CHAPTER IV

TUTORS AND GOVERNORS

1221–1223

Haeres ... cum sit dominus omnium ... sub tutoribus et actoribus est,

usque ad praefinitum tempus a patre.

[Sidenote: 1221]

When Pandulf resigned his offices in England the King was within

three months of his fourteenth birthday. Whether his minority was

to terminate then, or how much longer it should continue, was still

undecided. It seems to have been considered as terminable at any time

after October 1st, 1221, at the discretion of the Pope; and this may

have been the reason why no provision was made for a continuance, in

the hands of any person or persons whatever, of the special authority

in temporal matters which had been vested in the Legate. The Council

which had carried on the administration of affairs under him was, so

far as we can see, simply left to carry it on without him.

The government thus constituted had no reason to anticipate any

immediate difficulties. The realm was at peace within its own borders,

and at peace with its neighbour lands, Scotland and France. The Welsh

princes were as usual not only quarrelling among themselves but also

dragging the barons of the English border into their quarrels; but a

new agreement among the princes, and a truce between Llywelyn on the

one part, and the Marshal and Reginald de Breuse on the other, had

just been patched up by Pandulf at Shrewsbury.[807] The alliance

with Scotland was further cemented by another marriage before the end

of the year; in fulfilment of Henry’s promise that the Scot King’s

sisters should be provided with husbands in England, Margaret--once

the destined bride of Henry himself--became the fourth wife of his

Justiciar, Hubert de Burgh.[808] In Ireland, Geoffrey de Marsh had

so misused his day of grace, by neglecting to fulfill the promises

which he had made to the King a year before, that his removal could no

longer be avoided; and just before Pandulf’s resignation letters in the

King’s name were sent to the native princes of Ireland and the barons

of the March, setting forth Geoffrey’s misdeeds and proclaiming that

in consequence of them, “we, being justly provoked thereto that we

should suffer him to rule our land of Ireland no more, do by the common

counsel and assent of ourself and of the magnates and faithful men of

England ordain that Henry Archbishop of Dublin shall have the custody

and care of that land till we shall determine otherwise.”[809] The

letters patent appointing the Archbishop Justiciar in Ireland had in

fact been issued a fortnight before;[810] but a formal surrender of the

office by Geoffrey was necessary before they could take effect. This

surrender Geoffrey made on October 25th.[811]

A new seneschal of Poitou and Gascony, Hugh of Vivonne, had been

appointed on 4th January.[812] He undertook the office with evident

reluctance and forebodings--or hopes--of a speedy return;[813] and at

the end of nine months he seems, like many another before him, to have

found himself unequal to the difficulties of the situation. A Gascon

noble of greater fame and a more highly trained and widely practised

diplomatist were sent both at once to relieve and supersede him. The

first was Savaric de Mauléon; the second was Pandulf. On 6th October

the prelates, barons, and people of Poitou and Gascony were informed

that the King had committed those two counties and their appurtenances

to Savaric,[814] and also that he was sending Pandulf--now described

as “bishop elect of Norwich, and chamberlain to the Pope”--into Poitou

“for great and difficult matters,” in which the inhabitants of the

land were exhorted to give the ex-Legate every assistance in their

power.[815] Pandulf seems to have set out on his mission immediately,

and in the full expectation that it would be one of considerable

duration; on 12th October he had letters of protection for a year

from All Saints’ day.[816] The primary purpose of that mission was,

seemingly, to negotiate with Hugh of La Marche. Hugh and Isabel were

still clamouring for Isabel’s Aquitanian dower-lands; the English

government was determined not to restore these till Hugh had performed

his homage and surrendered the lands given him by John in pledge

for the dowry of Joan; which lands Hugh was equally determined to

keep until his wife’s claims were satisfied. By the end of September

Hugh’s aggressions had become so intolerable that the English Council

retaliated by seizing into the King’s hand all the lands held in

England by Hugh and Isabel as part of Isabel’s dower.[817] But to

retaliate in Aquitaine itself was not so easy. One great difficulty

was, as usual, the want of money. The mayor and commune of London

stood surety for the King to the mayor and commune of La Rochelle for

the repayment of two loans, which the last-named city was requested

to make “for the safe-keeping and defence of our land of Poitou,” the

one of a thousand marks to Pandulf, the other of five hundred marks to

Engelard de Cigogné and Emeric de Sacy, who were despatched at the same

time as Pandulf, also on business “touching our land of Poitou.”[818]

On 1st November letters were addressed to the mayors and good men of

Cognac, Saintes, Angoulême, and Oléron, bidding them withdraw from all

further allegiance to the count of La Marche, and recognize no commands

save those of the King’s seneschal of Poitou.[819] No name was given

to the seneschal in this letter. The acting seneschal was still Hugh

of Vivonne; Savaric, it seems, was even more reluctant than Hugh had

been to undertake the office--he was probably more fully aware of its

difficulty--and made his acceptance of it dependent on the fulfilment

of certain conditions, whether political, military, or financial,

there is nothing to show. The English Council, in fact, at the very

moment when they were thus writing brave words to the Aquitanian

towns, knew that their only hope of dealing successfully with either

Hugh de Lusignan or Savaric lay in the diplomacy of Pandulf; and on

2nd November they commissioned the ex-Legate “to procure in whatever

way he could the making of a prolonged truce between the King and the

count of La Marche, and, having obtained this, to persuade and exhort

Savaric de Mauléon to hasten into the presence of the King, who would

(God willing) do what was right concerning his (Savaric’s) requests.

If, however, the elect of Norwich could not make a truce with the

Count, then let him devote his care and diligence to the carrying on

of the King’s business according to what had been determined in the

King’s presence; and let him deliver the care and custody of those

parts to Savaric, inducing him thereto as best he could, and causing

him to be efficiently provided with money for the defence of the land,

according to the form which had been given to him.”[820] The Council’s

trust in the dexterity of Pandulf was not misplaced. That he succeeded

in making with La Marche a truce which lasted through the winter and

was succeeded in the spring by some more definite agreement, may be

gathered from the fact that nothing more is heard of either Hugh or

Isabel till April, 1222, and then the Queen’s English dower-lands were

restored to her.[821] He was equally successful in “inducing” Savaric

de Mauléon to undertake the seneschalship of Aquitaine; an office for

which Savaric was, probably, by far the fittest man to whom it had ever

been given, or offered, since the recall of Hubert de Burgh.

Pandulf’s mission to Poitou has a significance beyond its actual

results. It indicates how large and disinterested was the view taken

by him and by Honorius of what the papal overlordship of England and

guardianship of its young King should involve. The foreign churchman

who for two years and a half had been, alike in right and in fact,

supreme head of the government in England had no sooner laid down his

office there than he--of course with the sanction of the Pope, whose

chamberlain he still remained--placed himself at the disposal of the

English ministers of State, so lately his subordinates, and accepted

from them a diplomatic commission which could bring no advantage of

any kind either to himself or to the Roman See, solely for the purpose

of helping them and their young sovereign out of a difficulty. On the

other hand, the fact that these ministers, when no longer under any

necessity of admitting him to a share in their counsels, were so ready

to make use of his help and placed in him so much confidence as is

implied in the latitude of the powers with which they entrusted him on

this occasion, is a strong testimony to the estimation in which their

previous relations with him had led them to hold his character, his

abilities, and his devotion to the welfare of King and kingdom. As

under William the Marshal, so under Pandulf, we cannot tell whether the

inner working of the royal Council had been really as harmonious as its

outward action appears, nor how much of its harmony, inward or outward,

was due to the regent. Some indications of rivalry between certain

of the King’s councillors seem to be discernible before the close of

Pandulf’s rule; but so far as we can see, no open breach among them

showed itself till some two years and a half after his controlling hand

was removed.

It is difficult to define precisely the composition, during the

minority of Henry III, of the body known as the King’s Council. That

body included, besides the Primate of all England, the justices, and

the great officers of State--justiciar, chancellor, treasurer,--certain

persons who were called to be members of it on personal rather than

official grounds, such as Bishop Peter of Winchester, Philip d’Aubigné,

the Earl of Chester, and the King’s uncle, Earl William of Salisbury.

