Sunday 17 August 1264: the Peace of Canterbury, and a hanging

Posted on 17 August 2014 by Richard Cassidy

This week, Henry III and his court moved from St Paul’s, where they had been based since the end of May, to Canterbury. This brought the king and his keepers closer to the great army preparing to resist invasion by the queen’s forces. It was also more convenient for the diplomatic exchanges taking place across the Channel, with the king of France and the papal legate.

The legate and Louis were displeased because no negotiators had appeared to meet them in Boulogne. The legate delivered a lengthy public denunciation of the baronial regime in the church of Boulogne on 12 August. He demanded that he should be allowed entry to England by the beginning of September, under threat of excommunication of the barons and their supporters. The legate’s terms allowed little room for compromise: Henry was to be restored to power, the hostages freed, and the Provisions of Oxford abandoned. (Heidemann, register nos. 19 and 20)

It was plain that the legate was firmly opposed to the baronial government. It was also clear that Louis would have no part in the proposed arbitration under the Mise of Lewes. Simon de Montfort’s government responded on 15 August by sending to Louis and the legate the Peace of Canterbury. This document was an expanded version of the ordinance adopted by the June parliament. It set out the arrangements for government by council, in the absence of progress on the Mise of Lewes. One significant difference was that it was now stated that the constitutional arrangements would last throughout Henry’s reign and until some unspecified point in the reign of Edward. The Montfortian government for the first time made a public claim to a long-term role, and considered the prospect of dealing with another king who would be just as hostile and much more forceful. The Peace of Canterbury also re-stated the commitment to the Charters and the Provisions. It somewhat weakened the former hostility to aliens, who would be allowed to enter or leave the country freely (although the councillors, castellans and royal officials should always be natives). Louis was asked to examine and approve the Peace, and cause it to be accepted by the royalist exiles. (DBM, 294-301; CPR 1258-66, 366)

The legate did not delay in delivering his reaction. He wrote to Henry on 16 August, rejecting the Peace, and to the bishops of England on 17 August, again dismissing a settlement which replaced one king with three councillors, and exposed England to dangers and schisms. The bishops were again summoned to appear before him. (Heidemann, register nos. 21-3)

Initial C for Crimen, from BL Royal 6 E VI, S.E. England, c. 1360-75.

Initial C for Crimen, from BL Royal 6 E VI, S.E. England, c. 1360-75.

Away from these momentous events, there was an odd item recorded in the patent roll this week. Juetta de Balsham had been sentenced to hang for receiving thieves. She had been hanged from the ninth hour of Monday until sunrise of the Tuesday following, as appeared on trustworthy testimony, and lived. She was to be pardoned. Such survivals were not unknown. They could be attributed to a miracle, as in the case of the hanged man saved by St Thomas Cantilupe, or to incompetence or collusion. (CPR 1258-66, 342; Robert Bartlett, The Hanged Man, for an account of a miracle; Henry Summerson, ‘Attitudes to capital punishment in England, 1200-1350’, Thirteenth Century England VIII, for instances of recovery from hanging.)

Sunday 10 August: the bishops and the legate

Posted on 10 August 2014 by Richard Cassidy

Henry III spent another week in London, but the attention of the government which ruled in his name was concentrated on the coasts of France and England. The great popular army to resist the threatened invasion was mustering in Kent. According to one chronicler, there was such a multitude of mounted and foot soldiers gathered at Harbledown, near Canterbury, that you would not have believed there were so many in England. There was a further summons for the sheriffs of Cambridgeshire and Essex to ensure that their counties provided armed men for the defence of the coast; those who failed to come were to be imprisoned. The army which had been called out to defend the coasts had already been serving for a long time, beyond the customary period of service, and they were assured that this would not be regarded as establishing a precedent. A letter in Henry’s name was sent to the archbishop of Rheims and other councillors of the king of France, asking them to use their influence to prevent the levying of troops in France for the invasion. The letter drew attention to the possible danger this would pose to the hostages, lord Edward and Henry of Almain. (Rishanger, 36; CPR 1258-66, 364-5, 340; Royal Letters, II, 268-9)

