[962] See above, p. 81.
[963] The only authority for this demand for a confirmation of the
Charter, Roger of Wendover, places it in 1223. Its true date, however,
seems to be 1224. Roger says it took place “in London, on the octave
of Epiphany,” _i.e._ on 13th January. But in 1223 the court, which had
kept Christmas at Oxford (as he says), and thence gone into Wiltshire,
Dorset, and Hampshire, did not return to London till 20th or 21st
January (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 527–529). In 1224, on the other
hand, the King was at Westminster from 8th January to 26th February
(_ib._ pp. 580 b–586). Moreover, in January, 1223, there were, so far
as can be seen, no circumstances likely to suggest such a demand;
but in January, 1224, the suggestion would be obvious. I think that
Roger has betrayed at once his own confusion, and how he fell into it,
in the words which immediately follow his report of Henry’s reply:
“Et rex protinus, habito super hoc consilio, misit literas suas ad
singulos vicecomites regni, ut per milites duodecim vel legales
homines uniuscujusque comitatus per sacramentum facerent inquiri quae
fuerunt libertates in Anglia tempore regis Henrici avi sui, et factam
inquisitionem apud Londonias mitterent ad regem in quindecim diebus
post Pascham” (vol. iv. p. 84). It is clear that the inquisition
here spoken of is that ordered on 30th January, 1223 (see above, p.
201), which Roger took to be an inquiry into the ancient liberties of
England, instead of (as it really was) into those of the Crown. Thus
mistaking its character, he further mistook it for a consequence of
the demand for the Charter: a demand which (as I believe) it really
preceded by nearly twelve months, and with which its connexion--so far
as the two things were connected at all--was quite the reverse of that
which Roger implies; the inquest into the royal privileges having been,
in all likelihood, one of the provocations which led the barons to ask
for a confirmation of their own rights.
[964] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 262, 263. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89, which
gives the names of the envoys, Robert Passelewe and Robert of Kent.
[965] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 543.
[966] We arrive at this date by comparing _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._, with
_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 593 b, and vol. ii. p. 72 b; see below,
footnote 1047.
[967] _Quer. Falc._, p. 263.
[968] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 225.
[969] See above, p. 175.
[970] He was ordered on 18th July, 1222, to give them up to the
Archbishop; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 505 b.
[971] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 148 b.
[972] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 479 b.
[973] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 301, safe-conduct
from 17th September to Christmas, 1221.
[974] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 527 b.
[975] Cf. _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 183, 184, and _Ann. Dunst._, p.
85; the latter says he went after the Welsh war--_i.e._ in October or
November--but we shall see that he must have gone some time before July.
[976] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 549 b.
[977] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 375, 5th June, 1223.
[978] _Ib._ p. 365.
[979] _Ib._ p. 374, 3rd June.
[980] _Ib._ p. 375, 5th June. This letter seems, however, not to have
been despatched; the appointment is repeated on 10th September, 1224,
and again on 12th May, 1225 (_ib._ pp. 470 and 526).
[981] _Ib._ p. 378, 18th July, 1223.
[982] _Ib._ p. 483.
[983] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85.
[984] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 483.
[985] _Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 113. An order for Eleanor
to be delivered into the Marshal’s custody had been issued on 5th
February; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 426.
[986] Letters patent of 2nd May, 1224, announce the appointment of the
Earl Marshal as Justiciar in Ireland, with power to receive all persons
who shall come in within forty days after his arrival there; _ib._ pp.
437, 438.
[987] The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86, say “octave of Pentecost,” but this is
wrong; see above, p. 137.
[988] “Quod cepit occasione servicii nostri.”
[989] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 422. On Mausy see _ib._ pp. 356, 370,
379.
[990] On 22nd May, 1224, Mausy was in Hugh’s hands, _ib._ p. 440; in
April, 1223, it seems to have been in Henry’s, _ib._ p. 370; to the
date of its transfer we have no clue.
[991] _Ib._ pp. 431, 432, 27th March, 1224.
[992] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 592 b. The “truce” here mentioned
may be either that between Henry and Louis, or that between Louis
and Hugh. Louis had in September, 1223, made a truce with Hugh and
one with Almeric of Thouars, both of which expired before May, 1224;
Petit-Dutaillis, p. 233, note 2.
[993] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 593, 593 b, 595. This order for
resumption of lands held by aliens is probably what the Bermondsey
annalist means by his statement (a. 1224) “Hoc anno Henricus Rex
tertius ordinavit et statuit edictum ut omnes alienigenae de regno
expellerentur.”
[994] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86; cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.
[995] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 484.
[996] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 172.
[997] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.
[998] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._
[999] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 483, 484. The towns addressed are
the Cinque Ports, Portsmouth, Shoreham, Southampton, Seaford, Poole,
Exeter, Bristol, Dartmouth, Norwich, Yarmouth, Orford, Dunwich,
Ipswich, Lynn, and Orwell.
[1000] “Centum milites et amplius et quamplures servientes,” says
Hubert de Burgh, _Responsiones_, p. 66.
[1001] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86; this writer makes the knights only sixty.
[1002] _Responsiones_, _l.c._
[1003] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 599, 601, 602 b; in the last place
“primo die _Maii_” seems to be a mistake for _Junii_.
[1004] _Responsiones_, p. 66.
[1005] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.
[1006] This date is from Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 94. The
Dunstable annalist, _l.c._, says “octavis Pentecostes”; but on
that day--9th June, Trinity Sunday--the King was a long way from
Northampton; royal letters are dated at Winchester on 8th and 10th
June, at Wallingford on 13th and 15th June, and the court did not reach
Northampton till the 16th; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 604 b, 605.
[1007] “Daturi nobis ibidem consilium et auxilium facturi ad
defensionem terrae nostrae in Pictavia,” _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 224.
[1008] “Convenerunt ad colloquium in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis rex cum
archiepiscopis,” &c., “de regni negotiis tractaturi; voluit enim rex
uti consilio magnatum suorum de terris transmarinis, quas rex Francorum
paulatim occupaverat,” R. Wend., _l.c._ “Dum rex cum clero et baronibus
apud Norhampton de succursu Pictaviae tractaret,” _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._
[1009] “Cum autem Londoniis post illius simulatae pacis tractatum
ordinatum fuisset ut apud Northamptoniam componeretur _exercitus_.”
_Quer. Falc._, p. 264.
[1010] “Item de hoc respondeat [Hubertus] quod dum dominus rex fuit
infra aetatem et subvenire debuit terrae Pictaviae, et _exercitus
suus proficisci deberet in Pictaviam_, fecit ipse comes obsidere
castrum Bedfordiae,” &c. Hubert in replying to this charge disclaims
responsibility for the siege of Bedford, but appears to endorse the
statement that “the King’s host” which went to that siege ought,
or was intended or professedly intended, to have gone to Poitou;
_Responsiones_, pp. 66, 67.
[1011] On 30th January Brian de Lisle was threatened with pains and
penalties if he did not at once hand over Knaresborough (as he had been
told on 30th December to do) to the Archbishop of York (_Pat. Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 425); and on 13th March Pandulf was urged to delay no longer
the delivery (also ordered on 30th December) of Bristol (_ib._ p. 429).
As nothing more is heard about either of these fortresses, we may
conclude that both custodians obeyed.
[1012] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. pp. 170, 171.
[1013] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 298 b, 378 b; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i.
p. 90.
[1014] _Pat. Rolls_, p. 145.
[1015] _Ib._ p. 427.
[1016] _Ib._ p. 430.
[1017] _Ib._
[1018] For the relationship between Falkes and William there is
abundant evidence. For Nicolas “frater Falkesii” see _Close Rolls_,
vol. i. p. 197, _Pat. Rolls Joh._ p. 155 (1215), 183 b (1216); for
Colin, _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 155, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 195 (1215),
515 b (1222), _Pat. Rolls Hen. III_, vol. i. p. 458 (1224); for Avice
“soror Willelmi de Brealte,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 595 b (1224).
Gilbert (_ib._ p. 246, a. 1216, &c.), John (_ib._ pp. 617, a. 1224, and
p. 642), and Henry (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 461, a. 1224), may have
been brothers or more remote kinsmen.
[1019] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 173; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p.
88, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 131; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R.
Coggeshall, p. 204.
[1020] “Rex Johannes habuit quendam servum probum et audacem,” R.
Coggeshall, _l.c._
[1021] _Hist. Ducs_ and M. Paris, _ll.cc._
[1022] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._ Unluckily this tale, which sounds so
characteristic of its hero, rests on unknown authority, being an
interpolation in Ralf’s text, and we have no means of judging whether
it is derived from contemporary report, or is merely the invention of
some imaginative etymologist. The French form of the name is Falkes,
Faukes, or Fauques, variously Latinized as Falkesius or Falcasius,
sometimes as Falco. It seems to have been a variant of Fulk, Fouques,
Fulco, and more probably connected with _falco_ than with _falx_.
[1023] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, _l.c._ Cf. _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1224:
“Faukes re et nomine.”
[1024] “Chil Foukes ot este povres sergans au roi; fius fu a un
chevalier de Normendie, de soignant; mais puis siervi il tant le roi et
tant cru ses afaires que il fu puis uns des riches homes d’Engletiere;
petis fu de cors, mais moult fu vaillans.” _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._
[1025] “Pro meritis a patria sua fugitivus,” says Matthew Paris of
Falkes (_Hist. Angl._, vol. iii. p. 226). The word _meritis_, though
used sarcastically, may be true literally; the “merit” may have been
that of loyalty.
