Longchamp
demands
the royal
castles.
The Chancellor, in pursuance of a deliberate plan for maintaining the royal power, was engaged in taking into his own hands the many castles which since the death of Henry II. had got into untrustworthy keeping. The importance of this measure, sufficiently clear from the history of the two last reigns, justified some severity. Yet action so speedy and direct could scarcely have been expected by men who had only a year and a half before paid down large sums of money to Richard for the possessions of which they were now deprived. John knew this; he knew that he had himself been kept out of the castles belonging to the lordships which were showered upon him, and determined to avail himself of the first chance to set matters right and to obtain recognition of his brother’s heir. So whilst Longchamp was busy in the West of England John took measures for securing the castles of Tickhill and Nottingham, the two strongest fortresses to which he thought he had a claim. The chance soon came.
Gerard
Camvill.
War and
truces.
Mission of
Walter of
Coutances.
Gerard Camvill, the warden of Lincoln Castle and sheriff of the shire, refused to surrender his fortress at the command of Longchamp, and appealed to John as his liege lord. John took up arms and seized Nottingham and Tickhill. The Chancellor went northward to meet him, but no battle was fought; and a truce was made at Winchester towards the end of April, 1191. This lasted but a short time. Soon after the pacification, about midsummer, war broke out again; again the castles were surrendered to John, and a battle was imminent. But now a new actor appeared. Richard, hearing from his mother of the angry state of the kingdom, sent from Messina the Archbishop of Rouen, Walter of Coutances, an old officer of the English court who had been Vice-Chancellor to Henry II., with instructions of which we have no very certain account, but which probably contained two or three alternative courses, one of which was the superseding of Longchamp. Just at the same time Clement III. died, and it was very uncertain whether Celestine III., who succeeded him, would renew the legatine commission. The Archbishop of Rouen arrived in time to prevent bloodshed; but he did not produce his summary instructions. A second truce was made at Winchester in July, and the castles both of the king and of John were placed in safe hands.
Return of
Archbishop
Geoffrey.
Longchamp
removed
from the
Justiciarship.
Two months had scarcely passed when a third struggle occurred. Archbishop Geoffrey of York, released, as he said, like John, from his three years’ exile, returned from his consecration at Tours, and landed at Dover in September. The Chancellor fearful of his influence and afraid of his coalescing with John, tried to prevent his landing. The new archbishop was sacrilegiously handled by the legate’s servants, drawn from sanctuary and imprisoned. John took up at once his brother’s cause, and the bishops and barons, indignant that a son of the great King Henry should be so treated, compelled the Chancellor to disavow the act and release the prisoner. Geoffrey, set free, went at once to London. John and the Archbishop of Rouen collected the barons, and Longchamp shut himself up at Windsor. The barons cried out for his deposition, the bishops for his excommunication. Scarcely any of the many friends whom he had purchased stood by him. It was at last agreed that he should meet the whole body of the baronage at the bridge over the Loddon near Reading, early in October. The barons met there. Longchamp’s courage failed him; instead of keeping his appointment he started at full speed to London. When he arrived there he found that his friends were a minority among the citizens, and took refuge in the Tower. No sooner was he there than John and the barons came at full speed after him. The next day they held a solemn assembly. The Archbishop of Rouen at last exhibited his commission and was received as Justiciar. John was recognized as his brother’s representative. Longchamp was compelled to surrender his castles and go into exile. This would seem to have been a case of revolutionary action, rather than of the constitutional dismissal of a minister; still it is important in its relation to the theory of the responsibility of ministers, and as containing in germ the idea that an unworthy minister is amenable to punishment and deposition at the hands of the nation, and is not responsible to his master only.
Intrigues of
Philip and
John, 1192.