Two bishops, from BL Royal 2 B VI, a psalter and canticles from St Albans, c. 1246-60

Two bishops, from BL Royal 2 B VI, a psalter and canticles from St Albans, c. 1246-60

The English clergy were also participating in the national mobilization, some by providing their customary military service for their lands, some by contributing a levy of one-tenth of their revenues (and in the case of Dunstable priory, apparently both). It seems that this had been decided by a council of prelates and magnates. This may have been the same council of bishops and magnates, reported in only one chronicle, where the bishop of Worcester set out the case for the new regime; as spokesman for the bishops, he formally rejected any attempt by the legate to impose excommunication or interdict. A further council early in August (before 11 August, when the bishop of Exeter sent a mandate for collection of a levy) involved both prelates and the lower clergy, who agreed that the religious and the beneficed clergy should give a tenth of their spiritual income. (Councils & Synods, II, I, 694-9; Ann Mon, III, 233; Gervase, II, 239-42)

The legate, if he knew of the bishop of Worcester’s statement, was unimpressed. He was certainly displeased by the way in which the English government had treated his messengers, refusing them entry and confiscating their letters. The government feared the importation of papal letters condemning their seizure of power. Monks from Fountains abbey were only allowed to attend a general chapter of the Cistercian order on condition that they did not bring back anything prejudicial. The legate’s  response was proclaimed publicly, in the church at Amiens, on 3 or 4 August. As the legate was not allowed into England, he summoned the bishops to Boulogne. The clerical and secular negotiations were thus coming together, with the legate arriving in Boulogne on 9 August and Louis IX on 10 August, both waiting for a response from England. (CPR 1258-66, 340; Heidemann, register entries 17-19)

The government made yet more attempts to establish its authority over the northern royalists. It ordered its supporters in the north to cease harassing the royalist leaders, so that they would not have that excuse for refusing to come to the king. It then enlisted the bishop and prior of Durham and the abbot of St Mary’s, York, to ensure safe conduct for the northern magnates who were ordered to come to London. As usual, these instructions were ignored. At least one of the northerners who had fought for the king at Lewes, Robert de Brus, was still held captive; his son was given safe conduct to come to England to arrange for his father’s release. (CPR 1258-66, 364, 339-40; Royal Letters, II, 269-70)

Sunday 3 August 1264: the legate and negotiations

Posted on 3 August 2014 by Richard Cassidy
Pope Clement IV and Charles of Anjou

Pope Clement IV and Charles of Anjou

This week, Simon de Montfort’s government was mostly concerned with events across the Channel, where queen Eleanor was amassing an invasion force, the king of France was being enlisted as arbiter, and the papal legate had reached the north of France and begun to take an active role in support of the royal cause. The legate, Guy de Foulquois, a Provençal cardinal, was later to become pope as Clement IV. He had been appointed legate in November 1263, at Henry III’s request, with the general object of restoring the king’s authority and suppressing baronial rebellion. The baronial government was naturally suspicious of the legate, who was closely associated with Louis IX. In addition, the papacy had previously shown itself hostile, in 1261 assisting Henry’s return to power by issuing a papal bull releasing him from his oath to observe the Provisions of Oxford.  According to a note in one source, from Ramsey abbey, the government at the end of July announced that it had prohibited the importation and publication of sentences of excommunication and interdict against those who observed the Provisions; it even decreed the unusual penalty of beheading for anyone who disobeyed this ban. (Councils & Synods, II, I, 693-4; Gilson, ‘Parliament of 1264’, EHR 1901)

