Next morning he called his son, his wife, his nephew John, and his most trusted advisers, and told them his project: that the King “should be committed to God and the Pope, and to the Legate.” “For in no land are the folk of so many different minds as in England; and if I committed him to one, the others, you may be sure, would be envious.” “If the land be not defended by the Pope at the present juncture, then I know not who should defend it.” To this they all agreed. So when the King, the Legate and the great men came again, “the Marshal raised himself on his side, and called the King, and took him by the hand, and said to the Legate: ‘Sir, I have thought long and carefully about what we spoke of yesterday. I will commit my lord here into the Hand of God, and into the hand of the Pope, and into yours, you being here in the Pope’s stead.’ Then he said to the King: ‘Sir, I pray the Lord God that, if I have ever done anything that pleased Him, He may grant you to be a brave and good man; and if you should go astray in the footsteps of any evil ancestor and become like to such, then I pray God, the Son of Mary, that He give you not long life, but grant you to die at once.’ ‘Amen,’ answered the King.” Another attack of pain seems to have compelled the Marshal again hurriedly to dismiss the assembly: but he at once sent his eldest son after them, that he might formally deliver the King, “in the sight of the baronage,” to the Legate, in order that no man should be able to say this thing was done in a corner. The young Marshal fulfilled his commission; taking the King by the hand, “in the sight of all he offered him to the Legate. But the Bishop of Winchester sprang up and took the child by the head. ‘Let be, my Lord Bishop!’ said the young Marshal, ‘concern yourself not with this matter; I wish it to be seen that I fulfill all my father’s command.’” The Legate rose up to receive the King, and sternly rebuked Peter.[516]
The old Marshal, feeling, as he said “delivered from a great burden,” lingered for some weeks longer, and died on 14th May, conscious to the last, in the act of making the sign of the cross.[517] Earls, barons, bishops, abbots, joined the funeral train as it passed from Caversham to London; and with every imaginable token of honour and reverence from clerks and laymen alike, the Marshal was laid to rest, as he had desired, in the church of the Knights of the Temple; Archbishop Stephen of Canterbury taking the chief part in the burial service and paying the last honours to the man whom he too, as he stood by the open grave, declared to have been “the best knight of all the world that has lived in our time.”[518]
FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
- [327] “Se il est seignor de terre, par acort dou commun de ces homes deit estre garde son corps e ces forteresces.” Assises de Jérusalem, ed. Beugnot, vol. i. p. 261.
- [328] William of Tyre, lib. xxi. cc. 3, 5.
- [329] His biographer represents him as stating in October, 1216, that he was “over eighty,” see above, [p. 6]; but this seems to be an error on the part of either the writer or the Marshal himself; see Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. xxiv. and p. 8, note 2. His parents were, it seems, married in 1141 or 1142, and in all likelihood he—their second son—was born in 1143 or 1144.
- [330] “Gaste-viande.”
- [331] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 815–1106. I am compelled to differ from the illustrious editor of the Histoire respecting this “affair of Drincourt,” which he regards as a fantastic version of what the Gesta Henrici and Robert of Torigny relate as having taken place there in 1173. To my mind, the divergences pointed out in M. Meyer’s own footnote to Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. 16, and in his introduction, [ib.] p. xxviii., indicate plainly that the poet and the prose writers are speaking of two distinct events; and this indication is confirmed by the fact that the poet brings his story of Drincourt into immediate connexion with the knighting of the Marshal (cf. M. Meyer’s note 3, vol. iii. p. xxvi.). This “most puzzling passage in the whole poem” need not puzzle us at all, if we will but accept it literally; i.e., as relating to an otherwise unrecorded episode in the strife between Henry and Louis, about the Vexin and other matters, which went on—intermittently indeed and with long intervals of peace, but still never wholly laid to rest—through fully ten years prior to the crowning of the “young king.” The episode was obviously one of no great consequence, except to the Marshal, who probably cherished its memory as that of the first real fight in which he was privileged to take a share. Its non-appearance in the other records of the time is therefore no proof of its unreality. The names of the chief actors on the French side—the Count of Flanders and his brother Matthew, Count of Boulogne—are no doubt an “anachronism,” dragged in, by a very natural confusion of memory on the part of the poet’s informants, from the later “affair of Drincourt” in 1173. For the incident itself, apart from this error as to some of the persons concerned in it, more than one possible date might be suggested which would fit in well enough with the place given to the affair in the string of the poet’s narrative.
