land a certain sheriff called Ralph Picot unjustly demanded scot,
danegeld, murdrum and other dues which lands usually yield. Finally, after many
speeches and pleadings the case came before the county court, which this same
Ralph held at Keston, and there by the judgment of the whole county it was shown
and deraigned by justices and ministers of the king and other people that nothing
of the aforesaid should be demanded or received and that no one had any power on
that land except the monks of Christ Church Canterbury, since it is their demesne
land. The following were present in the county court where this was deraigned.
This was done in the time of King Stephen and Archbishop Theobald under the
aforesaid sheriff at Keston in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ
339 1 '[Thi s confirmation by King Henry I can be found in WORCESTER Registrum I, no. 261, pp. 138-
139 sub anno 1100- 1108.10
2 '[King Stephen's third and last chancellor, Robert de Gant, assumed office in March 1140.10

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 296 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

1153. Ralph Picot, Asketin de Reling', Richard Castel, Thomas Margar, Malgier,
William de Richesey, Reginald the steward, William fitz Ansfrid, Ralph his
brother, Humphrey de Wateringbury, Philip de Tonge, Roger Folet, Turstan the
bishop's steward, Gerard de Hardres, Robert de Cloevile, Guy de Vapier, William
de Ashford, Stephen de Kenardington, Thomas de Ashdon, Robert le Vethel,
Peter de Otham, Hugh Brittin, Thomas de Lidsing, Heilnoth the reeve of
Hollingbourne, Florent de Bossington, Alan de Reading, Reinberd, Hugh fitz
Thomas de Bockingfold, Robert de Arblast', Robert Pel de Lee, Ailwin de Cliffe.'

341

Writ of Duke Henry of Normandy, the future King Henry II, ordering the
abbey of Reading to keep the agreement made before him concerning the
church of Berkeley.

Henry, duke of the Normans and the Aquitainians and count of the Angevins,
to Abbot Reginald of Reading and the whole convent, greeting and love. I
command and order you, as my love is dear to you and as you want to place your
trust in me, to hold the agreement' which was made through me and before me
concerning the church of Berkeley valid and unshaken, for Reginald [de
Dunstanville] earl [of Cornwall], who acts in my place in this and other affairs in
England, will assign to your church to be obtained in perpetual alms from my
demesne the 15 pounds' worth of land which I pledged to give you, so you shall go
to him on the date which he will indicate and receive that land without any further
trouble, and I take for valid and firm whatever he will do for you, and I would have
assigned that land to you long ago if I had not been retained by great and
numerous affairs. Witnesses: Earl Reginald of Cornwall and Robert de Dunstan-
ville. At Eu.2

340 I o[Cronne, The reign of Stephen, 230, 272-273.]

341 'Iitis not immediately clear between whom there has been a controversy. There may have been a
disagreement between Reading and Duke Henry in which interests were involved of Robert fitz
Harding, who had received certain rights in Berkeley from Duke Henry in January-May 1153
(Regesta iii, no. 309, 310), and Roger de Berkeley, who in 1150-1151 had been ordered by Duke
Henry to leave the church of Berkeley in peace (Regesta iii, no. 707, 708).0
2 [Richardson and Sayles, The Governance, 256.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 297 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

342

Writ of King Stephen addressed to Richard de Lucy and Maurice, sheriff of

Essex, ordering that Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, shall hold Ulwin
Mud, his fugitive villein, and the latter's chattels, which the canons of the
collegiate church of St. Martin's le Grand, London, have deraigned.

Stephen, king of the English, to Richard de Lucy and the sheriff of Essex,
greeting. I order that the bishop of Winchester,' my brother, shall hold as well and
peacefully Ulwin Mud, his fugitive, and his chattels, which the canons have
deraigned, as Roger, the bishop of Salisbury, best held them in the time of Count
Eustace of Boulogne and afterwards till the day when King Henry, my uncle, was
alive and dead. And his canons of St. Martin's shall not be impleaded on this as
against the reeve of Writtle concerning [the fugitive] himself or his money. And
Maurice the sheriff shall be quit of what he pledged for replevying him and the
2
canons' money. Witness: Robert de Vere. At Windsor.

