John Lackland. Kate Norgate
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.
[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.
[243] Mag. Vita S. Hug. pp. 287–91.