Post-classical history

Notes

1 Magna Carta: The Documents

1.    The four originals of the Charter vary slightly in their word length, as will be evident from the notes to the Latin text in chapter 2.

2.    For languages in this period, see ch. 6 of Clanchy, Memory to Written Record.

3.    Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’; BL Harley MS 409, fo. 48v, referring here to the Charter of Henry III.

4.    See below, pp. 78–86.

5.    Anonymous, pp. 129, 158; Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, pp. 34–6; Marshal, line 13,159.

6.    Walter Map, pp. 476–7; Galbraith, ‘Literacy’, pp. 213–15.

7.    Rishanger, p. 405; Thompson, Magna Carta, pp. 147–50; for the view that the Charter was proclaimed earlier in English, see Clanchy, Memory to Written Record, pp. 220–21, and see below, pp. 136–7.

8.    F, p. 137.

9.    Crowland, p. 221; Coggeshall, p. 172; Dunstable, p. 43; Wendover, p. 589.

10.  The printed text of the letter is RLC, pp. 377–8, from TNA C 54, 19, m. 11d. See White, ‘The name Magna Carta’. A second copy of the order on the duplicate chancery close roll follows the corrected version. The order was addressed to the sheriff of Yorkshire but probably went to all the sheriffs.

11.  RLC, p. 73b.

12.  Wendover, iii, pp. 91–2.

13.  RLC, ii, p. 73.

14.  CChR, pp. 225–5; SR, p. 28.

15.  Paris, iii, p. 382.

16.  CR 1251–3, p. 482; Paris, vi, pp. 249–50; Paris, v, p. 375; Dunstable, p. 189.

17.  Burton, p. 321; DBM, pp. 320–21.

18.  Illustrated in Prestwich, Edward I, plate 20.

19.  Wendover, Flores, ii, pp. 119–34; Paris, pp. 589–694. For all this see Holt, ‘The St Albans choniclers’.

20.  Paris, vi, p. 523.

21.  Collins, ‘Documents’, pp. 235, 237–8. A copy of the 1215 Charter in a register of Canterbury cathedral was described as ‘carta [of King John] magna De Ronnemed’: Canterbury Cathedral Archives, Register E, fo. 46v.

22.  FH, ii, pp. 153, 182, 220, 384–5, 409.

23.  Thompson, Magna Carta, pp. 166, 182, 187, 197.

24.  TNA E 164/2, fos. ccxxxiiii–ccxxxvii.

25.  Collins, ‘Documents’, pp. 249–52 and plate 13; Holt, MC, pp. 491–2.

26.  This was noticed by Blackstone, Great Charter, p. 22 note i.

27.  For a much fuller discussion of the date of Magna Carta, see below, pp. 361–6.

28.  Coggeshall, p. 172.

29.  For measurements see Collins, ‘Documents’, p. 267, and Vincent, The Magna Carta, pp. 56–9.

30.  Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 323.

31.  Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 333 and note 2.

32.  For the debate, see Holt, ‘Salisbury Magna Carta’, and Holt, MC, p. 442. I am grateful to Teresa Webber for confirming that the hand of the Salisbury Charter is perfectly compatible with 1215. It is hard to interpret the passage in which ‘dupplicata’ appears on the back of the Salisbury Charter. I do not think it is significant.

33.  See Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 330, for his comments, having collated the four originals.

34.  See Collins, ‘Documents’, pp. 270–73.

35.  Collins, ‘Documents’, p. 272.

36.  Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 334; Collins, ‘Documents’, p. 272.

37.  Collins, ‘Documents’, pp. 264–5; RA, p. 137.

38.  For Wyems, see Calendar of Inner Temple Records, ii, pp. 30, 96, 121, 136, references that come from Paul Brand.

39.  Collins, ‘Documents’, p. 260.

40.  BL Cotton Charter XIII 31b, which has a transcription of the Charter made in 1731 after the fire with the letters supplied from Cii indicated in red. Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 323, says that twenty-seven letters had to be supplied, but eighteen of these come in a correction at the foot of the Charter, where they repeat the main text so as to indicate where the correction should go. See below, p. 58n.

41.  Prescott, ‘Restoration of the Cotton library’, at note 134.

42.  For Dering and the Canterbury archives, see Vincent, ed., Norman Charters, pp. 101–2.

43.  Canterbury Cathedral Archives, Register E, fos. 46v–49v.

44.  See Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’, pp. 37–8.

45.  Baldwin, ‘Master Stephen, Langton’, pp. 838–46.

46.  For the Articles and what follows, see Collins, ‘Documents’, pp. 234–43.

47.  Holt, MC, pp. 242–7, 429–32; F, p. 129.

48.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’.

49.  Galbraith, ‘A draft of Magna Carta’.

50.  See below, pp. 345–7. I have set out the evidence in full in ‘Copies of Magna Carta’ on the website of the Magna Carta Project: http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk.

51.  Holt, MC, pp. 445–6.

52.  Society of Antiquaries of London, MS 60, fos. 225v–228v.

53.  These are listed and discussed, I hope with others found after going to press, in ‘Copies of Magna Carta’, on the website of the Magna Carta Project.

2 The Chapters, Contents and Text of Magna Carta

1.    Cambridge University Library Ee. 2. 19, fos. 1–5. This volume is a statute book.

2.    SC, pp. 300–302.

3.    RLP, p. 148.

4.    See Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 323–4.

5.    Blackstone, Great Charter, pp. 10–24.

6.    SR, pp. 9–13. J. C. Fox’s unpublished collation in BL Add. MSS 41178, pp. 10–18, against which I have checked my own, uses all the engrossments but not the copy in the bishops’ letter.

7.    SR, pp. 9–13.

8.    In many medieval hands it is hard to distinguish between ‘c’ and ‘t’. When they can be distinguished, the letters often appear to be interchangeable. The Statutes of the Realm text of the Lincoln Charter has ‘t’ much more frequently that ‘c’. It is sometimes hard to be sure, but I think this is correct, and my text largely follows that of theStatues, and so has ‘iuditium’ and ‘iustitia’, but also ‘justiciarius’. The other engrossments seem to use ‘c’ more often. Scribes were also inconsistent in their use of ‘i’ and ‘j’, and here I have followed what is in the text. I am grateful to Julia Crick for help with the Charter’s paleography.

9.    F, between pp. 128 and 129. I am grateful to Simon Luterbacher of Bloomsbury and Suzanne Irvine of Bonhams for sending me photographs of prints of the Pine engraving that came up for sale at their auction houses. Both fetched thousands of pounds.

10.  TNA E 164/2, fos. ccxxxiiii–ccxxxvii.

11.  Holt, MC, pp. 448–73.

3 King John and the Sources for His Reign

1.    The ‘movability’ of conflicts across the Angevin dominions is a major theme in Veach, Lordship in Four Realms.

2.    Power, Norman Frontier, pp. 414–15.

3.    I take these details from Gillingham, Richard I, p. 324, a splendid biography.

4.    Tewkesbury, p. 84.

5.    V. Green, Body of King John, p. 4. A less authoritative account gives the height as five feet five inches: Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 486 note 2.

6.    Gervase, ii, p. 92; Paris, p. 561.

7.    For Gerald, see Bartlett, Gerald of Wales.

8.    Gerald of Wales, pp. 202–5, 236–7.

9.    Howden, iii, p. 198.

10.  Howden, iv, pp. 5, 16, 60, 81.

11.  For the Interdict, see below, pp. 198–9. For the contemporary historians of John’s reign, see Gransden, Historical Writing in England, ch. 15.

12.  Coggeshall, pp. 102–10; Carpenter, ‘Coggeshall’.

13.  St Augustine’s Canterbury, pp. 137–57. Cheney, Hubert Walter, pp. 85–6. The St Augustine’s account (pp. 155–6) says that John only took a palfrey for the settlement, not the rest of the 200 marks on offer. But the pipe roll shows he did take the money: PR 1203, pp. 103–4; PR 1207, p. 33.

14.  Coggeshall, pp. 101, 93.

15.  Gervase, ii, pp. 92–3. Gervase added that any reputation for softness was soon belied by John’s later conduct, thinking here of his attack on the church.

16.  See below, pp. 198–9.

17.  For what follows, see Adam of Eynsham, pp. 137–44, 188.

18.  Jocelin of Brakelond, p. 116.

19.  For the chronicle of which the Anonymous’s account is part, see Fedorenko, ‘The thirteenth-century Chronique de Normandie’.

20.  RLC, p. 208b.

21.  Anonymous, p. 105. I am using the translation in Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, pp. 37–8.

22.  Anonymous, pp. 114–15, 119.

23.  For discussions, see Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 315–22; Legge, ‘William the Marshal and Arthur of Brittany’.

24.  Margam, p. 27.

25.  Coggeshall, pp. 139–41, 145. The Briouzes were patrons of Margam.

26.  F, p. 140.

27.  Wendover, pp. 523–4.

28.  Anonymous, pp. 114–15. I owe the translation to Cristian Ispir. Wendover, p. 531, Waverley, p. 265, and Margam, p. 30 (less explicitly), place the murder at Windsor.

29.  These episodes are discussed in Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, pp. 34–6.

30.  The Anonymous places the scene at Windsor, but John’s itinerary shows it must have been at the Tower.

31.  Anonymous, pp. 139–41.

32.  Anonymous, pp. 143–4.

33.  As observed by Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, p. 35.

34.  Crouch, William Marshal, is another splendid biography.

35.  Marshal, lines 13,267–70.

36.  Marshal, lines 13,927–35, 14,473–84.

37.  For the context here, see below, p. 203.

38.  Marshal, lines 12,507–12; Legge, ‘William the Marshal and Arthur of Brittany’.

39.  Margam, p. 26.

40.  Marshal, lines 13,801–8.

41.  Marshal, lines 13,787–800.

42.  Marshal, lines 13,191–214.

43.  When in 1207 Geoffrey, archbishop of York, fell at the king’s feet begging for his grace, John grovelled in his turn: ‘look, I am doing as much for you as you are for me’. Here, however, John had picked his target well, since if anyone deserved ridicule it was his half-brother Geoffrey. See Gervase, ii, pp. lix–lx.

44.  Marshal, lines 13,188, 13,227–32. There are many references to Bassingbourn in Church, Household Knights.

45.  Marshal, lines 12,437–530.

46.  Marshal, lines 12,580–84.

47.  Coggeshall, p. 144.

48.  Coggeshall, pp. 165, 170, 175, 181–2.

49.  Coggeshall, p. 184.

50.  Cristian Ispir is preparing a new edition of the chronicle as part of a doctoral thesis.

51.  Crowland, pp. 203, 207, 210, 215, 232. I owe to Nicholas Vincent the suggestion that Crowland’s source for Marius was Lucan’s Pharsalia (Book II).

52.  Crowland, Spalding, pp. 196–211.

53.  Wendover, p. 527; Dunstable, p. 34; Lambeth Palace Library MS 371, fo. 56. Wendover was probably right in saying that Geoffrey was arrested by the knight William Talbot. Dunstable has the arrest being made by the earl of Salisbury, and Talbot was in his service; see Church, Household Knights, pp. 33–4.

54.  Paris, pp. 667–9.

55.  For edited and translated texts of both works, see Dialogus and Glanvill. I have not, in this section on the record sources, discussed the vast corpus of private charters, both printed and unprinted, that are a central source for the social structures of both the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Holt made extensive use of the twelve-volume Early Yorkshire Charters.

56.  Marshal, lines 13625–32; RLC, p. 111; RLP, p. 33; Galbraith, Studies, p. 125.

57.  RCh, pp. 92b–93; RLC, pp. 174, 176, 177, 182b; RLP, pp. 126b, 127, 133.

58.  PR 1208, p. 139.

59.  Paris, GA, p. 228.

60.  RLC, pp. 99, 179.

61.  RLC, pp. 175b, 154b; RLP, p. 105b.

62.  RLC, p. 132; Crouch, William Marshal, pp. 108–9.

63.  D. M. Stenton, ‘King John’, especially pp. 89–94.

64.  D. M. Stenton, ‘King John’, p. 97.

65.  RLJ, p. 110.

66.  DI, pp. 250, 253.

67.  DI, p. 248.

68.  DI, pp. 241, 243; RLJ, pp. 95–6; PR 1204, p. xxxvi.

69.  I owe this point to Katherine Harvey, ‘An un-christian king?’. More generally, see Webster, ‘King John’s piety’.

70.  See below, pp. 205–6.

71.  Church, Household Knights, pp. 37–8.

72.  DI, p. 234.

73.  RF, p. 275; Holt, King John, p. 88.

74.  William le Breton, p. 110.

75.  RLC, p. 105.

76.  Norgate, John Lackland, p. 2.

77.  Marshal, lines 18,078–87.

78.  For Isabella, see Vincent, ‘John’s Jezebel’.

79.  Anonymous, pp. 180–81. For Eleanor, see Wilkinson, Eleanor de Montfort.

80.  Wendover, p. 489.

81.  Paris, p. 563.

82.  RLC, pp. 177, 180b; RLP, p. 124b.

83.  Delisle, ‘Mémoire’, pp. 525–6; Vincent, ‘John’s Jezebel’, p. 211.

84.  Anonymous, pp. 104–5. I have used the translation in Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, pp. 39–40.

85.  Vincent, ‘John’s Jezebel’, p. 198.

86.  Brown, ‘Royal castle-building’, p. 60; Colvin, King’s Works, ii, pp. 617–19.

87.  RLP, p. 138b.

88.  See Ashbee, ‘ “Gloriette” in Corfe castle’.

4 Magna Carta and Society: Women, Peasants, Jews, the Towns and the Church

1.    I am grateful to Alexandra Sapoznik for commenting on a draft of this chapter.

2.    Dunstable, p. 43.

3.    See Masschaele, ‘English economy’. For general surveys, see Bolton, Medieval English Economy; Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: Rural Society and Economic Change, and their Medieval England: Towns, Commerce and Crafts; Dyer, Making a Living in the Middle Ages.

4.    Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns, Commerce and Crafts, p. 278.

5.    M. Allen, ‘Volume of the English currency’; Britnell, Commercialisation of English Society; Letters, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs.

6.    Latimer, ‘Early thirteenth-century prices’, pp. 42, 69, 70.

7.    Coggeshall, p. 151.

8.    Margam, pp. 25, 26; Osney, p. 50.

9.    This is the hypothesis advanced in Latimer, ‘The English inflation reconsidered’.

10.  See Bolton, ‘The English economy in the early thirteenth century’; and, more generally, his Money in the Medieval English Economy, pp. 149–52.

11.  P. D. A. Harvey, ‘English inflation’, p. 14. Harvey was here referring particularly to the inflation which he situated generally in the period 1180–1220.

12.  Latimer, ‘Early thirteenth-century prices’, p. 61.

13.  See Maddicott, ‘Oath of Marlborough’, p. 299 note 84, who takes a low estimate of three million.

14.  See Appendix I.

15.  See Wilkinson, Women in Thirteenth-Century Lincolnshire, pp. 2–3.

16.  Bracton, ii, pp. 31, 281. It was once thought that the work entitled in modern editions Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England was written by a judge of Henry III’s, Henry de Bracton, writing in the 1250s. However, S. E. Thorne and Paul Brand have argued persuasively that the work was produced in the 1220s and 1230s by the legal circle around an earlier judge, William of Raleigh. Bracton became part of this circle, and added to the text after 1240, but he did not compose it. See Brand, ‘The date and authorship of Bracton’.