343

A dispute breaks out between Walter, prior of the Augustinian priory of

Southwick (previously established at Porchester), and Herbert de Boarhunt
about the exchange of certain lands which had been made in the time of King
Henry I: Herbert de Boarhunt did not respect the terms of the exchange and
took certain lands into his demesne. Attempts by the justice of the lord of
Porchester and other persons from the neighbourhood to reach an agreement
are unsuccessful, but Herbert is taken ill, recognizes that he has wronged the
church and wants his son Alexander, through the sworn verdict of men of the
venue, to restore things as they were in the time of King Henry I. Thereupon
Herbert dies and Alexander agrees with Prior Walter that a jury, composed
of ten men, shall be selected by the two parties. The jury gives a detailed
verdict.

Chirograph between us and Herbert de Boarhunt under the seal of R. de

0
342 ' [At first sight it is not clear why the bishop of Winchester should hold a villein who was
deraigned by St. Martin's le Granl in London. The connection, however, becomes apparent
when one realizes that the bishop of Winchester was Henry of Blois, who had been made dean of
St. Martin's by King Stephen between the imprisonment of Bishop Roger of Salisbury, his
predecessor as dean, and the latter's death, i.e. between 24 June 1139 and 11 December 1139 (cfr.
Voss, Heinrich von Blois, 101).]o
2 '[Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, 338, 342; V.C.H. London, i, 555-556.]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 298 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Hunton. Let all the sons of Holy Mother Church know that a discord and quarrel
broke out between Prior Walter and the convent of St. Mary of Southwick and
Herbert de Boarhunt because of some exchanges of land which were made between
the church and the said Herbert in the time of King Henry and changed
afterwards, and because of some common pastures, which they should have had
in common between them and Herbert had enclosed and occupied into his own
demesne. To settle and pacify this, the justice of the lord of Porchester and
neighbours and friends of the church met several times without managing to end
the business so as to take the interests of both parties into account. Herbert,
however, having been overcome by the illness that was to cost him his life,
summoned his friends, sent for the prior and the brethren of the church and
humbly doing penance admitted that he had acted against his mother the Church
unjustly and on the basis of bad counsel, and had unjustly vexed her in many
respects. Therefore he restored into the prior's hand whatever he had occupied
from the right of the church or withheld from its almoign, and he seised him of it by
a green branch, and to ensure firm peace between the church and his heirs he
ordered his son and heir Alexander to promise in the hand of the prior to maintain
firmly towards the church whatever he would decide and for no counsel to change
anything, and this he did. Firstly he recognized that he had given a long time ago
his tithe and chapel to God and the canons and this gave him great joy. He also
recognized that he gave to the church for the soul of his mother the site of the mill
with the land pertaining to the mill, and the canons built the mill: he wanted the
church to hold it in perpetual alms. While he was still imprisoned at Porchester, he
promised to give to God for his liberation 1 virgate of land in alms and after he had
left prison, he gave for that virgate his part of the common of Appelstead to the
canons, i.e. the whole of his part of the common between the two waters. He gave
these alms to the church, free of all service which he might have kept for himself, in
which grant he wasjoined by all his sons and he prayed the prior repeatedly to have
the exchange of lands recognized by the oath of lawful men of the venue, to
establish how they were at the time of King Henry and thus they were to stay, and
the prior promised him to do this. Having thus been reconciled with his church,
Herbert died. His heir Alexander, however, wanted his father's almoign to grow
larger for the sake of his father's soul and gave the land of Shadwell by the road to
the church and was joined in this grant by all his brothers, who all offered the land
on the altar with him so that the anniversary of their father should always be
celebrated in the church.
Thus the following agreement was made between the church and Alexander
after the death of his father Herbert, that the prior elected four men from the men
of Alexander, i.e. Selingar, Sewin Ribout, Jocelin Niger and Edwin Harel. And
343 1 '[The lord of Porchester mentioned in this document was either William I Mauduit or his second
son Henry: William died before February 1158, but the castle and manor of Porchester were
granted to Henry in 1153 (Sanders, English baronies, 50; V.C.H. Hampshire, iii, 152).]