- [332] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 1163–1526.
- [333] [Ib.] ll. 1939–46.
- [334] ll. 2071–2150.
- [335] ll. 5127–5636.
- [336] ll. 6415–6606.
- [337] ll. 6865–6905.
- [338] ll. 7302–7309.
- [339] ll. 7529–9223.
- [340] ll. 9364–9371.
- [341] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 11877–908.
- [342] [Ib.] ll. 10012–10076.
- [343] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 90.
- [344] Charter Rolls, p. 46 b; date, 20th April, 1200.
- [345] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 9845–58.
- [346] [Ib.] ll. 19125–52.
- [347] [Ib.] ll. 18407–20.
- [348] Chanson de Roland, ll. 1117–1123.
- [349] E.g., his adhesion to the “young king” when the latter was in rebellion against Henry II., his refusal to do homage to Richard for his Irish lands (which he held under John) in 1194, and his refusal to fight for John against Philip Augustus (to whom he had done homage for his Norman lands) in 1205. In this last instance John pretended to regard William’s action as treasonable, but his after-conduct showed that he had been only pretending.
- [350] See his answer to a remonstrance about the gains he had won by tourneying, Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 18469–96, and his forcible seizure of money whose owner destined it to an evil use, ll. 6677–6834.
- [351] [Ib.] ll. 5088–5104.
- [352] Justiciarius noster, 1st November, 1216 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 1), 2nd November twice ([ib.] p. 2, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 293); justiciarius Angliae, 13th November twice ([ll.cc.]); justiciarius noster Angliae, 6th November twice, 12th November, 14th November (Pat. Rolls, pp. 2, 3).
- [353] The letter patent by which Hubert was appointed is unfortunately not enrolled; but the appointment was so clearly recognized by all parties as valid that we cannot doubt its having been made in the usual way.
- [354] Turner, “Minority of Henry III.”, part I, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 2nd ser. vol. xviii. p. 271.
- [355] Responsiones pro Huberto (M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi.), p. 64.
- [356] It may even have been given to him purposely, by consent of the real Justiciar, in order to enable him to undertake certain administrative functions specially attached to the chief Justiciar’s office, while Hubert was—as he said himself in 1239—so busy at Dover that “a castro non potuit recedere nec officium justiciarii exercere”; Responsiones, p. 65.
- [357] “Rector nostri et regni nostri.” This title appears on the Rolls for the first time on 19th November, 1216 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 3), and continues thenceforth in regular use.
- [358] This fact is too self-evident to need illustration, but it is well illustrated by an incident of the late spring or early summer of 1217. Some person or persons unnamed “urgently entreated” Honorius to take measures for the appointment of Earl Ranulf of Chester as colleague to the Earl Marshal, whom they represented as being too old to fulfil the duties of his office, “especially in these times.” The proposal did not commend itself to the Pope; but he remitted the matter to Gualo’s judgment (Roy. Letters, vol. i. p. 532, Honorius to Gualo, 8th July, 1217), and it seems to have been heard of no more. How or with whom the suggestion originated there is nothing to show. That it had not come from the Legate is clear from the wording of the Pope’s letter to him. It evidently did not come from the Marshal himself, although, as has been seen, he had originally proposed that the regency should be given to Chester. There is no sign that it was the outcome of any intrigue on the part of Chester, whose conduct seems never to have in any way belied the assurance of loyal support which he had given to the Marshal in October, 1216.
