Posts Tagged ‘Worcester’

Sunday 21 December 1264: cash and castles

Sunday, December 21st, 2014

The court spent the week at Worcester, where it covered its expenses by borrowing £40 from the bishop. The bailiffs of Worcester contributed £15 from the farm of the town. Hugh Despenser, the justiciar, lent another £40, which was paid to John de Grey, who had been keeper of Nottingham castle. This was an indicator of another success for the government. John de Grey had been holding the castle for the royalists, but had now made peace. In return, the government ordered William Marshal to hand back Grey’s lands in Northamptonshire, which Marshal had been occupying.

The city of Gloucester in the early fourteenth century. From BL Royal 13 A III, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s  Historia Regum Britanniae.

The city of Gloucester in the early fourteenth century. From BL Royal 13 A III, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae.

The government made further attempts to assert its control over key strongholds, committing Nottingham castle to Hugh Despenser, the justiciar, Gloucester castle to Simon de Montfort junior, Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury castles to Ralph Basset of Drayton, and Hereford castle to Peter de Montfort. The problem would be to convince the royalists who still held several castles to hand them over. Lord Edward, the king’s son, was said to have committed the castle and town of Bristol to Simon de Montfort senior, and to have received Ludgershall, in Wiltshire; as Edward was Simon’s prisoner, he may not have had much choice in this exchange. On the other hand, Edward’s captivity may not have been too unpleasant; he was sent 50 tuns of wine from the king’s wines in Nottingham castle. Although the marchers agreed to make peace, plundering and disorder continued. The marcher leaders were offered safe conduct to go to Kenilworth to meet lord Edward, and again ordered to release prisoners they had taken at Northampton. (CPR 1258-66, 394-7, 475; Close Rolls 1264-68, 83-4; CLR 1260-67, 151, 154; CFR 1264-65, 630-7; Foedera, I, I, 449)

Preparations began for the king to celebrate Christmas at Evesham. The sheriffs of London were to arrange for the transport of supplies for the king’s wardrobe, such as wax, robes, napkins and towels. (CLR 1260-67, 153)

Sunday 14 December 1264: peace and parliament

Sunday, December 14th, 2014

During this week, the court travelled from Woodstock, via Pershore, to Worcester. The main focus of attention was the threat from the Marches. While the court was at Woodstock, preparing to move west, the sheriff of Oxfordshire and Berkshire was ordered to assemble all the knights of the counties and lead them in person to meet the king at Worcester on 11 December. (CPR 1258-66, 475-6)

A rapid campaign in the Marches led to the submission of the marcher lords, caught between de Montfort’s forces advancing from Oxford, and on the other side Llywellyn’s Welsh. The Peace of Worcester required the marchers to go into exile for a year, while de Montfort took custody of their lands. Arrangements for Edward’s release would be discussed at a parliament, to be held in January. (Flores, II, 504; Maddicott, Montfort, 307)

A stamp from 1965, showing Simon de Montfort’s seal, and a caption which might require a certain amount of qualification.

A stamp from 1965, showing Simon de Montfort’s seal, and a caption which might require a certain amount of qualification.

At Worcester, on 14 December, summonses were sent out for this parliament to meet in London on 20 January. These summonses were sent to bishops and abbots, with many more following on 24 December, covering a large number of abbots and priors, five earls and only eighteen barons – an indication perhaps of the government’s lack of support among the magnates. The summonses which were to make this parliament famous were also sent out on 24 December: each county was to send two knights; the citizens of York, Lincoln and unspecified other towns were each to send two citizens or burgesses; and the Cinque Ports were each to send four representatives. (Foedera, I, I, 449; Close Rolls 1264-68, 84-7, 89)

The court’s presence in Worcester was presumably responsible for a gesture aimed at undoing some of the damage done during the disorders early in the year. At the end of February, Robert de Ferrers, earl of Derby, had besieged and taken Worcester, sacking the city and destroying the Jewish quarter. Ferrers had seized the chest holding the charters recording debts to the Jews, and taken it to his castle at Tutbury. When lord Edward had captured Tutbury, he had broken open the chest and sent the charters to Bristol, which was held by the royalists. Edward’s clerks were ordered to hand over the charters to the chirographers of the Jews of Worcester, so that they could be replaced in the chest. This would allow the Jews once again to collect the debts they were owed, but it seems unlikely that Edward’s followers would obey such instructions, particularly as one of them was Warin of Bassingbourn, who had led the attempt to free Edward from captivity. (Close Rolls 1264-68, 82-3)

