[690] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 370. He gives no date; but it must have been quite in the beginning of June, for Mr. Eyton says (_Itin. Hen. II._, p. 172, note 5): “The Dorset Pipe Roll of Michaelmas 1173 shews that the Earl of Leicester’s manor of Kingston (now Kingston Lacy) had been confiscated four months previously (Hutchins, iii. 233).” [691] “Et in liberacione ix navium quæ debuerunt transfretare cum Ricardo de Luci, et Ricardo Pictaviæ archidiacono, et Gaufrido Cantuariensi archidiacono et aliis baronibus, precepto Regis £13: 15s. per breve Ricardi de Luci.” Pipe Roll a. 1173 (Southampton), quoted by Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 174. See Mr. Eyton’s comment, _ib._ note 4, which points to the conclusion that the ships made the voyage--doubtless with the other passengers--but that Richard “probably thought it wise to adhere to his post of viceroy.” [692] R. Diceto (as above), pp. 373, 374. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 49. Rob. Torigni, a. 1173. [693] “Et item in liberacione Esnaccæ quando transfretavit in Normanniam contra Regem £7: 10s. per breve Regis. Et in liberacione xx. hominum qui fuerunt missi de cremento in Esnacchâ 40s. per breve Regis. Et in liberacione iv. navium quæ transfretaverunt cum Esnacchiâ £7: 10s. per idem breve. Et pro locandis carretis ad reportandum thesaurum de Hantoniâ ad Wintoniam duabus vicibus 9s. Et pro unâ carretâ locandâ ad portandas Bulgas Regis ad Winton. 9d.” Pipe Roll a. 1173 (Southampton), quoted in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 173. “Et in corredio Regis apud Norhanton per iv dies £32: 6: 5 per breve Regis.” Northampton, _ibid._ “Et in soltis per breve Regis ipsi vicecomiti [of Northamptonshire] £72: 11: 9, pro robbâ quam invenit Regi.” _Ibid._ On the Southampton entries Mr. Eyton remarks: “The above charges, from their position on the roll, would seem to have been incurred after July 15.” But surely if Henry had been in England during the siege of Leicester, which lasted from July 3 to July 28, we must have had some mention of his presence; and there is scarcely time for it later, between the capture of Leicester and his own expedition to Conches on August 7. Is it not much more natural to conclude that the visit took place earlier--at the end of June--and that the orders for the Leicester expedition, which Rog. Wend. (Coxe, vol. ii. p. 372) expressly says were given by the king, were issued to Richard de Lucy in a personal interview?