[532] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1207. R. Wendover (iii. 210) represents the thirteenth as exacted from both laity and clergy; the Waverley Annals say merely “omnis homo de cujuscunque feodo.” But the writ for the assessment, issued from Oxford on February 17, says “concessum est quod quilibet _laicus_ homo totius Angliae, de cujusque feodo sit,” etc. (_Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 72 b). This would, of course, include laymen holding lands of ecclesiastical superiors (cf. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 84 b). Geoffrey’s protest must therefore be interpreted accordingly. John, it seems, had not yet abandoned all hope of getting something from the beneficed clergy; on May 26 he asked those of the southern province for something very like a “benevolence.” _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 72. [533] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 210. [534] _Ib._ Cf. _Ann. Waverl._ a 1207. [535] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. x. No. 219; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 215–217. [536] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 213. [537] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 214. The writ for seizure of the estates was issued July 11, _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 74; and executed July 15, Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 100. [538] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 199. [539] Innoc. III. _Epp._ l. x. No. 113. [540] _Ib._ Nos. 159, 160; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 78, 80; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221. [541] Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 101, and the Annals of Waverley, Worcester, Bermondsey and Tewkesbury, a. 1207, date the publication of the interdict March the _Ann. Winton._ date it “Monday in Passion Week,” _i.e._ March 24 also. The Annals of Margan and of Dunstable make it Passion Sunday, _i.e._ March 23, which is the date given by R. Wendover (iii. 222), W. Coventry (ii. 199) and T. Wykes (a. 1207). Roger of Wendover, however, adds that it was the Monday in Passion Week, so his dates are self-contradictory. [542] R. Coggeshall, p. 163, says the general confiscation of clerical property took place on March 24; and the king’s orders (issued March 17 and 18) for the seizure of the sees of Bath and Ely are to take effect from that day (_Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 80, 80 b), which looks as if the confiscation was meant to be an immediate retort to the interdict. But the see of Norwich--though its bishop was the king’s favourite John de Grey--was evidently seized before March 23 (_ib._ p. 81); while the sheriffs of Derbyshire and Warwickshire were already holding for the king “all the manors of the bishop of Chester within their bailiwicks, and everything in them, and all the lands and goods of abbots, priors, religious, and clerks, within their bailiwicks,” as early as March 21, for on that day they were ordered to hand them over to another custodian. _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 107. [543] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. pp. 107, 110.