The administration of Normandy under Saint Louis xw42n862b

Citation preview

MONOGRAPHS OF THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY

OF AMERICA No. 6

ACADEMY PUBLICATIONS No. 1, A Concordance of Boethius, by LANE CooPEer No. 2, A Concordance to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Bede, by

P. F. Jonzs

No. 3, A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours, by E. K. Ranp,

two volumes, text and plates (

No. 4, Lupus of Ferriéres as Scribe and Text Critic, by C. H. BEESON, with facsimile of MS. Harley 2736

No. 5, Genoese Shipping in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centurtes, by E. H. Byrne (Monograph No. 1) No. 6, Greek and Syrian Miniatures in Jerusalem, by W. H. P° Hatcu, with reproductions

No. 7, Harini’l-Rashid and Charles the Great, by F. W.

Buck ier (Monograph No. 2) No. 8, Alten Merchants in England, 1350 to 1377, by ALICE Brearpwoop (Monograph No. 8) No. 9, A Concordance of Prudentius, by R. J. DEFERRARI and J. M. CAMPBELL

No. 10, The Script of Cologne from Hildebald to Hermann, by L. W. Jonzs, text and plates No. 11, Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291, by J. L. La Monte (Monograph No. 4) No. 12, Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations, by A. R. ANpDERson (Monograph No. 5)

No. 13, The Administration of Normandy Under Saint Lous, by J. R. Strayer (Monograph No. 6)

THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORMANDY

UNDER SAINT LOUIS

JOSEPH REESE STRAYER Princeton University

\in/ NY, SUNE

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 1932

The publication of this book was made possible by a fund granted the Academy by the Carnegie Corporation of New York

Coprricut, 1932 BY

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA

Printed in U.S. A.

Composed, Printed and Bound by Ths Collegiate Press

George Banta Publishing Company Menasha, Wisconsin

TO

CHARLES HOMER HASKINS

PREFACE M* STUDY administration Normandy in the century of wasthe greatly aided by theoffact that so many ablethirteenth men have worked in the field of Norman history. It also owes much to the advice and assistance which was willingly given by scholars in this country and in Normandy. ‘To Professor Haskins I owe the debt of a pupil to his master; a debt which has increased each year that I have worked on this book. His patient guidance and his continued interest have meant much, and the example of his life of scholarship has been an even greater inspiration. Professor MclIlwain gave many helpful suggestions on questions of comparative constitutional history. Essential points became clarified in long hours of discussion with Professor Charles H. Taylor of

Harvard. The grant of a Sheldon Fellowship by Harvard University made possible a year of study in France, and the librarians and archivists

of Paris and Normandy did their best to make that year pleasant and profitable. They not only gave me every facility for the work, but also, by their personal interest in the subject, saved me much time and many

blunders. Professor Munro, and the editorial staff of the Mediaeval Academy have encouraged and aided me in the preparation of this study for the press.

; J. R. STRAYER

PRINCETON, SEPTEMBER 17, 1932.

Vii

CONTENTS List or ABBREVIATIONS... ....- 2. ee eee x

I. INTRODUCTION . . 2 2. ee 3 Il. Taz DucHy........ 2.2... 00. 2 2 ee eee 6 Ill. Toe ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. ........... 412%

IV. Tae Financtau SYSTEM. . ~~... 1... eee BR V. Knicut SERVICE... ... 2... ee ee ee ee ee 8G VI. Tum ADMINISTRATION OF THE FoRESTS. ......... ~ °&69

VII. Tae Royat ADMINISTRATION AND THE Towns ....... 81

VIII. Taz Acents or GOVERNMENT. ............ ~ «9!

IX. Concuusion. . 2 1 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 105 APPENDICES

I. The Baillis of Normandy in the Thirteenth Century ... 110

II. Viscounts in Normandy in the Thirteenth Century... . 113

IIL. Salaries of Norman Baillis. .. 2... ......... 19 IV. Salaries of Norman Viscounts ............. Ii BIBLIOGRAPHY... ... 1. 1 ee ee ee ew ee ew ee 188

INDEX... 1. 1 1 ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 109

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A. N.—Archives Nationales, Paris. Arresta Communia—k. Perrot, Arresta Communia Scacarit (Caen, 1910). B. E. C.—Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Chartes (Paris, 1839—). B. N.—Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris. Bib. de R.—Bibliothéque de Rouen. Bourrienne—V. Bourrienne, Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis (Rouen, 1902-03).

Boutaric, Actes—E. Boutaric, Actes du Parlement de Paris (Paris, 1863). Calvados—Archives du Calvados, Caen. Cart. Nor. —L. Delisle, Cartulaire normand (Caen, 1852, M.A.N., 2° série, v1). Delisle, Olum—L. Delisle, Restitution d’un volume des Olim, also published in Boutaric, Actes, I. Ech.—L. Delisle, Recueil de jugements de Echiquier (Paris, 1864).

Eudes Rigaud—T. Bonnin, Registrum visitationum archiepiscopit Rotomagensis (Paris, 1852). Eure—Archives de l’Eure, Evreux. H.F.—Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1738-). HF ., xxiv, preuves—H.F., volume xxiv, preuves de la préface. Layeties—A. Teulet, J. de Laborde, A. Berger, H. F. Delaborde, Layeties du Trésor des Chartes. M.A.N.—Meémovrres de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie (Caen, 1824-).

Manche—Archives de la Manche, Saint-Lé. Marnier—A. Marnier, Etablissements de Echiquier (Paris, 1839). Olim—E. Beugnot, Les Olim (Paris, 1846). Ord.—Ordonnances des rois de France (Paris, 1723-1849). Quer. Nor.—H.F., xxiv, Querimoniae Normannorum. Rot. Scac.—Magni rotult scacarit Normannie, M.A.N. 2° série, v and v1. Seine-Inf.—Archives de la Seine-Inférieure, Rouen. Summa—k. J. Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie, u, La summa de legibus Normannie (Paris-Rouen, 1896).

x

THE ADMINISTRATION OF NORMANDY UNDER SAINT LOUIS

I INTRODUCTION HE Normandy of St Louis has not the importance of the Normandy

4 Henry 1 and 11, yet the development of Norman institutions in the thirteenth century deserves attention. ‘The parallel evolution of Norman and English administration is more easily studied, the essential differences and essential similarities are more easily observed, at a time when comparisons are not vitiated by a constant interchange of men and ideas. The possibility of Norman influence on the founders of the great French monarchy of the thirteenth century must be considered, and Normandy, as one of the most important provinces of that monarchy, 1s worth studying for its own sake. Though I am concerned primarily with Normandy under the adminis-

tration of St Louis, it has been impossible to avoid using material from the reigns of Philip Augustus and Philip mr. Philip Augustus laid the foundation for the government of Louis rx, Philip m1 continued his work,

and the three reigns form an inseparable whole. On the other hand, a distinct change comes under Philip tv, and I have tried to take as little evidence as possible from documents written after 1290, when this change had become manifest.

The sources for this period of Norman history are plentiful, though some annoying gapsoccur. The Olam! contain many judgments concerning Norman affairs. Two sets of Exchequer judgments have been published, the first, by Delisle,? covering the period to 1248, the second, by Perott,? covering a few years at the end of the century. Some interesting cases in the assizes were printed by Delisle in the preface to volume xxiv of the Recueil des Historiens de la France; some others were edited, rather carelessly, by Lechaudé d’Anisy and Marnier.‘ Tardif’s editions of the Norman coutumiers were very useful. Cartularies and other documents in the departmental archives supplied additional records of the administration of justice, relating, for the most part, to the assizes. 1 Les Olim, ed. A. Beugnot (Paris, 1839). 2L. Delisle, Recueil de Jugements de L’ Echiquier (Paris, 1864). 3K. Perrot, Arresta Communia Scaccarti (Caen, 1910). 4 Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 2° série, v, 144 ff., Marnier, pp. 87 ff. M. Bridrey has promised a new edition of this material. 5K. J. Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie (Rouen and Paris, 1881-1903). 3

4 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts Financial documents are less numerous, especially in printed form. A few were printed in volumes xxI, xxi1, and xxiv of the Hstoriens de la France; others were reproduced, or summarized, by Borrelli de Serres.! Some useful documents for the bailliage of Caux? were published by Hel-

lot. The Bibliothéque Nationale contains some of the baillis’ reports, with other less important materials.2 The Archives Nationales have preserved two very important series of extracts from the accounts of Caen and Verneuil.t The Bibliothéque de Rouen contains a very interesting report on the royal domain.® For general administration Delisle’s Cartulawre Normand,‘ and his edition of the Quertmoniae Normannorum’ are invaluable. A great deal of material, especially in regard to military service, is scattered through the last four volumes of the Historiens de la France. Other information, especially concerning the Church, may be found in Eudes Rigaud’s notebook,’ in the Neustria Pia, and the works on Norman Church councils by Bessin!° and Pommeraye." Secondary works, dealing with Normandy as distinct from France, are not numerous. The older works on Norman law are not very useful for

this period. Delisle must again be gratefully remembered for his studies of the Norman baillis,” the rural population," and the revenues of the duke in the twelfth century." The last work is indispensable for a study of thirteenth-century institutions. The same may be said of Professor Haskins’ Norman Institutions.“ Professor Packard’s thesis and later articles on Normandy under Richard and John, with Powicke’s Loss of 1 Borrelli de Serres, Recherches sur Divers Services Publiques, (Paris, 1895). 2 A. Hellot, Bazllis de Caux (Paris, 1895).

3B. N., MSS Lat. 17010, 9018. 4A.N., 3 775, J 780. 5 Bibliotheque de Rouen, MS. Martainville Y94. 6 M.A.N., 2° série, v. ’ H.F., xxiv, cf. Petit-Dutaillis’ essay on the Querimoniae, in Essays Presented to Professor Tout (Manchester, 1925). 8 T. Bonnin, Registrum visitationum Archiepiscopi Rothomagensis (Paris, 1852). ® A. Du Monstier, Neustria Pia (Rouen, 1663). 10 G. Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis Provinciae (Rouen, 1727). 11 J, F. Pommeraye, Histoire des Archevesques de Rouen (Rouen, 1667). 12 HF ., xxiv, preface. 137. Delisle, Etudes sur la classe agricole en Normandie (Evreux, 1851). 14 Bobliothéque de I’ Ecole des Chartes, vols. x, XI, XII.

16 C, H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, 1918).

16S, R. Packard, Normandy under Richard and John, MS. thesis in Widener Library, Harvard University. ‘Miscellaneous Records of the Norman Exchequer,’ Smith College Studies in History, vol. xu; “The Judicial Organization of Normandy,’ Law Quarterly Review, x1, 442 ff.; ‘King John and the Norman Church,’ Harvard Theological Review, xv, 27 ff.; ‘The Norman Communes under Richard and John,’ Haskins Anniversary Essays (Boston, 1929), pp. 233 ff.

Introduction 5 Normandy, help in understanding conditions at the time of the conquest. Borrelli deSerres has some valuable chapters on Normandy in his work

on administrative history. The work of Génestal, Astoul, Bridrey, Soudet, Yver, and other historians of Norman law,’ though primarily concerned with the development of legal principles and ideas, nevertheless throws a great deal of light on some aspects of administration. While general works on the government and legal history of France are valuable in providing a background for the history of Normandy at this time, the generalizations which they contain should be applied to the duchy only with great caution. This is also true of books on the administration of other French provinces.2 Almost every branch of government was modified by the local institutions and customs of Normandy. In justice and finance there was the exchequer, in forest administration the custom of tzers and danger, in military service the knight’s fee, in gen-

eral administration the viscount and the viscounty. It is not safe to assume that administrative procedures which were used elsewhere were

applied in unchanged form to Normandy. For this reason no attempt has been made to bridge over deficiences in Norman source material by use of similar material from other provinces. 1¥F. M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1913), and E.H.R., xxi, 635 ff., xx, 15 ff. 2 References to the works of these men which have been most useful for administrative history will be found in Chapter 1. 3H. Waquet, Le Batlliage de Vermandois aux XIITe et XIV® Siécles, (Paris, 1919); H. Nowé, Les Baillis Comtaux de Flandre (Brussels, 1929); R. Michel, L’ Administration Royale dans la Sénéchaussée de Beaucatre au Temps de St Louis, (Paris, 1910).

THE DUCHY r \HE duchy of Normandy did not cease to exist as a result of the conquest by Philip Augustus. The unhappy frequency of conquest in the middle ages was partially compensated by the fact that victory did not mean sudden destruction of existing institutions and violent efforts at assimilation. The ‘ducatus Normannie’ remained;! its courts and cus-

toms remained; it was treated as a unit by the central government.’ Philip’s position was not that of a conqueror, but that of a property owner who has dispossessed an annoying tenant. His quarrel was with the duke, not the duchy, and he had no reason to injure his own property when he had regained it, nor to break up the well-organized administration by which that property was made profitable. Normandy lost its importance as the keystone of a great empire; for a century Normans were rarely given important positions in their own government; French-

men sat in the Norman courts; the connection with the cura at Paris was constantly strengthened; but Norman institutions still existed and developed independently.

Though the duchy remained, and the king took over the rights and powers of the duke,’ he did not take his title. He had always been king in Normandy, and with the duke gone the royal title was sufficient for all

acts of authority; he merely resumed delegated powers and needed no new warrant for their use. With the exception of Louis vi1’s unfortunate assumption of the ducal title in Aquitaine, this had been the regular custom of French kings in taking possession of former fiefs. 1 H.F., xxi, 612 and ff., fiefs held ‘in capite de ducatu’; Cart. Nor. nos 326, 327, inquests as to whether fiefs are held ‘de ducatu’; ibid. no. 1129, the archbishop of Rouen swears to observe “jura et consuetudines ducatus Normannie.’ 2 Cart. Nor. nos 91, 101, 119, 121, etc., grants by Philip ‘ad usus et consuetudines Normannie’; Olim, 1, 59, 441, decisions affecting Normandy as a whole; Cart. Nor. nos 222, 253, 1178, orders to Norman baillis as a group; Delisle, Opérations Financiéres des Templiers, p. 120, Norman receipts are a unit in the general account with the king. 3 Summa, pp. 7, 21, 38, and passim, duties of the ‘dux’ or ‘princeps’; p. 280, “dominum regem, qui sibi principis retinet dignitatem,’ see also p. 37.

4 Calvados, H 7756, gives one of the rare exceptions to this rule. It is a list of arguments for the king in the suit between him and the count of Alencon over the guard of Troarn, in 1280. Here the king is twice called ‘roy de France, duc de Normandie.’ Cart. Nor. no. 944, in the final decision the king reserves the guard to Troarn to himself and ‘heredum nostrorum, Normannie ducum..’ 6

The Duchy ri Philip Augustus took over a province which was exceptionally well uni-

fied, and in which the central power was unusually strong. ‘The conquest increased this unity, for many of the great nobles, called to choose between their large holdings in Normandy and their larger holdings in

England, abandoned their Norman lands. A series of fortunate deaths and confiscations wiped out the few great fiefs that remained; the counties of Perche, Mortain, and Alencon, the lands of Pierre of Brittany and Richard Marshall were in the king’s hands by the middle of the century. No Norman vassal remained strong enough to resist the king, or even to oppose, except by legal means, his officers. During the century only two fiefs were created which were large enough to make the holder independent; those of Philippe of Boulogne and Pierre of Alencon; and both fortunately reverted to the crown. The danger of such fiefs was well shown by the Navarre grants of the next century. For administrative purposes the duchy was divided into bazllzages, viscounties, and sergeanties, an organization taken over from the Angevins but perfected and completed during the century. The bailliage was the most important district, and also the one which changed most in character as a result of the conquest. In the twelfth century the bailliage was a small district, hard to distinguish from a viscounty, and the name seems to have been used loosely in the sense of the English ‘bailiwick.’ Norman records for the last years of Angevin rule give the names of about forty such districts. In France districts of approximately the same size were forming around the towns where the royal bavllis held their assizes.’ When Philip sent his bazllis into Normandy they naturally preserved the territorial units which they found there, and which corresponded to the French districts with which they were familiar. In both Normandy and France the tendency to consolidate the small judicial districts centering round an assize town into larger units appeared.* These larger districts were placed under one bailli, instead of a group of officers, and were treated as distinct units for practically all administrative purposes. The actual consolidation seems to have proceeded more rapidly in Normandy

than in France, perhaps because the Angevin batlliages, even though somewhat indefinite, were more clearly marked off as separate units at 1 M.A.N., 2° sér., v., 295; S. R. Packard, Miscellaneous Records of the Norman Exchequer, p. 109. Cf. Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 103 ff. for a list of bailliages about 1180. He finds about

thirty at that date. 2 Borrelli de Serres, Recherches, 1, 195 ff., and Luchaire, Manuel des Institutions (Paris, 1892), p. 543, give good accounts of the evolution of the bazlliage. 3 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 205, thinks the process was less complete in Normandy than in

France. It is true that the primitive bailliage still appears in the accounts of the latter part of the century, but purely as an accounting unit. In the important field of justice the Norman bailliages became distinct units at a very early date, see below, Chapter 111, p. 21.

8 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis the date of the conquest than the corresponding assize districts in France. At any rate, the list of fiefs of 1207 mentions only thirteen batlliages, Avranches, Bayeux, Vire, Falaise, Exmes, Caen, Sées, Lisieux, Londe, Vaudreuil, Pont-Audemer, Rouen, Caux and Verneuil.! This includes all the duchy except the Cotentin, and the border region around Gisors. These two districts were becoming distinct bazlliages, though they were somewhat behind the others.2- By 1224 the consolidation had gone even further, and seven groups of bazllages emerge, the Cotentin, Bayeux-Avranches, Falaise-Caen-Vire, Verneuil, Gisors, Rouen-Bonneville-Pont-Audemer, and

Caux.? Exmes and Lisieux remain separate units, but are administered by the bazllis of neighboring districts; eventually the largest parts of these batlliages are added to the baillage of Caen.* The only important changes after 1224 were the creation of a new batlliage of the Cotentin, formed from Avranches, the old bazlliage of the Cotentin, and Mortain, when it lapsed to the crown, and the addition of Bayeux to the bailliage of Caen.> Later a tendency to unite Gisors and Verneuil appeared, but this process was completed only in the next century. Rouen and Caen were also occasionally united under the same bazllz,” but this never became a permanent arrangement, probably because it put too much power inthe handsofoneman. ‘The districts which were suppressed did not lose their identity entirely; they were accounted for under separate headings until late in the century,® and retained their individual seals,°® but for all practical administrative business the old divisions were ignored. ‘The baillt regularly took the title of his most important district, was usually 1 AF ., xxi, 706, 707, 709, 710, 715, 717. Verneuil is not mentioned by name, but the barlliage of Barthélemi Droon corresponds to its later boundaries. 2 HLF ., XXIV, pp. *117, *146.

3 F., xxi, 612, 616, 618-619, 621, 633-634, 635, 636, 637, 638. Belléme, taken from Brittany, was accounted for as a separate bazllrage for a time, as was Perche, see H.F’., xx1, 256 and Layettes v, no. 581.

4 Quer. Nor., nos 32, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, and 51, show Lisieux administered by bails of PontAudemer, Rouen, and Caen. Ibid., nos 468, 4'70, 494, 496, 497, 526; Exmes administered by bazllis of Pont-Audemer, Caen, and Verneuil. H.F., xxu1, 636, Exmes and Lisieux seem to be under Jean de la Porte, bailli of Rouen in 1224. A.N., J 780, passim, Exmes and Lisieux under Caen after 1250. 6’ H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 89; wd. xx1, 253 ff., in the accounts of 1230 and 1238 the grouping is Cotentin-Bayeux-Avranches. H.F., xxiv, p. *145, Bayeux a separate bailliage from 1248 to 1252. 6 H.F., xxi, 255, Gisors and Verneuil have the same bazllz in 1238; H.F., xxiv, p. *129, Gisors and Verneuil united in 1272-1276, 1289-1290, and 1293-1295. 1 ALF., xxiv, preuves no. 89; ihid., xxr, 253. 8 B.N., UMS. Lat. 9018; between 1268 and 1274 separate headings are carried for the following districts: Falaise, Vire, Exmes, Pont Audemer, Auge, Arques, Neuchatel, Avranches, and Mortain.

Some of them may be merely viscounties, but Exmes, Pont-Audemer, Avranches, and Mortain were certainly accounted for as bazlliages. 9 HLF ., XX1v, preuves, no. 177, seal of the bailliage of Pont Audemer in 1272; A.N., J '780, no. 7, seal of Vire 1282; zbid., no. 8, seal of Falaise, 1292. The last two may be seals of viscounties.

The Duchy 9 so addressed, and for the greater part of the reign of St Louis we may say

that Normandy was divided into the six bailliages of Caux, Rouen, Gisors, Verneuil, Caen, and the Cotentin.

Viscounties existed under the Norman and Angevin rulers,! but the complete subdivision of the country into viscounties seems to be a later development. While the incomplete records available for the early part

p Pp

of the century may account for the seemingly late appearance of some viscounties, it is probable that many were created to deal with the increasing overnmental business which was swamping the baillis.2, Perhaps the fact

that some viscounties had become hereditary under the Angevins also hindered the use of this unit at first. By 1280 the bazllrages were divided into viscounties as follows: in Rouen the viscounties of Rouen,‘ Bernai,® Pont Audemer,® Auge,’ Pont de l’Arche,* and, perhaps, Orbec’; in Caux the viscounties of Caux,'? Montivilliers," Arques,” Neuchatel," and per-

haps Maulévrier; in Gisors the viscounties of Gisors® and Evreux; in Verneuil the viscounties of Verneuil!’ and Sées;!8 in Caen the viscounties

of Caen,'® Falaise,?° Vire,”) and Bayeux;” and in the Cotentin the viscounties of Coutances,” Avranches,“ Valognes,” Mortain,* and Caren1 See the Exchequer rolls, passim, in 1/.A.N., 2° série, v., and L. Delisle, Recueil des Actes de Henri ITI, 1, 212, 213.

2 See below, chapter vu, p. 101. 3 Cart. Nor. no. 429, Ech. no. 658, and Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 194. 4 H.F., xxiv, p. *97, in 1234. 5 Quer. Nor., no. 82, in 1231. 8 Ibid., no. 77, ca. 1226. 7 [bid., no. 44, ca. 1235. 8 Cart. Nor., no. 567, in 1256. 9 Arresta Communia, no. 19, in 1277. Olim.1, 218 in 1265. There is some reason to suspect that

Orbec was merely another name for the viscounty of Bernai, see Bib. de Rouen, MS. Mart. Y94, where Orbec is listed as a sergeanty of Bernai. A viscounty of Vaudreuil is also mentioned under Louis vir, A. Andrieux, Cartulaire de Bonport, pp. 61, 66, 67, but seems to have disappeared later, probably changing its name to Pont de |’Arche. 10 A .F., XxXIv, preuves, no. 42, in 1217; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fols. 247, 145, in 1208, and 1214. i ALF... xxiv, p. *97, in 1235; Seine-Inf., Cart. de Fécamp, fol. 36 v., in 1231. 2 H.F., xxiv, p. *97, in 1217. 13 Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 82, in 1263.

14 Bib. de R., MS., Y52, fol. 193’, in 1260 but Maulévrier was perhaps identical with Caux. A viscount of Longueville is mentione by Eudes Rigaud, p. 779. 16 Kure, H 1391, in 1276. 16 HF ., xxiv, preuves, no. 21, in 1208. 17 ALN., J 780, no. 3, in 1271; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 110, in 1243 (?).

18 HT F., xxtv, p. *97, in 1207. It is very doubtful that Sées continued to be a viscounty. 19 M.A.N. 2° série, v, 204, in 1225. 20 M.A.N., xxiv, (Sauvage, Troarn), p. 391, in 1224 (?); Quer. Nor., no. 355, in 1246. 21 Manche, Cartulaire de St Sauveur le Vicomte, p. 89, in 1254 (?); A.N., J 780, no. 6, in 1279. 22 Keh., no. 791, in 1251.

23 HF... XXIv, preuves, no. 133, in 1251 (?); zbid., no. 179, in 1270.

10 Administration of Normandy Under St Louris tan. The small number of viscounties in Gisors and Verneuil may be explained by the unusual position of the border prévétés, and the fact that they included territory beyond the old boundaries of the duchy which was never organized as viscounties.’ The sergeanty was a police district, usually comprising several parishes.’ There is not enough evidence to say that the entire duchy was divided into sergeanties, but the bailliages of Rouen and Caen were, and lists of these divisions exist. Aside from its importance in matters of police and summoning, the sergeanty seems to have been used as a convenient unit in keeping records of the royal domain. Besides these divisions, other administrative districts existed which had a certain degree of autonomy. Most important were the border prévités, the districts first conquered by Philip Augustus and organized like the old royal domain. For a time they reported directly to the central government in financial matters, but their independence was less noticeable in other fields and eventually even the separate accounting became merely a matter ofform.®> The other prévétés of the duchy* were mere farms, and were never treated as political subdivisions. ‘They were convenient units for financial purposes, since the prévét could collect scattered revenues arising from various sources and turn in a lump sum to the bazlla.. Otherwise, the territory of a prévété was controlled directly by the ball and viscount. The towns which had communes had a certain degree of judicial and administrative autonomy, but they were treated as part of the bailliage and viscounty within which they lay in all matters in which the royal officers had authority.7 Towns without communes had little ad4 Cart. Nor., no. 429, before 1238. 2 H.I., XXIV, preuves, no. 170, in 1269. 28 Qlim., 1, 251, in 1267.

17 ., xxi, 752, in 1275. Cf. B.E.C., 51, 247, for a list of Norman viscounties in 1297-98. The ones mentioned are Rouen, Pont-Audemer, Auge, Pont de l’Arche; Caudebec, Arques, Neuchatel, Montivilliers; Gisors, Verneuil; Caen, Falaise, Vire, Bayeux; Valognes, Coutances, Carentan,

Avranches. 2 R. Génestal, in Travaux de la Semaine d Histoire de Droit Normand (Caen, 1925), p. 41. 3 Quer. Nor., no. 460, 473; Olim 1, 16, 303; Cart. Nor., no. 337, 664.

4 AF ., xxiv, p. *143, for Caen; Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, for Rouen. 5 H.F., xxi, 255-256, accounts of these prévétés. Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 193 ff. points out that by the reign of St Louis these prévétés were supervised, even in financial matters, by the bazllis. See H.I., xxu, 644, for an account by the baillz of Gisors in 1285 in which he collects and spends money in the old border prévétés. 6 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 194 thinks that prévdétés did not exist in Normandy except in Perche,

the Cotentin, Mortain, Pont-Audemer, and Caux. This is easy to disprove; Quer. Nor., nos 220, 223, 395, 403, 519 show prévétés in Verneuil, Falaise, and Exmes; A.N., J '775 passim, shows the financial importance of the prévétés of Caen and Vire; Bib. de Rouen, MS. Mart. Y94, passim, shows many prévotés in Rouen.

7 Bib. de R. MS. Mart. Y94, fols. 1 ff.

The Duchy 11 ministrative importance, but a list of those in which assizes were held shows the centers of population, and also a rough correspondence with the division into viscounties.! The assize towns of Rouen were Rouen,? Bernai,> Pont-Audemer,’ Orbec,’ Pont l’Evéque,* and Pont de l’Arche;’ of Caux, Longueville,’ Maulévrier,? and Montivilliers;!° of Gisors, Evreux," Andely,” and Gisors;" of Verneuil, Verneuil,“ Sées, Breteuil,’® Alencon,?” Kssai,'* and Bonsmoulins;!® of Caen, Caen,?° Falaise,“ Bayeux,” Argen-

tan,” Lisieux,“ Vire, and Exmes;” of the Cotentin, Avranches,?’ Coutances,”® Carentan,”? Mortain,®° and Valognes.*! 1 See the list for the end of the twelfth century in Haskins, Norman Institutions, Appendix J. 2 HF ., XXIv, preuves nos 107, 234. 8 Jind., nos 53, 86. 4 Iind., nos 85, 149. 5 Ihid., nos 126, 1'75.

6 Jiid., no. 108; B.N., MS. Lat. 10086, fol. 165’. ’ H.F., XXIv, p. *101; ibid. p. *99, an assize was held at Bonneville in 1225. 8 H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 88; Bib. de R., MS. Y62, fol. 41. 9 AF ., XXIv, preuves, nos 146, 188.

10 Tbid., p. *114. Assizes were also held in Caux at Fécamp in 1208, Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 137%; at Arques in 1215, Bib. de R., MS. Y52 fol. 118; at Caniel in 1260, cbid., fol. 193”; and at Lillebonne in 1217, H.F. xxiv, preuves, no. 42. i HT F., XXIV, preuves nos 21, 141.

2 Ibid,. no. 101; Eudes Rigaud, p. 211. 138 AF ., xxiv, pp. *117, pp. *119. 14 Ibid., preuves, no. 110, pp. *125, *129. 15 Ihid., preuves, nos 10, 45. 16 Thid., preuves, no. 181. 17 Thid., no. 142, p. *127. 18 Thid., p. *127, preuves, no. 160. 19 Tbid., p. “127, preuves, no. 193. 20 TIind., nos 11, 74, 161. 21 [bid., nos 14, 147. 22 Tbid., nos 34, 164. 23 Tbid., no. 40, p. *139. 4 Ibid., prewves, no. 94. 25 Thid., nos 109, 173.

26 Quer. Nor., no. 466; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 207. An assize was held at ‘capella Fouquet’ by the baillt of Caen in 1256, B.N., MS. Lat. 11055, fol. 202” and in 1263, H.F. xxv, p. *139. 27 ALF ., XXIV, preuves, nos. 41, 200. 28 Tbid., preuves, nos 58, 133, 179.

31 Tbid., nos. 122, 1'70. .

29 Thid., no. 50; M.A.N., 2° s., v, 204. 30 H.F., xxiv, p. *135, preuves, no. 157.

Ill THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE B heer was theDuties only service whichseem a mediaeval government owed itsalmost subjects. which today necessarily part of the state’s obligations then were performed by others or left unperformed. Aside from justice, the administration concerned itself only with securing

the king’s rights as a proprietor, and even justice was often considered a source of revenue rather than a duty of the government. Therefore, to the average Norman, good government meant good administration of justice, and the strength of the royal government depended on the ability and integrity of its courts. Justice was important for another reason. Everything could be the subject of a right, enforceable by law. The courts determined for the peasant who should preach in his church, by whom he should be tried, who

had the right of arresting him, the kind of labor he must perform, the income to which he was entitled, the place where he must grind his grain, and the tolls to be paid on the goods he bought or sold. For the noble the courts determined the possession of these lucrative rights, and thus determined his income and power. Probably a much larger proportion of the population was directly affected by the decisions of the courts than at the present day. The king of France, successor of the duke of Normandy, administered, in theory, all justice.1 Actually, he let his courts do most of the work but he never gave up his right to change the law or to interfere in its administration. However, these interventions by the king were neither frequent nor arbitrary. Every change in the Norman custom made by a king during this period conforms to the definition of law given by the Summa de Legibus,? a modification of procedure to establish more clearly existing rights. For example, ordinances concerning Normandy define the procedure in suits for presentation, establish the procedure to be followed in regard to crusaders, Jews, and criminous clerks, abolish trial by battle, regulate amortization and the retract lignager, and limit the practice of 1 Summa, pp. 37, 138.

2 Iind., p. 35, “Leges autem sunt institutiones a principibus facte et a populo in provincia conservate per quas contentiones singule decidantur, sunt enim leges quasi instrumenta in jure ad contentionum declarationem veritatis.’ 12

Administration of Justice 13 sending cases to Parlement.1. The king also interfered directly with cases before the courts, generally by ordering the batllis to enforce previous decisions which made new trials unnecessary.? There is also one late example of the appointment of a special judge and sergeants to supplant existing officers suspected of prejudice.*? These interventions were usually in favor of the Church. Other cases came directly before the king and his council, such as compromises of suits in which the king’s peace had been broken and which therefore could not be dropped without his consent, and some charges against royal officers. Even after Parlement became a separate body this practice continued. A list of such cases for the year 12734 has been preserved, and the notes appended to them show that many were decided directly by the king.* 1 Ord., 1, 26, 32, 36, 86, 303, 309; x1, 294, 354. Another example is an ordinance of 1234 which corresponds to the great ordinance for the south of 1254. Seine-Inf., Cart. de Jumiéges, p. 308; M. F. Soudet discovered this ordinance shortly before I did. It is published in his valuable work on the Ordonnances de l Echiquier de Normandie (Paris-Rouen, 1929), p. 211. This ordinance provides (1) that the number of sergeants be reduced to that necessary for the business of the bailliage; (2) that only twenty men at most be summoned for views, inquests, and recognitions, that they be honest men, and that no one is to take money for summoning some and leaving out others, under penalty of losing his office, and fine or imprisonment; (3) no one shall be punished at the cry of ‘haro’ nor taken on any occasion unless there is an evident reason for the outcry; (4) no one shall be imprisoned except for a plea of the sword or an accusation which involves danger to life or limb; all others may

go free if they have good pledges. (These last two provisions are quoted in Summa, p. 20.) (5) Inquiry about those reputed to be usurers shall be made in the first assize. (Quoted in an agreement with the Norman bishops in 1258, Olim. 1, 62). (6) No composition is to be made with the heirs of reputed usurers until they have been condemned or cleared by inquest; (7) The chattels of a dead

man are not to be seized unless he has really been reputed a usurer. (These last three articles are referred to in Summa, p. 55). (8) No baillt or sergeant should accept a gift or bribe for doing or refraining from doing justice; those who infringe this to be punished. * Ech., no. 306, the king orders an inspection of the charters of Préaux in order that those which harmed the abbey may be cancelled; Ibid., no. 465, a judgment of an assize of Falaise must be enforced ‘et hoc idem mandavit rex per litteras suas’; Cart. Nor., no. 1127, king orders bazallis to observe a judgment in favor of Silli; Delisle, Fragmentes de I’ Histoire de Gonesse (Paris, 1859), p. 64. two orders to the baillz of Caen to enforce a compromise made in his court; Calvados, H 5048, an inquest held illegal by Louis rx, who requests the bazllz to make another. § Calvados, H 5048. This is in 1288. 4 Ch. V. Langlois, Textes relatifs &d V histoire du Parlement (Paris, 1888), p. 87. This document mentions the murder of Arnoul, abbot of Sarlat, which took place in 1273, and also a case involving Jean de la Chambre of Evreux which in other sources is dated 1273 (A.N., J '780, no. 4.and Archives

de l’Hétel-Dieu d’Evreux). Cf. similar cases B.E.C., xxxviu, 373; A.N., J 1030, no. 52; M.A.N., Q° sér., V, 145.

5 Langlois, loc. cit., ‘Quidam homo de Caudebec de ballivia Caleti percussit unum hominem per bracchum de uno costello in hoc quod volebat destruere melleiam duorum hominum. Concordant amici ad pacem per 80 ?. quas percussor dat amicis si placet regi. Fuit sibi ius per consuetudinem patrie pax habenti. Non placet regi. ... [tem, in ballivia Cadomi unus serviens percussit unum hominem in causa ita ut cecedit ad

terram. Loquatur cum rege. ... Loquatur cum rege de domicella qui vocatur Sonnete et de armigeri qui interfecerunt maritum ipsius domicelle. Audito casu Dominus de Nigella non laudat pacem.’ Cf. H.F., XxIv, preuves, no. 182, where a claim for damages against the king is referred to him by the Exchequer.

14 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis The visits of the enquéteurs may also be considered as cases where the king interfered with his ordinary courts. The enquéteurs were interested more in administrative abuses than judicial errors, and they were investi-

gators rather than judges, but in some cases they seem to have held a sort of trial and to have made decisions that could be reversed only with difficulty.!

Judgments by the king or by the enquéteurs were rare. The great bulk of Norman cases were tried by the regular courts of record, the assizes, the Exchequer, and the Parlement of Paris. No very clear differences in their legal competence can be seen, though the differences in dignity and importance are obvious. ‘They were all the king’s courts, and cases moved back and forth between them freely. Part of an action might take place in an assize and the rest in the Exchequer; Parlement took cases from the Exchequer and sent them back to it, and in many of these cases there was no suggestion of anappeal.? Appellate jurisdiction was developing slowly, but formed a small part of the business of these courts in the thirteenth century. The assize was in an inferior legal position because its head, the baillr, did not rank as a ‘justicia capitalis’ and hence could not judge certain privileged persons. The Masters of the Exchequer and Parlement did have this position’ and apparently one group was as good as the other. A bailli also could not judge a fellow bazll, nor determine difficult points of law without consultation, and these cases naturally went to the Exchequer.‘ With these exceptions, the assizes were legally free to handle any cases brought before them. In practice each court gradually obtained a special jurisdiction, though the boundaries between them were at no time clearly established and many

exceptional cases may be noted. Parlement, as far as Normandy was concerned, was the court which dealt with the king’s proprietary rights and with objections to the actions of his officers as administrators rather 1 Cart. Nor., no. 795, Louis 1x orders the enquéteurs to investigate a dispute over his rights in the regalia of Evreux and to decide the case in council with the regents; ibid., no. 855, Philip m1 gives a final decision in the case; Olim, 1, 370, the enquéteurs deprived some sergeants of fees which Parlement restores; zbid., 437, Parlement orders the bailli of Caen to hold an inquest on claims to a portion of the land returned by the enquéteurs to a woman ‘. . . cum de terra taliter reddita non debeat placitum teneri.’ 2 Ech., no. 318, fine by the Exchequer for a default in an assize; ibid., no. 339, the Exchequer decides a case on the basis of an inquest held in the assize; ibid., no. 606, a recognition is allowed, and is to be held in an assize. Olim, 1, 478, Parlement asks the Exchequer to make an inquest for it; zbid., 1, 188, cases begun in Parlement are terminated in the Exchequer; 7bid., 1, 160, an inquest was made by order of the Masters of the Exchequer, but judgment was given in Parlement; ibid., 11, 259, an action of the Exchequer is ‘recordata’ in Parlement which is almost an acknowledgment that the two courts were the same, since record was a matter of personal recollection (1287). $ Olam, 1, 904; 11, 74.

4 Summa, p. 145.

Administration of Justice 15 than as judges. Under the first head come suits asking the king for rights of justice,’ suits for usages in royal forests,” suits to regain property or revenues in the king’s hand,’ and suits by the king’s officers to regain lands, homages, and wardships wrongfully withheld from the king.4 Under the second head are protests against allegedly illegal exactions of the baillts or their subordinates,’ of which the complaints regarding tvers and danger are typical,® or complaints of administrative acts which diminished the rights or revenues of the plaintiff.’ A few such cases were tried in the Exchequer,® or even more rarely in the assizes,® but by far the greatest number went to Parlement. Even before the establishment of Parlement there had been a tendency to reserve these cases for the consideration of the king and his council; the bazllzs were ordered to inquire into the facts and to present these facts to the king for final judgment.!2 This method

of deciding a case upon the evidence of an inquest made by others remained typical of Parlement. Besides its jurisdiction of actions involving the king and his officers, Parlement took care of other Norman cases. When the parties belonged to the higher nobility," or great religious orders 1 Olim, 1, 76, 81, 100, 101, 468. Borrelli de Serres takes this view of the functions of Parlement, op. cit., 1, 214. 2 Olim, 1, 430, 10, 17, 45, 49. 3 Tbid., 1, 430, 471, 136, 569, 195. 4 Ibid., 1, 36, 446, 533, 166, 547.

6 Tbid., 1, 483, the bali is unjustly asking payment for amortization; 2bid., 1, 527, protest against payments exacted by sergeants; zbid., 1, 180, a bavllz is cleared of a charge of taking 2001. illegally; abid., 1, 251, a viscount accused of taking a bribe is cleared. 6 Tind., 1, 146, 747, 295, 307.

7 Ibid., 1, 496, a baille has assessed the costs of repairing a bridge unjustly; zbid., 1, 604, a bailli is sustained in confiscating a field illegally sold by Henry, marshall of France; zbid., 1, 299, a bazlli again upheld in confiscating money illegally collected by the countess of Gueldres; zbid., 1, 791, the baill of Gisors had the right to expel the Jews from the land of the lord of Ivry. 8 H.F., XXIv, preuves no. 182, a suit for a forest usage judged in the Exchequer, c. 1275; ahid., no. 189, a usage is given St Wandrille in the Exchequer of 1277; Arresta Communta, nos 4, 8, 9, the Exchequer judges cases of tvers and danger in 1276; zbid., nos 15, 16, wardship cases judged by the Exchequer; zbid., no. 63, judged that the king alone has ‘citatio et ostensio armorum,’ 1282; Ech.,

no. 831, the baillt of Caen had no right to fine the men of the Mount for selling wine above the king’s price, 1267. 9 ALF ., xxiv, preuves, no. 141, St Taurin proves a right of justice in an assize in 1264, but Masters

of the Exchequer were present; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 181, 183, St Georges proves freedom from pannage in assizes of 1268 and 1283; B.N., JS. Lat. 11060, fol. 112%, La Trappe proves usages in an assize, 1273.

