two passages is a little overstrained. The words of Falkes need not
imply any formal act of delivery posterior to the one whereby Peter had
originally received the castles to hold for John. Falkes’s “Complaint”
is not a legal document, and we are neither obliged nor entitled to
construe its phraseology as if it were such. If certain castles which
John had committed to a certain man were left in that man’s custody
by Henry’s guardians, they were practically committed or entrusted
to him by the guardians as well as by John; and a reason why Falkes
should bring Gualo’s name into the matter, rather than the name of the
Marshal, is not far to seek. Falkes’s “Complaint” is a piece of special
pleading addressed to a special person--the Pope--for the purpose
of inducing him (as supreme guardian of his feudatary King Henry)
to intervene in English affairs in behalf of the complainant Falkes
himself; the case of Peter de Maulay being mentioned as an illustration
of the ill-treatment which (according to Falkes) the leaders of the
party now in power in England were meting out to faithful old servants
of King John. In these circumstances it is perfectly natural that
whatever sanction, whether explicit or tacit, was, at a time when
these leaders were in a subordinate position, given by the highest
authorities in the realm to Peter’s retention of the castles in his
keeping, should be described as having been given by the Legate. Nor
need the words of Pandulf bear any more definite meaning. The letter
in which they occur was misdated by Dr. Shirley; its true date is 10th
May, 1219 (see Prof. Powicke in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 229),
when Pandulf had been Legate about five months, and regent less than
as many weeks. That he, at this time, supposed the castles to have
been delivered to their wardens by Gualo is no proof that such was the
fact. Moreover, the wording of his inquiry suggests that he had no very
distinct idea of the thing about which he was inquiring; indeed, it
almost suggests some uncertainty on his part whether what he asked for
existed at all. I venture to think that--Ralf de Neville’s answer being
unfortunately lost--in this uncertainty the question still remains. It
would be a very remarkable circumstance if Gualo, who so scrupulously
refrained from all shew of intervention in the administration of civil
affairs, went out of his way to take upon himself a function utterly
alien from his natural sphere of action, and one which there could
be no conceivable reason for associating with his office rather than
with that of the lay regent. It would be equally remarkable that the
castellans, if they considered themselves entitled to retain their
wardenships without re-appointment by letters patent from the Governor
of King and Kingdom, in the new sovereign’s name, should have quietly
submitted to re-appointment in a wholly unprecedented manner at the
hands of a foreign ecclesiastic. And it is scarcely less remarkable
that a proceeding so unusual, if it really took place, should have left
no trace in the official records of the Kingdom and been passed over in
silence by all the chroniclers of the time.
NOTE VII
THE PAPAL LETTERS OF 1223
The four papal letters summarized in p. 202 are to be found in the Red
Book of the Exchequer, fol. 171. The letter which there stands first
of the four--that to the Earls and barons of England--is printed in
_Foedera_, I. i. p. 190 (with a marginal date, 1228, which does not
agree with the date at the end of the letter itself). The salutation
of all four is given in the Red Book as “Gregorius Papa,” etc., and
the date as “idus Aprilis anno primo,” _i.e._, 13th April, 1227. The
fact that some instructions about Henry’s coming of age, and about the
castles, were issued by Honorius III in 1223 appears from at least
three independent sources: the Dunstable Annals, Roger of Wendover, and
the _Querimonia Falcasii_. For the precise wording of any portion of
these instructions, and the date on which they (or a portion of them)
were issued, the sole authority which has hitherto been recognized is
a dateless letter preserved among the “bundles” in the Public Record
Office, and printed by Shirley in _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 430,
431. Its salutation runs “Sanctissimo patri ... G. Dei gratia summo
pontifici, P. Wintoniensis et H. Elyensis divina miseratione episcopi”;
_i.e._ it is a letter to Pope Gregory IX from Bishops Hugh of Ely who
was consecrated in June, 1229, and Peter of Winchester who died in
June, 1238. (Why Shirley dated this letter “June, 1232--April, 1234,”
I cannot guess.) These two prelates write: “Noverit sancta paternitas
vestra nos mandatum piae recordationis Honorii praedecessoris vestri
propriis manibus tractasse et oculis propriis inspexisse in haec verba:
‘Honorius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilecto filio ...’ (Shirley
left a blank for the name or initial; presumably it was undecipherable)
‘Cycestrensi electo, carissimi in Christo filii nostri regis Anglorum
vice-cancellario, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.’” They then
proceed to quote the whole letter; and it is absolutely identical
with the fourth of the letters concerning Henry’s majority, ascribed
in the Red Book to Gregory, except that its date is “idus Aprilis,
pontificatus nostri anno septimo,” _i.e._, 13th April, 1223. Long ago
Dr. Stubbs remarked that “Curiously enough, the bull of Gregory IX to
the same effect” [as the letters in which Honorius on 13th April, 1223,
had “declared Henry, although not yet of age, competent to govern”] “is
dated 13th April, 1227” (_Const. Hist._, vol. ii. p. 34, note 2, 1875).
A careful consideration of the subject has led me to the conviction
that this “curious” correspondence of month and day is due to the fact
that the words _idus Aprilis_ are the only correct part of the date as
given by the scribe of the Red Book, and that the four letters have
been attributed by him to a wrong Pope, being in reality all alike
letters of Honorius III, issued on 13th April, 1223.
These four letters obviously form a group whose members are so
inseparably inter-related that they must stand or fall together. The
chief member of this group is not the one which the Exchequer scribe
has placed at its head (the one printed in _Foedera_), but that which
he has placed second, and which is addressed to Peter des Roches,
Hubert de Burgh, and William Brewer conjointly. It is these three men
whom the Pope charges to give the young King free disposition of his
realm; the addressees of the other three letters are merely bidden
to perform the special duties which will fall to them severally as
a consequence of this primary command, which the Pope in each case
expressly tells them he is giving to Peter, Hubert, and William. We
have seen that the fourth letter is textually identical with one
which, according to Bishops Peter and Hugh, was written on 13th April,
1223, by Honorius to the vice-chancellor. This identity extends to
the salutation (except of course as to the writer’s name); in the Red
Book version, as in that of the two bishops, the letter is addressed
“Cycestrensi electo, vice-cancellario.” Now, the only man who was at
the same time “elect of Chichester and vice-chancellor” was Ralf de
Neville (who was elected to Chichester early in 1223); and before the
first year of Pope Gregory began, Ralf had ceased to be either the one
or the other--he had become Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor. Thus
the compiler of the portion of the Red Book in which these letters
occur has luckily betrayed his own error. Probably he had, in the first
draft of his notes, copied these letters from their originals in the
Exchequer without putting the Pope’s name or initial at their head,
and when he came to re-copy his notes into the Red Book he--writing
at a time when Henry’s first coming of age was no longer a matter of
practical importance and may well have been almost forgotten, knowing
that Henry had been set free from the trammels of minority while still
under age, and in the first year of Gregory IX, and failing to notice
the chronological indication conveyed in the address _Cycestrensi
electo vice-cancellario_--ascribed the letters to Gregory, and (as he
doubtless imagined) corrected the year accordingly. The words which I
have italicized are indeed not the only ones which shew that he was
mistaken in so doing. The whole contents of all four letters fit in
perfectly with the circumstances of 1223; but a considerable portion
of those contents is quite inappropriate to the circumstances of 1227.
At this latter date the controversy about the castles was a thing of
the past.
In further confirmation of this view of the matter, we find Hubert,
in his answers to a long indictment brought against him by the King
in 1239, quoting, from four letters addressed (1) “Comitibus et
baronibus,” (2) and (3) “Comiti Cestriae” and “sub eisdem verbis
Wintoniensi Episcopo,” (4) “Cancellario,” passages which all occur in
the letters correspondingly addressed in the Red Book, and he describes
all these quotations as taken from privileges of Pope Honorius. These
answers were put into writing by Master Laurence of S. Alban’s;
Laurence’s notes were preserved in a commonplace book of his abbey,
and they figure among the miscellaneous collections of Matthew Paris
as _Responsiones Magistri Laurentii de S. Albano pro comite Kantiae
Huberto de Burgo_ (_Chron. Maj._, vol. vi. pp. 63–74). The answers
in general have an appearance of honesty; but they were drawn up
many years after the occurrence of some of the events to which they
relate; and from this or some other cause the version given in them of
the whole story of Henry’s coming of age is extremely confused, and
certainly inaccurate in some particulars, the events of 1227 and those
of 1223 being inextricably mixed up together. Hubert’s description of
the Pope’s letter about the great seal as addressed “_Cancellario_,”
however, presents no difficulty. The word may stand simply for “him who
is Chancellor now,” or the prefix _vice_ may have been omitted by the
scribe.