- [359] In the very rare cases which form an exception to this rule it is the Legate whose seal takes the place of the Marshal’s. One of these exceptional cases is so interesting as to deserve special notice. It consists of two letters patent, both dated Bristol, 2nd December, 1216, attested by the King himself, and sealed with the seals of the Legate and the Bishop of Winchester (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 9, 10). One of these letters is addressed to the Justiciar of Ireland, Geoffrey de Marsh, the other to Meiler FitzHenry; the purpose of both is to secure for the Marshal his rights in Ireland as lord of Leinster, especially the service due to him from Meiler, which the late King had (in one of his fits of suspiciousness) taken into his own hand as security for the Marshal’s fidelity. The reason why these letters were not attested by the Marshal himself is obvious; but the interesting point in the matter is that the Legate and the Bishop, or the boy-King, or all three together, seem to have seized upon the occasion as an opportunity for putting on record the estimation in which they held him. Each letter contains a sort of parenthesis, quite unnecessary to its main purport, in praise of Earl William. “Qui” writes Henry to Geoffrey “patri nostro viventi semper fideliter astitit, et nobis assistit, et cujus fidelitatem plurimum commendamus”; while in the letter to Meiler there is a yet more unconventional and emphatic outburst of feeling—“Ipse enim W. semper patri nostro viventi fideliter astitit, et devote et nobis constanter adheret et assistit, et ipsius obsequium pre cunctis regni nostri magnatibus habemus plurimum commendatum, quoniam tamquam aurum in fornace, sic se in necessitate probavit.”
- [360] See the Rolls, 1216—November, 1218, passim.
- [361] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 1, 23, 72, 100; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 299 b.
- [362] The King of Jerusalem seems to have come of age at fifteen, like his subjects. Assises de Jérusalem, ed. Beugnot, vol. i, p. 262.
- [363] Querimonia Falcasii, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 60.
- [364] “Usque ad etatem nostram,” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 123, &c. This formula was used as late as August, 1226; [ib.] vol. ii. p. 57.
- [365] See [Note VI].
- [366] For the changes of sheriffs in Henry’s first year see Turner, Minority, pt. I. pp. 273–4.
- [367] He was made Seneschal of Touraine in 1202, defended Loches against Philip in 1204, was captured with the castle, and ransomed by John for a thousand marks. See Turner, pt. I. p. 249.
- [368] Gloucester, Bristol, Hereford, Nottingham, Odiham, Windsor. See Turner, pt. I. pp. 249–251. It was Engelard who defended Windsor so long and so successfully against the French. He had previously made a splendid defence of Odiham; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 371.
- [369] There is not a particle of evidence that these men had ever given just cause for resentment to any English party or person. “They cannot be described as royal favourites, for not one of them received a grant of land in perpetuity by royal charter. Nor can they be included among the King’s political advisers; for if they had been such they would certainly have witnessed his charters occasionally. Yet not one of them witnessed a royal charter except Engelard de Cigogné; and he witnessed but one before the issue of the Great Charter at Runnymede, and but two afterwards. They were neither courtiers nor politicians, but soldiers of experience, whom the barons feared with good cause.” Turner, pt. I. pp. 253, 254.
- [370] A grotesque comment on the whole affair is furnished by the fact that the drafters of the article seem to have neither known nor cared what the names of their intended victims really were; see Turner, pt. I. pp. 248, 252.
- [371] Bréauté is in Normandy, Maulay in Gascony. Of Falkes we shall have to speak at length later on. Peter de Maulay is (like Falkes) said to have begun life as an usher or doorkeeper: “Chil Pieres de Maulay ot este huissiers le roi, mais puis crut tant ses afaires que il fu chevaliers,” &c. Hist. Ducs, p. 180.
- [372] As Mr. Turner truly says (pt. I. pp. 276, 277):—“The confidence which King John and the advisers of his son Henry reposed in these so-called alien sheriffs rested on experience. Not one of them could boast of illustrious ancestry” (Savaric is not included among those of whom Mr. Turner is here speaking) “or inherited wealth; not one of them can fairly be described as a royal favourite. Men of action, soldiers brought from France to defend their King and his kingdom, they owed their positions to their military talents. These men from the King’s dominions across the sea helped in no small measure to place the heir of the Angevin house safely on the throne of England.”
- [373] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 322 et seq.; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 92.
- [374] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 93.
- [375] [Ib.] pp. 94–97.
- [376] Close Rolls, vol. i. 329; date, 12th October.
- [377] Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.
- [378] Hist. Ducs, p. 206.
- [379] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239; cf. [ib.] p. 240, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 33.
- [380] Ann. Dunst., p. 52.
- [381] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 377.
- [382] Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.
- [383] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 240.
- [384] Statutes of the Realm, Charters of Liberties, pp. 17–19. On this Charter see Professor Powicke’s article, “The Chancery during the minority of Henry III,” Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. pp. 232, 233.
