READING HALLTHIRD MILLENNIUM LIBRARY |
 |
 |
 |
 |
THE LIFE OF SIMON DE MONTFORT . EARL OF LEICESTER
CHAPTER VII.
THE REVOLUTION OF 1258.
THE wet summer of 1257 had caused a very bad harvest;
it was followed by a hard winter, and a late, cold spring. A terrible famine
was the result. In the state of the early part of the year 1258 so many
persons died of hunger that their bodies were left lying on the road-side, and
in London alone 15,000—probably an exaggerated reckoning—are said to have
perished. Corn was introduced from Germany, but the king, while his people were
starving round him, could not resist the temptation of seizing the corn and
selling it at famine prices. The attempt was stopped, but the wrong was
enough to goad a gentler people than the English into rebellion. The Welch
had harried the frontiers all the preceding year, and, emboldened by success,
had made a league with Scotland, and continued their attacks this
spring. Lastly, as if there were not already misery enough, the papal
legate, Arlot or Harold, came to England, armed with
bulls threatening to excommunicate the English Church if they refused
assistance to Pope and king. On his arrival a convocation was
summoned by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, which passed resolutions far stronger than
any hitherto made. It was resolved that the papal penalty of
excommunication should be inflicted on any who violated ecclesiastical
privileges, these being laid down with great exactness and detail. Even the
king, if he wasted the revenues of vacant benefices, was to be placed under the
ban. The bold attitude assumed by the clergy seems to have caused the king to
give vent to a violent fit of anger, for we are told that the prelates absented
themselves from the Parliament that followed ‘out of caution’.
At this Parliament, which met at Westminster on
Parliament April 10, to discuss affairs and the Papal claims, the king demanded
‘untold money’ for the expenses incurred in Apulia. The unprecedented
magnitude of the demand produced general consternation, and William of Valence
began to lay the blame of all these evils on English traitors. The fear
of provoking universal wrath caused him to specify the Earls of Gloucester and
Leicester, which accusation he repeated before the assembled nobles, calling de
Montfort in particular an old traitor and a liar. Simon retorted, “Nay,
nay, William, I am no traitor nor the son of a traitor; our fathers were of a
different breed”; and he would have attacked him on the spot but for the king’s
intervention. The discussion in Parliament first turned on the question of
Wales, and it was decided that the army should meet at Chester towards the end
of June to attack the Welch. The altercation as to the papal subsidy was not so
easily settled. In the debates that ensued Leicester took the lead, demanding
reparation for his recent insult, and urging the necessity for reform rather on
the barons than on the king. All seem to have joined in accusing Henry of gross
partiality, of wasting the revenues, and of such incapacity that he allowed his
country to be insulted even by the Welch, “the very dregs of humanity”. The king
attempted to cut short the altercation by issuing, on April 28, an edict
demanding one-third of the income of all England, as a subsidy for the Pope.
This produced the long-expected outburst.
A days delay was granted, during which the barons
considered their position. On the third day, April 30, they appeared in full armour at the Council-hall at Westminster, about nine
o'clock in the morning. They laid down their swords at the door, and entering
saluted the king with due respect. The king, terrified by their appearance,
demanded the cause of their coming armed, and asked whether he was their
prisoner. Whereupon Earl Roger Bigod answered,
“Nay, my Lord King, but we ask that Poitevins and all
other aliens may be expelled from the country, for this is necessary for the honour and welfare of thy realm”. The king then
inquiring how he was to meet their wishes, it was required of him that he and
Prince Edward should swear an oath to impose no unusual burden on the country,
but by the advice of twenty-four prudent men of England, and should deliver the
great seal to the man whom the granted by twenty-four should choose. So
firm a front did they show that the king gave way, and swore on the relics of
St. Edward to do as they wished. In consideration of his formal promise to
reform the state of the country before the end of the year, the barons declared
they would do their best with the community to get them to grant an aid for the
Sicilian enterprise, if only the Pope would abate his demands. It is to be
observed that the barons did not promise for themselves, but made use of the
‘community’ to leave a loophole for escape if the king should break his
word. But, knowing they had Election of a Proteus to deal with, they made
matters safer by insisting on the immediate election of the committee, twelve
from the kings side and twelve from that of the barons—so distinctly were
parties divided by this time—by whose advice the king was to act. This
committee was to meet at Oxford, within a month after Whitsuntide, and proceed
at once to the reform of the realm. The place of meeting was probably chosen as
being more central than London, and therefore better adapted both for an
assembly of the whole baronial force, with which to overawe the royalists, and
also as a rendezvous for the army which was to march against the Welch. The
promises of the king and Edward, to reform the realm and to acquiesce in the
provisions to be made by the twenty-four, having been published, Parliament
broke up.