Of the letter in which Honorius bade the prelates enforce by
ecclesiastical censure a general surrender of all the royal castles
(above, p. 206), no actual copy is known; but there is no reason to
question the accuracy of Roger of Wendover’s report of its contents.
That report is, I think, confirmed by the brief but significant
statements of Falkes de Bréauté. In 1225 Falkes (probably with the help
of Robert Passelewe, a well known man of law) drew up a “Complaint”
addressed to the Pope and Cardinals about the recent proceedings in
England against himself. This complaint is inserted in the Barnwell
Annals under the heading _Querimonia Falcasii coram Domino Papa_ (W.
Cov., vol. ii. pp. 259–272). It sets the whole political history of
England during the years 1221–1224 in a light startlingly different
from that in which the same history is treated by the chroniclers;
and although its author certainly had good opportunity of knowing the
truth about the matters of which he wrote, there are obvious reasons
which make him a dangerous authority to rely upon implicitly. The fact,
however, that the “Complaint” was addressed to Honorius furnishes some
guarantee of the correctness of its statements so far as they relate to
the action of Honorius himself. These statements are as follows:--
“Cum _a sede apostolica jussio processisset ut castra, ballia, et
caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur, adjuncta
clausula_ quod rex ipse jam adultus factus compelli non posset habere
tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus; dictus justiciarius
et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones” etc. (here follows
the story of Lacy and Musard and of Chester’s rising, see above, pp.
203, 204). “Interim tamen ... cum rex apud Northamptonam sollemnitatem
Natalis sicut mos est celebrasset, effectum est ... ut tam comes
Cestriae quam alii supranominati ad regis curiam vocarentur. Quibus ...
in ipsius et archiepiscopi et quorundam episcoporum qui simul aderant
presentia constitutis, _exhibitae fuerunt quaedam literae apostolicae
in quibus continebatur ut esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum
facienda_” (pp. 261–262). In the first of the two passages which I have
italicized the compulsory surrender of all royal castles etc. seems
to be represented as the chief point dealt with in the papal mandate
referred to, the King’s majority being apparently treated merely as
an adjunct; while in the second passage the former point is still
further emphasized by the latter not being mentioned at all. I think
we may gather from these two passages that the papal mandates which
Falkes had in his mind were not those preserved in the Royal Letters
and the Red Book, but those whose substance is preserved by Roger of
Wendover. The Dunstable annalist says that Henry’s _quasi_-majority
was decided upon and proclaimed “by order of the Pope and assent of
the barons,” _i.e._, the Pope’s letter to Peter, Hubert, and William
Brewer was published in a council at London, on the King’s return from
Wales (see above, footnote 921). The Rolls shew that Henry reached
London on 22nd October and remained there till 8th November (_Close
Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 566 b, 567, 575 b, 576). As, however, it was not
till 9th December that Henry began to attest his own letters, it seems
that either the annalist’s date must not be taken literally, or the
proclamation remained inoperative for more than a month. I think it
can be shewn that the latter was the case. The Rolls indicate that the
affair of Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard had taken place before 15th
November (above, footnote 924). Falkes says that after that affair
Henry and Hubert went to Gloucester; the Rolls shew that they were
at Gloucester 16–22nd November (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 575 b–576
b). Chester’s attempt on the Tower must have been made during their
absence from London. We know from the Rolls that they were there again
from 28th November till 12th, perhaps till 19th December (_ib._ pp.
576 b–579); the rebels’ appearance before them and the scene between
Peter and Hubert must thus have taken place there between 28th November
and 5th December, since, as we learn from Falkes (p. 261), the “truce”
arranged immediately after it by Langton began on 6th December. It was
only in this December council that “the papal letters which declared
him (Henry) of age were acted upon” (Powicke, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol.
xxiii. p. 221), _i.e._, that the King began to attest his own letters,
and, probably, the great seal began to follow the King instead of being
kept at the Exchequer (_ib._, p. 224). Falkes, however, seems to imply
that the papal command “ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a
cunctis tenentibus redderentur” was known in England before the affair
of Lacy and Musard took place. On the other hand he tells us that
certain Apostolic letters “in quibus continebatur quod esset domino
regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” were “exhibited”--seemingly for
the first time--at Christmas. To me all this seems to indicate that the
letter to Peter, Hubert, and William and the letter to the prelates,
had both reached the English court before the end of October; that the
first was published then as the annalist says, but was not carried into
immediate effect; that the second was published, as Roger implies,
early in December, but that a number of barons--Falkes among them--not
being present at its publication, had no _official_ knowledge of it
till it was “exhibited” to them at Christmas.
While the barons in general seem to have regarded Hubert as the
instigator of the papal order for a compulsory surrender of castles,
etc., Falkes, hostile though he is to the Justiciar, neither asserts
nor hints at any thing of the kind. He says indeed nothing whatever as
to any suspicions which he or others may have had concerning the origin
of that order. Yet I cannot but think that he had a suspicion, and
possibly not altogether an unlikely one. Both on personal and political
grounds Falkes is bitter enough against Hubert; to him, Hubert is a
personal enemy and also an enemy of the peace and prosperity of King
and kingdom; but he is neither the sole nor the chief enemy. Throughout
his “Complaint,” even in reference to matters in which Hubert appears
as the principal or the sole actor, Falkes speaks of “the Justiciar and
his accomplices”; and the foremost of these “accomplices,” according
to Falkes’s version of history, is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is Stephen, not Hubert, who is the arch-enemy in the eyes of
Falkes--the relentless persecutor of Falkes himself, the persistent
sower of discord and plotter of mischief in the realm; one passage
relating to him in the _Querimonia_ reads almost like a paraphrase
of the accusation said by the Dunstable annalist to have been flung,
in a moment of fury, by Hubert at Peter des Roches (above, p. 207).
The animus displayed by Falkes against Stephen is in fact so violent
that we instinctively feel his narrative is not to be trusted _in
details_ where the Archbishop is concerned. Yet there is no intrinsic
impossibility in its account of the formal surrender of the castles,
in which Stephen is distinctly made to play the most prominent part
(above, p. 210). We have seen the difficulties involved in supposing
that the Pope’s action was prompted by any person or party among the
other councillors of the Crown. Can it have been prompted--on the
broad ground of the interest of public order and stable government,
irrespective of persons and parties--by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
NOTE VIII
THE ROYAL CASTLES IN 1223–1224
The entries in the Patent Roll concerning the changes which took place
in the custody of royal castles from November, 1223, to March, 1224,
have been collected by Dr. Shirley in Appendix ii. to his edition of
_Royal Letters_, vol. i. pp. 508–516. They are there given in the form
and the order in which they appear on the Roll, and accompanied by some
other entries which have no direct bearing on the general surrender and
redistribution of castles after Christmas, 1223. The entries whose date
is earlier than 29th December, 1223, have of course also no bearing
upon that subject. A summary analysis, in chronological order, of
those which do relate to it may therefore be useful to elucidate and
check the statements in my text, pp. 210–212. My references are to the
printed Patent Rolls of Henry III, vol. i.
From 30th December, 1223, to 13th March, 1224, (after which no further
important changes seem to have taken place for some time) orders were
issued for the transfer of the custody of thirty-three castles, viz:
Shrewsbury, Bridgenorth, Lancaster, Kenilworth, Windsor, Odiham,
Knaresborough, the Peak, Bolsover, Salisbury, Devizes, Corfe, Bristol,
Sherborne, Lincoln, S. Briavel’s, Oxford, Northampton, Hertford,
Rochester, Norwich, Orford, Dover, Canterbury, Hereford, Winchester,
Porchester, Southampton, Carisbrook, Christchurch, Plympton,
Marlborough, Luggershall. On 30th December Earl Ranulf of Chester was
bidden to deliver the castles of Shrewsbury and Bridgenorth, and the
shires of Salop and Stafford, to Hugh le Despenser. In the custody of
Lancaster castle, county, and honour Ranulf was to be superseded by
Earl Ferrers. Kenilworth castle and the shires of Leicester and Warwick
were transferred from William de Cantelupe to John Russell; Windsor
and Odiham from Engelard de Cigogné to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Brian de Lisle was ordered to deliver Knaresborough to the Archbishop
of York, the Peak and Bolsover to Robert of Lexington, who was however
to receive the latter fortress not for himself, but to hand it over to
William Brewer (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 418). Earl William Longsword
was to deliver the castle of Salisbury, William Brewer that of Devizes
and Ralf Gernon that of Corfe, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Bristol
castle was to pass from the Bishop of Norwich (Pandulf), Sherborne
castle and the sheriffdom of Somerset from John Russell, to the Bishop
of Bath; Lincoln castle from Stephen de Sedgrave to the bishop of the
diocese (_ib._ p. 419. It is not quite clear whether at this time
Stephen de Sedgrave was castellan of Lincoln in his own person, or as
assistant to Nicolaa de Haye). Falkes de Bréauté was to deliver the
castle and shire of Oxford to Richard de Rivers; those of Northampton
to Ralf de Trubleville; and the castle of Hertford to William of
Eynesford (_ib._ p. 418). The Justiciar was to deliver the castles of
Rochester, Norwich, Orford, and Hereford, to their respective diocesan
bishops, Dover and Canterbury to the Primate (_ib._ pp. 418–419). The
supersession of John of Monmouth as custodian of S. Briavel’s and of
the Forest of Dene is expressly stated to be due to his voluntary
resignation on the score of ill-health; on 4th January, 1224, the
castle and Forest were committed momentarily to the Bishop of Hereford,
to be by him delivered to Walter Asmoins, whom the King appointed
warden of them under Ralf FitzNicholas (_ib._ pp. 419–420).
