Chapter V The Lost Charter of the Queen
It was at the very hour when the Empress seemed to have attained the height of her triumph that her hopes were dashed to the ground.353 The disaster, as is well known, was due to her own behaviour. As Dr. Stubbs has well observed, “She, too, was on the crest of the wave and had her little day... she had not learned wisdom or conciliation, and threw away opportunities as recklessly as her rival.”354 Indeed, even William of Malmesbury hints that the fault was hers.355
The Queen, having pleaded in vain for her husband, resolved to appeal to arms. Advancing on Southwark at the head of the forces which she had raised from Kent, and probably from Boulogne, she ravaged the lands of the citizens with fire and sword before their eyes.356 The citizens, who had received the Empress but grudgingly, and were already alarmed by her haughty conduct, were now reduced to desperation. They decided on rising against their new mistress, and joining the Queen in her struggle for the restoration of the king.357 There is a stirring picture in the Gesta of the sudden sounding of the tocsin, and of the citizens pouring forth from the gates amidst the clanging of the bells. The Empress was taken so completely by surprise that she seems to have been at table at the time, and she and her followers, mounting in haste, had scarcely galloped clear of the suburbs when the mob streamed into her quarters and rifled them of all that they contained. So great, we are told, was the panic of the fugitives that they scattered in all directions, regardless of the Empress and her fate. Although the Gesta is a hostile source, the evidence of its author is here confirmed by that of the Continuator of Florence.358 William of Malmesbury, however, writing as a partisan, will not allow that the Empress and her brother were thus ignominiously expelled, but asserts that they withdrew in military array.359
The Empress herself fled to Oxford, and, afraid to remain even there, pushed on to Gloucester. The king, it is true, was still her prisoner, but her followers were almost all dispersed; and the legate, who had secured her triumph, was alienated already from her cause. Expelled from the capital, and resisted in arms by no small portion of the kingdom, her prestige had received a fatal blow, and the moment for her coronation had passed away, never to return.360
Here we may pause to glance for a moment at a charter of singular interest for its mention of the citizens of London and their faithful devotion to the king.
“Hugo dei gratia Rothomagensis archiepiscopus senatoribus inclitis civibus honoratis et omnibus commune London concordie gratiam, salutem eternam. Deo et vobis agimus gratias pro vestra fidelitate stabili et certa domino nostro regi Stephano jugiter impensa. Inde per regiones notæ vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas.”361
It is tempting to see in this charter—unknown, it would seem, to the historians of London—a mention of the famous “communa,” the “tumor plebis, timor regni,” of 1191. But the term, here, is more probably employed, as in the “communa liberorum hominum” of the Assize of Arms (1181), and the “communa totius terre” of the Great Charter (1215). At the same time, there are two expressions which occur at this very epoch, and which might support the former view. One is conjuratio, which, as we have seen, the Continuator applies to the action of the Londoners in 1141,362 and which Richard of Devizes similarly applies to the commune of 1191.363 The other is communio, which William of Malmesbury applies to their government in the previous April, and which the keen eye of Dr. Stubbs noted as “a description of municipal unity which suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civil organization.”364 But he failed, it would seem, to observe the passage which follows, and which speaks of “omnes barones, qui in eorum communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant.” For in this allusion we recognize a distinctive practice of the “sworn commune,” from that of Le Mans (1073),365 to that of London (1191), “in quam universi regni magnates et ipsi etiam ipsius provinciæ episcopi jurare coguntur.”366
Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville? A tale is told of him by Dugdale, and accepted without question by Mr. Clark,367 which, so far as I can find, must be traced to the following passage in Trivet:—
“Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], obsessâ turri, fugatur imperatrix de Londoniâ. Turrim autem Galfridus de Magnavillâ potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis episcopum, partis adversæ fautorem, cepit apud manerium de Fulham.”368
It is quite certain that this tale is untrustworthy as it stands. We have seen above that Trivet’s date for the arrival of the Empress at London is similarly, beyond doubt, erroneous.369 That the citizens, when they suddenly rose against the Empress, may also have blockaded Geoffrey in his tower, not only as her ally, but as their own natural enemy, is possible, nay, even probable. But that he ventured forth, through their ranks, to Fulham, when thus blockaded, is improbable, and that he captured the bishop as an enemy of the Empress is impossible, for the Empress herself had just installed him,370 and we find him at her court a month later.371 At the same time Trivet, we must assume, cannot have invented all this. His story must preserve a confused version of the facts as told in some chronicle now lost, or, at least, unknown.372 On this assumption it may, perhaps, be suggested that Geoffrey was indeed blockaded in the Tower, but that when he accepted the Queen’s offers, and thus made, as we shall see, common cause with the citizens, he signalized his defection from the cause of the Empress by seizing her adherent the bishop,373 and holding him a prisoner till, as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so became free to join the Empress at Oxford.374
And now let us come to the subject of this chapter, the lost charter of the Queen.
