READING HALLTHIRD MILLENNIUM LIBRARY |
 |
 |
 |
 |
THE LIFE OF SIMON DE MONTFORT . EARL OF LEICESTER
CHAPTER VIII.
THE REACTION.
Of the reactionary period that followed the peace of
1259 it is very hard to get a clear idea. “For nearly three years from this
time”, says Dr. Shirley, “the history of de Montfort is worse than a blank : it
is a riddle”. Perhaps a key to this riddle may be found in the undecided
attitude taken up by the King of France. Simons character was better known and
more highly estimated among the great nobles of France than among those of
England, and with Louis personally he was on excellent terms; but the pious and
autocratic king could not be expected to sympathise with his revolutionary ideas, however much he may have been disgusted by the
duplicity and incapacity of Henry. His monarchical principles eventually
carried the day, but the length of time during which he hesitated shows how
little was wanting to make him throw his weight into the other scale. The
struggle between Simon and Henry takes more and struggle more of a personal
character; and with the political aspect of it, private hostility and private
disputes about money matters and the like are strangely mixed up. Each of the
combatants strives to win the favour of the King of
France and the people of England. When one is in Paris, the other attempts to
steal a march upon him in London. When Henry returns to England Simon finds it
convenient to be in France. The two stand opposite each other not as king and
subject, but as two independent princes, in whose private disputes as well as
in their political quarrels a king or a queen of France is called upon to
arbitrate. A process goes on somewhat similar to that before 1258. De Montfort
after a temporary depression regains his hold upon the people, while the Pope
and the King of France unite to support Henry, the result being an immediate
reunion of the national party and the downfall of the monarchy.
When Henry went to France in November 1259, the royal
authority was vested in a Council of Regency, pretty equally composed of the
two parties, consisting of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of
Worcester, the Earl Marshal, Hugh Bigod the
justiciar, and Philip Basset. The last three were however already wavering, and
their nomination shows that the tide had turned. How far this council may be
held to have superseded the Council of Fifteen, or whether it was anything more
than a committee chosen from it—since all but Basset were members of the
Fifteen—is uncertain. It is not probable that the baronial government lost its
power till after the kings return, or even later. Before his departure, Henry
took leave of the citizens of London in the Folkmoot, and conferred upon them
certain unimportant liberties. But no sooner did he feel himself somewhat
secure, thinking probably he had made sure of Louis, than he wrote to the Pope
from Paris to say that he hoped now to renew the negotiations about Apulia; while
on renews the same day, 16 January 1260, he sent a studiously polite letter to
the justiciar, explaining the reason of his delay abroad, asking him to send
another arbiter to France, and bidding him refrain from summoning the regular
Lent Parliament on account of the report of a Welch invasion. Shortly
afterwards he distinctly informed Hugh Bigod that the
Sicilian enterprise was to be taken up again. Thus did he on the first
opportunity return to his old schemes, and break one of the most important of
the Oxford Provisions, by forbidding the assembly of Parliament at the stated
time. A sign of his reviving power, and a more defensible exercise of it, was
an edict he issued at the same time, bidding the sheriffs look to their duties
as guardians of the public peace. But he was too cautious at once to assert
fully the reactionary policy; he wrote to the Pope begging him not to insist on
the return of the Bishop of Winchester.
Meanwhile however, after the conclusion of peace, Earl
Simon, whose absence had been as usual much regretted, had returned with his
wife and a large suite to England. He was not likely to acquiesce in such a
breach of the law as that commanded in the kings letter. The barons therefore
intimated to the king their desire to hold a Parliament, but received only a
still more distinct command not to do so till he returned. If anything had been
needed to convince them of the necessity of union, and the danger of yielding a
foot to the attempted renewal of Henry’s foreign policy, it was supplied by a
letter from the Pope, which seems to have arrived about this time in answer to
their remonstrances on the effect of the usurpation of lay patronage. In it the
Pope lays down the principle that no layman has a right to dispose of
ecclesiastical things, although his predecessor had fifteen years before
confirmed the right of presentation; the laity may not even, he declares, call
upon the Church to reform her ways. With such a warning as this before their
eyes, and with the kings attitude plainly declared, the barons summoned a
Parliament in opposition to his mandate, and informed the king that, if he did
not soon return from France, he might find it impossible to return when he
wished. Henry had, in fear of another outbreak, begged his brother Richard to
hinder an intended invasion of his half-brothers, and the assembling of forces
in France; while he reported to Louis, probably prematurely, that de Montfort
was bringing men and arms into England, “whence his attitude towards the king
was plainly visible”. Meanwhile, as he confessed a year later, he was himself
collecting forces, and in fact brought them into the country soon after his own
return.
