set out for Palestine. It was under these exceptionally interesting circumstances that Warenne received his knighthood. King Edward went with his army to Scotland, and died at Burghon-Sands, near Carlisle, July 7, 1307. The English returned home. It is not intended here to follow Earl Warenne's fortunes of war; that is a matter of general history; but his adventures will be alluded to so far as they affected him individually. The troubles in Scotland soon broke out again, and the King issued writs for levies of troops, and he commanded the whole of his military vassals to assemble at Berwick-on-Tweed on 8 September, 1310, to proceed to the relief of Perth, then much pressed by the Scots. The disgust which the nobility felt at the presence of Gaveston, and his intimacy with the King, prevented many of them from attending in person, but they sent their contingencies. Warenne himself attended. Shortly after this Edward invaded Scotland with his army. When, after the Battle of Dunbar, in 1296, John Baliol lost his crown, he gave his son Edward as a hostage to King Edward I., and the father and son were taken prisoners to London, where they were lodged in the Tower, and remained there for three years. In 1299 the son Edward was in Prince Edward's keeping, and on November 18 of that year the King commanded his son to deliver him to John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey. After the death of Earl Warenne in 1304, Edward Baliol appears to have remained in the care of the young earl on his succession to the title; for on September 20, 1310, when the King was at Roxburgh, he issued a mandate to John de Warenne to deliver Edward de Balliolo into the custody of John Weston, steward of the household of Thomas and Edmund, the King's brothers.3 And on the 24th January following he issued a release to Warenne, and discharge of his bond for the custody of Edward de Balliolo,* whom, in obedience to the King's command, he had delivered into the said custody, in which he was to remain. 2 At this time (1310) the King gave to Earl Warenne 'the castle and honour of High Peak, for life, together with the entire Forest of High Peak, and the approvement of its wastes, with its knights' fees, advowsons, wardships, and other appurtenances, to hold as fully as William Peverel, sometime Lord thereof, had held the same; but subject to a yearly payment to the Exchequer of £437 6s. 8d.' This appears to have been paid in two equal instalments of 293 marks 10 shillings at Michaelmas and Easter. In October, 1310, and May, 1 Rymer's Fadera, i., part 2, p. 982, and Math. Westminster. Bohn's Edition, ii., p. 586. 2 Cal. Doc. relating to Scotland, ii., p. 282, No. 1113. Bain. 3 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 283. 4 Ibid., p. 320. 1311, remission of a considerable portion of these payments, then due, was granted to him. On May 22 of this latter year the King remitted the whole of the payment for the remainder of the earl's life.' The grant and this remission included also the manors of Torpel and Upton, co. Northampton. Much discontent existed at this time in consequence of the behaviour of Piers Gaveston, who was again taken by the King, on his ascending the throne, into his intimate and unlimited confidence. He held himself most insolently to the highest peers in the realm, and led King Edward into actions which were greatly resented by the people. In 1310, when Parliament was about to meet, on February 7, at Westminster, the King addressed a proclamation to his cousin Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, who sympathised with the malcontents, that 'no one shall repair to Parliament, summoned to meet at Westminster, with horses and arms. The safety of all will be insured in coming, attending, and returning. The Earls of Gloucester, Lincoln, Warenne, and Richmond are commanded to insure safe conduct; to provide for the general security; to arrest all persons who shall attend otherwise than has been commanded; and if any quarrel shall arise during the meeting of Parliament, they are to settle the same, and punish the offenders." This is the first notice among this collection of documents which shows the unsettled state of the country at that time; it also further proves the confidence that the King placed in the young earl. 3 In the following year, 1311, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, who was first cousin once removed to Earl Warenne, having married Alice, daughter and heiress of Henry de Laci, Earl of Lincoln, who had died; the King issued a mandate to William le Vavaseur, keeper of the Castle of Pontefract, to deliver it up to Thomas, the said Earl of Lancaster. This brought the Earl of Lancaster into close quarters with Earl Warenne at Sandal and Conisborough. Lancaster also owned property in Wales adjoining that of Warenne in that principality, as will be seen further on. On December 6 of this year the King confirmed a charter, dated 'the vigil of the Nativity of Our Lady,' 2 Edw. II., granting in fee to John de Wytham 400 acres of land in the waste of Bromfeld in Denbighshire, to hold by service of a knight's fee, and attending twice a year at the Court of the Earl's Castle of Chastellyon (Holt), and finding in time of war a man-at-arms, with a caparisoned horse, to remain in the Castle of Chastellyon for forty days, at his expense; and rendering a rent of £10 sterling a year. This is interesting, as illustrating knight-service.' 