The legate’s attempts to open negotiations with the government were repeatedly rebuffed. The government’s attitude was demonstrated early in July when the legate’s messenger, a friar, brother Alan, was detained at Dover. Alan reported that he was searched, and all his letters were seized. He was told that if he brought in a letter harmful to the kingdom, he would lose his life. Unsurprisingly, Alan advised the legate against attempting to come to England in person. Around the end of July, while the legate was in Amiens, he received a letter from the barons. This said that the legate could not enter England without invitation, but that negotiations might begin in Boulogne. It also asked the legate to prevent the king of France providing financial support for the planned invasion. The legate replied on 2 or 3 August that he could not help: the money had already been paid. (Heidemann, Papst Clemens IV, register entries 5-14)

The government continued to be greatly concerned with the arrangements for defence against a foreign invasion. The sheriff of Essex was told not to distrain the vicar of Coggeshall to contribute to the support of the four or six men of the town who were supposed to be sent to London, with 40 days’ expenses. The sheriff of Kent was not to force the men of Greenwich to join the land forces assembled near Dover, because they were more useful at sea, guarding the Thames and Medway against alien incursions. There were elaborate arrangements limiting the amount of trade, particularly wine imports, permitted through the major ports. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 391-5)

The king wrote to Simon de Montfort and Gilbert de Clare concerning negotiations with the king of France. Messengers were to be sent to Boulogne, and the king himself was to go to Dover. Lord Edward and Henry of Almain had been sent from Wallingford to Kenilworth, but should also be present at Dover. Letters in Henry III’s name were also sent to the king of France, and to Charles of Anjou, stressing the threat of invasion, and the danger to lord Edward and Henry of Almain, as hostages.  Henry asked that the proposed negotations at Boulogne should be postponed from 8 to 17 August, provided delegates were given safe conduct. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 396-7; Royal Letters, II, 262-6)

Royal ceremonial was being maintained, even if finances were precarious. The revenues from towns, manors and vacant bishoprics were being paid into the Wardrobe, rather than the Exchequer. The exchanges provided the cash needed to buy twelve gold pieces and 36 gold obols for the king’s annual offering on 1 August, the feast of St Peter’s Chains. (CLR 1260-67, 138-9)

Sunday 27 July 1264: heirs, courts and ships

Posted on 27 July 2014 by Richard Cassidy

The fine rolls record a transaction this week which shows both the continuation of the normal mechanisms concerning inheritance, and the way in which de Montfort’s regime used its position of power to reward supporters. Alfred of Lincoln was a member of a gentry family, long established in Dorset and Somerset (he was the fifth with the same, rather confusing, name). Alfred had succeeded his father, Alfred IV, in 1240, when he paid a relief of £100. Alfred V died in 1264, without male heirs, and his estates were divided between his three sisters, or their heirs. On 11 July, the fine roll recorded that the king had taken homage from the three heirs: Albreda of Lincoln, Alfred’s sister; Robert fitz Payn, the son of Alfred’s sister Margery; and William de Gouiz, the son of Alfred’s sister Beatrice. In each case, the escheator was to give them seisin of their share of the family estates, having accepted security for payment of relief. On 21 July, there was a further entry in the fine roll, pardoning fitz Payn and Gouiz payment of the relief they owed, for their praiseworthy service to the king and the damages they had sustained in his service in the conflict at Lewes. (CFR 1263-64, 136-8, 147; John Walker, ‘Lincoln family’, ODNB; CIPM, I, 580; Close Rolls 1261-64, 350)

There were other signs that the routine processes of administration were beginning to function, at least in parts of the country. The county courts of Nottinghamshire and Kent both met on Monday 21 July, with the sheriffs appointed by the new government presiding. The sheriffs’ accounts show only that a few minor amercements were imposed at each court, but they indicate that there was at least a measure of order and justice being established in those counties. Similarly, William de Wendling was appointed escheator for the southern half of the country, with authority to appoint or replace each county’s local escheator; the escheators played a key role in administering lands that fell into the king’s hands, and delivering the revenues to the Exchequer, as in the case of the lands of Alfred of Lincoln. (E 389/81; E 389/121; CPR 1258-66, 338)

