[327]
“Se il est seignor de terre, par acort dou commun de ces homes deit estre
garde son corps e ces forteresces.” Assises de Jérusalem, ed. Beugnot, vol. i.
p. 261.
[329]
His biographer represents him as stating in October, 1216, that he was
“over eighty,” see above, p. 6; but this seems to be an error on the part of
either the writer or the Marshal himself; see Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. xxiv.
and p. 8, note 2. His parents were, it seems, married in 1141 or 1142, and in all
likelihood he—their second son—was born in 1143 or 1144.
[331]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 815–1106. I am compelled to differ from the illustrious
editor of the Histoire respecting this “affair of Drincourt,” which he
regards as a fantastic version of what the Gesta Henrici and Robert of Torigny
relate as having taken place there in 1173. To my mind, the divergences pointed
out in M. Meyer’s own footnote to Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. 16, and in his
introduction, ib. p. xxviii., indicate plainly that the poet and the prose writers are
speaking of two distinct events; and this indication is confirmed by the fact that
the poet brings his story of Drincourt into immediate connexion with the knighting
of the Marshal (cf. M. Meyer’s note 3, vol. iii. p. xxvi.). This “most puzzling
passage in the whole poem” need not puzzle us at all, if we will but accept it
literally; i.e., as relating to an otherwise unrecorded episode in the strife between
Henry and Louis, about the Vexin and other matters, which went on—intermittently
indeed and with long intervals of peace, but still never wholly laid to rest—through
fully ten years prior to the crowning of the “young king.” The episode
was obviously one of no great consequence, except to the Marshal, who probably
cherished its memory as that of the first real fight in which he was privileged to
take a share. Its non-appearance in the other records of the time is therefore no
proof of its unreality. The names of the chief actors on the French side—the
Count of Flanders and his brother Matthew, Count of Boulogne—are no doubt an
“anachronism,” dragged in, by a very natural confusion of memory on the part of
the poet’s informants, from the later “affair of Drincourt” in 1173. For the
incident itself, apart from this error as to some of the persons concerned in it,
more than one possible date might be suggested which would fit in well enough
with the place given to the affair in the string of the poet’s narrative.
[349]E.g., his adhesion to the “young king” when the latter was in rebellion
against Henry II., his refusal to do homage to Richard for his Irish lands (which
he held under John) in 1194, and his refusal to fight for John against Philip
Augustus (to whom he had done homage for his Norman lands) in 1205. In this
last instance John pretended to regard William’s action as treasonable, but his
after-conduct showed that he had been only pretending.
[350]
See his answer to a remonstrance about the gains he had won by tourneying,
Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 18469–96, and his forcible seizure of money whose owner
destined it to an evil use, ll. 6677–6834.
[352]Justiciarius noster, 1st November, 1216 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 1), 2nd
November twice (ib. p. 2, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 293); justiciarius Angliae, 13th
November twice (ll.cc.); justiciarius noster Angliae, 6th November twice, 12th
November, 14th November (Pat. Rolls, pp. 2, 3).
[353]
The letter patent by which Hubert was appointed is unfortunately not
enrolled; but the appointment was so clearly recognized by all parties as valid
that we cannot doubt its having been made in the usual way.
[354]
Turner, “Minority of Henry III.”, part I, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 2nd ser.
vol. xviii. p. 271.
[355]Responsiones pro Huberto (M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi.), p. 64.
[356]
It may even have been given to him purposely, by consent of the real
Justiciar, in order to enable him to undertake certain administrative functions
specially attached to the chief Justiciar’s office, while Hubert was—as he said
himself in 1239—so busy at Dover that “a castro non potuit recedere nec officium
justiciarii exercere”; Responsiones, p. 65.
[357]
“Rector nostri et regni nostri.” This title appears on the Rolls for the first
time on 19th November, 1216 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 3), and continues thenceforth
in regular use.
[358]
This fact is too self-evident to need illustration, but it is well illustrated by
an incident of the late spring or early summer of 1217. Some person or persons
unnamed “urgently entreated” Honorius to take measures for the appointment of
Earl Ranulf of Chester as colleague to the Earl Marshal, whom they represented
as being too old to fulfil the duties of his office, “especially in these times.”
