Chapter III · THE LEGATION OF PANDULF 1219–1221

Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 18041–18060.

Ille [Pandulfus] multos bellicos tumultus nondum congelatos auctoritate sibi tradita tempore legationis viriliter comprimebat.

Flores Historiarum, a. 1221.

The new Legate was not a stranger to England. His first recorded visit there had taken place in 1211. He was then in subdeacon’s orders, and a member of the household of Pope Innocent III.[519] Of his earlier life nothing is known, except that he was a Roman by birth;[520] but King John seems to have already had some indirect knowledge of him, for it was at John’s request that he and another papal envoy, a brother of the Temple, were appointed by Innocent to go and confer with the King of England for the restoration of peace to the English Church.[521] In the one interview which took place between the commissioners and the King, Pandulf was the spokesman on the papal side; and John found that he had mistaken his man. The subdeacon simply stated the terms which he was instructed to offer to John; a long argument ensued, in which John was worsted; but he still refused to submit, whereupon Pandulf told him to his face, in the presence of all the court, that the Pope meant to subdue him and had already excommunicated him and absolved his subjects from their allegiance, and that the sentence was to take effect from that day forth. “If I had not sent for you, I would make you ride about my realm for a year!” raved the King. “You might as well say you would hang us,” coolly answered Pandulf; “we look for no other reward from you”; and when John tried to frighten him by issuing in his presence orders for the mutilation and execution of sundry prisoners, one of whom was a priest, the only result was that Pandulf went to fetch a candle for the avowed purpose of formally excommunicating then and there any person who should lay hands on this particular victim, and that John, evidently alarmed lest the candle should be used against himself as well as against his officers, hurried after the dauntless subdeacon and surrendered the man to his judgement.[522] Thenceforth Pandulf became the Pope’s special confidant and assistant in all matters relating to England and its King. It was he who in January, 1213, carried to Philip Augustus the Pope’s letter charging Philip with the execution of the sentence of deprivation against John; and it was he alone who shared with the Pope the secret of the negotiations which were then already afoot for rendering Philip’s expedition needless. Four months later he was in England again, receiving, in the Pope’s behalf, first John’s assent to the identical terms which he had refused in 1211, and secondly the King’s homage to the Roman See for the realms of England and Ireland.[523]

After a hurried visit to France, to stop the intended invasion from thence,[524] Pandulf returned to England, and remained there till the beginning of the next year. His position during this time is somewhat difficult to define. His official rank was merely that of “the Pope’s messenger”;[525] he had never held a commission as Legate; and the distinction between the two offices was clearly marked when in September, 1213, an envoy of higher standing in the Curia, Nicolas, Cardinal Bishop of Tusculum, came clothed with the full powers of a Legate a latere to receive a repetition of John’s homage to Rome, and to raise the Interdict as soon as the bishops and clergy should have been compensated for their losses and wrongs. Certain payments made to Pandulf on the King’s behalf seem to indicate that he was the authorized receiver of the earliest instalments of the tribute to Rome.[526] John had already made a friend of the man who had withstood him in 1211; the Pope’s clerk was taken into the counsels of the King; “We have granted to Master Pandulf that a truce be made between ourself and the Welsh,” wrote John to the Marcher barons in July, 1213;[527] and when Pandulf went oversea in January, 1214, he went as “the King’s messenger”[528]—whether to France or to Rome, there is nothing to shew with certainty; but it is probable that he carried some of the tribute money to the Pope. He seems to have been back in England by the end of the year, when the recall of Nicolas of Tusculum left him once more sole representative of the Pope in England, but still without any higher title than before. In the spring of 1215 he and the Bishop of Chichester conjointly were delegated by the Pope to investigate the merits of a project for dissolving the union between the see of Bath and the abbey of Glastonbury.[529] In the preamble to the Great Charter “Master Pandulf, the Pope’s subdeacon and familiar,” stands with the Master of the Temple between the bishops and the lay magnates in the list of the King’s advisers; and he is the last named of the three commissioners (the other two being the Bishop of Winchester and the Abbot of Reading) to whom the Pope addressed his letter ordering that the “disturbers of King and kingdom” should be proclaimed excommunicate by the bishops. If any of these latter failed to obey the order, the commissioners themselves were empowered to suspend the recalcitrant prelates; and thus it fell to the lot of Pandulf and Bishop Peter to proclaim the suspension of Archbishop Stephen.[530]

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

From that time forth Peter never held office as a minister of state. He never had done so, save during those sixteen months of his justiciarship in 1214–1215.[577] He had, however, received another token of John’s confidence; he had been entrusted with the education of John’s heir. We have seen that in October, 1216, the Earl Marshal, with the assent of the other loyal barons, bestowed on Peter the important charge of the little King’s person, expressly on the ground that he had already been the child’s “master” and proved himself “a very good” one, who had “brought him up carefully and well.” As Henry was but just nine years old when these words were spoken,[578] we must infer from them that he had been under Peter’s care from a very tender age. Probably John had placed him in the bishop’s household as early as it was possible to do so, somewhat as Henry II had placed his eldest son, when quite a young child, in the household of Thomas the Chancellor.[579] The Marshal and the magnates did only what was natural and right when they replaced their young sovereign under the charge of his former tutor. The commission which Peter received from them, however, involved more than the boy’s education; it expressly included the responsibility for his personal safety. The man to whom was confided a charge so weighty as this obviously needed no official title to vindicate for him a prominent place among the counsellors by whose advice England was to be governed in his royal pupil’s name; and the active and versatile Southerner, experienced and efficient alike in matters of war, of administration, of finance, and of well-nigh every kind of public business, secular and ecclesiastical, was a colleague whose help the official governors of the realm would have been foolish indeed to reject or undervalue on the score of his foreign birth. They and he seem to have worked together without perceptible friction throughout the regency of the Marshal. The sharp words which passed between Peter and the regent shortly before the latter’s death, and Peter’s unseemly behaviour to the younger Marshal and the Legate next day, probably resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of the bishop. He evidently thought that the proposal to appoint a new “guardian of King and Kingdom” and the symbolical delivery of the King into the hands of Pandulf were meant to deprive himself of his precious charge. There was, however, no such intention. Pandulf gave Peter the rebuke which his violence deserved, but immediately replaced Henry under his care.[580]

