No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
It is now nearly twenty years since Mr. G. J. Turner gave to the Royal Historical Society the second of those two papers that did much to change current ideas about the minority of Henry III. Due recognition was here at last given to the protective care of the Church for the kingdom of its infant ward, and the difficulties experienced by the Council in dealing with John's war-inured sheriffs and castellans were for the first time sympathetically examined in the light of record evidence. But the papers were notable in that they were the first serious English attempt to bring criticism to bear upon the St. Albans chronicler, Roger of Wendover, and his greater editor and successor, Matthew Paris. I say English, because in 1897 there had appeared the interesting and too little known dissertation of Dr. Hans Plehn upon the second of these writers, analysing with care and acumen the political sympathies of Paris, and anticipating some of the remarks made by the late Master of Balliol in his Ford Lectures. Mr. Turner's examination fixed chiefly upon the not always justifiable partiality of the St. Albans writers for Hubert de Burgh, and the foundations were now laid for Miss Norgate to continue, not long afterwards, this critical line in regard to the hero of the St. Albans' scriptorium.
page 21 note 1 Der politische Charakter von Mathaeus Parisiensis. Leipzig, 1897.Google Scholar
page 23 note 1 The lordship and member lordships of Glamorgan are treated authoritatively by Corbett, J. S., Glamorgan, ed. Paterson, D. R., p. 17 f.Google Scholar
page 23 note 2 See the general discussion of this question in Rees, W., South Wales and the March, 1284–1415, 46–9Google Scholar. For the legal position of the Marcher Earls, see Hargrave's Tracts, “A discourse against the Jurisdiction of the King's Bench over Wales, by Process of latitat,” p. 377 f., and Holdsworth, , Hist. Eng. Law, i, 121–122.Google Scholar
page 24 note 1 Clark, G. T., Cartae et alia Munimenta que ad Dominium de Glamorgancia pertinent (ed. Clark, G. L., 1910), ii, 547–555.Google Scholar
page 24 note 2 G. T. Clark, op. cit., iii, 810–11. His claim is in op. cit., iii, 853.
page 25 note 1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1258–66, 242. She had dower lands of the amount of £33 out of the Hertford lordship. Cal. Inq. (Henry III), i, 530.
page 26 note 1 Curia Regis Roll 177, m. 3.
page 26 note 2 Maitland, , Bracton's Note-Book, iii, pp. 226–227Google Scholar. “Et quia usitatum est hucusque quod pares sui et alii qui libertates habent consimiles sicut episcopus Dunholmensis et comes Marescallus respondent de terris et tenementis infra libertates suas per summoniciones factas ad terras suas et tenementa extra libertates suas, …”
page 27 note 1 “Adhuc est,” says Loveday, “dominus Rex in seisina de sigillo et brevi ibidem quam seisinam predictus G. comes qui modo plene aetatis est petit a domino rege sibi reddi.”
page 27 note 2 The keeper put in by the Crown, Walter de Sully, who had succeeded Humphrey de Bohun, restored it between June 15 and July 15, 1263: Clark, G. T., “The Land of Morgan,” Part IV, “The Earls of Gloucester and Hertford,” Archæological Journal, XXXVI, June, 1879, 143–144Google Scholar, and Corbett, op. cit., p. 136.
page 27 note 3 Cal. Pat. Rolls 1258–66, 588.
page 28 note 1 Cal. Inq. Misc., i, No. 936 (Hundred of Pershore).
page 29 note 1 C.C.C.C. MS. 281 (2), sub anno MCCLXV. “ Deinde conuocatum est magnum parliamentum apud Wyntoniam circa octauas assumpcionis beate Marie ubi protulit Robertus Walram ex parte omnium sociorum suorum dictum suum tale: Nos qui fideliter assistimus regi et filio eius Edwardo dicimus et volumus quod omnes qui capti fuerunt apud Kenelig worpe et apud Ewesham sint exheredati in perpetuum et heredes eorum qui ibidem interfecti fuerunt, et annuit rex.” The Worcester annals entry (Annales Monastici, R.S., iv, 455) is supported by the contemporary lines quoted from Rishanger's “ Chronicon de Bello ” by Mrs. Tout, D.N.B., LIX, 52: “ Exhaeredati proceres sunt rege jubente Et male tractati Waleran R. dicta ferente.”