The proposal did not commend itself to the Pope; but he remitted the matter to
Gualo’s judgment (Roy. Letters, vol. i. p. 532, Honorius to Gualo, 8th July, 1217),
and it seems to have been heard of no more. How or with whom the suggestion
originated there is nothing to show. That it had not come from the Legate is
clear from the wording of the Pope’s letter to him. It evidently did not come
from the Marshal himself, although, as has been seen, he had originally proposed
that the regency should be given to Chester. There is no sign that it was the
outcome of any intrigue on the part of Chester, whose conduct seems never to
have in any way belied the assurance of loyal support which he had given to the
Marshal in October, 1216.
[359]
In the very rare cases which form an exception to this rule it is the Legate
whose seal takes the place of the Marshal’s. One of these exceptional cases is so
interesting as to deserve special notice. It consists of two letters patent, both
dated Bristol, 2nd December, 1216, attested by the King himself, and sealed with
the seals of the Legate and the Bishop of Winchester (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 9, 10).
One of these letters is addressed to the Justiciar of Ireland, Geoffrey de Marsh,
the other to Meiler FitzHenry; the purpose of both is to secure for the Marshal his
rights in Ireland as lord of Leinster, especially the service due to him from Meiler,
which the late King had (in one of his fits of suspiciousness) taken into his own
hand as security for the Marshal’s fidelity. The reason why these letters were not
attested by the Marshal himself is obvious; but the interesting point in the matter
is that the Legate and the Bishop, or the boy-King, or all three together, seem to
have seized upon the occasion as an opportunity for putting on record the estimation
in which they held him. Each letter contains a sort of parenthesis, quite
unnecessary to its main purport, in praise of Earl William. “Qui” writes Henry
to Geoffrey “patri nostro viventi semper fideliter astitit, et nobis assistit, et cujus
fidelitatem plurimum commendamus”; while in the letter to Meiler there is a yet
more unconventional and emphatic outburst of feeling—“Ipse enim W. semper
patri nostro viventi fideliter astitit, et devote et nobis constanter adheret et assistit,
et ipsius obsequium pre cunctis regni nostri magnatibus habemus plurimum commendatum,
quoniam tamquam aurum in fornace, sic se in necessitate probavit.”
[366]
For the changes of sheriffs in Henry’s first year see Turner, Minority, pt. I.
pp. 273–4.
[367]
He was made Seneschal of Touraine in 1202, defended Loches against Philip
in 1204, was captured with the castle, and ransomed by John for a thousand marks.
See Turner, pt. I. p. 249.
[368]
Gloucester, Bristol, Hereford, Nottingham, Odiham, Windsor. See Turner,
pt. I. pp. 249–251. It was Engelard who defended Windsor so long and so
successfully against the French. He had previously made a splendid defence of
Odiham; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 371.
[369]
There is not a particle of evidence that these men had ever given just cause
for resentment to any English party or person. “They cannot be described as
royal favourites, for not one of them received a grant of land in perpetuity by
royal charter. Nor can they be included among the King’s political advisers; for
if they had been such they would certainly have witnessed his charters occasionally.
Yet not one of them witnessed a royal charter except Engelard de
Cigogné; and he witnessed but one before the issue of the Great Charter at
Runnymede, and but two afterwards. They were neither courtiers nor politicians,
but soldiers of experience, whom the barons feared with good cause.” Turner,
pt. I. pp. 253, 254.
[370]
A grotesque comment on the whole affair is furnished by the fact that the
drafters of the article seem to have neither known nor cared what the names
of their intended victims really were; see Turner, pt. I. pp. 248, 252.
[371]
Bréauté is in Normandy, Maulay in Gascony. Of Falkes we shall have to
speak at length later on. Peter de Maulay is (like Falkes) said to have begun life
as an usher or doorkeeper: “Chil Pieres de Maulay ot este huissiers le roi, mais
puis crut tant ses afaires que il fu chevaliers,” &c. Hist. Ducs, p. 180.
[372]
As Mr. Turner truly says (pt. I. pp. 276, 277):—“The confidence which King
John and the advisers of his son Henry reposed in these so-called alien sheriffs
rested on experience. Not one of them could boast of illustrious ancestry”
(Savaric is not included among those of whom Mr. Turner is here speaking) “or
inherited wealth; not one of them can fairly be described as a royal favourite.
