The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Minority of Henry the Third
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Minority of Henry the Third

Author: Kate Norgate

Release date: June 21, 2017 [eBook #54953]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by MWS, Fay Dunn, Stephen Rowland and the Online
        Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
        file was produced from images generously made available
        by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MINORITY OF HENRY THE THIRD ***




Produced by MWS, Fay Dunn, Stephen Rowland and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)









Transcriber’s Note


Words in italics are marked with _underscores_.

Words in small capitals are shown in UPPER CASE.

Most pages started with a sidenote showing the year. These were printed
in bold and partially underlined. They have been moved to the start of
paragraphs, and kept only when they change. For some long paragraphs,
which were printed over several pages, a range of dates is shown.

Other sidenotes, originally in italics, give the actual date of an
event. These have been moved next to the description of the date, and
are shown in parentheses, e.g. {30 May}. Others, which merely repeat
a date, have been removed.

Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of chapters.

All references to footnote numbers (i.e. page and note number) have
been changed to the footnote numbers used here.

Some formatting and punctuation in citations, sidenotes and the index
have been standardized.

Variant spelling, inconsistent hyphenation and inconsistent spelling
of people’s names are retained, however a few palpable printing errors
have been corrected. Opening brackets within brackets have been left
unclosed. Other changes are listed at the end of the book.




  +--------------------------------+
  |     _By the same Author_       |
  |                                |
  |        JOHN LACKLAND           |
  |                                |
  |     8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._ net.      |
  |                                |
  |  LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD. |
  +--------------------------------+




THE MINORITY OF HENRY THE THIRD




[Illustration: Publisher’s logo]

  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

  LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA
  MELBOURNE


  THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

  NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO
  DALLAS . SAN FRANCISCO


  THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.

  TORONTO




  THE MINORITY
  OF
  HENRY THE THIRD

  BY
  KATE NORGATE

  MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
  ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON

  1912




  _COPYRIGHT_


  RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED,
  BRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E.,
  AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




 I was set to work at the history of Henry III’s early years by a
 letter from Thomas Andrew Archer which only reached me after his
 death. To his memory I dedicate this book.

 _4 January, 1912._




CONTENTS


  CHAPTER I
                                                          PAGE
  THE WAR WITH LOUIS, 1216–1217                              1


  CHAPTER II
  THE REGENCY OF WILLIAM THE MARSHAL, 1217–1219             61


  CHAPTER III
  THE LEGATION OF PANDULF, 1219–1221                       108


  CHAPTER IV
  TUTORS AND GOVERNORS, 1221–1223                          173


  CHAPTER V
  THE YOUNG KING, 1223–1227                                208


  NOTES
  I--The Truces of 1216–1217                               269
  II--The Blocked Gate at Lincoln                          273
  III--Falkes de Bréauté at Lincoln                        275
  IV--The End of the Battle of Lincoln                     276
  V--The Treaty of Kingston                                278
  VI--The Tenure of Crown Offices during the Minority      280
  VII--The Papal Letters of 1223                           286
  VIII--The Royal Castles in 1223–1224                     290
  IX--Falkes and the “thirty pairs of letters”             292
  X--Bedford Castle                                        293
  XI--The Hanging of the Bedford Garrison                  296

  INDEX                                                    301




  _Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris._




THE MINORITY OF HENRY III




CHAPTER I

THE WAR WITH LOUIS

1216–1217

Iniit ergo omnis multitudo pactum in domo Dei cum rege, dixitque ad eos
Joiada: Ecce, filius regis regnabit.


[Sidenote: 1216]

On the 19th of October, 1216, King John lay dead in Newark castle.
Nearly half of his realm, including the capital, was in the hands of a
foreign invader who was supported by a numerous and powerful section
of the English baronage as well as by the citizens of London; and the
sole surviving male representatives of the royal house of England were
two boys, the elder of whom was but nine years old. The King had been
cut off suddenly, at a moment when not one of his English counsellors
was at his side; and the small body of troops which he had brought with
him from the west consisted almost entirely of foreign mercenaries.
It might well have been expected that these men would, as soon as the
“landless king” was dead, transfer their services to his rival. But
John had possessed that mysterious gift which seems to have been common
to the whole Angevin house, the gift of inspiring a personal attachment
out of all proportion to the merits of its object. These men, seemingly
without any leader to direct their action, took upon themselves and
faithfully and successfully fulfilled the duty of carrying into effect
John’s last wishes, so far as lay in their power, by conveying his
corpse across England from Newark to Worcester, and calling on the
loyal barons to meet them there for the double purpose of burying the
dead King and concerting offensive and defensive measures to secure the
rights of his heir.[1]

John’s last act had been to commend his eldest son to the care of the
Earl of Pembroke, William the Marshal. “Sirs”--thus he is said to have
addressed the few friends who stood around his death-bed--“I must die.
For God’s sake, pray the Marshal to forgive me the wrongs that I have
done him. He has always served me loyally, and never requited me an ill
turn for any evil that I have done to him or said to him. Sirs, for
God’s sake Who made the world, pray him that he will forgive me; and
because I trust in his loyalty more than in that of any other man, I
beg you that he may have my son in his charge, and always keep him and
guard him; for the child will never be able to hold his land through
any one, unless it be through the Marshal.”[2] When the Marshal, who
was at Gloucester, “heard say that the King his lord was dead, he
was grieved thereat.” He set out at once to meet the funeral train
at Worcester; Gualo the Legate, who no doubt also was somewhere in
the west of England, did the like; and a goodly company of clerks and
knights were present with them at the burial. As soon as it was over,
“the great men”--that is, probably, the Legate and the Marshal--hurried
back to Gloucester, and sent out a summons to all those barons who held
with the King to join them there without delay. The appeal met with a
quick response; a council was held, and all present unanimously agreed
that they should send for little Henry “and do with him what God should
teach them to be reasonable and right.” The child had been placed for
safety in the castle of Devizes; Sir Thomas de Sandford was despatched
to fetch him thence, and the Marshal went as far as Malmesbury to meet
him.[3]

The heir of England was gifted with more than the ordinary
attractiveness inherent in youth and innocence; he had a beautiful
face, with golden hair, and he was already noted for a gravity and
dignity of speech beyond his years.[4] A faithful retainer, Ralf of
Saint-Samson,[5] was “carrying him in his arms”--that is, probably,
holding him on the horse’s neck before him--when, in the plain outside
Malmesbury, William the Marshal met the little company coming from
Devizes. The Marshal saluted the future King; “and the well-trained
child said to him, ‘Welcome, Sir! Truly, I commit myself to God and
to you, that for God’s sake you may take care of me; and may the true
God Who takes care of all good things grant that you may so manage
our business that your wardship of me may be prosperous.’ ‘Fair Sir,’
answered the Marshal, ‘I tell you loyally, as I trust my soul to God, I
will be in good fealty to you, and never forget you, so long as I have
power to do anything.’” The boy burst into tears, and the bystanders
and the Marshal did the like “for pity.”[6]

Most of the barons of the King’s party were now at Gloucester, and
anxious that the coronation should take place without delay. One,
however, who ranked next to the Marshal in importance--Ranulf, Earl of
Chester--had not yet arrived, and it was not without some hesitation
that the others ventured to take so important a step in his absence.
The urgency of the case however overcame their scruples and their
fears of Ranulf’s displeasure;[7] and on the eve of S. Simon and S.
Jude {27 Oct.}--ten days after John’s death--a council over which
the Legate presided made the final arrangements for crowning the King
the next morning.[8] At the last moment a question arose: who was to
knight the boy? “Who should do it,” one of the assembly answered,
“save he who, if we were a thousand here, would still be the highest
and worthiest and bravest of all--he who has already knighted one young
king[9]--William the Marshal? God has given him such grace as none of
us can attain. Let him gird the sword on this child; so shall he have
worthily knighted two kings.” It was done; and next morning {28 Oct.}
the “pretty little knight, clad in his little royal robes,”[10] was
led in solemn procession to the abbey church. Standing before the high
altar, he recited, under the dictation of the Bishop of Bath,[11] the
old traditional coronation oath: that he would, all the days of his
life, maintain the honour, peace, and reverence due to God, His Church,
and His ordained ministers; that he would render right and justice to
the people committed to him; that he would abolish bad laws and evil
customs, if any such were in the realm, and would observe good laws and
customs and cause them to be observed by all men. He then did homage
to the Holy Roman Church and the Pope for the realms of England and
Ireland, and swore that so long as he held them, he would faithfully
pay the thousand marks promised by his father to the Roman see. This
homage must have been done to Gualo as the Pope’s representative. It
was followed by the crowning and anointing which made Henry king.
This most solemn rite was carried out with as much of the customary
ceremonial as circumstances permitted.[12] The Archbishop of
Canterbury, who according to immemorial precedent should have performed
it, was beyond the sea. Gualo alone had, as Legate, a right to take the
Primate’s place on such an occasion; but it seems that he tactfully
declined to do so, and commissioned a member of the English episcopate
to act in his stead, while he himself undertook the more ordinary
duty of singing the Mass. The very crown was a makeshift, “a sort of
chaplet”[13]--probably an ornament for a woman’s hair, belonging to
the Queen-mother. Under the sanction of the legatine authority Bishop
Peter of Winchester, assisted by the Bishops of Worcester and Exeter,
anointed the child and placed this improvised crown on his head.[14]

When the service was over Philip d’Aubigné caught up the tired child
in his arms, carried him back to his apartments, and caused him to be
relieved of his heavy robes before proceeding to the hall where the
coronation banquet was spread.[15] The company at the high table must
have been a small one; besides the Legate, the Queen-mother,[16] and
six bishops,[17] there seem to have been present at the coronation
only six persons of sufficiently high rank to be mentioned by name
in the chronicles of the time; the Earls of Pembroke and Ferrers,
Philip d’Aubigné, John Marshal,[18] William Brewer, and Savaric de
Mauléon.[19] There was however a considerable gathering of abbots and
priors, and “a very great crowd” of lesser folk.[20] In the midst of
the banquet a messenger made his way into the hall and delivered
to the Earl Marshal aloud, in the hearing of all, an urgent appeal
for succour from the constable of Goodrich castle, besieged on the
preceding afternoon by some partisans of Louis. Goodrich was only
twelve miles distant, and the incident was naturally felt to be a bad
omen.[21] Guided by a common instinct, all the little company around
the King turned, as John had turned many a time, to William the Marshal
as their one hope, and before they separated for the night they went to
him with the same request which had already been made to him by John
and by little Henry himself: “You have made our young lord a knight; he
owes his crown to you; we all of us together pray you to take him into
your keeping.” “I cannot,” answered William, “I am old; the task is too
heavy for me. Leave the matter till the Earl of Chester comes.” With
this answer he dismissed them for the night.[22]

Next morning {29 Oct.} Ranulf of Chester arrived, just as they were
all about to do homage, as was usual on the morrow of a coronation,
to the new King. Ranulf did his homage like the rest, and expressed
his approval of all that had been done in his absence. A meeting
was then held “in the King’s hall,” for the purpose of choosing “a
valiant man to guard King and kingdom.” The Bishop of Winchester--no
doubt according to arrangement made on the preceding night after the
Marshal had withdrawn--called on Alan Basset to speak first. “By my
faith!” spoke Alan, “fair sir, though I look up hill and down dale, I
see no one fitted for this, save the Marshal or the Earl of Chester.”
Again the Marshal protested that the matter was too hard for him: “I
am too feeble and broken, I have passed fourscore years. Take it upon
you, Sir Earl of Chester, for God’s sake! for it is your due; and
I will be your aid so long as I have strength in life, and will be
under your command loyally to the uttermost of my power; never shall
you command me aught, by word or by writing, that I will not do as
well as I may by God’s helping grace.” “Out upon it!” cried Chester,
“Marshal, this cannot be. You, who in every way are one of the best
knights in the world--valiant, experienced, wise, and as much loved
as you are feared--you must take it; and I will serve you and do your
behests, without contradiction, in every way that I can.” Hereupon
Gualo called the Earl, the Marshal, the Bishop of Winchester, and one
or two others into an inner room, where the matter was discussed among
them privately. No conclusion, however, was reached, till at last the
Legate “besought the Marshal for God’s sake, and required of him that
he should undertake the charge for the remission and pardon of his
sins, that he might be fully absolved of them before God at the Day of
Judgement.” “In God’s Name!” said the Marshal, “if I am saved from my
sins, this charge befits me well; I will take it, however burdensome it
may be.” “Then,” adds his biographer, “the Legate gave it to him, as
was right; and the good Marshal received the King and the guardianship
both together.”[23]

The Marshal’s forethought went beyond that of the others. Having
accepted the charge of the regency, he at once made a suggestion which
shewed that he intended to do the work of that office thoroughly. “My
lords, you see the King is young and tender; I should not like to lead
him about the country with me. So please you, I would seek out, by
your counsel, a wise man who should keep him somewhere at ease. This
is necessary; I will not drag him about with me. I shall not be able
to stay in one place, but must travel about and look to the safety of
the Marches. Wherefore, I would have some master provided and chosen
for him in your presence, to whom I can intrust him with security.”
“Let the choice be yours, Sir,” said the Legate, “for we have no fear
but you will choose rightly.” “Then,” answered William, “since you
leave the whole matter to me, I will give him in charge to a very good
master, the Bishop of Winchester, who has already had the charge of him
and has brought him up carefully and well.” To this all agreed,[24] and
it seems to have been in this way that “by common consent, the care of
King and kingdom was committed to the Legate, the Bishop of Winchester,
and William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke.”[25]

There was no fear of these arrangements being unacceptable to the
rest of the King’s party. Throughout all England there was but one
opinion of William the Marshal; and when “the folk outside” heard that
he had undertaken the governorship of the King and the realm, “they
rejoiced greatly.” But within the castle, when darkness fell, the old
Earl once more called around him “his sure council”--three faithful
friends; his nephew John Marshal, his squire John of Earley, and Ralph
Musard[26]--with whom he had already had an anxious consultation on the
preceding night, after the first informal offer of the regency.[27]
Now, setting his back against a wall, he began: “Give me your counsel!
for, by my faith, I have embarked on a wide sea where, cast about as
one may, neither bottom nor shore can be found, and it is a marvel
if a man come safely into port. But may it please God to bear me up!
They have given me this charge, which is like to miscarry,[28] as you
may see and know; and the child has no possessions, worse luck! and I
am an aged man.” He paused, choked by tears; “and they, who loved him
with all their hearts, wept too for pity.” Recovering himself, he asked
them: “Have you nothing to say to me?” “Yes,” answered John of Earley.
“You have undertaken a business from which there is no drawing back.
But so long as you hold to it, I tell you that the worst that may come
can only bring you honour. Suppose that all your adherents should join
Louis, and surrender all the castles to him, so that you could find no
shelter anywhere in England;--that you had to quit the country, and
that Louis pursued you till you fled to Ireland;--still that would be
great honour! And if a losing game could thus turn to your praise, how
much greater will be your joy when you get the better of the adversary,
as, please God, you may! Then all men will say that never man of any
race won such honour upon earth. Is it not worth the winning?” “By
God’s sword!” swore the aged hero, “your counsel is true and good, and
goes so straight to my heart that if all the world should forsake the
King, save myself, know you what I would do? I would carry him on my
shoulders from one land to another, and never fail him, though I had to
beg my bread.” His friends applauded his resolution, and he, having now
cast aside all misgivings, closed the conference with characteristic
simplicity. “Now let us go to bed; and may God Who rules over all
things give us His counsel and aid, as He surely does aid those who
wish to do right and cleave unto loyalty.”[29]

He took up his new duties without further hesitation. Under his
direction letters were immediately despatched to all the sheriffs and
wardens of castles throughout England, bidding them render obedience
to the new King;[30] and Gualo called upon the prelates and the loyal
barons to meet the King and his guardians in a council at Bristol on
November 11. When the council met, it comprised the whole strength
of the loyal party. Only eleven bishops indeed were present; but the
statement made in a royal letter that “all the prelates”[31] of England
were there was practically true nevertheless; for the two metropolitans
were both out of the country, the Bishops of London, Lincoln, and
Salisbury were ill, and the sees of Durham, Norwich, and Hereford were
vacant. The laymen who attended were the Earls of Pembroke, Chester,
Derby (or Ferrers), and Aumale, the Justiciar Hubert de Burgh, Savaric
de Mauléon, the two William Brewers (father and son), Robert de
Courtenay, Falkes de Bréauté, Reginald de Valtort, Walter de Lacy, Hugh
and Robert de Mortimer, John of Monmouth, Walter de Beauchamp, Walter
and Roger de Clifford, William Cantelupe, Matthew FitzHerbert, John
Marshal, Alan Basset, Philip d’Aubigné, and John L’Estrange, besides
others whose names are not recorded; and there were also some “other
prelates,”--that is, abbots and priors--and knights.[32] Gualo, who as
representing the overlord of King and kingdom necessarily acted as
president of the council, began by causing every man present to swear
fealty to the King; he then laid an interdict upon the whole of Wales
“because it held with the barons,” and repeated his excommunication of
the rebels and their allies, with Louis of France at their head.[33]

Next day {12 Nov.} there was issued a provisional Charter, purporting
to be granted by the boy-King “under the guidance of God, and for
the salvation of our soul and of the souls of all our ancestors and
successors, to the honour of God, and the exaltation of Holy Church,
and the amendment of our realm, by the counsel of our venerable
fathers” Gualo and the other prelates and magnates enumerated. Of
course it began with the declaration which had already been, and was
to be again, so often made, and so often proved but an empty form:
“The English Church shall be free, and have her rights and liberties
entire and undisturbed;” but the recital in the first article of the
Great Charter of John’s grant, made to the Church before his quarrel
with the barons, of one special liberty--that of free election--was
omitted.[34] The clauses of John’s Charter regulating the reliefs due
from tenants-in-chief,[35] the wardship of heirs under age,[36] the
marriage of heirs and widows,[37] were reproduced with a few very
slight alterations, of which the most significant was an addition to
the clause relating to the custody of estates: that the obligations
laid down as binding on the guardian of a lay fief were to be binding
likewise on the custodian of a vacant ecclesiastical dignity, and
that a wardship of this kind was not to be bought or sold.[38] The
article protecting the King’s debtors and their sureties against
arbitrary distraint;[39] that which protected free tenants against
arbitrary requirement of service other than what was legally due
from their lands;[40] that which ordered common pleas to be held in
a fixed place instead of following the King;[41] the regulations for
taking recognitions of novel disseisin, mort d’ancester, and darrein
presentment;[42] the clause protecting men of all classes against the
infliction of arbitrary fines for offences;[43] the clauses which
forbade the exaction of contributions for bridge-building from persons
or places not legally bound thereto,[44] and the holding of pleas of
the Crown by sheriffs or other royal bailiffs,[45] the regulations
concerning ward-penny and castle-guard;[46] the royal promises to
seize no timber for building without the owner’s consent,[47] not to
withhold the lands of a convicted felon from his lord beyond a year and
a day,[48] to abolish all weirs except on the sea-coast,[49] to issue
no more writs of _praecipe_ in cases where a freeman might thereby
be deprived of the means of obtaining justice,[50] to grant writs of
inquisition concerning life or limb freely without payment,[51] to
cease from unjust interference with other men’s rights of wardship in
the case of heirs holding land of a mesne lord by military service and
other land of the Crown by some other tenure;[52] the clause ordaining
equal weights and measures to be used throughout the realm;[53] that
which forbade any man to be sent to the ordeal on the sole accusation
of an officer of the Crown;[54] the King’s undertaking not to punish
or prosecute any man in any way except by the lawful judgement of his
peers and according to the law of the land,[55] and neither to sell,
deny, or delay, right and justice to any,[56] not to exact unfair
reliefs from escheated baronies,[57] not to summon men to the Forest
Courts from districts outside the Forest jurisdiction and on pleas
unconnected with it;[58] the clause securing the custody of vacant
abbeys to those who were entitled to it as founders,[59] and that
which forbade arrest or imprisonment for manslaughter on the appeal of
any woman other than the wife of the slain man[60]--were all renewed,
as were also the promises given by John that the Forests made in his
reign should be disafforested and the river enclosures made during the
same period destroyed.[61] Henry pledged himself, as John had done, to
give immediate redress to any Welshmen whom John had dispossessed of
their lands without lawful judgement of their peers.[62] The article
concerning the ancient liberties and customs of London and other towns
was renewed, with the insertion of a special mention of the Cinque
Ports.[63] That which forbade the King’s constables to seize any man’s
corn or cattle without immediate payment, except by the owner’s leave,
was modified; if the owner belonged to the township in which the
castle stood, payment might be deferred for three weeks.[64] Another
article of the Great Charter had forbidden all sheriffs and other
officers of the Crown to use any freeman’s horses or carts without
the owner’s consent; they were now permitted to do so on payment of
a sum “anciently fixed”--tenpence a day for a cart with two horses,
fourteenpence a day for a cart with three horses.[65] The general rule
laid down in 1215 that “all merchants should come and go and dwell and
trade in England, in time of peace, without the imposition of arbitrary
customs” (“maltotes”), was limited by the insertion of a proviso,
“unless they have been publicly forbidden.”[66] Nineteen articles were
entirely omitted. There was no renewal of the articles forbidding
the exaction of interest, during the minority of a debtor’s heir, on
money borrowed from the Jews or others; nor of the royal promises
to institute an inquiry into the abuses of the Forest law and of the
Crown’s rights over escheated baronies, to remove from all offices in
England certain of John’s foreign adherents, to make restitution to
persons illegally disseised under John, to remit fines made illegally
with him, to reinstate Welshmen illegally disseised under Henry II.
and Richard, and to appoint no justiciars, constables, sheriffs, or
bailiffs, save those who knew the law of the realm and were minded
to observe it well.[67] The articles declaring that the ferms of
the shires, wapentakes, and hundreds should be reduced to their old
figures, without increment (except on royal manors); sanctioning the
distribution of the chattels of an intestate freeman by his next-of-kin
under the direction of the Church, after his debts were paid; and
giving leave to all men to go in and out of England freely, except in
time of war,[68] were also omitted. Above all, there was no renewal of
two provisions of the highest importance: that no scutage or aid should
be imposed except by the common consent of the realm, unless it were
for the King’s ransom, the knighting of his eldest son, or the marriage
of his eldest daughter, and of “reasonable” amount, and that for the
assessment of an aid or scutage on occasions other than those named,
the common council should be summoned in a certain manner and for a
fixed day, and the matter should proceed according to the counsel of
those who answered the summons.[69] As a natural consequence of this
omission, the article providing that no mesne lord should henceforth
receive permission to take an aid from his freemen except of reasonable
amount and for the before-named purposes[70] was omitted likewise.
The weighty sixtieth article of the Great Charter, however--“All
these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have granted in our
realm, so far as in us lies, to be kept towards our own men, all the
people of our realm, both clerks and laymen shall observe, so far as
in them lies, towards their men,”--was retained.[71] The provisions
for the return of hostages and charters, and for a settlement of
terms with King Alexander of Scotland,[72] were of course omitted,
being no longer applicable under the altered political circumstances.
The grounds on which the other omissions and modifications were made
are thus set forth in the clause with which the Charter concludes,
and which replaces the sixty-first clause of the Great Charter (the
clause containing the arrangement about the twenty-five “over-kings”):
“Forasmuch as in the former charter there were certain chapters which
seemed weighty and doubtful, to wit, concerning the assessment of
scutages and aids, the debts of Jews and others, the liberty to go in
and out of our realm, the forests and foresters, warrens and warreners,
and the customs of the shires, and the river-enclosures and their
keepers: it has pleased the prelates and magnates that these should be
deferred till we shall have taken counsel more fully; and then we will
do to the full, concerning these and other matters which may require
amendment, whatever things may appertain to the common good of all and
the peace and stability of our self and our realm.”[73]

The seals with which, in place of the non-existent royal seal, this
Charter was confirmed in the King’s name were those of Gualo the
Cardinal Legate and William the Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, “governor
of ourself and our realm.” The form of the document must have been
determined by Gualo and William conjointly; and it reflects the
utmost credit upon the wisdom, tact, and moderation of both. Their
explanation, given in the clause just quoted, as to the omissions in
the new Charter was reasonable and true. The matters omitted were
such as a provisional government, especially under the existing
circumstances, could not safely deal with. They were all, more or less,
matters of controversy; they were also matters affecting the relations
of the Crown not with the nation as a whole, but with certain members
or sections of the nation; matters, in a word, as to which it would
have been neither politic nor just to tie the hands of a King who was
not yet capable of acting for himself--above all at a moment when any
surrender of the powers and claims of the Crown might have deprived him
and his counsellors of the already sufficiently small means which they
possessed of carrying on the war against the invader. Most “grave and
doubtful” of all was the question which had furnished the immediate
pretext, though it was certainly not the sole incentive, for the rising
of the barons against John: the question of scutage. If the limitations
imposed by the twelfth and fourteenth articles of the Great Charter
upon the King’s rights of scutage were not actually new, they had been
obsolete so long as to be practically an innovation on the established
custom of the realm. This fact was the coign of vantage on which John
had taken his stand when appealing to the Pope against the barons;
and it was on this ground that Innocent had condemned the Charter.
The accession of a child-King was not the moment for gratuitously
surrendering on his part a claim whose illegality was, to say the
least, not proven, and which the Pope, as overlord of the kingdom, had
upheld; and the postponement of this question enabled Gualo at once
to give the papal sanction to the new Charter. The publication of the
Charter, with that sanction, left no valid excuse for the continuance
of a refusal to recognize the native sovereign. Henry was now as
definitely pledged as Louis to the redress of all grievances which were
really national, and the security for the fulfilment of the pledge was
at least as strong on Henry’s side as on the side of the stranger.

But the stranger was in the land, with a force of armed followers of
his own, sufficient, if not indeed for its conquest, at least to keep
the footing which he had gained there; and the men who had called
him to their aid were bound to his cause by engagements from which
they could not easily extricate themselves, even if they wished to
do so. When they heard of Henry’s coronation they were furious, and
many of them took a solemn oath that they would never hold land of
any of John’s heirs. Gualo retorted by interdicting their lands; and
his arguments, pleadings, and threatenings had a considerable effect
not only on the clergy to whom they were primarily addressed,[74] but
also on the lay folk of the King’s party, whose loyalty was greatly
encouraged by hearing their enemies excommunicated every Sunday and
holiday. This, together with a general feeling that “the sins of the
father should not be visited on the son,” inclined John’s old adherents
to serve the new King even more zealously than they had served the late
one; and they set to work vigorously at the fortification of their
castles in his behalf.[75]

At the moment of John’s death Louis was still, with the greater part
of his forces, encamped, as he had been for three months, before Dover
castle, and was awaiting the results of a truce which had been made
between him and its warden--Hubert de Burgh--in the early part of
October, to enable Hubert to communicate with John and obtain from him
either succour, or leave to surrender. When fully certified of John’s
death, Louis invited Hubert to a parley and addressed him thus: “Your
lord, King John, is dead; it is useless for you to hold this castle
longer against me, seeing you have no succour; surrender the castle
and come into my fealty, and I will enrich you with great honours and
you shall be great among my counsellors.” “If my lord be dead,” Hubert
is reported to have answered, “he has sons and daughters who ought to
succeed him; as to surrendering the castle, I would fain speak with
my comrades of the garrison.” These all agreed that he should refuse,
“lest by shamefully surrendering the place he should incur the mark
of treason.”[76] On this Louis consented to another truce with Hubert
till after Easter,[77] and withdrew to London.[78] The Dover garrison
immediately sallied forth and foraged around till they had stocked
the castle with all necessaries, after burning all the buildings which
Louis had set up round about it;[79] while Hubert was by this somewhat
unexpected release enabled to join the council at Bristol.

The French party now held, besides London, the chief strongholds of
Surrey and Hampshire--Reigate, Guildford, Odiham, Farnham, Winchester,
Southampton, Porchester; Marlborough, just within the Wiltshire border,
seems to have been their extreme western outpost. In the Midlands and
the North they held Mountsorel and most of the castles of Yorkshire.
Between these northern fortresses and London, however, lay a tract of
hostile country. The Thames Valley was blocked by Windsor and Oxford;
two of John’s foreign followers, Engelard d’Athée (or de Cigogné) and
Andrew de Chanceaux, were in command of Windsor; while the castles of
Oxford, Buckingham, Hertford, Bedford, Cambridge, and Northampton, and
the whole of the six shires in which they stood, were under the charge
of the most devoted and energetic, as well as the most ruthless, of
John’s soldiers from over sea, Falkes de Bréauté. Beyond these lay
Nottingham, Newark, Sleaford, and Lincoln, whose castles were all in
the possession of the royalists.[80] To the east, though the Earls of
Essex and Norfolk were among the partisans of Louis, the castles of
Pleshy, Colchester, Norwich, and Orford were garrisoned by the troops
of the King.[81] In the far north Newcastle-on-Tyne was held for Henry
by Hugh de Baliol,[82] and the fortresses of the see of Durham by the
constables of the Palatine bishop. The western shires were entirely
in the hands of the Royalists. On the Dorset coast Peter de Maulay,
to whom John on the eve of his last campaign had entrusted his second
boy, Richard, was in command of Corfe, a fortress which on account
of its remote position and great strength had been chosen for the
depository of the greater part of the royal treasure.[83] The French
had apparently no hold upon the coast anywhere except at Southampton
and Porchester, and at Rye, where the castle was held for Louis by
Geoffrey de Say.[84] Some of the Cinque Ports had indeed submitted to
Louis in 1215, but they had almost immediately thrown off his yoke,
resumed their allegiance to John, and joined hands with a motley band
of adventurers and country folk who under the leadership of William de
Casinghem occupied the Weald of Kent and were a perpetual danger to the
French troops engaged in the siege of Dover.

That siege Louis seems to have now finally decided to abandon, probably
with the intention of devoting himself instead to the consolidation
of his conquests by the acquisition of eastern England. On 11th
November--the meeting-day of the Council at Bristol--he appeared
before Hertford and laid siege to the castle. For twenty-five days
he plied his machines against it in vain, its commandant, Walter de
Godardville, a knight of Falkes’s household, making a brave defence
and a great slaughter of the assailants, till the siege was ended on
6th December[85] by a general truce made between the Royalist leaders
and Louis on the condition that Hertford and Berkhamsted should be
evacuated and surrendered to the French prince.[86] The constable of
Berkhamsted, however--a German knight named Waleran, who had long been
in John’s service--was unwilling to accept the truce, and held out
against siege and assault till an order in the King’s name compelled
him to surrender on 20th December.[87] When the truce expired, another
was made, the condition being the evacuation and surrender of the
royal castles of Orford and Norwich;[88] and this second truce seems
to have been followed by a third, purchased probably by the surrender
of Cambridge and either Colchester or Pleshy. At some date between the
middle and the end of January, 1217, Louis called his adherents to a
council at Cambridge, while the King’s guardians brought up their young
sovereign from Gloucestershire to Oxford,[89] and opened negotiations
for a peace, or, failing that, a further prolongation of the truce.
Of peace Louis’s English supporters would not hear; and as the
arrangements for another truce made but slow progress, Louis laid siege
to the castle of Hedingham. Finally, however, a truce was made, its
conditions being apparently the surrender of Hedingham and Colchester
(or, if Colchester had been surrendered earlier, Pleshy), and perhaps
some minor strongholds, and the continuance of “all things”--castles
and other matters--as they were at that moment until a month after
Easter.[90]

[Sidenote: 1217]

Thus by the beginning of February, 1217, Louis’s mastery of eastern
England was completed, seemingly without a struggle. At first glance,
the action of Henry’s representatives seems unaccountable; there is,
however, reason to think that it was really part of a scheme for
bringing the desultory war to a crisis. Their aim seems to have been
first to induce Louis to scatter his forces, and then to lure him back
to the coast, hoping that there they might either cut off his retreat,
or compel him to return to his own country.[91] For the accomplishment
of this design it would be necessary to concentrate their own forces;
and this could only be done by withdrawing the garrisons from such of
the royal castles as were least worth retaining at the moment. These
were the castles of East Anglia and Essex. Unlike the fortresses of the
west, which it was of paramount importance to maintain in a state of
efficiency as a protection against encroachments of the King’s enemies
from the Welsh border, these eastern castles were practically isolated
outposts in a district of which the greater part was under the enemy’s
control. Surrounded as they were by the territories of powerful barons
who supported Louis, they were not available as bases for concerted
action; and the stores, arms, horses, and men in them could be made
far more useful elsewhere.[92] To the enemy, on the other hand, the
bait would be a tempting one; and the possible consequences of taking
it might well have escaped the penetration of a more wary general
than was Louis of France at this stage of his career. The possession
of these castles placed the whole of eastern England under his
uninterrupted sway, and removed all serious obstacles, except one, to
his communications with his allies in the north. That one obstacle was
the castle of Lincoln, which under the command of a woman had hitherto
resisted every assailant. Louis appears to have made a circuit of his
new possessions--no doubt placing a garrison in each of them--and
then proceeded to Lincoln, hoping that his personal presence and the
isolation in which she was now placed might tempt or frighten Dame
Nicolaa into a betrayal of her trust. In this hope he was disappointed.
The city received him, as it had already received his adherents; but
the castle “held out,” for the Dame “kept it very loyally.” Louis could
only return to London and thence send the castellan of Arras to take up
his quarters in Lincoln city, that he might “hold the country with the
help of the Northerners.”[93]

Louis was now anxious to get back to France. According to one account,
his father was again urgently calling him home;[94] according to
another, he was alarmed by letters from his agents at Rome, telling
him that unless he left England the Pope intended to confirm on Maundy
Thursday the excommunication which had been pronounced on him by
Gualo.[95] When he announced to his English friends in London his
intention of leaving the country they were highly displeased, and he
had to take a solemn oath that he would return before the expiration
of the truce.[96] None of the successive truces made during this
winter seem to have been very scrupulously kept by either party. On
the morrow of the surrender of Berkhamsted {_1216 21 Dec._} Louis had
marched upon S. Alban’s and demanded homage of the abbot, and on its
refusal had only been restrained from burning both abbey and town by
the intervention of Saer de Quincy, whereby the abbot was persuaded
to give him eighty marks for a respite till Candlemas.[97] A month
later {_1217 22 Jan._}, at the very time when the King’s Council were
endeavouring to arrange a conference of commissioners from both sides
for the redress of infractions of the first and second truces and
for securing the observance of the truce then existing,[98] Falkes
de Bréauté sacked the same unlucky town and wrung from the abbot
another heavy fine.[99] Louis’s visit to Lincoln was not an overt act
of hostility such as these, but it was distinctly a violation of the
spirit of the conditions on which the last truce had been made; and the
Royalists may perhaps have considered themselves thereby released from
their own obligation to abide by those conditions. However this may
be, Louis, seemingly on the point of setting out from London for the
coast, received information that the castle of Rye had been “taken by
subtlety” by the English.[100]

As early as 17th December, 1216, “the brave men of Ireland who are with
their ships on the coasts of Normandy” had been bidden, and encouraged
by the promise of liberal reward, to come in force to Winchelsea, ready
and prepared to go forth in the King’s service on S. Hilary’s day, or
as soon after as possible.[101] They seem to have obeyed the summons,
and to have been joined by an English fleet, gathered no doubt from
the loyal Cinque Ports, and commanded by the governor of the Channel
Islands, Philip d’Aubigné.[102] {Jan.} A detachment of Royalists,
protected by, if not actually landed from, these ships, had “by the
wise counsel of the Marshal” now surprised and occupied Rye.[103] Louis
at once set out for the coast; he went, however, not direct to Rye, but
to Winchelsea--still, it seems, intending to sail for France. At his
approach the burghers of Winchelsea broke up all the mills in their
town, and then took to their boats and went to join Philip d’Aubigné
and his fleet off Rye. Louis had no sooner entered Winchelsea than he
found himself caught in a trap whence there was no way of escape--shut
in between the new garrison of Rye, the ships, and the Weald, where
“Willikin” de Casinghem was still in command of a dauntless and
reckless band of loyalists who broke down every bridge and blocked
every passage in the rear of the French, and cut off the head of every
straggler who came within their reach.[104]

Louis and his men were soon on the verge of starvation; there was
plenty of corn in the town, but no means of grinding it save the slow
process of rubbing it between their hands; they could get neither flesh
nor fish; their “best food” consisted of some “large nuts” which they
found in the town. For a while they struggled on, making occasional
truces with the ships’ men, probably for the purpose of being able
to fish without molestation and thus procure a little food; but the
sailors paid little or no regard to these truces, and even came ashore
to shoot at the enemies.[105] At last Louis sent some messengers who
contrived to slip through the Weald to London for succour. Some of his
knights there set out to rescue their lord; but they dared not attempt
to pass through the Weald, so they went by the high road through
Canterbury to Romney, and thence--as it was impossible for them to
proceed from Romney to Winchelsea without passing Rye--despatched a
message to the governor of the county of Boulogne asking him to send
them all the ships he could get. He sent, it is said, over two hundred
vessels--probably only small boats--all of which save one came into
port at Dover, and were speedily occupied by the French knights who
hastened thither from Romney; but a succession of storms kept them
waiting a fortnight before they could sail. Meanwhile Louis and his men
had possessed themselves of several large ships which were lying in
the harbour of Winchelsea; and one of the vessels sent from Boulogne
had, “by the hardihood of the mariners,” contrived to evade the English
fleet and reach the same place, “where it was very welcome.” In all
likelihood the captain of the ship which achieved this exploit was a
man who for many years past had been known on both sides of the Channel
as the most daring of seamen and the most ruthless of pirates, Eustace
“the Monk”; for it was Eustace who now proposed to build, on one of
the large ships, a “castle” wherewith to attack the English. This
“castle” was “so big that everyone stared at it with wonder, for it
overpassed the sides of the ship in every direction.” A stone-caster
was next set up on another ship, to hurl stones at the English fleet;
Louis had already set up on the shore for the same purpose two similar
machines, whose missiles went almost across the channel which separates
Winchelsea from Rye; and these did the English ships considerable
damage. But one evening the English brought up some of their vessels
close to the town, stole away the galley which bore the “castle,” and
hewed it in pieces before the very eyes of the French. Louis laid the
blame of this mishap on the Viscount of Melun, who apparently was
responsible for the watch that night; Melun bluntly declared the men
were so hungry that not four knights could be found to undertake the
watch; Louis retorted that he would take it himself. Then Eustace de
Neville interposed, saying he would find forty knights to watch with
him as long as Louis pleased. That night he did it, with forty of his
friends, “very honourably”; and next morning the relieving squadron
from Dover came in sight. The English ships threatened to intercept
it; but the first English vessel which came to close quarters by some
accident struck one of its own consorts and sank it with all its crew,
and amid the confusion resulting from this catastrophe the French
ships made their way safely into the harbour of Winchelsea.[106]

With these ships Louis, whose force is said to have now consisted of
more than three thousand men, proceeded to Rye, which the English
garrison, seeing they could not defend it, evacuated.[107] By this time
the Marshal[108] and the other members of the Council were on their way
up from the west of England to a general muster of the Royalist forces
at Dorking. Thence, on 28th February, a letter was despatched in the
King’s name to the townsfolk of Rye, bidding them take courage, give no
hostages to Louis, and make no terms with him, for they would speedily
receive “greater succour than they could believe possible.” The Bishop
of Winchester, the Marshal, the Earls of Chester, Ferrers, and Aumale,
nearly all the barons of the western March (Walter de Lacy, Hugh and
Roger de Mortimer, Walter and Roger de Clifford, William de Beauchamp,
John of Monmouth, “and others”), and several other well-known leaders
(William de Harcourt, Engelard de Cigogné, William de Cantelupe, Falkes
de Bréauté, Robert de Vipont, Richard FitzRoy), with a multitude of
knights, men-at-arms, and crossbowmen, and some loyal Welshmen, were
setting out for Rye at once, and the King himself was about to follow
with the Legate and a crowd of clergy and “crusaders.”[109] But before
this letter was written Louis had made his escape. After appointing
his nephew Enguerrand de Coucy as his representative in England, with
orders to go to London “and not stir thence upon any account,” and
leaving a French garrison in Rye,[110] he had slipped away to Dover,
and thence sailed on 27th or 28th February to France.[111]

The Legate meanwhile had turned the war into a crusade. He had set
the example, which the prelates followed, of assuming in token of the
sacredness of the young King’s cause the white cross which marked the
English warriors in Holy Land; all loyal subjects were exhorted to do
the like; and those who had already taken the cross with the intention
of joining the host now on its way to Egypt were encouraged to exchange
their intended pilgrimage for the struggle with the excommunicate
enemies at home.[112] Nobles and common folk alike responded to this
appeal, “preferring to have a king from their own land rather than a
foreign one.”[113] All through the winter the tide had been turning
surely though slowly. As early as the end of November, 1216, William
of Aubigny, the lord of Belvoir, who in the preceding year had
defended Rochester castle for the rebel party with a stubborn bravery
worthy of a better cause, and on its capture had been sent by John to
prison at Corfe, bought his release by a fine of six thousand marks
and homage to the new King; he was at once intrusted with the castle
of Sleaford, “and he kept it right valiantly.”[114] Two recruits of
yet greater importance joined the Royalist forces a few days after
Louis left England: the younger William Marshal--eldest son of the
regent--and the king’s uncle, William Longsword, Earl of Salisbury.
These two, “who loved each other like brothers,”[115] seem to have
been already contemplating a return to their natural allegiance in
the second week of December, 1216;[116] but their scruples or their
fears kept them in the hostile camp for three months longer. Then,
in the first days of March, the elder Marshal “met them by the way”
somewhere between Shoreham and Knepp.[117] The meeting was evidently
pre-arranged.[118] All three spent the night together at Knepp; and
when the two younger men parted from the elder one next morning, it was
to lead their followers to Winchester and besiege it for the King.[119]
The old Marshal followed them with another body of troops, and laid
siege to Farnham in the first week of March.[120] By 12th March it
was taken;[121] and so, too, about the same time, was the city of
Winchester and “the lesser castle” there--that is, the Bishop’s castle,
known as Wolvesey.[122] The “tower,” or royal castle,[123] however,
held out against the united forces of the two friends and the regent,
who on leaving Farnham came to their assistance. At last it was decided
that he should continue the siege,[124] while his son and Longsword led
their forces to Southampton or Odiham,[125] and another party under
Philip d’Aubigné was sent to besiege Porchester.[126] On the last day
of March the younger Marshal laid siege to Marlborough; and “after
great difficulty” he took it.[127] Southampton and Odiham had now been
regained;[128] Chichester was won before 16th April, and Porchester
before 27th April.[129] Meanwhile Falkes de Bréauté had made a raid
on the Isle of Ely and recovered possession of it for the King.[130]
The royal forces were swelling fast; “converts”--as the rebels who
returned to allegiance are called in the official records--came
crowding in;[131] and after Easter the Marshal, while still blockading
the “tower” of Winchester, felt himself strong enough to despatch the
Earls of Chester, Aumale, and Ferrers, with Robert de Vipont, Brian de
Lisle, William de Cantelupe, and Falkes, and a number of knights and
men-at-arms drawn from the garrisons of the evacuated royal castles,
to form the siege of the rebel Earl of Winchester’s great fortress of
Mountsorel in Leicestershire.[132]

Tidings of these things reached Louis in France; “and when he heard
them,” says a contemporary, “he was not at all glad.” About Easter
time he had betaken himself to Calais, but with only a very small
following; if he had gone to France with the hope of gathering forces
there, he must have been disappointed. He had, however, procured a
new machine called a trebuchet, “about which there was much talk, for
at that time few of them had been seen in France.” With this machine,
and a handful of knights--only one hundred and forty--he at last set
sail[133] for England once more on Saturday, 22nd April.[134] As the
French ships drew near to Dover on the morning of S. George’s day
{_Sunday, 23 April_}, their occupants saw the huts which had been
built to shelter the besiegers of the castle still standing, empty
but intact. At that very moment, however, King John’s son Oliver and
Willikin of the Weald came down upon the huts and set them on fire,
after slaughtering some of the few men who had been left to guard them.
To attempt a landing at Dover in the face of an enemy whose numbers and
position it was impossible to distinguish amid the smoke thus raised,
and who could so easily pour down a murderous fire of arrows and other
missiles from the cliffs, would have been to court destruction. Louis
therefore altered his course and made for Sandwich. There he succeeded
in landing,[135] though not without opposition from some of the local
ships.[136] Next day he rode to Dover and took up his quarters in the
priory. There he heard dismal reports of the losses suffered by his
adherents in other parts of England; so he hurriedly arranged with
the constable of the castle for a further prolongation of the local
truce,[137] and returned to Sandwich. Having now been joined by the
Count of Nevers with a few followers, he dismissed the inferior portion
of his own forces to the ships, which he sent back to France,[138]
but, as the sequel showed, with instructions to return.[139] Then,
after firing the town of Sandwich in vengeance for the hostility of
its mariners,[140] he moved on to Canterbury; next day (Tuesday, 25th
April) he set out for Winchester. At Malling he was met by Saer de
Quincy, Simon de Langton, and some others of his English partisans. On
the morrow (Wednesday, 26th) he “made a long day’s march, for he went
from Malling to Guildford”; his baggage could not get beyond Reigate.
On this day he was joined by Enguerrand de Coucy and the greater part
of the garrison which he had left in London. Next day (Thursday, 27th)
he reached Farnham, but only to find it prepared for defence against
him, and to learn that Winchester castle was lost to him,[141] its
castellans having surrendered it before they knew of his return to
England.[142]

No sooner did the Marshal hear that Louis was back than he gave orders
for the immediate razing of all the castles which had been retaken,
except Farnham.[143] It was Farnham that Louis now turned to attack.
The outer bailey was speedily captured by assault; but the keep, as
a foreign chronicler quaintly says, “heeded it not.”[144] Next day
(Friday, 28th April) Earl Saer of Winchester came to Louis asking
for help to relieve Mountsorel.[145] Its garrison of ten knights and
some men at arms under Henry de Braybroke had held out manfully for
nearly a month, but had now found it needful to ask their lord, Saer,
for succour.[146] After some consultation Louis, “being unable to get
rid of him otherwise,”[147] sent him to London with orders that some
of the leaders there should supply him with troops and accompany him
to Mountsorel for the twofold purpose of relieving that fortress and
“subduing the whole province” to Louis himself. Under the joint command
of Saer, the count of Perche, Robert Fitz Walter, and some other
barons, a large body of knights and men-at-arms, some English, some
French, and “all coveting their neighbour’s goods,” as an indignant
chronicler says, set out accordingly from London on Monday, 1st
May.[148]

From S. Alban’s, where they halted for the night, the French
mercenaries went about plundering churches, desecrating cemeteries,
and putting “all sorts of people” to torture and ransom; at the abbey
they got nothing but food and drink, Louis having apparently given it
to be understood that he was “satisfied” with the larger sum which he
had recently extorted from the abbot, and that they must exact nothing
more. A marvellous experience which befell some of the sacrilegious
spoilers at Redburn[149] probably sobered them somewhat, for they
passed through Dunstable “without doing much harm.”[150] When, a few
days later, they reached Mountsorel, they found that, so far as that
castle was concerned, their work was done. The leaders of the besieging
force had had timely warning from their scouts, and had withdrawn to
Nottingham.[151]

Louis meanwhile had on Saturday, 29th April, marched from Farnham to
Winchester, his rearguard chased by a party of Royalists from Windsor,
who, however, failed to overtake it. The Marshal, after demolishing
the castle as much as haste permitted, had evacuated the city, and the
few Royalists left in it fled at the approach of the French. Louis
stayed there five days, to put in train the restoration of the castle.
On 4th May--Ascension Day--he left the completion of this work and
the custody of the city to the Count of Nevers, and set out once more
for London.[152] There he heard that the garrison of Dover had broken
their truce, and chased and slain some of his men who had arrived at
Dover after he left it. He stayed in London two nights and then went on
to Dover, and on the Friday before Whit-Sunday, 12th May, set up his
trebuchet before the castle, while his men built themselves huts all
around in preparation for a renewal of the siege. Next day (Whitsun
Eve) forty of his ships reappeared, seeking to enter the harbour; but
a contrary wind drove them back to Calais, all except five, which made
their way in together. On Monday, 15th, the other thirty-five came
again from Calais. At the same time there hove in sight some eighty
or more ships “great and small,” among them twenty “great ships armed
and prepared for battle,” coming from Romney under Philip d’Aubigné
and Nicolas Haringot. The small French transports, not daring to risk
a meeting with these big vessels, fled towards Calais; twenty-seven
of them however had advanced so far that they could not withdraw in
time to avoid an encounter; eight of these were captured, the sailors
and men-at-arms whom they carried were slain at once, and the knights
imprisoned in the holds of the ships, “where they were uncomfortable
enough.” The victorious English ships then anchored before the
castle, thus effectually cutting off its besiegers from all chance of
reinforcement by sea. Louis vented his rage by sending some of his men
by land to burn Hythe and Romney; the “Wealdsmen” attacked them, but
seemingly without success.[153]

While Louis was in London, the host which had gone to relieve
Mountsorel moved eastward to Lincoln, at the urgent request of Hugh
of Arras, who went in person to beg that they would all join him and
his “Northern” friends at the siege of Lincoln Castle. He was, he
said, almost on the point of taking it, and its capture would be a
great advantage to the cause of Louis. After some debate the leaders
consented, and the whole force marched to Lincoln and quartered
itself in and around the city.[154] Tidings of this movement reached
the Marshal on the Friday before Whit-Sunday {12 May}--the day on
which Louis set up his trebuchet at Dover--when the council and the
loyal barons were gathered round the King at Northampton for the
approaching festival.[155] Hereupon, says his biographer, “God, Who
supports, maintains, and counsels all loyal men, put into their hearts
a marvellous counsel, of which came much good and much honour to
them. List, then, the sum of the counsel with which God inspired the
man chosen and renowned and trusted above them all. ‘Hearken,’ spoke
William the Marshal, ‘loyal knights and all ye who are in fealty to the
king! For God’s sake hearken to me, for what I have to say deserves a
hearing. This day we bear the burden of arms to defend our fame, and
for ourselves and our dear ones, our wives and children, and to keep
our land in safety, and to win great honour, and for the peace of
Holy Church, which these men have wronged and ill-used, and to gain
remission and pardon of all our sins. Take heed then that there be no
backsliders amongst us.’”[156] After this solemn exordium he put the
situation clearly before his audience. Part of the enemies were sieging
Lincoln Castle, but only a part; Louis was elsewhere, and “those who
accompanied him had got themselves foolishly into a tangle.”[157] Here,
then, was an opportunity not to be lightly thrown away. “For God’s
sake, let us stake everything upon it! Remember that if we gain the
victory, we shall increase our honour, and preserve for ourselves and
our posterity the freedom which these men seek to take from us. We
_will_ keep it. God wills us to defend it! Therefore every man must
bestir himself to the utmost of his power, for the thing cannot be done
else. There must be no gaps in our armed ranks; our advance upon the
foe must be no mere threat; but we must fall upon them swiftly. God of
His mercy has granted us the hour for vengeance upon those who are come
hither to do us ill; let no man draw back!” The whole assembly “took
heart and hope, strength and hardihood” from his words, and became
eager to go forward at all costs.[158] So, with the unanimous consent
of Gualo and the other members of the royal council, the Marshal
called upon all loyal castellans and knights to muster at Newark on
Whit-Monday, 15th May.[159] They came gladly, to the number of four
hundred knights, near two hundred and fifty cross-bowmen, and so many
sergeants and horsemen as might well make up for the small number of
knights.[160] The leaders of the host were the two William Marshals,
Bishop Peter of Winchester (who was “learned in the art of war”), the
Earls of Chester, Ferrers, and Aumale, William d’Aubigny, John Marshal,
William de Cantelupe with his son of the same name, Falkes de Bréauté,
Thomas Basset, Robert de Vipont, Brian de Lisle, Geoffrey de Lucy,
Philip d’Aubigné, “and others.”[161]

Next day arose a new peril, which recalls one of the incidents that
preceded another battle at Lincoln, seventy-six years before. “The
Normans who were in the host” went to the younger William Marshal and
addressed him thus: “Fair sir, you were born in Normandy; you ought to
know that it is the right of the Normans to strike the first blow in
every battle. Take heed that we lose not our right.” Earl Ranulf of
Chester, however--like his father in 1141--claimed the same privilege
for himself, and bluntly declared that unless he were placed in the
van, he would not go with the host, and they should have no help from
him. The Earl Marshal and the other leaders were obliged to pacify him
by granting his demand, on the understanding that the right of the
Normans should not be thereby prejudiced for the future.[162] Three
days were spent at Newark {Tues., 16 May}, as a breathing-time for
men and horses and an opportunity for religious exercises to prepare
the men for their task. On the third morning {Fri., 19 May}, after
Mass, the Legate and clergy again excommunicated Louis by name,
with all his accomplices and abettors, especially those who were
sieging Lincoln castle, “together with the city of Lincoln and all
its contents.” The Legate then gave plenary absolution to all who,
having made a truthful confession, were about to take part in the
expedition.[163] This done, the whole host flew to horse and arms.[164]

The Legate set out for Nottingham,[165] taking with him the young King.
For the fighting men, the direct route would have been the Foss Way,
which ran in an almost straight line from Newark to Lincoln. But it ran
to the southernmost gate of the city, below the hill; and their aim
was to reach the western side of the castle on the hill-top without
passing through the city, which was in the hands of the enemy. They
therefore fetched a compass to the northward as far as Torksey;[166]
and there, or at Stow[167] hard by, they spent the night. On Saturday
morning (May 20th), after Mass, they drew up in full array for their
final march upon Lincoln.[168] Once more the Marshal bade them fight,
“for honour or Paradise,” against the enemies of God and the Church.
“God has given them into our hands; up and at them! The hour is come!”
“And all who heard him bore themselves joyfully, as if they were
going to a tournament.”[169] Chester led the van; the Marshal and
his sons commanded the next division; Earl William of Salisbury the
third, and Bishop Peter of Winchester the fourth, which consisted of
cross-bowmen.[170] Another body of cross-bowmen--perhaps commanded by
Falkes--seems to have formed an advanced guard which marched a mile in
front of the rest of the host.[171]

The boundaries of medieval Lincoln were determined by those of the
Roman city on the site of which it was built. They formed, roughly
speaking, a parallelogram whose length from north to south was
considerably greater than its width, and whose northern half stood on
the summit of a steep and rocky hill whence the southern half sloped
down almost to the bank of the river Witham; the whole was divided
longitudinally by the Roman road known as Ermine Street. The city
“above hill” represented the original Roman camp; to this the part
“below hill” had been added in the later days of the Roman occupation.
The wall wherewith, in the thirteenth century and for many centuries
after, the whole was encompassed, followed in the main the outlines of
the Roman enclosure thus enlarged. The castle, founded by William the
Conqueror and partly reconstructed in the twelfth century, occupied
the south-western angle of the first Roman city: it was thus enclosed
on the north, east, and south within the later city, from which it was
separated by a wide and deep ditch. This ditch was continued along
its outer or western side; and on this side the walls of castle and
city formed one continuous line, the wall being carried across the
ditch at the north-western and south-western extremities of the castle
enclosure. Immediately north of the ditch at the former of these two
points of junction between the city wall and the castle wall, stood the
West Gate of the city; whether there was also a gate at the southern
junction point is not known. The castle had two main entrances; one
on the east, towards the city; the other on the west side, towards
the open country. The keep was on the south side. Beyond the western
wall and ditch the plateau formed by the hill-top extended some little
distance; and it was here that King Stephen had entrenched himself
when he besieged the castle in 1141, leaving the bishop and citizens
to watch the other three sides. The partisans of Louis seem not to
have been sufficiently sure of the citizens to venture on following
Stephen’s example; for they had evidently made no attempt to occupy
the site of his encampment, but had set up all their machines and
concentrated all their forces within the city, directing all their
attacks upon the castle from thence, and taking no steps to prevent its
garrison from communicating through the western sally-port with their
friends outside.

The main road from Torksey and Stow to Lincoln now enters the city
south of the castle; but there is a branch road connecting it at Burton
with an old Roman way which runs from Kirton-in-Lindsey and enters
Lincoln by the West Gate; and this appears to have been the way taken
by the Royalists. At some distance from the gate they halted, and the
Marshal sent forward his nephew John to open communications with the
garrison.[172] On his way John met Dame Nicolaa’s lieutenant constable,
Geoffrey de Serland, whom she had despatched from the castle secretly
to tell the leaders of the relieving host how matters stood within, and
that a “little door,” or “postern at the back”--that is, the small door
of the western sally-port, by which no doubt Geoffrey himself had gone
out--was already open to receive them.[173] With this welcome message
John Marshal hastened back; he was seen and chased by some Frenchmen,
but escaped unharmed.[174] Two of the English barons who were in the
city, Robert Fitz-Walter and Saer de Quincy the Earl of Winchester,
rode out to reconnoitre as soon as the Royalists’ approach was known.
On their return they said: “These warriors come on in good order, but
we are far more in number than they; let us go out to meet them at the
ascent of the hill, and then we can catch them all like larks in a
cage.” The Count of Perche, however, who was in command of the French
troops, was too cautious to act upon a report so vague and went out
himself with another of the French leaders, to count the enemies, as he
said, “according to the custom of France.” He was, however, deceived
in his reckoning; for each of the Royalist chieftains had two banners,
one of which led his contingent in the fighting host while the other
was with his baggage, so that the baggage, forming a separate group in
the rear, looked like another army and was mistaken for such by the two
Frenchmen, who went back doubting what was best to do. They finally
decided to shut the city gates and thus, as they hoped, hold the city
till they should have won the castle[175]; thinking that the English,
with men and horses wearied from a long march, would not attempt to
penetrate within the walls. When this movement came to the knowledge
of the Marshal, he made it an argument for instant attack. “See, they
retire behind their walls! The victory is ours already, when these men,
ever foremost in tourney, hide themselves at our approach. Let us do
the right, for God wills it!”[176]

It was easy to introduce troops into the castle by the western
sally-port; but it would not be so easy to pass the whole relieving
force through the castle into the city. Bishop Peter of Winchester, who
according to the Marshal’s biographer “was the master in counselling
our people that day,”[177] seems to have resolved on trying to
ascertain for himself where a direct entrance into the city could be
effected. He led his men up to the castle wall, bade them await him
there, and with a single attendant entered the fortress. He found it
greatly damaged by the long siege, and in such constant peril from the
French mangonels and stone-casters, still actively at work, that its
occupants begged him to withdraw from the great court into the shelter
of the keep. Thence, after complimenting and encouraging the “good
dame,”[178] he stole out, evidently by the small south door,[179] on
a yet more hazardous reconnoitring expedition into the city, “wishing
to see how it stood.”[180] Looking about him, he caught sight of a
gate “which joined the walls of the city with those of the castle,”
and which was “blocked with stone and cement.” This was apparently the
West Gate of the city.[181] The reason for which it had been blocked,
whether this was done by the French or (as is more probable) under
orders from Nicolaa[182] at an earlier period of the war, is not
difficult to guess. Lincoln had more gates than could easily be guarded
all at once;[183] if one of them was rendered impassable, there was
one less to watch and defend. The sequel implies that the “stone and
cement” were not so put together as to form a wall of solid masonry;
probably the door on the inner side of the gateway had been closed and
the obstruction piled up, rather than built up, on the outer side; if
so, it might be cleared away without its removal being noticed inside
the city until the door was forced open.[184] In all likelihood Peter’s
discovery of this possible entrance had really been made as he passed
the outer side of the gate on his way to the castle, and the purpose of
his daring venture was to learn whether its inner side was penetrable
and unguarded. He found that it was so, and having made his way back
safely to his friends, gave orders for the gate to be cleared out. His
comrades of the host came to meet him joyously, “every man in the ranks
singing as if the victory were already won”; Peter merrily told them
that when they had gained possession of the city he should claim the
bishop’s house for his own residence, as a reward for having prepared
them a safe way of entry.[185]

Possibly, however, the lay leaders may have been unwilling to stake the
safety of their enterprise solely on the judgement of their episcopal
counsellor; for it seems that while Falkes de Bréauté, with his own
followers and all the cross-bowmen, was sent into the castle, the main
body of the host went round to the north gate--the Roman “Porta Nova,”
“New Port,” now reduced to a single great arch with a smaller one at
its side, but in the Marshal’s day probably still almost complete in
the pristine strength of its solid Roman masonry, forming an arched
passage flanked by two smaller passages, some twenty feet long,[186]
and closed with heavy doors which the Royalists set to work to batter
in.[187] The French party were plying their engines vigorously on
the castle when suddenly they saw its walls and towers bristling with
cross-bowmen; and “as in the twinkling of an eye” a shower of quarrels,
aimed with deadly effect at the destriers of the besiegers, reduced
many knights and barons of high rank among them to the condition of
foot soldiers. The sight of their discomfiture tempted Falkes to make
a dash from the eastern gate of the castle into their midst, with
some of his personal followers; he was, however, quickly surrounded
and captured, but was gallantly rescued by his men.[188] Bishop Peter
meanwhile was protesting to the Marshal against the folly--as he deemed
it--of trying to force an entrance elsewhere than at the “safe” place
where, as he said, there was an opening in the wall ready for use, yet
hidden from and unguarded by the enemy. “By my head! those men are
wrong; they have not found the right way to get in. I will lead you
to it; come with me.” “By God’s sword! hither, my helmet!” was the
Marshal’s reply.[189] Peter however now held him back and proposed
that before risking a general assault two men from each “battle” or
division of the host should be sent to look around for ambushes.[190]
This was done; but the Marshal was too impatient to await the result.
He at once “put himself forward on his way,” calling his own men to
the onset: “Forward! Now shall ye see your enemies vanquished in a few
hours; shame to him who longer delays!” Again Peter tried to check him,
begging him to wait till the whole host could be reunited and the
attack made in full force. The aged warrior would not listen; “swifter
than a merlin he struck spurs into his horse, so that all who were with
him gathered hardihood as they beheld him.” A “valet” called after him
that he was, after all, going without his helmet; “Stop here while I
fetch it,” said the Marshal to his son. In a moment he was back again,
“and when he had thus covered his head, he was goodly to look upon
beyond all the rest--light in movement as a bird, hawk or eaglet.”
“Hungry lion never rushed on its prey so hotly as the Marshal on his
foes”; at the first onset he dashed three spears’ length into their
midst, cutting his way through them and scattering them on all sides,
while Bishop Peter followed shouting “God help the Marshal!”[191]

By this time the stubborn attack on the north gate had succeeded, and
all the Royalist forces thus poured in at once upon the besiegers of
the castle,[192] who, although numerically stronger, were unable to
withstand their onset,[193] aided as it was by the murderous fire which
Falkes’s cross-bowmen, from their vantage-ground on the castle wall,
poured down upon the horses of the French knights, the animals falling
“like stuck pigs” while the riders were captured without possibility
of rescue.[194] The French force is said to have consisted of six
hundred and eleven knights and full a thousand footmen; it is not quite
clear whether this reckoning includes their English allies.[195] Yet,
small as were the numbers engaged on both sides, the fight lasted from
between seven and eight o’clock in the morning till nearly three in the
afternoon.[196] It was protracted partly by the stubborn persistence
of the two parties, who both alike felt that the destiny of England
was involved in its result, and partly by the impossibility, in the
steep and narrow streets of a city such as Lincoln, of bringing it
to a decisive issue in one general encounter. It thus became a
battle of the old-world epic type, full of separate incidents and
individual encounters; and this peculiar character, together with the
extraordinarily small amount of actual bloodshed and loss of life that
took place in it, probably suggested the name afterwards given to by
the victors--“the Tournament,” or as the word is commonly but in this
case perhaps less accurately rendered, “Fair of Lincoln.”[197]

The first recorded incident was one of good omen for the Royalists.
Some of them found the enemy’s chief engineer[198] working a
stone-caster which hurled stones against one of the towers of the
castle. Mistaking the new-comers for knights of his own party, he, all
the more eagerly, placed a stone in his machine, but as he was giving
the signal for its discharge they came up behind him and struck off his
head.[199] The Marshal and the Earl of Salisbury “turned to the right,
leaving a minster on their left,”[200] and came upon a cluster of
enemies, one of whom, Robert of Ropsley, levelled his spear “to joust,”
and struck that of Longsword with such force that it shivered into
fragments; but the Marshal gave him such a blow between the shoulders
that he fell to the ground “and crawled away to hide himself.” The
fight swept onward almost to the brow of the hill on which the city
was set, till on a level space near the great minster,[201] the French
made a resolute stand under the direction of the Count of Perche.[202]
He was only a youth, of scarce two and twenty years,[203] “handsome,
tall, and noble-looking.”[204] He stood at bay as bravely as King
Stephen had stood in somewhat like circumstances in the earlier battle
of Lincoln; and for a while he and his men succeeded in checking
the progress of the Royalists. By degrees, however, the French lost
ground and began to fall back down the hill. Perche, with a few of his
personal followers, alone kept his post, and was at last surrounded
by almost the whole force of the English. They called upon him to
surrender, but he refused with an oath, saying he would never yield
to one of a race “who had been traitors to their king.”[205] Reginald
Croc, a knight of Falkes’s household,[206] then levelled a spear at
him and struck him in the eye. The Marshal, coming up at that moment,
seized the bridle of the count’s horse, “and it seemed right, as the
count was the chief man on the French side.” Perche dropped the bridle,
took his sword in both hands, and struck with it on the Marshal’s
helmet three blows in quick succession, “so mighty that they dinted it
visibly,” and then suddenly fell from his horse. The Marshal thought he
had fainted, “and feared that he himself should be blamed therefor.”
“Dismount and take off his helmet,” said one of Perche’s men, William
of Montigny, “for it hurts him; but I doubt he will stand up no more.”
Croc’s spear had in fact pierced through the eye to the brain, and when
the helmet was removed the friends and foes who crowded round saw that
the gallant youth was dead.[207]

Perche’s comrades at once rushed down the hill[208] and rejoined the
bulk of the French troops, to whom his heroism and the concentration
of the English around his person had given a breathing-space of which
they had made good use. They and their English allies had rallied in
the lower town, and now came, in close array, up the hill, hoping
to regain possession of its summit. Meanwhile the young Marshal had
rejoined his father. “Are you hurt?” asked the Earl. “No, Sir.”
“Forward then! This day we will conquer, or chase them from the
field.” Attacked on their right flank by Chester and his “good folk”
before they reached the hill-top, confronted when they did reach it
by the Marshals, and shut in between the minster and the castle, the
French, after another stubborn fight, were again driven down the slope;
and this time they were chased right out of the city and through
its southern gate, or Stone-Bow,[209] to Wigford Bridge.[210] There
they made a last gallant stand, fighting with such desperate fury
that “if God had spoken by thunder, He would not have been heard.”
Their pursuers were no less daring and impetuous: William Bloet, the
young Marshal’s standard-bearer, charged into the crowd on the bridge
with such vehemence that he and his horse went sheer over into the
river, only, however, to struggle out again with equal quickness and
gallantry. Gradually the cry of “King’s men! King’s men!”[211] rose
higher above the din. Saer de Quincy and his son Robert were taken;
so was Robert FitzWalter; so were several other rebel barons;[212] at
last the rest turned and fled across the suburb of Wigford by “the
street which goes straight to the hospital”[213]--in other words, the
whole length of the present High Street--till they reached the outer
or furthermost gate of Lincoln.[214] This gate, known as the Great or
Western Bar-Gate, protected the bridge by which the main road from
Lincoln to the south crossed the great drain called the Sincil Dyke.
Here the fugitives were checked by a double obstacle. The bar of the
gate was so constructed that the gate closed of itself after every
individual who passed in or out. Just as the foremost of them reached
it, a cow tried to enter, and, the gate falling upon her, stuck fast,
so that egress was altogether impossible till the animal was slain; and
even then, as there was apparently no means of fixing the gate open,
each man as he came up had to dismount and open it for himself.[215]
The unhappy fugitives might, it seems, have been captured or even slain
almost to a man, had their pursuers so willed it; but many of them were
English, and the ties of blood restrained their kinsmen in the royalist
host from carrying the pursuit to extremity.[216] Notwithstanding this
forbearance, however, a large number of prisoners were captured.[217]
Among these were nearly all the English barons who had sided with
Louis;[218] no less than seven were taken by John Marshal, and
several by Bishop Peter and his men;[219] forty-six in all are named
by contemporary historians;[220] and the prisoners of knightly rank
numbered three hundred,[221] besides many others of lesser degree.
Those who escaped “stopped neither by night nor by day, in town or
house, for they thought that on every hill-side and in every dale the
bushes were all full of Marshals.”[222] Only three of the “great men”
among the French--Simon of Poissy, Hugh the castellan of Arras, and
Eustace de Merlinghem the constable of Boulogne--reached London with
some two hundred knights. The foot-soldiers were nearly all slain by
the country folk who came out “with swords and staves” to intercept
their flight.[223] In the actual battle only five men had been slain;
on one side the Count of Perche, two of his knights,[224] and a
man-at-arms whom no one recognized; on the other, Perche’s slayer,
Reginald Croc.[225]

Unhappily, the English sullied their victory by sacking Lincoln. Not
content with seizing the baggage and valuable goods of the French
nobles and the rebel barons, which they found piled up in waggons
in some of the streets, they “despoiled the whole city, even to the
uttermost farthing”; and on the strength of Gualo’s exhortation to
treat the canons of the cathedral chapter as excommunicate (owing
to their having been throughout the war in opposition to the King),
they plundered every church, breaking open chests and presses and
carrying off plate, jewels, vestments, and money; the precentor of
the cathedral lost eleven thousand marks. Many women fled from the
city with their children and household goods, and sought to escape in
boats, but through their overcrowding and ignorance of rowing all the
little vessels capsized, the occupants were drowned, and the goods
became the prize of anyone who fished them up from the bottom of the
river.[226] All these things were done after the Marshal had left the
city. As soon as the fight was over he and the other leaders held a
council to consider what they should do next. Some were for marching
on London, some for trying to dislodge Louis from Dover. As they could
not agree, the Marshal with his usual practical good sense bade them
all go home and place their respective prisoners in safety, and meet
him again, with the Legate, on a day which he named, at Chertsey,[227]
or, according to another account, at Oxford.[228] He then, without
stopping even to eat, hurried with his tidings of victory to the King
and the Legate at Nottingham. Thither, next morning {_Trinity Sunday,
21 May_}, came news of another gain to the royal cause; the garrison
of Mountsorel, whose constable, Henry de Braybroke, had gone with Saer
de Quincy to Lincoln, had fled and left the castle deserted.[229] The
Earl of Salisbury appears to have been sent to secure it for the King;
two days later {23 May} an order was issued to him from Lincoln, in
the King’s name, to deliver it to Earl Ranulf of Chester,[230] who
forthwith razed it to the ground.[231]

On Thursday, 25th May,[232] the news of the Fair of Lincoln reached
Louis in his camp before Dover. He took counsel with his friends; and
they all agreed that he must raise the siege, concentrate in London,
and send to France for reinforcements. Unwillingly he caused his
trebuchet to be taken down, and prepared to withdraw, but determined
to stay over Sunday 28th, “to see whether he would get any news.” On
the Sunday “it was very clear at sea, and looking towards Calais they
saw many ships with their sails set, whereof they rejoiced greatly.”
Next day {29 May} the ships “came sailing over the sea right merrily,
to the number of full six score.” The English, when they saw them,
hoisted their sails and put to sea; the French set off in chase, but
finding they could not catch them put about again and made straight for
Dover. The English then put about likewise, overtook the hindermost
ships of the French fleet, and captured eight of them; the rest got
safe into the harbour, and were met by Louis on the beach. To his
great disappointment and rage, however, he found that, except one
large vessel in which were eighteen knights, they brought nothing but
sailors, merchants, and men-at-arms. Next day {30 May} he sent them
all back again, with two messengers charged with letters to his father.
Then he set fire to “all the ships which were ashore before the haven,”
and betook himself to Canterbury and thence to London, where he arrived
on Thursday, 1st June.[233]

The Royalists meanwhile had advanced by way of Windsor and Staines
to Chertsey;[234] thence they made secret overtures to some of the
leading citizens of London for the surrender of the city. Tempted
on the one hand by the promise of a confirmation of its liberties
“under the King’s seal,” and terrified on the other hand by the fate
of Lincoln, London was clearly beginning to waver; and Louis, on
discovering these secret negotiations, could only secure himself in the
city by closing all its gates save one and insisting upon a renewal
of homage from the citizens to himself.[235] At the beginning of June
the Archbishop of Tyre, who had come to Europe to preach a crusade,
arrived in England from France, accompanied by the abbots of Citeaux,
Clairvaux, and Pontigny, and endeavoured to reconcile the contending
parties.[236] Several parleys were held,[237] and a draft treaty was
actually prepared[238] and seems to have been discussed between four
of Louis’s counsellors and four of Henry’s, who met, accompanied by
twenty knights of each party, between Brentford and Hounslow,[239] on
13th June. But the meeting proved useless because Louis insisted upon
including in the peace four clerks whose conduct had been, alike in an
ecclesiastical and a political point of view, so outrageous that the
Legate absolutely refused to admit them to any terms without previously
consulting the Pope.[240] The unsuccessful mediators returned to France
at the end of the month.[241]

Meanwhile Falkes de Bréauté had taken Lynn.[242] On 23rd June the
sheriffs were ordered to publish the Charter in their shires and see
that it was put in execution.[243] The King and his council then
withdrew to Gloucester;[244] and it was probably during their temporary
absence from the neighbourhood of London that Louis sent the Viscount
of Melun and Eustace de Neville on a plundering raid into East Anglia,
whence they returned laden with the spoils of the famous abbey of S.
Edmund.[245]

This raid was evidently a desperate expedient for obtaining supplies.
Cooped up in London, Louis and his men were in need of everything;
and Philip Augustus shewed no inclination to send them help of any
kind.[246] Months before, if we may believe the Marshal’s biographer,
the French King, when he heard that John was dead, his son crowned, and
the Marshal in charge of the realm, had declared that further effort
was useless. “We shall take nothing in England now; that brave man’s
good sense will defend the land--Louis has lost it. Mark my words!
When the Marshal takes the matter in hand, we are undone.”[247] As
Philip had from the outset refused to countenance his son’s enterprise
openly, so now he connived at, rather than assisted, the efforts of
his daughter-in-law, Blanche of Castille, to collect money and troops
for Louis.[248] Blanche scoured the country in her husband’s behalf,
pleading his cause so energetically that a contemporary says, “if those
whom she enlisted had all gone to England in arms, they might have
conquered the whole kingdom.”[249] The force which her efforts finally
brought together at Calais numbered, however, only about a hundred--or
at the utmost three hundred--knights.[250] Several times, while they
lay encamped on the shore, some English ships sailed up to the harbour
and discharged arrows at them; and once, at least, a great fight took
place, in which the English were signally worsted. Another night the
French actually crossed the Channel and anchored off Dover, intending
to sail thence round to the mouth of the Thames; but in the morning, as
they were about to set forth, a storm overtook them and drove them back
panic-stricken to the coast of Flanders.[251]

On 4th July the King’s guardians issued from Gloucester a summons
for a council to be held at Oxford on the 15th. It seems not to have
actually met till a week later; and on 26th or 27th July the King and
the Marshal returned to Gloucester, after issuing (22nd July) a summons
for another assembly to be held at Oxford on 6th August.[252] The royal
forces were increasing more and more. Two great nobles had joined them
since Louis’s return to England--the Earl of Warren before 22nd June,
and the Earl of Arundel before 14th July[253]--and nearly one hundred
and fifty rebels submitted between the end of May and the beginning of
August.[254] When the host re-assembled at Oxford[255] all was ready
for the final struggle. From Oxford they moved to Reading, and thence
to Farnham;[256] there, it seems, the leaders separated, the Legate
and the King going northward again with one part towards London, while
another part under the Earl Marshal and the justiciar made for the
Kentish coast to prepare for its defence against the expected French
fleet.

From Dover the Marshal summoned the men of the Cinque Ports to arm and
assemble their ships at Sandwich. The aged warrior was eager to go
forth in person and encounter the French at sea, but his men would not
suffer it; he must stay on shore, they said, “for if it chanced that
he were slain or captured, who then would defend the land?”[257] On S.
Bartholomew’s eve {Wed., 23 Aug.} he, with the Earl of Warren, King
John’s elder son Richard,[258] Philip d’Aubigné, and a host of other
“good knights,” lay encamped near Canterbury. They “slept little,” for
they all knew that the morrow might prove a day almost as momentous as
that of Senlac. At early dawn {24 Aug.} they marched to Sandwich. The
day broke clear and bright, with a “soft and pleasant” wind which soon
brought into view the armament coming from Calais.[259] It consisted
of some eighty vessels of various sizes;[260] ten of them were large
ships of war, fully armed,[261] of which four were filled with knights
and six with men-at-arms; the smaller vessels carried accoutrements
and other goods.[262] Among the knights were some of the noblest and
bravest men of France;[263] those of highest rank and fame, thirty-six
in number, together with the treasure which Blanche was sending to her
husband, were in the ship of Eustace the Monk, who seems to have been
in command of the whole fleet.[264] The vessels were making for the
mouth of the Thames,[265] and as they swept round Thanet in close array
as if ready for a fight, Eustace’s ship leading,[266] their number and
character could be plainly distinguished by the Royalists drawn up on
the shore, as well as by the sailors who manned the English ships in
Sandwich harbour.[267]

At the eleventh hour the Marshal’s plan of campaign all but broke
down. The English fleet was ready; but it comprised only eighteen, or
at the utmost twenty-two, ships of any size, with some smaller ones
to the number of about twenty more;[268] and the sight of the enemy’s
superior fleet struck such terror into the sailors that they lost
their heads completely, left their ships with the sails all hoisted,
and took refuge in their little boats.[269] Once more the Marshal
appealed to them as only he could appeal. Again he offered to go with
them; but again his own men forbade it.[270] Then by a characteristic
exhortation he shamed the mariners out of their fears. “God has given
us one victory over the French on land. Now they are coming again, to
claim the country against Him. But He has power to help the good on
sea as well as on shore,[271] and He will help His own. You have the
advantage in the game; you will conquer the enemies of God!”[272] The
impressionable sailors caught a new spirit from the landsmen who, fresh
from their victory over superior numbers at Lincoln, were fearless
of the risk of another encounter at similar odds.[273] One ship was
quickly filled with the Marshal’s own followers, under his nephew
John;[274] Richard the King’s son went on board another with a company
of knights;[275] a third was occupied by Earl Warren’s men, the Earl
himself remaining on shore with the Marshal;[276] Philip d’Aubigné
probably commanded a contingent from the Channel Isles. Hubert de Burgh
seems to have joined the muster by sea, coming from Dover in “a fine
ship” of his own,[277] and to have taken the supreme command.

