Chapter IV: Henry and the Barons (2)

The first hostile movement was made directly after Easter by a body of Flemings who crossed the Seine at Pacy; but they had no sooner touched Norman soil than they were driven back by the people of the town, and were nearly all drowned in attempting to recross the river.[681] Henry meanwhile, after spending Easter at Alençon,[682] had established his head-quarters at Rouen, where he remained till the end of June, apparently indifferent to the plots that were hatching around him, and entirely absorbed in the pleasures of the chase.[683] In reality however he was transacting a good deal of quiet business, filling up vacant sees in England;[684] appointing a new chancellor, Ralf of Varneville, to the office which had been in commission--that is, virtually, in the hands of Geoffrey Ridel--ever since S. Thomas had resigned it ten years before;[685] and writing to all his continental allies to enlist their sympathies and if possible their support in the coming struggle.[686] One of them at least, his future son-in-law William of Sicily, returned an answer full of hearty sympathy;[687] neither he nor his fellow-kings, however, had anything more substantial to give. The only support upon which Henry could really depend was that of a troop of twenty thousand Brabantine mercenaries, who served him indeed bravely and loyally, but by no means for nothing;[688] and if we may trust a writer who, although remote from the present scene of action, seems to have had a more intimate acquaintance than most of his fellow-historians with all matters connected with the Brabantines, Henry’s finances were already so exhausted that he was obliged to give the sword of state used at his coronation in pledge to these men as security for the wages which he was unable to pay them.[689] Yet he could trust no one else in Normandy; and as yet he scarcely knew his own resources in England.

[681] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 367. He says they were
drowned because the bridge was “a quâdam mulierculâ effractus.”

[682] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 45.

[683] “Rex pater eo tempore morabatur Rothomagi, ut populo
videbatur æquo animo ferens quæ fiebant in terrâ; frequentius
solito venatui totus indulgens” [see extracts from Pipe Roll
1173 illustrating this, in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 173];
“venientibus ad se vultum hylaritatis prætendens, aliquid
extorquere volentibus patienter respondens.” R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 373, 374. Cf. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 118,
119 (Michel, p. 6).

[684] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 366–368. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 243, 245.

[685] R. Diceto (as above), p. 367.

[686] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 47. He says Henry wrote
“_imperatoribus_ et regibus,” which we must take to include the
Eastern Emperor.

[687] Letter in _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 55, note 2;
Rog. Howden (as above), p. 48.

[688] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 47. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c.
27 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 172). The latter does not mention their
number; Jordan Fantosme, v. 67 (Michel, p. 4) makes it only ten
thousand; the _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 51, says “plus quam
decem millia.”

[689] I suppose this to be the meaning of Geoff. Vigeois, l.
i. c. 67 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 319): “Adeo Rex
multis thesauris exhaustis nauseatus est, ut Brabantionibus
qui ei parebant pro mercede Spatham regiæ coronæ in gagium
mitteret.”

Early in June Robert of Leicester and William of Tancarville, the high-chamberlain of Normandy, sought license from the justiciars in London to join the king at Rouen. Immediately on landing, however, they hastened not to Henry II., but to his son.[690] The justiciar himself, Richard de Lucy, was in such anxiety that he seems to have had some thoughts of going in person to consult with the king.[691] The consultation however was to be held not in Normandy but in England. In the last days of June or the first days of July, while the counts of Flanders and Boulogne were easily overcoming the mock resistance of Aumale and Driencourt, and Louis of France was laying siege to Verneuil,[692] Henry suddenly crossed the sea, made his way as far inland as Northampton, where he stayed four days, collected his treasure and his adherents, issued his instructions for action against the rebels, and was back again at Rouen so quickly that neither friends nor foes seem ever to have discovered his absence.[693]

[690] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 370. He gives no date; but
it must have been quite in the beginning of June, for Mr. Eyton
says (_Itin. Hen. II._, p. 172, note 5): “The Dorset Pipe Roll
of Michaelmas 1173 shews that the Earl of Leicester’s manor of
Kingston (now Kingston Lacy) had been confiscated four months
previously (Hutchins, iii. 233).”

[691] “Et in liberacione ix navium quæ debuerunt transfretare
cum Ricardo de Luci, et Ricardo Pictaviæ archidiacono, et
Gaufrido Cantuariensi archidiacono et aliis baronibus, precepto
Regis £13: 15s. per breve Ricardi de Luci.” Pipe Roll a. 1173
(Southampton), quoted by Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 174.
See Mr. Eyton’s comment, _ib._ note 4, which points to the
conclusion that the ships made the voyage--doubtless with the
other passengers--but that Richard “probably thought it wise to
adhere to his post of viceroy.”

[692] R. Diceto (as above), pp. 373, 374. _Gesta Hen._
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 49. Rob. Torigni, a. 1173.

[693] “Et item in liberacione Esnaccæ quando transfretavit
in Normanniam contra Regem £7: 10s. per breve Regis. Et in
liberacione xx. hominum qui fuerunt missi de cremento in
Esnacchâ 40s. per breve Regis. Et in liberacione iv. navium
quæ transfretaverunt cum Esnacchiâ £7: 10s. per idem breve.
Et pro locandis carretis ad reportandum thesaurum de Hantoniâ
ad Wintoniam duabus vicibus 9s. Et pro unâ carretâ locandâ
ad portandas Bulgas Regis ad Winton. 9d.” Pipe Roll a. 1173
(Southampton), quoted in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 173. “Et
in corredio Regis apud Norhanton per iv dies £32: 6: 5 per
breve Regis.” Northampton, _ibid._ “Et in soltis per breve
Regis ipsi vicecomiti [of Northamptonshire] £72: 11: 9, pro
robbâ quam invenit Regi.” _Ibid._ On the Southampton entries
Mr. Eyton remarks: “The above charges, from their position on
the roll, would seem to have been incurred after July 15.”
But surely if Henry had been in England during the siege of
Leicester, which lasted from July 3 to July 28, we must have
had some mention of his presence; and there is scarcely time
for it later, between the capture of Leicester and his own
expedition to Conches on August 7. Is it not much more natural
to conclude that the visit took place earlier--at the end of
June--and that the orders for the Leicester expedition, which
Rog. Wend. (Coxe, vol. ii. p. 372) expressly says were given
by the king, were issued to Richard de Lucy in a personal
interview?