1218–1219

For the first six months of Pandulf’s regency the chronicles are blank, so far as the internal history of England is concerned. Throughout those months, however, one man was openly setting the government at defiance. In December, 12161216, the royal castles of Rockingham and Sauvey, with the important Forest jurisdictions attached to them,[581] had been committed by the Earl Marshal to the custody of William de Fors, the titular Count of Aumale[582] (or “Albemarle,” as it seems to have been commonly called in England), “that he might dwell in them with his men until his own lands, which the King’s enemies had occupied during the war, should be restored to him.”[583] The actual custodian of Sauvey, Geoffrey de Serland, was apparently somewhat unwilling to hand the place over to the young count;[584] and as Geoffrey’s loyalty is unquestioned, his reluctance was probably caused by some doubts either of William’s loyalty, or of his fitness for the charge of such an important post. If so, these doubts were well founded. On 11th February, 12181218, William, having received restitution of his own lands, was bidden to deliver up Rockingham and Sauvey to another custodian.[585] This order was not obeyed; and a contemporary writer asserts that the Earl Marshal before his death “greatly repented” of having put these castles into the young count’s hands, “because of the complaints which arose out of the ill-doings of the said count and his officers who dwelt there and wrought serious injuries to the people of the district, both rich and poor.”[586] For some unexplained reason, however, no further steps seem to have been taken in the matter till six months after the Marshal’s death. Then, on 30th November, 1219,1219 a lengthy indictment against Aumale was issued in the form of letters patent to the barons, knights, and freeholders of the five counties—Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Cumberland, Rutland, Leicestershire, and Yorkshire—in which the bulk of his possessions lay. Count William was not only detaining, against the royal will and command, certain lands and castles of the King’s which had been placed in his charge (to wit, Rockingham and Sauvey), but was also fortifying and victualling them in the King’s defiance, although a day had actually been set—“to which he paid no heed”—for him to surrender them to the King in person. He was also holding tournaments; more especially he had lately held and attended one at Brackley, contrary to the King’s express orders, and regardless of a sentence of excommunication passed upon him by the Legate. He was therefore to be avoided as an excommunicate and a rebel; the persons addressed were warned, on pain of condign punishment, not to assist him in fortifying Sauvey, but to be ready to take action against him in whatever way they should be directed by future letters from the King; and the sheriffs of the five counties were ordered to proclaim him excommunicate.[587] Strangely enough, neither in record nor chronicle do we find any further mention of William of Aumale till the following April {1220}, when an order addressed to him for forty bucks to be sent to the King at Westminster shows that he was again recognized as warden of a royal Forest, which can only have been that of Rockingham or Sauvey;[588] and his next appearance is in the middle of June, when he was one of the sureties for King Henry’s fulfilment of a treaty with the King of Scots.[589] He seems to have been absolved on condition of taking the Cross[590] and of surrendering the castles and setting forth on his crusade within a given period. Such an arrangement would serve, for the time being, the purposes of Count and Legate alike. William remained in possession; Pandulf avoided, or at least staved off for a while, the responsibility of taking forcible measures against a man whom the Marshal had apparently deemed it prudent to treat with forbearance.

1220

A like forbearance was exercised towards the Justiciar of Ireland, Geoffrey de Marsh. Shortly before the Marshal’s death Geoffrey appears to have announced his intention of going on Crusade; {1219} and the Council seized the opportunity thus afforded them to insist that before he went, he must come to England to perform his homage to the King, and confer with them touching the state of affairs in Ireland. For this purpose they gave him on 23rd April a safe-conduct till All Saints’ day; and they arranged that during his absence from Ireland the Archbishop of Dublin, who had been his colleague in the office of Justiciar during the past twelve months, should take sole charge of the March.[591] The Archbishop was himself anxious to go to England for an interview with the King; and as Geoffrey delayed his departure, he at length wrote and asked permission to do so.[592] His request seems to have crossed with some royal letters issued on 22nd September, ordering that his appointment as chief Justiciar should take effect from Candlemas next, and that by that date Geoffrey should be in England without fail;[593] and this order Geoffrey was just preparing to obey when it was followed by a warm assent to the Archbishop’s proposed visit, which the King’s advisers said “would be most welcome for many reasons.” On this Geoffrey was disposed to make the Archbishop’s impending departure from Ireland a reason for again deferring his own; the Archbishop, however, besought the King not to let him do so, but to bid him “commit the custody of the land, according as the Council may provide, to some other man.”[594] The Archbishop was certainly in England in the summer of 1220; but there is no sign of Geoffrey’s presence there at Candlemas. Summoned again, this time to meet the King and Council at Nottingham on 1st June, he at last came over, but was unavoidably prevented from being at Nottingham on the appointed day, and begged that a later date might be fixed on which he might “lay before the King and council the affairs of the King’s land in Ireland, and”—thus he wrote to his “very dear friend” Hubert de Burgh—“they may be settled by the counsel of yourself and other of the King’s faithful men and of our friends.”[595]

The settlement took the form of a convention between the King and Geoffrey, drawn up at Oxford on 11th August, in presence of the Legate and the Archbishop of Dublin, as well as Peter des Roches, Hubert de Burgh, and other members of the royal council. The Justiciar is in future to answer at the King’s Exchequer in Dublin for escheats, wards, fines, gifts, tallages, reliefs, and aids, from Ireland; and the proceeds of all these, after they have been accounted for at the Exchequer, are to be rendered to the King at his command. Out of the assessed revenue of Ireland, and its “reasonable perquisites” other than those above mentioned, the Justiciar is to maintain the garrisons of the King’s land and castles in Ireland; the garrisons to be such as shall be determined by the advice of Archbishop Henry, Thomas FitzAdam, and Richard de Burgh. The surplus of these revenues and perquisites shall be accounted for at the Dublin Exchequer by the view of these three persons; and clerks of the King, appointed for the purpose, shall keep a counter-roll of all these things. The Justiciar shall appoint as constables of the King’s castles loyal and fit men who shall swear to keep the castles faithfully and safely for the King, so that in case of the Justiciar’s capture, or death, or misconduct, the castles shall be safe; and these constables shall give hostages for their fidelity to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Earl Marshal, and shall also send to the King, through the Archbishop, charters of fealty. The Justiciar gave his two sons as hostages; the Earl Marshal stood pledge for him; and he himself further pledged the whole of his lands, to fall in to the King and the Marshal respectively (he held some of each), in case of his failure to keep faith. He also took an oath to keep all these promises, on pain of being excommunicated by the Archbishop of Dublin in case of breaking them; and as he had left his seal in Ireland for legal purposes there, this writing was at his request sealed with the seals of his brother William and of the Archbishop of Dublin, until he, Geoffrey, could put his own seal to it.[596]

From this document it must be inferred that nothing worse than mismanagement was proved against Geoffrey. His mismanagement however had clearly reached a point at which any sovereign of full age, and in a position to enforce his commands, would have put an end to it by summarily dismissing Geoffrey from his office. But the guardians of Henry III knew that they were not in a position to enforce the dismissal of the Justiciar whom Henry’s father had left in charge of the March in Ireland. Geoffrey was not willing to resign because he was not prepared to render an account of his stewardship. If they issued a direct order for his supersession it was highly probable that he would set them and their order at defiance, and that he would be supported in his defiance by the wardens of the royal castles who owed their appointments to him. Henry could not go, as John had gone, with an armed force at his back, to settle matters in Ireland for himself; nor could anyone in England be sent to do so in his stead. Should force be needed to subdue Geoffrey, the task of subduing him could only be committed to some of the barons of the March; and to commit it to any of these would be to plunge the whole March into a civil war which might result in the complete destruction of the King’s authority there. The case against Geoffrey was clearly not strong enough to justify Pandulf and his colleagues in taking measures which involved such a risk. The course which they took in giving Geoffrey another chance of redeeming his errors, while hedging him round with the strongest moral restraints that could be devised to prevent a repetition of those errors, was at once more politic and more just.

