[1074] The chroniclers speak of this sacrilege as if Falkes were alone responsible for it. So far as concerned one of the churches, however, we know from a better authority that Falkes was neither the sole nor the chief culprit. On 5th February, 1217, the guardians of the realm made little Henry give a benefice to the Prior and convent of Newnham for the welfare of his own soul and his father’s soul, “et in recompensacionem dampni quod idem I. pater noster fecit priori et conventui de Newenham quando dirui fecit ecclesiam S. Pauli de Bedeford, quae fuit dicti prioris et conventus de Newenham, eo tempore quo firmari fecit castrum Bedefordiae.” _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 29. [1075] R. Coggeshall, p. 205; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253. [1076] _Ann. Dunst._, p. 87. Cf. _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224: “Falkesius ... nonnullis etiam de majoribus Angliae, sicut dictum est, eidem Falkesio conniventibus, tenuit idem castellum contra regem ... ad quod expugnandum ... omnes fere magnati Angliae, licet fortassis non uno eodemque animo” [printed _anno_] “pariter convenerant.” While at Northampton Henry had received a letter from the Pope, remonstrating with him about his treatment of Bishop Peter, Earl Ranulf, and some others of his father’s old friends; _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 224, 225. [1077] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 605 b–608, 610, 611 b, 612, 632, 636, 641; dates, 20th June–10th August. [1078] Cf. _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. pp. 464, 465, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 86. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 206, says that, by a general edict, two men were summoned from every plough [land] throughout the shires, to drag and work machines and convey stones from the quarries. [1079] _Pat. Rolls_, _l.c._ [1080] _Quer. Falc._, pp. 265, 266. [1081] R. Coggeshall, p. 207. [1082] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96. [1083] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 172, _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 631 b. [1084] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 450. [1085] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 632. [1086] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 233–235. In p. 233 Ranulf says the King’s letter reached him on 4th August. [1087] _Ib._ pp. 229, 230. If Llywelyn thought the Pope was at the back of the attack on Bedford and the excommunication of Falkes, he was mistaken. On 17th August Honorius wrote to Henry reproaching him for his neglect of previous admonitions to treat his subjects gently, and especially for his ingratitude to Falkes, and pointing out the inexpediency of spending on civil war forces that were urgently needed for external defence (_ib._ p. 544). On or about the same date he addressed a very sharp letter to Archbishop Stephen, reproving him for his share in the matter, and ordering him to recall the sentence which he was reported to have passed upon Falkes and to stop the King’s action against that personage. On the justice of that action Honorius passes no judgement; what he insists upon is its inopportuneness (_ib._ pp. 543, 544). [1088] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.