The skill and energy of the English sailors quickly atoned for their
momentary panic. Though wind and tide were both against them,[278]
they came up in the rear of the French fleet just as it reached the
mouth of the estuary. For a moment the leading English ship--that of
Hubert--seemed about to close with the enemy; then it suddenly shot
forward, as if the commander’s purpose were not to give battle, but
to avoid it.[279] On seeing this, the French shifted their sails,
and with insulting cries of “_La hart! la hart!_”--a call with which
huntsmen were wont to urge their hounds after the quarry--turned round
to the attack, their line still headed by the ship of Eustace the
Monk.[280] This was probably the largest and most formidable vessel
of the French fleet; but it was overloaded; it carried, besides its
freight of men and treasure, some valuable horses for Louis, and a
trebuchet; and in consequence, it lay so deep in the water that the
waves almost overflowed its deck. Sir Richard the King’s son laid
his ship alongside it at once; Earl Warren’s men quickly brought up
their ship on its other side. This latter ship was only a cog, or
fishing vessel; but being light it stood high above the water, and
its occupants were thus able to cast down potfuls of lime and stones
on their adversaries’ heads, with blinding if not deadly effect.[281]
Meanwhile the armed galleys of the English fleet, few though they were
in number, were doing fatal execution on some of the other French
ships, piercing them with their iron beaks and sinking them. Now, too,
the French had the wind in their teeth, and it carried into their faces
clouds of quicklime thrown up into the air by the English. Moreover,
Philip d’Aubigné had with him a company of crossbowmen whose arrows
wrought havoc among the enemy.[282] At length a man-at-arms from
Guernsey, Reginald Payne, leaped from the deck of the cog to that of
Eustace’s ship with such an impetus that in alighting he knocked down a
French knight, William des Barres; in another moment he had prostrated
a second foeman of rank and disabled a third; amid the confusion thus
created all the fighting men on the cog followed him, and Eustace’s
ship was captured with all on board.[283] On seeing this the remaining
French ships took to flight. The victors chased them all the way
back to Calais.[284] Only fifteen vessels--the largest in the fleet
except that of Eustace--reached the harbour; of the lesser ones many
were taken[285] and the rest sunk.[286] The slaughter was frightful;
only thirty-two men, all of high rank and renown, were retained as
prisoners on the ship which had belonged to Eustace, and even these
were with difficulty saved by the English knights from the fury of the
men-at-arms and sailors whose valour had won that great prize.[287] On
every other captured vessel only a man or two were left alive; the rest
were slain and “flung to the fishes for food.”[288]

When the fight and the chase were over and the prizes all towed into
Sandwich, one prisoner was missed: Eustace the Monk. After a long
search he was found hiding in the hold of his ship[289] from the
universal hatred of which he knew himself to be the object, not only
as the commander of the hostile fleet, but still more as a traitor
of the deepest dye and a man of infamous character in every respect.
He offered to give his captors ten thousand marks and to serve King
Henry faithfully if they would grant him his life, “but it could not
be.” One Stephen, a seaman of Winchelsea, who had sailed with him
in earlier days when he was in the service of King John, flung in
his face a recital of all his misdoings on land and sea, and bade
him choose whether to have his head cut off on the ship’s deck or on
the trebuchet. “Neither alternative was sweet,” says a contemporary
writer with grim sarcasm; “anyway, they cut off his head. That was
his festival day.”[290] The severed head was afterwards stuck on the
point of a spear and carried round the neighbourhood, to shew the
people, who had long lived in terror of the ruthless freebooter,
that he was really dead.[291] The prisoners were sent to Dover to be
put in ward in the castle under the charge of Hubert;[292] Philip
d’Aubigné was despatched to carry news of the victory to the Legate
and the King;[293] the Marshal stayed to superintend the division of
the spoils. There was a large quantity of valuable things, money,
plate, clothes, horses, arms, harness, provisions of various kinds;
the Marshal contrived to distribute these in such a way that every man
thought his own share better than that of his fellows, and yet to leave
a residue which, with the hearty assent of the sailors, he devoted to
the foundation of a hospital for “God’s poor,” in honour of the Saint
on whose festival day the victory had been won.[294]

The Fair of Lincoln had, as a contemporary writer emphatically says,
“destroyed the [rebel] barons.”[295] It had deprived Louis of the bulk
of his English allies, and left the French conquest of England to be
accomplished, if accomplished at all, solely by French hands. Had the
French reinforcements effected a landing and defeated the Royalists in
one battle, such a conquest might still have been possible. But when
the tidings of that S. Bartholomew’s day reached Louis, he at once
saw that his cause was lost.[296] While the Marshal’s division of the
English host was in Kent, the other division, with the Legate and the
young King, had encamped round about London, more closely than the
Royalists had yet approached the capital since Louis’s return. Gualo
seems to have placed Henry with his mother in the safe shelter of
Windsor castle while he himself ventured as near to London as Kingston;
one day, however, a report reached him that the French were sallying
forth to attack him, whereupon he rode hastily back to Windsor. This
French sally may have been the “very fine raid, wherein the lesser
folk won much gain,” which is said to have been made about this time
by the young Duke of Brittany. Again there was ineffectual talk of
peace. Then the Legate proposed a siege of the city; but for this the
lay leaders deemed their forces insufficient, and they retired each
man to his own quarters. Another unsuccessful attempt at pacification,
made by a Cistercian monk who was one of the Pope’s penitentiaries,
was followed by a meeting of the Queen-mother and the Count of
Nevers, between Windsor and London; “they spoke amicably, and parted
amicably, but without making peace.” Louis was so conscious of peril
that he removed from the bishop’s house to the Tower, “to be more in
safety.”[297] The news of the battle of Sandwich reached him late on
the evening of Saturday, 26th August. On Monday, 28th, Robert of Dreux
went under a safe-conduct from the King to speak with the Marshal at
Rochester; next day one of the newly-captured French knights, Robert
de Courtenay, was allowed to go to London to speak with Louis, Dreux
remaining as a hostage in his stead.[298] After consulting with
Courtenay and others, Louis decided to ask for a parley with William
the Marshal in person.[299]

William took counsel with the other Royalists; “and there were some
who spoke rightly bravely, though they had kept away from the coast
in the hour of need.” These men said: “We do not want to conciliate
Louis. The only parley we want is a siege of London.” But the valiant
men who had been in the fight were wiser; they besought the Marshal to
get the French out of the country “and not to let lack of money be a
hindrance, for they would help him to the utmost of their power, with
their hearts and bodies and possessions.” He therefore agreed to go and
parley with Louis.[300] He took with him, however, all the Royalists
who had accompanied him into Kent; and the whole English host, thus
reunited, now blockaded the city by land, while on 1st September the
“barons” of the Cinque Ports were bidden to bring all their ships to
the mouth of the Thames for the King’s service,[301] thus cutting off
the capital from all chance of communication by sea. It was obvious
that if Louis did not make terms at once, he would speedily be starved
into unconditional surrender.[302] He took a course which was not only
safer, but also more honourable both for himself and his adversaries,
when he met the Marshal and the Justiciar in conference outside London
{5 Sept.}. He frankly committed himself into their hands and those
of the Legate, requesting them to dictate their own terms, on the sole
condition that those terms should be such as would neither dishonour
him nor offend his companions in arms.[303]

The Marshal and the Justiciar returned to Windsor, and Louis to London.
From that night--Tuesday, 5th September--till Saturday, 9th, he waited
in vain for their expected propositions; then, on the advice of his
barons, he determined to make a sally early next morning and try to cut
his way out. Late on the Saturday night {9 Sept.}, however, as they
were about to separate and make their preparations for the morrow’s
venture, a letter was brought to him from the Marshal asking for a
day’s truce and requesting that Hugh de Malaunay might be sent to speak
with the Marshal and the council. Both these requests Louis granted. A
parley was then fixed for Tuesday (12th September), and a prolongation
of the truce till Thursday (14th) was guaranteed by the Queen, the two
William Marshals, the Earls of Salisbury, Warren, and Arundel, and some
other magnates. Malaunay returned on Monday, 11th, and “told Louis what
he had got.”[304] It was evidently something of great importance, for
Louis at once “summoned his whole council, and the barons of England
who held with him, and the citizens, and asked their advice upon it;
and they all approved it.”[305]

What Malaunay had brought was evidently the definite offer of terms for
which Louis had asked. Louis had put himself--“saving his honour”--into
the hands of the King’s guardians; “therefore,” as a contemporary
English historian says, “they, with whom the whole matter rested,
and who desired above all things to get rid of Louis, sent back to
him a certain form of peace drawn up in writing;[306] to which if he
consented, they would undertake to secure for him and his adherents
a safe departure from England; if not, they would use their utmost
efforts to compass his ruin.”[307] The terms which they offered seem to
have been these: The adherents and allies of Louis in England, Henry
and his adherents, London and the other towns, were all to have their
respective rights and lands as they had them at the beginning of the
war. (A later clause explained that this provision was not to apply to
clerks, except as regards lay fees held by them.) Prisoners on both
sides, taken since Louis’s coming to England, to be set free; those
taken earlier, to be released if three persons, to be chosen by Henry’s
council from the council of Louis, should swear that they were Louis’s
men on the day of their capture; for all prisoners, ransoms already
paid to be kept; ransoms now due to be paid; ransoms not yet due to be
remitted; and all disputes to be settled by the aforesaid three. All
English prisoners, and other English subjects who were in arms against
King John, to give security for their fidelity to Henry, by homage,
oaths, and charters, according to the custom of England. Money for the
payment of which hostages had been given to Louis was to be paid at
once, if the date fixed for the payment had arrived, and the hostages
were to be restored. All cities, lands, and other property which had
been forcibly occupied in England were to be restored to the King or
other owners. Louis was to send letters to the brothers of Eustace the
Monk bidding them restore to Henry the islands (some of the Channel
Isles) which Eustace had seized; if they failed to do so, Louis was to
distrain the lands which they held of him; and if they were then still
contumacious, they were to be outside this peace. Louis and Henry were
each to send a copy of the peace to King Alexander of Scotland, and he,
if he wished to be included in it, was to restore all castles, lands,
and prisoners, taken by him during the war. Louis was to send a copy,
on the same conditions, to Llywelyn and the other Welsh princes. Louis
was to quit-claim to all the barons and men of England all homage,
fealty, confederations, and alliances, and never henceforth to make,
on account of this war, any confederation which might at any time
cause damage to the English King. The barons of England were to swear
to Henry that they would enter into no confederation or undertaking
against him or his heirs, with Louis or with any other person. Louis
was to take his corporal oath, and his men with him, and such of them
as the King’s council should choose were also to pledge themselves
individually by charters, that they would keep this peace firmly and
faithfully; and Louis was to do his utmost to obtain confirmation of it
from the Pope.[308] All debts now due to Louis were to be paid.[309]

Well might Louis and his counsellors “all approve” this draft treaty.
Even if it was not--as in all likelihood it was--accompanied by
a verbal intimation of the Marshal’s willingness to pay Louis an
indemnity in money, still the terms were much less hard than they
had expected.[310] The issue of the next day’s conference was now a
foregone conclusion.[311] The meeting took place in an islet in the
Thames, opposite Kingston.[312] The Royalists drew up on one side of
the river, the French on the other. Louis and his counsellors entered a
boat and were rowed to the island, where they found the Queen, with the
Legate “clad all in scarlet,” the Marshal, and the other members of the
English King’s council, as well as the King himself.[313] Louis and his
men swore on the Gospels, first of all, that they would stand to the
judgement of the Church and be faithful to Church and Pope from that
day forward.[314] Then they swore to the conditions of peace already
set forth,[315] Louis adding a promise that he would, if possible,
induce his father to restore to Henry his rights beyond the sea. Henry
then laid his hand on the Book, and, together with the Legate and the
Marshal, made oath to restore to the barons of England and all other
men of the realm all their rights and heritages, with all the liberties
formerly demanded, for which the discord between John and the barons
had arisen.[316] Lastly, an indemnity of (seemingly) ten thousand
marks was promised to Louis, for which the Earl Marshal made himself
personally responsible.[317]

Thus, on Tuesday, September 12th,[318] the peace was made. The
absolution of Louis and his followers was deferred till next day,
because the prelates had not brought their “chapels” with them,[319]
and also because Gualo declared that Louis should have no absolution
unless he would come “barefooted and shirtless, clothed in a woollen
gown”--the proper garb of a penitent. The Frenchmen however begged
hard that their lord might be suffered to come with his woollen gown
hidden under his robe; and to this Gualo consented.[320] Both parties
returned to their lodgings for the night. Next day {Wed., 13 Sept.}
the Legate and the bishops put on their silken copes and their mitres
and absolved Louis and all his men, except the four clerks specially
reserved for the judgement of the Pope,[321] who were made to withdraw
from the island while the absolution was taking place. Gualo then sent
the Pope’s penitentiary to London to absolve the citizens and others
who had not been present at the conference.[322] On Thursday, September
14th, the conclusion of the peace was formally announced in the King’s
name.[323] On Sunday, 17th, the Legate went to Merton priory, and
next day {18 Sept.} the peace was confirmed there, on the one part
by Louis with the Counts of Britanny, Nevers, and Dreux, and “many
others from France,” on the other part by the Queen with many English
bishops, earls, barons, and knights. On the 22nd Louis came to Merton
again, to receive from the Legate’s penitentiary injunctions about his
penance.[324] After this he was escorted to Dover by the Legate, the
Marshal, and other magnates,[325] and sailed for France on Michaelmas
eve.[326]


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe),
vol. iii. pp. 385–6.

[2] _Hist. de Guill. le Maréchal_, ll. 15170–90. Cf. _Hist. des Ducs de
Normandie_, p. 180.

[3] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15207–57.

[4] “Quem gratia juventutis et innocentia cunctis reddidit amabilem, et
venusta facies cum flava caesarie singulis favorabilem, sermo quoque
maturus universis venerabilem.” Mat. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p.
196.

[5] “Qui son meistre e son norriçon Out este e encor esteit,” _Hist. G.
le Mar._, ll. 15263–4. These words seem to imply that Ralf was Henry’s
tutor, or teacher, but this cannot have been the case, for Ralf was
only a man-at-arms, “_serviens_” (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 345 b,
362); no doubt, one whose proved fidelity to the late king had entitled
him to be specially trusted to watch over the safety of the heir.

[6] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15261–84.

[7] _Ib._ ll. 15287–305.

[8] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1.

[9] Henry, son of Henry II.

[10] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15306–24.

[11] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 1; _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii.
p. 195.

[12] “Cum orationibus et cantuum modulationibus quae in coronatione
regum solent decantari,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 2.

[13] “Sertum quoddam,” T. Wykes, a. 1216.

[14] The _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 181, and the Annals of Margan,
Tewkesbury, Winchester, and Waverley, a. 1216, say that Henry was
crowned by Gualo; the _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15329–31, says “Wales la
messe li chanta, Li legaz, e sil corona, O li evesques qui la furent”;
and the official letter written in Henry’s name to the Justiciar of
Ireland says he was crowned “by the hands of Gualo the Cardinal legate
and the bishops then present” (_Foedera_, I. i. p. 145). Probably,
however, they all mean merely what is expressly, though awkwardly,
stated by the Merton chronicler--“Coronatus ... a domino Syvalone
legato ... assistentibus sibi domino Petro Wintoniensi episcopo qui eum
inunxit et coronam imposuit capiti, ut dicunt” &c. (Petit-Dutaillis,
_Vie de Louis VIII._, p. 514), and more clearly by the Barnwell
annalist: “Imposuit autem ei manus ex jussu legati episcopus
Wintoniensis” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233). Roger of Wendover (vol. iv.
p. 2) says Henry was crowned and anointed by Bishop Peter; Matthew
Paris (_Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 2) that Peter of Winchester and
Jocelyn of Bath crowned him; the Dunstable annalist (_Ann. Monast._,
vol. iii. p. 48) that he was crowned by Gualo’s authority, but by the
hands of the Bishops of Winchester, Worcester, and Exeter. Wykes’s
account of the coronation is obviously fantastic, except in one detail,
that of the “sertum quoddam,” which is no doubt correct, as certainly
no real crown could be available.

[15] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15333–46. This corrects the statement of
R. Wendover, _l.c._, “duxerunt regem ... regalibus indutum ad mensam.”

[16] _Chron. Merton_, _l.c._

[17] Winchester, Worcester, Chester (or Coventry), Bath, Exeter, and
Meath; see R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1, _Ann. Wav._, a. 1216, _Ann. Dunst._
a. 1215, p. 48, and _Chron. Merton_, _l.c._

[18] R. Wend., _l.c._

[19] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1216. This Chronicle and Roger both add the Earl
of Chester, but they are certainly wrong.

[20]  R. Wend., _l.c._

[21] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15347–72. For the name of the place see
errata to vol. ii. p. 390.

[22] _Ib._ ll. 15373–15400.

[23] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15465–561. Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 181:
“Guillaume li Mareschaus fu eslius a iestre souvrains baillius del
regne.”

[24] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15579–15610.

[25] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.

[26] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15611–30.

[27] _Ib._ ll. 15401–64.

[28] “L’om m’a baillie ceste baillie,
      Qui ja est pres de mesballie;” ll. 15641–2.

[29] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15628–708.

[30] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.

[31] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 145.

[32] See the list of witnesses to the Charter, _Statutes of the
Realm--Charters of Liberties_, p. 14.

[33] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1216.

[34] First Charter of Henry III., c. 1.

[35] Magna Charta, c. 2, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 2.

[36] _Ib._ cc. 3, 4, 5.

[37] _Ib._ cc. 6, 7.

[38] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 5.

[39] _Ib._ c. 9, M. C., c. 9.

[40] M. C., c. 16, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 11.

[41] M. C., c. 17, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 12.

[42] M. C., cc. 18, 19, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 13, 14.

[43] M. C., cc. 20, 21, 22, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 15, 16, 17.

[44] M. C., c. 23, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 18.

[45] M. C., c. 24, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 19.

[46] M. C., c. 29, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 22.

[47] M. C., c. 31, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 24.

[48] M. C., c. 32, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 25.

[49] M. C., c. 33, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 26.

[50] M. C., c. 34, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 27.

[51] M. C., c. 36, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 29.

[52] M. C., c. 37, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 30.

[53] M. C., c. 35, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 28.

[54] M. C., c. 38, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 31.

[55] M. C., c. 39, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 32.

[56] M. C., c. 40, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 33.

[57] M. C., c. 43, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 35.

[58] M. C., c. 44, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 36.

[59] M. C., c. 46, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 37.

[60] M. C., c. 54, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 39.

[61] M. C., c. 47, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 38.

[62] M. C., c. 56, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 40.

[63] M. C., c. 13, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 10.

[64] M. C., c. 28, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 21.

[65] M. C., c. 30, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 23.

[66] M. C., c. 41, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 34.

[67] M. C., cc. 10, 11, 48, 43, 50, 52, 55, 57, 45.

[68] M. C., cc. 25, 27, 42.

[69] M. C., cc. 12, 14.

[70] M. C., c. 15.

[71] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 41.

[72] M. C., cc. 49, 58, 59.

[73] 1st Charter of Henry III., c. 42; _Statutes of the
Realm--Charters of Liberties_, pp. 14–16.

[74] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.

[75] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.

[76] _Ib._ pp. 3, 4.

[77] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 232. The words are “Hiis diebus, antequam
de obitu regis mentio fieret, impetraverunt qui apud Dovram obsessi
erant inducias usque post Pascha, et soluta est obsidio”; but the
more detailed accounts in our other authorities clearly show that
though hostilities were suspended before John’s death, the siege was
not actually raised till the beginning of November. Mr. G. J. Turner
appears to have overlooked this fact when he wrote that Hubert’s
absence from the coronation “excites some suspicion concerning his
loyalty” (“Minority of Henry III.,” part I., _Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._,
2nd Series, vol. xviii., p. 246). It was precisely Hubert’s loyalty
which made it impossible for him to leave Dover till his truce with
Louis was prolonged and the siege raised.

[78] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4. Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 182: “Grant doute
avoient” [the king’s friends] “de Looys, qui se partit tost de Douvre
apries chou que la trive fu prise entre lui et cels dedens, si s’en
vint à Londres.”

[79] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4.

[80] For Newark and Lincoln see _Hist. Ducs_, p. 181; for Sleaford see
below, p. 25.

[81] Norwich castle is said by Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 378–9)
to have been “found empty” and garrisoned by Louis before John’s death;
but this is a very unlikely story. Without discussing objections in
detail, it is enough to say that in the French expedition into East
Anglia (R. Wend., _l.c._, M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 182)
during which this important acquisition is alleged to have been made,
Louis had in reality no personal share at all, being at the time busy
winning castles in Hampshire; and that the expedition was clearly a
mere raid, from which all the French troops engaged in it returned to
meet Louis again in London. Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 172.

[82] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 181.

[83] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 180.

[84] _Ib._ p. 182.

[85] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 4–5.

[86] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15717–28. According to one account, Louis
made over Hertford to Robert FitzWalter, to whom it had formerly
belonged (_Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._); according to another, FitzWalter
claimed it, but was put off with a temporizing answer, on the advice
of Louis’s French knights, who said, truly enough, that “Englishmen
who had betrayed their own sovereign were not fit to be trusted with
castles.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.

[87] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 5, 6.

[88] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15735–41.

[89] Henry was at Oxford in 1217 on January 13–20, and again January
27–February 1; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 295 b–297.

[90] On all these truces and surrenders see Note I at end.

[91] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.

[92] _E.g._, the stores, &c., removed from Norwich and Orford were on
8th February assigned for the reinforcement of Dover; _Close Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 335 b.

[93] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 182.

[94] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.

[95] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 11.

[96] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.

[97] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 6.

[98] _Patent Rolls Hen. III._, vol. i. p. 109. See Note I.

[99] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10–11.

[100] “Prise par engien.” _Hist. Ducs_, p. 182.

[101] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 17.

[102] “Qui la”--_i.e._, at Rye--“estoit a grant plente de nes biens
garnies de gens armees, comme chil qui la mer ot a garder de par le
roi.” _Hist. Ducs_, p. 183.

[103] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15779, &c.

[104] Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 181, 183, and _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll.
15768–9 and 15795–808.

[105] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 183.

[106] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 184–187.

[107] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15859–67; cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 187.

[108] From the _Hist. G. le Mar._ alone it might be supposed that the
Marshal himself had headed the expedition which captured Rye; but the
Rolls distinctly show that this was not the case.

[109] “Crucesignati.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 108–109.

[110] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 187.

[111] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15868–9, 16034–6. We get the date by
comparing these latter lines with the date of Louis’s return; see M.
Paul Meyer’s note 5, vol. iii. p. 225.

[112] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.

[113] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217.

[114] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.

[115] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 15884.

[116] When they had a joint letter of safe conduct to go to the court
for six days; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 10, 8th December, 1216.

[117] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15872–86.

[118] A dateless letter from the Earl Marshal, Walter de Lacy, William
de Cantelupe, and Falkes, to the Earl of Salisbury and the younger
Marshal, sets forth that the writers have sworn “quod conventionem
prolocutam inter dominum nostrum Henricum regem Angliæ illustrem et
nos” [_sic_, but surely it should be _vos_?] “pro posse nostro firmiter
et absque malo ingenio teneri faciemus,” wherefore the two persons
addressed are to come without delay to the writers, who will have
them absolved by the Bishop of Chichester, he being empowered by the
Pope and the Legate to absolve persons returning to allegiance. _Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 109.

[119] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15884–96.

[120] Cf. _ib._ ll. 15901–2, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i., p. 299.

[121] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 37.

[122] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15943–4.

[123] _Ib._ l. 15972.

[124] _Ib._ ll. 15960–84. Reinforcements were on 7th April summoned to
be at Winchester on Wednesday after the close of Easter, _i.e._, 10th
April; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 335 b.

[125] “S’en alerent _Baucone_,” _Hist. G. le Mar._, 15986. The name is
hopelessly corrupt; M. Meyer suggests in a note “à Suzhantone?” It is
probably either Southampton or Odiham; cf. _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 187, 189.

[126] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16003–10. The place is there called
_Rovcestre_, but there can be no doubt Porchester is meant; we know
from the _Close Roll_, vol. i. p. 301 b, that the siege of Porchester
was begun before 20th March.

[127] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16011–33.

[128] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 187, 189.

[129] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 57, 62.

[130] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 188.

[131] See the orders “de conversis” in _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 300 b
_et seq._

[132] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14. Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 189, and _Hist.
G. le Mar._, ll. 16092–6. Roger gives the date, “post Paschalem
solemnitatem,” _i.e._, after 26th March.

[133] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 188.

[134] “In vigilia S. Georgii martyris,” _Chron. Merton_ in
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514. The Barnwell Annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p.
236) says, “Sabbato quo finiendae erant treugae applicuit Lodowicus
apud Sandwich.” The day on which the truce would end, if the “month
after Easter” (see above, p. 19), meant a calendar month, would be
26th April, and not Saturday but Wednesday. But a month of four
weeks from Easter would expire on Saturday, 22nd April; and this
interpretation is confirmed by the _Hist. Ducs_ (_l.c._), one MS.
of which says Louis sailed “le venredi devant le mois de Pasques”;
see M. Francisque-Michel’s note, _ib._, and M. Paul Meyer’s notes to
_Hist. G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. 225. The only doubt is whether Louis
sailed on the night of Friday, 21st April, and landed on Saturday,
22nd, or sailed on Saturday, 22nd, and landed on Sunday, 23rd. As the
preponderance of evidence seems to be in favour of the latter view, I
have based my reckoning of the dates of his subsequent movements on the
assumption of its correctness.

[135] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 189.

[136] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236.

[137] “Fist tant a Hubiers de Bourg que les trives furent alongies,”
_Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._ Hubert may or may not have been there in person;
the “truce” is obviously only the local one, limited to Dover and quite
independent of the general truce, which was now unquestionably ended.

[138] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[139] W. Cov., _l.c._

[140] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[141] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 189, 190.

[142] Comparing _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16039–44 and 16052–53, with
_Hist. Ducs_, pp. 189, 190, I venture to think that this is the
true meaning of the poet’s somewhat confused story, notwithstanding
M. Meyer’s note 1, vol. iii. p. 225. The fact that the Marshal was
attesting royal letters at Winchester from 14 March onwards does not
prove that he had gained possession of the _castle_ before that date.

[143] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16048–50. The order for razing Chichester
castle had been issued before, on 16 April; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 57.

[144] “Li castiaus n’ot garde,” _Hist. Ducs_, p. 190.

[145] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14.

[147] “Qui escondire ne li pot.” _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[148] From R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 15, we should suppose that Saer’s
appeal to Louis was made in London; but the _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._,
shows that it was made at Farnham. On the other hand, the Flemish
chronicler represents Saer as departing straightway from Farnham
for Mountsorel “on the morrow,” _i.e._ Saturday, 29 April, “o grant
chevalerie d’Englois” and some seventy French knights (pp. 190, 191);
while Roger says the relieving force--which he makes to consist of six
hundred knights and more than twenty thousand men-at-arms--started from
London “pridie kalendas Maii, id est die Lunae proximo ante Ascensionem
Domini” (_l.c._). The last day of April, 1217, was Sunday, not Monday.
I think we may combine the two accounts, and assume that Saer left
Farnham on April 29 to go not directly towards Leicestershire, but to
London. The journey thither, and the necessary preparations after he
had joined his associates there, must have taken a couple of days,
and the combined forces could hardly set out before Monday, 1 May.
The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 49, say the relieving force consisted of “the
barons who were at London,” the Count of Perche, the Marshal of France,
and ten thousand _armati_ whom Louis had given them. The _Hist. G. le
Mar._, ll. 16085–92, which says the party set out from Winchester at
the same time that Louis and the rest of his forces returned thence to
London, is obviously quite wrong.

[149] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 15–17.

[150] “Satis innocenter,” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 49.

[151] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17. W. Cov., vol. ii; p. 237. _Hist. G. le
Mar._, ll. 16097–16105.

[152] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 191, 192. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16055–81.

[153] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 192, 193. “E li Waudois les assaillirent, mais
desconfis furent.”

[154] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 194. Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17, and W. Cov.,
vol. ii. p. 237.

[155] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16115–26.

[156] _Ib._ ll. 16126–53.

[157] “Se sunt embatuz folement,” l. 16161.

[158] _Ib._ ll. 16153–99.

[159] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 18.

[160] _Ib._ For the knights see also _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16264–6
and 17025.

[161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 18, 19.

[162] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16203–24.

[163] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 19, 20. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll.
16225–32.

[164] R. Wend., _l.c._

[165] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16236–7.

[166] _Ib._ l. 16238.

[167] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20.

[168] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16240–46. Cf. R. Wend., _l.c._ In p. 25
Roger gives the date of the battle as “quarto decimo kalendas Junii,
sabbato scilicet in hebdomada Pentecostes,” where the ecclesiastical
date is correct, but not the civil one. One MS. of the _Hist. Ducs_
makes it “la velle de la Pentecouste;” but the other has “la velle de
la Trinite,” p. 194, note 3. The Annals of Waverley, a. 1217, give the
true date, “tertio decimo kalendas Junii, in hebdomada Pentecostes.” So
also R. Coggeshall, p. 185.

[169] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16277–310, 16331–4.

[170] _Ib._ ll. 16247–61, 16314–15.

[171] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. He makes seven divisions, or “battles,”
instead of four, but gives no details of their arrangement. It is
possible that either he or the Marshal’s biographer may have put the
crossbowmen in a wrong place.

[172] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16418–24.

[173] Cf. _ib._ ll. 16427–32 and R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 21, 22.

[174] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16434–60.

[175] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 20, 21. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll.
16341–72.

[176] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16373–97.

[177] _Ib._ ll. 16998–9.

[178] “Whom God preserve both in body and soul!” prays the Marshal’s
biographer, l. 16492. The other party called her “molt engigneuse
e mal querans e vighereuse vielle,” _Anon. Béthune_, quoted by
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 148.

[179] _Hist. G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. clix.

[180] _Ib._ ll. 16467–510.

[181] On the “blocked gate” see Note II.

[182] The whole city above hill, except the minster precincts, was in
the “bail” or jurisdiction of the castle.

[183] It had at least seven, without counting the two Bar-Gates beyond
the river.

[184] I think this is to be inferred from _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll.
16544–52; see Note II.

[185] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16521–34.

[186] E. Mansel Sympson, _Lincoln_, pp. 24, 25.

[187] “At illi” [_i.e._ majores exercitus] “per eam” [the “little back
door” of the castle, “posterulam quae propter adventum eorum fuerat
jam aperta,” cf. above, p. 36] “noluerunt omnes intrare, sed miserunt
Falcasium cum agmine toto cui praeerat et cum balistariis omnibus,
qui portam civitatis saltem unam exercitui aperirent. Deinde omnis
multitudo ad portam se aquilonarem conferens illam confringere vacavit
... Falcasius interim castrum cum agmine cui praeerat ac balistariis
omnibus ingressus,” &c. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.

[188] R. Wend., _l.c._ See Note III.

[189] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16541–55. See Note III.

[190] “Mes soufrez que entor la tor Augent dui home tot entor De
chascune de nos batailles Qui enquerront les repostailles,” ll.
16563–66. _La tor_ ought of course to mean the castle. But the castle
was known to be surrounded on three of its sides by enemies in open
action against it; to send men to look for “ambushes” round it seems
therefore absurd, and would certainly have been impracticable. Can
_la tor_ be a scribe’s error for _le mur_, and did the poet mean
“round the wall of the city”? Or can “entor la tor” be a sheer blunder
for something wholly different, and should ll. 16564–5 be construed
together--“Let two men go all round each of our battles,” &c.?

[191] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16567–16628.

[192] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.

[193] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16643–77.

[194] R. Wend., _l.c._

[195] The poet in ll. 16335–40 excludes the English rebels from his
reckoning; but in ll. 17026–7 he seems to include the English knights
fighting on the French side in the six hundred and eleven. The _Hist.
Ducs_, p. 191, makes only seventy French knights.

[196] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25.

[197] “Nundinae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25. See Professor Tout’s
article on “The Fair of Lincoln,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, April, 1903, p.
241, note 2. Cf. also _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 16334 (see above, p. 34).

[198] “Li lor mestre perreior.”

[199] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16630–42.

[200] That is, after going along what is now the street called Westgate
to its junction with that now known as Bailgate (a portion of the old
Ermine Street), they turned southward down the latter; the “church on
their left” would be All Saints, near the angle formed by the junction
of Bailgate and Eastgate. The cathedral church would have been called
not “_un_ moustier” but “_le_ moustier,” as in l. 16705.

[201] Obviously the space between the west front of the cathedral
church and the east gate of the castle.

[202] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16681–708.

[203] William the Breton, _Gesta Philippi Aug._, c. 223.

[204] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 16707.

[205] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.

[206] _Ib._ p. 24.

[207] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16729–68.

[208] “Aval une rue a senestre S’en tornerent vers Wikefort,” ll.
16774–5. Perche and his men had evidently been fighting with their
backs towards the east front of the minster, so that the “street on
their left” would be the main road--Ermine Street, Steep Hill, High
Street--running down due southward “towards Wigford” as the poet says.

[209] The present Stonebow was built in the fifteenth century, but the
name “Stan-bogh” occurs in a document dating from 1220–1230. Sympson,
_Lincoln_, pp. 384, 425.

[210] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16777–828. Wigford Bridge is now called
the High Bridge.

[211] “Reials! reials!” l. 16903.

[212] “Dont point ne m’ennuie,” contemptuously says the Marshal’s
biographer, l. 16939.

[213] See Note IV.

[214] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16830–944.

[215] See Note IV.

[216] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.

[217] _Ib._, _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17002–20.

[218] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 194.

[219] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16997–17018.

[220] Saer de Quincy (Earl of Winchester), Henry de Bohun (Earl of
Hereford), Gilbert of Ghent, Robert FitzWalter, Richard de Montfichet,
William de Mowbray, William de Beauchamp, William Mauduit, Oliver
D’Eyncourt, Roger de Cressy, William de Coleville, William de Ros,
Robert de Ropsley, Ralf Chaineduit,  R. Wend., vol. iv., pp. 23–24; to
these the continuator of Gervase of Canterbury (vol. ii. p. 111) adds
Robert FitzWalter’s son, Gilbert de Clare, Gerard de Furnival, Stephen
and Maurice of Ghent, Nicolas and Eustace de Stuteville, Warin de
Montchensy, Ralf and Roger de Tony, Geoffrey de Say, Henry and Philip,
sons of Earl David (of Huntingdon), William de Huntingfield, William de
Hastings, Nicolas de Kennet, Robert de Grilley, Robert of Newburgh the
constable of Hedingham, John of Bassingbourne, Ralf Murdac, Anselm de
Kent, William de Fiennes, Geoffrey and Walter de St. Leger, Henry de
Braybroke, Adam FitzWilliam, Simon de Kime, Walter de Thinham, Robert
Marmion the younger, John of St. Helen’s, William Martel, and John of
Sanford. The _Chron. Merton_ (Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) gives the total
number as fifty-two. One of those enumerated above, however--Henry de
Braybroke--is said by the Dunstable Annalist (p. 49) to have escaped
with Simon de Poissy. Earl William de Mandeville and the constable of
Chester also escaped; _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195.

[221] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. Cont. Gerv. Cant., _l.c._ In W. Cov.,
vol. ii. pp. 237, 238, the number is given as three hundred and eighty,
but avowedly only on hearsay.

[222] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16965–69.

[223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26.

[224] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 213.

[225]  R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24.

[226] _Ib._ pp. 24, 25.

[227] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17031–68.

[228] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195.

[229] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 25, 26.

[230] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 64. The Marshal was back at Lincoln on
the 22nd; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 308 b.

[231] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 50.

[232] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195, says “le joesdi apries le Pentecouste”
instead of after Trinity; but this is a mistake caused by the writer
having dated the battle a week too early; see above, footnote 168.

[233] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 195, 196.

[234] _Ib._ pp. 196, 197.

[235] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217.

[236] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 197. The three abbots had letters of
safe-conduct from the king, who with the host was now at Reading, on
6th June; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 68.

[237] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[238] _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xix. p. 636.

[239] Safe-conduct, dated 12th June, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 69.

[240] They were Simon de Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury and brother
of the Primate; Gervase of Hobrigg, Dean of S. Paul’s, London; Robert
of S. Germain, a clerk of the King of Scots; and Master Elias, a
clerk of the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the beginning of the war
these men had set the Papal authority at defiance, and they were now
preaching at Paul’s Cross to the people and “giving them to understand
that the Royalists were excommunicate and that Louis and his men were
good folk, wrongfully excommunicated by the Pope.” _Hist. Ducs_, pp.
197, 198. See the Archbishop of Tyre’s letter in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._,
vol. xix. pp. 636, 637, and cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 198, and W. Cov., vol.
ii., p. 238.

[241] They had a safe-conduct to the sea on 21st June; _Pat. Rolls_,
vol. i. pp. 70, 71.

[242] Before 22nd June; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 71.

[243] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 147.

[244] They were there 1–6 July; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 77–79.

[245] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 198.

[246] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 27.

[247] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17085–103. The monstrous version of
Philip’s speech given by M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 216, is
beneath notice except as an illustration of Matthew’s own character as
an historian.

[248] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 27, 28. See also the curious story in
_Récits d’un Ménestrel de Reims_, pp. 157, 158.

[249] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17117–24. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 50.

[250] One hundred, _Hist. Ducs_, p. 198; three hundred, R. Wend., vol.
iv. p. 28.

[251] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 198, 199.

[252] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 336, 314 b, 317, 336 b.

[253] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 71; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 314.

[254] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 157. See especially _Close Rolls_, vol. i.
pp. 310–312.

[255] August 7–13; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 317 b–319 b.

[256] Reading, August 14th; Farnham, August 15th. _Ib._ p. 320.

[257] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17167–210. Of this, again, Matthew Paris
(_Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. pp. 217, 218) has a version which is obviously
a mere romance of his own, devised--as needlessly as clumsily--to exalt
Hubert de Burgh at the expense of the Marshal.

[258] Son of Warren’s sister; see _Hist. Ducs_, p. 200.

[259] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17262–85.

[260] So say Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 28, and the _Hist. Ducs_,
_l.c._ The Marshal’s biographer, ll. 17293–4, says three hundred, but
this does not tally with our accounts of the smallness of the force
which the fleet had to bring over.

[261] “Batellies.”

[262] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[263] See the list in _Hist. Ducs_, p. 201.

[264] Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._, and _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17160,
17290–91, and 17365–76.

[265] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[266] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17286–90.

[267] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[268] Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._, _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217, _Hist. G. le
Mar._, ll. 17214–15, and R. Wend., _l.c._

[269] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17234–44.

[270] _Ib._ ll. 17245–56.

[271] “Mes Dex e en terre e en mer
       A le poeir d’aidier as buens;
       Donques aidera il as suens,” ll. 17322–24.

[272] _Ib._ ll. 17313–28.

[273] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.

[274] _Cf. ib._ and _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17309–10.

[275] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17307–8; _Hist. Ducs_, p. 201.

[276] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[277] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17302–6.

[278] _Ib._ ll. 17329–31; R. Wend., _l.c._

[279] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17354–58. Cf. M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._,
vol. ii. p. 219.

[280] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17360–65.

[281] _Ib._ ll. 17377–404. Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 201, 202.

[282] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29.

[283] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17405–433.

[284] _Ib._ ll. 17463–82.

[285] Hubert de Burgh came back with two of them in tow; _ib._ ll.
17505–08.

[286] Cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 201, and _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217.

[287] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17507–62.

[288] _Ib._ ll. 17473–80. The poet says, speaking “apres cels qui
virent,” that there were full four thousand Frenchmen slain, besides
those who sprang overboard and were drowned (Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p.
29). But he adds “Je n’i fui pas; ci m’en descombre De dire ce que nuls
ne seit,” ll. 17491–97.

[289] R. Wend., _l.c._

[290] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17434–55, and _Hist. Ducs_, p. 202; cf.
R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 29, 30. This last says it was Richard the king’s
son who answered the inveterate turncoat’s offers of ransom and service
by exclaiming “Nunquam de caetero falsis tuis promissionibus quenquam
in hoc saeculo seduces, proditor nequissime,” drawing his sword and
striking off his head. The French account seems more probable, as I
think we may safely identify the “Stephen Trabe” (or “Crave”) of the
_Hist. Ducs_ with the poet’s “Stephen of Winchelsea.”

[291] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 202.

[292] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17572–76.

[293] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.

[294] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17510–68. The date is confirmed by _Hist.
Ducs_, _l.c._, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 238;
the _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217, erroneously make it the eve, instead of the
day, of S. Bartholomew--“X. kal. Septembris.”

[295] “Destructi sunt barones apud Lincolniam.” _Chron. Merton_,
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514.

[296] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.

[297] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 199, 200.

[298] _Ib._ p. 202.

[299] _Ib._ Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17634–41.

[300] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17642–76.

[301] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 89.

[302] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239.

[303] “Ludowicus in arcto positus significavit Legato pariter ac
Marescallo quod ipse voluit consilio eorum in omnibus obedire, ita
tamen quod salvo honore suo et sine suorum scandalo pacem congruam
providerent,” R. Wend., _l.c._ “Looys parla a eus” [the Marshal and the
Justiciar] “e il li orent en couvent que il se peneroient en boine foi
de la pais faire, e tele qui honnerable li seroit,” _Hist. Ducs_, p.
203.

[304] “Si conta a Looys che que il ot trouvé.”

[305] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 203, 204. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17683–90,
where however it is asserted that the French kept their English allies
out of the council, “not wishing them to know their secrets.”

[306] “At illi, in quibus totum pendebat negotium, et qui Lodowici
liberationem supra modum desiderabant, quandam pacis formam in scripto
redactam ei remiserunt.” I am conscious that my rendering of _Lodowici
liberationem_ is a bold one but I believe it conveys the real meaning
better than a strict translation.

[307] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.

[308] “Item, Dominus Ludovicus faciet juramentum corporale, et sui
cum eo, et cartas suas facient singuli quos consilium domini Regis
voluerit, quod pacem praescriptam firmiter et fideliter tenebunt;
et ad impetrandam super hoc confirmationem Domini Papae et Domini
Legati apponet legale posse suum per preces.” _Foedera_, I. i. p.
148; D’Achéry, _Spicilegium_, vol. iii. p. 586. Why Louis should be
specially charged with the duty of obtaining confirmation of the peace
from the Pope, and still more from the Legate, when the latter was at
the head of those who were actually dictating its terms, is one of the
many puzzles connected with the treaty of Kingston. The Pope, however,
did confirm the treaty, on 13th January, 1218, and he says expressly
that he did so at the request of Louis; _Foedera_, I. i. p. 149.

[309] On the document summarized above see Note V.

[310] “Cum autem forma pacis ad Ludovicum pervenisset, audienda et
inspicienda, placuit, timens multa deteriora.” _Flores Hist._, vol. ii.
p. 165.

[311] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 31, says that Louis after
discussing the draft with his friends sent to ask for a conference; but
the _Hist. Ducs_, p. 203, distinctly indicates that this meeting on
Tuesday (11th September) had been arranged before the terms were sent
to him.

[312] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17702–3; _Hist. Ducs_, p. 204. R. Wend.,
vol. iv. p. 31, says “near Staines.”

[313] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[314] R. Wend., _l.c._

[315] A stipulation of interest, which appears in only one known
version of the written conditions of peace, may probably have been
inserted in them at the same time: “Item, Dominus Ludovicus reddat
Domino Regi rotulos de Scaccario, cartas Judaeorum, et cartas factas de
libertatibus tempore Regis Johannis a P. Rumougrend (_sic_), et omnia
alia scripta de scaccario quod (_sic_) habet, bona fide.” (Martène and
Durand, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, 1717, vol. i. p. 858). I have
no idea what can be the meaning of the words “a P. Rumougrend,” unless
they have, in process of transcription, been somehow evolved out of “in
p[rato] Runimead.”

[316] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 31, 32.

[317] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 7; _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[318] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 95. On this date, and the whole series
of dates connected with the treaty, see Note V.

[319] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[320] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17704–10.

[321] See above, p. 47.

[322] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 205.

[323] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 91.

[324] _Chron. Merton_, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.

[325] Cf. _ib._, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 32, _Hist. Ducs_, p. 205, and
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17717–20.

[326] Rob. Autiss. Contin. II., Pertz, _Rer. Germ. Scriptt._, vol.
xxvi. p. 282.




CHAPTER II

THE REGENCY OF WILLIAM THE MARSHAL

1216–1219

He was a verray perfight gentil knight.


[Sidenote: 1216]

The coronation of Henry III had brought England face to face with a
problem which was practically new in her history: the problem of a
royal minority. In the days before the Norman Conquest, indeed, three
English kings had been crowned before they reached the age which for
men of lower degree was counted as that of legal majority; and the
last of these three, Æthelred the Redeless, had come to his throne
at almost the same age as Henry. But these cases were all too remote
to furnish precedents for the guidance of the statesmen into whose
hands the task of carrying on the government of England was thrown by
the death of John. They could not even furnish a precedent for the
choice of a regent; and the choice actually made was the result of
circumstances which may without exaggeration be called unique. None
of the known rules of English law concerning wardship were altogether
applicable to the case of the Crown. As the law of England then stood,
the wardship of a free tenement held by other than military tenure,
and of its infant heir, belonged to the infant’s next-of-kin who was
not capable of inheriting the tenement; the wardship of an infant
tenant in chivalry, and of his land, belonged to his overlord. If the
analogy of the former case were to be followed, the regency would
have fallen to the King’s mother, Isabel of Angoulême. Not only,
however, was the task, in the circumstances then existing, far too
weighty to be laid upon a woman and a foreigner, but it was obviously
impossible to treat the crown and realm of England as a mere ordinary
socage tenement. Wardship in chivalry, on the other hand, would until
little more than three years before Henry’s accession have supplied no
analogy at all; for the King and kingdom of England had no overlord
upon earth before John’s homage to the Pope in May, 1213. By virtue of
that homage England became a fief of the Roman see, and consequently
on John’s death the wardship of his youthful heir and his distracted
realm vested legally in Pope Honorius III. It might therefore have
been expected that the regency would be at once assumed by the Pope’s
representative in England, the Legate Gualo. But Gualo was an Italian
who had been scarcely fifteen months in the land, and he was a priest.
The needs of the time imperatively demanded that the acting head of
the state, whose first task must be to drive out an alien invader
and bring back rebels to allegiance, should be an Englishman and a
warrior; and Gualo’s conduct showed that neither he nor Honorius ever
contemplated any other arrangement. In all the transactions connected
with the crowning of the new King and the organization of the new
government the Legate seems to have purposely kept himself as much as
possible in the background, guarding the rights of the Pope and the
interests of the Pope’s ward not by direct intervention but rather by
his mere presence, and putting forth his official powers only when
their exercise was required to confirm, by the Papal sanction given
through him, the measures agreed upon by the great men of the land, on
whom the actual responsibility of appointing a regent thus devolved. If
in undertaking that responsibility they were guided by any precedent
or analogy at all, it must have been one drawn from a land far remote
from England, but probably better known to many Englishmen in the days
of Richard Cœur-de-Lion’s nephew than most of the countries nearer
home; a land, too, which for fifty years in the preceding century had
been ruled by kings of the same blood as Richard and Henry themselves.
The “Assizes of Jerusalem” in which the jurisconsults of Cyprus,
towards the end of the thirteenth century, embodied the traditions of
law and custom said to be derived from a code originally compiled by
the first King of the Latins in Jerusalem, Godfrey of Bouillon, and
modified by his successors down to Saladin’s capture of the Holy City
in 1187, contain an ordinance about minor heirs which runs thus: “If
he” (the minor) “is a lord of land”--that is, a sovereign or suzerain
lord--“his body and his fortresses ought to be guarded as shall be
agreed by the community of his men.”[327] This provision had been acted
upon in the case of King Baldwin III, on whose accession, at the age
of thirteen, the princes and barons of the realm claimed and exercised
the right to elect a regent.[328] What the magnates of Palestine thus
did in 1174 the magnates of England did as freely in 1216. Not only did
Gualo make no claim to the regency for himself, but he did not even
attempt to dictate their choice. If indeed that choice was influenced
by any one outside their own circle, that one was the late King. John’s
commendation, however, could scarcely have been needed to point out the
man for the office.

Yet that man was one who had not only passed the age of three score
years and ten,[329] but had passed it without ever having held any
office, in court, camp, or administration, of sufficient importance to
give scope for the display of any special capacities for generalship or
government, or for the acquisition of special knowledge and experience
in the conduct of politics or of war. Neither by birth nor by origin
was William the Marshal a magnate of the highest rank. The founder
of the Marshal family, one Gilbert, who seems to have been either a
cadet or a connexion by marriage of the Norman house of Tancarville,
was marshal to Henry I; that office became hereditary in his family,
and furnished a surname to all his race. The office of the King’s
Marshal was in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a grand serjeanty
and nothing more; the military duties and responsibilities originally
involved in it had long since passed into other hands, and the
material advantages attached to it seem to have been of small extent
and importance; it gave to its holder little more than a position of
honour and dignity in the royal household, the right of carrying the
sword of state on certain public occasions, and, possibly, a sort of
inchoate right to the custody of the royal castle of Marlborough.
William was a younger son; at the age of twelve years or thereabouts
{c. 1155} he was sent, with a companion and a serving-lad, to seek
his fortune abroad, in the household of his father’s cousin William
of Tancarville, the chamberlain of Normandy. There he shewed so
little promise of distinction that the other young squires declared
“William Waste-meat”[330] to be good for nothing but eating, drinking,
and sleeping. The chamberlain, however, had a better opinion of his
young kinsman. He knighted him at a moment when Henry II and Louis
VII were at strife and some partisans of Louis were threatening the
Norman Vexin: and Sir William in his first fight--in defence of the
castle of Drincourt--proved himself well worthy of his spurs.[331] But
immediately afterwards the two Kings made peace; and it was not in
war, but in the tournaments which on the Continent (they were as yet
unknown in England) furnished at once a school of arms and a means of
subsistence for the younger members of the baronial houses in time of
peace, that William first made himself a name.[332]

By 1170 William had acquired such a reputation that he was chosen
by Henry II not only to be a member of the household of the “young
King”--Henry’s eldest son--but was specially appointed to watch over
and direct the lad’s military training.[333] Three years later {1173}
young Henry himself, when offered knighthood at the hands of some of
the noblest and most illustrious among the chivalry of France, declared
that he would receive it only from “the best knight that ever was or
will be,” and handed his sword to William the Marshal.[334] After
nearly twelve years of close companionship {1182} slanderous tongues
parted William from the young King, shortly before the latter’s final
revolt against his father.[335] The slander was, however, detected
and William was recalled[336] in time to watch over his young lord’s
death-bed {1183} and receive his dying charge to fulfil in his stead a
vow which he had made of pilgrimage to the Holy Land.[337] On William’s
return to Europe, early in 1187, Henry II took him into his own service
as a knight of his household;[338] and thenceforth till the hour of
Henry’s death he was the King’s best counsellor and closest friend.[339]

[Sidenote: 1189]

The first act of Henry’s successor was to confirm a grant which Henry
had promised to William, of the hand of the greatest heiress in his
realm, Isabel de Clare.[340] Her heritage included the English earldom
of Pembroke or Striguil, the Norman barony of Longueville, and a fief
in Ireland comprising nearly the whole of the ancient kingdom of
Leinster. William’s marriage suddenly raised him from the position
of a portionless younger son, “without a furrow of land, and with no
fortune but his knighthood,” to that of a magnate of high rank, great
wealth, and considerable territorial importance, and thus gave him,
as a matter of course, a permanent and definite place in the royal
council; but he showed no disposition to take a prominent part in
politics. As one of the subordinate justiciars appointed by Richard
to assist in the government of the realm during the King’s absence on
Crusade, he at first supported John against William of Longchamp, and
afterwards, when John’s treason was made manifest, supported the new
justiciar, Walter of Coutances, against John. After Richard’s return
William was almost constantly with him in Normandy, taking his full
share in the warfare with Philip Augustus which occupied the last five
years of Richard’s life; but his share was that of a devoted follower
and a brave knight, not of a great noble holding an independent
command. It was only at Cœur-de-Lion’s death {1199} that William the
Marshal came to the front of affairs. The dying King had appointed him
constable of the castle of Rouen, which contained the ducal treasure;
it was he who won for Richard’s chosen successor, John, the support of
the Norman primate, and thus largely contributed to secure for John
acceptance in Normandy as duke.[341] The FitzGilbert patrimony had come
to him in 1194, on the death of his elder brother.[342] The earldom of
Pembroke or Striguil, which he had held by courtesy since his marriage
with the young countess, was granted to him by formal investiture on
John’s coronation day;[343] a few months later the office of Marshal
was conferred by royal charter on him and his heirs for ever.[344]
Throughout the greater part of John’s reign {1200–1216} he was sheriff
of Sussex and Gloucestershire, and he was also an assistant justice and
baron of the Exchequer. For some years after John’s accession he seems
to have been in almost constant attendance on the King; during the
Interdict he resided chiefly on his Irish lands. From 1213 onwards he
was again John’s constant companion and his most trusted counsellor;
and in that capacity his name stands in the preamble of the Great
Charter first among the lay magnates in the list of the persons by
whose advice the Charter was granted. Throughout the troubles of the
succeeding year he adhered quietly but steadily to the King, whose
dying testimony has been quoted already--“He has always served me
loyally; in his loyalty, above that of any other man, I put my trust.”

Fifteen years earlier, Richard Cœur-de-Lion had repelled in similar
words a charge of treason insinuated against the Marshal: “God’s Feet!
I have always held him for the most loyal knight in all my realm. I
do not believe he has ever been false.”[345] Three years later, when
the death of the aged regent of England was announced at the court
of France, the flower of the French chivalry vied with each other
in extolling the knightly virtues of their dead enemy, and Philip
Augustus spoke the crowning word of praise: “You have well said--but
what I say is that he was the most loyal man I ever knew in any
place where I have been.”[346] In the epithet unanimously chosen by
three men so unlike each other as Richard, John, and Philip, to sum
up their opinion of William the Marshal, lies the key to his whole
career, and to the peculiar place which he held in the estimation of
his contemporaries. What they admired and reverenced in him was not
genius but character; the character, as a modern French critic has
truly said, of the typical knight without fear and without reproach.
One of William’s friends, Aimeric de Ste.-Maure, the Master of the
Temple, expressed the general verdict in another way; when he and
William were both on their death-beds, he said: “Bury me beside William
the Marshal, the Good Knight, who has won that surname by his probity
on earth and will carry it with him to Heaven.”[347] To be thus
known as pre-eminently “The Good Knight” was to have won the highest
title of honour that the medieval world could bestow. The “probity,”
or “prowess,” which constituted the essence of the ideal knightly
character, was a complex quality, hardly to be expressed by any single
word of modern speech; it included valour and skill in arms; and it
also included, above all else, what the men of the Middle Ages called
“loyalty.” Primarily, to them, loyalty meant the faithful discharge of
the obligations legally involved in the relation between vassal and
lord; obligations, indeed, often disregarded and violated in practice,
but theoretically acknowledged as sacred no less in the days of John
Lackland and Philip Augustus than in the days when they inspired one
of the noblest outbursts of feeling in the noblest epic of ancient
France.[348] This principle of “loyalty” in the medieval sense was
the rule by which the Marshal walked, with a rare steadfastness and
consistency, throughout his life. The very passages in his career which
seem at first glance most difficult to reconcile with modern ideas on
the subject are in reality illustrations of the simple and literal
way in which he followed his rule, and were thoroughly understood as
such by the sovereigns against whom they brought him temporarily into
opposition.[349] He never concerned himself with abstract politics; in
any given circumstances, his sole concern was to do his own duty to his
own lord, whoever that lord might be. He knew neither doubt nor fear.
He was, indeed, constitutionally fearless; personal danger of any kind
was a thing of which he seems to have remained through life almost
as unconscious as when in early childhood, a hostage in the power of
Stephen and condemned to be hurled like a stone from a mangonel into
the castle which his father was defending for the Empress Maud, he
had disarmed the King’s wrath by running up to the deadly engine and
begging for a “swing” in it. But his courage never degenerated into
rashness; he was never eager to fight (except in a tournament) merely
for fighting’s sake, nor willing to countenance violent measures unless
they were imperatively called for by necessity or honour. His temper
was cool and practical. He was no pioneer of reform or of revolution;
he accepted without question the ordinary standards of public opinion
in his day.[350] His ideal was strictly the ideal of his own time; an
ideal, therefore, which all his contemporaries could understand and
appreciate, and which they could see to be fulfilled in his person more
completely than in that of any other man then living, at any rate in
England. As he was true and just in the fulfilment of his duty as a
vassal, so he was true and just in all his dealing. When he was but a
landless knight, living by the ransoms of the prisoners and the sale
of the horses captured by him in tournaments, men already knew that
his word was his bond. His lord the “young King,” Henry II’s son,
habitually “spent so much in every place where he went, that when
the hour of departure came, he knew not how to get away” from his
creditors. “Counts, barons, vavassours” vainly offered to stand surety
for the payment of his debts; the shrewd tradesmen would accept no
such security; but when the Marshal pledged his word that the accounts
should be settled within a month, they exclaimed, “If the Marshal
warrant us, we are as good as paid.”[351] Even so Louis of France,
when from the treasury of England, exhausted by years of confusion
and war, an indemnity was promised him for his losses and expenses in
the invasion, suffered this important item in the terms of peace to
be left without mention in the written treaty, and trusted for its
fulfilment solely to the regent’s plighted word. Jealousy, suspicion,
party-spirit, could find no occasion against a character so simple,
so unpretending, so honest and straightforward as that of William the
Marshal. Thrice in his long life--once by some dastardly comrades who
envied the esteem in which he was held by the two Henrys, twice by King
John--an attempt was made to cast aspersions on his honour. Each time
he met the calumny in the same way; he offered to disprove it by ordeal
of battle. Each time his challenge, uttered in the King’s presence and
in the midst of the court, was answered by a general silence more
significant than words. No man dared encounter William the Marshal in
the ordeal, because every man believed it impossible for the “judgement
of God” to go against the Good Knight who was without fear because his
conscience was without reproach.

In point of fact, the Legate and the magnates at Gloucester in October,
1216, had set up what we now call a regency; but the idea which that
word conveys to us was to them so entirely new and strange that they
seem to have been at first unable to find a name for it. Immediately
after the coronation Earl William the Marshal began to exercise the
functions of a regent, and among them that of issuing letters patent
and close in the King’s name. In these letters he, at first, sometimes
styles himself simply “William Marshal Earl of Pembroke”; but on six
occasions he calls himself “Justiciar.”[352] His assumption of this
title is puzzling in more ways than one. The chief justiciarship of
England was not vacant; it had been given by John in 1215 to Hubert de
Burgh, whose fidelity to John and to his heir is as unquestionable as
that of the Marshal himself, and was being demonstrated by his defence
of Dover against Louis at the very time of the Marshal’s appointment
to the regency. In the thirteenth century an office granted, as was
that of the Justiciar, by letters patent,[353] to be held during the
King’s pleasure, was not vacated by the King’s death, but belonged
of right to the grantee until he was superseded by means of a new
appointment.[354] Twenty years later Hubert himself declared that he
had been Justiciar “without contradiction” ever since his appointment
by John;[355] it is clear, therefore, that the Marshal’s assumption of
the title was not regarded by Hubert as implying any design of ousting
him from his office. There was indeed one precedent, dating from the
time of Richard, for the appointment of two chief Justiciars at once.
But Earl William’s position was from the outset not that of a Justiciar
at all. The Justiciar was the King’s second in command--the foremost
minister of the Crown when the sovereign was present, his lieutenant
and vicegerent when he was absent from the realm; in either case, his
delegate and nothing more. Earl William was not the King’s delegate;
he had not been appointed by the King and was not removable at the
King’s pleasure; he had been called by the Legate and the magnates to
govern the realm during the King’s minority, as guardian of the King
himself. He was, in modern phraseology, not Viceroy but Regent. Still,
there was just sufficient analogy between his functions and those
which, under certain circumstances, appertained to the Justiciar, to
suggest his adoption of that title, in a tentative sort of way, until
a better one could be devised.[356] In a word, as his office was a
novelty and an experiment, so its earliest appellation seems to have
been a makeshift. Before the end of November, 1216, that appellation
was replaced by a loftier and more comprehensive one--“Governor of
the king and of the kingdom.”[357] No attempt seems to have been made
at any further definition either of the limits of his powers, or of
his relation to the royal Council; there was in fact no means of
defining either, nor any authority capable of so doing. In one sense
he was above the council; but in another sense he was merely its most
important member; its other members acted in subordination to him, but
he was not independent of them; they were the King’s councillors, not
his; nay, more--it was from them that he had received his authority,
and he was thus in some sense responsible to them for his exercise
of it. He was also, and above all, in theory at least, responsible
to the Legate and, through the Legate, to the Pope.[358] It is thus
impossible to determine precisely how much of the credit of the policy
which freed England from her invaders and restored peace and order to
the distracted country and the ruined administration is due to the
Marshal himself, and how much to his colleagues, Gualo, Hubert, Peter
des Roches, and the other ministers of the late King. A large share
of credit must in any case belong to them for a steady, faithful, and
intelligent co-operation without which the Marshal obviously could not
have carried on either war or government at all. But it is certain
that for two years and a half after the coronation no act was done in
the King’s name without the Marshal’s consent; for, except on a very
few special occasions, all the royal letters during that period were
attested by him and sealed with his seal.[359] It may therefore fairly
be said that whatsoever they did in England, he was the doer of it.

[Sidenote: 1216–1217]

One thing there was which, it was clearly understood from the outset,
could not be done at all during the King’s minority. No grant in
perpetuity made by, or in the name of, a person under age was valid
by English law. The application of this rule to the case of an infant
King seems not to have been expressed till more than two years after
Henry’s coronation, but it was effectually secured during that time
by an expedient whose simplicity and practicality are eminently
characteristic of the Marshal. A grant in perpetuity on the part of the
Crown was invalid unless sealed with the King’s seal. No great seal was
made for Henry till two years after he was crowned; the seal of the
regent served in its stead.[360] On several occasions during the first
year of the regency grants were made in the King’s name to hold good
“till the fourteenth completed year of our age.”[361] {1216–1217} There
was as yet no fixed rule for the determination of a King’s majority;
but the reigning King of France, Philip Augustus, had been crowned as
his father’s colleague shortly after his fourteenth birthday, and had
exercised the functions of royalty from that time forth. This was the
origin of the rule which fixed the coming of age of later Kings of
France at fourteen years; and Henry’s guardians seem at first to have
contemplated taking Philip’s case as a precedent for that of their own
boy-sovereign.[362] There was no English precedent to guide them. Nine
years later it was asserted that one castellan--Peter de Maulay--had
bound himself by an oath to John not to give back the castles of which
he had charge till Henry should be of legal age.[363] It is possible
that John may have demanded and received such an oath from more than
one of the wardens of the royal castles; but evidently neither they,
the Marshal, nor any of the council knew what was John’s idea--if he
even had one--of what should constitute legal age in the case of his
successor; the definition tentatively suggested at the beginning of
the reign was clearly not based upon any direction left by him. At the
close of 1217 it was abandoned, and its place was taken by a vaguer
formula--“till our coming of age.”[364] The question of when that
was to be could not become urgent for three years at least; it was
therefore wisely put aside for solution at a more convenient season.

[Sidenote: 1215–1216]

Some indications seem to point to another possible restriction on
the powers of the king’s guardians, in the shape of a theory that
their “pleasure” was not legally equivalent to “the King’s pleasure”;
in other words, that appointments made by the late King were not
revocable (except for some special reason) during the minority of his
successor. There is however no evidence that this theory was ever put
into explicit words or formally recognized;[365] and nothing of the
kind is needed to account for the fact that the great majority of the
Crown officers appointed by John were left undisturbed by the Earl
Marshal in their several bailiwicks.[366] Thirteen counties were at
John’s death under sheriffs of foreign birth. Falkes de Bréauté was
sheriff of Northamptonshire, Rutland, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire,
Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire; Peter de Maulay of
Dorset and Somerset; Savaric de Mauléon of Hampshire; Philip Marc of
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire; Engelard de Cigogné (or d’Athée) of
Surrey. The two last named were members of a family on which “the
Barons” of 1215 had conferred a signal mark of distinction, by making
it the subject of a separate article (the fiftieth) in the Great
Charter, whereby John was pledged “to remove altogether from their
bailiwicks the relations of Gerard of Athée,” several of whom, among
them Engelard of Cigogné and Philip Marc, are mentioned by name, “and
all their following, so that they may never more hold any bailiwick
in England.” The reason for this remarkable enactment was, so far as
can be made out from existing evidence, simply this: that when, after
a struggle in which Gerard of Athée fought gallantly for his country
and his Count,[367] the old Angevin lands were conquered by Philip
Augustus, these kinsmen--sprung from a group of little villages between
Tours and Loches--instead of settling down under the new ruler of
Touraine, crossed the sea to seek employment in the service of their
natural-born sovereign and make homes for themselves in his island
realm; that he entrusted them with offices of considerable importance
as well as (in some cases at least) of considerable pecuniary
value, and especially with the command of some of the chief royal
castles;[368] that they fulfilled the duties thus entrusted to them
with fidelity and efficiency, and that they had under their control a
numerous following of dependents who had accompanied or rejoined them
from beyond the sea, and who were, like them, faithful soldiers and
servants of the King. We need seek no further for the grounds on which
the “Barons of the Charter” desired to get rid of Gerard d’Athée and
his kindred;[369] nor for the grounds on which the fiftieth article
of the Great Charter was omitted in the revised version issued by
Gualo and the Marshal in Henry’s name. The only puzzle in the matter
is why the baronial party should have singled out the members of this
particular family by name[370] to be made victims of their jealousy
and fear, and not included the other “alien” officers in the same
condemnation (or commendation); for two at least of those others were
men who by origin, class, and character differed little from Gerard
of Athée and his kinsmen. The third, indeed--Savaric de Mauléon--was
a noble by birth, the head of an illustrious family of baronial rank
in Poitou, and a man of personal distinction in other pursuits besides
that of arms; it is needless to say more of him at present, for, as
he returned to his native land shortly after the council at Bristol,
the military and administrative offices held by him in England were
of necessity transferred to other hands. But Falkes de Bréauté and
Peter de Maulay were simply soldiers of fortune from the continental
dominions of the house of Anjou.[371] Together with the sheriffdom
of Dorset, Peter de Maulay had been entrusted by the late king with
the castle of Corfe, and in it not only the royal treasury and some
important State prisoners, but also the child Richard who was, after
Henry, the next and indeed the only male heir to the Crown. Since
John had deemed Peter a fit person to have such a charge as this,
the darkest hour of the struggle with the enemies of John’s heir
was obviously not the time for removing him from his post. As to
Falkes--called by Matthew Paris “the rod of the Lord’s fury”--he was a
man after John’s own heart, as ruthless and reckless as John himself;
but his fierceness was equalled by his daring valour, his consummate
skill in military affairs, and his zeal in the royal cause. A glance
at the map of England is enough to shew why John had chosen such a man
as this to have charge of the particular group of counties and castles
which he placed under the command of Falkes; and the story of the war
is enough to justify the wisdom of his choice.[372]

[Sidenote: 1217]

The treaty of Kingston was no sooner concluded than both parties set
to work conscientiously to carry its provisions into effect. “Reverted
perverts” came crowding in to the King’s allegiance, and as fast
as they came their lands were ordered to be restored to them.[373]
On 23rd September Louis and Henry joined in summoning Alexander of
Scotland to make restitution of the English lands which he had seized
during the war.[374] Orders were promptly issued for the delivery of
prisoners and the payment of ransoms and other moneys due according
to the terms of the treaty.[375] Only two classes of men suffered any
real punishment for their share in the war. The one class consisted of
men of Norman birth who held or claimed lands in England, and who had
taken the side of Louis; concerning these the sheriffs were warned that
“no seisin is adjudged to them, till the English shall have recovered
their lands in Normandy.”[376] The other class was that of the clergy
who had disobeyed the bishops and the Pope by supporting Louis; and
their punishment came solely from the Legate. On 27th October he went
to London[377] and there meted out condign punishment to the clergy
who had set his excommunication at naught. He “went to the church of
S. Paul, and caused all the altars and all the chalices to be broken
up, and all the vestments to be burnt, and new ones to be put in their
place; and he put in new canons; and the old ones who had chanted the
service in defiance of him he deprived of all their benefices; and
he made the beneficed clergy of the town exchange their parishes for
upland ones.”[378] “Some of the clergy he degraded; some he sent,
still excommunicate, to the threshold of the Apostles.”[379] Thirteen
clerks “who used threatening language to him and his” he put in ward
at Westminster.[380] What ultimately became of them we are not told;
but on 18th February next year {1218} all clerks under sentence of
excommunication for adherence to Louis were, in the king’s name, bidden
to leave England before Mid-Lent (22nd March), and warned that if found
there after that date, they would be kept in ward “till the king should
give further orders concerning them.”[381]

On Sunday, 29th October, 1217--a year and a day after his
coronation--the young King entered his capital.[382] “He was received
with glory, and fealty and homage were done to him,” no doubt by the
citizens and by many other “reverted perverts.” During the ensuing week
“many discussions were held by the King’s guardians and the leading men
of the kingdom concerning the ordering of the realm, the establishment
of peace, and the abolition of evil customs.”[383] The outcome of
these deliberations was a new issue of the Charter,[384] or what seems
to have been meant to be regarded as the issue of a new Charter; for
the preamble (which, except for the names, is a copy of the preamble
of Magna Charta) ignores all earlier documents. As a matter of fact,
however, this Charter is a revised edition of the Charter of 1216,
from which it differs only in the following particulars: In the
article concerning widows, the amount of legal dowry is, for the
first time, defined: it is fixed at a third part of all the husband’s
lands, “unless she have been dowered with a less amount at the church
door.”[385] The article relating to the judicial eyres and the three
recognitions is modified. Recognitions of mort d’ancester and novel
disseisin are to be taken in the several shires before justices who
are to be sent thither once (instead of four times) a year, and who
are to hold the assizes “with the knights of the shires”[386]--not, it
seems, as in 1215 and 1216, with four knights specially elected for the
purpose; if these assizes cannot be completed on the day fixed, the
cases are to be dealt with, not as in 1215 and 1216 by a sufficient
number of knights and freeholders who are to remain on the spot for
that intent, but by the judges “elsewhere on their eyre,” or if the
cases are too difficult they are to be referred to and settled by
the judges of the Bench;[387] and the assizes of darrein presentment
are to be always held and settled by these last-named judges.[388]
In the article regulating the imposition of amercements the king’s
villeins are excepted from the safeguard given to the villeins of other
lords.[389] The article concerning the requisition of corn or cattle
is modified by the extension of the limit of time for payment from
twenty-one days to forty.[390] On the other hand, carts belonging to
an ecclesiastical person, a knight, or a lady, are henceforth not to
be requisitioned at all.[391] The unsupported accusation of a Crown
bailiff is henceforth to be insufficient not only for sending a man
to the ordeal, but also for compelling him to make compurgation.[392]
The King’s promise to take no unfair advantage of his possession of
escheats is made still more definite.[393] Of the six matters spoken
of in John’s Charter which were expressly mentioned in clause 42 of
the Charter of 1216 as being postponed for future consideration--the
assessment of scutages and aids, the rights of Jewish and other
creditors against the heirs of deceased debtors, liberty of ingress
into and egress from the realm, the regulation of forests and warrens,
the customs of the shires, and the river-enclosures and their
keepers--the fourth was left to be dealt with in a separate Charter
of the Forest; to three others as many new articles were devoted. No
river-enclosures are henceforth to be kept up save those which were
in existence in the time of Henry II.[394] Respecting the “customs
of the shires,” the provision in the twenty-fifth chapter of Magna
Charta (to which the words on that subject in the closing paragraph
of Henry’s first Charter must refer), that all shires and other local
jurisdictions except those on the royal domains shall be at their “old
ferm” without increment, is not renewed; but in its stead there is a
clause regulating the holding of the county courts and the sheriff’s
tourn. The shire court is to be held not oftener than once a month, and
at longer intervals where such have been customary. No sheriff or his
bailiff is to make his tourn in the hundred except twice a year--after
Easter and after Michaelmas--and only in the proper and accustomed
place. View of frankpledge is to be made at Michaelmas term, in such
a manner “that every man shall have the liberties which he used to
have in the time of our grandfather King Henry, or which he has since
acquired, and so that our peace shall be kept, and the tithing shall be
complete as it was wont to be; and the sheriff is to seek no occasions,
and is to be content with what the sheriff used to have for holding his
view in King Henry’s time.”[395] Concerning the once crucial question
which had furnished the original pretext for the rising of the barons
against John, the guardians could now venture to reassert the rights
of the Crown; and they did so, but in terms carefully chosen so as
to avoid all reference to the late troubles: “Scutage shall be taken
henceforth as it used to be taken in the time of our grandfather King
Henry.”[396] Two other new articles were added, whose connexion with
the scutage clause is not difficult to see. The one enacted that
henceforth no free man should either give away or sell so much of his
land as that the residue should be insufficient to furnish the service
due to the lord of the fief;[397] the other forbade that any man should
give his land to a religious house for the purpose of receiving it
back again to hold of that house, and enacted that if any man were
convicted of so doing, his donation should be void, and his land
forfeited to the lord.[398] The other omissions were disposed of, for
the moment, by a general saving clause: “Reserving to the archbishops,
bishops, abbots, priors, Templars, Hospitallers, earls, barons, and
all other persons both ecclesiastical and secular, the liberties and
free customs which they had before.”[399] Lastly, it was ordained also
“by common consent of the whole realm” that all adulterine castles,
that is, castles which had been built or rebuilt since the beginning
of the war between the late King and his barons, should be immediately
destroyed.[400] This Charter has no date. It was, doubtless issued
in the early days of November; probably on the 6th, for on that day
there was issued a Charter of the Forest which dealt amply with the
grievances connected with the abuse of Forest law.[401]

The article concerning scutage was inserted in the Charter for an
immediate and important purpose; it was the ratification of a tax
which the Council had imposed a few days before the Charters were
issued. Of the many problems with which the Marshal and his colleagues
had to grapple one of the most urgent and most difficult was that of
finance. The confused entries on the Pipe Rolls of John’s later years
indicate that the financial administration of the realm had been
gradually drifting towards chaos from 1212 onwards; in 1215 chaos was
reached, and the machinery of the Exchequer came to a standstill.
After Michaelmas, 1214, no session of the Exchequer was held, no
accounts were rendered by any of the sheriffs or other bailiffs of
the Crown, for more than three years. John had met the expenses of
the war partly by payments out of the treasury, partly by means of
writs addressed to various fiscal officers throughout the country,
directing them to make on his behalf certain payments out of the ferms
for which they were accountable at the Exchequer.[402] As, however,
“no one”--as a chronicler says--“would pay any money to the King” or
his representatives, and as a considerable part of the kingdom was in
the possession of the enemy, both of these resources must have been
well-nigh exhausted before the death of John, who was in fact reduced
at last to sheer plunder to provide for the maintenance of his troops.
The Marshal at the outset of his regency seems to have sought help
towards providing the sinews of war in the levy of a hidage, carucage,
and “aid,” this last word probably representing a tallage from the
towns. Of the time and circumstances of their imposition there is no
record, but it is most probable that the matter was decided in the
council at Bristol immediately after the coronation, in November,
1216.[403] Of course none of these taxes could be collected in the
districts which were under the control of Louis or his partisans. In
July, 1217, the Pope ordered the prelates to contribute an aid to
the King’s necessities.[404] Meanwhile wages, allowances, and other
payments were made by means of jewels from the royal treasury, and in
cloth of silk, samite, and baldaquin from the royal wardrobe.[405]

At the earliest possible moment an effort was made to revive the
working of the Exchequer. Its records were for some time previous
to the end of the war in the possession of Louis, and were restored
only on the conclusion of peace in the middle of September;[406] the
session seems therefore to have been appointed for Martinmas,[407]
instead of Michaelmas which was the customary date. Before Martinmas
came, however, it was found, apparently, that some of the sheriffs
could not get their accounts ready by the appointed day; and ultimately
they seem to have been allowed to bring them up at various times
from November, 1217, till a fortnight after Easter, 1218.[408] The
accounts thus rendered were those for the first half of the seventeenth
(fiscal) year of King John, from Michaelmas, 1214, to Easter, 1215; in
other words, the last fiscal half-year completed before the outbreak
of war between the barons and the King.[409] For the second half
of that year, and for the whole of the two succeeding years up to
Michaelmas, 1217, no accounts were ever rendered or demanded; the
first Pipe Roll of Henry III is the roll of his second year, from
Michaelmas, 1217, to Michaelmas, 1218, and it contains no mention of
arrears.[410] This arrangement was both practical and equitable. The
accounts for 1215–1217 must in many cases, through no fault of the
persons responsible for them, have been in a confusion impossible to
disentangle; some of the shires had been entirely in the possession of
the King’s enemies; to many of the sheriffs and other Crown bailiffs
the King must have been really more in debt than they were to him. With
a budget thus restricted and a treasury thus exhausted the Marshal had
to carry on the King’s government and pay the indemnity which he had
promised to Louis.

“Our faithful Earl William the Marshal has bound himself to the Lord
Louis on our behalf, under no small penalty, to the payment of ten
thousand marks, for the boon of peace between Louis and ourself”--such
is the official statement made, a year later, in a letter written in
Henry’s name to the Pope.[411] This amount was independent of the
sums due to Louis, according to the terms of the treaty, from towns
and individuals who had made agreement with him on condition of a
financial aid or tribute which they had not yet paid; the aggregate of
these latter sums appears to have been reckoned at something between
five and seven thousand marks.[412] On 23rd September letters patent
were issued ordering that these debts should be paid without delay
to Louis’s Marshal, William de Beaumont.[413] For the receipt of
the indemnity Louis appointed as his attorneys two merchants of S.
Omer, Florence (or Florentinus) “the Rich” and his son William. This
appointment seems to have been made for the joint convenience of Louis
and Henry. Louis apparently wanted six thousand marks sterling paid
down, and received them from Florence and William, who themselves
supplied the amount on a promise made to them on 23rd September in
Henry’s name that half the sum thus advanced should be repaid to them
on All Saints’ day and the rest at Candlemas; a part of the first
instalment of repayment was to be made in fells and wool; if these
were not duly delivered Henry was to pay Florence and William an
additional sum of five hundred marks sterling “for the profit of that
merchandise.” If the whole debt to the two merchants were not paid at
the term appointed, Count Peter of Brittany and Robert of Arène were
authorized by the King, the Earl Marshal, and the royal Council to
seize and hold on behalf of Louis “any goods belonging to the King and
his realm that they could get, to the value of the amount due,” until
it was paid.[414] A letter from the Marshal in his own name to the
King of France at once illustrates the scrupulous honesty for which he
had long been renowned, and shews that he doubted the possibility of
fulfilling these promises to Florence. “If,” he writes, “our agreement
with Florence be not kept, we desire and grant that you assign all
the land which we hold of you to Florence and his son till the whole
debt and interest due to them shall be discharged, saving only our
service to you for the said lands.”[415] His doubts were justified;
eleven months later the debt to Florence and William still amounted to
no less than two thousand one hundred and fifty marks.[416] To bring
it down to this he had had to borrow more than five hundred marks in
the King’s name from various merchants of Ireland, Wales, and England,
and several hundred more from other individuals, and to lend nine
hundred marks out of his own purse;[417] and the financial straits of
the Crown are further illustrated by the fact that the total of wool
required for the first instalment of repayment to Florence had had to
be made up by seizing several sacks belonging to individual merchants
at Northampton fair, one of whom did not receive compensation till the
end of November, 1218, while another had to wait for it till the middle
of February, 1219.[418] It seems to have been originally proposed that
the whole indemnity should be paid by S. Andrew’s day, 1217;[419] but
this was manifestly impracticable. The account with Louis was in fact
not closed till 1219 at the earliest, for the last five hundred marks
needed to wipe out the debt were lent to Henry by Gualo’s successor in
the legation, Pandulf.[420]

The very first thing, therefore, to be laid before and sanctioned by
the Great Council of the realm when at the end of October, 1217, it
was once more gathered round the sovereign in his capital city, was
a scheme of taxation for the year. This consisted of a scutage of
the ordinary amount--two shillings on the knight’s fee--a tallage,
a hidage, and a carucage. These taxes were imposed, as had been
the practice in the time of Henry II, in the full council of the
barons.[421] The formal imposition of the scutage must have taken
place on the very day of Henry’s entry into London, 29th October, or at
latest on the following morning. This tax was avowedly destined for the
payment of the indemnity.[422] It was obviously for purposes connected
with finance that an inquisition concerning the King’s demesne lands
had been ordered in September;[423] and on 9th November, commissioners
were despatched to assess the tallage on these demesnes, and to make
searching inquiries about escheats and about all lands “into which
there is no entry except through the sheriffs or bailiffs and without
due warrant,”[424] and to seize all such into the King’s hand.[425]
At the same time the King’s justiciars in Ireland were directed to
lay a “tallage and efficacious aid” upon the cities, towns, and royal
demesnes in that country, and to “beg of the Kings of Connaught and
Thomond and the other kings in Ireland, and of the barons and knights
who held in chief of the King, such an efficient aid that the King
should evermore be thankful to them”; and they were further exhorted to
send the money thus collected to England with all possible speed.[426]

The first judicial eyre of the new reign seems to have been held very
soon after the second issue of the Charter, and to have had for one
of its objects the administering of the oath of fealty to the King’s
subjects in general. To one district, at least, there went six justices
itinerant before whom the knights and other free men swore that they
would keep the peace of the Church, the King, and the realm, and would
help and defend all persons who were willing to keep it likewise; that
they would obey all “reasonable” commands of the King, and uphold the
royal rights, and hold the good laws and customs of the realm; that
if any man should presume to contravene the same, they would at the
bidding of the King and his council come together faithfully in force
and amend the matter to the utmost of their power; that “neither for
hatred, nor favour, nor fear” would they fail to keep their fealty;
that they would do and receive justice according to the reasonable
customs and laws of England; that no previous or subsequent oath should
hinder their observance of all these things; and that “in all these
things they would support the Marshal.”[427]

The various dependencies of the English Crown had next to be secured.
Alexander of Scotland had taken advantage of the troubles in England
to seize the town and castle of Carlisle. As early as 23rd September,
1217, the Marshal peremptorily demanded restitution of these and of the
other lands and the prisoners taken by Alexander during the war; and
at the same time he bade the prelates and magnates of the North, if
Alexander did not immediately comply with the demand, give the sheriff
of Cumberland their “efficient aid and counsel” in forcing him to do
so.[428] Alexander seems to have yielded at once. The Marshal had a
hold over him; the English honour of Huntingdon, which the Scot Kings
had held since 1136 and which they dearly prized, was in the hand of
King Henry. On 6th November an escort was ordered to meet Alexander at
Berwick on S. Andrew’s day and bring him “to speak with us and do to
us what he ought to do.”[429] The meeting seems to have taken place
on 17th or 18th December at Northampton;[430] on the 19th Alexander,
having done his homage, received seisin of his English lands,[431] and
a safe-conduct till Candlemas Day for his journey home.[432]

Far more troublesome and dangerous vassals than the Scot king were the
native princes of Wales. In ancient times Wales had been divided into
three kingdoms: Gwynedd, answering roughly to the modern counties of
Flint, part of Denbigh, Carnarvon, Anglesey, and the western part
of Merioneth; Powys, stretching from the mouth of the Dee to the
river Wye, and including, besides the southern part of what is now
Denbighshire and the eastern part of Merioneth, the present shires of
Montgomery and Radnor; and Deheubarth, which included, besides the
remaining shires of the modern South Wales, the district of Monmouth
as far east as the Wye. These three kingdoms had been separate and
independent, although a sort of overlordship or primacy seems to have
been recognized as appertaining to the Kings of Gwynedd. By the end
of the twelfth century Gwynedd was the only one of these three States
which remained purely Welsh in population and government. The whole of
Deheubarth and the greater part of Powys were dotted over with Norman
castles, every one of which was the capital of a lordship held by a
baron of Norman or English race, owning allegiance to no one save the
English King.[433] Neither these “marcher lords” nor their sovereign,
however, had made any real progress towards conquering the country or
its people; they were, so to say, detachments of a feudal host encamped
here and there in a foreign land, and surrounded by a native population
which still maintained its own customs and laws and recognized no
authority except that of its own hereditary chieftains. Between the two
peoples there was a bitter racial and national feud; but the relations
between the Norman lords marchers and the Welsh princes varied greatly.
It was not for the interest of the former to quarrel unnecessarily with
their Welsh neighbours at any time; and when they themselves chanced to
be in rebellion against their own sovereign--as was the case with some
of them, notably with the great house of Breuse in south-eastern Wales,
in the latter years of John’s reign--they naturally found it convenient
to make alliance with the native rulers of the land. These, on the
other hand, were often at feud among themselves, and did not scruple to
make use of the marchers’ aid against one another when it suited them,
though at other times they were ready to make common cause against the
common enemy.