10 Cart. Nor., nos 167, 201, 426, 482, 1187, 493. Borrelli de Serres op. cit., 1, 290, minimizes the

importance of these inquests, and thinks that there was almost no judicial control of the bazllis before 1245. But in Normandy the Exchequer heard appeals, and the curia seems to have interfered frequently. 11 Olim, 1, 509, suit between the Harcourts and a royal sergeant; zbid., 630, suit against Gilbert Malesmains; zbid., 1, 732, suit against the sire de la Nesle.

16 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis or monasteries,! the suit might be brought in Parlement. There are also a few cases of appeal from decisions of the Exchequer or assizes.2, How-

ever, there is no evidence, in the thirteenth century, that the Parlement of Paris was making a systematic attempt to weaken the jurisdiction of the Norman courts. In fact Philip 111 issued an ordinance which attempted to limit the number of cases sent to Parlement from Normandy and other provinces which had royal baillis.3 It provided that no suit should be heard in Parlement that could be judged by a bazll, that no bawlla should send a case to Parlement without the consent of the king or the Masters, and that the bazllzs could judge prévéts and sergeants instead

of sending them to another court. On the other hand, the king’s people in the Exchequer did send cases from it to Parlement which seemed to them to touch royal interests very closely.‘ Parlement obtained its information regarding Normandy from inquests made there by bazllis, royal clerks, and others,® from consultation of the registers of Philip Augustus and later kings,® and from the batllis them-

selves. The latter were often present at Paris to support their administrative decisions, and they seem to have acted as royal advocates in some trials.’ Some of the Masters knew Normandy well; Eudes Rigaud, archbishop of Rouen,’ and Julien de Peronne, who had been baillt of Verneuil

and Rouen,’ frequently sat in the court. By the end of the century the 1 Ihnd., 1, 485, 487, suits against the Hospital and Cérisy; zbzd., 1, 119, suit by the Templars; zhd.,

535, 543, suit against Jumiéges; zbid., 1, 317, on request of the abbot, Parlement judges directly a knight who attacked a priory of St Ouen. Cf. Seine-Inf., Cart. de St Quen (Baronies) fol. 206, and B.N. MS. Lat. 9018, p. 6, for other information about this case. The knight was castellan of Breteuil in 1274 and a bazllt helped him pay his fine. 2 Olam, 1, 441, judgment of a bazllt confirmed; ibid., 1, 467, 677, decisions of the Exchequer confirmed or restated; 2bzd, 1, 810, an appeal from some court at Rouen received; ibid., 11, 90, a judgment of the assize of Pont )’Evéque revoked by Parlement as ‘pravum et falsum,’ 1277; Delisle, Olum. no. 894, in the opinion of a sixteenth-century lawyer there could be, technically, no appeal from the Exchequer, but Parlement could judge the case anew. H. Regnault, ‘Les Rapports de |’Exchiquier et de la Curia Regis,’ Semaine d’ Histoire de Droit Normand, compte-rendu in Rev. Hist. de Droit,

1923, p. 641, thinks that Parlement had a regular appellate jurisdiction. 3 Ord., XI, 354.

4H ., xxiv, preuves, no. 182, two cases are taken from the Exchequer and sent to Parlement; Olim, 1, 677, a plaintiff petitions the king to let Parlement judge his case, as it is taking too long in the Exchequer; the king orders the Exchequer to keep the case, unless they admit that they cannot give speedy justice; zbid., 11, 101, the famous case of Guillaume Bertrand vs. Guillaume de Fontenay regarding army aid was taken from the Exchequer ‘de mandato gencium nostrarum in dicto scacario existencium.’ Notvces et extratts xxi, part 2, p. 164, a case involving Fécamp was taken from the assizes of the bazlliage of Caux and judged by Parlement. 5 See below, Chap. viii, p. 93, and Olim, passim. 6 Olim, 1, 613, 625, 614.

7 Ibid., 1, 76, 123, 505, 605, 569, in the last example Parlement consulted the Norman baillis as a group regarding a point of Norman law. 8 Eudes Rigaud, pp. 308, 309, 348, 359, etc. ® Olim, 1, 76, 123, 128.

Administration of Justice 17 Normans had their special days in Parlement on which all their cases were tried,! and this meeting of Norman bazllis, lawyers, nobles, and churchmen must have given additional sources of information to the court. Indeed, it is a temptation to ask why such groups, which existed for all the baillrages, might not have been consulted by the king and his council on

other matters, and thus have formed one of the sources of the EstatesGeneral. Parlement had jurisdiction of protests against the administrative acts of

the Norman bazllis, but the Exchequer had almost complete control of their judicial activity. Appeals from decisions of their courts went regularly to the Exchequer,’ and the baillis often referred difficult questions of law to that court for solution. Parlement did judge such cases from time

to time,‘ but its interference in this field was always rare and probably contrary tocustom. Royal ordinances changing Norman procedure, while they might be made in Parlement, were always registered and promulgated by the Exchequer,’ and were probably of no effect until this was done. Moreover, in some of its interpretations of existing law the Exchequer came very close to legislation; for example, in the ruling forbidding the building of new mills in a knight’s fee.®

Besides acting as the final interpreter in most cases involving construction of Norman law, the Exchequer had important primary jurisdiction; in fact, most of the suits it heard had no element of appeal in them. Itis difficult to say why some actions were brought in the Exchequer and others in the assizes. Convenience, local prejudice, importance of the persons or matters involved offer some explanation, but no constant dividing line can

be drawn. The same abbey will sue at one time in the Exchequer, at another in the assize. No distinction based on the amount of property involved or the gravity of the charge can be shown, and all the regions of 1 Ord., x1, 354; Olam, u1, 268.

2 Summa, p. 145, ‘Scacarium autem dicitur congregatio in curia justiciariorum superiorum, ad quos pertinet de ballivis . . . errata corrigere, minus discrete in assisiis judicata revocare...’ LEch., no. 79, judgment of a bailli called false; cbid., no. 201, judgment of an assize called ‘bonum et legitimum’; zbid., nos 244, 302, 340, 672, 752, 813, confirmation of assize judgments.

3 Ech., nos 49, 70, 230, 294, 373, 419, etc. The most frequent questions are: Shall this writ run? What writ shall be used in this case? 4 See above, p. 16, for appeals, and Olim, 1, 256, and 11, 162, for cases where Parlement determines Norman law. 5 Ech., no. 581, a new ‘constitutio’ concerning Jews enrolled; zbid., nos 801, 803, promulgation of

ordinances repealing tavernage and the judicial duel; Arresta Communia, no. 35, ‘Accordatum est per dominum regem et eius consilium et servari per totam Normanniam precipitur et in presenti scacario generaliter publicatum’ that the right to use the retrazt lignager lapses after a year. 6 Ech., no. 176, cf. also no. 373, a decision as to the cases in which retrait lagnager is permissible. See F. Soudet, Ordonnances de l Exchiquier, p. xvii, for a discussion of the legislative power of the Exchequer at the beginning of the fourteenth century.

18 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis Normandy seem to be about equally represented in the cases brought to the Exchequer. One thing alone is certain, the judgments of the Exchequer were supposedly final’ and offered a greater degree of security than the reversible decisions of the assizes.? In enforcing its decisions or the decisions of other courts, the Exchequer issued orders to the batllis,? and in this way influenced their administrative

work. Itdid not, however, abuse this power, and its orders never came into conflict with royal policies. There is no record of a bazllz protesting against an act of the Exchequer, though they were not always obedient to its commands, especially when they were in favor of the bazllis’ natural enemy, the Church.* The Exchequer received its information from the same sources as Parlement—1inquests held by the bazllis,> documents,* consultation of the bazllis and other royal officials,’ consultation of those who attended its ses-

sions. Even more than the Norman days of Parlement the semi-annual meeting of the Exchequer brought together the important men of the duchy.* They had an important réle to play, for the Norman law of the thirteenth century emphasized the principle of judgment by peers.? Formal notices of Exchequer decisions usually mention the assent of the bishops, barons, and knights,!° and while the Masters were probably able to 1 Summa, p. 145, ‘quicquid autem in hac curia, per solemne judicium factum fuerit debet inviolabiliter observari.’ * Manche, H 3267, the right of presentation to a church is disputed in four assizes, 1230 to 1281,

though the defendant had shown a clear title the first time; Calvados, H 5048, the intervention of the king was twice needed to preserve Fécamp’s rights in the assizes, 1269 and 1288. 8 Eich., no. 61, the baillis are ordered to constrain the excommunicate; ibid., nos 180, 185, bazllis are ordered to hold inquests and to perform certain acts if certain facts are proved; zbid., no. 190, the

baillt of Caux is ordered to leave certain lands in peace until a suit concerning them be tried; abid., no. 469, two baillzs are told to investigate the holdings of a possible royal ward. 4 See below, p. 26. ® Ech., nos 52, 54, 55, 56, and passim. 8 Jbid., nos 34, 35, 512, 513. ’ [bid., nos 789, 791, 792, 793, 813, 830, 832, lists showing attendance of most of the baillis, and some clerks and viscounts; Arresta Communia, no. 41, ‘. . . auditis ballivis et vicecomitibus super usu

quem fecerant in hoc casu...’ 8 See the lists mentioned in the note above. ®See Nouvelle révue historique de droit, xxxvi, 681, ff., for Fréville’s interesting study of this question. Ibid., 4° sér. v (1926), 195 ff., Vinogradoff felt that the real decision remained with the Judges. 10 Fréville, loc. cit.; Ech., nos 94, 176, 190, 230, 272, 273, 294, 315, 373, 395, 538, '740, where judg-

ment, agreement, or record of barons, of bishops and barons, of bishops, barons, and knights 1s noted. Ibid., no. 793, a case decided ‘per judicium eorumdem quorum nomina subscribuntur .. .’ in the long list that follows the Masters are not distinguished from others; ibid., no. 813, a judgment given ‘a justiciis domini regis et a baronibus et militibus ibidem existentibus,’ Arresta Communia, no. 45, the Masters give a judgment ‘de consilio et consensu ballivorum, vicecomitum, militum et prudentium.’ It must be admitted that there are cases, such as Ech., no. 589, or Arresta Communia, no. 44, where it looks as if the Masters alone made the decision. The usual formula of assent is

Administration of Justice 19 control the evidence through their control of the batllis, the final judgment seems to have been given by the tenants-in-chief attending the court. This was certainly true in the assizes,' and while it cannot be proved that

it was the unvarying procedure of the Exchequer, it was stated as the general custom of the country by the Summa de Legibus,’? which is remark-

ably accurate in its description of the law of that time. The Exchequer would not have tried to compel the attendance of the bishops, and they would not have tried to evade coming, if their functions had been purely a matter of form.’

It is remarkable that the Exchequer, with its great power controlled to some extent by the provincial nobility, never came into conflict with the king even over such a controversial question as tvers and danger. The Masters of the Exchequer, sent down by the king from his court at Paris,° the bazllzs and other royal officials present, exercised, of course, a restrain-

ing influence. The more rebellious nobles and those with English sympathies forfeited their land and could not attend. It is probable that in many cases the Masters made the real decision, and that the assent of the others present was a mere formality. Even with these considerations in mind, the record of the Exchequer shows a remarkably rapid acceptance of the new régime and a great deal of legal sense on the part of the Norman nobility. In spite of the activity of the Exchequer, by far the largest number of Norman law suits were tried in the assizes. During most of the century the Exchequer sat only at Caen or Rouen, while the assizes were held in omitted in the record of most cases, but those in which it is given deal with matters of fact as well as matters of law, and it seems to be true that the bishops, barons, and knights could give judgment in

any sort of suit. How much or how frequently they used this right is another question, and the evidence does not permits its solution. 1 See below, p. 22. H. Waquet, Le Bailliage de Vermandois, p. 55; judgment was given in the assizes of Vermandois by the holders of fiefs in the neighborhood.

2 Summa, p. 31, *...Judicium autem est sententia...a judiciariis promulgata. Judiciarii autem sunt discrete persone et autentice qui judicium proferunt in curia de auditis, ut archiepiscopi,

episcopi... canonici. . . abbates, priores conventulaes, et rectores ecclesiarum .. . ballivus siquidem atque omnes milites.. .’ 8 Cart. Nor., no. 615, the extra service done by Eudes Rigaud at the Exchequer is not to be a precedent, 1259. Olim, 11, 167, Parlement decides that the bishops of Normandy do not owe service at the Exchequer, but may serve voluntarily or by special order of the king, 1280. Soudet, op. cit., p. XII.

4 Ech., no. 799 states that it is necessary to have license to sell woods, and that this is the general custom of the land. When the general opposition of the Norman nobility to this ruling is considered (see below, chap. vi, p. 78), it may seem that their assent in the Exchequer was a mere formality

and that the Masters made the real decision. On the other hand, the protests were usually based on individual claims of liberties, and not on denial of the existence of the custom, which confirms to some extent my belief that the king had legal precedents on his side. 5 See below, chap. viII, p. 92.

20 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis every part of the duchy.! The assizes met more frequently than the Exchequer and delays were consequently shortened. Nothing like a complete list of assizes can be made, and it is impossible to say that they were held according to any fixed schedule,” but the bailli seems to have made the rounds of his district with remarkable frequency. Thus, three assizes were held at Avranches in 1225? and in 1237,* and three at Caen in 12455 and in 1267.6 Often one assize followed another immediately, with just enough time between to allow moving from one town to the next,’ and a suitor might follow the bazllz clear around the bazlliage before his case

could be settled. The jurisdiction of an assize does not seem to have been limited to any territorial unit smaller than the bailliage, though there are some doubts as to whether an assize normally took cases arising out-

side the viscounty or castellany in which it was held. Cases involving patronage of churches were frequently judged in distant assizes, because of the peril to property rights in long delays, and other cases were occasionally settled outside the district where they originated.® As a matter of convenience most men probably waited until the assize was held near their home. Little is known about the places where they met; in one case 1 See the list of assize-towns, chap. 1, p. 11. 2 Summa, pp. 61, 144, the interval between assizes should be forty days; Olim, 1, 59, the bishops

expect assizes to be held in the same town at intervals of forty days. These statements probably refer only to a minimum time necessary before a summons is returnable, and as a matter of fact the bishops’ claim was rejected. Fragmentary as the records are, it is hardly possible that nine assizes a year could have been held in thirty-some towns, and that we should know of no case in which more than three were held in one year in one town. 3 H.F., XXiv, preuves, nos 75, 79, 80.

4 Marnier, p. 104; B.N., MS. Lat. 11034, fol. 10; H.F., xxrv, p. *148. 5 Manche, H 13560; Bourrienne no. 338; H.F., xx1v, p. *137. 6 H.F., XXiv, preuves, no. 161 and p. *139; Calvados, H 7861. 7 Two assizes were held at Valognes in 1280, Manche, H 2000 and H 3267; in 1283, H.F., xx1v, preuves, no. 198 and Manche, H 28, p. 37; in 1284, B.N., MS. Lat. 10087, p. 251 and Manche, H 10807;

in 1286, Manche. H 535 and H.F., xxtv, p. *149. 8 H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 173, the assize of Vire met November 16, 1271, and the assize of Bayeux November 19; zbid., no. 185, a case begun in the assize of Vire received final judgment in the

assize of Bayeux, 1276; zbid., nos 107, 108, an assize was held at Rouen January 3, 1242, and at Pont ?Evéque January 8; ihid., no. 178, the assize of Pont Audemer was held September 30, 1272, Seine-Inf., Cart. de St Wandrille, fol. 191’, the assize of Rouen followed on October 5; B.N., MS. Lat. 11084, fol. 10, a case goes from the assize of Caen to the assizes of Bayeux and Avranches and still is not finished. . © Hellot, Baillis de Caux, p. xxiv, says that patronage cases were the only ones which could be judged outside the castellany of origin. Examples of such cases may be found in Manche, H 3267,

and H 535. Cf. Olim, 1, 59; Parlement denied the claim of Norman bishops that patronage cases might be tried only in the castellany where the church lay. But other cases might also be tried anywhere in the bailliage, see B.N., M18. Lat. 11034. fol. 10 in which a suit for land goes from the assizes of Caen to those of Bayeux and Avranches and H.F., xxiv, prewves, no. 199 in which a suit by the Mount against its hereditary prévéé of Domjean was settled in the assizes of Bayeux and Vire, 1283. See also Summa, pp. 220, 239, where writs of novel diseisin and mort d’ancestor are returnable at the first assize of the baillage.

Administration of Justice 21 a house 1s mentioned, in another a church,? one seems to have met in an

open field,? while at Rouen and Caen the royal castles were probably used.*

Aiter a period of experiment during which the twelfth-century idea of a group of presiding justices was preserved,° the assizes were directed by a single royal official, the bazllz. When it is remembered that the baillis attended Parlement and the Exchequer regularly, and that their other duties called for constant attention, it is remarkable that they were able to give so much time to judicial work. Occasionally they were unavoidably absent, and in such cases a viscount, a clerk, or even a local noble was commissioned to hold the assize in their place.6 The bazlli seems to have been responsible for the acts of these substitutes; at least he often ratified their decisions.’

As head of the courts of his district the bazllt had many other duties besides that of presiding at the assizes. He was chief of police and according to the Summa had to preserve the peace, exterminate malefactors, and preserve the rights of the duke. All complaints were brought to him, he assigned days for trial of cases, issued summons, and executed the judg-

ments of the courts.* Naturally his clerk, viscounts, and sergeants took care of most of this routine work, but even as a supervising officer he had the duties of several modern officials. When a case finally reached the assizes the bavllz still had a great deal of power. Judgment was legally reserved to the abbots, priests, knights, and other discreet persons present, but they judged only “de propositis et 1 Arresta Communaa, p. 39, ‘in introitum domus ubi tenebatur assisia,’ 1221. Cf. Quer. Nor., no.

234, complaint that royal officers took a piece of land unjustly, and built on it a house where the pleas of Bonsmoulins are held. This may refer to the assizes which were held in this town or to the viscount’s court. 2 H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 30, assize of Sées held in the church of Notre Dame, 1212. 3 [bid., no. 88, assize of Longueville held ‘in campo vandri,’ 1230. 4 Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 181, inquest held ‘in castro,’ 1268; Calvados, H 394, assize of Caen held ‘in castello.’ 5 See Fréville, op. cit., and H.F., xxiv, preuves, nos 10, 11, 13; Seine-Inf., Cart. de St Wandrille, fols. 18’, 108,137". The change seems to begin about 1209. It is interesting to note that the custom of having several bazllzs or justices presiding at an assize continues in other parts of the royal domain much later than in Normandy. Cf. H.F., xxtv, preuves, nos 49, 52, 57, and 61. 6 HF, xxiv, preuves, nos 133, 150, Manche, H 28, p. 89, etc. The use of substitutes, especially

viscounts, becomes more common toward the close of the century, at least to judge by existing records. ’ HLF ., XXIV, preuves, no. 179; Manche, H 28, p. 85, H 10174, the baillz usually notifies the bishop

of judgments in assizes held by a substitute; B.N., MS. Lat. 10086, fol. 166%; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 183%; Manche H 535, the substitute usually calls himself lieutenant or vicegerent of the bazllz. Cf. Manche, H 14100, where the viscount who holds the assizes of Avranches in 1288 seems to do so in his own right, at least he does not call himself lieutenant of the bazllz, 8 Summa, p. 9-10.

Q2 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis responsis in curia.’! The bazllz could control the evidence, especially in the case of an inquest,” and often the judgment of the bystanders must have been a mere formality. If they could not agree or if the bazlli did not like the judgment of the majority, he might suspend the decision and have the case reviewed by another assize, or by the Exchequer.’ Yet the actual, formal judgment was certainly given by the knights and discreet men, even when it would seem that the presiding officer might have had the right to end the case; for example, when one party defaulted, or renounced his claim. How independent the judgment was, is another matter, but it is perhaps significant that few cases dealing with the king’s rights were tried in the assizes.

Many important judicial acts were performed outside the regular courts of record. The procedure of compromise was one of the most important of the supplementary forms. In substance it was judgment by one or more friends of the parties who heard the evidence and then decided

the case. These arbiters were chosen from all classes. The bazlli might be one of the group; bishops, knights, burgesses, clerks’ were also used; and a surprisingly large number of cases were settled in this way. Offcial sanction was given, for the compromise was made in the assize, the evidence was taken by inquest and according to the forms of Norman law, and the decision was reported in the assize® and enforced by the bazllz,’ or 1 See above, p. 19, note 2; Fréville, op. cit., H.F., XxIv, preuves, nos. 68, 125, 141, 158, 164, etc.; Summa, p. 137. 2 Summa, p. 173, 175.

2 Summa, p. 38, ‘. . . si vero discretiores vel majores pauciores fuerint, ad alias assisias judicium prorogetur vel ad scacarium’; 2bid., p. 34, °. . . si vero justiciarius judiciarios in judicio faciendo ignor-

ancia vel malicia errare percipit, licet omnes consenserint in eodem, ilud debet ad alias assisias

prorogare... 4 H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 157, Montmorel gains a patronage “coram’ Renaud de Radepont, bailli,

‘per tales milites, scilicet, per Dominum Rogerium de la Basoche... ,’ when the opponent defaults; ibid., no. 181, similar judgment by default; zbid., no... 206, a judgment of the bazllz, in whom both parties had compromised, is confirmed “communi assensu et judicio militum assistencium’; Calvados, H 5048, after renunciation of claims in an assize ‘milites in assisia assistentes unanimiter iudicarent’ in favor of the other party. 5 H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 21, Philip Augustus and the bishop of Evreux compromise in three knights; zbid., no. 206, compromise in a bailli; Olim, 1, 616, compromise in a balla and a castellan ibid., 1, 657, compromise in bishop of Bayeux, (who later refused to serve); Calvados, H 1193, compromise in Guillaume Acarin, clerk of the baillz; cbid., H 6510, fol. 96”, compromise in Acarin, Richard

de la Tour, burgess of Argentan, and Guillaume de Merule, knight.

6 M.A.N., xxiv (R.N. Sauvage, Troarn), p. 391, compromise in Acarin, Eudes de Tremblay, castellan of Falaise, and Guillaume Morant, sergeant of the king. ‘Quo facto et concesso ab omnibus partibus et a ballivo domini regis et suscepto a predictis viris, dies partibus assignata fuit ... et per regiam potestatem submoniti fuerunt omnes legales milites et vavassores qui erant affines ut, sub

sacramento jurisjurandi rei veritatem predictis arbitris certificarent ...’ After inquest they made a decision, *. . . predictorum arbitrorum judicio et eorumdum sigillorum testimonio omnia subscripta in plena assisia roboraverunt.’ See the similar case in H.I’., xxv, preuves, no. 78. 7 Calvados, H 6510, fol. 96, the bazll: orders a disputed arbitration completed; Marnier, p. 95. the bazlli has the duty of enforcing compromises.

Administration of Justice 23 if necessary by the Exchequer! or even the king.” A suitor who had accepted a compromise could not withdraw from it to obtain the jurisdiction of a regular court’ and there are few examples of appeal from such decisions.‘

Criminal justice was generally administered directly by the bazll: or vis-

count. A felon caught in the act could be executed immediately,® and even in other cases there does not seem to have been much hesitation. The canons of Cherbourg were deprived of their rights of justice in eight criminal cases and in six the prisoner had been hanged before they could make their claim. Few cases of felony appear in the courts. The personal accusation was too dangerous as, up to the middle of the century,’ it involved trial by battle. The other procedure, when the criminal could not be caught in the act, was to have an inquest made by the bazllz or viscount. This was somewhat like the English procedure by grand jury, for twenty witnesses had to agree and, though they were examined at first

privately and one by one, their final verdict was made publicly as a group.? At the same time the influence of the canonical inquest is obvious.? This inquest does not seem to have been reported in the assize and the judge, though bound to consult four knights, apparently had the

final decision. At any rate, the knights limit the power of the royal official much less here than in the regular procedure, and even if final judgment were given in the assize the bazllt obviously controlled the case. The baillc’s administrative acts were usually subject to review only by Parlement,!* and yet those acts might involve a sort of judicial decision. In determining the king’s rights the balla had to get many facts from the people either by hearsay or inquest. A good example of this sort of case is

found in proving forfeiture for a voyage to England. The great record 1 Kch., nos 282, 408, 508, 640, 687, and p. 114, note, where a man seeking absolution in an ecclesias-

tical court from his promise to accept a compromise is fined. 2 Delisle, Fragments de l Histoire de Gonesse, pp. 64, 65.

3 Kch., no. 640, a compromise is not broken even by the death of one of the arbiters; Calvados, H 6510, fol. 96’, attempts to escape from a compromise fail. 4 [’ch., no. 578, a mise is cancelled because the bishop who was a party did not consult his chapter

in making it. 5 Summa, p. 61. 6 Manche, H 2999 and H 3319. 7 Summa, p. 167; Eich. nos 618, 753, appeals of murder. Cf. Ch. Astoul, ‘Les Modifications du Systéme des Preuves,’ Semaine d’ Histoire de Droit Normand,’ compte-rendu in Rev. Hist. de Droit, 4° sér., IV, (1925), p. 621. 8 Summa, pp. 15, 172.

9 The canonical inquest used by the French cura, was gradually replacing the Norman jury. Cf. Ch. Astoul, loc. cit., 1, Olive G. Farmer, ‘L’influence du Droit canonique sur le Procédure Normand,’ ibid., 624. 10 See above, p. 15. 1 Quer. Nor., nos 49, 62, 84, 295, ete.

24 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis of the king’s holdings in the bazlltage of Rouen contains many examples of the administrative inquest.1_ Many other questions might be determined by the bavllz himself; for example, condemnations of farms for which

the rent had not been paid.? It also seems that the baillz’s personal authority, as representative of the king rather than as judge, could be invoked by the oppressed : the men of Jumiéges appeal to him for help against

their abbot,’ and two monasteries try to preserve their rights by proving them to the bazll in private instead of in open court.‘ Another sort of jurisdiction for the bail: was found in the changing law of contract.> At the beginning of the century acts were recorded in the assizes, before mayors of communes, before officials of the Church or par-

ishes. Gradually acts sealed by the bazll: or viscount became more and more numerous.® ‘Then a special sort of act was introduced to insure ful-

filment of contracts, the ‘lettres le roy.” By this procedure the debtor pledged fulfilment of thecontract before the bazllz or viscount’ and gave the royal official the right to seize all his property in case he failed to pay.® The bazll: could seize and sell this property without waiting for any court action,® and the viscount acquired a new importance as the usual officer before whom contracts were made. 1 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, passim, marginal notes as to whether the values of the lands of the domain were established by inquest, or by measurement. 2 Quer, Nor., nos 283, 284, 322, 328, ete. 3 Seine-Inf., Cart. de Jumiéges, p. 296, the men of Kileboeuf appeal to the bazili for protection against the mistreatment and unjustified demands of their abbot, ‘super hiis, domine ballive, oculi

vestri videat equitatem quod homines sumus domini regis capitales...’ A compromise followed, 1258-59. Cf. Marnier, p. 98, a minor cannot have a writ of novel disseisin, but his friends should complain to the bazlli, who will investigate. 4 HF ., xxiv, preuves, no. 201, the baill: of Caux orders the viscount of Montivilliers to allow St Georges de Boscherville its justice at Berneval; ‘.. . il a éste &4 moi et m’a moustré ses chartes que

il a trés bones sour ceu, et aveques tout ceu je truis par mout de bones gens que il en a usé...’ in all this no formal court action seems to have been taken until the viscount read the letter in his court; ebid., no. 206, Troarn, to defend itself against a writ, showed its charters to the bailli and demanded

‘quod nos ex officio nostro faceremus facta domini regis... sicut nobis de precepta domini regis litteratorie injunctum et preceptum fuerat ...,’ in this case the other party agreed to accept the bawllt’s decision, which was favorable to Troarn, and was ratified by the knights of the assize. This preliminary inquiry by the bailli, of course, was the regular procedure if a writ of ‘fief lai et d’auméne’

had been asked. Cf. E. Blum, ‘Le Fonctionnement du Bref de Fief Lai et d’Aumone,’ Moyen Age, XXXV (1924-25), pp. 11 ff.

5 See Jean Yver, Les Contrats dans le Trés Ancien Droit Normand (Domfront, 1926), for a good account of this question. 6 Many Norman cartularies of the thirteenth century show this change, e.g., B.N., MSS Lat. 926 and 10087, where the viscount’s increasing activity is evident; see also Seine-Inf., Cart. de St Amand

and Manche, H 2710; in the latter the acts are passed before the clerk of the viscount. See Ech., no. 808 for an example in 1258. 7 Arresta Communia, no. 3, the viscount’s charges for letters of debt are regulated in 1276. 8 Iiid., nos 22, 32, 38, 41, decisions which establish this principle. ° HF ., XXIv, preuves, no. 186, a knight acknowledges a debt before a bailli, and pledges all his

goods, moveable and immoveable, 1277; ibid., no. 197, he fails to pay the debt and the bailli sells,

Administration of Justice Q5 Other royal officers had their courts, but they were much less important. The forest courts, although very active, dealt only with cases concerning their special work.!. The viscount, besides his important duties as a police officer, in seeking criminals and supervising the royal sergeants,? had a court of hisown. ‘This court, called the pleas, had a very limited jurisdic-

tion; its main duty seems to have been to dispose of minor cases and to handle some of the preliminary business of the assize.2 As it was not a court of record,’ there are few references to it in the sources. All that can be said is that it continued to meet until the end of the century.’ The sergeants of the sword, besides acting as police officers and summoners for the batllz, also held a sort of police-court, the view or visio. In this court the sergeant took formal evidence of facts which were later to be certified to the assize: evidence about such matters as the location of land in litiga-

tion, or the illness of a party to a dispute.§ Pleas of the crown also had to be viewed by the sergeants; no appeal could be brought for assault or mayhem, and no slain man could be buried until the wounds or the body had been shown toa sergeant.’ In such cases the sergeants were of course acting as coroners,® continuing the Norman tradition of the twelfth century.? This procedure of the v1s10 was more than a mere formality; de‘par force le roy,’ one of his rents, 1281. Manche, Cart. de St Sauveur le Vicomte, p. 133, a similar letter of debt, on default the bazll: orders a sergeant to have the debtor’s goods appraised by twelve men, and then surrenders them to the creditor, 1280. Bourrienne, nos 485-489, other examples of these letters, in one case it is the viscount who seizes the property obligated. 1 See below, chap. vi. 2 Summa, p. 15; Arresta Communia, no. 71, the viscount is expected to attend the assizes and has a roll of his own which may be used for evidence. 3 Summa, p. 143, ... ‘in placitis vicecomitalibus tenetur curia de simplicibus querelis, de defectibus assisiarum emendandis, et generaliter de omnibus querelis que dignoscuntur xv dierum spacium

retinere...’ Ibid., pp. 23, 119, 148, 207, various preliminary acts which can be done either in the assizes or in the pleas. The viscount might go further in criminal cases, cf. Cart. Nor., nos 493, 664, 1229, he arrests criminals and in one case executes a thief. 4 Summa., p. 144. 5 H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 201, letter of bazlli, to viscount read ‘en plains plés en la viscounté de Mosterviller,’ 1284, no knights are mentioned among the witnesses; tbid., no. 210, the Mount can be cited to pleas of the viscounty of Avranches only at Avranches, 1286; zbid., no. 182, a petition to the Exchequer to take a case from the pleas and put it in the assize; Olim, 1, 572, the bazlli of Caen may have ‘placita vicecomitalia’ in Argentan when necessary for pleas of the sword, but for nothing else, (Argentan was held by Henry Marshall and the viscount naturally had no jurisdiction there); Bourrienne, no. 519, an act sealed by the viscount of Bayeux at the pleas of Treviéres, 1286; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 147, a charter was denied in the pleas and then admitted in the assize, 1236; B.N., MS. Lat. 11055, fol. 203’, a knight who was sued in the pleas of Rugles before the viscount of Verneuil there renounced a claim to justice, 1290. § Summa, pp. 16, 162-163. 7 Ibid., p. 162-163.

8 Arresta Communia, no. 43, sergeants at wages ‘et alii feodati spate placitum in Normannia custodientes.’ ® Haskins, Norman Institutions, p. 188.

26 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts fault there involved serious consequences,! and renunciations of claims could legally be made before the persons attending it. Like the assizes the visio required the attendance of knights, who later testified in the assizes as to what had taken place there,’ and this attendance became such a heavy burden that the Exchequer had to give them some relief. Other petty courts, chiefly concerned with commercial matters, were held by the prévéts who farmed towns and villages and had jurisdiction of their markets.° The royal system of justice was not the only one in the duchy. It had rivals in every part of Normandy, for every feudal lord had some jurisdiction and many had high justice. The ordinary quarrels which would arise between peasants were judged by the nobles and not by the bazllis.6 The courts of the communes formed another important group of franchises, and the ecclesiastical courts were able to contend with royal justice on almost equal terms. The baillis conducted a relentless campaign against these rivals, ignoring their rights, infringing upon their jurisdiction, forcing them to defend themselves by long and costly law suits, and immediately ignoring the rights so laboriously acquired. ‘The nobility gave little trouble. They never combined during this period and, while cases involving their jurisdiction frequently appeared in the Exchequer or Parlement, the decisions, usually unfavorable to the nobles, were respected.’ Of the communes, Rouen is the only one whose history is well known,’ and the baillt steadily fought its important rights of jurisdiction.° The Church, thanks to its organization and spiritual powers, fared bet-

ter. Nevertheless, as the century progressed, the rights of justice which it held by feudal tenure were frequently attacked by the bails. No important church holding was left long in peace; bishops, abbots, and canons were continually forced to defend their jurisdiction in the royal courts.”

They usually succeeded in preserving their rights, although they could 1 Summa, pp. 162-163, 227. 2 Ech., no. 379; H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 538; Summa, p. 229. 3 Summa, pp. 162, 227-229. 4 Arresta Communia, nos 45, 59, 60; Ech., p. 136.

5 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, passim. See below, Chap. vit, pp. 82-83. 6 Summa, p. 139. Cf. Soudet, op. cit., p. 167, for a statement of justice held by knights and barons who do not have high justice. This statement, drawn up by Exchequer clerks ca. 1280 tends to limit the nobles’ justice, but even their restricted rights are important. 7 See above, note 12; Arresta Communia, nos 22, 23, 57, 58. The count of Gueldres was so annoyed by the interference of the bazllis that he sold his rights of justice in Caux to Philip m1 in 1281, Cart. Nor., no. 971. 8 Giry, Les établissements de Rowen (Paris, 1883), pp. 31-46; A. Chéruel, Histoire de Rouen (Paris, 1844).

9 Giry, op. cit., pp. 37-41, the bazlli persisted in interfering with the commune’s justice in spite of its charter and a decision of Parlement. 10 Cart. Nor., no. 1130, archbishop of Rouen; ibid., no. 1021, St Ouen; Ech., no. 457 the Hospital; Notices et extraits, xxi, 2° partie, 142, St Etienne of Caen; H.F., xxiv preuves, no. 201, St Georges

Administration of Justice Q7 not prevent individual acts of aggression by the baillis. The case of Cherbourg, mentioned above, is an example; almost every bazllc of the Cotentin violated its rights of justice, yet in the end it maintained its jurisdiction,

and even obtained reparation for its wrongs.! However, if the grant of justice had been made in vague or incomplete terms, the courts might in- . terpret it so as to limit the jurisdiction claimed.? Continued pressure by a bawls could force a monastery to cede its rights, as in the case of St Pierre-sur-Dives which found that even a royal charter could not protect it. On the other hand, St Louis granted high justice in certain regions to his friend the archbishop of Rouen,‘ at a time when such grants to laymen were exceedingly rare. The ecclesiastical courts also had their troubles. The Church claimed the right to judge cases involving lay persons, such as widows and crusaders, who were under its protection. The king, as duke of Normandy, was also the protector of widows,® and his officials opposed the attempts

of widows to have their cases tried in Church courts. Crusaders made even more trouble. Their claim of freedom from secular jurisdiction was usually recognized,’ although in some cases they evidently took the cross

merely to escape the severity of royal justice, or to secure delay. In certain situations, however, the Church could not protect the crucesignatt, for example, if they were taken flagrante delrcio,° if they committed a crime after having been once saved by the cross"? or if they were sued by such a writ as that de feodo et vadio.. The barllis naturally tried to increase this list of exceptions and so came into conflict with the Church.” Disputes of this nature seem to occur less frequently after 1270, perhaps because of agreements with the pope and decline of interest in the crusades. de Boscherville; Olim, 1, 81, Lire; ibid., 1, 101, bishop of Avranches; zbid., 1, 185, 583, St Wandrille; abid., 1, 323 canons of Evreux. 1 See above, p. 23. 2 Olim, 1, 185, 583, justice of blood and thieves does not give St Wandrille right of pursuit. 3 Cart. Nor., no. 1230, St Pierre fully establishes its rights in 1276; ibid., no. 950, they have been so persecuted by the bazllz that they cede their high justice in 1280; Olim, 11, 210, further restrictions

imposed in 1282. Cf. Sauvage, ‘La Haute Justice de l’abbaye de St Pierre-sur Dives,’ Semaine d’ Histoire de Droit Normande, Compte-rendu in Rev. Hist. de Droit, x1v (1921), p. 680. 4 Cart. Nor., nos 654, 670. 5 Summa, p. 191.

§ Lich., nos 411, 808. Cf. R. Génestal, ‘L’inaliénabilité dotale normande,’ Rev. Hist. de Droit, 4° sér, Iv, (1925), pp. 573 ff. for a discussion of this problem. 7 Ech., nos 148, 360, 647.

8 Ibid., no. 360, women crusaders free from lay courts; Marnier, p. 104, after first denying, and then admitting, the validity of a charter, the defendent seeks delay by pleading his cross. ® Ord., 1, 32.

0 HLF. xxi, 544, agreement of bishops of Coutances and Sées. 1 Ech., nos 588, 785.

2 Eudes Rigaud, p. 288 (council of 1257); Ech., no. 809; H.F., xxut, 544. 18 Kudes Rigaud, p. 758.

28 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis There were still conflicts between the two powers over the status of clerks in minor orders, although the most important questions of this nature had been settled in the twelfth century. There was no doubt that a criminous clerk was to be judged by the Church,! but he frequently had to be arrested by secular officers, and they were apt to handle him roughly before he left their hands.2. There was also a question as to whether clerks who married, or engaged in business, retained their privilege of exemption from tolls and tallages, and the bazllis and communes attacked such exemptions,? sometimes with success. The right of servants of clergymen to share in their masters’ privileges was also opposed. Nevertheless, with minor exceptions, the Church was successful in preserving its jurisdiction in cases which it claimed ratione personae.

It was less successful in preserving jurisdiction ratione materiae. Its authority in matters of marriage, legitimacy, and wills was admitted, although secular officials tried to keep the Church’s definition of intestacy within reasonable limits. Possessions held by frank-almoign were unquestionably under the sole jurisdiction of the Church, but if there was any doubt as to the nature of the tenure, lay courts settled the issue.® Tithes, although held by laymen, could be sued for only in Church courts, and with a few exceptions this rule was respected.’ The right of presentation to a church, however, was a matter for the lay courts, and though the bishop had a representative in the court and four priests sat in the inquest, churchmen were never quite sure that they were fairly treated in such trials.2 Heresy was not a problem in thirteenth century Normandy® and there was no trouble on that score. The Church found it less easy to keep jurisdiction over other offences. The royal courts always opposed 1 Bessin, Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciae (Rouen, 1727), p. 103, 104; H.F., xxi, 544; ef. R. Génestal, ‘La dégradation des clercs et le droit normand,’ in Bulletin du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques—Section des Sciences Economiques et Sociales, 1911, p. 231. Baillis and viscounts could not always resist the temptation to arrest clerks illegally; cf. Eudes Rigaud, pp. 410, 782, 579.

2 Eudes Rigaud, p. 287 (council of 1257); Bessin, op. cit., pp. 136 and 150 (councils of 1231 and 1279).

3 Ech., nos 272, 809, and below, Chap. vu, p. 87. 4 Ech., nos 44, 376.

5 Arresta Communia, no. 142; Eure, G 6, p. 119; no one below 14 (or 16) may be considered intestate. 6 See articles by E. Blum, ‘Les origines du bref de fief lai et d’auméne,’ Travaux de la Semaine d’ Histoire de Droit Normand, 1925, pp. 369 ff. and ‘Le fonctionnement du bref de fief lai et d’auméne,’ Moyen Age, XXxv (1924-25), pp. 118 ff. 7 Ech. nos 798, 800; Bourienne, nos 519, 520.