- [385] Second Charter of Henry III, c. 7.
- [386] c. 13.
- [387] c. 14.
- [388] c. 15.
- [389] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 16; cf. 1st Ch. Hen. III, c. 15, M. C., c. 20.
- [390] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 23; cf. 1st Ch., c. 21.
- [391] 2nd Ch., c. 26.
- [392] 2nd Ch., c. 34; cf. 1st Ch., c. 31.
- [393] 2nd Ch., c. 38; cf. 1st Ch., c. 35.
- [394] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 20.
- [395] c. 42.
- [396] c. 44.
- [397] c. 39.
- [398] 2nd Ch. Hen. III, c. 43.
- [399] c. 46.
- [400] c. 47.
- [401] Statutes of the Realm, Charters of Liberties, pp. 20, 21.
- [402] See Turner, pt. I. p. 285.
- [403] Hidage, carucage, and aid are mentioned on 7th June, 1217, as having been assessed “de precepto nostro,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 310; and the two former seem to have been in process of collection in some of the Midland shires in the middle of April of that year; [ib.] pp. 306, 306 b, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 56.
- [404] Roy. Letters, vol. i. p. 532.
- [405] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 602, 603.
- [406] See [above, footnote 315].
- [407] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 328.
- [408] [Ib.] pp. 343, 340 b, 376 b.
- [409] Turner, pt. I. p. 288.
- [410] [Ib.] p. 284.
- [411] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 7, 8; date, 6th November. Dr. Shirley made the year 1217, but he must have overlooked the closing words of the letter—“De praemissis autem novi sigilli nostri sanctae paternitati vestrae reverentiam merito duximus exhibendam”—which clearly shew that it is 1218.
- [412] The various accounts of the money paid (or promised) to Louis are extremely puzzling. The Chronicle of Melrose, a. 1217, p. 131, gives the total as ten thousand pounds. The Dunstable Annals, p. 51, say that Louis left his Marshal in England “pro quindecim millibus marcarum recipiendo, quas pro reragiis tenseriarum et expensis quas fecerat promiserunt”—this verb has no nominative, but the king’s guardians seem to be meant. The Hist. Ducs, p. 204, after summarizing the treaty, says Louis was to have “deseure tout chou, x m. marcs d’estrelins por l’arierage de ses rentes que il n’ot pas euues, et pour la desconfiture de Nicole vii m. mars; che fu xvii m. mars par tout.” (For the first marcs the MS. followed in the printed text has livres, but the other has marcs, which is obviously the right reading; see the editor’s note 1, [l.c.]). M. Petit-Dutaillis, Vie de Louis VIII, p. 176, note 2, takes the marks promised to Louis as marks sterling. But the document on which he relies for this interpretation of the sum ([ib.] p. 512) is a statement of the king’s debt to Florence of S. Omer, not of his debt to Louis. The letter of 6th November, 1218, which does specify the sum due to Louis, says nothing about marks sterling; it calls them simply “marks.” Reading the Dunstable Annals and the Hist. Ducs by the light of the king’s letter, one is led to think that the monk’s “fifteen thousand marks” are made up of the king’s ten thousand marks “pro bono pacis” (= “pro expensis quas fecerat [Ludovicus]” = “pour la desconfiture de Nicole”), and five (instead of seven) thousand “pro reragiis,” “pour l’arierage de ses rentes,” the amounts given for the indemnity and for the arrears having been reversed (and the latter perhaps exaggerated) by the Flemish historian.
- [413] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 94.
- [414] [Ib.] p. 114.
- [415] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 115.
- [416] [Ib.] p. 168, 30th August, 1218.
- [417] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 369 b.
- [418] [Ib.] pp. 383, 388 b.
- [419] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 125.
- [420] [Ib.] p. 284.
- [421] “Scutagium positum de novo per consilium commune comitum et baronum nostrorum Angliæ,” 10th November, 1217, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 125; “per commune consilium regni nostri,” 30th October, 1217, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 371: “de carrucagio et hydagio quod assisum fuit per consilium regni nostri,” 9th January, 1218, [ib.] p. 348 b. Tallage to be taken from the towns and from the royal demesnes, [ib.] pp. 349, 359, 364, 370; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 170, 171.
