« PreviousContinue »
are considering is now embedded in the St. John's documents (being No. xxxii, out of xxxviii.), yet such was not Roger Dodsworth's evident plan. He intended it for a quasi appendix to his selection from the monastic charters.
Besides that which Roger Dodsworth made for the Monasticon, there are two other copies among his MSS. now in the Bodleian, one in Vol. 9 and another in Vol. 118, his B volume (that is his earliest but one); and these exhibit some small variations, some of which I have noted. Moreover, the document is described in the Monasticon as being taken “ex vetusto exemplari,” which in Vol. 118 is said to be “ex quoddam transcripto.” In the MS. volume no date is given to the transcript, but in the Monasticon, printed after the lapse of a generation, Dodsworth found it convenient and desirable to name the year in which it was made. Again in the original copy he described it as “ De Fundatione Ecclesie' Sancti Clementis ; ” which, having
' subsequently ascertained the distinction, he afterwards corrected into “ Capelle."
There is no date to the document itself, and a false date might easily be ascribed to it, owing to the circumstance that the third witness is described as “ Abbot of Selby,”
,' which he did not become till 1139. But this description is probably only an interpolation by the copyist, for the internal evidence shows that the document belongs to that transitional time, probably measured only by weeks, between the murder in December, 1135, of William Maltravers, the intruding lord of Pontefract, and the grant to Ilbert de Lascy, the rightful heir of the dispossessed Robert, while llbert himself is singularly enough called Herbert in the printed edition, though each of Dodsworth’s two volumes (9 and 118) gives “ Ilbert” most clearly. The document seems to represent Ilbert, who had just come of age, as waiting for the grant which he expected, and as consulting with the Archbishop, Thurstan, as to the future of the foundation of which he gives the history.
As further evidence that the copy in Vol. 118 was the original made by Dodsworth, it may be noted that it gives the vowel sound only (e) of the diphthongs, but that that in Vol. 9, which is written with great care and deliberation, gives them according to the practice then coming into Vogue, as æ; and as a they are printed in the Monasticon.
With regard to the date of the Foundation by Ilbert de Lascy, that also may be very approximately ascertained by the circumstances of the original gifts of Ilbert. For while the gifts of Ilbert de Lascy were all from manors which he held in his own hand at the Survey, the benefactions of the tenants (where they are traceable) are, with one exception, those of men who were, at that very time, tenants of the particular manor. And as there had been, with this one exception, no changes among them between the time of the Foundation and the date of the Survey, it may fairly be deduced that the interval was but small. The exception (which I shall consider presently) shows, moreover, that the Foundation preceded the Survey.
The document itself thus classifies the donations with great precision and considerable clearness.
I. The seigniorial gifts; (a) of the lord Ilbert de Lascy; and (b) those of his son.
II. The gifts of the tenants ; (a) those given in the time of Ilbert; (b) that of Robert de Somerveio in the time of Robert.
These were all from persons within the fee, for no one not belonging to it would have sought to intrude his gift.
In the first place, Ilbert gave two-thirds of his tithe from certain manors then in his own hand. These were eight; and, subject to the correction which I suggest of Newton (315b; xxxvi. col. 1), (i.e., Newton Wallis), for Newsome,
2 they were all in the hands of Ilbert, both at the time of the Foundation of St. Clement's, and at the time of the Survey ; they had either never been granted out, or they had reverted to the lord after the death or forfeiture of the holder. At first sight this is remarkable and might be thought to be due only to coincidence; but when the circumstances are considered, it will come to be perceived that it was most natural that it should be so, and that no other state of things was possible in the circumstances of the time. For the gift was a proportion of the tithe, and this no one could give but its owner. Had the manor been in the hand of a tenant, it would have been granted to him on certain terms; and these would have been infringed if over the tenant's head, the lord had added to them the alienation of a part of the tithe ; to do which the formal consent of the tenant would have been necessary, and his name would have necessarily appeared in the grant. Accordingly, in each of these instances, as we know from the Domesday Survey, the manor was bodily in the hands of the lord. And this circumstance clearly fixes the time of the Foundation as being very near to the date of the Survey ; as indeed so near, either before or after that date, as not to have allowed of any interval for a change in the owner of a manor. Thus the Survey reports Campsall (315b; xxxvi. col. 2) to have been in the time of Edward the Confessor in the hands of Alsi as to the first moiety, and of Baret (315b; xxxvi. col. 2) as to the second, but “now Ilbert” in each case, whoever that Ilbert might have been, Ilbert de Lascy or Ilbert de Reineville ; Darrington (316; xxxvii. col. 2) had been similarly in moieties in the hands of the same tenants, “now Ilbert;" Rothwell (317b; xl. col. 2) had been in
? These references signify (1) the number of the folio of the printed
edition of Domesday, (2) the number of the page of the phutozincographic copy
. the hands of Harold, “now Ilbert ;” Parlington (315;
; XXXV. col. 2) had been in the hands of Ulchil,“ now Ilbert; Barwick and Kippax, Allerton and Ledston (315 ; xxxv. col. 1) had been in the hands of Earl Edwin,“now Ilbert; who had not subinfeuded even one of them; each was in his own hands, both at the Foundation and at the Survey ; 80 that, like Araunah of old, of his own he gave to this Foundation. The manors in the second group come into the same category; for what again says the Survey ? Houghton (316 ; xxxvii
. col. 2) had been held by Lewin, "now Ilbert has it ;” Womersley (316 ; xxxvii. col. 1) had been held by Wege, “now Ilbert ;” Campsall (315b; xxxvi. col. 2) (the second moiety) had been held by Alsi (or Baret), “ now Ilbert” has it; Ermesala (315 b ; xxxvi. col. 2) (South Elmsall) had been held by Swen and Archil, “ now Ilbert.”
