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.