Chapter XV: The Marshalship of England

In his valuable essay on a document of which the origin has long been discussed, the ‘Modus tenendi Parliamentum,’[605] M. Bémont has drawn attention to the close association of this treatise, in the MSS. which contain it, with the coronation of Richard II. and with a treatise on the Marshal’s office. So close, indeed, is this association that

Coke affirme avoir vu de ce traité [the _Modus_] un exemplaire
“écrit au temps de Henri II. qui contient la manière, la forme
et l’usage de Gilbert de Scrogel, maréchal d’Angleterre, et qui
indique comment il s’acquittait alors de son office.”

M. Bémont explains that Coke confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise on the Marshal’s office, but this is not, we shall find, quite the right explanation; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in question “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” As Coke’s error as to Gilbert has been very widely followed, it may be well to dispose of it once for all by tracing it to the source of his error.

We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the MS. lat. 6,049 in the Bibliothèque Nationale (from which is taken Hardy’s, and consequently Dr. Stubbs’, text of the ‘Modus.’) Although M. Bémont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting as High Steward.[606] Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and heiress of Thomas “of Brotherton,” marshal of England, who claimed to discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important words:

Item quoad officium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall
Comitissa Norff’ porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato
Domino Senescallo in hec verba “A tres honure seignur le Roy
de Castille et de Leon, Duc de Lancastre, et Seneschall’
Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton’
nadgaires Conte de Norff’ et mareschall dengleterre destre
accepte a loffice de mareschalcie ore al coronement nostre s^r
le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son
piere fesante loffice par son depute _come Gilbert Mareschall
Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second_,
cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son
coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les
hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte
faitz Chivaler au cel iour un palfrey ove une sele.” Supra quo
audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem
quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit
ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et
supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa
pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod
curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis
brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus
de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad
officium predictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65_d_).

We have clearly here the origin of Coke’s error, when he writes:

Many very ancient copies you may find of this Modus, one whereof
we have seen in the reign of H. 2, which contains the manner,
forme, and usage of Gilbert de Scrogel, marshall of England, in
what manner he occupied and used the said roome and office in
all his time, and how he was admitted etc. at the coronation of
H. 2 (‘Institutes,’ 4, xxi.).

For the error is only found in the above petition.

Now, it ought to be obvious that no such person as Gilbert Marshal, earl of ‘Strogoil,’ could have existed in 1154, for the Marshals did not inherit till a later time that Earldom, which was held in 1154 by the house of Clare. It has indeed been suggested that for “Gilbert” we should read “Richard,”[607] but this will not help us. For, to secure consistency, we should have to read “Richard _de Clare_.” Nevertheless, it has been loosely assumed, on no other evidence, that Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke (“Striguil”) acted as Marshal of England at the coronation of Henry II. in 1154.[608] And on this foundation antiquaries have raised theories to which we must return.

The real explanation is perfectly simple. On turning to fo. 86_d._ of the MS. we find an entry “de officio marescalcie,” which we can positively identify as taken from fo. 232 of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer’ (p. 759) where it is found among the “services” at Queen Eleanor’s coronation in 1236. Then turning back to Countess Margaret’s claim (fo. 65_d_), we find that it enshrines, in Norman French, this entry word for word. Therefore the whole error has been caused by the words “as coronement le Roy Henri second” (1154) applied to an entry which really related to the coronation of Queen Eleanor (1236)! “Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strigoil” had no existence at the former date, but he actually held the marshal’s rod in 1236.[609]

Camden, it seems, is responsible, in the first instance, for the theory that the office of “Marshal of England” was distinct in origin and character from that of Marshal of the Household. Strangely enough, in his earlier essay,[610] he made no such distinction, but, on the contrary, stated that Roger Bigod “was he which first stiled himselfe _marescallus Angliæ_, whereas all his predecessors used noe other stiles than the simple addition of _marescallus_.” In his second essay (3rd Nov., 1603)[611] he gave a list of the “Marshals of England,” deducing the office from a grant of Stephen, who “made Gilbert Clare earl of Pembroke and Marshal of England, with the state of inheritance, who ... was commonly called earl of Stryghall.” Thus arose the whole theory which Thoms, following Camden, adopts in his ‘Book of the Court’ (pp. 241, 244), namely, that the two offices were accidentally united by the marriage of William (the) Marshal (of the Household) with Isabel, heiress of the earls of Pembroke, “Marshals of England.”