[1026] “Regis aedituus et minister, ipsi in clientela militans,” _ib._
vol. ii. p. 131.
[1027] Cf. the case of Peter de Maulay, above, footnote 371.
[1028] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 68 b.
[1029] “Faukes serviens domini regis,” _l.c._
[1030] “Rex Johannes ... in militem sublimavit.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p.
253.
[1031] He was ordered to deliver them to a new constable, the Earl
Marshal, in January, 1214; _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 109 b.
[1032] See _ib._ pp. 100–199 b _passim_, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp.
119 b, 120 b, 122.
[1033] See above, footnote 1024.
[1034] “Virga furoris Domini,” M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 131.
[1035] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 19; R. Coggeshall, p. 205; W. Cov., vol.
ii. p. 253.
[1036] See above, footnote 1031.
[1037] “Senescallus regis,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 190, 191 b, 192
b, March, 1215. This office was shared among several persons; another
_senescallus regis_ at this time was William de Cantelupe (_ib._ p.
192), who had held the office for many years. Falkes seems to have been
also a seneschal or steward of the household of Henry III; see _Close
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 350, 350 b, and _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226, where
Henry in June or July, 1224, speaks of “officii maximi quod habuit
[Falcatius] in curia nostra.”
[1038] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 214, &c.
[1039] R. Coggeshall, p. 204. It is at this time, in 1215, that
Nicolas, Colin, Gilbert, and John de Bréauté first appear (see above,
footnote 1018). Nicolas and Colin were clerks. William, “vadlettus
noster”--_i.e._ a page or young squire of the king--had received in
July, 1212, a grant of land in Leicestershire previously held by “his
uncle, William de Oville,” “ad se sustentandum in servicio nostro
quamdiu nobis placuerit,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 120.
[1040] See above, pp. 223, 224.
[1041] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 145.
[1042] “Quem ... Johannes rex ... comiti parificavit, donando illi
comitissam de Wyth,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; although Margaret never
was a countess, since Baldwin de Rivers died before his father.
[1043] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 175, 221, 222.
[1044] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10, 11. Cf. M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol.
ii. p. 203.
[1045] “[Falco] prosperis successibus undique elevatus, parem in regno
habere dedignabatur,” R. Coggeshall, p. 205; “cum videret statum suum
supra modum subito prosperatum, dedignabatur habere parem; erat enim ei
persaepe in operibus frequentibus pro ratione voluntas,” W. Cov., vol.
ii. p. 253.
[1046] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 263, 264.
[1047] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 72 b, 73. These three writs are
entered on the back of membrane 17 of the Close Roll 9 Hen. III
(October, 1224–October, 1225), and thus appear to belong to April–May,
1225; but this cannot be their true date; Falkes was outlawed and
out of England long before April, 1225. The scribe has put them on a
wrong roll. With the chronological data for the year 1224 they fit in
perfectly. Falkes says he was accused to the King “triduo post pacem,”
_i.e._, three days after peace was made in London between Hubert and
his opponents (cf. above, pp. 216, 217). In 1224 the King was in
London, 21st April–26th May (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 593 b–601;
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 436–441). Combining this fact with Falkes’s
statement and with the writ of 26th April, we see that the “peace” must
have been made not earlier than 21st April, and not later than the
23rd. The Monday after the octave of Trinity in that year, 17th June,
was the morrow of the day fixed for the re-assembling of the Council at
Northampton; see above, p. 222.
[1048] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 90.
[1049] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.
[1050] “Accidit autem quod Henricus de Braibroc ... improbe exigeret a
Falcasio et suis quasdam exactiones et reragia quae debebant; ex qua
exactionum improbitate commoti violenter ceperunt praedictum,” &c. R.
Coggeshall, p. 206.
[1051] See Note IX.
[1052] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 225, 226; W.
Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 94; R. Coggeshall, _l.c._;
_Ann. Dunst._, p. 86. The date is from _Quer. Falc._, p. 265. The
_Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 113, says the capture took place at
Huntingdon, which seems geographically impossible.
[1053] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95.
[1054] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226; R. Coggeshall and R. Wend.,
_ll.cc._; _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 86, 90.
[1055] _Quer. Falc._, p. 264.
[1056] In the _Querimonia_, _l.c._ we read: “Cujus captio postquam
mihi fuerat nunciata, ego apud Northamptoniam propter servitium regis
cum aliis baronibus terrae conveneram, ad castrum de Bedeford pro
exquirendo fratre meo ... tam cito perveni.” But the King, in a letter
written a few weeks later, says Falkes refused to come before the
Council when summoned to answer for Braybroke’s capture, “cum alias
teneatur ratione possessionum magnarum et officii maximi quam tenuit in
curia nostra” (see above, footnote 1037) “ad nos in conciliis nostris
venire non vocatus” (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226). This seems to imply
that Falkes had not attended the Northampton meeting at all.
[1057] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 264, 265.
[1058] Cf. _ib._, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p.
253.
[1059] R. Wend., _l.c._ Cf. Hubert’s version of all this in
_Responsiones_, pp. 67, 68, and the King’s in _Roy. Lett._, _l.c._;
both in substantial agreement with Roger’s.
[1060] In 1221; see above, p. 180.
[1061] _Quer. Falc._, p. 265.
[1062] _Quer. Falc._, p. 265; R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 95, 96. Roger
gives an absurd date, “Decimo sexto kalendas Julii, die videlicet Jovis
proximo post octavas Trinitatis.” It was the Thursday after the octave
of Trinity, but it was 20th, not 16th, June.
[1063] Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 236–238.
[1064] Cf. _Chron. Turonense_, in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xviii. p.
305, with R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, p. 208, and the two
contradictory versions of Savaric’s conduct given in _Ann. Dunst._, pp.
86 and 91.
[1065] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 236; Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 250, 251.
[1066] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1067] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 226.
[1068] _Responsiones_, pp. 66, 67.
[1069] _Quer. Falc._, p. 269.
[1070] With treason of such a nature as that of which the Barnwell
annalist says “some people” accused Falkes--collusion with a foreign
enemy of the King--Falkes was never publicly charged at all.
[1071] When once the siege of Bedford was begun, and still more in
after-days, of course, King and Justiciar were alike more inclined to
magnify than to minimize the whole affair; but this was wisdom after
the event.
[1072] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 349.
[1073] Or, possibly, of its ownership in fee. See Note X.
[1074] The chroniclers speak of this sacrilege as if Falkes were
alone responsible for it. So far as concerned one of the churches,
however, we know from a better authority that Falkes was neither the
sole nor the chief culprit. On 5th February, 1217, the guardians of
the realm made little Henry give a benefice to the Prior and convent
of Newnham for the welfare of his own soul and his father’s soul, “et
in recompensacionem dampni quod idem I. pater noster fecit priori
et conventui de Newenham quando dirui fecit ecclesiam S. Pauli de
Bedeford, quae fuit dicti prioris et conventus de Newenham, eo tempore
quo firmari fecit castrum Bedefordiae.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 29.
[1075] R. Coggeshall, p. 205; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1076] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 87. Cf. _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224: “Falkesius
... nonnullis etiam de majoribus Angliae, sicut dictum est, eidem
Falkesio conniventibus, tenuit idem castellum contra regem ... ad
quod expugnandum ... omnes fere magnati Angliae, licet fortassis non
uno eodemque animo” [printed _anno_] “pariter convenerant.” While at
Northampton Henry had received a letter from the Pope, remonstrating
with him about his treatment of Bishop Peter, Earl Ranulf, and some
others of his father’s old friends; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 224, 225.
[1077] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 605 b–608, 610, 611 b, 612, 632, 636,
641; dates, 20th June–10th August.
[1078] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 464, 465, and _Ann. Dunst._, p.
86. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 206, says that, by a general edict, two men
were summoned from every plough [land] throughout the shires, to drag
and work machines and convey stones from the quarries.
[1079] _Pat. Rolls_, _l.c._
[1080] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 265, 266.
[1081] R. Coggeshall, p. 207.
[1082] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.
[1083] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 172, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 631 b.
[1084] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 450.
[1085] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632.
[1086] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 233–235. In p. 233 Ranulf says the
King’s letter reached him on 4th August.
[1087] _Ib._ pp. 229, 230. If Llywelyn thought the Pope was at the
back of the attack on Bedford and the excommunication of Falkes, he
was mistaken. On 17th August Honorius wrote to Henry reproaching him
for his neglect of previous admonitions to treat his subjects gently,
and especially for his ingratitude to Falkes, and pointing out the
inexpediency of spending on civil war forces that were urgently needed
for external defence (_ib._ p. 544). On or about the same date he
addressed a very sharp letter to Archbishop Stephen, reproving him
for his share in the matter, and ordering him to recall the sentence
which he was reported to have passed upon Falkes and to stop the King’s
action against that personage. On the justice of that action Honorius
passes no judgement; what he insists upon is its inopportuneness (_ib._
pp. 543, 544).
[1088] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.
[1089] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 87. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 96, 97; cf. R.
Coggeshall, p. 206.
[1090] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97.
[1091] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._
[1092] “Forinseci.”
[1093] _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 87, 88.
[1094] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 233.
[1095] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 175.
[1096] “Tres aemuli mei quos ex causis evidentissimis suspectos
habebam”--“qui capitales inimici mei erant.” He does not give their
names. Two of them were unquestionably Hubert and Stephen; the third
may have been Earl William of Salisbury.
[1097] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 266, 267.
[1098] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 461.
[1099] _Quer. Falc._, p. 267.
[1100] For the story of the surrender I have combined the accounts
given in _Ann. Dunst._, p. 88, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97, and R.