There were outbreaks of disorder in the south-west, where the government was trying to repress breaches of the peace, homicides, plundering and house-burning in Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Also in Devon, there was a further indication of the dominance of Simon de Montfort, and the personal advantages he was gaining. De Montfort was given custody of all the lands and holdings in Devon belonging to Richard of Cornwall, the king’s brother.(CPR 1258-66, 475; Foedera, I, I, 448) Henry de Montfort, as warden of the Cinque Ports, had been instructed to ensure the safety of wool and other goods belonging to foreign merchants. He was now ordered to move the merchandise to safer places. (CPR 1258-66, 393)

On 8 December, the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Lincoln were instructed to hear the complaints of the clergy who had suffered injuries and damages due to plundering during the recent disorders, as provided by the prelates and nobles in London. The patent roll said that the bishops would arrange compensation for the clergy, which would be enforced by the justiciar, who would have a hundred or more knights and serjeants to distrain offenders.  According to the London chronicler Arnold fitz Thedmar, this tribunal was set up about the end of October, and given full powers by the king and barons to correct all the injuries done to the church since Easter 1263. Anyone who did not submit to the judgement of the bishops would be excommunicated. The bishops were also to collect the revenues of benefices held by foreigners. Three chronicles record that a church council was held about this time at Reading. This approved an appeal against the legate’s sentence of excommunication, which the bishops had refused to publish. (CPR 1258-66, 375, 393; Cronica Maiorum, 70; C&S, II, I, 699-700)

Sunday 30 March 1264: an abbey, a saint and a curse

Sunday, March 30th, 2014

Henry’s forces were assembling in Oxford. The charter roll shows that those present on 30 March included: the king’s brother, earl Richard; the earl’s son, Henry of Almain; Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford; Hugh Bigod, who had been Justiciar in the early days of the reform movement; Philip Basset; Roger de Mortimer; James Audley; Robert Walerand; John de Grey; and Warin de Bassingbourn. They were witnessing a charter for the citizens of Worcester, who were granted a range of privileges and liberties, in return for an increase in the farm, for the good service they had rendered to the king and lord Edward; perhaps this was some compensation for the recent sacking of the city by Robert de Ferrers. Henry had promised to pay the expenses of those coming to Oxford to join his army. This must have been a problem, particularly with the Treasury either closed or inaccessible, in rebel-held London. Henry was presumably using the Wardrobe to administer his finances, and seems to have taken some steps to direct revenues there, rather than to the the Treasury: £200 from the farm of Southampton was paid to the Wardrobe on 27 March. (Royal Charter Witness Lists, 332; CChR 1257-1300, 48; CLR 1260-67, 132; Wardrobe Accounts Henry III, 109)

The fine roll shows another source of revenue, resulting from the siege of Gloucester and lord Edward’s eventual success in taking the town. On 15 March, Henry had sent orders to Roger de Clifford, his constable of Gloucester castle, concerning the property of St Peter’s abbey which had been confiscated; the abbey had until 23 March to make amends for recent offences. On 27 March, the fine roll records that the abbot and convent had paid 100 marks to the Wardrobe. This was a fine paid because they had harboured barons (hospitaverunt barones) in the abbey without the king’s permission, and to have the king’s goodwill. This may be an indicator both of the sympathies of many churchmen, who supported the barons, and of the way in which Henry was raising cash. The abbey did not have to dip into its own reserves, however; on the same day as the fine was recorded, the tenants of the abbey were instructed to contribute an aid to the abbot and convent, for the relief of its debts. The abbot was also given an allowance for the provisions which Roger de Clifford had taken from his property, for supplying the castle. (Close Rolls 1261-64, 336; CFR 1263-64, no. 90; CPR 1258-66, 308; CLR 1260-67, 135)

St Frideswide, from a window in Christ Church, Oxford, designed by Edward Burne-Jones

St Frideswide, from a window in Christ Church, Oxford, designed by Edward Burne-Jones