That this charter was granted is an historical fact hitherto absolutely unknown. No chronicler mentions the fact, nor is there a trace of any such document, or even of a transcript of its contents. And yet the existence of this charter, like that of the planet Neptune, can be established, in the words of Sir John Herschel, “with a certainty hardly inferior to ocular demonstration.” The discovery, indeed, of that planet was effected (magnis componere parva) by strangely similar means. For as the perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of Neptune, so the “perturbations” of Geoffrey de Mandeville point to the existence of this charter.
We know that the departure of the Empress was followed by the arrival of the Queen, with the result that Geoffrey was again in a position to demand his own terms. Had he continued to hold the Tower in the name of the Empress, he would have made it a thorn in the side of the citizens now that they had declared for her rival. We hear, moreover, at this crisis, of offers by the Queen to all those whom bribes or concessions could allure to her side.375 We have, therefore, the strongest presumption that Geoffrey would be among the first to whom offers were made. But it is not on presumption that we depend. Stephen, we shall find, six months later, refers distinctly to this lost charter (“Carta Reginæ”),376 and the Empress in turn, in the following year, refers to the charters of the king and of the queen (“quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt... sicut habet inde cartas illorum”).377 Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it passed about this time may be inferred, not only from the circumstances of the case, but also from the most significant fact that, a few weeks later, at the siege of Winchester, we find Geoffrey supporting the Queen in active concert with the citizens.378
What were the terms of the charter by which he was thus regained to his allegiance we cannot now tell. To judge, however, from that of Stephen, which was mainly a confirmation of its terms, it probably represented a distinct advance on the concessions he had wrung from the Empress.
It is an interesting fact, and one which probably is known to few, if any, that there is still preserved in the Public Record Office a solitary charter of the Queen, granted, I cannot but think, at this very crisis. As it is not long, I shall here quote it as a unique and instructive record.
“M. Regina Angl[ie] Omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis quod dedi Gervasio Justiciario de Lond[oniâ] x marcatas terræ in villâ de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo... donec ei persolvam debitum quod ei debeo, ut infra illum terminum habeat proficua que exibunt de villa predictâ... testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[iâ] et Sim[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] de Lisor[iis]. apud Lond[oniam].379
The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of Northampton), is known to have been one of the three earls who adhered to the Queen during the king’s captivity.380 Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her nepos, “Pharamus” of Boulogne, who is also known to have been with her.381 Combining the fact of the charter being the Queen’s with that of its subject-matter and that of its place of testing, we obtain the strongest possible presumption that it passed at this crisis, a presumption confirmed, as we have seen, by the name of the leading witness. The endeavour to fix the date of this charter is well worth the making. For it is not merely of interest as a record unique of its kind. If it is, indeed, of the date suggested, it is, to all appearance, the sole survivor of all those charters, such as that to Geoffrey, by which the Queen, in her hour of need, must have purchased support for the royal cause. We see her, like the queen of Henry III., like the queen of Charles I., straining every nerve to succour her husband, and to raise men and means. And as Henrietta Maria pledged her jewels as security for the loans she raised, so Matilda is here shown as pledging a portion of her ancestral “honour” to raise the sinews of war.382
But this charter, if the date I have assigned to it be right, does more for us than this. It gives us, for an instant, a precious glimpse of that of which we know so little, and would fain know so much—I mean the government of London. We learn from it that London had then a “justiciary,” and further that his name was Gervase. Nor is even this all. The Gamlingay entry in the Testa de Nevill and Liber Niger enables us to advance a step further and to establish the identity of this Gervase with no other than Gervase of Cornhill.383 The importance of this identification will be shown in a special appendix.384
Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was her husband’s brother, the legate.385 He had headed, as we have seen, the witnesses to Geoffrey’s charter, but he was deeply injured at the failure of his appeal, on behalf of his family, to the Empress, and was even thought to have secretly encouraged the rising of the citizens of London.386 He now kept aloof from the court of the Empress, and, having held an interview with the Queen at Guildford, resolved to devote himself, heart and soul, to setting his brother free.387
Notes
353 “Ecce, dum ipsa putaretur omni Anglia statim posse potiri, mutata omnia” (Will. Malms., p. 749).
354 Early Plantagenets, p. 22; Const. Hist., i. 330.
355 “Satisque constat quod si ejus (i.e. comitis) moderationi et sapientiæ a suis esset creditum, non tam sinistrum postea sensissent aleæ casum” (p. 749).
