[1307] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385. The long account inserted by Matthew Paris in his _Hist. Angl._ (vol. ii. p. 193)--_not_, it is to be observed, in his _Chron. Maj._--of John’s forgiveness of the barons and good advice to his heir is evidently intended for the edification of Henry III. and of posterity, and if it has any foundation at all, it is inserted in a wrong place; for it is put after John’s last Communion, whereas the abbot obviously must have insisted upon John’s declaring himself to be in charity with all men (the barons, by implication at least, included) _before_ he gave him the Sacrament. [1308] R. Wendover, _l.c._ [1309] Baronius, _Annales_ (ed. Mansi), vol. xx. p. 397. [1310] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 180. Cf. _Hist. de G. le Mar._ vv. 15167–88. [1311] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385. [1312] _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. p. 144. [1313] R. Coggeshall, p. 184. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385. [1314] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._ [1315] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232; M. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ vol. ii. p. 668; and _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 194. [1316] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._ [1317] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 385, 386. [1318] “Hoc in sarcophago sepelitur regis imago, Qui moriens multum sedavit in orbe tumultum.” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 386. [1319] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 191. NOTE I JOHN AND THE DE BRAOSES The fullest account of the quarrel of King John and William de Braose is contained in a document printed in _Foedera_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 107, 108. This is a letter or manifesto addressed by John, after the fall of De Braose, “to all who may read it,” witnessed by the justiciar (Geoffrey Fitz-Peter), the earls of Salisbury, Winchester, Clare, Hertford, and Ferrars, Robert Fitz-Walter, William Brewer, Hugh de Neville, William d’Aubigny, Adam de Port, Hugh de Gournay, William de Mowbray “and others,” and evidently intended as a public defence of the king’s conduct towards William. Coming from John, and under such circumstances, its truthfulness is necessarily open to suspicion; but it is hardly conceivable that so many witnesses of such rank and character as those enumerated should have set their hands to it if it contained any gross misrepresentations of matters which must have been well known to most of them; one of these witnesses, indeed, the earl of Ferrars, is stated in the letter itself to have been De Braose’s own nephew, and another, Adam de Port, his brother-in-law. The only point on which the letter seems to be at variance with any other contemporary authority is the amount of the debt owed by De Braose to the king at the end of 1207 or beginning of 1208. John says (_l.c._ p. 107), that William then owed him the whole of the 5000 marks due for the honour of Limerick, and had only paid him one sum of 100 marks for the ferm of the city “which he had held for five years” (strictly speaking, it was,