The government was increasingly concerned about the threat of invasion, and the need to assert its authority over Bordeaux and Bayonne. Two masters of Gascon ships were thanked for refusing to carry enemies from Flanders, but ships from Bristol and Southampton had been detained in Bordeaux. Eleanor of Provence may have had more influence in Gascony than de Montfort’s government: she was in France, with cash to pay for shipping, and influential support. On 24 July, she wrote to Alphonse of Poitiers, as she was sending messengers to La Rochelle to recruit ships to carry the invasion force assembled at Damme. (CPR 1258-66, 338, 363; Howell, Eleanor of Provence, 215-6)

Henry III, under de Montfort’s control, wrote to the king of France, proposing that negotiations should begin. Henry would be at Dover by 7 August, and messengers from Henry and his barons would be at Boulogne the following day. Henry also wrote to Simon de Montfort and Gilbert de Clare about these arrangements, to ensure that they would have their representatives at Boulogne, and that lord Edward and Henry of Almain, the hostages, would be brought to Dover. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 398-9)

Sunday 20 July 1264: castles and cash

Posted on 20 July 2014 by Richard Cassidy
Pevensey castle in the 17th century, by Wenceslas Hollar

Pevensey castle in the 17th century, by Wenceslas Hollar

Simon de Montfort’s administration continued to issue orders intended to establish its authority over the country. Several royalist nobles and castellans, particularly in the north and the Welsh Marches, continued to ignore these instructions. Key castles were supposed to be delivered to loyal supporters of the new regime, including Corfe to Henry de Montfort, Oxford, Orford and Devizes to Hugh Despenser, and Nottingham initially to Simon de Montfort junior, then to the sheriff William fitz Herbert. The castle of Pevensey, where many royalists had fled after the battle of Lewes, was besieged by Simon de Monfort junior, around 20 July. The royalist garrison of Pevensey was offered safe conduct to go overseas, if they surrendered the castle to the sheriff, or to the king himself, but the siege was to continue for many months. The royalist northern magnates were yet again offered safe conduct to come to London, and assured that the Montfortian northerners had been instructed not to molest them. (CPR 1258-66, 335-7, 363; Close Rolls 1261-64, 399-401; Annales Londonienses, 64)

De Montfort’s first military priority was to establish control of the Welsh Marches. De Montfort and Gilbert de Clare went to the March, calling for the support of Shropshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire against the Marchers who had seized the king’s castles. A brief campaign resulted in the recovery of several castles, the devastation of Roger Mortimer’s lands, and another peace agreement. De Montfort then had to hurry back to Kent, to deal with the threat of invasion from Flanders by the mercenary forces which Queen Eleanor had assembled. (CPR 1258-66, 363; Flores Historiarum, II, 498-9)

There was an indication of the privileged position which Simon de Montfort was adopting: the ruling council had forbidden anyone to bear arms, or to go with horses and arms, as a peace-keeping measure, but de Montfort was given permission to do so, because of the hostages and prisoners he had. (CPR 1258-66, 337)

The government’s finances evidently continued to be precarious, with the royal household being supplied by hand-to-mouth expedients. The keepers of St Botulph’s fair were told that the king’s revenues from the fair should be used to cover purchases at the fair by the Wardrobe, and by the taker of the king’s wines. A few weeks later, on 8 August, there was a further emergency measure to cover purchases for the Wardrobe at the fair. The bailiffs of Lincoln, Grimsby, York and Caistor were told to pay the farms of their towns for the coming Michaelmas term to the Wardrobe’s buyers, “quia rex denarios ad presens non habet”. The sheriff of Lincolnshire was to ensure that 60 tuns of wine were transported from the fair to Canterbury. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 351, 353; CLR 1260-67, 140)

Ebulo de Montibus, by Michael Ray

Posted on 14 July 2014 by Richard Cassidy

Michael Ray writes:

Ebulo de Montibus or Ebal de Mont of Mont-sur-Rolle, Vaud, Switzerland

The motte/donjon of Mont-le-Grand, Vaud

The motte/donjon of Mont-le-Grand, Vaud

Last weekend I was due to meet a retired professor of medieval history from the University of Lyon who was going to help me locate the collegiate church of St Catherine built by Peter de Aigueblanche, Bishop of Hereford 1240-68, at Aiguebelle in the Maurienne, Savoy.  However he had car trouble and was not able to come.  We carried on to Aiguebelle but, after an extensive search, we found nothing.  On returning to England, I discovered that the foundation was actually at Randens, a nearby village, but there may be no remains.

