[519]
He is called “Magister Pandulfus, subdiaconus et familiaris domini Papae,”
until his election to the see of Norwich in July, 1215, and even afterwards. See
the preamble to Magna Charta, and Pat. Rolls Joh., pp. 154 b, 181. Roger of
Wendover (vol. iii. p. 235) calls him cardinal in 1211; but Pandulf never was a
cardinal at all.
[521]
“Domine, de longinquo venimus huc per petitionem tuam,” is the opening
speech of the envoys to John, in Ann. Burton a. 1211, pp. 209–210; and
the king at the end of the discussion bursts out—“Intimatum mihi erat per
quosdam latores meos, immo latrones, quod vos in curia Romana promoveretis
causam meam et quod me diligeretis; modo vero hic percipio quod causam meam
non fovetis.... Talia autem mihi nunciaturos non mandavi, sed ut causam
meam defenderetis,” ib. p. 216.
[536]
On the date of this correspondence see Professor Powicke’s article on “The
Chancery during the Minority of Henry III,” Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 229.
[543]
On the whole subject of Chancellor, Vice-chancellor, and custody of the
seals, and on Richard de Marsh and Ralf de Neville, see Powicke, pp. 223–231.
[544]
“Per vicarium,” Dial. de Scaccario, lib. i. c. xv.
[545]
Professor Powicke, p. 228, says positively that this was so, citing as his
authority “Rot. Claus. passim.” So far as I can see, however, these Rolls contain
no actual proof that the “R. camerarius” who figures in them together with
the treasurer and another chamberlain whose initial is “F.” is Ralf de Neville.
The identification seems to be an inference from Pandulf’s injunctions about
“paying nothing out.”
[546]
This is clear from the tone of Pandulf’s letters. See especially the letter of
12th May—“Rogamus autem et monemus prudentiam tuam ut verbum secretum
quod tibi diximus studeas loco et tempore fideliter procurare.” Roy. Lett., vol. i.
p. 119.
[547]
Pandulf issues his orders “legationis qua fungimur auctoritate” (ib.),
because in his case the secular authority of the regent was included in and
covered by the legatine authority. He had been made regent just because he
was the Pope’s Legate.
[561]
Between 15th June, when he figures in the Great Charter as “senescallus
Pictaviae,” and 25th June, when he appears for the first time as “Justiciarius
Angliae,” Ib. p. 144 b. He himself seems to have stated in 1239 “quod
dominus Johannes Rex tradidit ei justitiariam apud Runingmede coram domino
Stephano Archiepiscopo, comite Warannae, comite de Ferrariis, et aliis
magnatibus”; Responsiones (M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi.), p. 65.
[562]
M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. pp. 28, 29.
[577]
In the Patent Roll of 15 John (1213–1214), Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 107, it is stated
that “vicesimo secundo die Decembris liberatum fuit sigillum apud Windlesoram
Radulfo de Nevill, sub domino Wintoniensi episcopo deferendum.” From this it
has by some writers been inferred that Peter was Chancellor for a short time in
1213–1214. But Walter de Gray, who had been Chancellor ever since 2nd October,
1205 (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 53), appears in that capacity on 10th October, 1213,
and again on 12th January, 1214 (ib. pp. 156 b, 160), and the title of chancellor
is nowhere given to Peter. It seems therefore that Ralf was made keeper of the
seal “under the Bishop of Winchester” as a mere temporary arrangement, necessitated
by the fact that the Chancellor (Walter de Gray) was going to Flanders on
business for the King; ib. p. 156 b. See also Powicke, “Chancery,” pp. 226, 227.
[578]
Henry was born on 1st October, 1207; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 219.
[579]
The notices of little Henry during his father’s lifetime are unluckily very few.
We know that about August, 1215, he and his mother were sent for safety to the
royal castle of Corfe (Hist. Ducs, p. 152), and that at the time of his father’s
death he was in the castle of Devizes, under the care of a valiant man-at-arms,
Ralf of Saint-Samson (see above, pp. 2, 3). These temporary removals of the boy
from Peter’s custody were, however, certainly not due to any withdrawal of John’s
confidence from Peter, whose name follows that of Gualo in the list of executors
of the will made by John on his death-bed.