While he was in Oxford, Henry granted the prior and convent of St Frideswide’s an annual payment of 100s. to pay for a chaplain and candles at the saint’s shrine. This was the sort of gesture which one might expect from a pious king like Henry, but contemporary chroniclers were more impressed by the fact that he had entered Oxford at all. There was said to be a curse, which no previous king had dared to defy. Supposedly, Frideswide (d. 727) was the daughter of the king of Oxford. She became an abbess, and was pursued by the lecherous king Algar of Leicester. Frideswide went into hiding, and when Algar tried to enter Oxford he was struck blind. The Osney chronicle said that Henry entered the church of St Frideswide with great devotion, which no king had attempted since the time of king Algar; he gave many goods to the church, and promised more if God gave him victory over his enemies. (CPR 1258-66, 308; John Blair, ‘Frithuswith’, ODNB; Flores Hist, II, 487; Ann Mon, IV, 142-3)

 

Sunday 2 March 1264: A grandson, and the sack of Worcester

Sunday, March 2nd, 2014

Henry III received some good news this week: his first grandson had been born. Henry’s daughter Margaret, married to Alexander III of Scotland, had given birth to her first son, also Alexander, on 21 January. The news had been brought from Jedburgh to Rochester by Margaret’s cook, Robert de Huntingfeld, who was promised a generous reward of land worth £10 a year. Robert had to wait for this promise to be fulfilled. In November 1269, Henry granted a wardship to Peter de Arenges, with the condition that Peter should pay Robert his £10 a year.  Oddly, there was a liberate writ as late as May 1272, for payment of 10 marks to Robert, ‘of the king’s gift for his expenses homewards.’ (CPR 1258-66, 382; CPR 1266-72, 395; CLR 1267-72, 1933)

The other news was not so good. Henry travelled this week only from Canterbury to Rochester, but he did begin to take a more active role in government. Although the main body of the Chancery remained with earl Richard in Hereford, Henry issued writs from Rochester concerned with preparations for conflict. He ordered the authorities in York to support Robert de Neville; Neville had written to the king, warning of opposition in the north, and Henry now wanted him to take York castle, which John de Eyville was holding for the barons. Henry also took steps to strengthen his position in another part of the country. He granted Roger Leybourne not only a pardon for his participation in the disorders of the previous year, but also an undertaking that the king would support him against anyone who took action against him. Leybourne had joined the Marcher lords in 1263 in their attacks on the Savoyard bishop of Hereford, and the pillaging of royalists’ estates. Despite that, Henry was now offering to back Leybourne against claims for compensation. The victims in the disturbances had included prominent royalists like Peter of Savoy, John Mansel and Robert Walerand. There had also been attacks on church property. In January, Henry had said that he was ‘perturbed about the injuries, damages and violences lately committed.’ He had promised the archbishop of Canterbury that Leybourne and others would ‘make competent amends.’ The church and his closest allies might well have grievances against Leybourne, but now it was more important for Henry to ensure that he had the backing of this competent soldier and landowner in the south-east. (CFR 1263-64, no 77; CPR 1258-66, 378, 382-3)

The situation along the Severn became more violent with the intervention of Robert de Ferrers, earl of Derby. Ferrers seems to have had no principled commitment to the baronial cause, but he was strongly hostile to lord Edward. This resentment may have stemmed from competing claims to the Peverel inheritance, and from Edwards wardship of Ferrers lands between 1254 and 1257. Ferrers joined forces with Peter and Henry de Montfort, and besieged Worcester. After several assaults, they took the city on 29 February. According to the Worcester annals: ‘They plundered whatever they could find outside the church, together with the whole of the Jewry; they took and imprisoned some Jews, they killed others. Another account says that Ferrers destroyed the city and ruined the Jewish quarter.

Several years later, the Worcester eyre of 1275 recorded the cases of William Magge, who had murdered a man in Worcester, and of Robert son of Alexander, who committed a burglary and murdered a clerk in February 1263. Ferrers broke into Worcester gaol, released these two murderers, and took them away with him. This gives us an indication of the way in which Ferrers recruited his troops, and of their likely character. (J.R. Maddicott, Ferrers, Robert de, sixth earl of Derby, ODNB; Ann Mon, IV, 448-9; Flores Hist, II, 486-7; Worcester Eyre of 1275, nos 1270, 1284)

Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Sunday 25 November to Saturday 8 December 1257

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

King Henry remained at Guildford until around 26 November and then returned to Westminster, where he was to remain till early January. Henry had intended during this time to visit his castle at Marlborough, and then to celebrate Christmas at Winchester, as he often did.  Urgent business, however, as he explained, kept him instead at Westminster. He was anxiously awaiting the return of envoys sent to the pope. Would they bring news that the Holy Father had modified the terms of the Sicilian business so that it could be pursued with some hope of success?  Henry was also arranging the despatch of a high powered delegation (including Simon de Montfort) to the king of France in the hope of advancing the peace negotiations and thus making it all the more possible to concentrate on Sicily. And then too  Henry was becoming  worried about events in Scotland, where  the young King Alexander was married to his daughter.  Would Henry have to go north, as he had in 1255, to rescue the royal couple from their enemies?