From Thoms this theory has found its way into the ‘Complete Peerage.’ I need not here say more than that I have carefully examined the evidence, and that, after the alleged union of the offices, there is no trace of their being granted as more than one. When John confirmed (20th April, 1200) the marshalship to William Marshall, it was as

magistratum maresc’ curie nostre quam magistratum Gillebertus
Marescallus Henrici Regis avi patris nostri et Johannes filius
ipsius Gilleberti disrationaverat coram predicto Rege Henrico in
curia sua.[612]

And when William’s younger son Gilbert obtained it from Henry III., after his brother’s death, we read of the king (11th June, 1234)--

Tradens ei virgam marescalcie curie sue sicut moris est et sicut
eam antecessores ejus melius et liberius habuerunt.[613]

It would not be in place here to discuss the growth of the office with the growth of the administration, just as the constableship developed in its descent from Miles of Gloucester through the Bohuns. The one point to keep in mind is that the office of marshal descended from Gilbert _temp._ Hen. I., to Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, at whose death in December (1306), the marshalship, by his own arrangement, reverted to the king.

It was the king’s intention to bestow it on his young son Thomas “of Brotherton”; but as he was at the time only six years old, it was given, ‘during pleasure,’ 3rd September, 1307, to Robert de Clifford,[614] and, a few months later, to Nicholas de Segrave (12th March, 1308), also ‘during pleasure.’[615] These appointments are important for their bearing on a note by Dr. Stubbs that

William le Mareschal had served as marshall at the coronation,
but was superseded in 1308 by Nicholas Segrave, with whom he
went to war in 1311. It was probably his dismissal that offended
Lancaster in 1308; see ‘M. Malmesb.,’ p. 103; and he may be
considered as a strong adherent of the earl (of Lancaster).[616]

It is the case that William Marshall had carried the great gilt spurs at the coronation of Edward II. (Feb., 1308), but we do not find his name on the Patent Rolls among the appointments to the “Marshalsea of England.” He can, therefore, only have been chosen to act at the coronation, and was doubtless selected, in preference to the temporary Marshal, as being hereditary Marshal of Ireland. Summoned to Parliament as a baron in 1309, he became one of the ‘Ordainers’ in 1310.

Robert de Clifford, whom Segrave replaced, was afterwards concerned in Gaveston’s death (or, at least, pardoned as being so),[617] but was clearly a strong supporter of the king at the beginning of 1308. And as appointments and favours were bestowed upon him for two or three years afterwards, one cannot think that he was out of favour, or that he can be alluded to in the passage cited by Dr. Stubbs from the Monk of Malmesbury:

(1309) unde magnates terræ cœperunt hæc pro malo habere et
præcipue comes Lancastriæ, quia unus ex familiaribus suis,
procurante Petro, ejectus erat ab officio suo.[618]

It could not in any case apply, as Dr. Stubbs suggests, to William le Mareschal. Professor Tout not only dates Segrave’s appointment a year too late, but goes so far as to say that, against him,--

William Marshal, a peer of Parliament and a collateral
representative of the great Marshal family, claimed the office
as devolving on him by hereditary right.[619]

It is obvious that the only person who could make such a claim was the disinherited brother of the late earl of Norfolk.

On February 10, 1316, the Marshalship of England became once more an hereditary office, being bestowed on Thomas ‘de Brotherton,’ then earl of Norfolk, and the heirs male of his body.[620]

Let me here again insist that the fundamental error has been the anachronism interpolated in Countess Margaret’s coronation claim (1377). This is really the sole foundation for the statement that the Clares earls of Pembroke held the office of Marshal of England; and it can be conclusively shown to arise from mistaking the coronation of 1236 for that of 1154.[621]

Having thus traced to its origin the confusion which made Richard Strongbow and his father Gilbert marshals of England, I may now deal with the further confusion which assigns to Richard ‘Strongbow’ a legitimate son Walter. In Ormerod’s ‘Strigulensia’ (p. 63), in Mr. Archer’s biography of Richard,[622] and now in the ‘Complete Peerage,’ the fact is accepted as certain. The authority for this statement is a Tintern Abbey charter, in which William Marshal the younger confirms certain grants (22nd March, 1223)--

pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii Ricardi filii Gilberti
Strongbow avi mei, et Willelmi Marescalli patris mei, et
Ysabelle matris mee (‘Mon. Ang.,’ v. 267).