The committee seem to have taken the government in
hand at once, and on which side the power lay was
evident from the first. An embassy, consisting of Simon de Montfort and Peter
of Savoy, the ambassadors of former years, Geoffrey and Guy of Lusignan, the
king’s half-brothers, and Hugh Bigod, all but one
being members of the committee, was appointed to go to France, with powers to
prolong the truce, but really, as it appears, to beg the king not to interrupt
the course of reform, which was to tend to the peace and benefit of their own
and the surrounding nations. Meanwhile the ports were
occupied, for bitter experience had shown the power of foreign
mercenaries.
The famous assembly which was to earn, with
a strange mixture of justice and injustice, the title
of the Mad Parliament, met at Oxford on the appointed day, June 11,
1258. Not only the committee came, but a great number of barons
and clergy, followed by all who owed military service. It was a
return to the ancient Teutonic assembly of all the nation, with
arms in their hands. The council began with the presentation of a long
list of grievances, and a petition for their redress. The grievances, like
those mentioned in the baronial petition of 1215, fall mostly under two heads,
territorial and financial; it is the abuse of the royal power, as feudal lord
and supreme judge, against which the barons plead. The first division,
affecting especially the barons, had the precedence, as before; but the second,
which regarded the lower ranks of society more than the upper, was by no means
neglected. The grand principle of alliance between rich and poor is evident
here, though not so distinctly as it had been forty years before. Many were the
matters requiring redress; but the most important point, the most crying need,
was the expulsion of the aliens, and the delivery of the royal castles and
forts into the hands of Englishmen; the next, the appointment of a Justiciar to
deal equal justice to rich and poor.
The king seems either from fear or from a recognition
of the justice of these claims to have been inclined to yield, but his
half-brothers, supported by Prince Edward, resisted, vowing they would die
before they gave up a foot of land. Their resistance produced fresh defensive
measures on the part of the barons. The ports were more closely guarded, and
the gates of London were fitted with new bolts, and jealously shut at
night. After several days of stormy and apparently
fruitless debate, the barons met in the Convent of the Dominicans, and in the
most solemn way swore “they would not for life or death, for love or
hate, desist from their resolve, till they had purified from the
foreign scum the land in which they and their fathers were
born”. It was a meeting to be compared with that more famous one, the
meeting of the Tiers Etat in the tennis-court at Versailles; it would have been
well if both bodies had kept their oath pure. After the oath the Earl of Leicester,
as an alien, gave up his castles of Kenilworth and Odiham, and called upon the
others to follow. They still refused with vehemence, William of Valence as
usual taking the lead. Thereupon Simon cut the matter short by
crying, “The castles or thy head”. Terrified by this threat, and by the
attitude of the rest of the baronage, and knowing that if the nobles did not
carry out their intention, “the whole mass of the people would besiege them and
pull their castles about their ears”, they secretly left Oxford and
fled without drawing rein to Wolvesey, the
stronghold of the Bishop-Elect of Winchester. There we must leave them awhile,
and return to the history of the Parliament. The composition of the original
committee of twenty-four is somewhat uncertain, owing perhaps to the doubtful
attitude of the Earl of Gloucester. Only twenty-three names are given, probably
because he was claimed by both parties. On the king’s side appear first and
foremost his own relations: his four half-brothers, Aylmer, Bishop-Elect of Winchester,
William of Valence, and Guy of Lusignan, and the Earl of Warenne,
his brother-in-law. John Mansel, Provost of Beverley,
who had served the Crown for sixteen years at least, and had risen to great
wealth but little honour in its service, was one of
Henry’s staunchest adherents. These were the kernel of the party. Henry of Almaine, the king’s nephew, played the part of the bat in
the struggle, and can hardly be reckoned to either side. Fulk Basset, the Bishop of London, and John de Plessys,
Earl of Warwick, represented the moderates among the clergy and the laity. The
rest were royalist clergy, the Abbot of Westminster, Henry Wengham,
Friar John of Darlington. It was a most unwise proceeding on the part of the
king to elect John Mansel and his own brothers, men
who had already drawn all the hatred of the kingdom on themselves, and made the
royal cause hopeless. On the barons’ side was Walter the de Cantilupe,
Bishop of Worcester, the friend and follower of Grosseteste. He and Simon de
Montfort, with the barons John Fitz-Geoffrey, Richard de Gray, William Bardulf, Hugh Despenser, and Peter de Montfort, Simon’s
cousin, represented the extremes. Fitz-Geoffrey was said by some to come next
in importance to the Earl of Leicester, but unfortunately died this year. The
Earls of Gloucester, Norfolk, and Hereford, with Hugh Bigod and Roger Mortimer, represented the old baronial party. The first seven held
firm to the end; the Earl of Gloucester died before the reaction which he began
had led to a renewed outbreak, but the rest had all taken the kings side in
1264. Roger Bigod was on the winning side again after
Lewes; Bohun and Mortimer were too much infected with
the lawless life of the Border to endure the supremacy of Simon de Montfort.