[Sidenote: 1216]

At the opening of Henry’s reign the native element in Wales was
very distinctly in the ascendent. The old superiority, or primacy,
of Gwynedd had once more become a living thing. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth
had been for more than twenty years {1194–1216} extending his power
over the southern and eastern principalities. He had in 1206 accepted
the hand of John’s elder daughter Joan--the child, seemingly, of
John’s early dissolved marriage with Isabel of Gloucester[434]--but
throughout the civil war his sympathies were openly and actively
with John’s enemies. In 1215 he “and the Welsh princes in general”
attacked Caermarthen and destroyed the castle, and also took and
destroyed most of the other castles in South Wales.[435] On the other
hand, his chief rival, Gwenwynwyn, the prince of southern Powys,
offered his service to John; whereupon Llywelyn, with “most of the
princes,” marched into Powys and “took possession of Gwenwynwyn’s
whole territory to himself” in 1216.[436] At the close of 1215 the
Bishop of Hereford had died.[437] He was Giles de Breuse, the head of
a family whose patrimony--comprising Radnor, Brecon, and Abergavenny
in Wales, besides Totnes and Barnstaple in Devonshire and Bramber in
Sussex--had been forfeited to the Crown in 1210 under circumstances
which made it well-nigh impossible that confidence should ever be
restored between the house of Breuse and King John. Giles had indeed,
only a few weeks before his death, fined with the King for restitution
of all the lands which had been his father’s;[438] but his next
brother, Reginald, on succeeding to his hereditary claims, set himself
to prosecute them by making common cause with the King’s enemies in
Wales. Llywelyn was now at the height of his triumph, not only in
Powys, but also in Deheubarth; in 1216, at Aberdovey, in his presence
and obviously under his dictation, South Wales was portioned out
between the four rival representatives of its sovereign house, Maelgwn
and Rhys “the Hoarse” and their nephews “Young Rhys” and Owen.[439]
These latter were cousins to Reginald de Breuse.[440] With Llywelyn
Reginald formed a closer connexion by taking one of his daughters to
wife.[441] In August, 1216, John visited the Welsh border and sought
to win the support of some of the princes, and also of Reginald de
Breuse, but it “did not avail him anything.”[442] Evidently they all
saw in John’s extremity, and after his death in his successor’s youth
and helplessness, their long-desired opportunity for revenge; and we
can hardly doubt that it was a combination of Welshmen and followers
of Reginald de Breuse who attacked Goodrich on the eve of Henry’s
coronation. Gualo’s interdict published a fortnight later shows how
clearly it was understood that Wales as a whole “held with the barons.”

Early in 1217 the Earl Marshal wrote in the young King’s name to
Reginald de Breuse, urging him to return to his allegiance and
promising that if he did so, the whole of his patrimony should be
restored to him.[443] Reginald however continued obstinate till the
Royalist victory at Lincoln. Then he, like many others, seems to have
realized that the tide had turned, and that it was time for him to turn
likewise. Before Midsummer he had submitted, and he was soon reinstated
in the Irish and English possessions of his father.[444] His Welsh
kinsfolk promptly punished his desertion of their party; Rhys and Owen
wrested from him “the whole of Builth except the castles”; Llywelyn
marched upon Brecknock. Reginald however succeeded in patching up some
kind of peace with his father-in-law, who thereupon turned his arms
against the Flemings of Pembrokeshire, and compelled {Sept.} them all
to promise him tribute and submission.[445]

[Sidenote: 1217]

To Llywelyn, as to King Alexander, the treaty of Kingston was duly
notified by Louis.[446] The new Bishop of Hereford and the Bishop
of Coventry were, it seems, empowered by the Legate to receive
the submission of all the Welsh princes and absolve them from
excommunication at Hereford on 18th November; when this was done,
Hugh de Mortimer[447] and some other barons were to escort them to
Northampton for a meeting with the King.[448] Henry and the Marshal
were at Northampton on 17th and 18th December;[449] but evidently
the Welsh princes did not come. It may have been to keep guard on
the Welsh border that the Marshal took his young sovereign to keep
Christmas at Gloucester,[450] and lingered with him in the west of
England throughout the first four months of the new year {1218}. In
February, 1218, a safe-conduct was issued to Llywelyn that he might
come and do homage to the King at Worcester.[451] No date is fixed in
the letter, and no record of the homage appears to exist; but there can
be no doubt that it was performed at the appointed place on or before
17th March, for on that day, at Worcester, the castles of Cardigan and
Caermarthen with the lands appertaining to them were committed by the
King and his council to his “beloved brother-in-law Llywelyn, Prince of
North Wales,” that he might hold them till the King’s coming of age,
maintaining them out of their own revenues, and administering justice
within their territories in the King’s name.[452]

[Sidenote: 1218]

Two days before, a safe-conduct had been issued to all the magnates
of both North and South Wales to come and do homage at Worcester at
the close of Easter (22nd April).[453] It does not appear whether
any of them came, except Llywelyn, who seems to have come for a
special purpose. Morgan, the lord of Caerleon-upon-Usk, had taken
no notice of repeated admonitions from Louis to observe the treaty
of Kingston, and had deliberately broken truce by slaying in one
day no less than ten Anglo-Normans of gentle birth, and also burning
twenty-two churches.[454] The Marshal had put an effectual stop to
such proceedings on Morgan’s part; he “fought against Caerleon and
took it”[455]--that is, according to his own biographer, his bailiff
“called up his men and his friends and besieged Caerleon, and it was
taken.” At the “parliament” at Worcester Llywelyn asked that Morgan
should, like the other allies of Louis, be formally reinstated in
the right to hold his land “according to the terms of the treaty,”
that is, as he had held it before the war. The regent, acting on the
advice of “his council”--defined as “all those who were in fealty to
him”[456]--refused, on the ground of Morgan’s flagrant infraction of
the peace; and the “parliament” adjudged Caerleon and its appurtenances
to its conqueror.[457] The general homage of Welsh magnates seems to
have been postponed from the close of Easter to the morrow of Ascension
day, 25th May.[458] On that or the following day, at Woodstock,[459] it
at last took place, so far at least as concerned Deheubarth; the Welsh
chronicles themselves tell us that “young Rhys went himself, and all
the princes, by the advice of Llywelyn, to the court of the king, from
South Wales, to do him homage.”[460]

The homage of King Ragnald “of the Isles”--that is, the Isle of Man and
the Orkneys--took longer to win, probably because he was geographically
more difficult to reach. On 16th January, 1218, he was summoned to come
over and do homage “and make amends for the excesses committed by his
men against King Henry’s men, both in England and in Ireland,” and a
safe-conduct was given him, to last till 30th April,[461] but he did
not come; on 1st May another safe-conduct was issued to him, till 1st
August,[462] again with no result; and it was not till September, 1219,
that he actually came.[463] Neither his personal contumacy nor the
piratical “excesses” of his seafaring subjects, however, constituted a
real danger to the peace of the realm.

[Sidenote: 1217]

In the Irish dominions of the English Crown the first trouble that
arose under the new reign came neither from the barons nor from the
people, but from the Justiciar. Geoffrey de Marsh, who had held that
office in Ireland since 1215, no sooner heard of the death of King
John {1216} than he despatched to Henry, or to his guardians, letters
in which he assured his young sovereign of his fidelity, and asked
for instructions how to act for the furtherance of his interests in
Ireland. He seems to have suggested that the Queen-mother, or the
heir-presumptive, little Richard, should be sent thither to represent
the Crown.[464] The Marshal sent him in reply a letter in the King’s
name, informing him of the coronation and the proceedings of the
council of Bristol, and requesting him to receive for Henry the
homage of the magnates and the King’s other subjects in Ireland; also
promising to send them in return a confirmation of the same liberties
which had just been granted to their fellow-subjects in England.
The suggestion about the Queen and Richard was politely waived with
an assurance that it should be duly considered. Geoffrey was warmly
thanked for his past and present loyalty, and entreated to redouble
his efforts in behalf of a King whose tender years made him the more
in need of his liegemen’s counsel and aid.[465] On 6th February,
1217, a copy of the Charter was sent to Ireland with a letter in the
King’s name addressed to all the King’s faithful subjects in Ireland,
expressing his desire that as a reward for their fidelity to his
father and a motive for its continuance towards himself they and their
heirs for ever should, of his grace and gift, enjoy the same liberties
which his father and he had granted to the realm of England.[466]
The Marshal’s policy was to bind the English March in Ireland as
closely as possible to the Crown; he had already issued letters patent
forbidding the election of Irishmen to cathedral dignities within the
King’s land in Ireland, “because by such elections the peace of that
land has frequently been disturbed,” and commanding that when such
dignities fell vacant, clerks of the King and other “honest Englishmen
useful to us” (the King) “and our realm” should be elected and promoted
thereto by the joint counsel of the Archbishop of Dublin and the
Justiciar.[467] The Archbishop of Dublin, Henry of London, was at that
time in England; but on 16th April, “although,” writes the King to the
barons in Ireland, “we feel his presence here is most necessary to us
and our realm, and we can hardly do without his counsel,” he was sent
to “visit and console” his diocese, and also expressly to assist the
Justiciar with his counsel and support in ordering and amending the
condition of the King’s Irish territory; while the Justiciar was bidden
to “acquiesce in all things” in the counsel of the Archbishop, and to
be guided by it in his expenditure of the money received at the Dublin
Exchequer, “forasmuch as the King wills that nothing be done without
his assent.”[468]

The position of the Justiciar of the Irish March at this time was very
much more independent than that of the Chief Justiciar of England. The
Justiciar in Ireland seems to have practically had the entire control
of the whole machinery of government, administration, and finance,
throughout the King’s Irish domains. The revenues due to the Crown,
whether derived from demesne lands, or from taxes, or tolls, or from
the proceeds of escheats, fines, wardships, reliefs, and the like, seem
to have all passed through his hands. The fixed revenue of the Crown
lands was assigned to him for the necessary expenses of government and
for maintaining the defence of the land and the garrisons of the royal
castles, and in remuneration of his own services; the residue he was
supposed to pay into the Exchequer in Dublin, for transmission to the
King when required. Moreover, it seems to have been he who appointed
the wardens of the King’s castles throughout the March.[469] Such a
system offered facilities for almost unlimited embezzlement on the part
of a dishonest Justiciar, or mismanagement and waste on the part of an
incompetent one; while it left to the English government scarcely any
means of proving a charge of either dishonesty or incompetence against
an officer at once so remote and invested with so much independent
authority. It seems clear that the reports, and the results, of
Geoffrey’s financial administration which reached England were not
satisfactory to the regent, and that the Archbishop of Dublin was
really sent not so much to “assist” the Justiciar as to hold him in
check and keep a watch on his proceedings. Eight months later Geoffrey
had to be reprimanded[470] for not having yet executed a royal order
issued on Midsummer day for the restoration of Limerick to Reginald de
Breuse[471]; and on 12th February, 1218, a long letter of remonstrance
was written to him in the King’s name. He had been bidden to come over
and do his homage, and certify the King as to the state of the Crown’s
Irish lands; the King is “greatly surprised” that he has not yet come,
and again bids him come without fail before Easter next, and bring with
him all the money that the King’s subjects and bailiffs in Ireland can
be induced to furnish, for the payment of the debt to Louis, and of six
hundred marks owed to the Pope, being two years’ arrears of the tribute
due to him from Ireland.[472] Whether Geoffrey sent any money does not
appear; he certainly did not come over in person; probably, however, he
made some excuse which gave the Marshal no grounds for questioning his
loyalty, for his homage was left in abeyance till after the Marshal’s
death.

[Sidenote: 1218]

In England itself every effort was made by the government to carry out
loyally the terms of the treaty of Kingston and the provisions of the
Charter. On 22nd February the two Charters--the Charter of Liberties
and that of the Forest--were sent certainly to one, probably to all of
the sheriffs, with instructions to publish them in the shire-courts,
and to make all the men of the shire swear to the observance of
them, as well as to take an oath of fealty to the King; especial
stress was laid on the execution of the last clause in the Charter of
Liberties, which enjoined the destruction of adulterine castles.[473]
In July the chief Justiciar of the Forest, John Marshal, the regent’s
nephew, was despatched on a Forest circuit to make arrangements
for deafforestations to be carried out according to the Forest
Charter.[474] Such of the prisoners taken during the war, and of their
captors, as were dissatisfied with regard to questions of ransom were
by public proclamation, made through the sheriffs each in his shire,
invited or summoned to shew their complaints on 6th May before the
King’s council at Westminster, for the settlement of their respective
claims and the composing of their mutual differences.[475]

[Sidenote: 1217]

As a chronicler says, “it was difficult speedily to satisfy the
desires of all men, and to allay in a moment the rancour of so many
dissidents”; and it was also, after the turmoil of the last few years,
difficult for men of the fighting classes to settle down to a life
of peace. Some of them “found an outlet for the relics of discord”
in tournaments.[476] The real war was no sooner ended {1217} than
Englishmen became possessed by a rage for these military exercises,
which until the time of King Richard had never been permitted in
England, and were everywhere and always discountenanced by the
Church. Their revival at a moment when the embers of war were still
smouldering was obviously a matter of grave peril, requiring to be
dealt with promptly and firmly. It was a curious turn of fate that
compelled the Earl Marshal, who had spent his youth and acquired
his knightly repute in the lists of France and Flanders, to use his
power for the suppression of this mimic warfare in his native land;
and the first letter patent in which a tournament was forbidden by
him--on 4th October, 1217, little more than a week after the departure
of Louis--reveals with characteristic simplicity his reluctance to
commit his young sovereign to a condemnation of tournaments in general;
“Know ye,” the King is made to say, “that we will and ordain that this
tournament be not held, for no other reason than this, that we fear a
disturbance of our realm; which may God avert.”[477] Ten months later
the young King’s uncle, Earl William of Salisbury, was forbidden to
hold a tournament for which he was making preparations at Northampton,
“till by God’s help and the counsel of our faithful men, and of
yourself” (Salisbury), “the state of peace in our realm shall be made
firmer and more secure.”[478] Similar prohibitions occur again and
again;[479] but they were ineffectual, by 1220 the condemned practice
had become so general that, according to one monastic chronicler,
“tourneyers, their aiders and abettors, and those who carried
merchandise or victuals to tournaments were ordered to be all together
excommunicated every Sunday.”[480]

[Sidenote: 1218]

Other restless spirits seem to have found occupation in persecuting
the Jews. In March, 1218, the Jews of Gloucester, Lincoln, Oxford,
and Bristol were placed under the special charge of twenty-four
citizens in each city, whose names were to be enrolled, and who were
to guard the Jews against molestation from any one, “especially from
Crusaders”;[481] and it was probably to facilitate the duties of these
guardians, by rendering the persons under their charge distinguishable
at a glance, that the Jews were all ordered to wear, when out of
doors, two white “tablets” of linen or parchment on the front of their
upper garment.[482] These ordinances were no doubt called forth by
some unrecorded outrages whose origin we may, from the words about
“Crusaders,” gather to have been closely connected with a matter which
was now beginning to engage more worthily the militant spirits of the
time. In November, 1215, a General Council assembled at Rome under
Innocent III had decreed a new Crusade, in response to an appeal for
succour which the King of the Latins in Holy Land, John de Brienne, had
made three years before. Some English barons and knights had taken the
Cross, but they had been too much occupied with the troubles in their
own land to attempt the fulfilment of their vow till the civil war was
ended. Whenever and wherever a Crusade was preached, the ruder and more
ignorant among the votaries of the Cross, in their impatience to attack
its enemies, were too apt to begin with those who were nearest at
hand, and who were also most unpopular on other grounds than religious
ones--the Jews. It is, however, highly probable that the general
peace of the realm was the more easily preserved during the next year
or two because several of the leading barons of both parties in the
civil war now took themselves out of the country altogether, and went
to sink their differences, for a while at least, in the common cause
of Christendom against Islam. The first of the magnates who actually
set out, it seems, were two steady loyalists, the Earls of Chester
and Ferrers, who with Brian de Lisle, John de Lacy the constable of
Chester, William de Harcourt, “and many others,” started at the end
of May or beginning of June 1218.[483] Within a few months the Earl
of Arundel,[484] Baldwin de Vere, Geoffrey de Lucy, Odonel the son
of William d’Aubigny,[485] and the king’s half-brother Oliver,[486]
all took the Cross, and so did two of the leaders of the other
party--Robert FitzWalter and Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester.[487]
Saer died {1219} in Holy Land,[488] and so did Baldwin de Vere; Robert
FitzWalter came home in broken health,[489] and seems thenceforth to
have withdrawn from public life.

[Sidenote: 1217]

Still there remained men of both parties whom it was hard to bring
or keep under control. Throughout Henry’s minority his guardians
found themselves at intervals in difficulties with certain men who
“presumed to keep in their hands, contrary to the King’s prohibition
and the will of the owners, castles and lands belonging to some of
the bishops and magnates”[490]--and, the chronicler might have added,
to the King himself. The earliest case of flagrant insubordination
in this respect was that of Robert de Gouy. In 1215 Bishop Hugh of
Lincoln had delivered to King John the castles belonging to his see, to
be garrisoned for and by the King during his struggle with the rebel
barons. One of these castles, Newark, was given in charge by John
to Robert de Gouy, on condition of an oath sworn by Robert that in
case of John’s death he would surrender the place to no one save the
bishop.[491] Two months later John died in that very castle. On 10th
June, 1217, Robert was by letters patent ordered to deliver Newark
to its rightful owner.[492] It seems to have been anticipated that he
might plead his oath to John as binding him to surrender the place only
to the bishop in person; Henry de Coleville, a knight holding land
under the see of Lincoln, was sent by the bishop to Newark, accredited
by letters under the bishop’s seal authorizing him to receive the
castle in the bishop’s stead, and also carrying letters from the Legate
certifying that he, Gualo, was responsible for the bishop’s detention
in London on business of state. Robert, however, refused to deliver
Newark to Henry de Coleville, partly, it seems, on the ground of his
oath, partly on the plea that the Crown owed him some money. On 23rd
June the Council in the King’s name promised that if this latter plea
should prove to be just, Robert’s claims should be satisfied, provided
that he delivered Newark to Coleville without further delay.[493]
This second summons had to be followed up by a third, on 23rd July,
insisting that Robert should either at once obey, or come before the
King’s Court at Oxford on 5th August, to hear and do what the Council
should determine.[494] The Council’s decision appears to have simply
confirmed the mandate of 23rd June; on 13th August De Gouy is told that
he has made himself liable to a very severe sentence by his contempt of
the judgement of the King’s Court in still retaining Newark, but, in
consideration of his long service to the late King and the present one,
his claim shall be satisfied if he will without fail come and stand to
the judgement of the King’s Court concerning the castle on 31st August
at Oxford.[495] It was, however, not till 26th October that Robert made
a formal surrender of Newark into the hands of the King himself, for
the Bishop of Lincoln, and took an oath that within forty days he would
clear the place of himself and his men and deliver it bodily to the
bishop in person or to whomsoever the bishop should delegate for that
purpose; and also that in the meantime he would do no harm or damage
to any of the bishop’s men, lands, or goods. The constables of Lincoln
and Nottingham (the two nearest royal castles) were bidden to enforce
full amends for any infraction of this last promise;[496] a detail
which seems to imply that Robert was suspected of being actuated by
personal ill-will towards the bishop. Three months passed {1218}, and
Newark was still occupied by Robert and his men. Then, on 27th January,
1218, the temporalities of the see of Lincoln were committed--having
apparently been placed in the King’s hand by the bishop specially to
that intent--to two laymen, and the constables of its castles, Banbury,
Sleaford, and Newark, were ordered to resign their respective charges
to the new custodians.[497] Again Robert de Gouy disobeyed the royal
order; and on 14th March the sheriff of Nottingham (Philip Marc) was
bidden to join the Bishop of Lincoln in driving him out of Newark by
force.[498] Either their joint attempt failed, or the bishop shrank
from this extreme measure; at last, on 4th July, the Earl Marshal took
upon himself to subdue the obstinate rebel, and summoned thirty miners
from Gloucestershire to meet him at Stamford, where the royal forces
were to muster for the siege of Newark.[499] He and the King left
London on July 8th; on the 20th they reached Newark, and next day they
wrote to the mayor of Lincoln for materials needed for the siege.[500]
The Marshal apparently saw no occasion for superintending its conduct
in person; on the 23rd he and the King withdrew to Leicester, and by
the 26th they were in Oxfordshire.[501] Probably before they left
Newark their military demonstration had done its work in frightening
Robert sufficiently to make him offer terms, not indeed to the
government, but to the Bishop of Lincoln. Some friends of Robert’s made
overtures of peace to Hugh; Hugh agreed to pay Robert a hundred pounds
for the provisions in the castle, and Robert apparently evacuated it
forthwith.[502] On 27th July he made formal surrender of it into the
hand of the King in person, at Wallingford, and the King committed
it to the custody of the Bishop of Winchester, who was to do with it
whatever the Legate should direct.[503] No doubt it was restored to
the Bishop of Lincoln. Robert de Gouy was struck dead by lightning at
S. Neot’s before the year was out.[504]

[Sidenote: 1218]

As the second year of little Henry’s reign drew to a close, his
guardians seem to have felt it time to make arrangements for securing
that the validity of acts done and orders issued in his name should
no longer be dependent on any individual, even though that individual
were the Governor of King and Kingdom or the Legate. It is probable
that a change in the legation was known to be impending,[505] and
also that the physical strength of the aged Marshal was beginning to
give way under the strain of his great labours and responsibilities,
when the making of a new royal seal was entrusted to a goldsmith
named Walter “of the Hithe.” The seal was of silver, of the weight
of five marks.[506] It was first used on 3rd or 4th November, 1218,
to authenticate an ordinance specially designed to guard against a
possible misuse of it during the King’s minority. Letters patent were
issued warning all men that no grant in perpetuity was to be sealed
with it till the King’s coming of age, and that any such grant found
thus sealed should be null and void.[507] It was probably on the same
occasion that the Bishop of Winchester, the Chancellor, the Justiciar,
and “the King’s common council” made oath in the Legate’s presence
that they would “keep and hold the King in seisin of all the lands
which were in the hand of his father, King John, on the day when war
was first begun between him and his barons of England, and that nothing
should be done in the way of granting or alienating any land so that
it should be ceded to any man in perpetuity so long as the King was
under age.”[508] The letter patent concerning the use of the seal was
attested by the Legate, the Archbishops Stephen of Canterbury--who had
returned from Rome in May[509]--and Walter of York, the Justiciar, and
a number of other prelates and nobles.[510] Its attestation must have
been almost the last of Gualo’s public acts in England. His work there
was done, and well done; he wished to resign his office; and the Pope,
who had other work for him elsewhere, had accepted his resignation. In
the last week of November he set out on his homeward journey.[511] A
few days later a new Legate came to take his place.[512]

[Sidenote: 1219]

At Candlemas, 1219, the Marshal fell sick. The court was then in
London; but he seems to have been absent from it for a few days
when he was taken ill, for his biographer says he “rode to London
in pain.”[513] There, with his wife, he lodged in the Tower--still,
despite increasing illness, attending to the duties of his office--till
the middle of March, when, feeling that the end was drawing near, he
sent for his son and his men and “spoke comfortable words to them, as
he well knew how.” By the advice of “several who loved him heartily,”
he made his will, deliberately and carefully. Then he asked his son
and Henry FitzGerold to carry him to his manor of Caversham, “for
he thought he could bear his sickness more easily in his own house,
and if he were to die, it were better that he should be at home than
elsewhere.” They carried him thither in a boat, his wife accompanying
him in another boat.[514] The court seems to have immediately removed
from London to Reading, probably as the most convenient place where
the Council could all assemble within such a distance of Caversham as
enabled them to keep in constant communication with him.[515] To the
King and the Council at Reading he sent a message, asking that they
would all come to speak with him; and they came. “Simply they sat
around him” while he spoke to the King: “Fair sweet sir, in presence
of these barons I wish to tell you that when your father died and you
were crowned, it was arranged that you should be given into my charge,
and so you were, that I should defend your land, which is not easy to
hold. I have served you, I can truly say, loyally and to the uttermost
of my power; and I would serve you yet, if it pleased God to enable me;
but every one can see it is not His Will that I should abide longer in
this world. Wherefore it is fitting, so please you, that our baronage
choose some one who shall guard you and the realm in such a way, if he
can, as to please both God and men. And may God grant you to have such
a master as may be to our honour!” Up rose the Bishop of Winchester
and spoke: “Hearken now! Marshal, the land was given you to hold and
the realm to maintain, I grant it; but the King was given to me.” “Out
upon you!” said the Marshal, “Lord Bishop, that saying is wrong; you
should have held your peace. You were never concerned in this matter.
The time is not very long since you and the good Earl of Chester
besought me with tears that I would be guardian and master of the King
and the kingdom both together; your memory is short, meseems; and the
Legate was at great pains about the matter, and begged and commanded
me, till from you all, together with him, I received the King and the
kingdom. And when I had received the King, it was well seen and heard,
I assure you, that I gave the King into your hand, for he could not go
travelling about; therefore I gave him to you to take care of him.”
Here, seized with sudden pain, he turned to the Legate: “Go now, and
take the King with you; and to-morrow, if you please, be good enough to
return. I will take counsel with my son and my people, and provide some
one to undertake the business; and may God guide our counsels aright!”

Next morning he called his son, his wife, his nephew John, and his most
trusted advisers, and told them his project: that the King “should be
committed to God and the Pope, and to the Legate.” “For in no land are
the folk of so many different minds as in England; and if I committed
him to one, the others, you may be sure, would be envious.” “If the
land be not defended by the Pope at the present juncture, then I know
not who should defend it.” To this they all agreed. So when the King,
the Legate and the great men came again, “the Marshal raised himself
on his side, and called the King, and took him by the hand, and said to
the Legate: ‘Sir, I have thought long and carefully about what we spoke
of yesterday. I will commit my lord here into the Hand of God, and into
the hand of the Pope, and into yours, you being here in the Pope’s
stead.’ Then he said to the King: ‘Sir, I pray the Lord God that, if
I have ever done anything that pleased Him, He may grant you to be a
brave and good man; and if you should go astray in the footsteps of
any evil ancestor and become like to such, then I pray God, the Son of
Mary, that He give you not long life, but grant you to die at once.’
‘Amen,’ answered the King.” Another attack of pain seems to have
compelled the Marshal again hurriedly to dismiss the assembly: but he
at once sent his eldest son after them, that he might formally deliver
the King, “in the sight of the baronage,” to the Legate, in order that
no man should be able to say this thing was done in a corner. The young
Marshal fulfilled his commission; taking the King by the hand, “in the
sight of all he offered him to the Legate. But the Bishop of Winchester
sprang up and took the child by the head. ‘Let be, my Lord Bishop!’
said the young Marshal, ‘concern yourself not with this matter; I wish
it to be seen that I fulfill all my father’s command.’” The Legate rose
up to receive the King, and sternly rebuked Peter.[516]

The old Marshal, feeling, as he said “delivered from a great burden,”
lingered for some weeks longer, and died on 14th May, conscious to the
last, in the act of making the sign of the cross.[517] Earls, barons,
bishops, abbots, joined the funeral train as it passed from Caversham
to London; and with every imaginable token of honour and reverence
from clerks and laymen alike, the Marshal was laid to rest, as he had
desired, in the church of the Knights of the Temple; Archbishop Stephen
of Canterbury taking the chief part in the burial service and paying
the last honours to the man whom he too, as he stood by the open grave,
declared to have been “the best knight of all the world that has lived
in our time.”[518]


FOOTNOTES:

[327] “Se il est seignor de terre, par acort dou commun de ces homes
deit estre garde son corps e ces forteresces.” _Assises de Jérusalem_,
ed. Beugnot, vol. i. p. 261.

[328] William of Tyre, lib. xxi. cc. 3, 5.

[329] His biographer represents him as stating in October, 1216, that
he was “over eighty,” see above, p. 6; but this seems to be an error
on the part of either the writer or the Marshal himself; see _Hist. G.
le Mar._, vol. iii. p. xxiv. and p. 8, note 2. His parents were, it
seems, married in 1141 or 1142, and in all likelihood he--their second
son--was born in 1143 or 1144.

[330] “Gaste-viande.”

[331] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 815–1106. I am compelled to differ from
the illustrious editor of the _Histoire_ respecting this “affair
of Drincourt,” which he regards as a fantastic version of what the
_Gesta Henrici_ and Robert of Torigny relate as having taken place
there in 1173. To my mind, the divergences pointed out in M. Meyer’s
own footnote to _Hist. G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. 16, and in his
introduction, _ib._ p. xxviii., indicate plainly that the poet and the
prose writers are speaking of two distinct events; and this indication
is confirmed by the fact that the poet brings his story of Drincourt
into immediate connexion with the knighting of the Marshal (cf. M.
Meyer’s note 3, vol. iii. p. xxvi.). This “most puzzling passage in
the whole poem” need not puzzle us at all, if we will but accept it
literally; _i.e._, as relating to an otherwise unrecorded episode in
the strife between Henry and Louis, about the Vexin and other matters,
which went on--intermittently indeed and with long intervals of peace,
but still never wholly laid to rest--through fully ten years prior to
the crowning of the “young king.” The episode was obviously one of no
great consequence, except to the Marshal, who probably cherished its
memory as that of the first real fight in which he was privileged to
take a share. Its non-appearance in the other records of the time is
therefore no proof of its unreality. The names of the chief actors
on the French side--the Count of Flanders and his brother Matthew,
Count of Boulogne--are no doubt an “anachronism,” dragged in, by a
very natural confusion of memory on the part of the poet’s informants,
from the later “affair of Drincourt” in 1173. For the incident itself,
apart from this error as to some of the persons concerned in it, more
than one possible date might be suggested which would fit in well
enough with the place given to the affair in the string of the poet’s
narrative.

[332] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 1163–1526.

[333] _Ib._ ll. 1939–46.

[334] ll. 2071–2150.

[335] ll. 5127–5636.

[336] ll. 6415–6606.

[337] ll. 6865–6905.

[338] ll. 7302–7309.

[339] ll. 7529–9223.

[340] ll. 9364–9371.

[341] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 11877–908.

[342] _Ib._ ll. 10012–10076.

[343] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90.

[344] _Charter Rolls_, p. 46 b; date, 20th April, 1200.

[345] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 9845–58.

[346] _Ib._ ll. 19125–52.

[347] _Ib._ ll. 18407–20.

[348] _Chanson de Roland_, ll. 1117–1123.

[349] _E.g._, his adhesion to the “young king” when the latter was in
rebellion against Henry II., his refusal to do homage to Richard for
his Irish lands (which he held under John) in 1194, and his refusal
to fight for John against Philip Augustus (to whom he had done homage
for his Norman lands) in 1205. In this last instance John pretended to
regard William’s action as treasonable, but his after-conduct showed
that he had been only pretending.

[350] See his answer to a remonstrance about the gains he had won by
tourneying, _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18469–96, and his forcible seizure
of money whose owner destined it to an evil use, ll. 6677–6834.

[351] _Ib._ ll. 5088–5104.

[352] _Justiciarius noster_, 1st November, 1216 (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.
p. 1), 2nd November twice (_ib._ p. 2, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 293);
_justiciarius Angliae_, 13th November twice (_ll. cc._); _justiciarius
noster Angliae_, 6th November twice, 12th November, 14th November
(_Pat. Rolls_, pp. 2, 3).

[353] The letter patent by which Hubert was appointed is unfortunately
not enrolled; but the appointment was so clearly recognized by all
parties as valid that we cannot doubt its having been made in the usual
way.

[354] Turner, “Minority of Henry III.”, part I, _Trans. Roy. Hist.
Soc._, 2nd ser. vol. xviii. p. 271.

[355] _Responsiones pro Huberto_ (M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. vi.),
p. 64.

[356] It may even have been given to him purposely, by consent of
the real Justiciar, in order to enable him to undertake certain
administrative functions specially attached to the chief Justiciar’s
office, while Hubert was--as he said himself in 1239--so busy at
Dover that “a castro non potuit recedere _nec officium justiciarii
exercere_”; _Responsiones_, p. 65.

[357] “Rector nostri et regni nostri.” This title appears on the Rolls
for the first time on 19th November, 1216 (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 3),
and continues thenceforth in regular use.

[358] This fact is too self-evident to need illustration, but it is
well illustrated by an incident of the late spring or early summer of
1217. Some person or persons unnamed “urgently entreated” Honorius
to take measures for the appointment of Earl Ranulf of Chester as
colleague to the Earl Marshal, whom they represented as being too old
to fulfil the duties of his office, “especially in these times.” The
proposal did not commend itself to the Pope; but he remitted the matter
to Gualo’s judgment (_Roy. Letters_, vol. i. p. 532, Honorius to Gualo,
8th July, 1217), and it seems to have been heard of no more. How or
with whom the suggestion originated there is nothing to show. That it
had not come from the Legate is clear from the wording of the Pope’s
letter to him. It evidently did not come from the Marshal himself,
although, as has been seen, he had originally proposed that the regency
should be given to Chester. There is no sign that it was the outcome of
any intrigue on the part of Chester, whose conduct seems never to have
in any way belied the assurance of loyal support which he had given to
the Marshal in October, 1216.

[359] In the very rare cases which form an exception to this rule it is
the Legate whose seal takes the place of the Marshal’s. One of these
exceptional cases is so interesting as to deserve special notice. It
consists of two letters patent, both dated Bristol, 2nd December, 1216,
attested by the King himself, and sealed with the seals of the Legate
and the Bishop of Winchester (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 9, 10). One of
these letters is addressed to the Justiciar of Ireland, Geoffrey de
Marsh, the other to Meiler FitzHenry; the purpose of both is to secure
for the Marshal his rights in Ireland as lord of Leinster, especially
the service due to him from Meiler, which the late King had (in one of
his fits of suspiciousness) taken into his own hand as security for
the Marshal’s fidelity. The reason why these letters were not attested
by the Marshal himself is obvious; but the interesting point in the
matter is that the Legate and the Bishop, or the boy-King, or all three
together, seem to have seized upon the occasion as an opportunity for
putting on record the estimation in which they held him. Each letter
contains a sort of parenthesis, quite unnecessary to its main purport,
in praise of Earl William. “Qui” writes Henry to Geoffrey “patri
nostro viventi semper fideliter astitit, et nobis assistit, et cujus
fidelitatem plurimum commendamus”; while in the letter to Meiler there
is a yet more unconventional and emphatic outburst of feeling--“Ipse
enim W. semper patri nostro viventi fideliter astitit, et devote et
nobis constanter adheret et assistit, et ipsius obsequium pre cunctis
regni nostri magnatibus habemus plurimum commendatum, quoniam tamquam
aurum in fornace, sic se in necessitate probavit.”

[360] See the _Rolls_, 1216--November, 1218, _passim_.

[361] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 1, 23, 72, 100; _Close Rolls_, vol. i.
p. 299 b.

[362] The King of Jerusalem seems to have come of age at fifteen, like
his subjects. _Assises de Jérusalem_, ed. Beugnot, vol. i, p. 262.

[363] _Querimonia Falcasii_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 60.

[364] “Usque ad etatem nostram,” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 123, &c. This
formula was used as late as August, 1226; _ib._ vol. ii. p. 57.

[365] See Note VI.

[366] For the changes of sheriffs in Henry’s first year see Turner,
_Minority_, pt. I. pp. 273–4.

[367] He was made Seneschal of Touraine in 1202, defended Loches
against Philip in 1204, was captured with the castle, and ransomed by
John for a thousand marks. See Turner, pt. I. p. 249.

[368] Gloucester, Bristol, Hereford, Nottingham, Odiham, Windsor. See
Turner, pt. I. pp. 249–251. It was Engelard who defended Windsor so
long and so successfully against the French. He had previously made a
splendid defence of Odiham; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 371.

[369] There is not a particle of evidence that these men had ever given
just cause for resentment to any English party or person. “They cannot
be described as royal favourites, for not one of them received a grant
of land in perpetuity by royal charter. Nor can they be included among
the King’s political advisers; for if they had been such they would
certainly have witnessed his charters occasionally. Yet not one of them
witnessed a royal charter except Engelard de Cigogné; and he witnessed
but one before the issue of the Great Charter at Runnymede, and but two
afterwards. They were neither courtiers nor politicians, but soldiers
of experience, whom the barons feared with good cause.” Turner, pt. I.
pp. 253, 254.

[370] A grotesque comment on the whole affair is furnished by the fact
that the drafters of the article seem to have neither known nor cared
what the names of their intended victims really were; see Turner, pt.
I. pp. 248, 252.

[371] Bréauté is in Normandy, Maulay in Gascony. Of Falkes we shall
have to speak at length later on. Peter de Maulay is (like Falkes) said
to have begun life as an usher or doorkeeper: “Chil Pieres de Maulay
ot este huissiers le roi, mais puis crut tant ses afaires que il fu
chevaliers,” &c. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 180.

[372] As Mr. Turner truly says (pt. I. pp. 276, 277):--“The confidence
which King John and the advisers of his son Henry reposed in these
so-called alien sheriffs rested on experience. Not one of them could
boast of illustrious ancestry” (Savaric is not included among those of
whom Mr. Turner is here speaking) “or inherited wealth; not one of them
can fairly be described as a royal favourite. Men of action, soldiers
brought from France to defend their King and his kingdom, they owed
their positions to their military talents. These men from the King’s
dominions across the sea helped in no small measure to place the heir
of the Angevin house safely on the throne of England.”

[373] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 322 _et seq._; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
92.

[374] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 93.

[375] _Ib._ pp. 94–97.

[376] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. 329; date, 12th October.

[377] _Chron. Merton_, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.

[378] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 206.

[379] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239; cf. _ib._ p. 240, and R. Wend., vol.
iv. p. 33.

[380] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 52.

[381] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 377.

[382] _Chron. Merton_, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.

[383] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 240.

[384] _Statutes of the Realm, Charters of Liberties_, pp. 17–19. On
this Charter see Professor Powicke’s article, “The Chancery during the
minority of Henry III,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. pp. 232, 233.

[385] Second Charter of Henry III, c. 7.

[386] c. 13.

[387] c. 14.

[388] c. 15.

[389] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 16; cf. 1st Ch. Hen. III, c. 15, M. C., c.
20.

[390] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 23; cf. 1st Ch., c. 21.

[391] 2nd Ch., c. 26.

[392] 2nd Ch., c. 34; cf. 1st Ch., c. 31.

[393] 2nd Ch., c. 38; cf. 1st Ch., c. 35.

[394] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 20.

[395] c. 42.

[396] c. 44.

[397] c. 39.

[398] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 43.

[399] c. 46.

[400] c. 47.

[401] _Statutes of the Realm, Charters of Liberties_, pp. 20, 21.

[402] See Turner, pt. I. p. 285.

[403] Hidage, carucage, and aid are mentioned on 7th June, 1217, as
having been assessed “de precepto nostro,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p.
310; and the two former seem to have been in process of collection in
some of the Midland shires in the middle of April of that year; _ib._
pp. 306, 306 b, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 56.

[404] _Roy. Letters_, vol. i. p. 532.

[405] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 602, 603.

[406] See above, footnote 315.

[407] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 328.

[408] _Ib._ pp. 343, 340 b, 376 b.

[409] Turner, pt. I. p. 288.

[410] _Ib._ p. 284.

[411] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 7, 8; date, 6th November. Dr. Shirley
made the year 1217, but he must have overlooked the closing words
of the letter--“De praemissis autem novi sigilli nostri sanctae
paternitati vestrae reverentiam merito duximus exhibendam”--which
clearly shew that it is 1218.

[412] The various accounts of the money paid (or promised) to Louis
are extremely puzzling. The Chronicle of Melrose, a. 1217, p. 131,
gives the total as ten thousand pounds. The Dunstable Annals, p. 51,
say that Louis left his Marshal in England “pro quindecim millibus
marcarum recipiendo, quas pro reragiis tenseriarum et expensis quas
fecerat promiserunt”--this verb has no nominative, but the king’s
guardians seem to be meant. The _Hist. Ducs_, p. 204, after summarizing
the treaty, says Louis was to have “deseure tout chou, x m. marcs
d’estrelins por l’arierage de ses rentes que il n’ot pas euues, et
pour la desconfiture de Nicole vii m. mars; che fu xvii m. mars par
tout.” (For the first _marcs_ the MS. followed in the printed text
has _livres_, but the other has _marcs_, which is obviously the right
reading; see the editor’s note 1, _l.c._). M. Petit-Dutaillis, _Vie de
Louis VIII_, p. 176, note 2, takes the marks promised to Louis as marks
sterling. But the document on which he relies for this interpretation
of the sum (_ib._ p. 512) is a statement of the king’s debt to Florence
of S. Omer, not of his debt to Louis. The letter of 6th November,
1218, which does specify the sum due to Louis, says nothing about
marks sterling; it calls them simply “marks.” Reading the Dunstable
Annals and the _Hist. Ducs_ by the light of the king’s letter, one is
led to think that the monk’s “fifteen thousand marks” are made up of
the king’s ten thousand marks “pro bono pacis” (= “pro expensis quas
fecerat [Ludovicus]” = “pour la desconfiture de Nicole”), and five
(instead of seven) thousand “pro reragiis,” “pour l’arierage de ses
rentes,” the amounts given for the indemnity and for the arrears having
been reversed (and the latter perhaps exaggerated) by the Flemish
historian.

[413] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 94.

[414] _Ib._ p. 114.

[415] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 115.

[416] _Ib._ p. 168, 30th August, 1218.

[417] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 369 b.

[418] _Ib._ pp. 383, 388 b.

[419] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 125.

[420] _Ib._ p. 284.

[421] “Scutagium positum de novo per consilium commune comitum et
baronum nostrorum Angliæ,” 10th November, 1217, _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
i. p. 125; “per commune consilium regni nostri,” 30th October, 1217,
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 371: “de carrucagio et hydagio quod assisum
fuit per consilium regni nostri,” 9th January, 1218, _ib._ p. 348 b.
Tallage to be taken from the towns and from the royal demesnes, _ib._
pp. 349, 359, 364, 370; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 170, 171.

[422] Its proceeds are enrolled in the Pipe Rolls 2 and 3 Hen. III
under the title of “Compotus de Scutagio assiso ... ad Angliam
deliberandam de Francis”; see Petit-Dutaillis, p. 177, note 5. It did
not, however, all go to Louis; _e.g._, the whole scutage of Kent, as
well as a share of the tallage from some of the towns in that county,
was allotted to Hubert de Burgh for the repair and fortification of
Dover Castle, 11th February, 1218, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 352.

[423] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 336.

[424] “In quas ingressus non habetur nisi per vicecomites vel ballivos
et absque debito waranto.”

[425] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 170, 171.

[426] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 375.

[427] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 53.

[428] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 93. On Alexander’s occupation of
Carlisle and the ecclesiastical feud there, see _ib._ p. 111.

[429] _Ib._ p. 122.

[430] Henry was at Northampton those two days, _ib._ pp. 130, 172.

[431] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 348, Northampton.

[432] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 132.

[433] Even in Gwynedd there were encroachments in the north-east,
_e.g._, Rhuddlan.

[434] After careful consideration I can see no other possible
interpretation of the decree (Bliss, _Calendar of Papal Documents_,
vol. i. p. 109) whereby Pope Honorius in 1226 declared Joan legitimate,
but without prejudice to King Henry.

[435] _Brut y Tywysogion_, pp. 287–289.

[436] _Ib._ p. 291.

[437] About 11th November, _ib._ pp. 285–287; certainly between 2nd
October and 20th November, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 232 b, 237 b.

[438] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 232 b.

[439] _Brut_, pp. 289, 291.

[440] Sons of his father’s sister Maud by her marriage with Gruffudd ap
Rhys, who died in 1201. Maelgwn and Rhys Gryg, _i.e._, “the Hoarse,”
were Gruffudd’s brothers.

[441] _Brut_, p. 287.

[442] _Ib._ p. 293.

[443] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 335, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 109, 110.

[444] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 72–75, 112.

[445] _Brut_, pp. 299, 301.

[446] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17738–45.

[447] Husband of Reginald de Breuse’s sister Annora.

[448] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 149.

[449] Above, footnote 430.

[450] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 132; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 348,
376.

[451] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 136.

[452] _Ib._ vol. i. p. 143, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 378 b, 379. Cf.
_Brut_, p. 303: “Christianity was restored to the men of the south,
and Caermarthen and Aberteivi” [_i.e._, Cardigan] “were put under the
custody of Llywelyn.” These two castles and the whole land of Gower had
been since January, 1214, under the charge of the Earl Marshal; see
_Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 109 b.

[453] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 142.

[454] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17748–17859.

[455] _Brut_, p. 303.

[456] _Hist. G. le Mar._, l. 17818.

[457] _Ib._ ll. 17860–17871; the story is told confusedly, but with the
help of the _Brut_ and the dates furnished by the Rolls the sequence
of events can be made out. The Worcester _parlement_ in which this
discussion took place is doubtless not the first meeting with Llewelyn,
in March, but the later meeting, at the close of Easter, when the court
would be gathered round the king for the festival.

[458] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 149.

[459] _Ib._ pp. 155, 156.

[460] _Brut_, p. 305.

[461] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 133.

[462] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 150.

[463] _Ib._ p. 204.

[464] Geoffrey’s letter does not seem to be extant; we only know its
contents from the reply.

[465] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 145.

[466] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 31.

[467] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 22, 23, 14th and 17th January, 1217.

[468] _Ib._ p. 57; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 306.

[469] These things appear from the agreement made between the king and
Geoffrey de Marsh in 1220, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 263–264.

[470] _Ib._ p. 132, 18th December, 1217.

[471] _Ib._ p. 72.

[472] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 376 b, 377.

[473] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 377.

[474] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 162, 15th April, 1218.

[475] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 358 b.

[476] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 240; cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 207, and _Ann.
Dunst._, p. 51.

[477] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 116.

[478] _Ib._ p. 174.

[479] _Ib._ pp. 194, 195, 198, &c.

[480] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220, p. 60.

[481] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 354 b, 357, 359 b.

[482] _Ib._ p. 378 b.

[483] The _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1218, p. 54, say all these started in
May. The _Ann. Wav._, a. 1218, say Chester and Ferrers started at
Whitsuntide (Whit Sunday was 3rd June), and place Harcourt’s departure
in the following year. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 240, 241.

[484] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 44; _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a. 1219.

[485] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1219.

[486] R. Wend., _l.c._

[487] R. Wend., _l.c._; _Ann. Dunst._ and _Wav._, a. 1219. In a letter
patent dated 20th January, 1219, the king takes under his protection
until June 24th a ship which Saer “sibi parari fecit in partibus
Galweiae ad eundum in partes Bristoll, pro victualibus et armis et
aliis sibi necessariis ad iter peregrinacionis suae quod facere
disponit in terram Jerosolymitanam.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 185.

[488] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219.

[489] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1219, p. 56.

[490] The story of the siege of Newark in 1218 is prefaced by Roger
of Wendover, vol. iv. pp. 34, 35, as follows: “Erant autem his diebus
multi in Anglia quibus tempore belli praeteriti dulcissimum fuerat de
rapinis vixisse, unde nunc post pacem denuntiatam et omnibus concessam
non potuerunt manus a praeda cohibere; horum autem principales fuerunt
incentores Willelmus comes Albemarliae, Falcasius cum suis castellanis,
Robertus de Veteriponte, Brienus de Insula, Hugo de Baillul, Philippus
Marci, et Robertus de Gaugi, cum aliis multis, qui castella quorundam
episcoporum ac magnatum cum terris et possessionibus contra regis
prohibitionem et illorum voluntatem detinere praesumpserunt eisdem;
inter quos Robertus de Gaugi, post multas regis admonitiones, castellum
de Newerc cum villa tota et pertinentiis, quae ad jus Hugonis
Lincolniensis episcopi spectabant, ei reddere contradixit.” Mr. Turner
(“Minority,” part II., _Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, 3rd ser. vol. i. pp.
221–222) has shown that not only up to this date, but for several years
after, there is no evidence on this subject against Falkes, and that
there is none whatever, at any date, against Brian de Lisle, Philip
Marc, and Robert de Vipont. Hugh de Balliol really was contumacious,
and so too, though as yet in a much lesser degree, was William of
Aumale (_ib._ pp. 223, 237). It is quite clear that, as Mr. Turner
says (p. 222), Roger’s account of the Newark affair was written some
years after the occurrence, and that Roger “had in mind the events of
the years 1224 and 1225 when he was writing of 1218.” A hint of this
confusion lurks in a detail which seems to have escaped Mr. Turner’s
notice. Roger, immediately before the passage quoted above, says that
Henry kept Christmas, 1217 (1218, in Roger’s reckoning), at Northampton
with Falkes. But as a matter of fact Henry kept that Christmas at
Gloucester; see above, p. 91. Obviously Roger was confusing the
Christmas of 1217 with that of 1223, the one which immediately preceded
the redistribution of royal castles in 1224, and which Henry really did
spend at Northampton, though not as Falkes’s guest.

[491] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 193 b. See details in Turner, pt. II. pp.
222–225.

[492] _Pat. Rolls Hen. III_, vol. i. p. 68.

[493] _Ib._ p. 71.

[494] _Ib._ p. 81.

[495] _Ib._ p. 85.

[496] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 121.

[497] _Ib._ pp. 134, 135.

[498] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 378.

[499] _Ib._ p. 365.

[500] _Ib._ p. 365 b.

[501] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 162, 163.

[502] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 35, 36.

[503] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 164.

[504] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1218.

[505] Gualo had certainly sent in his resignation to the Pope; it
was on 12th September, 1218, that Honorius appointed Pandulf legate
to England, Gualo having resigned that office: Bliss, _Calendar of
Documents_, vol. i. p. 58.

[506] “Liberate de thesauro nostro Waltero aurifabro qui fecit sigillum
nostrum v marcas pro argento sigilli nostro ponderante v marcas; et pro
opere mercedem suam ita reddatis quod de jure contentus esse debeat,”
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 381 b, 7th November 1218. The sum finally
decided upon as that “wherewith he ought by rights to be content” was
forty shillings, which another writ addressed to the treasurer and
chamberlains on 2nd December authorised them to pay “Waltero de Ripa
aurifabro in mercedem operis sigilli nostri quod fecit”; _ib._ p. 383.

[507] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. This letter has no date; but it
heads the Roll of 3 Hen. III, and is entitled, “Primae litterae novi
sigilli domini regis, de cartis vel litteris patentibus non faciendis;
et hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere.” In the Close Roll of
the same year (vol. i. p. 381) there is a note, “Hic incepit sigillum
domini regis currere,” inserted between the abstract of a letter dated
3rd November and that of a letter dated 5th November. The earliest
dated document expressly stated in the Rolls to be “sealed with our
seal” is a patent of 4th November, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 207.

[508] On 3rd September, 1220, Henry writes to Almeric of Limoges:
“Sciatis quod cum dominus Gualo titulo S. Martini presbyter cardinalis
Legatus esset in Anglia, juratum fuit in praesentia ipsius per dominum
Wintoniensem episcopum, et cancellarium nostrum, et Hubertum de Burgo
justiciarium nostrum, necnon et per commune concilium nostrum, quod
ipsi nos custodient et tenebunt in seisina omnium terrarum quae fuerunt
in manu domini Johannis Regis patris nostri die qua guerra primo mota
fuit inter ipsum et barones suos Angliae, et quod nec aliquid fiet de
terra aliqua conferenda vel alienanda, quamdiu infra aetatem fuerimus,
quod cedere possit alicui ad perpetuitatem,” _Foedera_, I. i. p. 163.
It is possible that this transaction, of which I have found no other
mention, may have taken place at the council of Bristol in November,
1217; but if it had we should have expected the Marshal to be named
among those who took the oath. The date which I have suggested for it
seems therefore more probable.

[509] _Chron. Melrose_, a. 1218, p. 134.

[510] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. The statement of the Waverley
Annals, a. 1218, that the Charter was again re-issued after Michaelmas,
is clearly erroneous; this supposed confirmation is, as Professor
Powicke says (“Chancery,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 234),
“obviously that of 1217.”

[511] “Circa festum S. Clementis,” _Ann. Wav._, a. 1218; “circa festum
B. Andreae,” R. Coggeshall, p. 186, and M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol.
iii. pp. 42, 43. He seems to have carried with him a part, but still
only a part, of the arrears of tribute due from England and Ireland to
the Pope: “Soluta est vicesima pars trium annorum ab Anglis Ecclesiae
Romanae,” say the _Ann. Winton._, a. 1219; on the debt for Ireland,
see above, p. 95. The Barnwell Annalist says Gualo went “cum infinita
pecunia, quocumque modo adquisita” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 241); but the
insinuation here implied, and the charges of avarice and extortion
brought against Gualo by some modern writers, are groundless. See
Turner, pt. I., pp. 225, 256, note 1.

[512] R. Coggeshall, p. 186.

[513] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17881–86.

[514] _Ib._ ll. 17886–17936. The poet says the Marshal stayed in London
till after the beginning of Lent; and this is confirmed by the Rolls.
We have no attestations of the Marshal between 15th March (Mid-Lent)
and 20th March, but on the 20th he attests a letter at Caversham, _Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 189. On the attestations of royal letters during the
last few weeks of his life see Turner, pt. I. p. 291.

[515] This seems to be the meaning of _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17941–48,
compared with the letters attested by the Marshal on 24th and 28th
March and 4th April, two of them “in the presence of Bishop Peter”
(_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 389 b, 390), and those attested by Peter at
Caversham on 2nd April (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 190), and by Pandulf
and Peter at Reading on 10th and 11th April (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p.
390).

[516] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17949–18114. Cf. the statement made on
the King’s behalf in the indictment against Hubert de Burgh in 1239,
that the Legate (by a clerical error or a slip of memory miscalled
“Gwalla”) “de commune consilio et provisione totius regni post mortem
Marescalli fuit primus consiliarius et principalis totius regni
Angliae,” _Responsiones pro Huberto_, M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. vi.
p. 64.

[517] See the extremely interesting account of his last days and death,
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18121–18973. The date--14th May, Tuesday before
Ascension Day--is given in _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219.

[518] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18983–19073.




CHAPTER III

THE LEGATION OF PANDULF

1219–1221

    Car n’a tele gent en nule terre
    Comme il a dedenz Engleterre
    De divers corages chascuns;
    .         .         .         .
    Si la terre n’est defendue
    Par l’Apostoire en icest point
    .         .         .         .
    Dont ne sai je qui la defende.

  _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18041–18060.

 Ille [Pandulfus] multos bellicos tumultus nondum congelatos
 auctoritate sibi tradita tempore legationis viriliter comprimebat.

  _Flores Historiarum_, a. 1221.


The new Legate was not a stranger to England. His first recorded visit
there had taken place in 1211. He was then in subdeacon’s orders, and a
member of the household of Pope Innocent III.[519] Of his earlier life
nothing is known, except that he was a Roman by birth;[520] but King
John seems to have already had some indirect knowledge of him, for it
was at John’s request that he and another papal envoy, a brother of the
Temple, were appointed by Innocent to go and confer with the King of
England for the restoration of peace to the English Church.[521] In
the one interview which took place between the commissioners and the
King, Pandulf was the spokesman on the papal side; and John found that
he had mistaken his man. The subdeacon simply stated the terms which
he was instructed to offer to John; a long argument ensued, in which
John was worsted; but he still refused to submit, whereupon Pandulf
told him to his face, in the presence of all the court, that the Pope
meant to subdue him and had already excommunicated him and absolved
his subjects from their allegiance, and that the sentence was to take
effect from that day forth. “If I had not sent for you, I would make
you ride about my realm for a year!” raved the King. “You might as well
say you would hang us,” coolly answered Pandulf; “we look for no other
reward from you”; and when John tried to frighten him by issuing in his
presence orders for the mutilation and execution of sundry prisoners,
one of whom was a priest, the only result was that Pandulf went to
fetch a candle for the avowed purpose of formally excommunicating then
and there any person who should lay hands on this particular victim,
and that John, evidently alarmed lest the candle should be used against
himself as well as against his officers, hurried after the dauntless
subdeacon and surrendered the man to his judgement.[522] Thenceforth
Pandulf became the Pope’s special confidant and assistant in all
matters relating to England and its King. It was he who in January,
1213, carried to Philip Augustus the Pope’s letter charging Philip with
the execution of the sentence of deprivation against John; and it was
he alone who shared with the Pope the secret of the negotiations which
were then already afoot for rendering Philip’s expedition needless.
Four months later he was in England again, receiving, in the Pope’s
behalf, first John’s assent to the identical terms which he had
refused in 1211, and secondly the King’s homage to the Roman See for
the realms of England and Ireland.[523]

After a hurried visit to France, to stop the intended invasion from
thence,[524] Pandulf returned to England, and remained there till
the beginning of the next year. His position during this time is
somewhat difficult to define. His official rank was merely that of
“the Pope’s messenger”;[525] he had never held a commission as Legate;
and the distinction between the two offices was clearly marked when in
September, 1213, an envoy of higher standing in the Curia, Nicolas,
Cardinal Bishop of Tusculum, came clothed with the full powers of a
Legate _a latere_ to receive a repetition of John’s homage to Rome,
and to raise the Interdict as soon as the bishops and clergy should
have been compensated for their losses and wrongs. Certain payments
made to Pandulf on the King’s behalf seem to indicate that he was the
authorized receiver of the earliest instalments of the tribute to
Rome.[526] John had already made a friend of the man who had withstood
him in 1211; the Pope’s clerk was taken into the counsels of the King;
“We have granted to Master Pandulf that a truce be made between ourself
and the Welsh,” wrote John to the Marcher barons in July, 1213;[527]
and when Pandulf went oversea in January, 1214, he went as “the King’s
messenger”[528]--whether to France or to Rome, there is nothing to
shew with certainty; but it is probable that he carried some of the
tribute money to the Pope. He seems to have been back in England by the
end of the year, when the recall of Nicolas of Tusculum left him once
more sole representative of the Pope in England, but still without any
higher title than before. In the spring of 1215 he and the Bishop of
Chichester conjointly were delegated by the Pope to investigate the
merits of a project for dissolving the union between the see of Bath
and the abbey of Glastonbury.[529] In the preamble to the Great Charter
“Master Pandulf, the Pope’s subdeacon and familiar,” stands with the
Master of the Temple between the bishops and the lay magnates in the
list of the King’s advisers; and he is the last named of the three
commissioners (the other two being the Bishop of Winchester and the
Abbot of Reading) to whom the Pope addressed his letter ordering that
the “disturbers of King and kingdom” should be proclaimed excommunicate
by the bishops. If any of these latter failed to obey the order, the
commissioners themselves were empowered to suspend the recalcitrant
prelates; and thus it fell to the lot of Pandulf and Bishop Peter to
proclaim the suspension of Archbishop Stephen.[530]

Some seven or eight weeks before this, Pandulf had been--of course on
the King’s recommendation--elected to the bishopric of Norwich;[531]
but no steps towards his consecration were taken for more than six
years. Shortly after the middle of September, 1215, he seems to have
gone to Rome on a mission from John, who wrote to the Pope that
“although Master Pandulf is most useful to us in England, inasmuch as
he labours faithfully and devotedly for the honour of the Roman Church
and of ourself and our whole realm, yet we send him to your Holiness
because we can trust no one else to explain the state of ourself and
our realm so well as he can do it.”[532] We find no further trace of
Pandulf for nearly two years. It is doubtful whether he had returned
to England before John’s death; Gualo had been residing there as
Legate since May, 1216, and the subdeacon’s presence was therefore no
longer necessary for the interests of either Pope or King. In July,
1218, he was at Rome, acting as notary to the Pope.[533] On 12th
September Honorius appointed him to the office which Gualo had just
resigned;[534] and on 2nd December he was formally welcomed as Legate
in S. Paul’s cathedral in London.[535]

Pandulf had well earned his promotion; and the special appropriateness
of his appointment as Legate in England was obvious. His qualifications
for the post may be summed up in an adaptation of the words in which
John had commended him to Honorius: there was no one in the Roman Curia
who could be trusted to understand and manage the affairs of John’s
heir and of his realm so well as this man whom King and Pope alike had
found by experience to be “most useful, faithful, and devoted” to the
interests of both. As Legate, Pandulf came to his task in far less
difficult circumstances than Gualo had done. Even when he set out from
Rome, however, there must have been a general consciousness that the
new Legate would ere long have to take upon him another charge, with
which his predecessor had never been burdened. The selection of an
English noble, instead of the legal representative of the overlord of
England, as governor of King and kingdom in 1216 had been occasioned
by circumstances which in 1218 had ceased to exist. There was now no
invader to expel, no rebellion to subdue, no need for a warrior-regent:
and there was also no man among the baronage clearly marked out for the
regent’s office as the Marshal had been by his personal qualities and
by the universal estimation of his fellow barons. It is only fair to
the English magnates to say that there are no indications of rivalry
among them for the reversion of the regent’s office; but there can be
no doubt that, as the Marshal himself foresaw, the appointment of any
one of them as his successor must inevitably have led to jealousy and
discord, and that the only person who could safely take the foremost
place in the government after him was the representative of the
Apostolic See. The matter might indeed not have been settled without
difficulty, had its settlement been postponed till after the Marshal’s
death. His forethought and his influence averted the danger, and
from the day when he transferred the custody of the King to Pandulf
at Reading the Legate was recognized as chief among the guardians of
little Henry and his realm.

[Sidenote: 1219]

Pandulf’s supremacy, however, was of a different character from that of
the Earl Marshal. Theoretically, it was more absolute, for the powers
which had appertained respectively to the Marshal and to Gualo were
united in his person; he was at once the elected regent of the realm
and the representative of its overlord. But practically his rule was
less absolute, because he had the good sense to recognize from the
outset that the direction of the entire home and foreign policy of
England, and of its internal government, was a charge too great for a
foreign ecclesiastic to undertake single-handed. He did not assume the
title of “ruler of King and kingdom”; and he shared the functions of
that office with the Justiciar and the Bishop of Winchester. He took
but little part in the routine of administrative business; he is seldom
found attesting royal letters; he left such matters to Hubert and
Peter. From the very beginning of his regency, however--even before the
death of the Marshal--he claimed an exclusive right of supreme control
over one department of royal administration: the treasury. This appears
from some letters written by him from the west of England to the
treasurer Eustace de Fauconberg and the vice-chancellor Ralf de Neville
in London, in the spring of the year 1219.[536] Soon after the council
at Reading, Pandulf went to reside for some weeks first at Cirencester,
and afterwards at the abbey of Lantony at Gloucester. On 30th April
he wrote from Cirencester to Eustace and Ralf conjointly: “By our
authority as Legate we lay upon you strict injunctions to give all
attention and diligence to the business of the Exchequer; to deposit
what money you can get in the house of the Temple in London, and to pay
nothing of it out to anybody without our special command and licence;
and we strictly forbid that the seal be withdrawn from the Exchequer
at the bidding of anyone.”[537] At the same time he wrote a separate
letter to Ralf, ordering him “not to withdraw from the Exchequer with
the seal at anyone’s bidding, because the proceedings of the Exchequer
and the advantage of the King would be hindered thereby.”[538] On 10th
May he “warned and exhorted” Ralf to “attend faithfully and devotedly
to the King’s business, and especially the business of the Exchequer
which is at present imminent.”[539] In subsequent letters to Ralf he
emphatically reiterated his orders to store up money in the Temple
and to let none of it be paid out “without our knowledge and command”;
on one occasion giving as a reason that “as you well know, the King
is burdened with many debts.”[540] On 16th May he so far relaxed his
injunction to Ralf about not quitting the Exchequer as to give him
leave “the holy blissful Martyr for to seek,”[541] if he wished it,
and if there was nothing that needed to be done at the Exchequer;
“but,” he added, “make haste back, and deposit the King’s seal under
your own in the Temple till you return”; and on 26th May he again told
the vice-chancellor not to leave the Exchequer “at the bidding of any
man.”[542]

It is not certain whether the seal referred to in these letters is
the King’s great seal or its duplicate the seal of the Exchequer.
Nominally, the custody of both these seals appertained to the
Chancellor; but since the latter years of Henry II a large part of
the Chancellor’s duties, including the keeping of the great seal,
had been usually delegated to a vice-chancellor; and the whole of
them were left in the capable and trusty hands of Ralf de Neville
throughout the greater part of the chancellorship of Richard de Marsh,
which lasted from 1214 till 1226.[543] The Exchequer seal was never
permitted to leave the precincts of the Exchequer, where it was kept
by the Chancellor “through a deputy,”[544] who doubtless might be,
but was not necessarily, identical with the vice-chancellor. With
the paying of money out of the Exchequer neither Chancellor nor
vice-chancellor, as such, had anything to do; this was a part of
the business of the treasurer and chamberlains. It seems probable
that the vice-chancellor may have been also one of the chamberlains
acting at the Exchequer at this time.[545] It is certain that he was
in Pandulf’s fullest confidence;[546] and he may thus in a twofold
or even threefold capacity--as keeper of the King’s great seal, as
the Chancellor’s deputy having the custody of the Exchequer seal,
and as chamberlain--have supported Pandulf’s efforts to maintain, as
a special prerogative attached to the regent’s office, the right of
exclusive control over the Exchequer.[547] That there was some matter
under discussion between the Legate, the Justiciar, the treasurer,
and the vice-chancellor, is clear from a letter written by Hubert de
Burgh on 15th May to Eustace and Ralf in which he says the Legate
“sent us word that he will labour altogether by our counsel for God’s
honour and the King’s advantage; and we sent him word that if he
will acquiesce in your advice, we will acquiesce in his counsel, for
God’s honour and the advantage of the King.”[548] The constitution
of the Exchequer underwent great changes in the course of the next
fifteen years; and some of these changes may have owed their origin to
Pandulf, who perhaps made, or attempted to make, some experiments in
the re-organization of this department of the government, possibly with
a view to checking what he may have regarded as extravagance on the
Justiciar’s part in the disposal of the King’s money. Some months later
we find him exhorting Hubert also to “take effectual steps concerning
the business of the Exchequer”;[549] and four years later one of the
charges brought against Hubert was that of having been “a waster of the
King’s treasure.”[550] There is, however, no means of ascertaining what
really lay behind Pandulf’s mysterious orders to the vice-chancellor.
If the matter was one which involved a conflict between the authority
of the regent and that of the Justiciar, it was probably compromised,
or at least decided by an amicable agreement; it evidently led to no
subsequent friction in the council of three which virtually governed
England throughout Pandulf’s legation, and in which, while the foremost
place belonged by a double right to the Legate-regent, the second
belonged by long-established constitutional tradition to the Justiciar.

[Sidenote: 1201–1217]

Hubert de Burgh’s reputation as a statesman had yet to be made; but a
career of distinction in more ways than one already lay behind him. His
origin is absolutely unknown. The surname of which he and his brothers
seem to be the earliest bearers mentioned in history represents,
no doubt, the birthplace of one of their ancestors, probably their
father;[551] but whether that place was Peterborough, or Brough in
Westmorland, or one of the many Burghs and Burys in England or of
the almost as numerous “Bourgs” in the continental dominions of the
Angevin house, there is nothing to shew. In the early years of John’s
reign Hubert’s brother William played some part in the affairs of the
Anglo-Norman March in Ireland.[552] {1201–1205} Hubert himself was in
1201 chamberlain to John,[553] and entrusted with the wardenship of the
Welsh Marches.[554] At the close of 1202 he was constable of Falaise,
and had charge of the captive Arthur of Brittany, whom he saved from
John’s cruelty chiefly, it seems, out of regard for the interests of
John himself.[555] In 1204 he was constable of Chinon; he held it
against the forces of Philip Augustus for twelve months, and when at
last--long after the rest of the old Angevin lands were lost--its walls
were so shattered that further defence became impossible, he sallied
forth at the head of his men, fighting desperately, and was only made
prisoner when disabled by a severe wound.[556] On his release he
returned to his duties as chamberlain; and he was also sheriff of six
counties at various times during the next eight or nine years.[557]
Early in 1214 John appointed him seneschal of Poitou,[558] whence
he returned in the following April with some troops for the King’s
service;[559] shortly afterwards all the King’s subjects from over sea
who obeyed his summons to come and help him against the barons were
instructed to place themselves under Hubert’s orders.[560] In June
Hubert became chief Justiciar of England.[561] For the exercise of the
Justiciar’s ordinary functions he had little scope during the next
two years; it was as constable of Dover castle that he rendered his
most important services to John and to John’s youthful successor. From
May, 1216, till August, 1217, he was practically absorbed in one task,
the defence of Dover; and although the account of the sea fight on S.
Bartholomew’s day given by an historian of the next generation,[562]
which ascribes the entire credit of that decisive victory to Hubert
alone, is very far from being borne out by contemporary and impartial
authorities,[563] he undoubtedly shewed himself on that day as brave
and capable on board ship as he had so often proved himself on land.
Thus he passed from the military to the political stage of his career
supported by the well-earned respect and goodwill of all parties in the
realm.

[Sidenote: 1198–1215]

The Bishop of Winchester’s position at the council-table was peculiar.
He had no official title and no specific functions in the civil
administration of the kingdom; his connexion with the government was
a purely personal one. A donjon of fourteenth century construction
overlooking a hamlet built on the slope of a hill with a little stream
flowing round its foot, some twelve kilometres south of Poitiers,
is in all likelihood the successor of a castle from which Peter des
Roches and his family derived their surname. In his youth Peter had
been a knight in the service of Richard Cœur-de-Lion;[564] and he
must have shown great aptitude for the career of a warrior, since,
long after his helmet had been replaced by a mitre, he was regarded
as “learned in the military art,” and proved himself worthy of his
reputation when he acted as “the master counsellor” of the English
host on the day of the Fair of Lincoln. When and why he became a
clerk there is nothing to shew; but he seems to have done so shortly
before or soon after Richard’s death. In June, 1198, he was Richard’s
chamberlain;[565] a year later he was a “beloved clerk” of John’s,
and treasurer of Poitou.[566] In the favour of Richard’s successor he
rose rapidly. On 3rd January, 1202, he was made dean of S. Martin’s
at Angers;[567] but his time was spent mostly in England as a clerk
in the royal household;[568] and though he still bore the title of
treasurer of Poitou at the beginning of 1205,[569] he must have lost
the profits of all his continental dignities and offices when the
Angevin lands passed into the hands of Philip of France. For these
he was indemnified by grants of various ecclesiastical revenues
and offices in England;[570] and before February 5th, 1205, he was
elected Bishop of Winchester,[571] the see which ranked next to the
two archbishoprics in wealth and importance. He of course owed his
election to the influence of the King; a part of the chapter had
chosen another candidate, against whom Peter had to plead at Rome for
confirmation; his pleading was successful, and he was consecrated by
Innocent III on 25th September.[572] Peter was the one bishop who
remained in England throughout the years of interdict. In 1210, during
the King’s absence in Ireland, he joined with the Justiciar Geoffrey
FitzPeter and the Earl of Chester in an expedition into Wales which
prevented a threatened Welsh invasion.[573] In October, 1213, Geoffrey
FitzPeter died; and on 1st February, 1214, John appointed the Bishop
of Winchester chief Justiciar of England.[574] The King’s choice of
a foreigner for this office is said to have caused much grumbling
among the barons,[575] the more so as John was on the eve of quitting
the realm for a military expedition to Aquitaine, so that during his
absence, which lasted eight months, Peter was practically viceroy of
England. One chronicler asserts that Peter “by misusing his power
turned the wrath of the barons against the King”;[576] but there is no
proof that the country was any worse administered during those eight
months than it had been for several years previously, and nothing to
indicate that Peter was guilty of personal tyranny or extortion, or, in
short, that he did anything worse than carry on the King’s government
as he found it. Nor is it by any means clear that he was really
disliked or distrusted, except by one section of the baronage--the
section whose lofty patriotism and keen sense of nationality were
soon to be displayed in their scheme for the annexation of England to
France. The substitution of Hubert for Peter as Justiciar at Midsummer,
1215, may have taken place in deference to the King’s other advisers;
but there is no evidence that such was the case; nothing is known about
the circumstances of Hubert’s appointment; and it is quite possible
that Peter may have resigned the justiciarship of his own accord.

[Sidenote: 1216]

From that time forth Peter never held office as a minister of state.
He never had done so, save during those sixteen months of his
justiciarship in 1214–1215.[577] He had, however, received another
token of John’s confidence; he had been entrusted with the education of
John’s heir. We have seen that in October, 1216, the Earl Marshal, with
the assent of the other loyal barons, bestowed on Peter the important
charge of the little King’s person, expressly on the ground that he had
already been the child’s “master” and proved himself “a very good” one,
who had “brought him up carefully and well.” As Henry was but just nine
years old when these words were spoken,[578] we must infer from them
that he had been under Peter’s care from a very tender age. Probably
John had placed him in the bishop’s household as early as it was
possible to do so, somewhat as Henry II had placed his eldest son, when
quite a young child, in the household of Thomas the Chancellor.[579]
The Marshal and the magnates did only what was natural and right when
they replaced their young sovereign under the charge of his former
tutor. The commission which Peter received from them, however, involved
more than the boy’s education; it expressly included the responsibility
for his personal safety. The man to whom was confided a charge so
weighty as this obviously needed no official title to vindicate for
him a prominent place among the counsellors by whose advice England
was to be governed in his royal pupil’s name; and the active and
versatile Southerner, experienced and efficient alike in matters of
war, of administration, of finance, and of well-nigh every kind of
public business, secular and ecclesiastical, was a colleague whose help
the official governors of the realm would have been foolish indeed to
reject or undervalue on the score of his foreign birth. They and he
seem to have worked together without perceptible friction throughout
the regency of the Marshal. The sharp words which passed between
Peter and the regent shortly before the latter’s death, and Peter’s
unseemly behaviour to the younger Marshal and the Legate next day,
probably resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of the bishop.
He evidently thought that the proposal to appoint a new “guardian of
King and Kingdom” and the symbolical delivery of the King into the
hands of Pandulf were meant to deprive himself of his precious charge.
There was, however, no such intention. Pandulf gave Peter the rebuke
which his violence deserved, but immediately replaced Henry under his
care.[580]

[Sidenote: 1218–1219]

For the first six months of Pandulf’s regency the chronicles are blank,
so far as the internal history of England is concerned. Throughout
those months, however, one man was openly setting the government at
defiance. In December, 1216, the royal castles of Rockingham and
Sauvey, with the important Forest jurisdictions attached to them,[581]
had been committed by the Earl Marshal to the custody of William de
Fors, the titular Count of Aumale[582] (or “Albemarle,” as it seems to
have been commonly called in England), “that he might dwell in them
with his men until his own lands, which the King’s enemies had occupied
during the war, should be restored to him.”[583] The actual custodian
of Sauvey, Geoffrey de Serland, was apparently somewhat unwilling
to hand the place over to the young count;[584] and as Geoffrey’s
loyalty is unquestioned, his reluctance was probably caused by some
doubts either of William’s loyalty, or of his fitness for the charge
of such an important post. If so, these doubts were well founded.
On 11th February, 1218, William, having received restitution of his
own lands, was bidden to deliver up Rockingham and Sauvey to another
custodian.[585] This order was not obeyed; and a contemporary writer
asserts that the Earl Marshal before his death “greatly repented”
of having put these castles into the young count’s hands, “because
of the complaints which arose out of the ill-doings of the said
count and his officers who dwelt there and wrought serious injuries
to the people of the district, both rich and poor.”[586] For some
unexplained reason, however, no further steps seem to have been taken
in the matter till six months after the Marshal’s death. Then, on
30th November, 1219, a lengthy indictment against Aumale was issued
in the form of letters patent to the barons, knights, and freeholders
of the five counties--Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Cumberland, Rutland,
Leicestershire, and Yorkshire--in which the bulk of his possessions
lay. Count William was not only detaining, against the royal will
and command, certain lands and castles of the King’s which had been
placed in his charge (to wit, Rockingham and Sauvey), but was also
fortifying and victualling them in the King’s defiance, although a
day had actually been set--“to which he paid no heed”--for him to
surrender them to the King in person. He was also holding tournaments;
more especially he had lately held and attended one at Brackley,
contrary to the King’s express orders, and regardless of a sentence of
excommunication passed upon him by the Legate. He was therefore to be
avoided as an excommunicate and a rebel; the persons addressed were
warned, on pain of condign punishment, not to assist him in fortifying
Sauvey, but to be ready to take action against him in whatever way they
should be directed by future letters from the King; and the sheriffs
of the five counties were ordered to proclaim him excommunicate.[587]
Strangely enough, neither in record nor chronicle do we find any
further mention of William of Aumale till the following April {1220},
when an order addressed to him for forty bucks to be sent to the King
at Westminster shows that he was again recognized as warden of a royal
Forest, which can only have been that of Rockingham or Sauvey;[588]
and his next appearance is in the middle of June, when he was one of
the sureties for King Henry’s fulfilment of a treaty with the King of
Scots.[589] He seems to have been absolved on condition of taking the
Cross[590] and of surrendering the castles and setting forth on his
crusade within a given period. Such an arrangement would serve, for the
time being, the purposes of Count and Legate alike. William remained
in possession; Pandulf avoided, or at least staved off for a while,
the responsibility of taking forcible measures against a man whom the
Marshal had apparently deemed it prudent to treat with forbearance.

[Sidenote: 1220]

A like forbearance was exercised towards the Justiciar of Ireland,
Geoffrey de Marsh. Shortly before the Marshal’s death Geoffrey appears
to have announced his intention of going on Crusade; {1219} and the
Council seized the opportunity thus afforded them to insist that
before he went, he must come to England to perform his homage to the
King, and confer with them touching the state of affairs in Ireland.
For this purpose they gave him on 23rd April a safe-conduct till All
Saints’ day; and they arranged that during his absence from Ireland
the Archbishop of Dublin, who had been his colleague in the office of
Justiciar during the past twelve months, should take sole charge of the
March.[591] The Archbishop was himself anxious to go to England for an
interview with the King; and as Geoffrey delayed his departure, he at
length wrote and asked permission to do so.[592] His request seems to
have crossed with some royal letters issued on 22nd September, ordering
that his appointment as chief Justiciar should take effect from
Candlemas next, and that by that date Geoffrey should be in England
without fail;[593] and this order Geoffrey was just preparing to obey
when it was followed by a warm assent to the Archbishop’s proposed
visit, which the King’s advisers said “would be most welcome for many
reasons.” On this Geoffrey was disposed to make the Archbishop’s
impending departure from Ireland a reason for again deferring his own;
the Archbishop, however, besought the King not to let him do so, but
to bid him “commit the custody of the land, according as the Council
may provide, to some other man.”[594] The Archbishop was certainly
in England in the summer of 1220; but there is no sign of Geoffrey’s
presence there at Candlemas. Summoned again, this time to meet the King
and Council at Nottingham on 1st June, he at last came over, but was
unavoidably prevented from being at Nottingham on the appointed day,
and begged that a later date might be fixed on which he might “lay
before the King and council the affairs of the King’s land in Ireland,
and”--thus he wrote to his “very dear friend” Hubert de Burgh--“they
may be settled by the counsel of yourself and other of the King’s
faithful men and of our friends.”[595]

The settlement took the form of a convention between the King and
Geoffrey, drawn up at Oxford on 11th August, in presence of the Legate
and the Archbishop of Dublin, as well as Peter des Roches, Hubert
de Burgh, and other members of the royal council. The Justiciar is
in future to answer at the King’s Exchequer in Dublin for escheats,
wards, fines, gifts, tallages, reliefs, and aids, from Ireland; and
the proceeds of all these, after they have been accounted for at the
Exchequer, are to be rendered to the King at his command. Out of the
assessed revenue of Ireland, and its “reasonable perquisites” other
than those above mentioned, the Justiciar is to maintain the garrisons
of the King’s land and castles in Ireland; the garrisons to be such as
shall be determined by the advice of Archbishop Henry, Thomas FitzAdam,
and Richard de Burgh. The surplus of these revenues and perquisites
shall be accounted for at the Dublin Exchequer by the view of these
three persons; and clerks of the King, appointed for the purpose, shall
keep a counter-roll of all these things. The Justiciar shall appoint as
constables of the King’s castles loyal and fit men who shall swear to
keep the castles faithfully and safely for the King, so that in case of
the Justiciar’s capture, or death, or misconduct, the castles shall be
safe; and these constables shall give hostages for their fidelity to
the Archbishop of Dublin and the Earl Marshal, and shall also send to
the King, through the Archbishop, charters of fealty. The Justiciar
gave his two sons as hostages; the Earl Marshal stood pledge for him;
and he himself further pledged the whole of his lands, to fall in to
the King and the Marshal respectively (he held some of each), in case
of his failure to keep faith. He also took an oath to keep all these
promises, on pain of being excommunicated by the Archbishop of Dublin
in case of breaking them; and as he had left his seal in Ireland for
legal purposes there, this writing was at his request sealed with the
seals of his brother William and of the Archbishop of Dublin, until he,
Geoffrey, could put his own seal to it.[596]

From this document it must be inferred that nothing worse than
mismanagement was proved against Geoffrey. His mismanagement however
had clearly reached a point at which any sovereign of full age, and
in a position to enforce his commands, would have put an end to it
by summarily dismissing Geoffrey from his office. But the guardians
of Henry III knew that they were not in a position to enforce the
dismissal of the Justiciar whom Henry’s father had left in charge of
the March in Ireland. Geoffrey was not willing to resign because he was
not prepared to render an account of his stewardship. If they issued a
direct order for his supersession it was highly probable that he would
set them and their order at defiance, and that he would be supported
in his defiance by the wardens of the royal castles who owed their
appointments to him. Henry could not go, as John had gone, with an
armed force at his back, to settle matters in Ireland for himself; nor
could anyone in England be sent to do so in his stead. Should force
be needed to subdue Geoffrey, the task of subduing him could only be
committed to some of the barons of the March; and to commit it to any
of these would be to plunge the whole March into a civil war which
might result in the complete destruction of the King’s authority there.
The case against Geoffrey was clearly not strong enough to justify
Pandulf and his colleagues in taking measures which involved such a
risk. The course which they took in giving Geoffrey another chance
of redeeming his errors, while hedging him round with the strongest
moral restraints that could be devised to prevent a repetition of those
errors, was at once more politic and more just.