17.  Swanson, John of Wales, pp. 125–6.

18.  Walter Map, pp. 304–5.

19.  CIM, no. 2063; Northumberland Assize Rolls, p. 98.

20.  Tenants-in-chief and under-tenants are discussed in the next chapter.

21.  See below, pp. 415, 428, 452.

22.  Glanvill, p. 85.

23.  Holt, MC, pp. 452–3, ch. 7. I am grateful for the advice of Paul Brand, Daniel Hadas and Alice Rio on this point.

24.  For how the chapter was revised at Runnymede, see below, pp. 346–7.

25.  Waugh, Lordship, p. 159.

26.  Holt, MC, p. 53.

27.  PR 1214, p. 175; RCh, p. 203; Holt, MC, pp. 199–200. Her son was Roger de Cressy, her first husband having been Hugh de Cressy: Harper-Bill, ed., Blythburgh Cartulary, i, p. 7.

28.  Paris, v, pp. 336–7; Annesley, ‘Isabella, countess of Arundel’.

29.  Marshal, lines 16,491–6; RLP, 199b; Wilkinson, ‘Women as sheriffs’.

30.  See below, pp. 353–4.

31.  Glanvill, pp. 173–6.

32.  Meekings, Surrey Eyre, pp. 123–5.

33.  Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, pp. 88–90.

34.  Kosminsky, Agrarian History, pp. 203–6, p. xiv note 1; King, England, p. 50; Hatcher, ‘English serfdom and villeinage’, p. 7; Bailey, Medieval Suffolk, p. 50. Kosminsky’s counties, the only ones for which the 1279 survey survives in whole or part, were Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. For the survey, see Raban, A Second Domesday?

35.  Kosminsky, Agrarian History, pp. 91, 205.

36.  Bracton, ii, p. 89; Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, p. 3.

37.  For what is still a good introduction, see Titow, English Rural Society, ch. 3. There are detailed calculations of peasant standards of living in Dyer, Standards of Living, ch. 5.

38.  Dyer, Standards of Living, pp. 126–7.

39.  See Janken and Sapoznik, ‘Spade cultivation’.

40.  Tait, ‘Studies in Magna Carta’.

41.  Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 143–4.

42.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, p. 359, ch. 20.

43.  In the conventional numbering, this was chapter 16 in the 1217 Charter and chapter 14 in that of 1225.

44.  Harrison, Bridges, pp. 35–6.

45.  For the grievance over bridge building was aggravated under John; see below, pp. 205–6.

46.  For further discussion, see below, p. 457.

47.  See, for example, Hyams, ‘Origins of a peasant land market’; P. D. A. Harvey, ed., Peasant Land Market.

48.  I owe this collection of names to Abigail Stevenson’s doctoral thesis, ‘Lordship, landholding and local society’.

49.  Richardson and Sayles, Law and Legislation, pp. 137–9; and more generally, Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 151–60.

50.  Dialogus, pp. 150–53; Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 261–5 and ch. 9. Lords did, however, get the lands of unfree peasants when they were convicted of a crime, so the stipulation in chapter 32 of the Charter would only have applied to land held freely. Henry Summerson has kindly advised me on this point.

51.  For the Jews, see Richardson, English Jewry; Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution; Huscroft, Expulsion.

52.  O’Brien, God’s Peace, pp. 183–4, 93–7.

53.  RLP, p. 33; and RCh, p. 93.

54.  I have been much helped in this section by Summerson’s commentary on chapter 13.

55.  Bodleian Library Rawlinson C 641, fos. 21v–29.

56.  Gesta Stephani, p. 3.

57.  Keene, ‘Medieval London’, p. 107.

58.  Howden, GR, ii, pp. 213–14; Brooke and Keir, London, pp. 45–7; Ramsay, Angevin Empire, pp. 313–14, 317. For London’s rulers and privileges in the twelfth century, see Reynolds, ‘Rulers of London’; there may have been a commune before 1191 (p. 348).

59.  RLC, p. 64; Round, Commune of London, pp. 237–42; ‘London municipal collection’, pp. 507–8; Reynolds, ‘Rulers of London’, p. 350; London Metropolitan Archives COL/CH/01/010 (RCh, p. 207). London was divided up into twenty-four wards, each under an alderman. There is debate as to whether the ‘barons’ were synonymous with the aldermen.

60.  Ballard, British Borough Charters, pp. xxvi–xxxiii. SC, pp. 259–62, 305–12, has a useful selection of charters. See in general, Reynolds, English Medieval Towns, and Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns, Commerce and Crafts.

61.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 881.

62.  For John’s customs, which seem a one-off initiative not related specifically to wool, see PR 1203, pp. xii–xiii; PR 1204, pp. 218–20; Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 838.

63.  John of Wallingford, p. 131.

64.  Masschaele, ‘English economy’, p. 158.

65.  Goddard, Coventry, p. 78.

66.  Basset Charters, no. 125.

67.  Dialogus, pp. 162–3.

68.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 353, ch. 6.

69.  Gesta Stephani, pp. 3–4.

70.  Howden, GR, ii, pp. 213–14.

71.  ‘London municipal collection, p. 726.

72.  SLI, p. 166.

73.  Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 76–479.

74.  Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 333.

75.  See below, pp. 332–5, 342–52.

5 Magna Carta and Society: Earls, Barons, Knights and Free Tenants

1.    Bracton, ii, p. 232.

2.    EHD 1042–1189, p. 970; Keefe, Feudal Assessments, pp. 154–88.

3.    Sanders, Feudal Military Service, ch. 3; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, ch. 3.

4.    M. Morris, Bigod Earls, p. 2.

5.    The young earl of Warwick and the earl of Devon also remained loyal but were not politically very active.

6.    Maddicott, ‘ “An infinite multitude” ’, p. 28, although these estimates include minor barons not receiving personal summonses to parliament.

7.    Painter, Studies, pp. 170–71, 174; PR 1212, pp. 3–4; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, p. 43; Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 839; Building Accounts, p. 12. The Lacy figure excludes lands in Cheshire itself.

8.    EHD 1042–1189, pp. 977–9.

9.    RLP, p. 180b.

10.  Faulkner, ‘Transformation’.

11.  See the court of the fitzGuy family: Basset Charters, no. 163, noted by Crouch, English Aristocracy, pp. 175, 289 note 46.

12.  Holt, Northerners, ch. 4.

13.  Carpenter, ‘Was there a crisis?’, p. 355; Faulkner, ‘Transformation’, pp. 12–13.

14.  CR 1254–6, p. 293.

15.  Crowland, Spalding, pp. 170–71.

16.  See Coss, The Knight, ch. 2; Faulkner, ‘Transformation’. For the debate as to whether the change was related to a social and economic crisis of the knightly class, see Coss, Origins of the English Gentry, ch. 4. Coss’s book is the key work for the emergence of the late medieval gentry.

17.  MR 1208, p. 143, no. 130; for the ceremony, see Coss, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, pp. 248–53.

18.  Paris, GA, pp. 225–6. For knights as baronial stewards, see Coss, ‘Knighthood and the early thirteenth-century county court’.

19.  For what follows, see Holt, MC, pp. 62–7, and Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 48–9.

20.  CRR, iii, pp. 129–30.

21.  RF, pp. 369–70.

22.  PR 1208, p. 103; PR 1210, p. 75.

23.  For example, CFR 1228–9, no. 261.

24.  CRR, vii, pp. 158–9; RLC, p. 181.

25.  White, Self-Government at the King’s Command.

26.  Holt also prefers ‘county’ to ‘county court’ in ch. 18.

27.  RLP, p. 180b.

28.  See below, pp. 382–3.

29.  For what follows, see Coss, ‘Knighthood and the early thirteenth-century county court’. Coss here questions the argument that the court was dominated by the barons of the county through their legal experts, stewards and bailiffs, for which see Palmer, County Courts, p. 88, and chs. 4 and 5.

30.  CRR, vi, pp. 173, 228–31; vii, p. 24; x, pp. 344–6.

31.  CRR, xii, nos. 2142, 2312; Holt, MC, pp. 391–3; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 33–4, 49.

32.  RL, pp. 101–4.

33.  Carpenter, ‘Sheriffs of Oxfordshire’, pp. 181–7.

34.  For free men, chapters 15, 16, 20, 27, 30, 34, 39; for earls and barons, chapters 2 and 21.

35.  Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’.

36.  Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i, pp. 291–6.

37.  Kosminsky, Agrarian History, pp. 259–60. The landholdings of jurors on hundreds, including those of Blackbourn hundred, are studied in Stevenson, ‘Lordship, landholding and local society’. See also Asaji, Angevin Empire, ch. 7, Stewart, ed., 1263 Surrey Eyre, ch. 10, and Masschaelle, Jury, State and Society, ch. 5. Masschaele’s conclusion (pp. 195–6) from a study of the personnel of various juries from the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, is that they were ‘socially integrated bodies’, drawing together peasant villagers, members of the gentry, and sometimes even knights and higher lords.

38.  For provision for younger sons, see Thomas, Vassals, p. 129.

39.  Maddicott, ‘Oath of Marlborough’; SC, pp. 276–7. For serjeants in the rebellion of 1215, see below p. 307. These serjeants are distinct from the serjeants who were professional soldiers.

40.  Chapter 3 and see chapter 4 of the Unknown Charter.

41.  Alexander and Binski, eds., Age of Chivalry, nos. 141, 454.

42.  Holt, Northerners, p. 110.

43.  PR 1209, pp. 130–31, 21; Anonymous, p. 145; Holt, Northerners, pp. 172–3.

44.  See below, pp. 344–5.

45.  Dialogus, pp. 144–5, 174–5, 180–81; BF, p. 144.

46.  RCh, p. 170; both cited by Summerson, ch. 21, where more evidence is assembled.

47.  Marshal, line 13,383.

48.  Maddicott, ‘ “An infinite multitude” ’, pp. 21–2, shows that even some of those who did receive personal summonses might be men of small substance.

49.  BF, pp. 223, 224, 227, 121, 183, 195; CFR 1220–21, nos. 70–72.

50.  RCh, p. 103; see Stewart-Parker, ‘The Bassets’.

51.  Only the heirs of Thomas Basset would later be charged a baronial relief: CFR 1219–20, no. 165; 1220–21, nos. 70–72; 1232–3, no. 8.

52.  Holt, Northerners, pp. 55–7; McKenna, ‘Bekerings of Lincolnshire’. Simon’s heir was charged a baronial relief: CFR 1219–20, no. 91; PR 1219, p. 129.

53.  The holdings of several are analysed in Holt, Northerners, pp. 55–7.

54.  See Crouch, English Aristocracy, p. 61.

55.  For example, LAR, nos. 173, 1031, 1082; Summerson, ch. 21.

56.  For the later history of this chapter, see below, pp. 453–5.

57.  Maddicott, Parliament, p. 80 and ch. 2.

58.  Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 388–9.

59.  CR 1231–4, pp. 592–3.

60.  EHD 1042–1189, pp. 969–70.

61.  See particularly Holt, ‘Feudal society and the family IV: the heiress and the alien’.

62.  Carpenter, ‘Second century’, pp. 47–54; Golob, ‘Ferrers earls of Derby’, ch. 5.

63.  Carpenter, ‘Second century’, p. 66. For knights following their lords, see Holt, Northerners, pp. 33–53; but see the qualifications in Thomas, Vassals, pp. 44–7.

64.  Marshal, lines 13,532–44.

65.  For further discussion, see below, pp. 217–8.

66.  Glanvill, p. 84; Hudson, Oxford History, p. 809.

67.  RLC, p. 215b.

68.  CRR, vi, pp. 135–6; Holt, MC, p. 313. For an example (which I owe to Christine Havelock), Lincs. Worcs. Eyre, nos. 36, 804.

69.  Dialogus, pp. 126–7.

70.  Crouch, William Marshal, pp. 137–42, 161–8.

71.  Carpenter, ‘Sheriffs of Oxfordshire’, chs. 2 and 6; CRR, v, p. 210.

72.  RL, pp. 20–22.

73.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 353, ch. 6 (the 1236 Statute of Merton on marriage); p. 403, ch. 21 (the 1275 Statute of Westminster on wardships).

74.  Peter de Brus Charter, pp. 92–4; RF, p. 109; PR 1207, pp. 67, 70; Holt, MC, pp. 67–70, where the interpretation is far more consensual. For another interpretation, see Thomas, Vassals, pp. 203–5.

75.  Magna Carta of Cheshire, pp. 101–9.

76.  I am indebted to the discussion of aids in Painter, Studies, pp. 141–7.

77.  See the case of John de Lacy: RF, pp. 494–5.

78.  PR 1209, pp. 139, 21.

79.  CRR, v, p. 39. For an earlier example of the three customary aids at the level of the under-tenant in 1183–4, see F. M. Stenton, First Century, pp. 173–4, 276–7.

80.  Glanvill, pp. 111–12. Additional aids are also contemplated in the charter from 1183–4 cited in F. M. Stenton, First Century, pp. 173–4, 276–7.

81.  Summerson, chapter 15, gives a different interpretation of this chapter.

82.  See, for example, Jocelin of Brakelond, pp. 65–7; CRR, vi, p. 79.

83.  DBM, pp. 274–5, ch. 4 (a manifesto of 1264); for the legislation on private courts in 1259, see DBM, pp. 138–41, chs. 1–3, and discussion in Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, ch. 2.

84.  ERW, pp. 63, lv; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 53–4.

85.  Anonymous, p. 150; Hudson, Oxford History, pp. 850–51.

86.  Carpenter, Minority, pp. 387–8.

87.  Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’, p. 545.

88.  TNA E 401/1566, r. 3; for the Pirnhows see M. Morris, Bigod Earls, pp. 62, 64, 69; P. Brown, Sibton, pp. 84–7.

89.  See below, pp. 425–6.

90.  SC, p. 118, chs. 2 and 4.

91.  Painter, Studies, pp. 146–7; Magna Carta of Cheshire, p. 105, ch. 10.

92.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 403 (ch. 21) and see p. 417, ch. 5.

93.  SC, pp. 179–80.

94.  See below, p. 427.

95.  Rolls War., no. 406.

96.  Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 49; see below, p. 426.

97.  Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 126–34, has an illuminating discussion of Magna Carta and lesser landholders.

98.  Lawman, p. 310; see below, pp. 255–6.

99.  RLC, p. 132; SC, p. 282.

6 Magna Carta and the Structure of Royal Government

1.    F, p. 75.

2.    Carpenter, Minority, p. 12; Guala, no. 140b.

3.    Nelson, Politics and Ritual, pp. 378, 384–5; Missale ad usum Ecclesie Westmonasteriensis, ii, columns 683–4.

4.    For the order at Richard’s coronation, see Howden, GR, ii, pp. 80–83. For a description and discussion of Angevin coronations, see Aurell, The Plantagenet Empire, pp. 110–19.

5.    Letters of Grosseteste, pp. 368–9.

6.    Howden, GR, ii, pp. 81–2. The quotation is from Roger of Howden’s description of Richard’s coronation.

7.    The evidence is not conclusive, but Richardson argued this clause of the coronation oath was introduced in 1154 with the accession of Henry II: Richardson, ‘The coronation’, pp. 153–61.

8.    Walter Map, pp. 3–4, 24–5, 500–501.

9.    For the household, see Church, Constitutio, text and introduction.

10.  See below, p. 362.

11.  For the appearance of the term, see Church, Constitutio, p. li note 64.

12.  These figures will be updated by the Magna Carta Project.

13.  RLC, pp. 175, 177, 214–214b; and see Chaplais, Royal Documents, pp. 16–18.

14.  For a spirited and (I hope) amusing debate about when the rolls started, see Carpenter, ‘Origins of the English chancery rolls’, challenging and challenged by Vincent, ‘ “Why 1199?” ’, and in his Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society, pp. xvi–xviii.

15.  RLC, p. 196b; RLP, p. 137b; Galbraith, Studies, p. 80.

16.  Church, Constitutio, pp. 206–7.

17.  DI, p. 259.

18.  For a view that sees the wardrobe gaining more independence from the chamber later in the reign, see Kaye, ‘Serving the man that ruled’, pp. 60–62.