Hurried, however, as was the king’s visit to England, it did its work in bracing up the energies and determining the action of the vassals who were faithful to him there. In personal and territorial importance indeed these were very unequally matched with the rebels. The fidelity of the Welsh princes, David Ap-Owen and Rees Ap-Griffith,[694] could not balance the hostility of the King of Scots. Among the loyal English barons, the most conspicuous were a group of the king’s immediate kinsmen, none of whom however ranked high among the descendants of the ducal house of Normandy:--his half-brother Earl Hameline of Warren, his uncle Reginald of Cornwall, his cousin William of Gloucester;[695] besides Earl William of Arundel the husband of his grandfather’s widow Queen Adeliza, his son William, and his kinsman Richard of Aubigny. The earl of Essex, William de Mandeville, was a son of that Geoffrey de Mandeville who had accepted the earldom of Essex from both Stephen and Matilda, and who had been one of the worst evil-doers in the civil war; but the son was as loyal as the father was faithless; he seems indeed to have been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his friendship.[696] The loyalty of Earl Simon of Northampton may have been quickened by his rivalry with David of Scotland for the earldom of Huntingdon. That of William of Salisbury was an inheritance from his father, Earl Patrick, who had earned his title by his services to the Empress, and had fallen honourably at his post of governor of Aquitaine in the rising of 1168. The loyal barons of lesser degree are chiefly representatives of the class which half a century before had been known as the “new men”--men who had risen by virtue of their services in the work of the administration, either under Henry himself or under his grandfather. Such were the justiciar Richard de Lucy and the constable Humfrey de Bohun; William de Vesci, son of Eustace Fitz-John, and like his father a mighty man in the north; his nephew John, constable of Chester;--the whole house of Stuteville, with Robert de Stuteville the sheriff of Yorkshire at its head;[697]--and Ralf de Glanville,[698] sheriff of Lancashire, custodian of the honour of Richmond,[699] and destined in a few years to wider fame as the worthy successor of Richard de Lucy. The Glanvilles, the Stutevilles and the de Vescis now wielded in Yorkshire as the king’s representatives the influence which had been usurped there by William of Aumale before his expulsion from Holderness; while in Northumberland a considerable share of the power formerly exercised by the rebellious house of Mowbray had passed to servants of the Crown such as Odelin de Umfraville[700] and Bernard de Bailleul,[701] whose name in its English form of Balliol became in after-times closely associated with that borne by two other loyal northern barons--Robert and Adam de Bruce.[702] To the same class of “new men” belonged Geoffrey Trussebut, Everard de Ros, Guy de Vere, Bertram de Verdon, Philip de Kime and his brother Simon.[703]

[694] In _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 51, note 4, the
names are given as “David et Evayn reges Walliæ”--a blunder
probably caused by the writer’s greater familiarity with David,
owing to his later family alliance with the English king. In
the present war, however, Rees proved the more active ally of
the two, as we shall see later.

[695] It will however appear later that Gloucester’s fidelity
was somewhat doubtful.

[696] William de Mandeville is constantly found, throughout his
life, in the king’s immediate company. See Eyton, _Itin. Hen.
II. passim._

[697] All these names are in the list in the _Gesta Hen._
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 51, note 4.

[698] _Ib._ p. 65. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60. Will.
Newb., l. ii. c. 33 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 184).

[699] Escheated on the death of Duke Conan of Britanny.

[700] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 51, note 4, 66.

[701] _Ib._ pp. 65, 66. Will. Newb. as above.

[702] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51, note 4.

[703] _Ibid._ The Trussebuts, de Roses and de Veres appear
under Henry I. Bertram de Verdon and Philip de Kime were
employed in the Curia Regis and Exchequer under Henry II.; see
Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp. 185, 76, 130, etc. Another name
among the loyalists in the _Gesta Hen._ (as above)--that of
Richard Louvetot--seems to have got in by mistake; cf. _ib._ p.
57, where he appears among the rebels at Dol.

Some half-dozen of the king’s English adherents--William of Essex, William of Arundel, Robert de Stuteville and the elder Saher de Quincy, besides two who had lately come over from Ireland, Richard of Striguil and Hugh de Lacy--either returned with him to Rouen or had joined him there already,[704] thus helping to swell the little group of loyalists who surrounded him in Normandy. That group contained no Norman baron of the first rank, and consisted only of a few personal friends and ministers:--Richard of Hommet the constable of the duchy, with all his sons and brothers;[705] William de Courcy the seneschal;[706] Richard Fitz-Count, the king’s cousin;[707] Hugh de Beauchamp[708] and Henry of Neubourg,[709] sons of the loyal house of Beauchamp which in England looked to the earl of Warwick as its head; Richard de Vernon and Jordan Tesson;[710]--while two faithful members of the older Norman nobility, Hugh of Gournay and his son, had already fallen prisoners into the hands of the young king.[711] It was in truth Henry’s continental dominions which most needed his presence and that of all the forces which he could muster; for the two chief English rebels, the earls of Leicester and Chester, were both beyond the Channel, and their absence enabled the king’s representatives to strike the first blow before the revolt had time to break forth in England at all. On July 3 the town of Leicester was besieged by Richard de Lucy and Earl Reginald of Cornwall at the head of “the host of England.”[712] After a three weeks’ siege and a vast expenditure of money and labour,[713] the town was fired, and on July 28 it surrendered.[714] The castle still held out, its garrison accepting a truce until Michaelmas; the gates and walls of the city were at once thrown down; the citizens were suffered to go out free on payment of a fine of three hundred marks;[715] but it was only by taking sanctuary in the great abbeys of S. Alban or S. Edmund that their leaders could feel secure against the vengeance of the king.[716]

