POLITICAL HISTORY not only prevented Roger from crossing the Severn, but succeeded in taking him prisoner. The punishment of his treason at the king's court at Christ- mas was the forfeiture of his lands and perpetual imprisonment.^"" The earldom was retained in the king's hands."^ The forfeiture of Roger was the occasion of the aggrandizement of several families of lesser rank which had remained loyal. The old tale of local jealousies, which almost always gave the king a party among the lesser landowners against a territorial magnate, was once more repeated. Most of the gain in influence and position fell to two famous families, those of Lacy and Mortimer. Walter de Lacy, who held lands in the border district of Ewyas and in other parts of Herefordshire, as well as at Stanton Lacy in Shropshire, assisted in crushing Roger's rebellion and profited by his action. He died in 1085, but at the time of Domesday his son Roger held lands in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Shropshire, as well as in Herefordshire."^ Ralph de Mortimer, who took his name from the castle of Mortemer-en-Brai in the Pays de Caux, did good service against Edric the Wild under William Fitzosbern."^ Although he did not acquire Wigmore itself from Edric, as is stated in Fundationis Historia of Wigmore, yet at the time of Domesday he held several estates that formerly had belonged to Edric."* To these were added further grants from the forfeited possessions of Roger, including the castle of Wigmore, long the seat of his family."^ At the time of Domesday he held lands in eleven counties."^ With an increase in power came a change in the attitude of these families towards the crown. In 1088, influenced partly by reluctance to see Normandy and England under different overlords, they joined the general rising of Norman magnates against Rufus and seized on the city of Here- ford. They were supported by Osbern, son of Richard Scrupe and lord of Overton Castle, and by his son-in-law, Bernard of Neufmarche, the con- queror of Brecknock. These leaders were followed by the whole of the shire, as well as by the men of Shropshire and many from Wales. Evidently the royal administration had not been popular. The whole force marched on Worcester, harried the shire, but failed to take the city. For the second time Wulfstan rolled back the tide of revolt. The defenders of Worcester defeated their assailants with great slaughter and the capture of many prisoners."^ Roger de Lacy, however, shared in the general amnesty which was granted by Rufus to the principal rebels. He did not long profit from this leniency, for in 1095 he was involved in Robert Mowbray's conspiracy. At the meeting of the king's council at Salisbury in January, 1095—6, he was banished and his possessions bestowed on his younger brother, Hugh."' On Hugh's death, without male heirs, part of his estates was granted by ™ William of Malmesbury ut supra ; William of Jumi^gcs, Hiit. vii, 25; viii, 13; Angl.-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), i, 348, 349 ; Flor. Wore. Chron. ii, 10-12 ; Ord. Vit. Hist. Eccles. 534-5 ; Annaks de Winton. (Rolls Ser.), 31. '"' For an account of Roger's descendants see Mr. J. H. Round's Family of Balhn in his Studies in Peerage and Family History (1901). '"'Ellis, General Introduction to Domesday, i, 442. '" Dagd^le, Monasticon AngScanum (i846),vi, 348-9. ™ Domesday (Rec. Com.), i, 183^. "'Ibid. "'Ellis, Gen. Introd. to Domesday, i, 455-6. "" Flor. Wore. Chron. ii, 24-6; Angl.-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), i, 357; Ord. Vit. Hist. Eccles. (Soc. de I'Hist. de France), ii, 270-1, Simeon of Durham, Opera (Rolls Ser.), ii, 214-15 ; Henry of Huntingdon, Hist. AngL (Rolls Ser.), 214-15. ™ Ord. Vit. Hist. Eccles. (Soc. de I'Hist. de France), iii, 411. 357