Pandulf’s most congenial sphere of action was diplomacy; and at the outset of his legatine career he was called upon to exercise his diplomatic gifts on a readjustment of the relations between the Kings of England and Scotland. In 12181218 Alexander of Scotland—seemingly with the knowledge and assent of the English government—sent to the Pope a copy of the treaty which has been made between his father and John in 1209, and requested that Honorius would by his apostolic authority either confirm or annull it, as should seem to him best. Honorius committed the decision of the matter to Pandulf,[597] who was then on his way to England {Nov.}. Pandulf, after studying the text of the document,[598] {1219} appointed a day for a formal discussion of the questions at issue between the parties, in his presence, at Norham on 2nd August, 1219.[599] Alexander appeared in person; Henry was represented by a proctor. The discussion ended in an agreement that on the morrow of All Souls’ day another meeting should take place before the Legate, wheresoever he might be, “to treat concerning peace between the two Kings; and if peace cannot then be attained, the cause shall be proceeded with according to law.” Where this second meeting was held we know not, nor by what means peace was “then attained”; but it certainly was attained: “We are coming back at once” wrote Pandulf, in the triumph of his successful mediation, to Peter des Roches, “for, as Stephen de Segrave” (King Henry’s proctor) “and Master Robert of Arènes may have told you by word of mouth, our lord the King’s matters with the King of Scotland are by God’s grace now happily settled.”[600]

1219

What these “matters” were is nowhere stated. Later indications, however, point to a probability that all these obscure proceedings resulted in a ratification of the treaty as a whole, but with a modification of one article. William the Lion had given the wardship and marriage of his two daughters, Margaret and Isabel, to John, with fifteen thousand marks which were, seemingly, intended to form their dowries. The only copy of the treaty of Norham which we possess says nothing more on the subject than this; but from other sources we have reason to infer the existence in the original text of a further stipulation, that the elder girl, Margaret, was to become the wife of John’s heir, or if the boy should not live long enough, of the next heir, the baby Richard; and also of a formal surrender, made on the express condition of this marriage, of all the Scot King’s claims upon Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland.[601] When this treaty was made, in August 1209, Henry’s age was one year and ten months; Richard’s was seven months. Margaret of Scotland was fourteen years old at the least.[602] By 1218 Margaret’s brother and Henry’s guardians must all alike have begun to feel that this clause as it stood was doomed to prove impracticable. Henry’s great-grandfather Geoffrey of Anjou had, indeed, at the age of fifteen, married a woman ten years older than himself; and the difference of age between Henry II and Eleanor was probably not much less. But Eleanor was Duchess of Aquitaine, and Geoffrey’s bride was heiress of Normandy and England; while Margaret could bring to her husband nothing beyond her share of the fifteen thousand marks. The guardians of the reigning King of England might fairly expect to have no difficulty in finding for him in due time a matrimonial alliance fraught with greater advantages, personal and political, than were offered by a marriage under these circumstances with a sister of his own vassal; and Henry himself, when old enough to decide, was almost certain to repudiate the engagement so lightly made for him by his father. On the other hand, unless some steps were taken in anticipation of this contingency, Scotland might find that she had given England fifteen thousand marks for nothing: the non-fulfilment of this unlucky clause would invalidate the whole treaty, and might lead to a rupture between the two countries, which both parties desired to avoid. After Henry’s final coming of age in 1227, we are told, he had to give the King of Scots two hundred pounds worth of land for the quit-claim of the three northern counties, “because the former agreements[603] were not observed”—that is, because Henry had not married Margaret.[604] This compensation for his failure to marry her may have been agreed upon between the two Kings when she was betrothed to Hubert de Burgh in 1220 or 1221. Possibly, however, and even more probably, it may have been settled in Pandulf’s presence in November, 1219.

From Scotland the Legate turned to Wales. Throughout the winter of 1219–1220 he was in the west of England, negotiating with Llywelyn for the settlement of a dispute between the Welsh prince and Hugh de Mortimer about certain manors on the Welsh border.[605] On 2nd December Llywelyn was invited, or summoned, to meet the Legate at Worcester to discuss the matter on 7th January, 1220.[606] The King’s letter, however, contained a summons to answer complaints as well as to make them; and it may have been for this reason that Llywelyn was unwilling to obey it. At his request Pandulf postponed the meeting till the octave of Candlemas.[607] {1220} It seems to have had a successful result thus far, that Llywelyn was induced to refrain from open hostilities throughout the spring. On Rogation Monday, 4 May, he met the King, the Legate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, and the Justiciar, in conference at Shrewsbury,[608] and gave what was understood on the English side as a promise that he would surrender the lands in dispute between himself and Hugh de Mortimer.[609] An attempt was also made to check the perennial strife between the men of the Welsh prince and those of the English Earl in Pembroke, by a truce on the understanding that the Marshal and the other Marcher lords “should be restored to their rights” before 1st August.[610] On the strength of these promises David, Llywelyn’s eldest son by Joan, was formally taken under the King’s protection, and the subject princes of Wales were bidden in the King’s name to be loyal to both Llywelyn and David.[611]

1220

From Shrewsbury King, Legate, and council hastened to London for an important public ceremony. Early in April the Legate and the Primate had received letters from the Pope ordering that Henry “should be a second time raised to the office of king, with due solemnity, according to the custom of the realm; because his first coronation, on account of the disturbed condition of his realm, had been performed less solemnly than was right and fitting, and in another place than that which the usage of the kingdom required.” This, of course, meant that the boy was to be re-crowned at Westminster, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Stephen was delighted, “for he loved the King dearly on account of his innocency.” He and Pandulf agreed that the ceremony should take place on Whit-Sunday, 17th May, and all the prelates and nobles were summoned to be present.[612] On the preceding day the young King himself had another solemn function to perform. Henry came of a family who for two hundred years past had been known as “great builders”; he was a lad of refined, artistic temperament, as well as of a pious disposition; and it seems that he had already undertaken the work which was to be the great architectural glory of his reign, the rebuilding of the abbey church of Westminster. On Whitsun Eve he laid the first stone of the new Lady Chapel.[613] Next morning for the last time a king was crowned in the old church of S. Edward the Confessor. In Pandulf’s presence Henry renewed under the dictation of Archbishop Stephen the oath which he had sworn in Gualo’s presence at Gloucester—to protect the Church of God, and to preserve inviolate the peace of both clergy and people and the good laws of the realm; then the Archbishop placed in his hands the insignia of the regal office, and set upon his head “the crown of the most holy King Edward.” “And this crowning of the King was done with such great peacefulness and splendour, that the oldest men among the nobles of England who were present asserted that they never remembered any of his predecessors being crowned amid such concord and tranquillity.”[614]

1205–1208

Concord and tranquillity did indeed, to all outward seeming, reign at that moment over all the dominions of the English Crown, except the Duchy of Aquitaine. One of the most difficult of the many difficult problems with which the regency had to deal was the problem of how to retain Poitou and Gascony for Henry. The heritage of his grandmother Eleanor had descended to him almost complete. Philip Augustus had never made any attempt to conquer Gascony; he had seized Poitou, but the greater part of it had been regained by John in 1214 and left in his possession by the terms of the truce with which the war between him and Philip had ended. John’s seneschal in Gascony at that time was one of his chamberlains, Geoffrey de Neville[615]; another chamberlain—Hubert de Burgh—soon became seneschal of Poitou.[616] At the end of the year 1214 or the beginning of the next Geoffrey de Neville was succeeded by a baron of Saintonge, Reginald de Pons;[617] in June 1215 Hubert de Burgh became Justiciar of England; before that year closed, the seneschalship of Poitou was united with that of Gascony in the hands of Reginald[618]; and thenceforth the two offices were always granted together and became practically one. Reginald resigned it a few months after John’s death, and was succeeded by Archbishop William of Bordeaux.[619] A year later William gave it up likewise, and in May 1218 Geoffrey de Neville was again sent across the sea to be Seneschal of Poitou and Gascony.[620] Reginald and William had resigned ostensibly for the same reason—because they wanted to go to the Holy Land. Possibly the layman and the prelate may both of them have been glad of an excuse for ridding themselves of an extremely disagreeable office. The loyalty—such as it was—of Poitou and Gascony to the English Crown was of very recent growth; it had sprung up since the expulsion of the Angevins from their other continental dominions. The one persistent political aim of the men of the South was to escape as much as possible from all external control, no matter whence it came. Their land was full of thriving cities and towns, each with a highly developed administrative organization of its own, almost like so many miniature republics; and of high-spirited, hot-tempered barons who were perpetually quarrelling among themselves. Moreover, towns and barons were mutually jealous of one another; and all were alike jealous of any interference with their respective privileges, corporate or individual, on the part of a higher power. They were also all alike shrewd enough to see that their chances of independence were greater under the rule of a sovereign beyond the sea than under the direct rule of the King of France. But they were also, all alike, fully alive to the advantages of their position between two rival overlords; and the possibility of some turn in Aquitanian politics which might furnish a plea, an excuse, or a temptation for French intervention was a danger never absent from the minds of Henry’s counsellors in their dealings with his transmarine dominions.

