Some seven or eight weeks before this, Pandulf had been—of course on the King’s recommendation—elected to the bishopric of Norwich;[531] but no steps towards his consecration were taken for more than six years. Shortly after the middle of September, 1215, he seems to have gone to Rome on a mission from John, who wrote to the Pope that “although Master Pandulf is most useful to us in England, inasmuch as he labours faithfully and devotedly for the honour of the Roman Church and of ourself and our whole realm, yet we send him to your Holiness because we can trust no one else to explain the state of ourself and our realm so well as he can do it.”[532] We find no further trace of Pandulf for nearly two years. It is doubtful whether he had returned to England before John’s death; Gualo had been residing there as Legate since May, 1216, and the subdeacon’s presence was therefore no longer necessary for the interests of either Pope or King. In July, 1218, he was at Rome, acting as notary to the Pope.[533] On 12th September Honorius appointed him to the office which Gualo had just resigned;[534] and on 2nd December he was formally welcomed as Legate in S. Paul’s cathedral in London.[535]
Pandulf had well earned his promotion; and the special appropriateness of his appointment as Legate in England was obvious. His qualifications for the post may be summed up in an adaptation of the words in which John had commended him to Honorius: there was no one in the Roman Curia who could be trusted to understand and manage the affairs of John’s heir and of his realm so well as this man whom King and Pope alike had found by experience to be “most useful, faithful, and devoted” to the interests of both. As Legate, Pandulf came to his task in far less difficult circumstances than Gualo had done. Even when he set out from Rome, however, there must have been a general consciousness that the new Legate would ere long have to take upon him another charge, with which his predecessor had never been burdened. The selection of an English noble, instead of the legal representative of the overlord of England, as governor of King and kingdom in 1216 had been occasioned by circumstances which in 1218 had ceased to exist. There was now no invader to expel, no rebellion to subdue, no need for a warrior-regent: and there was also no man among the baronage clearly marked out for the regent’s office as the Marshal had been by his personal qualities and by the universal estimation of his fellow barons. It is only fair to the English magnates to say that there are no indications of rivalry among them for the reversion of the regent’s office; but there can be no doubt that, as the Marshal himself foresaw, the appointment of any one of them as his successor must inevitably have led to jealousy and discord, and that the only person who could safely take the foremost place in the government after him was the representative of the Apostolic See. The matter might indeed not have been settled without difficulty, had its settlement been postponed till after the Marshal’s death. His forethought and his influence averted the danger, and from the day when he transferred the custody of the King to Pandulf at Reading the Legate was recognized as chief among the guardians of little Henry and his realm.
1219
Pandulf’s supremacy, however, was of a different character from that of the Earl Marshal. Theoretically, it was more absolute, for the powers which had appertained respectively to the Marshal and to Gualo were united in his person; he was at once the elected regent of the realm and the representative of its overlord. But practically his rule was less absolute, because he had the good sense to recognize from the outset that the direction of the entire home and foreign policy of England, and of its internal government, was a charge too great for a foreign ecclesiastic to undertake single-handed. He did not assume the title of “ruler of King and kingdom”; and he shared the functions of that office with the Justiciar and the Bishop of Winchester. He took but little part in the routine of administrative business; he is seldom found attesting royal letters; he left such matters to Hubert and Peter. From the very beginning of his regency, however—even before the death of the Marshal—he claimed an exclusive right of supreme control over one department of royal administration: the treasury. This appears from some letters written by him from the west of England to the treasurer Eustace de Fauconberg and the vice-chancellor Ralf de Neville in London, in the spring of the year 1219.