[941]Ann. Dunst., p. 84; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 92. Orders to prepare for
the Christmas court at Northampton were issued 9th and 10th December, Close
Rolls, vol. i. p. 578. The King left London at some date between 12th and 19th
December, and was at Northampton on the 23rd; ib. pp. 579, 579 b.
[945]Quer. Falc., l.c., “Favore” is surely a misprint or a clerical error for
fervore.
[946]Ib. Cf. R. Wend.,vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, pp. 203, 204, and Ann.
Dunst., p. 84; this last gives the date, “quinto die Natalis Domini,” i.e., 29th
December.
[947]
Its commission to Bishop Peter on Louis’s withdrawal in 1217 (Close Rolls,
vol. i. p. 450) was evidently only a temporary measure.
[955]
Hugh of Windsor, custos of the Tower in November, 1224 (Close Rolls,
vol. ii. p. 8), and Thomas de Blundeville, custos in 1225 and 1226 (ib. a. 1225–1226
passim) were sub-wardens. Cf. ib. pp. 33 b, 83 b.
[957]
Hubert was constable of Dover in October, 1225, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 65.
[958]
William Hardres appears as constable of Canterbury castle from Candlemas
to Michaelmas 1225, ib. p. 46 b; obviously he was a sub-warden, but whether
under Stephen or under Hubert there is nothing to show.
[959]
Matthew Paris’s assertion “Instillatum quippe fuerat illis in auribus secreto
quod si prompta voluntate ea [scil. castra] regi ilico resignassent, statim illis redderet
resignata” (Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 261) may be taken for what his uncorroborated
assertions are usually worth.
[963]
The only authority for this demand for a confirmation of the Charter, Roger
of Wendover, places it in 1223. Its true date, however, seems to be 1224.
Roger says it took place “in London, on the octave of Epiphany,” i.e. on
13th January. But in 1223 the court, which had kept Christmas at Oxford (as he
says), and thence gone into Wiltshire, Dorset, and Hampshire, did not return to
London till 20th or 21st January (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 527–529). In 1224, on
the other hand, the King was at Westminster from 8th January to 26th February
(ib. pp. 580 b–586). Moreover, in January, 1223, there were, so far as can be
seen, no circumstances likely to suggest such a demand; but in January, 1224, the
suggestion would be obvious. I think that Roger has betrayed at once his own
confusion, and how he fell into it, in the words which immediately follow his
report of Henry’s reply: “Et rex protinus, habito super hoc consilio, misit
literas suas ad singulos vicecomites regni, ut per milites duodecim vel legales
homines uniuscujusque comitatus per sacramentum facerent inquiri quae fuerunt
libertates in Anglia tempore regis Henrici avi sui, et factam inquisitionem apud
Londonias mitterent ad regem in quindecim diebus post Pascham” (vol. iv. p. 84).
It is clear that the inquisition here spoken of is that ordered on 30th January,
1223 (see above, p. 201), which Roger took to be an inquiry into the ancient
liberties of England, instead of (as it really was) into those of the Crown.
Thus mistaking its character, he further mistook it for a consequence of the
demand for the Charter: a demand which (as I believe) it really preceded by
nearly twelve months, and with which its connexion—so far as the two things
were connected at all—was quite the reverse of that which Roger implies; the
inquest into the royal privileges having been, in all likelihood, one of the
provocations which led the barons to ask for a confirmation of their own
rights.
[964]Quer. Falc., pp. 262, 263. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 89, which gives the names
of the envoys, Robert Passelewe and Robert of Kent.
[975]
Cf. Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 183, 184, and Ann. Dunst., p. 85; the latter
says he went after the Welsh war—i.e. in October or November—but we shall see
that he must have gone some time before July.
[980]Ib. p. 375, 5th June. This letter seems, however, not to have been despatched;
the appointment is repeated on 10th September, 1224, and again on
12th May, 1225 (ib. pp. 470 and 526).
[985]Contin. Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 113. An order for Eleanor to be delivered
into the Marshal’s custody had been issued on 5th February; Pat. Rolls, vol. i.
p. 426.
