^{page 21 note 1} Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1313–1317, p. 660Google Scholar; Chron. Landavense (Cotton MS. Nero, A. iv.), f. 53bGoogle Scholar (cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1088)Google Scholar; Flores Hist., iii. 194Google Scholar; de Trokelowe, J., Annales, p. 86Google Scholar; Chron. Ed. I and Ed. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes. p. 254Google Scholar; Rot. Parl., i. 353.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 1} Chron. Pierre de Langtoft, ii. 368.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 2} Vide references on p. 21, note 1.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 3} Flores Hist., iii. 194Google Scholar: ‘ex dono regis sibi vinculo maritali conjunxit.’ She had previously married (i) de Verdon, Theobald (Flores Hist., iii. 194)Google Scholar, and (2) John de Burgo. (de Trokelowe, J., Annal., p. 86.)Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 4} Llanstephan MS. (Nat. Lib. Wales) 148, i. 98bGoogle Scholar, s.a. 1314Google Scholar: ‘y bu llallfa y seison yn ystriflen yn y gogledd ac y llas Jarll Clar.’

^{page 22 note 5} The war described in the records as taking place immediately after the Earl's death.

^{page 22 note 6} The revolt of Llewelyn Bren.

^{page 22 note 7} Rot. Parl., i. 353Google Scholar; Cal. Fine Rolls, 1307–1319, p. 201.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 8} The battle of Bannockburn, was fought on 06 24.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} Chron. Landav. (Cotton MS. Nero, A. iv.), s.a. 1321, f. 536Google Scholar. (cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1088).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} There was considerable diversity in the returns made to the King. The majority returned that if the Countess were not pregnant the heirs were Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth. Others substituted Isabella for Elizabeth. The London inquisition did not know who was the nearest heir on the ground that the Countess was pregnant. Because an Isabella was named as an heiress the escheator was ordered to investigate the matter further. (Rot. Parl., i. 353.)Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} de Trokelowe, J., Annal., p. 86Google Scholar; cf. Flores Hist., iii. 342.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} His eagerness brought him into collision with the King; cf. Cal. Inq. P. M., v. 351–2 (1315).Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 5} Rot. Parl., i. 353.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 6} Ibid., i. 354; ‘fuit et est publica vox et fama.’

^{page 24 note 1} Rot Parl, 1 354Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Ibid

^{page 24 note 3} de Trokelowe, J., Annal, p 86Google Scholar ‘Comitissa ipsius uxor impregnata fuisse credebatur expectabaturque per biennium si forte foetum produxisset et cum tempus pariendi tam prolixo tempore frustra pertransut divisa est ejus haereditas’, cf Flores Hist, 111 342Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 4} Rot Parl, 1 355Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 5} Cal. Pat Rolls, 1313–1317, p 666Google Scholar A similar writ was sent to the Justice of South Wales

^{page 24 note 6} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1307–1319, p 350Google Scholar The partition itself was not entered on the Close Roll probably on account of its great length, but was preserved on separate rolls—P. R. O. Chan Misc, 9/23–26Google Scholar, formerly Misc Rolls (Chan), 3/7–10Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} P.R.O. Chan. Misc., 9/24Google Scholar: cf. Cotton MS. Julius, B. xii. ff. 169–70Google Scholar. Cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1050–6.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 25 note 3} P.R.O. Chan. Misc. 9/24.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 4} Ibid.: ‘Comitatu de Wenthlok in nullo subiacent seu intendant set solomodo corone Angliae imperpetuum.’

^{page 25 note 5} P.R.O. Chan. Misc., 9/25Google Scholar: cf. Cal. Inq. P. M., vi. pp. 8–12.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 6} Flores Hist., iii. 194Google Scholar: ‘usque ad versutas insidias ipsius Hugonis noviter suscitatas possedit quilibet pacifico partem suam.’

^{page 26 note 1} Cole, H., Documents illustrat. Engl. Hist, 13th and 14th Centuries, p. 4Google Scholar. In the process of exile against him it is stated that ‘he was nominated and agreed upon as king's chamberlain in the parliament of York.’ (Stat. of Realm, i. 181.)Google Scholar de Cherleton, J. was still Chamberlain on 04 19, 1318Google Scholar. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p 133.)Google Scholar Baker is entirely wrong when he makes Despenser Chamberlain in 1314. (Chron. Geoff, le Baker, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 6.)Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Chron. Geoff, le Baker, ed. Thompson, E. M., p. 6Google Scholar: ‘Rex antea nedum minime dilexit immo odivit.’

