The Minority of Henry the Third - Kate Norgate

When the fight and the chase were over and the prizes all towed into Sandwich, one prisoner was missed: Eustace the Monk. After a long search he was found hiding in the hold of his ship[289] from the universal hatred of which he knew himself to be the object, not only as the commander of the hostile fleet, but still more as a traitor of the deepest dye and a man of infamous character in every respect. He offered to give his captors ten thousand marks and to serve King Henry faithfully if they would grant him his life, “but it could not be.” One Stephen, a seaman of Winchelsea, who had sailed with him in earlier days when he was in the service of King John, flung in his face a recital of all his misdoings on land and sea, and bade him choose whether to have his head cut off on the ship’s deck or on the trebuchet. “Neither alternative was sweet,” says a contemporary writer with grim sarcasm; “anyway, they cut off his head. That was his festival day.”[290] The severed head was afterwards stuck on the point of a spear and carried round the neighbourhood, to shew the people, who had long lived in terror of the ruthless freebooter, that he was really dead.[291] The prisoners were sent to Dover to be put in ward in the castle under the charge of Hubert;[292] Philip d’Aubigné was despatched to carry news of the victory to the Legate and the King;[293] the Marshal stayed to superintend the division of the spoils. There was a large quantity of valuable things, money, plate, clothes, horses, arms, harness, provisions of various kinds; the Marshal contrived to distribute these in such a way that every man thought his own share better than that of his fellows, and yet to leave a residue which, with the hearty assent of the sailors, he devoted to the foundation of a hospital for “God’s poor,” in honour of the Saint on whose festival day the victory had been won.[294]

The Fair of Lincoln had, as a contemporary writer emphatically says, “destroyed the [rebel] barons.”[295] It had deprived Louis of the bulk of his English allies, and left the French conquest of England to be accomplished, if accomplished at all, solely by French hands. Had the French reinforcements effected a landing and defeated the Royalists in one battle, such a conquest might still have been possible. But when the tidings of that S. Bartholomew’s day reached Louis, he at once saw that his cause was lost.[296] While the Marshal’s division of the English host was in Kent, the other division, with the Legate and the young King, had encamped round about London, more closely than the Royalists had yet approached the capital since Louis’s return. Gualo seems to have placed Henry with his mother in the safe shelter of Windsor castle while he himself ventured as near to London as Kingston; one day, however, a report reached him that the French were sallying forth to attack him, whereupon he rode hastily back to Windsor. This French sally may have been the “very fine raid, wherein the lesser folk won much gain,” which is said to have been made about this time by the young Duke of Brittany. Again there was ineffectual talk of peace. Then the Legate proposed a siege of the city; but for this the lay leaders deemed their forces insufficient, and they retired each man to his own quarters. Another unsuccessful attempt at pacification, made by a Cistercian monk who was one of the Pope’s penitentiaries, was followed by a meeting of the Queen-mother and the Count of Nevers, between Windsor and London; “they spoke amicably, and parted amicably, but without making peace.” Louis was so conscious of peril that he removed from the bishop’s house to the Tower, “to be more in safety.”[297] The news of the battle of Sandwich reached him late on the evening of Saturday, 26th August. On Monday, 28th, Robert of Dreux went under a safe-conduct from the King to speak with the Marshal at Rochester; next day one of the newly-captured French knights, Robert de Courtenay, was allowed to go to London to speak with Louis, Dreux remaining as a hostage in his stead.[298] After consulting with Courtenay and others, Louis decided to ask for a parley with William the Marshal in person.[299]

William took counsel with the other Royalists; “and there were some who spoke rightly bravely, though they had kept away from the coast in the hour of need.” These men said: “We do not want to conciliate Louis. The only parley we want is a siege of London.” But the valiant men who had been in the fight were wiser; they besought the Marshal to get the French out of the country “and not to let lack of money be a hindrance, for they would help him to the utmost of their power, with their hearts and bodies and possessions.” He therefore agreed to go and parley with Louis.[300] He took with him, however, all the Royalists who had accompanied him into Kent; and the whole English host, thus reunited, now blockaded the city by land, while on 1st September the “barons” of the Cinque Ports were bidden to bring all their ships to the mouth of the Thames for the King’s service,[301] thus cutting off the capital from all chance of communication by sea. It was obvious that if Louis did not make terms at once, he would speedily be starved into unconditional surrender.[302] He took a course which was not only safer, but also more honourable both for himself and his adversaries, when he met the Marshal and the Justiciar in conference outside London {5 Sept.}. He frankly committed himself into their hands and those of the Legate, requesting them to dictate their own terms, on the sole condition that those terms should be such as would neither dishonour him nor offend his companions in arms.[303]

The Marshal and the Justiciar returned to Windsor, and Louis to London. From that night—Tuesday, 5th September—till Saturday, 9th, he waited in vain for their expected propositions; then, on the advice of his barons, he determined to make a sally early next morning and try to cut his way out. Late on the Saturday night {9 Sept.}, however, as they were about to separate and make their preparations for the morrow’s venture, a letter was brought to him from the Marshal asking for a day’s truce and requesting that Hugh de Malaunay might be sent to speak with the Marshal and the council. Both these requests Louis granted. A parley was then fixed for Tuesday (12th September), and a prolongation of the truce till Thursday (14th) was guaranteed by the Queen, the two William Marshals, the Earls of Salisbury, Warren, and Arundel, and some other magnates. Malaunay returned on Monday, 11th, and “told Louis what he had got.”[304] It was evidently something of great importance, for Louis at once “summoned his whole council, and the barons of England who held with him, and the citizens, and asked their advice upon it; and they all approved it.”[305]