Men of action, soldiers brought from France to defend their King and his kingdom,
they owed their positions to their military talents. These men from the King’s
dominions across the sea helped in no small measure to place the heir of the
Angevin house safely on the throne of England.”
[373]Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 322 et seq.; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 92.
[384]Statutes of the Realm, Charters of Liberties, pp. 17–19. On this Charter
see Professor Powicke’s article, “The Chancery during the minority of
Henry III,” Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. pp. 232, 233.
[403]
Hidage, carucage, and aid are mentioned on 7th June, 1217, as having been
assessed “de precepto nostro,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 310; and the two former
seem to have been in process of collection in some of the Midland shires in the
middle of April of that year; ib. pp. 306, 306 b, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 56.
[411]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 7, 8; date, 6th November. Dr. Shirley made the
year 1217, but he must have overlooked the closing words of the letter—“De
praemissis autem novi sigilli nostri sanctae paternitati vestrae reverentiam merito
duximus exhibendam”—which clearly shew that it is 1218.
[412]
The various accounts of the money paid (or promised) to Louis are extremely
puzzling. The Chronicle of Melrose, a. 1217, p. 131, gives the total as ten
thousand pounds. The Dunstable Annals, p. 51, say that Louis left his Marshal
in England “pro quindecim millibus marcarum recipiendo, quas pro reragiis tenseriarum
et expensis quas fecerat promiserunt”—this verb has no nominative, but
the king’s guardians seem to be meant. The Hist. Ducs, p. 204, after summarizing
the treaty, says Louis was to have “deseure tout chou, x m. marcs
d’estrelins por l’arierage de ses rentes que il n’ot pas euues, et pour la desconfiture
de Nicole vii m. mars; che fu xvii m. mars par tout.” (For the first marcs the
MS. followed in the printed text has livres, but the other has marcs, which is
obviously the right reading; see the editor’s note 1, l.c.). M. Petit-Dutaillis,
Vie de Louis VIII, p. 176, note 2, takes the marks promised to Louis as marks
sterling. But the document on which he relies for this interpretation of the sum
(ib. p. 512) is a statement of the king’s debt to Florence of S. Omer, not of his
debt to Louis. The letter of 6th November, 1218, which does specify the sum
due to Louis, says nothing about marks sterling; it calls them simply “marks.”
Reading the Dunstable Annals and the Hist. Ducs by the light of the king’s
letter, one is led to think that the monk’s “fifteen thousand marks” are made up
of the king’s ten thousand marks “pro bono pacis” (= “pro expensis quas
fecerat [Ludovicus]” = “pour la desconfiture de Nicole”), and five (instead of
seven) thousand “pro reragiis,” “pour l’arierage de ses rentes,” the amounts given
for the indemnity and for the arrears having been reversed (and the latter perhaps
exaggerated) by the Flemish historian.
[421]
“Scutagium positum de novo per consilium commune comitum et baronum
nostrorum Angliæ,” 10th November, 1217, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 125; “per
commune consilium regni nostri,” 30th October, 1217, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 371:
“de carrucagio et hydagio quod assisum fuit per consilium regni nostri,”
9th January, 1218, ib. p. 348 b. Tallage to be taken from the towns and from
the royal demesnes, ib. pp. 349, 359, 364, 370; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 170, 171.
[422]
Its proceeds are enrolled in the Pipe Rolls 2 and 3 Hen. III under the
title of “Compotus de Scutagio assiso ... ad Angliam deliberandam de
Francis”; see Petit-Dutaillis, p. 177, note 5. It did not, however, all go to
Louis; e.g., the whole scutage of Kent, as well as a share of the tallage from
some of the towns in that county, was allotted to Hubert de Burgh for the repair
and fortification of Dover Castle, 11th February, 1218, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 352.
[433]
Even in Gwynedd there were encroachments in the north-east, e.g., Rhuddlan.
[434]
After careful consideration I can see no other possible interpretation of the
decree (Bliss, Calendar of Papal Documents, vol. i. p. 109) whereby Pope
Honorius in 1226 declared Joan legitimate, but without prejudice to King Henry.
[440]
Sons of his father’s sister Maud by her marriage with Gruffudd ap Rhys, who
died in 1201. Maelgwn and Rhys Gryg, i.e., “the Hoarse,” were Gruffudd’s
brothers.
