READING HALLTHIRD MILLENNIUM LIBRARY |
 |
 |
 |
 |
THE LIFE OF SIMON DE MONTFORT . EARL OF LEICESTER
CHAPTER II.
FAMILY AND EARLY LIFE OF SIMON DE MONTFORT.
Simon de Montfort was the descendant of a family which
took its name from a stronghold known still as Montfort l'Amauri.
The little town so called is situated on the high ground between the valleys of
the Eure and the Seine, in the south-east corner of
Normandy. At a point on the northern slope of this ridge, whence the eye ranges
freely over the broad valley of the Seine below, and a little river hastens
down from the wooded uplands of Rambouillet to meet the
larger stream, lies the village which perpetuates the family name. Close by
this village is a ruined castle, whose weather-beaten remnants crown a hillock,
probably the natural fortress, the ‘strong mount’ which attracted the attention
of the first Amalric. Montfort l’Amauri lies just half-way between Paris and Chartres, and the railway joining those
towns now passes within a short distance. On the same line of railway, about
ten miles to the southwest, at a point where three streams meet and flow towards
the Eure, lies Epernon, the
other principal possession of the house of Montfort before they acquired the
county of Evreux.
Tradition connects the family of Amauri with imperial blood, for the first of the name is said to have been the
grandson of Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, and Baldwin Bras-defer, Count
of Flanders; his son William married the heiress of Montfort and Epernon, and their child, Amauri II, gave his name to the family possession. Another legend however declares
this Amauri to have been an illegitimate son of King
Robert, and thus makes the blood of the Capets to run
in their veins. Be this as it may, in this Amauri II
the family first emerges into the light of history; we find him among the
vassals of France they obtain in the year 1028. His son, Simon I, appears, like
others of his race, among the truest supporters of the French Crown; and to him
chiefly the family owed their power, through a fortunate marriage with Agnes,
daughter, and after her brother Williams death heiress, of Richard, second
Count of Evreux. This important place is situated on the Iton,
a tributary of the Eure, about thirty miles to the
north-west of Montfort l’Amauri. The castle had been
built by Duke Richard I, the great-grandfather of William the Conqueror, and
given by him to his son Robert, whom he made first Count of Evreux, and shortly
afterwards Archbishop of Rouen. This prelate however, in his secular quality as
count, was married and had three sons, the eldest of whom, Richard, was father
of Agnes. By this marriage therefore Simon I not only gained a noble property,
but enabled his descendants to claim an equality in point of birth with the
kings of England themselves.
But this new dignity brought with it some evils in
compensation, for the traditions of the Montfort family were those of adherence
to the crown of France, while Evreux was decidedly Norman, and both Richard of
Evreux and his son William had fought for their duke
on the field of Hastings. Nevertheless William, when
he came to be Count of Evreux, showed himself a troublesome subject, and was
frequently in open revolt against the Conqueror and his sons. He went so
far as to aid Duke Robert against his brother; but a little later we find
him fighting on the side of Henry I at Tenchebrai. His fickle
character was a constant source of disturbance, and, when he died without
children in 1118, Henry thought to relieve himself from further trouble by
seizing and garrisoning his castle of Evreux. But his nephew, Amauri IV of Montfort, claiming Evreux in right of his
mother, took the place and expelled the garrison. His occupation was
short; he was speedily driven out again, and for ten years was in constant
opposition to the king of England, at one time a prisoner, at another free, now
in open warfare on the side of France, now intriguing with discontented Norman
barons; till at length, in 1128, Henry converted him from foe to friend by
putting him in possession of Evreux and all his inheritance. Under his
second son, Simon III, began a closer connection with England. His
difficult position, on the frontiers of France and Normandy, must have brought
into play the statecraft which was so notable in his son and grandson. In spite
of a divided allegiance, and the hostilities between Henry II and France, he
seems to have managed to keep well with both sides, although compelled in 1159
to give up his castles, Evreux included, to the king. From that time, though
the title remained, Evreux itself ceased to belong to the family; it was in the
hands of the English king till ceded by John to Philip as part of the dower of
Blanche of Castile.