What Malaunay had brought was evidently the definite offer of terms for which Louis had asked. Louis had put himself—“saving his honour”—into the hands of the King’s guardians; “therefore,” as a contemporary English historian says, “they, with whom the whole matter rested, and who desired above all things to get rid of Louis, sent back to him a certain form of peace drawn up in writing;[306] to which if he consented, they would undertake to secure for him and his adherents a safe departure from England; if not, they would use their utmost efforts to compass his ruin.”[307] The terms which they offered seem to have been these: The adherents and allies of Louis in England, Henry and his adherents, London and the other towns, were all to have their respective rights and lands as they had them at the beginning of the war. (A later clause explained that this provision was not to apply to clerks, except as regards lay fees held by them.) Prisoners on both sides, taken since Louis’s coming to England, to be set free; those taken earlier, to be released if three persons, to be chosen by Henry’s council from the council of Louis, should swear that they were Louis’s men on the day of their capture; for all prisoners, ransoms already paid to be kept; ransoms now due to be paid; ransoms not yet due to be remitted; and all disputes to be settled by the aforesaid three. All English prisoners, and other English subjects who were in arms against King John, to give security for their fidelity to Henry, by homage, oaths, and charters, according to the custom of England. Money for the payment of which hostages had been given to Louis was to be paid at once, if the date fixed for the payment had arrived, and the hostages were to be restored. All cities, lands, and other property which had been forcibly occupied in England were to be restored to the King or other owners. Louis was to send letters to the brothers of Eustace the Monk bidding them restore to Henry the islands (some of the Channel Isles) which Eustace had seized; if they failed to do so, Louis was to distrain the lands which they held of him; and if they were then still contumacious, they were to be outside this peace. Louis and Henry were each to send a copy of the peace to King Alexander of Scotland, and he, if he wished to be included in it, was to restore all castles, lands, and prisoners, taken by him during the war. Louis was to send a copy, on the same conditions, to Llywelyn and the other Welsh princes. Louis was to quit-claim to all the barons and men of England all homage, fealty, confederations, and alliances, and never henceforth to make, on account of this war, any confederation which might at any time cause damage to the English King. The barons of England were to swear to Henry that they would enter into no confederation or undertaking against him or his heirs, with Louis or with any other person. Louis was to take his corporal oath, and his men with him, and such of them as the King’s council should choose were also to pledge themselves individually by charters, that they would keep this peace firmly and faithfully; and Louis was to do his utmost to obtain confirmation of it from the Pope.[308] All debts now due to Louis were to be paid.[309]

Well might Louis and his counsellors “all approve” this draft treaty. Even if it was not—as in all likelihood it was—accompanied by a verbal intimation of the Marshal’s willingness to pay Louis an indemnity in money, still the terms were much less hard than they had expected.[310] The issue of the next day’s conference was now a foregone conclusion.[311] The meeting took place in an islet in the Thames, opposite Kingston.[312] The Royalists drew up on one side of the river, the French on the other. Louis and his counsellors entered a boat and were rowed to the island, where they found the Queen, with the Legate “clad all in scarlet,” the Marshal, and the other members of the English King’s council, as well as the King himself.[313] Louis and his men swore on the Gospels, first of all, that they would stand to the judgement of the Church and be faithful to Church and Pope from that day forward.[314] Then they swore to the conditions of peace already set forth,[315] Louis adding a promise that he would, if possible, induce his father to restore to Henry his rights beyond the sea. Henry then laid his hand on the Book, and, together with the Legate and the Marshal, made oath to restore to the barons of England and all other men of the realm all their rights and heritages, with all the liberties formerly demanded, for which the discord between John and the barons had arisen.[316] Lastly, an indemnity of (seemingly) ten thousand marks was promised to Louis, for which the Earl Marshal made himself personally responsible.[317]

Thus, on Tuesday, September 12th,[318] the peace was made. The absolution of Louis and his followers was deferred till next day, because the prelates had not brought their “chapels” with them,[319] and also because Gualo declared that Louis should have no absolution unless he would come “barefooted and shirtless, clothed in a woollen gown”—the proper garb of a penitent. The Frenchmen however begged hard that their lord might be suffered to come with his woollen gown hidden under his robe; and to this Gualo consented.[320] Both parties returned to their lodgings for the night. Next day {Wed., 13 Sept.} the Legate and the bishops put on their silken copes and their mitres and absolved Louis and all his men, except the four clerks specially reserved for the judgement of the Pope,[321] who were made to withdraw from the island while the absolution was taking place. Gualo then sent the Pope’s penitentiary to London to absolve the citizens and others who had not been present at the conference.[322] On Thursday, September 14th, the conclusion of the peace was formally announced in the King’s name.[323] On Sunday, 17th, the Legate went to Merton priory, and next day {18 Sept.} the peace was confirmed there, on the one part by Louis with the Counts of Britanny, Nevers, and Dreux, and “many others from France,” on the other part by the Queen with many English bishops, earls, barons, and knights. On the 22nd Louis came to Merton again, to receive from the Legate’s penitentiary injunctions about his penance.[324] After this he was escorted to Dover by the Legate, the Marshal, and other magnates,[325] and sailed for France on Michaelmas eve.[326]

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]

[1] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), vol. iii. pp. 385–6.