This committee, as has been said, was to take measures
for the reform of the realm. They proceeded therefore by a somewhat complicated
system of election, to establish a form of government, which should embody both
a permanent executive and a regular legislature, and should engraft on the
aristocratic régime to some extent at least the influence of the community.
Each party chose two electors out of the twelve representatives of the other
side. This arrangement would naturally result in the election of the four men
whose opinions most nearly approached each other. The four electors thus chosen
were the Earl of Warwick, John Mansel, and the two Bigods. It is hard to see why the reformers picked out John Mansel, unless it was because they hoped to be able
to terrify him; if so, they were probably right These four had to elect a Royal
Council of fifteen; but, owing to the overpowering influence of the barons, and
the flight of the aliens, the two royalist electors were the only members
of the kings twelve who were elected into the council. Other members, more or
less royalist, were the Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter of Savoy, and John
Audley, the last being a very firm adherent to the king. On the other hand nine
of the baronial committee were chosen on the council, as well as the Earl of
Albemarle, so that they had a majority of two-thirds. The duties of the fifteen
were to give counsel to the king on all matters pertaining to the government of
the country, to hear and amend all grievances, and to look after the
administration of justice. Their authority was in fact almost supreme. They
were to attend the Parliaments, which were to be held thrice a year, on stated
days, in spring, summer, and autumn; they might also be held on other occasions
when the king and his council should think fit.
In addition to the council of fifteen, twelve men were
elected by the ‘community’ who were to attend the Parliaments and act in
conjunction with the fifteen, and what the twelve decided the community were to
acquiesce in. The reason given for this arrangement was the saving of
expense. So far it was an advance upon the corresponding clause of Magna
Carta, by which it was stipulated that a general summons should be sent to all
the smaller barons; inasmuch as that clause did not cut at the root of the
difficulty, the unwillingness or inability of this class to attend. On the
other hand, the names of these twelve representatives seem to show that they
can hardly be looked on as a real representation of the whole baronial class,
or the community, but only of part of it, for they are men who would have
attended a Great Council as a matter of course. They were in no sense
representatives of the whole body entitled to a share in government, as those
elected in 1265 were. Further, many of the greater barons lost individually by
the arrangement; for although their class as a whole gained complete command of
the executive, through the permanent council of fifteen, yet it does not seem
to have been intended that Parliament should consist of any others but the
fifteen and the twelve, and probably the high officers if not already included.
Thus many who attended the old Parliament in person would have been cut out
That these limited Parliaments were all that was contemplated appears from the
very fact of the appointment of the twelve,
and the special provision that the fifteen should
attend. But it is not actually stated that no others shall attend, and
on this point, as on many others, certainty seems to be unattainable.
Lastly, in addition to the fifteen and the twelve, and in accordance with the
promise made by the barons in the spring, there was elected a council of
twenty-four Council to treat specially of aid to the king. This council
was almost entirely composed of members of the other two bodies, and seems
therefore to have been meant as a kind of Parliamentary Committee, only
appointed for this special occasion.
The result of the whole arrangement was that the royal
party were completely worsted, and the barons took the management of affairs
into their own hands. But the constitution as it stands is most imperfect. One
reason may be that the Parliament broke up too soon to bring it to anything
like perfection; but the real cause is the feudal and oligarchical spirit which
animated its framers, and the want of constitutional experience and really
liberal principles on which to build. The principles of the political poem
were too far advanced for the majority of those who led the revolt of
1258. In the first place, the position of the Anomalous original committee
of twenty-four was entirely anomalous. Their work ought to have ceased
with the establishment of the new form of government; but the power remained
with them, or rather, after the expulsion of the aliens, with the old baronial
committee under a new name, for they and theirs formed a strong majority in the
new Parliament. But there was set no legal limit to the duration or the
extent of their power, and they might easily have made the original object of
their appointment an excuse for retaining office. It was not stated whether the
council or the representatives were to be perpetual, or, if not, how they were
to be re-elected. That the authority of the original twenty-four was not
altogether superseded is evident from the provision, that the state of the
Church should be amended by them when they should be able to do so. The
relative positions and powers of the fifteen and the twelve are not defined; it
is not stated how long the council of aid is to sit. On these, and many similar
points, we are left quite in the dark, and it is probable that the rulers
themselves were equally in doubt.
But one thing is certain : it was impossible that such
a building should stand. Setting aside the certainty that jealousy and opposing
interests would cause disagreement among the leaders, the scheme was a
contradiction in itself. It pretended to leave the king as he was before, with
all his legal privileges and rights, but with the addition of a wholesome
restraint in the shape of a standing council and a representative Parliament.