19.  RLJ, pp. 109–71; DI, pp. 231–69. That this is expenditure out of the wardrobe is shown by the marginal annotation at p. 237. It is possible that letters, not found on the close rolls, were written by chamber-wardrobe clerks and sealed by the small seal. It may, however, be a mistake to make any hard and fast distinction between chamber and chancery clerks. See Tout, Chapters, i, pp. 158–69.

20.  RLJ, pp. 114, 118, 128, 138, 145, 155, 162, 170.

21.  RLJ, p. 231. This money was in loans to the knights and serjeants in the army. See Church, ‘The 1210 campaign in Ireland’.

22.  Carpenter, ‘Household rolls’, pp. 33–41. These figures include the costs of the stables and feeding paupers.

23.  RLC, p. 157. I have lifted these details from Ambler ‘Christmas at the court of King John’: http://magnacarta.research.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/christmas-at-court-of-king-john.html.

24.  Carpenter, ‘Household rolls’, pp. 29–30; Under Edward I the issue gained a new dimension by the use of purveyance to supply royal armies: Prestwich, Edward I, 407–10.

25.  Coggeshall, p. 97; Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae, pp. 174–7.

26.  DI, p. 237.

27.  RLJ, pp. 110, 170.

28.  For John’s itinerary, see below, pp. 204–6.

29.  DI, pp. 245, 255, 261.

30.  The role of the steward is discussed in Kaye, ‘Serving the man that ruled’, ch. 4.

31.  See Church, Household Knights, and ‘The knights of the household: a question of numbers’.

32.  Paris, GA, pp. 227–8.

33.  See above, pp. 84–5.

34.  See West, Justiciarship in England.

35.  Adam of Eynsham, pp. 101–9; Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 38–9.

36.  Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 75–6, 80, 143, 206, 388; Anonymous, pp. 145, 149; CR 1242–7, p. 242. See above, pp. 142–3.

37.  Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, ed. J. A. Green; and see Hagger, ‘A pipe roll for 25 Henry’.

38.  See above, p. 88.

39.  See above, pp. 119–20.

40.  Dialogus, pp. 90–91.

41.  For the tax of 1207, see below, p. 210. For a rather confusing discussion of aids, see Bracton, ii, p. 116.

42.  Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, pp. 840–41, 847. The percentages are not of total revenue but of the £19,728 actually paid into the exchequer, leaving out local expenditure.

43.  Dialogus, p. 70.

44.  Dialogus, pp. 69–70.

45.  Dialogus, p. 116.

46.  The exceptions were Cheshire, under the earl of Chester, and Durham under its bishop. John made Robert de Vieuxpont hereditary sheriff of Westmorland.

47.  Crowland, p. 222.

48.  Newburgh, p. 331.

49.  Brown, ‘A list of castles’, p. 90.

50.  Brown, ‘Royal castle-building’, p. 30, citing RLC, i, p. 6b.

51.  The revised version became chapter 19 in the 1225 Charter.

52.  For the forest, see SPF, with an excellent introduction by G. J. Turner; Young, Royal Forests; and Crook, ‘Forest eyre’.

53.  Bazeley, ‘Extent of the English forest’.

54.  CR 1231–4, pp. 588–9.

55.  For this chapter, see Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta and the common pleas’.

56.  Gallagher, ed., Suffolk Eyre, pp. xiv–xvi.

57.  RCh, p. 93b.

58.  Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls, pp. 124–8.

59.  See above, pp. 106–7.

60.  The intellectual and institutional changes in the twelfth century that led to the abolition of the ordeal are explored in Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water.

61.  For the procedure, see Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, p. 108.

62.  Brand, Making of the Common Law, pp. 453–4; ERW, p. 1; Hudson, Formation, p. 239. I have adapted here a writ for Ireland.

63.  Hudson, Oxford History, part III, gives a comprehensive account of these developments.

64.  Glanvill, pp. 137, 148.

65.  MR 1199, p. xlix and note 1 (Richardson’s introduction).

66.  Glanvill, p. 28. See Hudson, Oxford History, p. 534.

67.  For the writ of right by which legal actions in the lord’s court over tenure had to be commenced, see Glanvill, pp. 137, 148.

68.  For a discussion of honorial courts, see Hudson, Oxford History, pp. 556–61.

69.  Crouch, English Aristocracy, p. 169; Thomas, Vassals, pp. 72–3.

70.  For this hypothesis, see Milsom, Legal Framework, ch. 1.

71.  This is from Garnier de Pont-Sainte-Maxence’s Life of Becket. The false oath referred to was one secured by the plaintiff affirming that he had not received justice in his lord’s court: Hudson, Oxford History, p. 512, citing English Lawsuits, ii, p. 431.

72.  For what follows, see Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls, pp. 137–45 and Appendix IV.

73.  Golob, ‘Ferrers earls of Derby’, pp. 224–5; RCh, p. 108b; RH, ii, pp. 30, 291, 297; CRR, xix, no. 1188; Basset Charters, no. 199.

74.  Clanchy, ‘The franchise of return of writs’, and more generally, Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls.

75.  For a good example of such liberties, see John’s charters to Northampton and Lincoln, RCh, pp. 45, 56.

76.  For this perspective, see Crouch, English Aristocracy, pp. 167–9, where chs. 9 and 10 discuss seigneurial justice and liberties as a whole. The importance of liberties emerges powerfully in Stringer, ‘States, liberties and communities’, and Holford and Stringer, eds. Border Liberties and Loyalties.

77.  See Cam, ‘The king’s government as administered by the greater abbots of East Anglia’.

78.  Sutherland, Quo Warranto.

79.  Vincent, ‘A roll of knights’.

80.  PR 1214, p. 153; RLJ, p. 177; PR 1215, pp. 81, 94.

81.  Sanders, Feudal Military Service, ch. 4; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, pp. 63, 68–71.

82.  For this hypothesis and the details of the Irish campaign, see Church, ‘The 1210 campaign’, and also Holt, in PR 1215, p. 80.

83.  Church, ‘Earliest English muster roll’.

7 The Rule of the King: John and His Predecessors

1.    Coggeshall, p. 170.

2.    SC, pp. 117–19; J. A. Green, ‘Charter of liberties’; Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’.

3.    Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 853; Green, ‘Earliest surviving pipe roll’.

4.    Keefe, ‘Henry II and the earls’, pp. 191–221, and at p. 214. Holt missed this article.

5.    For an account of the revolt, see Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 223–7.

6.    Vincent, ‘Did Henry II have a policy towards the earls?’, p. 5.

7.    Cokayne, Complete Peerage, vii, pp. 672–5.

8.    Brown, ‘A list of castles’, p. 90.

9.    The Articles put other arrangements in place should John enjoy the crusader’s respite. See below, pp. 316, 347–8. For Henry’s disseisins, see Holt, MC, pp. 82, 90–91, 104–5, 135–6, and Summerson, ch. 39.

10.  F, p. 129.

11.  Young, Royal Forests, p. 39.

12.  Young, Royal Forests, p. 21.

13.  Langton’s seal was developed from that of Hubert Walter: Binski, Becket’s Crown, pp. 40, 64, with pp. 36–40 and 62–5 for both men.

14.  Coggeshall, pp. 91, 97; for a modern assessment, see Turner, ‘Richard and English episcopal elections’.

15.  Newburgh, pp. 305–6.

16.  Barratt, ‘English revenue of Richard’, p. 637; Ramsay, Revenues, p. 191.

17.  Howden, iii, pp. 210–11, 225; Mitchell, Taxation, p. 607; Maddicott, Parliament, p. 123; Gillingham, Richard I, p. 248 note 94.

18.  Barratt, ‘English revenue of Richard’, p. 649.

19.  F, p. 129.

20.  Crook, ‘Forest eyre’, p. 70; Waugh, Lordship of England, p. 159.

21.  PR 1191–2, p. 98; PR 1190, p. 21.

22.  PR 1196, pp. 248–9; PR 1197, p. 61; PR 1198, pp. 213–14; Gillingham, Richard I, p. 262.

23.  PR 1190, p. 101; MR 1199, p. 86; PR 1196, p. 138.

24.  Coggeshall, pp. 91–3, 97.

25.  Coggeshall, p. 93; Carpenter, ‘Coggeshall’, p. 1,219.

26.  Howden, iv, p. 88.

27.  F, pp. 75–6.

28.  Coggeshall, pp. 107–10; Carpenter, ‘Coggeshall’, p. 1220.

29.  SC, pp. 283–4; for discussion, see K. Harvey, Episcopal Appointments, pp. 19–28.

30.  Coggeshall, pp. 112–13.

31.  Carpenter, ‘Coggeshall’, pp. 1228–9. Fuller light will be shed on Coggeshall here in a forthcoming paper by James Willoughby.

32.  For the end of the quarrel, see below, pp. 279–80.

33.  Coggeshall, p. 101.

34.  Powicke, Loss of Normandy, p. 326.

35.  Norgate, John Lackland, p. 86.

36.  Crouch, ‘Normans and Anglo-Normans’, pp. 62–3.

37.  For revenues, see the detailed calculations and comparisons in Barratt, ‘Revenues of John and Philip Augustus’, especially at pp. 81–5.

38.  For Philip’s gains, see Power, Norman Frontier, pp. 414–15.

39.  For a description of both Gisors and Chateau Gaillard, see Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 253, 262.

40.  Stevenson, ‘England and Normandy’, p. 202.

41.  See below, pp. 234–5.

42.  For the actions of the Norman barons, see Power, ‘King John and the Norman aristocracy’, and Norman Frontier, pp. 438–45.

43.  DD, no. 206. For the last seneschal, William le Gros, see Vincent, ‘Chipping Sodbury’.

44.  Power, Norman Frontier, pp. 448–53.

45.  Moore, ‘Loss of Normandy’, p. 1090. Much of what follows comes from this article, which draws on Moore’s work with Daniel Power for ‘The Lands of the Normans’ project.

46.  For the detail in what follows, see Kanter, ‘Peripatetic and sedentary kingship’, especially pp. 12–17. Church, ‘Some aspects of the royal itinerary’, reflects on the ‘chaotic scramble’ involved in such an itinerary.

47.  Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, ch. 6; Warren, King John, pp. 278–85.

48.  Holt, Northerners, pp. 196–7.

49.  Much of what follows is taken from Summerson, ch. 23.

50.  PR 1214, p. 69.

51.  See above, p. 99.

52.  For what follows, see Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’.

53.  For the way later tallages were very fully paid, see Stacey, ‘1240–1260: a watershed?’, p. 139.

54.  Jolliffe, ‘Chamber and castle treasuries’, pp. 133–5; Gillingham, ‘Coer de Lion in captivity’, p. 78; Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 855, with detailed calculations of income in real terms on p. 853.

55.  Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, pp. 848–51.

56.  Harris, ‘King John and the sheriffs’ farms’, p. 533. For the farms, see above, p. 168.

57.  Harris, ‘King John and the sheriffs’ farms’, at p. 542; Holt, Northerners, p. 154.

58.  For this view, see Holt, MC, p. 337.

59.  It was thus merely as a convenient way of presenting the accounts that, in the pipe rolls, a custodial sheriff answered first for the farm and increment and then the profit above it (which might vary from year to year). For the detailed lists of all their revenue, which custodial sheriffs later presented (and may well have presented in John’s reign), see Cassidy, ‘Bad sheriffs, custodial sheriffs’.

60.  Crowland, p. 215; chapters 28, 30, 31, 38. See above, pp. 180–1

61.  Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, pp. 846, 849; PR 1210, pp. xv–xvi.

62.  For discussion of the word, see Hudson, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 104, 109–10, although the suggestion here is my own.

63.  Faulkner, ‘Knights’, p. 4; Summerson, ch. 20.

64.  Cerne Cartulary, pp. 195–6, 206.

65.  For the figures that follow, see Crook, ‘Forest eyre’, pp. 72–80; Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 846.

66.  RF, p. 365; PR 1206, p. 73; Summerson, ch. 20.

67.  Holt, Northerners, p. 159.

68.  Clasby, ‘The abbot of St Albans’.

69.  RLP, p. 73; RF, p. 459; Mitchell, Taxation, pp. 84–92.

70.  Barratt’s guess (Revenue of John’, p. 839) is £15,000.

71.  PR 1208, p. 72.

72.  PR 1208, p. 169; PR 1211, p. 135; PR 1214, p. 81. For much of this and what follows I am indebted to Summerson, ch. 13.

73.  Stacey, ‘English Jews’, p. 42.

74.  £40,000 is the figure given in a case before the Jewish exchequer in 1219: CPREJ, p. 4. Chroniclers give the figure of £44,000; Richardson, English Jewry, pp. 168–72; Mitchell, Taxation, pp. 105–6; Holt, Northerners, pp. 167–8; for an explanation of the discrepancy, see Stacey, ‘English Jews’, p. 43 note 10.

75.  Wendover, p. 537; RLP, p. 102b; RLC, p. 459; Mitchell, Taxation, p. 106 note 64; CFR 1222–3, no. 183.

76.  TNA E 401/1564; RF, p. 588; PR 1216–25, pp. 179–80.

77.  PR 1211, p. 61; PR 1212, p. 109. I owe the point about the forfeiture to a King’s College London MA essay by Elizabeth Holsgrove on Gant’s debts.

78.  F, p. 51; RCh, p. 93. Paul Brand pointed out to me this contrast.

79.  The Articles and the Charter broadened the protection to include under-tenants; see above, p. 321.

80.  No interest was taken while Jewish debts were in the king’s hands.

81.  TNA E 163/1/8B, m. 4.

82.  Holt, MC, pp. 335–6 and note 180. I do not think that the later legislation cited proves the meaning of the chapter in this sense: CR 1234–7, pp. 214, 338 (the 1236 Statute of Merton).

83.  RLP, p. 132. Earls and barons were not to be summoned, but John may have intended to make separate concessions to them.

84.  RF, pp. 483–4, 494–5.

85.  RF, p. 372; Holt, Northerners, pp. 52n, 75, 190.

86.  PR 1211, p. 63; cited by Tilley, ‘Magna Carta and the honour of Wallingford’.

87.  PR 1212, pp. 3–4.

88.  PR 1209, pp. 64, 108; PR 1210, pp. 97, 273; PR 1211, p. 68; RLC, p. 168.

89.  PR 1212, p. 37.

90.  Waugh, Lordship, p. 159; RF, pp. 430, 432; PR 1208, p. 100–1.

91.  Keefe, Feudal Assessments, p. 30; Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 847.

92.  PR 1211, p. 2; PR 1212, pp. 179, 172–3; M. Morris, Bigod Earls, p. 15.

93.  Howden, iv, p. 152. John seems largely to be affirming and enforcing the procedures outlined in Dialogus, pp. 173–9.

94.  Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 851.

95.  PR 1208, p. 5; PR 1209, p. 42; PR 1210, p. 45, where just £20 remains unpaid. The debts of the earl of Clare have been explored in a King’s College London MA essay by Jacob Ninan.

96.  PR 1208, p. 143; PR 1209, p. 129; PR 1210, p. 151; PR 1211, p. 46.

97.  PR 1201, p. 157; PR 1208, p. 145; PR 1209, pp. 130–31; PR 1210, p. 152; PR 1211, p. 53; Holt, Northerners, pp. 170–72.

98.  Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 127–30, and see above, p. 139.

99.  MR 1208, pp. 19, 23–68; for sureties being distrained, see MR 1208, pp. 23 and 63.

100. RLC, pp. 61, 67b; RF, p. 348; PR 1205, pp. 146, 147, 169.

101. PR 1214, pp. 52, 118.

102. RLC, pp. 61, 67b.

103. CFR 1224–34, vii (figures from Paul Dryburgh and Beth Hartland). I have calculated the 1207–8 figure myself. The fine rolls are lost between 1208 and 1213.