On 7th January, 1224, the Bishop of Winchester was ordered to deliver
the castles of Winchester, Porchester, and Southampton, with the
sheriffdom of Hampshire, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Within five
days, however, Jocelyn was superseded in all these bailiwicks by the
Earl of Salisbury. On 12th January Hertford castle was transferred
from its newly appointed constable, William of Eynesford, to Stephen
de Sedgrave (_ib._ p. 420), who again was on 23rd January superseded
there by Richard de Argentine (_ib._ p. 425). An order was issued
on 12th January for the transfer of Windsor and Odiham to Hubert de
Burgh, but seems to have been cancelled, for on 4th February these
two castles were still in the hands to which they had been committed
on 30th December--those of the Primate, who was now bidden to deliver
them to Osbert Giffard (_ib._ pp. 420, 421). On 2nd February Falkes was
ordered to deliver Carisbrook and Christchurch to Waleran the German
(“le Theys”) to whom the King had given them in custody together with
the lands of the late Earl Willam of Devon and the castle of Plympton
(_ib._ p. 427). On 7th February the Bishop of Norwich was ordered to
deliver Marlborough castle to Robert Wolf (“Lupus”; _ib._ p. 426). On
2nd March another new constable was appointed to Marlborough, Robert de
Meisy, who was at the same time made constable of Luggershall; whether
John Little, who was ordered to deliver these two fortresses to Meisy
(_ib._ p. 428), was sub-warden of them for the recently appointed Wolf
or for Pandulf, does not appear. On 11th March Robert de Lexington was
bidden to deliver Bolsover to William Brewer (_ib._ p. 429), for whom
he had received it in January. On 13th March Pandulf was desired to
deliver Bristol “without delay” to Reginald de Hurle and John Little
(_ib._). Lastly, on the same day, Plympton, of which Waleran “le
Theys” had been appointed custodian six weeks before, was committed
to Walter de Falkenberg (_ib._ p. 430). This appointment, like that
of Waleran, proved ineffectual, owing to the resistance of Falkes.
Falkes had on 18th January been ordered to deliver the shires of
Bedford and Buckingham to William de Pateshull, and those of Cambridge
and Huntingdon to Richard de Argentine (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p.
581 b; cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 421); the two latter shires were
immediately transferred again, to Geoffrey de Heathfield (_Pat. Rolls_,
_l.c._).
NOTE IX
FALKES AND THE “THIRTY PAIRS OF LETTERS.”
The number of illegal disseisins of which Falkes was convicted at
Dunstable in June, 1224 (above, p. 231), is officially stated as
sixteen: “Cum ... Falcatius ... coram judicibus eisdem in sexdecim
causis fuisset convictus ... et ad restitutionem ablatorum et
satisfactionem plenam debito modo condemnatus,” are the words of King
Henry himself in a letter to the Pope (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 225).
Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 94) says “Cecidit in misericordia
regis de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum, de quibus singulis in
centum libris debuerat condemnari.” Matthew Paris (_Chron. Maj._, vol.
iii. p. 84, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 263) copies this; and in an
original paragraph of his own, inserted at the end of Roger’s account
of the Bedford affair, he says that Falkes “xxxii liberos homines
in manerio de Luituna sine judicio de suis tenementis disseisiavit”
(_Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. p. 88). The Dunstable annalist (p. 90) says
“Falchasius de triginta quinque saisinis convictus est.” Of course
the evidence of the King’s letter is decisive. Roger’s odd phrase,
“de plusquam triginta _paribus litterarum_,” reveals how the number
came to be doubled. At some date obviously earlier (probably not less,
possibly much more, than six months earlier, since the complaint of
the earls is addressed to the Justiciar, not the King) than this
Dunstable affair, the Earls of Salisbury and Pembroke, writing to
Hubert about Falkes’s outrageous conduct towards John Marshal, reported
“quod dominus Johannes Marescallus nobis per literas suas mandavit
quod, cum misisset literas domini regis domino Falcasio de Brealte pro
bosco suo ... idem Falkasius ad literas domini regis respondit quod si
ei misisset triginta paria literarum domini regis, pacem utique non
haberet de praedicto bosco,” etc. (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 221, 222).
This story of Falkes’s declaration, uttered in a moment of anger, that
“_if_ thirty pairs of royal letters should be sent to him” in behalf of
one particular person, he would pay no heed to them, seemingly became
confused, before it reached S. Alban’s and Dunstable, with a wholly
different matter, and the “thirty pairs of letters” were supposed to
have been actually sent, as the consequence of his conviction before
Henry de Braybroke of the same number of disseisins; Roger or his
informant inserted a “plusquam” on the strength of which Matthew raised
the number to thirty-two; while the Dunstable annalist further improved
it to thirty-five.
NOTE X
BEDFORD CASTLE
The nature of Falkes’s tenure of Bedford castle is a question of some
difficulty. The only entry relating to it in the Rolls is provokingly
laconic: “Mandatum est Waltero de Bellocampo quod habere faciat
Falkesio de Breaute manerium de Seldelegia quod est de honore de
Bedefordia, quia dominus rex castrum de Bedefordia cum toto honore
et pertinentiis dedit Falkesio,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 250 b,
4th March, 1216. In July, 1224, King Henry, writing to the Pope
about Falkes, calls Bedford “quoddam castrum nostrum quod habebat in
custodia” (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 225, 226). So too the Waverley
annalist (a. 1224):--“castellum de Bedford quod ab eodem rege [Johanne]
in custodiam acceperat.” One of the complaints brought against Hubert
in 1239 in connexion with the Bedford affair was that on the capture of
the castle he “illud prosterni fecit et reddi Willelmo de Bellocampo,
super quem dominus J. rex castrum illud ceperat per guerram, et unde
J. rex seisitus fuit quando obiit.” To this Hubert answered that “per
consilium magnatum Angliae fuit castrum obsessum, captum, et dirutum
... et quia idem Willelmus semper erat petens versus dictum Falconem
dictum castrum ut jus suum, nec habere potuit donec fuit captum per
dominum regem; idem dominus rex de consilio magnatum suorum, propter
formam pacis factae et prae timore sententiae latae” (_i.e._ the
promise of general amnesty and restitution included in the treaty
of Kingston, and the excommunication pronounced against infractors)
“dictam sedem castri ei reddidit, tenendum eodem modo quo antecessores
sui tenuerunt, prout patet in rotulis domini regis.” (_Respons._ pp.
67–69; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632). The Barnwell annalist (W.
Cov., vol. ii. p. 253) says the castle “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum
de Bello Campo”; and Ralf of Coggeshall (pp. 205, 206), says “Rex
Johannes ... contulit etiam ei [_i.e._ Falconi] terram Willelmi de
Bellocampo, qui enim cum aliis baronibus contra regem conspiraverat.
Dedit insuper ei castellum de Bedeford pro servitio suo, et charta sua
confirmavit.... Cumque caeteri barones custodias suas regi, ut dictum
est, tradidissent” (after Christmas, 1223), “Falco etiam custodias
suas regi similiter tradidit; sed castellum de Bedeford nullo modo
regi aut Willelmo de Bellocampo tradere voluit, asserens illud suum
esse proprium, et a rege Johanne sibi fuisse donatum, et charta sua
fore confirmatum pro tam laborioso et diutino servitio suo.” Falkes
in his Complaint to the Pope twice speaks of Bedford castle as his
own property: “privilegio vestrae sedis per quae ... _tam castrum
quam caetera bona nostra_” (_mea_ in another MS.) “sub protectione
benignitatis vestrae fuerant constituta,” p. 264; “amissio _castri
mei_,” p. 272; and the Pope, writing to the King on 17th August, 1224,
says “castrum de Betford quod ipse pater tuus eidem [Falchesio] ...
sicut dicitur, liberalitate regia, immo merita retributione donavit,”
_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 544.