Alarmed by the attitude of the barons, and still more
by the report that Prince Edward had shown a decided leaning towards them,
Henry suddenly reappeared in London a few days after Parliament had met. There
was some ground for the rumours as to his son; for
the old quarrel had burst out again between Gloucester and Leicester, and
Edward had taken his uncles side. The king immediately entered London and shut
the gates, while the barons held their Parliament in the Temple. The city had
decided, on the approach of the disputants with their armed followings, in
violation of the Provision of 1259, which forbade the bearing of arms, to
obviate the chance of disturbance by shutting both parties out. Henry however
admitted Gloucester, who doubtless during his long stay in France, had come to
a good understanding with him; Edward and de Montfort remained outside with
their partisans. It seems very probable, from Edward’s character and general
attitude at this time, that he preferred Leicester to Gloucester; but though
the king refused to see him for a whole fortnight, from fear that his Roman
sense of justice would give way before parental fondness, he was at the end of
that interval reconciled to his father. Henry, having secured his son, gave
vent to his long-concealed displeasure in an open attack on Simon, using,
according to one account, false witnesses against him. What was the ground of
the attack we know not, but it probably had something to do with the recent
breach of filial duty committed by the prince. Be that as it may, Simon
answered everything as he had once before on a similar occasion, so that his accusers
were powerless. Richard, as usual, acted peacemaker, and Simon seems so far to
have been taken back into favour that he was sent,
truce with as the most able and prudent general in England, to conduct the war
the Welch. His skill was not however called into requisition, for a truce was
made shortly afterwards.
Perhaps it was owing to this that he was not preset as
high steward at the marriage of the Princess and Prince Beatrice, in October
1260, at which Henry of Almaine discharged the duty
for him. That this absence is not to be looked on as implying any disgrace, is
made more probable by the fact that about the same time de Montfort’s two sons
were knighted by Prince Edward. It may have been owing to the dangerous
influence, which the earl seemed at this time to be getting over the chivalrous
spirit of the young prince, that the latter was sent to Gascony, of which
province it will be remembered he had been made lieutenant five years before.
It seems very likely that the thought of making Edward regent had crossed the
mind of de Montfort. The nobility of character and warm impulses of the young
prince, the sense of honour which from the first
distinguished him, and the sympathy for the oppressed, of which he had already
given evidence, were enough to encourage such hopes. But these qualities were
at this time overpowered by others—a hot-headed rashness, and a quickness of
resentment which made him lose sight of aims requiring patience and
forethought, and a fickleness of temper which caused him with reason to be
compared to the leopard. He had as yet but little of that bitter experience
which made him afterwards so great a king, and de Montfort, if he ever
cherished the idea of raising him into his father’s place, must have soon found
it impracticable. Deprived of one possible advocate at Court, Simon soon lost
the other too; for King Richard, obeying the repeated injunctions of the Pope,
departed for Germany. Henry was left to his own devices.
He employed his time during the autumn of 1260 in strengthening
the Tower of London, whence he expected to command the city. He had already
compelled all the citizens, from the age of twelve upwards, to swear a renewed
allegiance to him; and, growing confident in his own strength and the prospect
of papal support, he began, according to the confession of his own partisans,
to issue ordinances contrary to the spirit of the Provisions. He even ventured
to summon Parliament to meet in the Tower, but this the barons refused to do,
demanding that they should meet in the usual place of assembly at Westminster.
Hugh Bigod, the justiciar appointed by the barons in
1258, had resigned early in 1260, for what reason, unless it were a sense of
failure in a task for which a Bigod was hardly likely
to be fitted, we do not know. Hugh Despenser, a staunch supporter of de
Montfort, had been appointed in his place, and this shows the influence exerted
by the earl up to the return of Henry from France. But now things were changed.
An uneasy feeling was abroad. It was evident that the Provisions were no longer
valid, that the baronial Government, if not already extinct, was tottering to
its fall. Their errors had roused fresh resistance. Several towns had refused
to admit the itinerant justices appointed by the barons, since their visit had
been repeated after an interval less than that ordained in the Provisions of
1259. Another authority tells us that the justices themselves were subjected to
vexatious interference on the part of the barons, probably those discontented
nobles through whose territories they passed, not those who held the reins of
power in London.
