Chapter II: John Count of Mortain (2)

At Nottingham Richard held a council, on the second day of which (March 31) he “prayed that justice should be done him”[210] on John and on John’s chief abettor, Bishop Hugh of Chester. The council cited both delinquents to appear for trial within forty days, and decreed that if they failed to do so, or to “stand to right,” Hugh should be liable to a double sentence--from the bishops as a bishop, and from the laity as a sheriff,[211]--and John should be accounted to have “forfeited all claims to the kingdom,”[212] or, as a later annalist explains, should be “deprived and disinherited not only of all the lands which he held in the realm, but also of all honours which he hoped or expected to have from the Crown of England.”[213] Neither in person nor by proxy did John answer the citation. At the end of the forty days three earls set out for the court of France “to convict him of treason there”; but of their proceedings, too, he took no notice. The forty days had expired on May 10; on the 12th Richard sailed for Normandy.[214] Landing at Barfleur, he went to Caen and thence turned southward to relieve Verneuil, which Philip was besieging. On the way he halted at Lisieux, where he took up his quarters with the archdeacon, John of Alençon, who had been his vice-chancellor.[215] He soon noticed that his host was uneasy and agitated, and at once guessed the cause. “Why do you look so troubled? You have seen my brother John; deny it not! Let him fear nought, but come to me straightway. He is my brother, and should have no fears of me; if he has played the fool, I will never reproach him with his folly. Those who contrived this mischief shall reap their due reward; but of that no more at present.” Joyfully John of Alençon carried the tidings to his namesake of Mortain: “Come forward boldly! You are in luck’s way. The king is simple and pitiful, and kinder to you than you would have been to him. Your masters have advised you ill; it is meet they should be punished according to their deserts. Come! the king awaits you.” In spite of these assurances, it was “with much fear” that Count John approached his brother and threw himself at his feet. Richard raised him with a brotherly kiss, saying: “Think no more of it, John! You are but a child, and were left to ill guardians. Evil were their thoughts who counselled you amiss. Rise, go and eat. John,” he added, turning to their host, “what can he have for dinner?” At that moment a salmon was brought in, as a present for the king. As the chronicler remarks, “it did not come amiss”; Richard immediately ordered it to be cooked for his brother.[216]

For any other man of six-and-twenty, to be thus forgiven--even though it were by a brother who was ten years older, and a king--expressly on the ground that he was a child, not responsible for his actions, would surely have been a humiliation almost more bitter than any punishment. Nor did John escape altogether unpunished. Richard’s forgiveness was strictly personal; the decree of the council of Nottingham was carried into effect with regard to all John’s English and Norman lands;[217] and for the next eighteen months he was, save for his lordship of Ireland, once more in fact as well as in name “John Lackland.” He was thus wholly dependent on Richard’s goodwill, and it was obviously politic for him to throw himself into Richard’s service with the utmost energy and zeal. Philip withdrew from Verneuil at the tidings of Richard’s approach, May 28.[218] After securing the place the English king divided his forces; with part of them he himself went to besiege Beaumont-le-Roger; the other part he entrusted to John for the recovery of Evreux,[219] which had been taken by Philip in February.[220] Of the manner in which John accomplished this mission there are at least two versions. One writer states that John “laid siege to Evreux, and it was taken next day.”[221] Another says that its garrison were surprised and slain by a body of Normans;[222] while a third explains the surprise as having been effected by means which are perhaps only too characteristic of John. The city of Evreux, says William the Breton, had been made over to John by Philip. John contrived that his reconciliation with his brother should remain unknown to the French troops who had been left there. He now returned to the city and invited these Frenchmen to a banquet, at which he suddenly brought in a troop of “armed Englishmen” who massacred the unsuspecting guests. His success, however, was only partial and shortlived; for he was still unable to gain possession of the castle;[223] and he had no sooner quitted the place than Philip returned, drove out the Norman troops, and destroyed the town.[224] Shortly afterwards Richard set off on a campaign in the south, leaving John in Normandy. About the middle of June Philip again threatened Rouen, taking and razing Fontaines, a castle only four miles from the city. On this John, the earl of Leicester, and “many other barons” held a meeting at Rouen to consider what should be done; “but because they had no one to whom they could adhere as to the king himself,” and their forces were no match for Philip’s, they decided upon a policy of inaction.[225] This decision was probably dictated by their experience of Philip’s ways. He, in fact, made no further attempt upon the Norman capital, but soon afterwards proceeded southward against Richard, only to meet with an ignominious defeat at Fréteval. On hearing of this, John and the earl of Arundel laid siege to Vaudreuil; Philip, however, marched up from Bourges and relieved it.[226] John’s next military undertaking, the siege of Brezolles, met with no better success.[227] Still he had done the best he could for his brother’s interest, and thereby also for his own. Accordingly, next year Richard “laid aside all his anger and ill-will towards his brother John,” and restored to him a portion of his forfeited possessions. It was indeed only a small portion, consisting of the county of Mortain and the honours of Gloucester and Eye “in their entirety, but without their castles.” To this was added, as some compensation for the other lands which he had lost, a yearly pension of £8000 Angevin.[228]