^{page 26 note 3} On July 20, 1318, the two Despensers were first summoned after the earls to Parliament (Parl. Writs, II. ii. 564)Google Scholar. Previously they had occupied a lower position on the list of barons.

^{page 26 note 4} Cf. Cal. Misc. Chanc. Rolls, Welsh Roll, pp. 334–49.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Cal. Charter Rolls, iii. 1300–1327, 398–9.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} The impression conveyed by the chroniclers is that Despenser sought to disinherit his brothers-in-law entirely. There is no evidence at all that he sought to obtain possession of their English lands. His endeavour was to make South Wales the seat of his power. Cf. Engl. Hist. Rev., xii. (1897) 755.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 3} Chron. Landav. (Cotton MS. Nero, A. iv. f. 53b)Google Scholar: cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1088.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 4} Chron. Lanercost (Bannatyne Club), p. 241Google Scholar: ‘homo cupidissimus.’

^{page 27 note 5} Ibid.: cf. Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 254Google Scholar: ‘omni studio et tota mente terras vicinas dominio suo nitebatur amplificare.’

^{page 27 note 6} Flores Hist., iii. 194Google Scholar: ‘in arcum pravum conversus igneque cupiditatis intus accensus, ad integrum honorem comitatus Gloucestriae per fas vel nefas obtinendum totis desideriis anelabat.’

^{page 27 note 7} Vide below, pp. 60–1Google Scholar: cf. Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–1323, pp. 492–4.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 8} Flores Hist., iii. 194–5Google Scholar: ‘quinetiam omnes Marchiae barones multosque Aquilonares ad cumulum ignominae suae fraudulenter conabatur exterminare.’

^{page 28 note 1} This is a gross misrepresentation, as D'Audley forfeited his lands on account of his failure to keep a compact he had made with the King. (Vide below, p. 50.)Google Scholar Spigurnel, J. was at this time acting as justice of oyer and terminer at Gloucester and pronounced the sentence of forfeiture —hence probably the chronicler's assertion. There is no record of any such judgment on the Assize Roll. (Engl. Hist. Rev., xii. (1897), p. 761, note 54.)Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Flores Hist., iii. 345.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 3} P.R.O. Parliamentary Proceedings, File 4/22Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 4} Vide above, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} Flores Hist., iii. 342, s.a. 1317Google Scholar; Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii. Auct. Malmes. p. 254Google Scholar: ‘fraudulenter intravit et tenuit.’

^{page 29 note 2} P.R.O. Parl. Proc., File 4/ 22: ‘diuers perils de guerre e la pees nostre seigneur le Roy … parties meintenir et sauuement garder,’ The King's version differs: ‘Hugh le Despenser took fealty of certain of the knights and tenants under certain conditions for his own use.’ (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 103.)Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} P.R.O. Pari. Proc., File 4/22. This interesting document was sealed by Hugh le Despenser and William de Berkerolls. On behalf of the commonalty of Gwennllwyg, Llewelyn ap Ivor, Howel ap David, Howel ap leuan, Meuric Vachan the son, Meuric ap Reynolf, Meuric ap Madoc ap Howel, witnessed it, and for Machen, Howel ap Meruagh and Wrenok ap leuan. Dated at Cardiff, December, 10 Edw. II.

^{page 29 note 4} Cal, Pal. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p, 103.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} Ibid. pp. 120–I.

^{page 30 note 3} Ibid. (March 14, 1318.)

^{page 30 note 4} ‘Frenboth.’

^{page 30 note 5} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 257Google Scholar. Note the recognition of the King's right to give alienation for land in the marches by licence.

^{page 30 note 6} Ibid., p. 415. (January 10, 1320.)

^{page 30 note 7} Ibid., p. 456. (May 12, 1320)

^{page 30 note 8} Ibid., p, 103.

^{page 31 note 1} P.R.O. Parl. Proc., File 4/22 (dorse).Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 31 note 3} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 103Google Scholar; P.R.O. Parl. Proc., File 4/ 22d.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Llanstephan MS. (Nat. Lib. Wales), 148Google Scholar, s.a. 1318, f. 98bGoogle Scholar: ‘y rhoddes y brenin y cantref mawr i Huw Spenser jeuangc.’