In reality the king’s authority was reduced to a shadow, and this cumbrous and
complicated assemblage, without any centre or
president, substituted for him as the fount of justice and the head of the
State. The king was much more completely deprived of power than John had been
by the committee of twenty-five appointed in Magna Carta. The representation of
the lower baronage, though they had a nominal share in the election of the
twelve, was left as far in the background as ever, nay, further, for the new
arrangement superseded the old general summons. Other tenants-in-chief
than those who were actually named, as well as the free-holders and the
townsfolk, were entirely neglected. No class could have been honestly
satisfied with the form of government; the
clergy must have been especially offended by their almost
complete exclusion from power. Only the individual members of the
government had an interest in keeping it up. It was a system which ran
counter to the prevailing notions, whether conservative or liberal, and
was sure to meet with opposition on all sides. Further, the existing
institutions had been modelled on the assumption of a single and undivided
central power; they got out of order at once with the division of leaders. There
was no means of preventing a dead-lock, no constitutional mode of
changing the government; the twelve representatives were in reality powerless
against the council. The constitution was in fact an oligarchy, though
with none of the prestige of ancient republican growth. It was a feudal
triumph, with a merely nominal concession to constitutional principles. The
king’s position was insupportable; he might have reformed all the abuses for
which the barons claimed redress, but he could not submit to be superseded in
all but the name of king. Yet he had no need to struggle against his
bonds; he had only to wait and the machine would fall to pieces of
itself. It was this part of the barons work which gave rise to the
nickname of the Mad Parliament; the experience gained by failure enabled
the framers of the constitution of 1264 to make a very great advance upon the
first effort. If we are to believe a most competent witness, Simon de
Montfort showed great repugnance to the provisions, and seeing their
impracticability and knowing the difficulties to which the inconstancy of their
framers would give rise, he refused to swear to them. This produced general
indignation, and at length Simon was induced to take the requisite oath, which
he did with these words, “By the arm of St. James, though I shall take the oath
last of all and against my will, yet will I keep it inviolate, and none shall
hinder me”.
The redeeming points of the work were the regulations
issued for the method and business, rather than the form, of government. In the
first place it was provided that knights should be elected in each county, who
were to hear all complaints made against the sheriffs, bailiffs, and others,
and to take the necessary measures for ensuring justice at the visit of the
Chief Justiciar. The Church, as we have seen, was not to be neglected. The
affairs of London and other cities were to be amended, and a special note was
added as to the reform of the royal household. More important constitutionally
was the provision that a chief justice, or two justices, a chancellor, and a
treasurer were to be appointed, the first to hold office only for a year, and
all to be responsible at the end of each year to king and council. It is not
stated by whom these high officers or the sheriffs were to be
appointed, but we cannot doubt in whose hands the appointment would be. The
original committee of twenty-four were to appoint good men in the Exchequer.
Several names of the baronial party appear as wardens of the castles, probably
in the place of the banished foreigners, and they were to swear an oath which
placed them under command of king and council. An oath binding the justice and
the chancellor to observe the provisions to be made by the twenty-four is also
given. The sheriffs were to be just and loyal men, to hold office only a year,
and to give account afterwards. The authority of the justices, sheriffs,
bailiffs, escheators, and other officers was carefully regulated, and bribery
and extortion expressly forbidden. The whole was clenched by a confirmation of
the Charter of Liberties. To these enactments, and others to be made by the
Parliament, called collectively the Provisions of Oxford, the king and Prince
Edward in October gave their formal consent. The writ containing the royal
consent was published in English as well as in French and Latin, a noteworthy
fact in its reference to the newly-arisen consciousness of nationality.
The humiliation of the king and his party was only too
complete. When the flight of the king’s brothers became known at Oxford, the
barons at once broke up the Parliament, and taking with them the king, now a
helpless instrument in their hands, they marched on Winchester. The custody of
Winchester Castle was handed over to the Earl of Leicester, who from his
military fame and experience probably took to some extent the position of
general-in-chief. Resistance on the part of the fugitives was hopeless, and,
after some vain attempts at reconciliation and equally useless intervention on
the part of the king, it was decided they should leave the country, taking with
them money enough for their support. At first William, as Earl of Pembroke, and
Aylmer, as Bishop-Elect of Winchester, were to be allowed to stay in England,
but they preferred to go with their brothers. Their property, including a
large sum deposited in the brothers’ Temple, was seized; and the Warden of
Dover succeeded later in stopping another treasure which was being sent over to
them. On their arrival in France they do not seem to have gained any favour, either from king or people. The feeling
against them was very strong, owing chiefly to the insults they had heaped
on de Montfort, who was always regarded by the French as one of
themselves. They landed at Boulogne, and were followed at once by Henry,
Simon’s son, who had crossed without his father’s knowledge, or possibly with
his secret connivance, and did his best to stir up the French against
them. The feeling against them in England was increased by the report that
before their expulsion they had poisoned the Earl of Gloucester and others at a
feast at Southwark. It is certain that several of the guests died of poison,
though it did not transpire whether those accused of it had been set on by the
aliens. The Earl of Gloucester with difficulty recovered.