View from the castle of Mont-le-Grand

View from the castle of Mont-le-Grand

However, the trip to Savoy was not completely wasted.  The day before, with the help of a guest at a wedding at the Chateau de Mont vineyard at Mont-sur-Rolle in the Swiss canton of Vaud, we were able to find the remains of the castle of Mont-le-Grand.  This was the home of Ebal II de Mont who came to England with Peter of Savoy and is known in our records as Ebulo de Montibus.  First mentioned in England in 1246 (CCR 1242-7, 487), his initial mention in the Fine Rolls was in April 1250 when he was respited for scutage for the manor of Ewell (Surrey) (CFR 1249-50, no.268).  As Huw Ridgeway noted, Ebal was chosen in 1251 by the Queen and Peter to be a companion of the twelve-year-old Lord Edward.  He might have acted as his Chamberlain and as Steward.  Later Ebal served Henry III himself as Steward of the Household from 1256 (the date is challenged by Ridgeway who puts it as much later).  His fellow steward was another Savoyard, Imbert Pugeys.  Ebal was Constable of Windsor castle in 1266.  Between 1251 and 1262, he witnessed at least eighty-seven royal charters.  He was dead by 1268 when the Queen was one of his executors.  Like so many of the aliens, Ebal married a widow:  Joan de Bohun, of the senior but non-comital branch of the family, had first wed Stephen de Somery and then Godfrey of Crowcombe, a prominent curialis.

The castle at Rolle, Vaud

The castle at Rolle, Vaud

The castle is on the wooded slopes of the Jura mountains, high above Mont-sur-Rolle along an unsigned and unmarked trackway but the bailey is set out as a picnic spot.  On the motte there are three story-boards and, from it, there is a magnificent view of Lake Geneva as far as the Jet d’Eau fountain at Geneva.  To the south, across the lake, is the line of the Alps.  No stone work survives above ground but there are extensive earth works and the castle must have been a formidable presence dominating the east-west route from Lausanne to Geneva along the north side of the lake.  However, Peter of Savoy built a fine stone castle on the lakeside itself at Rolle, and this still exists and is in plain view of Mont-le-Grand.

Sunday 13 July 1264: marchers, manors, and mines

Posted on 13 July 2014 by Richard Cassidy

The government continued to try to impose its authority over royalist magnates. The bishop of Worcester was sent to the March to offer safe conduct for a group of marcher lords such as Roger Mortimer to come to London. The royalists holding Pevensey castle, and the northern barons such as John Balliol and Adam of Jesmond, were also summoned to speak to the king. These overtures were fruitless, as usual. Gilbert de Clare continued to accumulate the spoils of backing the winning side. He was given custody of Peter of Savoy’s lands, including Richmond castle. On the other hand, Clare was instructed to hand over the manors of the bishop of Hereford which he had seized; the government had committed the bishopric to two canons of Hereford, in the absence of the royalist bishop, who had fled to France. The process of distributing the economic and strategic prizes of victory also included Devizes and Oxford castles for Hugh Despenser, Colchester castle for Nicholas Spigurnel, and Scarborough castle for Henry of Hastings. In some cases, the new castellans might find that the royalist incumbents were unwilling to hand over these strongholds. (CPR 1258-66, 332-6)

The government wrote in the king’s name to Louis of France on 6 and 10 July, pointing out that they still awaited a French response to the proposals for arbitration set out in the mise of Lewes. The letters included mentions of the royal hostages, lord Edward and Henry of Almain, presumably intended to spur Louis into action, but received no answer. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 389-91)