[986]
Letters patent of 2nd May, 1224, announce the appointment of the Earl
Marshal as Justiciar in Ireland, with power to receive all persons who shall come
in within forty days after his arrival there; ib. pp. 437, 438.
[987]
The Ann. Dunst., p. 86, say “octave of Pentecost,” but this is wrong; see
above, p. 137.
[989]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 422. On Mausy see ib. pp. 356, 370, 379.
[990]
On 22nd May, 1224, Mausy was in Hugh’s hands, ib. p. 440; in April, 1223,
it seems to have been in Henry’s, ib. p. 370; to the date of its transfer we have
no clue.
[992]Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 592 b. The “truce” here mentioned may be either
that between Henry and Louis, or that between Louis and Hugh. Louis had in
September, 1223, made a truce with Hugh and one with Almeric of Thouars,
both of which expired before May, 1224; Petit-Dutaillis, p. 233, note 2.
[993]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 593, 593 b, 595. This order for resumption of lands
held by aliens is probably what the Bermondsey annalist means by his statement
(a. 1224) “Hoc anno Henricus Rex tertius ordinavit et statuit edictum ut omnes
alienigenae de regno expellerentur.”
[994]Ann. Dunst., p. 86; cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.
[999]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 483, 484. The towns addressed are the Cinque Ports,
Portsmouth, Shoreham, Southampton, Seaford, Poole, Exeter, Bristol, Dartmouth,
Norwich, Yarmouth, Orford, Dunwich, Ipswich, Lynn, and Orwell.
[1000]
“Centum milites et amplius et quamplures servientes,” says Hubert de
Burgh, Responsiones, p. 66.
[1001]Ann. Dunst., p. 86; this writer makes the knights only sixty.
[1006]
This date is from Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 94. The Dunstable
annalist, l.c., says “octavis Pentecostes”; but on that day—9th June, Trinity
Sunday—the King was a long way from Northampton; royal letters are dated at
Winchester on 8th and 10th June, at Wallingford on 13th and 15th June, and the
court did not reach Northampton till the 16th; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 604 b,
605.
[1007]
“Daturi nobis ibidem consilium et auxilium facturi ad defensionem terrae
nostrae in Pictavia,” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 224.
[1008]
“Convenerunt ad colloquium in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis rex cum archiepiscopis,”
&c., “de regni negotiis tractaturi; voluit enim rex uti consilio magnatum
suorum de terris transmarinis, quas rex Francorum paulatim occupaverat,” R.
Wend., l.c. “Dum rex cum clero et baronibus apud Norhampton de succursu
Pictaviae tractaret,” Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[1009]
“Cum autem Londoniis post illius simulatae pacis tractatum ordinatum
fuisset ut apud Northamptoniam componeretur exercitus.” Quer. Falc., p. 264.
[1010]
“Item de hoc respondeat [Hubertus] quod dum dominus rex fuit infra
aetatem et subvenire debuit terrae Pictaviae, et exercitus suus proficisci deberet in
Pictaviam, fecit ipse comes obsidere castrum Bedfordiae,” &c. Hubert in replying
to this charge disclaims responsibility for the siege of Bedford, but appears
to endorse the statement that “the King’s host” which went to that siege ought,
or was intended or professedly intended, to have gone to Poitou; Responsiones,
pp. 66, 67.
[1011]
On 30th January Brian de Lisle was threatened with pains and penalties if
he did not at once hand over Knaresborough (as he had been told on 30th
December to do) to the Archbishop of York (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 425); and on
13th March Pandulf was urged to delay no longer the delivery (also ordered on
30th December) of Bristol (ib. p. 429). As nothing more is heard about either of
these fortresses, we may conclude that both custodians obeyed.
[1012]
M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. pp. 170, 171.
[1013]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 298 b, 378 b; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 90.
[1018]
For the relationship between Falkes and William there is abundant evidence.
For Nicolas “frater Falkesii” see Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 197, Pat. Rolls Joh.
p. 155 (1215), 183 b (1216); for Colin, Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 155, Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 195 (1215), 515 b (1222), Pat. Rolls Hen. III, vol. i. p. 458 (1224); for
Avice “soror Willelmi de Brealte,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 595 b (1224). Gilbert
(ib. p. 246, a. 1216, &c.), John (ib. pp. 617, a. 1224, and p. 642), and Henry (Pat.
