Page images
PDF
EPUB

place immediately; for a short time Philip re-established Guérin of Glapion as seneschal; but it was soon found desirable to distribute his functions among a small number of powerful bailiffs. In consequence of this step the court of exchequer was left without its usual president, and from this time a special commission seems to have been appointed to preside over the great sessions of the court at Easter and Michaelmas.2 The commissioners were generally sent from France, and thus helped to maintain the connection between the exchequer and the superior Parlement of Paris. For, until the date of the great charter to the Normans of 1315, the Parlement of Paris acted as a court of appeal, verified the accounts of the Norman bailiffs, and sometimes assumed the initiative in the affairs of the duchy as a court of first instance.3 The proceedings of the exchequer and of the Parlement are a most important authority for the history of local administration during the thirteenth century.4

1. He is described by Philip as his seneschal of Normandy in May, 1204 (Actes, nos. 817A, 825A). The king's hesitations may be illustrated by the way in which he revised more than once the position of Guillaume des Roches in Anjou (Teulet, Layettes, no. 723, p. 267; Actes, no. 997). In Anjou and Touraine an hereditary office was established which lasted until 1331 (Viollet, Histoire des institutions politiques, iii, 258).

2. Viollet, op. cit. iii, 344-5, for the chief authorities. These sessions were held at Falaise. See the Jugements de l'échiquier de Normandie, ed. Delisle, in Notices et extraits des manuscrits (1862), xx, part 2. 3. Viollet, iii, 345.

4. Olim (ed. Beugnot); the Jugements; and Perrot, Arresta Communia Scacarii, the first volume of the Bibliothèque d'histoire du droit normand (Caen, 1910).

named frequently presided at assizes held in various towns. But the office of senesechal of Normandy had disappeared, and these instances of the word must be compared with the title which Henry II's bailiff, Hamo Pincerna, gave himself "Pincerna Regis Anglie et senescallus Baiocarum" (Stapleton, I, lix). A mandate of 1219, addressed to the seneschal and justices of Normandy, survives in a vidimus of 1255 (Actes, no. 1910). The form of address is quite exceptional.

The management of the demesne was entrusted to the bailiffs of Rouen, Caux, Gisors, Pont-Audemer, Verneuil, Caen, Bayeux and the Côtentin.1 Thus the tendency towards the concentration of local administration which may be observed in John's reign, was brought to a logical issue by Philip Augustus. All the bailiffs appointed by Philip after the annexation of Normandy were Frenchmen, and several of them had already filled important posts on the Norman frontier. The king's pantler, who had done service during the wars in the Vexin, became castellan or bailiff of Rouen. Cadoc the mercenary, now lord of Gaillon, became bailiff of Pont-Audemer. Nicholas Bocel, the new bailiff of Verneuil, had been previously entrusted with the control of the march along the middle Eure, and had thus supervised the administration of Nonancourt and other fortresses which had passed some years before into French hands. One of the first bailiffs, whom Philip established in the Côtentin, had been prepositus of Paris. Pierre of Thillai, once bailiff of Orleans, filled the most important position of all in Caen and Falaise. In virtue of his control over the two chief centres of Norman government, he took to a great extent the place of the seneschals of Angevin times.2

It was inevitable that men who were entrusted in a newly conquered country with such vast powers, should at times be guilty of tyranny and extortion. Cadoc especially proved himself a corrupt though an able administrator. 3 But the king was successful upon the

1. Delisle's introduction to the inquests of Saint-Louis in the Recueil des historiens de France, xxiv, part i, pp. 97*-146*. Delisle shows, however, that the bailiwick of Pont-Audemer was probably merged in that of Rouen after the deprivation of Cadoc in 1219, and that the Avranchin was, late in the century, detached from Bayeux and joined to the Côtentin.

2. Delisle, pp. 134*-136*.

3. Ibid, pp. 130*-133*. Among other charges he was accused of embezzling £14,200 in money of Paris. See Cart. Norm., nos. 363-6 and notes.

whole in continuing the policy which, as is shown by his charters and by the statements of his accounts for 1202, 1 he had adopted after the acquisition of the Vexin and the fortresses on the Eure. This policy was a twofold one; on the one hand, he concentrated in his own demesne the castles and territory which occupied positions of peculiar strategic or commercial importance, and at the same time retained definite control over the castles which he gave away; on the other hand, he was careful to observe with a few modifications the customs of Normandy in Church and state and to maintain private rights. In this summary of Philip's work I will confine myself to a brief consideration of this twofold policy.