Since the spring of 1219 the most onerous and important part of the

work of government had been shared, under Pandulf, between Hubert de

Burgh and Peter des Roches; Hubert, as Justiciar, naturally taking

the more prominent part. Among our materials for the history of the

time we find no suggestion anywhere that they were other than true

yoke-fellows, till at Whitsuntide, 1221, there occurred the mysterious

affair of Peter de Maulay.[822] The only two chroniclers who record De

Maulay’s arrest say nothing more about its grounds than that he was

“accused of treason.” Falkes de Bréauté, four years later, asserted

that Peter de Maulay after dining at court was called into the King’s

chamber as if for some private discourse, and there denounced as a

traitor who had made a compact with the King of France to deliver into

his hands the Lady Eleanor of Brittany, Henry’s cousin, who had been a

State prisoner in Corfe castle for many years; moreover, according to

Falkes, a greater personage than the castellan of Corfe was involved in

the accusation; it was asserted that a ship to convey the lady over sea

had been made ready by the Bishop of Winchester, who at the time of the

arrest was absent from England on a pilgrimage to Compostella, and that

the bishop was really gone not to pay his devotions to S. James, but to

talk over the plot with Philip Augustus. Falkes declared that the only

real plotters in the case were the Justiciar and his “accomplices,” who

for their own private ends had planned the arrest of Peter de Maulay

in the absence of Peter des Roches, and invented this story against

both; and he adds that they overwhelmed De Maulay with insults, blows,

and other indignities, and loaded him with chains, before they cast

him into prison.[823] Falkes’s story is almost certainly correct thus

far, that no real plot existed; for, whatever ill-treatment Peter de

Maulay may have undergone at the time of his arrest, his innocence

was implicitly acknowledged within less than a week, by his release

as soon as he had surrendered Corfe; and the accusation against the

other Peter, if ever really made, was clearly dropped at once and never

revived. The whole plot seems to have been a sheer fiction; but we can

hardly accept Falkes’s account of its origin. Hubert and Peter des

Roches may have been jealous of each other; and they may have differed

on some questions of policy--perhaps, amongst other things, as to the

expediency or the justice of requiring compliance with the letter of

the recent oath about the surrender of castles, in a case where a

previous oath sworn to the late King could be pleaded against it.[824]

We should, however, require a more impartial authority than Falkes to

make us believe that Hubert’s jealousy and self-will goaded him into

an attempt to ruin his rival by a device at once so monstrous and so

clumsy as that which Falkes ascribes to him. He is far more likely to

have been duped into believing a story invented by some unscrupulous

subordinate who hoped that it might bring promotion to himself by

serving (as, no doubt, it did serve) to the attainment of an end--the

surrender of Corfe--which he knew the Justiciar had at heart, but

which may not have commended itself to the judgement of the Bishop of

Winchester.

In his capacity of personal guardian, “master,” and instructor to the

young King, Bishop Peter had an assistant in Philip d’Aubigné, a man

whose valour and loyalty had been proved both on land and sea, and who

bore a high character alike in public and private life.[825] It seems

to have been in Philip’s charge that the boy had been left while the

bishop made his pilgrimage to S. James;[826] much against the will of

Philip, who had taken the Cross at the beginning of the year and was

anxious to fulfill his vow.[827] He started as soon as he was set free

by the bishop’s return.[828] The Christian host besieged in Damietta

was known to be in great straits, and many volunteers from Europe were

eager to reinforce it. On 19th September Bishop Peter also took the

Cross;[829] Falkes did the like about the same time; and at the close

of the year or beginning of the next they were both preparing to set

out, seemingly together, when they were stopped by the tidings that

Damietta had been surrendered.[830] The fact that Peter contemplated

such an expedition is significant. It shows that his tutorship of the

young King was at an end. Falkes says that it was pronounced--seemingly

by the other members of the Council under Hubert’s influence--on

Peter’s return from Spain, to be at an end, on the ground that

Henry was now beyond the age of pupilage.[831] The boy’s personal

emancipation from his tutor’s control, however, did not imply any

emancipation from wardship or tutelage in the legal sense; Henry’s

school-days were over, but not his minority.

The Christmas court was held at Winchester. On former occasions the

King, when he visited that city, seems to have been entertained by

his tutor, in the episcopal palace or castle of Wolvesey; this time,

however, the royal castle on the hill-top was specially made ready

for his abode.[832] During the festival season {1221–1222} a quarrel

broke out between Earl Ranulf of Chester on the one part and the Earl

of Salisbury and the Justiciar on the other. High words passed, and

Chester seems to have uttered some threat of violence, for we hear

that “the Earl of Salisbury and the Justiciar, the governors of the

King and kingdom, manfully prepared themselves and their followers

for resistance.” Fortunately, however, there was now one member of

the royal Council who was outside of and above all party or personal

disputes, and whose position and character alike marked him out for the

office of peacemaker. For six years the Archbishop of Canterbury had

been reduced to a subordinate position, ecclesiastical and political,

by the presence in England of a Papal Legate; and during the last

nine months of Pandulf’s legation Stephen had been out of the country

altogether. But he had now come back to his old place as the highest

ecclesiastical authority in the realm and the first adviser of the

Crown. “Pitying the King’s youth and lack of power,” he called his

suffragans together in council in London at Hilary-tide (1222), and

in concert with them threatened to “wield the spiritual sword against

disturbers of the realm and assailants of the King.” This threat

brought the contending parties to “concord and peace.”[833] Of the

subject and origin of this quarrel we know nothing. The sole writer who

mentions it tells us that “it was said, and many persons throughout

England suspected and asserted, that the foreigners, who were more

desirous of disturbance than of peace in the realm, were trying to

stir up the Earl of Chester to give trouble to the King and disquiet

the kingdom.” Who were the particular “foreigners” thus accused by

rumour, who were the persons that spread the rumour, and what it was

that Chester really did, or threatened to do, or was suspected of

intending to do, is absolutely unknown. So far as the evidence goes,

the dispute may have been a purely personal one, and the Archbishop’s

strong measure may have been taken for the purpose of emphasizing the

scandal and the possible danger involved in a brawl at the King’s court

between men of such high rank and importance, rather than for that of

checking any actual or even supposed design of political disturbance or

rebellion.

[Sidenote: 1222]

There was, indeed, an undercurrent of disturbance running beneath

the surface of English politics; but the disturbance, so far as can

be seen, was not, as yet, of a party character, though it contained

elements which might easily combine so as to form a serious danger

to the government. The traces left by the war on the habits and

dispositions of the classes which had been engaged in it were far

from being wiped out even yet. The passion for tourneying which had

seized upon Englishmen after the close of their struggle with the

invader still required constant repression.[834] Moreover, the years

of confusion had brought back to England another continental practice

which had never been recognized as legal there since Stephen’s time,

the practice of private war; and so deeply had this evil custom taken

root that it seems to have been tolerated by the King’s guardians

without protest, except when it brought a belligerent into direct

collision with the authority of the Crown. We have seen how one magnate

who was actually a member of the Council, Earl William of Salisbury,

had to be prevented by Falkes, acting under a royal order, from

forcibly ousting a rival custodian from Lincoln castle. He avenged

himself on Falkes by stirring up against him some of the chief men

of Devon and Cornwall, one of them being the sheriff of these two

counties, Robert de Courtenay. These men banded themselves together

in March, 1221, for a combined plundering raid on Falkes’s lands in

Devonshire, “but,” wrote Falkes to the Justiciar, “that day they

received letters from the Earl of Salisbury bidding them not move,

on account of a truce made between him and me till the quindene of

Easter; to which truce--so he told them--he had consented in order

that he might make use of the interval in Lincolnshire.”[835] Robert

de Courtenay, nevertheless, not only forcibly prevented the shipping

of corn from Falkes’s manor of Exminster to revictual Falkes’s castle

of Plympton, but seized the corn, and flogged and imprisoned one of

Falkes’s boatmen, alleging that he had orders from the King to let no

corn go out of the harbour of Exminster. Falkes asked the Justiciar to

put a stop to this flagrant violation by a sheriff of the rights of

private property; but the tone of his letter shews that he regarded,

and expected Hubert to regard, his struggle with Longsword as quite

another matter, one in which each of the belligerents was free to act

as he thought good, without reference to the government.[836] Another

illustration of the same evil occurs fifteen months later {1222}. The

castle of Dinas Powys, in Glamorgan, was in the hands of the Earl

Marshal, but belonged of right to Gilbert Earl of Gloucester. The

Marshal surrendered it to the King in Gilbert’s presence in London,

that it might be delivered to a representative of the King, who in his

turn should restore it to its owner. Gilbert, instead of waiting for

the completion of this quite ordinary procedure, gathered his followers

and prepared to march upon the castle, if he did not actually lay siege

to it, in July, 1222. He was officially told that the King was “greatly

astonished,” not, it would seem, at his taking the law into his own

hands in any case, but merely at his doing so after the transfer of the

castle had been agreed upon in the King’s presence and undertaken by

the King himself.[837] The crowning instance of lawlessness occurred

a fortnight later; and this time the offenders were neither foreign

soldiers of fortune nor English earls, but citizens of London.