Rolls, vol. i. p. 461, a. 1224), may have been brothers or more remote kinsmen.
[1019]Hist. Ducs, p. 173; M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 88, Hist. Angl.,
vol. ii. p. 131; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R. Coggeshall, p. 204.
[1020]
“Rex Johannes habuit quendam servum probum et audacem,” R. Coggeshall,
l.c.
[1022]
R. Coggeshall, l.c. Unluckily this tale, which sounds so characteristic of
its hero, rests on unknown authority, being an interpolation in Ralf’s text, and we
have no means of judging whether it is derived from contemporary report, or is
merely the invention of some imaginative etymologist. The French form of the
name is Falkes, Faukes, or Fauques, variously Latinized as Falkesius or Falcasius,
sometimes as Falco. It seems to have been a variant of Fulk, Fouques, Fulco,
and more probably connected with falco than with falx.
[1023]
M. Paris, Hist. Angl., l.c. Cf. Chron. Lanercost, a. 1224: “Faukes
re et nomine.”
[1024]
“Chil Foukes ot este povres sergans au roi; fius fu a un chevalier de Normendie,
de soignant; mais puis siervi il tant le roi et tant cru ses afaires que il fu
puis uns des riches homes d’Engletiere; petis fu de cors, mais moult fu vaillans.”
Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[1025]
“Pro meritis a patria sua fugitivus,” says Matthew Paris of Falkes (Hist.
Angl., vol. iii. p. 226). The word meritis, though used sarcastically, may be true
literally; the “merit” may have been that of loyalty.
[1026]
“Regis aedituus et minister, ipsi in clientela militans,” ib. vol. ii. p. 131.
[1037]
“Senescallus regis,” Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 190, 191 b, 192 b, March, 1215.
This office was shared among several persons; another senescallus regis at this
time was William de Cantelupe (ib. p. 192), who had held the office for many
years. Falkes seems to have been also a seneschal or steward of the household
of Henry III; see Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 350, 350 b, and Roy. Lett., vol. i.
p. 226, where Henry in June or July, 1224, speaks of “officii maximi quod habuit
[Falcatius] in curia nostra.”
[1039]
R. Coggeshall, p. 204. It is at this time, in 1215, that Nicolas, Colin,
Gilbert, and John de Bréauté first appear (see above, footnote 1018). Nicolas and
Colin were clerks. William, “vadlettus noster”—i.e. a page or young squire
of the king—had received in July, 1212, a grant of land in Leicestershire previously
held by “his uncle, William de Oville,” “ad se sustentandum in servicio nostro
quamdiu nobis placuerit,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 120.
[1042]
“Quem ... Johannes rex ... comiti parificavit, donando illi
comitissam de Wyth,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; although Margaret never was a
countess, since Baldwin de Rivers died before his father.
[1044]
R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10, 11. Cf. M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 203.
[1045]
“[Falco] prosperis successibus undique elevatus, parem in regno habere
dedignabatur,” R. Coggeshall, p. 205; “cum videret statum suum supra modum
subito prosperatum, dedignabatur habere parem; erat enim ei persaepe in operibus
frequentibus pro ratione voluntas,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1047]Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 72 b, 73. These three writs are entered on the
back of membrane 17 of the Close Roll 9 Hen. III (October, 1224–October, 1225),
and thus appear to belong to April–May, 1225; but this cannot be their true date;
Falkes was outlawed and out of England long before April, 1225. The scribe
has put them on a wrong roll. With the chronological data for the year 1224
they fit in perfectly. Falkes says he was accused to the King “triduo post
pacem,” i.e., three days after peace was made in London between Hubert and his
opponents (cf. above, pp. 216, 217). In 1224 the King was in London, 21st April–26th
May (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 593 b–601; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 436–441).
Combining this fact with Falkes’s statement and with the writ of 26th April, we
see that the “peace” must have been made not earlier than 21st April, and
not later than the 23rd. The Monday after the octave of Trinity in that year,
17th June, was the morrow of the day fixed for the re-assembling of the Council at
Northampton; see above, p. 222.