[452]Ib. vol. i. p. 143, Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 378 b, 379. Cf. Brut, p. 303:
“Christianity was restored to the men of the south, and Caermarthen and
Aberteivi” [i.e., Cardigan] “were put under the custody of Llywelyn.” These
two castles and the whole land of Gower had been since January, 1214, under
the charge of the Earl Marshal; see Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 109 b.
[457]Ib. ll. 17860–17871; the story is told confusedly, but with the help
of the Brut and the dates furnished by the Rolls the sequence of events can
be made out. The Worcester parlement in which this discussion took place is
doubtless not the first meeting with Llewelyn, in March, but the later meeting, at
the close of Easter, when the court would be gathered round the king for the
festival.
[483]
The Ann. Dunst., a. 1218, p. 54, say all these started in May. The Ann.
Wav., a. 1218, say Chester and Ferrers started at Whitsuntide (Whit Sunday was
3rd June), and place Harcourt’s departure in the following year. Cf. W. Cov.,
vol. ii. pp. 240, 241.
[484]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 44; Ann. Wav. and Dunst., a. 1219.
[487]
R. Wend., l.c.; Ann. Dunst. and Wav., a. 1219. In a letter patent
dated 20th January, 1219, the king takes under his protection until June
24th a ship which Saer “sibi parari fecit in partibus Galweiae ad eundum in
partes Bristoll, pro victualibus et armis et aliis sibi necessariis ad iter peregrinacionis
suae quod facere disponit in terram Jerosolymitanam.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i.
p. 185.
[490]
The story of the siege of Newark in 1218 is prefaced by Roger of Wendover,
vol. iv. pp. 34, 35, as follows: “Erant autem his diebus multi in Anglia quibus
tempore belli praeteriti dulcissimum fuerat de rapinis vixisse, unde nunc post
pacem denuntiatam et omnibus concessam non potuerunt manus a praeda cohibere;
horum autem principales fuerunt incentores Willelmus comes Albemarliae, Falcasius
cum suis castellanis, Robertus de Veteriponte, Brienus de Insula, Hugo de
Baillul, Philippus Marci, et Robertus de Gaugi, cum aliis multis, qui castella
quorundam episcoporum ac magnatum cum terris et possessionibus contra regis
prohibitionem et illorum voluntatem detinere praesumpserunt eisdem; inter quos
Robertus de Gaugi, post multas regis admonitiones, castellum de Newerc cum
villa tota et pertinentiis, quae ad jus Hugonis Lincolniensis episcopi spectabant,
ei reddere contradixit.” Mr. Turner (“Minority,” part II., Trans. Roy. Hist.
Soc., 3rd ser. vol. i. pp. 221–222) has shown that not only up to this date, but for
several years after, there is no evidence on this subject against Falkes, and that
there is none whatever, at any date, against Brian de Lisle, Philip Marc, and Robert
de Vipont. Hugh de Balliol really was contumacious, and so too, though as yet
in a much lesser degree, was William of Aumale (ib. pp. 223, 237). It is quite clear
that, as Mr. Turner says (p. 222), Roger’s account of the Newark affair was written
some years after the occurrence, and that Roger “had in mind the events of the
years 1224 and 1225 when he was writing of 1218.” A hint of this confusion lurks
in a detail which seems to have escaped Mr. Turner’s notice. Roger, immediately
before the passage quoted above, says that Henry kept Christmas, 1217 (1218, in
Roger’s reckoning), at Northampton with Falkes. But as a matter of fact Henry
kept that Christmas at Gloucester; see above, p. 91. Obviously Roger was
confusing the Christmas of 1217 with that of 1223, the one which immediately
preceded the redistribution of royal castles in 1224, and which Henry really did
spend at Northampton, though not as Falkes’s guest.
[491]Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 193 b. See details in Turner, pt. II. pp. 222–225.
[505]
Gualo had certainly sent in his resignation to the Pope; it was on 12th September,
1218, that Honorius appointed Pandulf legate to England, Gualo having
resigned that office: Bliss, Calendar of Documents, vol. i. p. 58.