[580]
“Willelmus Mareschallus, regis rector et regni, diem clausit extremum;
post cujus mortem memoratus rex in custodia Petri Wintoniensis episcopi remansit.”
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 46.
[584]Ib. p. 13; see on this Turner, pt. II. p. 236.
[585]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 136. The new custodian was Falkes, who had been
custodian of Rockingham before Count William. The fact that Sauvey was not
re-committed to Geoffrey de Serland implies no slight upon the latter; he had in
the interval been well provided for elsewhere.
[598]
There can be no doubt that this is the “forma pacis” which Pandulf asks
Ralf de Neville to send him in May 1219: ib. p. 117 (for date see above, p. 113).
[600]Foedera, I. i. p. 157. The letter is dateless, but there can be no doubt
about its reference. It cannot refer to the treaty made between the two
kings at York in June 1220, because on that occasion Peter, as well as Pandulf,
was present in person; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 235.
[601]
This was explicitly stated in the charge against Hubert de Burgh in 1239,
as reported in his Responsiones, M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi. pp. 70–71. A
promise that one of William’s daughters should be married to one of John’s sons
is also mentioned by Gervase of Canterbury (vol. i. p. 103) as included in the
treaty of Norham. The text of that treaty in Foedera, I. i. p. 103, rests on no
authority beyond that of Rymer.
[602]
Both Margaret and her sister were born before the end of 1195; R. Howden,
vol. iii. pp. 299, 308.
[609]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 418, 418 b. Llywelyn’s version, as given in a letter
from him to Pandulf, Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 122, 123, was very different.
[613]
“Eodemque anno ... devotus Deo rex Henricus III fecit inchoari
fabricam novae capellae B. Virginis apud Westmonasterium, eodem rege existente
fundatore et patrono, et primum lapidem operis in fundamento in bonum auspicium
disponente, videlicet sabbato sancto Pentecostes.” M. Paris, Hist. Angl. a. 1220,
vol. ii. p. 242. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 188, and Ann. Berm., a. 1220.
[614]
W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244. There must have been many present who had
seen three coronations before Henry’s accession—those of Richard in 1189 and
1195, and that of John in 1199. The Ann. Dunst., p. 57, mention a detail which
would have a special significance for those who remembered Richard’s first
crowning: “Judaei vero in Turri Lundoniarum servabantur interim ad cautelam.”
Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 63, says the crowning was at Canterbury, but he is
certainly wrong. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 208, and R. Coggeshall, p. 187. T. Wykes,
a. 1220, says: “Sane quia propter aetatis teneritudinem nondum sufficiens fuerat [rex]
ad regni gubernaculum, totius regni proceres providebant sibi tutorem et custodem,
virum summi discretionis et probitatis, dominum Hubertum de Burgo, qui motus
regis voluntarios refraenaret, ne forte per immoderantiam lasciviret; factusque est
justiciarius totius Angliae, ut sua prudentia, qua caeteris praepollebat, regis et
regni negotia dispensaret.” And the Bermondsey Annals, a. 1220, say: “Hoc
anno Hubertus de Burgo factus est justiciarius totius Angliae,” while the Waverley
Annals make a like statement under the date 1219. These entries seem to be all
derived from a common source, and based upon a mistake. There is superabundant
documentary evidence that Hubert had been justiciar uninterruptedly
ever since 1215; if he had not been reappointed at Henry’s accession, there could
be no reason and no occasion for him to be reappointed now; and his own words
in 1239, as given in the Responsiones, p. 64, distinctly imply that nothing of the
kind had ever taken place.
[615]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 170, 171, August, 1214.
[621]
He was probably about the same age as Isabel, who was then twenty-six.
His parents had been married in 1181; but his mother—who as the only child of
the elder brother of Isabel’s father had claims on Angoulême—must have been
then so young that her son is not likely to have been born till some years later.