Coggeshall, p. 207. Cf. also W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and _Quer.
Falc._, _ib._ p. 267.
[1101] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._
[1102] R. Wend., _l.c._
[1103] _Ann. Dunst._ and _Quer. Falc._, _ll.cc._
[1104] See Note XI.
[1105] _Quer. Falc._, p. 268.
[1106] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 98, says _fratres suos_, but
Matthew Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 265, who relates this scene
on the authority of an eyewitness, the Bishop of Coventry, speaks of
only one brother (William), and so does Falkes himself.
[1107] _Quer. Falc._, p. 268.
[1108] M. Paris, _l.c._
[1109] R. Wend. and M. Paris, _ll.cc._ The Barnwell annalist, W. Cov.,
vol. ii. p. 254, places this interview at Elstow.
[1110] R. Wend. and M. Paris, _ll.cc._
[1111] Stoke Courcy was part of the heritage of his wife. She and her
elder sister, Joan, wife of Hugh de Neville, were co-heiresses to the
lands of their father, Warin FitzGerold, who had been chamberlain to
Henry II, and who was now dead. See _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 10, 89
b.
[1112] _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 88, 89.
[1113] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 462.
[1114] “Jurato autem stare mandatis Ecclesiae, in ruborem et
confusionem meam, Londoniis in die dedicationis ejusdem Sanctae
Trinitatis, affectata presentia plurimorum, idem archiepiscopus nudari
me faciens, sermonem ad populum facto ... tandem absolutum post verba
multa et probra me dimisit.” _Quer. Falc._, p. 268. We are not obliged
to accept Falkes’s description of Stephen’s discourse as containing
“blasphemias infinitas,” nor to believe that the words which he
proceeds to give as a quotation from it (_ib._) were actually spoken
by the Primate. His date--“die dedicationis ejusdem S. Trinitatis”--is
absolutely unintelligible to me; but the safe-conduct given him on 19th
August was to last till the 25th; and 25th August is also the date of
his final act of surrender, which would no doubt be made directly after
his absolution. That he was absolved before he made it is stated in the
deed itself.
[1115] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 175; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211;
date, 25th August. A dateless letter from Falkes to the constable of
Stoke Courcy, urging its immediate surrender, is in _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
i. p. 490. On 29th August twenty marks were granted to Falkes from the
treasury “for his expenses”; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 643 b.
[1116] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 98.
[1117] The _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224, say, “Uxor ejus [_i.e._, Falkesii] ...
tradita est cuidam magnato Angliae custodienda cum filiis suis.” This
means “_her_ sons”--one by Baldwin and one by Falkes. Falkes himself
speaks only of “wife and son” (_Quer. Falc._, pp. 271, 272), and so
does the Pope when writing in his behalf to Henry.
[1118] See (1) the Pope’s reproach to Stephen in 1226 concerning Falkes
and Margaret--“Quomodo potest anima tua in eorum venire consilium qui
uxorem ejus nobilis detinent, et in multorum scandalum animarumque
suarum perniciem matrimonii violant sacramentum?” (_Roy. Lett._, vol.
i. p. 547), which clearly takes it for granted that their marriage was
still recognized by Stephen and everyone else; and (2) a letter patent
of 1228 which calls Margaret “quondam uxorem Falkesii” (_Pat. Rolls_,
vol. ii. p. 211); “quondam uxor” or “quae fuit uxor” being the legal
description of a widow, but not of a woman who had been “divorced,”
_i.e._, declared by a judicial sentence to have been never truly a wife
at all.
[1119] In _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, Falkes says he was in the bishop’s
custody “ix septimanis et amplius.” Nine weeks from 17th August, which
seems to be the earliest possible date for his committal to Eustace’s
keeping, brings us to 24th October; and we shall see that the latest
possible date for the Council’s decision is 26th October. Roger of
Wendover’s statement (vol. iv. p. 103) that it took place “Martio
mense” is of course quite wrong.
[1120] See above, footnote 1087.
[1121] Cf. _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 103. Ralf
of Coggeshall, p. 208, has a slightly different version of the way in
which this sentence was arrived at.
[1122] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._
[1123] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 478.
[1124] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 633 b.
[1125] R. Wend., _l.c._
[1126] Cf. _ib._, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89.
[1127] So says Roger, _l.c._; but the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov.,
_l.c._) says Louis sent him to prison at Compiègne, and only released
him on an order from the Pope.
[1128] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._
[1129] R. Wend., _l.c._
[1130] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 264–269; cf. _Foedera_, I. i. 175, 176.
[1131] “Uxorem cum patrimonio sibi restitui,” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89. The
“patrimony” referred to must be Margaret’s, since Falkes had never had
or been entitled to any of his own. Having been absolutely penniless
for two years and a half, he was now “multis debitis oneratus” (_ib._),
and considering Margaret’s conduct in September, 1224, it would be only
natural if he valued his claims upon her chiefly on their pecuniary
side.
[1132] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 547; date, 11th July, 1226. This letter
to Stephen is the one referred to above, footnote 1118.
[1133] The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89, say he died “ab Urbe rediens,
apud Sanctum Ciriacum.” So do Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 137,
and Matthew Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 291; the latter adds
“infectus veneno quod in pisce quodam ei dabatur.”
[1134] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 313, 314, 12th September, 1227.
[1135] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 465, 468, 469, 29th August, 7th and
9th September.
[1136] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 626 b, 20th October.
[1137] _Ib._ p. 632 b, 6th–8th September; cf. _Ann. Dunst._ (a. 1225),
p. 92.
[1138] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 99.
[1139] Cf. _ib._ and _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 22, 25, &c.
[1140] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 496; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p.
22. This tallage, according to _Ann. Wav._, a. 1225, brought in five
thousand marks.
[1141] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 99, 100. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 93.
[1142] _Statutes of Realm, Charters of Liberties_, pp. 22–25.
[1143] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 237, 238.
[1144] According to the _Chron. Turon._ (_R.G.S._ vol. xviii.), p.
307, Savaric went to England (cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 477, _Close
Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 8 b, 9) to ask for succour, “sed Anglici, de ejus
adjutorio diffidentes, eum latenter capere tentaverunt.” He however
escaped, and at Christmas did homage to Louis.
[1145] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 239.
[1146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 101.
[1147] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 507; cf. _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a.
1225.
[1148] “Dederat ei namque rex, ante recessum suum ab Anglia, comitatum
Cornubiae cum tota Pictavia; unde ab omnibus comes Pictaviae vocabatur,
titulusque literarum suarum ‘comes Pictaviae et Cornubiae.’” M. Paris,
_Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 270, adding in margin: “Clam dederat ei
Wasconiam et incartaverat.”
[1149] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 503, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 10
b, 11, 21, 22 (1st and 3rd January, 13th March). By 21st March the
fleet was found to be too large for its purpose, and many vessels were
dismissed; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 514.
[1150] R. Wend., _l.c._; cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 94, and _Ann. Winton._,
a. 1225. This last authority says they went “about Mid-Lent” (9th
March), but Roger’s date agrees better with the Rolls. He says there
were forty knights; the _Ann. Winton._ say seventy.
[1151] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 513–516, and _Close Rolls_, vol.
ii. pp. 16 b, 19 b.
[1152] See Richard’s letter, dated 2nd May, in _Foedera_, I. i. p. 178,
and cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 262.
[1153] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 579, 601, 580, 552, _Close Rolls_,
vol. ii. p. 43.
[1154] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 528, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 70 b,
71, 72 b.
[1155] It is more difficult to understand what Henry can have expected
to gain by another embassy sent out about the same time as the one to
Germany. On 14th January, 1225, Ansoldus of Genoa is ordered to buy
a hundred marks’ worth of scarlet and “tela de rey” to give from the
King to the Soldan of Damascus, the King promising to pay him when he
returns from the Soldan. _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 13 b.
[1156] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 179.
[1157] See the text (dateless) in Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 518–520.
[1158] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 552.
[1159] 13th November, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 261. See more about the siege
in R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 102, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 94.
[1160] On comparing the story in R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 105–107, 116,
with the King’s letter to William, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 83, and
the entries _ib._ pp. 92–96, and _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 9, 12, 13,
which show that William’s visit to the King at Marlborough took place
between 31st December, 1225, and 29th January, 1226 (see especially
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 12, 23rd January), I venture to think that
Roger’s “tres menses” in p. 107 should read “tres septimanas.”
[1161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 114, 115.
[1162] _Ib._ pp. 116, 117.
[1163] Dugdale, _Baronage_, vol. i. p. 177, from Register of Lacock
Abbey. Roger (p. 117) says that after the reconciliation at Marlborough
Hubert invited Longsword to dinner and there, “ut dicitur,” poisoned
him. If so, the poison must have been a slow one, since the dinner
took place before the court left Marlborough, _i.e._, before 30th
January, and the Earl did not die till five weeks later. His health,
already failing in October, was evidently broken down altogether by his
sufferings at sea.
[1164] See _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 261–263; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
pp. 14, 15, 24, 31–36, 38, 59, 75–78; _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 38 b,
51, 98, 118 b.
[1165] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 25, 26, and _Ann. Dunst._, pp. 98, 99.
[1166] See his instructions concerning Brother Thomas of the Temple,
“ducenti magnam navem nostram in hoc itinere nostro versus Wasconiam,”
_Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 11, 19th January, 1226.
[1167] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 114, with dates in _Pat. Rolls_, vol.
ii. pp. 9–13, and _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 92–96.
[1168] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 14.
[1169] _Chron. Turon._, p. 312.
[1170] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 74, 75.
[1171] _Chron. Turon._, p. 313.
