Chapter IV: King John (2)

At the beginning of the year the justiciar had seized for the Crown some of the lands, men and goods of William de Braose.[656] His excuse for this proceeding was probably the fact that De Braose was in debt to the Crown for the ferm of the city of Limerick, and also for no less than four thousand two hundred and ninety-eight marks of the five thousand which he had in January 1201 covenanted to pay, by instalments of five hundred every year, for the grant of the honour of Limerick.[657] Meiler, however, had acted without instructions from the king; and when De Braose complained of the treatment which he had received, John declared {1207 Feb. 12} that he “found no fault in him,” and bade Meiler restore everything that had been taken from him, unless indeed the city of Limerick was included; if that had been seized for the Crown, Meiler was to retain it till further orders.[658] The mingled feelings of the king are reflected in his letter. John had found in William de Braose a useful servant and friend; he knew that he might find in him a dangerous enemy; he was therefore reluctant to take any measures which might drive William into opposition. On the other hand, William’s neglect of his pecuniary obligations to the Crown had reached such a pass that it could hardly be ignored much longer; and William was further suspected of being in secret alliance against the king, both with the Welsh and with the De Lacys.[659] Of this suspicion the king seems to have known nothing till after the middle of July, when he reappointed “our beloved and faithful William de Braose” custodian of Ludlow Castle.[660] It had, however, reached his ears by the time of Meiler’s coming to England, and Meiler turned it to account for a double purpose of his own. One day, as the king and his chief counsellors sat talking together after dinner, something was said about William the Marshal and his friendly relations with William de Braose. Meiler wrought upon the king’s jealousy of the one and his suspicions of the other, till he persuaded him to join in a plot for bringing them both to ruin.

[Sidenote: 1207–08]

At the justiciar’s instigation John secretly despatched letters to all those of the Marshal’s followers in Ireland who held lands in England, bidding them, on pain of forfeiting these, to be at his court within a fortnight. At the same time Meiler, with the king’s licence, returned to Ireland. The Marshal asked permission to do the same; but this was refused. Meiler on his arrival found that hitherto his men had, on the whole, been worsted in their strife with those of Leinster. He now summoned the Marshal’s men to a “parliament,” at which the king’s messenger read out the secret letters. The men to whom these letters were addressed saw but too plainly what would be the result of their obedience: the Marshal’s lands would be left without defence against Meiler. They unanimously resolved to sacrifice their own English estates, disobey the king for their lord’s sake, and resist Meiler to the uttermost; and with the help of two powerful neighbours whom they called to their aid, Ralph Fitz-Payne and Hugh de Lacy, they succeeded, as one of them says, in doing to Meiler as much mischief as he had thought to do to their lord.[661] The Marshal, meanwhile, was compelled to remain at court, but so discountenanced by the king that hardly any one dared to speak to him. At last, one winter day, as they rode out from Guildford,[662] John called to him: “Marshal, have you had any news from Ireland that pleases you?” “No, sire.” “I can tell you some news,” said the king, laughing; and he told him that his wife, the Countess Isabel, had been besieged in Kilkenny by Meiler, who had indeed been at length worsted and even captured by her people, but with very heavy losses on her side, three of the Marshal’s chief friends being among the slain. The story was a sheer invention of John’s; in reality he had received no news from Ireland at all. The Marshal, though perplexed and troubled, retained his outward composure; and early in the spring he himself received from Ireland a very different account of what had happened there. The justiciar had not only been captured, but had made submission to the countess and given his son as a hostage till he himself should stand to right in her husband’s court for the wrong which he had done to him as his lord.

[Sidenote: 1208–09]

These tidings were sent at the same time to the king, who was by no means pleased with them, but characteristically changed his policy at once to meet the turn of the tide. He called the Marshal to his presence, greeted him with unusual courtesy, and asked him if he had heard anything from Ireland. “No, sire; I have no news from thence.” “Then I will tell you some good news, of which I wish you joy”--and thereupon John related the truth, which William knew already, though he had not chosen to say so. From that time forth “the king made him as good cheer as he had made him evil cheer before”; and when the Marshal soon afterwards again asked leave to go to Ireland, it was granted at once.[663] On March 7 Meiler was ordered to refrain from interfering with the lands of the Marshal, who had instructed his men to keep the peace towards Meiler in return;[664] on March 20 John informed the justiciar that “the Marshal has done our will,” and despatched to Ireland four commissioners by whose instructions Meiler was to act, and who, if he failed to do so, were empowered to act in his stead.[665] On the 28th, a new grant of Leinster, on the terms of the original grant to Richard de Clare, was made by the king to the Marshal.[666] A month later Meath was in like manner granted afresh to Walter de Lacy;[667] and at the end of the next year, 1209, Meiler was removed from his office of justiciar, and replaced by the bishop of Norwich, John de Grey.[668]

