[807] According to the _Brut_, p. 309, “young Rhys” (of South Wales; see above, p. 90) “became angry with the Lord Llywelyn and separated from him, and went to William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, because Llywelyn had given Caermarthen to Maelgwn ap Rhys, and would not give Aberteivi” (_i.e._ Cardigan) “to him [Rhys], which fell to his share when South Wales was divided. Then Llywelyn with his army came to Aberystwith, and obtained possession of it.... Rhys repaired to the court of the King and complained ... and the King assembled Llywelyn and the earls and barons of the Marches to Shrewsbury. And in that council young Rhys and Llywelyn were reconciled, and Llywelyn relinquished Aberteivi in his favour, as he had given Caermarthen to Maelgwn.” On 23rd June a safe-conduct was issued to Llywelyn to come and speak with the King “de negociis Angliae et Walliae” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 294). On 10th July the Legate wrote to Hubert from Shrewsbury that Llywelyn “et alii Wallenses et Marchiones, et Reginaldus de Brahus,” had come thither on the 7th (“die Mercurii proxima post octavas Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 136. Dr. Shirley dated this letter 11th July, 1220; but the “Wednesday after the octave of SS. Peter and Paul” in that year was the morrow of the translation of S. Thomas, when Pandulf cannot possibly have been at Shrewsbury. On the corresponding day next year, 1221, he may very well have been there; and we know from the _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 463–465, that Hubert had been there in the preceding week, but had left on 2nd July, and was at Windsor on the day on which Pandulf’s letter was written. The entry in p. 464 which makes Hubert appear “apud Westm., ii die Jul.,” obviously contains a clerical error as to either place or date). On 30th April, 1222, Llywelyn was desired to prolong his truce with the Marshal and Reginald de Breuse until Easter “in forma qua treugae illae captae fuerunt apud Salopesbiry coram nobis et domino Pandulfo Norwicensi electo, tunc legato” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 331, 332); whence it seems that the _Brut_ is right in asserting the King’s presence at the Shrewsbury meeting in July, 1221. The settlement, whatever its character, was clearly the work of Pandulf, not Hubert. [808] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250; _Chron. Melrose_ and _Chron. Lanercost_, a. 1221. [809] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 476, 477 b; 17th July, 1221. [810] 3rd July; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 295. [811] _Ib._ pp. 316, 317. [812] _Ib._ pp. 275, 276. [813] See his agreement with the King, _ib._ p. 306, and Note VI. [814] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 304. [815] _Ib._ p. 303. [816] _Ib._ Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 75: “Et statim” (after resigning the legation) “pro domino rege profectus in Pictaviam, treugas inter nos et Pictavenses prorogari impetravit.” [817] The custody of all these lands was committed to Richard de Rivers on 29th September; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 302. [818] _Ib._ pp. 303, 304. [819] _Ib._ p. 315.