Pandulf’s most congenial sphere of action was diplomacy; and at the
outset of his legatine career he was called upon to exercise his
diplomatic gifts on a readjustment of the relations between the Kings
of England and Scotland. In 1218 Alexander of Scotland--seemingly with
the knowledge and assent of the English government--sent to the Pope
a copy of the treaty which has been made between his father and John
in 1209, and requested that Honorius would by his apostolic authority
either confirm or annull it, as should seem to him best. Honorius
committed the decision of the matter to Pandulf,[597] who was then on
his way to England {Nov.}. Pandulf, after studying the text of the
document,[598] {1219} appointed a day for a formal discussion of the
questions at issue between the parties, in his presence, at Norham
on 2nd August, 1219.[599] Alexander appeared in person; Henry was
represented by a proctor. The discussion ended in an agreement that on
the morrow of All Souls’ day another meeting should take place before
the Legate, wheresoever he might be, “to treat concerning peace between
the two Kings; and if peace cannot then be attained, the cause shall
be proceeded with according to law.” Where this second meeting was
held we know not, nor by what means peace was “then attained”; but it
certainly was attained: “We are coming back at once” wrote Pandulf, in
the triumph of his successful mediation, to Peter des Roches, “for, as
Stephen de Segrave” (King Henry’s proctor) “and Master Robert of Arènes
may have told you by word of mouth, our lord the King’s matters with
the King of Scotland are by God’s grace now happily settled.”[600]

[Sidenote: 1219]

What these “matters” were is nowhere stated. Later indications,
however, point to a probability that all these obscure proceedings
resulted in a ratification of the treaty as a whole, but with a
modification of one article. William the Lion had given the wardship
and marriage of his two daughters, Margaret and Isabel, to John, with
fifteen thousand marks which were, seemingly, intended to form their
dowries. The only copy of the treaty of Norham which we possess says
nothing more on the subject than this; but from other sources we
have reason to infer the existence in the original text of a further
stipulation, that the elder girl, Margaret, was to become the wife of
John’s heir, or if the boy should not live long enough, of the next
heir, the baby Richard; and also of a formal surrender, made on the
express condition of this marriage, of all the Scot King’s claims
upon Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland.[601] When this
treaty was made, in August 1209, Henry’s age was one year and ten
months; Richard’s was seven months. Margaret of Scotland was fourteen
years old at the least.[602] By 1218 Margaret’s brother and Henry’s
guardians must all alike have begun to feel that this clause as it
stood was doomed to prove impracticable. Henry’s great-grandfather
Geoffrey of Anjou had, indeed, at the age of fifteen, married a woman
ten years older than himself; and the difference of age between Henry
II and Eleanor was probably not much less. But Eleanor was Duchess of
Aquitaine, and Geoffrey’s bride was heiress of Normandy and England;
while Margaret could bring to her husband nothing beyond her share
of the fifteen thousand marks. The guardians of the reigning King of
England might fairly expect to have no difficulty in finding for him
in due time a matrimonial alliance fraught with greater advantages,
personal and political, than were offered by a marriage under these
circumstances with a sister of his own vassal; and Henry himself, when
old enough to decide, was almost certain to repudiate the engagement
so lightly made for him by his father. On the other hand, unless some
steps were taken in anticipation of this contingency, Scotland might
find that she had given England fifteen thousand marks for nothing:
the non-fulfilment of this unlucky clause would invalidate the whole
treaty, and might lead to a rupture between the two countries, which
both parties desired to avoid. After Henry’s final coming of age in
1227, we are told, he had to give the King of Scots two hundred pounds
worth of land for the quit-claim of the three northern counties,
“because the former agreements[603] were not observed”--that is,
because Henry had not married Margaret.[604] This compensation for his
failure to marry her may have been agreed upon between the two Kings
when she was betrothed to Hubert de Burgh in 1220 or 1221. Possibly,
however, and even more probably, it may have been settled in Pandulf’s
presence in November, 1219.

From Scotland the Legate turned to Wales. Throughout the winter of
1219–1220 he was in the west of England, negotiating with Llywelyn
for the settlement of a dispute between the Welsh prince and Hugh
de Mortimer about certain manors on the Welsh border.[605] On 2nd
December Llywelyn was invited, or summoned, to meet the Legate at
Worcester to discuss the matter on 7th January, 1220.[606] The King’s
letter, however, contained a summons to answer complaints as well as
to make them; and it may have been for this reason that Llywelyn was
unwilling to obey it. At his request Pandulf postponed the meeting
till the octave of Candlemas.[607] {1220} It seems to have had a
successful result thus far, that Llywelyn was induced to refrain from
open hostilities throughout the spring. On Rogation Monday, 4 May, he
met the King, the Legate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop
of Winchester, and the Justiciar, in conference at Shrewsbury,[608]
and gave what was understood on the English side as a promise that
he would surrender the lands in dispute between himself and Hugh de
Mortimer.[609] An attempt was also made to check the perennial strife
between the men of the Welsh prince and those of the English Earl in
Pembroke, by a truce on the understanding that the Marshal and the
other Marcher lords “should be restored to their rights” before 1st
August.[610] On the strength of these promises David, Llywelyn’s eldest
son by Joan, was formally taken under the King’s protection, and the
subject princes of Wales were bidden in the King’s name to be loyal to
both Llywelyn and David.[611]

[Sidenote: 1220]

From Shrewsbury King, Legate, and council hastened to London for an
important public ceremony. Early in April the Legate and the Primate
had received letters from the Pope ordering that Henry “should be a
second time raised to the office of king, with due solemnity, according
to the custom of the realm; because his first coronation, on account of
the disturbed condition of his realm, had been performed less solemnly
than was right and fitting, and in another place than that which the
usage of the kingdom required.” This, of course, meant that the boy was
to be re-crowned at Westminster, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Stephen was delighted, “for he loved the King dearly on account of his
innocency.” He and Pandulf agreed that the ceremony should take place
on Whit-Sunday, 17th May, and all the prelates and nobles were summoned
to be present.[612] On the preceding day the young King himself had
another solemn function to perform. Henry came of a family who for two
hundred years past had been known as “great builders”; he was a lad
of refined, artistic temperament, as well as of a pious disposition;
and it seems that he had already undertaken the work which was to be
the great architectural glory of his reign, the rebuilding of the
abbey church of Westminster. On Whitsun Eve he laid the first stone of
the new Lady Chapel.[613] Next morning for the last time a king was
crowned in the old church of S. Edward the Confessor. In Pandulf’s
presence Henry renewed under the dictation of Archbishop Stephen the
oath which he had sworn in Gualo’s presence at Gloucester--to protect
the Church of God, and to preserve inviolate the peace of both clergy
and people and the good laws of the realm; then the Archbishop placed
in his hands the insignia of the regal office, and set upon his head
“the crown of the most holy King Edward.” “And this crowning of the
King was done with such great peacefulness and splendour, that the
oldest men among the nobles of England who were present asserted that
they never remembered any of his predecessors being crowned amid such
concord and tranquillity.”[614]

[Sidenote: 1205–1208]

Concord and tranquillity did indeed, to all outward seeming, reign at
that moment over all the dominions of the English Crown, except the
Duchy of Aquitaine. One of the most difficult of the many difficult
problems with which the regency had to deal was the problem of how to
retain Poitou and Gascony for Henry. The heritage of his grandmother
Eleanor had descended to him almost complete. Philip Augustus had
never made any attempt to conquer Gascony; he had seized Poitou,
but the greater part of it had been regained by John in 1214 and
left in his possession by the terms of the truce with which the war
between him and Philip had ended. John’s seneschal in Gascony at that
time was one of his chamberlains, Geoffrey de Neville[615]; another
chamberlain--Hubert de Burgh--soon became seneschal of Poitou.[616]
At the end of the year 1214 or the beginning of the next Geoffrey de
Neville was succeeded by a baron of Saintonge, Reginald de Pons;[617]
in June 1215 Hubert de Burgh became Justiciar of England; before that
year closed, the seneschalship of Poitou was united with that of
Gascony in the hands of Reginald[618]; and thenceforth the two offices
were always granted together and became practically one. Reginald
resigned it a few months after John’s death, and was succeeded by
Archbishop William of Bordeaux.[619] A year later William gave it up
likewise, and in May 1218 Geoffrey de Neville was again sent across the
sea to be Seneschal of Poitou and Gascony.[620] Reginald and William
had resigned ostensibly for the same reason--because they wanted to
go to the Holy Land. Possibly the layman and the prelate may both of
them have been glad of an excuse for ridding themselves of an extremely
disagreeable office. The loyalty--such as it was--of Poitou and Gascony
to the English Crown was of very recent growth; it had sprung up since
the expulsion of the Angevins from their other continental dominions.
The one persistent political aim of the men of the South was to escape
as much as possible from all external control, no matter whence it
came. Their land was full of thriving cities and towns, each with a
highly developed administrative organization of its own, almost like
so many miniature republics; and of high-spirited, hot-tempered barons
who were perpetually quarrelling among themselves. Moreover, towns
and barons were mutually jealous of one another; and all were alike
jealous of any interference with their respective privileges, corporate
or individual, on the part of a higher power. They were also all alike
shrewd enough to see that their chances of independence were greater
under the rule of a sovereign beyond the sea than under the direct rule
of the King of France. But they were also, all alike, fully alive to
the advantages of their position between two rival overlords; and the
possibility of some turn in Aquitanian politics which might furnish a
plea, an excuse, or a temptation for French intervention was a danger
never absent from the minds of Henry’s counsellors in their dealings
with his transmarine dominions.

Besides Poitou and Gascony, the Duchy of Aquitaine included four
counties whose rulers owed homage and obedience to the Duke as their
suzerain: Angoulême, La Marche, Limoges, and Périgord. Two of these
stood, during the early years of the thirteenth century, in relations
to each other and to their common overlord which gave them a special
importance in the politics of the Duchy. The county of Angoulême was
the heritage of Queen Isabel, John’s wife and Henry’s mother. La Marche
belonged to Hugh of Lusignan, to whose eldest son Isabel had been
betrothed in her infancy, under whose care she had been brought up,
and from whose house her own father had literally stolen her, a child
scarce twelve years old, {1200} to marry her to the King of England.
Between the houses of Lusignan and of Anjou there was already, even
at that date, a smouldering feud of some years’ standing, which this
outrage, of course, aggravated, but which was allayed for a time in
1214 by John’s promise of little Joan, his eldest daughter by Isabel
of Angoulême, as wife to the younger Hugh in her mother’s stead. Joan
was then four years old. Her bridegroom--known simply as “Hugh of
Lusignan,” his father being Hugh, Count of La Marche--was a young man
in the prime of life,[621] gifted with an ample share of the stirring,
ambitious, acquisitive spirit which characterized his race. That
race was famous alike in legend and in history, and had reached the
height of its greatness within the lifetime of the reigning count of La
Marche, two of whose brothers had been crowned and anointed Kings.[622]
Another brother, Ralf, was in right of his wife count of Eu in Normandy
and owner of some lands in England. In 1218 the elder Hugh went to the
Crusade; and thus when Geoffrey de Neville took up the government of
Poitou and Gascony, the younger Hugh was for practical purposes count
of La Marche, and the most important personage in northern Aquitaine.
He and Joan were still only betrothed, not married; but she was in his
custody, and he was officially treated as “brother” to King Henry; he
had claims against the English Crown respecting certain lands which
John had promised to him at his betrothal;[623] and when his uncle Ralf
of Eu died childless in the spring of 1219, he seems to have also--no
doubt on behalf of his father--laid claim to Ralf’s estates, and taken
a high-handed method of enforcing his demand, by picking a quarrel with
the King’s town of Niort. Geoffrey de Neville tried to mediate, and
promised to procure him satisfaction for any complaint that he might
have against the town, “but,” writes Geoffrey to the King, “he answered
that he would not cease from infesting your land for us or for anybody
else.” Geoffrey had now been seneschal for a year, and was confessedly
at his wit’s end and eager to be rid of an office in which he foresaw
nothing but failure and disgrace. “He”--that is, Hugh--“and others can
see how poor we are both in men and money.” “We greatly fear that
unless speedy and effectual counsel be taken for the defence of your
land, the said Hugh and the magnates will usurp it, and it will pass
to the rule of a stranger. And we do you to wit that unless you take
strong measures for its defence, we (Geoffrey) intend to set out for
Holy Land on Midsummer day, for we will on no account stay here to your
and our own damage and disgrace; because the said Hugh has let us know
that he will not cease from molesting you until you give up the English
lands of the count of Eu. For the love of God, write back quickly what
you wish us to do.”[624] Apparently the answer to this letter was an
order to remain at his post; and he did so, though complaining bitterly
of the impossibility of the task laid upon him. “We have already urged
you,” he writes again, “to take some counsel for the defence of your
land of Poitou and Gascony, not so much against the King of France as
against your own barons, who ravage your land and capture and put to
ransom your townsfolk, and behave themselves towards your men in such
fashion that it appears, and we believe, they are not well affected to
your service. We, by reason of our poverty, cannot defend the land,
nor subdue them; and they make no more account of me than if I were a
foot-boy. Wherefore we do you to wit that unless you take other counsel
without delay, you will soon see us in England. And do not say that the
King’s land is lost through us; you are casting it away yourselves for
lack of counsel.”[625]

[Sidenote: 1218–1219]

At this juncture a new complication arose. Queen Isabel had in 1218
returned to her own county of Angoulême, received in its capital
city the homage of its barons, and taken its government into her own
hands.[626] She had some trouble at the outset with Reginald of Pons,
the ex-seneschal of Poitou, who seems to have owned some castles in
the Angoumois, and for some unexplained reason held them against her,
but was soon overcome by her superior forces.[627] A matter of more
consequence was her quarrel with Bartholomew of Puy. In the early part
of John’s reign Bartholomew had been provost, or mayor, of the city of
Angoulême;[628] from July, 1214,[629] if not earlier, he was seneschal
of the county for John, and after John’s death for Henry. Isabel was
minded to govern for herself; rightly or wrongly, she asserted that
Bartholomew was plotting mischief against her with some of the Poitevin
barons, especially Ralf de Lusignan the count of Eu, and also with
the King of France; she therefore deprived him of his office and all
his possessions, and made him give her his two sons as hostages.
Bartholomew, apparently, appealed to the English government and the new
seneschal of Aquitaine, and fled for shelter to Hugh de Lusignan.[630]
Just then {1219} Hugh and the seneschal had suddenly become friends.
Geoffrey wanted to go to England, but he was so absolutely penniless
that on reaching La Rochelle he found it impossible to proceed any
further, or even to leave the city,[631] till a loan of a hundred and
sixty marks from some local merchants was negotiated for him by Hugh
de Lusignan, who offered himself as surety for its repayment by the
English government. This simple but timely stroke of policy made Hugh
master of the situation in Aquitaine. The letters in which he and
Geoffrey notified the transaction to King and Council were carried
to England by Bartholomew of Puy. Geoffrey excused his acceptance of
Hugh’s help on the plea that “the trouble in your land is so great that
ruin would have followed if I had withdrawn”; Hugh modestly remarked
that “your land of Poitou was greatly disturbed, but by God’s grace
we have put it into a better state.” Both requested that the money
should be given to Bartholomew in the presence of Ralf of Saint-Samson,
who accompanied him, and who “knew that these things were true”; and
Geoffrey added a warning--“If it be not paid, and if Sir Hugh should be
compelled to pay it for me, you will never again find anybody who will
make any loan to your order or to you.”[632]

[Sidenote: 1219]

The Council perceived that the only thing to do with Sir Hugh was
to make a friend of him, if possible, by enlisting him as a sort of
unofficial colleague to the luckless seneschal. In July Bartholomew
of Puy came back, in the character of “the King’s messenger.”[633] He
seems to have brought letters from the King and Council to Isabel,
directing her to reinstate him in his property. Almost at the same
time negotiations were set on foot in the King’s name for a loan of a
thousand marks from the mayor and citizens of La Rochelle, and another
thousand from those of Bordeaux, “to be used and expended by the hands
of our very dear brother, Hugh of Lusignan, in defence of our land,
if it should be needful.”[634] The possible danger against which it
was thought that defence might be needed was an attack from Louis of
France. He had been for some months past in the county of Toulouse,
fighting against the Albigensians, and some of Henry’s subjects in
Aquitaine feared that the French host, when its work at Toulouse was
done, might be used against their sovereign and themselves.[635] These
suspicions of Louis were, however, without justification. There is not
the least indication that Louis ever thought of using, or allowing
his followers to use, the opportunity which certainly lay within his
reach for intervening at this time in the troubles of Poitou and
Gascony. The truce between France and England, however, was now within
nine months of its term;[636] and Pandulf was growing very anxious to
secure its prolongation. In September a month’s safe-conduct was given
to some envoys from the King of France to come over and discuss this
matter.[637] In January, 1220, the Legate wrote urgently from the west
of England, where he was detained by his negotiations with Llywelyn,
to the Bishop of Winchester and the Justiciar, begging them to send
some trusty messenger, “secretly, privately, and without delay,” to ask
Philip for a renewal of the truce; he himself drafted for them a letter
such as he deemed advisable for the envoy to convey; and he impressed
upon his colleagues the importance of taking the matter in hand at once
and insisting upon a decisive answer from the French King.[638] Three
envoys were accordingly despatched on 26th January;[639] and on 3rd
March the truce was renewed for four years from the ensuing Easter.[640]

[Sidenote: 1220]

Hugh of Lusignan meanwhile {1219} had thrown himself at once into
his new part, posing as the zealous protector of the interests and
loyal executor of the mandates of his little “brother,” even in
opposition to the Queen-mother, who complained bitterly to Pandulf of
the “maintenance” which Hugh and Geoffrey de Neville, acting under
instructions from the royal Council, afforded to Bartholomew of Puy
against her.[641] In August, 1219, the countess of Eu went to England,
to claim her share of her late husband’s possessions there. As she
was a kinswoman of the Earl of Warren and a niece of the Justiciar, a
conflict between her claims and those of her husband’s brother bade
fair to stir up a good deal of trouble.[642] By the middle of November
Bartholomew of Puy seems to have been in England again;[643] and before
that time Geoffrey de Neville was there also.[644] Geoffrey appears
to have left Poitou and Gascony under the charge of a knight named
William Gauler, who presently wrote a pathetic letter to Hubert de
Burgh, complaining that he had been left without any revenues save
those of the ports, which were only worth fifty pounds, “for all the
affairs of the Poitevins and of Bordeaux”; moreover, his friends
were telling him that the King had ordered him to be arrested, he
knew not why. With strong protestations of loyalty William declared
himself ready to settle his accounts, “willingly and truthfully,” with
any one whom Hubert might send to Gascony as seneschal, “whether it
were the chamberlain or some other man.” “Gascony,” he added, “is
in a good condition up to the present; but I greatly fear it will
quickly fall back into worse ways unless you send us good counsel and
reinforcements.”[645]

[Sidenote: 1219–1220]

Meanwhile the towns were protesting their loyalty, and complaining of
one another, and also of the intrigues of the French party and the
lawless doings of the local barons.[646] About this last grievance
they grew more clamorous than ever in the winter of 1219–1220. “The
King’s burghers” of La Rochelle, Niort, and S. Jean d’Angély lived in
perpetual terror of the lord of Parthenay, William Larchevêque, who
with the lord of Rancon “and with the consent of others whom we will
not at present name,” persecuted them “daily and unceasingly.” “He
seizes your burghers and holds them to ransom; he carries off their
beasts of burden,” wrote the mayor and commune of Niort. “He has put
out the eyes of the bearer of this letter, and those of two other men,
without any offence or fault of theirs, and though they were not even
on his land when he captured them. And all this evil he does to us, so
he declares, because of a hundred marks of silver which the late King
promised him, and on account of a certain traitor whom you, Sir Hubert
de Burgh, hanged when you were our seneschal.” With one voice the towns
entreated that an efficient governor might be sent into Poitou {1220
(_March_)}; and they gave it clearly to be understood that they did not
want Geoffrey de Neville back again. “Our former governors have been
somewhat slack in their dealings with your enemies.” “When Sir Geoffrey
was here, he could not protect us; he was not sufficient for these
things, nor for other things either. If he were here now, he would be
of no use. Send us some one more useful, more competent to manage this
country, and to provide for the welfare of its people and uphold the
rights and interests of the Crown.”[647]

[Sidenote: 1220]

The task of selection devolved upon Hubert de Burgh. Pandulf, a total
stranger to Aquitaine and its affairs, seems to have declined to take
any part in the matter beyond promising to ratify Hubert’s choice, on
whomsoever it might fall.[648] Hubert was the one man then in England
who knew by experience what were the most essential qualifications
for the vacant post. Before he could find a man to his mind, however,
another sudden change occurred in the political situation. In February
or March, 1220, tidings came from Damietta that the count of La Marche
was dead;[649] and before the middle of May Isabel of Angoulême wrote
a startling announcement to her son. “We do you to wit that the counts
of La Marche and Eu[650] being both dead, Sir Hugh de Lusignan was
left, as it were, alone and without an heir, and his friends would
not allow him to marry our daughter on account of her tender age, but
counselled him to make such a marriage that he might speedily have an
heir; and it was proposed that he should take a wife in France; which
if he should do, all your land in Poitou and Gascony, and ours too,
would be lost. We therefore, seeing the great danger that might arise
if such a marriage should take place, and getting no support from your
counsellors, have taken the said Hugh count of La Marche to be our lord
and husband.”[651]

This letter probably reached England shortly before the coronation;
on 22nd May Henry wrote to his step-father, expressing his approval
of the marriage.[652] At the same time he desired Hugh to escort Joan
to La Rochelle and there deliver her to two persons (Ralph Gernon and
Joldewin of Douai) who were charged to take care of her till they
received further orders from England.[653] A new use for the little
girl’s hand had already been devised by the royal Council; they offered
it to the young King of Scots. He was invited to meet Henry at York on
10th June;[654] and there, on 15th June, the treaty of marriage was
arranged. Henry pledged himself to give Joan to Alexander to be his
wife, at the ensuing Michaelmas, “if he could get her”; if he could
not, his second sister, Isabel, should be given to Alexander in her
stead, within fifteen days of the time appointed. Henry also promised
that he would either cause Alexander’s two sisters to be honourably
married in England within a year from S. Denys’s day (9th October),
or restore them to their brother within a month after that term
should have expired.[655] All thought of a marriage between Margaret
of Scotland and Henry himself had evidently been given up by mutual
consent.

Henry’s doubts whether he could get his eldest sister back in time for
her to be married at Michaelmas proved well founded. Queen Isabel, when
she announced her own marriage, had assured him that she was ready to
let Joan go home as soon as he liked to send for her. At the same time
she had requested that her own dower-lands, and a sum of three thousand
five hundred marks which she alleged had been bequeathed to her by
John, should be handed over to Hugh;[656] and it soon became apparent
that she and Hugh intended to hold Joan in pledge till this was done.
The English Council, however, were equally determined not to give up
the Queen’s dowry until that of Joan, and Joan herself, were safely
restored. On 20th June letters were written in Henry’s name to the
Pope, asking him to bid the bishops of Saintes and Limoges compel Hugh
to restore Joan and her dowry and right the wrongs which he had done to
Henry in other matters;[657] and also to the cardinals, requesting that
they would bring their influence to bear upon the count of La Marche,
who, “regardless of his plighted vow, having taken our mother to wife
instead of our sister, now refuses to give our sister back to us,
wishing by his detention of her to compel us to buy her back.”[658]

The union of La Marche and Angoulême, instead of making for the
peace and safety of Aquitaine as Isabel had pretended, was in fact
no sooner accomplished than it made matters worse than ever. Hugh
openly threatened the towns and barons who opposed him with a renewal
of hostilities, and so great was their terror that “all the bishops,
very many of the barons, and other good men of the King’s towns of
Bordeaux, Niort, La Rochelle, and S. Jean d’Angély went to him in a
body at Angoulême, desiring him that before he made war upon them
he should approach the King and the Council with reference to the
matters in dispute between him and the King.” The joint efforts of
the bishops and of the King’s envoys, who seem to have arrived in the
midst of the colloquy, wrung from Hugh a promise to stay his hand for
a while.[659] But his promises were worthless; and the complaints of
the towns continued to pour in upon Henry’s guardians. To the town of
Niort Hugh had granted a truce of seven weeks; “but,” wrote the mayor
and commune, “as we had no security except his word, we put it to Sir
William Maingo the younger whether he would keep us safe, so far as
he and his men were concerned, and maintain the truce. He wrote back
to us that if we would render to him one hundred marks a year, which
King John had promised him, he would keep us in safety; otherwise we
must guard ourselves against him and his men; and he has already done
us some injury. We likewise sent letters to Sir William Larchevêque,
that he might certify us whether he would keep the truce or not. And he
wrote back that he would not keep the truce, but would do us all the
evil and damage that he could; and he is oppressing us so that we dare
not get our harvest in; and he sets traps for us daily, and so do many
others”--Hugh’s own men-at-arms among the number.[660] “When the truce
was begun between us and the count of La Marche,” they write again,
“the count by one of his knights declared us deprived of all rights
within his fiefs”; he and his men were guarding all the roads so that
neither corn, nor wine, nor wood, nor any necessaries could be got into
the city, “and what is your own property he declares to be of his fee.”
Again “with tears” they implored Henry to send them such a governor as
should extricate them and all Poitou from these perils.[661]

The men of Bordeaux on the other hand were urgent that Hugh should
be appeased. “He has promised,” they wrote, “to maintain and defend
the towns, from himself and his, and all other living men, faithfully
to the utmost of his power, for your benefit and honour. And since
his defence and maintenance is, above that of all others, most useful
and necessary to your faithful men of Poitou, and molestation from
him is equally perilous and injurious to them, we entreat your royal
majesty, by every means we can, to take such counsel that a man of
such importance, such a useful defender of your land, and so pious
and humble a protector of peace and tranquillity, may not through any
other’s fault withdraw from your service; for he has promised that so
long as he lives he will, unless you give him cause to do otherwise,
remain faithfully in your service against all men living. All these
things,” they add, “have been communicated to us by the good men of La
Rochelle.”[662] But meanwhile the good men of La Rochelle had learned
something of the value of Hugh’s fine promises. Threatened by him
with “all the harm that he could do” to them, surrounded by enemies
who persecuted them for their loyalty, and without any protector save
the Bishop of Saintes, they again pleaded--as did also the men of
Bordeaux[663]--for the appointment of an efficient seneschal: “Send us
quickly a strong man, who will bring back the barons to allegiance, and
with their aid rout the enemies and restore the royal authority.”[664]
A rumour that the King was about to make the viscount of Thouars
seneschal of Poitou struck panic into Niort. “God forbid it! for the
viscount is our mortal foe, and in your father’s time, with the counsel
of the King of France, he did us all the evil that he could. As you
love your land of Poitou, and us, and your own honour, we beseech you
on no account to venture on making him seneschal; moreover, make not
anyone from these parts seneschal of Poitou. If you do, they will
take your land for their own advantage, as much as they can, as some
did in your father’s time. And we and the other faithful men shall
have to go out of your land, unless you take diligent care and good
counsel in this business. May it therefore please your excellency to
send some noble, discreet, wise, and powerful man from the parts of
England, to be your seneschal--such a man as will know how to deal
with your affairs in Poitou, and be able to hold your land.”[665]
Another rumour--this time in England--as to the Council’s intentions
with respect to the vacant office drew forth a trenchant protest from
Earl William of Salisbury. “I am given to understand,” he writes to
Pandulf, “that you, together with the King’s Council, proposed to
send the count of Aumale into Poitou to keep the land. And as it
seems to me that the count is less obedient than he should be to the
King’s commands concerning the things which he holds in England,
which are small, I doubt he would be less obedient still if he had
the seneschalship and government of Poitou which is a great thing.
And therefore I give notice to your holiness that you will in no wise
commit the custody of that land to him by my counsel or assent.”[666]

Oddly enough, the man finally chosen by Hubert was Philip of Ulecote,
who also had given the government some trouble about the restitution
of a castle to its rightful owner.[667] When the choice was at last
made, in August, some difficulty arose before it could be carried into
effect; the sequel suggests that Philip’s state of health may have been
the obstacle. “I never felt any confidence,” wrote Pandulf to Hubert
on 25th August, “that Philip should go there; though you seemed mighty
certain about the matter, rambling over seas and mountains in quest of
things that are not to be had.” In a more serious strain he warned the
Justiciar that some decision must be made at once. “You must provide
for that country, which plainly appears to be perishing through the
fault of the King’s Council. The matter has been already shamefully
delayed, and I greatly fear lest grave damage should come of it.”[668]
In the middle of September Philip of Ulecote was formally appointed
seneschal of Poitou,[669] and went across the sea.

Pandulf and Peter des Roches, meanwhile, had enlisted the services of
the Dean of Poitiers, who visited England in August, to negotiate with
Hugh of La Marche for a truce.[670] A carucage “for our great needs,
most urgent debts, and the preservation of our land of Poitou” had been
agreed upon in a council at Oxford on 9th August.[671] Negotiations
with the communes of La Rochelle and Bordeaux for a loan “for the safe
keeping of Poitou and Gascony” were begun in September.[672] These
two towns, with Niort and S. Jean d’Angély, had now resolved upon
sending representatives to England to lay their complaints before
the Council; the Preceptor of the Temple, Gerard Brochard, at their
request undertook to accompany these envoys, and begged the Council to
give him and them an audience in London in the week after Michaelmas,
“to hear the proposals of the count of La Marche, and of others, on
all sides.” Gerard, it is clear, was in the confidence of all parties,
and he declared positively that if the Council would listen to him,
the damsel Joan would be restored to them in honour and freedom;
“she would have been delivered to me,” he said, “if I would have
stood surety that the King would do to the count what he ought.”[673]
Probably Gerard received in London, and thence transmitted to Hugh, a
formal assurance that Henry would “do what he ought”--in other words,
surrender his mother’s dowry. At the same time the Pope took up the
matter; and a letter from him, on 20th September, threatening that
if Hugh did not within fifteen days after its receipt deliver Joan,
together with the city of Saintes and the Isle of Oléron (which had
been pledged to him by John as security for her dowry) to Henry’s
appointed representatives, he should be excommunicated and his lands
placed under interdict,[674] was followed by Hugh’s submission, so far
as the surrender of Joan herself was concerned. In obedience to an
order from England issued on 6th October that he should either himself
bring Joan to England, or deliver her at La Rochelle to certain persons
appointed to receive her there,[675] he set out with the child; but he
fell sick at Oléron, where the Dean of Poitiers and the new seneschal
of Aquitaine, Philip of Ulecote, had been ordered to meet him. The
Dean waited for the seneschal in vain, and at last learned that he was
dead.[676] At the beginning of November Hugh, being too ill to proceed,
delivered Joan to the commissioners--the Dean and two other envoys--who
escorted her to La Rochelle.[677] The term fixed for her marriage was
past, but at its expiration, on 13th October, Henry and Alexander had
met again at York,[678] and Alexander had evidently consented to wait
for her with patience; he waited in fact till the following Midsummer.
Her stepfather, when he gave her up to Henry’s commissioners, assured
them of his intention to go and perform his homage for La Marche and
Angoulême as soon as his health should permit him.[679] Thus for a few
months Aquitaine was--comparatively--at peace.

Meanwhile, however, the “concord and tranquillity” in England had
not been altogether unbroken. At first glance the Pope’s selection
of the spring of 1220 for the re-crowning of the young King appears
unaccountable. Since the ceremony had not taken place immediately after
the Primate’s return, two years ago, it would have seemed more natural
to delay it for seventeen months longer, till the boy should have
reached the completion of his fourteenth year, the earliest age which
could, on any known principle, be reckoned as that of legal majority.
A clue to the purpose for which the matter was hurried on may possibly
be found in certain steps which were taken immediately after the
coronation. On its morrow (18th May) “the barons who were present swore
that they would resign their castles and wardenships at the will of the
King, and would render at the Exchequer a faithful account of their
ferms; and also that if any rebel should resist the King, and should
not make satisfaction within forty days after being excommunicated by
the Legate, they would make war upon him at the King’s bidding, that
the rebel might be disinherited without the option of a fine.”[680]
A week after this, on 26 May, the Pope wrote a letter to Pandulf. He
began by expressing his distress at the reports that reached him of
his royal ward’s extreme poverty; this, he said, was imputed chiefly
to the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates in England, some of
whom had usurped the King’s castles, manors, and other domains, and
were detaining the same “on the frivolous pretext that they wish to
keep them safe till the King should be of age; and so meanwhile the
King must be a beggar, while they run riot, against his will, on what
belongs to him.” The Pope therefore ordered that they should surrender
all such castles and lands to the King, and make restitution of all the
proceeds thence derived since the war, and bade Pandulf enforce their
compliance with penalties both spiritual and temporal. In a second
letter, written two days later, Honorius instructed the Legate not to
suffer any man, howsoever faithful or closely attached he might be to
the King, to hold in his custody more than two of the King’s castles,
on pain of ecclesiastical censure without appeal.[681]

From the days of Henry II, if not from a yet earlier time, the Crown
had found it a hard matter to preserve its authority over castles held
in private ownership. Such ownership was limited by the King’s right in
three ways. The owner was bound to allow his castle to be garrisoned by
the King’s own men at the King’s will; to surrender it into the King’s
hand if required; and not to make any addition to its fortifications
without the King’s licence. Against the enforcement of these royal
rights the owners of castles had struggled, with varying success, under
Henry II, Richard, and John. The civil war, and the new conditions
under which the powers of the Crown had to be exercised during the
minority of John’s successor, had intensified their jealousy of all
restriction upon their tenure of their fortresses; and a like spirit
of independence began to show itself in some of the wardens of the
King’s own castles, with regard to the fortresses under their charge.
The only important case of this kind, until the latter part of the year
1219, was that of Count William of Aumale. But between August, 1219,
and March, 1220, trouble began to threaten in connexion with two royal
fortresses of not less consequence than Sauvey and Rockingham, and from
two men of far greater political and personal weight than William de
Fors.

The combined offices of sheriff of Lincolnshire and warden of Lincoln
castle were hereditary in the family of Haye, represented at this time
by the old Dame Nicolaa, whose capability, courage, and loyalty had
never failed in the service of John and his heir throughout the last
twenty years. Three days after the battle of Lincoln {24 May 1217} the
city and county had been committed to the boy-King’s uncle, William
Longsword Earl of Salisbury, to hold during the King’s pleasure.[682]
This grant was probably made with the double purpose of rewarding
Longsword for his share in the victory, and relieving Nicolaa of a
burden which she had, nearly two years before, declared to be too great
for her.[683] Five months later, however, when peace was made, the old
lady asked to be reinstated in her hereditary functions. Her request
was granted, and on 31st October the Earl was bidden to deliver the
castle to her and give her seisin of the sheriffdom without delay; but
the latter half of this order seems not to have been enforced;[684] and
at the beginning of December the county “with all its appurtenances”
was again committed to William to hold during the King’s pleasure.[685]
This time, however, the castle did not go with the shrievalty; for
from March, 1218, onwards we find the former once more, with the full
sanction of the Crown, under the charge of its veteran castellan,
Nicolaa.[686] No one seems to have ventured on molesting her till three
months after the death of the old Earl Marshal. Then, on 23rd August,
1219, “the sheriff of Lincoln”--no doubt the Earl of Salisbury’s
deputy--had to be sharply told that he was to “maintain, protect, and
defend the lands, goods, and men of our trusty and well-beloved Nicolaa
de Haye within his bailiwick, to cause her no molestation, injury or
damage, nor to meddle in any way with her debts to the Crown, or in any
matters concerning her, till he received orders to do so”; and next
day “all the knights and good men” of the shire were informed that the
King had assigned Falkes de Bréauté (who was sheriff of two shires
contiguous to Lincolnshire, those of Northampton and Rutland) to Dame
Nicolaa as her assistant in the defence of Lincoln castle, “and that
they should all efficaciously counsel and assist Falkes in the King’s
business which Falkes would explain to them, for the preservation of
the peace of the realm.”[687] It seems that Falkes, with three of his
knights (and no doubt some attendant men-at-arms), at once took up his
abode in the castle and made it his headquarters for the next nine
months.[688] From a temporary absence in January, 1220, when he went
to meet the King at Northampton, he was recalled by an urgent message
from Nicolaa; and a letter from Falkes himself to Hubert de Burgh makes
it perfectly clear that the danger against which he was required to
protect her was a persistent endeavour of the Earl of Salisbury, as
sheriff of the county, to enter the castle. “But,” wrote Falkes, “God
helping me, with the force at the Dame’s command I will take good care
that he shall not get in.”[689]

William Longsword was a son of Henry II; illegitimate, but always
acknowledged and treated as “the King’s brother” by both Richard and
John, and by Henry as “our beloved uncle.” Richard had given him the
earldom from which he took his title, together with the hand and
the great possessions of Ela, heiress of an earlier line of Earls
of Salisbury. He had done good service to John until the middle of
1216; then he had joined Louis, but early in 1217 he had returned to
the side of little Henry, and had received back all his forfeited
estates, to which in August of the same year were added the counties
of Somerset and Devon.[690] His attempt to interfere with the rights
of a castellan appointed by the King to the command of a royal castle
certainly failed, and was probably abandoned without any open strife,
for there is no sign of any breach in the friendly relations between
the King and his “beloved Uncle William,” to whom the boy seems to have
been really attached. But the mere making of such an attempt, by a
man of such high rank and so closely connected with the King, was not
without grave significance; and it coincided ominously with another
incident of graver significance still.

[Sidenote: 1220]

The castle of Marlborough, like that of Lincoln, belonged to the Crown.
When it fell into the hands of Louis in 1216 the younger William
Marshal, then in arms on Louis’s side, claimed it as his by right. The
chronicler who records this claim mentions also a claim put forth by
William to act as Marshal for Louis in England;[691] possibly he may
have claimed the wardenship of Marlborough castle as appertaining to
the Marshalcy. The two offices may have been granted together to his
grandfather John FitzGilbert, who was certainly Marshal under Henry I,
and commandant at Marlborough after that King’s death. In 1175–1176 a
part of the fine due to the Crown from the heirs of John FitzGilbert
for entering upon their patrimony was remitted in reimbursement for
repairs done to Marlborough castle.[692] At the coronation of Richard
John FitzGilbert’s two elder surviving sons, John and William, shared
between them the functions of Marshal, but the hereditary character
of that office was not explicitly determined till ten years later.
During the greater part of those ten years Marlborough was not a
royal fortress; Richard had given it to his own brother John. John’s
accession as King restored it to its old status; but no reference to
its wardenship occurs in the charter whereby John granted the Marshalcy
to William and his heirs for ever; and the great Earl never was,
nor, so far as we can see, claimed to be custodian of Marlborough
castle during John’s lifetime.[693] He certainly was so, however,
from November, 1217, until his death, and his eldest son succeeded
him in this wardenship.[694] In March, 1220, Hubert de Burgh informed
Pandulf that Marlborough castle was being fortified--evidently without
instructions from the Crown. Pandulf bade him despatch without delay
“the most stringent letters from the King that could be drawn up,”
ordering the Marshal to stop the work at once, and strictly forbidding
all persons engaged in it, on pain of their bodies, goods, “and even
their inheritance,” to do anything towards fortifying the castle
without a special licence and order from the King.[695] No further
letters on the subject appear to be extant; the information which
Hubert had forwarded to Pandulf may have proved to be incorrect, or
the Marshal may have given some satisfactory explanation. There is,
however, an indication elsewhere that he took upon himself to exercise
over the tenants of the castle of Marlborough more arbitrary authority
than he was entitled to assume as custodian of that fortress for the
King.[696] Moreover, there was another matter about which trouble with
him must have been felt to be impending.

[Sidenote: 1217]

Immediately after the younger Marshal’s return to allegiance, in
March, 1217, there had been granted to him, to hold during the King’s
pleasure, the English lands of Earl David of Huntingdon.[697] The most
important part of these lands was the honour of Huntingdon, which
the Scot Kings had inherited from the English wife of King David of
Scotland, which William the Lion had subenfeoffed to his brother David,
and which, with the estates held by David direct of the English Crown,
had now become forfeit to its English overlord because David and the
reigning King of Scots--his nephew Alexander--had espoused the cause
of Louis. A few months later they both submitted to Henry; Alexander,
having performed his homage in December, was granted seisin of “the
lands held of him in England by Earl David”;[698] and in the following
March orders were issued for complete restitution to David himself of
all his English possessions.[699] He seems to have regained them all
except one castle: Fotheringay. In June, 1219, he died, leaving an heir
under age. His fief being an English one, the right to its custody
fell not to its immediate overlord the King of Scots, but to its lord
paramount the King of England; in Henry’s name it was committed, during
his pleasure, to the charge of three knights, and an order was issued
that they should receive full seisin of “the manor of Fotheringay” from
the constable of the castle[700]--that is, the younger Marshal (now
Earl William the second of Pembroke and Striguil), or his lieutenant
there. In October the custody of the honour was transferred to the
King of Scots.[701] But twelve months later {1220} Fotheringay castle
was still in the hands of the Earl Marshal; not because either Henry
or Alexander had authorized him to retain it, but because he was, for
some reason or other, unwilling to give it up, and to make him do so
against his will was, as things then stood, practically impossible.
He was the eldest son of the late regent. He was the most intimate
friend of the Earl of Salisbury. On him, as Earl of Striguil, the
security of the Welsh March chiefly depended; as heir of his mother,
Isabel of Leinster, he was the mightiest baron of the English March in
Ireland; and as heir to the lands which had belonged to his parents in
Normandy, he could at any moment put himself in touch with Philip of
France. In private life he seems to have been a man of high character;
and since his return to allegiance, with his friend Salisbury, in
1217, he had, like Salisbury, acted as a valiant, useful, and faithful
adherent of the King. If the Council had shrunk from taking extreme
measures against Aumale, much less could they proceed to extremities
with Salisbury and the Marshal. Yet the example set by these two men
was certain to lead to further mischief unless some steps were taken to
prevent it.

[Sidenote: 1220]

The Earl Marshal was certainly, the Earl of Salisbury and the count
of Aumale were almost certainly, included among the nobles who were
present at the coronation and who next day took the oath which has been
mentioned already.[702] The coronation, the oath, the Pope’s letters,
taken all together, suggest that in the spring of 1220 the Council had
invoked the Pope’s assistance to enhance the authority of the Crown for
the special purpose of strengthening the hands of its guardians in an
effort to deal with the whole question of the English castles. It is,
however, very difficult to guess what, or who, can have prompted the
instructions issued to the Legate by the Pope on 26th and 28th May. The
information on which the letter of 26th May purports to be written is
shown by the records to be erroneous. No castle belonging to the King
was in the custody of either of the archbishops; only three were in the
custody of any other prelate. Those three were Porchester, Winchester,
and Southampton, held by Peter des Roches together with the sheriffdom
of the county in which they stood. There is also no indication that
either Peter or any other prelate had ever attempted, or even been (in
England) accused or suspected of attempting, to usurp castles or lands
belonging to the Crown, or made difficulties about restoring any such
lands which may have been temporarily entrusted to him for safe keeping
during the war. The second letter is equally unaccountable; for while
the enforcement of the order that no man should hold more than two
royal castles at once would have deprived Peter of one such wardenship,
it would have deprived Hubert de Burgh of four;[703] and it would have
further involved a wholesale rearrangement not only of the wardenships,
but also of the sheriffdoms, throughout south-eastern England and
also in the Midlands, where a still greater number of royal castles
were in the hands of Falkes de Bréauté as sheriff of seven shires. It
is therefore not surprising that no use was made of these two papal
mandates. As no mention of them occurs in the chronicles of the time,
it is most probable that they were never published; Honorius may have
sent with them private instructions authorizing Pandulf to publish or
suppress them at his own discretion. By the time they reached England
the King’s guardians were feeling their way in more wary fashion
towards the end which they had in view.

The King’s journey to meet Alexander of Scotland furnished an
opportunity for a royal progress through some of the castles which lay
between London and York. “The King with his tutors,” says the Barnwell
annalist, “perambulated his realm, to know whether those whom his
father had made custodians of fortresses in England were minded to
give up those fortresses quietly to himself as their lord.”[704] From
York he went by way of Pontefract to Nottingham, thence to Leicester,
and thence to Northampton. When he reached Rockingham, however, on
25th or 26th June,[705] the castle gates were shut against him.[706]
William of Aumale had only ten days before been chosen as one of the
King’s sureties for the treaty with Scotland.[707] He had clearly left
the court since then; but he was not in Rockingham castle, though
he was evidently known to be not far away, for two messengers who
were immediately despatched to him with another royal command for
the surrender of Rockingham and Sauvey were ordered to be back at
the hour of prime next morning.[708] They seem to have returned with
a request from Aumale for a safe-conduct to the court. Meanwhile a
military force under Falkes, which had accompanied or followed the
King from Northampton to Rockingham, invested the castle,[709] with
the ready assistance of the people of the shire, who seem to have
found Aumale a very overbearing and troublesome neighbour. On Sunday,
28th, the garrison “seeing that they were in a strait and had not
power to resist, ignominiously went out and left free entrance to the
King.”[710] A safe-conduct until prime on that Sunday morning had
been issued to Aumale the day before;[711] he had used it, and had
made formal surrender of both Rockingham and Sauvey into the King’s
hand.[712] Next day a notice was issued in the King’s name, stating
that Count William had resigned the custody of these two castles “of
his own free will.” The King, on his side, quit-claimed to the count
the ferm received by him from the manors and other royal demesnes, and
the issues of the Forests, attached to the castles, from the time when
the castles were given him in custody to the day on which he resigned
them, and also undertook to obtain from the Legate permission for the
count to postpone the fulfilment of “his vow.”[713]

The letters patent setting forth this agreement were issued on the
joint motion of the Justiciar and the Bishop of Winchester; Pandulf was
evidently absent from the court. There can be no doubt that Aumale’s
vow here referred to was a vow of Crusade, enjoined by Pandulf as the
condition of the count’s release from excommunication at the close
of the preceding year; and we may see in it a reason for the extreme
generosity with which the count was treated. A government whose head
was a papal Legate might make a military demonstration, but could
hardly use real force against a man who wore the Cross. There is,
moreover, some probability that the Council, or some member of it, may
have entertained a project of letting Count William commute his vow for
an undertaking which might well be deemed a penance quite as severe as
a crusade--the seneschalship of Poitou and Gascony. A report to that
effect certainly reached the Earl of Salisbury at some date between
December, 1219, and the end of June, 1220.[714] The report may have
been false; but it is quite possible that the project may have really
existed, and by no means clear that it deserved the scorn heaped upon
it by the King’s uncle. The appointment of William de Fors as governor
of Aquitaine would be an excellent expedient for getting him peaceably
out of England; and though troublesome there, he was not without
qualifications for the vacant post over sea. As the son of a Poitevin
father he would be quicker to understand the character of the people,
and perhaps more acceptable to some of them, than a man of pure English
blood; at the same time, his stake in the country was too small[715]
to involve him in personal rivalry with the Aquitanian barons; while
as a great English noble he would be readily welcomed by the towns.
In the weeks between the coronation and the treaty with Scotland the
thoughts of Hubert de Burgh, “roaming over seas and mountains” in
search of a governor for Aquitaine and at the same time haunted by
the problem of the English castles, may well have turned--or may have
been turned by Pandulf or Peter--to a possibility of ending the weary
search and winning the resignation of Aumale’s English wardenships at
one stroke; and the agreement with Aumale on S. Peter’s day may have
been made on the basis of some previous negotiations whose completion
the march on Rockingham was intended merely to precipitate. In the
face of Longsword’s protest, however, the project of sending Aumale to
Poitou, if ever seriously entertained, must have been abandoned; and we
may see in its abandonment the reason why Aumale did not receive the
licence which he desired for a further postponement of his crusade.
Pandulf seems to have offered him instead the option of redeeming his
vow altogether, doubtless in the usual way, by a payment of money; but
Aumale neither paid nor went.[716]

The 29th of the ensuing December would be the fiftieth anniversary
of the martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury. For nearly two years
Archbishop Stephen had been preparing to celebrate this jubilee by a
translation of the martyr’s relics from their lowly resting-place in
the crypt of his cathedral church to a chapel behind the high altar,
where a magnificent shrine had been made ready to contain them. The
actual anniversary was anticipated by nearly six months, and the
translation took place on 7th July, amid an immense concourse of clergy
and laity not only from all parts of England, but from lands beyond
the sea. A temporary guest-house, on such a scale that an annalist of
the time calls it a “palace” and declares that he does “not believe
its like had been seen since the days of Solomon,” was erected by the
Archbishop for his guests, and therein rich and poor, home-born and
strangers, were entertained with a sumptuous hospitality which the
same writer likens to the banquets of Ahasuerus.[717] “The barons
of England,” also, “did an act of great courtesy; for they caused
proclamation to be made, a great while before the holy body was to be
removed, that no Englishman should lodge in the town, because they
wished that those who came from other countries should find lodging
there”; they themselves took up their quarters--camping out in the
fields, it seems--outside the walls, all except the Earl Marshal,
who lodged in the city that he might take care of the strangers and
see that they came to no harm.[718] Over twenty prelates attended,
including, besides the Legate, an Archbishop from Hungary, and the
Archbishop of Reims with three of his suffragans.[719] With graceful
tact Pandulf and Stephen concurred in giving to the French Primate the
foremost place in the religious services of the occasion; it was he
who, at their joint request, on the eve of the translation dedicated
the altar before the shrine and sang the first vespers of the festival,
and who also sang the high Mass on the great day itself.[720] Among
the lay visitors from over sea were the widow of Cœur-de-Lion, the
Count of Dreux, and many French nobles.[721] King Henry was of course
present;[722] and all England shared in the glory of the most famous of
English saints.

Early in August a great council was held at Oxford, mainly, it seems,
for purposes of finance. A carucage of two shillings for every plough
“as it was yoked on the morrow of S. John the Baptist last year, the
fourth of our reign,” was granted to the King by the lay magnates “for
his great needs, and for the preservation of his land of Poitou.” The
collection of this impost was entrusted in every shire to the sheriff
and two lawful men who were to be chosen “by the will and counsel of
the whole shire, in full shire-court”; and it was to be paid into the
Temple in London by 30th September.[723] The prelates made a similar
grant on behalf of themselves and all the clergy, secular and regular,
and their tenants; these contributions were to be paid direct to the
Crown without the intervention of the sheriffs or other lay agents. On
this point some confusion arose, and amended instructions were sent to
the sheriffs on 7th September.[724] Another difficulty thwarted the
endeavours of the sheriff of Yorkshire--Geoffrey de Neville--to collect
the “gift” in his shire; at the shire-court held for that purpose on
14th September none of the magnates appeared, and their bailiffs all
alike declared that “their lords knew nothing about the matter, the
magnates of those parts having never been asked for it by the King
either by word of mouth or by his letters.” Some of them suggested that
if the King himself spoke to the magnates when he came to York (to
meet the King of Scots on 13th October), the payments would probably
be made without further trouble. Geoffrey reported the matter to the
King’s Council, and asked whether he should take forcible measures to
compel payment.[725] There is some reason to think that he did so,
or tried to do so, and that some of the Yorkshire barons retaliated
at the beginning of the next year by capturing him and keeping him
prisoner for a time.[726] Unluckily we have no record showing how the
dispute was settled; but it is clear that from Yorkshire, at least,
the carucage cannot have been paid in by the morrow of Michaelmas.
The same day was fixed for the returns of an inquest which the
sheriffs were, at the time when the first letters about the carucage
were issued (9th August), ordered to make into the extent and value
of the royal demesnes and escheats in the several shires.[727] No
doubt these returns were required for fiscal purposes. The agreement
between the King and Geoffrey de Marsh, made in the same council at
Oxford,[728] was followed on 18th September by a demand for an aid from
Ireland.[729] With all this the Crown was still deep in debt, to the
Pope, to Louis, to Queen Berengaria, to the Legate;[730] it was in fact
only by means of frequent loans from Pandulf that its current expenses
could be met at all.[731]

Two other matters came up for settlement at the Michaelmas session
of the barons of the Exchequer and the justices at Westminster. One
of these was a complaint of the Earl Marshal against the Prince of
Wales. Llywelyn’s promise, or alleged promise, that the wrongs done
by him to the Earl and the other Marcher-lords should be righted by
Lammas Day[732] was not fulfilled; indeed, the truce made in May on the
strength of that promise seems to have been broken as soon as Llywelyn
returned from Shrewsbury to his own country. He asserted that the men
of Pembroke refused to confirm the truce, called in help from Ireland
against him, and harassed the Welsh to such a degree that at last he
was obliged to bid his nephews and his other followers withdraw from
the borders of Pembrokeshire to a safer place.[733] The Marshal, on the
other hand, declared that the Welsh Prince “in no wise kept the terms
of the peace, but brought the King’s dignity into contempt, spurning
his own promises and acting quite contrary to them.” The Marshal
complained to the King at Oxford, and was promised satisfaction--so far
as the King could give it--in London on the morrow of S. Michael.[734]
On 21st August the sheriffs of Gloucester, Hereford, and Worcestershire
were ordered to be in readiness to help, with all the forces of those
three shires, whichever of the King’s liegemen they should find to
be the object of an attack for which Llywelyn was reported to be
collecting his forces.[735] It was, however, not against any place
on the border, but against “the Flemings of Rhos and Pembroke” that
Llywelyn, with “most of the princes of Wales” and “a vast army,”
marched on 29th August. He took by assault and burned the castles of
Arberth and Gwys, burned the town of Haverford “to the castle-gate”;
“and thus he went round Rhos and Deugleddyv in five days, making vast
slaughter of the people of the country. And after making a truce
with the Flemings until the kalends of May, he returned back happy
and joyful.”[736] The terms of this truce were humiliating in the
extreme; the men of Pembroke promised that they would give Llywelyn a
hundred pounds, that they would not restore the castles which he had
destroyed, and that they would give him a portion of the Earl’s land
“to keep as on behalf of the King.” All these conditions, however, were
to be subject to confirmation by the King. They seem to have been in
fact extorted by means of a false representation on Llywelyn’s part
that his invasion of the Earl’s lands was sanctioned and supported
by the authority of the English Crown.[737] For the honour of that
authority itself, no less than for his own sake, the Marshal besought
the King and his Council to quash the truce, disavow all complicity
in Llywelyn’s raid, and give judgement in favour of himself, at the
time previously appointed, on his former complaint against the Welsh
prince.[738] The judgement was probably given accordingly; on 5th
October the Welsh invasion of Pembroke was disavowed by the King,
the truce quashed,[739] compensation claimed from Llywelyn for the
Marshal and the other Marcher-barons whom he had injured,[740] and two
commissioners despatched to receive from him a surrender of all lands
occupied by the Welsh in England and the Marches.[741]

In all probability, it was as a kind of security for the settlement
of this Welsh business that the Earl Marshal had persisted throughout
the summer in retaining Fotheringay castle. An urgent order for its
surrender was despatched three days {18 June} after the treaty of
York was signed;[742] the restitution of this castle, and of Earl
David’s other lands, being one of the conditions of the treaty. On 11th
September the Marshal was by another royal letter reminded of this
fact, and commanded, on his fealty and his oath to the King, to hand
over the said castle and lands to Alexander without further excuse
or delay, “knowing for certain that unless you give it up, all our
business about the marriage will come to nought.”[743] Hereupon the
Marshal wrote to the Justiciar that he would do his best to promote
the advantage of the King and his sister, and would on the morrow of
Michaelmas answer fully to the Council concerning Fotheringay, and be
ready to obey them “in all things that he could and ought”; at the
same time declaring his intention to abstain for the present from
vengeance on Llywelyn, rather than disobey the King and the Legate,
“unless indeed,” he added significantly, “it should--which I do not
believe--afterwards appear that they will not grant me justice.”[744]
The Welsh quarrel being decided in his favour, he seems to have
consented to give up Fotheringay not indeed to King Alexander, but to
King Henry; for it was to a representative of the latter that he was
bidden to deliver it on 11th October.[745] This was two days before
the Kings met again at York.[746] It was probably agreed there that
Fotheringay should, to facilitate its recovery from the Marshal,
be temporarily placed in Henry’s hand and entrusted to the English
Justiciar.[747] Hubert’s marriage with Alexander’s sister Margaret may
have been already arranged, and Alexander may have contemplated giving
him the custody of the honour of Huntingdon during the minority of its
heir.[748] It seems, however, that not till 23rd or 24th November did
the Marshal actually deliver up the castle, to one Gregory de la Tour,
who was appointed to have the charge of it,[749] probably as deputy for
Hubert. The troubles of the English government in connexion with it
were not ended even then.

The count of Aumale had surrendered his wardenships; but he still kept
possession of one castle which by a legal decision of the King’s Court,
given four years before, belonged to another man. This was Bytham, in
Lincolnshire. Originally a part of the honour of Holderness, it had
been alienated by the first husband of Aumale’s mother, and was thus at
the time of the war the property of one William de Coleville. This man
joined the rebels, and thereupon his lands were occupied by the count
of Aumale, to whom they were no doubt granted by John. On Coleville’s
return to allegiance in 1217 orders were issued for their restoration;
but two successive letters from the King to the count failed to procure
this,[750] and in November Aumale was summoned to answer before the
King’s Court at Westminster for his retention of Bytham.[751] The
Court adjudged the castle to Coleville;[752] but somehow Aumale
retained possession of it, seemingly without further question, possibly
therefore by private agreement with the rival owner.[753] In the night
of 26th December, 1220, Aumale slipped away without leave from the
Christmas gathering of the court at Oxford, and rode to Bytham.[754]
There he collected in a few days a force of armed men, and began to
harry the neighbouring townships, carrying off the corn to store it in
Bytham castle, and capturing men whom he imprisoned there and tortured
till they purchased their release. While the terrified country-folk
sought safety for their goods in the churchyards and their persons in
the churches,[755] he attempted to surprise the castles of Newark,
Sleaford, and Kimbolton, but at each of them met with an ignominious
repulse.[756] It seems that the King’s Council on hearing of these
outrages summoned Aumale to answer for them at Westminster, and that he
made a pretence of intending to obey, and received a safe-conduct for
that purpose.[757] Instead of doing so, however, he suddenly marched
to Fotheringay. The responsible warden of Fotheringay at that moment
appears to have been Hubert de Burgh.[758] But Hubert was in London
with the King, and Fotheringay was garrisoned by a mere handful of
knights and men-at-arms. Aumale and his followers set fire to the gate,
scaled the walls, slew two of the garrison, and captured the rest.[759]
The count then returned to Bytham and continued his depredations.[760]
One writer of the time says that he even had the impudence to send
letters to the mayors of the cities of England, telling them that he
had granted to all merchants “his peace, and licence to go freely to
and fro between his castles for the exercise of their business,” “as if
he alone were master in the realm.”[761]

[Sidenote: 1221]

The seizure of Fotheringay probably became known in London late on
January 22nd, or very early next morning. It seems that a great
meeting of the royal Council had been convened for the 25th, but
was held immediately on receipt of the tidings, in S. Paul’s
Cathedral.[762] William of Aumale and all his helpers and abettors
were excommunicated by the Legate, the Archbishop of York, and seven
(or ten) bishops of the southern province (its primate was at Rome),
the Earls of Chester and Salisbury likewise holding lighted candles
which they threw on the floor when the sentence was pronounced.[763]
The grounds of the excommunication were fourfold: first, Aumale’s
refusal either to fulfill or to redeem his vow of crusade; second,
his contempt of the “judgement of the realm” which had adjudged
Bytham to William de Coleville; third, his seizure of “a castle of
his lord the King” (Fotheringay) by treachery and without previous
“defiance”;[764] fourth, his neglect to make amends according to
the Legate’s command for the plunderings which had brought upon him
his former excommunication.[765] A summons was issued immediately to
such of the barons as were not present, bidding them meet the King
at Northampton with all the forces they could bring.[766] Some of
the magnates made an attempt to persuade Aumale into submission, but
without success.[767] When the King and the host reached Northampton,
they found that the count had left Bytham secretly, and was making for
his own castle of Skipton in Craven.[768] On this orders were issued
that Skipton and two other of his strongholds, Cockermouth and Skipsey,
should be “besieged and utterly destroyed” by the forces of the
shires in which they respectively stood--Lancashire, Westmorland and
Yorkshire.[769] Meanwhile the garrison left by Aumale at Fotheringay
“hastened to consult their own safety” by going to join their friends
at Bytham;[770] and when, on 3rd February, the royal forces, with a
formidable siege train brought from Nottingham by Philip Marc,[771]
marched upon Fotheringay, they found that castle deserted. Falkes was
entrusted with its safe keeping,[772] and the rest of the host moved on
to Bytham. There a summons to surrender was rejected by the garrison,
who were forthwith excommunicated again.[773] Then the place was
assaulted, with such effect that it was almost in ruin when on 8th
February its defenders surrendered at discretion.[774] What remained
of it was immediately burnt to the ground, with all its contents.[775]
Aumale was presently found by the Archbishop of York and the northern
barons, in sanctuary at Fountains Abbey, whence they brought him to
the King under a promise that if he could not obtain mercy from his
sovereign, they would take him back to Fountains in safety.[776] At the
Legate’s desire, “peace was made between him and the King, forasmuch
as he had served the King and his father faithfully and efficiently in
the war”; and his knights and men-at-arms were all set free without
punishment or ransom. Roger of Wendover grumbles at this clemency of
the King, “who,” he says, “set a very bad precedent for others to rebel
against him in like manner, trusting to be similarly treated.”[777]
Pandulf was probably a better judge than Roger of the respective claims
and advantages of mercy and severity in such a case. His mild policy
certainly proved successful so far as Aumale himself was concerned. The
count managed, indeed, to stave off the fulfilment of his crusading
vow for more than twenty years longer; but in all those years he seems
never, save for one brief moment in 1223, to have given any trouble to
the government.[778]

The next step taken by the King’s guardians towards the recovery of
control over the royal castles was a weighty one. They “urged” Earl
William the Marshal to surrender Marlborough[779] and Luggershall; “a
thing which”--as the king himself explained in a letter written some
three years later--“was most expedient for us, that thereby the other
magnates should be more easily induced to resign likewise the castles
of ours which they held.”[780] To conciliate the Marshal himself
was, however, at that moment especially, a matter of almost greater
consequence than to get possession of the castles. No other man in
England had as much power to strengthen or weaken the hands of the
government as he; and that power was on the increase. In June, 1220,
he had ceded to his brother Richard his rights to the Norman lands
of their father. Richard, having no lands in England, could do what
the Earl could not--enter into his Norman heritage, by doing homage
for it to Philip Augustus; and he did so without delay.[781] Thus the
family was brought into close connexion with the interests of France.
The Marshal’s wife, a half-sister of the Count of Aumale, had now been
dead some years, and he was contemplating a marriage with a sister of
Earl Robert de Bruce. In view of the relative geographical positions
of Bruce’s earldom on the Scottish border and the Marshal’s lands
in Ireland, the prospect of this alliance filled the English King’s
Council with alarm; the more so as they believed that “there were other
magnates in England who by malicious confederations were striving to
turn away his heart from” the King.[782] They therefore offered him a
bride of higher rank--the youngest sister of the King.

The Justiciar and the Marshal pledged their faith to each other
that this marriage should take place, if the King and the magnates
of the realm would give their consent, which the Legate and Hubert
promised to do their utmost to obtain. The Marshal then surrendered
the two castles, delivering them into the hands of the Legate as their
custodian, on a promise that they should be restored to him if the
contract were not fulfilled within a certain time.[783]

It is difficult to guess who can have been the magnates suspected of
“trying to turn the Marshal’s heart away” from his young sovereign.
There were, however, rumours of a treasonable plot about this time.
The Justiciar’s uneasiness was shown in an order, issued early in
March, that no person, armed or unarmed, should be allowed to land at
or sail from Bristol, Exeter, or any of the Cinque Ports unless he had
a special warrant from the King.[784] While the court was assembled
at Winchester for Whitsuntide, Peter de Maulay, the sheriff of Dorset
and Somerset and warden of the royal castles of Corfe and Sherborne,
was arrested on a charge of treason brought against him by one Richard
Muscegros.[785] Engelard de Cigogné was arrested and imprisoned at
the same time, also on suspicion of treason.[786] On the Friday in
the same week (4th June) Peter de Maulay delivered to the King, by
the hands of the Justiciar, the Earls of Salisbury and Pembroke, and
William Brewer, the royal castle of Corfe, with the King’s cousin
Eleanor, the Scot King’s sister Isabel, and the jewels, crossbows,
and other property which King John had committed to Peter to keep in
the castle.[787] Thereupon he seems to have been released,[788] on
an undertaking to stand his trial before the King’s Court at a later
time. The charge against him, whatever may have been its origin, was
evidently already recognized as unfounded; he was left in possession
of his sheriffdoms, and of another royal castle, Sherborne,[789] and
no further proceedings were taken in his case till November. Then, at
a great council in London, he was, according to one account, tried and
acquitted;[790] according to another, “he put himself on the King’s
mercy, and was reconciled with him, his accusers thinking better of the
challenge which they had brought against him.”[791] His sheriffdoms
were transferred to other hands,[792] but he was publicly acknowledged
by the King as “trusty and well-beloved”;[793] and Sherborne castle
was left in his keeping till the end of January, 1222.[794] The charge
against Engelard de Cigogné was evidently found to be as baseless as
that against Peter; Engelard was released on giving hostages for the
surrender of Windsor castle whenever the King should require it,[795]
but it was not required till more than two years later, and then only
in consequence of a papal order for the surrender of all the royal
castles of England; and meanwhile, four months after his arrest, he
was employed by King and Council on important political and financial
business in Poitou.[796] Peter de Maulay is said to have sworn to John
that he would not give up the castles committed to his charge till
Henry should be of age.[797] Possibly Engelard may have been in the
same case, and the “treason” of both may have consisted in a refusal,
grounded upon this previous oath, to obey some demand made by the
Justiciar for the surrender of Corfe and Windsor on the strength of
the oath taken at the coronation in 1220. There is indeed no evidence
of such a demand having been made; but it appears somewhat significant
that both Peter and Engelard were released, and the charges against
them practically withdrawn, as soon as the one prisoner had surrendered
Corfe and the other given security for the surrender of Windsor on
demand.

The marriage of Alexander and Joan was now fixed to take place at
York in the middle of June.[798] The court therefore moved northward,
by way of Oxford, Northampton, and Nottingham; and in each of these
castles, it is said, the garrison was reinforced, or a part of it
replaced, by some knights of the King’s own household.[799] On 19th
June[800] Alexander and Joan were married by Archbishop Walter.[801]
A month later {19 July}, at Westminster, in presence of the bishops
of Winchester, London, and Salisbury, Pandulf publicly resigned his
legation.[802] Archbishop Stephen, who had been at Rome ever since
the previous autumn,[803] was now coming home,[804] bringing with
him a grant from the Pope of some important privileges, one of which
was that during Stephen’s own lifetime no resident legate should
again be appointed in England.[805] In all likelihood Pandulf had
asked to be released from the double burden which he had now borne
for more than two years.[806] By resigning his legation he also laid
down his regency; for it was in virtue of his authority as the Pope’s
representative that he had been chosen to succeed the Earl Marshal as
regent. Neither the Pope nor the magnates took any steps to provide a
successor to Pandulf in this latter office; and thus the first English
regency suddenly came to an end.


FOOTNOTES:

[519] He is called “Magister Pandulfus, subdiaconus et familiaris
domini Papae,” until his election to the see of Norwich in July, 1215,
and even afterwards. See the preamble to Magna Charta, and _Pat. Rolls
Joh._, pp. 154 b, 181. Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. p. 235) calls him
cardinal in 1211; but Pandulf never was a cardinal at all.

[520] _Ann. Worc._, a. 1215.

[521] “Domine, de longinquo venimus huc per petitionem tuam,” is
the opening speech of the envoys to John, in _Ann. Burton_ a. 1211,
pp. 209–210; and the king at the end of the discussion bursts
out--“Intimatum mihi erat per quosdam latores meos, immo latrones, quod
vos in curia Romana promoveretis causam meam et quod me diligeretis;
modo vero hic percipio quod causam meam non fovetis.... Talia autem
mihi nunciaturos non mandavi, sed ut causam meam defenderetis,” _ib._
p. 216.

[522] _Ib._ pp. 209–217.

[523] See _John Lackland_, pp. 175, 179, 180.

[524] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 256.

[525] “Domini Papae nuncius,” June, 1213, _Pat. Rolls Joh._, pp. 99 b,
100 b.

[526] _Ib._ p. 107, 1st January, 1214.

[527] _Ib._ p. 100.

[528] “In nuncium nostrum,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 141.

[529] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, pp. 129 b, 132.

[530] R. Wend., vol. iii. pp. 336–338, 340.

[531] Between 15th and 18th July; _Pat. Rolls Joh._, pp. 149, 149 b.

[532] _Ib._ p. 182 b, 13th September, 1215.

[533] Bliss, _Calendar_, vol. i. p. 56.

[534] _Ib._ p. 58.

[535] R. Coggeshall, p. 186.

[536] On the date of this correspondence see Professor Powicke’s
article on “The Chancery during the Minority of Henry III,” _Eng. Hist.
Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 229.

[537] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 113.

[538] _Ib._ p. 112.

[539] _Ib._ p. 117.

[540] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 120.

[541] “Si ... ad beatum Martyrem visitandum ire velitis.”

[542] _Ib._ pp. 119–121.

[543] On the whole subject of Chancellor, Vice-chancellor, and custody
of the seals, and on Richard de Marsh and Ralf de Neville, see Powicke,
pp. 223–231.

[544] “Per vicarium,” _Dial. de Scaccario_, lib. i. c. xv.

[545] Professor Powicke, p. 228, says positively that this was so,
citing as his authority “_Rot. Claus. passim_.” So far as I can see,
however, these Rolls contain no actual proof that the “R. camerarius”
who figures in them together with the treasurer and another chamberlain
whose initial is “F.” is Ralf de Neville. The identification seems to
be an inference from Pandulf’s injunctions about “paying nothing out.”

[546] This is clear from the tone of Pandulf’s letters. See especially
the letter of 12th May--“Rogamus autem et monemus prudentiam tuam ut
_verbum secretum quod tibi diximus_ studeas loco et tempore fideliter
procurare.” _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 119.

[547] Pandulf issues his orders “_legationis_ qua fungimur auctoritate”
(_ib._), because in his case the secular authority of the regent was
included in and covered by the legatine authority. He had been made
regent just because he was the Pope’s Legate.

[548] _Ib._ p. 116.

[549] “Ad factum scaccarii detis operam efficacem, sicut regi et regno
cognoscatis expedire,” _Foedera_, I. i. p. 157, January, 1220.

[550] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1223, p. 84.

[551] There is no authority for the oft-repeated assertion that
Hubert’s father was brother to William FitzAudelin.

[552] For their relationship see Sweetman, _Calendar of Documents
relating to Ireland_, vol. i. No. 2217.

[553] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 9.

[554] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 163.

[555] R. Coggeshall, pp. 139–140.

[556] _Ib._ p. 154.

[557] See references in Dugdale, _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 693.

[558] Before 7th April; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 142.

[559] Before 11th April (1215); _ib._ p. 194.

[560] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 138, 24th May, 1215.

[561] Between 15th June, when he figures in the Great Charter as
“senescallus Pictaviae,” and 25th June, when he appears for the first
time as “Justiciarius Angliae,” _Ib._ p. 144 b. He himself seems to
have stated in 1239 “quod dominus Johannes Rex tradidit ei justitiariam
apud Runingmede coram domino Stephano Archiepiscopo, comite Warannae,
comite de Ferrariis, et aliis magnatibus”; _Responsiones_ (M. Paris,
_Chron. Maj._, vol. vi.), p. 65.

[562] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. pp. 28, 29.

[563] See above, pp. 51, 52.

[564] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 181; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p.
309.

[565] _Dict. Nat. Biogr._, “Peter des Roches.”

[566] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 1 b.

[567] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 22 b.

[568] See Rolls, a. 1201–1205, _passim_.

[569] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 49.

[570] _Ib._ pp. 40, 43, 46 (a. 1204).

[571] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 18 b.

[572] _Ann. Winton._ a. 1205.

[573] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1210.

[574] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 110, 110 b.

[575] R. Coggeshall, p. 168.

[576] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1214.

[577] In the Patent Roll of 15 John (1213–1214), _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p.
107, it is stated that “vicesimo secundo die Decembris liberatum fuit
sigillum apud Windlesoram Radulfo de Nevill, sub domino Wintoniensi
episcopo deferendum.” From this it has by some writers been inferred
that Peter was Chancellor for a short time in 1213–1214. But Walter
de Gray, who had been Chancellor ever since 2nd October, 1205 (_Close
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 53), appears in that capacity on 10th October, 1213,
and again on 12th January, 1214 (_ib._ pp. 156 b, 160), and the title
of chancellor is nowhere given to Peter. It seems therefore that Ralf
was made keeper of the seal “under the Bishop of Winchester” as a mere
temporary arrangement, necessitated by the fact that the Chancellor
(Walter de Gray) was going to Flanders on business for the King; _ib._
p. 156 b. See also Powicke, “Chancery,” pp. 226, 227.

[578] Henry was born on 1st October, 1207; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 219.

[579] The notices of little Henry during his father’s lifetime are
unluckily very few. We know that about August, 1215, he and his mother
were sent for safety to the royal castle of Corfe (_Hist. Ducs_,
p. 152), and that at the time of his father’s death he was in the
castle of Devizes, under the care of a valiant man-at-arms, Ralf of
Saint-Samson (see above, pp. 2, 3). These temporary removals of the boy
from Peter’s custody were, however, certainly not due to any withdrawal
of John’s confidence from Peter, whose name follows that of Gualo in
the list of executors of the will made by John on his death-bed.

[580] “Willelmus Mareschallus, regis rector et regni, diem clausit
extremum; post cujus mortem memoratus rex in custodia Petri
Wintoniensis episcopi remansit.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 46.

[581] Turner, pt. II. p. 237.

[582] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 13, 14.

[583] _Ib._ p. 136.

[584] _Ib._ p. 13; see on this Turner, pt. II. p. 236.

[585] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 136. The new custodian was Falkes,
who had been custodian of Rockingham before Count William. The fact
that Sauvey was not re-committed to Geoffrey de Serland implies no
slight upon the latter; he had in the interval been well provided for
elsewhere.

[586] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 245.

[587] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 257, 258; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp.
434, 434 b.

[588] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 416 b.

[589] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 235.

[590] _Ib._ p. 240.

[591] _Ib._ p. 191.

[592] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 98.

[593] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 400 b.

[594] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 99.

[595] _Ib._ pp. 128, 129.

[596] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 263–265.

[597] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 16, 17.

[598] There can be no doubt that this is the “forma pacis” which
Pandulf asks Ralf de Neville to send him in May 1219: _ib._ p. 117 (for
date see above, p. 113).

[599] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 197.

[600] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 157. The letter is dateless, but there can
be no doubt about its reference. It cannot refer to the treaty made
between the two kings at York in June 1220, because on that occasion
Peter, as well as Pandulf, was present in person; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.
p. 235.

[601] This was explicitly stated in the charge against Hubert de Burgh
in 1239, as reported in his _Responsiones_, M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._,
vol. vi. pp. 70–71. A promise that one of William’s daughters should
be married to one of John’s sons is also mentioned by Gervase of
Canterbury (vol. i. p. 103) as included in the treaty of Norham. The
text of that treaty in _Foedera_, I. i. p. 103, rests on no authority
beyond that of Rymer.

[602] Both Margaret and her sister were born before the end of 1195; R.
Howden, vol. iii. pp. 299, 308.

[603] “Primae conventiones.”

[604] _Responsiones_, p. 71.

[605] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 59, 60.

[606] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 434.

[607] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 58, 59, 76, 77; _Foedera_, I. i. p. 157.

[608] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 260, 261.

[609] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 418, 418 b. Llywelyn’s version, as
given in a letter from him to Pandulf, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 122,
123, was very different.

[610] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 143.

[611] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 159.

[612] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244.

[613] “Eodemque anno ... devotus Deo rex Henricus III fecit inchoari
fabricam novae capellae B. Virginis apud Westmonasterium, eodem rege
existente fundatore et patrono, et primum lapidem operis in fundamento
in bonum auspicium disponente, videlicet sabbato sancto Pentecostes.”
M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ a. 1220, vol. ii. p. 242. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p.
188, and _Ann. Berm._, a. 1220.

[614] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244. There must have been many present who
had seen three coronations before Henry’s accession--those of Richard
in 1189 and 1195, and that of John in 1199. The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 57,
mention a detail which would have a special significance for those who
remembered Richard’s first crowning: “Judaei vero in Turri Lundoniarum
servabantur interim ad cautelam.” Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 63,
says the crowning was at Canterbury, but he is certainly wrong. Cf.
_Hist. Ducs_, p. 208, and R. Coggeshall, p. 187. T. Wykes, a. 1220,
says: “Sane quia propter aetatis teneritudinem nondum sufficiens
fuerat [rex] ad regni gubernaculum, totius regni proceres providebant
sibi tutorem et custodem, virum summi discretionis et probitatis,
dominum Hubertum de Burgo, qui motus regis voluntarios refraenaret, ne
forte per immoderantiam lasciviret; factusque est justiciarius totius
Angliae, ut sua prudentia, qua caeteris praepollebat, regis et regni
negotia dispensaret.” And the Bermondsey Annals, a. 1220, say: “Hoc
anno Hubertus de Burgo factus est justiciarius totius Angliae,” while
the Waverley Annals make a like statement under the date 1219. These
entries seem to be all derived from a common source, and based upon a
mistake. There is superabundant documentary evidence that Hubert had
been justiciar uninterruptedly ever since 1215; if he had not been
reappointed at Henry’s accession, there could be no reason and no
occasion for him to be reappointed now; and his own words in 1239, as
given in the _Responsiones_, p. 64, distinctly imply that nothing of
the kind had ever taken place.

[615] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 170, 171, August, 1214.

[616] See above, p. 117.

[617] Before 4th Feb. 1215: _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 186 b.

[618] Before 8th December, 1215: _ib._ p. 241.

[619] The Archbishop’s appointment as seneschal is dated 28th March,
1217. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 54.

[620] _Ib._ p. 152, 8th May, 1218.

[621] He was probably about the same age as Isabel, who was then
twenty-six. His parents had been married in 1181; but his mother--who
as the only child of the elder brother of Isabel’s father had claims on
Angoulême--must have been then so young that her son is not likely to
have been born till some years later.

[622] Of Jerusalem and Cyprus.

[623] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 159; _cf._ John’s treaty with the Lusignans,
_Charter Rolls_, p. 197 b.

[624] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 30, 31.

[625] _Ib._ pp. 37, 38.

[626] She was proposing to go in July, 1217, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
113, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 315, but seems not to have actually gone
till next year.

[627] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 206.

[628] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 73 b.

[629] _Ib._ p. 168 b.

[630] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 33, 34.

[631] Such at least was Hugh’s story: “non poterat exire de Rupella
sine commodatione praedictae pecuniae,” _ib._ p. 44.

[632] _Ib._ pp. 43–45.

[633] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 395 b, 16th July.

[634] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 199, 25th July.

[635] See the King’s letter to William Maingo, 24th July, 1219, in
_Foedera_, I. i. p. 155.

[636] It had been made in September, 1214, to last for five years from
Easter, 1215; _ib._ p. 125.

[637] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 201.

[638] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 157; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 74, 76.

[639] They were Philip d’Aubigné, the Abbot of Stratford, and Alan
Basset. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 410 b.

[640] _Foedera_, I. i. pp. 158, 159. Cf. _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 94,
_Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220 (which wrongly make the period five years),
and _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 207, 208; the two latter authorities expatiate
on Philip’s generosity in consenting to prolong the truce without
pecuniary consideration.

[641] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 33, 34.

[642] Warren went with her to the King, and a day, 15th September, was
given them, at which Warren begged Hubert to attend and do his utmost
“tam pro rege quam pro nobis”; _ib._ p. 42. The result does not appear.

[643] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 408, 14th November.

[644] He landed at Dover on 1st November, and proposed to be in London
to meet Pandulf on the 4th; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 49.

[645] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 54, 55.

[646] _Ib._ pp. 45, 46, 49–54, 62, 63, 65.

[647] _Ib._ pp. 94–96. Cf. the letter of Ivo de la Jaille--one of the
Angevin barons who still held out for the Angevin house--_ib._ p. 93.
Geoffrey de Neville was sent back to Poitou in February, 1220, but only
“in nuncium nostrum,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 411 b; he went after
12th February, and seems to have returned to England before 27th April,
_ib._ p. 417. The “Seneschal of Poitou and Gascony” to whom letters
are addressed on 10th February, 2nd July, and 29th July, 1220 (_Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 228, 245, 243), was clearly a deputy, most likely
William Gauler.

[648] On January 17th, 1220, Pandulf urged Hubert “Provideatis etiam
de persona quae ire debeat in Pictaviam, quia tempus instat quo debeat
quicumque fuerit iter arripere. Nec expectetis super praemissis
consilium, cum nos hoc velimus et consulamus omnimodis bona fide.”
_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 76. Again, on 27th January: “Si de mittenda
persona in Pictaviam tractavistis et eam invenistis, nobis quam citius
vestris literis intimetis.” _Ib._ p. 79.

[649] See for date Shirley’s note, _ib._ pp. 32, 33.

[650] “Comites Marchiae et _Angolismae_” in Shirley’s printed text,
_ib._ p. 114; but this latter word must be an error for _Augiae_.

[651] See the whole of this very amusing epistle, _ib._ pp. 114,
115. The date is approximately determined by Henry’s letter of
congratulation to Hugh.

[652] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 160.

[653] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 233. Ralf and Joldewin are spoken of as
going to Poitou “in nuntium nostrum” on 20th May; _Close Rolls_, vol.
i. p. 418 b.