A very able genealogist, Mr. G. W. Watson, holds that this charter makes the existence of a son Walter “certain.”[623] But as the text appeared to me obviously corrupt, I referred to the Arundel MS.,[624] from which it is printed in the ‘Monasticon.’ I there made the startling discovery that, as I thought possible, the true text is this (in a 15th century transcript of a 14th century _inspeximus_ of the 13th century charter):

pro animabus bone memorie Walteri filii _Ricardi_, _Gilberti
Strongbowe_, Ricardi filii Gilberti Strongbowe avi mei, et
Willelmi Marescalli patris mei et Ysabelle matris mee[625] (fo.
1).

This makes perfect sense, giving as it does the descent of the Honour from Walter Fitz Richard (de Clare), founder of Tintern. But a much later hand (? 17th century) has coolly run a pen through the three words I have italicised, thus making nonsense of the passage, which was then, in this mutilated form, printed by Dugdale! It is but a further instance of the havoc which he and others have wrought in the genealogy of the famous house of Clare.

As this charter is of independent value for its early (apparently earliest)[626] mention of the name ‘Strongbow,’ its date is of importance; Mr. Archer states that it is “dated Strigul, 22nd March, 1206,”[627] an obviously impossible date. Its real date was 22nd March, 1223[628] (7 Hen. III.).

We may now return to the office of Marshal in the 14th century. On June 3, 1317, the king called on the barons of the Exchequer to inform him from their records, “quæ et cujusmodi feoda marescalli Angliæ qui pro tempore fuerunt et eorum ministri temporibus progenitorum nostrorum videlicet de pane, vino, cereolis, et candelis percipere et habere consueverunt.” For reply they sent him the relative extract from the “Constitutio domus regis.”[629] In 4 Edward III., “Thomas counte Norfolk et marshall d’Engleterre” petitioned the king for his fees “qui appendent a son office de la marechausie dedeinz l’ostell et dehors auxi, come ses predecesseurs countes mareschauls ount estre servy”; and he annexed a list of them based on the above return.[630] Again, on April 13, 1344, the king called on the Exchequer for a return from its records “de feodis quam de aliis quibuscunque quæ pertinent ad officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciæ Angliæ,” etc., etc. Again they sent him the relative extract “in quadam constitutione de domo regis antiquitus facta”; but they added the passage “in Rubro Libro Scaccarii” on Queen Eleanor’s coronation (1236), and a ‘Dialogus’ passage on the fees due to the Marshal from those he imprisoned for default at the Exchequer.[631]

Lastly, we have in the treatise on the Marshal’s office, as given in Nero D. vi., the following passage at its close (fol. 86_d_):

In rubro libro de scaccario Regis folio xxx^o sic continetur de marescallo.

Et preter hoc debet magister marescalcie habere dicas de donis
et liberacionibus que fuerint de Thesauro Regis et de sua
camera et debet habere dicas contra omnes officiales Regis ut
testis per omnia. Quatuor marescalli qui serviunt familie Regis
tam clericis quam militibus quam ministris die qua faciunt
herbergeriam vel extra curiam in negocio Regis morantibus, viij
d. in die et galonem vini expens’ et xij frustra candelarum si
extra tres de die in diem homini suo et cand’ plenar’ quod si
aliquis marescallorum missus fuerit in negocio Regis viij d.
ta[ntu]m servientes Marescallorum si fuerint missi in negocio
Regis unusquisque in die iij d. sin autem in domo Regis comedent.

* * * * *

De officio marescalcie servivit Gilbertus comes de Stroghull
cuius est officium tumultus sedare in domo Regis, liberaciones
officiorum[632] facere, hostia aule Regis custodire. Recipit
autem de quolibet Barone facto milite a Rege et quolibet comite
palefridum cum sella.