To understand these various statements we have first to determine
what was the relation between the honour of Bedford and the castle
of Bedford. The former had been given by William Rufus to Payne de
Beauchamp, and on land which formed part of it Payne built the castle.
Payne’s heirs were deprived of their patrimony by Stephen. After the
conclusion of the civil war they recovered their lands (Dugdale,
_Baronage_, vol. i. p. 223), but not the castle, for in the Pipe Roll
of 34 Hen. II (1187–1188) the accounts of the sheriff of Bedfordshire
include an item of four pounds and six shillings spent “in the works
of the castle of Bedford and of the postern towards the water”
(Goddard, _Siege of Bedford_, p. 17, from _Bedfordshire Archæological
Transactions_, vol. xii. p. 249), a fact which shews that the castle
was then the property of the King. In 1189–1190 Simon de Beauchamp
paid into the Treasury one hundred pounds, “to be governor of the
castle of Bedford” (Dugdale, _l.c._, from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I). These
words clearly indicate that Simon was to hold the castle not in fee,
but as its constable for the Crown. The bargain between him and King
Richard may have included some understanding that the constableship
was to be hereditary (somewhat as another branch of the Beauchamp
family were hereditary constables of Worcester castle and sheriffs of
Worcestershire), for Simon was succeeded in it by his son William; it
was by entertaining the rebel barons in Bedford castle that William
incurred forfeiture in 1215 (R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 299). It is clear
that the seisin of Bedford castle was then, and had been for many years
past, in the Crown; John would therefore be perfectly within his rights
if in 1216 he chose to alienate the castle altogether by granting it to
Falkes in fee. But the treaty of Kingston enacted that all men should
be reinstated in their rights (as well as their lands) as they had held
them when the war between John and the barons began. This definition
would apparently entitle William de Beauchamp to claim restitution of
the constableship of Bedford castle, if that office had been recognized
by Richard and John as hereditary. Beauchamp “came in” to King Henry in
August, 1217, and orders were at once given for the restoration of some
of his lands (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 319 b); of the rest, including
those in Bedfordshire, he was granted restitution early in October
(_ib._ pp. 325 b, 326). Falkes, however, was slow to loose his hold
upon the honour of Bedford, and further royal letters bidding him give
Beauchamp full seisin of it were issued in February, 1222 (_ib._ p. 488
b). Neither in these letters nor in those of 1217 is there any mention
of the castle.
Ralf of Coggeshall’s story is not self-consistent. He begins by
stating, as a positive fact, that John had given Bedford castle to
Falkes by charter. Afterwards, however, this fact dwindles down to an
assertion reported to have been made by Falkes in answer to a demand
in 1223–1224 for restitution of the castle either to the King or to
Beauchamp. No charter such as is here mentioned appears in the Charter
Rolls of John’s reign. This of course does not prove that no such
charter ever existed; nor does the fact that the Patent and Close
Rolls of Henry’s reign contain no hint of Falkes’s having ever, before
the capture of Henry de Braybroke, been summoned to deliver up the
castle, prove that no such summons was ever issued. The words of Falkes
himself and those of the Pope--these latter being of course based on
information derived from Falkes or his friends--imply that he claimed
to hold the castle in fee. But even if this claim was really based on a
charter, it could scarcely have availed to bar the claim of the King;
for by the treaty of Kingston the Crown as well as its subjects, was
to regain whatever it had been seised of before the war, and it had
certainly been seised of Bedford castle from the time of Henry II till
the autumn of 1215; it seems therefore that Henry might have considered
himself entitled to treat a charter granted by his father after that
date as null and void, and thus to call Bedford _castrum nostrum_. With
regard to its custody as a royal castle, the law of the matter may very
likely have been quite uncertain. It may have been at least arguable
that the definition laid down in the treaty did not necessarily cover
the custody of a royal castle even if held by hereditary right; and
it must be remembered that we do not know what was the precise nature
of the tenure by which Beauchamp had held that office. The Barnwell
writer, however, certainly appears to have gone too far in stating
that the castle itself “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum de Bello Campo.”
It had belonged to William’s ancestors; but William’s father had
practically renounced all claim to its ownership by fining with King
Richard for the office of its constable. William’s right in it was at
the utmost only an hereditary title to that office. Whether John did
grant the castle to Falkes in fee, or whether he died seised of it
himself (as Hubert said)--having given merely the custody of it, as
well as the enjoyment of the honour of Bedford, to Falkes _quamdiu regi
placuerit_--we cannot determine. From Henry’s accession till autumn,
1223, any question which might exist on the subject between Falkes and
the Crown was of little practical consequence. It was recognized on
all hands that throughout that period whatever castles Falkes held,
whether as constable or as lord, he held loyally for the King and used
for the King’s interest with a rare capability and diligence. Henry’s
counsellors might well prefer to leave this particular detail of the
great castle-problem undiscussed _usque ad aetatem regis_. Still more
natural was it that Beauchamp’s claim should get no hearing till Falkes
had incurred forfeiture in his turn. Then King and Council decided
that it would be prudent to satisfy Beauchamp without giving him a
chance of treading in Falkes’s steps or repeating his own act of 1215;
and they did so by pulling the half ruined castle down altogether and
granting him the site, with leave to build himself _not_ a castle, but
a dwelling-house, out of its stones (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632, 632
b).
NOTE XI
THE HANGING OF THE BEDFORD GARRISON
Eight writers tell this grim story very briefly--seven of them in
almost identical words--differing only as to the number of the victims.
A ninth--Falkes--has a longer and more elaborate version.
(1) “In crastino autem, cum omnes vulnerati et plagis lethiferis
afflicti exiissent et ad presentiam regis adducti fuissent, addicti
sunt ad suspendium universi; suspensi sunt itaque, inter milites
et servientes, qui propter superbiam suam quam regi ostenderant in
obsidione jam finita non potuerunt misericordiam impetrare.” Here, in
the only two known MSS. of his history (Douce ccvii. and Cott. Otho B.
v.), Roger of Wendover’s sentence ends. Obviously it is incomplete, and
was meant to have been completed by the addition of a number; but the
omission appears to have been an oversight in the original text, for in
neither of the extant copies is there any blank between “impetrare” and
the first word of the next sentence, “Henricus.” The addition “[viginti
quatuor]” in the printed editions (Coxe, vol. iv. p. 98; Howlett, vol.
ii. p. 281) is derived from Matthew Paris.
(2) Matthew Paris in his _Chronica Majora_ (vol. iii. p. 87) copies
Roger exactly; but opposite “impetrare” he has written in one margin
of his MS. “viginti quatuor,” and in the other margin “dub. de numero”
(_ib._, note 1). In the _Historia Anglorum_ (vol. ii. pp. 264, 265)
he says: “Suspensi sunt itaque inter milites et servientes circiter
xxiiiiᵒʳ.” In both works he adds: “Tamen, multiplicatis intercessoribus
et intervenientibus quibusdam rationibus excusatoriis, pepercit rex
tribus, qui tamen propter regis jusjurandum salvandum laqueati a terra
suspensi sunt, sed non usque ad mortem.”
(3) “Capto igitur castro, in Assumptione Beatae Virginis Mariae fere
omnes in eo repertos, tam milites quam servientes, vita privavit
sententia ignominiosa. Nam jussu regio circiter lxxxᵃ in patibulis sunt
suspensi.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254.
(4) “Mane vero sequenti, ante tribunal regis exhibiti, et per episcopos
ab excommunicatione absoluti, ad mandatum regis et justitiarii sui
suspensi sunt in patibulis octoginta et plures. Tres vero ad preces
principum rex indulsit Templariis, ut in habito suo in Terra Sancta
Domino militarent.” _Ann. Dunst._, p. 88.
(5) “Repertos in eodem castro, non considerata cujusquam generositate,
usque ad octoginta duos et amplius digno condempnavit suspendio [rex].”
_Contin. Gerv. Cant._, vol. ii. p. 114.
(6) “In patibulis suspenduntur tam milites quam servientes, die
Assumptionis Beatae Mariae Virginis, numero octoginta tres.” R.
Coggeshall, p. 207.
(7) “Omnes fere qui sponte ingressi in castello inventi sunt suspensi
sunt in patibulis, in die videlicet Assumptionis Beatae Mariae, homines
circiter octoginta.” _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224.