[1172] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 151.
[1173] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 125.
[1174] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 545–547.
[1175] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 126.
[1176] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 44.
[1177] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 489 and 471 (13th August and 23rd
September, 1224) with _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 648, which shews that
Henry was at Shrewsbury 24th–30th September.
[1178] “Kinardly caput de terris quas Madoc filius Griffin tenet per
servicium militare est in manu Lewelini,” _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p.
24, 18th March, 1225.
[1179] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 178, _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 83 b, 154
b, 155, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 56, 59.
[1180] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 154 b, 155.
[1181] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 100.
[1182] The silence of the _Brut_ is most significant. That chronicle,
after its daring assertion that the Earl Marshal was “slain” at
Carnwyllon in 1223 (see above, footnote 893), says not another word
about the relations between England and Wales till 1228.
[1183] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 500.
[1184] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 387.
[1185] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1225, pp. 91, 92.
[1186] _Close Rolls_, vol ii. p. 37 b, 10th May.
[1187] _Ib._ p. 39 b, 13th May, 1225. Cf. _ib._ pp. 125 b, 126.
[1188] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 31, 32, 75–78, 12th May, 1226.
[1189] _Ib._ p. 47.
[1190] _Ib._ pp. 51, 52, 4th July.
[1191] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 500.
[1192] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 96 b.
[1193] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 48, 49.
[1194] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 291.
[1195] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 80, 81.
[1196] _Ib._ p. 58.
[1197] See above, pp. 190, 191.
[1198] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 82.
[1199] _Ib._ p. 59, 27th August.
[1200] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 291.
[1201] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 70.
[1202] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 560–564.
[1203] _Ib._ pp. 572, 573.
[1204] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 585; also in W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 256.
[1205] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 257.
[1206] _Ib._ pp. 274–276.
[1207] _Chron. Turon._, p. 310.
[1208] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 279.
[1209] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 107, 115, 116, 123, 124, W. Cov.,
vol. ii. pp. 278, 279, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 99.
[1210] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 149, 149 b; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
p. 24, and cf. _ib._ pp. 27, 28.
[1211] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 118 and 108.
[1212] _Ann. Osen._ and _Wykes_, a. 1226, p. 67. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii.
p. 64.
[1213] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 27.
[1214] _Ib._ pp. 153, 154.
[1215] _Chron. Turon._, p. 317.
[1216] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 135, 136, and _Chron. Turon._, p. 318.
[1217] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 136.
[1218] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 136, 137. Archbishop Walter went at some
date between 1st December, 1226, and 7th January, 1227, _Pat. Rolls_,
vol. ii., pp. 94, 106, and the Bishop of Carlisle seems to have gone
with him, _ib._ p. 107.
[1219] Brother and successor of Almeric, who died in March, 1226;
_Chron. Turon._, p. 313.
[1220] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 153.
[1221] _Chron. Turon._, p. 318.
[1222] _Foedera_, I. i. pp. 186, 187.
[1223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 138; _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 162.
[1224] Wallingford, December 29th, 30th; Oxford, 31st; Woodstock,
1st–7th January; Oxford, 8th–10th; Reading, 11th–13th; _Close Rolls_,
vol. ii. pp. 163 b–166; cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 105–107.
[1225] _Close Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 207.
[1226] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 139, 140.
[1227] Roger dates these proceedings “mense Februario,” which the
letter close shews to be a month too late; he says that Henry thereupon
“excussit se per consilium Huberti de Burgo, justiciarii regni, de
consilio et gubernatione dicti episcopi [Wintoniensis] et suorum,
qui regi fuerant prius quasi paedagogi, ita quod omnes illas a curia
sua et cohabitatione removit” (p. 139), whereas Peter had been
removed from his tutorship six years before; and he travesties the
proclamation about charters as follows: “In eodem itaque concilio rex
fecit cancellare et cassare omnes chartas de provinciis omnibus regni
Angliae de libertatibus Forestae, postquam jam per biennium in toto
regno fuerant usitatae, hanc occasionem praetendens quod chartae illae
concessae fuerant, et libertates scriptae et signatae, dum ipse erat
sub custodia, nec sui corporis aut sigilli aliquam habuerit potestatem,
unde viribus carere debuit quod sine ratione fuerat usurpatum....
Tunc vero denuntiatum est viris religiosis et aliis qui suis volebant
libertatibus gaudere, ut innovarent chartas suas de novo regis sigillo,
scientes quod rex chartas antiquas nullius esse momenti reputabat” (pp.
139, 140). The King’s instructions to the sheriffs say not a word of
the Forest Charter, and were obviously never meant to apply either to
that document or to the Great Charter; and what they do say about other
charters is completely misrepresented by the last clause of Roger’s
concluding sentence.
[1228] _Respons._, p. 69.
[1229] In the early part of December, 1226, the Archbishop of Dublin
and the clergy of the March in Ireland had been entreated to send an
aid to the King; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 100–104.
[1230] See Note VII.
NOTES
NOTE I
THE TRUCES OF 1216–1217
The accounts of the truces made between Henry and Louis in the winter
of 1216–1217 are so conflicting that it seems impossible either to
reconcile them or to arrive at a precise conclusion as to all the facts
and dates. The documentary evidence on the subject is unluckily very
scanty; it consists--so far as I have been able to ascertain--only
of two entries in the Patent Roll of 1. Hen. III (Oct. 1216--Oct.
1217). The first of these is a notice, dated 28th December, 1216,
from Henry to Louis, concerning claims of redress for injuries done
“infra treugas inter nos captas” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 107). The
second is a report, addressed by the Marshal and Council to Louis, of a
meeting held “die Jovis in crastino S. Petri” between the _emendatores
treugae_ on both sides, “ad emendaciones capiendas et faciendas de
interceptionibus factis in prima treuga et secunda, et ad treugam
faciendum observari et tenere” (_ib._ p. 109). This letter is dateless;
it is entered on the Roll between a letter dated 28th February and one
dated 10th March. “Thursday the morrow of S. Peter” probably means 19th
January, the day after the festival of S. Peter’s Chair at Rome, which
festival fell on a Wednesday in 1217. The feast of S. Peter’s Chair at
Antioch, 22nd February, was also a Wednesday in that year; but it is
hardly possible that this talk about truces could have been going on as
late as 23rd February, only five days before the “Crusaders” mustered
at Dorking proclaimed their intention of expelling Louis from Rye (see
above, p. 24).
From these entries, then, it results that there were two truces, one
of which was existing on 28th December, 1216; that a second truce was
made before 19th January, 1217; and that _a_ truce--either this second
truce, or a third--was existing at some date posterior to 19th January,
1217.
The _Hist. G. le Mar._ states that when the garrison of Hertford
(besieged by Louis 11th November, 1216, see above, p. 18) became
hopeless of relief, “Cil qui devers le rei se tindrent A Loeis por
trieve vindrent De vint jor, e si lor dona, Par fei c’on li abandona
Berkamestoude e Herefort; Seisis en fu, fust dreit ou tort” (ll.
15717–28); and that “Quant ceste trieve fu faillie, Cil qui aveient
la baillie Autre trieve de vint jors pristrent, Sanz le Mar.; si
mespristrent, Quer il baillerent deus chasteals Riches e forz e buens
e beals; Ce fu Norviz e Orefort” (ll. 15735–41). The Chron. Merton
(Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) says: “Hoc anno [1216] facta fuit pax circa
festum S. Andreae, quae duravit usque ad octabas S. Hillarii, inter
Lodovicum et Henricum regem Angliae,” adding a detail which may be
safely ignored--that the truce was purchased at the price of seven
thousand marks paid to Louis. The Barnwell annalist says: “[Lodowicus]
applicuit castra ad castellum cui nomen Berchamstede ... sed quoniam
Natale Domini instabat, firmatae sunt treugae generales inter partes
usque ad octavas Epiphaniae, reddito quod obsidebatur castello pro
treugarum impetratione.... Post Natale Domini, durantibus adhuc
treugis, convocaverunt fautores suos ad concilium Lodowicus apud
Grantebriggiam, tutores regii apud Oxoniam. Elaboratumque est ut aut
inter partes pax firmaretur, aut treugae prolongarentur. Sed cum paci
detrectarent Angli qui cum Lodowico erant, protendereturque de treugis
ineundis consilium, obsedit ipse castellum cui nomen Odingham [_i.e._,
Hedingham, see Stubbs’s notes, p. 235, note 2, and pref. p. ix., note
2]. Redditum est autem ei tunc temporis castellum illud, et castellum
Orefordiae, praesidiumque Nortwici, et praesidium Colecestriae, pro
treugis usque ad mensem post Pascha” (W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 234–5).
Roger of Wendover mentions only one truce, which he represents as
made in consequence of the tidings received by Louis as to the Pope’s
intention of excommunicating him on Maundy Thursday: “Hac itaque de
causa statutae sunt treugae inter Lodowicum et regem Henricum usque
ad mensem de Pascha, ita scilicet ut omnia remaneant in eo statu quo
fuerunt in die quo juratae fuerunt treugae, in castellis et rebus
aliis, usque ad terminum constitutum” (vol. iv. p. 11). He has,
however, previously stated that Berkhamsted surrendered “post diutinam
obsidionem, ex praecepto regis” (_ib._ p. 6). These words, taken in
connexion with the Biographer’s story, suggest that that story is
correct, and that Waleran held Berkhamsted in defiance of the truce
till he was peremptorily ordered by the Council to give it up. This
first truce, then, seems to have been made not later than 6th December,
the day on which Hertford surrendered (above, p. 18); it may have been
made, as the Merton Chronicle asserts, a week earlier, and Walter de
Godardville may, like Waleran, have ignored it as long as he could. If
it were made on S. Andrew’s day, it would--supposing the Biographer
to be right about its duration--expire on 20th December, the day on
which Roger says that Berkhamsted surrendered. The Biographer seems to
imply that the second truce commenced immediately on the expiration of
the first; and twenty days from 20th December bring us to 9th January.