[704] Essex and Arundel had both been with him since the very
beginning of the year, for they witnessed the marriage-contract
of John and Alice of Maurienne; _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 39. Robert de Stuteville and Saher de Quincy seem to have
been with him in the summer of 1173 (Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._,
p. 174). Hugh de Lacy was at Verneuil, defending it for the
king in July (_Gesta Hen._, vol. i. p. 49); and Richard of
Striguil was of the party which went to its relief in August
(R. Diceto, Stubbs, vol. i. p. 375).

[705] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51, note 4.

[706] _Ib._ p. 39. Cf. Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp. 170, 177.

[707] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51.

[708] _Ib._ p. 49.

[709] _Ib._ p. 52.

[710] _Ib._ pp. 51, 52.

[711] Hugh of Gournay and his son, with eighty knights, fell
into the young king’s hands, “non tam inimicorum virtuti quam
insidiis intercepti,” quite early in the war; R. Diceto (as
above), p. 369.

[712] “Cum exercitu Angliæ,” _i.e._ the national not the feudal
host. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 58. The date comes from R.
Diceto (as above), p. 376.

[713] See some illustrations in the Pipe Roll of 1173, as
quoted by Eyton (as above), p. 175.

[714] R. Diceto (as above), p. 376. He seems to make the fire
accidental, and the surrender a consequence of it. In the
_Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 58, the victors seem to fire
the town after they have captured it.

[715] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 376.

[716] Mat. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard), vol. ii. p. 289.

Three days before the capture of Leicester, an arrow shot by one of Henry’s Brabantine cross-bowmen gave Matthew of Boulogne his death-wound, and thereby caused the break-up of the Flemish expedition against Normandy.[717] A fortnight later Henry set out at the head of all his available forces to the relief of Verneuil, which Hugh de Lacy and Hugh de Beauchamp were defending against the king of France. By a double treachery Louis, under cover of a truce, gained possession of the town, set it on fire, and retreated into his own domains before Henry could overtake him.[718] Henry marched back to Rouen, taking Gilbert of Tillières’s castle of Damville on the way,[719] and thence despatched his Brabantines to check the plundering operations which Hugh of Chester and Ralf of Fougères were carrying on unhindered throughout the border district which lay between Fougères and Avranches. The interception of an important convoy and the slaughter of its escort by the Brabantines drove the rebel leaders to retire into the fortress of Dol. Here they were blockaded by the Brabantines, backed by the populace of the district of Avranches,[720] who clearly had no sympathy with the treason of their viscount. The siege began on August 20; on the morrow Henry received tidings of it at Rouen; on the 23d he appeared in the midst of his soldiers; and on the 26th Dol and its garrison, with Ralf of Fougères and Hugh of Chester at their head, surrendered into his hands.[721] This blow crushed the Breton revolt; the rest of the duchy submitted at once.[722] Louis of France was so impressed by Henry’s success that he began to make overtures for negotiation, while Henry was holding his court in triumph at Le Mans. Shortly before Michaelmas a meeting took place near Gisors; Henry shewed the utmost anxiety to be reconciled with his sons, offering them literally the half of his realms in wealth and honours, and declaring his willingness virtually to strip himself of everything except his regal powers of government and justice.[723] That, however, was precisely the reservation against which the French king and the disaffected barons were both alike determined to fight as Henry himself had fought against S. Thomas’s reservation of the rights of his order. The terms were therefore refused, and the earl of Leicester in his baffled rage not only loaded his sovereign with abuse, but actually drew his sword to strike him. This outrage of course broke up the meeting.[724] Leicester hurried through Flanders, collecting troops as he went, to Wissant, whence he sailed for England on Michaelmas day.[725] Landing at Walton in Suffolk, he made his way to Hugh Bigod’s castle of Framlingham; here the two earls joined their forces; and they presently took and burned the castle of Haughley, which Ralf de Broc held against them for the king.[726]

[717] R. Diceto as above, p. 373. He alone gives the date,
attributes the wound to a shot “a quodam marchione,” and places
the scene on the invaders’ march from Driencourt to Arques. The
_Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 49, Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p.
246, and Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 28 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 173)
make it occur during the siege of Driencourt (William calls it
by its more modern name, “Neufchâtel”), but as the former has
told us that this siege began about July 6 and was ended within
a fortnight, this is irreconcileable with the date given by R.
Diceto. Gervase says Matthew was shot “a quodam arcubalistâ.”

[718] See the details of the story, and the disgraceful conduct
of Louis, in _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 51–54; Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 50; R. Diceto as above, p. 375; and
another version in Will. Newb. as above (pp. 174, 175).

[719] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 56.

[720] Rob. Torigni, a. 1173. “Itaque obsessa est turris Doli a
Brebenzonibus et militibus regis et plebe Abrincatinâ.”

[721] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 378; _Gesta Hen._
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 57, 58; Rob. Torigni, a. 1173; Will.
Newb. l. ii. c. 29 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 176). The _Gesta Hen._
gives the date, and a list of the captured. According to Rob.
Torigni, Ralf of Fougères escaped to the woods, and his two
sons were taken as hostages. The Chron. S. Albin. a. 1173
(Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 42), says he was taken, together
with Hugh (whom the Angevin monk transforms into “comitem
Sceptrensem”) and a hundred knights.

[722] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 52.