[1050]
“Accidit autem quod Henricus de Braibroc ... improbe exigeret a
Falcasio et suis quasdam exactiones et reragia quae debebant; ex qua exactionum
improbitate commoti violenter ceperunt praedictum,” &c. R. Coggeshall, p. 206.
[1052]Quer. Falc., l.c.; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 225, 226; W. Cov., vol. ii.
p. 253; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 94; R. Coggeshall, l.c.; Ann. Dunst., p. 86.
The date is from Quer. Falc., p. 265. The Contin. Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 113,
says the capture took place at Huntingdon, which seems geographically impossible.
[1056]
In the Querimonia, l.c. we read: “Cujus captio postquam mihi fuerat
nunciata, ego apud Northamptoniam propter servitium regis cum aliis baronibus
terrae conveneram, ad castrum de Bedeford pro exquirendo fratre meo ...
tam cito perveni.” But the King, in a letter written a few weeks later, says
Falkes refused to come before the Council when summoned to answer for
Braybroke’s capture, “cum alias teneatur ratione possessionum magnarum et officii
maximi quam tenuit in curia nostra” (see above, footnote 1037) “ad nos in conciliis
nostris venire non vocatus” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 226). This seems to imply that
Falkes had not attended the Northampton meeting at all.
[1058]
Cf. ib., R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1059]
R. Wend., l.c. Cf. Hubert’s version of all this in Responsiones, pp. 67,
68, and the King’s in Roy. Lett., l.c.; both in substantial agreement with
Roger’s.
[1062]Quer. Falc., p. 265; R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 95, 96. Roger gives an
absurd date, “Decimo sexto kalendas Julii, die videlicet Jovis proximo post
octavas Trinitatis.” It was the Thursday after the octave of Trinity, but it was
20th, not 16th, June.
[1064]
Cf. Chron. Turonense, in Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xviii. p. 305, with
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, p. 208, and the two contradictory
versions of Savaric’s conduct given in Ann. Dunst., pp. 86 and 91.
[1065]Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 236; Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 250, 251.
[1070]
With treason of such a nature as that of which the Barnwell annalist says
“some people” accused Falkes—collusion with a foreign enemy of the King—Falkes
was never publicly charged at all.
[1071]
When once the siege of Bedford was begun, and still more in after-days, of
course, King and Justiciar were alike more inclined to magnify than to minimize the
whole affair; but this was wisdom after the event.
[1073]
Or, possibly, of its ownership in fee. See Note X.
[1074]
The chroniclers speak of this sacrilege as if Falkes were alone responsible
for it. So far as concerned one of the churches, however, we know from a better
authority that Falkes was neither the sole nor the chief culprit. On 5th February,
1217, the guardians of the realm made little Henry give a benefice to the Prior
and convent of Newnham for the welfare of his own soul and his father’s soul,
“et in recompensacionem dampni quod idem I. pater noster fecit priori et
conventui de Newenham quando dirui fecit ecclesiam S. Pauli de Bedeford, quae
fuit dicti prioris et conventus de Newenham, eo tempore quo firmari fecit castrum
Bedefordiae.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 29.
[1075]
R. Coggeshall, p. 205; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1076]Ann. Dunst., p. 87. Cf. Ann. Wav., a. 1224: “Falkesius ... nonnullis
etiam de majoribus Angliae, sicut dictum est, eidem Falkesio conniventibus,
tenuit idem castellum contra regem ... ad quod expugnandum ...
omnes fere magnati Angliae, licet fortassis non uno eodemque animo” [printed
anno] “pariter convenerant.” While at Northampton Henry had received a
letter from the Pope, remonstrating with him about his treatment of Bishop
Peter, Earl Ranulf, and some others of his father’s old friends; Roy. Lett.,
vol. i. pp. 224, 225.
[1077]Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 605 b–608, 610, 611 b, 612, 632, 636, 641; dates,
20th June–10th August.
[1078]
Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 464, 465, and Ann. Dunst., p. 86. Ralf of
Coggeshall, p. 206, says that, by a general edict, two men were summoned from
every plough [land] throughout the shires, to drag and work machines and convey
stones from the quarries.