8 Eudes Rigaud p. 775. Cf. F. Soudet, ‘Les brefs de patronage d’eglise,’ Semaine d’Hist. de Droit Normand, compte-rendu in Rev. Hist. de Droit 4° sér., tv, (1925), p. 622 for this procedure. Olim, 1, 59; H.F., xxuu, 545, bishops complain of unfair treatment in these cases.

* Eudes Rigaud, pp. 160, 541, the only cases I have found in Normandy in this period.

Administration of Justice 29 its claim to judge cases in which fides was involved,! and as they perfected their own procedure for enforcing promises and contracts the Church gradually lost jurisdiction in this field.2. Usury was a sin, but the fact of usury usually had to be established by inquest in a lay court,’ and the bazllis did not always codperate with the Church in such cases.4’ The Church shared justice and fines for breach of the Truce of God with the king,‘ and, since most of these cases could be settled by purely secular procedure, the bazllis

tried to keep suits under the Truce out of court.6 This dispute became unimportant as the strong government of the Capetians enforced order; by the middle of the century breach of the Truce was rare and provincial councils seem unconcerned about preserving this jurisdiction. The Church’s chief weapon, excommunication, was useless in many cases unless the secular authorities forced the excommunicate to seek reconciliation, and the bazllis were very reluctant to take such steps.” The right of the Church to excommunicate the bazllis and other royal officials was questioned, and while the Church usually paid no attention to such restrictions, In some cases the king stepped in to protect his agents.°®

The Church was unable to find any permanent safeguard against the batllts. Interdicts, excommunications, appeals to the king might result in confirmation of their rights,® but in the long run the Church lost ground. There is nothing to show that the king ever punished his officials for interference with ecclesiastical justice, and this was the only effective way of

stopping their aggression. The popes of this period needed the support of the French kings and were more apt to make concessions than to sup1 Bessin, op. cit., p. 103; Cart. Nor., no. 1130; Ech., no. 82. 2 See above, p. 24; R. Génestal, in Rev. Hist. de Droit 4° sér., Iv, (1925), p. 573 ‘vers 1280 environ les particuliers prirent de plus en plus l’habitude de préferer le sceau du roi a celui de l’evéque.’ 3 Summa, p. 55; Soudet, Ord. de l Echiquier, p. 211; H.F., xxi, 545, the bishops of Normandy agree in 1260 to try to extend their power in cases of usury, but nothing seems to have come of this. 4 Kudes Rigaud, p. 288 (council of 1257); Olim, 1, 59. However, the baillis did prosecute some usurers, Quer. Nor., nos 96, 98, 99, 101.

5 Bessin, op. cit., p. 104; Bourrienne, no. 215; Ech., no. 329. 6 Quer. Nor., no. 256; Ech., no. 329. Cf. Jean Yver, ‘L’interdiction de la guerre privée’, Travaux de la Semaine d@’ Histoire de Droit Normand 1927, p. 332.

7 Ech., no. 61, the baillis must force the excommunicates to make their peace; Eudes Rigaud, p. 749, Norman bishops call this a custom of the country; ibid., pp. 38, 779, royal officers punished by Kudes for not obeying this rule; H.F., xx111, 334, one of the reasons for the interdict of 1234 was that

the king did not force certain excommunicated monks to make their peace; Quer. Nor. no. 537, complaint of bishop of Sées on this matter. § Bessin, op. cit., p. 104; Cart. Nor., no. 251, baillis may be excommunicated only for illegal arrest

of clerks; Eudes Rigaud, p. 38, a bailli excommunicated for other reasons; H.F., xx, 545, at an informal meeting the bishop of Normandy decided to excommunicate baillis who did not give them time to make a defense in cases of presentation ‘quia melius est quod ballivi conquerantur de nobis rege quam nos conqueramur de ipsis.’

° HLF., xxi, 332, 334, interdicts; Eudes Rigaud, pp. 37, 38, 410, 579, excommunications; Olim, 1, 59, appeal to king.

30 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis port the Norman clergy in every minor quarrel.! Violent conflicts between Church and state were rare in thirteenth-century Normandy, but the slow friction was wearing down the strength of the ecclesiastical courts. In considering the administration of Justice, some estimate should be

made of the extent to which the principles of the law were obeyed. The record of the courts in this respect is remarkably high. Few decisions among those still preserved seem unfair or contrary to the custom of the land.2- Few appeals succeeded in proving false judgment of acourt. This may show great ability in making the unjust seem legal; it probably proves

that it was easier to obstruct justice outside the court than in it. The power of the bazllz and viscount in criminal matters has been noticed, and

in at least one case it was abused.2? The administrative power of the barllz, combined with his zeal for the king, often resulted in actual injustice though legal appearances were preserved. For example, if a fief held from the king was confiscated, the bazll1s would regularly refuse to pay rents owed by such lands.‘ For the private man the Norman law offered endless possibility of delay,® and poor execution of judgments. The baillis set the example in refusing to obey court orders,* and at the other end of the scale we find the Jews deliberately disobeying the Exchequer.? A suit apparently settled might come up again and again,’ with no apparent

means of stopping it. The poorer people were allowed to sue their superiors without any restriction until late in the century,’ but the decisions were almost always against them, probably because the lord’s testimony was worth more in the eyes of the court.!° Moreover, intimidation might 1 Kudes Rigaud, pp. 758, 759, permission to secular authorities to proceed against clerks and crusaders in serious cases.

2 It must be remembered that Norman custom was changing rapidly during this century; for examples, see R. Génestal, ‘L’inaliénabilité dotale normande,’ Rev. Hist. de Droit, 1925, pp. 566 ff.;

E. Bridrey, R. Génestal, Ch. Astoul, ‘La protection des biens de famille,’ Travaur de la Semaine d’ Histoire de Droit Normand, 1925, pp. 1 ff. 3 Cart. Nor., nos 664, 665, 1229, misconduct of viscount of Pont Audemer, ca. 1275. 4 Quer. Nor., nos 6, 14, 35, 40, and passim. 5 Summa, pp. 116 ff. 6 See above p. 27. 7 Ech., no. 336, Jews are forbidden to buy in the holdings of St Pierre-sur-Dive without permission

of the abbot, 1222; zbid., no. 521, they did make such purchases, and in 1234 were ordered to surrender them. 8 Kch., nos 34, 48, a case is begun in 1207 and settled in 1209; zbid., no. 367, in 1225 the widow of the claimant sues for dower from the same land; zbid., nos 460, 491, 500, 536, 527, 538, 550, the bishop of Lisieux struggles from 1230 to 1235 to get army aid from his men, who refuse to pay it even after several Exchequer judgments against them; zbid., no. 546 a claim to army aid is proved in 1234, but in Quer. Nor. no. 247 the plaintiff complains that he has not been able to get it (1247). ° HF ., XXIV, preuves, nos 214, 226, by 1287 the writ of novel deseisin is not allowed to men suing

their lord; Arresta Communia, no. 73, such a writ is allowed against Fécamp because it was sued before the decision depriving the ‘commun’ of its use. 10 Ech., nos 439, 441, 485, 505.

Administration of Justice 31 be used; at least there are several cases in which the men of a lord are

granted their writ and then fail to appear. In other cases they were forced to accept the arbitration of their own lord which, naturally, went against them.? The Church also objected to its priests seeking justice in the assizes or even frequenting them.’ In short, while the final decision of a court might be just, the difficulties in getting that decision, and the even greater difficulties in enforcing it, must have kept many people from obtaining their rights. 1 Thid., no. 318; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 204. 4 Olim, 1, 732; Seine-Inf., Cart. de Jumiéges, p. 296.

’ Eudes Rigaud, p. 23 a priest is accused of frequenting assizes; p. 379, a priest ‘recognovit se ivisse ad assisias Gisortii ad citationem ballivii.’

IV THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM Nonedukes DY was one ofhow the to richest of France, and its sysold had known profit regions by its riches. Their financial tem was one of the most efficient parts of a very efficient administration. The Exchequer rolls of the twelfth century show that the possible sources

of income were fully exploited and that accounts were carefully kept. Philip Augustus naturally preserved this system and, beginning with his reign, Normandy supplied a large part of the revenue of the French kings. The sources of income in the twelfth century have been admirably described by Delisle,! and Professor Packard’s thesis? shows that they changed

very little up to the time of the conquest. Even after the conquest Delisle’s work is a good guide to the royal revenues of the thirteenth century, though there are shifts in the relative importance of the sources of income

and some new items are added. Delisle’s study of the agricultural class in Normandy also contains valuable information for this period.’ Borrelli de Serres’ great work on the administrative services‘ gives a remarkably complete picture of the accounting system for Normandy, with a wealth of detail. There is little that can be added to these works, but in the process of synthesis some light may be thrown on the Norman administration as a whole.

The financial system was the least autonomous part of the Norman administration, and the royal curia controlled it effectively. While the Norman courts were left relatively free to settle the affairs of the inhabitants of the duchy, all important decisions concerning financial matters were made by officials at Paris who were in close contact with the king. This was natural, for the king was not personally interested in law suits between subjects, and he was personally interested in getting as much money as possible from his domain. As a result, all financial operations were carefully scrutinized by the authorities at Paris and the accounting system centered there. In order to learn his rights as ruler and proprietor in his new possession, Philip Augustus held a series of inquests throughout Normandy’ after the 1 BLE.C., X, XI, XII.

2S. R. Packard, Normandy under Richard and John, Widener Library, Harvard University. 2 L. Delisle, Etude sur la classe agricole en Normandie, chap. v. ‘ Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 1-183. 5 Cart. Nor., nos 1079, 209, 210; Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 90. 32

Financial System 33 conquest. Lists of fiefs held of the king were also made! and these documents were kept at Paris for reference.2 By these registers, kept up to date by records of grants of fiefs and court decisions, the income of the king might havebeen ascertained.2 However, the registers were badly arranged and it would have been difficult to have made from them a list of the revenue from any one bailliage. They were probably consulted only when it was necessary to establish a legal title to something claimed for the king. The Exchequer of the Angevin dukes must have had documents which gave the central administration an idea of the income which might be expected from bailliages or viscounties. One type of these documents, called ‘extractus memorandorum’ has survived. It listed, under each administrative district, certain debts and revenues from land which the officer in

charge of the district was to collect. These lists were made up in the Exchequer from the memoranda and other notices of financial arrangements sent there, and were used to check the accounts handed in by royal officials. When an item was satisfactorily accounted for it was cancelled on the list.®

The same sort of document, used in the same way reappears in the last

years of the reign of St Louis. The old Norman ‘extractus memorandorum’ has been expanded to include all the revenue of a bazlltage, but the

basic ideaisthesame. The central administration has a record of regular sources of income which it can use to check collections by a royal officer. These lists may have been based on the general records of the realm kept at Paris, but their form follows so closely that of the bazllis’ reports that it

seems likely that they were made from a study of old accounts. New items could be added directly as a result of court decisions or from the reports of bazll1s and the officers who controlled special services such as the sales of the forests.’ These check lists were revised for each fiscal period and were carefully compared with the accounts submitted by the bazllis. If the payments expected were made, the item would be cancelled; if payment were not made, a reason had to be given. When collections had not 1 See below, chap. v, p. 60. 2 Olim, 1, 613, 625. 3 Borrelli de Serres, loc. cit. 4$. R. Packard, ‘Miscellaneous Records of the Exchequer,’ Smith College Studies in History, 12,

p.36. A typical list, ‘Initium extractus memorandorum Cadomi de termino Pasche . . . De Odone de

Sottevilla, 1 bis. pro inrotulanda carta sua... de te ipso exitum Rogeri de Goviz, et exitum terre Philippi f. Bernardi, et terre Thome de Aguerneio .. .’ etc.

§ Ibid., pp. 34-35. Mr Packard thinks the lists may also have been circulated among the officials of the districts in question, but this would have taken a great deal of time, and the lists would have been rather out of date by the time the Exchequer regained them. § Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 108, gives a very good description of these lists, which he identified. He also gives a facsimile of one in an appendix. 7 A.N., K496, no. 10.

34 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis yet started, as in the case of pannage in the lists for Candlemas, the item would be marked ‘nihil modo;’ when payment was postponed, ‘ad sanctum Michelum,’ ‘ad Paschem,’ or ‘in debitis.”! If no satisfactory reason for non-payment were given, explanations would be asked from the bailli.? This system was extended to the bazlliages outside of Normandy and is one of the most striking examples of Norman influence on French financial institutions. The check lists deal with rather large units of the domain. In order to raise the expected revenues, the bazllis needed more detailed records of the royal holdings and rights in their districts. Only one example of this sort of record has survived, a description of the royal domain in the bailliage of Rouen in the year 1270.8 While the document was put in its present form in that year, it was obviously based on earlier records kept by the clerks of the baillis. The royal domain is divided into farms, the farms are grouped by sergeanties, and the sergeanties by viscounties. At the head of each farm are listed the lands, usually with a note as to whether their extent has been measured, or estimated by neighbors, then all other income and services.4. Market places, market halls and other holdings in the towns are often listed by themselves, and not as part of a larger farm.® Some revenues that were not, or could not be farmed are marked ‘comté per sey, ‘n’est pas baillie.’° The name of the farmer with the price he pays is given at the end of the description of the farm, unless the farm has

been broken up, when the name and price follows each item. Recent increases In payments for the farms are noted whenever they occur, and 1 B.N., US. Lat. 9018, p. 5, ‘Pro sigillo ballivie- Nichil modo; . . . pro bosco 72. 5s.—ad pascham; . - . pro domino Henrico Marescallo—In debitis.’ 2 Ilnd., p. 3, p. 5. 3 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94. The date is indicated by references to the years 1261, 1262, 1263, 1265, on fols. 51, 25%, 10, 96; by references to Richard du Fay, clerk of the bazllt of Rouen from 1260 to 1283, fols. 5, 8, 9, 9¥, ete. It cannot be later than June 1271, for an island in the Seine, which

had no holder at the time when the register was made, fol. 8, was granted then by Philip 11, Cart. Nor., no. 807. It must be after the accounts of 1269, for the fruit of this same island is said to have been worth 77. in that year. It must be before the death of St Louis, for a farm is listed as being held by Philippe d’Auteuil, fol. 185%, which was granted him in 1259, Cart. Nor., no. 611, but which Louis later granted to Robert Loremier, who surrendered it in 1271, Cart. Nor., no. 810. 4 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, fol. 9Y. ‘La ferme de Lymisi 702. Anvers Limisi et Sierville 96 acres, chascune acre 3 mines et demi d’orge valent 10s. 6d. ...Guil. Tempeste prist chascune acre de terre de Lymisi por 12d., et le molin por 212., denier por denier, la mine d’avoine por 3s., le capon por 5d., oeus 10 por 1d., les priéres des carues por 20s., la justice et les reliés por 40s., et mist iceli Guillaume en contreplege sa terre de Lymisi en l’an de grace 1263 a |’Eschiquier de Pasques.’ f. 16Y., “La prevosté de Kally 512., por ces parties. Le cens des masures 1317., la costume du denier et de la maale 182., les foires ileques 47....’ 5 Thid., fol. 3.

6 Jind., fol. 3. ‘Le Molin Briait Comin 100s.—Comté per sey & pasques,’ fol. 4, ‘La ferme de la terre de Hionville 25 ?.—N’est pas baillie.’

Financial System 35 are summed up for each sergeanty and viscounty, perhaps to make sure that the new value will be retained. This sort of a record gives all the revenues from the domain, except the products of forest sales which were intermittent and variable. It does not give the king’s income as suzerain from such sources as wardships, aids, fouage, and so forth, which were also

not constant factors. Other barlliages may not have had as complete and compact records as this, but they certainly must have had descriptions of the domain.! This is implied as early as 1247 by the frequent complaints in the Querimoniae regarding new exactions imposed by successive farmers.2. Thenew exaction must have been entered in some record, or it would not have continued. Even the sworn measurement of the royal domain is mentioned in the Quervmoniae.?

Thus both the central and local administrative officers knew what the regular income should be. In accounting for the actual income, the bazl-

lv’s report was the essential document. In this report he listed all the revenue of his district except that received by special collectors, and all the expenditures made by himself or those under him. This final report must have been based on others, but of these there is no trace. The viscount collected and spent money and kept accounts; the clerks of the courts must have kept records of the profits of justice in their rolls; the forest service collected its own fines and perhaps made its own contracts for the sales of wood;' castellans and prévéts often expended large sums of money on public buildings in their charge;‘ but, though all of these officers had to have some sort of record, none of their accounts has survived. Ap-

parently the final responsibility of the bazl: was so complete that the other documents were not worth preserving. An interesting change in the form of these accounts of the bazllis takes place during the reign of St Louis. The Exchequer Rolls of the twelfth 1Cf. B.N., MS. Lat. 11059, fol. 81’., “Hee sunt terre que de novo sunt feodate in parochia de Silleio per manum Raginaldi dicti Cambellarii vicecomitis de Falesia et per Bertrandum Castellanum Oximensis de precepto domini regis anno domini 1282.’ A long list of holdings follows. There is also a reference in the Querimoniae, no. 42, to such records. A complaint is made that the king’s officers were exacting 2 bushels of grain unduly “eo quod in summa rotulorum domini Regis invenitur

quod tres modii et x busselli debentur dicto domino...’ Brussel, Usage General des Fiefs, (Paris, 1727), 1, xxiii, had seen a ‘regitre-cartulaire de Normandie, comprenant aussi l'état de son domaine de Pan 1285.’ 2 Quer. Nor., nos 268, 275, 287, and passim. 3 Quer. Nor., no. 394, complaint that farmers ‘fecerunt fieri juramentum super dominico domini regis sine vicecomite vel ballivo, ipsis absentibus et ignorantibus.’ 4 Cart. Nor., no. 664, the viscount of Pont-Audemer collects fouage, accounts for fines, collects

money for farms; Arresta Communia, no. 31, the viscounts are forbidden to carry off their account rolls; A.N., J 780, nos 4, 7, expenditures by viscounts; Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94 passim, farms by viscounts, 5 See below, chap. vi, p. 70. 6 A.N., J 780, nos 8, 4, 5; J 775, no. 9.

36 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts century and the accounts of 1202 for France! are very confused, owing to the many unrelated sources of income and the many agents who collected it. It would be difficult from these rolls to find the total revenue collected by one man or the total revenue given by one source. ‘The gradual centralizing of authority in the hands of the balla ended the first difficulty and a classification of income and expenditure was introduced slowly. In 1230 in a report of the Exchequer, the revenue of each bazlliage was lumped under the heads, ‘de debitis,’ ‘de boscis,’ “de expletis,’ “de scacario’ (that

is, from the domain). Expenditures were likewise grouped as ‘liberationes’ (wages), ‘opera,’ and ‘feoda et elemosine.” This grouping takes place earlier in Normandy than in France, and Borrelli de Serres thinks it is a product of the advanced financial methods used by the old Norman government.’ This is possible, but the Exchequer rolls of the twelfth century and the English Pipe Rolls of the first half of the thirteenth century show no signs of such arrangement.‘ It seems to me that the fact that Norman accounts were reviewed twice, first by the Exchequer and then by the curia, made these summaries especially desirable and caused their earlier appearance in the duchy. In asummary of Norman revenue in 1238 these divisions are again plain’ and as soon as detailed accounts of the bazllis can be found they conform to this model. The first such document in existence is an almost complete copy of the accounts of the baill of Verneuil for the year 1252° and here forest sales, tzers, revenue from the

domain, wardships, and profits of justice are clearly distinct. In expenditures the division 1s equally apparent: first come ‘liberationes,’ then ‘feoda et elemosine,’ and finally ‘opera.’ Various small items which could not be classified or which came in after the account was begun are inserted here and there, but do not seriously confuse the accounts. By the end of the reign of St Louis new headings were added, which appear in both the check lists and the accounts of the bazllzs.7. The new division under “Re1 Brussel, Usage General des Fiefs, 11, exxxix. 2 HI ., XXIv, preuves, no. 89. 3 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 31.

4H. L. Cannon, The Great Roll of the Pipe, 1241-42 (New Haven, 1918); Chalfonte Robinson, The Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1230 (Princeton, 1927). 5 ALF, xxi, 255. 6 Layettes, v, no. 581.

7 For the check lists see above, p. 33. The most important accounts of baillis are: A.N., J 775, 780, extracts from the accounts of Verneuil and Caen for 1252 and most of the years between 1271 and 1292. The extracts are very full for Verneuil, less full for Caen. The ones for 1252 have been published; see above, note 6. These extracts were made for the king during a sixteenth-century law

suit and are fairly accurate, although the scribe made some errors. B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, account of Caux, Easter 1279; zbid., p. 24, account of Verneuil, Easter 1282; cbzd., 17010, no. 3, ac-

count of Cotentin, Easter 1282; H.F., xx, 644, account of Gisors, All Saints, 1285; A. Hellot Baillis de Cauz, p. 165, or Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5645, account of Caux, Easter 1290.

Financial System 37 cepta’ is ‘domania,’ ‘custodia,’ “bosci,’ or ‘vendi’ or “vende boscorum,’ and

‘tercia,’ followed in the check lists by ‘licentia’ and ‘emende.’ Expenditures remain classified as before. By the accession of Philip vi, if not before, this form of making out accounts had become official, and a notice of the proper headings and order of headings was sent to the bavllzs.1. Un-

der ‘Receptes’ the document lists ‘... debtes . . . demaines fieffez, demaines non fieffez, seaus... gardes...reliez ... forfaictures . . . amendes .. . ventes de bois, esplez d’iceuls, herbages d’iceuls, tiers et dangiers de bois . . . commune recepte de choses qui ne doivent etre mises entre les tiltres dessu nommez.’ Under ‘Despence’ we find ‘fiez et aumosnes et

rentes données a heritaige, rentes a vie et a volunté... gages... dismes... vivres des hoirs . . . et douaires, ceuvres.. . dans, quittances, et remissions ... le pou compté et le trop compté . . . despens communes, c’est assavoir plait d’eglise, messages envoyez, justice faicte, pain de prisonniers, malfaicteurs querre et prendre...’ Every one of these items may be found in its place in the accounts after 1270, though all the headings are not given. This system in its final form made it easy to find individual items and thus to check the baillzs’ work, and while the Exchequer may not have originated it, the Exchequer system could very well have suggested it to the curza. The bazllis sent their accounts to the Exchequer,” but here the system

becomes somewhat obscure. The Exchequer certainly had important fi-

nancial duties. Financial experts of the curia, men such as Eudes de Lorris, Etienne de Montfort, and Nicholas d’ Auteuil sat regularly in the Exchequer, and while they took part in its judicial work, it seems likely

that they were sent there primarily to supervise the accounts. There must have been a certain degree of specialization in the personnel of the Exchequer at a very early date, since in the reign of Philip Augustus the Exchequer of account met at Rouen, while the judicial Exchequer was

held at Caen or Falaise.t This separation is not so evident under St Louis, but in financial documents the Exchequer is always the Exchequer of Rouen, while on the judicial side there were frequent sessions at Caen.® The king established many rents on the Exchequer, and the regular time and place of payment for farms of the royal domain was at the Exchequers 1 A ., xxi, 518. 2B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, ‘Compotus Radulphi de Brulleio militis, ballivi domini regi in Caleto, versus vires venerabiles magistros scacarii de termino Pascho anno domini 1279.’ See the similar headings of the other accounts cited above. 3 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 100, 314. 4 Ech., no. 291, Gilbert des Essarts is ordered to pay his brother 102. ‘in unoquoque scacario apud

Rothomagum’ at a time (1220) when the judicial Exchequer met regularly at Caen or Falaise. Cf. Cart. Nor. nos 210, 291. 5 Cart. Nor. nos 505, 631, 670; Eudes Rigaud, pp. 321, 376, 400, etc.

38 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis of Easter and Michaelmas.1 This was so common that at one time the receipts from the farms were summarized as ‘de scacario.”* Moreover, the Exchequer seems to have supervised the making of many of these farms; the Rouen description of the domain mentions several leases which were made in the Exchequer, or at least were approved by the Masters.? Actual accounting was done there, perhaps at the old checkered table; Louis Ix granted a rent in 1269 which was to be paid “de primis denariis qui ad mensam scacarii de dicto vicecomitatu (viscounty of the water of Rouen) afferentur, per manum illius qui pecuniam vicecomitatus predicti recipiet vice nostra... 74 The Exchequer made a summary of Norman accounts which it forwarded to the central administration,® and in the accounts of

the Temple with the king, the money from the Exchequer is always a separate unit.® However, the Exchequer did not have complete supervision of the bazl-

lis’ financial work. The check lists for the Norman batlliages must have been made in Paris, since they are frequently found on the same page as lists for other parts of the realm. Moreover, the check lists for Candlemas include some Norman items, and as no Exchequer was held at that time of year, such lists could have been prepared only in Paris.? We cannot be so sure that the bazllis’ reports were compared with the check lists in Paris. It would not have been impossible to use the check lists in Normandy, for the Exchequer was a committee of the curza and probably had

access to any material at Paris which it desired. It was held at times which did not conflict with the financial meetings of the curza, and the clerks of the accounts might have taken their check lists down to Rouen, compared them with the reports of the Norman bazllis, and returned to Paris to do the same work for the bazllis of France. The fact that the Candlemas lists must have been used in Paris is not conclusive proof that the others were not sent to Normandy, for the revenue of the Norman batllrages was checked at Candlemas for form’s sake only; few sources of income were listed, and in most cases payment was postponed. How1 Cart. Nor., no. 370, the Masters grant money from the regalia of Rouen to poor clerks; 2bid., nos 1153, 425, 445, etc., rents on the Exchequer; zbid., nos 610, 614, 630, etc., farms to be paid for at the Exchequer. 2 H. F., XXIv, preuves, no. 89. 3 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, fol. 5, a farm made by Richard du Fay ‘se il plest as maistres,’

fol. 10, a farm made in the Exchequer, fol. 20’, a farm to be approved by the Masters. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 759. Cf. Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 195 note, payment by the viscount of Auge in 1311 “a la table en ceste Echiquier.’

6 ALF ., xxi, 255 ff., ibid, xxiv, preuves no. 89. A.N., J '775 and 780 seem to be taken from Exchequer copies of the bazllis’ accounts rather than from original accounts. § Delisle, Opérations financiéres des Templiers, p. 120. 7B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 7; Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 137.

Financial System 39 ever, Paris was the logical place for a final account, since the records of Parlement, the registers of royal charters, and the king himself were there to be consulted. Most law-suits affecting the king’s revenues were settled at Paris, and in an age when judicial and financial administration were not distinctly separated, it would be only natural if the auditing of the bazllis’ accounts were also done there. A possible reconstruction of the relations between Exchequer and curta would be as follows. The Exchequer was in a better position than the curva to obtain the information necessary for farming the royal domain on profitable terms. The curta was in a better position than the Exchequer to make sure that the bazllis were obtaining all the income which could possibly be derived from any source. At the Exchequer new farms of the royal domain would be made, the money due for old farms would be collected, the rents which the king had assigned to various institutions and individuals would be paid, and the baillis would make a final reckoning with those who owed them money.! The baillis’ accounts would then be put into finished form, and perhaps checked hastily by the clerks of the Exchequer; a summary of Norman revenue would be prepared, and the summary, accounts, and money? sent to Paris. At Paris, the accounts could be examined at leisure, the king and the courts could be consulted about revenues, debts, or fines which the bazllz had been unable or unwilling to collect, and the tedious task of preparing new check lists could be

undertaken. This seems to be the most probable division of labor between the two bodies, but as far as the Normans were concerned it made little difference whether the Exchequer or the curia had the final audit of

the accounts. In either case, they had no power to intervene, for the financial work of the Exchequer, unlike the judicial, was not done in the presence of the Norman nobility. It was merely a question of whether some of the king’s clerks should do their work in Rouen or Paris. It should be noted that the bazllz of Gisors seems to have accounted di-

rectly with the curta and not through the Exchequer. Most of his district had been acquired before the other bazlliages of Normandy, and the livre parisis was used there as in the old royal domain. The receipts of Gisors were therefore included with those of the bazlliages of France? and in the check lists the delays accorded debtors are ‘ad Candelosam,’ ‘ad Ascencionem,” instead of the Norman terms of Easter and Michaelmas. 1 Cart. Nor. no. 1186. 2 A.N., J 780, no. 5, 6, the bazllt of Caen accounts for ‘vectura denariorum de alio scacario’; zbid.,

no. 3, 4, the baillz of Verneuil accounts for ‘vectura denariorum’ to the Parlements of Candlemas and Ascension.

3 AD. xxi, 253, 276; ibid., xx, 644. 4B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 10; Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5646.

40 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis The bazllz of Gisors did attend the Exchequer,! perhaps only for its judicial work.

There were other accounts which were not handled by the batllas. During the reign of St Louis, temporary agents and commissioners were often appointed for specific tasks, and these men kept their own accounts. For example, special commissioners for the affairs of the Jews were twice appointed? although a separate administration for the Jews was fully established only after 1285. Sales of wood from royal forests were regularly listed in the reports of the bazllzs, but some clerk of the central administration also recorded them from time to time in a separate account.’ This account seems to represent an early form of the check list, or perhaps a preliminary stage in drawing up such a list, but it is also a forerunner of records of the autonomous forest service, which is to be developed under Philip tv. Special collectors for the regalia were regularly appointed, although the bazllis also accounted for some income — probably arrears —

from this source.* The extraordinary expenses for fortifications in the Avranchin during the war with Brittany were also placed in a separate account.’ These special agents and their accounts often developed into fullfledged administrative services under Philip tv, but before his time they were less important. Under St Louis the bavllz was still by far the most important financial agent of the monarchy. The king’s revenue was derived from three main sources: the domain, the forests (really a part of the domain but important enough to be treated separately), and the various rights of overlordship such as aids, wardships

and fouage. This revenue was almost entirely feudal in character and only towards the end of the period is anything like national taxation visi-

ble, that is, if taxation be defined as a contribution for the work of the state, imposed by the sovereign authority of that state in a uniform manner, when and as it sees fit. The subsidies given by the Church, while 1 Ech., nos 813, 830, 834. 2 See below, pp. 50, 51. 3 A.N., K 496, no. 10, in form this list is very like the check lists, e.g., ‘Warno de Verbria pro Petro

Bigot de Femis pro 154 acris foreste Britolii...’ This document was written earlier than any of the known check lists, about 1245. It mentions Thibaud de la Chapelle, ball: of Caux 1224-1245, Guerne de la Verberie, bailli of Verneuil 1237-1245 (?), Girard de la Boiste, baillt of Caen 1239-1246,

and Jean des Maisons, bazlli of the Cotentin 1237-1246. Instead of naming the bailli of Rouen it says ‘ballivus Rotomagensis.’ Jean des Vignes, bazlli of Rouen 1239-1244 does not seem to have held the office after the middle of 1244, and no successor in the next two years is known. 1244 and 1245 are the only years in which the other four were all in office that there was no bailli of Rouen. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 1195, the king sends orders to Jean de Poissy and Thomas Tegulier, custodians of the regalia of Evreux; Bib. de R., IS. Leber 5870, tv, fol. 4”., ‘Compotus regalium Ebroicensis per Magistrum Johannem de Poissiacum,’ 1257; Quer. Nor. no. 9, collector of regalia of Bayeux ca. 1231; Brussel, 1, 469, 470, bails account for small sums from regalia. 5 H, F., xxiv, preuves, no. 92.

Financial System | they were paid to the king as head of the state rather than as feudal overlord, were hardly taxation. In theory they were a free gift, and in prac-

tice they had to be arranged by negotiations between the two powers. Fouage is a closer approach to real taxation, but to the men of the period it was merely a commutation of a right of the overlord, and as it became a customary payment it was difficult to increase it. The various tallages, salestaxes, and tolls paid by the towns were derived from rights which every seigneur had over his domain; lack of uniformity, and fixation by custom made it impossible to expand these payments into real taxation. So it was with almost all sources of royal revenue. Limited by custom, feudal law, class distinction, local. rights and privileges, none of them were elastic enough to carry the increasing burden of expense, none of them could readily get at the wealth of the duchy. The revenue from the domain was the largest and most constant factor in the royal income. The domain consisted of lands cultivated directly for the profit of the king, work-services owed by the peasants on those lands, rents of various sorts such as grain, bread, hens, eggs, and money

which the peasants paid for lands they cultivated, monopolies such as mills and ovens, and, most valuable of all, houses, market-halls, other possessions in the towns, and various tolls and dues on the transportation or sale of merchandise.! Incidental revenue from the forests, such as pannage, herbage, fenage, and ramage was usually accounted for with the domain instead of being placed with forest sales.’ It was obviously impossible for the bazllzs and their subordinates to collect these revenues directly. Even ifit had been possible, they would have been left with a bulky mass of commodities instead of the ready money

desired by the king. Therefore, during the whole century, the domain was farmed out as far as possible. The Rouen description of the domain, the accounts of the bazllis, the check lists, and the Querimoniae show the completeness of this process. ‘The farms included everything, even the great viscounty of the water of Rouen, which brought in several thousand pounds a year from tolls on commerce and its important rights of justice.’ Almost as valuable a farm was the prefecture of Caen‘ and some of the 1 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, passim; B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, passim. For details concerning the dues on commercial transactions, see Ch. de Beaurepaire, La vicomté de Peau de Rouen, p. 285; M. A. N., 2 sér., v, 193, a list of tolls in the prévété of Caen. 2 HF. xxi, no. 253-255; Layettes, v, no. 581. 3 HF ., XXIv, preuves no. 89, viscounty worth 2900 7. at Michaelmas 1230; zbid., xx1, 255, 2950 Z at

Easter 1238; Ch. de Beaurepaire, op. cit., pp. 323 ff.; Bib. de R., MS. Mart Y94, fol. 6”. Ibid., f. 3, the market-halls of Rouen were worth over 13002. a year, even after the vicomté had taken its toll, Altogether the king must have obtained over 7000 ?. a year from rents and tolls at Rouen. 4M. A.N., loc. cit., A. N., J 775, nos 6, 10, 11, the prévdté of Caen gives 20007. or more a term.

42 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis other towns also produced large revenues.! Such farms were too large for one man to take and were usually divided into smaller parts,? or adminis-

tered jointly by a group. The agricultural part of the domain was less valuable and was generally broken up into smaller units, though some lands brought in a hundred pounds or more a year.‘ The farms were of two sorts, perpetual and temporary. The perpetual farms were really a sort of fief, and as such had to be made by the king,5 though the terms may have been made by the bazllas in some cases. Such farms might remain unchanged for many years,® though some were forfeited when payments were not made.’ The number of these farms seems to increase toward the end of the reign of St Louis, though this may be due only to more complete records. ‘The temporary farms could be made by any official, even by clerks or viscounts, but apparently they had to be ratified by the Exchequer. They were cancelled whenever a new bidder offered a higher payment for them.® Certain returns, usually payments in kind, were too small or too scattered to be farmed. These were collected by the royal officials with the income from farms that had lapsed and had not yet been regranted.!° Except for these unimportant items, the accounts of receipts from the domain are almost entirely lists of income from farms.

It is worth noticing that in the Rouen description of the domain and other documents the work-services and payments in kind usually have their money value written after them." This must have made the eventual transformation of all returns from the domain into money much easier. However, this process was not complete in thirteenth-century Nor1A.N., J 775, '780 passim, Falaise and Verneuil regularly give '700?. or more a year. 2 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 7; Ch. de Beaurepaire, op. cit., p. 282. 8 Olim, 1, 355; Boutaric, Actes, 1, ecexxii, H. F. xxiv, preuves no, 168. 4 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fols. 20%., 26, 37, 101. 5 Cart. Nor., nos 610, 611, 614, 895, 963, etc. The last two were made by the bazlli of Rouen but confirmed by the king. 6 H.I., xxi, 255, quay of St Edmund gives 62. at Easter 1238; Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 3, ‘le cay de Saint Emont 122. perpetuel,’ (this is the value for the whole of the year 1270); Cart. Nor., no. 630, a lease made in 1259 is the subject of a law suit in 1359. 7 Cart. Nor., no. 982.

8 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 5, A grant by Richard du Fay, clerk of the ball, ‘se il plest as maistres’; cf. fols. 8, 9, 20’., 66, 69, '70. 9 Ihid., fol. 79%., “Ices choses devant dites lesqueles sont en la ferme au Pognoor ballies sont a Adan de la Blaerie por 187.—L’abbé de Preaulz li encherie de 20s’; Cart. Nor., no. 610, the abbot is

granted this farm. 10 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94 fol. 3, 4; B.N., WS. Lat. 9018, p. 10, 24, bread, oats, and hens collected directly by the bazlli; chid., 17010, no. 3, grain of the Cotentin; Layettes, v, 581, grain of Verneuil. 1 Bib. de R., MS. Mart., Y94, fol. 10’., ‘vaut la jorneé 16d.,’ fol. 19”., ‘corvees 30s., fol. 31’., ‘des

services devantdiz se delivrent ices—c’est assavoir, Jehan le Provost por son service 44s,...,’ ete. Cf. Delisle, Etudes sur la Condition de la Classe Agricole, pp. 128 ff.

Financial System 43 mandy; for example, when Pierre de Broce was granted land from the royal domain, he had to make special agreements with his men in order to get only money payments.! The returns from the domain increased during the century. The baillz of Caux accounted for 44.07 7. ‘de scacario’ at Michaelmas 1230, for 3437 #.

at Easter 1238, and for over 60002. from the domain at Easter 12792 A comparison of the accounts of the Cotentin or Verneuil for 1230 with their

accounts of 1282 shows the same increase. It should be remembered that the Easter payments were usually smaller than the Michaelmas ones, for no harvest preceded Easter and many farms only paid one-third then

and two-thirds in the fall. Many individual items also become larger; the Rouen survey notes an increased return from many of its farms; and in Verneuil the prévétés of Lire, Rugles, and Gloz give 131 #. at Michaelmas

1227, 135%. at Easter 1252, and 1932. at Easter 1271.5 After 1271 there is a reaction and some farms decrease their return; thus, Lire, Rugles, and Gloz give only 1502. at Easter 1285, and the prévété of Verneuil drops from 4504. at Easter 1272 to 3002. at Easter 1280.6 The tendency of the revenue as a whole to increase can be explained in part by the growth of the royal domain through escheats and confiscations and by the competitive bidding for farms. The values of the farms might be pushed too high by this method, and it undoubtedly involved many farmers in unprofitable ventures, ending in failure and slumps in the return from the farms. On the other hand, the king seems to have received the full value of the farm

in most cases. Besides the growth of the domain and the farm system, the increase in commerce during the century increased the royal revenues.

The most valuable parts of the domain were the towns, and as their wealth increased the prévét could pay more for his prévété and still make a profit from increased receipts from tolls. The forests brought in a large, if irregular, income. The sales were so arranged that variations in the revenue produced were not too great, and in every year for which we have records some revenue from this source was accounted for in every batlliage. Naturally,no direct comparison can be made between different years with the records as incomplete as they are, but the revenue from the forest seems to have increased with the reve1 Cart. Nor., nos 874, 875.

2H. F., xxiv, prewses, no. 89; tbid., xxi, 257; B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23. 3H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 89; B. N., US. Lat. 9018, p. 24, Verneuil; zbid., 17010, no. 3, the Cotentin. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 611; A. N., J 780 passim, prévétés of Lire, Rugles and Gloz pay one-third at Easter and two-thirds at Michaelmas; Bib. de R., MS. Mart., Y94 fol. 207, in all farms of the viscounty of Pont de l’Arche one-third is paid at Easter, two-thirds at Michaelmas. 5 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 182; Layettes, v, no. 581; A. N., J 780, no. 3. 6 A.N., J 775, nos 12, 6, 11, 9.

4A, Administration of Normandy Under St Louts nue from the rest of the domain. In the batlliage of Verneuil the forests gave 5847. at Michaelmas 1230, 6932. at Easter 1238, 19632. at Easter 1252

and about 19007. at Easter 1273.1. This revenue was collected by the usual system of farms. The right to cut a certain amount of wood was granted to groups of contractors who paid in installments covering several years.” Another source of income from the forests came from clearings on which

hétes were settled. The first sale of these new lands was reported with the forest income? but the regular rents were accounted for with the domain. With them were placed purprestures, illegal clearings which might be retained for an annual fine.‘

Tiers and danger, payments made to the king by land-owners for the privilege of selling timber from their own forests, were not products of the

domain, but rather came from the rights of the king as overlord.’ However, receipts from this source always followed or preceded the forest income in the accounts, were directed by the same administration, and therefore may be treated here. Jers and danger are interesting for finance because they were evidently introduced to increase the royal revenue and the period of introduction falls entirely within the reign of St Louis. Beginning with small sums in 1238,° they produced more and more revenue as the royal officers gradually evolved the theory that all private woods owed these payments. It was eventually decided that the king should re-

ceive as tiers and danger one-third and one-tenth of the price paid to Norman land-owners for lumber from their woods, and by 1270 these imposts brought in a large annual revenue.’ They were collected, like the revenue from forest sales, in installments,’ and the financial officers had to keep track of licenses for sales of private woods which might be issued long before they were used.? Under the heading of revenue owed the king as overlord rather than as

proprietor come many important items. ‘They were all apt to be intermittent and never produced as steady an income as did the domain. Of 1H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 89; uhid., xx, 257; Layettes, v, no. 581; A. N., J '780 no. 4. 2 A.N., J 775, 780, passim. 3 Ibid., J 780, no. 4. 4 Layettes, v, no. 581, essarts of Breteuil give 1772.; Cart. Nor., no. 1176; Bib. de R., MS. Mart., Y94, fols. 32’., 57, purprestures of Rouvrai give 222. 3s., and purprestures of Montfort 602. 8s. 5 See below, chap. vi, pp. 76 ff. 6 A. 'F., xxi, 255 ff., amounts ranging from 2382. in Rouen to 102. in Verneuil. 7A.N., J 775, 780 passim. 8B. N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, ‘De tertio boscorum de Hennevilla pro secundo sexto 56%. De dangerio eiusdem pro secundo sexto 122.,’ etc. °B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 1, ‘Licentia-Fulco de Alneto 944 lib. Vendit 288 2. et solvit de eisdem

pro primo sexto 167. ... Petrus de Corceio 20 lib. Non vendit,’ etc.

