The title of Clericus, then, in earlier times as now, belonged not only to those in the holy ministry of the Church, and to whom more strictly applied the term Clergy, either regular or secular, but to those as well who by their function or course of life practised their pens in any court or otherwise, as Clerk of the King's Wardrobe, Clerks of the Exchequer, &c. Though in former times clerks of this description were frequently in holy orders and held benefices, it must be evident that they were not all so of necessity; and the instances are so numerous where persons having the title of "Clericus" appear nevertheless to have been in the married state, and to have discharged functions incompatible with the service of the Church, that the assertion will not be denied that the restrictions as to contracting matrimonial alliances did not extend to clerks not in holy orders or below the grade of subdiaconus. The Registrum Brevium furnishes a precedent of a writ, "De clerico infra sacros ordines constituto non eligendo in officium." This distinction alone would prove that other clerks were not ineligible to office. The various decrees of the Church may be cited to show that the prohibition to marry did not include all clerks generally. Pope Gregory VII., in a synod held in 1074, "interdixit clericis, maxime divino ministerio consecratis uxores habere, vel cum mulicribus habitare, nisi quas Nicena Synodus vel alii canones exceperunt."

The statutes made by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, Archbishop elect of York, and all the other bishops of England, in 1108, in presence of King Henry I., and with the assent of his barons, confine the interdiction respecting marriages to Presbyteri, Diaconi et Subdiaconi, and a provision is made by them for those cases where marriages had been contracted since the interdict at the Council of London (that probably in 1103), viz. that such should be precluded thereafter from celebrating mass, if they persist in retaining their wives. "Illi vero presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi, qui post interdictum Londoniensis Concilii foeminas suas tenuerunt vel alins duxcrunt, si amplius missam celebrare voluerint, eas a se omnino sic facient alienas, ut nec illae in domos eorum, nec ipsi in domos earum intrent.... Illi autem presbyteri qui divini altaris et sacrorum ordinum contemptores praelegerint cum mulicribus habitare a divino officio remoti, omnique ecclesiastico beneficio privati, extra chorum ponantur, infames pronunciati. Qui vero rebellis et contemptor foeminam non reliquerit, et missam celebrare presumpserit, vocatus ad satisfactionem si neglexerit, viiij. die excommunicetur. Eadem sententia archidiaconos et cononicos omnes complectitur, et de mulieribus relinquendis et de vitanda carum conversatione, et de districtione censurae si statuta transgressi fuerint.... Presbyteri vero qui relictis mulieribus, Deo et sacris altaribus servire elegerint, xl. dies ab officio cessantes, pro se interim vicarios habebunt, injuncta eis poenitentia secundum hoc quod episcopis corum visum fuerit." In 1138 the penalty for priests marrying was deprivation of their benefices, and exclusion from the celebration of divine service:—"Sanctorum patrum vestigiis inhaerentes, presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos uxoratos, aut concubinarios, ecclesiasticis officiis et beneficiis privamus, ac ne quis eorum missam audire praesumat Apostolica auctoriate prohibemus."

Many such decrees have been made at various synods and councils holden for reformation of the clergy, but I can find none wherein marriage is interdicted to clerks generally. I will refer to one more only, viz. that made in the Council of London, held at Westminster in 1175. Here it will be seen most distinctly that the prohibition against entering the marriage state was confined expressly to Clerici in sacris ordinibus constituti, and that is was not only lawful for clerks below the grade of subdeacon to marry, but that having subsequently once entered the marriage state and being subsequently desirous ad religionem transire, and to continue in the service of the Church, they could not do so and be separated from their wives unless de communi consensu; if they continued, however, to live with their wives, they could not hold an ecclesiastical benefice: "Si quis sacerdos vel clericus in sacris ordinibus constitutus, ecclesiam vel ecclesiasticum beneficium habens publice fornicarium habeat," &c.... "Si qui vero infra subdiaconatum constituti matrimonia contraxerint, ab uxoribus sius nisi de communi consensu ad religionem transire voluerint, et ibi in Dei servitio vigilanter permanere, nullatenus separentur: sed cum uxoribus viventes, ecclesiastica benficia nullo modo percipiant. Qui autem in subdiaconatu, vel supra, ad matrimonia convolaverint, mulieres etiam invitas et renitentes relinquant."

This it will be seen that the title "Clericus" under some circumstances, affords no certain indication that a lawful marriage may not have been contracted by the person so described and consequently that he might not have prolem legitimam.

W.H.

It does not follow that William de Bolton was an ecclesiastic because he was called Clericus; that designation being, even in that early time, often used in a lay sense.