[723] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 59. Rog. Howden as above, p. 53.

[724] Rog. Howden as above, p. 54.

[725] R. Diceto as above, p. 377. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol.
i. p. 246, and _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 60, say he came
over about S. Luke’s day; but this is irreconcileable with
R. Diceto’s careful and minute chronology of the subsequent
campaign. R. Niger (Anstruther), p. 175, says “in vigiliâ S.
Mauricii,” _i.e._ September 20.

[726] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 60, 61, with an
impossible date; see _ib._ p. 60, note 12. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 377,
gives the correct date of the capture of Haughley, October 13.

Map to Illustrate the REBELLION of 1173–1174.

_Royal Strongholds underlined thus: Alnwick._

Rebel Stronholds:
(S) _Scottish_.
(H D) _Hugh of Durham_.
(M) _Mowbrays_.
(H B) _Hugh Bigod_.
(H C) _Hugh of Chester_.
(H M) _Hamo de Massey_.
(R M) _Richard de Morville_.
(R L) _Robert of Leicester_.
(R F) _Robert of Ferrers_.

Wagner & Debes’ Geogˡ. Estabᵗ. Leipsic. London, Macmillan & Co.
]

At the moment of Leicester’s arrival the representatives of the king were far away on the Scottish border. At the close of the summer William of Scotland had gathered his motley host of Lowland knights and wild Galloway Highlanders, marched unhindered through the territories of the see of Durham, and was just beginning to ravage Yorkshire after the manner of his forefathers when Richard de Lucy and Humfrey de Bohun hastily reassembled their forces and marched against him with such promptitude and vigour that he was compelled to retreat not merely into Lothian but into the safer shelter of the Celtic Scotland beyond it. The English host overran Lothian,[727] and had just given Berwick to the flames when tidings reached them of Earl Robert’s doings in Suffolk. The king of Scots was begging for a truce; the English leaders readily consented, that they might hurry back to their duties in the south.[728] Richard de Lucy returned to his post of viceroy, and the supreme military command was left to the constable Humfrey de Bohun, assisted by the earls of Cornwall and Gloucester and by Earl William of Arundel,[729] who had now come to give the help of his sword in England as he had already given it in Normandy. The constable and the three earls, with three hundred paid soldiers of the king, posted themselves at S. Edmund’s, ready to intercept Earl Robert on his way from Framlingham to join the garrison of Leicester.[730] He made a circuit to the northward to avoid them, but in vain. They marched forth from S. Edmund’s beneath the banner of its patron saint, the famous East-Anglian king and martyr, overtook the earl in a marsh near the church of S. Geneviève at Fornham,[731] and in spite of overwhelming odds defeated him completely. His Flemish mercenaries, who had gone forth in their insolent pride singing “Hop, hop, Wilekin! England is mine and thine,”[732] were cut to pieces not so much by the royal troops as by the peasantry of the district, who flocked to the battle-field armed with forks and flails, with which they either despatched them at once or drove them to suffocation in the ditches.[733] His French and Norman knights were all made prisoners;[734] he himself took to flight, but was overtaken and captured;[735] and his wife, who had accompanied him throughout his enterprise, was made captive with him.[736] The victors followed up their success by posting bodies of troops at S. Edmund’s, Ipswich and Colchester, hoping that Hugh Bigod, thus confined within his own earldom, would be unable to provide for the large force of Flemish mercenaries still quartered in his various castles, and that these would be starved into surrender. The approach of winter however disposed both parties for a compromise; a truce was arranged to last till the octave of Pentecost, Hugh consenting to dismiss his Flemings, who were furnished with a safe-conduct through Essex and Kent and with ships to transport them from Dover back to their own land.[737]

[727] R. Diceto as above, p. 376. Cf. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p.
61.

[728] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 61. R. Diceto as above, p.
376. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–838 (Michel, pp. 22–38), has a
long account of this first Scottish invasion, but it is far
from clear, and some parts of it, _e.g._ the statement that
Warkworth was taken by the Scots, seem incompatible with
after-events.

[729] _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[730] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 377. _Gesta Hen._
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 61. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 54.

[731] _Gesta Hen._ as above. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 55. The
date, according to R. Diceto (as above, p. 378) is October 17;
the _Gesta_ (as above, p. 62) make it October 16.

[732] Mat. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ (Madden), vol. i. p. 381.
“Hoppe, hoppe, Wilekin, hoppe, Wilekin, Engelond is min ant
tin.”

[733] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1086–1091 (Michel, p. 50).

[734] R. Diceto as above, pp. 377, 378. _Gesta Hen._ as above,
pp. 61, 62. Rog. Howden as above, p. 55. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 246. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 30 (Howlett, vol. i.
p. 179). The number of Robert’s Flemish troops is surely
exaggerated by all these writers; still, even at the lowest
computation, the odds seem to have been, as R. Diceto says, at
least four to one.

[735] Gerv. Cant. as above.

[736] Will. Newb. as above. R. Diceto as above, p. 378. She
had been with her husband in France, and returned with him
to England; _ib._ p. 377. According to Jordan Fantosme, vv.
980–992 (Michel, p. 46), it was she who urged him to the march
which led to his ruin, in defiance of his own dread of the
royal forces. See also in Jordan, vv. 1070–1077 (Michel, p.
50) the story of her trying to drown herself in a ditch to
avoid being captured; and that in Mat. Paris, as above, of her
throwing away her ring. This latter seems to be only another
version of Jordan’s; cf. his v. 1072.

[737] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 378. He gives the number
of these Flemings as fourteen hundred.