It must have been a relief for Henry to turn from these great matters to the comforting business of the fine rolls. During these two week, around twenty four people came to court to purchase the writs to initiate or further common law legal actions. Henry’s justice remained in demand.  One item on the rolls particularly stands out and will be commented on here. It bears on both the administrative processes and rituals of Henry’s kingship. It also shows how difficult it can be to capture the sense of an entry when translating it from Latin into English.

The entry is no.105 in the translation (forty-four entries down in the image) and appears as follows.

105

6 Dec. Westminster. For the burgesses of Bridgnorth. On Tuesday next after St. Andrew the Apostle in the forty-second year, the burgesses of Bridgnorth paid 25 m. in the king’s Wardrobe to Peter de Rivallis, keeper of the same Wardrobe, which remained to be rendered of the fine of 50 m. which they made with him a short while ago for having liberties, and, on the aforesaid day, they paid into the same Wardrobe the 10 m. which they had promised for their good coming to the king when he had last been at Bridgnorth. Order to the sheriff of Shropshire to cause the same burgesses to be quit from the aforesaid 35 m.

This entry is not in the originalia roll.

The feast of Andrew the Apostle was 30 November and the following Tuesday in 1258, when the payment was made into the wardrobe, was 4 December. The 6 December date at the head of the translation is that of the writ to the sheriff of Shropshire referred to at the end of the entry. Throughout the fine rolls it is these writs to  officials which actually give the dates to the entries.   The fine of 50 marks, which the burgesses made with the king, is not recorded on the fine rolls. It may be that the full way it was now recorded  was to make up for that lack. The fine was evidently made on 21-22 September 1257 when Henry passed through Bridgnorth on his way home from his campaign in Wales.  A couple of days later, now at Worcester, Henry issued a letter patent granting the ‘bailiffs and good men’ of Bridgnorth the right to take ‘murage’ for another three years, ‘murage’ being a toll whose revenues were devoted to works on the walls of the town. Perhaps this was the concession for which the men offered the king 50 marks, or  perhaps there were other ‘liberties’, building on an earlier charter of 1227, of which there seem to be no record.

From the administrative point of view, what is interesting is the way the whole business of the Bridgnorth debt was controlled by the wardrobe and chancery, travelling with the king, rather than, as would have been normal,  by the exchequer at Westminster.  At the end of the entry there is the statement,  provided by the editors of the fine roll,  ‘This entry is not in the originalia roll’. This means that no information about the fine and its payment was  sent to the exchequer, the originalia roll being the copy of the fine  roll despatched to the exchequer so that it knew what money to collect. As a result there is no entry for this debt on the pipe roll, the exchequer’s annual audit of  the money it was demanding for the  crown.  Instead, the only record of the existence  of the debt (apart from that on the wardrobe receipt roll) was that given here on the fine roll.   It is likewise the chancery writ, not the exchequer, which tells the sheriff that the burgesses are quit. The handling of the Bridgnorth debt was typical of many other debts at this time. Large numbers of fines between 1255 and 1257 – for  example for town liberties (as here)  and exemption from knighthood – were treated in the same way. There was no ‘constitutional’ reason for Henry bypassing the exchequer. Under its treasurer, Philip Lovel,  it was never less than under his  control.  The point was that Henry just got his money in more quickly and simply if he had such fines paid in directly to his wardrobe. Nonetheless the reformers in 1258 thought the king’s finances would be run  more responsibly if all the revenues were routed through the exchequer, a subject discussed in Richard Cassidy’s fine of the month .

The great majority of the fines paid into the wardrobe were in gold, or were in silver earmarked to buy gold, and were thus part of Henry’s campaign to build up a gold treasure to fund his Sicilian army. Another reason for making this a wardrobe treasure was that Henry could see the gold accumulating  before his eyes.  What a joy it must have been. By the autumn of 1257, however, as we have seen in previous blogs, the enterprise was beginning  to falter. Henry was having to spend his gold treasure, minting his wonderful gold penny in order to do so. The fact that the Bridgnorth fine was not in gold, or in silver earmarked to buy gold, may reflect this situation.  Henry had not quite given up, however, and these two weeks see two more fines of gold (nos.97, 102).