[654] _Close Rolls_, vol i. p. 436.

[655] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 235. The _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220, say:
“Mense Junio apud Eboracum rex Scotiae affidavit sororem Henrici regis
Angliae; qua de causa idem rex Angliae remisit ei quinque millia
marcarum.” Probably _remisit_ here is a scribe’s error for _promisit_,
and five thousand marks was the dowry given by Henry to his sister on
her marriage. The little damsel Isabel of England was apparently taken
to York that Alexander might see her; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 234. The
Lord of Galloway, Alan, also came to York at this time, and performed
the homage which he owed to Henry; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 420 b.

[656] Isabel’s demand is curiously worded: “Precamur vos diligenter
quod ei [_i.e._, Hugoni] reddatis jus suum, scilicet Niortum, Castrum
Exonense, et de Rokingham, et tria millia et quingentas marcas quas
pater vester, maritus quondam noster, nobis legavit” (_Roy. Lett._,
vol. i. p. 115). The mention of Rockingham should probably run “et
villam de Rokingham.” The lands bestowed by John upon Isabel in dower
consisted of the city of Saintes, Niort, Saumur, La Flèche, Beaufort,
Baugy, Château-du-Loir, “Trov” (_Charter Rolls_, pp. 74 b, 75), the
city and fair of Exeter, the towns of Ilchester, Wilton, Malmesbury,
Chichester, Queenhithe, and Waltham, the honour of Berkhamsted, the
county of Rutland, and the town of Rockingham, Falaise, Domfront,
Bonneville-sur-Toucques, and all the lands which had belonged to the
dowry of his mother Queen Eleanor (_ib._ 128).

[657] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 161.

[658] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 261.

[659] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 149; cf. _ib._ p. 133.

[660] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 134.

[661] _Ib._ p. 140.

[662] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 132, 133.

[663] _Ib._ p. 127.

[664] _Ib._ pp. 123, 124.

[665] _Ib._ pp. 126, 127.

[666] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 129.

[667] See the story in Turner, pt. II. pp. 223, 224.

[668] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 162.

[669] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 249.

[670] Cf. Peter’s letter to Pandulf, _Foedera_, _l.c._, and _Close
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 430, where we find the Dean sent home at the King’s
expense “in nuncium nostrum” on 18th September.

[671] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 437.

[672] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 265, 266.

[673] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 149.

[674] _Ib._ pp. 536, 537.

[675] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 255.

[676] Philip of Ulecote died before 30th October; _ib._ p. 269.

[677] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 157–159.

[678] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 439.

[679] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 159.

[680] “Barones qui praesentes erant in crastino coronationis juraverunt
quod castra et wardias suas ad voluntatem regis resignarent, et de
firmis suis fidelem compotum ad scaccarium redderent; et si quis regi
rebellis resisteret, et infra quadragintas dies post excommunicationem
a legato non satisfecerit, quod ad mandatum regis ei bella moverent, ut
exhaeredetur sine fine rebellis.” _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220, p. 57. See
Note VI.

[681] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 121.

[682] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 65. The castle is not expressly named;
but its inclusion in the grant appears from the sequel.

[683] _Hundred Rolls_, vol. i. p. 309.

[684] On 26th November, 1217, the King bids “the sheriff of
Lincolnshire”--no name is mentioned--“cause Nicolaa de Haye to have a
reasonable aid from her knights and free tenants in your bailiwick for
the payment of debts incurred by her when she was besieged in Lincoln
castle.” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 344.

[685] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 130.

[686] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 356, 367, 367 b, &c. The exact date
at which she recovered the castle does not appear; probably it was not
very long before the date of the first of these entries, 17th March,
1218; for on 13th November, 1218, we find an order to the Treasury for
payment to Earl William of what he spent “per visum et testimonium
legalium hominum in reparacione castri Lincolniae tempore pacis,”
_ib._ p. 383. If he had delivered the castle to its Dame immediately
on receipt of the King’s order to do so, at the beginning of November,
1217, he would not have had much time for its repair _tempore pacis_,
the peace having been made on 12th September.

[687] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 200, 201.

[688] Order, dated 23rd May, 1220, for payment to Falkes of the wages
of three knights “qui sunt in servitio nostro in castro Lincolniae cum
eodem Falkesio” from the octave of the Assumption in the King’s third
year (22nd August, 1219) to the octave of Trinity in his fourth year
(31st May, 1220). _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 419.

[689] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 73.

[690] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 86, 87.

[691] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 175, 176.

[692] “Johannes Marescallus reddit compotum de £128 7_s._ pro fine suo
et fine fratris sui Gilleberti de terra patris eorum. In operatione
castri de Merleberga £26 13_s._ 4_d._ per breve Regis et per visum
Yvonis de Neville. Et debet £100 33_s._ 8_d._” _Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II_
(1175–1176), p. 172.

[693] The warden of Marlborough castle throughout John’s reign was Hugh
de Neville; see _Pat. Rolls Joh._ and _Close Rolls_, vol. i., _passim_,
the latter from p. 16 b (1205) onwards. John “de Turri” appears as its
constable on the morrow of Magna Charta (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 214
b), no doubt as deputy for Hugh, who was at Runnimede with the king. It
was Hugh who surrendered the place to Louis in 1216; _Hist. Ducs_, pp.
175, 176.

[694] In a writ of _Computate_ in favour of the sheriff of Wiltshire,
13th November, 1222, occurs this item: “Computate et eidem in firma
manerii de Merleberge c. et lx. libras blanchas, videlicet xxxii libras
annuas de praedictis v. annis praeteritis, quas comes W. Marescallus
senior et comes W. Marescallus junior et Johannes de Ferentino
receperunt de eodem manerio per eosdem annos ad custodiendum castrum de
Merleberge”; and the “past five years” are in an earlier part of the
writ defined as “de anno regni nostri secundo, tertio, quarto, quinto,
et sexto,” _i.e._ from 29th October, 1217, to 28th October, 1222.
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 521.

[695] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 100, 101; date, 3rd April [1220].

[696] On 24th July, 1221, “the King’s constable of Marlborough” is
bidden to give the heirs of Robert of Barfleur seisin of the mill at
Marlborough called Port Mill, “de quo W. Marescallus comes Penbrochiae
cum habuisset seisinam castri de Merleberge eosdem heredes _pro
voluntate sua_ disseisivit.” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 466.

[697] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 299 b, 305 b; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
55.

[698] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 348. Cf. above, p. 87.

[699] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 354 b, 13th March, 1218.

[700] _Ib._ p. 397, 22nd July, 1219.

[701] _Ib._ p. 406 b, 29th October, 1219.

[702] That the Marshal had taken this oath is stated in the King’s
letter of 11th September, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 429 b.

[703] Hubert held the castles of Dover, Canterbury, Rochester, Norwich,
Orford, and the Tower of London (see Turner, pt. II. pp. 242, 243); the
first three as sheriff of Kent, the next two as sheriff of Norfolk and
Suffolk, and the last as Justiciar.

[704] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244.

[705] Pontefract, 19th June; Nottingham, 21st June; Leicester, 23rd
June; Northampton, 23rd June; Rockingham, 26th June. _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
i. p. 238.

[706] W. Cov., _l.c._

[707] See above, p. 123.

[708] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 238.

[709] “Computate Falkesio de Bréauté £100 quas posuit in expensis
nostris in obsidione castri de Rockingham,” 5th November, 1220, _Close
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 439 b.

[710] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 244, 245.

[711] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 239.

[712] The Barnwell annalist’s account of this affair (W. Cov., _l.c._)
suggests a possibility that Aumale’s deputy constable at Rockingham may
have been more forward than Aumale himself to resist the King, and in
fact gone beyond the count’s orders in shutting the gates. Mr. Turner
thinks the statement of Roger of Wendover (vol. iv, p. 65) that the
two castles were found “penitus omnia victualium genere destituta, ita
quidem quod nec etiam tres panes invenirentur in eis,” “suggests that
the count had been misrepresented by the letters patent of November,
1219, which recited that he was fortifying the castles and storing them
with corn” (Turner, pt. II. p. 242). I cannot follow this argument; to
me a statement as to the contents of a place in June, 1220, conveys no
suggestion whatever as to the contents of that place in November, 1219.

[713] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 240, 29th June, 1220.

[714] See above, p. 143. The date must be before 29th June, as the Earl
speaks of the Count’s lack of obedience to the King “de his quae modo
custodit in Anglia.”

[715] He may even have had no stake there at all. For all we know, his
father may not have possessed a rood of land at Fors or anywhere else.
Fors itself is a mere village.

[716] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220, p. 64.

[717] _Ib._ p. 58; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 246, and _Ann. Wav._, a.
1220.

[718] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 209.

[719] Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 245, _Ann. Dunst._, p. 58, and _Hist.
Ducs_, pp. 208, 209. The last reckons twenty-five bishops; the first,
seventeen bishops and three archbishops, among whom, however, he does
not name Reims.

[720] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 209; _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[721] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 208.

[722] “Praesente ... rege Anglorum Henrico quarto,” says the Barnwell
annalist (W. Cov., _l.c._), using the reckoning which counted the
“young King,” Henry II’s son, as Henry III.

[723] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 437.

[724] Cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 437 b, and _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220.

[725] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 151.

[726] I venture to suggest that this may be the explanation of a
letter from Pandulf to Hubert de Burgh, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 130:
“Quod actum est de vicecomite Eboracensi, in Dei et domini regis ac
nostrum pariter acceptatum esse noscitur praejudicium et contemptum,
non enim per nostram vel vestram ammonitionem adhuc potuit liberari.
Ideoque discretionem vestram monemus attentius et hortamur quatenus
ipsum secundum justitiam et legem terrae faciatis quantocius liberari,
cum teneamini hoc circa quemlibet observari facientes” (?) “ita quod
honor domini regis conservetur illaesus, et vos inde possitis merito
commendari.” In the printed edition this letter purports to be “datum
apud Lincolniam, nonas Junii”; Dr. Shirley took this to be 5th June,
1220, and tentatively suggested as “not impossible” that the outrage
to which it alludes may have been an act of vengeance perpetrated by
William of Aumale, Geoffrey’s most powerful neighbour in Yorkshire,
on the erroneous suspicion that it was Geoffrey’s influence which
had “disappointed” him of Geoffrey’s former office of seneschal of
Poitou. But (1) I greatly doubt whether Aumale, or anybody else, would
be “disappointed” at not being made seneschal of Poitou. That office
was neither a pleasant nor a lucrative one, but one which most of
its various holders, for many years past, seem to have accepted with
reluctance and escaped from as soon as possible. (2) The fact that in
none of the various accounts of Aumale’s misdoings--in the chronicles,
or in the royal letters patent--is there any mention of the capture of
the sheriff of Yorkshire, makes it appear very improbable that he was
concerned in the matter. Had he been so, or even suspected of being so,
his enemies would surely have made the most of such a charge to add to
the indictment which, as we shall see, was brought against him early
next year. (3) Dr. Shirley cites as a reference showing this letter
to have been written in 1220 “_inter alia_, Rot. Claus. i. p. 419 b”;
but I can see there nothing which bears on the subject. It seems to
me possible that the word printed _Junii_ may have been originally a
contracted form of _Januarii_; that the true date of the letter may
be 5th January, 1221; and that its true connexion may be not with
Aumale but with the dispute about the carucage. I can find in the Rolls
nothing to prove or to indicate whether Geoffrey de Neville was or was
not at liberty either _c._ 5th June, 1220, or _c._ 5th January, 1221.
On 22nd January he was sent with a message from the King to the count
of Aumale; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 446.

[727] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 437.

[728] See above, p. 124.

[729] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 253, 254.

[730] _Ib._ p. 253.

[731] See the details of the debts to Pandulf, Feb. 18th, 1221, _ib._
p. 284.

[732] See above, p. 129.

[733] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 141, 142.

[734] _Ib._ p. 143.

[735] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 428.

[736] _Brut_, p. 307.

[737] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 144, 145. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 61.

[738] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 144, 145.

[739] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. pp. 254, 255.

[740] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 164.

[741] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 431 b. Of course it by no means follows
that these commissioners got what they went for.

[742] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 236.

[743] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 429 b.

[744] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 150.

[745] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 257.

[746] See above, p. 145.

[747] We shall find it in his custody in January, 1221.

[748] He eventually gave it, not later than 12th March, 1221, to the
boy’s maternal uncle, Ranulf of Chester. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 285.

[749] Cf. _ib._ p. 272, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 442.

[750] Turner, pt. II. pp. 247, 248.

[751] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 119.

[752] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 64.

[753] Turner, pt. II. p. 248.

[754] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 66. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.

[755] R. Wend., _l.c._ He goes on: “Habuit autem, ut dicebatur, hujus
factionis incentores Falcasium, Philippum Marc, Petrum de Maloleone”
[_recte_ “Malolacu”] “Engelardum de Athie, et alios multos, qui clam
miserunt ei viros armatos ut pacem regni turbaret.” But there is
not a particle of evidence to indicate that such was the fact, or
even that it was suspected at the time; indeed, the evidence of the
records disproves the existence of such a suspicion against two of the
men named, Philip Marc and Falkes; see Turner, pt. II. p. 254, and
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 448 b. Once again, as in his account of the
Newark affair in 1217, Roger is carrying back to an earlier date his
recollections of 1223.

[756] “Comes de Albomari mense Januario visus est furtive capere
castra de Neuwerga, et de Latford, et de Kimbautona; sed turpiter
repulsus, accessit ex improvisu ad Fodringham,” etc., says the printed
text of _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1221, p. 63. _Visus_ is obviously an error
for _nisus_. Newark and Sleaford belonged to the Bishop of Lincoln;
Kimbolton to the Earl of Essex.

[757] I think this must be the real meaning of the words of Roger of
Wendover, (vol. iv. p. 67): “Convenerunt interim magnates Angliae ad
regem apud Westmonasterium ut de negotiis regni tractarent; comes vero,
qui cum caeteris vocatus fuerat, simulavit se illo ire,” coupled with
the safe-conduct until Candlemas granted to Aumale on some day between
15th and 22nd January, 1221, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 278; cf. _Close
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 446.

[758] “Justiciarius Angliae tunc in custodiam habebat,” W. Cov., vol.
ii. p. 247. Roger, _l.c._, says “erat tunc castellum in custodia
Ranulfi comitis Cestrensis,” but the former is probably right. Cf.
Turner, pt. II. p. 252.

[759] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 67, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 63.

[760] R. Wend., _l.c._

[761] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.

[762] On 22nd January a letter close was sent to Aumale bidding
him trust what two persons named therein should say to him on
the King’s behalf; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 446. This, from its
tone, would seem to have been despatched in ignorance of the
Fotheringay outrage--certainly before the assembly in which Aumale
was excommunicated again. The date of that assembly is given in the
Dunstable Annals, _l.c._, as “in die Conversionis Sancti Pauli.” But
the excommunication is announced, as having already taken place, in a
letter dated January 23rd, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 169.

[763] Cf. W. Cov., _l.c._, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 64.

[764] “Tum quia castrum domini sui regis proditione cepit antequam
ipsum difidasset.” I think this sentence of the Dunstable annalist
(_l.c._) tends to confirm the Barnwell writer’s statement that
Fotheringay was in the custody of Hubert. Strictly speaking,
Fotheringay was never “a castle of his (Aumale’s) lord the King,”
_i.e._, King Henry; it was a castle of the Earl of Huntingdon’s, and
held of the King of Scots; Henry had only the right to its custody
during the minority of the heir, and he had committed it to Alexander
as custodian. If, however, Alexander had (as he very likely may have
done) placed it temporarily in Henry’s hand, to be garrisoned by
Henry’s men under Henry’s justiciar, the Dunstable writer’s words
would be far more intelligible than if they were applied to it when
in the keeping of the Earl of Chester, who we know was, at some date
before--unluckily there is nothing to prove how long before--12th
March, 1221, appointed custodian of the honour of Huntingdon not by
Henry, but, with Henry’s sanction, by Alexander; see above, footnote
748.

[765] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 64.

[766] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 169. This letter, dated 23rd January,
is addressed to Geoffrey de Neville. There can be no doubt that a like
summons was sent to the other sheriffs and barons, and that the muster
was a general one.

[767] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 248.

[768] _Roy. Lett._, vol i. p. 171. He left Bytham on 31st January; _ib._

[769] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 474 b.

[770] W. Cov., _l.c._

[771] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 448.

[772] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[773] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 248, 249.

[774] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 67.

[775] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 249. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 64.

[776] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[777] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 67, 68.

[778] Commentators seem puzzled to account for a letter, dated 29th
April, 1221, in which the Pope bids the Archbishop of York and his
suffragans, “cum, sicut audivimus et dolemus, gravis guerra in regno
Angliae incipit pullulare, quae nisi fuerit repressa celeriter, in
totius regni poterit excrescere detrimentum ... quatenus singuli
tanquam propriam causam agentes ad praecidendam guerrarum materiam et
pacis foedera reformandam omne studium et diligentiam impendatis”;
_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 174, 175. I would suggest that Honorius had
heard something of the misdoings of the lord of Holderness, and was
neither sufficiently learned in English geography to realize that
they were not actually done in the northern province, nor, as yet,
aware--as, indeed, he could not be at that date--how promptly they had
been brought to an end.

[779] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1221, p. 68. On 28th April Falkes, Richard de
Rivers, and Engelard de Cigogné were sent to the Marshal with a letter
desiring him to trust to what they should tell him from the King about
the castle of Marlborough “ad fidem, commodum, et honorem nostrum.”
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 287.

[780] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 245.

[781] Stapleton, _Rotuli Normanniae_, vol. ii. introduction, p.
cxxxviii.

[782] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 244, 245. This may be an allusion to
the supposed plot of Peter de Maulay, or merely to what was possibly
the origin of a misunderstanding which had occurred between the Marshal
and the government at the time of the siege of Bytham. The Marshal
received no summons for that expedition, but hearing when on his way
“ad remotas partes” on business of his own that the host was mustering,
he hurried back and wrote to the King, expressing his surprise at not
having been summoned, and his readiness to join the muster; _ib._ pp.
170, 171. The omission to summon him can hardly have been intentional;
it is much more likely that the summons miscarried, and this may have
occurred through its interception by some mischief-maker.

[783] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 244, 245. Marlborough castle was in
Pandulf’s custody till 7th February, 1224; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
426. So also, no doubt, was Luggershall, John Little, who on 2nd
March, 1224, was ordered to deliver both castles to Robert de Meisy
(_ib._ p. 428), being sub-warden under Pandulf. The _Ann. Dunst._
(p. 68) which do not mention Luggershall, say of Marlborough, “Quod
quidem [Marescallus] tali conditione reddidit in manum legati, quod si
alii similiter castra sibi commendata redderent, et suum retineretur,
alioquin ei redderetur”; but the King’s letter is a better authority as
to the condition.

[784] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 284. Cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 451.

[785] Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75, and for
Richard Muscegros see _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 216.

[786] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 68. This authority says “post Pentecosten”;
the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., _l.c._) places the capture of Peter de
Maulay “in festo Pentecostes,” which, like Falkes’s narrative (which
will be dealt with later) leaves it uncertain whether the date meant is
Whit-Sunday or merely Whitsuntide.

[787] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 321.

[788] _Querimonia Falcasii_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 260, and _Ann.
Dunst._, p. 68.

[789] “De qua captione non ante dictus nobilis evadere potuit quam ea
castra quae sibi tam a domino Guala quam etiam a patre domini regis
commissa fuerant restitueret,” says Falkes (_Quer. Falc._, _l.c._).
But the records show that Peter really resigned nothing, except Corfe,
until 20th November (1221), and that he retained Sherborne till 30th
January, 1222 (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 325). On the words about Gualo
see Note VI.

[790] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75.

[791] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 250, 251.

[792] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 320.

[793] _Ib._ p. 321; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 481 b.

[794] See footnote 789 above.

[795] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 68.

[796] See below, p. 176.

[797] See above, pp. 73, 74.

[798] Early in the year it seems to have been arranged that Henry and
Alexander should meet at Lincoln on 7th June; but the place and day
were changed to York and 14th June (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 476), and
the meeting was ultimately postponed till 19th June.

[799] _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 68, 69. Hubert (and of course Henry) was at
Oxford 9th June, Northampton 11th, Nottingham 14th, Blyth 15th, and
York 19th; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 461 b, 462.

[800] _Chron. Melrose_ and _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1221. M. Paris,
_Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 66, gives the date as 25th June, which
the _Close Roll_, vol. i. p. 463, shows to be incompatible with the
movements of the English court. Alexander’s settlement of dowerlands
upon Joan--“sponsae nostrae dilectae”--is dated York, 18th June; _Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 309.

[801] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 249.

[802] Cf. _ib._ p. 250, and _Flores Hist._, vol. ii. p. 172; the date
comes from the latter.

[803] He went after Michaelmas, 1220, _Ann. Dunst._, p. 64, “propter
quaedam negotia Anglicanae Ecclesiae,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 246.

[804] He reached England about 15th August; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250.

[805] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 74.

[806] The Continuator of Florence of Worcester, a. 1221, (p. 173), says
that Pandulf “a legationis officio revocatur.” This phrase need not
exclude a voluntary resignation; he may have been recalled at his own
request. No papal letters on the subject are extant; it is probable
that Pandulf, like Gualo, asked permission to lay down an office which
seems never to have been much to his taste; and it is even possible
that he may have made his request through Stephen.




CHAPTER IV

TUTORS AND GOVERNORS

1221–1223

Haeres ... cum sit dominus omnium ... sub tutoribus et actoribus est,
usque ad praefinitum tempus a patre.


[Sidenote: 1221]

When Pandulf resigned his offices in England the King was within
three months of his fourteenth birthday. Whether his minority was
to terminate then, or how much longer it should continue, was still
undecided. It seems to have been considered as terminable at any time
after October 1st, 1221, at the discretion of the Pope; and this may
have been the reason why no provision was made for a continuance, in
the hands of any person or persons whatever, of the special authority
in temporal matters which had been vested in the Legate. The Council
which had carried on the administration of affairs under him was, so
far as we can see, simply left to carry it on without him.

The government thus constituted had no reason to anticipate any
immediate difficulties. The realm was at peace within its own borders,
and at peace with its neighbour lands, Scotland and France. The Welsh
princes were as usual not only quarrelling among themselves but also
dragging the barons of the English border into their quarrels; but a
new agreement among the princes, and a truce between Llywelyn on the
one part, and the Marshal and Reginald de Breuse on the other, had
just been patched up by Pandulf at Shrewsbury.[807] The alliance
with Scotland was further cemented by another marriage before the end
of the year; in fulfilment of Henry’s promise that the Scot King’s
sisters should be provided with husbands in England, Margaret--once
the destined bride of Henry himself--became the fourth wife of his
Justiciar, Hubert de Burgh.[808] In Ireland, Geoffrey de Marsh had
so misused his day of grace, by neglecting to fulfill the promises
which he had made to the King a year before, that his removal could no
longer be avoided; and just before Pandulf’s resignation letters in the
King’s name were sent to the native princes of Ireland and the barons
of the March, setting forth Geoffrey’s misdeeds and proclaiming that
in consequence of them, “we, being justly provoked thereto that we
should suffer him to rule our land of Ireland no more, do by the common
counsel and assent of ourself and of the magnates and faithful men of
England ordain that Henry Archbishop of Dublin shall have the custody
and care of that land till we shall determine otherwise.”[809] The
letters patent appointing the Archbishop Justiciar in Ireland had in
fact been issued a fortnight before;[810] but a formal surrender of the
office by Geoffrey was necessary before they could take effect. This
surrender Geoffrey made on October 25th.[811]

A new seneschal of Poitou and Gascony, Hugh of Vivonne, had been
appointed on 4th January.[812] He undertook the office with evident
reluctance and forebodings--or hopes--of a speedy return;[813] and at
the end of nine months he seems, like many another before him, to have
found himself unequal to the difficulties of the situation. A Gascon
noble of greater fame and a more highly trained and widely practised
diplomatist were sent both at once to relieve and supersede him. The
first was Savaric de Mauléon; the second was Pandulf. On 6th October
the prelates, barons, and people of Poitou and Gascony were informed
that the King had committed those two counties and their appurtenances
to Savaric,[814] and also that he was sending Pandulf--now described
as “bishop elect of Norwich, and chamberlain to the Pope”--into Poitou
“for great and difficult matters,” in which the inhabitants of the
land were exhorted to give the ex-Legate every assistance in their
power.[815] Pandulf seems to have set out on his mission immediately,
and in the full expectation that it would be one of considerable
duration; on 12th October he had letters of protection for a year
from All Saints’ day.[816] The primary purpose of that mission was,
seemingly, to negotiate with Hugh of La Marche. Hugh and Isabel were
still clamouring for Isabel’s Aquitanian dower-lands; the English
government was determined not to restore these till Hugh had performed
his homage and surrendered the lands given him by John in pledge
for the dowry of Joan; which lands Hugh was equally determined to
keep until his wife’s claims were satisfied. By the end of September
Hugh’s aggressions had become so intolerable that the English Council
retaliated by seizing into the King’s hand all the lands held in
England by Hugh and Isabel as part of Isabel’s dower.[817] But to
retaliate in Aquitaine itself was not so easy. One great difficulty
was, as usual, the want of money. The mayor and commune of London
stood surety for the King to the mayor and commune of La Rochelle for
the repayment of two loans, which the last-named city was requested
to make “for the safe-keeping and defence of our land of Poitou,” the
one of a thousand marks to Pandulf, the other of five hundred marks to
Engelard de Cigogné and Emeric de Sacy, who were despatched at the same
time as Pandulf, also on business “touching our land of Poitou.”[818]
On 1st November letters were addressed to the mayors and good men of
Cognac, Saintes, Angoulême, and Oléron, bidding them withdraw from all
further allegiance to the count of La Marche, and recognize no commands
save those of the King’s seneschal of Poitou.[819] No name was given
to the seneschal in this letter. The acting seneschal was still Hugh
of Vivonne; Savaric, it seems, was even more reluctant than Hugh had
been to undertake the office--he was probably more fully aware of its
difficulty--and made his acceptance of it dependent on the fulfilment
of certain conditions, whether political, military, or financial,
there is nothing to show. The English Council, in fact, at the very
moment when they were thus writing brave words to the Aquitanian
towns, knew that their only hope of dealing successfully with either
Hugh de Lusignan or Savaric lay in the diplomacy of Pandulf; and on
2nd November they commissioned the ex-Legate “to procure in whatever
way he could the making of a prolonged truce between the King and the
count of La Marche, and, having obtained this, to persuade and exhort
Savaric de Mauléon to hasten into the presence of the King, who would
(God willing) do what was right concerning his (Savaric’s) requests.
If, however, the elect of Norwich could not make a truce with the
Count, then let him devote his care and diligence to the carrying on
of the King’s business according to what had been determined in the
King’s presence; and let him deliver the care and custody of those
parts to Savaric, inducing him thereto as best he could, and causing
him to be efficiently provided with money for the defence of the land,
according to the form which had been given to him.”[820] The Council’s
trust in the dexterity of Pandulf was not misplaced. That he succeeded
in making with La Marche a truce which lasted through the winter and
was succeeded in the spring by some more definite agreement, may be
gathered from the fact that nothing more is heard of either Hugh or
Isabel till April, 1222, and then the Queen’s English dower-lands were
restored to her.[821] He was equally successful in “inducing” Savaric
de Mauléon to undertake the seneschalship of Aquitaine; an office for
which Savaric was, probably, by far the fittest man to whom it had ever
been given, or offered, since the recall of Hubert de Burgh.

Pandulf’s mission to Poitou has a significance beyond its actual
results. It indicates how large and disinterested was the view taken
by him and by Honorius of what the papal overlordship of England and
guardianship of its young King should involve. The foreign churchman
who for two years and a half had been, alike in right and in fact,
supreme head of the government in England had no sooner laid down his
office there than he--of course with the sanction of the Pope, whose
chamberlain he still remained--placed himself at the disposal of the
English ministers of State, so lately his subordinates, and accepted
from them a diplomatic commission which could bring no advantage of
any kind either to himself or to the Roman See, solely for the purpose
of helping them and their young sovereign out of a difficulty. On the
other hand, the fact that these ministers, when no longer under any
necessity of admitting him to a share in their counsels, were so ready
to make use of his help and placed in him so much confidence as is
implied in the latitude of the powers with which they entrusted him on
this occasion, is a strong testimony to the estimation in which their
previous relations with him had led them to hold his character, his
abilities, and his devotion to the welfare of King and kingdom. As
under William the Marshal, so under Pandulf, we cannot tell whether the
inner working of the royal Council had been really as harmonious as its
outward action appears, nor how much of its harmony, inward or outward,
was due to the regent. Some indications of rivalry between certain
of the King’s councillors seem to be discernible before the close of
Pandulf’s rule; but so far as we can see, no open breach among them
showed itself till some two years and a half after his controlling hand
was removed.

It is difficult to define precisely the composition, during the
minority of Henry III, of the body known as the King’s Council. That
body included, besides the Primate of all England, the justices, and
the great officers of State--justiciar, chancellor, treasurer,--certain
persons who were called to be members of it on personal rather than
official grounds, such as Bishop Peter of Winchester, Philip d’Aubigné,
the Earl of Chester, and the King’s uncle, Earl William of Salisbury.
Since the spring of 1219 the most onerous and important part of the
work of government had been shared, under Pandulf, between Hubert de
Burgh and Peter des Roches; Hubert, as Justiciar, naturally taking
the more prominent part. Among our materials for the history of the
time we find no suggestion anywhere that they were other than true
yoke-fellows, till at Whitsuntide, 1221, there occurred the mysterious
affair of Peter de Maulay.[822] The only two chroniclers who record De
Maulay’s arrest say nothing more about its grounds than that he was
“accused of treason.” Falkes de Bréauté, four years later, asserted
that Peter de Maulay after dining at court was called into the King’s
chamber as if for some private discourse, and there denounced as a
traitor who had made a compact with the King of France to deliver into
his hands the Lady Eleanor of Brittany, Henry’s cousin, who had been a
State prisoner in Corfe castle for many years; moreover, according to
Falkes, a greater personage than the castellan of Corfe was involved in
the accusation; it was asserted that a ship to convey the lady over sea
had been made ready by the Bishop of Winchester, who at the time of the
arrest was absent from England on a pilgrimage to Compostella, and that
the bishop was really gone not to pay his devotions to S. James, but to
talk over the plot with Philip Augustus. Falkes declared that the only
real plotters in the case were the Justiciar and his “accomplices,” who
for their own private ends had planned the arrest of Peter de Maulay
in the absence of Peter des Roches, and invented this story against
both; and he adds that they overwhelmed De Maulay with insults, blows,
and other indignities, and loaded him with chains, before they cast
him into prison.[823] Falkes’s story is almost certainly correct thus
far, that no real plot existed; for, whatever ill-treatment Peter de
Maulay may have undergone at the time of his arrest, his innocence
was implicitly acknowledged within less than a week, by his release
as soon as he had surrendered Corfe; and the accusation against the
other Peter, if ever really made, was clearly dropped at once and never
revived. The whole plot seems to have been a sheer fiction; but we can
hardly accept Falkes’s account of its origin. Hubert and Peter des
Roches may have been jealous of each other; and they may have differed
on some questions of policy--perhaps, amongst other things, as to the
expediency or the justice of requiring compliance with the letter of
the recent oath about the surrender of castles, in a case where a
previous oath sworn to the late King could be pleaded against it.[824]
We should, however, require a more impartial authority than Falkes to
make us believe that Hubert’s jealousy and self-will goaded him into
an attempt to ruin his rival by a device at once so monstrous and so
clumsy as that which Falkes ascribes to him. He is far more likely to
have been duped into believing a story invented by some unscrupulous
subordinate who hoped that it might bring promotion to himself by
serving (as, no doubt, it did serve) to the attainment of an end--the
surrender of Corfe--which he knew the Justiciar had at heart, but
which may not have commended itself to the judgement of the Bishop of
Winchester.

In his capacity of personal guardian, “master,” and instructor to the
young King, Bishop Peter had an assistant in Philip d’Aubigné, a man
whose valour and loyalty had been proved both on land and sea, and who
bore a high character alike in public and private life.[825] It seems
to have been in Philip’s charge that the boy had been left while the
bishop made his pilgrimage to S. James;[826] much against the will of
Philip, who had taken the Cross at the beginning of the year and was
anxious to fulfill his vow.[827] He started as soon as he was set free
by the bishop’s return.[828] The Christian host besieged in Damietta
was known to be in great straits, and many volunteers from Europe were
eager to reinforce it. On 19th September Bishop Peter also took the
Cross;[829] Falkes did the like about the same time; and at the close
of the year or beginning of the next they were both preparing to set
out, seemingly together, when they were stopped by the tidings that
Damietta had been surrendered.[830] The fact that Peter contemplated
such an expedition is significant. It shows that his tutorship of the
young King was at an end. Falkes says that it was pronounced--seemingly
by the other members of the Council under Hubert’s influence--on
Peter’s return from Spain, to be at an end, on the ground that
Henry was now beyond the age of pupilage.[831] The boy’s personal
emancipation from his tutor’s control, however, did not imply any
emancipation from wardship or tutelage in the legal sense; Henry’s
school-days were over, but not his minority.

The Christmas court was held at Winchester. On former occasions the
King, when he visited that city, seems to have been entertained by
his tutor, in the episcopal palace or castle of Wolvesey; this time,
however, the royal castle on the hill-top was specially made ready
for his abode.[832] During the festival season {1221–1222} a quarrel
broke out between Earl Ranulf of Chester on the one part and the Earl
of Salisbury and the Justiciar on the other. High words passed, and
Chester seems to have uttered some threat of violence, for we hear
that “the Earl of Salisbury and the Justiciar, the governors of the
King and kingdom, manfully prepared themselves and their followers
for resistance.” Fortunately, however, there was now one member of
the royal Council who was outside of and above all party or personal
disputes, and whose position and character alike marked him out for the
office of peacemaker. For six years the Archbishop of Canterbury had
been reduced to a subordinate position, ecclesiastical and political,
by the presence in England of a Papal Legate; and during the last
nine months of Pandulf’s legation Stephen had been out of the country
altogether. But he had now come back to his old place as the highest
ecclesiastical authority in the realm and the first adviser of the
Crown. “Pitying the King’s youth and lack of power,” he called his
suffragans together in council in London at Hilary-tide (1222), and
in concert with them threatened to “wield the spiritual sword against
disturbers of the realm and assailants of the King.” This threat
brought the contending parties to “concord and peace.”[833] Of the
subject and origin of this quarrel we know nothing. The sole writer who
mentions it tells us that “it was said, and many persons throughout
England suspected and asserted, that the foreigners, who were more
desirous of disturbance than of peace in the realm, were trying to
stir up the Earl of Chester to give trouble to the King and disquiet
the kingdom.” Who were the particular “foreigners” thus accused by
rumour, who were the persons that spread the rumour, and what it was
that Chester really did, or threatened to do, or was suspected of
intending to do, is absolutely unknown. So far as the evidence goes,
the dispute may have been a purely personal one, and the Archbishop’s
strong measure may have been taken for the purpose of emphasizing the
scandal and the possible danger involved in a brawl at the King’s court
between men of such high rank and importance, rather than for that of
checking any actual or even supposed design of political disturbance or
rebellion.

[Sidenote: 1222]

There was, indeed, an undercurrent of disturbance running beneath
the surface of English politics; but the disturbance, so far as can
be seen, was not, as yet, of a party character, though it contained
elements which might easily combine so as to form a serious danger
to the government. The traces left by the war on the habits and
dispositions of the classes which had been engaged in it were far
from being wiped out even yet. The passion for tourneying which had
seized upon Englishmen after the close of their struggle with the
invader still required constant repression.[834] Moreover, the years
of confusion had brought back to England another continental practice
which had never been recognized as legal there since Stephen’s time,
the practice of private war; and so deeply had this evil custom taken
root that it seems to have been tolerated by the King’s guardians
without protest, except when it brought a belligerent into direct
collision with the authority of the Crown. We have seen how one magnate
who was actually a member of the Council, Earl William of Salisbury,
had to be prevented by Falkes, acting under a royal order, from
forcibly ousting a rival custodian from Lincoln castle. He avenged
himself on Falkes by stirring up against him some of the chief men
of Devon and Cornwall, one of them being the sheriff of these two
counties, Robert de Courtenay. These men banded themselves together
in March, 1221, for a combined plundering raid on Falkes’s lands in
Devonshire, “but,” wrote Falkes to the Justiciar, “that day they
received letters from the Earl of Salisbury bidding them not move,
on account of a truce made between him and me till the quindene of
Easter; to which truce--so he told them--he had consented in order
that he might make use of the interval in Lincolnshire.”[835] Robert
de Courtenay, nevertheless, not only forcibly prevented the shipping
of corn from Falkes’s manor of Exminster to revictual Falkes’s castle
of Plympton, but seized the corn, and flogged and imprisoned one of
Falkes’s boatmen, alleging that he had orders from the King to let no
corn go out of the harbour of Exminster. Falkes asked the Justiciar to
put a stop to this flagrant violation by a sheriff of the rights of
private property; but the tone of his letter shews that he regarded,
and expected Hubert to regard, his struggle with Longsword as quite
another matter, one in which each of the belligerents was free to act
as he thought good, without reference to the government.[836] Another
illustration of the same evil occurs fifteen months later {1222}. The
castle of Dinas Powys, in Glamorgan, was in the hands of the Earl
Marshal, but belonged of right to Gilbert Earl of Gloucester. The
Marshal surrendered it to the King in Gilbert’s presence in London,
that it might be delivered to a representative of the King, who in his
turn should restore it to its owner. Gilbert, instead of waiting for
the completion of this quite ordinary procedure, gathered his followers
and prepared to march upon the castle, if he did not actually lay siege
to it, in July, 1222. He was officially told that the King was “greatly
astonished,” not, it would seem, at his taking the law into his own
hands in any case, but merely at his doing so after the transfer of the
castle had been agreed upon in the King’s presence and undertaken by
the King himself.[837] The crowning instance of lawlessness occurred
a fortnight later; and this time the offenders were neither foreign
soldiers of fortune nor English earls, but citizens of London.

[Sidenote: 1222]

From time immemorial the fields around the Tower had served as a
holiday resort for the younger citizens, who spent their leisure time
there in wrestling and other athletic sports. A trial of strength and
skill in wrestling was arranged to take place hard by Queen Matilda’s
Hospital, between the young men of the city and those of the suburbs,
on S. James’s day, 25th July. The citizens won the match. Among their
antagonists was the Abbot of Westminster’s steward; and he brooded over
his own defeat and that of his comrades till he devised a way to avenge
it. First, he sent out a general notice inviting all who would to come
to a wrestling match at Westminster on the next holiday, the feast of
S. Peter in Chains, 1st August; the prize was to be a ram. Next, he
gathered on his own side a picked band of strong and expert wrestlers,
and secretly provided them with arms. The unsuspecting citizens came
in crowds; for a while the wrestlers seemed equally matched; suddenly
the Westminster side produced their weapons. The unarmed Londoners were
soon overcome; beaten and wounded, they fled helter-skelter into the
city. A mighty tumult arose; the common bell was rung, a mass-meeting
was held, schemes of vengeance were proposed. Serlo the mayor, “a
prudent and peaceable man,” advised that a complaint should be laid
before the Abbot of Westminster, and urged that if the abbot would make
a fitting compensation on behalf of himself and his men, “all ought
to be satisfied.” The angry citizens, however, were more inclined to
listen to a certain Constantine Olaveson, “a great man in the city,”
who proposed that “all the abbot’s buildings” and his seneschal’s
house should be pulled down;[838] and next morning an armed mob made a
raid upon Westminster. Their first intention was to attack the church;
but from this “some wise man” dissuaded them,[839] and they contented
themselves with pulling down the steward’s house and doing as much
damage as they could to his property and that of the abbot.[840]

The Justiciar was at this time in the west of England.[841] It chanced,
however, that Philip d’Aubigné on his return from the East reached
London a few days after the riot had taken place; and to him the Abbot
of Westminster went to complain of the violence which he and his
men had suffered. The Londoners at once came “like bees” about the
house where Philip and the abbot were, forcibly carried off twelve
of the abbot’s horses, beat his servants, ill-treated the knights
who accompanied him, and tried to capture the abbot himself. Philip
d’Aubigné vainly endeavoured to quell the tumult; the abbot was obliged
to slip out by a back-door and escape in a boat, in peril of his life
from the stones which the citizens flung after him.[842] On 12th or
13th August Hubert reached London.[843] He at once called together
the mayor and aldermen and demanded the names of the ringleaders.
Constantine boldly answered for himself, asserting that he “would give
a warrant” for his action, and openly expressing regret that he “had
done less than rightly should have been done.”[844] His boast of a
warrant was disquieting; for in the midst of the attack on Westminster
he had shouted aloud “Montjoie! Montjoie! God and our lord Louis be
our aid!” and his nephew and another citizen, Geoffrey by name, had
echoed the cry.[845] Hubert had taken the precaution to bring with him
to the Tower a band of men-at-arms under the command of Falkes. He
caused Constantine, his nephew, and Geoffrey to be imprisoned for the
night; next morning, by his order, Falkes and his men secretly led them
out to be hanged. Constantine, when he found a rope round his neck,
offered fifteen thousand marks for his life, but in vain; “You will
stir up no more seditions in the King’s city,” was the grim reply of
Falkes.[846] Having thus got the execution over without the citizens’
knowledge, Hubert rode with Falkes and his soldiers through the city,
seized as many as he could of those who had been concerned in the riot,
flung them into prison, caused their hands or their feet to be cut
off, and then let them go; the rest were so terrified by this severity
that many “fled never to return.” The hapless mayor and aldermen who
had been incapable of controlling the populace under their charge were
deposed; the city had to give hostages for its good behaviour, and was
only after long deliberation on the part of the Council admitted to
reconciliation with the Crown on payment of a heavy fine.[847] Hubert’s
drastic measures were effectual in preventing further disturbance in
the capital; but of course “it seemed to some persons,” as a chronicler
says, that Constantine had been tried and executed “more hastily than
was fitting.”[848]

In Aquitaine the respite from trouble won by the diplomacy of Pandulf
at the beginning of 1222 lasted through the summer. A safe-conduct
to the count of La Marche to come and speak with the King in England
was issued in June,[849] and another in August.[850] He was evidently
thought to be really coming this time, for the Bishop of Winchester was
sent across the sea to meet and escort him;[851] but he did not come.
The sentence of excommunication issued against him two years before had
never yet been published, but it had never been withdrawn, and the Pope
seems to have now directed his commissioners, the Bishops of Saintes
and Limoges and the Dean of Bordeaux, to publish it on S. Andrew’s day.
The royal Council, however, shrank from driving Hugh to extremity; and
early in November they sent Philip of Aubigné and the Abbot of Boxley
to make another effort for a peaceful settlement with him and Isabel,
and begged the papal commissioners to give him a further respite till
the result of these negotiations should appear.[852] Meanwhile the new
seneschal of Poitou had taken up his task with a firm and vigorous
hand; but he was hampered by the want of money, like his predecessors,
and also by the hostility of the towns, which disliked him doubly
because he was not only a baron of considerable social and political
importance in the land, but also a man of independent character and
determined will. He stuck to his post for ten or eleven months, and
then, in September or October, went to England. A full discussion
of Aquitanian politics and administration seems to have taken place
between him and the royal Council, in the presence of representatives
from La Rochelle, Niort, S. Jean d’Angély, Bordeaux, the viscount of
Thouars, and possibly some other towns and barons; a whole bundle of
letters patent and close, issued in consequence of these deliberations,
indicate that the Council, conscious of having at last secured a fit
man as governor, was now ready to give him all the moral support
in its power.[853] Unluckily it had little other support to give
him. It was not till February (1223) that Philip d’Aubigné and his
fellow commissioner succeeded in coming to any agreement with Hugh
of Lusignan; and then the result of their labours was merely another
truce, to last till 1st August.[854] Four more months passed; Hugh and
Isabel continued impenitent; so on 25th June the Pope again threatened
them with excommunication.[855] Three weeks later, however, an event
took place which led to another change in the policy of the English
government towards the count of La Marche. This was the death, on 14th
July,[856] of King Philip Augustus of France.

[Sidenote: 1223]

When the treaty between Henry and Louis was made, in September, 1217,
both parties, as we have seen, bound themselves by oath to certain
conditions which are not mentioned in the copies of that treaty
which have come down to us. Henry swore to maintain inviolate those
liberties of the English barons and people which had served as one
of the pretexts for Louis’s invasion; Louis swore that he “would do
his utmost to induce his father to restore the English King to all
his rights in the parts beyond the sea.”[857] Naturally the English
Council construed this as binding Louis, if the restoration were not
effected in his father’s lifetime, to make it himself as soon as it was
in his own power. They at once took the matter up with a high hand.
Pandulf, now Bishop of Norwich,[858] urged the Pope to forbid that any
one should crown Louis until the promised restitution to Henry was
made.[859] The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and
Salisbury undertook the double duty of presenting to Louis himself a
formal demand for the fulfilment of his promise, and to the Archbishop
of Reims a protest against his coronation if the demand were not at
once satisfied.[860] Letters patent had already been issued in the
King’s name to the barons, knights, and good men of Normandy, calling
on them to return to their allegiance, “since the opportunity is now
at hand,” and promising, if they did so, restitution to each man,
according to his rights, of the lands in England which they lost when
the King’s father lost Normandy, and such further rewards as their
service should deserve.[861] Preparations were made for collecting a
fleet; all ships coming into English ports were ordered to be seized,
emptied of their contents (which were to be stored up safely for return
to the owners), and sent to Portsmouth for the King’s service.[862]
The Forest districts of the southern counties were bidden to send to
Porchester large supplies of “hurdles for the ships,”[863] and on
9th August the barons of the Cinque Ports were summoned to come to
Portsmouth “with the whole service which they owe to the King, and with
their ships, with the first favourable wind, to go with the King in his
service.”[864]

All this was a practical defiance of Louis. But to set Louis at
defiance without endeavouring to secure the adherence, or at any rate
the neutrality, of La Marche and Angoulême would have been simply to
court defeat. Two days before the King’s truce with Hugh expired,
therefore, two of the places in dispute between Hugh and the King--the
city of Saintes and the castle of Merpins--with the town of Cognac and
the castle of Belmont, were committed to Hugh to hold “till the King’s
coming of age,” “as he held them on the Saturday before the feast of
S. Peter in Chains” in the preceding year; two envoys (of whom one was
Geoffrey de Neville) were despatched to take security from him “for
his good and faithful service, and that he would faithfully do his
utmost to advance the King’s interest and procure his honour till the
term before mentioned”;[865] and on 4th August the holder of the papal
mandate for Hugh’s excommunication was desired to deal with it only as
the same two envoys should direct.[866]

Contrary winds detained Archbishop Stephen and his fellow-ambassadors
in England[867] for more than a week. When they reached the French
court, Louis was already crowned.[868] He seems to have declined to
make any immediate answer to their demands, and adjourned the matter
to the octave of All Saints.[869] The delay was probably not unwelcome
to Henry’s counsellors, who at that moment had their hands full with a
Welsh war. The pacification at Shrewsbury in July, 1221, seems to have
been followed by an unusually long period of comparative tranquillity
on the Marches of Wales. It was probably this condition of affairs
which, when it had lasted for sixteen months, encouraged the King’s
representatives to venture on what looks like a very bold step in the
prosecution of their schemes for asserting the royal authority over
the castles. On 11th November, 1222, the Earl Marshal was informed by
letter patent that “as the castle of Caerleon with its appurtenances,
which is in your hand, ought to be held of us in chief, it is provided
by our common council that that castle shall be delivered into our
hand; and therefore we strictly command that you, without delay or
excuse, surrender that castle with its appurtenances to us, and
afterwards we will cause full justice to be done in our court to
you and to any others who may have aught to say about it.”[870] For
this demand it is hardly possible to conceive any motive save one: a
desire to obtain from the Marshal, by way of example and precedent,
a practical acknowledgement of the King’s right to take into his
own hands, when he pleased, a castle held of the Crown not merely in
custody, but in fee. If, however, this was the purpose the Council had
in view, they were ill-advised in their choice of a time for making the
demand; the Marshal, if not already in Ireland, was on the point of
setting out to spend the winter there.[871] Possibly the King’s letter
never reached him; if it did, he had a fair excuse for not acting
upon it till his return. A second letter, written on 26th January,
1223, desired him to surrender Caerleon before the close of Easter
“because we do not deem it advisable that you should hold it beyond
that term.”[872] But when he came back, in Passion Week, the Welsh
March was in turmoil from one end to the other, and the Council were
only too glad to make the utmost possible use of his ready co-operation
in restoring the English supremacy in South Wales. Such a moment was
clearly inopportune for taking an important border stronghold out of
the hands of a defender at once so capable and so loyal; and more than
three years passed away before the King ventured to renew his demand.

Llywelyn had taken advantage of the Marshal’s absence to organize
an attack on the English border. Early in 1223 he besieged, took,
and utterly destroyed two castles in Shropshire, Kinnerley and
Whittington.[873] The Justiciar, taking the King with him, went at
the beginning of March to Shrewsbury, seemingly to demand or compel
satisfaction from Llywelyn. The Earl of Chester came forward as
mediator, offering himself as surety for Llywelyn’s compliance with the
demand within a given time; and the intended punitive attack on Wales
was suspended accordingly.[874] But meanwhile tidings of Llywelyn’s
outbreak had reached the Marshal in Ireland, and in the middle of
April[875] he “came up to land” somewhere in South Wales “with a vast
fleet,” carrying “a multitude of cavalry and infantry.”[876] Hubert
seems to have expected his arrival, and sent a messenger to meet him
with a request that he would keep truce with Llywelyn for another
fortnight, in the hope that Llywelyn might yet fulfill the promise
made for him by Chester, although the time fixed for its fulfilment
had already expired.[877] The delay proved useless; and on Easter
Monday (24 April) Earl William marched upon Cardigan. “On that day the
castle was delivered to him, and on the Wednesday following he drew to
Caermarthen, and obtained that castle also.”[878] Llywelyn, on hearing
what had occurred, sent his son Gruffudd “with a very numerous army
to oppose the Earl”; they met at Kidwelly and fought “for the greater
part of the day”; Gruffudd seems to have been worsted, and “for lack of
provision returned back to his country.”[879]

The Marshal hereupon busied himself with the repair of Caermarthen
castle[880] till at the end of May a royal letter patent bade him,
“forasmuch as it is determined by our Council that the castles of
Caermarthen and Cardigan, which you have taken, should be retained in
our own hand,” deliver both places to Robert de Vaux to hold during
the King’s pleasure.[881] Llywelyn had certainly proved himself
utterly undeserving of the confidence in his loyalty which had induced
the regent Earl Marshal to entrust him with the custody of these
two important strongholds; and if the regent’s son was not actually
commissioned by the Council to recover them by force, it could at any
rate have no scruples in approving his action and reaping its fruit
for the benefit of the Crown. A day in July was next appointed for
Llywelyn and the Marshal to lay their mutual complaints before the King
and Council. The meeting took place at Ludlow, seemingly between 6th
and 10th July,[882] but the parties “could not be reconciled.”[883]
The Council had apparently not expected a reconciliation, and had come
prepared for war. On the 11th the sheriffs of Devon and Herefordshire
were bidden to take care that no men of their respective shires should
send (by sea in the case of Devon), any supplies to, or hold any
communication with, Llywelyn and his Welsh adherents, but that all
merchants and markets should follow the King’s army to South Wales,
“that is, to our lands of Caermarthen and Cardigan, and to the lands
of our faithful Earl William the Marshal.”[884] An effort was made
to detach the Welsh of Deheubarth and Powys from obedience to their
North-Welsh lord; the Earls of Pembroke and Salisbury were empowered to
receive into the King’s grace “all the Welsh of South Wales who would
return to the King’s fealty and service”;[885] the sons of Gwenwynwyn
of Powys, who since Gwenwynwyn’s death in 1216 had been living in
England as wards or prisoners of the Crown, and were now in Bridgenorth
castle under the care or in the custody of Earl Ranulf of Chester, were
brought to the King’s court at Gloucester, and all men of the lands
which had belonged to their father were invited to “come to the sons of
Gwenwynwyn and to the King’s fealty and peace”;[886] a host of English
barons and knights marched into Wales under the command of the Marshal
and his friend Longsword.[887]

The King and the Justiciar were recalled to London, partly, no doubt,
by the weighty news from France, and partly by the necessity of
receiving the titular King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne, who was
travelling through western Europe to collect forces and funds for the
recovery of his kingdom from the Turks. An “aid for the Holy Land,” of
three marks from every earl, one mark from every baron, twelve pence
from every knight, and one penny from every free tiller of the soil
and every free man who had no land, but had chattels to the value
of half a mark, had been agreed upon by the great Council of the
realm in 1222,[888] but had never been collected.[889] No Christian
sovereign, however, could evade the duty of giving at least a personal
welcome, even if he gave nothing more, to the successor of Godfrey
of Bouillon. John seems to have crossed from France to England at
the end of August.[890] On 1st or 2nd September the English King and
Primate received him “solemnly and with great honours” at Canterbury,
and escorted him to London.[891] His visit was a brief one, and the
hospitality which he received in England was probably amply requited by
the gift of four large sapphires--“than which we never saw finer,” says
Matthew Paris--which he, “out of his innate munificence,” on his way
back offered at the shrine of S. Thomas at Canterbury.[892]

As soon as their royal guest was gone, King and Justiciar hurried back
to the Welsh border. The English host under the Marshal and the Earl
of Salisbury had apparently set out with the intention of joining the
Marshal’s other forces in Pembrokeshire. It was caught by Gruffudd in
one of the intricate passes of the Welsh hills, and narrowly escaped
destruction,[893] but it seems to have cut its way through; and the
Marshal set to work to fortify “the lands which he occupied,”--that
is, doubtless, the districts of Caermarthen and Gower--by founding new
castles and repairing old ones.[894] Llywelyn’s next diversion was to
lay siege, early in September,[895] to Reginald de Breuse’s castle of
Builth, with such a numerous force that Reginald immediately applied
to the Crown for help.[896] On 12th September the host was summoned to
meet the King “with all haste” at Gloucester,[897] and march with him
to the relief of Builth. The expedition probably set out from Hereford
on the 19th or 20th. Its mere approach sufficed to raise the siege; on
the 23rd King and Justiciar were back at Hereford.[898]

It was not the first time, nor was it to be the last, that the Welsh
fled before Hubert de Burgh. He now led the King and the host from
Hereford to Leominster and Shrewsbury, and thence, on the last day of
September, to Montgomery,[899] passing through Llywelyn’s lands and
driving the flocks and herds before them as they went, to serve for the
sustenance of the troops. The castle of Montgomery, originally built
by one of the most famous of the followers of William the Conqueror,
had been more than once destroyed by the Welsh. Its site, which had
sufficed for the simple Norman keep reared by the first Earl of
Shrewsbury, was probably not suited for more elaborate fortifications
such as were used in the thirteenth century; it served, however, to
shelter the King and the Justiciar; and some of “the wiser men of the
army,” while scouring the country around it under Hubert’s orders,
found “a place fit for building a castle whose position, everyone
thought, would be impregnable.”[900] Urgent orders were despatched to
the sheriff of Shropshire for an immediate supply of building materials
and tools, and the work was begun at once.[901] Meanwhile Llywelyn
had been excommunicated by Archbishop Stephen. On 7th or 8th October,
at Montgomery, the Prince once more came and made submission to King
and Primate, Stephen dictating the terms. Llywelyn swore that within
a reasonable time, to be fixed by the Archbishop, and in a fitting
place, he would make satisfaction to the King and the King’s men for
all damages done by himself and his men since the day of the taking
of Kinnerley. Six lesser Welsh chieftains swore with him; each of the
seven embodied his engagement in a charter; and on these conditions
Llywelyn was absolved.[902] Moreover, he at once gave the King seisin
of Kinnerley and Whittington, that he might restore them to their
former owners; and Henry gave back to Llywelyn and his men seisin of
all that they had held in fee on the day of the capture of Kinnerley,
subject to a trial of counterclaims at the date fixed for Llywelyn’s
promised satisfaction[903]--that date being Candlemas, 1224.[904]
This conditional restitution of course did not include Cardigan and
Caermarthen, which Llywelyn had held merely as custodian for the Crown.
On 7th November these two castles were committed to the only man in
whose keeping they were likely to be safe--the Earl Marshal.[905]

The time fixed by Louis for answering Henry’s demand for the
restoration of his continental heritage had now come. On 10th October
an embassy consisting of Bishops Pandulf of Norwich and John of Ely,
Philip d’Aubigné, and Richard de Rivers, had been accredited to
France to receive Louis’s reply, and to treat with him concerning a
prolongation of the truce,[906] which would expire in April, 1224.
These envoys met with a very unfavourable reception. Louis declared
that the whole continental possessions of the Angevin house had been by
a legal judgement escheated to the French Crown;[907] that they were
therefore his by right--a right which, he added, he was prepared to
prove in his own court, if the King of England would come and submit to
its judgement; and that moreover the agreement to which he had sworn in
England was no longer binding upon him, inasmuch as it had been doubly
broken on the English side, first by the exaction of heavy ransoms from
his partisans who had been captured at Lincoln, and secondly in that
“the liberties of the realm of England, for which the war had been
waged and which at his departure had been granted and sworn to by all,
had been so dealt with that not only those most evil laws were brought
back into use as of old, but others still more wicked were generally
established throughout the realm.”[908] He wound up his harangue to
the envoys with a distinct threat, which he charged them to repeat to
those who had sent them: not only would he restore nothing, but he
intended, when opportunity should offer, to prosecute his claim to the
English Crown, as having been taken from John by a legal sentence and
granted by the barons of England to himself.[909] Although the truce
had still six months to run, the cry of Constantine Olaveson must have
rung ominously in the ears of Hubert de Burgh when the French King’s
complaints and threats were repeated to him,[910] even if the return
of the envoys did not--as it most probably did--coincide with the most
alarming outbreak of baronial discontent with which the government had
had to deal since Louis left England.

The abolition of the regency before the King attained his majority
had inevitably resulted in giving a great increase of power to the
Justiciar. Under a sovereign of full age the Justiciar was the King’s
lieutenant; it was on him that the supreme powers and functions of
government temporarily devolved when the King himself was absent from
the realm. It followed almost of necessity that when there ceased to
be a person specially set apart to exercise those powers and functions
for a King under age, they fell into the Justiciar’s hands. This result
of Pandulf’s resignation could not be altogether pleasing to some, at
least, of the other members of the Council, or of the magnates outside
the Council. It was one thing, first to accept the autocracy of a ruler
whom they had unanimously chosen out of their own ranks on the score
of his transcendent personal merits, and, afterwards, to yield to the
dictates of one who legally represented a power acknowledged by all
as superior to that of the Crown itself; it was quite another matter
to be ruled by Sir Hubert de Burgh, and to be, moreover, confronted
with a prospect of being ruled by him till Henry’s coming of age--an
event which seemed almost as remote as ever, since, the date originally
intended for it being past, it was now seemingly regarded as deferred
till his twenty-first birthday.[911] Nominally, of course, Hubert
governed in concert with his colleagues of the royal Council. But with
the control of the executive in his hands, and no authority capable
of overriding him nearer than Rome, he was practically master of the
Council. There were only two other members of it who could under any
circumstances have sufficient weight in themselves to act as a check
upon him. Both officially and personally Stephen de Langton was a
greater man than Hubert de Burgh. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not
only the highest ecclesiastical authority in the land, he was also
the first adviser of the Crown; and Archbishop Stephen had long ago
proved himself a statesman of a far higher order than any other then
living in England. But Stephen had never desired to be a leader in
secular affairs; and he seems to have come home in 1221 resolved to
take as little direct share in politics as possible. His one recorded
public act, for more than two years after his return, was the holding,
at Oseney in April, 1222, of a great Church council[912] for the
settlement of ecclesiastical discipline and administration on the
basis of a set of canons which he had drawn up and on which the law of
the Church of England is grounded to this day. When he did intervene
in temporal matters, his character, even more than his office, gave
to his intervention a special importance which all parties seem to
have felt and acknowledged. The Bishop of Winchester’s position was
wholly different. “Peter des Roches was as hard as a rock,” said the
monks of his cathedral chapter;[913] which seems to imply at any rate
that his conduct as a bishop did not err on the side of neglect or
laxity in matters of order and discipline. His material benefactions
to his church, and the diligence and ability with which he managed the
temporal concerns of his see, were indisputable; and there is nothing
to indicate that he failed in any of his episcopal duties. But Peter
was ambitious of exercising his talents in a wider field than that of
diocesan administration; and his talents were great enough to justify
his ambition. After his death Matthew Paris declared that “the whole
council of the realm of England, royal as well as ecclesiastical, had
suffered an irreparable loss” in losing him.[914] Under Pandulf he and
Hubert had worked together almost as equals; but before the end of the
year 1221 Peter found himself Hubert’s subordinate, and found, too,
that his chance of regaining at a future time his former influence in
matters of state was diminishing day by day; for though the King’s
ex-tutor retained his seat in the Council, the King had virtually
become Hubert’s pupil instead of his.

There was only one possible means of altering this state of things:
to put Henry into possession, if not of full regal powers, at least
of some voice in the government of his own realm, something like a
decisive vote in his own Council. If this were done, the Justiciar’s
supremacy would become dependent on his personal influence over the
King’s mind; and if it were done quickly, while that mind was still
young and tender and had not yet had time to take the mould of Hubert’s
political teaching, Peter might fairly hope to be more than a match for
Hubert. A suggestion that something of this kind should be done seems
to have been conveyed to the Pope from England at some time before the
middle of April, 1223,[915] and to have been either coupled with, or
accompanied or followed by, a request that the Pope would issue some
instructions concerning the royal castles. When the result of these
two suggestions appeared, the onus of responsibility for it fell upon
Hubert; Hubert, however, in later days declared that the Pope’s action
in the matter had been instigated by the Bishop of Winchester, against
the interests of Hubert himself. Meanwhile a number of the magnates
had for some time past been murmuring among themselves against the
Justiciar, resenting his haughty bearing and his (in their opinion)
high-handed judicial decisions in cases where they were concerned,
and “saying to one another that he stirred up the King’s mind against
them, and likewise that he ruled the kingdom by unjust laws.”[916] A
step which he took at the beginning of 1223 aggravated their resentment
and their distrust. On 30th January orders were issued in the King’s
name for the sheriffs to inquire in full county court, by a sworn jury
of twelve knights, what customs and liberties King John had in the
shires before the war between him and the barons began; to proclaim
the result of the inquest in full county court and cause it to be
observed throughout the shires; and to send a report of it to the King
at Westminster on 8th May.[917] These orders evidently caused some
commotion in the shires, for on 9th April they were significantly
modified; the King “by the advice of his faithful men” issued other
letters whereby the sheriffs were bidden not to proclaim the royal
liberties and customs ascertained by means of the inquest or to enforce
their observance, “for the present,” and were assured that he “had
no will to raise up, or cause to be observed in the realm, any evil
customs”; these new letters also were to be read in full shire-court;
and the date for the return of the inquest was postponed to 25th
June.[918]

By that time some important letters had probably arrived from Rome. On
13th April the Pope had written four letters for England: one addressed
jointly to the Bishop of Winchester, the Justiciar, and William Brewer
(a well known judge, who seems to have ranked next to Hubert on the
Bench); one to the Earl of Chester; one to the vice-chancellor, Ralf de
Neville; and one to “the earls, barons, and other faithful subjects”
of the English King. In the first of these letters Honorius, having,
as he said, heard and rejoiced to hear that Henry, though still a boy
in years, was already so much of a man in understanding that he “ought
no longer to be debarred from disposing usefully and prudently of his
realm and its affairs,” laid his commands on the three councillors
whom he was addressing that they should henceforth give the young
King “free and unfettered disposal of his kingdom, resign to him
without any difficulty the lands and castles of his which they held
in wardenship, and procure a like resignation of all Crown lands and
castles similarly held by other persons.”[919] The other three letters
began by informing their recipients of the orders issued in the first,
as to giving Henry the disposal of his realm; after this the letter to
Earl Ranulf conveyed to him individually the same command with regard
to his wardenships which in the first letter had been given to its
three joint addressees respecting theirs: the third letter bade the
vice-chancellor, as custodian of the royal seal, use it henceforth
according to the King’s good pleasure and in obedience to him only, and
permit no more letters to be sealed with it save at his desire; while
in the fourth letter the earls, barons, and other liegemen were bidden
“henceforth to obey the king humbly and devotedly,” and support him
“faithfully and firmly against any who might presume to go contrary
to him,” and they were further warned that in the event of their
disobedience to these injunctions they “might justly fear a sentence of
excommunication.”[920]

Honorius thus conferred upon his royal ward the full powers of legal
age with respect to the government of his realm in general, and to two
things in particular: the custody of royal castles and demesne lands,
and the issue of royal letters under the great seal. This definition
implied that in some other respects Henry was still to be accounted a
minor. Accordingly, the Dunstable annalist tells us that in a great
council held in London after the return of the King and the Justiciar
from Wales, “it was provided by order of the Pope and assent of the
barons, and the provision was published, that the King should have
legal age so far as concerns the free disposition of his castles and
lands and wardenships, but not so that any one could maintain his right
through it in a court of law.”[921] Thus Henry was still precluded from
making grants in perpetuity.[922]

Shortly after these proceedings in London, two barons of high standing
and approved fidelity to the King, Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard, were
called to the court, “and when they got there they were not allowed
to withdraw till they had assigned to the Justiciar the castles which
they held in custody.”[923] Walter de Lacy was hereditary sheriff of
Herefordshire and constable of Hereford castle; Ralf Musard was sheriff
of Gloucestershire and constable of Gloucester castle. For what purpose
or on what grounds the assignation of these two important border
fortresses to Hubert was required, we are not told.[924] A considerable
party among the barons regarded the proceedings against Lacy and Musard
as a flagrant act of injustice and an unwarrantable assumption of
power on the part of Hubert. The three men of chief importance among
these malcontents, Earls Ranulf of Chester, Gilbert of Gloucester, and
William of Aumale, at once resolved to appeal to the young King in
person “and show him the malice of the Justiciar,”[925] and, no doubt,
urge him to exert his newly acquired right of independent action to put
the usurper down. Hubert, however, prevented their design by inducing
the King to go with him to the west of England--which, according to
Falkes, he did by making the lad believe that the three Earls were
plotting to seize him and hold him prisoner--and shut himself up with
him in Gloucester castle,[926] where Hubert was now practically master.
Thence he sent a message to the Earls in the King’s name forbidding
them to approach him.[927] They, meanwhile, had been joined by Falkes
de Bréauté, Brian de Lisle, Robert de Vipont, John de Lacy, Peter de
Maulay, Philip Marc, Engelard de Cigogné, William de Cantelupe and his
son, “and many others.”[928] In their fury they made an attempt to
surprise the Tower of London. The attempt failed;[929] possibly its
real purpose was only to alarm the Justiciar and bring him and the King
back to the capital. On 28th November Henry and Hubert were in London
again.[930] Their return may have been hastened by the tidings from
thence; but it was probably required chiefly for the publication of
some further letters from Rome.

At some date prior to November, 1223, Pope Honorius was asked, “on
the King’s behalf and in his interest,” to give orders that Bishop
Peter of Winchester, Earl Ranulf of Chester, the Justiciar, and
Falkes, should be compelled to surrender into the King’s hand the
royal castles and other bailiwicks which they held. This request can
hardly have proceeded from any of the four persons named, nor from the
royal Council as a whole. It seems, indeed, utterly unaccountable;
yet we know from the Pope himself that he received it, that he issued
the desired mandate, and that thereupon he was asked--also “on the
King’s behalf”--to quash that mandate, lest it should give occasion to
disturbance, since the four men named were all willing to do what was
required of them in due season, and no fitter persons could be found to
replace them. The Pope, on 20th November, refused to cancel the orders
which he had given, “lest he should seem to use lightness,” but made
their execution dependent on the will of the King.[931] The story of
this correspondence is all the more puzzling because at some date which
must have been considerably earlier than 20th November--possibly as
early as the date of the letters concerning Henry’s majority--Honorius
seems to have issued a bull by which, if its terms are correctly
represented by the writers of the time, all special mandates for
compelling individuals to surrender their wardenships were made
superfluous. According to Roger of Wendover, certain “messengers of
the King” brought back from Rome a bull addressed to the archbishops
of England and their suffragans, commanding that, the King being now
recognized as of an age to take the chief part in the ordering of his
realm, they should, by apostolic authority, bid all earls, barons,
knights, and other persons whatsoever having the custody of castles,
honours, and townships belonging to the royal demesne, surrender them
to the King at once; and should force recalcitrants to submission by
means of ecclesiastical censures.[932] The reference in the Pope’s
other letters concerning Henry’s coming of age to the surrender of
Crown castles and lands seems to have been understood, at the time
when those letters were published, as intended merely to sanction the
oath taken by the barons in May, 1220, and strengthen the hands of the
young King whenever he might wish to claim its fulfilment. But the
bull to the prelates was, by implication at least, a peremptory order
from the Pope for a general surrender of all such wardenships at once.
The existence of this bull seems to have been known to some persons in
England before the middle of November, but the bull appears not to have
been published till the beginning of December.[933] At the council held
in London on that occasion Chester and his allies were not present; on
the King’s return they had withdrawn to Waltham. The Primate approached
them with overtures of peace, and on his assurance of their personal
safety they, in obedience to a summons in the King’s name,[934] came
before their sovereign. They unanimously assured him that their action
had been directed not against himself, but against Hubert, who, they
said, ought to be removed from the administration of affairs, as a
waster of the King’s treasure and an oppressor of the people.[935]
Hubert, who was of course present, burst out in angry abuse of the
Bishop of Winchester, on whom he cast all the blame, calling him a
betrayer of King and kingdom, and asserting that his ill-will was the
cause of all the evils that had happened in the time of John as well as
in that of Henry. Peter retorted that if it should cost him everything
he possessed, he would have the Justiciar dragged from power; and with
this threat he rose and left the council chamber, followed by the
barons of Chester’s party.[936] The Primate, however, succeeded in
arranging a “truce” whereby further discussion was adjourned to the
octave of S. Hilary.[937]

This scene appears to have occurred on 6th December.[938] The Patent
Roll records that on the 8th a royal letter was issued “on the motion
of the Lord King himself.”[939] Two days later still, a change in the
testing clause of the King’s letters marked the definite recognition of
his entrance upon the second stage of his minority. The formula which
for several years past had been almost exclusively in use--“Witness
Hubert de Burgh, my Justiciar”--disappeared, and was replaced
thenceforth by one which had hardly been seen since the very earliest
days of the young King’s reign--“Witness myself.”[940]


FOOTNOTES:

[807] According to the _Brut_, p. 309, “young Rhys” (of South Wales;
see above, p. 90) “became angry with the Lord Llywelyn and separated
from him, and went to William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, because
Llywelyn had given Caermarthen to Maelgwn ap Rhys, and would not
give Aberteivi” (_i.e._ Cardigan) “to him [Rhys], which fell to his
share when South Wales was divided. Then Llywelyn with his army came
to Aberystwith, and obtained possession of it.... Rhys repaired to
the court of the King and complained ... and the King assembled
Llywelyn and the earls and barons of the Marches to Shrewsbury. And
in that council young Rhys and Llywelyn were reconciled, and Llywelyn
relinquished Aberteivi in his favour, as he had given Caermarthen
to Maelgwn.” On 23rd June a safe-conduct was issued to Llywelyn to
come and speak with the King “de negociis Angliae et Walliae” (_Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 294). On 10th July the Legate wrote to Hubert
from Shrewsbury that Llywelyn “et alii Wallenses et Marchiones, et
Reginaldus de Brahus,” had come thither on the 7th (“die Mercurii
proxima post octavas Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” _Roy. Lett._, vol.
i. p. 136. Dr. Shirley dated this letter 11th July, 1220; but the
“Wednesday after the octave of SS. Peter and Paul” in that year was the
morrow of the translation of S. Thomas, when Pandulf cannot possibly
have been at Shrewsbury. On the corresponding day next year, 1221, he
may very well have been there; and we know from the _Close Rolls_, vol.
i. pp. 463–465, that Hubert had been there in the preceding week, but
had left on 2nd July, and was at Windsor on the day on which Pandulf’s
letter was written. The entry in p. 464 which makes Hubert appear “apud
Westm., ii die Jul.,” obviously contains a clerical error as to either
place or date). On 30th April, 1222, Llywelyn was desired to prolong
his truce with the Marshal and Reginald de Breuse until Easter “in
forma qua treugae illae captae fuerunt apud Salopesbiry coram nobis et
domino Pandulfo Norwicensi electo, tunc legato” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.
pp. 331, 332); whence it seems that the _Brut_ is right in asserting
the King’s presence at the Shrewsbury meeting in July, 1221. The
settlement, whatever its character, was clearly the work of Pandulf,
not Hubert.

[808] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250; _Chron. Melrose_ and _Chron. Lanercost_,
a. 1221.

[809] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 476, 477 b; 17th July, 1221.

[810] 3rd July; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 295.

[811] _Ib._ pp. 316, 317.

[812] _Ib._ pp. 275, 276.

[813] See his agreement with the King, _ib._ p. 306, and Note VI.

[814] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 304.

[815] _Ib._ p. 303.

[816] _Ib._ Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75: “Et statim” (after resigning the
legation) “pro domino rege profectus in Pictaviam, treugas inter nos et
Pictavenses prorogari impetravit.”

[817] The custody of all these lands was committed to Richard de Rivers
on 29th September; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 302.

[818] _Ib._ pp. 303, 304.

[819] _Ib._ p. 315.

[820] “Mandatum est de Norwico electo quod procuret quomodo poterit
diffusas treugas ex parte domini Regis cum comite Marchiae inire;
quibus optentis, Savaricum de Maloleone inducat et moneat ac (_sic_)
ad Dominum Regem festinet, cui (_sic_) faciet de petitionibus suis Deo
dante quod bene erit” etc.; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 477 b. As the
rest of the letter shows clearly that it was not Pandulf who was to
“hasten to the King,” I can only suppose that _ac_ should be _ut_ and
_cui_ should be _qui_.

[821] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 329, 330, 13th April, 1222.

[822] See above, p. 169.

[823] _Querimonia Falcasii_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 260.

[824] See above, p. 170.

[825] “Miles strenuus ac morum honestate commendabilis, regisque
Anglorum magister et eruditor fidelissimus.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 75.
He was one of the commanders in the sea-fight off Sandwich in August,
1217; see above, p. 52.

[826] Turner, pt. II. p. 262. Peter went some time before 16th April,
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 286, and must have been back before 21st June,
when Philip d’Aubigné had already set out for Holy Land, _ib._ p. 293.

[827] _Ib._ pp. 284, 293, and Turner, _l.c._

[828] He sailed from Marseille for Damietta on 15th August; see his own
letter in R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 75, where it is put under a wrong year,
1222.

[829] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1221.

[830] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75.

[831] “Cum autem Wintoniensis Episcopus de partibus Hispaniae esset
reversus, ipsumque regem post excessum pupillaris aetatis a sua
fateretur custodia liberatum.” _Quer. Falc._, p. 260.

[832] See orders to sheriff--who of course was Peter’s deputy--for
cleaning and repairing the royal lodgings, hall, painted chamber,
kitchen, &c., _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 483. Roger of Wendover, vol.
iv. p. 75, says “Rex ... fuit ad Natale apud Wintoniam, episcopo
civitatis Petro omnia sibi necessaria ministrante.” So he did, no
doubt, but as sheriff acting under orders and at the King’s expense,
not as host.

[833] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 251.

[834] See prohibitions in Patent Rolls _passim_.

[835] “Treugas ... quas coepit, ut praedictis significavit, ut interim
in partibus Lincolniae sua possit usitare et expendere.” _Roy. Lett._,
vol. i. p. 172. There seems to be a noun omitted in connexion with
“sua”; I think the meaning of the sentence must be as I have rendered
it.

[836] _Ib._ pp. 172, 173.

[837] “Audivimus quod preparatis vos in multitudine armatorum eundi
in Walliam ad capiendum castrum de Dinaunt Poys, quod est in manu
W. Marescalli Comitis Penbrochiae, et quod ipse nobis restituit in
presentia vestra et aliorum fidelium nostrorum London[iae], unde
plurimum miramur. Et ideo vobis mandamus firmiter praecipientes
quatinus in fide qua nobis tenemini ab hujusmodi propositi desistatis,
nec ullo modo ad castrum illud sic capiendum accedatis, quoniam
mittimus in partes illas Robertum de Vallibus cum litteris praedicti
Marescalli ad constabularium castri praedicti ut illud ex parte nostra
ab illo recipiat et vobis illud ex parte nostra liberet, salvis ipso
Marescallo bladis suis,” &c., “sicut coram nobis et consilio nostro
fuit concessum ex parte vestra.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 346. The
scribe of the Roll has obscured the story by adding a most confused and
confusing note: “Duplicantur littere iste, mutata prima clausula, in
cujus loco scribitur ‘quod idem comes obsidionem dedit dicto castro,’
&c.” This looks as if it ought to mean that the Earl Marshal was
besieging the castle; but it must of course really refer to the Earl of
Gloucester.

[838] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 79–81. Constantine’s patronymic, “Filius
Olavi,” comes from M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 251; in _Ann.
Dunst._, p. 79, he appears as “Constantinus Aloph.”

[839] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 78; in these annals the story is told under a
wrong year, 1223.

[840] _Ib._; cf.  R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 81.

[841] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 506–507 b.

[842] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 79.

[843] He was at Oxford on 11th August, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 507,
and at the Tower on 13th August, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 338.

[844] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 81. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 79.

[845] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. pp. 251, 252.

[846] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 79, and M. Paris, _l.c._

[847] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 82; cf. _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._, _Ann.
Waverley_, a. 1222--an entry made before the matter was finally
settled--and for the hostages, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 517, 569.

[848] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1222.

[849] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 334, 15th June; term, Michaelmas.

[850] _Ib._ p. 339, 23rd August; term unlimited.

[851] _Foedera_, I. i. pp. 167, 168, 27th August.

[852] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 389.

[853] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 525, 525 b, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
353, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 189–196, 206.

[854] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 366.

[855] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 169.

[856] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 219.

[857] See above, p. 59.

[858] He had been consecrated by the Pope on 29th May, 1222; _Ann.
Wav._, _ad ann._

[859] “Pandulfus Norwicensis episcopus adversus eum [Ludovicum]
sedem apostolicam appellavit, ne quis ei coronam Franciae imponeret
nisi prius Normanniam regi Anglorum restitueret, sicut super sancta
juraverat quando dicto regi reconciliatus fuerat post guerram in
partibus Anglicanis.” _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1223, p. 81.

[860] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 81; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 86; cf. R.
Coggeshall, p. 197. The letters accrediting the three prelates to the
French Primate and to Louis were issued on 28th July; _Pat. Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 406; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 556.

[861] _Pat. Rolls_, _l.c._, 23rd July.

[862] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 569 b, 570, 27th July and 1st August.

[863] _Ib._ pp. 556 b, 557, 570, 1st August.

[864] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 380.

[865] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 379, 30th July.

[866] _Ib._ p. 380.

[867] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 81.

[868] He was crowned on 6th August; _Ann. Wav._, a. 1223.

[869] This is Ralf of Coggeshall’s account of Louis’s reply: “Coronatus
antequam nuncii praedicti ad eum pervenirent, de tali petitione
responsum dare distulit, inducias petens de responso usque ad octabas
Omnium Sanctorum,” p. 197. Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 86) and the
_Ann. Dunst._ (p. 82) represent Louis as giving an answer which must,
it would seem, have put an end to all further hope of agreement, and
which I therefore think must really have been made not to the bishops
who went to him in August, but to another set of episcopal envoys who
went in October, as will be seen later.

[870] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 352.

[871] Cf. _Brut_, a. 1222, p. 311, and _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1223, p. 82.

[872] “Quia non habemus consilium quod illud ultra terminum praedictum
teneatis.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 363.

[873] “Leulinus vero interea duo castra sita in margia North Walliae,
quae fuerunt Fulconis filii Warini, funditus destruxit,” _Ann.
Dunst._, _l.c._ That this account of Llywelyn’s doings in the winter
of 1222–1223 is correct, and that the two castles were Kinnerley and
Whittington, appears from the Rolls, though the same writer’s story
(_ib._) of a war which he represents as immediately preceding the
Marshal’s visit to Ireland is surely nothing but a distorted version
of the events of 1220: “Eadem tempestate Leulinus, regulorum Gualliae
major, regis Angliae sororius, petiit a rege Angliae auxilium ut
quaedam castra per Walenses injuste regno Angliae subtracta posset in
statum debitum restituere. Habito vero auxilio, dicta castra cepit et
destruxit et terram ipsam sibi retinuit.” Cf. above, p. 161. Roger of
Wendover (vol. iv. p. 85) also confuses the Welsh war of 1220 with
that of 1223, and has added some further confusions of his own. The
Dunstable writer is not quite exact in his account of the ownership of
the two castles really taken in 1223; according to _Close Rolls_, vol.
i. pp. 554 and 569, Whittington belonged to Fulk FitzWarine, Kinnerley
to Baldwin of Hodnet.

[874] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82. The court was at Shrewsbury on 7th March,
and at Bridgenorth on 10th March; thence it moved southward along
the border to Worcester, Gloucester, and Bristol, and back through
Wiltshire to London. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 536 b–538 b; _Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 367–369.

[875] “About Palm Sunday” (16th April), _Brut_, p. 313; “in hebdomada
Passionis,” _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._ If this latter writer is correct
in his statement about the fifteen days’ truce, and if the _Brut_ is
correct in its date for the taking of Cardigan--Easter Monday (24th
April)--the Marshal must have landed not a day later than the Monday
in Passion week, 10th April, and have been met on the spot by a King’s
messenger sent to await his arrival.