The earl and countess of Leicester were sent over to Normandy by the king’s orders, there to be shut up in company with Hugh of Chester in prison at Falaise.[738] Their capture filled the French king and the rebel princes with dismay, and none of them dared to venture upon any opposition against Henry when at Martinmas he led his Brabantines into Touraine, forced some of its rebellious barons into submission,[739] reinstated his ally Count John of Vendôme in his capital from which he had been expelled by his own son,[740] and returned to keep the Christmas feast at Caen.[741] An attack upon Séez, made at the opening of the new year by the young king and the counts of Blois, Perche and Alençon, was repulsed by the townsfolk,[742] and led only to a truce which lasted till the end of March.[743] The truce made by Richard de Lucy with the king of Scots was prolonged to the same date--the octave of Easter--by the diplomacy of Bishop Hugh of Durham, who took upon himself to purchase this delay, apparently without authority and for his own private ends, by a promise of three hundred marks of silver to be paid to the Scot king out of the lands of the Northumbrian barons.[744]

[738] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 62. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 55. See also quotations from Pipe Roll a.
1173 on this matter, in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 177.

[739] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 62, 63. The chief rebels were
Geoffrey of La Haye--apparently that same La Haye which had
formed part of the dower-lands of the first countess of Anjou,
and is known now as La Haye Descartes--and Robert of “Ble” (see
above, p. 136, note 6{661}) who held Preuilly and Champigny. A
list of the garrisons of these castles is given; two names are
worth noting--“Hugo le Danais” and “Rodbertus Anglicus.”

[740] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 63.

[741] _Ibid._ Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246. According
to Rob. Torigni, however (a. 1174--i.e. 1173 in our reckoning)
he kept it at Bures.

[742] R. Diceto as above, p. 379.

[743] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 63, 64.

[744] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 64. King and bishop met
in person at “Revedale”--or, as Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii.
pp. 56, 57, says, “in confinio regnorum Angliæ et Scotiæ apud
Revedene.”

The issue proved that Hugh’s real object was simply to gain time for the organization of a general rising in the north; and in this object he succeeded. The old isolation of Yorkshire was not yet a thing of the past; and its few lines of communication with southern England were now all blocked, at some point or other, by some stronghold of rebellion. Earl Hugh’s Chester, Hamo de Massey’s Dunham[745] and Geoffrey of Coutances’ Stockport commanded the waters of the Dee and the Mersey. South of the Peak, in the upper valley of the Trent, the earl of Ferrers held Tutbury and Duffield; further to south-east, on the opposite border of Charnwood Forest, lay the earl of Leicester’s capital and his castles of Groby and Mount Sorrel.[746] By the time that the truce expired Roger de Mowbray had renewed the fortifications of Kinardferry in the Isle of Axholm,[747] thus linking this southern chain of castles with those which he already possessed at Kirkby Malzeard, or Malessart, and Thirsk;[748] and Bishop Hugh had done the like at Northallerton.[749] Further north stood the great stronghold of Durham; while all these again were backed, far to the north-westward, by a double belt of fortresses stretching from the mouths of the Forth and the Tweed to that of the Solway:--Lauder, held by Richard de Morville; Stirling, Edinburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Annan and Lochmaben, all in the hands of the king of Scots.[750]

[745] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 48. Hamo de Massey had another
castle called Ullerwood; where was this?

[746] _Ibid._

[747] _Ib._ p. 64. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 379.

[748] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 48.

[749] Rog. Howden as above, p. 57.

[750] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 48. Annan and Lochmaben
belonged to Robert de Bruce; _ibid._ No doubt William had
seized them when Bruce joined Henry.

Between this northern belt of rebel strongholds, however, and the southern one which stretched from Chester to Axholm, there lay along the river-valleys of Cumberland and Northumberland a cluster of royal castles. Nicolas de Stuteville held Liddell, on the river of the same name. Burgh[751] stood on the Solway Firth, nearly opposite Annan; the whole valley of the Eden was guarded by Carlisle, whose castellan was Richard de Vaux,[752] and Appleby, which like Burgh was held by Robert de Stuteville for the king.[753] The course of the Tyne was commanded by Wark, under Roger de Stuteville,[754] Prudhoe, under Odelin de Umfraville,[755] and by the great royal fortress of Newcastle, in charge of Roger Fitz-Richard;[756] further north, between the valleys of the Wansbeck and the Coquet, stood Harbottle, also held by Odelin, with Roger Fitz-Richard’s Warkworth[757] and William de Vesci’s Alnwick[758] at the mouths of the Coquet and the Alne. This chain of defences William of Scotland, when at the expiration of the truce he again marched into England, at once set himself to break. While his brother David went to join the rebel garrison of Leicester,[759] he himself began by laying siege to Wark. This fortress, held in the king’s name by Roger de Stuteville--apparently a brother of the sheriff of Yorkshire--occupied a strong position in the upper valley of the Tyne, on the site of an earlier fortress which under the name of Carham had played a considerable part in the Scottish wars of Stephen’s time, and had been finally taken and razed by William’s grandfather King David in 1138.[760] William himself had already in the preceding autumn besieged Wark without success;[761] he prospered no better this time, and presently removed his forces to Carlisle,[762] where he had also sustained a like repulse six months before.[763] Carlisle, as well as Wark, was in truth almost impregnable except by starvation; and William, while blockading it closely, detached a part of his host for a series of expeditions against the lesser fortresses, Liddell, Burgh, Appleby, Harbottle and Warkworth, all of which fell into his hands.[764] His brother’s arrival at Leicester, meanwhile, seemed to have revived the energies of its garrison; under the command of Earl Robert of Ferrers they sallied forth very early one morning, surprised and burned the town of Nottingham, made a great slaughter of its citizens, and went home laden with plunder and prisoners.[765]

[751] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 65.

[752] _Ib._ p. 64.

[753] _Ib._ p. 65. Jordan Fantosme, v. 1467 (Michel, p. 66),
gives us the name--a very interesting one--of the acting
commandant--“Cospatric le fiz Horm, un viel Engleis fluri.”