[536] Soon after the council at Reading, Pandulf went to reside for some weeks first at Cirencester, and afterwards at the abbey of Lantony at Gloucester. On 30th April he wrote from Cirencester to Eustace and Ralf conjointly: “By our authority as Legate we lay upon you strict injunctions to give all attention and diligence to the business of the Exchequer; to deposit what money you can get in the house of the Temple in London, and to pay nothing of it out to anybody without our special command and licence; and we strictly forbid that the seal be withdrawn from the Exchequer at the bidding of anyone.”[537] At the same time he wrote a separate letter to Ralf, ordering him “not to withdraw from the Exchequer with the seal at anyone’s bidding, because the proceedings of the Exchequer and the advantage of the King would be hindered thereby.”[538] On 10th May he “warned and exhorted” Ralf to “attend faithfully and devotedly to the King’s business, and especially the business of the Exchequer which is at present imminent.”[539] In subsequent letters to Ralf he emphatically reiterated his orders to store up money in the Temple and to let none of it be paid out “without our knowledge and command”; on one occasion giving as a reason that “as you well know, the King is burdened with many debts.”[540] On 16th May he so far relaxed his injunction to Ralf about not quitting the Exchequer as to give him leave “the holy blissful Martyr for to seek,”[541] if he wished it, and if there was nothing that needed to be done at the Exchequer; “but,” he added, “make haste back, and deposit the King’s seal under your own in the Temple till you return”; and on 26th May he again told the vice-chancellor not to leave the Exchequer “at the bidding of any man.”[542]
It is not certain whether the seal referred to in these letters is the King’s great seal or its duplicate the seal of the Exchequer. Nominally, the custody of both these seals appertained to the Chancellor; but since the latter years of Henry II a large part of the Chancellor’s duties, including the keeping of the great seal, had been usually delegated to a vice-chancellor; and the whole of them were left in the capable and trusty hands of Ralf de Neville throughout the greater part of the chancellorship of Richard de Marsh, which lasted from 1214 till 1226.[543] The Exchequer seal was never permitted to leave the precincts of the Exchequer, where it was kept by the Chancellor “through a deputy,”[544] who doubtless might be, but was not necessarily, identical with the vice-chancellor. With the paying of money out of the Exchequer neither Chancellor nor vice-chancellor, as such, had anything to do; this was a part of the business of the treasurer and chamberlains. It seems probable that the vice-chancellor may have been also one of the chamberlains acting at the Exchequer at this time.[545] It is certain that he was in Pandulf’s fullest confidence;[546] and he may thus in a twofold or even threefold capacity—as keeper of the King’s great seal, as the Chancellor’s deputy having the custody of the Exchequer seal, and as chamberlain—have supported Pandulf’s efforts to maintain, as a special prerogative attached to the regent’s office, the right of exclusive control over the Exchequer.[547] That there was some matter under discussion between the Legate, the Justiciar, the treasurer, and the vice-chancellor, is clear from a letter written by Hubert de Burgh on 15th May to Eustace and Ralf in which he says the Legate “sent us word that he will labour altogether by our counsel for God’s honour and the King’s advantage; and we sent him word that if he will acquiesce in your advice, we will acquiesce in his counsel, for God’s honour and the advantage of the King.”[548] The constitution of the Exchequer underwent great changes in the course of the next fifteen years; and some of these changes may have owed their origin to Pandulf, who perhaps made, or attempted to make, some experiments in the re-organization of this department of the government, possibly with a view to checking what he may have regarded as extravagance on the Justiciar’s part in the disposal of the King’s money. Some months later we find him exhorting Hubert also to “take effectual steps concerning the business of the Exchequer”;[549] and four years later one of the charges brought against Hubert was that of having been “a waster of the King’s treasure.”[550] There is, however, no means of ascertaining what really lay behind Pandulf’s mysterious orders to the vice-chancellor. If the matter was one which involved a conflict between the authority of the regent and that of the Justiciar, it was probably compromised, or at least decided by an amicable agreement; it evidently led to no subsequent friction in the council of three which virtually governed England throughout Pandulf’s legation, and in which, while the foremost place belonged by a double right to the Legate-regent, the second belonged by long-established constitutional tradition to the Justiciar.