[876] _Brut_, _l.c._; the Dunstable annalist says “cum multis millibus
populorum.”

[877] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[878] _Brut_, p. 313. Roger of Wendover’s account of the war between
the Marshal and Llywelyn in 1223 is as follows: “Eodem anno, dum
Willelmus Marescallus comes Penbroc fuit in Hibernia, Loelinus rex
Walensium in manu forti cepit duo castella praedicti Willelmi, et
omnes quos in eis invenit capitibus privari fecit, et impositis in
eisdem castellis Walensibus suis, recessit. Sed cum post dies paucos
ad notitiam praedicti Marescalli res gesta pervolasset, rediit cum
festinatione in Angliam; exercitu magno congregato, castella praedicta
obsedit et cepit; et quia Loelinus prius omnes homines Marescalli
quos in castellis ceperat capitibus amputatis interfecerat, Willelmus
Marescallus Walensibus talionem reddens eorum capita detruncari fecit;
et deinde ad majorem vindictam terram Loelini hostiliter ingressus
igne et ferro quaeque sibi obvia devastavit” (vol. iv. pp. 84, 85).
There seems to be a double, or rather triple, confusion here. It was
not in 1223 but in 1220 that Llywelyn took two castles which belonged
to the Marshal (see above, p. 161). The two castles which he took in
1223 belonged not to the Marshal but to Fulk FitzWarine and Baldwin
of Hodnet respectively (see above, footnote 873); and the two castles
which the Marshal captured on his return were not the same (“praedicta
castella”) which Llywelyn had taken on either of these two occasions,
for they were Cardigan and Caermarthen, of which Llewelyn had been
legal custodian--“the person who had the custody of the castles on the
part of the King,” as the _Brut_ puts it (_l.c._)--ever since 1218. The
cutting off the prisoners’ heads is doubtful, especially on the side
of the Marshal, because the Welsh chronicles would have been almost
certain to mention such an act on his part if it really took place, and
they give no hint of any such thing.

[879] _Brut_, p. 313.

[880] _Ib._

[881] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 373, 374.

[882] Cf. _Brut_, p. 315, the safe-conducts to Llywelyn in _Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 406 and 376, and the movements of the court as
shewn _ib._ and in _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 553 b–555.

[883] _Brut_, _l.c._

[884] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 569 b.

[885] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 377, 13th July.

[886] _Ib._ pp. 378, 379, 13th and 19th July.

[887] See the list of protections for those who are “in exercitu
nostro in partibus Walliae cum W. comite Sarresburiae et comite W.
Marescallo,” _ib._ p. 407, 13th July; and of those who are entitled
to scutage from their tenants to support them on the same expedition,
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 570 b, 571, 10th August.

[888] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 516 b, 567, 567 b, 25th June and 24th
November, 1222.

[889] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1222.

[890] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 259, says “circa octabas
Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” but the Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 559, shew
this to be much too early.

[891] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 562,
563 b, which shew that Henry was at Canterbury 1st and 2nd September,
at Rochester 5th September, and at Westminster 6th–13th September,
and that on the 9th thirty pounds were paid to Philip of Aubigné “ad
expensas Regis Jerusalem adquietandas factas apud Londoniam in festo
Nativitatis B. Mariae.”

[892] M. Paris, _l.c._ p. 260. The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, say: “Ideo
munera pauciora data sunt illi quia dissuasit regi Franciae jura regis
Angliae reformari.”

[893] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83, and _Brut_, p. 315. The _Brut’s_
version of this expedition is that “the Earl [Marshal] designed through
the aid of Earl Ferrers and Henry Pictot lord of Ewias to proceed
through the territory of the prince to his own country; but he was
not able, because Llywelyn had sent his son Gruffudd and a large army
... to Carnwyllon to intercept the Earl and his men, and there was he
slain”!

[894] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[895] “Circa Nativitatem B. Mariae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 71. Roger
has here again mixed up the events of 1223 with those of an earlier
year; he puts the whole affair of Builth and Montgomery in 1221, but it
certainly belongs to 1223.

[896] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 71, 72.

[897] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 170.

[898] “Rex autem, qui suis magnatibus deesse non debuit, cum exercitu
magno illuc tendens, fugientibus ex more Wallensibus, obsidionem
amovit,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 72. We have no record of the King’s
movements between 15th September, when he was at Windsor, and 19th
September, when he was at Hereford. On the 20th he was at “Brenles”;
the next two days are blank; on the 23rd he was at Hereford again, on
the 26th at Leominster, and on the 29th at Shrewsbury, _Close Rolls_,
vol. i. pp. 564, 564 b.

[899] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 564 b.

[900] R. Wend., _l.c._

[901] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 564 b, 565.

[902] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 411, 8th October.

[903] _Ib._ pp. 411, 481. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83.

[904] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 574 b.

[905] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 413, 414.

[906] _Ib._ p. 412, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 565, R. Coggeshall, p.
197.

[907] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._, _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82.

[908] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 86. See above, footnote 869.

[909] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82 (see above, _l.c._), and R. Coggeshall,
p. 197.

[910] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78, and _Hist. Angl._,
vol. ii. p. 257, connect Louis’s complaint of the non-observance of
treaty and charters with the execution of Constantine.

[911] This is indicated by an agreement made in 1222 with the Irish
King Donell of Thomond that the ferm due from him to the English Crown
should be reduced from a hundred and thirty to a hundred marks a year
“until our coming of age,” in consideration of a fine of two hundred
marks; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 336, 337. In other words, Hubert,
being in want of ready money for the needs of the state, borrowed from
Donell in Henry’s name two hundred marks, to be repaid in instalments
by the deduction of thirty marks a year from the ferm of Thomond till
the repayment should be completed; which would be (roughly) in 1228.

[912] _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a. 1222.

[913] _Ann. Tewkesb._, a. 1238.

[914] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 490.

[915] Hubert de Burgh in 1239 said “Episcopus Wintoniensis misit Romam
W. de S. Albino” [the reporter of his words, a S. Alban’s man, made the
name “S. Albano,” but it was really Saint-Aubin] “pro dicto negotio,”
_i.e._, to get the King declared of age; _Responsiones_, M. Paris,
_Chron. Maj._, vol. vi. p. 69. If so, Honorius waited a long while
before acting on the suggestion; for Master William de St.-Aubin was
accredited as the King’s proctor at Rome on 25th March, 1222 (_Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 328), and was back in England before 30th October,
when he was sent on a mission to Poitou which lasted till the very
time at which the Pope’s mandates about the majority were issued,
April, 1223 (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 518, 541). Moreover, the letter
accrediting William to the Pope is attested not by Peter, but by Hubert.

[916] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 88, R. Coggeshall, p. 203, and Louis’s
assertion quoted above, p. 198.

[917] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 168.

[918] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 569.

[919] “Quodamodo sibi dispositionem regni sui dimittetis liberam
et quietam, terras et castra quae tenetis custodiae nomine sine
difficultate qualibet resignetis eidem, et resignare procuretis ab
aliis qui terras et castra ipsius simili modo tenent.”

[920] See Note VII.

[921] More literally, “not to the point that it [_i.e._ the
disposition] could be maintained by any one in a law-suit.” I have to
thank Mr. R. L. Poole for these renderings of the Dunstable annalist’s
words (a. 1223, p. 83): “Postmodum vero, regis exercitu recedente,
baronibus apud Londoniam convocatis, de mandato domini Papae et assensu
baronum provisum est, et provisio publicata, quod ipse rex haberet
legitimam aetatem quantum ad liberam dispositionem de castris et terris
et gwardiis suis; non autem quoad hoc ut in placito posset ab aliquo
communiri.”

[922] This is evident from the non-existence of any charters or Charter
Rolls of Henry III earlier than January, 1227, after which they begin
immediately. See Powicke, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. pp. 221–223.
“The clause in italics” (_non autem quoad hoc_, etc., see preceding
note) “is important, and defines the meaning of _dispositio_. Henry
could now entrust his castles and lands, and the property of his wards,
at his own choice, but the declaration of 1218 against permanent
grants under the great seal still held good. These grants could not
be regarded in a court of law as possessed of the finality allowed
to a charter” (_ib._ p. 222). Falkes describes the limitation of the
King’s powers as follows: “Cum a sede apostolica jussio processisset
ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis, a cunctis tenentibus
redderentur, adjuncta clausula quod rex ipse jam adultus factus non
posset compelli habere tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus.”
_Querimonia_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 261.

[923] “Justiciarius et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones
ad curiam regis vocarentur, scilicet Walterus de Lascy et Radulfus
Musard, quorum fidelitas pro ipso rege in omnibus fuit approbata,
quibus cum accessissent non antea recedere licuit quam castra quae
causa custodiae tenebant dicto justitiario assignarent.” _Quer. Falc._,
p. 261.

[924] Falkes is our only informant on this transaction; but his story,
provokingly laconic as it is, receives some countenance from the
Rolls; for they show that on 15th November Lacy was, by a royal letter
attested by Hubert and issued on Hubert’s motion, ordered to deliver
Hereford castle and shire to Ralf FitzNicolas (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.
414), and that six weeks later the castle was in Hubert’s hands (_ib._
p. 419).

[925] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._

[926] _Ib._ Henry and Hubert left London 8th or 9th November, and went
by Oxford, Woodstock, and Cirencester to Gloucester, where they were
16th–22nd November; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 575–576.

[927] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._

[928] Cf. the summons in _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 481, 482, and R.
Wend., vol. iv. p. 93. Nothing is said of Walter de Lacy or Ralf
Musard, whom we should have expected to find in the malcontents’ camp,
if they were free to join it. Most likely they were not so; Ralf was,
so far as we know, still the responsible custodian of Gloucester
castle, where Hubert now had him safe under his own eyes; and a letter
close of 16th November shows that Walter was “detained in England in
the King’s service” (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 575 b)--probably in
actual attendance on the King and thus under the surveillance of the
Justiciar.

[929] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83.

[930] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 576 b. They seem to have taken up their
abode in the Tower.

[931] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 539.

[932] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 88–89. Cf. _Quer. Falc._, p. 261, and Note
VII.

[933] See Note VII.

[934] Summons to Earls of Chester, Gloucester, and Aumale, John
constable of Chester, Robert de Vipont, Falkes, Brian de Lisle, and
Engelard de Cigogné, “quod veniatis ad nos apud Gloucestre hac die
dominica proxima post festum S. Andreae anno regni nostri octavo
[_i.e._, 3rd Dec., 1223] locuturi nobiscum die Lunae mane apud
Hospitale S. Johannis de Clerkenwelle vel apud Novum Templum Londoniae
vel alibi ubi de communi consilio melius providerimus.” _Pat. Rolls_,
vol. i. pp. 481, 482. “Gloucestre” is obviously a scribe’s error for
“Londoniam.”

[935] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 84. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 303, and _Quer.
Falc._, p. 261.

[936] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[937] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 261, 262.

[938] _Ib._

[939] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 417.

[940] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 578. Cf. Powicke, p. 222.




CHAPTER V

THE YOUNG KING

1223–1227

Aetatem habet; ipse de se loquatur.


[Sidenote: 1223]

The recognition of Henry’s partial coming of age (if such a phrase may
be allowed) in December, 1223, re-introduced into English politics and
into the government of England a factor which had been absent from them
for seven years, but which until John’s death had always been, and was
again to be for many generations, a factor of great, perhaps we should
rather say of the very greatest importance: the character and will of
the King. Thenceforth neither the Council as a body, nor any member
of it, could do any act in the King’s name without consulting him and
obtaining his sanction; nor could they, if the King desired anything
to be done which lay within the limits of his regal powers as defined
in October, 1223, prevent him from doing it, except by persuading him
to give up his desire in deference to their advice. The circumstances
by which such abnormal authority had become connected with the
justiciarship had ceased to exist; that office was once more reduced
within its proper limits; and if Hubert now aspired to rule England in
Henry’s name, the only way in which he could do so was by acquiring and
keeping complete personal ascendency over Henry himself. If, however,
the papal mandates which brought about this altered condition of things
had really been procured by Peter des Roches, in the hope that when
Hubert’s official importance was thus diminished he himself might
regain the foremost place in his old pupil’s confidence and become
the chief adviser of the Crown in Hubert’s stead, he was doomed to
wait a long time for the fulfilment of his hope. Until Henry’s final
coming of age and for many years after, so far as the King’s policy
was dictated by any one, it was dictated by Hubert de Burgh. But even
during the years which were still to elapse before Henry attained his
complete majority, Hubert’s dictatorship was very far from absolute.
In October, 1223, the King was sixteen years old; he was universally
esteemed an intelligent, serious-minded lad; and he had been carefully
educated. In later life he did not prove a man of lofty mental capacity
or great force of character; but he did prove to possess a will of his
own, though it was too often a fitful and a wayward will--precisely
the kind of will which may be only too easily influenced, but never
entirely directed or controlled, by another person. If Henry’s will, at
the opening of his seventeenth year and in the first flush of his newly
acquired regal independence, had been so utterly dormant as to move
only at Hubert’s impulsion, he would indeed have been a marvellously
degenerate descendant of his Angevin and Norman ancestors. For such
an unnatural supposition there is no ground whatever. There is every
reason to believe that from December, 1223, onwards Henry, within the
limits defined in October, and with the assistance of his Council,
although relying mainly on the advice of one member of it, actually
governed as well as reigned.

On the breaking up of the council in London the Earl of Chester and
his party went to Northampton to concert their plans and muster
their forces pending the expiration of the “truce” at the octave of
S. Hilary. They removed to Leicester on hearing that the King was
coming to hold his Christmas court at Northampton.[941] Sumptuous
preparations were made for the festival; the majority of the magnates,
as well as the Primate and other bishops, rallied round the King, and
there came together “so many earls and barons and knights in arms
that neither in the days of the King’s father, nor since, was such
a festival remembered to have been celebrated in England.”[942] On
the day after Christmas {26 Dec.} the Archbishop and his suffragans
put on their albs, lighted their candles, and excommunicated all
“disturbers of the King, the realm, and the Church, and invaders of
ecclesiastical property.”[943] Stephen then sent a message to the
discontented barons at Leicester, bidding them come to speak with the
King, and warning them that a refusal would place them within the
scope of the excommunication just published {26–28 Dec.}. Alarmed by
this threat, and conscious of the inferiority of their forces, they
obeyed the summons.[944] They were brought into the presence of the
King, the Primate, and some of the bishops, and the Pope’s order for
the restitution of the King’s property was exhibited to them there.
Then the King himself called upon them all to obey it by immediately
surrendering the castles and other wardenships which they held for him.
For a while they hesitated whether to yield or appeal to the Pope; but
another word of warning from the Archbishop decided them, and they
agreed to do what was required of them, on condition that the Justiciar
and all other holders of royal property should at once do likewise.
Stephen answered eagerly, “It is meet that there be such a distribution
of castles as shall make all parties equal without scandal.”[945] On
this a universal surrender was made in legal form by the delivery of
a glove or a hat from every individual both of Chester’s party and of
Hubert’s, the two leaders themselves included.[946]

Next day (30th December) new custodians were appointed to twenty-five
royal castles. The former castellans thus displaced were thirteen
in number. One of them had, before the general surrender, resigned
on account of ill-health. Of the remaining twelve, five had been
concerned in the recent attempt to oust the Justiciar--Ranulf of
Chester, William de Cantelupe, Engelard de Cigogné, Brian de Lisle,
and Falkes; the other seven were either neutral, or distinctly of the
opposite party--Ralf de Gernon, John Russell, Stephen de Sedgrave,
William Brewer, the Bishop of Norwich, the Earl of Salisbury, and
the Justiciar himself. Out of the seven royal castles which Hubert
had in his charge the only one not transferred to other keeping was
the Tower of London, of which the custody was traditionally attached
to the justiciarship.[947] On 7th January {1224} orders were given
for the transfer of three more castles--Winchester, Porchester, and
Southampton, all in the custody of Bishop Peter; and on 2nd February
the lands of the young heir to the earldom of Devon, and the castles
which formed part of them, were committed to a new warden in place
of the boy’s stepfather, Falkes.[948] The actual displacement of
castellans consequent on the surrender of 29th December, 1223, seems
to have ended here. By that surrender several royal castles which
make no appearance in the Rolls at this time must have been, like
the others, placed legally in the King’s hands; but he seems to have
neither appointed new wardens to them, nor re-committed them to their
existing wardens; these latter were simply left in possession, as they
had originally been appointed, during the King’s pleasure. Even members
of the party opposed to Hubert were in this informal way suffered to
retain some of their wardenships; Falkes lost--at that moment--only
three of the many royal castles which he held;[949] Gloucester, which
though assigned to Hubert by Ralf Musard under compulsion in the autumn
of 1223 had never passed actually into Hubert’s custody, was not taken
from Ralf till November, 1225.[950] On the other hand, although only
five sheriffs were displaced, their displacement involved the transfer
of thirteen shires to other hands, and four of the five men were
opponents of Hubert; the fifth, John Russell, was merely removed from
Somerset to the joint sheriffdom of Leicestershire and Warwickshire,
taken from William de Cantelupe. On the same day--30th December,
1223--the Earl of Chester lost the shrievalties of Lancashire,
Shropshire, and Staffordshire, and Falkes lost two out of his seven
shires; on 18th January {1224} he was deprived of four more, Rutland
alone being left to him; and in the interval, on 7th January, Bishop
Peter was deprived of the sheriffdom of Hampshire. Considering the
recent political alliance between Chester, Cantelupe, and Falkes,
and the geographical relation to one another (and also, in the case
of Chester’s shires, to his own Palatine county and to the Welsh
border) of the shires thus taken from them, their dispossession was a
reasonable precaution. Bishop Peter’s deprivation of his sheriffdom and
wardenships may have been likewise dictated by prudence or suspicion;
but suspicion, if it existed, was veiled beneath an appearance of
courtesy; it was not till a week after the letters had been issued
for the displacement of the other sheriffs and castellans that he was
called upon to hand over Hampshire and its castles to a brother bishop,
Richard of Salisbury.

Fifteen of the other twenty-five redistributed castles were committed
to prelates {1223}. Bristol was transferred to its diocesan bishop,
Jocelyn of Bath, from Bishop Pandulf of Norwich; the other fourteen had
been in the charge of laymen. Jocelyn of Bath was also entrusted with
one of these castles, Sherborne; eleven were committed to the bishops
(in one case the archbishop) of the dioceses in which they respectively
stood; the other two--Windsor and Odiham--to Archbishop Stephen.[951]
These appointments, all made on 30th December, 1223, were evidently not
meant to be of long duration; their object was to give the King and his
advisers time for considering more fully how best to dispose of the
castles, of which the greater number would meanwhile be in the keeping
of guardians whose neutral position afforded the deprived castellans
no ground for jealousy or suspicion. The arrangement seems however
to have worked so well that very little modification of it was found
necessary for several years. Its author was probably the Archbishop
of Canterbury. Throughout the proceedings at Northampton he seems to
have acted as spokesman on the King’s side; as head of the commission
charged with the execution of the papal mandate on which those
proceedings were based, he was most likely entrusted by Henry with the
conduct of them. Falkes says that immediately after the surrender “the
Archbishop, distributing the castles by word of mouth, deprived all the
barons alike of their possessions.” The letters patent issued next day
were no doubt drawn up according to this verbal distribution; but, as
we have seen, the actual results were far less sweeping than the words
of Falkes imply. A charge of unfair dealing which is brought by Falkes
and by another writer of the time against the King and his advisers on
this occasion has met with a more ready acceptance than, perhaps, it
deserved. “While,” says Falkes, “the Earl of Chester and his friends
made a real bodily restitution of their castles, the Justiciar and his
party held theirs as before.”[952] “When the castles were surrendered,”
says Ralf of Coggeshall, “the King gave back to Hubert his wardenships,
the other castellans being deprived of theirs.”[953] The evidence of
the Rolls on this point is unfortunately very meagre and incomplete;
they contain scarcely any information about the royal castles during
the next eight years and more. We find, however, in the list of castles
held by Hubert at his fall in 1232 only four out of the seven which he
had held in 1223: the Tower, Dover, Rochester, and Canterbury.[954]
The first seems never to have been taken from him.[955] Rochester was
re-committed to him on 26th March, 1225,[956] and Dover not much later,
perhaps even earlier.[957] The delivery of Canterbury to the Archbishop
may never have been enforced; but it is equally possible that Hubert
may not have regained the custody of this castle till after Stephen’s
death, in 1228.[958] This evidence, though not sufficient to determine
precisely how much of truth or of error is contained either in Falkes’s
assertion or in Ralf’s, does suffice to show that neither the baron’s
version of the matter nor the chronicler’s is altogether exact.

[Sidenote: 1224]

Some at least of the deprived castellans, however, who had probably
hoped for speedy re-instatement, were disappointed at not getting
it,[959] and not less disappointed at the failure of the attempt to
oust Hubert from the justiciarship. The nobler spirits among the
malcontents seem to have fallen back, almost immediately after the
surrender at Northampton, upon a more pacific and legitimate expedient
for curbing his masterfulness and guarding themselves against the
danger of government by “unjust laws.” On the octave of Epiphany,
when the court reassembled in London, the King “was requested by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and other magnates to confirm the liberties
and free customs for which war had been waged against his father.”[960]
The King’s _quasi_-majority afforded an obvious occasion for such a
request. The Great Charter had been twice renewed in his name, but at
a time when he was too young to understand the responsibilities to
which it pledged him. Now that he was recognized as “a man in wisdom
and understanding,” personally answerable for “the disposition of his
realm,” he might fairly be asked to grant a new confirmation of the
Charter, which those who asked for it doubtless hoped would be an end
of all strife. It was only natural that on this matter Stephen de
Langton should be spokesman; and he spoke urgently, pleading that the
King “could not evade doing this, since at the departure of Louis he
and all the nobility of the realm with him had sworn that they would
all observe, and cause to be observed by all others, the liberties
written down aforetime.” William Brewer took upon himself to answer
for the King: “The liberties which ye ask for ought rightly not to be
observed, because they were extorted by violence.” “William,” exclaimed
the Archbishop, “if you loved the King, you would not thus stand in the
way of the peace of his realm.” Then, says the chronicler, “the King,
seeing the Archbishop moved to anger, said: ‘These liberties we have
all sworn, and what we have sworn we are all bound to observe.’”[961]

With a boy’s simplicity the young King had unconsciously passed
judgement on the demand which had just been made to him and on the
repeated demands for confirmation of the Charters which resound through
the history of the next seventy years. He had sworn to maintain the
liberties which he was asked to confirm; he was bound by his oath;
no amount of repetitions could make that oath any more binding than
it was already, and no amount of confirmations could really give any
additional security for its observance. But behind the question of
confirmation lay, probably, a question of definition. One article, at
least, of the Charter as republished in 1217 left a wide field open for
contention: the forty-sixth article, which reserved to all the King’s
subjects “the liberties and free customs which they formerly had.” This
clause had replaced the one in the Charter of 1216 which reserved for
future consideration certain important articles in the Great Charter
of 1215.[962] It is probable that what Stephen and the magnates with
whom he was acting--whoever these may have been--really wanted was a
revision of the Charter, to include the substitution of some definite
provisions on these reserved points for the vague saving clause of
1217. If so, William Brewer’s attitude must have shewn them that the
cleavage of political opinion within the royal Council was too sharp
for agreement on the subject to be possible at that moment. For the
observance of the Charter as it stood they had the word of the King,
and there was no reason to expect that the King would be worse than his
word.[963]

Still Chester and his friends persevered in their efforts to undermine
the position of the Justiciar; and some of them were equally desirous
of undermining that of the Primate. These now despatched two messengers
to Rome, ostensibly to report to the Pope on the state of affairs in
England. The Archbishop, suspecting mischief, compelled these envoys
before they sailed to swear to him and some of his suffragans that they
“would attempt nothing prejudicial to the King and the realm”--the
actual meaning of the oath being, they were given to understand, that
they were not to ask for a legate.[964] This, however, was precisely
what they did. Urged one way by their entreaties and another by
Stephen’s protests and his assurances that no legatine intervention was
needed to preserve peace in the land, Honorius at last decided to send
not a legate, but merely commissioners; further tidings from England
induced him to abandon even this project.[965] At a council in London
on 21st–23rd April,[966] the Archbishop with tears implored the barons
to agree together in peace for the public good.[967] Chester and
all others who had been at strife with the Justiciar yielded to this
appeal; the kiss of peace was given and accepted on both sides, and the
King, “willing to forget past injuries,” received into his peace and
favour all who had offended against him, “hoping,” as he wrote to the
Pope, “to receive from all and singular such effectual counsel and aid
as they in their necessities are entitled to expect from us.”[968]

There was urgent need of peace at home; for strife was raging in
Ireland, and grave danger was hanging over Poitou. Geoffrey de Marsh
had, as we have seen, formally resigned the Justiciarship of the
Irish March in October, 1221;[969] but he had contrived to hamper his
successor, Archbishop Henry of Dublin, by retaining some at least of
the rolls and other records necessary for the Justiciar’s official work
in his own hands till July, 1222, if not later still.[970] Some months
before this the return of Hugh de Lacy gave token of trouble to come.
In John’s reign Hugh had been Earl of Ulster, and his brother Walter
Lord of Meath; both had incurred forfeiture and exile in 1214. Walter’s
reinstatement had been ordered by John on 6th July, 1215,[971] but
Geoffrey de Marsh--who was appointed Justiciar on the same day--never
carried out the order; in November, 1221, Archbishop Henry was bidden
to do so without further delay.[972] Hugh, driven by the Albigensians
from his place of refuge on the Continent, had then recently come under
a safe-conduct to England.[973] Thence he seems to have gone into
Wales. Some lands which he had held under his brother, and those which
formed the dower of his wife, were restored to him on 27th December,
1222.[974] In the spring of 1223 he went to Ireland without the King’s
leave.[975] There he stirred up so much mischief that in June the
English government, after an ineffectual attempt to induce his brother
Walter and the Earls of Chester, Salisbury, and Gloucester to undertake
the custody of his lands for five years,[976] deemed it advisable to
establish throughout the English dominions in Ireland a new system of
provincial government by seneschals who, under the supreme authority of
the chief Justiciar, should be “both willing and able to guard against
the King’s damage, and manfully make war against his enemies when
necessity should arise.”[977] John Marshal, who in February had been
sent as assistant justiciar to help the Archbishop,[978] now received
the custody of the territories of Cork, Des, and Desmond, with their
castles;[979] Richard de Burgh (Hubert’s brother), who already held
the honour of Limerick, was named seneschal of Munster and constable
of Limerick castle;[980] William de Serland was appointed seneschal of
Ulster.[981] Walter de Lacy, who since 1215 had been steadily loyal to
the English Crown, was in England; but his men in Ireland gave shelter
and support to his rebel brother, under whose command they committed
grievous “excesses” on the King’s land, harrying and burning, and
slaying or putting to ransom the men of the King.[982] In one of his
raids Hugh nearly reached Dublin, and the Justiciar-Archbishop, taken
at unawares, was forced to buy of him a truce till next summer.[983]
Before it expired, a singular compact was made, in the early spring
of 1224, between the King and Walter de Lacy. In consideration, on
the one hand, of Walter’s faithful service, and on the other, of his
legal responsibility for the misdoings of the men of Meath, it was
agreed that the King should hold one of Walter’s English castles and
one of his Irish ones--Ludlow and Trim--for two years from Easter (14th
April); that Walter should go to Ireland “and fight to the uttermost
of his power, with the King’s help, against the men who had done these
things”; that when he should have thus won back control over his own
lands, the King should hold them for a year and a day, “and after that
there shall be done to Walter concerning them whatever the King’s court
shall decide.” Meanwhile Walter was to have free use of Trim castle for
the purposes of this war against his own men.[984] The trouble which
Hugh had stirred up, however, was evidently felt to require, above all
things, the presence in Ireland of a military leader, instead of an
ecclesiastic, as the chief representative of the Crown. On 23rd April
Earl William of Pembroke and Leinster was married to his promised
bride, the King’s nine years old sister Eleanor;[985] within a month
he sailed for Ireland to enter upon his duties as chief Justiciar in
Archbishop Henry’s stead.[986]

A yet graver peril than that which disturbed the King’s “land of
Ireland” was that which threatened his “land of Poitou.” The truce with
France had just expired on Easter day, 14th April.[987] Ever since the
previous October the English government had known, from the lips of
Louis himself, that he was only awaiting its expiration to assemble his
host for the conquest of Henry’s remaining continental territories;
yet to meet his attack they seem to have made no preparation, except a
final effort to secure the support of Hugh of Lusignan. On 15th January
it was proposed to satisfy the claims of Hugh and Isabel by granting
to them, in compensation for Isabel’s lost dower-lands in Normandy,
the Stannaries in Devonshire and the revenues of Aylesbury for four
years from the ensuing Easter; for the arrears due to Isabel since
her second marriage, three thousand pounds of money of Touraine, to
be paid within three years from Easter; and for their claim to Niort,
one hundred marks annually (“although Niort is not worth that sum a
year,” adds her royal son or his minister) to Isabel for life. If the
King of France should invade Poitou within the four years, Hugh was to
have “a reasonable aid” for the defence of Henry’s land; and in case
of Isabel’s death Hugh was to keep for the same period the lands which
he already held, except what he had “taken in the King’s service”[988]
and the custody of the castle of Mausy, which had been for some time
past in dispute between Henry and Hugh, and which Henry reserved to
himself.[989] A modified form of these proposals was accepted by Hugh
at the end of March. The annual sum promised in compensation for Niort
was doubled; the three thousand pounds Tournois for arrears were to be
all paid up at Whitsuntide of the current year; there was no express
mention of Mausy, but it was conceded that Hugh and his wife, or the
survivor of them, should keep for four years from Easter whatever they
were seised of on S. Andrew’s day last past; whether this definition
would or would not include Mausy does not appear.[990] Hugh was to
swear that he would serve the King faithfully; and the Pope was to be
requested to enforce, if necessary, the keeping of this agreement.[991]
In accordance with it, Hugh was on 8th April asked to seize for Henry,
as soon as the truce should be ended, the lands of a certain man “who
was with the King of France.”[992] About the same time the sheriffs
throughout England seem to have been ordered to seize into the King’s
hand all lands held by Normans and Bretons--meaning, probably, such
as had lands on both sides of the sea and were by reason of their
continental possessions subjects of the French King. To this order,
however, it was soon found advisable to make some considerable
exceptions.[993] At the eleventh hour Louis suddenly offered to
prolong the truce for ten years.[994] On 28th April--a fortnight
after Easter--three envoys were sent from England to speak with him
about prolonging it for four years.[995] He seems to have given them
an audience, in presence of his Council, on 5th May;[996] but the
negotiations were unsuccessful. Louis’s proposal had been prompted by a
desire to free his hands for another expedition against Toulouse, where
the Albigensians were again in the ascendent, and the Pope was anxious
for the intervention of the French King.[997] The reason for the
English counter-proposal is plain. In a little over four years Henry
must needs be acknowledged as of full age in every respect; it was not
right that after that time his hands should be tied by an engagement
of such importance made while he was still in some sense a minor;
if the truce was to be renewed, it must be only until his coming of
age. Louis, however, insisted upon ten years or nothing.[998] On 15th
May, therefore, Henry by letters patent announced that his truce with
France was ended, and bade the chief English seaport towns make their
ships ready for service at call, detain all vessels which should enter
their harbours, and suffer none which were there to go out without his
special leave.[999]

It was scarcely conceivable that Louis would make any attempt upon
England before he had secured Poitou; we should therefore naturally
have supposed that the ships thus collected were required for the
transport of troops to assist Savaric de Mauléon in the defence of
that country. The only troops actually sent, however, consisted of
about a hundred knights and an unspecified number of men-at-arms[1000]
commanded by Richard de Gray and Geoffrey de Neville,[1001] and
destined to reinforce the garrison of La Rochelle.[1002] This force
appears to have sailed at the end of May or in the first days of
June.[1003] It was despatched “by the advice of the magnates of
England”[1004]--that is, of the council which had been assembled in
London for the reconciliation of Hubert and his opponents. That council
then dispersed under orders to meet again at Northampton,[1005] on
the octave of Trinity Sunday,[1006] 16th June, “for the purpose”--so
Henry himself wrote to the Pope--“of giving us (the King) counsel and
rendering us aid for the defence of our land in Poitou.”[1007] The
nature of the proposed “aid” cannot be determined with certainty from
the King’s words; they might stand either for personal assistance
in the field, or monetary aid instead of service, or for both. The
question about the obligation of military service beyond sea was still
unsettled; and from the expressions used by some writers of the time
we should gather that the ostensible purpose for which the barons
were summoned to Northampton was merely to concert measures for the
preservation of the King’s transmarine dominions.[1008] It is however
scarcely credible that if the King and his ministers really desired to
consult further with the barons about this most urgent business, the
council actually assembled in London should not have been detained
there for that purpose, instead of being dismissed for seven weeks and
then reassembled elsewhere in the middle of June to discuss a matter
which ought in fact to have passed from the stage of consultation
to that of action by the middle of May. According to Falkes, on the
other hand, the summons was for a muster of the host in arms.[1009] A
statement made some years later by Hubert seems to confirm this version
of the story,[1010] and we shall see from the sequel that the majority,
if not all, of the barons went to Northampton attended by their
followers in arms. There is, however, reason to believe that, if not
in the mind of the young King himself, at least in that of his chief
adviser, Poitou was not the real or at any rate the first destination
of the host.

The changes in the custody of royal castles and wardenships ordered
early in the year seem to have been effected without serious difficulty
or delay, except with regard to one castle,[1011] Plympton. The King
claimed the custody of Plympton on the ground that it formed part
of the honour of Devon, which had belonged to the late Earl William
of Devon, or “of the Isle” (of Wight), as he was sometimes called,
father of Baldwin de Rivers, whose widow, Margaret, was the wife of
Falkes de Bréauté. Falkes and Margaret had been married during Earl
William’s lifetime, in 1215;[1012] but William {1215–1218} was very
unwilling to give his daughter-in-law and her new husband seisin of
the dower-lands to which she was entitled as Baldwin’s widow, and her
claims were still unsettled when he died in September, 1217.[1013]
They were settled at last by the regent Earl Marshal, on 30th March,
1218, when “the honour of Plympton, with the castle of Plympton, and
all the land which belonged to the Earl of the Isle in Devonshire,”
was by royal letter patent granted to Falkes and Margaret “as the same
Margaret’s dower.”[1014] On 16th February, 1224, Henry transferred the
custody of the Earl’s castles in Hampshire and of all the lands which
had been his, “except his lands in Devon and the castle of Plympton,”
to Waleran the German.[1015] So far as we know, Falkes complied with
this order. On 13th March he was informed by letter patent that the
King had committed Plympton castle (“which,” wrote Henry, “was given
into your keeping by the elder William Marshal when he was governor of
ourself and our realm”) to Walter de Falkenberg, and if Falkes were
unwilling to deliver it to Walter, he must come to London at Mid-Lent
(21st March), and deliver it there to the King in person.[1016] Falkes
seemingly declined to deliver it at all, on the plea--for which, as has
been seen, he had an excellent warrant--that he held it not in custody
for the Crown, but as part of his wife’s dower. On 21st March the King
wrote again, expressing his astonishment that Falkes had not made the
expected delivery, and bidding him make it to Walter at once; “for,”
wrote the King, “we are certain that that castle is the head of the
Earl of Devon’s honour in Devonshire, and for that reason your wife
neither can nor ought to have it in dower. If, however, she has less
than she ought to have in dower of the land of her former husband, we
will make up what is due to her according to the custom of our realm;
but if she has more than she should have, we will have it measured
according to justice.”[1017] The tone of these letters suggests that
the King and his advisers, though determined to carry their point, were
conscious of having undertaken a somewhat formidable task in committing
themselves to a dispute with Falkes.

Seven men and one woman bearing the surname “de Bréauté” occur in
the official records of England under John and Henry III. Four at
least of the men were brothers or half brothers, and Avice was their
sister.[1018] A little village near Havre must have been the original
home of the family, whose first member to appear in history is Falkes.
Several chroniclers tell us that he was a native of Normandy.[1019]
After his fall his enemies heaped scorn on his origin; he was a “serf”
of the King;[1020] patronymic he had none;[1021] and his singular
personal appellation was according to one account not a Christian
name, but a nickname derived from “the scythe” (_faus_ or _fauc_ in
the contemporary speech of his native land) “wherewith he had slain
a knight in his father’s meadow in Normandy.”[1022] Another writer
seems to have thought that it had been given to him--whether at the
font or otherwise--in the spirit of prophecy: “He might well be
called after the scythe, that is, after an instrument of wholesale
destruction.”[1023] One of the best authorities for the history of
John’s reign says that the father of Falkes was a Norman knight.[1024]
In all likelihood he was some small landowner whose sons, legitimate
and other, left their paternal fields and came to England, like the
family of Gerard of Athée, because they preferred to live in exile
under their hereditary sovereign rather than in their own land under
his conqueror.[1025] Another statement concerning Falkes which lacks
confirmation is that he began life as a domestic servant of the King,
in the capacity of “door-keeper.”[1026] The word used is an ambiguous
one; the writer apparently wished his readers to understand by it a
mere menial porter; but it would equally well represent a functionary
of higher standing in the royal household, whose proper title was that
of usher.[1027] In February, 1207, at any rate, {1207–1214} Falkes
was made keeper of something else than the palace doors--the land of
Glamorgan and the honour of Wenlock on the Marches of Wales.[1028]
When he received this appointment he was a “sergeant,” or man-at-arms,
“of the King”;[1029] probably it was on this occasion that John
bestowed on him the honour of knighthood.[1030] These wardenships
were held by Falkes for seven years, and he was also during part of
that time constable of Caermarthen, Cardiff, and Gower.[1031] Within
the important military sphere thus assigned to him he was given the
fullest freedom of action; his valour, capability, and honesty were
all alike trusted implicitly by the King, who employed him also on
other business such as the payment of troops and other persons and the
transport of money and treasure both in England and abroad.[1032] John,
like most of the Angevin counts, was an excellent judge of men, and
he had quickly discerned that Falkes, “though little of stature, was
very valiant,”[1033] and that moreover he was gifted with a versatile
capability and a thoroughness which almost matched those of the
Angevin house itself. The writers of the time, while denouncing Falkes
as “a rod of the Lord’s fury”[1034] and describing him as a monster
of wickedness, unanimously acknowledge that his rise from poverty
and obscurity to wealth, rank, and power was due to his conspicuous
military talents, his dauntless valour, and the tireless energy and
fidelity with which he served his royal master.[1035] In January, 1214
{1214–1216}, on the marriage of the King’s cousin Isabel of Gloucester
to the Earl of Essex, Glamorgan passed with the rest of the lands
appertaining to her honour of Gloucester into the hands of her husband;
and at the same time Caermarthen, Cardiff, and Gower were transferred
from the keeping of Falkes to that of the Earl Marshal.[1036] The King
however gave Falkes plenty of occupation and compensation elsewhere.
Early in 1215 Falkes was acting as a seneschal or steward of the King’s
household.[1037] Meanwhile, as constable of Wenlock, he still retained
the command of an important district on the Welsh March.[1038] There
he gathered round him a picked band of kinsmen and followers who
in 1215 and 1216 proved the most efficient and trustworthy section
of the troops that fought for the Crown against the barons and the
French invader.[1039] It was but natural that his services should be
rewarded by the bestowal of large grants of land taken from the King’s
enemies. This was the only way in which John could furnish him with
means to continue those services, and it was also a most effectual
way of securing that those lands should not fall back into the hands
of the opposite party. The commission of seven shires in Mid-England
to his custody as sheriff was a measure of policy, amply justified by
its results in the struggle with Louis after John’s death, when the
garrisons under the command of Falkes formed across the realm a chain
which Louis never succeeded in breaking.

[Sidenote: 1215–1224]

In 1215 John bestowed on Falkes the hand of Margaret de Rivers, a grant
which should have carried with it the enjoyment of her dower-lands; but
this, as has been seen, Margaret and Falkes did not obtain till March,
1218.[1040] Then the regent also granted to Falkes, to hold “until the
King’s coming of age,” the custody of the person of Margaret’s young
son by her first husband, and of all the lands and castles which had
belonged to the boy’s late grandfather Earl William of Devon and Wight,
and to which the boy himself was now heir.[1041] Thus throughout the
next six years the extensive possessions of the house of Rivers were
in Falkes’s hands; for practical purposes he represented that great
house and was, as a contemporary says, “made equal to an Earl.”[1042]
The other magnates, some of whom seem to have resented the necessity
of admitting even Hubert de Burgh to social equality with themselves,
naturally resented still more the intrusion into their ranks of one
whom they looked upon as a mere upstart stranger. Moreover he came into
collision with more than one of them through his autocratic dealing
with the lands held by them in the shires under his command; and the
violently abusive language in which, when his fiery temper was roused,
he railed at some of the greatest men of the land and at the English
nation in general, gave almost as much offence as his more substantial
misdoings.[1043] The clergy and religious orders, especially the monks
of the great abbey of S. Alban’s--by one of whom later historians, for
the most part, have been somewhat unduly influenced in their views of
men and things in the reign of John and the early years of Henry--had
other reasons for detesting Falkes. Cruelty and rapacity were common,
more or less, in all medieval warfare, and the spoiling of churches and
monasteries was a form of ill-doing of which neither party in the civil
war was altogether guiltless; but in these matters Falkes stood without
a peer save John himself. His crowning outrage was committed in 1217,
when in the dusk of a January morning he fell suddenly upon S. Alban’s,
captured and plundered the town, carried off its inhabitants to prison
in his own castles, slew a servant of the abbey at the very door of the
church, and by a threat of burning down the whole place wrung from the
abbot a ransom of a hundred pounds of silver.[1044] The spoil, however,
went to maintain the soldiers who, if they were the fiercest and most
ruthless, were also the most daring and the most uniformly successful
troops in the service of the young King. They and their leader played,
as we have seen, an important part in the battle of Lincoln; and
whatever may have been the personal feelings of Henry’s guardians and
counsellors towards Falkes, time after time throughout the early years
of the minority, when a man of prompt and vigorous action was wanted
for some specially awkward or unpleasant piece of work, Falkes was
the man on whom they relied, and they never relied on him in vain. It
was Falkes who was set to keep the King’s uncle from intruding into a
royal castle of which he was not the lawful custodian. It was Falkes
whom Hubert de Burgh employed to overawe the riotous citizens of London
and to rid him of their dangerous leader. In their hearts, however,
Hubert and Falkes were rivals, urged to secret mutual jealousy by a
characteristic which, unlike as they were in other respects, was common
to them both; when once they had risen to power and authority, neither
of them was inclined to brook an equal.[1045] Accordingly, Falkes had
joined Chester and the other discontented magnates in their effort
to rid themselves of the Justiciar; and when that effort had failed,
Justiciar, magnates, and King, having none of them any further use for
Falkes, joined hands to rid themselves of him.

[Sidenote: 1224]

Three days after the council of reconciliation in London, had dispersed
in April, 1224, a charge of capital crime, said to have been committed
eight years previously, was laid before the King against Falkes.[1046]
A writ was at once issued, on 26th April, to the sheriff of
Bedfordshire bidding him “at every shire-court call Falkes de Bréauté
to stand to right concerning the complaint made against him in that
county, of a breach of the King’s peace,” and if Falkes did not appear,
cause him to be outlawed. On 28th May the sheriff was told to call
Falkes at his next shire-court, which was to be on the Monday after
the octave of Trinity (17th June), as he had previously done, but the
outlawry was to be respited till further orders. Two days later (30th
May) this respite was countermanded; if on the appointed Monday Falkes
did not answer, the sheriff was bidden to outlaw him at once.[1047]
In Whitsun week, 2nd–8th June, certain of the justices in eyre went
to hold pleas of novel disseisin at Dunstable.[1048] One of these
justices, Henry de Braybroke, had long been at enmity with Falkes’s
brother William, and now found an opportunity which he was not slow to
use against William and Falkes both at once. He deprived William--such
at least is Falkes’s story--of some of his lands and other possessions
without trial.[1049] He insisted, seemingly without warrant, on the
payment by both the brothers of certain dues and arrears which they
owed to the Crown.[1050] Sixteen pleas of forcible disseisin were
brought before him against Falkes; in every case Falkes was convicted,
and sentenced to pay a heavy fine.[1051]

William de Bréauté was at this time commandant, under his brother
Falkes, of the castle of Bedford. After the close of the assizes at
Dunstable, on 17th June--the day on which Falkes was to be called
for the last time in the Bedford shire-court--Henry de Braybroke, on
his way to join the council which had assembled on the previous day
at Northampton, was captured by William de Bréauté and carried as a
prisoner to Bedford.[1052] Some of his companions who escaped capture
spread the tidings abroad; his wife hurried to Northampton and laid her
complaint before the King and the Council.[1053] Every one believed
that the Bréauté brothers had plotted the outrage between them;[1054]
Falkes’s account of the matter is that William had acted half in
wantonness, half in vengeance, and wholly without the knowledge of
Falkes himself.[1055] Even if this were so, however, Falkes was legally
responsible for the action of his sub-castellan and for a prisoner
immured in a castle which was under his charge. Where Falkes was, does
not appear. He was clearly not at the county court at Bedford; but
as soon as the capture of the judge became known, he hurried to the
castle.[1056] According to his own account, his purpose was to set the
judge at liberty but when he reached the castle prisoner and castellan
had both disappeared; William had hidden himself and his captive in the
neighbouring Forest of Wabridge {18 June}. Two knights had meanwhile
been despatched with a citation to Falkes to appear at Northampton on
the morrow (19th June) and answer to the King in person for the seizure
of the judge and for “all other matters which should be brought against
him.” Falkes hereupon sent, on the 19th, messengers to the Earls of
Winchester and Chester, begging that they would endeavour to procure
him a day’s respite, on the plea that he must first find his brother
{19 June}. They performed their commission, and the King appeared
disposed to grant their request; but the enemies of Falkes determined
that forcible steps should be taken that very night;[1057] and next
morning the whole multitude which had come together at Northampton,
King, prelates, barons, knights, and men-at-arms, appeared before the
gate of Bedford castle.[1058]

The King summoned the garrison to admit him, and to surrender the
castle to the Justiciar. William de Bréauté had now returned with his
prisoner--if indeed they had ever really been away--but Falkes had
disappeared in his turn. William and his knights refused to obey the
King’s summons without instructions from Falkes, “chiefly because
they were not bound by homage or fealty to the King,”[1059] and also
because Falkes, having taken the Cross,[1060] was by a privilege from
the Pope entitled, for himself, his lands, and his men, to exemption
from molestation by the secular powers.[1061] This second plea might
probably have carried some weight with the spiritual members of the
King’s host, had it not been neutralized by the other. Feudal law, as
understood on the side of the Channel whence Falkes and his followers
had come, recognized liege homage to a mesne lord as a valid ground
for disclaiming all duty to a suzerain and even a sovereign; but
in England this principle had never been admitted, and was justly
held to be--in the words of a modern writer--“the essence of feudal
anarchy.” Disregarding an appeal to the Pope with which the garrison
wound up their defiance of the King, Archbishop Stephen and the other
bishops present acted upon the orders which they had received from
Rome in the preceding year for dealing with refractory castellans.
They lighted their candles and laid Falkes {20 June}, his liegemen
in the castle, and all their aiders and abettors, under sentence of
excommunication.[1062] Immediately afterwards the siege was begun.

On that siege the whole energies of the King’s government were
concentrated for eight weeks; and before half that time had elapsed
Poitou was lost. In May Louis had outbidden Henry for the support
of the Lusignans, and received the liege homage of Hugh and of his
kinsman Geoffrey, the viscount of Châtelheraut.[1063] On Midsummer
day the French King’s host mustered at Tours. He led it first to
Montreuil-Bellay; there he met the aged viscount Almeric of Thouars,
who for many years had played in Aquitanian politics a part almost more
important than that of the Lusignans. With Almeric Louis made a truce
for a year. On 3rd July he laid siege to Niort. Savaric de Mauléon
was there; seeing that he could not, without succour from over sea,
hold the country against Louis, the Lusignans, and Almeric all united,
he surrendered Niort on the 5th and withdrew to La Rochelle, after
swearing on the Gospels that he would not defend any place except that
one beyond All Saints’ day. Louis advanced next to S. Jean d’Angély,
which opened its gates to him. He then marched upon La Rochelle. Its
garrison, headed by Savaric and reinforced by the men whom he had
brought with him from Niort and by the English knights under Richard de
Gray and Geoffrey de Neville, sallied forth to give battle, and “slew
many of the French,” but were driven back into the city. On the 15th
Louis set up his engines before the walls. He also opened negotiations
with the civic rulers; and the result was that on 3rd August the place
was surrendered. The garrison marched out with the honours of war; the
citizens, on the 13th, swore fealty to Louis.[1064] The fall of La
Rochelle sealed the fate of Poitou, by cutting off Henry’s remaining
partisans there from their last hope of succour from England. Limoges
had already joined the winning side; Périgord did the like. The
conqueror entered Poitiers without further difficulty, and in September
he returned to Paris, leaving a part of his army, under a new seneschal
whom he had appointed instead of Savaric, to join Hugh of La Marche in
an invasion of Gascony.[1065]

According to the Barnwell annalist, “it was said by some persons that
Falkes and his supporters suggested to King Louis that he should
invade Poitou; and in order that Louis might do this freely and
without fear or danger, he, Falkes, promised to keep King Henry so
fully occupied with most urgent business in the middle of his own
country that he would leave his transmarine lands destitute of military
forces.”[1066] We need hardly go about to demonstrate that Louis needed
no “suggestion” from Falkes or any one else for the invasion of Poitou.
The whole of this absurd story, avowedly resting only on what “was
said by some people,” would be beneath notice, but that its latter
part seems to be a distorted and exaggerated report of an assertion
which actually was made by Hubert de Burgh and the King. Before the
successes of Louis were known in England, Henry wrote to the Pope an
account of the circumstances which had, he said, “compelled” him to
lay siege to Bedford castle, “neglecting for the present all the other
affairs which are pressing upon us in Ireland and in Poitou; which
imminent perils,” he added, “we may not unjustly impute to Falkes and
his accomplices.”[1067] Fifteen years later Henry imputed the loss of
Poitou to Hubert, whom he charged with having sent to that country
barrels filled with stones and sand instead of money and treasure,
whereby the nobles and townsfolk were so disgusted with the King’s
service that they went over to his enemies. Hubert answered that he
had never sent any such barrels; that by the advice of the magnates of
England over a hundred knights and many men-at-arms had been sent to
Poitou, and remained there till, without their assent, the burghers
of La Rochelle made terms with the enemy, and thus it was not through
negligence on his own part or on that of the knights that La Rochelle
was lost; “but,” he added, “it was lost through the excesses of
Falkes, who with his people made an insurrection while La Rochelle
was besieged.”[1068] Hubert’s defence here is self-contradictory;
if La Rochelle was lost not for want of reinforcement but by the
wilfulness of its citizens, no “insurrection” in England could have
any influence in the matter. Practically, however, Hubert admits that
further reinforcements should have been sent, but insinuates that their
despatch was made impossible by the conduct of Falkes. Thus did King
and Justiciar alike, at different times, seek to cast upon Falkes the
responsibility for a failure which lay at their own door. Even had the
host gathered at Northampton on 16th June been in truth destined for
Poitou, its gathering would have been tardy. But we cannot believe that
its nominal destination was anything else than a blind. If it were, the
choice of the meeting-place would be inexplicable. No sane commander
would, without any necessity, have chosen to muster an army drawn from
all parts of the realm, and intended for service beyond the Channel,
at Northampton, a town in Mid-England, five days journey from the sea.
For a full half of such an army the choice would involve literally
double toil and trouble--a long, toilsome march, from Kent and Sussex,
Hampshire and Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, up to Northampton and then
down again to a place of embarcation on the south coast, to which
some of these contingents could have gone direct in half the time,
while others must have actually come from its immediate neighbourhood;
and all this without any advantage to their fellow-soldiers from the
Midlands and the North, or to the King himself, all of whom could just
as easily have met them, as had been customary in former reigns, at
the port whence they were to sail.[1069] The barons were summoned to
Northampton because their help was wanted in the execution of a project
predetermined in the royal Council, for the ruin of Falkes de Bréauté.

Such a project was, in itself, not without justification. Falkes
seems to have been generally, and deservedly, regarded as a public
nuisance; and his extraordinary personality, coupled with the peculiar
character of the followers under his control, gave him, even after
the loss of all his sheriffdoms and most of his castles, the power
to make himself also a public danger, if he were so minded. He was,
however, not a whit more of a nuisance and, owing to the events of
the past winter, considerably less of a possible danger at the moment
when the government first took action against him, than he had been
at any time in the past seven or eight years. This was implicitly,
though perhaps unconsciously, admitted by Hubert when he said that the
“insurrection” which--as he and Henry alike insinuate--left King and
Council neither time nor energy nor men to spare for any other object,
took place “while La Rochelle was besieged.” Strictly speaking, this
is not correct; Henry de Braybroke was captured nearly a month before
Louis laid siege to La Rochelle, and, indeed, a week before the French
host set out from Tours. But the statement is none the less, or rather
all the more, a clear proof that the Justiciar knew of no grounds
for charging Falkes with treason or rebellion[1070] earlier than the
capture of Braybroke; that is to say, earlier than 17th June, the day
after the royal host began to assemble at Northampton. That assembly
had been arranged not later than 26th April; its arrangement had been
immediately followed by the raking-up of a charge against Falkes
concerning a matter which dated from the earliest days of Henry’s reign
or even from a time before his accession, and had apparently never been
heard of since; this again had been followed by Henry de Braybroke’s
rigorous dealing with Falkes and his brother at the Dunstable assizes.
All these legal proceedings may in themselves have been perfectly
just; but, begun thus suddenly, without (so far as can be seen) any
special provocation, and crowded all together at this particular time,
they might well have goaded even a man of cooler temper than Falkes to
play into his enemies’ hands by committing some outrage which would
furnish the government with an occasion for crushing him completely;
and to crush him the King and his councillors were evidently already
determined, before that outrage was committed. The abstract justice and
wisdom of their determination need not be discussed here. As a matter
of policy, however, the time for its execution was singularly ill
chosen. The moment when a swarm of locusts was known to be on the point
of advancing upon Poitou was not the moment for stirring up a hornet’s
nest in England. The King paid dearly for his own share--whatever it
may have been--in this blunder. Some share in it, and in all likelihood
the larger share, must have belonged to Hubert; and for Hubert only
one possible excuse can be suggested. As he seems to have underrated
the dangers over sea, so he may, at the outset, have underrated the
difficulty of the task upon which he was entering in England.[1071]
The muster at Northampton may have been designed for a mere military
demonstration, in the heart of the lands which had been so long under
Falkes’s charge, with the expectation that Falkes would be thereby
overawed into making complete submission, somewhat as Count William of
Aumale had been overawed in 1220 and 1221, and that the host might,
when it had accomplished this preliminary purpose, proceed to the
south coast and still reach Poitou before it was too late. Such an
expectation would hardly be consistent with the knowledge which Hubert
must have possessed of the character and the resources of Falkes. If it
was still entertained by any one when in the dawn of 20th June the host
set out for Bedford, a very brief experience there must have sufficed
to shew that it was utterly hopeless.

In 1215 the constable of Bedford castle, William de Beauchamp, had
incurred forfeiture by welcoming the rebel barons within its walls.
Falkes had regained it for the King,[1072] and had been rewarded
with a grant of its constableship in Beauchamp’s stead.[1073] On
its fortification in John’s interest and under John’s orders he
had lavished wealth, labour, and skill; he had crowned it with
towers and battlements--partly built of the stones of two churches
which neither he nor the King scrupled to pull down for that
purpose[1074]--encompassed it with walls and outworks and stone-clad
ditches and ramparts, stored it with military engines and arms. Its
garrison in 1224 consisted of eleven knights and a proportionate
number of men-at-arms, all picked men, amply sufficient to defend a
fortress which was generally reputed impregnable.[1075] On the other
hand, the besiegers were not all as eager about their task as were the
King, the Justiciar, and, it seems, most of the bishops. The Earls of
Chester and Aumale, the Bishop of Winchester, William de Cantelupe,
Brian de Lisle, Peter de Maulay, had obeyed the King’s summons and
accompanied him to Bedford with their followers, but made no secret of
their lack of sympathy with the object of the expedition; and after a
while Bishop Peter and Earl Ranulf, finding themselves excluded from
the King’s private counsels, quitted the camp and went each to his own
home.[1076] Meanwhile urgent orders were being despatched to all parts
of the country for cartloads of ropes, targes, quarrels, pickaxes,
tents, victuals, mangonels and other engines of war, and men to work
the engines.[1077] The current expenditure which all this involved
was so much more than the treasury could meet that the Archbishop of
Canterbury and other prelates who were present in the host voluntarily
made a grant for the King’s necessities. “Of their mere grace and
liberality,” those of them who had a portion of land separate from
that of their chapters gave half a mark for every ploughland thus
held by them in demesne; those who had not separate portions gave two
shillings per ploughland from the demesne lands of their churches;
all alike gave two shillings for every ploughland held by their
tenants and sub-tenants, and for every hide of land, both demesne and
enfeoffed, the personal assistance of two workmen to drag and work the
machines.[1078] After the close of the siege letters patent were issued
by the King, carefully explaining that this generous aid had been voted
by the prelates purely as a matter of grace, and was not to constitute
a precedent for any future occasion.[1079]

At the approach of the royal forces Falkes had slipped away into the
territories of the Earl of Chester, where the King’s writs did not
run. There, according to his own account, he “composed some letters”
to the King, asking for a safe-conduct to go to the court and “do
whatever the barons and the laws of the land should require of him”;
but this messenger on reaching the camp and finding that Falkes
had been excommunicated was so afraid of incurring a share in the
excommunication that he went away without delivering the letters.[1080]
Falkes was said to have told the Bedford garrison that he would succour
them within forty days.[1081] As that period drew towards a close
the besiegers seem to have realized that the capture of the man was
becoming almost more important than, and was likely to prove almost
as difficult as, the capture of the castle. A band of men-at-arms was
detached from the siege to go in search of him, but came back reporting
that he had fled into Wales.[1082] This was the more alarming because
neither Llywelyn’s promised amends for the Kinnerley affair nor the
trial of the claims and counter-claims arising out of that affair
had yet taken place. The settlement which was to have been made at
Candlemas had been three or four times postponed; each time that a
new date for it was fixed, the King had been too hard pressed with
more urgent business to keep his appointment with Llywelyn; it now
stood fixed for 28th July.[1083] On 10th July letters were sent out
calling upon all the King’s bailiffs and other faithful subjects to
help in catching “our enemy Falkes.”[1084] Two days later the sheriffs
of Staffordshire and Shropshire were told that Falkes was known to
have gone into Wales to form with some of its “mighty men” a league
against the King, but, having failed in this, was expected to return
secretly to England; and they were bidden to search for him, to order
a hue and cry to be raised after him, and not to let it cease till
he was captured.[1085] Some three weeks later, as the attainment of
that object seemed no nearer, the King addressed a private letter of
appeal or remonstrance to the Earl of Chester--who by this time had
withdrawn from the host--and also one to Llywelyn of Wales. These
letters are lost, but their tenour can be made out from the replies.
Henry appealed, seemingly in justification of his own conduct, to
Ranulf’s personal knowledge of the circumstances which had led to
the siege of Bedford. He declared that, according to reports which
he had received, Falkes was plotting against him to the uttermost of
his power; and he begged that Ranulf would strive to avert or check
any mischief which might be threatening in his neighbourhood, and if
nothing of the kind seemed to be impending there, at once return to the
camp. Ranulf’s answer was a model of quiet dignity. He did, he said,
know the circumstances relating to the siege of Bedford, and so did
many other persons. Of Sir Falkes de Bréauté’s reported machinations
against the King he knew nothing; he had only seen and observed Sir
Falkes bear himself patiently under the King’s anger, as one who
desired nothing else than to appease it by his own endeavours and the
help of his friends. For his own part Ranulf was (he continued) ready
now, as ever, to protect the King’s interests as much as in him lay,
and accordingly he had, on receipt of the King’s letter, immediately
gone to confer with Llywelyn, and obtained his promise to leave the
King’s land in peace for a month from 4th August. Having secured this,
he was, agreeably to Henry’s command, coming back to the royal presence
as quickly as he could.[1086] To Llywelyn the King related the capture
of Henry de Braybroke and the steps taken in consequence of it; and he
forbade the Prince to harbour Falkes or his men or to give them aid or
counsel. Llywelyn answered by repeating Falkes’s version of the story
as it had been told him by Falkes in a flying visit of less than a
day’s duration, and refusing to recognize an excommunication against
which he declared that Falkes would be justified in defending himself
even if it came from the Pope in person.[1087]

Baffled in his attempts to capture Falkes, the King swore “by his
father’s soul” that if Bedford castle were taken by force, he would
hang every man who was in it. The garrison retorted by bidding his
messengers see to it that no one came with any more demands for
surrender.[1088] Formidable as was the King’s siege train, its work
progressed but slowly. A stone-caster and two mangonels stationed on
the east side of the castle hurled stones all day long at the keep;
two other mangonels battered at the “old tower” on the west side; two
more were gradually making as many breaches in the outer walls, one on
the northern and the other on the southern side; a “cat” sheltered the
ingoing and outgoing of miners who were digging their way underground
to the foundations of the keep; other machines concealed crossbowmen
and slingers whose missiles, despatched thus by unseen hands, caught
the besieged at unawares; at last two moveable wooden “castles,”
towers, or “belfries,” so lofty that their occupants could look down
into every part of the castle enclosure, not excepting the keep itself,
were constructed and filled, the one with scouts to watch all the
doings of the garrison, the other with crossbowmen from whose quarrels,
shot down like bolts out of the sky, no man among the besieged was safe
for a moment without his armour.[1089] Nevertheless William de Bréauté
and his men continued to hurl projectiles at their assailants;[1090]
in the eight weeks of the siege the King lost six knights and, it was
said, more than two hundred men-at-arms and labourers working the
machines.[1091] At length an assault was made upon the barbican; it was
taken, and four or five “foreigners”[1092] were slain. A second assault
won the outer bailey, where “many were slain,” and the King’s men
“came into possession of horses, harness, armour, crossbows, bullocks,
live pigs, bacon, and other things innumerable,” besides sheds full of
corn and hay which they burned. Next, the miners succeeded in bringing
down a part of the wall close to the “old tower”; the King’s men rushed
in through the breach, and after a desperate fight in which many of
them perished, they gained possession of the inner bailey. The keep
still defied them; ten of them who tried to enter it were shut in and
kept fast by the garrison.[1093]

Meanwhile Falkes had been tracked by Bishop Alexander of Coventry.
Alexander had carried the King’s letter to Earl Ranulf;[1094] the
Bishop of Exeter seems to have joined him at Coventry, and there
these two prelates heard that Falkes was at a place three miles
beyond Chester. They immediately published his excommunication,
and then Alexander went to seek him in the hope of bringing him to
submission.[1095] To the bishop’s persuasions Falkes replied that he
was ready to stand to the King’s command and judgement in all things,
on condition that three men whom he believed to be personally hostile
to him[1096] should not be present; or he would submit entirely to the
King’s judgement and accept his mercy, but on condition that these same
three should have no part in discussing the terms of that mercy. He
further begged that either he might be released from excommunication by
Bishop Alexander, or the whole case might be submitted to the Pope. The
first part of the message thus brought back by Alexander to the royal
camp was received with jeers; as to the last point, Archbishop Stephen
was resolute that no one but himself should absolve the culprit.
Alexander and Earl Ranulf went back together to Falkes, and persuaded
him to return with them as far as Coventry.[1097] Thither, on 12th
August, a safe-conduct was sent to him for himself and the members of
his household who were with him, that they might come to Northampton
for absolution within the next ten days.[1098]

To Northampton Falkes--seemingly accompanied by Bishop Alexander--came
without delay; and thence he sent word to his soldiers of his
inability to help them.[1099] On the evening of 14th August the King’s
miners kindled a fire underneath the keep of Bedford castle. The
garrison, seated at supper, saw the room fill with smoke, and presently
found that its walls were cracking. On this they sent forth all the
women in their company--among whom was the wife of Falkes--together
with Henry de Braybroke and the other prisoners, escorted by some of
their own number charged with an offer of surrender. These messengers
were put in chains and kept by the King as pledges for the good
faith of their comrades, who were suffered to spend the night in the
crumbling tower after hoisting the royal standard on its summit. Next
morning {15 Aug.} all the survivors of the desperate band were brought
before the King.[1100] One of them was the chaplain of the castle; he
was handed over to the Archbishop to be judged according to Church
law.[1101] Most of the others, knights and men-at-arms, were grievously
wounded.[1102] The King remitted them to the bishops for absolution;
when they had received it,[1103] he kept his vow; he sent them all
to the gallows. For three of them some of the nobles interceded, and
though “to save the King’s oath” these three were hanged with the rest,
they were cut down immediately, and delivered to the Templars, on
condition of joining that Order in Holy Land.[1104]


When these things were done, the Bishop of Carlisle and one of the
judges, Martin of Pateshull, were sent to Falkes with the tidings,
and with an invitation or citation from the Archbishop to present
himself at Bedford for absolution.[1105] He swooned with horror at
the unexpected fate of his brother and his friends[1106]--a fate
from which he, like them, had hoped that they would be saved by his
vow of crusade and their appeal to the Pope. On coming to himself
he was at first reluctant to accede to the Archbishop’s summons,
being still set on prosecuting his appeal to Rome, and also fearing
the personal enmity on the part of Stephen and Hubert of which he
believed himself to be the object; at last, however, he consented to
go,[1107] but entreated the Bishop of Coventry to accompany and protect
him.[1108] Thus escorted, he went to Bedford, fell at the King’s feet
and threw himself on his mercy.[1109] Henry committed him to the
custody of Bishop Eustace of London till his fate should be judicially
determined;[1110] for that purpose a council was appointed to meet in
London fifteen days after Michaelmas (14th October). The few followers
who accompanied him were then absolved, but it seems to have been
deemed more prudent to defer the absolution of Falkes himself till he
had surrendered, or at least given security for surrendering, the two
castles which he still held--Plympton and Stoke Courcy[1111]--and all
his other property,[1112] and also to make it as public as possible,
in order that, as the absolution of an excommunicate person was an
extremely humiliating ceremony for the penitent, it might serve as a
salutary warning to other possible rebels. Accordingly, when Falkes had
sworn to submit himself to this humiliation on 25th August in London,
a safe-conduct was given him, on 19th August, to go thither for the
twofold purpose of receiving absolution and paying into the treasury,
as compensation for the damage and losses incurred by the King in the
siege of Bedford, the money which he had stored at Westminster.[1113]
On the appointed day {25 Aug.}, in presence of a great concourse of
people, the Archbishop had him stripped according to the rule of the
Church and then gave him absolution.[1114] He then executed a deed
whereby he surrendered to the Crown all his possessions of every kind,
and consented to fall under excommunication again if his constables at
Plympton and Stoke Courcy failed to give up those two castles within a
fortnight.[1115]

A woman struck the next blow at the fallen man. Margaret his wife came
before the King and the Archbishop and declared that she had never
consented to her marriage with him, but had been taken by force in time
of war and wedded to him against her will, wherefore she prayed that
the marriage might be annulled. A day was set for the Archbishop to
pronounce, after due consideration, his judgement on the matter.[1116]
Margaret’s story of the marriage may very likely have been true; but
her protest was made too late to deserve a hearing. Even in 1215 the
widow of Baldwin de Rivers was no mere child, for she was already a
mother. If the disturbed state of public affairs and the absence of
the Primate prevented her seeking legal redress during the next two
years, she could certainly have brought her claim before Stephen at any
moment after his return in the spring of 1218. Instead of doing so,
she waited till the man whose prosperous fortunes she had shared for
nine years, and by whom she had at least one child,[1117] was brought
down to the dust, and then she, too, sought to be rid of him. Such an
abuse of the laws of marriage as she petitioned for was not likely to
be sanctioned by Stephen de Langton, however sternly he might, for the
public weal, deem it necessary to deal with her husband. His judgement
on her petition is not recorded; but there are clear indications that
it was given against her.[1118]

For more than nine weeks Falkes was kept, strictly guarded, in
the custody of the Bishop of London. The meeting of the Council
which was to decide his fate had been fixed for 14th October, but
no decision seems to have been reached till about the 26th.[1119]
{Oct.} Moved partly by remonstrances which the Pope had, some months
before, addressed both to the King and to the Primate in behalf of
Falkes,[1120] partly by their own undeniable knowledge of Falkes’s long
and faithful service to the King’s father, the Council unanimously
determined that he should be spared in life and limbs, on condition
that he would abjure the realm and go over sea on pilgrimage, never
to return.[1121] The Primate exacted from him a further promise not
to carry his complaints to the Pope.[1122] To these conditions he
submitted. On 26th October he received a safe-conduct to go to the
coast and remain there till he could get across the sea,[1123] and
orders for the manning of the ship which was to carry him were issued
to William de Breuse and the Earl of Warren,[1124] the latter of whom
was commissioned to see him safely on board. It was reported that
when parting from the Earl, Falkes with tears begged him to carry
his greetings to “his lord the King,” declaring with a solemn oath
that his disturbances of England’s peace had been instigated by “the
great men of the land.” Five of his men-at-arms accompanied him to
Normandy.[1125] So far was Louis from regarding him as an ally that
he was seized by the French King’s bailiffs immediately on landing at
Fécamp and brought as a prisoner before Louis himself.[1126] The cross
on his shoulder, however, procured his release.[1127] Next Easter
(1225) he proceeded to Rome.[1128] On his way across France he met
Robert Passelewe,[1129] a man learned in law, who may have put into
shape (or at least into Latin) the “Complaint” which--in defiance of
his promise to Archbishop Stephen--he presented to the Pope. In August
he was captured in Burgundy by a knight called Anselm “de Duime,” whom
he had once made prisoner and put to heavy ransom in England. The
Pope seems to have procured his release,[1130] on which he returned
to France, and dwelt for a year at Troyes; at last he was driven out
of the country because he refused to do homage to Louis. Returning
to Rome, he once more entreated the Pope to insist that he should be
restored at least to the enjoyment of his wife’s society and of the
proceeds of her patrimony.[1131] Honorius wrote accordingly, both to
the King and to Archbishop Stephen.[1132] Soon afterwards, however,
the whole matter was ended by the death of Falkes.[1133] A year later
{1226} Henry was trying--with what success we know not--to reclaim from
the Master of the Temple in London eleven thousand marks which Falkes
on his death-bed was said to have confessed were still in the head
house of the Order in England, where he had deposited them for secrecy
and safety.[1134]

[Sidenote: 1224]

Having crushed Falkes, King and ministers in the autumn of 1224 at
last found leisure for taking measures of defence and defiance against
the greater foe beyond the sea. Special bailiffs were appointed for
the protection of the coasts.[1135] Reinforcements were sent to the
Channel Isles to hold them against a possible attack from France.[1136]
The bailiffs of some of the great trading towns were ordered to seize
the persons, goods, and chattels of all Normans and other subjects of
the French King within their several bailiwicks.[1137] Soon, however,
it became apparent that Louis had no present intention of attacking
England, but was bent on completing his conquest of Aquitaine, and
that Gascony was in imminent danger of falling into his hands like
Poitou. The English King’s great difficulty was, as usual, the want of
money. Before the host broke up after the siege of Bedford the carucage
granted by the prelates had been supplemented by a like grant from the
barons;[1138] this was followed by a scutage,[1139] and in November a
tallage was laid on the Jews.[1140] But all this was insufficient; and
at the Christmas court at Westminster Hubert appealed to all present
for “counsel and aid whereby the Crown of England might recover its
lost dignities and its ancient rights in the parts beyond the sea,”
and added that he “thought this could be done if a fifteenth part of
all moveable goods throughout England were given to the King by both
clergy and laity.” After some deliberation the whole assembly agreed to
adopt this suggestion, “if the King would grant them their long desired
liberties”[1141]--that is, if he would re-issue and confirm the Great
Charter. The King’s feeling about this matter seems to have remained
the same as it had been twelve months before, for it was not till 11th
February (1225) that he complied with the required condition; and then
he issued both the Charter of Liberties and that of the Forest in a
new form. The text of both Charters as he now granted them was the
same as in the issue of November, 1217. But in the preamble to each of
them he stated, not, as had been done in all former issues (including
the original Great Charter of 1215), that the liberties were granted
“by the advice of his counsellors,” but that they were granted “of his
own free goodwill, to the prelates, magnates, and all the people of
England, to be kept in the realm of England for ever”; he put on record
the grant of a fifteenth of moveables made to him in return for this
“concession and donation” on his part; and he concluded with a solemn
promise that neither he nor his heirs would do anything to invalidate
or infringe the liberties thus guaranteed, and that any attempt to do
so should be null and void. The Primate, eleven bishops, twenty abbots,
Hubert as Justiciar, nine earls, and twenty-three barons appended their
names as witnesses.[1142]

[Sidenote: 1225]

For many months King and Justiciar were occupied chiefly with schemes,
military and diplomatic, for the preservation of what remained of
Henry’s continental dominions and the recovery of what had been
lost. During the last few months of 1224 the joint efforts of Hugh
of La Marche and the new French seneschal of Poitou to win Gascony
for Louis met with considerable success. Several of the chief Gascon
towns--St. Emilion, Bazas, La Réole--and many of the nobles, swore
fealty to the French King.[1143] The one man who might still have
headed an organized effort to stem the tide was Savaric de Mauléon;
but Savaric had lost the confidence of the English government, owing
to the surrender of La Rochelle. In after days, as has been seen, he
was acknowledged by Hubert de Burgh to have been blameless in that
matter; but at the time Hubert and Henry were only too ready to lay the
blame of it at any door except the one where it was mainly due--their
own--and Savaric’s defence of his conduct failed to convince them of
his loyalty. The natural result followed: the services which they
rejected were transferred to Henry’s rival;[1144] and for several
years to come Savaric’s talents and energies--both of which were of
a high order--were actively employed in the office of governor of La
Rochelle and warden of the seaboard for Louis. The remnant of Henry’s
Aquitanian possessions was thus left without a governor or head of any
kind. Gascony, however, could not be irretrievably lost so long as the
great merchant sea-port of the South, Bordeaux, remained loyal; and the
citizens of Bordeaux, whose commercial and political interests were
closely bound up with those of England, stedfastly resisted all Hugh
of Lusignan’s endeavours to cajole or frighten them into submission.
Their obstinate refusal to make even a truce with him compelled him to
retire into his own county in October, 1224, when one of Henry’s agents
in Gascony reported their jubilant boast that they “would soon confound
all the King’s enemies, if only they had money”; “and,” he added, “I
believe they would, if they had with them the King himself or his
brother Richard. Wherefore I counsel that if money be sent to them,
Richard be sent likewise, with some good man to control the expenditure
of the money.”[1145]

This counsel was followed. The feast of the Epiphany, 1225, was
Richard’s sixteenth birthday. On Candlemas day he was knighted by
his royal brother.[1146] A fortnight later {13 Feb.} Henry granted
him the Earldom of Cornwall “with all that pertained to the King in
that county, to support himself in the King’s service, during the
King’s pleasure”;[1147] and also, it seems, the title of Count of
Poitou, by which Richard was thenceforth called.[1148] Ever since the
beginning of January a fleet had been gathering to convoy the young
Count over sea;[1149] and on Palm Sunday, 23rd March, he sailed from
Portsmouth with a small force of knights, and accompanied by his
uncle Earl William of Salisbury, Philip d’Aubigné,[1150] and some
other chosen counsellors, all of whom were, together with Richard
himself, commissioned by the King to undertake the “defence of Poitou
and Gascony.”[1151] They were warmly welcomed at Bordeaux; and by the
beginning of May the King’s authority was fairly well re-established
throughout Gascony, except at Bergerac and La Réole, whose citadels
were garrisoned by Louis.[1152]

The Pope was anxious for peace between the two Kings, because he wanted
Louis to devote himself to the suppression of the Albigensian disorders
in the county of Toulouse and its dependencies. A legate, Cardinal
Romanus, went to France to confer with Louis on these matters, and
between the end of May and the middle of October three embassies were
sent from England at his request to treat with Louis for peace or
a truce.[1153] On the English side these negotiations seem to have
been undertaken without any real desire to bring them to a successful
issue; but they served the double purpose of conciliating the Pope
and gaining time to prepare for a more vigorous prosecution of the
war. Meanwhile Henry was seeking to form alliances which might help to
weaken the power of France. At the close of the previous year it was
believed in England that Louis had on foot a project for marrying his
daughter to the young King of the Romans, Henry, son of the Emperor
Frederic II. This the English King endeavoured to foil by despatching
to Germany an embassy charged with proposals for two marriages, one
between his sister Isabel and the Emperor’s heir, the other between
himself and a daughter of the Duke of Austria. The negotiations dragged
on for some months,[1154] but came to nothing; neither, however, did
the French scheme, if such a scheme had ever really existed, for at
the end of 1225 Henry of Germany wedded Margaret of Austria. Ten years
later Isabel of England was to become the third wife of his father
the Emperor.[1155] In the middle of August Henry of England secretly
made overtures to the deadliest enemy of both France and Rome--Count
Raymond of Toulouse[1156]--and a draft treaty of offensive and
defensive alliance against Louis was sent from England and its terms
sworn to in Henry’s name by the envoys who carried it to Raymond.[1157]
With another great southern house, that of Auvergne and Clermont,
whose loyalty to France was generally doubtful, Count Richard and
his counsellors made a “confederation” which Henry ratified on 12th
October, the same day on which he bade his brother and uncle make a
truce with France, and himself despatched an embassy thither.[1158]

A month later, the surrender of La Réole completed the re-establishment
of Henry’s power in Gascony.[1159] On this Earl William of Salisbury,
whose health was failing, set out by his royal nephew’s desire for
England. The ship in which he sailed was tossed about in the Bay of
Biscay “many nights and days,” till he despaired of life and flung
his jewels, money, and fine clothes into the sea, “that as he came
naked into this world, so he might, stripped of all earthly honour,
enter into the eternal country”; and his companions followed his
example. At last they sighted the Isle of Rhé, landed there by means
of their boats, and found shelter in an abbey. But two men-at-arms in
the service of Savaric de Mauléon, who was keeping vigilant watch on
the Poitevin coast in the interest of Louis, recognized the Earl and
warned him that he would be captured unless he left the Isle at once.
He gave the men twenty pounds, took to the ship again, and was in
perils in the sea for three weeks longer before he reached the English
coast, seemingly just after Christmas.[1160] {1225–1226} In England
he had been so completely given up for lost that Hubert de Burgh had
planned to secure the hand and the estates of Countess Ela for a nephew
of his own, Raymond by name, and had actually persuaded the King to
consent to the marriage. Henry, however, made his consent conditional
on that of Ela herself; and when the Justiciar sent his nephew to her
“in noble knightly array,” the wife of Longsword indignantly told him
that she had lately had news from her husband stating that he was safe
and well, but even if he were dead, she would in no wise accept him
(the suitor) for her spouse, inasmuch as the nobility of her birth
forbade such a thing. “Go,” she added, “and seek a match elsewhere;
you will find by experience that you have come here in vain.”[1161]
William, when he reached home and heard this story {1226}, went to the
King at Marlborough and after being received by him “with great joy,”
laid before him a grave complaint against the Justiciar for having
sent “some low-born fellow” to insult the Countess; and he added that
unless the King made the Justiciar render him full satisfaction, he
would seek vengeance for such an outrage himself, in a way which would
cause a grave disturbance of the realm. The Justiciar, well knowing
that Earl William would have no difficulty in executing his threat, at
once made a humble apology and “recovered the Earl’s favour by large
gifts of valuable horses and other things.”[1162] The whole story is
a curious illustration of the social relations between Hubert and the
great nobles of the land; for there is no sign of any previous friction
between Hubert and Longsword in political affairs; and between the Earl
and his royal nephew there seems to have existed a genuine personal
attachment. The meeting at Marlborough was their last; Earl William
died at Salisbury on 7th March.[1163]

[Sidenote: 1226]

The practical direction of affairs in Gascony and the guardianship
of its nominal ruler, young Richard, thus devolved entirely upon
Philip d’Aubigné. He was quite equal to his task, and was moreover
well supported by the English government; for Henry and Hubert had at
last learned that Gascony could not be preserved, much less Poitou
recovered, without constant supplies of money, arms, and men {1225
Aug.}; and these they continued to pour into Bordeaux for Richard[1164]
{1226 Feb.–May}--not without considerable difficulty and risk, for
Savaric and his men were continually cruising about, on the watch
to intercept English vessels, and doing their utmost to make all
transit between England and Aquitaine dangerous and sometimes almost
impracticable.[1165] In January, 1226, Henry for a moment at least
contemplated going in person to join his brother.[1166] The King was
at that moment just recovering from an illness which for a time had
endangered his life;[1167] this fact, coinciding with Earl William’s
return and recital of his experiences at sea, may have made Hubert and
the other councillors urge the postponement of a project involving
so serious a risk; for the ship which had been prepared for the King
soon afterwards sailed without him.[1168] At the end of the month
Louis of France took the Cross as leader of the expedition against
Toulouse.[1169] Again the Legate Romanus pleaded with Henry for a
truce, and on 22nd March an envoy was despatched from England to confer
with him about the matter; but the terms in which this mission was
announced shew plainly that the young King and his counsellors were not
disposed to enter upon any negotiations with Louis.[1170] They were in
fact planning to make an attempt at the recovery of Poitou as soon as
Louis should be too busy with his crusade to give any help or support
to his Poitevin adherents.