[2] Hist. de Guill. le Maréchal, ll. 15170–90. Cf. Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 180.
[3] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15207–57.
[4] “Quem gratia juventutis et innocentia cunctis reddidit amabilem, et venusta facies cum flava caesarie singulis favorabilem, sermo quoque maturus universis venerabilem.” Mat. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 196.
[5] “Qui son meistre e son norriçon Out este e encor esteit,” Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15263–4. These words seem to imply that Ralf was Henry’s tutor, or teacher, but this cannot have been the case, for Ralf was only a man-at-arms, “serviens” (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 345 b, 362); no doubt, one whose proved fidelity to the late king had entitled him to be specially trusted to watch over the safety of the heir.
[6] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15261–84.
[7] [Ib.] ll. 15287–305.
[8] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1.
[9] Henry, son of Henry II.
[10] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15306–24.
[11] M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 1; Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 195.
[12] “Cum orationibus et cantuum modulationibus quae in coronatione regum solent decantari,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 2.
[13] “Sertum quoddam,” T. Wykes, a. 1216.
[14] The Hist. des Ducs, p. 181, and the Annals of Margan, Tewkesbury, Winchester, and Waverley, a. 1216, say that Henry was crowned by Gualo; the Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15329–31, says “Wales la messe li chanta, Li legaz, e sil corona, O li evesques qui la furent”; and the official letter written in Henry’s name to the Justiciar of Ireland says he was crowned “by the hands of Gualo the Cardinal legate and the bishops then present” (Foedera, I. i. p. 145). Probably, however, they all mean merely what is expressly, though awkwardly, stated by the Merton chronicler—“Coronatus ... a domino Syvalone legato ... assistentibus sibi domino Petro Wintoniensi episcopo qui eum inunxit et coronam imposuit capiti, ut dicunt” &c. (Petit-Dutaillis, Vie de Louis VIII., p. 514), and more clearly by the Barnwell annalist: “Imposuit autem ei manus ex jussu legati episcopus Wintoniensis” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233). Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 2) says Henry was crowned and anointed by Bishop Peter; Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 2) that Peter of Winchester and Jocelyn of Bath crowned him; the Dunstable annalist (Ann. Monast., vol. iii. p. 48) that he was crowned by Gualo’s authority, but by the hands of the Bishops of Winchester, Worcester, and Exeter. Wykes’s account of the coronation is obviously fantastic, except in one detail, that of the “sertum quoddam,” which is no doubt correct, as certainly no real crown could be available.
[15] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15333–46. This corrects the statement of R. Wendover, [l.c.], “duxerunt regem ... regalibus indutum ad mensam.”
[16] Chron. Merton, [l.c.]
[17] Winchester, Worcester, Chester (or Coventry), Bath, Exeter, and Meath; see R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1, Ann. Wav., a. 1216, Ann. Dunst. a. 1215, p. 48, and Chron. Merton, [l.c.]
[18] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[19] Ann. Wav., a. 1216. This Chronicle and Roger both add the Earl of Chester, but they are certainly wrong.
[20] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[21] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15347–72. For the name of the place see errata to vol. ii. p. 390.
[22] [Ib.] ll. 15373–15400.
[23] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15465–561. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 181: “Guillaume li Mareschaus fu eslius a iestre souvrains baillius del regne.”
[24] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15579–15610.
[25] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.
[26] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15611–30.
[27] [Ib.] ll. 15401–64.
[28] “L’om m’a baillie ceste baillie,
Qui ja est pres de mesballie;” ll. 15641–2.
[29] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15628–708.
[30] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.
[31] Foedera, I. i. p. 145.
[32] See the list of witnesses to the Charter, Statutes of the Realm—Charters of Liberties, p. 14.
[33] Ann. Wav., a. 1216.
[34] First Charter of Henry III., c. 1.
[35] Magna Charta, c. 2, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 2.
[36] [Ib.] cc. 3, 4, 5.
[37] [Ib.] cc. 6, 7.
[38] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 5.
[39] [Ib.] c. 9, M. C., c. 9.
[40] M. C., c. 16, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 11.
[41] M. C., c. 17, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 12.
[42] M. C., cc. 18, 19, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 13, 14.
[43] M. C., cc. 20, 21, 22, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 15, 16, 17.
[44] M. C., c. 23, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 18.
[45] M. C., c. 24, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 19.
[46] M. C., c. 29, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 22.
[47] M. C., c. 31, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 24.
[48] M. C., c. 32, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 25.
[49] M. C., c. 33, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 26.
[50] M. C., c. 34, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 27.
[51] M. C., c. 36, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 29.
[52] M. C., c. 37, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 30.
[53] M. C., c. 35, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 28.
[54] M. C., c. 38, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 31.
[55] M. C., c. 39, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 32.
[56] M. C., c. 40, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 33.
[57] M. C., c. 43, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 35.
[58] M. C., c. 44, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 36.