[Sidenote: 1208]

On one point, however, Meiler was justified by the king. In the spring of 1208 John made up his mind to bear with William de Braose no longer, and ordered a distraint upon his Welsh lands. William’s wife, Maud of Saint-Valery,[669] his nephew, Earl William of Ferrars, and his sister’s husband, Adam de Port, met the king at Gloucester and persuaded him to grant an interview to William himself at Hereford. William promised to pay his debts to the treasury within a certain time, pledged some of his castles for the payment, and gave three of his grandsons and four other persons as hostages.[670] Roger of Wendover relates that when the king’s officers went to fetch the hostages, Maud refused to deliver up her grandchildren to the king, “because,” said she, “he has murdered his captive nephew”; that her husband reproved her, and declared himself willing to answer according to law for anything in which he had offended the king; and that John, on hearing what Maud had said, was “greatly perturbed,” and ordered the whole family of De Braose to be arrested.[671] John himself, in a public statement attested by the chief justiciar of England and twelve other men of high position, among whom were De Braose’s own nephew and brother-in-law, asserted that shortly after the meeting at Hereford De Braose and his sons attempted to regain the pledged castles by force, and when they had failed in this attempt, attacked and burned Leominster.[672] Thereupon it seems that William was proclaimed a traitor; on September 21 John empowered Gerald of Athies to make an agreement with all who were or had been homagers of William de Braose, so that they should “come to the king’s service and not return to the service of William.”[673]

V.

IRELAND

_A.D. 1210_

{No key included, the North West is shaded green, the rest red.}

_Stanford’s Geogˡ. Estabᵗ. London._

London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd.]

[Sidenote: 1209–10]

De Braose was chased by the king’s officers,[674] till in the following year, 1209, he escaped, with his wife and two of their sons, from some Welsh seaport, intending to go to Ireland. A violent storm kept them tossing on the sea for three days and three nights; at last they landed at Wicklow. William the Marshal chanced to be there; he received them kindly and sheltered them for three weeks. Then their presence was discovered by the new justiciar, Bishop John de Grey, who at once taxed the Marshal with harbouring “the king’s traitors,” and bade him give them up to justice. The Marshal refused, saying he had only received “his lord,”[675] as he was bound to do, and without knowing that De Braose had incurred the king’s displeasure; and he added that he himself would not act like a traitor towards De Braose at the justiciar’s bidding. Thereupon he sent the refugees safely on to their destination, the home of De Braose’s son-in-law, Walter de Lacy. The justiciar complained to the king, who summoned his host for an expedition to Ireland;[676] both the Marshal and the Lacys having positively refused to give up De Braose, though they offered to be answerable for his going to England to satisfy the king within a fixed time, and promised that, if he failed to do so, they would then harbour him no more. At last--seemingly in the spring of 1210--De Braose was allowed to go on these conditions back to Wales. John had apparently consented to meet him at Hereford; but when De Braose reached Hereford, “he,” says the king, “regarded us not,” but began to collect all the forces he could muster against the Crown. His nephew, the earl of Ferrars, however, managed to bring him to a meeting with the king at Pembroke. He offered a fine of forty thousand marks. “We,” says John, “told him we knew well that he was not in his own power at all, but in that of his wife, who was in Ireland; and we proposed that he should go to Ireland with us, and the matter should be settled there; but he chose rather to remain in Wales,”[677] and was suffered to do so--John being determined now to settle matters not only with Maud de Braose, but with all the barons of the Irish March, according to his own will and pleasure.

At some date between June 16 and 20 John crossed from Pembroke to Crook, near Waterford. Thence he proceeded by way of Newbridge and Thomastown to Kilkenny, where he and all his host were received and entertained for two days (June 23 and 24) by William the Marshal.[678] On June 28 the king reached Dublin; thence he led his host into Meath.[679] Walter de Lacy and the De Braoses fled, evidently into Ulster; thither John marched in pursuit of them, but before he could overtake them they had escaped over sea into Galloway.[680] Hugh de Lacy had retired into the stronghold of Carrickfergus; at the king’s approach, however, he, too, slipped away in a little boat to Scotland.[681] Carrickfergus was provisioned for a siege, but its garrison was soon frightened into surrender.[682] While John was at Carrickfergus, his “friend and cousin,” Duncan of Carrick, sent him word that he had captured Maud de Braose, one of her daughters, her eldest son, his wife and their two children; her younger son, Reginald, had escaped, and so had the Lacys. The king despatched John de Courcy (whom he had taken back into favour, and brought with him to Ireland, as likely to be a willing and useful helper against the De Lacys) to fetch the captives from Galloway. When they were brought before him, Maud offered the surrender of all her husband’s lands and a fine of forty thousand marks, which John accepted; but three days later she repudiated her agreement.[683] Taking his prisoners with him, the king turned southward again, and soon completed the subjugation of the Lacys’ territories. Most of the lesser barons fled before him as their lords had done, “fearing to fall into his hands.”[684] A week’s stay in Dublin (August 18 to 24) brought his expedition to a close.[685]