Financial System 45 the feudal incidents, wardships were the most profitable. ‘They were given

a separate heading in the accounts, and even after the expenses of the heir, dower, and marriage-portions were paid, the king made a good profit.!

Reliefs were as a whole less important, and were not given a separate heading, though a knight’s fee paid 15 #. anda barony 1004.2. Escheats and

forfeitures were, of course, counted with the domain and might form a large part of that revenue.? Of the aids, the aurtlum exercitus brought in the largest revenue. It was taken very often‘ and in the one case where the total for a bailliage is known it produced the respectable sum of 8121.5 The towns with communes also had to pay substantial amounts to be relieved from military services.®

Permission for amortization, while it produced some revenue during St

Louis’ reign,’ was not important until after his death. He granted so many exemptions and special privileges’ that his officers were discouraged from making any attempts to collect from the Church. Philip 111 was less generous and ordered ecclesiastical establishments to make fine with his baillis for any acquisitions not exempted by Louis’ grants.®° During his reign, and even more during the reign of his successor, amortization brought in a large revenue. The right of regalia was a very important source of revenue. The Norman bishoprics were wealthy, and disputed elections and appeals to Rome

prolonged the vacancies to the profit of the king. During the middle of the century there was remarkable mortality among Norman bishops and 1 Ihid., pp. 1-11, p. 24, ‘Custodia Caleti,’ many marked ‘victum pagatum,’ “‘dotem et victum pagati.’ The wardship of a Tancarville heir gives 3287., others vary from 5 to 507. The county of Eu, in wardship, gives 787 7.

2 Ibid., p. 24, reliefs are added at the end with miscellaneous items; none are very large. Swmma, p. 107, for scale of reliefs.

3B. N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, escheats and forfeitures produce over 10007. in the Cotentin at Easter 1282. 4 See below, chap. v, p. 64.

5 A.N., J 775, no. 9, in Caen and Exmes in 1276. 6 Ech., no. 369, Raoul de Pont d’Ouilly is freed from tallage, but must pay ‘tallia exercitus’ whenever the king takes it at Falaise; zld., no. 376, sergeants at Caen exempted from ‘equitatu et exercitu et omni tallagio’; zbid., no. 737; Olam, 1, 910, tallage for the army of the king at Pont-Audemer; H. F., xxi, 255, 257, the burgesses of Rouen pay 5002. and the burgesses of Pontorson 2007. in 1238, probably for the army; zbid., 277, payments of towns of Gisors ‘pro auxilio regis’ in 1248 total 4052. Summa, p. 69, communes owe military service. 7B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 4, the abbey of Sées owes 200 ?. for amortization in 1268. 8 Cart. Nor., nos 572, 579, 591, etc., general confirmations of past acquisitions; zbid., nos. 747, 755, 760, etc., privileges allowing acquisition of new lands up to given amounts; ziid., no. 780, general permission to give tithes to the Church without asking the king’s consent. 9 Ord., 1, 303; Cart. Nor., nos 879, 880, 884, etc., Philip 111 confirms fines made by abbeys with the bazllis for amortization; rid., no. 897, he quits a fine of 527. for amortization; A. N., J 780 no. 5, Lire pays 352. 14s. for amortization in 1277; Manche, G 180, fol. 363, Eure, G 6, fol. 133, Philip Iv sent out special agents to hunt out this income.

46 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis the king received revenue from the regalia almost every year. Arrears of regalia from Rouen were accounted for in 1249; the bishop of Coutances asked restoration of his regalia in 1251; Avranches was in the king’s hand in 1253; there was a long vacancy at Evreux 1256-59; and the sees of Sées

and Bayeux were vacent in 1258 and 1261 respectively. The income from the bishoprics was collected by special agents of the Paris curva, though arrears were occasionally accounted for by the bazllis.2, The monasteries were also subject to the right of regalia, and there were many occasions to exercise this right during the reign of St Louis.* Since income

from the monasteries does not appear in the accounts of the baillis, it is probable that the special collectors of the regalia watched over the king’s interests in these cases as well. However, the monasteries frequently elected their new heads so rapidly that the profit from the regalia must have been rather scanty. For example, St Evroul asked lcentva elegend October 27, 1274, and asked restoration of the regalia December 2 of the same year. La Trinité du Mont worked even more rapidly; permission to elect was sought September 16, 1279, and the new election was announced September 29.5 While the Church was heavily burdened by the regalia, nevertheless it was exempt from payments customary in other regions. Gite was paid only by the Church of Chartres in a district which was hardly Norman.*® The attempts of the king to obtain gifts from the clergy in 1259 on the occasion of the peace with England, were unsuccessful,’ and were not renewed.

From the people of the duchy various payments were due. Most 1mportant was fouage, defined by the Summa as a payment made to the duke for his forgoing his right to alter the currency.® Paid only by those who

were not noble or otherwise exempted, it still brought in hundreds of pounds in every bailhage.? The aid of the viscount and bernage still existed in places, but these payments had become parts of the domain, owed 1 Brussel, Usage Général des Fiefs, 1, 469; Cart. Nor., nos 487, 512, 560, 1195, 617, 597; Olim, 1, 513.

2 See above, note 43. H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 92, 1300#. of the regalia of Rouen was spent in the defense of the Avranchin in 1230; B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, pp. 1, 6, the bazllis of Caen and the Cotentin owe small sums for the residue of the regalia of Bayeux; Brussel, 1, 469, 470. 3 Cart. Nor., no. 414 bis. 485, 488, etc. 4 Iiid., nos 841, 845. 5 Thid., nos 936, 938.

6 This payment may be found in the accounts of Gisors and Verneuil throughout the period; Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 179 in 1230; H. F., xxi, 276; H. F., xxu, 572, 746, in 1234 and 1261.

1A. F., xxi, 544. 8 Summa, p. 40.

9A.N., J 775 no. 6, the fouage of Verneuil gives 6247. at Michaelmas 1272; ibid., J 780, no. 4, the fouage of Verneuil gives 6251. at Michaelmas 12751.

Financial System 47 only by a few peasants as part of their rent, and were not levies on the people of the duchy.!. Tavernage was even less important and was eventually abolished.2. The towns, besides paying for exemption from military service, were burdened in other ways. The communes were practically forced to lease unprofitable pieces of the domain, in order to avoid enclaves within their walls which would interfere with their privileges.’ All towns were tallaged without the excuse of military necessity,‘ and

‘gifts’ and loans were taken from their inhabitants.’ In fact, it seems almost as if the king reviewed their accounts only to find out how much he could take from them.§®

The revenue derived from the Jews is rather hard to classify. As far as the Jews themselves were concerned, they were royal property,’ part of the domain, and a part of the domain which was jealously guarded. The right of the great barons to have Jews was bitterly contested by royal officers;® the king retained his Jews even when he granted the most extensive liberties and rights of justice,* and in many cases the Jews were pro-

tected far better than the average inhabitant of the duchy.!° On the other hand, much of the income arising from the king’s control of the Jews came from taking over the debts of third parties who were not necessarily residents on the royal domain, and in those cases the king seems to

be acting as overlord rather than as proprietor. Whatever its nature, the 1 B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, aid of the viscount in Mortain gives 331. 4s.; A. N., J 780 passim. “viscomitagium’ of Exmes gives 331. 8s. (both these had escheated to the king); H. F., xxt, 276, the bernage of Gisors in 1248 gave 662. 18s.; cf. B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 10; Bib. de R., MS. Mart., Y94, fol. 13; cbd., MS. Leber 5646. 2B. N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 3, tavernage owed in the Cotentin in 1268; Ech., no. 801, ordinance abolishing tavernage in 1258. 3 Cart. Nor., nos. 291, 330, fief farms to the commune of Rouen for 702. a year; ibid., no. 647, the town receives only 652. from these holdings in 1260. However some of these grants might be indirectly beneficial to trade, e.g. the right to build new quais. 4 A. Giry, Les établissements de Rouen, 1, 42-44; Olim, u1, 82; Cart. Nor., no. 1187; Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 182, tallage of towns of the bailliage of Verneuil yields 182 7. m 1227. ° B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p.5, Bayeux owes 13 #. 6s. ‘pro dona’ in 1275; Bib. de R., MS. Leber, 5646, Bayeux owes 142. 6s. ‘pro dona’ in 1278; B. N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, ‘Dona villarum,’ first installments of gifts from the towns of the Cotentin in 1282. The amounts run from 107. to 802. and total 424¢. Cart. Nor., no. 664, a loan for the king was being collected in Pont-Audemer, ca. 1275, by the bishop of Bayeux and Pére Michel; Bib. de R., MS. Leber, 5870, x1, f. 76, loans to the king in the bailliage of Gisors totaled 2154. at Ascension 1285. Cart. Nor., no. 647, Rouen paid the king 10002. in 1260, this may be a gift for the treaty of 1259, since French towns were assessed on this occasion. 6 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 95. ’ Ord., 1, 53, the Jews may be treated ‘tanquam proprium servum,’ 1230. 8 Olim, 1, '791, 811; 1, 195. 9 Cart. Nor., 216, 320.

10 Fch., no. 294. If a Jew kills or is killed by a Christian, the king may make inquiry by anyone and do as he pleases. This apparently includes cases in territories of lords with high justice; zbid., no. 295, the burgesses of Bernai are fined for not preventing the murder of a Jew; ibid., no. 315 and Olim, u, 212, Jews protected against the Church.

48 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis revenue from the Jews was an important item in royal finances, especially

in emergencies. Philip Augustus protected the Jews and took most of their profits; Louis vir and Louis rx persecuted them and took most of their property, but either policy brought in large sums.1 The Jews could be made to contribute to the royal treasury in three ways. The most legitimate was to tax their business operations by compelling them to register letters of debt and charging for the registration, or by tallaging their property. Once the debts had been registered the king might step in and take them over, sometimes allowing the debtor a large discount. King and debtor both profited by this arrangement, and if the Jew had been lucky enough to collect a few years’ interest at the legal rate of 433 per cent, or the illegal rates that ran even higher, he might save his profit as well. Finally, the property of the Jews might be confiscated on various religious and legal pretexts, or, under threat of confiscation, large sums might be extorted for extraordinary expenses. The registration of debts was the essential operation in drawing money from the Jews, for this produced revenue in itself and gave the information needed if the debts or property of the Jews were to be taken over by the king. The system of registration at first adopted by Philip Augustus was very like the one used in Normandy by the Angevins, and direct Norman influence is not impossible, since the ordinance requiring registration was

made only two years after the conquest of the duchy.2, However, the later ordinances of Philip Augustus, Louis vir, and Louis rx abandoned the Angevin idea of separate agents and seals for the Jews, and required the debts to be registered before the baillis.2 St Louis did send out special commissioners for the affairs of the Jews, but they had only intermittent authority* and as a result a separate administrative body for Jewish affairs developed much more slowly in France than in England. After trying a policy of confiscation and banishment, Philip Augustus seems to have decided that he could make more if he permitted the Jews to carry on their business and took as much of their profits as the traffic would bear. According to Brussel, whose figures are probably not complete, the Jews of Normandy paid a ‘taille’ of 7172.p. at All Saints 1217, 1 There is little material on the relations between the Jews and the royal administration. Most of what we know is in Brussel, 1, 569 ff. A. Vuity, Etudes sur le Régime Financier de la France (Paris, 1878) has a good section on the Jews, pp. 315-332. Dubnov, Weltgeschichte des Judischen Volkes,

(Berlin, 1927), v, 26-55 has little new. An article by L. Lazard, ‘Les Revenus Tirés des Juifs de France, 13°¢s.’ in Revue des Etudes Juives, xv, 233 ff. gives some valuable documents, but is very in-

complete. Petit-Dutaillis’ Etude sur ... Louis viii, pp. 414-418 is good for the period 1223-1226. 2 Ord., 1, 44. Two men are commissioned in each town to take care of the registration of debts and the special seal of the Jews, and one man to write the letters. 3 [bid., 1, 35, 47, 53. 4 Calvados H 1663; Layettes, v, no. 372.

Financial System 49 and 2773 14.p. the following Candlemas.!. These are not exorbitant levies, especially if the Jews were exempt from some of the burdens imposed on

burgesses of the towns, as they were in later years.2, However, Philip does not seem to have been content with such small sums, and there are indications of confiscation of debts and property after the ordinance of 1206. Inthe Querimoniae there are several references to debts taken over by Philip Augustus, and one seems to come in 1207, immediately after the first registration.2 The inquest on debts owed the Jews in Normandy,‘ made between 1207 and 1211, may also be connected with this seizure of debts. However, while Philip may have taken the debts of the Jews once or twice, he certainly was not trying to ruin them or to drive them out of his kingdom.

Louis vit and Louis 1x adopted a new policy. They accepted, and tried to enforce, the Church’s teachings about usury. Inasmuch as moneylending was the only business possible for the Jews to pursue, they were continually represented to the king as transgressors of divine and human law, and were continually punished by confiscations and banisbments.

Louis vir took the first step by ordering all debts to be paid in a given term, during which interest ceased to run, and by refusing to recognize any letters of debt more than four years old.’ These provisions were not quite as harsh as they seem, since the legal maximum interest on a debt would return the original sum plus 73 per cent in four years. Louis viil's policy was continued during the minority of Louis rx and in 1235 the king

took the final step of forbidding the Jews to live by usury.” This remained the policy of the king during the rest of the reign,’ and while it was not completely successful, it probably interfered with the Jews’ business

and opened the field to Christian money-lenders. It is significant that at the end of the reign the towns have borrowed heavily from the Lombards, and not the Jews.? However, the Jews were not freed from their financial burdens simply

because their business was being ruined. A payment of 86802. by the 1 Brussel, 1, 581.

2 Arresta Communia, no. 6, the Jews of Bernai cannot be made to share in the watch of the town, 1276.

3 Quer. Nor., nos 97, 251, 388, 416. Cf. Delisle, Actes de Philippe Auguste, p. 509, Philip ‘took’ 14 Jews of Normandy shortly after the conquest.

4H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 25. The debts owed Deodatus of Verneuil are separately listed here and Quer. Nor., no. 251 is a complaint about a debt owed Deodatus which was seized by Philip Augustus. Deodatus had been prominent under John, see B.E.C., xu, 134. 5 Ord., 1, 47. 6 Thid., 53.

7 Ech., no, 581, the ordinance is registered by the Exchequer at Michaelmas, 1235. 8 Ord., 1, 85.

® Cart. Nor., nos 647-651.

50 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis Jews of the kingdom appears in the first accounts of 1227, which is slightly more than the 7550 #. which Brussel gives as the total income from Jews in 1217.1 The next year the Jews of Gisors paid 611 #., asum roughly com-

parable to that which they paid as tallage in 1217 from a nearby district (Gaillon).2 In 1230, the king ordered all debtors of the Jews to pay their obligations in three installments, and in 1231, two Jews of Normandy, ‘Aloudus,’ and Morel of Falaise, gave 30002. for the fortifications of Avranches.’ It seems probable that the Jews had to pay for the privilege of collecting their debts after the royal intervention, and that this represents a sum raised from the Jews of Normandy by their leaders.4 Either

at this time, or a little later, many debts were taken over by the king. We have lists of debts to be collected by royal agents in Bayeux and Carentan, and an indication that some of the money was returned to the Jews.> A certain Nicholas Arrodes seems to have been in charge of this

operation. The ordinance forbidding usury came about 1235, and in 1238 the bazllis of Rouen, Caen, and Verneuil accounted for a debt owed the Jews which they had collected.? In 1239 the Exchequer referred to a recent ‘taking’ of the Jews.? In 1248 the king took the debts again and pardoned the one-third of the sums owed by the debtors.® In the same year, or the next, the Jews were expelled from France and their property 1 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 183; Brussel, 1, 581. 2 Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5870, tv, fol. 5. 3H. F., XXIv, preuves, no. 92.

4 Lazard, op. cit., p. 234, representatives of the Jews collected a ‘cens’ levied on them in Paris; B.N., MS. Lat. 10982, fol. 17, a list of four Jews of Normandy (Manasses de Lyre of Verneuil, Morellus of Falaise, Caletus of Pont-Audemer, and Copinus of Gloz) and four Jews of France who seem to have been representatives of their communities. Morel appears frequently in Norman records, usually as a victim of confiscations; Delisle, Actes de Philippe Auguste, p. 509 he was one of the fourteen Jews of Normandy seized by Philip c. 1205, see also Ech., nos 349, 514, 542, 543, and Quer. Nor., nos 388, 416. Caletus may be the ‘Aloudus’ of 1231; he is mentioned in Lch., nos 552, 675c, and Quer. Nor., no. 67. The baillz of Verneuil accounted for the vineyard of a Manasses about 1278, Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5646; Delisle, Etudes sur la Classe Agricole, pp. 197, 199, debts paid to Manasses of Verneuil. A Jew named Copinus paid brother Garin 502. in 1202, (Brussel, 11, 197) and

as Garin was frequently sent into Normandy during and after the conquest, this may be a payment by Copinus of Gloz.

5 Layettes, v., no. 372 (A. N.J 943, no. 17). The printed summary contains some serious errors (vir x11 has been read as 8012) but the general natureof the document is plain. The debts owed the Jews are listed; if not paid, the reason is given (‘nihil habet,’ ‘non potest inveniri,’ ‘fugitivus est’) and

at the bottom, under ‘Expensa’ is “Templ. pro Judeis karent. 1721.14s.’ “Templ. pro Judeis Baioc. 2142. 18s. 4d.’ See similar rolls for France, Layettes, v, no. 371 and Lazard, op. cit., p. 243. 6 Layettes, v, no. 371, and no. 372, Nicolas is mentioned in each roll, and sends a list of debts to

Norman agents. Ch. de Beaurepaire, La Vicomté de l Eau de Rouen, p. 323, Nicolas Arrode and Guillaume Barbette arbitrated a dispute between the viscounts of the water and the commune of Rouen in 1238.

7H. F., xxi, 255, 256. 8 Ech., no. 662. 9 Jind., no. 735.

Financial System 51 confiscated. This time the debts and the property were seized, administered, and sold by the bazllzs,! and in 1252 the baal of Caen was still accounting for small sums received from the sale of the chattels of the Jews by the burgesses of Caen, Falaise, and Vire.2 After his return from the crusade, St Louis appointed a commission to return to the debtors any proceeds of ‘usury’ which might have entered the royal treasury when the property of the Jews was confiscated.2 The commission, with a somewhat changed membership, was doing this work in Normandy in 1257,4 but even if they returned all sums paid as interest, the king still had as profit the principal of the debt and the property which he had seized.

St Louis permitted the Jews to return to his domain, but naturally, after the blow of 1248, they found it hard to reéstablish their business.° No further record of payments by the Jews of Normandy is found until 1285,° in spite of the fact that we have very full extracts from the accounts of Verneuil for the reign of Philip 11. This silence about the Jews in the batllis’ records could be explained by assuming that the separate administration for the Jews, which is known to exist after 1285, was already functioning before that date. In any case, the Jews had recovered sufficiently by 1285 to make them well worth plundering by Philip 1v, and to make necessary elaborate machinery for collecting the Jewish revenue.’ The work of administration produced some revenue. ‘The profits of justice were large and amercements of 100%. or more were not uncommon.

Almost every court action ended with an amercement of plaintiff, or de-

fendant, or both. However, these items became less important as the other revenue increased, and the profits of justice occupy no such place in the accounts of the bazllis as they did in the Exchequer rolls of the twelfth century. The bazllis and viscounts also charged for authenticating docu1 Ord., 1, 85, ‘Quod autem de bonis Judaeorum ubicunque substractum fuerit, habitum, vel receptum a quibuscunque ballivis, prepositis, seu aliis...de quo nondum rationabilem compotum reddiderint .. .’ * Layettes, v, no. 581, chattels of Jews ‘receptis per burgenses Falesie’ 332. 16s., Caen 6012., 5s., Vire 122., 10s. 3 Ord., 1, 85.

4 Calvados, H 1663. The king had appointed Guillaume, bishop of Orleans, B., abbot of Bonneval, and Pierre, archdeacon of Poissy; the commissioners in Normandy were Hervey, abbot of Bonne-

val, Pierre, archdeacon of Poissy, and Master Guillaume canon of Paris. For another commission see H. F., xxtv, *6. 5 Cart. Nor., no. 674, the son of Morel nevertheless had property worth 2002. which he sold to a monastery in 1261. His father’s position, however, may have saved him. 6 H. F., xx, 668, Jews of Caen pay 501. tur., those of Rouen 1002. tur., at All Saints, 1285. 7 See Lazard, op. cit., and B.E.C., xiv, J. Havet, ‘Compte du Tresor du Louvre.’ 8 H.F., xxi, 255, Jean des Vignes accounts for 7351. in esplees from Rouen and Caen in 1238; H.F., XXIV. preuves, no. 89, of a total Norman revenue of 39,000 ?. tur. in 1230 esplees gave only 19001. tur.; B.N., MS. Lat., 17010, no. 3, ‘de emenda domini Guillelmi Crispin 100 #.,’ other fines in the Cotentin total over 70027., Easter 1282.

52 Administration of Normandy Under Si Louis ments with their seals, and this brought in small sums each year.! Corrections by the baillis of overestimates of expenses in the preceding exercise were also listed with receipts.’ The king received money from other rights as overlord. Wrecks and

great fish were his, and they produced a few pounds now and then. Treasure-trove and lands of bastards dead without heirs also went to the king.t Two, at least, of his officers left him legacies, 10002. in the case of Jean de Criqueboeuf, a former bazllz of Verneuil, and 50%. from Master Nicholas, a royal clerk.® The subsidies to the king for defense of the realm, or for the defense of Normandy alone,* may be said to be the beginning of a real system of taxa-

tion. The first such subsidies were the grants from the Church. These grants, while free gifts from an equal power, became in the end almost a regular payment and an exceedingly important source of revenue. They were at first collected by the Church without interference by the king, and in Normandy, with Eudes Rigaud to supervise the work, they were collected thoroughly and efficiently.” By the time of Philip tv, royal collectors were used who did most of the work.’ Philip tv also introduced other imposts leading to national taxation, such as the subsidies for the war in Flanders,® and the tax on sales.1°

Expenditures in Normandy were not very great. ‘The largest sums were spent in ‘liberationes,’ the wages of castellans, forest officers, sergeants, chaplains," and the salaries of the bazllz and viscounts.” All these 1B.N., US. Lat., 9018, p. 23, seal of the bailli of Caux gives 317. at Easter 1279; A. N., J 780 no. 3, the seal of the bailli of Verneuil gives 277. at Michaelmas 1271; zbid., no. 7, the seal of the viscount of Verneuil gives 10 7. 15s. and the seal of the viscount of Vire 6 /. 18s. at Michaelmas, 1282.

2B.N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 23; H. F., xxu, 572. 3 Summa, p. 45; H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 167. 4 Summa, p. 49, 115; A. N., J 775 no. 6, credit of 27. for treasure-trove in Verneuil in 1272; B. N., MS. Lat., 17010, no. 3, 997. 12s. 8d. from treasure-trove in the Cotentin, 1282; Ech., no. 428, the king is given the property of a bastard. 5 A.N., J 780 no. 4. 6 Prentout, Les Etats Provinciaux de Normandie, (Caen, 1925) 1, in 1266 the bishops of Lisieux, Bayeux, Coutances, and Avranches were asked to contribute for the defense of the Norman coast. Cf. Olim, 1, 632, levy on merchants for the same purpose in 1265. 7 Eudes Rigaud, pp. 307, 318, 319, 345, etc., priests are excommunicated for failure to pay the

king’s tenth or twelfth. Manche, H 15216, the tenth of 1269, was also collected by the Church; ibid., H 174, 15220, the Aragon tenth also seems to have been freely collected, but under Philip 1v

churchmen who are directly responsible to the king appear as collectors. H. F., xx1, 547, 541, tenths collected in Normandy at the end of the century brought in the very large sums of 33,000 to 35,000 pounds. 8 Manche, H 174. 9 See below, chap. v, p. 67. 10 Boutaric, Actes, 1, 287.

1 A, F., xxi, 277; A. N., J 775, 780, passim. 12 These salaries may be considered with the others, though in the surviving accounts the salaries

Financial System 53 payments were accounted for by the bazllz, but many were reckoned in hwres

parisis and the terms of payment were those of the curia instead of those of the Exchequer.! This may indicate a certain amount of interference with the baillz’s control of his subordinates; it looks as if the wages were assigned by the curia as rents on the bazllcage, and that the baillz was bound to pay them even though the officer failed to satisfy him. There is a tendency for the number of royal officials to increase during the century, especially noticeable in the forest administration.2 No detailed accounts of wages before 1252 are available, except for Gisors,? but as a whole salaries do not seem to have increased during the century or even after 1300.4 Variations up and down occur regularly, and Philip 1 ordered a general reduction in 1279, the results of which are clearly visible in the accounts of Verneuil.®

The money spent in ‘feoda et elemosine’ was almost equal to that spent in wages. ‘The old established charges, most of which were tithes for the Church, were usually grouped in lump sums for each part of the bazlhage,* the new grants were listed separately.7. St Louis often established new rents,’ usually in favor of the Church, though grants to individuals were not uncommon.® Some of these payments were pensions to old royal officials,!° others were to pay for lands or rights taken by the king." The ‘conversi,’ though less numerous in Normandy than elsewhere, also received of the viscounts usually come after the ‘feoda et elemosine’ and the bazllz’s salary at the end of the account instead of with the ‘liberationes.’ Cf. Layettes, v, no. 581. Details of the wages paid may be found below, App. 111 and tv, and chap. vi, pp. 70 ff. 1B.N., MS. Lat., 17010, no. 3, many wages in the Cotentin for Easter 1282 are calculated from Nativity or Candlemas to St. John’s day, and in livres parisis; cbid., 9018, p. 23, wages of the bailliage of Caux are reckoned in the same way at Easter 1279; cf. Layettes, v, no. 581, and A. N., J'780. 2 See below, chap. vi, pp. 72, 73.

8, F., Xxt, 277. 4 Yor the salaries of the batllis and viscounts see appendices ur and iv. For forest officers compare the wages in A. N., J 775 and 780 with those reported by E. Decq for the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in B. E. C., uxxxu, 83 ff. 5 A. N., J 780 no. 6, ‘Pro denariis redditis eisdem a tempore ante diminutionem gagiorum, videlicet, a festo nativitatis beati Johannis Baptiste usque ad diem martis post nativitatem beate Marie Virginis,’ repeated a few lines below. A comparison of the wages in A. N., J 780 no. 5 with A. N., J 780 no. 6 and no. 7 shows a decrease in many cases, often by paying the same number of pence per day in money of Tours instead of in money of Paris. 6 B.N., MS. Lat., 17010, no. 3, ‘Feoda et elemosine Constanc. 137.10s. Feoda et elemosine vicecomitatus Karent. 814. 5s. 1d.,’ etc. Cf. A. N.J 780, where such items are larger, but in the same form.

7B.N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 23, 24. 8 Cart. Nor., nos 1170, 550, 609, 759, ete. 9B. N., JTS. Lat., 9018, p. 24, rents given two clerks; A. N., J 780, no. 5, rent to the prior of Cuissy; tbid., no. 7, rent of Jean de Longuey. 10 Cart. Nor., no. 808, pension to Baudoin de Longueval, former castellan of Vaudreuil; A. N., J 780, no. 3 and ff., pension to Master Nicholas of Verneuil, a royal clerk. 1 Cart. Nor., no. 1153, 429, 1023, etc.

54 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts pensions.! These pensions were never numerous enough to decrease seriously the royal revenue. The third heading of the expense account, ‘opera,’ might be translated as public works except for the fact that the money was spent for the bene-

fit of the king instead of the public. Repairs to royal castles were the largest item of expenditure;? then followed work on mills, ovens, markethalls, and other profitable monopolies.2 Some work was done on roads and bridges, but they were often the roads leading to royal castles, and the bridges over the castle moats.*’ Even when the road or bridge was made for the people, the king profited by having its justice and levying tolls. Other expenses never ran very high. The costs of administration, except for wages, were insignificant. Parchment for accounts,‘ food of prisoners,’ and attorneys for ecclesiastical courts® were the usual items. A bounty on wolves was paid regularly in each bavllrage.2 Royal writs occasionally ordered a debt forgiven,!° but unless he were establishing a permanent rent the king usually did not draw on his Norman revenues until they reached Paris. The expenses of royal agents sent from Paris on special occasions were usually paid by the bazllz in whose district they worked." The bazllz also listed corrections in the preceding account in his expenses,

when he found that he had overestimated the value of a revenue.” 1A.N., J 780, no. 5 and ff., pension of 3s. par. a week to ‘Andreas Conversus.’

2A.N., J 775 no. 9, Master Ivo and Jean d’Escerlitte spend 10917. in repairs to the castle of Breteuil, by the king’s order, 1276; 2bzd., J '780 passim; H. F., xx, 646, a typical list of ‘opera’ in Gisors in 1285. 3 Layettes, v, no. 581, a new oven at Exmes 147. 13s., a new oven and repairs to the mill of Rugles

182. 10s.; A. N., J 780, no. 4, work on the market of Lire by the prévét 82., work on the mill of Ste Scolaste by the prévét 71., etc. 4 Layettes, v, no. 581, bridges at the castles of Bonsmoulins and Exmes 4472. 3s.; A. N., J 780 no. 5,

repairs to the moat and bridge of Breteuil by the castellan cost 44s.; and the bridge at the gate of Bonsmoulins 77.; B. N., MS. Lat., 17010 no. 3, ‘pro operibus ballivie, molendinorum, pontium, furnorum, calceiarum, et hallorum 1502.’ This is a common entry in all the accounts. 5 Cart. Nor., nos. 605, 606, 771, charters of freedom from péage, pontage, etc.; Bib. de R., MS. Leber, 5870, tv, fol. 3, péage taken in Gisors; zbid., MS. Mart., Y94, fol. 48, péage of Pont-Audemer gives 437. a year; A. N., J 775 no. 12, 30s. from the pontage of the bridge of Quesnou.

6B. N., MS. Lat. 17010 no. 3, allowance of 20s. for parchment to each viscount in the Cotentin, Easter 1282. 7 Ibid., Justice (executions), messengers, and food of prisoners 43%. Ibid., 9018, p. 23, these items cost 32 2. in Caux in 1279.

8 Ibid., 17010 no. 3, 9018, p. 23, this cost 2372. in the Cotentin and 48/. in Caux for these same terms. ® Tbid., 41. in the Cotentin and 12. in Caux; A. N., J 780, no. 3, 62. in Verneuil at Easter 1271 and 102. 15s. at Michaelmas 1271; 2zbid., no. 5, 162. 5s. in Caen in 1277. 10 A,N., J 780, nos 4,5; B. N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 11, 23.

1B. N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 23, the bailli of Verneuil pays the expenses of an inquest held by a royal clerk for Parlement; cf. H. F., xx1, 752; A. N., J 780, no. 5. 122 B.N., MS. Lat., 17010, no. 3, several corrections of over-estimates in this form, ‘pro denariis nhimis computatis...’

Financial System 55 The difference between receipt and expenditure did not represent the sum received by the king. The bailli always retained a sum of several hundred pounds to pay expenses until the new receiptscamein.! Debtors of the king were often allowed several years in which to pay the sums owed.? With these items accounted for, the king still made a handsome profit from Normandy. Comparison with receipts from other regions is not entirely fair, because the administrative system varied, and the reports of the bazllis are far from giving all the revenue. ‘The figures do show the importance of Normandy. At Michaelmas 1230, Normandy gave 31,829 L.p. gross and 23,007 t.p. net revenue.? At Ascension 1238, the gross total of all the bazllrages was 101,27914.p.; of this gross Normandy gave 38,8571.p.4 At All Saints 1286, the total income was 209,321 t.p. of which the Exchequer contributed 56,677 2.p. At Ascension 1287, the total

revenue is not given, but the Exchequer sent in 59,842i.p.5. This seems to have been about the normal Norman revenue for this period, for in 1296 the Exchequer gave 57,180 #.p.§ 1H. F., xxi, 255 ff., the amounts ‘de compoto’ run from 20017. to 50027. in 1238; A. N., J '780, the baillis of Verneuil and Caen regularly have from 2002. to 10002. ‘de compoto,’ the amounts show a tendency to increase after 1270. 2B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, passim, e.g., ‘Pro respectu Radulfi de Acei 251.’; ibid., 17010, no. 3, they were accounted for in this form, ‘de respectu Thome Pithelou pro secundo octavo 502.’ 3 H. F., XXIv, preuves, no. 89. 4 Ibid., xx1, 255, 259. 5 Delisle, Opérations financiéres des Templiers, p. 120. 6 B. E. C., xuv (1884), 245.

V

KNIGHT SERVICE IN NORMANDY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: A STUDY of knight service in Normandy in thein thirteenth century shows the continuity of Norman institutions, spite of the conquest and separation from England. The French kings were at first content to preserve the rights of their predecessors without attempting innovations; the changes that occur during the first part of the century are logical developments, inherent in the system, and it is only toward the end of the period that deliberate interference by the king may be seen. The general characteristics of the Norman military system are well known.? The obligation of military service was a common feature of the bond between vassal and lord; the striking thing in the Norman system was the definiteness of the obligation and its evaluation in terms of the unit of the knight’s fee. Each military tenant owed the service of a fixed number of knights for a period of, usually, forty days. The number of knights was probably roughly proportionate to the value of the tenant’s holdings, but the fact that the service of the more important lords was assessed by arbitrary groups of five, shows that it had originally no direct connection with definite amounts of land.? However, with time the fees did become fixed to the land, they could be located geographically, and it was possible to say that a certain piece of land owed a certain amount of service. The tenants-in-chief followed the same system in their relations with their vassals. They granted land to be held by the service of a definite number of knights and these rear-vassals in turn might create fiefs on the same conditions.® In many cases theservice owed the tenants-in-chief was greater than the service they owed the duke; the bishop of Bayeux was 1 This chapter has already been published in Haskins Anniversary Essays (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1929). It has been revised, and some new material has been added.

2 J. H. Round, Feudal England (London, 1895), chapter on knight service, pp. 225 ff; C. H. Haskins, England and Sicily, in E. H. R., xxvi, 655 ff; P. Guilhiermoz, Essai sur l’ Origine de la Noblesse en France (Paris, 1902), pp. 183-194 and passim, H. Prentout, Les Etats Provinciaux de Normandie, 1, 52-64. 8 Round, op. cit., p. 241; cf. the list of Norman tenants in H. F., xx111, 693-694, where five-knight

groups are particularly noticeable. 4 Tiid., pp. 693 ff.

5 See the list of tenants of the honor of Mortain, many of whom had knights holding from them, ahid., p. 696. 56

Knight Service in Normandy 57 not the only one to have five times as many knights as he needed to discharge his obligation.! Not only was the amount of service definitely fixed but it was definitely recorded. Henry 1, in 1133, made a list of the knight’s fees held of the bishop of Bayeux;? Roger of Sicily drew up a record of the service of all his kingdom a few years later,? and Henry 11 was perhaps influenced by these examples. In 1166 in England, and 1172 in Normandy, he ordered the tenants-in-chief to furnish him a list, not only of the knight’s fees they held, but also of the knight’s fees held of them,’ thus securing a complete record of military tenures. The advantages of the Norman system can best be seen if these lists of Henry 11 are compared with the lists of fiefs drawn up about the same time in Champagne,’ and forty or fifty years later in France.’ In these nonNorman statements of holdings the service is indicated merely by saying that the tenant is ‘homo ligius,’ that he owes ‘exercitum et equitatum’ or castle-guard. The unit of the knight’s fee does not appear, and the service seems to be the result of a purely personal relation between the lord and the vassal, not the result of holding land that owed a fixed amount of service. While a wealthy vassal would be expected to bring other knights to the army with him, this obligation was not defined and was not recorded.’ If any army was to be raised solely by feudal methods and on the basis of feudal service, the Norman system gave the best results possible. Such an army was perhaps sufficient for purely defensive operations, especially as in such cases it could be reinforced by the ‘arriéreban,’ a service owed,

theoretically at least, by all tenants. Even for this purpose it was not entirely satisfactory, owing to the limit of forty days’ service, and for pro-

longed operations outside the duchy it was almost useless. Moreover, 1 [bid., pp. 694-695. 2 Iind., p. 699. 3G. Del Re, Cronisti e serittori (Naples, 1845), 1, 197; Haskins, loc. cit. 4. F., xxuu, 703; The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (London, 1896), 1, 270, 275, 412. 6’ A. Longnon, Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne (Paris, 1901), vol. 1.

6 H. F., xxi, 646 ff. 7 Even in 1272, when some of the great French vassals have ‘servicia debita’ (H. F., xx111, 753), many do not know the number of knights they should bring, e.g., the seigneur of Coq who sends 10 knights ‘dubitat tamen quantum debet pro exercitu’; zbid., p. 759. Cf. p. 753, and p. 778.

8 H. F., xxut, 693, ‘Episcopus de Costanciis servicium v militum et ad suum servicium xIII milites (id est debet capere servicium x1 militum pro exercitu et similiter de aliis)’ (the part in parentheses is found only in the French copy of the list); p. 694, the Bishop of Lisieux owes 20 knights

‘et praeter haec habet x milites in banleuca Lexoviensis qui remanent ad custodiendam civitatem donec retrobannus summoneatur et tunc ibunt’; p. 701, ‘Omnes vero vavassores episcopi (of Bayeux) qui tenunt libere quinquaginta acras terrae vel sexaginta aut eo amplius debent servicium domino Normannie in exercitibus suis submonitis nomine proelii’; Rot. Scac., v1, 99, ‘Rogerus de Bosco, 20 sol, quia non venit ad retrobannum,’ see also pp. 94, 104, 95.

58 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis there was a constant tendency to subdivide the unit of the knight’s fee, and though this was contrary to the custom! it could not be avoided in cases where there were only daughters to inherit. Many fractions appear in the list of 1172, some tenants owe only five days’ service;? and the ten-

ants-in-chief met with the same difficulties in making up their contingents. These tenants of small holdings would be poorly armed, poorly trained farmers rather than soldiers. It was obviously to the sovereign’s interest to take money instead of service, and with the money to hire mercenaries; it was often to the interest of the vassal to avoid service by a payment in its place. This commutation of service for money appears early in Normandy, and by 1172 it was well established under the name of ‘auxilium exercitus,”* less frequently ‘scutagium.”* Each fee paid a certain amount, which varied from four to ten pounds in the aids taken under

Richard and John;* the tenants-in-chief, after paying the king, collected from their vassals,° who in turn collected from their non-military tenants.’ The king reserved the right to take service or money as he chose, and those who defaulted when service was asked seem to have paid a fine as well as the cost of a knight to take their place.*®

Was the aid levied only on the number of fees owed the king, the ‘servicium debitum,’ or on the total number of fees held of the vassal? Ifthe former method was followed, and the tenant then took the same amount from each fee held from him as was taken by the king for each fee he held, he would have had, in most cases, a tremendous profit. The custom of the thirteenth century specifically forbade the tenant such a practice.’ 1 Summa, p. 79.

2A. F., xxi, 697. 3 Rot. Scac., v, 83; v1, 4, 89, and passim.