It is this last extract, as I explained above, which is reproduced in Norman-French in Countess Margaret’s petition, with the interpolation of the words which have caused all the confusion.

And here it is necessary to observe that the interesting reference it contains to the knighting of a ‘Baron’ by the king is reduced to what Mr. Freeman would have termed “hideous nonsense” in the official edition of the ‘Red Book of the Exchequer.’ We there read:

Recepit autem de quolibet arma, facto milite a Rege, et [de]
quolibet comite ea die palefridum cum sella (p. 759).

In the ‘Red Book’ itself, indeed, the text is now illegible, but Mr. Hall tells us that he used the Hargrave MS. for “restoring certain defaced or missing passages” (p. li.). Now in the Hargrave MS. (fo. 132[633]) the reading is “as clear as a pikestaff”; it could not be clearer if it were printed. And it is the same reading as we find in the above extracts:

Recipit autem de quol[ibet] _Barone_ facto milite a rege et
quol[ibet] com[ite] ea die, etc.

Yet Mr. Hall reads: “de quolibet _arma_, facto.” Really, when one knows that he has undertaken to teach how mediæval MSS. should be edited,[634] one is driven again reluctantly to ask whether such editing as this should be styled a farce or a burlesque.[635]

Before returning to the ‘Modus,’ the point from which we started, we must clear up the confusion that surrounds the title of Earl Marshal.

Camden, apparently, was led by the error in the claim of 1377 to assign the treatise on the office of Marshal to the time of Henry II.[636] Coke went further, and, as M. Bémont says, confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise. It is the close connexion between the two that leads up to my theory.[637]

There is a transcript in Nero D. vi., with a beautifully illuminated initial, of the patent by which Richard II. created Thomas Mowbray earl of Nottingham Marshal of England and Earl Marshal (12th Jan., 1386), in tail male. Here again the confusion has been terrible. The Record Commission’s Catalogue of the Cottonian MSS. describes it as “Literæ R. Ricardi II. constituentes Tho. _de Brotherton_, com. Nottingham,[638] Marescallum Angliæ A^o. 1386,” and it is this doubtless, which has led several writers into grave error, down to M. Bémont, who enters the document as “les lettres patentes de Richard II. instituant Thomas de Brotherton maréchal d’Angleterre” (p. 472). But, for my purpose, the important point is that this is the first grant of the office of “_Earl_ Marshal.” On the one hand, a high authority asserts in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ that Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, received “the office of Earl Marshal” in 1246; on the other, we read in the ‘Complete Peerage’ that an “_Earl_ Marshal” was first created in 1397.[639] Neither statement is correct. On June 30, 1385, Richard bestowed on the earl of Nottingham “the office of Marshal of England,” which we have traced above.[640] Dugdale, citing the record below, wrongly states that Thomas was “constituted _Earl_ Marshal of England” for life on this occasion, and is followed in this by Professor Tout.[641] Thomas certainly styled himself “Earl Marshal and of Nottingham” in the month following, but this was one of the assumptions of the time. He was only so created by the patent which follows. It is desirable, therefore, to give here the exact wording of the grant:

Sciatis quod cum nos nuper de gracia nostra speciali
concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome comiti
Notyngh’ officium marescalli Anglie ad totam vitam suam, Nos
jam de uberiori gratia nostra concessimus prefato consanguineo
nostro officium predictum una cum nomine et honore comitis
Marescalli habend’ sibi et heredibus suis masculis de corpore
suo exeuntibus cum omnimodis feodis proficuis et pertinenciis
quibuscunque dicto officio qualitercunque spectantibus.

This grant, which is dated at Westminster, 12th January, 1386 (9 Ric. II.), is, oddly enough, unknown even to experts. Dugdale had missed it, and it is consequently ignored in Wallon’s ‘Richard II.,’ in Professor Tout’s biography of Nottingham,[642] and in the ‘Complete Peerage.’ It illustrates not only the high favour in which Nottingham still stood, but the _entourage_ of the king at the time, which included several of those about to lead the opposition.[643]

The above grant is duly referred to in the so-called creation of February 10, 1397. This is headed in the Rolls of Parliament:

Une chartre du Roy faite a le Conte Mareschall touchant son
Office de Mareschall d’Engleterre....