From Winchester, where the barons continued the
session of their Parliament, they removed to London, where the king again
confirmed the power of the twenty-four, and they, or at least the council,
resumed their work of reform. But in order to carry out their intended measures
it was necessary that they should be free from anxiety abroad. While still at
Oxford the united attitude of the barons and affairs: the large army there
assembled had alarmed the Welch; they sent envoys, and a truce was made before
the king left the town. A conciliatory letter was also sent to the King of
Castile, making excuses for the failure to help him in Africa and for Richard’s
candidature for the empire. Shortly after the return to London, an embassy,
consisting of Simon de Monfort, Peter of Savoy, and
John Mansel, was appointed to make peace between the
discordant parties in Scotland, which would have resulted in a cessation of
hostilities on the part of the Scotch barons, who had allied with the Welch
against their own king and Sicily, against the English. A letter was sent to
the Pope concerning the Sicilian affair, to prepare him for the plainer speech
which was to follow; and he was begged to use his influence to bring about a
lasting peace with France, which he was the more likely to do, since it would
be indispensable if anything were to be done with regard to Sicily.
Thus secured from immediate danger abroad, and freed
from the plague of aliens at home, the barons could begin in earnest the work
of reform. The summons to elect four knights to examine into grievances was
sent round to the counties immediately on the king’s return to London. It was
however nearly three months before the king’s oath to abide by the Provisions
was published through the counties. At the same time a proclamation was
issued, explaining the reasons of the delay that had taken place in the
completion of the work, and promising reform as speedily as possible. All
men were invited to make their complaints to the four knights, and were
encouraged by the regulations which had been already made as to the conduct of
sheriffs and other royal officers. Similar edicts were issued to prevent
extortion on the part of these persons, and for some time, we are told, the
good effects of these lasted. No little compulsion had
however to be used. The reluctance of Prince
Edward to agree to the provisions had been all this time very great He was
therefore put into a kind of honourable arrest, by
the appointment of four so-called counsellors, or tutors, who were to attend
him, three of them being among the twelve representatives. A reform of his
household was also in contemplation, and regulations were to be made as to all
foreigners in England, whether Romans, merchants, or others. Perhaps the most
important step, and one which was absolutely necessary to conciliate the
Church, was the final repudiation of the papal projects with regard to
Sicily. A long letter was written to the Pope, in which the barons stated
that since the king had acted without their advice, they repudiated all
thoughts of further movement in the matter. To this they added a general defence of their proceedings. They set forth the
evils which the king’s brothers had inflicted on the country, declaring that
the Bishop-Elect of Winchester was the worst of all, and that even if they (the
barons) were willing, the people would not allow him to come back: they
therefore prayed the Pope to remove him, a proceeding which they declared quite
justifiable, since he had not yet been consecrated. To all of this the Pope
turned a deaf ear, and no answer was sent till two years later. He shortly
afterwards excommunicated those who refused to pay his merchants, and
threatened to put the kingdom under an interdict if the aid for Sicily were
withheld; and, in contempt of the baronial request, he consecrated Aylmer, who
would have returned to take possession of his bishopric had not his death,
which occurred in 1260, prevented him.
So far then the barons acted up to their promises, and
all went well. The compulsory measures taken, violent as they were, were
probably not more violent than necessary. The work the barons had in hand, was
no light one. How far the present system of government was intended to be
permanent it is very hard to say; but there are no signs that the barons
thought of yielding the power they had usurped. They had in fact only just
entered upon their greatest difficulty, that of adapting the old administrative
system to a parliamentary form of government: and upon this rock more than on
any other they were to suffer shipwreck. They set to work however with energy,
holding council day by day in the Temple. For a time the country was heartily
with them : but it was rather the measures of administrative reform, the
healing of great abuses such as those connected with the sheriffs, the
expulsion of the aliens, and the like, which met with popular
approval. The form of government was popular, or at least tolerated, only
so long as it appeared to be successful. The joy of the of the country
was great, but it was premature. The city of London welcomed the
Provisions, and the mayor and citizens swore to observe them. The first
measures of the barons, we are told, raised great hopes. The expulsion of
the aliens made men hope that a similar end would be put to all papal and legal
exactions. The relief was sudden, “like the waking out of sleep”; the
gratitude to the reformers was proportionate. “Great and
arduous are the matters to be settled, and such as cannot be quickly or easily
brought to an end” writes one to the monks of Burton; “the barons go boldly
forward with their task: may fortune favour them”. It might have been apprehended that King
Richard would make some opposition to the movement; but it was not in his
nature to be irreconcilable. His return to England in January 1259 removed
all fears on this head. He was not allowed to land till he had taken the
oath to the Provisions, which, after some show of reluctance, removed by a
letter from the king, he consented to do. After
this he consents concession his arrival
in London was a matter of great joy to the citizens, and it
was doubtless hoped that he would play his old part of mediator
with success.