During the king’s visit in September 1257, the burgesses of Bridgnorth did not merely offer 50 mark for liberties. They also promised 10 marks ‘for their good coming to the king’. The Latin here, as one can see from the image, is ‘pro bono adventuo suo’. When the final checked and corrected version of the translation is put up, this passage will be altered since the ‘good coming’ is that of the king, not the burgesses. They are offering 10 marks ‘for his good coming’.  But does ‘good coming’, or ‘good arrival’ or ‘good advent’ quite capture the sense of what is happening?  At the very least, it sounds odd in modern English, and is another reason why we hope to provide the project with glossary.   What, of course, the burgesses were  giving, or in this case, promising Henry was a welcome present, one which demonstrated their loyalty, affection, and joy at his arrival. The present was designed to make his arrival ‘good’ for him, and also (in the benefits which might flow) ‘good’ for them.  In some circumstances, for example when the king was returning from overseas, there might also, wrapped up in the ‘good’, be joy at the king’s ‘safe’ arrival, and perhaps there was an element of that here too, given the hazards of the recent campaign in Wales.  Normally, we have no record of such gifts, because they were paid cash down into the wardrobe. It is only here, because the burgesses had exhausted (or so they must have said), their ready money in coming up with the initial 25 marks for their liberties, that we know about it. Such gifts, of course, in cash or precious  objects, were integral to Henry’s kingship, as they were to that of other kings. They were made, as here, by individual towns and, on a much grander and more organized scale, by the assembled great and good of the realm, on the king’s arrival back in his kingdom. They were also accompanied by other rituals, notably welcome processions of a town’s clergy and people. When the king rode up from Windsor to Westminster,  the custom was for the mayor and citizens of London to go out and meet him at Knightsbridge. They knew they were out of favour when he refused to meet them.

In such arrivals, the giving was not all one way. Quite the reverse. Henry himself might mark his coming by feeding paupers over and above his standard 100 a day, or 150 a day if the queen was with him, as she was at Bridgnorth.  He would also visit the religious establishments of the town and shower them with gifts.  At Bridgnorth, Henry  gave nine  ‘good oaks’ for work on the churches of the  Franciscan friars and  the hospital of Saint John, and another five good oaks to the canons of Bridgnorth chapel for the  repair of their chancel and stalls. His visit also brought other work to the town. On 21 September, probably the day of his arrival, he ordered  his chamber in the castle and that of the queen to be wainscoted, while the queen’s chamber was also to have  new windows and a fireplace.  On 25 September, having left Bridgnorth and arrived at Worcester, Henry ordered ten oaks to be sent to ‘the upstanding men of Bridgnorth’, as a ‘gift of the king’, to help with repairing the town gates. The visit, therefore,  had been a success. Henry’s ‘good oaks’, he doubtless hoped, would  be a perpetual memory to his piety and generosity in Bridgnorth and his concern for the security of this royal town.

The kind of ‘good arrival’, we glimpse here at Bridgnorth, must have been repeated thousands of times over during Henry’s reign. Such reciprocal rituals could  bind king and realm together.  But it did not always work like that.  Accounts in chroniclers make very plain that donors sometimes resented having to give such presents, just as the king resented it if he deemed the presents inadequate. The ritual could set apart as well as bring together. Were the men of Bridgnorth themselves disappointed that they had to pay for their ‘liberties’, especially if these were simply for the right to levy ‘murage’,  which they might have expected anyway, given  the threat from Llywelyn.  Did they also look askance at what they saw of Henry’ court?  The keeper of the wardrobe to whom they gave their money, both at Bridgnorth and Westminster, was Peter des Rivallis, one of Henry’s most notorious Poitevin servants, who was to be dismissed by the reformers in 1258.

 

Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Sunday 23 September to Saturday 29 September 1257

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

During this week, Henry left the Welsh march and set off eastwards back to Westminster. On  24 and 27  September, the fine rolls show him still at Worcester. By 29 September, he was at Woodstock. What a relief to enjoy once more the comfort of a major royal palace.  By far the most interesting entry on the fine rolls this week relates to a concession Henry made at Worcester on 27 September. This was to give John fitzAlan easier terms on which to repay a debt of 10,000 marks (£6666) which he owed the king. John was paying this debt off at the rate of £100 a year, £50 at Easter and £50 at Michaelmas.  Henry now allowed him to miss the payment due at Michaelmas 1257, the reason for the concession being that John was remaining in the king’s service in Wales.

