Exchequer at Winchester 503 A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170) THE charter of Henry II. the exchequer was still HE charter given below is cited by Madox as evidence "sometimes holden in other places" than Westminster. Contrary to his usual practice, he does not print the charter; so, wishing to ascertain what light it might throw on the private transaction it records, I referred to its original enrolment.1 Finding that its evidence would prove of some historical value, I decided to edit it for the use of students.2 Willelmus comes de Essex' omnibus hominibus t amicis suis, Francis Anglis, clericis t laicis, tam futuris quam presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me dedisset concessisset hac carta mea confirmasse Rogero filio Ricardit suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis] in escambio pro Cunctonia hereditarie tenendam de met heredibus meis sibit heredibus suis per servicium unius militist dimidii, libere et quiete t honorifice sicut unquam antecessores mei liberius t honorificencius eam tenuerunt q habuerunt; scilicet in bosco t in plano, in pratis et pascuis, in viis t semitis, in aquis, t molendinis, t in omnibus predicte ville adjacentibus. Et insuper dedit concessi predicto Rogero filio Ricardi terram de Wlauynton' quam pater meus comes Gal[fridus] dedit Willelmo de Moretonio, per servicium michi faciendum quod 1 Madox gives a misleading reference. The charter occurs among the Clavering enrolments of m. 17 (not 19) of the L.T.R. Memoranda of the Exchequer, containing the Michaelmas communia of 5 Ed. II. 2 Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office, kindly undertook to transcribe the charter for me. predictus Willelmus patri meo facere debuit, hereditarie tenendum [sic] de met heredibus meis, illi t heredibus suis. Quare volo t firmiter precipio quod ista donacio ratat inconcussa permaneat. Et notum sit omnibus quod istud eschambium factum fuit apud Wynconiam [sic] ad Scaccarium coram domino Rege Henrico filio regis Henrici Secundit Baronibus suis. Teste [sic] Reg' comite, Bac' de Luc[i], Willelmo de Sancto Johanne, Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo Archidiacono Pick[tavensi], Hunfrido de Buh[un] constant[e], Manser' Biset dap[ifero], Gilberto Malet dap[ifero], Hugone de Gundvil[la], Alano de Nevill[a], Thoma Basset, Willelmo filio Audel[ini], Johanne Mareschal, Roberto de Bussone, Johanne const[abulario] Cestr[iae], Ranulpho de Glanvile, Gaufrido de Say, Gerard de Kanvill[a], Oseberto filio Ricardi, David de Jarpenvilla, Ricardo filio Hugonis, Johanne Burd, Willelmo filio Gill[eberti], Roberto de Sancto Claro, Johanne de Roch, Hasculfo Capellano, Henrico clerico, Roberto clerico, qui hanc cartam scripsit, t multis aliis. The purpose of the charter is soon disposed of; it records a grant by the Earl of Essex to Roger fitz Richard (who had married the earl's aunt "Alice of Essex "") of Aynho, Northants, in exchange for Compton, co. Warwick. Both Manors were in the Mandeville fief, and the former was to be held, as the latter had been (in 11666), "per servicium unius militis et dimidii.” The interest of the document is to be sought in its witnesses, and its place of testing, and above all in the date which, I hope to show, they suggest. The mention of the two inseparable archdeacons proves that this date cannot be later than 1174, and consequently, as the young king was present, must have been previous to his revolt in 1173, and therefore to his departure from England about the close of 1172. On the other hand, the date must be subsequent to June, 1170, when the young king was 3 Read Ricardo]. Read constab[ulo]. " See my paper on "Who was Alice of Essex ?" in the Essex Arch. Transactions. "Rogerus filius Ricardi i. militem et tres partes unius militis." Probably the quarter fee was a separate holding. Proof of the Date 505 crowned, and therefore probably to the meeting at Fréteval (22nd July, 1170), at which the Archdeacon of Canterbury was present. Thus we obtain a limit of date. Within this limit we may exclude the young king's stay in England after the departure of the two archdeacons (Dec., 1170), as also his subsequent presence in England in 1171-2 while his father was in Ireland, for William fitz Aldelin was in Ireland with him. Indeed, we are told by Giraldus (v. 286) that when the king left Ireland (April, 1172) William was left behind in charge of Wexford." As the young king then accompanied his father over sea, the only period remaining (except July-December, 1170) to which we could assign the document is August-November, 1172, when he visited England, with his consort Margaret, for his second coronation. This ceremony took place at Winchester, but we cannot tell whether William fitz Aldelin had yet returned from Ireland, or whether any other of our witnesses were present on that occasion.8 But if we turn to the other possible period, the latter half of 1170, we find an occasion when six of the witnesses to the above charter can actually be shown to have been present, under circumstances of peculiar interest, with the young king