[Sidenote: 1196–1198]

This arrangement seems to have taken effect from Michaelmas 1195.[229] It gave John once more an honourable and independent maintenance, but left him without territorial power. His only chance of regaining this in Richard’s lifetime was to earn it by loyalty to Richard. For the next three years, therefore, he kept quiet; nothing is heard of him save an occasional notice of his presence in Normandy, either in his brother’s company or acting for his brother’s interest. When Philip seized Nonancourt in 1196, John retaliated by seizing Gamaches.[230] On May 19 in the same year he and Mercadier, the leader of Richard’s foreign mercenaries, made a plundering expedition into the French king’s territories as far as Beauvais, where they captured the bishop, who had long been one of Richard’s most determined enemies; they then went on to the bishop’s castle of Milli, took it by assault, razed it, and returned to Normandy in triumph to present their captive to Richard.[231] On October 16, 1197, when the king and the archbishop of Rouen made their agreement for the building of a castle at Andely--the famous Château-Gaillard--it was ratified in a separate charter by John; an unusual proceeding, which has been thought to imply that he was now again acknowledged as his brother’s destined heir.[232] In 1198 Philip made another attack upon Normandy and burned Evreux and seven other towns. John fired a ninth, Neubourg; Philip, seeing the flames and supposing them to have been kindled by his own men, sent a body of troops to bid them go no farther, on which John fell upon the troops and captured eighteen knights and a crowd of men-at-arms.[233]

[Sidenote: 1199]

The alliance of Richard and John had now lasted too long for Philip’s satisfaction, and early in 1199 he set himself to break it. He began by making a truce with Richard. Then, when the Lion-heart, thinking himself safe for the moment in Normandy, was on his way to Poitou, “that sower of discord, the king of France, sent him word that his brother John, the count of Mortain, had given himself to him (Philip); and he offered to show him John’s own letter proving the fact. O marvel! The king of England believed the king of France, and took to hating his brother John, insomuch that he caused him to be disseised of his lands on both sides of the sea. And when John asked the reason of this wrath and hatred, he was told what the king of France had sent word to his brother about him. Thereupon the count of Mortain sent two knights to represent him at the French king’s court, and they offered to prove him innocent of this charge, or to defend him as the court should direct. But there was found no one in that court, neither the king nor any other man, who would receive the offered proof or defence. And thenceforth the king of England was on more familiar terms with his brother John, and less ready to believe what was told him by the king of France.”[234] This story does not necessarily show either that Philip’s accusation of John was false, or that it was true. Philip may have invented it with the hope of driving John to throw himself again into his arms; but it is perhaps more likely that the two were in collusion, and that the scene in the French Curia Regis was a piece of acting on both sides. However this might be, by about the middle of March John had again left his brother “because he kept him so short of money, and on account of some disputes which had arisen between them.”[235] Suddenly, at the end of the month, the question of the Angevin succession was brought to a crisis by a cross-bowman who, at the siege of Châlus, on March 26, gave Richard his death-wound. That question had haunted Richard throughout his reign; his wishes respecting its solution had wavered more than once; now that it had to be faced, however, he faced it in what was, after all, the wisest as well as the most generous way. In the presence of as many of his subjects as could be gathered hastily round him, he devised all his realms to John, gave orders that on his own death John should be put in possession of all the royal castles and three-fourths of the royal treasure, and made the assembly swear fealty to John as his successor.[236]

Richard died on April 6.[237] On the 3rd there had been delivered at Rouen a letter from him appointing William the Marshal commandant of the castle and keeper of the treasure which it contained. On the 10th--the eve of Palm Sunday--the news of the king’s death came, late at night, just as the Marshal was going to bed. He dressed again in haste and went to the palace of the archbishop, who marvelled what could have brought him at such an hour, and when told, was, like William himself, overwhelmed with grief and consternation. What troubled them both was the thought of the future. William went straight to the point. “My lord, we must hasten to choose some one whom we may make king.” “I think and believe,” answered Archbishop Walter, “that according to right, we ought to make Arthur king.” “To my thinking,” said the Marshal, “that would be bad. Arthur is counselled by traitors; he is haughty and proud; and if we set him over us he will seek evil against us, for he loves not the people of this land. He shall not come here yet, by my advice. Look rather at Count John; my conscience and my knowledge point him out to me as the nearest heir to the land which was his father’s and his brother’s.” “Marshal, is this really your desire?” “Yea, my lord; for it is reason. Unquestionably, a son has a nearer claim to his father’s land than a grandson; it is right that he should have it.” “So be it, then,” said the archbishop; “but mark my words, Marshal; of nothing that ever you did in your life have you so much cause to repent as you will have of what you are now doing.” “I thank you,” answered William; “nevertheless, I deem that thus it should be.”[238]

