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.