But already there were signs of discontent visible.
Every element of royalistic feeling was sure to grow stronger while the monarch
was powerless; loyal sentiments, latent conservatism, fear of the untried,
sympathy for the conquered, all worked in the same direction. The throb of joy
with which the reformers had been greeted in the first flush of victory was
followed by a steadily-increasing reaction. Their own violence was probably
that which turned the wavering scale. A strange instance of the blind hate with
which they pursued the aliens was to be seen in the decree passed at
Winchester, by which it was forbidden to sell wool to foreigners. But if the
principles of free trade had to wait nearly six centuries for recognition, it
is no wonder that in the heat of the conflict such laws were considered the
height of wisdom. So bitter was the popular hatred of the very name of alien
that a short time after this an Italian, whom the Pope had promoted to a
prebend at St Paul’s, was murdered in broad daylight in the streets of London,
and not a hand was raised to stop the murderers. More annoying than the ignorance
of political economy appear to have been the proceedings of the justices. Hugh Bigod incurred considerable odium in London by holding
pleas in the city, which according to the charters were to be held only by the
sheriffs, and by the severity and arbitrary nature of his sentences. He seems
to have shown too little regard for privileges, probably as having been
conferred by the king. Complaints of him in this respect were made both by St.
Albans and Dunstaple; in the latter place he enforced
a fine by seizing all the property of the monastery till the fine was paid. On
the other hand, his activity was commendable; he journeyed with two associates
through every county, and, according to some authorities, did justice well,
hearing the complaints made through the four knights, and redressing many old
wrongs. But the difficulty of keeping the judicial system in proper order must
have been immense. The unlettered barons were but poor lawyers, and yet would
naturally have avoided employing the officials of the former régime, who,
though creatures of the Court, were probably the only persons sufficiently
acquainted with the law. Nature too increased the trouble. After the famine in
the early part of the year, an unusually fine crop gave hope of some compensation;
but it was almost entirely destroyed by heavy rains and floods. Corn in great
quantities had to be brought in from abroad to keep even the wealthier classes
from starvation. A pestilence broke out, which carried off the Bishop of London
and many less noble victims. There were doubtless many then, as there would be
some even now, to lay the blame of such calamities on the Government
But the great difficulty was caused by the disunion
which was already creeping in among the leaders, and the
inclination already shown by the king to break loose from the
Provisions. Soon after the Parliament of Oxford, some of the barons,
yielding, according to one chronicler, to their own wicked impulses and the
promises of the king, deserted their party. The inveterate hostility of
Henry towards de Montfort, a feeling certainly not very unnatural, was shown by
an incident which took place in the summer of 1258. The king in passing down
the Thames from his palace at Westminster was caught in so violent a
thunderstorm that he was obliged to land at a spot which happened to be close
to the palace of the Bishop of Durham, then occupied by the earl. On hearing of
this Simon at once went and offered him shelter, telling him there was no cause
for alarm, as the storm would soon be over. The king, by no means in jest, but
in grim earnest, replied, “Thunder and lightning I fear exceedingly, but, by
the head of God, I fear thee more than all the storms in the world”. To which
the earl quietly answered, “Sire, it is unjust and incredible that thou shouldst fear me, who am thy true friend, and loyal to thee
and thine and to the realm of England; but thy enemies, those who ruin thee and
tell thee lies—them thou oughtest to fear”. The
incident, we are told, caused great anxiety in the minds of all who had their
country at heart. The oath, by which the king bound himself to look on every
one who opposed the Provisions as a public enemy, must indeed (as Wykes says)
have been grievous to many besides himself. The general conviction, that the despotic
power of the barons was an usurpation, was increased in the case of
Simon de Montfort by a glaring anomaly in his position. He,
an alien by birth, however true an Englishman at heart, had
been foremost in expelling aliens; he who had threatened William of
Valence with death if he did not give up his castles, had only given up his own
to receive the custody of the fortress of Winchester. It was noticed, with the
suspicion which springs out of mere uncertainty, that he tarried long in
France, whither he had gone in the autumn of 1258, on the embassy to which he
was so often appointed, and was not present at the council which
consulted on the return of King Richard. He had never been on
very good terms with his English peers; his ability and foreign influence made
them envious; his undeniable ambition provoked the old cry of upstart; his
broad constitutional principles made him in their eyes a traitor to
his order. These feelings were only temporarily smothered by
common effort, and Simon’s own unselfish acknowledgment of foreign extraction
at the Parliament of Oxford.