[59] M. C., c. 46, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 37.
[60] M. C., c. 54, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 39.
[61] M. C., c. 47, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 38.
[62] M. C., c. 56, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 40.
[63] M. C., c. 13, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 10.
[64] M. C., c. 28, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 21.
[65] M. C., c. 30, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 23.
[66] M. C., c. 41, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 34.
[67] M. C., cc. 10, 11, 48, 43, 50, 52, 55, 57, 45.
[68] M. C., cc. 25, 27, 42.
[69] M. C., cc. 12, 14.
[70] M. C., c. 15.
[71] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 41.
[72] M. C., cc. 49, 58, 59.
[73] 1st Charter of Henry III., c. 42; Statutes of the Realm—Charters of Liberties, pp. 14–16.
[74] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.
[75] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.
[76] [Ib.] pp. 3, 4.
[77] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 232. The words are “Hiis diebus, antequam de obitu regis mentio fieret, impetraverunt qui apud Dovram obsessi erant inducias usque post Pascha, et soluta est obsidio”; but the more detailed accounts in our other authorities clearly show that though hostilities were suspended before John’s death, the siege was not actually raised till the beginning of November. Mr. G. J. Turner appears to have overlooked this fact when he wrote that Hubert’s absence from the coronation “excites some suspicion concerning his loyalty” (“Minority of Henry III.,” part I., Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 2nd Series, vol. xviii., p. 246). It was precisely Hubert’s loyalty which made it impossible for him to leave Dover till his truce with Louis was prolonged and the siege raised.
[78] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 182: “Grant doute avoient” [the king’s friends] “de Looys, qui se partit tost de Douvre apries chou que la trive fu prise entre lui et cels dedens, si s’en vint à Londres.”
[79] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4.
[80] For Newark and Lincoln see Hist. Ducs, p. 181; for Sleaford see below, [p. 25].
[81] Norwich castle is said by Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 378–9) to have been “found empty” and garrisoned by Louis before John’s death; but this is a very unlikely story. Without discussing objections in detail, it is enough to say that in the French expedition into East Anglia (R. Wend., [l.c.], M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 182) during which this important acquisition is alleged to have been made, Louis had in reality no personal share at all, being at the time busy winning castles in Hampshire; and that the expedition was clearly a mere raid, from which all the French troops engaged in it returned to meet Louis again in London. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 172.
[82] Hist. Ducs, p. 181.
[83] Hist. Ducs, p. 180.
[84] [Ib.] p. 182.
[85] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 4–5.
[86] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15717–28. According to one account, Louis made over Hertford to Robert FitzWalter, to whom it had formerly belonged (Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]); according to another, FitzWalter claimed it, but was put off with a temporizing answer, on the advice of Louis’s French knights, who said, truly enough, that “Englishmen who had betrayed their own sovereign were not fit to be trusted with castles.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.
[87] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 5, 6.
[88] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15735–41.
[89] Henry was at Oxford in 1217 on January 13–20, and again January 27–February 1; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 295 b–297.
[90] On all these truces and surrenders see [ Note I] at end.
[91] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[92] E.g., the stores, &c., removed from Norwich and Orford were on 8th February assigned for the reinforcement of Dover; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335 b.
[93] Hist. Ducs, p. 182.
[94] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[95] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 11.
[96] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[97] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 6.
[98] Patent Rolls Hen. III., vol. i. p. 109. See [Note I].
[99] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10–11.
[100] “Prise par engien.” Hist. Ducs, p. 182.
[101] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 17.
[102] “Qui la”—i.e., at Rye—“estoit a grant plente de nes biens garnies de gens armees, comme chil qui la mer ot a garder de par le roi.” Hist. Ducs, p. 183.
[103] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15779, &c.
[104] Cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 181, 183, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15768–9 and 15795–808.
[105] Hist. Ducs, p. 183.
[106] Hist. Ducs, pp. 184–187.
[107] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15859–67; cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 187.
[108] From the Hist. G. le Mar. alone it might be supposed that the Marshal himself had headed the expedition which captured Rye; but the Rolls distinctly show that this was not the case.
[109] “Crucesignati.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 108–109.
[110] Hist. Ducs, p. 187.
[111] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15868–9, 16034–6. We get the date by comparing these latter lines with the date of Louis’s return; see M. Paul Meyer’s note 5, vol. iii. p. 225.
[112] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[113] Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[114] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.
[115] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 15884.
[116] When they had a joint letter of safe conduct to go to the court for six days; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 10, 8th December, 1216.
[117] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15872–86.
[118] A dateless letter from the Earl Marshal, Walter de Lacy, William de Cantelupe, and Falkes, to the Earl of Salisbury and the younger Marshal, sets forth that the writers have sworn “quod conventionem prolocutam inter dominum nostrum Henricum regem Angliæ illustrem et nos” [sic, but surely it should be vos?] “pro posse nostro firmiter et absque malo ingenio teneri faciemus,” wherefore the two persons addressed are to come without delay to the writers, who will have them absolved by the Bishop of Chichester, he being empowered by the Pope and the Legate to absolve persons returning to allegiance. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 109.
[119] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15884–96.
[120] Cf. [ib.] ll. 15901–2, and Close Rolls, vol. i., p. 299.
[121] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 37.
[122] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15943–4.
[123] [Ib.] l. 15972.