104. MR 1208, pp. 211–12.

105. Holt, Northerners, p. 34.

106. Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’, p. 545.

107. Hudson, Oxford History, pp. 559–60; Hurnard, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’; Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’; Glanvill, p. 5; Bracton, ii, p. 300; PR 1204, pp. xxii–xxxiii (Lady Stenton’s introduction); PR 1214, pp. xxv, 238.

108. Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta and the common pleas’, pp. 227–32.

109. SC, p. 282.

110. Many of the cases mentioned below, together with others unmentioned, are discussed in detail in Henry Summerson’s commentary on chapter 40. Summerson also has here a fascinating account of John’s quarrel with the Welsh marcher baron Fulk fitzWarin.

111. Holt, MC, pp. 150–55, brings together numerous examples.

112. PR 1211, p. 177; PR 1208, p. 89; Holt, MC, pp. 149, 153. Gant’s offer was also for writs to begin his actions.

113. PR 1209, p. 80; PR 1210, p. 39; PR 1201, p. 157; PR 1199, p. 56; Anonymous, p. 145.

114. Holt, Northerners, p. 22; Holt, MC, pp. 148–9.

115. PR 1207, p. 74; Holt, MC, p. 154.

116. RF, p. 46; Holt, MC, p. 152.

117. CRR, i, p. 382; D. M. Stenton, ‘King John’, p. 93.

118. RF, p. 178. For what follows see Holt’s ch. 5, ‘Justice and jurisdiction’, in his MC.

119. CRR, iv, p. 99; vi, pp. 133–4, 270. The Caldbeck and fitzWalter cases referred to below are analysed in Summerson, ch. 40. For the Say, Mandeville case, see Turner, Judges, ch. 16.

120. Marshal, lines 13,159–256.

121. PR 1208, p. 89.

122. RLC, pp. 33b, 189b; Stringer, Earl David, p. 51. For the ‘third penny’ and earls in general, see Crouch, English Aristocracy, pp. 40–48.

123. PR 1195, p. 226; PR 1204, p. 34; PR 1208, pp. 31, 134; RLP, p. 122b; RLC, pp. 173, 216; PR 1214, p. 11; CRR, vii, pp. 110–11.

124. Turner, ‘Exercise of the king’s will’, pp. 281–2, 287; Holt, ‘Casus Regis’, pp. 320–21. William de Percy was a ward of, and thus backed by, John’s great servant William Brewer. Richard’s claim against William, his nephew, mirrored John’s claim to the throne against his nephew Arthur. Richard may consequently have felt he should have all the inheritance.

125. Wendover, p. 523.

126. RLP, p. 94b; RLC, p. 213.

127. Marshal, lines 13,271–6, 13,362–8, 13,377–421, 14,319–88, 14,445–86, 14,526–78, 14,708–23.

128. RF, pp. 389, 447–57. I owe knowledge of the Roger fitzAdam case to Thamar MacIver.

129. Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 849.

130. RF, p. 398.

131. LAR, nos. 1031, 1082; Summerson, ch. 21.

132. PR 1207, p. 74; RF, p. 413; PR 1199, p. 288. For Eustace see below, p. 276.

133. RF, p. 372. The fine included four palfreys, a riding horse worth about five marks each.

134. PR 1212, pp. 144–5.

135. Summerson, ch. 39.

136. RLC, pp. 16, 31.

137. RLC, p. 136b; CRR, xi, no. 416; Holt, MC, pp. 202–3.

138. CRR, xi, no. 1195.

139. CRR, vi, pp. 320, 344; RLC, p. 215; CRR, xii, no. 2646; Holt, MC, pp. 206–7; Turner, King and his Courts, pp. 162–3.

140. See below, pp. 388, 389, 435.

141. See Vincent, ‘A roll of knights’.

142. PR 1207, pp. 47–8.

143. RLC, i, pp. 216b, 217; Tilley, ‘Magna Carta and the honour of Wallingford’.

144. Stringer, Earl David, p. 50; RLC, pp. 216b–217.

145. RF, p. 373. FitzRoscelin was a tenant of Cressy’s mother and her second husband, Robert fitzRoger: P. Brown, Sibton, pp. 90–93.

146. CRR, iii, pp. 129–30. This is the Richard Revel case mentioned above, pp. 132–3.

147. See below, pp. 347–8.

148. See Young, Making of the Neville Family.

149. Crouch, William Marshall, pp. 137, 141, 163, 195.

150. Wendover, pp. 532–3.

151. Carpenter, ‘Sheriffs of Oxfordshire’, ch. 6.

152. Marshal, lines 14,433–46, 14,463–8, 16,821–4, 18,301–8.

153. S. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, p. 100.

154. For what follows, see Turner, English Judiciary, ch. 4.

155. PR 1210, p. 75; Carpenter, Minority, pp. 296–7. For fitzPeter and Brewer, see Turner, Men Raised from the Dust, chs. 3 and 4.

156. Vincent, Des Roches, pp. 22–6.

157. Political Songs, p. 10; Clanchy, England and its Rulers, p. 129.

158. Vincent, Des Roches, pp. 27, 33.

159. For all of them, see Vincent, ‘Who’s who in Magna Carta clause 50?’

160. PR 1208, p. 72.

161. PCCG, p. xvii and notes 1 and 2 (Maitland’s introduction).

162. ASL, no. 6.

163. PCCG, no. 154.

164. PCCG, p. xiv (Maitland’s introduction).

165. Vincent, ‘Who’s who in Magna Carta clause 50?’, pp. 239, 246.

166. There is at least some connection between a leading member of Gerard’s group, the sheriff of Nottingham, Philip Marc, and the notorious sheriff of Nottingham in the Robin Hood legends, as David Crook has shown. The most plausible candidate for the real Robin Hood, one Robert of Wetherby (in Yorkshire), was certainly alive in John’s reign. In 1225 he was eventually run to ground and beheaded, his body being suspended from a chain for all to see. The person responsible for this was Eustace of Lowdham. Eustace had been Philip Marc’s deputy as sheriff of Nottingham. For all this, see Crook, ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’.

167. Church, Household Knights, p. 88 note 83.

168. RLC, pp. 18b, 32b. For Alan Basset and his family, see Stewart-Parker, ‘The Bassets’.

169. RLC, p. 87.

170. Walter Map, pp. 478–9.

171. See Church, ‘The rewards of royal service’.

172. Carpenter, ‘Godfrey of Crowcombe’.

173. Carpenter, Minority, p. 34; Holden, ‘Balance of patronage’, pp. 82–5; RCh, p. 53; Cokayne, Complete Peerage, iv, pp. 194–5; vi, pp. 457–8.

174. Carpenter, ‘The struggle to control the Peak’.

175. He appears throughout Vincent, Des Roches.

176. Anonymous, p. 180.

177. PR 1214, p. 94.

178. PR 1212, pp. 157–8; Vincent, ‘Hugh de Neville’; Lost Letters, pp. 113–15.

179. RF, pp. 382, 386; PR 1207, p. 149; RLP, 74b; Tout, Chapters, i, p. 161.

180. RCh, p. 191. There is no evidence for the nature of Maulay’s offence.

181. Guisborough, p. 144.

182. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 422.

183. Waverley, p. 258; RLP, p. 72; Summerson, ch. 14; Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 125–6; Mitchell, Taxation, pp. 84–92.

184. Crowland, p. 203.

185. Articles, ch. 44; Magna Carta, chs. 56 and 57. See below, pp. 347–8.

186. AWR, no. 576; Davies, Conquest, p. 294.

187. Wendover, p. 534.

188. For different practices across Britain, see Gillingham, ‘Killing and mutilating in the British Isles’.

189. AWR, no. 233; Smith, ‘Magna Carta’.

190. Gesta Annalia, p. 277; Bower, pp. 448–9.

191. Duncan, ‘John king of England’, pp. 260–61.

192. I plan to give a much fuller account of the treaty and the events of 1209 on a future occasion. Teresa Webber has kindly advised me about the date of the hand. Dauvit Broun and Alice Taylor have made many helpful suggestions about the interpretation of the letter.

193. Howden, iv, p. 141.

194. Howden, GR, i, p. 95; ASR, no. 1.

195. Melrose, fo. 28v; see Broun and Harrison, Chronicle of Melrose, p. 131.

196. For this source, see Broun, ‘Gesta Annalia’, and Duncan, ‘Melrose’, p. 170.

197. Duncan, ‘John king of England’, p. 270.

198. RRS, no. 488; Bower, pp. 455, 621. In the event only half of the 15,000 marks were paid: Duncan, ‘John king of England’, p. 270.

199. For the situation in 1212, see Taylor, ‘Robert de Londres’, pp. 113–14.

200. RRS, no. 305; ASR, no. 4; Bower, pp. 468–9.

201. SAEC, p. 330.

202. Taylor, ‘Robert de Londres’, pp. 110–14.

203. Stringer, ‘Periphery and core’, pp. 85–6.

204. See below, p. 353.

205. For further discussion, see below, pp. 318, 352–3.

206. F, p. 91.

207. For Ireland, see Duffy, ‘John and Ireland’. I am grateful to Colin Veach for allowing me to see an advance copy of his ‘King John and royal control in Ireland’, from which some of what follows comes.

208. Holt, Northerners, p. 186.

209. RF, p. 99; PR 1207, p. 38.

210. Duffy, ‘John and Ireland’, pp. 240–42.

211. Wendover, pp. 523–4.

212. Anonymous, pp. 111–12; Crouch, ‘Complaint’, p. 174 note 10.

213. See above, p. 81.

214. Holden, Lords of the Central Marches, pp. 177–80.

215. Crouch, ‘Complaint’, pp. 168–79.

216. As Holt, Northerners, p. 185.

217. For the custom of outlawry, and whether John observed it, see below, pp. 281–2.

8 Standards of Judgement

1.    For the idea of the kingdom, see Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, ch. 8.

2.    Chapters 42, 18, 61, 35.

3.    Chapters 42, 45, 12, 14.

4.    Preamble and chapters 51, 61 and 42.

5.    Chapters 1, 60.

6.    Dunstable, p. 43.

7.    CR 1254–6, pp. 194–5.

8.    Holt, MC, 448–73, has ‘realm’ throughout. EHD 1189–1327, pp. 316–24, alternates between ‘realm’ and ‘kingdom’.

9.    BL Harleian 458, fo. 4.

10.  Trinity College Cambridge, O. 76, fos. 6–11; Spalding Gentlemen’s Society M.J. 13, fos. 140–43, for images of which I am grateful to Cristian Ispir.

11.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, pp. 356–64; BL Add. MSS 32085, fos. 102–106v.

12.  Chapters 61, 39, 55.

13.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, p. 361.

14.  Chapters 1, 63, 33, 41, 50.

15.  Chapters 56, 59.

16.  See above, p. 201.

17.  Adam of Eynsham, pp. 114–15.

18.  A key work on national identity in the century and a half after the Norman Conquest is Thomas, English and Normans.

19.  Marshal, lines 5,215, 16,204–14, 15,616–20, 16,140–46, 15,564–5.

20.  This is stressed in Holt, King John, pp. 107–9. For a more detailed discussion, see Thomas, English and Normans, pp. 337–43.

21.  Newburgh, i, pp. 304–5.

22.  Melrose, fo. 31v; Broun and Harrison, Chronicle of Melrose, pp. 131–4.

23.  Crowland, p. 232.

24.  Chapters 39, 42, 45, 55, 56.

25.  Glanvill, p. 3.

26.  Chapters 2, 13, 41, 60, 23, 25, 46.

27.  Chapters 40, 52, 53, 57.

28.  Chapters 19, 39, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59.

29.  Glanvill, p. 107; Bracton, ii, p. 228.

30.  Nelson, ‘Bad kingship’, pp. 1–26.

31.  Ullmann, Principles, pp. 162–3.

32.  Fulbert of Chartres, no. 51.

33.  Fulbert of Chartres, p. 90 note 1.

34.  I owe this to Alice Taylor’s forthcoming work on homage.

35.  Nelson, Politics and Ritual, pp. 151–3, 369–70.

36.  Wendover, Flores, ii, p. 81; Coggeshall, p. 167.

37.  Stafford, ‘The laws of Cnut’, pp. 177–9, 190; EHD 500–1042, pp. 428–30, chs. 69–83.

38.  Holt, MC, pp. 475–6; Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’, p. 47, where all the many texts are analysed.

39.  For the tenurial structures introduced by the Conquest, see Garnett, Conquered England.

40.  DD, p. 2; LHP, pp. 134–5, ch. 31, p. 7.

41.  See Hudson, ‘Henry I and counsel’.

42.  O’Brien, God’s Peace, pp. 4, 31–6, 159–60, 192–3.

43.  Chapters 2, 4, 11.

44.  Lawman, pp. 411, xvi–xxiv (the introduction by Rosamond Allen). I think it unlikely that the work had anything to do with the Fleming, William de Frise. In some editions ‘Lawman’ is described as ‘Layamon’.

45.  In what follows, I have drawn on ideas in Ashe, ‘William Marshal, Lancelot and Arthur’.

46.  Lawman, pp. 254–6, 282–4, 309–10; R. Allen, ‘Eorles and Beornes: contextualising Lawman’s “Brut” ’.

47.  Ashe, ‘William Marshal, Lancelot and Arthur’, pp. 24–5; Geoffrey of Monmouth, p. 212.

48.  Marshal, lines 6,941–3, 6,987–8.

49.  For John’s failures of courtliness, see Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, pp. 40–41, and Crouch, ‘Baronial paranoia’, pp. 49–50.

50.  Gervase, ii, pp. 92–3.

51.  Marshal, lines 10,273–88.

52.  Carpenter, ‘From King John to the first English duke’, pp. 29–36. For the theory and practice of warfare, see Strickland, War and Chivalry.

53.  Dialogus, pp. 116–17; Marshal, lines 10,271–88.

54.  De Zulueta and Stein, Teaching of Roman Law in England.

55.  John of Salisbury, pp. 25, 28–9, 190–93 (III, 15; IV, 1; VIII, 17).

56.  Waverley, p. 282; Crowland, p. 225; Margam, p. 27; Melrose, fo. 31v.

57.  For Langton, see Powicke, Stephen Langton; Baldwin, Masters and Princes, i, pp. 25–31; Baldwin, ‘Master Stephen Langton’; D’Avray, ‘Magna Carta’; Vincent, ‘Stephen Langton’.

58.  C&S, p. 34, ch. 52; Baldwin, Masters and Princes, i, pp. 191–2.

59.  Carpenter, Minority, pp. 263–5.

60.  d’Avray, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 426–7.

61.  d’Avray, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 426–9, 436–8. For comment on Deuteronomy, see also John of Salisbury, p. 36 (IV, 4).

62.  Buc, L’Ambiguïté du Livre, pp. 281–2. The gloss is on I Samuel 10: 25. I follow Buc in translating ‘scriptura’ as ‘charter’.

63.  F, p. 75.

64.  Glanvill, p. 108; see Dialogus, pp. 144, 180, where the £5 fee is only for a fee held from the king as part of an escheat.

65.  Dialogus, p. 144.

66.  Glanvill, pp. 82–3.

67.  SC, pp. 179–80, ch. 4; Glanvill, pp. 58–69.

68.  Glanvill, pp. 118–19; Dialogus, pp. 161–83.

69.  Glanvill, pp. 111–12.

70.  Glanvill, p. 114 and note c; Dialogus, pp. 168–9; Hudson, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 104, 108–10.

71.  F, p. 51 (a reference I owe to Paul Brand); RLC, p. 132; see above, p. 213.

72.  Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 80–81.