^{page 31 note 5} Cal. Close Rolls, 1313–18, pp. 534–5.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 6} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 130Google Scholar. The custody of the castle of Dynevor had been granted to Hakelut for life for good service rendered, and in compensation the King made him a grant (April 4) of 50 marks a year, payable at the Exchequer of Carmarthen. (Ibid.)

^{page 32 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–1323, p. 1 (07 11, 1318).Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 2} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, pp. 248, 255–6Google Scholar. The financial terms of the grant were slightly altered.

^{page 32 note 3} Ibid., p. 266 (January 10, 1319).

^{page 32 note 4} P.R.O. Ancient Deed, A 4878Google Scholar; Descr. Cal. Anc. Deeds, iii. 116.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 5} P. R. O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. xxxvii. no. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Ann. Paul., p. 292Google Scholar: ‘ibidem de prope annexum.’

^{page 33 note 2} Cf. Rot. Parl, i.Google Scholar, passim; Cal. Charter Rolls, 1300–1327, iii. 46–7Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–1321, p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 3} Capgrave, (Chron. of Engl., p. 186)Google Scholar calls him a ‘gret wastoure of good.’

^{page 33 note 4} Walsingham, , Hist, Angl., i. 158Google Scholar: ‘praedives a parentela sed dissipator substantiae sibi relictae.’

^{page 34 note 1} P.R.O. Ancient Petition, no. 4549Google Scholar; Chan. Warr., File 92, no. 3486 A.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} List Inq. Q. D. (List and Indexes No. 17), p. 169Google Scholar; Cal. Inq. Q. D., p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} P.R.O. Inq. Q. D., Fue 119/8 formerly 9 Edw. II, no. 204Google Scholar; cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1038.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 4} Brewosa appears to have had a son, William: cf. Desc. Catalog, of the Penrice and Margam Abbey MSS., ed. de Gray Birch, W. (1893), First Series, pp. 126–7Google Scholar, nos. 302–6, where there is a number of grants by ‘William de Brewosa, lord of Llandimor, son and heir of Sir William de Brewosa,’ of land in the fee of Llandimor to Sir Robert de Penres. The grants are dated between January 14 and April 18, 8 Edw. II (1315). It might be the death of this de Brewosa, William that Flores Hist., iii. 344Google Scholar, chronicles in 1320. In any case he must have died on or before that date, for on July 14, 1319 (ibid., p. 128, no. 310), John Dany grants to Penres lands held of Sir William de Brewosa, lord of Gower in the fee of Llandimor.

^{page 34 note 5} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar: ‘quia filium aut alium haeredem praeter ilium non habuit’; Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 159Google Scholar: ‘haeres unica fuit illi’; Walsingham, , Ypod. Neus., p. 253Google Scholar: ‘unica haeres de tota terra.’

^{page 34 note 6} Cal. Inq. P. M. vi. 435Google Scholar; Dugdale, , Baronage (1675), p. 421a.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 7} P.R.O. K.R. Misc. Book, vol i.Google Scholar; cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam. (1891 ed ) iii. 589Google Scholar, s.a. 1298Google Scholar: ‘desponsata fuit dompna Alina, filia dompni Willelmi de Brewes, Johanni de Mowbray in villa de Sweynese, etas pueri circiter viii annos.’ In 1297 ne nad entered into an agreement to pay Roger Mowbray or his executors 500 marks for the marriage of his son John. (Cal. Close Rolls, 1296–1302, pp. 298–9.)Google Scholar After the death of Roger he had disputes with the executor over the recognisance of this debt. (P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 35, no. 57Google Scholar; Cal. Close Rolls, 1307–13, p. 133.)Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 8} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 9} Carte, , Hist, of Engl., ii. (1750), 350.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 2} Jones, T., History of Breconshire (1898 ed.), p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar: ‘contigua fuit in multis locis et conjuncta.’

^{page 35 note 4} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, i. 293Google Scholar, Annal. Paul.

^{page 35 note 5} Trokelowe, Annal., p. 107Google Scholar: ‘pro quadam summa pecunie secum convenit.’

^{page 35 note 6} Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 7} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 8} Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., i. 159Google Scholar: ‘ad omnium malorum cumulum.’