Government finance continued to have the air of improvization, although there was at last some sign of the Exchequer resuming activity. The barons of the Exchequer were told that Roger de Legh was managing Exchequer business, and would therefore be unable to continue as one of the wardens of the exchanges. Revenue from the exchanges was used to cover current expenditure, such as the building works at Westminster. The exchanges were also to provide the cash for the king’s alms for the monks of Pontigny – this cash usually came from the farm of Canterbury, but the 20 marks for the Easter payment had been “borrowed” from the bailiffs of Canterbury when the king and de Montfort were making their way though Kent after Lewes.  Other income, such as manorial revenues, seems to have been channelled through the Wardrobe. There is evidence of a search for income from an unusual source in a writ to the sheriff of Devon of 8 July. The king was sending Walter of Hamburg and other German miners to Devon to mine copper, silver, gold and lead. The sheriff was to pay their wages and expenses. (CLR 1260-67, 136-8; Close Rolls 1261-64, 349-50)

Sunday 6 July 1264: keeping the peace

Posted on 5 July 2014 by Richard Cassidy

This week, entries in the fine roll resumed, for the first time since April. There were the usual fines for having routine writs, and records of reliefs owed by heirs of tenants in chief – encouraging signs of the return of normal business, with the prospect of some income for the government. (CFR 1263-64, 115-35)

At last, de Montfort secured control of Windsor castle. Drogo de Barentin and his garrison were given safe conduct, and John fitz John was appointed constable. On the other hand, the marcher lords, like Roger Mortimer, continued to ignore orders to come to London and to release their prisoners. (CPR 1258-66, 329-30, 362)

After the disorders of the preceding months, it was hardly surprising that the government was short of money, and managing by short-term expedients. The king’s chamberlain bought wine worth £95 from Gascon merchants, with payment guaranteed by William son of Richard and Reginald of Canterbury, the London moneyers. The moneyers were to be reimbursed from the revenues of the London and Canterbury exchanges. The need for cash led to Hervey of Stanhoe, the new sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, being instructed to collect arrears of farms from the cities and towns of those counties, disregarding their liberties if need be, and to send the proceeds to the Wardrobe. This indicates that revenue, which should have been paid to the Exchequer, was still being diverted to the Wardrobe to pay day-to-day expenses, as had been done during the period of civil war. (CPR 1258-66, 331)

The new sheriffs evidently faced considerable problems. They were all instructed to preserve the peace: the king understood that certain keepers of the peace had become disturbers of the peace; others held men to ransom and plundered their goods. The sheriffs were to take action against them, and hold them prisoner, awaiting further instructions. (CPR 1258-66, 362)

There was also the threat from royalists overseas, with reports that the queen was leading a large army to the coast of Flanders, ready to cross to England. Letters were sent to most of the counties, setting out the threat of a great number of foreigners invading the country, and instructing the knights and free tenants to come to London with horses and arms on Sunday 2 August. In each township, the sheriff was to summon eight, six or at least four of the best men, mounted and on foot, armed with lances, bows and arrows, crossbows and axes. He was to accept no excuses because it was harvest-time: better to lose some goods than to risk total loss of land and goods at the hands of those who would spare neither age nor sex if they prevailed. Similarly, the commonalty of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex were to be ready to defend the coasts, commanded by Hugh Despenser. This was the de Montfort regime’s response to the preparations for invasion from France, calling up a peasant army to defend against the foreign threat. (Ann Mon III, 233; IV, 154; CPR 1258-66, 360-2; Foedera, I, I, 444)

An unattractive aspect of the new regime became apparent on 30 June, in a blatantly biased judgment against William de Braose. He had plundered Sedgewick, a Sussex manor belonging to Simon de Montfort junior. He was ordered to pay 10,000 marks damages, a ridiculously large sum, by a tribunal headed by Henry de Montfort, who was hardly likely to be impartial. (Bémont, Simon de Montfort, 353-4)