Philip began his reorganisation of the demesne by ordering elaborate enquiries to be made into the ducal rights and customary revenues, and into the financial and social organisation of those estates which, like Vernon and Paci and Evreux, now ceased to be private property. The important record of accounts for the year 1202 shows that these enquiries must have been made in the south of Normandy after the treaties of 1195 and 1200. As a result the administration of Vernon, which became Philip's headquarters in the Seine valley, and of the district to the west of Vernon, was so satisfactory that the king has been largely able to carry on the war, or at least to maintain the garrisons on this part of his new frontier, out of local funds.2 Philip formed the county of Evreux, the Norman Vexin, Paci and Vernon into a compact demesne which, from an economic point of view, he seems to have regarded

1. This statement of accounts is printed in Brussel, Nouvel examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France, vol. ii, p. cxxxix. On its value, see Brussel's remarks, vol. i, 436–7.

2. Brussel, 1.c. Inquests in the Cart. Norm., nos. 116, 117, pp. 20–1, nos. 199-201, pp. 30-1, and no 1079, pp. 287-8.

a

5

3

1

as part of France rather than of Normandy. After the conquest the rest of Normandy was submitted to similar inquiry and organisation. The viscounties, preposituræ and other units of the farmed revenues were probably grouped in viscounties within the bailiwicks. 2 Private and hereditary rights, such as those of the bishop of Lisieux, were investigated; in some cases their precarious nature was emphasised, others were bought up, others were disputed. The more irksome claims upon revenue, of which Queen Berengaria's dowry in Falaise, Domfront and Bonneville-sur-Touque was the chief, were exchanged for grants of lands or money elsewhere. Investigation was also made into the condition and equipment of the royal castles. Careful inventories of the armouries and reports upon repairs have survived. And, while he was dealing with these matters, Philip ordered an inquiry into the distribution of the Jews.8

1. Philip's charters illustrates this. In 1205 the burgesses of Breteuil were exempted from dues in Normandy, Poitou, Anjou, Maine, except in the county of Evreux, the Norman Vexin, Paci, Vernon and the land of Hugh of Gournai (Actes, no. 902). Compare above, p. 370. Roger of Meulan was induced to exchange his rights in the viscounty of Evreux for lands in the county.

2. Delisle in Historiens de France, xxiv, part i, p. 97*; cf. also his early essay upon the bailiffs of the Côtentin (1851) in the Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, vol. xix.

3. e.g., the letter of Jordan, bishop of Lisieux, October, 1204, in Cart. Norm., no. 92, p. 17: "nos domino Regi Francorum Philippo concedimus ut sufferentia, quam ipse nobis fecit de libertatibus civitatiз et banleuge nostre, in nulla re nobis auxilietur contra ipsum per teneaturam," etc.

4. e.g., the rights of Roger of Meulan in Evreux. See note above. 5. e.g., the archibishop's claims to fouage in Andeli; cf. Cart. Norm., no. 132, p. 23, where a settlement is reached.

6. Actes, no. 105; inquiry into the revenue of these places in Cart. Norm., no. 111. Berengaria received Le Mans in exchange. For other references to her, see Actes, nos. 857, 892, 895, 1777.

7. The count of Boulogne received in exchange for Mortemer the castles of Aumâle and Domfront, and the village of Saint-Riquier. At the same time he received Mortain (Actes, nos. 883-5).

8. Cart. Norm., nos. 207, 208, 213, 214, 215; pp. 32-4.

Although the official records of the duchy had been removed by John's orders to London, adequate materials for Philip's investigations remained. The documents inscribed upon his register include, for example, the summary statement of knight service, based upon the inquest of 1172,1 which is also found in the Red Book of the English exchequer. Many of the original deeds and documents, which had lain in the Norman archives and contained important evidence upon Norman customs, found their way into the Trésor des Chartes. Unfortunately the existing records of Philip's inquests are too fragmentary to enable the historian to construct a complete description of Normandy in 1204. They are only sufficient to give some idea of the scope and variety of the king's instructions.

Soon after the conquest Philip announced that he had added to his demesne the lands of several great barons, including the earls of Warenne, Arundel, Leicester and Clare, and of all those knights who were at the time in England. A document, which is inscribed upon one of the registers, contains a list of the cities and fortresses which had been incorporated in the demesne. All the cities (that is, the seats of bishoprics) and nearly forty castles are contained in this list. The most important exceptions are Argentan, Drincourt, Radepont, Nonancourt, Domfront, Mortain, Saint-James-de-Beuvron and Pontorson; and inquiry shows that the tenure of the barons who held these was in several cases subject to restriction. Thus Robert of Courtenai, to whom Philip 1. Recueil des historiens de France, xxxiii, 693; Hall in Red Book of the Exchequer, II, pp. ccxxxi-iv.

2. Cart. Norm., p. iii. Cf. the charter for Falaise, 1204, no. 75, p. 283 "preterea volumus et concedimus ut stabilimentum commune eorum, sicut continetur in rotulo qui coram nobis lectus fuit et in registro nostro transcriptus, inviolabiter observetur."

3. Cart. Norm., no. 113, p. 20; Actes, no. 887.

4. Cart. Norm.., no. 209, p. 32. Gaillon is included, though Cadoc had a life interest in it.

« PreviousContinue »