While the barons in general seem to have regarded Hubert as the instigator of the papal order for a compulsory surrender of castles, etc., Falkes, hostile though he is to the Justiciar, neither asserts nor hints at any thing of the kind. He says indeed nothing whatever as to any suspicions which he or others may have had concerning the origin of that order. Yet I cannot but think that he had a suspicion, and possibly not altogether an unlikely one. Both on personal and political grounds Falkes is bitter enough against Hubert; to him, Hubert is a personal enemy and also an enemy of the peace and prosperity of King and kingdom; but he is neither the sole nor the chief enemy. Throughout his “Complaint,” even in reference to matters in which Hubert appears as the principal or the sole actor, Falkes speaks of “the Justiciar and his accomplices”; and the foremost of these “accomplices,” according to Falkes’s version of history, is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is Stephen, not Hubert, who is the arch-enemy in the eyes of Falkes—the relentless persecutor of Falkes himself, the persistent sower of discord and plotter of mischief in the realm; one passage relating to him in the Querimonia reads almost like a paraphrase of the accusation said by the Dunstable annalist to have been flung, in a moment of fury, by Hubert at Peter des Roches (above, p. 207). The animus displayed by Falkes against Stephen is in fact so violent that we instinctively feel his narrative is not to be trusted in details where the Archbishop is concerned. Yet there is no intrinsic impossibility in its account of the formal surrender of the castles, in which Stephen is distinctly made to play the most prominent part (above, p. 210). We have seen the difficulties involved in supposing that the Pope’s action was prompted by any person or party among the other councillors of the Crown. Can it have been prompted—on the broad ground of the interest of public order and stable government, irrespective of persons and parties—by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
The entries in the Patent Roll concerning the changes which took place in the custody of royal castles from November, 1223, to March, 1224, have been collected by Dr. Shirley in Appendix ii. to his edition of Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 508–516. They are there given in the form and the order in which they appear on the Roll, and accompanied by some other entries which have no direct bearing on the general surrender and redistribution of castles after Christmas, 1223. The entries whose date is earlier than 29th December, 1223, have of course also no bearing upon that subject. A summary analysis, in chronological order, of those which do relate to it may therefore be useful to elucidate and check the statements in my text, pp. 210–212. My references are to the printed Patent Rolls of Henry III, vol. i.
From 30th December, 1223, to 13th March, 1224, (after which no further important changes seem to have taken place for some time) orders were issued for the transfer of the custody of thirty-three castles, viz: Shrewsbury, Bridgenorth, Lancaster, Kenilworth, Windsor, Odiham, Knaresborough, the Peak, Bolsover, Salisbury, Devizes, Corfe, Bristol, Sherborne, Lincoln, S. Briavel’s, Oxford, Northampton, Hertford, Rochester, Norwich, Orford, Dover, Canterbury, Hereford, Winchester, Porchester, Southampton, Carisbrook, Christchurch, Plympton, Marlborough, Luggershall. On 30th December Earl Ranulf of Chester was bidden to deliver the castles of Shrewsbury and Bridgenorth, and the shires of Salop and Stafford, to Hugh le Despenser. In the custody of Lancaster castle, county, and honour Ranulf was to be superseded by Earl Ferrers. Kenilworth castle and the shires of Leicester and Warwick were transferred from William de Cantelupe to John Russell; Windsor and Odiham from Engelard de Cigogné to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Brian de Lisle was ordered to deliver Knaresborough to the Archbishop of York, the Peak and Bolsover to Robert of Lexington, who was however to receive the latter fortress not for himself, but to hand it over to William Brewer (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 418). Earl William Longsword was to deliver the castle of Salisbury, William Brewer that of Devizes and Ralf Gernon that of Corfe, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Bristol castle was to pass from the Bishop of Norwich (Pandulf), Sherborne castle and the sheriffdom of Somerset from John Russell, to the Bishop of Bath; Lincoln castle from Stephen de Sedgrave to the bishop of the diocese (ib. p. 419. It is not quite clear whether at this time Stephen de Sedgrave was castellan of Lincoln in his own person, or as assistant to Nicolaa de Haye). Falkes de Bréauté was to deliver the castle and shire of Oxford to Richard de Rivers; those of Northampton to Ralf de Trubleville; and the castle of Hertford to William of Eynesford (ib. p. 418). The Justiciar was to deliver the castles of Rochester, Norwich, Orford, and Hereford, to their respective diocesan bishops, Dover and Canterbury to the Primate (ib. pp. 418–419). The supersession of John of Monmouth as custodian of S. Briavel’s and of the Forest of Dene is expressly stated to be due to his voluntary resignation on the score of ill-health; on 4th January, 1224, the castle and Forest were committed momentarily to the Bishop of Hereford, to be by him delivered to Walter Asmoins, whom the King appointed warden of them under Ralf FitzNicholas (ib. pp. 419–420).