All this confusion produced a feeling of hostility to
the baronial régime. Meanwhile, like a great undertone of misery, the scarcity
of food continued throughout England. Things were probably not worse than they
were before 1258, but the fact that they were not much better was enough to
condemn a Government which had entered into power with such pretensions. The
king had openly announced, as far back as February 1260, that as the barons had
not kept their share of the pact, he was not bound to keep his; yet he thought
it worthwhile to allay anxiety by issuing an edict commanding the seizure of
all who spread abroad reports that he intended arbitrarily to alter the law of
the land. Meanwhile he appeared to be making strenuous efforts to settle his
private disputes with the Earl of Leicester. It was certainly to his interest
to remove all causes of complaint that might strengthen Simon’s position. In
March 1261 it was agreed between the king and the earl and countess to submit
them to the arbitration of the King of France. Louis was besought to undertake
the office; the Queen of France, Henry’s sister-in-law, strove to bring about a
peaceable solution; King Richard wrote to his brother, bidding him abide by the
decision, whatever it might be. But Louis showed no great inclination to
involve himself in so delicate a matter; he saw too that it was not a mere
private quarrel to be settled, and therefore in April he declined to arbitrate.
Thereupon Queen Margaret took it up, according to previous engagement. But a
little later, apparently in case the queen too, after nearer examination,
should find the claims of the opposing parties irreconcilable, a court of
arbitration was appointed, to consist of four members, two chosen by each
disputant, with two mediators in addition. Their verdict was to be given by the
end of September 1261. The part still taken by the King and Queen of France is
obscure, but seems to have been limited at this time to a general supervision.
So for a time the question remained undecided, in itself unimportant, but,
taken in connexion with existing circumstances, a
constant source of irritation.
All this while however Henry had been preparing in
secret for a great blow. A second time, as five-and-forty years before, the
power of the papacy was called in to absolve the king from his most solemn
promises, and by an unwarrantable interference, against which the national
sense revolted, again to revivify those principles which it intended to
destroy. The papal absolution, for which Henry had been waiting, was made out
on April 13, 1261; but he was not ready to use it yet. He prepared for the coup
d'état by occupying Windsor, and by issuing orders to prevent Leicester from
introducing soldiers by the Cinque Ports. At last, all being ready, he went to
Dover, which he seems to have occupied without any difficulty, turned out Hugh Bigod from the fortress, as he had already ousted him from
the Tower, doubtless with his consent; and, having probably met the papal
messengers at Dover, summoned a Parliament at Winchester at the regular time,
and on June 14 produced the absolution before the assembled magnates. By this
document the Pope released the king from all his promises, declaring the
Provisions to be null and void, and the obligation invalid, “since the sanctity
of an oath, which ought to strengthen good faith and truth, must not become the
stronghold of wickedness and treachery”.
The effect was immense; the suddenness of the blow
forestalled opposition. At the same Parliament the king deposed Hugh Despenser,
as being the nominee of his opponents, and made Philip Basset justiciar. The
great seal was given to Walter de Merton. He then retreated hastily to his
stronghold of the Tower, thence to crush his enemies in safety. He first
attempted to recover the castles, in which however he was hindered, at any rate
in one instance, by the opposition of Hugh Bigod, who
refused to give up Scarborough and other places except by command of
Parliament, although he had already given up Dover and the Tower. His refusal
is a good instance of the vacillating position taken up by so many of the
barons at this time, it being so worded as to save his conscience, but to leave
open the chance of surrendering, if the king were supported by the least
parliamentary authority. The baronial sheriffs were removed, and with the
appointment of new men in their places the royal authority was restored, at
least nominally, to its former strength. Strenuous were however made against
this last and most important measure. The baronial party, though scattered and
disunited, resisted everywhere the intrusion of the new officials, and
appointed sheriffs of their own, whom they called Wardens of the Counties. To
mitigate this opposition the king issued conciliatory proclamations, declaring
that he was doing nothing nor would do anything against the law of the land,
and laying all the blame of recent disturbances on the barons, whose
dissensions, he said, had rendered necessary the introduction of foreign troops
last year. This confession must have gone far to spoil the effect of the
promises that preceded it. Still, in spite of the outspoken opposition of a few
scattered individuals, and doubtless the secret anxiety of many more, the
king’s success must have seemed at the time complete. The universal
acquiescence, though it cannot justify the means he took to shake off the yoke,
shows how much public opinion had changed in the last three years. At the same
time it proves how easily Henry might have taken advantage of this change in a
constitutional manner, and have restored, nay doubled, his power by an open and
legitimate arrangement with Parliament. If violent repudiation of the most
solemn engagements provoked so little opposition, it is probable that all
classes would have welcomed with heartfelt joy and a fresh burst of loyalty a
proposal for a fair and honourable solution of the
difficulties. Henry not only neglected this great opportunity, but he hastened
to show the country that it was only the first step towards a complete revival
of the tyranny.