But Simon gained more than he lost. He was fortunate
enough, about the year 1160, to win the hand of Amicia de Beaumont, sister and coheiress of Robert Fitz-Pernell, Earl of Leicester.
From this marriage sprang three sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Amauri, seventh and last Count of Evreux, married Mabel,
daughter of William, Earl of Gloucester, and became earl himself in right of
his wife. The second son, Simon IV, who took the de Montfort estates, was the
famous warrior, zealot, and crusader, ‘the scourge of the Albigenses’ and
became Earl of Leicester in right of his mother. A daughter, Bertrade, married Hugh, Earl of Chester, and was mother of
Earl Ranulf, the great leader of the opposition in
the early years of Henry III. It would have been hard, at the opening of the
thirteenth century, to point to a family of greater force of character and
pretensions than that of de Montfort. Simon IV, the crusader, married, about
1190, Alice, daughter of Bouchard V, Sire de Montmorenci,
a woman for her piety and wisdom, and in courage and energy no unworthy
companion for such a husband. Simon himself, if we are to believe the report of
an enthusiastic admirer, combined with great intellectual ability, and the
power of leading men, personal beauty and all the knightly virtues. Of his
orthodoxy and ambition he gave only too terrible proof. His wife accompanied
him on his crusades, and gave him valuable help in the foundation of his
transitory dominion, built up with bigotry and cruelty that have rarely been
surpassed, and supported mainly by the terror of his name.
His connection with England was little more than
nominal. Robert, Earl of Leicester, died in 1204, and Simon’s right to his
mother’s heritage seems to have been recognized almost immediately. In August
1206 we find him spoken of as Earl of Leicester; and on March 10, 1207, the
king confirmed to him half the Barony of Leicester, with the third penny of the
Earldom, and the High Stewardship of England. This great office had become
hereditary in connection with the Earldom of Leicester before the end of the
reign of Henry II, though even then the dignity seems to have been shared by
several persons at once. It had long ago ceased to have any political
importance, the official functions connected with it having mostly passed to
the Chief Justiciar, at a time when hereditary officers were being replaced by
others over whom the king had more power. The other half of the earldom was
conferred by the king at the same time on Saer de Quenci, with the title of Earl of Winchester. The division
was to take effect on the deaths of Petronilla, the mother, and Laurentia, the
widow, of the late Earl of Leicester. Simon seems to have held the title until
the position he had won for himself in the south of France made the mere name
comparatively worthless, or until, as Pauli thinks, the reconciliation of his
backer, the Pope, with England, induced him to resign his claim. It is very
doubtful whether he ever set foot in England; it is certain he can never have
reaped any pecuniary advantage from his earldom, for in the very same year,
1207, we find that the king deprived him of his possessions. Though we are not
told the reason of this change, it cannot be far to seek. Simons strength lay
in Normandy, his family traditions bound him to the French court; in the very
next year he was appointed Captain-General of the French forces in the crusade
against the Albigenses. The conquests of the French king in Normandy would have
in any case made the position of such a subject in England very doubtful, apart
from the feeling with which he seems to have been regarded by the baronial
party. Whether the statement of one chronicler, that the barons in 1210
conspired to elect him king of England, be true or false, it shows the repute
in which he was held, and a possibility which John would not have
been slow to take advantage of. The pretext for his
degradation was apparently a debt to the Crown, for the
custody of his lands of Leicester was given to Robert de Ropeley,
in order to satisfy the king’s claims.
Simon was however too busy in the south of France to
pay any attention to his English estates. His successes there made him a
dangerous foe, and for some time there was good prospect that he would fully
compensate for his losses by conquest from the continental possessions
of England. Philip Augustus was not sorry to see the rise of his
great vassal in that quarter; and the Pope, at least while England was under
interdict, strongly favored the ambitious advances made under the plea of
religious enthusiasm. But when Innocent and John were reconciled, the tide
began to turn; and the change seems to have brought with it a reconciliation
between Simon and the English king. One of the last acts of John was to
restore the count to the possession of his English estates, the restored to
custody of which, for his use, was given to his nephew, the Earl of Chester.