On 7th January, 1224, the Bishop of Winchester was ordered to deliver the castles of Winchester, Porchester, and Southampton, with the sheriffdom of Hampshire, to the Bishop of Salisbury. Within five days, however, Jocelyn was superseded in all these bailiwicks by the Earl of Salisbury. On 12th January Hertford castle was transferred from its newly appointed constable, William of Eynesford, to Stephen de Sedgrave (ib. p. 420), who again was on 23rd January superseded there by Richard de Argentine (ib. p. 425). An order was issued on 12th January for the transfer of Windsor and Odiham to Hubert de Burgh, but seems to have been cancelled, for on 4th February these two castles were still in the hands to which they had been committed on 30th December—those of the Primate, who was now bidden to deliver them to Osbert Giffard (ib. pp. 420, 421). On 2nd February Falkes was ordered to deliver Carisbrook and Christchurch to Waleran the German (“le Theys”) to whom the King had given them in custody together with the lands of the late Earl Willam of Devon and the castle of Plympton (ib. p. 427). On 7th February the Bishop of Norwich was ordered to deliver Marlborough castle to Robert Wolf (“Lupus”; ib. p. 426). On 2nd March another new constable was appointed to Marlborough, Robert de Meisy, who was at the same time made constable of Luggershall; whether John Little, who was ordered to deliver these two fortresses to Meisy (ib. p. 428), was sub-warden of them for the recently appointed Wolf or for Pandulf, does not appear. On 11th March Robert de Lexington was bidden to deliver Bolsover to William Brewer (ib. p. 429), for whom he had received it in January. On 13th March Pandulf was desired to deliver Bristol “without delay” to Reginald de Hurle and John Little (ib.). Lastly, on the same day, Plympton, of which Waleran “le Theys” had been appointed custodian six weeks before, was committed to Walter de Falkenberg (ib. p. 430). This appointment, like that of Waleran, proved ineffectual, owing to the resistance of Falkes. Falkes had on 18th January been ordered to deliver the shires of Bedford and Buckingham to William de Pateshull, and those of Cambridge and Huntingdon to Richard de Argentine (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 581 b; cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 421); the two latter shires were immediately transferred again, to Geoffrey de Heathfield (Pat. Rolls, l.c.).
The number of illegal disseisins of which Falkes was convicted at Dunstable in June, 1224 (above, p. 231), is officially stated as sixteen: “Cum ... Falcatius ... coram judicibus eisdem in sexdecim causis fuisset convictus ... et ad restitutionem ablatorum et satisfactionem plenam debito modo condemnatus,” are the words of King Henry himself in a letter to the Pope (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 225). Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 94) says “Cecidit in misericordia regis de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum, de quibus singulis in centum libris debuerat condemnari.” Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 84, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 263) copies this; and in an original paragraph of his own, inserted at the end of Roger’s account of the Bedford affair, he says that Falkes “xxxii liberos homines in manerio de Luituna sine judicio de suis tenementis disseisiavit” (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 88). The Dunstable annalist (p. 90) says “Falchasius de triginta quinque saisinis convictus est.” Of course the evidence of the King’s letter is decisive. Roger’s odd phrase, “de plusquam triginta paribus litterarum,” reveals how the number came to be doubled. At some date obviously earlier (probably not less, possibly much more, than six months earlier, since the complaint of the earls is addressed to the Justiciar, not the King) than this Dunstable affair, the Earls of Salisbury and Pembroke, writing to Hubert about Falkes’s outrageous conduct towards John Marshal, reported “quod dominus Johannes Marescallus nobis per literas suas mandavit quod, cum misisset literas domini regis domino Falcasio de Brealte pro bosco suo ... idem Falkasius ad literas domini regis respondit quod si ei misisset triginta paria literarum domini regis, pacem utique non haberet de praedicto bosco,” etc. (Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 221, 222). This story of Falkes’s declaration, uttered in a moment of anger, that “if thirty pairs of royal letters should be sent to him” in behalf of one particular person, he would pay no heed to them, seemingly became confused, before it reached S. Alban’s and Dunstable, with a wholly different matter, and the “thirty pairs of letters” were supposed to have been actually sent, as the consequence of his conviction before Henry de Braybroke of the same number of disseisins; Roger or his informant inserted a “plusquam” on the strength of which Matthew raised the number to thirty-two; while the Dunstable annalist further improved it to thirty-five.