In the conversation thus reported by the Marshal’s confidential squire there are several noticeable points. The divergent views enunciated by the two speakers as to the respective legal claims of Arthur and of John illustrate the still uncertain condition of the rules of hereditary succession. It is, however, plain that the legal aspect of the case was but a minor matter in the eyes of both primate and Marshal. For them the important question was not which of Richard’s two possible heirs had the best legal right to his heritage, but which of the two was likely to make the least unsatisfactory sovereign. The outlook was in any case a gloomy one; the only choice was a choice of evils. Of the two evils, it was natural that Walter should regard John as the worst, if he thought of personal character alone. Every one knew by this time what John was; the most impartial of contemporary historians had already summed up his character in two words--“Nature’s enemy,” a monster.[239] What Arthur might become was as yet uncertain; the duke of Britanny was but twelve years old. Yet even at that age, the “haughtiness and pride” ascribed to him by the Marshal are by no means unlikely to have shown themselves in a child whose father, Geoffrey, had been the evil genius of John’s early life, and whose mother had for years set her second husband Earl Ralf of Chester, her brother-in-law King Richard, and her supreme overlord King Philip, all alike at defiance. Not so much in Arthur’s character, however, as in his circumstances, lay the main ground of the Marshal’s objection to him as a sovereign. From his cradle Arthur had been trained in hostility to the political system at the head of which the Norman primate now proposed to place him. His very name had been given him by his mother and her people in defiance of his grandfather King Henry, as a badge of Breton independence and insubordination to the rule of the Angevin and Norman house. From the hour of Henry’s death in 1189, if not even from that of her son’s birth in 1187, Constance of Britanny had governed her duchy and trained its infant heir as seemed good to herself and her people, till in 1196 she was at last entrapped and imprisoned in Normandy; and then the result of her capture was that her boy fell into the keeping of another guardian not a whit less “traitorous,” from the Norman or Angevin point of view, than the patriotic Bretons who had surrounded him hitherto--the king of the French, at whose court he was kept for some time, sharing the education of Philip’s own son. To confer the sovereignty of the Angevin dominions upon the boy Arthur would thus have been practically to lay it at the feet of Philip Augustus. The only chance of preserving the integrity of the Angevin empire was to put a man at its head, and a man to whom the maintenance of that integrity would be a matter of personal interest as well as of family pride. It was the consciousness of this that had made Richard abandon his momentary scheme of designating Arthur as his heir, and revert finally to John; and it was the same consciousness which made William the Marshal, with his eyes fully open to John’s character, hold fast, in the teeth of the primate’s warning, to his conviction that “thus it should be.”

John, after his last parting from his brother, had made a characteristic political venture; he had sought to make friends with his boy-rival. It was in Britanny, at Arthur’s court, that he received the news of Richard’s death. He set off at once for Chinon; money was his first need, and the Angevin treasury was there. When he reached the place, on the Wednesday before Easter,[240] April 14--three days after Richard’s burial at Fontevraud--the castle and the treasure which it contained were at once given up to him by the commandant, Robert of Turnham, the seneschal of Anjou.[241] The officers of the late king’s household had hurried to meet his chosen heir, and now came to John demanding of him a solemn oath that he would carry into effect Richard’s last wishes, and maintain the customs of the Angevin lands. He took the oath, and they then acknowledged him as their lord in Richard’s stead.[242]

The most venerated of English bishops then living, Hugh of Lincoln, had officiated at Richard’s funeral and was still at Fontevraud. John sent an urgent request for his presence at Chinon, welcomed him there with a great show of attachment, and proposed that they should travel to England together. This Hugh declined, but he consented to accompany John for a few days on his journey northward. They set out at once for Saumur, and stopped at Fontevraud to visit the tombs of Henry and Richard. When John knocked at the choir-door for admittance, however, he was told that the abbess was away, and no visitor might enter without her leave. He then asked Hugh to communicate to the sisters, in his name, a promise of benefactions to their house, and a request for their prayers. “You know,” said Hugh, “that I detest all falsehood; I will utter no promises in your name unless I am assured that they will be fulfilled.” John swore that he would more than fulfil them; and the bishop did what he had been asked to do. As they left the church, John drew forth an amulet which hung round his neck and showed it to his companion, saying it had been given to one of his forefathers with a promise from Heaven that whosoever of his race had it in his possession should never lose the fulness of his ancestral dominion. Hugh bade him trust “not in that stone but in the Chief Corner Stone”; and turning round as they came out of the porch, over which was sculptured a representation of the Last Judgement, he led him towards the group on the left of the Judge, and besought him to take heed of the perils attending the responsibility of a ruler during his brief time upon earth. John dragged his monitor across to the other group, saying, “You should rather show me these, whose good example I purpose to follow!” During the three days of his journey in Hugh’s company, indeed, his affectation of piety and humility was so exaggerated that it seems to have rather quickened than allayed Hugh’s distrust of his good intentions.[243] On Easter Day the mask was suddenly dropped. Bishop and count spent the festival (April 18) at Beaufort,[244] probably as the guests of Richard’s widow, Berengaria. John was said to have never communicated since he had been of an age to please himself in such matters; and now all Hugh’s persuasions failed to bring him to the Holy Table. He did, however, attend the high mass on Easter Day, and at the offertory came up to Hugh--who was officiating--with some money in his hand; but instead of presenting the coins he stood looking at them and playing with them till Hugh asked him, “Why do you stand staring thus?” “I am staring at these gold pieces, and thinking that a few days ago, if I had had them, I should have put them not into your hands, but rather into my own purse; however, take them now.” The indignant bishop, “blushing vehemently in John’s stead,” drew back and bade him “throw into the bason what he held, and begone.” John obeyed. Hugh then followed up his rebuke with a sermon on the characters of a good and of a bad prince, and the future reward of each. John, liking neither the matter of the sermon nor its length, thrice attempted to cut it short by a message that he wanted his dinner; Hugh only preached the longer and the more pointedly, and took his leave of John on the following day.[245]