[Sidenote: 1222]

From time immemorial the fields around the Tower had served as a

holiday resort for the younger citizens, who spent their leisure time

there in wrestling and other athletic sports. A trial of strength and

skill in wrestling was arranged to take place hard by Queen Matilda’s

Hospital, between the young men of the city and those of the suburbs,

on S. James’s day, 25th July. The citizens won the match. Among their

antagonists was the Abbot of Westminster’s steward; and he brooded over

his own defeat and that of his comrades till he devised a way to avenge

it. First, he sent out a general notice inviting all who would to come

to a wrestling match at Westminster on the next holiday, the feast of

S. Peter in Chains, 1st August; the prize was to be a ram. Next, he

gathered on his own side a picked band of strong and expert wrestlers,

and secretly provided them with arms. The unsuspecting citizens came

in crowds; for a while the wrestlers seemed equally matched; suddenly

the Westminster side produced their weapons. The unarmed Londoners were

soon overcome; beaten and wounded, they fled helter-skelter into the

city. A mighty tumult arose; the common bell was rung, a mass-meeting

was held, schemes of vengeance were proposed. Serlo the mayor, “a

prudent and peaceable man,” advised that a complaint should be laid

before the Abbot of Westminster, and urged that if the abbot would make

a fitting compensation on behalf of himself and his men, “all ought

to be satisfied.” The angry citizens, however, were more inclined to

listen to a certain Constantine Olaveson, “a great man in the city,”

who proposed that “all the abbot’s buildings” and his seneschal’s

house should be pulled down;[838] and next morning an armed mob made a

raid upon Westminster. Their first intention was to attack the church;

but from this “some wise man” dissuaded them,[839] and they contented

themselves with pulling down the steward’s house and doing as much

damage as they could to his property and that of the abbot.[840]

The Justiciar was at this time in the west of England.[841] It chanced,

however, that Philip d’Aubigné on his return from the East reached

London a few days after the riot had taken place; and to him the Abbot

of Westminster went to complain of the violence which he and his

men had suffered. The Londoners at once came “like bees” about the

house where Philip and the abbot were, forcibly carried off twelve

of the abbot’s horses, beat his servants, ill-treated the knights

who accompanied him, and tried to capture the abbot himself. Philip

d’Aubigné vainly endeavoured to quell the tumult; the abbot was obliged

to slip out by a back-door and escape in a boat, in peril of his life

from the stones which the citizens flung after him.[842] On 12th or

13th August Hubert reached London.[843] He at once called together

the mayor and aldermen and demanded the names of the ringleaders.

Constantine boldly answered for himself, asserting that he “would give

a warrant” for his action, and openly expressing regret that he “had

done less than rightly should have been done.”[844] His boast of a

warrant was disquieting; for in the midst of the attack on Westminster

he had shouted aloud “Montjoie! Montjoie! God and our lord Louis be

our aid!” and his nephew and another citizen, Geoffrey by name, had

echoed the cry.[845] Hubert had taken the precaution to bring with him

to the Tower a band of men-at-arms under the command of Falkes. He

caused Constantine, his nephew, and Geoffrey to be imprisoned for the

night; next morning, by his order, Falkes and his men secretly led them

out to be hanged. Constantine, when he found a rope round his neck,

offered fifteen thousand marks for his life, but in vain; “You will

stir up no more seditions in the King’s city,” was the grim reply of

Falkes.[846] Having thus got the execution over without the citizens’

knowledge, Hubert rode with Falkes and his soldiers through the city,

seized as many as he could of those who had been concerned in the riot,

flung them into prison, caused their hands or their feet to be cut

off, and then let them go; the rest were so terrified by this severity

that many “fled never to return.” The hapless mayor and aldermen who

had been incapable of controlling the populace under their charge were

deposed; the city had to give hostages for its good behaviour, and was

only after long deliberation on the part of the Council admitted to

reconciliation with the Crown on payment of a heavy fine.[847] Hubert’s

drastic measures were effectual in preventing further disturbance in

the capital; but of course “it seemed to some persons,” as a chronicler

says, that Constantine had been tried and executed “more hastily than

was fitting.”[848]

In Aquitaine the respite from trouble won by the diplomacy of Pandulf

at the beginning of 1222 lasted through the summer. A safe-conduct

to the count of La Marche to come and speak with the King in England

was issued in June,[849] and another in August.[850] He was evidently

thought to be really coming this time, for the Bishop of Winchester was

sent across the sea to meet and escort him;[851] but he did not come.

The sentence of excommunication issued against him two years before had

never yet been published, but it had never been withdrawn, and the Pope

seems to have now directed his commissioners, the Bishops of Saintes

and Limoges and the Dean of Bordeaux, to publish it on S. Andrew’s day.

The royal Council, however, shrank from driving Hugh to extremity; and

early in November they sent Philip of Aubigné and the Abbot of Boxley

to make another effort for a peaceful settlement with him and Isabel,

and begged the papal commissioners to give him a further respite till

the result of these negotiations should appear.[852] Meanwhile the new

seneschal of Poitou had taken up his task with a firm and vigorous

hand; but he was hampered by the want of money, like his predecessors,

and also by the hostility of the towns, which disliked him doubly

because he was not only a baron of considerable social and political

importance in the land, but also a man of independent character and

determined will. He stuck to his post for ten or eleven months, and

then, in September or October, went to England. A full discussion

of Aquitanian politics and administration seems to have taken place

between him and the royal Council, in the presence of representatives

from La Rochelle, Niort, S. Jean d’Angély, Bordeaux, the viscount of

Thouars, and possibly some other towns and barons; a whole bundle of

letters patent and close, issued in consequence of these deliberations,

indicate that the Council, conscious of having at last secured a fit

man as governor, was now ready to give him all the moral support

in its power.[853] Unluckily it had little other support to give

him. It was not till February (1223) that Philip d’Aubigné and his

fellow commissioner succeeded in coming to any agreement with Hugh

of Lusignan; and then the result of their labours was merely another

truce, to last till 1st August.[854] Four more months passed; Hugh and

Isabel continued impenitent; so on 25th June the Pope again threatened

them with excommunication.[855] Three weeks later, however, an event

took place which led to another change in the policy of the English

government towards the count of La Marche. This was the death, on 14th

July,[856] of King Philip Augustus of France.

[Sidenote: 1223]

When the treaty between Henry and Louis was made, in September, 1217,

both parties, as we have seen, bound themselves by oath to certain

conditions which are not mentioned in the copies of that treaty

which have come down to us. Henry swore to maintain inviolate those

liberties of the English barons and people which had served as one

of the pretexts for Louis’s invasion; Louis swore that he “would do

his utmost to induce his father to restore the English King to all

his rights in the parts beyond the sea.”[857] Naturally the English

Council construed this as binding Louis, if the restoration were not

effected in his father’s lifetime, to make it himself as soon as it was

in his own power. They at once took the matter up with a high hand.

Pandulf, now Bishop of Norwich,[858] urged the Pope to forbid that any

one should crown Louis until the promised restitution to Henry was

made.[859] The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and

Salisbury undertook the double duty of presenting to Louis himself a

formal demand for the fulfilment of his promise, and to the Archbishop

of Reims a protest against his coronation if the demand were not at

once satisfied.[860] Letters patent had already been issued in the

King’s name to the barons, knights, and good men of Normandy, calling

on them to return to their allegiance, “since the opportunity is now

at hand,” and promising, if they did so, restitution to each man,

according to his rights, of the lands in England which they lost when

the King’s father lost Normandy, and such further rewards as their

service should deserve.[861] Preparations were made for collecting a

fleet; all ships coming into English ports were ordered to be seized,

emptied of their contents (which were to be stored up safely for return

to the owners), and sent to Portsmouth for the King’s service.[862]

The Forest districts of the southern counties were bidden to send to

Porchester large supplies of “hurdles for the ships,”[863] and on

9th August the barons of the Cinque Ports were summoned to come to

Portsmouth “with the whole service which they owe to the King, and with

their ships, with the first favourable wind, to go with the King in his

service.”[864]

All this was a practical defiance of Louis. But to set Louis at

defiance without endeavouring to secure the adherence, or at any rate

the neutrality, of La Marche and Angoulême would have been simply to

court defeat. Two days before the King’s truce with Hugh expired,

therefore, two of the places in dispute between Hugh and the King--the

city of Saintes and the castle of Merpins--with the town of Cognac and

the castle of Belmont, were committed to Hugh to hold “till the King’s

coming of age,” “as he held them on the Saturday before the feast of

S. Peter in Chains” in the preceding year; two envoys (of whom one was

Geoffrey de Neville) were despatched to take security from him “for

his good and faithful service, and that he would faithfully do his

utmost to advance the King’s interest and procure his honour till the

term before mentioned”;[865] and on 4th August the holder of the papal

mandate for Hugh’s excommunication was desired to deal with it only as

the same two envoys should direct.[866]

Contrary winds detained Archbishop Stephen and his fellow-ambassadors

in England[867] for more than a week. When they reached the French

court, Louis was already crowned.[868] He seems to have declined to

make any immediate answer to their demands, and adjourned the matter

to the octave of All Saints.[869] The delay was probably not unwelcome

to Henry’s counsellors, who at that moment had their hands full with a

Welsh war. The pacification at Shrewsbury in July, 1221, seems to have

been followed by an unusually long period of comparative tranquillity

on the Marches of Wales. It was probably this condition of affairs

which, when it had lasted for sixteen months, encouraged the King’s

representatives to venture on what looks like a very bold step in the

prosecution of their schemes for asserting the royal authority over

the castles. On 11th November, 1222, the Earl Marshal was informed by

letter patent that “as the castle of Caerleon with its appurtenances,

which is in your hand, ought to be held of us in chief, it is provided

by our common council that that castle shall be delivered into our

hand; and therefore we strictly command that you, without delay or

excuse, surrender that castle with its appurtenances to us, and

afterwards we will cause full justice to be done in our court to

you and to any others who may have aught to say about it.”[870] For

this demand it is hardly possible to conceive any motive save one: a

desire to obtain from the Marshal, by way of example and precedent,

a practical acknowledgement of the King’s right to take into his

own hands, when he pleased, a castle held of the Crown not merely in

custody, but in fee. If, however, this was the purpose the Council had

in view, they were ill-advised in their choice of a time for making the

demand; the Marshal, if not already in Ireland, was on the point of

setting out to spend the winter there.[871] Possibly the King’s letter

never reached him; if it did, he had a fair excuse for not acting

upon it till his return. A second letter, written on 26th January,

1223, desired him to surrender Caerleon before the close of Easter

“because we do not deem it advisable that you should hold it beyond

that term.”[872] But when he came back, in Passion Week, the Welsh

March was in turmoil from one end to the other, and the Council were

only too glad to make the utmost possible use of his ready co-operation

in restoring the English supremacy in South Wales. Such a moment was

clearly inopportune for taking an important border stronghold out of

the hands of a defender at once so capable and so loyal; and more than

three years passed away before the King ventured to renew his demand.