If, however, the first truce began on 6th December, it would end on
26th December; and this would bring the termination of the second
truce to 15th January. These dates agree neither with the Barnwell
annalist’s “octave of Epiphany” nor with the Merton Chronicler’s
“octave of S. Hilary”; and what is of much more consequence, even the
latest date alleged for the expiration of the second truce--that given
by the Merton writer, 20th January--fails to account for the letter
patent which shews that there was a truce not merely unexpired, but,
seemingly, not even approaching expiration, as late as 19th January.
There seems to be no way of overcoming this difficulty except by
supposing that the second truce was followed by a third. My belief
is that this was so, and that the key to the whole puzzle about the
truces and the surrenders of castles in 1216–1217 is to be found in
the words of the Barnwell annalist. This writer appears to me to deal
with the various truces made between the end of November, 1216, and
the end of February, 1217, not singly, but in a group. His account
of the _treugae generales_ up to the meeting of the rival councils
at Oxford and Cambridge includes, _explicitly_, what may be called
the Biographer’s first truce (“reddito quod obsidebatur castello,”
_i.e._, Berkhamsted--and Hertford--“pro treugarum impetratione” (cf.
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 15717–28); _implicitly_, the Biographer’s second
truce (“Autre trieve de vint jors,” ending _approximately_ “ad octavas
Epiphaniae”); and _implicitly_ also, I venture to think, a _third_
truce (“_durantibus adhuc treugis_ convocaverunt fautores suos ...
tutores regii apud Oxoniam,” as we know from the Close Roll, _after_
the octave of Epiphany (see above, p. 19). After mentioning the two
councils and the fruitless negotiations for peace, the annalist tells
us that yet _another_ truce (seemingly the fourth) was proposed; and
he winds up the whole subject by giving us, _not_ the conditions or
the results of that particular proposal, but a general list of the
castles--Hedingham, Orford, Norwich, Colchester--which “tunc temporis”
(_i.e._ within the last five or six weeks) had, in consideration of
the successive truces since the first, been surrendered to Louis,
and of which the undisturbed possession was now secured to him for a
further period of some two months or more, “pro treugis ad mensem post
Pascha.” In a word, the Barnwell writer tells that these four castles
were, at some time between the middle of December, 1216, and the middle
of February, 1217, bartered for renewals of the truce which had begun
with the surrender of Berkhamsted; but which particular castles were
bartered for which particular renewal, he leaves us to make out for
ourselves. The task is perhaps not so difficult as it looks at first
glance. The _Histoire des Ducs_ gives an independent list, somewhat
fuller than the Barnwell writer’s, of Louis’s gains after Hertford and
Berkhamsted: “Puis prist le castiel de Colecestre e celui d’Orefort
e celui d’Ingehem” [Hedingham] “e celui del Plasseis e Cantebruge, e
moult d’autres fortereces.... La cites de Norewis li fu rendue” (_Hist.
Ducs_, p. 182). The word _prist_ here would, if we had no other version
of the story, naturally appear to mean “took by force”; but our other
evidence shews that, with regard to Orford at least, it is in reality
only equivalent to the phrase used by the same writer concerning
Norwich, and by the Barnwell annalist concerning not only Norwich and
Orford, but also concerning Hedingham and Colchester--“li fu rendu,”
“redditum est.” We know from the Biographer that Norwich and Orford
were the price of the second truce. We know from the combined evidence
of the Barnwell annalist and the Close Roll that Cambridge had passed
into the hands of Louis perhaps before S. Hilary’s day, certainly not
later than ten days after its octave. We also know, from the Barnwell
annalist, that Louis did not gain possession of Hedingham till after
the simultaneous councils at Oxford and Cambridge. The inference seems
plain: Cambridge and either Colchester or Pleshey were surrendered for
the third truce; Hedingham, and whichever of the other two places had
not been surrendered on the same occasion as Cambridge, formed the
price of the fourth truce, the truce which was made after the councils
(_i.e._, at the end of January or beginning of February), to last, as
we learn from Roger of Wendover as well as from the Barnwell writer,
till a month after Easter. The Flemish writer’s words about “many other
castles” are probably an exaggeration; there is nothing to indicate
what these other castles were; in any case they must have been of small
importance.
One difficulty remains: the Biographer’s assertion that the second
truce was made “sanz le Mareschal.” It seems impossible that this
can be correct; no “general truce” between Henry and Louis, such as
is clearly indicated by the letters patent, could have been made
“without the Marshal,” _i.e._, without his participation and sanction
as governor of King and kingdom. We may, perhaps, account for the
Biographer’s mistake--for mistake it must surely be--somewhat as
follows. The policy of the Royalist leaders in negotiating truces on
such terms was doubtless too subtle for the understanding of most of
the rank and file of their party; it seems to have been too profound
for the understanding of the sturdy German constable of Berkhamsted,
perhaps also for those of Falkes’s Norman lieutenant at Hertford and
of the constable of Hedingham. The Marshal’s biographer evidently
did not comprehend its object at all, and so disapproved of it
utterly. He hints at his disapproval of the cession of Hertford and
Berkhamsted--“Seisis en fu, _fust dreit ou tort_”; he gives us his
undisguised opinion that when “cil qui aveient la baillie autre trieve
de vint jors pristrent” at the price of evacuating Orford and Norwich,
“_si mespristrent_.” On the other hand, he was not willing to admit
that his hero could do wrong; so he decided--with a bold disregard of
what was implied in his own statement that the terms were arranged by
“cil qui aveient la baillie”--that this “mistake” must somehow have
been made without the Marshal’s concurrence.
NOTE II
THE BLOCKED GATE AT LINCOLN
The story of Bishop Peter’s discovery of the blocked gate runs thus:
“Par un postiz a pie eissi
En la vile, car il voleit
Veeir coument ele seeit.
E comme il esgardout issi,
Une vielle porte choisi
Qui ert de grant antequite
E qui les murs de la cite
Joigneit ovec cels del chastel.
Quant il la vit, molt li fu bel,
Mes el fu ancienement
Close de piere e de ciment,
Si que nuls entrer n’i puust
Por nul besoing qu’il en eust.
Quant li evesques ont veue
Cele porte e aparceue,
Por le chastel plus enforcier
La fist abatre e trebuchier,
E que l’ost veist e seust
Que seure entree i eust.”
(_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16500–16518.)
The only two points where the walls of Lincoln city were ever “joined,”
in any way whatever, “with those of the castle,” are the two which I
have mentioned in p. 35, viz., the north-western and the south-western
angles of the castle enclosure. At the former of these two points
stood, we know, the West Gate of the medieval city; and this Professor
Oman (_Art of War in the Middle Ages_, p. 410) considers to have been
the blocked gate of the poet’s story. I have said in my text that the
blocked gate “seems” to have been the West Gate, because it is quite
possible that there may have been a gate opening from the city at the
other junction-point of the two walls, immediately to the south of the
castle ditch. Unfortunately there is no evidence whether a gate at this
point ever existed or not. Two considerations arising out of the poet’s
story may seem at first glance to raise a slight presumption in favour
of the hypothesis that a gate did exist there, and was the one which he
had in mind. I think however that in both cases the presumption is more
apparent than real.
1. The poet represents Peter as setting out on his reconnaissance in
the city from the keep of the castle. He must, as M. Meyer says (_Hist.
G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. clix), have issued from the small door
opening at the south-western angle of the keep. He would therefore,
on reaching the further side of the ditch, find himself close to the
southern junction-point of the castle wall and the city wall. If there
was a gate at this point, and if it was the blocked one, his discovery
of it and his return to the castle might have been effected in a few
minutes, without difficulty or danger. If, on the other hand, the
blocked gate was the West Gate proper, he could not have seen it from
the city without going all round the southern, eastern, and northern
sides of the castle, by a route answering roughly to the present Drury
Lane, Bailgate, and Westgate, right through the heart of the city, and
he must have returned by the same lengthy and frequented way to the
door in the keep whence he had set out; an adventure which it seems
hardly possible he could have achieved in safety, except under one
condition. That condition, however, we may surely take for granted;
it seems matter of course that before he ventured outside the castle
walls he would disguise himself so as to look like an ordinary citizen
going about his ordinary business in the city. In that case the longer
expedition might be quite practicable, and really attended with very
little risk. Moreover, if the blocked gate was the West Gate, Peter
must have known of its existence before he entered the castle at all,
for in going from the host to the sally-port he would pass before the
outer side of the West Gate; and this would go far to account for his
eagerness to explore the city--in other words, to ascertain what was
on the inner side of a blocked-up gate whose outer side had already
attracted his notice.