I have just come across an instance of a prior date. In the Liberate Roll of 26 Henry III. the king directs a payment to be made "to Isabella, the wife of our beloved clerk, Robert of Canterbury, to purchase a robe for our use." Even in the reign of Richard I. it may be doubtful whether the term was not used with both meanings; for in the charter of Walter Mapes, granting certain lands, among the witnesses are "Rogero, capellano, Willelmo, capellano, Thoma, clerico meo, Waltero, clerico, Jacobo, clerico, Bricio, fermario meo."

[Symbol: Phi]

[In addition to the information afforded by the preceding communications "A SUBSCRIBER" will find much curious illustration of this subject in Beveridge's Discourses on the Thirty-Nine Articles, where he treats of the Thirty-second article "On the Marriage of Priests."

He must however consult the edition printed at the Oxford University Press in 1840, which contains for the first time Beveridge's Discourses on the last Nine Articles.]

TOWER ROYAL

Sir,—In your second number I find a query by Mr. Cunningham, respecting the origin of the name of Tower Royal; although I cannot satisfactorily explain it, I enclose a few notes relative to the early history of that place, which may, perhaps, afford a clue to its derivation.

In early records it is invariably called "la Real," "la Reole," "la Riole," or "la Ryal or Ryole;" and it is described simply as a "tenement;" I have never found an instance of its being called a "tower". At the close of the reign of Henry III. it was held by one Thomas Bat, citizen of London, who demised it to Master Simon of Beauvais, surgeon to Edward I.; this grant was confirmed by that sovereign by charter in 1277. (Rot. Cart. 5 Edw. I. m. 17.—Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 461.) This Simon of Beauvais figures in Stow and Pennant as Simon de Beawmes. In 1331 Edward III. granted "la Real" to his consort Philippa, for the term of her life, that is might be used as a depository for her wardrobe. (Rot. Pat. 4 Edw. III. 2nd part, m. 15.) By Queen Philippa it was extensively repaired, if not rebuilt, and the particulars of the works executed there by her direction, may be seen in the Wardrobe Account of the sixth year of her reign, preserved in the Cottonian MS. Galba E iii. fo. 177, et seq.; this account is erroneously attributed in the catalogue to Eleanor, consort of Edward I. One Maria de Beauvais, probably a descendant of Master Simon, received compensation for quitting a tenement which she held at the time Philippa's operations commenced. In 1365 Edward III. granted to Robert de Corby, in fee, "one tenement in the street of la Ryole, London" to hold by the accustomed services. Finally, in 1370 Edward gave the "inn (hospitium) with its appurtenances called le Reole, in the city of London," to the canons of St. Stephen's, Westminster, as of the yearly value of 20l. (Rot. Pat. 43 Edw. III. m. 24.)

It is sufficiently clear that in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries this place was not called Tower Royal; nor does there appear to be any ground for supposing it was so named in earlier times, or, indeed, that it was ever occupied by royalty before it became Philippa's wardrobe. The question, therefore is narrowed to this point:—what is the significance of "la Real, Reole, or Riole?" I should be glad if any of your correspondents would give their opinions on the subject. I may add, that the building was in the parish of St. Thomas Apostle, not in that of St. Michael Pater Noster Church, as Stow wrote. (Rot. Pat. 4 Edw. III. 2nd part, m. 38.)

T.H.T

Let me refer Mr. P. Cunningham to "Stow's Survey, p. 27. 92. Thoms' Edition," for a full answer to his query. The passages are too long to cite, but Mr. C. will find sufficient proof of the part of a royal residence having once stood in this obscure lane, now almost demolished in the sweeping city improvements, which threaten in time to leave us hardly a fragment of the London of the old chronicler.

The Tower was also called the Queen's Wardrobe, and it was there, Froissart tells us, that Joan of Kent, the mother of Richard II., took refuge during Wat Tyler's rebellion, when forced to fly from the Tower of London. The old historian writes that after the defeat of the rebels "pour le premier chemin que le Roy fit, il vint deuers sa Dame de mère, la Princesse, qui estoit en un chastel de la Riolle (que l'on dit la Garderobbe la Reyne) et là s'estoit tenue deux jours et deux nuits, moult ébahie; et avoit bien raison. Quand elle vit le Roy son fils, elle fut toute rejouye, et luy dit, 'Ha ha beau fils, comment j'ay eu aujourd'huy grand peine et angoisse pour vous.' Dont respondit le Roy, et dit, 'Certes, Madame, je le say bien. Or vous rejouissez et louez Dieu, car il est heure de le louer. J'ay aujourd'huy recouvré mon heritage et le royaume d'Angleterre, que j'avoye perdu.' Ainsi se tint le Roy ce jour delez sa mère." (Froissart, ii 123. Par. 1573.)