On that day John discovered that he was in a situation of imminent peril. While he had been travelling from the Breton border to Chinon and thence back to Beaufort, Philip had mastered the whole county of Evreux and overrun Maine as far as Le Mans; and a Breton force, with Constance and Arthur at its head, had marched straight upon Angers[246] and won it without striking a blow. City and castle were surrendered at once by Thomas of Furnes, a nephew of the seneschal Robert of Turnham;[247] and on Easter Day a great assembly of barons of Anjou, Touraine and Maine, as well as of Britanny, gave in their adhesion to Arthur as their liege lord and Richard’s lawful heir.[248] The forces thus gathered in the Angevin capital, from which Beaufort was only fifteen miles distant, must have been more than sufficient to overwhelm John, whose suite was evidently a very small one. His only chance was to make for Normandy with all possible speed. Hurrying away from Beaufort on Easter Monday, he reached Le Mans the same night; its citizens received him coldly, its garrison refused to support him, and it was only by slipping away before daybreak on Tuesday that he escaped being caught between two fires. On that very morning {April 20} the Bretons and their new allies entered Le Mans in triumph,[249] and they were soon met there by the French king, to whom Arthur did homage for the counties of Anjou, Touraine and Maine.[250]

Meanwhile, however, John had made his way to Rouen, and there he was safe. Richard on his death-bed had declared that the people of Rouen were the most loyal of all his subjects; they proved their loyalty to his memory by rallying round the successor whom he had chosen for himself, and all Normandy followed their example. “By the election of the nobles and the acclamation of the citizens,”[251] John was proclaimed duke of the Normans, and invested with the symbols of his dukedom in the metropolitan church on Low Sunday, April 25.[252] The ducal crown--a circlet of gold, with gold roses round the top--was placed on his head by Archbishop Walter, and the new-made duke swore before the clergy and people, on the holy Gospels and the relics of saints, that he would maintain inviolate the rights of the Church, do justice, establish good laws, and put down evil customs.[253] The archbishop then girded him with the sword of justice, and presented him with the lance which held among the insignia of a Norman duke the place that belongs to the sceptre among those of a king. A group of John’s familiar friends stood close behind him, audibly mocking at the solemn rites. He chose the moment when the lance was put into his hands to turn round and join in their mockery; and, as he turned, the lance slipped from his careless grasp and fell to the ground.[254]

In after years it was only natural that this incident should be recalled as an omen.[255] The indecent levity which had caused the mishap was in itself ominous enough. Still, however, the Marshal and the Norman and English primates--for Hubert of Canterbury, too, was at Rouen, and fully in accord with the policy of William and Walter--clave to their forlorn hope and persevered in their thankless task. In obedience to John’s orders, Hubert and William now returned to England to assist the justiciar, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, in securing the realm for him.[256] John himself turned southward again to try whether it were possible, now that he had the strength of Normandy at his back, to win the Angevin lands before he went over sea. No sooner had the French and the Bretons withdrawn from Anjou than it was overrun with fire and sword by Richard’s mercenaries, acting under the orders of their captain Mercadier and of Queen Eleanor, who had enlisted them in John’s interests as soon as they had had time to march up from Châlus to the Angevin border. John despatched a body of troops to join them, while he proceeded in person to Le Mans. There he wreaked his vengeance to the full. City and castle fell into his hands; he razed the castle, pulled down the city walls, destroyed the houses capable of defence, and flung the chief citizens into captivity.[257] But the danger in his rear was still too great to allow of his advance farther south. To throw the whole forces of Normandy upon the Angevin lands would have been to leave Normandy itself open to attack from two sides at once, and expose himself to have his own retreat cut off by a new junction between Philip and the Bretons. He could only venture to open negotiations with the barons of Anjou and of Aquitaine, endeavour to win them over by fair words and promises,[258] and then leave his interests in the south to the care of his mother. Accompanied only by a few personal friends,[259] he went back through Normandy to the sea; on May 25 he landed at Shoreham;[260] on the 26th he reached London, and on the 27th--Ascension Day--he was crowned at Westminster.[261]

FOOTNOTES:

[112] _Gesta Ric._ vol. ii. pp. 72, 73.