[Sidenote: 1210]

It was probably during this second stay of John’s at Dublin that, as Roger of Wendover says, “there came to him there more than twenty kinglets[686] of that country, who all, terrified with a very great fear, did him homage and fealty; yet a few kinglets neglected to come, who scorned to do so, because they dwelt in impregnable places. Also he caused to be set up there English laws and customs, establishing sheriffs and other officers who should judge the people of that realm according to English laws.”[687] This latter statement of Roger’s may have given rise to the later belief that it was John who organized the administration of the March in Ireland after the English model, by dividing the whole of the conquered territory into counties, each under its own sheriff.[688] It appears, however, that there were sheriffs in Ireland in the days of Henry II.[689] The earliest known mention of a sheriff’s district there occurs in 1205, when we hear of the “county of Waterford.”[690] Ten years later the same county is mentioned again, and also that of Cork;[691] and before the end of the century ten counties, at least, were recognized by the English government in Ireland.[692] The names of the earliest Irish counties thus known to us and the circumstances of John’s visit to Ireland in 1210 may suggest a clue to the rise and growth of the shire-system in that country. The district which forms the present county of Waterford had never been enfeoffed either by Henry II. or by John, but remained directly in the hands of the supreme ruler of the March. Of the present county Cork, the eastern half, at least, escheated together with the rest of Raymond FitzGerald’s share of the “kingdom of Cork” on his death about 1185. No notice of a new enfeoffment of any of the lands which had been his occurs till 1208, and then they were not granted as a whole; so far as we know, only a portion of them was enfeoffed, and that portion was distributed among several feoffees.[693] It seems probable that the system of county administration may have been first established in Ireland in those districts which were under the direct rule of the English Crown (or, to speak more exactly, of the “English,” or Angevin, “Lord of Ireland”), and of which the continuous extent was too great for them to be left, like the single cantreds attached to the other seaport towns, under the control of a mere military governor or constable, and that it was only by degrees introduced into the great fiefs. If this were so, the events of 1210 would furnish an excellent opportunity for its extension. Of the four great fiefs which, together with the royal domains and the lately redistributed honour of Cork, made up the “English” March in Ireland, Leinster was, when John sailed from Dublin for England at the end of August,[694] practically the only one left. Meath, Ulster, and Limerick were all forfeit to the Crown; and the Crown kept the greater part of them for many years after. Meath was not restored to Walter de Lacy till 1215;[695] Walter’s brother, the earl of Ulster, did not return from exile till after John’s death;[696] and the honour of Limerick was never again bestowed as a whole upon a single grantee. Under these circumstances a system of administrative division into counties placed under sheriffs appointed by the king, or by the justiciar in his name, might be established without difficulty in territories where its introduction in earlier years, if ever attempted, would probably have been rendered ineffectual by the power of the great barons. The one great baron who in the autumn of 1210 still held his ground in the March--Earl William the Marshal, the lord of Leinster--had no hesitation in withstanding the king to his face in the cause of honour and justice; but he was not a man to throw obstacles in the way of the royal authority when it was exercised within the sphere of its rights and in the interest of public order.

On the king’s return to Dublin William the Marshal came to the court. John at once accused him of having “harboured a traitor” in the person of William de Braose. The Marshal answered the king as he had answered the justiciar, and added that if any other man dared to utter such a charge against him, he was ready to disprove it there and then. As usual, no one would take up his challenge; nevertheless, John again required hostages and pledges for the Marshal’s fidelity, and again they were given at once.[697] Meanwhile, the sheriff of Hereford sent word that William de Braose was stirring up trouble in Wales, and urged that he should be outlawed; but the king ordered that the matter should await his own return to England. When he was about to sail, Maud de Braose offered to fine with him for forty thousand marks, and ten thousand in addition, as amends for having withdrawn from her former agreement. John accepted these terms; the fine was signed and sealed, and it was agreed that Maud, and also, it seems, the other members of her family who had been captured with her, should remain in custody till it was paid. John carried his prisoners back with him to England, put Maud in prison at Bristol, and at her request gave an audience to her husband, who ratified the fine which she had made, but fled secretly just before the day fixed for paying the first instalment. The king asked Maud what she now proposed to do, and she answered plainly that she had no intention, and no means, of paying. Then it was ordered that “the judgement of our realm should be carried out against William,” and he was outlawed.[698] Thus far the king tells his own story, and there is no reason to doubt its truth. What he does not tell is the end of the story. He sent Maud and her son to a dungeon at Windsor, and there starved them to death.[699]

FOOTNOTES:

[502] July 15–20, 1205, _Itin._ a. 7.