1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307-1313, pp. 283, 341, 343, and 354. 2 Ibid., p. 206. 3 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 350. 4 Ibid., p. 405. In 1312 Earl Warenne was appointed 'Conservator of the Peace for Sussex,' and on August 10 the King issued a writ, dated at Dover, in his aid as such, directed to the earls, barons, knights, and freemen, and others of the said county.' About this time Warenne appears to have been 'sowing his wild oats' rather freely; indeed, he appears to have had a considerable supply, and he did not get rid of them all until his death. On January 17, 1313, the King issued a mandate directed to him, under pain of forfeiture, to abstain from attending a tournament at the town of Newmarket. Similar mandates were issued to Aymur de Valenein, Earl of Pembroke; Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford; Payn de Tibetot, William le Latymer, Barth. de Badelsmere, and John de Geffrard of Brimesfeld.2 Tournaments had to be put down at this time, as they were not held so much for 'chivalry' as for political purposes, and were a danger to the State. Warenne's association with the above-named knights shows that he was disaffected towards the King. He had been party to the siege of Scarborough Castle and the capture and execution of Gaveston. This prohibition does not appear to have been received very seriously by Warenne, for on September 16 following the King issued another mandate to him, dated at Windsor, 'forbidding him to tournay, &c., at Brackele, where he is preparing to do so this instant Wednesday, or elsewhere within the realm. The King is sending two of his clerks (named) and two of his sergeants-at-arms (named), the bearers of the mandate, to explain this inhibition more fully. Similar mandates were issued to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster ; Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford; Guy de Bello Campo, Earl of Warwick; Edmund, Earl of Arundel; and Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.1 In October the King issued a pardon, dated at Westminster on the 16th of the month, "To Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, and his adherents, for the death of Gaveston, and all deeds and actions connected therewith.' Warenne was one of the adherents, and received a like pardon. Besides all this disorderly conduct of a political and public character, there were doings of a social and domestic character, which brought much trouble to all concerned. DOMESTIC TROUBLES. Warenne, as before stated, was a posthumous child, his father having been killed at a tournament at Croydon five months before he was born. He in this way became a ward of the King, who 1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 485. (Parl. Writs.) 2 Ibid., p. 520. 3 Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 71. 4 Ibid., p. 71. 5 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1313-1317, p. 25. arranged for him to marry Joan de Bar, the King's granddaughter, by his daughter Eleanor, who married Henry, Count de Bar. Joan was left an orphan also; she was only ten years old when she was married to Warenne, who then was not quite twenty years of age. Youthful marriages were at that time common, and probably, as they were most of them marriages of policy, they would not turn out well. It certainly was so in this instance. By the year 1313 there was evidently very serious domestic trouble between the young couple. Joan would then be seventeen years of age, and Warenne twenty-six. The first public act in the quarrel was that the King sent his yeoman, William de Anne, to the Castle of Conisborough, where Joan was staying, to fetch her away, and take her to him. This action may not have been understood in the neighbourhood, for it appears to have been much resented; for on May 7, 1314, the King issued a mandate, dated at Windsor, to the following effect. After stating the facts as above, it went on : 'Now, as the King understands that divers persons, on account of this, endeavour to disturb the said