At first the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester were
his chief coupled together in popular estimation as the saviours of their country, but the union of these two leading nobles, the object of so
many hopes and fears, was to be of very short duration. The classes whom
Simon made it his special object to protect, and among whom his chief power
lay, the clergy and the smaller barons, were neglected in the new scheme
of government; thus he was deprived of his main support. This alone would be
sufficient to show how little share he can have had in the lame attempt at a
constitution made in 1258; while at the same time it renders still more
remarkable the constancy with which he supported the Provisions, having once
sworn to them, as at any rate better than the old state of things. When he got
the power into his own hands, he did not scruple to replace the old scheme with
a far better one. For a year or two however he suffered from the shortcomings
of his allies, and his influence was decidedly on the wane. He was credited
with the disappointment of their hopes by those whom he had encouraged to
believe in the possibility of a real reform; and it was not till they found
that he was after all their only stronghold that they returned to him.
Meanwhile other business took him away from the work of internal reform; his
special duty was to arrange the peace with France. He had returned to England
shortly after King Richards arrival, bringing with him an ambassador from the
Council of the French king. He was present at the Lent Parliament of 1259, at
which the chief subject of discussion was the peace with France. Internal
affairs were however not neglected; an edict was published, embodying provisions
as to sheriffs and others, almost the same as those made the previous autumn,
and repeating the promises of justice and redress. But justice seems rather to
have been promised than done. Soon after the Parliament Simon returned to
France, and with his colleagues determined the preliminaries of a durable
peace.
The year seems to have passed in profound quiet. But
towards the end a remarkable proof of the discontent that was already pervading
the country was given. The knighthood were so disappointed by the
non-appearance of that which they had so anxiously expected, that in October
1259 they addressed a remonstrance to Prince Edward and the members of the
council, declaring that, as the king had done all that was required of him by
the barons, the latter ought to fulfil their share of the engagement; whereas
they had done nothing but seek their own advantage, to the detriment of king
and country. To this Prince Edward replied that he had sworn to the Provisions,
and would keep his oath; and accordingly he warned the barons that, if
they did not speedily fulfil their promises, he should, in conjunction
with the community, compel them to do so. The barons thereupon published a new
set of Provisions, called, to distinguish them from those of 1258, the Provisions
of Westminster. These enactments regulated the legal procedure in the case
of land held on feudal tenure, for
the better protection of small tenants, wards,
and heirs; they put a stop to a number of abuses that had grown
up in the sheriffs’ and other courts; they prevented the arbitrary jurisdiction
of any but duly qualified persons, and any injustice on the part of the
itinerant judges, bailiffs, and others. Besides these regulations, which
were meant and to be permanent, there were a number of enactments a more
temporary nature, as to enquiry to be made into various abuses, the appointment
of justices, and so forth. Certain important regulations were
made: that two or three of the council were always to be with the king in the
intervals between the Parliaments; that four knights were to keep special watch
over the proceedings of the sheriffs; that no one should appear armed or
with an armed following at Parliament. Appointments of various necessary
officials were made; ecclesiastical property was to be enquired
into, and placed under special protection. Lastly, all who had suffered wrong
during the seven years were to make complaint before justices appointed to
hear them, and the sheriff was to cause grievances; to be elected twelve men in
each hundred to help the justices by full enquiry. This arrangement
superseded that of the four knights appointed in 1258, who had doubtless been
found insufficient for the amount of work put upon them. On the whole the
amount of business got through by Parliament testifies to their desire to
institute a thorough reform, and is a great contrast to the blank in
legislation which had prevailed so long, The spirit of the regulations is
remarkably fair, when general we consider that a great portion of them would
have the effect of limiting feudal power, and that the Parliament that passed
them consisted of great feudal lords. On the other hand, no step was taken
to improve the anomalous nature of the constitution; the kings power was still
further limited, especially in the choice of
his ministers and officials. The council aimed at
taking everything into their own hands; the king was reduced
to a mere witness, without voice or vote, useful only to
give authority to their proceedings.
Meanwhile the vigorous attempts which had been made to
settle the second great question of foreign policy had ended with
success. The relations between England and France, a matter only less
important than the negotiations with the Pope, were finally determined. The
Sicilian scheme had been sternly and promptly cut short by the barons; peace
with France was a more delicate and lengthy affair. It was however
urgently needed, for the perpetual state of war, which had lasted since the
days of John, and in which hostilities were only staved off
by frequent truces, prevented the external quiet which was indispensable for
the completion of internal reform. It was moreover very desirable to
reconcile the King of France to the new state of things. His feeling on
the matter soon became known, and in the end only too fully justified the fears
entertained. For the present the danger seemed to have blown over, but
this was not enough; a settlement that should go to the root of
the matter was wanted. This desirable consummation was at first
hindered by a difficulty that cannot however have been unexpected.
The negotiations for peace and the quiet of the realm were
near coming to a violent end, through a quarrel between the two leaders, the
outcome of long- standing jealousy. It was during the deliberations of the
council, on some questions of immediate policy, after the Lent Parliament of
1259 had broken up, that the dispute broke out. The exact cause is not told us,
but so hot did the contest become that Leicester angrily exclaimed, “With such
fickle and faithless men I care not to have aught to
do. The things we are treating of now we have sworn to carry out. And thou, Sir
Earl, the higher thou art, the more art thou bound to keep such statutes as are
wholesome for the land”. Shortly afterwards he left England on his embassy to
France. The other barons however, with the Earl of Hereford at their head,
compelled the Earl of Gloucester to invite him back, and to allay the anxiety
of all by proclaiming his readiness to carry out the necessary measures of
reform.