This seems to have been continued by Henry III, at least till the death of
Simon before Toulouse, in 1218, after which the custody of the earldom was
given to Stephen de Segrave, and in August 1218 to
Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester.
With the death of its founder fell the short-lived
power of the de Montforts in the south. Amauri, the sixth de Montfort of his name, eldest son of
the crusader, continued the war a brief while, but, being of very different
stuff from his father, gave it up after his mother’s death in 1221, and, two
years later, ceded his claim on the conquered lands to Louis VIII. He
continued, however, to retain the title of Earl of Leicester, and was raised by
St. Louis to the dignity of Constable of France. He died in 1241 on his return
from crusade. Through his great-granddaughter, Yolande, the family estates
came, at the end of the thirteenth century, into the possession of the Dukes of
Brittany, with whom they remained until the union of Brittany with the crown of
France completed the absorption of the once princely domains of Montfort into
the royal treasury.
The hostile relations between England and France,
which were almost continuous during the first fifteen years of the reign of
Henry III, seemed to destroy all hope that the earldom of Leicester would ever
return to the family of de Montfort. The peace however which was concluded in
1231 made it possible for Amauri, eldest son of Simon
the crusader, to push his claim. It was doubtless the prospect of gaining so
important an ally, as well as Henry’s general taste for foreigners, which
gained the suppliant access at the English court. But the English nobility
regarded the matter with eyes different from the kings. To them the de Montforts were aliens, though fifty years before Amauri would have seemed no more foreign than the great
Norman earl whose possessions his father had shared. A divided allegiance was
now no longer possible. Amauri therefore preferred
the request on behalf of his younger brother Simon, the second and third
brothers, Guy, Count of Bigorre, and Robert, being
apparently dead. When and where Simon was born we do not know, but since he is
called an old man in 1264, it cannot have been long after the beginning of the
century; nor, on the other hand, can it well have been before 1195, since he
was the fourth son. He was probably, in any case, some few years older than his
future sovereign.
Of his early life and education we know nothing; but
since his brother Amauri had for teacher Master
Nicholas, according to Roger Bacon one of the best mathematicians of his day,
his schooling was probably not neglected. He is said to have been unable to speak
English on his first arrival, which indeed is no wonder. He was however well
skilled in the use of arms, and, like his father, tall and handsome. He may
have first seen service under the elder Simon at Toulouse, and there laid the
foundation of that knowledge of Gascony and Aquitaine of which he made so good
use in later years.
The first news we have of him is characteristic of his
stirring nature. We are told that he embraced the English side, and fleeing
from the displeasure of obtains the Queen Blanche, then regent, made his way to
England, and was kindly received by the king. He had certainly visited England
before April 1230, when Henry conferred upon him a temporary pension of 400
marks, with promise of the earldom; but he seems to have returned to France
again, whether with the king or not we do not know. In 1231 he obtained a grant
of his father’s share of the honour of Leicester, and
did homage for it in the same year. In 1232 the king confirmed to him all the
land, with appurtenances, which belonged to Simon de Montfort, late Earl of
Leicester, in England. It is stated in the writ that this was done at the
request of Amauri; but it seems probable that Simon
had pushed his own claim at first without his brothers knowledge, and that it
was only when Amauri found that the younger one had
been before him that he withdrew in his favour. With
the formal renunciation of all claims on his father’s property in England made
by Amauri in June 1232, Simon de Montfort took his
place among Englishmen.