What the Earl of Leicester had been doing since his
appointment as general against the Welch in the previous summer it is impossible
to say with certainty. He had probably been engaged in settling the question of
arbitration between himself and his brother-in-law, a question which assumed
more and more of a political character. It was unfortunate that the two aspects
of the quarrel were not kept more distinct. The political action of de Montfort
would have been more free from the possible charge that he used his power to
satisfy private interests and to right personal wrongs; but it is almost
needless to call the general feeling of the country, as well as the extent and
character of the movement, to witness how little weight these interests had in
the matter. There was moreover this amount of real connexion between the public and the private quarrel, that the wrongs of which the earl
and countess had to complain were merely specimens of Henry’s general way of
dealing with his subjects, and with the settlement of this particular question
was involved the settlement of many others, the sum of which went far to
produce the opposition to the king. This was acknowledged by Henry himself when
he wrote in July 1261 to Louis, to say that the points submitted to arbitration
were those in which he was at variance with his barons and especially with the
Earl and Countess of Leicester. The publication of the papal bull showed what
were the real issues at stake between de Montfort and the king.
The shock seems for a moment to have reunited the
leaders, though the reunion was soon seen to be but momentary. The Earls of
Gloucester and Leicester and the Bishop of Worcester took the remarkable step
of summoning to the autumn Parliament of 1261 three knights from each county
south of the Trent. The Parliament was to meet a fortnight before the time
ordained by the Oxford Provisions, and at an unusual place, St. Albans. The
intention of this act is obvious; it was a recognition of the justice of the
complaints put forward by the knighthood two years before, and was meant to
secure their aid in the coming struggle. The boldness of the move seems to show
the same hand which summoned the Parliament of 1265. The king however resolved
not to be outbidden, and issued counter-writs
commanding the knights to meet him on that day in Parliament at Windsor, where,
if we are to believe Henry’s words, a meeting had been arranged between him and
the opposite party to discuss terms of peace. But a discussion of this sort
before the papal absolution was a very different matter from the same
discussion after the chief point in dispute had been violently decided by one
of the parties. It appears probable that the meeting spoken of by the king
never took place, and it is doubtful whether the knights ever came to
Parliament as summoned. But though the barons, we are told, refused to meet the
king on this particular occasion, he was successful in his efforts to avoid the
immediate danger. It was not long before he prevailed on the Earl of Gloucester
again to desert the opposition, and persuaded him and others to consent to an
arbitration on the terms of the Provisions. The arrangement to be made was
obviously intended to be final, since the last appeal, in case of a failure on
the part of the future court to decide, was to be made to King Richard, and, if
he too failed, to the King of France, than whom no higher authority acceptable
to both sides could well be found. It is very doubtful if the court ever sat :
according to some accounts the discussion was to be put off till the return of
Prince Edward from Gascony. At any rate the arbitrators must have very soon
handed it over to Louis, who was from the first looked upon as the only
possible judge.