Sciatis quod cum nuper per literas nostras patentes de gratia
nostra speciali concesserimus dilecto consanguineo nostro Thome
Comiti Notyngh’ Officium Marescalli Anglie, una cum nomine et
honore Comitis Marescalli, habendum sibi et heredibus suis
masculis, etc.... Nos.... volentes proinde pro statu et honore
ipsius Comitis uberius providere, de gratia nostra speciali, in
presenti Parliamento nostro concessimus pro Nobis et heredibus
nostris eidem Comiti dictum officium ac nomen, titulum, et
honorem Comitis Marescalli Anglie habendum sibi et heredibus
suis masculis, etc. (Then follow additional concessions.)

The transition, in the marshal’s style, is interesting enough. First we have “the Marshal,” or rather “the Master Marshal”; then “the Marshal of England,” as a more high-sounding style; next a confusion due to the fact that the Marshals also held an earldom through the 13th century, and so became, in common parlance (though not in strictness), “Earls Marshall”; lastly, even so early, we have seen,[644] as 1344, there occurs the cumbrous and unmeaning phrase “officium comitis marescalli et mariscalciæ Angliæ.” Proving, though it does, the rapid accretion of error and confusion in the Middle Ages, the double style obtained recognition in the Patent of 1386.[645] It is singular that, even at the present day, the “Peerages” style the duke of Norfolk “Earl Marshal and hereditary marshal of England,” although he is simply “Earl Marshal” under the creation of 1672.[646]

An apology is hardly needed for introducing here a characteristic challenge, addressed by the young Earl Marshal in the chivalrous spirit of the time, “a noble et honnore S^r le conte de Soissons sire de Coucy.” This quaint epistle begins thus:

Honure S^r Pour ce que vous estez homme donneur approue de
vaillance et de chevalerie et de grant renomee comme bien est
cogneu es plusieurs lieux honnorables, et je suis joesne,
etc.... Je envoie devers vous Notynghant mon heraut, etc.

Then follow the terms of the challenge:

et apres les trois cops de lance, trois pointes despee, trois
pointes de dague, et trois cops de hache a pie.

Every precaution would seem to be taken against the survival of either combatant. The letter closes with due formality:

Escript a Londres le x^o jour de Janvier lan de grace mille ccc
iiii^{x(x)} et neuf selon le compte de leglise d’Angleterre.

* * * * *

Par le conte Mareschall’ et de Notyngham S^r de Moubray et de
Segrave mareschall’ d’Angleterre.

This document, I believe, has not hitherto been known.

* * * * *

And now, when we turn to the ‘Modus,’ we find in the chapter treating “De Casibus et Judiciis difficilibus” a startling statement that, if difficulties arose,--

tunc comes senescallus, comes constabularius, _comes
marescallus_, vel duo eorum, eligent viginti quinque personas de
omnibus paribus regni, etc., etc.

It need scarcely be said that no such right belonged _ex officio_ to these three magnates, or was even claimed by them. Yet no one has suggested, so far as I know, that there must have been a reason for inserting this clause, and that in such reason we may find a note of time. Ordainers were elected, under Edward II., in 1310, and a Commission under Richard II. in 1386. No one, it is certain, could have introduced the reference to an “Earl Marshal” in 1310, for Thomas, future marshal of England; was then only a boy of ten. But in 1386 there was, in Nottingham, an Earl Marshal, and one who was, at the time, taking a leading part. Indeed the three chiefs of the opposition at the time were Gloucester, Derby, and Nottingham, who respectively represented the Constable, the Steward,[647] and the Marshal. Add to this that it was in the Parliament of 1386 that we find the precedent of Edward II. prominent in the minds of men,[648] and that it was also in this Parliament that appeal was made to a supposed statute, and that the ‘Modus’ contains a chapter “De Absentia regis in Parliamento” (a grievance in 1386), and we have at least a fair presumption that the ‘Modus’--at any rate in the form that has reached us--dates from the constitutional crisis of 1386.[649]

I shall now close this article, which has already exceeded its original limits, with a document hitherto unknown, I believe, to English historians. The Rolls of Parliament preserve, in the proceedings of 1397 against Gloucester, the appeal of treason presented to the king by the nobles of his party at Nottingham (5th Aug., 1395). But that appeal is not known to us at first hand. I believe that I have found the terms of the document, which correspond, it will be seen, with the printed version. But instead of closing with the words “soit enterment quasse et adnulle,” as in the Rolls of Parliament (iii. 341), it proceeds:

laquelle bille nous le prouuerons pour vray avec laide de Dieu
et de sa benoiste mere tant comme la vie nous dure.