[626]
She was proposing to go in July, 1217, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 113, Close Rolls,
vol. i. p. 315, but seems not to have actually gone till next year.
[638]Foedera, I. i. p. 157; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 74, 76.
[639]
They were Philip d’Aubigné, the Abbot of Stratford, and Alan Basset.
Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 410 b.
[640]Foedera, I. i. pp. 158, 159. Cf. Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 94, Ann. Dunst.,
a. 1220 (which wrongly make the period five years), and Hist. Ducs, pp. 207,
208; the two latter authorities expatiate on Philip’s generosity in consenting to
prolong the truce without pecuniary consideration.
[642]
Warren went with her to the King, and a day, 15th September, was given
them, at which Warren begged Hubert to attend and do his utmost “tam pro
rege quam pro nobis”; ib. p. 42. The result does not appear.
[647]Ib. pp. 94–96. Cf. the letter of Ivo de la Jaille—one of the Angevin
barons who still held out for the Angevin house—ib. p. 93. Geoffrey de
Neville was sent back to Poitou in February, 1220, but only “in nuncium
nostrum,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 411 b; he went after 12th February, and seems to
have returned to England before 27th April, ib. p. 417. The “Seneschal of
Poitou and Gascony” to whom letters are addressed on 10th February, 2nd July,
and 29th July, 1220 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 228, 245, 243), was clearly a deputy,
most likely William Gauler.
[648]
On January 17th, 1220, Pandulf urged Hubert “Provideatis etiam de persona
quae ire debeat in Pictaviam, quia tempus instat quo debeat quicumque fuerit iter
arripere. Nec expectetis super praemissis consilium, cum nos hoc velimus et consulamus
omnimodis bona fide.” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 76. Again, on 27th January:
“Si de mittenda persona in Pictaviam tractavistis et eam invenistis, nobis quam
citius vestris literis intimetis.” Ib. p. 79.
[649]
See for date Shirley’s note, ib. pp. 32, 33.
[650]
“Comites Marchiae et Angolismae” in Shirley’s printed text, ib. p. 114;
but this latter word must be an error for Augiae.
[651]
See the whole of this very amusing epistle, ib. pp. 114, 115. The
date is approximately determined by Henry’s letter of congratulation to
Hugh.
[655]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 235. The Ann. Dunst., a. 1220, say: “Mense Junio
apud Eboracum rex Scotiae affidavit sororem Henrici regis Angliae; qua de causa
idem rex Angliae remisit ei quinque millia marcarum.” Probably remisit here is
a scribe’s error for promisit, and five thousand marks was the dowry given by
Henry to his sister on her marriage. The little damsel Isabel of England was
apparently taken to York that Alexander might see her; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 234.
The Lord of Galloway, Alan, also came to York at this time, and performed the
homage which he owed to Henry; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 420 b.
[656]
Isabel’s demand is curiously worded: “Precamur vos diligenter quod ei
[i.e., Hugoni] reddatis jus suum, scilicet Niortum, Castrum Exonense, et de
Rokingham, et tria millia et quingentas marcas quas pater vester, maritus quondam
noster, nobis legavit” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 115). The mention of Rockingham
should probably run “et villam de Rokingham.” The lands bestowed by John
upon Isabel in dower consisted of the city of Saintes, Niort, Saumur, La Flèche,
Beaufort, Baugy, Château-du-Loir, “Trov” (Charter Rolls, pp. 74 b, 75), the
city and fair of Exeter, the towns of Ilchester, Wilton, Malmesbury, Chichester,
Queenhithe, and Waltham, the honour of Berkhamsted, the county of Rutland,
and the town of Rockingham, Falaise, Domfront, Bonneville-sur-Toucques, and
all the lands which had belonged to the dowry of his mother Queen Eleanor
(ib. 128).
[670]
Cf. Peter’s letter to Pandulf, Foedera, l.c., and Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 430,
where we find the Dean sent home at the King’s expense “in nuncium nostrum”
on 18th September.