But his difficulties were by no means
over. He had to encounter the waxing opposition of the
English nobility to foreigners, which seems to have been so far successful
as to keep him for some years from the title, as well as the most substantial
advantages of his earldom. It is probable that the Earl of Winchester
refused to give up what he held of de Montfort’s moiety, the greater
portion of which, in addition to his own share, his father Saer had held in 1206. The meagre income yielded by the remainder was by no
means sufficient to support the state of an Earl of Leicester; for the next
five years at least Simon does not seem even to have borne the title. He
was still among the wealthy English barons little more than a penniless
adventurer. Deeply in debt, his favor with the king procured him the gift
of the Norman escheats within his fief, which were to be at his disposal ‘till
such time as our lands of England and Normandy be one again’. A tardy
recognition of his rights obtained for him the grant of four years revenue from
the Leicester estates, to count from his father’s death, ‘in order to pay his
debts’ . It is no wonder that under these circumstances he, as other and
needy gentlemen have done, spent most of his time abroad. Of this period of his
life we know but little. He does not seem to have been employed on any service
of State for the first few years. It was during this time that he was
foiled in two attempts to better his
fortunes by marriage. He appears to have won the
hearts of two noble ladies, the Countess of Flanders and the Countess of
Boulogne; but in both cases his hopes were shattered by the opposition of the
French Crown, jealous of his connection with England.
The marriage of Henry III with Eleanor of Provence
seems to have brought him home. At the nuptial festivities he performed the
duties of Lord High Steward, and from this moment his rise was rapid. He began
to appear as a member of the king’s council in the most important transactions
of the day, although he still signed as plain Simon de Montfort, not as Earl of
Leicester. But his position at court made him an object of hatred to the
national party. The Earl of Cornwall, who, as heir to the crown, was naturally
head of the opposition, in remonstrating with his brother, alluded to him as
one of the evil and suspect councilors who were the causes of all the trouble.
However, a way to much higher advancement was soon opened to him. His personal
beauty, adventurous character, and a genius which raised him above his
contemporaries, won the love of Eleanor, Countess of Pembroke, youngest sister
of Henry III. This princess, who was born a year before her father’s
death, had been betrothed, while still a child, to William, Earl of
Pembroke, the son of the great Protector. The earl died suddenly in April
1231, in the midst of the festivities which the marriage of his sister Isabella
to Richard of Cornwall had occasioned. Although her affection for him must, one
would think, have had in it more of reverence than of love, yet so intense was
her first grief, that in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishop of Chichester she took the vow of perpetual chastity, and received the
ring which bound her as the spouse of Christ. But the spirits of a girl of
sixteen were too elastic to remain long under the cloud of sorrow; she never
took the veil, but visited the gay court of her brother, or kept up no small
state at her own castle of Odiham, in Hampshire, which had been conferred upon
her by the king. Of the great possessions which became hers after her husband’s
death she seems for some time to have reaped but little advantage; the quarrel
between Henry III and her brother-in-law, Richard, now Earl of Pembroke, gave
the former an excuse to seize upon the Irish possessions of the family.
Meanwhile, though she did not enter a convent, the Church claimed her as its
own; but it seems probable that the ceremony of her consecration cannot have
been completely performed, for it is hardly possible to conceive that Henry’s
devoutness would have allowed him to sanction the marriage had not the omission
of some formality set his shallow conscience at rest. Be that as it may, the
king, in spite of the warning of Archbishop Edmund, looked with the greatest
favor on the match, and with his own hand gave away the bride. The ceremony was
performed on Jan. 7, 1238, in the private chapel at Westminster, in haste and
in secret, lest it should come to the ears of the magnates and be prevented.