(8) “Suspensi sunt xiv milites.” T. Wykes, a. 1220.
(9) “Milites in manu domini regis et misericordia archiepiscopi et
episcoporum se devotissime offerentes, sub tutela ecclesiae sicut
crucesignati, et quia sub appellationis ad vos” (the Pope) “factae
credebant defendi subsidio, in exercitum de castro prodierunt. Quibus
in die Assumptionis dato cum ignominio absolutionis beneficio, idem
Archiepiscopus cum episcopis Hugoni Lincolniensi, Jocelino Batoniensi
et Radulfo Cicestrensi ad regem ingressus est ... ipsius regis
adolescentiam ad indebitam provocans iracundiam, talia verba profudit:
‘Nos quidem ut nos decuit rigorem sumus ecclesiasticam executi;
jam restat regem facere quod suum est.’ Cumque ad haec verba regis
obstupesceret innocentia, et quaereret quid ad majestatem regiam
pertineret, rursus idem archiepiscopus, non pater patriae sed tyrannus,
‘Justitiarium,’ inquit, ‘hujus dicti oportet esse interpretem, quia
quid ad vos pertineat edocebit.’ Ne autem pro nihilo dictis comitatus
esset episcopis, unus ex eis, videlicet Batoniensis, dixit: ‘Si
suspensi fuissent qui capti fuerunt apud Biham, isti qui nunc capti
sunt nullatenus castrum adversus nutum regium tenuissent.’ Postea vero
apud regem altercatione suborta an exspectandi essent barones regni pro
judicio faciendo, singuli qui aderant causa prandii ad propria tentoria
secesserunt; ipsaque hora prandii milites, servientes, juvenes,
cujuscunque conditionis quantaeque nobilitatis, ad numerum nonaginta
vii, tam archiepiscopo quam dictis episcopis inspicientibus, in dedecus
militiae et perpetuum regis opprobrium sunt suspensi.... Clamore autem
tantae crudelitatis audito, aliqui de mensis propriis occurrentes de
furcis et patibulis aliquos liberaverunt, qui tamen sub custodia adhuc
detinentur.” _Quer. Falc._, pp. 267, 268.
Now, Falkes certainly did not witness the scenes which he here
describes. They may have been reported to him by a member of the
Council; but we have no guarantee for the reporter’s truthfulness or
accuracy, or even for the report having originated elsewhere than in
Falkes’s own brain--a brain which, keen as it was in other respects,
really seems to have been, from some cause which we cannot fathom,
hardly sane on matters in which Stephen de Langton was concerned. The
narrative clearly conveys, and is clearly meant to convey, that it was
Stephen who instigated the hanging of the garrison; that he did so in
veiled language which the young King’s “innocence” at first failed
to understand; that Stephen cast the responsibility of explaining it
on the Justiciar (whom, it will be remembered, Falkes has all along
represented as being hand and glove with the Archbishop); that before
even the justiciar could speak, its meaning was made plain by one of
three bishops whom the Primate had brought with him into the King’s
presence for that very purpose; that the laymen of the Council, less
bloodthirsty than the Primate, hesitated to adopt his suggestion
and put off the decision till after dinner; and that while all the
barons were occupied with that meal, the deed was done behind their
backs (of course under orders issued by the Justiciar in the King’s
name), Stephen and his three episcopal friends feasting their eyes
on the sight. We should certainly require some other authority than
Falkes to make us accept this story as he would have his readers
accept it. But the main incidents of the story may be true, and only
their meaning perverted by the narrator; the outlines of the picture
may be correct, and only the colouring false. The Bedford garrison
had submitted to the King; they were therefore entitled to be, after
doing penance in the usual form, absolved from the excommunication
which had been pronounced against them for resisting him. But they
had submitted only on compulsion; therefore they were, by the law of
the land, still liable to the extreme penalty due to men who were
taken fighting against the person of their sovereign. The duty of the
prelates towards these prisoners was to enforce their penance and then
give them absolution; this the prelates had done; and therewith their
part in the Council’s action was at an end. The temporal fate of the
prisoners was a question of life or death, and in such questions, it is
well known, ecclesiastics had no voice. In a case such as the present
one, it was for the King’s lay counsellors to advise him, and for the
King to decide; and if, owing to a divergence of opinions among those
counsellors or from any other cause, the young sovereign thus called
upon to exercise for the first time such a weighty prerogative felt
doubtful of its extent or of the right direction in which to exercise
it, the Justiciar was the person to whom he should look for guidance.
This, and nothing more, is the plain and natural meaning of the words
which Falkes places in the mouth of the Primate. In themselves they
afford no ground for the interpretation which he evidently wished his
readers to put upon them. Some of the barons were still, it seems,
leniently disposed towards Falkes; many of them may have been reluctant
to send brave soldiers to the gallows; if so, the execution may have
been carried out somewhat as Falkes states. His account of the rescue
of “some who are still”--_i.e._, some nine months later--“detained in
custody” is easily reconciled with the story told by Matthew Paris and
the Dunstable annalist of the three who were given to the Templars. The
touch about the four prelates gloating over the ghastly scene may be
set down to a fevered imagination.
INDEX
“Aid,” 82;
from clergy, 264;
for Holy Land, 194
Alexander, King of Scots, 77;
his seizure of Carlisle, 87;
homage, _ib._;
negotiations with Pandulf, 126;
treaty with Henry, 140;
meeting with Henry, 145;
marriage, 171
Angoulême, county of, 132
Aquitaine, its relations with the English Crown, 130–132;
complaints of the towns, 138, 142, 143;
projects about seneschalship, 143, 144;
seneschals of, _see_ Bordeaux, Mauléon, Neville, Pons, Ulecote,
Vivonne. _See also_ Gascony, Poitou
Arras, Hugh, constable of, 20, 31, 44
Arundel, Earl of, 49
Athée, family of, 74–75
Aubigné, Philip of, at Henry’s coronation, 5;
at council of Bristol, 9;
commands English fleet, 21;
takes Porchester, 26;
his sea-fight with French, 31;
at battle of Sandwich, 51, 52, 54;
the King’s “master,” 180;
envoy to Poitou, 187, 188, 252, 255;
to France, 197
Aubigny, William of, 25, 33
Aumale, William, Count of, 9, 33;
rebels, 121–123, 154, 155, 163–167;
proposed as seneschal of Poitou, 143, 156;
at siege of Bedford, 238
Baliol, Hugh de, 17, footnote 490
Barres, William des, 52
Basset, Alan, 6, 9
Basset, Thomas, 33
Bath, Jocelyn, bishop of, 4, 212
Beauchamp, Walter de, 9
Beauchamp, William de, 238, 294–296
Bedford, castle of, 231, 238;
its ownership, 293–296;
siege of, 232, 239, 242–244;
fate of the garrison, 244, 296–299
Berkhamsted, surrendered to Louis, 18
Blanche of Castille, 48, 264, 265
Bloet, William, 43
Bordeaux, 141, 144, 251
Bordeaux, William, archbishop of, 131
Braybroke, Henry de, 29, 44, note 6, 45, 230, 231, 244
Bréauté, Falkes de, _see_ Falkes
Bréauté, family of, 225, footnote 1039
Bréauté, William de, footnote 1039, 230–232
Breuse, Reginald de, 89, 90, 173, 196
Brewer, William, 5, 9, 211, 214
Bristol, council at, 9, 10;
castle of, 212, 282, 283
Brittany, Duke of, 264