4B. E. C., xi, 125; A. F., xxi, 622. 5 Rot. Scac., v1, 85, 89, an aid of seven pounds; pp. 92, 94, an aid of five pounds; pp. 4, 30, an aid of ten pounds; v, 76, 83, 86, aids of four and eight pounds. 6 B. E. C., xu, 125-126; Ech., nos. 24, 99, 304, cases in the first quarter of the thirteenth century. 7 Ech., nos 239, 392, 439, 628, the seigneur of Tilliéres agrees with his men on the scale of payments for ‘auxilium exercitus’; a free holding is to pay Qs., a “vancia’ 12d., a ‘bordaria’ 8d. 8 H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 43, judgment of assizes of Coutances 1217, ‘si vero dominus rex maluit capere denarios pro servicio militum quam ipsum servicium; zbid., no. 48, assizes of Avranches, 1218, ‘quicquid domino regi de ipso placeret capere sive militem sive denarios’; F-ch., nos 370, 380, fines for default of knights in 1225 and 1227; Ord., x1, 351, Philip ur fixes the scale of fines for those who did

not perform service in 1272. The vassal may have had the right to insist on giving service instead of money, cf. Rot. Scac., v1, 103, where an aid of 181. 6s. 8d. for three and two-thirds fees is quit ‘quia

fecerunt servicium.’ See, however, Lch., nos 24, 304, where a tenant is forced to pay aid. * Summa, p. 126, ‘nec majus auxilium exercitus potest de jure aliquis levare quam illud quod domino vel principi tenetur persolvere’; p. 71, ‘si forte habuerint feoda taliter instituta quod unum, vel duo, vel 111, vel 1111 eorum ... debeant facere servicium unius militis apud ducem, quodlibet eorum secundem quantitatem sui de illo servicio faciet aut persolvet prout barones et milites collocabunt.’

Knight Service in Normandy 59 On the other hand, it is doubtful that the English practice of assessing aid on all the fees, and not solely on the ‘servicium debitum,”! was followed. If such an attempt was made it was not very successful, and the evidence

for it is slight. The fact that the tenants of Normandy, like the tenants of England, were asked the number of knights at their service,? would seem to indicate the same purpose of increasing the aid by assessing it on all their fees, but there are other possible reasons for demanding this in-

formation. The official excuse given in England, that the king wanted the allegiance of the rear-vassals,? may not have been entirely false, and as almost every honor was sure to be in the king’s hands at some time, either by wardship or escheat, it was obviously to his interest to know the

tenants and the services they owed the lord. In the lists of the county of Champagne,‘ and of France under Philip Augustus,’ the names of rear-vassals are also given, and here there can be no question of such an attempt to increase the aid. A stronger reason for supposing that the increase was made is the fact that honors in the king’s hand paid on their total number of fees* and not on the ‘servicium debitum,’ but in such cases the position of both parties was exceptional. On the other hand, we know that many tenants paid only for the ‘servicium debitum,’” and they were numerous enough to make it seem that this was the rule. 1 Red Book, 1; compare the scutages of 1159 (p. 13), and 1172 (p. 48), with the lists of fees (pp. 186 ff). The bishop of London pays for 20 knights in 1159, he admits having enfeoffed 363 in 1166, and pays for 20 plus 163 under protest in 1172. Even in England this increase does not seem to have been an entire success, and in later scutages the old assessment is restored. Thus, in 1186, the bishop of Winchester who paid for 84 knights in 1172 (p. 55), pays for only 60 (p. 67), and again for only

60 in 1190 (p. 72). The bishop of London likewise returns to his old quota in 1196 (p. 97). See, however, Round, op. cit., pp. 241 ff.

2H. F., xxl, 703; Red Book, 1, 186 ff. 3 Red Book, 1, 277, 412. 4 Longnon, op. cvt., passim.

6 A. F., xxi, 670 and passim. 6 Rot. Scac., vi, 4, ‘110 lib. de auxilio exercitus de feodo x1 militum de honore de Moon qui faciunt V milites ad servicium regis’; p. 30, the knight’s fees of Hugh de Montfort pay a total of 229 f. 11s. 8d.

which corresponds with the 22¢ plus one-fourth fees of the list of the honor in 1172 (H. F., xxm 698) where it is stated that the service due the king is not known. 7 Rot. Scac., vi, 89, the bishop of Coutances pays for five fees, but (H. F., xx111, 694) has thirteen

for his own service; p. 89, Guillaume de Sole pays for one fee and (H. F., xx, 696) two are held of him; p. 89, Jordan de Champarnoul, who also (H. F., xx, 696) has two knights, pays for only the one of his ‘servicium debitum’; p. 92, Oliver de Tracy pays for one knight and (H. F., xx, 696) has four; p. 94, Torgise de Tracy pays for two and has (H. F., xx, 696) eight. These cases are of the roll of 1203. There are others in the roll of 1195; Rot. Scac., v, 83, Fulk de Vieux-Pont pays for the

two knights of his ‘servicitum debitum’ instead of the ten at his service (H. F., xx, 695); p. 87, Fulk d’Aunay pays for four and has twenty-four (H. F., xxi, 695); p. 87, Robert de Buneboz pays for one and has three (H. F., xxu11, 697). However, there is one case where payment is made on the full number; Rot. Scac. v1, 12, Pierre de Sableuil pays for eleven and a half knights, and (H. F., xxi 695) Amaury de Sableuil owed three knights and had eleven and one-half for his own service. The change in ownership may have caused a wardship during which the king would collect from all the

60 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts It seems probable, then, that the aid was assessed only on the ‘servicium debitum,’ amd that the tenant divided the total sum he owed among

the fees at his service. The bishop of Bayeux followed this practice in raising money from his hundred fees to procure his contingent of ten or twenty knights,! and there is no reason to suppose that he acted otherwise if he were raising money to pay the ‘auxilium exercitus.’ The proportion of an aid to be paid by a sub-tenant became fixed in many cases; in the rolls of Philip Augustus we find men who hold two knight’s fees, one fee, or a fraction, but who subtract a certain number of shillings from each hundred shillings of aid per fee.? After the conquest of Normandy, Philip Augustus was careful to record the rights and practices of his predecessors, and three of his records of Norman fiefs remain. The first is a copy of the list of 1172 with annota-

tions in some cases to bring it up to date;? it was probably made 1mmediately after the conquest. The second list‘ was drawn up not much later, probably about 1208;' it is not complete and is badly arranged, several returns having been added at the end. Some of the fiefs of other royal provinces are also listed, perhaps in imitation of the Norman practice, though the existence of similar records for Champagne may also have fees; it should be noticed that the rate is four pounds a fee, which is much lower than the rate on other tenants. Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 321, comes to the same conclusions.

1 AF., xxi, 699, ‘Episcopus Baiocensis debet invenire x optimos milites ad servicium regis Francorum per xu dies, et ad eos procurandos debet capere in unoquoque feodo militis xx solidos ... Cum autem invenit duci Normannie xu [an evident error for xx, the number given elsewhere, p. 694, p. 709] milites per xu dies debet capere in unoquoque feodo xu solidos...’ It should be noticed that these sums are well below the amounts levied per fee by Richard and John (see above, p.58),

and that the rate mentioned of 40 shillings per fee, taken on 100 fees, would just pay an aid of 10 pounds on the ‘servicium debitum’ of the bishop. 2 H.F., xxi, 711, ‘Henricus de Bruecort [a tenant of Montfort] dimidium militem, de quo respondet de x11 solidis minus ad auxilia’; p. 709, Guillaume de Clarebec ‘ad servicium domini 11 milites

v solidis minus’ and also a later entry, p. 635, ‘Dominus de Clerebec duo feoda apud Clerbec et sciendum quod de auxilio centum solidorum deficiunt decem solidi’; p. 711, ‘Robertus 1 feodum militis de quo respondet per auxilium dimidii militis;’ p. 610, Fulk Painel holds Croen of Mont-SaintMichel ‘per membrum lorice, sed nescit quale, quia quando dominus rex accipit centum solidos pro auxilio exercitus ipse non reddit de Croen nisi quindecim solidos’; see other similar entries, p. 634.

$ .F., xxi, 693 ff. For example, ‘Guillelmus de Moion servicium v militum (Garinus de Glapion habet).’ 4 ALF ., xxi, 705 ff. 6 The list gives tenants who had been granted their land only in 1206 or 1207; Cart. Nor., no. 1091, Jean d’Asniéres granted the land of Gautier d’Esselée in 1207; H.F., xx, 709, ‘Johannes de Asneriis pro feodo Galteri de Esselée 1 militem’; grants to Nicolas de Montigny and Jean de Montgombert in 1206 (M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 155) are also recorded, ibid., p. 709. Argentan, granted to Henry Clement in 1207 (Cart. Nor., no. 159), appears under his name, ibid., p.'707._ Later grants are not recorded and Garin de Glapion, who forfeited his lands in 1207 or early in 1208 (Quer. Nor., no. 530), is still a tenant, ibid., p. 707. 6 ALF ., xxi, 714-718.

Knight Service in Normandy 61 influenced Philip. The third list! is much fuller than the preceding one, not only for Normandy, but also for the other provinces, although omis-

sions and repetitions have not been altogether avoided. It is drawn up : by bavzllrages, and its quality varies according to the abilities of the officials

responsible; the list for the Cotentin is clearest and best arranged. In some cases, as the Cotentin, the tenants-in-chief are listed first, and the sub-tenants follow, grouped under the honors of which they held;? in others, such as Caen, the number of rear-vassals is given for each tenant, but

their names are given only in the case of honors in the king’s hand. In - the bailliage of Gisors, where the tenants are grouped around the border castles, the service is often castle-guard, and the Norman unit of the knight’s fee is not always used. This is natural in a border region where the customs met, and where French rule had been established before the conquest of the rest of Normandy. Itis hard to date this list, but the latest entries of the Norman portion seem to be about the year 1224.5 Apparently Philip’s agents used the same methods which Henry 11 had employed in order to get the information necessary for the lists. The tenants were convoked and asked to present charters describing their holding's,® those who were absent sent letters,’ and in doubtful cases inquests were held to decide the number and character of the fees.? The earlier records of Henry 11 must have been used as a basis or as a check on this

1 Thid., pp. 608 ff. |

2 HF ., XXi, p. 609. 3 Ihid., p. 618.

4 Tbid., p. 622, Vernon, the service is guard and is reckoned by knight’s fees; p. 623, Mantes, knight’s fees are listed but the typically French expression ‘exercitum et equitatum’ is used; p. 624,

Meulan, the formula is even more French, the vassal is “homo ligius et debet exercitum et equitatum’; p. 626, Anet, the ‘roncin de service’ appears, and in one case may be substituted for ‘exercitum.’ 5 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 156, gifts to Gautier Cambellan in 1218, and (p. 157) to Jean de Moncelles in

1221 are recorded, H.F., xxi, 639 and 640. A notice of the withdrawal of the Norman bishops from the army in 1224 is inserted, zbid., p. 637. Sole is listed as a fief of Jean de la Porte, zbid., p. 612, and in 1225 Jean exchanged Sole with Louis vim1 for Quatremares, Cart. Nor., no. 353, p. 310. The bazlis named correspond to the period 1219-1224. 6 H.F., xx, 717, Baudri de Longchamps hands in a list and excuses himself if he has forgotten anything; p. 618, ‘Robertus Bertran cognoscit quod debet domino regi servicium novem militum ... sed nondum scit quot feodo tenentur de eo, ut dicit’; zbid., Henri de Neufbourg owes two and onehalf knights ‘ut dicit.’

_ 7 Ibid., p. 619, ‘Non fuit qui reponderet de feodo Veteris Pontis quia domina quae custodit pueros manet in Francia; postea domina cognovit per litteras suas quod tenet per servicium duorum militum’; p. 657, Jean de Nesles of the bazlliage of Vermandois sends his list directly to the king, ‘Sire, je vos envoi l’escrit des feiz que je tieng de vos, et je l’ai devisé au mien escient en bone foy et se Je i avoie rien laissai qui & amender i fessit je l’amenderoie.’

8 Ibid., p. 639, ‘Simon de Bello Sacco unum feodum apud Bellum Saccum et . . . [sixteen names]

... per vere dictum servientum.’ P. 633, the list of holdings of Guillaume de Milli in the French Vexin ends ‘hanc inquisitionem fecerunt per juramenta Petrus de Bobiez, Johannes de Monte Chrevelli [a tenant of Guillaume] Johannes de Charcio et Theobaldus de Cormeilles.’

62 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis list, for in several cases fees are recorded with the statement that the tenants deny the service.! As a result of the confiscation of the land of John’s adherents many

fiefs, including some of the greatest honors of Normandy, were in the king’s hand, and in his numerous grants of these lands Philip preserved the obligation of knight service. There is almost always a provision that the land is to be held ‘ad usus et consuetudines Normannie,’ ‘ad servicium

quod feoda debet’;? and in many cases it is possible to show that these grants were entered on the list of knight’s fees and that service was later required from them.’ In another type of donation Philip specified the amount of service to be given, either because he had formed a new group of lands, or to lessen the burden of the tenant, and here again the service was not forgotten. The system was still strong in the case of vassals who held directly of the king, but it was beginning to weaken in respect to the rear-vassals. Most of them had lost their military character as a result of giving aid instead of service, and by the middle of the century the Norman law made a, distinction between the vassals who owed merely payment, and those who could be sent to the army.’ This distinction can already be seen in the rolls of Philip Augustus; there are many fiefs whose service is expressed in the terms of the aid they pay,* and others which are said to owe the king a knight ‘per manum domini.’’ This distinction seems to be the 1 HLF ., Xxut, 612, ‘Episcopus Abrincensis quinque feoda de quibus negat unum’; p. 644, ‘Philippus de Bestisiaco duo feoda de dono domini regis et non cognoscit nisi unum’; see also pp. 617, 714.

2 Cart. Nor., nos 105, 106, 130, 140, 141, ete. It should be noticed that at this time the grants of fee-farms begin, in which an annual payment takes the place of all services, and that they become more numerous under St Louis. See nos 179, 291, 378. 3 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 157, Jean de Rouvray granted the lands of Rogier le Bigot to the value of 1401. for ‘servicia qualia feoda debet.’ H.F., xxut, 709, ‘Johannes de Roboreto debet servicium duorum militum pro terra Rogeri Bigot.’ A grant on similar conditions was made to Pagan de Meheusdin in 1204 (Cart. Nor., no. 1071); it is listed under Philip Augustus as owing one and one-half knights (H.F., xx, 621), and in 1272 Guerin de Mehuesdin sends a knight to do sixty days’ service for one

and one-half fees (H.F., xxi, 773). Cart. Nor., no. 1099, Geoffroi de la Chapelle given land at ‘Fraeles,’ ‘per servicium quod ea debet ad usus et consuetudines Normannie,’ and in 1272 his son ‘vadit in exercitum pro uno feodo, ratione terrarum de Faeles.’ (H.F., xx1t, 758). 4 Cart. Nor., p. 292, no. 159, Argentan given Henry Clement for the service of five knights; H.F., XxI, 773, the lord of Argentan sends four knights to the army of 1272, and it is noted that he owes another. M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 155-157, several grants for service of one or more knights; H.F., xx111, 639, this service recorded; tbid., p. 775, the heir of a grantee sends two knights to the army. ° Summa, p. 126, ‘sciendum etiam est quod quedam feoda lorice servicium exercitus debent domi-

nis quod debet fieri principi, quedam vero auxilium exercitus.’ This distinction was enforced by a decision of Parlement in 1278; Olim, 11, 101, a knight tried to collect a fine from a vassal who did not

perform military service at his summons, but the vassal said ‘sunt aliqua certa feoda in Normannia pro quibus tenentes ipsa feoda tenentur specialiter ad servicium exercitus, et quod alia feoda ad servicium exercitus generaliter non tenentur’; and Parlement decided in his favor. 6 See above, note 30, and H.F., xxi, 621, 634-635, 645.

Knight Service in Normandy 63 result of special arrangements between tenants-in-chief and their vassals; thus the fees of the bishop of Bayeux, which habitually paid aid,! were

grouped by fives to furnish one knight to the king. In another case we find that one knight’s fee for the king’s service is composed of two fees of the bishop of Avranches;? and there are several other entries in the rolls of Philip Augustus which indicate similar combinations.* In other cases the

tenant-in-chief either preferred to find the knights himself and take aid from all his fees, or was unable to form groups owing a knight to the king because his vassals’ holdings were too small. The abbot of Mont-SaintMichel was able to get his vassals to furnish all but one of the knights he

owed, but this one fee was so badly cut up that he took money from it instead.®

When a rear-vassal owed actual service to the king through his lord he became entirely responsible for that service and had to pay any penalties

inflicted on the lord for his default.6 This would not be the case if his holding owed only aid, and by reason of escheats the king himself had vassals from whom he could not require service.’ Not only were the tenants-in-chief unable to require actual military serv-

ice from many of their vassals, but often the latter tried to escape from the obligation of giving aid. They were aided by the numerous changes and confusion resulting from the conquest and by the confiscations which followed it. The records of the Exchequer are full of complaints of lords 7 ALI ., Xxut, 612, ‘sunt et alia feoda que tenentur de aliis dominis per quorum manus faciunt regi servicium’; 7bid., Jean de la Porte owes the king a knight ‘per manum episcopi Constanciensis.’ 1 See above, note 29, and Ech., nos 29, 99, 187, 203, 269, 289, 299, 357, where the bishop sues to

get aid. 2 ALF., xxi, 700: Ech., no. 187, Henri du Port acknowledges that he holds three knight’s fees of the bishop and one-half knight’s fee to the service of the king through the bishop; zbid., no. 24, the constable of Normandy holds nine (or seven) fees of the bishop and two for the service of the king;

H.F., xxi, 637, five fees held of the bishop in Brotonne; Cart. Nor., no. 464, these fall into the king’s hands and the bishop is quit of the service of one knight. In 1297 actual service was required of the bishop. See below, note 98. 8 Ech., no. 370, Henri de Beaufort fined for not furnishing a knight for the king’s service to the bishop of Avranches; H.F., xxu, 709, Henri holds two knight’s fees of Avranches. 4 HL ., xx, 709, “Robertus de Angiervilla, ad servictum domini regis 1 muitem et ad servicium domini sui 11 milites x1r denariis minus;’ zbid., ‘Guillelmus de Claro Becco, cujus terra est in manu regis, I militem ad servicium regis et ad servicium domini 11 milites v solidus minus.’ See also note 21. The theory of the Summa de Legibus, p.'70, ‘quod barones habent quedam feoda ad servicium ducis

attributa; instituta enim fuerunt antequam baronie donarentur,’ may explain some of these cases. 6 JT.F., xxi, p. 571, ‘Quintus vero miles per homines nostros de Verson et de Bretevilla, ita tamen quod solvunt viginti libras tur.’ Jbid., p. '704, Mont-Saint-Michel has thirteen tenants at Verson and Bretteville. § Ech., no. 380, a knight who defaults on his service to the king owed through a baron must pay the fine inflicted on the baron for his default; nos 370 and 402, examples of this practice. 7 See the lists of the bazllzage of Caen in the records for the army of Foix of 1272, where many

tenants claim they owe aid only; H.F., xx, 755.

64 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts against vassals who were withholding aid or service, and in almost every case the decision is in favor of the lords.!

The Norman tenants were called on frequently during the first half of the thirteenth century for military service. The bishop of Bayeux won a case regarding army aid in 1207,? which would indicate a summons shortly

before, as aid could be levied on sub-tenants only after service had been given the king. There are two suits for aid in 1212; in one the king is the plaintiff, in the other the aid is evidently for that year, as the tenant is ordered to pay the same aid that she paid in 1211.4. Two lords prove their right to aid or service in 1215 and 1216, but it is not certain that this refers to a new levy.’ A case in the Exchequer of Easter, 1217, states that the bishop of Sées had been summoned for service shortly before,’ and Mont-Saint-Michel won three claims for knight service in the assizes of 1217 and 1218.7. The bishop of Avranches was fined for the default of a knight and collected the fine from the defaulter in the Exchequer of 1225;° the abbot of the Mount won a similar case in 1227.2 Several tenants sue for aid in 1229 and 1230, probably in connection with the campaign against

Brittany in 1228.!° We have the lists of the principal barons summoned in 1236, 1242, and 1253, and a record of their service in 1242." There exists also a record of the service given by Mont-Saint-Michel in 1245, in answer to a summons that was sent ‘per Normanniam,’” and two complaints of the Querimoniae seem to refer to an aid taken in that year.¥

The king retained the right to take knight service, or money, as he chose,* but the absence of financial records makes it impossible to determine the number of those who paid aid, and the amount of aid paid per 1 Ech., nos 24, 99, 102, 187, 203, 269, 289, 299, 357, 380, 392, and passim. In many cases the justice of the lords’ claims may be established by comparison with the lists of 1172 and those of Philip Augustus. 2 Tbid., no. 24.

3 Summa, p. 126; Cart. Nor., no. 201. 4 Ech., nos 99, 102. 5 Ibed., nos 160, 187.

6 Jind., no. 214; see also nos 209 and 215, which refer to aid taken at this time. 7H. F., Xxtv, preuves, nos 43, 48. § Ech., no. 370; see H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 79, an inquest on the amount of ‘auxilium exercitus’ paid by a fief of the Mount in the same year. ® Ech., no. 402; see also no. 406. 10 Tbid., nos 439, 441, 445 (1229); no. 460 (1230). 1 HY, F., xxii, 725, 726, 730, 729. 12 Thid., p. 671.

18 Quer. Nor., nos 247, 423. The latter says that ‘auxilium exercitus "has been taken for the past three years (1245-1247). 4H. F., Xx1v, preuves, no. 43, ‘si vero dominus rex maluit capere denarios pro servicio militum quam ipsum servicium .. .’; zbid., no. 48, ‘quidquid domino regi de ipso placeret capere, sive militem

sive denarios...’

Knight Service in Normandy 65 fee. As has been shown above, important tenants, such as the bishops, were regularly summoned to send knights, but a large portion of the tenants must have given aid instead, to judge by the small number of knights that appear in the Servicia Normannie of 1242.1 As to the amount, the aid of five pounds was taken as the type in the lists of Philip Augustus,? and remained the rule in the district of Evreux? at least. On the other hand, we know from several sources that the wages of a knight were ten shillings a day, or twenty pounds for the forty-day period of service,‘ and the sums of twenty-five pounds paid by the bishop of Avranches and the abbot of the Mount® for default of a knight would indicate an aid of twenty pounds plus a five-pound fine. The daughters of Guillaume de Bloseville paid twenty pounds for ‘auxilium exercitus’ in 1229,° and as their father had held one knight’s fee for the king’s service it would seem that this was the rate per fee in that year. For the campaign of 1272 against the count of Foix the records are more complete; we have a list of those summoned to appear at Tours, a list of those who appeared, and a final list of those who actually went with the

army.’ This allows a comparison with the service due under Henry 11 and Philip Augustus, and in many cases we find that the number of knights

owed has remained the same during the interval of one hundred years.

The abbot of Jumiéges owes three knights in 1172 and under Philip Augustus, and three knights appear for him in 1272.8 The bishop of Bayeux owes ten knights for service outside of Normandy in 1133, 1172, and 1208, and sendsten knightsto Tours.* The five knights of the barony of Briquebec, and the three knights of Tornebu also appear in all the lists.1° 1H. F., xx, 729. 2 Ibid., p. 610, ‘quando dominus rex accipit centum solidos pro auxilio exercitus’; p. 635, “de auxilio centumi solidorum’; p. 634, “quando auxilium levatur de C solidos’; p. 712, a list of the fees of Paci and below a list of ‘defectus praedictorum feodi Paciaci,’ sums taken by the king or his officers

from the holders of these fees at the rate of 100 shillings per fee. 3 Kch., no. 707, an inquest at Evreux in 1243 declares that army aid is 100 shillings and no more. 4 Quer. Nor., no. 500, a knight asks 182. 10s. for service of thirty-seven days in the Albigensian campaign of 1228; zbid., no. 301, a knight asks 202. for twenty days’ service by himself and a vassal; H. F. xx1u, 572, the abbot of the Mount takes 201. to hire a knight at 10s. a day; Ord., x1, 351, wages for a knight in 1274 are 10s.a day. See J. E. Morris, Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), p. 49; the rate in England was about the same, 2s. sterling a day. 5 Wch., nos 370, 402. In the ordonnance referred to above, the fine for default is 102. 6 Kch., no. 445, ‘Judicatum est quod de filiabus domini W. de Bloxevilla quod antenata pagabit avenantum suum de omni auxilio exercitus, de medietate videlicet xx librarum’; H. F., xxuu, 709, Guillaume de ‘Bloxevilla’ owes one knight for the service of the king and two knights for his lord. 7H. F., xxi, '735 ff., '753 ff., 767 ff. From these a final list of service owed was made, a fragment of which may be found in B. N., MS. Lat. 9016. 8 H. F., xxii, 694, 707, 772, and 775. ® Ibid., pp. 694, 709, 753. 10 Tbid., pp. 695, 609, 777, and 695, 619, 772.

66 Administration of Normandy Under St Louris In other cases where the number of knights is less than the old ‘servicium

debitum’ the reason for the decrease can be found. Thus Mont-SaintMichel owed seven knights in 1172 and only five appear in the army of Foix,! but from a comparison of the lists of service made by the abbot in 1172 and 1245,? we see that the two missing fees were held by the earl of

, Chester, Guillaume de Saint-Jean, and Raoul de Fougéres. The lands of the first two were seized by Philip after the conquest,’? and Raoul’s holdings, confiscated during the troubles with Brittany, were perhaps not fully restored. The bishop of Coutances was excused the service of one of his five knights in 1238 because the fee was in the king’s hands;® Courcy like-

| wise was allowed to drop a knight because of a forfeiture. The barony of Saint-Sauveur, which owed five knights in 1172, sends only four, but it is noted that the barony is not whole.” Other reductions are due to the fact that some vassals preferred to pay a fine rather than render service,

. especially if they did not have many tenants who owed knights for the king’s service. Thus in the Cotentin, the only bazlliage where the summons give the number of fees, the holdings total 87 knights, which is slightly more than the number held by tenants-in-chief under Philip Augus-

tus,® but the service given is 50.9 In Caen 156 tenants are summoned, only 56 appear at Tours, and 24 of these claim that they owe aid alone. They apparently won their point, for only twenty-seven men appear in the final list.1°. Many of the knights who appear for the tenants-in-chief are obviously those whose fees were “‘instituta ad servicium ducatus,’ and who could not escape by paying aid. This would explain why a tenant such as the bishop of Lisieux sends only three knights of the twenty he owes; these are the only ones who owe service to the king through his

hand.

1 Ibid., pp. 695, 754, 763. 2 Ibid., pp. 703, 571. 3 Ibid., pp. 707, 612. 4 Cart. Nor., nos 732-735. 5 Cart. Nor., no. 437.

6 A. F., xxi, 772. 7 Ibid., pp. 694, 609, 764.

§ Ibid., pp. 735, 608, 612. Avranches at that time a separate baiilliage.

9 Ibid., p. 763.

10 Ibid., pp. 736, 755, 772.

i Summa, p. 69. 277. F., xxi, 773, “Dominus Guillelmus de Graeyo pro abbati Cadomensi ratione feodi de Ros pro quod debet servicium unius militus per xu dies’; cf. abid., p. 619, ‘Abbas Sancti Stephani Cadomensis tenet unum feodum quod Albereda de Ros tenet de ipso’; ibid., p. 772, ‘Guillelmus de Freigni pro domino Richardo de Monte Trichardi qui debet pro abbate Jumegiarum unum militum’; zbzd., p. 764, Guillaume de Vauville appears for the barony of Vernon, and p. 609, a man of the same name holds a fief of Vernon under Philip Augustus.

8 Ibid., pp. 694, 636, 771-772, the formula for all three knights is ‘debet unum militum pro episcopo. Ibid., p. 729, service of 1242, the bishop sends only three knights.

Knight Service in Normandy 67 Escheats to the king and fees paying aid alone have reduced the size of

the contingents noticeably. Under Henry m groups of ten and fifteen knights were not uncommon; in 1272 the bishops of Bayeux and Avranches

are the only tenants to send more than five and the group of five is unusual. It is interesting to note that the same decrease in the size of the groups appears in England in 1277, though the reasons for the change are more obscure.!

The amount of aid paid per fee remains doubtful. One of the tenants of Caen who claimed that he owed aid instead of service said that his payment was 251. 10s., for seven-eighths of a fee,? which would make the rate about 29%. Thiscompares with the 202. for service plus 101. fine inflicted by the ordinance of 1274 on those who did not answer a summons to fur-

nish a knight. In 1276 the bazllz of Caen accounted at the Michaelmas Exchequer for 6802. of ‘auxilium exercitus’ in Caen, and 1322. in Exmes.! Unfortunately no details are given and the rate at which aid was paid cannot be determined. The army of Sauveterre of 1276 seems to have been raised in Normandy in the same way as the army of Foix,5 but one important innovation is to

be noticed: the king took the aid directly from the knights’ fees held of the lord who should have gone to the army and who defaulted, instead of taking it through the lord.6 This marks a weakening of the old system and under Philip rv the process was continued. In raising his armies for the wars in Flanders the principal Norman lords, those who could furnish an effective military force, were summoned as before,’ but instead of an aid by knight’s fees on other holdings a subsidy was assessed directly on all classes. The non-nobles paid by groups of one hundred fires, each group giving the wages of six or four sergeants, and the nobles who did not 1 Parliamentary Writs, 1, 197, the bishops of York, Norwich, Lincoln, London, Salisbury, pay for five knights each in 1277; Red Book, 1, 14-17, they pay in 1156 for seven, 41, 60, 20, 32, respectively.

This decrease may represent a consolidation of many fees paying scutage into a few owing actual service as suggested by J. E. Morris, op. cit., p. 46, especially as these fees pay a very high scutage plus a fine for not giving service, which in Normandy would indicate a fee of the strictly military type.

2H. F., xxi, 754, 3 Ord., xi, 351.

4A.N., J 775, no. 9 5 Cart. Nor., no. 867, orders to bailli of Caen to summon knights for the army; H. F., xxiv, preuves no. 207, the exchequer orders a tenant of Saint-Ouen to pay the abbey a fine and the expenses of a knight which they had to furnish in place of the one he owed the king through them; Olim, 11, 101, the case of Guillaume Bertrand against one of his tenants in which the latter proved that he owed only aid, as his fief was not ‘specialiter teneri ad servicium exercitus,’ and that he could not be

fined for default. 6 Arresta Communia, nos 13, 14.

7 H. F., xxi, 788,795. M. Béziers, Mémoires (Rouen, 1896), 1, 158, summons of the bishop of Bayeux to vassals, and seizure of fiefs of defaulters.

68 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts go to the army paid one-fifth of the value of theirland.1_ Thus the knight’s fee lost its value as a fiscal unit after having ceased to be a miliary unit, and remained only as a formula of land holding.’ 1H. F., xxi, 564. The total sum raised in Normandy in 1304 was 102,9162. 19s. 4d. See Prentout, op. cit., pp. 58 ff. 2H. F., Xxtv, preuves, no. 219, Philip rv asked from his vassals a list of their fiefs, franchises, and services; Bec handed in their list in the Exchequer of Easter 1289. This is probably the beginning of the system of ‘aveu,’ so prominent in the next century. Seine-Inf., Cart. de Fécamp, pp. 121 and 125, a list of Fécamp’s fiefs, apparently made about the time of Philip 1v’s order.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FORESTS ; \HE returns from the forests were an important part of the royal revenue during the thirteenth century. To protect the sources of this revenue, and to collect it efficiently, a large body of royal agents was

needed, probably larger than that required by any other branch of the administration. These forest officers, while neither so highly organized nor so independent as those of England, yet had wide powers and came into direct contact with many of the inhabitants of Normandy. The French kings acquired the forests with the rest of the rights and property of their predecessors. Their forest holdings remained fairly constant during the century. The forests of Mortain returned to the crown;! those of Alencon were alienated for a time;? but no record exists of afforestments or disforestments such as took place in England. Delisle* and Borrelli de Serres! have made lists of the principal Norman forests which existed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and no important changes can be made in their work. Philip Augustus and St Louis, like their predecessors, seem to have been

especially interested in preserving the afforested part of their Norman domain. In the great series of inquests held after the conquest those on the forests are among the most detailed and thorough; far more detailed, for example, than some on royal towns. Few cases dealing with royal rights were settled in the assizes or in the Exchequer, and this is especially true of the king’s forest holdings.’ The king appointed directly even mi-

nor forest officers,* and often sent orders directly to them, instead of 1 Cart. Nor., no. 412. 2 Tbid., no. 736. 3 BLE.C., x1, 446. 4 Borrelli de Serres, Recherches, 1, p. 448; see also M. Prevost, Etude sur la Forét de Roumare (Paris-

Rouen, 1904); and E. Decg, L’ Administration des Eaux et Foréts aux XIV® et XV® siécles in B.E.C., LXXxXuI (1922), 65 ff. and 331 ff., yxxxrv (1923), 92 ff. 5 Olam, I, passim, cases concerning the forest, even very minor points, are settled in Parlement;

Ech., nos 158, 180, 270, 312, 386, 391, 404, 652, 661, 714, 793, 799, 805, forest cases, but most of them are before the establishment of Parlement; Aresta Communia, nos 20, 26; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 189, 191, exchequer cases dealing with the forest after 1250; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fols. 181, 183”; B.N., MS. Lat. 11060, fol. 112"; H.F., xxiv, preuves, nos 85, 132, assize cases dealing with the forest. H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 182, the Exchequer of 1275 refuses to settle a forest case, but sends it to Parlement. 8 Cart. Nor., nos 639, 758, 866, 922; A.N., J 780 no. 7; Olim, 1, p. 80. 69

70 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts through the baillz.1. However, the king seemed content if this close supervision maintained the rights of the former dukes and, except for frers and danger, no new restrictions or imposts were adopted during the century. The administration of the Norman forests resembled the English system in many ways,” but the codrdinating elements of the Justices of the Forest and the Forest Eyre were lacking. Asa result the records which a central administration might have preserved are not in existence, and it is impossible to give all the details desirable. ‘The records which do exist deal mainly with rights of usage in the forest, and an idea of the adminis-

trative system has to be built up from casual and scattered references. These references are almost all to the period after 1250, and the description about to be given can apply only roughly to earlier times. The highest officer in the Norman forest was the castellan. As his title suggests, he was usually in charge of a castle within or near the forest under his guard, as was the case in England. Castellans are found only for the most important forests, such as Bonsmoulins,’ Breteuil,* Lions,'

and Vaudreuil. In Breteuil and Lions outlying districts had their own castellan, apparently an independent officer and not a deputy.’ These men were often nobles,® were paid as well or better than the viscounts,’ and like other important officers held their posts for comparatively short periods.!® The castellan was responsible for the forest in his care, supervised its police," checked the claims of usagers,” and, most important of all, held the forest courts in which the king’s rights were enforced." 1 Cart. Nor., nos 574, 661, 695, 758, 779, 869, 731, 732. 2 See G. J. Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest, Introduction. 8 Quer. Nor., no. 551. 4 A.N., J 780, no. 3 and passim. 5 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 164. § Cart. Nor., no. 574.

7 A.N., J 780 no. 6, castellan of Rugles; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 10, M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 164, castellan of Beauvoir-en-Lions; Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5646, castellan of Longchamps. 8 A.N., J 780 passim; below Chap. vu, p. 102. 9 A.N., J 780 no. 4, castellan of Bonsmoulins paid 1002. a year; zbid., no. 6, castellan of Breteuil paid 101%. a year at a time when viscounts were paid 60 to 1002. The castellans also shared in the distribution of robes; see A.N., J 780 passim. 10 Qlim, 1, 616, Baudoin de Longueval castellan of Vaudreuil in 1265; Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, fol. 210, Monseigneur Raoul is castellan in 1270; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 191, Robert le Veneur castellan in 1279; A.N., J 780 no. 4, in 1273 Guillaume Maugenet had just ended his service

as castellan of Breteuil; ibid., no. 5, in 1277 Enguerran des Bois is called ‘quondam castellanus’ (of Breteuil).

1 Eudes Rigaud, p. 257, the castellan of Vaudreuil pursues poachers into the territory of the archbishop and has to surrender them. 12 Quer. Nor., no. 551, complaint of a usager against the castellan of Bonsmoulins; Cart. Nor., no. 574; Olim. 1, 616.

13 A.N., J 780 nos 6, 7, 11, amercements from forest courts sent to bazlli by castellans of Breteuil and Rugles; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 10; Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5646; similar accounts by castellans of Lions, Beauvoir, and Longchamps.

Administration of the Forests 71 In other forests the usual head was the ‘forestarius,’ a term which was also loosely applied to other officers.!. These officers, occasionally nobles,? were not as well paid as the castellans? but seem to have had the same duties, at least as far as police and general supervision of the forest went.4 Small woods, or detached sections of a large forest, were guarded by ‘custodes,’ less important officers at much lower salaries. In fact, some of them seem to have been merely sergeants assigned to a section of the forest which needed special watching.’ There is no evidence to show that the foresters or guards held courts. The verderer appears early in the century, usually in forests which have no castellans.6 Like his English namesake, he is closely connected with the forest courts, but unlike him he is a paid official,’ and apparently a judge instead of a suitor. The verderer almost always is mentioned in connection with forest amercements,® but he also acts as an ordinary forest officer.2 One castellan of Vaudreuil was verderer of Bort.!°9 He may have

acted in a purely judicial capacity in the latter forest, but there are no other examples of this combination of offices. The ‘venator’ was apparently an important official; unfortunately little 1 Kure, H 451, H 1343; Quer. Nor., no. 269.

2 Cart. Nor., no. 943, Jean Dagouvel, knight, forester of Bray; Olim, 1, 160, Jean Guegnart, knight, forester of Vernon.

3B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, foresters of Brix paid 2s. a day; A.N., J 780 no. 12, forester of Lande-Pourri gets 4s. a day; H.F., xx, p. 277, forester of Vernon paid 5s. a day. Two shillings a day was the most common wage, A.N., J 780, no. 1, the forester of Belléme, the forester of Ecouves,

the forester of Verneuil, are paid at this rate; B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, forester of Tinchebrai paid 2s. A.N., J 780 passim, the foresters also shared in the distribution of robes. 4 Olim, u, 88; Cart. Nor., nos 782, 750, 758, 943. 6 H.F., Xxil, p. 572, custos of Park of Andely paid 4d. a day; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, custos of

Luci paid ls. a day (he had two sergeants under him); A.N., J 780, no. 1 and passim, custos of Mt Pincon paid. 202. a year; A.N., J'775, no. 9, custos of Bort paid 6d. a day; H.F., xxu, p. 572, custos of Normanville paid 8d. These are sergeants’ wages; see below, p. 72. 6 Cart. Nor., no. 1092, verderer of Gravenchon; Quer. Nor., no. 272, a verderer of Breteuil; B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 7, at the end of the century the verderers of Lions, Longchamps, and Vauvire are accounting for forest amercements. In north France generally the verderer seems to have performed the same duties which he did in Normandy, ef. Decgq., op. cit. 7 Hellot, Bazllis de Caux, p. 165, verderer of Arques paid 18d. a day, verderer of Luci paid 2s. a

day; zbid., p. 169, verderer of St Saens paid 18d. a day; zbid., p. 165, verderer of Gravenchon paid 18d., verderer of Le Trait paid 2s. These examples are from a roll of 1293. 8 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23; the verderers of Arques, Neuchatel, Gravenchon, and Le Trait account for amercements in 1279. Arresta Communia, no. 20, mentions forests in which fines are taken at the will of the verderer, 1277. ® Olim, 1, 233, the verderer of Eawy gives a usager his wood, objects to misuse of wood, and asks a fine, 1266; zbid., 404, the verderer of Neuchftel is accused of ruining his wood in 1272; Ech., no. 714,

a verderer in the Cotentin forbidden to remove a forest sergeant, 1243; Cart. Nor., no. 1229, the verderer of Montfort has charge of a fishpool, the verderer of Beaumont is ordered to give wood to a villa; Olim, 1, 217, verderers supervise usage, 1266. 10 HF, XXIV, preuves, no. 191.

72 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts is known concerning his functions. Except for the forest of Evreux,' I have found no references to him until after the death of St Louis.2. The title would suggest that he was charged with preserving the king’s venison, and the veneur of Evreux was surely performing this duty when he confiscated a wood because the king’s beasts strayed there.’ The veneur of Breteuil held a forest court, or at least collected amercements for the castellan.4 The veneur of Gouffern confiscated some wood belonging to ‘venditores’ of his forest; he seems to have overstepped his authority in doing this, and they were indemnified.®

As in every branch of the administration, clerks were used by the forest

officers, and probably did a great deal of their work. Forest amercements were collected in Breteuil® and Eawy’ by clerks, and a certain mas-

ter Gautier was in charge of Bort for a time, and made the most of his chance by taking bribes for permitting illegal essarts.*®

The actual police work was done by sergeants, mounted? and on foot, enfieffed! and appointed.” Some received no pay and made their living from fees, and, it is to be feared, extortion,“ others received wages varying from 4d. to 15d. a day.®© ‘Their number increased toward the end of the century,!* and in two cases the king had to dismiss new sergeants ap-

pointed by foresters to increase their spoils.17 Besides the sergeants charged with general police, other minor officials were employed, such as 1 [bid., p. 729, Rogier de Bremecourt, ‘venator,’ ca. 1217. 2 A.N., J 780, no. 7, venator of Breteuil, 1282; zbzd., no. 8, ‘dominus Johannes, venator’ of Gouffern, 1282; Cart. Nor., no. 664, ‘veneor’ of La Londe ca. 1275.