[1086]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 233–235. In p. 233 Ranulf says the King’s letter
reached him on 4th August.
[1087]Ib. pp. 229, 230. If Llywelyn thought the Pope was at the back
of the attack on Bedford and the excommunication of Falkes, he was mistaken.
On 17th August Honorius wrote to Henry reproaching him for his neglect
of previous admonitions to treat his subjects gently, and especially for his
ingratitude to Falkes, and pointing out the inexpediency of spending on civil
war forces that were urgently needed for external defence (ib. p. 544). On or
about the same date he addressed a very sharp letter to Archbishop Stephen,
reproving him for his share in the matter, and ordering him to recall the sentence
which he was reported to have passed upon Falkes and to stop the King’s action
against that personage. On the justice of that action Honorius passes no
judgement; what he insists upon is its inopportuneness (ib. pp. 543, 544).
[1096]
“Tres aemuli mei quos ex causis evidentissimis suspectos habebam”—“qui
capitales inimici mei erant.” He does not give their names. Two of them were
unquestionably Hubert and Stephen; the third may have been Earl William of
Salisbury.
[1100]
For the story of the surrender I have combined the accounts given in Ann.
Dunst., p. 88, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97, and R. Coggeshall, p. 207. Cf. also
W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and Quer. Falc., ib. p. 267.
[1106]
Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 98, says fratres suos, but Matthew Paris,
Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 265, who relates this scene on the authority of an eyewitness,
the Bishop of Coventry, speaks of only one brother (William), and so
does Falkes himself.
[1111]
Stoke Courcy was part of the heritage of his wife. She and her elder
sister, Joan, wife of Hugh de Neville, were co-heiresses to the lands of their
father, Warin FitzGerold, who had been chamberlain to Henry II, and who was
now dead. See Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 10, 89 b.
[1114]
“Jurato autem stare mandatis Ecclesiae, in ruborem et confusionem meam,
Londoniis in die dedicationis ejusdem Sanctae Trinitatis, affectata presentia
plurimorum, idem archiepiscopus nudari me faciens, sermonem ad populum facto
... tandem absolutum post verba multa et probra me dimisit.” Quer. Falc.,
p. 268. We are not obliged to accept Falkes’s description of Stephen’s discourse
as containing “blasphemias infinitas,” nor to believe that the words which he
proceeds to give as a quotation from it (ib.) were actually spoken by the Primate.
His date—“die dedicationis ejusdem S. Trinitatis”—is absolutely unintelligible
to me; but the safe-conduct given him on 19th August was to last till the 25th;
and 25th August is also the date of his final act of surrender, which would no
doubt be made directly after his absolution. That he was absolved before he
made it is stated in the deed itself.
[1115]Foedera, I. i. p. 175; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211; date, 25th August.
A dateless letter from Falkes to the constable of Stoke Courcy, urging its immediate
surrender, is in Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 490. On 29th August twenty marks
were granted to Falkes from the treasury “for his expenses”; Close Rolls, vol. i.
p. 643 b.
[1117]
The Ann. Wav., a. 1224, say, “Uxor ejus [i.e., Falkesii] ... tradita
est cuidam magnato Angliae custodienda cum filiis suis.” This means “her
sons”—one by Baldwin and one by Falkes. Falkes himself speaks only of “wife
and son” (Quer. Falc., pp. 271, 272), and so does the Pope when writing in his
behalf to Henry.
[1118]
See (1) the Pope’s reproach to Stephen in 1226 concerning Falkes and Margaret—“Quomodo
potest anima tua in eorum venire consilium qui uxorem ejus
nobilis detinent, et in multorum scandalum animarumque suarum perniciem
matrimonii violant sacramentum?” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 547), which clearly
takes it for granted that their marriage was still recognized by Stephen and everyone
else; and (2) a letter patent of 1228 which calls Margaret “quondam
uxorem Falkesii” (Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 211); “quondam uxor” or “quae
fuit uxor” being the legal description of a widow, but not of a woman who had
been “divorced,” i.e., declared by a judicial sentence to have been never truly a
wife at all.
