Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/38

At the great Kentford gathering of the magnates of the adjacent counties in 1080 (Inq. Com. Cant. p. xvii—not, as in Davis, Regesta, 32, p. 17 [sic])—there was present 'Walterus pro Rodgero et Roberto vicecom' ', whom Mr. Davis identifies (ibid.) as 'sheriffs [of Norfolk and Suffolk]'. It would be too speculative, save in a foot-note, to suggest that this Walter, acting, Mr. Morris writes (p. 157), as 'a deputy', was father of Robert Fitz Walter, sheriff under Henry I.—Ante, xxxv. 488, note 9.

Dr. Round makes no attempt to identify the earliest sheriffs of all, viz. Roger and Robert or their deputy Walter, whose names appear on 2nd April, 1088 in an enquiry … which is printed in Davis Regista [sic], No. 22, p. 32. In fact he does not mention them at all, so the reference may have slipped him. … Dr. Round … does not even mention this Roger, or indeed any of the earlier sheriffs, so his article is very disappointing, &c., &c. … Next comes Robert Fitz Walter. … He is mentioned in another of Mr. Round's papers, but is also omitted in the present article.—Norwich Castle, p. 28.

Two more of his reckless errors are here the whole sum of my critic's contributions to our knowledge: the right date is 1080, not '1088', and the number in Mr. Davis's book is, not '22', but 122.^[1] As for the charge that I do not mention 'any of the earlier sheriffs', I expressly stated at the outset^[2] that I only set myself 'to supplement the information' in Mr. Morris's learned paper^[3] on the sheriff 'in the early Norman period',^[4] where, for instance, Roger Bigod's shrievalty of East Anglia is fully dealt with.^[5] I also explained at the outset that one of the points I desired to illustrate was 'the system of hereditary (or quasi-hereditary) tenure of certain shrievalties', and this I did in the case of Norfolk.^[6] 'I do not see', Mr. Rye observes of William, 'why he is called "hereditary sheriff"' by Stapleton.^[7] Yet my article (pp. 491–2) makes it clear.^[8]

More serious is his treatment of Robert son of Walter, a sheriff

1. It is correctly cited by Mr. Morris (ante, xxxiii. 157, n. 94).
2. Ante, xxxv. 481.
3. Ante, xxxiii. 145–75.
4. Mr. Rye complains (p. 28) of my omitting names which, he admits, I had elsewhere mentioned.
5. I do not admit having 'ignored Hugh le Bigod himself the sheriff of 1156–7' (p. 28); for he is also ignored by Eyton, as sheriff of Norfolk, and the Pipe Roll of 1157 (3 Hen. II) shows that he then only accounted de veteri firma. My paper (ante, xxxv. 489) shows that William 'de Caisneto' was sheriff from Easter 1157 till Michaelmas 1163. I have dealt fully with the shrievalties of his father, his elder brother, himself, his sons, and his son-in-law, Robert Fitz Roger—whom Mr. Rye wrongly styles 'Robert Fitz Robert ' in one place (ante, xxxv. 492, n. 5). This William, Mr. Rye asserts, was sheriff '1156–62' (p. 18). 'He certainly was sheriff from 1156 and [sic] 1163' (p. 14). If so, how could Hugh be 'sheriff 1156–7'?
6. Ante, xxxv. 492, 495–6.
7. p. 14.
8. Mr. Rye admits (p. 29) that a certain entry 'seems to help the suggestion … that the Cheynys had some sort of hereditary right in the sherievalty' [sic].