73.  Gervase, ii, pp. 96–7; SC, p. 277.

74.  For a discussion, see Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, pp. 373–9; for dower, Glanvill, p. 69.

75.  Dialogus, pp. 6–9, 219–20.

76.  Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 311–55; and for a critique, Hudson, ‘Magna Carta’.

77.  D’Avray, Medieval Marriage, pp. 124–9; EHD 500–1042, p. 429; Dialogus, pp. 180–1. Walter Map, pp. 508–9.

78.  Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 317–19, and Hudson, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 104–7. I have been helped by Adrienne Showering’s commentary on this chapter in a Kings College London MA Essay. For the influence of the ius commune on Glanvill, see Van Caenegem, Royal Writs, pp. 373–9.

79.  Glanvill, p. 114.

80.  Codex Justinianus, 8.16.7pr; Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 328. I am grateful to Alice Rio for helping me interpret the passage in the Codex.

81.  The ius commune may also have influenced the stipulation about interest on debt not accruing in minorities: Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 320–21.

82.  Howden, GR, ii, pp. 213–14; Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 119–20.

83.  Howden, iii, p. 136.

84.  PR 1198, p. 222. This is the fine of William de Novo Mercato.

85.  See above, pp. 132–3.

86.  Ballard, British Borough Charters, pp. xxvi–xxxiii, 197–201, 214–16, 220–32; SC, pp. 305–10.

87.  See above, p. 148.

88.  Peter de Brus Charter, pp. 92–4; see above, pp. 146–7.

89.  O’Brien, God’s Peace, pp. 118–19, 121; Holt, MC, pp. 93–5, 118–19.

90.  LHP, pp. 102–3, ch. 8, 1b, p. 317, note to ch. 8, Ib; Holt, MC, p. 94.

91.  MGL, i, pp. 147–51.

92.  SC, p. 277; J. E. Morris, Welsh Wars, p. 229 note 1; CWR, p. 336. For a discussion of Angevin ideology, see Aurell, Plantagenet Empire, pp. 83–162.

93.  RCh, pp. 133–4; Correspondance Administrative no. 2, 022. I owe this reference to an MA essay by Anais Waag. For the theory of necessity and other Roman law ideas, see Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 21–4.

94.  Walter Map, pp. 508–9; RL, p. 20; CRR, v, pp. 202–4; Turner, English Judiciary, pp. 7 and 170. I owe the point about Guestling to Hudson, Oxford History, pp. 846–7.

95.  Dialogus, pp. 2–3.

96.  Dialogus, pp. 4–5, 20–21, 74–5, 164–5.

97.  Vacarius, pp. 296, 12, lx, cxlviii.

98.  Glanvill, p. 2; Dialogus, p. 5.

99.  Rolls of the King’s Court, p. 50; Howden, iii, p. 242; Dialogus, p. 169.

100. Mason, ‘Hero’s invincible weapon’, pp. 131–2; see above, p. 97.

101. M. Allen, Mints and Money, pp. 54–5, 63; Eaglen, Abbey and Mint, plates 6–21.

102. RLP, p. 135b.

103. Glanvill, p. 108; Dialogus, pp. 144–5, 180–81.

104. For 1205, Gervase, ii, pp. 97–8.

105. Bisson, Crisis of the Twelfth Century, pp. 521, 527.

106. Crouch, ‘Complaint’, p. 170; Marshal, lines 13,229–32.

107. PR 1216–25, p. 10.

108. BL Cotton Julius D ii, fo. 128 (a cartulary of St Augustine’s, Canterbury).

109. Marshal, lines 15,873–88; Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, p. 37.

110. See below, pp. 299–300.

111. PR 1210, p. 120. Note the other punitive fines here.

112. See Garnett, ‘The origins of the crown’.

113. Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 163, 117.

114. For the Jews, see above, pp. 115–7.

115. RCh, pp. 133–4; addressed to Ireland, but echoing appeals made in England.

116. SC, p. 277; RLP, pp. 72–3. These examples and others are brought together in Summerson, ch. 12.

117. Wendover, pp. 538–9.

118. RLP, p. 76.

119. Gesetze, pp. 655–6, cited by Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 9.

120. RLP, p. 76.

121. D. M. Stenton, ‘King John’, passim.

122. St Augustine’s Canterbury, pp. 148–9.

123. Holt, MC, p. 107; Holt, Northerners, p. 192.

124. See Holt, MC, pp. 327–31, for his discussion of chapter 39.

125. RLP, p. 141.

126. Marshal, lines 13,150–13,154.

127. For some of what follows, see Holt, MC, pp. 76–8; Vincent, ‘English liberties’, pp. 244–6.

128. Altamira, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 230–31, and the reference there given.

129. Bisson, ‘An “Unknown Charter” for Catalonia’, pp. 199–212, quotations at pp. 202 and 211–12.

130. Statute of Pamiers, columns 625–35, chs. i, xv, xvii, xxviii, xxix, xxxi, xxxiii, xliii–v, and column 634.

131. The events of 1212 begin the next chapter.

9 Resistance, 1212–1215

1.    Gervase, ii, pp. 96–9; RLP, p. 55. See Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 142–3.

2.    AWR, no. 235.

3.    RLC, p. 165b.

4.    Dunstable, p. 33.

5.    RLP, p. 94.

6.    Anonymous, p. 115 (on fitzWalter).

7.    Anonymous, p. 119. The evidence is carefully reviewed in Norgate, John Lackland, 289–93. There is a good account of fitzWalter by Matthew Strickland in the ODNB.

8.    Furness, p. 521; Norgate, John Lackland, pp. 289–93. The story was specially inserted into a chronicle being copied out at Furness abbey. According to it, Vescy placed a common woman in John’s bed. John then broke her finger, thinking it was Vescy’s wife.

9.    PR 1203, pp. 201, 204, 214; PR 1207, p. 74; PR 1211, p. 34; CRR, v, pp. 58–9; vi, pp. 135–6; RLC, pp. 99, 215b, 216b.

10.  Alexander and Binski, eds., Age of Chivalry, no. 454.

11.  RLP, pp. 17, 144b; PR 1209, p. 190. For fitzWalter’s claim to Hertford (in right of his wife), see Summerson, ch. 40.

12.  Anonymous, pp. 117–18; translation by Matthew Strickland in his ‘Robert fitzWalter’.

13.  Paris, GA, pp. 220–21, 226–7.

14.  Wendover, p. 534.

15.  RCh, pp. 192, 197.

16.  BF, pp. 52–228. Vincent, ‘English liberties’, pp. 251–2, recognizes the importance of this inquiry.

17.  See below, pp. 398–400.

18.  John of Salisbury, pp. 15, 206–13 (III, 15; VIII, 20, 21); for discussion, see Van Laarhoven, ‘Thou shall not slay a tyrant’, p. 328. Aurell, Plantagenet Empire, pp. 70–71.

19.  O’Brien, God’s Peace, pp. 175–6.

20.  Bémont, Simon de Montfort, p. 341; Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, pp. 31–2.

21.  Cheney, ‘Alleged deposition’.

22.  Powicke, Stephen Langton, p. 97; Fryde, Why Magna Carta?, p. 100; Vincent, ‘Stephen Langton’, pp. 82–7, with a full analysis of biblical references.

23.  SLI, pp. 128–9.

24.  Cheney, ‘Alleged deposition’, p. 102.

25.  Brut, pp. 194–5.

26.  See above, pp. 272–3.

27.  F, p. 108.

28.  RLP, p. 97; Holt, Northerners, pp. 85–6.

29.  RLC, p. 132. John may, however, have made concessions to earls and barons on an individual basis.

30.  Crowland, pp. 207, 214–15.

31.  F, p. 104.

32.  This is the episode mentioned above, p. 81.

33.  Wendover, p. 550.

34.  Rowlands, ‘King John’, p. 270.

35.  For all this, see Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, pp. 1057–60.

36.  SLI, p. 189 and notes 4 and 5; RBE, ii, p. 772.

37.  F, p. 126.

38.  Coggeshall, p. 170.

39.  RLC, 122, pp. 216b–217; RLP, p. 94b; Stringer, Earl David, pp. 50, 285 note 141.

40.  RLP, p. 99.

41.  BNB, ii, p. 666; RLC, p. 165b. For the outlawry of fitzWalter and Briouze (evidence is lacking for Vescy), see Summerson, ch. 39. The need for indictment by the ‘fama patrie’ comes from a judgement given in 1234 by William of Raleigh. Whether in an outlawry process there was ‘judgement by peers’ depended on who was present at the final county court when the outlawry was pronounced. Chapter 39 could be read as requiring a baronial presence if the person being outlawed was a baron.

42.  Holt, MC, pp. 190–91.

43.  PR 1214, pp. 11, 31, 81, 93, 120, 175, and xiii–xxiv (Patricia Barnes’s introduction); RLP, p. 129b; RCh, p. 203; Holt, MC, pp. 199–200; RLC, p. 386b; PR 1218, p. 93; RF, p. 528.

44.  Holt, MC, pp. 206–7, 495.

45.  Turner, ‘Mandeville inheritance’, pp. 294–8.

46.  Dunstable, p. 45; Crowland, p. 225; John’s letters about the marriage are the only places where he styles Geoffrey Earl of Essex: RLC, p. 162b; RLP, p. 109b.

47.  F, pp. 104–7; RCh, p. 186. For the diplomacy of 1212–13, see Vincent, ‘A roll of knights’.

48.  Wendover, pp. 551–2; Crowland, p. 212; Coggeshall, p. 167.

49.  Dunstable, pp. 40, 38; Coggeshall, p. 167; SC, p. 282.

50.  Vincent, ‘English liberties’, p. 257.

51.  James of Aragon, pp. 24–5.

52.  Coggeshall, p. 168.

53.  RLC, p. 202. Holt, Northerners, pp. 98–100, analyses the army.

54.  RLP, p. 118b.

55.  There is a fine account of the campaign in Ramsay, Angevin Empire, pp. 451–65.

56.  Barratt, ‘Revenue of John’, p. 839; PR 1214, p. 91. The pipe roll for 1213 is lost. See Barratt, ‘The 1213 pipe roll’.

57.  PR 1214, p. 95; PR 1219, pp. 205–6; F, p. 126; Holt, Northerners, pp. 100–102.

58.  RLC, p. 213; Vincent, Des Roches, pp. 107–13; Holt, King John, p. 91.

59.  CRR, vii, pp. 158–9; F, p. 89; Holt, MC, pp. 61, 66.

60.  Coggeshall, p. 168.

61.  SLI, p. 203.

62.  RLC, pp. 192b, 198b, 199, 214; Anonymous, pp. 150–51.

63.  SLI, pp. 194, 213; RLP, p. 138b.

64.  SLI, p. 165; F, p. 126; Coggeshall, p. 167. Crouch, ‘Baronial paranoia’, pp. 58–9, brings out the importance of corporate action in 1212.

65.  Brut, p. 201.

66.  Southwark and Merton, p. 49.

67.  Wendover, pp. 582–3.

68.  Holt, MC, pp. 406–11, criticizing R. M. Thomson in Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 189–92, and Gransden, Customary of Bury, p. xxv note 5. My argument differs from all three.

69.  Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 112–13, 112 note 1.

70.  For what follows see Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 110–29. For this source see above, p. 78

71.  Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 128–9, said a little later in proceedings.

72.  RLC, p. 174. In the event, the visit to Rochester took place after the Bury meeting. A gap in the itinerary of a few days leaves open whether John went on to Canterbury and Dover.

73.  RLC, pp. 175–7; RLP, p. 123.

74.  FitzWalter and Mandeville attest on 2 November; RCh, p. 202, RLP, p. 123.

75.  Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 126–7. The quotation was from Deuteronomy 7:19.

76.  RLP, p. 123. Norfolk’s son had married the Marshal’s eldest daughter.

77.  Norgate, John Lackland, p. 192.

78.  SC, pp. 283–4; RCh, p. 202b. For a nuanced discussion of the charter, which brings out its advantages for John, see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments, pp. 18–24.

79.  RLC, p. 179.

80.  CMS, p. 201; Southwark and Merton, p. 49.

81.  CRR, vii, p. 315; Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 16, 53; Harper-Bill, ed., Blythburgh Cartulary, i, p. 7; Holt, Northerners, p. 12; RF, p. 417.

82.  Wendover, p. 584; SLI, p. 194.

83.  CRR, vii, p. 315; RLP, p. 126b; RCh, pp. 203–5. Ros was also a guarantor of the letters of conduct.

84.  DD, pp. 28–30; Crowland, pp. 217–18.

85.  SLI, pp. 198–201.

86.  DD, pp. 28–30.

87.  Gervase, ii, p. 109.

88.  Tyerman, England and the Crusades, pp. 134–5; S. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, pp. 163–5.

89.  SLI, pp. 202–4, 212–13, 217.

90.  Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 162–5; RLC, p. 193b. For John’s protest about the election made at Ely, see RLP, pp. 132b–133.

91.  RLC, p. 197b; Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae, p. 217.

92.  Crowland, p. 219.

93.  Landon, Itinerary, pp. 185–6.

94.  SLI, pp. 196–7. I agree with Holt’s arguments that this was what Innocent described later as the ‘triplex forma pacis’: Magna Carta, pp. 413–17.

95.  SLI, pp. 202, 214.

96.  Wendover, pp. 585–6; Crowland, pp. 219, 225; RLC, p. 189b; Holden, Lords of the Central Marches, pp. 178–9. I agree with Holt in doubting Wendover’s list of who was at Stamford.

97.  Wendover, p. 586.

98.  What follows all comes from John’s letter to the pope of 29 May: F, p. 129; see also SLI, pp. 214–15.

99.  SLI, pp. 196–7.

100. Southwark and Merton, p. 49.

101. Bracton, ii, p. 237.

102. For the ‘diffidatio’, see Strickland, War and Chivalry, pp. 231–5, and Gillingham, ‘Introduction of chivalry’, pp. 223–4. For theories of resistance between 1215 and 1399 and the events of 1215–7, see Valente, Theory and Practice of Revolt, pp. 12–67

103. See above, p. 257.

104. RCh, p. 209b; RLP, p. 141; F, p. 129; SLI, p. 215.

105. RLP, p. 141.

106. RLC, p. 204.

107. RLP, p. 135; RLC, p. 198b.

108. RCh, p. 207. The charter survives in the municipal archives: London Metropolitan Archives, COL/CH01/010.

109. Southwark and Merton, p. 49; Crowland, p. 220; RLP, p. 137b.

110. Crowland, p. 220.

111. Paris, HA, ii, p. 156.

112. PR 1214, p. 93; RLP, p. 129b.

113. RLP, p. 135; RLC, p. 198b.

114. RLP, p. 145; Smith, ‘Treaty of Lambeth’, p. 577 note 11.

115. Holt, Northerners, p. 110; Powicke, Stephen Langton, pp. 207–13.

116. Crowland, p. 220.

117. For what follows I am indebted to Stringer, ‘Alexander II: the war of 1215–1217’, and ‘Alan, son of Roland, lord of Galloway’, pp. 85–9, although my emphasis is slightly different.

118. RLC, p. 189b; RLP, p. 144. For a different view, see Stringer, Earl David, pp. 51–2 and 51 note 154.

119. Gervase, ii, p. 111; RLC, p. 216b. David’s legitimate son was only a child.

120. Crowland, p. 220; Dunstable, p. 43.

121. RLP, p. 132b; Holden, Lords of the Central Marches, pp. 187–8.

122. Dunstable, p. 43; Crowland, p. 220; Brut, p. 90; AC, p. 70; J. E. Lloyd, History of Wales, ii, pp. 642–4. Latimer, ‘Rebellion’, points out that there were rebels amongst the Welsh marcher barons, quite apart from Giles de Briouze, bishop of Hereford.