356 “Regina quod prece non valuit, armis impetrare confidens, splendidissimum militantium decus ante Londonias, ex alterâ fluvii regione, transmisit, utque raptu, et incendio, violentiâ, et gladio, in comitissæ suorumque prospectu, ardentissime circa civitatem desævirent præcepit” (Gesta Stephani, p. 78). These expressions appear to imply that she not only wasted the southern bank, but sent over (transmisit) her troops to plunder round the walls of the city itself (circa civitatem). Mr. Pearson strangely assigns this action not to the Queen, but to the Empress: “Matilda brought up troops, and cut off the trade of the citizens, and wasted their lands, to punish their disaffection” (p. 478).
357 The Annals of Plympton (ed. Liebermann, p. 20) imply that the city was divided on the subject:—“In mense Junio facta est sedicio in civitate Londoniensi a civibus; sed tamen pars sanior vices imperatricis agebat, pars vero quedam eam obpugnabat.”
358 “Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt, cum dedecore apprehendere statuerunt. At illa a quodam civium præmunita, ignominiosam cum suis fugam arripuit omni sua suorumque supellectili post tergum relicta.”
359 “Sensim sine tumultu quadam militari disciplina urbe cesserunt.” This is clearly intended to rebut the story of their hurried flight (see also p. 132, infra).
360 See Appendix J: “The Great Seal of the Empress.”
361 Harl. MS. 1708, fo. 113.
362 “Conjuratione facta.”
363 “In indulta sibi conjuratione... quanta quippe mala ex conjuratione proveniunt” (ed. Howlett, p. 416).
364 Const. Hist., i. 407.
365 “Facta conspiratione quam communionem vocabant sese omnes pariter sacramentis adstringunt, et... ejusdem regionis proceres quamvis invitos, sacramentis suæ conspirationis obligari compellunt.”
366 Richard of Devizes (ed. Howlett, p. 416).
367 Mediæval Military Architecture, ii. 254.
368 Trivet’s Annals (Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 13).
369 See p. 84.
370 “Primo quidem [apud Westmonasterium] quod decuit, sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, juxta bonorum consilium, consulere procuravit. Dedit itaque Lundoniensis ecclesiæ præsulatum cuidam Radingensi monacho viro venerabili præsente et jubente reverendo abbate suo Edwardo” (Cont. Flor. Wig., 131).
371 See p. 123.
372 We have, indeed, a glimpse of this incident in the Liber de Antiquis Legibus (fol. 35), where we read: “Anno predicto, statim in illa estate, obsessa est Turris Londoniarum a Londoniensibus, quam Willielmus (sic) de Magnavilla tenebat et firmaverat.”
373 The city, it must be remembered, lay between him and Fulham, so that, obviously, he is more likely to have made this raid when the city was no longer in arms against him.
374 We have a hint that the bishop was disliked by the citizens in the Historia Pontificalis (p. 532), where we learn (in 1148) that they had disobeyed the papal authority: “Quando episcopus bone memorie Robertus expulsus est, cui hanc exhibuere devocionem ut omni diligentia procurarent ne patri exulanti in aliquo prodessent.”
375 “Regina autem a Londoniensibus suscepta, sexusque fragilitatis, femineæque mollitiei oblita, viriliter sese et virtuose continere; invictos ubique coadjutores prece sibi et pretio allicere, regis conjuratos ubi ubi per Angliam fuerant dispersi ad dominum suum secum reposcendum constanter sollicitare” (Gesta Stephani, 80). “Regina omnibus supplicavit, omnes pro ereptione mariti sui precibus, promissis, et obsequiis sollicitavit” (Sym. Dun., ii. 310).
376 See p. 143.
377 See p. 167.
378 “Gaufrido de Mandevillâ (qui jam iterum auxilio eorum cesserat, antea enim post captionem regis imperatrici fidelitatem juraverat) et Londoniensibus maxime annitentibus, nihilque omnino quod possent prætermittentibus quo imperatricem contristarent” (Will. Malms., p. 752).
379 Royal Charters (Duchy of Lancaster), No. 22. N.B.—The above is merely an extract from the charter.
380 Waleran of Meulan, William of Warrenne, and Simon of Northampton (Ord. Vit., v. 130).
381 See p. 147.
382 Gamlingay, in Cambridgeshire, had come to the Queen as belonging to “the honour of Boulogne.”
383 “Gamenegheia valet xxx li. Inde tenent... heredes Gervas[ii] de Cornhill x li.” (Liber Niger, 395; Testa, pp. 274, 275). This entry also proves that the loan (1141?) to the Queen was not repaid, and the property, therefore, not redeemed.
384 See Appendix K: “Gervase de Cornhill.”
385 “Nunc quidem Wintoniensem episcopum, totius Angliæ legatum, ut fraternis compatiens vinculis ad eum liberandum intenderet, ut sibi maritum, plebi regem, regno patronum, toto secum nisu adquireret, viriliter supplicare” (Gesta, 80).
386 Gesta, 79.
387 Will. Malms., p. 750; Cont. Flor. Wig., 132; Gesta, 80; Annals of Winchester.