of Jarrow and other possessions. He received Turgot [q. v.], and, approving of his wish to become a monk, sent him to Aldwin, and after a time invited Aldwin and Turgot to leave Melrose, where they had settled, and gave them the old monastery of Wearmouth. There, too, Aldwin restored the church and formed a convent, to which Walcher gave the lordship of the place. The Conqueror approved of Walcher's work, and gave him the church of Waltham, which was served by canons, in accordance with its foundation [see under Harold, (1022?–1066)].
On the arrest of Earl Waltheof in that year the king committed his earldom to Walcher, who, it is said, paid 400l. for it (Rog. Wend. ii. 17). He was unfit for temporal government, for he allowed himself to be guided by unworthy favourites. He kept a large number of his fellow-countrymen about him apparently as guards, committed the administration of the earldom to his kinsman Gilbert, and put his private affairs into the hands of his chaplain, Leobwine, on whose judgment he acted both in ecclesiastical and civil matters. These men were violent and unscrupulous, and were much hated by the people. Another of his evil counsellors was Leofwine, the dean of his church. At the same time Walcher greatly favoured a high-born thegn of his church named Ligulf, whose wife was a daughter of Earl Ealdred or Aldred, the son of Uhtred [q. v.], the sister-in-law of Earl Siward, and the aunt of Earl Waltheof. Ligulf was an ardent votary of St. Cuthbert, and evidently upheld the rights of the people against the oppression of the bishop's officers, who were jealous of the favour shown him by their lord. Leobwine, the chaplain, specially hated him, and insulted him even in the bishop's presence. On one occasion Ligulf was provoked to give him a fierce answer. Leobwine left the assembly in wrath, and begged Gilbert to rid him of his enemy. Gilbert accordingly formed a band of some of his own following, some of the bishop's, and some of Leobwine's, went by night to the house in which Ligulf was staying, and slew him and the greater part of his people. When Walcher heard of this he was much dismayed, retreated hastily into the castle, and at once sent messengers through all the country to declare that he was guiltless of the murder, that he had banished Gilbert, and that he was ready to prove his innocence by the legal process of compurgatory oath. It was arranged that the matter should be settled at an assembly of the earldom at Gateshead, and the bishop and the kinsfolk of Ligulf exchanged pledges of peace. The assembly was held on 14 May 1080, and to it came all the chief men of the land north of the Tyne and a vast number of lesser folk; they had heard that the bishop still kept Ligulf's murderers with him, and showed them favour as before time, and so they came intent on mischief, for they were egged on by Ligulf's kinsmen, and specially by one Waltheof, and by Eadwulf Rus, the grandson of Gospatric, the youngest son of Earl Uhtred. The bishop was afraid to meet the assembly in the open air, and sat in the church with his friends and followers, Gilbert, Leobwine, and Leofwine among them. Messengers passed between the two parties without coming to any settlement. Suddenly, it is said, the chief man of the multitude outside cried ‘Short rede, good rede, slay ye the bishop.’ The bishop's followers outside the church were nearly all slain. Walcher, when he knew the cause of the tumult, ordered Gilbert to go forth, hoping to save his own life by surrendering the actual murderer. Leofwine, the dean, and some clergy next left the church, and they also were slain by the multitude. Walcher bade Leobwine go forth, but he refused. The bishop then went to the church-door and pleaded for his life; the rioters would not hearken, and, wrapping his face in his mantle, he stepped forward and was slain. The church was set on fire, and Leobwine, forced by the flames to go forth, was also slain. The body of the dead bishop was despoiled and hacked about; it was carried by the monks of Jarrow to Durham, and there hastily buried in the chapter-house.
Walcher is described as learned, of honourable life, amiable temper, and pleasant manners; he was certainly weak, and at the least neglectful of his duty as a temporal ruler; the St. Albans compiler charges him with a personal participation in the extortions of his officers, representing him as determined to compel his subjects to repay the amount that he had given for his earldom; other and earlier writers throw all the blame on his favourites. After his death he was accused of having despoiled Waltham of part of its lands (De Inventione Crucis, pp. 53–4). He was regarded as a martyr.
[Symeon of Durham i. 9–10, 58, 105–17, ii. 195, 204, 208–11, Will. of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum iii. c. 271, Gesta Pontiff. c. 132, Rog. Hov. i. 135 n. 2 (all Rolls Series); A.-S. Chron. an. 1080, ed. Plummer; Flor. Wig. gives apparently the best account of Walcher's murder, an. 1080; Rog. Wend. ii. 17 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Freeman's Norman Conquest, iv. 479–80, 663–73.]
WALCOT, Sir THOMAS (1629–1685), judge, the scion of an ancient Shropshire family, was the second son of Humphrey Walcot (1586–1650), who was receiver of the county of Salop in 1625 and high sheriff in 1631. He was greatly distinguished for his loyalty to Charles I, and made many sacrifices in the royal cause. Many of the family
