ii s. ix. APRIL 25, i9H.] NOTES AND QUERIES,
331
not write et quas when he meant quas.
Here are the words of the printed Patent
Roll, Hen. III. (1226), p. 31 :
" Commisimus etiam eidem Waltero omnes terras quas iJem Hugo tenuit de feodo predicti Walter! de Lascy cum castris de Bathour et le Nober cum pertinentiis suis et quas tenuit de maritagio Leceline uxoris sue et de feodo Nicholai de Verdun cum castro de Carlingeford et perti- nentiis suis."
The language ibid., p. 51 is similar, but that on p. 75 (Sweetman's 1372) places the matter beyond a doubt. This is an acknowledgment by Walter that he had received the castles and lands mentioned on the conditions stated :
- ' Eecepi etiam de ipso domino rege et de
voluntate ipsius commisi predicto Hugoni omnes terras quas idem Hugo tenuit de feodo meo cum castris de Ratour et le Nober cum pertinentiis suis et similiter omnes terras quas tenuit de maritagio Leceline uxoris sue et de feodo Nicholai de Veredun cum castro de Carlingford et perti- nentiis suis."
. It may be observed that in the extract quoted by MR. HELTON (11 S. viii. 372) from the Calendar of Carew MSS. the words et quas are, not incorrectly, rendered " and whatever." I conclude, then, that Mr. Lynam was (not unnaturally) misled by Sweetman into supposing that Ratour and Le Nober were part of Lesceline's maritagium. Even Mr. Round was per- plexed by the apparent inconsistency of Sweetman's extracts with the Gormanston Register, but I venture to think that the error has now been traced to its source.
3. The real lands of Lesceline's mari- tagium are shown by the document I quoted from the Gormanston Register to have adjoined the De Verdon lands of Dundalk. That they included Carlingford and Cooley {Irish Cuailnge, of the famous " cattle-spoil," the district between Carlingford Lough and Dundalk Bay) appears from another docu- ment in the same Register (f. 191d). By this deed Hugh de Lacy granted to his daughter Matilda on her marriage with David, Baron of Naas, the castle of Carling- " cum tota terra quam habui cum
ford
matre sua in Cole et Ergalea," &c. " Cole "
here is Cooley, a name now surviving on
the map only in Cooley Point. The caput
of the subsequent manor was at Castletown-
Cooley, in the S.W. extremity of Carlingford
parish, where a fine mote near the ancient
church - site marks, I believe, the spot.
"Ergalea" is Oirghialla, Uriel, or co. Louth.
The date of this deed would be after Hugh's
restoration.
4. MB. RELTON also asks me what lands are referred to in Cal. Docs. Irel., No. 1210.
In this extract, dated 25 Aug., 1224, Nichola
de Verdon, whose lands had been laid wast
by Hugh de Lacy's war, is stated to have
asked for compensation
" out of the lands of the King's enemies which are of his [Nicholas's] fee without Meath, and out of lands of the fees of other persons [i.e., King's enemies] within Meath."
I should suppose that Nicholas referred in both cases to the lands of Hugh de Lacy, or of those who had taken his side in the war. The form of the request, it ma,y be observed, perhaps indicates that there were no lands of the fee of Nicholas in Meath at the time, and indeed I know of no evidence that the De Verdons held any lands in Meath before John de Verdon married Margaret de Lacy. It is quite possible, however, that Nicholas got back at this time some of the lands which his brother Thomas had shared with Hugh. Certainly the mountainous dis- trict of Cooley and Carlingford cannot have been of value equal to the De Verdon lands in the remainder of the barony of Dundalk, and yet the agreement with Thomas pointed to an equal division.
5. With regard to the date of Hugh de Lacy's marriage with Emeline de Ridelesford, I cannot think it took place until after 1227, when Hugh was finally restored to Ulster. From the time of his expulsion from Ireland in 1210, Hugh can be traced at intervals in the crusade against the Albigenses up to 1219 (' Recueil des Historiens de la France,' xix. 145, 170, 181 ; and ' Ann. Mon.,' iii. 75). In short, I do not think he came to Ireland again before the summer of 1223. He came then as a rebel, and he could hardly have won a rich wife before he had obtained the King's peace. MR. RELTON thinks that the wife whom Hugh is said to have abandoned before 1225 was Emeline. But why not Lesceline ? Relations with the De Verdons, who sided with the King against Hugh, were undoubtedly at this time strained to the breaking-point. Moreover, are not the words of the Patent Roll (1226) quoted above inconsistent with the view that Hugh was then married to another wife ?
6. My reasons for thinking that there were two successive Walters de Ridelesford are : (a) It is highly improbable that a man who fought under Strongbow in 1170 could have lived to c. 1244. (b) It is quite impossible that Strongbow's follower could have fought against Richard Marshal in 1234 and captured several knights in battle (see and consider Cal. Docs. Irel., i., Nos. 2253, 2255, 2285). (c) It is also impossible that he could have taken part in the final