[124] [Ib.] ll. 15960–84. Reinforcements were on 7th April summoned to be at Winchester on Wednesday after the close of Easter, i.e., 10th April; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335 b.
[125] “S’en alerent Baucone,” Hist. G. le Mar., 15986. The name is hopelessly corrupt; M. Meyer suggests in a note “à Suzhantone?” It is probably either Southampton or Odiham; cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 187, 189.
[126] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16003–10. The place is there called Rovcestre, but there can be no doubt Porchester is meant; we know from the Close Roll, vol. i. p. 301 b, that the siege of Porchester was begun before 20th March.
[127] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16011–33.
[128] Hist. Ducs, pp. 187, 189.
[129] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 57, 62.
[130] Hist. Ducs, p. 188.
[131] See the orders “de conversis” in Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 300 b et seq.
[132] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 189, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16092–6. Roger gives the date, “post Paschalem solemnitatem,” i.e., after 26th March.
[133] Hist. Ducs, p. 188.
[134] “In vigilia S. Georgii martyris,” Chron. Merton in Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514. The Barnwell Annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236) says, “Sabbato quo finiendae erant treugae applicuit Lodowicus apud Sandwich.” The day on which the truce would end, if the “month after Easter” (see above, [p. 19]), meant a calendar month, would be 26th April, and not Saturday but Wednesday. But a month of four weeks from Easter would expire on Saturday, 22nd April; and this interpretation is confirmed by the Hist. Ducs ([l.c.]), one MS. of which says Louis sailed “le venredi devant le mois de Pasques”; see M. Francisque-Michel’s note, [ib.], and M. Paul Meyer’s notes to Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. 225. The only doubt is whether Louis sailed on the night of Friday, 21st April, and landed on Saturday, 22nd, or sailed on Saturday, 22nd, and landed on Sunday, 23rd. As the preponderance of evidence seems to be in favour of the latter view, I have based my reckoning of the dates of his subsequent movements on the assumption of its correctness.
[135] Hist. Ducs, p. 189.
[136] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236.
[137] “Fist tant a Hubiers de Bourg que les trives furent alongies,” Hist. Ducs, [l.c.] Hubert may or may not have been there in person; the “truce” is obviously only the local one, limited to Dover and quite independent of the general truce, which was now unquestionably ended.
[138] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[139] W. Cov., [l.c.]
[140] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[141] Hist. Ducs, pp. 189, 190.
[142] Comparing Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16039–44 and 16052–53, with Hist. Ducs, pp. 189, 190, I venture to think that this is the true meaning of the poet’s somewhat confused story, notwithstanding M. Meyer’s note 1, vol. iii. p. 225. The fact that the Marshal was attesting royal letters at Winchester from 14 March onwards does not prove that he had gained possession of the castle before that date.
[143] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16048–50. The order for razing Chichester castle had been issued before, on 16 April; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 57.
[144] “Li castiaus n’ot garde,” Hist. Ducs, p. 190.
[145] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14.
[147] “Qui escondire ne li pot.” Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[148] From R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 15, we should suppose that Saer’s appeal to Louis was made in London; but the Hist. Ducs, [l.c.], shows that it was made at Farnham. On the other hand, the Flemish chronicler represents Saer as departing straightway from Farnham for Mountsorel “on the morrow,” i.e. Saturday, 29 April, “o grant chevalerie d’Englois” and some seventy French knights (pp. 190, 191); while Roger says the relieving force—which he makes to consist of six hundred knights and more than twenty thousand men-at-arms—started from London “pridie kalendas Maii, id est die Lunae proximo ante Ascensionem Domini” ([l.c.]). The last day of April, 1217, was Sunday, not Monday. I think we may combine the two accounts, and assume that Saer left Farnham on April 29 to go not directly towards Leicestershire, but to London. The journey thither, and the necessary preparations after he had joined his associates there, must have taken a couple of days, and the combined forces could hardly set out before Monday, 1 May. The Ann. Dunst., p. 49, say the relieving force consisted of “the barons who were at London,” the Count of Perche, the Marshal of France, and ten thousand armati whom Louis had given them. The Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16085–92, which says the party set out from Winchester at the same time that Louis and the rest of his forces returned thence to London, is obviously quite wrong.
[149] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 15–17.
[150] “Satis innocenter,” Ann. Dunst., p. 49.
[151] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17. W. Cov., vol. ii; p. 237. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16097–16105.
[152] Hist. Ducs, pp. 191, 192. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16055–81.
[153] Hist. Ducs, pp. 192, 193. “E li Waudois les assaillirent, mais desconfis furent.”
[154] Hist. Ducs, p. 194. Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 237.
[155] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16115–26.
[156] [Ib.] ll. 16126–53.
[157] “Se sunt embatuz folement,” l. 16161.
[158] [Ib.] ll. 16153–99.
[159] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 18.
[160] [Ib.] For the knights see also Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16264–6 and 17025.
[161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 18, 19.
[162] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16203–24.
[163] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 19, 20. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16225–32.
[164] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[165] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16236–7.
[166] [Ib.] l. 16238.
[167] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20.