at Winchester. The evidence of charters is so deficient at this period of the reign that from August, 1170, to June, 1171, Mr. Eyton could only adduce two charters "quite problematically" and one more "safely," as he claims, but erroneously, as his own pages show. If, then, our charter belongs to this 7 Humphrey de Buhun also and Hugh de Gundeville were left behind at Waterford. Foss Judges of England, i. 235) states positively that Hugh de Gundeville did not leave Ireland till 1173, at the time of the rebellion. This, if true, would dispose at once of an 1172 date for our charter; but, unfortunately, he does not give his authority, and I have not succeeded in finding it. 9 Court, etc., of Henry II., pp. 147, 154. The Archdeacon of Canterbury attests the Chinon charter, which Mr. Eyton "safely" assigns to period, its evidence is proportionately valuable. Now all that we know of the movements of the young king at the time is that he was at Westminster on 5th October, and that he kept his Christmas at Winchester. Mr. Eyton's book must here be used with great caution. He has been misled by R. de Diceto (i. 342) 10 into the statement that Henry was at Woodstock when Becket sought to visit him in December; and adds-by a confusion, it would seem, with his October movements-"The young king is at Windsor" (4th Dec."). Henry was neither at Woodstock nor Windsor at this time, but at Winchester. Becket's biographers are unanimous in stating that he sent his envoy before him to the young king at Winchester. Landing on 1st December, and entering Canterbury next day, the primate (says William Fitz Stephen), "post octo dierum moram in sede," 12 sent Richard, prior of Dover (who was destined to be his own successor), to the young king to ask permission to visit him "tanquam regem et dominum suum." Richard "veniens Wintoniam, regem invenit, ubi optimates regni coegerat." 13 The purpose of this special assembly was connected with the scheme for an irregular election to the vacant sees, at the court of the elder king, by deputations whom his son was to send over.14 Prior Richard was confronted by the middle of October, 1170, adding that he had "apparently been with the king ever since the peace of Fréteval" (22nd July). But he is known to have been with the young king at Westminster on 5th October, as indeed Mr. Eyton elsewhere observes (p. 151). 10 Becket, he says, visited London on his way, "ad videndam faciem novi regis, qui tunc temporis morabatur apud Wdestoc" (sic). 11 "Court of King Henry the Younger" (Eyton, pp. 151–2). 12 Materials, p. 121. William of Canterbury places Richard's despatch 'post aliquot dies reditus sui" (ib. i. 106). 13 Ib., i. 106; so Garnier (p. 166, Ed. Hippeau) — "Le juefne Rei aveit à Wincestre trové. 14 Ib., i. 106; so Garnier "Pur c' èrent assemblé cele genz à cel jur, Et li prince et li cunte et des baruns plusur." The Officers Present 507 the young king's guardians (three of whom attest our charter).15 He himself, on receiving the application, sent (as I read it) to consult Geoffrey Ridel, who was believed to know his father's wishes, and who, with the Archdeacon of Poitiers, was at Southampton, waiting to cross.16 Turning, for their movements, to William Fitz Stephen, we learn that, while on their way to cross from a Kentish port, the two archdeacons, on entering the county, learnt that the primate had arrived at Canterbury, and, turning their horses' heads, made for a more westerly port.17 Southampton clearly was the port they made for, and on their way thither they must have visited the young king at Winchester. This is admitted in the case of Geoffrey, who went there, says Becket, to lay before him the complaint of the excommunicated bishops.. I believe that our charter belongs to this occasion, when the two attesting archdeacons were at Winchester. Reg' no doubt is Earl Reginald of Cornwall, who was certainly present at the same time 18 and who is probably referred to in "li cunte " of Garnier. This will establish the presence of six of our witnesses. Of the others, Richard de Luci takes precedence as justiciar; Alan de Nevill, Thomas Basset, and the great Glanville were, like the two archdeacons and the three guardians of the king, members 15 "Veniens itaque legatus ad curiam, convenit tutores regis Willelmum de Sancto Johanne, Willelmum filium Aldelinae, Hugonem de Gundulfivilla, Randulfum filium Stephani" (i. 108-9). 16 "Qui de portu Suthamtune transfretaturi erant" (i. 111). Geoffrey sent back a scornful reply (see also Garnier) expressing his wonder that the young king could think of meeting a man who meant to disinherit him. This statement agrees with Becket's own complaint (vii. 406) that his archidiabolus Geoffrey was instructed to make this charge. 17 III. 120. "Duo archidiaconi ... jam in Cantiam venerant, ad regem illac transfretaturi. Audito autem quod archiepiscopus appulsus Cantuariae esset, lora statim diverterunt, ad occidentales maris portus tendentes." This convicts Mr. Eyton of error in asserting that on 1st December the two archdeacons were at Dover, waiting to cross (p. 149). 18 lb., i. III. |