^{page 35 note 9} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 10} Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Vesp. F. vii. i. 6Google Scholar: cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1065.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} Vide above, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Trokelowe, (Annal., p. 107)Google Scholar and Walsingham, (Hist. Angl., i. 159)Google Scholar say he obtained the full royal favour: ‘quia erat Domini Regis Camerarius.’

^{page 36 note 3} Trokelowe, (Annal., p. 107)Google Scholar and Walsingham, (Hist. Angl., i. 159)Google Scholar definitely state that Despenser received possession, but this is hardly correct.

^{page 36 note 4} Flores Hist., iii. 344Google Scholar, s.a. 1320Google Scholar. Prof. Tout in his latest book, The Place of Edward II in English History (1914), p. 141Google Scholar, accepts this statement. Brewosa did not however die until 1326, the writ for the inquisition post mortem being issued on May 1 of that year. (Cal. Inq. P. M., vi. 435.)Google Scholar The point is one of importance, as had Brewosa died before the seizure by Mowbray the whole question of alienation in the marches vanishes, and with it the least justification for Despenser.

^{page 36 note 5} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 292Google Scholar, states that a previous agreement had been made between Brewosa and Mowbray: ‘facto prius quodam contractu super dicto feodo de Gower inter praedictum dominum ‘de Breus et dominum (Johannem de Moubrai generum suum.’ Dugdale, (Baronage, 1675, i. 420b)Google Scholar gives further particulars and states that the original contract was then in existence.

^{page 36 note 6} Flores Hist., iii. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 293Google Scholar: ‘consensu domini regis super hoc per praedictum Hugonem perturbato.’

^{page 37 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 37 note 3} Cf. Holdsworth, , Hist. Engl. Law, iii. 72–3Google Scholar; Pollock, and Maitland, , Hist. Engl. Law (2nd ed.), 1911, vol. i., p. 337Google Scholar; Stubbs, , Sel. Charters (9th ed.), pp. 473–74.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 4} Vide above, p. 36Google Scholar; cf. Dugdale, , Baronage (1675), i. 420b.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 5} Vide above, p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 6} Rot. Parl., i. 143, 148–9Google Scholar; Cal. Charter Rolls, iii. 1300–27, pp. 46–7Google Scholar. Cal. Close Rolls, 1296–1302, p. 302.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 7} In making a grant to the abbey of Margam of free trading within his lands he expressly states that he made the concession with the assent of his heir. Cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1081Google Scholar: ‘consensu heredum meorum’ circa 1320.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 8} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} Chron: Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} This latter is probably the correct solution: cf. Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 254.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 254Google Scholar; cf. Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 4} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., pp. 254–5Google Scholar: ‘Instabat Hugo Despenser pertinaciter dicens dominum regem tam in Wallia quam in Anglia hac semper praerogativa gaudere, ut nullus sine licentia regis ingressum haberet in feodum quod de rege teneretur in capite.… Sprevit Hugo et consuetudines et legem Marchile, sed et barones talia allegantes laesae majestatis videbatur arguere.’

^{page 39 note 1} Vide Cal. Close Rolls, and Cal. Pat. Rolls, passim.

^{page 39 note 2} Cf. Engl. Hist. Review, vol. xii. (1897), p. 757.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Vide below, p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} Rot. Parl., ii. 9Google Scholar: ‘Item prient qe si nul homme face purchace de Terres ou de Tenementz qe sount tenuz en chief du Roy et est entre saunz conge qe pertent celes Terres et Tenementz ne seyent pas seisi en la mayn le Roy ne agarde come forfaitz. Mes ordeinez soit par comune conseil auscun Fyn de an doner au Roy solom la value de purchase.’

^{page 39 note 5} Rot. Parl., ii. 12Google Scholar: ‘eles ne furent unkes forfaites. Et acorde est qe desore facent resonable fin en Chauncelere par due proces.’ Cf. Stat of Realm, i. 256Google Scholar; Stat. Westm., ii., 1 Edw. III, § 12.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 2 (07 28, 1318)Google Scholar; Rot. Orig., p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} P.R.O. Inq.P.M. 13 Edw. II, no. 32Google Scholar; cf. Cal. Inq.P.M., vol. i. p. 294.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} Kilvey was the property of Leissand de Avene, who was one of the rebels of the baronial confederacy in 1322. (Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 189.)Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, pp. 41–2Google Scholar; Rot. Orig., p. 254Google Scholar (‘a great multitude of Welshmen, unknown and armed’ says the sub-escheator's report); Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 547.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 5} Cal, Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 285.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, pp. 40–1Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 547Google Scholar; Rot. Orig., p. 254.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 547.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 41 (11 22, 1320).Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 4} Ibid., p. 43 (December 18, 1320).