[168] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16240–46. Cf. R. Wend., [l.c.] In p. 25 Roger gives the date of the battle as “quarto decimo kalendas Junii, sabbato scilicet in hebdomada Pentecostes,” where the ecclesiastical date is correct, but not the civil one. One MS. of the Hist. Ducs makes it “la velle de la Pentecouste;” but the other has “la velle de la Trinite,” p. 194, note 3. The Annals of Waverley, a. 1217, give the true date, “tertio decimo kalendas Junii, in hebdomada Pentecostes.” So also R. Coggeshall, p. 185.
[169] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16277–310, 16331–4.
[170] [Ib.] ll. 16247–61, 16314–15.
[171] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. He makes seven divisions, or “battles,” instead of four, but gives no details of their arrangement. It is possible that either he or the Marshal’s biographer may have put the crossbowmen in a wrong place.
[172] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16418–24.
[173] Cf. [ib.] ll. 16427–32 and R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 21, 22.
[174] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16434–60.
[175] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 20, 21. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16341–72.
[176] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16373–97.
[177] [Ib.] ll. 16998–9.
[178] “Whom God preserve both in body and soul!” prays the Marshal’s biographer, l. 16492. The other party called her “molt engigneuse e mal querans e vighereuse vielle,” Anon. Béthune, quoted by Petit-Dutaillis, p. 148.
[179] Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. clix.
[180] [Ib.] ll. 16467–510.
[181] On the “blocked gate” see [Note II].
[182] The whole city above hill, except the minster precincts, was in the “bail” or jurisdiction of the castle.
[183] It had at least seven, without counting the two Bar-Gates beyond the river.
[184] I think this is to be inferred from Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16544–52; see [Note II].
[185] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16521–34.
[186] E. Mansel Sympson, Lincoln, pp. 24, 25.
[187] “At illi” [i.e. majores exercitus] “per eam” [the “little back door” of the castle, “posterulam quae propter adventum eorum fuerat jam aperta,” cf. above, [ p. 36]] “noluerunt omnes intrare, sed miserunt Falcasium cum agmine toto cui praeerat et cum balistariis omnibus, qui portam civitatis saltem unam exercitui aperirent. Deinde omnis multitudo ad portam se aquilonarem conferens illam confringere vacavit ... Falcasius interim castrum cum agmine cui praeerat ac balistariis omnibus ingressus,” &c. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.
[188] R. Wend., [l.c.] See [Note III].
[189] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16541–55. See [Note III].
[190] “Mes soufrez que entor la tor Augent dui home tot entor De chascune de nos batailles Qui enquerront les repostailles,” ll. 16563–66. La tor ought of course to mean the castle. But the castle was known to be surrounded on three of its sides by enemies in open action against it; to send men to look for “ambushes” round it seems therefore absurd, and would certainly have been impracticable. Can la tor be a scribe’s error for le mur, and did the poet mean “round the wall of the city”? Or can “entor la tor” be a sheer blunder for something wholly different, and should ll. 16564–5 be construed together—“Let two men go all round each of our battles,” &c.?
[191] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16567–16628.
[192] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.
[193] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16643–77.
[194] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[195] The poet in ll. 16335–40 excludes the English rebels from his reckoning; but in ll. 17026–7 he seems to include the English knights fighting on the French side in the six hundred and eleven. The Hist. Ducs, p. 191, makes only seventy French knights.
[196] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25.
[197] “Nundinae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25. See Professor Tout’s article on “The Fair of Lincoln,” Eng. Hist. Rev., April, 1903, p. 241, note 2. Cf. also Hist. G. le Mar., l. 16334 (see above, [p. 34)].
[198] “Li lor mestre perreior.”
[199] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16630–42.
[200] That is, after going along what is now the street called Westgate to its junction with that now known as Bailgate (a portion of the old Ermine Street), they turned southward down the latter; the “church on their left” would be All Saints, near the angle formed by the junction of Bailgate and Eastgate. The cathedral church would have been called not “un moustier” but “le moustier,” as in l. 16705.
[201] Obviously the space between the west front of the cathedral church and the east gate of the castle.
[202] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16681–708.
[203] William the Breton, Gesta Philippi Aug., c. 223.
[204] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 16707.
[205] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.
[206] [Ib.] p. 24.
[207] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16729–68.
[208] “Aval une rue a senestre S’en tornerent vers Wikefort,” ll. 16774–5. Perche and his men had evidently been fighting with their backs towards the east front of the minster, so that the “street on their left” would be the main road—Ermine Street, Steep Hill, High Street—running down due southward “towards Wigford” as the poet says.
[209] The present Stonebow was built in the fifteenth century, but the name “Stan-bogh” occurs in a document dating from 1220–1230. Sympson, Lincoln, pp. 384, 425.
[210] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16777–828. Wigford Bridge is now called the High Bridge.
[211] “Reials! reials!” l. 16903.
[212] “Dont point ne m’ennuie,” contemptuously says the Marshal’s biographer, l. 16939.
[213] See [Note IV].
[214] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16830–944.
[215] See [Note IV].
[216] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.
[217] [Ib.], Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17002–20.
[218] Hist. Ducs, p. 194.
[219] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16997–17018.