Then follows, in parallel columns, the interesting portion of the document, namely, the five articles of accusation, which are, it will be found, largely different and much shorter than on the Rolls. Opposite them is a notable confession which, from evidence it contains, I assign to the duke of Gloucester.

P[re]mierement comment ilz Beauz seignors je vous prie a
voloient auoir depose mons^{r}. tous mercy et vous prie que
vous veulliez dire a Monsr le
Item. Ilz le constraindirent Roy que il pregne garde de mon
a leur donner pouoir par letres filz, quar sil nest chastie
a lencontre de sa regalie et tant quil est jeune, il me
les libertes de sa couronne. resembleira, et je fiz faussete
et traison a mons^r mon pere,
Item. Ils le voloient auoir et ai pense et eusse mis a
prins par force hors de son execution contre mons^r le Roy
chastel et lauoir amene tout contre mon neveu de Rottheland
partout ou ilz voloient et et mon cousin le mareschal et
prins son grant seel deuers plus^s autres(;) dedens xv jours
eulz. ilz eussent este mors et madame
la este mors et madame la Royne
Item. Le vouloient auoir envoiee arriere en France, et
assailli dedens sa tour de fait du royaulme ce que nous
Londres lui estant dedens a eussions voulu. Et avions
sa festedu Noel. ordonne de rendre tous les
hommages a ceulx qui eussent
Item. Depuis ont ilz persevere este de nostre part. Si preng
en leur traison et tant quilz en grace ce que Mons^r me fera
ont ymagine et ordene dauoir quar jai bien desire la mort.
destruit et mis a mort ceulx qui
furent entour la personne de
Mons^{r}.

From internal evidence this confession must (if genuine) proceed from an uncle of the king, who can only be the duke of Gloucester. I believe him to have sent it from his prison at Calais, after his arrest and deportation thither by the “Earl Marshal of England.”

Such documents as this still lurk here and there in MS. Their discovery rewards, at rare intervals, the toil of original research, as in those I have printed above bearing on the Commune of London. To this research, as Dr. Stubbs has urged, historians have now to look;[650] but for it, in England, at the present time, there is neither inducement nor reward.[651]

NOTE

On page 21 I speak of Mr. Andrew Lang “tracing the occurrence in scattered counties of the same clan name to the existence of exogamy among our forefathers.” This view, which (as I there state) was adopted by Mr. Grant Allen, is set forth in his notes to Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ (Ed. Bolland, 1877), pp. 96, 99, 101. To show that I have in no way misrepresented that view, I append these extracts:

the _sibsceaft_, or kinship, which, when settled within its
own mark of land, is known in early Teutonic history as the
_Markgenossenschaft_. Whether in Greece, Rome, or England,
not to mention other countries, the members of each of these
kinships all bore the same patronymic name, etc., etc.

Take the case of early England, one finds the traces of the
clan of Billingas in Northampton, Lancashire, Durham, Lincoln,
Yorkshire, Sussex, Salop, and other widely-separated districts
(Kemble).

The members of these clans bear each the clan patronymic,
perform the same superstitious rites, and are bound to mutual
defence ... in England a man of the Billinga clan, or of the
Arlinga clan, might be a Somersæta, or a Huicca, or a Lindisfara
by local tribe. This curious scattering of the _family_ names
through the _local_ settlements in England has puzzled Mr.
Kemble, who accounts for it by the confusion of the English
invasion, and by later wandering and colonisations. But if the
Arlingas, Billingas, and so forth, were once scattered over
North Germany, as the men of the Sun or Tortoise clans are
scattered all over America and Australia, it would necessarily
happen that when a Jutland tribe invaded the south of England,
it would leave families settled there of the same name as a
Schleswig tribe would leave in the north or west of England.