1201–1217
Hubert de Burgh’s reputation as a statesman had yet to be made; but a career of distinction in more ways than one already lay behind him. His origin is absolutely unknown. The surname of which he and his brothers seem to be the earliest bearers mentioned in history represents, no doubt, the birthplace of one of their ancestors, probably their father;[551] but whether that place was Peterborough, or Brough in Westmorland, or one of the many Burghs and Burys in England or of the almost as numerous “Bourgs” in the continental dominions of the Angevin house, there is nothing to shew. In the early years of John’s reign Hubert’s brother William played some part in the affairs of the Anglo-Norman March in Ireland.[552] {1201–1205} Hubert himself was in 1201 chamberlain to John,[553] and entrusted with the wardenship of the Welsh Marches.[554] At the close of 1202 he was constable of Falaise, and had charge of the captive Arthur of Brittany, whom he saved from John’s cruelty chiefly, it seems, out of regard for the interests of John himself.[555] In 1204 he was constable of Chinon; he held it against the forces of Philip Augustus for twelve months, and when at last—long after the rest of the old Angevin lands were lost—its walls were so shattered that further defence became impossible, he sallied forth at the head of his men, fighting desperately, and was only made prisoner when disabled by a severe wound.[556] On his release he returned to his duties as chamberlain; and he was also sheriff of six counties at various times during the next eight or nine years.[557] Early in 1214 John appointed him seneschal of Poitou,[558] whence he returned in the following April with some troops for the King’s service;[559] shortly afterwards all the King’s subjects from over sea who obeyed his summons to come and help him against the barons were instructed to place themselves under Hubert’s orders.[560] In June Hubert became chief Justiciar of England.[561] For the exercise of the Justiciar’s ordinary functions he had little scope during the next two years; it was as constable of Dover castle that he rendered his most important services to John and to John’s youthful successor. From May, 1216, till August, 1217, he was practically absorbed in one task, the defence of Dover; and although the account of the sea fight on S. Bartholomew’s day given by an historian of the next generation,[562] which ascribes the entire credit of that decisive victory to Hubert alone, is very far from being borne out by contemporary and impartial authorities,[563] he undoubtedly shewed himself on that day as brave and capable on board ship as he had so often proved himself on land. Thus he passed from the military to the political stage of his career supported by the well-earned respect and goodwill of all parties in the realm.
1198–1215
The Bishop of Winchester’s position at the council-table was peculiar. He had no official title and no specific functions in the civil administration of the kingdom; his connexion with the government was a purely personal one. A donjon of fourteenth century construction overlooking a hamlet built on the slope of a hill with a little stream flowing round its foot, some twelve kilometres south of Poitiers, is in all likelihood the successor of a castle from which Peter des Roches and his family derived their surname. In his youth Peter had been a knight in the service of Richard Cœur-de-Lion;[564] and he must have shown great aptitude for the career of a warrior, since, long after his helmet had been replaced by a mitre, he was regarded as “learned in the military art,” and proved himself worthy of his reputation when he acted as “the master counsellor” of the English host on the day of the Fair of Lincoln. When and why he became a clerk there is nothing to shew; but he seems to have done so shortly before or soon after Richard’s death. In June, 1198, he was Richard’s chamberlain;[565] a year later he was a “beloved clerk” of John’s, and treasurer of Poitou.[566] In the favour of Richard’s successor he rose rapidly. On 3rd January, 1202, he was made dean of S. Martin’s at Angers;[567] but his time was spent mostly in England as a clerk in the royal household;[568] and though he still bore the title of treasurer of Poitou at the beginning of 1205,[569] he must have lost the profits of all his continental dignities and offices when the Angevin lands passed into the hands of Philip of France. For these he was indemnified by grants of various ecclesiastical revenues and offices in England;[570] and before February 5th, 1205, he was elected Bishop of Winchester,[571] the see which ranked next to the two archbishoprics in wealth and importance. He of course owed his election to the influence of the King; a part of the chapter had chosen another candidate, against whom Peter had to plead at Rome for confirmation; his pleading was successful, and he was consecrated by Innocent III on 25th September.[572] Peter was the one bishop who remained in England throughout the years of interdict. In 1210, during the King’s absence in Ireland, he joined with the Justiciar Geoffrey FitzPeter and the Earl of Chester in an expedition into Wales which prevented a threatened Welsh invasion.[573] In October, 1213, Geoffrey FitzPeter died; and on 1st February, 1214, John appointed the Bishop of Winchester chief Justiciar of England.[574] The King’s choice of a foreigner for this office is said to have caused much grumbling among the barons,[575] the more so as John was on the eve of quitting the realm for a military expedition to Aquitaine, so that during his absence, which lasted eight months, Peter was practically viceroy of England. One chronicler asserts that Peter “by misusing his power turned the wrath of the barons against the King”;[576] but there is no proof that the country was any worse administered during those eight months than it had been for several years previously, and nothing to indicate that Peter was guilty of personal tyranny or extortion, or, in short, that he did anything worse than carry on the King’s government as he found it. Nor is it by any means clear that he was really disliked or distrusted, except by one section of the baronage—the section whose lofty patriotism and keen sense of nationality were soon to be displayed in their scheme for the annexation of England to France. The substitution of Hubert for Peter as Justiciar at Midsummer, 1215, may have taken place in deference to the King’s other advisers; but there is no evidence that such was the case; nothing is known about the circumstances of Hubert’s appointment; and it is quite possible that Peter may have resigned the justiciarship of his own accord.
1216