123. RLC, pp. 181, 197; Latimer, ‘Rebellion’.

124. Wendover, p. 585.

125. RLC, p. 200.

126. Faulkner, ‘Knights’, pp. 7–8; RLP, p. 137b; CRR, vi, p. 360.

127. See below, p. 382–5.

128. The returns are for Herefordshire (CACW, no. 1); Rutland and Leicestershire (F, p. 144); Shropshire, and Staffordshire (Eyton, Shropshire, x, pp. 326–7); and Gloucestershire. This last (TNA X Box 2705) was discovered by Adrian Jobson and is discussed in his forthcoming ‘Rebellion in Gloucestershire’.

129. F, p. 144; CRR, vi, p. 131; v, p. 38; vii, p. 240.

130. Holt, Northerners, pp. 43–4; but see Thomas, Vassals, pp. 45–6; CACW, no. 1.

131. Coggeshall, p. 171.

132. Carpenter, ‘Sheriffs of Oxfordshire’, pp. 42–6.

133. PR 1215, p. 10; PR 1211, p. 14; P. Brown, Sibton, pp. 90–93; see above, p. 226.

134. See RLC, pp. 260, 417b, 622b; BF, p. 962.

135. Faulkner, ‘Knights’, pp. 2, 8.

136. Hotot Estate Records, p. 32.

137. Crouch, English Aristocracy, pp. 17–18.

138. CRR, vi, p. 231; Lapsley, ‘Buzones’, pp. 80–83; PCCG, no. 154.

139. Holt, Northerners, p. 47; RLP, pp. 132b, 134b, 135b; RLC, pp. 216b, 217; Tilley, ‘Magna Carta and the honour of Wallingford’.

140. I am grateful to Adrian Jobson for allowing me to see some of the preliminary conclusions in his forthcoming ‘Rebellion in Gloucestershire’.

141. See above, pp. 135–7.

142. Wendover, p. 585; see below, p. 441.

143. PR 1215, p. 10.

144. RLP, pp. 135b–136; Crowland, pp. 220–21.

145. Holt, Northerners, pp. 105–6.

146. Gervase, ii, p. 109; MR 1208, p. 129; RLP, p. 138b.

147. Carpenter, Minority, p. 48.

148. RLP, p. 136b.

149. RLP, pp. 138b, 142.

150. F, p. 129.

151. RLP, pp. 142–3.

10 The Development of the Opposition Programme

1.    Wendover, p. 550; Coggeshall, pp. 167, 170; see also DD, no. 19.

2.    Wendover, pp. 552, 582–6; Brut, pp. 200–201.

3.    O’Brien, God’s Peace, pp. 156–203.

4.    Chapter 8 in the 1100 charter and chapter 9 in the Articles.

5.    Chapters 2, 4 and 11.

6.    See above, p. 258–9.

7.    For the roots of this usage, see Holt, ‘Magna Carta 1215–1217’, pp. 293–6, and Holt, MC, pp. 518–22.

8.    See above, p. 272–3.

9.    Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’, pp. 18–20, 37–8, 46–7, 53–4.

10.  Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 166–7.

11.  Wendover, pp. 552–4.

12.  Coggeshall, p. 170; Crowland, pp. 217–18; Anonymous, pp. 145–6; Brut, p. 201.

13.  I follow Liebermann here, see Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’, pp. 45–6.

14.  For example in BL Cotton Claudius D ii, fos. 68v, 70v. See Ker, ‘Liber custumarum’, for this source. I am grateful to Hugh Doherty for information about copies of Henry II’s charter.

15.  Holt, MC, p. 224.

16.  Chapters 11, 10, 6.

17.  For the document, see above, p. 17. It is printed in Holt, MC, pp. 427–8.

18.  Crowland, p. 218.

19.  Chapter 5 in the Unknown Charter and chapter 7 in the 1100 Charter.

20.  Chapters 4, 6, 3.

21.  Holt, MC, p. 419.

22.  Chapters 2, 5, 7, 11. Chapter 10 gives the forest privileges to ‘knights’.

23.  Wendover, p. 586.

24.  I owe this point to Summerson’s commentary on chapter 20.

25.  Smith, ‘Magna Carta’.

26.  Under the terms of chapter 25, judgement would be by the twenty-five if the disseisin was by John. It was to be by judgement of the complainant’s peers in the king’s court if it was by Henry II or Richard. John would presumably have argued that it was Henry II who had deprived the king of Scots of the northern counties. If John was to have the delay enjoyed by other crusaders, then judgement was to be by Langton and the bishops See below, p. 552 n.20.

27.  Sharpe, ‘Charters of liberties’, p. 44.

28.  Gesetze, pp. 656–6.

29.  Gesetze, pp. 656–7; Bisson, ‘An “Unknown Charter” for Catalonia’, pp. 211–12.

30.  Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, p. 157.

31.  Burton, p. 471; DBM, nos. 3, 11; Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, pp. 43–53. For knights having their own agendas, see Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 220–24.

32.  For a fuller analysis of what follows, see above, pp. 147–54.

33.  F, p. 89; RLC, p. 131; SC, p. 254, ch. 20; Hunnisett, Medieval Coroner, p. 151.

34.  See above, p. 133.

35.  See below, p. 439–40.

36.  There is no change of ink at these points, however.

37.  This may be another chapter, however, put in after the joining up of London.

38.  Holt, ‘The making of Magna Carta’, pp. 219, 224.

39.  Cheney, ‘Twenty-five barons’, p. 285. The detail was the time John was to have to put right any breaches of the Charter.

40.  Galbraith, ‘Runnymede’, p. 308.

41.  Melrose, fo. 31v. I owe the translation to Dauvit Broun. For the date of this portion of the chronicle, see Broun and Harrison, Chronicle of Melrose, pp. 131–4.

42.  Anonymous, p. 150; Wendover, p. 603.

43.  Holt, MC, pp. 499–500.

44.  For the 1258 oath, see Hey, ‘The oaths of 1258’.

45.  Altamira, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 239–40.

46.  Turner, King and his Courts, pp. 241–3.

47.  RCh, p. 45.

48.  CMS, p. 3. Although the London chronicle where this appears was written in the 1250s, it was here copying from what was a contemporary list of sheriffs. I am indebted for this point to Ian Stone, who is preparing a new edition of Arnold fitzThedmar’s London chronicle.

49.  RLC, p. 64; SC, p. 312; Round, Commune of London, pp. 237–42; ‘London municipal collection’, pp. 507–8; Summerson, ch. 13.

50.  Gervase, ii, pp. 96–7.

51.  Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 438–41; see also Gransden, ‘A democratic movement’.

52.  Hyams, Rancor and Reconciliation, pp. 11, 65, 67, 80; and for later and in a European context see Brunner, Land and Lordship, pp. 36, 43, 63, 66, 81–7, 90.

53.  Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility, pp. 156–9.

54.  Enchiridion, pp. 134–43, with the ‘resistance’ passage between pp. 142 and 143.

55.  Rady, ‘Right of resistance’, argues that the chief concern was not to be accused of infidelity and thus cut off from royal patronage.

56.  Gervase, ii, pp. 97–8.

57.  Bracton, ii, pp. 33, 110; iii, p. 43; iv, pp. 158–9; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 40–41; Brand, ‘Date and authorship’.

58.  RLC, pp. 200, 244; RLP, p. 138; Turner, ‘Simon of Pattishall’, pp. 212–13.

59.  For what follows, see Vincent, ‘Twenty-five barons’.

60.  I have argued for this view, while setting out the whole debate, in my ‘Archbishop Langton’. See Holt, MC, pp. 268–70, 280–87.

61.  See above, p. 259.

62.  ASL, pp. 12–13.

63.  Wendover, pp. 554, 585.

64.  It was in this even-handed spirit that he seems to have offered to excommunicate the barons, if John sent his foreign mercenaries home and the barons then refused to lay down their arms: F, p. 129; Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, p. 1046 note 21. One wonders whether John’s order on 13 March, telling the forces summoned from Poitou that they could go home, followed a request from Langton related to an offer along these lines: RLP, pp. 130–130b.

65.  Although unnamed, he would also have been involved with the grievances of the Welsh under chapter 44.

66.  For the meaning of the clause (25), see Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, p. 1046 note 17. See also n.20 to chapter 11 below.

67.  Baldwin, ‘Master Stephen Langton’, pp. 817–19.

68.  SLI, pp. 201–2.

69.  RLC, p. 146.

70.  Lambeth Palace Library MS 1212, fo. 111. The three were William of Eynsford, William de Ros and Richard of Graveney. See below,p. 384.

71.  I am using here the title of ch. 8 in Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities. For discussion see also Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 139–47

72.  Dialogus, pp. 152–3; Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 260–62; Turner, English Judiciary, p. 262; see above, p. 193.

73.  Baldwin, Masters and Princes, p. 166.

74.  Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, pp. 268–9.

75.  See above, p. 111–12.

76.  Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, pp. 268–9. See above, pp. 151–2.

77.  EHD 1189–1327, pp. 496–7.

78.  Paris, GA, pp. 225–9.

79.  Holt, Northerners, pp. 59–60.

11 Runnymede

1.    RLP, pp. 142b–143.

2.    Holt, MC, pp. 249–50, gives a good description of the topography.

3.    For what follows, Election of Abbot Hugh, pp. 168–73.

4.    Coggeshall, p. 172.

5.    See Holt, MC, p. 476.

6.    RLP, p. 143.

7.    Holt, MC, pp. 244–8.

8.    For what follows, see Hoyt, Royal Demesne, pp. 144–5.

9.    See Articles, chapter 15.

10.  For the copies and how they contain elements of drafts, see above, pp. 19–22. They are fully discussed in my ‘Copies of Magna Carta’.

11.  Galbraith, ‘A draft of Magna Carta’, p. 348; and see above p. 19–20.

12.  Peterborough Dean and Chapter MS 1, on deposit at Cambridge University Library, fos. 7v–74.

13.  Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 60, fo. 226; Cartularies of Peterborough Abbey, p. 6; and see above, p. 20. The cartulary is known as the ‘Black Book’ of Peterborough.

14.  Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Lat. Hist. a.1 (P); Vincent, The Magna Carta, p. 74. Here and in the Peterborough copy ‘consilium nostrum’ evidently means ‘our council’ rather than ‘our counsel’. See above, p. 166. In the Bodleian copy’s version of chapter 48, the malpractices revealed by the investigation of the knights are to be ‘corrected’ – ‘emendentur’. This is a reading from the Articles of the Barons, not Magna Carta, so the copy clearly has elements of a draft.

15.  Another copy of the Charter, that in a late thirteenth-century statute book, omits the need for consent in chapter 12 altogether: TNA E 164/9, fo. 45.

16.  Contrast chapters 25 and 37.

17.  This variant appears in the copy of the Charter in the Peterborough cartulary mentioned above, in the copy in the late thirteenth-century statute book that Galbraith found in the Huntington Library in California (Galbraith, ‘A draft of Magna Carta’) and in a number of other copies. Galbraith dated the statute book to before 1290.

18.  See above, p. 224.

19.  CPR 1247–58, p. 637, for a parallel in 1258.

20.  The interpretation given here of chapter 25 of the Articles is, as Holt puts it (MC, p. 286 and note 102), ‘the obvious construction of the Latin’. If it was intended simply to mean that Langton and the bishops were to decide whether John should have the ‘term’ enjoyed by other crusaders, it was badly drafted. See also Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, p. 1046 and note 17, and for Langton and the Articles see above, pp. 332–5.

21.  See Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 348–9, and Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 172–4.

22.  Smith, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 359. In the light of Smith’s paper, Holt altered what he had written between his first and second editions: contrast MC (1965), p. 193, and MC (1992), p. 288. I think his first formulation is nearer the truth.

23.  Smith, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 361–2, 345–6. See below, p. 393.

24.  Chapter 59; Smith, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 349, 359.

25.  SLI, p. 215.

26.  Duggan, Becket, p. 44. I owe this point to Nicholas Vincent.

27.  Ambler, ‘Kingship and tyranny’, p. 127, and her ‘Peacemakers and partisans’, pp. 140–66.

28.  SC, pp. 117–18, 158; Bisson, ‘An “Unknown Charter” for Catalonia’, p. 211.

29.  RLP, p. 100; Lambeth Palace Library MS 1212, fos. 12v, 107 (a reference I owe to Nicholas Vincent).

30.  See above, p. 317.

31.  See above, pp. 106–7.

32.  Turner, English Judiciary, pp. 168–71.

33.  Klerman, ‘Woman prosecutors in thirteenth-century England’, pp. 295–6; Wilkinson, Women in Thirteenth-Century Lincolnshire, pp. 144–9. In 1202 over seventy appeals were made by women before the justices in Lincolnshire: LAR. pp. lvi, 342 and see nos. 630, 673, 690, 847.

34.  See above, pp. 111–12.

35.  Davis, ‘An unknown charter of liberties’, p. 723, thus thought the clause showed the author was of ‘humble extraction’.

36.  Anonymous, p. 150.

37.  This is printed as a continuation of chapter 37.

38.  APS, pp. 111–12; Duncan, ‘John king of England’, p. 271. See above, p. 121.

39.  For a fuller discussion, see above, p. 120. For fitzWalter’s military role, see ‘London municipal collection’, p. 485.

40.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, p. 361, ch. 45.

41.  See Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’.

42.  In chapter 9.

43.  Paul Brand has kindly commented on the drafting of chapter 39.

44.  It was Henry Summerson who pointed this change out to me.

45.  Sarum Missal, pp. 220–21; Magdalen College Oxford MS 168, fos. 90–92 (Powicke, Stephen Langton, p. 176). I am most grateful to David D’Avray for sending me a commentary on the sermon. For Langton’s sermons, see Roberts, Sermons of Stephen Langton.

46.  See Carpenter, ‘The dating and making of Magna Carta’.

47.  Holt, MC, pp. 250–55; Cheney, ‘The eve of Magna Carta’, pp. 330, 332–3, and Cheney, ‘Twenty-five barons’, p. 280.

48.  RCh, pp. 202–9.

49.  Galbraith, ‘A draft of Magna Carta’.

50.  Holt, MC, pp. 248–9, and Holt, ‘The making of Magna Carta’, p. 230.

51.  RCh, p. 210b.

52.  The second copy retaining the pope is in a late thirteenth-century statute book: TNA E 164/9, fo. 47. The third, which I have only very recently discovered, is in a copy of the beginning and end of the 1215 Charter found in the late fourteenth-century Register of William Cheriton, prior of Llanthony Gloucester: TNA C 115/78, fos. 123–123v. (I am grateful to Jessica Nelson for locating this reference.) As in the Huntington copy, the Charter here is given by John at Windsor on 15 June rather than at Runnymede. The omitted text makes it impossible to know whether the Cheriton and Huntington copies were the same in other ways.

53.  Wendover, p. 603; Anonymous, p. 150.

54.  DBM, pp. 90–91, 103, 113.

55.  Coggeshall, pp. 139–40, 146, 154–6.

56.  Vincent, ed., Episcopal Acta: Winchester, p. 130.

57.  Paris, vi, p. 65. Hubert seems in error in remembering that Earl Ferrers was also there.

58.  I follow here Holt, MC, pp. 481–3, with the text at pp. 490–91.

59.  Holt, MC, p. 263.

60.  RLP, p. 180b; Rowlands, ‘Text and distribution’, p. 1429.

61.  RLP, p. 181.

62.  RLP, p. 150.

63.  Anonymous, p. 150.

64.  Crowland, p. 222.

65.  RLP, pp. 180b, 143b.

66.  For Henry III developing this argument, see Carpenter, Minority, pp. 387–8.

67.  Crowland, p. 221; Paris, HA, ii, p. 159.

68.  RCh, p. 210b.

12 The Enforcement and Failure of the Charter

1.    Basset Charters, no. 238.

2.    RLP, p. 144; for the departure of some of the Flemings, see Anonymous, p. 151.

3.    Enchiridion, p. 142.

4.    RLP, p. 180b; Rowlands, ‘Writ for publication’, p. 1429.

5.    Coggeshall, p. 172.

6.    RLC, pp. 377–377b.

7.    RLP, pp. 144–5.

8.    RLP, pp. 146b, 148b, 149b–150; RLC, pp. 218–218b.

9.    Fox, ‘Originals’, p. 333 and note 2.

10.  RLP, p. 180b; Holt, MC, pp. 494–5.

11.  See below, note 34.

12.  Dunstable, p. 43; Rowlands, ‘Writ for publication’, p. 1428.

13.  For his career, see Vincent, ‘Elyas of Dereham’.

14.  Collins, ‘Documents’, p. 238.

15.  Acta Hugh of Wells, p. 4. I owe this reference to Huw Ridgeway. See also above, p. 230.

16.  RL, pp. 20–22.

17.  For the role of the church in disseminating news, see Maddicott, ‘Politics and the people’, pp. 8–9.

18.  Crowland, p. 222.

19.  Burton, pp. 321–2.

20.  Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, p. 351. See above, p. 19.