Llywelyn had taken advantage of the Marshal’s absence to organize

an attack on the English border. Early in 1223 he besieged, took,

and utterly destroyed two castles in Shropshire, Kinnerley and

Whittington.[873] The Justiciar, taking the King with him, went at

the beginning of March to Shrewsbury, seemingly to demand or compel

satisfaction from Llywelyn. The Earl of Chester came forward as

mediator, offering himself as surety for Llywelyn’s compliance with the

demand within a given time; and the intended punitive attack on Wales

was suspended accordingly.[874] But meanwhile tidings of Llywelyn’s

outbreak had reached the Marshal in Ireland, and in the middle of

April[875] he “came up to land” somewhere in South Wales “with a vast

fleet,” carrying “a multitude of cavalry and infantry.”[876] Hubert

seems to have expected his arrival, and sent a messenger to meet him

with a request that he would keep truce with Llywelyn for another

fortnight, in the hope that Llywelyn might yet fulfill the promise

made for him by Chester, although the time fixed for its fulfilment

had already expired.[877] The delay proved useless; and on Easter

Monday (24 April) Earl William marched upon Cardigan. “On that day the

castle was delivered to him, and on the Wednesday following he drew to

Caermarthen, and obtained that castle also.”[878] Llywelyn, on hearing

what had occurred, sent his son Gruffudd “with a very numerous army

to oppose the Earl”; they met at Kidwelly and fought “for the greater

part of the day”; Gruffudd seems to have been worsted, and “for lack of

provision returned back to his country.”[879]

The Marshal hereupon busied himself with the repair of Caermarthen

castle[880] till at the end of May a royal letter patent bade him,

“forasmuch as it is determined by our Council that the castles of

Caermarthen and Cardigan, which you have taken, should be retained in

our own hand,” deliver both places to Robert de Vaux to hold during

the King’s pleasure.[881] Llywelyn had certainly proved himself

utterly undeserving of the confidence in his loyalty which had induced

the regent Earl Marshal to entrust him with the custody of these

two important strongholds; and if the regent’s son was not actually

commissioned by the Council to recover them by force, it could at any

rate have no scruples in approving his action and reaping its fruit

for the benefit of the Crown. A day in July was next appointed for

Llywelyn and the Marshal to lay their mutual complaints before the King

and Council. The meeting took place at Ludlow, seemingly between 6th

and 10th July,[882] but the parties “could not be reconciled.”[883]

The Council had apparently not expected a reconciliation, and had come

prepared for war. On the 11th the sheriffs of Devon and Herefordshire

were bidden to take care that no men of their respective shires should

send (by sea in the case of Devon), any supplies to, or hold any

communication with, Llywelyn and his Welsh adherents, but that all

merchants and markets should follow the King’s army to South Wales,

“that is, to our lands of Caermarthen and Cardigan, and to the lands

of our faithful Earl William the Marshal.”[884] An effort was made

to detach the Welsh of Deheubarth and Powys from obedience to their

North-Welsh lord; the Earls of Pembroke and Salisbury were empowered to

receive into the King’s grace “all the Welsh of South Wales who would

return to the King’s fealty and service”;[885] the sons of Gwenwynwyn

of Powys, who since Gwenwynwyn’s death in 1216 had been living in

England as wards or prisoners of the Crown, and were now in Bridgenorth

castle under the care or in the custody of Earl Ranulf of Chester, were

brought to the King’s court at Gloucester, and all men of the lands

which had belonged to their father were invited to “come to the sons of

Gwenwynwyn and to the King’s fealty and peace”;[886] a host of English

barons and knights marched into Wales under the command of the Marshal

and his friend Longsword.[887]

The King and the Justiciar were recalled to London, partly, no doubt,

by the weighty news from France, and partly by the necessity of

receiving the titular King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne, who was

travelling through western Europe to collect forces and funds for the

recovery of his kingdom from the Turks. An “aid for the Holy Land,” of

three marks from every earl, one mark from every baron, twelve pence

from every knight, and one penny from every free tiller of the soil

and every free man who had no land, but had chattels to the value

of half a mark, had been agreed upon by the great Council of the

realm in 1222,[888] but had never been collected.[889] No Christian

sovereign, however, could evade the duty of giving at least a personal

welcome, even if he gave nothing more, to the successor of Godfrey

of Bouillon. John seems to have crossed from France to England at

the end of August.[890] On 1st or 2nd September the English King and

Primate received him “solemnly and with great honours” at Canterbury,

and escorted him to London.[891] His visit was a brief one, and the

hospitality which he received in England was probably amply requited by

the gift of four large sapphires--“than which we never saw finer,” says

Matthew Paris--which he, “out of his innate munificence,” on his way

back offered at the shrine of S. Thomas at Canterbury.[892]

As soon as their royal guest was gone, King and Justiciar hurried back

to the Welsh border. The English host under the Marshal and the Earl

of Salisbury had apparently set out with the intention of joining the

Marshal’s other forces in Pembrokeshire. It was caught by Gruffudd in

one of the intricate passes of the Welsh hills, and narrowly escaped

destruction,[893] but it seems to have cut its way through; and the

Marshal set to work to fortify “the lands which he occupied,”--that

is, doubtless, the districts of Caermarthen and Gower--by founding new

castles and repairing old ones.[894] Llywelyn’s next diversion was to

lay siege, early in September,[895] to Reginald de Breuse’s castle of

Builth, with such a numerous force that Reginald immediately applied

to the Crown for help.[896] On 12th September the host was summoned to

meet the King “with all haste” at Gloucester,[897] and march with him

to the relief of Builth. The expedition probably set out from Hereford

on the 19th or 20th. Its mere approach sufficed to raise the siege; on

the 23rd King and Justiciar were back at Hereford.[898]

It was not the first time, nor was it to be the last, that the Welsh

fled before Hubert de Burgh. He now led the King and the host from

Hereford to Leominster and Shrewsbury, and thence, on the last day of

September, to Montgomery,[899] passing through Llywelyn’s lands and

driving the flocks and herds before them as they went, to serve for the

sustenance of the troops. The castle of Montgomery, originally built

by one of the most famous of the followers of William the Conqueror,

had been more than once destroyed by the Welsh. Its site, which had

sufficed for the simple Norman keep reared by the first Earl of

Shrewsbury, was probably not suited for more elaborate fortifications

such as were used in the thirteenth century; it served, however, to

shelter the King and the Justiciar; and some of “the wiser men of the

army,” while scouring the country around it under Hubert’s orders,

found “a place fit for building a castle whose position, everyone

thought, would be impregnable.”[900] Urgent orders were despatched to

the sheriff of Shropshire for an immediate supply of building materials

and tools, and the work was begun at once.[901] Meanwhile Llywelyn

had been excommunicated by Archbishop Stephen. On 7th or 8th October,

at Montgomery, the Prince once more came and made submission to King

and Primate, Stephen dictating the terms. Llywelyn swore that within

a reasonable time, to be fixed by the Archbishop, and in a fitting

place, he would make satisfaction to the King and the King’s men for

all damages done by himself and his men since the day of the taking

of Kinnerley. Six lesser Welsh chieftains swore with him; each of the

seven embodied his engagement in a charter; and on these conditions

Llywelyn was absolved.[902] Moreover, he at once gave the King seisin

of Kinnerley and Whittington, that he might restore them to their

former owners; and Henry gave back to Llywelyn and his men seisin of

all that they had held in fee on the day of the capture of Kinnerley,

subject to a trial of counterclaims at the date fixed for Llywelyn’s

promised satisfaction[903]--that date being Candlemas, 1224.[904]

This conditional restitution of course did not include Cardigan and

Caermarthen, which Llywelyn had held merely as custodian for the Crown.

On 7th November these two castles were committed to the only man in

whose keeping they were likely to be safe--the Earl Marshal.[905]

The time fixed by Louis for answering Henry’s demand for the

restoration of his continental heritage had now come. On 10th October

an embassy consisting of Bishops Pandulf of Norwich and John of Ely,

Philip d’Aubigné, and Richard de Rivers, had been accredited to

France to receive Louis’s reply, and to treat with him concerning a

prolongation of the truce,[906] which would expire in April, 1224.