- [422] Its proceeds are enrolled in the Pipe Rolls 2 and 3 Hen. III under the title of “Compotus de Scutagio assiso ... ad Angliam deliberandam de Francis”; see Petit-Dutaillis, p. 177, note 5. It did not, however, all go to Louis; e.g., the whole scutage of Kent, as well as a share of the tallage from some of the towns in that county, was allotted to Hubert de Burgh for the repair and fortification of Dover Castle, 11th February, 1218, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 352.
- [423] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 336.
- [424] “In quas ingressus non habetur nisi per vicecomites vel ballivos et absque debito waranto.”
- [425] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 170, 171.
- [426] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 375.
- [427] Ann. Dunst., p. 53.
- [428] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 93. On Alexander’s occupation of Carlisle and the ecclesiastical feud there, see [ib.] p. 111.
- [429] [Ib.] p. 122.
- [430] Henry was at Northampton those two days, [ib.] pp. 130, 172.
- [431] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 348, Northampton.
- [432] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 132.
- [433] Even in Gwynedd there were encroachments in the north-east, e.g., Rhuddlan.
- [434] After careful consideration I can see no other possible interpretation of the decree (Bliss, Calendar of Papal Documents, vol. i. p. 109) whereby Pope Honorius in 1226 declared Joan legitimate, but without prejudice to King Henry.
- [435] Brut y Tywysogion, pp. 287–289.
- [436] [Ib.] p. 291.
- [437] About 11th November, [ib.] pp. 285–287; certainly between 2nd October and 20th November, Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 232 b, 237 b.
- [438] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 232 b.
- [439] Brut, pp. 289, 291.
- [440] Sons of his father’s sister Maud by her marriage with Gruffudd ap Rhys, who died in 1201. Maelgwn and Rhys Gryg, i.e., “the Hoarse,” were Gruffudd’s brothers.
- [441] Brut, p. 287.
- [442] [Ib.] p. 293.
- [443] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 109, 110.
- [444] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 72–75, 112.
- [445] Brut, pp. 299, 301.
- [446] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17738–45.
- [447] Husband of Reginald de Breuse’s sister Annora.
- [448] Foedera, I. i. p. 149.
- [449] [Above, footnote 430].
- [450] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 132; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 348, 376.
- [451] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 136.
- [452] [Ib.] vol. i. p. 143, Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 378 b, 379. Cf. Brut, p. 303: “Christianity was restored to the men of the south, and Caermarthen and Aberteivi” [i.e., Cardigan] “were put under the custody of Llywelyn.” These two castles and the whole land of Gower had been since January, 1214, under the charge of the Earl Marshal; see Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 109 b.
- [453] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 142.
- [454] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17748–17859.
- [455] Brut, p. 303.
- [456] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 17818.
- [457] [Ib.] ll. 17860–17871; the story is told confusedly, but with the help of the Brut and the dates furnished by the Rolls the sequence of events can be made out. The Worcester parlement in which this discussion took place is doubtless not the first meeting with Llewelyn, in March, but the later meeting, at the close of Easter, when the court would be gathered round the king for the festival.
- [458] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 149.
- [459] [Ib.] pp. 155, 156.
- [460] Brut, p. 305.
- [461] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 133.
- [462] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 150.
- [463] [Ib.] p. 204.
- [464] Geoffrey’s letter does not seem to be extant; we only know its contents from the reply.
- [465] Foedera, I. i. p. 145.
- [466] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 31.
- [467] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 22, 23, 14th and 17th January, 1217.
- [468] [Ib.] p. 57; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 306.
- [469] These things appear from the agreement made between the king and Geoffrey de Marsh in 1220, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 263–264.
- [470] [Ib.] p. 132, 18th December, 1217.
- [471] [Ib.] p. 72.
- [472] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 376 b, 377.
- [473] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 377.
- [474] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 162, 15th April, 1218.
- [475] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 358 b.
- [476] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 240; cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 207, and Ann. Dunst., p. 51.
- [477] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 116.
- [478] [Ib.] p. 174.
- [479] [Ib.] pp. 194, 195, 198, &c.
- [480] Ann. Dunst., a. 1220, p. 60.
- [481] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 354 b, 357, 359 b.
- [482] [Ib.] p. 378 b.