So clearly did the Earl of Leicester perceive this,
that, apparently foreseeing the failure of his last attempt to win back power,
he crossed to France towards the end of August 1261. He did not return for a
year and a half. His departure was attributed by some to vexation at the
conduct of the Earl of Gloucester; by others it was put down to his resolution
not to submit the Provisions to arbitration. He left the country, it is said,
declaring he would rather die without a foot of land than live in perjury and
falsehood.' His real object, which he concealed under a vow of crusade, was
doubtless to make a last effort to win the help of Louis. Terrified by the news
of Simon’s departure, Henry wrote to the King of France to anticipate his
efforts; he was still more alarmed to find that the national party, that is, at
the moment, Simon de Montfort, had like himself a regular representative at the
Court of Rome, who seems for a short time to have had the ear of the new Pope,
Urban IV. The temporary displeasure of Rome, whether real or simulated, was
demonstrated by a letter to the king, rebuking the proceedings of his bailiffs
in Ireland, and laying to their charge exactly the same things as those of
which complaint had been made by Bishop Grosseteste ten years before. But the
alienation, such as it was, was of very brief duration, and had no effect,
since the absolution had been already published. Simon’s efforts in that
quarter were without any result : Urban continued the policy of his
predecessors, and repeated the absolution next spring in yet stronger terms
than those of Alexander.
Meanwhile the desultory resistance which had been made
in the counties to the arbitrary appointment of sheriffs, though it appears to
have continued late into the autumn of 1261, was gradually appeased. The
introduction of foreign soldiers on the king’s side, in spite of the opposition
of the Cinque Ports, continued. The tenth was collected again, but with some
difficulty, and deposited in the royal castles. Soon afterwards the barons, who
a month or two before had refused to meet the king, were summoned afresh to
appear, unarmed and under a safe conduct, at Kingston, to discuss terms of
peace. It was at this Parliament that the court of arbitration just mentioned
was appointed, and certain new Provisions drawn up, in the shape of a treaty or
form of peace. Of these we know nothing, beyond that a compromise was effected
on the important question of the appointment of sheriffs. It was determined
that each county should select four knights for the office, and that the king
should appoint one of these. That some form of peace was determined is evident
from the fact that the king wrote in December 1261 to several barons, including
the Earl of Leicester and others of his party, as well as more doubtful
members, such as the Earls of Norfolk and Warenne,
and Roger Mortimer, bidding them set their seals to the peace, and offering
them pardon if they would sign within a certain time. The absence of so many
great nobles was alone sufficient to deprive the decrees of this Parliament of
any force; and the question seems not to have been settled even so, for in the
early part of next year the sheriffs were still under discussion. Finally King
Richard cut the matter short by ruling, when the question was referred to him,
that the right of appointment and dismissal belonged to the king alone. From
this it may be judged what sort of a peace it was that Simon de Montfort was
bidden to sign, and how little he was likely to sign it, though others weakly
acquiesced. During the winter of 1261-62 he remained in stubborn silence
abroad, occupied partly in negotiations with Louis, partly perhaps in
collecting his forces for the inevitable struggle. But he did not force it on :
he bided his time. In England the royalist cause was in the ascendant, and
Henry determined on a journey to France, to destroy the last hopes of his
enemies by securing the consent of Louis to his plans.
So safe did he feel himself that he issued a
proclamation, declaring that since the barons had not kept their side of the
engagement, and since the Pope had absolved him from his, he considered himself
free from all promises made with respect to the Provisions of Oxford; still he
should not fail to keep all the statutes of the Great Charter and the Charter
of Forests. At the same time the form of peace lately made seems to have been
published throughout England, with a kind of promise that certain difficulties
should be settled by means of peaceable discussion with the chiefs of the
baronial party. Preparations were even made for taking up anew the mad scheme
of conquest in Africa in conjunction with the King of Castile. The work of 1258
was completely upset, with the exception of the peace with France : the
baronial party was dissolved, the king to all appearance more firmly seated
than ever. The despair felt by those whose hopes, three or four years ago, had
been so high is expressed in the song which calls on the barons collectively to
observe that which they had sworn, and bids several by name to keep their word.
The Earl of Gloucester is exhorted to finish what he has begun unless he would
deceive many. The Earl of Norfolk is reminded of his military prowess, and
bidden as a good knight to use his strength in a just cause. Above all Simon de
Montfort is exhorted not to fear, since the foreign hounds are few, and it is
he who should take the lead against the common foe.
