By that time some important letters had probably arrived from Rome. On 13th April the Pope had written four letters for England: one addressed jointly to the Bishop of Winchester, the Justiciar, and William Brewer (a well known judge, who seems to have ranked next to Hubert on the Bench); one to the Earl of Chester; one to the vice-chancellor, Ralf de Neville; and one to “the earls, barons, and other faithful subjects” of the English King. In the first of these letters Honorius, having, as he said, heard and rejoiced to hear that Henry, though still a boy in years, was already so much of a man in understanding that he “ought no longer to be debarred from disposing usefully and prudently of his realm and its affairs,” laid his commands on the three councillors whom he was addressing that they should henceforth give the young King “free and unfettered disposal of his kingdom, resign to him without any difficulty the lands and castles of his which they held in wardenship, and procure a like resignation of all Crown lands and castles similarly held by other persons.”[919] The other three letters began by informing their recipients of the orders issued in the first, as to giving Henry the disposal of his realm; after this the letter to Earl Ranulf conveyed to him individually the same command with regard to his wardenships which in the first letter had been given to its three joint addressees respecting theirs: the third letter bade the vice-chancellor, as custodian of the royal seal, use it henceforth according to the King’s good pleasure and in obedience to him only, and permit no more letters to be sealed with it save at his desire; while in the fourth letter the earls, barons, and other liegemen were bidden “henceforth to obey the king humbly and devotedly,” and support him “faithfully and firmly against any who might presume to go contrary to him,” and they were further warned that in the event of their disobedience to these injunctions they “might justly fear a sentence of excommunication.”[920]

Honorius thus conferred upon his royal ward the full powers of legal age with respect to the government of his realm in general, and to two things in particular: the custody of royal castles and demesne lands, and the issue of royal letters under the great seal. This definition implied that in some other respects Henry was still to be accounted a minor. Accordingly, the Dunstable annalist tells us that in a great council held in London after the return of the King and the Justiciar from Wales, “it was provided by order of the Pope and assent of the barons, and the provision was published, that the King should have legal age so far as concerns the free disposition of his castles and lands and wardenships, but not so that any one could maintain his right through it in a court of law.”[921] Thus Henry was still precluded from making grants in perpetuity.[922]

Shortly after these proceedings in London, two barons of high standing and approved fidelity to the King, Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard, were called to the court, “and when they got there they were not allowed to withdraw till they had assigned to the Justiciar the castles which they held in custody.”[923] Walter de Lacy was hereditary sheriff of Herefordshire and constable of Hereford castle; Ralf Musard was sheriff of Gloucestershire and constable of Gloucester castle. For what purpose or on what grounds the assignation of these two important border fortresses to Hubert was required, we are not told.[924] A considerable party among the barons regarded the proceedings against Lacy and Musard as a flagrant act of injustice and an unwarrantable assumption of power on the part of Hubert. The three men of chief importance among these malcontents, Earls Ranulf of Chester, Gilbert of Gloucester, and William of Aumale, at once resolved to appeal to the young King in person “and show him the malice of the Justiciar,”[925] and, no doubt, urge him to exert his newly acquired right of independent action to put the usurper down. Hubert, however, prevented their design by inducing the King to go with him to the west of England—which, according to Falkes, he did by making the lad believe that the three Earls were plotting to seize him and hold him prisoner—and shut himself up with him in Gloucester castle,[926] where Hubert was now practically master. Thence he sent a message to the Earls in the King’s name forbidding them to approach him.[927] They, meanwhile, had been joined by Falkes de Bréauté, Brian de Lisle, Robert de Vipont, John de Lacy, Peter de Maulay, Philip Marc, Engelard de Cigogné, William de Cantelupe and his son, “and many others.”[928] In their fury they made an attempt to surprise the Tower of London. The attempt failed;[929] possibly its real purpose was only to alarm the Justiciar and bring him and the King back to the capital. On 28th November Henry and Hubert were in London again.[930] Their return may have been hastened by the tidings from thence; but it was probably required chiefly for the publication of some further letters from Rome.

At some date prior to November, 1223, Pope Honorius was asked, “on the King’s behalf and in his interest,” to give orders that Bishop Peter of Winchester, Earl Ranulf of Chester, the Justiciar, and Falkes, should be compelled to surrender into the King’s hand the royal castles and other bailiwicks which they held. This request can hardly have proceeded from any of the four persons named, nor from the royal Council as a whole. It seems, indeed, utterly unaccountable; yet we know from the Pope himself that he received it, that he issued the desired mandate, and that thereupon he was asked—also “on the King’s behalf”—to quash that mandate, lest it should give occasion to disturbance, since the four men named were all willing to do what was required of them in due season, and no fitter persons could be found to replace them. The Pope, on 20th November, refused to cancel the orders which he had given, “lest he should seem to use lightness,” but made their execution dependent on the will of the King.[931] The story of this correspondence is all the more puzzling because at some date which must have been considerably earlier than 20th November—possibly as early as the date of the letters concerning Henry’s majority—Honorius seems to have issued a bull by which, if its terms are correctly represented by the writers of the time, all special mandates for compelling individuals to surrender their wardenships were made superfluous. According to Roger of Wendover, certain “messengers of the King” brought back from Rome a bull addressed to the archbishops of England and their suffragans, commanding that, the King being now recognized as of an age to take the chief part in the ordering of his realm, they should, by apostolic authority, bid all earls, barons, knights, and other persons whatsoever having the custody of castles, honours, and townships belonging to the royal demesne, surrender them to the King at once; and should force recalcitrants to submission by means of ecclesiastical censures.[932] The reference in the Pope’s other letters concerning Henry’s coming of age to the surrender of Crown castles and lands seems to have been understood, at the time when those letters were published, as intended merely to sanction the oath taken by the barons in May, 1220, and strengthen the hands of the young King whenever he might wish to claim its fulfilment. But the bull to the prelates was, by implication at least, a peremptory order from the Pope for a general surrender of all such wardenships at once. The existence of this bull seems to have been known to some persons in England before the middle of November, but the bull appears not to have been published till the beginning of December.[933] At the council held in London on that occasion Chester and his allies were not present; on the King’s return they had withdrawn to Waltham. The Primate approached them with overtures of peace, and on his assurance of their personal safety they, in obedience to a summons in the King’s name,[934] came before their sovereign. They unanimously assured him that their action had been directed not against himself, but against Hubert, who, they said, ought to be removed from the administration of affairs, as a waster of the King’s treasure and an oppressor of the people.[935] Hubert, who was of course present, burst out in angry abuse of the Bishop of Winchester, on whom he cast all the blame, calling him a betrayer of King and kingdom, and asserting that his ill-will was the cause of all the evils that had happened in the time of John as well as in that of Henry. Peter retorted that if it should cost him everything he possessed, he would have the Justiciar dragged from power; and with this threat he rose and left the council chamber, followed by the barons of Chester’s party.[936] The Primate, however, succeeded in arranging a “truce” whereby further discussion was adjourned to the octave of S. Hilary.[937]

This scene appears to have occurred on 6th December.[938] The Patent Roll records that on the 8th a royal letter was issued “on the motion of the Lord King himself.”[939] Two days later still, a change in the testing clause of the King’s letters marked the definite recognition of his entrance upon the second stage of his minority. The formula which for several years past had been almost exclusively in use—“Witness Hubert de Burgh, my Justiciar”—disappeared, and was replaced thenceforth by one which had hardly been seen since the very earliest days of the young King’s reign—“Witness myself.”[940]

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]