It is possible to see in this simply a pronouncement of the verdict of the Council in Parliament, made by a prominent coram rege judge, in the way in which the great coram rege justice William de Raleigh had pronounced its judgments earlier in the reign. This may be, but I think that the facts given below demonstrate the political tendency of Walerand's dictum, however legal the method of its delivery.
page 29 note 2 Cal. Pat. Rolls 1258–66, p. 524.
page 30 note 1 Rotuli Selecti, ed. Hunter, , pp. 259–265.Google Scholar
page 30 note 2 Book of Fees, ii, 1142 f. One original return, now P.R.O., E. 143/1/1, No. 19, has been discovered.
page 31 note 1 Cal. Charter Rolls 1226–57, 252.
page 31 note 2 Cal. Inq. P. M., ii, No. 6, which shows that it was a grant for life.
page 31 note 3 C. Ch. R. 1226–57, 341.
page 31 note 4 Ibid., p. 375.
page 31 note 5 Ibid., p. 402.
page 31 note 6 C.P.R. 1247–58, 294–5, 298.
page 31 note 7 C. Ch. R. 1226–57, 475.
page 31 note 8 Rôles Gascons, ii, No. 2255. Cf. C. Ch. R., ii, 469.
page 31 note 9 Rôles Gascons, ii, Nos. 3309, 3318.
page 32 note 1 C. Ch. R. 1257–1300, 84. This was after the rebellion.
page 32 note 2 Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, viii, 153–6.
page 33 note 1 Seventeenth Volume of the Walpole Society, 1925–6, 1–63, and plates.
page 33 note 2 Some of the observations that follow are taken from a paper based on the Liberate Rolls and read in 1925 to the Oxford University Architectural and Historical Society on “ Henry III as Connoisseur and Builder.” They are not written with the intention of whitewashing Henry, a point which I have made clear in my study of him in the forthcoming volume (vi) of the Cambridge Medieval History.
page 34 note 1 C.R. 1242–7, p. 370.
page 34 note 2 Ibid., p. 293.
page 34 note 3 Cal. Pat. Rolls 1232–47, 39.
page 34 note 4 Cal. Patent Rolls 1266–72, 136–40.
page 35 note 1 He seems to have supplied the ideas, just as Wykeham was later to do with the master mason Richard Winchcombe (cf. Adderbury “Rec toria,” ed. T. F. Hobson), but naturally not the design.
page 36 note 1 Westminster Abbey and the King's Craftsmen, p. 150 f.; cf. Westminster Abbey re-examined, pp. 89–94.
page 36 note 2 He was prebendary of Alveley (Salop) and of Lichfield, and held the livings of Stottesdon (Salop) and Wonston (Hants).
page 37 note 1 Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, i, 247.
page 37 note 2 The Close Rolls begin to call him Treasurer in 1240. C.R. 1237–42, 224, etc.
page 37 note 3 C.R. 1251–3, 160. Edward as executor handed over to Philip Lovel (Sept. 1252) Haverhull's keys, and Philip received the rolls and small seal at the same period: p. 158.
page 37 note 4 C.P.R. 1232–47, 287. Letters enrolled per os Edwardi de Westmonasterio. The Fitz-Otho family were hereditary goldsmiths to the King.
page 37 note 5 Ibid., p. 281.
page 37 note 6 Ibid., p. 245.
page 37 note 7 C.P.R. 1247–58, 21.
page 37 note 8 C.R. 1247–51, 79.
page 37 note 9 Ibid., p. 58.
page 37 note 10 In 1241 he was to be allowed “ sufficientes expensas ad sustentandum aurifabros qui sunt in custodia sua.” C.R. 1237–42, 305.
page 37 note 11 See the letter attached to E. 101/466/29. “ Suo speciali domino Edwardo de Westmonasterio suus R. de Shotendon salutem quam sibi. Rogo uos quatinus sicut de nobis confido metallum ereum de quo uos rogaui tradatis domino H. capellano meo latori praesentium et ego nobis inde satisfaciam quandocunque uolueritis …”
page 38 note 1 C.R. 1242–7, 160.
page 38 note 2 C.R. 1237–42, 258.
page 38 note 3 C.R. 1242–7, 317. Cf. the mandate to him and Haverhull in 1250 to get 300 marks “ mutuo aut alio modo prout melius poterunt.”
page 38 note 4 Close Rolls passim. For feasting in relays cf. Liberate Roll 21, 29 Hen. III, m. 1, when Edward had to feed as many as 10,000 poor for the soul of the Count of Provence.