But the remainder of this group of manors was of a somewhat different character, for llbert himself was but a sub-infeudatory in at least three of them ; though in the rest (so far at least as can now be ascertained) he was also the chief lord. Iu all, however, whether as lord or as tenant, he was the beneficiary owner. Chorisbera, in Lindsay, I do not identify, but Frisbera (Domesday, 342) had been
I held by Alwi and Aschil
, “ now Ilbert holds of the Bishop of Bayeux" is the tale told by the Survey ; Hekeling (291) had
been held by Turchil and Godwin, now Ilbert as chief lord ; Stainton and Lineham (156), former tenants not named, now in each case Ilbert of the Bishop. Thus throughout all this first division, Ilbert again held, either as tenant or as chief lord ; and therefore was in a position to give tithe ; and the consequence was that when he subsequently granted out either of these manors, he granted it subject to the new liability he had himself created ; to pay the tithe which he had thus severed from the rest of the manor. And therefore again, although the tenant was the medium of the tithe paynient to St. Clement's, it was by no means his own tithe that he paid ; it was practically a part of his rent.
In all the places subsequently named, Ilbert had previously parted with the immediate ownership, retaining only a limited interest, and therefore he could not give the tithe of the produce which was not his, but was the result of the labour and capital of his tenant. At Knottingley (316 ; xxxvii. col. 2), for instance, the mesne tenancy was in the hands of Rannulph [Grammaticus] ; and at Burg [Wallis] (315 b; xxxvi. col. 2) William [Pictavus] was the tenant. But at Rothwell (317b; xl. col. 2), where, as I have seen, the manor was in his own hand, he gave the tithe of apples, as he did also at Cerswist (wherever that was ; East Keswick near Leeds, and Keswick in Holderness are both impossible), and at Went, which was possibly Wentbridge, a part of Darrington, not specially named in Domesday.
In the next group the gifts of Robert de Lascy indicate a later stage by a few years. His father was dead, and himself in possession ; while, though a term of not more than three years had elapsed, the period of quietude between about 1080 and 1086 was compensated by the abnormal number of changes between 1086 and about 1089. Change of king from the Conqueror to Rufus ; change of lord from Ilbert to Robert ; change of occupier had all followed rapidly. At the time of the Survey, the Greater Elmsall (316b; xxxviii. col. 1) (North Elmsall) was tenanted by Elric; Norton (315 b ; xxxvi. col. 2) by Elsi and Orm, the tenants of twenty years previously ; and Hemsworth (316; xxxviii. col. 1) by Gamel; but when Robert made his gifts, each manor had reverted to him, whether by death or by dispossession there is no evidence; so that he was able to seize the opportunity, and before he again granted out these manors he made an ecclesiastical disposition of their tithe.
On the other hand, in almost all the manors in the next group, which I have titled “ Original gifts of tenants of the Founder, each in his own Manor," that manor is proved by the Survey to have been sub-infeuded to the tenant named. And, moreover, singularly enough, while the Survey gives the Christian name only of the tenant, the document before us, contemplating him from another point of view, gives his surname also. The Roger who held Altofts (Westerby, 317; xxxix. col. 2) is here called Pictavus also; one of the Ilberts who holds a moiety of Campsall (315 b ; xxxvi. col. 2) is identified as de Reinville; the Humphrey of Snydale (317; xxxix. col. 2) and Newton [Wallis] (315b ; xxxvi. col. 1) is here "de Villeio”; Gislebert of Stapleton (316 ; xxxvii. col. 1) is Gilbert, son of Dama ; Ralph of Thorp (316;. xxxvii. col. 1) is Ralph Pincerna ; Henry de Lacy of Skelbrook (316; xxxvii. col. 1) should be Hervey de Campels; William in Skellow (Scanhalla, 315 b; xxxvi
. col. 2) is William Pictavus ; Ansgot in Hampole (Stubbs] (316; xxxvii. col. 1) is Ansgot Ruffus; and Robert in Seacroft (315 ; xxxv. col. 2) is Robert de Somerveio. Thus, out of the thirteen seigniorial lords, this document provides additional means of identification for eight. Of the remainder, Ernulf of Purston (316; xxxvii. col. 2) who granted a bovate in Hardwick to Nostell (Y. A. J. xi. 32–41) and Gerbodo in Fryston (316 ; xxxvii. col. 2) seem to have acquired no surname, while Ralph, son of Edelina, of Stubbs, and Cheme in Stubbs have nothing in the Survey corresponding to these entries, and each is probably a corruption. I have found no satisfactory key to either.
With regard to the first, there was no “ Stubbs juxta Encesalam” (? Hensall) as the name is given in the Monasticon ; and even if for “ Encesalam” we read
we read “ Emasalam ” (as in Dodsworth, Vol. 118), which might be rendered “next Elmsall,”
do not obtain much enlightenment, for the Stubbs that was in that neighbourhood was Hampole Stubbs, belonging to Ansgot [Ruffus].
One other of the sub-infeuded manors remains for consideration. There is nothing in the Survey in any possible way corresponding to “Cheme in Stubbs.” The Stubbs ng
"n8 probably that called “ Cridling Stubbs," not mention