Walter de Bovington and the Langbargh Charter

Appendix Four: The Langbargh Charter and Political Dissent

In this appendix, I wish to advance a hypothesis that would indicate the resistance by magnastes and gentry to King John's government was more organized and had a stronger theoretical basis, well before the Magna Carta revolt, than has hitherto been suspected. This hypothesis is that Peter de Brus's charter of liberties to Langbargh wapentake, which was issued between 1207 and 1209, was not simply a working document, though it was certainly that, but also contained implicit criticism of royal government.

In this charter, Peter agreed to certain limitations in the exercise of his authority in return for a guarantee that the knights and free tenants of the wapentake would make up any shortfall in the difference between Peter's income from the wapentake courts and the rent of forty marks charged by the king. Peter agreed that people would not be impleaded except by what were traditional means, that anyone amerced would be amerced according to his wealth, and according to his offense, that the wapentake officials would swear to maintain the liberties in the charter, that they would be replaced if they failed to do so, and that their number would be limited. J. C. Holt has discussed the charter in detail and pointed out the similarities of many of its ideas with ideas and assumptions in Magna Carta. He has also pointed out the number of future rebels in the witness list. He does not, however, argue that any criticism of the government was intended but simply suggests that both the Langbargh charter and Magna Carta reflect similar details and beliefs.

My hypothesis is based on the witness list, and not only upon who the witnesses were, but also on who they were not. There were ten attesters, three magnates and seven knights. The attesters were Roger de Lacy; Robert de Ros; Eustace de Vescy; Robert Walensis (identified, as undersheriffs often were, as sheriff of Yorkshire); Walter de Fauconberg; Roald, constable of Richmond; Brian son of Alan; John de Birkin; William son of Ralph; and Walter de Bovington. One might expect that such a charter would be attested chiefly by Peter's followers, as most baronial charters were, or by some of the prominent landholders of Langbargh wapentake who would benefit from the charter. None of the attesters, however, was a tenant or follower of Peter and none held the bulk of his lands in Langbargh wapentake. Indeed, most held no land there at all. Instead, the attesters were prominent Yorkshire magnates and knights.

This may indicate no more than that the charter was issued at a country court, but it seems distinctly odd that no one witnessing the document had much direct interest in it and I suspect the significance is deeper. Here it is useful to return to the political sentiments of the witnesses. Eustace de Vescy and Robert de Ros were among the most important rebels at the end of John's reign, as was Peter de Brus, grantor of the charter. Among the knightly attesters, Roald, constable of Richmond, resisted the Thirteenth, and he John de Birkin, and Brian son of Alan were all rebels. Walter Fauconberg was not listed among the rebels and Walter de Bovington was dead by the time of the revolt, but the heirs of both participated. William son of Ralph's stance cannot be determined, but the fact that he was relieved of the custody of a castle in 1214 suggests that John did not consider him politically reliable.

In contrast, Roger de Lacy was noted for his close ties to King John and his heroic defence of Chateau Gaillard. However, Roger was not an unquestioning supporter of the king. He was one of the magnates who swore allegiance to John in 1199 only on certain conditions. Moreover, when he received the shrievalty of Yorkshire, he resisted the payment of anything above the traditional farm. This resistance may have been based on greed, but it may also have been based on principle, which raises in turn the possibility that the amercement of one thousand marks placed, after Roger's death, on Robert Walensis, who was Roger's undersheriff and another witness to the Langbargh charter, and the amercements levied on Roger's other shrieval deputies, may not have been for corruption, but for an unwillingness to enforce King John's policy fully. Roger de Lacy was too important a follower to chastise, especially after his defense of Chateau Gaillard, but after his death the king could make an example of Robert in the same way that he made an example of William de Cornborough, as I have suggested in chapter seven. Thus, Roger may have been loyal to the king but strongly opposed to his policies. It is notable that Roger's son John was another of the baronial leaders of the rebellion and was involved in conspiracies against King John as early as 1209, around the time of the Langbargh charter.

In short, the witness list to the Langbargh charter was dominated by opponents to royal policy, future rebels, and men with rebel connections. Even for so rebellious a county as Yorkshire, the combined record of opposition of Peter de Brus and the witnesses is impressive. This raises the possibility that the charter was in fact a kind of manifesto about good government, stressing customary procedure, the accountability of officials, and the cooperation of local landowners. "This," Peter de Brus and the attesters may have been proclaiming to the world at large, "is the way government should really be run."

Hugh Thomas (1993) Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders and Thugs: The Gentry of Angevian Yorkshire, 1154-1216, University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 204-206.

...

CCXIII. Concessio Petri de Brus Militibus et Libere Tenentibus Clyvelandae.

Omnibus hand cartam visuris vel audituris, Petrus de Brus salutem. Noveritis me concessisse et hac praesenti carta mea confirmasse, militibus et libere tenentibus Clivelandae et hominibus eorum, quod nullus eorum summoneatur, nec implacitetur ad Wapentagium de Langeberge, nisi per considerationem Wapentagii, vel per rationabilem sacrebord, nec aliqis eorum causetur; et si aliquis [eorum] in forisfacturam ceciderit, amensurabitur secundum  catella sia, et secundum delictum per quod ceciderat. Praeterea concessi eis quod servientes [mei], qui in Wapentagio fuerint, jurent quod liberatates secundum tenorem cartae meae fideliter servabunt et manutenebunt; et si aliquis eorum inde convictus fuerit, removebitur per me et haeredes meos, et alius er me et haerededs meos praesentabitur. Praeterea concessi eis, quod summus serviens de Wapentagio non nisi tres equos habeat et tres servientes sub se in equis, scil. duos in Clivelanda, et unum in Wytebrstrand, et pro hiis libertatibus habendisi idem milites et libere tenentes concesserunt, quod si serviens de Wapentagio de Langeberge per rationabilem compotum monstrare poterit, quod ad firman Domini Regis, scil, quadragenta marcas, et ad rationabiles expensas suas de exitu Wapentagii pervenire non poterit, ipsi milites et libere tenentes dibitam firmam persolvent secundum quod defecerit de xl marcis, salvis rationabilibus expensis capitalis servientis secundum testimonium meum et senescaldorum meorum. Has praedictas libertates concessi militibus et libere tenentibus de Clivelanda et haer. suis, tenendas et habendas de me et haer. meis in perp. Hiis testibus. Rogero Constabulario Cestria, Robert de Ros, Eustachio de Vescy, Roberto Walense, tunc Vicecomite Ebor., Waltero de Faucumberge, Roaldo Constabulairo Richemund, Briano filio Alani, Johanne de Birking, Willelmo filio Radulfi, Waltero de Bovingtona, et m.a.

Cartularium Prioratus de Gyseburne, A.D. MCXIX, Volumen Primum., for the Surtees Society, vol. LXXXVI, 1898, pp. 92-94.