12 S. IV. OCT., 1918.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
27$
String' be made known, in thus setting up for
himself, and y* be comes down thus upon bis
own account, "havcing gott y e Duke's letter in
such an insinuating and private way, w lh much
displeasure to y Duke's friends, many will fall
off from y* portie, &c.
[Fol. 2.] Besides this, I received a letter* from S r Balph [Asslieton] dated y e 15 th of this in- stant, wherein he does certifye me y' S r Tho. and S r Walter Clerges doe wholely desist from their former intencions as to y e Surges, &c , and therein S r Ralph layes his commands upon me to impart it to you and other his special friends, but not receiveing it till yesternight w th y* within written, I could not doe it sooner [end*].
[Endorsed J Hen. Fairclough, 17 8 d
Aprill y 8 19th, 1675
S r My Brother Livesay acquainted inee y* you desired to bee informed by mee if my Bonn persisted to stande to bee elected a burgesse for Clitherowe in the place of Mr Pudsey, deceased, to which I must answere negatively, but I muste att the same tyme confesse I am sorrye for the Duke of Albemarles sake then my owne,who was soe farr prevailed on by the base insinuation of S r Thomas Stringer and his friende Kenion as to write to my sonn on the ninth instant to intreate him to decist uppon a sugestion that hee was informed out of Lancashire y* hee could not carrye itt against you and though my sonn sent to his Grace such a letter in answere as could not imply a consent to his request, yet by S r Thomas his insinuations itt was soe interpreted, and then hee procured him selfe to bee recomended expressinge [sf c] thereby the Duke to inconstancye and irresolution, and his friende Kenion procured a letter to him selfe on S r Thomas Stringers behalfe from S r Robert Carr, but S r Robert sayes it was onely a letter of course without any earnestnes in y matter, and y* he had not donn it but y* he was tould the Duke of Albemarle had writt for S r Thomas Stringer. I have too much resentment of the proceedinge to inlarge further on this subiect, but for yo r satisfaction in this affaire I write this letter and am, S r , yo r most affectionate servantt,
. THOMAS CLAHGES
These for my worthy friend S r Raphe Asheton.
W. FARBEB.
Hall Garth, Carnforth.
HENRY I. : A GLOUCESTER CHARTER (12 S. iv. 149, 223). I had not seen Dr. Round's profoundly interesting account of the de Ports in vol. xvi. of The Genealogist when I wrote my note en ' A Gloucester Charter.' May I commend it to DR. MAGKATH if he has not already seen it ?
Notwithstanding the fact that Walter de Gloucester has been regarded as heir to his cousin Roger, the evidence of this Gloucester charter is both new and important, and has to be accounted for. More light is needed.
The two other charters cited namely, Henry's notification to Bishop Sampson and to his Sheriff (and Castellan) Walter de
Gloucester, and the charter No. 3 edited
by Dr. Round (' Ancient Charters') must,
I think, have passed about the same time,
and for these reasons :
1. It would probably have been on the advice of his hereditary Ca&tellan that Henry disseised the canons of St. Oswald of their land in front of his castle, and put in possession there the Castellan himself. Accordingly the King was sorry (the charter testifies as much : nolo ut cancnici ferdant] f and so the Castellan, as Sheriff, was orderc d to compensate them out of the royal demesne.
2. It would naturally have been en similar counsel from the same quarter that he re- sumed possession of the garden by his keep or tower.
These two charters seem to illustrate each other, the object in view being the same in both, a purely military and defensive one, calculated to ensure greater security within and without the walls.
Though the King's tower is described as situated in the garden (in quo turris mea sedet), yet it looks as though the monks had only acquired rights in that garden after the completion of the tower, because they are to surrender it just as (sicut) Walter the Sheriff had handed it over to them. And it really seems also as if the one consideration conceded to the monks was no equivalent in land, but simply the King's written con- firmation of Roger de Gloucester's alleged grant, for lack of which, in the absence of any actual deed of gift from the donor, they must have been greatly embarrassed. They obtained, in short, a title, whether strictly valid in absolute law or not. This conclusion I advance with diffidence, knowing how easily, in the uncertain light of these early charters, so brief and so few, one may f nd oneself moving
per ignes Suppositos cineri dolose.
Again, it may have been the very absence of a valid title from the grantor hunrelf which tempted Gilbert de Minors to ccn'ett the monks' right to the land in 1123. For the King, constantly engaged in affairs of far greater moment, seems, as I have already said, to have forgotten the circumstances, and a decision in favour of the monks was only won, as we have seen, on the test! mony of two companion-knights who were evidently also at the siege of Falaise, and who were able frcm personal knowledge ta testify to the facts. }
We have no evidence that the Kings charter of notification to bishop and