These envoys met with a very unfavourable reception. Louis declared

that the whole continental possessions of the Angevin house had been by

a legal judgement escheated to the French Crown;[907] that they were

therefore his by right--a right which, he added, he was prepared to

prove in his own court, if the King of England would come and submit to

its judgement; and that moreover the agreement to which he had sworn in

England was no longer binding upon him, inasmuch as it had been doubly

broken on the English side, first by the exaction of heavy ransoms from

his partisans who had been captured at Lincoln, and secondly in that

“the liberties of the realm of England, for which the war had been

waged and which at his departure had been granted and sworn to by all,

had been so dealt with that not only those most evil laws were brought

back into use as of old, but others still more wicked were generally

established throughout the realm.”[908] He wound up his harangue to

the envoys with a distinct threat, which he charged them to repeat to

those who had sent them: not only would he restore nothing, but he

intended, when opportunity should offer, to prosecute his claim to the

English Crown, as having been taken from John by a legal sentence and

granted by the barons of England to himself.[909] Although the truce

had still six months to run, the cry of Constantine Olaveson must have

rung ominously in the ears of Hubert de Burgh when the French King’s

complaints and threats were repeated to him,[910] even if the return

of the envoys did not--as it most probably did--coincide with the most

alarming outbreak of baronial discontent with which the government had

had to deal since Louis left England.

The abolition of the regency before the King attained his majority

had inevitably resulted in giving a great increase of power to the

Justiciar. Under a sovereign of full age the Justiciar was the King’s

lieutenant; it was on him that the supreme powers and functions of

government temporarily devolved when the King himself was absent from

the realm. It followed almost of necessity that when there ceased to

be a person specially set apart to exercise those powers and functions

for a King under age, they fell into the Justiciar’s hands. This result

of Pandulf’s resignation could not be altogether pleasing to some, at

least, of the other members of the Council, or of the magnates outside

the Council. It was one thing, first to accept the autocracy of a ruler

whom they had unanimously chosen out of their own ranks on the score

of his transcendent personal merits, and, afterwards, to yield to the

dictates of one who legally represented a power acknowledged by all

as superior to that of the Crown itself; it was quite another matter

to be ruled by Sir Hubert de Burgh, and to be, moreover, confronted

with a prospect of being ruled by him till Henry’s coming of age--an

event which seemed almost as remote as ever, since, the date originally

intended for it being past, it was now seemingly regarded as deferred

till his twenty-first birthday.[911] Nominally, of course, Hubert

governed in concert with his colleagues of the royal Council. But with

the control of the executive in his hands, and no authority capable

of overriding him nearer than Rome, he was practically master of the

Council. There were only two other members of it who could under any

circumstances have sufficient weight in themselves to act as a check

upon him. Both officially and personally Stephen de Langton was a

greater man than Hubert de Burgh. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not

only the highest ecclesiastical authority in the land, he was also

the first adviser of the Crown; and Archbishop Stephen had long ago

proved himself a statesman of a far higher order than any other then

living in England. But Stephen had never desired to be a leader in

secular affairs; and he seems to have come home in 1221 resolved to

take as little direct share in politics as possible. His one recorded

public act, for more than two years after his return, was the holding,

at Oseney in April, 1222, of a great Church council[912] for the

settlement of ecclesiastical discipline and administration on the

basis of a set of canons which he had drawn up and on which the law of

the Church of England is grounded to this day. When he did intervene

in temporal matters, his character, even more than his office, gave

to his intervention a special importance which all parties seem to

have felt and acknowledged. The Bishop of Winchester’s position was

wholly different. “Peter des Roches was as hard as a rock,” said the

monks of his cathedral chapter;[913] which seems to imply at any rate

that his conduct as a bishop did not err on the side of neglect or

laxity in matters of order and discipline. His material benefactions

to his church, and the diligence and ability with which he managed the

temporal concerns of his see, were indisputable; and there is nothing

to indicate that he failed in any of his episcopal duties. But Peter

was ambitious of exercising his talents in a wider field than that of

diocesan administration; and his talents were great enough to justify

his ambition. After his death Matthew Paris declared that “the whole

council of the realm of England, royal as well as ecclesiastical, had

suffered an irreparable loss” in losing him.[914] Under Pandulf he and

Hubert had worked together almost as equals; but before the end of the

year 1221 Peter found himself Hubert’s subordinate, and found, too,

that his chance of regaining at a future time his former influence in

matters of state was diminishing day by day; for though the King’s

ex-tutor retained his seat in the Council, the King had virtually

become Hubert’s pupil instead of his.

There was only one possible means of altering this state of things:

to put Henry into possession, if not of full regal powers, at least

of some voice in the government of his own realm, something like a

decisive vote in his own Council. If this were done, the Justiciar’s

supremacy would become dependent on his personal influence over the

King’s mind; and if it were done quickly, while that mind was still

young and tender and had not yet had time to take the mould of Hubert’s

political teaching, Peter might fairly hope to be more than a match for

Hubert. A suggestion that something of this kind should be done seems

to have been conveyed to the Pope from England at some time before the

middle of April, 1223,[915] and to have been either coupled with, or

accompanied or followed by, a request that the Pope would issue some

instructions concerning the royal castles. When the result of these

two suggestions appeared, the onus of responsibility for it fell upon

Hubert; Hubert, however, in later days declared that the Pope’s action

in the matter had been instigated by the Bishop of Winchester, against

the interests of Hubert himself. Meanwhile a number of the magnates

had for some time past been murmuring among themselves against the

Justiciar, resenting his haughty bearing and his (in their opinion)

high-handed judicial decisions in cases where they were concerned,

and “saying to one another that he stirred up the King’s mind against

them, and likewise that he ruled the kingdom by unjust laws.”[916] A

step which he took at the beginning of 1223 aggravated their resentment

and their distrust. On 30th January orders were issued in the King’s

name for the sheriffs to inquire in full county court, by a sworn jury

of twelve knights, what customs and liberties King John had in the

shires before the war between him and the barons began; to proclaim

the result of the inquest in full county court and cause it to be

observed throughout the shires; and to send a report of it to the King

at Westminster on 8th May.[917] These orders evidently caused some

commotion in the shires, for on 9th April they were significantly

modified; the King “by the advice of his faithful men” issued other

letters whereby the sheriffs were bidden not to proclaim the royal

liberties and customs ascertained by means of the inquest or to enforce

their observance, “for the present,” and were assured that he “had

no will to raise up, or cause to be observed in the realm, any evil

customs”; these new letters also were to be read in full shire-court;

and the date for the return of the inquest was postponed to 25th

June.[918]

By that time some important letters had probably arrived from Rome. On

13th April the Pope had written four letters for England: one addressed

jointly to the Bishop of Winchester, the Justiciar, and William Brewer

(a well known judge, who seems to have ranked next to Hubert on the

Bench); one to the Earl of Chester; one to the vice-chancellor, Ralf de

Neville; and one to “the earls, barons, and other faithful subjects”

of the English King. In the first of these letters Honorius, having,

as he said, heard and rejoiced to hear that Henry, though still a boy

in years, was already so much of a man in understanding that he “ought

no longer to be debarred from disposing usefully and prudently of his

realm and its affairs,” laid his commands on the three councillors

whom he was addressing that they should henceforth give the young

King “free and unfettered disposal of his kingdom, resign to him

without any difficulty the lands and castles of his which they held

in wardenship, and procure a like resignation of all Crown lands and

castles similarly held by other persons.”[919] The other three letters

began by informing their recipients of the orders issued in the first,

as to giving Henry the disposal of his realm; after this the letter to

Earl Ranulf conveyed to him individually the same command with regard

to his wardenships which in the first letter had been given to its

three joint addressees respecting theirs: the third letter bade the

vice-chancellor, as custodian of the royal seal, use it henceforth

according to the King’s good pleasure and in obedience to him only, and

permit no more letters to be sealed with it save at his desire; while

in the fourth letter the earls, barons, and other liegemen were bidden

“henceforth to obey the king humbly and devotedly,” and support him

“faithfully and firmly against any who might presume to go contrary

to him,” and they were further warned that in the event of their

disobedience to these injunctions they “might justly fear a sentence of

excommunication.”[920]

Honorius thus conferred upon his royal ward the full powers of legal

age with respect to the government of his realm in general, and to two

things in particular: the custody of royal castles and demesne lands,

and the issue of royal letters under the great seal. This definition

implied that in some other respects Henry was still to be accounted a

minor. Accordingly, the Dunstable annalist tells us that in a great

council held in London after the return of the King and the Justiciar

from Wales, “it was provided by order of the Pope and assent of the

barons, and the provision was published, that the King should have

legal age so far as concerns the free disposition of his castles and

lands and wardenships, but not so that any one could maintain his right

through it in a court of law.”[921] Thus Henry was still precluded from

making grants in perpetuity.[922]

Shortly after these proceedings in London, two barons of high standing

and approved fidelity to the King, Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard, were

called to the court, “and when they got there they were not allowed

to withdraw till they had assigned to the Justiciar the castles which

they held in custody.”[923] Walter de Lacy was hereditary sheriff of

Herefordshire and constable of Hereford castle; Ralf Musard was sheriff

of Gloucestershire and constable of Gloucester castle. For what purpose

or on what grounds the assignation of these two important border

fortresses to Hubert was required, we are not told.[924] A considerable

party among the barons regarded the proceedings against Lacy and Musard

as a flagrant act of injustice and an unwarrantable assumption of

power on the part of Hubert. The three men of chief importance among

these malcontents, Earls Ranulf of Chester, Gilbert of Gloucester, and

William of Aumale, at once resolved to appeal to the young King in

person “and show him the malice of the Justiciar,”[925] and, no doubt,

urge him to exert his newly acquired right of independent action to put

the usurper down. Hubert, however, prevented their design by inducing

the King to go with him to the west of England--which, according to

Falkes, he did by making the lad believe that the three Earls were

plotting to seize him and hold him prisoner--and shut himself up with

him in Gloucester castle,[926] where Hubert was now practically master.