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 299 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

from the men of the prior, Alexander elected Roger the cleric, Blakeman, Seward
and Pain. They also elected by the common counsel of both parties William de
Morville and Roger Esturmi from the men of Reinelm de Boarhunt. Those ten
swore to say the truth about the exchanges and the pastures, of the church as well
as of Alexander, according to their knowledge. It was recognized by their oath that
the 7 acres of Gerseworthe were an exchange for the 7 acres of Ditchcroft and the
grove next to Gerseworthe to the west remained to the church and the other grove
remained completely to Alexander. It was recognized that the 7 acres on the hill
north of the road were an exchange for Smithcroft and Wlgithemore. It was
recognized that the 5 acres in their two garstons and the one beyond the hill were
an exchange for the 6 acres of Churchfurlong at the Thorn. It was recognized that
Good Half [Acre] was of the church and 1 acre beside the half acre of Downing to
the north [also] of the church. It was recognized that the 2 acres of Shadwell were of
the church and that the 5 acres of Oseden were of the church. It was recognized that
the I acre above Reiner's 2 acres was of the church and also the acre of Oseden was
of the church. It was recognized that the 1 acre above Reiner's 2 acres was of the
church and also the acre on the road of Wymering, about which the roads runs. It
was recognized that the 1 half acre between its two marl-pits is of the church and
that Wlmer with his park was of the church. It was recognized that the half acre
that belonged to Roger Esturmi among his garstons was of the church and that
also the acre under Apsancre which used to belong to Aldwin Peche also was of the
church. It was recognized that the half acre in the southern part of its marl-pit was
cut off from the 32 acres of the church and that the 3 acres of the church above
Butieres's Wlfithemore remained with Alexander because of the half acre in
Blackfurlong. It was recognized in Staplecroft that 1 acre by the marsh, half an
acre on the hill next to our newly broken land, half an acre in Reginald's enclosure,
the little meadow and the court-yard were of the church and the field of rushes
which belonged to Wlward Knave were also of the church. In the enclosure of
Alexander 5 acres. In exchange of those the church has 3 acres in the tenement of
Sericus Surlefoche and 2 with the land of Odo. It was recognized that Chalcroft
was common. It was recognized that all Woodhill was common and that what was
taken from it after the death of King Henry reverted to the common and that the
land before Reginald's house was common. It was recognized that the dike before
the mill to the west as far as the bridge and the two little meadows were of the
church; Ditchcroft at Colemore is of the church. It was recognized by lawful
neighbours and jurors that 1 salt-pit of Porchester was of the church. Furthermore
the following exchange was made between the church and Alexander by the
counsel of thejurors and neighbours. The half acre of Roger Esturmi of his garston
and the half acre to the east of the road in the land of Wlmer and the half acre
between his 2 marl-pits are left to Alexander because of the 2 acres of South
Pantulf's Wood. These lands having thus been recognized, perambulated and
recorded, the prior agreed that Alexander could keep his lands till the following

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 300 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

Michaelmas, since they were sown, so that he would not lose his labour and his
seed, but then, as soon as the harvest was taken away, he would give them up and
what previously had been common would revert to the common. To encourage
him to do this gladly and in good heart, the prior demised to him 1 ferling of land,
viz. the land Horeapeldre, which the jurors witness to be of the fee of Pantulf, and
the angle of the hedge and 1 naif of his, viz. Edwin Harel. When, however,
Michaelmas had come, Alexander gave up part of the lands, but retained the rest
so that the quarrel between him and the church broke out again and as the king
happened in that same year to take a danegeld from the land, Alexander wanted to
demand service of the church for his father's and his own almoign and that
whatever the church held of his fee would be assessed at half a hide. The prior,
however, refused to enter into the service since the church had never before done
this and by the counsel of friends and neighbours reached a settlement with
Alexander, giving him one palfrey and one mark of silver so that the church could
hold forever from him and his heirs the aforesaid alms free and quit of all service
and all aids, which were demanded by the king or lords, and so that Alexander
could to its advantage exchange the 2 acres in Shadwell of the fee of Hamelin with
Robert de Faversham, if it were feasible, and if not, he would give the prior the
equivalent of those acres in another place. And Alexander granted all this and
confirmed it by the following witnesses: Gilbert de Exton and his brother,
Reginald de Hambledon, William de Risfort and his brother Osbert, Richard the
priest of Wymering, Richard fitz Daniel, Reiner de Boarhunt and his brother
Richard, Peter de Cosham, Robert de Hoe, Henry the cleric of Hambledon,
Alexander's brothers Bernard, Henry and Ralph, Selingar, Edwin Harel, Simon
de Hambledon, Roger the cleric, Godwin Turneor and his sons Osmund and
Robert, Elgar, Richard Court, Edmund, Adam Cook, Blakeman, Seward, Pain,
Seman Peche, Seman the merchant and Odo.

