[147] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 135–7. One other clause in the agreement may be noticed. After the provisions about the castles already mentioned, it is added: “Sed et tria castella ad coronam domini regis pertinentia, scilicet castellum de Windeshoveres comiti de Arundel; castellum de Wintonia Gilleberto de Lasci; castellum de Northampton Simoni de Pateshille, tradita sunt custodienda; qui fidelitatem domini Regis de ipsis ad opus ipsius fideliter custodiendis juraverunt,” _ib._ p. 136. The earl of Arundel figures, at the end of the document, as one of the chancellor’s sureties, and the Lacys were in close alliance with the Longchamps; taken by itself, therefore, this clause would seem to indicate a change of custodians made at the chancellor’s desire, and dictated by a discovery or suspicion that the actual commandants of these three castles were in treasonable alliance with John. But the Pipe Rolls show that the appointment of Simon de Pateshill implied no change at all, for he had custody of Northampton castle without interruption from Michaelmas 1189 to Michaelmas 1191 (P.R. 2 Ric. I. m. 4; 3 Ric. I. m. 1); while the other appointments were speedily annulled, owing to the breakdown of the whole agreement. [148] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16. [149] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 232, 234. [150] R. Devizes, pp. 409, 410. The date which he has appended to the agreement is impossible, not only for this particular document, but for any personal meeting of John and the chancellor this year at Winchester, where he places it. See Round, _Commune of London_, p. 214, and _Cal. Doc. France_, vol. i. p. 17. As to the agreement itself, cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16. [151] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 14. [152] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 382. [153] _Monast. Angl._ vol. vi. pt. iii. p. 1188. [154] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389. [155] _Ib._ p. 382. [156] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389. [157] R. Devizes, p. 410. [158] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 96. [159] _Gesta Ric._ p. 210. [160] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97; Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 388–93; R. Devizes, pp. 411, 412. [161] _Gesta Ric._ p. 211. [162] _Epp. Cantuar._ pp. 344, 345; Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 506. Cf. R. Devizes, p. 413. [163] _Gesta Ric._ p. 211. [164] September 21, R. Devizes, p. 412; September 26, R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97. [165] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 394–7. [166] _Ib._ p. 397; R. Devizes, p. 413. Cf. _Gesta Ric._ p. 212. One of the summons is given in R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98. [167] Gir. Cambr. _l.c._ [168] _Ib._ vol. iv. pp. 398–402. For date see R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98. [169] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 402–5; R. Devizes, pp. 413, 414; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99; _Gesta Ric._ p. 212, and W. Newb. l. iv. c. 17. [170] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 405; _Gesta Ric._ pp. 213, 214; R. Diceto, _l.c._; R. Devizes, pp. 416, 417. [171] _Gesta Ric._ pp. 213, 214. [172] R. Devizes, p. 415. [173] _Gesta Ric._ p. 214. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97. [174] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 402. [175] _Ib._ p. 406.