[113] “Paternae in Hibernia acquisitionis plenitudinem et comitatum in Normannia Moritanensem, de quibus scilicet paternam donationem ratam habuit” [Ricardus], W. Newb. l. iv. c. 3. “Comitatum de Moritonio, quem dono patris pridem perceperat” [Johannes], Ric. Devizes (Howlett, _Chronn. of Stephen_, etc., vol. iii.), p. 385. Cf. above, p. 6.

[114] The biographer of William the Marshal, indeed, does on two occasions before Henry’s death speak of “le conte Johan,” “li quens Johan” (vv. 8543, 9078). But although in one sense contemporary, he did not write till after 1219; his use of the title therefore proves nothing.

[115] _Gesta Ric._ p. 78.

[116] _Ib._ pp. 80, 81.

[117] _Ib._ pp. 87, 88.

[118] _Ann. Cambr._ p. 57.

[119] _Gesta Ric._ p. 97.

[120] _Ann. Cambr._ p. 57.

[121] R. Diceto, vol. ii. pp. 72, 73.

[122] Gloucester (honour), Pipe Roll 1 Ric. I. p. 7; Lancaster, p. 18; Orford (Suffolk), p. 40; Staverton (_ib._), p. 54; Hanley, Edersfield and Bisley (Worcestershire), p. 250; Hecham (Northamptonshire), p. 97; “other lands” in Northamptonshire, p. 104; Sherwood, p. 172; Andover, _ib._; Gloucestershire, third penny, p. 163.

[123] _Gesta Ric._ p. 78. The Peverel castles were those of Bolsover and the Peak.

[124] Tickhill castle appears as garrisoned by the Crown in Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I. (1190) m. 7; so does Orford in 1191–92, P.R. 5 Ric. I. (1193) m. 2 (among accounts “de veteri firma” of Suffolk); Gloucester castle was repaired by the sheriff of the county in 1191, P.R. 3 Ric. I. m. 12; Bristol, the other great castle of the Gloucester earldom, was held by the Crown in 1192, P.R. 4 Ric. I. m. 20.

[125] For Marlborough, Wallingford and Luggershall, see _Gesta Ric._ p. 78; Eye is added by R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 6. There is no mention of any of these in the Pipe Rolls of 1188–93, except that the men of the soke of Eye pay tallage to the Crown in 1190 (P.R. 2 Ric. I. m. 9 d), and that in 1192 the sheriff of Suffolk charges for livery of a garrison in Eye castle for a year (_i.e._ Michaelmas 1191 to Michaelmas 1192; P.R. 5 Ric. I. m. 2, among accounts “de veteri firma” of Suffolk).

[126] “Eodem mense [Decembri] Ricardus Rex Angliae dedit Johanni fratri suo in augmentum comitatum Cornubiae, et comitatum Devoniae, et comitatum de Dorset, et comitatum de Sumerseta,” _Gesta Ric._ p. 99. According to this writer, Richard had granted to John “villam de Notingham cum honore illo ... et Derebisiram” at the same time as Gloucester, Lancaster, etc. (_ib._ p. 78). But the sheriffs of all six shires account for them to the Crown up to Michaelmas in Pipe Roll 1 Ric. I.; so they must all have been granted after that date. “Villam de Notingham cum honore illo” stands for the town and the shire; there was no “honour” of that name. W. Newburgh, though his list of John’s counties is very incomplete (l. iv. c. 3), rightly mentions “Notingehamesciram” as one of them; it disappears from the Pipe Rolls like the other five after Michaelmas 1189. Sherwood Forest disappears likewise, being included in the shire. On the other hand, later events show that Nottingham _castle_ was retained by the Crown. At this period Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Dorset and Somerset, Cornwall and Devonshire, were always administered and accounted for in pairs.

[127] Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, vol. iii. p. xxv. note 4.

[128] Gilbert, _Hist. Doc. of Ireland_, p. 49; _Rot. Canc. Hib. Cal._ vol. i. pt. i. pp. 1, 3; Carte, _Life of Ormonde_ (ed. 1851), vol. i. introd. pp. xlv., xlvi.; _Hist. MSS. Commission_, 3rd Report, p. 231; Harris’s Ware, _Antiq. Hibern._ p. 197. The exception referred to is a grant of land in Ireland, without date of day or year, but issued by “Johannes filius Regis Angliae, Dominus Hiberniae,” “apud Ceneman’,” _i.e._ Le Mans, and witnessed by John the Marshal, “dapifer Johannis,” _Rot. Canc. Hib. Cal._ vol. i. pt. i. p. 3.

[129] We hear of John’s chancellor, Stephen Ridel, in 1191, _Gesta Ric._ p. 224; of his seneschal, William de Kahanger, and his butler, Theobald Walter, in 1192, _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 55. We have seen already that at some date between 1185 and 1189 he had as “dapifer” no less a personage than John the Marshal; and in 1191 Roger de Planes appears as “in tota terra comitis Johannis justiciarius,” R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99.

