DERBY. Robert de Ferrers (1138). YORKSHIRE. William of Aumâle (1138). PEMBROKE. Gilbert de Clare (1138). ESSEX. Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140). LINCOLN. William de Roumare (? 1139-1140). NORFOLK. Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141). ARUNDEL. William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141). HERTFORD. Gilbert de Clare[810] (before Christmas, 1141). BEDFORD. Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138).
A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles to our ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they were bestowed. With the exception of the last, which had a transitory existence, the names of these great earldoms became household words.
Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining ourselves to new creations, we obtain the following list:—
CORNWALL. Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141). DEVON. Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141). DORSET (or SOMERSET). William de Mohun (before June, 1141). HEREFORD. Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141). OXFORD. Aubrey de Vere (1142). WILTSHIRE ("SALISBURY"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).[811]
This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting ESSEX (Geoffrey de Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding DEVON (Baldwin de Redvers), an earldom which is always, but erroneously, stated to have been conferred upon Baldwin's father _temp._ Henry I.[812] Of these creations, Hereford is the one of which the facts are best ascertained, while Dorset or Somerset is that of which least is known.[813]
The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show that the titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown were chosen from those portions of the realm in which their strength respectively lay. Nor do they seem to have encroached upon the sphere of one another by assigning to the same county rival earls. This is an important fact to note, and it leads us to this further observation, that, contrary to the view advanced by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their title, wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death of Henry (Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, [Northampton?], Huntingdon, and Buckingham[814]), Surrey was the one glaring exception to this important rule. Under Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists, we have fifteen new earls, of whom almost all take their titles in accordance with this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William de Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick of Salisbury, are all instances in point. The only exceptions suggest the conclusion that where a newly created earl could not take for his title the county in which his chief possessions lay, he chose the nearest county remaining vacant at the time. Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken Hertford for his title, because Essex had already been given to Geoffrey, while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl of the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have selected Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of his lord. Aubrey de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later of these creations, could not obtain Essex, in which lay his chief seat, but sought for Cambridge, in which county he held an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been forestalled. He had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his choice of the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these he chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, a definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, been enunciated before.