John Lackland

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]

• [502] July 15–20, 1205, Itin. a. 7.
• [503] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98. Cf. Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 60, 60 b.
• [504] Cf. Innoc. III. Epp. l. viii. No. 161, and Gerv. Cant. l.c.
• [505] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 183. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 99.
• [506] Innoc. III. Epp. l. viii. No. 161.
• [507] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 184, 185.
• [508] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 56 b.
• [509] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 185; Rot. Pat. l.c.
• [510] Innoc. III. Epp. l. ix. Nos. 34, 35, 36.
• [511] Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 65 b, 67.
• [512] Ib. p. 64.
• [513] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 111; Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 514. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 197, 198.
• [514] Cf. Innoc. III. Epp. l. ix. No. 206; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 212, 213; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 111, 112; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 198; Ann. Burton, a. 1211.
• [515] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 188; R. Coggeshall, p. 156.
• [516] Chancellor’s Roll, 3 John (1201), passim.
• [517] Ib. p. 18.
• [518] A summary of the scutages was drawn up, from the Pipe Rolls, by Alexander Swereford, in the time of Henry III., and is printed in the Rolls edition of the Red Book of the Exchequer. The marginal dates added in that edition are wrong throughout John’s reign. The true dates are as follows:—

  First scutage of John,	“in rotulo primo”	(1198–1199),	2 marks.
  Second scutage,	“in rotulo tertio”	(1200–1201),	2 marks.
  Third scutage,	“in rotulo quarto”	(1201–1202),	2 marks.
  Fourth scutage,	“in rotulo quinto”	(1202–1203),	2 marks.
  Fifth scutage,	“in rotulo sexto”	(1203–1204),	2 marks.
  Sixth scutage,	“in rotulo septimo”	(1204–1205),	2 marks.
  Seventh scutage,	“in rotulo octavo”	(1205–1206),	20 s.
  Eighth scutage,	“in rotulo duodecimo”	(1209–1210),	2 marks.
  Ninth scutage (for Wales),	“in rotulo decimo tertio”	(1210–1211),	2 marks.
  Tenth scutage (for Scotland),	“in rotulo decimo tertio”	(1210–1211),	20 s.
  Eleventh scutage,	“in rotulo decimo sexto”	(1213–1214),	3 marks.
  Red Book of the Exchequer, vol. i. pp. 11, 12.

• [519] R. Coggeshall, p. 100. See above, p. 73.
• [520] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 173. See above, p. 101.
• [521] Chancellor’s Roll, 3 John, passim.
• [522] Ib. p. 249.
• [523] Ib. p. 228.
• [524] Ib. p. 300.
• [525] E.g. in 1201 William de Stuteville gave £1000 to be sheriff of Yorkshire; ib. p. 299.
• [526] See the printed Rotuli Cartarum.
• [527] Red Book, vol. i. p. 11.
• [528] Ann. Waverley, a. 1207.
• [529] Ann. Waverley, a. 1207.
• [530] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 222, 223.
• [531] On January 25, at Worcester. Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 58 b.
• [532] Ann. Waverl. a. 1207. R. Wendover (iii. 210) represents the thirteenth as exacted from both laity and clergy; the Waverley Annals say merely “omnis homo de cujuscunque feodo.” But the writ for the assessment, issued from Oxford on February 17, says “concessum est quod quilibet laicus homo totius Angliae, de cujusque feodo sit,” etc. (Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 72 b). This would, of course, include laymen holding lands of ecclesiastical superiors (cf. Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 84 b). Geoffrey’s protest must therefore be interpreted accordingly. John, it seems, had not yet abandoned all hope of getting something from the beneficed clergy; on May 26 he asked those of the southern province for something very like a “benevolence.” Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 72.
• [533] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 210.
• [534] Ib. Cf. Ann. Waverl. a 1207.
• [535] Innoc. III. Epp. l. x. No. 219; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 215–217.
• [536] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 213.
