Chapter II: The Regency of William the Marshal (3)

[457] _Ib._ ll. 17860–17871; the story is told confusedly, but with the help of the _Brut_ and the dates furnished by the Rolls the sequence of events can be made out. The Worcester _parlement_ in which this discussion took place is doubtless not the first meeting with Llewelyn, in March, but the later meeting, at the close of Easter, when the court would be gathered round the king for the festival.

[458] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 149.

[459] _Ib._ pp. 155, 156.

[460] _Brut_, p. 305.

[461] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 133.

[462] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 150.

[463] _Ib._ p. 204.

[464] Geoffrey’s letter does not seem to be extant; we only know its contents from the reply.

[465] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 145.

[466] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 31.

[467] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 22, 23, 14th and 17th January, 1217.

[468] _Ib._ p. 57; cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 306.

[469] These things appear from the agreement made between the king and Geoffrey de Marsh in 1220, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 263–264.

[470] _Ib._ p. 132, 18th December, 1217.

[471] _Ib._ p. 72.

[472] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 376 b, 377.

[473] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 377.

[474] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 162, 15th April, 1218.

[475] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 358 b.

[476] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 240; cf. _Hist. Ducs_, p. 207, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 51.

[477] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 116.

[478] _Ib._ p. 174.

[479] _Ib._ pp. 194, 195, 198, &c.

[480] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1220, p. 60.

[481] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 354 b, 357, 359 b.

[482] _Ib._ p. 378 b.

[483] The _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1218, p. 54, say all these started in May. The _Ann. Wav._, a. 1218, say Chester and Ferrers started at Whitsuntide (Whit Sunday was 3rd June), and place Harcourt’s departure in the following year. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 240, 241.

[484] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 44; _Ann. Wav._ and _Dunst._, a. 1219.

[485] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1219.

[486] R. Wend., _l.c._

[487] R. Wend., _l.c._; _Ann. Dunst._ and _Wav._, a. 1219. In a letter patent dated 20th January, 1219, the king takes under his protection until June 24th a ship which Saer “sibi parari fecit in partibus Galweiae ad eundum in partes Bristoll, pro victualibus et armis et aliis sibi necessariis ad iter peregrinacionis suae quod facere disponit in terram Jerosolymitanam.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 185.

[488] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219.

[489] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1219, p. 56.

[490] The story of the siege of Newark in 1218 is prefaced by Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. pp. 34, 35, as follows: “Erant autem his diebus multi in Anglia quibus tempore belli praeteriti dulcissimum fuerat de rapinis vixisse, unde nunc post pacem denuntiatam et omnibus concessam non potuerunt manus a praeda cohibere; horum autem principales fuerunt incentores Willelmus comes Albemarliae, Falcasius cum suis castellanis, Robertus de Veteriponte, Brienus de Insula, Hugo de Baillul, Philippus Marci, et Robertus de Gaugi, cum aliis multis, qui castella quorundam episcoporum ac magnatum cum terris et possessionibus contra regis prohibitionem et illorum voluntatem detinere praesumpserunt eisdem; inter quos Robertus de Gaugi, post multas regis admonitiones, castellum de Newerc cum villa tota et pertinentiis, quae ad jus Hugonis Lincolniensis episcopi spectabant, ei reddere contradixit.” Mr. Turner (“Minority,” part II., _Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, 3rd ser. vol. i. pp. 221–222) has shown that not only up to this date, but for several years after, there is no evidence on this subject against Falkes, and that there is none whatever, at any date, against Brian de Lisle, Philip Marc, and Robert de Vipont. Hugh de Balliol really was contumacious, and so too, though as yet in a much lesser degree, was William of Aumale (_ib._ pp. 223, 237). It is quite clear that, as Mr. Turner says (p. 222), Roger’s account of the Newark affair was written some years after the occurrence, and that Roger “had in mind the events of the years 1224 and 1225 when he was writing of 1218.” A hint of this confusion lurks in a detail which seems to have escaped Mr. Turner’s notice. Roger, immediately before the passage quoted above, says that Henry kept Christmas, 1217 (1218, in Roger’s reckoning), at Northampton with Falkes. But as a matter of fact Henry kept that Christmas at Gloucester; see above, p. 91. Obviously Roger was confusing the Christmas of 1217 with that of 1223, the one which immediately preceded the redistribution of royal castles in 1224, and which Henry really did spend at Northampton, though not as Falkes’s guest.

[491] _Pat. Rolls Joh._, p. 193 b. See details in Turner, pt. II. pp. 222–225.

[492] _Pat. Rolls Hen. III_, vol. i. p. 68.

[493] _Ib._ p. 71.

[494] _Ib._ p. 81.

[495] _Ib._ p. 85.

[496] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 121.

[497] _Ib._ pp. 134, 135.

[498] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 378.

[499] _Ib._ p. 365.