[130] _Gesta Ric._ p. 73.

[131] See above, footnote 128.

[132] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 9581–618. See charters in Carte’s _Life of Ormonde_ (1851), vol. i. introd. p. xlvi.

[133] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 3.

[134] _Gesta Ric._ p. 106.

[135] R. Devizes, p. 392.

[136] Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 41.

[137] _Gesta Ric._ p. 157.

[138] R. Devizes, p. 402.

[139] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 242, 243. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16, and R. Devizes, p. 406.

[140] _Gesta Ric._ p. 207; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 134. Cf. W. Newb. _l.c._ Gerard was constable of Lincoln in right of his wife, Nicola de Haye.

[141] R. Devizes, p. 407; _Gesta Ric._ p. 207. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.

[142] _Gesta Ric._ _l.c._

[143] R. Devizes, pp. 407, 408.

[144] Walter left Messina April 2 (cf. R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 100; _Itin. Ric. Reg._ p. 176, and R. Devizes, p. 404), and landed either about midsummer (Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 497), or, more probably, April 27 (see Bishop Stubbs’s note to R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 90).

[145] R. Devizes, p. 408.

[146] Wallingford, Eye, Bristol, Exeter, Launceston and “Hereford”; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 136. Hereford is quite out of place among “castra de honoribus a domino rege sibi” [_i.e._ Johanni] “datis.” The name may be a mistake for Oxford; see above, p. 26.

[147] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 135–7. One other clause in the agreement may be noticed. After the provisions about the castles already mentioned, it is added: “Sed et tria castella ad coronam domini regis pertinentia, scilicet castellum de Windeshoveres comiti de Arundel; castellum de Wintonia Gilleberto de Lasci; castellum de Northampton Simoni de Pateshille, tradita sunt custodienda; qui fidelitatem domini Regis de ipsis ad opus ipsius fideliter custodiendis juraverunt,” _ib._ p. 136. The earl of Arundel figures, at the end of the document, as one of the chancellor’s sureties, and the Lacys were in close alliance with the Longchamps; taken by itself, therefore, this clause would seem to indicate a change of custodians made at the chancellor’s desire, and dictated by a discovery or suspicion that the actual commandants of these three castles were in treasonable alliance with John. But the Pipe Rolls show that the appointment of Simon de Pateshill implied no change at all, for he had custody of Northampton castle without interruption from Michaelmas 1189 to Michaelmas 1191 (P.R. 2 Ric. I. m. 4; 3 Ric. I. m. 1); while the other appointments were speedily annulled, owing to the breakdown of the whole agreement.

[148] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.

[149] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 232, 234.

[150] R. Devizes, pp. 409, 410. The date which he has appended to the agreement is impossible, not only for this particular document, but for any personal meeting of John and the chancellor this year at Winchester, where he places it. See Round, _Commune of London_, p. 214, and _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 17. As to the agreement itself, cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.

[151] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 14.

[152] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 382.

[153] _Monast. Angl._ vol. vi. pt. iii. p. 1188.

[154] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389.

[155] _Ib._ p. 382.

[156] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389.

[157] R. Devizes, p. 410.

[158] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 96.

[159] _Gesta Ric._ p. 210.

[160] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97; Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 388–93; R. Devizes, pp. 411, 412.

[161] _Gesta Ric._ p. 211.

[162] _Epp. Cantuar._ pp. 344, 345; Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 506. Cf. R. Devizes, p. 413.

[163] _Gesta Ric._ p. 211.

[164] September 21, R. Devizes, p. 412; September 26, R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97.

[165] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 394–7.

[166] _Ib._ p. 397; R. Devizes, p. 413. Cf. _Gesta Ric._ p. 212. One of the summons is given in R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98.

[167] Gir. Cambr. _l.c._

[168] _Ib._ vol. iv. pp. 398–402. For date see R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98.

[169] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 402–5; R. Devizes, pp. 413, 414; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99; _Gesta Ric._ p. 212, and W. Newb. l. iv. c. 17.

[170] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 405; _Gesta Ric._ pp. 213, 214; R. Diceto, _l.c._; R. Devizes, pp. 416, 417.

[171] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 213, 214.

[172] R. Devizes, p. 415.

[173] _Gesta Ric._ p. 214. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97.

[174] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 402.

[175] _Ib._ p. 406.

[176] _Ib._ pp. 106, 107; R. Devizes, pp. 417, 418; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 100. The reservation was merely nominal; R. Diceto says the constables appointed by William to these castles were allowed to remain, but made to give hostages for their loyalty; while Gerald says the constables were to be appointed by the new ministry. Probably the ministry decided to retain or reappoint the actual constables, on the condition mentioned by Ralph.

[177] _Gesta Ric._ p. 220; R. Diceto, vol. ii. pp. 100, 101.

[178] _Gesta Ric._ p. 236.

