ON THE EARLY CHARTERS OF ST. WERBURGH'S IN

CHESTER.

By John Robson, M.D.

(READ 17TH FEBRUARY, 1859.)

I have had occasion in a former paper to observe, that in illustrating the first part of our history, the material remains were in great numbers and variety, but the documentary evidence was really nothing;-and in the next period, from the subversion of the Roman power to the Norman conquest, we have very few authenticated relics in a material form, while the documentary remains are numerous and important—at least for its last two centuries; and we have a remarkable consequence from this,-that our knowledge of what may be called the domestic condition of the first four centuries of the Christian era is pretty accurate, while we are quite in the dark as to historical events and political changes; in the later period again, we have accounts of occurrences, both civil and religious, but were it not for some illuminated MSS. of the 10th and 11th centuries, we should in fact know nothing of our forefathers' dress, dwellings or mode of living.

The known documents, however, connected with our own counties, dating before the conquest, are only two or three, and the most interesting of these is the Charter of King Edgar to the Church of St. Werburgh in Chester, which offers a fair opportunity of shewing the actual value of such instruments, and the uncertainties that are often attached to their use.

This Charter is printed in Dugdale's Monasticon as taken from a very old copy in the possession of Vernon of Shakerley, in Lancashire, in 1660. It is reprinted in Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus,* who has marked it with an asterisk, thereby questioning its authenticity, but upon what grounds, or to what extent, he does not state. Mr. Ormerod says that a

*Vol. 2, p. 351.

copy is found in the Charter-book of the Abbey in the British Museum, but not in its proper place, as if the scribe cared little about it, and hence Mr. O. supposes it might be considered spurious.

It is given by "Eadgar, King of Mercia, for the redemption of his own soul and the souls of his predecessors Eadmund and Athelstan," and grants "to the humble family who are assiduously serving God in honor of the most holy Virgin Werburgh in Leiacestria, a certain portion of seventeen townships "-or perhaps more correctly seventeen farms and tenements or estates in the townships of Hodesnid and Ceosaula and Huntingdon and Hupton and Eston and Barue. They are to possess all things pertaining to these lands, through all time, by hereditary right, and have free liberty to do therewith whatever they like. The bounds of these properties are then referred to, but this constituting a different document, is unluckily not forthcoming; he further declares the gift free from any claim either of militia-muster, bridge-building or castle-building, and any one attempting to infringe this grant or the privileges is consigned to the fiery depths of Tartarus unless he make satisfaction. It is dated 958, at the well-known place called Wentric, and appears to have been followed by a series of signatures, of which, however, the King's own name only appears-I Edgar, King of the Mercians and the rest of the nations.

Kemble supposes the Charter to have belonged to Leicester; but we are as much in the dark as to his reasons for this, as for his doubting the truth of the document altogether.

There are some points about it which, to say the least, are not common; first there is the clause giving the Community-whose title is not stated— the right of disposing of the property; then there is the absolute freedom from the trinoda necessitas-the militia, bridge and castle building; and then there is the title of King of the Mercians in the body of the deed altered to King of the Mercians and the rest of the nations in the signature. But these circumstances, though uncommon, hardly seem sufficient to justify the rejection of the Charter, and as no one ever heard of St. Werburgh at Leicester, and Kemble does not attempt to identify the places named with any towns in that district, I am quite willing to accept it from Dugdale's statement and its appearance in the Abbey Charter book; and if we find that these places really belonged at the Conquest to the Church

of St. Werburgh at Chester, it will go far to shew that the document is what it professes to be.

Mr. Ormerod's objections* seem rather in favor of the document being genuine. The monks, as will be seen hereafter, did not hold their lands by this Charter; and it must have been preserved accidentally from the destruction of the rest which would be effected when they got possession; there could have been no possible object in forging it afterwards.

In Domesday Book, compiled before 1086, we have a list of the estates belonging to the Church of St. Werburgh, commencing with thirteen houses in the city of Chester, one held by the Warden, the other twelve by the Canons, free from all service.

In Dudestan Hundred.
Saltone.

Cavelea, with a boat and net.
Hunditone, with a boat and net.

Bocstone.

Pulford.

Sotowiche.
Nestone.

Rabie.

In Roelau Hundred.

Trosford.

Inise.

FF

In Riseton Hundred.

Etingehalle.

In Wilaveston Hundred.

Wivevrene.
Crostone.
Wisdelea.
Sudtone.
Salhare.

In Tunendune Hundred.
Midestune.

Clistune.

In Exestan Hundred.

Odeslei.

In Atiscros Hundred.
Wepre.
Leche.

Besides these the Domesday record informs us that the Canons claimed land in Stanei, of which they had been unjustly deprived, † also of a hide at Burwardeslei.