Burgh, Hubert de, defends Dover, 16;
at council of Bristol, 9, 17;
offices under John, 116, 117;
Justiciar, 70, 117, footnote 614;
at battle of Sandwich, 51;
dealings with Aquitaine, 139, 144;
with London rioters, 185, 186;
marries Margaret of Scotland, 174;
marches against Llywelyn, 191, 192;
raises siege of Builth, 196;
fortifies Montgomery, _ib._;
his supremacy, 198, 199;
charges against him, 115, 201, 206, 207, 235, 267;
league against, 204;
quarrel with Bishop Peter, 207;
reconciled with the barons, 217;
castles held by him, 154, 211–213;
his charges against Falkes, 235, 236;
dealings with Poitou and with Falkes, 237;
relations with Salisbury, 254, 255;
his “Responsiones,” 288
Burgh, Raymond de, 254
Burgh, Richard de, 124, 218, 259
Bytham, castle of, 163–167
Caerleon-upon-Usk, 92, 190, 260
Caermarthen, castle of, 89, 91, 192, 193, 197, 260
Cambridge, 19
Cantelupe, William, 9, 204, 211, 238
Canterbury, Stephen de Langton, archbishop of, returns to England,
103;
buries the Marshal, 107;
re-crowns the King, 130;
translates relics of S. Thomas, 157, 158;
goes to Rome, 171;
returns, _ib._;
reconciles Chester and Salisbury, 181;
ambassador to France, 188, 190;
excommunicates Llywelyn, 196;
compels him to submit, _ib._, 197;
holds council at Oseney, 199;
negotiates with Chester’s party, 206;
arranges “truce” between Chester and Hubert, 207;
excommunicates rebel barons, 210;
castles in his custody, 212;
heads demand for confirmation of Charter, 214, 215;
reconciles Hubert and Chester, 216, 217;
excommunicates Falkes, 233;
absolves him, 246;
asked to divorce him, _ib._;
bids clergy give aid to the King, 263
Cardigan, castle of, 91, 192, 193, 197, 260
Carlisle, 87
Carucage, 82, 85, 144, 158, 159, 249
Casinghem, William de, 18, 22, 28
Castles, troubles about, 99;
royal rights over, 147;
during Henry’s minority, 283–285;
oath of barons about, 146, 283;
Pope’s letters about, 146, 147, 153, 205, 206;
general surrender of, 210;
changes in custody of, 211–213, 291, 292
Chanceaux, Andrew de, 17
Chancellor, _see_ Marsh
Charter of Henry III, first, 10–15;
second, 78–81;
third, 250;
demand for confirmation of, 214, 215;
of the Forest, 81, 250
Charters, Henry’s proclamation about, 265–267
Chester, Ranulf, Earl of, 3;
relations with the Marshal, 6;
at battle of Lincoln, 33, 34, 43;
goes on crusade, 98;
quarrel with Salisbury, 181;
mediates between King and Llywelyn, 192;
heads opposition to Hubert, 204;
attempt on the Tower, 205;
his sheriffdoms, 212;
reconciled to Hubert, 217;
at siege of Bedford, 238;
letter to King about Falkes, 241;
agreement with Llywelyn, 258
Cigogné, Engelard de, 17, 74, 169, 170, 176, 204, 211, 281
Cinque Ports, their relations with Louis and John, 18
Clare, Isabel de, 65
Clergy, Gualo’s dealings with, 77, 78;
grant an aid to the King, 264
Clifford, Roger de, 9
Clifford, Walter de, 9
Colchester surrendered to Louis, 19
Coleville, William de, 163
Corfe, castle of, 18, 76, 169
Coucy, Enguerrand de, 24, 28
Council, the King’s, 178
Courtenay, Robert de, 9, 182
Courtenay, Robert de, 55
Coventry, Alexander, bishop of, 243, 245
Croc, Reginald, 42, 45
David, son of Llywelyn, 129
Deheubarth, 88
Devon, William de Rivers, Earl of, 223
Dinas Powys, castle of, 183
Dover, castle of, 16;
Louis at, 28, 31;
sea-fight off, 31
Dreux, Robert, count of, 55, 60
Dublin, Henry, archbishop of, 94, 123, 124, 175
Earley, John of, 8
Eleanor, sister of Henry III, 168, 219
Eleanor of Brittany, 169, 179
Ely regained for the King, 26
Ely, Hugh, bishop of, 268, 286
Ely, John, bishop of, 197
Eu, Ralf de Lusignan, count of, 133, 134
Eustace “the Monk,” 23, 50, 53
Exchequer, its condition under John, 81, 82;
records restored by Louis, 82;
Pandulf’s relations with, 113–115
“Fair” of Lincoln, 41
Falkenberg, Walter de, 224
Falkes de Bréauté, his origin, 225;
early career, 226, 227;
seneschal to the King, 227;
marriage, 223, 228;
at council of Bristol, 9;
his sheriffdoms, 17, 74;
castles in his custody,17;
plunders S. Alban’s, 21, 229;
takes Ely, 26;
takes Lynn, 48;
at battle of Lincoln, 38, 39, 275, 276;
quarrels with Salisbury, 149, 183;
at siege of Rockingham, 155;
takes the cross, 180;
helps to quell riot in London, 186;
joins Chester, &c., against Hubert, 204;
relations with the magnates, 228;
position during Henry’s minority, 229;
proceedings against, 230, 231, 292, 293;
movements after capture of Braybroke, 231, 232;
excommunicated, 233;
charges against, 234–237;
goes into Cheshire, 239;
writes to the King, _ib._, 240;
chase after him, 240;
visits Llywelyn, 241;
goes to Coventry, 243;
to Northampton, 244;
submits, 245;
absolved, 246;
exiled, 247;
his “Complaint,” 248, 288;
death, 249
Farnham, castle of, 26, 29
Ferrers, Earl of, 5, 9, 33, 98
Fifteenth of moveables, tax of, 250, 261, 262
FitzHerbert, Matthew, 9
FitzWalter, Robert, footnote 86, 29, 36, 43, 98
Forest Charter, 81, 250
Fors, William de, _see_ Aumale
Fotheringay, castle of, 152, 162–166
France, Kings of, _see_ Louis, Philip
Galloway, Alan of, footnote 655
Gascony, 137, 251, 252, 254, 255;
seneschals of, _see_ Neville, Pons;
_see_ also Aquitaine
Gauler, William, 137
Gernon, Ralf de, 211
Gloucester, 2, 3, 91;
castle of, 205, 211
Gloucester, Isabel, countess of, 89, 227
Gloucester, Gilbert, Earl of, 183, 204
Goodrich castle, 6
Gouy, Robert de, 99–102
Gray, Richard de, 222, 234
Gray, Walter de, _see_ York
Gregory IX, Pope, 268
Gruffudd, son of Llywelyn, 193, 195
Gualo, Legate in England, 2, 4;
persuades Marshal to undertake regency, 7;
summons a council, 9;
lays interdict on Wales, 10;
on lands of rebels, 15;
proclaims the war a crusade, 25;
absolves Louis, 60;
punishes contumacious clergy, 77, 78;
resigns the legation, 103;
leaves England, _ib._
Gwenwynwyn, prince of South Powys, 89
Gwynedd, 87
Haringot, Nicolas, 31
Haye, Nicolaa de, 20, 37, 147–149
Hedingham castle, 19
Henry, son of King John, 2, 3;
meeting with the Marshal, 3;
knighted, 4;
crowned, _ib._, 5;
placed in care of Peter des Roches, 7;
territory held by his party, 17, 18;
treaty with Louis, 57–59;
enters London, 78;
given in charge to Pandulf, 105, 106;
projects of marriage, 127, 253, 264;
lays first stone of new church at Westminster, 129;
second coronation, _ib._, 130;
relations with Hugh of La Marche, 139–141, 220;
treaty with Scotland, 140;
meeting with Alexander, 145;
oath of barons to, about castles, 146;
visits castles, 154;
at translation of S. Thomas, 158;
his debts, 160;
period for termination of his minority, 173, 199;
released from Peter’s tutorship, 180;
demands restitution of Normandy, &c., 188, 189;
receives John de Brienne, 194, 195;
with the host in Wales, 196;
agreement with Llywelyn, 197;
first coming of age, 203;
attests his own letters, 207;
his position after December, 1223, 208;
demands restitution of castles, 210;
answer to demand for confirmation of Charter, 215;
seizes lands of Normans and Bretons, 220;
summons ships, 221;
sends reinforcements to La Rochelle, 222;
summons barons to Northampton, _ib._;
besieges Bedford castle, 232, 239, 242, 243;
hangs the garrison, 244;
negotiations with Germany, 253;
with Toulouse, _ib._;
with Auvergne, _ib._;
sends envoy to Damascus, footnote 1155;
contemplates going to Gascony, 256;
illness, _ib._;
conferences with Llywelyn, 257, 258;
relations with Earl Marshal (II), 260, 261;
declared of age, 266;
tenure of Crown offices during his minority, 281–284;
Charters of, _see_ Charter