The secret however could not be long concealed. A
general outburst of indignation followed the disclosure. The Church considered
the marriage a violation of the holy bond by which Eleanor had bound herself;
it was even supposed, though this was not the case, that the rejection of his
advice had caused the archbishop suddenly to leave the country, and, according
to one chronicler, before he turned his back on London, he had paused on a hill
whence he could see the city, and had solemnly cursed the marriage and its
future offspring. The magnates were enraged at the sudden rise of a foreigner
to a position only second to that of the Earl of Cornwall, and this proximity
was so unpleasant to the latter that he headed the malcontents, and personally
attacked the king with threats and upbraidings. “Was
this the result of all his brothers promises” said the earl, “that he removed
his own countrymen from his council, to replace them by aliens, that he deigned
not to ask the assent of his constitutional advisers before bestowing his wards
in marriage on whomsoever he would?” The whole kingdom was in an uproar; the
legate could not get a hearing. The magnates drew their forces
together; the citizens of London, twenty years later Simon’s
staunchest allies, joined in the cry. The king, overwhelmed and confused, was
only able to gain a short respite for deliberation. It was hoped on all
sides that Earl Richard would avail himself of the opportunity to sweep from
the land the hated plague of aliens, and blessings were showered on his
head. But, by the time the barons were assembled, intrigue had done its
work. By his submissive bearing, by promises and gifts, it was said,
perhaps by his personal charm or his wifes intercession, Simon had won over his brother-in-law; and with the loss of their
leader the band of insurgents soon melted away, cursing the fickleness of him
who had been thought “a staff of strength”
But, in spite of the reconciliation with his most
dangerous foe, the rest of the barons were not appeased, and the ecclesiastical
opposition was as strong as ever. To remove the latter obstacle, Simon set
off almost immediately for Rome, armed with letters of recommendation from the
king to the Curia, and with the still more necessary supply of gold, which he
extorted from his tenants for the purpose. On his way through Italy he
visited his brother-in-law the Emperor, then engaged in war with the Lombard
League. He placed his sword for a while at Frederick's disposal, and then
went on his way with the additional aid of imperial favor, if indeed that could
be considered an aid which was given by one so soon to become the open foe of
Rome. It is evident that he made a favorable impression on Frederick, while the
bold ideas and antipapal policy of the latter may well have influenced de
Montfort for life. With the Curia he seems to have had no difficulty; the Pope,
in spite of the opposition of the Dominicans, saw no reason for interference.
The friars quoted high authority in support of their opinion; but, as Matthew
Paris, who never loses the chance of a sarcasm against Rome, remarks, “perhaps
something more subtle than is given to us to understand was in the minds of the
Roman Curia”. Gregory IX bade the legate give sentence in favor of the
suppliant, and with this assurance Simon turned homewards. He seems to have
lingered on the way, probably in the imperial camp, for he did not reach
England till the middle of October, when he was received with all appearance of
brotherly affection by the king, and then hastened to Eleanor at Kenilworth.
Shortly afterwards his wife, who had remained at home during his absence, bore
a son. The boy was called Henry after his royal uncle. Early next year the
king, in the presence of the assembled barons, formally conferred upon Simon
the earldom of Leicester, and invested him with the title.
In his home at Odiham or Kenilworth the sky of Simons
fortunes seemed without a cloud, when suddenly a change took place, unexpected
in its arrival, and most important in its consequences. A successor to the
throne, afterwards Edward I, was born on June 16, 1239. Simon stood godfather
to the child, and acted as High Steward at his baptism. The king seized the
opportunity to extort money from those to whom he announced the happy event. If
the presents he received did not satisfy him, he sent the messengers back for
more, so that it was remarked, “God gave us this child, but my lord the king
sells him to us”. On August 9 the earl came with his wife to attend the
churching of the queen at Westminster, when the king turned suddenly upon him,
called him an excommunicated man, and drove him from his presence. Astonished
and deeply hurt by these reproaches, the earl and countess retired across the
river to the palace of the late Bishop of Winchester, where they lodged. But no
sooner were they arrived than the king sent messengers to eject them. Thereupon
they returned, and made one more attempt to appease their sovereign; but he,
now thoroughly enraged, exclaimed, “Thou didst corrupt my sister before her
marriage, and it was only when I discovered this that I gave her to thee,
unwilling as I was, to avoid scandal”; and then he went on in the same style to
shower accusations on the earl, declaring that he had bribed the Curia with
gifts and promises, and that, being unable to fulfill the latter, he had
deservedly fallen under sentence of excommunication; nay more, he had made the king, without his knowledge, security for his bond and
partner in his fraud. The earl, we are told, withdrew, blushing with shame or
anger, and as soon as night fell dropped down the Thames in a small vessel,
with his wife and a few attendants, and made the best of his way to France.