Thence he sent a message to the Earls in the King’s name forbidding

them to approach him.[927] They, meanwhile, had been joined by Falkes

de Bréauté, Brian de Lisle, Robert de Vipont, John de Lacy, Peter de

Maulay, Philip Marc, Engelard de Cigogné, William de Cantelupe and his

son, “and many others.”[928] In their fury they made an attempt to

surprise the Tower of London. The attempt failed;[929] possibly its

real purpose was only to alarm the Justiciar and bring him and the King

back to the capital. On 28th November Henry and Hubert were in London

again.[930] Their return may have been hastened by the tidings from

thence; but it was probably required chiefly for the publication of

some further letters from Rome.

At some date prior to November, 1223, Pope Honorius was asked, “on

the King’s behalf and in his interest,” to give orders that Bishop

Peter of Winchester, Earl Ranulf of Chester, the Justiciar, and

Falkes, should be compelled to surrender into the King’s hand the

royal castles and other bailiwicks which they held. This request can

hardly have proceeded from any of the four persons named, nor from the

royal Council as a whole. It seems, indeed, utterly unaccountable;

yet we know from the Pope himself that he received it, that he issued

the desired mandate, and that thereupon he was asked--also “on the

King’s behalf”--to quash that mandate, lest it should give occasion to

disturbance, since the four men named were all willing to do what was

required of them in due season, and no fitter persons could be found to

replace them. The Pope, on 20th November, refused to cancel the orders

which he had given, “lest he should seem to use lightness,” but made

their execution dependent on the will of the King.[931] The story of

this correspondence is all the more puzzling because at some date which

must have been considerably earlier than 20th November--possibly as

early as the date of the letters concerning Henry’s majority--Honorius

seems to have issued a bull by which, if its terms are correctly

represented by the writers of the time, all special mandates for

compelling individuals to surrender their wardenships were made

superfluous. According to Roger of Wendover, certain “messengers of

the King” brought back from Rome a bull addressed to the archbishops

of England and their suffragans, commanding that, the King being now

recognized as of an age to take the chief part in the ordering of his

realm, they should, by apostolic authority, bid all earls, barons,

knights, and other persons whatsoever having the custody of castles,

honours, and townships belonging to the royal demesne, surrender them

to the King at once; and should force recalcitrants to submission by

means of ecclesiastical censures.[932] The reference in the Pope’s

other letters concerning Henry’s coming of age to the surrender of

Crown castles and lands seems to have been understood, at the time

when those letters were published, as intended merely to sanction the

oath taken by the barons in May, 1220, and strengthen the hands of the

young King whenever he might wish to claim its fulfilment. But the

bull to the prelates was, by implication at least, a peremptory order

from the Pope for a general surrender of all such wardenships at once.

The existence of this bull seems to have been known to some persons in

England before the middle of November, but the bull appears not to have

been published till the beginning of December.[933] At the council held

in London on that occasion Chester and his allies were not present; on

the King’s return they had withdrawn to Waltham. The Primate approached

them with overtures of peace, and on his assurance of their personal

safety they, in obedience to a summons in the King’s name,[934] came

before their sovereign. They unanimously assured him that their action

had been directed not against himself, but against Hubert, who, they

said, ought to be removed from the administration of affairs, as a

waster of the King’s treasure and an oppressor of the people.[935]

Hubert, who was of course present, burst out in angry abuse of the

Bishop of Winchester, on whom he cast all the blame, calling him a

betrayer of King and kingdom, and asserting that his ill-will was the

cause of all the evils that had happened in the time of John as well as

in that of Henry. Peter retorted that if it should cost him everything

he possessed, he would have the Justiciar dragged from power; and with

this threat he rose and left the council chamber, followed by the

barons of Chester’s party.[936] The Primate, however, succeeded in

arranging a “truce” whereby further discussion was adjourned to the

octave of S. Hilary.[937]

This scene appears to have occurred on 6th December.[938] The Patent

Roll records that on the 8th a royal letter was issued “on the motion

of the Lord King himself.”[939] Two days later still, a change in the

testing clause of the King’s letters marked the definite recognition of

his entrance upon the second stage of his minority. The formula which

for several years past had been almost exclusively in use--“Witness

Hubert de Burgh, my Justiciar”--disappeared, and was replaced

thenceforth by one which had hardly been seen since the very earliest

days of the young King’s reign--“Witness myself.”[940]

FOOTNOTES:

[807] According to the _Brut_, p. 309, “young Rhys” (of South Wales;

see above, p. 90) “became angry with the Lord Llywelyn and separated

from him, and went to William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, because

Llywelyn had given Caermarthen to Maelgwn ap Rhys, and would not

give Aberteivi” (_i.e._ Cardigan) “to him [Rhys], which fell to his

share when South Wales was divided. Then Llywelyn with his army came

to Aberystwith, and obtained possession of it.... Rhys repaired to

the court of the King and complained ... and the King assembled

Llywelyn and the earls and barons of the Marches to Shrewsbury. And

in that council young Rhys and Llywelyn were reconciled, and Llywelyn

relinquished Aberteivi in his favour, as he had given Caermarthen

to Maelgwn.” On 23rd June a safe-conduct was issued to Llywelyn to

come and speak with the King “de negociis Angliae et Walliae” (_Pat.

Rolls_, vol. i. p. 294). On 10th July the Legate wrote to Hubert

from Shrewsbury that Llywelyn “et alii Wallenses et Marchiones, et

Reginaldus de Brahus,” had come thither on the 7th (“die Mercurii

proxima post octavas Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” _Roy. Lett._, vol.

i. p. 136. Dr. Shirley dated this letter 11th July, 1220; but the

“Wednesday after the octave of SS. Peter and Paul” in that year was the

morrow of the translation of S. Thomas, when Pandulf cannot possibly

have been at Shrewsbury. On the corresponding day next year, 1221, he

may very well have been there; and we know from the _Close Rolls_, vol.

i. pp. 463–465, that Hubert had been there in the preceding week, but

had left on 2nd July, and was at Windsor on the day on which Pandulf’s

letter was written. The entry in p. 464 which makes Hubert appear “apud

Westm., ii die Jul.,” obviously contains a clerical error as to either

place or date). On 30th April, 1222, Llywelyn was desired to prolong

his truce with the Marshal and Reginald de Breuse until Easter “in

forma qua treugae illae captae fuerunt apud Salopesbiry coram nobis et

domino Pandulfo Norwicensi electo, tunc legato” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.

pp. 331, 332); whence it seems that the _Brut_ is right in asserting

the King’s presence at the Shrewsbury meeting in July, 1221. The

settlement, whatever its character, was clearly the work of Pandulf,

not Hubert.

[808] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250; _Chron. Melrose_ and _Chron. Lanercost_,

a. 1221.

[809] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 476, 477 b; 17th July, 1221.

[810] 3rd July; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 295.

[811] _Ib._ pp. 316, 317.

[812] _Ib._ pp. 275, 276.

[813] See his agreement with the King, _ib._ p. 306, and Note VI.

[814] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 304.

[815] _Ib._ p. 303.

[816] _Ib._ Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75: “Et statim” (after resigning the

legation) “pro domino rege profectus in Pictaviam, treugas inter nos et

Pictavenses prorogari impetravit.”

[817] The custody of all these lands was committed to Richard de Rivers

on 29th September; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 302.

[818] _Ib._ pp. 303, 304.

[819] _Ib._ p. 315.

[820] “Mandatum est de Norwico electo quod procuret quomodo poterit

diffusas treugas ex parte domini Regis cum comite Marchiae inire;

quibus optentis, Savaricum de Maloleone inducat et moneat ac (_sic_)

ad Dominum Regem festinet, cui (_sic_) faciet de petitionibus suis Deo

dante quod bene erit” etc.; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 477 b. As the

rest of the letter shows clearly that it was not Pandulf who was to

“hasten to the King,” I can only suppose that _ac_ should be _ut_ and

_cui_ should be _qui_.

[821] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 329, 330, 13th April, 1222.

[822] See above, p. 169.

[823] _Querimonia Falcasii_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 260.

[824] See above, p. 170.

[825] “Miles strenuus ac morum honestate commendabilis, regisque

Anglorum magister et eruditor fidelissimus.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 75.

He was one of the commanders in the sea-fight off Sandwich in August,

1217; see above, p. 52.

[826] Turner, pt. II. p. 262. Peter went some time before 16th April,

_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 286, and must have been back before 21st June,

when Philip d’Aubigné had already set out for Holy Land, _ib._ p. 293.