No greater testimony could be paid to the manner in
which Simon had become an Englishman of the English : he was praised as “the
key of England, who had locked out the aliens for three years”; his personal
character, his qualities as a leader of men, moulded others to his will; the younger men, we find, especially followed him, though
the older stood aloof At the same time, the words of the song show that he had
not yet reached the position he held three or four years later: it was not
thought necessary after the battle of Lewes to exhort him not to fear, but to
take the post of leader as his right. He might indeed have said that he never
knew fear, but there were doubtless some at this time who attributed his
waiting policy to a dread of the seemingly hopeless contest. His attitude was
often overbearing, his temper, as we have seen, was sharp; for he knew himself
to be true, and did not spare words to express his contempt and hatred of a
breach of faith. Add to this a strong individuality, which had in it no small
element of personal ambition, and we need not be much surprised that the ruling
families of England refused to follow his lead, and looked upon him with a
jealousy which deepened into hate. There was however a larger, if not so
powerful a class, which regarded him as their only safeguard, and it was this
class which on the death of the Earl of Gloucester in the summer of 1262
invited him to return and be their leader. He did not fail to respond to the
call. After eighteen months absence in France, broken perhaps by a visit to
England in the autumn of 1262, he returned to England in the spring of 1263.
Thenceforward, since for the present Gilbert de Clare, the young Earl of
Gloucester, followed him with heart and soul, he appeared as the summoned
undisputed head of the baronial party, knowing whom he had to trust and with
whom he had to deal. From this point the struggle takes a new aspect. The hopes
of the reformers revive, their action becomes more united, their attitude more
firm. A far more earnest and thorough character pervades the whole movement.
But we must return for a moment to the king. If he
hoped at once to win over Louis, when he determined on his journey to France in
the winter of 1261-62, he was much mistaken. Two years were to elapse before he
was successful. Just before his departure from England Louis had announced to
him that he saw as yet no way of making peace between him and de Montfort. But
this only had the effect of making him more eager for the journey, in order
personally to direct the negotiations. He left England in July 1262, and
probably met Prince Edward, who had been in Gascony, in Paris. There he fell
very ill of a fever, which threw back for some time the progress of his plans.
Other obstacles too were in the way, and so fruitless appeared the attempt to
win over Louis, that in October Henry wrote to his justiciar, Philip Basset, to
say that no further advance had been made toward peace between him and the
earl, and that he did not intend to make any more attempts in that direction.
At the same time he warned him to be on his guard against the machinations of
Simon, without however saying what these machinations were. It is uncertain
whether he ever met the earl in France. If, as seems probable, the latter
seized the opportunity of Henry’s absence to pay a short visit to England this
autumn, this will perhaps account for the fact that Henry hastened his return,
and arrived at Dover just before Christmas 1362. He found troubles in
abundance. The disturbances with Wales had broken out again, and the barons of
the Marches were at open war with Llewelyn. It is not impossible that these
were the machinations of de Montfort, against which Henry warned his minister.
The earl may have encouraged the Welch, in order, under cover of their attack,
the more easily to prosecute his own plans. That serious disagreements between
the barons engaged in the Welch war had taken place is evident from a letter,
in which the king sought to allay these disputes.
Meanwhile however the French king remained the centre of interest. Henry wrote to him shortly after his
return to England, begging him to settle the question speedily in his favour, “since the realm had long been disturbed and
damaged by the earl”. He sent fresh envoys over, and besought the queen, his
sister-in-law, to use her influence in his behalf. It must have been a sore
disappointment when his ambassadors announced to him, in February 1263, that
Louis was unwilling to enter further into the matter; for the Earl of Leicester
had told him that the king meant well enough, but was misled by evil
counsellors, special enemies of the earl; that the latter therefore had
declared he could not agree to the arbitration, and had begged the King of
France to give himself no further trouble. To this request Louis was evidently
inclined to accede. The hint was obvious; Henry should dismiss these evil
counsellors and make his peace with the earl. He had in fact made a great
mistake. He had, by submitting the question to arbitration, practically recognised Simon’s equality, in the hope of getting a verdict
against him, but the judge from whom he hoped so much had as yet refused to
decide in his favour. Time was precious, and this
last check went near destroying his chance, for civil war broke out immediately
afterwards. How far Simon de Montfort had been in earnest in submitting to the
verdict of the French king is uncertain; he must have felt that the questions
at stake were such as made the device of arbitration a mere farce, for the
result would certainly be rejected by the defeated party. Yet at this time it
cannot be doubted that he stood at least as high in the favour of Louis as his adversary, and it seems likely that he too fancied he could get
the weight of such a verdict on his side. In the certainty that he would at
least not be opposed by Louis, he now decided on a bolder policy, and returned
to England to put it into execution.
CHAPTER IX. THE BARONS’ WAR.
|
|
|
|