[220] Saer de Quincy (Earl of Winchester), Henry de Bohun (Earl of Hereford), Gilbert of Ghent, Robert FitzWalter, Richard de Montfichet, William de Mowbray, William de Beauchamp, William Mauduit, Oliver D’Eyncourt, Roger de Cressy, William de Coleville, William de Ros, Robert de Ropsley, Ralf Chaineduit, R. Wend., vol. iv., pp. 23–24; to these the continuator of Gervase of Canterbury (vol. ii. p. 111) adds Robert FitzWalter’s son, Gilbert de Clare, Gerard de Furnival, Stephen and Maurice of Ghent, Nicolas and Eustace de Stuteville, Warin de Montchensy, Ralf and Roger de Tony, Geoffrey de Say, Henry and Philip, sons of Earl David (of Huntingdon), William de Huntingfield, William de Hastings, Nicolas de Kennet, Robert de Grilley, Robert of Newburgh the constable of Hedingham, John of Bassingbourne, Ralf Murdac, Anselm de Kent, William de Fiennes, Geoffrey and Walter de St. Leger, Henry de Braybroke, Adam FitzWilliam, Simon de Kime, Walter de Thinham, Robert Marmion the younger, John of St. Helen’s, William Martel, and John of Sanford. The _Chron. Merton_ (Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) gives the total number as fifty-two. One of those enumerated above, however--Henry de Braybroke--is said by the Dunstable Annalist (p. 49) to have escaped with Simon de Poissy. Earl William de Mandeville and the constable of Chester also escaped; _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195. [221] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. Cont. Gerv. Cant., _l.c._ In W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 237, 238, the number is given as three hundred and eighty, but avowedly only on hearsay. [222] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16965–69. [223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. [224] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._, vol. ii. p. 213. [225] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. [226] _Ib._ pp. 24, 25. [227] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 17031–68. [228] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195. [229] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 25, 26. [230] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 64. The Marshal was back at Lincoln on the 22nd; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 308 b. [231] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. _Ann. Dunst._, p. 50. [232] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 195, says “le joesdi apries le Pentecouste” instead of after Trinity; but this is a mistake caused by the writer having dated the battle a week too early; see above, footnote 168. [233] _Hist. Ducs_, pp. 195, 196. [234] _Ib._ pp. 196, 197. [235] _Ann. Wav._, a. 1217. [236] _Hist. Ducs_, p. 197. The three abbots had letters of safe-conduct from the king, who with the host was now at Reading, on 6th June; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 68. [237] _Hist. Ducs_, _l.c._ [238] _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xix. p. 636. [239] Safe-conduct, dated 12th June, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 69.