• [537] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 214. The writ for seizure of the estates was issued July 11, Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 74; and executed July 15, Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100.
• [538] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199.
• [539] Innoc. III. Epp. l. x. No. 113.
• [540] Ib. Nos. 159, 160; Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 78, 80; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221.
• [541] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 101, and the Annals of Waverley, Worcester, Bermondsey and Tewkesbury, a. 1207, date the publication of the interdict March the Ann. Winton. date it “Monday in Passion Week,” i.e. March 24 also. The Annals of Margan and of Dunstable make it Passion Sunday, i.e. March 23, which is the date given by R. Wendover (iii. 222), W. Coventry (ii. 199) and T. Wykes (a. 1207). Roger of Wendover, however, adds that it was the Monday in Passion Week, so his dates are self-contradictory.
• [542] R. Coggeshall, p. 163, says the general confiscation of clerical property took place on March 24; and the king’s orders (issued March 17 and 18) for the seizure of the sees of Bath and Ely are to take effect from that day (Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 80, 80 b), which looks as if the confiscation was meant to be an immediate retort to the interdict. But the see of Norwich—though its bishop was the king’s favourite John de Grey—was evidently seized before March 23 (ib. p. 81); while the sheriffs of Derbyshire and Warwickshire were already holding for the king “all the manors of the bishop of Chester within their bailiwicks, and everything in them, and all the lands and goods of abbots, priors, religious, and clerks, within their bailiwicks,” as early as March 21, for on that day they were ordered to hand them over to another custodian. Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 107.
• [543] Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 107, 110.
• [544] R. Coggeshall, p. 163; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 223. The Ann. Margan., a. 1207, give a curious and not very intelligible account of the state of public feeling on the question between John and the Pope: “Electus est Magister S. de Langetone ad archiepiscopatum Cantuariensem.... Pro cujus electione, quia facta fuit contra profanas illas consuetudines quas vocant avitas leges et regias libertates, orta est statim discordia inter Papam Innocentium et Johannem tyrannum Angliae, faventibus ei” (Stephen, Innocent, or John?) “et consentientibus omnibus laicis et clericis fere universis, sed et viris cujuslibet professionis multis.”
• [545] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 111.
• [546] Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 108–13 b.
• [547] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 226.
• [548] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 108 b.
• [549] John proposed, instead of himself giving Langton the regalia of the see, to place them in the Pope’s hands and let him confer them on the archbishop, inasmuch as John “could not yet bring himself to receive Stephen as a friend.” The Pope, though he did not like the scheme, yet authorized the bishops of London, Ely and Worcester to receive the regalia as his representatives and to confer them as the king desired; but whenever the bishops sought an interview with the king on the subject, he put them off. At last, in September (1208), he gave Langton himself a safe-conduct for a week’s visit to England, but addressed it to “S. de Langton, Cardinal,” thus showing that he did not yet intend to recognize him as archbishop. Langton of course declined to come on such terms. See Innoc. III. Epp. l. xi. Nos. 89, 90; Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 82, 85, 86; Ann. Waverl. a. 1208.
• [550] Innoc. III. Epp. l. xi. No. 211.
• [551] Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 89, 90; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 222, 228, 229; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 100, 103, 104; Ann. Waverl. and Dunst. a. 1208. All the chroniclers have confused the dates, which have to be rectified by the help of the Pope’s letters, the Patent and Close Rolls (both of which, however, unluckily fail in 1209), and Bishop Stubbs’s notes to Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 103, 104, appendix to preface, ib. pp. xci.–cviii., and W. Coventry, vol. ii. preface, pp. lv., lvi. The sees of Chichester, Exeter, Lincoln and Durham were vacant; before June 21, 1209, Hugh of Wells was elected to Lincoln by desire of the king, who sent him to Normandy to be consecrated by the archbishop of Rouen, but he went to the archbishop of Canterbury instead, and was consecrated by him on December 20 (R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 231; date from M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 120, note 4). Carlisle had been administered since 1203 by Bernard, the exiled archbishop of Ragusa. Coventry (or Chester) was vacated in October 1208 by the death of Geoffrey Muschamp, who is mentioned by Gervase among the bishops who went over sea.