page 38 note 5 C.P.R. 1232–47, 478.
page 39 note 1 Fine Roll No. 43, 30 Hen. III, m. 12, and L.T.R. Mem. 19, 30–1 Hen. III, m. 6d.
page 39 note 2 C.P.R. 1232–47, 474.
page 39 note 3 C.R. 1242–7, 370. It is, however, possible that the considerable sums transferred in 1242 from the Treasury in the Tower to Haverhull (at Westminster) began the foundation. C.P.R. 1232–47, p. 281.
page 39 note 4 Liberate Roll 22, 30 Hen. III, m. 21.
page 39 note 5 E. 101/466/29.
page 39 note 6 The sixth and seventh years are recorded thus: “ Summa totalis anni sexti operis incepti mmvcjxi li. xvijs xd. ob. Summa recepte sexti et vij anni mm vicj xxv li xiijd.” It is suggested that as comparatively large sums were paid over in the seventh year, the clerk meant “ summa recepte septimi anni ” (£2,725 is. id.).
page 40 note 1 So that it is very hard to know whether the “ new Exchequer ” or account dealt with the expenses of the Palace as well as of the Abbey. It is to be hoped that this point will be investigated.
page 40 note 2 E.g. C.R. 1242–7, 323, 387, 395.
page 40 note 3 E.g. Ibid., 453. Liberate Roll No. 27, 35 Hen. III, mm.. 11, 14.
page 40 note 4 Liberate No. 22, 30 Hen. III, m. 12, 15, 22. For a fine of the Jews (made cum rege coram consilia suo) allotted to the work on the shrine of St. Edward, see C.R. 1242–7, 232.
page 40 note 5 Liberate No. 22, 30 Hen. III, m. 22; No. 23, 31 Hen. III, m. 2.
page 40 note 6 Bernard's Account is on Pipe Roll (Exch.) No. 90, 30 Hen. III, m. 9.
page 40 note 7 The upkeep of local manors and the work done on castles were largely paid for out of the issues of the counties: e.g. Liberate No. 27, 35 Hen. III, m. 15, m. 18.
page 40 note 8 Close Roll No. 76, 44 Hen. III, m. 3, where Henry from abroad writes indignantly to Walter de Merton complaining that these payments had not been made. I owe this reference to the kindness of Mr. V. H. Galbraith.
page 40 note 9 E.g. Liberate No. 21, 29 Hen. III, m. II; No. 22, m. 3, m. 7; No. 23, m. 4.
page 41 note 1 Pipe Roll (Exch.) No. 89, 29 Hen. III, m. 13.
page 41 note 2 On the connection of the Windsor and Westminster Works, cf. Lethaby, , West. Abbey re-examined, pp. 89–94Google Scholar, and West. Abbey and the King's Craftsmen, p. 152.
page 42 note 1 Parliament and Council, File I, No. 12.
page 42 note 2 Eng. Hist. Rev., XL, 580 f.
page 42 note 3 Parliament and Council, File 66, No. 6.
page 43 note 1 Ibid., File 66, No. 13.
page 43 note 2 File 66, No. 2. It is difficult to agree with its attribution (in the MS. Calendar) to the year 1264: the presence of Walter de Hopton and William de Weylaund seems to point to a date after the rebellion. Hopton did not become a justice itinerant till 1272. Weylaund had been Escheator south of Trent from 1261–4, but was not employed on justice's work till the end of Henry's reign.
page 43 note 3 File 66, No. 5.
page 44 note 1 File 1, No. 6.
page 44 note 2 The answer to one petition made in Parliament in 6 Edward I is said to be “in rotulo,” Rot. Parl., i, 3, cf. p. 4.
page 44 note 3 Though no entries begin, as in the 1305 Memoranda printed by Maitland, “ad petitionem [Johannis de …].”
page 44 note 4 Printed in the Appendix. I have added as footnotes to the text references to a number of these entries, though space forbade giving them in full. “Almost every successful petition will have as its proximate result the issue of some writ which will be entered on the close or the patent or the liberate roll, and which in many cases will also appear on the rolls of Exchequer Memoranda.” Maitland, , Memoranda de Parliamento, p. xviGoogle Scholar. I wish to thank Mr. G. O. Sayles of Glasgow for giving me several references to the Coram rege rolls of Edward I, which he has thoroughly analysed for a coming work on Edward's terminal parliaments.