Besides Poitou and Gascony, the Duchy of Aquitaine included four counties whose rulers owed homage and obedience to the Duke as their suzerain: Angoulême, La Marche, Limoges, and Périgord. Two of these stood, during the early years of the thirteenth century, in relations to each other and to their common overlord which gave them a special importance in the politics of the Duchy. The county of Angoulême was the heritage of Queen Isabel, John’s wife and Henry’s mother. La Marche belonged to Hugh of Lusignan, to whose eldest son Isabel had been betrothed in her infancy, under whose care she had been brought up, and from whose house her own father had literally stolen her, a child scarce twelve years old, {1200} to marry her to the King of England. Between the houses of Lusignan and of Anjou there was already, even at that date, a smouldering feud of some years’ standing, which this outrage, of course, aggravated, but which was allayed for a time in 12141214 by John’s promise of little Joan, his eldest daughter by Isabel of Angoulême, as wife to the younger Hugh in her mother’s stead. Joan was then four years old. Her bridegroom—known simply as “Hugh of Lusignan,” his father being Hugh, Count of La Marche—was a young man in the prime of life,[621] gifted with an ample share of the stirring, ambitious, acquisitive spirit which characterized his race. That race was famous alike in legend and in history, and had reached the height of its greatness within the lifetime of the reigning count of La Marche, two of whose brothers had been crowned and anointed Kings.[622] Another brother, Ralf, was in right of his wife count of Eu in Normandy and owner of some lands in England. In 12181218 the elder Hugh went to the Crusade; and thus when Geoffrey de Neville took up the government of Poitou and Gascony, the younger Hugh was for practical purposes count of La Marche, and the most important personage in northern Aquitaine. He and Joan were still only betrothed, not married; but she was in his custody, and he was officially treated as “brother” to King Henry; he had claims against the English Crown respecting certain lands which John had promised to him at his betrothal;[623] and when his uncle Ralf of Eu died childless in the spring of 12191219, he seems to have also—no doubt on behalf of his father—laid claim to Ralf’s estates, and taken a high-handed method of enforcing his demand, by picking a quarrel with the King’s town of Niort. Geoffrey de Neville tried to mediate, and promised to procure him satisfaction for any complaint that he might have against the town, “but,” writes Geoffrey to the King, “he answered that he would not cease from infesting your land for us or for anybody else.” Geoffrey had now been seneschal for a year, and was confessedly at his wit’s end and eager to be rid of an office in which he foresaw nothing but failure and disgrace. “He”—that is, Hugh—“and others can see how poor we are both in men and money.” “We greatly fear that unless speedy and effectual counsel be taken for the defence of your land, the said Hugh and the magnates will usurp it, and it will pass to the rule of a stranger. And we do you to wit that unless you take strong measures for its defence, we (Geoffrey) intend to set out for Holy Land on Midsummer day, for we will on no account stay here to your and our own damage and disgrace; because the said Hugh has let us know that he will not cease from molesting you until you give up the English lands of the count of Eu. For the love of God, write back quickly what you wish us to do.”[624] Apparently the answer to this letter was an order to remain at his post; and he did so, though complaining bitterly of the impossibility of the task laid upon him. “We have already urged you,” he writes again, “to take some counsel for the defence of your land of Poitou and Gascony, not so much against the King of France as against your own barons, who ravage your land and capture and put to ransom your townsfolk, and behave themselves towards your men in such fashion that it appears, and we believe, they are not well affected to your service. We, by reason of our poverty, cannot defend the land, nor subdue them; and they make no more account of me than if I were a foot-boy. Wherefore we do you to wit that unless you take other counsel without delay, you will soon see us in England. And do not say that the King’s land is lost through us; you are casting it away yourselves for lack of counsel.”[625]

1218–1219

At this juncture a new complication arose. Queen Isabel had in 1218 returned to her own county of Angoulême, received in its capital city the homage of its barons, and taken its government into her own hands.[626] She had some trouble at the outset with Reginald of Pons, the ex-seneschal of Poitou, who seems to have owned some castles in the Angoumois, and for some unexplained reason held them against her, but was soon overcome by her superior forces.[627] A matter of more consequence was her quarrel with Bartholomew of Puy. In the early part of John’s reign Bartholomew had been provost, or mayor, of the city of Angoulême;[628] from July, 1214,[629] if not earlier, he was seneschal of the county for John, and after John’s death for Henry. Isabel was minded to govern for herself; rightly or wrongly, she asserted that Bartholomew was plotting mischief against her with some of the Poitevin barons, especially Ralf de Lusignan the count of Eu, and also with the King of France; she therefore deprived him of his office and all his possessions, and made him give her his two sons as hostages. Bartholomew, apparently, appealed to the English government and the new seneschal of Aquitaine, and fled for shelter to Hugh de Lusignan.[630] Just then {1219} Hugh and the seneschal had suddenly become friends. Geoffrey wanted to go to England, but he was so absolutely penniless that on reaching La Rochelle he found it impossible to proceed any further, or even to leave the city,[631] till a loan of a hundred and sixty marks from some local merchants was negotiated for him by Hugh de Lusignan, who offered himself as surety for its repayment by the English government. This simple but timely stroke of policy made Hugh master of the situation in Aquitaine. The letters in which he and Geoffrey notified the transaction to King and Council were carried to England by Bartholomew of Puy. Geoffrey excused his acceptance of Hugh’s help on the plea that “the trouble in your land is so great that ruin would have followed if I had withdrawn”; Hugh modestly remarked that “your land of Poitou was greatly disturbed, but by God’s grace we have put it into a better state.” Both requested that the money should be given to Bartholomew in the presence of Ralf of Saint-Samson, who accompanied him, and who “knew that these things were true”; and Geoffrey added a warning—“If it be not paid, and if Sir Hugh should be compelled to pay it for me, you will never again find anybody who will make any loan to your order or to you.”[632]

1219

The Council perceived that the only thing to do with Sir Hugh was to make a friend of him, if possible, by enlisting him as a sort of unofficial colleague to the luckless seneschal. In July Bartholomew of Puy came back, in the character of “the King’s messenger.”[633] He seems to have brought letters from the King and Council to Isabel, directing her to reinstate him in his property. Almost at the same time negotiations were set on foot in the King’s name for a loan of a thousand marks from the mayor and citizens of La Rochelle, and another thousand from those of Bordeaux, “to be used and expended by the hands of our very dear brother, Hugh of Lusignan, in defence of our land, if it should be needful.”[634] The possible danger against which it was thought that defence might be needed was an attack from Louis of France. He had been for some months past in the county of Toulouse, fighting against the Albigensians, and some of Henry’s subjects in Aquitaine feared that the French host, when its work at Toulouse was done, might be used against their sovereign and themselves.[635] These suspicions of Louis were, however, without justification. There is not the least indication that Louis ever thought of using, or allowing his followers to use, the opportunity which certainly lay within his reach for intervening at this time in the troubles of Poitou and Gascony. The truce between France and England, however, was now within nine months of its term;[636] and Pandulf was growing very anxious to secure its prolongation. In September a month’s safe-conduct was given to some envoys from the King of France to come over and discuss this matter.[637] In January, 12201220, the Legate wrote urgently from the west of England, where he was detained by his negotiations with Llywelyn, to the Bishop of Winchester and the Justiciar, begging them to send some trusty messenger, “secretly, privately, and without delay,” to ask Philip for a renewal of the truce; he himself drafted for them a letter such as he deemed advisable for the envoy to convey; and he impressed upon his colleagues the importance of taking the matter in hand at once and insisting upon a decisive answer from the French King.[638] Three envoys were accordingly despatched on 26th January;[639] and on 3rd March the truce was renewed for four years from the ensuing Easter.[640]