The reconciliation was only a pretence,
and the quarrel was renewed in France; for the Countess of Leicester insisted
on the recognition of her rights as potential heiress to the English
crown. Her rested on her descent from Eleanor of Poitou, part of
whose dowry, the Agenois, had been granted by Richard
I to his sister Joanna, wife of the Count of
Toulouse. On the death of Raymond VIII the great
fiefs of his family came into the possession of the French crown. The
Agenois was claimed by Henry III, and long negotiations on this point had
taken place. Eventually Henry gave up his claim on this as on other lands
for a money payment. His sister naturally objected to this arrangement,
which would have been of little good to her. Henry, always in want of money,
was angry at the delay thus caused, and was inclined to ride roughshod over her
objections. He wrote to Louis that he would take all the responsibility on
himself, and guarantee that Eleanor’s resistance should do him no
harm. This however did not suit the French king, who had higher
ideas of morality than his cousin of England, and he refused to conclude the
arrangement till Eleanor should be satisfied. Besides these claims she had
others too, concerning and on the her right to a share in the property of her
former husband, the Earl of Pembroke. From the great possessions of the
family of Marshall Henry had been accustomed to pay her a small pittance: the
earldom was about this time conferred on William of Valence, which may be one
reason for the hostility between him and Leicester.
It is probable that Henry was not answerable for
the mismanagement of Eleanor’s inheritance, the original
arrangement having been made between her and her husband’s brother. Still
his treatment of his sister ever since her marriage had been distinguished
neither by chivalrous feeling nor brotherly affection; he owed her money, and
regarded her as a debtor does his creditor. It is intelligible enough that
she should have insisted at least on the recognition of her rights by a formal
request for her consent; and Simon’s pride Earl was naturally piqued by
this treatment of his wife. Possibly too the idea of securing a possession for
the house of Montfort on French soil may have suggested the revival of these
claims. The delay has been attributed by the royalist Wykes to the grasping
avarice of de Montfort; but from the whole of his conduct in the matter it is
evident the real opposition did not come from him. It is in truth no slight
testimony to his generosity and unselfishness that all the claims which really
interfered with the completion of peace were before long allowed to drop. At
first however there is no doubt they were a great obstacle. Their chief
importance to us is the opportunity they unfortunately gave for the renewal of
that split between the national leaders which for a time ruined the national
cause. It was on the subject of his wife’s claims that the Earl of
Gloucester, while in France, attacked Simon with remarks which we can imagine
were the reverse of a compliment to his supposed uxoriousness. De
Montfort was not slow to reply, and the two were with difficulty separated
by their friends amid the laughter of the French spectators. The negotiations
were temporarily broken off, but Simon on his return to England seems to
have been persuaded to yield. In July he went out again with two others,
to carry out the final negotiations, and when they came back to England,
bringing with them the form of peace for Henry’s acceptance, the earl
remained behind in France.
The peace was ratified by the royal council about the
middle of October 1259, and is the last act in which the baronial government
appears in that shape. The presence of Henry, as well as that of the earl and
countess, was considered necessary at the concluding ceremony in
Paris. The king therefore went over to Paris in November for the purpose,
and in the December following Simon and his wife set their seals to a solemn
confirmation made before both kings. By this peace, besides the settlement of
feudal difficulties in Gascony, the provinces of Normandy, Anjou, Maine,
Touraine and Poitou were ceded to France; the titles of Duke of Normandy and
Count of Anjou were dropped; and thus the long quarrel between the two nations
was brought, at least for a time, to an end. It was one of the most important
in that series of events which, after raising French princes to the throne of
England, and creating under Henry II a great continental power of which England
was the less important part, had since the beginning of the thirteenth century
reduced those princes to the position of English kings, whose possessions in
France, though still by no means inconsiderable, were only awaiting the
inevitable fate which had swallowed up the rest. It is needless to say that to
England this peace was as great a boon as the losses of territory she had
suffered at the hands of Philip Augustus; yet there were not wanting those who
thought it a disgrace to the country.
With this event ended what may be called the first act
of the revolution. The foreign policy of England had been in a year and a half
completely reversed, the crying evils of the State redressed, and internal
peace to some extent secured. But, by the very performance of this work, the power
of those that did it was undermined. The only defence for their anomalous position was removed, jealousy broke out, and men began to
ask themselves whether the old form of government should not be restored. It
was better perhaps to be ruled, even tyrannically, by a born king, than to be
worried with reforms by an upstart and ambitious foreigner.
CHAPTER VIII.THE REACTION
|