^{page 41 note 5} Ibid., pp. 44–5 (January 20, 1321); Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 602.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 6} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 7} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 292Google Scholar, says it was ‘prima causa discordiae.’

^{page 41 note 8} Holinshed, 's Chronicle (London, 1587), ii. 325.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Le Livere de Reis de Brit. Semp. Contin. (p. 336)Google Scholar states that the dispute arose ‘pur auscunes terres en Gaules e en Engleterre e autres choses.’

^{page 42 note 2} Cotton MS. Nero, A. iv. f. 53bGoogle Scholar; Chron. Landav., cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1088.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} P.R.O. Ancient Petition, no. 12092.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} In Peniarth MS. (Nat. Lib. Wales) 32, f. 227Google Scholar, it is called the Barons, ' War, s.a. 1321Google Scholar: ‘fuit guerra baronum Cambrice vero dicta Ryvel y barwneid.’ It is possible that the date should be 1322 and the reference to the Boroughbridge campaign. Cf. also Cotton MS. Nero, A. iv. f. 6b.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Clifford's cause of grievance was that his mother (Maud) had been by Despenser's interest defeated of her claim to her nephew T. de Clare's estate. (Carte, T., History of Engl., ii. (1750) 350.)Google Scholar The inquests on his property were not held until April–May 1321, and the heirs are said to be his aunts Margaret the wife of Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, and Maud the wife of Sirde Welle, Robert. (Cal. Inq. P. M., vi. 159.)Google Scholar Maud had married Robert de Clifford the father of Roger in 1295 (Dict. Nat. Biog., Sir Robert de Clifford, fifth Baron). On his death in 1314 (Reg. Pal. Durham, i. 607)Google Scholar she had been abducted, and among those who recovered her was de Badlesmere, Bartholomew. (Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct Bridl., p. 48.)Google Scholar Carte's assumption does not appear to have been well founded, as the purparty belonging to de Badlesmere was to remain in the King's hands, though the other part was extended as the purparty of Robert de Welle and Maud his wife. (Cal. Inq. P. M., vi. 163.)Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 3} These are mentioned as the prime movers in the dissension in Le Livere de Reis de Brit. Semp. Contin., p. 336.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 4} Chron. Lanero. (Bannatyne Club), p. 241Google Scholar, s.a. 1321Google Scholar: ‘quasi oculus dexter regis.’

^{page 43 note 5} Milles, , Catalogue of Honur (1610), p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 6} Chron. Lanerc. (Bannatyne Club), p. 241.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} Chron. Henr. de Knighton, i. 423.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Chron. Edw, I and Edw. II, i., Annal. Paul., p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Walsingham, , Hist. Angl., p. 159Google Scholar; Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Trokelowe, , Annal., p. 107Google Scholar: ‘qui inimicus Hugonis senioris a longo tempore fuit.’

^{page 44 note 5} Chron. A. de Murimuth, p. 33Google Scholar; cf. Intro., Stubbs, , Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, ii. lxxxiii–lxxxviii.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 569Google Scholar; Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} P.R.O. Chancery Warrants, file 113, no. 5599.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 4} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 36, no. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 5} P.R.O. Chancery Warrants, file 114, nos. 5602, 5603Google Scholar. This roll ispreserved (P.R.O. Parliamentary and Council Proceedings, file 5/6).Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 6} Vide Cal. Close and Pat. Rolls, passim.

^{page 45 note 7} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 291–3Google Scholar; Cal, Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, P. 569.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} Cotton MS. Vesp., viii. f. 6Google Scholar: ‘de legiere volente et jole enpryse.’

^{page 46 note 2} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 49, no. 143Google Scholar: ‘si vous oietz de nule aliaunce de nul marchis en nul moeuement de nuly contre nostre seigneur le Roy ou nous en celes parties le nous maundez distinctement le plus en haste qe vous porez ensemblement oue vostre consail quel remede il apendre a metre.’

^{page 46 note 3} Vide above, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 4} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 49, no. 143Google Scholar: ‘auscunes gentz ont dit au Roy et a nous qe mestre Reys ap Howel fait grauntz alliaunces et meyns grant route des gentz oue luy et sil vous semble qe bon siet qe nous eyoms une commission de luy prendre le nous maunditz et la manere coment nous la deuoms purchacier sauuant nostre fraunchise.’