[1119]
In Quer. Falc., p. 270, Falkes says he was in the bishop’s custody “ix
septimanis et amplius.” Nine weeks from 17th August, which seems to be the
earliest possible date for his committal to Eustace’s keeping, brings us to 24th
October; and we shall see that the latest possible date for the Council’s decision
is 26th October. Roger of Wendover’s statement (vol. iv. p. 103) that it took
place “Martio mense” is of course quite wrong.
[1121]
Cf. Quer. Falc., p. 270, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 103. Ralf of Coggeshall,
p. 208, has a slightly different version of the way in which this sentence was
arrived at.
[1126]
Cf. ib., W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and Ann. Dunst., p. 89.
[1127]
So says Roger, l.c.; but the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., l.c.) says Louis
sent him to prison at Compiègne, and only released him on an order from the
Pope.
[1130]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 264–269; cf. Foedera, I. i. 175, 176.
[1131]
“Uxorem cum patrimonio sibi restitui,” Ann. Dunst., p. 89. The “patrimony”
referred to must be Margaret’s, since Falkes had never had or been
entitled to any of his own. Having been absolutely penniless for two years and
a half, he was now “multis debitis oneratus” (ib.), and considering Margaret’s
conduct in September, 1224, it would be only natural if he valued his claims upon
her chiefly on their pecuniary side.
[1132]Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 547; date, 11th July, 1226. This letter to Stephen is
the one referred to above, footnote 1118.
[1133]
The Ann. Dunst., p. 89, say he died “ab Urbe rediens, apud Sanctum
Ciriacum.” So do Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 137, and Matthew Paris,
Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 291; the latter adds “infectus veneno quod in pisce
quodam ei dabatur.”
[1134]Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 313, 314, 12th September, 1227.
[1135]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 465, 468, 469, 29th August, 7th and 9th September.
[1136]Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 626 b, 20th October.
[1137]Ib. p. 632 b, 6th–8th September; cf. Ann. Dunst. (a. 1225), p. 92.
[1144]
According to the Chron. Turon. (R.G.S. vol. xviii.), p. 307, Savaric went
to England (cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 477, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 8 b, 9) to
ask for succour, “sed Anglici, de ejus adjutorio diffidentes, eum latenter capere
tentaverunt.” He however escaped, and at Christmas did homage to Louis.
[1147]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 507; cf. Ann. Wav. and Dunst., a. 1225.
[1148]
“Dederat ei namque rex, ante recessum suum ab Anglia, comitatum
Cornubiae cum tota Pictavia; unde ab omnibus comes Pictaviae vocabatur,
titulusque literarum suarum ‘comes Pictaviae et Cornubiae.’” M. Paris, Hist.
Angl., vol. ii. p. 270, adding in margin: “Clam dederat ei Wasconiam et
incartaverat.”
[1149]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 503, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 10 b, 11, 21, 22
(1st and 3rd January, 13th March). By 21st March the fleet was found to be too
large for its purpose, and many vessels were dismissed; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 514.
[1150]
R. Wend., l.c.; cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 94, and Ann. Winton., a. 1225.
This last authority says they went “about Mid-Lent” (9th March), but Roger’s
date agrees better with the Rolls. He says there were forty knights; the Ann.
Winton. say seventy.
[1151]
Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 513–516, and Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 16 b, 19 b.
[1152]
See Richard’s letter, dated 2nd May, in Foedera, I. i. p. 178, and cf. Petit-Dutaillis,
p. 262.
[1153]Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 579, 601, 580, 552, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 43.
[1154]Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 528, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 70 b, 71, 72 b.
[1155]
It is more difficult to understand what Henry can have expected to gain by
another embassy sent out about the same time as the one to Germany. On
14th January, 1225, Ansoldus of Genoa is ordered to buy a hundred marks’ worth
of scarlet and “tela de rey” to give from the King to the Soldan of Damascus,
the King promising to pay him when he returns from the Soldan. Close Rolls,
vol. ii. p. 13 b.
[1159]
13th November, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 261. See more about the siege in
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 102, and Ann. Dunst., p. 94.