1220

Hugh of Lusignan meanwhile {1219} had thrown himself at once into his new part, posing as the zealous protector of the interests and loyal executor of the mandates of his little “brother,” even in opposition to the Queen-mother, who complained bitterly to Pandulf of the “maintenance” which Hugh and Geoffrey de Neville, acting under instructions from the royal Council, afforded to Bartholomew of Puy against her.[641] In August, 1219, the countess of Eu went to England, to claim her share of her late husband’s possessions there. As she was a kinswoman of the Earl of Warren and a niece of the Justiciar, a conflict between her claims and those of her husband’s brother bade fair to stir up a good deal of trouble.[642] By the middle of November Bartholomew of Puy seems to have been in England again;[643] and before that time Geoffrey de Neville was there also.[644] Geoffrey appears to have left Poitou and Gascony under the charge of a knight named William Gauler, who presently wrote a pathetic letter to Hubert de Burgh, complaining that he had been left without any revenues save those of the ports, which were only worth fifty pounds, “for all the affairs of the Poitevins and of Bordeaux”; moreover, his friends were telling him that the King had ordered him to be arrested, he knew not why. With strong protestations of loyalty William declared himself ready to settle his accounts, “willingly and truthfully,” with any one whom Hubert might send to Gascony as seneschal, “whether it were the chamberlain or some other man.” “Gascony,” he added, “is in a good condition up to the present; but I greatly fear it will quickly fall back into worse ways unless you send us good counsel and reinforcements.”[645]

1219–1220

Meanwhile the towns were protesting their loyalty, and complaining of one another, and also of the intrigues of the French party and the lawless doings of the local barons.[646] About this last grievance they grew more clamorous than ever in the winter of 1219–1220. “The King’s burghers” of La Rochelle, Niort, and S. Jean d’Angély lived in perpetual terror of the lord of Parthenay, William Larchevêque, who with the lord of Rancon “and with the consent of others whom we will not at present name,” persecuted them “daily and unceasingly.” “He seizes your burghers and holds them to ransom; he carries off their beasts of burden,” wrote the mayor and commune of Niort. “He has put out the eyes of the bearer of this letter, and those of two other men, without any offence or fault of theirs, and though they were not even on his land when he captured them. And all this evil he does to us, so he declares, because of a hundred marks of silver which the late King promised him, and on account of a certain traitor whom you, Sir Hubert de Burgh, hanged when you were our seneschal.” With one voice the towns entreated that an efficient governor might be sent into Poitou {1220 (March)}; and they gave it clearly to be understood that they did not want Geoffrey de Neville back again. “Our former governors have been somewhat slack in their dealings with your enemies.” “When Sir Geoffrey was here, he could not protect us; he was not sufficient for these things, nor for other things either. If he were here now, he would be of no use. Send us some one more useful, more competent to manage this country, and to provide for the welfare of its people and uphold the rights and interests of the Crown.”[647]

1220

The task of selection devolved upon Hubert de Burgh. Pandulf, a total stranger to Aquitaine and its affairs, seems to have declined to take any part in the matter beyond promising to ratify Hubert’s choice, on whomsoever it might fall.[648] Hubert was the one man then in England who knew by experience what were the most essential qualifications for the vacant post. Before he could find a man to his mind, however, another sudden change occurred in the political situation. In February or March, 1220, tidings came from Damietta that the count of La Marche was dead;[649] and before the middle of May Isabel of Angoulême wrote a startling announcement to her son. “We do you to wit that the counts of La Marche and Eu[650] being both dead, Sir Hugh de Lusignan was left, as it were, alone and without an heir, and his friends would not allow him to marry our daughter on account of her tender age, but counselled him to make such a marriage that he might speedily have an heir; and it was proposed that he should take a wife in France; which if he should do, all your land in Poitou and Gascony, and ours too, would be lost. We therefore, seeing the great danger that might arise if such a marriage should take place, and getting no support from your counsellors, have taken the said Hugh count of La Marche to be our lord and husband.”[651]

This letter probably reached England shortly before the coronation; on 22nd May Henry wrote to his step-father, expressing his approval of the marriage.[652] At the same time he desired Hugh to escort Joan to La Rochelle and there deliver her to two persons (Ralph Gernon and Joldewin of Douai) who were charged to take care of her till they received further orders from England.[653] A new use for the little girl’s hand had already been devised by the royal Council; they offered it to the young King of Scots. He was invited to meet Henry at York on 10th June;[654] and there, on 15th June, the treaty of marriage was arranged. Henry pledged himself to give Joan to Alexander to be his wife, at the ensuing Michaelmas, “if he could get her”; if he could not, his second sister, Isabel, should be given to Alexander in her stead, within fifteen days of the time appointed. Henry also promised that he would either cause Alexander’s two sisters to be honourably married in England within a year from S. Denys’s day (9th October), or restore them to their brother within a month after that term should have expired.[655] All thought of a marriage between Margaret of Scotland and Henry himself had evidently been given up by mutual consent.

Henry’s doubts whether he could get his eldest sister back in time for her to be married at Michaelmas proved well founded. Queen Isabel, when she announced her own marriage, had assured him that she was ready to let Joan go home as soon as he liked to send for her. At the same time she had requested that her own dower-lands, and a sum of three thousand five hundred marks which she alleged had been bequeathed to her by John, should be handed over to Hugh;[656] and it soon became apparent that she and Hugh intended to hold Joan in pledge till this was done. The English Council, however, were equally determined not to give up the Queen’s dowry until that of Joan, and Joan herself, were safely restored. On 20th June letters were written in Henry’s name to the Pope, asking him to bid the bishops of Saintes and Limoges compel Hugh to restore Joan and her dowry and right the wrongs which he had done to Henry in other matters;[657] and also to the cardinals, requesting that they would bring their influence to bear upon the count of La Marche, who, “regardless of his plighted vow, having taken our mother to wife instead of our sister, now refuses to give our sister back to us, wishing by his detention of her to compel us to buy her back.”[658]

The union of La Marche and Angoulême, instead of making for the peace and safety of Aquitaine as Isabel had pretended, was in fact no sooner accomplished than it made matters worse than ever. Hugh openly threatened the towns and barons who opposed him with a renewal of hostilities, and so great was their terror that “all the bishops, very many of the barons, and other good men of the King’s towns of Bordeaux, Niort, La Rochelle, and S. Jean d’Angély went to him in a body at Angoulême, desiring him that before he made war upon them he should approach the King and the Council with reference to the matters in dispute between him and the King.” The joint efforts of the bishops and of the King’s envoys, who seem to have arrived in the midst of the colloquy, wrung from Hugh a promise to stay his hand for a while.[659] But his promises were worthless; and the complaints of the towns continued to pour in upon Henry’s guardians. To the town of Niort Hugh had granted a truce of seven weeks; “but,” wrote the mayor and commune, “as we had no security except his word, we put it to Sir William Maingo the younger whether he would keep us safe, so far as he and his men were concerned, and maintain the truce. He wrote back to us that if we would render to him one hundred marks a year, which King John had promised him, he would keep us in safety; otherwise we must guard ourselves against him and his men; and he has already done us some injury. We likewise sent letters to Sir William Larchevêque, that he might certify us whether he would keep the truce or not. And he wrote back that he would not keep the truce, but would do us all the evil and damage that he could; and he is oppressing us so that we dare not get our harvest in; and he sets traps for us daily, and so do many others”—Hugh’s own men-at-arms among the number.[660] “When the truce was begun between us and the count of La Marche,” they write again, “the count by one of his knights declared us deprived of all rights within his fiefs”; he and his men were guarding all the roads so that neither corn, nor wine, nor wood, nor any necessaries could be got into the city, “and what is your own property he declares to be of his fee.” Again “with tears” they implored Henry to send them such a governor as should extricate them and all Poitou from these perils.[661]

