FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
- [926] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 166 b.
- [927] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217.
- [928] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217.
- [929] [Ib.] p. 218.
- [930] “Ut fama refert,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 263.
- [931] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 263–6.
- [932] Ann. Waverl. a. 1214; “potestate sua non bene utens, iram baronum converti fecerat contra regem.”
- [933] R. Coggeshall, p. 170.
- [934] Articles of the Barons, 1215 cc. 39, 47.
- [935] [Ib.] c. 8.
- [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.
- [937] Art. Bar. c. 14.
- [938] [Ib.] c. 28.
- [939] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 214, 215.
- [940] Art. Bar. c. 26.
- [941] [Ib.] c. 30.
- [942] [Ib.] c. 8.
- [943] [Ib.] c. 13.
- [944] [Ib.] c. 24.
- [945] Art. Bar. c. 9.
- [946] [Ib.] c. 10.
- [947] [Ib.] c. 22.
- [948] [Ib.] c. 1.
- [949] [Ib.] c. 36.
- [950] [Ib.] c. 4.
- [951] [Ib.] c. 17.
- [952] [Ib.] c. 3.
- [953] [Ib.] c. 27.
- [954] [Ib.] c. 5.
- [955] Art. Bar. c. 15.
- [956] [Ib.] cc. 34, 35.
- [957] [Ib.] c. 31.
- [958] [Ib.] c. 11.
- [959] [Ib.] c. 23.
- [960] [Ib.] c. 43.
- [961] [Ib.] cc. 18, 20.
- [962] [Ib.] c. 29.
- [963] [Ib.] c. 33.
- [964] [Ib.] c. 6.
- [965] Ann. Waverl. a. 1213.
- [966] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 300, 301.
- [967] See [Note II.] at end.
- [968] Charter of Henry I. cc. 2, 4, 1.
- [969] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
- [970] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 293, 294. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 170.
- [971] Itin. a. 16.
- [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.
- [974] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120.
- [975] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [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.
- [978] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 128.
- [979] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
- [980] Rot. Pat. p. 130.
- [981] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 187 b.
- [982] Rot. Pat. p. 129.
- [983] [Ib.] p. 130.
- [984] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120. See above, [p. 182].
- [985] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 127.
- [986] [Ib.] p. 128.
- [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.
- [988] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [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.
- [990] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219.
- [991] Itin. a. 16.
- [992] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [993] [Ib.]
- [994] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 298.
- [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.
- [996] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 299.
- [997] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219.
- [998] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [999] Cf. R. Wendover, [l.c.], and R. Coggeshall, p. 171.
- [1000] Rot. Pat. p. 134 b.
- [1001] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 198, 198 b: Rot. Pat. p. 135.
- [1002] Rot. Pat. p. 135, 135 b.
- [1003] On May 8 John announces that some horse and foot are coming over under Gerard of Gravelines; Rot. Pat. p. 141.
- [1004] [Ib.] p. 135 (May 11).
- [1005] May 7–9; Itin. a. 16.
- [1006] Rot. Chart. p. 207.
- [1007] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 299.
- [1008] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 220.
- [1009] Rot. Pat. p. 141.
- [1010] Rot Chart. p. 209; Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 204.
- [1011] Rot. Pat. p. 136 b.
- [1012] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 299, 300; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 220; R. Coggeshall, p. 171; for date see Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 137 b.
- [1013] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 300, 301.
- [1014] Itin. a. 16, May 10–17.
- [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.
- [1016] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 148, 149.
- [1017] Rot. Pat. p. 138.
- [1018] [Ib.] p. 138 b.
- [1019] Rochester castle was restored to the archbishop after the “peace” in June. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 319.
- [1020] Rot. Pat. p. 142.
- [1021] Rot. Pat. p. 141 b.
- [1022] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 129.
- [1023] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 214.
- [1024] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 220, 221. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 171.
- [1025] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 301.
- [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.”
- [1027] Rot. Pat. pp. 142 b, 143.
- [1028] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 301.
- [1029] “In prato qui vocatur Runemad,” R. Coggeshall, p. 172.
- [1030] [Ib.]
- [1031] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 302.
- [1032] Stubbs, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 530.
- [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.”
- [1036] Art. Bar. c. 49.
- [1037] Art. Bar. c. 49; Magna Charta, c. 61.
- [1038] M. Charta, c. 63.
- [1039] [Ib.] c. 61.
- [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.
- [1041] M. Charta, c. 61.
- [1042] [Ib.] cc. 15, 16, 60.
- [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.”
- [1045] Rot. Pat. p. 181.
- [1046] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 611.
- [1047] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 159.
- [1048] Rot. Pat. p. 180 b.
- [1049] [Ib.] p. 143 b.
- [1050] [Ib.] p. 144.
- [1051] [Ib.] pp. 144 b, 145.
- [1052] [Ib.] p. 144 b.
- [1053] [Ib.] p. 145 b.