[827] _Ib._ pp. 284, 293, and Turner, _l.c._

[828] He sailed from Marseille for Damietta on 15th August; see his own

letter in R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 75, where it is put under a wrong year,

1222.

[829] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1221.

[830] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75.

[831] “Cum autem Wintoniensis Episcopus de partibus Hispaniae esset

reversus, ipsumque regem post excessum pupillaris aetatis a sua

fateretur custodia liberatum.” _Quer. Falc._, p. 260.

[832] See orders to sheriff--who of course was Peter’s deputy--for

cleaning and repairing the royal lodgings, hall, painted chamber,

kitchen, &c., _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 483. Roger of Wendover, vol.

iv. p. 75, says “Rex ... fuit ad Natale apud Wintoniam, episcopo

civitatis Petro omnia sibi necessaria ministrante.” So he did, no

doubt, but as sheriff acting under orders and at the King’s expense,

not as host.

[833] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 251.

[834] See prohibitions in Patent Rolls _passim_.

[835] “Treugas ... quas coepit, ut praedictis significavit, ut interim

in partibus Lincolniae sua possit usitare et expendere.” _Roy. Lett._,

vol. i. p. 172. There seems to be a noun omitted in connexion with

“sua”; I think the meaning of the sentence must be as I have rendered

it.

[836] _Ib._ pp. 172, 173.

[837] “Audivimus quod preparatis vos in multitudine armatorum eundi

in Walliam ad capiendum castrum de Dinaunt Poys, quod est in manu

W. Marescalli Comitis Penbrochiae, et quod ipse nobis restituit in

presentia vestra et aliorum fidelium nostrorum London[iae], unde

plurimum miramur. Et ideo vobis mandamus firmiter praecipientes

quatinus in fide qua nobis tenemini ab hujusmodi propositi desistatis,

nec ullo modo ad castrum illud sic capiendum accedatis, quoniam

mittimus in partes illas Robertum de Vallibus cum litteris praedicti

Marescalli ad constabularium castri praedicti ut illud ex parte nostra

ab illo recipiat et vobis illud ex parte nostra liberet, salvis ipso

Marescallo bladis suis,” &c., “sicut coram nobis et consilio nostro

fuit concessum ex parte vestra.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 346. The

scribe of the Roll has obscured the story by adding a most confused and

confusing note: “Duplicantur littere iste, mutata prima clausula, in

cujus loco scribitur ‘quod idem comes obsidionem dedit dicto castro,’

&c.” This looks as if it ought to mean that the Earl Marshal was

besieging the castle; but it must of course really refer to the Earl of

Gloucester.

[838] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 79–81. Constantine’s patronymic, “Filius

Olavi,” comes from M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 251; in _Ann.

Dunst._, p. 79, he appears as “Constantinus Aloph.”

[839] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 78; in these annals the story is told under a

wrong year, 1223.

[840] _Ib._; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 81.

[841] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 506–507 b.

[842] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 79.

[843] He was at Oxford on 11th August, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 507,

and at the Tower on 13th August, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 338.

[844] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 81. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 79.

[845] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. pp. 251, 252.

[846] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 79, and M. Paris, _l.c._

[847] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 82; cf. _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._, _Ann.

Waverley_, a. 1222--an entry made before the matter was finally

settled--and for the hostages, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 517, 569.

[848] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1222.

[849] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 334, 15th June; term, Michaelmas.

[850] _Ib._ p. 339, 23rd August; term unlimited.

[851] _Foedera_, I. i. pp. 167, 168, 27th August.

[852] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 389.

[853] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 525, 525 b, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.

353, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 189–196, 206.

[854] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 366.

[855] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 169.

[856] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 219.

[857] See above, p. 59.

[858] He had been consecrated by the Pope on 29th May, 1222; _Ann.

Wav._, _ad ann._

[859] “Pandulfus Norwicensis episcopus adversus eum [Ludovicum]

sedem apostolicam appellavit, ne quis ei coronam Franciae imponeret

nisi prius Normanniam regi Anglorum restitueret, sicut super sancta

juraverat quando dicto regi reconciliatus fuerat post guerram in

partibus Anglicanis.” _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1223, p. 81.

[860] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 81; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 86; cf. R.

Coggeshall, p. 197. The letters accrediting the three prelates to the

French Primate and to Louis were issued on 28th July; _Pat. Rolls_,

vol. i. p. 406; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 556.

[861] _Pat. Rolls_, _l.c._, 23rd July.

[862] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 569 b, 570, 27th July and 1st August.

[863] _Ib._ pp. 556 b, 557, 570, 1st August.

[864] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 380.

[865] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 379, 30th July.

[866] _Ib._ p. 380.

[867] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 81.

[868] He was crowned on 6th August; _Ann. Wav._, a. 1223.

[869] This is Ralf of Coggeshall’s account of Louis’s reply: “Coronatus

antequam nuncii praedicti ad eum pervenirent, de tali petitione

responsum dare distulit, inducias petens de responso usque ad octabas

Omnium Sanctorum,” p. 197. Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 86) and the

_Ann. Dunst._ (p. 82) represent Louis as giving an answer which must,

it would seem, have put an end to all further hope of agreement, and

which I therefore think must really have been made not to the bishops

who went to him in August, but to another set of episcopal envoys who

went in October, as will be seen later.

[870] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 352.

[871] Cf. _Brut_, a. 1222, p. 311, and _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1223, p. 82.

[872] “Quia non habemus consilium quod illud ultra terminum praedictum

teneatis.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 363.

[873] “Leulinus vero interea duo castra sita in margia North Walliae,

quae fuerunt Fulconis filii Warini, funditus destruxit,” _Ann.

Dunst._, _l.c._ That this account of Llywelyn’s doings in the winter

of 1222–1223 is correct, and that the two castles were Kinnerley and

Whittington, appears from the Rolls, though the same writer’s story

(_ib._) of a war which he represents as immediately preceding the

Marshal’s visit to Ireland is surely nothing but a distorted version

of the events of 1220: “Eadem tempestate Leulinus, regulorum Gualliae

major, regis Angliae sororius, petiit a rege Angliae auxilium ut

quaedam castra per Walenses injuste regno Angliae subtracta posset in

statum debitum restituere. Habito vero auxilio, dicta castra cepit et

destruxit et terram ipsam sibi retinuit.” Cf. above, p. 161. Roger of

Wendover (vol. iv. p. 85) also confuses the Welsh war of 1220 with

that of 1223, and has added some further confusions of his own. The

Dunstable writer is not quite exact in his account of the ownership of

the two castles really taken in 1223; according to _Close Rolls_, vol.

i. pp. 554 and 569, Whittington belonged to Fulk FitzWarine, Kinnerley

to Baldwin of Hodnet.

[874] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82. The court was at Shrewsbury on 7th March,

and at Bridgenorth on 10th March; thence it moved southward along

the border to Worcester, Gloucester, and Bristol, and back through

Wiltshire to London. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 536 b–538 b; _Pat.

Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 367–369.

[875] “About Palm Sunday” (16th April), _Brut_, p. 313; “in hebdomada

Passionis,” _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._ If this latter writer is correct

in his statement about the fifteen days’ truce, and if the _Brut_ is

correct in its date for the taking of Cardigan--Easter Monday (24th

April)--the Marshal must have landed not a day later than the Monday

in Passion week, 10th April, and have been met on the spot by a King’s

messenger sent to await his arrival.

[876] _Brut_, _l.c._; the Dunstable annalist says “cum multis millibus

populorum.”

[877] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[878] _Brut_, p. 313. Roger of Wendover’s account of the war between

the Marshal and Llywelyn in 1223 is as follows: “Eodem anno, dum

Willelmus Marescallus comes Penbroc fuit in Hibernia, Loelinus rex

Walensium in manu forti cepit duo castella praedicti Willelmi, et

omnes quos in eis invenit capitibus privari fecit, et impositis in

eisdem castellis Walensibus suis, recessit. Sed cum post dies paucos

ad notitiam praedicti Marescalli res gesta pervolasset, rediit cum

festinatione in Angliam; exercitu magno congregato, castella praedicta

obsedit et cepit; et quia Loelinus prius omnes homines Marescalli

quos in castellis ceperat capitibus amputatis interfecerat, Willelmus

Marescallus Walensibus talionem reddens eorum capita detruncari fecit;

et deinde ad majorem vindictam terram Loelini hostiliter ingressus

igne et ferro quaeque sibi obvia devastavit” (vol. iv. pp. 84, 85).

There seems to be a double, or rather triple, confusion here. It was

not in 1223 but in 1220 that Llywelyn took two castles which belonged

to the Marshal (see above, p. 161). The two castles which he took in

1223 belonged not to the Marshal but to Fulk FitzWarine and Baldwin

of Hodnet respectively (see above, footnote 873); and the two castles

which the Marshal captured on his return were not the same (“praedicta

castella”) which Llywelyn had taken on either of these two occasions,

for they were Cardigan and Caermarthen, of which Llewelyn had been

legal custodian--“the person who had the custody of the castles on the

part of the King,” as the _Brut_ puts it (_l.c._)--ever since 1218. The

cutting off the prisoners’ heads is doubtful, especially on the side

of the Marshal, because the Welsh chronicles would have been almost

certain to mention such an act on his part if it really took place, and

they give no hint of any such thing.