The men of Bordeaux on the other hand were urgent that Hugh should be appeased. “He has promised,” they wrote, “to maintain and defend the towns, from himself and his, and all other living men, faithfully to the utmost of his power, for your benefit and honour. And since his defence and maintenance is, above that of all others, most useful and necessary to your faithful men of Poitou, and molestation from him is equally perilous and injurious to them, we entreat your royal majesty, by every means we can, to take such counsel that a man of such importance, such a useful defender of your land, and so pious and humble a protector of peace and tranquillity, may not through any other’s fault withdraw from your service; for he has promised that so long as he lives he will, unless you give him cause to do otherwise, remain faithfully in your service against all men living. All these things,” they add, “have been communicated to us by the good men of La Rochelle.”[662] But meanwhile the good men of La Rochelle had learned something of the value of Hugh’s fine promises. Threatened by him with “all the harm that he could do” to them, surrounded by enemies who persecuted them for their loyalty, and without any protector save the Bishop of Saintes, they again pleaded—as did also the men of Bordeaux[663]—for the appointment of an efficient seneschal: “Send us quickly a strong man, who will bring back the barons to allegiance, and with their aid rout the enemies and restore the royal authority.”[664] A rumour that the King was about to make the viscount of Thouars seneschal of Poitou struck panic into Niort. “God forbid it! for the viscount is our mortal foe, and in your father’s time, with the counsel of the King of France, he did us all the evil that he could. As you love your land of Poitou, and us, and your own honour, we beseech you on no account to venture on making him seneschal; moreover, make not anyone from these parts seneschal of Poitou. If you do, they will take your land for their own advantage, as much as they can, as some did in your father’s time. And we and the other faithful men shall have to go out of your land, unless you take diligent care and good counsel in this business. May it therefore please your excellency to send some noble, discreet, wise, and powerful man from the parts of England, to be your seneschal—such a man as will know how to deal with your affairs in Poitou, and be able to hold your land.”[665] Another rumour—this time in England—as to the Council’s intentions with respect to the vacant office drew forth a trenchant protest from Earl William of Salisbury. “I am given to understand,” he writes to Pandulf, “that you, together with the King’s Council, proposed to send the count of Aumale into Poitou to keep the land. And as it seems to me that the count is less obedient than he should be to the King’s commands concerning the things which he holds in England, which are small, I doubt he would be less obedient still if he had the seneschalship and government of Poitou which is a great thing. And therefore I give notice to your holiness that you will in no wise commit the custody of that land to him by my counsel or assent.”[666]

Oddly enough, the man finally chosen by Hubert was Philip of Ulecote, who also had given the government some trouble about the restitution of a castle to its rightful owner.[667] When the choice was at last made, in August, some difficulty arose before it could be carried into effect; the sequel suggests that Philip’s state of health may have been the obstacle. “I never felt any confidence,” wrote Pandulf to Hubert on 25th August, “that Philip should go there; though you seemed mighty certain about the matter, rambling over seas and mountains in quest of things that are not to be had.” In a more serious strain he warned the Justiciar that some decision must be made at once. “You must provide for that country, which plainly appears to be perishing through the fault of the King’s Council. The matter has been already shamefully delayed, and I greatly fear lest grave damage should come of it.”[668] In the middle of September Philip of Ulecote was formally appointed seneschal of Poitou,[669] and went across the sea.

Pandulf and Peter des Roches, meanwhile, had enlisted the services of the Dean of Poitiers, who visited England in August, to negotiate with Hugh of La Marche for a truce.[670] A carucage “for our great needs, most urgent debts, and the preservation of our land of Poitou” had been agreed upon in a council at Oxford on 9th August.[671] Negotiations with the communes of La Rochelle and Bordeaux for a loan “for the safe keeping of Poitou and Gascony” were begun in September.[672] These two towns, with Niort and S. Jean d’Angély, had now resolved upon sending representatives to England to lay their complaints before the Council; the Preceptor of the Temple, Gerard Brochard, at their request undertook to accompany these envoys, and begged the Council to give him and them an audience in London in the week after Michaelmas, “to hear the proposals of the count of La Marche, and of others, on all sides.” Gerard, it is clear, was in the confidence of all parties, and he declared positively that if the Council would listen to him, the damsel Joan would be restored to them in honour and freedom; “she would have been delivered to me,” he said, “if I would have stood surety that the King would do to the count what he ought.”[673] Probably Gerard received in London, and thence transmitted to Hugh, a formal assurance that Henry would “do what he ought”—in other words, surrender his mother’s dowry. At the same time the Pope took up the matter; and a letter from him, on 20th September, threatening that if Hugh did not within fifteen days after its receipt deliver Joan, together with the city of Saintes and the Isle of Oléron (which had been pledged to him by John as security for her dowry) to Henry’s appointed representatives, he should be excommunicated and his lands placed under interdict,[674] was followed by Hugh’s submission, so far as the surrender of Joan herself was concerned. In obedience to an order from England issued on 6th October that he should either himself bring Joan to England, or deliver her at La Rochelle to certain persons appointed to receive her there,[675] he set out with the child; but he fell sick at Oléron, where the Dean of Poitiers and the new seneschal of Aquitaine, Philip of Ulecote, had been ordered to meet him. The Dean waited for the seneschal in vain, and at last learned that he was dead.[676] At the beginning of November Hugh, being too ill to proceed, delivered Joan to the commissioners—the Dean and two other envoys—who escorted her to La Rochelle.[677] The term fixed for her marriage was past, but at its expiration, on 13th October, Henry and Alexander had met again at York,[678] and Alexander had evidently consented to wait for her with patience; he waited in fact till the following Midsummer. Her stepfather, when he gave her up to Henry’s commissioners, assured them of his intention to go and perform his homage for La Marche and Angoulême as soon as his health should permit him.[679] Thus for a few months Aquitaine was—comparatively—at peace.