2. If there was a gate at the southern junction of the walls, it would
very probably be “of great antiquity”--as old as the second Roman
occupation of Lindum; for the wall itself thereabouts was certainly
Roman, as some fragments still remaining testify to this day. The
West Gate, on the other hand, in 1217 could not well be more than a
hundred and fifty years old. But the poet’s description of the blocked
gate as “une vielle porte qui ert de grant antequite” is a detail
which--like his use of the word _ancienement_ in l. 16509--need not
be taken literally. Such phrases, when used by even a prose writer
in an uncritical age, may mean almost anything; moreover, epithets
and descriptive phrases of all kinds when used by a medieval writer
of verse may occasionally mean nothing. The poet had probably never
seen the gate which he was describing; those who told him about it
were soldiers, not archæologists; neither he nor they could have a
very definite idea as to when it had been built, or how long it had
been obstructed. Possibly, however, his use of the expressions above
quoted may be accounted for in another way. Lincoln “above hill”
unquestionably possessed one gate which even in 1217 could hardly
fail to strike the most ignorant observer as being already “of great
antiquity.” Some of the poet’s informants may have mentioned this to
him, without specifying that it was the North Gate or giving it a name.
Others may have told him that the North Gate was called New Port.
If he was not further told that the “New Port” and the ancient gate
were identical, the fact of their identity could not possibly enter
his head; and as the North Gate and the blocked gate were evidently
the only two gates (of the city) which played any part in the day’s
fighting until it reached the Bar-Gate far away to the south beyond the
river, he would naturally conclude that since the first was the “new”
gate, the second must be the ancient one.
The real difficulty of the passage is in ll. 16515–16: “_Por le chastel
plus enforcier_ La fist abatre e trebuchier.” How could the clearing
out and opening of a city gate--whether it were the West Gate or a
hypothetical gate further south--tend to reinforce, or strengthen,
the castle? Professor Tout, who rejects the whole story of Peter’s
reconnaissance, suggests (though without citing these lines) that if
any blocked-up gate was re-opened, it may have been the great west gate
(or sally-port) of the castle. He thinks that this gate may have been
“walled-up” as a measure of precaution, the postern serving in its
stead for ordinary communications, and that the difficulty of passing
a large number of men through an entrance so small and inaccessible as
the postern may have led to the reopening of the great gate, “so that
the relieving force could send a strong detachment into the enclosure”
(_Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xviii, p. 250, note). But this--whether it was
the fact or not--was certainly not the idea of the poet; for (1) the
castle sally-port does not “join the walls of the city with those of
the castle”; and (2) it is not (as the poet clearly represents _his_
blocked gate to have been) visible from inside the city.
NOTE III
FALKES DE BRÉAUTÉ AT LINCOLN
The story of Falkes’s entrance into the castle and his sally thence
into the town rests on the authority of Roger of Wendover (vol. iv.
p. 22). In the _Hist. G. le Mar._ the only mention of Falkes in the
whole account of the day is in the following lines: “E quant les gens
Fauques oïrent Itels moz.” [_i.e._, Bishop Peter’s report to the host
about the gate] “molt s’en esjoïrent; Trestot avant dedenz entrerent,
Mes leidement les reuserent Cil dedenz, qu’il n’i furent gueres; Tost
lor changierent lor afeires” (ll. 16535–40). Professor Tout (p. 251)
says the poet’s “story supposes that Falkes did not enter the castle,
but penetrated directly into the town. This is clear from the fact that
when beaten they” (?) “were driven out into the open country. There the
bishop encountered somewhat later the fugitive soldiers and roughly
maltreated them for their cowardice.” For this statement he cites
as his authority ll. 16573–6: “E quant les servanz encontrerent Qui
leidement parti s’en erent Molt les leidirent cil qui vindrent Quand
dedenz la presse les tindrent.” This passage is separated from the one
which I have quoted above by thirty-three lines; and these thirty-three
lines are entirely occupied with the discourse between the bishop and
the Marshal, and the mission of the scouts, summarized in my p. 39.
There is nothing to connect ll. 16573–6 with either Falkes or Peter.
_Cil qui vindrent_ cannot refer to the bishop _individually_. There is
nothing to identify the “servanz qui leidement parti s’en erent” with
Falkes’s men; nothing to suggest that Peter was one of “those who came”
(whence and whither we know not) and “met them” [_i.e._, the “servanz”]
and “greatly abused them when they had them fast in the crowd”; and
nothing to indicate that this meeting, described by the poet as having
taken place _dans la presse_, occurred as Mr. Tout says it did, in “the
open country”; nothing to connect these four lines with anybody or
anything previously mentioned in the poem.
In connexion with this point it will be well to consider an apparent
difficulty in ll. 16541–5: “Li avesques al Mar. dist: ‘Par mon chief!
cist ont mal fait, Car c’est la verite provee Qu’il n’ont pas unquore
trovee La dreite entree’” etc. (see above, p. 39). In the poem as we
now have it this passage immediately follows the one about Falkes;
_cist_ in l. 16542, therefore, would seem to refer to Falkes and his
men. As, however, any thing that happened to Falkes and his men must
have happened inside either the castle or the city, it could not become
known to those who were still outside the western wall so speedily as
this interpretation would imply; and I venture to think we may find a
probable explanation of the difficulty, without supposing the poet to
have been either so confused about the topography, or so careless, as
to overlook this obvious fact. The obscurity and seeming incompleteness
of the passage relating to Falkes, and the abruptness of the transition
in ll. 16540–41, strongly suggest a _lacuna_ in the MS. at this point.
If there be one, it is probable that the missing lines contained some
further account of Falkes’s mishap; it is possible that they may have
also contained an account of some other transaction, the actors in
which were the subjects of Peter’s comment recorded in ll. 16541–5; and
it is further possible that that transaction may have been the attack
on the North Gate recorded by Roger of Wendover.
NOTE IV
THE END OF THE BATTLE OF LINCOLN
Of the closing scene of the battle of Lincoln there are two accounts;
one by the Biographer of the Marshal, the other by Roger of Wendover.
(1) The Biographer, after describing the fight on the bridge, the
accident which there befell William Bloet, and the capture of the two
De Quincys and others, continues thus:--
“E li sorplus torna en fine
Tote la rue contreval
Qui s’en veit dreit a l’hospital.
Molt lor sembla la veie forte
Dusqu’ a la dererene porte;
La lor avint une aventure
Qui mult lor fu pesante e dure,
C’une vache entra en la porte,
En cele qui le fleel porte,
E la porte se clost aval
Issi que nuls homme a cheval
N’i passast en nule maniere.
Lors ne porent avant n’ariere;
Mes cil qui angoissos en erent
De issir s’en la vache acorerent.”
_Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16940–54.
(2) Roger makes no mention of the rally of the French in the lower
town, the second fight on the hill-top (“entre le chastiel e le
moustier,” see above, pp. 42, 43), the second retreat or flight of the
French down hill, and the last fight on and near the bridge; he ends
the battle with the death of Perche, and then goes on thus: “Videntes
igitur Galligenae phalanges quod major eorum cecidisset, inierunt fugam
tam pedites quam equites sibi nimis damnosam; nam flagellum portae
australis, per quam fugerunt, quod ex transverso illius portae fuerat
fabricatum, fugientes non mediocriter impedivit; etenim quotiescunque
aliquis adveniens exire voluit, oportebat eum ab equo descendere et
portam aperire, quo exeunte porta denuo claudebatur flagello ut prius
posito ex transverso; sicque porta illa fugientibus nimis molesta fuit”
(vol. iv., p. 23).
At first glance these two accounts might seem to relate to two distinct
occurrences at two different gates. “La dererene porte,” which the
cow blocked against the fugitives when they had been driven beyond
the bridge “tote la rue contreval qui s’en veit dreit a l’hospital,”
is clearly the Great (or West) Bar-Gate. This was quite literally the
“outermost” or “hindermost” gate of Lincoln to the southward; and
outside it, on the south side of the Sincil Dyke, stood two hospitals,
one belonging to the Order of Sempringham and named after the Holy
Sepulchre, the other a lazar-house dedicated to the Holy Innocents
(Sympson, _Lincoln_, pp. 386, 338, 344, 351). On the other hand,
Roger’s _porta australis_ with the inconvenient sliding bar might, if
we looked at his story alone, be taken to represent the south gate of
the city proper, _i.e._, the Stone Bow. But a comparison of his story
with that of the poet shews this to be impossible. Had it been the
case, the greatest capture of prisoners must have taken place _inside_
the gate; whereas the Biographer clearly indicates that most of the
rebel barons (the De Quincys, Fitz Walter, “e moult d’autres dont
point ne m’ennuie”) were captured in the fight on and near the bridge,
_i.e._, _outside_ the Stone Bow (ll. 16828–16939); and even after all
this, there were still so many left that when the “hindermost gate” was
at last reached, “_La_ fu plus fort li encombriers, _La_ ont molt pris
de chevaliers” (ll. 16955–6). Moreover, ll. 16947–51 (“En la porte ...
nule maniere”), especially ll. 16947–8, where this same “hindermost
gate” is specially distinguished as _cele qui le fleel porte_, tally
so closely with Roger’s words about the _flagellum_ and its effects
that we cannot separate the two incidents. The difference between the
two accounts is simply that the poet gives us the whole topography
and tells the whole story, cow and all, while Roger leaves out the
cow-incident, just as he has left out several things of far greater
importance (the second rally and repulse of the French among them) in
his story of the battle as a whole.
NOTE V
THE TREATY OF KINGSTON
There can be no reasonable doubt that the series of dates so carefully
given in our fullest and most strictly contemporary account of the
transactions connected with the treaty between Henry and Louis--the
account in the _Histoire des Ducs de Normandie_--is correct. One of
the best contemporary English authorities, the Chronicle of Merton,
is in accord with it as to the dates on which the treaty was made and
Louis was absolved: “Hoc anno” (1217) “facta est pax ... in quadam
insula extra Kingestune, feria tercia ante Exaltationem S. Crucis”
(_i.e._, Tuesday, 12th September), “et in vigilia Exaltationis”
(Wednesday, 13th September) “absolutus est dominus Lodowicus in eadem
insula” (_Chron. Merton_, _apud_ Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 514–515).