page 48 note 1 On the dorse is written “Parleamentum Pasche anno r. r. septimo.”
page 48 note 2 “Sancti Botolphi” interlineated. For the permission, cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 403, and C.C.R. 1272–9, 502. The bequest was probably conveyed in the “certain articles” which the Douai merchants asked to be allowed to lay before the Council. Ancient Petitions, No. 15438.
page 48 note 3 “inter listas” and “inuenti” interlined.
page 48 note 4 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 333.
page 48 note 5 Ibid., p. 309.
page 48 note 6 C.C.R. 1272–9, 526.
page 48 note 7 The respite occurs in Coram rege roll, 7 Edw. I, No. 45, m. 29d., and No. 46, m. 1. At Michaelmas the pleas were adjourned to the session after next Easter (Coram rege roll No. 50, m. 20, and No. 49, m. 22). At Easter there was another adjournment (No. 54, m. 11, and No. 53, m. 25) until Michaelmas, 8 Edw. I, when the case of the advowson of Stretton was settled in favour of the Master (No. 58, m. 7d.).
page 49 note 1 Because the lady withdrew the accusation: Coram rege roll No. 45, in. 29d., and No. 46, m. 1. Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 272, 279, 293, 370.
page 49 note 2 “et conventus” interlineated. This entry has been subsequently starred.
page 49 note 3 “in … puplicata” interlined.
page 49 note 4 C.P.R. 1272–81, 280, 386; ibid., 1281–92, 10; Cal. Fine R. i, 131, 134, and Dict. Nat. Biog., “Ralph de Ireton,” x, 480.
page 49 note 5 C.P.R. 1272–81, 162.
page 49 note 6 See n. 5.
page 50 note 1 Cf. Coram rege roll m. 45, m. 12. C. Ch. R. 1267–1300, 211–212. For references to the process, see C.P.R. 1272–81, 233, 244, 335, and C.C.R. 1272–79, 56, recording the enrolment.
page 50 note 2 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 313.
page 50 note 3 No jurors appeared at Easter (Coram rege roll No. 45, m. 8), so the case was adjourned till Michaelmas. A similar failure of jurors then (Coram rege roll No. 50, m. 7d., and No. 49, m. 16) led to its being attermed till Easter, 1280. At Easter no jurors appeared and the sheriff was ordered to distrain them “per corpora” (No. 54, m. 6, and No. 53, m. 19).
page 50 note 4 In margin “Abbat' font' Abr' et illi de Chartus'.”
page 50 note 5 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 90, 265, 281, 307; and C.C.R. 1272–9, 490.
page 50 note 6 “Regis … Banco interlined.
page 50 note 7 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 310.
page 50 note 8 In margin “Perambulatio.”
page 50 note 9 C.C.R. 1272–9, 574.
page 50 note 10 This entry also starred.
page 51 note 1 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 307, 310, 334, and C.C.R. 1272–9, 563.
page 51 note 2 In margin “Perdonatur.”
page 51 note 3 Cal. Docs. Scotland, i, 47; C.C.R. 1272–9, 449, 527.
page 51 note 4 Cf. Cal. Fine R., i, 72–73, 78–79. Cal. Inq. (Ed. I), ii, 32, 160, 194. C.P.R. 1272–81, 238, 350.
page 51 note 5 No entry in the Coram rege roll for Easter term. For the adjournment of this case at Michaelmas, cf. Coram rege roll No. 49, 7 Edw. I, m. 22, and No. 50, m. 8. C.P.R. 1272–81, 472.
page 51 note 6 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 339, the missing word is probably ‘impeditus.’
page 51 note 7 In margin “Seyland.”
page 52 note 1 Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, 308, 454.
page 52 note 2 A typical petition out of which action of this kind is taken is Ancient Petitions 2163, from a group of “poor merchants” who had suffered the distraint of their merchandise. The petition is endorsed “Coram rege et magno consilio” and orders are given for commissioners to be appointed to inquire from the merchants on oath the extent of the damages.
page 52 note 3 ‘Suorum et’ and ‘illis inserantur’ interlined.
page 52 note 4 Sc. evangeliis.
page 52 note 5 See C.P.R. 1272–81, 312.
page 53 note 1 Cal. Chancery Rolls, pp. 177, 213, 222.
page 53 note 2 Ibid., pp. 206–7, 235, 321.
page 53 note 3 C.P.R. 1272–81, 310.