Sunday 29 June 1264: parliament and sheriffs

Posted on 29 June 2014 by Richard Cassidy

The parliament which had been summoned on 4 June met during this week. The chief business appears to have been the announcement of a new council to govern the country, and the appointment of sheriffs for most of the counties. The arrangements for the council were supposedly provisional, to apply only until the completion of the French arbitration required by the mise of Lewes. As there was no prospect of Louis IX co-operating with de Montfort over the arbitration, the arrangements for central government were effectively a new constitution. A group of three, de Montfort, Gilbert de Clare and the bishop of Chichester, were to nominate a council of nine experienced men to rule the affairs of the realm. The council would oversee all official appointments, and three of its members would be with the king at all times. Unlike the council of 1258, which included royal nominees, this new council would give unfettered power to de Montfort and his allies, and remove any possibility of independent action by the king. According to one chronicler, Henry III was forced by threats to give his assent to the Ordinance setting out these arrangements; he was told that he would be replaced by another king, and lord Edward imprisoned forever. (DBM, no. 40; Flores, III, 262)

Eight new sheriffs were announced on 27 June, and Hereford and Cumberland were instructed to elect sheriffs. It may be significant that the announcement of these sheriffs was made during the parliament, to which four knights had been summoned from each county. It may mean that the new regime was following the proposals set out in the Provisions of Westminster in 1259, for each county to select four knights, from whom the central government would select one to be sheriff. The new sheriffs had a formidable task, “as the king has learned that plunderings, burnings and other enormities have occurred in those counties since the proclamation of peace.” The keepers of the peace in each county were told to summon the county court to hear the king’s orders, and to assist the sheriff. One of the sheriffs appointed the previous week, Fulk Peyforer of Kent, had begun work already: he held a session of the county court on Monday 23 June, showing that the machinery of local government was beginning to function again. (CPR 1258-66, 326-8; appointments of sheriffs and castellans also in the originalia roll, CFR 1263-64, 272-98; E 389/81)

Two continuing problems again exercised de Montfort’s government. The archbishop of Canterbury remained in France, and was refusing to co-operate by confirming the election of Walter Giffard as bishop of Bath and Wells. The garrison of Windsor castle continued to ignore instructions to leave the castle, and disregarded offers of safe conduct to come to London. (CPR 1258-66, 328-9)

The council was also exercised by the need to secure the ports against enemy infiltration. Thry decreed that anybody entering or leaving the country should do so through Dover (except for merchants bringing wine or other necessities). Other ports were to arrest anyone landing there. (CPR 1258-66, 361)

Sunday 22 June 1264

Posted on 22 June 2014 by Richard Cassidy

Windsor castle continued to be a thorn in the side of de Montfort’s regime. The royalist constable, Drogo de Barentin, and his knights continued to ignore orders to come to London and to hand over the castle. De Montfort sent the bishop of Carlisle to deliver their safe conduct to come to London, with the threat that they would otherwise be considered to be rebels. Eleanor of Castile, wife of lord Edward, and Joan, the wife of William de Valence, had both taken refuge in the castle, and were ordered to leave. (CPR 1258-66, 324, 325)

The new government began to assert its authority in the counties, with the appointment of two sheriffs on 18 June. Fulk Peyforer was appointed sheriff of Kent, with instructions to deliver the county’s revenues to Henry de Montfort to pay for munitions for Dover castle. John de Scalariis became sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. The announcement of their appointments acknowledged that the new regime had yet to restore order. Both new sheriffs were instructed to keep the peace, as the king understood that plunderings, burnings and other enormities were being perpetrated daily since the proclamation of peace. They were both local landowners, and experienced local administrators – Fulk had been sheriff of Kent in 1258-59, John had been sheriff of Cambridgeshire in 1249 and 1259-61. They were the sort of reliable person with roots in the locality whom the reformers of 1258-59 had wanted to see in office. (CPR 1258-66, 325)