Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/512

 A HISTORY OF NORFOLK The reign of William II is not connected particularly with local history, but there is a suspicion that his death was the result not of an accident but of a plot hatched in Norfolk.^ When Henry I succeeded, he was supported locally by Roger Bigod,* who remained constable of Norwich Castle until his death in 1 107, when he was succeeded first by his son William Bigod (who went down in the White iS'>6//»), and then by his other son, Hugh Bigod. In 1122 Henry himself came to Norwich and spent Christmas' there. On the death of Henry in 1135, Hugh Bigod materially assisted Stephen's seizure of the crown by coming over from Normandy and asserting that he knew positively that the late king had disinherited his daughter Maud and appointed Stephen his successor.* In 1 136' a rumour was spread that Stephen was dead, and Hugh Bigod came down to the castle and shut himself up in it, refusing to deliver it to anyone but the king himself.^ It was said that William de Blois (Stephen's natural son) wished to supplant Bigod in his office, and this may be the reason why Hugh stood on the defensive.^ The result was that the king seized both the castle and the city and gave them to William de Blois. Some sort of a compromise or arrangement between Bigod and Stephen seems to have been made, for in that year the king made him earl of the East Angles or Norfolk, and gave him the third part of the profits of the county in inheritance, at the same time granting the remaining two-thirds to William de Blois. This compromise, however, does not seem to have satisfied the newly-created earl, for in 1140 he declared in favour of Maud, and held for her his castle of Bungay.* Once more, however, Bigod must have changed sides, for in 1141 he fought with the king at Lincoln, but apparently soon deserted, for he was with the empress in 1 141 and 1 142.' By 1 1 35, Maud having withdrawn to Normandy, Bigod was once more on the king's side, and must have had some interest with him, for in 11 52 he persuaded the king to re-grant, though apparently not to enlarge, the liberties of Norwich. The various treasons of its earl are really almost the only connexion which Norfolk had with the war between Stephen and Maud, for the actual fighting does not seem to have come any nearer than Bungay and Ipswich. In the reign of Stephen there was, according to the chronicle of St. Edmund's, an assembly or court held in the bishop's garden at Norwich in 1 150 to hear an accusation made by one of the servants of Sir Robert Fitz Gilbert, against his master of alleged treason at the siege of Bedford Castle in 1149 ^y conspiring to carry off or murder the king. The presiding officer was William Martel, described as ' sewer or steward,' but he probably sat as ' Round {Feud. Engl. 472) suggested that he was shot as the result of a plot among the members of the family of GifFard and Clare, one of whom was married to Walter Tirel. He points out also that Tirel is sometimes called ' Walter de Bekham.' This may quite likely be Beckham in this county, and there is other evidence to connect Tirel with the county. ' Will, of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Rolls Ser.), ii, 47 1 . » Hen. of Hunt. Hist. Jng!. (Rolls Ser.), 244. ' From the fact that William de Blois eventually held the castles of Norwich, Bungay, Wormegay, and Castle Acre, it is clear that Stephen preferred to trust his own family. ' Annals of Waverley (Luard), 229. ' Round, Geoff, de Mandeville, 83, 172. 470
 * Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 62.
 * Hen. of Hunt. op. cit, 259. ' Matt. Paris. Chron. Maj. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 165.