The French host was summoned to meet at Bourges on 17th May.[1171]
The chief English seaports were bidden to send all their ships to
Portsmouth so as to be there on 30th May ready to go forth “on the
King’s service.”[1172] But Henry’s project met with an unexpected
check. Louis had made it a condition of his Albigensian crusade that
the Pope should forbid Henry, on pain of excommunication, to molest
him or his realm in any way while he was thus engaged;[1173] and this,
on 27th April, Honorius did.[1174] When his letter reached England,
the King called his counsellors together and asked them what they
advised him to do in the face of this prohibition. They were all of
one mind that his cherished scheme must be deferred “till it should
be seen what would become of the French King, who had undertaken such
a difficult work and costly enterprise.” Henry’s anxiety about his
brother was presently allayed by the arrival of letters from Richard
giving a good report of his successes. “Moreover there was then among
the King’s counsellors one Master William surnamed Pierepunt, skilled
in astronomy, who constantly affirmed before the King that if the
King of France proceeded with the expedition which he had begun, he
would either never return alive, or suffer a great loss and overthrow.
The King therefore, cheered by hearing these things, acquiesced
in the counsel of his friends.”[1175] On 23rd June the fleet was
dismissed,[1176] and so far as Poitou was concerned, fighting and
negotiation were alike at a standstill for the next four months.

In Henry’s insular dominions the political storms of 1224 had been
succeeded by a period of calm. The Welsh and Irish Marches were both
of them in a most unusual state of tranquillity. Henry’s long promised
and oft deferred conference with Llywelyn about the amends due for
the Welsh raid of January, 1223, seems to have taken place at last at
the end of September, 1224,[1177] and--strangely enough--resulted in
Llywelyn’s receiving seisin of Kinnerley.[1178] Another conference,
probably for the settlement of matters in dispute between Llywelyn and
the Marshal and between Llywelyn and Hugh de Mortimer, was planned and
postponed several times within the next eighteen months, and seems
not to have taken place till 27th August, 1226.[1179] On that day,
at Shrewsbury, Hugh de Mortimer “and others” again, in the King’s
presence, demanded of Llywelyn the restoration of the lands which he
had taken from them. Llywelyn asked the King for another day, and Henry
gave him one at Whitchurch on 25th October.[1180] The result does not
appear, unless it is indicated in a statement of the Dunstable annalist
that “in the same year (1226) agreement was made between Llywelyn
and William the Marshal and the Earl of Chester.”[1181] But from the
fact that throughout the years 1225–1227 the Welsh chroniclers make
no boast, and the English ones no complaint, of any infraction of the
peace on the part of Llywelyn or his men, we may safely conclude that
the English successes in 1223 had had something more than a merely
transitory effect.[1182] The Earl Marshal had landed at Waterford as
chief Justiciar in Ireland on 19th June, 1224. At the beginning of
August he sent home to the King an encouraging report of the state of
affairs in the March.[1183] In October his hands were strengthened for
the work which he had been specially sent to do--the subjugation of
Hugh de Lacy--by the appointment of his cousin John Marshal as bailiff
of Ulster.[1184] One by one Hugh’s strongholds were captured; at last,
in spring, 1225, Hugh himself surrendered, and was sent by the Earl to
England as a prisoner to beg for the King’s mercy and pardon. Henry
at first would have nothing to do with him; but the Marshal, coming
over soon afterwards, pleaded for him, and, apparently, suggested a
temporary settlement which was carried into effect[1185] in May. Two
hundred marks, to be paid in instalments, beginning from the Easter
last past, were granted to Hugh from the royal treasury for his support
during the current year.[1186] Walter de Lacy was given seisin of
“all his lands in Ireland and England which the King had seized on
occasion of the war with Hugh,” the Marshal being one of his sureties
for the payment of the fine.[1187] Twelve months later the custody of
all Hugh’s lands in Ireland was committed to Walter to hold for three
years, unless within that period Hugh should by the King’s grace obtain
their restoration to himself.[1188] Six weeks after this, on Midsummer
eve, at Winchester, the Earl Marshal resigned the Justiciarship of
Ireland into the hands of the King, and the King at once committed it
to Geoffrey de Marsh.[1189] The transfer was to be made on 1st August;
Geoffrey was to receive a yearly salary of five hundred and eighty
pounds at the Dublin Exchequer so long as he remained Justiciar; and
his present appointment was not to be made an occasion for requiring of
him any account relating to his former tenure of the same office.[1190]
Since his removal from that office Geoffrey had--except about his
papers--given no trouble; in August, 1224, his loyal attitude had been
warmly commended by the Marshal,[1191] and in November of the same
year, when the Marshal’s presence was temporarily required in England,
the responsibility for the peace of the March during his absence had
been entrusted to Geoffrey;[1192] but it was probably not the Marshal’s
influence that procured his re-appointment. The first letter which the
King addressed to him as Justiciar in 1226--on 30th June, when the
actual transfer of the justiciarship had not yet taken place--was an
order to summon the King of Connaught to surrender his land (forfeited,
according to Henry’s account, by its late King’s failure to render due
service to John), and in default, to take it by force and give seisin
of it to Richard de Burgh,[1193] who was already seneschal of Limerick
and Munster, and was brother to the chief Justiciar of England.
Geoffrey, when after a visit to England he had re-entered upon his
duties as Justiciar, declared that “all the King’s castles in Ireland
were fortified against the King, except Limerick, which was in the
custody of Richard de Burgh, who assiduously and constantly assisted
him (Geoffrey) in bringing the King’s affairs to good success.”[1194]
In Geoffrey’s re-appointment at this time we may surely see the hand of
Richard’s brother Hubert.

The Marshal appears to have resigned of his own accord, giving as a
reason that he had vowed a pilgrimage to S. Andrew’s; and it was with
the declared intention of fulfilling his vow immediately that he parted
from the King at Winchester at Midsummer. He had, however, got no
further north than Coventry when he heard that his pilgrimage was being
represented to the King as a cloak for some evil design; whereupon he
at once wrote to Henry that he had given up his project and resolved to
go straight back to Ireland. Henry, on 10th July, warmly protested that
he had no suspicions of his brother-in-law, but looked upon him as a
trusty and loyal counsellor and friend. “But,” he added, “if you really
intend to give up your journey and cross over to Ireland, we bid you
first come to us and surrender our castles of Caermarthen and Cardigan;
or, if you cannot possibly come, send us a man of yours with power to
do so. We are going towards York on business, and propose thence to
return to the marches of Wales.”[1195] This surrender was duly made
before 18th August, when the King committed Caermarthen and Cardigan
to Henry of Audley, by a letter-patent in which he expressly declared
that the Marshal was to be quit for the whole of the time during which
these two castles had been in his keeping and in that of his father
before him.[1196] Probably the brothers-in-law had at their midsummer
meeting agreed upon this transfer, and also upon another arrangement
which was put into legal form a few days later. On 22nd August the
castle of Caerleon, “of which the King demanded seisin,”[1197] was
committed to him by the Earl Marshal “saving his own right and his
inheritance” therein; and on the 26th the King “committed the castle to
the Marshal, to hold for four years from the ensuing Michaelmas day.”
At the end of the four years the Marshal was to deliver the castle to
the King, “saving his own right”; and the King, within a month after he
had received it, was to “cause the Earl to have judgement of his peers
of such right and seisin as he had on the day when this convention was
made at Hereford, and of any other right which he might be able in
the meanwhile to search out”; such right not to be prejudiced by the
present convention. If the Earl’s peers should adjudge seisin to him,
he was to have it without delay, “saving the rights of each party”; and
the judgement was not to be delayed beyond the appointed term. Finally,
“through this convention the King’s anger--if he had any--against the
Earl and his men shall be left behind.”[1198] On the day after this
convention was made public, it was announced that the Marshal “had
set out for Ireland in the King’s service.”[1199] This was shortly
after Geoffrey de Marsh had been complaining that when he called upon
the barons of the March to renew their homage to the King, those of
Leinster failed to respond, and one of them, Theobald Butler, flatly
refused to recognize the new Justiciar’s authority without instructions
from the Earl Marshal.[1200] We can scarcely help suspecting that all
these things were connected; that the Marshal’s successes in Wales
and Ireland, and his marriage with the King’s sister, had aroused the
jealousy of the De Burghs, and that Geoffrey was an instrument in
their hands. If so, they were playing a game which might have proved
dangerous both to themselves and to their sovereign, had it not been
for the dignified moderation and stedfast loyalty of the Earl. However
this may be, Geoffrey de Marsh remained Justiciar in Ireland till he
resigned the office of his own accord in February, 1228.

[Sidenote: 1225]

In England itself the only problem which seems to have given serious
trouble to the government during these years was the everlasting
problem of finance. Gascony had to be supplied, and to supply Gascony
the English treasury had to be drained till there was nothing left
for the needs of the English State and of the Crown itself. Five days
after the re-issue of the Charters in 1225--on 16th February--orders
were given for their publication throughout the realm;[1201] the writs
concerning the fifteenth had been issued on the previous day. Half of
the tax was to be paid into the treasury at Trinity, the other half
at Michaelmas. Detailed instructions were given as to the mode of
assessment, the incidence of the tax, the manner of collection;[1202]
nevertheless, before the end of March the commissioners employed
about the matter in one county at least found themselves involved
in unexpected difficulties. From the wording of the royal order it
appeared (at any rate to them) that the free tenants of bishops and
abbots were to be assessed like those of lay lords; but in Kent the
Archbishop forbade the assessment of any such tenants except those
holding by military service. On 29th March the King sanctioned this
limitation. Complaints had also reached him that the commissioners
were “compelling poor women who had only a small quantity of thread,
or a brooch worth two or three pence, to give a fifteenth”; this
practice they were bidden to stop at once, lest the curses of the
poor should fall upon the head of the King. On the other hand, he
bade them “diligently and efficaciously induce all crusaders” (who as
such were legally exempt) “to contribute to this fifteenth, which is
appointed for the peace and safety of our land and the common weal
and defence of all; and tell them plainly and openly they are to know
that as many of them as shall hold back from giving us this fifteenth,
they and their heirs will never have any part in the liberties which
we have granted to our loyal subjects by our Charters.”[1203] This
method of persuasion, however tyrannical it may sound, was perfectly
logical. The Charters had avowedly been renewed for a consideration;
those who withheld their share of that consideration, although able to
pay it, were not entitled to a share in the benefit of the Charters.
The irretrievable blunder which the Great Council had committed at
Christmas, 1224, in making a bargain with the Crown for a renewal of
the Charters, was already bringing forth its fruit.

Archbishop Stephen’s prohibition to the commissioners in Kent was
probably dictated by caution; certainly not by unwillingness to help
in supplying the needs of the Crown. The Pope, on 3rd February, wrote
to the English prelates and clergy exhorting them to make collections
in their several dioceses for the King, but to take care that the
proceeds went “for useful and necessary purposes,” not in “superfluous
and vain expenses,” and that this collection should not be made a
precedent.[1204] When this letter reached England Stephen bade his
suffragans urge their clergy to obey it by contributing an aid out of
such of their property as was exempt from the fifteenth, and also to
pay up their share of that tax, but to take care that whatever money
they gave was kept safe till further orders.[1205] Their compliance
with these exhortations was made none the easier by the arrival, just
before Christmas, of a papal messenger, Master Otto, and his presence
in England during the next four months. The expenses which fell upon
persons who went on business to the Roman Court were a subject of
general complaint; Honorius proposed that this should be remedied
by the reservation of a prebend in every cathedral and collegiate
church, and a certain proportion of the revenue of every bishop and
every religious house in all the realms of Latin Christendom, for the
Apostolic See, so that the Pope and the officers of his court might
have sufficient means to dispense with the need of charging such heavy
fees.[1206] A council assembled at Bourges on S. Andrew’s day[1207]
opposed this project so strongly that Cardinal Romanus decided to urge
it no further in France till it should be accepted in the Empire,
England, and Spain.[1208] In England, whither the Pope’s demand was
carried by Otto, the need of consulting all the estates of the realm,
and the King’s illness in January, 1226, served as reasons or excuses
for deferring a decision till the middle of April. Then, according to
one account, the King and the prelates followed the cautious example
of their French brethren, saying they would wait to see how other
countries would deal with the question; or, according to another
authority, they answered that in any case England ought to be free from
such an exaction, by reason of her annual tribute to the Pope.[1209]
But that tribute was heavily in arrear, and obviously it was not to
be expected that either Otto or Honorius would be satisfied till the
arrears were paid up. This, therefore, had to be done, and a sum of
over fifteen hundred marks went with Otto back to Rome.[1210] All
this while Otto’s long stay had been adding to the financial burdens
of the English clergy, for a papal envoy was entitled to claim from
every cathedral and collegiate church procurations to the amount of
forty shillings; although Otto seems to have contented himself with a
smaller sum.[1211] In October {13 Oct.} the clergy made their grant to
the Crown; it consisted of a sixteenth of the annual income of their
benefices.[1212] Meanwhile Henry was chafing under the Papal command
to refrain from war in France while Louis was on crusade. Again he
sought to form alliances among the neighbours and the disaffected
feudatories of the French King; in April he was negotiating with the
Duke of Lorraine,[1213] in October he was making plans--which however
came to nothing--to marry the daughter of the Duke of Britanny.[1214]
Suddenly the political situation in France changed. On 8th November
Master William Pierepunt’s forecast came true; Louis of France died
at Montpensier in Auvergne.[1215] His successor was a boy ten years
old. Neither the late King nor his father, Philip Augustus, had
been liked by the barons, and many of these seized the occasion to
assail the Queen-mother, Blanche of Castille, with demands for the
restitution of sundry liberties of which, they said, Louis VIII and
Philip had deprived them.[1216] The coronation, on 30th November,
was almost if not quite as scantily attended as the first crowning
of Henry had been.[1217] Henry at once despatched the Archbishop of
York, Philip d’Aubigné, and some other envoys, to the chief nobles
of Normandy, Anjou, and Poitou, and to the Duke of Britanny--all
lands which, from his point of view, ought rightfully to be subject
to himself--announcing his intention of going over sea, and calling
upon them to receive him loyally.[1218] On 18th December elaborate
schemes of concessions to Hugh and Isabel, and also to Hugh of
Thouars[1219] and William Larchevêque, were drawn up, witnessed, and
sealed ready for despatch, but they were never sent.[1220] Perhaps they
were deemed needless owing to a piece of news which may have arrived
from Aquitaine: Savaric de Mauléon had on the death of Louis VIII
reverted to his old allegiance, and opened the gates of La Rochelle to
Richard.[1221] Henry, however, was not ready for immediate action on
a great scale; and at Mid-Lent (18th March), 1227, a truce was made
between Richard of Poitou on the one part, and Louis IX, Blanche, Hugh
of Lusignan, and their adherents on the other, to last till a fortnight
after Midsummer.[1222]

[Sidenote: 1227]

The English court had spent the Christmas of 1226 at Reading[1223]
and thence moved on by way of Wallingford to Oxford.[1224] What took
place there, before the festal gathering usual at the season broke
up, is related by the King himself in a circular letter issued on the
21st January, 1227, to all the sheriffs of England: “Be it known to
you that by the common counsel of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and other our magnates and faithful
men, we recently at Oxford provided that henceforth we will cause
charters and confirmations to be made under our seal. And we therefore
bid you without delay publicly proclaim and make known to all persons
in your bailiwick who have, or claim to have, lands or tenements or
liberties by grant or concession and confirmation of our ancestors
the Kings of England, or by our precept, that they come to us without
fail before the beginning of this approaching Lent of the eleventh
year of our reign, to shew us by what warrant they have, or claim to
have, those lands or tenements or liberties, as they desire to keep
or to recover them. You are also to make known to all persons in your
bailiwick, and cause to be publicly proclaimed, that whosoever shall
desire to obtain at any time our charter or confirmation of lands,
tenements, markets, liberties, or anything whatsoever, let them come
to us before the same term, to ask for our charter or confirmation
thereof.”[1225] Thus in the second week of January, 1227 {8–10 Jan.},
three months after the completion of Henry’s nineteenth year, the Great
Council of the realm sanctioned his release from the one restriction
which in 1223 the same authority had decided should still remain
imposed for a while upon his exercise of regal power. In what manner
and on whose initiative this step was taken we do not know. The only
chronicler who even professes to give any account of the matter asserts
that Henry “declared before all” the Council “that he was of legal age,
and henceforth, being set free from wardship, would order the affairs
of the Crown as a prince”; and that the announcement about charters
caused a great commotion, for which the Justiciar was universally held
responsible, as the instigator of the King’s action.[1226] But this
writer’s account of that action, and of its accompanying circumstances,
is too full of demonstrable confusions and inaccuracies to be worthy
of confidence in any particular.[1227] The suggestion may very likely
have come from Hubert; but we need not accept for truth the insinuation
which Hubert’s enemies seem to have induced Henry to believe at a
later time, that Hubert was actuated mainly by a desire to secure for
himself a grant in perpetuity from the Crown.[1228] Nor was there in
the King’s proposed action any thing from which the other members of
the Council could fairly withhold their consent. At the close of a
long minority following on a period of confusion and civil war, it was
not unreasonable--at any rate according to the ideas of that age--that
there should be a general scrutiny of title-deeds which emanated or
purported to emanate from the Crown, with a view to ascertaining their
genuineness and validity, and thus safeguarding the rights both of
the grantees and of the King. Whatever had been granted since Henry’s
accession had been granted by a royal “precept,” not by charter; if
such a grant was to be made permanent a charter would be necessary
to make it so; and the letter of 21st January, fairly construed,
implies no design of invalidating any earlier grants except such as
should on examination prove to be inherently void. But the practice
of seeking from the reigning sovereign confirmation of grants made by
his predecessors was, and had been for centuries, so common that the
King’s comprehensive invitation to “all who desired his confirmation
of anything whatsoever” was certain to meet with an almost equally
comprehensive response. On the other hand, every one knew that such
grants always had to be paid for. In this latter circumstance may be
seen the reason why Henry and his ministers were now so anxious to
ante-date his full majority. The young King’s heart was set upon a
great expedition over sea; the war-chest was empty;[1229] the payments
for confirmations of royal grants would substantially--perhaps more
substantially than any other scheme that could have been devised--help
to fill it.

It is doubtful whether the far-off guardian who for ten years had
watched over the interests of John Lackland’s heir and of his realm
ever knew of his ward’s self-emancipation; for Honorius III died on
18th March, 1227. Some years later a transcript of one of the letters
by which he had sanctioned Henry’s coming of age in 1223 appears to
have been prepared by Bishops Peter of Winchester and Hugh of Ely for
transmission to his successor Gregory IX;[1230] whether in consequence
of some inquiry addressed to them by Gregory on the subject, we
cannot tell. The authorizations given by Honorius were wide enough to
cover the proceedings of January, 1227, without any need of further
ratification from Rome. If those proceedings did reach the ears of the
dying Pontiff, he may well have rejoiced to know that he would not have
to leave his task of guardianship unfinished, and that this part of
his burden of responsibility and care would not pass to the next Pope.
Henceforth Henry of England must indeed be accounted as of full age,
and answerable for himself and his realm.


FOOTNOTES:

[941] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 84; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 92. Orders to
prepare for the Christmas court at Northampton were issued 9th and 10th
December, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 578. The King left London at some
date between 12th and 19th December, and was at Northampton on the
23rd; _ib._ pp. 579, 579 b.

[942] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 84.

[943] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 92.

[944] Cf. _ib._ and _Quer. Falc._, p. 262.

[945] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._, “Favore” is surely a misprint or a
clerical error for _fervore_.

[946] _Ib._ Cf.  R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, pp. 203, 204,
and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 84; this last gives the date, “quinto die Natalis
Domini,” _i.e._, 29th December.

[947] Its commission to Bishop Peter on Louis’s withdrawal in 1217
(_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 450) was evidently only a temporary measure.

[948] See Note VIII.

[949] _Ib._

[950] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 71.

[951] On all these changes in the custody of castles see Note VIII.

[952] _Quer. Falc._, p. 262.

[953] R. Coggeshall, p. 204.

[954] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 496.

[955] Hugh of Windsor, _custos_ of the Tower in November, 1224 (_Close
Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 8), and Thomas de Blundeville, _custos_ in 1225 and
1226 (_ib._ a. 1225–1226 _passim_) were sub-wardens. Cf. _ib._ pp. 33
b, 83 b.

[956] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 430.

[957] Hubert was constable of Dover in October, 1225, _Close Rolls_,
vol. ii. p. 65.

[958] William Hardres appears as constable of Canterbury castle from
Candlemas to Michaelmas 1225, _ib._ p. 46 b; obviously he was a
sub-warden, but whether under Stephen or under Hubert there is nothing
to show.

[959] Matthew Paris’s assertion “Instillatum quippe fuerat illis in
auribus secreto quod si prompta voluntate ea [scil. castra] regi ilico
resignassent, statim illis redderet resignata” (_Hist. Angl._, vol. ii.
p. 261) may be taken for what his uncorroborated assertions are usually
worth.

[960] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 83–84.

[961] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 84.

[962] See above, p. 81.

[963] The only authority for this demand for a confirmation of the
Charter, Roger of Wendover, places it in 1223. Its true date, however,
seems to be 1224. Roger says it took place “in London, on the octave
of Epiphany,” _i.e._ on 13th January. But in 1223 the court, which had
kept Christmas at Oxford (as he says), and thence gone into Wiltshire,
Dorset, and Hampshire, did not return to London till 20th or 21st
January (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 527–529). In 1224, on the other
hand, the King was at Westminster from 8th January to 26th February
(_ib._ pp. 580 b–586). Moreover, in January, 1223, there were, so far
as can be seen, no circumstances likely to suggest such a demand;
but in January, 1224, the suggestion would be obvious. I think that
Roger has betrayed at once his own confusion, and how he fell into it,
in the words which immediately follow his report of Henry’s reply:
“Et rex protinus, habito super hoc consilio, misit literas suas ad
singulos vicecomites regni, ut per milites duodecim vel legales
homines uniuscujusque comitatus per sacramentum facerent inquiri quae
fuerunt libertates in Anglia tempore regis Henrici avi sui, et factam
inquisitionem apud Londonias mitterent ad regem in quindecim diebus
post Pascham” (vol. iv. p. 84). It is clear that the inquisition
here spoken of is that ordered on 30th January, 1223 (see above, p.
201), which Roger took to be an inquiry into the ancient liberties of
England, instead of (as it really was) into those of the Crown. Thus
mistaking its character, he further mistook it for a consequence of
the demand for the Charter: a demand which (as I believe) it really
preceded by nearly twelve months, and with which its connexion--so far
as the two things were connected at all--was quite the reverse of that
which Roger implies; the inquest into the royal privileges having been,
in all likelihood, one of the provocations which led the barons to ask
for a confirmation of their own rights.

[964] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 262, 263. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89, which
gives the names of the envoys, Robert Passelewe and Robert of Kent.

[965] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 543.

[966] We arrive at this date by comparing _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._, with
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 593 b, and vol. ii. p. 72 b; see below,
footnote 1047.

[967] _Quer. Falc._, p. 263.

[968] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 225.

[969] See above, p. 175.

[970] He was ordered on 18th July, 1222, to give them up to the
Archbishop; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 505 b.

[971] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 148 b.

[972] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 479 b.

[973] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 301, safe-conduct
from 17th September to Christmas, 1221.

[974] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 527 b.

[975] Cf. _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 183, 184, and _Ann. Dunst._, p.
85; the latter says he went after the Welsh war--_i.e._ in October or
November--but we shall see that he must have gone some time before July.

[976] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 549 b.

[977] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 375, 5th June, 1223.

[978] _Ib._ p. 365.

[979] _Ib._ p. 374, 3rd June.

[980] _Ib._ p. 375, 5th June. This letter seems, however, not to have
been despatched; the appointment is repeated on 10th September, 1224,
and again on 12th May, 1225 (_ib._ pp. 470 and 526).

[981] _Ib._ p. 378, 18th July, 1223.

[982] _Ib._ p. 483.

[983] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85.

[984] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 483.

[985] _Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 113. An order for Eleanor
to be delivered into the Marshal’s custody had been issued on 5th
February; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 426.

[986] Letters patent of 2nd May, 1224, announce the appointment of the
Earl Marshal as Justiciar in Ireland, with power to receive all persons
who shall come in within forty days after his arrival there; _ib._ pp.
437, 438.

[987] The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86, say “octave of Pentecost,” but this is
wrong; see above, p. 137.

[988] “Quod cepit occasione servicii nostri.”

[989] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 422. On Mausy see _ib._ pp. 356, 370,
379.

[990] On 22nd May, 1224, Mausy was in Hugh’s hands, _ib._ p. 440; in
April, 1223, it seems to have been in Henry’s, _ib._ p. 370; to the
date of its transfer we have no clue.

[991] _Ib._ pp. 431, 432, 27th March, 1224.

[992] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 592 b. The “truce” here mentioned
may be either that between Henry and Louis, or that between Louis
and Hugh. Louis had in September, 1223, made a truce with Hugh and
one with Almeric of Thouars, both of which expired before May, 1224;
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 233, note 2.

[993] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 593, 593 b, 595. This order for
resumption of lands held by aliens is probably what the Bermondsey
annalist means by his statement (a. 1224) “Hoc anno Henricus Rex
tertius ordinavit et statuit edictum ut omnes alienigenae de regno
expellerentur.”

[994] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86; cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.

[995] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 484.

[996] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 172.

[997] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.

[998] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[999] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 483, 484. The towns addressed are
the Cinque Ports, Portsmouth, Shoreham, Southampton, Seaford, Poole,
Exeter, Bristol, Dartmouth, Norwich, Yarmouth, Orford, Dunwich,
Ipswich, Lynn, and Orwell.

[1000] “Centum milites et amplius et quamplures servientes,” says
Hubert de Burgh, _Responsiones_, p. 66.

[1001] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86; this writer makes the knights only sixty.

[1002] _Responsiones_, _l.c._

[1003] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 599, 601, 602 b; in the last place
“primo die _Maii_” seems to be a mistake for _Junii_.

[1004] _Responsiones_, p. 66.

[1005] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.

[1006] This date is from Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 94. The
Dunstable annalist, _l.c._, says “octavis Pentecostes”; but on
that day--9th June, Trinity Sunday--the King was a long way from
Northampton; royal letters are dated at Winchester on 8th and 10th
June, at Wallingford on 13th and 15th June, and the court did not reach
Northampton till the 16th; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 604 b, 605.

[1007] “Daturi nobis ibidem consilium et auxilium facturi ad
defensionem terrae nostrae in Pictavia,” _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 224.

[1008] “Convenerunt ad colloquium in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis rex cum
archiepiscopis,” &c., “de regni negotiis tractaturi; voluit enim rex
uti consilio magnatum suorum de terris transmarinis, quas rex Francorum
paulatim occupaverat,” R. Wend., _l.c._ “Dum rex cum clero et baronibus
apud Norhampton de succursu Pictaviae tractaret,” _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[1009] “Cum autem Londoniis post illius simulatae pacis tractatum
ordinatum fuisset ut apud Northamptoniam componeretur _exercitus_.”
_Quer. Falc._, p. 264.

[1010] “Item de hoc respondeat [Hubertus] quod dum dominus rex fuit
infra aetatem et subvenire debuit terrae Pictaviae, et _exercitus
suus proficisci deberet in Pictaviam_, fecit ipse comes obsidere
castrum Bedfordiae,” &c. Hubert in replying to this charge disclaims
responsibility for the siege of Bedford, but appears to endorse the
statement that “the King’s host” which went to that siege ought,
or was intended or professedly intended, to have gone to Poitou;
_Responsiones_, pp. 66, 67.

[1011] On 30th January Brian de Lisle was threatened with pains and
penalties if he did not at once hand over Knaresborough (as he had been
told on 30th December to do) to the Archbishop of York (_Pat. Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 425); and on 13th March Pandulf was urged to delay no longer
the delivery (also ordered on 30th December) of Bristol (_ib._ p. 429).
As nothing more is heard about either of these fortresses, we may
conclude that both custodians obeyed.

[1012] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. pp. 170, 171.

[1013] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 298 b, 378 b; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.
p. 90.

[1014] _Pat. Rolls_, p. 145.

[1015] _Ib._ p. 427.

[1016] _Ib._ p. 430.

[1017] _Ib._

[1018] For the relationship between Falkes and William there is
abundant evidence. For Nicolas “frater Falkesii” see _Close Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 197, _Pat. Rolls Joh._ p. 155 (1215), 183 b (1216); for
Colin, _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 155, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 195 (1215),
515 b (1222), _Pat. Rolls Hen. III_, vol. i. p. 458 (1224); for Avice
“soror Willelmi de Brealte,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 595 b (1224).
Gilbert (_ib._ p. 246, a. 1216, &c.), John (_ib._ pp. 617, a. 1224, and
p. 642), and Henry (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 461, a. 1224), may have
been brothers or more remote kinsmen.

[1019] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 173; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p.
88, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 131; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R.
Coggeshall, p. 204.

[1020] “Rex Johannes habuit quendam servum probum et audacem,” R.
Coggeshall, _l.c._

[1021] _Hist. Ducs_ and M. Paris, _ll.cc._

[1022] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._ Unluckily this tale, which sounds so
characteristic of its hero, rests on unknown authority, being an
interpolation in Ralf’s text, and we have no means of judging whether
it is derived from contemporary report, or is merely the invention of
some imaginative etymologist. The French form of the name is Falkes,
Faukes, or Fauques, variously Latinized as Falkesius or Falcasius,
sometimes as Falco. It seems to have been a variant of Fulk, Fouques,
Fulco, and more probably connected with _falco_ than with _falx_.

[1023] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, _l.c._ Cf. _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1224:
“Faukes re et nomine.”

[1024] “Chil Foukes ot este povres sergans au roi; fius fu a un
chevalier de Normendie, de soignant; mais puis siervi il tant le roi et
tant cru ses afaires que il fu puis uns des riches homes d’Engletiere;
petis fu de cors, mais moult fu vaillans.” _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._

[1025] “Pro meritis a patria sua fugitivus,” says Matthew Paris of
Falkes (_Hist. Angl._, vol. iii. p. 226). The word _meritis_, though
used sarcastically, may be true literally; the “merit” may have been
that of loyalty.

[1026] “Regis aedituus et minister, ipsi in clientela militans,” _ib._
vol. ii. p. 131.

[1027] Cf. the case of Peter de Maulay, above, footnote 371.

[1028] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 68 b.

[1029] “Faukes serviens domini regis,” _l.c._

[1030] “Rex Johannes ... in militem sublimavit.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p.
253.

[1031] He was ordered to deliver them to a new constable, the Earl
Marshal, in January, 1214; _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 109 b.

[1032] See _ib._ pp. 100–199 b _passim_, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp.
119 b, 120 b, 122.

[1033] See above, footnote 1024.

[1034] “Virga furoris Domini,” M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 131.

[1035] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 19; R. Coggeshall, p. 205; W. Cov., vol.
ii. p. 253.

[1036] See above, footnote 1031.

[1037] “Senescallus regis,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 190, 191 b, 192
b, March, 1215. This office was shared among several persons; another
_senescallus regis_ at this time was William de Cantelupe (_ib._ p.
192), who had held the office for many years. Falkes seems to have been
also a seneschal or steward of the household of Henry III; see _Close
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 350, 350 b, and _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226, where
Henry in June or July, 1224, speaks of “officii maximi quod habuit
[Falcatius] in curia nostra.”

[1038] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 214, &c.

[1039] R. Coggeshall, p. 204. It is at this time, in 1215, that
Nicolas, Colin, Gilbert, and John de Bréauté first appear (see above,
footnote 1018). Nicolas and Colin were clerks. William, “vadlettus
noster”--_i.e._ a page or young squire of the king--had received in
July, 1212, a grant of land in Leicestershire previously held by “his
uncle, William de Oville,” “ad se sustentandum in servicio nostro
quamdiu nobis placuerit,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 120.

[1040] See above, pp. 223, 224.

[1041] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 145.

[1042] “Quem ... Johannes rex ... comiti parificavit, donando illi
comitissam de Wyth,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; although Margaret never
was a countess, since Baldwin de Rivers died before his father.

[1043] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 175, 221, 222.

[1044] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10, 11. Cf. M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol.
ii. p. 203.

[1045] “[Falco] prosperis successibus undique elevatus, parem in regno
habere dedignabatur,” R. Coggeshall, p. 205; “cum videret statum suum
supra modum subito prosperatum, dedignabatur habere parem; erat enim ei
persaepe in operibus frequentibus pro ratione voluntas,” W. Cov., vol.
ii. p. 253.

[1046] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 263, 264.

[1047] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 72 b, 73. These three writs are
entered on the back of membrane 17 of the Close Roll 9 Hen. III
(October, 1224–October, 1225), and thus appear to belong to April–May,
1225; but this cannot be their true date; Falkes was outlawed and
out of England long before April, 1225. The scribe has put them on a
wrong roll. With the chronological data for the year 1224 they fit in
perfectly. Falkes says he was accused to the King “triduo post pacem,”
_i.e._, three days after peace was made in London between Hubert and
his opponents (cf. above, pp. 216, 217). In 1224 the King was in
London, 21st April–26th May (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 593 b–601;
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 436–441). Combining this fact with Falkes’s
statement and with the writ of 26th April, we see that the “peace” must
have been made not earlier than 21st April, and not later than the
23rd. The Monday after the octave of Trinity in that year, 17th June,
was the morrow of the day fixed for the re-assembling of the Council at
Northampton; see above, p. 222.

[1048] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 90.

[1049] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.

[1050] “Accidit autem quod Henricus de Braibroc ... improbe exigeret a
Falcasio et suis quasdam exactiones et reragia quae debebant; ex qua
exactionum improbitate commoti violenter ceperunt praedictum,” &c. R.
Coggeshall, p. 206.

[1051] See Note IX.

[1052] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 225, 226; W.
Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 94; R. Coggeshall, _l.c._;
_Ann. Dunst._, p. 86. The date is from _Quer. Falc._, p. 265. The
_Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 113, says the capture took place at
Huntingdon, which seems geographically impossible.

[1053] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95.

[1054] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226; R. Coggeshall and R. Wend.,
_ll.cc._; _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 86, 90.

[1055] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.

[1056] In the _Querimonia_, _l.c._ we read: “Cujus captio postquam
mihi fuerat nunciata, ego apud Northamptoniam propter servitium regis
cum aliis baronibus terrae conveneram, ad castrum de Bedeford pro
exquirendo fratre meo ... tam cito perveni.” But the King, in a letter
written a few weeks later, says Falkes refused to come before the
Council when summoned to answer for Braybroke’s capture, “cum alias
teneatur ratione possessionum magnarum et officii maximi quam tenuit in
curia nostra” (see above, footnote 1037) “ad nos in conciliis nostris
venire non vocatus” (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226). This seems to imply
that Falkes had not attended the Northampton meeting at all.

[1057] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 264, 265.

[1058] Cf. _ib._, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p.
253.

[1059] R. Wend., _l.c._ Cf. Hubert’s version of all this in
_Responsiones_, pp. 67, 68, and the King’s in _Roy. Lett._, _l.c._;
both in substantial agreement with Roger’s.

[1060] In 1221; see above, p. 180.

[1061] _Quer. Falc._, p. 265.

[1062] _Quer. Falc._, p. 265; R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 95, 96. Roger
gives an absurd date, “Decimo sexto kalendas Julii, die videlicet Jovis
proximo post octavas Trinitatis.” It was the Thursday after the octave
of Trinity, but it was 20th, not 16th, June.

[1063] Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 236–238.

[1064] Cf. _Chron. Turonense_, in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xviii. p.
305, with R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, p. 208, and the two
contradictory versions of Savaric’s conduct given in _Ann. Dunst._, pp.
86 and 91.

[1065] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 236; Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 250, 251.

[1066] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.

[1067] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226.

[1068] _Responsiones_, pp. 66, 67.

[1069] _Quer. Falc._, p. 269.

[1070] With treason of such a nature as that of which the Barnwell
annalist says “some people” accused Falkes--collusion with a foreign
enemy of the King--Falkes was never publicly charged at all.

[1071] When once the siege of Bedford was begun, and still more in
after-days, of course, King and Justiciar were alike more inclined to
magnify than to minimize the whole affair; but this was wisdom after
the event.

[1072] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 349.

[1073] Or, possibly, of its ownership in fee. See Note X.

[1074] The chroniclers speak of this sacrilege as if Falkes were
alone responsible for it. So far as concerned one of the churches,
however, we know from a better authority that Falkes was neither the
sole nor the chief culprit. On 5th February, 1217, the guardians of
the realm made little Henry give a benefice to the Prior and convent
of Newnham for the welfare of his own soul and his father’s soul, “et
in recompensacionem dampni quod idem I. pater noster fecit priori
et conventui de Newenham quando dirui fecit ecclesiam S. Pauli de
Bedeford, quae fuit dicti prioris et conventus de Newenham, eo tempore
quo firmari fecit castrum Bedefordiae.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 29.

[1075] R. Coggeshall, p. 205; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.

[1076] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 87. Cf. _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224: “Falkesius
... nonnullis etiam de majoribus Angliae, sicut dictum est, eidem
Falkesio conniventibus, tenuit idem castellum contra regem ... ad
quod expugnandum ... omnes fere magnati Angliae, licet fortassis non
uno eodemque animo” [printed _anno_] “pariter convenerant.” While at
Northampton Henry had received a letter from the Pope, remonstrating
with him about his treatment of Bishop Peter, Earl Ranulf, and some
others of his father’s old friends; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 224, 225.

[1077] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 605 b–608, 610, 611 b, 612, 632, 636,
641; dates, 20th June–10th August.

[1078] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 464, 465, and _Ann. Dunst._, p.
86. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 206, says that, by a general edict, two men
were summoned from every plough [land] throughout the shires, to drag
and work machines and convey stones from the quarries.

[1079] _Pat. Rolls_, _l.c._

[1080] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 265, 266.

[1081] R. Coggeshall, p. 207.

[1082] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.

[1083] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 172, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 631 b.

[1084] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 450.

[1085] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632.

[1086] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 233–235. In p. 233 Ranulf says the
King’s letter reached him on 4th August.

[1087] _Ib._ pp. 229, 230. If Llywelyn thought the Pope was at the
back of the attack on Bedford and the excommunication of Falkes, he
was mistaken. On 17th August Honorius wrote to Henry reproaching him
for his neglect of previous admonitions to treat his subjects gently,
and especially for his ingratitude to Falkes, and pointing out the
inexpediency of spending on civil war forces that were urgently needed
for external defence (_ib._ p. 544). On or about the same date he
addressed a very sharp letter to Archbishop Stephen, reproving him
for his share in the matter, and ordering him to recall the sentence
which he was reported to have passed upon Falkes and to stop the King’s
action against that personage. On the justice of that action Honorius
passes no judgement; what he insists upon is its inopportuneness (_ib._
pp. 543, 544).

[1088] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.

[1089] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 87. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 96, 97; cf. R.
Coggeshall, p. 206.

[1090] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97.

[1091] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._

[1092] “Forinseci.”

[1093] _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 87, 88.

[1094] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 233.

[1095] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 175.

[1096] “Tres aemuli mei quos ex causis evidentissimis suspectos
habebam”--“qui capitales inimici mei erant.” He does not give their
names. Two of them were unquestionably Hubert and Stephen; the third
may have been Earl William of Salisbury.

[1097] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 266, 267.

[1098] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 461.

[1099] _Quer. Falc._, p. 267.

[1100] For the story of the surrender I have combined the accounts
given in _Ann. Dunst._, p. 88, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97, and R.
Coggeshall, p. 207. Cf. also W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and _Quer.
Falc._, _ib._ p. 267.

[1101] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[1102] R. Wend., _l.c._

[1103] _Ann. Dunst._ and _Quer. Falc._, _ll.cc._

[1104] See Note XI.

[1105] _Quer. Falc._, p. 268.

[1106] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 98, says _fratres suos_, but
Matthew Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 265, who relates this scene
on the authority of an eyewitness, the Bishop of Coventry, speaks of
only one brother (William), and so does Falkes himself.

[1107] _Quer. Falc._, p. 268.

[1108] M. Paris, _l.c._

[1109] R. Wend. and M. Paris, _ll.cc._ The Barnwell annalist, W. Cov.,
vol. ii. p. 254, places this interview at Elstow.

[1110] R. Wend. and M. Paris, _ll.cc._

[1111] Stoke Courcy was part of the heritage of his wife. She and her
elder sister, Joan, wife of Hugh de Neville, were co-heiresses to the
lands of their father, Warin FitzGerold, who had been chamberlain to
Henry II, and who was now dead. See _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 10, 89
b.

[1112] _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 88, 89.

[1113] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 462.

[1114] “Jurato autem stare mandatis Ecclesiae, in ruborem et
confusionem meam, Londoniis in die dedicationis ejusdem Sanctae
Trinitatis, affectata presentia plurimorum, idem archiepiscopus nudari
me faciens, sermonem ad populum facto ... tandem absolutum post verba
multa et probra me dimisit.” _Quer. Falc._, p. 268. We are not obliged
to accept Falkes’s description of Stephen’s discourse as containing
“blasphemias infinitas,” nor to believe that the words which he
proceeds to give as a quotation from it (_ib._) were actually spoken
by the Primate. His date--“die dedicationis ejusdem S. Trinitatis”--is
absolutely unintelligible to me; but the safe-conduct given him on 19th
August was to last till the 25th; and 25th August is also the date of
his final act of surrender, which would no doubt be made directly after
his absolution. That he was absolved before he made it is stated in the
deed itself.

[1115] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 175; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211;
date, 25th August. A dateless letter from Falkes to the constable of
Stoke Courcy, urging its immediate surrender, is in _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
i. p. 490. On 29th August twenty marks were granted to Falkes from the
treasury “for his expenses”; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 643 b.

[1116] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 98.

[1117] The _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224, say, “Uxor ejus [_i.e._, Falkesii] ...
tradita est cuidam magnato Angliae custodienda cum filiis suis.” This
means “_her_ sons”--one by Baldwin and one by Falkes. Falkes himself
speaks only of “wife and son” (_Quer. Falc._, pp. 271, 272), and so
does the Pope when writing in his behalf to Henry.

[1118] See (1) the Pope’s reproach to Stephen in 1226 concerning Falkes
and Margaret--“Quomodo potest anima tua in eorum venire consilium qui
uxorem ejus nobilis detinent, et in multorum scandalum animarumque
suarum perniciem matrimonii violant sacramentum?” (_Roy. Lett._, vol.
i. p. 547), which clearly takes it for granted that their marriage was
still recognized by Stephen and everyone else; and (2) a letter patent
of 1228 which calls Margaret “quondam uxorem Falkesii” (_Pat. Rolls_,
vol. ii. p. 211); “quondam uxor” or “quae fuit uxor” being the legal
description of a widow, but not of a woman who had been “divorced,”
_i.e._, declared by a judicial sentence to have been never truly a wife
at all.

[1119] In _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, Falkes says he was in the bishop’s
custody “ix septimanis et amplius.” Nine weeks from 17th August, which
seems to be the earliest possible date for his committal to Eustace’s
keeping, brings us to 24th October; and we shall see that the latest
possible date for the Council’s decision is 26th October. Roger of
Wendover’s statement (vol. iv. p. 103) that it took place “Martio
mense” is of course quite wrong.

[1120] See above, footnote 1087.

[1121] Cf. _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 103. Ralf
of Coggeshall, p. 208, has a slightly different version of the way in
which this sentence was arrived at.

[1122] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._

[1123] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 478.

[1124] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 633 b.

[1125] R. Wend., _l.c._

[1126] Cf. _ib._, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89.

[1127] So says Roger, _l.c._; but the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov.,
_l.c._) says Louis sent him to prison at Compiègne, and only released
him on an order from the Pope.

[1128] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[1129] R. Wend., _l.c._

[1130] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 264–269; cf. _Foedera_, I. i. 175, 176.

[1131] “Uxorem cum patrimonio sibi restitui,” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89. The
“patrimony” referred to must be Margaret’s, since Falkes had never had
or been entitled to any of his own. Having been absolutely penniless
for two years and a half, he was now “multis debitis oneratus” (_ib._),
and considering Margaret’s conduct in September, 1224, it would be only
natural if he valued his claims upon her chiefly on their pecuniary
side.

[1132] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 547; date, 11th July, 1226. This letter
to Stephen is the one referred to above, footnote 1118.

[1133] The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89, say he died “ab Urbe rediens,
apud Sanctum Ciriacum.” So do Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 137,
and Matthew Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 291; the latter adds
“infectus veneno quod in pisce quodam ei dabatur.”

[1134] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 313, 314, 12th September, 1227.

[1135] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 465, 468, 469, 29th August, 7th and
9th September.

[1136] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 626 b, 20th October.

[1137] _Ib._ p. 632 b, 6th–8th September; cf. _Ann. Dunst._ (a. 1225),
p. 92.

[1138] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 99.

[1139] Cf. _ib._ and _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 22, 25, &c.

[1140] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 496; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p.
22. This tallage, according to _Ann. Wav._, a. 1225, brought in five
thousand marks.

[1141] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 99, 100. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 93.

[1142] _Statutes of Realm, Charters of Liberties_, pp. 22–25.

[1143] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 237, 238.

[1144] According to the _Chron. Turon._ (_R.G.S._ vol. xviii.), p.
307, Savaric went to England (cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 477, _Close
Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 8 b, 9) to ask for succour, “sed Anglici, de ejus
adjutorio diffidentes, eum latenter capere tentaverunt.” He however
escaped, and at Christmas did homage to Louis.

[1145] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 239.

[1146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 101.

[1147] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 507; cf. _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a.
1225.

[1148] “Dederat ei namque rex, ante recessum suum ab Anglia, comitatum
Cornubiae cum tota Pictavia; unde ab omnibus comes Pictaviae vocabatur,
titulusque literarum suarum ‘comes Pictaviae et Cornubiae.’” M. Paris,
_Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 270, adding in margin: “Clam dederat ei
Wasconiam et incartaverat.”

[1149] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 503, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 10
b, 11, 21, 22 (1st and 3rd January, 13th March). By 21st March the
fleet was found to be too large for its purpose, and many vessels were
dismissed; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 514.

[1150] R. Wend., _l.c._; cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 94, and _Ann. Winton._,
a. 1225. This last authority says they went “about Mid-Lent” (9th
March), but Roger’s date agrees better with the Rolls. He says there
were forty knights; the _Ann. Winton._ say seventy.

[1151] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 513–516, and _Close Rolls_, vol.
ii. pp. 16 b, 19 b.

[1152] See Richard’s letter, dated 2nd May, in _Foedera_, I. i. p. 178,
and cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 262.

[1153] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 579, 601, 580, 552, _Close Rolls_,
vol. ii. p. 43.

[1154] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 528, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 70 b,
71, 72 b.

[1155] It is more difficult to understand what Henry can have expected
to gain by another embassy sent out about the same time as the one to
Germany. On 14th January, 1225, Ansoldus of Genoa is ordered to buy
a hundred marks’ worth of scarlet and “tela de rey” to give from the
King to the Soldan of Damascus, the King promising to pay him when he
returns from the Soldan. _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 13 b.

[1156] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 179.

[1157] See the text (dateless) in Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 518–520.

[1158] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 552.

[1159] 13th November, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 261. See more about the siege
in R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 102, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 94.

[1160] On comparing the story in R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 105–107, 116,
with the King’s letter to William, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 83, and
the entries _ib._ pp. 92–96, and _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 9, 12, 13,
which show that William’s visit to the King at Marlborough took place
between 31st December, 1225, and 29th January, 1226 (see especially
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 12, 23rd January), I venture to think that
Roger’s “tres menses” in p. 107 should read “tres septimanas.”

[1161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 114, 115.

[1162] _Ib._ pp. 116, 117.

[1163] Dugdale, _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 177, from Register of Lacock
Abbey. Roger (p. 117) says that after the reconciliation at Marlborough
Hubert invited Longsword to dinner and there, “ut dicitur,” poisoned
him. If so, the poison must have been a slow one, since the dinner
took place before the court left Marlborough, _i.e._, before 30th
January, and the Earl did not die till five weeks later. His health,
already failing in October, was evidently broken down altogether by his
sufferings at sea.

[1164] See _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 261–263; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
pp. 14, 15, 24, 31–36, 38, 59, 75–78; _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 38 b,
51, 98, 118 b.

[1165] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 25, 26, and _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 98, 99.

[1166] See his instructions concerning Brother Thomas of the Temple,
“ducenti magnam navem nostram in hoc itinere nostro versus Wasconiam,”
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 11, 19th January, 1226.

[1167] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 114, with dates in _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
ii. pp. 9–13, and _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 92–96.

[1168] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 14.

[1169] _Chron. Turon._, p. 312.

[1170] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 74, 75.

[1171] _Chron. Turon._, p. 313.

[1172] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 151.

[1173] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 125.

[1174] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 545–547.

[1175] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 126.

[1176] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 44.

[1177] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 489 and 471 (13th August and 23rd
September, 1224) with _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 648, which shews that
Henry was at Shrewsbury 24th–30th September.

[1178] “Kinardly caput de terris quas Madoc filius Griffin tenet per
servicium militare est in manu Lewelini,” _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p.
24, 18th March, 1225.

[1179] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 178, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 83 b, 154
b, 155, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 56, 59.

[1180] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 154 b, 155.

[1181] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 100.

[1182] The silence of the _Brut_ is most significant. That chronicle,
after its daring assertion that the Earl Marshal was “slain” at
Carnwyllon in 1223 (see above, footnote 893), says not another word
about the relations between England and Wales till 1228.

[1183] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 500.

[1184] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 387.

[1185] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1225, pp. 91, 92.

[1186] _Close Rolls_, vol ii. p. 37 b, 10th May.

[1187] _Ib._ p. 39 b, 13th May, 1225. Cf. _ib._ pp. 125 b, 126.

[1188] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 31, 32, 75–78, 12th May, 1226.

[1189] _Ib._ p. 47.

[1190] _Ib._ pp. 51, 52, 4th July.

[1191] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 500.

[1192] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 96 b.

[1193] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 48, 49.

[1194] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 291.

[1195] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 80, 81.

[1196] _Ib._ p. 58.

[1197] See above, pp. 190, 191.

[1198] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 82.

[1199] _Ib._ p. 59, 27th August.

[1200] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 291.

[1201] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 70.

[1202] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 560–564.

[1203] _Ib._ pp. 572, 573.

[1204] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 585; also in W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 256.

[1205] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 257.

[1206] _Ib._ pp. 274–276.

[1207] _Chron. Turon._, p. 310.

[1208] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 279.

[1209] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 107, 115, 116, 123, 124, W. Cov.,
vol. ii. pp. 278, 279, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 99.

[1210] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 149, 149 b; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
p. 24, and cf. _ib._ pp. 27, 28.

[1211] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 118 and 108.

[1212] _Ann. Osen._ and _Wykes_, a. 1226, p. 67. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
p. 64.

[1213] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 27.

[1214] _Ib._ pp. 153, 154.

[1215] _Chron. Turon._, p. 317.

[1216] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 135, 136, and _Chron. Turon._, p. 318.

[1217] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 136.

[1218] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 136, 137. Archbishop Walter went at some
date between 1st December, 1226, and 7th January, 1227, _Pat. Rolls_,
vol. ii., pp. 94, 106, and the Bishop of Carlisle seems to have gone
with him, _ib._ p. 107.

[1219] Brother and successor of Almeric, who died in March, 1226;
_Chron. Turon._, p. 313.

[1220] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 153.

[1221] _Chron. Turon._, p. 318.

[1222] _Foedera_, I. i. pp. 186, 187.

[1223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 138; _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 162.

[1224] Wallingford, December 29th, 30th; Oxford, 31st; Woodstock,
1st–7th January; Oxford, 8th–10th; Reading, 11th–13th; _Close Rolls_,
vol. ii. pp. 163 b–166; cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 105–107.

[1225] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 207.

[1226] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 139, 140.

[1227] Roger dates these proceedings “mense Februario,” which the
letter close shews to be a month too late; he says that Henry thereupon
“excussit se per consilium Huberti de Burgo, justiciarii regni, de
consilio et gubernatione dicti episcopi [Wintoniensis] et suorum,
qui regi fuerant prius quasi paedagogi, ita quod omnes illas a curia
sua et cohabitatione removit” (p. 139), whereas Peter had been
removed from his tutorship six years before; and he travesties the
proclamation about charters as follows: “In eodem itaque concilio rex
fecit cancellare et cassare omnes chartas de provinciis omnibus regni
Angliae de libertatibus Forestae, postquam jam per biennium in toto
regno fuerant usitatae, hanc occasionem praetendens quod chartae illae
concessae fuerant, et libertates scriptae et signatae, dum ipse erat
sub custodia, nec sui corporis aut sigilli aliquam habuerit potestatem,
unde viribus carere debuit quod sine ratione fuerat usurpatum....
Tunc vero denuntiatum est viris religiosis et aliis qui suis volebant
libertatibus gaudere, ut innovarent chartas suas de novo regis sigillo,
scientes quod rex chartas antiquas nullius esse momenti reputabat” (pp.
139, 140). The King’s instructions to the sheriffs say not a word of
the Forest Charter, and were obviously never meant to apply either to
that document or to the Great Charter; and what they do say about other
charters is completely misrepresented by the last clause of Roger’s
concluding sentence.

[1228] _Respons._, p. 69.

[1229] In the early part of December, 1226, the Archbishop of Dublin
and the clergy of the March in Ireland had been entreated to send an
aid to the King; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 100–104.

[1230] See Note VII.




NOTES


NOTE I

THE TRUCES OF 1216–1217

The accounts of the truces made between Henry and Louis in the winter
of 1216–1217 are so conflicting that it seems impossible either to
reconcile them or to arrive at a precise conclusion as to all the facts
and dates. The documentary evidence on the subject is unluckily very
scanty; it consists--so far as I have been able to ascertain--only
of two entries in the Patent Roll of 1. Hen. III (Oct. 1216--Oct.
1217). The first of these is a notice, dated 28th December, 1216,
from Henry to Louis, concerning claims of redress for injuries done
“infra treugas inter nos captas” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 107). The
second is a report, addressed by the Marshal and Council to Louis, of a
meeting held “die Jovis in crastino S. Petri” between the _emendatores
treugae_ on both sides, “ad emendaciones capiendas et faciendas de
interceptionibus factis in prima treuga et secunda, et ad treugam
faciendum observari et tenere” (_ib._ p. 109). This letter is dateless;
it is entered on the Roll between a letter dated 28th February and one
dated 10th March. “Thursday the morrow of S. Peter” probably means 19th
January, the day after the festival of S. Peter’s Chair at Rome, which
festival fell on a Wednesday in 1217. The feast of S. Peter’s Chair at
Antioch, 22nd February, was also a Wednesday in that year; but it is
hardly possible that this talk about truces could have been going on as
late as 23rd February, only five days before the “Crusaders” mustered
at Dorking proclaimed their intention of expelling Louis from Rye (see
above, p. 24).

From these entries, then, it results that there were two truces, one
of which was existing on 28th December, 1216; that a second truce was
made before 19th January, 1217; and that _a_ truce--either this second
truce, or a third--was existing at some date posterior to 19th January,
1217.

The _Hist. G. le Mar._ states that when the garrison of Hertford
(besieged by Louis 11th November, 1216, see above, p. 18) became
hopeless of relief, “Cil qui devers le rei se tindrent A Loeis por
trieve vindrent De vint jor, e si lor dona, Par fei c’on li abandona
Berkamestoude e Herefort; Seisis en fu, fust dreit ou tort” (ll.
15717–28); and that “Quant ceste trieve fu faillie, Cil qui aveient
la baillie Autre trieve de vint jors pristrent, Sanz le Mar.; si
mespristrent, Quer il baillerent deus chasteals Riches e forz e buens
e beals; Ce fu Norviz e Orefort” (ll. 15735–41). The Chron. Merton
(Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) says: “Hoc anno [1216] facta fuit pax circa
festum S. Andreae, quae duravit usque ad octabas S. Hillarii, inter
Lodovicum et Henricum regem Angliae,” adding a detail which may be
safely ignored--that the truce was purchased at the price of seven
thousand marks paid to Louis. The Barnwell annalist says: “[Lodowicus]
applicuit castra ad castellum cui nomen Berchamstede ... sed quoniam
Natale Domini instabat, firmatae sunt treugae generales inter partes
usque ad octavas Epiphaniae, reddito quod obsidebatur castello pro
treugarum impetratione.... Post Natale Domini, durantibus adhuc
treugis, convocaverunt fautores suos ad concilium Lodowicus apud
Grantebriggiam, tutores regii apud Oxoniam. Elaboratumque est ut aut
inter partes pax firmaretur, aut treugae prolongarentur. Sed cum paci
detrectarent Angli qui cum Lodowico erant, protendereturque de treugis
ineundis consilium, obsedit ipse castellum cui nomen Odingham [_i.e._,
Hedingham, see Stubbs’s notes, p. 235, note 2, and pref. p. ix., note
2]. Redditum est autem ei tunc temporis castellum illud, et castellum
Orefordiae, praesidiumque Nortwici, et praesidium Colecestriae, pro
treugis usque ad mensem post Pascha” (W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 234–5).
Roger of Wendover mentions only one truce, which he represents as
made in consequence of the tidings received by Louis as to the Pope’s
intention of excommunicating him on Maundy Thursday: “Hac itaque de
causa statutae sunt treugae inter Lodowicum et regem Henricum usque
ad mensem de Pascha, ita scilicet ut omnia remaneant in eo statu quo
fuerunt in die quo juratae fuerunt treugae, in castellis et rebus
aliis, usque ad terminum constitutum” (vol. iv. p. 11). He has,
however, previously stated that Berkhamsted surrendered “post diutinam
obsidionem, ex praecepto regis” (_ib._ p. 6). These words, taken in
connexion with the Biographer’s story, suggest that that story is
correct, and that Waleran held Berkhamsted in defiance of the truce
till he was peremptorily ordered by the Council to give it up. This
first truce, then, seems to have been made not later than 6th December,
the day on which Hertford surrendered (above, p. 18); it may have been
made, as the Merton Chronicle asserts, a week earlier, and Walter de
Godardville may, like Waleran, have ignored it as long as he could. If
it were made on S. Andrew’s day, it would--supposing the Biographer
to be right about its duration--expire on 20th December, the day on
which Roger says that Berkhamsted surrendered. The Biographer seems to
imply that the second truce commenced immediately on the expiration of
the first; and twenty days from 20th December bring us to 9th January.
If, however, the first truce began on 6th December, it would end on
26th December; and this would bring the termination of the second
truce to 15th January. These dates agree neither with the Barnwell
annalist’s “octave of Epiphany” nor with the Merton Chronicler’s
“octave of S. Hilary”; and what is of much more consequence, even the
latest date alleged for the expiration of the second truce--that given
by the Merton writer, 20th January--fails to account for the letter
patent which shews that there was a truce not merely unexpired, but,
seemingly, not even approaching expiration, as late as 19th January.
There seems to be no way of overcoming this difficulty except by
supposing that the second truce was followed by a third. My belief
is that this was so, and that the key to the whole puzzle about the
truces and the surrenders of castles in 1216–1217 is to be found in
the words of the Barnwell annalist. This writer appears to me to deal
with the various truces made between the end of November, 1216, and
the end of February, 1217, not singly, but in a group. His account
of the _treugae generales_ up to the meeting of the rival councils
at Oxford and Cambridge includes, _explicitly_, what may be called
the Biographer’s first truce (“reddito quod obsidebatur castello,”
_i.e._, Berkhamsted--and Hertford--“pro treugarum impetratione” (cf.
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15717–28); _implicitly_, the Biographer’s second
truce (“Autre trieve de vint jors,” ending _approximately_ “ad octavas
Epiphaniae”); and _implicitly_ also, I venture to think, a _third_
truce (“_durantibus adhuc treugis_ convocaverunt fautores suos ...
tutores regii apud Oxoniam,” as we know from the Close Roll, _after_
the octave of Epiphany (see above, p. 19). After mentioning the two
councils and the fruitless negotiations for peace, the annalist tells
us that yet _another_ truce (seemingly the fourth) was proposed; and
he winds up the whole subject by giving us, _not_ the conditions or
the results of that particular proposal, but a general list of the
castles--Hedingham, Orford, Norwich, Colchester--which “tunc temporis”
(_i.e._ within the last five or six weeks) had, in consideration of
the successive truces since the first, been surrendered to Louis,
and of which the undisturbed possession was now secured to him for a
further period of some two months or more, “pro treugis ad mensem post
Pascha.” In a word, the Barnwell writer tells that these four castles
were, at some time between the middle of December, 1216, and the middle
of February, 1217, bartered for renewals of the truce which had begun
with the surrender of Berkhamsted; but which particular castles were
bartered for which particular renewal, he leaves us to make out for
ourselves. The task is perhaps not so difficult as it looks at first
glance. The _Histoire des Ducs_ gives an independent list, somewhat
fuller than the Barnwell writer’s, of Louis’s gains after Hertford and
Berkhamsted: “Puis prist le castiel de Colecestre e celui d’Orefort
e celui d’Ingehem” [Hedingham] “e celui del Plasseis e Cantebruge, e
moult d’autres fortereces.... La cites de Norewis li fu rendue” (_Hist.
Ducs_, p. 182). The word _prist_ here would, if we had no other version
of the story, naturally appear to mean “took by force”; but our other
evidence shews that, with regard to Orford at least, it is in reality
only equivalent to the phrase used by the same writer concerning
Norwich, and by the Barnwell annalist concerning not only Norwich and
Orford, but also concerning Hedingham and Colchester--“li fu rendu,”
“redditum est.” We know from the Biographer that Norwich and Orford
were the price of the second truce. We know from the combined evidence
of the Barnwell annalist and the Close Roll that Cambridge had passed
into the hands of Louis perhaps before S. Hilary’s day, certainly not
later than ten days after its octave. We also know, from the Barnwell
annalist, that Louis did not gain possession of Hedingham till after
the simultaneous councils at Oxford and Cambridge. The inference seems
plain: Cambridge and either Colchester or Pleshey were surrendered for
the third truce; Hedingham, and whichever of the other two places had
not been surrendered on the same occasion as Cambridge, formed the
price of the fourth truce, the truce which was made after the councils
(_i.e._, at the end of January or beginning of February), to last, as
we learn from Roger of Wendover as well as from the Barnwell writer,
till a month after Easter. The Flemish writer’s words about “many other
castles” are probably an exaggeration; there is nothing to indicate
what these other castles were; in any case they must have been of small
importance.

One difficulty remains: the Biographer’s assertion that the second
truce was made “sanz le Mareschal.” It seems impossible that this
can be correct; no “general truce” between Henry and Louis, such as
is clearly indicated by the letters patent, could have been made
“without the Marshal,” _i.e._, without his participation and sanction
as governor of King and kingdom. We may, perhaps, account for the
Biographer’s mistake--for mistake it must surely be--somewhat as
follows. The policy of the Royalist leaders in negotiating truces on
such terms was doubtless too subtle for the understanding of most of
the rank and file of their party; it seems to have been too profound
for the understanding of the sturdy German constable of Berkhamsted,
perhaps also for those of Falkes’s Norman lieutenant at Hertford and
of the constable of Hedingham. The Marshal’s biographer evidently
did not comprehend its object at all, and so disapproved of it
utterly. He hints at his disapproval of the cession of Hertford and
Berkhamsted--“Seisis en fu, _fust dreit ou tort_”; he gives us his
undisguised opinion that when “cil qui aveient la baillie autre trieve
de vint jors pristrent” at the price of evacuating Orford and Norwich,
“_si mespristrent_.” On the other hand, he was not willing to admit
that his hero could do wrong; so he decided--with a bold disregard of
what was implied in his own statement that the terms were arranged by
“cil qui aveient la baillie”--that this “mistake” must somehow have
been made without the Marshal’s concurrence.


NOTE II

THE BLOCKED GATE AT LINCOLN

The story of Bishop Peter’s discovery of the blocked gate runs thus:

    “Par un postiz a pie eissi
    En la vile, car il voleit
    Veeir coument ele seeit.
    E comme il esgardout issi,
    Une vielle porte choisi
    Qui ert de grant antequite
    E qui les murs de la cite
    Joigneit ovec cels del chastel.
    Quant il la vit, molt li fu bel,
    Mes el fu ancienement
    Close de piere e de ciment,
    Si que nuls entrer n’i puust
    Por nul besoing qu’il en eust.
    Quant li evesques ont veue
    Cele porte e aparceue,
    Por le chastel plus enforcier
    La fist abatre e trebuchier,
    E que l’ost veist e seust
    Que seure entree i eust.”

  (_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16500–16518.)

The only two points where the walls of Lincoln city were ever “joined,”
in any way whatever, “with those of the castle,” are the two which I
have mentioned in p. 35, viz., the north-western and the south-western
angles of the castle enclosure. At the former of these two points
stood, we know, the West Gate of the medieval city; and this Professor
Oman (_Art of War in the Middle Ages_, p. 410) considers to have been
the blocked gate of the poet’s story. I have said in my text that the
blocked gate “seems” to have been the West Gate, because it is quite
possible that there may have been a gate opening from the city at the
other junction-point of the two walls, immediately to the south of the
castle ditch. Unfortunately there is no evidence whether a gate at this
point ever existed or not. Two considerations arising out of the poet’s
story may seem at first glance to raise a slight presumption in favour
of the hypothesis that a gate did exist there, and was the one which he
had in mind. I think however that in both cases the presumption is more
apparent than real.

1. The poet represents Peter as setting out on his reconnaissance in
the city from the keep of the castle. He must, as M. Meyer says (_Hist.
G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. clix), have issued from the small door
opening at the south-western angle of the keep. He would therefore,
on reaching the further side of the ditch, find himself close to the
southern junction-point of the castle wall and the city wall. If there
was a gate at this point, and if it was the blocked one, his discovery
of it and his return to the castle might have been effected in a few
minutes, without difficulty or danger. If, on the other hand, the
blocked gate was the West Gate proper, he could not have seen it from
the city without going all round the southern, eastern, and northern
sides of the castle, by a route answering roughly to the present Drury
Lane, Bailgate, and Westgate, right through the heart of the city, and
he must have returned by the same lengthy and frequented way to the
door in the keep whence he had set out; an adventure which it seems
hardly possible he could have achieved in safety, except under one
condition. That condition, however, we may surely take for granted;
it seems matter of course that before he ventured outside the castle
walls he would disguise himself so as to look like an ordinary citizen
going about his ordinary business in the city. In that case the longer
expedition might be quite practicable, and really attended with very
little risk. Moreover, if the blocked gate was the West Gate, Peter
must have known of its existence before he entered the castle at all,
for in going from the host to the sally-port he would pass before the
outer side of the West Gate; and this would go far to account for his
eagerness to explore the city--in other words, to ascertain what was
on the inner side of a blocked-up gate whose outer side had already
attracted his notice.

2. If there was a gate at the southern junction of the walls, it would
very probably be “of great antiquity”--as old as the second Roman
occupation of Lindum; for the wall itself thereabouts was certainly
Roman, as some fragments still remaining testify to this day. The
West Gate, on the other hand, in 1217 could not well be more than a
hundred and fifty years old. But the poet’s description of the blocked
gate as “une vielle porte qui ert de grant antequite” is a detail
which--like his use of the word _ancienement_ in l. 16509--need not
be taken literally. Such phrases, when used by even a prose writer
in an uncritical age, may mean almost anything; moreover, epithets
and descriptive phrases of all kinds when used by a medieval writer
of verse may occasionally mean nothing. The poet had probably never
seen the gate which he was describing; those who told him about it
were soldiers, not archæologists; neither he nor they could have a
very definite idea as to when it had been built, or how long it had
been obstructed. Possibly, however, his use of the expressions above
quoted may be accounted for in another way. Lincoln “above hill”
unquestionably possessed one gate which even in 1217 could hardly
fail to strike the most ignorant observer as being already “of great
antiquity.” Some of the poet’s informants may have mentioned this to
him, without specifying that it was the North Gate or giving it a name.
Others may have told him that the North Gate was called New Port.
If he was not further told that the “New Port” and the ancient gate
were identical, the fact of their identity could not possibly enter
his head; and as the North Gate and the blocked gate were evidently
the only two gates (of the city) which played any part in the day’s
fighting until it reached the Bar-Gate far away to the south beyond the
river, he would naturally conclude that since the first was the “new”
gate, the second must be the ancient one.

The real difficulty of the passage is in ll. 16515–16: “_Por le chastel
plus enforcier_ La fist abatre e trebuchier.” How could the clearing
out and opening of a city gate--whether it were the West Gate or a
hypothetical gate further south--tend to reinforce, or strengthen,
the castle? Professor Tout, who rejects the whole story of Peter’s
reconnaissance, suggests (though without citing these lines) that if
any blocked-up gate was re-opened, it may have been the great west gate
(or sally-port) of the castle. He thinks that this gate may have been
“walled-up” as a measure of precaution, the postern serving in its
stead for ordinary communications, and that the difficulty of passing
a large number of men through an entrance so small and inaccessible as
the postern may have led to the reopening of the great gate, “so that
the relieving force could send a strong detachment into the enclosure”
(_Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xviii, p. 250, note). But this--whether it was
the fact or not--was certainly not the idea of the poet; for (1) the
castle sally-port does not “join the walls of the city with those of
the castle”; and (2) it is not (as the poet clearly represents _his_
blocked gate to have been) visible from inside the city.


NOTE III

FALKES DE BRÉAUTÉ AT LINCOLN

The story of Falkes’s entrance into the castle and his sally thence
into the town rests on the authority of Roger of Wendover (vol. iv.
p. 22). In the _Hist. G. le Mar._ the only mention of Falkes in the
whole account of the day is in the following lines: “E quant les gens
Fauques oïrent Itels moz.” [_i.e._, Bishop Peter’s report to the host
about the gate] “molt s’en esjoïrent; Trestot avant dedenz entrerent,
Mes leidement les reuserent Cil dedenz, qu’il n’i furent gueres; Tost
lor changierent lor afeires” (ll. 16535–40). Professor Tout (p. 251)
says the poet’s “story supposes that Falkes did not enter the castle,
but penetrated directly into the town. This is clear from the fact that
when beaten they” (?) “were driven out into the open country. There the
bishop encountered somewhat later the fugitive soldiers and roughly
maltreated them for their cowardice.” For this statement he cites
as his authority ll. 16573–6: “E quant les servanz encontrerent Qui
leidement parti s’en erent Molt les leidirent cil qui vindrent Quand
dedenz la presse les tindrent.” This passage is separated from the one
which I have quoted above by thirty-three lines; and these thirty-three
lines are entirely occupied with the discourse between the bishop and
the Marshal, and the mission of the scouts, summarized in my p. 39.
There is nothing to connect ll. 16573–6 with either Falkes or Peter.
_Cil qui vindrent_ cannot refer to the bishop _individually_. There is
nothing to identify the “servanz qui leidement parti s’en erent” with
Falkes’s men; nothing to suggest that Peter was one of “those who came”
(whence and whither we know not) and “met them” [_i.e._, the “servanz”]
and “greatly abused them when they had them fast in the crowd”; and
nothing to indicate that this meeting, described by the poet as having
taken place _dans la presse_, occurred as Mr. Tout says it did, in “the
open country”; nothing to connect these four lines with anybody or
anything previously mentioned in the poem.

In connexion with this point it will be well to consider an apparent
difficulty in ll. 16541–5: “Li avesques al Mar. dist: ‘Par mon chief!
cist ont mal fait, Car c’est la verite provee Qu’il n’ont pas unquore
trovee La dreite entree’” etc. (see above, p. 39). In the poem as we
now have it this passage immediately follows the one about Falkes;
_cist_ in l. 16542, therefore, would seem to refer to Falkes and his
men. As, however, any thing that happened to Falkes and his men must
have happened inside either the castle or the city, it could not become
known to those who were still outside the western wall so speedily as
this interpretation would imply; and I venture to think we may find a
probable explanation of the difficulty, without supposing the poet to
have been either so confused about the topography, or so careless, as
to overlook this obvious fact. The obscurity and seeming incompleteness
of the passage relating to Falkes, and the abruptness of the transition
in ll. 16540–41, strongly suggest a _lacuna_ in the MS. at this point.
If there be one, it is probable that the missing lines contained some
further account of Falkes’s mishap; it is possible that they may have
also contained an account of some other transaction, the actors in
which were the subjects of Peter’s comment recorded in ll. 16541–5; and
it is further possible that that transaction may have been the attack
on the North Gate recorded by Roger of Wendover.


NOTE IV

THE END OF THE BATTLE OF LINCOLN

Of the closing scene of the battle of Lincoln there are two accounts;
one by the Biographer of the Marshal, the other by Roger of Wendover.

(1) The Biographer, after describing the fight on the bridge, the
accident which there befell William Bloet, and the capture of the two
De Quincys and others, continues thus:--

    “E li sorplus torna en fine
    Tote la rue contreval
    Qui s’en veit dreit a l’hospital.
    Molt lor sembla la veie forte
    Dusqu’ a la dererene porte;
    La lor avint une aventure
    Qui mult lor fu pesante e dure,
    C’une vache entra en la porte,
    En cele qui le fleel porte,
    E la porte se clost aval
    Issi que nuls homme a cheval
    N’i passast en nule maniere.
    Lors ne porent avant n’ariere;
    Mes cil qui angoissos en erent
    De issir s’en la vache acorerent.”

  _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16940–54.

(2) Roger makes no mention of the rally of the French in the lower
town, the second fight on the hill-top (“entre le chastiel e le
moustier,” see above, pp. 42, 43), the second retreat or flight of the
French down hill, and the last fight on and near the bridge; he ends
the battle with the death of Perche, and then goes on thus: “Videntes
igitur Galligenae phalanges quod major eorum cecidisset, inierunt fugam
tam pedites quam equites sibi nimis damnosam; nam flagellum portae
australis, per quam fugerunt, quod ex transverso illius portae fuerat
fabricatum, fugientes non mediocriter impedivit; etenim quotiescunque
aliquis adveniens exire voluit, oportebat eum ab equo descendere et
portam aperire, quo exeunte porta denuo claudebatur flagello ut prius
posito ex transverso; sicque porta illa fugientibus nimis molesta fuit”
(vol. iv., p. 23).

At first glance these two accounts might seem to relate to two distinct
occurrences at two different gates. “La dererene porte,” which the
cow blocked against the fugitives when they had been driven beyond
the bridge “tote la rue contreval qui s’en veit dreit a l’hospital,”
is clearly the Great (or West) Bar-Gate. This was quite literally the
“outermost” or “hindermost” gate of Lincoln to the southward; and
outside it, on the south side of the Sincil Dyke, stood two hospitals,
one belonging to the Order of Sempringham and named after the Holy
Sepulchre, the other a lazar-house dedicated to the Holy Innocents
(Sympson, _Lincoln_, pp. 386, 338, 344, 351). On the other hand,
Roger’s _porta australis_ with the inconvenient sliding bar might, if
we looked at his story alone, be taken to represent the south gate of
the city proper, _i.e._, the Stone Bow. But a comparison of his story
with that of the poet shews this to be impossible. Had it been the
case, the greatest capture of prisoners must have taken place _inside_
the gate; whereas the Biographer clearly indicates that most of the
rebel barons (the De Quincys, Fitz Walter, “e moult d’autres dont
point ne m’ennuie”) were captured in the fight on and near the bridge,
_i.e._, _outside_ the Stone Bow (ll. 16828–16939); and even after all
this, there were still so many left that when the “hindermost gate” was
at last reached, “_La_ fu plus fort li encombriers, _La_ ont molt pris
de chevaliers” (ll. 16955–6). Moreover, ll. 16947–51 (“En la porte ...
nule maniere”), especially ll. 16947–8, where this same “hindermost
gate” is specially distinguished as _cele qui le fleel porte_, tally
so closely with Roger’s words about the _flagellum_ and its effects
that we cannot separate the two incidents. The difference between the
two accounts is simply that the poet gives us the whole topography
and tells the whole story, cow and all, while Roger leaves out the
cow-incident, just as he has left out several things of far greater
importance (the second rally and repulse of the French among them) in
his story of the battle as a whole.


NOTE V

THE TREATY OF KINGSTON

There can be no reasonable doubt that the series of dates so carefully
given in our fullest and most strictly contemporary account of the
transactions connected with the treaty between Henry and Louis--the
account in the _Histoire des Ducs de Normandie_--is correct. One of
the best contemporary English authorities, the Chronicle of Merton,
is in accord with it as to the dates on which the treaty was made and
Louis was absolved: “Hoc anno” (1217) “facta est pax ... in quadam
insula extra Kingestune, feria tercia ante Exaltationem S. Crucis”
(_i.e._, Tuesday, 12th September), “et in vigilia Exaltationis”
(Wednesday, 13th September) “absolutus est dominus Lodowicus in eadem
insula” (_Chron. Merton_, _apud_ Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 514–515).
Nearly all the other English chroniclers give a wrong date to the
peace; some make it 11th September, others 13th September. The Patent
Roll of 1216–17 settles the point against them all; “Si Reginaldus
de Cornhill terminos redempcionis suae, statutos ante _diem Martis
proximam ante Exaltacionem Sanctae Crucis_ anno regni nostro primo,
_qua pax reformata fuit_ inter nos et Lodovicum domini regis Franciae
primogenitum, servaverit,” etc. (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 95, 25th
September, 1217).

The Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239) gives no date for
the peace, but says Louis was absolved “die Mercurii proxima post
Exaltationem S. Crucis,” _i.e._, 20th September. Curiously enough,
the copy of the treaty printed by D’Achéry (_Spicilegium_, ed. 1723,
vol. iii. pp. 586–7) appears to have borne the date “Lamech, anno ab
Incarnatione Domini MCCXVII, XX die Septembris.” Rymer, whose text
(_Foedera_, I. i. p. 148) corresponds almost _verbatim_ with D’Achéry’s
in all other respects, has the word _undecimo_ instead of the numerals
XX. The title of “treaty of Lambeth,” by which--in defiance of all our
authorities--the agreement is commonly known, is derived solely from
the dating clause as printed by Rymer and D’Achéry. No original copy
of the treaty appears to be now known. In the eighteenth century three
versions of it were printed, one by Rymer, one by D’Achéry, a third by
Martène and Durand (_Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, vol. i. pp. 857–859, ed.
1717). As to the source of Rymer’s copy we know absolutely nothing.
D’Achéry’s text was taken from the cartulary of the monastery of S.
Giles at Pontaudemer, that of Martène and Durand--which has no date
at all--“ex MS. illustrissimi Marchionis Daubais.” Both of these
must obviously have been mere copies; and they differ so widely from
each other that they cannot have been derived, even remotely, from
one and the same original. The Daubais text not only omits several
clauses entirely, as well as all mention of place, date, witnesses,
and seals, and gives other clauses in a shortened form, but it
inserts one interesting clause of which there is no trace anywhere
else--that about the Exchequer documents (above, footnote 315). The
Pontaudemer text, on the other hand, is, except as regards the date,
practically identical with that which, for want of knowing its source,
we can only call Rymer’s. This last contains some verbal corruptions
which may be due to Rymer himself; while in D’Achéry’s printed text
there is at least one obvious error--the Legate’s name is given as
“Gualterius.” The terms of the treaty in the Rymer-Pontaudemer version
are substantially the same as those indicated by the chroniclers.
The list of attestations comprises only the names of the signataries
on the English side; they are the Legate, the King, the Regent, the
Justiciar, the Earls of Chester, Salisbury, Warren, and Arundel,
William d’Aubigny, William Brewer, William Marshal the younger, Falkes
de Bréauté, Ralf de Mortimer, “L. de Erdivert,” Robert de Vipont,
Geoffrey de Neville, Brian de Lisle, Philip d’Aubigné, and Richard the
late King’s son; all of whom are stated to have set their seals to the
treaty. This is a somewhat puzzling statement in view of the fact that
the King had as yet no seal of his own. It may be that the Marshal’s
seal on this occasion did duty twice, once for its owner and once for
his royal ward; though we should have expected, if this were so, to
find an explicit mention of the circumstance.

To me there seem to be only two alternative theories by which the
printed texts of the treaty can be reconciled with each other and
with the evidence of the chronicles: (1) that the document of which
Rymer and D’Achéry each had a copy before him was a transcript (more
or less exact) of the body of the original treaty of Kingston, to
which the list of signataries and the date had been added (the latter
incorrectly) from some unknown source; or (2) that the opening
words--“Haec est forma pacis facta,” etc. (Rymer) or “Haec est forma
finis et concordiae facta,” etc. (D’Achéry)--were in each case the
unauthorized addition of a scribe, and that the original document was
not an actually executed treaty, but the draft which Hugh de Malaunay
carried to Louis on 11th September (above, p. 56), and that this draft
was sealed by the Legate, King, and councillors, as a pledge of its
authenticity and of their intention to abide by its contents. I incline
to the latter alternative, for the following reasons:--

(1) The so-called “form of peace” speaks throughout of what Louis
and Henry _shall_ promise and swear, never once of what they _have_
promised and sworn. It seems therefore to date from a time previous to
the solemn oaths which Roger of Wendover says they took at Kingston.
The actual treaty would not be sealed till the oaths were sworn.

(2) The difficulty about the dates, both of time and place, practically
disappears if we adopt the second theory. The date in Rymer can hardly
be explained away as a transcriber’s error, because the word _undecimo_
is given in full; it must be either correct, or a downright blunder.
Now, we know from _Hist. Ducs_ (p. 203) that 11th September was the
day on which Malaunay carried back to Louis the “form of peace drawn
up in writing” (R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. above, pp. 56, 57) for
his acceptance. The Pontaudemer text may have been transcribed from a
copy in which the word had been translated into numerals, and if so,
“XI” might easily become “XX” in transcription. As for the place, we
know that King and regent were at Chertsey every day from 6th September
to 12th September, both days inclusive, and we possess no other notice
of their having gone to Lambeth on the 11th; but there is no reason
why they should not have done so; a prolongation of the truce till
the 14th had been guaranteed on the 10th, and it would be quite safe
and practicable for the Marshal and the Legate to bring their royal
charge as near to London as Lambeth for a few hours, if they found it
convenient to do so as a means of saving time in communicating with
Louis.