The nature of Falkes’s tenure of Bedford castle is a question of some difficulty. The only entry relating to it in the Rolls is provokingly laconic: “Mandatum est Waltero de Bellocampo quod habere faciat Falkesio de Breaute manerium de Seldelegia quod est de honore de Bedefordia, quia dominus rex castrum de Bedefordia cum toto honore et pertinentiis dedit Falkesio,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 250 b, 4th March, 1216. In July, 1224, King Henry, writing to the Pope about Falkes, calls Bedford “quoddam castrum nostrum quod habebat in custodia” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 225, 226). So too the Waverley annalist (a. 1224):—“castellum de Bedford quod ab eodem rege [Johanne] in custodiam acceperat.” One of the complaints brought against Hubert in 1239 in connexion with the Bedford affair was that on the capture of the castle he “illud prosterni fecit et reddi Willelmo de Bellocampo, super quem dominus J. rex castrum illud ceperat per guerram, et unde J. rex seisitus fuit quando obiit.” To this Hubert answered that “per consilium magnatum Angliae fuit castrum obsessum, captum, et dirutum ... et quia idem Willelmus semper erat petens versus dictum Falconem dictum castrum ut jus suum, nec habere potuit donec fuit captum per dominum regem; idem dominus rex de consilio magnatum suorum, propter formam pacis factae et prae timore sententiae latae” (i.e. the promise of general amnesty and restitution included in the treaty of Kingston, and the excommunication pronounced against infractors) “dictam sedem castri ei reddidit, tenendum eodem modo quo antecessores sui tenuerunt, prout patet in rotulis domini regis.” (Respons. pp. 67–69; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 632). The Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253) says the castle “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum de Bello Campo”; and Ralf of Coggeshall (pp. 205, 206), says “Rex Johannes ... contulit etiam ei [i.e. Falconi] terram Willelmi de Bellocampo, qui enim cum aliis baronibus contra regem conspiraverat. Dedit insuper ei castellum de Bedeford pro servitio suo, et charta sua confirmavit.... Cumque caeteri barones custodias suas regi, ut dictum est, tradidissent” (after Christmas, 1223), “Falco etiam custodias suas regi similiter tradidit; sed castellum de Bedeford nullo modo regi aut Willelmo de Bellocampo tradere voluit, asserens illud suum esse proprium, et a rege Johanne sibi fuisse donatum, et charta sua fore confirmatum pro tam laborioso et diutino servitio suo.” Falkes in his Complaint to the Pope twice speaks of Bedford castle as his own property: “privilegio vestrae sedis per quae ... tam castrum quam caetera bona nostra” (mea in another MS.) “sub protectione benignitatis vestrae fuerant constituta,” p. 264; “amissio castri mei,” p. 272; and the Pope, writing to the King on 17th August, 1224, says “castrum de Betford quod ipse pater tuus eidem [Falchesio] ... sicut dicitur, liberalitate regia, immo merita retributione donavit,” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 544.