William de Anne, he grants him indemnity."1 The cause of all the trouble was, of course, a young lady, Maud de Nerford by name, who was married to Sir Simon de Derby." The scandal became public, and the matter was taken up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert de Wynchelsey, who at a Provincial Council in London sent a monition to the earl, 'de votre desordené vie que vous mesnez gardant et retenant Maude de Neyrford.' Weever, in his Funereal Monuments, 1631, page 221, puts it in this quaint fashion-Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, 'enforced John Warren, Earle of Surrey, to forswear the company of a certaine beautifull Wench, with the loue of which he was greatly bewitched.' Wynchelsey died on May 11, 1313, so that his monition would be previous to that date. On May 21 the King requests J., Bishop of Norwich, to suspend until his return from France the publication of certain sentences against John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, who has been entrusted with the keeping of the peace.3 Warenne is said to have obtained a Bull of Divorce from the Pope, which the bishops ignored; and on May 26. they repeated their conviction that she was his true wife, and they could not be separated. Apparently the Bull was thought to be a forgery; such were not unknown. 1 Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-1317, pp. 45-46. 2 Letter citing the nobleman, John de Warrenn, Earl of Surrey, and Matilda, who was the wife of S. de Diriba, on account of adultery, by the decree of the (Ducarel, Provincial Council, London. 3 Syn. Rymer's Fadera. 4 Sussex Archeol. Coll., vi., p. 124. On June 15 was issued a "safe conduct" until S. Peter ad Vincula (August 1) for Isabella (Joan), Countess of Warenne, the King's niece, on her way to him beyond seas. During June and July of this year Joan was staying at the Tower of London; and an order was issued to Ingelard de Warle, Keeper of the King's Wardrobe, to allow to Walter Waldeshelf, the King's butler, in his account, for six tuns of wine delivered by him, by order of W. Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, Keeper of the Great Seal; and of John de Sandale, supplying the place of the Treasurer; to the men of the Countess of Warenne, lately dwelling at the Tower-June and July, 6 and 7 Edw. II. (1313).2 The King took the matter up vigorously. He had recently given the castle and honour of High Peak to Warenne3; he now, on February 22, 1314, issued the following from Canterbury: 'To the sheriff of Derby. Order to take into the King's hands, without delay, the castle, town, and manor of the High Peak, and the forest of the same lately committed to John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, arresting any persons who sha resist the execution of this order, taking with him for this purpose a sufficient force.' By K. This appears to indicate the King's disapproval of his conduct. On May 23 Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, and eleven of his bishops, also admonished Warenne, as they could no longer suffer such contempt of Holy Church.' Warenne, in reply, applied for a divorce on account of consanguinity, but the archbishop informed him that such a suit could only be carried on by consent of the bishops in whose dioceses his lands were; and again urged him to amend his ways, 'Comme vus estes estret de si noble linage, et vos mesmes si bealx et si nobles par la grace que Dieu vous ad donné.' And again, on May 26, they formally repeated their conviction that the Countess Joanna, that good lady, his consort, who so languished in expectation of his good pleasure and favour, was nevertheless his true and lawful wife, and that he could never be legally separated from her while she lived, for any reason that they had heard." 6 1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307-1313, p. 594. 4 Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-1318, p. 38. 5 Ducarel's abstracts of the entries referring to the attempted divorce are as follows: Littera ad citandum nobilem virum Johem de Warrenn, comit. Surrey, et Matildam quæ fuit uxor S. de Diriby in causa adulterii per decretum Concilii Provincial London. Fo. 526 Ducarel's Abstract of the Lambeth Registers, i., p. 385. Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. 6065 (52 vols., consecutive numbers). Littera Regis conventionalis quod certi electi possint cognoscare in causa matrimoniali et divortii inter Johem Comitem Warren et dnam Johannam de Bars et Matildam de Neyrford. Fo. 72a Ibid. Consensus epis. Cycestr., quod causa matrimonii et divortii inter nobiles personas Johem Comitem Warren et dnam Johannam de Bars ac Matildam de Neyrford tractarentur coram Archiepo Cants., vel suis commisariis. Fo. 726, |