In any case my own position is clear. I assert that the note by Matthew Paris refers, not to the narrative of the coronation, which he derived from the ‘Gesta,’ but to a description of the “services”; and I hold that he found this description, not in a lost Exchequer record, but in the Red Book’s account of Queen Eleanor’s coronation.
X
The Struggle of John and Longchamp
(1191)
It is needless to insist on the critical character of the year 1191 in England. From the moment when the watchers on the coast of Sicily had seen the passing of Richard, this country found itself, for the first time, cut off, for all purposes, from communication with its king. The sovereign had gone, and his seal with him; and ministerial government, a government by officials, was thrown on its own resources. If Henry and his grandfather had taught their subjects faithfully to obey the ministers of the Crown, with the king ever at their back, the case was altered when the king had left them for a distant land. And men’s thoughts turned to John, not only as the visible representative, in his brother’s absence, of his house, but as not improbably their future king, and that, it might be, before long. John, traitor at heart, saw the strength of his position, and Longchamp was far too clever to ignore the danger of his own.
To the tale of their inevitable strife for power, the acknowledged master of that age’s history has devoted special care. In his edition of the ‘Gesta Regis Ricardi’ (1867), and again in that of Hoveden (1870), he has given the conclusions at which he arrived concerning the order of events in 1191. We have, in the former, the footnote to vol. ii., pp. 208–9, and in the latter, pp. lvi.-lxiv. of the preface to vol. iii., and the “long note” on pp. 134–5 of the text. The last of these is perhaps the one which sets forth most fully and clearly the final conclusions of the bishop. These conclusions, I may add at once, have been accepted without question by Mr. Howlett, in his ‘William of Newburgh’ (1884)[434] and his ‘Richard of Devizes’ (1886),[435] by Miss Norgate in her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ (ii. 298–301) and her Life of Longchamp,[436] and by Mr. Hunt in his Life of John.[437]
Summing up the narratives found in the ‘Gesta,’ Hoveden, Richard of Devizes, and William of Newburgh, Dr. Stubbs holds that their “divergency arises from the fact of the struggle falling into two campaigns, in which certain details are repeated. There were three conferences at Winchester, two attempts on the chancellor’s part to seize the castle of Lincoln, and two settlements.” He then gives “the harmonized dates, on this hypothesis, in detail.”
As to the first of these dates, the conference at Winchester on Mid-Lent Sunday (March 24), recorded by Richard of Devizes, no question arises. And I am in a position to adduce documentary evidence in its confirmation; for Longchamp occurs as present at Winchester on March 28 in two separate documents.[438] It is when we come to the “two campaigns,” one in the spring and the other in the summer, that the difficulties begin. I propose, therefore, to append a sketch of the sequence of events as recorded by William of Newburgh, the ‘Gesta,’ and Richard of Devizes. Hoveden practically repeats the Gesta narrative, and may therefore, for convenience, be omitted.
| William of Newburgh. | Richard of Devizes. | Gesta. |
| The archbishop of Rouen arrives (April 27).[439] | The archbishop of Rouen arrives (April 27). | |
| Longchamp refuses to recognise his authority. John plots against Longchamp. | Richard having left Sicily for the East (April 10), John hearing this begins to plot against Longchamp. | |
| Matters are brought to a crisis by Gerard de Camville being summoned by Longchamp to give up Lincoln castle to him, and by his refusing and joining John. | At length matters are brought to a crisis by Gerard de Camville doing homage to John for Lincoln Castle, which is declared to be treason. | |
| Longchamp sends abroad for mercenaries, but hastens to besiege Lincoln castle. | Longchamps hastily collects troops, compels Roger Mortimer to surrender Wigmore, and then besieges Lincoln castle. | Longchamp collects forces _after Midsummer_, and besieges Lincoln castle depriving Gerard of his shrievalty. |
| John surprises and seizes Nottingham and Tickhill. | John is enabbled to seize Nottingham and Tickhill. | Nottingham and Tickhill are surrendered to John. |
| Thereupon he orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln. | He orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln. | He orders Longchamp to raise the siege of Lincoln. |
| Longchamp knowing many of those with
him were for John, withdraws “confusus.” A few days later he “learns that his office of legate had expired by the Pope’s death.” | Longchamp is quite taken aback, but recovering himself, sends the archbishop of Rouen to summon John to restore the castles he has taken. | Longchamp, terrified, withdraws with his army. |
| Friends mediate. | The archbishop arranges with John a conference for July 28. Longchamp consents, and withdraws. | (Many bishops and other of the king’s lieges mediate.)[440] |
| Longchamp makes peace as best he could. | Description of agreement between John and Longchamp (wrongly dated April 25). | Brief summary of agreement (which Hovenden recites in full). |
| Soon after, Longchamp hears that his mercenaries have landed, and repudiates the agreement. At length, however, they come to terms on a fresh footing. |
It is the contention of Dr. Stubbs that William of Newburgh, in the first of these columns, describes the first, or spring “campaign,” and that Richard and the ‘Gesta’ describe, in the other two, the second “campaign” later in the year. The difficulty I always felt, in accepting this conclusion, is the almost incredible coincidence of the sequence of events here described occurring twice over, in exactly the same order. But one would not be justified in questioning a view confidently enunciated by Dr. Stubbs, and accepted, it would seem, by every one else, on the ground merely of improbability, however extreme. Let us see, therefore, on what evidence the accepted view is based.
In the first place, we are told that the above sequence was repeated twice over. The authorities, however, are all agreed in mentioning one such sequence, and one only.[441] Why, then, are we to convert it into two, in the face of all probability? The only definite reason I can find for so doing is that, according to William of Newburgh—
Longchamp’s proceedings against Lincoln took place early in the spring, before the death of pope Clement III. was known, or the archbishop of Rouen landed [April 27];—[442]