To understand these various statements we have first to determine what was the relation between the honour of Bedford and the castle of Bedford. The former had been given by William Rufus to Payne de Beauchamp, and on land which formed part of it Payne built the castle. Payne’s heirs were deprived of their patrimony by Stephen. After the conclusion of the civil war they recovered their lands (Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i. p. 223), but not the castle, for in the Pipe Roll of 34 Hen. II (1187–1188) the accounts of the sheriff of Bedfordshire include an item of four pounds and six shillings spent “in the works of the castle of Bedford and of the postern towards the water” (Goddard, Siege of Bedford, p. 17, from Bedfordshire Archæological Transactions, vol. xii. p. 249), a fact which shews that the castle was then the property of the King. In 1189–1190 Simon de Beauchamp paid into the Treasury one hundred pounds, “to be governor of the castle of Bedford” (Dugdale, l.c., from Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I). These words clearly indicate that Simon was to hold the castle not in fee, but as its constable for the Crown. The bargain between him and King Richard may have included some understanding that the constableship was to be hereditary (somewhat as another branch of the Beauchamp family were hereditary constables of Worcester castle and sheriffs of Worcestershire), for Simon was succeeded in it by his son William; it was by entertaining the rebel barons in Bedford castle that William incurred forfeiture in 1215 (R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 299). It is clear that the seisin of Bedford castle was then, and had been for many years past, in the Crown; John would therefore be perfectly within his rights if in 1216 he chose to alienate the castle altogether by granting it to Falkes in fee. But the treaty of Kingston enacted that all men should be reinstated in their rights (as well as their lands) as they had held them when the war between John and the barons began. This definition would apparently entitle William de Beauchamp to claim restitution of the constableship of Bedford castle, if that office had been recognized by Richard and John as hereditary. Beauchamp “came in” to King Henry in August, 1217, and orders were at once given for the restoration of some of his lands (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 319 b); of the rest, including those in Bedfordshire, he was granted restitution early in October (ib. pp. 325 b, 326). Falkes, however, was slow to loose his hold upon the honour of Bedford, and further royal letters bidding him give Beauchamp full seisin of it were issued in February, 1222 (ib. p. 488 b). Neither in these letters nor in those of 1217 is there any mention of the castle.
Ralf of Coggeshall’s story is not self-consistent. He begins by stating, as a positive fact, that John had given Bedford castle to Falkes by charter. Afterwards, however, this fact dwindles down to an assertion reported to have been made by Falkes in answer to a demand in 1223–1224 for restitution of the castle either to the King or to Beauchamp. No charter such as is here mentioned appears in the Charter Rolls of John’s reign. This of course does not prove that no such charter ever existed; nor does the fact that the Patent and Close Rolls of Henry’s reign contain no hint of Falkes’s having ever, before the capture of Henry de Braybroke, been summoned to deliver up the castle, prove that no such summons was ever issued. The words of Falkes himself and those of the Pope—these latter being of course based on information derived from Falkes or his friends—imply that he claimed to hold the castle in fee. But even if this claim was really based on a charter, it could scarcely have availed to bar the claim of the King; for by the treaty of Kingston the Crown as well as its subjects, was to regain whatever it had been seised of before the war, and it had certainly been seised of Bedford castle from the time of Henry II till the autumn of 1215; it seems therefore that Henry might have considered himself entitled to treat a charter granted by his father after that date as null and void, and thus to call Bedford castrum nostrum. With regard to its custody as a royal castle, the law of the matter may very likely have been quite uncertain. It may have been at least arguable that the definition laid down in the treaty did not necessarily cover the custody of a royal castle even if held by hereditary right; and it must be remembered that we do not know what was the precise nature of the tenure by which Beauchamp had held that office. The Barnwell writer, however, certainly appears to have gone too far in stating that the castle itself “de jure spectabat ad Willelmum de Bello Campo.” It had belonged to William’s ancestors; but William’s father had practically renounced all claim to its ownership by fining with King Richard for the office of its constable. William’s right in it was at the utmost only an hereditary title to that office. Whether John did grant the castle to Falkes in fee, or whether he died seised of it himself (as Hubert said)—having given merely the custody of it, as well as the enjoyment of the honour of Bedford, to Falkes quamdiu regi placuerit—we cannot determine. From Henry’s accession till autumn, 1223, any question which might exist on the subject between Falkes and the Crown was of little practical consequence. It was recognized on all hands that throughout that period whatever castles Falkes held, whether as constable or as lord, he held loyally for the King and used for the King’s interest with a rare capability and diligence. Henry’s counsellors might well prefer to leave this particular detail of the great castle-problem undiscussed usque ad aetatem regis. Still more natural was it that Beauchamp’s claim should get no hearing till Falkes had incurred forfeiture in his turn. Then King and Council decided that it would be prudent to satisfy Beauchamp without giving him a chance of treading in Falkes’s steps or repeating his own act of 1215; and they did so by pulling the half ruined castle down altogether and granting him the site, with leave to build himself not a castle, but a dwelling-house, out of its stones (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 632, 632 b).
