Page images
PDF
EPUB

siege. Peter of Préaux, acting in concert with the archbishop and the mayor, was in military command. He had with him the old official, Richard of Villequier, and other great barons of the neighbourhood, Henry of Etouteville, the young Robert of Esneval,2 Thomas of Pavilli, Geoffrey du Bois and Peter of Hotot. Within the strong walls and triple fosse3 of the city a host of refugees were gathered from Eu, Aumâle and Drincourt. Even those burgesses and vassals of Alençon who had refused to follow their count in his desertion, had found a home there. Provisions had been brought from England and from all parts of Normandy. The city had entered into a defensive alliance with Arques and Verneuil. But as news came of treachery at Falaise and Caen the mood of Rouen changed. A story of stubborn resistance only broken down by superior force, would doubtless have had a different effect; but the advance of Philip had been so easy; his relations with the men of other places had been so pleasant and cordial. He had confirmed the privileges of Falaise, and had granted a fair of seven days at the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross for the benefit of its lepers.5 The mayor of Falaise, happy man, had received lands at Lassi and Campeaux. The rights and privileges of Rouen were at stake; they extended through the whole Angevin empire, from Gournai to Bordeaux; they were worth saving; and King Philip was well disposed. If the men of Rouen were not careful they might find upstarts in their path. The men of Pont-Audemer, for example, so well placed near the mouth of the Risle, were already bargaining for a

1. Chéruel, Histoire de Rouen pendant l'époque communale (1843), i, 86 seqq. The chief authority for the siege is the agreement of June 1, in Teulet, Layettes, i, 250-52, ro. 716.

2. Stapleton, II, cxlvii.

3. Philippid., 1. viii, v. 159 (Delaborde, ii, 216).

4. Rigord, i, 160: "castra scilicet que cum Rothomagensibus fuerant conjurata."

5. Cart. Norm., nos. 75, 1070, p. 283.

6. Ibid, no. 76, p. 15.

commune.1 Decision was necessary, for some persons in the crowded city were already out of hand; it was said that they had seized and beheaded a number of King Philip's men, and the king would be sure to insist upon punishment.2

While Robert the mayor and his colleagues were considering these facts the canons of Rouen would hear of Philip's relations with the western dioceses. They would learn that many of the clergy had declared for Philip, even Abbot Samson, of St. Stephen's, who had sat for so many years at the board of exchequer;3 and they would remember that the church of Rouen had more to lose in Normandy than in England. Moreover the king of France would doubtless assist them in the rebuilding of the cathedral. The barons, also, must have been shaken. King Philip was losing no time in the disposal of Norman property. Confiscations and rewards were issuing fast from his chancery. There was Guérin of Glapion, for example: he had already secured Moyon and Montpinçon and lands at Cambois.5 The constable had gone over," 1. Ibid, no. 77, p. 284.

2. See the additional clause in the arrangement of June 1 (Layettes, i, 252): "Ego Robertus, major Rothomagensis, me vicesimo, jurabo quod capita hominum domini regis non fuerant amputata per nos in civitate Rothomagensi, sed plus de hoc doluimus quam gavisi fuerimus, et si eos capere potuerimus qui hoc fecerunt eos ipsi regi trademus ad faciendam voluntatem suam.'

[ocr errors]

3. John refers to his 'malevolentia' against the abbey of Saint Stephen "occasione Samsonis abbatis illius loci" (Rot. Pat., 70b).

[ocr errors]

4. Burnt on Easter Day, 1200 (Howden, iv, 116). John had promised a large sum ad fabricam ecclesie" of which £460 were still owing in April, 1203 (Rot. Norm., 86).

5. Actes, nos. 817B, 825A, pp. 186, 188.

6. The Annalist of Winchester (Ann. Monast., ii, 255-6) ascribes excessive importance to the constable. He states that King Philip subdued Normandy and Anjou "seditione Willelmi de Humet, qui sub rege Johanne totius Normanniae gubernaculum obtinvit, Johanne rege in Anglia moram faciente." The annalist probably confused him with the other Williams, William Crassus and William des Roches, seneschals of Normandy and Anjou.