21.  But see Clanchy, Memory to Written Record, pp. 220–21.

22.  Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’; DBM, p. 96. I owe the reference to Byland to Sophie Ambler.

23.  See below, p. 432.

24.  Anonymous, pp. 149–50.

25.  BL Add. MSS 32085, fos. 102–106v.

26.  Cheney, ‘Twenty-five barons’.

27.  Cheney, ‘Twenty-five barons’; Holt, MC, pp. 478–80. In the legal volume (BL Harleian 746, f.74), the order is the earls of Clare, Aumale, Essex, Winchester, Hereford, Norfolk, and Oxford, William Marshal junior, Robert fitzWalter, Gilbert de Clare, Eustace de Vescy, the mayor of London, William de Mowbray, Geoffrey de Say, Roger de Montbegon, William of Huntingfield, Robert de Ros, John de Lacy, William d’Aubigné, Richard de Percy, William Malet, John fitzRobert, William de Lanvallei, Hugh Bigod, and Richard de Munfichet.

28.  Strickland, ‘Enforcers of Magna Carta’; Powicke, Stephen Langton, pp. 207–13; Holt, Northerners, p. 110. Painter, Reign of John, pp. 288–90, gives a geographical analysis of the leaders of the revolt.

29.  Cheney, ‘Twenty-five barons’, p. 307; Holt, MC, pp. 478–80.

30.  Wendover, pp. 605–6.

31.  RLP, p. 143b.

32.  For the survival of the letter to the sheriff of Gloucestershire, which was witnessed on 20 June, not 19 June, see Rowlands, ‘Text and distribution’. This may well have been the letter for Engelard, since he was sheriff of both Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. The letter is now in the archives of Hereford cathedral.

33.  RCh, p. 210. The recipients of the letters are analysed in Rowlands, ‘Text and distribution’, pp. 1424–6.

34.  A royal letter of 27 June, discussed below, which was sent to all the sheriffs, was issued following a judgement with which Langton was associated, so it is not unlikely that Dereham was at court at this time, and then received the twelve 19 June letters, as well as his first batch of four Charters. He may also have received the 27 June letter for Hampshire, since one of the 19 June letters was certainly for that county. It is the 27 June letter for Hampshire, translated into French, which is copied, alongside the French translation of the Charter, in the cartulary of Pont Audemar. One suspects, therefore, that the translation likewise was made from the Charter connected with Hampshire, and thus from the Charter (if the arguments advanced above are correct) sent to Winchester cathedral for the Winchester diocese.

35.  Lambeth Palace Library MS 1213, fo. 94.

36.  RLC, p. 216b.

37.  See above, pp. 334–5. There are many references to the Eynsford, Ros and Graveney families in du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury.

38.  RLJ, pp. 179, 180, 182, 207, 210, 211, 217, 219.

39.  BF, pp. 687, 239, 242; CRR, iv, pp. 21, 97; v, pp. 8, 113, 191, 213, 273.

40.  Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury, p. 107; for the long-running dispute between Becket and Henry II over the overlordship of Ros’s seven fees, see Barlow, Becket, pp. 83, 89, 136, 193, 196, 213.

41.  PR 1212, p. 15.

42.  Barlow, Becket, pp. 93–4, 111; Warren, Henry II, pp. 457–8, 478 note 1.

43.  RLC, pp. 234, 235b, 237b, 295, 325; Gervase, ii, p. 110. In the 1220s, probably through the influence of Hubert de Burgh, Eynsford became briefly a steward of the royal household.

44.  For elections in the county court, see above, pp. 133–4.

45.  RLP, p. 145b; Holt, ‘Vernacular-French text’, p. 364. The writ sent to Kent is copied in Lambeth Palace Library MS 1213, fo. 195.

46.  Crowland, p. 222; Coggeshall, p. 173; Wendover, p. 606.

47.  See below, pp. 448–9.

48.  F, p. 134.

49.  Crowland, p. 222; PR 1215, p. 10.

50.  RLP, pp. 143b–145b; RLC, pp. 215–18; the figures here come from Holt, MC, pp. 360–61.

51.  RLC, p. 215.

52.  RLC, p. 218.

53.  RLC, p. 216b; RCh, pp. 29, 186b; Stringer, Earl David, pp. 49–50.

54.  RLP, p. 17b; PR 1209, p. 190.

55.  RLC, p. 216b.

56.  RLC, pp. 216b, 217; for other ‘ifs’, see RLC, pp. 215b, 216.

57.  RLC, p. 215. I think this letter does imply that Salisbury was not present at Runnymede, despite John putting him down in the Charter as one of his counsellors. Anonymous, p. 149, suggests the same, but see Holt, ‘Making of Magna Carta’, pp. 237–8.

58.  RLC, pp. 216, 216b.

59.  Holt, MC, p. 490; Crowland, p. 221, whose view was that Geoffrey had no claim save that his father, Geoffrey fitzPeter, enjoyed custody of the Tower as John’s justiciar.

60.  RLP, p. 139b; RLC, p. 215; Holt, MC, pp. 431–2.

61.  Tilley, ‘Magna Carta and the honour of Wallingford’.

62.  Holt, MC, pp. 499–500 (discovered by H. G. Richardson).

63.  Wendover, p. 606 (where the council was to meet at Westminster, which is most unlikely); Melrose, fo. 31v; Coggeshall, p. 172.

64.  RLC, pp. 215, 339b, 614b; RLP, pp. 43b, 44, 106, 122; MR 1208, p. 138, no. 70.

65.  RLC, p. 221b.

66.  Smith, ‘Treaty of Lambeth’, p. 577 note 11; RLP, p. 145.

67.  RLC, p. 223.

68.  RLP, p. 149. The place of the letter is given as between Newbury and Abingdon. It is very unusual for John’s instruments not to be dated to a specific place.

69.  Richardson, ‘Morrow of the Great Charter’ and ‘Morrow of the Great Charter: addendum’. For Holt’s critique, see MC, pp. 484–9, which goes much too far, in my view, in reducing the importance of the council.

70.  PR 1215, p. 10.

71.  RLP, p. 149.

72.  RLC, pp. 221b, 222b.

73.  RLP, p. 141; Crowland, p. 225; Dunstable, p. 45.

74.  RLP, pp. 149b–50.

75.  RLP, p. 151; Painter, Reign of John, p. 332.

76.  RLP, p. 150; Smith, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 361–2, 345–6. Llywelyn had still not obtained the release of all his hostages as required by the Charter: RLP, p. 151. During the council envoys were probably also received from King Alexander, since his letter of credence for them (RLP, p. 150) was enrolled just before the letter of conduct for the Welsh rulers.

77.  F, p. 134 (RLC, p. 269). See above, p. 387.

78.  RCh, pp. 213–15.

79.  Anonymous, p. 151; Gillingham, ‘Anonymous’, p. 43; Wendover, p. 611.

80.  RLP, pp. 150–50b.

81.  Holt, MC, pp. 499–500, from Richardson, ‘Morrow of the Great Charter’, p. 443.

82.  Melrose, fo. 31v.

83.  RLP, pp. 150–150b.

84.  SLI, pp. 217–19.

85.  SLI, p. 217 note 1.

86.  Anonymous, pp. 151–2.

87.  RLP, pp. 147, 148; Anonymous, p. 151.

88.  RLP, pp. 144–50; Jenkinson, ‘Jewels lost in the Wash’, pp. 163–4.

89.  RLC, p. 218.

90.  RLP, pp. 152b, 153b.

91.  Crowland, pp. 222–3; RLP, p. 153.

92.  SLI, pp. 207–9; The bull ‘Miramur plurimum’, pp. 91–2.

93.  Crowland, p. 224; Southwark and Merton, p. 50; Coggeshall, p. 173.

94.  The bull ‘Miramur plurimum’, pp. 90–93.

95.  Crowland, pp. 224–5; RLP, pp. 154b, 155.

96.  F, p. 75.

97.  Crowland, pp. 224–5; Coggeshall, p. 176; F, p. 140.

98.  F, p. 104.

99.  Southern, ‘England’s first entry into Europe’, pp. 147–9; see, however, Holt, ‘Magna Carta, 1215–1217’, pp. 292–3.

100. SLI, pp. 212–16.

101. Norgate, John Lackland, p. 248.

102. Baldwin, Masters and Princes, i, p. 166; Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, p. 1042.

103. The whole story is told in Rowlands, ‘King John’.

104. Coggeshall, pp. 174–5; RLC, p. 228; RLP, pp. 138, 181; Wendover, p. 606.

105. RLP, pp. 154b–155.

106. Galbraith, Studies in the Public Records, pp. 136, 161–2.

107. F, pp. 136, 137; Holt, Northerners, p. 1.

108. Holt, MC, pp. 499–500, from a discovery by H. G. Richardson.

109. Smith, ‘Treaty of Lambeth’, p. 577 note 15.

110. APS, p. 108; Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, pp. 115–18.

111. Crowland, pp. 225–6.

112. F, p. 140.

13 The Revival of the Charter, 1216–1225

1.    For the military events, see McGlynn, Blood Cries Afar.

2.    Church, Household Knights, pp. 104–8.

3.    APS, pp. 108, 110, 112; Melrose, fo. 33; Coggeshall, p. 183; Anonymous, p. 179; Stringer, ‘Alexander II: the war of 1215–1217’. The source for John’s remark is Paris, p. 642.

4.    Warren, King John, pp. 278–85; Holt, ‘King John’s disaster in the Wash’.

5.    Guala, no. 140b.

6.    RLP, p. 199; CChR, p. 172.

7.    Coggeshall, pp. 183–4. Coggeshall was a daughter house of Savigny.

8.    F, p. 192; Church, ‘King John’s testament’, pp. 516–17; Worcester, pp. 391–2, 395. For a wider context see Draper, ‘King John and St Wulfstan’, and Mason, ‘St Wulfstan’s staff’.

9.    Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 435–6.

10.  Latin texts and translations of the Charters of 1216, 1217 and 1225, and of the Forest Charters of 1217 and 1225, are in SR, pp. 14–27, and translations in EHD 1189–1327, pp. 327–49. Text and translations will appear in due course on the website of the Magna Carta Project.

11.  PR 1216–25, p. 22. For what follows see Carpenter, Minority, pp. 31–5.

12.  Political Songs, p. 22.

13.  PR 1215, p. 14; Carpenter, Minority, p. 29.

14.  Crowland, p. 236; Guala, pp. xli–ii (Vincent’s introduction).

15.  Apart from the Marshal, they were Hubert de Burgh, now with his title of justiciar, Matthew fitzHerbert, John Marshal, Alan Basset and Philip d’Aubigné.

16.  The change had some significance when it came to deciding who had the right to the crops and stock at the point the wardship ended.

17.  See Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’. A specially worded engrossment of the 1216 Charter, known from a now destroyed copy, was sent to Ireland. It is collated with the Durham engrossment is SR, pp. 14–16. The copy in an Abingdon cartularly (Abingdon, ii, p. 283, no.C355) turns out to be the Charter of 1217.

18.  Layettes, pp. 434–7; Guala, p. 29.

19.  Gervase, ii, p. 111.

20.  All four are illustrated in Vincent, The Magna Carta, pp. 61–4.

21.  RA, pp. 148–9, and plate XIX.

22.  SR, p. 16.

23.  Illustrated in Vincent, The Magna Carta, p. 75, and in an engraving in SR.

24.  Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’. There are no known copies of the Forest Charter or Magna Carta with a 14 or 15 November date. Many have no date at all.

25.  Lawlor, ‘An unnoticed Charter’, p. 525; Guala, pp. 30–31; the charters with Marsh as the giver are usually hybrids combining elements from 1217 and 1225.

26.  RL, pp. 180–81. From the time of his appointment as bishop of Durham in 1217, down to his death in 1226, Marsh was largely a titular chancellor (though taking the revenues of office), and the work was done by Neville.

27.  I have not, however, discovered a copy of the 1217 Magna Carta where the ‘givers’ are Guala and the Marshal as opposed to Marsh, but one may come to light. See Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’.

28.  For the tourn and frankpledge, see above, pp. 178–80.

29.  F, p. 89. See above, p. 133.

30.  Melrose, fo. 36.

31.  RLC, p. 377b; see above, pp. 4–5. The enrolled letter is to the sheriff of Yorkshire but it probably went to the other sheriffs as well.

32.  RLC, p. 378; Vincent, The Magna Carta, pp. 61–4.

33.  Wendover, pp. 75–6; Carpenter, Minority, pp. 295–7.

34.  Norgate, Minority, pp. 225–6; Anonymous, p. 173; RLC, p. 139b.

35.  Carpenter, Minority, p. 389, explains why, in the event, Henry entered full power in January 1227 actually before he was twenty-one.

36.  For example in 1264, DBM, pp. 268–9.

37.  C&S, p. 162.

38.  See above, pp. 349–51.

39.  Carpenter, ‘Cerne abbey Magna Carta’. The abbot of Cerne was one of the witnesses. For the assembly that granted the tax, see Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 106–8.

40.  C&S, pp. 137–8, 206–7.

41.  Blackstone, Great Charter, pp. 27–59; Thompson, Magna Carta, p. 148.

42.  Enchiridion, p. 142.

43.  See below, p. 445.

44.  In the 1236 Statute of Merton: CR 1234–7, p. 338.

45.  See above, pp. 151–2.

46.  Chapters 32 and 36 in 1225, and chapters 39 and 43 in 1217.

47.  Chapter 21 in 1225 and chapter 26 in 1217. The use of ‘knights’ in a sense which would seem to include barons is also found in chapter 10 of the Unknown Charter.

48.  See above, pp. 185–6.

49.  All four surviving engrossments of the 1217 Charter have ‘or his bailiff’ – ‘ballivus suus’. However, the Durham and Lacock abbey engrossments of the 1225 Charter omit the ‘suus’, whereas the other two retain it. I do not think this is significant.

50.  CR 1231–4, pp. 592–3, 588–9; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 49–50.

51.  Another change that might seem to buck the baronial trend was that made to Magna Carta 1215’s chapter 28 (19 in 1225) about the seizure of corn and other chattels without payment by constables and baliffs. From 1216 the constables and baliffs were no longer specified as those of the king.

52.  Carpenter, Minority, pp. 90–91, 168–9.

53.  Glanvill, p. 59; Bracton, ii, p. 265; Biancalana, ‘Widows at common law’, pp. 277–84; Loengard, ‘What did Magna Carta mean to widows?’, pp. 148–9, and her ‘Rationabilis Dos’, pp. 66–8.