- [1054] Itin. a. 17.
- [1055] Hist. des Ducs, p. 151.
- [1056] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 221; Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 215–18.
- [1057] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [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.
- [1061] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1062] [Ib.]; R. Coggeshall, p. 172.
- [1063] Itin. a. 17.
- [1064] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
- [1065] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 321, 322.
- [1066] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [1067] Rot. Pat. p. 149.
- [1068] [Ib.] p. 148.
- [1069] [Ib.] p. 148 b.
- [1070] Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 218, 218 b, 219, 219 b; Rot. Chart. pp. 210–13.
- [1071] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 319.
- [1072] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 320; where, however, the list of emissaries is obviously incorrect.
- [1073] Rot. Pat. p. 153, 153 b.
- [1074] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1075] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 152 b.
- [1076] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
- [1077] R. Wendover, [l.c.]
- [1078] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
- [1079] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 336–8; misplaced, as may be seen by comparing W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 223.
- [1080] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 224. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 341.
- [1081] Hist. des Ducs, p. 152.
- [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.
- [1085] [Ib.]
- [1086] [Ib.] Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 153.
- [1087] W. Coventry, [l.c.]
- [1088] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 340. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 174, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 225.
- [1089] Gir. Cambr. vol. i. p. 401.
- [1090] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 224, 225.
- [1091] Rot. Pat. p. 154 b. This disposes of R. Coggeshall’s assertion (p. 174) that Stephen went “rege invito et ei minas intentante.”
- [1092] Rot. Pat. p. 182.
- [1093] [Ib.] p. 182 b(dateless).
- [1094] See above, pp. [182] and [225].
- [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.
- [1096] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 322–7.
CHAPTER VII
JOHN LACKLAND
1215–1216
Dicitur ... “Sine Terra,” quia moriturus nil terrae in pace possedit.
M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 191.
1215
The Pope’s letters evidently did not reach England till after the primate and the bishops had set out for Rome, so that there was no one left to publish the new sentence; and it seems, in fact, never to have been published in England at all. But its existence soon became known there; and when once the barons knew of it, they knew, too, that they must make their choice between unconditional surrender and war to the uttermost with both king and Pope; for there was no one left to act as their mediator with either. They chose war; but they were not ready for war, and the king was. Poitevins, Gascons, Brabantines, Flemings, were flocking to him from over sea.[1097] On October 2 he ordered his brother, Earl William of Salisbury, to visit ten royal castles and select from their garrisons troops for service in the field. On the 4th he committed the superintendence of military affairs in mid-England and the west to Falkes de Bréauté, and issued a general safe-conduct to “all who may wish to return to our fealty and service” through the medium of Falkes or the earl.[1098] He himself had, towards the end of September, advanced as far inland as Malling;[1099] but this seems to have been merely a sort of reconnoitring expedition; his plan evidently was to wait till all his expected reinforcements had arrived from over sea, and then march with them upon London, while William and Falkes did the same with the troops which they could bring up from the west, so as to place the capital between two fires. While his forces were concentrating, those of the barons were scattering; they had no scheme of united action; one party had renewed the siege of Northampton castle, another was engaged in that of Oxford.[1100] At last the leaders in London decided that something must be done to bar John’s way to the capital; and they advanced into Kent as far as Ospring. When they reached it John was at Canterbury; having only a small escort he, on hearing of his enemies’ approach, hurriedly fell back to Dover; they, however, were so scared by a report that he had set out from Canterbury to offer them battle that they beat an equally hasty retreat towards Rochester.[1101] Their great fear was lest he should gain possession of Rochester castle, which he had vainly tried to induce the archbishop to give up to him two months before.[1102] On October 11 Reginald of Cornhill, in whose charge Stephen had left it, suffered it to be occupied by a band of picked knights under William of Aubigny. But the triumph of the intruders was shortlived; two days later the king was at the gates of Rochester.[1103]
“Certes, sire,” said one of John’s Flemish allies as the royal host set out for Rochester, “you make little account of your enemies if you go to fight them with so small a force!” “I know them too well,” answered John; “they are to be nothing accounted of or feared. With fewer men than we have we might safely fight them. Certes, one thing I may tell you truly, I grieve not so much for the evil which the men of my land are doing to me, as that their wickedness should be seen by strangers.”[1104] The king knew what the stranger did not know, that so long as he could keep the Medway between himself and the main body of the barons he was safe. He therefore began his operations by an attempt to destroy the bridge, and thus to cut off the communications between Rochester and London. It seems that he sent a party up the river in boats to fire the bridge from beneath, and that they succeeded in so doing, but that Robert Fitz-Walter, with a picked body of knights and men-at-arms, was guarding the bridge at the time and managed to extinguish the flames and drive off the assailants.[1105] Fitz-Walter, however, appears to have immediately returned to London;[1106] and in a second attack on the bridge John was completely successful; the bridge was destroyed, and the king proceeded to invest the castle[1107] and assault the town.