3H. F., xxiv, 729. 4A.N., J 780 no. 7. 5 Tbid., no. 8.

6 Ihid., master Gautier paid 21?. for eighteen months of this work in 1292. 7B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, 30s. paid a clerk for collecting amercements in 1279. Cart. Nor., no. 909, and no. 922, the custos of Vernon in 1278 was Gilles de la Chaussée, a king’s clerk. 8 Cart. Nor., no. 1144. ® Olim, 1, 80; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 164. 10 Quer. Nor., no. 265; B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3. 1 Quer. Nor., nos 141, 269; A.N., J 775, no. 9; Olim, 1, 80. 12 A.N., J 780, no. 7; Cart. Nor., no. 758. 13 Olim, 1, 370; Cart. Nor., nos 312, 1222. 14 Cart. Nor., nos 312, 1144, 1222; Eudes Rigaud, p. 413, p. 457; Eure, H 451, in which the men of Vieux Lire give 40s. to be free of an exaction of the foresters, 1247. 16 A.N., J 780, no. 7, three sergeants at 6d. per day; Cart. Nor., no. 866, a sergeant at 10d. per day; B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, no. 3, a sergeant of Cherbourg at 15d.; zbid., 9018, p. 23, twelve sergeants of

Eawy at 6d. each; Hellot, Bazllis de Caux, p. 171, six sergeants of Maulévrier at 4d. each; H.F., XxI, 277, four sergeants of Pacy at 4d. each. These wages changed very little during the century,

and even later. Cf. E. Decq in B.E.C., txxxu, 83. 16 A.N., J 780, no. 7, three sergeants newly appointed 1282; zbid., no. 6, two new sergeants, one in Breteuil, the other in Rugles, 1279; Cart. Nor., no. 639. 17 Olim, 1, p. 80; Cart. Nor., no. 1222.

Administration of the Forests 73 the ‘mensuratores’ who surveyed grants and leases,! and the ‘luparii’ or wolf-hunters.?

The Norman forests were never so detached from the control of the ordinary administrative officers as was the case in England, even though there is reason to believe that the autonomy of the English forest has been exaggerated.? A decision of Parlement in 1291 stated that the foresters and sergeants of the forest must obey the bavzllzs,4 and this merely affirmed

the usual practice. While the king often corresponded directly with forest officers, at other times he issued orders to them through the bazllis,5 and the bazllis did not hesitate to give orders on their own account. The wages of all the forest officers were accounted for by the bazllis,” and were probably paid by them,’ although in one case a forester is ordered to pay certain wages to asergeant.? Even the viscounts had some authority over the forest officers.}°

At the same time a central administration was gradually being formed. Special accounts of forest sales began soon after the conquest," and the

men who kept them must have had some authority. The view of the forest of Breteuil in 1277” was probably held by knights of the neighbor-

hood, as would have been done in England, but the inquisitors of the forest, mentioned in 1273, can hardly be anything but agents of a central 1 Cart. Nor., no. 372, Renaud Archer, mensurator 1230; zbid., no. 990, Jean Bouchart, mensurator 1282; zbid., no. 438, mensurators in Roumare in 1239. 2 A.N., J 780 no. 7, J 775, no. 11, a luparius at 8d. a day in Breteuil 1280-1282. 3 See Miss E. C. Wright’s thesis on Common Law in the English Forest, (Philadelphia, 1928) in which

she shows that for common law crimes in the forest, the ordinary courts had jurisdiction; and the Pipe Rolls for 1230 and 1242, where in the absence of an eyre, the sheriff collects forest amercements. 4 Olim, u, 328.

5 Cart. Nor., nos 359, 387, 947, 1178. This last is a letter to all Norman bazllis concerning the freedom of Fécamp from tiers and danger; Calvados, H 4399, Barthélemi Chevalier communicates it to all forest officers in his bailliage, 1247. 6 Cart. Nor., nos 1222, 1011; B.N., WS. Lat. 11060 fol. 112"; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 189; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 162. 7 ALN., J 775, J '780 passim.

8 Cart. Nor., no. 639, order by Louis rx to bailla of Caen to pay 8d. a day to a newly appointed sergeant; zbid., no. 866, a similar order. ® Ibid., no. 758.

10 Jbid., nos 1222, 664, 1229, the last two deal with Jean de Neuvi, viscount of Pont-Audemer, who took bribes for favors in the forest and elsewhere; zbid., no. 961; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 164, a viscount supervises a usage ca. 1210; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 212, the viscount of Evreux is blamed for keeping St Taurin from its usages in the forest of Evreux, 1287. U See above, Chap. rv, p. 40. 12 A.N., J 780, no. 5, expenses of Monseigneur Simon d’Estrée and those with him who viewed the

forest of Breteuil, 34s. 6d. This is the only reference to this practice I have found; on the English analogy it should have been common. 13 A.N., J 780 no. 4, “Pro denariis traditis domino Roberto Camertori et aliis inquisitoribus nemorum apud Britolium 402.’

74 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis organ. The ‘masters’ mentioned in an account of an assize at Rouen in 1268! may not have been masters of the forest, but in 1287 the masters of the forest exist and protest against a usage in Lions,? and in 1299 one is ac-

tive in the Cotentin.? Thus the way was prepared for the highly developed central organization of the fourteenth century. The forest officers existed primarily to preserve the king’s forest from harm. Preservation of the king’s forest meant specifically preservation of the vert and the venison, to adopt the English terminology. The protection of the latter seems to have been easier than in England; at least no important difficulties were caused by it. Some knights of Perche complained of the curtailment of their hunting privileges,‘ but among the few cases of poaching of which we have a record the most important is one in which a forest officer was the offender.» On the contrary, preservation of the vert caused continuous trouble with those whose land bordered on the forest, where confusion of boundaries was almost inevitable,® and with usagers who constantly claimed more than they were allowed.’? Moreover some of the latter were allowed to keep illegal cuttings on payment of a fine,* which must have encouraged raids on the forest. Philip Augustus

had tried to prevent these difficulties by the series of inquests on forest usages made shortly after the conquest,® but few claims were choked off by this step. The only permanent solution of the difficulty was to extinguish the rights of usagers by ceding small portions of the forest to them, and this method was adopted later in the century." Except for amercements the forest officers had little part in the collection of forest revenue. Lumbering was done by private contractors who paid the bazllz directly for their wood," and the revenue from usagers, especially the important item of pannage, was often farmed.” A few small payments were left to the sergeants who probably received them in place 1 Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 181. 2 Olim, 1, 267. 3 Manche, H 8433. 4 Quer. Nor., nos 163, 208, 209. 5 Cart. Nor., no. 1222, poaching by Guillaume de Bohon, a forester of Cotentin, 1272. 6 Quer. Nor., nos 125, 140, 309, 478, etc.; Olim, u1, 216. 7 Quer. Nor., nos 139, 159, 222, 243, etc.; Olim, 1, 17, 49, 56, 66, etc. 8 Quer. Nor., no. 236; Arresta Communia, no. 20. 9 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 162 ff; Cart. Nor., nos 198, 199, 200. 10 Cart. Nor., no. 226, a usage bought off in 1213; cbid., nos 332, 372, 385, 397 and passim. Cf. Delisle, Htudes sur la Condition de la Classe Agricole, pp. 349 ff.

11 See above, Chap tv, p. 44. Of course these payments might have been made to forest officers who would then turn them in to the bailli, but there is no record of this step. 2 Cart. Nor., no. 1079, farm of pannage of Breval for 62. 10s., farm of returns of forest of Mérey for 181.; Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, fols. 34-35, 40, 97 farms of payments of usagers; Quer. Nor., no. 280, farm of part of forest of Beaumont; Olim, 1, 45, reference to sale of pannage in Lion; Cart. Nor., no. 604, farm of pannage to St Ouen.

Administration of the Forests 15 of wages... As was the case in all farms, a certain jurisdiction was given

the buyers of wood and the farmers of pannage. The most important form that this took is discussed below in connection with ters and danger; in general, the man who collected from the usagers supervised their usage and might stop it altogether.2. In this way these buyers, pannagers, and farmers might be considered forest officers, and they were occasionally used by the king for other duties.’ While the forest and its revenues were carefully preserved, in certain cases clearings were permitted, and on the clearings “hétes’ were settled. They were a source of regular income, which the forest was not, and their establishment seems to have been one of St Louis’ favorite projects. We know of one group of clearings of 2067 acres paying rents running from 3s. to 6s. 6d. an acre;* other smaller clearings are mentioned; and the existence of others may be deduced from the protests of usagers who saw their privileges nullified by destruction of the forests in which they had exercised their rights.° Besides protecting the royal forest, the administration had to preserve the king’s rights in the woods of others, and this was its most difficult task. As in the royal forest the protection of venison gave little trouble, many, perhaps most, nobles had right of chase on their own land; those who did not have it in general made no complaint. A few cases in Parlement’ confirm the evidence of charters of English kings,’ that holders of wood-land 1 Quer. Nor., nos 265, 269, payments to foresters by usagers; Olim, 1, 370, similar payments. 2 Bib. de R. MS., Y52, fol. 181, men of St Georges de Boscherville prove their freedom from pannage against pannagers of Roumare in assize of Rouen, 1268; zbzd., similar case in June, 1283. The pannagers were master Guillaume le Pinet, Jean de Fresnes, Guillaume André; Bib. de R., MS. Martainville, Y94, fol. 42, farmer of Renou takes half the fines of usagers; Quer. Nor., nos 311, 436, 443, 490, interference with usages by farmers; Quer. Nor., no. 548, illegal exaction by pannagers of Ecouves; Olim, 11, 205, pannagers of Cuise; Summa, p. 319, pleas pertaining to pannage. 3 Ech., no. 499, the king’s venditores shall view all his forests of Normandy and restore pasturage and customs, except where they harm the land, Easter 1233. There is no evidence that this inquest was ever made; it has left no trace in the Querimoniae. Calvados, H 4399, letter of baillz to ‘omnibus

venditoribus nemorum domini Regis, forestariis, et aliis servientibus ...,’ ordering them to let Fécamp sell its woods freely, January, 1224. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 1176. 5 Cart. Nor., no. 1098, gift to Fontaines-Guérard of sixty acres to clear; ibid., no. 462, essarts totaling 2060 acres; Delisle-Olim, no. 157, tithe of essarts of Bruis and Monteburg given Cérisy to replace its tithe from those woods.

8 Cart. Nor., nos 466, 467, 946; Olim, 1, 518. Cf. Delisle, Etudes sur la Condition de la Classe Agricole, pp. 390 ff.

7 Olum, 1, 240, Rogier de Hotot may not take in his wood deer straying from Lion; ahd., 1, 348, Etienne Crispin proves his right of chase in his wood of St Paer. The count of Boulogne had unlawfully prevented this, all Etienne’s neighbors may hunt, yet Parlement is very reluctant to grant the claim. JIbid., 1, 835, the prior of Longueville must give up a deer found on his land since the king had right of chase there; zbid., 11, 88, Grammont proves right of chase by a charter of Philip Augustus. 8 Neustria Pia, p. 627, a gift to St Etienne of Caen of woods, ‘retentis in meo dominico cervis, capreolis, et apris silvestribus.’

76 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts might be forbidden to hunt there by terms of their tenure, but do not show any widespread protest against these restrictions. On thecontrary, restrictions on the cutting and sale of private woods caused a long series of protests, especially bitter because financial loss to the nobles was involved. This brings up the difficult question of fvers and danger, imposts which,

as I see it, were a direct outgrowth of the king’s forest rights. Borrelli de Serres, who went deeply into the subject and who was the first to give a logical explanation of the origins of the practice, believed that tvers and danger were new levies, imposed on the Norman landholders during the troubled period following the conquest, legally in the case of new grants,

illegally elsewhere. His account of the development of these rights is very valuable, but I cannot follow him in considering them as entirely without precedent. It is certainly true that before the conquest, and in thirteenth-century

England, tiers and danger did not exist. This is not the same as saying that there were no restrictions on the sale of private woods. In England in the thirteenth century those who cut their woods in an afforested region

had to pay for ‘waste’ a small sum annually until the wood had grown again.2 Similar entries occur in the Norman Exchequer rolls of the twelfth century,’ and by charters of English kings we know that forest land was sometimes granted to private persons with the specific provision that it

remain forest. When, after the conquest, Philip Augustus had much confiscated woodland to regrant he gave it with varying restrictions, sometimes ‘ad usus et consuetudines Normannie,’* sometimes with sales of tim-

ber specifically forbidden. The same sort of grants may be found under 1 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 396 ff. See especially p. 424. 2 Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest, pp. lxxvi ff. 3 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 20, ‘Hugo de Milevilla redd. comp. de 50 ?. pro foresta vastata’; ibid., pp. 51, 23, a fine for purprestures, default, and waste, computed for seven years; p. 24, 50, ete. 4 Gallia Christiana x1, Instrumenta, p. 28, in an exchange with the Archbishop of Rouen, Richard gives him Louviéres, ‘salvis ad opus nostrum venatione nostra et destructione foreste, ita tamen quod non sit in regardo’; zbid., p. 157, Henry 1 grants St Pierre-sur-Dive that “‘ubicumque sit quercus vel fagus per totum tenementum abbatie, propria erit abbatis et monachorum,’ evidently they had not been allowed to cut them before; Neustria Pia, p. 168, charter of William 1, ‘caveat enim comes Willelmus, vel quicumque successor eius has duas forestas tenuerit, ne unquam in circitu, vel in confinio harum forestarum mansiones hominum vel aliquid aliud edificium sibi faciat.’ 6 Cart. Nor., nos 1085, 1086, 1107; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 156, 157, 158; in some grants no conditions are made, not even the custom of Normandy, cf. Cart. Nor., nos 1098, 1101. 6 Cart. Nor., p. 301, 305, two gifts to St Sauveur ‘ita quod . . . non poterunt nemus nutrire neque villam aliquam facere’; ibid., no. 243, similar conditions in a confirmation of a grant by a count of Leicester to St André de Gouffern; znd., no. 169, in return for a confirmation of a gift by Amauri de Warclive, the abbey of Mortemer promises Philip that he shal] have ‘omne jus tam in vendicionibus quam in omnibus aliis rebus . . . quod idem dominus rex habebat dum esset in manu predicti Almarrici militis ad usus et consuetudines Normannie.’ Jbid., nos 335, 349, a similar grant by Louis vu.

Administration of the Forests V7 St Louis.! If the evidence of a charter of 1232 may be accepted, there was no real difference between these grants; the second type merely specified what Norman custom forbade in any case.? Thus for many woods, if not all, the king had a perfect right to forbid

sales. In the twelfth century this was probably not an annoying right; wood was plentiful and, even in the royal forest, sales were a less impor-

tant source of revenue than later. In the thirteenth century wood became more valuable, the temptation to cut it was greater, and a small fine for waste was not enough to prevent sales. Besides destroying the forests, these sales injured the king’s traffic in wood and, in at least two districts, it was specifically forbidden to sell wood while a cut was being made in the king’s land.4’ This seems to have been a common royal policy; other examples may be found outside of Normandy.’ In these circumstances it was natural that the privilege of selling wood from a private holding should be granted only for a substantial sum, one-third of the selling price, which would assure the king a real profit from his concession. It was also natural that complaints should be made by landholders who had previously been allowed to keep all the income from the sale of their wood, even though the times of selling might be limited, and that they should consider the fvers a new and illegal imposition.®

The first cases in which tiers is mentioned go back to the first years of St Louis;7 it was applied more and more widely under St Louis,’ and by the 1 Ibid., no. 372, grant with restrictions; no. 385, grant without statement of limitations. 2 Cart. Nor., no. 1147, Louis 1x makes a large grant of land in 1232, and gives permission to sell

the wood from it without asking license from the king or his heirs. All is to be held ‘ad usus et consuetudines Normannie excepto eo quod dictum est de boscis quod vendere poterunt quando volu-

erint.’ If this is a true statement of Norman custom, then every owner of forest land had to ask license to sell his wood at a very early date. 8’ Compare the Exchequer Rolls with A.N., J 780 and J 775 passim. 4 M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 166, a document headed ‘Inquisitio de jure venditionis forestarum Ducatus,’

only one paragraph is given, ‘Quamdiu rex vendit in forestis que sunt de domanio ducatus nullus potest vendere in Constantino des le Homme, nec inter le Homme et Cesarisburgum et inter Barneville et Sanctum Sal.’ See also Cart. Nor., no. 251, an agreement between the king and the archbishop of Rouen in 1217, in which the archbishop promises to sell no wood at Neuchatel when the king is selling wood there. 5 Olim, 1, 603, '789.

6 Quer. Nor., nos 325, 351, 354, ete. This explanation of the origin of teers and danger was given in the fourteenth century; see Warnkoenig, Franzdsische Staatsgeschichte (Basel, 1875), 11, Urkundenbuch, 11, “La chause por quoi le tiers et le dangier des bois venduz est telle: Les Barons et les gentis hommes de Normandie vendoient lor bois quant il lor plesoit: Le rois ont besoin si volt vendre de ses bois pour soy aider et fist estanchier les ventes as barons, tant que il (ot) tant de soues venduz que il

fust quite; Les barons ne voudront pas ne ne porront tant attendre et requistrent le roy que il lor lessast vendre et esploiter de lour bois aussi comme il fesoyt de suieus, et prinst le tierz de lor vente 7 Quer. Nor., no. 331, a license to sell granted before 1234; no. 351, ca. 1240; Supplement, p. 729, ca. 1231; H.F., xxi, 572, tiers paid in Gisors in 1234. 8 Quer. Nor., nos 325, 351, 354, 331, 465, 481, 484, 550.

78 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis middle of the century was a regular source of revenue.!. About this time royal officers began to make the assumption that all woods had been granted without right of sale, unless some clear proof to the contrary could be shown. With the support of the Exchequer,’ this policy was enforced. To prove exemption a charter had to be produced with words of freedom;?

mere testimony that tvers had never been paid was insufficient. Naturally these proceedings stirred up a swarm of protests, but Parlement inflexibly enforced these rules, and tiers was finally accepted as part of the Norman custom. Again, this seems to have been a general royal policy. Outside of Normandy the king had the right of gruerze in many forests; a right very different in its origins from ters, as Borrelli de Serres has shown, but giving the king the same opportunity to claim a share of the money received from the sales of private woods. This right of gruerve was declared the general custom of the land in some districts by Parlement, just as tvers had been in Normandy, and, as in Normandy, a specific charter of exemption had to be shown to avoid payments.’ Asaresult, in Orleans and Senlis we find the king taking one-half or one-third of the sums paid for timber from practically all private woods.® At the same time, with the establishment of some sort of central office

for the forest, a new method of licensing sales was adopted. Instead of asking permission for each cutting, the owner of woodland was given a license for cutting a given amount of wood which was good for several years’ and was even transferable. The barllts checked up on these licenses each year, collected ters from those who had sold, and reported 1 HLF ., xxi, 255 ff. See above, Chap. tv p. 44. * Ech., no. 799. Ibhd., no. 661, by 1239 the baillis were trying to take tzers from sales of broom, as well as wood; Olim, 1, 41, Parlement calls téers ‘communem costuman terre’ in 1258. Cf. p. 77, note 2. 8 Olam, 1, 324, 829, 831, 902, cases in which charters are accepted as proof of exemption.

4 Olim, 1, 186, 189, 207, 211, etc. Specially privileged persons, generally churchmen, were allowed exemptions even when they did not deserve them, cf. Ech., no. 805, and Olum, 1, 747. Cart. Nor., nos 636, 943, 947, etc., in many grants of forest land late in the century the king reserves some forest rights, such as chase, but gives specific exemption from tiers and danger. 5 Olim, 1, 247, 520. 6 ALF ., xxu, 658-659.

7 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, passim. Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 429, 433, thinks that license was the equivalent of tiers for certain classes of woods. This does not seem at all certain; in several cases both tiers and license are mentioned together, cf. Quer. Nor., no. 325, one of the first complaints against the payment, which mentions ‘domini regis licentia tercioque necnon et dangerio venditorum’;

Olim, 1, 179, 212, where license, tiers and danger are demanded; Soc. de l’histoire de Normandie, Mélanges, v, 435 ‘et dictos boscos vendere poterunt . . . sine tercio et dangerio et licencia non petita.’ 1272; and Olim, 1, 207, 211, 226, where license and tiers are mentioned together. 8 Manche, H 11502; Cart. Nor., no. 730.

Administration of the Forests 79 ‘non vendit’ for the others.!. Payments for frers were carried in a separate column, and were usually spread over several years.” The history of danger is harder to follow. Undoubtedly in the beginning it was a payment, almost a bribe, made to royal officers for obtaining license to sell. These officers were usually the venditores;* probably be-

cause payments were made in kind and they could handle them better than foresters, because sale of private wood hurt their business unless they could control it, and because they were available and cost the king nothing. Their exactions were unbearable‘ in the long run; the king increased the number of forest officers, and the “‘dangerium venditorum’ disappeared. It had, however, given the administration an idea, and gradually the ‘dangerium regis’ replaced it.” Some experimenting was done in its form and application,® but eventually it became fixed as one-tenth of the value of the wood, and indissolubly connected with the ters. The bazllt accounted for it with ters, and like ters it could be paid in installments. °

Malefactors to the forest were tried by forest officers in forest courts, but little is known concerning the procedure of these bodies. There was no one judge to codrdinate them, and there was no one forest law.!° From what we know, they were much like the English forest courts; men owed suit to them,!! the inquest of the neighboring vills appears, malefactors 1 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018 passim. 2 A.N., J 775, J '780 passim. 3 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 427; see below, note 5. 4 Quer. Nor., no. 255, 86%. 13s. 4d. paid ‘domino regi pro suo tercio suisque venditoribus pro dangerio’; ~bid., no. 325, and Supplement p. 729.

6 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 425; Quer. Nor., nos 547, 524, complaints of sellers of wood that they are injured by competition. Layettes v, no. 878, a venditor of Neuchatel was paid 232. by the owner of a private wood in order to avoid a protest, even though the owner claimed that his wood was free from tiers and danger. 8 Quer. Nor., no. 325, trers is 6722. and danger 3001. 7 Olum, 1, 186, 189, danger of king first mentioned in 1264; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, it appears in accounts in 1279; Olim, 1, 179, 241, danger of the vendittores is still paid in some places in 1263 and 1266.

8 A.N., J 780, no. 6, danger of Exmes is paid in a lump and not connected with any individual payments of tiers; ibid., no. 7, payments of danger unconnected with tiers; cbid., J 775, no. 9, danger paid to the venditores by the bailli of Verneuil for all the lands of the count of Alencon; zbid., no. 11, danger listed in lump sums by viscounties in the bazlliage of Caen. It seems that these irregularities may come from a survival of the old idea, that danger was paid to indemnify sellers of wood, and that therefore danger was collected at first only from those who sold near royal forests where cutting was going on. The sums thus collected would be lumped, but gradually, as the charge was exacted from everyone, it would be listed separately, with each payment of tiers. 9 ALN., J 775 no. 11.

10 Summa, p. 320, ‘secundum diversas diversarum forestarum consuetudines diversimode recordamenta fieri et teneri.’ " Cart. Nor., no. 1092, in return for a usage the usager ‘est tenu aller une fois en !’an aux plés de Gravenchon quand le verdier lui fait savoir’; M.A.N. 2° sér., v, 163, ‘Homines de Labouaffle debent 100s. pro placitis communibus foreste,’ probably a payment in place of suit. 2 Quer. Nor., Supplement, p. '729.

80 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis were bound to appear by pledges. The clearest description which we have is of a private court, probably modeled on that of the king, where pledges were taken, court was held at regular intervals, and forfeiture followed default.2. Judging from the totals of the amercements reported to the batllis, the forest courts seem to have been active, but not unduly severe; amercements come in regularly from all forests and parts of forests,

but the total sums are not very large? It is worth noting that few complaints about the forest courts occur in the Quervmoniae, and that none of these complaints is based on a very serious grievance. 1 Tind., no. 141.

2 Ech., no. 739; see also Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de Jumiéges, p. 1, and 297, for the forest court of Jumiéges. Eudes Rigaud, pp. 151, 230, 294, 310, etc., lists many fines paid by poachers in his forest,

but gives little information about his court. S. Deck, La Foret d’Eu, pp. 62, 63, 90, the courts of the forests of Eu seem to be organized on somewhat different principles. 3 A.N., J 775, J '780, passim, the largest forests of Verneuil give only 50 to 602. in amercements annually.

VII THE ROYAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE TOWNS ) ence group ofcollect officials was needed to and enforce commercial regulations, commercial revenues, administer justice in commercial cases. Police of markets and fairs, collection of tolls and customs, preservation of monopolies and privileges required more time and

men than the baillc had at his disposal. The ordinary royal courts were dominated by men who knew little commercial law, and their procedure, adapted especially to cases involving feudal rights and property, was not very satisfactory to merchants. It was more convenient for everybody to have all ordinary commercial matters administered by special officials, the prévéts. Since the prévéts had no important powers of justice, and ordinarily controlled only members of the third estate, they usually obtained their positions as farms, on the same terms as other farmers of the royal domain. However, even though their power was limited by short tenure of office and the supervision of the bazllis, the prévéts had considerable influence over the economic life of the duchy.

The prévété was an almost universal institution in Normandy.! Even in small country villages it was easier to farm market fees and tolls through

a prévot than to attempt direct collection. At the other extreme, even communes were no exception to this rule. The Angevin dukes had permitted Rouen to hold the viscounty of the water (the equivalent of the prévété of other towns) as a farm,? but after 1204, this union of commune and prévété ceased. In spite of the liberties of Rouen, Caen, Falaise, and Verneuil the prévétés of these towns were the most valuable in the duchy.’ As a matter of fact, in Normandy the charters of the communes interfered more with the ruler’s rights of justice than with his income; the jurisdiction of the bazllt was limited, while the income of the prévét remained almost the same. The importance of the prévétés is shown in the amounts which they con-

tributed to the royal treasury. Yet it is difficult to form a clear conception of the way in which a prévété was administered. In most cases we 1 See above, chap 11, p. 10. 2 Delisle in B.E.C. x, 283. 8 See above, chap. rv, p. 41. 81

82 Administration of Normandy Under Sit Louis have no detailed accounts of the prévét’s income and expenditures but merely a lump sum to his credit in the batll’s report. The records of the commercial courts were not preserved, and their powers and procedure are described only in a few exceptional cases. Most of the available information comes from Rouen or Caen, and may not apply to smaller places. The collection of tolls on goods brought into a town for sale was prob-

ably the most important duty of the prévét. We have lists of the tolls levied at Rouen and Caen,! and the two are roughly comparable, though they do not always agree absolutely. The tolls do not seem unduly high,

in view of prevailing prices, but they were certainly all-inclusive. In Caen they were levied on all kinds of food, grain, meat, fish, and vegetables, on live stock, on leather, cloth, thread, and wool, on metals and glass,

as well as on all ships entering the river. At Rouen the viscounty of the water was divided into sections, sometimes farmed separately, each of which was responsible for tolls from a certain kind of merchandise, or from

a certain gate. Thus there was a ‘ferme des Quatre Piez’ for fresh food, hides, and wool, a ‘ferme des Peaus engravelées’ for tanned leather, another for eggs, cheese, and poultry, and still another for cloth, thread, and dyes.2 The ‘modiatio’ on wine furnished an even larger revenue than the taxes on food and cloth.2 A large number of men must have been needed to collect these dues, but, except for some references to the sergeants of the viscounty of the water of Rouen,‘ little is known about them. Smaller towns probably did not have such an elaborate system of tolls, but there are indications that duties were levied on imports or sales in many other prévétés.5 Moreover, the direct toll was only one way of taxing commercial transactions. In most towns on the royal domain, market stalls and market places were owned by the king, and large sums of money were collected for their use.6 Some of the communes had their own markets, but they too had to pay the king rent, or at least a sum for permission to use them.’ From a purely economic viewpoint, the rights of justice which were con-

nected with the prévétés were unimportant, and in the smaller towns the 1 Ch. de Beaurepaire, La Vicomté de ’ Eau, pp. 283 ff.; M.A.N., 2° sér., v, 193-194. 2 Beaurepaire, op. cit., p. 282. Cf. Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, fols. 6’, 7, for the division of the viscounty in 1270, which is much the same. 3 Seine-Inf., G 1109. 4 Beaurepaire, op. cit., p. 349. 5 Quer. Nor., nos 224, 395, 519; Ech., no. 484; Cart. Nor., no. 1079; Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 20 and passim. ® Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, passim; Cart. Nor., no. 1079. 7 Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 3; Olim, 1, 632; Cart. Nor., no. 317, Pont-Audemer must use the king’s ‘halla’ to its fullest extent before they can use the new stalls belonging to the town, for which

they pay 15#.a year. A.N., J. 780, nos 6, 8, payments for markets by Falaise and Caen.

Royal Administration and the Towns 83 administration of justice probably took little of the prévét’s time. In Rouen and Caen, however, the jurisdiction of the prévét cannot be ignored. In many respects the court of the viscounts of the water would rank with

an assize. It had as many or more people subject to its jurisdiction, the value of the property affected by its decisions was very great, and even in criminal cases it had important rights. The viscounts of the water had complete control of the harbor of Rouen, and important rights on the Seine from the sea to Paris. No ships nor freight could be moved in the port without their permission,! everything on the water was in their jurisdiction,? and they acted as coroners whenever bodies were found in the Seine.? They had justice on the river as far as Paris on all men who tried to evade payments of tolls or fines.’ In commercial cases they rivalled the commune itself. Traders who were not citizens of Rouen might sue for debts before the viscounts,® and many cases between outsiders and members of the commune were settled in the viscounts’ court. The viscounts were to be treated as equals by the mayor and peers of the town, and if they were insulted, or if their rights were invaded by the commune they could bring the offenders to terms by cutting off the town’s trade.’ Finally, they shared with the royal viscount of Rouen the justice of thieves taken on a market-day.?®

The prévéts of other towns may not have had so large a jurisdiction, but by the very nature of their office they must have had some of these pow-

ers.2 The right to collect customs and tolls implies the right to punish those who try to evade payment, and the duty of keeping order in the market-place would necessarily include the right of settling some of the disputes which arose there. It is certainly significant that very few cases arising out of commercial transactions can be found in the Olim or the recorded judgments of the Exchequer or assizes. Most of these cases must have been settled by the prévéts or by the courts of the communes in the few towns where communes existed. The prévéts were usually members of the third estate, and often bur-

gesses of the towns which they farmed.’* However, they seem to have 1 Beaurepaire, op. cit., p. 329-332, 2 Ihid., p. 325. 8 Ibid., p. 352. 4 Ibid., p. 387. 5 Ibid., pp. 331, 334. 8 Jbid., pp. 326, 331, 334. 7 Ibid., pp. 323, $28. 8 Jiid., p. 336. ® For Caen see Marnier, pp. 85-86. Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 20 and passim, ‘justice’ fre-

quently mentioned as part of prévétés. Cf. Eudes Rigaud pp. 766 ff., for large powers held by prévots of the archbishop. 10 Olim, 1, 355, viscounts of the water are citizens of Rouen; Quer. Nor., nos 280, 300.

84. Administration of Normandy Under St Louis had little class feeling and were much more apt to oppress their own peo-

ple than to aid them. The Querimoniae suggest that they frequently raised tolls and imposed new exactions in order to increase the profits of their farm.! The difficulties of the Church in preserving its commercial liberties may have been partly due to the greed of the prévéts. The prévéts had a peculiar position in the royal administration; they were not part of the regular civil service, but they were controlled by it. They not only made regular payments to the bazllis, but also acted as supervisors of public works on occasion, and thus came into closer contact with these officers.?

It was obviously to their advantage to agree with their superiors as far as possible, and on the whole the prévéts supported the growing royal absolutism.

The towns, however, were not entirely helpless before these officials. Some rudimentary institutions of local self-government existed almost everywhere, and the communes had secured a large amount of home rule. Norman towns may be roughly divided into three groups; those with communal charters and permanent organization and liberties; those which had permanent organization and liberties without the final security of communal status; and those which had no permanent organization, though from time to time they could create temporary agents and representatives. Delisle has listed the communes existing in Normandy at the accession

of Philip Augustus.? Some of these, while they may have continued throughout the century, have left so little trace of their activity that the mere fact of their existence is doubtful. Royal policy was on the whole unfavorable to the communes, and it would not be surprising if some of the weaker ones succumbed at an early date, when Rouen itself was ruined

by 1300. In the list of communes belonging to the king drawn up at the time of Philip Augustus, we find ‘Rothomagum, Vernolium, Cadomus,

Falesia, Pons Audomari...ad consuetudines Rothomagi.’* These are precisely the communes which seem important in Normandy during the century, (with the exception of Eu, which was not in the royal domain), and the description which follows is based primarily on the history of these towns. The question of the origin of communes does not concern us here, ex-

cept as it throws light on the attitude of the royal government to these organizations. ‘The theory that the Norman communes were created in order to obtain increased military resources has been attacked by Pack1 Quer. Nor., nos 160, 268, 519, and passim. 2 A.N., J. 780, no. 4, and passim. 8 Cart. Nor., p. XV.

‘ HLF. xxi, 684. This confirms Giry’s belief that Verneuil had adopted many of the customs of Rouen by 1200.

Royal Administration and the Towns 85 ard,! and events of the thirteenth century support his arguments. The fact that the communes owe military service is duly recorded,? but when service is actually required the communal forces do not appear in lists of fighting men. The communes were summoned for the Foix expedition, but Rouen was the only one to send a representative to the rendezvous, and he came merely to announce that the service owed by his fellow-citizens was limited to the lands within a day’s journey of their homes.® Moreover, commune and non-commune were summoned in the same breath; Caen and Bayeux are listed together, and Verneuil is merely one of twenty-eight towns of the bazlliage of Gisors-Verneuil which were cited.® Apparently the ordinary towns owed as much, or as little military service as

the communes, and the only value of this service to the king was the fact

that by forcing the communes to redeem it in cash, he could tax them without arguing over his right to a tallage. On the defensive side the communes seem no more important. The great castles and fortresses of Normandy were not dependent on communal garrisons, and were frequently far away from any commune.’ In Verneuil, the bali spent more money on the fortification of other towns than he did on the defenses of the commune.’ The communes had to furnish a town watch, but so did the burgesses of Vernon and Bernai.® The financial reasons for the creation and maintenance of the communes

were no longer as strong as they had been in the twelfth century. If annual payments were made by the communes for their liberties, they are hard to find, and in any case they do not seem to have been very large.® The king was frequently annoyed by the opposition of the communes to his arbitrary demands for money, and by the necessity of negotiating with

their leaders. With peace and order in the land, the smallest markettown could thrive, and the king drew a large income from levies on com1. R. Packard, “The Norman Communes under Richard and John,’ Haskins Anniversary Essays, (Boston, 1929) pp. 233 ff.; ef. Prentout, Les Etats Provinciaux de Normandie, 1, 61 ff. 2 Summa, p. 69; Giry, Etablissements de Rouen, u1, 36.

3 ALF, xu, 754. 4 Ibid., 737.

5 Ibid., '751. This list includes places as unimportant as Pont St Pierre, as well as the more important towns of Breteuil, Evreux, and the Andelis. It should be noted that a summons to the commune of Verneuil appears alone in another place, ahd., '748. 6 H.F., XXIV, preuves no. 92, expenditures on fortification in the Avranchin; Cart. Nor., no. 209 list of royal castles. 7 A.N., J. 775, 780 passim. 8 B. i. C. x1, 526; Arresta Communia, no. 6. 9 H.F. xxiv, preuves no. 216, Verneuil is paying the king 80 #. (a term?) and the payment is regular enough so that it is tithed for the bishop; Cart. Nor. no. 651, Verneuil owes the king 1662. in 1260; it

is possible that the commune paid 1602. a year. H.F., xxi, 255, Rouen paid the king 5002. at Easter 1238 but this was probably a tallage for military service.

86 Administration of Normandy Under St Louris merce without feeling any necessity for granting favors to merchants. If the communes increased neither the military nor financial resources of the king, it is not surprising to find hostility to communal liberties among the officials of the royal administration. When to this is added the ill-will of the Church and the frequent opposition of poorer members of the commune to the ruling aristocracy, it is easy to understand the gradual decline of the communes during the thirteenth century.! The ‘Etablissements de Rouen,’ which formed the basis for the government of most of the Norman communes, afforded many opportunities for conflict between royal officials and local authorities. ‘The communes were

constantly reminded that they were dependent on the king, while the baillis were often irritated by their lack of complete authority in the towns. The commune of Rouen was an association with extensive rights over its

members and fairly complete jurisdiction in the territory in which they lived. Suits between members of the association, or between any people within the city walls, could be settled only in the courts of the commune unless theft, mutilation, or murder were involved.2. Contracts made or acknowledged before an official of the commune were enforced in its courts,

even though a stranger were a party.’ Injuries to a member by a stranger could be punished by a fine,‘ and a stranger who sued a member was judged by the commune unless his lord could try the case in a very short period of grace. The commune could hold inquests, judge suits for land, levy local taxes, and punish offenses against itself.6 As an association of merchants, it had valuable commercial rights and privileges, most important of which was the monopoly of the navigation of the lower Seine.’ Finally, the commune was supposed to be exempt from arbitrary tallages.® Every one of these privileges was a source of trouble. Questions of jurisdiction remained in dispute between barll: and commune throughout 1 There is still a great deal to be learned about relations between the royal government and the communes at this time. For the most important material see Giry, Les Etablissements de Rouen, and Documents sur les relations de la royauté avec les villes; A. Luchaire, Les communes frangaises, (Paris,

1911); P. Viollet, Histoire des institutions, t. u1, (Paris, 1900); A. Chéruel, Histoire de Rouen; S. R. Packard, loc. cit., S. Deck, La ville d’Eu (Paris, 1924) shows similar problems arising in the case of a baronial commune. 2A.Giry, Et. de Rouen, u, articles 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 26, 34, 35, 45, 46, 49 and 50 of the

charter. The Church and some feudal lords had enclaves in the city over which the commune had no jurisdiction. 3 Tbid., art. 21, 22, 26, and p. 57. 4 Ibid., art. 17, 21, 49. 5 Tind., art. 27. 6 Tbhid., art. 23, 13, and p. 57. 1 Ibid., p. 59.

8 Ibid., p. 58, Philip Augustus promises not to tallage Rouen against its will; Quer. Nor., no. 253, Verneuil claims exemption from fowage by its charter,

Royal Administration and the Towns 87 the century. The right of Rouen to make recognitions and inquests, and the right of the mayor to issue summons even in cases reserved for the royal courts was opposed by the bazll: as late as 1278. Even though the commune gained confirmation of these privileges from Philip 11,1 it required a later judgment of Parlement to complete their victory.2. In most cases of debt it was impossible for the commune to force a stranger to pay, or even to appear in court without the assistance of the royal government,’ and a stranger who denied his debt before the mayor was judged by the bailli.4 The commercial privileges of Rouen conflicted with the rights of others and were difficult to maintain, especially when the outside party was a monastery.’ Disputes between prévéts and communes were frequent, and the prévéts could usually bring the offending town to terms by interfering with its commerce.’ The financial exactions of the king were not checked by the charters; officials of Rouen were severely punished for refusing to agree to a tallage in 1286,’ and the accounts of the communes about 1260 show large payments to the king.* The mere fact that the king could demand these accounts is a sign that the communes were losing their financial independence. Even in local legislation the communes were closely watched. The mayor of Falaise was fined for making an ordinance without the king’s permission,® and in other towns changes in local customs were submitted to the king for approval.!° In their quarrels with the Church over ecclesiastical immunities and privileges, the communes usually received the sympathy, and sometimes the open support of royal officials,“ and as a result, they had some success in their claims. Clerks who engaged in business, but who refused to share in the expenses of the towns were especially obnoxious, and the communes

regularly, and sometimes successfully, attacked them in the courts.” Church lands were not in the jurisdiction of the communes, and the bound-

aries were often in dispute.’ Even when the limits were known, there 1 Giry, Et. de Rouen, 1, 64. 2 Olam, u1, 135.

3 Giry, op. cit., 11, 57; Cart. Nor., no. 316. 4 Giry, op. cit., 11, 57. 5 Olim, 1, 775, 918, 484.

6 Beaurepaire, op. cit., p. 323, 325, 328; Olim, u, 116, trouble between burgesses and prevéts of Caen. 7 H.F., xxi, 345, the mayor and others imprisoned for refusing to pay a tallage; Olim, u1, 82, opposition to a ‘maletolte’ in 1276. 8 Cart. Nor., nos 647-651; Giry, Documents, pp. 85, 106, 107; A.N., J. 780, no. 6, Verneuil owes the king 200 ?. at Michaelmas 1279. 9 Olim, 1, 441.