54.  For what follows, see above, pp. 111–13.

55.  Chapters 16 and 35 in 1217, chapters 14 and 29 in 1225.

56.  See ‘Magna Carta repeals’.

14 Did Magna Carta Make a Difference?

1.    I am grateful to Paul Brand for commenting on a draft of the chapter.

2.    SR, p. 28; CChR, pp. 225–6.

3.    Holt, MC, p. 394.

4.    Poole, ‘Publication of Charters’, pp. 451–2, touches briefly on this subject. For a recent discussion of the dissemination of information, see Maddicott, ‘Politics and the people’.

5.    RLC, p. 377b; RLC, ii, pp. 70, 73b; Wendover, pp. 91–2; Crowland, p. 256; Carpenter, Minority, pp. 73–4, 383–4.

6.    CR 1254–6, pp. 194–5; DBM, pp. 312–15.

7.    EHD 1189–1327, pp. 485–8, 496–7.

8.    Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’.

9.    Burton, p. 322; Rishanger, p. 405. For proclamations in English in 1258, see DBM, pp. 116–23; EHD 1189–1327, pp. 367–70.

10.  Vincent, The Magna Carta, pp. 49–71.

11.  Burton, p. 322; C&S, p. 851; CCR 1272–9, p. 582; Maddicott, ‘Politics and the people’, p. 9; Thompson, First Century, pp. 96–7.

12.  See Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’. I plan there to update the figures given below. I am most grateful to Paul Brand and Susan Reynolds for sharing their knowledge of copies with me.

13.  Most of these are accompanied by the Forest Charter.

14.  Hotot Estate Records, pp. 14, 32.

15.  Reynolds, ‘Magna Carta 1297’.

16.  Carpenter, ‘Copies of Magna Carta’; Lawlor, ‘An unnoticed Charter’. For a printed example, Guisborough, pp. 162–79.

17.  Carpenter, ‘Cerne abbey Magna Carta’.

18.  Holt, ‘St Albans chroniclers’; Reynolds, ‘Magna Carta 1297’, p. 241 and note 54; Carpenter, ‘Matthew Paris and the Chronica Majora’, p. 7 note 43.

19.  SR, pp. 28–31; Vincent, The Magna Carta, p. 78.

20.  It was copied at St Albans, however: Wendover, pp. 616–20.

21.  Paris, v, pp. 520–21; Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 198–9.

22.  Thompson, First Century, p. 65.

23.  RL, pp. 20–22; Carpenter, Minority, pp. 73–4, 102–3.

24.  RL, pp. 151–2; Carpenter, Minority, pp. 210–11.

25.  CRR, x, p. 7. For references to what may or may not be the same man, see RLC, p. 333; CRR, viii, pp. 179, 236, 254; CRR, xi, no. 1019.

26.  CRR, xi, nos. 2142, 2312; RLC, ii, pp. 153–4, 212–13; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 33–4.

27.  Thompson, First Century, ch. 4, with the figures on p. 64. The subject will be explored more fully by Paul Brand in a forthcoming paper.

28.  CRR, xvi, no. 136C.

29.  Nichols, ‘An early fourteenth-century petition’; Razi and Smith, eds., Medieval Society, pp. 179–80; for another example of knowledge of the Charter at the peasant level, see Thompson, Magna Carta, p. 71.

30.  For what follows, see Thompson, First Century, ch. 4; Holt, MC, ch. 11; Carpenter, Minority, ch. 12; and most especially Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’.

31.  The ‘henceforth’ is only found in the Durham engrossment.

32.  CRR, xii, no. 2646; xiv, no. 751; for litigation in the minority in general, see Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 26–9.

33.  CFR 1231–2, no. 94; Clasby, ‘The abbot of St Albans’; CChR, pp. 99–100.

34.  Carpenter, ‘Archbishop Langton’, pp. 1062–4; and for fitzAlan, CFR 1256–7, no. 934.

35.  PR 1219, p. 43; PR 1222, p. 168 (as Margaret de Cressy). The subject of what happened to the fines made by widows under John has been explored by Abigail Armstrong in a King’s College London MA essay.

36.  Paris, iv, p. 385. For Henry’s itinerary, see Kanter, ‘Peripatetic and sedentary kingship’, pp. 22–6.

37.  Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward’, ‘Henry III and the “aliens” ’ and his ‘Foreign favourites’.

38.  EHD 1189–1327, pp. 359–67; DBM, pp. 96–113.

39.  DBM, p. 81, chs. 4–6; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, ch. 14.

40.  Carpenter, ‘Magna Carta 1253’, p. 182.

41.  See above, p. 208.

42.  Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 171–4; Cassidy, ‘Bad sheriffs, custodial sheriffs’. In fact the salary plan never really functioned, and the solution from 1259 was to reduce the size of the increments.

43.  DBM, pp. 275–7.

44.  DBM, pp. 108–9, 155. For the sheriffs of the period of reform, see Ridgeway, ‘Sheriffs of the baronial regime’.

45.  DBM, pp. 146–7, ch. 21; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 47–8; Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, pp. 81–2.

46.  Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 48–61, and for the weakness of Henry’s rule that allowed such oppression, see Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, ch. 5.

47.  See above, pp. 185–6.

48.  Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, pp. 43–53.

49.  DBM, pp. 138–43; Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, pp. 42–53, 87–90, 295–301; see above, p. 426.

50.  DBM, pp. 142–5, chs. 9 and 10; Brand, Kings, Barons, and Justices, pp. 54–7.

51.  DBM, pp. 99, 115, 131–7, 160–63; Special Eyre, pp. lii–lxiii (Andrew Hershey’s introduction.)

52.  Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, ch. 5.

53.  For these changes, see above, pp. 129–37, 144–5.

54.  Burton, p. 471.

55.  Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, p. 176.

56.  SCWR, p. 43; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 309 and 325–39, for what follows.

57.  The reforms of 1258–9 did nothing, however, to overturn the legal disabilities of villeinage. See, for example, the case of the villeins of Bampton in Oxfordshire in SCWR, p. 106.

58.  DBM, pp. 134–5; FH, ii, pp. 426–7.

59.  Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices, pp. 77–82, 87–90.

60.  RH, ii, p. 485.

61.  DBM, pp. 116–19; EHD 1189–1327, pp. 367–8.

62.  Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, is the classic biography.

63.  Eleanor is brought alive for the first time in Wilkinson, Eleanor de Montfort.

64.  DBM, pp. 312–13; SR, table of contents XV; Ambler, ‘Magna Carta 1265’.

65.  CR 1264–8, p. 100.

66.  For the way his episcopal supporters justified the revolution, see Ambler, ‘The Montfortian bishops’. Jobson, First English Revolution, provides an excellent narrative of the period.

67.  Maddicott, Parliament, pp. 210–18 and ch. 5.

68.  Chapters 19 and 21 in 1225; efo chapters 28 and 30 in 1215.

69.  EHD 1189–1327, nos. 74 and 85, ch. 2.

70.  DBM, no. 36C.

71.  For how fair the accusations were, see Howell, Regalian Right, p. 145, and Harvey, Episcopal Appointments, pp. 76–88.

72.  Paris, v, p. 738; Hershey, ‘William de Bussey’.

73.  DBM, pp. 270–5; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 54–61; Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 30–6, 98–106; Moore, ‘Thorrington dispute’; Special Eyre, pp. liv–lxiii. Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, ch. 2, questions Holt’s hypothesis that baronial litigation went through more smoothly after 1215.

74.  RL, ii, p. 102.

75.  DBM, pp. 108–9, ch. 18; pp. 270–71, ch. 2; C&S, p. 543, ch. 24; Waugh, ‘Origins of the articles of the escheator’; Thompson, Magna Carta, p. 19. For examples of procedure other than by letters patent, see CFR 1270–71, no. 408; CFR 1271–2, nos. 123, 136.

76.  Mirror, p. 178. For the question of date and authorship see Maitland’s beautifully written introduction. The Mirror of Justices is an imaginative work and no guide to precise law, but it can make interesting and acute observations.

77.  ERW, pp. lv, 63; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 53–4; RH, i, p. 169.

78.  Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 36–40; DBM, pp. 80–81, no. 9; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 518–19, 534–7, 548.

79.  CR 1231–4, pp. 592–3, 588–9.

80.  CRR, xvi, nos. 31, 46, 112.

81.  Northumberland Pleas, pp. 163–4; Cassidy, ‘William Heron’. See also DBM, pp. 126–9, ch. 16, where again the charter is misinterpreted.

82.  Special Eyre, pp. xlix, li, lii, lv, lvii, lix, and nos. 56, 74, 76, 129 (for the Lucy wardship), 152, 173, 312, 340.

83.  Examples are brought together by Julia Barrow in Hereford Acta, pp. 43–7.

84.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 359.

85.  Letters of Grosseteste, pp. 253–4.

86.  F, pp. 289–90; Carpenter, ‘Magna Carta 1253’. New light will be thrown on this subject by Felicity Hill’s doctoral thesis on excommunication and Magna Carta.

87.  Thompson, First Century, p. 64.

88.  EHD 1189–1327, p. 485, ch. 1.

89.  ERW, p. 363; for writs available, see also Thompson, Magna Carta, pp. 42–51.

90.  ERW, lv, p. 63; Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, pp. 53–4; Thompson, Magna Carta, pp. 44–6.

91.  Mirror, p. 176.

92.  Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, pp. 20–22, 92–100.

93.  For the difficulties of procedure by writ, see Hershey, ‘Justice and bureaucracy’.

94.  DBM, pp. 162–3, ch. 7; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, p. 96, ch. 20, p. 98, ch. 11.

95.  Northumberland Assize Rolls, pp. 163–4.

96.  Paris, GA, p. 340; EHD 1189–1327, p. 497.

97.  DBM, pp. 150–55, chs. 5 and 20.

98.  CCR 1272–9, p. 582.

99.  DBM, pp. 150–51, ch. 6.

100. Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 33, here about Lincolnshire.

101. DBM, no. 37C; Stacey, ‘Crusades, Crusaders’, pp. 138–42.

102. Howell, Regalian Right, pp. 142–6, where the emphasis is on the exploitation.

103. Harvey, Episcopal Appointments, pp. 97–8, and more generally pp. 76–99; Huscroft, ‘Robert Burnel’, pp. 85–6.

104. For significant early examples, see Carpenter, Minority, pp. 63, 191, 197, 204. There are occasional exceptions that I hope to write about elsewhere. They are sometimes explained by the heir buying himself out of a period of wardship or purchasing the king’s stock in the manor. There were occasions when Henry III levied scutage at 3 marks a fee, the same rate as in 1214, and thus could be deemed to be in breach of the 1217/1225 Charter’s stipulation that scutage should be taken as under Henry II. However he secured consent for such levies: Mitchell, Taxation, pp. 186, 191, 232, 248 note 90, 285 note 142.

105. Waugh, Lordship of England, p. 86.

106. CFR 1218–19, no. 367.

107. CPR 1232–47, p. 352.

108. Waugh, Lordship of England, pp. 159–60, where the decline in the number and value of fines for permission to marry freely is also set out. See discussion in Ray, ‘The lady is not for turning’; Annesley, ‘The impact of Magna Carta on widows’; Carpenter, ‘Hubert de Burgh, Matilda de Mowbray’.

109. Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 420–21; Paris, v, p. 336; Annesley, ‘Isabella countess of Arundel’.

110. The eventual practice was simply to take an oath from the widow not to marry without the king’s licence: CFR 1255–6, no. 627; Waugh, Lordship of England, pp. 116–7.

111. Coss, The Lady, pp. 121–3; CR 1242–7, p. 61. Between 1236 and 1258 the fine rolls have a dozen fines imposed for having married women without the king’s licence.

112. CFR 1226–7, no. 125.

113. Biancalana, ‘Widows at common law’, pp. 284–8, 313–16; Loengard, ‘What did Magna Carta mean to widows?’, pp. 149–50.

114. Klerman, ‘Women prosecutors in thirteenth-century England’; Stewart, ed., 1263 Surrey Eyre, p. cx; Klerman, ‘Settlement and decline of private prosecution’.

115. Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 79–80.

116. Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, pp. 38–42.

117. The disseisins consequent on the reforms in 1236 to the running of royal manors were quickly reversed: Stacey, Politics, Policy, pp. 101–3. See also Carpenter, ‘Robert de Ros’.

118. Carpenter, ‘Roger Mortimer’.

119. For what follows, see Holt, MC, pp. 332–3; Harcourt, ‘Amercement of barons’; Carpenter, ‘Robert de Ros’, pp. 7–9.

120. Bracton, ii, p. 330.

121. PRO E 370/1/6, m. 2. I am grateful to Paul Dryburgh and Jessica Nelson for transcribing this for me.

122. CRR, vi, pp. 289–90; CFR 1255–6, no. 657.

123. Carpenter, ‘Magna Carta 1253’, p. 186.

124. Holt, MC, pp. 332–3; Bracton, ii, pp. 330; Carpenter, ‘Robert de Ros’ and ‘Magna Carta 1253’.

125. Brand, Origins of the Legal Profession, p. 24.

126. Musson, ‘Local administration of justice’; Kanter, ‘The four knights’ system’; CFR 1256–7; RF, pp. 371–464.

127. Mirror, p. 179; Clanchy, ‘Magna Carta, clause 34’, pp. 543–4; Thompson, Magna Carta, pp. 49–51.

128. Carpenter, Minority, pp. 392–3; Maddicott, ‘Edward I and the lessons of baronial reform’, pp. 26–7.

129. Williams, From Commune to Capital, pp. 207–8, 255–60.

130. MGL, i, pp. 500–502; John of Wallingford, p. 131; Thompson, First Century, p. 39.

131. Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, pp. 108–9; Fleta, pp. 103–4.

132. For what follows, see Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 143–5.

133. Walter of Henley, pp. 310–11; Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 476 note 2; Razi and Smith, eds., Medieval Society, p. 49; SPMC, p. 44.

134. Bracton, ii, p. 34; Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, p. 143.

135. ERW, pp. lv, 63; but see Fleta, p. 103.

136. Nichols, ‘Early fourteenth-century petition’, p. 306. Since the Charter actually had amercements, other than for earls and barons, assessed by the men of the neighbourhood, rather than explicitly by peers, the peasants may also have been influenced here by the Statute of Westminster of 1275, which stipulated judgement by peers for everyone including villeins: EHD 1181–1827, p. 399, ch. 6.

137. Hyams, King, Lords and Peasants, pp. 144–5.

138. Mirror, p. 177, and see p. 79.

139. I have calculated the 1207–8 and 1256–7 figures myself. The other figures were calculated by Beth Hartland and Paul Dryburgh, ‘Development of the fine rolls’, 194–5: see CFR 1224–34, pp. vii–ix; CFR 1234–42, pp. xii–xiii. For the fines to recover the king’s grace and benevolence between 1236 and 1258, see CFR 1235–6, no. 152; CFR 1250–1, nos. 359, 822; CFR 1256–7, no.894; CFR 1257–8, no. 37. I have not included the dozen fines for having married women (mostly widows) without the king’s licence. Their total value was only £746. The largest was the 500 marks imposed on John de Grey for having married the widow of Paulinus Peyvr: CFR 1250–1, no. 1213. The £500 fine in 1257 was made by John de Balliol. For Henry’s treatment of him and Robert de Ros, one of the few occasions when he acted like King John, see Carpenter, ‘Robert de Ros’. For the general nature of Henry III’s personal rule see Carpenter, Reign of Henry III, ch.5.

140. Carpenter, ‘English royal chancery’, pp. 54–5.

141. Carpenter, Minority, pp. 206, 210–11.

142. Mitchell, Taxation, pp. 186, 191, 208–9, 241–2, 253–4.

143. EHD 1189–1327, p. 486, ch. 6.

144. Stacey, ‘Parliamentary negotiation’.

Glossary of Terms

1.    I have found particularly helpful John Hudson’s Glossary in his Formation of the English Common Law, pp. 240–48.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!