[220] Saer de Quincy (Earl of Winchester), Henry de Bohun (Earl of Hereford), Gilbert of Ghent, Robert FitzWalter, Richard de Montfichet, William de Mowbray, William de Beauchamp, William Mauduit, Oliver D’Eyncourt, Roger de Cressy, William de Coleville, William de Ros, Robert de Ropsley, Ralf Chaineduit, R. Wend.,vol. iv., pp. 23–24; to these the continuator of Gervase of Canterbury (vol. ii. p. 111) adds Robert FitzWalter’s son, Gilbert de Clare, Gerard de Furnival, Stephen and Maurice of Ghent, Nicolas and Eustace de Stuteville, Warin de Montchensy, Ralf and Roger de Tony, Geoffrey de Say, Henry and Philip, sons of Earl David (of Huntingdon), William de Huntingfield, William de Hastings, Nicolas de Kennet, Robert de Grilley, Robert of Newburgh the constable of Hedingham, John of Bassingbourne, Ralf Murdac, Anselm de Kent, William de Fiennes, Geoffrey and Walter de St. Leger, Henry de Braybroke, Adam FitzWilliam, Simon de Kime, Walter de Thinham, Robert Marmion the younger, John of St. Helen’s, William Martel, and John of Sanford. The Chron. Merton (Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) gives the total number as fifty-two. One of those enumerated above, however—Henry de Braybroke—is said by the Dunstable Annalist (p. 49) to have escaped with Simon de Poissy. Earl William de Mandeville and the constable of Chester also escaped; Hist. Ducs, p. 195.
[221] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. Cont. Gerv. Cant., [l.c.] In W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 237, 238, the number is given as three hundred and eighty, but avowedly only on hearsay.
[222] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16965–69.
[223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26.
[224] M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 213.
[225] R. Wend.,vol. iv. p. 24.
[226] [Ib.] pp. 24, 25.
[227] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17031–68.
[228] Hist. Ducs, p. 195.
[229] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 25, 26.
[230] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 64. The Marshal was back at Lincoln on the 22nd; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 308 b.
[231] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[232] Hist. Ducs, p. 195, says “le joesdi apries le Pentecouste” instead of after Trinity; but this is a mistake caused by the writer having dated the battle a week too early; see above, [footnote 168].
[233] Hist. Ducs, pp. 195, 196.
[234] [Ib.] pp. 196, 197.
[235] Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[236] Hist. Ducs, p. 197. The three abbots had letters of safe-conduct from the king, who with the host was now at Reading, on 6th June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 68.
[237] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[238] Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xix. p. 636.
[239] Safe-conduct, dated 12th June, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 69.
[240] They were Simon de Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury and brother of the Primate; Gervase of Hobrigg, Dean of S. Paul’s, London; Robert of S. Germain, a clerk of the King of Scots; and Master Elias, a clerk of the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the beginning of the war these men had set the Papal authority at defiance, and they were now preaching at Paul’s Cross to the people and “giving them to understand that the Royalists were excommunicate and that Louis and his men were good folk, wrongfully excommunicated by the Pope.” Hist. Ducs, pp. 197, 198. See the Archbishop of Tyre’s letter in Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xix. pp. 636, 637, and cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 198, and W. Cov., vol. ii., p. 238.
[241] They had a safe-conduct to the sea on 21st June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 70, 71.
[242] Before 22nd June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71.
[243] Foedera, I. i. p. 147.
[244] They were there 1–6 July; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 77–79.
[245] Hist. Ducs, p. 198.
[246] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 27.
[247] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17085–103. The monstrous version of Philip’s speech given by M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 216, is beneath notice except as an illustration of Matthew’s own character as an historian.
[248] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 27, 28. See also the curious story in Récits d’un Ménestrel de Reims, pp. 157, 158.
[249] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17117–24. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[250] One hundred, Hist. Ducs, p. 198; three hundred, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.
[251] Hist. Ducs, pp. 198, 199.
[252] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 336, 314 b, 317, 336 b.
[253] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 314.
[254] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 157. See especially Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 310–312.
[255] August 7–13; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 317 b–319 b.
[256] Reading, August 14th; Farnham, August 15th. [Ib.] p. 320.
[257] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17167–210. Of this, again, Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl., vol. ii. pp. 217, 218) has a version which is obviously a mere romance of his own, devised—as needlessly as clumsily—to exalt Hubert de Burgh at the expense of the Marshal.
[258] Son of Warren’s sister; see Hist. Ducs, p. 200.
[259] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17262–85.
[260] So say Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 28, and the Hist. Ducs, [l.c.] The Marshal’s biographer, ll. 17293–4, says three hundred, but this does not tally with our accounts of the smallness of the force which the fleet had to bring over.
[261] “Batellies.”
[262] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[263] See the list in Hist. Ducs, p. 201.
[264] Cf. Hist. Ducs, [l.c.], and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17160, 17290–91, and 17365–76.
[265] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[266] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17286–90.
[267] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[268] Cf. Hist. Ducs, [l.c.], Ann. Wav., a. 1217, Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17214–15, and R. Wend., [l.c.]
[269] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17234–44.
[270] [Ib.] ll. 17245–56.
[271] “Mes Dex e en terre e en mer
A le poeir d’aidier as buens;
Donques aidera il as suens,” ll. 17322–24.
[272] [Ib.] ll. 17313–28.
[273] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.
[274] Cf. [ib.] and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17309–10.
[275] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17307–8; Hist. Ducs, p. 201.
[276] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[277] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17302–6.
[278] [Ib.] ll. 17329–31; R. Wend., [l.c.]