[503] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 98. Cf. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 60, 60 b.

[504] Cf. Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. viii. No. 161, and Gerv. Cant. _l.c._

[505] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 183. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 99.

[506] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. viii. No. 161.

[507] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 184, 185.

[508] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 56 b.

[509] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 185; _Rot. Pat._ _l.c._

[510] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. ix. Nos. 34, 35, 36.

[511] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 65 b, 67.

[512] _Ib._ p. 64.

[513] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 111; _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 514. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 197, 198.

[514] Cf. Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. ix. No. 206; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 212, 213; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. pp. 111, 112; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 198; _Ann. Burton_, a. 1211.

[515] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 188; R. Coggeshall, p. 156.

[516] Chancellor’s Roll, 3 John (1201), _passim_.

[517] _Ib._ p. 18.

[518] A summary of the scutages was drawn up, from the Pipe Rolls, by Alexander Swereford, in the time of Henry III., and is printed in the Rolls edition of the _Red Book of the Exchequer_. The marginal dates added in that edition are wrong throughout John’s reign. The true dates are as follows:--

First scutage of John, “in rotulo primo” (1198–1199), 2 marks.

Second scutage, “in rotulo tertio” (1200–1201), 2 marks.

Third scutage, “in rotulo quarto” (1201–1202), 2 marks.

Fourth scutage, “in rotulo quinto” (1202–1203), 2 marks.

Fifth scutage, “in rotulo sexto” (1203–1204), 2 marks.

Sixth scutage, “in rotulo septimo” (1204–1205), 2 marks.

Seventh scutage, “in rotulo octavo” (1205–1206), 20 s.

Eighth scutage, “in rotulo duodecimo” (1209–1210), 2 marks.

{Ninth scutage (for }
{ Wales), } “in rotulo decimo tertio” (1210–1211), 2 marks.

{Tenth scutage (for }
{ Scotland), } “in rotulo decimo tertio” (1210–1211), 20 s.

Eleventh scutage, “in rotulo decimo sexto” (1213–1214), 3 marks.

_Red Book of the Exchequer_, vol. i. pp. 11, 12.

[519] R. Coggeshall, p. 100. See above, p. 73.

[520] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 173. See above, p. 101.

[521] Chancellor’s Roll, 3 John, _passim_.

[522] _Ib._ p. 249.

[523] _Ib._ p. 228.

[524] _Ib._ p. 300.

[525] _E.g._ in 1201 William de Stuteville gave £1000 to be sheriff of Yorkshire; _ib._ p. 299.

[526] See the printed _Rotuli Cartarum_.

[527] _Red Book_, vol. i. p. 11.

[528] _Ann. Waverley_, a. 1207.

[529] _Ann. Waverley_, a. 1207.

[530] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 222, 223.

[531] On January 25, at Worcester. _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 58 b.

[532] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1207. R. Wendover (iii. 210) represents the thirteenth as exacted from both laity and clergy; the Waverley Annals say merely “omnis homo de cujuscunque feodo.” But the writ for the assessment, issued from Oxford on February 17, says “concessum est quod quilibet _laicus_ homo totius Angliae, de cujusque feodo sit,” etc. (_Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 72 b). This would, of course, include laymen holding lands of ecclesiastical superiors (cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 84 b). Geoffrey’s protest must therefore be interpreted accordingly. John, it seems, had not yet abandoned all hope of getting something from the beneficed clergy; on May 26 he asked those of the southern province for something very like a “benevolence.” _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 72.

[533] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 210.

[534] _Ib._ Cf. _Ann. Waverl._ a 1207.

[535] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. x. No. 219; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 215–217.

[536] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 213.

[537] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 214. The writ for seizure of the estates was issued July 11, _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 74; and executed July 15, Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100.

[538] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199.

[539] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. x. No. 113.

[540] _Ib._ Nos. 159, 160; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 78, 80; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221.

[541] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 101, and the Annals of Waverley, Worcester, Bermondsey and Tewkesbury, a. 1207, date the publication of the interdict March the _Ann. Winton._ date it “Monday in Passion Week,” _i.e._ March 24 also. The Annals of Margan and of Dunstable make it Passion Sunday, _i.e._ March 23, which is the date given by R. Wendover (iii. 222), W. Coventry (ii. 199) and T. Wykes (a. 1207). Roger of Wendover, however, adds that it was the Monday in Passion Week, so his dates are self-contradictory.