What was the reason of this sudden and apparently
unaccountable burst of temper? What truth was there in these violent
reproaches? Dr Shirley, in the 'Quarterly Review, followed by Pauli,
ascribes it to the change in the politics of the English court, caused by the
freshly-aroused hostility between Pope and Emperor. But surely it is
hardly necessary to go so far afield to find a reason. The quarrel between
the two heads of Christendom had indeed lately come to a climax. Frederick
II had been excommunicated on Palm Sunday in this year, and the bull was
published in England a fortnight before the scene at Westminster took
place. It is said by the above-mentioned authors that the papal party at
court, now in the ascendant, had probably urged his dismissal, owing to the
friendship known to exist between him and the Pope’s greatest foe. De
Montfort had therefore to be got rid of, and
the same charge was trumped up against him which had been made
against Hubert de Burgh a few years before. But was the papal influence in
England at that moment so high, or the king’s friendship for his brother-in-law
so far cooled, as to account for this? Only last year Henry had sent
Frederick men and money, and letters of expostulation written by the latter
this year, together with a very friendly one two years later, seem to show that
the good-feeling between them was never really interrupted, at least till the
death of Isabella severed the bond of relationship between them. And, even if
the papal party had been so strong, there is nothing to show that Simon was in
such bad odour at Rome. It is true he was recommended
by Frederick, and had assisted him in return, but we do not know that he had
done anything since to change the feeling towards him which had won from the
Curia so speedy an answer to his request. But what makes the idea of a papal
intrigue most improbable is the language used by Henry himself with regard to
the Curia; his allusions to the power of money at Rome, the avarice of that
court, and the venal suppression of truth, show that he was by no means
well-disposed towards the papacy at that moment. Further, it is more than
doubtful whether an excommunication was ever really issued against de Montfort.
Henry had no great regard for truth, and it is at least strange that Simon
should have received the first news of it from the kings mouth, and in so
unofficial a form. On the other hand, the king seems at the moment really to
have believed the first accusation to be true; even he would hardly otherwise
have dared to insult his sister publicly; nor was his anger feigned, for,
though a hypocrite, he was not a good actor. The following explanation may
perhaps cover all difficulties.
The party which had opposed Leicester before
was not likely to be pacified by the papal dispensation. It would not have
been difficult for any of the court to whisper in Henry’s ear the insinuation
that there was only too good reason for the eagerness with which the marriage
ceremonies had been hurried on. He, with his strange mixture of credulity and
distrustfulness, would have been easily persuaded; and the sight of his late
favorite would have kindled his resentment into flame. The fact, that a
reconciliation so soon followed, seems to show that we need not look further
than to Henry’s character for the explanation of a scene which disgraced the
monarch and alienated his most attached subject. If this explanation is
correct, it follows that the first accusation was false, and the facts, as far
as they go, bear out this. Such a charge, twice made and utterly unsupported,
bears its refutation on its face. It is evident at least that it cannot have
occurred to Henry till immediately before the event, seeing that de Montfort
was in high favor with the king for a year and a half after his marriage; such
a storm could not have been brewing in his mind all this time. Perhaps the
strongest argument against the charge is the fact that Bishop Grosseteste
evidently disbelieved it. In a letter written just after de Montfort’s
disgrace, the bishop bids him bear his trouble patiently, according to the name
he holds; but he never so much as hints that he considers the punishment
deserved. The point of the letter is, “Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth” not” sure your sin will find you out”. Lastly,
the date of the birth of Henry de Montfort, November 28, 1238, ought to be
taken into account
The immediate reason of Henry’s anger, which, once
stirred, looked round for what might be considered less selfish motives, is
probably to be discovered in the latter part of his speech, in which he accuses
de Montfort of bribing the Curia, and using his name as security for
extravagant promises. The fact of the bribery seems undeniable. Payment for
justice, especially at the venal court of Rome, was so ordinary an occurrence
that we need not wonder that Simon yielded to the custom. It was a dishonorable
transaction, doubtless, and has therefore been considered by some writers so
alien to Simon’s character as to make it impossible to attribute it to him.
