[726] I venture to suggest that this may be the explanation of a letter from Pandulf to Hubert de Burgh, _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 130: “Quod actum est de vicecomite Eboracensi, in Dei et domini regis ac nostrum pariter acceptatum esse noscitur praejudicium et contemptum, non enim per nostram vel vestram ammonitionem adhuc potuit liberari. Ideoque discretionem vestram monemus attentius et hortamur quatenus ipsum secundum justitiam et legem terrae faciatis quantocius liberari, cum teneamini hoc circa quemlibet observari facientes” (?) “ita quod honor domini regis conservetur illaesus, et vos inde possitis merito commendari.” In the printed edition this letter purports to be “datum apud Lincolniam, nonas Junii”; Dr. Shirley took this to be 5th June, 1220, and tentatively suggested as “not impossible” that the outrage to which it alludes may have been an act of vengeance perpetrated by William of Aumale, Geoffrey’s most powerful neighbour in Yorkshire, on the erroneous suspicion that it was Geoffrey’s influence which had “disappointed” him of Geoffrey’s former office of seneschal of Poitou. But (1) I greatly doubt whether Aumale, or anybody else, would be “disappointed” at not being made seneschal of Poitou. That office was neither a pleasant nor a lucrative one, but one which most of its various holders, for many years past, seem to have accepted with reluctance and escaped from as soon as possible. (2) The fact that in none of the various accounts of Aumale’s misdoings--in the chronicles, or in the royal letters patent--is there any mention of the capture of the sheriff of Yorkshire, makes it appear very improbable that he was concerned in the matter. Had he been so, or even suspected of being so, his enemies would surely have made the most of such a charge to add to the indictment which, as we shall see, was brought against him early next year. (3) Dr. Shirley cites as a reference showing this letter to have been written in 1220 “_inter alia_, Rot. Claus. i. p. 419 b”; but I can see there nothing which bears on the subject. It seems to me possible that the word printed _Junii_ may have been originally a contracted form of _Januarii_; that the true date of the letter may be 5th January, 1221; and that its true connexion may be not with Aumale but with the dispute about the carucage. I can find in the Rolls nothing to prove or to indicate whether Geoffrey de Neville was or was not at liberty either _c._ 5th June, 1220, or _c._ 5th January, 1221. On 22nd January he was sent with a message from the King to the count of Aumale; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 446. [727] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 437. [728] See above, p. 124. [729] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 253, 254. [730] _Ib._ p. 253. [731] See the details of the debts to Pandulf, Feb. 18th, 1221, _ib._ p. 284. [732] See above, p. 129. [733] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 141, 142. [734] _Ib._ p. 143. [735] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 428. [736] _Brut_, p. 307.