Roger Mortimer, Justice of Wales, had been ordered on January 1, 1321, to arrest Master Rees ap Howel for the part he had taken in the d.sturbance outside Swansea (Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–1323, p. 285)Google Scholar, and as this letter was not written until January 18, it appears curious that, considering the care and attention that Hugh was paying to Glamorgan affairs at this time, he did not tell his sheriff this fact, unless of course he was un aware of it.

^{page 46 note 5} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–1324, p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 49, no. 144 (02 17, 1321).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 35, no. 8Google Scholar: ‘lour pouer vount affor … de Gales pur braulier et comencer illoeqes aucun mal.’

^{page 47 note 3} Ibid.: ‘voiliez pur dieu si vous plest auoir hastif auys et bon et priue conseil qe tiel mal naueigne et charger et commaunder m[onsire Hugh le] Despenser le filz qil soit issint purueu et garniz en son pays qil puisse contregacier tielx malx car al eide de dieu et de vostre seigneur …’

^{page 47 note 4} P.R.O. Ancient Correspondence, vol. 58, no. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 5} The letter has been dated by the day and month. The year has been established as 1321. (Engl. Hist. Rev., vol. xii. (1897), p. 755.)Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 6} Original in Cotton MS. Nero, C. iii. f. 181Google Scholar. Cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1074–5.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Engl. Hist. Rev., vol. xii. (1897), p. 761, note 54.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} Cantref Bychan was in Carmarthenshire and belonged to Giffard, John of Brimmesfeld. (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313–18, p. 563.)Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Cotton MS. Nero, C. iii. f. 181Google Scholar. Cf. Clark, , Cartœ de Glam., iii. 1074–6Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 355Google Scholar; Fœdera, ii. 442Google Scholar; Parl. Writs, II. ii. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 4} Cal, Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Ibid., p. 365 (March 30); cf. Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Auct. Malmes., p. 256Google Scholar. The making of such contracts was nullified in the first Parliament of Edward III. (Stat, of Realm, i. 257Google Scholar; Stat. Westm., ii, 1 Edw. III, § xv.)Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 292–3, 294, 295, 296, 366Google Scholar; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21. Pp. 573, 574, 576.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 575.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 5} Parl. Writs, II. ii. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 6} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 366.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 7} Cf. Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 8} Vide above, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 367.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 51 note 3} Cf. Chron. Edw. I and Edw, II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 367–8.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 256Google Scholar: ‘regem prorege.’

^{page 52 note 3} Ibid.: ‘et tanquam homines sine rege, sine rectore, et sine judice.’

^{page 52 note 4} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 371.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} Flores Hist., iii. 344Google Scholar, which is approximately correct; Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 293Google Scholar, gives the date too early.

^{page 53 note 3} Flores Hist., iii. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 4} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 5} Ibid., vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 293.

^{page 53 note 6} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 541.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 53 note 8} Flores Hist., iii. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 9} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii. p. 256: ‘leviter capiunt.’Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 10} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 542.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 11} Chron, Edw, I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 541.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} Flores Hist., iii. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 3} For a sidelight vide Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 440.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 4} Flores Hist., iii. 345Google Scholar; Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 293Google Scholar, states that Gorges was constable of Caerphilly and was driven out of that castle and wounded.

^{page 54 note 5} Flores Hist., iii. 345.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 6} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 440.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 7} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. i., Annal. Paul., p. 293.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 8} Ibid., vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 256: ‘et Hugonem Daudeleye, prout jus dictabat, in possessionem mittunt.’

^{page 54 note 9} Ibid., p. 256: ‘modico labore’; Chron. Lanerc. (ed. Maxwell), p. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 10} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., p. 255Google Scholar: ‘et manus comitis Lancastriae erat cum illis.’

^{page 54 note 11} P.R.O. Chancery Warrants, file 113, no. 5551.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 12} Chron. Geoff, le Baker, p. 11Google Scholar; Chron. A. de Murimuth, p. 33Google Scholar; Le Livere de Reis de Brit. Semp. Contin., p. 336Google Scholar: ‘par assent sire Thomas counte de Lancaster.’

^{page 55 note 1} Chron. Lanerc. (Bannatyne Club), p. 241Google Scholar: ‘de consilio autem et mandato comitis Lancastriae fuerunt omnia ista facta.’