[500] _Ib._ p. 365 b.

[501] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 162, 163.

[502] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 35, 36.

[503] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 164.

[504] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1218.

[505] Gualo had certainly sent in his resignation to the Pope; it was on 12th September, 1218, that Honorius appointed Pandulf legate to England, Gualo having resigned that office: Bliss, _Calendar of Documents_, vol. i. p. 58.

[506] “Liberate de thesauro nostro Waltero aurifabro qui fecit sigillum nostrum v marcas pro argento sigilli nostro ponderante v marcas; et pro opere mercedem suam ita reddatis quod de jure contentus esse debeat,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 381 b, 7th November 1218. The sum finally decided upon as that “wherewith he ought by rights to be content” was forty shillings, which another writ addressed to the treasurer and chamberlains on 2nd December authorised them to pay “Waltero de Ripa aurifabro in mercedem operis sigilli nostri quod fecit”; _ib._ p. 383.

[507] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. This letter has no date; but it heads the Roll of 3 Hen. III, and is entitled, “Primae litterae novi sigilli domini regis, de cartis vel litteris patentibus non faciendis; et hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere.” In the Close Roll of the same year (vol. i. p. 381) there is a note, “Hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere,” inserted between the abstract of a letter dated 3rd November and that of a letter dated 5th November. The earliest dated document expressly stated in the Rolls to be “sealed with our seal” is a patent of 4th November, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 207.

[508] On 3rd September, 1220, Henry writes to Almeric of Limoges: “Sciatis quod cum dominus Gualo titulo S. Martini presbyter cardinalis Legatus esset in Anglia, juratum fuit in praesentia ipsius per dominum Wintoniensem episcopum, et cancellarium nostrum, et Hubertum de Burgo justiciarium nostrum, necnon et per commune concilium nostrum, quod ipsi nos custodient et tenebunt in seisina omnium terrarum quae fuerunt in manu domini Johannis Regis patris nostri die qua guerra primo mota fuit inter ipsum et barones suos Angliae, et quod nec aliquid fiet de terra aliqua conferenda vel alienanda, quamdiu infra aetatem fuerimus, quod cedere possit alicui ad perpetuitatem,” _Foedera_, I. i. p. 163. It is possible that this transaction, of which I have found no other mention, may have taken place at the council of Bristol in November, 1217; but if it had we should have expected the Marshal to be named among those who took the oath. The date which I have suggested for it seems therefore more probable.

[509] _Chron. Melrose_, a. 1218, p. 134.

[510] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. The statement of the Waverley Annals, a. 1218, that the Charter was again re-issued after Michaelmas, is clearly erroneous; this supposed confirmation is, as Professor Powicke says (“Chancery,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 234), “obviously that of 1217.”

[511] “Circa festum S. Clementis,” _Ann. Wav._, a. 1218; “circa festum B. Andreae,” R. Coggeshall, p. 186, and M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. iii. pp. 42, 43. He seems to have carried with him a part, but still only a part, of the arrears of tribute due from England and Ireland to the Pope: “Soluta est vicesima pars trium annorum ab Anglis Ecclesiae Romanae,” say the _Ann. Winton._, a. 1219; on the debt for Ireland, see above, p. 95. The Barnwell Annalist says Gualo went “cum infinita pecunia, quocumque modo adquisita” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 241); but the insinuation here implied, and the charges of avarice and extortion brought against Gualo by some modern writers, are groundless. See Turner, pt. I., pp. 225, 256, note 1.

[512] R. Coggeshall, p. 186.

[513] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17881–86.

[514] _Ib._ ll. 17886–17936. The poet says the Marshal stayed in London till after the beginning of Lent; and this is confirmed by the Rolls. We have no attestations of the Marshal between 15th March (Mid-Lent) and 20th March, but on the 20th he attests a letter at Caversham, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 189. On the attestations of royal letters during the last few weeks of his life see Turner, pt. I. p. 291.

[515] This seems to be the meaning of _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17941–48, compared with the letters attested by the Marshal on 24th and 28th March and 4th April, two of them “in the presence of Bishop Peter” (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 389 b, 390), and those attested by Peter at Caversham on 2nd April (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 190), and by Pandulf and Peter at Reading on 10th and 11th April (_Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 390).

[516] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17949–18114. Cf. the statement made on the King’s behalf in the indictment against Hubert de Burgh in 1239, that the Legate (by a clerical error or a slip of memory miscalled “Gwalla”) “de commune consilio et provisione totius regni post mortem Marescalli fuit primus consiliarius et principalis totius regni Angliae,” _Responsiones pro Huberto_, M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._, vol. vi. p. 64.

[517] See the extremely interesting account of his last days and death, _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18121–18973. The date--14th May, Tuesday before Ascension Day--is given in _Ann. Wav._, a. 1219.

[518] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 18983–19073.