Meanwhile, however, the “concord and tranquillity” in England had not been altogether unbroken. At first glance the Pope’s selection of the spring of 1220 for the re-crowning of the young King appears unaccountable. Since the ceremony had not taken place immediately after the Primate’s return, two years ago, it would have seemed more natural to delay it for seventeen months longer, till the boy should have reached the completion of his fourteenth year, the earliest age which could, on any known principle, be reckoned as that of legal majority. A clue to the purpose for which the matter was hurried on may possibly be found in certain steps which were taken immediately after the coronation. On its morrow (18th May) “the barons who were present swore that they would resign their castles and wardenships at the will of the King, and would render at the Exchequer a faithful account of their ferms; and also that if any rebel should resist the King, and should not make satisfaction within forty days after being excommunicated by the Legate, they would make war upon him at the King’s bidding, that the rebel might be disinherited without the option of a fine.”[680] A week after this, on 26 May, the Pope wrote a letter to Pandulf. He began by expressing his distress at the reports that reached him of his royal ward’s extreme poverty; this, he said, was imputed chiefly to the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates in England, some of whom had usurped the King’s castles, manors, and other domains, and were detaining the same “on the frivolous pretext that they wish to keep them safe till the King should be of age; and so meanwhile the King must be a beggar, while they run riot, against his will, on what belongs to him.” The Pope therefore ordered that they should surrender all such castles and lands to the King, and make restitution of all the proceeds thence derived since the war, and bade Pandulf enforce their compliance with penalties both spiritual and temporal. In a second letter, written two days later, Honorius instructed the Legate not to suffer any man, howsoever faithful or closely attached he might be to the King, to hold in his custody more than two of the King’s castles, on pain of ecclesiastical censure without appeal.[681]

From the days of Henry II, if not from a yet earlier time, the Crown had found it a hard matter to preserve its authority over castles held in private ownership. Such ownership was limited by the King’s right in three ways. The owner was bound to allow his castle to be garrisoned by the King’s own men at the King’s will; to surrender it into the King’s hand if required; and not to make any addition to its fortifications without the King’s licence. Against the enforcement of these royal rights the owners of castles had struggled, with varying success, under Henry II, Richard, and John. The civil war, and the new conditions under which the powers of the Crown had to be exercised during the minority of John’s successor, had intensified their jealousy of all restriction upon their tenure of their fortresses; and a like spirit of independence began to show itself in some of the wardens of the King’s own castles, with regard to the fortresses under their charge. The only important case of this kind, until the latter part of the year 1219, was that of Count William of Aumale. But between August, 1219, and March, 1220, trouble began to threaten in connexion with two royal fortresses of not less consequence than Sauvey and Rockingham, and from two men of far greater political and personal weight than William de Fors.

The combined offices of sheriff of Lincolnshire and warden of Lincoln castle were hereditary in the family of Haye, represented at this time by the old Dame Nicolaa, whose capability, courage, and loyalty had never failed in the service of John and his heir throughout the last twenty years. Three days after the battle of Lincoln {24 May 1217} the city and county had been committed to the boy-King’s uncle, William Longsword Earl of Salisbury, to hold during the King’s pleasure.[682] This grant was probably made with the double purpose of rewarding Longsword for his share in the victory, and relieving Nicolaa of a burden which she had, nearly two years before, declared to be too great for her.[683] Five months later, however, when peace was made, the old lady asked to be reinstated in her hereditary functions. Her request was granted, and on 31st October the Earl was bidden to deliver the castle to her and give her seisin of the sheriffdom without delay; but the latter half of this order seems not to have been enforced;[684] and at the beginning of December the county “with all its appurtenances” was again committed to William to hold during the King’s pleasure.[685] This time, however, the castle did not go with the shrievalty; for from March, 12181218, onwards we find the former once more, with the full sanction of the Crown, under the charge of its veteran castellan, Nicolaa.[686] No one seems to have ventured on molesting her till three months after the death of the old Earl Marshal. Then, on 23rd August, 12191219, “the sheriff of Lincoln”—no doubt the Earl of Salisbury’s deputy—had to be sharply told that he was to “maintain, protect, and defend the lands, goods, and men of our trusty and well-beloved Nicolaa de Haye within his bailiwick, to cause her no molestation, injury or damage, nor to meddle in any way with her debts to the Crown, or in any matters concerning her, till he received orders to do so”; and next day “all the knights and good men” of the shire were informed that the King had assigned Falkes de Bréauté (who was sheriff of two shires contiguous to Lincolnshire, those of Northampton and Rutland) to Dame Nicolaa as her assistant in the defence of Lincoln castle, “and that they should all efficaciously counsel and assist Falkes in the King’s business which Falkes would explain to them, for the preservation of the peace of the realm.”[687] It seems that Falkes, with three of his knights (and no doubt some attendant men-at-arms), at once took up his abode in the castle and made it his headquarters for the next nine months.[688] From a temporary absence in January, 12201220, when he went to meet the King at Northampton, he was recalled by an urgent message from Nicolaa; and a letter from Falkes himself to Hubert de Burgh makes it perfectly clear that the danger against which he was required to protect her was a persistent endeavour of the Earl of Salisbury, as sheriff of the county, to enter the castle. “But,” wrote Falkes, “God helping me, with the force at the Dame’s command I will take good care that he shall not get in.”[689]

William Longsword was a son of Henry II; illegitimate, but always acknowledged and treated as “the King’s brother” by both Richard and John, and by Henry as “our beloved uncle.” Richard had given him the earldom from which he took his title, together with the hand and the great possessions of Ela, heiress of an earlier line of Earls of Salisbury. He had done good service to John until the middle of 1216; then he had joined Louis, but early in 1217 he had returned to the side of little Henry, and had received back all his forfeited estates, to which in August of the same year were added the counties of Somerset and Devon.[690] His attempt to interfere with the rights of a castellan appointed by the King to the command of a royal castle certainly failed, and was probably abandoned without any open strife, for there is no sign of any breach in the friendly relations between the King and his “beloved Uncle William,” to whom the boy seems to have been really attached. But the mere making of such an attempt, by a man of such high rank and so closely connected with the King, was not without grave significance; and it coincided ominously with another incident of graver significance still.

1220

The castle of Marlborough, like that of Lincoln, belonged to the Crown. When it fell into the hands of Louis in 1216 the younger William Marshal, then in arms on Louis’s side, claimed it as his by right. The chronicler who records this claim mentions also a claim put forth by William to act as Marshal for Louis in England;[691] possibly he may have claimed the wardenship of Marlborough castle as appertaining to the Marshalcy. The two offices may have been granted together to his grandfather John FitzGilbert, who was certainly Marshal under Henry I, and commandant at Marlborough after that King’s death. In 1175–1176 a part of the fine due to the Crown from the heirs of John FitzGilbert for entering upon their patrimony was remitted in reimbursement for repairs done to Marlborough castle.[692] At the coronation of Richard John FitzGilbert’s two elder surviving sons, John and William, shared between them the functions of Marshal, but the hereditary character of that office was not explicitly determined till ten years later. During the greater part of those ten years Marlborough was not a royal fortress; Richard had given it to his own brother John. John’s accession as King restored it to its old status; but no reference to its wardenship occurs in the charter whereby John granted the Marshalcy to William and his heirs for ever; and the great Earl never was, nor, so far as we can see, claimed to be custodian of Marlborough castle during John’s lifetime.[693] He certainly was so, however, from November, 12171217, until his death, and his eldest son succeeded him in this wardenship.[694] In March, 12201220, Hubert de Burgh informed Pandulf that Marlborough castle was being fortified—evidently without instructions from the Crown. Pandulf bade him despatch without delay “the most stringent letters from the King that could be drawn up,” ordering the Marshal to stop the work at once, and strictly forbidding all persons engaged in it, on pain of their bodies, goods, “and even their inheritance,” to do anything towards fortifying the castle without a special licence and order from the King.[695] No further letters on the subject appear to be extant; the information which Hubert had forwarded to Pandulf may have proved to be incorrect, or the Marshal may have given some satisfactory explanation. There is, however, an indication elsewhere that he took upon himself to exercise over the tenants of the castle of Marlborough more arbitrary authority than he was entitled to assume as custodian of that fortress for the King.[696] Moreover, there was another matter about which trouble with him must have been felt to be impending.