[754] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–483 (Michel, pp. 22–24).

[755] _Ib._ vv. 594–603 (p. 28), _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[756] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 566, 567 (Michel, p. 26).

[757] _Ib._ vv. 562–565 (p. 26). _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 65.
See above, p. 149, note 3{728}.

[758] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 538, 539 (as above).

[759] _Gesta Hen._ as above. Cf. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1113–1136
(Michel, p. 52).

[760] See above, vol. i. pp. 287, 292.

[761] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–530 (Michel, pp. 22, 26).

[762] _Ib._ vv. 1191–1351 (pp. 54–62).

[763] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 610–760 (pp. 28–36).

[764] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 64, 65. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60. Will. Newb., l. ii. cc. 30, 31
(Hewlett, vol. i. pp. 177, 180), seems to have confused this
campaign with that of the preceding autumn; and so has,
apparently, Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1145–1511 (Michel, pp.
52–68). “Banesburc” in v. 1158 (p. 54), though it looks like
Bamborough, surely ought to be _Burgh_.

[765] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 69. Nottingham was commanded by
Reginald de Lucy; what relation to the justiciar?

Meanwhile the king’s representatives in the south were not idle. Knowing however that he was powerless to rescue the north, Richard de Lucy made an attempt to draw off in another direction the forces both of the Scot king and of his brother by laying siege to David’s castle of Huntingdon.[766] Huntingdon had been held ever since 1136 either by the reigning king of Scots or by one of his nearest kinsmen, in virtue of their descent from Waltheof, the last Old-English earl of Huntingdon and Northampton, through his daughter Matilda, the wife of King David. In each case, however, the fief seems to have been held not as an hereditary possession but by a special grant made to the individual holder for his life. The house of Northampton, sprung from an earlier marriage of the same Matilda, were thus enabled to maintain a claim upon it which had never been entirely barred, and which Earl Simon of Northampton now seized his opportunity to urge upon the king.[767] Henry answered that Simon might keep Huntingdon if he could win it;[768] thus securing for Richard de Lucy his support and co-operation in the siege, which began on May 8.[769] Three days before this, however, a severe blow had been dealt at the northern rebels. The king’s eldest son Geoffrey, who a year before had been appointed to the bishopric of Lincoln, gathered up the forces of Lincolnshire, led them into Axholm and laid siege to Kinardferry. Robert of Mowbray, who was commanding there, seeing his garrison threatened with the want of water, slipped out to seek aid of his friends at Leicester, but was surrounded and made prisoner by the country-folk at Clay.[770] On May 5 Kinardferry surrendered; after razing it, Geoffrey marched northward to York; here he was joined by the forces of the archbishop and of the shire; with this united host he took Mowbray’s castle of Malessart,[771] closely menaced that of Thirsk by erecting a rival fortification at Topcliff, and having intrusted the former to Archbishop Roger and the latter to William de Stuteville, marched back to Lincoln in triumph.[772] His victory was scarcely won when a new peril arose in East-Anglia. Three days after Pentecost some three hundred Flemish soldiers, forerunners of a great host with which Count Philip of Flanders had sworn to invade England at Midsummer on behalf of the young king, landed at the mouth of the Orwell.[773] Hugh Bigod, whose truce with the king’s officers, made when he dismissed his other Flemish troops in the preceding autumn, expired four days later, at once received them into his castles.[774] For a whole month, however, no further movement was made save by the garrison of Leicester, who after the close of Whitsun-week made a successful plundering raid upon the town of Northampton.[775] On June 18 Hugh Bigod and his Flemings marched upon Norwich, took it by assault, committed a vast slaughter of men and women, and finally sacked and fired the city.[776] They seem to have returned to Framlingham by way of Dunwich, which was still a flourishing seaport, of sufficient wealth to tempt their greed; but its stout fisher-folk met them with such a determined front that they were compelled to retire.[777]

[766] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 384.

[767] See the story in the tract “De Judithâ uxore Waldevi
comitis,” in M. F. Michel’s _Chroniques Anglo-Normandes_, vol.
ii. pp. 128, 129.

[768] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71. The case seems to have been
tried in the Curia Regis; _ibid._, and _Chron. Anglo-Norm._, as
above.

[769] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 384.

[770] “A rusticis del Clay.” _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p.
68. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 58, alters “rusticis”
into “hominibus.” The place is perhaps Clay Cross in Derbyshire.

[771] Kirkby or Kirby Malzeard, near Ripon.

[772] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 68, 69. Cf. R. Diceto as
above, and Gir. Cambr., _Vita Galfr. Archiep._, l. i. cc. 2, 3
(Dimock, vol. iv. pp. 364–367).

[773] “Apud Airewellam.” R. Diceto (as above), p. 381.

[774] _Ibid._ Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 247.

[775] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 68.

[776] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 68. R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 381 (to whom we owe the date). Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 248.

[777] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 30 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 178).
“Insignum vicum maritimum, variis opibus refertum, qui dicitur
Donewich,” he calls it. He gives an account of the entire
East-Anglian campaign, but he has mixed up the doings of this
summer of 1174 with those of the preceding autumn. Jordan
Fantosme, vv. 845–897 (Michel, pp. 40–42), has done the same.
He explains, however, the otherwise unaccountable facility
with which Norwich was taken, by telling us that “Uns traïtres
Lohereng la trahi, pur ço si fud surprise.”