[879] _Brut_, p. 313.

[880] _Ib._

[881] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 373, 374.

[882] Cf. _Brut_, p. 315, the safe-conducts to Llywelyn in _Pat.

Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 406 and 376, and the movements of the court as

shewn _ib._ and in _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 553 b–555.

[883] _Brut_, _l.c._

[884] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 569 b.

[885] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 377, 13th July.

[886] _Ib._ pp. 378, 379, 13th and 19th July.

[887] See the list of protections for those who are “in exercitu

nostro in partibus Walliae cum W. comite Sarresburiae et comite W.

Marescallo,” _ib._ p. 407, 13th July; and of those who are entitled

to scutage from their tenants to support them on the same expedition,

_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 570 b, 571, 10th August.

[888] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 516 b, 567, 567 b, 25th June and 24th

November, 1222.

[889] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1222.

[890] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 259, says “circa octabas

Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” but the Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 559, shew

this to be much too early.

[891] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 562,

563 b, which shew that Henry was at Canterbury 1st and 2nd September,

at Rochester 5th September, and at Westminster 6th–13th September,

and that on the 9th thirty pounds were paid to Philip of Aubigné “ad

expensas Regis Jerusalem adquietandas factas apud Londoniam in festo

Nativitatis B. Mariae.”

[892] M. Paris, _l.c._ p. 260. The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, say: “Ideo

munera pauciora data sunt illi quia dissuasit regi Franciae jura regis

Angliae reformari.”

[893] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83, and _Brut_, p. 315. The _Brut’s_

version of this expedition is that “the Earl [Marshal] designed through

the aid of Earl Ferrers and Henry Pictot lord of Ewias to proceed

through the territory of the prince to his own country; but he was

not able, because Llywelyn had sent his son Gruffudd and a large army

... to Carnwyllon to intercept the Earl and his men, and there was he

slain”!

[894] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[895] “Circa Nativitatem B. Mariae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 71. Roger

has here again mixed up the events of 1223 with those of an earlier

year; he puts the whole affair of Builth and Montgomery in 1221, but it

certainly belongs to 1223.

[896] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 71, 72.

[897] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 170.

[898] “Rex autem, qui suis magnatibus deesse non debuit, cum exercitu

magno illuc tendens, fugientibus ex more Wallensibus, obsidionem

amovit,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 72. We have no record of the King’s

movements between 15th September, when he was at Windsor, and 19th

September, when he was at Hereford. On the 20th he was at “Brenles”;

the next two days are blank; on the 23rd he was at Hereford again, on

the 26th at Leominster, and on the 29th at Shrewsbury, _Close Rolls_,

vol. i. pp. 564, 564 b.

[899] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 564 b.

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

[901] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 564 b, 565.

[902] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 411, 8th October.

[903] _Ib._ pp. 411, 481. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83.

[904] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 574 b.

[905] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 413, 414.

[906] _Ib._ p. 412, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 565, R. Coggeshall, p.

197.

[907] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._, _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82.

[908] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 86. See above, footnote 869.

[909] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82 (see above, _l.c._), and R. Coggeshall,

p. 197.

[910] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78, and _Hist. Angl._,

vol. ii. p. 257, connect Louis’s complaint of the non-observance of

treaty and charters with the execution of Constantine.

[911] This is indicated by an agreement made in 1222 with the Irish

King Donell of Thomond that the ferm due from him to the English Crown

should be reduced from a hundred and thirty to a hundred marks a year

“until our coming of age,” in consideration of a fine of two hundred

marks; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 336, 337. In other words, Hubert,

being in want of ready money for the needs of the state, borrowed from

Donell in Henry’s name two hundred marks, to be repaid in instalments

by the deduction of thirty marks a year from the ferm of Thomond till

the repayment should be completed; which would be (roughly) in 1228.

[912] _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a. 1222.

[913] _Ann. Tewkesb._, a. 1238.

[914] M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 490.

[915] Hubert de Burgh in 1239 said “Episcopus Wintoniensis misit Romam

W. de S. Albino” [the reporter of his words, a S. Alban’s man, made the

name “S. Albano,” but it was really Saint-Aubin] “pro dicto negotio,”

_i.e._, to get the King declared of age; _Responsiones_, M. Paris,

_Chron. Maj._, vol. vi. p. 69. If so, Honorius waited a long while

before acting on the suggestion; for Master William de St.-Aubin was

accredited as the King’s proctor at Rome on 25th March, 1222 (_Pat.

Rolls_, vol. i. p. 328), and was back in England before 30th October,

when he was sent on a mission to Poitou which lasted till the very

time at which the Pope’s mandates about the majority were issued,

April, 1223 (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 518, 541). Moreover, the letter

accrediting William to the Pope is attested not by Peter, but by Hubert.

[916] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 88, R. Coggeshall, p. 203, and Louis’s

assertion quoted above, p. 198.

[917] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 168.

[918] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 569.

[919] “Quodamodo sibi dispositionem regni sui dimittetis liberam

et quietam, terras et castra quae tenetis custodiae nomine sine

difficultate qualibet resignetis eidem, et resignare procuretis ab

aliis qui terras et castra ipsius simili modo tenent.”

[920] See Note VII.

[921] More literally, “not to the point that it [_i.e._ the

disposition] could be maintained by any one in a law-suit.” I have to

thank Mr. R. L. Poole for these renderings of the Dunstable annalist’s

words (a. 1223, p. 83): “Postmodum vero, regis exercitu recedente,

baronibus apud Londoniam convocatis, de mandato domini Papae et assensu

baronum provisum est, et provisio publicata, quod ipse rex haberet

legitimam aetatem quantum ad liberam dispositionem de castris et terris

et gwardiis suis; non autem quoad hoc ut in placito posset ab aliquo

communiri.”

[922] This is evident from the non-existence of any charters or Charter

Rolls of Henry III earlier than January, 1227, after which they begin

immediately. See Powicke, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. pp. 221–223.

“The clause in italics” (_non autem quoad hoc_, etc., see preceding

note) “is important, and defines the meaning of _dispositio_. Henry

could now entrust his castles and lands, and the property of his wards,

at his own choice, but the declaration of 1218 against permanent

grants under the great seal still held good. These grants could not

be regarded in a court of law as possessed of the finality allowed

to a charter” (_ib._ p. 222). Falkes describes the limitation of the

King’s powers as follows: “Cum a sede apostolica jussio processisset

ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis, a cunctis tenentibus

redderentur, adjuncta clausula quod rex ipse jam adultus factus non

posset compelli habere tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus.”

_Querimonia_, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 261.

[923] “Justiciarius et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones

ad curiam regis vocarentur, scilicet Walterus de Lascy et Radulfus

Musard, quorum fidelitas pro ipso rege in omnibus fuit approbata,

quibus cum accessissent non antea recedere licuit quam castra quae

causa custodiae tenebant dicto justitiario assignarent.” _Quer. Falc._,

p. 261.

[924] Falkes is our only informant on this transaction; but his story,

provokingly laconic as it is, receives some countenance from the

Rolls; for they show that on 15th November Lacy was, by a royal letter

attested by Hubert and issued on Hubert’s motion, ordered to deliver

Hereford castle and shire to Ralf FitzNicolas (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p.

414), and that six weeks later the castle was in Hubert’s hands (_ib._

p. 419).

[925] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._

[926] _Ib._ Henry and Hubert left London 8th or 9th November, and went

by Oxford, Woodstock, and Cirencester to Gloucester, where they were

16th–22nd November; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 575–576.

[927] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._

[928] Cf. the summons in _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 481, 482, and R.

Wend., vol. iv. p. 93. Nothing is said of Walter de Lacy or Ralf

Musard, whom we should have expected to find in the malcontents’ camp,

if they were free to join it. Most likely they were not so; Ralf was,

so far as we know, still the responsible custodian of Gloucester

castle, where Hubert now had him safe under his own eyes; and a letter

close of 16th November shows that Walter was “detained in England in

the King’s service” (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 575 b)--probably in

actual attendance on the King and thus under the surveillance of the

Justiciar.

[929] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83.

[930] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 576 b. They seem to have taken up their

abode in the Tower.

[931] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 539.

[932] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 88–89. Cf. _Quer. Falc._, p. 261, and Note

VII.

[933] See Note VII.

[934] Summons to Earls of Chester, Gloucester, and Aumale, John

constable of Chester, Robert de Vipont, Falkes, Brian de Lisle, and

Engelard de Cigogné, “quod veniatis ad nos apud Gloucestre hac die

dominica proxima post festum S. Andreae anno regni nostri octavo

[_i.e._, 3rd Dec., 1223] locuturi nobiscum die Lunae mane apud

Hospitale S. Johannis de Clerkenwelle vel apud Novum Templum Londoniae

vel alibi ubi de communi consilio melius providerimus.” _Pat. Rolls_,

vol. i. pp. 481, 482. “Gloucestre” is obviously a scribe’s error for

“Londoniam.”

[935] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 84. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 303, and _Quer.

Falc._, p. 261.

[936] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._

[937] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 261, 262.

[938] _Ib._

[939] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 417.

[940] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 578. Cf. Powicke, p. 222.