Mr. G. J. Turner (“Minority of Henry III,” part I, _Trans. Roy. Hist.
Soc._, series II, vol. xviii. p. 288, note 3) says, “The treaty was in
two parts, of which the text in the _Thesaurus_ is the part executed
by Louis.” I do not understand on what grounds this inference is
based, as the Daubais (or _Thesaurus_) text has no attestations, and
the formulae employed in it are precisely the same as those in the
Rymer-Pontaudemer text, which purports to be attested by the English
party. Indeed, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Daubais text
can possibly represent the form in which the treaty was “executed” at
all. Save for the one clause which is peculiar to it, it is a mere
summary, and a very imperfect one, of some--by no means all--of the
conditions which the Rymer-Pontaudemer text sets forth in detail. My
inference from a comparison of the two texts is that the Daubais text
is a mere scribe’s epitome of a third text, now lost, which probably
was the true text of the treaty actually executed at Kingston on 12th
September, and consisted of the substance of the preliminary draft (the
Rymer-Pontaudemer text) _plus_ the article about the Exchequer records.


NOTE VI

THE TENURE OF CROWN OFFICES DURING THE MINORITY

Mr. Turner (“Minority of Henry III,” part I, pp. 270–276) has gone into
this question with great care and in considerable detail. He sums up
his conclusions about it in four passages. (1) “It is highly probable
that the three great officials, the two justices” (_i.e._, the chief
Justiciars of England and Ireland) “and the Chancellor, claimed the
right to continue in office till the King’s minority had determined....
Direct evidence of the claim is not forthcoming, but there are facts
which point to it having been put forward” (p. 271). (2) “The sheriffs
and castellans claimed to hold their bailiwicks throughout the King’s
minority” (p. 272). (3) “A dispute between Engelard de Cigogné and
William de Warenne as to which of them was entitled to the shrievalty
of Surrey shows that it was decided early in the reign that the
sheriffs who had been appointed by King John claimed the right to
continue in office until his successor attained his majority” (p. 274).
(4) “It had been decided that John’s sheriffs held office as of right
during the minority” (p. 275).

Thus Mr. Turner--if I understand him rightly--regards the existence
of this claim in the case of the great officers of state as merely a
probable inference; but in the case of the sheriffs and castellans he
regards not only the existence, but also the acknowledgment of the
claim, as a fact, proved, so far as the sheriffs are concerned, by the
case of the shrievalty of Surrey. That case is, briefly, as follows:
Early in 1218 there were two rival claimants to the sheriffdom of
Surrey; Engelard de Cigogné, who had been appointed to it by John in
April, 1216, and William, Earl of Warren. The grounds of William’s
claim are unknown. The most obvious conjecture is that he had received
a grant, or a promise, of the sheriffdom in the summer of 1217 as the
price of his return to allegiance; but this is only a conjecture;
his claim may have been based on some old prescriptive right--his
proper territorial designation was Earl of Surrey--or on some grant
or promise made to him by John; John may have granted or promised the
sheriffdom to William, before William’s defection from allegiance,
on some special terms such as might justify William in arguing that
on his “reversion” the promise was binding on John’s successor. The
case was under consideration for nine months, from 1st February till
November, 1218; and at the latter date it was still undecided, but
Engelard was promised that if the decision went against him, he should
be compensated by a grant of land and an annuity from the Treasury.
The decision is unrecorded; the end, however, was that William got the
sheriffdom and Engelard the promised compensation (Turner, pt. I, pp.
274–5). Whether this was the result of a formal judgement given by the
Council in favour of Earl William’s claim, or of a compromise agreed
upon between the two claimants and sanctioned by the Council, there
is nothing to shew. On this case Mr. Turner comments: “The mere fact
that the dispute between Engelard de Cigogné and William de Warenne
arose, and was considered judicially by the Council, shews that it
had been decided that John’s sheriffs held office as of right during
the minority. Otherwise the dispute would have been settled by the
immediate appointment of one of the claimants or of a third person
without any consideration by the Council” (pp. 275–276).

To me the evidence furnished by this case does not seem as conclusive
as it apparently does to Mr. Turner. The fact that the Council did
not settle the matter in the summary and arbitrary fashion in which,
no doubt, a King of full age would have settled it, does not to my
mind necessarily imply an acknowledgement of lack of competence so to
settle it. Bearing in mind that we know neither the origin and grounds
of the dispute nor the mode in which its final settlement was arrived
at;--bearing in mind also that the rival claimants were both of them
men whose continued attachment to the King it was important not to
endanger--I venture to think that the Council’s dealing with the case
may have been dictated chiefly, if not entirely, by motives of policy.
Mr. Turner himself says, in the very next sentence after the one which
I have quoted above, “There can be little doubt that Gualo and the Earl
Marshal acted prudently in allowing the sheriffs to continue in office”
(p. 276). Precisely; and they would have acted very imprudently had
they, without absolute necessity, given offence either to a servant
of the Crown so faithful and so efficient as Engelard de Cigogné (who
however, as we have just seen, did _not_ “continue in office”), or to a
magnate so powerful and so lately “reverted” as Earl William of Warren.
To me it seems hardly safe to argue decisively from a case so isolated
and so obscure.

As for the castellans, the custody of some of the King’s castles
habitually (though not necessarily) went with that of the shires in
which they stood, but others were quite independent of the sheriffs.
Mr. Turner in his second article (_Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, 3rd ser.,
vol. I, p. 247) says with reference to a document of 1220 (or 1221)
relating to Bristol castle: “Here we may see another recognition of
the claim that the castellans who had been appointed by John had
the right to remain in office during the King’s minority.” The only
“other” instance given by him of anything that can be construed into
recognition of such a claim on the part of a constable holding a royal
castle independently (as distinguished from a sheriff holding, in
conjunction with his sheriffdom, certain castles within his shire) is
the case of Sauvey, which Geoffrey de Serland was on 17th December,
1216, ordered to deliver to William of Aumale, but with a proviso
that if he were unwilling to do so, he should come in person, or send
a trusty representative, to hear the royal commands concerning the
matter (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 13; Turner, pt. II, p. 236). This
seems to indicate that, as Mr. Turner says (_l.c._), “The Marshal
evidently thought it prudent to give him [Geoffrey] a voice in the
appointment of his successor”; but it proves nothing as to any claim of
right on Geoffrey’s part having been recognized by the Marshal and his
colleagues, or even put forth by Geoffrey himself. The Bristol document
has in reality no bearing at all upon the point under consideration.
It is a letter patent whereby, in December, 1220, or January, 1221
(see above, p. 175), the Justiciar and six other members of the royal
Council became sureties for the King to Hugh de Vivonne, who was going
to Poitou as seneschal of that country, that if Hugh should be recalled
or should resign his office and return to England, “idem dominus
noster rex restituet ei castrum Bristolliae sicut illud prius tenuit,
vel assignabit ei aliam wardam in custodia alicujus castri vel terrarum
ad valentiam _custodiae praedicti castri Bristolliae et terrarum
quam habuit de ballio domini regis Johannis et postmodum de ballio
dicti domini nostri regis Henrici_; quam custodiam castri Bristolliae
et terrarum eidem domino nostro regi Henrico liberavit quando iter
arripuit versus Pictaviam” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 306, 307). The
sentence which I have italicized, construed literally, should of course
mean that Hugh had originally received the custody of Bristol castle,
and of certain lands, by a grant from John, and that this grant had
been renewed by Henry. But whatever may have been the case with regard
to the other lands here referred to, this was not the fact with regard
to Bristol. Until 19th September, 1219, Hugh de Vivonne was merely
lieutenant constable of Bristol castle for Savaric de Mauléon; on that
day he, acting in pursuance of Savaric’s instructions and for Savaric
(who had made up his mind not to return to England), surrendered it
into the King’s hand, and thereupon immediately received it back again
to hold “quamdiu nobis placuerit” as constable in his own person (_Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 203).

I will not dispute that a claim to continuity of tenure was made,
explicitly or implicitly, by some of the castellans, and that _in
practice_ they mostly succeeded in enforcing it; but that it ever
received formal “recognition” seems to me disproved by (_a_) the oath
of the barons at Henry’s second coronation, and (_b_) the Pope’s
letters on the subject of the royal castles.

(_a_) “From the annals of Dunstable we learn that on the morrow of the
coronation (in 1220) the barons who were there present swore that they
would resign their castles and wardships” (_castra et wardias suas_)
“at the King’s will, and would faithfully render accounts of their
farms at the Exchequer” (Turner, pt. II, p. 239; see the original,
from _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1220, above, footnote 680). This oath--taken
at a time (18th May, 1220) when it had not yet been settled whether
Henry was to attain his majority at fourteen or at twenty-one, and
when his actual age was twelve years and seven months--is clearly to
be understood as a promise to yield up the castles of which they had
custody, and render account for them, whenever they should in the
King’s name be called upon to do so, from that day forth, not merely
after the King’s coming of age. Mr. Turner understands it thus, for
he comments upon the passage, “In all probability the chief object of
these proceedings was to obtain the castles of Rockingham and Sauvey
from the Count of Aumale” (pt. II, p. 240). (_b_) On 26th May, 1220,
the Pope issued orders that all prelates holding royal castles should
surrender them; and on 28th May, that no man should be suffered to
retain the custody of more than two royal castles at once (_Roy.
Lett._, vol. I, pp. 535, 121; cf. above, pp. 146, 147, and Turner, pt.
II, p. 242). To me it appears that these letters are incompatible with
any “recognition” by the Pope--who, be it remembered, was acknowledged
by all parties as the legal overlord of England and the chief guardian
of the King--of the doctrine of the castellans’ right to continuity of
tenure during the King’s minority; and that the oath taken after the
coronation is equally incompatible with any such recognition on the
part of the regents in England, or even with any general recognition of
that doctrine among the castellans themselves.

With regard to the great officers of state, Mr. Turner’s inference is
based (pt. I, p. 271) on (1) the case of Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar
in Ireland; (2) that of Richard de Marsh, Chancellor of England; (3)
the parallel, or analogy, between the position of the great officers
of the Crown and that of the lesser ones--“the sheriffs and castellans
claimed to hold their bailiwicks throughout the King’s minority, and
the greater officers of state must have considered that they were
entitled to the same privilege” (pt. I, 272). Of (1) I have given
the whole story in my text, pp. 94, 95, 123–125, 174, 175, 217, 259.
Of (2) Mr. Turner says: “Richard de Mareis, the Chancellor, seems to
have grievously neglected his office, and to have left his duties to
be performed by Ralph de Neville, the vice-chancellor. It is scarcely
likely that he would have been permitted to enjoy the emoluments
of his office while repudiating its burden, if he could have been
removed” (pt. I, p. 272). The Chancellor’s office, unlike that of the
Justiciar or the sheriffs, was necessarily vacated by the death of
the King, inasmuch as he held it (as Mr. Turner points out, pt. I, p.
271) not by letters patent but by virtue of the delivery of the King’s
seal into his hands, and every King had a new seal. The Chancellor
appointed by John therefore, could not “claim the right to _continue_
in office until the king’s minority had determined”; such continuity
was impossible in an office conferred by the delivery of a symbol which
changed with a change of sovereigns. He _may_, as a great minister of
the Crown, have claimed a right to be re-appointed for the term of the
King’s minority. A formal re-appointment would not be possible in his
case till the new great seal was made, and this was not till October,
1218; but there may have been an informal agreement by which he was
left in possession of the functions and rights appertaining to the
chancellorship throughout the two years during which the Marshal’s
seal was used instead of the King’s, on the understanding that when
this latter arrangement terminated he was to receive the new seal in
the usual way. Such an agreement need not, however, imply any right
of continuity in office. Richard de Marsh was not the only Chancellor
who habitually left his duties to a deputy and yet was suffered to
retain his title and his profits. As to (3), it would certainly appear
that since justiciars, sheriffs, and castellans were all appointed
in the same manner and on the same terms--by letters patent, to hold
office during the King’s pleasure--the greater officers must have been
irremoveable during the minority, _if the lesser ones were acknowledged
to be so_. For the reasons already given, this latter point seems to me
not proven.

With regard to the castles a further question remains. Falkes de
Bréauté in the “Complaint” which he addressed to the Pope in 1225,
and which is preserved in the Barnwell Annals, speaking of the arrest
of Peter de Maulay in 1221, says: “De qua captione non ante dictus
nobilis evadere potuit quam ea castra quae sibi tam a domino Guala
quam etiam a patre domini regis commissa fuerant restitueret, contra
pristinum juramentum quod patri fecerat de non restituendis eisdem
castris donec iste rex legitimae foret aetatis” (W. Cov., vol. II, p.
260). On this Mr. Turner (pt. I, p. 284) observes: “The castles, he
says, were entrusted to Pierre as well by Guala as by King John. It
would seem from this that although the castellans were not re-appointed
on the King’s death by letters patent under the seal of the Earl
Marshal, their castles were formally delivered to them by Guala. The
statement is confirmed by a letter dated May 10th, 1220, from Pandulph,
who succeeded Guala as legate, to Ralph de Neville the vice-chancellor,
in which he asks him to send the form under which Guala delivered
castles to their wardens (Shirley, _Royal Letters_, i. 117).” Pandulf’s
words are these: “Item, formam sub qua dominus Gualo castra ad
custodiendum tradebat nobis mittas, si ipsam habes, vel ab his qui
sciunt diligenter inquiras, et quod inveneres nobis rescribas.”

I venture to think that Mr. Turner’s suggested interpretation of these
two passages is a little overstrained. The words of Falkes need not
imply any formal act of delivery posterior to the one whereby Peter had
originally received the castles to hold for John. Falkes’s “Complaint”
is not a legal document, and we are neither obliged nor entitled to
construe its phraseology as if it were such. If certain castles which
John had committed to a certain man were left in that man’s custody
by Henry’s guardians, they were practically committed or entrusted
to him by the guardians as well as by John; and a reason why Falkes
should bring Gualo’s name into the matter, rather than the name of the
Marshal, is not far to seek. Falkes’s “Complaint” is a piece of special
pleading addressed to a special person--the Pope--for the purpose
of inducing him (as supreme guardian of his feudatary King Henry)
to intervene in English affairs in behalf of the complainant Falkes
himself; the case of Peter de Maulay being mentioned as an illustration
of the ill-treatment which (according to Falkes) the leaders of the
party now in power in England were meting out to faithful old servants
of King John. In these circumstances it is perfectly natural that
whatever sanction, whether explicit or tacit, was, at a time when
these leaders were in a subordinate position, given by the highest
authorities in the realm to Peter’s retention of the castles in his
keeping, should be described as having been given by the Legate. Nor
need the words of Pandulf bear any more definite meaning. The letter
in which they occur was misdated by Dr. Shirley; its true date is 10th
May, 1219 (see Prof. Powicke in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 229),
when Pandulf had been Legate about five months, and regent less than
as many weeks. That he, at this time, supposed the castles to have
been delivered to their wardens by Gualo is no proof that such was the
fact. Moreover, the wording of his inquiry suggests that he had no very
distinct idea of the thing about which he was inquiring; indeed, it
almost suggests some uncertainty on his part whether what he asked for
existed at all. I venture to think that--Ralf de Neville’s answer being
unfortunately lost--in this uncertainty the question still remains. It
would be a very remarkable circumstance if Gualo, who so scrupulously
refrained from all shew of intervention in the administration of civil
affairs, went out of his way to take upon himself a function utterly
alien from his natural sphere of action, and one which there could
be no conceivable reason for associating with his office rather than
with that of the lay regent. It would be equally remarkable that the
castellans, if they considered themselves entitled to retain their
wardenships without re-appointment by letters patent from the Governor
of King and Kingdom, in the new sovereign’s name, should have quietly
submitted to re-appointment in a wholly unprecedented manner at the
hands of a foreign ecclesiastic. And it is scarcely less remarkable
that a proceeding so unusual, if it really took place, should have left
no trace in the official records of the Kingdom and been passed over in
silence by all the chroniclers of the time.


NOTE VII

THE PAPAL LETTERS OF 1223

The four papal letters summarized in p. 202 are to be found in the Red
Book of the Exchequer, fol. 171. The letter which there stands first
of the four--that to the Earls and barons of England--is printed in
_Foedera_, I. i. p. 190 (with a marginal date, 1228, which does not
agree with the date at the end of the letter itself). The salutation
of all four is given in the Red Book as “Gregorius Papa,” etc., and
the date as “idus Aprilis anno primo,” _i.e._, 13th April, 1227. The
fact that some instructions about Henry’s coming of age, and about the
castles, were issued by Honorius III in 1223 appears from at least
three independent sources: the Dunstable Annals, Roger of Wendover, and
the _Querimonia Falcasii_. For the precise wording of any portion of
these instructions, and the date on which they (or a portion of them)
were issued, the sole authority which has hitherto been recognized is
a dateless letter preserved among the “bundles” in the Public Record
Office, and printed by Shirley in _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 430,
431. Its salutation runs “Sanctissimo patri ... G. Dei gratia summo
pontifici, P. Wintoniensis et H. Elyensis divina miseratione episcopi”;
_i.e._ it is a letter to Pope Gregory IX from Bishops Hugh of Ely who
was consecrated in June, 1229, and Peter of Winchester who died in
June, 1238. (Why Shirley dated this letter “June, 1232--April, 1234,”
I cannot guess.) These two prelates write: “Noverit sancta paternitas
vestra nos mandatum piae recordationis Honorii praedecessoris vestri
propriis manibus tractasse et oculis propriis inspexisse in haec verba:
‘Honorius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilecto filio ...’ (Shirley
left a blank for the name or initial; presumably it was undecipherable)
‘Cycestrensi electo, carissimi in Christo filii nostri regis Anglorum
vice-cancellario, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.’” They then
proceed to quote the whole letter; and it is absolutely identical
with the fourth of the letters concerning Henry’s majority, ascribed
in the Red Book to Gregory, except that its date is “idus Aprilis,
pontificatus nostri anno septimo,” _i.e._, 13th April, 1223. Long ago
Dr. Stubbs remarked that “Curiously enough, the bull of Gregory IX to
the same effect” [as the letters in which Honorius on 13th April, 1223,
had “declared Henry, although not yet of age, competent to govern”] “is
dated 13th April, 1227” (_Const. Hist._, vol. ii. p. 34, note 2, 1875).
A careful consideration of the subject has led me to the conviction
that this “curious” correspondence of month and day is due to the fact
that the words _idus Aprilis_ are the only correct part of the date as
given by the scribe of the Red Book, and that the four letters have
been attributed by him to a wrong Pope, being in reality all alike
letters of Honorius III, issued on 13th April, 1223.

These four letters obviously form a group whose members are so
inseparably inter-related that they must stand or fall together. The
chief member of this group is not the one which the Exchequer scribe
has placed at its head (the one printed in _Foedera_), but that which
he has placed second, and which is addressed to Peter des Roches,
Hubert de Burgh, and William Brewer conjointly. It is these three men
whom the Pope charges to give the young King free disposition of his
realm; the addressees of the other three letters are merely bidden
to perform the special duties which will fall to them severally as
a consequence of this primary command, which the Pope in each case
expressly tells them he is giving to Peter, Hubert, and William. We
have seen that the fourth letter is textually identical with one
which, according to Bishops Peter and Hugh, was written on 13th April,
1223, by Honorius to the vice-chancellor. This identity extends to
the salutation (except of course as to the writer’s name); in the Red
Book version, as in that of the two bishops, the letter is addressed
“Cycestrensi electo, vice-cancellario.” Now, the only man who was at
the same time “elect of Chichester and vice-chancellor” was Ralf de
Neville (who was elected to Chichester early in 1223); and before the
first year of Pope Gregory began, Ralf had ceased to be either the one
or the other--he had become Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor. Thus
the compiler of the portion of the Red Book in which these letters
occur has luckily betrayed his own error. Probably he had, in the first
draft of his notes, copied these letters from their originals in the
Exchequer without putting the Pope’s name or initial at their head,
and when he came to re-copy his notes into the Red Book he--writing
at a time when Henry’s first coming of age was no longer a matter of
practical importance and may well have been almost forgotten, knowing
that Henry had been set free from the trammels of minority while still
under age, and in the first year of Gregory IX, and failing to notice
the chronological indication conveyed in the address _Cycestrensi
electo vice-cancellario_--ascribed the letters to Gregory, and (as he
doubtless imagined) corrected the year accordingly. The words which I
have italicized are indeed not the only ones which shew that he was
mistaken in so doing. The whole contents of all four letters fit in
perfectly with the circumstances of 1223; but a considerable portion
of those contents is quite inappropriate to the circumstances of 1227.
At this latter date the controversy about the castles was a thing of
the past.

In further confirmation of this view of the matter, we find Hubert,
in his answers to a long indictment brought against him by the King
in 1239, quoting, from four letters addressed (1) “Comitibus et
baronibus,” (2) and (3) “Comiti Cestriae” and “sub eisdem verbis
Wintoniensi Episcopo,” (4) “Cancellario,” passages which all occur in
the letters correspondingly addressed in the Red Book, and he describes
all these quotations as taken from privileges of Pope Honorius. These
answers were put into writing by Master Laurence of S. Alban’s;
Laurence’s notes were preserved in a commonplace book of his abbey,
and they figure among the miscellaneous collections of Matthew Paris
as _Responsiones Magistri Laurentii de S. Albano pro comite Kantiae
Huberto de Burgo_ (_Chron. Maj._, vol. vi. pp. 63–74). The answers
in general have an appearance of honesty; but they were drawn up
many years after the occurrence of some of the events to which they
relate; and from this or some other cause the version given in them of
the whole story of Henry’s coming of age is extremely confused, and
certainly inaccurate in some particulars, the events of 1227 and those
of 1223 being inextricably mixed up together. Hubert’s description of
the Pope’s letter about the great seal as addressed “_Cancellario_,”
however, presents no difficulty. The word may stand simply for “him who
is Chancellor now,” or the prefix _vice_ may have been omitted by the
scribe.

Of the letter in which Honorius bade the prelates enforce by
ecclesiastical censure a general surrender of all the royal castles
(above, p. 206), no actual copy is known; but there is no reason to
question the accuracy of Roger of Wendover’s report of its contents.
That report is, I think, confirmed by the brief but significant
statements of Falkes de Bréauté. In 1225 Falkes (probably with the help
of Robert Passelewe, a well known man of law) drew up a “Complaint”
addressed to the Pope and Cardinals about the recent proceedings in
England against himself. This complaint is inserted in the Barnwell
Annals under the heading _Querimonia Falcasii coram Domino Papa_ (W.
Cov., vol. ii. pp. 259–272). It sets the whole political history of
England during the years 1221–1224 in a light startlingly different
from that in which the same history is treated by the chroniclers;
and although its author certainly had good opportunity of knowing the
truth about the matters of which he wrote, there are obvious reasons
which make him a dangerous authority to rely upon implicitly. The fact,
however, that the “Complaint” was addressed to Honorius furnishes some
guarantee of the correctness of its statements so far as they relate to
the action of Honorius himself. These statements are as follows:--

“Cum _a sede apostolica jussio processisset ut castra, ballia, et
caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur, adjuncta
clausula_ quod rex ipse jam adultus factus compelli non posset habere
tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus; dictus justiciarius
et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones” etc. (here follows
the story of Lacy and Musard and of Chester’s rising, see above, pp.
203, 204). “Interim tamen ... cum rex apud Northamptonam sollemnitatem
Natalis sicut mos est celebrasset, effectum est ... ut tam comes
Cestriae quam alii supranominati ad regis curiam vocarentur. Quibus ...
in ipsius et archiepiscopi et quorundam episcoporum qui simul aderant
presentia constitutis, _exhibitae fuerunt quaedam literae apostolicae
in quibus continebatur ut esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum
facienda_” (pp. 261–262). In the first of the two passages which I have
italicized the compulsory surrender of all royal castles etc. seems
to be represented as the chief point dealt with in the papal mandate
referred to, the King’s majority being apparently treated merely as
an adjunct; while in the second passage the former point is still
further emphasized by the latter not being mentioned at all. I think
we may gather from these two passages that the papal mandates which
Falkes had in his mind were not those preserved in the Royal Letters
and the Red Book, but those whose substance is preserved by Roger of
Wendover. The Dunstable annalist says that Henry’s _quasi_-majority
was decided upon and proclaimed “by order of the Pope and assent of
the barons,” _i.e._, the Pope’s letter to Peter, Hubert, and William
Brewer was published in a council at London, on the King’s return from
Wales (see above, footnote 921). The Rolls shew that Henry reached
London on 22nd October and remained there till 8th November (_Close
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 566 b, 567, 575 b, 576). As, however, it was not
till 9th December that Henry began to attest his own letters, it seems
that either the annalist’s date must not be taken literally, or the
proclamation remained inoperative for more than a month. I think it
can be shewn that the latter was the case. The Rolls indicate that the
affair of Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard had taken place before 15th
November (above, footnote 924). Falkes says that after that affair
Henry and Hubert went to Gloucester; the Rolls shew that they were
at Gloucester 16–22nd November (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 575 b–576
b). Chester’s attempt on the Tower must have been made during their
absence from London. We know from the Rolls that they were there again
from 28th November till 12th, perhaps till 19th December (_ib._ pp.
576 b–579); the rebels’ appearance before them and the scene between
Peter and Hubert must thus have taken place there between 28th November
and 5th December, since, as we learn from Falkes (p. 261), the “truce”
arranged immediately after it by Langton began on 6th December. It was
only in this December council that “the papal letters which declared
him (Henry) of age were acted upon” (Powicke, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol.
xxiii. p. 221), _i.e._, that the King began to attest his own letters,
and, probably, the great seal began to follow the King instead of being
kept at the Exchequer (_ib._, p. 224). Falkes, however, seems to imply
that the papal command “ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a
cunctis tenentibus redderentur” was known in England before the affair
of Lacy and Musard took place. On the other hand he tells us that
certain Apostolic letters “in quibus continebatur quod esset domino
regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” were “exhibited”--seemingly for
the first time--at Christmas. To me all this seems to indicate that the
letter to Peter, Hubert, and William and the letter to the prelates,
had both reached the English court before the end of October; that the
first was published then as the annalist says, but was not carried into
immediate effect; that the second was published, as Roger implies,
early in December, but that a number of barons--Falkes among them--not
being present at its publication, had no _official_ knowledge of it
till it was “exhibited” to them at Christmas.

While the barons in general seem to have regarded Hubert as the
instigator of the papal order for a compulsory surrender of castles,
etc., Falkes, hostile though he is to the Justiciar, neither asserts
nor hints at any thing of the kind. He says indeed nothing whatever as
to any suspicions which he or others may have had concerning the origin
of that order. Yet I cannot but think that he had a suspicion, and
possibly not altogether an unlikely one. Both on personal and political
grounds Falkes is bitter enough against Hubert; to him, Hubert is a
personal enemy and also an enemy of the peace and prosperity of King
and kingdom; but he is neither the sole nor the chief enemy. Throughout
his “Complaint,” even in reference to matters in which Hubert appears
as the principal or the sole actor, Falkes speaks of “the Justiciar and
his accomplices”; and the foremost of these “accomplices,” according
to Falkes’s version of history, is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is Stephen, not Hubert, who is the arch-enemy in the eyes of
Falkes--the relentless persecutor of Falkes himself, the persistent
sower of discord and plotter of mischief in the realm; one passage
relating to him in the _Querimonia_ reads almost like a paraphrase
of the accusation said by the Dunstable annalist to have been flung,
in a moment of fury, by Hubert at Peter des Roches (above, p. 207).
The animus displayed by Falkes against Stephen is in fact so violent
that we instinctively feel his narrative is not to be trusted _in
details_ where the Archbishop is concerned. Yet there is no intrinsic
impossibility in its account of the formal surrender of the castles,
in which Stephen is distinctly made to play the most prominent part
(above, p. 210). We have seen the difficulties involved in supposing
that the Pope’s action was prompted by any person or party among the
other councillors of the Crown. Can it have been prompted--on the
broad ground of the interest of public order and stable government,
irrespective of persons and parties--by the Archbishop of Canterbury?


NOTE VIII

THE ROYAL CASTLES IN 1223–1224

The entries in the Patent Roll concerning the changes which took place
in the custody of royal castles from November, 1223, to March, 1224,
have been collected by Dr. Shirley in Appendix ii. to his edition of
_Royal Letters_, vol. i. pp. 508–516. They are there given in the form
and the order in which they appear on the Roll, and accompanied by some
other entries which have no direct bearing on the general surrender and
redistribution of castles after Christmas, 1223. The entries whose date
is earlier than 29th December, 1223, have of course also no bearing
upon that subject. A summary analysis, in chronological order, of
those which do relate to it may therefore be useful to elucidate and
check the statements in my text, pp. 210–212. My references are to the
printed Patent Rolls of Henry III, vol. i.

From 30th December, 1223, to 13th March, 1224, (after which no further
important changes seem to have taken place for some time) orders were
issued for the transfer of the custody of thirty-three castles, viz:
Shrewsbury, Bridgenorth, Lancaster, Kenilworth, Windsor, Odiham,
Knaresborough, the Peak, Bolsover, Salisbury, Devizes, Corfe, Bristol,
Sherborne, Lincoln, S. Briavel’s, Oxford, Northampton, Hertford,
Rochester, Norwich, Orford, Dover, Canterbury, Hereford, Winchester,
Porchester, Southampton, Carisbrook, Christchurch, Plympton,
Marlborough, Luggershall. On 30th December Earl Ranulf of Chester was
bidden to deliver the castles of Shrewsbury and Bridgenorth, and the
shires of Salop and Stafford, to Hugh le Despenser. In the custody of
Lancaster castle, county, and honour Ranulf was to be superseded by
Earl Ferrers. Kenilworth castle and the shires of Leicester and Warwick
were transferred from William de Cantelupe to John Russell; Windsor
and Odiham from Engelard de Cigogné to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Brian de Lisle was ordered to deliver Knaresborough to the Archbishop
of York, the Peak and Bolsover to Robert of Lexington, who was however
to receive the latter fortress not for himself, but to hand it over to
William Brewer (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 418). Earl William Longsword
was to deliver the castle of Salisbury, William Brewer that of Devizes
and Ralf Gernon that of Corfe, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Bristol
castle was to pass from the Bishop of Norwich (Pandulf), Sherborne
castle and the sheriffdom of Somerset from John Russell, to the Bishop
of Bath; Lincoln castle from Stephen de Sedgrave to the bishop of the
diocese (_ib._ p. 419. It is not quite clear whether at this time
Stephen de Sedgrave was castellan of Lincoln in his own person, or as
assistant to Nicolaa de Haye). Falkes de Bréauté was to deliver the
castle and shire of Oxford to Richard de Rivers; those of Northampton
to Ralf de Trubleville; and the castle of Hertford to William of
Eynesford (_ib._ p. 418). The Justiciar was to deliver the castles of
Rochester, Norwich, Orford, and Hereford, to their respective diocesan
bishops, Dover and Canterbury to the Primate (_ib._ pp. 418–419). The
supersession of John of Monmouth as custodian of S. Briavel’s and of
the Forest of Dene is expressly stated to be due to his voluntary
resignation on the score of ill-health; on 4th January, 1224, the
castle and Forest were committed momentarily to the Bishop of Hereford,
to be by him delivered to Walter Asmoins, whom the King appointed
warden of them under Ralf FitzNicholas (_ib._ pp. 419–420).

On 7th January, 1224, the Bishop of Winchester was ordered to deliver
the castles of Winchester, Porchester, and Southampton, with the
sheriffdom of Hampshire, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Within five
days, however, Jocelyn was superseded in all these bailiwicks by the
Earl of Salisbury. On 12th January Hertford castle was transferred
from its newly appointed constable, William of Eynesford, to Stephen
de Sedgrave (_ib._ p. 420), who again was on 23rd January superseded
there by Richard de Argentine (_ib._ p. 425). An order was issued
on 12th January for the transfer of Windsor and Odiham to Hubert de
Burgh, but seems to have been cancelled, for on 4th February these
two castles were still in the hands to which they had been committed
on 30th December--those of the Primate, who was now bidden to deliver
them to Osbert Giffard (_ib._ pp. 420, 421). On 2nd February Falkes was
ordered to deliver Carisbrook and Christchurch to Waleran the German
(“le Theys”) to whom the King had given them in custody together with
the lands of the late Earl Willam of Devon and the castle of Plympton
(_ib._ p. 427). On 7th February the Bishop of Norwich was ordered to
deliver Marlborough castle to Robert Wolf (“Lupus”; _ib._ p. 426). On
2nd March another new constable was appointed to Marlborough, Robert de
Meisy, who was at the same time made constable of Luggershall; whether
John Little, who was ordered to deliver these two fortresses to Meisy
(_ib._ p. 428), was sub-warden of them for the recently appointed Wolf
or for Pandulf, does not appear. On 11th March Robert de Lexington was
bidden to deliver Bolsover to William Brewer (_ib._ p. 429), for whom
he had received it in January. On 13th March Pandulf was desired to
deliver Bristol “without delay” to Reginald de Hurle and John Little
(_ib._). Lastly, on the same day, Plympton, of which Waleran “le
Theys” had been appointed custodian six weeks before, was committed
to Walter de Falkenberg (_ib._ p. 430). This appointment, like that
of Waleran, proved ineffectual, owing to the resistance of Falkes.
Falkes had on 18th January been ordered to deliver the shires of
Bedford and Buckingham to William de Pateshull, and those of Cambridge
and Huntingdon to Richard de Argentine (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p.
581 b; cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 421); the two latter shires were
immediately transferred again, to Geoffrey de Heathfield (_Pat. Rolls_,
_l.c._).


NOTE IX

FALKES AND THE “THIRTY PAIRS OF LETTERS.”

The number of illegal disseisins of which Falkes was convicted at
Dunstable in June, 1224 (above, p. 231), is officially stated as
sixteen: “Cum ... Falcatius ... coram judicibus eisdem in sexdecim
causis fuisset convictus ... et ad restitutionem ablatorum et
satisfactionem plenam debito modo condemnatus,” are the words of King
Henry himself in a letter to the Pope (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 225).
Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 94) says “Cecidit in misericordia
regis de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum, de quibus singulis in
centum libris debuerat condemnari.” Matthew Paris (_Chron. Maj._, vol.
iii. p. 84, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 263) copies this; and in an
original paragraph of his own, inserted at the end of Roger’s account
of the Bedford affair, he says that Falkes “xxxii liberos homines
in manerio de Luituna sine judicio de suis tenementis disseisiavit”
(_Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 88). The Dunstable annalist (p. 90) says
“Falchasius de triginta quinque saisinis convictus est.” Of course
the evidence of the King’s letter is decisive. Roger’s odd phrase,
“de plusquam triginta _paribus litterarum_,” reveals how the number
came to be doubled. At some date obviously earlier (probably not less,
possibly much more, than six months earlier, since the complaint of
the earls is addressed to the Justiciar, not the King) than this
Dunstable affair, the Earls of Salisbury and Pembroke, writing to
Hubert about Falkes’s outrageous conduct towards John Marshal, reported
“quod dominus Johannes Marescallus nobis per literas suas mandavit
quod, cum misisset literas domini regis domino Falcasio de Brealte pro
bosco suo ... idem Falkasius ad literas domini regis respondit quod si
ei misisset triginta paria literarum domini regis, pacem utique non
haberet de praedicto bosco,” etc. (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 221, 222).
This story of Falkes’s declaration, uttered in a moment of anger, that
“_if_ thirty pairs of royal letters should be sent to him” in behalf of
one particular person, he would pay no heed to them, seemingly became
confused, before it reached S. Alban’s and Dunstable, with a wholly
different matter, and the “thirty pairs of letters” were supposed to
have been actually sent, as the consequence of his conviction before
Henry de Braybroke of the same number of disseisins; Roger or his
informant inserted a “plusquam” on the strength of which Matthew raised
the number to thirty-two; while the Dunstable annalist further improved
it to thirty-five.


NOTE X

BEDFORD CASTLE

The nature of Falkes’s tenure of Bedford castle is a question of some
difficulty. The only entry relating to it in the Rolls is provokingly
laconic: “Mandatum est Waltero de Bellocampo quod habere faciat
Falkesio de Breaute manerium de Seldelegia quod est de honore de
Bedefordia, quia dominus rex castrum de Bedefordia cum toto honore
et pertinentiis dedit Falkesio,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 250 b,
4th March, 1216. In July, 1224, King Henry, writing to the Pope
about Falkes, calls Bedford “quoddam castrum nostrum quod habebat in
custodia” (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 225, 226). So too the Waverley
annalist (a. 1224):--“castellum de Bedford quod ab eodem rege [Johanne]
in custodiam acceperat.” One of the complaints brought against Hubert
in 1239 in connexion with the Bedford affair was that on the capture of
the castle he “illud prosterni fecit et reddi Willelmo de Bellocampo,
super quem dominus J. rex castrum illud ceperat per guerram, et unde
J. rex seisitus fuit quando obiit.” To this Hubert answered that “per
consilium magnatum Angliae fuit castrum obsessum, captum, et dirutum
... et quia idem Willelmus semper erat petens versus dictum Falconem
dictum castrum ut jus suum, nec habere potuit donec fuit captum per
dominum regem; idem dominus rex de consilio magnatum suorum, propter
formam pacis factae et prae timore sententiae latae” (_i.e._ the
promise of general amnesty and restitution included in the treaty
of Kingston, and the excommunication pronounced against infractors)
“dictam sedem castri ei reddidit, tenendum eodem modo quo antecessores
sui tenuerunt, prout patet in rotulis domini regis.” (_Respons._ pp.
67–69; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632). The Barnwell annalist (W.
Cov., vol. ii. p. 253) says the castle “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum
de Bello Campo”; and Ralf of Coggeshall (pp. 205, 206), says “Rex
Johannes ... contulit etiam ei [_i.e._ Falconi] terram Willelmi de
Bellocampo, qui enim cum aliis baronibus contra regem conspiraverat.
Dedit insuper ei castellum de Bedeford pro servitio suo, et charta sua
confirmavit.... Cumque caeteri barones custodias suas regi, ut dictum
est, tradidissent” (after Christmas, 1223), “Falco etiam custodias
suas regi similiter tradidit; sed castellum de Bedeford nullo modo
regi aut Willelmo de Bellocampo tradere voluit, asserens illud suum
esse proprium, et a rege Johanne sibi fuisse donatum, et charta sua
fore confirmatum pro tam laborioso et diutino servitio suo.” Falkes
in his Complaint to the Pope twice speaks of Bedford castle as his
own property: “privilegio vestrae sedis per quae ... _tam castrum
quam caetera bona nostra_” (_mea_ in another MS.) “sub protectione
benignitatis vestrae fuerant constituta,” p. 264; “amissio _castri
mei_,” p. 272; and the Pope, writing to the King on 17th August, 1224,
says “castrum de Betford quod ipse pater tuus eidem [Falchesio] ...
sicut dicitur, liberalitate regia, immo merita retributione donavit,”
_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 544.

To understand these various statements we have first to determine
what was the relation between the honour of Bedford and the castle
of Bedford. The former had been given by William Rufus to Payne de
Beauchamp, and on land which formed part of it Payne built the castle.
Payne’s heirs were deprived of their patrimony by Stephen. After the
conclusion of the civil war they recovered their lands (Dugdale,
_Baronage_, vol. i. p. 223), but not the castle, for in the Pipe Roll
of 34 Hen. II (1187–1188) the accounts of the sheriff of Bedfordshire
include an item of four pounds and six shillings spent “in the works
of the castle of Bedford and of the postern towards the water”
(Goddard, _Siege of Bedford_, p. 17, from _Bedfordshire Archæological
Transactions_, vol. xii. p. 249), a fact which shews that the castle
was then the property of the King. In 1189–1190 Simon de Beauchamp
paid into the Treasury one hundred pounds, “to be governor of the
castle of Bedford” (Dugdale, _l.c._, from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I). These
words clearly indicate that Simon was to hold the castle not in fee,
but as its constable for the Crown. The bargain between him and King
Richard may have included some understanding that the constableship
was to be hereditary (somewhat as another branch of the Beauchamp
family were hereditary constables of Worcester castle and sheriffs of
Worcestershire), for Simon was succeeded in it by his son William; it
was by entertaining the rebel barons in Bedford castle that William
incurred forfeiture in 1215 (R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 299). It is clear
that the seisin of Bedford castle was then, and had been for many years
past, in the Crown; John would therefore be perfectly within his rights
if in 1216 he chose to alienate the castle altogether by granting it to
Falkes in fee. But the treaty of Kingston enacted that all men should
be reinstated in their rights (as well as their lands) as they had held
them when the war between John and the barons began. This definition
would apparently entitle William de Beauchamp to claim restitution of
the constableship of Bedford castle, if that office had been recognized
by Richard and John as hereditary. Beauchamp “came in” to King Henry in
August, 1217, and orders were at once given for the restoration of some
of his lands (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 319 b); of the rest, including
those in Bedfordshire, he was granted restitution early in October
(_ib._ pp. 325 b, 326). Falkes, however, was slow to loose his hold
upon the honour of Bedford, and further royal letters bidding him give
Beauchamp full seisin of it were issued in February, 1222 (_ib._ p. 488
b). Neither in these letters nor in those of 1217 is there any mention
of the castle.

Ralf of Coggeshall’s story is not self-consistent. He begins by
stating, as a positive fact, that John had given Bedford castle to
Falkes by charter. Afterwards, however, this fact dwindles down to an
assertion reported to have been made by Falkes in answer to a demand
in 1223–1224 for restitution of the castle either to the King or to
Beauchamp. No charter such as is here mentioned appears in the Charter
Rolls of John’s reign. This of course does not prove that no such
charter ever existed; nor does the fact that the Patent and Close
Rolls of Henry’s reign contain no hint of Falkes’s having ever, before
the capture of Henry de Braybroke, been summoned to deliver up the
castle, prove that no such summons was ever issued. The words of Falkes
himself and those of the Pope--these latter being of course based on
information derived from Falkes or his friends--imply that he claimed
to hold the castle in fee. But even if this claim was really based on a
charter, it could scarcely have availed to bar the claim of the King;
for by the treaty of Kingston the Crown as well as its subjects, was
to regain whatever it had been seised of before the war, and it had
certainly been seised of Bedford castle from the time of Henry II till
the autumn of 1215; it seems therefore that Henry might have considered
himself entitled to treat a charter granted by his father after that
date as null and void, and thus to call Bedford _castrum nostrum_. With
regard to its custody as a royal castle, the law of the matter may very
likely have been quite uncertain. It may have been at least arguable
that the definition laid down in the treaty did not necessarily cover
the custody of a royal castle even if held by hereditary right; and
it must be remembered that we do not know what was the precise nature
of the tenure by which Beauchamp had held that office. The Barnwell
writer, however, certainly appears to have gone too far in stating
that the castle itself “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum de Bello Campo.”
It had belonged to William’s ancestors; but William’s father had
practically renounced all claim to its ownership by fining with King
Richard for the office of its constable. William’s right in it was at
the utmost only an hereditary title to that office. Whether John did
grant the castle to Falkes in fee, or whether he died seised of it
himself (as Hubert said)--having given merely the custody of it, as
well as the enjoyment of the honour of Bedford, to Falkes _quamdiu regi
placuerit_--we cannot determine. From Henry’s accession till autumn,
1223, any question which might exist on the subject between Falkes and
the Crown was of little practical consequence. It was recognized on
all hands that throughout that period whatever castles Falkes held,
whether as constable or as lord, he held loyally for the King and used
for the King’s interest with a rare capability and diligence. Henry’s
counsellors might well prefer to leave this particular detail of the
great castle-problem undiscussed _usque ad aetatem regis_. Still more
natural was it that Beauchamp’s claim should get no hearing till Falkes
had incurred forfeiture in his turn. Then King and Council decided
that it would be prudent to satisfy Beauchamp without giving him a
chance of treading in Falkes’s steps or repeating his own act of 1215;
and they did so by pulling the half ruined castle down altogether and
granting him the site, with leave to build himself _not_ a castle, but
a dwelling-house, out of its stones (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632, 632
b).


NOTE XI

THE HANGING OF THE BEDFORD GARRISON

Eight writers tell this grim story very briefly--seven of them in
almost identical words--differing only as to the number of the victims.
A ninth--Falkes--has a longer and more elaborate version.

(1) “In crastino autem, cum omnes vulnerati et plagis lethiferis
afflicti exiissent et ad presentiam regis adducti fuissent, addicti
sunt ad suspendium universi; suspensi sunt itaque, inter milites
et servientes, qui propter superbiam suam quam regi ostenderant in
obsidione jam finita non potuerunt misericordiam impetrare.” Here, in
the only two known MSS. of his history (Douce ccvii. and Cott. Otho B.
v.), Roger of Wendover’s sentence ends. Obviously it is incomplete, and
was meant to have been completed by the addition of a number; but the
omission appears to have been an oversight in the original text, for in
neither of the extant copies is there any blank between “impetrare” and
the first word of the next sentence, “Henricus.” The addition “[viginti
quatuor]” in the printed editions (Coxe, vol. iv. p. 98; Howlett, vol.
ii. p. 281) is derived from Matthew Paris.

(2) Matthew Paris in his _Chronica Majora_ (vol. iii. p. 87) copies
Roger exactly; but opposite “impetrare” he has written in one margin
of his MS. “viginti quatuor,” and in the other margin “dub. de numero”
(_ib._, note 1). In the _Historia Anglorum_ (vol. ii. pp. 264, 265)
he says: “Suspensi sunt itaque inter milites et servientes circiter
xxiiiiᵒʳ.” In both works he adds: “Tamen, multiplicatis intercessoribus
et intervenientibus quibusdam rationibus excusatoriis, pepercit rex
tribus, qui tamen propter regis jusjurandum salvandum laqueati a terra
suspensi sunt, sed non usque ad mortem.”

(3) “Capto igitur castro, in Assumptione Beatae Virginis Mariae fere
omnes in eo repertos, tam milites quam servientes, vita privavit
sententia ignominiosa. Nam jussu regio circiter lxxxᵃ in patibulis sunt
suspensi.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254.

(4) “Mane vero sequenti, ante tribunal regis exhibiti, et per episcopos
ab excommunicatione absoluti, ad mandatum regis et justitiarii sui
suspensi sunt in patibulis octoginta et plures. Tres vero ad preces
principum rex indulsit Templariis, ut in habito suo in Terra Sancta
Domino militarent.” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 88.

(5) “Repertos in eodem castro, non considerata cujusquam generositate,
usque ad octoginta duos et amplius digno condempnavit suspendio [rex].”
_Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 114.

(6) “In patibulis suspenduntur tam milites quam servientes, die
Assumptionis Beatae Mariae Virginis, numero octoginta tres.” R.
Coggeshall, p. 207.

(7) “Omnes fere qui sponte ingressi in castello inventi sunt suspensi
sunt in patibulis, in die videlicet Assumptionis Beatae Mariae, homines
circiter octoginta.” _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224.

(8) “Suspensi sunt xiv milites.” T. Wykes, a. 1220.

(9) “Milites in manu domini regis et misericordia archiepiscopi et
episcoporum se devotissime offerentes, sub tutela ecclesiae sicut
crucesignati, et quia sub appellationis ad vos” (the Pope) “factae
credebant defendi subsidio, in exercitum de castro prodierunt. Quibus
in die Assumptionis dato cum ignominio absolutionis beneficio, idem
Archiepiscopus cum episcopis Hugoni Lincolniensi, Jocelino Batoniensi
et Radulfo Cicestrensi ad regem ingressus est ... ipsius regis
adolescentiam ad indebitam provocans iracundiam, talia verba profudit:
‘Nos quidem ut nos decuit rigorem sumus ecclesiasticam executi;
jam restat regem facere quod suum est.’ Cumque ad haec verba regis
obstupesceret innocentia, et quaereret quid ad majestatem regiam
pertineret, rursus idem archiepiscopus, non pater patriae sed tyrannus,
‘Justitiarium,’ inquit, ‘hujus dicti oportet esse interpretem, quia
quid ad vos pertineat edocebit.’ Ne autem pro nihilo dictis comitatus
esset episcopis, unus ex eis, videlicet Batoniensis, dixit: ‘Si
suspensi fuissent qui capti fuerunt apud Biham, isti qui nunc capti
sunt nullatenus castrum adversus nutum regium tenuissent.’ Postea vero
apud regem altercatione suborta an exspectandi essent barones regni pro
judicio faciendo, singuli qui aderant causa prandii ad propria tentoria
secesserunt; ipsaque hora prandii milites, servientes, juvenes,
cujuscunque conditionis quantaeque nobilitatis, ad numerum nonaginta
vii, tam archiepiscopo quam dictis episcopis inspicientibus, in dedecus
militiae et perpetuum regis opprobrium sunt suspensi.... Clamore autem
tantae crudelitatis audito, aliqui de mensis propriis occurrentes de
furcis et patibulis aliquos liberaverunt, qui tamen sub custodia adhuc
detinentur.” _Quer. Falc._, pp. 267, 268.

Now, Falkes certainly did not witness the scenes which he here
describes. They may have been reported to him by a member of the
Council; but we have no guarantee for the reporter’s truthfulness or
accuracy, or even for the report having originated elsewhere than in
Falkes’s own brain--a brain which, keen as it was in other respects,
really seems to have been, from some cause which we cannot fathom,
hardly sane on matters in which Stephen de Langton was concerned. The
narrative clearly conveys, and is clearly meant to convey, that it was
Stephen who instigated the hanging of the garrison; that he did so in
veiled language which the young King’s “innocence” at first failed
to understand; that Stephen cast the responsibility of explaining it
on the Justiciar (whom, it will be remembered, Falkes has all along
represented as being hand and glove with the Archbishop); that before
even the justiciar could speak, its meaning was made plain by one of
three bishops whom the Primate had brought with him into the King’s
presence for that very purpose; that the laymen of the Council, less
bloodthirsty than the Primate, hesitated to adopt his suggestion
and put off the decision till after dinner; and that while all the
barons were occupied with that meal, the deed was done behind their
backs (of course under orders issued by the Justiciar in the King’s
name), Stephen and his three episcopal friends feasting their eyes
on the sight. We should certainly require some other authority than
Falkes to make us accept this story as he would have his readers
accept it. But the main incidents of the story may be true, and only
their meaning perverted by the narrator; the outlines of the picture
may be correct, and only the colouring false. The Bedford garrison
had submitted to the King; they were therefore entitled to be, after
doing penance in the usual form, absolved from the excommunication
which had been pronounced against them for resisting him. But they
had submitted only on compulsion; therefore they were, by the law of
the land, still liable to the extreme penalty due to men who were
taken fighting against the person of their sovereign. The duty of the
prelates towards these prisoners was to enforce their penance and then
give them absolution; this the prelates had done; and therewith their
part in the Council’s action was at an end. The temporal fate of the
prisoners was a question of life or death, and in such questions, it is
well known, ecclesiastics had no voice. In a case such as the present
one, it was for the King’s lay counsellors to advise him, and for the
King to decide; and if, owing to a divergence of opinions among those
counsellors or from any other cause, the young sovereign thus called
upon to exercise for the first time such a weighty prerogative felt
doubtful of its extent or of the right direction in which to exercise
it, the Justiciar was the person to whom he should look for guidance.
This, and nothing more, is the plain and natural meaning of the words
which Falkes places in the mouth of the Primate. In themselves they
afford no ground for the interpretation which he evidently wished his
readers to put upon them. Some of the barons were still, it seems,
leniently disposed towards Falkes; many of them may have been reluctant
to send brave soldiers to the gallows; if so, the execution may have
been carried out somewhat as Falkes states. His account of the rescue
of “some who are still”--_i.e._, some nine months later--“detained in
custody” is easily reconciled with the story told by Matthew Paris and
the Dunstable annalist of the three who were given to the Templars. The
touch about the four prelates gloating over the ghastly scene may be
set down to a fevered imagination.




INDEX


  “Aid,” 82;
    from clergy, 264;
    for Holy Land, 194

  Alexander, King of Scots, 77;
    his seizure of Carlisle, 87;
    homage, _ib._;
    negotiations with Pandulf, 126;
    treaty with Henry, 140;
    meeting with Henry, 145;
    marriage, 171

  Angoulême, county of, 132

  Aquitaine, its relations with the English Crown, 130–132;
    complaints of the towns, 138, 142, 143;
    projects about seneschalship, 143, 144;
    seneschals of, _see_ Bordeaux, Mauléon, Neville, Pons, Ulecote,
      Vivonne. _See also_ Gascony, Poitou

  Arras, Hugh, constable of, 20, 31, 44

  Arundel, Earl of, 49

  Athée, family of, 74–75

  Aubigné, Philip of, at Henry’s coronation, 5;
    at council of Bristol, 9;
    commands English fleet, 21;
    takes Porchester, 26;
    his sea-fight with French, 31;
    at battle of Sandwich, 51, 52, 54;
    the King’s “master,” 180;
    envoy to Poitou, 187, 188, 252, 255;
    to France, 197

  Aubigny, William of, 25, 33

  Aumale, William, Count of, 9, 33;
    rebels, 121–123, 154, 155, 163–167;
    proposed as seneschal of Poitou, 143, 156;
    at siege of Bedford, 238


  Baliol, Hugh de, 17, footnote 490

  Barres, William des, 52

  Basset, Alan, 6, 9

  Basset, Thomas, 33

  Bath, Jocelyn, bishop of, 4, 212

  Beauchamp, Walter de, 9

  Beauchamp, William de, 238, 294–296

  Bedford, castle of, 231, 238;
    its ownership, 293–296;
    siege of, 232, 239, 242–244;
    fate of the garrison, 244, 296–299

  Berkhamsted, surrendered to Louis, 18

  Blanche of Castille, 48, 264, 265

  Bloet, William, 43

  Bordeaux, 141, 144, 251

  Bordeaux, William, archbishop of, 131

  Braybroke, Henry de, 29, 44, note 6, 45, 230, 231, 244

  Bréauté, Falkes de, _see_ Falkes

  Bréauté, family of, 225, footnote 1039

  Bréauté, William de, footnote 1039, 230–232

  Breuse, Reginald de, 89, 90, 173, 196

  Brewer, William, 5, 9, 211, 214

  Bristol, council at, 9, 10;
    castle of, 212, 282, 283

  Brittany, Duke of, 264

  Burgh, Hubert de, defends Dover, 16;
    at council of Bristol, 9, 17;
    offices under John, 116, 117;
    Justiciar, 70, 117, footnote 614;
    at battle of Sandwich, 51;
    dealings with Aquitaine, 139, 144;
    with London rioters, 185, 186;
    marries Margaret of Scotland, 174;
    marches against Llywelyn, 191, 192;
    raises siege of Builth, 196;
    fortifies Montgomery, _ib._;
    his supremacy, 198, 199;
    charges against him, 115, 201, 206, 207, 235, 267;
    league against, 204;
    quarrel with Bishop Peter, 207;
    reconciled with the barons, 217;
    castles held by him, 154, 211–213;
    his charges against Falkes, 235, 236;
    dealings with Poitou and with Falkes, 237;
    relations with Salisbury, 254, 255;
    his “Responsiones,” 288

  Burgh, Raymond de, 254

  Burgh, Richard de, 124, 218, 259

  Bytham, castle of, 163–167


  Caerleon-upon-Usk, 92, 190, 260

  Caermarthen, castle of, 89, 91, 192, 193, 197, 260

  Cambridge, 19

  Cantelupe, William, 9, 204, 211, 238

  Canterbury, Stephen de Langton, archbishop of, returns to England,
    103;
    buries the Marshal, 107;
    re-crowns the King, 130;
    translates relics of S. Thomas, 157, 158;
    goes to Rome, 171;
    returns, _ib._;
    reconciles Chester and Salisbury, 181;
    ambassador to France, 188, 190;
    excommunicates Llywelyn, 196;
    compels him to submit, _ib._, 197;
    holds council at Oseney, 199;
    negotiates with Chester’s party, 206;
    arranges “truce” between Chester and Hubert, 207;
    excommunicates rebel barons, 210;
    castles in his custody, 212;
    heads demand for confirmation of Charter, 214, 215;
    reconciles Hubert and Chester, 216, 217;
    excommunicates Falkes, 233;
    absolves him, 246;
    asked to divorce him, _ib._;
    bids clergy give aid to the King, 263

  Cardigan, castle of, 91, 192, 193, 197, 260

  Carlisle, 87

  Carucage, 82, 85, 144, 158, 159, 249

  Casinghem, William de, 18, 22, 28

  Castles, troubles about, 99;
    royal rights over, 147;
    during Henry’s minority, 283–285;
    oath of barons about, 146, 283;
    Pope’s letters about, 146, 147, 153, 205, 206;
    general surrender of, 210;
    changes in custody of, 211–213, 291, 292

  Chanceaux, Andrew de, 17

  Chancellor, _see_ Marsh

  Charter of Henry III, first, 10–15;
      second, 78–81;
      third, 250;
    demand for confirmation of, 214, 215;
    of the Forest, 81, 250

  Charters, Henry’s proclamation about, 265–267

  Chester, Ranulf, Earl of, 3;
    relations with the Marshal, 6;
    at battle of Lincoln, 33, 34, 43;
    goes on crusade, 98;
    quarrel with Salisbury, 181;
    mediates between King and Llywelyn, 192;
    heads opposition to Hubert, 204;
    attempt on the Tower, 205;
    his sheriffdoms, 212;
    reconciled to Hubert, 217;
    at siege of Bedford, 238;
    letter to King about Falkes, 241;
    agreement with Llywelyn, 258

  Cigogné, Engelard de, 17, 74, 169, 170, 176, 204, 211, 281

  Cinque Ports, their relations with Louis and John, 18

  Clare, Isabel de, 65

  Clergy, Gualo’s dealings with, 77, 78;
    grant an aid to the King, 264

  Clifford, Roger de, 9

  Clifford, Walter de, 9

  Colchester surrendered to Louis, 19

  Coleville, William de, 163

  Corfe, castle of, 18, 76, 169

  Coucy, Enguerrand de, 24, 28

  Council, the King’s, 178

  Courtenay, Robert de, 9, 182

  Courtenay, Robert de, 55

  Coventry, Alexander, bishop of, 243, 245

  Croc, Reginald, 42, 45


  David, son of Llywelyn, 129

  Deheubarth, 88

  Devon, William de Rivers, Earl of, 223

  Dinas Powys, castle of, 183

  Dover, castle of, 16;
    Louis at, 28, 31;
    sea-fight off, 31

  Dreux, Robert, count of, 55, 60

  Dublin, Henry, archbishop of, 94, 123, 124, 175


  Earley, John of, 8

  Eleanor, sister of Henry III, 168, 219

  Eleanor of Brittany, 169, 179

  Ely regained for the King, 26

  Ely, Hugh, bishop of, 268, 286

  Ely, John, bishop of, 197

  Eu, Ralf de Lusignan, count of, 133, 134

  Eustace “the Monk,” 23, 50, 53

  Exchequer, its condition under John, 81, 82;
    records restored by Louis, 82;
    Pandulf’s relations with, 113–115


  “Fair” of Lincoln, 41

  Falkenberg, Walter de, 224

  Falkes de Bréauté, his origin, 225;
    early career, 226, 227;
    seneschal to the King, 227;
    marriage, 223, 228;
    at council of Bristol, 9;
    his sheriffdoms, 17, 74;
    castles in his custody,17;
    plunders S. Alban’s, 21, 229;
    takes Ely, 26;
    takes Lynn, 48;
    at battle of Lincoln, 38, 39, 275, 276;
    quarrels with Salisbury, 149, 183;
    at siege of Rockingham, 155;
    takes the cross, 180;
    helps to quell riot in London, 186;
    joins Chester, &c., against Hubert, 204;
    relations with the magnates, 228;
    position during Henry’s minority, 229;
    proceedings against, 230, 231, 292, 293;
    movements after capture of Braybroke, 231, 232;
    excommunicated, 233;
    charges against, 234–237;
    goes into Cheshire, 239;
    writes to the King, _ib._, 240;
    chase after him, 240;
    visits Llywelyn, 241;
    goes to Coventry, 243;
    to Northampton, 244;
    submits, 245;
    absolved, 246;
    exiled, 247;
    his “Complaint,” 248, 288;
    death, 249

  Farnham, castle of, 26, 29

  Ferrers, Earl of, 5, 9, 33, 98

  Fifteenth of moveables, tax of, 250, 261, 262

  FitzHerbert, Matthew, 9

  FitzWalter, Robert, footnote 86, 29, 36, 43, 98

  Forest Charter, 81, 250

  Fors, William de, _see_ Aumale

  Fotheringay, castle of, 152, 162–166

  France, Kings of, _see_ Louis, Philip


  Galloway, Alan of, footnote 655

  Gascony, 137, 251, 252, 254, 255;
    seneschals of, _see_ Neville, Pons;
    _see_ also Aquitaine

  Gauler, William, 137

  Gernon, Ralf de, 211

  Gloucester, 2, 3, 91;
    castle of, 205, 211

  Gloucester, Isabel, countess of, 89, 227

  Gloucester, Gilbert, Earl of, 183, 204

  Goodrich castle, 6

  Gouy, Robert de, 99–102

  Gray, Richard de, 222, 234

  Gray, Walter de, _see_ York

  Gregory IX, Pope, 268

  Gruffudd, son of Llywelyn, 193, 195

  Gualo, Legate in England, 2, 4;
    persuades Marshal to undertake regency, 7;
    summons a council, 9;
    lays interdict on Wales, 10;
    on lands of rebels, 15;
    proclaims the war a crusade, 25;
    absolves Louis, 60;
    punishes contumacious clergy, 77, 78;
    resigns the legation, 103;
    leaves England, _ib._

  Gwenwynwyn, prince of South Powys, 89

  Gwynedd, 87


  Haringot, Nicolas, 31

  Haye, Nicolaa de, 20, 37, 147–149

  Hedingham castle, 19

  Henry, son of King John, 2, 3;
    meeting with the Marshal, 3;
    knighted, 4;
    crowned, _ib._, 5;
    placed in care of Peter des Roches, 7;
    territory held by his party, 17, 18;
    treaty with Louis, 57–59;
    enters London, 78;
    given in charge to Pandulf, 105, 106;
    projects of marriage, 127, 253, 264;
    lays first stone of new church at Westminster, 129;
    second coronation, _ib._, 130;
    relations with Hugh of La Marche, 139–141, 220;
    treaty with Scotland, 140;
    meeting with Alexander, 145;
    oath of barons to, about castles, 146;
    visits castles, 154;
    at translation of S. Thomas, 158;
    his debts, 160;
    period for termination of his minority, 173, 199;
    released from Peter’s tutorship, 180;
    demands restitution of Normandy, &c., 188, 189;
    receives John de Brienne, 194, 195;
    with the host in Wales, 196;
    agreement with Llywelyn, 197;
    first coming of age, 203;
    attests his own letters, 207;
    his position after December, 1223, 208;
    demands restitution of castles, 210;
    answer to demand for confirmation of Charter, 215;
    seizes lands of Normans and Bretons, 220;
    summons ships, 221;
    sends reinforcements to La Rochelle, 222;
    summons barons to Northampton, _ib._;
    besieges Bedford castle, 232, 239, 242, 243;
    hangs the garrison, 244;
    negotiations with Germany, 253;
    with Toulouse, _ib._;
    with Auvergne, _ib._;
    sends envoy to Damascus, footnote 1155;
    contemplates going to Gascony, 256;
    illness, _ib._;
    conferences with Llywelyn, 257, 258;
    relations with Earl Marshal (II), 260, 261;
    declared of age, 266;
    tenure of Crown offices during his minority, 281–284;
    Charters of, _see_ Charter

  Hereford, Giles de Breuse, bishop of, 89

  Hereford castle, 204

  Hertford castle, 18

  Hidage, 82, 85

  Hobrigg, Gervase of, footnote 240

  Honorius III, Pope, orders prelates to give an aid, 82, 262;
    threatens Hugh of La Marche, 145;
    letters concerning castles, 146, 147, 153, 205, 206;
    conflicting requests to, from England, 216;
    his letters concerning Henry’s coming of age, 202, 286–290;
    letters to Henry, footnote 1076, footnote 1087;
    intercedes for Falkes, 249;
    forbids Henry to attack France, 256;
    dies, 268

  Huntingdon, David, Earl of, 152

  Huntingdon, honour of, 87, 152, 163


  Indemnity paid to Louis of France 83–85

  Ireland, the March in, 93–95, 217–219;
    Justiciars of, _see_ Dublin, Marsh, Marshal

  Isabel, Queen, at Henry’s coronation, 5;
    negotiates with Count of Nevers, 55;
    confirms treaty of Kingston, 60;
    returns to Angoulême, 134;
    relations with the Lusignans, 132;
    second marriage, 139;
    disputes about her dower lands, 140, 141, 177

  Isabel, sister of Henry III, 140, 253

  Isabel of Scotland, 169

  Isles, King of the, _see_ Ragnald


  Jews, ordinance concerning, 97;
    tallage on, 250

  Joan, sister of Henry III, 132, 133, 140, 141, 145, 171

  Joan, half sister of Henry III, 89

  John, King of England, 1, 2

  John de Brienne, King of Jerusalem, 97, 194, 195

  Justices in eyre, 86, 87


  Kingston, treaty of, 57–59, 278–280

  Kinnerley, castle of, 191, 197, 257


  Lacy, Hugh de, 217, 218, 258

  Lacy, John de, 204

  Lacy, Walter de, 9, 203, 204, 217–219, 258

  Langton, Simon de, 28, footnote 240

  Langton, Stephen de, _see_ Canterbury

  Larchevêque, William, 138, 142

  L’Estrange, John, 9

  Liberties, Charters of, _see_ Charter

  Liberties of the Crown, inquest into, 201

  Lincoln, city, 34, 35;
    sacked, 45;
    castle, 20, 31, 35, 148, 149;
    battle of, 36–44, 273–277

  Lincoln, Hugh II bishop of, 99–101

  Lisle, Brian de, 33, 98, footnote 490, 204, 211, 238

  Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, 89;
    conquers and divides South Wales, _ib._;
    attacks Pembroke, 90, 161;
    made constable of Cardigan and Caermarthen, 91;
    dispute with Hugh de Mortimer, 128;
    disputes with the Marshal, 129, 160–162;
    truce with Marshal, 173;
    destroys Kinnerley and Whittington, 191;
    war against, 193, 194;
    besieges Builth, 195;
    excommunicated, 196;
    submits, 197;
    conference with, postponed, 240;
    letter to King about Falkes, 241;
    conferences with Henry, 257, 258;
    agreement with Marshal and Chester, 258

  London, Louis in, 16, 47;
    blockaded,55;
    Henry received in, 78;
    riot in, 184–186;
    Tower of, 211, 213

  Louis of France, besieges Dover castle, 16;
    truces with Hubert, _ib._;
    goes to London, _ib._;
    territory held by his party, 17;
    alleged capture of Norwich castle, _ib._ note 3;
    besieges Hertford, 18;
    truces with Royalists, _ib._, 19;
    holds council at Cambridge, 19;
    goes to Lincoln, 20;
    proposes returning to France, _ib._;
    dealings with S. Alban’s, 21;
    blockaded in Winchelsea, 22, 23;
    regains Rye, 24;
    goes to France, _ib._;
    returns to England, 27, 28;
    renews truce with garrison of Dover, 28;
    besieges Farnham, 29;
    sends relief to Mountsorel, 29;
    occupies Winchester, 30;
    returns to London, _ib._;
    renews siege of Dover, 31;
    raises siege and goes to London, 46;
    negotiates, 47, 55, 56;
    his treaty with Henry, 57–59;
    absolution, 60;
    leaves England, _ib._;
    indemnity promised to, 83;
    his Albigensian wars, 136;
    appeal against his coronation, 188, 189;
    crowned, 190;
    refuses Henry’s demands, 197, 198;
    offers to renew truce, 221;
    conquers Poitou, 233, 234;
    undertakes Albigensian war, 256;
    prediction about, 257;
    death, 264

  Louis IX, King of France, 264, 265

  Lucy, Geoffrey de, 33

  Ludlow, conference at, 193

  Luggershall, castle of, 168

  Lusignan, Hugh de, the elder, Count of La Marche, 132, 133, 139

  Lusignan, Hugh the younger of, 132, 133;
    his relations with Geoffrey de Neville, 133, 135;
    with Henry and Isabel, 137;
    marries Isabel, 139;
    disputes with the English Council, 140, 141;
    relations with the towns, 141–143;
    with the English Crown, 144, 145, 175–177, 187–190, 219, 220;
    homage to Louis, 233;
    successes in Gascony, 251;
    truce with Richard, 265

  Lusignan, Ralf de, _see_ Eu

  Lynn, taken by Falkes, 48


  Maingo, William, 142

  Malaunay, Hugh de, 56

  Marc, Philip, 74, footnote 490, 101, 204

  Marche, La, _see_ Lusignan

  Margaret of Scotland, 127, 174

  Marlborough, castle of, 150, 151, 168

  Marsh, Geoffrey, Justiciar in Ireland, 93–95, 123, 124, 174, 175,
    217, 259, 261

  Marsh, Richard de, Chancellor, 114, 284

  Marshal, William, the elder, his origin and early life, 63–65;
    marriage, 65;
    Earl of Pembroke, 66;
    character, 67–70;
    at burial of John, 2;
    meeting with Henry, 3;
    knights him, 4;
    made guardian of the King, 6–8;
    at council of Bristol, 9;
    takes Farnham, 26;
    besieges Winchester castle, _ib._;
    sends party to besiege Mountsorel, 27;
    orders castles to be razed, 29;
    proposes to relieve Lincoln castle, 32;
    at battle of Lincoln, 34, 37, 39–42;
    musters fleet at Sandwich, 49, 51;
    blockades London, 55;
    negotiates with Louis, 55–57;
    his style and position as regent, 70–72;
    his seal used instead of the King’s, 14, 72, 73;
    arrangements for indemnity to Louis, 83–85;
    dealings with Scotland, 87;
    with Wales, 90–92;
    with Ireland, 93–95;
    orders concerning tournaments, 96, 97;
    ordinance about Jews, 97;
    grants Plympton to Falkes, 224;
    last days, 104–106

  Marshal, John, 5, 8, 9;
    at battle of Lincoln, 33, 86, 44;
    chief justice of the Forest, 96;
    seneschal of Cork, etc., 218;
    of Ulster, 258

  Marshal, Richard, 168

  Marshal, William, the younger, rejoins the King, 25;
    besieges Winchester, 26;
    at battle of Lincoln, 33, 42;
    warden of Marlborough castle, 151;
    detains Fotheringay, 152, 162;
    gives it up, 163;
    disputes with Llywelyn, 160–162;
    truce with him, 173;
    urged to surrender Marlborough and Luggershall, 168;
    betrothed to Eleanor, _ib._;
    bidden to surrender Caerleon, 190;
    goes to Ireland, 191;
    returns, 192;
    takes Cardigan and Caermarthen, _ib._;
    defeats Gruffudd, 193;
    leads the host into Wales, 194, 195;
    constable of Cardigan and Caermarthen, 197;
    marries Eleanor, 219;
    Justiciar in Ireland, _ib._;
    agreement with Llewelyn, 258;
    overcomes Hugh de Lacy, _ib._;
    resigns justiciarship, 259;
    surrenders Caermarthen, Cardigan, and Caerleon, 260

  Maulay, Peter de, constable of Corfe, 18;
    his alleged oath to John, 73, 74;
    his sheriffdoms, 74;
    arrest, 169, 179;
    release, 170;
    joins Hubert’s opponents, 204;
    at siege of Bedford, 238

  Mauléon, Savaric de, 5, 9;
    his sheriffdoms, 74;
    constable of Bristol, _ib._, 283;
    returns to Poitou, 76;
    seneschal of Aquitaine, 175–177, 187;
    surrenders Niort, 233;
    defends La Rochelle, 234;
    joins Louis, 251;
    reverts to Henry, 265

  Mausy, castle of, 220

  Melun, viscount of, 48

  Merton, treaty confirmed at, 60

  Minority, the King’s, its duration, 73, 74;
    tenure of Crown offices during, 280–285

  Monmouth, John of, 9

  Morgan of Caerleon, 91, 92

  Mortimer, Hugh de, 9, 91, 128, 257

  Mortimer, Robert de, 9

  Mountsorel, castle, 27, 30, 45

  Musard, Ralf, 8, 203, 204, 211

  Muscegros, Richard, 169


  Nevers, Count of, 28, 30, 55, 60

  Neville, Eustace de, 23, 48

  Neville, Geoffrey de, seneschal of Gascony, 131;
    of Aquitaine, _ib._, 133–135, 137, 138;
    sheriff of Yorkshire, 159;
    envoy to La Marche, 189;
    at La Rochelle, 222, 234

  Neville, Ralf de, vice-chancellor, 113, 287;
    correspondence with Pandulf, 113–115;
    bishop of Chichester and Chancellor, 287

  Newark, Royalists muster at, 33;
    castle of, 99–101

  Niort, 133, 138, 141, 144, 219, 220, 233

  Normans in England, their position after treaty of Kingston, 77;
    their lands seized, 220

  Northampton, Henry at, 87, 91, 209;
    council or muster at, 222, 235, 236

  Norwich, castle of, footnote 81, 19


  Odiham, 26, 212

  Olaveson, Constantine, 185, 186

  Oléron, Isle of, 145

  Oliver, son of King John, 28, 98

  Orford surrendered to Louis, 19

  Oseney, Church council at, 199

  Otto, Master, 263, 264

  Oxford, councils at, 19, 49


  Pandulf, his relations with King John, 108–111;
    Legate, 111;
    regent, 105, 106, 112;
    dealings with the Exchequer, 113–115;
    with Irish March, 123–125;
    with Scotland, 126, 128;
    with Wales, 128, 174;
    with France, 136, 137;
    with Aquitaine, 144;
    loans to Henry, 160;
    makes peace between the King and Aumale, 167;
    makes truce between Marshal and Llewelyn, 173, 174;
    resigns, 171;
    mission to Poitou, 175–178;
    bishop of Norwich, 188, 211

  Passelewe, Robert, footnote 964, 248, 288

  Payne, Reginald, 52

  Pembroke invaded by Llewelyn, 161

  Pembroke, Earls of, _see_ Marshal

  Perche, Count of, 29, 36, 41, 42

  Perpetuity, grants in, forbidden during minority, 73, 102

  Philip Augustus, King of France, his opinion of the Marshal, 48, 67;
    death, 188

  Pierepunt, William, 257

  Pipe Rolls, 83

  Pleshy, castle of, 19

  Plympton, castle of, 183, 223, 224, 245

  Poissy, Simon of, 44

  Poitou, 131, 138, 175–177, 233, 234;
    _see_ Aquitaine;
    seneschal of, _see_ Burgh

  Pons, Reginald de, 131, 134

  Porchester regained for the King, 26

  Powys, 88

  Puy, Bartholomew de, 134, 135, 137


  Quincy, Saer de, _see_ Winchester


  Ragnald, King of the Isles, 92

  Regency, the first in England, 61–63, 70

  Réole, La, 252, 254

  Richard, brother of Henry III, 18, 76, 127, 252, 265

  Richard, half-brother of Henry III, 24, 50–52

  Rivers, Baldwin de, 223

  Rivers, Margaret de, 223, 224, 228, 246, 247

  Rochelle, La, 138, 141, 144;
    reinforcements sent to, 222;
    surrendered to Louis, 234;
    to Richard, 265

  Roches, Peter des, _see_ Winchester

  Rockingham, castle of, 121, 154, 155

  Romanus, Cardinal, 252, 256, 263

  Ropsley, Robert of, 41

  Russell, John, 211

  Rye, 18, 21, 24


  S. Alban’s, plundered, 21, 229

  S. Edmund’s, plundered, 48

  St. Germain, Robert of, footnote 240

  St. Jean d’Angély, 138, 141, 144, 233

  St. Samson, Ralf de, 3, 135

  Saintes, 145

  Salisbury, Ela, Countess of, 149, 254

  Salisbury, William Longsword, Earl of, rejoins the King, 25;
    besieges Winchester, 26;
    at battle of Lincoln, 34, 41;
    forbidden to hold tournament, 97;
    protest about Aumale, 143, 144;
    relations with Lincoln castle, 148, 149;
    with Falkes, 149, 183;
    quarrel with Chester, 181;
    leads the host into Wales, 194, 195;
    sent with Richard to Gascony, 252;
    adventures at sea, 254;
    complaint against Hubert, 255;
    death, _ib._

  Sandford, Thomas de, 2

  Sandwich, fleet mustered at, 49;
    sea-fight off, 50–53

  Sauvey, castle of, 121, 155

  Say, Geoffrey de, 18

  Scotland, treaties with, 126, 127, 140;
    King of, _see_ Alexander

  Scutage, 81, 85, 250

  Seal, the King’s, 73, 102, 284;
    restrictions on its use, 102, 202;
    Pandulf’s orders concerning, 113, 114;
    its custody, 114

  Sedgrave, Stephen de, 211

  Serland, Geoffrey de, 36, 121, 282

  Serland, William de, 218

  Sherborne, castle of, 169, 170, 212

  Sheriffdoms, changes in, 212

  Shrewsbury, conferences at, 128, 257

  Sleaford, castle of, 17, 25, 101

  Southampton, 18, 26

  Stoke Courcy, castle of, 245


  Tallage, 82, 85, 86;
    on Jews, 250

  Tancarville, William de, 64

  Taxation under the Marshal’s regency, 82, 85, 86;
    _see_ Aid, Carucage, Fifteenth, Hidage, Scutage, Tallage

  Temple, Gerard Brochard, preceptor of the, 144, 145

  Thomas, S., of Canterbury, translation of, 157–158

  Thouars, Almeric, viscount of, 143, 233, footnote 1219

  Thouars, Hugh, viscount of, 265

  Tournaments, 96, 97

  Treaty of Kingston, 57–59, 278–280

  Truce with France, 136, 137;
    expires, 219;
    negotiations for its renewal, 221;
    between Richard and France, 265

  Truces with Louis, 18, 19, 269–272

  Tyre, archbishop of, 47


  Ulecote, Philip de, 144, 145


  Valtort, Reginald de, 9

  Vipont, Robert de, 33, footnote 490, 204

  Vivonne, Hugh de, 175, 176, 282, 283


  Waleran the German, 18, 224

  Wales laid under interdict, 10;
    homage of its princes to Henry III, 91, 92;
    Pandulf’s dealings with, 128, 174;
    ancient divisions of, 87, 88;
    South, conquered by Llywelyn, 89;
    _see_ Llywelyn

  Walter of the Hithe, 102

  War, private, revival of, in England, 182, 183

  Warren, Earl of, 49, 50, 51, 281

  Westminster, Henry rebuilds abbey church of, 129;
    Henry crowned at, 130

  Whitchurch, conference at, 258

  Whittington, castle of, 191, 197

  “Willikin of the Weald,” _see_ Casinghem

  Winchelsea, Louis at, 21–24

  Windsor, castle of, 17, 170, 212

  Winchester, 26, 30, 181;
    castle, 26, 28, 29, 153, 181, 211

  Winchester, Peter des Roches, bishop of, crowns Henry III, 5;
    the King placed in his charge, 7;
    at battle of Lincoln, 34, 37–40;
    claims guardianship of King, 105, 106;
    early life, 117–119;
    “master” to Henry III, 120, 121;
    pilgrimage to S. James, 179;
    accused of plotting treason, _ib._;
    takes the Cross, 180; end of his tutorship, _ib._;
    character, 200;
    relations with Hubert de Burgh, _ib._, 207;
    at siege of Bedford, 238;
    castles held by him, 153, 211

  Winchester, Saer de Quincy, Earl of, 28, 29, 36, 43, 98

  Woodstock, homage of Welsh princes at, 92

  Worcester, homage of Welsh princes at, 91, 92


  York, Henry and Alexander at, 140, 145, 171

  York, Walter de Gray, archbishop of, 103, 171, 264, footnote 1218


RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BRUNSWICK ST., S.E., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




Transcriber’s Note


An errata slip was included with this book. It reads (footnote numbers
have been added in brackets):

  ERRATA

  P. 39, note 3 (Footnote 517), line 6, for “_li_” read “_le_”; and
  line 7, for “walls” read “wall.”

  Pp. 99–102 _passim_, for “Gaugy” read “Gouy”; and make a
  corresponding correction in index.

  P. 139, last line, for “Doé” read “Douai.”

  P. 148, last line of note 5 (Footnote 686), for “13th” read “12th.”

  P. 154, note 1 (Footnote 703), line 2, for “two” read “three.”

  P. 160, line 6 of note (Footnote 726), for “later in the summer” read
  “early next year.”

  P. 212, line 1 of second paragraph, for “twenty-eight” read
  “twenty-five.”

  P. 225, line 11, for “_falx_, _faulx_” read “_faus_ or _fauc_”.

  P. 291, line 20 of second paragraph, _dele_ “and”; and after
  “Devizes” insert “and Ralf Gernon that of Corfe.”

These changes have been applied to this text.


Other changes that have been made are:

  Page 97 - the punctuation mark after “but they were ineffectual” did
  not print. A comma has been added.

  Footnote 517 (originally page 106 note 2) - “1229” has been
  changed to “1219” in “The date--14th May, Tuesday before Ascension
  Day--is given in _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219”.

  Page 163 - “Huntingdom” has been changed to “Huntingdon” in “the
  honour of Huntingdon”.

  Footnote 878 (originally page 192 note 5) - “quaequae” has been
  changed to “quaeque” in “et ferro quaeque sibi obvia devastavit”.

  Footnote 1045 (originally page 229 note 2) - “supro” has been
  changed to “supra” in “cum videret statum suum supra modum subito
  prosperatum”.

  Page 283 - “quamdui” has been changed to “quamdiu” in “quamdiu
  nobis placuerit”.


Further note:

  Footnote 326 (originally page 60 note 7) - the chronicle referred to
  is in volume 26 of Pertz’s “_Scriptores_”, rather than his
  “_Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores_”.





End of Project Gutenberg's The Minority of Henry the Third, by Kate Norgate



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MINORITY OF HENRY THE THIRD ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.