[1160]
On comparing the story in R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 105–107, 116, with the
King’s letter to William, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 83, and the entries ib. pp. 92–96,
and Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 9, 12, 13, which show that William’s visit to the King
at Marlborough took place between 31st December, 1225, and 29th January,
1226 (see especially Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 12, 23rd January), I venture to think
that Roger’s “tres menses” in p. 107 should read “tres septimanas.”
[1163]
Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i. p. 177, from Register of Lacock Abbey. Roger
(p. 117) says that after the reconciliation at Marlborough Hubert invited Longsword
to dinner and there, “ut dicitur,” poisoned him. If so, the poison must
have been a slow one, since the dinner took place before the court left Marlborough,
i.e., before 30th January, and the Earl did not die till five weeks later.
His health, already failing in October, was evidently broken down altogether
by his sufferings at sea.
[1164]
See Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 261–263; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 14, 15, 24,
31–36, 38, 59, 75–78; Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 38 b, 51, 98, 118 b.
[1165]Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 25, 26, and Ann. Dunst., pp. 98, 99.
[1166]
See his instructions concerning Brother Thomas of the Temple, “ducenti
magnam navem nostram in hoc itinere nostro versus Wasconiam,” Pat. Rolls,
vol. ii. p. 11, 19th January, 1226.
[1167]
Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 114, with dates in Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 9–13, and
Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 92–96.
[1177]
Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 489 and 471 (13th August and 23rd September,
1224) with Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 648, which shews that Henry was at Shrewsbury
24th–30th September.
[1178]
“Kinardly caput de terris quas Madoc filius Griffin tenet per servicium
militare est in manu Lewelini,” Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 24, 18th March, 1225.
[1179]Foedera, I. i. p. 178, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 83 b, 154 b, 155, Pat. Rolls,
vol. ii. pp. 56, 59.
[1182]
The silence of the Brut is most significant. That chronicle, after its daring
assertion that the Earl Marshal was “slain” at Carnwyllon in 1223 (see above,
footnote 893), says not another word about the relations between England and
Wales till 1228.
[1218]
R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 136, 137. Archbishop Walter went at some date
between 1st December, 1226, and 7th January, 1227, Pat. Rolls, vol. ii., pp. 94,
106, and the Bishop of Carlisle seems to have gone with him, ib. p. 107.
[1219]
Brother and successor of Almeric, who died in March, 1226; Chron. Turon.,
p. 313.
[1220]Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 153.
[1223]
R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 138; Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 162.
[1224]
Wallingford, December 29th, 30th; Oxford, 31st; Woodstock, 1st–7th
January; Oxford, 8th–10th; Reading, 11th–13th; Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 163 b–166;
cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 105–107.
[1227]
Roger dates these proceedings “mense Februario,” which the letter close
shews to be a month too late; he says that Henry thereupon “excussit se per
consilium Huberti de Burgo, justiciarii regni, de consilio et gubernatione dicti
episcopi [Wintoniensis] et suorum, qui regi fuerant prius quasi paedagogi, ita
quod omnes illas a curia sua et cohabitatione removit” (p. 139), whereas Peter
had been removed from his tutorship six years before; and he travesties the
proclamation about charters as follows: “In eodem itaque concilio rex fecit
cancellare et cassare omnes chartas de provinciis omnibus regni Angliae
de libertatibus Forestae, postquam jam per biennium in toto regno fuerant
usitatae, hanc occasionem praetendens quod chartae illae concessae fuerant, et
libertates scriptae et signatae, dum ipse erat sub custodia, nec sui corporis aut
sigilli aliquam habuerit potestatem, unde viribus carere debuit quod sine ratione
fuerat usurpatum.... Tunc vero denuntiatum est viris religiosis et aliis qui
suis volebant libertatibus gaudere, ut innovarent chartas suas de novo regis sigillo,
scientes quod rex chartas antiquas nullius esse momenti reputabat” (pp. 139, 140).
The King’s instructions to the sheriffs say not a word of the Forest Charter, and
were obviously never meant to apply either to that document or to the Great
Charter; and what they do say about other charters is completely misrepresented
by the last clause of Roger’s concluding sentence.
[1229]
In the early part of December, 1226, the Archbishop of Dublin and the
clergy of the March in Ireland had been entreated to send an aid to the King;
Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 100–104.