Eight writers tell this grim story very briefly—seven of them in almost identical words—differing only as to the number of the victims. A ninth—Falkes—has a longer and more elaborate version.
(1) “In crastino autem, cum omnes vulnerati et plagis lethiferis afflicti exiissent et ad presentiam regis adducti fuissent, addicti sunt ad suspendium universi; suspensi sunt itaque, inter milites et servientes, qui propter superbiam suam quam regi ostenderant in obsidione jam finita non potuerunt misericordiam impetrare.” Here, in the only two known MSS. of his history (Douce ccvii. and Cott. Otho B. v.), Roger of Wendover’s sentence ends. Obviously it is incomplete, and was meant to have been completed by the addition of a number; but the omission appears to have been an oversight in the original text, for in neither of the extant copies is there any blank between “impetrare” and the first word of the next sentence, “Henricus.” The addition “[viginti quatuor]” in the printed editions (Coxe, vol. iv. p. 98; Howlett, vol. ii. p. 281) is derived from Matthew Paris.
(2) Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora (vol. iii. p. 87) copies Roger exactly; but opposite “impetrare” he has written in one margin of his MS. “viginti quatuor,” and in the other margin “dub. de numero” (ib., note 1). In the Historia Anglorum (vol. ii. pp. 264, 265) he says: “Suspensi sunt itaque inter milites et servientes circiter xxiiiiᵒʳ.” In both works he adds: “Tamen, multiplicatis intercessoribus et intervenientibus quibusdam rationibus excusatoriis, pepercit rex tribus, qui tamen propter regis jusjurandum salvandum laqueati a terra suspensi sunt, sed non usque ad mortem.”
(3) “Capto igitur castro, in Assumptione Beatae Virginis Mariae fere omnes in eo repertos, tam milites quam servientes, vita privavit sententia ignominiosa. Nam jussu regio circiter lxxxᵃ in patibulis sunt suspensi.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254.
(4) “Mane vero sequenti, ante tribunal regis exhibiti, et per episcopos ab excommunicatione absoluti, ad mandatum regis et justitiarii sui suspensi sunt in patibulis octoginta et plures. Tres vero ad preces principum rex indulsit Templariis, ut in habito suo in Terra Sancta Domino militarent.” Ann. Dunst., p. 88.
(5) “Repertos in eodem castro, non considerata cujusquam generositate, usque ad octoginta duos et amplius digno condempnavit suspendio [rex].” Contin. Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 114.
(6) “In patibulis suspenduntur tam milites quam servientes, die Assumptionis Beatae Mariae Virginis, numero octoginta tres.” R. Coggeshall, p. 207.
(7) “Omnes fere qui sponte ingressi in castello inventi sunt suspensi sunt in patibulis, in die videlicet Assumptionis Beatae Mariae, homines circiter octoginta.” Ann. Wav., a. 1224.
(8) “Suspensi sunt xiv milites.” T. Wykes, a. 1220.