• [552] Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 109.
• [553] The two best known instances indeed are of doubtful authenticity; see Note II. at end. But the general charge against John rests upon authorities which there is no reason to question; Hist. des Ducs, pp. 105, 200, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240. The list of John’s children given by Pauli, Gesch. von England, vol. iii. p. 475, is neither correct nor complete.
• [554] Hist. des Ducs, p. 105.
• [555] M. Paris records this twice, in 1208 (Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 524) and 1209 (Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 118). One of the two dates is probably wrong, but there is no means of deciding which.
• [556] Christmas 1208, R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 225.
• [557] June 28, 1209; ib. p. 227; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 119. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 109.
• [558] Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 80, 81 b, 83 b–86.
• [559] Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 102, and Ann. Dunst. a. 1208.
• [560] Hist. des Ducs, p. 105.
• [561] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 224.
• [562] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 118.
• [563] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227.
• [564] Cf. ib., Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 104 (who makes the age fifteen years), and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 200.
• [565] Gerv. Cant. l.c. The day must have been either the 13th or the 30th, Itin. a. 11.
• [566] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 90 (Aug. 1207); Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 76 (Oct. 1207); ib. p. 91 (April 1209).
• [567] Chron. Mailros, a. 1209.
• [568] The Ann. Dunst., a. 1208, say the bishops of Salisbury and Rochester went to Scotland “cum Regis Angliae gratia”; but cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 226. Langton’s father had taken refuge at St. Andrews in 1207. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii., appendix to preface, pp. lxii., lxiii.
• [569] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 102.
• [570] Ib. pp. 102–3. Cf. appendix to preface, ib. pp. c–ciii.
• [571] Itin. a. 11.
• [572] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 103.
• [573] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 103. The Scottish authorities, Chron. Mailros and Chron. Lanercost, a. 1209, make the sum thirteen thousand pounds. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227, says twelve thousand marks, and M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 525, eleven thousand marks; the document in Foedera is the best authority, although its original is lost and it is obviously not altogether an accurate copy, its date, “Northampton, 7th August,” being of course a transcriber’s mistake for “Norham.”
• [574] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 103.
• [575] The first child of John and Isabel of Angoulême—the future Henry III.—was born October 1, 1207; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 219. The second, Richard, was born January 6, 1209; Ann. Winton. ad ann. Both the Scot king’s daughters were born before the end of 1195, when one of them was betrothed to Otto of Saxony, R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 299, 308.
• [576] Chron. Mailros and Chron. Lanercost, a. 1209.
• [577] See above, pp. 26, 32, 45.
• [578] Ann. Cambriae and Brut y Tywysogion, a. 1197–1209.
• [579] Rot. Chart. vol. i. pp. 23, 44, 63, 100 b, 103, 103 b, 104; Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 39, 40, 44 b, 51 b, 88, 89 b, 91; Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 23 b, 24. Brut, a. 1207, 1209.
• [580] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 8 b.
• [581] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 12.
• [582] Ann. Wigorn. a. 1206.
• [583] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 101.
• [584] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 119. The event was not really so unprecedented as these writers imagined; the princes of both North and South Wales had done homage to Henry II. at Oxford in 1177. The chroniclers’ expressions about this Welsh homage to John, however, show the impression which it made and the importance which was attached to it.
• [585] Itin. a. 11.
• [586] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. appendix to preface, p. cvi.
• [587] Ann. Dunst. a. 1209.
• [588] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 231.
• [589] Ib. p. 229.
• [590] R. Wendover, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224.
• [591] Ib. p. 232.
• [592] Ann. Waverl. a. 1210.
• [593] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100.
• [594] Ib.
