I venture to think that Mr. Turner’s suggested interpretation of these two passages is a little overstrained. The words of Falkes need not imply any formal act of delivery posterior to the one whereby Peter had originally received the castles to hold for John. Falkes’s “Complaint” is not a legal document, and we are neither obliged nor entitled to construe its phraseology as if it were such. If certain castles which John had committed to a certain man were left in that man’s custody by Henry’s guardians, they were practically committed or entrusted to him by the guardians as well as by John; and a reason why Falkes should bring Gualo’s name into the matter, rather than the name of the Marshal, is not far to seek. Falkes’s “Complaint” is a piece of special pleading addressed to a special person—the Pope—for the purpose of inducing him (as supreme guardian of his feudatary King Henry) to intervene in English affairs in behalf of the complainant Falkes himself; the case of Peter de Maulay being mentioned as an illustration of the ill-treatment which (according to Falkes) the leaders of the party now in power in England were meting out to faithful old servants of King John. In these circumstances it is perfectly natural that whatever sanction, whether explicit or tacit, was, at a time when these leaders were in a subordinate position, given by the highest authorities in the realm to Peter’s retention of the castles in his keeping, should be described as having been given by the Legate. Nor need the words of Pandulf bear any more definite meaning. The letter in which they occur was misdated by Dr. Shirley; its true date is 10th May, 1219 (see Prof. Powicke in Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 229), when Pandulf had been Legate about five months, and regent less than as many weeks. That he, at this time, supposed the castles to have been delivered to their wardens by Gualo is no proof that such was the fact. Moreover, the wording of his inquiry suggests that he had no very distinct idea of the thing about which he was inquiring; indeed, it almost suggests some uncertainty on his part whether what he asked for existed at all. I venture to think that—Ralf de Neville’s answer being unfortunately lost—in this uncertainty the question still remains. It would be a very remarkable circumstance if Gualo, who so scrupulously refrained from all shew of intervention in the administration of civil affairs, went out of his way to take upon himself a function utterly alien from his natural sphere of action, and one which there could be no conceivable reason for associating with his office rather than with that of the lay regent. It would be equally remarkable that the castellans, if they considered themselves entitled to retain their wardenships without re-appointment by letters patent from the Governor of King and Kingdom, in the new sovereign’s name, should have quietly submitted to re-appointment in a wholly unprecedented manner at the hands of a foreign ecclesiastic. And it is scarcely less remarkable that a proceeding so unusual, if it really took place, should have left no trace in the official records of the Kingdom and been passed over in silence by all the chroniclers of the time.
NOTE VII
THE PAPAL LETTERS OF 1223
The four papal letters summarized in [p. 202] are to be found in the Red Book of the Exchequer, fol. 171. The letter which there stands first of the four—that to the Earls and barons of England—is printed in Foedera, I. i. p. 190 (with a marginal date, 1228, which does not agree with the date at the end of the letter itself). The salutation of all four is given in the Red Book as “Gregorius Papa,” etc., and the date as “idus Aprilis anno primo,” i.e., 13th April, 1227. The fact that some instructions about Henry’s coming of age, and about the castles, were issued by Honorius III in 1223 appears from at least three independent sources: the Dunstable Annals, Roger of Wendover, and the Querimonia Falcasii. For the precise wording of any portion of these instructions, and the date on which they (or a portion of them) were issued, the sole authority which has hitherto been recognized is a dateless letter preserved among the “bundles” in the Public Record Office, and printed by Shirley in Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 430, 431. Its salutation runs “Sanctissimo patri ... G. Dei gratia summo pontifici, P. Wintoniensis et H. Elyensis divina miseratione episcopi”; i.e. it is a letter to Pope Gregory IX from Bishops Hugh of Ely who was consecrated in June, 1229, and Peter of Winchester who died in June, 1238. (Why Shirley dated this letter “June, 1232—April, 1234,” I cannot guess.) These two prelates write: “Noverit sancta paternitas vestra nos mandatum piae recordationis Honorii praedecessoris vestri propriis manibus tractasse et oculis propriis inspexisse in haec verba: ‘Honorius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilecto filio ...’ (Shirley left a blank for the name or initial; presumably it was undecipherable) ‘Cycestrensi electo, carissimi in Christo filii nostri regis Anglorum vice-cancellario, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.’” They then proceed to quote the whole letter; and it is absolutely identical with the fourth of the letters concerning Henry’s majority, ascribed in the Red Book to Gregory, except that its date is “idus Aprilis, pontificatus nostri anno septimo,” i.e., 13th April, 1223. Long ago Dr. Stubbs remarked that “Curiously enough, the bull of Gregory IX to the same effect” [as the letters in which Honorius on 13th April, 1223, had “declared Henry, although not yet of age, competent to govern”] “is dated 13th April, 1227” (Const. Hist., vol. ii. p. 34, note 2, 1875). A careful consideration of the subject has led me to the conviction that this “curious” correspondence of month and day is due to the fact that the words idus Aprilis are the only correct part of the date as given by the scribe of the Red Book, and that the four letters have been attributed by him to a wrong Pope, being in reality all alike letters of Honorius III, issued on 13th April, 1223.