[542] R. Coggeshall, p. 163, says the general confiscation of clerical property took place on March 24; and the king’s orders (issued March 17 and 18) for the seizure of the sees of Bath and Ely are to take effect from that day (_Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 80, 80 b), which looks as if the confiscation was meant to be an immediate retort to the interdict. But the see of Norwich--though its bishop was the king’s favourite John de Grey--was evidently seized before March 23 (_ib._ p. 81); while the sheriffs of Derbyshire and Warwickshire were already holding for the king “all the manors of the bishop of Chester within their bailiwicks, and everything in them, and all the lands and goods of abbots, priors, religious, and clerks, within their bailiwicks,” as early as March 21, for on that day they were ordered to hand them over to another custodian. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 107.

[543] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 107, 110.

[544] R. Coggeshall, p. 163; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 223. The _Ann. Margan._, a. 1207, give a curious and not very intelligible account of the state of public feeling on the question between John and the Pope: “Electus est Magister S. de Langetone ad archiepiscopatum Cantuariensem.... Pro cujus electione, quia facta fuit contra profanas illas consuetudines quas vocant avitas leges et regias libertates, orta est statim discordia inter Papam Innocentium et Johannem tyrannum Angliae, faventibus _ei_” (Stephen, Innocent, or John?) “et consentientibus omnibus laicis et clericis fere universis, sed et viris cujuslibet professionis multis.”

[545] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 111.

[546] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 108–13 b.

[547] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 226.

[548] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 108 b.

[549] John proposed, instead of himself giving Langton the regalia of the see, to place them in the Pope’s hands and let him confer them on the archbishop, inasmuch as John “could not yet bring himself to receive Stephen as a friend.” The Pope, though he did not like the scheme, yet authorized the bishops of London, Ely and Worcester to receive the regalia as his representatives and to confer them as the king desired; but whenever the bishops sought an interview with the king on the subject, he put them off. At last, in September (1208), he gave Langton himself a safe-conduct for a week’s visit to England, but addressed it to “S. de Langton, Cardinal,” thus showing that he did not yet intend to recognize him as archbishop. Langton of course declined to come on such terms. See Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xi. Nos. 89, 90; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 82, 85, 86; _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1208.

[550] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. xi. No. 211.

[551] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 89, 90; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 222, 228, 229; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 100, 103, 104; _Ann. Waverl._ and _Dunst._ a. 1208. All the chroniclers have confused the dates, which have to be rectified by the help of the Pope’s letters, the Patent and Close Rolls (both of which, however, unluckily fail in 1209), and Bishop Stubbs’s notes to Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. pp. 103, 104, appendix to preface, _ib._ pp. xci.–cviii., and W. Coventry, vol. ii. preface, pp. lv., lvi. The sees of Chichester, Exeter, Lincoln and Durham were vacant; before June 21, 1209, Hugh of Wells was elected to Lincoln by desire of the king, who sent him to Normandy to be consecrated by the archbishop of Rouen, but he went to the archbishop of Canterbury instead, and was consecrated by him on December 20 (R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 231; date from M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 120, note 4). Carlisle had been administered since 1203 by Bernard, the exiled archbishop of Ragusa. Coventry (or Chester) was vacated in October 1208 by the death of Geoffrey Muschamp, who is mentioned by Gervase among the bishops who went over sea.

[552] _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_, p. 109.

[553] The two best known instances indeed are of doubtful authenticity; see Note II. at end. But the general charge against John rests upon authorities which there is no reason to question; _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 105, 200, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 240. The list of John’s children given by Pauli, _Gesch. von England_, vol. iii. p. 475, is neither correct nor complete.

[554] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 105.

[555] M. Paris records this twice, in 1208 (_Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 524) and 1209 (_Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 118). One of the two dates is probably wrong, but there is no means of deciding which.

[556] Christmas 1208, R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 225.

[557] June 28, 1209; _ib._ p. 227; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 119. Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 109.

[558] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 80, 81 b, 83 b–86.

[559] Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 102, and _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1208.

[560] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 105.

[561] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 224.

[562] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 118.

[563] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227.

[564] Cf. _ib._, Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 104 (who makes the age fifteen years), and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 200.

[565] Gerv. Cant. _l.c._ The day must have been either the 13th or the 30th, _Itin._ a. 11.

[566] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 90(Aug. 1207); _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 76 (Oct. 1207); _ib._ p. 91 (April 1209).

[567] _Chron. Mailros_, a. 1209.

[568] The _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1208, say the bishops of Salisbury and Rochester went to Scotland “cum Regis Angliae gratia”; but cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 226. Langton’s father had taken refuge at St. Andrews in 1207. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii., appendix to preface, pp. lxii., lxiii.