[680]
“Barones qui praesentes erant in crastino coronationis juraverunt quod
castra et wardias suas ad voluntatem regis resignarent, et de firmis suis fidelem
compotum ad scaccarium redderent; et si quis regi rebellis resisteret, et infra
quadragintas dies post excommunicationem a legato non satisfecerit, quod ad
mandatum regis ei bella moverent, ut exhaeredetur sine fine rebellis.” Ann.
Dunst., a. 1220, p. 57. See Note VI.
[684]
On 26th November, 1217, the King bids “the sheriff of Lincolnshire”—no
name is mentioned—“cause Nicolaa de Haye to have a reasonable aid from her
knights and free tenants in your bailiwick for the payment of debts incurred by her
when she was besieged in Lincoln castle.” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 344.
[686]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 356, 367, 367 b, &c. The exact date at which she
recovered the castle does not appear; probably it was not very long before the
date of the first of these entries, 17th March, 1218; for on 13th November, 1218,
we find an order to the Treasury for payment to Earl William of what he
spent “per visum et testimonium legalium hominum in reparacione castri Lincolniae
tempore pacis,” ib. p. 383. If he had delivered the castle to its Dame
immediately on receipt of the King’s order to do so, at the beginning of November,
1217, he would not have had much time for its repair tempore pacis, the peace
having been made on 12th September.
[688]
Order, dated 23rd May, 1220, for payment to Falkes of the wages of three
knights “qui sunt in servitio nostro in castro Lincolniae cum eodem Falkesio”
from the octave of the Assumption in the King’s third year (22nd August, 1219) to
the octave of Trinity in his fourth year (31st May, 1220). Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 419.
[692]
“Johannes Marescallus reddit compotum de £128 7s. pro fine suo et fine
fratris sui Gilleberti de terra patris eorum. In operatione castri de Merleberga
£26 13s. 4d. per breve Regis et per visum Yvonis de Neville. Et debet
£100 33s. 8d.” Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II (1175–1176), p. 172.
[693]
The warden of Marlborough castle throughout John’s reign was Hugh de
Neville; see Pat. Rolls Joh. and Close Rolls, vol. i., passim, the latter from
p. 16 b (1205) onwards. John “de Turri” appears as its constable on the
morrow of Magna Charta (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 214 b), no doubt as deputy for
Hugh, who was at Runnimede with the king. It was Hugh who surrendered the
place to Louis in 1216; Hist. Ducs, pp. 175, 176.
[694]
In a writ of Computate in favour of the sheriff of Wiltshire, 13th November,
1222, occurs this item: “Computate et eidem in firma manerii de Merleberge
c. et lx. libras blanchas, videlicet xxxii libras annuas de praedictis v. annis
praeteritis, quas comes W. Marescallus senior et comes W. Marescallus junior et
Johannes de Ferentino receperunt de eodem manerio per eosdem annos ad
custodiendum castrum de Merleberge”; and the “past five years” are in an
earlier part of the writ defined as “de anno regni nostri secundo, tertio, quarto,
quinto, et sexto,” i.e. from 29th October, 1217, to 28th October, 1222. Close
Rolls, vol. i. p. 521.
[695]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 100, 101; date, 3rd April [1220].
[696]
On 24th July, 1221, “the King’s constable of Marlborough” is bidden to
give the heirs of Robert of Barfleur seisin of the mill at Marlborough called Port
Mill, “de quo W. Marescallus comes Penbrochiae cum habuisset seisinam castri
de Merleberge eosdem heredes pro voluntate sua disseisivit.” Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 466.
[697]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 299 b, 305 b; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 55.
[698]Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 348. Cf. above, p. 87.
[699]Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 354 b, 13th March, 1218.
[702]
That the Marshal had taken this oath is stated in the King’s letter of
11th September, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 429 b.
[703]
Hubert held the castles of Dover, Canterbury, Rochester, Norwich, Orford,
and the Tower of London (see Turner, pt. II. pp. 242, 243); the first three as
sheriff of Kent, the next two as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the last as
Justiciar.
[709]
“Computate Falkesio de Bréauté £100 quas posuit in expensis nostris in
obsidione castri de Rockingham,” 5th November, 1220, Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 439 b.