[279] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17354–58. Cf. M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 219.
[280] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17360–65.
[281] [Ib.] ll. 17377–404. Cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 201, 202.
[282] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29.
[283] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17405–433.
[284] [Ib.] ll. 17463–82.
[285] Hubert de Burgh came back with two of them in tow; [ib.] ll. 17505–08.
[286] Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 201, and Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[287] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17507–62.
[288] [Ib.] ll. 17473–80. The poet says, speaking “apres cels qui virent,” that there were full four thousand Frenchmen slain, besides those who sprang overboard and were drowned (Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29). But he adds “Je n’i fui pas; ci m’en descombre De dire ce que nuls ne seit,” ll. 17491–97.
[289] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[290] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17434–55, and Hist. Ducs, p. 202; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 29, 30. This last says it was Richard the king’s son who answered the inveterate turncoat’s offers of ransom and service by exclaiming “Nunquam de caetero falsis tuis promissionibus quenquam in hoc saeculo seduces, proditor nequissime,” drawing his sword and striking off his head. The French account seems more probable, as I think we may safely identify the “Stephen Trabe” (or “Crave”) of the Hist. Ducs with the poet’s “Stephen of Winchelsea.”
[291] Hist. Ducs, p. 202.
[292] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17572–76.
[293] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[294] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17510–68. The date is confirmed by Hist. Ducs, [l.c.], R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 238; the Ann. Wav., a. 1217, erroneously make it the eve, instead of the day, of S. Bartholomew—“X. kal. Septembris.”
[295] “Destructi sunt barones apud Lincolniam.” Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514.
[296] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[297] Hist. Ducs, pp. 199, 200.
[298] [Ib.] p. 202.
[299] [Ib.] Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17634–41.
[300] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17642–76.
[301] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 89.
[302] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239.
[303] “Ludowicus in arcto positus significavit Legato pariter ac Marescallo quod ipse voluit consilio eorum in omnibus obedire, ita tamen quod salvo honore suo et sine suorum scandalo pacem congruam providerent,” R. Wend., [l.c.] “Looys parla a eus” [the Marshal and the Justiciar] “e il li orent en couvent que il se peneroient en boine foi de la pais faire, e tele qui honnerable li seroit,” Hist. Ducs, p. 203.
[304] “Si conta a Looys che que il ot trouvé.”
[305] Hist. Ducs, pp. 203, 204. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17683–90, where however it is asserted that the French kept their English allies out of the council, “not wishing them to know their secrets.”
[306] “At illi, in quibus totum pendebat negotium, et qui Lodowici liberationem supra modum desiderabant, quandam pacis formam in scripto redactam ei remiserunt.” I am conscious that my rendering of Lodowici liberationem is a bold one but I believe it conveys the real meaning better than a strict translation.
[307] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[308] “Item, Dominus Ludovicus faciet juramentum corporale, et sui cum eo, et cartas suas facient singuli quos consilium domini Regis voluerit, quod pacem praescriptam firmiter et fideliter tenebunt; et ad impetrandam super hoc confirmationem Domini Papae et Domini Legati apponet legale posse suum per preces.” Foedera, I. i. p. 148; D’Achéry, Spicilegium, vol. iii. p. 586. Why Louis should be specially charged with the duty of obtaining confirmation of the peace from the Pope, and still more from the Legate, when the latter was at the head of those who were actually dictating its terms, is one of the many puzzles connected with the treaty of Kingston. The Pope, however, did confirm the treaty, on 13th January, 1218, and he says expressly that he did so at the request of Louis; Foedera, I. i. p. 149.
[309] On the document summarized above see [Note V].
[310] “Cum autem forma pacis ad Ludovicum pervenisset, audienda et inspicienda, placuit, timens multa deteriora.” Flores Hist., vol. ii. p. 165.
[311] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 31, says that Louis after discussing the draft with his friends sent to ask for a conference; but the Hist. Ducs, p. 203, distinctly indicates that this meeting on Tuesday (11th September) had been arranged before the terms were sent to him.
[312] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17702–3; Hist. Ducs, p. 204. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 31, says “near Staines.”
[313] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[314] R. Wend., [l.c.]
[315] A stipulation of interest, which appears in only one known version of the written conditions of peace, may probably have been inserted in them at the same time: “Item, Dominus Ludovicus reddat Domino Regi rotulos de Scaccario, cartas Judaeorum, et cartas factas de libertatibus tempore Regis Johannis a P. Rumougrend (sic), et omnia alia scripta de scaccario quod (sic) habet, bona fide.” (Martène and Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, 1717, vol. i. p. 858). I have no idea what can be the meaning of the words “a P. Rumougrend,” unless they have, in process of transcription, been somehow evolved out of “in p[rato] Runimead.”
[316] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 31, 32.
[317] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 7; Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[318] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 95. On this date, and the whole series of dates connected with the treaty, see [Note V].
[319] Hist. Ducs, [l.c.]
[320] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17704–10.
[321] See above, [p. 47].
[322] Hist. Ducs, p. 205.
[323] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 91.
[324] Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.
[325] Cf. [ib.], R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 32, Hist. Ducs, p. 205, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17717–20.
[326] Rob. Autiss. Contin. II., Pertz, Rer. Germ. Scriptt., vol. xxvi. p. 282.