Richard de Lucy was all this while busy with the siege of Huntingdon. Provoked apparently by a vigorous assault which he made upon it at midsummer,[778] the garrison set fire to the town; Richard then built a tower to block their egress from the castle, and left the completion of the siege to the earl of Northampton.[779] For himself it was time once more to lay down the knightly sword and resume that of justice. While the justiciar’s energies were absorbed in warfare with the barons, the burgher-nobles of the capital had caught from their feudal brethren the spirit of lawlessness and misrule, and London had become a vast den of thieves and murderers. Young men, sons and kinsmen of the noblest citizens, habitually went forth by night in parties of a hundred or more, broke into rich men’s houses and robbed them by force, and if they met any man walking in the streets alone, slew him at once. Peaceable citizens were driven in self-defence to meet violence with violence. One man, expecting an attack, gathered his armed servants around him in a concealed corner, surprised his assailants in the act of breaking into his house with crowbars, struck off with a blow of his sword the right hand of their leader Andrew Bucquinte, and raised an alarm which put the rest to flight. Bucquinte was captured and delivered next morning to the justiciar; on a promise of safety for life and limb he gave up the names of his accomplices; some fled, some were caught, and among the latter was one of the noblest and richest citizens of London, John Oldman,[780] who vainly offered five hundred marks of silver to the Crown to purchase his escape from the gallows.[781] The revelation of such a state of things in the capital apparently drove Richard de Lucy and his colleagues almost to desperation. They had already sent messenger after messenger to intreat that the king would return; getting however no certain answer, they now determined that one of their number should go to Normandy in person to lay before him an authentic account of the desperate condition of his realm.[782]

[778] “Appropinquante autem nativitate S. Johannis Baptistæ,
Ricardus de Luci magnum congregavit exercitum et obsedit
castellum de Huntendoniâ.” _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 70. Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60, substitutes for the first
words “in festo Nativitatis S. Johannis.” This is the first
time that either writer mentions the siege, but see R. Diceto
as above, p. 376.

[779] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71.

[780] “Johannes Senex.”

[781] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 155, 156. The story is
there told in connexion with that of the murder of a brother of
the earl of Ferrers in 1177, and said to have happened “three
years before.” The wording of the latter part, where it is said
that John “obtulit quingentas marcas argenti _domino regi_ ...
sed ... noluit denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium
de eo fieret,” seems to imply that the king himself came to
England between the capture of Bucquinte and the execution of
John. In that case the date of the affair would be about June
or July 1174. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 131, mentions
the hanging of John Oldman, but puts it after the murder of De
Ferrers in 1177 and omits the whole story which in the _Gesta_
intervenes, thereby also omitting to shew the true sequence of
events and chronology.

[782] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 381.

Henry had spent the spring in a successful progress through Maine and Anjou to Poitiers, where he kept the Whitsun feast. He had just rescued Saintes from a band of rebels who had seized it in Richard’s name[783] when he was called northward again by a rumour of the Flemish count’s scheme for the invasion of England. By S. Barnabas’s day he was back again on the borders of Britanny and Anjou; he took and fortified Ancenis, and then, leaving Anjou to the charge of a faithful baron, Maurice of Craon,[784] went to meet the castellans of the Norman border in a council at Bonneville on Midsummer-day. Their deliberations were interrupted by the appearance of Richard of Ilchester--now bishop-elect of Winchester--on his errand from England to recall the king.[785] Richard’s pleadings however were scarcely needed. Henry knew that his eldest son was at that very moment with the count of Flanders at Gravelines, only awaiting a favourable wind to set sail for the invasion of England,[786] and that, whatever might be the risk to his continental realms, he must hasten to save the island.[787] He at once took measures for the security of the Norman castles and for the transport of those prisoners and suspected persons whom he dared not venture to leave behind him--his queen,[788] the earl and countess of Leicester, the earl of Chester,[789] the young queen Margaret,[790] and the affianced brides of his three younger sons; besides the two children who were still with him, Jane and John.[791] The wind which thwarted the designs of his foes was equally unfavourable to him; it was not till July 7 that he himself embarked at Barfleur, and even then the peril of crossing seemed so great that the sailors were inclined to put back. Henry raised his eyes to heaven: “If I seek the peace of my realm--if the heavenly King wills that my return should restore its peace--He will bring me safe into port. If He has turned away His Face from me and determined to scourge my realm, may I never reach its shores!” By nightfall he was safe[792] at Southampton.[793]

[783] _Ib._ p. 380. Cf. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71, and
Chron. S. Albin. a. 1174 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 43).

[784] R. Diceto and _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[785] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 381, 382. Cf. Jordan
Fantosme, vv. 1530–1633 (Michel, pp. 70–74).

[786] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 72. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 61.

[787] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 248. Cf. Will. Newb., l.
ii. c. 32 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 181).

[788] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[789] R. Diceto (as above) has “comitem Cestrensem,
Legecestrensem comitissam”; Mat. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard),
vol. ii. p. 292, turns this into “comitem Legecestrensem et
comitissam.” We may surely combine the two versions.

[790] R. Diceto and _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[791] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. “Uxores filiorum suorum”
must mean Adela of France, Constance of Britanny and Alice
of Maurienne, all of whom are known to have been in Henry’s
custody.

[792] R. Diceto as above, pp. 382, 383.

[793] _Ib._ p. 383. _Gesta Hen._ as above. Cf. Pipe Roll
a. 1173, quoted by _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 180. R. Niger
(Anstruther), p. 176, puts the voyage two days later.