• [595] Ware, Antiq. p. 102, makes William Petit and William the Marshal justiciars in 1191; but no authority is given. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99, says that Roger de Planes was “in tota terra comitis [Johannis] justiciarius” when he was slain in October 1191; see above, p. 29. Peter Pippard was justiciar in Ireland in 1194, according to Henry of Marlborough as quoted in Butler’s History of Trim Castle, p. 3; and Hamo de Valognes held the office c. 1196–1197; cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 342, and Ware, l.c.
• [596] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 55; Gilbert, Hist. Documents of Ireland, pp. 51–55. Other Irish Charters of John before his accession to the crown—all dateless—are in Rot. Canc. Hibern. Cal. vol. i. pt. i. pp. 2, 4, 5, and Hist. MSS. Comm. 4th Report, pp. 574, 581.
• [597] Four Masters, a. 1195.
• [598] He certainly was not killed in 1182 as the Four Masters say; but he disappears after 1183. See Dic. Nat. Biogr. “Fitz-Gerald (Raymond).”
• [599] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 345, 409.
• [600] In 1207 John confirmed to William de Barri a sub-enfeoffment made by Fitz-Stephen to Philip de Barri, William’s father and Fitz-Stephen’s nephew. Rot. Chart. p. 172.
• [601] Four Masters, a. 1196, note.
• [602] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 342, and Four Masters, a. 1196.
• [603] Rot. Chart. p. 98.
• [604] Ib. p. 19 b. John made at the same time several other grants of land within the honour, or kingdom, of Limerick, ib. All these grants, however, except the grant to William de Burgh, seem to have been cancelled by the later one to William de Braose; see below, p. 139. Half a cantred of land at “Tilra’ct in Kelsela” had been granted by John to De Burgh before King Henry’s death, Hist. MSS. Comm., 3rd Report, p. 231.
• [605] Four Masters, a. 1198.
• [606] Four Masters and Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1199–1202.
• [607] Rot. Chart. p. 84 b.
• [608] Dugdale, Baronage, pt. i. p. 414; who, however, has confused father and son. See Genealogist, vol. iv. pp. 133–141, and Dic. Nat. Biog. “Braose, William de.”
• [609] His father was living in that year; Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 457.
• [610] Ann. Camb. a. 1189, 1192, 1195, 1196; Brut y Tywysogion, a. 1196, 1197. Maud died in 1209, Brut, ad ann.
• [611] Rot. Chart. p. 80. Walter was the eldest son of Hugh de Lacy who was killed in 1186.
• [612] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107.
• [613] Ann. Margan. a. 1199.
• [614] Rot. Chart. p. 66 b.
• [615] Rot. Oblat. p. 99, “ad quodlibet scaccarium quingentas marcas argenti.”
• [616] Rot. Chart. p. 100 b.
• [617] Carte’s Life of Ormonde, ed. 1851, vol. i. pp. xliv., xlv.; Rot. Chart. pp. 19 b, 28.
• [618] Rot. Pat. vol. i. pp. 4, 7, 16 b, 18 b, 19 b.
• [619] W. Armor. Philipp. l. vi. vv. 478–492. The poet asserts that William resigned his charge because he suspected John’s intentions towards his prisoner. This would be shortly before the attempt to blind Arthur, who was then in the custody of Hubert de Burgh.
• [620] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 24 b.
• [621] Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1203.
• [622] Rot. Chart. p. 107 b.
• [623] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 31 b.
• [624] Ib. p. 39 b. On 29th April the commissioners are informed that De Burgh is respited, and Meiler is bidden to give him seisin of his lands again; ib. p. 41 b.
• [625] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 46.
• [626] Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1205; Four Masters, a. 1204.
• [627] Rot. Pat. p. 60 b. They seem to have been restored to his son Richard before July 11, 1214; ib. pp. 118 b, 119.
• [628] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 91. Cf. Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 6 b.
• [629] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 62.