Nearly all the other English chroniclers give a wrong date to the
peace; some make it 11th September, others 13th September. The Patent
Roll of 1216–17 settles the point against them all; “Si Reginaldus
de Cornhill terminos redempcionis suae, statutos ante _diem Martis
proximam ante Exaltacionem Sanctae Crucis_ anno regni nostro primo,
_qua pax reformata fuit_ inter nos et Lodovicum domini regis Franciae
primogenitum, servaverit,” etc. (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 95, 25th
September, 1217).
The Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239) gives no date for
the peace, but says Louis was absolved “die Mercurii proxima post
Exaltationem S. Crucis,” _i.e._, 20th September. Curiously enough,
the copy of the treaty printed by D’Achéry (_Spicilegium_, ed. 1723,
vol. iii. pp. 586–7) appears to have borne the date “Lamech, anno ab
Incarnatione Domini MCCXVII, XX die Septembris.” Rymer, whose text
(_Foedera_, I. i. p. 148) corresponds almost _verbatim_ with D’Achéry’s
in all other respects, has the word _undecimo_ instead of the numerals
XX. The title of “treaty of Lambeth,” by which--in defiance of all our
authorities--the agreement is commonly known, is derived solely from
the dating clause as printed by Rymer and D’Achéry. No original copy
of the treaty appears to be now known. In the eighteenth century three
versions of it were printed, one by Rymer, one by D’Achéry, a third by
Martène and Durand (_Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, vol. i. pp. 857–859, ed.
1717). As to the source of Rymer’s copy we know absolutely nothing.
D’Achéry’s text was taken from the cartulary of the monastery of S.
Giles at Pontaudemer, that of Martène and Durand--which has no date
at all--“ex MS. illustrissimi Marchionis Daubais.” Both of these
must obviously have been mere copies; and they differ so widely from
each other that they cannot have been derived, even remotely, from
one and the same original. The Daubais text not only omits several
clauses entirely, as well as all mention of place, date, witnesses,
and seals, and gives other clauses in a shortened form, but it
inserts one interesting clause of which there is no trace anywhere
else--that about the Exchequer documents (above, footnote 315). The
Pontaudemer text, on the other hand, is, except as regards the date,
practically identical with that which, for want of knowing its source,
we can only call Rymer’s. This last contains some verbal corruptions
which may be due to Rymer himself; while in D’Achéry’s printed text
there is at least one obvious error--the Legate’s name is given as
“Gualterius.” The terms of the treaty in the Rymer-Pontaudemer version
are substantially the same as those indicated by the chroniclers.
The list of attestations comprises only the names of the signataries
on the English side; they are the Legate, the King, the Regent, the
Justiciar, the Earls of Chester, Salisbury, Warren, and Arundel,
William d’Aubigny, William Brewer, William Marshal the younger, Falkes
de Bréauté, Ralf de Mortimer, “L. de Erdivert,” Robert de Vipont,
Geoffrey de Neville, Brian de Lisle, Philip d’Aubigné, and Richard the
late King’s son; all of whom are stated to have set their seals to the
treaty. This is a somewhat puzzling statement in view of the fact that
the King had as yet no seal of his own. It may be that the Marshal’s
seal on this occasion did duty twice, once for its owner and once for
his royal ward; though we should have expected, if this were so, to
find an explicit mention of the circumstance.
To me there seem to be only two alternative theories by which the
printed texts of the treaty can be reconciled with each other and
with the evidence of the chronicles: (1) that the document of which
Rymer and D’Achéry each had a copy before him was a transcript (more
or less exact) of the body of the original treaty of Kingston, to
which the list of signataries and the date had been added (the latter
incorrectly) from some unknown source; or (2) that the opening
words--“Haec est forma pacis facta,” etc. (Rymer) or “Haec est forma
finis et concordiae facta,” etc. (D’Achéry)--were in each case the
unauthorized addition of a scribe, and that the original document was
not an actually executed treaty, but the draft which Hugh de Malaunay
carried to Louis on 11th September (above, p. 56), and that this draft
was sealed by the Legate, King, and councillors, as a pledge of its
authenticity and of their intention to abide by its contents. I incline
to the latter alternative, for the following reasons:--
(1) The so-called “form of peace” speaks throughout of what Louis
and Henry _shall_ promise and swear, never once of what they _have_
promised and sworn. It seems therefore to date from a time previous to
the solemn oaths which Roger of Wendover says they took at Kingston.
The actual treaty would not be sealed till the oaths were sworn.
(2) The difficulty about the dates, both of time and place, practically
disappears if we adopt the second theory. The date in Rymer can hardly
be explained away as a transcriber’s error, because the word _undecimo_
is given in full; it must be either correct, or a downright blunder.
Now, we know from _Hist. Ducs_ (p. 203) that 11th September was the
day on which Malaunay carried back to Louis the “form of peace drawn
up in writing” (R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. above, pp. 56, 57) for
his acceptance. The Pontaudemer text may have been transcribed from a
copy in which the word had been translated into numerals, and if so,
“XI” might easily become “XX” in transcription. As for the place, we
know that King and regent were at Chertsey every day from 6th September
to 12th September, both days inclusive, and we possess no other notice
of their having gone to Lambeth on the 11th; but there is no reason
why they should not have done so; a prolongation of the truce till
the 14th had been guaranteed on the 10th, and it would be quite safe
and practicable for the Marshal and the Legate to bring their royal
charge as near to London as Lambeth for a few hours, if they found it
convenient to do so as a means of saving time in communicating with
Louis.
Mr. G. J. Turner (“Minority of Henry III,” part I, _Trans. Roy. Hist.
Soc._, series II, vol. xviii. p. 288, note 3) says, “The treaty was in
two parts, of which the text in the _Thesaurus_ is the part executed
by Louis.” I do not understand on what grounds this inference is
based, as the Daubais (or _Thesaurus_) text has no attestations, and
the formulae employed in it are precisely the same as those in the
Rymer-Pontaudemer text, which purports to be attested by the English
party. Indeed, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Daubais text
can possibly represent the form in which the treaty was “executed” at
all. Save for the one clause which is peculiar to it, it is a mere
summary, and a very imperfect one, of some--by no means all--of the
conditions which the Rymer-Pontaudemer text sets forth in detail. My
inference from a comparison of the two texts is that the Daubais text
is a mere scribe’s epitome of a third text, now lost, which probably
was the true text of the treaty actually executed at Kingston on 12th
September, and consisted of the substance of the preliminary draft (the
Rymer-Pontaudemer text) _plus_ the article about the Exchequer records.
NOTE VI
THE TENURE OF CROWN OFFICES DURING THE MINORITY
Mr. Turner (“Minority of Henry III,” part I, pp. 270–276) has gone into
this question with great care and in considerable detail. He sums up
his conclusions about it in four passages. (1) “It is highly probable
that the three great officials, the two justices” (_i.e._, the chief
Justiciars of England and Ireland) “and the Chancellor, claimed the
right to continue in office till the King’s minority had determined....
Direct evidence of the claim is not forthcoming, but there are facts
which point to it having been put forward” (p. 271). (2) “The sheriffs
and castellans claimed to hold their bailiwicks throughout the King’s
minority” (p. 272). (3) “A dispute between Engelard de Cigogné and
William de Warenne as to which of them was entitled to the shrievalty
of Surrey shows that it was decided early in the reign that the
sheriffs who had been appointed by King John claimed the right to
continue in office until his successor attained his majority” (p. 274).
(4) “It had been decided that John’s sheriffs held office as of right
during the minority” (p. 275).
Thus Mr. Turner--if I understand him rightly--regards the existence
of this claim in the case of the great officers of state as merely a
probable inference; but in the case of the sheriffs and castellans he
regards not only the existence, but also the acknowledgment of the
claim, as a fact, proved, so far as the sheriffs are concerned, by the
case of the shrievalty of Surrey. That case is, briefly, as follows:
Early in 1218 there were two rival claimants to the sheriffdom of
Surrey; Engelard de Cigogné, who had been appointed to it by John in
April, 1216, and William, Earl of Warren. The grounds of William’s
claim are unknown. The most obvious conjecture is that he had received
a grant, or a promise, of the sheriffdom in the summer of 1217 as the
price of his return to allegiance; but this is only a conjecture;
his claim may have been based on some old prescriptive right--his
proper territorial designation was Earl of Surrey--or on some grant
or promise made to him by John; John may have granted or promised the
sheriffdom to William, before William’s defection from allegiance,
on some special terms such as might justify William in arguing that
on his “reversion” the promise was binding on John’s successor. The
case was under consideration for nine months, from 1st February till
November, 1218; and at the latter date it was still undecided, but
Engelard was promised that if the decision went against him, he should
be compensated by a grant of land and an annuity from the Treasury.
The decision is unrecorded; the end, however, was that William got the
sheriffdom and Engelard the promised compensation (Turner, pt. I, pp.
274–5). Whether this was the result of a formal judgement given by the
Council in favour of Earl William’s claim, or of a compromise agreed
upon between the two claimants and sanctioned by the Council, there
is nothing to shew. On this case Mr. Turner comments: “The mere fact
that the dispute between Engelard de Cigogné and William de Warenne
arose, and was considered judicially by the Council, shews that it
had been decided that John’s sheriffs held office as of right during
the minority. Otherwise the dispute would have been settled by the
immediate appointment of one of the claimants or of a third person
without any consideration by the Council” (pp. 275–276).
