[925] Weever similarly kills him in 1176, though he wrongly assigns the death of his father (the founder of Wymondham) to 3 Hen. II. [926] ? created Earl of Sussex. [927] Bishop John of Norwich, for instance, was not elected till 1175. [928] Mr. Yeatman attempts to get over this difficulty by suggesting that "Henry's charter to William, Earl of Arundel, styling himself [? him] incidentally Earl of Sussex, shows that these earls bore both titles [_i.e._ Arundel and Sussex], just as the first earl was called of Chichester as well as of Arundel" (p. 285). But this alternative use of Arundel and Sussex is precisely what the author denies above, in the case of the first earl, as impossible. [929] _Supra_, p. 143. [930] It is not safe from the concurrence of only three witnesses to assign this charter positively to the same period as the Canterbury one. The grant which it records is that of the hundred of Barstable, which Stephen offered "super altare beatæ Mariæ et beatæ Athelburgæ in ecclesia de Berching[es] per unum cultellum" (Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18). [931] _Monasticon_, vi. 1169. [932] _Ibid._, vi. 419. [933] _Ibid._, vi. 645. [934] Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him, in 1139, as "Willelmus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz quondam reginam, quæ habebat castellum et comitatum Harundel, quod rex Henricus dederat ei in dote." The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeliza may probably be accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had settled Shropshire on her,—"uxori suæ ... comitatum Salopesberiæ dedit" (ed. Stubbs, ii. 529),—for this would represent the forfeited inheritance of the house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights over Sussex. A curious incidental allusion in the _Dialogus_ (i. 7) to "Salop, _Sudsex_, Northumberland, et Cumberland" having only come to pay their _firmæ_ to the Crown "per incidentes aliquos casus," suggests that, like his neighbour in Cheshire, Roger de Montgomery had palatine rights, including the _firmæ_ of both his counties, Shropshire and Sussex, which escheated to the Crown on the forfeiture of his heir. [935] See p. 146. [936] "Intra se igitur tanti viri pacis et tranquillitatis metas excedentes et seditiose alter alterius predia vastantes contigit Gaufridum furore exagitatum, quia succenderat Willelmus domos suas et universam predam terræ suæ abigi fecerat villam Walthamensem succendere nec posse domibus canonicorum parcere quia reliquis domibus erant contigue, testimonium prohibemus qui et dampna cum ceteris sustinuimus" (_Harl. MS._, 3776). Compare p. 222, _supra_.