^{page 55 note 2} Chron. Geoff, le Baker, p. 11Google Scholar; Chron. A. de Murimuth, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 3} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii., Auct. Malmes., pp. 254–6.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} Chron. Lanerc. (Bannatyne Club), p. 241Google Scholar: ‘dicentes se non contra coronam sed pro corona et jure regni Angliae haec omnia operari.’

^{page 55 note 5} He held the castle and town of Loughor and other land in Gower. (Cal. Inq. P.M., vi. pp. 216–17.)Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 6} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 541.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 7} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 8} Ibid., p. 249.

^{page 56 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 542Google Scholar. (The petition of Despenser.)

^{page 56 note 2} P.R.O. Ancient Petition, no. 2749.

^{page 56 note 3} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 542Google Scholar. A full account of the campaign and destruction is found recited in Rot. Parl., iii. 361–2.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 4} Ibid., pp. 541–2.

^{page 56 note 5} Le Livere de Reis de Brit. Semp. Contin., p. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 6} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 542–4.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 7} Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, vol. ii. Auct. Malmes., p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 8} Ibid.

^{page 57 note 1} Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 582.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} Cf. Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 495.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 3} Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 4} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 57 note 6} Cf. Stat. of Realm, i. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 7} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 77Google Scholar. Their arrest was ordered on February 22, 1322.

^{page 57 note 8} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 582.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 9} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 449 (04 20, 1324).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} P.R.O. Ancient Petition, no. 6641: ‘quil ne voleyt mye estre assentaunt a lor faux covyne.’

^{page 58 note 2} Ibid., no. 6641 (dorse).

^{page 58 note 3} Ibid., no. 8242: ‘graunt damage et meschefs.’

^{page 58 note 4} Ibid., no. 8107.

^{page 58 note 5} Rot. Parl., i. 408.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 6} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 584.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1317–21, p. 591Google Scholar; cf. also pp. 596, 597.

^{page 59 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 59 note 3} Cal. Fine Rolls, 1319–27, p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} Hugh had been adjudged a traitor and banished the realm, and his possessions and goods were therefore forfeit to the King as escheats.

^{page 59 note 5} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 402Google Scholar. Adam de Brom was appointed to take the lands into the King's hands.

^{page 59 note 6} Ibid., p. 408.

^{page 60 note 1} Vide above, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 408.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} Ibid., pp. 492–5; Stat. of Realm, i. 181–4Google Scholar; Rot. Parl., i. 362–4Google Scholar; Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, ii., Auct. Brid., pp. 67–9.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} Harcourt, L. W. V., His Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers, pp. 146, 297Google Scholar; Pike, L. O., Constit. Hist. House of Lords, pp. 158, 175–6.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 5} Vide above, p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 6} No reference is made to the bond into which he had entered with the King. Vide p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 493–4Google Scholar; Stat. of Realm, i. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 61 note 3} Mowbray also received a special pardon. Vide below.

^{page 61 note 4} Among the prominent participators in the revolt who received pardons were Badlesmere, D'Audley the father, Rees ap Howel, Wm. de Berkerolls and Philip ap Howel. Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, pp. 15–18Google Scholar. In all 441 received pardons, of which number 103 were granted on the testimony of Damory, 45 on that of D'Audley, 47 on that of Hereford, and 60 on that of Mortimer of Wigmore.

^{page 61 note 5} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, pp. 15–19.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 6} The King does not surrender the point he had previously made, that alienations without licence were liable to forfeiture. In fact he appears to have strengthened his case by pardoning Mowbray for so acquiring the land, and ordering restitution, and this when the barons were in complete ascendency and predominant over the King.

^{page 62 note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 464.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} Cal, Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 129Google Scholar; P.R.O. Ancient Deed A. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} Cal. Charter Rolls, iii. 1300–27, p. 449.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 3} P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, A. 4876, A. 4885Google Scholar; Brit. Mus. Hurley Charter, 47, B. 30Google Scholar. He also obtained the custody of Aliva, the widow of de Mowbray, John (Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, p. 659).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 4} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321–24, p. 341Google Scholar. Cal. Dese. Lat. Ancient Deeds, vol. iv. p. 116Google Scholar; Flores Hist., iii. p. 348.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 5} Chron. Geoff, le Baker, p. 19.Google Scholar