(9) “Milites in manu domini regis et misericordia archiepiscopi et episcoporum se devotissime offerentes, sub tutela ecclesiae sicut crucesignati, et quia sub appellationis ad vos” (the Pope) “factae credebant defendi subsidio, in exercitum de castro prodierunt. Quibus in die Assumptionis dato cum ignominio absolutionis beneficio, idem Archiepiscopus cum episcopis Hugoni Lincolniensi, Jocelino Batoniensi et Radulfo Cicestrensi ad regem ingressus est ... ipsius regis adolescentiam ad indebitam provocans iracundiam, talia verba profudit: ‘Nos quidem ut nos decuit rigorem sumus ecclesiasticam executi; jam restat regem facere quod suum est.’ Cumque ad haec verba regis obstupesceret innocentia, et quaereret quid ad majestatem regiam pertineret, rursus idem archiepiscopus, non pater patriae sed tyrannus, ‘Justitiarium,’ inquit, ‘hujus dicti oportet esse interpretem, quia quid ad vos pertineat edocebit.’ Ne autem pro nihilo dictis comitatus esset episcopis, unus ex eis, videlicet Batoniensis, dixit: ‘Si suspensi fuissent qui capti fuerunt apud Biham, isti qui nunc capti sunt nullatenus castrum adversus nutum regium tenuissent.’ Postea vero apud regem altercatione suborta an exspectandi essent barones regni pro judicio faciendo, singuli qui aderant causa prandii ad propria tentoria secesserunt; ipsaque hora prandii milites, servientes, juvenes, cujuscunque conditionis quantaeque nobilitatis, ad numerum nonaginta vii, tam archiepiscopo quam dictis episcopis inspicientibus, in dedecus militiae et perpetuum regis opprobrium sunt suspensi.... Clamore autem tantae crudelitatis audito, aliqui de mensis propriis occurrentes de furcis et patibulis aliquos liberaverunt, qui tamen sub custodia adhuc detinentur.” Quer. Falc., pp. 267, 268.
Now, Falkes certainly did not witness the scenes which he here describes. They may have been reported to him by a member of the Council; but we have no guarantee for the reporter’s truthfulness or accuracy, or even for the report having originated elsewhere than in Falkes’s own brain—a brain which, keen as it was in other respects, really seems to have been, from some cause which we cannot fathom, hardly sane on matters in which Stephen de Langton was concerned. The narrative clearly conveys, and is clearly meant to convey, that it was Stephen who instigated the hanging of the garrison; that he did so in veiled language which the young King’s “innocence” at first failed to understand; that Stephen cast the responsibility of explaining it on the Justiciar (whom, it will be remembered, Falkes has all along represented as being hand and glove with the Archbishop); that before even the justiciar could speak, its meaning was made plain by one of three bishops whom the Primate had brought with him into the King’s presence for that very purpose; that the laymen of the Council, less bloodthirsty than the Primate, hesitated to adopt his suggestion and put off the decision till after dinner; and that while all the barons were occupied with that meal, the deed was done behind their backs (of course under orders issued by the Justiciar in the King’s name), Stephen and his three episcopal friends feasting their eyes on the sight. We should certainly require some other authority than Falkes to make us accept this story as he would have his readers accept it. But the main incidents of the story may be true, and only their meaning perverted by the narrator; the outlines of the picture may be correct, and only the colouring false. The Bedford garrison had submitted to the King; they were therefore entitled to be, after doing penance in the usual form, absolved from the excommunication which had been pronounced against them for resisting him. But they had submitted only on compulsion; therefore they were, by the law of the land, still liable to the extreme penalty due to men who were taken fighting against the person of their sovereign. The duty of the prelates towards these prisoners was to enforce their penance and then give them absolution; this the prelates had done; and therewith their part in the Council’s action was at an end. The temporal fate of the prisoners was a question of life or death, and in such questions, it is well known, ecclesiastics had no voice. In a case such as the present one, it was for the King’s lay counsellors to advise him, and for the King to decide; and if, owing to a divergence of opinions among those counsellors or from any other cause, the young sovereign thus called upon to exercise for the first time such a weighty prerogative felt doubtful of its extent or of the right direction in which to exercise it, the Justiciar was the person to whom he should look for guidance. This, and nothing more, is the plain and natural meaning of the words which Falkes places in the mouth of the Primate. In themselves they afford no ground for the interpretation which he evidently wished his readers to put upon them. Some of the barons were still, it seems, leniently disposed towards Falkes; many of them may have been reluctant to send brave soldiers to the gallows; if so, the execution may have been carried out somewhat as Falkes states. His account of the rescue of “some who are still”—i.e., some nine months later—“detained in custody” is easily reconciled with the story told by Matthew Paris and the Dunstable annalist of the three who were given to the Templars. The touch about the four prelates gloating over the ghastly scene may be set down to a fevered imagination.