These four letters obviously form a group whose members are so inseparably inter-related that they must stand or fall together. The chief member of this group is not the one which the Exchequer scribe has placed at its head (the one printed in Foedera), but that which he has placed second, and which is addressed to Peter des Roches, Hubert de Burgh, and William Brewer conjointly. It is these three men whom the Pope charges to give the young King free disposition of his realm; the addressees of the other three letters are merely bidden to perform the special duties which will fall to them severally as a consequence of this primary command, which the Pope in each case expressly tells them he is giving to Peter, Hubert, and William. We have seen that the fourth letter is textually identical with one which, according to Bishops Peter and Hugh, was written on 13th April, 1223, by Honorius to the vice-chancellor. This identity extends to the salutation (except of course as to the writer’s name); in the Red Book version, as in that of the two bishops, the letter is addressed “Cycestrensi electo, vice-cancellario.” Now, the only man who was at the same time “elect of Chichester and vice-chancellor” was Ralf de Neville (who was elected to Chichester early in 1223); and before the first year of Pope Gregory began, Ralf had ceased to be either the one or the other—he had become Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor. Thus the compiler of the portion of the Red Book in which these letters occur has luckily betrayed his own error. Probably he had, in the first draft of his notes, copied these letters from their originals in the Exchequer without putting the Pope’s name or initial at their head, and when he came to re-copy his notes into the Red Book he—writing at a time when Henry’s first coming of age was no longer a matter of practical importance and may well have been almost forgotten, knowing that Henry had been set free from the trammels of minority while still under age, and in the first year of Gregory IX, and failing to notice the chronological indication conveyed in the address Cycestrensi electo vice-cancellario—ascribed the letters to Gregory, and (as he doubtless imagined) corrected the year accordingly. The [words which I have italicized] are indeed not the only ones which shew that he was mistaken in so doing. The whole contents of all four letters fit in perfectly with the circumstances of 1223; but a considerable portion of those contents is quite inappropriate to the circumstances of 1227. At this latter date the controversy about the castles was a thing of the past.
In further confirmation of this view of the matter, we find Hubert, in his answers to a long indictment brought against him by the King in 1239, quoting, from four letters addressed (1) “Comitibus et baronibus,” (2) and (3) “Comiti Cestriae” and “sub eisdem verbis Wintoniensi Episcopo,” (4) “Cancellario,” passages which all occur in the letters correspondingly addressed in the Red Book, and he describes all these quotations as taken from privileges of Pope Honorius. These answers were put into writing by Master Laurence of S. Alban’s; Laurence’s notes were preserved in a commonplace book of his abbey, and they figure among the miscellaneous collections of Matthew Paris as Responsiones Magistri Laurentii de S. Albano pro comite Kantiae Huberto de Burgo (Chron. Maj., vol. vi. pp. 63–74). The answers in general have an appearance of honesty; but they were drawn up many years after the occurrence of some of the events to which they relate; and from this or some other cause the version given in them of the whole story of Henry’s coming of age is extremely confused, and certainly inaccurate in some particulars, the events of 1227 and those of 1223 being inextricably mixed up together. Hubert’s description of the Pope’s letter about the great seal as addressed “Cancellario,” however, presents no difficulty. The word may stand simply for “him who is Chancellor now,” or the prefix vice may have been omitted by the scribe.