• [630] Rot. Chart. p. 68 b (a. 1200); Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 40 (a. 1205). I am indebted to Mr. G. H. Orpen for the information that the districts held by the English crown in Ireland were not known as “the Pale” till after Poynings’s Act (1494), when the colonists were ordered to maintain a ditch “six feet high on the side which neared next to the Irishmen” (Joyce, Hist. of Ireland, p. 351).
• [631] Rot. Oblat. p. 74.
• [632] Eyton, Hist. of Shropshire, vol. v. pp. 257, 258.
• [633] Rot. Chart. p. 133 b.
• [634] Rot. Pat. p. 15.
• [635] Four Masters, a. 1203.
• [636] Rot. Pat. p. 34 b.
• [637] Ib. pp. 45, 45 b.
• [638] Four Masters, a. 1204.
• [639] Rot. Pat. p. 54.
• [640] Rot. Chart. p. 151—“de qua [i.e. Ultonia] ipsum cinximus in comitem.” Date, May 29, 1205.
• [641] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 40.
• [642] Rot. Chart. pp. 133 b, 134.
• [643] Rot. Pat. p. 45 b.
• [644] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 6 b.
• [645] Rot. Pat. p. 45 b. John had granted another charter to Dublin on November 7, 1200; Rot. Chart. pp. 78 b, 79.
• [646] Rot. Pat. p. 47.
• [647] The Four Masters, a. 1205, describe the war as “between the English of Meath and the English of Meiler”; but the only “English of Meath” who took part in it seem to have been Walter de Lacy and his personal followers. See Rot. Pat. p. 69 (February 21, 1206), where John commends the barons of Meath and Leinster for not having supported Walter in his strife with Meiler about Limerick.
• [648] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 47 b.
• [649] Rot. Pat. pp. 69 b, 70 b.
• [650] His father was son of Henry I. by Nest, daughter of Rees ap Griffith, prince of North Wales. Gir. Cambr. vol. i. p. 59.
• [651] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 356.
• [652] Two cantreds in Kerry—“Akunkerry” and “Hyerba”—and one “in terra de Corch”—“Yogenacht Lokhelen quae est terra de Humurierdach”—to be holden by the service of fifteen knights. Rot. Chart. p. 77 b.
• [653] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 355, 356.
• [654] He had had the eldest son ever since July 1205; Hist. G. le Mar. vv. 13271–6.
• [655] Ib. vv. 13311–20, 13350–584.
• [656] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 77 b.
• [657] See Note I. at end.
• [658] Rot. Claus. p. 77 b.
• [659] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202.
• [660] Rot. Pat. p. 74. Walter de Lacy, on his marriage with Margaret de Braose, had promised that he would never give, sell, or pledge any part of his land in England or Normandy without his father-in-law’s consent; and this engagement had been embodied in a charter and confirmed by the king. Rot. Obl. (a. 2 Joh.), p. 81. One of its results seems to have been that De Braose took charge of Ludlow Castle; it was he who on March 5, 1206, was summoned to deliver it up to Philip d’Aubigné for the king; Rot. Pat. p. 69 b. On July 13, 1207, John transferred its custody from D’Aubigné back to De Braose.
• [661] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 13589–786.
• [662] John was at Guildford December 27 to 28, 1207, and January 25 to 27, 1208; Itin. a. 9.
• [663] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 13787–936.
• [664] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 105.
• [665] Ib. p. 106 b.
• [666] Rot. Chart. p. 176.
• [667] Ib. p. 178. Cf. Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 106.
• [668] The bishop of Norwich was in Ireland before January 2, 1210 (Rot. Misæ, p. 144); Meiler had ceased to be justiciar before February 16 of the same year (ib. p. 149); and the bishop was in office as justiciar when the De Braoses arrived in Ireland towards the end of 1209, as appears from Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 14119–172. The Four Masters’ account of Bishop John’s appointment and its consequences is too amusing to be omitted. They say under the year 1208: “John, bishop of Norwich, was sent by the king of England into Ireland as lord justice; and the English were excommunicated by the successor of S. Peter for sending the bishop to carry on war in Ireland.”