10 Tbid., 562, (Verneuil and Pont-Audemer). 1 Bourrienne no. 304; Chéruel, Rouen, 11, 289, 298. 2 Keh., nos 272, 376, Cart. Nor., no. 1187, Olim, 1, 910, 911. 18 Chéruel, op. cit., 11, 289, 293.

88 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis were objections if the churchmen built walls around their possessions, for this emphasized the independence of the holding and made it more attrac-

tive as a sanctuary.! The operations of the church courts were also a source of trouble; burgesses objected to citations to the cities of the bishops, and to the harshness of church law in matters of intestacy.2, The bad feeling sometimes ended in armed attacks on the possessions of the Church. Eudes Rigaud notes several raids on church property by citizens of Rouen

in connection with the rising of the Pastoureauz,? and the abbot of St Ouen had to hire professional champions to defend his land against the commune.‘ On the other hand, the commune was not always the aggressor, and many churchmen may have agreed with the chapter of Rouen that communes should be attacked in every possible way.® The rising of the lower classes against the communal oligarchies falls

outside our period. Chéruel and Giry have traced its course at Rouen,® and discontent must have existed for a long time before it was expressed in actual violence. The favor shown by the king to leading bourgeois families of Falaise, Caen, and Rouen’ may have played some part in causing the trouble. Families which were furnishing bavllis to the royal civil service would scarcely oppose the king, and opposition to the exactions of the king may have strengthened the hatred of the common people for the ruling caste. The riots which resulted from this class conflict furnished the excuse for the revocation of the charter of Rouen in 1292. The commune was a dying form of organization, but less ambitious types of local self-government had a longer future beforethem. Theroyal government was quite willing to let burgesses of Norman towns deal with administrative details as long as they did not become too independent. The government saved expense, and the burgesses secured some of the benefits of homerule. It was possible for a town to have important commercial and legal privileges, a treasury and powers of taxation, and a mili-

tia under its own control without its being a commune. Breteuil and Vernon are the best known examples of towns of this class,’ but there 1 Tbid., 269 (cf. H.F., xxi, 388); Cart. Nor., nos 564, 891. 2 Olim, 1, 463; H.F., xxi, 644; Eure, G 6, p. 119, G 122, fol. 42”, compromise between Verneuil and the bishop of Evreux on these questions. 3 Eudes Rigaud, pp. 23, 74, 112.

4 AF, xx, 388. 6 Chéruel, op. cit., 11, 29. 6 Giry, Et. de Rouen, 1, 44 ff.; Chéruel, 1, 170 ff, 11, 291.

7 Cart. Nor., no. 76, Quer. Nor., no. 409, favors to mayors of Falaise; Chap. vu, p. 96, burgesses of Caen and Rouen made royal baillis. 8 M. Bateson, “The Laws of Breteuil,’ in E.H.R. xv, 73 ff. 302 ff, 496 ff, 754 ff; “Coutumes de Ver-

non, B.E.C. xvi, 522 ff. See E. Chenon, in Revue Historique du Droit (Haarlem) iv, 364, as to the legal position of such towns.

Royal Administration and the Towns 89 must have been many others with somewhat similar rights. Unfortunately, the scattered information which is available does not make it possible to draw a very clear line between these towns with permanent organization and those which acted as units only on special occasions. Any town, or indeed, any parish could start a lawsuit and choose men to represent it when the suit was tried in the king’s court.1. When the king took fouage or tallage from the towns it seems altogether probable that local assessments and collections were made by representatives of the local bourgeosie.2. Representation for the ‘bonnes villes’ could not have been an entirely new idea in the fourteenth century, and representation in justice and in collection of taxes may have paved the way in Normandy as it did in England.? In conclusion, we may ask if there was any clearly defined royal policy

toward the towns, and commercial life in general. Was St Louis’ advice to his son to cherish the good towns of the kingdom anything more than a pious wish? Does the thirteenth century witness the beginnings of an alliance between the king and the third estate? Of the five kings who ruled Normandy from the conquest to the end of the century, Philip Augustus was undoubtedly the most friendly to the communes. He at least preserved their old liberties, if he added little to

them. This policy was largely due to the necessities of the conquest. The communes’ charters were confirmed to insure rapid surrender of the towns! and supplementary privileges were granted to gain their support

for the new government.’ Many communes created in the troublous times of Richard and John were not preserved by the conqueror, probably because they were too weak to be dangerous, or helpful. Yet Philip seems to have had some idea of encouraging business, and some conception of the profits which he might obtain from increased trade. This seems the

best explanation for his very tolerant attitude to Christian and Jewish usurers,® and may have had something to do with his treatment of the Norman communes. St Louis did not increase the numbers or the privileges of the communes, and his financial demands upon them, while not as severe as those of his successors, nevertheless were a heavy burden on their 1 Cart. Nor., no. 1187 (Coutances); zbid., no. 953 (Bretteville); Ech., no. 14, (Brionne); Olim, 1, 178 (Ezy). On this class of towns, see Luchaire, Manuel des Institutions, pp. 376 ff, and Delisle, Etudes sur la Classe Agricole, pp. 135, 155, 171. 2 Brussel 1, 212, fouage was collected by representatives of each parish ca. 1210, and there is a reference to such ‘collectores’ in the bazlliage of Verneuil in 1252 in Layettes v, no. 581. 3 Prentout, Les Etats Provinciaux de Normandie, I, 65 ff. 4 Cart. Nor., nos 75, 77, 1072 and p. xv. 5 Giry, Et. de Rouen, 11, p. 56; Cart. Nor., no. 102, 171.

6 Cart. Nor., nos 75, 1072, and above, Chap. Iv, p. 48.

90 Adminstration of Normandy Under St Louis resources.: Under Philip mz royal exactions and the hostility of royal officers increased,? and both reached a climax under Philip rv. In the case of the communes we find growing ill-will between the king

and the leaders of the third estate. The increasingly powerful royal administration would tolerate no rival, feudal, ecclesiastical, or communal. The unincorporated towns escaped much of this hostility, but none of the -thirteenth-century kings seem to have made any great effort to gain their favor. There is no tendency to free trade, even within the boundaries of the duchy. Old monopolies and privileges were confirmed and Philip Au-

gustus apparently tried to preserve the customs barrier between Nor| mandy and France.’ St Louis did try to make Rouen a free port, but the * commune put a time limit on the experiment.‘ Philip tv, by revoking the charter of Rouen, destroyed one of the great trade monopolies, but he was perfectly willing to establish it again for money.’ Norman merchants abroad received some protection from the French government, mainly through the dangerous policy of reprisals,‘ but the king might forbid all exports at any moment, and so ruin foreign trade.’ On the whole there is no evidence that the French kings of the thirteenth century tried to promote commerce or protect the towns, at least in Nor-

mandy. If towns throve and commerce increased it was because the Capetians gave Normandy a century of peace and orderly government, and if the third estate sided with the kings it was in gratitude for these general benefits, and not for specific favors. 1 See the accounts mentioned above, p. 87. 2 Olim, u, 82, a ‘maletolte’ levied at Rouen just before 1276; zbid., 116, troubles in Caen; Chéruel, op. cit., 1, 173, the king persuades Rouen to grant a new tax on sales in 1283. 3 Cart. Nor., nos 75, 171, 102; Giry, Et. de Rouen, u, 56. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 721. 6 Giry, op. cit., 1, 44.

8 Olim,1, 561, reprisals against William of Holland; Notices et extraits, xx111, 2e partie, 139, count of Brittany must pay damages to Norman merchants; Cart. Nor., no. 863, protest to England. 7 Ord. x1, 353.

VIII THE AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT A GOVERNMENT or bad not its institutions also in the characterisofgood its officials. Thisonly wasinespecially true in but the case of the Norman government where individuals had great power, unchecked by appeals or codrdinate responsibility, and where adequate supervision of subordinates was difficult. Fortunately for Normandy the officials of the Norman administration as a group conducted themselves as civil ser-

vants and not as irresponsible tyrants. The abuses of which they were guilty were caused by their anxiety to maintain and extend royal rights rather than by their desire for personal profit or power.

At the head of the government was the king. By his appointment of officials, by his orders and decisions, he set the tone for the whole administration. Normandy was an important province politically and financially; the kings knew it well, visited it often, and took an active inter-

est in its affairs. At the same time, they rarely interfered directly with the Norman administration except in behalf of the Church. There are few acts of a legislative character applying to Normandy alone, and the great Ordonnances for the royal domain as a whole were attempts to set standards of official conduct rather than efforts to change local custom or practice. Philip Augustus, like most mediaeval conquerors, kept his new lands

as he found them and made little effort to assimilate them to the older parts of his domains. Norman custom was respected and determined, where necessary, by inquest; the Norman courts were retained; the only significant change was the substitution of Frenchmen for Normans in im-

portant offices. The new and larger type of bazlliage originated in his reign, but was not fully developed by his death. Louis vit reigned too short a time to develop a definite Norman policy. Louis rx continued his grandfather’s work; the administrative subdivisions took their final form in his reign; the administrative machinery was so perfected that it ran smoothly even during the king’s absences from France. The French curia developed more control over Norman affairs, especially with the rise

of Parlement. Royal officers, toward the end of the reign, showed some signs of getting out of control and a little too much zeal in protecting the king’s rights. Otherwise, except for the imposition of ters and danger, 91

92 Administration of Normandy Under St Lous there are no signs that Louis rx tried to get more than his strict due as feudal lord of Normandy. Philip 111 followed his father’s policy in general, though he was a little less generous to the Church, for example, in the question of amortization. The increasing complexity of the administration made it harder to control, and it seemed more and more anxious to increase the king’s power at the expense of everyone else. In the next reign these tendencies became stronger and the officials clearly tried to

carry royal authority beyond feudal limitations. Philip tv encouraged this, or at least acquiesced in a policy which gave him increased revenue and power. The king’s wishes influenced all officials, but those of the central curza were naturally in closer contact with him and served as intermediaries between him and other royal agents. For this reason the officials of the curta who formed the link between the king and the Norman administration must be considered here, even though their work was not confined to

the duchy. The most important of this group were the Masters of the Exchequer. Non-Norman, almost without exception, trained in the curia before their Exchequer work,! they proved exceedingly able in securing codperation between the two bodies and at the same time respected

Norman custom? and administered it fairly. The first Masters, under Philip Augustus, were brother Guérin and Walter the chamberlain; the former held the position with only a few absences until 1225, the latter was replaced by another chamberlain, Barthélemi Roye, in 1218.4 Barthélemi kept his place until 1234, with a fellow-chamberlain or clerk serv-

ing with him most of the time.’ After his service the Masters were changed more frequently, and clerks predominated, men such as Alberic le Cornu,® Jean de la Cour,’ Eudes de Lorris.2 These clerks were rapidly advanced to important positions in the Church; Alberic became dean of

Tours, Jean bishop of Evreux, and Eudes bishop of Bayeux. They were also important in the French curza, Jean de la Cour, and perhaps Alberic, guarded the great seal.» Toward the end of the reign of Louis 1 Olim, 1, 160, ‘Magistrorum curie Regis in scacario’.. . 2 Arresta Communia, no. 153, the Masters carefully examine Norman custom before giving a decision.

3 Ech., nos %, 15, 143, 224; zbid., nos 109, 114, 134, 162, Brother Aimard, Eudes, dean of Tours, or Guillaume de la Chapelle substituted. 4 Ibid., nos 231, 300, 377, 466, 490, 535. 6 Ibid., nos 405, 410, 432, 479, etc., with Ursio, the chamberlain; zbid., nos 497, 511, 572, with various clerks. 6 Ibid., nos 497, 511, 564, 539, 590. ? Ibid., nos 572, 791, 792. 8 Iind., nos 792, 798. ® Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., 1, 381, 387.

Agents of Government 93 rx and under Philip m1 the Masters were chosen among the leading advisors of the king; Eudes Rigaud, Pierre des Fontaines, Julien de Peronne, Mathieu de Vendéme, and Jean de Brienne all sat in the Exchequer.! Four members of the council of regency established by Philip m1 in 1270 had had Exchequer training.? From the time of Barthélemi Roye, many of the Masters were given experience in Normandy before reaching the Exchequer. Barthélemi had been used in settling the trouble between the commune and chapter of Rouen in 1207,? Alberic le Cornu had attended the Exchequer before becoming a Master,‘ Julien de Peronne, Guillaume de la Chapelle, and Renaud de Ville-Thierry served as baillis

before their work as Masters, and Eudes Rigaud was appointed only after several years residence in Normandy.®

Besides the Masters of the Exchequer, the king had other agents in Normandy who were responsible to him and his court rather than to the baillis. First of all, the enquéteurs must be mentioned, but their exceptional character made them unimportant as a continuous influence on the

Norman administration. ‘They seem to have been chosen among the friars who enjoyed the king’s favor and the clerks who surrounded the curia.6 The agents who replaced or aided the bazllzs in making inquests for Parlement had more frequent contacts with the duchy. Again they were for the most part king’s clerks, though local members of the clergy and even nobles were used.’ The court seems to have had specialists for the Norman work; two men devoted most of their time to such cases and the other royal clerks were used only occasionally in the duchy. Master Nicholas of Verneuil is the most prominent of these specialists in the Olim; he was used in Verneuil and Mantes constantly,’ and was hardly ever sent

outside Normandy.® Louis rx gave him a pension of 202. a year on the prévoté of Verneuil in 1269;!° this was raised to 4014. yearly by Philip m1;4

and on his death in 1273 the pension was paid regularly to his widow as 1 Kudes Rigaud, pp. 321, 346, 376, etc.; Ech., nos 813, 798; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 193. 2 Gallia Christiana, x1, 38. 8 Bourrienne, no. 304. 4 Ech., no. 466.

5 Eudes Rigaud became archbishop in 1248 and did not sit in the Exchequer untll 1258 (Eudes Rigaud, p. 321). 6 H.F., xxiv, p. *5, *8; Olim, 1, 154, 166, Master Jean de la Porte acts as enquéteur. 7 Olim, 1, 135, 158, Jean le Bochier, archdeacon of Bayeux; 122, the abbot of St Taurin; 136, the prior of the Hétel-Dieu of Evreux; 160, Pierre de Villers, knight. 8 Ibid., 1, 127, 166, 175, 198, 248, 256, 264, 278.

9 Tbid., 1, 210, at Beauvais, p. 278, at Augignac; H.F., xxiv, p. *6, used in Touraine for the affairs of the Jews in 1260. 10 Cart. Nor., no. 744. 1 Tbid., no. 812; A.N., J 775, no. 6. (50 Z.2.).

94, Adminstration of Normandy Under St Louis late as 1285.!_ Like several other officials, he left money to the king, as is shown by an account of 1275.2, He must not be confused with Master Nicholas d’Auteuil who was placed with Jean Sarracen on the council of regency in 1270 ‘propter scacarios et propter compotos Templi et alios compotos regni nostri,’ and who was still living in 1283.3 Almost as promiment is Master Simon des Poignées, canon of Evreux. Like Nicholas, he was used only occasionally outside of Normandy, and was constantly employed within the duchy from 1258 to 1266.4 Of the other clerks, Master Guillaume de Neuville, canon of Chartres, and Gilles de la Chaussée are the only ones to have much to do with Normandy. Guillaume held four inquests in Normandy between 1269 and 1275; the last one in the important case between the king and the count of Alencon con-

cerning the extent of the count’s holdings. He seems to have been a highly trusted agent and was used outside of Normandy in several very delicate cases. Grilles de la Chaussée began with work in Arras and Tournai;’ later he became castellan of Pacy and, by influence of his half-brother

Guillaume de Chartres, forester of Vernon.? Between 1277 and 1279 he made several important inquests.° Another important group of royal agents were the men sent out to handle certain financial matters. Little is known about them, but they seem to have been charged with supervising sources of royal revenue which were

intermittent; for example, mainmorte and vacant bishoprics.!° They also had some control of the forests and the Jews," and appear in Normandy mainly for these purposes. These collectors and special agents increase greatly in numbers and importance after 1285. Even before the regular organization of Parlement, royal agents are found at the assizes from time to time. Rogier Vincent, ‘famuli domini 1 [bid., nos 7, 9, 10, 11, 12; J 780, nos 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 2 Thid., no. 4, f. 11, f. 17, two payments of 25 7. t. each.

§ Gallia Christiana, x1, 38. Master Nicholas of Auteuil also appears at the Exchequer of Caen in 1268 (H.F., xxIv, preuves, no. 163). 4 Olim, 1, 36, 81, 96, 119, 126, 128, 165, 166, 177, 189, 196, 204, 213, 223, 233, 234. 5 [bid., 1, 323, 349, 370; AF ., xxu, 752.

6 Ch. V. Langlois, Za Régne de Philippe III (Paris, 1887), p. 171, Guillaume is one of the commissioners sent to take seisin of Toulouse; p. 219, made inquests on frontier of Aquitaine. Notices et extraits, XXI1, part 2, p. 159, Guillaume is one of two commissioners appointed to take evidence in the case between the town officers of Ghent and the countess of Flanders in 1277. 7 Olim, 1, 193, 201, 244, 295. 8 Cart. Nor., nos 907, 922. 9 Iind., nos 907, 908, 909; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23.

10 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 29, 30, 32, 34, collectors of mainmorte and formarriage; p. 21, 22, accounts of the guardians of the regalia of Chartres. 11 See chap. Iv, p. 40, for the forest accounts; Calvados, H 1663, sale of a Jew’s property by royal commissioners, Hervey, abbot of Bonneval, Pierre, archdeacon of Poissy, and master Guillaume de Valgregneuse, canon of Paris, in 1257. Cf. Ord., 1, 85, for a similar commission.

Agents of Government 95 regis, at the assize of Carentan 1222,! and Rogier de Gaem, ‘famularius domini regis,’ at St Wandrille in 1249,” are examples. These agents of the curia, even the Masters of the Exchequer, had only

an intermittent influence on the Norman administration, and never came into contact with the great mass of the people. The ball: and his subordinates were the government to most Normans, and except in the rare case of a visit of enquéteurs, their decisions were final. They were kept from considering this power as their own personal possession by short terms of office and frequent shifts from one bazllrage to another. Most of the Norman bazllis of the thirteenth century remained in office for less than five years; only a few trusted individuals had terms of more than ten years. Moreover, most of the long terms are in the early part of the century when the system was not fully organized. However, the Norman training of these bazllis was not wasted; more than twenty had second or third appointments in other Norman bailliages. There was a noticeable tendency to keep them in service in Normandy, and comparatively few were sent to other parts of the royal domain.® At first the baillis were all non-Norman and practically all from the old

royal domain. Thus, Jean de la Porte is remembered as a benefactor of Joyenval; Jean des Vignes, a former prévét of Senlis, held lands near Clermont; Jean de Rouvrai came from Rambouillet; the de la Chapelle from

Orleans; Aleaume Hescelin was a Parisian; Barthélemi Droon appears first in Etampes; Berruyer de Borron in Sens; Pierre du Thillai, Renaud Cornillon, and Miles de Lévis were born in the Isle de France.? Normans were appointed only later in the century, and even then were an exception. Luc de Villers, bazll: of Gisors in 1243, was probably a Norman; he was a witness at the assize of Gisors in 1235, and two other men of the same name served in Normandy later in the century. Renaud de Radepont, ball: of the Cotentin in 1258, is the next sure case of a Norman in this office,’ though Eudes de Gisors, ball: of Bayeux in 1249, perhaps took his name from his birthplace, and Arnoul de Cour-Feraud, bazllz of Caen in 1256, may have been allied to the Norman family of that name.’ Other 1 Manche, H 3328. 2 Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 178”.

8 For the terms of office of the baillis see Delisle’s list in the introduction to vol. xxrv of the H.F., and appendix I. 4 Moliner, Obituatres de la Province de Sens, 11, 308. 5 See Delisle’s notices on these men, loc. cit. 6 H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 105.

7 Radcpont is in the Vexin, and Renaud de Radepont, knight, is a witness at the assize of Orbec, 1251. (H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 131.) 8 Cf. Olum, 1, 41; Ech., no. 813.

96 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis batllas of Norman origin were Vincent de Val-Richer,! Chrétien le Chambellan,? and Jean de St Léonard. In many cases the bazllt had been trained in less important posts in the royal administration. Jean des Vignes had been prévét of Senlis; Barthélemi Droon appears first as assessor of Etampes; Guerne de la Verberie had also been prévét of Senlis; Guillaume des Voisins had served as castellan of Niort; Jean le Saunier had been a royal sergeant; Vincent de ValRicher was twice mayor of Rouen; Gautier de Villers and several others

began their careers as viscounts.4 These promotions must have helped greatly in making the royal officers think of their work as a real career, in creating the civil service which is such a striking feature of the French

government of the thirteenth century. At the same time the hereditary principle was not entirely dead and there were some signs that the new office-holders were tending to form a new aristocracy. Thus, the two de Ja Chapelle brothers succeeded their father as baillis of Caux, Etienne de la Porte followed Jean de la Porte in Rouen, the elder and younger Renaud Barbou served in turn in Rouen, and the three de Villers may have been another administrative family. However, many sons of batllis took no part in the government even though they remained in Normandy.® None of the baillis belonged to the higher nobility, none as far as we know were churchmen; otherwise no class distinctions are noticeable in their choice. (Guillaume de la Chapelle’? and Julien de Peronne® ranked high among the lesser nobility; Etienne de la Porte, Anseau le Vicomte, Arnoul de Cour-Feraud, and many others were knights; others had no title and several were taken from the bourgeoisie.* However, in the first part of the century many baillis acquired land in Normandy by royal gifts or purchase, and thus identified themselves with theland-holdingclass. Jean de la Porte, Jean des Vignes, Geoffroi de la Chapelle, Barthélemi Droon, 1 fF ., XXIv, p. *113. 2 Manche, H 429, Chrétien holds land near Caen; Bib. deR., MS. Martainville Y94, fol. 188”, 189, 190”, he holds farms near Bonneville; he began his career as viscount of Caen, see App. II. 3 Eudes Rigaud, p. 74. 4 Delisle, loc. cit., and Appendices J and II. 5 Ibid.

6 H.F., xxin, 758, the son of Geoffroi de la Chapelle was a simple knight; B.N., MS. Lat. 11060, fol. 90, the son of Barthélemi Droon held no office; Molinier, op. cit., 1, 492, the son of Julien de Peronne entered the Church; H.F., xxiv, p. *145, the son of Renaud de Ville-Thierry did likewise. 7 Bib. de R., MS. Y18, fol. 127°, Guillaume received the viscounty of Foucarmont from the countess of Eu, in addition to other lands. 8 Olim, 1, 378, Julien had important rights at Noyon; H.F., xxiv, p. *104, he held land at Péronne and Paris. 9 Delisle, loc. cit., Vincent de Val-Richer, burgess and mayor of Rouen, Chrétien le Chambellan, burgess of Caen; A. Depoin, Cartulaire de l Hétel-Dieu de Pontoise (Pontoise, 1886), p. 19; Jean le Saunier, burgess of Pontoise.

Agents of Government 97 Pierre du Thillai, Renaud de Ville-Thierry, and Miles de Lévis profited by the king’s generosity and received fiefs in the duchy.! It should be noted that most of these gifts date from the time of Philip Augustus, before the king had fixed the policy of forbidding the bazllis to acquire land in their baillaages. The barllis further identified themselves with the duchy

by frequent gifts to Norman churches. The anniversary of Jean de la Porte was kept by the Chapter of Rouen,? that of Jean des Vignes by Jumiéges,’ Etienne de la Porte was a benefactor of Bec,’ Julien de Peronne made a gift to La Madeleine of Rouen and his widow built a chapel to his memory at Bonport.’ These are examples from only one bazllrage; they could be repeated for all the others. However, the bazllis were not dependent onland for theirincome. Philip Augustus and St Louis showed their organizing ability by attaching an extremely high salary to the office, a salary so high that the temptation

to stoop to petty graft was greatly lessened. The Norman baillis were paid from 300 to 6002. a year, about the range of salaries found in the non-

Norman bazlliages. ‘The data are not sufficient to determine the reason for the variations in amount. It is probable that the bazlli of Rouen, who administered the wealthiest batllzage, was always the best paid; it is possible that a certain allowance was made for experience and length of service. For example, Chrétien le Chambellan, without previous service as a balla was paid 3002. for his second year’s work in the Cotentin (1275) and for his eighth year (1283) in the same bazlliage he drew 4002. However, this may result from including the 1002. allowance for robes and horses with

the salary in 1283, and in the case of other baillis actual decreases may be found after several years service.®

The high salary, the professional training and the supervision by Exchequer and curta seem to have created a high standard of honesty, as honesty was then measured, among the batllis. They were often guilty of injustice, but the injustice was for the benefit of the king and not for their own gain. The Quervmoniae’ and other records show the people deprived of property and rights in the relentless drive to consolidate and extend 1 Delisle, loc. cit.

2 Thi.

3 AF. xxi, 421. 4 Delisle, loc. cit.

6 H.F., xxut, 415. J. Andrieux, Cartulaire de Bon Port, p. 295, Julien’s widow buys land on which to build the chapel in 1276. 6 See Appendix III.

7 Quer. Nor., nos 410, 461, the bazllz confiscates property for the king and refuses to hold inquest; nos 452, 469, the bazllz refuses to accept result of inquests which show that he should not have confiscated some property; no. 447, illegal condemnation of a thief, etc. See Petit-Dutaillis’ study on the Quervmoniae in Essays Presented to Prof. Tout, (Manchester, 1925).

98 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts the royal domain, but they show little deliberate extortion. The bazllis took advantage of every twist of the law, they enforced it up to the limit, but in most cases it was the law which they enforced. A few cases in the Querimoniae charge the bazllis with extortion,'! but in some of them the money received is obviously taken as a fine,? and the others refer almost entirely to the first bazllis, who were chosen as much for their military ability as for their judicial integrity. At any rate, these cases are few compared with similar accusations against royal officers in other parts of the domain and compared with the amount of business which the bazllis transacted. The records of the Church confirm this impression—the batllas are often accused of encroaching on Church jurisdiction, but rarely with corruption.2 However, two baillis of the first part of the century, Cadoc and Raoul Arondel,* were punished for misconduct in office. Cadoce was a mercenary, given a small bazlliage as payment for his services, Raoul Arondel had served the count of Champagne;' thus neither was a product

of the royal civil service. In the latter half of the century the bavllis have even a better record, and no serious charges are brought against them.®

Closely associated with the bari was his clerk. The importance of this officer should not be underestimated. ‘Though the clerk had only delegated powers, his position as keeper of the records and his knowledge

gained through long tenure of office gave him great influence. Clerks held assizes as lieutenants of the bazlli,” made leases of the royal domain,®

and arbitrated private quarrels,? beside carrying on their regular duties. Wherever their activity can be traced, the clerks seem to serve longer than

the badlis. Master Silvestre of the Cotentin worked for three bazllis ;*° master Richard du Fay held his place for over twenty years, serving under five baillis; master Pierre Perier of Caen had a service of fourteen years 1 Quer. Nor., nos 19, 289, 469, refer to Jean des Vignes; nos 33, 49, 96, 101, to Pierre du Thillai;

nos 98, 290, to Jean de la Porte; no. 421 to Girard de la Boiste. Cases referring to Cadoc are not given here, as his guilt was proved, 2 Ihid., nos 96, 98, 101, 421.

3 For an example of the complaints of the Church against the batllis, see Eudes Rigaud, p. 287, the report of a provincial council. 4 Quer. Nor., no. 245; H.F., xxiv, p. *130. 5 H.F., XXIV, p. *119.

6 Calvados, H 5048, Pierre de Bailleus was suspected of prejudice, and he and his sergeants were replaced by special agents for one trial, but this did not injure his career; he served later as bailli of Caen, and seneschal of Saintonge (H.F., xxiv, *151). 1 H.F., XXIV, preuves, nos 94, 210.

8 Bib. deR., MS. Martainville Y94, fols. 5, 8, 11, 9. ® Calvados, H 1193, H 6636. 10 HLF ., xxiv, p. *148, he holds an assize in 1235 before Jean des Maisons arrives, and acts as Jean’s clerk in 1237; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 286", is still clerk in 1239; Cart. Nor., no. 465 appears with Luc de Villers in 1247.

fF ., XXIv, preuves, no. 150, Richard holds an assize in 1260; Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94

Agents of Government 99 under four bazllis.1_ In some cases the clerk became almost as important as a baillc; for example, Guillaume Acarin, clerk of the batll: of Caen. He

appears first in the Exchequer of Caen in 1217; from that date he is a regular attendant at the assizes of the bazlliages of Caen and the Avranchin, holds them himself on occasion, frequently acts as an arbiter, attends the Exchequer, and is consulted by the king with the Norman baillis in 1236. He became wealthy in the king’s service and made many pious foundations, chief of which was the collegiate church of the Sepulchre in Caen of which he was dean.2. He is last mentioned in 1239 and by that time asuccessor wasready. ‘Thissuccessor was Guillaume de Cambremer, like Acarin dean of the Sepulchre, but clerk to Jean des Vignes, bazlla of Rouen. His name is often found in the list of witnesses at assizes or the Exchequer, and at first is usually associated with that of Acarin.2? With Acarin he was called to the consultation of 1236; like Acarin he acted as arbiter. Another important clerk was master Richard du Fay of Rouen, who had a great part in the administration of that bazlliage,® perhaps because the baillis of his time, and especially Julien de Peronne, were frequently at Parlement or absent on the king’s business.’ The tradition of Guillaume Acarin was carried on by Philippe le Bourguignon, a canon of Guillaume’s foundation of the Sepulchre, who held several assizes in the Cotentin about 1285.8 passim, activity in making leases between 1260 and 1270. E. Deville, Cartulawre de Beaumont-deRoger (Paris, 1912), p. 50, Richard is called clerk of Julien de Peronne, bazlls of Rouen, in July, 1263; Cart. Nor., no. 664, he makes an inquest for Parlement, c. 1275; H.F., xxiv, p. *104, he holds the assize of Pont-Audemer, January, 1278, with the viscount of Rouen; H.F., xxi1v, preuves, no. 190, he collects a fowage in 1279; Cart. Nor., no. 976, he aids a bavllz of Verneuil to measure land for an exchange; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 183’, he holds the assize of Rouen as lieutenant of the bazllz in 1283. He granted lands and a house at Bourneville to the priory of Beaumont-le-Roger in January, 1288, E. Deville, Cartulaire de Beaumont, pp. 82, 84, and 208. 1 AF ., XXiv, preuves, nos 173, 208, Pierre is clerk in 1271 and 1285. 2 See H.F., xxiv, p. *135, for Delisle’s summary of his career, and in addition Cart. Nor., no. 358; Calvados, H 1193 and H 6636; cind., fonds de la Trinité, carton ‘Caen;’ Manche, H 13660 and H 18661;

B.N., MS. Lat. 926 fol. 9; Marnier, p. 100; Sauvage, Troarn (M.A.N., t. xxxiv), p. 391. 3 Marnier, loc. cit., with Acarin at assize of Falaise in 1236; Eure, Cartulaire de Bec, fol. 69, at assize of Pont de ]’Arche with Jean des Vignes in 1237; M.A.N., 2e sér., v, 205, at assize of Caen, 1239, with Acarin and Jean des Vignes; H.F., xx1v, preuves, nos 107, 116, 117, at assizes of Rouen 1242-44

with Jean des Vignes; Manche, H 13560, at assize of Caen, 1245, with Jean des Vignes; Bourrienne, no. 338, at Caen, 1245, as dean of the Sepulchre; Cart. Nor. no. 482 at an inquest held at Falaise in 1249; Ech., p. 118, at Exchequer of Rouen, 1231; zbid., nos 789, 791, 792, at Exchequers of 1248, 1251, and 1252 as dean of the Sepulchre. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 426. 5 Calvados, H 7861. 6 See above, p. 98, note 11. 7 Olam, 1, 124, 128, 185, 136, 177, etc.

8 C. Bréard, Cartulaire de St Ymer, p. 238, Phillippe le Bourguignon, rector of Parrigny holds the assize of Carentan, April, 1283, with the viscount of Carentan; Manche, H 535, a master Phillippe

100 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis Little is known about the clerks beyond their official acts; they worked in the background, unobserved by the people, and the bavllis had the blame or the credit for their work. Only one complaint in the Querimoniae refers to a clerk, and here he is accused of influencing his bazllz to give an unjust decision.! The financial officers of the king knew better whom to blame for deficiencies, and inadequate accounts were referred back to the clerks of the bazllis.2 However, even in such documents the clerks are seldom mentioned and few conclusions about their behavior are possible, unless the absence of material be considered a testimony of good charac-

ter. The birthplaces of the clerks are almost unknown. Guillaume de Cambremer, Philippe le Bourguignon, and Richard du Fay were probably Normans; others may have been, but of this there is no proof. The viscounts, subordinated to the batllis, were yet important officers. Judges in minor cases in their own courts, toward the end of the century they were used more and more to represent the bazlla at the assizes and supplanted him as the officer before whom contracts were made.’ They

collected much of the royal revenue and appointed some of the minor officials. In general, they seem to have been kept in one place longer than the baillis; thus Renaud d’Alisy was viscount of Rouen from 1237 to 1249; Guillaume du Bois viscount of Montivilliers from 1231 to 1246; Robert de Beaumont, viscount of Caux from 1222 to 1233; Richard de Milli, viscount of Caux from 1236 to 1246.5 They were also rotated in office, though not as regularly as the bazllis; Renaud de Luzarches was viscount of Evreux and Verneuil; Nicholas de Villers of Auge and Rouen; Aubert de Luzarches of Maulévrier and Caux, Renaud d’Alisy of Vaudreuil and Rouen. A viscount could become a bazllz; Pierre de Bailleus,

balla of Gisors and the Cotentin, was at first viscount of Valognes; Nicholas de Villers, baillz of the Cotentin, had served in two viscounties; Gautier de Villers, successively baal: of Caux, Rouen, and Caen, had been holds the assize of Carentan in December, 1285, with the viscount. By a compromise made there, master Philippe le Bourguignon is to present to a disputed church. The two Philippes are probably the same. H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 210, master Philippe holds the assize of Avranches in January, 1286. Manche, Cartulaire de St Sauveur le Vicomte, p. 85, Philippe le Bourguignon holds the assize of

Mortain in November, 1285, with the viscount, as ‘locum tenens’ of the bailla. Ibid., Cartulaire du Chapitre de Coutances, p. 25, Philippe le Bourguignon holds assizes of Valognes and Coutances in December, 1287, as ‘vices gerens’ of the bailli. M. Dubosc, Prieuré de la Perrine (St-L6, 1878), pp. 13, 14, 29, holdings of the family Le Bourguignon near Carentan.

1 Quer. Nor., no. 469; the clerk is Richard Sancon, the balla Jean des Vignes. Cf. No. 96. 2 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 3, ‘loquatur cum clericis Reginaldi de Rapido Ponte.’ 3 Summa, p. 15, 151; Arresta Communia no. 71, in which it is assumed that the viscount has the records of the assizes; see above, chap. Ill, pp. 24, 25. 4 Cart. Nor., no. 664, and above, Chap. Iv, p. 35; Chap. vi, pp. 72, 73. 5 For the terms of the viscounts in this period, see Appendix 11.

Agents of Government 101 viscount of Coutances; Chrétien le Cambellan, bazllt of the Cotentin and Caen, was a former viscount of Caen. Thus the viscounts were members of the civil service and could rise in rank after faithful service. Like the baillzs, viscounts were drawn from all classes of society, but a far larger proportion were of Norman origin than in the case of their superiors. Robert de Fresnes, Guillaume du Bois, Adam des Moutiers held large estates in Normandy; Chrétien le Chambellan, Bernard Rabot and Alexandre Viart were burgesses of Norman towns; others have no title and their origin cannot be traced. Itis rather surprising to find clerks serving as viscounts, but there seem to be two such cases. Robert ‘clericus’ was viscount of Neuchatel in 1263, and may perhaps be identified with Robert de Villers, ‘clericus,’ who was viscount of Caen in 1271. Richard le Seneschal was viscount of Bayeux in 1252 and had served before as clerk to a

ball. There is some evidence to show that hereditary viscounts existed under Philip Augustus. St Louis bought off the claim of the son of a viscount of Avranches with a pension of 202. a year, though the hereditary character of the office was officially denied.1. Another man asked for the position of viscount between Risle and Touque as his by right of inheritance, but he lost his suit by inquest.’ The fact that the viscounts were frequently Normans, with lands in or near their viscounties, that they held office for long terms, that they were less closely supervised than the bazllis, made grafting easier and also more

attractive. ‘The viscounts were not nearly so well paid as the bazllis; their salaries ran from 60 to 1002. a year.2 With all these inducements to

accept bribes, the viscounts have a remarkably clean record, and few charges of corruption were made against them. The Querimoniae contain only one complaint of this nature against a viscount;‘ two more serious cases occur later in the century. The inquests on Jean de Neuvi, viscount of Pont-Audemer,* show the abuses of power possible to a viscount; he was accused of taking bribes to free prisoners, of bullying those who would not bribe him, and of wasting the king’s domain. He was probably convicted on this evidence, at least in 1278 the viscount of Pont-Audemer owes 56 #. to the king, which looks like theremnant of afine.6 Thibaud le Chatre, viscount of Mortain, was also accused of taking a bribe to free a 1 Cart. Nor., no. 429. 2 Ech., no. 658. 3 See Appendix Iv.

4 Quer. Nor., no. 346; no. 42 and 44, are hardly graft, but rather attempts to strengthen the king’s rights. 5 Cart. Nor., nos 664, 665, 1229. Delisle dates these inquests as ca. 1275; they may be a year or two later. 6 Bib. de R., MS. Leber 5646. The viscount’s land is to be seized to satisfy the debt.

102 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis prisoner, but a claim for damages arising from this was denied by Parlement in 1267.1. The Exchequer in 1277 found it necessary to forbid the viscounts to carry off their records,’ a practice which made it difficult to investigate their actions. The viscounts also had clerks, about whom little is known. Their opportunities to influence the administration were not as great as those of the clerks of the bavllis, and they have left even less record of their activ-

ity. The castellans were primarily military officers and had little to do with the general administration. Their connection with the forests has already

been considered.‘ Because of their military duties, a larger proportion seem to have been nobles than in the case of other officers.5 Their wages were rather high, in some cases above the level of the viscount’s pay.® The next group to be considered are the prévéts and other farmers of the

royal domain. They were practically all Normans, and belonged to all classes of society. Nobles, abbots, priests, clerks, burgesses, peasants— all are found as farmers of the domain, and their leases cover everything from the great city prévétés to the smallest fields and gardens owned by the king.” The evils inherent in the system are clearly shown in the Querumoniae; the farmer naturally tried to get as much from his lease as possible, increased rents and services, took away usages and privileges, and

even added free holdings to his farm. The fact that the royal domain was farmed whenever possible, and that the farmers had many opportunities to be unjust, must not be forgotten in appraising the administration. A large part of the king’s revenues passed through their hands, and they were almost as important to many of the inhabitants of Normandy as the barllis themselves. Excesses such as those noted in the Querumoniae counteracted much of the good administration in higher offices.

The sergeants also made a great deal of trouble for the people of the 1 Olum, 1, 251.

2 Arresta Communia no. 31, the viscounts are forbidden to carry off ‘scripta placitorum et compotos redditum’ under pain of ‘amissione servicii’ and fine. They may keep transcripts. 3 HF ., XXIV, preuves, no. 173, ‘Capa de lana,’ clerk of viscount of Caen, at assize of Vire, November, 1271; zbid., no. 201, Roger, clerk of Jean le Grand, viscount of Montivilliers, at pleas, February, 1284; Cart. Nor., no. 1222, priest of Amantville is clerk of viscount of Valognes, 1272; J. Andrieux, Cart. de Bonport, p. 66, Frambert, clerk of Michel de la Cour, viscount of Vaudreuil, 1227. 4 See above, chap. v1, p. 70.

5 A.N., J. 780, no. 6, ‘Dominus’ Robert de St Labin, castellan of Rugles; zbid., no. 5, ‘Dominus’ Enguerran des Bois, castellan of Breteuil; B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, ‘Dominus’ Robert de Bois-Gautier, castellan of Arques; Olim, 1, p. 616, ‘Dominus’ Baudoin de Longueval, castellan of Vaudreuil, etc. 6 B.N., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, the wages of the castellan of Arques are 901. a year. See above, chap. vI, p. 70.

7 Bib. de R., MS. Martainville Y94, passim; Quer. Nor., passim; Cart. Nor., nos 345, 369, 378, 608, 611, 630, etc. 8 Quer. Nor., nos 8, 55, 57, 59, 160, 226, 236, 275, 317 and passim.