Mr. Lang then goes on to urge the probability that, as in Australia, this phenomenon had its origin in exogamy. But I question, in my paper on the subject, the ‘clan’ phenomenon itself. Mr. Lang, like others, wrote under the influence of Kemble; and it is the very object of my paper to show the danger of building theories on Kemble’s rash conclusions.

Index

A

_Abattis_, meaning of, 47.

Adrian IV., his alleged donation of Ireland, 171–175, 177–179,
199, 200.

----, his “bull Laudabiliter,” 171 _et seq._

Ailwin (Æthelwine) son of Leofstan, 105, 118.

Albemarle, William earl of, 287.

----, ----, Cecily wife of, 287.

Albert of Lotharingia, “clerk,” 36–38.

Albineio, William de, 152.

Aldermannebury, Simon de, 254.

Aldermen, _see_ London.

Alenzun, Matthew de, 254.

Alexander III., his alleged confirmation of “Laudabiliter,” 172,
176, 180, 182, 184, 185, 189, 193, 198.

----, his ‘Black Book’ letters to Henry II., 172, 173, 174, 175,
185–190, 191–194, 196–199.

Allen, Mr. Grant, 5, 16, 22, 23, 25, 321.

Amiens, _échevins_ of, 235.

Andrew of London, 110, 111.

Andrews, Dr., 19.

Anschetil, 121.

Archer, Mr. T. A., opposed to Mr. Oman, 43, 48, 50, 51.

----, ----, on Strongbow, 309–310.

Archers, English, in 14th century, 296, 297, 299, 300.

Archers in Ireland, use of, 157, 160.

Armies, English, in 14th century, 262 _et seq._

Array, Commissions of, 295, 296.

Arthur, succession of, 216, 218.

Arundel, William (1st) earl of, 126–127, 132–134.

----, Honour of, 130–131, 132–134.

Ashdown, battle of, 40.

Assize in Normandy, 250.

Assize of Northampton, 233.

B

Bain, Mr. Joseph, 292, 293, 294.

Balnai, Adam de, 99.

Bannockburn, battle of, 289 _et seq._

Barbour’s Brus, 290–291.

Barons, feudal, in Ireland, 160, 162.

Barons, greater, _see_ London.

Basset, Richard, 121.

Beaumont (Normandy), Holy Trinity of, 116.

Becket, _see_ Beket.

Beket, Gilbert, 101, 102, 247.

----, Thomas, 114, 122, 154, 248.

Belet, Michael, 87.

Bémont, M., 302, 303, 305, 313, 314, 318.

Benefices, Inquest (1212) on ecclesiastical, 267.

Berkeley, _carta_ of Roger de, 59–60.

Bigot, Hugh le, 99.

Bigod, Roger, 152.

Bigod, Roger, 305, 306, 314.

Bishops Stortford castle, 120.

‘Blanch ferm’ in Domesday, 65, 66.

‘Blanch’ money, _see_ Exchequer.

Blemund, Blemunt, William, 107, 108.

Bloomsbury, origin of its name, 108.

Blund, Geoffrey, 253.

----, Robert, 234.

----, Stephen, 254.

Bond, Mr. Thomas, 135.

Bosham, deanery of, 116.

Bosham, _firma_ of, 91.

Boulogne, Count Eustace of, 28, 109, 110, 115, 120.

----, Faramus of, 120, 281.

----, William of, 120.

----, Inquest on Honour of, 270.

Bradwell, Essex, 270.

Braose, William de, 152, 253.

Bray, Thomas, 147–149.

Brewer, Prof., errors of, 146–149.

Brito, Meinfininus, 121, 123.

Bruce, _see_ Bannockburn.

Bucherel, Andrew, 264; _see also_ Bukerel.

Buchuinte, Bucquinte, Bucca Uncta, Andrew, 98, 110–113, 121, 124.

----, ----, justiciar of London, 99, 108.

----, ----, Ralf son of, 101, 108.

----, John, 101, 111, 112, 234.

----, Laurence, 101.

Bucuinte, Geoffrey, 254.

Bukerel, Richard, 120.

----, Stephen, 101, 120.

Bukerel family, 110, 121; _see also_ Bucherel.

_Burh_, the Old English, _see_ Clark.

Burke, Father, 194.

Burrows, Prof. Montagu, 279.