To me the evidence furnished by this case does not seem as conclusive
as it apparently does to Mr. Turner. The fact that the Council did
not settle the matter in the summary and arbitrary fashion in which,
no doubt, a King of full age would have settled it, does not to my
mind necessarily imply an acknowledgement of lack of competence so to
settle it. Bearing in mind that we know neither the origin and grounds
of the dispute nor the mode in which its final settlement was arrived
at;--bearing in mind also that the rival claimants were both of them
men whose continued attachment to the King it was important not to
endanger--I venture to think that the Council’s dealing with the case
may have been dictated chiefly, if not entirely, by motives of policy.
Mr. Turner himself says, in the very next sentence after the one which
I have quoted above, “There can be little doubt that Gualo and the Earl
Marshal acted prudently in allowing the sheriffs to continue in office”
(p. 276). Precisely; and they would have acted very imprudently had
they, without absolute necessity, given offence either to a servant
of the Crown so faithful and so efficient as Engelard de Cigogné (who
however, as we have just seen, did _not_ “continue in office”), or to a
magnate so powerful and so lately “reverted” as Earl William of Warren.
To me it seems hardly safe to argue decisively from a case so isolated
and so obscure.
As for the castellans, the custody of some of the King’s castles
habitually (though not necessarily) went with that of the shires in
which they stood, but others were quite independent of the sheriffs.
Mr. Turner in his second article (_Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, 3rd ser.,
vol. I, p. 247) says with reference to a document of 1220 (or 1221)
relating to Bristol castle: “Here we may see another recognition of
the claim that the castellans who had been appointed by John had
the right to remain in office during the King’s minority.” The only
“other” instance given by him of anything that can be construed into
recognition of such a claim on the part of a constable holding a royal
castle independently (as distinguished from a sheriff holding, in
conjunction with his sheriffdom, certain castles within his shire) is
the case of Sauvey, which Geoffrey de Serland was on 17th December,
1216, ordered to deliver to William of Aumale, but with a proviso
that if he were unwilling to do so, he should come in person, or send
a trusty representative, to hear the royal commands concerning the
matter (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 13; Turner, pt. II, p. 236). This
seems to indicate that, as Mr. Turner says (_l.c._), “The Marshal
evidently thought it prudent to give him [Geoffrey] a voice in the
appointment of his successor”; but it proves nothing as to any claim of
right on Geoffrey’s part having been recognized by the Marshal and his
colleagues, or even put forth by Geoffrey himself. The Bristol document
has in reality no bearing at all upon the point under consideration.
It is a letter patent whereby, in December, 1220, or January, 1221
(see above, p. 175), the Justiciar and six other members of the royal
Council became sureties for the King to Hugh de Vivonne, who was going
to Poitou as seneschal of that country, that if Hugh should be recalled
or should resign his office and return to England, “idem dominus
noster rex restituet ei castrum Bristolliae sicut illud prius tenuit,
vel assignabit ei aliam wardam in custodia alicujus castri vel terrarum
ad valentiam _custodiae praedicti castri Bristolliae et terrarum
quam habuit de ballio domini regis Johannis et postmodum de ballio
dicti domini nostri regis Henrici_; quam custodiam castri Bristolliae
et terrarum eidem domino nostro regi Henrico liberavit quando iter
arripuit versus Pictaviam” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 306, 307). The
sentence which I have italicized, construed literally, should of course
mean that Hugh had originally received the custody of Bristol castle,
and of certain lands, by a grant from John, and that this grant had
been renewed by Henry. But whatever may have been the case with regard
to the other lands here referred to, this was not the fact with regard
to Bristol. Until 19th September, 1219, Hugh de Vivonne was merely
lieutenant constable of Bristol castle for Savaric de Mauléon; on that
day he, acting in pursuance of Savaric’s instructions and for Savaric
(who had made up his mind not to return to England), surrendered it
into the King’s hand, and thereupon immediately received it back again
to hold “quamdiu nobis placuerit” as constable in his own person (_Pat.
Rolls_, vol. i. p. 203).
I will not dispute that a claim to continuity of tenure was made,
explicitly or implicitly, by some of the castellans, and that _in
practice_ they mostly succeeded in enforcing it; but that it ever
received formal “recognition” seems to me disproved by (_a_) the oath
of the barons at Henry’s second coronation, and (_b_) the Pope’s
letters on the subject of the royal castles.
(_a_) “From the annals of Dunstable we learn that on the morrow of the
coronation (in 1220) the barons who were there present swore that they
would resign their castles and wardships” (_castra et wardias suas_)
“at the King’s will, and would faithfully render accounts of their
farms at the Exchequer” (Turner, pt. II, p. 239; see the original,
from _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1220, above, footnote 680). This oath--taken
at a time (18th May, 1220) when it had not yet been settled whether
Henry was to attain his majority at fourteen or at twenty-one, and
when his actual age was twelve years and seven months--is clearly to
be understood as a promise to yield up the castles of which they had
custody, and render account for them, whenever they should in the
King’s name be called upon to do so, from that day forth, not merely
after the King’s coming of age. Mr. Turner understands it thus, for
he comments upon the passage, “In all probability the chief object of
these proceedings was to obtain the castles of Rockingham and Sauvey
from the Count of Aumale” (pt. II, p. 240). (_b_) On 26th May, 1220,
the Pope issued orders that all prelates holding royal castles should
surrender them; and on 28th May, that no man should be suffered to
retain the custody of more than two royal castles at once (_Roy.
Lett._, vol. I, pp. 535, 121; cf. above, pp. 146, 147, and Turner, pt.
II, p. 242). To me it appears that these letters are incompatible with
any “recognition” by the Pope--who, be it remembered, was acknowledged
by all parties as the legal overlord of England and the chief guardian
of the King--of the doctrine of the castellans’ right to continuity of
tenure during the King’s minority; and that the oath taken after the
coronation is equally incompatible with any such recognition on the
part of the regents in England, or even with any general recognition of
that doctrine among the castellans themselves.
With regard to the great officers of state, Mr. Turner’s inference is
based (pt. I, p. 271) on (1) the case of Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar
in Ireland; (2) that of Richard de Marsh, Chancellor of England; (3)
the parallel, or analogy, between the position of the great officers
of the Crown and that of the lesser ones--“the sheriffs and castellans
claimed to hold their bailiwicks throughout the King’s minority, and
the greater officers of state must have considered that they were
entitled to the same privilege” (pt. I, 272). Of (1) I have given
the whole story in my text, pp. 94, 95, 123–125, 174, 175, 217, 259.
Of (2) Mr. Turner says: “Richard de Mareis, the Chancellor, seems to
have grievously neglected his office, and to have left his duties to
be performed by Ralph de Neville, the vice-chancellor. It is scarcely
likely that he would have been permitted to enjoy the emoluments
of his office while repudiating its burden, if he could have been
removed” (pt. I, p. 272). The Chancellor’s office, unlike that of the
Justiciar or the sheriffs, was necessarily vacated by the death of
the King, inasmuch as he held it (as Mr. Turner points out, pt. I, p.
271) not by letters patent but by virtue of the delivery of the King’s
seal into his hands, and every King had a new seal. The Chancellor
appointed by John therefore, could not “claim the right to _continue_
in office until the king’s minority had determined”; such continuity
was impossible in an office conferred by the delivery of a symbol which
changed with a change of sovereigns. He _may_, as a great minister of
the Crown, have claimed a right to be re-appointed for the term of the
King’s minority. A formal re-appointment would not be possible in his
case till the new great seal was made, and this was not till October,
1218; but there may have been an informal agreement by which he was
left in possession of the functions and rights appertaining to the
chancellorship throughout the two years during which the Marshal’s
seal was used instead of the King’s, on the understanding that when
this latter arrangement terminated he was to receive the new seal in
the usual way. Such an agreement need not, however, imply any right
of continuity in office. Richard de Marsh was not the only Chancellor
who habitually left his duties to a deputy and yet was suffered to
retain his title and his profits. As to (3), it would certainly appear
that since justiciars, sheriffs, and castellans were all appointed
in the same manner and on the same terms--by letters patent, to hold
office during the King’s pleasure--the greater officers must have been
irremoveable during the minority, _if the lesser ones were acknowledged
to be so_. For the reasons already given, this latter point seems to me
not proven.
With regard to the castles a further question remains. Falkes de
Bréauté in the “Complaint” which he addressed to the Pope in 1225,
and which is preserved in the Barnwell Annals, speaking of the arrest
of Peter de Maulay in 1221, says: “De qua captione non ante dictus
nobilis evadere potuit quam ea castra quae sibi tam a domino Guala
quam etiam a patre domini regis commissa fuerant restitueret, contra
pristinum juramentum quod patri fecerat de non restituendis eisdem
castris donec iste rex legitimae foret aetatis” (W. Cov., vol. II, p.
260). On this Mr. Turner (pt. I, p. 284) observes: “The castles, he
says, were entrusted to Pierre as well by Guala as by King John. It
would seem from this that although the castellans were not re-appointed
on the King’s death by letters patent under the seal of the Earl
Marshal, their castles were formally delivered to them by Guala. The
statement is confirmed by a letter dated May 10th, 1220, from Pandulph,
who succeeded Guala as legate, to Ralph de Neville the vice-chancellor,
in which he asks him to send the form under which Guala delivered
castles to their wardens (Shirley, _Royal Letters_, i. 117).” Pandulf’s
words are these: “Item, formam sub qua dominus Gualo castra ad
custodiendum tradebat nobis mittas, si ipsam habes, vel ab his qui
sciunt diligenter inquiras, et quod inveneres nobis rescribas.”