Agents of Government 103 duchy. They had the combined duties of policeman and process-server; no case could progress far without passing through their hands, and the opportunities for graft in these offices were as great as they are at the present time, and fully as appreciated. The situation was complicated by the fact that many of the sergeants held their office as an hereditary fief and could be removed only with great difficulty. Many sergeanties, such as that held by the Pigace in Avranches,? remained hereditary throughout the century, but a study of the Querimoniae and the Olim indicates that the bazllis had a deliberate policy of forcing out the feudal sergeants wherever possible.2 There are too many complaints by men deprived of ser-

geanties for them all to be unjustified, and the general policy of the administration was to remove any feudal rights that interfered with the consolidation of the royal power. For the enfeoffed sergeants were sub-

stituted sergeants at wages. The more important of these were paid about 18%. a year,‘ others received less... Both feudal and appointed sergeants also received fees for their services,’ and the fees were large enough to make the office worth farming.’

Neither the reduction in the number of hereditary sergeants nor the rather large income from the office prevented abuses. The sergeants were accused of demanding food and lodging from residents in their districts.® They demanded payments from usagers before they permitted them their rights,? and the Exchequer found it necessary to regulate the fees legitimately received by sergeants in order to prevent overcharging.!®° There are several complaints in the Querumoniae concerning new payments demanded by sergeants," but these probably refer to attempts by the bazllis to collect more revenue. However, in the case of subsergeants, there is 1 Summa, p. 16, 26, 227-228. 2 HLF, XXIV, preuves, nos 41, 47, 64, 79, 83; Geoffroi Pigace, royal sergeant, appears at assizes of

Avranches 1217-26; zbid., no. 200, Raoul Pigace appears at assize of Avranches 1283, as royal sergeant. 3 Quer. Nor., nos 44, 87, 267, 338, 343, 364, 460, 473, 482; Olim, 1, 8, 16, (a case brought up before in Quer. Nor., nos 338 and 343), 80, 207, 303. W.A.N., 2° sér., v, 148, the king might demand 1001. relief from a sergeanty; A.N., J 775, nos 8, 9, feudal sergeanties in Verneuil bought for the king. 4 A.N., J 780, nos 3, 4, 5, 6, '7, wages of the sergeants of the bail: of Verneuil from 1271 to 1292 average about 182. a year; zbid., J '775 nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, the sergeant of Exmes is paid 181. 5s. a year from 1272 to 1285; B.N., MS. Lat. 17010, préce 3, p. 2, the sergeants of the bailli of the Cotentin are paid at this rate in 1282; zbed., MS. Lat. 9018, p. 23, the sergeants of Caux were paid about 267. a year in 1279. 5 See above, chap vI, p. 27. 6 Summa, p. 16, 26; Arresta Communza, nos 5, 43. 7 [bid., no. 55. 8 Eudes Rigaud, p. 413, 457. 9 Quer. Nor., nos 208, 209, 219. 10 Arresta Communia, nos 5, 88, 99. 1 Quer. Nor., nos 219, 225, 270.

104. Administration of Normandy Under St Louts no doubt that the payments demanded were entirely illegal, for these men had hardly any honest means of gaining a living.1. The Exchequer finally had to limit their number, and declared that they should receive all the fees which they collected instead of sharing them with their superiors, the sergeants.? These cases of misconduct are numerous but they should be

compared with the number of sergeants in Normandy. On the whole, even this branch of the administration does not seem excessively corrupt and was probably no worse than a modern police force. The knights and other regular attendants at the assizes and Exchequer, while not officers of government, cannot be neglected in discussing the administration. ‘They supplied a strong local influence in the courts of Justice, which must have had some effect on the king’s representatives. Families such as the Grimaut,? or the Beauvoir,‘ who appeared regularly at the assizes throughout the century, had every opportunity to become learned in the law, and must have aided in preserving Norman custom. Certain knights were deputed by the bazllz to hold assizes,® but this practice never was common, and clerks or viscounts were the more usual substitutes. The career of Raoul de Milloel is the best example of the influence which a knight might have. He was in constant attendance on the Exchequer or the assizes of Rouen, Orbec, Pont-Audemer, Falaise, and Caen for several years, usually in company with Jean des Vignes or Guillaume de Cambremer.* This remarkable record of attendance can be explained only by the supposition that he had unusual knowledge of the law, which made his presence desirable. In one case his dissent from a judgment is noted, which shows that his opinion was valued,’ and an Exchequer judgment in 1239 forced him to serve as an arbitror in a mise between St Evroul and Robert d’O,’ though he was reluctant to do so. His reluctance to serve may be explained in many ways, but the eagerness for his services is probably another proof of his legal ability. 1 Cart. Nor., nos 664, 1222. 2 Arresta Communia, no. 43. 3 HF ., XXIv, preuves, nos 64, 71, 79, 83, 203. 4 Ibid., nos 41, 64, 75, 80, 200. 5 Manche, Cartulaire de St Sauveur-le-Vicomte, p. 89, Jean Maribent, knight, holds the assize of Vire

in 1254 for the baillt, though clerk and viscount are present; Calvados, H 5048, Guerin de Meheudin, knight, named by Philip rv, holds the assize of Valognes for the baillz in 1288. 8 Iich., no. 466, note, Raoul attends the Exchequer of Easter, 1231; ibid., nos 658, 659, Raoul is at

the Easter Exchequer of 1239; Laffleur de Kermaingant, Cartulaire de Tréport, p. 179, Raoul de “Milout’ attends the Easter Exchequer, 1234; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 107, Raoul attends assize of Rouen in January, 1242; zbid., no. 126, assize of Orbec in January, 1249; ibid., no. 117, assize of PontAudemer in May, 1244; Ech., no. 409, note, assize of Falaise in October, 1227; Marnier, p. 100, assize of Falaise in July, 1236, with Acarin and Cambremer; Bourrienne, no. 338, assize of Caen in November, 1245 with Cambremer; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 265, Raoul witnesses a charter in 1239 with Jean des Vignes and Guillaume de Cambremer.

7 Marnier, loc. cit. |

§ Ech., no. 659.

IX CONCLUSION Noe institutions theircentralizing own linestendduring the reigncontinued of St Louis,toindevelop spite of along the strong encies of the French government. This independence is most noticeable in the fields of judicial administration and law. Norman courts resembled those of England and France, but retained their own peculiar characteristics. ‘The work of the sergeants as coroners, the importance of the viscount as a legal officer, and the institution of the Exchequer marked Normandy off from other French provinces. ‘The abandonment of the system of itinerant justices is the most noticeable divergence from English customs. The completeness of the Norman system of courts and the importance of the Exchequer kept the French Parlement from interfering too much with these courts. At the same time the fact that the men who presided over Norman courts were usually not Normans brought about a certain degree of assimilation with the judicial system in other parts of the royal domain. Norman law was even less affected by French contacts; the reign of St Louis is the period in which its great book, the Summa de Legibus, was written, and that book ignores non-Norman law and custom. The Norman system of writs and inquests, as established by the Angevins, continued to function. Customs peculiar to Normandy persisted, and at the end of the century Norman law was still quite different from that of the Ile de France, and probably more different from English law than it had

been in 1200. Nevertheless Norman law does not show the fertility of English law during this period; while new writs and procedures were developed they were not produced in the amazing numbers which are found in England. This is probably because the highest judges in Normandy, the Masters of the Exchequer, were foreigners, men who did their best to apply Norman law as they had learned it, but men who were not sufficiently versed or interested in that law to develop it further. They were also very busy men, their duties at the curia were far more important than their work in Normandy, and their juristic ability was probably devoted to the higher court. Another result of French influence seems to be the fact that trial by jury did not develop in Normandy as it did in England, while the inquisitorial procedure was greatly strengthened by the methods of Parlement. 105

106 Administration of Normandy Under Si Louis Normandy’s individuality in its financial administration was lost early in the century, but not before it had profoundly influenced the institutions

of the French monarchy. The importance of the financial work of the Exchequer under the Capetians does not seem to have been very great; it recelved money, paid rents, and made leases of the royal domain, but the final accounting was done at Paris. Military service based on the unit of the knight’s fee remained a Norman institution throughout the century. The gradual decline in the military importance of the knight’s fee in Normandy is paralleled by a similar development in England, although conscious experimenting by the sovereign was more important in the latter case. Norman forest administration remained very like that of England during the reign of St Louis, but the gradual creation of a central administra-

tion for the royal domain meant the introduction of French methods. Tiers and danger, while based on the rights of the old line of rulers, seem to be part of a general attempt to increase the king’s rights over private forests throughout the domain. The stronger Norman communes survived the conquest with their old forms of government and most of their privileges intact, but they could not resist the growing tendency toward centralization and increase of royal

authority. By the end of the century it was evident that the communes could not last much longer, and that the royal administration would control the towns in all important matters, even though some local self-goverment was preserved. The extent of Norman influence on French administration and the ways in which that influence was exercised are harder to define. Professor Haskins’ statement, that “Normandy . . . seems to have affected the government of Philip Augustus in ways which are still dark to us,’ remains true. It is certain that French kings and their most trusted officials visited Normandy often, knew it well, and had every opportunity to learn from Norman methods. Normandy’s contribution to the revenue of the French crown was large, far larger than that of other regions of equal size, and this must have encouraged study and imitation of Norman institutions. The development of the batlliage and the bailli may have been hastened by the fact that a similar development was taking place in Normandy at the time of the conquest. The barlliage becomes a definite territorial unit in Normandy earlier than in other parts of France, which may prove either that the idea came from Normandy, or that conditions in Normandy were especially favorable for trying such an experiment. The existence of the highly organized court of the Exchequer may have stimulated the differentiation of Parlement from the curia regis. In the

Conclusion 107 early part of the century officers of the curza sat in the Exchequer, and may well have learned from its methods. In later years the connection was still close, for the Masters of the Exchequer were also members of the Parlement of Paris. Norman influence seems to have been most important in the realm of finance. The careful and thorough system of accounting used by the officers of the curia and by the baill1as owes much to the Exchequer of Nor-

mandy. The check-lists, which enabled the central administration to know when local officers were failing to collect or turn in all the revenue from their district, the careful surveys of the royal domain, the concentration of responsibility on one officer in each district, the emphasis on money payments, all these methods, which characterize French financial administration in the thirteenth century, were characteristic of Norman finance in the twelfth. The Norman system of military service based on the knight’s fee had some influence in France. There seems to be an attempt during the century to set a definite amount of service for French vassals, instead of depending on the purely personal bond of homage. The careful records of military service owed by royal vassals, kept by the Capetians during this period, are also, perhaps, due to the example of Normandy. Such examples of specific influence are always open to question, and the

rapidly developing French government of the thirteenth century drew from many sources. But more important than any one institution was the general character of the old Norman government. Here was a great province in which the king was supreme, in which the nobles were powerless, in which the authority of the Church was rigorously limited, and in

which the communes were afraid to revolt. The officials of the French government must have wished that all the kingdom were like Normandy, and must have made many efforts to accomplish that wish. Normandy was a model province in another way. It was one of the best governed and most prosperous regions in France in the thirteenth century ; in fact, it is hard to think of a region in France, or even in Europe

in which it would have been better to live at that time. The prosperity and good government of Normandy show what the great thirteenth century monarch of France could be at its best. The reasons for these conditions are not hard to find. Normandy was free from war during this period, except for border skirmishes with Brittany and the siege of Belléme. The Norman nobles, already chastened by the Angevins, still further weakened by the confiscations of the conquest, could not revolt and dared not make private war. The Norman bishops, while they stood up for their rights in the early part of the cen-

108 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts tury, could be controlled by a strong king; and by the end of his reign St Louis had filled the sees of Normandy with such members of the royal

court as Eudes Rigaud, Eudes de Lorris, and Jean de la Cour. Since there was little opposition to royal authority in Normandy it was not : necessary to choose bazllis for the duchy on the basis of their fighting ability. Philip Augustus had filled Normandy with veterans of the war of conquest who did not always make good governors; witness Cadoc. As they disappeared, however, they were replaced by men from the civil serv-

ice rather than the army, and this tendency continued as it was seen that there was no danger of revolt. By the end of the century, Normans, and even members of the Norman bourgeoisie, were holding the office of bawlle, and such men would at least refrain from violent wrong-doing. Moreover the deliberate policy of the king was to favor Normandy, and give it good government, lest they drive it back into the arms of England and place a hostile ruler again within a day’s march of Paris. For these

reasons Normandy, on the whole, had good governors; the stories of bribery and violence related of officials in other parts of the realm have no

counterpart in the duchy. Another reason for good government in Normandy was the fact that Normans, especially the members of the upper classes, controlled the gov-

ernment to some extent. The minor officials, viscounts, clerks and sergeants were frequently Normans, and could mediate between ball and people. More important was the fact that judgments in the courts were officially given by knights and other leading citizens of theland. This closed the most obvious road to oppression, or at least made it difficult for the bazllc to be unjust. Moreover the whole work of the government passed before the eyes of these men as they sat in court, and any new claim

on the part of king or bazll1 would have to be passed by them before it could be enforced. They had to give in some cases, for example, in the matter of fers and danger, but on the whole few new burdens were placed on the people of the duchy during the reign. The feeling that they were to some extent governing themselves must have helped to keep the Norman nobles quiet. , Almost complete peace, and relatively honest government would have been enough to insure the prosperity of any mediaeval state. When the land was naturally wealthy, as was Normandy, the prosperity was even greater. ‘lhe constantly increasing revenue which the king drew from the duchy, the rising value of individual farms, the greater income from tolls and market-rights are all indications of the flourishing condition of Normandy during the century. How widespread this prosperity was is another question. Individual nobles and monasteries became badly in-

Conclusion 109 volved in debt during the reign of St Louis; a little later the lower classes of Rouen were driven to revolt by their misery; and throughout the century the poorer peasants were losing their holdings because they could not pay the rent. However, opportunities for rising in the world seem to ° have been numerous, and the absence of serfdom from Normandy gave even the peasant a chance. Records of farms of the royal domain show many such men pledging their small holdings in order to take as much again from the king asafarm. When such operations were successful the peasant might almost double his annual income. On the whole, the average Norman seems to have been sure of making at least a decent living during the thirteenth century, and this probably did as much as anything to strengthen loyalty to the new rulers.

APPENDIX I THE BAILLIS OF NORMANDY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY This list is based on that drawn up by Delisle and published in volume xxIv of the Historiens de France. Modifications of the dates given by Delisle are followed by notes. Rouen

Guillaume Poucin, 1204-1207 Guillaume Escuacol, 1208~1217 Jean de la Porte, 1219-1228 Jean des Vignes, 1228-1244 Etienne de la Porte, 1247-1254; B.N., MS. Fr. 9497, p. 371, Etienne gives accounts at Candlemas, 1254. Guillaume des Voisins, 1255-1260 Julien de Peronne, 1261-1272 Gautier de Villers, 1274 Renaud Barbou le Vieux, 1275-1286 Cauzx

Jean de Rouvrai, 1204—1210(?)

Guillaume de la Chapelle, 1210; Bib. de R., MS. Y44, fol. 126, a new act in which Guillaume is called castellan of Arques. Geoffroi de la Chapelle, 1212-1238 Thibaud de la Chapelle, 1224 (?) ~1245 Barthélemi Chevalier, 1248-1254; B.N., MS. Fr. 9497, p. 371, gives accounts as bailli of Caux, Candlemas, 1254. Gautier de Villers, 1256—12'70

Vincent de Valricher, 1272-1277 Raoul de Breulli, 1278-1286 Gisors

Aleaume Hescelin, 1209 (?) —1217

Guillaume de Ville-Thierry, 1219-1227 Thibaud le Maigre (?), called baillz in various acts of the time of Louis vit. Jean des Vignes, 1227-1228 Raoul Arondel, 1231-1234 Renaud de Triecot, 1235-1237 Guiard du Seuil, 1237-1239 Luc de Villers, 1243-1245 Dreu de Montigny, 124'7-1254 Jean de Sens; Ferri d’Autenville; Berenger Rabot, bailla of Mantes; Anseau Chevalier, castellan of Lions; Hugues de St Just, all had some share in the administration of Gisors ca. 1254, but none of them seem to have been bailli. Ferri, however, is twice called bazllz in an act of the assize of Evreux, June 28, 1254; Ech., p. 262. Jean de Carreis, 1258-1260 110

Appendix I—The Baillis of Normandy 111 Anseau le Vicomte, 1260-1271 Jean de Criqueboeuf, 1272 Robert l’Huissier, 1273-1283 Pierre de Bailleus, 1285-1286 Mantes

Berenger Rabot, 1256-1262 Geofifroi de Joui, 1265-1271

Verneuil Nicolas Bocel, 1205-1207 Barthélemi Droon, 1211-1227 Fulk Carrel, 1212-1214 Berruyer de Borron, 1226-1232 or 1233 (?) Quer. Nor. no. 271, complaint of an act of Berruyer as bazllz fourteen years before, that is, about 1233. Raoul Arondel; Jean des Maisons, act in Verneuil in 1235, but do not seem to have had the office of bazllz. Guerne de Verberie, 1237-1244 or 1245 (?) Quer. Nor. no. 131 is a complaint of an act of Guerne two years before, that is, probably in 1245. Cf. p. 40, note 3. Jean le Jeune, 1248 Jean de Meulan, 1249 Guillaume des Voisins, 1249-1254 Julien de Peronne, 1256-1258 Jean de Criqueboeuf, 1258-1273 Robert l’Huissier, 1273-1277 Jean de St Léonard, 1278; according to A.N., J 775, no. 10, he was only ‘custos ballivie.’ Henri Louvel, 1279-1283, regularly called ‘custos ballivie.’ Vincent Tanquerel, 1285 Jean de Chreveuse, 1288

Pont Audemer Cadoc, 1204-1219 Jean Rapace, c. 1246 Caen —

Pierre du Thillai, 1205-1224 (?). Delisle’s proof for the date 1224 rests on a letter written to Renaud de Ville-Thierry in 1225, referring to an act in an assize held by Pierre (H. F., xxiv, preuves, no. 77) which must have been fairly recent, but not necessarily in 1224. Renaud de Ville-Thierry, 1222-1227; Calvados, H 5647, Renaud is called ball at the assize of Caen 1222; Delisle had not found an example of the title applied to him. Jean de la Porte, 1227 Jean des Vignes, 1226-1239. From 1239 to 1245 Jean des Vignes retained some authority in Caen, while allowing most of the work to be done by a subordinate, Girard de la Boiste, who took the title of bailli. Quer. Nor., no. 373, 451 refer to acts of authority by Jean in the viscounty of Falaise in 1245 and 1243 respectively. Delisle had observed that Jean held the assize of Caen in September 1245 as bali; see also Manche, H 13560. Quer. Nor., no. 385, in a complaint (1239) against Girard, the following sentence occurs ‘et praeceptum fuit Girardo de Boista quod sesserit ipsam, nec tamen hoc voluit facere, licet sibi Johannes de Vineis hoc facere praecepisset.’ Ibid., no. 461, a complaint (1244) against the two ‘Johannes de Vineis et Girardus de Boista ipsos compulerunt reaedificare molendinum de Hablovilla’ and Jean refused an inquest in the same year.

112 Administration of Normandy Under Si Louris Girard de la Boiste, 1239-1246 Jean le Jeune, 1247-1249 Robert de Pontoise, 1251-1256; see in addition to Delisle’s references, Ech., p. 63, and B.N., MS. Lat., 5650, fol. 69v. Arnoul du Cour-Feraud, 1256-1263; see in addition Calvados, H 164. Jean le Saunier, 1263-1275 Gautier de Villers, 1275-1278; A.N., J 775, no. 10, Gautier gives accounts at Easter, 1278, as baillz of Caen. Jean Popin, 1279-1280 Renaud Barbou le Jeune, 1280-1286 Chrétien le Chambellan, 1288-1289 Pierre de Bailleus, 1290-1292 Jean de St Léonard, 1293-1295 Nicolas de Villers, 1296-1299 Bayeux

Renaud de Ville-Thierry, 1206-1226 Eudes de Gisors, 1248-1252 Cotentin

Renaud Cornillon, 1207-1214 Miles de Lévis, 1215-1223 Baudoin de Danemois, 1227 Jean de Fricamps, 1227-1231 Geoffroi de Bulli, 1234 Jean des Maisons, 1234-1246 Luc de Villers, 1247-1252 Jean des Maisons, 1254

Renaud de Radepont, 1258-1268; B.N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 3, clerks of Renaud de Radepont are mentioned in a document of Michaelmas, 1268. Jean de Chevreuse, 1269-1271 Gautier de Villers, ca. 1272; Manche, H 2999, Gautier de Villers is called bazlli of the Cotentin by the chapter of Cherbourg. No date is given, but he is mentioned after Renaud de Radepont and Jean de Chevreuse. As he was bailla of Caux in 1270, and baillt of Rouen in 1274, he might well have spent the intervening years in the Cotentin. Chrétien le Chambellan, 1274-1286 Pierre de Bailleus, 1287-1289 Vincent Tanquerel, 1290-1291 Nicolas de Villers, 1292-1295 Avranchin and Mortain Raoul de Tilli, castellan of Avranches, 1233 Eudes de Tremblai, castellan of Mortain 1212 André le Jeune, bazllz of Mortain, 1234

APPENDIX II VISCOUNTS IN NORMANDY IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY This list is not at all complete, except for a few viscounties, but it seemed best to group the material in one place where it could be used as a whole. The viscounts are arranged chronologically under each viscounty. Arques

Richard de Milli, viscount in 1234; Hellot, Baillis de Caux, p. 16 (See Caux). Several castellans of Arques are known; that they are distinct from the viscounts is shown by B.N., MS. Lat., 9018, p. 23, where viscount and castellan both appear, and where each draws a salary. Avranches

———, ‘de Praeriis’ farmed the viscounty under Philip Augustus; Cart. Nor., no. 429. G. d’Ivré, (?), viscount, without name of viscounty, at assize of Avranches, May 1251; H.F. xxiv, preuves, no. 132. Perhaps this viscount may be identified with Gautier de Villers who was viscount of Coutances at this time (see below). Guillaume de Conflans, viscount of Avranches, at assize of Avranches, December, 1283; H.F., XXIv, preuves, no. 200. Auge

R. du Pont, viscount of Auge, is the subject of two complaints in the Querumonzae, (nos. 42 and 44), ca. 1235. R. du Pont, castellan of Bonneville, is addressed, with Jean des Vignes, in a letter without date; B.N., MS. Lat., 11056, fol. 182. Philippe Milon, viscount of Auge, holds the assize of Pont |’Eveque for Guillaume des Voisins, March, 1260; B.N., MS. Lat., 10086, fol. 166v. Nicholas de Villers, viscount of Auge in 1281; Cart. Nor., no. 961. (See Rowen). Bayeux

Raoul (?), 1255—. A Raoul, called ‘vicomte,’ is present at the assize of Bayeux in 1225 (M.A.N. 2e sér., v, 205). Richard le Seneschal, viscount of Bayeux, at the Easter Exchequers of 1251 and 1252; Ech., nos 791, '792. A Richard le Seneschal was at the assize of Avranches, May, 1251, as clerk of the bazllt of Bayeux-Avranches; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 132. Adam des Moutiers, viscount of Bayeux in 1270, B.N., MS. Lat., 1828, f. 79. The

family held fiefs in Caen; H.F., xx, 736. Berna (See Orbec) Guillaume Faiel, viscount of Bernai before 1247, probably about 1212, Quer. Nor., no. 346.

Rogier de Préaux, viscount of Bernai, in 1231, Quer. Nor., no. 82. A Rogier de Préaux attended the Easter Exchequers of 1251 and 1252, Ech., nos. '791, 793. A Rogier le Vicomte takes supplies for the king in Evreux, ca. 1246, Quer. Nor., no. 108. Richard le Gaulois, viscount of Bernai, at the assize of Orbec in January 1251; H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 131.

(Guillaume de Druecourt (?), cf. Quer. Nor., nos 288, 291, where Guillaume seems to exercise some authority in Bernai before 1247.) 113

114 Administration of Normandy Under St Louis Caen

Denis, viscount, holds the assize of Caen with Guillaume Acarin in 1225; M.A.N. 2e sér., V), 204. Robert Hamars, viscount of Caen, September, 1245; abid., p. 205. Chrétien le Chambellan, viscount of Caen, attends the assize of Bayeux, May, 1269; Calvados, H 249. ‘Dominus’ Robert de Villers, clerk, viscount of Caen, attends the assizes of Vire and Bayeux in November, 1271; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 173. Henri de Rie, viscount of Caen, at assize of Bayeux, June, 1285, H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 208; at Exchequer as viscount of Caen, October 1299, H.F., xx111, 374; called citizen of Rouen in Exchequer of October, 1290, zbid., p. 372. Carentan

Leonard, viscount under Chrétien le Chambellan (1274-1285); Manche, H 3319. Alexandre Viart, viscount of Carentan, holds an assize there with Philippe le Bourguignon in April, 1283; Charles Bréard, Cartulaire de St Ymer, (Rouen-Paris, 1908),

p. 238. He held the assize of Carentan with the clerk of the bazllz, December, 1285; Manche, H 535. He is called viscount, and burgess of Caen in a donation to the chapter of Bayeux in 1286; Bourrienne, no. 553. Caux (See Maulévrier)

Robert de “Tresperus,’ viscount of Caux in 1208; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandriller fol. 247. Barthélemi d’Evre, viscount of Caux in 1214; zbid., fol. 145. Attends assize of Lillebonne as viscount in May, 1217; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 42. Witnesses a chart with Guillaume de la Chapelle in June, 1221, is given no title, but neither is Guil-

laume, and he was baillz at the time; Bib. de R., MS. Y13, fol. 134. Hellot, Baillis de Cauz, p. 9. ‘Dominus’ Robert de Beaumont, viscount of Caux in 1222; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de Valmont, fol. 42. Called viscount in July, 1230, in August, 1231, in 1233; zbid., Cartulaire de St Wandrille fol. 10v., fol. 131; Cart. de Fécam>p fol. 33%. Attends Exchequer in 1231; Ech., p. 113. Witnesses a charter at the assize of Longueville in March, 1230; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 88. Witnesses many charters with his successor; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fols. 99, 110’., and passam. Attends Exchequers of Easter 1243, and Michaelmas, 1248; abid., Cartulaire de Jumiéges, p. 68; Ech., no. 789. Serves as an arbiter in an assize of 1249, Ch. Bréard, Cart. de St Ymer, p. 144. See Hellot, Bazllis de Cauz, p. 14, 15. Richard de Milli, bazllz of the countess of Eu in 1233 and 1234, viscount of Arques in 1234, viscount of Caux 1236 to 1246, attends Exchequer as senechal of Fécamp 1251 and 1253; Hellot, Baillis de Cauz, p. 15. Witnesses charters, with no title, 1255 to 1257; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de Valmont, fols. 77, 78, 100%. See also Lafleur de Kermaingant, Cartulawre de Tréport, (Rouen, 1880), p. 171. Aubert de Luzarches, viscount of Caux, at assize of Maulévrier, February, 1260; viscount of Caux in July, 1266; Seine-Inf., Cartulatre de St Wandrille, fols. 188’., 130. In the latter document he sells a ‘masura’ to St Wandrille (See Maulévrier). Amaury, viscount of Caux, ca. 1270 (?); Necrology of hospital of Rouen, without date, but associated with those who died in the latter half of the century, H.F., xx1u, p. 415. Coutances

Gautier de Villers, viscount (of Coutances ?), holds assize of Coutances, June, 1251; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 1383. See Avranches.

Appendix II—Viscounts in Normandy 115 Gautier du Bois, viscount of Coutances, holds assize of Coutances 1272; H.F., xxtv, preuves, no. 179. Holds assize of Coutances for bailli, May, 1274; Manche, H 10174.

Thomas Pytebout, viscount of Coutances, gives the Hétel-Dieu of Coutances rents owed

him by men of the parishes about the town, April, 1280; P. Le Cacheux, Essaz Historique sur ? Hétel-Dieu de Coutances, (Paris, 1899), 11, 93. Guillaume Gripel, viscount of Coutances, December, 1287; 2bid., 3. Evreux

Thibaud le Maigre, viscount (?), holds assize at Evreux 1208; H.F’., xxiv, preuves, no. 21 (See baillis of Gisors). Bernard Rabot, viscount of Evreux 1254, burgess of Andely; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 141. Later baile of Mantes 1256-1262; H.F. xxiv, p. *124. Eustace d’Esmerée, viscount of Evreux ca. 1246; Boutaric, Actes, 1, p. 140. Eustace d’Esmerée, viscount of Evreux in 1249, H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 128. Renaud de Luzarches, viscount of Evreux 1276; Eure, G 115, (see Verneutl). Baudoin de Moyri, viscount of Evreux 1287; Eure, G 122, fol. 110. Falaise

A Jean le Guerrier exercised a good deal of authority in the viscounty of Falaise 12051225 and may have been viscount of the district. Cf. Quer. Nor., nos. 392, 396, 416, 418, 426. He does not seem to be a farmer, but rather a royal officer. Renaud le Chambellan, viscount of Falaise 1282; B.N., MS. Lat., 11059, fol. 81v. Gisors

Gautier de Chantiers, knight, (viscount?), holds an assize at Gisors for the bazllz 1235; H.F., XXiv, preuves, no. 105. Mathieu d’Ecoies, viscount, holds an inquest with the bazllz of Gisors in 1269; Olim, 1, 307.

Jean Vintre de la Verberie, viscount of Gisors June, 1276; Eure, H 1391. He had property near Compiégne; Olim, 1, 239. Maulévrier (perhaps identical with the viscounty of Caux) ‘Ab,’ viscount of Maulévrier (?) at assize of Maulévrier August, 1257; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 146. Aubert de Luzarches, viscount of Maulévrier, at assize of Caniel, 1260; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 193%. (See Caux). Aubert de Luzarches was serving the king in some capacity in 1246, when he requisitioned mattresses in Evreux for the court; Quer. Nor., no. 108. Montivilliers

Guillaume ‘de Nemore,’ knight, viscount of Montivilliers, makes a boundary between his land and Fécamp, March, 1231; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de Fécam>p, fol. 36. Guillaume du Bois, knight, viscount of Montivilliers, 1245, Hellot, Bazllzs de Cauz, p. 16. Jean le Grand, viscount of Montivilliers, holds pleas there with his clerk, Roger, in February, 1284; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 201. Called ‘famulus domini Regis’ in 1279; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Amand, f. 208’.

Mortain

Thibaud du Chatre, viscount of Mortain, acquitted of charge of freeing prisoner for bribe in 1267; Olim, 1, 251. A Thibaud du Chatre, clerk and crusader, was held

116 Administration of Normandy Under St Lours by Eudes Rigaud on suspicion of murder in 1252, but released to citizens of Rouen, in bail of 10002. The leading families of Rouen furnished the bail; Eudes Rigaud, p. 127. Geoffroi d’Anisy, viscount of Mortain, holds assize of Mortain with the clerk of the bailli, November, 1285; Manche, Cartulaire de St Sauveur le Vicomte, p. 85.

Neuchatel Robert ‘Clericus,’ viscount of Neuchatel, February, 1263; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 82. (See Caen). Pierre, viscount of Neuchatel, fined for laying hands on a clerk carrying out orders of the archbishop; Eudes Rigaud, p. 782. Guillaume ‘as Cros,’ viscount of Neuchatel, October, 1290; H.F., xxi, 373; Guillaume ‘Aseros,’ viscount of Neuchatel; Societé de l’Histoire de Normandie, Mélanges, V., p. 435.

Orbec (probably a part of the viscounty of Bernai, see Bib. de R., MS. Mart. Y94, fol. 118.)

——., viscount of Orbec holds an inquest for Parlement in 1265; Olim, 1, 218. Etienne de Brie, viscount of Orbec (?), at the assize of Orbec, January, 1272; H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 175.

Pont Audemer

Jean Boudet, viscount of Pont-Audemer in 1226, Quer. Nor., no. 77. Galeran, viscount of Pont-Audemer (?), at assize of Pont Audemer with Jean des Vignes (baallz 1228-1244), no date; Eure, H 91, fol. 6. An excerpt from the accounts of the baillt of Rouen in 1275 has ‘de terra domini Galerani vicecomitis ... 352.;’ H.F., xxu, p. 752. If this is the same Galeran he must have been a Norman noble. Jean de Neuvi, viscount of Pont Audemer, ca. 1275. See the inquests on his conduct, Cart. Nor., nos. 664, 665, 1229. A viscount of Pont Audemer owes 56/. in 1278; Bib. de R., MS. Leber, 5646. Pont De L’ Arche (See Vaudreuil)

Barthélemi Fergant, viscount of Pont de l’Arche, witnesses, with Guillaume des Voisins, bailla of Rouen, the surrender of two squires unlawfully taken in church lands, to Eudes Rigaud, August, 1256; Eudes Rigaud, p. 257.

Séhier, viscount of Pont de |’Arche, at assize of Rouen, October, 1272; Seine-Inf.,

Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 192. :

Rouen

Renaud de Pierreville, Richard de Villiquier, Guillaume de ‘Welevilla,’ are called viscounts, or justiciars of the king, and appear in various assizes of Rouen, 1205 to 1207; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de Jumiéges, pp. 198, 200; tbid., Cartulaire de St Wandrille, fol. 18°, H.F., xx1v, p. *97. Guillaume de Vaumesnil, viscount, at Rouen in 1234; H.F., xxiv, p. *97; a ‘G., vicecomes’ appears at the assize of Lisieux, held by Guillaume Acarin, in April, 1234, Marnier, p. 100. Lisieux was at this time administered by the baillc of Rouen. Renaud d’Alisy, viscount, at assize of Pont Audemer, 1237; Eure, Cartulaire de Bec, H 91, f. 69. Renaud, viscount of Rouen, attends assize of Orbec, January, 1249, H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. 126. (See Vaudreuil) Gilbert de Mesnil, viscount of Etienne de la Porte, attends two assizes at Conches, one held while Conches was in king’s hands in August, 1250, the other by the abbot in December, 1253; H.F., xxiv, preuves, nos. 129, 140.

Appendix [I—Viscounts in Normandy 117 Robert de Fresnes, knight, viscount of Rouen, at Exchequer of Michaelmas, 1258, Ech., no. 818; at Exchequer of Easter, 1266, zbid., no. 830; excommunicated by Eudes Rigaud for arresting a clerk in 1267, Eudes Rigaud, p. 579. Robert was probably son of Thomas de Fresnes, who was the son of a Robert de Fresnes, and who was granted 204. a year for sustenance while he was in royal wardship, 1232; Ech., no. 493. Guillaume Renart, viscount, holds an inquest on the pannage of Roumare in the castle of Rouen, 1268. He witnesses a charter as viscount of Rouen in September, 1271; Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fols. 181, 181¥. ‘Ferminus (?),’ viscount of Rouen, October, 1272; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Wandrulle, fol. 192. Etienne de Montargis, viscount of Rouen, 1277, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1283, holds assize of Pont-Audemer in January, 1278, with Richard du Fay, attends an assize held by Richard du Fay in June, 1283; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Amand, fol. 212”;

Bib. de R., MS. Y52, fol. 183"; B.N., MS. Lat. 10087, p. 241; H.F., xxiv, p. *104; Cart. Nor., no. 960. Nicolas de Villers, viscount of Rouen, 1284; Seine-Inf., Cartulaire de St Ouen (Forét), p. 632; viscount of Rouen, October, 1290; H.F., xxin, p. 373 (See Auge, and the list of bavllcs). Sées

W. le Gendre, viscount of Sées, 1207; H.F., xxiv, preuves no. 18 Valognes

Robert de Bergenville, viscount of Valognes, gives seisin of great fish at Quettehou to

La Trinité of Caen at the assize of Valognes, July, 1269; H.F., xxiv, preuves, no. | 170. He had difficulties with the chapter of Cherbourg for hanging a man of their justice, no date; Manche, H 3319. A forest guard of his district was in trouble for misconduct in office, 1272; Cart. Nor., no. 1222. Pierre de Bailleus, viscount of Valognes, holds an assize there and condemns a man of the chapter of Cherbourg, for which he makes amends, March, 1281; Manche, H 2999; viscount of Valognes in 1283; H.F., xxrv, p. *151 (see the list of bazllcs).

Vaudreuil (In 1270, Vaudreuil is a sergeanty of Pont de l’Arche, Bib. de R., MS. Mart., Y94, fol. 210.)

Michel de la Cour called viscount of Vaudreuil in 1227 and 1229; Eure, H 223; and in four acts from 1225 to January, 1229; J. Andrieux, Cartulaire de Bon-Port (Evreux, 1862), pp. 61, 66 and 67. Renaud d’Alisy, viscount of Vaudreuil, 1235; zbid., p. 99 (see Rouen). Pierre Lebel, viscount, witnesses an act concerning land in Vaudreuil in September, 1245; ibid., pp. 6, 187. Perhaps the same as a Pierre de Mauleon, castellan of Pont de l’Arche in October, 1237, zbid., p. 110. Verneuil

Nicolas de Lucas, knight, viscount, at the assize of Verneuil, January, 1243; H.F., XXIV, preuves, no. 110.

Jean de la Chambre, viscount of Verneuil, has trouble with the church over jurisdiction

1278; Arch. de ?Hotel-Dieu d’Evreux. In a list of petitions to the king, ca. 1273, ‘Johannes de Camera de Vernolio qui petit 10002. pro expensis quas fecit contra capitulum Ebroicensem pro curia regis apud Vernolium obtinenda’; Ch. V. Langlois, Tevtes relatifs a histoire du Parlement, p. 87. According to the Evreux document, he had seized men on Church land and the official had forced him

118 Administration of Normandy Under St Louts to free them. A Jean de la Chambre cedes part of a sergeanty lying in Verneuil to Pierre de Broce in 1276; Cart. Nor., no. 873. Raoul le Geolier, viscount of Verneuil in 1275 and 1276; Cart. Nor., nos. 849, 875. Renaud de Luzarches, viscount of Verneuil, 1279; Eure, Cartulatre du Chapitre @’ Evreux (G6), p. 108. As viscount of Verneuil made an inquest for the king, May, 1284; M. Charency, Cartulaire de la Trappe, (Alengon, 1889) p. 560. (See Evreuz.) Vire

Guillaume de ‘Emferrit (?),’ viscount, at assize of Vire, 1254; Manche, Cartulaire de St Sauveur le Vicomte, p. 89.

e be) S : * ~a Ls iss ed 20 am mi oe a 28 5 On o es er; SUS a) 3= = B&B (—] 2) b> x mis gr Porc ao: HE ge" Sa

SR|aeRe agi ior S 3s Spe B 2,8h >Ras a 8cr fo) ps oS eS bt HQ ws

ri SY e 6 Z, 6B ° e ©

Sty 5S SS tye aS rm PR D> D> = 6 Shs > a= iat as “ gC om A S A F eae § 38 > bu Of Se ses & 2 ® Ls; SoS — S PS : 8 5s o it a= | , 5° oy = S Bak 88 Sao adm BUS Sh 5 sed nS ees ore 88 >» Lea PeS Paok 72< 1Q GQ"16 CO mi RNPRA oOpat dOrar wm 8 8 &Y rm rg,-Qa4% pee dg re

(on © mn m ret rm pa re 7 2 ea =& im 2Sas WN x Dm mm Dn a, poss z & amin «@ > 99 A, a § Uy FS Vaget

om > @ Be oO e H ‘ a >t & go goes Ss fs am % oa . 8 Oo H : > uO 7 Rg. gam ie $ ~ a eat SQ me ha mt = 3 hy ae p> hy s8 2 gC ace Se & Fat As} “ oS 4 ° 3 FS = Ost 2 oP ns > O,° $5 85 2i % Om & . Cea kS ov

geER GSxna

oD | © re yt

eget Po seg e802 e2Suee Re cy

-=

fo) O mm

oO =|

2 aé4_4

—) 3 “> 2S ak fe °x PSY =< an ras] a e a ‘& s 5 Os 3s ©BA 3.8 . SH 8B 6O Q ™ 5 ™ Tas |§ ; g5 8 aS 3° Pe

R

a >Se = so 38 8% Bae4 Se ms ” A eg a 8a e: 3 a Sr 8S oO o> fee) 8 ry _ 4 ~~ oO 31 8 . Q&A 4 S a spy oS -A9SS 3 > Sor 8 or S oS on Co RAR SO SD © So ez + So RAF as R™ 1 AS 8A TZ is“;s2i18 JA L¢ 0 de gS Seg2558 RS

GR yo re ri ft g: go a 2) a>9gok3 eo gg ft geeag a rm mm

om RsAg Zso > 0SanOO PBBo adq3a moO | e me 5 . en, fh = Zr pos’ @ so So & Ss eras 2359055 - ~2essH .2Se 8>S'5 oh fs Ys S45 S'7 TSSteet 8 8: B28, 28 SF A aN AC Ee 2 74 [4,834 74 Boo haSa Lar| S85 aa D>