- [483] The Ann. Dunst., a. 1218, p. 54, say all these started in May. The Ann. Wav., a. 1218, say Chester and Ferrers started at Whitsuntide (Whit Sunday was 3rd June), and place Harcourt’s departure in the following year. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 240, 241.
- [484] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 44; Ann. Wav. and Dunst., a. 1219.
- [485] Ann. Dunst., a. 1219.
- [486] R. Wend., [l.c.]
- [487] R. Wend., [l.c.]; Ann. Dunst. and Wav., a. 1219. In a letter patent dated 20th January, 1219, the king takes under his protection until June 24th a ship which Saer “sibi parari fecit in partibus Galweiae ad eundum in partes Bristoll, pro victualibus et armis et aliis sibi necessariis ad iter peregrinacionis suae quod facere disponit in terram Jerosolymitanam.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 185.
- [488] Ann. Wav., a. 1219.
- [489] Ann. Dunst., a. 1219, p. 56.
- [490] The story of the siege of Newark in 1218 is prefaced by Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. pp. 34, 35, as follows: “Erant autem his diebus multi in Anglia quibus tempore belli praeteriti dulcissimum fuerat de rapinis vixisse, unde nunc post pacem denuntiatam et omnibus concessam non potuerunt manus a praeda cohibere; horum autem principales fuerunt incentores Willelmus comes Albemarliae, Falcasius cum suis castellanis, Robertus de Veteriponte, Brienus de Insula, Hugo de Baillul, Philippus Marci, et Robertus de Gaugi, cum aliis multis, qui castella quorundam episcoporum ac magnatum cum terris et possessionibus contra regis prohibitionem et illorum voluntatem detinere praesumpserunt eisdem; inter quos Robertus de Gaugi, post multas regis admonitiones, castellum de Newerc cum villa tota et pertinentiis, quae ad jus Hugonis Lincolniensis episcopi spectabant, ei reddere contradixit.” Mr. Turner (“Minority,” part II., Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 3rd ser. vol. i. pp. 221–222) has shown that not only up to this date, but for several years after, there is no evidence on this subject against Falkes, and that there is none whatever, at any date, against Brian de Lisle, Philip Marc, and Robert de Vipont. Hugh de Balliol really was contumacious, and so too, though as yet in a much lesser degree, was William of Aumale ([ib.] pp. 223, 237). It is quite clear that, as Mr. Turner says (p. 222), Roger’s account of the Newark affair was written some years after the occurrence, and that Roger “had in mind the events of the years 1224 and 1225 when he was writing of 1218.” A hint of this confusion lurks in a detail which seems to have escaped Mr. Turner’s notice. Roger, immediately before the passage quoted above, says that Henry kept Christmas, 1217 (1218, in Roger’s reckoning), at Northampton with Falkes. But as a matter of fact Henry kept that Christmas at Gloucester; see above, [p. 91]. Obviously Roger was confusing the Christmas of 1217 with that of 1223, the one which immediately preceded the redistribution of royal castles in 1224, and which Henry really did spend at Northampton, though not as Falkes’s guest.
- [491] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 193 b. See details in Turner, pt. II. pp. 222–225.
- [492] Pat. Rolls Hen. III, vol. i. p. 68.
- [493] [Ib.] p. 71.
- [494] [Ib.] p. 81.
- [495] [Ib.] p. 85.
- [496] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 121.
- [497] [Ib.] pp. 134, 135.
- [498] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 378.
- [499] [Ib.] p. 365.
- [500] [Ib.] p. 365 b.
- [501] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 162, 163.
- [502] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 35, 36.
- [503] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 164.
- [504] Ann. Dunst., a. 1218.
- [505] Gualo had certainly sent in his resignation to the Pope; it was on 12th September, 1218, that Honorius appointed Pandulf legate to England, Gualo having resigned that office: Bliss, Calendar of Documents, vol. i. p. 58.
- [506] “Liberate de thesauro nostro Waltero aurifabro qui fecit sigillum nostrum v marcas pro argento sigilli nostro ponderante v marcas; et pro opere mercedem suam ita reddatis quod de jure contentus esse debeat,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 381 b, 7th November 1218. The sum finally decided upon as that “wherewith he ought by rights to be content” was forty shillings, which another writ addressed to the treasurer and chamberlains on 2nd December authorised them to pay “Waltero de Ripa aurifabro in mercedem operis sigilli nostri quod fecit”; [ib.] p. 383.