This rests perhaps hardly on sufficient grounds. He was not immaculate, and the
job would hardly have been considered dishonorable. Further, it is likely
enough that he made more use of Henry’s name than the latter liked; though this
would almost be justified by the favor in which he stood with the king at the
time, and by the terms of his credentials, which amounted to a general
assumption of responsibility for the whole affair. When de Montfort failed to
fulfill his engagements, his creditors, Italian moneylenders who transacted
the Popes business abroad, would have applied to Henry, whose surprise and
indignation burst forth in the way we have seen. They may also have hinted that
if the money were not paid Simon might still be considered liable to
excommunication. This will account for Henrys allusion to that danger.
The earl and countess bowed before the storm, Simon
and avoided the consequences by a voluntary exile of seven months in France.
Though the king’s anger seems to have pursued them even there, it was soon mitigated,
probably in a great degree by the effort of the Bishop of Lincoln, who in the
letter already quoted had promised to plead their cause; and in April 1240
Simon returned, and was received by king and court with all due
honor. The countess remained for a time abroad, expecting the birth of her
second child, who was named Simon after his father. The earl was now
to all appearance safe, but the consequences of the late rupture between him
and the king were not so easily effaced. Though he completely recovered
his position at court, and continued to raised it in the country, his friendly
relations with the king were irremediably shaken. Whatever confidence he
can have had in Henry must have disappeared; the insult and the injury
were such as a man of far milder temper and less haughty spirit could hardly
have forgotten. He was forced to take up a more independent
attitude. He would probably in no case have taken the
king’s side in the constitutional disputes, which were already becoming
serious; but it is probable that the quarrel hastened the time at which he
entered, as we shall soon see, on his long service in the ranks of the
opposition.
Meanwhile, whether on account of a former vow, or in
order to allow time for things to settle, he prepared, with Richard of
Cornwall, and other English nobles, to go on the crusade, so eagerly preached
throughout Europe by the court of Rome. He had indeed with Earl Richard and
William Longespee been released from this vow, and it
seems doubtful whether he ever really started on the expedition. We hear
nothing of his exploits in the Holy Land, nor is he mentioned by Matthew Paris
as having joined the army, though both the departure and return of William Longespee, heir of the earldom of Salisbury, are especially
noticed. It is possible he had no more real intention of going than he had in
1261, when he declared he would leave England for the Holy Land. The fact
too, that he and his wife took the cross in 1247, and that it was then supposed
to be for the purpose of expiating the sin of his marriage, seems to show that
he had not been on crusade before. On the other hand, it must be said that he
had a special incentive in the fact that his eldest brother Amauri had been taken by the Saracens, and was languishing with other noble captives
in prison in Cairo. A letter written in June 1241 by the nobility of the
kingdom of Jerusalem to Frederick II, asking him to allow Simon de Montfort,
Earl of Leicester, to act as regent till the arrival of the emperors son
Conrad, has been considered sufficient proof that he was in the Holy Land, and
had distinguished himself there so as to merit this great mark of approbation.
This seems to be the only ground, though certainly a strong one, for believing
that Simon took part in this crusade.
The little band of Christians was hard pressed at this
time by the superior power of the Mohammedans, and Richard’s assistance,
rendered perhaps even more valuable by his great wealth than by the troops he
brought with him, was welcomed with the greatest joy on his arrival at Acre in
the autumn of 1240. There was however but little for him to do; a truce had
already been struck, involving the release of the captives, and a special
treaty was made between the earl and the Sultan of Egypt, which gave the former
time to rebuild the shattered strongholds of the Christians, and otherwise to
place their affairs on a better footing. In May 1241 he re-embarked, and on his
passage through Italy visited his brother-in-law the Emperor. He was
entertained by him for two months with all that eastern luxury and elegance,
which increased the fame and injured the reputation of Frederick II. If Simon
de Montfort was in the Holy Land he would probably have returned with Richard.