Hereford, Giles de Breuse, bishop of, 89
Hereford castle, 204
Hertford castle, 18
Hidage, 82, 85
Hobrigg, Gervase of, footnote 240
Honorius III, Pope, orders prelates to give an aid, 82, 262;
threatens Hugh of La Marche, 145;
letters concerning castles, 146, 147, 153, 205, 206;
conflicting requests to, from England, 216;
his letters concerning Henry’s coming of age, 202, 286–290;
letters to Henry, footnote 1076, footnote 1087;
intercedes for Falkes, 249;
forbids Henry to attack France, 256;
dies, 268
Huntingdon, David, Earl of, 152
Huntingdon, honour of, 87, 152, 163
Indemnity paid to Louis of France 83–85
Ireland, the March in, 93–95, 217–219;
Justiciars of, _see_ Dublin, Marsh, Marshal
Isabel, Queen, at Henry’s coronation, 5;
negotiates with Count of Nevers, 55;
confirms treaty of Kingston, 60;
returns to Angoulême, 134;
relations with the Lusignans, 132;
second marriage, 139;
disputes about her dower lands, 140, 141, 177
Isabel, sister of Henry III, 140, 253
Isabel of Scotland, 169
Isles, King of the, _see_ Ragnald
Jews, ordinance concerning, 97;
tallage on, 250
Joan, sister of Henry III, 132, 133, 140, 141, 145, 171
Joan, half sister of Henry III, 89
John, King of England, 1, 2
John de Brienne, King of Jerusalem, 97, 194, 195
Justices in eyre, 86, 87
Kingston, treaty of, 57–59, 278–280
Kinnerley, castle of, 191, 197, 257
Lacy, Hugh de, 217, 218, 258
Lacy, John de, 204
Lacy, Walter de, 9, 203, 204, 217–219, 258
Langton, Simon de, 28, footnote 240
Langton, Stephen de, _see_ Canterbury
Larchevêque, William, 138, 142
L’Estrange, John, 9
Liberties, Charters of, _see_ Charter
Liberties of the Crown, inquest into, 201
Lincoln, city, 34, 35;
sacked, 45;
castle, 20, 31, 35, 148, 149;
battle of, 36–44, 273–277
Lincoln, Hugh II bishop of, 99–101
Lisle, Brian de, 33, 98, footnote 490, 204, 211, 238
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North Wales, 89;
conquers and divides South Wales, _ib._;
attacks Pembroke, 90, 161;
made constable of Cardigan and Caermarthen, 91;
dispute with Hugh de Mortimer, 128;
disputes with the Marshal, 129, 160–162;
truce with Marshal, 173;
destroys Kinnerley and Whittington, 191;
war against, 193, 194;
besieges Builth, 195;
excommunicated, 196;
submits, 197;
conference with, postponed, 240;
letter to King about Falkes, 241;
conferences with Henry, 257, 258;
agreement with Marshal and Chester, 258
London, Louis in, 16, 47;
blockaded,55;
Henry received in, 78;
riot in, 184–186;
Tower of, 211, 213
Louis of France, besieges Dover castle, 16;
truces with Hubert, _ib._;
goes to London, _ib._;
territory held by his party, 17;
alleged capture of Norwich castle, _ib._ note 3;
besieges Hertford, 18;
truces with Royalists, _ib._, 19;
holds council at Cambridge, 19;
goes to Lincoln, 20;
proposes returning to France, _ib._;
dealings with S. Alban’s, 21;
blockaded in Winchelsea, 22, 23;
regains Rye, 24;
goes to France, _ib._;
returns to England, 27, 28;
renews truce with garrison of Dover, 28;
besieges Farnham, 29;
sends relief to Mountsorel, 29;
occupies Winchester, 30;
returns to London, _ib._;
renews siege of Dover, 31;
raises siege and goes to London, 46;
negotiates, 47, 55, 56;
his treaty with Henry, 57–59;
absolution, 60;
leaves England, _ib._;
indemnity promised to, 83;
his Albigensian wars, 136;
appeal against his coronation, 188, 189;
crowned, 190;
refuses Henry’s demands, 197, 198;
offers to renew truce, 221;
conquers Poitou, 233, 234;
undertakes Albigensian war, 256;
prediction about, 257;
death, 264
Louis IX, King of France, 264, 265
Lucy, Geoffrey de, 33
Ludlow, conference at, 193
Luggershall, castle of, 168
Lusignan, Hugh de, the elder, Count of La Marche, 132, 133, 139
Lusignan, Hugh the younger of, 132, 133;
his relations with Geoffrey de Neville, 133, 135;
with Henry and Isabel, 137;
marries Isabel, 139;
disputes with the English Council, 140, 141;
relations with the towns, 141–143;
with the English Crown, 144, 145, 175–177, 187–190, 219, 220;
homage to Louis, 233;
successes in Gascony, 251;
truce with Richard, 265
Lusignan, Ralf de, _see_ Eu
Lynn, taken by Falkes, 48
Maingo, William, 142
Malaunay, Hugh de, 56
Marc, Philip, 74, footnote 490, 101, 204
Marche, La, _see_ Lusignan
Margaret of Scotland, 127, 174
Marlborough, castle of, 150, 151, 168
Marsh, Geoffrey, Justiciar in Ireland, 93–95, 123, 124, 174, 175,
217, 259, 261
Marsh, Richard de, Chancellor, 114, 284
Marshal, William, the elder, his origin and early life, 63–65;
marriage, 65;
Earl of Pembroke, 66;
character, 67–70;
at burial of John, 2;
meeting with Henry, 3;
knights him, 4;
made guardian of the King, 6–8;
at council of Bristol, 9;
takes Farnham, 26;
besieges Winchester castle, _ib._;
sends party to besiege Mountsorel, 27;
orders castles to be razed, 29;
proposes to relieve Lincoln castle, 32;
at battle of Lincoln, 34, 37, 39–42;
musters fleet at Sandwich, 49, 51;
blockades London, 55;
negotiates with Louis, 55–57;
his style and position as regent, 70–72;
his seal used instead of the King’s, 14, 72, 73;
arrangements for indemnity to Louis, 83–85;
dealings with Scotland, 87;
with Wales, 90–92;
with Ireland, 93–95;
orders concerning tournaments, 96, 97;
ordinance about Jews, 97;
grants Plympton to Falkes, 224;
last days, 104–106
Marshal, John, 5, 8, 9;
at battle of Lincoln, 33, 86, 44;
chief justice of the Forest, 96;
seneschal of Cork, etc., 218;
of Ulster, 258
Marshal, Richard, 168
Marshal, William, the younger, rejoins the King, 25;
besieges Winchester, 26;
at battle of Lincoln, 33, 42;
warden of Marlborough castle, 151;
detains Fotheringay, 152, 162;
gives it up, 163;
disputes with Llywelyn, 160–162;
truce with him, 173;
urged to surrender Marlborough and Luggershall, 168;
betrothed to Eleanor, _ib._;
bidden to surrender Caerleon, 190;
goes to Ireland, 191;
returns, 192;
takes Cardigan and Caermarthen, _ib._;
defeats Gruffudd, 193;
leads the host into Wales, 194, 195;
constable of Cardigan and Caermarthen, 197;
marries Eleanor, 219;
Justiciar in Ireland, _ib._;
agreement with Llewelyn, 258;
overcomes Hugh de Lacy, _ib._;
resigns justiciarship, 259;
surrenders Caermarthen, Cardigan, and Caerleon, 260
Maulay, Peter de, constable of Corfe, 18;
his alleged oath to John, 73, 74;
his sheriffdoms, 74;
arrest, 169, 179;
release, 170;
joins Hubert’s opponents, 204;
at siege of Bedford, 238
Mauléon, Savaric de, 5, 9;
his sheriffdoms, 74;
constable of Bristol, _ib._, 283;
returns to Poitou, 76;
seneschal of Aquitaine, 175–177, 187;
surrenders Niort, 233;
defends La Rochelle, 234;
joins Louis, 251;
reverts to Henry, 265
Mausy, castle of, 220
Melun, viscount of, 48
Merton, treaty confirmed at, 60
Minority, the King’s, its duration, 73, 74;
tenure of Crown offices during, 280–285
Monmouth, John of, 9
Morgan of Caerleon, 91, 92
Mortimer, Hugh de, 9, 91, 128, 257
Mortimer, Robert de, 9
Mountsorel, castle, 27, 30, 45
Musard, Ralf, 8, 203, 204, 211
Muscegros, Richard, 169
Nevers, Count of, 28, 30, 55, 60
Neville, Eustace de, 23, 48
Neville, Geoffrey de, seneschal of Gascony, 131;
of Aquitaine, _ib._, 133–135, 137, 138;
sheriff of Yorkshire, 159;
envoy to La Marche, 189;
at La Rochelle, 222, 234
Neville, Ralf de, vice-chancellor, 113, 287;
correspondence with Pandulf, 113–115;
bishop of Chichester and Chancellor, 287
Newark, Royalists muster at, 33;
castle of, 99–101
Niort, 133, 138, 141, 144, 219, 220, 233
