[778] Commentators seem puzzled to account for a letter, dated 29th April, 1221, in which the Pope bids the Archbishop of York and his suffragans, “cum, sicut audivimus et dolemus, gravis guerra in regno Angliae incipit pullulare, quae nisi fuerit repressa celeriter, in totius regni poterit excrescere detrimentum ... quatenus singuli tanquam propriam causam agentes ad praecidendam guerrarum materiam et pacis foedera reformandam omne studium et diligentiam impendatis”; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 174, 175. I would suggest that Honorius had heard something of the misdoings of the lord of Holderness, and was neither sufficiently learned in English geography to realize that they were not actually done in the northern province, nor, as yet, aware--as, indeed, he could not be at that date--how promptly they had been brought to an end. [779] _Ann. Dunst._, a. 1221, p. 68. On 28th April Falkes, Richard de Rivers, and Engelard de Cigogné were sent to the Marshal with a letter desiring him to trust to what they should tell him from the King about the castle of Marlborough “ad fidem, commodum, et honorem nostrum.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 287. [780] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 245. [781] Stapleton, _Rotuli Normanniae_, vol. ii. introduction, p. cxxxviii. [782] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 244, 245. This may be an allusion to the supposed plot of Peter de Maulay, or merely to what was possibly the origin of a misunderstanding which had occurred between the Marshal and the government at the time of the siege of Bytham. The Marshal received no summons for that expedition, but hearing when on his way “ad remotas partes” on business of his own that the host was mustering, he hurried back and wrote to the King, expressing his surprise at not having been summoned, and his readiness to join the muster; _ib._ pp. 170, 171. The omission to summon him can hardly have been intentional; it is much more likely that the summons miscarried, and this may have occurred through its interception by some mischief-maker. [783] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 244, 245. Marlborough castle was in Pandulf’s custody till 7th February, 1224; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 426. So also, no doubt, was Luggershall, John Little, who on 2nd March, 1224, was ordered to deliver both castles to Robert de Meisy (_ib._ p. 428), being sub-warden under Pandulf. The _Ann. Dunst._ (p. 68) which do not mention Luggershall, say of Marlborough, “Quod quidem [Marescallus] tali conditione reddidit in manum legati, quod si alii similiter castra sibi commendata redderent, et suum retineretur, alioquin ei redderetur”; but the King’s letter is a better authority as to the condition. [784] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 284. Cf. _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 451. [785] Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75, and for Richard Muscegros see _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 216.