He may have stayed to close the eyes of his brother, who died on his way home,
at Otranto, in the summer of this year.
Whatever be the truth on this point, we find him in
England early in 1242. He must have been present at the important council of
that year, in which the king met with the most determined opposition to
his demands for money, and had to submit to a sound rating from the
assembled baronage for his wastefulness, and his unconstitutional action in
breaking truce with France without their consent. The names of the barons are not
given by the historians, but there is no reason to doubt that Simon took his
place among them; which side he took must however remain uncertain.
Louis IX had made his brother Alfonso Count of Poitou, an insult to the
English claims, and especially to Richard of Cornwall, who held that title. The
Count of la Marche, Henry’s stepfather, found little difficulty in
persuading the king to undertake an expedition to France. He promised to
find the men if the English would provide the money. Henry, with his usual
rashness and short-sighted ambition, entered on the war with a light
heart. In spite of the opposition of the magnates he collected a large sum
of money, by means only too well-known to the financial policy of the day, the
policy of attacking singly those whom he could not break when united together.
In May 1242 Henry entered upon his ill-advised
expedition, attended by the queen, Earl Richard, and a few nobles, among whom
was Simon de Montfort. It is to this affair that we must probably refer a very
interesting satirical song, written by a Frenchman, on a certain assembly held
in England to discuss an expedition against France. The writer, in sarcastic
and somewhat coarse language, paints the extravagant pretensions of the English
king, the ardent wish of Henry and his brother Richard to recover Normandy, and
the paternal pride which the former takes in his son, Edward of the flaxen
hair. Henry thinks he has only to land and the French will run away; he will
march on Paris, will carry off the Sainte Chapelle just as it stands, for a
trophy of his victory; will have Edward crowned in St. Denis, and will
celebrate the occasion with a great feast of beef and pork. But at the assembly
in London, in which the king proposes the expedition, “not a baron, from best
to worst, will move”. Afterwards however the Earls of Gloucester and Winchester
support the king, outdoing him in braggadocio; upon which Sir Simon de Montfort
starts to his feet, with anger in his face, and advises the king to let the
matter drop, for “the Frenchman is no lamb”, and will defend himself bravely.
Thereupon ensues a quarrel between de Montfort and Roger Bigod,
who is indignant at Simons freedom of speech, and vows, perhaps in allusion to
his own name, by ‘Godelamit’ that the affair shall be
brought to a glorious conclusion. The king appeases him, and there is an end of
the matter. These events are of course not introduced here as undoubted matter
of history, but, allowing for poetical treatment and a foreign author,
there is much probability in them. The attitude in which Simon de Montfort
is represented is just that which he is likely to have taken; the traits
of the other characters accord with what we know of them.
The expedition undertaken so lightly ended in a
Failure of miserable failure. The Count of la Marche proved a broken reed. Deserted
by him, the English suffered a severe defeat at the battle of Saintes, and the
Earls of Leicester, Salisbury, and Norfolk, with a few other great barons, were
hardly able to save the army from destruction, and the country from the penalty
of a royal ransom. This doubtless increased the favor in which Simon
already stood at this time with the king, and which the Count of Toulouse and
the King of Aragon, hereditary foes of the house of Montfort, tried in vain to
undermine. Henry bestowed upon him several marks of friendship; he held a
most important position in the royal council; and when the other nobles left
for England, disgusted at the ill-success of the campaign, and at the idle
frivolities in which Henry wasted time and money at Bordeaux, he and William of
Salisbury, though much to their own loss, remained. Simon had a year to
examine the restless party-spirit, the faithlessness, the hatred of authority,
which characterized those who had been once his father’s foes, and were now in
nothing but name the subjects of the King of England. Henry at length concluded
a disgraceful truce with France, in which he resigned all claim on Poitou, the
original motive of the war. This was in September 1243. He returned to England
with even less honor and in greater difficulties than thirteen years before;
while Simon de Montfort had in the interval made good his position in the
country he had adopted as his own.
CHAPTER III.
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY, 1232-49. |
|
|
|