344

Confirmation to Osney priory by Geoffrey de Clinton of land in Oxford,

which Sewi son of Snelling gave to his brother Elwi and which the latter gave
to Osney, as it was recognized in Geoffrey de Clinton's court in Oxford.

Geoffrey de Clinton, the chamberlain, to all his men and lieges. Be it known to
you all that I have granted and confirmed to the prior and canons of Osney in

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 301 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

perpetual possession that land on the main street of Oxford which Sewi son of
Snelling granted and gave to his brother Elwi in heredity and which this Elwi gave
to the aforesaid prior and canons with the agreement of the said Sewi, as was
recognized in my court in Oxford before my bailiff William de Rampenna before
the men of Oxford, saving my rent which Sewi used to pay me for it. Witnesses:
William de Clinton and William de Rampenna.'

345

Notification by Roger de Mowbray of various grants and the settlement of a

dispute between himself and the abbey of St. Mary of York concerning land
situated between Beningbrough and the abbey's manors of Overton and
Shipton on the basis of the sworn verdict of twelve lawful men, who were
appointed by the abbot of St. Mary and appeared in the presence of the prior
of Newburgh and men of William de Arches, to whose fee Beningbrough
belongs.

To all sons of the Church, Roger de Mowbray, greeting. As I and my men have
repeatedly caused the abbey of York considerable harm, I have granted and
confirmed by the present charter to the aforesaid church as compensation and
satisfaction by way of perpetual peace in the future from me and my heirs and all
those who belong to me that that church henceforth shall be free and quit of every
exaction from me and my men concerning work on castles and tallage, which used
to be exacted from the burgesses violently and unjustly. I also granted to the
aforesaid church that they shall have in the vill of Myton on Swale their mill and
pond and fishery as they ever best had them in the past. And since I have destroyed
the bridge of that same vill I have granted them a boat until they shall be able to
repair their bridge, which they had in the time of my father and my own, for the
proper transit for themselves and their men and all those who want to travel
through the vill, saving the peace and the indemnity of my castle, and for delivering
and taking away whatever is necessary to them. I have also fully pacified and
settled that controversy which has existed for a long time between Beningbrough
and their two vills of Overton and Shipton concerning the land situated between
the wood and the plain, by the oath of twelve lawful men whom the abbot of the
aforesaid church has indicated, in the presence of Prior Augustine of Newburgh
and the men of William de Arches, to whose fee the aforesaid vill of Beningbrough
belongs, namely Guy of Wilstrop, Aubrey de Marston and Fulk de Hammerton,
344 1 The seal is 2 inches in diameter: a winged monster, with the head of a horse and the tail of a lion,
pouncing on a monster, with claws, a lion's tail, and apparently the head of a bull. SIGILLV
GALFRIDI DE GLI[ ]TVNIA CAMERARII REGIS. Grey wax varnished light brown. In
the Calendarof Documentsin France (ed. Round), p. 299, a description is given of the seal of the
younger Geoffrey de Clinton. The device is the same as this seal, but the spelling of the legend is
not the same.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 302 1990

 FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I

who at my command were present on the appointed day, viz. that henceforth they
shall possess that land in the future, quit and free of all claim. I have also restored
freely and quietly to the aforesaid church the land of Ousefleet, in meadow as well
as in arable, which Norman and William, sons of Mazeline, had given me for my
patronage and protection. I have by my own hand pledged to hold this agreement
and pact inviolate and Robert de Daiville and Hugh Malebisse have pledged the
same.

346

Notification by Walchelin Maminot that the men of Ellesmere have declared

in his court that his uncle William Peverel unjustly took away the land of Lee
from the monks of Shrewsbury and that he has returned the land to them.

Walchelin Maminot, to all his kinsmen and friends and all the faithful of Holy
Church, greeting. Know that the men of Ellesmere have conceded before me and
my knights that my uncle William Peverel unjustly took away the land of Lee from
the monks of Shrewsbury. Hearing this I strove by the counsel of my men to
liberate the soul of my uncle and the souls of those who gave him this counsel from
the punishment of this sin and I restored that land to St. Peter and the monks, so
free and quit that none of my successors shall have any more claim to it. And
therefore I beg all those who shall come after me never to burden this land with any
claim, for I have learned for certain from my men that my uncle received bad
counsel on this.

HeinOnline -- 106 Selden Society 303 1990