[712]
The Barnwell annalist’s account of this affair (W. Cov., l.c.) suggests a
possibility that Aumale’s deputy constable at Rockingham may have been more
forward than Aumale himself to resist the King, and in fact gone beyond the
count’s orders in shutting the gates. Mr. Turner thinks the statement of Roger
of Wendover (vol. iv, p. 65) that the two castles were found “penitus omnia
victualium genere destituta, ita quidem quod nec etiam tres panes invenirentur in
eis,” “suggests that the count had been misrepresented by the letters patent of
November, 1219, which recited that he was fortifying the castles and storing them
with corn” (Turner, pt. II. p. 242). I cannot follow this argument; to me a
statement as to the contents of a place in June, 1220, conveys no suggestion whatever
as to the contents of that place in November, 1219.
[714]
See above, p. 143. The date must be before 29th June, as the Earl speaks
of the Count’s lack of obedience to the King “de his quae modo custodit in
Anglia.”
[715]
He may even have had no stake there at all. For all we know, his father
may not have possessed a rood of land at Fors or anywhere else. Fors itself is a
mere village.
[719]
Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 245, Ann. Dunst., p. 58, and Hist. Ducs, pp. 208,
209. The last reckons twenty-five bishops; the first, seventeen bishops and three
archbishops, among whom, however, he does not name Reims.
[722]
“Praesente ... rege Anglorum Henrico quarto,” says the Barnwell
annalist (W. Cov., l.c.), using the reckoning which counted the “young King,”
Henry II’s son, as Henry III.
[726]
I venture to suggest that this may be the explanation of a letter from Pandulf
to Hubert de Burgh, Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 130: “Quod actum est de vicecomite
Eboracensi, in Dei et domini regis ac nostrum pariter acceptatum esse noscitur
praejudicium et contemptum, non enim per nostram vel vestram ammonitionem
adhuc potuit liberari. Ideoque discretionem vestram monemus attentius et
hortamur quatenus ipsum secundum justitiam et legem terrae faciatis quantocius
liberari, cum teneamini hoc circa quemlibet observari facientes” (?) “ita quod
honor domini regis conservetur illaesus, et vos inde possitis merito commendari.”
In the printed edition this letter purports to be “datum apud Lincolniam, nonas
Junii”; Dr. Shirley took this to be 5th June, 1220, and tentatively suggested as
“not impossible” that the outrage to which it alludes may have been an act of
vengeance perpetrated by William of Aumale, Geoffrey’s most powerful neighbour
in Yorkshire, on the erroneous suspicion that it was Geoffrey’s influence
which had “disappointed” him of Geoffrey’s former office of seneschal of Poitou.
But (1) I greatly doubt whether Aumale, or anybody else, would be “disappointed”
at not being made seneschal of Poitou. That office was neither a
pleasant nor a lucrative one, but one which most of its various holders, for many
years past, seem to have accepted with reluctance and escaped from as soon as
possible. (2) The fact that in none of the various accounts of Aumale’s misdoings—in
the chronicles, or in the royal letters patent—is there any mention
of the capture of the sheriff of Yorkshire, makes it appear very improbable that he
was concerned in the matter. Had he been so, or even suspected of being so,
his enemies would surely have made the most of such a charge to add to the
indictment which, as we shall see, was brought against him early next year.
(3) Dr. Shirley cites as a reference showing this letter to have been written in
1220 “inter alia, Rot. Claus. i. p. 419 b”; but I can see there nothing
which bears on the subject. It seems to me possible that the word printed Junii
may have been originally a contracted form of Januarii; that the true date of the
letter may be 5th January, 1221; and that its true connexion may be not with
Aumale but with the dispute about the carucage. I can find in the Rolls nothing
to prove or to indicate whether Geoffrey de Neville was or was not at liberty
either c. 5th June, 1220, or c. 5th January, 1221. On 22nd January he was sent
with a message from the King to the count of Aumale; Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 446.
[754]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 66. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.