the great earl Marshal had compromised,1 and the earl of Meulan, weary and disillusioned, had retired from the contest on the first of May. Some of these things had happened near to Rouen, or were transacted in King Philip's camp across the river. They were, therefore, not likely to be hidden from Peter of Préaux and his comrades. For a time Peter hesitated. He sent urgent messages to King John, and on June 1st concluded with Philip a temporary armistice of a type familiar in feudal warfare. The barons and citizens would surrender the city if help did not come within thirty days; Philip, in the meanwhile, was to retain the barbican on the west side of the river. This outwork defended the bridge across the Seine, and had been besieged by the king. He stipulated that he should be allowed to strengthen it, and, if necessary, to demand that the citizens should destroy the four arches of the bridge next adjoining it. But these precautions were not needed. It is clear, from the terms of the armistice, that Rouen was regarded as lost. They constituted a treaty of surrender. The knights and burgesses of Rouen, Eu, Aumâle, Drincourt and the tenants of Alençon, were to be secured in their holdings, if, after the expiration of the appointed time, they should do homage to the French king and their lords.3 Those who did homage in the interval might depart at once to their holdings; and safe conducts were promised to recalcitrants who might prefer to retire from Normandy, provided that they made up their minds before the time had passed. On payment of the usual dues merchants who did not carry corn or bread, were to be allowed to conduct their business; and, if the city surrendered, all its trading facilities and liberties within the old limits of Normandy and in Poitou, Anjou, Maine, Brittany and Gascony were to be retained.

1. Above, p. 383.

2. At Préaux, near Rouen, where he gave over his English and Norman lands to his heirs. See Stapleton, II, cci.

3. i.e., the counts of Eu and Alençon.

The men of Verneuil and Arques were to be granted the same terms if they should ask for them before the Wednesday after Ascension Day (June 9).

Hostages were given by the barons and citizens as security for the observance of the truce.1

Rouen did not wait for thirty days before the surrender. The end came on the 24th of June, the Feast of St. John the Baptist. Verneuil and Arques surrendered also. It is probable that King Philip had spent the interval well, for the story went that Peter of Préaux had sold his defection.2 Certainly his nephews were endowed by Philip, and the mayor of Verneuil received a reward like that of the mayor of Falaise. But Peter was a brave and had proved himself a faithful man; it is likely that circumstances were too strong for him.

3

The fall of Rouen, urbs invicta, brought the war in Normandy to an end. Resistance doubtless continued in certain places, but no record of it has survived. Normandy was rapidly forced by Cadoc and the other French bailiffs. into Philip's administrative system. Only at Dieppe do we hear of any serious trouble. This great port was closely connected with England and seems to have enjoyed peculiar freedom on account of the uncertain relations which existed between the authority of the archbishop, its new lord, and the local bailiff of Caux, or, as he was styled sometimes, of Arques. Some of the problems raised by King Richard's exchange of Dieppe for Andeli had been settled in the year 1200; for example, the right to the prisage of wine and the regulations concerning the passage

1. Layettes, i, 250. The hostages were to be the children or relatives (de parentela nostra) of the defenders. The citizens were to provide forty hostages. Cf. Rigord, i, 161 (who gives sixty as the number).

2. Histoire des ducs de Normandie, ed. Michel, p. 98. Cf. Delisle's remarks, Actes de Philippe Auguste, p. cxiij.

3. Actes, no. 836, p. 190.

4. Ibid, no. 906, p. 208.

of the king's men to England. But disputes necessarily continued over such matters as the regalia, and the royal monopoly of fishing rights in the river. In 1204 Philip Augustus placed one of his followers, John of Rouvrai, who had already received grants of Norman lands, in charge of the castle and bailiwick of Arques.2 Dieppe was disaffected, and apparently not yet occupied by Philip's troops. John of Rouvrai heard that Roger of Mortemer had landed with the purpose of maintaining King John's cause, and immediately set men-at-arms in the town. Roger was taken.3 The men of Dieppe offended King Philip in other ways, both at home and abroad. Some of them joined the fleet which in 1206, sailed with King John to Poitou; and the archbishop of Rouen, as their lord, only succeeded in making their peace with Philip in March 1207.4 The anxieties and disturbances of war had of course affected the finances of the archbishop; and it is with an obvious sigh of relief that a chronicler of Rouen refers to the happy restoration of order. His words may form an epilogue:

[ocr errors]

At Michaelmas, in the year 1206, archbishop Walter granted to the chapter of Rouen the tithe of Dieppe. He had promised it for some time, but in the tempest of war he had not been able to collect in full the revenues of that town, and the canons in consequence could not receive their tithe. Now they were established again in their rights, and on the same day the tithe was paid, a sum amounting to £13 14s., of which the canons, thirty

1. Rot. Norm., 3.

2. Cart. Norm., no. 167, p. 27. At Rouen John of Rouvrai had received the lands of earl Bigod in Normandy up to the value of £240 (Actes, no. 819, p. 186). See also Delisle's preface to the inquests of Saint Louis, Recueil des historiens de France, xxiv, part i, p. 109*.

3. Cart. Norm., p. 27. See also Stapleton, II, cxxii-iii.

4. Cart. Norm., no. 132, p. 23.

« PreviousContinue »