[887] See the list of protections for those who are “in exercitu nostro in partibus Walliae cum W. comite Sarresburiae et comite W. Marescallo,” _ib._ p. 407, 13th July; and of those who are entitled to scutage from their tenants to support them on the same expedition, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 570 b, 571, 10th August. [888] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 516 b, 567, 567 b, 25th June and 24th November, 1222. [889] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1222. [890] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 259, says “circa octabas Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,” but the Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 559, shew this to be much too early. [891] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, and _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 562, 563 b, which shew that Henry was at Canterbury 1st and 2nd September, at Rochester 5th September, and at Westminster 6th–13th September, and that on the 9th thirty pounds were paid to Philip of Aubigné “ad expensas Regis Jerusalem adquietandas factas apud Londoniam in festo Nativitatis B. Mariae.” [892] M. Paris, _l.c._ p. 260. The _Ann. Dunst._, p. 85, say: “Ideo munera pauciora data sunt illi quia dissuasit regi Franciae jura regis Angliae reformari.” [893] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83, and _Brut_, p. 315. The _Brut’s_ version of this expedition is that “the Earl [Marshal] designed through the aid of Earl Ferrers and Henry Pictot lord of Ewias to proceed through the territory of the prince to his own country; but he was not able, because Llywelyn had sent his son Gruffudd and a large army ... to Carnwyllon to intercept the Earl and his men, and there was he slain”! [894] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._ [895] “Circa Nativitatem B. Mariae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 71. Roger has here again mixed up the events of 1223 with those of an earlier year; he puts the whole affair of Builth and Montgomery in 1221, but it certainly belongs to 1223. [896] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 71, 72. [897] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 170. [898] “Rex autem, qui suis magnatibus deesse non debuit, cum exercitu magno illuc tendens, fugientibus ex more Wallensibus, obsidionem amovit,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 72. We have no record of the King’s movements between 15th September, when he was at Windsor, and 19th September, when he was at Hereford. On the 20th he was at “Brenles”; the next two days are blank; on the 23rd he was at Hereford again, on the 26th at Leominster, and on the 29th at Shrewsbury, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 564, 564 b. [899] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 564 b. [900] R. Wend., _l.c._ [901] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 564 b, 565. [902] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 411, 8th October. [903] _Ib._ pp. 411, 481. Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 83. [904] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 574 b. [905] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 413, 414. [906] _Ib._ p. 412, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 565, R. Coggeshall, p. 197. [907] R. Coggeshall, _l.c._, _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82. [908] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 86. See above, footnote 869. [909] Cf. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 82 (see above, _l.c._), and R. Coggeshall, p. 197.