[936]
Of the value to which these profits had risen some idea may be gathered
from the fact that a proficuum of £336: 18: 8 was accounted for as due to the
Treasury in 1205 by the sheriff of Staffordshire and Shropshire, of which two
counties the united ferm was £413: 12: 4, Salt Archaeol. Soc. Publications, vol.
ii. pp. 129, 133. It must, however, be added that this proficuum was reduced
next year to £266: 13: 4, and went down further year by year, till in 1212 it
was only about £155: 11s., ib. pp. 136, 138, 142, 145, 147, 151, 159. After
that year the Pipe Rolls are in confusion till 1218.
[972]
He was at Worcester December 25–27; Tewkesbury, 27, 28; Geddington,
December 31, 1214; and at the New Temple in London January 7–15, 1215.
Itin. a. 16.
[973]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 296. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
[976]
“Isti omnes conjurati Stephanum Cantuariensem archiepiscopum capitalem
consentaneum habuerunt,” ib. p. 298.
[977]
W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218. It need scarcely be remarked that the
charter contains not a word on the subject. The argument evidently was “whatever
is not in the charter is contrary to it”; in other words, “omission is prohibition.”
The fact that such an argument might be used on both sides was of
course conveniently ignored.
[987]
On February 2, according to R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 296; on Ash
Wednesday (March 4), according to W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219, and Ann.
Winton. a. 1215. This latter is the likelier date; if the fact had been known at
Rome before the Pope’s letters were written, they would almost certainly have
contained some reference to it.
[989]
R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 297, 298; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p.
585. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219, adds a bishop, Giles of Hereford. Giles,
however, was there not as bishop, but as the avenger of his father, mother and
brother—William, Maud, and the younger William de Braose.
[995]
Roger of Wendover, Walter of Coventry, and several other annalists
absurdly say that in Easter week (April 19–26) John was at, or near, Oxford,
where he was to have met the barons. John had not been at Oxford since the
Tuesday before Easter, April 13; from the 16th to the 23rd he was in London;
on the 23rd he went to Kingston, Reading and Alton, and thence on the 26th
to Clarendon; Itin. a. 16. On the day he left London he granted a general
safe-conduct to all persons who should come to him in the suite of or with letters
patent from the archbishop (Rot. Pat. p. 134); none of the barons, however, seem
to have availed themselves of this offer.
[1015]Hist. des Ducs, pp. 147, 148. John was at Fremantle May 17–19; thence
he went to Silchester, May 19; Winchester, 19, 20; Odiham, 21, 22; Windsor,
22, 23; Winchester again, 23; Itin. a. 16.
[1026]Itin. a. 17. The authentic details of John’s movements at this time are of
some importance in view of Ralph of Coggeshall’s assertion (p. 172) that he was
just then so overcome with terror “ut jam extra Windleshoram nusquam progredi
auderet.”
[1033]
Heading of Articles of the Barons: “Ista sunt capitula quae Barones petunt
et Dominus Rex concedit.”
[1034]
R. Coggeshall, p. 172. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 96.
[1035]Rot. Pat. p. 143. The “die Veneris” which occurs three times in this
writ is in each case an unquestionable, though unaccountable, error for “die
Lunae.”
[1040]
M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 611, “Ecce vigesimus quintus” [it
should have been “sextus”] “rex in Anglia; ecce jam non rex, nec etiam
regulus, sed regum opprobrium,” etc.
[1043]
The twenty-five were of course all “Northerners” in the political sense;
see the list in M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 604.
[1044]
The list of these thirty-eight is headed “Obsecutores et Observatores,”
and ends thus: “Isti omnes juraverunt quod obsequerentur mandato viginti
quinque baronum.” Another MS. adds: “Omnes isti juraverunt cogere si
opus esset ipsos XXV barones ut rectificarent regem. Et etiam cogere ipsum si
mutato animo forte recalcitraret,” M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. pp. 605, 606.
Considering the whole context, I think there can be little doubt that “rectificare
regem”—though an odd way of expressing it—really means here “to do right to
the king.”
[1058]
Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 89, 166.
[1059]
W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 225, sums up the earl’s position and character
very suggestively: “In parte adversa erat Gaufridus de Maundevilla comes
Essexae, quem rex cingulo militari donaverat, quique regi in XIX millibus
marcarum obligatus erat pro comitissa Gloucestriae quondam uxore sua, quam iste
nuper acceperat.” See above, p. 196. Geoffrey’s first wife had been a daughter
of Robert Fitz-Walter; see Note I at end.
[1060]
W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 221; Ann. Dunst. a. 1215. Cf. R. Wendover,
vol. iii. p. 319.
[1082]
John’s Itinerary, a. 17, is blank from August 22, when he was at Wareham,
to August 28, when he appears at Sandwich. The Hist. des Ducs, p. 153,
accounts for this blank by stating that he went by sea from Southampton to Dover
(whither he did proceed on August 31 or September 1; Itin.l.c.). W. Coventry
(vol. ii. p. 224) says the bishops who left Oxford on August 19 to seek him
found him just embarked at Portsmouth, which comes to the same thing.
[1083]
The absurdity of the reports given in R. Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 320, 321)
and M. Paris (Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 160, 161) about John’s movements at this
time was pointed out long ago by Dr. Lingard, Hist. England, vol. ii. p. 362.
[1084]
Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville took Essex; Robert Fitz-Walter, Northamptonshire;
Roger de Cresci, Norfolk and Suffolk; the earl of Winchester, Cambridgeshire
and Huntingdonshire; William of Aubigny, Lincolnshire; John de Lacy,
Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire; Robert de Ros, Northumberland. W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 224.
[1095]
In the “Articles of the Barons,” c. 49, this reservation-clause ran: “Rex
faciet eos securos per cartas archiepiscopi et episcoporum et magistri Pandulfi
quod nihil impetrabit a domino Papa,” etc. In the Charter, c. 61, “ab aliquo”
was substituted for “a domino Papa,” and the security to be given by letters
patent of Pandulf and the bishops was made to refer to the keeping of the
Charter in general (ib. c. 62), instead of to that one particular point.