1227

The English court had spent the Christmas of 1226 at Reading[1223] and thence moved on by way of Wallingford to Oxford.[1224] What took place there, before the festal gathering usual at the season broke up, is related by the King himself in a circular letter issued on the 21st January, 1227, to all the sheriffs of England: “Be it known to you that by the common counsel of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and other our magnates and faithful men, we recently at Oxford provided that henceforth we will cause charters and confirmations to be made under our seal. And we therefore bid you without delay publicly proclaim and make known to all persons in your bailiwick who have, or claim to have, lands or tenements or liberties by grant or concession and confirmation of our ancestors the Kings of England, or by our precept, that they come to us without fail before the beginning of this approaching Lent of the eleventh year of our reign, to shew us by what warrant they have, or claim to have, those lands or tenements or liberties, as they desire to keep or to recover them. You are also to make known to all persons in your bailiwick, and cause to be publicly proclaimed, that whosoever shall desire to obtain at any time our charter or confirmation of lands, tenements, markets, liberties, or anything whatsoever, let them come to us before the same term, to ask for our charter or confirmation thereof.”[1225] Thus in the second week of January, 1227 {8–10 Jan.}, three months after the completion of Henry’s nineteenth year, the Great Council of the realm sanctioned his release from the one restriction which in 1223 the same authority had decided should still remain imposed for a while upon his exercise of regal power. In what manner and on whose initiative this step was taken we do not know. The only chronicler who even professes to give any account of the matter asserts that Henry “declared before all” the Council “that he was of legal age, and henceforth, being set free from wardship, would order the affairs of the Crown as a prince”; and that the announcement about charters caused a great commotion, for which the Justiciar was universally held responsible, as the instigator of the King’s action.[1226] But this writer’s account of that action, and of its accompanying circumstances, is too full of demonstrable confusions and inaccuracies to be worthy of confidence in any particular.[1227] The suggestion may very likely have come from Hubert; but we need not accept for truth the insinuation which Hubert’s enemies seem to have induced Henry to believe at a later time, that Hubert was actuated mainly by a desire to secure for himself a grant in perpetuity from the Crown.[1228] Nor was there in the King’s proposed action any thing from which the other members of the Council could fairly withhold their consent. At the close of a long minority following on a period of confusion and civil war, it was not unreasonable—at any rate according to the ideas of that age—that there should be a general scrutiny of title-deeds which emanated or purported to emanate from the Crown, with a view to ascertaining their genuineness and validity, and thus safeguarding the rights both of the grantees and of the King. Whatever had been granted since Henry’s accession had been granted by a royal “precept,” not by charter; if such a grant was to be made permanent a charter would be necessary to make it so; and the letter of 21st January, fairly construed, implies no design of invalidating any earlier grants except such as should on examination prove to be inherently void. But the practice of seeking from the reigning sovereign confirmation of grants made by his predecessors was, and had been for centuries, so common that the King’s comprehensive invitation to “all who desired his confirmation of anything whatsoever” was certain to meet with an almost equally comprehensive response. On the other hand, every one knew that such grants always had to be paid for. In this latter circumstance may be seen the reason why Henry and his ministers were now so anxious to ante-date his full majority. The young King’s heart was set upon a great expedition over sea; the war-chest was empty;[1229] the payments for confirmations of royal grants would substantially—perhaps more substantially than any other scheme that could have been devised—help to fill it.

It is doubtful whether the far-off guardian who for ten years had watched over the interests of John Lackland’s heir and of his realm ever knew of his ward’s self-emancipation; for Honorius III died on 18th March, 1227. Some years later a transcript of one of the letters by which he had sanctioned Henry’s coming of age in 1223 appears to have been prepared by Bishops Peter of Winchester and Hugh of Ely for transmission to his successor Gregory IX;[1230] whether in consequence of some inquiry addressed to them by Gregory on the subject, we cannot tell. The authorizations given by Honorius were wide enough to cover the proceedings of January, 1227, without any need of further ratification from Rome. If those proceedings did reach the ears of the dying Pontiff, he may well have rejoiced to know that he would not have to leave his task of guardianship unfinished, and that this part of his burden of responsibility and care would not pass to the next Pope. Henceforth Henry of England must indeed be accounted as of full age, and answerable for himself and his realm.

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]

NOTES

NOTE I
THE TRUCES OF 1216–1217

The accounts of the truces made between Henry and Louis in the winter of 1216–1217 are so conflicting that it seems impossible either to reconcile them or to arrive at a precise conclusion as to all the facts and dates. The documentary evidence on the subject is unluckily very scanty; it consists—so far as I have been able to ascertain—only of two entries in the Patent Roll of 1. Hen. III (Oct. 1216—Oct. 1217). The first of these is a notice, dated 28th December, 1216, from Henry to Louis, concerning claims of redress for injuries done “infra treugas inter nos captas” (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 107). The second is a report, addressed by the Marshal and Council to Louis, of a meeting held “die Jovis in crastino S. Petri” between the emendatores treugae on both sides, “ad emendaciones capiendas et faciendas de interceptionibus factis in prima treuga et secunda, et ad treugam faciendum observari et tenere” ([ib.] p. 109). This letter is dateless; it is entered on the Roll between a letter dated 28th February and one dated 10th March. “Thursday the morrow of S. Peter” probably means 19th January, the day after the festival of S. Peter’s Chair at Rome, which festival fell on a Wednesday in 1217. The feast of S. Peter’s Chair at Antioch, 22nd February, was also a Wednesday in that year; but it is hardly possible that this talk about truces could have been going on as late as 23rd February, only five days before the “Crusaders” mustered at Dorking proclaimed their intention of expelling Louis from Rye (see above, [p. 24]).