• [669] The king speaks of her as Maud de la Haye, Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107. But she witnesses a charter of her husband by the title of “domina Matiltis de Sancto Walerico,” Round, Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 461. See the curious account of her—“fille fu Bernard de Saint Waleri,” etc.—in Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, pp. 111, 112.
• [670] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107. John was at Gloucester in 1208 April 22 and 23, and at Hereford April 24 to 28; Itin. a. 9.
• [671] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 225. He brings in this story in connexion with the general demand for hostages from the barons in 1208; but his own account of the words used by William de Braose shows that he was aware there was a special ground for the demand in De Braose’s case.
• [672] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.
• [673] Rot. Pat. p. 86 b.
• [674] Foedera, l.c.
• [675] “Mès j’ai herbergié mon seignor, Si comme faire le deveie,” Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 14214–15. How De Braose was “lord” of the Marshal, I can find nothing to show.
• [676] Ib. vv. 14137–52.
• [677] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108. John was at Cross-by-the-Sea, close to Pembroke, from June 3 to June 16 inclusive, and at Crook on June 20. Itin. a. 12.
• [678] Cf. Itin. a. 12 and Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 14259–66.
• [679] June 30, Greenoge; July 2 and 3, Trim; July 4 and 5, Kells. Itin. a. 12.
• [680] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.
• [681] Ann. Cambr. a. 1210, Rolls edition, pp. 66, 67, note.
• [682] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 14270–78. John was at Carrickfergus July 19 to 28; Itin. a. 12.
• [683] Foedera, l.c.
• [684] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 234.
• [685] His itinerary from Carrickfergus is: July 29, Holywood; July 31, Ballymore; August 2, 3, Down; 4, Banbridge; 5, Carlingford; 8, 9, Drogheda; 9, 10, Duleek; 10, 11, Kells; 11, Fowre; 12, Granard; 14, Rathwire; 16, Castle Bret; 18–24, Dublin. Itin. a. 12.
• [686] “Reguli.” The Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, pp. 112, 113, tells how the king of Connaught came to John’s “service” at Dublin, and how John while at Carrickfergus tried to catch the king of “Kenelyon” in a trap, but was outwitted by the Irishman.
• [687] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 233, 234.
• [688] This assertion, adopted by many modern writers, seems to have been first definitely made by Sir John Davies, in his Discoverie of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued, etc. (1612), p. 121: “King John made xii. shires in Leinster and Mounster; namely, Dublin, Kildare, Meth, Uriel, Catherlogh, Kilkenny, Wexford, Waterford, Corke, Limeric, Kerrie, and Tipperary.”
• [689] Ware, Antiq. c. v. p. 33.
• [690] Patent granted by John to the citizens of Waterford, July 3, a. r. 7 (1205), according to Ware, l.c.
• [691] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 218.
• [692] Writs for a parliament held at some date between 1293 and 1298 were addressed to the sheriffs of Dublin, Louth, Kildare, Waterford, Tipperary, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, “Connaught,” and Roscommon, and to the seneschals of the liberties of Meath, Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Ulster. Irish Archæological Society’s Miscellany, p. 15.
• [693] Rot. Chart. pp. 171 b, 172, 172 b. Cf. an inquisition ordered April 3, 1206 (Rot. Pat. p. 60 b), which clearly implies that the eastern half of the “kingdom of Cork” was then in the king’s hands.
• [694] He is last mentioned as being in Dublin on August 24, and he was at Fishguard on August 26; Itin. a. 12.
• [695] Rot. Pat. pp. 131, 132 b, 151, 181.
• [696] Dict. Nat. Biog. “Lacy, Hugh de (d. 1242).”
• [697] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 14286–372.
• [698] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.
• [699] See Note I. at end.