[755]
R. Wend., l.c. He goes on: “Habuit autem, ut dicebatur, hujus
factionis incentores Falcasium, Philippum Marc, Petrum de Maloleone” [recte
“Malolacu”] “Engelardum de Athie, et alios multos, qui clam miserunt ei
viros armatos ut pacem regni turbaret.” But there is not a particle of evidence
to indicate that such was the fact, or even that it was suspected at the time;
indeed, the evidence of the records disproves the existence of such a suspicion
against two of the men named, Philip Marc and Falkes; see Turner, pt. II.
p. 254, and Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 448 b. Once again, as in his account of the
Newark affair in 1217, Roger is carrying back to an earlier date his recollections
of 1223.
[756]
“Comes de Albomari mense Januario visus est furtive capere castra de
Neuwerga, et de Latford, et de Kimbautona; sed turpiter repulsus, accessit ex
improvisu ad Fodringham,” etc., says the printed text of Ann. Dunst., a. 1221,
p. 63. Visus is obviously an error for nisus. Newark and Sleaford belonged to
the Bishop of Lincoln; Kimbolton to the Earl of Essex.
[757]
I think this must be the real meaning of the words of Roger of Wendover,
(vol. iv. p. 67): “Convenerunt interim magnates Angliae ad regem apud
Westmonasterium ut de negotiis regni tractarent; comes vero, qui cum caeteris
vocatus fuerat, simulavit se illo ire,” coupled with the safe-conduct until
Candlemas granted to Aumale on some day between 15th and 22nd January,
1221, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 278; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 446.
[758]
“Justiciarius Angliae tunc in custodiam habebat,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.
Roger, l.c., says “erat tunc castellum in custodia Ranulfi comitis Cestrensis,”
but the former is probably right. Cf. Turner, pt. II. p. 252.
[759]
Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 67, and Ann. Dunst., p. 63.
[762]
On 22nd January a letter close was sent to Aumale bidding him trust what
two persons named therein should say to him on the King’s behalf; Close Rolls,
vol. i. p. 446. This, from its tone, would seem to have been despatched in
ignorance of the Fotheringay outrage—certainly before the assembly in which
Aumale was excommunicated again. The date of that assembly is given in the
Dunstable Annals, l.c., as “in die Conversionis Sancti Pauli.” But the excommunication
is announced, as having already taken place, in a letter dated January
23rd, Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 169.
[764]
“Tum quia castrum domini sui regis proditione cepit antequam ipsum
difidasset.” I think this sentence of the Dunstable annalist (l.c.) tends to confirm
the Barnwell writer’s statement that Fotheringay was in the custody of
Hubert. Strictly speaking, Fotheringay was never “a castle of his (Aumale’s)
lord the King,” i.e., King Henry; it was a castle of the Earl of Huntingdon’s,
and held of the King of Scots; Henry had only the right to its custody during
the minority of the heir, and he had committed it to Alexander as custodian. If,
however, Alexander had (as he very likely may have done) placed it temporarily
in Henry’s hand, to be garrisoned by Henry’s men under Henry’s justiciar, the
Dunstable writer’s words would be far more intelligible than if they were applied
to it when in the keeping of the Earl of Chester, who we know was, at some date
before—unluckily there is nothing to prove how long before—12th March, 1221,
appointed custodian of the honour of Huntingdon not by Henry, but, with Henry’s
sanction, by Alexander; see above, footnote 748.
[766]Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 169. This letter, dated 23rd January, is addressed to
Geoffrey de Neville. There can be no doubt that a like summons was sent to the
other sheriffs and barons, and that the muster was a general one.
[778]
Commentators seem puzzled to account for a letter, dated 29th April, 1221,
in which the Pope bids the Archbishop of York and his suffragans, “cum, sicut
audivimus et dolemus, gravis guerra in regno Angliae incipit pullulare, quae nisi
fuerit repressa celeriter, in totius regni poterit excrescere detrimentum ...
quatenus singuli tanquam propriam causam agentes ad praecidendam guerrarum
materiam et pacis foedera reformandam omne studium et diligentiam impendatis”;
Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 174, 175. I would suggest that Honorius had heard something
of the misdoings of the lord of Holderness, and was neither sufficiently
learned in English geography to realize that they were not actually done in the
northern province, nor, as yet, aware—as, indeed, he could not be at that date—how
promptly they had been brought to an end.