[569] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 102.

[570] _Ib._ pp. 102–3. Cf. appendix to preface, _ib._ pp. c–ciii.

[571] _Itin._ a. 11.

[572] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 103.

[573] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 103. The Scottish authorities, _Chron. Mailros_ and _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1209, make the sum thirteen thousand pounds. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227, says twelve thousand marks, and M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 525, eleven thousand marks; the document in _Foedera_ is the best authority, although its original is lost and it is obviously not altogether an accurate copy, its date, “_Northampton_, 7th August,” being of course a transcriber’s mistake for “Norham.”

[574] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 103.

[575] The first child of John and Isabel of Angoulême--the future Henry III.--was born October 1, 1207; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 219. The second, Richard, was born January 6, 1209; _Ann. Winton._ _ad ann._ Both the Scot king’s daughters were born before the end of 1195, when one of them was betrothed to Otto of Saxony, R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 299, 308.

[576] _Chron. Mailros_ and _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1209.

[577] See above, pp. 26, 32, 45.

[578] _Ann. Cambriae_ and _Brut y Tywysogion_, a. 1197–1209.

[579] _Rot. Chart._ vol. i. pp. 23, 44, 63, 100 b, 103, 103 b, 104; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 39, 40, 44 b, 51 b, 88, 89 b, 91; _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 23 b, 24. _Brut_, a. 1207, 1209.

[580] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 8 b.

[581] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 12.

[582] _Ann. Wigorn._ a. 1206.

[583] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 101.

[584] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 227; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 119. The event was not really so unprecedented as these writers imagined; the princes of both North and South Wales had done homage to Henry II. at Oxford in 1177. The chroniclers’ expressions about this Welsh homage to John, however, show the impression which it made and the importance which was attached to it.

[585] _Itin._ a. 11.

[586] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. appendix to preface, p. cvi.

[587] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1209.

[588] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 231.

[589] _Ib._ p. 229.

[590] R. Wendover, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224.

[591] _Ib._ p. 232.

[592] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1210.

[593] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100.

[594] _Ib._

[595] Ware, _Antiq._ p. 102, makes William Petit and William the Marshal justiciars in 1191; but no authority is given. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99, says that Roger de Planes was “in tota terra comitis [Johannis] justiciarius” when he was slain in October 1191; see above, p. 29. Peter Pippard was justiciar in Ireland in 1194, according to Henry of Marlborough as quoted in Butler’s _History of Trim Castle_, p. 3; and Hamo de Valognes held the office c. 1196–1197; cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 342, and Ware, _l.c._

[596] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 55; Gilbert, _Hist. Documents of Ireland_, pp. 51–55. Other Irish Charters of John before his accession to the crown--all dateless--are in _Rot. Canc. Hibern. Cal._ vol. i. pt. i. pp. 2, 4, 5, and _Hist. MSS. Comm._ 4th Report, pp. 574, 581.

[597] Four Masters, a. 1195.

[598] He certainly was not killed in 1182 as the Four Masters say; but he disappears after 1183. See _Dic. Nat. Biogr._ “Fitz-Gerald (Raymond).”

[599] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 345, 409.

[600] In 1207 John confirmed to William de Barri a sub-enfeoffment made by Fitz-Stephen to Philip de Barri, William’s father and Fitz-Stephen’s nephew. _Rot. Chart._ p. 172.

[601] Four Masters, a. 1196, note.

[602] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 342, and Four Masters, a. 1196.

[603] _Rot. Chart._ p. 98.

[604] _Ib._ p. 19 b. John made at the same time several other grants of land within the honour, or kingdom, of Limerick, _ib._ All these grants, however, except the grant to William de Burgh, seem to have been cancelled by the later one to William de Braose; see below, p. 139. Half a cantred of land at “Tilra’ct in Kelsela” had been granted by John to De Burgh before King Henry’s death, _Hist. MSS. Comm._, 3rd Report, p. 231.

[605] Four Masters, a. 1198.

[606] Four Masters and _Ann. Loch Cé_, a. 1199–1202.

[607] _Rot. Chart._ p. 84 b.

[608] Dugdale, _Baronage_, pt. i. p. 414; who, however, has confused father and son. See _Genealogist_, vol. iv. pp. 133–141, and _Dic. Nat. Biog._ “Braose, William de.”

[609] His father was living in that year; _Monasticon_, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 457.

[610] _Ann. Camb._ a. 1189, 1192, 1195, 1196; _Brut y Tywysogion_, a. 1196, 1197. Maud died in 1209, _Brut_, _ad ann._

[611] _Rot. Chart._ p. 80. Walter was the eldest son of Hugh de Lacy who was killed in 1186.