Of the letter in which Honorius bade the prelates enforce by ecclesiastical censure a general surrender of all the royal castles (above, [p. 206]), no actual copy is known; but there is no reason to question the accuracy of Roger of Wendover’s report of its contents. That report is, I think, confirmed by the brief but significant statements of Falkes de Bréauté. In 1225 Falkes (probably with the help of Robert Passelewe, a well known man of law) drew up a “Complaint” addressed to the Pope and Cardinals about the recent proceedings in England against himself. This complaint is inserted in the Barnwell Annals under the heading Querimonia Falcasii coram Domino Papa (W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 259–272). It sets the whole political history of England during the years 1221–1224 in a light startlingly different from that in which the same history is treated by the chroniclers; and although its author certainly had good opportunity of knowing the truth about the matters of which he wrote, there are obvious reasons which make him a dangerous authority to rely upon implicitly. The fact, however, that the “Complaint” was addressed to Honorius furnishes some guarantee of the correctness of its statements so far as they relate to the action of Honorius himself. These statements are as follows:—
“Cum a sede apostolica jussio processisset ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur, adjuncta clausula quod rex ipse jam adultus factus compelli non posset habere tutorem vel curatorem, nisi ad causam, invitus; dictus justiciarius et complices sui ... procuraverunt ut duo barones” etc. (here follows the story of Lacy and Musard and of Chester’s rising, see above, [pp. 203, 204]). “Interim tamen ... cum rex apud Northamptonam sollemnitatem Natalis sicut mos est celebrasset, effectum est ... ut tam comes Cestriae quam alii supranominati ad regis curiam vocarentur. Quibus ... in ipsius et archiepiscopi et quorundam episcoporum qui simul aderant presentia constitutis, exhibitae fuerunt quaedam literae apostolicae in quibus continebatur ut esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” (pp. 261–262). In the [first of the two passages which I have italicized] the compulsory surrender of all royal castles etc. seems to be represented as the chief point dealt with in the papal mandate referred to, the King’s majority being apparently treated merely as an adjunct; while in the [second passage] the former point is still further emphasized by the latter not being mentioned at all. I think we may gather from these two passages that the papal mandates which Falkes had in his mind were not those preserved in the Royal Letters and the Red Book, but those whose substance is preserved by Roger of Wendover. The Dunstable annalist says that Henry’s quasi-majority was decided upon and proclaimed “by order of the Pope and assent of the barons,” i.e., the Pope’s letter to Peter, Hubert, and William Brewer was published in a council at London, on the King’s return from Wales (see above, [footnote 921]). The Rolls shew that Henry reached London on 22nd October and remained there till 8th November (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 566 b, 567, 575 b, 576). As, however, it was not till 9th December that Henry began to attest his own letters, it seems that either the annalist’s date must not be taken literally, or the proclamation remained inoperative for more than a month. I think it can be shewn that the latter was the case. The Rolls indicate that the affair of Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard had taken place before 15th November (above, [ footnote 924]). Falkes says that after that affair Henry and Hubert went to Gloucester; the Rolls shew that they were at Gloucester 16–22nd November (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 575 b–576 b). Chester’s attempt on the Tower must have been made during their absence from London. We know from the Rolls that they were there again from 28th November till 12th, perhaps till 19th December ([ib.] pp. 576 b–579); the rebels’ appearance before them and the scene between Peter and Hubert must thus have taken place there between 28th November and 5th December, since, as we learn from Falkes (p. 261), the “truce” arranged immediately after it by Langton began on 6th December. It was only in this December council that “the papal letters which declared him (Henry) of age were acted upon” (Powicke, Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 221), i.e., that the King began to attest his own letters, and, probably, the great seal began to follow the King instead of being kept at the Exchequer ([ib.], p. 224). Falkes, however, seems to imply that the papal command “ut castra, ballia, et caetera quae sunt regis a cunctis tenentibus redderentur” was known in England before the affair of Lacy and Musard took place. On the other hand he tells us that certain Apostolic letters “in quibus continebatur quod esset domino regi restitutio rerum suarum facienda” were “exhibited”—seemingly for the first time—at Christmas. To me all this seems to indicate that the letter to Peter, Hubert, and William and the letter to the prelates, had both reached the English court before the end of October; that the first was published then as the annalist says, but was not carried into immediate effect; that the second was published, as Roger implies, early in December, but that a number of barons—Falkes among them—not being present at its publication, had no official knowledge of it till it was “exhibited” to them at Christmas.
While the barons in general seem to have regarded Hubert as the instigator of the papal order for a compulsory surrender of castles, etc., Falkes, hostile though he is to the Justiciar, neither asserts nor hints at any thing of the kind. He says indeed nothing whatever as to any suspicions which he or others may have had concerning the origin of that order. Yet I cannot but think that he had a suspicion, and possibly not altogether an unlikely one. Both on personal and political grounds Falkes is bitter enough against Hubert; to him, Hubert is a personal enemy and also an enemy of the peace and prosperity of King and kingdom; but he is neither the sole nor the chief enemy. Throughout his “Complaint,” even in reference to matters in which Hubert appears as the principal or the sole actor, Falkes speaks of “the Justiciar and his accomplices”; and the foremost of these “accomplices,” according to Falkes’s version of history, is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is Stephen, not Hubert, who is the arch-enemy in the eyes of Falkes—the relentless persecutor of Falkes himself, the persistent sower of discord and plotter of mischief in the realm; one passage relating to him in the Querimonia reads almost like a paraphrase of the accusation said by the Dunstable annalist to have been flung, in a moment of fury, by Hubert at Peter des Roches (above, [p. 207]). The animus displayed by Falkes against Stephen is in fact so violent that we instinctively feel his narrative is not to be trusted in details where the Archbishop is concerned. Yet there is no intrinsic impossibility in its account of the formal surrender of the castles, in which Stephen is distinctly made to play the most prominent part (above, [p. 210]). We have seen the difficulties involved in supposing that the Pope’s action was prompted by any person or party among the other councillors of the Crown. Can it have been prompted—on the broad ground of the interest of public order and stable government, irrespective of persons and parties—by the Archbishop of Canterbury?