His first care was to bestow his prisoners and hostages in safe custody.[794] That done, he set off at once on a pilgrimage to the grave of his former friend and victim at Canterbury. Travelling with the utmost speed, and feeding only on bread and water, he reached Canterbury on July 12; before the church of S. Dunstan, outside the west gate, he dismounted, exchanged his kingly robes for the woollen gown of a pilgrim, and made his way with bare and bleeding feet along the rough-paved streets to the cathedral church. Here, surrounded by a group of bishops and abbots who seem to have come with him, as well as by the monks of the cathedral chapter and a crowd of wondering lay-folk, he threw himself in an agony of penitence and prayer on the martyr’s tomb, which still stood in the crypt where his body had been hastily buried by the terrified monks immediately after the murder. The bishop of London now came forward and spoke in the king’s name, solemnly protesting that he had never sought the primate’s death, and beseeching absolution from the assembled prelates for the rash words which had occasioned it. The absolution was given; the king then underwent a public scourging at the hands of the bishops and monks; he spent the whole night in prayer before the shrine; early on the morrow he heard mass and departed, leaving rich gifts in money and endowments, and rode back still fasting to London, which he reached on the following morning.[795] The next few days were spent in collecting forces, in addition to a large troop of Brabantines whom he had brought over with him,[796] and in despatching a part of these into Suffolk against Hugh Bigod; Henry himself lingering another day or two to recover from his excitement and fatigue.[797]

[794] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 72. Eleanor was placed
at Salisbury (Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67; Labbe, _Nova Bibl._,
vol. ii. p. 319) in charge of Robert Mauduit; the younger queen
“and the hostages” were sent to Devizes under the care of
Eustace Fitz-Stephen. (Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 180, from
Pipe Roll a. 1173.)

[795] For accounts of the penance see R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol.
i. p. 383; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 248, 249; _Gesta
Hen._ as above; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 61, 62;
Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 35 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 18); E. Grim
(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), pp. 445–447; Herb. Bosh.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 545–547.

[796] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. _Gesta Hen._ as above. Rob.
Torigni, a. 1174.

[797] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 35 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 189), says
he stayed in London in order to be bled.

In the middle of the night of July 17 a courier from the north came knocking wildly for admittance at the palace-gate. The porters remonstrated with him in vain; he bore, he said, good news which the king must hear that very night. He hurried to the door of the king’s chamber, and, despite the expostulations of the chamberlains, made his way to the bedside and woke the king from his sleep. “Who art thou?” demanded Henry. “A servant of your faithful Ralf de Glanville, and the bearer of good tidings from him to you.” “Is he well?” “He is well; and lo! he holds your enemy the king of Scots in chains at Richmond castle.” Not till he had seen Ralf’s own letters could Henry believe the tidings; then he burst into thanksgivings for the crowning triumph which had come to him, as he now learned, almost at the moment when his voluntary humiliation at Canterbury was completed.[798] The garrison of Carlisle had pledged themselves to surrender to the Scot king at Michaelmas if not previously relieved. In the interval William laid siege to Odelin de Umfraville’s castle of Prudhoe on the Tyne.[799] Here he was rejoined by Roger de Mowbray, who came to intreat the Scot king’s aid in the recovery of his lost castles.[800] Meanwhile, however, the king’s return had apparently brought with it the return of the sheriff of Yorkshire, Robert de Stuteville. Under his leadership and that of his son William the whole military forces of the shire, with those of William de Vesci, Ralf de Glanville, Bernard de Balliol and Odelin de Umfraville, and Archbishop Roger’s men under his constable Ralf de Tilly, gathered and marched northward to oppose the Scots.[801] They reached Newcastle on July 12[802]--the day of Henry’s penitential entry into Canterbury--but only to find that on the rumour of their approach William the Lion had retired from Prudhoe, and was gone to besiege Alnwick with his own picked followers, while the bulk of his host, under the earls of Fife and Angus and the English traitor Richard de Morville, dispersed over all Northumberland to burn, plunder and slay in the old barbarous Scottish fashion which seems hardly to have softened since the days of Malcolm Canmore.[803] The English leaders now held a council of war. Their forces consisted only of a few hundred knights, all wearied and spent with their long and hurried march, in which the foot had been unable to keep up with them at all. The more cautious argued that enough had been done in driving back the Scots thus far, and that it would be madness for a band of four hundred men to advance against a host of eighty thousand. Bolder spirits, however, urged that the justice of their cause must suffice to prevail against any odds; and it was decided to continue the march to Alnwick. They set out next morning before sunrise; the further they rode, the thicker grew the mist; some proposed to turn back. “Turn back who will,” cried Bernard de Balliol, “if no man will follow me, I will go on alone, rather than bear the stain of cowardice for ever!” Every one of them followed him; and when at last the mist cleared away, the first sight that met their eyes was the friendly castle of Alnwick. Close beside it lay the king of Scots, carelessly playing with a little band of some sixty knights. Never dreaming that the English host would dare to pursue him thus far, he had sent out all the rest of his troops on a plundering expedition, and at the first appearance of the enemy he took them for his own followers returning with their spoils. When they unfurled their banners he saw at once that his fate was sealed. The Scottish Lion, however, proved worthy of his name, and his followers proved worthy of their leader. Seizing his arms and shouting, “Now it shall be seen who are true knights!” he rushed upon the English; his horse was killed, he himself was surrounded and made prisoner, and so were all his men.[804] Roger de Mowbray and Adam de Port, an English baron who had been outlawed two years before for an attempt on King Henry’s life, alone fled away into Scotland;[805] not one Scot tried to escape, and some even who were not on the spot, when they heard the noise of the fray, rode hastily up and almost forced themselves into the hands of their captors, deeming it a knightly duty to share their sovereign’s fate.[806]

[798] _Ib._ (pp. 189, 190). On the coincidence of time see Mr.
Howlett’s note 3, p. 188. Cf. the more detailed, but far less
vivid version of the story in Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1956–2029
(Michel, pp. 88–92). In the _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p.
72, Henry is said to have received the news on July 18. Taken
in conjunction with the story given above, this must mean the
night of July 17–18.

[799] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 65. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol.
ii. p. 60. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 32 (as above, p. 182);
and Jordan Fantosme, vv., 1640–1650 (Michel, p. 74).

[800] Will. Newb. as above.

[801] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 65, 66. Cf. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60.

[802] “Sexta Sabbati.” Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 33 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 183).