[612] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107.

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

[614] _Rot. Chart._ p. 66 b.

[615] _Rot. Oblat._ p. 99, “ad quodlibet scaccarium quingentas marcas argenti.”

[616] _Rot. Chart._ p. 100 b.

[617] Carte’s _Life of Ormonde_, ed. 1851, vol. i. pp. xliv., xlv.; _Rot. Chart._ pp. 19 b, 28.

[618] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 4, 7, 16 b, 18 b, 19 b.

[619] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. vi. vv. 478–492. The poet asserts that William resigned his charge because he suspected John’s intentions towards his prisoner. This would be shortly before the attempt to blind Arthur, who was then in the custody of Hubert de Burgh.

[620] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 24 b.

[621] _Ann. Loch Cé_, a. 1203.

[622] _Rot. Chart._ p. 107 b.

[623] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 31 b.

[624] _Ib._ p. 39 b. On 29th April the commissioners are informed that De Burgh is respited, and Meiler is bidden to give him seisin of his lands again; _ib._ p. 41 b.

[625] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 46.

[626] _Ann. Loch Cé_, a. 1205; Four Masters, a. 1204.

[627] _Rot. Pat._ p. 60 b. They seem to have been restored to his son Richard before July 11, 1214; _ib._ pp. 118 b, 119.

[628] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 91. Cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 6 b.

[629] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 62.

[630] _Rot. Chart._ p. 68 b (a. 1200); _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 40(a. 1205). I am indebted to Mr. G. H. Orpen for the information that the districts held by the English crown in Ireland were not known as “the Pale” till after Poynings’s Act (1494), when the colonists were ordered to maintain a ditch “six feet high on the side which neared next to the Irishmen” (Joyce, _Hist. of Ireland_, p. 351).

[631] _Rot. Oblat._ p. 74.

[632] Eyton, _Hist. of Shropshire_, vol. v. pp. 257, 258.

[633] _Rot. Chart._ p. 133 b.

[634] _Rot. Pat._ p. 15.

[635] Four Masters, a. 1203.

[636] _Rot. Pat._ p. 34 b.

[637] _Ib._ pp. 45, 45 b.

[638] Four Masters, a. 1204.

[639] _Rot. Pat._ p. 54.

[640] _Rot. Chart._ p. 151--“de qua [_i.e._ Ultonia] ipsum cinximus in comitem.” Date, May 29, 1205.

[641] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 40.

[642] _Rot. Chart._ pp. 133 b, 134.

[643] _Rot. Pat._ p. 45 b.

[644] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 6 b.

[645] _Rot. Pat._ p. 45 b. John had granted another charter to Dublin on November 7, 1200; _Rot. Chart._ pp. 78 b, 79.

[646] _Rot. Pat._ p. 47.

[647] The Four Masters, a. 1205, describe the war as “between the English of Meath and the English of Meiler”; but the only “English of Meath” who took part in it seem to have been Walter de Lacy and his personal followers. See _Rot. Pat._ p. 69 (February 21, 1206), where John commends the barons of Meath and Leinster for not having supported Walter in his strife with Meiler about Limerick.

[648] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 47 b.

[649] _Rot. Pat._ pp. 69 b, 70 b.

[650] His father was son of Henry I. by Nest, daughter of Rees ap Griffith, prince of North Wales. Gir. Cambr. vol. i. p. 59.

[651] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. p. 356.

[652] Two cantreds in Kerry--“Akunkerry” and “Hyerba”--and one “in terra de Corch”--“Yogenacht Lokhelen quae est terra de Humurierdach”--to be holden by the service of fifteen knights. _Rot. Chart._ p. 77 b.

[653] Gir. Cambr. vol. v. pp. 355, 356.

[654] He had had the eldest son ever since July 1205; _Hist. G. le Mar._ vv. 13271–6.

[655] _Ib._ vv. 13311–20, 13350–584.

[656] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 77 b.

[657] See Note I. at end.

[658] _Rot. Claus._ p. 77 b.

[659] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202.

[660] _Rot. Pat._ p. 74. Walter de Lacy, on his marriage with Margaret de Braose, had promised that he would never give, sell, or pledge any part of his land in England or Normandy without his father-in-law’s consent; and this engagement had been embodied in a charter and confirmed by the king. _Rot. Obl._ (a. 2 Joh.), p. 81. One of its results seems to have been that De Braose took charge of Ludlow Castle; it was he who on March 5, 1206, was summoned to deliver it up to Philip d’Aubigné for the king; _Rot. Pat._ p. 69 b. On July 13, 1207, John transferred its custody from D’Aubigné back to De Braose.

[661] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 13589–786.