[179] R. Devizes, pp. 430, 432; _Gesta Ric._ p. 236.

[180] _Gesta Ric._ p. 237.

[181] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 188; in _Gesta Ric._ p. 239, the sum is given as five hundred thousand marks, “which,” as Bishop Stubbs says (note to R. Howden, _l.c._), “is of course impossible.”

[182] Richard of Devizes, indeed, says (p. 418) that on the chancellor’s departure over sea “Comes omnia munita terrae quibus voluit et plus credidit sibi reddita liberavit”: but his own story about Windsor and Wallingford shows this to be incorrect.

[183] R. Devizes, p. 433.

[184] “Episcopo Dunelmensi £34: 15s. in Pickering pro escambio custodiae castelli de Windsor quamdiu regi placuerit,” Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I. (1192) m. 7.

[185] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 235, 236.

[186] R. Devizes, p. 433.

[187] _Gesta Ric._ p. 239.

[188] R. Devizes, pp. 433, 434.

[189] “Dare placet vel commodare pecuniam, sed non de proprio, tandemque totum cadit in absentis aerarium. Creduntur comiti de fisco per fiscarios quingentae librae sterlingorum, et recipiuntur ad placitum literae in cancellarium,” R. Devizes, p. 343. “Johannes ... acceptis a Rothomagensi archiepiscopo et a caeteris justitiariis Angliae duobus millibus marcis argenti de thesauro regis fratris sui, consilio eorum adquievit,” _Gesta Ric._ p. 239. Possibly the smaller sum was handed over to John at once, and the remainder only promised.

[190] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 239, 237.

[191] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 32.

[192] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 204.

[193] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 57. The document (of which no original is known) may be slightly corrupt, but it is obviously more trustworthy than the version of John’s and Philip’s agreement given by Roger of Howden, vol. iii. p. 204.

[194] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. pp. 514, 515.

[195] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 204, 205.

[196] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 515; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 205.

[197] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 516.

[198] _Ib._; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 207.

[199] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 217.

[200] _Ib._ pp. 216, 217.

[201] “‘Johannes frater meus non est homo qui sibi _vi_ terram subjiciat, si fuerit qui vim ejus vi saltem tenui repellat,’” R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 198. I think there can be no doubt as to the significance of the first “_vi_.”

[202] “Ad pacem cum illo faciendam qualemcumque,” _ib._ p. 217.

[203] “De comite autem Johanne sic erit: quod si homines regis Angliae poterunt sufficienter monstrare in curia domini regis Franciae quod idem Johannes juraverit ad perquirendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis Angliae, et de hoc dederit litteras suas, ipse Johannes tenebitur ad solvendum, et totam terram quam ipse tenebat quando rex Angliae frater ejus iter arripuit ultra mare, tenebit, citra mare et ultra, ita libere sicut prius tenebat; excepto eo quod liber erit a sacramento quod fecerat de non intranda terra Angliae; et de hoc dictus rex Angliae faciet dominum Johannem securum per se, et per barones et archiepiscopos et episcopos terrae suae, et insuper per regem Franciae. Si autem comes Johannes vellet negare quod litterae illae non essent suae, aut quod illud non jurasset, homines regis Angliae sufficienter in curia regis Franciae monstrabunt, per idoneos testes, quod juraverit ad querendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis Angliae. Si autem monstratum fuerit, sicut dictum est, quod comes juraverit ad quaerendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis, vel si defecerit de recipienda monstratione, rex Franciae non intromittat se de comite Johanne, si pacem de terra sua praedicta recipere voluerit,” R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 217, 218.

[204] _Ib._ p. 220.

[205] “Sed custodes illorum noluerunt tradere illi aliquod castellum per breve,” R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 227, 228. Did they suspect John of having forged the king’s writ? Or should the words be “_nisi_ per breve,” and do they mean that the individual castellans refused to act upon what seems to have been a merely general order, and require a special writ for each castle?

[206] _Ib._ p. 228.

[207] _Ib._ p. 229. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40.

[208] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 232, 234.

[209] _Ib._ 236–40.

[210] “Petiit sibi fieri judicium de comite Johanne,” etc., _ib._ p. 241.

[211] Hugh was sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire.

[212] “Demeruisse regnum,” R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 242.

[213] _Ann. Margan._ a. 1199.

[214] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 251.

[215] For John of Alençon see Round, _Calendar of Doc. in France_, vol. i. pp. 14, 15, 90, 91, 210, 454, 528.

[216] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 10365–419. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 114, places the meeting of the brothers at Brueis; and Roger of Howden, vol. iii. p. 252, says their reconciliation took place “mediante Alienor regina matre eorum.” This may mean either that she had interceded with Richard before he left England, or that it was she who had counselled John to throw himself on the king’s clemency.