John fitzAlan was a great baron of the Welsh march, being lord of Oswestry and Clun. He was also lord of Arundel in Sussex. His descendants indeed became earls of Arundel. How was it then that he owed such an astronomical sum to the king?  The answer is that  he had inherited the debt. The 10,000 marks had actually been offered King John back in 1214 by John fitzAlan’s uncle, William fitzAlan in order to be allowed to enter the fitzAlan inheritance. William died in 1216 and was followed by his brother, John fitzAlan, who died in 1240. Neither of them paid a penny towards the 10,000 marks.  When our John fitzAlan (the son of John who died in 1240), came of age in 1244, he might have hoped he too would be exempted from paying the debt, if not pardoned it all together. After all it originated in what was surely one of King John’s  most tyrannous exactions. Not a bit of it. Henry III demanded that John pay the debt. True he was allowed first to pay at the rate of £200 a year, and then (as we see in 1257) at the rate of a £100, but these were still substantial sums.  Nor was that all. When John had  succeeded in 1244, his relief was not the statutory £100 laid down in Magna Carta but a whopping £1000.  In his treatment of John fitzAlan, Henry seems to have been returning to the worst days of his father. What on earth was going on? I hope to answer that question before too long in a new fine of the month.      

For the membrane covering this week, click here (the John fitzAlan entry is 28 down).

Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Sunday 16 September to Saturday 23 September 1257

Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

During this week, Henry III continued his slow journey back from north Wales to Westminster.  The fine rolls show him on 20 September at Wenlock  (Much Wenlock),  where he pardoned one of his servants, Elyas Marshal, a debt on account of his good severance in Wales.  The rolls next show Henry, on 24 September, at Worcester.   For the membrane covering the period, click here. The entry at Wenlock is seventeen down.

Henry had, therefore, travelled from north to south down the length of the Welsh border. He was thus able to monitor the situation in the March as well taking as good a route back to Westminster as any.  In fact, Henry had plenty of time before his arrival at Westminster, where he wanted to be by the feast of Edward the Confessor on 13 October. Other evidence shows he stayed for much of the period between 12 and 20 September at Much Wenlock, where doubtless he enjoyed  the hospitality provided by the monks of the priory. Very few people sought Henry out in the Welsh borderland to buy the usual writs to initiate or further the common law legal actions. Most of those who did come were locals. Indeed between 15 and 24 September, of the ten writs purchased, one was for Lincolnshire, one for Staffordshire, one for Herefordshire, and all the rest for Shropshire.      

Nest week, the king reaches his palace of Woodstock.

Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Sunday 10 July to Saturday 16 July 1261

Monday, July 11th, 2011

Another week in the Tower of London and there are going to be many more of those.  Evidently Henry did not feel the position outside  allowed him even to go to Westminster. Doubtless he remembered the way he had been exposed there in 1258 by the baronial march on his hall. He had cried out ‘What is this my lords, am I your prisoner?’ At least in the Tower, that could not happen again.  There were reasons for unease. When Henry’s judges sought to hear pleas at Worcester on 1 July,  they were boycotted and the visitation had to be abandoned.  Yes had Henry been a bold and martial man  he would surely have taken the field to assert his authority throughout the country. There is something rather pathetic and uninspiring in the way he remained skulking in the Tower.  This is all the more so given he was not without funds. His wardrobe around now received some £730 from the issues of the vacant bishopric of Winchester.  Yes Henry relied on others. The fine rolls this week show him consolidating the position of Robert Walerand as sheriff of Kent and castellan of Dover. He was to have £400 a year for the custody of the castle.  Henry  also moved  affirm his control over central government. On Tuesday 12 July he took the great seal from the baronially appointed chancellor. Nicholas of Ely (who left court), and appointed the ever reliable Walter of Merton in his place.  With Henry in the Tower on 15 July were the bishops of London and Salisbury, Philip Basset the new justiciar, the marcher lord James of Audley, John Mansel, and indeed Robert Walerand, who had evidently come up to settle his terms for  Dover which were conceded on the same day.   Henry could also draw comfort from a revival of the business associated with the purchase of the common law writs. Some thirty-nine were obtained in this week. One saw no less than thirty three people from Rutland jointly obtaining a writ of pone which probably placed their legal case  before the judges at Westminster. At least their work continued there as did that of the exchequer.