- [507] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 177. This letter has no date; but it heads the Roll of 3 Hen. III, and is entitled, “Primae litterae novi sigilli domini regis, de cartis vel litteris patentibus non faciendis; et hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere.” In the Close Roll of the same year (vol. i. p. 381) there is a note, “Hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere,” inserted between the abstract of a letter dated 3rd November and that of a letter dated 5th November. The earliest dated document expressly stated in the Rolls to be “sealed with our seal” is a patent of 4th November, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 207.
- [508] On 3rd September, 1220, Henry writes to Almeric of Limoges: “Sciatis quod cum dominus Gualo titulo S. Martini presbyter cardinalis Legatus esset in Anglia, juratum fuit in praesentia ipsius per dominum Wintoniensem episcopum, et cancellarium nostrum, et Hubertum de Burgo justiciarium nostrum, necnon et per commune concilium nostrum, quod ipsi nos custodient et tenebunt in seisina omnium terrarum quae fuerunt in manu domini Johannis Regis patris nostri die qua guerra primo mota fuit inter ipsum et barones suos Angliae, et quod nec aliquid fiet de terra aliqua conferenda vel alienanda, quamdiu infra aetatem fuerimus, quod cedere possit alicui ad perpetuitatem,” Foedera, I. i. p. 163. It is possible that this transaction, of which I have found no other mention, may have taken place at the council of Bristol in November, 1217; but if it had we should have expected the Marshal to be named among those who took the oath. The date which I have suggested for it seems therefore more probable.
- [509] Chron. Melrose, a. 1218, p. 134.
- [510] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 177. The statement of the Waverley Annals, a. 1218, that the Charter was again re-issued after Michaelmas, is clearly erroneous; this supposed confirmation is, as Professor Powicke says (“Chancery,” Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 234), “obviously that of 1217.”
- [511] “Circa festum S. Clementis,” Ann. Wav., a. 1218; “circa festum B. Andreae,” R. Coggeshall, p. 186, and M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. pp. 42, 43. He seems to have carried with him a part, but still only a part, of the arrears of tribute due from England and Ireland to the Pope: “Soluta est vicesima pars trium annorum ab Anglis Ecclesiae Romanae,” say the Ann. Winton., a. 1219; on the debt for Ireland, see above, [p. 95]. The Barnwell Annalist says Gualo went “cum infinita pecunia, quocumque modo adquisita” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 241); but the insinuation here implied, and the charges of avarice and extortion brought against Gualo by some modern writers, are groundless. See Turner, pt. I., pp. 225, 256, note 1.
- [512] R. Coggeshall, p. 186.
- [513] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17881–86.
- [514] [Ib.] ll. 17886–17936. The poet says the Marshal stayed in London till after the beginning of Lent; and this is confirmed by the Rolls. We have no attestations of the Marshal between 15th March (Mid-Lent) and 20th March, but on the 20th he attests a letter at Caversham, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 189. On the attestations of royal letters during the last few weeks of his life see Turner, pt. I. p. 291.
- [515] This seems to be the meaning of Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17941–48, compared with the letters attested by the Marshal on 24th and 28th March and 4th April, two of them “in the presence of Bishop Peter” (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 389 b, 390), and those attested by Peter at Caversham on 2nd April (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 190), and by Pandulf and Peter at Reading on 10th and 11th April (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 390).
- [516] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17949–18114. Cf. the statement made on the King’s behalf in the indictment against Hubert de Burgh in 1239, that the Legate (by a clerical error or a slip of memory miscalled “Gwalla”) “de commune consilio et provisione totius regni post mortem Marescalli fuit primus consiliarius et principalis totius regni Angliae,” Responsiones pro Huberto, M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi. p. 64.
- [517] See the extremely interesting account of his last days and death, Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 18121–18973. The date—14th May, Tuesday before Ascension Day—is given in Ann. Wav., a. 1219.
- [518] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 18983–19073.
CHAPTER III
THE LEGATION OF PANDULF
1219–1221
Car n’a tele gent en nule terre
Comme il a dedenz Engleterre
De divers corages chascuns;