Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/788

 766 APPENDIX I pertineutiis suis et libertatibus integre teneant et pacifice libere et quiete cum soka et saka et tol et theam et infangenetheot et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus ad eas pertinentibus in burgo et extra burgum in bosco et piano in pratis et pascuis in aquis et molendinis in parcis et vivariis in viis semitis et exitibus et omnibus aliis aisiamentis sicut unquam Willelmus Peverell' eas melius et liberius tenuit Testibus W. Lond' et H. Sar' Episcopis G. filio Petri Comite Essex' Rann' Comite Cestr' W. Mariscall' Comite de Penbroc R. Comite de Clar' W. Comite Arundll' W. de Braos* Willelmo filio Alani Datum per manum H. Cant' Archiepiscopi Cancellarii nostri apud Norhat' .vij. die Junii Regni nostri Anno — Primo. (Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charters, no. 49, with a portion of the Great Seal still attached). The entry on the Oblate Roll, m. 23, relating to this convention (") is as follows: Comes de Ferrar' [dat] M.M. marcas pro Hecham cum hundredo et parco cum pertinenciis et Blisewurth' et Neubotle cum pertinenciis per sic quod remittit domino Regi totum clamorem suum de aliis terris que fuerunt Willelmi Peverelli C*) et respondebit et warantizabit dominum Regem inde contra omnes Et idem dominus Rex dedit ei parcam de Hecham pro quo dominus H. proavus suus escambium dedit antecessori Willelmi Peverel. In the face of this evidence it is astonishing that anyone could ever have had the hardihood to deny that in 11 99 the Earl of Derby was the right heir of William Peverel of Nottingham. Dugdale, indeed, when stating in the Baronage that Margaret, daughter of this William, married an Earl of Derby, gave as his authority "Plac. coram Reg.T. Mich. 25 Hen. Ill," and thereby created some suspicion, (=) for Margaret is not mentioned on the Roll. It has therefore been concluded, too hastily, that she was a " phantom " : and further, somewhat inconsequently, and with a total disregard of the available evidence — duly summarised by Dugdale — that the Earls of Derby were not really the heirs of William Peverel, but only pretended to be. Quite recently, however, a charter dated "vj*° Kal. (") In the Liber Niger and the Liher Ruber there is a memorandum to the effect that the Earl of Ferrieres held Higham with the hundred and a half together with the park and Newbottle and Blisworth, by the service of one knight. But this does not show, as it has been supposed to do, that the Earl of Ferrieres held these lands in u66, nor indeed at any time previous to the date of the Charter recited above. For these memoranda are merely interpolations made in both books some time in the 13th century, and afford no additional information whatever. C") Planch^ translates the passage "quod . . . Peverelli" thus: "that the King may forego all claim to other lands which were William Peverel's." (") It is almost needless to say that Dugdale's references, like most other marginal references, are frequently inexact and misleading. A good example of this occurs in the Baronage, vol. i, p. 593, where he gives as his authority for the grant of Egmanton by Nele d'Aubigny to Robert de Daiville [see p. 131 of this volume] " Regist. de Furnesse in officio Ducat. Lane," having in this instance selected the wrong reference, " f " instead of " h," from a previous page (122) in his own work.