[662] John was at Guildford December 27 to 28, 1207, and January 25 to 27, 1208; _Itin._ a. 9.

[663] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 13787–936.

[664] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 105.

[665] _Ib._ p. 106 b.

[666] _Rot. Chart._ p. 176.

[667] _Ib._ p. 178. Cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 106.

[668] The bishop of Norwich was in Ireland before January 2, 1210 (_Rot. Misæ_, p. 144); Meiler had ceased to be justiciar before February 16 of the same year (_ib._ p. 149); and the bishop was in office as justiciar when the De Braoses arrived in Ireland towards the end of 1209, as appears from _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14119–172. The Four Masters’ account of Bishop John’s appointment and its consequences is too amusing to be omitted. They say under the year 1208: “John, bishop of Norwich, was sent by the king of England into Ireland as lord justice; and the English were excommunicated by the successor of S. Peter for sending the bishop to carry on war in Ireland.”

[669] The king speaks of her as Maud de la Haye, _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107. But she witnesses a charter of her husband by the title of “domina Matiltis de Sancto Walerico,” Round, _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 461. See the curious account of her--“fille fu Bernard de Saint Waleri,” etc.--in _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_, pp. 111, 112.

[670] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107. John was at Gloucester in 1208 April 22 and 23, and at Hereford April 24 to 28; _Itin._ a. 9.

[671] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 225. He brings in this story in connexion with the general demand for hostages from the barons in 1208; but his own account of the words used by William de Braose shows that he was aware there was a special ground for the demand in De Braose’s case.

[672] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.

[673] _Rot. Pat._ p. 86 b.

[674] _Foedera_, _l.c._

[675] “Mès j’ai herbergié mon seignor, Si comme faire le deveie,” _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14214–15. How De Braose was “lord” of the Marshal, I can find nothing to show.

[676] _Ib._ vv. 14137–52.

[677] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108. John was at Cross-by-the-Sea, close to Pembroke, from June 3 to June 16 inclusive, and at Crook on June 20. _Itin._ a. 12.

[678] Cf. _Itin._ a. 12 and _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14259–66.

[679] June 30, Greenoge; July 2 and 3, Trim; July 4 and 5, Kells. _Itin._ a. 12.

[680] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.

[681] _Ann. Cambr._ a. 1210, Rolls edition, pp. 66, 67, note.

[682] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14270–78. John was at Carrickfergus July 19 to 28; _Itin._ a. 12.

[683] _Foedera_, _l.c._

[684] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 234.

[685] His itinerary from Carrickfergus is: July 29, Holywood; July 31, Ballymore; August 2, 3, Down; 4, Banbridge; 5, Carlingford; 8, 9, Drogheda; 9, 10, Duleek; 10, 11, Kells; 11, Fowre; 12, Granard; 14, Rathwire; 16, Castle Bret; 18–24, Dublin. _Itin._ a. 12.

[686] “_Reguli._” The _Hist. des Ducs de Normandie_, pp. 112, 113, tells how the king of Connaught came to John’s “service” at Dublin, and how John while at Carrickfergus tried to catch the king of “Kenelyon” in a trap, but was outwitted by the Irishman.

[687] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 233, 234.

[688] This assertion, adopted by many modern writers, seems to have been first definitely made by Sir John Davies, in his _Discoverie of the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued_, etc. (1612), p. 121: “King John made xii. shires in Leinster and Mounster; namely, Dublin, Kildare, Meth, Uriel, Catherlogh, Kilkenny, Wexford, Waterford, Corke, Limeric, Kerrie, and Tipperary.”

[689] Ware, _Antiq._ c. v. p. 33.

[690] Patent granted by John to the citizens of Waterford, July 3, a. r. 7 (1205), according to Ware, _l.c._

[691] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 218.

[692] Writs for a parliament held at some date between 1293 and 1298 were addressed to the _sheriffs_ of Dublin, Louth, Kildare, Waterford, Tipperary, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, “Connaught,” and Roscommon, and to the seneschals of the liberties of Meath, Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Ulster. _Irish Archæological Society’s Miscellany_, p. 15.

[693] _Rot. Chart._ pp. 171 b, 172, 172 b. Cf. an inquisition ordered April 3, 1206 (_Rot. Pat._ p. 60 b), which clearly implies that the eastern half of the “kingdom of Cork” was then in the king’s hands.

[694] He is last mentioned as being in Dublin on August 24, and he was at Fishguard on August 26; _Itin._ a. 12.

[695] _Rot. Pat._ pp. 131, 132 b, 151, 181.

[696] _Dict. Nat. Biog._ “Lacy, Hugh de (d. 1242).”

[697] _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 14286–372.

[698] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 108.

[699] See Note I. at end.