1217

Immediately after the younger Marshal’s return to allegiance, in March, 1217, there had been granted to him, to hold during the King’s pleasure, the English lands of Earl David of Huntingdon.[697] The most important part of these lands was the honour of Huntingdon, which the Scot Kings had inherited from the English wife of King David of Scotland, which William the Lion had subenfeoffed to his brother David, and which, with the estates held by David direct of the English Crown, had now become forfeit to its English overlord because David and the reigning King of Scots—his nephew Alexander—had espoused the cause of Louis. A few months later they both submitted to Henry; Alexander, having performed his homage in December, was granted seisin of “the lands held of him in England by Earl David”;[698] and in the following March orders were issued for complete restitution to David himself of all his English possessions.[699] He seems to have regained them all except one castle: Fotheringay. In June, 12191219, he died, leaving an heir under age. His fief being an English one, the right to its custody fell not to its immediate overlord the King of Scots, but to its lord paramount the King of England; in Henry’s name it was committed, during his pleasure, to the charge of three knights, and an order was issued that they should receive full seisin of “the manor of Fotheringay” from the constable of the castle[700]—that is, the younger Marshal (now Earl William the second of Pembroke and Striguil), or his lieutenant there. In October the custody of the honour was transferred to the King of Scots.[701] But twelve months later {1220} Fotheringay castle was still in the hands of the Earl Marshal; not because either Henry or Alexander had authorized him to retain it, but because he was, for some reason or other, unwilling to give it up, and to make him do so against his will was, as things then stood, practically impossible. He was the eldest son of the late regent. He was the most intimate friend of the Earl of Salisbury. On him, as Earl of Striguil, the security of the Welsh March chiefly depended; as heir of his mother, Isabel of Leinster, he was the mightiest baron of the English March in Ireland; and as heir to the lands which had belonged to his parents in Normandy, he could at any moment put himself in touch with Philip of France. In private life he seems to have been a man of high character; and since his return to allegiance, with his friend Salisbury, in 1217, he had, like Salisbury, acted as a valiant, useful, and faithful adherent of the King. If the Council had shrunk from taking extreme measures against Aumale, much less could they proceed to extremities with Salisbury and the Marshal. Yet the example set by these two men was certain to lead to further mischief unless some steps were taken to prevent it.

1220

The Earl Marshal was certainly, the Earl of Salisbury and the count of Aumale were almost certainly, included among the nobles who were present at the coronation and who next day took the oath which has been mentioned already.[702] The coronation, the oath, the Pope’s letters, taken all together, suggest that in the spring of 1220 the Council had invoked the Pope’s assistance to enhance the authority of the Crown for the special purpose of strengthening the hands of its guardians in an effort to deal with the whole question of the English castles. It is, however, very difficult to guess what, or who, can have prompted the instructions issued to the Legate by the Pope on 26th and 28th May. The information on which the letter of 26th May purports to be written is shown by the records to be erroneous. No castle belonging to the King was in the custody of either of the archbishops; only three were in the custody of any other prelate. Those three were Porchester, Winchester, and Southampton, held by Peter des Roches together with the sheriffdom of the county in which they stood. There is also no indication that either Peter or any other prelate had ever attempted, or even been (in England) accused or suspected of attempting, to usurp castles or lands belonging to the Crown, or made difficulties about restoring any such lands which may have been temporarily entrusted to him for safe keeping during the war. The second letter is equally unaccountable; for while the enforcement of the order that no man should hold more than two royal castles at once would have deprived Peter of one such wardenship, it would have deprived Hubert de Burgh of four;[703] and it would have further involved a wholesale rearrangement not only of the wardenships, but also of the sheriffdoms, throughout south-eastern England and also in the Midlands, where a still greater number of royal castles were in the hands of Falkes de Bréauté as sheriff of seven shires. It is therefore not surprising that no use was made of these two papal mandates. As no mention of them occurs in the chronicles of the time, it is most probable that they were never published; Honorius may have sent with them private instructions authorizing Pandulf to publish or suppress them at his own discretion. By the time they reached England the King’s guardians were feeling their way in more wary fashion towards the end which they had in view.

The King’s journey to meet Alexander of Scotland furnished an opportunity for a royal progress through some of the castles which lay between London and York. “The King with his tutors,” says the Barnwell annalist, “perambulated his realm, to know whether those whom his father had made custodians of fortresses in England were minded to give up those fortresses quietly to himself as their lord.”[704] From York he went by way of Pontefract to Nottingham, thence to Leicester, and thence to Northampton. When he reached Rockingham, however, on 25th or 26th June,[705] the castle gates were shut against him.[706] William of Aumale had only ten days before been chosen as one of the King’s sureties for the treaty with Scotland.[707] He had clearly left the court since then; but he was not in Rockingham castle, though he was evidently known to be not far away, for two messengers who were immediately despatched to him with another royal command for the surrender of Rockingham and Sauvey were ordered to be back at the hour of prime next morning.[708] They seem to have returned with a request from Aumale for a safe-conduct to the court. Meanwhile a military force under Falkes, which had accompanied or followed the King from Northampton to Rockingham, invested the castle,[709] with the ready assistance of the people of the shire, who seem to have found Aumale a very overbearing and troublesome neighbour. On Sunday, 28th, the garrison “seeing that they were in a strait and had not power to resist, ignominiously went out and left free entrance to the King.”[710] A safe-conduct until prime on that Sunday morning had been issued to Aumale the day before;[711] he had used it, and had made formal surrender of both Rockingham and Sauvey into the King’s hand.[712] Next day a notice was issued in the King’s name, stating that Count William had resigned the custody of these two castles “of his own free will.” The King, on his side, quit-claimed to the count the ferm received by him from the manors and other royal demesnes, and the issues of the Forests, attached to the castles, from the time when the castles were given him in custody to the day on which he resigned them, and also undertook to obtain from the Legate permission for the count to postpone the fulfilment of “his vow.”[713]

The letters patent setting forth this agreement were issued on the joint motion of the Justiciar and the Bishop of Winchester; Pandulf was evidently absent from the court. There can be no doubt that Aumale’s vow here referred to was a vow of Crusade, enjoined by Pandulf as the condition of the count’s release from excommunication at the close of the preceding year; and we may see in it a reason for the extreme generosity with which the count was treated. A government whose head was a papal Legate might make a military demonstration, but could hardly use real force against a man who wore the Cross. There is, moreover, some probability that the Council, or some member of it, may have entertained a project of letting Count William commute his vow for an undertaking which might well be deemed a penance quite as severe as a crusade—the seneschalship of Poitou and Gascony. A report to that effect certainly reached the Earl of Salisbury at some date between December, 1219, and the end of June, 1220.[714] The report may have been false; but it is quite possible that the project may have really existed, and by no means clear that it deserved the scorn heaped upon it by the King’s uncle. The appointment of William de Fors as governor of Aquitaine would be an excellent expedient for getting him peaceably out of England; and though troublesome there, he was not without qualifications for the vacant post over sea. As the son of a Poitevin father he would be quicker to understand the character of the people, and perhaps more acceptable to some of them, than a man of pure English blood; at the same time, his stake in the country was too small[715] to involve him in personal rivalry with the Aquitanian barons; while as a great English noble he would be readily welcomed by the towns. In the weeks between the coronation and the treaty with Scotland the thoughts of Hubert de Burgh, “roaming over seas and mountains” in search of a governor for Aquitaine and at the same time haunted by the problem of the English castles, may well have turned—or may have been turned by Pandulf or Peter—to a possibility of ending the weary search and winning the resignation of Aumale’s English wardenships at one stroke; and the agreement with Aumale on S. Peter’s day may have been made on the basis of some previous negotiations whose completion the march on Rockingham was intended merely to precipitate. In the face of Longsword’s protest, however, the project of sending Aumale to Poitou, if ever seriously entertained, must have been abandoned; and we may see in its abandonment the reason why Aumale did not receive the licence which he desired for a further postponement of his crusade. Pandulf seems to have offered him instead the option of redeeming his vow altogether, doubtless in the usual way, by a payment of money; but Aumale neither paid nor went.[716]