Normans in England, their position after treaty of Kingston, 77;
their lands seized, 220
Northampton, Henry at, 87, 91, 209;
council or muster at, 222, 235, 236
Norwich, castle of, footnote 81, 19
Odiham, 26, 212
Olaveson, Constantine, 185, 186
Oléron, Isle of, 145
Oliver, son of King John, 28, 98
Orford surrendered to Louis, 19
Oseney, Church council at, 199
Otto, Master, 263, 264
Oxford, councils at, 19, 49
Pandulf, his relations with King John, 108–111;
Legate, 111;
regent, 105, 106, 112;
dealings with the Exchequer, 113–115;
with Irish March, 123–125;
with Scotland, 126, 128;
with Wales, 128, 174;
with France, 136, 137;
with Aquitaine, 144;
loans to Henry, 160;
makes peace between the King and Aumale, 167;
makes truce between Marshal and Llewelyn, 173, 174;
resigns, 171;
mission to Poitou, 175–178;
bishop of Norwich, 188, 211
Passelewe, Robert, footnote 964, 248, 288
Payne, Reginald, 52
Pembroke invaded by Llewelyn, 161
Pembroke, Earls of, _see_ Marshal
Perche, Count of, 29, 36, 41, 42
Perpetuity, grants in, forbidden during minority, 73, 102
Philip Augustus, King of France, his opinion of the Marshal, 48, 67;
death, 188
Pierepunt, William, 257
Pipe Rolls, 83
Pleshy, castle of, 19
Plympton, castle of, 183, 223, 224, 245
Poissy, Simon of, 44
Poitou, 131, 138, 175–177, 233, 234;
_see_ Aquitaine;
seneschal of, _see_ Burgh
Pons, Reginald de, 131, 134
Porchester regained for the King, 26
Powys, 88
Puy, Bartholomew de, 134, 135, 137
Quincy, Saer de, _see_ Winchester
Ragnald, King of the Isles, 92
Regency, the first in England, 61–63, 70
Réole, La, 252, 254
Richard, brother of Henry III, 18, 76, 127, 252, 265
Richard, half-brother of Henry III, 24, 50–52
Rivers, Baldwin de, 223
Rivers, Margaret de, 223, 224, 228, 246, 247
Rochelle, La, 138, 141, 144;
reinforcements sent to, 222;
surrendered to Louis, 234;
to Richard, 265
Roches, Peter des, _see_ Winchester
Rockingham, castle of, 121, 154, 155
Romanus, Cardinal, 252, 256, 263
Ropsley, Robert of, 41
Russell, John, 211
Rye, 18, 21, 24
S. Alban’s, plundered, 21, 229
S. Edmund’s, plundered, 48
St. Germain, Robert of, footnote 240
St. Jean d’Angély, 138, 141, 144, 233
St. Samson, Ralf de, 3, 135
Saintes, 145
Salisbury, Ela, Countess of, 149, 254
Salisbury, William Longsword, Earl of, rejoins the King, 25;
besieges Winchester, 26;
at battle of Lincoln, 34, 41;
forbidden to hold tournament, 97;
protest about Aumale, 143, 144;
relations with Lincoln castle, 148, 149;
with Falkes, 149, 183;
quarrel with Chester, 181;
leads the host into Wales, 194, 195;
sent with Richard to Gascony, 252;
adventures at sea, 254;
complaint against Hubert, 255;
death, _ib._
Sandford, Thomas de, 2
Sandwich, fleet mustered at, 49;
sea-fight off, 50–53
Sauvey, castle of, 121, 155
Say, Geoffrey de, 18
Scotland, treaties with, 126, 127, 140;
King of, _see_ Alexander
Scutage, 81, 85, 250
Seal, the King’s, 73, 102, 284;
restrictions on its use, 102, 202;
Pandulf’s orders concerning, 113, 114;
its custody, 114
Sedgrave, Stephen de, 211
Serland, Geoffrey de, 36, 121, 282
Serland, William de, 218
Sherborne, castle of, 169, 170, 212
Sheriffdoms, changes in, 212
Shrewsbury, conferences at, 128, 257
Sleaford, castle of, 17, 25, 101
Southampton, 18, 26
Stoke Courcy, castle of, 245
Tallage, 82, 85, 86;
on Jews, 250
Tancarville, William de, 64
Taxation under the Marshal’s regency, 82, 85, 86;
_see_ Aid, Carucage, Fifteenth, Hidage, Scutage, Tallage
Temple, Gerard Brochard, preceptor of the, 144, 145
Thomas, S., of Canterbury, translation of, 157–158
Thouars, Almeric, viscount of, 143, 233, footnote 1219
Thouars, Hugh, viscount of, 265
Tournaments, 96, 97
Treaty of Kingston, 57–59, 278–280
Truce with France, 136, 137;
expires, 219;
negotiations for its renewal, 221;
between Richard and France, 265
Truces with Louis, 18, 19, 269–272
Tyre, archbishop of, 47
Ulecote, Philip de, 144, 145
Valtort, Reginald de, 9
Vipont, Robert de, 33, footnote 490, 204
Vivonne, Hugh de, 175, 176, 282, 283
Waleran the German, 18, 224
Wales laid under interdict, 10;
homage of its princes to Henry III, 91, 92;
Pandulf’s dealings with, 128, 174;
ancient divisions of, 87, 88;
South, conquered by Llywelyn, 89;
_see_ Llywelyn
Walter of the Hithe, 102
War, private, revival of, in England, 182, 183
Warren, Earl of, 49, 50, 51, 281
Westminster, Henry rebuilds abbey church of, 129;
Henry crowned at, 130
Whitchurch, conference at, 258
Whittington, castle of, 191, 197
“Willikin of the Weald,” _see_ Casinghem
Winchelsea, Louis at, 21–24
Windsor, castle of, 17, 170, 212
Winchester, 26, 30, 181;
castle, 26, 28, 29, 153, 181, 211
Winchester, Peter des Roches, bishop of, crowns Henry III, 5;
the King placed in his charge, 7;
at battle of Lincoln, 34, 37–40;
claims guardianship of King, 105, 106;
early life, 117–119;
“master” to Henry III, 120, 121;
pilgrimage to S. James, 179;
accused of plotting treason, _ib._;
takes the Cross, 180; end of his tutorship, _ib._;
character, 200;
relations with Hubert de Burgh, _ib._, 207;
at siege of Bedford, 238;
castles held by him, 153, 211
Winchester, Saer de Quincy, Earl of, 28, 29, 36, 43, 98
Woodstock, homage of Welsh princes at, 92
Worcester, homage of Welsh princes at, 91, 92
York, Henry and Alexander at, 140, 145, 171
York, Walter de Gray, archbishop of, 103, 171, 264, footnote 1218
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BRUNSWICK ST., S.E., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
Transcriber’s Note
An errata slip was included with this book. It reads (footnote numbers
have been added in brackets):
ERRATA
P. 39, note 3 (Footnote 517), line 6, for “_li_” read “_le_”; and
line 7, for “walls” read “wall.”
Pp. 99–102 _passim_, for “Gaugy” read “Gouy”; and make a
corresponding correction in index.
P. 139, last line, for “Doé” read “Douai.”
P. 148, last line of note 5 (Footnote 686), for “13th” read “12th.”
P. 154, note 1 (Footnote 703), line 2, for “two” read “three.”
P. 160, line 6 of note (Footnote 726), for “later in the summer” read
“early next year.”
P. 212, line 1 of second paragraph, for “twenty-eight” read
“twenty-five.”
P. 225, line 11, for “_falx_, _faulx_” read “_faus_ or _fauc_”.
P. 291, line 20 of second paragraph, _dele_ “and”; and after
“Devizes” insert “and Ralf Gernon that of Corfe.”
These changes have been applied to this text.
Other changes that have been made are:
Page 97 - the punctuation mark after “but they were ineffectual” did
not print. A comma has been added.
Footnote 517 (originally page 106 note 2) - “1229” has been
changed to “1219” in “The date--14th May, Tuesday before Ascension
Day--is given in _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219”.
Page 163 - “Huntingdom” has been changed to “Huntingdon” in “the
honour of Huntingdon”.
Footnote 878 (originally page 192 note 5) - “quaequae” has been
changed to “quaeque” in “et ferro quaeque sibi obvia devastavit”.
Footnote 1045 (originally page 229 note 2) - “supro” has been
changed to “supra” in “cum videret statum suum supra modum subito
prosperatum”.
Page 283 - “quamdui” has been changed to “quamdiu” in “quamdiu
nobis placuerit”.
Further note:
Footnote 326 (originally page 60 note 7) - the chronicle referred to
is in volume 26 of Pertz’s “_Scriptores_”, rather than his
“_Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores_”.
End of Project Gutenberg's The Minority of Henry the Third, by Kate Norgate