[506]
“Liberate de thesauro nostro Waltero aurifabro qui fecit sigillum nostrum
v marcas pro argento sigilli nostro ponderante v marcas; et pro opere mercedem
suam ita reddatis quod de jure contentus esse debeat,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 381 b,
7th November 1218. The sum finally decided upon as that “wherewith he ought
by rights to be content” was forty shillings, which another writ addressed to the
treasurer and chamberlains on 2nd December authorised them to pay “Waltero
de Ripa aurifabro in mercedem operis sigilli nostri quod fecit”; ib. p. 383.
[507]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 177. This letter has no date; but it heads the Roll
of 3 Hen. III, and is entitled, “Primae litterae novi sigilli domini regis, de cartis
vel litteris patentibus non faciendis; et hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere.”
In the Close Roll of the same year (vol. i. p. 381) there is a note, “Hic incepit
sigillum domini regis currere,” inserted between the abstract of a letter dated
3rd November and that of a letter dated 5th November. The earliest dated
document expressly stated in the Rolls to be “sealed with our seal” is a patent
of 4th November, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 207.
[508]
On 3rd September, 1220, Henry writes to Almeric of Limoges: “Sciatis
quod cum dominus Gualo titulo S. Martini presbyter cardinalis Legatus esset in
Anglia, juratum fuit in praesentia ipsius per dominum Wintoniensem episcopum,
et cancellarium nostrum, et Hubertum de Burgo justiciarium nostrum, necnon
et per commune concilium nostrum, quod ipsi nos custodient et tenebunt in
seisina omnium terrarum quae fuerunt in manu domini Johannis Regis patris
nostri die qua guerra primo mota fuit inter ipsum et barones suos Angliae, et
quod nec aliquid fiet de terra aliqua conferenda vel alienanda, quamdiu infra
aetatem fuerimus, quod cedere possit alicui ad perpetuitatem,” Foedera, I. i.
p. 163. It is possible that this transaction, of which I have found no other
mention, may have taken place at the council of Bristol in November, 1217; but
if it had we should have expected the Marshal to be named among those who
took the oath. The date which I have suggested for it seems therefore more
probable.
[510]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 177. The statement of the Waverley Annals, a. 1218,
that the Charter was again re-issued after Michaelmas, is clearly erroneous; this
supposed confirmation is, as Professor Powicke says (“Chancery,” Eng. Hist.
Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 234), “obviously that of 1217.”
[511]
“Circa festum S. Clementis,” Ann. Wav., a. 1218; “circa festum B.
Andreae,” R. Coggeshall, p. 186, and M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. pp. 42, 43.
He seems to have carried with him a part, but still only a part, of the arrears of
tribute due from England and Ireland to the Pope: “Soluta est vicesima pars
trium annorum ab Anglis Ecclesiae Romanae,” say the Ann. Winton., a. 1219;
on the debt for Ireland, see above, p. 95. The Barnwell Annalist says Gualo
went “cum infinita pecunia, quocumque modo adquisita” (W. Cov., vol. ii.
p. 241); but the insinuation here implied, and the charges of avarice and extortion
brought against Gualo by some modern writers, are groundless. See Turner,
pt. I., pp. 225, 256, note 1.
[514]Ib. ll. 17886–17936. The poet says the Marshal stayed in London till
after the beginning of Lent; and this is confirmed by the Rolls. We have no
attestations of the Marshal between 15th March (Mid-Lent) and 20th March,
but on the 20th he attests a letter at Caversham, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 189. On
the attestations of royal letters during the last few weeks of his life see Turner,
pt. I. p. 291.
[515]
This seems to be the meaning of Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17941–48, compared
with the letters attested by the Marshal on 24th and 28th March and 4th April,
two of them “in the presence of Bishop Peter” (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 389 b, 390),
and those attested by Peter at Caversham on 2nd April (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 190),
and by Pandulf and Peter at Reading on 10th and 11th April (Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 390).
[516]Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17949–18114. Cf. the statement made on the King’s
behalf in the indictment against Hubert de Burgh in 1239, that the Legate (by a
clerical error or a slip of memory miscalled “Gwalla”) “de commune consilio et
provisione totius regni post mortem Marescalli fuit primus consiliarius et principalis
totius regni Angliae,” Responsiones pro Huberto, M. Paris, Chron. Maj.,
vol. vi. p. 64.
[517]
See the extremely interesting account of his last days and death, Hist. G. le
Mar., ll. 18121–18973. The date—14th May, Tuesday before Ascension Day—is
given in Ann. Wav., a. 1219.