12 S. IV. AUG., 1918.]
NOTftS AND QUERIES.
223
to the said Frances. By the will there was
a legacy of 3,OOOZ. for the said Moses Pick-
wick, but this was revoked by the codicil on
the ground that the testator had afterwards
made a settlement in his favour. I noticed
nothing in the will or the codicil, when I
read them at Somerset House, to connect
either the testator or his cousin Moses with
the business of a coach proprietor. They
are the prolix documents of a man bent on
tying up his properties unto the third or
fourth generation, but do not disclose the
source of his success in gathering wealth. A
small point under the will had to be decided
by the Court of Chancery ; see Pickwick v.
Gibbes, 1 Beavan's Reports, 271, whence
one learns that the testator's wife died in
his lifetime, in September, 1835. MR.
PIERPOINT has already mentioned Eleazer
Pickwick's marriage with Susanna Combs
at St. Michael's, Bath, on Aug. 17, 1775.
The story that a " Moses Pickwick" was a foundling cannot be applied to Eleazer' s cousin Mo?es, nor can it be applied to the father of that Moses, unless one postulates that, being a foundling who had been dubbed
Moses Pickwick," he then married into the genuine Pickwick family. But MR. PIER- POINT has already dealt the story a knock- down blow.
There are some Pickwick items in the Bath Abbey Registers, published by the
Harleian Society :
Betty Philips, daughter
of Moses and
arah Pickwick, was christened on April 7,
1761. (It seems unlikely that this Moses
ras the cousin Moses of Eleazer' s will.)
John Pickwick and Tamer (or Thamer)
ilson, both of Widcombe, were married in 1773, and had daughters Ann, Jane, and Sarah, who were christened respectively in 1785, 1788, and 1795.
John Lansdown and Ann Pickwick were married by licence on Oct. 20, 1783, and Moses Pickwick was a witness.
H. C.
xvi. 1-13). Of the two sons of Adam de-
Port mentioned, Roger is known as his
eldest son and successor ; but William, I
believe, is an addition to the family tree.
His name is not in the table given by Round
(u.s.), which includes two other sons of
Adam : Hugh and Robert, who witness a
charter of their brother Roger (? c. 1150) to
his monks of And well (' Cal. Docts. France,'
No. 1461).
The theory that Roger de Gloucester left a daughter or sister would certainly account for the claim of Gilbert de Minors ; but it would involve a worse difficulty why, in that case, Roger should be succeeded by his cousin Walter.
Coin Rogers must have been granted by the Crown to Roger de Gloucester or his father after 1086 ; otherwise Roger would have had no power to give it away. And as he could not be expected to indemnify the monks from his own property for land taken to build the king's tower, it would seem that he must have appropriated the rest of the garden for himself. When he was mortally wounded, he evidently made a hurried- attempt to save his soul by the gift of Coin, : " in exchange for the garden," as we learn, from Henry's charter of confirmation.
Although the latter did
Roger's cousin Walter was
HENRY I. : A GLOUCESTER CHARTER (12 S.
iv. 149). MB. SWYNNERTON'S valuable
paper leaves nothing to add on the date of
the charter, and but little on the names, as
the Bishop of Salisbury and Robert of the
Seal are too well known to need annotation ;
but it may be useful to point out that we
have here members both of the Herefordshire
and the Hampshire families of Port. Adam
de Port, as MR. SWYNNERTON observes, was
the Lord of Kington, whilst Henry de Port
was the Lord of Basing (Genealogist, N.S.
not pass until
installed at
Gloucester as castellan arid sheriff, I should think it probable that it was issued soon after the gift, rather than that it was delayed until 1109 or later. For with all deference to MR. SWYNNERTON, I do not think that it passed at the same time as Henry's charter an p. 4 of Round's ' Ancient Charters ' (No. 3). Compare the two :
1. Henry confirms Roger de Gloucester' &
?ift of Coin to the monks " escambium de
horto monachorum in quo turris mea sedet."
2. " Sciatis me dedisse Walt'o de Gloecestra
t'ram Canonicor' S'c'i Oswald! que e' ante Castellu*
de Gloecest'a. Et tibi Walt' p'cipio ut eis dee
inde escambiu' de mea t'ra scilicet de meo q'ia
nolo ut Canonic! p'dant."
Note that
(a) The grant to Walter is a new grant (dedisse), not a confirmation (reddidisse).
(b) It is a grant of the land in front of the castle (casteUum), not the garden by the keep (turris). Cp. Round's ' GeoffreyS'de Mandeville,' App. O, " Tower " and " Castle" (pp. 328-46) ; and Stephen's charter of 1136,. confirming to Walter's son Miles (inter alia) " custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie " (ibid., p. 13).
(c) The King directs Walter (obviously in, his capacity of sheriff) to compensate the