[217] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 252. Some of John’s English lands had been seized before the council of Nottingham; no doubt, by virtue of the decree passed at the council in London on February 10. In the Pipe Roll of Michaelmas 1194 the king’s officers accounted to the king’s treasury for the ferms of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Dorset and Somerset, the third penny of Gloucestershire, and the ferm of Eye, for half a year (P.R. 6 Ric. I. m. 6, 13, 16, 4 d); but the sheriff of Devon and Cornwall rendered his account for three-quarters of a year (_ib._ m. 12); while the forfeiture of John’s private estates in Dorset and Somerset seems to have been dated from Ash-Wednesday, February 23 (_ib._ m. 13 d); a part at least of the honour of Gloucester, viz. Bristol, had been seized at Mid-Lent, four days after Richard’s landing in England, and the whole not later than Easter (_ib._ m. 16 d); and for the honours of Peverel and Tickhill a whole year’s ferm was reckoned as due to the treasury at Michaelmas (_ib._ m. 6). The king’s escheators rendered a separate account of a number of escheats in the honour of Lancaster and in the counties which John had held (_ib._ m. 2, 2 d); and the sheriff of Dorset and Somerset gathered in for the king a quantity of “arrears of debts which were owed to Count John for pleas and amercements of the men and townships” of those two counties (_ib._ m. 13). The commission issued to the itinerant justices in the same month of September contained an express order that they should inquire into and report upon all John’s property, real and personal, and all the moneys owed to him, to the intent that the whole might be secured for the king, R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 263, 264.

[218] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 252.

[219] _Hist. de. G. le Mar._ vv. 10491–517.

[220] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40; Rigord, c. 94.

[221] _Hist. de. G. le Mar._ vv. 10516–20.

[222] Rigord, c. 96.

[223] W. Armor. _Gesta Phil. Aug._ c. 72; _Philipp._ l. iv. vv. 445–62. The last detail seems to imply that the victims of the surprise--whatever its character--were, after all, not the whole garrison, but probably only the officers.

[224] Rigord, c. 96.

[225] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 253.

[226] Rigord, c. 100; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 74; _Philipp._ l. iv. vv. 530–69.

[227] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. v. vv. 30–32.

[228] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 286.

[229] I can find no mention either of the honour of Eye or of that of Gloucester in Pipe Roll 7 Ric. I. (1196).

[230] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 5.

[231] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 16. Cf. W. Newb. l. v. c. 31.

[232] Deville, _Hist. du Château-Gaillard_, pp. 21, 22, 119–23.

[233] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 60.

[234] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 81.

[235] R. Coggeshall, p. 99.

[236] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 83. The fourth part of the royal treasure was to be given to Richard’s servants and to the poor.

[237] _Ib._ p. 84.

[238] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 11877–908. These lines may be an almost literal report of the interview as described by the Marshal himself to John of Earley (_d’Erlée_), on whose relation to the _Histoire_ in its present form see M. Meyer’s introduction, vol. iii. pp. ii.–xiv. John was the Marshal’s favourite squire, and was immediately despatched by him on an important mission to England; see vv. 11909–16. It has been suggested (_Dic. Nat. Biog._ “Marshal, William”) that “li arcevesques”--as John calls him, without either Christian name or title of see--may have been not Walter of Rouen, but Hubert of Canterbury. Hubert was in Normandy at the time; but the advocacy of Arthur’s claims, intelligible enough in the mouth of a Norman prelate, is so contrary to the English political traditions of those days that I cannot, without further evidence, ascribe it to such a thoroughly English statesman as Archbishop Hubert Walter.

[239] “Hostis naturae Johannes,” W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40.

[240] _Magna Vita S. Hugonis_, p. 287.

[241] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 86; R. Coggeshall, p. 99.

[242] _Mag. Vita S. Hug._ _l.c._

[243] _Mag. Vita S. Hug._ pp. 287–91.

[244] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 87.

[245] _Mag. Vita S. Hug._ pp. 291–5.

[246] Rigord, c. 127.

[247] R. Coggeshall, p. 99; R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 85, 86.

[248] R. Howden, pp. 86, 87; date from _Chron. S. Albini Andeg._ a. 1199.

[249] _Mag. Vita S. Hugon._ p. 296.

[250] Rigord, c. 127; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 101.

[251] R. Coggeshall, p. 99.

[252] _Ib._; R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 87; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166; _Mag. Vita S. Hugon._ p. 293; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92.

[253] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 87–88.

[254] _Mag. Vita S. Hugon._ p. 293.

[255] _Ib._ pp. 293, 294.

[256] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 86. The writer of the _Hist. de G. le Mar._ asserts, vv. 11909–16, that John of Earley had been sent to England by the Marshal three weeks earlier, to “take seisin” of the land, castles, towns and royal demesnes for the count of Mortain. Probably he was really sent to bid the Marshal’s own men in England secure for John the castles, etc., which they held; and also to act as a medium of communication between the Marshal and the justiciar.

[257] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 87, 88, where, however, the order of events is wrong. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 99.

[258] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 11925–40.

[259] “Cum privatis suis,” R. Coggeshall, p. 99.

[260] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 89; Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 92, says Seaford.

[261] R. Howden and R. Coggeshall, _ll.cc._; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166.