which has been so universally accepted, must be rejected Against the facts I have adduced it cannot

altogether. stand.

Incredible though it may seem that a court official, a chronicler so able and well informed, indeed, in the words of his editor, "our primary authority for the period,1 should have misstated so grossly an event, as it were, under his own eyes, we must remember that "Hoveden's personality is to a certain degree vindicated by a sort of carelessness about exact dates." 20 Yet even so, "few are the points," our supreme authority assures us, "in which a very close examination and collation with contemporary authors can detect chronological error in Hoveden."" Nor, of the eight anachronisms laboriously established by Dr. Stubbs, does any one approach in magnitude the error I have here exposed. The importance of every anachronism in its bearing on the authorship of the chronicle is by him clearly explained.

How far does the rejection of this statement on the change of seal affect the statement which precedes it as to the Truce of Tillières? Hoveden places the latter and the former in the relation of cause and effect:

Deinde veniens in Normanniam moleste tulit quicquid factum fuerat de supradictis treugis, et imputans cancellario suo hoc per eum fuisse factum, abstulit ab eo sigillum suum, et fecit, etc. (iii. 267).

This is rendered by Dr. Stubbs in the margin: "He annuls the truce and all the acts of the chancellor passed under the old seal." The passage has also been so read by M. Boivin-Champeaux (p. 221); but if that is the meaning, which I think is by no means certain, Hoveden contradicts himself. For he speaks five months later of the truce ("Treuga quæ inter eos statuta fuerat duratura usque ad festum omnium sanctorum") as not having stopped

19 Stubbs's Hoveden, IV. xxxi.

20 Ibid., p. xxv.

21 Ibid., p. xxxi.

The Truce of Tilières (1194)

549

private raids on either side." R. de Diceto, mentioning, the truce (ii. 120), says nothing of it being annulled, nor does R. Newburgh in his careful account. On the contrary, he implies that it held good, though the terms were thought dishonourable to Richard (ii. 420). I should, therefore, read Hoveden as stating simply that Richard was much annoyed at ("moleste tulit") its terms, and was wroth with the chancellor for accepting them.

In addition to correcting the received date for Richard the First's change of seal, the evidence I have collected enables us, for the first time, to learn how and to what extent the confirmation of the charters was effected. We find that it was no sweeping process, carried out on a single occasion, but that it was gradually and slowly proceeding during the last eleven months of the king's life. Here, then, is the explanation of another fact (also hitherto overlooked), namely that only a minority of the charters were ever confirmed under the second seal.28 For the king's death abruptly stopped the operation of that oppressive decree which was being so reluctantly obeyed.

It should be superfluous for me to add that, in thus correcting previous statements, I have not impeached the accuracy of our greatest living historian, who could only form his judgment from the evidence before him. The result of my researches has been to show that the evidence itself breaks down when submitted to the test of fact.

22

23 iii. 276. This distinctly implies that the truce had been nominally in full force. Note that it is here spoken of as Still All Saints," while in the document itself (iii. 259) it is made for a year from All Saints. Miss Norgate (ii. 367) speaks of it as "till All Saints" (1194), but I think it was made from July 1194 to All Saints 1195.

23 I have not found a single charter of municipal liberties, though the reign was so rich in them, among these confirmations. Nor since this article first appeared, in 1888 (Archæol. Rev., vol. i.), have I found more than four additional cases of re-sealed charters, raising the total to 28. Of these a detailed list is given on the next page.

1 "Scilicet die secunda coronationis nostræ."

"December" in Cart. Ant., which date is accepted in Gibson's

4

COMMUNAL HOUse demolition

THE

HERE was a strange custom peculiar to the ancient community of the Cinque Ports, which has not, so far as I know, been found elsewhere in England. If a member of any one of these towns was elected to serve as Mayor or "Jurat" (the governing bodies consisting of a Mayor and twelve "Jurats"), and refused to accept the office, his house was publicly demolished by the community. An extract from the Custumal of Sandwich, headed "Pena maioris electi recusantis officium suum," will make the custom clear :

:

Si maior sic electus efficium suum recipere noluit, primo et secundo et tercio monitus, tota communitas ibit ad capitale messuagium suum, si habuerit proprium, et illud cum armis omnimodo quo poterit prosternat usque ad terram. . . Similiter quicunque juratus fuerit electus, et jurare noluerit, simile judicium."1

Although the custom of house demolition is apparently, as I have said, peculiar in England to the Cinque Ports, it was of widespread occurrence abroad. Thither, therefore, we must turn our steps in order to investigate its history.

It is in Flanders and in Northern France, and in Picardy, most of all, that we find this singular custom prevailing, and discover its inseparable connexion with the institution of the Commune. It would seem that the penalty of house demolition was originally decreed for offences against the commune in its corporate capacity. Thierry, basing his

1 Boys' Sandwich, p. 431.