[779]Ann. Dunst., a. 1221, p. 68. On 28th April Falkes, Richard de Rivers,
and Engelard de Cigogné were sent to the Marshal with a letter desiring him to
trust to what they should tell him from the King about the castle of Marlborough
“ad fidem, commodum, et honorem nostrum.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 287.
[781]
Stapleton, Rotuli Normanniae, vol. ii. introduction, p. cxxxviii.
[782]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 244, 245. This may be an allusion to the supposed
plot of Peter de Maulay, or merely to what was possibly the origin of a misunderstanding
which had occurred between the Marshal and the government at the
time of the siege of Bytham. The Marshal received no summons for that
expedition, but hearing when on his way “ad remotas partes” on business of his
own that the host was mustering, he hurried back and wrote to the King,
expressing his surprise at not having been summoned, and his readiness to join
the muster; ib. pp. 170, 171. The omission to summon him can hardly have
been intentional; it is much more likely that the summons miscarried, and this may
have occurred through its interception by some mischief-maker.
[783]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 244, 245. Marlborough castle was in Pandulf’s
custody till 7th February, 1224; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 426. So also, no doubt,
was Luggershall, John Little, who on 2nd March, 1224, was ordered to deliver
both castles to Robert de Meisy (ib. p. 428), being sub-warden under Pandulf.
The Ann. Dunst. (p. 68) which do not mention Luggershall, say of Marlborough,
“Quod quidem [Marescallus] tali conditione reddidit in manum legati, quod si
alii similiter castra sibi commendata redderent, et suum retineretur, alioquin ei
redderetur”; but the King’s letter is a better authority as to the condition.
[784]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 284. Cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 451.
[785]
Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250, and Ann. Dunst., p. 75, and for Richard
Muscegros see Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 216.
[786]Ann. Dunst., p. 68. This authority says “post Pentecosten”; the Barnwell
annalist (W. Cov., l.c.) places the capture of Peter de Maulay “in festo
Pentecostes,” which, like Falkes’s narrative (which will be dealt with later) leaves
it uncertain whether the date meant is Whit-Sunday or merely Whitsuntide.
[788]Querimonia Falcasii, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 260, and Ann. Dunst., p. 68.
[789]
“De qua captione non ante dictus nobilis evadere potuit quam ea castra
quae sibi tam a domino Guala quam etiam a patre domini regis commissa fuerant
restitueret,” says Falkes (Quer. Falc., l.c.). But the records show that Peter
really resigned nothing, except Corfe, until 20th November (1221), and that he
retained Sherborne till 30th January, 1222 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 325). On the
words about Gualo see Note VI.
[798]
Early in the year it seems to have been arranged that Henry and Alexander
should meet at Lincoln on 7th June; but the place and day were changed to
York and 14th June (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 476), and the meeting was ultimately
postponed till 19th June.
[799]Ann. Dunst., pp. 68, 69. Hubert (and of course Henry) was at Oxford
9th June, Northampton 11th, Nottingham 14th, Blyth 15th, and York 19th;
Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 461 b, 462.
[800]Chron. Melrose and Chron. Lanercost, a. 1221. M. Paris, Chron. Maj.,
vol. iii. p. 66, gives the date as 25th June, which the Close Roll, vol. i. p. 463,
shows to be incompatible with the movements of the English court. Alexander’s
settlement of dowerlands upon Joan—“sponsae nostrae dilectae”—is dated
York, 18th June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 309.
[806]
The Continuator of Florence of Worcester, a. 1221, (p. 173), says that
Pandulf “a legationis officio revocatur.” This phrase need not exclude a
voluntary resignation; he may have been recalled at his own request. No papal
letters on the subject are extant; it is probable that Pandulf, like Gualo, asked
permission to lay down an office which seems never to have been much to his
taste; and it is even possible that he may have made his request through Stephen.