That the four last-named places in Edgar's Charter belonged to the Church at the time of the conquest there can be no doubt. The two first are unknown, and have been probably blundered by the scribe; and though easy enough to pick out of the other names some resembling them, it is not worth while to make the attempt. It is said that Leofric, Earl of Coventry and Chester, in 1057, made large gifts to St. Werburgh, and, any way, the estates had increased from the six of Edgar's, to twenty in 1086. Seven years after this we are told Hugh d'Avranches, surnamed

*It is interpolated in a blank leaf, not referred to in the Index, and in a different hand to the rest of the MS. +264 b.

+ D. B. 261 a.

the Wolf, was very ill, and sent for Anselm, the Abbot of Bec, in Normandy, to whose care he entrusted the establishment of a Benedictine Monastery, instead of the Canons who then were in possession. That there must have been other Charters in existence in 1086 is clear, and that either the Earl or the Monks destroyed them when they ousted the Canons follows as a matter of course. How Edgar's escaped we have no means of knowing-but that the Monks could attach any value to it was not to be expected—it was, in fact, a protest against their own title.

In examining the account in the Domesday Book, it is noticeable that some places were worth more than in the time of the Confessor, many were of equal value, and the whole rents are only about twenty-nine shillings less than before the conquest. The number of estates or townships is

twenty-one.

It was only seven years after the completion of the survey, that Hugh Lupus ejected the Canons-and replaced them with Benedictine Monks*but from whatever cause, it seems quite certain that he never gave the new comers the security of a Charter, and this want has evidently led the Monks to take various precautions, and to fence their rights in the best way that they could. These Charters generally begin with reflections upon the uncertainty of life, the vanity of earthly treasures, and the danger of riches; and the Monks were always quite ready to accept any quantity of these earthly superfluities, with all the responsibilities attached thereto. They generally ended with fierce denunciations against all who injured or robbed, or interfered with the rights and property of the grantees; and, as the Earl, before making a legal grant, or rather by that very act assumed the property in question, he might feel some scruples in incurring the curses so liberally showered upon wrong doers; while the Monks could not but have been quite aware that they had no claim to the estates of the Canons, and that they would incur all the dangers invoked in the previous Charters. All this they might well get over, but conscience

The actual difference between these two bodies seems at the present day small enough, but perhaps on that very account their mutual hatred was more intense. The Canons were Priests, generally connected with a Cathedral or Mother Church, who lived together under a certain Canon or Rule, and seem to have been of many sorts. The Monks were men who had taken certain vows, and lived under a specific Regula or Rule, and hence were called Regulars; they were not necessarily Priests, and they were in greater variety than their rivals; the Monks held their property in common, the Canons had each his independent prebend.

must have been more alarmed with the danger that somebody, with the power and inclination, might at some future time serve them as they had served their predecessors;* and we may now examine the steps which they took to secure-what I fear must be considered-their ill-gotten

estates.

When the Archæological Association met in Chester in 1849, a very remarkable Charter was exhibited, belonging to the Marquis of Westminster. There is a long account of it by Mr. Planché, and a transcript in the Journal of the Association,† which however is unintelligible, but we have a full translation of it in the Journal of the Chester Archæological Society, with a very interesting description of the document itself, from the pen of the late Rev. Mr. Massie. It was supposed and asserted that it contained the original Charter of the foundation of St. Werburgh, from Hugh Lupus, but this is clearly a mistake. It was no doubt one of the most important that the Monks had to shew, but it is merely a record that such and such lands had been given, not a legal Charter conveying the property. It was printed with important variations however, from a copy then in the possession of the Bishop, by Dugdale, in the Monasticon-and this copy was examined by Badelesmere, Justiciary of Chester, in the reign of Edward I., and is given in the Charter Book of the Abbey. It is frequently quoted, Mr. Massie tells us, under the title of "Sanctorum prisea," the two first words, as was common at the time. It commences (I quote Mr. Massie's translation,) by stating the necessity,-“ That "those things which have been done by our contemporaries in exaltation "of Holy Mother Church, should be made manifest to the present "generation through ourselves, and should be preserved for the "recognition of posterity by our writing. Let us now therefore, imitating "the example of our ancestors, relate certain works of piety which have "been done in England by Hugh, Count of Chester, in the year from the "incarnation of our Lord, 1098, the most potent King William reigning, "Anselm being chief Pontiff in the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and "Thomas being Archbishop of York."

If we now turn to the early Norman Chroniclers for their account of the matter, William of Malmesbury tells us that St. Werburgh was buried in

It seems that Earl Richard had some such intention.

+ Vol. VI.